Democrats weak on defense 97 reasons.

[aceventura3]

I thought about many of the posters here while I was reading this opinion piece in IBD. I think Carter should be embarassed rather than going around the world critisizing the current administration. Don't you agree?

http://www.investors.com/editorial/e...44423511626964

97 Reasons Democrats Are Weak On Defense And Can't Be Trusted To Govern In Wartime

INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY

Posted 9/29/2006

Today's Democrats are nothing like Presidents Roosevelt, Truman and Kennedy, who with courage and decisive action kept on top of their jobs and aggressively confronted one national defense crisis after another.

Jimmy Carter, elected during the Cold War with the Soviet Union, and (1) believing Americans had an inordinate fear of communism, (2) lifted U.S. citizens' travel bans to Cuba, North Korea, Vietnam and Cambodia and (3) pardoned draft evaders.

President Carter (4) also stopped B-1 bomber production, (5) gave away our strategically located Panama Canal and (6) made human rights the central focus of his foreign policy.

That led Carter, a Democrat, (7) to make a monumental miscalculation and withdraw U.S. support for our long-standing Mideast military ally, the Shah of Iran. (8) Carter simply didn't like the Shah's alleged mistreatment of imprisoned Soviet spies.

The Soviets, (9) with close military ties to Iraq, a 1,500-mile border with Iran and eyes on Afghanistan, aggressively tried to encircle, infiltrate, subvert and overthrow Iran's government for its oil deposits and warm-water ports several times after Russian troops attempted to stay there at the end of WWII. These were all communist threats to Iran that Carter never understood.

Carter (10) thought Ayatollah Khomeini, a Muslim exile in Paris, would make a fairer Iranian leader than the Shah because he was a religious man. (11) With U.S. support withdrawn, the Shah was overthrown, and (12) the ayatollah returned and promptly proclaimed Iran an Islamic nation. (13) Executions followed. Palestinian hit men were hired to secretly eliminate the opposition so the religious mullahs couldn't be blamed.

Iran's ayatollah (14) then introduces the idea of suicide bombers to the Palestine Liberation Organization and paid $35,000 to PLO families whose young people were brainwashed to attack and kill as many Israeli citizens as possible by blowing themselves up. This inhumane menace has grown unchallenged.

The ayatollah (15) next created and financed with Iran's oil wealth Hezbollah, a terrorist organization that later bombed our barracks in Beirut, killing 241 Marines and sailors. With Iran's encouragement this summer, (16) Hezbollah attacked Israel and started a war that damaged Lebanon and (17) diverted the world's attention from Iran's nuclear bomb program.

In November 1979, Iranians, including (18) Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, their current puppet president who was elected in an unfree, rigged election in which opponents were intimidated into not running, (19) stormed the U.S. Embassy in Tehran and held 52 U.S. personnel hostage for 444 days.

Carter, after nearly six months, (20) belatedly attempted a poorly executed rescue with only six Navy helicopters (three were lost or disabled in sandstorms) and Air Force planes with Delta Force commandos. The mission was aborted, but foul-ups on the ground resulted in a loss of eight aircraft, five airman and three Marines. The bungled plan was never put down on paper for the Joint Chiefs to evaluate. There were practice sessions, but no full dress rehearsal, and pilots weren't allowed to meet with their weather forecasters because someone in authority worried about security.

America (21) can thank the well-meaning but naive and inexperienced Democrat, Jimmy Carter, for a foreign policy that lost a strong military ally, Iran, and (22) put the U.S. at odds with a gangster regime that was determined to build nuclear bombs to wipe Israel off the map and threaten the U.S. and other nations. Iran also has a working relationship with al-Qaida, which also wants nukes. Care to connect the dots?

Shortly after a meeting at which Carter kissed Soviet leader Leonid Brezhnev on each cheek, (23) the USSR invaded Afghanistan. Carter the appeaser was shocked. "I can't believe the Russians lied to me," he said.

During the Carter Democrat period, (24) communism was on a rampage worldwide. In an unrestrained country-capturing spree, communists took over (25) Ethiopia, (26) South Yemen ( (27) located at the mouth of the Red Sea where they could block Mideast oil shipments and access to the Suez Canal), (28) Afghanistan, (29) Angola, (30) Cambodia, (31) Mozambique, (32) Grenada and ( 33) Nicaragua.

Compared to the pre-Vietnam War defense budget in 1964, Carter requested in fiscal 1982's defense budget (34) a 45% reduction in fighter aircraft, (35) a 75% reduction in ships, (36) an 83% reduction in attack submarines and (37) a 90% reduction in helicopters.

The Soviets for years (38) consistently spent 15% of their GDP on defense; (39) in 1980 we spent under 5%. As a percentage of our government's spending, defense was lower than before Pearl Harbor. No wonder a Republican, Ronald Reagan, had to vastly increase defense spending to help us win the 45-year-old Cold War and relegate the USSR to the ash heap of history — an astounding feat no one (except Reagan) believed possible.

In addition to a communist enemy rapidly expanding its territorial conquests, Reagan (40) inherited from Democratic management a 12% inflation rate (highest in 34 years), (41) 21% interest rates (highest since Abraham Lincoln was president), (42) a depleted military and (43) a serious energy crisis.

For eight years (44) congressional Democrats ridiculed and fought with Reagan and were on the wrong side of nearly all his defense and economic policies. They said he wasn't bright — an "amiable dunce," as party elder Clark Clifford (45) put it. They maintained his tax cuts wouldn't work, (46) that he insulted the Soviets by labeling them the "Evil Empire" (47) and that he was going to start World War III by putting missiles in West Germany to counter new Soviet SS-20 nuclear missiles installed in East Germany. (48) John Kerry wanted a nuclear freeze that would guarantee the Soviets overwhelming tactical nuclear superiority in Europe. (49) Kerry seemed to constantly advise retreating, giving up and handing our enemies what they wanted — a recipe for us to lose every war.

Democrats waffled (50) on Reagan's request for support of Contras who were fighting to stay alive and take Nicaragua back from Daniel Ortega's communist Sandinistas. Each month, the Soviets poured $50 million worth of Russian tanks, anti-aircraft weapons, Hind attack helicopters and munitions into that central American country.

Democratic leaders (51) all dismissed as a ridiculous pipe dream Reagan's plan for the U.S. to develop a missile that could shoot down incoming enemy missiles. (52) Showing no vision, Democrats mockingly called it Star Wars.

Democratic politicians (53) were proved wrong on virtually every vital Reagan policy. (54) His tax cuts set off a huge seven-year economic boom that created 20 million new jobs. (55) Interest rates tumbled from 21% to 7 1/2%. (56) Inflation nose-dived from 12% to 3%. And (57) oil prices collapsed when — contrary to warnings from Democrats — he removed price controls on natural gas.

Reagan's motto was "Peace through Strength," (58) not peace through weakness and accommodation. With his steadfast determination and perseverance, the communists were kicked out of Grenada and defeated in Nicaragua, Ethiopia and Afghanistan. And for the first time in history Soviet expansion ended.

Reagan (59) never quit exerting pressure on the Soviets. In Berlin, he demanded that Gorbachev "tear down this wall," and in time the Berlin Wall fell. In the end the communist Soviet Union dissolved. The Reagan-Bush administration had won the Cold War.

Years later, (60) a group of Russian generals were asked about the one key that led to the collapse of the USSR. They were unanimous in their response: "Star Wars." Gorbachev feared it would render the Soviets' nuclear missiles obsolete for an overwhelming first strike, and they could not afford to build the hundreds more that would be needed or hope to match America's great technical ability. (61) So Gorbachev threw in the towel after Reagan held firm at Reykjavik and refused to stop SDI research. Years later (62) Gorbachev said he didn't think it could have ever happened if Reagan hadn't been there.

In July 2001, (63) the U.S. military used an SDI missile launched thousands of miles away and flying at near bullet speed to blow a test missile out of the sky. (64) Democrats from Dukakis to Gore to Kerry all said this would be impossible and that missile defense would never work. They were all wrong. Reagan was right.

The current terrorist threat (65) to U.S. national security did not begin on 9/11, but in the early 1990s. Bill Clinton was elected November 1992. (66) The first bombing of our World Trade Center on Feb. 26, 1993, killed six people and injured 1,000. Terrorists hoped to kill 250,000. (67) Some of the apprehended terrorists were trained in bomb making at the Khalden terrorist camp in Afghanistan.

October 1993. (68) A Somali warlord, with help from weapons and top trainers sent by al-Qaida, shot down two U.S. Blackhawk helicopters. Eighteen Americans were killed and 73 wounded. Clinton, under pressure from a Democratic Congress, ordered retreat and withdrawal of all U.S. forces. Said Osama bin Laden: "They planned for a long struggle, but the U.S. rushed out in shame."

January 1995. (69) Philippine police discovered Ramzi Yousef, mastermind of the World Trade Center bombing, had a plan to blow up 12 American airliners over the ocean and fly a plane into CIA headquarters. They informed Clinton's government of the plot.

Bin Laden (70) tried to buy weapons-grade uranium to develop a weapon that would kill on a mass basis — like Hiroshima. (71) In November 1995, a car bomb exploded at a Saudi-U.S. joint facility in Riyadh, killing five Americans.

June 1996. (72) Khobar Towers, which housed U.S. Air Force personnel in Saudi Arabia, was blown up by Saudi Hezbollahs with help from Iran and some al-Qaida involvement. Nineteen Americans were killed and 372 wounded.

July-August 1996. (73) The U.S. received from senior level al-Qaida defectors intelligence on the creation, character, direction and intentions of al-Qaida.

February 1998. (74) Bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahri issued a fatwa declaring "war on America" and making the murder of any American anywhere on earth the "individual duty" of every Muslim.

May 29, 1998. Finally, (75) after a long series of deadly bombings carried out since 1992, and bin Laden calls to attack the U.S., Clinton's CIA created a plan to raid and capture the al-Qaida leader at his Tarnak Farms compound in Afghanistan. After months of planning, consultations with senior officials in other departments and numerous full rehearsals that went well, the raid was called off at the last moment by CIA Director George Tenet and others worried about possible collateral damage and second-guessing and recrimination if bin Laden didn't survive.

Aug. 7, 1998. (76) Al-Qaida blew up U.S. embassies in Nairobi and Dar es Salaam, five minutes apart, killing 200, injuring 5,000.

Now (77) Clinton's team, wanting to take stronger action, decided to fire Tomahawk missiles at bin Laden's training camps as well as a Sudan aspirin factory. (78) But the administration gave up to 48 hours notice to certain people, including the chief of staff of Pakistan's army, so India wouldn't think the missiles were aimed at them. Somehow forewarned, bin Laden and his terrorist leaders all left — no terrorists were killed, but U.S. ineffectiveness was on full display.

Dec. 20, 1998. (79) Intelligence knew bin Laden would be at the Haii house in Kandahar but again passed up the opportunity due to potential collateral damage and the risk of failure. (80) Clinton approved a plan by his national security adviser, Sandy Berger, to use tribals to capture bin Laden. But nothing happened.

Next, (81) the Pentagon created a plan to use an HC 130 gunship, a more precise method, against bin Laden's headquarters, but the plan was later shelved. Lt. Gen. William Boykin, deputy undersecretary of defense, told the 9/11 Commission "opportunities were missed due to an unwillingness to take risks and a lack of vision and understanding."

Feb. 10, 1999. (82) The CIA knew bin Laden would be at a desert hunting camp the next morning, the 11th. But the military failed to act because an official airplane of the United Arab Emirates was there and it was feared an Emirate prince or official might be killed.

May 1999. (83) Detailed reports from several sources let the CIA know that bin Laden would be in Kandahar for five days. Everyone agreed it was the best chance to get bin Laden. But word came to stand down. It was believed Tenet and Clinton were again concerned about civilian collateral damage. A key project chief angrily said three opportunities were missed in 36 hours. October 2000, (84) the USS Cole was bombed, killing 17 U.S. sailors. No action was taken due to concerns expressed by Secretary of State Madeleine Albright.

Americans must learn from history and costly mistakes. Sadly, (85) Democrat Jimmy Carter, a Southern peanut farmer, became our Neville Chamberlain, creating the specific conditions that have brought us the three greatest threats to our national security today: 1) (86) Iran's nuke-bound terrorists; 2) (87) al-Qaida and other terrorists; and 3) (88) North Korea and its nuclear weapons.

Carter's (89) inability to deal with the Soviet communists emboldened them to invade Afghanistan. A 23-year-old bin Laden also was drawn there to recruit young Muslim fighters and build a network to raise money for the anti-Soviet jihad that later became al-Qaida.

Years later, (90) civilian Carter took it on himself to go to North Korea and negotiate a peace agreement that would stop that communist country from developing nuclear weapons. He then convinced Clinton and Albright to go along with it. (91) The signed piece of paper proved worthless, as the Koreans easily deceived Democrats and used our money, incentives and technical equipment to build nuclear bombs and increase the threat we face today.

The Clinton administration (92) had at least 10 chances to get bin Laden, but it repeatedly could not make the decision to act. There were too many people and departments involved, too much confusion and no strong leader to make the tough decisions to act. They were too timid and concerned about repercussions if they failed.

Contrast this inability to take action with Harry Truman's ability to make sound decisions and get results on complex defense issues — from dropping the bomb to end WWII to helping Iran and Turkey stave off the Soviets, from defending Greece from communist takeover following WWII to confronting and beating the Soviet's Berlin blockade with a 14-month night-and-day Berlin airlift, from taking on the North Koreans to ultimately firing the popular Gen. Douglas MacArthur for insubordination.

Further Democratic incompetence in matters of defense emerged from Clinton's attorney general, Janet Reno, and her deputy, Jamie Gorelick. (93) They built a legal barrier that in effect prevented the CIA from sharing intelligence with the FBI before 9/11.

Democrats in the Clinton administration (94) allowed the selling of important defense technology and secrets to the Chinese, who are now engaged in a massive military buildup.

Estimates are that (95) 10,000 to 20,000 terrorists were trained in bin Laden's many camps in the years before 9/11.

Oil is also vital for our national defense. In 1952 we produced 93% of the oil we consumed. Now we depend on the Mideast and others for 66%. Democrats have been largely responsible for this because they have blocked all efforts to drill in Alaska and certain offshore areas estimated to contain 10 billion to 20 billion barrels of crude.

Democrats (96) in Congress condemn current efforts to intercept terrorist phone calls, to mine data to ferret out future attacks against us, and to trace the movement of terrorist money through banks. All the while they want special treatment for enemy prisoners captured on the battlefield. This helps the enemy and undermines our troops in the field.

We're in a war. Something always goes wrong in a war, and our military leaders have made mistakes in Iraq. But quitting and leaving would amount to defeat for the U.S. in the global war on terrorism and create chaos. Quitters never win.

Here's the problem: America needs two strong, sound political parties. As far as domestic policy is concerned, it really doesn't make much difference if Democrats or Republicans are in power. Ours is a free, entrepreneurial society where anyone can do anything he or she wants if they have a positive attitude and the desire to work, learn and achieve. Ambitious people come from all over the world to take advantage of this tremendous opportunity. This is one reason our economy is so resilient, continually bouncing back from periodic setbacks, driven by new inventions and achievements.

However, (97) when it comes to which party has proved more capable in acting to defend and protect Americans from foreign enemies, there is only one choice. From Johnson to Carter to Clinton, virtually all the defense policies and decisions made by Democratic administrations have been unsuccessful. And in many cases, they have unintentionally but materially increased the danger to our national security and the safety of all Americans.

[dc_dux]

Originally Posted by aceventura3

I thought about many of the posters here while I was reading this opinion piece in IBD. I think Carter should be embarassed rather than going around the world critisizing the current administration. Don't you agree?

http://www.investors.com/editorial/e...44423511626964

Many of the 97 reasons are laughable, particularly many of the post-Carter (ie. Clinton) myths listed that have been debunked by the 9/11 Commission and others. But assume all the charges against Carter were all true, the most you could say is there are reasons not to elect him again again.

In any case, I fail to see how someone who was responsible for bad policy does not have the right to criticize a successor for equally bad policy.

From Johnson to Carter to Clinton, virtually all the defense policies and decisions made by Democratic administrations have been unsuccessful. And in many cases, they have unintentionally but materially increased the danger to our national security and the safety of all Americans

Asst. Sec of State Karen Hughes implied recently that the terrible image of the US around the world is a result of bad PR (link).

I would suggest the dramatic deterioration of the US image around the world in the last five years, particularly among Muslims, and the resulting increase in terrorism worldwide (granted, not on US soil) is in large part the result of bad policy -- invading Iraq (NIE finding that Iraq has become a "cause celebre" for jihadists), disdain for the rights of unaccused civilians, etc. (I admit to not having 97 reasons yet) -- not bad PR.

[docbungle]

That's pretty funny ace, but I'm guessing you're being serious, so that takes a bit of the humor out of it.

Nice cheerleader piece.

So: Carter was horrible and Regan was fantastic. Does that about sum it up?

What in God's name does this have to do with democrats? This one-sided joke of an opinion suggests that all erroneous decisions made from the white house have come from democrats, and republican presidents have never made mistakes.

Not to mention most of the "reasons" listed above are not reasons at all.

Reading this reminded me of a lot of posters on this board as well, though I'm sure not the same ones you had in mind.

[_God_]

Originally Posted by aceventura3

I thought about many of the posters here while I was reading this opinion piece in IBD. I think Carter should be embarassed rather than going around the world critisizing the current administration. Don't you agree?

http://www.investors.com/editorial/e...44423511626964

It will be interesting to see if what appear to be factual statements are refuted in the blitzkrieg of outrage this article will foment. More likely, some kinds of attacks on the author or sources will be the order of the day.

In the meantime, I'm starting to run short of virgins. (See my signature.)

[dc_dux]

I'll start

One of my favorites, and least discussed, is:

Democrats (96) in Congress condemn current efforts to intercept terrorist phone calls, to mine data to ferret out future attacks against us, and to trace the movement of terrorist money through banks.

How quickly we forget how the Repub controlled Senate killed a provision for expanded wiretapping in the COMPREHENSIVE ANTITERRORISM ACT OF 1995 that Clinton sent to Congress after the first WTC bombing and Oklahoma City bombing. While it mostly addressed domestic terrorism, it applied to foreign terrorists as well.

Dan Burton (R-Ind): Mr. Chairman, this is one of our major concerns among the groups called the conservative action team in the House. I just want to make absolutely clear to all of our colleagues what the gentleman is saying right now, and I want them to understand it. This is going to expand the ability for people to be wiretapped way beyond where it is right now. (Congressional Record)

Orrin Hatch: Mr. President, again, in the real world, in the case of the Unabomber or a terrorist where there is a real threat or an immediate concern, you do not need this provision to get an emergency wiretap. All the Senator's motion does is expand the number of crimes that would trigger the wiretap statute.

Porter Goss (R-Fla - and later CIA director): Mr. Speaker, this effort comes in the wake of three horrible tragedies: The bombing of a military installation in Saudi Arabia, the loss of TWA flight 800 out of New York's JFK Airport, and the recent pipe bomb explosion in Atlanta at the Olympics. While we haven't had time to thoroughly assess these tragedies and the effectiveness of the antiterrorism law Congress passed earlier this year, these attacks tell us that our society remains vulnerable to terrorism. Unfortunately, terrorism is a fact of life. In response to recent events, a series of proposals were offered to solve the problem--some with merit, and some that could cause more problems than they might solve by cutting deeply--and unnecessarily--into the constitutional freedoms of American citizens. I include in that category certain proposals for expanded wiretapping authority for Federal law enforcement. This is a dangerous proposition--and one that would be ceding victory to terrorists, whose goal is to disrupt our society, create anxiety and constrain our freedoms.

The wiretap provision to expand FISA was eventually dropped from the final bill.

Congress on Thursday passed a compromise bill boosting the ability of law enforcement authorities to fight domestic terrorism, just one day before the first anniversary of the Oklahoma City bombing.

The House voted, 293-133, to send the anti-terrorism bill to President Clinton, who has indicated that he will sign it after he returns from his overseas trip next week.

The measure, which the Senate passed overwhelmingly Wednesday evening, is a watered-down version of the White House's proposal. The Clinton administration has been critical of the bill, calling it too weak.

The original House bill, passed last month, had deleted many of the Senate's anti-terrorism provisions because of lawmakers' concerns about increasing federal law enforcement powers. Some of those provisions were restored in the compromise bill.....

http://www.cnn.com/US/9604/18/anti.t...ill/index.html

Currently, the Dems dont "condemn efforts to intercept terrorist phone calls." They would just like the law amended to make such actions legal and not at the arbitrary discretion of the president.

*****
As to # 65-84, in the words of Reagan...."there you go again" rehashing the same old shit.

I would suggest the 9/11 Commission report is a bit more authoritative (even with its many faults) than an obvious partisan editorial in Investors Business Daily:

http://www.9-11commission.gov/

[host]

Originally Posted by _God_

It will be interesting to see if what appear to be factual statements are refuted in the blitzkrieg of outrage this article will foment. More likely, some kinds of attacks on the author or sources will be the order of the day.

In the meantime, I'm starting to run short of virgins. (See my signature.)

Was this post, a bit disingenuous? :

<i>_God_ on 9-30-06</i>

Originally Posted by _God_

I'm new here, so I'd appreciate it if someone would tell me if these are "flames" or "trolls."

Thanks.
http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showpos...3&postcount=81

....considering this?:

<i>_God_ on 9-20-06</i>

Originally Posted by _God_

Yeah, see, my username is _God_, so that makes Jesus ...

The guy with the crown of thorns, lugged a cross, got crucified ...

Sorry there wasn't any humor in it for you.



You may be right, but I think I'll give it a month or so, in hopes that no more trolls post replies like yours.
http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showpos...5&postcount=16

<b>Back on topic now:</b>

.....okay....here it comes, I've posted enough in Ustwo's last "Carter hit thread", to substantively balance....with numerous citations.....that address and challenge the Carter "negatives" on that thread to add the following:

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-t...-home-business
The Profiting Prophet of Playa del Rey
Lots of people are believers in William O'Neil's CAN SLIM system for picking stocks. Can a method that sounds like a diet and leaves no room for emotion really work?
By Thomas M. Kostigen, Thomas M. Kostigen is the author of "What Money Really Means."
March 5, 2006

......O'Neil's empire is located in an industrial park by a Home Depot. There's no downtown high-rise, no ocean-view executive suite. Windows look on to tar—parking lots, a dead-end street.

About 350 people work there behind locked gates alongside a printing plant and computer center. O'Neil's office is sparse, with right-out-of-Staples furniture, five framed front pages of Investor's Business Daily on the walls and a color photo of him shaking hands with President Reagan......

....O'Neil makes no apologies for the fact that IBD was hatched to spread the love of CAN SLIM. But Steve Fox, IBD's editor when it hit the newsstands 22 years ago, said that's only part of the equation. It's true, he told me, that O'Neil wanted to market the system. <b>But he also explained that his former boss has "a political point of view and created a vehicle to express that point of view."</b>

O'Neil, a GOP supporter who claims influence with the Bush White House on economic policy, stresses that he doesn't involve himself in editorial affairs. There is no question, however, that IBD serves a decidedly conservative agenda. The newspaper's op-ed page regularly calls for tax cuts and supports racial profiling as a means to combat terrorism.

O'Neil himself expresses strong conservative views in private and even, on occasion, publicly: An open letter from O'Neil that appeared in the New York Times right after 9/11 called on the government to reduce the capital gains tax, lower corporate income taxes, lower interest rates, open up the deep interior of Alaska to oil drilling, and begin funding a missile defense system.

One former employee told me he left IBD when Jesus Christ was featured in the newspaper's "Leaders & Success" column......

[Paq]

wow, i read IBD, but don't subscribe to it, bc they have stock reports, etc, but i had NO idea they had editors who copied Ustwo so closely

just kiddin

anyway, this piece is just laughable. I know history is written by the victors, but couldn't you at least take a few more years to get something plausible drawn up.

"We are at war with Eurasia, we've always been at war with Eurasia" doesn't even come close to describing the hatchet job here

[aberkok]

I like how it starts out with the phrase: "today's democrats" and then talks mostly about the president from almost 30 years ago.

[aceventura3]

One point I find most interesting is the Democrats efforts to block oil exploration to lessen our dependance on Middle Eastern Oil, while they crticize our dependance, the oil companies and offer no solution.

[host]

Originally Posted by aceventura3

One point I find most interesting is the Democrats efforts to block oil exploration to lessen our dependance on Middle Eastern Oil, while they crticize our dependance, the oil companies and offer no solution.

ace....you're showin' off your huevos.....I suspect that you know that the opposite of what you are saying has been documented by me in this thread:
http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthread.php?t=108585

At three posts at these links:
http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showpos...7&postcount=39

http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showpos...7&postcount=47

Arco Solar, Solarex Corp (NAICS: 333414, 333611 ) , SOLAREX CORP, STANDARD OIL CO (INDIANA)
Lueck, Thomas J.

New York Times. (Late Edition (East Coast)). New York, N.Y.: Oct 16, 1983. pg. A.18
New York Times Company Oct 16, 1983

The Sun, long a source of power in mythology, may soon be an actual source of household electricity - at least in bright places like America's Sun Belt. But some of the people working to develop the cells that generate electricity from sunlight are concerned that the oil business is controlling more and more of the solar industry.

This trend was highlighted last month when the Standard Oil Company of Indiana purchased Solarex, a Rockville, Md., company that last year ranked as the second largest United States manufacturer of photovoltaic cells. Arco Solar, a wholly owned subsidiary of the Atlantic Richfield Company, was the largest. Ranking third was the Solar Power Corporation, owned by Exxon.

<b>''Virtually all of the photovoltaics industry is owned by Big Oil,'' said Scott Sklar, political director for the Solar Lobby</b>, an organization that advocates expanding development of solar technology. ''And the problem with that is these huge corporations don't have the kind of commitment you find in small innovative companies.'' Some consumer groups profess even greater worries about the oil industry's motives. <b>''The major oils see solar power as a competing source of energy, and they want to control it and slow it down,''</b> said Edwin Rothchild, a spokesman for the Citizen Energy Labor Coalition, another lobbying organization. But many experts in alternative energy research maintain that, if not for large investments by the oil companies, photovoltaic development would be grinding to a halt. ''If the oil companies are a menace, they are the most benevolent menace you could find, because nobody else seems willing to spend a dime,'' said Mitchell Diamond, an energy analyst for Booz Allen and Hamilton, Inc., a consulting firm.

Solarex, which was formed in 1973, lost $10 million in 1982. John Corsi, its president, said the company had been aggressively but unsuccessfully seeking a fresh infusion of cash from outside sources since March. He added that a merger with Amoco, which already held 35 percent of Solarex's stock, became the only alternative. Amoco, which paid $20 a share for a piece of Solarex in 1982, acquired the 65 percent of the company's shares it did not already own last month for only $2.50 a share, or a total of $12.2 million.

So far, the photovoltaic cells introduced to the world market are producing a minuscule amount of power compared to other electrical generating equipment. Mr. Diamond estimated sales of photovoltaic cells in 1982 at $90 million, an increase of 180 percent in two years. But he said these devices were capable of generating a total of only 9 megawatts of electricity, compared to the more than 500 megawatts generated by a single conventional power plant.

''We remain convinced that we can be competitive with coal-fired plants in the Sun Belt by 1990,'' said James H. Caldwell, senior vice president for manufacturing and research at Arco Solar. Atlantic Richfield does not disclose the financial status of its solar company, and Mr. Caldwell declined to say if the company has been profitable or how much money it is spending on research and development.

As the largest manufacturer of photovoltaic cells, Arco Solar specializes in a cell designed to recharge batteries. Other American companies are selling larger cells designed to generate power in remote locations not served by other sources of electricity, such as farms and villages in developing countries. Some Japanese companies, meanwhile, have begun marketing pocket calculators and digital watches powered by tiny cells.

Despite his own company's goals, Mr. Caldwell acknowledged that others in the field may be forced to scale down. The most important products of the industry ''will require a very high level of investment, and people aren't exactly knocking down doors to invest'' he said.

<h3>Throughout most of the 1970's, the Federal Government functioned as one of the largest sources of photovoltaic research money. Those funds have been sharply reduced. In 1980, the Department of Energy administered $797 million in research and development grants for renewable energy projects. This year, those grants have fallen to $262 million.

Several major corporations outside the oil industry have either withdrawn from photovoltaic research or put it on the back burner.</h3> The RCA Corporation, which was a leader in research aimed at the most advanced forms of photovoltaic cells, sold its technology to Solarex earlier this year for an undisclosed price. Texas Instruments Corporation, which spent $20 million of its own and Federal money on a major photovoltaics research project for which many experts held high hopes, suspended work in the area two weeks ago.

Despite successful initial results of the project, Texas Instruments ''decided not to spend the $100 million that would be needed over the next four years'' to develop manufacturing techniques for its photovoltaic cells, said Richard Purdue, a company spokesman. Such decisions are what lead observers of the industry to say that a continued infusion of cash by the oil companies is essential.

At Solarex, Mr. Corsi said it will take ''very, very deep pockets to stay ahead of photovoltaics technology; we are fortunate that the oil companies are standing in.''

The last link to one of my post contains this:
http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showpos...2&postcount=49

DANIEL S. GREENBERG
WASHINGTON
Metro; PART-B; Metro Desk
Los Angeles Times (pre-1997 Fulltext). Los Angeles, Calif.: Aug 13, 1990. pg. 3

Daniel S. Greenberg is editor and publisher of Science & Government Report, a Washington-based newsletter.

Count the 1980s as the squandered decade for energy research aimed at reducing America's risky dependence on foreign oil. And credit the loss to the Reagan administration, which gutted the government's energy-research programs-and redeployed much of the savings to nuclear-weapons research. A sager Bush administration has been repairing some of the damage with selective infusions of funds. But in general, energy research remains in the fiscal doldrums.

<h3>The evisceration of the government's energy-research programs was one of the proudest achievements of the Reagan administration, which took the cheery view that the marketplace is the infallible governor of energy production, use, and innovations. Upon taking office, Reagan sought to reverse the big energy-research buildup started by Richard Nixon in response to the 1973 oil crisis and accelerated by Jimmy Carter as his domestic centerpiece.</h3> They aimed to mobilize science to squeeze more power from common fuels and guide the transition to new ones. In the hierarchy of tough research problems, these rank high, and require a lot of time and money.

When Congress thwarted Reagan's pledge to abolish the Department of Energy (DOE), <b>he responded with budget cuts that severely reduced or even eliminated the Department's various civilian energy-research programs. Congress again balked and kept them alive, but for energy research, it was the beginning of a decade of drought that has only partially lifted. The science and engineering grapevine naturally reverberates with news of hot and cold professional opportunities-with the scale invariably linked to the flow of federal money. There's still relatively little money, and therefore no stampede to energy research.

In 1980, the year before Reagan took office, DOE was budgeted for $560 million for solar-energy research and development, in its own laboratories and in universities and industry. When Reagan left office, the solar program was down to $90 million-thanks only to Congress preventing a complete wipeout. Among the items rescued from elimination was the Solar Energy Research Institute, the main federal laboratory for research in that field. The Bush budget for next year calls for a 30 percent boost in solar research, awesome by Gramm-Rudman standards, but the sum is still far below pre-Reagan levels.

Funds for coal research dropped from $755 million to $275 million during the Reagan years; conservation research from $295 million to $190 million, and research on non-solar renewable energies from $273 million to $48 million.</b> Nuclear energy received many heartfelt endorsements from the Reagan administration, which tended toward adoration of big high-tech projects. But here, too, the money record is dismal, with federal research dropping from $1.1 billion in 1980 to $340 million last year.

After a decade of plentiful petroleum, with real prices actually lower than they were 15 years ago, the zip is long gone from America's determination to use its scientific smarts for protection against oil disruptions.

This is evident in the hardpressed, financially shortsighted auto industry, which has persistently resisted higher fuel economy standards. In fact, the current average performance has declined from 28.6 miles per gallon in 1988 to 27.8 in the current model year, according to the Environmental Protection Agency.

European and Japanese manufacturers, in well-financed anticipation of the next oil crisis, have demonstrated conventional-style, gasoline-powered cars that get around 100 miles per gallon.

It's a well-kept secret if any American manufacturer can match that. Japanese auto manufacturers have also concentrated on packing six cylinders worth of power into economical and smooth-running four-cylinder engines, thus positioning themselves for what may well be a new era of high-priced fuel.

The Reagan-era contention that the marketplace is best for setting research priorities fails to account for the fiscal timidity of many American industries, particularly in financing long-term research. Governments can provide that endurance. That was the purpose of the energy-research programs that the Reagan administration trampled to near-oblivion.

The Bush administration has recognized the need for a comeback. The pace could be quickened. But one can only despair over the prospects of American staying power beyond the current round of Middle East turmoil.

<b>The solutions haven't changed in 26 years, Ace.....it's justgot almost impossible after Carter's energy plan, designed to insulate the US quest for energy independence from "dips" in market prices that temporarily kill incentives for alternative energy R&D, and the political control by "big oil" money, to effect reverdals like the one described in the 80's, in the preceding quote box. We had an opportunity, ace, and Mr. Reagan presided offer the dismantling of our last best chance to avoid a military solution as our sole remaining recourse!</b>

[dc_dux]

Originally Posted by aceventura3

One point I find most interesting is the Democrats efforts to block oil exploration to lessen our dependance on Middle Eastern Oil, while they crticize our dependance, the oil companies and offer no solution.

Ace....."there you go again"

The Dems have no energy policy and offer no solutions?

With a little effort, you could find the Dems proposed solution - Energy Indepdendence 2020 (link):

Reduce Burdens on Consumers and the Environment
* Prevent oil company price gouging, market manipulation, and disaster profiteering
* Increase energy market transparency and consumer choice at the pump
* Expand the Earned Income Tax Credit to cover increased household energy costs
* Provide car buyers with accurate fuel economy information
* Protect pristine public lands from short-sighted oil and gas exploitation
* Enhance funding for weatherization and low-income energy assistance in all climates

Launch an Apollo Project for Energy
* Free the US from foreign oil by 2020 by supporting research, development, and production of alternative energy sources..

Diversify and Expand Our Energy Supplies
* Establish a national electricity standard that requires greater use of renewable energy
* Enhance incentives for energy production from solar, wind, and geothermal
* Increase dramatically the production of domestically grown biofuels
* Increase environmentally friendly extraction of oil and gas from existing domestic sources
* Encourage construction of the Alaskan natural gas pipeline
* Support the development of a hydrogen economy
* Promote deployment of advanced clean coal technology with carbon capture and storage

Improve Energy Security and Reduce Price Volatility
* Create geographically diverse strategic gasoline and jet fuel reserves
* Streamline fuel specifications while maintaining state clean air protections
* Encourage the development of a smarter and more distributed electricity system

Reduce Demand for Oil and Natural Gas
* Lower petroleum use in the federal fleet and improve government conservation efforts
* Provide consumers with more fuel efficient vehicle choices
* Develop renewable substitutes to replace natural gas use in the petrochemical industry
* Improve infrastructure and electricity options for hybrids and plug-in hybrids
* Increase mass transit use and incentivize transit-oriented development
* Improve air traffic management to shorten flight times
* Reduce tractor trailer fuel needs by improving aerodynamics, logistics, and idling

Invest in Energy Efficiency and American Jobs
* Update efficiency standards for appliances and small engines
* Invest in math and science education for the next generation of energy engineers
* Ensure access to worker training and retraining in advanced energy technologies
* Leverage trade relationships to maintain competitiveness of energy-intensive U.S. manufacturers

Instead, we got the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (link) much of which was written behind closed doors by Cheney's energy task force of leaders of the oil/gas industry. It contains $billions in tax breaks,subsidies and other incentives for those already record-profit making industries. (hmmm....I wonder why?)

In spite of that, it has many good provisions, most of which came only as a result of a likely Dem filibuster unless provisions for research, tax breaks and other incentives for alternative energy were added.

***
One additional observation about Dems "blocking oil exploration"

Repub Gov Jeb Bush (link):

The Interior Department faces opposition from Jeb Bush to its proposal to auction off rights to a six-million-acre field in the Gulf of Mexico. "I am confident," Governor Bush wrote in a letter to the secretary of the interior, "that the new administration will recognize the need to protect sensitive natural resources located both offshore and along Florida�s coastline for the benefit of the entire nation."

Repub Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger (link):

"My position on the need to protect California’s coast from the adverse impacts of oil and gas development is clear and unwavering. When I ran for Governor, I took a strong stance against any further oil and gas leasing in the Outer Continental Shelf off the coast of California and called on the federal government to buy out existing undeveloped federal leases. In a letter to the United States Congress on May 13, 2005, I stated this position in response to potential changes to California’s protections in the federal energy bill. In my November 3, 2005, letter to you, I restated my resolve on this issue. The impacts of new offshore oil and gas leasing and development off the California coast are unacceptable."

If you want to discuss the issues, please try to bring some facts into the discussion.

[roachboy]

a nice word for this, ace:

tendentious

ADJECTIVE: Exhibiting bias: biased, one-sided, partial, partisan, prejudiced, prejudicial.

here is another one:

joke

NOUN: 1. An object of amusement or laughter: butt3, jest, laughingstock, mockery. See RESPECT. 2. Words or actions intended to excite laughter or amusement: gag, jape, jest, quip, witticism. Informal : funny, gag. Slang : ha-ha. See LAUGHTER. 3. A mischievous act: antic, caper, frolic, lark, prank1, trick. Informal : shenanigan. Slang : monkeyshine (often used in plural). See GOOD, WORK. 4. Informal. Something or someone uproariously funny or absurd: absurdity. Informal : hoot, laugh, scream. Slang : gas, howl, panic, riot. Idioms: a laugh a minute. See LAUGHTER.

you cannot possible be serious in posting the above and expecting it to be taken seriously as anything like a coherent historical narrative.

[dc_dux]

tendentious or a joke...no matter to me.

I saw it as an opportunity to debunk more BS that has been, and continues to be, perpetuated by our honest and sincere conservative friends.

[roachboy]

go for it, dc

....i thought someone had to say the words tendentious and joke and so i did.

in this particular situation, i would toss such weight as my professional identity as historian has behind those words as well: the edito bit in the op is a purely ideological document. it purports to be historical, but it isnt. as an ideological document, its claims can be dismantled as folk see fit.
but up front it should be understood that this is simply (and simple) ideology.

[dc_dux]

Maybe I will just watch "Become Republican" daily between now and election day.

http://www.thefrown.com/player.php?/...comerepublican

More entertaining than the OP (although I did really chuckle at the sincerity of the "dont you agree" comment) and requires less work.

[aceventura3]

Here is one:

Satire - sat‧ire  /ˈsætaɪər/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[sat-ahyuhr] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun
1. the use of irony, sarcasm, ridicule, or the like, in exposing, denouncing, or deriding vice, folly, etc.
2. a literary composition, in verse or prose, in which human folly and vice are held up to scorn, derision, or ridicule.

3. a literary genre comprising such compositions.

When an author starts by saying here are 97 reasons, it is an indicator of satire - at least that how I view it.

Originally Posted by dc_dux

Maybe I will just watch "Become Republican" daily between now and election day.

http://www.thefrown.com/player.php?/...comerepublican

More entertaining than the OP (although I did really chuckle at the sincerity of the "dont you agree" comment) and requires less work.

Dude I loved the link.

I guess we conservative know how to laugh.

[dc_dux]

Originally Posted by aceventura3

When an author starts by saying here are 97 reasons, it is an indicator of satire - at least that how I view it.

Dude I loved the link.

I guess we conservative know how to laugh.

So now it was all satire, huh?

Both the article you described initially as "an opinion piece" and your follow-up on Dems and energy policy are suddenly satire, in the same vein as the video?

You do have a sense of humor. I'll just leave it at that.

[Charlatan]

ace...

one of the basic rules of TFP Politics:

Political humor, satire, cartoons, etc., are all still categorized in Tilted Humor.

Tilted Politics is a place of discussion... so if you want to post your funny cartoons and whatnot, they go in Tilted Humor.

Humor is humor, and jokes are jokes, no matter what the subject is.

Moved to Humour.

[aceventura3]

Originally Posted by dc_dux

So now it was all satire, huh?

Both the article you described initially as "an opinion piece" and your follow-up on Dems and energy policy are suddenly satire, in the same vein as the video?

You do have a sense of humor. I'll just leave it at that.

The article was on the editorial page - hence an opinion peice. there was never any doubt in my mind that the peice was satirical. But that doesn't mean that what was stated did not have elements of truth. Many of the 97 reasons could be turned into a thread, however, I don't spend much time in humor.

[Ustwo]

Satire?

A political piece to be sure, but not satire.

[Paq]

here i go agreeing with UsTwo again...

this piece takes itself way too seriously to be satirical. the writer of said piece appears to honestly believe everythign (s)he said.

[Crack]

I fail to find the humor in this humor.

[dc_dux]

This political column has been on many of the right wing blogs lately, Powerline and Free Republc, the most prominent. They certainly did not consider it satire.

The only joke here is that it was moved from Politics to Humor.

Originally Posted by aceventura3

The article was on the editorial page - hence an opinion peice. there was never any doubt in my mind that the peice was satirical. But that doesn't mean that what was stated did not have elements of truth. Many of the 97 reasons could be turned into a thread, however, I don't spend much time in humor.

If you believe it has elements of truth, and you authored the thread and you dont spend much time in Humor, why not just request it be moved back to Politics where it belongs.

[Charlatan]

Moved back to Politics

I was having a cranky day that day.

It happens.

Please don't defend Political Editorials by calling them Satire. I will close them or move them to humour as per the rules.

[aceventura3]

Originally Posted by dc_dux

If you believe it has elements of truth, and you authored the thread and you dont spend much time in Humor, why not just request it be moved back to Politics where it belongs.

Does the above mean that you don't think there are elements of truth in the 'what every we want to call it' piece?

What about starting with #1? I think that has elements of truth, don't you agree?

Originally Posted by dc_dux

Ace....."there you go again"

The Dems have no energy policy and offer no solutions?

With a little effort, you could find the Dems proposed solution - Energy Indepdendence 2020 (link):

Reduce Burdens on Consumers and the Environment
* Prevent oil company price gouging, market manipulation, and disaster profiteering
* Increase energy market transparency and consumer choice at the pump
* Expand the Earned Income Tax Credit to cover increased household energy costs
* Provide car buyers with accurate fuel economy information
* Protect pristine public lands from short-sighted oil and gas exploitation
* Enhance funding for weatherization and low-income energy assistance in all climates

Launch an Apollo Project for Energy
* Free the US from foreign oil by 2020 by supporting research, development, and production of alternative energy sources..

Diversify and Expand Our Energy Supplies
* Establish a national electricity standard that requires greater use of renewable energy
* Enhance incentives for energy production from solar, wind, and geothermal
* Increase dramatically the production of domestically grown biofuels
* Increase environmentally friendly extraction of oil and gas from existing domestic sources
* Encourage construction of the Alaskan natural gas pipeline
* Support the development of a hydrogen economy
* Promote deployment of advanced clean coal technology with carbon capture and storage

Improve Energy Security and Reduce Price Volatility
* Create geographically diverse strategic gasoline and jet fuel reserves
* Streamline fuel specifications while maintaining state clean air protections
* Encourage the development of a smarter and more distributed electricity system

Reduce Demand for Oil and Natural Gas
* Lower petroleum use in the federal fleet and improve government conservation efforts
* Provide consumers with more fuel efficient vehicle choices
* Develop renewable substitutes to replace natural gas use in the petrochemical industry
* Improve infrastructure and electricity options for hybrids and plug-in hybrids
* Increase mass transit use and incentivize transit-oriented development
* Improve air traffic management to shorten flight times
* Reduce tractor trailer fuel needs by improving aerodynamics, logistics, and idling

Invest in Energy Efficiency and American Jobs
* Update efficiency standards for appliances and small engines
* Invest in math and science education for the next generation of energy engineers
* Ensure access to worker training and retraining in advanced energy technologies
* Leverage trade relationships to maintain competitiveness of energy-intensive U.S. manufacturers

Instead, we got the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (link) much of which was written behind closed doors by Cheney's energy task force of leaders of the oil/gas industry. It contains $billions in tax breaks,subsidies and other incentives for those already record-profit making industries. (hmmm....I wonder why?)

In spite of that, it has many good provisions, most of which came only as a result of a likely Dem filibuster unless provisions for research, tax breaks and other incentives for alternative energy were added.

***
One additional observation about Dems "blocking oil exploration"

Repub Gov Jeb Bush (link):

The Interior Department faces opposition from Jeb Bush to its proposal to auction off rights to a six-million-acre field in the Gulf of Mexico. "I am confident," Governor Bush wrote in a letter to the secretary of the interior, "that the new administration will recognize the need to protect sensitive natural resources located both offshore and along Florida�s coastline for the benefit of the entire nation."

Repub Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger (link):

"My position on the need to protect California’s coast from the adverse impacts of oil and gas development is clear and unwavering. When I ran for Governor, I took a strong stance against any further oil and gas leasing in the Outer Continental Shelf off the coast of California and called on the federal government to buy out existing undeveloped federal leases. In a letter to the United States Congress on May 13, 2005, I stated this position in response to potential changes to California’s protections in the federal energy bill. In my November 3, 2005, letter to you, I restated my resolve on this issue. The impacts of new offshore oil and gas leasing and development off the California coast are unacceptable."

If you want to discuss the issues, please try to bring some facts into the discussion.

Before getting lost in a mound of details and battling links - let's clarify our difference.

I think the answer to our energy problem is in the private sector and will best be realized with minimal government involvment. Do you agree? Or do you think the answer lies primarily within government and that the private sector will be unresponsive unless pushed by government?

[host]

Originally Posted by aceventura3

Does the above mean that you don't think there are elements of truth in the 'what every we want to call it' piece?

What about starting with #1? I think that has elements of truth, don't you agree?




Before getting lost in a mound of details and battling links - let's clarify our difference.

I think the answer to our energy problem is in the private sector and will best be realized with minimal government involvment. Do you agree? Or do you think the answer lies primarily within government and that the private sector will be unresponsive unless pushed by government?

ace, I posted reams of news reporting in the Jimmy Carter thread that discredits an argument that "the private sector" did anything in the post Carter administration, besides lobby the government to end subsidies to the solar power development, even as it bought up all of that industry's assets and reveresed the progress, to the point that a solar power plant in California was dismantled and sold, panel by panel. Carter recognized that price fluctuation of fossil fuels, whether induced by demand or by manipulation by suppliers and refiners....would discourage alternative energy development.

Carter's energy plan was sabotaged and then dismantled, and we are where we find ourselves today, as a direct result. We've just witnessed, in six weeks, a 33 percent decline in the price of gasoline. What does a sudden drop in price like this, do to prospects of attracting private investment into R&D of alternative energy? It' always been that way. Had the Carter energy plan of 1980, been left in place, had the Synfuel Corp. not been stacked with Reagan appointed, incompetent and corrupt crony management, and the solar energy industry not intentionally given away to "big oil", what return might we have enjoyed on those taxpayer financed investments?

Did the "private sector", trading scams carried out by Enron, as the Bush administration vowed not to involve itself in, benefit the consumers in California who were held hostage by price manipulation, and subjected to artificially influenced "rolling blackouts", as power supplies were deliberately diverted away from California, after deregulation of government controls over power supplies, made Enron's scams possible? Didn't Ken Lay pick who would head the government's FERC, in the new Bush administration?

ace, would you have supported the Standard oil petroleum and rail transport monopoly that Rockefeller built, more than a century ago? What you advocate doesn't work, ace. The "private sector" cares only about one thing, it's own profits. If the transfer of the US industrial base, first to Mexico, and then to Asia, doesn't teach you that lesson, what will? Your advocacy is incompatible with the US continuing to exist as a national entity, with defined borders, and it's own government and currency. The movement of investment focus and interest of the borderless, nationless, "private sector", drives home my point that, if the US is to have an energy policy that is in the national interest, it is not to be left up to the private sector to administer or to finance and regulate. We've done just that for 26 years, and we've borrowed a billion dollars, every day this year, to pay for petroleum imports, as a result of "private sector" driven, energy policy.

[dc_dux]

Originally Posted by aceventura3

Does the above mean that you don't think there are elements of truth in the 'what every we want to call it' piece?

What about starting with #1? I think that has elements of truth, don't you agree?

Before getting lost in a mound of details and battling links - let's clarify our difference.

I think the answer to our energy problem is in the private sector and will best be realized with minimal government involvment. Do you agree? Or do you think the answer lies primarily within government and that the private sector will be unresponsive unless pushed by government?

I am a little unclear on your #1 reference.

If you are referring to energy policy, government has always provided incentives to the private sector to offset the initial cost of researching and developing new technologies, from building the trans-continental railroads in the 19th century, to energy, medical research, etc. more recently. I just dont think those offsets should go to the major oil companies who are making record profits in the $billions, as the Bush energy policy does. The democratic alternative supports drilling while balancing environmental impacts, but promotes alternative energy through tax breaks for R&D for small companies willing to take the lead on these alternative technologies.

Now, if by #1, you are referring to the first point in the article:

Jimmy Carter, elected during the Cold War with the Soviet Union, and (1) believing Americans had an inordinate fear of communism,

....the "inordinate fear of communism" is taken out of context.

It is from a major foreign policy speech of Carter's that focused on Human Rights as the central theme of his foreign policy....:

we are now free of that inordinate fear of communism which once led us to embrace any dictator who joined us in that fear. I’m glad that that’s being changed."

http://teachingamericanhistory.org/l...p?document=727

...
.... and is referring to the simplistic concept that "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" is not always a good policy, particularly when it puts us in bed with the worst (non-communist) dictators, for which we have in numerous cases paid the price at a later date.

Much of the rest of the speech focuses on promoting democracy abroad, a concept that is at the center of Bush foreign policy today.

I do agree that the Carter policy should have also had an emphasis on the need for force when diplomacy fails.....without being as belligerant as the Bush policy as exemplified in Iraq.

[aceventura3]

In other words you think government is the answer.

Originally Posted by host

ace, I posted reams of news reporting in the Jimmy Carter thread that discredits an argument that "the private sector" did anything in the post Carter administration, besides lobby the government to end subsidies to the solar power development, even as it bought up all of that industry's assets and reveresed the progress, to the point that a solar power plant in California was dismantled and sold, panel by panel. Carter recognized that price fluctuation of fossil fuels, whether induced by demand or by manipulation by suppliers and refiners....would discourage alternative energy development.

Let me know when you need links to stuff.

Here is the deal - Oil is cheap. Oil has been and remains plentiful. Solar power required a subsidy because oil is and has been cheap. When the government picks one alternative to oil over others - money flows into that alternative because of the subsidy not because of its viability. Solar power will work in areas where it is economically feasable and fail when it is not. To the degree that investment occurs because of a subsidy, the investment will go away when the subsidy does.

Carter's energy plan was sabotaged and then dismantled, and we are where we find ourselves today, as a direct result. We've just witnessed, in six weeks, a 33 percent decline in the price of gasoline. What does a sudden drop in price like this, do to prospects of attracting private investment into R&D of alternative energy?

Price went up because of many factors including many factors that had nothing to do with the actual supply of oil. Many of these factors were the result of governments negatively affecting the market place, including our government.

I agree that we need price stability or an orderly market place for oil to promote investment in alternatives. When we have that stability we will see more long-term investment and R&D. That is one reason why I support our military presence in the Middle East-to help stabalize the oil market place.

It' always been that way. Had the Carter energy plan of 1980, been left in place, had the Synfuel Corp. not been stacked with Reagan appointed, incompetent and corrupt crony management, and the solar energy industry not intentionally given away to "big oil", what return might we have enjoyed on those taxpayer financed investments?

I don't know. But I do know national confidence or lack of during the Carter years had a bigger impact than anything else affecting the economy. When FDR was President it wasn't the New Deal that lead us out of the depression it was regaining our national confidence. The same was true of Reagan - not his policy as much as it was his leadership.

Did the "private sector", trading scams carried out by Enron, as the Bush administration vowed not to involve itself in, benefit the consumers in California who were held hostage by price manipulation, and subjected to artificially influenced "rolling blackouts", as power supplies were deliberately diverted away from California, after deregulation of government controls over power supplies, made Enron's scams possible? Didn't Ken Lay pick who would head the government's FERC, in the new Bush administration?

Didn't Enron take advantage of the transitional period between heavy regulation and the move toward lesser regulation to screw California and investors? I think the Enron guys thought they were smarter than the regulators. I am going to watch the Enron documentary this weekend - Enron: The Smartest Guys in The Room. If I remember California put a cap on retail prices and restriced the devlopment in-state for power plants, but completly unregulated the wholsale energy market. And then the State entered into long-term energy contracts at the peak market price. That kind of management almost lead to California going bankrupt.

ace, would you have supported the Standard oil petroleum and rail transport monopoly that Rockefeller built, more than a century ago?

No. Monopolies or Ologopolies sometimes exist because of legal barriers preventing competition from entering the market. I do think there is a role for government in regulating industries and in the case of Standard Oil, action should have occured sooner than it did.

However, when Standard oil was taking over the market, they innovated, drove price down and got rid of weak ineffecient competitors. At the dawn of the industrial revolution was Standard Oil a net positive or a net negative. I don't know, but the question is worth looking into.

What you advocate doesn't work, ace. The "private sector" cares only about one thing, it's own profits. If the transfer of the US industrial base, first to Mexico, and then to Asia, doesn't teach you that lesson, what will? Your advocacy is incompatible with the US continuing to exist as a national entity, with defined borders, and it's own government and currency. The movement of investment focus and interest of the borderless, nationless, "private sector", drives home my point that, if the US is to have an energy policy that is in the national interest, it is not to be left up to the private sector to administer or to finance and regulate. We've done just that for 26 years, and we've borrowed a billion dollars, every day this year, to pay for petroleum imports, as a result of "private sector" driven, energy policy.

When has government been soley responsible for great innovations, excluding making war? I can think of thousands of examples involving the private sector.

Originally Posted by dc_dux

Now, if by #1, you are referring to the first point in the article:

....the "inordinate fear of communism" is taken out of context.

It is from a major foreign policy speech of Carter's that focused on Human Rights as the central theme of his foreign policy....:

we are now free of that inordinate fear of communism which once led us to embrace any dictator who joined us in that fear. I’m glad that that’s being changed."

http://teachingamericanhistory.org/l...p?document=727

...
.... and is referring to the simplistic concept that "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" is not always a good policy, particularly when it puts us in bed with the worst (non-communist) dictators, for which we have in numerous cases paid the price at a later date.

Much of the rest of the speech focuses on promoting democracy abroad, a concept that is at the center of Bush foreign policy today.

I do agree that the Carter policy should have also had an emphasis on the need for force when diplomacy fails.....without being as belligerant as the Bush policy as exemplified in Iraq.

In other word - Yes?

[dc_dux]

Originally Posted by aceventura3

In other words you think government is the answer.

When has government been soley responsible for great innovations, excluding making war? I can think of thousands of examples involving the private sector.

AND

In other word - Yes? (regarding Carter's and "fear of communism?)

Ace..you take what others say and simplify it and alter their conclusions so that they are counter to what was said in order to support your position.

Neither of us said government is the answer or responsble for great innovations. Rather, we both said that government helps create and support the environment in which industry can innovate.,particularly emerging industries than can contribute addtional solutions - not replace existing solutions.

And as far as the last comment "in other words, yes" - please, dont twist what I said. I agree with Carter not the article that our long standing policy of sleeping with the enemy simply because they were anti-communiist, has proven to be a failed policy again and again and ignoring human rights as we have done for the last few years has led to a level of anti-Americanism around the world we havent seen in my lifetime.

You made some valid points, and you are entitled to your own opinion and conclusions, but you are telling me what MY opinion and conclusions are....and if that is the quality of debate and discussion you chose to pursue, by misrepresenting what I say, I will pass on any further discussion with you.

I'll gladly continue to discuss the the truth or myth of the content of the original article with anyone else

[Paradise Lost]

(6) made human rights the central focus of his foreign policy.

My god, where will it all end! I can't stand it when a President puts not only mine, but others human rights before going to wars. Disgusting.

(24) communism was on a rampage worldwide. In an unrestrained country-capturing spree, communists took over

I thought communism was an economy policy and way of life?

The Soviets for years (38) consistently spent 15% of their GDP on defense; (39) in 1980 we spent under 5%. As a percentage of our government's spending, defense was lower than before Pearl Harbor. No wonder a Republican, Ronald Reagan, had to vastly increase defense spending to help us win the 45-year-old Cold War and relegate the USSR to the ash heap of history — an astounding feat no one (except Reagan) believed possible.

Wow, cause it couldn't have been that poorly run communist countries fell apart under their own weight. Or that Before Pearl Harbor, our defense budget was low, because, you know, we weren't at War with every single country on the planet. Yet, I doubt anyone would say we were 'weak on defense' during the period previous to Pearl Harbor. And comparing percents, what a daring move for people who have no attention span. Others though, would probably remark that the US GDP at 5% was still probably twice as great as Russian GDP at 15%.

Reagan (40) inherited from Democratic management a 12% inflation rate (highest in 34 years), (41) 21% interest rates (highest since Abraham Lincoln was president), (42) a depleted military and (43) a serious energy crisis.

Because we all know Carter didn't have any of that trouble himself when he stepped into office.

(49) Kerry seemed to constantly advise retreating, giving up and handing our enemies what they wanted — a recipe for us to lose every war.

Anyone could "view" Kerry as "seeming" to do whatever the fuck they believed. Either way, this is probably a damn simplistic view of what he was hoping for anyway.

(52) Showing no vision, Democrats mockingly called it Star Wars.

Which, after 100 billion dollars toss into it, it's worked so well for us 26 years after the fact, right? And how is this another point anyway? What does them calling something have to do with anything? Just yelling at the writer of the article.

58) not peace through weakness and accommodation. With his steadfast determination and perseverance, the communists were kicked out of Grenada and defeated in Nicaragua, Ethiopia and Afghanistan

Wasn't Grenada considered a horrible failure on our part? And Woooh! We kicked ass, maybe? in Ethiopia... that's awesome, considering maybe Communism isn't going to work in the first place in the single poorest country on the planet. Afghanistan? Didn't they kick out the Russians with help from Chechnya to pound the Russians some more? Man, if anything, this just shows that the apparently STRONG on Defense Russia is losing their own battle.

Reagan (59) never quit exerting pressure on the Soviets. In Berlin, he demanded that Gorbachev "tear down this wall," and in time the Berlin Wall fell. In the end the communist Soviet Union dissolved. The Reagan-Bush administration had won the Cold War.

Won a fake war, eh? That's pretty fake sweet. And like us saying anything to Gorbachev can be logically related in anyway/shape/form to Berlin falling is a bunch of shit. It wasn't like Germany was trying for the past decade to rid themselves of the communist party. Nope, it was our glorious, strong on defense, Mr. Reagan! Even though, according to this article, there was never any direct threat on the country whatsoever. Just country's angered by our presense in their countries. It's a good thing we stopped doing that, right?

(64) Democrats from Dukakis to Gore to Kerry all said this would be impossible and that missile defense would never work. They were all wrong. Reagan was right.

Because of one missile, right? No explainations about the fact that possibly thousands of tests failed, results are in no way homogenous, can be duplicated with relative ease, etc. But since one worked, DA PR()GRUM IS A SUCES! WHO!O!

(66) The first bombing of our World Trade Center on Feb. 26, 1993, killed six people and injured 1,000. Terrorists hoped to kill 250,000.

Well, according to this article, Mr. Clinton didn't do anything as of Feb. 26th 1993 to reverse what Reagan had done, so apparently after 8 years of apparent strong defense, terrorists broke through anyway? That's sweet.

(69) Philippine police discovered Ramzi Yousef, mastermind of the World Trade Center bombing, had a plan to blow up 12 American airliners over the ocean and fly a plane into CIA headquarters. They informed Clinton's government of the plot.

Well, since this didn't happen, I guess you could say it was Clinton's strong defense that kept us safe? This is a ridiculous argument anyway, because how many times would Reagan or Carter or whomever have been 'threatened' with something but it never came to fruition? It doesn't show a lack of effort on our side at all.

(70) tried to buy weapons-grade uranium to develop a weapon that would kill on a mass basis — like Hiroshima.

Tried, so apparently he didn't succeed? So how is this lessening the Democratic defense position at all?

(74) Bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahri issued a fatwa declaring "war on America" and making the murder of any American anywhere on earth the "individual duty" of every Muslim.

This is pretty sweet until you remember that there are about a billion Muslims that are actually quite sane and have no desire to go to war with the planet.

the raid was called off at the last moment by CIA Director George Tenet and others worried about possible collateral damage and second-guessing and recrimination if bin Laden didn't survive.

Wait, the same guy who had to resign during a Republican president's term in office?

Somehow forewarned, bin Laden and his terrorist leaders all left — no terrorists were killed, but U.S. ineffectiveness was on full display.

This may be true, but it doesn't disprove we were weak on defense, since we did in fact GO AFTER THEM. How is this a sign of weakness again?

told the 9/11 Commission "opportunities were missed due to an unwillingness to take risks and a lack of vision and understanding

What kind of opportunities? Maybe the administration had complete understanding, and were sure of the consequences of failure. Also, seriously, how many opportunities have we had in this current administration? We've failed every time, maybe, perhaps, for the same reasons?

1) (86) Iran's nuke-bound terrorists; 2) (87) al-Qaida and other terrorists; and 3) (88) North Korea and its nuclear weapons.

It's a good thing our current administration is focusing so much on all three of these... right?

from taking on the North Koreans to ultimately firing the popular Gen. Douglas MacArthur for insubordination.

Taking on the Koreans? Wtf? He pulled troops from the country, when MacArthur wanted to finish them off! How is this strong on defense again? You know, with all those North Korean nukes people worry about these days, maybe if this action wasn't averted upon by Truman, we'd be in less trouble. And seriously? Ending WWII? While probably the most emotionally involved action of any President ever, it had to be done. This definitely isn't a fair comparision at all.

In 1952 we produced 93% of the oil we consumed. Now we depend on the Mideast and others for 66%. Democrats have been largely responsible for this because they have blocked all efforts to drill in Alaska and certain offshore areas estimated to contain 10 billion to 20 billion barrels of crude.

Maybe because they were hoping that we would look for other sources of energy and NOT HAVE TO DEPEND ON FOREIGN OIL. Which is stupid anyway, since we EXPORT a god damn lot of oil.

This helps the enemy and undermines our troops in the field.

How?

And in many cases, they have unintentionally but materially increased the danger to our national security and the safety of all Americans.

Yeah, because Roosevelt didn't wait two years to join in WWII, and only after Japan hit us, and because Kennedy was so successful in Cuba and Vietnam, and Nixon, he was the king, right? Moving the war outside of Vietnam when we couldn't even advance there? That was successful, right? Or Reagan, with as many failed experiences as wins? And it looks like he did so much work to clean up Carter's apparent failures (which they may have been, I'm just pointing out the stupidity of this dude's argument). No mention of Bush the First doing anything either. And it seems to me that while Clinton and Carter were in office, while not starting any huge, costly wars, they kept human rights a priority, to everyone, without discrimination, and did their best to actually worry about consequences of their actions, perhaps thinking that an apparent win would, in the end, do more damage than originally thought. And woH! They cared about civilian casualities. They're monsters in my book. You know, letting the people in other countries actually view us as good guys, and maybe take it upon themselves to rise up against their own governments, and make a change for themselves.

God forbid.

Right after posting, found this nifty article summary + quote.

Their faith in the power of forgiveness led them to invite the widow of the non-Amish killer, Charles Carl Roberts IV, to the funeral for four of the slain girls.

"I have always found that mercy bears richer fruits than strict justice."
-Abraham Lincoln

Weak defense, right?

[n0nsensical]

Jeez, next thing you know they're going to bring up how Democrats were big on slavery in the 19th century. I have no idea how people can be so concerned with this stuff from the past while RIGHT NOW, TODAY neo-cons are hijacking the country for their own nefarious ends.

[dc_dux]

The reason to be concerned is because this "stuff" is what shows up in the negative ads today and the longer these ideological baseless myths are perpetuated, the more people accept them as fact.

[filtherton]

I heard that the republicans were weak on not molesting teenage congressional pages.

[aceventura3]

Originally Posted by dc_dux

Ace..you take what others say and simplify it and alter their conclusions so that they are counter to what was said in order to support your position.

Neither of us said government is the answer or responsble for great innovations. Rather, we both said that government helps create and support the environment in which industry can innovate.,particularly emerging industries than can contribute addtional solutions - not replace existing solutions.

And as far as the last comment "in other words, yes" - please, dont twist what I said. I agree with Carter not the article that our long standing policy of sleeping with the enemy simply because they were anti-communiist, has proven to be a failed policy again and again and ignoring human rights as we have done for the last few years has led to a level of anti-Americanism around the world we havent seen in my lifetime.

You made some valid points, and you are entitled to your own opinion and conclusions, but you are telling me what MY opinion and conclusions are....and if that is the quality of debate and discussion you chose to pursue, by misrepresenting what I say, I will pass on any further discussion with you.

I'll gladly continue to discuss the the truth or myth of the content of the original article with anyone else

I think my problem starts when I ask a question. I guess I falsely assume the response is an answer to the question. At one point I think I simply stated there were elements of truth in the article and then specified item #1 and asked if there was agreement. I thought there was.

On the subject of energy I asked if you thought the answer was more with government or more with the private sector to clarify our fundemental difference on the subject. I thought your response indicated that you thought government was the answer. If this is not true I did not read your response correctly, or I should probably avoid asking questions that won't get answered.