F. Ryan here ... my brief absence post trip isn't due to any technical difficulties as with Jambo, just some quiet contemplation, had to square away a few things in my head regarding the personal, but enough of all that ...to recent events ...
First, the trip was a smashing success, period. Its great to be in a room (or under the stars as the case was) where everyone "gets" every little jab, quip, and even the occasional friendly insult which comes only after years of building a friendship.
****
I was a fan of Tim Russert, sorry to see him pass at 58. I watched the tribute to him, including his son Luke's (22 yr old Boston College grad whom I'm quoting in the subject line) farewell to his father, it was quite moving and was as Catholic Irish as the day is long. In my estimation not just NBC, but the "old", or "mainstream" (if one can still call it that) media just lost its' last legitimate face. In fact I found it quite telling that many of his colleagues mentioned in their eulogizing that his ability to "play it up the middle", or to "be an equal opportunity prosecutor" (of the issues), always struck them. Isn't that what reproters are supposed to do?No less then 2 presidents, 6 senators, 3 Kennedy's, 2 governors and countless others turned out for the event. But the real reason I liked Tim was because you could just tell, he absolutely loved this thing we call politics, he was a genuine fan of the process. And how many of the elite media even watch football, let alone end their broadcast saying, "Go Bills." I just flat out liked the guy, and he would have fit right in to the Bund.
****
The Supreme Court of California has decided to put us on a path to social suicide, and the US Supreme Court has chosen a similar path, but with literal suicide at its end. There is no other way to put it in my estimation -
too many in America have no concept what it means to be at war, none. And the absolutely hypocritical and historically void Philistines they are, those whom applaud this decision, are surely among those whom in the same breath would laud praise on Abraham Lincoln as one of (if not "the") greatest presidents in the history of our Union - the man whom suspended "bring me the body" for "certain" US citizens. And it gets even worse, Barak Obama subsequent to this ruling was asked in a telephone conference with journalists, if Bin Laden, should he be captured, be afforded his day in US civilian criminal court, and he answered, "yes." It is precisely, as the McCain camp aptly pointed out, this type of mindset (of treating terror like a crime rather then an act of war) that contributed to the conditions which would later allow 9/11. In fact the overall conclusion of the 9/11 commission's report, which every Democrat operative worth his salt uses to bang over the head of one GW Bush, concluded that (& I'm paraphrasing)
"they were at war with us, yet we were not at war with them." As has been noted Obama clearly has a 9/10 mindset, and what baffels me is he has at least a 50/50 chance of being the next CIC as it stands now -
I ask you, what is wrong with this nation? This also provides a very valuable lesson for all future executives, when contemplating war, go NOT for a piece of legislative authorization - get an actual DECLARATION OF WAR. Had Bush done this then many of these national security issues and challenges, including the status of these detainees, would be muted.
And lets for a moment go to the former court of which I spoke. There is but no question that the branch most out of sorts with the American people, and the one most impervious to redress or rebuke by those same people, is the judiciary. Counterfeit marriage - and that's what it is, not "gay marriage", that's as oxymoronic as "illegal immigrant" - was rejected by over 2 million Californians in a ballot initiative not 3 years ago. Yet by judicial fiat that
will has been overturned. What is the recourse? There are only two in my estimation: one is a constitutional amendment. As I recall civics it is the only action by the legislature which could resist judicial impositions. It can't be judged "unconstitutional" if it is an "amendment" to that very document. But what is the practicality of this occuring? Regardless of the people's will there is enough political maneuvering in Sacramento to keep such a measure within the realm of a pipe dream. A federal amendment? The sheer organizational effort that would be necessary to mount a majority state ratification simply boggles the mind. The second and last option would be an impeachment of a sitting judge. Explain to me just whom has the political clanking round ones to introduce those articles into the United States Senate? The days of an executive as bold and respected as FDR exist no longer. And even though either of these options are reasonable responses to both the CA Supreme Court regarding counterfeit marriage, and the US Supreme Court regarding detainees, jurists know full well this will simply not happen, thus they have no fear.
And while we're at it I am astonished that the advocates of the CA ruling invoke "States Rights" in defending the Golden State's decision. Can anyone on the American ideological left explain to me why the chant of "States Rights" is a valid one regarding California allowing homosexuals to "marry" and is used as an argument against a federal constitutional amendment to ban it, yet those same leftists invalidate state's rights concerning the issue of abortion? The states are capable enough in their wisdom to dictate whom should be married, even if it rebukes over 5,000 years of civilization's definition of that institution, yet the 30 year old
Roe V Wade ruling is much to aloof and nuanced to allow Mississippi to decide? Please Pelosi, enough.
****
Now, to that viscous grease which lubricates our wheels of freedom .... OIL!
The United States of America ... we don't take energy seriously, period. It has been so available and so cheap for so long I suppose the lethargic reaction to its sudden spike in price is to be expected. To say that I am disappointed in the President's "speech" today is, well, beyond an understatement. He simply placed it in the hands of Congress, and left it at that. The colossal Clydesdale of history galloped into the Rose Garden, winked at him, and instead of mounting her and putting a stamp on the end of his presidency, namely putting America on the road to energy independence, he simply waived at that mare and watched her trot away.
The comprehensive (in the truest sense of the word) plan Jambo and I put forth as a remedy to America's energy needs is well known in this forum. In brief it is to open up drilling in scores of places; eliminate red tape to building refineries (the US hasn't brought a new one on line in over 30 years due to it); go nuclear in an impressive way; and from the executive office spearhead legislation and offer inspiring public sentiments for a moon shot prize for that company which can introduce a reliable renewable source. But consider this - the entire argument, taking up the time of our two parties and both presidential candidates - is this silly debate over ANWR. I've done some research. ANWR is in North Eastern Alaska. Alaska is about the size of the United Kingdom, including Scotland and Whales. The portion which would be affected by drilling is about the size of Dulles Airport. I'll go one better: Take your morning newspaper and spread the front page out so that both it and the back page are face up. Then pick one letter, any letter in the normal type - the paper would represent the whole of the area and that one 10 font letter represents the space which would be affected by drilling. Now, this is certainly not to say that ANWR is the single key to energy independence, my (& Jambo's) plan is clearly much broader then that as can be seen above. My point is that if we can't agree over this small aspect of the over all necessary actions, then how in the name of all that is holy will anyone ever be able to introduce a plan as far reaching as ours?
And for these arguments that the oil tapped by drilling wouldn't come into use for 5 to 10 years - does anyone hazard to guess when last that argument was made? 5 to 10 years ago. Not to mention, anywhere from 15 to 35% of the price per barrel of oil comes from speculators. These are commodity traders that "speculate" what the price per barrel will be in the future. Volatility, in the form of an unstable or erratic Iran and Hugo Chavez; not knowing from one second to the next whether Russia will side up economically with the West or give the likes of Kim Jong Ill a soothing Siberian massage; the probability of terror attacks on supply lines or another Katrina (or what's happening in the mid-west regarding corn and Ethanol shortages); ALL of this figures into that speculation, and drives the price up. What brings it down is "stability." And plain ol' supply, especially at the rate China and India are growing and consuming. Were we to open up our lands it would provide at least some of both - supply and stability in the world's remaining superpower taking an initiative. Right now China, India, & Vietnam (yes, Vietnam) are all hustling to bid on drilling contracts 60 miles of the coast of Florida in conjunction with Cuba. Are we going to let VIETNAM take more initiative towards securing their energy needs than us? Do we really need to add that insult to the injury of our war there? And both parties are responsible for what should be intolerable - our dependency. In 1998 President Clinton said you can't lease anything "here" for oil until 2012. Want to know where "here" is? Washington, the entire state; Oregon, the entire state; Northern California, Central California and Southern California. The eastern Gulf of Mexico except for a portion of land. The South Atlantic, the Mid Atlantic, the North Atlantic, all national marine sanctuaries. And all of the following are indefinite: the Olympic Coast; Cordell Bank, California; Monterrey Bay, California; the Gulf of the Farallones, California; the Channel Islands of California; the Flower Bank Gardens Gulf of Mexico; Straits of Florida and the Florida Keys; Gray's Reef South and Atlantic; Monitor Mid Atlantic; Stellwagen Bank, North Atlantic. Congress? They started their moratoriums back in the 80's, stopping the leasing in 1982 of Central and Northern California. Then in 1984 it was Southern California. Then in 1990 (thank you George H. Bush) the North Aleutian Basin in Alaska. Then in 1991 Washington, Oregon and the Florida Panhandle.
Anyone still think drilling is not at least "part" of the solution? Consider this - even with all the bans on the outer continental shelf we at present extract 30% of our oil needs in the "non-banned" areas. That's more then we import from any one nation. And get this gang, the government estimates that those banned areas in the outer continental shelf, the ones they said no to in Congress just this week, has 76 billion barrels of oil in it that are recoverable with today's technology. Let me put that into perspective. 76 billion barrels is enough to replace every single barrel of oil that we import from everywhere outside of North America for the next 34 years at our current pace. That's in the one place, one, that congress said we couldn't go into. Like I said, we don't take energy independence seriously.
And for the RFK's and Al Gore's of the world: there have been no spills over 1,000 barrels in 15 years of the outer continental shelf drilling. The National Academy of Sciences found that the offshore industry is among the safest industrial activities in the United States. Outer continental shelf operations are more than five times
less likely to cause a spill than oil tankers who are
importing oil. Remember these words. Imports present an environmental risk of spills
13 times greater than domestic production. Again, imports present an environmental risk of spills 13 times greater than domestic production. And, natural seeps account for 150 to 175 times more oil in the ocean than outer continental shelf oil and gas operations. Natural seeps! Is the earth itself to be taxed under Algorian theory? And whom do you suppose, given these numbers, would be more "responsible" to the environment off the coast of Florida, American oil companies or VIETNAM??
And to further demonstrate how out of touch with the American people 100% of the Democrat Party is, and
at least 50% of the GOP I might add, a recent Rasmussen poll, released this week surveyed self identified "liberals" regarding the issue of domestic drilling. "
Given the surge in fuel prices would you be open to more domestic oil drilling?, was the question. And these are liberals now: 17% had no opinion, 37% were opposed, and 46% were in favor.
Like I said, we don't take our energy needs seriously .... end of rant.
