<html xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:st1="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40"> <head> <meta http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=us-ascii"> <meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 11 (filtered medium)"> <o:SmartTagType namespaceuri="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" name="country-region"/> <o:SmartTagType namespaceuri="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" name="place"/>  <style>  </style> </head> <body lang=EN-US link=blue vlink=blue> <div class=Section1> Mike B:<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> <div> Indeed.  The bi-partisan policy on keeping control of the second largest oil patch in the world will emerge when the Democrats take control of the Congress and Senate.<o:p></o:p> </div> <div>  <o:p></o:p> </div> <o:p> </o:p> [WS:] Why do you assume that things happen because someone powerful will them that way? That does not seem like a very realistic model of real life behavior.  A more realistic model is the sinking of the Titanic or the royal flagship Vasa <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regalskeppet_Vasa">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regalskeppet_Vasa</a> - because of the mixture of incompetence, inertia, lack of foresight, inability to change the set course, fear of sticking out, cover-your-ass mentality, narrow-minded self-interests and the like.  The Vasa sunk on her maiden voyage after sailing only about a mile not because someone willed that to happen, but because a lot of people involved in her construction minded their own business, did not want to upset their bosses, and ignored the reality checks – it was much easier to simply go with the program than to rock the boat, literally and figuratively.  The same holds for most large organizations, including the <st1:country-region w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">US</st1:place></st1:country-region> government.<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> I think a better behavioral model is one based on two principles: window of opportunity and path dependence, or inertia.  Under ordinary circumstances things follow the already established path without any radical changes in the course, because this is the easiest and least costly/risky way for the people who run the show.  A radical change in that path occurs only when a window of opportunity opens and a right set of forces are in place – like the Bush presidency and the 9/11.  <o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> The Bushies invaded Iraq mainly because they could – they thought it was easy, they could sway the public to go along, they and their various cronies and supporters would personally benefit from it, and they expected the whole thing to be over in a matter of few months – a quick, easy and popular war with high payoffs and relatively low cost.  They were proven wrong, but once their set that course, changing it is very difficult.  This is probably the most tragic and ironic aspect of Bush presidency – Bush and his cronies may be gone in the next two years, but the policies they set in motion will be willy-nilly followed by the subsequent administrations for the next 50 or so years, until they run aground or another window of opportunity opens.<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> Wojtek<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> </div> </body> </html>