I wanted to write an article earlier about the oily disaster that’s plaguing the Gulf of Mexico and the surrounding coastal states, but I had a hard time finding something to say that hasn’t already been covered by every news anchor and political pundit in America. The United States’ worst environmental disaster continues to surprise me as to how much worse it can actually get: just when you think nothing more can go wrong, it does.
For those people hibernating in bear caves, I’m talking about the explosion at the Deepwater Horizon oil drilling rig in the Gulf of Mexico which led to the destruction and eventual sinking of the entire rig itself. Eleven people are presumed to have died in the explosion, which was caused by a buildup of methane gas. This event wouldn’t nearly be as bad of a problem if the blowout preventers, which are located miles below the ocean surface and which had a leaky hydraulic system and failed batteries, actually worked. Instead, oil has been flowing (gushing, pouring, spilling, etc.) into the Gulf. More than seven million (7,000,000) barrels of oil have poisoned the Gulf’s waters and its ecosystem. To put that in perspective for those not familiar with oil barrels, that’s approximately 298 million (298,000,000) gallons of oil. Line up 298 million milk jugs filled with crude. Tens of thousands of barrels (between 1 and 3 million gallons) of oil are venting into the Gulf each passing day. Get the picture? “Disaster” is not a hyperbolic word choice.
The depth of the leaking pipes makes them extremely difficult to fix, cap, or seal. Attempts to use underwater robots have been plagued with failure: first when the robots couldn’t manually trip the blowout preventers, and most recently when a robot which was attempting to cap a pipe actually knocked a piece loose, causing even more oil to spill out. Fail much?
The oil spill has destroyed the livelihoods of thousands of Gulf residents who rely on the ocean for their bread and butter, and has hurt tourism for Gulf states, whose beaches are usually crammed with people enjoying the summer. Now, with tar balls, oil sheens, and dead animals washing up on shore, no one’s looking for fun in the sun.
I’ll save you all the details of British Petroleum’s response; I’m sure you’ve all heard about it by now, except for the aforementioned cave-dwellers. Suffice to say, their response has been clumsy at least and criminal at worst.
Even more puzzling is the Obama administration’s response. The Coast Guard and other branches of the armed forces have been helping with the cleanup effort, but the administration rejected 70 offers of international assistance from 23 countries, including Iran, of all places. Until a week or so ago, Obama basically responded to all offerings of aid with a “thanks, but no thanks” sort of response. One given explanation was that the Dutch oil-cleaning ships did not clean the water to American standards of cleanliness. Quite frankly, this is no excuse to reject aid when we so clearly need every possible helping hand that is extended our way. It’s really that bad.
Obama finally kowtowed and allowed the Dutch equipment to be used, but still refuses to use Dutch ships or Dutch workers. What on earth is he so afraid of? Any act, law, or provision that’s clogging up the cleanup and relief effort with bureaucratic big-government red tape could surely be suspended, even temporarily, with one of those nifty executive orders that Bush and now Obama seem to be so fond of.
Instead, the Obama administration has busied itself with billing and questioning British Petroleum and its corporate heads, as well as placing a six-month moratorium on offshore drilling, a move that has already cost many jobs on the 33 drilling rigs affected. While one may think that such a moratorium would be prudent, considering the scope of this debacle, such a decision seems to ignore the fact that BP has boatloads more safety and environmental violations than other oil companies. The source of the problem is pretty clear. While this does not necessarily mean that the current disaster is a one-off (to use Janet Napolitano’s favorite counterterrorist term), it does mean that a six-month moratorium on all drilling from the federal government may be unnecessary. On the other hand, if a state such as California decides to nix offshore drilling, that is an entirely appropriate response. Such is a state’s right. Just don’t expect the rig workers to be happy.
Obama’s bipartisan national commission to investigate the incident and all offshore drilling projects is stacked with environmental advocates, which means that they advocate for expanded government power in order to protect the environment. We know you’re trying, Mr. Obama, but you still stacked the deck with people that are going to tell you what you want to hear: that America needs to un-invest in petroleum and embrace clean energy.
The funny thing is that such a sentiment is almost right. America does need to embrace cleaner, more efficient means of producing energy. It is one of the most worthy long-term political goals to which we as Americans can strive to achieve. In the meantime, however, it is paramount that the United States weans itself off of its dependency on foreign oil by tapping what resources we have here on our territory. When we use foreign sources for our petroleum needs, our enemies, ideological or otherwise, usually get paid. Combine that with pollution and this most recent hellish situation in the Gulf, and it is clear as day that the United States must decrease its appetite for oil. We can actually use a two-pronged approach when it comes to renewable energy and utilizing domestic energy sources; it doesn’t have to be one or the other.
So far, though, Obama and his allies have predictably used this crisis to push an agenda which only focuses on that vague notion of renewable energy. The fact is that clean and renewable energy are still in their infant stages of development. Nuclear energy is as efficient and clean as we can currently get, and even that produces some horrible waste products. Solar, hydroelectric, and wind energy are great for powering small units, not large cities and important infrastructure. Fusion energy is but a glimmer over the horizon of time. So when Obama tries to create “green” jobs and somehow pursue a cleaner energy source, he and his administration end up costing taxpayers an awful lot of money for an energy panacea that is not yet ready to be exploited.
We’re not saying that we don’t want cleaner energy, Mr. President. We want you to get that leak plugged in whatever way possible, and we want you to pursue sensible energy policies, not green dreams. Stop the crony-style capitalism that gives favors and breaks to big, wealthy oil companies that shirk their responsibilities and stop cherry-picking industries to attack. This is not the time to pursue an agenda.
June 30, 2010
June 4, 2010
Much Ado About Israel
If you haven’t heard the news about Israel and the Gaza “Freedom Flotilla” by now, then do a quick search for the latter term, and you’ll get a slew of news stories, blogs, and blogs about how news stories are getting the story wrong. There’s a wealth of opinions and perspectives, and I don’t intend to take one side or the other here, mainly because I wasn’t there. I’ll stick to the basics: a large flotilla of ships loaded with aid and supplies was bound for the Gaza strip when it was intercepted by Israeli military forces. Israeli commandos rappelled onboard the ships, and somewhere along the way, non-lethal riot control methods turned into live ammunition, and nine passengers on the ships were dead by the time the flotilla reached Ashdod.
If you dispute any aspects of that short rendition, send me some mail about it, and we’ll chat. I’m eager to hear all sides of any issue. But that’s the bare bones of it, as far as I can tell.
The United Nations quickly scolded Israel for its actions. Turkey called the incident a “bloody massacre” and held memorial services for the slain Turks who were onboard the ships in the flotilla. The United States more or less backed the United Nations’ wrist-slapping. Benjamin Netanyahu declared Israel’s unwavering dedication to national security and reaffirmed its right to self-defense. Public opinion is split along similar lines, particularly in the United States, with one side backing Israel’s right to defend itself, and one side lambasting Israel for brutality, overaggressive action, et cetera.
In actuality, both sides are right. If Israel is to be considered a sovereign nation, they must have the right to defend themselves against any and all aggression within their territory or on their borders. If a nation cannot defend its borders or fight its enemies, then it is not sovereign, and it will not survive. That being said, however, Israel cannot board a flotilla of foreign cargo ships in international waters using commandos and military equipment and shoot nine people without expecting international backlash. Israel does not deserve and cannot receive special treatment than the rest of the world if we’re going to pretend that Woodrow Wilson’s lofty dreams of international cooperation mean anything.
Of course, the international response essentially amounted to finger-wagging. The most crucial diplomatic wound that Israel received was the harsh response from Turkey, mainly because most (if not all) of the dead from the raid were Turks who died on a ship, the Mavi Marmara, which was flying Turkish colors. Turkey is probably Israel’s strongest Muslim ally in the region, and deteriorating relations with Turkey doesn’t help Israel’s strategic or geopolitical situation.
So, did Israel have a right to board the ships and search them for contraband and weapons? Of course. Any nation has a right to do so when a vessel enters their territory. Should Israel have waited until they were out of international waters? Yeah, probably, if not only for political and diplomatic reasons. Were weapons found on the ship? Aside from some blunt objects (such as pipes and bats), knives, and some construction tools, no. No weapons caches or rocket-building equipment were found.
Israel has a right to defend itself, but this is clearly a case of overkill. The Israelis must have expected some resistance when they started rappelling armed commandos onto the decks of the ships, and the activists on the ships must have expected the Israeli soldiers to defend themselves from attack in turn. Both sides were itching for a fight, but in this case, the activists on the flotilla of ships accomplished their goal: they were the underdog the entire time, and their cause was supported by this incident, even though nine of their people were killed.
The situation in Gaza is a dire one, and even the staunchest American supporters of Israel cannot deny that. Since the blockade of the territory by Israel in 2009, aid and supplies have slowed to about one quarter of the aid received before the blockade was put in place. The blockade was meant to put political pressure on Hamas, the ruling political force in Gaza. The blockade also prevents Palestinians in the region from accessing clean water, shelter, medical supplies, and other essentials. Such circumstances breed terrorism and insurgency instead of stopping them. So what is Israel’s endgame in Gaza? As of the writing of this article on June 4th, 2010, another aid ship is on its way to the Gaza Strip, and Israel has already vowed to prevent it from reaching land.
I know it’s taboo for American conservatives to question Israel’s actions, especially among evangelical Christian Americans, who see support for Israel as something more akin to religious piety instead of strategic or political benefit. Our imbalanced support for Israel makes us a lot of enemies in the Middle East; it is one of the main reasons why Osama bin Laden ordered the attack on the United States on 9/11. Instead of reexamining America’s role in the Middle East and our relationship with Israel, however, many Americans doubled their support for the beleaguered Jewish state.
These pro-Israel Americans support an American military strike against Iran to prevent that country from gaining nuclear capabilities, which means that they supported sending other Americans into harm’s way to ensure Israel’s survival. Call me crazy, but I don’t see any political or strategic gain from opening up a third front in the Middle East against one of the largest countries in that region. As an American, I feel that Americans should fight for American interests and security, not that of other nations. And no, Iran is not a military threat to the United States, so don’t even try to stumble down that path of discussion.
Support for an ally such as Israel is one thing; kowtowing to every policy and political stance that pro-Israel lobbying forces such as AIPAC desire is quite another. Many Israeli officials have boasted of how much influence the Israel lobby has on American foreign policy. On another note, Israelis have been caught spying on the United States. Is that something a diehard ally would do? Then there was the sustained attack on the USS Liberty in June of 1967 by the Israeli Air Force and torpedo boats, which killed thirty-four of the American crew and injured over 100. This was the only maritime attack on the United States which was not investigated by the US Congress. And people who question Israel’s influence on American foreign policy are called “conspiracy theorists” and anti-Semitic?
America’s relationship with Israel has drifted in the hazy area between an alliance and a protectorate. If an American wants to become a Congressman or president, he has to pass a litmus test of his support for Israel before he or she is even considered a viable candidate. No such litmus test exists for support for any other ally, such as the United Kingdom, for example. Israel clearly has powerful lobbying forces in Washington that shape our foreign policy and influence domestic policy by essentially screening candidates for political office. It is time for the United States to take a closer look at its relationship with Israel and determine whether or not American and Israeli interests are one and the same.
If you dispute any aspects of that short rendition, send me some mail about it, and we’ll chat. I’m eager to hear all sides of any issue. But that’s the bare bones of it, as far as I can tell.
The United Nations quickly scolded Israel for its actions. Turkey called the incident a “bloody massacre” and held memorial services for the slain Turks who were onboard the ships in the flotilla. The United States more or less backed the United Nations’ wrist-slapping. Benjamin Netanyahu declared Israel’s unwavering dedication to national security and reaffirmed its right to self-defense. Public opinion is split along similar lines, particularly in the United States, with one side backing Israel’s right to defend itself, and one side lambasting Israel for brutality, overaggressive action, et cetera.
In actuality, both sides are right. If Israel is to be considered a sovereign nation, they must have the right to defend themselves against any and all aggression within their territory or on their borders. If a nation cannot defend its borders or fight its enemies, then it is not sovereign, and it will not survive. That being said, however, Israel cannot board a flotilla of foreign cargo ships in international waters using commandos and military equipment and shoot nine people without expecting international backlash. Israel does not deserve and cannot receive special treatment than the rest of the world if we’re going to pretend that Woodrow Wilson’s lofty dreams of international cooperation mean anything.
Of course, the international response essentially amounted to finger-wagging. The most crucial diplomatic wound that Israel received was the harsh response from Turkey, mainly because most (if not all) of the dead from the raid were Turks who died on a ship, the Mavi Marmara, which was flying Turkish colors. Turkey is probably Israel’s strongest Muslim ally in the region, and deteriorating relations with Turkey doesn’t help Israel’s strategic or geopolitical situation.
So, did Israel have a right to board the ships and search them for contraband and weapons? Of course. Any nation has a right to do so when a vessel enters their territory. Should Israel have waited until they were out of international waters? Yeah, probably, if not only for political and diplomatic reasons. Were weapons found on the ship? Aside from some blunt objects (such as pipes and bats), knives, and some construction tools, no. No weapons caches or rocket-building equipment were found.
Israel has a right to defend itself, but this is clearly a case of overkill. The Israelis must have expected some resistance when they started rappelling armed commandos onto the decks of the ships, and the activists on the ships must have expected the Israeli soldiers to defend themselves from attack in turn. Both sides were itching for a fight, but in this case, the activists on the flotilla of ships accomplished their goal: they were the underdog the entire time, and their cause was supported by this incident, even though nine of their people were killed.
The situation in Gaza is a dire one, and even the staunchest American supporters of Israel cannot deny that. Since the blockade of the territory by Israel in 2009, aid and supplies have slowed to about one quarter of the aid received before the blockade was put in place. The blockade was meant to put political pressure on Hamas, the ruling political force in Gaza. The blockade also prevents Palestinians in the region from accessing clean water, shelter, medical supplies, and other essentials. Such circumstances breed terrorism and insurgency instead of stopping them. So what is Israel’s endgame in Gaza? As of the writing of this article on June 4th, 2010, another aid ship is on its way to the Gaza Strip, and Israel has already vowed to prevent it from reaching land.
I know it’s taboo for American conservatives to question Israel’s actions, especially among evangelical Christian Americans, who see support for Israel as something more akin to religious piety instead of strategic or political benefit. Our imbalanced support for Israel makes us a lot of enemies in the Middle East; it is one of the main reasons why Osama bin Laden ordered the attack on the United States on 9/11. Instead of reexamining America’s role in the Middle East and our relationship with Israel, however, many Americans doubled their support for the beleaguered Jewish state.
These pro-Israel Americans support an American military strike against Iran to prevent that country from gaining nuclear capabilities, which means that they supported sending other Americans into harm’s way to ensure Israel’s survival. Call me crazy, but I don’t see any political or strategic gain from opening up a third front in the Middle East against one of the largest countries in that region. As an American, I feel that Americans should fight for American interests and security, not that of other nations. And no, Iran is not a military threat to the United States, so don’t even try to stumble down that path of discussion.
Support for an ally such as Israel is one thing; kowtowing to every policy and political stance that pro-Israel lobbying forces such as AIPAC desire is quite another. Many Israeli officials have boasted of how much influence the Israel lobby has on American foreign policy. On another note, Israelis have been caught spying on the United States. Is that something a diehard ally would do? Then there was the sustained attack on the USS Liberty in June of 1967 by the Israeli Air Force and torpedo boats, which killed thirty-four of the American crew and injured over 100. This was the only maritime attack on the United States which was not investigated by the US Congress. And people who question Israel’s influence on American foreign policy are called “conspiracy theorists” and anti-Semitic?
America’s relationship with Israel has drifted in the hazy area between an alliance and a protectorate. If an American wants to become a Congressman or president, he has to pass a litmus test of his support for Israel before he or she is even considered a viable candidate. No such litmus test exists for support for any other ally, such as the United Kingdom, for example. Israel clearly has powerful lobbying forces in Washington that shape our foreign policy and influence domestic policy by essentially screening candidates for political office. It is time for the United States to take a closer look at its relationship with Israel and determine whether or not American and Israeli interests are one and the same.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
