Did you see Springsteens latest show???

'Oh yeah, as regards America's position in the world, anyone realize France elected a conservative President, as did Germany? Europe is slowing starting to come around because - their 9/11s are truly being plotted now'.

Tom with all due respects I think you should concentrate on music as you know diddly squat about EU politics.

I've never seen him live, but I really like his old stuff. Most of all I thank him for saving us from disco.

I haven't seen him in a long time. I think his recent concerts can be classified as arena rock, which I don't care for.

As for his politics, I would be a lot more impressed if he and other rock stars weren't hoarding such huge fortunes and consuming so outrageously while pointing at others for not being compasionate enough.

I also can't take rock stars too seriously when they consume thousands of times the amount of energy that I do each year but tell me that I need to cut back on my energy use.

If Bruce was playing great rock n roll more and pointing fingers less, these threads wouldn't be going so far off topic.

Gawdbless - Are you saying Europeans are remaining naive? Sarkozy taking 55% of the vote? Chancellor Merkel remaining "highly popular" with the German people? Both Sorkozy and Merkel saying they want to re-establish strong ties to the USA? The BBC reporting "Islam is the biggest threat the secular France in 100 years"? Months of rioting in France with thousands of arrests and tens of thousands of cars burned (along with Catholic churches)? France talking tough AGAINST Iran? By the way, check out Brussells.com and Littlegreenfootballs.com - loads of fun and all the news Daddy Gore doesn't want you to know. Just bring your filtering system with you for brussels.com.

By the way, my wife and I had some interesting conversations with shop owners and regular citizens this summer in Rome, Cannes, and Dubrovnik.

Guess this really should be sent in an e-mail...

Tom,

I agree with a lot of your views, but the European sentiment toward the US seems mixed, at best. In European opinion polls, the US is still consistently named as the biggest threat to world peace. Last I saw - April or May of this year -that included France and Germany by significant margins over the runner-up, Iran or Israel, depending on the country in question. They may have elected conservative leaders, but many Euro-voters seem to believe (rationally or otherwise) that the US caused their problems.

Chad - your juvenile rsponses add nothing to this debate.

Nrchy - Your position that everyone is a passive "price taker" of oil is an overstatement. The study of policies to manipulate supply/demand is called Macro-Economics. HOV lanes, subsidies for alternative fuels and public transportation, and CAFE mileage regulations are just a few examples of policies that damp demand for oil. Any administration has far more extreme policy options available - however, they might well cause more harm than good, in many ways.

Further undermining your own argument, you compare price spikes during the Carter aadmin to the Dubya admin. Incredibly enough, I'm about to defend Carter ( the worst US president in my lifetime till Bush2). Both price spikes were the result of "supply shocks".:

In Carter's case it was the overthrow of the Shah.
Dubya INVADED IRAQ!

It would be a stretch to claim that these presidents were equally passive victims of supply/demand forces beyond their respective control.

Your position on the history of nuclear energy in the US is similarly marked by overstatement and/or misinformation.

"Every US plant" is outdated?
Are you suggesting that the US generating portfolio should be 100% nuclear?

"Tree huggers have prevented viable and safe energy since the '70's"?
Putting aside questions of safety and reliability, PURPA - the 1978 law which effected the restructuring of the US power industry - has proven a far greater impediment to nuclear development than tree huggers over your time frame.

My point is:

Defending a fundamentally conservative approach to government does not require defending Geprge Bush. He is manifestly incompetent. Nor does this point of view need overstatent and ad hominem venom.

Marty