There was a time I supported off-shore drilling. It wasn’t that long ago—as recently as Thursday, in fact.
I did not support drilling as an affront to global warming’s authenticity or its supporters. I supported it because drilling will accomplish two things I value. First, expanded drilling would help reduce our reliance on foreign oil imported from hostile producers. Of the top 20 oil producing nations (the US is number 3) only three others can be considered strategically secure. In 2008 we imported nearly six million barrels of oil per day from OPEC. At today’s price of $70.65 per barrel that’s almost $200 billion per year to OPEC alone. Theses facts create foreign policy obligations that cost of the lives of our sons and daughters on the sandy fields of battle. Beyond the $70.65 per barrel, we must understand that the real currency of oil is the blood of our soldiers. Our problematic petroleum paradigm limits the tools our nation’s leaders have at their disposal as they weigh the economic considerations of the retaliatory tools available to those with whom we deal.
Secondly, even if we immediately Harry Pottered ourselves into a world in which the US needed to import no oil, the oil we have could be used to sell to other nations still undertaking the transformation. The money reaped from such sales could fund health care or education. American resources funding American needs.
Today, I view the cost as too high. Whatever benefit we reap from increased drilling we must now look at those well-heads as potential sources of disaster. What will be the final cost of the BP spill in the Gulf of Mexico? No matter how good the technology gets we must always consider that another spill is a foregone conclusion, for as long as humans build them, as long as humans man them, as long as humans design them, there will be human error.
Our greed for low oil prices and perpetuation of the petroleum status quo is terrorizing American families up and down the Gulf Coast. Predictions now suggest that the Gulf Current will carry the slick up the Eastern seaboard. What message might we glean from a photo of the tidal basin painted in the slippery, iridescent hues of sunlight on oil?
The effects to America’s natural playgrounds and the wildlife that reposed in their confines bear the brunt of our oil addiction like bruised spouses and children of violent alcoholics.
Today I don’t care about global climate change (I’m in limbo on that on the best of days). I care about change. Not Obama’s change but our change. Do we have the courage to create a new vision for America and embark on the journey to create it? Many have suggested an Apollo-like effort to bring renewable energy to America. May I suggest a better first step? The US imports about 62% of its oil and about 70% of the oil we use goes to gasoline. I believe an Apollo-like effort to get every single gasoline powered automobile off the road in ten years is within our capabilities.
The US spent $7 billion of our own money on Gulf War I: what if that money had been invested in Ford, GM and Chrysler with such an objective? Where might the US auto industry be today if twenty years ago we had invested in a program that would have required that 100% of the autos on the road be replaced with new ones? Where might they be in the global market if they were industry leaders in non-fossil fuel propulsion? Where might we be if our foreign policy objectives in the Middle East weren’t saddled with our gluttony?
Add to the money that could be invested in such a project the estimated $22.6 billion in clean up expenses that may be needed to resurrect the Gulf Coast. We always seem to find the funds for reaction to tragedy but can seldom pry the funds from our clutches to facilitate proactive solutions.
This plan creates jobs, removes foreign policy handcuffs, slows the flow of money to governments sponsoring terrorism, supports our troops, and negates a need for foreign oil.
Policy hurdles would need answers: how will American families afford new vehicles, particularly low-income families? What about those who own and want to maintain classic vehicles? What about long-haul transportation? What happens to the old vehicles—can retrofits be part of the answer? These are but a few valid concerns but policy answers exist when smart people ask the right questions and leadership is provided to guide the process.
Is the specter of another spill any less daunting to our economy and to the lives of our brethren than sputnik circling overhead? Yet who in American politics has the gumption to propose such a grandiose plan? Such a plan will not emanate from the masses, but a new leader should be able to capitalize on patriotic fervor, pro-American policies and healthy dose of disgust to launch such a project.
The time has arrived for every American to participate in promulgating all that is possible in this great nation.
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.
