To put some context to the issue, I am a firm believer in evolution by natural selection and I accept without significant reservation the socio-biological basis for much human behavior. While we are semantically perhaps more than apes with large brains, we are certainly related to apes and often display similar patterns of action under the appropriate circumstances. We are territorial, innately hostile to those outside our defined group and unashamed to aspire to domination of all we survey. Fairness also demands acknowledgment that we are capable of great empathy, charity and self-sacrifice, under certain circumstances, but those characteristics do not belie the truth that the world can be a dangerous place, with most of the danger embodied in the far-flung communities of our own species. The point is, if your rival has a stick, you may desire to have a bigger stick, since the rival’s stick may be employed to strike you repeatedly on the cranium and, once you are thereby disabled, repeat such process on your mate, offspring and domesticated canines. If you don’t accept the proposition that the world is a dangerous place, or if you feel that it is precisely our belief that it is dangerous that makes it so, it is difficult to discuss the merits of investments in national defense. Also, if you have a strong moral reservation about incinerating your fellow humans, even when they may not share such reservations, and may in fact even be contemplating the very act of attempting to do so to you or yours, then you will not be convinced by any argument of the necessity to squander the fruits of human labor on the capacity to squash our enemies like bugs. If you are one of those people, then God bless and protect you, but I am not taking to you.
Robert Higgs, an economist from the Cato Institute, estimates that America’s total expenditure for defense related activities in 2010 will surpass one-trillion dollars. The actual Defense Department Budget for Fiscal Year 2010 is about $685 billion, which does not include funds for prostitutes and bribes; those are actually in the Department of Energy budget. Anyway, at the lower figure of $685 billion, that’s about $3,000 for every person in the US over age 20, which is actually quite a bargain for the preservation of global peace, liberty, free trade, gender equity and the abatement of unreasonable search and seizure. On the other hand, if all we are getting for this investment is a transfer of wealth from the middle class to the upper classes and the eternal resentment of the families and friends of those we have incinerated in the name of justice and prosperity, then maybe it is not such a good investment. At this point it should become clear to the observer that every question is a Chinese puzzle box of underlying questions and maybe my wasted career as a petty government bureaucrat has made it impossible for me to draw any firm conclusions, but I am going to go out on a limb and say that the reality of the merit of military expenditures by the United States is a mixed bag of unfortunate necessity and delusional lunacy. I hope this is helpful.
So, somebody says to me, “how about that F-35 Lightning II?” My response is, “gosh, I don’t know.” Lockheed Martin says the F-35 is “a fifth-generation, single-seat, single-engine stealth multirole fighter that can perform close air support, tactical bombing, and air defense missions.” The turnkey cost on each of these sterling examples of American ingenuity is almost $200 million, and we are planning to make about 2400 them, so the actual program cost in currently inflated dollars is somewhere around $480 billion, which includes cruise control, leather bucket seats and an extended maintenance contract. This is the most expensive weapons system project in US history, which clearly makes it the most expensive in world history, more expensive than even an army of Orcs or the Death Star itself. These marvels of avionic science are intended to replace the U.S. military's “aging” fleet of F-16, A-10, F/A-18 and AV-8B tactical fighter aircraft. Since the F-35 is planned to be in widespread deployment in operational squadrons by 2016, we may have actually paid for the aircraft it is supposed to replace by then, maybe. The plane has been in development since 2001 and the first prototype flew in December of 2006. The design and development process has not been without issues, both technical and political. In keeping with our sacred tradition of military procurement, the project is over budget and behind schedule. There were costly fixes to the plane’s weight and a host of other nagging issues have emerged, like the delivered product costing twice what was originally estimated, and Secretary of Defense Robert Gates even went so far as to relieve the project director, Marine Major Gen. David Heinz, of his job earlier this year. Despite all of this, the F-35 Lightning II seems to be on track to take to the air in a few years to confront the evils of Islamo-fascism, Russian nationalism, Chinese capitalism and American unemployment.
I will digress slightly at this point to advise the reader (such as you are) that I am a veteran of three years of decidedly undistinguished but nonetheless loyal military service to the United States; I once voted for Sam Nunn and I have a loaded, and licensed, handgun in the glove compartment of my Dodge Charger Hemi V-8 (5.7 liter), albeit with a trigger lock securely in place. This all means I am probably unwelcome in Vermont, at a Greenpeace rally, or even in polite company, but I am more of a South Georgia beer-drinking seen-too-much-suffering Liberal than an Ivy League comfortable life leaves-time-for-speculation-about-greater-good Liberal, not that there is anything wrong with either approach. Anyway, my point is that I stood toe to toe with the evil Soviet Empire during the long dark years of the Cold War (mostly in German bars with German beer and German women) and I know the value of a well-oiled gun in a knife fight, but I have got to give the thumbs down to the F-35.
Here’s the deal. I really don’t know much about this whole issue and I’m mostly making up all the numbers I reference, but we are scheduled to spend almost seven billion dollars on the F-35 this year alone. The only military item we are spending more money on is the National Missile Defense, at $9.4 billion. I can stomach the bill for the National Missile Defense because it is designed to keep me and my family and dogs and property from being vaporized by distant nations that do not respect Comedy Central. Defense spending for actually defending ourselves against something makes sense to me, even if some greedy contractor is making an obscene profit. I know about all the MAD issues, but as long as missile defenses are accompanied by nuclear disarmament efforts, like the one just signed with Russia (which the Senate better not screw up), then I believe we are making real progress. Anyway, I’m not really concerned about the potential flaws with the F-35 design or the criminal cost overruns or software glitches or how loud it is or any of the rational arguments one might make based upon competitive value or adequacy of performance. My intent is to make a cheap emotional appeal.
The F-35 is designed and intended to continue the United State’s unilateral air supremacy over the world’s skies towards the middle of this century. The current fleet of former avionics miracles, including about 180 F-22 Raptors, can be maintained for decades to come. We are, after all, still flying B-52’s and EA-6B’s, which seem to be working pretty well. The state of aviation technology and the financial resources of the nations that may be real threats to us will take perhaps decades just to duplicate the F-22, a squadron of which is about as powerful as the Starship Enterprise. China has a military budget about one-tenth of ours and if they weren’t stealing our technology, they would be 30 years behind instead of just 15. The F-35 program will simply extend our capacity for, and obsession with, taking it upon ourselves to go it alone, ignore the cautious council of our fellow democracies, and involve ourselves in all sorts of short-sighted military adventurism, secure in the knowledge that the world will just have to bend over and take it because they cannot defeat, or even see, our fleets of doom. There is no conceivable line-up of evil axes that could hope to stand against the current military resources and moral resolve of the world’s free nations, and there is no really, really, really true global threat to human liberty that would fail to move our allies to action. Just because some nations want to use non-violent means of punitive coercion and we can’t drag all our friends over to our misguided Arab killing adventure does not lessen my faith in General Lafayette. I’ve been to Germany; I like them and they like me. That’s how we roll.
I’m not even going to discuss what $480 billion in infrastructure investment would mean to our economy or quality of life, or how much medical research could be accomplished with such a sum, or how many young adults could be taken from detention, counseled, educated and diverted from mugging old people. We don’t live on this planet alone. When we take our best minds and strongest metals and bend them to the machines of global domination, we are sending the wrong message and should not be surprised when others feel threatened and sacrifice their own economic well-being to try and compete. When we demonstrate that we do not plan to have to rely on our allies in times of crisis and allow the subtle fear that they might even be on the receiving end of the flying fist of death should it be necessary, we don’t engender loyalty and affection. When we show that the pursuit of happiness will be shortly followed by the pursuit of the shattered remnants of the vanquished foe, we are no longer the last, best hope of Mankind. Let Zeus hurl the lightning, we can make do with the strength of our principles and a few hand me down stealth bombers.
Thursday, April 29, 2010
Monday, April 26, 2010
The Voting Right Act
The history of voting rights in America is a sort of “Cliff Notes” version of our entire social history. Beginning with the white, property owning male only deal and meandering to the current policy of “don’t ask, don’t tell, don’t think, don’t even bother”, we have, at the federal and state level, been through an intelligently designed evolution resulting in the broadest and least utilized franchise in the industrial world. Given that the media is unwholesomely absorbed with political banter and everyone is simultaneously obsessed with and disgusted with the government, from Washington, DC to Anywhere USA, it is something of an irony that more people don’t vote, but somewhat less surprising that when they do, they mostly do something fucked up.
John Adams, signer of the Declaration of Independence and later President, wrote in 1776 that letting just anybody vote was not a really groovy idea, saying “depend upon it, Sir, it is dangerous to open so fruitful a source of controversy and altercation as would be opened by attempting to alter the qualifications of voters; there will be no end to it. New claims will arise; women will demand the vote; lads from 12 to 21 will think their rights not enough attended to; and every man who has not a farthing, will demand an equal voice with any other, in all acts of state. It tends to confound and destroy all distinctions, and prostrate all ranks to one common level.” We do, after all, hold these truths to be self evident.
Let me state for the record that I have tremendous respect for the men, and it was pretty much men, who founded this nation, but I am able to respect them in the context of their times and not deify them beyond the bounds of logic. Some of our fellow citizens, who somewhat cryptically refer to themselves as “Constitutionalists”, probably agree with President Adams about who ought to be able to vote; on the other hand, I’m not sure how they feel about 18th Century dentistry. The world has changed an awful lot since 1776 (or June of 1788) and Alexander Hamilton and James McHenry would have had to smoke a pound of peyote before signing the Constitution to even have a hint of things to come.
So anyway, everybody bitches and calls each other names, but no more then half of them ever vote, and, as noted, when they do, they keep re-electing the same shit-asses they were all complaining about. Clearly this process is not highly effective and the analogy of Nero getting all Charlie Daniels while Rome flames is pretty apt for what our elected leadership is up to now. If it weren’t for the empirically demonstrated fact that Oligarchies, Plutocracies, Duel Monarchies, Triumvirates, Cults of Personality, Articles of Confederation, Holy Roman Empires, Soviet Unions and Philosopher Kings all ultimately result in the loss of liberty, we would be wise to try something else. Unfortunately, in the humble opinion of this Wormhole Repairman, there ain’t nothing else.
Where that leaves us is with the burden of overcoming human failure, forming a more perfect union and not pissing in the Ferrari’s gas tank anymore. In order to do so, I propose a few changes to the electoral process, proposals which are at least as serious as they are facetious. They are as follows:
1) No party identification of any kind is allowed on the ballot, not even animal avatars.
2) Candidate order on the ballot is determined by the total number of anagrams each candidate can derive from the letters of their entire names.
3) All candidates, for whatever elective office, must provide a 250 word summary of their political views, which is to be attached to the ballot. The summary cannot utilize the suffixes –ive, -ist, or –ism.
4) Voters must check off that they have read the statement of political views of every candidate in the race before casting their ballot. In fact, a brief quiz on the material, requiring a minimum score for the ballot to be counted, is probably in order.
5) Voters cannot vote in any election where they cannot name all of the candidates in each race prior to voting. The names of all the candidates would be posted at the polling place where uneducated voters could brush up. A score of 75 percent might even be acceptable.
6) You must say please and thank you to all the poll workers.
The central problem that America is facing now is that representative democracy is a failure and there is no back-up plan. We are too lazy, too emotional, to ignorant, too apathetic, too frightened, too irresponsible, too inconsistent, too distracted, too easily manipulated, too tired and too busy to fulfill our civic obligation to be informed and dedicated voters. Political parties are a party at our expense, career politicians are inevitably self-serving douche-bags and extremist of every stripe are too full of bile and feces to lead us anywhere except straight down the alley to the whore house. As Ulysses Everett McGill has noted “damn, we’re in a tight spot.”
John Adams, signer of the Declaration of Independence and later President, wrote in 1776 that letting just anybody vote was not a really groovy idea, saying “depend upon it, Sir, it is dangerous to open so fruitful a source of controversy and altercation as would be opened by attempting to alter the qualifications of voters; there will be no end to it. New claims will arise; women will demand the vote; lads from 12 to 21 will think their rights not enough attended to; and every man who has not a farthing, will demand an equal voice with any other, in all acts of state. It tends to confound and destroy all distinctions, and prostrate all ranks to one common level.” We do, after all, hold these truths to be self evident.
Let me state for the record that I have tremendous respect for the men, and it was pretty much men, who founded this nation, but I am able to respect them in the context of their times and not deify them beyond the bounds of logic. Some of our fellow citizens, who somewhat cryptically refer to themselves as “Constitutionalists”, probably agree with President Adams about who ought to be able to vote; on the other hand, I’m not sure how they feel about 18th Century dentistry. The world has changed an awful lot since 1776 (or June of 1788) and Alexander Hamilton and James McHenry would have had to smoke a pound of peyote before signing the Constitution to even have a hint of things to come.
So anyway, everybody bitches and calls each other names, but no more then half of them ever vote, and, as noted, when they do, they keep re-electing the same shit-asses they were all complaining about. Clearly this process is not highly effective and the analogy of Nero getting all Charlie Daniels while Rome flames is pretty apt for what our elected leadership is up to now. If it weren’t for the empirically demonstrated fact that Oligarchies, Plutocracies, Duel Monarchies, Triumvirates, Cults of Personality, Articles of Confederation, Holy Roman Empires, Soviet Unions and Philosopher Kings all ultimately result in the loss of liberty, we would be wise to try something else. Unfortunately, in the humble opinion of this Wormhole Repairman, there ain’t nothing else.
Where that leaves us is with the burden of overcoming human failure, forming a more perfect union and not pissing in the Ferrari’s gas tank anymore. In order to do so, I propose a few changes to the electoral process, proposals which are at least as serious as they are facetious. They are as follows:
1) No party identification of any kind is allowed on the ballot, not even animal avatars.
2) Candidate order on the ballot is determined by the total number of anagrams each candidate can derive from the letters of their entire names.
3) All candidates, for whatever elective office, must provide a 250 word summary of their political views, which is to be attached to the ballot. The summary cannot utilize the suffixes –ive, -ist, or –ism.
4) Voters must check off that they have read the statement of political views of every candidate in the race before casting their ballot. In fact, a brief quiz on the material, requiring a minimum score for the ballot to be counted, is probably in order.
5) Voters cannot vote in any election where they cannot name all of the candidates in each race prior to voting. The names of all the candidates would be posted at the polling place where uneducated voters could brush up. A score of 75 percent might even be acceptable.
6) You must say please and thank you to all the poll workers.
The central problem that America is facing now is that representative democracy is a failure and there is no back-up plan. We are too lazy, too emotional, to ignorant, too apathetic, too frightened, too irresponsible, too inconsistent, too distracted, too easily manipulated, too tired and too busy to fulfill our civic obligation to be informed and dedicated voters. Political parties are a party at our expense, career politicians are inevitably self-serving douche-bags and extremist of every stripe are too full of bile and feces to lead us anywhere except straight down the alley to the whore house. As Ulysses Everett McGill has noted “damn, we’re in a tight spot.”
Thursday, April 22, 2010
Earth Day Whining Extravaganza
A recent article posted on the National Geographic Online suggests that every single day the world-wide use of toilet paper consumes the equivalent of 27,000 trees. They don’t say what kind of tree, but it is presumably not the Sawtooth Oak. The news could be worse; if my teenage sons ever start using toilet paper, the destruction could be phenomenal. My reading of the article indicates that the total world toilet paper use is even greater than its equivalent quantity of trees since much toilet paper is made from recycled paper products, presumably not recycled toilet paper.
An Evergreen State College student (no joke) in Olympia, Washington, using NASA satellite data, has estimated that there are currently approximately 61 trees per person on Planet Earth. So, if we are losing 27,000 trees a day to the commode, we would need to reduce the world population by 442 persons per day to keep the ratio constant. Unfortunately, we are increasing the world population by something approaching 200,000 persons per day. This is like dropping 1.3 times the population of Bibb County, Georgia onto the Earth’s surface every single day. If you have ever been to Bibb County, Georgia, you will know that this is not a good thing.
The total current tree harvest is estimated at 270,000 per day world-wide (notice, toilet paper accounts for a full 10 percent of this total). This works out to around 100 million trees a year. UN statistics indicate that around one billion trees are planted each year, so we’re doing great, right? Well, the problem is that trees take a long time to grow and 10 little tiny seedlings can’t replace a mature tree in the ecosystem; we are, therefore, losing habitat at a massive rate and, of course, all those little trees don’t survive to maturity. The trees planted are not necessarily the same types as the ones harvested, so we are radically altering the environment, with unpredictable consequences.
This whole deal with the trees is just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to Mankind’s impact on the world ecosystem. As population grows, which it inexorably does, the demand for all these resources increases, cities grow, forests disappear, garbage dumps proliferate and the margin of error for human civilization decreases. Unfortunately, at least in America, discussion of environmental issues is lost in the reflexively bipolar political theater known as representative democracy. Because the Liberals support abortion rights, gay rights and public funding of the arts, the Conservatives feel they must oppose everything else the Liberals promote, because that’s how they roll. What everyone involved in this process seems to forget is that political power on a dead world is of limited value.
I was born and raised in Macon, Georgia (in Bibb County!), not Boston, and I never went to an Ivy League school, but I am not above a little East Coast intellectual elitism when it comes to saving the planet. While many issues in life are subjective, the dependence of human life on the world’s ecosystem is not. Everything we eat is some former living something, unless we are a toddler, in which case dirt, paste and crayons are fair game, but even these things are partially organic. The air we breathe and the water we drink is kept within acceptable limits by natural processes which we are busy altering. The children of all those rednecks in Texas voting for that handsome demagogue Rick Perry will be just as screwed as mine when the world can no longer sustain this massively wasteful and quarrelsome human infestation. You don’t have to believe in global warming to know that without fish there is no McDonald’s Fish Fillet (2 for $4.00, for a limited time only).
It is difficult to speculate at what point we will be confronted with the real consequences of our irresponsible environmental policies and unsustainable lifestyles; we can probably rock along for several more decades without too much trauma while the fundamentals continue to deteriorate and the political anti-environmentalists continue to point to the lack of catastrophic collapse as evidence that the Liberals are just hysterical socialists who hate free enterprise. At some point, however, very bad things will start to happen and the human suffering will be wide-spread and immense, and all our stealth bombers, SUV’s and sacred principles will not put Humpty-Dumpty back together again.
America has tremendous influence in the world as a consequence of our economic and military power, and as a result of our open society and generally humane principles. We also have tremendous impact on the world as a consequence of our enourmous resource consumption and cultural leadership. We really do have the power to save the world, but it will likely not be through purging the greed, ignorance, indifference, selfishness and inhumanity from foreign lands, but by purging those same qualities from ourselves. It is not too late to stop wiping our ass with the world’s future and make peace with Mother Nature. I just hope the Republicans love their children too.
An Evergreen State College student (no joke) in Olympia, Washington, using NASA satellite data, has estimated that there are currently approximately 61 trees per person on Planet Earth. So, if we are losing 27,000 trees a day to the commode, we would need to reduce the world population by 442 persons per day to keep the ratio constant. Unfortunately, we are increasing the world population by something approaching 200,000 persons per day. This is like dropping 1.3 times the population of Bibb County, Georgia onto the Earth’s surface every single day. If you have ever been to Bibb County, Georgia, you will know that this is not a good thing.
The total current tree harvest is estimated at 270,000 per day world-wide (notice, toilet paper accounts for a full 10 percent of this total). This works out to around 100 million trees a year. UN statistics indicate that around one billion trees are planted each year, so we’re doing great, right? Well, the problem is that trees take a long time to grow and 10 little tiny seedlings can’t replace a mature tree in the ecosystem; we are, therefore, losing habitat at a massive rate and, of course, all those little trees don’t survive to maturity. The trees planted are not necessarily the same types as the ones harvested, so we are radically altering the environment, with unpredictable consequences.
This whole deal with the trees is just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to Mankind’s impact on the world ecosystem. As population grows, which it inexorably does, the demand for all these resources increases, cities grow, forests disappear, garbage dumps proliferate and the margin of error for human civilization decreases. Unfortunately, at least in America, discussion of environmental issues is lost in the reflexively bipolar political theater known as representative democracy. Because the Liberals support abortion rights, gay rights and public funding of the arts, the Conservatives feel they must oppose everything else the Liberals promote, because that’s how they roll. What everyone involved in this process seems to forget is that political power on a dead world is of limited value.
I was born and raised in Macon, Georgia (in Bibb County!), not Boston, and I never went to an Ivy League school, but I am not above a little East Coast intellectual elitism when it comes to saving the planet. While many issues in life are subjective, the dependence of human life on the world’s ecosystem is not. Everything we eat is some former living something, unless we are a toddler, in which case dirt, paste and crayons are fair game, but even these things are partially organic. The air we breathe and the water we drink is kept within acceptable limits by natural processes which we are busy altering. The children of all those rednecks in Texas voting for that handsome demagogue Rick Perry will be just as screwed as mine when the world can no longer sustain this massively wasteful and quarrelsome human infestation. You don’t have to believe in global warming to know that without fish there is no McDonald’s Fish Fillet (2 for $4.00, for a limited time only).
It is difficult to speculate at what point we will be confronted with the real consequences of our irresponsible environmental policies and unsustainable lifestyles; we can probably rock along for several more decades without too much trauma while the fundamentals continue to deteriorate and the political anti-environmentalists continue to point to the lack of catastrophic collapse as evidence that the Liberals are just hysterical socialists who hate free enterprise. At some point, however, very bad things will start to happen and the human suffering will be wide-spread and immense, and all our stealth bombers, SUV’s and sacred principles will not put Humpty-Dumpty back together again.
America has tremendous influence in the world as a consequence of our economic and military power, and as a result of our open society and generally humane principles. We also have tremendous impact on the world as a consequence of our enourmous resource consumption and cultural leadership. We really do have the power to save the world, but it will likely not be through purging the greed, ignorance, indifference, selfishness and inhumanity from foreign lands, but by purging those same qualities from ourselves. It is not too late to stop wiping our ass with the world’s future and make peace with Mother Nature. I just hope the Republicans love their children too.
Sunday, April 18, 2010
Celebrating 100 Episodes of Self-Indulgence
Just a self-indulgent observation; it was exactly one year ago yesterday that I posted my first blog here as the Wormhole Repairman, and this post happens to be number 100, so it is relatively easy to calculate that I am posting at a rate of approximately 100 blog posts per year. This is by no means an extraordinary volume, but for me it represents a level of commitment I have seldom otherwise achieved and clearly demonstrates how greatly I value my own opinion; I actually took the time to write it down. Now, if anybody ever read it…
Speaking of my opinion, I recently ran across a Lenny Bruce quote which reads, “The Liberals can understand everything but people who don't understand them.” Being one of “the Liberals”, I can clearly relate to this observation. I am consistently confronted with the sentiments of my fellow citizens, concepts and conclusions that are equally as strongly held as my own, that make little sense to me. I have a great deal of juvenile fun ironically (some might even say, cleverly) maligning the assorted contradictions of Republicanism, Conservatism and Baptism, while there is perhaps an even stronger societal current maligning the ideas of people like me. Apparently I am some sort of a communist, socialist, American-hating sissy ignoramus. This comes as a great surprise to me after a life of formally and informally studying history and politics, three years of service in the American Army and an honorable discharge, voting in every available election from President to dog-catcher, and actually paying my taxes without discernable cheating.
Now these things don’t necessarily make me a messiah or a genius, but I should at least get some credit for being a reasonably useful member of society and law abiding citizen. This is what sort of troubles me; I love to poke fun at what I believe to be the intellectual and moral failures of others, but ultimately I realize that I am subject to the same defects and cannot equitably take myself too seriously. While I may decry the stupidity of, for example, George Bush, I would without a doubt, in the great tradition of Harold and Kumar, split a case of Bud with him and make every effort to talk about subjects other than my low opinion of his intellect. In fact, I concede I could even form a greater appreciation for the man as an individual, outside of his role as political avatar. Of course, I might also get drunk and try to beat him senseless, but he has Secret Service protection. I do not get the same sense of tolerant equity from many of my angry Conservative friends.
If you are willing to accept the complexity and ambiguity of human morality and the factual uncertainty of many of the conditions and circumstances of life, you have to accept the possibility of your own error. This is what makes much religion and many “isms” so attractive; they remove the murky fog of self-doubt from the equation and allow one to earnestly pound one’s fist with absolute conviction. The effect of this can be seen in the shallow depth of political discourse in this country and the righteous indignation of so many citizens. Unfortunately, absolute conviction allows for a host of other things that may not be completely positive. A little self-doubt can be a powerful force for moderation, which is only a problem if you are not a moderate.
As many of our prominent theological leaders have observed throughout history, it is very easy to criticize others. As I recall, there are even a number of Biblical admonitions to consider your own shortcomings before finding fault with others, but the emotional intoxication of absolute certainty and the accompanying buzz of moral and intellectual superiority are irresistible to many. Of course, I clearly believe that my view of the world is the most morally and intellectually valid, that’s why it is my view, and I’m certainly not shy about telling anyone who will stand still long enough what I think about virtually anything, but the reality is that I am just one of well over six billion people on this planet and my understanding of anything is limited by my innate intellectual ability and my acquired knowledge and experience. It is also limited by my desire to continue learning and understanding and the extent to which I have already decided that I know all I need to know. Like so many of life’s paradoxes, the more certain we are that we are completely correct, the more probable it is that we are completely wrong.
Speaking of my opinion, I recently ran across a Lenny Bruce quote which reads, “The Liberals can understand everything but people who don't understand them.” Being one of “the Liberals”, I can clearly relate to this observation. I am consistently confronted with the sentiments of my fellow citizens, concepts and conclusions that are equally as strongly held as my own, that make little sense to me. I have a great deal of juvenile fun ironically (some might even say, cleverly) maligning the assorted contradictions of Republicanism, Conservatism and Baptism, while there is perhaps an even stronger societal current maligning the ideas of people like me. Apparently I am some sort of a communist, socialist, American-hating sissy ignoramus. This comes as a great surprise to me after a life of formally and informally studying history and politics, three years of service in the American Army and an honorable discharge, voting in every available election from President to dog-catcher, and actually paying my taxes without discernable cheating.
Now these things don’t necessarily make me a messiah or a genius, but I should at least get some credit for being a reasonably useful member of society and law abiding citizen. This is what sort of troubles me; I love to poke fun at what I believe to be the intellectual and moral failures of others, but ultimately I realize that I am subject to the same defects and cannot equitably take myself too seriously. While I may decry the stupidity of, for example, George Bush, I would without a doubt, in the great tradition of Harold and Kumar, split a case of Bud with him and make every effort to talk about subjects other than my low opinion of his intellect. In fact, I concede I could even form a greater appreciation for the man as an individual, outside of his role as political avatar. Of course, I might also get drunk and try to beat him senseless, but he has Secret Service protection. I do not get the same sense of tolerant equity from many of my angry Conservative friends.
If you are willing to accept the complexity and ambiguity of human morality and the factual uncertainty of many of the conditions and circumstances of life, you have to accept the possibility of your own error. This is what makes much religion and many “isms” so attractive; they remove the murky fog of self-doubt from the equation and allow one to earnestly pound one’s fist with absolute conviction. The effect of this can be seen in the shallow depth of political discourse in this country and the righteous indignation of so many citizens. Unfortunately, absolute conviction allows for a host of other things that may not be completely positive. A little self-doubt can be a powerful force for moderation, which is only a problem if you are not a moderate.
As many of our prominent theological leaders have observed throughout history, it is very easy to criticize others. As I recall, there are even a number of Biblical admonitions to consider your own shortcomings before finding fault with others, but the emotional intoxication of absolute certainty and the accompanying buzz of moral and intellectual superiority are irresistible to many. Of course, I clearly believe that my view of the world is the most morally and intellectually valid, that’s why it is my view, and I’m certainly not shy about telling anyone who will stand still long enough what I think about virtually anything, but the reality is that I am just one of well over six billion people on this planet and my understanding of anything is limited by my innate intellectual ability and my acquired knowledge and experience. It is also limited by my desire to continue learning and understanding and the extent to which I have already decided that I know all I need to know. Like so many of life’s paradoxes, the more certain we are that we are completely correct, the more probable it is that we are completely wrong.
Sunday, April 11, 2010
Looking for Justice
Justice John Paul Stevens has announced that he will soon be retiring from the United States Supreme Court. Appointed by President Gerald Ford in 1975, Stevens is currently the forth-longest serving Justice in the Court’s history. He is considered by most Liberals to be a moderate justice who has further moderated his initially generally conservative views over time. He is considered by most Conservatives to be a communist. Most Conservatives also consider Gerald Ford a communist.
The Supreme Court is a creation of Article III of the United States Constitution. Section I simply reads that “the judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.” Section II goes on to specify those cases which the Federal Courts shall exercise jurisdiction over, but nowhere does the Constitution dictate the structure, the procedure or the preferred judicial philosophy of those Courts. There is a substantial amount of writing from the various framers of the Constitution on the subject of the judiciary, including those both preceding and subsequent to the adoption of the Constitution, but these are, after all, just the opinions of individuals, and in many ways they reflect the divided views of the Founders on the role of the judiciary, and government in general, rather than monolithic unanimity about exactly what the Supreme Court was supposed to do.
There are now well over two-hundred years of established precedent defining the role of the Supreme Court, and just as many years of on-going spirited debate about the size, composition, and prerogatives of the Court. The role of final interpretation and application of the Constitution has become the exclusive province of the Court, which is somewhat unique, and powerful, in the sense that the Court is created by the Constitution; so, in a way, the Supreme Court decides for itself what its powers are. Though this may sound somewhat frightening, it is completely consistent the concept of our Founding Fathers that free people are capable of self government and that checks and balances cannot be a Chinese puzzle box; ultimately our salvation lies in deliberative and judicious selection of our public servants and political leadership, and that is why the elected President nominates the proposed Justice, and the Senate debates and, usually, confirms the nominee.
Senator Jeff Sessions of Alabama, the ranking Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee and a man who would without a doubt be more comfortable in the Confederate States of America Senate, has already threatened to filibuster against the appointment if President Obama nominates someone who will “make law rather than interpret it”. Last time I checked, cases came to the Supreme Court because someone other than the Court had initiated them, so the Supreme Court can only chose to address those issues which they are presented, which is decidedly different from the various legislatures, which can do any damn foolish thing they take a notion to. I don’t recall seeing anything about a filibuster in the United States Constitution, but Senator Sessions seems to be ok with that. I do recall that the Constitution used to say that only “three-fifths of all other persons” (i.e. not free) would be counted for the purposes of Congressional representation, and that this provision was subsequently amended as the moral sensibilities of the nation evolved, but apparently Senator Sessions believes that the Constitution is, like the Bible, handed down from on high, eternal and inviolable. Unfortunately, Senator, men are not gods, even men as wise and honorable as those that founded our nation.
Senator Sessions was very critical of President Obama’s previous nominee, Sonia Sotomayor, because of his fear she might be empathetic to a party appearing before the Court, saying “empathy for one party is always prejudice against another.” I suppose it would be rather tiring to try to be empathetic to everyone; you might even become a little grumpy after a while. Anyway, I don’t know who the President plans to nominate to the Supreme Court, but I do know that it will inevitably become the disgusting, hypocritical political Kabuki theater everybody so thoroughly despises, but which we cannot seem to rid ourselves of. As for Senator Sessions, I gather that he would not vote to approve Jesus Christ if he were nominated. A little empathy is, after all, a dangerous thing.
The Supreme Court is a creation of Article III of the United States Constitution. Section I simply reads that “the judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.” Section II goes on to specify those cases which the Federal Courts shall exercise jurisdiction over, but nowhere does the Constitution dictate the structure, the procedure or the preferred judicial philosophy of those Courts. There is a substantial amount of writing from the various framers of the Constitution on the subject of the judiciary, including those both preceding and subsequent to the adoption of the Constitution, but these are, after all, just the opinions of individuals, and in many ways they reflect the divided views of the Founders on the role of the judiciary, and government in general, rather than monolithic unanimity about exactly what the Supreme Court was supposed to do.
There are now well over two-hundred years of established precedent defining the role of the Supreme Court, and just as many years of on-going spirited debate about the size, composition, and prerogatives of the Court. The role of final interpretation and application of the Constitution has become the exclusive province of the Court, which is somewhat unique, and powerful, in the sense that the Court is created by the Constitution; so, in a way, the Supreme Court decides for itself what its powers are. Though this may sound somewhat frightening, it is completely consistent the concept of our Founding Fathers that free people are capable of self government and that checks and balances cannot be a Chinese puzzle box; ultimately our salvation lies in deliberative and judicious selection of our public servants and political leadership, and that is why the elected President nominates the proposed Justice, and the Senate debates and, usually, confirms the nominee.
Senator Jeff Sessions of Alabama, the ranking Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee and a man who would without a doubt be more comfortable in the Confederate States of America Senate, has already threatened to filibuster against the appointment if President Obama nominates someone who will “make law rather than interpret it”. Last time I checked, cases came to the Supreme Court because someone other than the Court had initiated them, so the Supreme Court can only chose to address those issues which they are presented, which is decidedly different from the various legislatures, which can do any damn foolish thing they take a notion to. I don’t recall seeing anything about a filibuster in the United States Constitution, but Senator Sessions seems to be ok with that. I do recall that the Constitution used to say that only “three-fifths of all other persons” (i.e. not free) would be counted for the purposes of Congressional representation, and that this provision was subsequently amended as the moral sensibilities of the nation evolved, but apparently Senator Sessions believes that the Constitution is, like the Bible, handed down from on high, eternal and inviolable. Unfortunately, Senator, men are not gods, even men as wise and honorable as those that founded our nation.
Senator Sessions was very critical of President Obama’s previous nominee, Sonia Sotomayor, because of his fear she might be empathetic to a party appearing before the Court, saying “empathy for one party is always prejudice against another.” I suppose it would be rather tiring to try to be empathetic to everyone; you might even become a little grumpy after a while. Anyway, I don’t know who the President plans to nominate to the Supreme Court, but I do know that it will inevitably become the disgusting, hypocritical political Kabuki theater everybody so thoroughly despises, but which we cannot seem to rid ourselves of. As for Senator Sessions, I gather that he would not vote to approve Jesus Christ if he were nominated. A little empathy is, after all, a dangerous thing.
Tuesday, April 6, 2010
Feelin' Kinda Snaky
I just finished reading about the “ten most poisonous animals in the world”. You can check this out for yourself at http://villageofjoy.com/10-most-poisonous-animals-in-the-world/. The pictures are really cool. As we all know, the world is full of poisonous creatures; we visit some on holidays and regrettably work with others, but the guys on this website will do more than hurt your feelings or tarnish your reputation. Poison is apparently really convenient if you are trying to eat something that takes exception to being eaten or trying not to be eaten by something which may find your poison objectionable. Some of these creatures are damned unreasonable, however; why does anything need venom so powerful that one drop can kill 20 humans? The Cone Snail happens to enjoy this distinction, but it can’t crawl fast enough to overtake an unmotivated inch worm, let alone a human.
The champion poisonous creature is the Box Jelly Fish. At about 10 inches across, it’s not particularly large and a fully developed adult will weight only about 4 pounds, but it does have about 10 feet of wispy tentacles which have been responsible for around 6,000 human deaths since the mid-fifties, which is apparently when they started keeping track of such things, although with the Cold War and all I’m not certain what prompted that particular statistical pursuit. Box Jelly Fish only live about a year, so maybe they are resentful and want to take a few of us with them. Sea turtles are immune to their venom and eat Box Jelly Fish in large numbers. Humans don’t eat Box Jelly Fish, so you would think the Box Jelly Fish would be smarter to have a poison that killed sea turtles. Go figure.
The King Cobra weighs in at number two, but it is way too commonplace to inspire much fascination. Its venom isn’t particularly toxic, but it tends to inject an insulting amount of it, so humans are relatively frequent fatalities. It mostly just eats rats, but the King Cobra also markets its own brand of malt liquor. The aforementioned Cone Snail gets third place; its venom is unique in that its most serious effects can be delayed for days, much like the effects of King Cobra Malt Liquor. The Cone Snail lives in the ocean, so, if you’re afraid of the ocean, you should be ok.
Number four on the list is the Blue-Ringed Octopus. This diminutive relative of the pirate unfriendly Kraken will bite your ass and then you will stop breathing. It’s not that you will want to stop breathing; it will just happen that way. Fortunately the Blue-Ringed Octopus only lives in the Western Pacific and mostly kills curious Japanese children. Number five is the rather dramatically named Death Stalker Scorpion. I don’t know if this scorpion is supposed to be stalking Death, which would be sort of ballsy, or if it is just unpopular. The pain of its sting is said to be unbearable, and then fatal. Why it wouldn’t just kill you first and spare you the pain is a mystery to me, but it does live principally in the Middle East, so it is probably contentious by nature.
The Stonefish is number six. It is a rather homely, but generally unremarkable, member of the fish family. It sort of looks like a rock, hence the name. Based upon the disagreeable expression on its face, it probably just wants to be left alone, like grandpa when he’s constipated. It has spines on its back which deliver potent venom, like grandpa when he’s constipated. Number seven on the list is the Brazilian Wandering Spider. This spider kills more humans than any other, including, apparently, those giant spiders from Attack of the Giant Spiders, No one knows why it wanders, but its venom is known to cause prolonged and painful erections in its human male victims (I’m not making this up), so it may just be getting the hell out of Dodge. You should probably avoid the Brazilian Wandering Spider for the foreseeable future since it is going to be pissed that it is just the number two arachnid on the most poisonous list.
The Inland Taipan of Australia is number eight, and it is actually the most venomous snake in the world, with venom 300 times more potent than the King Cobra, but because it is so stingy with its poison, it is not as fatal. I have also never heard of Inland Taipan Malt Liquor, although I don’t get out much. The Inland Taipan is rather shy and doesn’t get out much either. Number nine is the Poison Dart frog. This dude is actually a fluorescent blue, just so you don’t mistake him for any of his less lethal cousins. Native to Central and South America, a very tiny drop of this frog’s poison is enough to kill you. The indigenous peoples of the region have used the poison on the darts of their blowguns (hence the name) for centuries to hunt animals and kill arrogant white men who disrespect their wholesomely arcane cultures. They may even kill Brazilian Wandering Spiders with the darts, but only after the erection subsides.
The least poisonous of the most poisonous is apparently the Puffer Fish. The Japanese, who are often admired for their intellectual prowess, eat these poisonous fish, called Fugu, and die at the rate of five to six very intelligent people per year because of it. It is not known if the dishonored chefs who have prepared the fatal meals commit ritual suicide, but certainly they lose their chef’s licenses. In Korea the delicacy is known as Bok-Uh, which may very well be a homophone of the last words of a recent victim. It is my understanding that Mrs. Puff, SpongeBob Squarepant’s driving instructor, is a Puffer Fish, but she really doesn’t seem the type to paralyze your diaphragm. It’s a wonder Mr. Krabs hasn’t sold her to the Sushi Hut.
Anyway, nature (or other such non-specified intelligent or probabilistic designer) sure does make some freaky critters. I have to assume that, for the most part, these fellow residents of Planet Earth are pretty indifferent to us and really don’t have much desire to dissolve our innards or impair the efficacy of our neuronal data transmissions. They just do their thing and, if we happen to blunder into their groove, we get dosed with the nasty juice and holler like a little girl until we get better or die. Since I seldom venture to South America, African desserts or the Great Barrier Reef, I think the necessary respectful caution is a small price to pay for the fascinating diversity of life on Earth. Perhaps we humans could even learn a little something from creatures that possess great destructive power, but never employ it as an instrument of anger or pride.
The champion poisonous creature is the Box Jelly Fish. At about 10 inches across, it’s not particularly large and a fully developed adult will weight only about 4 pounds, but it does have about 10 feet of wispy tentacles which have been responsible for around 6,000 human deaths since the mid-fifties, which is apparently when they started keeping track of such things, although with the Cold War and all I’m not certain what prompted that particular statistical pursuit. Box Jelly Fish only live about a year, so maybe they are resentful and want to take a few of us with them. Sea turtles are immune to their venom and eat Box Jelly Fish in large numbers. Humans don’t eat Box Jelly Fish, so you would think the Box Jelly Fish would be smarter to have a poison that killed sea turtles. Go figure.
The King Cobra weighs in at number two, but it is way too commonplace to inspire much fascination. Its venom isn’t particularly toxic, but it tends to inject an insulting amount of it, so humans are relatively frequent fatalities. It mostly just eats rats, but the King Cobra also markets its own brand of malt liquor. The aforementioned Cone Snail gets third place; its venom is unique in that its most serious effects can be delayed for days, much like the effects of King Cobra Malt Liquor. The Cone Snail lives in the ocean, so, if you’re afraid of the ocean, you should be ok.
The Stonefish is number six. It is a rather homely, but generally unremarkable, member of the fish family. It sort of looks like a rock, hence the name. Based upon the disagreeable expression on its face, it probably just wants to be left alone, like grandpa when he’s constipated. It has spines on its back which deliver potent venom, like grandpa when he’s constipated. Number seven on the list is the Brazilian Wandering Spider. This spider kills more humans than any other, including, apparently, those giant spiders from Attack of the Giant Spiders, No one knows why it wanders, but its venom is known to cause prolonged and painful erections in its human male victims (I’m not making this up), so it may just be getting the hell out of Dodge. You should probably avoid the Brazilian Wandering Spider for the foreseeable future since it is going to be pissed that it is just the number two arachnid on the most poisonous list.
The Inland Taipan of Australia is number eight, and it is actually the most venomous snake in the world, with venom 300 times more potent than the King Cobra, but because it is so stingy with its poison, it is not as fatal. I have also never heard of Inland Taipan Malt Liquor, although I don’t get out much. The Inland Taipan is rather shy and doesn’t get out much either. Number nine is the Poison Dart frog. This dude is actually a fluorescent blue, just so you don’t mistake him for any of his less lethal cousins. Native to Central and South America, a very tiny drop of this frog’s poison is enough to kill you. The indigenous peoples of the region have used the poison on the darts of their blowguns (hence the name) for centuries to hunt animals and kill arrogant white men who disrespect their wholesomely arcane cultures. They may even kill Brazilian Wandering Spiders with the darts, but only after the erection subsides.
The least poisonous of the most poisonous is apparently the Puffer Fish. The Japanese, who are often admired for their intellectual prowess, eat these poisonous fish, called Fugu, and die at the rate of five to six very intelligent people per year because of it. It is not known if the dishonored chefs who have prepared the fatal meals commit ritual suicide, but certainly they lose their chef’s licenses. In Korea the delicacy is known as Bok-Uh, which may very well be a homophone of the last words of a recent victim. It is my understanding that Mrs. Puff, SpongeBob Squarepant’s driving instructor, is a Puffer Fish, but she really doesn’t seem the type to paralyze your diaphragm. It’s a wonder Mr. Krabs hasn’t sold her to the Sushi Hut.
Anyway, nature (or other such non-specified intelligent or probabilistic designer) sure does make some freaky critters. I have to assume that, for the most part, these fellow residents of Planet Earth are pretty indifferent to us and really don’t have much desire to dissolve our innards or impair the efficacy of our neuronal data transmissions. They just do their thing and, if we happen to blunder into their groove, we get dosed with the nasty juice and holler like a little girl until we get better or die. Since I seldom venture to South America, African desserts or the Great Barrier Reef, I think the necessary respectful caution is a small price to pay for the fascinating diversity of life on Earth. Perhaps we humans could even learn a little something from creatures that possess great destructive power, but never employ it as an instrument of anger or pride.
Saturday, April 3, 2010
Driller Killer
I notice that President Obama has recently reversed himself on the issue of new offshore drilling for oil and natural gas in U.S. waters. Unless I am completely misremembering things, he was pretty much against this during the Presidential campaign. I suppose there are a few ways you can look at this. It would certainly not be impossible that the President has obtained new information or a greater understanding of the issue during his tenure in office, and has, therefore, revised his previous position. It is even possible that the factual circumstances have changed during the intervening period and that a new policy is truly warranted.
We should be cautious about being too critical of such deviations from campaign rhetoric since we do not want our political leadership to be reluctant to do what is best for the nation, no matter what kind of self-serving idiocy they spout during their pursuit of elective office. On the other hand, I am always concerned that sound policy positions may be abandoned for reasons of political expediency, whether to achieve legislative compromise or simply to placate ethereal public opinion. I am unsure as to the President’s motives with respect to this current issue, although it has been speculated that he is trying to reach a deal on Climate Change legislation and feels some concession to the oil and coal industries may be necessary. It has also been suggested that President Obama still has not completely abandoned the broader concept of bipartisan legislative initiatives and that he continues to offer these unilateral concessions to our Republican friends in order to facilitate future legislative success.
Assessments of the potential benefits of extraction of these coastal oil and natural gas reserves vary, and are largely dependent on the assumptions made with respect to the volumes to be extracted. However, there is no one suggesting that exploiting these reserves will significantly relieve our dependence on foreign oil sources or substantially affect retail gas prices. The consensus is that full development of all the coastal resources targeted by the President’s initiative would only reduce average gasoline prices by 3¢ per gallon by 2030. Currently we buy about 143 billion gallons of gasoline each year, so even if demand is unchanged in 2030, it would represent about an additional $4.5 billion in the pockets of American consumers each year. Just for comparison, the clean up cost of the Exxon Valdez oil spill is estimated to be approximately $2.1 billion, but the actual long-term cost of the associated environmental degradation and loss of genetic diversity is virtually impossible to quantify in financial terms. Proponents of offshore drilling note that the recent environmental record of seabed oil extraction is quite good and that the distance from shore of these potential reserves make environmental calamities like that which befell Prince William Sound very unlikely. It is also noted that there will be significant revenues generated for the various states involved, as well as for the Federal government, and thousands of jobs will be created.
Here in Florida, where the white sand and blue waters of the Gulf of Mexico are significant financial resources in their own right, there is some skepticism of the wisdom of opening up these coastal areas for further exploration and extraction. The State of Florida reports that beach related tourism supports almost 450,000 jobs in Florida and the total direct spending of beach visitors each year is almost $20 billion. Any significant harm to Florida’s beaches by ugly clumps of petroleum tar could negate many years of savings on gasoline resulting from new offshore drilling, even without trying to estimate the dollar cost of environmental degradation. It would therefore seem that whether additional offshore drilling is a good idea or not depends on the probabilistic model you use to forecast outcomes. In other words, all we can do is guess.
Speaking of guessing, I have a few other concerns about this policy change that are extremely difficult to address in quantitative terms. What does the exploration and development of new oil resources that will not be fully implementable for 15 to 20 years say about our commitment to evolve away from an oil-based energy economy, and is the Obama administration conceding that by 2030 we will be no closer to significantly implementing alternative energy sources than we are now? Could the investment necessary to locate and extract these oil and gas resources not be better spent to develop and refine alternatives like bio-fuels, hydrogen fuel cells and nuclear fusion? Shouldn’t we be building new bicycle factories?
I am still a President Obama supporter, and I still firmly believe we are better off with him than the alternative we were offered in 2008, but he is proving to be a mere mortal after all, and his inclination to compromise on important issues for political reasons does not really impress me as change you can believe in. It is more like change you can see a faint glimmer of, and you have to supply your own hope. I don’t know whether new offshore drilling is worth the risks or not, but I suspect neither does President Obama, and his willingness to support it, despite his previous pronouncements to the contrary, gives me a decidedly uncomfortable feeling of déjà vu.
We should be cautious about being too critical of such deviations from campaign rhetoric since we do not want our political leadership to be reluctant to do what is best for the nation, no matter what kind of self-serving idiocy they spout during their pursuit of elective office. On the other hand, I am always concerned that sound policy positions may be abandoned for reasons of political expediency, whether to achieve legislative compromise or simply to placate ethereal public opinion. I am unsure as to the President’s motives with respect to this current issue, although it has been speculated that he is trying to reach a deal on Climate Change legislation and feels some concession to the oil and coal industries may be necessary. It has also been suggested that President Obama still has not completely abandoned the broader concept of bipartisan legislative initiatives and that he continues to offer these unilateral concessions to our Republican friends in order to facilitate future legislative success.
Assessments of the potential benefits of extraction of these coastal oil and natural gas reserves vary, and are largely dependent on the assumptions made with respect to the volumes to be extracted. However, there is no one suggesting that exploiting these reserves will significantly relieve our dependence on foreign oil sources or substantially affect retail gas prices. The consensus is that full development of all the coastal resources targeted by the President’s initiative would only reduce average gasoline prices by 3¢ per gallon by 2030. Currently we buy about 143 billion gallons of gasoline each year, so even if demand is unchanged in 2030, it would represent about an additional $4.5 billion in the pockets of American consumers each year. Just for comparison, the clean up cost of the Exxon Valdez oil spill is estimated to be approximately $2.1 billion, but the actual long-term cost of the associated environmental degradation and loss of genetic diversity is virtually impossible to quantify in financial terms. Proponents of offshore drilling note that the recent environmental record of seabed oil extraction is quite good and that the distance from shore of these potential reserves make environmental calamities like that which befell Prince William Sound very unlikely. It is also noted that there will be significant revenues generated for the various states involved, as well as for the Federal government, and thousands of jobs will be created.
Here in Florida, where the white sand and blue waters of the Gulf of Mexico are significant financial resources in their own right, there is some skepticism of the wisdom of opening up these coastal areas for further exploration and extraction. The State of Florida reports that beach related tourism supports almost 450,000 jobs in Florida and the total direct spending of beach visitors each year is almost $20 billion. Any significant harm to Florida’s beaches by ugly clumps of petroleum tar could negate many years of savings on gasoline resulting from new offshore drilling, even without trying to estimate the dollar cost of environmental degradation. It would therefore seem that whether additional offshore drilling is a good idea or not depends on the probabilistic model you use to forecast outcomes. In other words, all we can do is guess.
Speaking of guessing, I have a few other concerns about this policy change that are extremely difficult to address in quantitative terms. What does the exploration and development of new oil resources that will not be fully implementable for 15 to 20 years say about our commitment to evolve away from an oil-based energy economy, and is the Obama administration conceding that by 2030 we will be no closer to significantly implementing alternative energy sources than we are now? Could the investment necessary to locate and extract these oil and gas resources not be better spent to develop and refine alternatives like bio-fuels, hydrogen fuel cells and nuclear fusion? Shouldn’t we be building new bicycle factories?
I am still a President Obama supporter, and I still firmly believe we are better off with him than the alternative we were offered in 2008, but he is proving to be a mere mortal after all, and his inclination to compromise on important issues for political reasons does not really impress me as change you can believe in. It is more like change you can see a faint glimmer of, and you have to supply your own hope. I don’t know whether new offshore drilling is worth the risks or not, but I suspect neither does President Obama, and his willingness to support it, despite his previous pronouncements to the contrary, gives me a decidedly uncomfortable feeling of déjà vu.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
