John's Blog: May 2004
Everyone and his dog has a 'blog these days, right? So why not me? If you are interested in anything I'm saying, great! Let's talk about it! (Leave comments.) If not, try one of my other links. Better yet, why are you wasting your time staring at your computer screen, go do something real!
Let me know if you'd like to be to be updated whenever I post a new article. It won't happen every day!
Don't Buy Gas on May 19th!!!
(Click title to read more...)Here's my own take on why it won't work. Even you manage to actually create a noticeable dip in gasoline sales on that day, enough to make the gas companies take notice, guess what? Everyone who doesn't fill up on that day, is going to fill up the next day, or the day after that. There may even be a rise in sales the next day, as everyone who would have filled up on the boycott day waits a day. Taken over a long enough period, say a week, everyone's buying the same amount of gas anyway. I, ahem, think the gas companies probably realize this. The only thing that would really get their attention is sustained lower usage. And guess what? That's capitalism -- Prices rise and fall with demand!
Even apart from whether it will work or not, I have some strong feelings about it in other ways. I found a text file of a reply I had written when I last received it which I have copied below. I still agree with it.
April 2002
I'm sorry, but I just have to say something here. Some of you I think were included in a reply I had last year to the "don't buy gas on this day" idea (i.e. it's dumb), so already you know that this issue really gets under my skin. I'll apologize in advance if this sounds like a rant -- it is! But please forgive the tone and think about the message.
I'm really getting incredibly sick and tired of this attitude that Americans are ENTITLED to low gas prices!! Why? Did I miss a Constitutional amendment somewhere? We already HAVE the lowest gas prices in the world, as most of you probably already know. (Well, except probably the Middle East itself.) Everytime I get a copy of a message like this, it just sounds like whining to me. And maybe I'm also just a bit annoyed to see the noble and laudable concept of united consumer action put to what seems to me such a trival application as lowering the protesters' own gasoline prices. I wonder if the people originating these messages also take into account, when they purchase things, the records of the companies they purchase from in terms of human rights and the environment? Did they support boycotts in the name of civil rights in the 1960's (or would they have, if they had been born)? Or do they only care about how much money they're spending on gas?
If you want to spend less on gas, here's a novel idea: USE LESS OF IT! Don't drive that gas-hog SUV. Don't live 20 miles or more away from your job. Don't wheel around in that ATV/snowmobile/powerboat every week-end. Don't have such a big lawn that you can only mow it with a riding mower. Rake leaves, don't blow them. If you are able-bodied, shovel snow, don't blow it. (Or if you not, hire a local kid to do it, and support the local economy!) Live within walking distance of at least SOME stores.
Okay, maybe this is easy for me to say. Although we own a minivan due to having multiple children, I also live close enough to my work to bicycle commute most days. I don't own a snowblower or a leaf-blower, and I use a manual rotary lawnmower whenever possible. We live in town, within walking distance to a number of stores, restaurants, and our church. BUT: These are all choices I have intentionally made, it's not like I just happen to find myself in this situation.
Maybe you think these choices would be too hard for you. But I'm not asking anyone, including me, to be perfectly "politically correct". I drive sometimes, I occasionally use a chain saw, sometimes I let my lawn go too long and have to get out the power mower. Our furnace is even an oil-burner. I'm just saying that I think it's worth doing what you can.
I must also acknowledge that I realize that high gas prices truly do hurt some people economically, such as truckers. For their sakes, I hope that prices do not go too high, or that if they do, there will be some help available to them. But to ordinary consumers, I really have to say TOO BAD! I can't conjure up much sympathy for any of *us*.
Why is this important? I suppose it's very related to a lot of opinions I have on our general over-consumption and environmental abuse, issues which are too long and complex to go into here and which some of you probably disagree with me on. (Or maybe you agree with me, but have long since given up on the idea of being able to do anything about it.) I'll just make two comments on these points. (1) North America contains about 20% of the world's population but consumes 80% of the world's resources. (2) It's true that only about 80% of the scientific community agrees that global warming is occurring and has man-made causes (despite what I've read in the last year about the ever-widening ozone hole over Antarctica and the unprecedented breakup of the ice shelf there), but gee, I suspect we'll only be 100% sure after it's all over, and by then it will too late. (But at least the environmentalists will get to say "we told you so!")
Besides those issues, I also think there is a political connection, which is extremely relevant to everything in the Middle East. Now, I'm no political scientist or foreign policy analyst, just someone who follows the news and thinks about things, so don't take me as an expert. But one thing I've read is that most of the Middle Eastern countries, not being democracies, don't allow their people much in the way of free speech. One exception to this is religious extremist groups with anti-Western rhetoric, who get to say pretty much what they want. And we generally look the other way, until we can't anymore, such as with Iran and later Iraq. I'm not saying we wouldn't like to see some of these countries became more democratized, but we've considered stability in the region generally more important than a potentially difficult internal struggle to democracy. Why? So as not to endanger the oil flow, obviously. So human rights and so forth takes a back seat, and the extremist religous groups continue to receive fuel for their anti-Western rhetoric, as they watch the Western powers prop up the pro-Western non-democratic regimes in countries like Iran (until the revolution), Saudi Arabia and Kuwait. (Which was never, and is not today, a democracy.)
Basically, I think it's at the point where, in general, our political and economic investment in the region is doing more harm than good. We may have thought we were trying to help by investing in their economies (such as with pre-revolution Iran), but I think we have been blind to the negative perception we've created. I do think we need to try to help resolve the Isreali/Palestinian situation, because I'm afraid they'll just destroy each other if we don't. But in general, I think it would be a good thing long-term if that region wasn't so valuable to us.
So I believe that one of the best things we can do in response to 9/11 is to reduce our dependence on oil. Notice I didn't say foreign oil only, but oil period. (I also oppose drilling in the ANWR, for the record.) So my resolution to use as little oil as possible, which I tried to follow even before 9/11, has only been strengthened since then. So this is why it rankles me so much when I see this sentiment that somehow, it's UNFAIR to us POOR AMERICANS that oil prices should rise. "They" are taking away "our" right to cheap oil. Please. We have no such right. Get out of your national parochialism and think about the big picture.
I hope that some of this makes sense, and I welcome any discussion.
11 comments
Thoughts on Climate Change
(Click title to read more...)Let's go with these:
- Is something happening?
- Are we causing it?
- Can we do anything about it?
- Will it be good or bad overall?
- What should our response be?
I made up a table of all combinations of possible answers to these questions, with the result below. I have compressed similar combinations down to one where applicable, to make it easer to digest.
| Scenario # | Is Something Happening? | Will It Be Good or Bad Overall? | Can We Do Anything About It? | Are We Causing It? | Response |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | No | - | - | - | No problem. |
| 2 | Yes | Good | (why would we, if it's good?) | (doesn't matter, if we don't need to do anything about it) | Well, I guess it's okay then. |
| 3 | Yes | Bad | Yes | (doesn't matter, as long as we can do something about it) | Better get on the stick! |
| 4 | Yes | Bad | No | (doesn't matter, if there's nothing we can do about it) | Sucks to be us. |
I have a couple of observations on this, especially the "bad" scenarios. One, note that it doesn't really matter whether we are causing it or not, because what really matters is whether we can do anything about it. Even if we are causing it, if we can't do anything about it, that point is moot (#4). And even if we're not causing it, as long as we can still do something about it, then we should (#3).
But also note that if we are causing it, then we theoretically could just stop what we are doing, which would make it #3. But if we don't have the political will and/or economic ability to do that, then we drop to #4.
Now, let's map these scenarios to their traditional advocates. "Liberals" (in quotes to indicate stereotyping) tend to gravitate to scenario #3: It'll be Bad, Real Bad, but we can do something about it if we really want to. "Conservatives", in my experience, can and do argue any of the other 3 scenarios: Not happening, can't do anything about it even if it is, or hey, it might end up being a good thing! Resisting the urge to go off into a tangent about the psychological reasons behind each of these positions, let's go on and review the assumptions.
Is something happening? Most articles that I've seen indicate that most evidence affirms that it is. I think any credible scientist would admit that some of the details are contradictory, but there is a nevertheless a discernable pattern. If all the facts don't fit the hypothesis, maybe a new hypothesis is needed, but that doesn't dispute the facts. Common sense is not the same as science, but science doesn't invalidate common sense either.
Will it be good or bad overall? I think this is the huge question mark. It's obvious to me that no one really knows. I'm can't claim that I know that it will be bad. But I also can't accept anyone else's assurances that it won't be. Most likely, it will be a mix of both. However, whether good or bad, there will obviously have to be some adaptation. This actually seems to approximate the Bush administration's response to their own report on the subject back in the Spring of 2002. My concern with concentrating only on adaptation, and not on prevention, is that adaptation will be hardest, as usual, on the poor, uneducated, or otherwise unfortunate. This wouldn't be so hard to swallow if I didn't suspect that many among the wealthy, educated, or otherwise fortunate classes just aren't willing to take the hit on preventative measures, or lack the imagination to see that preventative measures could be just as economically stimulating as adaptative ones.
Can we do anything about it? I think there are two facets of this question: scientific and political. Scientifically, is there a solution? In order to answer this, the science needs to make better progress on answering the previous two questions. It isn't there yet. Secondly, as to the political will, I hope that we would, but my cynical side is not counting on it.
My overall feeling is this: If we strongly suspect that something is happening, which I think we do, do we really need to know all the details about if it will be good or bad, or what can be done, to at least stop doing what we think may be causing it? Yes, there is a lot of uncertainty reflected in that phrasing, but this is all about probabilities, because by the time we reach 100% certainty, it will likely be too late. So shouldn't we be erring on the side of caution? That's all I'm saying, really.
0 comments
McNamara's 11 Lessons
* We misjudged then -- and we have since -- the geopolitical intentions of our adversaries . . . and we exaggerated the dangers to the United States of their actions.* We viewed the people and leaders of South Vietnam in terms of our own experience. . . . We totally misjudged the political forces within the country.
* We underestimated the power of nationalism to motivate a people to fight and die for their beliefs and values.
* Our judgments of friend and foe alike reflected our profound ignorance of the history, culture, and politics of the people in the area, and the personalities and habits of their leaders.
* We failed then -- and have since -- to recognize the limitations of modern, high-technology military equipment, forces and doctrine. . . . We failed as well to adapt our military tactics to the task of winning the hearts and minds of people from a totally different culture.
* We failed to draw Congress and the American people into a full and frank discussion and debate of the pros and cons of a large-scale military involvement . . . before we initiated the action.
* After the action got under way and unanticipated events forced us off our planned course . . . we did not fully explain what was happening and why we were doing what we did.
* We did not recognize that neither our people nor our leaders are omniscient. Our judgment of what is in another people's or country's best interest should be put to the test of open discussion in international forums. We do not have the God-given right to shape every nation in our image or as we choose.
* We did not hold to the principle that U.S. military action . . . should be carried out only in conjunction with multinational forces supported fully (and not merely cosmetically) by the international community.
* We failed to recognize that in international affairs, as in other aspects of life, there may be problems for which there are no immediate solutions. . . . At times, we may have to live with an imperfect, untidy world.
* Underlying many of these errors lay our failure to organize the top echelons of the executive branch to deal effectively with the extraordinarily complex range of political and military issues.
1 comments
