Thomas Friedman, writes in the New York Times:

“How will future historians explain it? How will they possibly explain why President George W. Bush decided to ignore the energy crisis staring us in the face and chose instead to spend all his electoral capital on a futile effort to undo the New Deal, by partially privatizing Social Security? We are, quite simply, witnessing one of the greatest examples of misplaced priorities in the history of the U.S. presidency… By doing nothing to lower U.S. oil consumption, we are financing both sides in the war on terrorism and strengthening the worst governments in the world. That is, we are financing the U.S. military with our tax dollars and we are financing the jihadists - and the Saudi, Sudanese and Iranian mosques and charities that support them - through our gasoline purchases. The oil boom is also entrenching the autocrats in Russia and Venezuela, which is becoming Castro’s Cuba with oil. By doing nothing to reduce U.S. oil consumption we are also setting up a global competition with China for energy resources, including right on our doorstep in Canada and Venezuela. Don’t kid yourself: China’s foreign policy today is very simple - holding on to Taiwan and looking for oil… Finally, by doing nothing to reduce U.S. oil consumption we are only hastening the climate change crisis, and the Bush officials who scoff at the science around this should hang their heads in shame. And it is only going to get worse the longer we do nothing… The country is dying to be led on this. Instead, ..(Bush).. prefers to squander his personal energy trying to take apart the New Deal and throwing red meat to right-to-life fanatics. What a waste of a presidency. How will future historians explain it?”

Princeton Professor Emeritus Kenneth S. Deffeyes, writes in the New York Times:

“The greatest year of United States production was 1970. Prudhoe Bay started producing oil in 1977, but never enough to raise American production above the level of 1970. The Arctic refuge will probably have an even smaller effect. Every little bit helps, but even the most successful drilling project at the Arctic refuge would be only a little bit… But if the question of whether to drill in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge is the wrong one, what’s the right one? In 1997 and 1998, a few petroleum geologists began examining world oil production using the methods that M. King Hubbert used in predicting in 1956 that United States oil production would peak during the early 1970’s. These geologists indicated that world oil output would reach its apex in this decade - some 30 to 40 years after the peak in American oil production. Almost no one paid attention. The controversy over the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge is a side issue. The problem we need to face is the impending world oil shortage.”

The Onion has this story:

WASHINGTON, DC—Days after unveiling new power-plant pollution regulations that rely on an industry-favored market-trading approach to cutting mercury emissions, EPA Acting Administrator Stephen Johnson announced that the agency will remove the “E” and “P” from its name. “We’re not really ‘environmental’ anymore, and we certainly aren’t ‘protecting’ anything,” Johnson said. “‘The Agency’ is a name that reflects our current agenda and encapsulates our new function as a government-funded body devoted to handling documents, scheduling meetings, and fielding phone calls.” The change comes on the heels of the Department of Health and Human Services’ January decision to shorten its name to the Department of Services.

RELATED: New EPA Mercury Rule Omits Conflicting Data

Relying on oil from ANWR to improve America’s energy situation is like putting a band-aid on a mortar wound. The fact is that during the past 35 years the United States has done virtually nothing to reduce the dependence of our economy on oil and to seek alternative renewable energy resources which will be needed in the coming decades.
(more…)

Senator John Sununu, in a letter to me, has effectively condoned torture by the United States.
(more…)

So you think George W. Bush’s and Condi Rice’s visits to Europe signaled a real change-of-heart in the U.S. Administration’s attitudes towards trans-Atlantic relations?

Think again:

• Condi: “United States “hereby withdraws” from the Optional Protocol to the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations“
• U.S. pulls out of world court
• “The nomination of John Bolton to be US ambassador to the United Nations is a resounding declaration of American contempt for the organization and the rest of the world.“
• Outrage as US soldiers kill hostage rescue hero
• White House Calls Italian Journo Hostage’s Claim ‘Absurd’

Only a few days ago David Brooks wrote the “neoconservative… approach led to … to what many derided as the overly idealistic foreign policies that are now contributing to the exhilarating revolutions we’re seeing across the Middle East”.

Now Brooks has gone even further off the deep end by praising Paul Wolfowitz and basically calling for the guy to be awarded the Nobel Peace Prize: “If the trends of the last few months continue, Wolfowitz will be the subject of fascinating biographies decades from now, while many of his smuggest critics will be forgotten.”
(more…)

David Brooks states in his New York Times piece “40 Years of Character” that the “neoconservative… approach led to … to what many derided as the overly idealistic foreign policies that are now contributing to the exhilarating revolutions we’re seeing across the Middle East”, he is engaging in the latest and largest bit of unsupportable neocon fantasy to date. (more…)