Playing Mini-Ball

It's somehow become incredibly gauche to point this out, but most indications are that either George W. Bush isn't very bright and doesn't really understand the issues he's dealing with. Take this excerpt from Robert Draper's new book:

"The job of the president," he continued, through an ample wad of bread and sausage, "is to think strategically so that you can accomplish big objectives. As opposed to playing mini-ball. You can't play mini-ball with the influence we have and expect there to be peace. You've gotta think, think BIG. The Iranian issue," he said as bread crumbs tumbled out of his mouth and onto his chin, "is the strategic threat right now facing a generation of Americans, because Iran is promoting an extreme form of religion that is competing with another extreme form of religion. Iran's a destabilizing force. And instability in that part of the world has deeply adverse consequences, like energy falling in the hands of extremist people that would use it to blackmail the West. And to couple all of that with a nuclear weapon, then you've got a dangerous situation. ... That's what I mean by strategic thought. I don't know how you learn that.

Draper's being mean about the food. But Bush isn't misspeaking here or making some gaffes. He's laying out the view that Iran is a strategic threat to a generation of Americans. The nature of this threat is that Iran is a "destabilizing force" and that this destabilizing force is threatening because instability in that part of the world could lead to oil fields coming under the control of "extremist people" who "would use it to blackmail the West." Long story short, his entire vision of the strategic threat from Iran is driven by fear of the oil weapon.

Do we think Bush has rigorously studied the considerable discussion of this issue in the policy community? After all, for Iran -- or even a new "Greater Iran" that's extended its influence over Iraq -- to attempt to blackmail us with its control over oil supplies would be the equivalent of me threatening to chop my head off and then bludgeon you with it. What's more, as a means of hedging against the risk of Iranian irrationality, massively expensive military engagement in the Persian Gulf seems like a poor choice. Why not instead invest hundreds of billions in alternative energy research? Research that would prove useful not only in the unlikely event that Iran tries to blackmail us, but also just in terms of cleaner air.

Comments

> Draper's being mean about the food.

In my dealings with software suppliers I find that it is the small things in the early days of the selection and purchase process that are the most telling indicators of how the overall implementation and operation of the software will work out from the business perspective. So no, I don't think the detail about the food was in there by accident or to be mean - that type of offensive behavior ("think you can rustle up some cheeseburgers?") is quite telling of W.

Cranky

Posted by Cranky Observer | September 5, 2007 10:38 AM

I remember that one of the many Eric Alterman smarmy moments was how dismissive he was of us lesser fools on the fringe left who kept saying that Bush Jr. was stupid and how we placed all of us at peril by saying so.

How'd that work out? Were all us crazy DFH's proven wrong again? What's that? No? Hmmm, how about that.

Posted by El Cid | September 5, 2007 10:44 AM

"...strategic thought. I don't know how you learn that."

The most honest thing I've heard from Bush in some time.

Posted by Ian | September 5, 2007 10:45 AM

Iran's a danger because of oil. So, we're busy killing ourselves to install a Shiite theocracy in Iraq.

That's what I mean by strategic thought. I don't know how you learn that.

Posted by Jeffrey Davis | September 5, 2007 10:46 AM

"to attempt to blackmail us with its control over oil supplies would be the equivalent of me threatening to chop my head off and then bludgeon you with it."

Perhaps a little of that nuance lefties pride themselves on is in order here. It's true that even a hostile oil-producing state will want to sell its oil. But that state's oil can still be used as a weapon indirectly: oil money could be used to fund terrorist proxies (e.g., Hezbollah) or to finance the building of a nuke. As an added bonus, the fear stoked by the nuke program and terrorist proxies increases the price of oil, which provides more cash for nukes and terrorists, u.s.w.

Posted by Juan | September 5, 2007 10:54 AM

that state's oil can still be used as a weapon indirectly: oil money could be used to fund terrorist proxies (e.g., Hezbollah) or to finance the building of a nuke.

Or they could build nukes and/or finance terrorism with the funds they already have. The amount of money required to do so is trivial for an Iran-sized state--regardless of the price of oil.

Posted by James Gary | September 5, 2007 11:05 AM

Leaving aside whether Hezbollah is a strategic threat to the West (hint: no) and other aspects of your post, Juan, that doesn't work as a defense of Bush. You say that a state can use its oil (its money, really) as a weapon in various ways, none of which consist of blackmailing us with control over their oil. So Bush's talk of "energy falling in the hands of extremist people that would use it to blackmail the West" won't fly, will it?

Posted by Matt Weiner | September 5, 2007 11:07 AM

" . . . most indications are that either George W. Bush isn't very bright and doesn't really understand the issues he's dealing with."

Ding, ding, ding! What does he win, Johnny?

If I was on a job, any job, for six years, I would be able to speak intelligently and persuasively about whatever that job entailed. The fact that our Boy King can't is all the proof I need that he isn't very bright and doesn't really understand the issues he's dealing with.

Posted by Greg VA | September 5, 2007 11:16 AM

Yes to all the actual strategic stuff, of course, but am I the only one who's bothered by his use of the phrase "mini-ball" when what he's referencing -- albeit improperly and obliquely -- is clearly "small-ball"?

It'd be less problematic, too, if he wasn't the former *owner of a baseball team.*

Posted by AJ in DC | September 5, 2007 11:17 AM

" Long story short, his entire vision of the strategic threat from Iran is driven by fear of the oil weapon.

Long story shorter: Mercantile imperialism. (No moral judgments implied; I'm probably more OK with that as a policy than I should be.)

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | September 5, 2007 11:20 AM

Perhaps a little of that nuance lefties pride themselves on is in order here. It's true that even a hostile oil-producing state will want to sell its oil. But that state's oil can still be used as a weapon indirectly: oil money could be used to fund terrorist proxies (e.g., Hezbollah) or to finance the building of a nuke. As an added bonus, the fear stoked by the nuke program and terrorist proxies increases the price of oil, which provides more cash for nukes and terrorists, u.s.w

That accurately describes al Qaeda's current strategy vis a vis Saudi Arabia. An emboldened Iran could conceivably act as a counter weight to Saudi hegemony.

Posted by Tom | September 5, 2007 11:21 AM

Aj-- that was my thought as well! Maybe mini-ball is a less well known alternative term? Never heard it used though.

But on the substance, Bush's misreading of the strategic situation is unfortunately incredibly compelling to a lot of people who don't stop to think too deeply about it. We need oil, so why should be let a bunch of crazy people have all the oil? The cost-benefit analysis and opportunity costs associated with a war (hey, what ELSE might we do to address oil dependency with half a trillion dollars????) are not considered, nor is the reality of the oil market ("we just need to stop buying our oil from the middle east then!"). The idea that we should go and "get" Iraq's and Iran's oil makes a lot of sense to a lot of people, and Bush's handlers know that. Hell, they sold Bush on the idea in the first place.

Posted by Jeff in Texas | September 5, 2007 11:27 AM

Of course, you might also consider that the terrorist movement developed as a response to the fucking the Islamic people have endured under the puppet regimes of Big Oil.

But anybody so dishonest as to LIE to the country in a time of national crisis -- to tell the American people that Sept 11 occurred because "they hate our freedom" -- is capable of anything.

The problem , of course, in not that George Bush and Dick Cheney are bald-faced liars.

It is that no Democratic leader has had the balls to come out and point that out to the American people.

Our Democratic leaders are like the craven wife of a drunken, abusive father who beats his family. A timid wife who makes excuses, remains silent, and helps the husband cover up his crimes.

And the rest of us are the poor fucking children.

Posted by Don Williams | September 5, 2007 11:30 AM

Junior, may be a fool [okay, probably a fool], but it matters little, he's Cheney's fool and Cheney is doing what Republicans want.

The "smart" Democrats have chosen to wait it out by not starting impeachment of Cheney. Cheney has a free hand for 1.3 years, if I understand the plan, it's to hand the next president a mess so large that all four years of the next presidency will be spent untangling the wires, with a subsequent loss in 2012.

Posted by S Brennan | September 5, 2007 11:36 AM

Do we think Bush has rigorously studied the considerable discussion of this issue in the policy community? After all, for Iran -- or even a new "Greater Iran" that's extended its influence over Iraq -- to attempt to blackmail us with its control over oil supplies would be the equivalent of me threatening to chop my head off and then bludgeon you with it.

Matt you continue to show an extraordinary level of faith in various pet theories that purport to explain the iron economic impossibility of oil being used as a weapon, theories which seem to fit rather uncomfortably with the empirical reality that oil already has been used as a weapon in the past.

And whenever the subject of oil comes up, you seem to forget the fact that countries have long-term strategic interests that sometimes go beyond the short term maximization of profit through trade. Perhaps it's all that hobnobbing with libertarians, but you have a touching Econ 101 faith in the permanence and integrity of textbook-style free markets and the universality of the most strict and narrow form of profit motive.

But even assuming the enduring continuity and security of free market oil trade, it is still the case that the amount of oil available to us in the future, our susceptibility to tactical embargoes, the price we pay for that oil, and the degree to which what we pay for it gets recycled back into our own economy all depend a great deal on who owns the oil, who holds the concessions to pump it, who owns the pipelines, where those pipelines dump their output, and which global security bosses provide the protection for these networks of fields and pipelines and the countries through which they flow.

The point you should emphasize is that the way to deal with these potential threats is to promote stability, a balance of power, and healthy, normal relations with all of the states in the region. Picking favorites, promoting destabilizing Cold War-style rivalries and engaging in chaos-producing interventions to get rid of "extremist people" is not a good strategy for oil security.

In the long term, of course, the best strategy is to drastically reduce our economic dependence on petroleum, from whatever source.

Posted by Dan Kervick | September 5, 2007 11:36 AM

> theories which seem to fit rather uncomfortably
> with the empirical reality that oil already has
> been used as a weapon in the past.

Which means it _will_ happen again no matter what we do. Leaving us with the choices of (a) ignoring the problem and dealing with it when it hits [the preferred US approach (b) get to work now on reducing our dependence on oil 80% [something we will have to do anyway starting around 2030].

Which is better for big-dollar political sponsors? OK, I know which path we will choose. Too bad for my kids.

Cranky

Posted by Cranky Observer | September 5, 2007 11:43 AM

You know, that quote demonstrates a lot more clarity than I would have given Bush. When he says: "instability in that part of the world has deeply adverse consequences", he is absolutely right. The problem is that by his own measure- strategic vision- the Bush presidency has been a disaster. In a vacuum, there is nothing wrong with this quote. But he speaks as though he is not personally responsible for subtantially increasing the instability in the middle east. That is what makes him look like an idiot.

SCMT- its not mercantilism to try and prevent war from disrupting vital supply lines. Nor to prevent illiberal regimes from manipulating prices to hurt your economy or to extract concessions. Free trade is a two way street and it would be naive to think it was a liberal mindset to not regard it as a matter of national interest who controlled the world's most valuable resources. It is imperialistic to use war to advance any and all of our national interests, however.

Posted by mpowell | September 5, 2007 11:45 AM

And I more or less agree with Dan Kervick, whose post I missed.

Posted by mpowell | September 5, 2007 11:54 AM

Bush is a Civil War scholar and was actually referring to Minie balls.

Posted by KCinDC | September 5, 2007 12:04 PM

Read the Bush quotes but as though Funnyman Jon Stewart were saying them (a la his lame-yet-somehow-endearing impression). Not only is Commander Bunnypants an unqualified dumbass, he's sailed irretrievably beyond self-parody.

Posted by ed | September 5, 2007 12:11 PM

I know this is an oil thread, but I'm more bothered by the statement that "Iran is promoting an extreme form of religion that is competing with another extreme form of religion." Which religion does Bush think is competing with Iran? If Bush refers to Sunni extremism, doesn't taking Shia Iran out leave the field wide open for Sunni/Wahabism? Does he think that form would be friendlier to the US? Or is fundamentalist Christianity the competition? Either way, it's apparent his 'strategic thinking' doesn't penetrate more than one enemy at a time.

Posted by Karen | September 5, 2007 12:12 PM

. . . am I the only one who's bothered by his use of the phrase "mini-ball" when what he's referencing -- albeit improperly and obliquely -- is clearly "small-ball"?

What, he fancies himself a home-run hitter and disdains advancing the runner, even though he's hitting well below the Mendoza Line? And he thinks that's "thinkiing strategically"?

But of course, we're talking about the guy whose high point in baseball was that he got an aging, kneeless Harold Baines from the White Sox in return for Scott Fletcher--and he only had to throw in Sammie Sosa to make the deal.

Posted by rea | September 5, 2007 12:22 PM

All this discussion proves is that the entire US foreign policy in the Middle East is about oil. The invasion of Iraq was about oil, the support of the Saudi Arabian dictatorship is about oil, the dispute with Iran is about oil. Unless and until the dependence of the Western World on Middle East Oil is greatly lessened, we will continue to be plagued with the problems in that most unstable part of the world.

Posted by SLC | September 5, 2007 12:23 PM

How did our oil get under their sand?

Posted by CJColucci | September 5, 2007 12:39 PM

How did our oil get under their sand?

Posted by CJColucci | September 5, 2007 12:39 PM

re: Don William's comment--

I've been saying for years that Bush was the drunken, abusive stepfather I never had. But that makes him family, and if you don't support your family, then who are you gonna support?

Posted by jlw | September 5, 2007 12:44 PM

Bush understands baseball about as well as he understands foreign policy. There is no built in advantage for teams playing large ball over those playing small ball. Ultimately, you just need to score more runs than you give up - and you can do that by hitting a lot of HRs or by having stellar pitching and defense. In fact, teams with awesome pitching usually have the advantage in the playoffs because dominant pitching usually prevails over excellent hitting.

Bush is like a manager who thinks his team needs to hit a lot of HRs and doesn't give a shit about the pitching.

Posted by blah | September 5, 2007 12:44 PM

Bush doesn’t strike me as stupid. He’s not particularly articulate, but I don’t think he has less innate intelligence than say, Gore or Kerry. I believe they all had similar SAT scores, in fact. But he is spectacularly ill-informed, and seemingly has never learned how to think critically. It’s quite depressing that such a person can end up being president.

One other interesting thing: in 2000 and 2004, Bush ran as an anti-intellectual. But now his rhetorical style has changed. Now he’s bragging about how many books he’s read, using fancy words incorrectly, engaging in pedantic lecturing, etc. He’s become a classic pseudo-intellectual. Exactly the type of guy he probably hated when he was back at Yale…

Posted by RC | September 5, 2007 1:23 PM

Iran's a destabilizing force. And instability in that part of the world has deeply adverse consequences,

Iraq used to be stable. then something happened, but i can't remember what it was. maybe Bush knows?

Posted by cleek | September 5, 2007 2:11 PM

"But he is spectacularly ill-informed, and seemingly has never learned how to think critically. It’s quite depressing that such a person can end up being president."

You shouldn't be so depressed about that. Two rare instances collided in 2000 to make the Bush Presidency possible (not counting the Supreme Court). The political establishment was enormously pissed at Bill Clinton, but couldn't do anything about it so they took it out on Al Gore...and the country as a whole was still under the post-Cold War delusion that who was President really didn't matter. That's what allowed a non-adult like George W. Bush to park his butt in the Oval Office.

What you should be depressed about is that Bush isn't an abberation. His man-child emotionally and intellectually arrested in adolescence is fairly representative of modern America as a whole.

Mike

Posted by MBunge | September 5, 2007 2:12 PM

In my organization, one of the most deadly phrases you can put into an employee evaluation report is to describe the employee as a "big picture guy."

It's code for "self-important moron."

Posted by Virginia | September 5, 2007 2:15 PM

What you should be depressed about is that Bush isn't an abberation. His man-child emotionally and intellectually arrested in adolescence is fairly representative of modern America as a whole.

Which is precisely why he won in 2004, in spite of what was obvious to anyone with half a brain and a good set of eyes.

Posted by ProfD | September 5, 2007 2:24 PM

Why not instead invest hundreds of billions in alternative energy research? Research that would prove useful not only in the unlikely event that Iran tries to blackmail us, but also just in terms of cleaner air.

Because the bean counters already know that oil and oil from bitumen or coal is far cheaper than any "alternative energy source" given foreseeable technology. Nor can amazing new discoveries making "exciting alternative energies" feasible be guaranteed by throwing money at them. The world has poured a trillion into "cure for cancer" R&D in the last 35 years, with no true cure product except for a few more exotic cancers.
Fusion power has the same problem. It might happen, but only when several technologies advance and science can finally understand some plasma physics matters that elude it...and even then, many environmentalist oppose it because it creates nuclear waste like fission does.
"beautiful wind power" still costs 15 times as much as coal or nuke, and is only viable with triple tax subsidies and electric companies forced to buy it and stick it to consumers by liberals passing laws.

The bulk of "exciting, alternative energy!!" for those proudly saying they are "all-green!" in their electricity purchases comes from 80-year old hydro dams, evil paper companies selling off their 40-year old cogen plant electricity from harvested trees, and trash-to-energy electricity.

It is no accident that the people that are most enthuiastic and optimistic about "exciting new alternative energy that will free us from coal, oil, and nuclear" happen to be people that haven't gone to college or those who went to college and went into Pol Sci, woman's studies, law, etc.

It is no accident that engineers and scientists are the most skeptical of "newer and better" stuff 1st touted in the 70s by hippies...now by technologically illiterate liberal arts majors and the uneducated..Who sneer at the rejoinder that "every little bit of chicken guts made into biodiesel" counts. They know "a little bit" of alternate while calling for replacement of all major current sources is like tearing down a bridge and putting up one bridge footing of alternate new stuff as a replacement. The bridge doesn't work. They see the traditional sources as needed for many more decades - then, either less people mandated to live on Earth or fusion power and breeder fission reactors taking up the job.
They also dismiss most "alternate energy" as not being "on demand", requiring storage and complete standby power and extra capacity from traditional sources when the wind dies or the sun goes away for weeks in the winter or when cities use 50% more electricity in 110 DEG heatwaves or thousands die w/o adequate electricity...

No "great green substitute" exists to CO2 generating sources that we haven't fully exploited - except nuclear fission. And face it, right now it is easier politically to justify actions including war needed to ensure the global free trade oil market that Yglesias blithely assumes would continue to exist without the US - than build 200 new nuke plants on the USA.

Posted by Chris Ford | September 5, 2007 3:05 PM

And on Matt's open market faith - that no matter who controls the oil supply or guarantees open markets exist where everyone can buy grain...

History shows that warring nations always seek to shut off external food going to the foe, to weaken and starve them. We did it even in the 20th century. Tried starving the Germans in both WW's, and the Japs in WWII - shutting off their grain supply from even neutral nations. Same with oil.

It is naive to think that if we bugged out and let Iran control the Gulf Oil that the Iranians would just continue the British-American peacetime open market system and not do what UK-America did in war.

Nor would it be "crazy" in the notion that Iran "loses" oil revenue to do so - as long as Iran selects it's customers like China and Russia and Asia and only sells to them to ensure they have wads of money - as the "open global market" ends. Just as OPEC did in 2 oil embargos. Now instead of just 30% of our oil being imported in 1973, it is now 70%.
Oil can be a potent weapon again if we cut and run from the ME.
An Iranian-Russian-Chinese led one against USA and Israel to destroy Israel and bring down the Hegemon?
Quite effective, I'd say. And one with a good chance to happen if the West gives up strategic control of the Gulf.

Posted by Chris Ford | September 5, 2007 3:20 PM

That's what I mean by strategic thought. I don't know how you learn that.

You learn that Mr. Bush by educating oneself. Strategic thought can be learned by those willing to learn and taking the time to do so. Bush seems to think that having a BIG IDEA is a strategic thought, and that then leads him to great strategery. The man is a complete joke, we can't be done with him soon enough.

Posted by fred | September 5, 2007 3:29 PM

Chris,

You don't speak for me or my colleagues when you say:

[It is no accident that the people that are most enthuiastic and optimistic about "exciting new alternative energy that will free us from coal, oil, and nuclear" happen to be people that haven't gone to college or those who went to college and went into Pol Sci, woman's studies, law, etc.....It is no accident that engineers and scientists are the most skeptical of "newer and better" stuff 1st touted in the 70s by hippies] - Posted by Chris Ford | September 5, 2007 3:05 PM

I'm an Engineer who has made a career out of "fixing" "hopeless" situations after guys like you have thrown their hands up and walked away from the problem.

Just because you don't have a clue, doesn't mean science shares your hopeless attitude. In fact, the biggest problem energy science has, is guys like you who think they know it all and try to throw cold water on promising research.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Posted by S Brennan | September 5, 2007 4:21 PM

On the food ("he continued, through an ample wad of bread and sausage", "he said as bread crumbs tumbled out of his mouth and onto his chin"):

No, that's not just being mean. It's a vivid communication of the extent to which Poppa and Bar Bush seem to have skipped some of the most basic lessons in manners that were clearly ingrained in George H.W. in his childhood.

Either that, or they managed at the same time to instill such a sense of entitlement and permanently adolescent resentment in W that now, as "the most powerful man in the free world", he feels free -- or maybe compelled -- to flout those rules with everyone, including other heads of state. (I'm still massively creeped out by the Angela Merkel "shoulder-rub".)

Posted by Nell | September 5, 2007 4:46 PM

FABULOUS FREEDOM FOUNDATION!

Posted by Gore/Edwards 08 | September 5, 2007 5:03 PM

The world has poured a trillion into "cure for cancer" R&D in the last 35 years, with no true cure product except for a few more exotic cancers.-Chris Ford

Boy that's obtuse. Cancer's gone from being a death sentence 35 years ago to something that's very treatable, largely due to the money that's been thrown at R&D.

Seriously. Grow a brain.

Posted by ProfD | September 5, 2007 6:39 PM

"if I understand the plan, it's to hand the next president a mess so large that all four years of the next presidency will be spent untangling the wires, with a subsequent loss in 2012."

No, that is NOT the plan. That concept assumes the "plan" is driven entirely by internal US politics.

No, it is not. US foreign policy IS driven by the same lust for power and greed by which internal US politics are driven. But they are not the same thing.

It may well be that the political operators in the GOP are hoping that it will turn out that way in the 2008 and 2012 elections.

But it is a complete mistake to believe that such internal political calculations are driving US foreign policy. That is not the case.

US foreign policy under Cheney and Bush is driven by a desire for power over the world's oil - and by extension over the world's nations, by profiteering personally and by their corporate benefactors, and by the sheer desire to exercise power for personal emotional reasons devoid of any rational logic. Various other parties may have various other motivations thrown in, but this is basically a pure power and greed driven criminal enterprise.

The politics are just a side issue that needs to be dealt with to keep them in power to further their primary motivations.

But the politics does NOT drive the primary policy initiatives. Maybe for Karl Rove it does, but not for Cheney and Bush.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | September 5, 2007 7:31 PM

"Bush doesn’t strike me as stupid. He’s not particularly articulate..."

As I've said many times elsewhere, Bush isn't stupid in the conventional sense. He IS "stupid" like most management types are "stupid."

The reason for his numerous mis-statements is simply that he is too arrogant to care what you think about him. Therefore he is uncaring how anything he says sounds. He just babbles something out of his mouth, so he can dismiss the questioner.

It's sheer arrogance and puffed-up ego that makes most management types "stupid". It's primate hierarchy that establishes the "Leader" over the "Follower." And the Follower is always treated with contempt by the Leader - that's how the Follower knows he's the Follower and the Leader is the Leader.

It's simple primate psychology made a bit more complex by the ability of humans to conceptualize rather than just beat the crap out of each other physically like chimpanzees do.

Eastern gurus, e.g., Zen Masters, do the same thing - except they do it to try to show their followers NOT to be "the Follower" and expose the primary fallacy of the primate hierarchical mind.

Politicians get elected based on how well they can establish themselves as "The Leader". Their methods may vary, but the basic psychology does not change.

Clinton does it just as much as Bush does - he's just more articulate at doing it because he's more interested in conning you than dismissing you. But the underlying contempt for you is still there.

That's why Clinton could wag his finger in the nation's face and say, "I never had sex with that woman."

We'll leave out the idea that he was talking about Hillary at the time...:=)

Bottom line: Bush isn't stupid. He's an asshole.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | September 5, 2007 7:45 PM

The Richard Steven Hack action figure would totally have kung-fu grip.

Posted by Senescent | September 5, 2007 8:31 PM

Re Chris Ford's comment "It is no accident that the people that are most enthuiastic and optimistic about "exciting new alternative energy that will free us from coal, oil, and nuclear" happen to be people that haven't gone to college or those who went to college and went into Pol Sci, woman's studies, law, etc."
---------
Actually, I went to college, earned a BS in an Engineering field and a Masters in Computer Science.

Because of that, I think Chris's comment is bullshit. Because Chris exhibits the typical aversion that liberal arts wienies have to mathematical analysis of QUANTITATIVE DATA.

In other words, Chris Ford thinks like a girl. Or a Middlebury male.

FACT1: Federal Spending for R&D in the Physical Sciences has remained roughly CONSTANT for the last 20 years -- about $4 Billion/year in
2000 Constant dollars. See
http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/82xx/doc8221/06-18-Research.pdf, page 34

FACT2: GDP in constant dollars has , in that same time period, roughly doubled.
Hence, we are spending only half (as percentage of GDP) as much on Physical Science research as we were 20 years ago. And What we are spending is chickenshit --$4 Bil/ $10 Tril = 0.0004 or .04 of 1 percent.

Defense, by contrast, consumes almost 8 percent of GDP.

(I know, I know -- conservatives say only
4 percent -- but they lie. They bury parts of the defense budget in the Veterans Administration, Department of Homeland Security, Department of Energy, Iraq supplementals, Afghanistan supplementals, etc.)

FACT3: The advances in physics over the next 20 years will come from experiments on the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) particle accelerator. The LHC is being built in EUROPE, NOT in the USA.

FACT4: In the last 20 years, Federal R&D on Energy has DECLINED GREATLY --from
around $5 Billion/year in 1980 to only $1.6 Billion today (Constant 1999 dollars).

Again, GDP in Constant dollars has almost doubled -- so Energy Research has greatly declined as percent of GDP -- to about 1/6 of what it was in 1980.
Ref: Figure 2 on Page 1 of
http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/servicerpt/subsidy/pdf/research.pdf

Posted by Don Williams | September 6, 2007 1:08 AM

Properly, of course, this whole thread should be oriented around debating the thoughts of a Jew-fearing neo-Confederate who alleges that those who disagree with his crazed rants all got degrees in "womans studies" and what he believes about how we should invest in our nation's energy expenditures.

Posted by El Cid | September 6, 2007 4:55 AM