 |
What They've Thought
|
|||||
|
|
|||||
What They Thought November 12, 2006 Alan
Caruba Click here for columnist bios |
||||||
In late October I attended a luncheon briefing in New York sponsored by the Middle East Forum. The speaker was R. James Woolsey, former director of the Central Intelligence Agency and currently a vice president at Booz Allen Hamilton. The room was filled with men who represent a class of citizenry known as “influential.” Woolsey’s topic was “Energy Alternatives and the War on Terror.” Normally, I give men like Woolsey a lot of respect because they’ve earned it. However, it didn’t take long before I began to hear views that made me begin to question not just the wisdom of what Woolsey was saying, but why he was saying it. “The way strategically over the long run to weaken the enemies of Israel, such as Ahmadinejad, is to weaken the role of oil,” said Woolsey. “Oil makes it harder to avoid genocide in Darfur because the Sudanese have a deal with China, and it makes it harder to deal with Iran, because China and Iran have an oil deal.” Say what? Weaken the role of oil? Genocide in Darfur has something to do with China? Iran will not pursue its lunatic Islamic apocalypse because it has an oil deal with China? A lot of what Woolsey told the attendees is fairly common knowledge. He noted that natural events such as hurricanes can affect the amount of oil available and that terrorism — he called it “malevolent interference” — could provoke a war that would interrupt the flow of oil out of the Middle East. If the availability of Iraq’s huge reserves of oil wasn’t a component of the reason the U.S. and its coalition invaded that nation, than we have wasted a lot of national treasure and lives for no good purpose. If a recent, failed al Qaeda attack on Saudi Arabia’s largest refinery wasn’t about oil and the power that flows from it, then we are ignoring an unspoken objective of the Islamic Jihad. Granted, there’s no joy in knowing that a portion of our oil dollars is going to a handful of nations in the Middle East, but that is where, like Russia, a lot of oil exists. However, the U.S. purchases quite a bit of its oil from Canada and Venezuela, and secures a significant portion from national reserves in the Gulf of Mexico. No matter with which Middle East oil potentates we must make deals, the oil — a global commodity — is going to flow. So, when I heard Woolsey suggest that the United States needed to make “substantial changes in our transportation,” i.e. begin to massively move away from gasoline to alternatives like ethanol, he really got my attention. Ethanol’s price competitiveness as an energy source is protected by U.S. subsidies. It takes more energy to make, generates far less energy than gasoline, and is not kind to auto engines. I kept waiting for Woolsey to recommend that the United States open up the massive oil reserves in Alaska’s ANWR or for States to increase access to the massive, untapped reserves of oil and natural gas that lie off the U.S. continental shelf on both coasts. What I heard was “hybrid cars.” Woolsey’s main contention was that, if we reduce our use of oil for transportation needs, the U.S. could have a substantial impact on events in the Middle East by reducing the dollars that flow there. This ignores the growing oil needs of China and India, and other developing nations. Money will flow to the region no matter what steps the U.S. takes. Competition for oil will increase. The answer is to find more oil because vast, untapped reserves are known to exist. And I thought to myself, gee whiz, we could save billions if we just pulled all our troops out of the Middle East, along with that huge naval task force that is parked off the coast of Iran. What this ignores is the fact that our major export to that region is defense, security, and for most of its nations, stability. In the 1980s Saddam waged an eight-year war with Iran with the intention of getting his hands on its oil. That war ended in a stalemate. When Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait, he was after its oil. Later, when enough nations became concerned about Saddam’s weapons of mass destruction (recall that everyone thought he had them and he probably did), we invaded again. Saddam the tyrant who had killed millions of his own people was not the issue. Saddam who wasn’t content to skim millions in oil revenue and live a quiet life of luxury was the problem. Granted the whole region wakes up screaming, “Death to America” and, “Death to Israel,” but even the Saudis have put forth a quite rational plan to end the conflict with the Palestinians. What is happening in Iraq scares the Sunni Saudis and what Shiite Iran is saying these days scares them even more. Do we want to keep Saudi oil flowing? You bet! “We could, with systems that have been invented and are on the market in different ways, begin before long to move decisively away from oil as our principle transportation vehicle,” said Woolsey. The environmentally-correct pipedreams of Woolsey and others who are trying to conjure up an economy in which most of our cars get to plug into electrical outlets or maybe a nation of drivers in cars with batteries the size of bathtubs sound to me about as realistic as the typical ranting about global warming or the horrors of nuclear power. I admire R. James Woolsey for his service to this nation. I just wish he didn’t want to join hands with Al Gore to sing folk songs. I wish he would take our enemies more seriously than suggesting “alternative” energy options. |
||||||
I’m certain there are many conservatives out there who think we lost this election in the worst of ways. I don’t quite see it that way however. I think that loss was actually a gain for conservatives. Now we are going to be treated to gridlock as Bush is forced to dig his heals in, and hopefully sprout some veto powers. We lost for several reasons. Personally I suspect that he’s been listening to the left a little too well or closely. That group of people in general emits something like the song of the Sirens and draws the ship of state onto the rocks. Right now, the sweetest song being sung by any of the media is coming from Bill Maher. I don‘t know if I’m the only one who is thinking this, but it seems to me that Bill is sounding like he’s feeling a little jilted. He has already outed one closet gay Republican and is threatening to out three more. According to him, he is doing this because it is an outrage that there are some gays in a party that claims to be for family values. Like any liberal, he is showing his true colors. It is readily apparent to any thinking person from this that Republicans are more tolerant than liberals. There was a time when I thought the liberals viewed gayness as a badge of courage and honor. Now we know that like everyone else in "that" party they respect nobody unless they get their vote and will forget them the second the polls shut down. I’m a little more Jeffersonian in that area. What you do in your private life is your own business unless it affects me, so I’m more interested in how a person votes and what laws they try to enact. I used to like a certain comedian until her show turned into a radical gay agenda spree. Yes, I see Bill Maher as a confused cross-dressing Ellen DeGeneres. But as with any win — even a paltry win such as they just had — will be proof only to them that they have a mandate. No, Bill, that wouldn’t be a womandate in your case, okay? Because of that we’re going to be treated to all manner of arrogance and stupidity. That brings me to my favorite part in all of this. I have no doubt a lot of people wondered why Bush sat down to make nice with Nancy Pelosi. She is the epitome of the new left and a harbinger of their doom. Between Pelosi, Kerry, who said Ortega is a different person now, and Harry Reid, who will undoubtedly treat us to many more entertaining episodes of his Tourettes Syndrome, this is going to be pretty interesting to watch. For quite some time the left has chortled with delight as they spoke of declining enlistments in the military. I wonder what those enlistments are going to look like now that the party of Kerry, who thinks everyone in the military is stupid, has a mandate. Future enlistees will get to hear from anyone who was paying attention during Clinton's reign about all of those military missions they were so pleased about, which, by the way, didn’t provide any long-lasting benefits for this nation. The power shifts in this country every twelve years, and I find it hard to view this loss as tragic. If it had to happen, I’m glad it happened when and how it did. This isn’t like the very first mid-term election for Bill Clinton. That actually was a mandate. But since it didn’t go in the favor of the left they considered it a fluke of course. They’re kind of funny like that you know. This election is more like a spanking from the conservatives to their elected officials. Most of us just wanted us to get Iraq over with something along the lines of an unrepentant win by removing Fallujah from the map after they hung our people from a bridge and partied. Most of us are getting a little tired of the fact that the United Nations is still here. It should be moved post haste to Palestine. They have been on the side of Russia and China from the start, just like France. You know something? I just figured out what else Bill Maher reminds me of. He reminds me of France. He’ll do anything he can to feel important. I bet he can cut and run just as fast too. Either that, or he may decide to prove he’s a liberal and just wear a dress. Wear it with pride, Bill, and know what your party really thinks of you. As for why any politician might listen to any media source is concerned…the answer is quite obvious. Most of them should be out of business by now and they aren’t. So it’s obvious even to the politicians that someone out here in voterland is still listening to them. Let’s all hope that Bush sprouts some veto powers. If he does, we’re going to have to listen to the loony left yell about the importance of passing more stupid laws, getting on with the business of running the country, etc. Remember to ignore the man behind the curtain or they’ll get you and your little dog too. Leftist fantasy absolutely rocks doesn’t it? R.A. Hawkins Web Site Contact Back to Top |
||||||
I’ve had a
lot of bad experiences with utility companies. Never in my life have
I had one as bad as my recent run-in with cable giant Comcast. After
closing on our new house last Friday, my wife and I spent the entire
next day sitting around waiting for a cable TV/Internet/digital phone
installation that, as of this writing, still hasn’t happened.
Saturday, 11 AM: It begins with a late morning phone call to the aforementioned telecommunications provider. I’m calling to officially terminate cable and Internet service at my old residence. While on the phone, Comcast confirms a technician will stop by my new place later that day between the hours of 1 and 5. This appointment was originally scheduled over a week ago; I hang up the phone safe in the knowledge that it will be kept. At that exact moment, somewhere in Hell, Satan delivers his first son by C-section. The “C” stands for “Comcast.” And so begins my day. Saturday, 3 PM: We’re halfway through that 1 to 5 window. The technician hasn’t shown up yet. I’m not getting nervous, but I call Comcast anyway, hoping to get an ETA. I don’t get one. But, as promised, they assure me the guy will show up by 5. Saturday, 3:15 PM: Fifteen minutes later, Comcast calls me to ask if the guy has shown up. Saturday, 4:20 PM: Now I’m getting nervous. I’m also getting bored. I have errands to run, and instead I’m sitting in a half-empty house with no TV and a broken power screwdriver. I call 1-800-COMCAST. “Don’t worry, sir,” they tell me. Alanis Morisette then steps out of a locker. It’s just the introduction to the Opposite Sketch. Saturday, 4:50 PM: I make yet another call to 1-800-COMCAST. By now, I’ve memorized all the buttons I need to push on the automated menu. A lady answers this time. I tell her my situation, and she says she will “flash” the driver to let him know to call me. I don’t know what “flashing” means. I assume it has something to do with bare breasts and a camera phone. Either way, the guy never calls. Now I know how all those girls I dumped in high school used to feel. Saturday, 5:45 PM: Now I get an interesting fellow on the phone. This latest customer disservice rep says I never had a 1 to 5 appointment. No, it turns out I was scheduled “for the PM hours.” Well, this is just ridiculous. There are twelve PM hours in the day. I refuse to believe any company would set a timeframe that encompasses all twelve of them. The guy goes on to say he’s tracking the technician, and my house is blinking, which means I’m next on the route. I don’t think that’s why my house was blinking. My anger was just so seething at this point you could see it in pictures taken from the sky. Saturday, 6:30 PM: I call 1-800-COMCAST. Again. I tell them my story. Again. The woman who handles my call says she’s going to “submit a ticket.” Allegedly, this will get me an appointment for first thing tomorrow morning. Then she puts me on hold. And never comes back. Saturday, 7:15 PM: By now I am drinking and part suicidal. I call the 800 number and get a woman named Michelle. After telling her my story, she asks to put me on hold. I tell her no. Then I wait in silence while she reboots her computer. Forty-five minutes into the phone call, she suggests I speak with her team leader. Twenty minutes and the occasional breathing sound later, her team leader finally walks across the room and picks up the phone. She gives me a new number, which, in theory, will get me in touch with my local Comcast office. The lady who answers says my town is actually split between two offices. She transfers me to the other one. After a brief automated menu, I get a guy on the phone. He’s not local. He’s right back at 1-800-COMCAST. Saturday, 9 PM: Somewhere along the way, it turns out a “ticket” was submitted for me after all. Comcast calls me and offers a new appointment for 1 to 5 tomorrow. I’ll take it. I’ll take anything at this point. Sunday, 12 PM: In the midst of packing at our old apartment, my wife and I get a phone call. It’s the Comcast technician. He’s at our house an hour early. And we’re half an hour away. Sunday, 3:00 PM: The technician shows up again. I let him in, give him the tour, and explain where I’d like cable outlets. At this point, he suggests drilling holes through my hardwood floors. “I thought you guys said you could go through the walls,” I tell him. And it’s true: That’s what Comcast had told me. In fact, that’s why they set up a 1 to 5 appointment. It took a special kind of technician to do this kind of job. This guy, though? Let’s just say he wasn’t that kind of technician. Yes, after all this, when Comcast finally sent somebody… they sent the wrong guy. Jonathan David Morris Web Site Contact Back to Top |
||||||
For most Americans, guns are not a political issue. People buy and own guns to protect their families, not to commit crimes. The truth is that even millions of Americans who support and vote for gun control own guns themselves, because deep down they share the basic human need to feel secure in their homes. The gun control movement has lost momentum in recent years. The Democratic Party has been conspicuously silent on the issue in recent elections because they know it's a political loser. In the midst of declining public support for new gun laws, more and more states have adopted concealed-carry programs. The September 11th terrorist attacks and last year's hurricanes only made matters worse for gun control proponents, as millions of Americans were starkly reminded that we cannot rely on government to protect us from criminals. Gun sales have gone up. Most supporters of gun rights take no pleasure in this fact, nor do they trumpet it as a political victory over gun control forces. The time has come to stop politicizing gun ownership, and start promoting responsible use of firearms to make America a safer place. Guns are here to stay; the question is whether only criminals will have them. The media has not been honest in reporting about guns, especially when it comes to statistics about law-abiding individuals who use firearms to prevent or deter crimes. Many of the "assault rifles" vilified by the press are in fact sporting rifles that are no longer available to hunters and outdoorsmen. Of course true military-style fully automatic rifles remain widely available to criminals on the black market. The gun control debate generally ignores the historical and philosophical underpinnings of the Second amendment. The Second amendment is not about hunting deer or keeping a pistol in your nightstand. It is not about protecting oneself against common criminals. It is about preventing tyranny. The Founders knew that unarmed citizens would never be able to overthrow a tyrannical government as they did. They envisioned government as a servant, not a master, of the American people. The muskets they used against the British Army were the assault rifles of that time. It is practical, rather than alarmist, to understand that unarmed citizens cannot be secure in their freedoms. It's convenient for gun banners to dismiss this argument by saying, "That could never happen here, this is America." But history shows that only vigilant people can keep government under control. By banning certain weapons today, we may plant the seeds for tyranny to flourish decades from now. Tortured interpretations of the Second amendment cannot change the fact that both the letter of the amendment itself and the legislative history conclusively show that the Founders intended ordinary citizens to be armed. The notion that the Second amendment confers rights only upon organized state-run militias is preposterous; the amendment is meaningless unless it protects the gun rights of individuals. Gun control may have faded as a political issue, but the mentality that Washington knows best — and that certain constitutional rights are anachronisms — is alive and well. Look for gun control advocates to bide their time and look for new ways to resurrect the issue in 2008 and beyond. Rep. Ron Paul Web Site Back to Top |
||||||
|
No column this week. 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 Saturday, November 11, 2006 1:45 AM Optimized for Microsoft Internet Explorer |
||||||
|
site content ©2002-2006 site design by |
||||||
