The Presidential race is now in high gear. Vice Presidential announcements are just days away. The conventions are around the corner and each candidates spin machines are running strong. Right now we are only allowed to see scheduled very rehearsed moments. Last week, Obama encountered an unrehearsed moment. How did he do? He failed.
Obama was confronted by a Las Vegas TV man about his flip flop on energy policy. Jon Ralston: "You were against drilling and tapping the petroleum reserve, but you've reversed on that. Now you're for both. You want to compromise on energy. So you don't really favor drilling, but for political reasons you're going to change your position. This is change that we can believe in, Senator?" Never mind that Obama’s current stance on drilling (the stance McCain has always had) is the only sane stance, on to his answer when cornered!
Obama responded, “What I said is that we can't drill our way out of the problem, and that's what I've said from the start. Uh, what I've also said is that we've got to focus on alternative energy. What I've also said, uh, is that there's room for domestic production in the overall energy mix. I'm not going to be dogmatic about it. That's not being political. That's common sense, Jon, to give relief to the American people, but more importantly to set ourselves on a path of energy efficiency over the long term.”
So why Senator where you ever against more drilling? What has changed in the past few weeks? Are you only now aware of the energy situation in this country? Or have your political advisors warned you that continuing the Liberal Democrat party line on drilling will do damage to your campaign?
It goes on, Jon Ralston: "Well, there's a story out today about how you [Obama] supported the Dick Cheney bill, the energy bill 2005." [Interestingly Obama voted for the 2005 bill and McCain did not!] "That bill gave subsidies to the oil and gas companies. McCain opposed it, saying that those are tax breaks for the oil companies, but Barack Obama favored it."
OBAMA: “Hold on a second. Uh, eh, er, you know, Jon, I, uh, er -- I -- I thought I was, de -- uh -- taking to you as opposed to debating John McCain but I'm happy to let you, uh, serve as his proxy. Uh, the, eh, uhh, we -- The fact of the matter is that I supported that energy bill, uh, saying at the time that those tax breaks were wrong, but also recognizing that this was the largest investment in alternative energy in history and that it was important for us for the solar industry, uh, to get off the ground in places like Nevada, for wind to get kicked off the ground, that that was something that we had to do.”
Actually, I applaud Obama for supporting this bill for the exact reason he did. Solar does need more funding. But the story here is his treatment of the reporter that DARED ask a difficult and necessary question. How dare this person question “The One” aka Obama. When put in a corner Obama accuses Jon Ralston of being a McCain operative.
What!!!!
This is laughable. 99% of all media is completely in the tank for Obama. It is obvious. And the one guy out of hundreds that have recently interviewed “The One” and dared confront him is accused of being a McCain “proxy”. Too funny! So Obama gets a taste of his own medicine and how does he react? As expected he makes a rookie mistake and in the process reveals himself to be immature and unready to lead.
This political season promises to be a lively one. Look for the media to circle the wagons around Obama in the face of any criticism. Look for Obama’s camp to accuse anyone who dares question “The One” of being a McCain supporter, ignorant or worse a racist.
Wake the kids and call the neighbors!!! It’s politics time in America again!!!
Wednesday, August 6, 2008
Nice Try John Spratt
I recently received a mailer for Representative John Spratt, our democratic congressman from 5th district (14 counties in all). At first glance you would think that John Spratt and I don’t differ too much on the issues. It even took a “trained” political contrarian like me a second reading to catch that Rep. Spratt was not like me at all; rather the mailer was just a “least common denominator” representation of his views. Or in other words, John Spratt paid someone good money to create a mailer that watered down his actual stances and voting record to a point to where it would appear to be acceptable to both Democrats and Republicans, Liberals and Conservatives.
Nice Try.
It starts with an innocuous introduction about his offices and background. He says that he is “accessible” or at least his offices are in Rock Hill, Sumter and Darlington and that his staff has helped “hundreds of folks” receive a “fair shake out of the federal government”. The reverse of the letter states his “positions on a few key issues.” These issues are listed within quotations so these are the words of Rep. John Spratt from the 5th Congressional District, a Democrat, a Liberal. He says he is for more drilling if it lowers gas prices; in fact he is “for anything responsible that will bring down prices.” Fair enough, strange to hear that talk coming from the side of the aisle that has made access to oil so expensive. Everyone knows that Democrats are the party of the environmentalists. Perhaps Mr. Spratt should ponder the responsibility of ZERO new atomic energy facilities in the US in 40 years more than half of that time Spratt has been in office (25 years). Perhaps Spratt should ponder the responsibility of us sending $700,000,000,000 (700 Billion) over seas for our energy needs when a large chunk of that could stay home or at least in North America.
Spratt confuses the issue by going on about how many permits and acres the oil companies already have to drill on, suggesting that other places like the Gulf and the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) shouldn’t be explored or drilled. The number of permits and acreage available is immaterial Rep. Spratt if your investment-to-return ratios are better elsewhere. If I could drill in Mudville and get 10 Barrels a day but drill in Ruby and get 25 barrels a day for the same investment, where would I drill first? Or if I only have money to plant one field with melons and one of my two fields cost twice as much to prepare and to harvest which field do I choose? These are the dilemmas facing the oil producers. Spratt tows the party line using the silly talking points issued to him by Democrats much more powerful than he and tries to turn it in to something palatable for all of us.
On Iraq he says he has “traveled to Iraq four times” suggesting the trip makes him more expert. Hardly. It would be what he did with his time there that made him more expert. I have traveled to Phoenix more than four times to change flights, but have never stayed, am I now an expert on Phoenix? Mr. Spratt, tell us more about your conversations with the troops on the ground. What are you hearing from the Generals and Colonels? The problem is, the Democrat Representative from the 5th District can’t do that. Because to do that would betray his party. A party that has invested in defeat. A party that has made the mission in Iraq harder and more dangerous by giving indirect aid and direct comfort to our enemies. If he discussed what he has seen and what he is hearing from those who know and are expert on Iraq and are in a position of power in the country of Iraq he would have to confess that his party’s positions on Iraq and his own behavior/vote/positions, either by act or omission are and have been less than helpful and often close to Treason. John Spratt will find NO QUARTER with me on this issue. His positions and his party are irresponsible. They have taken up with the blame-America-first and the anti-war crowd rather than do what nations do in a time of war, you pull together. As a son of the South Spratt was no-doubt raised better. He his partially protected in Washington because his party keeps him from the microphones and cameras on these tough issues? As well the media is either so inept that they don’t know to ask the tough question or so biased as to keep tough questions about the war for Republicans only. Shame on you Rep. Spratt.
On Health Care he starts with a dangerous premise that “…every American [has] affordable medical care.” Can you point to that in the Constitution Mr. Spratt? Does that fall under “necessary and proper” or interstate commerce? The Federal Government has no charter to provide health-care nor monkey with its affordability. It certainly doesn’t have the right to tell States that they MUST pay for 20% of a Federal program!!!
On the Budget Rep. John Spratt goes on about his work balancing the budget in the 90’s, before the dot-com bubble burst, before 9/11, before Katrina, before the war on Terror and the War for Energy Security (Iraq). Well, whoop-tee-doo! If I was Bill Gates I bet I could balance my check book with a bit more ease and security. But, I am not, so it is often difficult for me when times get tough. The heady days of the 90’s are gone and we are paying the price for it now. I no more expected John Spratt to be clairvoyant enough to predict our situation today than I expected George W. Bush. But now that the causes of our economic situation are clear, I at least expect honesty. Seems I get none from Democrat Representative John Spratt from the 5th Congressional District. Honesty would admit that the globalized nature of our economy has given us our current situation and a temporary negative budget might be a necessity for the short term. A balanced budget should be the norm of course and we have gone too long in the “Red”, but let’s be clear headed about the situation.
How could a Democrat be a Democrat without talking about education? As with health-care, please point to the passage in the US Constitution that gives the Federal Government the right or obligation to deal in education and to dictate to States how we should educate our children? Increasing Federal spending on education has never worked. Yet we keep spending. Spratt’s mailer is even targeted towards me, it suggests a decrease in loan repayment interest rates and more money for need based grants and loans that I have taken advantage of in the past for college. Why don’t we let states handle the education, we can still have Pell Grants and Student Loans but lets do it on a State by State and community by community basis. In Ireland part of your local taxes goes to paying for local kids to go to college. The benefit for this kind of taxing and spending is obvious. Who knows best how much to tax and where to spend your money, John Spratt, a man who you can’t even pick up the phone and contact, or someone in your community? Federal interference in education has been a complete failure. Shame on John Spratt and all that support it.
Finally, Spratt has two sentences on taxes. In these two short sentences he manages to clandestinely promote his party line that the “rich” should be taxed more and are not paying their fair share. Well Sir, lets do some research.
Percentage of Federal Personal Income Tax Paid (2006)
(Folks that make over: ) (Percentage of total taxes paid to the Feds)
Top 1% $388,806 39.89
Top 5% $153,542 60.14
Top 10% $108,904 70.79
Top 25% $64,702 86.27
Top 50% $31,987 97.01
Bottom 50% <$31,987 2.99
Source: Internal Revenue Service (via www.ntu.org)
This means that those that make over $100,000 dollars are paying over 70% of the taxes. Those that make over $31,000 are paying 97 percent of the taxes. 97%!!!!!!!
Let me translate a bit more. 40% of the taxes are paid by the so called “rich”. 20% of the taxes are paid by the “well off”. 10% of the taxes are paid by the “upper middle class”. 25% of the taxes are paid by the “middle class”. Less than 5% of taxes are paid by the people who use the programs the taxes pay for. If you think all your money is going to Iraq, you are VERY WRONG. The majority goes into Federal Funded Entitlement Programs!!!
Remember Terrrorism?
To most of us Terrorism is 9/11, or roadside bombs in Iraq, or Palestinian Suicide Bombers. How many of us are directly affected by a terrorist attack? How many of us have ever been the immediate target of primary target? How many of us even know what the difference is between “ordinary” political violence and terrorism?
Terrorism, the term, has only been meaningful to most Americans post-9/11 and since that time so few of us have advanced our understanding of what “terrorism” is and how to prevent and defend against it. This includes elected officials and those on the supposed front lines.
Terrorism 101, Violence as Theatre
The passengers of the planes and victims in the buildings on September 11th were the “immediate victims” of the terrorists but were not the “primary victims/targets”. The primary target and aspired-to victim was you and I. The spectacular attacks were merely theatrics designed to facilitate the real damage, the terrorizing of millions. The act of blowing up planes and buildings without any media coverage would only result in a few 100,000 people being actually affected. But, when broadcasted world wide it then can affect billions of people. If no one goes to see the movie or play can it have much effect? If you never heard of it do you even know that you are missing it? The same for terrorism, it is only effective if it is known.
Because of this fact the Media, some times wittingly sometimes not, plays a necessary role in terrorism. And, the more free and democratic a society, with little to no government controls on media, the larger the potential for effective terrorist attacks.
Terrorism 101, Three Ways Terrorists Win: Over React, Under React and Under Estimate
Terrorism works when the primary victim, say… America, over reacts to an attack by either retaliating against too broad a target or retaliating against the wrong target. This over reaction then lands right into the Propaganda wheel-house of a proficient terrorist organization. The improper actions are turned into recruiting material and new generations of terrorists are more easily spawned. (Important to remember that terrorists “spawn” without us contributing to their propaganda, over reactions act as an accelerant, not a necessary catalyst.)
Terrorism works when the primary victim, say… America, under reacts to an attack by retaliating too late, against the wrong target, or not at all. Bill Clinton pulled our troops out of Mogadishu after the “Black Hawk Down” incident. Ronald Reagan pulled us out of Lebanon after two bombings. Both of these under reactions to terrorism emboldened our terrorist enemies, giving them confidence to strike us. Osama Bin Laden in his “Declaration of War” (on America and the West) speech invoked both Beirut, Lebanon and Mogadishu,Somalia as signs of American weakness:
“We say to the Defence Secretary that his talk can induce a grieving
mother to laughter! and shows the fears that had enshrined you all.
Where was this false courage of yours when the explosion in Beirut
took place on 1983 CE (1403 A.H). You were turned into scattered
pits and pieces at that time; 241 mainly marines solders were killed.
And where was this courage of yours when two explosions made
you to leave Aden in less than twenty four hours!
But your most disgraceful case was in Somalia; where after
vigorous propaganda about the power of the USA and its post cold
war leadership of the new world order you moved tens of
thousands of international force, including twenty eight thousands
American solders into Somalia. However, when tens of your
solders were killed in minor battles and one American Pilot was
dragged in the streets of Mogadishu you left the area carrying
disappointment, humiliation, defeat and your dead with you.
Clinton appeared in front of the whole world threatening and
promising revenge, but these threats were merely a preparation for
withdrawal. You have been disgraced by Allah and you withdrew;
the extent of your impotence and weaknesses became very clear. It
was a pleasure for the "heart" of every Muslim and a remedy to the
"chests" of believing nations to see you defeated in the three Islamic
cities of Beirut, Aden and Mogadishu”
Terrorism works when the primary victim, say…America, under estimates terrorist capabilities, psychological and personal make up and motivations. Many of us think of terrorists as insane or cowards. Both of these characterizations are normal reactions to being terrorized; call it the “who could do such a thing syndrome”. Many of us think of terrorists as Muslim or Arab or “brown” people. I am fairly certain that Timothy McVeigh was neither Muslim, nor Arab nor brown. Terrorism is not a mental abnormality nor is it a tool of cowards. It is important to note that by most definitions of terrorism that Francis Marion would have been a top rate terrorist from the viewpoint of his enemies.
Many of us consider terrorists capabilities to be limited to large sensational attacks in locations like New York or L.A. We only think of the large attack rather than the small systematic one. By minimizing what we assume a terrorist capability to be and by misjudging capacity and mischaracterizing terrorists we under estimate who can be a terrorist, a terrorist’s means and where they might attack.
Terrorism 101, In your back yard.
Ahmed Abdellatif Sherif Mohamed and Youssef Samir Megahed were arrested in Goose Creek, South Carolina on explosives charges last year, the two University of South Florida students were supposedly on their way to Myrtle Beach with a box of 22 rifle ammunition, a 5 gallon can of gasoline, homemade “fireworks” packed into a pipe and 25 feet of safety fuse. After further investigation a video was found on a laptop in the car that showed how to turn a toy remote control car in to a detonator. The narrative of the video suggests it is directed to suicide bombers and had been previously posted on YouTube.
In Fort Bragg, NC Ali Mahamed worked for the US Special Forces (Green Berets) and from time to time with the CIA. Mahamed was also working for Egyptian Islamic Jihad and Al Qaeda. Mahamed infiltrated and spied on the United States for years before being caught. One FBI agent suggested that Mahamed has actually taught both Ayman Al-Zawahiri and Osama Bin Laden in terrorist tactics.
Terrorism 101, Our Apathy and Misunderstanding Fuel Terrorism
Terrorism requires our reaction to the primary terrorist incident. For our purposes the terrorist “tree” in the woods does NOT make a sound if we are not there to hear it. You may still have political violence but it is our reaction to it that makes it terrorism. When we react to terrorism with Apathy and Misunderstanding we make the effects of terrorism worse. By not understanding the grievances of terrorists and not seeking out its roots and causes we doom ourselves to more terrorist attacks in number and greater attacks in affect. When we don’t concern ourselves with what our politicians are doing to detect, deter, and defend us from terrorism we doom ourselves to over reactions, under reactions and “mis-underestimations”. When we don’t understand the nuances of terrorism we allow our media outlets to sensationalize terrorism and there-by act as a terrorist force-multiplier worsening the effects and hampering the detection, deterrence and defense.
I hope this handy terrorism synopsis is useful. If you think you are many times removed from the front lines of terrorism you would be wrong. Your proximity to the ballot box puts you smack-dab on the front line with major responsibilities for our nation now and in the future. An ignorant vote is as bad as no vote, maybe worse. Accept your responsibility and inform yourself about these issues and vote accordingly.
Benjamin Cook
Right-Wing Propagandist and Local Arms Dealer
Terrorism, the term, has only been meaningful to most Americans post-9/11 and since that time so few of us have advanced our understanding of what “terrorism” is and how to prevent and defend against it. This includes elected officials and those on the supposed front lines.
Terrorism 101, Violence as Theatre
The passengers of the planes and victims in the buildings on September 11th were the “immediate victims” of the terrorists but were not the “primary victims/targets”. The primary target and aspired-to victim was you and I. The spectacular attacks were merely theatrics designed to facilitate the real damage, the terrorizing of millions. The act of blowing up planes and buildings without any media coverage would only result in a few 100,000 people being actually affected. But, when broadcasted world wide it then can affect billions of people. If no one goes to see the movie or play can it have much effect? If you never heard of it do you even know that you are missing it? The same for terrorism, it is only effective if it is known.
Because of this fact the Media, some times wittingly sometimes not, plays a necessary role in terrorism. And, the more free and democratic a society, with little to no government controls on media, the larger the potential for effective terrorist attacks.
Terrorism 101, Three Ways Terrorists Win: Over React, Under React and Under Estimate
Terrorism works when the primary victim, say… America, over reacts to an attack by either retaliating against too broad a target or retaliating against the wrong target. This over reaction then lands right into the Propaganda wheel-house of a proficient terrorist organization. The improper actions are turned into recruiting material and new generations of terrorists are more easily spawned. (Important to remember that terrorists “spawn” without us contributing to their propaganda, over reactions act as an accelerant, not a necessary catalyst.)
Terrorism works when the primary victim, say… America, under reacts to an attack by retaliating too late, against the wrong target, or not at all. Bill Clinton pulled our troops out of Mogadishu after the “Black Hawk Down” incident. Ronald Reagan pulled us out of Lebanon after two bombings. Both of these under reactions to terrorism emboldened our terrorist enemies, giving them confidence to strike us. Osama Bin Laden in his “Declaration of War” (on America and the West) speech invoked both Beirut, Lebanon and Mogadishu,Somalia as signs of American weakness:
“We say to the Defence Secretary that his talk can induce a grieving
mother to laughter! and shows the fears that had enshrined you all.
Where was this false courage of yours when the explosion in Beirut
took place on 1983 CE (1403 A.H). You were turned into scattered
pits and pieces at that time; 241 mainly marines solders were killed.
And where was this courage of yours when two explosions made
you to leave Aden in less than twenty four hours!
But your most disgraceful case was in Somalia; where after
vigorous propaganda about the power of the USA and its post cold
war leadership of the new world order you moved tens of
thousands of international force, including twenty eight thousands
American solders into Somalia. However, when tens of your
solders were killed in minor battles and one American Pilot was
dragged in the streets of Mogadishu you left the area carrying
disappointment, humiliation, defeat and your dead with you.
Clinton appeared in front of the whole world threatening and
promising revenge, but these threats were merely a preparation for
withdrawal. You have been disgraced by Allah and you withdrew;
the extent of your impotence and weaknesses became very clear. It
was a pleasure for the "heart" of every Muslim and a remedy to the
"chests" of believing nations to see you defeated in the three Islamic
cities of Beirut, Aden and Mogadishu”
Terrorism works when the primary victim, say…America, under estimates terrorist capabilities, psychological and personal make up and motivations. Many of us think of terrorists as insane or cowards. Both of these characterizations are normal reactions to being terrorized; call it the “who could do such a thing syndrome”. Many of us think of terrorists as Muslim or Arab or “brown” people. I am fairly certain that Timothy McVeigh was neither Muslim, nor Arab nor brown. Terrorism is not a mental abnormality nor is it a tool of cowards. It is important to note that by most definitions of terrorism that Francis Marion would have been a top rate terrorist from the viewpoint of his enemies.
Many of us consider terrorists capabilities to be limited to large sensational attacks in locations like New York or L.A. We only think of the large attack rather than the small systematic one. By minimizing what we assume a terrorist capability to be and by misjudging capacity and mischaracterizing terrorists we under estimate who can be a terrorist, a terrorist’s means and where they might attack.
Terrorism 101, In your back yard.
Ahmed Abdellatif Sherif Mohamed and Youssef Samir Megahed were arrested in Goose Creek, South Carolina on explosives charges last year, the two University of South Florida students were supposedly on their way to Myrtle Beach with a box of 22 rifle ammunition, a 5 gallon can of gasoline, homemade “fireworks” packed into a pipe and 25 feet of safety fuse. After further investigation a video was found on a laptop in the car that showed how to turn a toy remote control car in to a detonator. The narrative of the video suggests it is directed to suicide bombers and had been previously posted on YouTube.
In Fort Bragg, NC Ali Mahamed worked for the US Special Forces (Green Berets) and from time to time with the CIA. Mahamed was also working for Egyptian Islamic Jihad and Al Qaeda. Mahamed infiltrated and spied on the United States for years before being caught. One FBI agent suggested that Mahamed has actually taught both Ayman Al-Zawahiri and Osama Bin Laden in terrorist tactics.
Terrorism 101, Our Apathy and Misunderstanding Fuel Terrorism
Terrorism requires our reaction to the primary terrorist incident. For our purposes the terrorist “tree” in the woods does NOT make a sound if we are not there to hear it. You may still have political violence but it is our reaction to it that makes it terrorism. When we react to terrorism with Apathy and Misunderstanding we make the effects of terrorism worse. By not understanding the grievances of terrorists and not seeking out its roots and causes we doom ourselves to more terrorist attacks in number and greater attacks in affect. When we don’t concern ourselves with what our politicians are doing to detect, deter, and defend us from terrorism we doom ourselves to over reactions, under reactions and “mis-underestimations”. When we don’t understand the nuances of terrorism we allow our media outlets to sensationalize terrorism and there-by act as a terrorist force-multiplier worsening the effects and hampering the detection, deterrence and defense.
I hope this handy terrorism synopsis is useful. If you think you are many times removed from the front lines of terrorism you would be wrong. Your proximity to the ballot box puts you smack-dab on the front line with major responsibilities for our nation now and in the future. An ignorant vote is as bad as no vote, maybe worse. Accept your responsibility and inform yourself about these issues and vote accordingly.
Benjamin Cook
Right-Wing Propagandist and Local Arms Dealer
Monday, June 23, 2008
Financial Times Journalist v. Me (or someone who has actually been to Ireland!)
For two weeks in a row a gentleman at the Financial Times has been, in my biased estimation, too rough on Ireland. I think he thinks a bit too much of the EU's role in the "Irish Miracle" (a term I hate). Here is my response.
Mr. Wolfgang Munchau of the Financial Times writes this week that the Irish are in danger of ruining their economic “miracle” based on the recent “NO” vote on the Lisbon Treaty referendum. Well Mr. Munchau, I think you discount the Irish and misunderstand the definition of “miracle”.
Wolfgang Munchau suggests in two recent articles that the Lisbon Treaty is destined to be ratified with or without the Irish, fair enough, but I don’t see how if the convoluted rules of the European Union state otherwise. Sure, as Munchau pointed out, The Republic of Ireland could be kicked out in some back room slick deal by an “unpredictable court,” but how is that good for the EU? What precedent and unintended consequences does that course of action suggest?
As an American who has lived in Ireland I am torn as to the best course for Ireland, I suppose on the one hand the “No” vote has signaled to the EU that it is a loose affiliation of States that has real limits on its ability to encroach on the sovereignty of a member. As well, the “No” vote signaled that the Treaty, even with the concessions to Ireland, was still stained with the lingering stench of Corporate Tax Harmonization… a nasty little phrase that means that France and Germany are tired of watching Free Market Capitalism work for such a small “insignificant” country (or the basic idea/rule/heuristic that lower taxes stimulate economic growth, and an educated labor pool keeps costs low by providing levels of efficiency and productivity).
On the other hand the “Yes” vote steers the EU towards a more realistic and streamlined decision making process. Basically, the “Yes” is what is best for the EU and the “No” is what is best for
Yes the rest of
Munchau in an attempt to understand the Irish Miracle has suggested that it is a matter of Corporatism, a Socialist pseudo-egalitarian concept that might be instructive in a classroom setting but looses its meaning when placed into a real world situation. The myriad of interests supposedly represented in a modern so-called Corporatist system can not possibly be satisfied in a complicated real world economy. But, to his credit Mr. Munchau does note that the one interest left out of this “system” is that of the EU. In the American South we would say that
Finally, in what can only be termed “grasping” Wolfgang Munchau also suggests that
The EU in its rush to be fair to all has seen the consequences of that fool’s errand. Utopian concepts will eventually be shown for what they are, and I believe what the road to Hell is paved with.
One of my few liberal heros gets it wrong on Oil Exploration
Below is my email to Thomas Friedman in response to his recent column in the NY Times. Mr. Friedman is a Liberal with sense... which is to say he rarely lets his heart get in the way of his head as most liberals do. In being this way he is often on the properside, the right side, of an issue. For example, Thomas understands that couching Alternative Energy to Republicans in an end of days/Al Gore rhetorical scenario will never work... but discribe it as Conservation, Innovation and Stewardship and Repubs can get their Conservative heads around the issue.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/22/opinion/22friedman.html?ex=1371787200&en=3c18c6b8b5bb4a3e&ei=5124&partner=permalink&exprod=permalink
_____________________________________
Mr. Friedman,
Wow, you really missed a big one here. You are all over Bush for asking the congress to open up the oil fields in the gulf and in ANWR when that is the very thing he should have insisted upon post 9/11 and then once again post Katrina. Now he is finally doing it (dubious timing, sure) and you think it is to get another "hit" for our oil addiction. To finish your analogy, what happens when a heroin addict quits cold-turkey? Can the US survive the convultions and shakes? De-tox ain't pretty.
I am sure you agree that there is nothing we can do to bring alternative energy to the masses until the infrastructure is in place? What do we do in the mean time? Suffer needlessly? Using current oil based infrastructure is the only means to effectively stave off short term (but very real) economic hardship.
Sure, not drilling would hasten alt energy infrastructer... but at what price? Inflation? Energy Security?
Respectfully, you missed the point on this one. I support your "Green" efforts not just for the nobility of it but the utility as well. But, you can not get from "A" to "C" without going to "B". Refusing to drill ANWR and the Gulf is trying to skip "B" and go to "C".
Keep up the good work.
Ben
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/22/opinion/22friedman.html?ex=1371787200&en=3c18c6b8b5bb4a3e&ei=5124&partner=permalink&exprod=permalink
_____________________________________
Mr. Friedman,
Wow, you really missed a big one here. You are all over Bush for asking the congress to open up the oil fields in the gulf and in ANWR when that is the very thing he should have insisted upon post 9/11 and then once again post Katrina. Now he is finally doing it (dubious timing, sure) and you think it is to get another "hit" for our oil addiction. To finish your analogy, what happens when a heroin addict quits cold-turkey? Can the US survive the convultions and shakes? De-tox ain't pretty.
I am sure you agree that there is nothing we can do to bring alternative energy to the masses until the infrastructure is in place? What do we do in the mean time? Suffer needlessly? Using current oil based infrastructure is the only means to effectively stave off short term (but very real) economic hardship.
Sure, not drilling would hasten alt energy infrastructer... but at what price? Inflation? Energy Security?
Respectfully, you missed the point on this one. I support your "Green" efforts not just for the nobility of it but the utility as well. But, you can not get from "A" to "C" without going to "B". Refusing to drill ANWR and the Gulf is trying to skip "B" and go to "C".
Keep up the good work.
Ben
Wednesday, June 18, 2008
NY Congressman suggest we follow Chavez and Evo Morales
Saturday, June 14, 2008
Redux: Irish Neutrality
The following is from October of 2007. I was placed on an email list that went out to many in Irish academia calling for US troops to leave Shannon airport.
http://arenablog.blogspot.com/2007/10/answer-to-unsolicited-email.html
'Are you straight?"
'I am.'
'How straight?'
'As straight as a rush.'
'Go on, then.'
'In truth, in trust, in unity and liberty.'
'What have you got in your hand?'
'A green bough.'
'Where did it first grow?'
'In America.'
'Where did it first bud?'
'In France.'
'Where are you going to plant it?'
'In the crown of Great Britain.'
- A greeting of the United Irishmen Circa 1791
I am so glad I found my way on whatever list this is. Perhaps some
common sense and a bit of accuracy will help some of us.
First, the idea of Irish neutrality is what is "spurious". Neutrality
or what some like to consider neutrality happens only at the pleasure
of those that are NOT neutral. The same for pacifists. Both concepts
are utopian concepts that can never actually be achieved. Both
concepts survive only at the pleasure of those willing to stand for
something and defend something larger than an unattainable concept
like neutrality. Ireland is full of people willing to stand for these
"larger" concepts and may God bless their efforts.
Ireland the country that welcomed me and that I fell in love with is
not neutral, at least not in deed -though it may strive to be so in
concept.
Ireland is connected to the US and the non neutral West via economics,
among other things. It is the fact that these non "neutral" countries
stand for something concrete and are willing to defend and protect it
that provides the market relationships necessary for Western progress
of which Ireland is a major part.
Chief among these ideas in need of defense is that of energy security.
I am not defending US consumption practices, far from it. I am
merely pointing out how energy and OIL are the life blood of Western
(Irish) economies. To deny this is folly and perhaps the root of our
major differences. You do not touch one thing or travel to one place
or have one interaction that is not facilitated in some way by oil.
This FACT is immutable. Is this situation a "best-practice"? I think
not. Is it optimal? I think not. Is it correctable? I think so
-with conservation, stewardship and innovation. (Noticeably absent
from this list is fear-mongering, like Al Gore's "End of Days"
scenario.)
This "correction" is not forthcoming in a reasonable amount of time.
So, until the arrival of the distant future we must be pragmatic and
even utilitarian in our energy security policy. WE being the West or
developed world that Ireland is a part of. This pragmatic approach
includes having an influential role in the areas that provide the
energy the West (Ireland) needs. (Not to mention emerging economies
like China, India and Eastern Europe.) This influential role is the
crux of my admonition.
What bothers me most with the current Bush administration is the silly
and cowardly way they continue the failed policy of denying that the
war in Iraq was about energy security, ie... "a war for oil." Because
the cause of "energy security" in and of itself is as necessary a
cause as there has ever been. That cause should be explained clearly
not avoided as is the policy of the current administration. That
cause, "energy security," is axiomatic, a maxim, a heuristic. It is a
moral imperative.
Sadly in order for this moral imperative to be seen clearly many
people must step outside their own bias and out of the narrative they
have placed themselves in. A narrative for Ireland that promotes the
concept of neutrality when in fact Ireland is in the thick-of-it by
action and association –far from neutral. A narrative for many of us
that is an investment in both self-loathing and West-loathing.
Investment in this narrative sadly has some suffering from
true-believers syndrome. Or being so invested in your own bias that
even when faced with facts that counter your position you will
construct walls (read: lies) in your narrative that counter the
cognitive dissonance that occurs when confronted with the truth
-thereby, victimizing you. What is more, when you take it upon
yourself to induct others into your false narrative you victimize
them.
Most wretchedly, once you have induced enough people the process
becomes easier. Your responsibility for the false narrative is
diffused over all that you have convinced of your bias. This
"group-think" will now transform the narrative into doctrine and
promote "mind-guards" to police dissent and deflect any attacks… even
those of reason!
Finally, I find the flaunting of death tolls particularly disturbing
because invariably it is done as an appeal to emotion rather than
reason. It is a distraction if the tolls are void of context as they
usually are. It is sad that many of us pick and choose the value we
place on human life so easily. If we were true humanitarians we would
look not at the cost of human life in terms of our comfort and
emotional well-being but rather we would look at it in a utilitarian
way. A way that sought to preserve the largest number of lives over
the longest foreseeable future.
When we extol the context-less body count we ignore history's lessons.
Lessons that have taught us again and again that freedom, liberty and
happiness are functions of hard work over great amounts of time. Hard
work that translates into men and women standing up for freedom and up
to tyranny. If your narrative suggests that energy security is best
provided in the hands of Saddam Hussein or Mahmood Ahmahdinejad rather
than people of liberty participating in a true Lockeian sovereignty
then you my friend are indeed suffering from a narrative rank with
group-think and self-loathing.
It is important to read this with an open mind but it is even more
important to not assume what is not written here. There is nothing
suggested here-in that says the Iraq war was the proper or best way to
provide energy security. There is nothing here that says the war was
and is being prosecuted efficiently. There is nothing here that says
Ireland should take up arms and join the US in Iraq or Afghanistan.
There is nothing here that says Ireland should take any aggressive
position with its own military. There is nothing here that suggests
Ireland's voice not be heard no matter what it is saying or how
difficult it is for the US to hear. What is written here is an
admonition to Ireland that it is neither neutral nor an outsider
looking in on the US and the broader West. It is a fully vested
player with all the rights, privileges and RESPONSIBILITIES that go
along with the progress and prosperity it enjoys.
So, you don't have to have US military planes, transporting the best
and brightest America has to offer to and from combat, on Irish soil
to be a participant in the battle for energy security. You need only
fill up your car with petrol or take the bus to the City Center or
welcome tourists off of jet planes or purchase a pint from the pub or
any item from any establishment in the whole of the Republic of
Ireland. Like it or not your participation in energy security is tied
not to the military planes in Shannon but the economy and progress you
and the rest of the developed world enjoy daily. To deny this is
either ignorance or hypocrisy of the worst and most dangerous kind.
http://arenablog.blogspot.com/2007/10/answer-to-unsolicited-email.html
'Are you straight?"
'I am.'
'How straight?'
'As straight as a rush.'
'Go on, then.'
'In truth, in trust, in unity and liberty.'
'What have you got in your hand?'
'A green bough.'
'Where did it first grow?'
'In America.'
'Where did it first bud?'
'In France.'
'Where are you going to plant it?'
'In the crown of Great Britain.'
- A greeting of the United Irishmen Circa 1791
I am so glad I found my way on whatever list this is. Perhaps some
common sense and a bit of accuracy will help some of us.
First, the idea of Irish neutrality is what is "spurious". Neutrality
or what some like to consider neutrality happens only at the pleasure
of those that are NOT neutral. The same for pacifists. Both concepts
are utopian concepts that can never actually be achieved. Both
concepts survive only at the pleasure of those willing to stand for
something and defend something larger than an unattainable concept
like neutrality. Ireland is full of people willing to stand for these
"larger" concepts and may God bless their efforts.
Ireland the country that welcomed me and that I fell in love with is
not neutral, at least not in deed -though it may strive to be so in
concept.
Ireland is connected to the US and the non neutral West via economics,
among other things. It is the fact that these non "neutral" countries
stand for something concrete and are willing to defend and protect it
that provides the market relationships necessary for Western progress
of which Ireland is a major part.
Chief among these ideas in need of defense is that of energy security.
I am not defending US consumption practices, far from it. I am
merely pointing out how energy and OIL are the life blood of Western
(Irish) economies. To deny this is folly and perhaps the root of our
major differences. You do not touch one thing or travel to one place
or have one interaction that is not facilitated in some way by oil.
This FACT is immutable. Is this situation a "best-practice"? I think
not. Is it optimal? I think not. Is it correctable? I think so
-with conservation, stewardship and innovation. (Noticeably absent
from this list is fear-mongering, like Al Gore's "End of Days"
scenario.)
This "correction" is not forthcoming in a reasonable amount of time.
So, until the arrival of the distant future we must be pragmatic and
even utilitarian in our energy security policy. WE being the West or
developed world that Ireland is a part of. This pragmatic approach
includes having an influential role in the areas that provide the
energy the West (Ireland) needs. (Not to mention emerging economies
like China, India and Eastern Europe.) This influential role is the
crux of my admonition.
What bothers me most with the current Bush administration is the silly
and cowardly way they continue the failed policy of denying that the
war in Iraq was about energy security, ie... "a war for oil." Because
the cause of "energy security" in and of itself is as necessary a
cause as there has ever been. That cause should be explained clearly
not avoided as is the policy of the current administration. That
cause, "energy security," is axiomatic, a maxim, a heuristic. It is a
moral imperative.
Sadly in order for this moral imperative to be seen clearly many
people must step outside their own bias and out of the narrative they
have placed themselves in. A narrative for Ireland that promotes the
concept of neutrality when in fact Ireland is in the thick-of-it by
action and association –far from neutral. A narrative for many of us
that is an investment in both self-loathing and West-loathing.
Investment in this narrative sadly has some suffering from
true-believers syndrome. Or being so invested in your own bias that
even when faced with facts that counter your position you will
construct walls (read: lies) in your narrative that counter the
cognitive dissonance that occurs when confronted with the truth
-thereby, victimizing you. What is more, when you take it upon
yourself to induct others into your false narrative you victimize
them.
Most wretchedly, once you have induced enough people the process
becomes easier. Your responsibility for the false narrative is
diffused over all that you have convinced of your bias. This
"group-think" will now transform the narrative into doctrine and
promote "mind-guards" to police dissent and deflect any attacks… even
those of reason!
Finally, I find the flaunting of death tolls particularly disturbing
because invariably it is done as an appeal to emotion rather than
reason. It is a distraction if the tolls are void of context as they
usually are. It is sad that many of us pick and choose the value we
place on human life so easily. If we were true humanitarians we would
look not at the cost of human life in terms of our comfort and
emotional well-being but rather we would look at it in a utilitarian
way. A way that sought to preserve the largest number of lives over
the longest foreseeable future.
When we extol the context-less body count we ignore history's lessons.
Lessons that have taught us again and again that freedom, liberty and
happiness are functions of hard work over great amounts of time. Hard
work that translates into men and women standing up for freedom and up
to tyranny. If your narrative suggests that energy security is best
provided in the hands of Saddam Hussein or Mahmood Ahmahdinejad rather
than people of liberty participating in a true Lockeian sovereignty
then you my friend are indeed suffering from a narrative rank with
group-think and self-loathing.
It is important to read this with an open mind but it is even more
important to not assume what is not written here. There is nothing
suggested here-in that says the Iraq war was the proper or best way to
provide energy security. There is nothing here that says the war was
and is being prosecuted efficiently. There is nothing here that says
Ireland should take up arms and join the US in Iraq or Afghanistan.
There is nothing here that says Ireland should take any aggressive
position with its own military. There is nothing here that suggests
Ireland's voice not be heard no matter what it is saying or how
difficult it is for the US to hear. What is written here is an
admonition to Ireland that it is neither neutral nor an outsider
looking in on the US and the broader West. It is a fully vested
player with all the rights, privileges and RESPONSIBILITIES that go
along with the progress and prosperity it enjoys.
So, you don't have to have US military planes, transporting the best
and brightest America has to offer to and from combat, on Irish soil
to be a participant in the battle for energy security. You need only
fill up your car with petrol or take the bus to the City Center or
welcome tourists off of jet planes or purchase a pint from the pub or
any item from any establishment in the whole of the Republic of
Ireland. Like it or not your participation in energy security is tied
not to the military planes in Shannon but the economy and progress you
and the rest of the developed world enjoy daily. To deny this is
either ignorance or hypocrisy of the worst and most dangerous kind.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
