I was asking a question, and you answered. Good point. I agree. Some supervision, even rubber stamping is better than no supervision, and there is a record.

Wow - someone actually thinks I'm rational. I don't get much of that. Thanks, Bill.

Also, thanks for the article on oil possibly not being priced in dollars. While I'm not terribly surprised, I was not aware that such discussions were taking place. Good stuff.

So? Now what? Shall we spend the next 3 years bitching and moaning about the so-called liberal president and his neo-con actions?

I expect that's what I'll be doing, yes.

One party may be somewhat better in some areas while the other is better in other areas. Both are totalitarian, and another option needs to be found. Perhaps the Nader voters were right after all.

What can we really do that hasn't already been done? Create a third party? Tried and failed. Try to win over one of the major parties through internal rebellion? Tried and failed (correction - the right wing did manage to take over the GOP, but liberals - as opposed to Liberals - don't have the requisite funds, or the political cohesion). Outright rebellion? Better set up your gravesite in advance.

The existing system has set up very strong defenses. I don't see how a poor, small and fractious opposition is going to have any effect in the short term.

I'm willing to listen to ideas. It's possible a novel winning strategy is achievable. Possible, but extremely bloody unlikely.

But the point is essential. I get cranky when Glenn and others celebrate the Law Enforcement Efforts to Thwart Teh Terrorists, when way, way too many of these so-called Terror Plots were the result of instigation (at the least) by the triumphant arresting agencies, if they existed at all.

True.

It's been said many times, but bears repeating. The worst terrorist organization on the planet is the US government, and state terrorism dwarfs whatever pathetic excuse for terror al Qaeda can muster up. And the al Qaeda variety is, as you say, merely a reaction to our state terrorism in the first place.

Still, when I allow myself to dream of an idealized fantasy world devoid of state terror, and where citizen rights are respected, it strikes me that law enforcement is the appropriate institution to deal with any terrorist threat.

This will be interesting. We have you, arguing that only voting for third party candidates that have no chance of winning can ultimately affect change. And we have Adnoto, who argues that only direct action, which can only be mounted under extreme and unique circumstances for politically limited goals, can bring about change. I'm going to go pop some corn.

Leaving aside direct action for the moment, third parties can, of course, effect change. Just not right here, right now. The US political system is so hostile toward them, and throws up so many obstacles, that getting one going is next to impossible.

Of course, it wasn't always thus - the GOP is, after all, a third party that hit the big time.

You want a thrid party that might actually do something? First you have to change the rules that protect the 2 existing parties. While you're at it you could make a whole raft of reforms that make our government more responsive to the popular will. I'd support that wholeheartedly, but again, good luck getting that through.

Our political system is so calcified that it will take some kind of shock to the system to shake things up.

Sadly, just such a shock is on the horizon. Industrial civilization is in danger, and massive die-off is a virtual certainly. At least we can look on the bright side and hope that we get some viable third parties out of the deal.

I tend to agree with this. The history of change is written in crisis. The only problem is the "when"--this system has been on the brink for over a hundred years. There's few comparisons that can be made. We could likely see this system bounce back and look healthy a time or two or even last our whole lifetimes and beyond. And, of course, then there would be the misery part. Not looking forward to that much.

I'm not looking forward to the misery part either.

However, I think we can say a bit about the timing of the crisis. Geology says a lot about when to expect oil and other fossil fuel supplies to peak, and climatologists know a lot about how the planet will respond to rising CO2 levels.

I'd say the crisis is starting now, and I don't think we've been on the brink until recently. A hundred years ago most fossil fuels were still in the ground, and the human ecological footprint was still well within the carrying capacity of the planet.

Peak oil is certainly happening now. Ten to fifteen years from now things will be looking quite different, I suspect, although I doubt they will have fallen apart completely. I'd put 2025 as the earliest we can expect the system to crash.

Move out to 2040-50, and the oil export market will have ceased to exist. Also, climate change will be more severe, and energy supplies generally much more constrained. I can imagine the system continuing to that point, but if it is still alive it will be under severe strain.

By 2075 I'd be surprised if the world still resembled it's current form. All fossil fuels, even coal, will be depleted by then. Oil production will have fallen sharply. I don't believe we'll have a renewable or a nuclear revolution to save us, although anything's possible. And climate change effects will also be severe. I'd bet a lot of money the crash would be underway by then.

That's my 2 cents.