Tuesday, April 12, 2005

black gold baby

gasoline ain't cheap. i don't drive, by choice. i bum rides (i call it "carpooling" so driver du jour feels better about it), walk, sometimes take cabs, or take the bus when i absolutely have to. and i'm planning on buying a bike soon, once my own finances get back on track.

however i still buy gas, only for my chronic mind-altering inhalation practices (see love liza). plus i really like the smell, although jet fuel smells better than regular car fuel. it's not easy for the average johnny consumer to get ahold of jet fuel though.

but still, it's almost to the point where a gallon of gas and a pack of cigarettes are comparable in price. incidentally, i've singed off my eyebrows when i get loopy and forget not to do the two at the same time. lesson learned.

personally i'm happy gas is getting uber expensive. in europe they've been paying $4 a gallon or so for quite some time. maybe when we reach these levels in the u.s. people will give serious consideration to alternative means of transportation and alternative energy sources. as of yet we're much too vein a society to ever give up our suv's for something as trivial as the environment, but maybe when it becomes a more substantial drain on our personal finances we'll start paying heed.

in 1961 president kennedy challenged the country to get to the moon within 10 years, and it was done. civilization could funtion perfectly on energy sources other than petroleum, i've heard from articles and interviews and discovery channel specials. it could be a second rennaissance, where we truly strive towards a better global economy and climate and get out from under the thumb of big oil.

these are dreams i only have when jacked up on gas fumes. how's that for ironic? (okay lelaina, define "irony")

of course researching new energy sources would require that more people start believing in this whole "science" thing. psshhh, gravity. whatever. it's jesus that keeps us from floating away into space.

how great would it be if our current president layed out such a challenge? but how likely is that to happen, considering his personal relationship with the saudis and corporations and dick cheaney/haliburton and the auto industry and texas and money and satan? not. bloody.

start sniffing gas rags people. i'm telling you, it'll make you completely forget about the troubles.

postscript: black gold baby

we have such a sense of supremacy in this country right now. in 10 years time if we keep going in the direction we're heading we aren't going to be the "world leader" that we (supposedly) are today. we owe china, japan and saudi arabia SO MUCH money that if they decided to collect on our debt right now we'd be completely fucked. both china and india, under continued development, will start requiring more of the world's petroleum reserves than we do (currently 25% of all oil production everywhere is used by the u.s., and 1 out of every 4 people on earth are chinese). our military, already significantly diminished, will no longer be second or even third in the world (china, india, japan, north korea). and now our administration is trying to send to the u.n. as ambassador a man who has shown nothing but bitter disdain for the international community and could not be more loathesome of international cooperation.

and doesn't he look like a complete asshole - or a really good muppet character:

some comments he's made concerning the u.n.:
  • "there’s no such thing as the united nations. if the u.n. secretary building in new york lost 10 stories, it wouldn't make a bit of difference."
  • after the u.s. congress passed the comprehensive nuclear test ban treaty in 1999, he described supporters of that document as "misguided individuals following a timid and neo-pacifist line of thought."
  • in 2002 he said that cuba not only possessed "at least a limited offensive biological warfare research development effort" but had provided such technology to "other rogue states". he had no evidence of this.
  • on washington's adherence to multilateral international accords: "treaties are law only for u.s. domestic purposes. in their international operation, treaties are simply political obligations".
  • "it is a big mistake for us to grant any validity to international law even when it may seem in our short-term interest to do so - because, over the long term, the goal of those who think that international law really means anything are those who want to constrict the united states".
  • on advocating market reforms over efforts to improve basic living standard in developing countries: he criticized the clinton administration for continued funding of "programs on international population control and environmental matters rather than fundamental economic policy reforms in developing countries" and assailed then vice president al gore for his "preference for condoms and trees instead of markets".
  • on efforts to add a negotiated verification process to an international bio-weapons ban: he told conference participants that the provision was, "dead, dead, dead, and i don't want it coming back from the dead."

so, we're sending as ambassador to the u.n. a man who has several times expressed disdain for the u.n. and who obviously doesn't have any respect for international cooperation.

and bush and the neo-conservatives are napoleonically leading our country into turmoil and reducing the overall quality of life for americans. high gas prices are just an early warning sign.

No comments: