About Me

Name: Drexel Kleber,...
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

Archives

Conservatives for Waxman Markey

Particularly since gas prices hovered near $4.00 per gallon last summer it has been true that ENERGY ISSUES have been making for strange bedfellows. Traditionally the purview of the left, in the last few years there has been a greater outcry within the Defense community about the deleterious effects of America’s dependence on foreign oil.

Fuel convoys are the leading target of IEDs and snipers. Half of US deaths have occurred protecting convoys.
Fuel convoys are the leading target of IEDs and snipers. Half of US deaths have occurred protecting convoys.

Reflecting the military’s understanding of the national security implications, in the last few years we’ve seen theDefense Science Board Task Force Report on DOD Energy Strategy, two Center for Naval Analysis reports—National Security and Threat of Climate Change  and Powering America’s Defense: Energy and the Risks to National Security -- and the 2008 Joint Operating Environment Challenges and Implications for the Future Joint Force.

These documents make the case in no uncertain terms that the use of fossil fuels (particularly oil from antagonistic foreign states) and our national electrical infrastructure are issue of critical national security. From the latter CNA report:

• US dependence on oil weakens international leverage, undermines foreign policy objectives, and entangles America with unstable or hostile regimes.
• Inefficient use and overreliance on oil burdens the military, undermines combat effectiveness, and exacts a huge price tag—in dollars and lives.
• US dependence on fossil fuels undermines economic stability, which is critical to national security.
• A fragile domestic electricity grid makes our domestic military installations, and their critical infrastructure, unnecessarily vulnerable to incident, whether deliberate or accidental.

Yesterday the US House of Representatives passed the Waxman-Markey Climate Change legislation. There is much wringing of hands and gnashing of teeth over this development. The debate is not indicative of bad science. The debate is indicative of bad politics.

RushTopI haven’t got the first clue whether or not increasing global temperatures are caused by human activity. Global temperatures are getting warmer. There’s little debate on that. Rather, the debate centers on the cause and even within the scientific community there seems to be significant variance in opinion on this matter. There are many people with lots of letters after their names that can’t come to any consensus. For me to weigh in on the science of the issue would be preposterous in the extreme (I might as well start telling you that child-birth is painless because it didn’t hurt ME). NPRYet, Americans around the country are doing just that—flaunting their ignorance by parroting only the scientists they choose to believe without any real understanding of the science. Their opinions have more to do with the radio station they listen to and less to do with an understanding of the issues.

Those very same dynamics are at work in our Congress. Georgia Republican Paul Broun said that climate change is nothing but a “hoax” that has been “perpetrated out of the scientific community.” The debate on this legislation has become a referendum on the science of climate change and not about the broader issue of changing America’s energy paradigm. Our problems with electricity and fuel can be discussed in terms of terrorism, homeland security, the economy, jobs, national defense, foreign policy, American exceptionalism, innovation, family values, immigration, and national security. These are all bedrocks of the Republican platform. And I never mentioned the weather.

The debate on the science behind Waxman-Markey dumbs down any discussion on America’s future. Because America’s security and economic future is dependent on the changes we make to our understanding and use of electricity and fuel.

Republicans have long been seen as the Party of the US military yet Republican politicians still eschew the ideological consensus that is forming within the Pentagon—that change (nay, progress) must come in America’s energy appetite.

big boy pantiesIf the Republicans would put on their “big-boy panties” for a minute the buffoonery on the House floor might have been replaced with a vibrant, educated, paradigm-shifting discussion on why every American citizen needs to bear some of the burden in changing the way we power our lives. Democrats could have talked about the weather.support our troopsRepublicans could have talked about our sons and daughters dying on the fields of battle to ensure the supply of fuel for America’s SUVs with the yellow “Support Our Troops” ribbon on the rear window.

moses_parting_the_red_seaThere are some who don’t believe Waxman-Markey goes far enough. No one believes the bill is perfect; it’s not even close. If anyone unhappy with the bill is waiting for something perfect, forget it. For the Congress to create, in its first attempt, a bill that was effective and without fault would take a miracle of biblical proportions. This will simply be step one. Lessons will be learned and future amendments and legislation will address Waxman-Markey’s shortcomings. Progress will be incremental. But it does represent progress in changing the way Americans view fuel and electricity.

I support Waxman-Markey. Not because I believe in the human contribution to climate change, but because I believe that making adjustments to the way Americans view and use energy is the common thread in keeping America the greatest nation on earth for the next century.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Steve McNair: America's Self-Indulgent Grief

I haven’t really looked this morning but I assume others are already saying what I’ve been ruminating since I heard about the Steve McNair shooting. So let me say it now—I don’t think this is going to end well for McNair’s reputation.


After the news broke yesterday, ESPN radio was filled with people commenting on what a great guy McNair was.  Steve’s brother, Fred, commented, “It's still kind of hard to believe. He was the greatest person in the world. He gave back to the community. He loved kids and he wanted to be a role model to kids.”


All of which may be true. But I’ve become so jaded and cynical on celebrity deaths there’s simply no way for me to look at the facts as they’ve been presented so far and not conclude McNair was having an affair with the 20 year old Sahel Kazemi.

 McNair Killed

Here’s what we’ve been told so far: McNair and Kazemi knew each other from a restaurant the quarterback and his family frequented.  There is a 2007 Cadillac Escalade registered to Kazemi AND McNair. Witnesses say McNair arrived at a condominium he owns between 1:30 and 2:00 am Saturday. They say Kazemi was already at the condo.


nm_couple_fighting_090216_mnThose facts alone would put most marriages in serious jeopardy.


Hey, maybe Steve and Shahel were planning the church bazaar. There are as many acceptable scenarios as there are illicit scenarios.


McNair, though, was discovered with multiple gunshot wounds, one to head. Kazemi had been shot once.


Multiple gunshot wounds sounds like a crime of passion to me. If you’re stealing a DVD player and the family penny jar, you don’t inflict multiple gunshot wounds—you fire once or twice and flee.


Eddie George, the former Tennessee Titans running back, played with McNair and spoke on ESPN radio yesterday.  He was filled with praise for McNair and the way he lived his life. I simply felt bad for Eddie. I wondered how he will feel if the foreshadowed circumstances come to fruition.


Am I bad person to think like this? In the middle of one family’s tragedy all I can do is imagine the consequences of purely hypothetical and tawdry events.


Adding to my self-loathing was my contempt for those who called, emailed and texted the ESPN radio host.  Fans poured out the grief: “We’ll never forget Steve.” “This is such a sad loss for America.”  “I’m devastated.”


Really? This is a guy who played football. If he hadn’t been a professional athlete we never would have heard of him. America’s fascination with playing the role of the drama queen is well documented. “How will we go on without Michael Jackson?” (Woe is me.)  You’ll buy someone else’s music.


ESPN’s radio host at least had the most relevant reason to grieve—a 36 old man was shot to death. That is too young to die. Indeed it is. But I’m sorry, 36 year old black men are shot in this country by the dozen and there’s little outrage. The feigned grief over McNair’s soon-to-come-to-light Shakespearean ending is hypocritical--unless you want to use him as a public face for a national tragedy.


McNair’s death IS sad. But it’s not EXTRA sad because he was famous. WE are EXTRA sad because we apparently place more value on the life of the famous Steve McNair than on Laquinn Tucker, a 37-year-old black man, who was shot several times and died June 5.; or Steve Moore, a 39-year-old black man who was stabbed in the chest and died June 2; or  Perry Wilson, a 36-year-old black man who was shot and died June 20.


The sad part is that, if my cynical, jaded prediction is correct, McNair’s actions will have brought about an extreme over-reaction from someone. He will have been in the wrong place at the wrong time with the wrong person. He will have fooled his family and friends. These are all very sad events.


I feel bad that I think like this, but honestly I don’t know how any relatively well-informed American could conclude otherwise, Truly, I hope I’m wrong. But aren’t we ALL sitting around today waiting for the other shoe to drop?


But let’s not make more of his death than it really is.  One man. One sad story. One death. Let’s hide our hypocrisy and keep our self-indulgent grief to ourselves.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive
« Previous1Next »