The tension is palpable.

You can feel the suspense...the foreboding. Were fast-approaching the 11th hour-- (play "Dragnet" music) DAHN, ta- dun- dunt...dahn- ta-dundun- DIR-R-R-R (music fades).

So what's all the drama about? Of course; it's those dreaded, fast-rising sea levels, ominously licking away at land masses everywhere.

Time is running out!

Does anyone remember the fallout shelter-building mania that swept America a generation (or two) ago? There was utter paranoia that the Russians would, at any time, launch simultaneous thermonuclear attacks, and concerned schoolchildren were taught, "if you see a blinding flash, duck 'n cover" (your head).

Recently, a report issued from a UN climate change conference in Copenhagen stated a similar grim warning: Given the rapid melting of the Antarctic ice sheet, we should prepare for the worst-- a possible 20 foot rise in sea levels during the 21st century, triggered by global warming.

So now, we have "major risk" that many coastal areas will be inundated by the end of the century, because polar ice sheets have been (quote)... "melting much faster than previously estimated"...and..."low-lying areas in Bangladesh, the Maldives, Florida, plus certain areas in Europe, all face catastrophic flooding by the year 2100."

This of course begs the obvious question: in all recorded history, has there ever existed a NON-catastrophic flood? After all, a flood is a flood; and no one-- save Noah-- is usually prepared.

The UN conference report also stated that Britain, in particular, remains "imperiled". (Quote)..."Large areas of the Thames Estuary are likely to disappear by 2100; and cities including London, Hull and Portsmouth will need new flood defenses."

New flood defenses?

Well allright then; no problem. It's actually just what the worldwide economy needs-- a monumental, shovel-ready, stimulus package. Dig, baby dig!

So why not take a cue from the Dutch, and initiate a massive, comprehensive, dike construction project?

Yup; we'll show those darn, stubborn rising seas a thing or two.

Imagine...a worldwide dike-building project: the economic stimulus...the jobs created; and above all-- we'd now feel SAFE.

People would again be able to sleep at night, and no longer would children come home from school and preach environmentalism to Ma 'n Pa. We'd could laugh in the face of "climate change" resulting from our use of those horrendous, nasty-nasty fossil fuels-- no more controversy! 

It seems like the Chinese had the right idea from the git-go: Got a problem with invaders? Well, just build a great wall to stymie the rascals. But instead of inland, everyone would be building their own version of the Great Wall adjacent to their coastlines.  

Makes sense doesn't it? Turning a negative into a positive, and thwarting invasion from the seas. The unemployed now have jobs, and the world economy takes off. 

Of course, it would block coastal views, but what's aesthetics compared to saving lives? If your worried about it, just make like a submariner and get a periscope.

It can't miss!  It would spark a revival in the construction-building trades, creating yet more union employment for the jobless masses, and give them a well-deserved chance at a middle class lifestyle.

Indeed, for almost a generation now, the global warmongers have been forecasting the coming of the great coastal boogie man--worldwide rising sea levels.

But now, with the advent of the dyke (er, dike) era, we can return to our good ol' wasteful American selves, and continue to use up 25% of the world's resources, while letting those sea levels rise merrily away-- the fish will love it!

Basically, the crux of the global warming argument has been obfuscated.

An environmental threat has transformed into a "heated" political debate: we must literally "pay" (cap 'n trade) if we dare emit too much "greenhouse gas", which warms the earth, melts the glaciers, and ultimately raises sea levels -- all that calamity-stuff  jazz.

But now, with the onset of the modern dike-building era, we can just greenhouse gas-away to our hearts' content!

Ergo...problem solved, except for the environmentalists, who would be forced into seeking  a new line of work. After all, as the old saying goes...what goes 'round, comes around (etc.)

So let the oceans rise; who cares? They won't have a chance. Man conquers nature, a first in world history!

And no need for shared sacrifice, economic turmoil, or lifestyle disruption brought on by noisy windmills, ugly electric cars, or energy conservation-- thereby negating the Congressional "enviro-crats," who've been trying to jam climate change legislation down our throats, and tax us to oblivion.

Furthermore, America would retain its role as the economic engine of the world. It would be our chance to play locomotive, and chug-chug the world out of recession, as coastal countries all adopt dike-building programs of their own.

So now, with the world's economic and environmental problems in remission (and everyone busy at work again) we all could go on living happily ever after-- or at least until the next big problem comes along.

So let the earth continue to warm, and let those dreaded winter blizzards fade away. The plants and trees will proliferate, our heating bills plummet, the sea levels rise, and the marine mammals (and all those billions of schools of fish) no longer face ocean overcrowding.

And besides all the newly-carefree plant and marine life, the land animals also experience welcome lifestyle changes as never before:

No more sleepy wintertime bears; no more skinny hibernating squirrels; and birds of a feather no longer need migrate south together; all due to the resourcefulness of the Dutch, who as it turns out-- all along-- have been hundreds of years ahead of the rest of the world.

Why didn’t we think of this before?

But hold the phone here for a minute...there seems to be a slight hitch in the numbers. The United Auto Workers peaked at 1.5 million members in 1969. And today, the United Steelworkers Union represents 850,000 workers in both the U.S. and Canada. So let's just do a little adding up here: Uh, yes; the total number of workers in these established industries appears to only exceed 2 million.

But there's one small detail, mister Barack-O...once you make all these windmills, where the heck do they all go? Would you and your wife Michelle, be okay living within sight of one?

At the Democratic convention, during his Thursday night acceptance speech, Obama is on record as saying, "I'll invest $150 billion over the next decade in affordable, renewable sources of energy". So will Obama have the government in the windmill manufacturing business? Or are they just going to give private industries $150 billion and say, "Git goin' boys, and start making all them hi-tech windmills of the future!" And who would be in charge of picking out the recipients of the $150 billion? Gore? The EPA? The U.N.? Who? The more you examine it, the murkier it gets. 

Government make-work programs go back to the 1930's. FDR's New Deal created the CCC, and the WPA,  putting millions back to work building projects, but did nothing to lift the country out of the Great Depression; it only prolonged it. It seems that Obama is making the classic liberal mistake-- government programs create jobs, but create no actual wealth. If there's no actual markets for the skills or jobs you're creating, then all are eventually doomed. Markets create wealth because every dollar invested in something that's actually useful or needed, has an economic-multiplier effect...it generates more and more investment as those markets continue to expand.

So are we to become the Saudi Arabia of windmills or what? Maybe we can export 'em to the far ends of the earth, because no one wants them anywhere near their property back here. 

But although Obama has never said it publicly, he's totally anti-oil. He shuns any more domestic drilling, and desires higher pump prices as a means of forced conservation. And if we don't drill for more domestic supply, that means more reliance on imports.  So in time of sudden emergency in the Middle East, could we depend on OPEC to come through? How reliable would they be?

Remember 1973? Obama was in grade school then. The Arabs cut off our oil supply right after the outbreak of the October Yom Kippur War. So what would happen if Israel and Iran were to get aggressive in 2 or 3 years with Obama as president? Who's side would OPEC take?  What if they cut us off again? Our insufficient domestic resources would jeopardize our military supply of oil in time of a national emergency.  We cannot expect to have a strong military in this century without the assurance of an adequate oil supply. Tanks can't run on electricity, and jet fighters don't run on wind or solar.

Obama is an undeniably brilliant man, but to this day, remains an enigma. Everyone knows ABOUT him, but besides his wife and family, does any one really KNOW him? He's able to talk entensively about almost anything, but is specific about nothing.

The only people who've been close to Obama as an adult are those back in south Chicago, and they're of highly questionable character. He is a brilliant orator, but keeps talking himself in and out of one political brushfire after another. If he only had a cause or purpose other than himself, a man of such brilliance could certainly be capable of truly great achievements.