Particularly since gas prices hovered near $4.00 per gallon last summer it has been true that ENERGY ISSUES have been making for strange bedfellows. Traditionally the purview of the left, in the last few years there has been a greater outcry within the Defense community about the deleterious effects of America’s dependence on foreign oil.
Fuel convoys are the leading target of IEDs and snipers. Half of US deaths have occurred protecting convoys.
Reflecting the military’s understanding of the national security implications, in the last few years we’ve seen the Defense Science Board Task Force Report on DOD Energy Strategy, two Center for Naval Analysis reports—National Security and Threat of Climate Change and Powering America’s Defense: Energy and the Risks to National Security – and the 2008 Joint Operating Environment Challenges and Implications for the Future Joint Force.
These documents make the case in no uncertain terms that the use of fossil fuels (particularly oil from antagonistic foreign states) and our national electrical infrastructure are issue of critical national security. From the latter CNA report:
• US dependence on oil weakens international leverage, undermines foreign policy objectives, and entangles America with unstable or hostile regimes.
• Inefficient use and overreliance on oil burdens the military, undermines combat effectiveness, and exacts a huge price tag—in dollars and lives.
• US dependence on fossil fuels undermines economic stability, which is critical to national security.
• A fragile domestic electricity grid makes our domestic military installations, and their critical infrastructure, unnecessarily vulnerable to incident, whether deliberate or accidental.
Yesterday the US House of Representatives passed the Waxman-Markey Climate Change legislation. There is much wringing of hands and gnashing of teeth over this development. The debate is not indicative of bad science. The debate is indicative of bad politics.
I haven’t got the first clue whether or not increasing global temperatures are caused by human activity. Global temperatures are getting warmer. There’s little debate on that. Rather, the debate centers on the cause and even within the scientific community there seems to be significant variance in opinion on this matter. There are many people with lots of letters after their names that can’t come to any consensus. For me to weigh in on the science of the issue would be preposterous in the extreme (I might as well start telling you that child-birth is painless because it didn’t hurt ME). 
Yet, Americans around the country are doing just that—flaunting their ignorance by parroting only the scientists they choose to believe without any real understanding of the science. Their opinions have more to do with the radio station they listen to and less to do with an understanding of the issues.
Those very same dynamics are at work in our Congress. Georgia Republican Paul Broun said that climate change is nothing but a “hoax” that has been “perpetrated out of the scientific community.” The debate on this legislation has become a referendum on the science of climate change and not about the broader issue of changing America’s energy paradigm. Our problems with electricity and fuel can be discussed in terms of terrorism, homeland security, the economy, jobs, national defense, foreign policy, American exceptionalism, innovation, family values, immigration, and national security. These are all bedrocks of the Republican platform. And I never mentioned the weather.
The debate on the science behind Waxman-Markey dumbs down any discussion on America’s future. Because America’s security and economic future is dependent on the changes we make to our understanding and use of electricity and fuel.
Republicans have long been seen as the Party of the US military yet Republican politicians still eschew the ideological consensus that is forming within the Pentagon—that change (nay, progress) must come in America’s energy appetite.
If the Republicans would put on their “big-boy panties” for a minute the buffoonery on the House floor might have been replaced with a vibrant, educated, paradigm-shifting discussion on why every American citizen needs to bear some of the burden in changing the way we power our lives. Democrats could have talked about the weather. 
Republicans could have talked about our sons and daughters dying on the fields of battle to ensure the supply of fuel for America’s SUVs with the yellow “Support Our Troops” ribbon on the rear window.
There are some who don’t believe Waxman-Markey goes far enough. No one believes the bill is perfect; it’s not even close. If anyone unhappy with the bill is waiting for something perfect, forget it. For the Congress to create, in its first attempt, a bill that was effective and without fault would take a miracle of biblical proportions. This will simply be step one. Lessons will be learned and future amendments and legislation will address Waxman-Markey’s shortcomings. Progress will be incremental. But it does represent progress in changing the way Americans view fuel and electricity.
I support Waxman-Markey. Not because I believe in the human contribution to climate change, but because I believe that making adjustments to the way Americans view and use energy is the common thread in keeping America the greatest nation on earth for the next century.
Columbus Day
How did you spend your Columbus Day? I had no luck talking my family into caroling through the neighborhood singing traditional Italian sailing songs of Indian oppression. Sigh.
MNF: Jon Gruden
I like what Jon Gruden is doing on Monday Night Football tonight. Sure it's only the first night, but I like his perspective, his input and his delivery. Let's see if it lasts.
House Resolution 204
Yes we can. Yes we can. Yes we can.
Just when you thought your Congress wasn't doing anything. When you thought them inept, embroiled in bureaucracy and piddly partisan politics, they came together--424 to nothing. That's right. Zip. Nada. Nothing. No dissents. No food for thought. Just unanimity.
What, pray tell, could bring about such consensus? What could cause bitter enemies to set aside their rancor and think of the country first and not their own selfish interests?
I give you House Resolution 204. Introduced March 3. Passed May 13. Sponsored by Republican Michael Simpson from Idaho.
Doesn't he have a lovely smile?
The full text is here http://www.govtrack.us/congress/ billtext.xpd?bill=hr111-204.
But let me summarize. Our Congress is, Congratulating the American Dental Association for its 150th year of working to improve the public's oral health and promoting dentistry, supporting initiatives to improve access to oral health care services for all Americans, and emphasizing the benefits of prevention of disease through support of community prevention initiatives and promotion of good oral hygiene."
Isn't change good?
The Lasting Effect of Sarah Palin
I, for one, have been wondering about the LASTING effect of Sarah Palin.
Would she have any lasting effect on the American political landscape or would she just be the political equivalent of Max Headroom?
Ms. Palin was probably beginning to think, based on her speaking slot at CPAC, that she was losing all her momentum. Au contraire. I have noticed a new trend in men's fashion eye wear that I hope Ms. Palin will be happy about.
Given the fickle nature of fashion, I seriously doubt that this is the kind of thing the GOP can turn into increased voter turnout or use to create crossover appeal with democrats. But given the state of the GOP today, they should be happy with any influence on American lives, no matter how trivial.
DUPLICITY
Just a fun thing to look for. I recently went to see Duplicity starring Julia Roberts and Clive Owen. I enjoyed the movie but what I enjoyed most was the portrayal of two rival CEOs, the heads of Companies Burkett and Randall and Equikrom being fashioned in the likeness of Cosmo Spacely—Spacely Sprockets
and Henry Cogswell—Cogswell Cogs.
The Duplicity CEOs were played by Paul Giamatti and Tom Wilkinson.
As for the movie, let the memory of your childhood guide your prognostications.
Joe Biden: Oh Dear, What a Mess
For thinking people, I can't imagine any favorable response to Joe Biden's acceptance speech Wednesday night. First off, compared with the quality of speech making skills, former President Bill Clinton and Senator Clinton are clearly the cream of the crop. President Clinton's speech, like his wife's, was a flawlessly delivered effort and deserves much praise in that regard. If you make public appearances, tape and dissect these efforts. Joe Biden stumbled through his speech like an amputee in quicksand by comparison.
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. Hillary’s DNC Speech
You've got to give credit where credit is due: Hillary Clinton is an excellent orator. She DELIVERED that speech extremely well. James Carville seemed ready to serve papers on his wife Mary and propose immediately to the NY Senator. Gushing though he was, Mr. Carville was dead on. Hillary Clinton can give a speech and she made those who preceded her look amateurish.
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.FREEDOM and LIBERTY
Bert Hornbeck had an interesting blog recently. In it he noted that, “Free” is a very important word, and “freedom” is very different from “liberty.” The immediate root of “liberty” is the Latin LIBER—which also gives us “libido” and “libation.” “Libido” has to do with desire; “libations” are outpourings, from the Greek.[ii] “Liberty” is a do-my-own-thing word; it has nothing to do with the idea of society. “Free,” however, is a friendly word—literally, historically. “Friend” comes into English from the Germanic FREI, which means dear, or beloved. “Free,” remarkably enough, comes into English at about the same time—in perhaps the eighth century—from exactly the same root. The understanding in both “friend” and “free” is what we call love: the relation of self with what self holds dear. As “friend” becomes “free,” it makes the idea of freedom social. It says that you can’t be free by yourself.
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.National Democratic Do-over
If the Democrats were acting rationally as Democrats, the super delegates would quit dancing for the man and look seriously at Hillary Clinton at this point.
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.Obama’s Global Poverty Act
It might be too strong to say "All things" global bother me, but it's not far from the truth. Obama's support of this bill is indicative of my major concern of his candidacy.
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.Talk of a Declining Obama Campaign
For all the talk of the demise of the GOP, this campaign seems more and more to foretell the demise of the Democrats.
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.Cynical on Cyrus
Miley Cyrus is apparently now "embarrassed" about her Annie Liebovitz. photo in the upcoming Vanity Fair.
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.The Democrats Jimmy Carter Problem
To extrapolate from Carter's experience, an intelligent Democratic candidate might surmise that meetings with despots around the world is a bad idea, at home and abroad.
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?Faustian Economics by Wendell Berry
If you are not a subscriber to Haper's Magazine, I highly recommend you venture out to the book store of your choice and pick up a copy of the May issue so you can read Wendell Berry's excellent article "Faustian Economics" which is no where near as boring as the title would imply (sorry WB).
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.
Drexel Kleber
-
-
July 1, 2009 at 9:19 am
Wow, do I disagree with you. You and I both agree that dependance on foreign oil is nothting short of a crisis that requires immediate action. However, this bill uses a sledge hammer to remove a cataract. It will probably work in the long run, but my God, it will do so much ancillary damage, that the positive results will be largely forgotten.