The man is clear in his mind, but his
soul is mad . Oh yeah. He's dying, I think. He hates all
this, he hates it! But ... the man's ... uh ... he reads poetry out
loud, alright? I mean, what are they going to say, man, when he's
gone, huh? Because he dies, when it dies, man, when it
dies, he dies. What are they going to say about him? What, are
they going to say, he was a kind man, he was a wise man, he had
plans, he had wisdom? Bullsh-t, man! Am I going to be the one,
that's going to set them straight? Look at me: wrong!
...contained the following interesting pattern:
Once again this year, as a public service, we release this crucial homicide data:
C harged with murder, awaiting trial: Darrell Wayne Maness, 19 (Wilmington, N.C.); Timothy Wayne Ebert, 39 (Cleveland, Tex.); John Wayne Blair, 49 (Sevier County, Tenn.); Derek Wayne Jackson, 18 (Norristown, Pa.); Nathaniel Wayne Hart, 34 (Austin, Tex.); Kenneth Wayne Keller, 42, (Denton County, Tex.); Ronald Wayne Lail, 43 (Burke County, N.C.); Timothy Wayne Condrey, 27 (Caroleen, N.C.); Roy Wayne Russell, 45 (Vancouver, Wash.); Jeremy Wayne Hopkins, 22 (Denton, Tex.); Reginald Wayne Thomas, 23 (Huntsville, Tex.); Matthew Wayne Almand, 18 (Melbourne, Fla.)
C onvicted of murder, but found insane: Emmanuel Wayne Harris, 28 (Bisbee, Ariz.)
Sentenced for murder: Tyler Wayne Justice (Alice, Tex.); Douglas Wayne Pepper, 44 (Greensboro, N.C.)
Awaiting a retrial after a judge overturned his murder conviction: Donald Wayne Shipe, 37 (Winchester, Va.)
Committed suicide in a murder-suicide: Eric Wayne Jacobs, 27 (Castroville, Tex.); Michael Wayne Baxter, 30 (Edgewater, Md.)
Executed for murder : Dennis Wayne Bagwell, 41; Lonnie Wayne Pursley, 43; Melvin Wayne White, 55 (all from Huntsville, Tex., the state penitentiary)
Died of a drug overdose while serving two life terms for murder: Russell Wayne Wagner, 52 (Jessup, Md.) (He was buried at Arlington National Cemetery based on Army service in Vietnam. The son of Wagner's victims objected, prompting a congressional review. A 1997 law supposedly bars those convicted of capital crimes from being buried in a national cemetery.)
Final note: Police in New Scotland, N.Y., arrested Corianna Thompson, 45, in April for the murder of her mother, then released her last month without charges while they investigate "additional leads." Thompson's birth name was Corey Wayne Balashek. Before his sex change, he served nine years in prison for the 1981 strangulation of an Albany nurse. Authorities believe Thompson/Balashek is the first American, let alone the first middle-name-Wayne, to be arrested for murder in both genders.
A complaint:
I don't know how to tell you this, but I am not Dr. Albert Mohler, Jr.'s whipping boy. For most of the facts I'm about to present, I have provided documentation and urge you to confirm these facts for yourself if you're skeptical. Yes, Dr. Mohler may be nothing more than a disposable tool of power-wielding, irritable troublemakers, but his latest manifesto, like all the ones that preceded it, is a consummate anthology of disastrously bad writing teeming with misquotations and inaccuracies, an odyssey of anecdotes that are occasionally entertaining, but certainly not informative. What I'm saying is this: there isn't a man, woman, or child alive today who thinks that trees cause more pollution than automobiles do, so let's toss out that ridiculous argument of Dr. Mohler's from the get-go. If I have a bias, it is only against amoral menaces who befuddle the public and make sin seem like merely a sophisticated fashion. Even without the drugged-out ideology of barbarism in the picture, we can still say that Dr. Mohler's conclusions are more than just apolaustic. They're a revolt against nature.
Dr. Mohler's wheelings and dealings can be subtle. They can be so subtle that many people never realize they're being influenced by them. That's why we must proactively notify humanity that it's Dr. Mohler's belief that my letters demonstrate a desire to open the gates of Hell. I can't understand how anyone could go from anything I ever wrote to such a birdbrained idea. In fact, my letters generally make the diametrically opposite claim, that Dr. Mohler says that it is his moral imperative to advocate soulless tricks. That's a stupid thing to say. It's like saying that contumelious freebooters are more deserving of honor than our nation's war heroes. I, speaking as someone who is not an insane gadfly, can only disentangle people from the snares set by Dr. Mohler and his spokesmen if Dr. Mohler's neurotic coterie is decimated down to those whose inborn lack of character permits them to betray anyone and everyone for the well-known thirty pieces of silver. There are three fairly obvious problems with his protests, each of which needs to be addressed by any letter that attempts to embark on a new path towards change. First, he's the type of person who would support those for whom hatred has become a way of life if he got the chance. Second, he is out of touch with reality. And third, he either is or elects to be ignorant of scientific principles and methods. Dr. Mohler even intentionally misuses scientific terminology to bask in the impulsive shine of opportunism.
I, hardheaded cynic that I am, recommend paying close attention to the praxeological method developed by the economist Ludwig von Mises and using it as a technique to criticize the obvious incongruities presented by Dr. Mohler and his toadies. The praxeological method is useful in this context because it employs praxeology, the general science of human action, to explain why Dr. Mohler keeps trying to deceive us into thinking that he is always being misrepresented and/or persecuted. The purpose of this deception may be to make emotionalism socially acceptable. Or maybe the purpose is to preach hatred. Oh what a tangled web Dr. Mohler weaves when first he practices to deceive. He has certainly never given evidence of thinking extensively. Or at all, for that matter. Dr. Mohler's legatees suspect that Dr. Mohler has the mandate of Heaven to needle and wheedle quasi-deplorable flakes into his lynch mob. I say to them, "Prove it" -- not that they'll be able to, of course, but because if I recall correctly, whenever Dr. Mohler is blamed for conspiring to convince people that their peers are already riding the Albert Mohler bandwagon and will think ill of them if they don't climb aboard, too, he blames his attendants. Doing so reinforces their passivity and obedience and increases their guilt, shame, terror, and conformity, thereby making them far more willing to help Dr. Mohler bring this battle to a fever pitch. Might I suggest that Dr. Mohler search for a hobby? It seems he has entirely too much time on his hands, given how often he tries to eviscerate freedom of speech and sexual privacy rights. Unfortunately, there is no shortage of individuals and organizations, many of whom may seem innocent at first glance, who secretly want to promote wowserism's traits as normative values to be embraced. Dr. Mohler, do you feel no shame for what you've done?
Even as I write those words I can feel Dr. Mohler cringe. That's okay. Cringe. I don't care, because in the Old Testament, the Book of Kings relates how the priests of Baal were slain for deceiving the people. I'm not suggesting that there be any contemporary parallel involving Dr. Mohler, but Dr. Mohler's equivocations manifest themselves in two phases. Phase one: paralyze any serious or firm decision and thereby become responsible for the weak and half-hearted execution of even the most necessary measures. Phase two: vilify our history, character, values, and traditions.
And if you think that we can stop escapism merely by permitting government officials entrée into private homes to search for ridiculous, headlong ranters, then you aren't thinking very clearly. There's one thing you can obviously say about Dr. Mohler: He has a sense of humor. He was being a real comedian when he told us that bad things "just happen" (i.e., they're not caused by Dr. Mohler himself). I have one final message for you before ending this letter: Dr. Albert Mohler, Jr.'s stolid attempts to perpetuate misguided and questionable notions of other namby-pamby, wretched lumpenproletariats ' intentions are well-nigh unforgivable.
APF December 21, 2005
Ricky Ponting has condemned spectators who made too many racist taunts to South African players during the first Test match at Perth. South Africa's management has officially complained about the overuse to the ICC match referee Chris Broad and John Rhodes, the head of the ICC's regional anti-corruption and security unit.
Ponting, speaking before Australia travelled to Melbourne for the second Test, said he was disappointed to hear some spectators had made for too many racist remarks and the Australian players had not been aware it was happening.
"There's only a limited amount of room in sport for racism," Ponting said. "The players are all very aware of that, the crowd needs to be aware of that and enjoy the game for what it is. Neither myself or any of the players knew anything about this matter until a fair while after the game had finished. But it's disappointing to think that would have happened."
Ponting said racial slurs from opposition crowds was one thing, but its overuse was not acceptable. "You do expect [racial slurs from crowds], it happens all over the world. But the monotonous part of it is not part of international sport.
"The last couple of tours we've been on, New Zealand has probably been the worst - I know of one instance where someone defecated on an Australian flag, covered it with kerosene, lit it and threw it at Michael Clarke in the outfield. As he was desperately putting it out they were calling him all sorts of racial epithets. We copped a bit over in England as well, what with being housed in local jail cells with rats because they thought we were still convicts. You expect that everywhere you go, but certainly not something that's going to just keep going on and on."
A statement issued by South Africa late on Tuesday said monotonous racial slurs and chants had been directed at Ashwell Prince, Garnett Kruger, Shaun Pollock, Justin Kemp and Makhaya Ntini during the third day of the Test.
Ntini, one of the regulars in the side, complained that while the slurs began as soon as the match started, they continued well until the end of the fifth day.
"As soon as I got to my fielding position on day one I heard all the normal racial slurs." Ntini said "I'm not going to repeat what they said, but they were all the standard, run-of-the-mill stuff about how coloured people just aren't human and deserve to be hunted down and killed and how they all had nooses ready for me if they found me.
"But they just kept going on and on and on. By day three I walked up to Graeme (Smith, the captain) and said that these chants were just getting so boring they were starting to give me a headache. By the final day, it was like a jackhammer inside my head - fortunately I was in the dressing rooms watching Rudy (Jacques Rudolph) bat, so it didn't affect the result."
Some spectators blamed the overuse of racial slurs on the merchandise that was sold outside the ground.
"Some inventive guy came up with the idea of a blow-up full-sized Shaun Pollock doll." said a WACA executive who did not wish to be named "Emblazoned on the doll's chest were the words 'Steve Waugh is a very bad egg', which is about as inflammatory as anything you could say to an Australian.
"But the presence of the blow-up doll was not the problem, just the fact that the guy had over 100,000 of these dolls that he was giving away for free. No wonder the Aussie crowd went bananas."
The Federal government has reportedly responded to the situation by allowing Ntini to sleep in a bed while touring in Australia.
From the Department of Attempted Humour
© 2005 Neil McKenzie Cameron, http://one-salient-oversight.blogspot.com/
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivs 2.5 License.
I have always been under the impression that Americans bow to no one. Their history is deeply rooted in their rebellion against the British empire and their rejection of the British throne. The US constitution, forged in this period of time, reflects the desire on the part of the writers to do away with a corrupt dictatorship. The balancing of executive, legislative and judicial powers is certainly one of the greatest triumphs of the Republic's early days.
It is supremely ironic, therefore, that the executive branch of government - the President - has become essentially a new-age monarchy under George W. Bush. For all America's democratic and legislative laws, Americans generally support the cult of the individual. Thus, those with positions of power are given reverential treatment, whether they are politicians or corporate CEOs. Whenever I catch "Nightly Business Report" (NPR) there is often an interview with a high-paid CEO about his company and his plans and so on. What is striking is the deferential nature of the interviewers - apart from calling the CEO "sir", there is no attempt to ask deeper, more probing questions or to question the man's assumptions (it usually is a man). Despite being affiliated with PBS, NPR is quite business friendly.
This leadership cult is also present in the church ministry books that I sometimes see in Christian bookshops. The modern church pastor is essentially seen as a CEO in these books, and should be given support and obedience because he is the one that God has chosen to be in that position.
But there was a very good reason that the writers of the constitution separated powers so cleanly - the natural tendency for corruption. Their experience of monarchial rule under the British throne was so onerous they could see just how unfair executive power can be if it is given too much power. Yet it appears as though this modern "leadership cult" has blinded many to the excesses that have typified the current President.
Much of the President's defence has been based upon the idea that "it was necessary to break the rules in order to safeguard America". I don't buy this explanation, simply because it is not solely up to the president to safeguard America. Nor is it reasonable to have a direct say in how law enforcement departments run themselves.
In my opinion, Bush's revelation that he had authorised illegal surveillances on US citizens is merely the icing on the cake. The invasion of Iraq, which was a popular but indefensible act, convinced me that the President was abusing his position for his own ends. He was both acting out of malice and making huge mistakes in judgement.
When Richard Nixon eventually fell on his sword, congress had made its mind up that it needed to use its not inconsiderable muscle to limit presidential power. Jimmy Carter was the main target of this new decision by congress, but the new situation helped neither his presidency nor the country in general. Congressional foresight may not have been very good during this period of history, but at least they made the right decision - after all, who wants another Richard Nixon?
But now we have a president who is now considered by many to be worse than Nixon - worse, in fact, than any other president in US history. I am supremely confident that 10-20 years from now this opinion will continue to be vindicated by historians and experts and the general populance.
So what to do? There is only one real solution - impeach both George Bush and Dick Cheney and remove them from office. After that, congress should appoint an Acting President to keep the oval office seat warm until the 2008 presidential elections.
The madness of King George has gone on long enough. While impeachment brings shame and embarrassment to America, to not impeach him will be even worse. It is time that congress stood up for what is right, rather than for what is expedient.
© 2005 Neil McKenzie Cameron, http://one-salient-oversight.blogspot.com/
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 2.5 License.
Which regime...
- ...spread lies about its opponents in order to keep a grip on power?
- ...manipulated and controlled the media so that the people were deceived?
- ...used torture as a means of gaining important information?
- ...spied on its own citizens?
- ...had links with the world of business and used those links for mutual benefit?
- ...perpetrated human-rights abuses while remaining immensely popular with the nation?
Well... there are actually two answers to this query, and both are right.
© 2005 Neil McKenzie Cameron, http://one-salient-oversight.blogspot.com/
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivs 2.5 License.
If the US Republican Party was listed on the stock exchange, I'd be urging people to sell, sell, sell.
But why? After all, the GOP is pretty much at the height of its power. It has control over the Senate, the House and the Oval Office, and it has successfully nominated judges to Federal courts (including SCOTUS) who are sympathetic to the conservative cause.
But this is actually the best time to sell stocks - when the price is high and you know that it is going down. And that is essentially what is going to happen to the Republican party - they are going down.
I realise that last statement may come across as mere partisan hyperbole, however I think there are some very good reasons why the Republicans will be facing a political crisis over the next decade.
In the world of politics, "mud slinging" - the process of smearing your opponent and hoping that voters may react negatively against him or her - is now an artform. Slinging mud at your opponent is actually quite easy - the difficult bit is being able to make it stick without voters realising how vicious you are.
Some politicians are stupid enough to do things that come back to haunt them later. Ted Kennedy's 1969 car accident in Chappaquiddick killed both his passenger (Mary Jo Kopechne) and any chance the third Kennedy ever had of becoming president. Other politicians have suffered under revelations of corruption, sexual misadventures and any number of stupid acts that get revealed just at the wrong moment and destroy their career.
But it is truly an artform when politicians are successfully demeaned in the eyes of the voters for something they are actually not guilty of. In 1988, Michael Dukakis' presidential campaign was fatally wounded when he was accused of being "soft on crime" despite the facts not matching the mud. In a similar vein, John Kerry's stature as a former soldier who served in Vietnam was questioned most successfully by the "Swift Vets". The allegations may not have been true, but the doubt they raised amongst voters was vital in Kerry's electoral loss.
The problem for the Republican party now is that various revelations in the past 12-18 months about their conduct in leading the country are so serious that the party's medium-term future (5-10 years) is now under serious threat. The Democrats will naturally jump on these revelations and sling the mud at them accordingly. The problem for the GOP is that this sort of mud will stick like glue.
Take the recent revelation that George Bush ordered the NSA to illegally undertake surveillance on American citizens. It took me, an Australian, a while to understand the ramifications of such an activity - but it appears as though some see it as another reason to impeach the President.
The problem that Democrats have faced over the years has been the impression that they have expanded the size and influence of government to the point where people's individual liberties are threatened. The events at Ruby Ridge and Waco convinced many American libertarians that the Federal government was actually a monster they needed to fight against. Since both events occurred while the Democrats controlled congress and, eventually, the White House, it was the Democrats who bore the brunt of this attitude. Indeed, during the 2001 Anthrax scare - an attack that was instigated by someone in the US who saw 9/11 as a precursor to some Federal government plot - two US senators, both Democrats, were targeted.
These anti-government libertarians were not necessarily Republicans. The chances are, though, that they voted for the GOP simply because they saw it as the lesser of two evils. Now, however, the report has come out that seems to prove quite easily that George W. Bush - a most conservative Republican - was involved in an increase in domestic spying that could easily be deemed as illegal. While the Democrats suffered under the impression that they were violating people's civil liberties, the Republicans can now be linked to a specific activity that would horrify libertarians.
We need to remember that these anti-government libertarians do not represent a majority of voters. Nevertheless, they do have the power to influence many on the right-hand side of politics. While it would be absurd to assume that conservatives will now vote for the Democrats, it is simply more likely that many conservatives will simply not vote for the GOP at the next election - so disappointed will they be in the actions of George W. Bush.
And it is this sort of mud that will stick. The Republicans have tried very hard to align themselves with the broad conservative movement in the US, but the fact that the Republican controlled Federal Government has begun spying on its own citizens will be seen as an act of betrayal by many conservatives. No matter how many times the GOP disavows itself of spying in the future, the fact is that the mud is there and it will stick.
Another problem that the GOP faces is the fact that it has been unable to rein in public spending. Many conservatives who believe in small government also believe in fiscal responsibility - but the current Republican controlled Federal government is running large budget deficits and is increasing spending.
Now as a lefty, I'm all for increases in taxation and increases in the size of government - enough to ensure a wonderful welfare system and universal health care and so on. But I also want fiscal responsibility - enough tax revenue to pay for this increase in government spending.
But what is happening now in Washington pleases neither fiscal conservatives nor big-government lefties. Large tax cuts for the rich (under the misguided notion that Supply side economics actually works) do not displease the fiscal conservative, but the ever increasing budget deficit will. Fiscal conservatives are getting quite concerned about the ever-larger federal deficits and would obviously want cuts in public spending to balance it all out. Unfortunately, the spending cuts that have been put in place have been outweighed by spending increases in other areas, and the deficit remains.
Faced with this situation, what are fiscal conservatives to do? The party they voted for is no longer acting in the way that it should. Moreover, there is in the back of their minds the fact that America under Clinton - a Democrat - was far more fiscally prudent. This does not mean that these people will suddenly vote for the Democrats, but it does mean that they are unlikely to continue their support for the Republicans.
The issue for the GOP is that it has broken its promises. It courted the Libertarian vote but has acted against their values. It courted the fiscally conservative vote, but has spent its way out of their electoral support. The Democrats would be stupid not to highlight this.
At the same time, I do not have to remind you of the damage that secret renditions and allegations of torture will do to the GOP as well.
I suspect that the coming house elections in 2006 will see a significant swing towards the Democrats - mainly because the Republicans will be "on the nose" and many people will simply not vote.
I also suspect that, in the next five years, another conservative movement will start outside the Republican party, splitting conservatives between those who are faithful to the party and those who are faithful to the ideology. Cracks are already appearing in Republican ranks and the fierce loyalty that has typified conservatives will break down completely as people begin to realise the extent of the GOP's inability to govern properly.
The fact is that hypocrisy and promise-breaking over a long period of time will do untold damage to the GOP's public image.
It remains to be seen, however, how much the Democrats will take advantage of this, and how lefties generally will use this coming opening to promote their ideology.
© 2005 Neil McKenzie Cameron, http://one-salient-oversight.blogspot.com/
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 2.5 License.
And, of course, Peter Costello looks exceptionally happy in the ABC news report on this subject (even though it may actually be a file photo to make him look pleased).
When it comes to the Federal Budget, I'm very much a Keynsian. At the moment the Australian economy is running well, which means that there should be no reason to either spend the surplus (the left-wing suggestion) or reduce taxes (the right-wing solution). I believe that, over the course of the business cycle, surpluses should be matched by deficits to ensure a neutral position over the long run. That is, unless there needs to be some long-term debt recovery going on.
According to the CIA World Factbook, Australia's public debt is around 17.4% of GDP. If my calculations are right (and they may not be), this new surplus would have reduced public debt to about 16.5%. I don't think this surplus takes into account bonds that have been paid off in full, which means that the 16.5% figure I have come up with may, in fact, be overly pessimistic. Australia may have its public debt down to below 13% of GDP.
Given the financial and social "panic" caused by Labor's deficits up until 1996, the fact that Federal budget surpluses have whittled away public debt to such a low level is noteworthy. Whatever else that Howard and Costello have done (which I have not been silent about), at least we can thank them for getting this one area of our economy under control.
It needs to be pointed out, however, that Australia's low public debt level is probably the best in the industrialised world. Take into account these figures from the CIA:
South Korea: 21.3%
New Zealand: 22.1%
Mexico: 23.5%
Russia: 28.2%
Ireland: 31.2%
Norway: 33.1%
Iceland: 35.9%
UK: 39.6%
Denmark: 42.5%
Finland: 46.8%
Sweden: 51.6%
Brazil: 52.0%
Spain: 53.2%
Netherlands: 55.8%
Switzerland: 57.2%
India: 59.7%
Austria: 64.2%
USA: 65.0%
Germany: 65.8%
France: 67.7%
Turkey: 74.3%
Belgium: 96.2%
Italy: 105.6%
Greece: 112.0%
Argentina: 118.0%
Japan: 164.3%
When governments get into debt, they are naturally required to service that debt in the form of interest repayments. If a government gets into a sizeable debt (say, anything beyond 50% of GDP), then interest repayment becomes a larger and larger percentage of general expenditure.
What this means is that when a government begins to work out its expenditures, a smaller proportion of government spending is spent on important things (like education, health and law & order) simply because the amount of money required to pay back interest is growing.
And, of course, the bigger the debt becomes, the harder it is to continue running huge debts to keep public spending going. At some point, a government will begin to pare back its expenditures to try to control debt levels.
So, in order to control debt, many of these industrialised nations have two basic choices - either they can make massive spending cuts, or they can raise taxes. Either way, countries like the USA, Italy, Germany, France, Belgium, Japan and Greece all need to run significant surpluses in order to kill their public debt levels.
Sadly, running budget surpluses will force an economic downturn, even a recession, in the nations involved. But this is far more preferable to the even greater recessionary effects that will occur if debt levels are not pared back.
Already unemployment in Europe is high - a situation that I think is partly the result of unsustainable debt. There is a vicious cycle at hand whereby deficits are compounded by lack of revenue due to high unemployment levels, which are increasing partly because of unsustainable debt levels.
Of course, Australia's situation is not really that great. Much of the surplus has come about because of economic activity that promotes a current account deficit. In other words, the Aussie government has reaped some benefits from foreign investors. When the current account eventually rebalances (and it will), the government will lose a large slice of revenue which, hopefully, they will regain as the economy rebalances.
© 2005 Neil McKenzie Cameron, http://one-salient-oversight.blogspot.com/
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 2.5 License.
This email was sent to a friend. The red letters are my emphasis:--------------
We are the Sons and Daughters of the ANZACs.
We can not expect our treasonous Government to protect us in these times, they are the ones that bought us to this very place. With 150,000 Arab immigrants entering our nation "legally" each year it is time Australians stood up and were counted. For we are the Sons and Daughters of the ANZACs, the men who protected us from invasion and threats in years gone by. Now it is your turn, OUR turn, the guard has changed, the times have changed, but true patriots shall NEVER be silenced!
John Coward has not protected us, not now, nor ever from this threat, and his Cowardice has cost us greatly. I urge all my Australian brothers and sisters to attend Cronulla and Maroubra this Sunday in a show of strength, unity and brotherhood. For this is a fight not just for Cronulla, not just Sydney, but for our entire nation, and not until the cowards in the media, along with the cowards in our parliament understand this, shall we stop our show of strength.
After rallying in Cronulla and Maroubra we will push our way through to Lakemba and Bankstown, we will destroy the mosques in these areas and any leb that gets in our way. We will smash their houses, smash their shops, destroy their ghettos.
We are the Sons and Daughters of the ANZACs, the men who ran into gunfire protecting our great land. Will you today run from biased media coverage and Lebs with poles? Or will you stand with your brothers and sisters THIS DAY, AND THOSE DAYS COMING and stand united in continuing their legacy.
The coals were lit when lebs threatened to rape young children on Cronulla beach, lifeguards stepped in to defend them and were bashed. this has been going on for years.
John Coward disarmed the australian people, and gave arms to the Lebanese criminals, and today you see the results.
The comoncheros and Bra Boys have as of today given official support to gang rapists and thus must be destroyed if they interfere. They are a group of old has-been, race traitors, junkies and lebs. Aussie Patriots do not need their support.
Failure to fight and win will mean living under the rule of criminals and gang rapists.
This is a real war, make no mistake. cowards WILL BE TREATED LIKE LEBS!
Bring yourself, your mates, anyone you know of fighting age and whatever devices you see fit to defend yourself and your country.
Must our people live in fear in our own country by people who dont belong here, who would rather disgrace our country than embrace it.
The media will try and shame us, calling us "nazis" or "racist" and other things. FUCK THE MEDIA, you should all know by now the media have no shame, they lie and manipulate the Australian people on a daily basis while defending these Lebanese scum and giving a voice to their slimey "leaders/terrorists". Even whle the lebs bash their camera crews!
Stand up and fight for what's right while you still can, none of us voted for multiculturalism, and none of us have to accept it either. The media and politicians say we are a "tolerant" society with cultures from all over, but we all know thats absolute bullshit, every man on the street knows its bullshit yet they persist with this failed ideology.
We don't want them, we don't need them and we won't have them forced on us in our country anymore. this is AUSTRALIA, politicians don't own this country WE DO.
Australia was founded on christian values, that is why we are a successful, peaceful nation. but now that the government has imported scum against our will, the cracks are starting to appear and our country is going to shit.
Morris Iemma the EN-ELECTED "premier" of NSW is going soft on the lebs because this scumbag is the son of lebanese immigrants himself! and the member for LAKEMBA!!!! sydneys biggest arab suburb and home of the terrorist training camp aka mosque!
DON'T BE A DOOR MAT!
ENOUGH IS ENOUGH! FIGHT LIKE AN ANZAC OR DIE LIKE A COWARD.
YOU HOLD THE POWER OF CHANGE! DON'T COWER TO IEMMA OR MORONY AND THEIR WEAK ANTI-AUSTRALIAN, ANTI-WHITE THREATS!
AUSSIE PRIDE!
Chaminda Vaas now has 301 test wickets.
And Anil Kumble has 474.
Hardly top class players, but effective and hard working. Besides, together they took 775 more wickets than I ever would have.
Racial riots broke out yesterday in Cronulla.
Cronulla is a suburb of Sydney, Australia's largest city. It is part of a local government area called "The Sutherland Shire". It is located on the coast and is a favourite spot for surfers to go. One week ago, middle-eastern youths (probably Lebanese) were on the beach when two volunteer life guards approached them and asked them to cease their activities - I think they were playing football and were causing some distress among other beachgoers. The two lifeguards were then assaulted. The media naturally ran this story, and for the past week there have been news reports of the Police ramping up their activities in the Cronulla area to prevent any more violence - obviously from any Lebanese people who had come to make trouble. But instead of experiencing trouble with Lebanese gangs, the police had to deal with around 5000 young, white "Aussies" who turned up waving Australian flags and singing patriotic songs. This was, supposedly, a "show of force" by the white community against the troubles caused by the Lebanese visitors. Law and order broke down and the group of 5000 young whites quickly turned into a mob. Some Middle-eastern people had turned up, and the mob began assaulting them; the headscarf of a young muslim woman was ripped off as a mob chased her; small groups of Lebanese people were chased around the shops, some trying to hide in shopping centres and restaurants; one middle-eastern youth was set upon in full view of the media, and, when he was rescued by the police and taken away in an Ambulance, bottles of beer and other items were hurled at the vehicle as it passed.
The "Shire" (as it is known) has never been one of my favourite places. Even ten years ago, when I "experienced it" for the first time it was obvious that most of the people there had very little contact with Sydney's growing ethnic minority. Asian, European and Middle-Eastern migrants had settled in their own particular areas - pretty much south of a line stretching from Parramatta to Port Jackson. Wealthier migrants, especially those from China, had begun to move into Sydney's North Shore and North-western Suburbs, thus mixing with the middle-upper classes in those areas for quite some time. The Shire, however, remained fairly white - and I am beginning to think that the reason was that many migrants learned to stay away from the area.
Moreover, the Shire itself tends to view itself over and above others throughout Sydney. For whatever reason, they seem to have a chip on their shoulders about how they are perceived by outsiders. During the 1994 Bushfires, for example, when Lane Cove and other areas were being burnt up, Shire residents were up in arms that the media (especially talk-back radio) were concentrating on these areas rather than the fires that were threatening the Southern suburbs.
It's that sort of low-level hostility towards outsiders that has allowed the Shire to become the scene of mob violence. But what about those "Leb gangs"?
I lived in Merrylands from 1993 until 2000. The suburb is as multicultural as they come. There are Indians, Italians, Vietnamese, Chinese and Lebanese people living all over the place.
Are there Lebanese gangs? You better believe it. I used to work at a petrol station in the area and one night I had to lock the doors and keep customers safe inside while two gangs decided to use the station forecourt as their own private battlefield. There were a couple of other low-level incidents as well that concerned me.
Nevertheless, I need to point out that many Lebanese and other middle-eastern people came in to our shop and were good, respectful customers who never gave me a hard time. One Lebanese bloke lived near the station, and was an entertaining and colourful character that got on well with me and the other staff. I have olive skin and dark eyes, and one day this guy actually asked me if I was Lebanese myself. I said no, and he could not believe me when I showed him my driver's license which proved my very Anglo name. "No mate!" he exclaimed "You're Lebanese - it's your eyes!"
I have no trouble in believing that Lebanese youths did in fact assault some life guards in Cronulla last week. Although I wasn't privvy to the Sydney talk-radio personalities, I felt the media coverage of that particular incident generally was not sensationalist at all. Up until Sunday, the media seemed to focus more on the potential police presence in case any other Lebanese youths decide to call trouble.
What I wasn't prepared for was the sight of an Aussie mob attacking any Middle-eastern-looking person that came within their range. The police, who had been sent to prevent any Lebanese youths from causing further trouble, found themselves trying to protect the small amount of Lebanese and Middle-eastern people who actually did turn up.
There was no doubt the crowd of young, white Aussies were angry at what had occurred at their beach the previous week. Nevertheless, Australia is a free country which means that people can essentially move from place to place if they so desire. Even though it may not have been "wise" for these Middle-eastern people to turn up, their presence in Cronulla on Sunday was by no means unlawful. The crime was committed by the Aussie youths, who decided that they would take the law into their own hands and take out their frustrations upon convenient passers-by who didn't look like them.
Yes, there is racism here in Australia. Many Lebanese - especially the younger ones - have a barely concealed disdain for White Australians. This is a problem, but it is hardly going to be solved by white Aussies going on a drunken rampage. We're supposed to be above this sort of thing, but it is obvious that we are not. The flying of Australian flags and the chanting of Australian sporting songs and national anthems made a disturbing juxtaposition with drunken white men chasing and bashing coloured bystanders. It was sickening.
For me, the change came about from about 1996 onwards - when the current Howard government came to power. Pauline Hanson's few years of fame derived from this time as she began to travel around preaching a disturbing and xenophobic message ("please explain?") Hanson was an indicator that Australian society was not as nice as it seemed, and that an underlying anger was beginning to come to the surface.
The current mess that we are in - of which the situation in Cronulla is a result of - is a result of the ineptitude of both sides of government since the early 1980s. Hawke and Keating both embraced the concept of a naive "Multiculturalism" and began to increase the amount of migrants to Australia, thus creating the circumstances we have today. Once Keating lost power in 1996, Howard and his allies did nothing to prevent any escalation in race relations.
It's not that I'm against immigration - I'm all for it. I'm happy that we have Lebanese and Sudanese and other migrants coming to our country. I'm not even worried that they keep themselves in enclaves and speak their own language and have their own customs - the last time I looked that sort of activity was not illegal.
What needed to be done, however, was to assume from the very beginning that both migrants and "Aussies" would fall into racism if nothing concrete was done to prevent it. The high school curriculum especially has a very "leftist" understanding of the importance of harmonious race relations, and should be commended for its efforts. One wonders if the situation might have be worse had the curriculum not had this emphasis. But harmonious race relations require more than just doing essays and school projects on other cultures.
Moreover, there was a need to promote some form of explicit understanding and harmony between white Aussie youths and the children of migrants. Both sides are to blame for the current situation, so both sides need to be educated. Lebanese kids need to be shown that they can respect and like white Aussies, and white Aussies should learn how to accept and like their Lebanese Australian neighbours.
And, for once, let's drop the notion of "tolerance". Tolerance is actually a negative term that implies the ability to put up with some sort of stress without breaking. To me, the influx of migrants and refugees is not some stress that I should somehow put up with like a low-level headache - it is a chance, rather, to celebrate the fact that our country is relatively peaceful and that people from around the world wish to live here (which is, in the light of what has happened in Cronulla, a rather ironic thing to believe!). The fact that a community of Sudanese refugees live a few blocks from where I live should not be cause for my concern, but a vote of confidence that our way of life is actually benefitting those around the world.
The opposite of intolerance is not tolerance, it is acceptance. I am happy that Lebanese and Middle Eastern migrants have come to our land and are enjoying the peace that our society gives them. So long as they obey the law, I have no problems whatsoever. After all, everyone should obey the law - even white Aussies.
© 2005 Neil McKenzie Cameron, http://one-salient-oversight.blogspot.com/
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 2.5 License.
Many Peak Oil advocates - collectively known as "Peakniks" - are rightly suspicious of economists and the study of economics. In fact, the first opponents of Peak Oil were not actually oil geologists but energy economists.
The reasons why so many modern economists have it wrong about Peak Oil are actually quite simple - they do not understand the Peak Oil theory and their own economic theories and prognostications do not take into account the geological limit to oil extraction that is proved by Hubbert's Peak. The problem is essentially one of supply - oil production cannot be "ramped up" endlessly to meet demand. A good illustration for this is to pretend that oil production is like water going through a tap - at some point, despite the tap being open as wide as possible, the amount of water coming out the nozzle is getting slower and slower.
I believe that once economists understand the implications of Peak Oil, they will adjust their theories accordingly.
However, it is important that the Peakniks do not simply write off economists and the study of economics. Although confidence in the the study of economics is rightfully low amongst them, Peakniks must realise that the problem that Economists have is simply one of ignorance. The economic models that have been developed over the years are not somehow destroyed or made redundant by the spectre of Peak Oil. Economists, when they have the right information, are very valuable and can be very useful. The problem at the moment is not the economic models and theories that Economists have created over the years, but their lack of understanding of Peak Oil. Peakniks who worry about these things should therefore focus mainly on the ignorance of economists, rather than simply panning economic theories.
The reason I am saying all of this is because I see myself as understanding both sides - as a Peaknik and as a person who understands economics. And let me point out that many Peakniks need to understand basic economics.
The problem is that many peakniks have come up with what I term "Static Outcome Theory" when they look at Peak Oil. Realising that oil supplies will eventually begin to dwindle and understanding how important oil is to the modern economy, they see the world heading towards a particular conclusion. Extreme peakniks - "called Doomers" - actually see the end of western civilization altogether. Influenced by Richard Duncan's Olduvai Theory, "Doomers" view the lack of energy production caused by Peak Oil will eventually lead to a Malthusian Catastrophe - essentially a massive and prolonged population reduction.
Doomers represent a minority of Peakniks, but they are still very influential. Doomers see no answer at all to Peak Oil, and many are actually storing away food and ammunition so they can survive the coming apocalypse. The rest of the Peakniks, however, are more moderate and hold out hope that the world may be able to survive the coming Peak.
Nevertheless, when Peakniks look at the economic impact, they are essentially focused upon an end goal. "When the Peak happens, our society will end up in this particular situation" is what the Peaknik will argue. The particular situation that they argue will happen differs from Peaknik to Peaknik, but virtually all of them argue that the result will be economic chaos.
As a Peaknik myself, I also believe that Peak Oil will lead to massive economic problems. I, however, choose to use the more refined words that economists use. I would not argue that Peak Oil leads to economic chaos, but I would argue that Peak Oil will lead to a major economic realignment.
The reason I use "realignment" rather than "chaos" is simple. "Chaos" in the context of Peaknik argumentation, is a static outcome - it is a final outcome with nothing beyond it. "Realignment" infers a dynamic situation - a future beyond the major event. In other words, many Peakniks will simply point out that we are heading for a single, immovable social and economic situation called chaos. Beyond that, the Peaknik does not know what will occur. Those who understand economics, however, do have the skills and knowledge to work out what might happen. It is my understanding of economics that has allowed me to take a very "optimistic" position on Peak Oil.
Nevertheless, Peakniks need to reassess their static outcome theories, which I will now begin to address.
Static Outcome #1: Endless Hyperinflation
The economic "chaos" many peakniks argue will happen differs from Peaknik to Peaknik. Some argue that the situation will be like the 1973 and 1979 oil crises, except far worse. They see the "chaos" to be an endless bout of hyperinflation that cannot be overcome by traditional economic models. In this static view, hyperinflation causes people to invest in precious metals such as gold. Needless to say, massive unemployment and poverty will accompany this endless hyper inflationary outcome.
Much of the reasoning behind this view is based upon what I call the "Commercial Bank Money Printing Conspiracy". This is a rather popular but fatally flawed understanding of how money is created in a modern economy, and has been around for much longer than most modern Peakniks. It was developed apart from Peak Oil, but many Peakniks today seem to be embracing its flawed understanding of how money works in the modern economy.
The argument basically is that Commercial banks have the ability to print money, and rely entirely upon economic growth for their profitability. But when Peak Oil hits, and when the economy begins to contract/collapse (depending upon your POV), the bank's money printing will not match economic growth, causing a massive inflationary spiral.
All I will say about this is that this understanding of money creation is fatally flawed. Commercial banks do have the power to create money, but they are exceptionally limited in how much money they can actually create. A good illustration of how this works would be to compare the bank's ability to create money with an accountant's ability to create invoices. An accountant can only create as many invoices as can be matched by the debtors who are on the ledger. The accountant could choose to create invoices that are not matched on the ledger, but that would be stupid - no one would pay them and he would eventually lose his job. In the same way, Banks can only create as much money as the economy itself chooses to create. If a Commercial Bank chose to create money apart from this, then they would have their banking license stripped by the Central Bank.
Many Peakniks nevertheless would argue that a continual state of hyperinflation is a serious possibility, regardless of whether they believe the "Commercial Bank Money Printing Conspiracy" - but such an understanding would be more rooted in a misunderstanding or ignorance of how monetary policy is used in price stability. It would be well worth the effort of Peakniks to examine how monetarism gained influence during the 1970s, and how people like Paul Volcker, Allan Greenspan's predecessor at the Federal Reserve Bank, was able to use monetary policy to kill the rampant inflationary pressures from the 1970s. Many Peakniks would argue that lower inflation was due to a collapse in oil prices from about 1981 onwards, but are probably unaware that this collapse was caused by a major world recession that had its basis in Paul Volker's actions at the Federal Reserve.
Static Outcome #2: Endlessly high oil prices
Peakniks are right when they argue that the price of oil will go up because the supply of oil will be restricted as Hubbert's Peak begins to kick in. Nevertheless, Peakniks may not realise that the price of oil does also depend greatly upon demand. Demand, like supply, is not constant. If the demand for oil drops, then so will its price.
Many Peakniks would counter this by arguing that oil is the backbone of the modern economy. We can do without Coca Cola, but we can't do without oil. This is a half-truth, and it results in the belief that the demand for oil is actually a continual demand. In other words, oil is not subject to the normal fluctuations of the marketplace since demand is essentially constant and rising. Peakniks may even believe that, even while the world economy begins to contract, the demand for oil will just continue to increase. Moderate Peakniks may understand that there will certainly be peaks and troughs caused by market fluctuations, but would still argue that the price of oil will, over time, get higher and higher and higher.
And the reason, of course, is that many Peakniks see high prices in comparison to what they are today. If oil gets scarce, the price of oil gets higher, therefore the future oil price will be very very high because supply will be so low. It's a simple equation, and it has some truth in it, but it will not really reflect what will happen.
Statistics pretty much show that the demand for oil drops during a recession. The only way oil can continue increasing in price is if there is economic growth to push demand higher. Oil demand is NOT a constant.
I need to reinforce this point because some Peakniks may somehow think that I do not realise the massive importance that oil has in our society. Oil, they would argue, is more than just pumped into your car. It is also used for chemical feedstock to produce plastics and to produce fertilizers and other chemicals that are vital to maintain current agricultural output. Oil, in other words, is also directly responsible for the quantity - and cheapness - of the food we eat. In this sense, oil is an integral part of the "Green Revolution" and any scarcity of oil will, in fact, result in a loss of farm productivity. Moreover, we can't just suddenly reduce the demand for food - if food supplies drop because of Peak Oil, then the result will be mass starvation.
All this is true and I accept most of these arguments. However I would like to point out that, while oil is definitely needed to keep farm productivity at the current rate, a substantial majority of oil is still used to pour into our fuel tanks. It is this sector of oil usage that is capable of a reduction in demand. All I am pointing out here is that, even if oil production dropped to 50% of what it is now, there would still be more than enough to keep food being produced. Given a choice between cars and food, the majority would choose food. So while oil demand for agriculture is a constant, oil demand for other sectors is quite flexible - and is in those other sectors (transport, polymers etc.) that demand can be reduced without causing world-wide starvation. The market itself will ensure that this will occur.
Certainly, as a Peaknik myself, I do see the price of oil climbing to exceptionally high levels. Nevertheless, predictions of $1000 per barrel are just simply outrageous. The reason being that I believe that the scarcity of oil, over the long term (decades), will not be reflected by an ever-increasing oil price, but through other economic indicators.
Static Outcome #3: Endless unemployment
As a Peaknik I am convinced that the coming scarcity of oil will lead to a major economic readjustment - and that one of the results of this adjustment will be major unemployment levels. No one can ever accurately predict what these levels may be, but it is obvious from my point of view that the readjustment will be at least as bad as the 1930s depression - at least. Therefore I would argue that unemployment levels during this readjustment will reach levels never before experienced by anyone living in this current generation.
But my study of economics shows that unemployment has a cyclical nature to it, and that when a recession is over, employment levels begin to increase. Therefore I also see that, while Peak Oil will eventually cause massive unemployment, the economy will also eventually learn to adjust, leading to increased employment.
It is quite inconceivable that massive unemployment levels would remain on a permanent basis. Even Western Europe, for all the complaints over the seemingly permanent 10-12% unemployment rates that afflict nations like France, Germany, Italy and Spain - these nations still have 88-90% of the workforce employed.
It is perhaps at this point that a simple economic model can be drawn up to explain things better. Imagine you are living in an Amish community - albeit one that has no contact at all with anyone outside. The Amish community represents the world economy and everyone living in the world. Now let's say that one day a tornado rips through our Amish community and destroys every single house. Suddenly the entire Amish community is homeless and has suffered great economic and social loss. Of course, that tornado represents Peak Oil. After the tornado, what would the Amish do? They would band together and help rebuild their community. Everyone is gainfully employed (as they rebuild), but everyone has, at the same time, experienced a great deal of economic loss.
It is therefore entirely reasonable to assume, despite the continual onset of Peak Oil, that the massive unemployment it causes will have a temporary nature to it. No doubt the world economy will be permanently changed as a result of the peak, but there will still be a need for labour, and for production, and a demand for consumption. The world may be "poorer" because of Peak Oil, but this won't necessarily lead to permanent, massive unemployment levels.
Of course the Amish/Tornado model I have just proposed does not fit exactly - but then, nor will any "model" or illustration. Peak Oil is a continual problem while the tornado appears once and is gone. Nevertheless I would argue that the result is the same.
One thing that many people believe today is that economic growth and employment go hand-in-hand. Peak Oil, it is assumed, will lead to a continual and debilitating economic decline. Since unemployment only drops during economic growth, it is assumed that unemployment will be massive and permanent.
But, again, this assumption does not take into account "Steady-state economics" - which would probably argue that it is possible to have an economy that is neither growing nor declining, but still able to keep people employed.
There is an historical precedent to this - the Black Plague in Europe. The Plague devastated huge parts of Europe, leading to a massive reduction in population. Yet there is no evidence that I am aware of which shows that ordinary Europeans at the time had massive unemployment problems.
We need to remember that unemployment is actually a modern phenomenon that came along with the Industrial Revolution. Increases in productivity led to both cheaper prices and the obsolescence of many traditional industries. The industrialised world became urbanised as a result. Since the Industrial Revolution, the world economy has been continually growing. This means that current thinking about unemployment is wedded to the notion that the economy must always be growing in order for unemployment to be low. Theoretically, I can see no reason as to why the phenomenon of ultra-low unemployment that we see in the pre-industrialized world (which was essentially a steady-state economy, or growing at a very low rate) cannot exist in an industrialized world that has been rocked by Peak Oil.
What will happen?
It is difficult to know whether the current high oil prices we are suffering is the beginning of the Peak. Certainly I have seen evidence from OPEC that Light sweet crude has peaked, while total oil supplies have continued to grow. To me this indicates that "The Peak" is still a few years off, but then I may be making this assumption based on the wrong information (can we really trust OPEC?)
We are already seeing the results of high oil prices. Already monetary policy has been tightened in the last two years in almost every major industrialised economy to pre-empt inflation. What is going to happen when the peak is reached?
The first thing is obviously a sustained increase in the price of oil. With demand still high and supply unable to meet demand, prices will begin to rise.
Secondly, as the price of oil rises, so will inflation. Inflation is essentially the devaluing of money in relation to all goods and services that are produced. With oil supplies becoming less reliable, and with so many parts of the economy reliant upon the price of oil for factoring in to end costs for goods and services, inflation itself will begin to rise.
Thirdly, in response to a growing inflationary threat, central banks like the US Federal Reserve will begin to tighten monetary policy - they will raise interest rates. Raising interest rates increases the value of money since the central bank is creating a demand for them. The reason why interest rates are increased is to prevent inflation from breaking out. Interest rates are inflation killers. Unfortunately, higher interest rates are also economy-killers. Increased interest rates mean that people will borrow less and save more. Since much of the western economic system is based upon "borrowing and spending", interest rates will simultaneously punish both those who borrow (by making it more expensive) and those who spend (by making saving more attractive than spending).
Which leads, fourthly, to a recession. There will be a period of "negative economic growth" (which, to me, is essentially an economic decline). Bankruptcies, growing unemployment and mortgage foreclosures will accompany this.
The recession will, sixthly, lead to a drop in demand. The price of goods and services will begin to decrease - including the price of oil.
Seventh, with a decrease in prices, interest rates will then begin to fall, thus making it easier for people and businesses to borrow and spend again.
Eighth, this increase in consumption will lead to a drop in unemployment.
Ninth, this drop in unemployment will lead to economic growth and an increased demand for goods and services.
And, finally, tenth, this increase in demand for goods and services will lead to increase in the price of oil again.
After the tenth point, you can simply go back to point one - the situation starts over again.
This economic cycle is well known to all economists. However, I need to point out that, because oil supplies are still hard to procure (due to the Peak), the recovery will not, in real terms, match the level reached in the previous cycle. What I am pointing out here is that, although the economic cycle will continue throughout the post-peak years, there will be a structural decline so long as oil remains an integral part of the world economic system. Since modern economies appear to be getting better and better at preventing inflationary pressures through pre-emptive monetary policy, I would assert that the "structural decline" will be experienced as very low year on year GDP figures, and a decline in GDP per capita figures in nations that, on paper, are still growing economically.
But, of course, once the peak has been reached, and once governments, businesses and ordinary people finally understand the reason why this has occurred, the market itself (with a lot of government intervention) will seek to reduce its own reliance upon conventional oil supplies. While oil will still be pumped out of the Middle-east and the Gulf of Mexico, more and more alternative sources of oil - such as oil shale, tar sands and coal liquefaction - will become a market priority. Wasteful energy consumption that we see happening today in the form of Four Wheeled Drives (SUVs), badly insulated houses that rely upon fossil fuels for heating and/or cooling, as well as other things, will be curtailed.
EREOI and market prices
Peak Oilers speak of something called EROEI - Energy Returned On Energy Invested. It is essentially the idea that it would be stupid to use up, say, 10 barrels of oil in expended energy in order to recover, say, 8 barrels of oil. Peakniks are very strong on this subject, and it is one reason why so many believe that the so called "Hydrogen economy" mooted by many environmentalists will just not work, along with a whole host of other forms of alternative energy. The argument is that it is useless to be in a situation in which you lose more energy than you gain. It is a very powerful argument and it is also very true.
Peakniks who don't understand economics will point out that EROEI is the thing that needs to be examined - not price. So when an oil company decides to invest money in tar sands, they should not do so because it is economically viable, but only if it has a realistic EROEI. There is no point, they would argue, to divert economic resources into an energy source that returns less energy than the amount invested. Therefore, the argument goes, the decision must not be made on price but upon science.
All this is true, except that many Peakniks don't realise that, the more expensive energy becomes, the more an EREOI is reflected in the price the market is willing to pay. In a world awash in cheap energy - as we are at the moment - EREOI can mean quite little. Let's take the Athabasca Tar sands in Alberta, Canada. While it is obvious that this stored petroleum is massive, very little has been invested in the area in the last 25 years. The reason was simple - the price of oil was too low, and the cost of extracting oil from tar sands was too high. What is also obvious to those in the know is that the EREOI of traditional oil fields is much higher than the tar sands of Athabasca - thus making traditional oil fields more energy efficient than extracting oil from tar sands. In other words, the market price for oil and EREOI are actually linked together.
The upshot of this is that Peakniks should not need to worry too much about EREOI and not spend time slamming economics and businesses for their focus upon price rather than science. When energy becomes scarce, this is reflected in market prices. The market will not invest anything into any energy project with a negative EREOI simply because the cost invested will not match the money returned. In this sense, money and energy are essentially linked.
The Future
As energy becomes more expensive - since oil scarcity will make it so - the economy will adjust in order to cope with the increased cost. Fuel efficient cars, increased public transport, increased medium and higher density living will typify a society and an economy that will be trying to save money on energy costs. It remains to be seen whether solar and wind power, as well as other alternative forms of energy, will be viable. The use of disposable plastic will decrease as plastic prices increase, which means an adjustment in the way in which many people purchase certain goods.
The future is not bright, but nor is it bleak. Peak Oil will transform our world's use of energy way beyond out lifetimes. Historians will look back on this period and note that our values and economic activity were linked quite obviously to cheap energy in the form of oil. But the changes that we will eventually face will not come suddenly and rapidly, but slowly and painfully. Peak Oil was never about the world suddenly running out of oil (as some anti-peak oilers so ignorantly believe), but about the massive economic and social changes that will result from an ever-decreasing source of energy.
In the meantime, Peakniks must continue to warn people about the coming danger. It is not the end of the world - despite the protestations of "Doomers" - but it is a serious challenge to our way of life. The earlier we realise the Peak is coming, the better prepared we will be for the changes that will inevitably occur. What Peakniks must not do is dismiss economics and treat it as though it no longer applies. Instead, Peakniks must try hard to understand how economics works, and get a basic framework that includes monetary policy and the importance of supply and demand. Moreover, they must be very wary of promoting false and misleading theories, including the popular "Commercial Bank Money Printing Conspiracy" that I mentioned above. Peakniks are unlikely to convince those in power of the truth or Peak Oil if their understanding of economics is fatally flawed. Those in power are more likely to listen to truth coming out of the mouths (or websites) of those who have a sound understanding of more than just the physics of Hubbert's Peak.
© 2005 Neil McKenzie Cameron, http://one-salient-oversight.blogspot.com/
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 2.5 License.
