I believe fossil fuel is a misnomer. I believe the abiotic response. That oil is a natural byproduct of the inner goings-on of the earth seeping up into pockets near the surface, like perspiration through the pores. Wells do refill. So as you'd expect, I believe peak oil to be another bag of fearmongering. Further, there's loads of oil capped off in Alaska, and Texas, in the Gulf Coast, and so on, there is no shortage.

(Read PNAC, all this BS in the neareast is about empire, a means of leverage; and out of view, the initial stages of securing an other means to control the planet politically by way of possessing the greatest portion possible of the worlds energy supply. As a guy who digs systems: I admire the scope, and loathe the human degradation. Which is why I do not support any form of marxism, whether progressivism, socialism, communism or fascism. There are better ways. Humanity expanding ways.)

However, I do favor moving away from our realiance on oil. In fact, I've been pondering a book for bettern two decades on how mankind could live more, shall we say, 'in-tune' with our environment. I absolutely believe we have the technology to make virtually every home in the world entirely self sufficient. By that I mean electricity, waste disposal, the whole shooting match. And I believe, not unlike yourself, that it should be a national priority, but it is not. And we both know why it won't be.

Where you and I 'seem' to differ, is that I believe private enterprise should provide the impetus rather than government involvement. I would have no problem with any President, Governor, etc, doing their Bully Pulpit spiel or sixteen; but more government spending is counter productive in the long term and we both know agencies(& their bureaucracies rarely bow out of existence).

We're only running out of time because, it's an other means of rapidly herding American humanity, and all useless eaters. In addition, the scarcity angle, also provides a rationale for raising prices. Which as you surely recall, follows along with John D's rationale of controlling ownership of manufacture and distribution, which too allowed for price manipulation.

Educating the middle class is not in the cards sir. The goal here is to reduce the American middle class to a small merchant class, think Mr Scrooge. Study recent decades curriculum and its endless supply of new and improved methods that provided successively poorer results.

I was listening to this fella Thom Hartmann recently. He's a Progressive. Predominantly I disagree with his choice of solutions, or means anyhow. But, he explained something a few weeks ago that rang so true.

Thom Hartmann's premise:

The stablest, most manageable society is not one with a large middle class but rather, a minute elite, dictating to a somewhat larger merchant middle class, with the remainder of us Bob Crachetts with no economic mobility, free time to agitate or organize etc.

The key to this model is stability and ease of population management.

He argues there have only been two periods of the truly American ideal of laissez faire economics in our history which created a large middle class: the middle 18th century leading up and into the revolution and following WWII.

I'm not absolutely certain he is correct in those facts but I agree that the alternative is the natural order of things, widespread serfdom overseen by the few.

It only makes sense that there are folks of means who dream of achieving such ends, and even more who will fall for it; especially in the white-out of our present, seemingly endless, plenty.

I could go on sir but you might want to be a pop star again.-)

peaceably

ps However Triage is described, it's truly unique listening, and how cocky must you have been feeling based on that dedication. Have you ever seen it mentioned in any reviews? I haven't. And I'd prefer believe you're the kind of man who wrote it understanding the probable repercussions(in either case, it unmasked conviction).