OK, I know a lot of you LA boys probably hate the NY Times and what it stands for, but here is a pretty good op-ed that ought to get your attention. I think Tom Friedman is great. Some like him, others do not, personal choice, kind of thing. However, the bit about what the leaders of China, Taiwan, Hong Kong and the others get to focus on vs what our leadership focuses on is insightful. Enjoy. Op-Ed Columnist - What’s Our Sputnik? - NYTimes.com
Interesting take. To use his analogy, I hoped W would make oil our Sputnik throughout his presidency. JFK challenged the nation to put a man on the moon before the 60's ended, and he did it at a time when our ability just to get a rocket off the pad was questionable at best. But the challenge took on the air of a national mission, and we pulled it off. That's what I was hoping for from Bush, and now I'm hoping to hear it from Obama; a challenge to eliminate the need for dependence on Middle Eastern oil by some foreseeable deadline, perhaps 15 years.
The Cold War and the Evil Empire had a TON to do with Sputnik. There is no perceived existential threat to American survival.
Freidman is right about a lot of things. He's hit on a really big one right here. Al Qaida isn't waging a military war on the US, it's waging an economic war by staging high-profile criminal acts that have no chance whatsoever of bringing down the United States, but which can goad a reactionary US into bankrupting itself with Trillion-dollar endless wars trying to fight a enemy of a few thousand international criminals with a full-blown military operation that is of limited effect, but has huge and unsustainable costs. However, I think it is not entirely feasible to eliminate our dependence on foreign oil unless technology provides a new energy source and soon. If not, we may be better off, in light of Peak Oil, in depleting the foreign reserves now, while the price is relatively low and preserving our remaining domestic reserves for 50 years when the prices will be so high that no country can afford to import the remaining middle east oil.
of course they have no chance to "bring down" the US. but assume al queda did a minor terrorist attack every few months, each of which only killed a few people. is that not enough to spend billion on wars for? is there an acceptable level of terrorism from al queda that isnt worth any investment by us?
What are your thoughts on natural gas. I don't think it's the end all but it could sustain us until we find the end all. Especially with the newly found shales.
In this piece Friedman ties in two of his big themes into one. He has been on the get off foreign oil INTELLECTUAL bandwagon for a long time. He favors large carbon taxes on gas etc. He is also a big student of China and India (The world is flat is his theme and one of his books). He then works in Queda making it three strikes against us, if we are not careful. I think this piece really hits home. We are literally tied down by a bunch of terrorists, and I don't think folks realize how quickly the US of A can go in the crapper, to an inconceivable degree, should the "perfect economic storm" strike. hwr
i was going to vote for whoever proposed huge (60's NASA style) investment into r&d for new energy sources regardless of party or other platforms.
The perfect economic storm is happening right now - it's called the United States Congress and their incessant waste of taxpayer $.
