Saturday, November 20, 2004

Invading a Crack House

This is the second of two entries on the same topic. The other is entitled "Two Birds - One Stone." Originally, they both comprised a single entry, but they grew apart during development. Each one deals with the same topic using different analogies. I like both equally. How about you?

~~~

As many of you know, in 2003 President Bush requested that Congress approve $87 billion for the war in Iraq. That was just the tip of the iceberg, of course. [Some are now (8/26/05) estimating that the total bill could be $800 billion to $1 trillion, a major portion of it being borrowed money.] However, instead of our throwing that huge sum of money down a bottomless rat hole in a foreign desert with very little return on investment, we could instead have used it to defeat terrorism for real and once and for all. How? The answer is deceptively simple: By funding the MANDATORY research and development (on a grand scale) and mass production of LOW-COST vehicles that run on alternative fuels (such as electricity and hydrogen). Mass production would ensure that there is no shortage of such vehicles in the early stages of our nationwide conversion; and their low cost (thanks to that [$800] billion grant) would ensure that millions of Americans could afford to buy them. Estimates show that a certain amount of hybrid vehicles alone (which run on a combination of both gas and electricity) would completely end our need for Middle Eastern oil.

As even the most conservative of "non-conspiracy theorists" might imagine in their most private moments, President Bush (a former oil man from an oil state who owes his soul to oil buddies, not to God, as he would have us believe) and his wealthy friends in the oil industry (including both Americans and Middle Easterners) probably do not want such a transition to occur. Instead, Bush would rather spend hundreds of billions of middle-class taxpayer dollars and also sacrifice the lives of our soldiers in order to keep us reliant on a source of cheap foreign oil [although his elective war in Iraq is playing havoc with the "cheap" part now] that will eventually run out. [Don't even begin to think that I'm saying we went to war in Iraq specifically for its oil. I have no proof of that yet, although I have my incredibly strong beliefs. We did, however, definitely go to war in the Middle East due to our addiction to oil in general. If America had absolutely no need for foreign oil, the Middle East would be about as important to our government as is the country of Bhutan. What? Never heard of Bhutan? Then you get my point.]

An Apt Analogy
Bush's expenditure of hundreds of billions of dollars in Iraq could be compared to a wealthy, upper-class drug addict using his family's vast wealth (and good loan credit) to invade his favorite drug dealer's crack house and hold the dealer hostage in order to ensure an uninterrupted supply of drugs for himself and his relatives. He cannot see the bigger picture beyond his addiction, for it consumes his every waking moment. Not only would the wealthy addict be in constant danger while holding a drug dealer hostage in a bad part of town, but he would also be wasting his family's vast wealth merely to continue an unhealthy addiction that promises only more misery in the future. An intelligent wealthy addict would see the wisdom of using a small portion of his vast wealth to kick the habit once and for all.

Our government's addiction to foreign oil sounds pretty stupid and short-sighed when thought of in those terms, doesn't it?

No comments: