Energetic Politics
May 4th, 2006Leading up to World War II, the Empire of Japan pretended to be in pursuit of diplomatic relations with the United States. The Empire had representatives in Washington at the time of the Pearl Harbor attack who were intended to keep the Administration offguard. It was a military maneuver in what they believed the best interest of the Japanese nation, and it worked. Could Saudi Arabia be feeling not just the United States but the entire world, not with their intentions regarding war and peace but about their oil output? The Globalist urges that we re-assess the claims of petroleum peddlers, and it’s a particularly stirring article. It definitely asks valid questions, and makes you wonder why the petrol pimps in the President’s party don’t decide that the addiction to oil must be broken.
But then you remember that they’re petroleum pimps, and the question comes full circle.
Energetic countries need energy, and America, being a vital nation, needs electricity to pump its motor. Or is that oil? Brazil does it with sugar ethanol, but then again, they don’t have petroleum pimps and negligent mothers leading their country, or at least that’s the paraphrased point made most recently by Thomas Friedman, which led him to ask if a third party could solve the oil crisis. Surely it could draw much needed attention to it, with a serious candidate, but third parties aren’t fit to govern. That counts Ross Perot, as well.
In Massachussetts, there is a wind farm being proposed. Wealthy businessmen see it as a threat for one reason or another (perhaps they think it’ll harness too much wind for them to be able to ever go wind-surfing again?) and they’re trying to kill it. Their closest, strongest ally? Ted Kennedy. A shame when an energy proposal gets brought down by a Democrat, but he knows all about fighting energy proposals: he helped kill Carter’s proposals in the late seventies, after all.