"Blood and Oil" Review

Somewhat recently, I read a book called "Blood and Oil: The Dangers and Consequences of America's Growing Dependency on Imported Petroleum" by Michael T. Klare. To be honest, it was a couple months ago and I have really procrastinated in writing this review. But now that it's summer and I have time on my hands, I'd like to showcase what I think is a great read.

As you may be able to infer from the title, the book is about oil. And about blood, meaning the wars fought over oil. The reason for this is that Klare wrote a book, "Resource Wars" (which i have yet to read) which argued that wars are fought mainly over resources. But Klare later realized that oil was a much larger factor than any other resource. But why is this? Why does oil create more conflict than any other resource, whether it is gold or diamonds, food or water, stone or wood?

Everything in our modern society is based off of oil, which is why everyone feels the crunch when oil prices rise. Shipping, and therefore the prices of every good you buy in a store, is affected by fuel costs. The list goes on, but Klare is a much better linguist and scholar than I, and explains oil's importance in the introduction to this book.

Because of its importance, which is really the main point of the book, is that oil is the one resource that has been deemed a matter of national security. Due to this, the government can use oil as a reason to use the military wherever it sees fit. Putting aside the obvious relation to the Iraq War (which is not the focus of this book, which I liked), the United States supports many countries, namely Saudi Arabia, due to oil. But I will not go into a summary of this book, which you could probably find on sparknotes. All I would like to say is that this book has a great balance between history and current events to be both nonpartisan and interesting.

To give my own opinion, this book is a must-read. Before I read it, I never understoof why people always claimed that the Iraq War was started over oil. But now I now understand the argument, and whether or not you agree with it, this book will show you the reasoning for it. But I think that it was quite nonpartisan, criticizing FDR just as much as George W. Bush. And most importantly, Klare does not merely say that the current situation is bad, but he actually produces some ways to fix it. Klare explains his points well, with intelligence and articulation. The bibliography is huge, and it contains a nifty index. I'm definitely going to read some more stuff by Klare, or on the subject.

Here's where you can buy the book (I bought it at Barnes & Noble for $16):

http://www.amazon.com/Blood-Oil-Consequences-Dependency-Petroleum/dp/0805079386/ref=ed_oe_p

What Democracy Means

Recently I brought myself around to seeing Michael Moore's controversial documentary, Fahrenheit 9/11, for the first time. Released in 2004, a little over a year after the invasion of Iraq, the film examines the first three and a half years of the Bush presidency, beginning with the election controversy in Florida, and moving into September 11, 2001 and its aftermath.

I won't try to say that Moore's account is fair and even-handed, or that there is no liberal bias here. If you want the straight facts to make up your own mind on this issue, then go somewhere else first, or be sure to find an equally conservative source.

That said, this documentary was not necessarily made with the objective of scrupulously reporting all of the facts. It focuses on the facts that support the liberal position, while downplaying those that support the conservative viewpoint. (If you've seen it, did you notice that it features interviews with people opposed to the war, but uses brief soundbites from those who support it?) This movie was made to support a point of view.

However, as I watched, I noticed that there was an entirely separate message that transcended politics. One of Moore's most frequent accusations was that people simply rolled over and allowed the Bush administration to accomplish its agenda unhindered. Following the terrorist attacks of 9/11, the American people as a whole put their trust behind the President, without questioning any of his actions. One scene featured Brittany Spears saying to do just that. The press was accused of not scrutinizing the administration. The Democrats, now well known as the party that wants to leave Iraq as soon as possible, largely supported Bush's initiatives, including the Patriot Act and the Iraq War resolution, without even reading them. Because of this willingness to entrust President Bush with our national security five-plus years ago, we find ourselves in a conflict in Iraq with no visible end, and no clear way to extracting ourselves without further damaging our position. Ladies and gentlemen, don't let this happen again.

I'm not saying you can't support a war, or a politician, or a cause. I'm not saying you can never trust a politician to make the right decision. What I'm trying to say, and what this movie helps to clarify, is that the decision to do so must be made on you own. Don't simply think that having a leader means you no longer have to think about or analyze an issue.

This goes for everyone--liberal, conservative, Socialist, Libertarian, or whatever you happen to be, no matter how much you love your elected officials, don't simply elect them so you don't have to think anymore, because that's not your job as a citizen. We closed our eyes on Bush after 9/11, and this is where we got; it could be so easy to allow this to happen again. When a politician says something, don't nod your head in approval like a brainwashed sheep, think about it. Research the issue, make up your own mind. Tell your politicians to do the same--the Iraq war resolution passed with the support of more than half the Senate Democrats, many of whom now claim that they were opposed to the Iraq war from the beginning (including Hillary Clinton). And yes, the Democrats are as much responsible for Iraq as the Republicans and the Bush administration, seeing as they sat on their hands as the executive branch produced its evidence that al-Qaeda was connected to Iraq, and that Saddam Hussein had and could use weapons of mass destruction.

America is the oldest democratic nation in the world, and democracy is based on the ability of the citizens to partake in the political process, and blindly trusting an elected official is simply not consistent with partaking. So my message to you, America, is to do your job as Americans, and join in the political process. Vote if you are old enough. Pay attention to politics and make your own mind up--don't listen to what Michael Moore or Bill O'Reilly say about an issue and think that because they think that, you should too. Don't believe for one minute that the President automatically knows what's best for the country and leave it at that, and that includes our next president, whether he be John McCain or Barack Obama. It's time for America to start paying attention to the issues again.

But don't take my word for it.

Slick Barry

So in an expected move, Obama has officially decided to forgo the 85 million dollars in campaign funds from the Government and continue to run on his own money that he is raising from supporters. It sounds really great when he gets on TV and talks about how he is "breaking free from a broken system," and it sure looks awesome when on his website, under his "donate" button, it says "declare your independence" from the public financing. But here's one supporter thats none too pleased with this decision

Months ago, when Barack wasn't the clear front-runner, and wasn't raising astronomical sums of money, he was all over the campaign trail talking about how public financing of campaigns is important, and how he would take the money. Keep in mind that at that point in time, 85 million probably wasn't looking so bad. Had the primaries ended there, who's to say he wouldn't have taken the money right on the spot? I guarantee it would have.

Now, however, he is a rock star. He's raising millions like its nothing, and 85 million is chump change compared to what he could probably raise on his own, and he knows it. Should he accept the public financing, he can't spend any of his own raised money, so taking it would make no sense. Except, of course, if he wanted to keep his word.

Now he's changed the rhetoric. He's going off about how "the system is broken" and how taxpayers shouldn't be financing general election campaigns. Because he's not accepting the funds, now he can pour as much money as he wants into this campaign....substantially more than McCain, especially if McCain chooses to take the 85 million, which I don't think he will now that Barack has chosen not to take it.

It becomes an issue of trust. Barack had said in the past that he was open to taking the public funds, but now that he suddenly has more money on hand, the entire message has changed. Now he's acting like the system is archaic and wrong. I think that the 85 million cap for public financing is a GOOD thing. It keeps the playing field even, and keeps the negative campaigning to a relative low. Lets see how Barack chooses to use all of this extra money that he will have. I don't suspect he will be running McCain off the air with negative campaigning, but I do suspect he will be using it to buy influence in areas he can't reach. It may end up buying votes, and thats the largest crime at all.

He has created a great talking point for McCain, who can try to paint him as a flip-flopper, which is pretty much a death sentence for a young democrat in today's electorate. Obama needs to work hard to make this a non-issue, or something that he thought would help could end up coming back and biting him in the...well it seems appropriate to say "wallet-area."

The Florida-Michigan Resolution

Yesterday, the Democratic National Committee's Rules and Bylaws committee finally decided just what would happen with the delegations from Florida and Michigan, which as we all know had their delegates stripped by the party for holding their primaries too early in violation of a party rule. The decision? Their full delegation will be seated, but each delegate will only have half a vote as a penalty. Also, the results from Florida will be counted as they were in the primary, but the 44% of Michigan ballots that chose "uncommitted" were counted towards Obama, whose name was not on the ballot in that state. Clinton earned 55% there.

Finally, a resolution that compromises both sides in a very difficult situation. Now can we please stop making a big deal out of this? I'm talking to you, Hillary Clinton! This decision only gave her a net of 24 votes at the convention, and while it is a fair decision that recognizes the interests and arguments of both sides, it does not bring here anywhere near Obama, or being able to make her case that she is more electable with any sort of credibility. He remains nearly two hundred delegate equivalents ahead of her, and now needs to garner just 67 more to reach the requisite 2118, adjusted from the previous 2026 to account for the Florida/Michigan delegations. This changed almost nothing, except for laying Obama back some twenty delegates. And here's the thing--the primary season ends this Tuesday, and with three remaining contests, she has no chance to close the gap without going to the superdelegates, who are expected based on recent behavior to support the majority of pledged delegates and back Obama.

Now Clinton and her supporters are complaining about this decision, ostensibly because they want their votes counted, but in reality it is because this changed absolutely nothing. At the end of the day, she is (as a practical matter) no closer to catching up with Obama than she was at the beginning. But her supporters have turned seriously ugly because of this, even going so far as to say that they will vote for McCain if Hillary isn't nominated or booing Obama, the presumptive nominee.

The party will unite after the convention, Hillary? Really?

Because what we are seeing in your insistence to keep running is going to destroy the party. Florida and Michigan, your last great hopes, were resolved in a way that is fair to everyone, and you are no better off because of it. What happens after Tuesday, when the superdelegates begin to announce their allegiance to Obama, and he finds himself with a majority of the convention's delegates? Are you going to keep fighting until the convention itself, as you and your supporters have hinted? Because if you do, and even then fail to get the nomination, the Democratic Party that leaves Denver will be even more fractured than when it entered. It's over, Senator. The people have chosen, and shouldn't that be enough for you? Or do you really not care about the people, and are only so egotistical to believe that you deserve the nomination no matter what they say, willingly sabotaging your party's chances of winning in November by deepening the rift between your supporters and Obama's? Way to...umm...unite the party?