Centerfield

This is why it's good we invaded Afghanistan rather than subpoena Osama bin Laden.

It also makes me infuriated about the so-called liberals like Kevin Drum that seem to dismiss Islamofascism as a mere creation of American policy.

Where did Drum do this?

That was an overstatement and I apologize. I should not have made a specific reference to Drum. I meant it more as a general comment that many on the left seem to see OBL as ONLY a manifestation of bad American policy.

Anybody who sees Islamofascism or Al Qaeda as only a result of bad American policy is a nutcase. And there seems to be a disturbingly high number of such nutcases.

Also, I don't want you to feel depressed. Think of all the good things humanity has produced. Like beer.

Oberon - beer ;-)

Marc, this man's story is an outrage. But, I don't think you have to generalize an assumption about liberal thought to make your point.

I am very angry about the attack on our citizens. But, if blowing up Afghanistan was the proper course, I would hope that our forces could produce a live or dead body of the person we claim to be responsible for the deed. I believe it's long past time for Americans to demand satisfaction on this count.

I've read recently that despite outward protestations to the contrary, all is not well in the "Pakistanis are our friends" department.

US is forced to abandon hunt for bin Laden

It's obvious that the "bleading heart libruls" did not prevail. Accepting that fact I'm looking for results that amount to more than a lice-ridden Saddam, mass civilian casualties, and an unending stream of military body bags.

What is this administration doing to get this victim justice?

Jamie,

First, I didn't necessarily intend to use the man's story as a comment on liberals or the war on terrorism. I really saw it more a depressing example of so-called humanity. I read too much history, I guess. Second, you are not going to get me to defend the Administration. I oppose Bush's policy, especially in Iraq, and I think the Administration has done a lousy job conducting the so-called War on Terror.

But the issue is much larger than Bush and Rumsfeld. IMO, many liberals (obviously not all), almost from the day of 9/11 have seen militant Islam as something ginned up by the Admnistration to increase its power. They have refused to recognize the threat, as Beinart states, that this kind of medeval philosophy represents, not so much to the West, as to the spread of ostensibly liberal values throughout the world. I'm not advocating a military "crusade" against militant Islam in the way that the neocons do. In fact, I have noted many times on this blog how the War on Terror has to be something more than just blowing the hell out of terrorists. But what I don't see is the same thing Beinart doesn't see (despite what Carly says) and that is some understanding of how bad these people are and what nasty things they represent. And from what I have read, Kevin Drum and people like him still don't get it. Militant Islam is not simply a manifestation of failed U.S. policy any more than Hitler (yes, I know Godwin's law) was simply a reflection of the inequities of the Treaty of Versaille. I'm certainly not saying let's throw out due process and civil liberties--I have been very critical of the Administration in that regard. But let's acknowledge that this is a problem beyond mere posturing about a police state. Liberals need to accept that Islamic terrorism is more than just an annoyance that will go away if we create a Palestinean state. I just see such denial on the part of much of the left.

Marc, I agree with your points. Thank you for the clarification.

I'm not very patient with thugs of any stripe. So, I guess my greatest frustration is that the current US policy is not resulting in the incarceration or the death of those persons who are threatening us.

But let's acknowledge that this is a problem beyond mere posturing about a police state. Liberals need to accept that Islamic terrorism is more than just an annoyance that will go away if we create a Palestinian state. I just see such denial on the part of much of the left.

Marc, I agree. I am continually frustrated by those among democrats and the left who usually respond to such sentiments by stating that the threat actually is well-recognized within their mainstream. It's at this point that mainstream democratic defenders (MDD) usually either re-state their preference for a law-enforcement approach, or re-emphasize their objections to the wrong-headedness of the invasion of Iraq.

This seems to be the impasse that we keep coming back to, the rut we can't escape. MDD will go as far as acknowledging the need to oppose Islamofascism if called on it, but don't tend to give it primacy as a driver of policy, and feel that the approach to it should be substantially different from what we've done done.

When called on the idea of what things we should have done substantially different, this list usually boils down to not invading Iraq and listening more to our traditional allies. Again, this is the rut. I feel like I know every inch of it, that I'm trapped in a Yogi Berra dejavualloveragain ground hog day world.

And I can count on Carla or some other MDD to eitherchallenge something I've said above or place the honus on me to show that they are wrong, or somesuch. even though it feels to me like all I'm trying to do is establish some common ground. Every time I think i have done so (established common ground), it seems to vanish as soon as I look away.

BK -

You have put your finger on exactly the tiresome phenomenon I have experienced over and over again. My fellow liberals argue that "of course" they are against Islamic totalitarianism - and then the climbdown begins, until you realize they don't take it seriously. They simply don't read the same sources the right does, they don't seem to understand the vast historical and cultural gulf between the West and the Arab world, and there is a depressing knee-jerk reaction that if the US was ever involved, the whole thing is our fault and we're simply reaping what we have sown. It's naive and simplistic, especially coming from people who consider themselves more educated, worldy and sophisticated than those knuckle-dragging red-staters.

Nor do they at all get that the root cause of Islamist terrorism is not poverty, nor lack of education, nor resentment of US policy (though all those play into it) - it's a deep-seated religious triumphalism that the left can't relate to at all, but that the right understands all too well. Liberals are terrified of imaginary Christian fundamentalist regimes (I am too), but give a pass to here-and-now Islamic fundamentalist regimes (which I refuse to do).

If the Islamists and their apologists have their way, the US will look in twenty years like Europe does today. And Europe will look much more like the Middle East. That is why folks like me, who are lifelong Democratic voters, put Bush back in office. We simply did not believe that the Democrats are serious about confronting jihad. And the Beinart/Drum exchange just confirmed my worst fears.

But we will still defeat this illiberal ideology. Liberals have just outsourced the battle to conservatives, that's all.

Marc,

Excellent piece. Don't despair. This fight will be won, and I agree it will take more than blowing up stuff. Major changes are underway in the Middle East and Central Asia, and democracy is taking hold. Afghans have voted, Iraqis may vote, and Palestinians as well. Iranians may one day get to vote for candidates that aren't pre-approved by the mullahs. It may be two steps forward, one step back for a generation or two, but look how long it took supposedly "civilized" Europe to free itself from fascism and communism - and yes, they needed our help to do it. And yes, they resent US hegemony and arrogance to this day. So it goes. At least we're trading snarky op-ed pieces in the dailies instead of warheads. That's what democracies do to resolve their differences.

It has always been a habit of mine to play devils advocate. So here it goes:

To offhandedly dismiss the view of the Islamic fundamentalist is a great way of diminishing your ability to defend yourself and underestimating the enemy's resolve.

A bunch of guys didn't just get up one morning and decide to fly a plane into a building, anymore than the countless suicide bombers thought "I'm board, I think I'll blow myself up." Part of warfare is finding what motivates your enemies and removing that motivation. It took an enormous amount of hatred to torture a little old lady on a doomed aircraft. Palestinians didn't dance in the streets on 9/11 because they live in a happy shiny place. You may not like the culture you call Islamofascism, but guess what, they don't like you either.

They don't like you propping up their corrupt governments with money and arms. They don't like those governments selling us oil at bargain basement prices. They don't like us supporting a colony of invading foreigners (Israel) in the middle of their region. They don't like us supplying Iraq with WMD, and then invading it for having them. They don't like our culture, our values or our religion. They feel powerless, disrespected and really pissed off.

Now we can have WWIV if you really want to (I always count the cold war as WWIII), or you can admit that oil and religion are the reasons we have meddled in these people's affairs. We were doing bad things in their countries long before they returned the favor. Either openly admit we are in the empire business or get off the oil drug and let Israel sink or swim on its own.

Merry Christmas :)

Bob,

I like playing devil's advocate too. But you seem to be accepting the arguments too readily.

"A bunch of guys didn't just get up one morning and decide to fly a plane into a building, anymore than the countless suicide bombers thought "I'm board, I think I'll blow myself up." Part of warfare is finding what motivates your enemies and removing that motivation. It took an enormous amount of hatred to torture a little old lady on a doomed aircraft."

Agreed, they didn't just wake up one morning and decide to blow themselves up. And the Bolsheviks didn't just wake up one morning and decide to overthrow democratic government. And the slave traders didn't wake up one morning and decide to enslave Africans. And the Nazis didn't wake up one morning and decide to eliminate Jews. The point is, of course they have reasons, but the reasons don't justify their actions.

"You may not like the culture you call Islamofascism, but guess what, they don't like you either."

This is pretty much cultural relativism at its worst. You are comparing a culture that essentially espouses medeval practices toward women, that believes it is acceptable to kill and demonize everyone that disagrees with it. They have every right not to like us, but they don't have a right to fly goddam airplanes into our buildings.

"They don't like those governments selling us oil at bargain basement prices. They don't like us supporting a colony of invading foreigners (Israel) in the middle of their region. "

Since when is OPEC in the business of selling us oil at bargain basement prices. Guess what, OPEC is a cartel and they set the price.

Israel was created by an act of the United Nations. How do Jews returning to an area in which they originated constitute a colony of invading foreigners? Just what is your definition of invasion?

"We were doing bad things in their countries long before they returned the favor. Either openly admit we are in the empire business or get off the oil drug and let Israel sink or swim on its own."

We have done bad things in these countries, no doubt. But, sorry, not so bad that it justifies flying planes into buildings. You assume that the ONLY reason that these countries have had bad government is the West. That's pretty simplistic--Nasser wasn't our idea. And let's assume we got off the "oil drug." How would that help these countries? And, as for letting Israel sink or swim on its own, you mean let it cease to exist?

The "empire business?" How can you even begin to talk with people who just toss off stuff like that?

I'd call it the national security business.

What you call "moral relativism" I call being able to see the other side's viewpoint. I would think that a centrist could look both right and left and see the value of both sides. I could have posted something supporting a right wing view just as easily, but others have already done that so what's would be the point. Try this as a mental exercise:

Imagine you were born in the Middle East (say Saudi Arabia). Instead of fundamentalist Christianity you have been expose to fundamentalist Islam since before you could speak. You accept that your culture and history is "civilization", and that the West is populated by godless infidels. You see foreign oil companies and governments cozying up to your ruler while supplying him with billion in petrol dollars and military equipment. You see Israel armed with American F-16's and apache helicopter shooting at Palestinians armed with slingshots. Now what are you going to think about America as this person?

Now maybe you don't give a damn. You know your right and they are wrong and that is all there is to life. Your god is stronger than theirs and you will win because you are moral, right thinking people and they are savages. All we need to do is kill them till they surrender or their society crumbles do to internal rot.

But the Middle East is not Germany or the Soviet Union. There is not a capital to capture and we are supplying the terrorists with billions of petrol dollars every year to continue their work. So rather than another 50 year cold war maybe we should consider another course. One that actively pursues a course of reducing oil usage and a more even handed approach to Israel.

PS: I believe we import about 50% of our oil. What do you think the price would be if OPEC turned off the tap? Certainly not 30 dollars a barrel, more like a hundred or more. So if you were the steward of a limited national resource would it not be a good idea to get top dollar for that limited resource. If they cut their production in half they could easily get twice as much per barrel. Supply, demand and the world economy obviously play a part but the long-term cozy political relationship between the Saudi and U.S. governments is pretty important to.

PPS: The Middle East governments were corrupt long before we got there, but the oil money has been the equivalent of pouring gas on a campfire. A flood of money tends to corrupt the people that make up a government. It has always been my personal philosophy that a society should be left alone to sink or swim on its own. Whether its Arab oil money or free military assistance to Israel, we are not doing either society any good by "helping" them. All the American military hardware has made Israel and arrogant bully. While the oil money has given a "medieval society" modern weapons and technology. Maybe I watch too much star trek but I think the "prime directive" is a good idea.

PPPS: As for the "empire business": What was the reason we are in Iraq, I keep loosing track? WMD? Humanitarian mission? Democracy? Saddam's funny hat collection? Terrorist? Oil? What ever happens in Iraq it will be 20 years before their prime minister takes a leak without our permission. Why not just hoist the American flag and remove all doubt.

National security is the reason.

And my point is that if you want to have a discussion, speak carefully, explain yourself, and avoid bomb-throwing unless someone else does it first. I happen to agree with you that there's value in understanding the perspective of those that oppose you. But when you toss out "empire business," I immediately lose any sense of good will and trust that you're looking for reasoned discussion.

Well half the people seem to agree with you.
And as we know 50% is a mandate ;)

The Harris Poll 11/9-14/04
"Do you believe that the U.S. government deliberately exaggerated the reports of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq in order to increase support for war, or do you think it tried to present the information accurately?"

Exaggerated % 48 Presented Accurately % 49 Unsure % 3

Or maybe not:

The Harris Poll 11/9-14/04
"Do you believe that what we were told by the government before the Iraq war about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction and Iraq's links to Al Qaeda, the terrorist organization, was generally accurate or misleading?"

Accurate 39% Misleading 59 % Unsure 3%

Bob,

You make some good points. I certainly agree that we need to understand the other side's point of view. But understanding it doesn't mean considering it valid. You pretty much loaded the deck by presenting American and Israeli actions in the worst possible light. If you accept that characterization, then I guess you can accept that 9/11 was a valid action.

"I believe we import about 50% of our oil. What do you think the price would be if OPEC turned off the tap? Certainly not 30 dollars a barrel, more like a hundred or more. So if you were the steward of a limited national resource would it not be a good idea to get top dollar for that limited resource. If they cut their production in half they could easily get twice as much per barrel. Supply, demand and the world economy obviously play a part but the long-term cozy political relationship between the Saudi and U.S. governments is pretty important to.

It's probably true that Saudi Arabia uses its oil to maintain good relations with the US. But it doesn't follow that OPEC is therefore selling out is population by not charging the absolute top dollar it could get. From an economic perspective, a monopolist wants to raise price to the point where any loss of sales is balanced by the additional revenue. If you raise price to the point where demand decreases too much, you don't really benefit. No rational monopolist sells its product for the absolute maximum it could get because unless demand is absolutely inelastic (i.e., doesn't change with price), its going to lose more in lost sales than it gains in revenue. This is basic economics. This is what OPEC did in the 70s--raise prices to a level that western economies tanked, causing reductions in demand and,therefore, reducing overall revenues. OPEC's policy since then has been to calibrate its prices so that it doesn't do that. So even if you are right that that oil is not selling at top dollar (and I don't know where you get that figure of $100--I doubt you have empirical evidence that that's what the market would bear), it doesn't follow that that's result of lackey governments selling out their people. And it certainly doesn't justify flying airplanes into buildings.

I agree that Western policy bears some responsibility for the rise of Islamic militancy. But you could say the same thing about communism and fascism. Certainly it makes sense to adjust your policy. But what I can't abide, frankly, is the implication that western policy justifies these acts of terrorism, especially when they are done in the name of a misogynistic, racist philosophy. As I think I said earlier, you might as well justify the invasion of Poland by saying the Treaty of Versailles treated Germany unfairly.

As for the "prime directive", it makes sense as a general rule. But as I recall Captain Kirk violated it many times in situations where a strict application would be immoral. Do you suggest that we ignore genocide in Africa, for example, because it would violate the "prime directive?"

What you seem to want is not to have a foreign policy. The fact is, any kind of contact with foreign countries has some kind of impact on the society.

The “loading” was intentional. They have a particular world view crafted from the information sources available to them (mosques and Arab TV). I imagine this world view filter shows us as “bad” just as our filter shows ourselves as “good”. So I wrote from that world view.

I don't know what view is “valid”. I couldn't justify flying a plane into a building full of people, but they obviously could, since they did it. I will let history judge who was “right”. An argument can be made that Nazism and communism started for valid reasons, but then the system they produced created consequences that invalidated them as solutions. Just because they failed doesn't mean the forces that produced them were not valid.

I agree in general with what you are saying about markets and monopolies, but I think we have a special case here. The Saudi oil reserves are finite and when they are gone Saudi Arabia has nothing to sell but solar power. A responsible stewart would squeeze every last dime from his customers, not crawl into bed with them. Besides, if we are modeling our opponent , the only important view is how he sees the situation. And old Bin has already stated that one of his goals is to get higher prices for the oil that is sold. (By the way, the 100 dollar number was just an arbitrary “hand waving” number. I couldn't begin to estimate where oil would go if another embargo occurred.)

Prime directive: As cruel as it may sound I am inclined to ignore the genocide in Africa. Everything in this world has a cause and an effect. So what caused the genocide to start? I'm going to guess it was overpopulation aggravated by racism and cultural differences. If we stand between them and say to both sides “behave” we will be attacked by one side or the other, but the base cause will remain. If we arm and equip one side or the other for “self defense”, they will attack the other side for revenge. Unless they have a resource we want, intervention is a pointless attempt to influence the outcome of a civil war. Before I would risk the lives of my friends and family in that hornets nest I would need to see a major advantage for my side. The question to ask is: “Is it worth my son's life to stop this?” Or at the very least ask: “Do I have a reasonable chance of stopping this with out bankrupting my country?”

I read an interesting paper a decade ago that did a study of countries we “helped” verses countries we didn't help. The ones we helped were worse off than the ones we black listed. India in particular sticks in my memory. Their A-bomb program made them a black sheep country. So they were forced to actually deal with their problems and find solutions, rather than suck on the American foreign aid tit. They now have a very robust industrial base and are one of the success stories of that part of the world.

I guess this makes me a cold hearted S.O.B. But that's just life on this cruel little planet.

Bob;

I'm going to guess it was overpopulation aggravated by racism and cultural differences. If we stand between them and say to both sides “behave” we will be attacked by one side or the other, but the base cause will remain. If we arm and equip one side or the other for “self defense”, they will attack the other side for revenge.

Then who will/should stand?

Keep reading Chris, I also wrote:

The question to ask is: “Is it worth my son's life to stop this?” Or at the very least ask: “Do I have a reasonable chance of stopping this with out bankrupting my country?”

If you don't have a reasonable chance of being effective what's the point? Historically civil wars end when both sides are exhausted or one side prevails. Are you really helping if we arm the "oppressed" side or just attempting to even up the body count? When blood starts to flow its takes a long nasty road till sanity returns.

If you want to fly over and give it a try you have my blessings. However, in the end analysis this is a lot like Iraq. It's all very nice to thump your chest, but if this is so important why are you still sitting in your comfy living room playing on your computer?

Bob,

With all due respect, I'm stunned that you believe that the world community (not just the US) has no obligation to at least try to protect people against genocide. And that the reason for this is that it's better that they work it out themselves. Your argument about countries we helped versus countries we didn't is sort of a non-sequitur in talking about genocide. It's one thing to say that countries are better off without foreign aid; it's another thing to say that genocide will sort itself out without any help from outside. It sure as hell isn't going to help the people that are killed. Frankly, I find your position morally obtuse. I don't think its chest thumping to believe that we have an obligation to at least make some effort at preventing genocide. No, I don't think we can save the world or should we try. But I also don't think we should simply turn our head and say, "not our job."

With respect to terrorism, if your argument is this is how the Muslim world sees us and we need to do something to address it, I agree. But you seem to be going farther. You seem to be saying that we should simply withdraw from the world (or at least the Middle East) entirely because of their perception. Because I think that's pretty much the only way that OBL would be satisfied. You seem to be arguing for pretty much a "Fortress America" concept that I don't think is viable today.

Finally, with respect to the oil, I can't argue with your characterization of how the militants see the deal. But I disagree to the extent that you seem to endorse that view. The fact that the resource is finite doesn't mean that it makes sense for Saudi Arabia to price it to the very limit for several reasons. First, as I noted before, it is likely to result in the short run in less demand. Second, the higher that oil gets, the more economic it makes alternative fuels. At some point, people will start looking for alternatives if the price of oil gets too high. Any rational monopolist has to take that into account. And, while oil is theoretically finite, no one really knows when they will actually run out of oil. It doesn't seem likely that it will be anytime soon.

Genocide: I probably should not have used the word "ignore". I don't believe we should do nothing about the genocide. U.N. resolutions, political pressure, and sanctions are a great way to show our disapproval (and we should disapprove). But I can't see any way of successfully using military force to fix the situation of two many people (who hate each other) on to little land. Genocide is a civil war where one side has disproportionately superior firepower. Sending in our troops would just mean they get shot up for a while, then when we get tired and leave the civil war just starts up again (think Somalia). The side that's getting wiped out needs to start shooting back, not sit around and expect to be rescued. Rescuing a person from a situation of his own making does not solve the problem it makes it worse. It just makes them dependent on you for the rest of their life. I have adopted this philosophy after a lifetime of dealing with family members who have addictive behavior. If my memory serves me right it is one of the main creeds of Al-Anon. It's a very harsh and unpleasant thing to have to do, but its the only thing that works.

Unless you have a strategy that has a reasonable chance of success, all you can do is stand on the sidelines and make disapproving noises.

Muslim terrorists: While I have expressed opinions about this subject I am to practical a person to let them override my good sense. It's to late to withdraw. We are to dependent on the oil and have ticked of to many people. But we can actively reduce our oil usage, thereby removing funding and motivation for the terrorists. Without our overwhelming presents in these areas the terrorists will have no recruiting tool and those societies should swing back to a more moderate stance over time. In Israel's case we could stop enabling their bad behavior and become a moderating force in the region, again reducing the terrorists recruiting power by taking a more moderate stance.

Oil: I'm 40ish and fully expect the oil to run out during my lifetime. So lets just sit back and watch what happens. Or just do a google search on "peak oil".

Bob,

That's not the international definition of genocide. Genocide means a situation where there is an attempt to eliminate a specific group of people based on ethnic, religious, racial, etc. differences. (I'm paraphrasing, obvioiusly.) The whole point about genocide is that it happens because the victimized group doesn't have the power to fight back. If you are talking about simply a civil war, then maybe you are right, but genocide goes much further.

As for a practical plan, all observers I have read believe that the Rwada genocide could have been stopped relatively easily with perhaps 5000 heavily armed troops. Maybe they are wrong, but I don't think it would have taken a major military intervention to stop the worst of the genocide.

Everything I have read suggests that there are still extensive oil reserves throughout the world that have not yet been tapped because of the expense. As oil prices rise, tapping these reserves will become viable. I'm not saying, of course, let's keep using all the oil we can, just that I don't think we are particularly close to running out.

After the 5000 troops stop the genocide what then?
It's just a temporary fix, which requires those troops to stay there for a generation as policemen. The troops then become the targets. Casualties start to mount. Support at home starts to dwindle. A new administration is elected. The troops are withdrawn. The fighting starts up again.

If you insist on intervening, arm the victims and organize them into a viable fighting force.

On oil supplies, I think we can do a little bit better to clarify the situation beyond suggesting we won't run out particularly soon. If by that one means "in our lifetime," you may well be on target. But even that leaves out the "starting to run out" phase where supplies begin to be unable to keep up with demand. I think that it is probably fair to say that, at the very least, it will be a growing problem that we'll need to find more solutions for over at least the next 3 generations, if not longer.

Even with the uncertainty of various estimation methods, isn't it at least safe to make an estimate based on order of magnitude, like, that we have hundreds of years left, not thousands, and probably 1 to 3 hundreds of years left, less likely 4, 5, 6, 7, or 8 hundreds. Anyone more knowledgeable know if this is on target?

In other words, not an immediate crisis, but an intergenerational issue that will be solved with less pain the sooner we begin treating it seriously. Of course, it is very possible that market forces will drive most of the transitions and solutions. I expect to see more wind farms and a re-emergence of nuclear power generation in america that begins to follow the french usage patterns and production methods.

The buzz-solution that everyone seems to pet-praise is hydrogen. But i've yet to see a detailed discussion of this that deals with how net-positive a source it is (how much energy is used per unit of energy created), and how plentiful it is. What I have heard is that we'd get hydrogen from water. If so, that stresses the water supply, right?

BK: The water supply comment is humor right? Since the hydrogen recombines with oxygen in the full cell to make water.
The rule of thumb I was taught in college was 30% loss for each change of state. (AKA: Hydro to mechanical energy, gasoline to mechanical energy, nuclear to steam) When transforming energy from one form to another loss usually occurs in the form of heat.

As for the source of this hydrogen the most promising candidate is: Fossil fuels.

The "hydrogen economy" is a bureaucratic boondoggle similar to "fusion power". It's just an excuse to pork out some federal dollars. Meanwhile battery technology is making leaps and bounds due to market pressure from cell phones and laptops. The Toyota Prius is actually half electric powered and uses Nickel Metal Hydride Batteries (recharged from regenerative breaking and off peak use of the gas engine).

Besides the question isn't "is their any oil left?" It's can we obtain it and can we afford it. Peak Oil isn't about the oil "running out" its about demand outstripping supply.

Osama bin Laden: "The main driving reason behind the enemy's hegemony over our countries is to steal our oil, so do your utmost to stop the biggest robbery of our resources in history," 12/16/2004 (The latest from Osama's greatest hits box set.)

Yabbut electric battery technology still requires a generation source, right? Whether you use chemical reactions or electricity from burning fossil fuels (technically another type of chemical reaction, right?) to recharge, there's still the "where did the actual energy come from" problem, right?

I am virtually entirely ignorant of it, but my sense (from Scientific American as I recall) is that there was some promise to the idea that we could separate hyrogen out to use it as fuel and that it may be one of the best options once the extractable fossil fuels are gone. Do you have any good nominally non-partisan sources for more info on this?

I can't help but wonder whether sooner or later we'll be forced to rely solely on renewable and nonexhausting sources like bio and wind. By bio, I'm imagining research that leads to the ability to make bio-stews that produce decay by-products that are clean-burning gases. No idea how realistic that is. It simply that such regenerative (or nonexhausting) processes seemsto make more long-term sense than solely using up things that are in finite supply.

Homepower.com is the place to go for alternative power. They have been around for ages, and are forced to be practical since they actually use this stuff in their homes. Go to the education section for starters.

Ultimately we will be forced to use nuclear (uranium) power. Alternate power is ok for rural uses, but solar and wind energy is not a practical alternative for powering the energy hunger high population cities.

Changing World Technologies has a technology called Thermal Depolymerization that can make crude oil from any organic material. It's really cool!!!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermal_depolymerization

(Ok, technically it gets really hot, not really cool.)

That is indeed cool. WAY cool.

This technology could solve more than just energy problems. It's ability to extract metal from the waste stream means it is now feasible to start mining the landfills for there mineral and energy value. It can even recycle tires.

Unfortunately last time I checked they were getting zero help or encouragement from the government. Considering the strategic value of developing our own oil sources I would think the government would walk up to the CEO and say “what ever you need you've got it”.