SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : American Presidential Politics and foreign affairs -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: calgal who wrote (42554)4/3/2010 12:33:58 AM
From: Peter Dierks1 Recommendation  Respond to of 71588
 
Slapping Friends
by Charles Krauthammer
Friday, April 02, 2010

WASHINGTON -- What is it like to be a foreign ally of Barack Obama's America?

If you're a Brit, your head is spinning. It's not just the personal slights to Prime Minister Gordon Brown -- the ridiculous 25-DVD gift, the five refusals before Brown was granted a one-on-one with The One.

Nor is it just the symbolism of Obama returning the Churchill bust that was in the Oval Office. Query: If it absolutely had to be out of Obama's sight, could it not have been housed somewhere else on U.S. soil rather than ostentatiously repatriated?

Perhaps it was the State Department official who last year denied there even was a special relationship between the U.S. and Britain, a relationship cultivated by every U.S. president since Franklin Roosevelt.

And then there was Hillary Clinton's astonishing, nearly unreported (in the U.S.) performance in Argentina last month. She called for Britain to negotiate with Argentina over the Falklands.

For those who know no history -- or who believe that it began on Jan. 20, 2009 -- and therefore don't know why this was an out-of-the-blue slap at Britain, here's the back story:

In 1982, Argentina's military junta invaded the (British) Falkland Islands. The generals thought the British, having long lost their taste for foreign lands, would let it pass. Besides, the Falklands have uncountably more sheep than people. They underestimated Margaret Thatcher (the Argentines, that is, not the sheep). She was not about to permit the conquest of a people whose political allegiance and ethnic ties are to Britain. She dispatched the navy. Britannia took it back.

Afterward, neither Thatcher nor her successors have countenanced negotiations. Britain doesn't covet foreign dominion and has no shortage of sheep. But it does believe in self-determination, and will negotiate nothing until and unless the Falkland Islanders indicate their desire to be ruled by a chronically unstable, endemically corrupt polity with a rich history of dictatorship, economic mismanagement and the occasional political lunacy (see: the Evita cult).

Not surprisingly, the Falkland Islanders have given no such indication. Yet inexplicably, Clinton sought to reopen a question that had been settled for almost 30 years, not just pointlessly stirring the embers but even taking the Argentine side (re: negotiations) against Britain -- a nation that has fought and bled with us for the last decade, and that today has about 10,000 troops, far more than any other ally, fighting alongside America in Afghanistan.

Of course, given how the administration has treated other allies, perhaps we shouldn't be so surprised.

-- Obama visits China and soon Indonesia, skipping India, our natural and rising ally in the region -- common language, common heritage, common democracy, common jihadist enemy. Indeed, in his enthusiasm for China, Obama suggests a Chinese interest in peace and stability in South Asia, a gratuitous denigration of Indian power and legitimacy in favor of a regional rival with hegemonic ambitions.

-- Poland and the Czech Republic have their legs cut out from under them when Obama unilaterally revokes a missile defense agreement, acquiescing to pressure from Russia with its dreams of regional hegemony over Eastern Europe.

-- The Hondurans still can't figure out why the United States supported a Hugo Chavez ally seeking illegal extension of his presidency against the pillars of civil society -- its Congress, Supreme Court, church and army -- that had deposed him consistent with Article 239 of their own constitution.

But the Brits, our most venerable, most reliable ally, are the most disoriented. "We British not only speak the same language. We tend to think in the same way. We are more likely than anyone else to provide tea, sympathy and troops," writes Bruce Anderson in London's Independent, summarizing with admirable concision the fundamental basis of the U.S.-British special relationship.

Well, said David Manning, a former British ambassador to the U.S., to a House of Commons committee reporting on that very relationship: "He (Obama) is an American who grew up in Hawaii, whose foreign experience was of Indonesia and who had a Kenyan father. The sentimental reflexes, if you like, are not there."

I'm not personally inclined to neuropsychiatric diagnoses, but Manning's guess is as good as anyone's. How can you explain a policy toward Britain that makes no strategic or moral sense? And even if you can, how do you explain the gratuitous slaps to the Czechs, Poles, Indians and others? Perhaps when an Obama Doctrine is finally worked out, we shall learn whether it was pique, principle or mere carelessness.

townhall.com



To: calgal who wrote (42554)4/5/2010 11:33:36 AM
From: DuckTapeSunroof  Respond to of 71588
 
Offshore drilling and those dead armadillos in the road

BY ROBERT FRANCIS
April 05, 2010
fwbusinesspress.com

President Obama isn’t from Texas, but he may have felt a bit like a dead armadillo March 31 when he announced a five-year drilling blueprint that expands oil and natural gas drilling in several offshore locations.

If you recall former Texas Agriculture Secretary Jim Hightower used to say, “There’s nothing in the middle of the road but yellow stripes and dead armadillos.”

Others said it, too, but Hightower seems to have received credit.

Obama’s offshore drilling plan was, on the face of it, the only decision he could make. The U.S. needs power and shifting to renewable fuels is not exactly quick, easy or cheap. (More about that shortly.)

With his decision, the president seemed to have alienated many of his political supporters, particularly those who wear their environmental stripes on their sleeves, and received tepid praise from those in the oil and gas industry.

Obama did receive a rare pat on the back from Jack Gerard, president of the American Petroleum Institute, an organization that has to a large extent been against just about every other administration proposal short of a Mother’s Day proclamation.

“We look forward to reviewing the details of the proposal, and we stand ready to work with them to make this a reality,” Gerard said. “We appreciate the administration’s recognition of the importance of developing our nation’s oil and natural gas resources to create jobs, generate revenues and fuel our nation’s economy.”

House Republican leader, Rep. John Boehner, R-Ohio, while supporting the decision, had a slight caveat:

“At the same time the White House makes today’s announcement, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is plotting a new massive job-killer that the American people can’t afford: a cascade of new EPA regulations that will punish every American who dares to flip on a light switch, drive a car, or buy an American product.”

Maybe that wasn’t a caveat. It was more like a knife in the back.

If Obama was looking to his supporters for solace, he wouldn’t find it.

From the Sierra Club:

“There’s no reason to drill our coasts. We can achieve real energy independence and economic vitality by investing in clean energy like wind and solar and efficiency. This kind of power creates good, lasting American jobs and positions our nation to become a global leader in the new clean energy economy."

It was that rare moment when the Sierra Club and the Republicans were united; both armed with brass knuckles waiting in a dark alley to take a potshot at the president – together as one.

This political back and forth was particularly relevant as I’m in the middle of reading an advance copy of Robert Bryce’s new book, Power Hungry: The Myths of “Green” Energy and the Real Fuels of the Future.

Bryce, as you may recall wrote Gusher of Lies, a book that challenged the concept of energy independence, a concept that all political candidates seem to embrace, particularly in campaign season.

Power Hungry, due out April 27, takes a close look at green technology and renewable energy. It’s not a pretty sight. Bryce, by the way, doesn’t take an obsessive, “I’m right, they’re wrong” stance. There are lots of objective, if mind-numbing, facts and figures in the book as well.

The opening chapter starts in a coal mine in Kentucky to show how the U.S. uses coal for a very good reason: it’s incredibly efficient. On an average day, Bryce points out, the mine he visits in Kentucky produces about 75 percent as much raw energy as the total energy produced by of all U.S. wind turbines and solar panels.

Pretty sobering stuff.

Bryce’s conclusion (I admit, I skipped ahead) is the U.S. needs to embrace two fuels: natural gas and nuclear for future energy needs in the 21st Century.

T. Boone Pickens probably spoke for many in the Fort Worth energy community when he noted that production of domestic offshore oil reserves is at least 10 years off, but that natural gas is available today.

“No energy strategy can be effective unless it promotes the use of domestic natural gas as a transportation fuel alternative to foreign oil/diesel, and the focus has to be on America’s eight million heavy duty vehicles,” he said.

Bryce and Pickens certainly understand why Obama made the decision he did.

Obama’s enemies – and friends – sure didn’t.

Robert Francis is editor of the Fort Worth Business Press.