Editor's note: Michael Ackley's columns may include satire and parody based on current events, and thus mix fact with fiction. He assumes informed readers will be able to tell which is which.
Explaining Democratic Party energy policy, Sen. Maria Cantwell, D-Wash., told Bloomberg TV there would be "… a supply side offered by the Democrats, and it will include everything from battery technology to making sure that we have good home domestic supply, and looking … about moving faster on those kind of things like wind and solar that can help us with our high cost of natural gas."
We found this somewhat confusing. Cantwell, like the Democratic leadership, opposes drilling for domestic oil. She wants to "move beyond petroleum," but as yet the solutions she advocates don't exist.
In the parlance of economics, "supply" means the actual, physical existence of a desired commodity, not something merely wished. So, we sought clarification from Cantwell aide Amy Handleman.
"Ms. Handleman," we began, "why does Sen. Cantwell oppose drilling for oil on the continental shelves and in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, when experts agree her energy solutions – if they can be achieved at all – would be decades away."
"Decades away?" exclaimed Handleman. "Oh, mercy no. We're sure that if we keep the price of gasoline above $4 a gallon, American ingenuity will produce the energy we need, just as President Jimmy Carter said it would 30 years ago."
"But, won't the world continue to run on petroleum for years to come?" we asked.
"Hahaha!" Handleman laughed. "That's Big Oil talking. America needs to be weaned away from petroleum, and $4 a gallon gas will do it. As long as we keep the price high, we'll soon be swimming in energy."
"From where?" we demanded to know.
Handleman glanced about furtively, then whispered conspiratorially, "Do you believe in fairies?"
Ah, well. Democratic Party orthodoxy has included faith in the magical appearance of an oil substitute, ever since Carter asserted that America alchemy would bring OPEC to its knees. However, his party still is searching for the petrochemical Philosopher's Stone.
We have no objection to "moving beyond petroleum," as Cantwell put it, but the Democrats' plan to wean the nation from oil right now (while hoping we'll get used to $4 gasoline) is akin to weaning a baby from bottle formula to … nothing.
Memo to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, U.S. Senate majority leader: Opening America's offshore tracts and a tiny portion of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil drilling would not mean – as you imply – instant profits for the oil companies. First there would be billions of dollars of investment by those companies. The profits would follow, one hopes, years down the line.
The New York Times, whose offices already are adorned with red-flocked wallpaper, bead curtains and nudes painted on velvet, gave new meaning to "street edition" last week. The Times ruled it would not publish Sen. John McCain's response to an op-ed piece by Sen. Barack Obama, not recognizing or caring that there is a difference between ordinary polemics and the arguments of opposing presidential candidates. It explained unctuously that it was not its policy to allow point/counterpoint debates.
Sure, the newspaper offered to let McCain resubmit his piece, specifying: "It would be terrific to have an article from Sen. McCain that mirrors Sen. Obama's piece. To that end, the article would have to articulate, in concrete terms, how Sen. McCain defines victory in Iraq. It would also have to lay out a clear plan for achieving victory – with troops levels, timetables and measures for compelling the Iraqis to cooperate. And it would need to describe the senator's Afghanistan strategy, spelling out how it meshes with his Iraq plan."
"Troops levels"?! "Timetables"?! "Measures for compelling the Iraqis"?! Well, why not suggest McCain include everything that good sense would keep under wraps? Why not just tell him he can have commentary space if he'll endorse "change we can believe in"?
Journalism's "Gray Lady" has been the dominatrix of a disreputable house for some time; now she's patrolling the sidewalks like a common, curbside doxy.
Whatever you think about San Francisco, it long was a city of intelligence and wit. Now it has sunk to the level of those bards who inscribe verses on lavatory walls. In November, its voters will decide on a "satiric" measure – whether or not to name a sewage treatment plant after President George W. Bush. One would hope that town President William Howard Taft dubbed "the city that knows how" would know better. Nevertheless, enough signatures were gathered to put the measure on the municipal ballot, and its author is snickering like a naughty schoolboy. As for the spirit of the city: There it sits, all broken hearted …