Lincoln Blog

July 18, 2008:

Friday thoughts:

Can somebody put a cork into Al Gore's mouth?

The former Vice President's "challenge" to America to end its dependence on carbon-based products within a decade betrays the depth to which he is disconnected from reality.

While there is no doubt that the development of alternative fuels - particularly nuclear and solar power - must accelerate; the thought that we end the use of oil, coal and gas within a decade is neither achievable nor desirable.

Simply put, the cost of such a venture would tank our economy even worse than the current situation.

The ultimate solution to our energy needs likely will be a combination of traditional carbon-based energy, plus the use where economically feasible and appropriate of newer applications since as wind, solar, surf, etc.

In the short term there is no doubt America will continue to be an oil-based economy. That means opening the outer continental shelf, ANWAR and interior sections of the country blessed with bountiful quantities of shale oil to be extracted, refined, and injected into the energy stream.

A mid-term solution would encompass more coal gasification. This could be an economic boom to Pennsylvania which sits atop more coal reserves than Saudi Arabia has oil.

It is also clear that more nuclear power generation must be a component of a comprehensive national energy policy. Even France derives most of its electricity from nuclear generation. This is one rare case where we would be wise to follow the French.

Longer term any solution that brings to the table an economic way to utilize solar energy is a winner. If we ever run out of that fuel, making our cars run will be the least of our worries. Hydrogen is also showing some promise as an alternate fuel.

What we must not have is government policymakers setting artificial goals. Nor should the government pick winners and losers. That is the prime weakness in Governor Ed Rendell's energy plan: having the state decide which alternative fuel projects get funded and which do not.

A better way would be to provide tax credits, allow a longer period for writing off loss carried forward, and overall lower tax rates to encourage private investment and private initiative. That way those who innovate the best will emerge as real winners. This would be a far better approach than having the governor hand out our tax dollars to his friends.

Another Friday thought: Is Barack Obama now "Barack the Untouchable?"

The recent cover cartoon in the New Yorker is the latest example of the PC police protecting Obama. Was the cover crass, insulting, degrading and generally disgusting? Yes. But worse cartoons - and in far greater numbers - have been drawn about President Bush with no accompanying howls of protest.

Picking on Bush is OK, picking on Obama is not.

Personally, were I the editor of the New Yorker, I would not have allowed that cartoon to see the light of day. It is offensive and personally insulting to the Obamas and that is not good journalism. But, the New Yorker has a constitutional right to publish what it wants. The rest of us have the right to not buy it.

That having been said the New Yorker cartoon flap is just the latest example of the degree to which the Obamas have become untouchables. Recall the Senator himself saying we cannot question his patriotism? Remember that criticism of his wife is not allowed? Ask George W. Bush about having your patriotism questioned. Ask Hillary Clinton about a President's wife being criticized. Such scrutiny comes with the job.

Recall the old saw about what you should do if you can't stand the heat?

Speaking of which, it is now 95 degrees in Harrisburg.

Give Us Your Feedback!