Aestu wrote:
They're not separate "historical events". One was the resolution to the other.
No, it wasn't. If anything, the hostage crisis was the resolution of Carter's foreign policy, since he had pulled all the backing from the Shah. To further compound his idiocy, instead of letting the Shah swing from a rope, he allowed him to take refuge in the US. That pissed off the revolutionaries in Iran, and made us a, if not "the," bad guy. The hostage crisis followed from that.
How you think that attempting to sell weapons to moderates/counter-revolutionaries in Iran to fund revolutionaries elsewhere is the resolution of that (or the resolution of anything, for that matter) is beyond me. Personally, I don't think you do. This is just one of those odd occasions where you're stubbornly refusing to admit that you're wrong and grasping at any straw you think will buoy you out of that sea of error.
Aestu wrote:
My question is what I asked you: what should Carter have done?
The same thing(s) we should do now:
1) Go nuclear for electricity: In the over fifty year history of nuclear power, there have been only two major incidents, Three Mile Island and Chernobyl.
The bulk of the problem with Three Mile Island was that technicians didn't follow protocols and defeated built-in safeguards because they believed the problem they were having to be something other than what the problem actually was. Despite these errors, no radiation or contaminants escaped that plant.
Chernobyl was a completely different monster in that it was a poorly designed (more likely poorly copied) facility that was overdue for overhaul/closure. Improper maintenance, bad design, and just plain age resulted in nuclear calamity that impacted the surrounding environment for decades to come.
While nuclear power is potentially hazardous, it is less polluting than conventional power, and properly designed and maintained facilities operating withing protocols minimize, if not completely negate, any risks.
That one should have been a no-brainer for a guy that served on nuclear subs.
2)Infrastructure: Part of the energy problem is infrastructure. The fact that we haven't built a new oil refinery since Carter's time (because of rules enacted on his watch...way to solve the problem) is a large part of this problem. We have a system built for the demands of the 1970s attempting to pump out the fuels to meet demands three or four times greater. Most of our refineries are along the coast of the Gulf of Mexico, which puts those facilities in jeopardy due to hurricanes. The lack of processing our supply becomes even greater because due to regional environmental regulations. The fuel you can sell in Nebraska can't be sold in California.
There are two ways to combat this problem. First, switching the country to a unified fuel blend would have an immediate impact on both cost and production. Secondly, we should remove excessively restrictive regulations that make building new refineries cost-prohibitive. I do not wish to imply that there is no need for environmental safe-guards to minimize the environmental impact, since I breathe the same air most of you do, but some of the regulations are ridiculously restrictive and far exceed similar standards in other industries.
Oil companies should be encouraged to build refineries regionally. Since there is a lot of NIMBY (Not In My Back Yard) opposition to energy infrastructure, localities should be encouraged to embrace these facilities, as well. I am not sure how best to do this, since I discourage tax breaks/subsidies to control behavior, but the boon of new jobs and some cash influx that refineries would bring to a community should be at least a small bit of incentive.
There will be considerable resistance to this idea from environmental groups, among others, but should be done. There is also the fringe benefit of decentralizing our refining capabilities in case of future hurricanes/disasters along the Gulf Coast.
3)Wind and Solar: These were highly touted in Carter's energy policy, but even now are mostly crap. T. Boone Pickens, a billionaire who made his money in the energy sector, attempted to build and operate a functional wind-farm...electric providers refused to tie into in because it wasn't reliable enough. The same thing happens with solar farms. This is not to say the technology should not be developed, but until it is reliable, we can't make them part of any workable energy policy.
4)Propane: Propane is readily produced and there is infrastructure already in place to support it, which makes it ideal for adoption it as a motor fuel. Currently, propane is used mostly for home heating and recreational devices. There is a large market, though, for propane as a fuel already, as it is commonly used to fuel forklifts and other specialty equipment.
5)Exploration/Recovery: Find it and drill it. Leaving ANWAR untouched because we don't want to schmutz up a frozen fucking tundra is retarded. There's no reason we can't gather resources without taking a piss on spotted owls, you fucking hippies.
Your Pal,
Jubber
