<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: NEWS &amp; VIEWS ROUNDUP &amp; EDITOR&#8217;S COMMENT: July 6</title>
	<atom:link href="http://warincontext.org/2008/07/06/news-views-roundup-editors-comment-july-6/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://warincontext.org/2008/07/06/news-views-roundup-editors-comment-july-6/</link>
	<description>... with attention to the unseen</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 23 May 2012 19:49:31 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Louise Lander</title>
		<link>http://warincontext.org/2008/07/06/news-views-roundup-editors-comment-july-6/comment-page-1/#comment-2588</link>
		<dc:creator>Louise Lander</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 06 Jul 2008 23:32:48 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://warincontext.org/?p=1170#comment-2588</guid>
		<description>Concerning what to do with the naval base at Guantánamo, Cuba, it is striking that no one is recognizing that this piece of real estate is a spoil of the Spanish-American War. (Cuba itself would have been annexed by the US had it not been for the opposition of the sugar lobby.)  In other words, Guantánamo was stolen from Cuba by force.  It should be returned to its rightful owner.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Concerning what to do with the naval base at Guantánamo, Cuba, it is striking that no one is recognizing that this piece of real estate is a spoil of the Spanish-American War. (Cuba itself would have been annexed by the US had it not been for the opposition of the sugar lobby.)  In other words, Guantánamo was stolen from Cuba by force.  It should be returned to its rightful owner.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: John Robertson</title>
		<link>http://warincontext.org/2008/07/06/news-views-roundup-editors-comment-july-6/comment-page-1/#comment-2587</link>
		<dc:creator>John Robertson</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 06 Jul 2008 18:05:10 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://warincontext.org/?p=1170#comment-2587</guid>
		<description>Kudos for posting the NYT - Nelson Schwartz piece about US energy policy being &quot;Asleep at the spigot.&quot; It has been indeed, with lots of blame to go around to our short-sighted politicians. They include Newt Gingrich - whose statement to the effect that America&#039;s cultural imperatives trump concern over oil supply should completely disgust all of us - and the late (but not lamented here) Jesse Helms, but also Michigan&#039;s Senator Carl Levin and Rep. John Dingell, who asserts that we Americans simply gotta have our cars big and powerful, trophies in our driveway, or as Gingrich put it, &quot;cultural expressions.&quot;

But let&#039;s face it, we need to ladle plenty of that blame for our energy policy right into our own laps. There was a time, in the late 1970s, after the 1973 oil embargo, when Jimmy Carter tried to wake us up to the need for a more prudent and rational energy policy. I remember how impressed I was to see the US president actually go on television to ask us to drive less, turn down our thermostats, put on our sweaters. It was an era of 55 mph speed limits on our interstates, lots of VW Beetles and little Toyotas and Datsuns (now Nissan) and our roads; Americans trying to make a difference, to leave a smaller footprint. Sensible stuff. Rational stuff.

Then came the 80s and 90s. Reagan came in (and, we all said, America could now &quot;stand proud.&quot; The price of oil came down, Detroit revved up the horsepower again, Jeeps and 4-wheel drives were suddenly cool. Then it was minivans for the American family - but they were soon way uncool, so then came the SUVs, then bigger SUVs, then the 1991 Desert Storm war made the humvee cool - so, GM decides, let&#039;s make a Hummer for the standin&#039;-proud US macho-male consumer. And so it went. You tell me the US sucks up 25% of the world&#039;s oil supply? Hey, dude, so what? Besides, it&#039;s our culture! We&#039;re the nation of Richard Petty, and St. Dale of NASCAR! Besides, why should we give a sh*t about what the rest of the world says? C&#039;mon, we saved all their asses in World War II, and then we won the Cold War and kicked the commies&#039; butts, right? Screw em! They owe us!

And so it&#039;s gone. And here we are, where we are. Ford and GM are getting knee-capped, and with them thousands of autoworkers and their families, including kids whose families won&#039;t be able to come up with college tuition. (Say, maybe our energy policy has solved the military&#039;s recruitment dilemma!)  Meanwhile, the asphalt in our used-car lots is crumbling under the weight of all those unsellable Ford Expeditions and Chevy pickups, sitting there (shall I say it? OK, cue Bob Seger!) &quot;like a rock.&quot;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Kudos for posting the NYT &#8211; Nelson Schwartz piece about US energy policy being &#8220;Asleep at the spigot.&#8221; It has been indeed, with lots of blame to go around to our short-sighted politicians. They include Newt Gingrich &#8211; whose statement to the effect that America&#8217;s cultural imperatives trump concern over oil supply should completely disgust all of us &#8211; and the late (but not lamented here) Jesse Helms, but also Michigan&#8217;s Senator Carl Levin and Rep. John Dingell, who asserts that we Americans simply gotta have our cars big and powerful, trophies in our driveway, or as Gingrich put it, &#8220;cultural expressions.&#8221;</p>
<p>But let&#8217;s face it, we need to ladle plenty of that blame for our energy policy right into our own laps. There was a time, in the late 1970s, after the 1973 oil embargo, when Jimmy Carter tried to wake us up to the need for a more prudent and rational energy policy. I remember how impressed I was to see the US president actually go on television to ask us to drive less, turn down our thermostats, put on our sweaters. It was an era of 55 mph speed limits on our interstates, lots of VW Beetles and little Toyotas and Datsuns (now Nissan) and our roads; Americans trying to make a difference, to leave a smaller footprint. Sensible stuff. Rational stuff.</p>
<p>Then came the 80s and 90s. Reagan came in (and, we all said, America could now &#8220;stand proud.&#8221; The price of oil came down, Detroit revved up the horsepower again, Jeeps and 4-wheel drives were suddenly cool. Then it was minivans for the American family &#8211; but they were soon way uncool, so then came the SUVs, then bigger SUVs, then the 1991 Desert Storm war made the humvee cool &#8211; so, GM decides, let&#8217;s make a Hummer for the standin&#8217;-proud US macho-male consumer. And so it went. You tell me the US sucks up 25% of the world&#8217;s oil supply? Hey, dude, so what? Besides, it&#8217;s our culture! We&#8217;re the nation of Richard Petty, and St. Dale of NASCAR! Besides, why should we give a sh*t about what the rest of the world says? C&#8217;mon, we saved all their asses in World War II, and then we won the Cold War and kicked the commies&#8217; butts, right? Screw em! They owe us!</p>
<p>And so it&#8217;s gone. And here we are, where we are. Ford and GM are getting knee-capped, and with them thousands of autoworkers and their families, including kids whose families won&#8217;t be able to come up with college tuition. (Say, maybe our energy policy has solved the military&#8217;s recruitment dilemma!)  Meanwhile, the asphalt in our used-car lots is crumbling under the weight of all those unsellable Ford Expeditions and Chevy pickups, sitting there (shall I say it? OK, cue Bob Seger!) &#8220;like a rock.&#8221;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

