Peak Oil Book

If you only read one book about peak oil, this is the one to read: The Long Descent: A User's Guide to the End of the Industrial Age

Here are some excerpts from the book, and here are some book reviews:
Amanda Kovattana
Frank Kaminski
Lupa

A Day Late and a Dollar Short?

Articles of Impeachment Read in Congress Against Bush

Better late than never, I suppose . . .

More on Cultural Conservers

This week's post on cultural conservers by John Michael Greer is even more intriguing than last week's was.

Entertainment

Quoting from an email quoted in an article in Minyanville:

Kevin -

Talked with my Mom tonight. She played Canasta with her girlfriends today (she's the youngest at 66). Topic of conversation was how much things feel like they did going into the Great Depression (several of them lived through it). Interestingly, the biggest concern wasn't that it was coming, they all lived through and survived so that wasn't the focus. Instead they were concerned that the vast majority of young people today have absolutely no idea how to entertain themselves for free. Thus they think the societal impact of a depression may be bigger than the economic and they just might be right.

Cultural Conservers

Go here to read about John Michael Greer's thoughts on what will need to be done to preserve the bits of western industrial civilization that are worth preserving. This subject is very interesting to me, and I intend to explore more how this sort of thing might be accomplished.

More on the Democratic nominating process

It's not very often these days where an election is held where I don't feel compelled to vote against anybody, but oddly enough that seems to be what is happening with this year's contest for President. With that, here are my views on the candidates:

1) John McCain - I have great respect for his integrity and leadership abilities, but I am a long way from him politically. Like the first President Bush, I won't vote for him, but I could live with it if he were to become President, and I feel no compelling reason to vote against him.

2) Barack Obama - One of the few politicians that I actually find inspiring. My cynicism with regards to national politics is at a higher level than ever this year, but I will actually vote for him if he gets the nomination.

3) Hillary Clinton - aka "the audacity of ego" - She is quite a divisive figure, and that will not go away any time soon. If she gets elected President, we will get to endure 4 or 8 more years of highly vicious politics in Washington D.C. Some other reasons I won't vote for Hillary:
a) She is the textbook example of a carpetbagger. I have no idea why the people of New York voted for her over a home-grown politician, particularly as it was obvious, even 8 years ago, that she viewed the Senate (and the state of New York) merely as stepping stones to becoming President.
b) Her "it's me or nobody" towards the Democratic nomination. I don't really care if the national Democratic party tears itself apart over this - that is a problem for the party, of which I am not a part. However, the competition has really revealed her character, which - to put it mildly - is unappealing. All politicians are competitive and have big egos. Clinton, however, seems to be driven by a lust for power untempered by any other consideration whatsoever.
c) She's a bully: Clinton big dollar donors threaten Pelosi and the DCCC

And now, for some linkblogging on this subject:
From Daily Kos, Obama Campaign Depicts Clinton as Serial Exaggerator

Senator Clinton’s claims about her visit to Tuzla, Bosnia—and the footage disproving her account—have created quite a stir. And with good reason. As the Associated Press wrote yesterday: "What makes Clinton’s situation unique—and the Bosnia embellishments so damaging—is the fact that the New York senator has built her candidacy on the illusion of experience. Any attack on her credentials is a potential Achilles heel."

Unfortunately, Clinton’s fantastic invention of a sniper-raked landing is only one in a growing list of instances in which she has exaggerated her role as First Lady, particularly with respect to domestic policy.

Unlike Gore, who in a few individual instances made ill-advised comments that then got blown out of proportion, Clinton has made the questionable claims numerous times, and has even put some of them on her website, like saying she was involved in the creation or passage of key domestic accomplishments such as SCHIP and the Family and Medical Leave Act. The public record and the statements of people like Henry Waxman who were directly involved in that legislation doesn't support or even contradicts her claims.

Also from Daily Kos: Answering the Phone at 3am

[commenting on the fact that Clinton claims to have been "sleep-deprived" and "misspoke" regarding her claims of landing under sniper fire in Bosnia] Sleep-deprived... on all of these occasions? And she's the one telling us she'd be the best person to answer the red phone at the wee hour of 3 o'clock in the morning.

Northwest Progressive Institute: Clinton on Richardson's endorsement of Obama

What I wanted to point out, however, is the Clinton camp's response to the endorsement. Richardson has long had close ties to the Clintons--realistically, he probably wouldn't be quite who he is on the national stage today if not for Bill Clinton tapping him as Secretary of Energy--so his endorsement of Obama must also be viewed in that light. Trying to minimize the damage, Clinton spokesman Jay Carson had this to say:

"Both candidates have many great endorsers, but the voters, not endorsers, will decide this election, and there are still millions of voters in upcoming contests who want to have their voices heard."

Which is a noble and populist thing to say, but at this point it it is simply not credible to believe that the Clinton campaign actually means this. It's that pesky hard math problem her campaign faces: at this point there just aren't enough delegates left in the states that haven't voted yet for her to take the pledged delegate lead unless she wins by truly unimaginable margins. Thus, her only remotely plausible path to the nomination lies in convincing the superdelegates to give the nomination to her, despite the clearly expressed sentiment of the voters.

This has gone on too far. Hillary Clinton, I am publically calling on you, today, to admit what the rest of the nation has known for about a month now. You gave it a heck of a run, but you've come up short. Your campaign is, for all practical purposes, over and can serve no further purpose than to provide fuel for future attacks on Barack Obama. I call on you to honor the proper sentiment expressed by your spokesman: respect the judgment of the millions of voters from left states and right states, big states and small states, states that matter and those that--well, all of them matter, really.

They have judged you, and found you wanting. It is time for you to withdraw.

From Middle Earth Journal: Hillary's Glass House

Since Hillary Clinton has decided to be critical of Obama's religious affiliations I guess it's only fair to look at hers. I remember this profile of Hillary by Joshua Green a few years back but had forgotten the disturbing information that she was a member of a right wing Washington prayer group. Green rightly thinks it's time to revisit this association and reminds us of the details: Hillary's Minister Problem

Power Hungry?

The latest from the Clinton Campaign: Obama "Can't Win a General Election"

That's laughable. A little analysis (see also here) reveals that Clinton is the one who probably can't win a General Election, and this thought is seconded by conservatives, some of whom are salivating at the uniting (in opposition to Hillary) effect that a Clinton candidacy would have on the Republican Party.

Oh, and there is also the detail that there is no realistic way Clinton can get the nomination at this point. Why is she still in the race? Is she so power hungry that if she can't get the nomination she thinks she deserves, she will destroy her own party's chances in retaliation?