-
Impeach Obama?
June 3, 2013 | 172 comments
-
Let’s Win This One for the Griper
May 31, 2013 | 73 comments
-
What Is It About Benghazi?
May 15, 2013 | 165 comments
-
The Socialist Dragon Slayer
April 9, 2013 | 42 comments
-
What Did Arafat Get for Killing U.S. Diplomats?
March 1, 2013 | 50 comments
The Obama Watch
An Isolated President Sings to the Choir
Time is eerily standing still at the Obama White House.
Having spent the last month and a half outside the United States, I returned home late last week wondering what had changed in the land of the free. Where to go to find out? Though this will sound counter-intuitive to most readers, my first stop was www.whitehouse.gov.
No change there, I thought, unless you count Rahm Emanuel’s departure as a significant event, which I don’t. One has the eerie sense that time has been standing still for the Obama White House. If the sun has risen or set at any time over the past 45 days, the Obama White House seems not to have noticed. It is locked away in its own little dream world, undisturbed by anything that is happening in the real world. So what if a clear majority of Americans have come to the conclusion that the government is choking off a recovery through too much spending and too much regulation and intervention? So what if this government has become a walking advertisement for the fact that big and quasi-socialist government doesn’t work and never will?
The same obliviousness — the same obtuseness — seems to extend across the length and breadth of so-called Ruling Class, a category that includes Hollywood, Silicon Valley and academia — plus anyone else who is foolish enough (and sufficiently detached from economic reality) to go along with President Obama in the some of the more laughable expressions of “progressive” ideology.
Exhibit A here has to be the preposterous belief in solar energy as a cure-all for the nation’s problems. George Orwell once said that some things were so stupid that only an intellectual could believe them. Apart from the intellectuals (and some of the super rich and super famous in Hollywood and Santa Clara County), is there anyone in this country who seriously believes that solar energy is going to provide hundreds of thousands of new jobs for Americans over the next few years? Still more, is there anyone who seriously believes that it is going to cause the waters to recede, the planet to heal and — get this! — Team USA to surge ahead of India and China in science, math, and long-term economic growth?
President Obama believes in all that stuff, or says that he does. And increasingly he is preaching only to the already converted — feeling no need to connect with others who can only roll their eyes in disbelief.
Here are some of the effusions from his latest weekly address:
For decades, we’ve talked about the importance of ending our dependence on foreign oil and pursuing new kinds of energy, like wind and solar power. But for just as long, progress has been prevented at every turn by special interests and their allies in Washington.
So year after year, our dependence on foreign oil grew. Families have been held hostage to spikes in oil prices. Good manufacturing jobs have gone overseas. And we’ve seen companies produce new energy technologies and high-skilled jobs not in America, but in countries like China, India and Germany.
Let’s pause here for few comments to examine the veracity of what is being asserted. Who are these countries “like” China, India and Germany? Are they, in fact, China, India and Germany? Then why not say so? But where is the proof that those countries — or any others — have produced large numbers of highly-skilled jobs in wind or solar power? Is there a single reputable study to show that these countries — or any others — are leap-frogging the U.S. in critical technologies through a concentration on wind and solar power?
To back up a little further, I don’t get the connection between higher oil prices and “good manufacturing jobs” going overseas? Could you please explain, Mr. President? And what is this business about “special interests and their allies in Washington” which have supposedly impeded progress in wind and solar power? Can the president cite a single instance of Big Oil or other businesses doing anything to quash wind or solar power (other than complain about excessive subsidies)?
Let us proceed then to the president’s peroration, which is all about jobs, jobs, jobs:
It was essential — for our economy, our security, and our planet — that we finally tackle this challenge. This is why, since we took office, my administration has made an historic commitment to promote clean energy technology. This will mean hundreds of thousands of new American jobs by 2012. Jobs for contractors to install energy-saving windows and insulation. Jobs for factory workers to build high-tech batteries, electric cars, and hybrid trucks. Jobs for engineers and contraction crews to create wind farms and solar plants that are going to double the renewable energy we can generate in this country. These are the jobs building the future.
But is there anything more than rhetoric — or the “audacity of hope” — to back up any one of those claims in this drumbeat of assertions? How much energy is this administration planning to get from renewable sources? Does it really propose to replace — let’s say — half or even a quarter of the nation’s demand for oil through wind and solar power? It certainly doesn’t sound like it from the sentence I have highlighted toward the end of the passage cited above. Since the contribution of renewable sources to the nation’s total energy requirement is so small to begin with (only about 1 percent), to double it would be nugatory in its impact.
And finally, let’s examine the real “meatball” in this speech, which is the one news item:
I want to share with you one new development made possible by the clean energy incentives we have launched. This month, in the Mojave Desert, a company called BrightSource plans to break ground on a revolutionary new type of solar power plant. It’s going to put about a thousand people to work building a state-of-the-art facility. And when it’s complete, it will turn sunlight into the energy that will power up to 140,000 homes — the largest such plant in the world. Not in China. Not in India. But in California.
About the Author
Andrew B. Wilson, a frequent contributor to The American Spectator, writes from St. Louis.
Letter to the Editor View all comments (81) | Leave a comment
More Articles by Andrew B. Wilson
More Articles From The Obama Watch
http://spectator.org/archives/2010/10/04/an-isolated-president-sings-to
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
Current Issue
- Yes, It Can!—Maybe
- Behind a Quilt of Mist
- A World Turned Right Side Up
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
cats1cowboy| 10.4.10 @ 7:00AM
Also, on oil . . . to quote a once famous cartoon, "it's everywhere . . . get used to it!" Think about it.
Your keyboard is made from oil; your clothes are made from oil; your carpet is made from oil; your hair care products are made from oil; your eyeglasses are made from oil; the roof over your house/apartment is made from oil; even things not made from oil are transported by things that use stuff from oil to work; most lubricants come from oil; even the asphalt you enjoy driving on comes from OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL!!! Stinking, smelly, goopy, spewing, globbing, squirting, sitting, smearing, freaking OIL!!!
Does anyone REALLY have a REAL solution to moving away from dependency upon this substance? REALLY?? as in something that will actually work and in a realistic amount of time?
Great!!! Let's hear it!! Let's MAKE THE CHANGE and Stop your useless complaining and nagging (yes I am doing it a bit too here) and demonizing of politicians, just because they are not super humans and can't flip a switch to make things perfect for you and everyone else overnight!!
I'm putting away the soap box, leaving the room, and will not respond to any comments or take any of them personally: I just had to get this off my chest.
Thank you my fellow Americans! Unless you're not Americans, in which case . . . no thank you!
Old Soldier| 10.4.10 @ 9:43AM
And the stuff is just sitting underground waiting for us to tap into it. In Kuwait, it just bubbles out of the ground. Why not use it?
voted againstcarter| 10.4.10 @ 12:10PM
Thing made of evil OIL:
All plastic product are derivative of oil
Roads
Caulking
Hair care products
clothing (synthetic)
Shoes (see plastics)
Rugs (see plastics)(synthetic)
Most everything in your car not made of metal
Computers (see plastics)(synthetic)
TV
DVD
CD
Thread that holds stuff not oil together
And 1000 more products!!
three thing modern man needs;
Water, fire and OIL!!
Alan Brooks| 10.4.10 @ 7:02PM
"So what if this government has become a walking advertisement for the fact that big and quasi-socialist government doesn't work and never will?"
American schools will never work adequately
because Americans can't work together for the common good of its students.
Alan Brooks| 10.5.10 @ 12:01AM
Naturally, Bush is not culpable anymore; but you underestimate how relieved people are that Bush has left office.
Only a masochist would miss the years 2001 to 2008:
'01, the 9-11 attacks
'02, Afghanistan
'03, Iraq
'04, the re-election
'05- '06, continuing insurgency.
'07, some good news: the Surge
'08, economic havoc.
As I remember, the best news of the decade was the Surge-- that's it.
SeattleBruce| 10.5.10 @ 10:20AM
The Muslim attacks were not Bush's fault. His presidency was defined by them and forced to deal with them. On another note, Presidents are like QBs - they get too much credit, and too much blame.
Fredrick Ward| 10.5.10 @ 3:46PM
"'08, economic havoc."
This after the dems took the majority in the house and senate. Go dems....
Alan Brooks| 10.5.10 @ 12:17AM
"plus anyone else who is foolish enough (and sufficiently detached from economic reality)"
So if a destitute person votes for Obama he or she is a member of the ruling class-- equal in culpability to a billionaire??
SeattleBruce| 10.5.10 @ 10:22AM
"So if a destitute person votes for Obama he or she is a member of the ruling class-- equal in culpability to a billionaire??"
The phrase was 'detached from economic reality' - and it took lots of Obummer supporters (and there still are plenty) to drive him and his failed economics into office .
Appleby| 10.4.10 @ 7:22AM
The phrase *countries LIKE China* etc. is sloppy grammar; what he and everyone means when writing that phrase is *countries SUCH AS China* etc.
And anyone looking at King Zero as he speaks on YouTube is seeing the 1968 sophomore class at any university USA whose fantasy of total control of the countrys chequebook has come true. These are the kids, remember, whose financing came from the Bank of Mom and Dad (or from signing bank forms they did not read), and their sole knowledge of money was depositing cheques.
This is still their idea -- money comes in the mail or handed over a desk, and you put it in the bank, and then you spend it and never pay it back.
This is what I hear in the blather coming from ObamaLand.
Doug| 10.4.10 @ 12:55PM
Appleby, using the phrase "countries like" or "countries such as" implies that there are other countries similar to the ones named. I think that the author, Andrew, was trying to say "okay, you've named three countries, what are the other ones?"
Liberals never want to be held accountable for anything they do or say. So, they are vague; when giving examples of other nations that are creating "thousands" of solar power jobs, they try to imply that there are many by naming three.
It's not just sloppy grammar; it's purposefully misleading.
David T.| 10.4.10 @ 1:16PM
The use of "countries like China, India and Germany" is much more devious than you think. Obama's actually saying it's not those countries but others "like" them. He's practicing the politician's art of being purposely vague and non-specific, lest anyone call him to account.
Appleby| 10.4.10 @ 3:33PM
I invoke Occam's Razor in this instance. The simplest explanation is usually the correct one.
Alan Brooks| 10.5.10 @ 12:11AM
"This is still their idea -- money comes in the mail or handed over a desk, and you put it in the bank, and then you spend it and never pay it back.
This is what I hear in the blather coming from ObamaLand."
Young people don't have the experience.
However, though Obama is Commander in Chief, and can be held culpable for foreign policy; however there is no C in C of the economy, which is why we give Bush a pass-- it wasn't the previous administration's fault.
But if the economy was not the responsibility of the executive branch during the last decade, then neither is it today.
SeattleBruce| 10.5.10 @ 10:26AM
"which is why we give Bush a pass-- it wasn't the previous administration's fault.
But if the economy was not the responsibility of the executive branch during the last decade, then neither is it today."
In case you haven't noticed no one on the D side of the aisle gives Bush a pass on square 1. He is considered evil by definition, and that includes on the economy. It really is quite irrational.
Secondly, while the President/Executive branch cannot 'control' an economy of the size of the US (at least not yet given present political circumstances - and not that they aren't and won't try to), they can certainly massively hamstring companies (that is influence growth or lack thereof) and employers and restrain the ability for people to have confidence in the future - the kind of confidence that help them to roll out plans to grow and hire people to facilitate such growth plans.
Siegfried X| 10.4.10 @ 7:47AM
The Democrats believe that this is a "[voter] base" election. The only thing they need to win, Dems think, is to energize their far left-wing base. That's why Reid, Pelosi, and Obama kept the Congress voting on extreme left-wing legislation up until the last moment.
The Democrats have given up on the independent vote.
Siegfried X| 10.4.10 @ 10:58AM
Cantor suggested that any tightening-up in the race for control of Congress might be due to Obama and Democrats' increased focus on energizing their own base, which they hope will come to the polls in full force on Nov. 2.
"I do think that they're pivoting now to send a signal to the Democratic, left-wing base," Cantor said, pointing to the increased money that's been spent in competitive House and Senate races.
SeattleBruce| 10.5.10 @ 10:28AM
'"I do think that they're pivoting now to send a signal to the Democratic, left-wing base," Cantor said, pointing to the increased money that's been spent in competitive House and Senate races.'
Huge problem for them - they cannot adequately cover 50 really questionable House races and 15 Senate races.
JP| 10.4.10 @ 7:51AM
The President continues to double down on an energy fantasy (or, is fetish a better word?) which appeals to no one save the jet-set, CEOs of these energy companies, and a few Hollywood cry babies. But, there is something more at stake here. Ethanol has been around (at least the federal funding of ethanol) since 1977. Now, 33 years later ethanol is still here and still heavily subsidized. The idea is to get solar or wind on the federal rolls. And once it becomes a federal program, the Establishment will see that it remains on the tax-payer's ledger forever. Ditto for all of the EPA regulations regarding carbon emissions. Once a bureaucracy is established, financed, and set in concrete, it rarely goes away. So, while the political price tag is large, the long term effect of these plans must be taken into consideration.
Just look at the federal regulations regarding the water govenors used in toilets. Twenty years ago, the Greens warned Congress that severe water shortgages were in our future. From Maine to California "studies" came out of nowhere warning our policymakers that the US was litterally running out of water. Of course, few remember that little episode, as it is almost impossible to remember every manufactured eco crisis -there are now just so many of them. But Congress acted immediatly. And Bush41 promised action. And voila, beginning in 1991 or 1992 regulations were put into effect which governed how much water would be allowed per flush. The crisis came and passed, but the regulations remain to this day. Multiply all of those regulations in toto and the price tage of our nanny-state is over $1 trillion just in regulatory compliance. And people wonder why so many jobs continue to go overseas.
Kishego| 10.4.10 @ 4:37PM
I believe Ethanol has actualy been around since the mid 1920's. It was an unstable crappy fuel source then and still is today. Has anyone seen the commercials for the solar powered generator? I imagine it works just fine, until sun down anyway.
talos| 10.4.10 @ 7:55AM
We could cover the entire Mojave Desert with solar panels and it still would be nugatory in its impact. And here's the interesting part. The Mojave Desert is a very dry and dusty place, already lacking in water. But the damn solar panels would have to be kept clean with something, lest they become dirty and not work at peak levels.
Dixie Pixie| 10.4.10 @ 10:13AM
Where do you think Obama is going to conjure up all those “good” jobs in the energy sector.
The jobs he is promising is to be Windex and squeegee workers cleaning all those mirrors.
TR| 10.4.10 @ 11:54AM
One problem with the Mojave Desert plan...it will be in the courts for decades. An indian tribe has declared that the proposed site is an important spiritual area and cannot be desecrated my these plans. This is the scenario that will play out anywhere a site is mapped.
As stated by other posters, we have plenty of oil right here in the US and it could solve most of our energy needs if we were simply ALLOWED to recover it. It is sickening that we are dying an economically self-imposed death.
bjd| 10.4.10 @ 8:03AM
Is it appropriate for the President of the United States to promote a company that is preparing to announce an IPO?
The company--and its Israeli subsidiary BrightSource Industries (Israel) Ltd--are the reincarnations of another pair of companies that failed in the early 1990s. Luz Industries went bankrupt when California ended its property tax exemptions for the solar plants.
The patented technology, research, development, planning, design--all the actual high tech jobs--all this work is in Israel. The "subsidiary" has more job openings listed on its web site than the "parent" company based in Oakland. 4 jobs in Oakland are for financial and human relations jobs. The 13 in Israel are engineers, estimators, software developers.
Longplay| 10.4.10 @ 8:13AM
"... through the diversion of scare resources to non-commercial and almost certainly non-economic enterprises." Why should Obama care about such a diversion? After all, actually making money from an endeavor is evil. In Obamaland, the more you're in the red (in both senses of the word), the better you are.
coal carrier| 10.4.10 @ 8:48AM
We do not use oil for electrical generation. 93% of the oil that we consume is used in our transportation system. Solar panels, wind farms and ethanol are not going to remove our dependence on oil. Here are some statistics.
OIL
84 MM barrels per day worldwide.
US uses 25% - 93% of consumption is for transportation.
US production has been declining since the 1970”s.
Every day the world market has only 1MM barrels in excess.
By 2012 OPEC spare capacity will be exhausted.
Worldwide oil consumption per day for transportation is 70%
COAL
US use 49.7% for electricity.
NATURAL GAS
US use 19.1% for electricity.
NUCLEAR
US use 19.3% for electricity.
WIND
US use .44% for electricity.
SOLAR
US use .01% for electricity.
BIOFUELS
Ethanol: With the current land available for growing corn, it would only support 12% of the transportation demand. (.75 BTU oil to produce 1 BTU Ethanol)
Bio-diesel: Would only cover 6% of the transportation demand.
COMPARISION
Gasoline = 125,000 BTU/gal
Ethanol = 84,600 BTU/gal
LNG = 90,800 BTU/gal
Sue| 10.4.10 @ 9:09AM
Facts are good, but remember, socialists never let facts get in the way of their objectives. The objective with "clean energy" is to "clean out the Treasury" (aka looting).
Old Soldier| 10.4.10 @ 9:46AM
Oil is not used for base load in the U.S. Oil and / or natural gas are used in "peakers" for peak load days in the summer and load balancing.
Al Adab| 10.4.10 @ 3:09PM
Where are they going to build all the new power plants required to produce the electricity for the electric cars? What will fuel the power plants? Oh yeah, sorry, Sue is right, never let facts get in the way.
weaverofdreams_2000| 10.4.10 @ 10:25PM
I think coal carriers case is completely defeated by his own statistics:
"OIL
84 MM barrels per day worldwide.
US uses 25% - 93% of consumption is for transportation.
US production has been declining since the 1970”s.
Every day the world market has only 1MM barrels in excess.
By 2012 OPEC spare capacity will be exhausted."
OK. So what happens then??? I think this all on its own is an argument for exploring alternatives.
Meanwhile, we can free ourselves of being the servants of regimes that we detest and everything they stand for -- the Saudis, Iranians, Venezualans, etc...Or do you enjoy being the unwitting serfs of Petrodictators?
This is the #1 threat to American independence and completely makes a farce of any war on terror. Free ourselves from that oil and those sandlice won't have any money with which to export errorism, fund their maddrasas, etc...
Get a clue.
Cheers!
coal carrier| 10.5.10 @ 7:43AM
You obviously missed my point. Please let me try again. What the statistics show is that the stated green technologies will not fill the gap if oil is not used. Shutting done oil production in the Gulf of Mexico is not the answer. Preventing oil extraction in Alaska will not help to bridge the gap while trying to develop other energy sources. We need to utilize all of our resources here in the United States.
We haven’t constructed an oil refinery since the 1970’s. Why? Because the Green special interests have prevented it. Why is the cost of gasoline so high? Ask yourself-How many more cars are on the highway since 1970? How are you suppose to satisfy the increased demand with the supply side held at 1970 levels?
If everyone drove an electric car, where would we get the energy? Oh that’s right, we just have to plug it in the wall outlet.
Harry Flashman| 10.4.10 @ 9:01AM
The Audacity of Deception
Astute observers know that Barack Obama's greatest long term political liability is the growing awareness of the fact that he continues to conceal virtually the entire paper trail of his existence in a tight shroud of secrecy.
This will become a viral front and center issue in the likely event that he decides to pursue a second term.
Obama and his handlers were able to successfully hide his past and explain away and excuse his associations with controversial individuals and groups during their 2008 campaign.
It is essential that people take measures to make it impossible for them to repeat this deception between now and 6 November 2012.
Obama's original typewritten long form birth certificate, school records, SAT and LSAT scores, college and law school admission records and grade transcripts and thesis papers, medical records, passport history, Illinois State Senate tenure itineraries and meeting schedules and other relevant records and documents have all never been released or allowed to be subjected to any sort of scrutiny, despite several years of repeated requests for disclosure by numerous individuals and non-traditional media organizations.
The Obama 2008 campaign and subsequent administration have to date spent an enormous sum on legal fees, estimated in the millions of dollars, to fight Freedom of Information Act filings and other requests to examine this material.
American voters remember that Obama repeatedly promised that his administration would uphold the highest ethical standards with a particular emphasis on transparency and accountability.
A vast majority of these voters believe that the process of running for president should be the toughest public job interview on the planet. Barack Obama could not be hired as a janitor in a federal building with the amount of verifiable background information that he has provided.
A computer generated laser printed short form version of a birth certificate that a child could have forged was posted on the Obama 2008 campaign website, but it only served to intensify the filings and requests to see the original typewritten long form document, which has never been released or allowed to be scrutinized.
They also produced a one page letter from a physician attesting that Barack Obama was in excellent health for a man of his age.
This constitutes the complete extent of any release or disclosure of any records or documents from Obama's past. Virtually the entire paper trail of his existence continues to remain deeply hidden away.
The mainstream media has given Barack Obama a remarkable free pass on this basic issue of personal truth and transparency. It has become customary in modern times for presidential candidates to allow for the release and scrutiny of the substantive body of their personal records and credentials, indeed up until 2008 in large measure precisely because of a strong interest from the mainstream media. It is entirely appropriate to consider why Obama has received such a special exception from this necessary traditional practice.
In their eagerness to "make history" by covering the campaign of the man whom they were clearly interested in helping to become the first black president, the mainstream media failed in their essential national responsibility, namely to report on significant events with thoroughness and impartial objectivity. They ignored their duty to search for the truth and should be regarded with disdain by all people who value information in a free society.
Democrat incumbents at all levels of government, as well as rank and file voters, might well demand to know exactly how Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid and the rest of their party leadership allowed an individual who was obviously given only the most ridiculously cursory sort of vetting to become their presidential nominee.
Opinion polling consistently finds that authenticity is the character trait that is most important to American voters in electing and trusting their leaders and legislators. That a candidate or elected official really is who they say they are and truly believes in what they maintain are their beliefs and are not a phony or a fraud or a hypocrite or a liar.
Barack Obama's true origins, past associations, idealogical beliefs, behavioral motivations and ongoing relationships are matters of great importance to an increasing number of people who just want to know the real truth about this man.
What is being hidden and why are they hiding it?
ncatty| 10.4.10 @ 11:24AM
Who cares about his background now? We know all we need to know by his actions since the inauguration.
Jenny| 10.4.10 @ 11:38AM
It is scary to know that our own President couldn't pass a standard background security check required of state and federal employees.
voted against carter| 10.4.10 @ 11:57AM
I will say this right off, as I KNOW that will be the response. " Thats a RACIST STATEMENT! You must BE a RACIST!! SO on that note here goes,... CAN we say "AFFIRMATIVE ACTION?" Does any one have a better conclusion?
Dennis Bergendorf| 10.4.10 @ 9:02AM
It's interesting that the Mojave plant could be built only with "the president's money." Contrast that with aviation. Back in the early 70s, Boeing wanted $750 million from the federal government so that it could build our version of a supersonic transport. Congress said "no." The plane was not built.
Fast forward to the 1990s, when Boeing invested more than $2 Billion of its own money to build the 777, and has now put another $3 Billion into the Dreamliner. Why would Boeing do this, with almost no government help? Because the market dictates such an investment.
If the solar plant is viable, it should stand on its own two feet.
Doug| 10.4.10 @ 1:03PM
Excellent example. We sometimes get caught up in doing something cool (an SST or solar power) without realizing that it is not commercially viable. Not all cool things can be or even need to be commercially viable, but the only reason we can afford the luxury of making cool things is the commercial success of the many, many more things that are perhaps more mundane, but that work.
KyMouse| 10.4.10 @ 9:16AM
Seems to me I read recently that the last incandescent-bulb factory in America (in West Virginia) has shut down. All of us will now get bulbs -- those curly "green" ones, of course -- from factories in China. American jobs in that manufacturing sector have now moved overseas, and to a country that isn't exactly one of our closest allies. Was that the "change" Obama promised us?
C.K. Amos| 10.4.10 @ 9:34AM
It was a Government Electric--oops, General Electric--plant in Winchester, Va.
Perhaps Americans will now start hoarding these types of light bulbs, as the Europeans seem to be doing.
Great thing, those mercury-containing, so-called "green" curly thingamabobs. Wrong.
KyMouse| 10.4.10 @ 11:43AM
Thanks for the correction, C.K. I found a good deal on boxes of incandescent bulbs at Big Lots, and will enjoy using them until the last one dies. "Ah, my foes, and O, my friends, it gives a lovely light..."
Old Soldier| 10.4.10 @ 9:50AM
That "change" has been a work-in-progress by our unions, regulators, and tax-collectors for several decades.
C.K. Amos| 10.4.10 @ 9:30AM
I don't think it's as much as the White House is "locked away in its own little dreamworld" as it is "paralyzed, leaderless, dispirited and clueless about what to do next."
That is, except for some creative and fresh campaigning that Obama is not Bush and the Democrats, liberals and leftists are not Republicans, conservatives and Tea Party members. And that those old debbils, the Republicans, are going to destroy Social Security.
But, you know, maybe Louis and Marie really do think the solution is for all of us to just eat cake.?
Dave| 10.4.10 @ 9:49AM
The argument against green jobs is simple: I will not tolerate having my electric bill double so someone can have a job installing solar panels, or some venture capitalist can squeeze some extra return out of his battery investment. That's not a real job, green or otherwise. It's rent seeking.
SUV Mom | 10.4.10 @ 9:55AM
If John Kerry can have a yacht then I'll keep my gasoline-fueled Ford Explorer, and please spare me any more lectures from Dr. Hussien Utopia and The Jolly Gore Giant.
Redstateboy| 10.4.10 @ 10:12AM
This will mean hundreds of thousands of new American jobs by 2012. Jobs for contractors to install energy-saving windows and insulation. Jobs for factory workers to build high-tech batteries, electric cars, and hybrid. Jobs for engineers and contraction crews to create wind farms and solar plants that are going to double the renewable energy we can generate in this country. These are the jobs building the future.
Gee... when ya really think of it.. Who does believe this crap anyway? just the diminishing number of Obamabots? and they don't matter.. we already know they're brain-dead.
Appleby| 10.4.10 @ 3:36PM
All he has to do is pass a law forcing us to hire these people and buy the supplies they need. Hey, it worked with insurance, right?
Steve A| 10.4.10 @ 10:13AM
I am not making this up. I middle aged woman I know who is an Obama disciple recently told me how we are causing earthquakes because of the void that is left in the ground after siphoning out all of the oil.... It was freakin sad.
Ned| 10.4.10 @ 3:19PM
Well, actually, there was quite a bit of dicussion that this really was the case in the Denver area a few years back... but since we're no longer pumping much domestic oil, shouldn't be an issue, right?
Which thought raises a question... imagine 75 years from now... Middle East oil is dwindling rapidly from over-drilling... oil routinely sells for $250 a barrel... the Saudi King once again rules a land of goat herders... and where are the world's greatest reserves? Under US territory, where drilling has been banned for 100 years...
Fredrick Ward| 10.5.10 @ 9:30PM
Haha! I think that is quite funny actually. If the earth quake conspiracy theorist is right then we all just need to wait for the Middle East to be drained dry and then *POOF* no more Taliban, no more Iran, or any of those other idiots over there. They will just sink into a great massive earth quake, and be sucked down with all the sand.
Ah, what a wonderful fantasy.
TR| 10.4.10 @ 6:10PM
That woman is probably also a disciple of congressman Hank Johnson (D-of course, GA) who said earlier this year that he was worried the island of Guam would capsize if the Marines placed more troops there. Sounds like typical democrap illogic. Plate tectonics occur because we pump oil! Why didn't we see this? Of course, her same illogic could apply to us pumping water for drinking and agriculutre. So, by democrap thinking, we need to stop all water pumping also.
Joe| 10.4.10 @ 6:13PM
Tell your friend not to worry. When the planet starts heating up and the ice caps begin to melt, we will simply channel all the extra water into those gaping holes. Now we see how clever the president really is.
Also, because the president promised to send our electricity rates through the roof, no one will buy an electric car made by the Government Motors folks. Now we see how clever the president really is.
What a bright and shining future we have made for our kids. Sea salt killing the farmlands as we pump it up, mercury laden light bulbs polluting the landfills, and electric cars no on can afford to drive. Now we see how clever the president really is.
Whoopee, can't wait for November 2!!!!
c. j. acworth| 10.4.10 @ 10:36AM
Required reading for anyone interested in the energy question is Dr. Howard Haydens' book "The Solar Fraud". You will get more facts and useful info. there than any other single source I've seen. He pretty well blows up all the green guys' arguments with solid science, and shows conclusively that solar in any of its' forms will never be more than a niche player in energy supply.
Matt Morehouse| 10.4.10 @ 11:04AM
Here is a definitive work on the question at hand:
Terrestrial Energy by; William Tucker
Lisa | 10.4.10 @ 11:35AM
DELUSION - psychiatry - A fixed false belief that is resistant to reason or confrontation with actual fact. This word describes Obama to a T.
voted against carter| 10.4.10 @ 11:47AM
I HAVE to say this as it really, really, As Glenn B. would say,"MAKES BLOOD SHOOT OUT MY EYE'S!!"
"Global What ever they are calling it this month" IS A HUGE SCAM. Dhue. Nothing new there. But the "WE ARE RUNNING OUT OF OIL-OIL IS EVIL" Is the OTHER BIG lie. There are HUGE untaped oil reserves ALL over the world and in the USA. "Well how come we import it then?" BECAUSE it's CHEAPER than drilling what we have in the ground locally now. When that changes, you can bet the oil company's will drill. And there is also some "Use up the other guy's resources first, especially If he wants to sell it to us CHEAP" attitude I'm pretty sure. Some one help me out here or prove me wrong? Just say'n
Texas Mom 2010| 10.4.10 @ 12:23PM
The Feds have kept much of our lands onshore and offshore off limits for drilling. ANWAR, huge swathes of the western states with proven reserves and now Salazar has re-upped the Gulf offshore drilling bans... US oil companies are not allowed to drill in the Atlantic or Pacific either. Trust me, if they were allowed to drill they would as long as the price is over $40 barrel...
JeffT| 10.4.10 @ 12:36PM
All of this fulfills his promise to transform the USA into a third-world entity. Whether it works is not important. What's important is gutting our current systems so we can't build, compete or survive. That's his mission, pure and simple.
Joe| 10.4.10 @ 6:17PM
It is called re-distributing the wealth: America's wealth to the rest of the world where it will go into a bottomless pit never to be seen again. The great New World Order/One World Government is on its way; a false utopian/socialist dictatorship that will tell everyone how to live and what they can own.
james wilson| 10.4.10 @ 1:17PM
In Barry's mind, this is what he meant when conflating his greatness with one term in office.
Oldefarte| 10.4.10 @ 1:22PM
Andrew's excellent article highlights the extreme waste of our taxpayer supplied income to the government that is being wasted by these idiot-morons now in charge. Oil is an essential ingredient in each/every economic activity that this country [and all others] desperately depend upon. Every manufacturing factory, utility, mode of transportation, private residence, office building,etc absolutely depends upon oil being converted into electricity and becaoming a source of energy which powers our lives. These alternatives to oil simply do not exist and if so, are not economically feasable toward energy production. For decades the liberal Democrats have promoted these alternatives and faught to exclude any sources of oil due to their being in political bed with the asininely radicals within the environmental movement. They have purposely prevented offshore wells from being leased and being able to produce oil because of this extremism. The latest example is their placing of this offshore oil production moratorium after the Gulf oil spill, and which is now destroying thousands of oil industry related jobs in the Gulf region. The result is a restriction of oil's supply from same and which will result in the price of oil eventually skyrocketing. Consumers of all oil related fuels will see their gasoline etc bills substantially increase accordingly. We all have the current president and Democratic politicians to thank for this economic depressing radicalism!!!!!!!!
Roy| 10.4.10 @ 1:34PM
If India's government is wasting a single rupee on solar plants, they should all be hauled out and shot.
A huge percentage of Indians are keeping themselves warm with "wood", which I suspect is often actually "trash". Work on switching them over to gas and you'll make the pollution situation a lot better, a lot faster, than pointing government guns at people who are already doing this and forcing them to use unicorn farts.
CopyKatnj| 10.4.10 @ 2:35PM
What happened to Spain, the President didn't mention Spain. Why not? He used Spain the last time he tried to fool us, unfortunately, the Spanish "Green Experiment" is not cost effective and they are backing away from it.
Ned| 10.4.10 @ 3:24PM
Spain's attempt is not only 'not cost effective', it is fraudulent! Much to the chargin of Spain's Green Zombies they discovered that most of the "solar" power they were paying huge premiums for was in fact created by diesel generators...
dw| 10.4.10 @ 2:45PM
We have an idiot in charge. I'm trying to be subtle about it.
Podbaydoors| 10.4.10 @ 2:52PM
Solar? HAH! Here in the Presidents home town, we but solar heating arrays (specifically compound parabolic collector arrays) for public buildings, install a few and leave the rest collecting dust awaiting installation. Anyone care to guess what taxpayers forked over for these items ostensibly meant to work as an adjunct to conventional hot water heating which COULD have helped IF they were installed??? Just another bridge to Meigs Field.
Impeach Don't Wait| 10.4.10 @ 3:01PM
"This will mean hundreds of thousands of new American jobs by 2012. Jobs for contractors to install energy-saving windows and insulation. Jobs for factory workers to build high-tech batteries, electric cars, and hybrid trucks. Jobs for engineers and contraction crews to create wind farms and solar plants that are going to double the renewable energy we can generate in this country. These are the jobs building the future."
Yeah, maybe after he mandates that we use all these services, like we're being mandated to buy energy-saving bulbs.
Joe| 10.4.10 @ 6:20PM
Yeah, a hundred thousand jobs while we have 15 million unemployed. Brilliant! Now we see how clever the president really is.
Emma| 10.5.10 @ 12:40AM
And all of this glory at the same time as we are getting a 3,000% reduction in our health insurance rates. In my case, that would explain why I'm really excited about the mail arriving every doing~~that $15,000,000 check is oging to be arriving any day now.
He should be tried for economic treason.
Ken Besig| 10.4.10 @ 3:30PM
The Catholics call it a "leap of faith" to believe in something which cannot be rationally proven, whereas the Obama cult calls it the "audicity of hope" to conflate two wildly different and unconnected issues like solar or wind energy and by a leap of faith connecting them with manufacturing jobs being outsourced. But Catholicism is a religion and it's followers are expected to take it on Faith. Obamaism is just another cult which elevates the anointed one at the expense of his followers.
John II| 10.4.10 @ 4:43PM
Actually, the expression "leap of faith" is not Catholic, if anyone cares to know. It traces back less than two centuries (much less than two millennia) to Kierkegaard, a Lutheran. Some Catholic existentialists and novelists have expressed fondness for the phrase (or more precisely, for Kierkegaard's original phrase "leap to faith"), but the phrase is not specifically "Catholic" on the order of any of the Christian paradoxes that moved the Danish philosopher to coin the expression.
Kierkegaard was inclined to discern conflict between faith and reason--partly, I think, because of his plausible mockery of the pretensions of German philosophy (Hegel was a favorite target).
But the consensus in Catholic thought has always leaned toward a notion of interpenetration between faith and reason, so that the "conflict" is taken to be shallow and even chimerical. A certain priority is accorded faith, to be sure: even a self-styled rationalist begins with a kind of faith in reason--but there is no real conflict. Each depends on the other more or less simultaneously.
Just saying.
RCV| 10.4.10 @ 10:59PM
...and said well, as usual.
Ray| 10.4.10 @ 4:35PM
I'll believe Obama's commitment to renewable energy the day he swaps out the fossil fuel dependent Air Force One with a solar powered ultra-light.
Emma| 10.5.10 @ 12:38AM
You can't negotiate with a liar.
And there is no reason to choose to cooperate with one. Unless you don't care about your life.
Yosemeti Sam| 10.5.10 @ 12:53AM
I ask again - does this guy have a SHRINK?
Fred| 10.5.10 @ 2:28AM
A) The military and the CIA strongly believe we must get off the fossil fuel teet. Not only because it's a threat to national security, but because it saves money.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10.....ossil.html
B) Coal and Oil companies get 12 TIMES the subsidies that solar gets. Aren't coal and oil mature energy technologies? After a 100 years, shouldn't they, you know, stand on their own without sucking billions of our tax dollars? Let's see how cheap coal and oil are without their taxpayer funded business plans. I'd love that level playing field.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/.....shows.html
Forget global warming. If you're really a true American patriot, then you should support anything but oil.
If you like breathing regular air instead of black fumes, then you should support solar and wind and anything else that doesn't belch crap into the air that we breath. I'll take living by a solar plant any day over living by a coal, gas, or nuclear plant. When solar "spills," you get a tan.
talos| 10.5.10 @ 3:01AM
Then I challenge you to throw away and not use any item that is made from, relies on, or is a derivative of oil.
In other words, live in a cave with animal skin clothing. Uh-oh, that will get PETA mad. Well, just go naked then.
Tex Expatriate| 10.5.10 @ 11:55AM
Utter nonsense. You can't quote the NYT and Bloomberg and expect to be taken seriously. Let me educate you. Tax breaks are not subsidies. Coal and oil would, without government interference, stand alone without tax breaks, as they did in the beginning.
Any alternative energy system to coal and oil that can stand on its own would already be a viable alternative. Coal, gas, and oil drive the engine of economic liberty, and you want to reduce it. You're no patriot, nor even a genuine American.
Fredrick Ward| 10.5.10 @ 9:35PM
Among all this comedy I want to interject a little bit of seriousness. There is a book all of you should check out. It's called Trickle Up Poverty by Michael Savage. It's in the book stores now, and worth the read.
Andrew| 10.5.10 @ 11:09PM
If making our enemies rich by buying their oil is bad (DUH!) why not buy our own? If some alternative source of energy becomes viable, it will survive and prosper, no need to prop it up. Money will flow into its coffers as it has to the Saudis. Should a frog or a fish or a plant stop this critical effort to stop enriching our enemies? How many frogs will be killed in the jihad, ooooh the tragedy.
weddingdress | 7.1.11 @ 1:09AM
Your keyboard is made from oil; your clothes are made from oil; your carpet is made from oil; your hair care products are made from oil; your eyeglasses are made from oil; the roof over your house/apartment is made from oil; even things not made from oil are transported by things that use stuff from oil to work; most lubricants come from oil; even the asphalt you enjoy driving on comes from OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL!!! Stinking, smelly, goopy, spewing, globbing, squirting, sitting, smearing, freaking OIL!!!
Does anyone REALLY have a REAL solution to moving away from dependency upon this substance? REALLY?? as in something that will actually work and in a realistic amount of time?