In the April 13, 2009, edition of Newsweek Magazine Newt Gingrich wrote, “Let’s be clear: our energy crisis is not due to a lack of American energy resources. We have more coal than any other country in the world. There are 86 billion barrels of oil and 420 trillion cubic feet of natural gas lying undeveloped offshore. Shale-oil reservoirs in parts of Colorado and Utah could hold upwards of 1 trillion barrels of oil—more than three times the proven reserves in Saudi Arabia. Nuclear power is a clean source of energy that produces zero carbon emissions. Instead America is suffering fro an artificial energy crisis. What America needs is a rational energy policy that utilizes all our homegrown energy resources….”
I love ya, Speaker Gingrich, but you’re dead wrong. If I’m feeling generous in voicing my disagreement I think it might be most accurate to say we don’t have an “imminent” energy crisis. The lesson we must learn from the development of the problematic petroleum and power source paradigm we find ourselves in today is NOT that oil is bad. Rather, the lesson is that any energy paradigm that is dependent on finite resources is not sustainable and will ultimately require another fix, another solution, another investment, another crisis of resources.
On this Gingrich is right: we are a resource rich nation. To wit, we currently have 264 billion tons of coal; enough to last 225 years at current rates of usage. I won’t nit pick the actual availability of and the cost to bring to market the many resources Gingrich also mentions in Newsweek. However, I will point out the land-cost of exploiting those resources. Mining, drilling, and digging for those resources will tear up land that we may need for crops as our population grows. The land that isn’t useable for agriculture could support infrastructure needed for an increasing population base. Mr. Gingrich proposes a liberal use of our land resources and by liberal I mean wasteful and careless given what we’ve learned in the last century.
The vast quantity of available resources isn’t the issue. The issue is that his solution—exploit our existing resources to solve today’s energy problems—doesn’t address the energy crisis. The energy crisis is not TODAY’S problem. It is tomorrow’s problem. If we know today that we will have a coal problem in 225 years then we have a coal problem today. Yes, we have 225 years to solve it, but we can’t allow ourselves to press on, business as usual, acting as if there is no problem and never will be. Business as usual is bad business.
We are better than that. We are smarter, more thoughtful, and more considerate of future generations than to pass the buck to our great, great, great, great, great, great, great grandchildren. Perpetuating the status quo isn’t the kind of progressive, values based innovation I expect from the former Speaker.
What would be? In order to discover what the future of global energy might be and how we can get there, let’s start with the end in mind. Few people seem to be talking about a 100 year plan, or a 200 year plan: let me postulate one vision for the future, expanding on technologies that already exist, if only in their infancy. I envision a world in which enormous solar arrays deployed in space efficiently collect the suns rays 24 hours a day and beam power via lasers or microwaves to rectifying antennas and transmitting stations on earth. These transmitting stations wirelessly transmit that energy like radio waves and wireless networks transmitted today. Electricity will be ubiquitous and accessible. Our cars, and power-requiring devices will simply connect to the electricity the way our radios and telephones do today. We will pull our cars out of the garage and they will connect, or plug in, like wireless technology today and simply “go.” All the world’s citizens will have electricity from a completely ecologically renewable source.
With that vision of the future in place, how do we get there? Speaker Gingrich is correct about utilizing these resources; but not as the end game; not as the solution. These resources are a bridge to the future. We can, and should, utilize all of our available resources to improve our foreign policy options and to provide the US with marketable resources that we can sell in order to fund healthcare, social security and education.
The US needs to develop a diversified energy portfolio in the short term and Speaker Gingrich correctly identifies many of the resources at our disposal to do just that. In fact, this is already taking place throughout the country. These measures need to continue—not just on a national and strategic level, but also for individuals. Individual homes should begin to develop their own diversified energy portfolios; combinations of demand reduction and energy efficiency measures, then solar, wind, geothermal HVAC. We are a century or more away from achieving a completely renewable and sustainable source of power and distribution system. Until that time, we can intelligently create new infrastructure, design our cities and structure our lifestyles to facilitate achievement of a sustainable energy future.
By not referring to our resources as what they need to be–bridges to a future the world can live with–Gingrich instead turns our resources into dams–instruments used to hold back progress.
As I thought about that later though, I don't feel that way at all. Honestly, I don't know how Disney delivers as much as they do for so little money. $60 for park admission seems high, yes. But look at the infrastructure, the options, the employees, the transportation. I can't believe they do it for as little as they do. Personally, I think it's a tremendous value and worth every penny I spent. 
But on the more important substantive issues, it was full of contradictions and misleading statements. He talked about being knocked down as a child and how his mother taught him to pick himself up. (Great lesson) Later, though, he lamented that at a time when so many Americans have been knocked down, Washington has done so little to help them get back up. (I thought, Senator, the point was to learn to pick YOURSELF up.)
He talked about how the most important aspect of work is that it provides the benefit of dignity and respect to Americans; but he then prattled on about how the work people have doesn't pay enough.
He talked about how tax breaks for corporations, which McCain supports, send jobs overseas. No, Joe, they don't. Tax breaks for corporations brings jobs home; companies have been sending jobs overseas because it already costs TOO MUCH to do business within the US.
He talked about a "promise that their tomorrow will be better than their yesterday." Who is making that promise, Senator? Only we can make our tomorrow better. Government can't and if government is promising that, and Americans want that, then this is the discussion that we should be having in America.
He quoted John McCain on Afghanistan from 3 years ago and Barack Obama on Afghanistan from 1 year ago. Why not break out a quote from McCain on Georgia from years ago and a quote from Obama on Georgia from last week?
Viewers of this speech who pay attention to his words, will not have been impressed with the content or the medium. 
However, the speech itself probably did little. She certainly had nothing to say that might sway Republicans to rethink their party affiliation. Furthermore, absent too were talking points that independents might find attractive. The speech seemed to have two purposes. First, convince her supporters to vote for Obama. But who else were they going to vote for? Those people involved enough in politics to be at or watch on tv the DNC convention are also likely to be people who will value their vote and not stay at home. Those who might elect not to vote at all, certainly were not in attendance and might well have been watching America's Got Talent and missed the speech completely.
Secondly, and more importantly to Mrs. Clinton, the speech was littered with reminders of why she should remain relevant in the Democratic Party. This was a "You Picked the Wrong Guy" speech.
Will we remember her or this speech in 4 or 8 years? I suspect not. The speech didn't brand itself with any tag lines that might survive the next few years. But it was a hell of an effort.
I believe not attending to these differences is the cause of the apparent divide in American thought. True conservatism (not that practiced by the Republicans) understands the importance of relationships between people and values those relationships over the individual. The whole is indeed greater than the sum of the parts. Liberal ideology seeks to raise the needs and desires of the individual above the collective good. This is where the Libertarians lose most Americans. Intuitively, Americans sense the error of the "my liberty is more important than the collective good" ethos and shun the movement. Neither the modern Democratic Party nor the Republican Party has found a way to tap into the American belief in Freedom while simultaneously bonding us to society. This is the time for Democratic and Republican ideologies to be replaced by less "me" centered thinking and our nation should return to its ideological roots, which means that we understand our obligation to each other to value and defend each other's freedom, not just our own.
The Democratic support that the super delegates are so keen on being a part of should be viewed as something of a mirage. What would the delegate count be if the events of the last month had taken place in December? Would Obama have as much support as he does now? Would he be the presumed candidate? And yet the Obama of today is the one the Democrats are likely to insist represents their party. The Obama that sees middle America as "clingers," the Obama that wouldn't repudiate Wright but is now quite right to repudiate, this is the Obama that will face McCain in November. For a party as down on America as this one, an Obama nomination seems awfully optimistic. Perhaps, it's not just Michigan and Florida that need a do-over: perhaps the Democrats ought to have a national do-over.
Sure he's liberal. Liberal we can handle. Heck even socialist we can handle. We have systems in place to deal with presidential initiatives which we ultimately don't approve of. But relinquishing any control to any kind of world organization is very troubling. Being outside of our borders and constitution, we could find ourselves subject to a body we don't agree with and yet have few ways to get out from under its jurisdiction. This is a slippery slope. I fear Obama's need to be liked and validated will prompt him to try to enter the U.S. into many global initiatives.
Hillary, despite her belief that her ascension has been preordained, has a low ceiling and a high floor. Obama continues to manifest himself as a divisive candidate, creating his own new voting demographic within his party, one that surely will never be as influential as, say, the evangelicals have been for the GOP. It is no wonder that Clinton supporters would sooner vote for McCain, the two have significantly more in common and, to their credit, Clinton supporters can see through the audacity of hype. The sad fact for the democrats is that these two represented the best the Democrats had to offer. Perhaps it is a tacit admission of poor policy that the Democrats chose two candidates who are best known for their celebrity status and not their policies or experience. If the policy postulates of the democrats had more merit, a "celebrity" wouldn't have be needed to endorse those policies.
I'm afraid I just don't believe that her feelings are the result of poorly timed contemplation. My understanding is that the family was present for the photo shoot and got to see the picture in advance. They liked it and moved on. NOW all of a sudden Miley is embarrassed? These are smart people familiar with the media. I, of course, have no inside information, this is just my opinion, but it would appear she wants to have her cake and eat it too: do the photo shoot (be edgy, become known to new demographics) and then make a heartfelt apology to appease the core fan group.
Is Obama smart enough to see the error of his proposal to meet with such foreign leaders? Probably not. Too impressed with his own palaver, he'll stand by his words. But can McCain and the GOP make the same connection and exploit Carter's follies as empirical evidence that they were correct in postulating what such visits from US dignitaries would bring about?
His words address the inherently conservative values (not republican--conservative) most Americans believe in. But he also points out that while we believe in them, we don't LIVE them. His article can be, and should be, a call for personal change. It will be an exciting read for the number of times you exclaim (too loudly for those sipping coffee nearby) "Yes!" Although, if I'm honest, it is depressing on a national scale because I know most Americans act on their immediate desires and not on the values they hold most sacred. But, in the end, change starts at home.
