(January 29, 2007)
[If you want your letters to be published, you must include your first and last names and your city and state of residence. Also, please, enter in the subject line of your e-mail "letter to the editor," and specify the article or the subject on which you are commenting.]
A Brilliant Editorial? Gilles d'Aymery's Oil, The Elites, And The Commons
That's a brilliant editorial, Mr. d'Aymery. When I first read Secretary Gates's remarks, my reaction was, but of course, this is bi-partisan foreign policy. If we shift our focus from Iraq (where the Democrats are happy to let the Bush debacle get worse and worse), to the whole Middle East, we realize that "strong US presence" in the region has been our national policy for decades. Nothing will change when the Democrats regain the Presidency in 2008.
Some people would say, though, that the marriage of Bush's ignorance, insecurity, and grandiosity, coupled with neocon Machiavellianism, could interrupt the long era of relative stability in the Middle East, and crack it apart into a world-wide depression and Holy War. You can't blame people for being alarmed about that. However, you are right to say that avoiding that outcome is merely returning us to the status quo.
Others say, plausibly, that the arrival of China and India as major actors in the economic scene means that we are entering an era of oil scarcity, regardless of the reality of Peak Oil, and that the unavoidable result of that will be "resource wars," of which Iraq (or Yugoslavia) is the first. This point of view actually reinforces your observations, by underlining the catastrophic costs of continuing in the same old direction with the same old concepts of what makes a prosperous society.
My favorite comment of the last year came from a conservative writer who said, "we should wish for a humbler foreign policy." That in turn implies a humbler way of life. I think you are pointing to that, when you call for "new paradigms" and "new narratives."
Sausalito, California, USA - January 16, 2007
P.S. My advice to Mr. Marowitz: if you are not going to write The Great American Novel, at least write some American novel. I haven't seen any prose form yet you've tried your hand at that you haven't succeeded at.
Not so Brilliant, after all: Gilles d'Aymery's Oil, The Elites, and The Commons
Dear Mr. d'Aymery,
You end "Oil, The Elites, and The Commons" by stating: "No new paradigm. No new narrative. No real alternative. Sanity deserves better from the commons."
I am sure you understand that the Preamble to our Constitution has certain precepts with which to measure our laws. These are possibly the sanest principles we have.
Purpose 1------form a more perfect unionEverything below this line is a creation of the People; none of the systems are greater than the People; each creation has a duty to the People, not vice versa.
Sub-System 1-------Congressional Branch makes lawsAnd on and on for sub-sub-systems until we reach all of them down to local police.
What your article assumed was that the elites and their ancient hierarchies know best even in a constitutional republic supposedly democratic. The autocratic crept in with the personhood of corporations.
That being said, you claim that we are wealthier for ignoring the Preamble and letting elites having their head to run rampant with war, death, stealing other countries resources, and remaking the world in the elite image by permitting sub-system 2 above to usurp its place in our world by rising above the rest of us because of money.
That money has now made the entire population worse off, not better. The top percent earn obscene amounts of money using corporate monies they earned from us. Now, we have lost ground. We will soon be a Third World country due to this 20-30 year foresight on world destruction. They want to put more nuclear dust in the air and kill more millions because, Sir, the world is overpopulated with spoiled shoppers now.
Sanity is in nurturing the planet for the benefit of the future children. Sanity is caring that the radioactive waste from elite passions does not do what it is doing to our soldiers. They cannot come home because the outcry will be too terrible considering their injuries and the defective children they will father from our elites 1500 tons of depleted uranium in Iraq alone in the atmosphere.
Sanity is small independent groups inventing better everything and spreading it. By that I mean alternative possibilities, which the elite have no intention of funding. Solar energy does not help them; but, it would help us.
Sanity is not paving over the planet. Sanity is not cutting wildlife habitat and cutting off wildlife from habitat. Sanity is not dumping the tons and tons of refuse into the oceans. Sanity is not having drugs flushed into the aquifers. Sanity is limiting family by choice.
I could go on and on.
Individual humans always are human and seem sincere when mouthing the most atrocious deaths on others, such as Madame Albright and the children of Iraq during the bombings to starve the population of its legitimate needs. There are hundreds of other examples amongst the elites for killing any or all of us for profit and their "practical solutions."
If we go back to the Preamble and sanely put laws in place that match it, we will be better off than having Donald Rumsfeld, Madam Albright, or the Bush pretenders to the "throne." I ask you, what does "the common defence" mean? Or, what does "to establish justice" mean? Gulags, the CIA, torture, lack of trial by a jury and actual charges in a timely manner? Does it mean spying on citizens? Does it mean filling prisons with people the elites do not like? What does "provide for the general welfare" mean? Does it mean to rob the People blind by privatizing everything for profit without doing what the contract says? Is taking our taxes for wealth for the already wealthy seem sane to you while our people get poorer and sicker?
Finally, how does this secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity? The elites are securing those blessings solely unto themselves. They are not the only People; they are a tiny fraction; yet, your article favors them and the bogus fourth estate we have now in the news. Five major companies as media are not the fourth estate. Why rely on them for information?
My ancestor was Samuel Adams (an ancient uncle) and he disputes your points about the People and the elites. The People have been too busy and distracted for at least 230 years while those with means and money plot their own betterment against all the rest of us and the wildlife on the planet to boot. My rich brother wants to get on a spaceship and go to the nearest star and start over. He didn't realize it would take 400 years and he'd never get there; plus, he's old and would need to reproduce on the ship. He never considered that there might not be technology to rescue the ship if there was a failure or twenty. We, I told him, will not be there to help.
The rich are not sane; the rich are no brighter than anyone else (70% average, too); the rich buy opinions, lackeys, look down on the rest of humanity, and feel the cost of another's life "is worth it." Sane? No, and neither was your article.
Yamhill, Oregon, USA - January 15, 2007
Carol Christen follows up:
Dear Mr. d'Aymery,
Thank you, too, for clearing up my misunderstanding of your article. And, thank you for calling my letter "eloquent" and offering me a chance to participate in Swans. You see, I was so taken with the issues of Swans that I was astonished your piece disturbed me. At first, I was going to unsubscribe. After deleting Swans, I retrieved it and reread it. The rest is history. I will study how to write for your group.
I have spent untold hours and years editing college papers, business letters, etc. I am sure I was born an editor. Lately, though, I have been extremely interested in the Preamble's ideas, which our country seems to have bypassed. I even have an article rewriting it to reflect how the elites might wish it written.
Anyway, I apologize for misreading your article and thank you for the good words.
Thank you, again,
[ed. Mrs. Christen's work has been published on ThomasPainesCorner.com. Her latest increment, The True Measure of Our Constitution - "1997", published on January 5, 2007, is worthy of readers' attention. . . . . Also, following this and subsequent exchange of e-mails, Mrs. Christen sent her first excellent contribution that is published in this issue. So, from misunderstanding to co-operation...this is what it ought to be, but rarely is. Thank you Carol!]
Even Worse, Swans is Pentagon-funded... We'll let the readers judge: Gilles d'Aymery's Oil, The Elites, and The Commons
To the Editor:
If I ever had any doubts that your depressing Web site is anything other than a trojan horse against any forceful resistance to this evil empire, your last cowardly and collaborationist article dispelled them. Many of us never really "benefited" from your pathetic oligarchy to which you pretend to draft us in partnership.
I will tell friends and associates about what you really represent, a wolf in sheep's clothing, like The Nation and other "progressive" sell-outs, many of whom probably work for the Pentagon and its bloodsoaked fascists.
What makes your rationales that different from the Nazis defense of lebensraum? Go to Hell, gringo.
We're on to your lies.
Dr. R Robainas
January 22, 2007
Gilles d'Aymery follows up:
No problem, Sir. You are entitled to your opinions. However, to have them published on Swans, I need to know your full name and your city/state of residence. Please let me know.
No to Capitalism: Gilles d'Aymery's Oil, The Elites, and The Commons
To the Editor:
I concur. Here, in England, there is a huge emphasis on recycling, perhaps even recycling as much as 30% of waste. As if that's even impressive and as if it is a cure to the endless consumption of Capitalism. I have this to say on the matter:
Why all the emphasis on recycling? Reduce and re-use come first in the three r's for a good reason, they make more difference and are more important when it comes to reducing waste. Even if we did recycle 20% of our rubbish if the amount of rubbish created increases by anything more than 20% things will still be getting worse, waste will still be increasing. Why is there not more focus and support for reducing and re-using? And if you tell me it's the economy (must keep growing, must keep selling) and jobs (must keep making, must keep advertising), I won't listen, repairing and servicing goods could and must become a huge industry.
However, I hope that capitalism might work if we make the right choices. But it will require bravery and an end to mindless production, consumption, and waste.
I do believe ethical techno-socialism should be given a try.
Norwich, United Kingdom - January 24, 2007
Still the Problems (and Potential Solutions) are out there: World Oil & Energy Research
To the Editor:
The attached Web site, MZ-Energy.com, contains important energy research and involves the processing of 11% Hydrogen from ocean water; Hydrogen has almost 3 times the power of gasoline; Hydrogen Regeneration; Nuclear Radiation Containment; Gasoline Evaporation for Cars; Air Pollution Control for Coal Fired Electric Power Plants, Steel Mills, Refineries, Chemical Plants, Foundries, Cement Plants, Vacuum Chamber Wall Construction for homes, apartments, stores, office buildings, schools, hospitals, manufacturing buildings, warehouses.
Please download and read the entire Web site. Also, I have requested government funding for my disclosed energy research and products. Disclosure was sent to 86 senators and 271 congressmen. The Department of Energy disclosed that the conversion to new energy sources would require several decades and several trillion dollars. These energy products are most important toward energy independence and can extend and replace fossil fuel.
Publication is authorized.
With best regards,
Canby, Oregon, USA - January 15, 2007
Impeach Bush? An Interview with Bruce Fein, a conservative constitutional lawyer
Over the past year I've done quite a few shows that included the topic of impeachment. But in all honesty this conversation, with the conservative constitutional lawyer Bruce Fein, is head and shoulders above the rest. Bruce is unflinching in his critique of the president's tyrannical abuses of power and spirited and full of insights into the constitutional process in the bargain.
As a non-lawyer who's paid a great deal of attention to the Constitution over the years I am surprised to say that I really learned a lot.
I hope you have time to listen,
The podcast entry is here:
Bethesda, Maryland, USA - January 26, 2007
A Better Way to Die, Legs notwithstanding?
Hey Monsieur d'Aymery,
Funny that as I write about energy policies, you come up with the Gordean Knot of energies policies, one which no one wants to address. As we say, les grands esprits se rencontrent, even if they/we are petiots (though all similarities stop right there -- see my legs and have a look a yours). Here, we are fast at work to cleverly find a way to keep out the Russian Bear from its inconsistent deliveries of black gold and smelly gases. Old Gaullists would tell you that we should bet our marbles with Russia -- the Euro-Asia Axis. Euro-Atlanticism will carry the way, I'm afraid (cf. Sarkozy, who, I'm sure, no one cares about in your beautiful and insular country). It goes and goes, like your batteries of fame.
The old bag lady used to say that you should always remain vigilant. Even though she was talking about editing (a job your Janie and you are good at, reasonably so to speak), would it not be nice were we all remain vigilant about the future and all the beautiful legs and pussies that will undoubtedly perdure beyond my own? Tough luck.
Too bad the old lady ended up off the cliff in whatever Toyota or Honda she (he) was driving. There are better ways to die. Think global warming.
Still looking for the perfect fit -- the Google man did not carry much water. Be lucky; you have your Janie -- but I still have my legs!
Allez, bon vent. Give 'em hell.
Paris, France - January 22, 2007
We appreciate and welcome your comments. Please, enter in the subject line of your e-mail "letter to the editor," and specify the article or the subject you are commenting on at the beginning of your e-mail. Also, ***PLEASE,*** sign your e-mail with your name ***AND*** add your city, state, country, address, and phone number. If we publish your opinion we will only include your name, city, state, and country. Send your comments to the Editor. (Letters may be shortened and edited)