"I know this sounds crazy, but i honestly believe that high oil prices
in the short term (1-5 years) is a very good thing if it forces us to
find alternatives."

I can't think of a more narcissistic, self-serving, vile, irresponsible, and fascistic comment. This is exactly akin to the war-socialism of the 1930s. These are the types of words and statements that should be broadcast across the US to show just how disgusting the thought process is on the Left and the need for social control over every aspect of life, even the air we breathe. Kool-aid has nothing to do with it. There needs to come a point of accountability for this. This is not PC. This is a threat. This is a pea...

"I know this sounds crazy, but i honestly believe that high oil prices
in the short term (1-5 years) is a very good thing if it forces us to
find alternatives."

I can't think of a more narcissistic, self-serving, vile, irresponsible, and fascistic comment. This is exactly akin to the war-socialism of the 1930s. These are the types of words and statements that should be broadcast across the US to show just how disgusting the thought process is on the Left and the need for social control over every aspect of life, even the air we breathe. Kool-aid has nothing to do with it. There needs to come a point of accountability for this. This is not PC. This is a threat. This is a peak into the motives. They clamor about an energy policy, when in fact they define "energy policy" in socialistic terms.
And, we hear more fascistic Leftists rallying around the nationalization of the Oil Industry.
These ignorant greens are not just silly anymore. Statements like this show just how cruel and self-absorbed they are. To WANT to create poverty to advance your irrational agenda. Simply sick!

OIL PRICING 101... There is a fundamental error/misunderstanding in the public's perception of oil pricing and profits. The price which is communicated by the media is the 'spot market' price only, i.e., the last 10% of crude oil out of the ground, not under long term contract, before conversion into any number of products or uses. The other 90% of crude oil is already subject to long-term contract and pricing... pricing far less than the 'spot market' price so widely disseminated.

Historically, the oil industry has shared fondness for 'creative accounting' with the movie/television industries. Any conclusion a reader of the balance sheets in either industry forms must be countered with an...

OIL PRICING 101... There is a fundamental error/misunderstanding in the public's perception of oil pricing and profits. The price which is communicated by the media is the 'spot market' price only, i.e., the last 10% of crude oil out of the ground, not under long term contract, before conversion into any number of products or uses. The other 90% of crude oil is already subject to long-term contract and pricing... pricing far less than the 'spot market' price so widely disseminated.

Historically, the oil industry has shared fondness for 'creative accounting' with the movie/television industries. Any conclusion a reader of the balance sheets in either industry forms must be countered with an immediate question as to which numbers were presented by corporate management. In neither industry are 'usual and customary' accounting practices consistent with practices in the rest of the business world.

The oil industry... when it suits them... uses the 'spot market' to value crude oil purchased under lower priced, long-term contracts. It is in this differential where we find ‘windfall profits’… oil companies whining to the public and Congress/White House their profit margins being small on top of their cost of crude oil (based falsely on the ‘spot market’ price) when in fact their costs are relatively small because their costs of crude oil are historically small based upon long term contracts which are far more favorable to the major oil companies.

The ‘spot market’ provides convenient, phony cover for so-called ‘windfall profits’. Contrary to the linguistic suggestion that such profits happen by chance, ‘windfall profits’ arise by the careful design of the oil industry. And, the willful complicity of our political leaders who should know better, but, as per usual, suck up and under when ‘big money’ confronts the public interest.

It's funny/ironic/telling that if you suggest the government
help support the development of a new, massive industry that could help
us economically, environmentally and politically, you are called
outrageous things by some people...

Really? That's what you were doing - suggesting government help?
Then,
by all means, forgive me. I thought you were suggesting that since
government is not helping to your liking, you would prefer to see the
poor hurt even more and the lower-middle class begin to have to make
serious cuts in their standard of living, and wish to see poverty
increase world-wide, and foot shortages increase simply because you
seem to think oil is a bad thing.

ego...

It's funny/ironic/telling that if you suggest the government
help support the development of a new, massive industry that could help
us economically, environmentally and politically, you are called
outrageous things by some people...

Really? That's what you were doing - suggesting government help?
Then,
by all means, forgive me. I thought you were suggesting that since
government is not helping to your liking, you would prefer to see the
poor hurt even more and the lower-middle class begin to have to make
serious cuts in their standard of living, and wish to see poverty
increase world-wide, and foot shortages increase simply because you
seem to think oil is a bad thing.

egoldstein:

I know this sounds crazy, but i honestly
believe that high oil prices in the short term (1-5 years) is a very
good thing if it forces us to find alternatives. I am definitely
concerned that if oil prices drop temporarily, the momentum behind
alternatives such as wind and solar will die off - leaving us exactly
where we are today - way too dependent on oil and way to harmful to our
environment.

Sure
looks to me like you don't give a S@#! about anything but your
delusions. Excuse for getting overly dramatic about these types
attitudes. I do find them alarming and disturbing. But hey, I guess you
wouldn't say the same about those who express themselves similarly
regarding fairy tales like anthropogenic global warming. So, let me
guess... You like global warming because it will get government's gear
in motion? Yes, that lends credibility...Your perceived drama is just
your construct to help you lampoon.

And here is the insight of the month:

yet these same people will call you a hero if you suggest that the
government continue to spend more money fighting a war that's based
largely on our dependency on oil.

Unbelievable.

Why does one person expressing a different viewpoint cause so much hostility? I mean really, Wilhelm, you'd think you were personally attacked! No perceived drama--it was over the top. These comments are meant to open discussion, look at something in a different way or possibly find something positive in a real-time crisis for us all.
I think egoldstein's point wasn't the who, what, where, why, how of the high fuel prices, but that it's sad that Americans are so spoiled and complacent about energy, the environment and terrible transportation options in this country, that it's taken the leap in gas prices and consequential high prices on everything else, to hit the deep pockets of the ...

Why does one person expressing a different viewpoint cause so much hostility? I mean really, Wilhelm, you'd think you were personally attacked! No perceived drama--it was over the top. These comments are meant to open discussion, look at something in a different way or possibly find something positive in a real-time crisis for us all.
I think egoldstein's point wasn't the who, what, where, why, how of the high fuel prices, but that it's sad that Americans are so spoiled and complacent about energy, the environment and terrible transportation options in this country, that it's taken the leap in gas prices and consequential high prices on everything else, to hit the deep pockets of the upper class enough to realize that they are idiots to be driving Hummers and monster vehicles on the roads. As far as social consciousness goes, most people aren't born that way; something has to wake them up to it. Not in favor of govt. control, but obviously it's out of control and I suspect some antitrust issues with the big oil cos. And, politics as usual. I'm afraid gas prices won't be coming down anytime soon, as long as we're in the middle east and SO dependent on others' resources. Tightening our belts has merit, at times, and hopefully people will open their hearts and pockets to the poor. Go to the cupboard and fill a bag of canned goods today and take it to your local care organization--that is, if you have other errands to run. Maybe people will be more aware of the world around them and become more than consumers!

floridapublisher,
I stopped reading your comment right here,

that they are idiots to be driving Hummers and monster vehicles on the roads.

Get real. Anyone that thinks they need to create misery to advance an agenda based in hysterics IS equal in ethics and moralit to those advancing war socialism and the fascist mobilization of the 1930s . If you don't think so, well then, I can't help you with that.
I do notice, however, that with all the outrage you have over my disgust at the vile hatefulness and shear evil inherent in the Left's and egoldstein's comment in particular, that you stop short of affording my opinion the equal gravity you seem to afford another's. So, stop w...

floridapublisher,
I stopped reading your comment right here,

that they are idiots to be driving Hummers and monster vehicles on the roads.

Get real. Anyone that thinks they need to create misery to advance an agenda based in hysterics IS equal in ethics and moralit to those advancing war socialism and the fascist mobilization of the 1930s . If you don't think so, well then, I can't help you with that.
I do notice, however, that with all the outrage you have over my disgust at the vile hatefulness and shear evil inherent in the Left's and egoldstein's comment in particular, that you stop short of affording my opinion the equal gravity you seem to afford another's. So, stop with the holier than thou lunacy. You are not tolerant - you just have a different target.

I think the biggest revelation about this is that we are always told by the Left that some program or agenda is based in helping the poor, the children, minorities, women, blacks, elderly, single moms, etc. We on the Right always counter that that is bunch of baloney since every program is set up for the sole purpose of institutionalizing the problem and making it worse, so to create a never-ending cycle of dependence. This is a purely vile Marxist tactic - to create misery, division, fear. We hear it all the time from these hate-mongering hacks that do nothing but use this misery to further their social control. With these issues of energy and environment it really reaches some dangerous le...

I think the biggest revelation about this is that we are always told by the Left that some program or agenda is based in helping the poor, the children, minorities, women, blacks, elderly, single moms, etc. We on the Right always counter that that is bunch of baloney since every program is set up for the sole purpose of institutionalizing the problem and making it worse, so to create a never-ending cycle of dependence. This is a purely vile Marxist tactic - to create misery, division, fear. We hear it all the time from these hate-mongering hacks that do nothing but use this misery to further their social control. With these issues of energy and environment it really reaches some dangerous levels. These people, with their deep-seeded hate, need to be reckoned with once and for all. They are not interested in helping anyone.

Here, we have it right out in the open.

I do agree when it comes to politicians and the higher-ups, but I disagree when it comes to (most) ordinary people.

Sure, but it's always the "ordinary" people with the loaded crap about how much they care and that evil conservatives/libertarians do not care, when the fact is that it is exactly the other way around. And this is proof. But it really is not surprising, you can read the proof in the papers practically every day. Want to talk about how much they care about the sick and the need for National Healthcare? It's because they care, you know. Meanwhile, in Ontario Canada they are have lotteries to see who gets a heart transplant, in Japan they have to fly mothers in la...

I do agree when it comes to politicians and the higher-ups, but I disagree when it comes to (most) ordinary people.

Sure, but it's always the "ordinary" people with the loaded crap about how much they care and that evil conservatives/libertarians do not care, when the fact is that it is exactly the other way around. And this is proof. But it really is not surprising, you can read the proof in the papers practically every day. Want to talk about how much they care about the sick and the need for National Healthcare? It's because they care, you know. Meanwhile, in Ontario Canada they are have lotteries to see who gets a heart transplant, in Japan they have to fly mothers in labor 200 miles to hospital that has an open maternity ward, in England the tactic of patient stacking is out of hand, and lists of people that need life-saving surgery is growing in every nation, while people wait in line. We can just scratch the surface here.
My issue is more than just the vicious disregard of one eg, who hasn't a care in the world about those in need. It is about the perpetuated myth and ignorance that allows this type of disregard, insesitivity, and hate to exist in the world. EG can self-assure himself by applying a lens of over-dramatisation, but that just goes to the heart of the disregard. It is a coping mechanism I suppose.

C'mon you guys, you are all right, can't you see it?
In Europe, where gas has been much more that it is here for a long time, their societies have devoted themselves to lower consumption and greener energy production. In the little bit I've been in England, I had no need for a car, and could travel about much cheaper than in the USA. Both poor and rich have benefited - but perhaps the poor have benefited even more than the rich.
Yes, there are some benefits that cultures accrue when energy costs are high - the addiction diminishes. And yes, real steps need to be taken to be sure that those most on the edge are not taken down. You are both right.
Once again, it is not either-or, but a cha...

C'mon you guys, you are all right, can't you see it?
In Europe, where gas has been much more that it is here for a long time, their societies have devoted themselves to lower consumption and greener energy production. In the little bit I've been in England, I had no need for a car, and could travel about much cheaper than in the USA. Both poor and rich have benefited - but perhaps the poor have benefited even more than the rich.
Yes, there are some benefits that cultures accrue when energy costs are high - the addiction diminishes. And yes, real steps need to be taken to be sure that those most on the edge are not taken down. You are both right.
Once again, it is not either-or, but a challenge to find out how to bring benefit to all of us from the situation we're handed.
jm, everything is not either fascist or socialist; the fact that a policy taken to extreme could take us to socialism or fascism is not a reason to avoid the policy, for everything taken to extreme is disastrous. I believe our task is simply to do what we need to do and build-in the checks that prevent us from becoming extreme. Avoiding anything that is vaguely leaning one way or the other on doctrinaire grounds ends up avoiding everything; it is paralysis.

Ok masbury, this is the problem. High oil prices raise the price of everything, not just gasoline. It raises the price of staple foods, clothing, anything that is transported.

We're not talking about the poor in western countries, we're talking about the poor in third world countries. The ones who are now struggling to buy a loaf of bread. To say that you support high oil prices because it will force us to use alternative sources of energy, then you are also saying that you support the starvation of third world countries as well. The two cannot be separated. That's why this is fascism, you're saying that the poor (who already don't have anything) should suffer f...

Ok masbury, this is the problem. High oil prices raise the price of everything, not just gasoline. It raises the price of staple foods, clothing, anything that is transported.

We're not talking about the poor in western countries, we're talking about the poor in third world countries. The ones who are now struggling to buy a loaf of bread. To say that you support high oil prices because it will force us to use alternative sources of energy, then you are also saying that you support the starvation of third world countries as well. The two cannot be separated. That's why this is fascism, you're saying that the poor (who already don't have anything) should suffer for the common good ("common good" meaning the good of the wealthy).

Now, the big question is, are these high oil prices natural? I don't believe they are, I believe they are being manipulated by people who are too greedy for their own good, or, like ego is saying, they're pushing an agenda, an ideal. That's why I believe this is wrong. Now, I see nothing wrong with searching for alternative sources of fuel. But we don't have to have high oil prices (which are hurting the extremely poor) to do that!

We have known about the oil issue since the 70's
In 40 years we have not pursued alternative sources as a mainstream science. We should already be using an alternative energy readily. We should be in the final stages of converting the auto industry. We are not. Why?
Raising the prices to spur development of an alternative is the wrong way to do this. Our complacency as created this problem and instead of working to fix it we fight to be more complacent. I make $7 ph and welfare told me I make too much money to get help. So I am a throw away person to our society. What am I supposed to do - Just Die?
Perhaps I should sue the oil companies and government for destroying my american dream. Can't...

We have known about the oil issue since the 70's
In 40 years we have not pursued alternative sources as a mainstream science. We should already be using an alternative energy readily. We should be in the final stages of converting the auto industry. We are not. Why?
Raising the prices to spur development of an alternative is the wrong way to do this. Our complacency as created this problem and instead of working to fix it we fight to be more complacent. I make $7 ph and welfare told me I make too much money to get help. So I am a throw away person to our society. What am I supposed to do - Just Die?
Perhaps I should sue the oil companies and government for destroying my american dream. Can't afford a lawyer so I guess I just die- slowly one dollar at a time.

Skwirl, this nation is and has always been run by people of wealth. Its Constitution was written by rich white men for the purpose of protecting the profit-making ability of rich white men.

That has produced a twisted value system that prizes people who become "productive" - which, when applied to your and my high school classes, means drones who uncomplainingly fit-in to the process by which rich guys get richer.

Those of us who have heard a different drummer will never fit in, and will seem of little value when measured on that scale. But we have opted-out of that scale.

You are intelligent, tough, and kind. You contribute to world-changing by bringing what matters to you to this forum...

Skwirl, this nation is and has always been run by people of wealth. Its Constitution was written by rich white men for the purpose of protecting the profit-making ability of rich white men.

That has produced a twisted value system that prizes people who become "productive" - which, when applied to your and my high school classes, means drones who uncomplainingly fit-in to the process by which rich guys get richer.

Those of us who have heard a different drummer will never fit in, and will seem of little value when measured on that scale. But we have opted-out of that scale.

You are intelligent, tough, and kind. You contribute to world-changing by bringing what matters to you to this forum. You are having an impact. The only way the world gets better is one person on one issue in one moment, multiplied by everyone who's doing what you're doing. The only way.

Naturally, the system will send messages of worthlessness (usually through lack of money, its only language) to those who don't conform. Those messages aren't true - they're simply the natural result of a society that values money above all else.

But from my point of view, you are more valuable to the world than a money culture looking for cogs to fit into its machinery will ever understand.

"Yes we can" is more communal or mass unifying,

That's exactly what's wrong with it. "unity of the masses" is fascist, and ideal (ideal simply means a perfect state, and perfection can never be reached in reality). It strips the individual of what makes him an "individual" and makes him part of a "collective", or "mass". So whatever is good for the "collective" (like say for example, if killing you off is good for the collective) is what is acceptable.

sort of like a democracy

A democracy is not "mass unifying". A democracy is supposed to represent each and every individual. A republic is just representative democracy.




...

"Yes we can" is more communal or mass unifying,

That's exactly what's wrong with it. "unity of the masses" is fascist, and ideal (ideal simply means a perfect state, and perfection can never be reached in reality). It strips the individual of what makes him an "individual" and makes him part of a "collective", or "mass". So whatever is good for the "collective" (like say for example, if killing you off is good for the collective) is what is acceptable.

sort of like a democracy

A democracy is not "mass unifying". A democracy is supposed to represent each and every individual. A republic is just representative democracy.

the way bushee runs it is quite a bit closer to totalitarianism.

That's because Bush abused his power as Executive. Congress, by the way, aided him in doing that (and yes, this includes the demmys). And btw, if the Fisa "compromise" is enacted, it will make those illegial powers permanent.

There are certain elements in fascism that just don't fit in your defination. I personally think you are playing pin the tail on the donkey.

Fascism always wraps itself in the flag, always seeks absolute power, always brands
opponents as traitors, always relies heavily on propaganda for dissemination of its
ideas, always invokes subversive enemies (at home and abroad), always embraces
militarism and permanent war, always favors politicizing of police functions (and
expanding them and the surveillance state), always scorns intellectuals, artists, and
bourgeois democratic values, always is hostile to leftist and labor movements, and is
obsessed with idealized images of ...

There are certain elements in fascism that just don't fit in your defination. I personally think you are playing pin the tail on the donkey.

Fascism always wraps itself in the flag, always seeks absolute power, always brands
opponents as traitors, always relies heavily on propaganda for dissemination of its
ideas, always invokes subversive enemies (at home and abroad), always embraces
militarism and permanent war, always favors politicizing of police functions (and
expanding them and the surveillance state), always scorns intellectuals, artists, and
bourgeois democratic values, always is hostile to leftist and labor movements, and is
obsessed with idealized images of a mythic "better time" of the past (while at the same
time destroying that past, and the nation as a whole).

The shoe just doesn't fit no matter how well the thought of it fits your agenda.

LoPhatt, you are repeating a caricature of Fascism, not the reality of it. However, there is some slight truth there, so let me try to clarify how we differ.

1. Fascism always wraps itself in the flag

Fascism seeks to mobilize a society to achieve a certain end. You are right that Fascist appeal to patriotism and nationalism in many instance, but they also appeal to unity and the mobilization of society to achieve a goal. If in individual is not interested in the goal of the State, then the individual is punished. Fascism can use any means to unify society. Hitler used race. Mussolini used socialism, nationalism, and economics. Many of today's fascists use the environment and...

LoPhatt, you are repeating a caricature of Fascism, not the reality of it. However, there is some slight truth there, so let me try to clarify how we differ.

1. Fascism always wraps itself in the flag

Fascism seeks to mobilize a society to achieve a certain end. You are right that Fascist appeal to patriotism and nationalism in many instance, but they also appeal to unity and the mobilization of society to achieve a goal. If in individual is not interested in the goal of the State, then the individual is punished. Fascism can use any means to unify society. Hitler used race. Mussolini used socialism, nationalism, and economics. Many of today's fascists use the environment and economics.

always seeks absolute power

Absolutely correct. One of the main traits of Fascism is that it is totalitarian. Totalitarianism is the direct opposite of Libertarianism. Totalitarianism means - everthing wihtin the state, nothing outside of the state.

always brands opponents as traitors, always relies heavily on propaganda for dissemination of its ideas

I am not sure this is a requirement for Fascism, but I suppose it certainly helps and I cannot argue that this is not true.
I can point to many things that show this IS the case: FDR's NRA, Jonhson's New Society, The New Deal, Woodrow Wilson (arguably the world's first fascist - and progressive Democrat) created the worlds very first Department of Propaganda.

always favors politicizing of police functions (and expanding them and the surveillance state)

Any time government agencies increase with authority to control the populace - that is as expansion of the police state. This is what the Left want to do when they tell you when and where you can smoke, what you can and cannot eat, and much they tax or do not tax for any given activity.

always embraces militarism and permanent war

War socialism is certainly a means to foster and implement fascism. No one did this better than Wilson and Roosevelt. Also, the war on poverty, the mobilization to save the environment are mobilizing "causes"
This is very fundamental point in Fascism. However, the point regarding the need for war was about mobilizing society. Today you do not need war to mobilize society - You can use the environment, poverty, renewable energy, population growth, health, You can instill a reactionary tribal paradigm like the "yes we can" pursuit suggests.

always scorns intellectuals, artists, and bourgeois democratic values

Simpl...

always embraces militarism and permanent war

War socialism is certainly a means to foster and implement fascism. No one did this better than Wilson and Roosevelt. Also, the war on poverty, the mobilization to save the environment are mobilizing "causes"
This is very fundamental point in Fascism. However, the point regarding the need for war was about mobilizing society. Today you do not need war to mobilize society - You can use the environment, poverty, renewable energy, population growth, health, You can instill a reactionary tribal paradigm like the "yes we can" pursuit suggests.

always scorns intellectuals, artists, and bourgeois democratic values

Simply not true. Intellectuals of the 1930s were enamored with Hitler and especially Mussolini. Fascism was an intellectual and Progressive movement. HG Wells was a major supporter of fascism. The NY Times glowed about Fascism. Columbia University erected statues and painted murals of Mussolini. And, by the way - not that it is entirely relevant - Hitler was an Artist.

always is hostile to leftist and labor movements

This is also just simply not true. Both Hitler and Mussolini, prominent fascist, both emerged from socialist, labor movements. Hitler's Part was the Socialist's Workers Party. Mussolini was a Publisher of a Socialist Workers newspaper. What they both rejected was Marxist Communism.

and is obsessed with idealized images of a mythic "better time" of the past (while at the same time destroying that past, and the nation as a whole).

Yes, and you stated earlier, the phrase 'yes we can' is a communal phrase. A phrase to unite us all under a banner of tribal action to cure us of all the ails us. You can also see this ...

always is hostile to leftist and labor movements

This is also just simply not true. Both Hitler and Mussolini, prominent fascist, both emerged from socialist, labor movements. Hitler's Part was the Socialist's Workers Party. Mussolini was a Publisher of a Socialist Workers newspaper. What they both rejected was Marxist Communism.

and is obsessed with idealized images of a mythic "better time" of the past (while at the same time destroying that past, and the nation as a whole).

Yes, and you stated earlier, the phrase 'yes we can' is a communal phrase. A phrase to unite us all under a banner of tribal action to cure us of all the ails us. You can also see this in HRC's communal manifesto of It takes a Village.

What I have outlined in response to your comment, Lophatt, only scratches the surface. We could take each of these points, and actually there are many more regarding the Progressive movement, and discuss them in much greater detail.

I have two eyes and they are looking forward.

There is also something right behind your eyes that comes in handy.

I am not here to argue with people just because they have a different view of the world than the one I see.

The point is not to argue or persuade, it is to clarify how we differ and understand those with whom we disagree. If you are not willing to do that, then it is no wonder you are so misled about this issue.

They seem to degrade into personal remarks and name calling.

Pointing out someones ignorance is not name-calling. WE are all ignorant about different things. It is not a perfect world, you should be willing to let people sa...

I have two eyes and they are looking forward.

There is also something right behind your eyes that comes in handy.

I am not here to argue with people just because they have a different view of the world than the one I see.

The point is not to argue or persuade, it is to clarify how we differ and understand those with whom we disagree. If you are not willing to do that, then it is no wonder you are so misled about this issue.

They seem to degrade into personal remarks and name calling.

Pointing out someones ignorance is not name-calling. WE are all ignorant about different things. It is not a perfect world, you should be willing to let people say what they choose and express themselves any way they choose. Suppressing opinion because of subjective sensitivity is politically correct fascism.

Remember, circumstances alter cases. There is no Ironclad answer as some would have us believe.

There is always an iron-clad answer, but that does not mean everyone is willing to accept the answer.

I really don't like the way certain people react when others disagree with them. They seem to degrade into personal remarks and name calling.

I'm sorry, but did I miss something? I don't ever remember personally attacking you. I said you were ignoring history and the facts, that's not a personal insult, that's a statement of what I think you're doing! If I'm wrong, correct me! But maybe you mean Willhelm. I'll admit he can get excited sometimes, just like we all can, but does that make him wrong? If he's wrong then show him how he's wrong, don't just ignore him because you think he's being 'rude'.

History is written by the victors and is always bias to one side or the...

read more»

I really don't like the way certain people react when others disagree with them. They seem to degrade into personal remarks and name calling.

I'm sorry, but did I miss something? I don't ever remember personally attacking you. I said you were ignoring history and the facts, that's not a personal insult, that's a statement of what I think you're doing! If I'm wrong, correct me! But maybe you mean Willhelm. I'll admit he can get excited sometimes, just like we all can, but does that make him wrong? If he's wrong then show him how he's wrong, don't just ignore him because you think he's being 'rude'.

History is written by the victors and is always bias to one side or the other.

Really? So you disagree that Hitler and Mussolini were for labor movements? You reject that their parties were labor movement parties? You reject that intellectuals were for Fascism? You see, the problem I have is that you are not making an argument. You are not presenting your own side of the story. You are ignoring what we have to say by saying "you're just wrong", or "you're assuming too much". You're not presenting any argument of your own, or at least not an argument that stands for very long. The point of a debate is to learn. If you refuse to learn what the faults in your argument are, then there's no point in debating, because it's not really a debate. It's more like slamming your head against a wall.

Why we need high oil prices

Americans are driving less and buying smaller cars.

a carbon tax could be used to set a floor

Attempting to induce a paradigm shift in energy revision by increasing the price of fuel above the consumer's means is futile and destructive to our economy.
We should already be in changes to move away from limited fossil fuels as an energy source. We are stuck in an automotive/internal combustion engine rut that we don't want to escape. We are stuck with the national highway system designed for cars and trucks. We are stuck in cars and trucks to move goods and services and ourselves about the country.
We have built our lives...

Why we need high oil prices

Americans are driving less and buying smaller cars.

a carbon tax could be used to set a floor

Attempting to induce a paradigm shift in energy revision by increasing the price of fuel above the consumer's means is futile and destructive to our economy.
We should already be in changes to move away from limited fossil fuels as an energy source. We are stuck in an automotive/internal combustion engine rut that we don't want to escape. We are stuck with the national highway system designed for cars and trucks. We are stuck in cars and trucks to move goods and services and ourselves about the country.
We have built our lives around the use of oil. Attempting to break that cycle by making it too expensive to maintain is self-destructive. Our current path is not the answer. A forced change could create more of a mess than we have right now.
We need to see more solar panels and charging stations being built. We need to see personal power generation at the household level. Companies should get benefits for becoming fuel-independent and fuelfree. People need to stop demanding convenience and start valuing the things they buy.
Advertising and commercialism is dictating our lives to the point we cannot even tell anymore. There are more ways to be a SLOTH than feeding your face.

I think you assume far too much and stretch your conclusions to fit.

Here's what this comment means, in my mind, and why I agree with it:

Suppose I have a sore throat. I might have tonsilitis, I might have been shouting for the Hawkeyes too much, I might have a sinus infection, I might have night-time acid reflux, or I might have cancer of the larynx. Sore throat is a symptom found in many different conditions. The only way I can know if I have, say, cancer of the larynx, is to see if the other symptoms of cancer are present, too.

Fascism has lots of symptoms, too - and, like the sore throat, no symptom in itself is fascism; it's a symptom shared by many different social p...

I think you assume far too much and stretch your conclusions to fit.

Here's what this comment means, in my mind, and why I agree with it:

Suppose I have a sore throat. I might have tonsilitis, I might have been shouting for the Hawkeyes too much, I might have a sinus infection, I might have night-time acid reflux, or I might have cancer of the larynx. Sore throat is a symptom found in many different conditions. The only way I can know if I have, say, cancer of the larynx, is to see if the other symptoms of cancer are present, too.

Fascism has lots of symptoms, too - and, like the sore throat, no symptom in itself is fascism; it's a symptom shared by many different social phenomena.

Wikipedia lists Fascism's symptom array like this:

Fascists promote a type of national unity that is usually based on (but not limited to) ethnic, cultural, national, racial, and/or religious
attributes. Various scholars attribute different characteristics to
fascism, but the following elements are usually seen as among its key
parts: nationalism, militarism, totalitarianism, statism, dictatorship, economic planningcorporatism and autarky), populism, collectivism, and autocracy. In addition, Fascism opposes classic political and economic liberalism, conservatism, socialism, and communism.

"Yes, we can," like a sore throat, is a symptom found in a wide range of possibilities. But unless the other key ingredients of fascism can be shown to be present, we can't call it fascist; that would, indeed (as LoPhatt has said) "stretch ... conclusions to fit."

Calling "Yes we can" fascist is like calling a sore throat cancer, when it may be a symptom of something good (like the Hawkeyes winning). Only the whole set of symptoms together make an accurate diagnosis.

"Yes we can" is fascist, because it a) assumes I am part of we b) forces me to be part of we. c) mobilzes "us" to action d) uses excuses to mobilze e) it is progressive idealism.

What I reject in the article is the politically correct compromise that erodes it's the factual integrity. However, there is much correct in the wikipedia article, but stretching conclusions to fit, masbury, is your job, especially in light of ridiculous analogies to a "sore throat". You are in absolutely no position to throw stones given your obvious deficiency of knowledge.
One of the most pitiful aspects of most people is that they tend to seek out sources to fulfill their need for reassurance in their belief...

"Yes we can" is fascist, because it a) assumes I am part of we b) forces me to be part of we. c) mobilzes "us" to action d) uses excuses to mobilze e) it is progressive idealism.

What I reject in the article is the politically correct compromise that erodes it's the factual integrity. However, there is much correct in the wikipedia article, but stretching conclusions to fit, masbury, is your job, especially in light of ridiculous analogies to a "sore throat". You are in absolutely no position to throw stones given your obvious deficiency of knowledge.
One of the most pitiful aspects of most people is that they tend to seek out sources to fulfill their need for reassurance in their belief. When your sources, ideology, and intellectual outcome are all dependent on one another, then you have the necessary ingredients for ignorance, which starts with your arrogance.

We are not talking about sociology, kmcolo. That (sociology) is only a means to progressivism (or fascism), as Comte and Gramsci were well aware. In political speak, "we" cannot be all-inclusive. Only in law can it be all-inclusive. So, your point, though decently made, is splitting hairs. Besides, focusing on the phrase "Yes we can" really misses the point. The phrase is only symptomatic of the paradigm we are re-subjecting ourselves to. If you know anything about history, then you would know that we have been here before.
Furthermore, my comment has nothing to do with "pure individualism", as you say, it is about autonomy in the sense that we are not serfs to the State. Liberty and equali...

We are not talking about sociology, kmcolo. That (sociology) is only a means to progressivism (or fascism), as Comte and Gramsci were well aware. In political speak, "we" cannot be all-inclusive. Only in law can it be all-inclusive. So, your point, though decently made, is splitting hairs. Besides, focusing on the phrase "Yes we can" really misses the point. The phrase is only symptomatic of the paradigm we are re-subjecting ourselves to. If you know anything about history, then you would know that we have been here before.
Furthermore, my comment has nothing to do with "pure individualism", as you say, it is about autonomy in the sense that we are not serfs to the State. Liberty and equality do not coexist well. They require a synergistic symbiosis, which means the primacy of the individual, not the State (or "We").

What you are referring to is more in line with anarchism.

I do not read conspiracy into anything at all. I am the furthest thing from a conspiracy theorist as one can be. That is laughable. I am a skeptic. I ask questions.
However, that said, I do recognize the roles of all ideologies, organizations, and agendas and their implied influence in a dialectic sense. Please do not project onto me your own habit of delusion and conspiracy. That is quite a laugh.
Besides, I am not the one making much ado about the slogan, I just mentioned that it is fascistic. Candidates campaign all the time about the where they want to lead the nation and what they want us to be, but no one has ever campaigned on the pretense of national mobilization - not in America an...

I do not read conspiracy into anything at all. I am the furthest thing from a conspiracy theorist as one can be. That is laughable. I am a skeptic. I ask questions.
However, that said, I do recognize the roles of all ideologies, organizations, and agendas and their implied influence in a dialectic sense. Please do not project onto me your own habit of delusion and conspiracy. That is quite a laugh.
Besides, I am not the one making much ado about the slogan, I just mentioned that it is fascistic. Candidates campaign all the time about the where they want to lead the nation and what they want us to be, but no one has ever campaigned on the pretense of national mobilization - not in America anyway.

And I think that is debatable

Well, I think it's debatable that it's debatable. What kind of idiotic comment?

LoPhatt, Please do not assume I am anything like you at all.

You are definitely not anything like me, period, dot, finish.

I am much older.

Doubtful from your posts, but so what, you have more crust than I do and losing your wit.

I am a former leftist and probably immensely more educated, formally and otherwise.

Well don't break your own arm patting yourself on the back. The only problem with that is apparently your learning didn't stick, your thinking is far reaching and bias now with your new found "rightness".

You are profoundly ignorant as proven by your inability to adequately address my comments, all you offer is blind disregard based en...

LoPhatt, Please do not assume I am anything like you at all.

You are definitely not anything like me, period, dot, finish.

I am much older.

Doubtful from your posts, but so what, you have more crust than I do and losing your wit.

I am a former leftist and probably immensely more educated, formally and otherwise.

Well don't break your own arm patting yourself on the back. The only problem with that is apparently your learning didn't stick, your thinking is far reaching and bias now with your new found "rightness".

You are profoundly ignorant as proven by your inability to adequately address my comments, all you offer is blind disregard based entirely on ignorance.

Well thank you again, that was nice, and from you it is definitely a gracious complement to know that you feel that way about me.

Also, please do not impugn my logic as that is just typical nonsense when it it does not include reason or facts of your own. If I am wrong, as it is possible that everyone is from time to time, then prove it.

I say enough for you to realize how poor of a remark you chose to express, but you just keep them coming no matter how wrong you are. I am not your teacher nor do I want to be, you're incorrigible. I don' educate your kind, I put them in their place.

I suppose I am a cad and I admit it. I never considered the cost to others for my desire for high gas prices to urge the US to move into renewable energy. Very good points.

Very interesting discussion on fascism as well. It is amazing the illusion people live under when it comes to fascism. Willhelm, I agree with you for the most part.
Too many cannot separate killing jews from fascism, so the denial is hastened by the need to resist that fact. Fascism is not about killing jews or racial superiority. It is simply about the total state working like an efficient machine and guided by law upon law upon law with the force of an all-powerful government. In society we become nothing but oompah l...

I suppose I am a cad and I admit it. I never considered the cost to others for my desire for high gas prices to urge the US to move into renewable energy. Very good points.

Very interesting discussion on fascism as well. It is amazing the illusion people live under when it comes to fascism. Willhelm, I agree with you for the most part.
Too many cannot separate killing jews from fascism, so the denial is hastened by the need to resist that fact. Fascism is not about killing jews or racial superiority. It is simply about the total state working like an efficient machine and guided by law upon law upon law with the force of an all-powerful government. In society we become nothing but oompah loompahs in Willy Wonka's chocolate factory.

Another aspect that causes confusion is that fascists were opposed to communists even though they were socialists. They new that it would be an economic failure so they combined aspects of totalitarianism, big government, and co-opted the corporate sect into government.