Oil for Caribou, or ANWR and the road to energy self-sufficiency

The latest defense budget bill before Congress included a controversial rider to allow oil drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR)--introduced by Sen. Stevens of Alaska. Drilling in the ANWR has been on the table and contentious for many years. This attempt was defeated, but trying to sneak it onto a defense spending bill demonstrates how heated the debate has become. Some ask, why all the hubbub? As Joe Lieberman says, "If the average American, and his or her representative in Congress, knew the facts as well as the average Alaskan, ANWR drilling wouldn't be controversial." He goes on, saying that the ANWR is enormous and little of it would be subject to drilling. The areas that would be opened are not unique. The expected environmental impact, based on decades of experience drilling in the state, is minimal. Wildlife is thriving in nearby Prudhoe Bay, a major oilfield. This may be true. But here's why we oppose it. According to the Department of Energy, the following facts are also true: 1. In 2005, the US used 5.7 billion barrels of oil. In 2006, that number is expected to be almost 6 billion. (Of that 5.7 billion, 1.9 billion came from domestic sources). 2. The ANWR has an expected yield of 5.7 billion barrels over its lifetime (estimated at 65 years). Peak production, reached during the third year, will yield 37 million barrels a year. This will be sustained for 40 years, followed by 23 years of exponentially declining yields. In other words, the ANWR over 65 years will produce enough oil to meet US demand for 1 year. The ANWR will provide 2% of domestic production or 0.7% of total demand annually--hardly the solution to energy self-sufficiency. 3. Meanwhile, approximately 65% of oil is used for transportation in the US. So increasing fuel efficiency by 1% will provide the same benefit as drilling in the ANWR. Therefore, the issue really becomes one of laziness. Do we really need to despoil yet another natural area (regardless of how "small" that despoiling will be) to feed our oil habit when an almost miniscule change in our habits will do the same thing? Maybe if Sen. Stevens from Alaska used his energies to change CAFE standards of our automobile fleet instead of on his actions with the defense bill, we could actually achieve energy self-sufficiency.

Star-Spangled Capitalism

A recurring theme of The Hammer of Judgement is that, when looking for answers to societal problems, we can never look to the arch-conservatives. Case in point: General Motors, the world's largest auto maker and once a pillar of the US economy, is in trouble. By all accounts, we should be worried. It's been famously said that "What's good for GM is good for America," so if GM is struggling, is America next? It's a question that we should be answering if we care about our economy. What are some possible reasons for the bankruptcy? The obvious one is that GM builds crappy cars. For instance, it comes as no surprise to anyone that of Consumer Reports' Top 20 cars for reliability, zero are US brands (while Toyota and Honda together get 16). Paul Krugman, economist at Princeton, has a different spin. He says GM's problems stem from the flawed US system of health care. Now guess what Pat Buchanan says is to blame. Lack of patriotism. Yup, that's right, lack of "economic patriotism." What is economic patriotism, you ask? According to Buchanan, economic patriotism is "favoring American manufacturers with privileged access to U.S. markets and keeping foreign goods out with high tariffs." My point? We have real issues in this country, and these problems deserve thought. But if all we are going to get from the Right are empty cries to patria, then, well, let's look elsewhere. (BTW, in case you didn't notice, economic patriotism sounds suspiciously like mercantilism and a far cry from the Right's revered free market capitalism).

Jesus vs. Darwin, knockout?

While I was off, I missed the opportunity to talk about the Intelligent Design (ID) court case in Dover, PA. Too bad, because it was big. For those unfamiliar, some parents sued the Dover schoolboard because it required that ID be taught in the science classroom, claiming that this promoted religion in public school, a violation of the Constitution. The judge in the case agreed, coming back with an even more stern ruling than expected. Not only did he find that ID is indeed not science, he continued "We find that the secular purposes claimed by the board amount to a pretext for the board's real purpose, which was to promote religion in the public school classroom." It was a victory for reason. But, the proponents of ID are not giving up. Pat Buchanan called the ruling a Pyrrhic victory. Thomas Brewton, who in my opinion fears science, calls scientists "prostitutes." No, the battle is not over, and may have only heated up. I look forward to it.

The World in 2006

I had taken some time off for the Xmas, excuse me, holiday break, but now am back and ready to tackle the new year. 2006 promises to be an interesting year. I myself won't make any predictions here, but I do turn the reader's attention to the Economist's annual prognostication The World In 2006. (In particular, check out the podcasts). I think the most noteworthy item is something that I've been worrying about for a while now, and that is the almost certainly imminent downturn in the US economy. Between the foreign trade deficit, the housing bubble, oil prices, [lack of] consumer saving, Chinese currency overvaluation, and the war in Iraq, our economy is set for a "correction," and it could be ugly.

Country Mouse, City Mouse.

Here's an interesting insight. This Heritage Foundation piece talks about John Gibson's book The War on Christmas: How the Liberal Plot to Ban the Sacred Christian Holiday Is Worse Than You Thought. The interesting thing is not the usual rhetoric from the Right in the Global War on Christmas, but rather this statement from Hagelin: "I like to think of Gibson as the cowboy he is. When not in New York, he spends time on his ranch in Texas, where he escapes the conventional “wisdom” of the big city and keeps connected to what average Americans think." You see, average Americans are the ones who work the land--cowboys, farmers, ranchers. Rural, hardworking folk. Meanwhile, city people have "wisdom," but apparently no common sense. Liberals are not representative of our great country. This is a traditional conservative conceit. But according to the US Census, 80% of Americans live in cities or suburbs. And the population of Texas is only 7.6% of the US population. The population of the New York City metro region is 7.2% of the US population. So, who's more "average?

Getting to Know the Enemy, Part 2

I offer the following post as the next step in my continuing series on "Getting to Know the Enemy." Sun Tzu counseled that a good warrior should know his enemy as well as himself to ensure victory. I've adopted this martial tone and have decided to publicize any examples of conservative omphaloskepsis that I come across. Today's example is a particularly maudlin one. We're told that conservatives love God, family, and freedom. They rever tradition with "bold and vibrant hearts." Conservatives are "good," "enlightened," "lovers of God," "honest." Liberals, on the other, are herd-followers, "families gone awry," promisicuous, communists. When faced with such blindness from those who think themselves so enlightened, it's easy to see why there is indeed a culture war going on.

News from the Front: Fox News Hates Xmas

I know I'm not the first to talk about this, but it looks like there are some high-profile partisans behind enemy lines in the Global War on Christmas: Fox News!

The Power to Pardon

With the recent high-profile denial of clemency and subsequent execution of Tookie Williams in California, Ben Shapiro's column calling for the end of executive clemency is timely, if wrong. Shapiro's thesis is that the executive process of clemency injects politicals into an impartial, apolitical judicial system. He offers the Clinton pardon of Marc Rich as an example of blatent politics subverting justice. He admits that our justice system is not infallible and can make mistakes, but that "the answer is not granting one person -- one very politically motivated person -- the power to abrogate the law." I disagree with him. First of all, the power of executive clemency is granted by Article II, Section 2 of the United States Constitution at the federal level, and by respective state constitutions at the state level. Surely exercising a constitutionally-granted power is not "abrogating the law," as Shapiro contends. Second of all, I think you will agree that our judicial system is not as impartial and apolitical as we would like. When Governor Ryan of Illinois gave a blanket commutation to all those on death row in 2003, he said, "Our capital system is haunted by the demon of error: error in determining guilt and error in determining who among the guilty deserves to die. What effect was race having? What effect was poverty having?" Gov. Ryan asked exactly the right questions. Third, I think Shapiro's black-and-white attitude is rather jejuene. In his penultimate paragraph he says that, in essence, if the guy's on death row, he must be guilty, so kill him. Otherwise, he must be innocent, so let him go. But it's not that simple, is it? There are always complicating factors. Fourth, granting clemency is not exactly a widespread practice. Since 1976, 44oo people have been or are on death row. 230 of them have been granted clemency (171 of which resulted from Gov. Ryan's act noted above). That's a rate of 5%. Finally, Shapiro admits a problem, but offers no solution.

Conservative Constitution

Nobel Prize-winning economist James Buchanan suggests three constitutional amendments to improve American democracy. He does so under the auspices of the Cato Institute, the venerable libertarian think-tank, so you can imagine how the amendments will be. The first is to promote "fiscal responsibility," and would essentially constitutionally require a balanced federal budget. While I think this is a good idea, I have to wonder about its enforcement. Would Congress abide by it? And if not, would Congress be sued? The second is to promote nondiscriminatory politics, and would be worded something like this: "Congress shall make no law authorizing government to take any discriminatory measures of coercion.” I'm not sure what perceived problems this is addressing, though progressive income taxation (which only a libertarian would see as a problem) and affirmative action are definitely ones. The third promotes "natural liberty," which is a code word for limiting the growth of the federal government. It would primarily circumscribe the commerce clause (the clause in the Constitution that allows the federal government to regulation interstate commerce) to allow more open and free-flowing markets. As a liberal, I would oppose these second two amendments, which are old conservative ideas. And in general, I am opposed to amending the constitution at all (though I would support one that clarified the 2nd Amendment). But it is nice to see legitimate, thoughtful amendment proposals come from the Right, instead of the stupid Marriage and Flag Burning amendments.

Christmas and the hypocrisy of the Right.

I am simply fascinated by the alleged Global War on Christmas (GWOC). I am also continually surprised by the hypocrisy of the Right. This article about a Wisconsin school's Christmas pageant and altered carol lyrics therein neatly showcases both phenomena. The school took the tune of "Silent Night" and changed the words to read "Cold in the night, no one in sight, winter winds whirl and bite, how I wish I were happy and warm, safe with my family out of the storm." Predictably, a group called Liberty Counsel, a group that provides free legal assistance in "religious freedom cases," (and as it turns out very much on the frontlines of the GWOC), has filed a complaint against the school to try to return to the original lyrics. I'm not quite sure how changing the lyrics of a Christmas carol qualifies as an infringement of religious freedom. Who's freedom? That's been my confusion all along with GWOC. Entities that choose to have holiday trees instead of Christmas trees--aren't they exercising their right to religious freedom? Or does religious freedom really mean, freedom to choose your own brand of Christianity but that's it? The whole issue is just so much smoke. But here's what really burns me up. This whole case has arisen because a parent was "Offended by the new words." The head of Liberty Counsel calls changing the lyrics "mocking" and "insenstive." Wait a sec. "Offended." "oversensitive." Aren't those usually the charges the Right levies against the Left? Aren't the Left, almost by definition, "easily-offended" and "liberal whiners?" Do a Google search of the term "easily offended" and you'll see how hackneyed the term has become with regard to the Left. So here's the hypocrisy. Someone who is offended by the words "Cold in the night, no one in sight, winter winds whirl and bite, how I wish I were happy and warm, safe with my family out of the storm" must be easily offended indeed. Is this the birth of a new term, "conservative whiner?" This issue isn't too much different from removing the words "under God" from the Pledge of Allegiance (well, different because the Pledge issue actually has merit), but look who's called what in that debate. If Santa grants me one wish this holiday season, it's that the Right be honest with itself at least once.

Generous Proportions

Yesterday, I commented on a common conservative misconception that the US is the most generous nation on earth. I was referring to this article here. I posted a comment at that site noting that the US is actually the 21st most generous country in the world, in terms of foreign aid. Today, someone responded in the comment section. He said, "generosity and compassion cannot be measured solely in monetary contributions." That begs the question, what CAN generosity be measured in, if not in monetary contributions? The size of our helpings at McDonalds?

Darwin and Stalin

Readers may remember that I had a brief exchange with Thomas Brewton at View from 1776 over my one of my favorite topics, Intelligent Design. Today he responded to the first of the 8 mistakes I claim he made in that exchange. Take a look; it's called "Evolutionist for Stalin." The title (as I guess a good title should) sums the whole argument up. He says that Darwinism was responsible in whole or in part for a host of 20th Century social ills, including Hitler's and Stalin's atrocities. Therefore, since Darwinism prompted these evils, as a theory, it must be renounced. My reply, then as now, is not to deny that these atrocities occurred, or even that Darwinism was somehow responsible. My reply is that we cannot renounce a scientific theory simply because we do not like the social implications of that theory. Brewton goes on, but I don't need to. To me, it's that simple. Brewton says: To say,"Who cares what Huxley or Dewey said about evolution and relative morality?” (my original words--ed.) is rather like saying, “Who cares whether Osama Bin Ladin’s interpretation of Islam results in suicide bombings and ritual beheadings of thousands of innocent civilians?” But that's just the point. In our war on terror, no one has said, "Let's renounce Islam." Rather, we say, "Let's remove oppressive regimes [the Taliban, Hussein] or let's reform the madrasas." Brewton mistakenly or insincerely thinks that because one supports Darwin, one, per force, supports Stalin. Brewton continues, digging his hole deeper. For instance, he says "Evolution, in addition, denies the existence of God." But evolution neither confirms nor denies the existence of God. Imagine someone who believes that a television is some supernatural "magic box" with angels inside. Does explaining Maxwell's theory of electromagnetic radiation to him deny the existence of God? Imagine someone who believes that the plague is divine retribution. Does explaining Pasteur's germ theory of disease deny the existence of God? Imagine a society that believes a solar eclipse is the sign of an angry deity. Does explaining Keppler's laws of planetary motion deny the existence of God? He also says, "The evolutionary view of life means that events of history are not influenced by individual free will, either at the biological level and at the political level, because events are determined by the materialistic conditions within which people live." Wow. It takes a very loose reading of evolutionary theory indeed (and a dim view of human nature) to arrive at this spurious conclusion. Evolutionary theory is based in part on the rules of organic chemistry; one might as well say that material determinism is the inevitable result of the carbon atom's six electrons. To be fair, I realize that I'm making light of a larger moral and teleological issue that Brewton is touching on. Brewton believes that absolute morality--moral values that are unchanging and universal--is a necessary condition for civilization, and that absolute morality by its nature must come from God. Therefore, if evolutionary theory removes God from human development, then it must, the reasoning goes, remove God's morality from human society. Without God's absolute morality, we are left with imperfect anthropogenic relative morality, and civilization crumbles. Various 20th Century barbarities ensue. One can tackle this question from many angles. For instance, where was God's morality during the Albigensian Crusade, the York Massacre, or the subjugation of the New World, all examples of modern-style mass murder that happened in the good ol', pre-Darwin days? Or, how does Intelligent Design account for absolute morality? When God was tinkering with our protease enzymes to allow fibrinogens to become fibrins (and thus making our blood clot), did He also impart His 10 commandments to us? Or does the mere presence of prothrombin imply universal law? Or, how do you explain the great pre-Christian civilizations, decidedly many of which did not share Brewton's absolute morality? But, in the end, it doesn't really matter. The question still at hand is, Is Intelligent Design science? And the answer is still a resounding no.

The World's Most Generous Misers

It's a common misconception that the United States "is the most generous, the most compassionate nation on the planet." This myth is most recently perpetuated here. It's not true. Well, at least not the generous part. I don't know how one measures compassion. I wonder if it has to do with how many military interventions a country has undertaken in the recent past. But when it comes to foreign aid, a good measure of generosity, the US doesn't do so hot. While it's true that we contribute the most in absolute dollars, as a percent of our GDP, it's quite piddling. Considered as a portion of the nation’s economy, or of its federal expenditures, the U.S. is actually among the smallest donors of international aid among the world’s developed countries. In fact, we are second-to-last among the 22 wealthiest countries that comprise the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. We contribue a mere 0.16 percent of our GDP in foreign aid. Norway, the top donor, gives almost 6 times more than we do. In terms of private donations, Norway’s per capita private aid contributions are almost five times the U.S.’s. I'm not saying that our foreign aid policy is good or bad. I'm just saying that we should be honest with ourselves. To do so would be a refreshing change.

What Would Darwin Do?

You may remember that the University of Kansas, in response to the Intelligent Design (ID) educational debate going on in its home state, created a class in which ID is [properly] presented as a religious rather than scientific theory. How did opponents respond? By attacking the professor who came up with the class. My guess is they were testing the theory of survival of the fittest.

Is God an Accident?

Paul Bloom, a professor of psychology and linguistics at Yale, argues in this month's Atlantic Monthly that religion, specifically, belief in the afterlife, the divine, an anthropomorphic god, is an accident of human biological development. Bloom says that human consciousness develops in two parallel tracks, one for dealing with the physical world and one for dealing with the social world. (This division can be seen most vividly in austistic children--they have no problem with the physical world but cannot deal with the social one. In fact, extremely austitic children treat other people as unpredictable physical objects). The physical track is a result of our evolution: humans interpret the physical world no better or worse than animals do. But the social track is uniquely human, and therefore arrived on the scene later. This dual computing in the brain, and the inevitable cross-connections, produces a number of interesting side effects. One is the idea of Cartesian dualism--the mind as separate from the body. Another is the tendency of humans to ascribe human characteristics to, well, just about everything--cars, animals, Nature, etc. From this, I think it is easy to see how the idea of a god could develop naturally. Indeed, Bloom's work with children has shown that young children hold many of the concepts behind religion, such as the existence and persistence of the soul, much more strongly than adults do and with a sophisitication that belies an external source. In short, human beings come into the world with a predisposition to believe in supernatural phenomena. And two: this predisposition is an incidental by-product of cognitive functioning gone awry. Of course, I've overly simplified his article for the sake of brevity, and this article is a simplified version of his research. But his ideas fit in with those of Steven Pinker, Richard Dawkins, and other thinkers who I agree with, so I probably just became a Bloom subscribant. But just don't take my word for it...read it for yourself.

Economic Inequality and the Internet

I love the new iTunes feature allowing easy access to podcasts. The podcast phenomenon truly harnesses the liberating power of the Internet. This weekend, I listened to a lecture by Robert Reich on the increasing economic inequality in the US entitled "How Unequal Can America Get Before We Snap?" I encourage you to view the webcast or to download the mp3 from the link and listen to the lecture yourself. Reich is a great speaker. The lecture is sobering, but gave me hope. Reich feels that the history of America is to adopt reformists policies at the critical moment, and he thinks that we will again. He describes a movement called New Progressivism. I want to join.

Getting to know the enemy

Here's an enlightening look into the mind of an arch-conservative. JB Williams at The Conservative Voice (always an entertaining and illuminating destination) explains why Liberals are un-American. I wrote just before Thanksgiving on an article I found describing the Right's view of the Left. Today's article is in the same vein. Read it. As Sun Tzu said, "If you know the enemy and know yourself, your victory will not stand in doubt." Here's an opportunity to "know the enemy."

Homeowners Associations hate Xmas

As I searched for more intel on Operation Deny Frankincense (the codename for the Left's full assault on Christmas), I came across this article about a family who is being forced to remove their nativity scene by their homeowners association. Despite this article's placement in the "Religion" section of the website, it really talks about the alarming prevalence and increasing power of homeowners associations around the country. Homeowners associations (HOA) are essentially private governments set up to manage a neighborhood's common property like parks, rec centers, and streets, and also to provide other amenities like private security or community programs. When one buys a house in a neighborhood managed by a HOA, one is obliged to pay a monthly or yearly fee, plus conform to various restrictions that are written into the deed of the house. According the Community Associations Institute (CAI), 1 in 6 people in the US lives in an HOA-managed property, and that number is going to get bigger: an estimated 4 out of 5 houses built since the late 1990s are governed by an HOA. The political theory behind HOAs is interesting and involved but I think that I can sum up the situation in one sentence: HOAs allow people to protect their property values at the expense of their property rights. The CAI says most people are happy with HOAs. But many are not (including me, though I don't live in one, thank goodness), for many reasons. First, HOAs are de facto governments, but they lack the accountability, transparency, and oversight of a normal government. Abuse and pettiness is widespread. Second, since HOA are about property values, they suppress any individuality or expression that may be perceived as threatening those values. This gives us the bland, cookie-cutter subdivisions that we all know and loathe. Third, HOAs can be discriminatory. It's not unusual to find restrictions in the deed that prohibit the sale to minorities or other undesirables. The Washington Supreme Court recently overturned a deed restriction stating that the lots may not be "sold, conveyed, or leased to any person not of the White or Caucasian race." So, the next time you are buying a house, investigate carefully and think twice before entering an HOA. Here is an interesting article on homeowners associations that I found after I posted this piece. Be sure to read the comments.

Jesus v Darwin, Round 7

Here's a mental exercise for any adherents to Intelligent Design (ID). Read the "tough questions for evolutionists" found at the Dr. Dino site, and then answer them using ID. Note: It's not fair to answer "God did it."

We're winning in Iraq! (That'll be $50).

If the Right ever wonders why the Left seems a little, shall we say, less than enthusiastic about the Administrations's pronouncements on the war in Iraq, here's one reason why: the US has been bribing Iraqi journalists to produce upbeat reports about the war. So when a liberal hippy like me reads a piece like this that claims we are winning the war, I have to ask, how do you know? And it seems I'm not the only one with doubts.