I am a bit embarrassed at being so surprised by this chart showing where U.S. oil comes from.
Clearly we must invade Canada. And we KNOW they have some sort of mass destruction devices.
hah hah.
And 90% of the Canadian population is massed on our northern border ...
Argentina is a basket case in many ways, but they do have energy independence. "Gas" stations provide a wide mix of fuels, including propane.
Although Norway has energy independence, you don't see people driving cars with monster engines (well, there are a few exceptions). Cars in general are heavily taxed, as a luxury item. Engines over 2 liters are very heavily taxed.
About that chart, we have much greater dependence of foreign oil than we did in the seventies.
"As Washington’s most loyal lackeys tentatively stand up to it one by one, we cannot help but notice that we are not just needy but needed. Canada and Mexico may seem expendable on their own, but combined? That’s a different story. Together, they represent 36 per cent of America’s export market. We supply the U.S. with thirty-six per cent of its net energy imports and twenty-six per cent of its net oil imports. And as much as its leaders like to imagine otherwise, the U.S. is actually not an island. It shares 12,000 kilometres of borderland with Canada and Mexico that it cannot protect without us.
Maybe these numbers were never supposed to be added up. NAFTA was never really a three-way partnership: It was more like two bilateral trade deals that were slapped together — one between the U.S. and Canada, the other between the U.S. and Mexico. That is beginning to change, as reality dawns. While the U.S. may act like an island, dependent on no one, it lives in a neighbourhood. Abroad, the U.S. may well be able to sail to military victory, but, at home, it suddenly finds itself surrounded." --excerpt from Naomi Klein, Standing Up To Uncle Sam", March 2003 at rabble.ca
thanks for fixing my link, Jim.
Who was that masked man?
I'm curious to know if any of you have heard of Naomi Klein, or if she's just a massive heroine north of 49.
I've read her a couple of times in the Guardian, but didn't know much about her until now. I just skimmed a profile and sampled her Guardian archive.
Yes, I was familiar with some of Klein's writing. I don't think I was before the war though.
the Guardian used to be my daily paper. her commentary was the topic of many-a-expat-'water-cooler-conversations.'
That's good. I knew she had an international presence, but did not know to what extent.
Is it time to invade yet?
come on up. I can take ya.
|
- jim 5-20-2004 7:24 pm
Clearly we must invade Canada. And we KNOW they have some sort of mass destruction devices.
- jimlouis 5-20-2004 8:24 pm [add a comment]
hah hah.
- sally mckay 5-20-2004 9:16 pm [add a comment]
And 90% of the Canadian population is massed on our northern border ...
Argentina is a basket case in many ways, but they do have energy independence. "Gas" stations provide a wide mix of fuels, including propane.
Although Norway has energy independence, you don't see people driving cars with monster engines (well, there are a few exceptions). Cars in general are heavily taxed, as a luxury item. Engines over 2 liters are very heavily taxed.
About that chart, we have much greater dependence of foreign oil than we did in the seventies.
- mark 5-20-2004 11:25 pm [add a comment]
"As Washington’s most loyal lackeys tentatively stand up to it one by one, we cannot help but notice that we are not just needy but needed. Canada and Mexico may seem expendable on their own, but combined? That’s a different story. Together, they represent 36 per cent of America’s export market. We supply the U.S. with thirty-six per cent of its net energy imports and twenty-six per cent of its net oil imports. And as much as its leaders like to imagine otherwise, the U.S. is actually not an island. It shares 12,000 kilometres of borderland with Canada and Mexico that it cannot protect without us.
Maybe these numbers were never supposed to be added up. NAFTA was never really a three-way partnership: It was more like two bilateral trade deals that were slapped together — one between the U.S. and Canada, the other between the U.S. and Mexico. That is beginning to change, as reality dawns. While the U.S. may act like an island, dependent on no one, it lives in a neighbourhood. Abroad, the U.S. may well be able to sail to military victory, but, at home, it suddenly finds itself surrounded." --excerpt from Naomi Klein, Standing Up To Uncle Sam", March 2003 at rabble.ca
- sally mckay 5-21-2004 1:26 am [add a comment]
thanks for fixing my link, Jim.
- sally mckay 5-21-2004 1:45 am [add a comment]
Who was that masked man?
- jim 5-21-2004 1:54 am [add a comment]
I'm curious to know if any of you have heard of Naomi Klein, or if she's just a massive heroine north of 49.
- sally mckay 5-21-2004 9:00 am [add a comment]
I've read her a couple of times in the Guardian, but didn't know much about her until now. I just skimmed a profile and sampled her Guardian archive.
- mark 5-21-2004 9:10 am [add a comment]
Yes, I was familiar with some of Klein's writing. I don't think I was before the war though.
- jim 5-21-2004 5:32 pm [add a comment]
the Guardian used to be my daily paper. her commentary was the topic of many-a-expat-'water-cooler-conversations.'
- selma 5-21-2004 7:44 pm [add a comment]
That's good. I knew she had an international presence, but did not know to what extent.
- sally mckay 5-21-2004 8:38 pm [add a comment]
welI, now I feel I might have exaggerated a bit. "many" maybe should be read as a "few," but quality of conversation counts much more than quantity in my humble opinion.
- selma 5-22-2004 3:55 am [add a comment]
Is it time to invade yet?
- jimlouis 5-21-2004 10:13 pm [add a comment]
come on up. I can take ya.
- sally mckay 5-21-2004 10:15 pm [add a comment]