Ocean Planning and Zoning

Once upon a time, not long ago, the oceans were still a frontier for exploration.  Today, we see many signs of unchecked exploitation.  Lest you react too quickly against regulating access, think back to the implementation of game laws.  Most game species and other species dependent on them for survival (both up and down the chain) were on the verge of disappearing from our country prior to the implementation of hunting and fishing regulations.  Today, many have rebounded beyond our wildest expectations.  I have difficulty with restricting rights, but this one makes sense from the perspective of sustainability.  The ocean is perhaps the most important source of food protein on the planet.

Obama launches policy to protect oceans

I must admit though, I am amused by the phrase...."marine spatial planning."

Below is a link to the Executive Order:

Executive Order--Stewardship of the Ocean, Our Coasts, and the Great Lakes

Pipelines for Alaskans

Alaska is a resource treasure trove. It is difficult to access and develop that treasure. The environmental extremists will fight tooth-and-nail for every last inch of the state to remain undeveloped.

Governor Palin is doing what is in the best interest of the people of her state and of this nation by working to develop the necessary infrastructure to gain access to those hard-to-reach resources. I applaud her willingness to face the pressure of the anti-development crowd. I hope that she ensures that the development will be done in a manner that is sensitive to some of the critical habitats that could be affected. It's all about balance.

The Equivalent of War

Resolving the perceived energy crisis will be one of the primary areas of focus for the next President. How that resolution is approached will have profound impact on many generations to come. Do we focus on reducing energy consumption? Do we penalize certain forms of energy? Do we allow environmental concerns to dictate policy at the expense of economic and security issues? How do we pay for government energy initiatives? How do we alleviate the burden of high energy costs on the American taxpayer?

Currently, a staggeringly large amount of U.S. productivity is spent obtaining oil from other countries. We have financed some of the most anti-U.S. governments on the planet through our energy dollars. Through some of those governments we have financed the very terrorists that have attacked us. The very terrorists who draw us into military operations that further drain our treasury. Even when we choose not to purchase petroleum directly from terrorist sponsors, our purchase of foreign oil frees those countries to sell to others who have less compunction against sponsoring terrorism.

We must become energy independent. How? We sent our first rocket to the moon as the result of a focused effort to do so. Let's focus on becoming energy independent. We can do so by implementing a comprehensive plan of 1) utilizing existing reserves of petroleum and coal products, 2) developing new forms of energy, 3) encouraging the expansion of renewable energy technologies such as solar and wind, 4) building safe and efficient nuclear power plants. 5) Implementing and encouraging conservation strategies.

All of these things can be done with proper attention to environmental concerns. Such attention is NOT preservation at all costs. It IS conservation and protection of critical species and habitat. There is a difference. We MUST be good stewards of the resources at our disposal. It is prudent for our security and our future.

Our next President and Congress have a big job ahead of them. It will require wisdom -- not just the empty promise of change for the sake of change. It will require a comprehensive marshaling of our resources as a nation and the equivalent of war on a task which is critical to our future. It requires vision and experience. It must be conducted in a manner that alleviates the stifling burden to productivity that is borne by the taxpayers of this country. It cannot be at the expense of enslaving them to the extreme beliefs of the privileged few.

Somalia's Crisis Grows

Somalia is a Sunni Muslim country located in the Horn of Africa. It has experienced almost continual civil and political strife since its independence from Italy in 1960. The 2006 invasion from neighboring Ethiopia was only the most recent instance of conflict with its neighbor. The capitol city is Mogadishu of "Blackhawk Down" fame. Its people are dying of hunger.

In a story released today, the BBC indicated that the number of people in the country in dire need of food assistance will reach approximately 3.5 million in this year. That is about 1/3 of the population of the country.

The political and religious climate as well as the lack of a controlling governmental force makes it extremely difficult to provide aid to these starving people. Humanitarian groups are threatened and often attacked by various militant forces when they attempt to deliver aid. Such delivery is further complicated by the constant movement of people seeking refuge from those same militant forces and from the harsh, drought-prone climate. Many of them will die.

Humanitarian aid isn't the answer for the country. It only treats a symptom. Political stability is what is needed. The collapse of the government has led to widespread capitalism instead of the socialism that was present previously. It is the capitalism of survival through opportunism. It is also dominated by warlords whose protection is necessary for survival.

My question to you is this: Would it be a just war to invade Somalia for the purpose of bringing stability to the nation?

Pragmatically, we would have little to gain. The country contains no known deposits of oil or natural gas. There are no major natural resources for exploitation. The history of warfare between the various tribes is unlikely to ever result in a stable self-government. Stability might reduce the amount of humanitarian aid that is sent there every year. Yet, people there continue to die of starvation.