Obama and the vision thing
WASHINGTON — Barack Obama doesn’t do the mundane. He was sent to us to do larger things. You could see that plainly in his Oval Office address on the Gulf oil spill. He could barely get himself through the pedestrian first half: a bit of BP-bashing, a bit of faux-Clintonian “I feel your pain,” a bit of recovery and economic mitigation accounting. It wasn’t until the end of the speech—the let-no-crisis-go-to-waste part that tried to leverage the Gulf Coast devastation to advance his cap-and-trade climate-change agenda—that Obama warmed to his task.
Pedestrian is beneath Obama. Mr. Fix-It he is not. He is world-historical, the visionary, come to make the oceans recede and the planet heal.
How? By creating a glorious, new, clean green economy. And how exactly to do that? From Washington, by presidential command and with tens of billions of dollars thrown around. With the liberal (and professorial) conceit that scientific breakthroughs can be legislated into existence, Obama proposes to give us a new industrial economy.
But is this not what we’ve been trying to do for decades with ethanol, which remains a monumental boondoggle, economically unviable and environmentally damaging to boot? As with yesterday’s panacea, synfuels, into which Jimmy Carter poured billions.
Notice that Obama no longer talks about Spain, which until recently he repeatedly cited for its visionary subsidies of a blossoming new clean energy industry. That’s because Spain, now on the verge of bankruptcy, is pledged to reverse its disastrously bloated public spending, including radical cuts in subsidies to its uneconomical photovoltaic industry.
There’s a reason petroleum is such a durable fuel. It’s not, as Obama fatuously suggested, because of oil company lobbying but because it is very portable, energy dense and easy to use.
But this doesn’t stop Obama from thinking that he can mandate into being a superior substitute. His argument: Well, if we can put a man on the moon, why not this?
Aside from the irony that this most tiresome of cliches comes from a president who is canceling our program to return to the moon, it is utterly meaningless. The wars on cancer and on poverty have been similarly sold. They remain unwon. Why? Because we knew how to land on the moon. We had the physics to do it. Cancer cells, on the other hand, are far more complex than the Newtonian equations that govern a moon landing. Equally daunting are the laws of social interaction—even assuming there are any—that sustain a culture of poverty.
Similarly, we don’t know how to make renewables that match the efficiency of fossil fuels. In the interim, it is Obama and his Democratic allies who, as they dream of such scientific leaps, are unwilling to use existing technologies to reduce our dependence on foreign (i.e., imported) and risky (i.e., deep-water) sources of oil—twin dependencies that Obama decried in Tuesday’s speech.
“Part of the reason oil companies are drilling a mile beneath the surface of the ocean,” said Obama, is “because we’re running out of places to drill on land and in shallow water.” Running out of places on land? What about the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge or the less-known National Petroleum Reserve—23 million acres of Alaska’s North Slope, near the existing pipeline and designated nearly a century ago for petroleum development—that have been shut down by the federal government?
Running out of shallow water sources? How about the Pacific Ocean, a not inconsiderable body of water, and its vast U.S. coastline? That’s been off-limits to new drilling for three decades.
We haven’t run out of safer and more easily accessible sources of oil. We’ve been run off them by environmentalists. They prefer to dream green instead.
Obama is dreamer in chief: He wants to take us to this green future “even if we’re unsure exactly what that looks like. Even if we don’t yet precisely know how we’re going to get there.”
Here’s the offer: Tax carbon, spend trillions, and put government in control of the energy economy—and he will take you he knows not where, by way of a road he knows not which.
That’s why Tuesday’s speech was received with such consternation. It was so untethered from reality. The Gulf is gushing, and the president is talking mystery roads to unknown destinations. That passes for vision, and vision is Obama’s thing. It sure beats cleaning up beaches.
Charles Krauthammer is a columnist for the Washington Post. His e-mail address is letters@charleskrauthammer.com.
Jun 25, 2010 at 10:07 p.m.
Suggest removal
"All disposable medical items are made from plastic - ALL."
-
Really? Medal needles, wooden tongue depressors, and paper gowns are all now only made from oil (plastic). Your are indeed a troll.
Jun 25, 2010 at 10:02 p.m.
Suggest removal
darwin crawl back under the porch and pretend you're a research assistant. Your trollish comments have already been answered many times.
Jun 25, 2010 at 7 p.m.
Suggest removal
RAF, do actually know what petroleum is used for? Plastics. All disposable medical items are made from plastic - ALL. Do you know what ALL means? Oh this is probably the Republican plan for health care. Don't use petroleum based products, everyone dies, no health care problem. Nice going.
SuperDave, while I understand what you are saying it seems akin to blaming the police for not stopping a bank robbery for the bank robbery in the first place. Doctors take a board certification exam yet many go on to accidentally kill a great many patients, yet no one blames the government which certifies them. This is because unlike you most Conservatives understand personal responsibility, unless a Democrat is President, then it is all his fault.
Jun 25, 2010 at 6:02 p.m.
Suggest removal
Red, you are correct I have no clue how you live I only comment on what you write. You are the one that said you still use petroleum because you "must"; excuse. I know you comment on these blogs and I assume you are using a computer made of plastic. The bottom line, by your own words and evidence of posting your hard line convictions on oil are not met with action (not using) on your part...truth hurts I know. You are the reason drilling occurs; demand. If you want to change the world with your vision change your actions.
Jun 25, 2010 at 1:35 p.m.
Suggest removal
OK Dave, you got me. (Actually I'm sure we could come up with a few more names.)
-
I think you touched on the REAL reason the average person is balking at the prospect of eliminating oil as a primary energy source, Dave; our standard of living. Based on current technology, large scale implementation of sustainable energy would absolutely change our standard of living but as to whether it would have a positive or negative impact is subjective in my opinion. Unfortunately, what benefits man does not always benefit nature. For our long-term benefit, we need to strike a better balance.
Jun 25, 2010 at 11:41 a.m.
Suggest removal
Just a little humour there Red. And I am not insisting "on staying committed to a form of energy that we must depend on others to provide".
Quite the contrary! I applaud and encourage all efforts at creating greener sources of energy! But unlike you, I acknowledge what should be obvious to all, for now we need oil to sustain our standard of living. And this will be true until other forms of energy become cheaper relative to oil. And that will come from private companies and innovation, not from Obama and the Dems attempting to legislate green energy into existance.
Jun 25, 2010 at 11:09 a.m.
Suggest removal
Obfuscating, Dave? The only reason we have fought in and continue to defend the middle east is oil. (Israel is another matter.) Even though the majority of OUR oil does not come from the middle east, allowing any disruption of the oil flow would result in price hikes everywhere. Supply and demand price fluctuations we can live with but any threat to the flow of oil in Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, etc. draws a response from our military. If you’re pricing a commodity based on the direct expense of obtaining your raw material only, then you’re destined to fail. Indirect expenses must be included as well to arrive at the true cost. You can argue whether cleaning up oil spills or the resulting damage to our eco-systems (and the effects on domestic trade) are a direct or indirect expense but they are real costs nonetheless.
I’m not trying to downplay the difficulties or up front expense we face as a nation or the cultural changes that are likely to result from our increased reliance on sustainable forms of energy but in the long-term it is necessary. Energy, not oil, is what drives our economy. Oil just happens to be the primary source of that energy, for now. Why do you insist on staying committed to a form of energy that we must depend on others to provide?
Jun 25, 2010 at 10:51 a.m.
Suggest removal
Al Gore?
Jun 25, 2010 at 10:19 a.m.
Suggest removal
Considering the fact RAF, you don't have a clue as to how I live my life yet continue to berate me for not following my own counsel leads me to believe that what you post is pure nonsense. What possible motive would I have to challenge others and not myself. Let me know and I'd be happy to show you all the steps I've taken in my attempt to have a positive impact on our environment for the past 35 years. I know many individuals who pretend to be tough guys but I haven't met too many who pretend to be environmentalists.
Jun 25, 2010 at 6:56 a.m.
Suggest removal
Subsidies, wars - you're obfuscating. And I don't think that expecting the government to share some responsibility is "blaming the government". The oil spill is the fault of BP, but BP works under specific authorization and oversight of the national government.
Jun 24, 2010 at 9:52 p.m.
Suggest removal
Red, you do lack your very own convictions. You have previously stated expanding drilling is a no-win except for big oil and that the faster we get our country off oil and commit to renewable energy the faster we reach our goal of independence. Yet, you have not stopped using petroleum…
You can pontificate all day about how bad it is and how much things should change, until you take the lead and change your own life nothing will change. The problem with idealist thinking is it is just that ideas; no action. Step up to your own challenge until then trail along and pretend you’re following your convictions. Using excuses that you “must” continue to use petroleum because nothing else is affordable is the easy way out. If you really believed in what you say you would ride a bike, walk, invest your money and find a solution for your problem. Hiding behind excuses and using the very products you think are evil is another reason to blame someone/something for you not having the fortitude to live by your own convictions.
Jun 24, 2010 at 4:49 p.m.
Suggest removal
Thanks for the econ lesson Dave, but where do the subsidies fit in. Subsidies have kept our energy prices artificially low for years. Did you add in the cost of wars we have fought for oil, or the cost to clean up our environment from oil spills, or the lost jobs and revenue due to oil spills, or the cost to American taxpayers in foreign aid sent to oil-rich nations? I'm not naive enough to believe we'll ever stop drilling for oil but there reaches a point when the cost far exceeds the benefits. I'm glad you've had an opportunity to visit the ANWR region. I hope to some day as well, but I'd much rather see it the way you did, without oilwells. While ANWR may seem like a "vast, barren wasteland of rock, snow and tundra", to others it's home, a place of refuge. Sure there is plenty of empty space there but that's not justification for desecrating the landscape. The no-brainer aspect you mentioned seems to apply to those individuals who continue to push for drilling anywhere and everywhere, then blame the government when things go wrong. Obama's vision is one we should have had 36 years ago; development and implementation of sustainable energy is vital for the economic growth and national security of our country.
Jun 24, 2010 at 3:10 p.m.
Suggest removal
Beyond Econ 101 are network effects. Oil and gas have a vast network of distribution, storage and government support. They also benefit from the fact that most (99%) vehicles run on oil or a derivative. So, it is not such a simple choice as portrayed by SuperDave. Maybe you were aware of network effects.
The government coming in and taking responsibility for the leak and spill would be socialism. BP needs to man up, unlike Conservatives, and take responsibility while allowing journalists to get past their hired Hessians. I though private enterprise and talented people are what made this country great. Now the can't do anything right government has to come in and save them? Private companies need to be held accountable for what they have done, otherwise they will continue acting like children and do whatever they want because the government will just soak up the blame and bail them out.
Jun 24, 2010 at 2:43 p.m.
Suggest removal
It is so tiring to have to explain Econ 101 (supply and demand). The short version: we will never run out of oil because, as oil continues to be depleted, the price will rise, making other energy alternatives more affordable by comparison. This has been going on for about fifty years. It's right in front of your eyes, if you would just care to observe.
And Red, as far as you saying "I, as many others must continue to burn petroleum for must of our transportation needs", that is untrue. You choose to do so, as do the vast majority of people who have access to abundant energy resources. Kind of a no-brainer, really. The debate should really be, how do we get the most oil, in the safest manner? ANWR certainly comes to mind. I have been there - the so called "pristine" wilderness is a vast, barren wasteland of rock, snow and tundra. It is foolish for us to ban drilling there, and thus encourage the oil companies to go into deeper and deeper ocean waters in the Gulf.
And where is the government sharing in the responsibility and blame for the spill - they oversee everything the oil companies do.
Jun 24, 2010 at 12:23 p.m.
Suggest removal
Trust me RAF, I don’t lack for convictions. The fact is too many individuals fail to consider the negative impact their choices have on our environment. I don’t believe you expect others to step up unless you’re willing to do the same. Well, I don’t either.
Until more affordable options become available, I, as many others must continue to burn petroleum for must of our transportation needs. In that respect, we are slaves to the markets but I’m certainly not ignorant of the important contributions every individual must make to improve our environment. Everyone (including you and me) must continue to reduce our demand for oil by driving less and using public and alternate forms of transportation when possible. To believe we can continue to pump toxins into our air and water without adverse effects is irresponsible. Every individual can make a difference, if they are willing. Twist it any way you want RAF, but every person is responsible for their actions. On the other hand, if you’re whining because you believe what I’m advocating will alter the way you live, get used to it. The lack of vision in past administrations regarding energy policy has stunted the growth of our nation. Oil companies receive millions in subsidies from taxpayers. Tax money has funded two costly wars (both in terms of lives lost and monetarily) fought to protect prime oil producing nations. These wars would not have been fought had large oil reserves not been part of the equation. Foreign aid continues to pour out of taxpayers pockets to nations with large oil reserves so we may continue a favorable relationship. None of this even takes into account the ecological cost of using fossil fuels. Oil costs every one of us more than we could ever hope to gain. On the other hand, sustainable forms of energy could and should be the driving force of our economy.
Jun 24, 2010 at 12:22 p.m.
Suggest removal
"Liberals envision a world of elites, and the rest of us, where the elites continue to fly around in their private jets." So Dave is that statement substantive and not a "red" herring? You could at least try to meet your own standards.
Actually Dave, all the red herring are dying in the oil spill but obviously you have some hard data to indicate "we will never run out of oil". Well perhaps you lack that data Dave, but hey I'll go out on a limb here. If oil deposits are no longer being formed as quickly as we consume the oil, logically we will run out of oil at some point, right? And aren't most of the worlds oil reserves outside the US? So your substantive "vision" dictates we continue to consume what IS a limited resource, paying billions to other countries in the process, until the oil is depleted. Then again, perhaps you may mean we will never run out of oil in YOUR lifetime. After that it's someone else's problem. I guess if you're the type that wants to "pass the buck" it works for you and it certainly fits the "vision" criteria Chuckie has.
Jun 24, 2010 at 7:04 a.m.
Suggest removal
absolutely not andre. props to anyone who makes a living to support their family. someone who claims we should not be driving cars and then sells them for a living would be a hypocrite.
redder: do you know what percentage or people drive less than 75 miles a day?? thats wrong info?? whats this google search all about then??
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&s...
Jun 24, 2010 at 5:44 a.m.
Suggest removal
PanamaRed said "Wow SuperDave, you must have xray 'vision' that enables you to see through the earths crust and view the large oil deposits below. BP and the rest could save millions in oil exploration with you on their payroll".
Appropriately for you, that's a "Red" herring.
And I love when someone tries to discredit another by stating "you must get all your information from" (fill in the blank)...Fox, Rush, Hannity. But Jonah Goldberg? Two points for originality, but minus three points for another Red herring.
Care to say anything substantive?
Jun 23, 2010 at 11:20 p.m.
Suggest removal
Red you are indeed delusional. I have continually been a proponent of term limits and blame much of the current problems in politics and government at the feet of the two party system; sad that aspect has escaped your vision.
The challenge you continue to evade is one you espouse; energy independence and reduced reliance on oil, this causes the evil drilling. Asking you to step up to your convictions should be an easy choice for you, running from this shows you are not a leader or forward thinker, merely another pathetic follower wanting others to force this on you because you lack the will of your written convictions.
Jun 23, 2010 at 7:04 p.m.
Suggest removal
would someone please yell at me and call me names...i like a good debate...also long walks on the beach and kittens
Jun 23, 2010 at 6:43 p.m.
Suggest removal
i must owe darwin an appology....im sorry darwin(not) you are still a challenged individual or group who really cares....gazette thats who must work for them
Jun 23, 2010 at 6:40 p.m.
Suggest removal
kid wrong again...it only has a 75 mile range 100 is in the southern states and without AC
Jun 23, 2010 at 6:38 p.m.
Suggest removal
kid.....that is wrong information its available and orders may be placed if it is wanted
Jun 23, 2010 at 5:50 p.m.
Suggest removal
my home air conditioner was not used a single time last year or yet this year. my car a/c has been on once in the last year or so(partly cuz i like my beautiful locks flowing in the wind;). i talk all the time to my kids about ways to conserve energy and the reasons WHY we need to conserve energy. until my back pain got to bad i rode my bike to work EVERY DAY last year. i still ride when there no risk of smelly heat induced funkyness despite being over 12 miles from work now. because i use a car to get me and my chitlins where i need to go(not many bikes able to haul two kids around)im not leading by example and in fact im a hypocrite??
EVERYONE can lead by example by doing the small things. calling people(you dont know) hypocrites and suggesting they lead by example by giving up all petroleum based objects isnt a very well thought out thought. for an adult anyways. now, im taking my ball and going home. good day sir. I SAID GOOD DAY.
Jun 23, 2010 at 5:19 p.m.
Suggest removal
im aware how long its been around. i watched the movie:) of course its not viable when you have gm selling its stake in the battery system to texaco. there is ONLY ONE reason texaco would even want to invest in battery technology. any idea what percentage of americans drive less than 100 miles a day?? which is the distance the new nissan leaf is good for...
someone thinks its viable since we the taxpayer(which im ok with) have given tesla motors a 400+ million dollar loan...
Jun 23, 2010 at 5:07 p.m.
Suggest removal
Kid: "The Electric car" has been offered as the solution since 1900. It is still not efficient enough to be viable.
Jun 23, 2010 at 4:55 p.m.
Suggest removal
It will be decades before we get off carbon based fuels. Even if you go to all electric cars, you have to charge it, as someone just mentioned...About 70% of all power (plug in utility power) is via coal plants...A real clean alternative! At least by that method, the fuel (coal) is mostly from our own resources here in the US. The obvious hypocritical problem we have with petroleum is that we refuse to tap our own resources, and instead give all the $$$ to terrorist supporting countries in importing it. Who then use that wealth to fund a war against us. Then we can spend even MORE $$$ fighting against the terrorism from the $$$ we spent on their oil to allow it to happen. We have such great business models in this country. Any surprise that we are going broke?
Jun 23, 2010 at 4:54 p.m.
Suggest removal
the leaf is already sold out and i heard that they have orders for TWO TIMES the amount available. there is a need. there is a want. there will be a way.
Jun 23, 2010 at 4:53 p.m.
Suggest removal
redder thats the most positive thing youve said. yes, when viable every city will buy the charging equipment. we would be ALOT closer if gm, big oil, and uncle sam had not already killed the electric car.
www.whokilledtheelectriccar.com
Jun 23, 2010 at 4:23 p.m.
Suggest removal
Hey I got one for you...Nissan is comming out with the new all electric car the Leaf..thats right 100% electric..problem is where you going to charge it...city has to invest in charging stations..will they? Mc Donalds is making it manditor for there new franchises I am told. Will Janesville buy the product..its right around the corner...HMMMMMM
Jun 23, 2010 at 4:20 p.m.
Suggest removal
God save us...I cannt wait till November elections
Jun 23, 2010 at 4:18 p.m.
Suggest removal
are you saying that the only way someone can 'lead by example' is to not use ANY petroleum based products??
Jun 23, 2010 at 4:17 p.m.
Jun 23, 2010 at 4:10 p.m.
Suggest removal
Well here we are, a year and a half in, and what did I say on all those blogs back in the election months...let me clear the air, this guy is a idiot. Thats right, i choose to exercise my right to free speach..complete moron...oil leaking, economy in shambles, unemployment at record levels, health care is a joke and rates are getting ready to rise (9% so far) the Generals are bailing out, his own advisors are bailing on him, we have a new movement to protest the guy, taxes getting ready to rise, small business folding all around us, oh did I mention people all over out of work...goverment spending at record levels (like a Marine on leave after 4 tours of afgan) and then i come to the gazette site and have to read peoples post about how its Bushes fault...well, I guess maybe you should climb out from under your rocks people and take a good look around you...this guy (you might call him the president) is destroying this country, and all that it stands for, all of its glory is being handed over to special intrests and forgien intrests and soon to turn us against each other under complete goverment controle. No I am not paranoid and no I am not a wack job (well maybe) its just what I am seeing, layoffs, no economic recovery, no plan, no direction...just unrest, unrest in a nation I used to be proud of....oh oil leaking, thought Katrina was bad, hell that was a thunder storm compared to this...whats next civil war...come on Obama..I thought you had all the answers
Jun 23, 2010 at 4:01 p.m.
Suggest removal
i actually touched on the hypocrisy thing right after the part you copy/pasted. please clarify andre. do you think anyone who uses anything petroleum based while complaining about this oil spill is a hypocrite??
Jun 23, 2010 at 3:36 p.m.
Suggest removal
andre: you have a realistic outlook?? 'Not driving an oil product consuming vehicle? Are you burning candles? Is that computer you're typing on running on electricity produced by oil or coal usage?'
your expectations that anyone who is using ANYTHING petroleum based isnt doing their part is FAR from realistic. you people continually point out all the petrolium based products we touch on a daily basis and then insinuate anyone who uses those products and thinks this oil spill is a catastrophe is a hypocrite. to think someone can not use those is again, FAR from realistic. not using your a/c, even in this heat, to get 10% better mpg's is doing your part. there are many, many things we can ALL do to reduce our usage by 10-20% but to expect anyone to stop using petroleum based products is not a realistic outlook
panama: 'still waiting for something more than a silly challenge from someone who does little more than critique the comments of other posters' dead. on. analysis.
Jun 23, 2010 at 3:03 p.m.
Suggest removal
Wow SuperDave, you must have xray "vision" that enables you to see through the earths crust and view the large oil deposits below. BP and the rest could save millions in oil exploration with you on their payroll. Sorry to burst your bubble SuperDave but the elitists are those who chant "drill, baby, drill". They stand to gain the most by maintaining the status quo. I've heard politicians and capitalists called elitists, but liberals? I think you have been reading too much Jonah Goldberg.
-
"I didn't espouse any solutions."
Andre, that is the FIRST time you have ever posted a factual statement. Instead of worrying about what I am doing to help the environment, why not see where you could improve. It's more about doing what you can and the end result than making comparisons. Those who consider the impact their actions have on the environment are altruistic. Those who don't care how their actions impact the environment are egocentric. Those that don't believe the environment needs protection are just plain obtuse.
-
RAF, still waiting for something more than a silly challenge from someone who does little more than critique the comments of other posters. Isn't it about time you man-up to the fact that all politicians play the same game under the same rules depending on which party is in power. Neither party is always right or always wrong. Unlike Charles, I don't believe it's wrong to have "vision", but the vision should be sensible, benefit the citizens of this country and improve our environment which encompass ANY advancements in sustainable forms of energy.
Jun 23, 2010 at 1:29 p.m.
Suggest removal
Charles Krauthammer is dead-on right.
Liberals envision a world of elites, and the rest of us, where the elites continue to fly around in their private jets, and the little people walk or ride bicycles everywhere. They want the US to become another North Korea. (And I don't like using the word "elite" which should properly be used to mean "the best of the best", not to mean "those who are in power").
We are not "running out" of safe, accessible sources of oil, and we never will.
Jun 23, 2010 at 9:45 a.m.
Suggest removal
Red still waiting for you to take the lead and stop using petroleum...or do you have no vision?
Jun 23, 2010 at 8:51 a.m.
Suggest removal
This is where the REAL anger should be placed. $4,000,000/week given away...wasted likely going to our enemy so they can kill US Soldiers.
.
http://crimewatch.gaeatimes.com/2010/06/...
.
Jun 23, 2010 at 8:39 a.m.
Suggest removal
Obama put the people out of work. We are moving backwards. Theres no data to say otherwise. Obama and this admin is a disaster, worse than any oilrig.
Jun 23, 2010 at 8:35 a.m.
Suggest removal
Andre, you really do seem to have a pathetic outlook. There are no simple minded solutions as you espouse. Our energy problems will not be solved by one person or by one company but by every person doing their share. That's the ONLY way we reduce, not eliminate, our use of oil. Obama didn't put people out of work, BP's failure to follow recommended procedures put people out of work. This nation was created by idealists and pragmatists - both are necessary for progress. As the saying goes, if you are not moving forward, you're moving backwards.
Jun 23, 2010 at 7:48 a.m.
Suggest removal
The problem with liberals -- is they are dreamers, lack pragmatic thought capabilities. As Obama is. The problem with conservatives, is that God will save all, human nature will take over.
The problem I see is that the current admin is all about power, greed and the creation of a permanent under class with a small middle class. The creation of a class system of the haves and have nots. They all need to go.
Jun 22, 2010 at 11:12 p.m.
Suggest removal
It is REALLY quite obvious that those who are critical of Obama's "vision", including Chuck, lack any vision. They merely want to take the easy way out and leave it to the next generation to solve our problems. Had oil been selling for its REAL cost, not the subsidized cost, sustainable energy would be much more abundant today. Brazil's energy infrastructure is a prime example. I want a man of vision running this country. I guess that's one reason why Charles and Andre and Mark are not leaders - they all lack vision and judging from their comments, common sense. The oil that has ruined beaches, contaminated both aquatic and bird breeding grounds, killed countless fish and fowl and effectively eliminated hundreds of businesses would have powered this country for less than one day, yet the effects of this spill will last for years, if not decades. Charles envisions drilling in Alaska's pristine wilderness. I wouldn't call that vision - I'd call it short sighted.
Jun 21, 2010 at 9:02 a.m.
Suggest removal
CHARLES KRAUTHAMMER, the author of this article, is known for his literary awards, writing achievements and distinguished commentaries. He really missed the mark on this article, but managed to regurgitate many of his dislikes and pet peeves.
Jun 20, 2010 at 2:43 p.m.
Suggest removal
you peoples know nothing of wars. when was thet last time you had a bomb coming down on you? You dropped them on me, and I do not blame you and I do not blame the Furher. he did what he could do but not because you can make him do it. Not a thing has changed now
Jun 20, 2010 at 11:32 a.m.
Suggest removal
I love reading Krauthammer's opinion pieces. It's like getting a full day of Fox News in just a few minutes. Who else can so eloquently give us a clear view of what it looks like when a person has their head up the backside of the Republican Party?
Jun 20, 2010 at 11:14 a.m.
Suggest removal
"I can't wait to see the new Prius with a wind turbine on top."
As long as you only drive into the wind and never downwind, a wind-powered vehicle is theoretically possible, Farfnik. The best part of it is, the faster it went the faster it would go. :-)
Jun 20, 2010 at 10:58 a.m.
Suggest removal
obama has done more damage in a shorter time than Bush did
Did Obama get us into two wars? No.
Did Obama do a half-witted job on both? No.
Did Obama pretend their wasn't a housing bubble? No.
Did Obama cut taxes while increasing the size of government like NEVER before? No.
Did Obama lie about why we went to war? No.
Andre, what planet do you live on?
Jun 20, 2010 at 10:42 a.m.
Jun 20, 2010 at 8:17 a.m.
Jun 19, 2010 at 6:43 p.m.
Suggest removal
If any one of you has a dispute with another, dare he take it before the ungodly for judgement instead of before the saints? - I Corinthians 6:1
Jun 19, 2010 at 3:55 p.m.
Suggest removal
farfnik, moderator at large!
Jun 19, 2010 at 2:23 p.m.
Suggest removal
It is not so hard to understand, Eman. The king's heart is the hand of the Lord; he directs it like a watercourse wherever he pleases. - Proverbs 21
Jun 19, 2010 at 12:07 p.m.
Suggest removal
farfnik- How is bio-diesel irrelevant? Also, just because something is abundant, available, and cheap doesn't make it the best choice. Just because people can get a double cheese burger for about a dollar, doesn't make that the best choice either. I'm sure if our only choices were fast food, many people would be in favor of diversifying that system as well.
While on the topic of food, why are you trying to equate using farmland to supply fuel with starvation in third world countries? Those two topics aren't as directly related as you seem to believe. The dire economy of those countries, and their inability to maintain adequate food supplies is the reason for starvation. It has never been because there just isn't enough land anymore.
Also, in regards to the global warming debate, that should indeed be irrelevant to this issue. It is just one more thing to point to in an attempt to distract from the real issue of diversifying our choices on how we get our fuel. As it stands, we predominately get it from the oil companies. Are you arguing that we should just continue to be dependent upon them? All for the sake of it being what is the easiest right now?
Jun 19, 2010 at 10:50 a.m.
Suggest removal
I find it laughable that so many people feel it is entirely the 'environmentalist' fault that we are not drilling in Alaska. Simultaneously, many of the people that believe this would also like others to believe that transitioning to alternative energy sources will not be in our best interest.
I wish people could just see the bigger picture of our dependence on oil. Until we reduce our need for oil, we will surely need it. So long as we need it, we must make sure that we still have it. Hence, the reason a good source of our oil is kept safe in Alaska. If it truly were just a matter of 'environmentalist' getting their way, the pipeline would have been ripped out.
Additionally, this piece does a great job of pointing solely at the currently least viable alternatives for the purpose of arguing against the pursuit of a goal that would benefit so many Americans. Historically speaking, oil companies have had a great interest in competing against technologies that would impact their business. In many cases, they have been very successful of exterminating their competition. Simply look at what they were able to do with the diesel engine. It's original intent was to be used by farmers with peanut oil as its fuel. Now, because of their success in suppressing that knowledge, many people think that Bio-diesel is a 'new' technology.
The point I'm trying to make is that articles like this are surely going to keep coming. So long as the oil industry has an interest in maintaining there edge in being the largest supplier of portable energy. Hopefully, as alternative technologies become more convenient, they will continue to be adopted by the public at large.
Jun 19, 2010 at 8:45 a.m.
Suggest removal
Good article, pretty much sums up Obama's delusions. Obama has tied BP's hands with all the lawsuit talk. They can't make a wrong move now without repercussions. This will hinder them from trying different things to see if they work. He needed to give BP freedom to try different things even if they failed, so a solution might be found. Now he has them afraid to do anything.
Jun 19, 2010 at 8:23 a.m.
Suggest removal
As a liberal, I am not religious so the parting the waters delusions are right wing in nature and demonstrates their inability to think rationally. He was elected into office, too bad the right wing goons only respect those they have voted for. Georgie boy would have sent Brownie down their to fix it.
Jun 19, 2010 at 7:52 a.m.
Suggest removal
And now they are going after Arizona for trying to enforce what the feds refuse to do. What a crock of poop. What ever happened to states rights? Sorry I went off topic for a bit and now we return you to Barry and the dreamers the next chapter.
Jun 19, 2010 at 7:46 a.m.
Suggest removal
Amen on the last two posts.
Jun 19, 2010 at 7:08 a.m.
Suggest removal
When he told the people in the gulf that he could not dive down there and stop the leak. That must have been a blow to all of his fans. Here all this time they thought he could.Maybe he could at least part the waters so they could plug it that way. Reality is here and we are seeing the real Barack Hussein Obama. He talks big but unless he can throw billions of our dollars at it he is nothing.
Before you post a comment, consider this:
Note: GazetteXtra.com does not condone or review every comment. Read more in our User Policy AgreementPost Comment
Commenting requires registration.