Our Do Nothing Congress etc

In the face of overwhelming public approval for lifting the ban on off-shore drilling what does the Democratic leadership in the Congress do but to declare that they can't be bothered with high gasoline prices and will take a six week holiday. Nice. I only wish the rest of us tax paying Americans had that luxury at taxpayers' expense.

I don't care how mad anyone may be at George W over the war in Iraq and the ancillary effects (i.e. abu ghraib, gitmo, FISA, etc.), the fact remains that since taking control of Congress in 2006 the Democrats, under the leadership of Reid and Pelosi, have done zip quat nothing to help the energy crisis which, by the latest polls, is number one issue on the hit parade for the general public.

In any normal election year with such an unpopular President, the off-party challenger should be 20 points ahead and yet BHO is in a dead heat with McCain. Things that make you want to go hmmm.....

It is clear the the enviro-nazis have the Democratic leadership by the "balls". Since Nancy doesn't have any I have to put it in quotation marks. They won't bring the off-shore ban to a vote because they know that a number of moderate democrats in the House will vote in favor in order to get re-elected. In the Senate they are afraid of putting their anointed one - i.e. BHO - on the spot for a vote. Perhaps they shouldn't worry about that too much since he has a very strong record of voting absent.

In any event, recent events, including his embarrassing (for America) speech in Berlin, should convince a majority of Americans that BHO is not ready for prime time. This is not about race, and not about the fact that he doesn't look like previous presidents on our currency ( neither does McCain by the way), but it is all about policy and his policies are the wrong policies for America.

Bush and Truman

I want to make a prediction. Thirty years from now George W Bush will be treated kindly by historians and may even be viewed as one of our greatest presidents. This will be because of his single minded pursuit of the war on terror and - yes - the Iraq war. I make this prediction with the full knowledge of George W's current 28% approval rating.

In 1952 Harry Truman's approval rating was 22%. The country was tired and stressed out over the Korean war and major economic issues at home particularly with the steel industry and its labor difficulties. Today Truman's legacy is 180 out from the popular view of his administration at the end of his second term. This is so because through the lens of history and time, most historians now see that Truman's recognition of the Communist threat and his steadfast approach to its containment set the stage for the subsequent cold war that we finally won during Reagan's administration. During his presidency Truman was viewed as opinionated, a little arrogant, decisive and not the brightest bulb in the closet. He was respected, however, for his consistency on the issues and unwillingness to compromise his principles just to garner favorable public opinion.

Who does that sound like? You could make the same statement about George W today.

Only time and world events will tell, but I do believe that in the end George W Bush's policies and his decision take out of Saddam Hussein will be vindicated and those who today decry his presidency as the worst ever will be proven dead wrong just as Truman's critics in 1952 have been discredited.

The Solution to Oil

Since everyone from John McCain and Barak Obama to T Boone Pickens and Newt Gingrich has their solution to the energy security and gas price "crisis," I feel it is only fair to put in my two cents worth. My plan would fundamentally transform the way we produce and consume energy and end our dependence on foreign oil once and for all.

First let's be clear about how we produce and consume energy. Essentially we consume energy in two forms electricity and fossil fuel products (coal, natural gas, gasoline, diesel fuel and heating oil). We produce electricity from coal (50%), natural gas (20%), and nuclear (20%), with all other sources including hydro, geothermal, solar and wind making up the other 10%. The key point here is that at least in the US we do not - repeat do not - produce any significant amount of electricity by burning oil or oil distillates. The only exception being emergency power generators.

So where do we use oil. Aside from home heating oil used primarily in the northeast, almost all our oil consumption is for transportation - cars, trucks, trains, buses, airplanes, ships. The key point here is that the use of solar and wind for electrical production, while good ideas and should be developed where they make economic sense, will NOT help our dependence on oil for the simple reason that we do not use oil for electricity. One more stake in the heart of T Boone's plan to wean us off of oil. As Charles Krauthammer, one of my favorite columnists, has aptly said that the only way wind energy can help reduce our dependence on oil is if we we put sails on cars.

The other key point to understand is that the US reserves of coal make us the Saudi Arabia of coal so it is a resource that we must continue to use.

So my plan is based on three major initiatives all of which are achievable by the middle of this century and if realized will end our dependence on foreign oil once and for all.

First is to invest in developing carbon sequestration technologies that will allow us to take advantage of our enormous coal reserves for the production of electricity. Now I am not a believer in anthropogenic global warming, but it does make sense that we should avoid pumping more CO2 into the air if we can avoid it. Also from a public acceptance perspective in order to take full advantage of coal, clear evidence that we can capture the CO2 will be a practical and political requirement.

Second we need a NRA style program to build more nuclear plants so that the percentage of electricity from nuclear power at least doubles from its current 20% to 40% or more. Sorry but T Boone's idea for a phalanx of wind turbines from Mexico to Canada just won't do the job. If France can generate 75% of its electricity from nuclear then so can we. It is also worthy of note that >45% of the world's supply of uranium comes from Canada, Australia and the USA so we are unlikely to be held hostage by unfriendly countries.

Thirdly we need to shift from the internal combustion engine to an all electric transportation system. This will require new batteries that can drive cars and trucks for at least 400 miles at highway speeds and then be fully recharged in 20-30 minutes. These batteries do not exist today but with the right incentives and R&D there is no question in my mind that they can be developed by 2030. That would give us 20 years to shift the corner gas station infrastructure to recharging stations.

It is true that planes and ships will still be powered by fossil fuels, but converting our ground based transportation system to an all electric fleet will fundamentally change the supply and demand equation.

This is a very simple and effective plan that can be implemented today. All we need is the political will to do so. If we are really concerned with oil prices, energy security and minimizing our carbon footprint this is the only plan that makes sense.

A Nation of Whiners

I just love all the flap stirred up by former Senator Phil Gramm's comments to the effect that the nation needs to stop whining about the economy. Right on Phil!! In the wake of the controversy over his comments, Gramm backtracked quickly to say he was speaking of the national leadership and not the average American. Since the average American is never quoted in the press, his clarification is accurate since by definition it is the pundits and politicians - i.e. those quoted in the media - that are doing all the whining.

In an earlier blog post (April 8, 2008) I made a similar statement that we as a nation have to stop whining and get on with creative solutions to the issues - economic, cultural and social - that we face. Unfortunately our political leadership in both parties seem unable and frankly unwilling to step up to the task. They would rather take cheap political shots at one another in the interest of control and power and most importantly re-election. Not that they ever do anything useful with power once they have it.

Specifically Gramm was referring to the state of the economy and all the focus of the media on recession, pain at the pump, yada yada yada. The facts are that while growth is slower than in recent years we are still growing and we are not - repeat not - in a recession or even close to one. In addition the media hardly ever reports on the good news such as a robust export led boom and the jobs that is bringing to the US economy.

Sadly this is to be expected since the media has a reflexive aversion to good news of any kind and loves to play up doom and gloom scenarios wherever and whenever possible. The classic example is the "Severe Weather" teams on all the local TV stations. These folks live for hurricanes, tornadoes, floods and any other form of meteorological catastrophe. What we see in the reporting on the economy is the "severe weather" effect. If it's not as bad as we would like let's just say it is and perhaps we can actually make it a self-fulfilling prophecy. Clearly the politicians - particularly those in Washington DC and Democrats in general given their lust for the White House - exacerbate this concern at every opportunity.

Phil Gramm is right. We are a nation of whiners and we need to get over it.

Obama vs. McCain

This is going to be a very interesting election. In the left corner you have an unproven albeit eloquent middle aged man of partial African (Kenya) decent. In the right corner you have an aging, not so doctrinaire conservative war hero maverick with impressive foreign policy credentials.

Let's look at Obama. The fact is that although brief his legislative record is one of the most liberal in congress. He talks about reaching out and bridging differences but he has never once led or participated in any meaningful bi-partisan legislation or initiative. He gives a good speech and in this area he is often compared (even by himself) to Ronald Reagan. The key difference is that Reagan's rhetoric was based on a fundamental belief in the goodness of America, its people and its economic system. It was Reagan's positive and uplifting message that inspired and resonated with his listeners and won him the moniker the Great Communicator. When I listen to Obama, his lofty words seem to me to come from a darker place. One that is based on the notion that there are many things wrong in and about America that need to be "changed." This is troubling. I also find it somewhat amusing that now that he has the Democratic nomination in hand, he is running to the center as fast as he can. So much for principled politics - although that may be an oxymoron.

Now for McCain. McCain is a bit of an enigma. He is anything but a traditional conservative which is why many on the far right are suspicious of him. What I like about McCain are the same characteristics that made him the media darling a few years ago. He has some very specific ideas on what is right and what isn't and is not afraid to express them clearly and forcefully. The "Straight Talk Express" was just that. While Obama talks in grand themes and generalities, McCain cuts to the chase with specific proposals. My worry is that like Obama in trying to position himself for the general election he seems to have tempered and hedged his rhetoric and temper in recent months. I prefer the blunt, irascible version better but he is still my choice to lead the country.

I think this will be a very close election. In the end I think McCain will win based on the arithmetic of the electoral college, but Obama just may pull it out and even win the popular vote in a losing cause - ala Al Gore in 2000.

One thing I do know for certain is that no matter who wins the presidential election and no matter which party controls congress, the Republic will survive so I don't lose sleep worrying about it.

America the Ignorant

On the book review program on C-Span today one of the presenters was Rick Shenkman author of "Just How Stupid Are We?" subtitled "Facing the truth about the American voter."

Mr. Shenkman is a historian who comments on the appalling lack of basic knowledge that most Americans have about their country or the world for that matter. He contends that this lack of knowledge allows most voters to be easily manipulated by politicians and their Madison Avenue campaign apparatus. He quotes some astounding statistics regarding how few Americans can name the three branches of government, know that there are 100 senators, and even after five years of war can find Iraq on a map of the world. He also points out that in spite of overwhelming evidence to the contrary and even though it was never stated reason for the Iraq war by the administration, fully 50% of American voters still think Saddam was behind the 9/11 attacks.

Yours truly is not surprised by these findings and recall that it was many years ago that some wag opined that as a politician one can never go wrong underestimating the intelligence of the average voter. Even Jay Leno has picked up on this with great comedic effect with his man on the street interviews.

My own view is that the American people are not stupid. It is clear, however, that most of them are blissfully ignorant and almost intentionally uninformed. One may ask how can this be in an age of media overload, instant communications and 24/7 news channels. I believe the problem is that most people have complete lack of curiosity about anything that doesn't directly affect them personally and immediately.

Building on a point in an earlier post, you see the seeds of this phenomenon in the active resistance to excellence in our public school systems. Unfortunately for most kids today it is cool to be ignorant, and ignorant teens grow into ignorant voters.

The Inevitability of Global Warming

In my last post I made reference to a recent book titled "Unstoppable Global Warming" by S. Fred Singer and Dennis T. Avery. This book should be required reading for all politicians, educators and journalists. (The good news is it is on the New York Times best sellers list.)

Singer and Avery provide overwhelming, peer-reviewed scientific evidence that:

1. We are at the beginning of a natural 1500 year (plus or minus 500 years) global warming cycle that began about 1850.

2. That the globe was warmer during the days of the Roman empire and during the medieval warming period from 900 -1300 AD than it is today. (Note - long before the industrial revolution and human generated CO2.)

3. To the extent that man-made CO2 emissions may cause a minor (i.e. .005 degree C/per century) increase in average global temperatures this is overwhelmed by the natural solar driven causes of global warming.

4. All of the scary scenarios pushed by the global warming activists including rapidly rising sea levels, extraordinary species extinctions, famines and droughts on an unprecedented scale, more violent weather and climate related human deaths are totally without merit and in fact can be proven to be in contradiction to our experience during previous natural warming periods.

5. Historically global temperatures increase in advance of atmospheric CO2 increases demonstrating that increases in atmospheric CO2 are a result and not a cause of increased global temperatures.

6. The Global Circulation Models and the now fully discredited Mann temperature data (aka the hockey stick graph) used by the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and super scaremonger Al Gore are totally without any scientific merit and in fact were purposely manipulated to fabricate an anthropogenic global warming frenzy.

7. The human race has much more to fear from the next inevitable cooling period than it does from the current natural warming period.

Singer and Avery also suggest that those who promote the human-caused theory are motivated by either by research grants (the university researchers and "scientists") or a way to hijack the environmental movement to promote a leftist (i.e. hate the relative "rich") agenda designed to control and deminish the living standards and restrict individual choices particularly in first world nations like the US and Western Europe.

Unlike the irrefutable data that the authors present on the facts about inevitable (and slow) global warming, motivations are hard to prove and risky to posit. However one can not help but see in the rhetoric and policies put forth by the anthropogenic warming alarmist crowd a ring of high credibility in the authors' ideas.

Finally Singer and Avery persuasively put a stake to the heart of the whole ill conceived and doomed-to-fail Kyoto protocol treaty that thankfully will die a natural death in 2012.

You must read this book!