I went to a dinner in Little Rock yesterday as a brief reunion with friends from school. On the way home, I did not drive above 70 miles per hour. Gas was $3.78 yesterday, and that was down from what it was. I was trying to make it home on what I had. I wasn't on a deadline. I didn't have a curfew. I wasn't in a hurry to go home.
I was passing a truck that was traveling around 65 when a car came up on my bumper and stayed there. All I could see was headlights. As soon as I passed the truck, I got into the right lane. The car was actually an SUV, and it passed me going at least 90 mph.
This got me thinking about the energy problem facing the United States, and who and what people believe the problem is.
Obviously, it's not us.
The house recently passed a bill allowing the U.S. to sue OPEC. Oil executives were "grilled on fuel prices." I'm sure you've heard about the gas tax holiday that McCain proposed and Clinton backed - despite the fact that economists all agree it would be a horrible idea. Oil speculators are making their money, too.
So who's the blame, according to our actions? OPEC, the oil companies, taxes, and speculators. While these all play their parts, there's still the one cog that no one is blaming too loudly, lest they lose their congressional seat: the consumer.
I understand what people are saying. They don't really have a choice when it comes to driving those long distances. My mother is one of them, as she drives an hour to work each way (and that's with good traffic). My college is an hour and a half away from my home. My grandmother works two jobs and drives to both. I get it. The people who need to drive are the ones getting hurt.
But not everyone is in this situation. Many people live in cities, where there is public transportation, but they refuse to take public transportation because they can still afford to drive their Hummers and their SUVs. But that's hardly the only problem. Remember the person in the SUV who was going 90? That person was willingly spending as much as $1.20 for gas, and wasting what he or she was paying more for.
Does anyone live in a vacuum? Why do people think, "Well, I can afford the gas today, so I'll go ahead and drive fast" only affects one wallet? It's disheartening to see people still use these attitudes. They believe in the power of their own money rather than the power of common sense.
I don't understand how people can still use this reasoning - that they're not the problem. Is the person who can only nickel and dime his gas tank the problem? Because I'm pretty sure they are lowering demand, not increasing it. Are the coworkers who carpool the problem? Because I'm also pretty sure that they're using as much as half of the gas they were before.
Every time you step on the gas, you're taking money out of your wallet and someone else's. I know, this kind of "help your brother" attitude is not very American, but our attitudes aren't the only thing that has to change if we're going to survive these tough times.
I hope people think about that as they lounge on their boats this Memorial Day weekend, commemorating what others sacrificed for them. Maybe they - we - will realize that it's our turn.
Below are two different posts combined. The first, which follows, is about FISA. I was going to write some huge entry on the Republican walkout in Congress yesterday, the reasons we should reject FISA (especially with telecom immunity), and the disappointing votes in the Senate that passed FISA with telecom immunity (that includes Senator Lincoln (D) of Arkansas - my senator). However, I found the following link at Scholars & Rogues, and every single word was taken out of my mouth.
The second post is something that I've already posted elsewhere. I want to submit it to you, the reader, and gather your opinion on the same topic.
I was addressing this question: I would like to ask how us maintaining stability in Iraq improves our national security?
Here is my answer, though I don't claim to know much more about the whole affair than the casual news-watcher. Just an educated guess, I s'pose.
Iraq alone? Not much. Most news and military reports say that al Qaeda has left Iraq in droves because of concentrated troops due to the surge, and local tribal leaders siding with the U.S. (which takes a source of recruits away).
However, the entire region is extremely volatile. Here's a map:
Iraq is surrounded by countries constantly plagued by violence and upheaval (as well as association with terrorism): Iran, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Jordan, and a hop (not a hop-skip-jump) from Israel and Palestine. Interestingly enough, you can see that our occupations of Afghanistan and Iraq have sandwiched Iran. It's not surprising as to why the Iranian president is more suited to make threats against the U.S. that can only seek to anger the American president and people. It's surrounded and feels the pinch.
But as far as an honorable exit from Iraq? Don't expect it. It's either going to be the John Edwards type withdrawal, where we pull the rug out beneath the Iraqi feet, or we take McCain's plan to stay there for however long it takes - even in the case that we'll never leave.
I think building democracy, as Bush claims we're trying to do, is a side-project. America wants the region stabilized so that it's productive. So what if it has democracy? There are plenty of other regions in the world that commit even worse atrocities (Burma? Darfur?). Invading Iraq and claiming the spread of democracy and the downfall of tyranny is suspiciously oblivious to goings on in the rest of the world (especially when we can't even admit our own successful bouts with genocide).
This brings up the upcoming, unavoidable, interesting, and terrifying concept of "peak oil." What it means for the world? When you reach peak oil, and every bit of it is being gobbled up by oil-hungry countries, and there's absolutely no where else to turn. You can't squeeze another million barrels out of an empty oil reservoir. Even if you could, it would probably be the last drops of oil we would ever receive from the reservoir - with or without new technology.
Peak oil means that what one nation gets, another nation goes without. Iraq is a good way to secure one of the more fertile oil nations in the Middle East as a supporter of America come peak oil time. You had better believe that the "we're not here for oil" rhetoric will disappear as fast as the gas prices rise.
So, back to [the original] question. How does this improve national security? In the short term, it really doesn't. It provides us with a rather unstable foothold in a completely unfamiliar land with unfamiliar customs that are incompatible with democracy and freedom and individualism. We've managed to piss off every country and have - wittingly or unwittingly - made them fear 21st century imperialism. But, on the other hand, we've quite possibly secured America can survive past peak oil, buying us enough time to switch to other fuel sources.
Iraq can't keep American's oil addiction forever, but it can buy us enough years to completely transform our economy.
Does that mean I support the war? I don't and I never did. But I can see the long term implications of our being there, and I find it hard to make a case for us to get out immediately - whether it's because of the backlash of violence that will surely come if we leave (and the massacres of thousands of people), or the coming of peak oil. The debt is the only huge reason I think we should come up with long-term plans for a war that we didn't plan to be long-term.
Dear reader-who-I-hope-is-still-reading, what do you think?
This is my response to a World Wildlife Fund campaign to halt the leasing of Alaskan land which may lead ("may" meaning "it definitely will, but we don't know the extent") to the further endangerment or possible extinction of the polar bear in that region. Usually, WWF gives a generic letter that any amateur activist, like me, can send to an influential party. However, I felt moved to write something personal (which is seen as more influential than some email that 50,000 people send out just by filling out their names and pressing "send"). This is what I wrote to Dirk Kempthorne, Secretary of the Interior. It's short and sweet, but oftentimes those are the most effective messages.
Dear Honorable Kempthorne,
While the following is a generic message from the World Wildlife Fund, I would like to personalize this by saying that the United States, in all of its peace-keeping, has continuously waged war on those that either cannot defend themselves or ask for help. The U.S. is a country most able to invest in renewable energy, but it instead wishes to give itself a "black gold" fix that is temporarily satisfying and permanently damaging.
I don't mean to insult anyone's intelligence, but this oil land-lease is being done hastily and without the proper foresight. Wait until we know what danger this deal proposes, and allow stringent measures to be taken on those who plan to drill there. This isn't just about money and oil. This is about those who are already there, whether you see them as human, animal, or acceptable losses. The role of every human being, or at least one of them, is to care for those who cannot care for themselves. This is the ultimate test of that, and it would be absolutely appalling for the U.S. to fail this test, when it has both the ability and the means to save what could be forever lost.
I always get upset at these things. My blood starts boiling and steam comes out of my ears. I also feel the urgent need to cry, but I hardly ever let myself do so. What are we doing to ourselves? Why don't we actually invest in something, rather than letting the current powerful entities run us into some sort of apocalyptic world where we simultaneously find out that there's no oil, no water, no animals, no energy, no way to save any goddamn thing, and no one to ask to help because we were the ones everyone else went to and asked first? What happens when our blessed world leadership and policing leads us straight to an end that could have been completely avoided?
More than likely, this will be another battle lost in favor of making money. More than likely, we can't save the animals in Alaska, the rainforests, the deserts, the forests, the mountains, or anywhere. If we save them, it's because they amuse us. Not because they were alive in the first place, but because they are cute and keep well in a zoo.
Why don't people understand that once something dies, it doesn't come back? We are on the verge of losing so many things because we haven't been able to grasp that one concept. Perhaps we have realized it, and we've become okay with it. "Something else is dying? That's a shame."
We are careless, reckless, and altogether the dumbest species on the planet. Every other species knows how to hunt for its fill without throwing off the very system that seeks to feed it. We can't even do that. We overeat because we feel that we have the right. We go hunting for sport so we can have a stuffed trophy. We poach animals for their fur and disregard any other impact they could have had on our lives.
We are stupid, stupid creatures. As hard as Mother Nature has been trying to kill us off (have you ever thought that all of the viruses, all of the bacteria, all of the complex evolving illnesses that have plagued humans were created by nature to save itself? that sickness and disease is nature's way of self-defense?), we've been resilient. As much as death hurts us, only a death of our own warrants a proper burial. Only our household pets get so much consideration. I guess that means that the solution is for all people to become deeply attached to something in the wild, and be good stewards of its keep. The problem with me is that I am deeply attached, and I am quite aware I am part of the killing.
