Bush is too old and too rich to care about 'non-renewable'--but what about us?

In 2003, Michael Dobbs of the Washington Post wrote this:

"Halliburton, the company formerly headed by Vice President Cheney, has won contracts worth more than $1.7 billion under Operation Iraqi Freedom and stands to make hundreds of millions more dollars under a no-bid contract awarded by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, according to newly available documents.

The size and scope of the government contracts awarded to Halliburton in connection with the war in Iraq are significantly greater than was previously disclosed and demonstrate the U.S. military's increasing reliance on for-profit corporations to run its logistical operations. Independent experts estimate that as much as one-third of the monthly $3.9 billion cost of keeping U.S. troops in Iraq is going to independent contractors."

Are you shitting me? Halliburton--and other private sector organizations--is funding our military? If you have never undertaken a project which requires an investor, you may know that, often, with investors comes some relinquishment of control. We see it here--if, say, Halliburton contributes to the war effort in bucks, they get rewarded in kind with secured contracts solely for them to recoup their expenses. This mixing of the government and the private sector bothers me intensely. It puts the needs of the few over the needs of the many, and it also grants control to unelected corporate CEOs that the American people haven't approved to help control any aspect of our government. In capitalism, we would have a choice on how to spend our money, and here, we do not.

Something else that pisses me off--this week, our Democrat-controlled congress is beginning the push for moving to renewable and cleaner fuels. Okay, that part doesn't piss me off. I'm all for it. Even though it is going to take time to push through all of the whining interest groups who don't want to cut their multi-billion dollar profits for the good of the environment, I'm glad the good fight has begun. Then, Edmund L. Andrews wrote this in the New York Times:

"The clash between rival industry agendas was apparent on Monday. Fifteen trade associations and companies from the food industry warned senators in a letter that heavy government subsidies for ethanol would push up prices for corn and other feed, and thus the cost of food."

Gah!

If we farmed in a sustainable way, there would be no need to use so damn much corn and feed for the industrial torture farms where animals are currently being raised in squalid conditions. We could then redirect the corn to making ethanol, and I could start eating meat again! The current raising of livestock for food is incredibly, incredibly inhumane (read Eric Schlosser's Fast Food Nation for details, you'll never look at meat the same--or head over to PETA's website, I hate PETA but video evidence doesn't usually lie); if we could fix that and have everyone raising livestock in a sustainable way, the price of free range organic meat would have to go down because of the boost in supply. Who knows, in a perfect world, it may eliminate or reduce meat waste, as well--if the supply is somewhat leaner, you probably won't see "Manager's Special" stickers nearly as often! The meat would also be a lot healthier, with no antibiotics, less disease--oh bliss!

I could have a steak!

Listen, folks: a lot of decisions are made in congress due to special interest groups lobbying their cases. Unfortunately, lobbying their cases often doesn't coincide with lobbying what's right for Americans. Unfortunately, it also includes a lot of special interest groups paying millions to disabuse Americans of the notion that our environment is in danger; they pay millions to promote the idea that non-renewable resources are, despite the fact that they're finite and contribute to our climate crisis, the way to go because alternatives just won't work; they pay millions to keep our government officials in their pockets and to deceive us about their real motives, which of course, always, come down to profit margins. Are we going to let these people dupe us into believing that "science" and "facts" are really just left-wing propaganda to keep them from making money? I sincerely hope not.

When you see a scientific report on TV, consider where the payroll for that study came from. Did it come from independent scientists, or from a major company whose interests are directly connected to the outcome of that 'study'? Therein lies the truth.

The dependence on oil is making America a fuel junkie of epic proportions, especially since we now consume so much fuel with our SUVs, Hummers, constant commutes and driving. We're flying more, we're traveling more, and we're using more energy in general than we ever have before. It's time to start turning to natural resources, because we can replant corn every year, but once our oil is gone, it is gone. Let's make the transition while we still have enough oil to carry us through the changeover to sustainable energy. It just makes so damn much sense.