« A Thousand #@@@#%!!&#*@!! Days | Main | Weird Things about the AIPAC Case »

April 26, 2006


i don't pay much attention to poll numbers.

they go up.

they go down.

if they are really down,

they will eventually go up on little substantive change,

and that increase will be subject to ecstatic hyperbole by bush's sycophants and propagandists in the media.

they are entirely influencable, within a range, by question wording.

they often represent nothing so much as impressive citizen ignorance or impressive lack of skepticism.

what i am pleased to see

is that, for once,

the bush administration is having to pay a political price for its failure to anticipate the future.

in this case,

it was predictable that oil supplies would become tight.

major populations in china and india are no longer agrarian.

for some time there has been a question about supply, e.g., whether the largest (Saudi) of the world's oil fields may have peaked in production.

furthermore, even if we had more oil

or turned coal into oil,

a technology that's been around a long time,

we still would be left with the consequences of putting millions of years worth of the carbon from decayed plants back into the atmosphere in a few decades.

that act can't possibly be without consequences.

where was the bush administration on this issue when they took office 6 years ago?

--no need for energy conservation.

--no need to improve vehicle gas mileage.

--no need for a gasoline tax with proceeds to mass transportation or other alternatives

--no need to encourage alternative to combustion engines as a power source for cars.

--a war in the major oil producing regions of the world

that has produced nothing but uncertainty and reduced supply

and has consumed large amounts of oil itself to prosecute (it's gallons/mile for tanks).

-- no policy for alternative energy sources solar, wind, wave, fusion.

-- no leadership for a symbolic, we-can-do-it-together, home and community conservation program.

polls or not,

up or down,

how much more incompetence and obliviousness

on a major issue of economic survival for the u.s.

could an american presidency pack into a six years span?

Speaking of "house effects," these questions from a recent Fox News poll:

Considering that over the past twelve months the stock market is up, employment has increased and the disposable income of U.S. workers has increased, do you think the news media has generally done a good job or bad job providing accurate news about the nation's economy?

Originally seen on doonesbury.com but thanks to carpetbagger for keeping it where I could find it.

testing linking in blogs


Name of link

The comments to this entry are closed.

Where We Met

Blog powered by Typepad