Both Hillary Clinton and Sarah Palin wrote, and published, op-eds this morning. While Secretary Clinton argues that food security and agricultural stability is vital to national security in the Guardian, Palin pushes "drill baby drill" in the National Review.
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is once again using her clout to shed light on important issues that were pushed to the side during the bloodthirsty Bush Administration. In addition to making women's issues a cornerstone of national security, Clinton now turns her attention to "food security" - the new term for hunger:
Food security represents the convergence of several issues: droughts and floods caused by climate change, swings in the global economy that affect food prices, and spikes in the price of oil that increase transportation costs.
So food security is not only about food, but it is all about security. Chronic hunger threatens individuals, governments, societies, and borders.
People who are starving or undernourished and can't care for their families are left with feelings of hopelessness and despair, which can lead to tension, conflict, even violence. Since 2007, there have been riots over food in more than 60 countries.
The failures of farming in many parts of the world also have an impact on the global economy. Farming is the only or primary source of income for more than three-quarters of the world's poor. When so many work so hard but still can't get ahead, the whole world is held back. [...]
Our approach will be informed by experience. We have spent too many years and dollars on development projects that have not yielded lasting results. But we have learned from these efforts. We know that the best strategies emanate from those closest to the problems, not foreign governments or institutions thousands of miles away. We know that development works best when it is seen as investment, not aid.
But soft! What light through yonder op-ed page breaks?
It is common sense, and Hillary Clinton is the sun!
I can't believe it: Someone with a position of authority can finally look at our global political strategy, realize that escalating violence, pre-emptive strikes, and strategic assassinations may not be the best policies for all situations. Finally, someone is looking at the root causes of rage and national instability and is looking toward solutions that involve making investments in humanity instead of the technology of war. Cue CeCe Peniston!
And then, I had to read a little op-ed called "Drill."
Sarah Palin, why are you trying to drag America back into the eco-dark ages? I mean, really. The rest of the world is working to reduce its dependency on natural resources and you're advocating to drill for oil? You want to tap an already short supply for short term gain? Why don't you advocate to bring back coil mines, while you're at it?
Given that we're spending billions of stimulus dollars to rebuild our highways, it makes sense to think about what we'll be driving on them. For years to come, most of what we drive will be powered, at least in part, by diesel fuel or gasoline. To fuel that driving, we need access to oil. The less use we make of our own reserves, the more we will have to import, which leads to a number of harmful consequences. That means we need to drill here and drill now.
For the same reason, the federal government shouldn't push a single, universal approach to alternative-powered vehicles. Electric cars might work in Los Angeles, but they don't work in Alaska, where you can drive hundreds of miles without seeing many people, let alone many electrical sockets.
Governor Palin: You do know cars run on gas, right? If there are enough gas stations to allow people to drive through Alaska, surely they could find a way to add electric ones. But Palin is tilting against a windmill - the electric car won't be a widespread option for some time, which is why most of the auto industry is focusing on how to reduce gas mileage and many Americans are looking for was to reduce their dependency by car sharing programs, buying more fuel efficient cars, and simply driving less.
Palin ignores science, facts, and innovation in her piece, twisting the truth about our dire circumstances into the best political greenwashing I have ever seen. She finally ends the piece using in this ridiculous campaign rehash:
Alternative sources of energy are part of the answer, but only part. There's no getting around the fact that we still need to "drill, baby, drill!" And if those in D.C. say otherwise, we need to tell them: "Yes, we can!"
No, we fucking can't.
This is not the answer.
If you want to provide stable American jobs, the answer is green-collar jobs, not refineries. I really don't understand the desire to keep pushing for a band-aid when we could just start fixing the wound by moving toward green energy. And we need to do it now, before we hit a real crisis.
Now, I don't understand how someone without a job is still worthy of a Gallup poll on popularity, but apparently that isn't going so well.
[H]er current 40% favorable rating is the lowest for her since she became widely known after last year's Republican convention.
Not only is Palin at her lowest favorability yet, her unfavorability ratings have hit a high of 50%. She's also tanking among independents: Only 41% view her favorably, versus 48% who view her unfavorably.
This a joke people. I'm tired of hearing about Palin. I'm sick of hearing a bunch of nonsense dressed up as policy.
And by the way, Palin, it's time to retire that phrase.