 |
What They've Thought
|
|||||
|
|
|||||
What They Thought September 17, 2006 Alan
Caruba Click here for columnist bios |
||||||
In May 2006 I wrote, “I know about the 'Peak Oil' theory that says we either have or are about the reach the point of diminishing returns regarding the world’s oil supply, but these recent discoveries suggest there is still plenty of oil to be found.” In that commentary I documented nearly a dozen new fields of oil and natural gas discovered since 1995. So I wasn’t surprised when, on September 5, Chevron Corporation announced it had discovered new, huge reserves of oil some five miles below the surface of the Gulf of Mexico. The initial estimates were that these reserves “could boost U.S. oil reserves by 50 percent.” Good news for Americans and good news as well for other oil companies such as BP, Anadarko Petroleum, and Exxon Mobil that have their own projects in progress. Indeed, two days later, Exxon Mobil announced that its Sakhalin-1 project offshore Russia had begun to export crude oil, the eighth startup within the past year. Suffice it to say that the new Gulf of Mexico discovery rivals that of Alaska’s giant Prudhoe Bay oil field in 1968. President Bush may think we’re “addicted” to oil and, along with other politicians, call for oil “independency,” but the fact is we, like every other modern nation require oil for transportation, plastics, heating homes, and the countless other uses to which we put petroleum. Recently, Abdallah Jum’ah, president and CEO of the state-owned Saudi Arabian Oil, better known as Aramco, said the world has the potential of 4.5 trillion barrels in reserves. At current levels of consumption, that’s 140 years worth of oil to power the world. Even at the lowest level of estimated reserves, there’s still enough until 2070 and does anyone believe we will not find more? While the vast Middle Eastern reserves remain an important source of oil for the world, the geopolitical game just changed for the better as far as America is concerned. The Gulf of Mexico discovery insures a new degree of independence and security. Think how much more we could achieve now that the twenty-five year-old federal ban on offshore exploration has been lifted! The next question is whether, for example, Florida will relent and permit more oil exploration and extraction off its shores instead of sitting around while China, in cooperation with Cuba, drills for oil? Indeed, potentially every state on the east and west coast of America could contribute to our oil independence by permitting this to occur. The Consumer Alliance for Energy Security estimates that “The Outer Continental Shelf has enough natural gas to heat 100 million homes for 60 years and enough oil to drive 85 million cars for 35 years.” Meanwhile, the estimated billions of barrels of oil trapped beneath Alaska’s ANWR are still waiting to be tapped! If we can just get the tree-huggers and their politician-pals to get out of way, we can all happily drive to grandma’s house for the next generation or two. In the September 11th edition of U.S. News & World Report, reporter Bay Feng wrote that the map of central Asia is being pored over by governments and oil company executives who call it the hub and spoke. “The hub is the Caspian Sea and the spokes are the multiple pipe lines emanating from it, representing potential export routes for the vast oil and gas resources that lie beneath.” Let me repeat “the vast oil and gas resources that lie beneath.” So, while Chevron was announcing vast new oil and gas resources in the Gulf of Mexico, one leading news magazine was devoting its pages to yet another area that promises more of the same. In fact, it is believed “to be among the world’s largest untapped fossil fuel resources.” We’re talking about resources that are not subject to the threats that exist for those in the Persian Gulf area, the members of OPEC. Even Russia, the world’s second-largest producer and exporter of oil after Saudi Arabia, and the largest producer of natural gas, will feel the competition. The new “Great Game” of central Asia is to wean the nations in the region from their dependency on Russia to export their oil and gas. For that you need pipelines. “That’s why U.S. officials,” wrote Feng, “have been pushing the $4 billion Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan pipeline, which opened with much fanfare in July and links Azerbaijan, Georgia, and Turkey.” Places most Americans have never heard of and couldn’t find on a map hold tremendous potential to relieve worldwide dependency on Middle Eastern oil and gas. Kazakhstan, the largest nation in central Asia, “has three of the world’s richest hydrocarbon fields.” Meanwhile, it’s worth remembering that predictions that the world was running out of oil date back to when it was discovered in 1874 in Pennsylvania. By 1920 geologists calculated the world had at best 60 billion barrels. By 1950, the world’s oil supplies were estimated at 2 trillion barrels. Prior to the discovery of vast new reserves in the Gulf of Mexico, the U.S. known reserves were calculated to meet domestic needs for anywhere from 38 to 75 years. Peak oil? A world running out of oil in our lifetimes? I don’t think so. |
||||||
Last week, I mentioned Tokyo Rose while referring to the new mouthpiece of al-Qaeda. I received a rather interesting email from a nice lady in California who is part of a conservative group that supports our troops from all wars. She sent me a few articles and a link to a very interesting webpage. I read for quite a while, and then while I was at work I asked a few people who they thought Tokyo Rose was. I found the same misperception to be just about everywhere. Nobody had the straight story. So here is another more honest story of who she really is and was. In an article in The Washington Times, James C. Roberts blew the lies out of the water with some nicely placed salvos of facts. Born in Southern California as Iva Toguri into a Japanese-American family determined to assimilate, she grew up and went to school like any one of us. She graduated from UCLA with plans to become a doctor. Her aunt was ill and, needing help. asked Iva’s mother to come to Japan. Iva’s mother was also in very poor health, so Iva went instead. She thought she was going to be in Japan for six months, but December 7, 1941 changed everything. During her time in Japan, Iva took a job at the Domei News Agency as a typist. In 1943, she responded to an add from Radio Tokyo asking for English speaking typists, and quickly found herself intertwined in a situation that forever changed her life and shadows her to this day. In spite of continuous pressure by the Japanese Government to renounce her U.S. Citizenship, Iva Toguri never did. What Iva actually did was a twenty-minute segment that was mostly music. Between her and several of the POWs that were roped into the program, they actually did a fair amount to undermine the purpose of the show by occasionally slipping a few comments here and there regarding the Japanese in a less than favorable light. Iva Toguri introduced comedy skits and music to entertain rather than demoralize our troops under the name of Orphan Ann, her favorite comic strip character. Many of the troops who were later interviewed said she actually boosted their morale rather than lowered it. She also used some of her earnings to buy food and medicine for the POWs. I can’t seem to remember Jane Fonda doing anything like that. Can you? Once the war ended, the myth of Tokyo Rose began to grow until she became the focal point of rage for many who knew no better. The Tokyo Rose so many of us think we know never really existed, at least not as one person. There were actually several of them, but that isn’t what I’m writing about here. Hollywood had its own Michael Moores back then, too, and they helped to feed this myth of one single, evil person who was Tokyo Rose. Eventually, that lie became engrained into the national psyche. When the press arrived in Tokyo, they wanted to find Tokyo Rose so they could interview her. One Mister Lee and one Mister Brundidge offered a reward for anyone who would identify her. One of Iva’s former coworkers contacted them so she could get the reward money. These two reporters from Cosmopolitan offered to pay Iva $2,000 for an interview. She did the interview and was never paid. (Excluding interest, which would at least triple the money owed, this figure would be in modern dollars something like $24,000. Where are you Clark, Brundidge and Cosmo?) Instead she was arrested by the military police and investigated. They released her after a year because they found no grounds for a charge of treason. Unfortunately, there were people here in the USA who read that article and became infuriated. Eventually, the myth grew even more, and one columnist spent hours of writing trying to have her brought back to this country for a trial. Truman, a Democrat in true form, was facing a very hard Presidential campaign and had her secretly arrested and put on trial. It was called the trial of the century and cost a fortune, like all trials of the century. Two of her former coworkers testified that she had once mentioned a loss of ships. They both admitted later that they had lied. The jury deadlocked and under new instructions from the judge she was found guilty of one count of treason and sentenced to ten years in prison. The jury foreman later said that verdict was something he would regret for the rest of his life. She was stripped of her citizenship and locked away. I find it ironic that she was stripped of her US citizenship under Truman, something she refused to give up under duress from the enemy. Later, when we were told the lie that Iva did these things under duress there was a very subtle knife being slipped into the fabric of our society that said, “It’s okay to be a traitor if it’s to protect a family member.” As a matter of fact, it actually popularized that notion. The point is this: She did her part of the show with the intention of undermining a common enemy to this country and popular opinion twisted the story away from the truth. At no point did she at any time commit treason or aid and abet a common enemy of the United States of America. She remained true to us. How rare. In 1977, President Gerald Ford, a Republican, reinstated her citizenship and granted her a pardon. She was also awarded the Citizenship award in January of 2006 by the World War II Veterans Committee. When I look at Iva Toguri’s life and history I see one thing: grace under pressure with a genuine love for her country. What an incredible person she really is. Reference Links: http://www.dyarstraights.com/orphan_ann/orphanan.html R.A. Hawkins Web Site Contact Back to Top |
||||||
I’ve never been comfortable calling 9/11 “9-11.” I’m not sure why this is. I’m not usually big on slash marks. Yet something about the hyphenated version of 9/11 has always bothered me. The only time I ever hyphenate the “9” and “11” in 9/11 is when I’m saving a file on my computer. Windows won’t let you use slashes when you’re naming your files. So if I want to save a file called “9/11.doc,” I have to save it as “9-11.doc” instead. My favorite way of writing 9/11 actually involves no numbers whatsoever. If I had it my way, everyone would call 9/11 “Nine-Eleven.” I first came up with this variation several years ago because my journalism professor once taught me never to start a sentence with a number. I was writing one of my articles and really wanted to start a sentence with “9/11,” which, for some poetic reason or another, sounded better or seemed more appropriate than starting the sentence with “September 11th.” So I decided to compromise. I spelled out the numbers, and Nine-Eleven was born. I like Nine-Eleven. But I’ve never seen anyone else use it. Hallmark and the government have tried pushing the name Patriot Day on us, but that name has never stuck, either. We call it 9/11 because it felt like an emergency. We’re never going to call it anything different. Maybe Patriot Day will work when we’re all dead a few years from now. Or maybe it would work if Nine-Eleven had happened on Nine-Twelve. I’ve gone through a lot of different preferences on this issue over the years. Sometimes my politics on 9/11 change. Other times, I just change the way I write it. I’m okay with writing “09/11/01,” and I’m actually okay with “09-11-01” also. I’m not okay with leaving the zero off the number of the month, though. I don’t like how it looks when you write “9/11/01.” It seems imbalanced. I’ve always been okay with writing “September 11th” or the abbreviated “Sept. 11th,” but I’ve never been okay with writing “Sept. 11” without the “th” unless the “11” is followed by the year, as in “Sept. 11, 2001.” Lately, I’ve been getting tired of using the “th.” I think the only reason I haven’t stopped using it is because changing my ways seems like such a commitment. Don’t be surprised if I make that change after writing this article. Maybe the fifth anniversary of September 11th will be another one of those days that changed everything. Maybe next September 11th will be the first anniversary of the fifth anniversary. A couple of months ago, I was reminiscing with some friends of mine about an incident that occurred the weekend after 9/11. We had plans to go to a club in Yonkers that Saturday (Nine-Fifteen, for those keeping score), and we kept those plans in spite of the fact that the world seemed like it was ending at the time. I wasn’t as interested as anyone else was in going out or doing anything or ever being happy again, so when we got to the club that evening, I sort of just spent the night in a corner with an Old Glory bandana tied around my bicep, singing into an empty beer bottle. This went on for an hour or two until I passed out in the booth on a pile of coats. The next thing I knew, I opened my eyes to a mini-riot. Dozens of people running this way and that. The doors were locked, and angry ex-patrons were outside, pounding on the glass, demanding to get back in. Some guy had apparently run someone over—on purpose—with his van. Looking back, I’ve always gotten the feeling I was told an exaggerated version of what actually happened while I was passed out that evening. I’ve never really cared about the details, though, so I never thought to ask. But recalling the story a couple of months ago, one of my friends said something that I found unusual. She remembered complaining as she watched it unfold: “God! First 9/11. Now this?” I don’t doubt that she actually felt that way. But what she remembered saying was technically impossible. No one called it “9/11” the weekend after 9/11 happened. No one called it “September 11th” back then, either. No one called it anything. Except for maybe “last Tuesday.” People tend to forget this, looking back now. Jonathan David Morris Web Site Contact Back to Top |
||||||
With the November elections looming, politics is taking priority over sensible policy. It appears congressional leaders have no intention of addressing the issue of illegal immigration this year, preferring not to tackle such a thorny problem for fear of angering voters one way or another. But this is a mistake. The American people want something done about illegal immigration now — not next year. All sides in the immigration debate agree that the current, “Don’t ask, don’t tell,” policy cannot continue. That’s why I am joining several of my colleagues in demanding that the Senate vote this month on a border security bill already passed by the House earlier this year. I truly believe border security is the most important issue for millions of Americans. Both the Bush administration and congressional leadership have promised to spend the next two months addressing national security issues. But real national security cannot be achieved unless and until our borders are physically secured. It’s as simple as that. All the talk about fighting terror and making America safer is meaningless without border security. It makes no sense to seek terrorists abroad if our own front door is left unlocked. Although the border security bill already passed by the House is a good start, Congress needs to pass broader legislation this year based on the following simple points: First, physically secure our borders and coastlines. We must have control over who enters our country before we even begin to consider complicated immigration reform proposals. Second, enforce visa rules on those already in the country. Immigration officials must track visa holders and deport individuals who overstay their visas or otherwise violate U.S. law. This is especially important when we recall that some of the 9/11 terrorists had expired visas. Third, reject amnesty. If we reward lawbreakers who enter this country illegally with citizenship, then any new laws Congress might pass likewise can be ignored. Reform must begin with a new mentality that immigration laws will be enforced. Fourth, end welfare-state incentives for illegals. Americans are quick to welcome immigrants who simply wish to work hard and make a better life for themselves. But taxpayers cannot continue to pay when illegal immigrants use hospitals, clinics, schools, roads, and social services. Fifth, end birthright citizenship. As long as illegal immigrants know their children born here will be citizens, the perverse incentive to sneak into this country remains strong. Citizenship involves more than the mere location of one’s birth. Finally, completely overhaul the legal immigration process. The current system is incoherent and unfair. Legal immigrants from all countries should face the same rules and waiting periods. If we keep these points in mind, immigration reform does not need to be complicated or expensive. It does, however, need to happen this year. Rep. Ron Paul Web Site Back to Top |
||||||
On first glance, the news that Keith Ellison recently won the 5th district Democratic primary in Minnesota isn’t that big of a story for someone from another part of the country. And while some might be put off by the idea that Keith Ellison is against the war in Iraq and is for universal health care, this would not change the fact that his victory is local news. Although he would be the first black man to represent Minnesota in the House of Representatives, this wouldn’t even qualify as national news by today’s standards.1 However, there is good reason to give this recent event a second thought; it is because this particular candidate is a self identified member of the nation of Islam.2 It would seem, then, that there is a conflict of interest. There are many legitimate reasons for concern over this development. Ellison, the frontrunner in this political race,3 has professed support of anti-Semites; such as, Kwame Ture, known for coining the term “black power” and for fostering, “a movement that will smash everything Western civilization has created;" 4 and Khalid Muhammed, a leader of the New Black Panther Party, who was removed from the Nation of Islam’s hierarchy after a speech in which he, “referred to Jews as "bloodsuckers," called for the genocide of white people, and demeaned both Pope John Paul II and homosexuals.” 5 Furthermore, while there is usually no particular problem with anyone of faith practicing any particular religion, there should be concern when a representative in our government practices a particular form of a religion which by definition supersedes the rule of law in this country. “The concept of Shari`a is so fundamental to Islam, that even today, prominent Muslim jurists argue over whether a Muslim can fully discharge Shari`a obligations while residing in a non-Muslim territory.” 6 “E pluribus Unum” is being eschewed by Muslim groups who petition, “to establish enclaves in which they can uphold and enforce greater compliance to Islamic law,” 7 and by an Islamist lobby which, “has submitted numerous white papers and amicus briefs to legislators and courts arguing for the religious right of Muslims to apply Shari`a law, particularly in relation to family law disputes.”8 Muslims have already established an enclave in Baltimore in which they are living separate but equally, instead of assimilating. Another enclave, proposed in Little Rock would be funded by the United Arab Emirates which has promoted radical interpretations of the Islamic faith.8 Anyone holding office in our country should be expected to uphold the objectives of the Constitution of the United States; specifically, to form a more perfect Union; establish Justice; insure domestic Tranquility; provide for the common defense; promote the general Welfare; and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity. Certainly, a man who is associated with anti-Semitism, the genocide of white people, homophobia, and a religious faith which does not put first the Constitution of the United States first should not be seriously considered as a representative of our government. Ellison is allegedly running on a platform for peace. However, his quest for peace might not align with what the common man ascribes. Ellison led demonstrations against the Minneapolis police with Sharif Willis, “after four of Willis's Vice Lords gangbangers shot Minneapolis police officer Jerry Haaf in the back.” 9 During his protest in support of these upstanding citizens, Ellison chanted, "We don't get no justice, you don't get no peace." 10 It is impossible to uphold an oath to the U.S. Constitution if one doesn’t subscribe to the reasons our founders fought for the right to self government in the first place; to protect everyone’s right to pursue life, liberty, and happiness. Those people who ratified the Constitution agreed to give up a portion of our natural given rights in order to ensure that everyone can continue to exist peacefully as a community ruled under constitutional law. Those who willfully resist assimilation and actively thwart the rights of selected groups are following an agenda which destructive and polarizing to our nation. Keith Ellison has every right to run for office, but he has made it perfectly clear by his actions that he would not uphold the Constitution. If a government official refuses to honor the oath of office, he has no right to hold it. The people in the 5th district of Minnesota should think about this very carefully in November. 2 CAIR's
Congressional candidate and more James Taranto’s
Best of the Web Today 1, 3
Keith Ellison wins Dem. primary 5 Khalid
Abdul Muhammad: In His Own Words 4 Kwame
Ture 1941 - 1998 6, 7, 8
The Islamist Challenge to the U.S. Constitution Nancy
Salvato
Web Site Contact
Back to Top
|
||||||
©2004-2006 by their respective authors. Reprinted by permission. |
||||||
|
news | constitution | bill of rights | our view | your view | their view awards to win | awards we've won | resources | goodie shoppe our mission | about us | contact us | privacy policy | site map | home This page last updated on Tuesday, September 19, 2006 2:02 AM Optimized for Microsoft Internet Explorer |
||||||
|
site content ©2002-2006 site design by |
||||||
