When Waves Break

December 26, 2005
      Last week's blog produced another blizzard of indignant letters on two counts. One bunch scolded me for claiming to admire anything about President Bush (I thought his defense of domestic spying was legitimate). The other castigated me for failing to accept that a US government plot was behind the 9/11 attacks.

      Speaking to the first one: while I think much of the public views 9/11 as just another drama that came over the cable channels, I also think it was an extraordinary injury to the nation in reality, and a huge insult to the professionals in the defense, state, and various intelligence departments. This extraordinary injury and insult has produced extraordinary results -- an unprecedented use of invasive electronic surveillance to desperately try to prevent another such injury. Unlike the Nixon years, no evidence has emerged yet that this spying was directed widely at critics of government policy. If we are listening in on phone conversations and Internet chatter involving jihadists, then that is okay with me.  If this spying were to swing over to critics of the war and the news media on a wholesale basis -- as in the Nixon / Vietnam years -- I'd feel differently about it. But I do not see any evidence that it has. In the meantime, I don't see how it can be avoided.

     Whether it is effective is another matter. All we know is that there hasn't been another incident like 9/11 since 9/11/01 in America. The range of hard and soft targets across this land is immense. Either our government has been working very hard to track the right people, or we have been very lucky, or both. Or perhaps the targets we present in Iraq are more attractive right now. We certainly have plenty of vulnerabilities to be concerned about at home, ranging from the number of uninspected shipping containers coming into US ports, to our leaky borders, to the scores of chemical plants and nuclear reactors, to the hundreds of bridges and tunnels. Anyone can still drive a van packed with fertilizer down K Street in Washington DC, and there are countless shoulder-launched missiles and RPGs loose in this world. Now, all that may be "proof" to the paranoid that terrorist violence only happens when the government lets it happen, but it is not proof of that to me. Which brings us to the next point.

      I regard the 9/11 conspiracy theories as a fantasy and a distraction from the real problems we face. It is especially unfortunate that they became associated with the Peak Oil issue, and that was obviously a result of Mike Ruppert's elaboration of them in his book Across the Rubicon, which brought discredit to his otherwise good reporting on the global oil situation, and tainted others like myself who regard energy as the crucial geopolitical and economic issue of our time. There is enough confusion in this nation without conflating the real concerns over energy with paranoid fantasies about government plots.

     That said, I think the foregoing illustrates the pernicious nature of delusional thinking generally in our highly-stressed society -- and I am as concerned over delusional thinking, delusional behavior, and delusional politics as I am over Peak Oil.

     The day after Christmas the world is very still. But events are churning in the background. I am looking toward reality-based signals to understand what is going on out there: how much oil is actually coming out of the ground around the world, how much unearned money Americans spent in WalMart before Christmas, how many individuals may have decided to not buy a new house in the far-out suburbs this fall because of high heating prices. Next week I'll publish my predictions for 2006. I think we were extremely lucky to get through 2005 without a debacle in the economy, and the financial sector in particular. But the imbalances out there are greater than anything the world has ever seen before and they are working their way through the system slowly like a gigantic pig inside the proverbial python. If we are actually at the all-time oil production peak, then there is still a lot of energy to be fed into this system. The trouble is that we are doing it at the very peak of a gigantic wave, and when waves break things standing on the shore tend to get broken.

Bonus articles: two excellent essays by our Man on Wall Street, Dmitry Podborits. The first is an incisive look at the exurban housing bubble. The second is an excellent essay on the economics of cutting edge solar technology. They run concurrently on Dmitry's website, Live Journal

Comments

[getreal]

Both the Global War on Terror and Peak Oil
are delusions used by the global corporate
fascists to seize power.

James Howard Kunstler is a tool.

[dangerbird]

But, but, but.... but...the....the...the......Waaahhhh!

[getreal]

Why is it that the only outcome
of Peak Oil so far is record profits
for the oil companies?

[John Brown]

Jim, you are sounding more like Rush Limbaugh every week.

Since you bring up Mike Ruppert, I'd have to say that his credibility has your's beaten by a mile at this point.

Please drop the neocon nonsense and get back to writing about the domestic implications of peak oil. It's what you do best.

[mpg]

A few comments on this one.
First the spying - its too soon and many more details will need to come out before the public makes up their mind. We live in a time where the business, legal and government communities feel they need to collect as much information as technologically possible before acting. How is used, sorted, protected and sold? The response by Daschle, Powell and the Judge who resigned suggest its not going over well in DC.
Second - Ruppert - He seems to be one of the people who has a visceral feel for oncoming events. He goes overboard and jumps to conclusions and leaps of logic as events get closer. He would benefit from a patient editor. I don't think his writing unduly taints others. If readers don't want to acknowledge this stuff they will find a way.
Third - Peak Oil=Peak profits - The occurence of one does not disprove the other. Will oil companies try to manipulate events to make profit? Yes. Does that manipulation mean that the planet is not using up oil supplies at an unsustainable pace? No

[Lilli]

Kunstler is lucky he isnt in Syria or Iran waiting for the bombs to drop.

He may have a different view of Bush then.

Kunstler: "Im all right Jack".

[Sipsey]

"If this spying were to swing over to critics of the war and the news media on a wholesale basis -- as in the Nixon / Vietnam years -- I'd feel differently about it. But I do not see any evidence that it has. In the meantime, I don't see how it can be avoided"

You don't see any evidence that it has? How exactly would you expect to "see" such evidence? Where exactly is the line that, once crossed, would signal danger to you?

How about this: how about the Bush administration adheres to the law? Or, if they feel that there is a gray area, they could err on the side of the law. After all, all they need is for an office flunky to fill out some paperwork and they're in the clear. Why is this too much bother?

As to terrorist attacks on our soil: we have not been hit again because Al Qaeda/whoever has decided not to. As you yourself said, JHK, there are plenty of shoulder-launched missiles floating around. It's exceedingly difficult, in the classic sense, to defend against terrorism; that's why it is unfortunately an effective tool.

As to 9/11 conspiracies: I consider myself a conspiracy skeptic, but there are several things about 9/11 that just don't pass the smell test.

[Deb]

"All we know is that there hasn't been another incident like 9/11 since 9/11/01 in America... Either our government has been working very hard to track the right people, or we have been very lucky, or both... I regard the 9/11 conspiracy theories as a fantasy and a distraction from the real problems we face."

No one who has ever observed Uncle Sam's security skills(e.g., an airport) up close and personal can believe the lack of terrorist attacks since 9/11 is due to his effectiveness. No one who understands Probability & Statistics 101 can believe it's luck. BY FAR, the most plausible explanation for the lack of 9/11 Jrs. is that we were misled about the cause of 9/11. The strongest (although by no means the only) evidence in support of Michael Ruppert et al's views is the lack of suicide bombings in the US post-9/11. If Osaddama was smart enough to convince a dozen guys who'd made it into the US to get blown to smithereens for Allah, wouldn't he save a couple to send to malls, subways, etc. in the fragile weeks afterwards?

John Brown is right. Kunstler's mindlessness re: 9/11 is shocking and disturbing in light of his brilliance re: peak oil.

[bud4wiser]

You, know, I don't see any reason why anything about energy consumption should or would change, PO, or not.

Currently, thousands of people starve and die of disease because developing countries inability to provide clean water and reliable agricultural production.

Since globalization will "even out" the quality of life among the disparate nations of the world, I can forsee that many governments of developed nations will accept the necessity of letting many of their poorer people freeze or live in the cold without regard to the relative benefits of conserving resources through any mannner BUT the free market........

The current antics of America's corporate leaders are proof enough of how the PO scenario will play out. The fact that the government responds only to monied interests guarantees that no meaningful energy conservation or regulation will ever come about.

The best use of energy - is ANY use, at the prevailing price of course......

[Marbo]

"If we are listening in on phone conversations and Internet chatter involving jihadists, then that is okay with me.  If this spying were to swing over to critics of the war and the news media on a wholesale basis -- as in the Nixon / Vietnam years -- I'd feel differently about it. But I do not see any evidence that it has. In the meantime, I don't see how it can be avoided."

A major problem with your position, Jim, is that any evidence of the abuses you don't see, but which may nevertheless be occurring, relies entirely on people inside the surveillance program leaking it — i.e., people who are willing to risk their careers and freedom in the hope that popular outrage will force the government to stop. The power which Bush asserts in authorizing this program, and which you validate, admits of no countervailing authority to hold it in check.

Further, no evidence has yet been adduced showing either that the minimal safeguards in the FISA court process have — or would have — hampered legitimate intelligence gathering, or that bypassing that process has enabled the NSA to obtain evidence, otherwise unobtainable, that prevented a terrorist act.

Don't you think it's premature to be siding with an administration that has been, in other respects, demonstrably reckless and overreaching in its assertions of executive power?

[Bushwick]

C'mon, Jim, you have to admit that the PNAC "new Pearl Harbor" stuff, the cabal's close relationship with the Bin Laden family, and the NEPDG's carving up Iraq at the beginning of the administration at least makes you think twice. These are the energy policy documents that were released. Can you imagine what we are now allowed to see?
http://www.judicialwatch.org/IraqOilMap.pdf
http://www.judicialwatch.org/IraqOilGasProj.pdf
http://www.judicialwatch.org/IraqOilFrgnSuitors.pdf

[johnkinmontreal]

I find myself progressively more disappointed each week with Mr. Kunstler's Clusterfucks. I began by looking forward to his Monday morning pieces with great anticipation. However, in recent weeks, his articles appear to lack the insights & incisiveness that had drawn me to his writings in the first place. What gives, Jim…losing that ‘fire in the belly’?

Mr. Kunstler refers to Michael Ruppert - at this point, I would be much more likely to pay attention to Mr. Ruppert’s take on unfolding events & trends than Jim Kunstler’s rather lame meanderings. Will you soon be relegated to the journalistic equivalent of muzak, Jim? And, worse still, does this mean that I can look forward to more & more forays into MOR territory in my own aging journey?!

[travy]

the whitehouse could've gotten warrants after the fact and they didn't. pretty clearly they thought they would be refused because what they were doing was so outrageous. spying on terrorists isn't outrageous...

[Dan Carmell]

Mr. Kunstler:

Your blog led me to read "The Geography of Nowhere" and "The Long Emergency," both of which I found illuminating in the details and the POV. Your exposition of the peak oil theory has changed my own viewpoint regarding the near future of this country. And I share much of your concern for the malaise of today's consumerism.

However, when you excuse what is very likely a sweeping unconstitutional domestic surveilance program by saying it is necessary, I wonder if you have forgotten your own ideas of what made this country a better place--or if I have misunderstood your thesis in this respect. Principles honored, from constitutional restraints on power to an individual's word and handshake are a part of what once distinguished at least the ideals of this country. To sweep that away in the name of expediency is shameful.

Better the Federal Government take actual, concrete steps to protect vulnerable parts of our infrastructure, such as chemical plants, than they spy on your and my emails and phone calls.

Sincerely, Dan Carmell, San Leandro, CA (sitting right atop the Hayward Fault but it's warmer here than Saratoga Springs!)

[feetOnGround]

Conspiracy theories fail by application of Occam's Razor. Simple bungling is the correct interpretation. JHK is right.

[tom]

Kunstler, you just don't get it. No one is saying we shouldn't be spying, given some degree of probability that we are in danger. People are complaining about the fact that this was done illegally. People are complaining because they want to live in a country where the Prez is not above the law. Since we can't possibly know whether we are being spied upon, the fact that this is being done has a chilling effect on free speech, which includes what we say in e-mails, telephone calls, and on blogs.

If we have to depend upon the integrity of Bush, and not respect for the law, we are in trouble.

If we have energy and security, and no liberty, it's not worth living in this country.

Believing that what the administration has done explains no attacks since 9/11 is simply naive. We had long periods of no attacks prior to 9/11. Was that a function of vigilance. And how were we so successful without the patriot act and illegal spying?

Most of the jihadists are not stupid enough to use electronic communications. When they do use cells phones, they use throwaway ones.

If you're freedom is subject to the whim of the Bush administration, you are in trouble.

You rightly criticize the view that the so called American way of life is inviolable. And yet, you seemed to think that security trumps all. If we are to have some freedom, we must take some risks.

[Shep]

"I regard the 9/11 conspiracy theories as a fantasy and a distraction from the real problems we face. It is especially unfortunate that they became associated with the Peak Oil issue, and that was obviously a result of Mike Ruppert's elaboration of them in his book Across the Rubicon, which brought discredit to his otherwise good reporting on the global oil situation, and tainted others like myself who regard energy as the crucial geopolitical and economic issue of our time."

Sorry, Jim. Your attempt to clean up last week's mess of a post has failed miserably.

9/11 is inextricably linked to Peak Oil. It was orchestrated in order to create a platform to invade countries with oil. Its as simple as that. Without 9/11, there would have been zero support for an invasion of Iraq - or Afghanistan, for that matter.

As others have already stated, Mike Ruppert has far, far more credibility on this subject than you have. At this point you're pretty much in no-man's land, and given the trend of your postings, it isn't by any means a sure thing that you'll ever find your way out.

Please stick to reporting strictly on Peak Oil. This foray into lame interpretations of current foreign policy is killing both your blog and your credibility.

[Dave]

The silence of the day after the consumption orgy is welcome and JHK is correct in urging that we take advantage of it and listen to ourselves and this maddeningly complex and precious world. In silence there is healing and knowledgewhich we will despertately need in the year ahead and that knowledgecan be found nowhere else but in the silence of within. Happy Solstice meditations fellow bloggers Dave

[Remy]

Dunno what universe you live in Kunstler, but there's been lots of evidence of spying on Quakers, peace activists, etc.

In a nation touting itself as being under the 'rule of law' why not follow the law? Is Bush excepted?

[Sam]

You've become (or always were) a self-satisfied, smug, arrogant loud mouth, unable or unwilling to see points of view at odds with your own deluded thinking.

You need to get out more and listen more carefully to what is actually happening. Your PO worldview is limited and distorted from reality.

Delusional thinking I think you called it.

[bud4wiser]

JK,

You had better "listen-up". These crack-pots are making some valid points with respect to appeasing, or accepting the lawlessness of the Bush regime.

I'd tell you what's really going on, but my wife works for the CIA and well, you know, things could happen....

[Lilli]

I think the wave has broken in Iraq anyway. 1000 complaints over the election.

It was Bushlers Last Chance. I think the neo-con dream is over.

[Mike]

Well, well.

Tough afternoon for Jim. The peoples is angry! I'll still read what he has to say, and enjoy his forays into whatever topic, from whatever political system, he feels like.

But as to any defense of Bush & his tiptoeing though the laws, something doesn't smell right. It's not so much an issue of whether he technically broke the law or violated the constitution. These things matter obviously, and we have to find out what happened. But, ironically, those detail-oriented analyses are a distraction from the bigger problem.

We're talking about the President. Who we just keep finding wriggling, bending & twisting to evade & defang questions of honesty or morality or respect for the Rule of Law.

It's bad for him, bad for the country, bad for our reputation. If the President believes a policy is good, he should back it openly & aggressively. If it's a poor or illegal policy he should dig deep & find a legally acceptable path that still gets the job done. Nobody said his job is easy.

The Adminstration should vet its own actions as it plans. It should make sure its moves meet constitutional & statutory muster. And if they don't then go to congress to change or repeal statutes or directives that defeat the policy. That's how a tripartite government works!

That's how the American government works. But our history is filled with these shortcuts that end up undercutting good policy, undermining legacies, and unecessarily splitting society along polical lines.

Why would we want to go down the same road here? Bush has to ask himself if he believes in his own policies. If he does, then he should get his act together, stop looking at the law as an inconvenience to be skirted, and fight for America's interests & protection within the confines of the established governmental system. It works.

And if he can't play by those rules, he's unfit for his office and should be removed.

[Arch.Stanton]

Sometimes I can't help but feel that the 'terrorists' either don't exist or are incredibly incompetent.

The shenanigans on 9-11 aside (which I imagine succeeded beyond OBL's wildest dreams...you can just see those guys high-fiving each other watching the coverage before they got back to watching reruns of 'The Simpsons'), the lack of terrorist acts in the US implies more an unwillingness or just flat inability by the bad guys.

I mean, really, how hard is it to take $10,000 in beer money and a deer rifle and run around the US raising hell? You want to close down the airlines? Just shoot a few handheld surface-air missiles in the LAX approach and leave the casings lying around. The mere act of doing it has more far reaching effects than actually hitting something in this case.

It would be nice if the intelligence and police agencies in this country managed to surgically deal with all bad people, but my guess is that the good guys are fairly incompetent (like any large organization) and the bad guys are just horrendously incompetent.

My apologies in advance to the GS-8 at the current version of ECHELON that has to read these blogs.

[Barry]

Again, Mike's right 'on the money.'
If government appears not able to be fully 'transparent' (which, of course, it cannot always do in times of great peril), it is still in the best interest of the state (that you and I and every other citizen of this country) to heed the call to 'eternal vigilance' lest the aspirations we've so long worked toward be usurped and perverted. I think it not unreasonable for the American public and Congress, in particular, to investigate the allegations and their 'legality' - and, I agree solidly that "if he can't play by those rules, he's unfit for his office and should be removed."