More on Alternative Power

I wrote a few weeks ago on Texas oilman T. Boone Pickens' bold plan to make the United States independent of foreign oil via wind power. On Sunday, Dr. Robert Zubrin of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies wrote a response to Pickens on Pajamas Media.

While Dr. Zubrin gave credit to Pickens for at least trying to develop alternative energy sources, he states that pickens' plan of using wind power to free up compressed natural gas for automobile power is not a long-term solution to the American energy crisis. Writes Dr. Zubrin,

So hats off to Mr. Pickens. That said, the plan he is advancing for dealing with the crisis — build windmills to release natural gas from electricity generation so it can be used to power compressed natural gas (CNG)-driven cars, displacing gasoline in the process — is technically flawed and needs to be revised.

According to Dr. Zubrin, the United States cannot replace the energy currently provided by natural gas unless wind power somehow can generate at least thirty times what it currently provides. This is extremely unlikely, as wind power is notoriously fickle and is entirely dependent on weather conditions to function at all. In addition, Dr. Zubrin states that at the united States' current rate of natural gas usage, there is approximately ten years' worth of supply. Thus it is not a reliable long-term solution.

Instead of natural gas and wind power, Dr. Zubrin recommends forcing automobile manufacturers to make all future vehicles flex-fuel capable. As Dr. Zubrin explains,

The key is for Congress to pass a bill, such as the current Open Fuel Standards Act (S.3303, HR.6559) requiring that all new cars sold in the U.S. be fully flex-fueled — that is, capable of running equally well on gasoline, ethanol, and methanol. Such technology is currently available and only adds about $100 to the cost of a car (in contrast to CNG capability, which adds about $2,000). The reason why establishing a full flex-fuel standard is the answer is that methanol — a very safe and practical liquid vehicle fuel — can be made from a vast array of feedstocks, including not only natural gas, but also coal, recycled urban trash, and any kind of biomass without exception.

Thus making automobiles flex-fuel capable would free Americans (and the rest of the world as well, as an American requirement for flex-fuel would probably carry over to the rest of the world) from having to rely on any single power source. Flex-fuel means that cars could be powered by methanol, gasoline and ethanol. This is especially important since methanol can be made from a variety of sources, including refuse. And Dr. Zubrin says that the United States has enough source material to last for centuries. He concludes,

By creating such a true free open-source fuel market, we can make it possible for every nation to contribute to the world’s fuel supply, breaking the monopoly power of the oil cartel, everywhere and forever.

This last is the money quote. Why are we paying countries that are dedicated to our eventual destruction? By cutting off the supply of oil money, we can reduce the Middle East to the position of irrevelevance it richly deserves. And we can finally free ourselves from energy dependence. I am not certain that this alone will work- I would recommend nuclear power plants to generate most of our domestic, non-transportation energy as well, but this is certainly a start. And anything that reduces the amount of money we pay to the unstable oil producing countries is a benefit. Faster, please.....

Hat tip to Glenn Reynolds.

China's Moment of Glory

China is currently putting on the world's largest propaganda show over in Beijing, following in the footsteps of the Nazi Party's 1936 Olympics, and the many Soviet-era productions. Most, if not all, of the world's media and glitterati are convinced that this is China's coming-out party, that China will soon overtake the United States in all the important categories of world dominance. And, since China is an authoritarian, one-party state built on government oppression of its people, these same glitterati are falling all over them selves to become China's friends.

But how realistic is the assumption of China's someday dominance? According to former Beijing bureau chief John Pomfret, the answer is not very. Pomfret penned an opinion piece in the Washington Post on Sunday that itemized some of his doubts about China as a long-term colossus. Writes Pomfret in his introductory paragraph,

Nikita Khrushchev said the Soviet Union would bury us, but these days, everybody seems to think that China is the one wielding the shovel. The People's Republic is on the march -- economically, militarily, even ideologically. Economists expect its GDP to surpass America's by 2025; its submarine fleet is reportedly growing five times faster than Washington's; even its capitalist authoritarianism is called a real alternative to the West's liberal democracy. China, the drumbeat goes, is poised to become the 800-pound gorilla of the international system, ready to dominate the 21st century the way the United States dominated the 20th.

Except that it's not.

Pomfret lists some of the many areas in which China, far from dominating, is in fact far behind the West. These include demographics, the vaunted economy, the horrendous state of the environment and most of all the rigid government. Pomfret says that far from dominating the 21st century he way the United States dominated much of the Twentieth Century, China has some significant hurdles to overcome before it can really be considered a superpower. And the largest of these hurdles lies in China's inability to produce inventiveness- a problem that the United States does not have. Pomfret uses the recent release of 'Kung Fu Panda' to illustrate this issue. His money quote can be found in the conclusion of his opinion piece, where he writes,

But consider the case of the high-kicking panda who uses ancient Chinese teachings to turn himself into a kung fu warrior. That recent Hollywood smash broke Chinese box-office records -- and caused no end of hand-wringing among the country's glitterati. "The film's protagonist is China's national treasure, and all the elements are Chinese, but why didn't we make such a film?" Wu Jiang, president of the China National Peking Opera Company, told the official New China News Agency.

The content may be Chinese, but the irreverence and creativity of "Kung Fu Panda" are 100 percent American. That highlights another weakness in the argument about China's inevitable rise: The place remains an authoritarian state run by a party that limits the free flow of information, stifles ingenuity and doesn't understand how to self-correct. Blockbusters don't grow out of the barrel of a gun. Neither do superpowers in the age of globalization.

To me, this is very familiar. Remember the myth of Japanese superiority that was peddled by so many in the 1980s and 1990s? Remember how the United States was told ad infinitum in the pages of the Press that we must adopt Japanese methods in order to survive? This is not to say that there are certain aspects of Japanese business that could be leveraged by U.S. business. But Japan has been mired in recession (at least partly due to the incestuous relationship between government and business) for some time. Only recently has Japan been showing signs of recovering from the decade-long slowdown. I don't see too many articles in the papers these days on the superiority of Japanese business techniques. Instead, the Press is convinced that China is the new model we ought to emulate.

However, as Pomfret clearly shows, China has a long way to go before they really ought to be considered as a true equal to the United States. Militarily, they are certainly a country that bears close scrutiny, but economically, environmentally and demographically, China has some huge issues. And that is without even discussing the problems that the many differing ethnic and religious groups in China bring to the table.

So, I would certainly keep an eye on China- they are large, belligerent and convinced of their own superiority (let us not forget that China's name, in their own language translates to the Middle Kingdom- ie. the center of the world). But I would caution the Press, our politicians and our business class to remember that China, as every other country, has flaws and problems. Just because they are currently pulling out all the stops to convince the world they are Number One, does not mean that the reality matches the illusion. Until China has reached the stage where they remove the guns from the backs of their own citizens, I would count China as no more of a superpower than the old Soviet Union was. Communist regimes are all about promoting the style to naive reporters while hiding the grim substance of everyday life. And these Olympics, regardless of China's final medal count, are simply more of the same.

Hat tip to the crew over at Power Line.

Burma and Aid

I have written previously on this blog about the United States' glowing record of humanitarian assistance in disasters, regardless of the country in which the disaster occurs. However, according to the USA Today, Burma (currently known as Myanmar) is refusing US military assistance. Their excuse? According to USA Today,

Burma's state-controlled media said that U.S. helicopters or naval ships were not welcome to join the relief effort.

The New Light of Myanmar newspaper said accepting military assistance "comes with strings attached" that are "not acceptable to the people of Myanmar."

The report cited fears of an American invasion aimed at grabbing the country's oil reserves.

An American invasion? Really? Somehow I doubt that the UNited States has any interest in Burma, other than the natural humanitarian interest in seeing Burma's people released from the tyranny of the junta's heavy-handed and disastrous policies. Captain Ed Morrissey chimes in with a brilliant demolition of the junta's claims, writing today at Hot Air,

The junta fears a collapse of its credibility more than anything else. If they are seen as so weak that the US has to step in and rescue the Burmese from the incompetence of the military dictatorship, then they risk a popular uprising when the country recovers. The junta already put down one round of demonstrations in the streets a few months ago, and now the people of Burma have even more motivation to put the dictators up against the wall.

I agree. Burma is certainly not a high priority on the United States' list of THings To Do, and I seriously doubt whether any US President would commit resources to overthrow the government in Burma. If any President did so, it would be due to a credible threat from Burma- a threat I simply do not see. But refusing to allow US military assistance into the country is simply ridiculous- especially on the heels of the US Navy's assistance in Bangladesh in 2007.

If Burma wishes to let their people die rather than allow the United States military to help, then I agree with Captain Ed's analysis- they may end up convincing their people that a change in government is better than allowing the incompetent and xenophobic 'leadership' currently in power to let the people die.

More Obama Naivete

Barack Obama has displayed his lack of qualifications for the Presidency throughout the campaign, whether by suggesting that the United States should talk to our enemies without conditions or whether by adopting the mantra that the United States is the problem.

Today the AFP has a story that demonstrates how frighteningly naive Obama really is. According to the story, Obama is quoted as saying,

"We can't drive our SUVs and eat as much as we want and keep our homes on 72 degrees at all times ... and then just expect that other countries are going to say OK," Obama said.

"That's not leadership. That's not going to happen," he added.

That may not be leadership, but then the Constitution doesn't require other nations' permission for what we as a nation do either, Mr. Obama. Talking with one's allies is indeed important. But it sounds to me as though Obama believes that we should give other countries- including those that are decidedly against our beliefs- veto power over what we as a nation do.

And why should we give other nations veto power over what (and how much) we eat? Why should other nations have any role in deciding what kind of vehicles we drive? If we believe in personal responsibility, yes, we should keep things like gas mileage in mind, but again, that is our responsibility, and nowhere in the Constitution does it give other nations or institutions any role in our domestic decision-making process. I would recommend to Mr. Obama that he might want to study the Constitution a little closer, since he seems to be unfamiliar with some of its content.

Obama has also been justly criticized on his view of relations with America's enemies. On the topic of states such as North Korea and Iran- neither of whom have the United States' best interests at heart- the story states,

Reviving Friday's furious row sparked by President George W. Bush's suggestion that Democrats wanted to appease terrorists, Obama said that not talking to North Korea and Iran had only made those states stronger.

"I want everybody to be absolutely clear about this because George Bush and McCain have suggested that me being willing to sit down with our adversaries is a sign of weakness and sign of appeasement," he said.

There are at least two major problems with this. First, President Bush did not name any Democrat in his speech celebrating Israel's anniversary. Nor did he suggest that Democrats are appeasers, at least not according to my analysis. The fact that the Democratic Party and much of the American media does seem to want to appease our Islamic and Communist enemies is their problem, but Bush himself did not actually suggest that at all.

The second problem is that Obama once again clearly marked himself as a would-be appeaser. He said that not talking to states like North Korea and Iran had "made them stronger". Really? I would disagree. In fact, the Six-Party talks, led by the United States, have had an effect on North Korea- they have not in fact become stronger- they have only isolated themselves further, and the Bush Administration's actions in shutting down Pyongyang's massive counterfeiting operations have hurt their ability to raise hard cash. So how has that made them stronger?

As for Iran, the only reason they have become stronger is that the United Nations is a toothless, corrupt body that cannot or will not take action against aggressor states- they prefer to spend their time passing resolutions criticizing Israel and the United States, while begging the U.S. to give them more money. And as a corollary, many European states are so busy selling Iran equipment that they do not want Iran's pursuit of nuclear weapons stopped. Precisely what would Obama do differently from the Bush Administration, other than talk? How does that prevent Iran from achieving nuclear weapons?

If the Press would critically analyze the statements that Obama is actually making, perhaps the American people would realize just how naive this one-term Senator really is. And how dangerous his opinions are to the United States. Any candidate who would willingly hand over veto power over domestic decisions to foreign countries, who would engage in discussion without conditions with America's enemies and who has a history of corrupt party politics as Obama does is someone who has no business being President of the United States. And the media, if he does win, will bear a great deal of responsibility for falling down on the job and refusing to present an accurate picture of just who Barack Obama really is.

Thanking the United States

The United States is the country much of the world loves to hate. Whether it is socialist disgust that the US prefers not to hand over it's assets to a decidedly anti-American U.N, or Chinese anger that those Americans actually seem determined to allow Taiwan to remain independent of the imperialist Communist crusade, or European elitists' despair of persuading Americans that is is better to be dhimmis than stand up for one's beliefs and culture, there is a plethora of anti-American opinion in the world. Almost every American venture, whether it is the occupation of Iraq or the U.S.'s peculiar insistence that it, like all other countries, has the right to control its own borders, meets with a shower of international criticism.

It is interesting, then that despite all of this international criticism, the United States is consistently the first and best responder to disasters in nations other than their own- a reaction which is curiously not mirrored by any other nation toward the United States. And even when the United States engages in these operations that clearly bring it no material benefit, such as the disaster relief it so often spearheads, these critics cannot bring themselves to acknowledge the generosity of the United States.

However, in today's online edition of The Australian, columnist Janet Albrechtsen makes a brave attempt to make amends. She writes that,

THERE is a certain familiarity to the concomitant series of actions and reactions when disaster strikes in the world. The US stands ready, willing and able to offer assistance. It is often the first country to send in millions of dollars, navy strike groups loaded with food and medical supplies, and transport planes, helicopters and floating hospitals to help those devastated by natural disaster.

Then, just as swift and with equal predictability, those wedded to the Great Satan view of the US begin to carp, drawing on a potent mixture of cynicism and conspiracy theories to criticise the last remaining superpower. When the US keeps doing so much of the heavy lifting to alleviate suffering, you'd figure that the anti-Americans might eventually revise their view of the US. But they never do. And coming under constant attack even when helping others, you'd figure that Americans would eventually draw the curtains on world crises. But they haven't. At least not yet.

So it was last week. The US stood ready to help the cyclone-ravaged Burmese people. It did not matter that Burma's ruling junta was no friend of the Americans. With more than 100,000 people feared dead and many more hundreds of thousands left destitute, US Air Force cargo planes loaded with supplies and personnel started arriving in nearby Thailand to begin humanitarian operations in Burma.

A US Navy strike group in the Gulf of Thailand sent helicopters ashore, ready to arrive in Burma within hours. Alas, Burma's military leaders left their people to die for 10 days before finally accepting help from the evil empire. Even if the Yanks are allowed to boost their assistance to Burma, they can expect a groundswell of criticism.

There is a sad truth to this, but it is refreshing to note that at least some people realize how misplaced this criticism is. If China or Russia, or the European Union, would actually take on some of the heavy lifting involved in these efforts, I doubt that Americans would stop. But it would certainly be welcome.

Albrechtsen goes on to clearly recognize the emotions at the root of much of the criticism- people simply don't like to realize how dependent they are on the US when a true disaster strikes. She writes,

The resentment that comes from needing the military and economic might of the US translated into the most absurd criticism. Jan Egeland, the former UN boss of humanitarian affairs, cavilled about the stinginess of certain Western nations. His eye was on the US. Former British minister Claire Short was equally miffed, describing the initiative by the US and other countries as "yet another attempt to undermine the UN", which was, according to her, the "only body that has the moral authority" to help.

I love moral authority as much as the next guy, but the UN's moral authority is a mighty hard sell given that the UN club includes the most odious regimes in the world, such as Burma. And notice how the UN's moral authority did not quickly translate into helicopters laden with food and water?

When the UN finally does anything of use, it's propelled in large part by US dollars, with the US contributing more than any other country. Those other giants, China and Russia, are not filling the coffers of the UN's moral authority.

In turth, states like the members of the EU are far too weak militarily to be able to project their formidable economic muscle and translate it into action. States such as China and Russia are too busy lining their own coffers, and third world states (which include the oil-rich states of the Middle East) mostly lack the technological know-how, as well as not being known for contributing to infidels. That leaves the United States, and the rest of the world hates being reminded that it is the US, not the UN, that holds the real power, and whose resources are so vital to the UN's many desires. This of course is why the UN is trying so hard to bind the US into treaties that would give the UN access to the US's resources without having to go through that annoying medium of the American people and their elected representatives. What is stunning is how many Americans, particularly Democrats, seem to think that handing over sovereignty to the UN is a good idea!

But I wonder why it took an Australian newspaper to recognize and print this patent truth. Where were the US media? Or does printing stories complimentary to the United States not fit their template as long as a Republican President occupies the White House? In either case, I wish to thank Ms. Albrechtsen, both for her clarity of thought, and her willingness to write it at a time when much of the world's media are busy doing their best to diminish the United States, not compliment her.

Some Questions...

Courtesy of my friend Mentok, I am posting the following questions, for discussion together with my take:

Q: What do you think of treating the terrorists by the platinum rule? Meaning, if they're giving us hell, giving them hell via lard dipped bullets, etc.
A: I think this is an excellent idea. My only concern is that we are already winning both the military and the propaganda war in Iraq, and this might push us backward if we hit the wrong folks at all. And that might happen- mistakes do happen in wartime, as we all know. We already know the enemy in Iraq are losing- only the American MSM has apparently not yet read (or more accurately won't report on) the most recently translated al-Quaeda letter, which clearly shows their lack of strength. However, it would be so nice to pay them back in their own coin. And what the h*ll are these idiots at Guantanamo Bay doing still with their Korans? Do any Americans in Iraq get bibles? Or any other Muslim country? Take away those damn Korans. These are terrorists, not POWs!

Q: What do you think of Stephen Colbert and his *ssraping of the US Press Corp on CSPAN?
A: Not having seen Colbert's little "comedy routine" I have no opinion to offer. Mentok says that "not only did he rake President Bush over the coals, he also managed to make a laughingstock of the US MSM." Well, since the MSM already ARE a laughingstock for their blatant bias, their determination to not report the truth and their equal determination to ruin this country, that wouldn't be difficult. However, I will take Mentok at his word. For anyone interested in viewing the routine, Google (yes the hypocritical ChiCom censor enabler for those keeping score at home) has the complete video feed here.

Q: Should the US media be entitled to protection from the United States military?
A: Not anyone from CNN, NBC, CBS, or the New York Times, no. Seriously, if the US MSM insists that they are above being patriotic and that they do not have to support their own country, then why the heck should our soldiers have to risk their lives protecting these useless traitors? The MSM is apparently on very good terms with the enemy- let THEM be responsible for protecting these so-called reporters who only report what they want, not what is true. And if a reporter is traveling with a terrorist group, he/she should be a legitimate target. They certainly would not lift a finger to protect the soldier if they had knowledge of an attack, so why should the soldier lift a finger to protect the reporter? Only if the reporter is embedded and has agreed to follow the military's terms (and that includes reporting both the good and the bad news) should a reporter be entitled to military protection.

Q: Should we repeal the 'Baby Anchor' law?
A: Absolutely. Even though it will require a Constitutional amendment. There is no reason why just being born in the United States should make anyone a citizen- especially not with illegals slipping across the border just to have their babies in US hospitals- which by government fiat cannot ask if they are even citizens! The upshot is that we have just increased our own tax burden with yet another illegal family. Get rid of the baby anchor law and also remove the requirement that healthcare has to available to illegals. If you are not a citizen or legal resident, you should not be entitled to free healthcare. I am a citizen and I don't have it. Why should illegal aliens have benefits that citizens do not?

Q: What to do about Iran?
A: Well, we may not have a choice much longer. I say we give the UN till the end of the year, then start telling Tehran that our forces in Iraq will be moving in unless they unconditionally disarm. And that means a full apology and compensation for 1979 as well. Otherwise, we will remove the mullahs militarily. And let the Iranian people decide who will rule them next. Just like Iraq. And since Iran is the main financier of the "insurrection" in Iraq, there won't be anything a fifth element in Iran since most of the people are much more pro-American that are any other population in the area. Delay is fatal. Remember 1939. Hitler could have been stopped in 1938, but France and Britain did nothing and ended up fighting a six-year war. Can we afford to do that again? Can we afford a nuclear-armed Iran?

Q: What to do about North Korea?
A: Give nuclear weapons to Taiwan, Japan and South Korea. Well, maybe not South Korea. They are a little bit too ungrateful already for my taste. But Japan and Taiwan? Absolutely. The last thing China wants to see is a nuclear-armed Taiwan. And that will make China think twice about whether having North Korea as a client is worth the consequences. Since China will not be helpful, why should we enable their little dreams of power?

Post what you think in the Comments section. As usual, any profanity will be removed. Be polite, be courteous, behave.

Credit for questions 1 and 2 to Mentok.

War and the American Left

The Left's view of the war on Iraq continues to confound me. Apart from the exceptionally clear-eyed Christopher Hitchens and a few others, the Left is simply in denial as to the nature of this conflict upon which we are currently engaged. Radioblogger has a wonderful exchange between Ron Reagan Jr and the afore-mentioned Mr. Hitchens. The execrable term "bitch-slap" defintely applies here, as Mr. Hitchens takes Ronnie to the proverbial woodshed for his lack of understanding and historical perspective.

However, the exchange proves little other than that most leftists are incapable of putting aside their fervent and damaging partisanship long enough to confront the threat that this country and indeed our civilization, face from the Islamists. I would provide a point of reference, however. In 1996, then-President Clinton launched missile strikes against Iraqi targets (as documented at the time by CNN) to punish Iraq for attacking the so-called Kurdish safe areas. The Republican response, voiced by then-Senate Majority Leader Robert Dole, was praise for Clinton's action and a recommendation of even stronger military action. There was no chant comparable to the oft-repeated "Bush lied, people died" from the conservatives. The same was true in Somalia and even in Kosovo. Conservatives wondered how these operations advanced U.S. interests, and there were rumblings of worry regarding the percieved wasting of valuable resources on non-strategic objectives, but by and large the Right supported the actions, despite their misgivings. The same spirit is evidently not true of the Left- unless it is in power at the time.

Compare the differing reactions from the media on Clinton Administration warnings of Iraqi danger as opposed to how the same media organs reacted to Bush's essentially restating the same facts less that three years later. If the charges were true in 1998 when advanced by a Madeleine Albright, why were they less true in 2002 or 2003 when advanced by Donald Rumsfeld or Colin Powell? It seems to me that the answer is that it was a despised Republican making the arguments, not a beloved Democrat.

I would wish that the left today would show the patriotism that their forbears showed in Korea, World War II and even in Vietnam. However, I fear that the days of the Democratic Party as one of loyal opposition may be gone forever.