Rantings and Oil

Drill Baby Drill, the Republican mantra is based on a false promise that to drill on the Alaskan slope or in the Gulf closely adjacent to states that are concerned about environmental impacts will bring some immediate relief to four dollar plus per gallon gas prices. Rabid environmentalists, on the other hand (are they all Democrats? I don't know the answer to that question) object on the basis of despoiling the environment, rendering polar bears extinct or increasing the likelihood of oil spills washing up on the shores of Florida beaches ruining the tourism industry. We are told by various estimates that the impact of drilling immediately will take fifteen to twenty years to have its consequences felt. Various estimates as to the usefulness of using our domestic sources run from eventually supplying three percent of the country's needs to twenty percent.

I would like to take a step back and state the obvious with respect to the long term use of oil. Even if we project our estimates out to the year 2050 that date is still short sighted. My point is that it is abundantly obvious that at some point in time, not far away in terms of the history of the world, the oil supply will end. It might be 2060, 2075 or 2110. It doesn't matter but that at some point in time, during the lives of our grandchildren or great, great grandchildren (how long it takes really doesn't matter), life on this planet will be no longer be able to function in a oil-based manner. The current thinking on the part of all politicians in this regard is akin to how we have come to this difficult point in time of our current disastrous economic situation. Citizens and government like have managed fiscal affairs for a long time on a pay as you go basis and if you run short, borrow. Deficit financing has become the norm for governments at all levels; local, state and federal, i..e., the exact thinking equivalent that is being currently applied to oil. since the Savings and Loans Associations scandal of the 1980s where one of our current presidential candidates (ahem, he shall remain nameless) was issued a reprimand by his fellow members in Congress, through the tech bubble, the housing bubble and the irrresponsible lending practices of our financial empire we have experienced a profound short sightedness in all issues vitally important to the strength and continued vitality of our form of government.

A highly respected friend of mine has responded to several of my blogs in an agreeable manner pointing out that he is a conservative. (I have a tendency to agree with 'liberals' on any number of issues which has caused one other reader of my blogs to request that I remove his name from my mailing list because I was sounding like Keith Olbermann, a characterization for which I take great umbrage, but that is another story). My conservative friend has on several occasions agreed with me much to my delight. My point in bringing this up is that I find myself very curious about the meaning of conservatism and what is meant what someone says that she/he is a conservative. Does not the root word mean 'to conserve?' If the intent of a conservative is to conserve the form of government our forefathers intended in the late seventeen hundreds, why don't we go back to slavery and take away the right of women to participate in our governmental processes? Neo conservatives, as I understand it, would like us to go as far back as 1938 before the time that our Supreme Court started interpreting the commerce clause of the U.S. Constitution in such a manner that allowed Congress to pass laws affecting matters of economic interest. The proponents of such thought, led by Clarence Thomas and Antonio Scalia of the Supreme Court believe it is appropriate for judges to only divine the intent of the framers in deciding issues. Any judge who does not do so it deemed an activist judge, unless, of course, a decision is rendered in an activist manner in favor of the Republican faithful.

But, I digress. The issue is how long do we wait before someone truly recognizes that no matter how long it takes for oil to run out that we need to prepare for that eventuality? I would argue that the time is now, not later, and that a major government effort must be undertaken if our country is going to survive. Yes, I said survive. This is not a Steven King doomsday scenario, although if we run out of oil without having made adequate alternative preparations, it will certainly resemble one. Is this liberal thinking or conservative? I don't know and I don't think it makes a difference. I do know that in the year 2040 it appears likely that people will not be able to move around our great country in the manner we do today unless we develop some long term sustainable energy plan that allows us to do so.

Why Lie About It? We Are Not Morons

I am going to buy a pair of flip flops and attach them to my car so that as I drive around, everyone can see what a real set of flip flops is like and compare them to Palin's position on earmarks. For obvious reasons, McCain has taken a page out of the Rovian handbook by exclaiming constantly and fervently that Palin is against earmarks. She says as much deriding the "Bridge to Nowhere" as the central theme to her campaign to convince voters that she is one of them. The irony of this position, based on selling the lie, is that she doesn't need to lie about it. McCain didn't need to lie about it. This year, Palin, who has been governor for nearly 22 months, defended earmarking as a vital part of the legislative system. "The federal budget, in its various manifestations, is incredibly important to us, and congressional earmarks are one aspect of this relationship," she wrote in a newspaper column. The LA Times documented with particularity Palin's earmarking history. Here it is:

"In 2001, McCain's list of spending that had been approved without the normal budget scrutiny included a $500,000 earmark for a public transportation project in Wasilla. The Arizona senator targeted $1 million in a 2002 spending bill for an emergency communications center in town -- one that local law enforcement has said is redundant and creates confusion.

"McCain also criticized $450,000 set aside for an agricultural processing facility in Wasilla that was requested during Palin's tenure as mayor and cleared Congress soon after she left office in 2002. The funding was provided to help direct locally grown produce to schools, prisons and other government institutions, according to Taxpayers for Common Sense, a nonpartisan watchdog group.

"Wasilla received $11.9 million in earmarks from 2000 to 2003. The results of this spending are very apparent today. (The town also benefited from $15 million in federal funds to promote regional rail transportation.)

"The community transit center is a landmark: a one-story, tile-fronted building with a drive-through garage. Its fleet of 10 buses provides service throughout the region. Mat-Su Community Transit Agency officials say the building was made possible with a combination of federal money and matching gifts from a private foundation.

"Taylor Griffin, a McCain campaign spokesman, said that when Palin became mayor in 1996, "she faced a system that was broken. Small towns like Wasilla in Alaska depended on earmarks to take care of basic needs. . . . That was something that Gov. Palin was alarmed about and was one of the formative experiences that led her toward the reform-oriented stance that she has taken as her career has progressed."

"Palin, he said, was "disgusted" that small towns like hers were dependent on earmarks.

"Public records paint a different picture:

"Wasilla had received few if any earmarks before Palin became mayor. She actively sought federal funds -- a campaign that began to pay off only after she hired a lobbyist with close ties to Sen. Ted Stevens (R-Alaska), who long controlled federal spending as chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee. He made funneling money to Alaska his hallmark.

"Steven Silver was a former chief of staff for Stevens. After he was hired, Wasilla obtained funding for several projects in 2002, including an additional $600,000 in transportation funding.

"That year, a local water and sewer project received $1.5 million, according to Taxpayers for Common Sense, which combs federal spending measures to identify projects inserted by congressional members.

"When Palin spoke after McCain introduced her as his running mate at a rally in Ohio last week, she made fun of earmarking. She said she had rejected $223 million in federal funds for a bridge linking Ketchikan to an island with an airport and 50 residents, referring to it by its derogatory label: the "bridge to nowhere."

"In the nationally televised speech, she stood by McCain and said, "I've championed reform to end the abuses of earmark spending by Congress. In fact, I told Congress thanks, but no thanks, on that bridge to nowhere. If our state wanted a bridge, I said, we'd build it ourselves."

"However, as a candidate for governor in 2006, Palin had backed funding for the bridge. After her election, she killed the much-ridiculed project when it became clear the state had other priorities. She said she would use the federal funds to fill those needs.

"This year she submitted to Congress a list of Alaska projects worth $197.8 million, including $2 million to research crab productivity in the Bering Sea and $7.4 million to improve runway lighting at eight Alaska airports. A spokesman said she cut the original list of 54 projects to 31.

"So while Sen. McCain was going after cutting earmarks in Washington," said Steve Ellis of Taxpayers for Common Sense, "Gov. Palin was going after getting earmarks.""

Appearing yesterday morning on the popular TV show, The View, McCain said categorically that Palin was always against earmarks. Later, a spokesman for him corrected the Senator. This is a variation of the bait and switch routine used by con artists. Say something wrong deliberately about a big issue to give people the wrong idea while the crowd is large and the cameras are running and then later use a minion to correct the statement in a manner that few will hear about.

Reading and thinking about the above, one can only reach one conclusion. It is idiotic for Palin to lie about her position on earmarks. It is wrong for McCain to lie about her position on earmarks. The fact is that she took advantage of Ted Steven's power to bring in large amounts of federal funds to her city and her state which would be both remarkable and commendable if only the Republican ticket decided not to lie about it, but both candidates are treating the public as stupid idiots in order to sell the campaign as one of change. They must think we are morons. This is the Achilles' heel of the ticket.

A Passing Fancy

I have written in the past several days about my opinion as to how Sarah Palin will stand up to media scrutiny. She will. There are, however, other tests for demonstrating that someone is fit to run the country (Yes, the VP is only a heart beat away from the presidency, particularly if the prez is 72 years old with a history of recurrent melanoma). I have now watched the Gibson interview of Palin. Other than not obviously understanding the meaning of the 'Bush Doctrine', she did rather well in a rote, sort of memorized, response kind of way. The significance of the Bush Doctrine, that notion (military attack on a nation whom the spinmeisters make up stuff to support the basis for the attack) lies at the very heart of the need for change in the way our government conducts its affairs. To underscore this deficiency in Palin's understanding, during a deployment ceremony for her son Track and thousands of other soldiers heading to Iraq, Palin told them they would be fighting “the enemies who planned and carried out and rejoiced in the death of thousands of Americans.” This comment reiterated the initial connections the Bush administration once made, but no longer does, between Iraq and the Sept. 11 attacks. It was necessary for a senior McCain campaign aide to correct her statement and point out that Palin did not believe Saddam Hussein played a role in the attacks. I would argue that a demonstration of a basic level of understanding about why our country is embroiled in Iraq is an absolutely essential requirement in order to claim, as she does, that she is ready and fit to assume the mantle of the U.S. presidency. Fit maybe, but certainly not ready if the major campaign mantra is about change. If one is about change, one needs to know first what needs to be changed. To throw my two cents in on the current Republican manufactured offense at Obama's stealing of McCain's oft-used line about putting lipstick on a pig, I would add that calling a pig a dog doesn't make it a dog. If we don't hear about the change that McCain/Palin plan for the good of the country, all this hoopla about Palin will soon render her a passing fancy.

Now We Have To Wait

Now we have to wait. A woman by the name of Sarah Palin has literally rocked the political world in the last two weeks going from virtual anonymity to an awareness factor of greater than 90%. She joins Prince and Cher as easily identifiable by one name only as she has become an instant celebrity, a bad word in Republican politics until two weeks ago.. Say "Sarah" and everyone knows exactly who you are talking about. According to the most recent polls there has been a substantial movement toward the McCain ticket because off "Sarah" by women her age and younger. The lead of the Obama Biden ticket has evaporated due to the ground swell of fascination with this woman. So what are we waiting for? Both sides are waiting for her to fall. The Republicans hope to shield her as much as is practicable from the relentless prying eyes of the press so that she can avoid a major gaffe or two that will allow the Democrats to pounce on her as a demonstration of her inadequacy for the position of VP. the Democrats, of course, are waiting for those gaffes.

My prediction: It ain't going to happen. It's not going to happen for several reasons; First, "Sarah" is a terribly bright person and, teleprompter or not, she is capable of making a world class delivery of the "message" that has been scripted for her. Second, when and if she makes a bone-headed statement, she will be immediately excused by her fans (that what celebrities have is adoring fans long on forgiveness and short on forgetting) who will take offense at the media for attacking the poor dear. Note well that her first venture into the media interview arena is later this week by Charles Gibson, ABC's telejournalist. But the arrangements that have been made are set up on Sarah's own turf, in Alaska, with two days of ABC cameras following her around to capture the essence of her life. Gibson, if he follows form, will subject himself to the same restrictions that the Republicans want to impose on the Democrats. That ground rule appears to take the following form; You cannot criticise Sarah. Even though she can raise a topic by issuing a press release, it is inappropriate to follow up on the information that is released. As an example, consider the furor over her pregnant teenage daughter. Who brought this issue to the attention of the public? She blames Democrats because that is the Republican style and Republicans certainly know how to run a campaign.

All in all, one can only hope from either the Democratic or Republican perspective that the campaign settles into a meaty discussion regarding the issues and how each presidential candidate proposes dealing with these issues. It would certainly not be in the best interests of the people of America to decide who the next President of the United States will be on the basis of an American Idol-like popularity contest.

Finally, the Anchorage Daily News suggests a series of questions that Gibson ought to ask Sarah that pertain to her Alaskan provenance. One of these is " In spring of 2004, the Daily News reported that you cited family considerations in deciding not to try for the U.S. Senate: "How could I be the team mom if I was a U.S. senator?" What was different this time as you decided to run for vice president?" In speaking with several different women across the spectrum of political belief, the one concern that seems to most common is the concern about how she can manage her role as mother with that of VP? It is apparently off limits for a man to register such a concern, but it certainly a real and important question for which the country deserves an answer particularly when the "hockey mom" herself raises the issue.

The MSM

I watched the Sunday Talk shows yesterday. I watched and listened to George Stephenopolous ask some tough questions of Barack Obama in a contentious manner, often interrupting the candidate in the middle of responding to an earlier question. I also watched and listened to Bob Schieffer interview McCain and lob him softballs. No tough questions there. If I had Schieffer's job, I would want to know why McCain allowed Palin to describe Obama's policy on terrorism as "He wants to read them their rights" much to the delight of the Republican crowd. Do Republicans, led by McCain, endorse waterboarding, the activities at Abu Ghraib, rendition, Guantanamo and the rest? The evening following Palin's statements McCain made great political hay, so to speak, by describing the torture he experienced at the hands of the North Vietnamese, a not a dry eye in the house-type moment. But what is the message here on a policy issue of manifest importance? A prime time TV interview less than four days after this apparent dichotomy in Republican policy certainly should have been explored. Another favorite Republican mantra is the liberalism of the mainstream media. Schieffer's failure to followup on this glaring and obvious differences between the two Republican candidates puts the lie to this claimed liberal bias. More importantly, the answer to the question lies at the heart of whether the politician McCain will continue to run the country in a manner inimical to the moral code upon which we were founded. The mixed message being given needs to be clairified.

The Traffice Light is Red . . . and Blinking

Before I begin, I need to ask a question; Did any one notice that during the Republican convention that the name of He Who Would Be King was changed by apparent fiat to He Who Should Be Nameless? Sorry. Just had to throw that in. Now back to work.

During the course of my career the best way I could think of to describe to jurors about how standards were violated was to use the analogy of running a red traffic light while driving. Juries would hear my standard spiel about drug companies and physicians running red lights and causing harm to others. But, in order to violate a red light, one has to first recognize its existence. In that context, there was a moment during McCain's acceptance speech that burned a flashing red light in my brain. It was the "We are all Georgians" statement. This proclamation stood out like a sore thumb, or, rather, a red light because to me it registered exactly like the statement of He Who Should Be Nameless during one of his early State of the Union addresses when he spoke of the axis of evil which, of course, included Iraq. Shortly thereafter, the country was hunkered down in a war against Iraq fostered by a series of clever manipulations and lies which, in my opinion, justifies the impeachment of the Nameless One. It is obvious, from McCain's statement, that he has something in mind with respect to Georgia that is akin to our Iraq experience. This man needs to be thoroughly vetted on this issue and he needs to tell the country exactly what he intends to do about the situation before he can be voted into our highest office. Does he intend to repeat the failure of Iraq by flaming the fires of war with Russia? Just this week, the Nameless One has announced that we will give one billion dollars to Georgia. For what? It would be better given to our own State of Georgia to improve their roads and highways than to continue to feed the neo-cons desire to save the rest of the world from themselves. The red light is flashing. We can do something about it now. We can elect someone who does not have their finger on the trigger.

Lying Is Not Acceptable

"Has anyone noticed that Sarah Palin's central claim to political fame is a fraud? She represents herself as a fiscal conservative who abhors pork-barrel projects and said no thanks to the "Bridge to Nowhere" -- a $398 million span that would have linked Ketchikan, Alaska, to its airport across the Tongass Narrows. But as mayor of Wasilla (pop. 9,780), she hired a Washington lobbyist to bring home the bacon. And as a candidate for governor just two years ago, she supported both the Ketchikan bridge and the Congressional earmark that would have paid most of its cost." When the earmark money was received, as governor she accepted it but used it for purposes other than the bridge. The above question was asked by Eugene Robinson of the Washington Post, not exactly a flaming liberal media outlet. At this moment in time, my prediction is that the fraud will be the Achilles heel of her candidacy, which will carry over to McCain, as it should. For all the legitimate questions about Obama, including his lack of experience, one can say with 100% certainty that he has been fully vetted by his peers, the media and public opinion over the course of the last eighteen months. In the next 62 days leading up to the election, Palin must of necessity face the gauntlet and the answer to the question raised above has nowhere to go. It is one thing, expected, for a candidate to overstate qualifications, but it is quite another thing to lie about them. Palin has done both.