The headline in my ultra-conservative local paper this morning alludes to Sarah "Drill Baby Drill" Palin's latest nonsensical stab at Obama: that he's somehow in bed with the oil industry and therefore not as responsive as he should be to the regional and global disaster now unfolding in the Gulf of Mexico.
The only topic Palin should be quoted about is the one on which she seems to have some real authority—fashion. She could also make credible comments about shooting wildlife, should one be so inclined. By now she could certainly qualify as an expert on travel tips. But when it comes to the big questions, editors should confine themselves to quotes from educated people with the depth and intelligence to say something meaningful.
Regarding the shortcomings of the administration with respect to the mother-of-all oil spills, here's some interesting commentary by Thomas L. Friedman.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
What paper do you read? I have always presumed you were in the Puget Sound, and I have never considered the Seattle Times to be a ultra-conservative paper?
As for TLF - wow. That guy does not have a clue. A $1/gallon TAX? Seriously? I think he is right to criticize the president, but increasing taxes for more government programs is not the right answer. The proper answer would be to repeal the law that set the federal liability limits. Even if TLF's plan was implemented, it is not as if we suddenly will be free of accidents. In fact, I think we would be at far greater risk if the government were to be the ones to operate and dictate what/when/where/how...
Hi, Six,
I live in a cosmopolitan area of about 100,000 people that thinks like a small town. Much of the big money is from farmers--who, for reasons that have always escaped me--tend to be solidly conservative and Republican.
I lived in Seattle for a while after high school, though. You may have been confused because I once talked about working for Boeing--on the 747. (That's how long ago that was!)
I don't actually read my local paper, although my husband does and I see the headlines.
Regarding TLF: he's never said anything lately about a gas tax. However, he's a strong advocate of getting away from our dependence on foreign oil, for many reasons. His suggestion that a tax in 2001 might have been a way to turn the country away from oil dependency and jump start clean energy initiatives was about that unique moment in history--when gasoline was at $1.66/gal.
Used judiciously, taxation can accomplish many things, politically as well as economically.
I meant the 707. (Good grief!) But I worked summers at Boeing for awhile, and I worked on the 747, too.
I grew up in one of those towns/cities. In fact it is precisely dealing with the local elected officials and witnessing how corrupted/corruptable they are all the way down to the most basic services that government performs that is the basis for much of the way I think today. Particularly those who would lay thier claim to being 'culture warriors'. To this day, I hold skeptical anyone in law enforcement or elected office. The type of good ol' boy network that exists in those towns is scary.
As for TLF, what he misses is that we have a dependence on oil because government officials in cahoots with oilmen have rigged the system in thier favor. Providing subsidies for so-called 'alternative' energy is only creating another class of cronie-capitalism, government welfare and does not actually promote market innovation.
BTW, Six, thanks for the link to Jonathan Turley's blog. I like his commentary on TV and was interested in the article about Byrne.
Post a Comment