Wednesday, June 02, 2004

Richard Takes a Mulligan

Yesterday evening, I posted what I intended to be the first of a series of ramblings linking where the U.S. is today geopolitically, and offer those ties to America's insatiable thirst for energy. After a few hours reflection, I decided that most ASZ readers already understand the nature of this connection (at least at a broad level). So, I've removed the original post, and shelved the idea.

Anyone that's really interested in "following the money", so to speak, might want to start with this Google search.

Suffice it to say, we've all been suckered on a grand scale. Revisiting how we got there is not going to solve the mess. I'm really more interested in looking at how America gets out of this mess. The energy component of our national quagmire is clearly the most important. Giving the candy store to the energy barons - and this has been the entire focus of the Bush administration since day one - is not the answer to our collective problems.

Without historical context, it's difficult to make sense of how the barons staked their claim in the Bush Administration. So I hope the following exchange from 2000 places a bit of that context around the mindset of the folks who are running the country. That the capitalist nature of the oil barons and the imperialist nature of the neocon policy wonks should ultimately intersect is not surprising:

Before the 2000 election, Enron employees pondered the possibilities of a Bush win.

"Ken Lay's going to be Secretary of Energy," says one Enron worker.

That didn't happen, but they were sure President Bush would fight any limits on sky-high energy prices.

"When this election comes Bush will fucking whack this shit, man. He won't play this price-cap bullshit."

Crude, but true.

"We will not take any action that makes California's problems worse and that's why I oppose price caps," said Mr. Bush on May 29, 2001.