As Seen in the News
Saw this on CNN earlier in the week, and discussed by “The Situation Room with Wolf Blitzer: A video of Senator Clinton having an interview with a local newspaper in South Dakota and discussing specifically the assassination of Robert Kennedy in California in 1968! Why discuss something like that during the campaign season anyway? Mainly because it got some nasty little references going about her current opponent for the Dem nod for the White House. And because that had happened, her surrogates got busy explaining her comments away as at the “height of exhaustion.” Maybe Bill isn’t a racist but Senator Clinton has managed to expose more and more her particular limits as a white woman and presidential candidate. “Exhaustion” only got her to tell the fib about the “Bosnian trip under sniper fire” too, on multiple occasions. So if campaigning “exhausts” her so much that she says some truly unfortunate things in public, then maybe she should drop out and then go home and start learning to bake cookies for the grand kids. She is not someone that the Democrats need as a politician.
In the 24th May 2008 edition of the Spokesman-Review of Spokane, Washington happened to be two republished editorials. One in which Kathleen Parker of Orlando Sentinel proceeded to kick up a fuss concerning an AAUW study, which she regarded as “false and misleading.” After going through the usual blather about how boys and girls learn differently and obviously on the basis of sex and face equal challenges differently again for the same reason, Ms Parker proceeded to undercut any intellectual heft she may have on this issue of education by completely misinterpreting faux pas. Faux means false. Faux pas means a “mis step” or false step. To, in political speech, have made a serious blunder in a given statement. I am certain that Ms. Parker knew better than that and in an attempt no doubt to engage in satire, totally misconstrued the meaning of faux pas by referencing faux mas. false mothers?!? Sounds like Ms. Parker needs to get some better education for herself.
I actually do not mind that Kevin O’Brien decided that (24 May 2008 Spokesman-Review) decided to make fun of Senator Barack Obama and what he as a future president might do in talking to this nation’s enemies. Because of the fact that O’Brien seems to have already gotten the message that Obama has a credible shot at the White House, even more so than Clinton and McCain. And therefore, it is essential that Obama be seen as a miserable weakling when it comes to those foreign gvts that don’t have this nation’s or Israel’s best interests at heart. Precisely, those foreign powers in the Middle East. But while O’Brien of the Plain Dealer of Cleveland is mocking Obama and what he would presume that a President Obama would try to do by talking to our Middle Eastern and Cuban enemies; the political cartoons were mocking GW Bush on his trip to Saudi Arabia for trying to get the Saudi gvt to pump more oil. To put it bluntly, GW is actually still president until January of 2009. He has months yet to fully embarrass this nation in as many ways as possible and to further prove that this nation must have an oil dependence on a nation that provided 15 of 19 9/11/2001 hijackers. He’d rather waste taxpayers’ money on such a worthless trip rather than making a direct appeal to energy and fuel companies to invest their billions in new technology that ultimately weans this nation off of oil dependency altogether. Brazil did, we can too. —as referenced by a CNN program, “We Were Warned—out of gas.”
After all, the current “big oil” companies that consumers like to grouse so much about, who rake in billions of dollars because:
- The Marketplace—read speculators drive up the cost of fuel,
- There is a limit to remaining raw crude that can be pumped from the ground and the likelihood of its rapid depletion in the next decade or so,
- the high cost of recovering oil from shale and sand.
Seems to me that if such energy businesses wished to stay in business that they would start searching for new energy technologies. Or let’s put it bluntly, the fellow who invents the new energy source that keeps our autos on the road and makes it and the car fairly inexpensive to operate, and the “big oil” companies will go the way of the 19th century whaling companies. GW could have discussed that, he chose not to.
Wolf Blitzer had, on his Friday 23rd May show a statement about how our dependency on foreign oil made us vulnerable to acts of terrorism. That Osama bin Laden in fact wanted to materially force the price of fuel to $144.00 per barrel in order to cripple the U.S. economically. So Blitzer did in fact disclose terrorist attacks in various countries in the Middle East from whom we get our oil as a means to that end. At the same time that arch Jihadist bin Laden wants to cripple the U.S.; the oil companies themselves also see major profits. I’d hate to have to argue that a terrorist has been good for international “big oil.” But that same terrorist is also creating some big problems for the poor among the world’s population, including the poor who have the same religion as he does. With the high cost of fuel comes the high price of food. The short gap attempt at “switching from one fuel source to another” reduces accordingly what the poor of the world will be able to find on their plates daily. Or not. The downside of the “global economy” is that it won’t be only U.S. citizens who are threatened. But then again, Americans can figure their way out of the sort of political mess GW has managed to put us all in. It is the rest of the world where emerging technologies have not developed, where the poor of those lands will suffer most. What we need now are politicians willing to make the argument that we should be technology leaders in finding absolutely new fuel sources that make us energy independent. — For despite what GW’s apologists have said that America faced no more attacks since 9/11/2001, given the above, American interests have continued to be threatened by jihadists who know where our weaknesses are.