A Few Shiny Pebbles http://www.afewshinypebbles.com/ The New Voice in Conservative Commentary en Copyright 2008 Thu, 31 Jul 2008 09:20:26 -0800 http://www.sixapart.com/movabletype/ http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/tech/rss Energy: Why We Need to Drill No Matter What: Part Five: Enemies and Useful Idiots ONE, TWO, THREE, FOUR, I have presented arguments to support the fact that there needs to be an immediate, over-arching plan for us to start producing as much American oil as we can, as soon as we can, by opening up ANWR, the Rocky Mountain Oil Shale, and the outer continental shelf regions of the Atlantic, Pacific, and Gulf to drilling, and putting them on a fast-track through the rules and regulations involved with that drilling. Right now, we are standing at a fork in the Road of History, wondering which path to take. The path that we finally choose to follow will open out into a broad new future, but it’s hard to make out the features of each pathway when we are besieged from all directions with advice, promises and warnings. We think we're involved in a presidential election, but it is far, far more than that. Once again we stand on a great battlefield of a war, and this time it is a conflict that will test America as it has never been tested before. America was conceived in Liberty, and it is the Freedom of the Individual that is being put on trial. One of the greatest fights we face is simply to recognize this war for what it is: the profound battle of the Individual against Collectivist Ideologies. We need to remember that our enemies have many kinds of “armies”. Some fight by terrorist acts both on the official battlefields such as those of Iraq and Afghanistan, and in what we consider purely civilian theaters of operation throughout the world, such as London subways, Madrid trains, and American buildings. Some fight through courts and coercive social pressures. Some make rules and regulations that eliminate the personal and make everything political, that make every aspect of our lives subject to legal and administrative fiat based on the Collective Ideology. While our military and security people are engaging the terrorists, it is up to the rest of us to fight those mental guerrillas of all kinds who take over territory in our minds and emotions by sowing fear and lies, by coercion and bribery and threats. They try to tell us that we must withdraw from many of our choices, that we must become less than what we are by birthright as Americans. They tell us that we have to drastically change our behavior so that we can become citizens of their correct Utopian Vision. They want to make each of us a member of a Collective, a member indistinguishable from all others of our category, our “identity”, our “kind”. We must become their “authentic” citizen. To the Left, the Collective is the Nanny State they long for. They place us in categories measured by ethnic, race, gender, and other such markers. Any individuality we show must be suppressed by laws such as hate crimes, hate speech, and other rules and regulations that add up over the years (such as on which foods we may eat, and which are forbidden). To the Islamists the Collective is an Islamic Caliphate, where the Collective is under Sharia law and rigidly controlled. The Collective’s categories are religions, their religion against all others, the suppression of individuality is ruthlessly carried out, and by law females are totally controlled in every aspect of their being. Both the Left and the Islamists place heavy value on events and issues that tend to herd Individuals into Collectives, and the Energy Crisis serves each of them in their own way. This is why we must fight those who use the armies that march unseen with economic power to destroy us. Right now, some of our enemies control vast wealth from oil profits. They are in a position to do great damage to the world by destabilizing countries that depend upon their oil, and by exploiting that destabilization. They will have the money to rebuild whatever they destroy, so they will not have to take as much care as they would if they had to keep their victim’s infrastructure intact. They are in a position to cause localized depressions, with massive unemployment, by strategically handling the oil they normally provide, controlling its flow even to the point of cutting it off in places, and collecting vast sums of money from its users. They can back terrorist groups such as Al-Qaida, the Taliban, the FARC in Peru and Colombia, the groups of Basque and other terrorists who are truly all over the world. By creating the conditions for the industrialized countries to go into recessions, they can bring added pressure on the Third World who cannot receive the kind of aid they normally do when their usual benefactors are in recessions. With huge petro-dollar profits, through advocate propaganda, and/or by sowing fear—our enemies can coerce, bribe and/or buy what they need for both strategic and tactical purposes. They can obtain communications systems—the press, the airwaves. They can buy key industries and assets, set up safe houses, bribe those who show a willingness to sell out their own countries in exchange for power and money. They can buy politicians and policy makers, military officers, pay for assassinations, and otherwise extend their power in ways that are not obvious or easily discovered. They can set up training camps and organizations, they can outfit them with supplies and experts. They can pay or coerce experts to join their side or to be silent. We have, in the past, ignored those who tell us of such plans. We have stood horrified to find that such words were, in truth, written in blood. This time we must listen. This time, we must hear the Future calling to us. Henri Amiel said that, “Truth is not only violated by falsehood; it may be outraged by silence.” It is our duty to speak out, to call attention to what we see happening around us, especially when too much of the press is heavily biased and won’t tell the truth when it interferes with their ideology. We need to raise our voices in protest when the attempt is made to silence experts who disagree with the current Collectives and their accepted “Truthiness”. To those who say that too much of what we do is a case of “Blood for Oil,” we must respond that we are not fighting for oil, we are fighting for what oil is now and will continue to be for decades in an industrialized world that drinks oil to live as much as we humans drink water. We must have in our hearts the courage to carry with pride, with honor, and with strength the duties that will seek us out. And we must honor those who stand directly in the face of danger. As a part of all this, the Collective Agendas march along with the Challenge given to us by Al Gore on July 17th, as I will discuss in Part Six. Trackposted to , Perri Nelson's Website, Allie is Wired, Democrat=Socialist, Adam's Blog, Right Truth, and The World According to Carl, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.]]> http://www.afewshinypebbles.com/2008/07/energy_why_we_need_to_drill_no_4.html http://www.afewshinypebbles.com/2008/07/energy_why_we_need_to_drill_no_4.html Geode Al Gore Blood for Oil Caliphate Collectives Energy Left Islamists Nanny State Oil Sharia Thu, 31 Jul 2008 09:20:26 -0800 Just a Simple Question, Mr. Obama first post on this blog, I wrote:
Weapons of Mass Destruction look out at the world through hate-filled eyes, waiting their chance. Removing a Saddam Hussein removes a vast source of such chances, furthering our cause in giant strides. The future demands no less of us than this, that we take such risks for such gains, and that we count ourselves blessed that there are brave hearts and spirits willing to shoulder our dreadful burden.
Yes, Mr. Obama, we are involved in a World War, we are trying to "answer our destiny", to "remake the world" once again. In another post, I wrote,
They must be stopped, over longer time frames than we have ever had to maintain a conflict, by methods that are agonizingly difficult, by people who fight courageously for us and must be supported in every possible way. If they are not stopped, then the Terrorists will engulf first the oil-rich Middle East and then, slowly, inexorably, the rest of the Muslim world, and finally the Western world itself, extinguishing the human rights and freedoms we unconsciously rely on. Our birthright will be taken from us by a power that we allowed to grow and grow and grow into an unconquerable monster.
A victory in Iraq is crucial to our country's effort to keep assets from terrorist hands, and to send Freedom on the march it must take to fulfill our destiny. Read your speech, Mr. Obama, and try to understand what it is you said. Trackposted to Nuke's, Rosemary's Thoughts, Allie is Wired, Woman Honor Thyself, Right Truth, Maggie's Notebook, Walls of the City, The Pink Flamingo, Cao's Blog, Democrat=Socialist, , and Dumb Ox Daily News, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.]]> http://www.afewshinypebbles.com/2008/07/just_a_simple_question_mr_obam.html http://www.afewshinypebbles.com/2008/07/just_a_simple_question_mr_obam.html Geode Berlin Airlift Obama Radical Muslims Speech in Germany Terrorism Thu, 24 Jul 2008 10:33:56 -0800 Energy: Why We Need to Drill No Matter What: Part Four: Drill HERE, Drill NOW Part Three, I concluded that the United States will continue to require copious amounts of petroleum, and will for decades to come. And so will the rest of the world. For decades to come. THE SOLUTION What do we do? As I showed, even if we follow many transition efforts (such as T. Boone Pickens’s Plan) we, and the rest of the world, will still need millions of barrels of oil per day for decades. Pickens points out that we are sending $700-billion a year out of our country to pay for the oil we need. (About $168-billion of that—about 24%—is for petroleum we use every year for non-transportation, everyday products we manufacture in the US.) This has to stop! For all these reasons, I support an immediate, over-arching plan for we Americans to start producing as much oil as we can, as soon as we can, by opening up ANWR, the Rocky Mountain Shale, and the outer continental shelf regions of the Atlantic, Pacific, and Gulf to drilling, and putting them on a fast-track through the rules and regulations involved with that drilling. We need to produce petroleum within the United States so that we can bring down the price of it for ourselves, so we can control the flow of oil by becoming the petroleum source for certain other nations or areas of the world when necessary. We need to keep our military supplied for operations all over the world, and we need to be able to fight the war against the terrorists that now can be found all over the world. We need to be able to do this without worrying about where the petroleum will come from for ourselves and our allies, and even for those who are on the fence at times, and we need to be able to respond quickly in world emergencies. This will also keep our money in the US, for all we can do with it here. Moreover, it will keep billions of dollars away from our enemies. Another strong argument is that there are countries throughout the world who are paying for petroleum from countries whose leaders are channeling hundred of billions of those dollars into terrorism, insurgencies, and outright war against the interests of the United States. We need to re-channel as much as possible of that money to our own income. This would bring us even more billions each year. How can we do this? You have probably read and heard the Main Stream Media repeating the idea that the United States has only threepercent of the world’s reserves of oil. But now we know this is not true! We have all the oil we’ll need right here. We can produce all the petroleum we need by ourselves, and we can sell petroleum to others any time we decide it is in our best national interests to do so. Look at the startling, crucial Chart that shows the “Potential US Oil Shale Energy v. Foreign Oil Reserves” in just the Rocky Mountain sites. As John Hinderaker, at Powerline, points out:
Rocky Mountain shale is believed to contain the equivalent of 2 trillion barrels of oil. Is that a lot? The entire world has used around 1 trillion barrels since oil was discovered in Pennsylvania in 1859.
We can supply our military, and, if need be, the militaries of our allies in NATO and throughout the world who are fighting in our national interests. It is in our vital interest to drill NOW and to keep drilling HERE at home. Forget the mediocre or empty 68-millions acres the Democrats want to foist off on us. We need to drill in the BIG THREE US AREAS: the Oil Shale Rocky Mountains, ANWR, and the outer continental shelf. We cannot allow ourselves to be dependent on anyone outside of the USA for petroleum any longer than necessary. There are also billions of dollars to the US government in royalties, oil leases, taxes, and so on, that will come from such drilling. We need as quickly as possible to be able to help ourselves, our allies, and others to withstand, any blockades of the Strait of Hormuz or sabotage in other oil routes. It is not just the United States that would be harmed in that sabotage. The world is interconnected economically in ways that will devastate all of us if the flow of oil is cut off in any significant way. We also must have more than just our “Strategic Petroleum Reserve”, (which is only enough for the US itself for about a month). We have a long history in our country with using our resources to benefit our friends around the world, and this is another policy we can add to Lend-Lease, the Marshall Plan, and the Berlin Airlift in our history books. With the oil we could produce, we could drive down the price drastically and still have a healthy profit. In Part Five, I will discuss some of the enemies of this potentially successful drilling. Trackposted to Perri Nelson's Website, third world county, DragonLady's World, The World According to Carl, Shadowscope, DragonLady's World, , The Pink Flamingo, Leaning Straight Up, Dumb Ox Daily News, Democrat=Socialist, , Conservative Cat, and Right Voices, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe. ]]> http://www.afewshinypebbles.com/2008/07/energy_why_we_need_to_drill_no_3.html http://www.afewshinypebbles.com/2008/07/energy_why_we_need_to_drill_no_3.html Geode ANWR John Hinderaker Oil Oil Drilling Oil Shale Petroleum Powerline T. Boone Pickens' Plan Tue, 22 Jul 2008 18:49:32 -0800 Energy: Why We Need to Drill No Matter What: Part Three: Decades For Change In Part One, I pointed out that, despite all the talk about making the US energy independent, we cannot separa. te ourselves from the vast world infrastructure of energy needs and economic interdependence. In Part Two, I pointed out that there are vast infrastructures for the generation and distribution of electricity. Also, that the non-petroleum power capabilities that people are talking about now—solar, wind, nuclear, along with hydro-systems like dams and geothermal energy—are only means to generate electricity. (Petroleum products, natural gas, and especially coal are also used in copious amounts to generate electricity.) THE PROBLEM The world uses over 80-million barrels of oil every day. (Of that total, the US uses over 20-million barrels a day.) By 2030, it may rise to over 140-million barrels per day for the world, and we will have our share of that need. India and China (and others) will be using a much higher percentage than they do now because of increased vehicle use. Right now, the US uses about 24% of its daily over 20-million barrels of oil for non-transportation and non-electricity needs. These are products people use all the time, day in and day out. One of the interesting lists I found of some of these is:
Ammonia, Anesthetics, Antihistamines, Artificial limbs, Artificial Turf, Antiseptics, Aspirin, Auto Parts, Awnings, Balloons, Ballpoint pens, Bandages, Beach Umbrellas, Boats, Cameras, Candles, Car Battery Cases, Carpets, Caulking, Combs, Cortisones, Cosmetics, Crayons, Credit Cards, Curtains, Deodorants, Detergents, Dice, Disposable Diapers, Dolls, Dyes, Eye Glasses, Electrical Wiring Insulation, Faucet Washers, Fishing Rods, Fishing Line, Fishing Lures, Food Preservatives, Food Packaging, Garden Hose, Glue, Hair Coloring, Hair Curlers, Hand Lotion, Hearing Aids, Heart Valves, Ink, Insect Repellant, Insecticides, Linoleum, Lip Stick, Milk Jugs, Nail Polish, Oil Filters, Panty Hose, Perfume, Petroleum Jelly, Rubber Cement, Rubbing Alcohol, Shampoo, Shaving Cream, Shoes, Toothpaste, Trash Bags, Upholstery, Vitamin Capsules, Water Pipes, Yarn.
Many of the products listed will continue to require petroleum to make them, comprising several million barrels of oil a day we will need into far the future regardless of what else we do. So far as transportation is concerned, changing automobiles into electric plug-in cars is one thing; changing trucks, freight trucks, heavy duty vehicles and equipment, trains, ships, emergency vehicles, military vehicles, and so forth into electric-powered vehicles is a whole different thing. And aircraft of all kinds is even more problematic. In just the US, we have about 240-millon cars and light trucks. If we retooled our car factories, and the only cars we manufactured in the future were electric or hybrids, it would take almost two decades to come up with replacements just for what we have now. And that would be if people could afford them, and we had the electric grid infrastructure we would need to “plug-in” when we needed to. It would require extremely rapid development of electric generating plants with wind and nuclear power. But look at the timetables from those who plan to develop more electric generation, who plan to develop the grid that will be necessary. They plan on years of work before this could be finished. (Look at T. Boone Pickens’ timetables at his site.) The US would still need petroleum products for cars for a couple of decades! Even if we work miracles in time and effort. And what would we do about the current investment we have in the cars we own? We can’t just dump them by the side of the road and step away. Most people who own cars and light trucks are still paying for them. If they change to electric or hybrids, what do they do with the vehicle they already have? It is the norm for people to sell their current vehicle when they buy another. To move all of us into electric cars, we will have to junk our other cars, losing the asset we have in them. Where will we put 240-million of them? This will be a tremendous problem. And that is just for autos and light trucks. What about electricity for large vehicles, including trains and ships? The extremely powerful fuel cell batteries that exist today cost tens of thousands of dollars. Large vehicles that are called electric, right now, actually use a fossil fuel (mostly diesel) to generate the electricity on the vehicle. Aircraft use jet fuel, a petroleum product, now and into the future. Changes from this will take more than decades for these vehicles. Moreover, emergency generators, emergency vehicles and heavy equipment, will continue to require large amounts of petroleum products. Earthquakes, floods, hurricanes, tornados, major blackouts, and other emergencies—problems that will require petroleum products will continue throughout the world during any transition to alternative fuels, and we will not be able to “plug-in” in most of the world. We will need vehicles that can use local petroleum products, or the petroleum we will bring in to the areas of emergency. Petroleum is a potent energy source, and will be required especially where large vehicles, and/or long distances are involved. We will also need petroleum fuels for international commerce requiring a source to refuel aircraft, heavy freight, trains, and ships and boats that come to our shores, across our borders, and into our airports from other countries. All of this is just for the United States, at the stage it is now in population and capabilities. Two or three decades for us, and even then we will continue to require petroleum products for manufacturing, for emergency generators, and also for aircraft, and for vehicles we must maintain for operating outside our country in the military and emergencies. If we envision now the need for these changes throughout the world, and their demand for electricity, and what it will take to build the electric generating stations, putting the improved distribution grid across vast distances, developing the technicians, and all for the world that uses the above-mentioned minimum of 80-million barrels of oil a day. (And this need will increase rapidly as populations and possibilities grow.) How would the fuel usage of this amount of petroleum translate into the daily demand for electricity? France and Japan obtain about 80% of their electricity from nuclear reactors. The rest of the world will need to build thousands of nuclear reactors to supply the electricity needed, would have to build and sell to people who are able to afford the electric cars, and would have to establish an improved electric grid throughout some of the poorest areas of the world. There is no way around the fact that implementing all this will take years, and tremendous amounts of money. And even then, most people in the world could not afford the cars. There will have to be millions and millions and millions manufactured. All of this will take a great deal of time, money and materials. And then people will have to pay for charging their batteries along with their other electric utility charges. There are 6-billion people in the world, and the world is on the move. This future will make demands on the world that can only be solved by petroleum products for decades while the changes that will allow a better future are in motion. For the above reasons, the United States and the rest of the world will continue to require copious amounts of petroleum for decades to come. So what can we do about it? We don’t want to keep importing most of most of the petroleum we’ll need. In Part Four: Drill HERE, Drill NOW we’ll find our solution. Trackposted to Perri Nelson's Website, third world county, DragonLady's World, The World According to Carl, Shadowscope, DragonLady's World, , The Pink Flamingo, Leaning Straight Up, Dumb Ox Daily News, Democrat=Socialist, , Conservative Cat, and Right Voices, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.]]> http://www.afewshinypebbles.com/2008/07/energy_why_we_need_to_drill_no_2.html http://www.afewshinypebbles.com/2008/07/energy_why_we_need_to_drill_no_2.html Geode Electricity Energy Nuclear Power Oil Petroleum Pickens Plan Solar Power T. Boone Pickens Wind Power Tue, 22 Jul 2008 14:04:38 -0800 Energy: Why We Have to Drill No Matter What: Part Two: Electricity basics Energy: Why We Need to Drill No Matter What: Part One”, I pointed out that in making decisions about the oil-drilling question and the energy crisis in general, we need to have a certain background of information as a start. Part of that background is that there is a extraordinarily vast world infrastructure for petroleum and its products, and the world uses over 80-million barrels of oil a day. This amount is increasing rapidly. Now, the second of the background issues is electricity. Just as with petroleum, there are extraordinarily vast infrastructures for the generation and transportation of electricity. The following is part of what you should know to make educated decisions about energy policy. The non-petroleum power capabilities that people are talking about now—solar, wind, nuclear, along with hydro-systems like dams and geothermal energy—are only means to generate electricity. Petroleum products, natural gas, and especially coal are also used in copious amounts to generate electricity. And you can’t store electricity except in extremely small amounts by using it to charge-up short-term batteries. Vehicle batteries that act to propel the vehicle, as opposed to lighting its headlights or running its radio, not only have to be recharged after a given distance traveled by the vehicle, but these batteries also cost, at this moment, thousands of dollars. (Surprise!) Once generated, electricity has to travel by wire from its point of generation to its point of application, usually traveling across a distance, sometimes hundreds of miles, to where it will be used by people who plug into that delivered electricity. These wires from a power station to the home or business have to travel through the air or underground, between powerline structures (like between those tall metal towers that march across the land, or like telephone posts). Not only does the generated electricity attenuate as it travels, but that weakening must be strengthened by the functioning of other equipment, such as transformers, at given distances along it travel. In order to use electricity to power vehicles, the electricity will have to come through a wire capable of transmittion to a heavy-duty power outlet next to the car to be charged. This means that everywhere you use, or want to use, electric cars, the physical area has to be properly wired, and there has to be electric wiring to every location where an outlet is needed. (Or you can use a gas or coal powered generator to produce the electricity, but that introduces gas and coal back into the equation.) All this is a problem here in the United States, because millions of people live where their cars are parked in unwired lots at night. This is even more of a problem in China, India, Africa, South America, Central America, and so on, where there are vast unwired distances that must be traveled by vehicles, and thus where there are no power outlets for charging or recharging batteries. What about “charging stations” in cities with parking lots, and along the roadways, the way there are gas stations now? How big will they have to be to accommodate many, many times more cars for a few hours each? There is another complication because there is a significant difference in time-frames needed to fill a car engine with gas—a few moments—and an electric car with a charge—a few hours. If we want to use electricity to power vehicles, we will have to vastly increase the number of electricity generating plants (including nuclear) and have vast numbers of new powerline wires and transformers over countless miles to application outlets. (For instance, look at T. Boone Pickens’ plans for wind farms, and how he’ll send the electricity generated in the middle of the country through wires to the rest of the country, including the coasts, at www.pickensplan.com). As food for thought, imagine the more than 240-million cars and light trucks at this moment in the United States alone. Imagine the number of vehicles we’ll add to that with increasing population. How much more electricity will have to be generated to allow a couple hundred million cars to charge up overnight, even if it is just a portion of those cars at any one time? Try to imagine this increased, and ever more increasing, demand for electricity, added to our current production of electric power. (And, this does not include the millions of freight trucks, trains, aircraft, boats and ships here, that would still need non-electrical power.) And that’s just the U.S. alone. But all this merely touches the surface of the situation. This is just background knowledge. In Part Three, I want to start discussing some of the serious implications of Part One and Part Two with respect to our desire both for non-polluting energy usage and to be free from the need for petroleum. (And why we won’t—can’t—succeed in those desires. We will still need to drill petroleum in vast amounts. For decades to come.) Trackposted to Perri Nelson's Website, Faultline USA, Allie is Wired, Right Truth, The World According to Carl, The Pink Flamingo, Democrat=Socialist, Conservative Cat, and Right Voices, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.]]> http://www.afewshinypebbles.com/2008/07/energy_why_we_have_to_drill_no.html http://www.afewshinypebbles.com/2008/07/energy_why_we_have_to_drill_no.html Geode Coal Electricity Nuclear Petroleum Solar Power T. Boone Pickens Wind Power Wed, 16 Jul 2008 00:16:29 -0800 Energy: Why We Need to Drill No Matter What: Part One The difficult part of an argument is not to defend one’s opinion but rather to know it. --- Andre Maurois Some of the most important—and imperative—issues in our lives involve energy production and usage, and for the first time in a long time in this country we have finally reached a point where the public is demanding action: begin drilling! This means that we are going to make decisions about energy that will set us on the beginning of one set of possible pathways into the future. We had better get it right. We must make our own views clear in order to make the best choices we can. We are being told that conflicting information, for instance that, “We have to wean ourselves off oil”, that, “We need to become energy independent”, “We can’t drill our way out of this crisis”, “The oil companies have 68-million acres right now that they are not drilling on”, “We can’t do anything quickly to bring down the price of gas”, “It will take 10 years to get any gasoline from drilling”, and at the same time we are told that, “We need to open up the areas off the coast, in ANWAR, and in the mountain shale oil regions for drilling, with new methods which will take far less time than they used to.” We are told, “We need to follow environmental rules for stopping the Global Warming crisis” and also that, “Global Warming is not a crisis.” Uh-Huh. I have read a lot about these issues, and I have made up my mind that we have to drill in as many areas as possible, offshore, ANWAR, oil shale, everywhere, as long as, at the same time, developing other sources of fuel. I mean to post a series of essays on my blog over the next weeks, giving my reasons for that decision. Where do I start? I can see several issues that absolutely must be addressed before we can make our decisions, but it’s hard to tell which should be considered first. I think I’ll work from the Macro to the Micro—the big picture first, and then the details. A lot of the articles I’ve read add greatly to the knowledge-base from which I’ve made my decision, but I think, to begin, the things I’ve read miss some of what I think are the most important grounds for my decisions on oil drilling and energy policies. I think that this is because there is so much talk of what America needs now, what America will need for the short- and long-term future, about what will or won’t bring down the price of our gasoline, our need for energy independence, and such things—but the crucial background, over-arching issues, are almost completely missing from all this talk. This current concentration on America and its local interests comes about from the fact that we are in the middle of a presidential election campaign, but we had better stop and think more clearly, and step back from the candidates and political parties to think in larger terms. Once we have really looked at certain crucial issues, and made some crucial decisions, we can always return to our political squabbles and fight over which party is going to grab onto which arguments. However, the main work leading to our decisions must be carried out apart from partisan emotionalism. So, first, we can’t look at the just United States right now. We have to look at the world itself. And I don’t mean as a “globalist”, or a member of the United Nations, or in terms of which countries we should have diplomatic relationships and/or meetings with and which not—no, we need to be far more fundamental than that. And I’m not talking here about the Global Warming issue, which needs a discussion of its own. Here, for this discussion, we have to look at the world as a place where the USA is part of a gigantic economic infrastructure composed of friends, enemies, and a lot of countries that lean one way or another depending on momentary alignments and enmities, all dependent mostly on oil and electricity. This is not the “Let’s join hands and sing” kind of relationship; rather, it is hard reality. We cannot separate ourselves from the world infrastructure. Every day of the year, very single country in the world must seek to create and obtain, one way or another, as near as possible to the total amount of oil and electricity it needs to survive, and, if possible, to do as best they can to grow economically beyond that. Whatever energy policies we come up with as Americans had better take into consideration, as fundamental and irrevocable, our present and future relationships with those other countries with which we share this world. No country can isolate itself any longer. All the talk about American energy independence is problematic in a world where everything and everybody is connected economically, where imports and exports are vital components of economic existence and growth, where major powers need strong militaries operating across the world, and where there are large international responses when emergencies happen. We have to recognize that the world uses over 80-million barrels of oil every day for the petroleum part of its energy requirements. Think about this for a moment. That’s a vast amount of oil. With the economic growth of countries such as China and India, (and eventually the Third World regions of Africa, Asia, South and Central America, etc.), the demand for energy, for more and more barrels-a-day, will grow larger and larger with each passing day. They say that the US is 5% of the world’s people and 25% of the world’s petroleum usage, but that doesn’t mean that as the percent of our oil usage drops it will be because of our lessening our demand for oil; rather, it will mean that the rest of the world will start catching up with us in usage, and it means that the need for oil will rapidly grow far beyond that 80-million barrels a day. It is not a zero-sum game. Just imagine for a moment the physical and human infrastructure now in operation necessary for those 80-million barrels of oil per day: supplying, producing, maintaining, and manning oil wells, delivery of product to shipping point, shipping all over the world as freight in heavy trucks and ships, pipelines and other ways, in refining the petroleum into constituent products for supplying manufacturing of products and for using as energy, in transporting those refined constituents, in using them in manufacture and in selling them to the public. Think of how much of the world’s employment and energy use goes with just getting the petroleum to market to refining and to the end-user for use in manufacturing and transportation. Think of how much money is changing hands, and to whom those hands belong. This is just the first part of the background that must be taken into consideration. There is also a huge infrastructure involved with electricity, the other major power source in this background discussion. If you're wondering where solar panels, geothermal, wind, coal, hydroelectric, nuclear, etc. are not the issue in this background overview, it is because all these energy technologies are used to generate electricity. So electricity is the next part of my search for answers. Trackposted to The Virtuous Republic, Perri Nelson's Website, third world county, Faultline USA, DragonLady's World, Right Truth, The World According to Carl, Shadowscope, DragonLady's World, , The Pink Flamingo, , Democrat=Socialist, Dumb Ox Daily News, and Right Voices, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe. ]]> http://www.afewshinypebbles.com/2008/07/energy_why_we_need_to_drill_no_1.html http://www.afewshinypebbles.com/2008/07/energy_why_we_need_to_drill_no_1.html Geode Andre Maurois Drilling Electricity Energy Geothermal Global Warming Nuclear Oil Solar Wind Tue, 15 Jul 2008 09:24:31 -0800 An Oil Slick Operator: Hillary Clinton officially nominated by a political party until the convention officially votes him or her in by a ballot taken at the site. Even if the “won” delegates were locked in to their candidate on the first ballot in the August convention, please notice that because of Hillary’s continued efforts, Obama will not carry enough locked delegates into the convention to win on the first ballot without special delegates, who will not be locked in and could decide to deny him their vote. Because she fought to the end of the primary, the nomination will be up in the air until at the very least after the first ballot. Senator Clinton is aiming at the nomination this time or, at worst, in 2012. And no matter what he does, Senator Obama will not be certain of the nomination until the deciding vote is officially counted and accepted at the convention, and that depends on what comes out in the next almost three months. (Hillary might just have some blockbuster under wraps.) The super delegates already have a lot to think about. Hillary has just said that she would be open to consideration as Obama’s vice president, if it will help the Party. I think that she probably doesn’t actually want it, but she wants to cause him problems, and her answer today has stirred things up. The situation is fraught with dangers for both of them, and this is my assessment: If she did become the VP candidate, and Obama won:
First, as VP she would have little power, and Obama would be able to make her look meaningless by what he makes her do. Second, as VP she and her husband would lose their position of power, and Obama, with Soros and others behind him, would be the power figure. Third, as VP she would not be in a position to run in 2012. Either Obama would be successful, and be the candidate himself, or he would have a disastrous presidency, and she would be tainted, and it would also make the winner in 2012 more probably the Republican candidate. Fourth, can you imagine the caustic relationship there will be between Obama’s staff and Hillary’s? Not to mention with the members of the Cabinet? And an ex-President running around with all Bill Clinton’s baggage and escapades? And the fact that no one could shut him up?
The situation, both ways, if Obama lost would be:
First, if she is the VP candidate, she might be blamed for the loss, and that wouldn’t be good for her immediate future, or for 2012. This is a major issue for her. Second, if she is not the VP candidate, she can claim that she would have won. This would give her a power base for 2012, and continuing power in the opposition, against a Republican president. She would be an important figure once again, and it would give an added spice to her revenge against those who have turned on her now. Third, her offer will allow her to say that she did everything she could to help him win, and at the same time people will blame him even more for any loss.
By her answer today, Hillary has put herself more strongly now into any conversation about the VP choice, and has made any move to deny her the position to be his fault. If she doesn’t get the offer—whether she wants it or not—watch out for the wrath of her true believers! All this being said, if she does work hard to force herself into the VP nomination during the next few months, It could mean that she has finally decided that the two of them would win, and that once he’s won she can produce a huge hidden super-ugly-problem that will force him out of office, thus making her President. Given the problems already indicated on his side, such a Big Ugly could exist. She would have to determine if she could keep it hidden until after the election. If there is such a Big Ugly, and she thinks that even together they would lose or that she can’t hide it that long, she won’t try to be the VP candidate, and she will use it against him—optimally in October, if it can last that long—to make sure he loses and to clear her way for 2012. Either way, she will make sure it looks like the Republicans have released the information. If she actually accepts the VP nomination from him, clear the decks. She will try to grab as much power as possible, and it will mean that she thinks there are possibilities worth pursuing. If Obama somehow gets elected, the public will find that he is far more Left than anything they imagined, and the public can move in large numbers when it is really, really upset to make its voice heard. No matter what happens, Hurricane Hillary is forming as we speak. When and if she makes landfall, who knows what will happen? Any way you look at it, this will be interesting to watch. Trackposted to Pet's Garden Blog, The American Nationalist News Service, Outside the Beltway, The Pink Flamingo, The Amboy Times, Faultline USA, , and The World According to Carl, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.]]> http://www.afewshinypebbles.com/2008/06/an_oil_slick_operator_hillary.html http://www.afewshinypebbles.com/2008/06/an_oil_slick_operator_hillary.html Oil Slick Barack Obama Bill Clinton Hillary Clinton the Presidential Campaign Vice President Tue, 03 Jun 2008 15:02:40 -0800 An Oil Slick Operator: Barack Obama deliberately went to the National Press Club and the NAACP meeting and gave speeches with content he knew was inflammatory to a large number of people. He clearly enjoyed it, even reveling in it. The same thing can be said about Father Pfleger’s recent, deliberate appearance at the Trinity Church. From Wright’s and Pfleger’s points of view, it was the chance to show their beliefs and abilities to a television and Internet video audience literally worldwide. These men did not get where they are in life muting their voices or tamping down their views. These performances were the kind of opportunities speakers dream about, the chance to be seen and discussed throughout the world! There are many people here and abroad that believe in and cheer Liberation Theology, and who also either agree with or encourage the Black Liberation Theology branch of the philosophy. They have now been thrilled by at least three spectacular demonstrations of the clearly highly skilled proponents of these views. Wright and Pfleger have also reached people who may be drawn into the radical allurements of these beliefs., and now they have a vastly wider marketplace for their books and videos. They knew exactly what they were doing. As for Obama, either he believes the same way they do, and is hiding it, or he used Trinity Church and its community solely as a political and social expedient. If it is the former, and he believes some or all of these views, then he is a liar, and with these beliefs he should not be raised to eminence as a nominee for the presidency of the United States. If it is the latter, he surely knew that there would be problems with that association, and it raises several questions about his behavior as a politician and his ability to judge the effects of his decisions over time. Whether expedient or belief, each time he has moved himself a distance from the Church and its flamboyant apostles, he has been ambiguous enough to leave room for both sides to believe what they need to, to remain his follower. One listener could decide that Obama has always used it as an expedient, but should be forgiven because in his position it was a way, over time, to gather the power necessary to enable him to do important work in a tricky community. Thus the good he could accomplish, his goals, were worth the deception. Equally, another listener could decide that Obama really does believe in some form of Black Liberation Theology, and should be forgiven because in his present position he needs to gather the power necessary to enable him to do important work in the tricky community necessary to elect him to the presidency. Either way, it would be expedience, but of the kind acceptable to the majority of his followers. Either way, his followers could convince themselves that he has had in the past, and now has in the present, to “play the game” to achieve the necessary power to carry out his ideals. At the same time, it leaves open the question of Obama’s real views as he maximizes his following given his background. The recent speeches given by Wright and Pfleger give Obama the ability to play both ends against the middle. (By being so blatant about their views, they can at the same time reach people who might delight in such radicalism and who might join them and Obama.) Moreover, their blatancy gives Obama the “hooks” he needs to object to them in a public yet ambiguous way that emphasizes their views and yet embraces the ambiguity. Given his background, with its factual and undeniable twenty-years of relationship to an inevitably troubling group, he has actually played his cards quite cleverly. The moment the videos of Wright became seriously problematic, the subsequent deliberate speeches by Wright and Pfleger gave Obama obvious ways to “separate” himself from first Wright and then Trinity, and at the same time do so in a way that allowed him the maximum benefit possible for the circumstances. Wright and Pfleger did quite well for themselves, too. Trackposted to third world county, McCain Blogs, DragonLady's World, Maggie's Notebook, Adam's Blog, Right Truth, Pirate's Cove, Leaning Straight Up, , Democrat=Socialist, CORSARI D'ITALIA, and Right Voices, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe. ]]> http://www.afewshinypebbles.com/2008/06/an_oil_slick_operator_barack_o.html http://www.afewshinypebbles.com/2008/06/an_oil_slick_operator_barack_o.html Barack Obama Black Liberation Theology Father Pfleger Liberation Theology NAACP National Press Club Reverend Wright Trinity Church Mon, 02 Jun 2008 15:10:21 -0800 Disastrous Democrats Random thoughts on the passing scene”:
Over the years, slowly but surely, we have painted ourselves into a corner on a whole range of issues, where we can no longer say or do what makes the most sense to us, but only what is considered to be politically correct.
In a profound way, the Democrats, with their Leftist, PC encroachments into our American life have been a disaster. In the battle between the ideas of “the Left” and “the Right” in America there has been a Leftist, PC disaster moving in slow motion, a Hurricane Democrat leaving legal and social damage and debris around in all aspects of our life. What does this mean? I’ve spent a lot of space in several posts on this blog going into this in detail, but fundamentally, as a summary, here is part of what I said in my post “World at War: In Depth Part Two”:
Just as humans explore the physical world and its inhabitants, they also explore ideas . . . . These explorations take place in words, in writing, in reading, in the education of the classroom, the lecture halls of the university, in the office and shop, in conversations on the street, in the home, and so on. People live, run their lives, have their lives run, and even die because of words on a piece of paper, because of complex and difficult arguments in books and in classrooms and in dimly lit rooms late at night in obscure government office buildings. Words on paper guide people when they fight wars and make peace, build bombs and jet planes and medical operating rooms, send people to prisons and to gulags and to death camps, when they do any of the billions of purposeful, skilled, and structured activities of the human world. These words find themselves combining and becoming forces in religion, philosophy, law, government, music, art, literature, education, science, technology, hobbies, recreation, social usage, vows and curses and every other activity the human brain and body gets involved with. There are “territorial wars” in these arenas, too. We need to recognize the fact that the world is a vast battleground in which great philosophies struggle for the minds and souls of men.
In every one of these battles between the ideologies of the Left and Right, the Left has been winning over the past five decades. Consider these articles, all well worth reading in their entirety: the Thomas Sowell article already mentioned, “Random thoughts on the passing scene”; J.R. Dunn, “Is 2008 to be a Transformational Election?”; John Hawkins, “The End of America As We Know It”; Selwyn Duke, “The Race for the American Mind”; and Dick Lamm, “How To Destroy America”. This election year is a major battle in that war of ideas. At every level—Presidential, Senate, House, and State and Local ballots—the battle is joined. And it is fierce and unusually bizarre. It is also imperative that our side wins as many of these individual battles as possible, especially on the presidential and congressional ballots. As Thomas Sowell points out, again from his random thoughts:
Even if you think our presidential choices this election year are between disgust and disaster, anyone who has ever been through a real disaster can tell you that this difference is not small. It is big enough to go vote on election day.
This is an excellent way to view our position and choices in this election year. If the Democrats win the Presidency, it will be a monumental disaster, one that we will pay for for years. We will pay not only monetarily, by higher taxes and even higher spending than the Right has been doing recently, but also in the areas of Supreme Court and other judges, social policy, law, the Bill of Rights, hate crimes, thought crimes, the military, foreign policy, etc. Even in the arenas where McCain might frustrate and anger us, such as health, environmental, and immigration policies, Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton would be like a Category 5 Hurricane compared to John McCain’s Gale Force winds. And even there, McCain might actually listen to us if we come up with cogent arguments and there are vast numbers of us demanding to be heard. A Democrat president and Congressional majority would be a 8.9 earthquake! If you think I exaggerate, remember things like Hillary Clinton wanting to make it a felony for both doctor and patient, for a person to pay a doctor in cash. Read Rick Moran’s, “52 Seconds of Obama Unilaterally Disarming America”. Think about the articles I linked to above, and reread Dick Lamm’s piece. Then get to work for John McCain and other Republican candidates. And pray. At least that hasn’t been outlawed yet. Trackposted to Outside the Beltway, The Virtuous Republic, Rosemary's Thoughts, Right Truth, The World According to Carl, The Pink Flamingo, Cao's Blog, , Dumb Ox Daily News, and The Yankee Sailor, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe. ]]> http://www.afewshinypebbles.com/2008/05/disastrous_democrats.html http://www.afewshinypebbles.com/2008/05/disastrous_democrats.html Culture War Battlefields Dick Lamm Election Hillary J.R. Dunn John Hawkins McCain Obama Selwyn Duke Thomas Sowell Thu, 22 May 2008 13:58:56 -0800 We Have Work To Do Rosemary's Thoughts, third world county, McCain Blogs, Right Truth, DragonLady's World, Pirate's Cove, The Pink Flamingo, Dumb Ox Daily News, Conservative Cat, Right Voices, and The Yankee Sailor, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe. ]]> http://www.afewshinypebbles.com/2008/05/we_have_work_to_do.html http://www.afewshinypebbles.com/2008/05/we_have_work_to_do.html Headquarters Conservatives the Election The Future Mon, 19 May 2008 20:34:19 -0800 I'll Be Back on May 19th My oldest brother has been through another series of medical emergencies. When this happens to someone you love, your mind and even your body feels as though they’ve been battered. Reality closes in around you, and the future becomes a matter not of days but of hours, and, sometimes, of only the next few minutes, as you’re waiting for the results of a test, or for a phone call. It’s totally exhausting, demanding your time and attention. Now that things have started to stabilize, my world and the future have expanded again. I will be in a position to start posting again next Monday, May 19th. http://www.afewshinypebbles.com/2008/05/ill_be_back_on_may_19th.html http://www.afewshinypebbles.com/2008/05/ill_be_back_on_may_19th.html Wed, 14 May 2008 10:17:08 -0800 The Un-See-Able The Emperor’s New Clothes”, who pretended to make a lavish wardrobe. Of course, both Obama and Gore went to Harvard, among other universities, and therefore we should expect that as a team they would move beyond the petty creation of pretense attire and go directly to a rich verbal tapestry of Utopian Splendor in the Best of All Possible Climates. They would be far luckier than the tailors in the Emperor’s story, because in that Once Upon A Time Kingdom, people saw that there were no clothes but were afraid to admit it, having been told that anyone who couldn’t see the clothes was a fool and a rogue. It took an innocent child to open their fairy tale eyes. But Obama and Gore could be sure that they didn’t need to find a way to keep those who saw the truth silent—“Change”, “Hope”, and “Carbon Credits”, being abstractions themselves, have the flim-flam value of being invisible to begin with. No number of children—or adults, for that matter—pointing out that “there is nothing there!” would have any effect at all, as, indeed, it hasn’t. The tailors, who merely wanted gold, would have run off and spent their ill-gotten gains on the usual wine, women, and song, and the Kingdom’s people could have gone back to their daily lives embarrassed, a little wiser, and no worse off. But Obama and Gore are after power as well as riches, and I seriously believe that Obama’s unspoken plans and Gore’s unspoken intentions would both leave people a great deal worse off. That’s why their plans and intentions are, and will remain, unspoken. That’s why they rely on the unseen and un-see-able in their current campaigns for the nomination and for Global Warming. And I am equally certain that there could be no actual Obama/Gore ticket. They would both insist on top billing, and that’s not the way it works in elections. Be glad. Trackposted to Rosemary's Thoughts, Woman Honor Thyself, Right Truth, DragonLady's World, The Pink Flamingo, Big Dog's Weblog, Gulf Coast Hurricane Tracker, Right Voices, and Stageleft, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.]]> http://www.afewshinypebbles.com/2008/03/the_unseeable.html http://www.afewshinypebbles.com/2008/03/the_unseeable.html Skipping Stone Al Gore fairy Tales Hans Christian Andersen Obama The Emperor's New colothes Mon, 03 Mar 2008 07:40:31 -0800 You Must Assimilate Dennis Prager, the radio talk show host, but he said something this morning that I disagree with, and I think it’s an important issue. This morning Prager was discussing the story out of Colorado about the little boy who has decided he is really a little girl. Of course the school system is going out of its way to accommodate the child. World Net Daily reports:
An 8-year-old boy is preparing to return to his home school district in Colorado as a girl, so school officials are designating two school restrooms as unisex facilities, and preparing to counsel other students on the issue of transgenderism. [...] [… according to] the television station the school is handing out packets of information to other students and their parents containing "information" about transgender people, and officials will answer questions from other students about the boy-seeking-to-be-girl "in order to protect the child as much as possible."
Prager rightly argued that the Colorado people were making a mistake in allowing the circumstances of a single child to cause a whole system to change. (This is not to mention the whole issue of transgenderism, and how young the children are, and the rights of their parents.) Prager said that the Left is acting again as though a single individual is everything, and the needs of a large number of other children don’t matter to them. I admit, it looks like that at first. Just as when one person finds offense in the existence of a Christmas Tree or a Christmas play at school, or when an openly atheist boy wants to join the Boy Scouts, the whole system is supposed to allow the offended or “different” single individual to change the already existent circumstances. But if Prager thought more about it, he might realize that it actually has nothing to do with individuals or forcing a system to accommodate a single person’s difference. The Left are Collectivists. Their focus is on groups, on Identity Politics, on “authenticity” in adhering to an approved group attitude and group beliefs. So what’s happening, to make it look to Prager like an individual is messing up a whole system? This is one of the most important issues we can deal with in America. What is actually happening is two different actions which have combined to change the way the Constitution was supposed to rule America, and thereby injuring the country. The first issue can be found in The Federalist Papers, which is a collection of brilliant articles written in 1787-1788 to convince people to ratify the newly written Constitution of the United States of America. Federalist #10, written by James Madison, began with the words, “Among the numerous advantages promised by a well-constructed Union, none deserves to be more accurately developed than its tendency to break and control the violence of faction.” He goes on to define a “faction” as a minority or majority group of citizens who advocate beliefs or actions that are adverse to the rights of others or the interests of the whole community. He states that in the outcome of this conflict,
. . . the public good is disregarded in the conflicts of rival parties, and that measures are too often decided, not according to the rules of justice and the rights of the minor party, but by the superior force of an interested and overbearing majority.
And here is the important, the vastly important, issue. How do we cure this problem? Madison points out that there are two methods of taking the danger out of a faction: (1) “by removing the causes”, and (2) “by controlling its effects”. He looks at method #1: How do we remove the causes? There are only two ways, the first is to destroy liberty by force, and the second is to give “to every citizen the same opinions, the same passions, and the same interests”. But it would be wrong to destroy freedom, and as long as there are human beings, there will be differences of opinion, different interests. So, he concludes, [emphasis mine]: “The regulation of these various and interfering interests forms the principal task of modern legislation, and involves the spirit of party and faction in the necessary and ordinary operations of the government. Hence [emphasis mine]:
The inference to which we are brought is, that the CAUSES of faction cannot be removed, and that relief is only to be sought in the means of controlling its EFFECTS. [….]
Madison writes that in the American Constitutional system, whereby different States come together in a Federal whole, under a Constitution of individual rights, allows factions to be handled by local or state action, and keeps the fights from becoming national conflagrations of hatred. (We have usually been pretty good about this, with areas considered to be “the Bible Belt”, or “the Southwest”, or Nevada allowing a form of licentiousness that Utah forbids, etc.) Madison and the other writers were hoping to ratify the U. S. Constitution by convincing people that it would guarantee our rights and the check-and-balance form of Federalism. But something has gone very wrong now. The Supreme Court, which is supposed to rule based on the Constitution, has been used by Leftist and Liberal activist Justices, to “rewrite” the Constitution, to find things in it that are not explicitly stated, to go against it in many ways (such as McCain-Feingold limits on political speech), and to interpret it by considering modern and postmodern views and the way that international governments and peoples interpret their own laws, which are apt to be Collectivist, and not for the Individual. So, what is going on with those who insist that the individual boy forces the school system to make accommodations and instruct children in subjects that are not the provenance of the school system? If you consider that an individual person who wants a Christmas tree in the local townhall can’t get what he wants, you can see that it isn’t a matter of an individual against the system. In so many cases, such as in Colorado, it is actually that an “individual” who represents a Politically Correct, Politically Acceptable viewpoint, can thus force the non-Politically Correct, non-Politically Acceptable individual parents and other individual students to obey the Liberal, Leftist Collective mandate. It is each parent and each other student who is the individual here. It is the “transgender” student who becomes the PC Group, as a modular representative of that Group. James Madison knew well that sort of danger. In Federalist #10, he wrote:
Theoretic politicians, who have patronized [the utopian, collective] species of government, have erroneously supposed that by reducing mankind to a perfect equality in their political rights, they would, at the same time, be perfectly equalized and assimilated in their possessions, their opinions, and their passions.
Mr. Prager, what is really happening in that Colorado school, or with Christmas, or with the Boy Scouts, etc., is like what Federalist #10 says about factions: you either cope with it (as a strict constructionist) or you forcibly change everything about the rest of the people. In the Colorado, etc., way the “individual” that has a proper group difference (PC) brings the faction into the Norm, but with those individuals outside that group, the improper individual (non-PC), each individual is forced to change to the PC strictures. What is happening in Colorado is that the Collective that the little boy represents is assimilating all the other individuals into its mandates. It is Collective, not individual, justice. This is why we need to be so careful about nominating and confirming Conservative, strict-constructionist justices. Trackposted to Outside the Beltway, Rosemary's Thoughts, third world county, The World According to Carl, Shadowscope, The Pink Flamingo, Leaning Straight Up, Cao's Blog, Big Dog's Weblog, Wolf Pangloss, Pursuing Holiness, and The Yankee Sailor, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe. ]]> http://www.afewshinypebbles.com/2008/02/you_must_assimilate.html http://www.afewshinypebbles.com/2008/02/you_must_assimilate.html Culture War Battlefields Collectivists Colorado Conservatives Dennis Prager Federalist #10 Identity Politics James Madison McCain-Feingold the Constitution the Federalist Papers the Left Transgenderism World Net Daily Wed, 13 Feb 2008 19:18:42 -0800 No Wobbling Here Unconventional Wisdom, a new clarity about what is going on around us and what to do about it. Together, we of the Right have to carefully go through the process of determining just exactly what it is that Conservatives, and that Republicans, believe, and show clearly how it differs from that of our opponents on the Left. We have to produce arguments and questions, answers and solutions, and put them out to be judged and polished by the abrasions of free speech. We need to show that they are superior to the explanations that have come out so far, and, most importantly, we need to know why they are the best ones. This is among the great missions of the Internet, and its time has come. Part of this task is to actively work toward filling the Senate and the House with Conservative majorities. Part of it is to actively support Conservative ideas and oppose those of the Left. Read Michelle Malkin’s “Quo Vadis, Conservatives”, at the National Review site, rev up your engines, and go to it! Let’s horrify the Democrats when they wake up on November 5th. We need to show that we will act in large numbers to fight for the issues we believe in—just as we fought during the discussions of the problems of illegal immigration. Let’s assume that leaders of honor might demonstrate their superior understanding and love for America by following what are found to be the demonstrably best solutions to America’s problems as advocated by an active, dynamic Conservative movement in the country and in the chambers of the Senate and the House. We won’t be in lock-step. Just as we were individuals with many points of view during the Illegal Immigration debate, we will have various approaches to problems; but we will address all issues in dynamic ways, in a serious discussion in the Marketplace of Ideas, building practical solutions that can bring about a significant, measurable change for the better. Now, Barack Obama speaks about ending the divide between people on the opposite sides of the political fence. Moderates and independents often agree that this is essential, that there needs to be middle-ground solutions. The problem is that when it comes to the Left and Right, the solutions that will be offered are often of the sort: “Do we build an ice hockey stadium or an Olympic swimming-and-diving center?” With this kind of choice, there is no middle-ground possible. You have to make a decision, and once you start setting-up the structure and installing the equipment, those actions move you increasingly away from the choice not taken. What is needed in all too many cases is far from an impossible bipartisanship. The Left and the Right usually offer quite differing solutions to the same problem. We need to highlight the differences and their consequences. For instance, the Right defends the Boy Scouts, who have strict rules about an open belief in God. The Left demands that the Boy Scouts tolerate an open disbelief in God. What is possible as a middle-ground? Nothing. These are the kinds of issues that are raised, for instance, with the appointments of Justices to the Supreme Court. Once a judicial approach toward law enters by being held by a new member, that approach will be there for as much as thirty or more years. The structure that we build with confirmed nominees matters. There are immediate direct and future consequences. And not the least for the Boy Scouts. Most of our solutions will set up institutions, regulations, protocols and policies. The bureaucracies formed will set up personnel and infrastructural and superstructural imperatives, and they bring with them differing futures. Actions have consequences, and official actions carry especially long-lived consequences. The most important single thing we need is clarity. And that means detailed explorations of issues and real-life, successful examples. While the campaigns are ongoing, we need to do the serious work to flesh-out our beliefs. We need to know what we believe in and why, and how to demonstrate our beliefs. We need to seek out candidates at all levels and issues in all arenas that will further our Conservative beliefs. We need to know who we are, what we are, and what we want. And we need to get up and get out and get it.]]> http://www.afewshinypebbles.com/2008/02/no_wobbling_here.html http://www.afewshinypebbles.com/2008/02/no_wobbling_here.html Headquarters Barack Obama Bipartisanship Boy Scouts Conservative Democrat God Left Michelle Malkin National Review Republican Right Sun, 10 Feb 2008 22:40:16 -0800 Wake Up, Conservatives! Daily Kos blog openly tried to encourage Left votes for Romney in Michigan.) New Hampshire: Hillary followers couldn’t let Obama win again, so they stopped their nonsense about voting for Huckabee. Because a voter could just show up and vote in New Hampshire, and an unknown number of voters are bused in from out of state. The Right people who don’t want Huckabee—Iowa scared them—went out for McCain, who seemed to be the one who might beat Huckabee. With the Leftists back in place for Hillary, and with the identity politics demography of New Hampshire, she won. Naturally, it’s shocking that some people apparently lied to pollsters on both sides for various reasons. Nevada: Obama got the nod from the huge Culinary Union. But in Nevada a lot of that union is Hispanic, and Hispanics and Blacks are having more and more of a problem within communities. (See the Note below for an article about this). So some union members didn’t show up, and some showed up and defied their union, and Hillary won. (Yes, I know, it turned out that Obama got more delegates; but his staff thought that with the Culinary Union it would be a big win for him, not an actual loss in terms of votes.) So now the war between Obama and the Clintons is joined in full. Meanwhile some on the Right are really worried about beating Hillary, and instead of voting their values and issues—which should be behind votes in a primary or caucus, some voted for someone they thoht might bring in cross-over votes in the election. But a lot of the cross-over primary and caucus voting was, and will be, trouble-makers on the Left who won’t cross-over in November. The Main Stream Media press makes it look like McCain can get the most votes by getting cross-overs, so the problem is going to get worse, with votes going to McCain that should normally have gone to Guliani, Romney, and Thompson. McCain is now supported by people on the Right who don’t really support him, but who think he’ll beat the Democrat. Meanwhile, the Left is tearing itself apart, and may end up with a lot of animosity that sits it out from those who don’t get their side, Obama or Hillary, in the nomination. Where the Right could actually have chosen someone more Conservative than McCain and still won in the election, it will be stuck with McCain out of fear for something that didn’t eventually materialize. Meanwhile, the MSM press is busy making everything economic and ignoring the big issue of the War, and is busy telling everyone that McCain will get the cross-over vote. It is trying to deal with the situation between Hillary and Obama. Having had to ignore and swallow so much that was negative about the Clintons, some in the press are turning on them viciously. Race and gender Politics are coming back to eat their children. More, voter fraud, a skill the Democrats have honed over the years, is being used within the party competition. Naturally, they are all shocked about this. The Democratic Convention will determine its candidate before the Republican Convention meets, and we Conservatives might do best to go to a brokered convention knowing the other side’s candidate and the state of the over-all situation, in early September, than to decide too soon on a candidate that is extremely problematic. It will be necessary to vote for the Republican nominee in November, but there is a lot we can do before we name him. There is simply too much at stake in this. The next president will probably have two or three Supreme Court Justices to name. We need to keep FBI files out of the hands of the Left, who have no limits in their hunger for power. Moreover, the Left will make government appointments throughout the system. (Remember how one of Bill Clinton’s first acts as President in 1993 was to fire all but one of the US Attorneys in the whole country on the same day?) New appointees will develop policy, rules, and regulations that we all will have to live by. We need to act as though nominating our candidate is an important project, not a test of our commitment to the purity of our beliefs. *NOTE: See Steven Malanga: The Rainbow Coalition Evaporates: Black anger grows as illegal immigrants transform urban neighborhoods, City Journal Winter 2008. Excerpt:
[…] “Massive illegal immigration has been devastating to my community,” [Terry] Anderson, [KRLA-AM black radio talk show host], a former auto mechanic and longtime South Central Los Angeles resident, tells listeners. “Black Americans are hit the hardest.” […] [A]s new waves of immigration inundate historically African-American neighborhoods, black opinion is hardening against the influx. “We will not lay down and take this any longer,” says Anderson. If he’s right, it could upend the political calculus on immigration.
Trackposted to Outside the Beltway, Rosemary's Thoughts, Right Truth, The World According to Carl, The Pet Haven Blog, Pirate's Cove, CORSARI D'ITALIA, Dumb Ox Daily News, Conservative Cat, and Adeline and Hazel, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.]]> http://www.afewshinypebbles.com/2008/01/wake_up_conservatives.html http://www.afewshinypebbles.com/2008/01/wake_up_conservatives.html Headquarters Caucuses Culinary Union Guliani Hillary Huckabee McCain Obama Primaries Romney The Daily Kos Thompson Thu, 24 Jan 2008 13:14:20 -0800