More than 200,000 Berliners and others crowded Tiergarten Park to watch presumptive Democrat presidential nominee Barack Obama what turned out to be a hum-drum of a speech on foreign affairs. More lined the streets to see his motorcade pass by.
The attendance figure provided by police was far lower than a prediction that a million Germans would turn out to listen to Obama, but it was certainly enough, nearly three times the crowd that came to hear him in Portland, Oreg. during the primary campaign.
The huge crowds and adoration given to the Illinois senator has led to a lot of head-scratching among those not caught up in the love-fest. Obama has reached what some called a messianic status among his supporters. I don't need to go through all the evidence here. It's all over the Internet. Heck, just turn on the network television news and you'll see all you need.
I, however, have never bought in to the Messiah label for Obama. It was close, but wasn't quite right. Here's where I landed: "Daddy." That's the term that describes Obama's hold over liberals in this country and in Europe more than anything. There he was Thursday, speaking in "The Fatherland" before a massive and rapturous audience.
Obama is Daddy.
The left deifies children even more than Christians, who every December celebrate the birth of a baby. Pat phrases like "it's all about the children," "we are the world, we are the children," "war hurts children and other living things," are familiar in the political and social lexicon.
People on the left -- and I'm talking about the committed far-left activists here, not you average liberals at home -- really do think of themselves as children and often act like children. The desire to act without restraint is childlike in nature. The unhinged hatred toward President Bush and Karl Rove rarely comes from adult behavior. The mind-numbing ability to despise all things Republican while calling conservatives mean-spirited can only come from someone who is immature. The need to have more and more government control over basic aspects of their lives from work to housing to health care, while trying to have it both ways by keeping government out of their bedrooms where they want to do whatever it is they want, consequences be damned.
The love being shown to Obama in Western Europe is no surprise. It's where slowly failing nanny-states are taking care of citizens cradle-to-grave. Consequences, like home-grown terrorism from immigrants (or children of immigrants) needed to keep the welfare state intact, be damned. With few exceptions, they're children across the Atlantic.
Obama is not only the most liberal presidential candidate in our nation's history, but he also has lectured his audiences several times now on the responsibilities that come with fatherhood. He's fully embraced the Daddy role. Now that he's got Democrats wrapped around his finger, he can take on the fatherly role of enforcement. He can whip them into shape and keep them in line. It's something that children need and crave.
So, while on the surface, it might seem like leftists here and abroad worship Obama in the same way that Christians exalt Jesus, to me it's more like they are orphans overjoyed to have finally found a father.
Thursday, July 24, 2008
Tuesday, July 22, 2008
Tehran Playing Us Like a Fiddle
Without particularly great insight or inside sources, I pass along the opinion that Iran is pulling so many strings regarding Iraq right now that its having a major impact on our policy and even our election campaign. Maybe a peaceful Tehran is more dangerous than a belligerent Iran.
There's been a lot of surprise and wonderment about why the Maliki government has done an about-face and demanded that the United States remove its troops by 2010 -- which came as a complete surprise to the Bush administration. On its own, the idea is not a bad one. The success of the surge means the Iraq army can protect most of its own land, our benchmark for when we start to pull out. And we need more military resources in Afghanistan, where the Taliban has been more active than usual recently.
However, nothing in the Middle East happens on its own. The place is not a vacuum. Events always seem to be inter-related.
Therefore, my theory is that Maliki didn't just come up with this withdrawal idea just by himself.
A timeline of events clears the muddle:
-- Maliki needed to clear southern Iraq of Iranian-backed Shiite militants in order to continue improving the country's security situation, so he sent troops into Basra, the main city in the region. His troops were mauled until U.S. forces came to stabilize the situation. The extremists who held out for days suddenly leave after an accord is reached with the assistance of Iran.
-- Extremist cleric Muqtada al-Sadr, who lives in Iran so he's not assassinated, agreed to keep his personal army from fighting Iraqi soldiers.
-- Maliki continued his offensive, successfully, in the teeming Shiite Baghdad slum of Sadr City and in a southern border town that is the crossroads of smuggling from Iran.
We've called this series of events a great victory, and it has been for the most part. But how did Maliki turn what appeared to be a massive military setback into this stunning win?
He gained a ton of prestige from his success. What price did he pay for it?
The removal of U.S. troops from Iraq, that's what. Iran thinks it can delay nuclear provocations until after President Bush is gone, but what happens after that is unpredictable. The farther away heavy U.S. combat forces are from the Iranian border, the better for the mullahs. That the withdrawal scenario has played into Barack Obama's hands in U.S. presidential politics, so much the better. Guarantee that they'd rather deal with Obama, who wants to pull out, than John McCain, who will be confrontational.
The gains made in southern Iraq and other Shiite areas are hard-won and real. No disrespect for the soldiers who made them happen. But bigger political forces are also at play and could be pulling the strings.
---
All that said, it would be interesting to see if there was some miscalculation by the Shiites here. The people who live in Basra in particular are enjoying the new security situation and freedom to be themselves. While Iran and other Shiite leaders are biding their time before we leave and they take power again, the citizens in those areas might go too far along with their newfound freedoms and be far more hostile to the mullahs aims.
---
The first Atlantic hurricane to truly threaten the United States is finally set to arrive, possibly making landfall on the Texas coast -- in late-July. Can't wait for someone to blame global warming.
There's been a lot of surprise and wonderment about why the Maliki government has done an about-face and demanded that the United States remove its troops by 2010 -- which came as a complete surprise to the Bush administration. On its own, the idea is not a bad one. The success of the surge means the Iraq army can protect most of its own land, our benchmark for when we start to pull out. And we need more military resources in Afghanistan, where the Taliban has been more active than usual recently.
However, nothing in the Middle East happens on its own. The place is not a vacuum. Events always seem to be inter-related.
Therefore, my theory is that Maliki didn't just come up with this withdrawal idea just by himself.
A timeline of events clears the muddle:
-- Maliki needed to clear southern Iraq of Iranian-backed Shiite militants in order to continue improving the country's security situation, so he sent troops into Basra, the main city in the region. His troops were mauled until U.S. forces came to stabilize the situation. The extremists who held out for days suddenly leave after an accord is reached with the assistance of Iran.
-- Extremist cleric Muqtada al-Sadr, who lives in Iran so he's not assassinated, agreed to keep his personal army from fighting Iraqi soldiers.
-- Maliki continued his offensive, successfully, in the teeming Shiite Baghdad slum of Sadr City and in a southern border town that is the crossroads of smuggling from Iran.
We've called this series of events a great victory, and it has been for the most part. But how did Maliki turn what appeared to be a massive military setback into this stunning win?
He gained a ton of prestige from his success. What price did he pay for it?
The removal of U.S. troops from Iraq, that's what. Iran thinks it can delay nuclear provocations until after President Bush is gone, but what happens after that is unpredictable. The farther away heavy U.S. combat forces are from the Iranian border, the better for the mullahs. That the withdrawal scenario has played into Barack Obama's hands in U.S. presidential politics, so much the better. Guarantee that they'd rather deal with Obama, who wants to pull out, than John McCain, who will be confrontational.
The gains made in southern Iraq and other Shiite areas are hard-won and real. No disrespect for the soldiers who made them happen. But bigger political forces are also at play and could be pulling the strings.
---
All that said, it would be interesting to see if there was some miscalculation by the Shiites here. The people who live in Basra in particular are enjoying the new security situation and freedom to be themselves. While Iran and other Shiite leaders are biding their time before we leave and they take power again, the citizens in those areas might go too far along with their newfound freedoms and be far more hostile to the mullahs aims.
---
The first Atlantic hurricane to truly threaten the United States is finally set to arrive, possibly making landfall on the Texas coast -- in late-July. Can't wait for someone to blame global warming.
Thursday, July 17, 2008
Reason For Split Between Public/Economy
Sen. Phil Gramm was right, sort of, when he said recently that America was experiencing "a mental recession," but the qualifier leads us to some places where John McCain's chief economic adviser is certainly wrong.
There's absolutely a disconnect between the public's perception of the U.S. economy and overall economic performance as a whole. While things have obviously slipped, things are nowhere near what they've been in the past. I've been through several recessions and slowdowns, and what we're going through right now is pretty typical. Unemployment, for example, is just a tenth of a percent above the average since 1990.
However, consumer confidence is at it's lowest point since 1980 -- right before President Carter lost his re-election bid thanks to high rates of interest, inflation and unemployment. Yet, in macro-economic terms, we're nowhere near there.
Republicans such as ex-Sen. Gramm have failed for years to view economics from less than macro-economic terms, however. It's one reason why the GOP no longer controls Congress. At the family level, there's major issues no matter how well the national economy is faring. It's been going on for several years, too.
Very simple. EVERYBODY is stuck with higher food prices and higher gas prices. The half (I think) of us who invest our savings have been hit with lower stock values. Homeowners have seen the value of their property decrease. Some have suffered foreclosure. Rental costs are skyrocketing because of sudden demand. Some employees have lost their jobs and been forced out into a contracting job market.
So Gramm is idiotic to suggest that this is a "mental recession" because people are, at best, inconvenienced, and at worst, hurt severely. This is a sector-driven slowdown we're in, with financials and petroleum-based industries being hurt the worst. So we're not all here being wiped out. Those with the foresight to get their investments out of financials and into commodities a year or so ago are doing quite well. But those who are hurting were struck hard.
---
Who do you want to run our economy, Republicans or Democrats?
It turns out that despite the prodigious fundraising by Barack Obama, the Democratic National Committee has less money on hand than its GOP counterpart because they've been spending like crazy. Sounds like Congress. The DNC and Obama combined have about $92 million in the bank, McCain and the RNC $95 million.
---
The Jesse Jackson controversy lately has been funny. Reaction ran from "he said what?" to "he's still around?"
---
Republicans have a huge opportunity on the energy policy. If gas is still over $4 most places in November, it could cause a political version of an earthquake. But only if the GOP is smart enough.
Drill, drill, drill isn't going to cut it with the public. You can only take new drilling for oil so far. If Republicans smartly couple it with the promotion of development of fuel cell technology and credits for wind and solar energy projects -- which work on individual projects -- then they might have a shot at reclaiming some lost seats.
---
The New Yorker magazine cover with Barack and Michelle Obama was right on point, once it was explained to everybody. If you have to explain your magazine cover, it didn't work.
There's absolutely a disconnect between the public's perception of the U.S. economy and overall economic performance as a whole. While things have obviously slipped, things are nowhere near what they've been in the past. I've been through several recessions and slowdowns, and what we're going through right now is pretty typical. Unemployment, for example, is just a tenth of a percent above the average since 1990.
However, consumer confidence is at it's lowest point since 1980 -- right before President Carter lost his re-election bid thanks to high rates of interest, inflation and unemployment. Yet, in macro-economic terms, we're nowhere near there.
Republicans such as ex-Sen. Gramm have failed for years to view economics from less than macro-economic terms, however. It's one reason why the GOP no longer controls Congress. At the family level, there's major issues no matter how well the national economy is faring. It's been going on for several years, too.
Very simple. EVERYBODY is stuck with higher food prices and higher gas prices. The half (I think) of us who invest our savings have been hit with lower stock values. Homeowners have seen the value of their property decrease. Some have suffered foreclosure. Rental costs are skyrocketing because of sudden demand. Some employees have lost their jobs and been forced out into a contracting job market.
So Gramm is idiotic to suggest that this is a "mental recession" because people are, at best, inconvenienced, and at worst, hurt severely. This is a sector-driven slowdown we're in, with financials and petroleum-based industries being hurt the worst. So we're not all here being wiped out. Those with the foresight to get their investments out of financials and into commodities a year or so ago are doing quite well. But those who are hurting were struck hard.
---
Who do you want to run our economy, Republicans or Democrats?
It turns out that despite the prodigious fundraising by Barack Obama, the Democratic National Committee has less money on hand than its GOP counterpart because they've been spending like crazy. Sounds like Congress. The DNC and Obama combined have about $92 million in the bank, McCain and the RNC $95 million.
---
The Jesse Jackson controversy lately has been funny. Reaction ran from "he said what?" to "he's still around?"
---
Republicans have a huge opportunity on the energy policy. If gas is still over $4 most places in November, it could cause a political version of an earthquake. But only if the GOP is smart enough.
Drill, drill, drill isn't going to cut it with the public. You can only take new drilling for oil so far. If Republicans smartly couple it with the promotion of development of fuel cell technology and credits for wind and solar energy projects -- which work on individual projects -- then they might have a shot at reclaiming some lost seats.
---
The New Yorker magazine cover with Barack and Michelle Obama was right on point, once it was explained to everybody. If you have to explain your magazine cover, it didn't work.
Thursday, July 10, 2008
Niall Ferguson's "Tainted Victory" a Tainted Show
I e-mailed the following to Michael Getler, the ombudsman of the Public Broadcasting System:
Michael:
I cannot believe that PBS allowed to Niall Ferguson to broadcast the clear historical error in "A Tainted Victory" that aired here Wednesday night that suggested that the Japanese fought the way they did because Americans executed prisoners. That's not just a point-of-view issue. That's just plain incorrect.
Was there some brutality on the part of Americans in World War II? No doubt. However, the Japanese let it be known from the beginning how they would conduct the war, and when we started our offensives at Guadalcanal and Tarawa, it was clear they were going to fight to the last man. By the time the Marines got to Peleliu, they had worries from experience that wounded Japanese would clutch hand grenades and detonate them as Americans neared. They had to shoot wounded Japanese to make sure they were dead. I'm sure many of those cases were unjustified, but the brutal nature of the war was determined earlier by the Japanese, not the Americans.
To suggest that the Japanese on Saipan and Okinawa all killed themselves because of Marine brutality on Peleliu is totally wrong. Saipan happened before Peleliu for one. Second, my father was a Marine at Saipan and Okinawa, and he said his fellow Leathernecks were absolutely stupefied by what took place at the end of the Saipan battle and would have stopped it if they could.
I have no problem with a program on the brutality it took on our part to win the war, but to have such an obvious factual error to smear the Marines is very poor on the part of Niall Ferguson and should have been caught by PBS before the program aired. Again, no censoring of opinion, but factual errors like this should be below the standards of our Public Broadcasting System.
Thank you very much,
James R. Riffel
This program was so far below the standards of PBS it's not even funny. Agree with their points of view or not, their documentaries often break some new ground. The history presented by Ferguson, a professor of history at HARVARD, for goodness sakes, was so basic that I actually changed the channel for a while to see what else was on. It was only that I found nothing else on that I went back to it in time for the controversial point that I mentioned in my e-mail. Taking that one piece of film and mis-stating history to slam the Marines really makes the guy look bad.
Michael:
I cannot believe that PBS allowed to Niall Ferguson to broadcast the clear historical error in "A Tainted Victory" that aired here Wednesday night that suggested that the Japanese fought the way they did because Americans executed prisoners. That's not just a point-of-view issue. That's just plain incorrect.
Was there some brutality on the part of Americans in World War II? No doubt. However, the Japanese let it be known from the beginning how they would conduct the war, and when we started our offensives at Guadalcanal and Tarawa, it was clear they were going to fight to the last man. By the time the Marines got to Peleliu, they had worries from experience that wounded Japanese would clutch hand grenades and detonate them as Americans neared. They had to shoot wounded Japanese to make sure they were dead. I'm sure many of those cases were unjustified, but the brutal nature of the war was determined earlier by the Japanese, not the Americans.
To suggest that the Japanese on Saipan and Okinawa all killed themselves because of Marine brutality on Peleliu is totally wrong. Saipan happened before Peleliu for one. Second, my father was a Marine at Saipan and Okinawa, and he said his fellow Leathernecks were absolutely stupefied by what took place at the end of the Saipan battle and would have stopped it if they could.
I have no problem with a program on the brutality it took on our part to win the war, but to have such an obvious factual error to smear the Marines is very poor on the part of Niall Ferguson and should have been caught by PBS before the program aired. Again, no censoring of opinion, but factual errors like this should be below the standards of our Public Broadcasting System.
Thank you very much,
James R. Riffel
This program was so far below the standards of PBS it's not even funny. Agree with their points of view or not, their documentaries often break some new ground. The history presented by Ferguson, a professor of history at HARVARD, for goodness sakes, was so basic that I actually changed the channel for a while to see what else was on. It was only that I found nothing else on that I went back to it in time for the controversial point that I mentioned in my e-mail. Taking that one piece of film and mis-stating history to slam the Marines really makes the guy look bad.
Wednesday, July 9, 2008
Obama's Flip-flops, Israel and Iran, Windmills
Democratic presidential nominee-to-be Barack Obama is no flip-flopper, he's worse.
To be a flip-flopper, you'd have to actually hold a real position on some issue, and the unflattering picture emerging of the Illinois senator is that he has no solid positions other than personal advancement and a kind of general loyalty to far-left ideology. Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry, the 2004 Democrat nominee, was a flip-flopper. He voted for the war in Iraq before he was against it.
What we've received from Obama in recent weeks regarding our armed forces in Iraq is completely different. He turns to Middle America and says he will go to Iraq and listen to what Gen. David Petraeus has to say and adjust his policy accordingly. Then he returns to his base supporters and says he's sticking to his original proposal to immediately order a withdrawal from Iraq to be completed within 16 months.
That's not flip-flopping, that's trying to have it both ways. Trying to have your cake and eat it, too. That's something that won't work in election politics, circa 2008.
The reason why Obama and John McCain won their nominations in the first place is they embraced change while most of the other candidates, except Mike Huckabee, stood around dribbling in their shoes. The "hope" and "change" mantra is brought out every four years, but in 2008 it's a tangible thing that voters crave.
The one thing Obama can't afford in the next couple of months is to come off like a typical politician. In the last third of the Democratic primary season, that's exactly what he appeared to be, and as a result he barely held off a late charge by Hillary Clinton. He's now being re-introduced to an entirely different class of voters, and if they peg him as just another politician trying to win an office, scruples or ideology or platforms be-damned, he'll lose. As it is, in the latest Rasmussen Reports tracking poll, Obama's national lead over McCain has slipped from 7 points to 4 points in the past week. Not a good trend at a time when he should have been building his early advantage.
So how should he handle the Iraq issue? There's an easy way to play both sides. He can go to Baghdad and meet Petraeus and come back and say that conditions have improved to such an extent that withdrawal is going to be possible in the near-future no matter the extent of your support for the war. Petraeus' successor can have his troops and Obama can revisit the subject after his inauguration. It might worry his base, but his base won't be voting for McCain in any event.
Plus, the Iraqi government has given Obama a huge lift with its new demand for a timetable for the withdrawal of U.S. troops. It gives him cover, whether he ends up ordering a withdrawal immediately upon assuming office or shortly thereafter. Even McCain said that if Iraq wants us out, we're out. On the other hand, current statements from the Maliki government might be sops to Muqtada al-Sadr and his Iranian backers. A new government formed after the October elections, in which the Sunni population will fully participate, could have an entirely different plan for U.S. troops.
---
All you need to know about Iran's test-firing of nine Shihab missiles capable of striking Israel can be found in the price of a barrel of oil. Prices had dropped dramatically this week on word that demand was slackening and world supply was therefore increasing. As soon as the missile tests were announced, crude oil futures zoomed up more than $2 per barrel over worries of Israel's reaction and a possible move by Iran to close the Strait of Hormuz, through which much Middle East oil passes. Prices settled later because of those pesky supply numbers.
These missiles have been test-fired before. Israel has been within range of Iranian weapons for several years now and nothing has happened. I suspect that will remain the case, though Tehran loves to be provocative.
In normal circumstances, I would say that Israel will take care of the Iranian problem when Israel is good and ready. However, Prime Minister Ehud Olmert strikes me as being a different and lesser sort of Israeli leader who might respond to public pressure by ordering an attack on Iran, whether the military is truly ready or not. We'll see.
For an attack to truly be successful, Israel or a combination Israeli-US force will have to take out all of Iran's missile capability first, including the longer-range Shihabs and the surface-to-ship missiles that threaten commercial shipping. Hezbollah in Lebanon and Islamic Jihad in the Gaza Strip will also have to be neutralized. Only then can they bomb and take out the nuclear facilities.
Finally, it will all be for naught if the Iranian leadership is not removed. Not just President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, but the mullahs in Qom who really rule the country. That's a lot to put together, but Israeli and U.S. officials might find it necessary soon.
---
I see where billionaire oilman T. Boone Pickens is suggesting establishing a windfarm through the Midwest from West Texas up north to break America's dependence on foreign oil. Hmm? He might be investing in metal commodities which will go up if we decide to build and install millions of wind machines?
Someone needs to pluck Pickens out of his fantasyland -- and any other supporter of wind energy on a mass scale -- and take him to the Cabazon Pass northwest of Palm Springs to see just how ugly 4,000 windmills is. The biggest are 150-feet tall and have blades that span half a football field. They cost $300,000 each. That right there is an investment of $1.2 billion just to provide energy for Palm Springs and nearby towns.
It's just not going to fly. Like solar, wind energy will end up working best as small-scale supplements for existing energy supplies. Small towns, farms, rural communities. Sure. A remedy for America's dependence on foreign oil, no way.
The article can be found at Opinion Journal.
To be a flip-flopper, you'd have to actually hold a real position on some issue, and the unflattering picture emerging of the Illinois senator is that he has no solid positions other than personal advancement and a kind of general loyalty to far-left ideology. Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry, the 2004 Democrat nominee, was a flip-flopper. He voted for the war in Iraq before he was against it.
What we've received from Obama in recent weeks regarding our armed forces in Iraq is completely different. He turns to Middle America and says he will go to Iraq and listen to what Gen. David Petraeus has to say and adjust his policy accordingly. Then he returns to his base supporters and says he's sticking to his original proposal to immediately order a withdrawal from Iraq to be completed within 16 months.
That's not flip-flopping, that's trying to have it both ways. Trying to have your cake and eat it, too. That's something that won't work in election politics, circa 2008.
The reason why Obama and John McCain won their nominations in the first place is they embraced change while most of the other candidates, except Mike Huckabee, stood around dribbling in their shoes. The "hope" and "change" mantra is brought out every four years, but in 2008 it's a tangible thing that voters crave.
The one thing Obama can't afford in the next couple of months is to come off like a typical politician. In the last third of the Democratic primary season, that's exactly what he appeared to be, and as a result he barely held off a late charge by Hillary Clinton. He's now being re-introduced to an entirely different class of voters, and if they peg him as just another politician trying to win an office, scruples or ideology or platforms be-damned, he'll lose. As it is, in the latest Rasmussen Reports tracking poll, Obama's national lead over McCain has slipped from 7 points to 4 points in the past week. Not a good trend at a time when he should have been building his early advantage.
So how should he handle the Iraq issue? There's an easy way to play both sides. He can go to Baghdad and meet Petraeus and come back and say that conditions have improved to such an extent that withdrawal is going to be possible in the near-future no matter the extent of your support for the war. Petraeus' successor can have his troops and Obama can revisit the subject after his inauguration. It might worry his base, but his base won't be voting for McCain in any event.
Plus, the Iraqi government has given Obama a huge lift with its new demand for a timetable for the withdrawal of U.S. troops. It gives him cover, whether he ends up ordering a withdrawal immediately upon assuming office or shortly thereafter. Even McCain said that if Iraq wants us out, we're out. On the other hand, current statements from the Maliki government might be sops to Muqtada al-Sadr and his Iranian backers. A new government formed after the October elections, in which the Sunni population will fully participate, could have an entirely different plan for U.S. troops.
---
All you need to know about Iran's test-firing of nine Shihab missiles capable of striking Israel can be found in the price of a barrel of oil. Prices had dropped dramatically this week on word that demand was slackening and world supply was therefore increasing. As soon as the missile tests were announced, crude oil futures zoomed up more than $2 per barrel over worries of Israel's reaction and a possible move by Iran to close the Strait of Hormuz, through which much Middle East oil passes. Prices settled later because of those pesky supply numbers.
These missiles have been test-fired before. Israel has been within range of Iranian weapons for several years now and nothing has happened. I suspect that will remain the case, though Tehran loves to be provocative.
In normal circumstances, I would say that Israel will take care of the Iranian problem when Israel is good and ready. However, Prime Minister Ehud Olmert strikes me as being a different and lesser sort of Israeli leader who might respond to public pressure by ordering an attack on Iran, whether the military is truly ready or not. We'll see.
For an attack to truly be successful, Israel or a combination Israeli-US force will have to take out all of Iran's missile capability first, including the longer-range Shihabs and the surface-to-ship missiles that threaten commercial shipping. Hezbollah in Lebanon and Islamic Jihad in the Gaza Strip will also have to be neutralized. Only then can they bomb and take out the nuclear facilities.
Finally, it will all be for naught if the Iranian leadership is not removed. Not just President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, but the mullahs in Qom who really rule the country. That's a lot to put together, but Israeli and U.S. officials might find it necessary soon.
---
I see where billionaire oilman T. Boone Pickens is suggesting establishing a windfarm through the Midwest from West Texas up north to break America's dependence on foreign oil. Hmm? He might be investing in metal commodities which will go up if we decide to build and install millions of wind machines?
Someone needs to pluck Pickens out of his fantasyland -- and any other supporter of wind energy on a mass scale -- and take him to the Cabazon Pass northwest of Palm Springs to see just how ugly 4,000 windmills is. The biggest are 150-feet tall and have blades that span half a football field. They cost $300,000 each. That right there is an investment of $1.2 billion just to provide energy for Palm Springs and nearby towns.
It's just not going to fly. Like solar, wind energy will end up working best as small-scale supplements for existing energy supplies. Small towns, farms, rural communities. Sure. A remedy for America's dependence on foreign oil, no way.
The article can be found at Opinion Journal.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)