SamSaid!

ENERGY INDEPENDENCE

     For 3-4 decades the battle cry of political leaders of both parties has been to reduce the US dependence on Middle East oil and to achieve energy independence. The arguments are sound, and the economists say that we need to go in that direction. No one seems to disagree with the basic premise, but we are as much if not more dependent on Middle East oil now as we were 40 years ago. Reasonably, we all might ask “Why”? “How come”?  Naturally, the finger of blame points at the Saudis, OPEC, Iran, etc etc etc. for controlling the flow and price of petroleum. But are they really the primary culprits?

     The term energy does not apply solely to oil. It applies equivalently to coal, natural gas, electricity, nuclear power, water power,etc. All forms of energy. And while we bemoan the price of gasoline and other commodities, we ignore all of the limitations placed on domestic US energy sources by our environmentalists on the left. They have strangled nuclear power which is safely and successfully used in many parts of the world. In the US It has been regulated into energy oblivion despite the fact that it is cleaner and more economical that other energy forms. The clean air regulations on coal fired power stations are so stringent that layer after layer of cost has been imposed on the power industry. No more dams for water power because creatures at the bottom of the food chain MIGHT be affected. Tight regulations on burning natural gas. And of course, the prevention of drilling for oil or gas in the Acrtic, in the Gulf of Mexico, off the coast of California, in the mountains  — anywhere. The reason that middle east oil is so attractive to import is that the alternate sounces of energy in the US are burdened by regulations that drive up the costs of domestic sources to record highs. What do we do when it becomes more economical to import middle east oil?  Obviously, we import middle east oil. Lots of it.

     We will never come close to energy independence until we REALLY encourage the use of other alternatives domestically  – and I am not talking about wind power or solar cells. But when it comes to nuclear power, drilling for oil and gas, or burning fossil fuels, the environmentalists just don't care. They go around in green shirts and bitch about importing middle east oil. OPEC is merely obliging our own stupidity. When we are thrashing about in our own regulatory straight-jacket, we have nowhere to go but the Middle East, Venezuela, or elsewhere. Anywhere, say the environmentalists  — just not here. Make the regulations tougher, ban nuclear power and blame OPEC. Simple. Three dollars a gallon?  Oh, we'll find a way. Just invent cars that get 70 miles per gallon. Right?? 

BILL CLINTON

     BC, or #42 as he has been described, is hawking his new book and will probably sell a lot of copies thanks to the tons of free publicity he is receiving from his media buddies at NBC, CBS, ABC, Oprah, et al. I have not bought a copy of the book and don't intend to. Eight years of Bill Clinton was enough without another 960 pages of “explanations”. He has an obsession  about being  well regarded by everyone, and if stretching the truth is required,  he doesn't hesitate a minute. No doubt, he is smart and is glib if not articulate –  but when you strip away all if the self generated “spin”, he is a pathological liar and a moral degenerate.

     It's to bad he has these indelible shortcomings, because I'll bet that he would be  a fun guy to be around in social situations. Over a couple of beers, I'd wager that he has a long retinue of off-color jokes that he tells very well. On a “can you top this” basis, I'm sure he would hold his own well into the 3rd or 4th round. And it would be a treat to play golf with him assuming we had a tough scorekeeper who would  prevent or at least minimize his legendary cheating. But well beyond his virtues, you have to be leery of a guy who figures that the only fault in his long career of womanizing and infidelity was getting caught  –  both in the act and in the lie.

     He is no different than the other world leaders who want to leave an impressive legacy, and his book is structured to paint that warm fuzzy image while explaining away the warts and scars. And so how will history regard him? George Washington was The Father of his Country; Abraham Lincoln was the Great Emancipator, and Ronald Reagan was the Great Communicator. And Clinton?? Way back in his first term, many of the mainstream folks dubbed him “Slick Willie”. That's my vote  –  it fits!

IMMIGRATION

     With the Iraqi War, political campaigning, economic worries, same sex marriage, etc., it is easy to lose track of other issues, such as immigration. I readily concede that an element of immigration is a positive thing for our growing and expanding country. But there is the distinct possibility of too much of a good thing. I am personally concerned over immigration in this day and age  — for 2 reasons.

     The common cliche is that we are a nation of immigrants. I suppose that is true if you assume that the forbearers of all of us came from somewhere else  — including the Indians. But in days of global terrorism, massive immigration has a significant downside. It is currently esimated that there are about 12 MILLION illegal immigrants in the US right now. Think of it  — 12 MILLION. The bleeding heart do-gooders prefer to call them ”undocumented” because they just can't bear calling illegals illegal. Not only that, we don't know where these people are, when they got here, who they are or what they are doing. And while some folks register concern over this state of affairs, others on the left keep creating benefits that inevitably attract more and more illegals. Doesn't make much sense, does it?

     We are spending millions to tighten security at our Ports of entry, airline terminals, bridges, etc, yet the illegals continue to pour in. To observe that our borders are porous is like concluding the the Pope is Catholic. While we fear the actions of terrorists who have mass murder on their minds, it is not very  comforting to know that there are millions of foreigners running around loose  — totally anonymous to our law enforcement authorities.  And of course, the denizens of the left want to gut the Patriot Act so that it will be more difficult for our law enforcement agencies to track both legals and illegals. When a country cannot control its own borders, it is asking for trouble  — possibly very big trouble.   

     My second concern is over the breakdown in assimilating immigrants. I was born and raised in the ethnic melting pot of western Pennsylvania. Fully 50% of the population of our town was made up of non-english speaking Czechs, Slovaks, Polacks, Germans, Russians, Italians, Ukrainians, Lithuanians, Croats, Serbs, Yugoslavs, Macedonians, Bulgars  –  and the list goes on. I went to grade school and high school with their kids. Those people WANTED to be in America, WANTED to become citizens, and WANTED their kids to speak english. No bi-lingual nonsense. The first generation of American born kids were assimilated fully within 20 years. I still correspond with some of them.

     But nowadays, our social architects encourage the different ethnic enclaves  — groups that live together, keep their own dress and customs, retain their own religions and speak their own language. And our do-gooders are encouraging this separatism rather than inclusion into the mainstream of US life. These immigrants  — many illegals  —  really aren't Americans  –  they are ethnic identities who just happen to be living in the US. The breakdown of the assimilation of these people into our society should a major concern to all of us. Divided loyalties can have devastating effects in days of global terrorism. Balkanization is the term used by most political scientists, and just look at the awful ethnic environment in the Balkans. And it hasn't changed much in 100 years.  

     To me is is utterly insane that we should adopt an umbrella of benefits over illegals and make it easier and more attractive for them to defy our laws. I don't know which is worse  — to take advantage of the rest of us or to endanger the rest of us. Looks like lose-lose to me.

     What ever became of that old saying, “When in Rome……….?

FAIR AND BALANCED

     Media bias in reporting can be very subtle and not easy to spot. On many occasions, it isn't so much what is said by the TV and print journalists that counts  — it's what isn't said. The other day, I ran across a very good example that makes the point.

     The Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse fiasco has been headline news for weeks, and there are those who simply don't want the story to die. Since the prisoner abuse story broke several weeks ago, there have been over 200 news items (as of 6/1/04) broadcast by CBS, NBC, and ABC. During the same time period there have been any number of military citations (medals) awarded to men and women who have displayed valor and courage in the performance of their duties. Do you wonder how many of these medal winnig stories have been carried by CBS, NCS, and ABC during this time period?  That's right, NONE. Obviously, these network gurus  prefer to portray the military at its worst rather than show it at its best. Fair and balanced??

     Go one step further. Ted Koppel and Peter Jennings made much of showing on TV the photos of soldiers killed in the Afghan and Iraqi wars. Hundreds of them. At the same time there have been over 3700 Purple Hearts issued to  soldiers, sailors and marines wounded in action. How many stories have you read about those who have received Purple Hearts? Have you seen their photos extensively displayed during the evening news shows?? Not hardly.

     We see on TV what the producers want us to see, and they prefer that the impressions we form are solidly based on one side of the story. It is truly a sad state of affairs when we watch or read the news and immediately wonder, “What aren't they telling us? Is this the whole story?”  Clearly the predominance of the media are aligned against the Iraqi War and against George Bush.That's OK as long as it is broadcast as commentary or analysis –  not news. We cannot directly control how the news is presented to us. But we can change channels.

    I sincerely believe that much of the left wing bias stems from a rejection that we are engaged in a war with terrorism. They concede that there are a bunch of renegade degenerates in the Middle East who intend to harm us, but stop short of “war” in the sense that has historically been meant. And  if there is another major terrorist incident, they immediately jump to the defensive position that it is “our fault”. Now is the time when we all should be rallying behind our troops, not degrading them and nit-picking. I just don't buy the idea that protesting against the war initiated on 9/11 is just another form of patriotism. And neither to I believe that anything is to be gained by breathing life into the Abu Ghraib affair week anfter week.   

WINE

After the French (Jacque Chirac) sandbagged George Bush at the UN two years ago on the Iraq resolution, I vowed never again to drink French wine, and I have honored that vow without exception.  I see no change in sight. But in all honesty, the sacrifice is not all that great  — for 3 different reasons.

     First of all, my beverage of preference is not wine. It is a well chilled bottle or draft of amber or golden brown ale –  I am a beer drinker. Second, I have always been a skeptic of psuedo-sophisticates who scan the French wine list as though they know something about each offering. I am not impressed. Third, I have lived in California for over 22 years, and  have discovered that California wines are as good as or better than French wines. Putting all of this together, giving up French wine is no big deal.

     So I moved forward to bigger and better things. Perusing the mall merchandise, when I see the label, “Product of France”, or “Made in France”, I just pass right on by and look for something else. The French economy may prosper, but not with my help.  Based on a mini-survey at the golf course, I am not alone. Parlez vous American, Jacque??

OIL FOR FOOD

     What could be better — a post-Gulf War UN sponsored program that would allow the sale of Iraqi oil with the proceeds going for food for the hungry and needy Iraqi people. The UN at its best, right?? But people in powerful positions can be very clever and conniving. With the help of some his UN and European buddies, Saddam came up with a voucher program for the sale of the oil. The vouchers were given to some of Saddam's close buddies at the UN and in Western Europe (say, France?). The possessors of the vouchers could buy Iraqi oil at very cheap prices and then re-sell the oil on the world narkets at a much higher price  — pocketing the difference. Well, not all of the difference, since some of the illicit profits were kicked back to Saddam for deposits in banks around the world. Even beyond the kickbacks, the voucher scheme created a lot of millionaires or made current millionairs a lot richer. No small change here, big bucks. Did the Iraqi people get some of the promised food?  Sure, with what was left after the voucher looting. And right in the middle of this whole mess is Slimy Jacques Chirac (France) and some of his close allies and Kofi Annan (UN) whose son is directly involved.

     The guy who is investigating this mess is Paul Volcker, an American with a no-nonsense, pull-no-punches reputation. The key, of course, is getting documentary evidence beyond what our troops have recovered in Baghdad (this really scares the French and Kofi).  Volcker can do 3 things. A) issue a hard nosed report that identifies how the scheme worked, the names of voucher recipients , the beneficiaries of the skimming, the amounts of oil traded and the volume of dollars skimmed off the top. Left to his own devices, Mr. Volcker will do that if he gets the needed info.  Then B) he might issue a comprehensive report condemning the whole scheme but stop short of identifying the voucher recipients/beneficiaries  — or the foreign governments involved. And C) issue a report based on partial information that falls short of specific identification beyond Saddam and his inner circle. And this option would be dragged out for some time while searches for records (mysteriously  missing) continues.See UN.

     You can just here the buzzing in the UN halls  — “Hey, if you guys want our cooperation and support in post war Iraq, tell the Americans to get off this Oil for Food issue. What's past is past  — leave it alone. Pull off the bloodhounds”.  Now, do you think that Slimy Jacque Chirac would do something like that to save the fannies of his buddies and co-conspirators?

     There were several strong reasons why France did not want to see the fall of Saddam, and the oil for food program clearly is one of them. And that goes a long way toward explaining why they sand-bagged the US in the UN 2 years ago.   

     When Kerry was asked if the Oil for Food investigation should continue, he said, “Yes and No”.