Long Term Problems

The world is faced with an unusual number of problems that require long term solutions. But unfortunately, politics, one of the key sources for solutions, just plain does not work long term. And that spells trouble.

Global warming comes to mind first; this definitely won't be fixed overnight -- or even over the next couple decades.

The oil situation. Frankly I think the oil is drying up quicker than anyone realizes. No one knows what the Saudi oil reserves are except the Saudis, and its quite possible that they have much less on reserve than is commonly believed. There is new oil out there somewhere, no doubt about it, but the big reserves have already been found and are well on their way to being tapped out. Other than the oil shales in Canada, I think oil is in decline. And if oil dries up -- admittedly something not likely for a while but on the horizon -- then no amount of price increases will fill your tank.

If oil goes away there are at least two major problems. One is fuel, of course. The fact that so much of the world depends on oil as an energy source means things are going to grind to a halt in a hurry unless long-term plans are made for alternative sources to take over. The other problem is petroleum-based products, like plastics. We can find alternative energy sources; where are we going to find alternative materials to fill in for all the things currently made of oil-based plastics?

(There's a third problem, namely that contentiousness for an increasingly rare resource now in greater demand than ever is as likely to lead to international conflict as anything. And of course, to paraphrase from the movie "Syriana", two hundred years ago the Arab states were just sand, and when the oil runs out, that's what they're going to return to -- except that now those Arab states are under the influence of questionable demigods who might do who-knows-what when whatever source of prosperity runs out.)

The shift in world political dominance away from the US and Europe and towards India and China is also a long term problem. This is not to say that the US and Europe are going away, just that the stage that they are acting on is now getting crowded (think Marlon Brando and Cary Grant being added to thbe cast of a movie already starring Jimmy Stewart and John Wayne). Getting the balance to make all these actors get along is not going to be easy or fast.

We look to our governments to help sort out and find solutions to these problems. Science, religion, engineers all have their place, but politicians are the prime actors. Unfortunately, politicians have only a short time horizon and rarely seem to act on anything that will last longer than the next election cycle (if that). How can we expect these short-term blowhards to deal with problems whose solutions need to be measured in decades?

Not good, folks, not good.

Obama: The Anti-Christ

Not to get all hellfire and damnation on you, but I have long believed that Obama is the anti-Christ. He came out of no where. He is all things to all people. He may soon hold the most powerful office in the world. One can read into his intention to talk to the Iranians an interest in annihilating Israel.

And let's not forget the Chicago (where Obama currently operates out of) Cubs are possibly heading for the world series this year -- talk about hell freezing over. (GO CUBBIES!)

Has anyone checked his head for 6's?

(I'm tongue in cheek, of course. On the other hand, on inauguration day I don't intend to be driving behind any of those cars with "In case of rapture this car will be empty" bumper stickers -- just in case.)

The Democratic Party seems to be intent on proving that too much democracy is, well, too much.

First there's the super delegates. When the primaries were in full swing no one seemed to know what the super delegates were to use as the basis for their decisions, with the result that they became whatever either candidate wanted them to be. With the primary season over, it still seems that no one knows exactly what the super delegates are supposed to do. Should they follow the lead of the actual voters? Should each super delegate use his/her own judgment? Would flipping a coin do?

Second there is Michigan and Florida. Everyone and their uncle saw this trainwreck coming: once the Dems announced that these two miscreant states were not going to be seated at the convention as punishment for moving up their primaries, you KNEW they would end up bolloxing everything up. And sure enough, it took a meeting of the Dems-in-charge to resolve the problem. Sort of. As with the super delegates, during the primaries Michigan and Florida became whatever the candidates wanted them to be. Of course, both candidates were left to their own devices in campaigning and even being on the ballots in those two states. Why in the world would two of the most populous and important states be completely taken off the map, primary-wise? Were the Dems-in-charge the only ones who knew they opening the door to enormous problems?

If the dems have suffered during this primary season they have only themselves to blame for it. Imagine that Florida and Michigan BOTH went for Hillary, as seems reasonably likely. Wouldn't that have made Hillary a stronger candidate later into the primary season? Wouldn't it have taken the "concede, Hillary" thing off the table? In the long weeks before the Pennsylvania primary Hillary became the runner up. What would have happened if she stayed the co-leader?

As for the super delegates, those have been dangled over our heads for months: at one time Hillary was supposedly going to take the lion's share, then it was Obama. Of course, while the outcome was in doubt and the candidates were still their to be sold, the super delegates themselves had little reason to make their selections known.

What a circus. Sort of reminds me of the 1972 George McGovern debacle, where it seemed like the dems were attempting to become all things to all people with the result that they became nothing to no one.