the ‘n’ word
Today’s Times editorial page is calling for the creation of a meaningful energy strategy and I wholeheartedly endorse that broad proposition. While we can argue long and hard on the details, I think it is well past time for serious measures.
If America has an Achilles heal, then it is her rapacious energy appetite. Those of us who lived though the Arab Oil Embargo should understand the peril of dependency on foreign sources of oil. And certainly if one cares about the world we leave our children, we should be concerned about long term reliance on oil whatever its source. One can only hope that the current run up in gasoline prices will get a few people’s attention.
It should: these price increases have come even without any serious interruption to crude supply.
While I am concerned about the environment, it is the national security aspect of the crude supply that screams out for government action with the loudest voice. We have reached a place where extreme political unrest in places like Venezuela, Saudi Arabia and Mexico could throw the world economy into a devastating abyss.
These places are not exactly epitomes of institutional stability. It is time for Americans to demand better than this.
It would not be so irresponsible on the part of our “leaders” if it were not for the fact that alternatives are available. None of them are as cost effective in the short run, but here is an example of where the market simply does not work. The probability discounted future cost of a breakdown in oil supplies is scarcely factored into any balance sheet in the World, though that will start to change as insurance premiums rise further with the increasing probability of realizing some of these risks. The problem with the insurance cost feedback loop is it is too slow for the purposes of national defense: the time to act was thirty years ago. Any further delay is simply compounding foolishness.
What we need now and not thirty more years hence is a multi-pronged attack that approaches various alternative energy sources in a serious way. In the short run this means exploring efficient use of our abundant natural gas reserves, conservation measures such as an improved automobiles, and revisiting nuclear power.
There, I said it. I used the “n” word.
I am not suggesting that nuclear power is some cure-all, but rather that it could be an important part of a better future if we approached the topic as rational beings rather than emotional ones. I suppose that is probably a bit of a stretch goal for this politicized society in which we live.
We desperately need to be pouring money into more research on alternative fuels. There have been exciting developments in the last five years in the areas of photovoltaics and biomass to name but a couple. The fascinating thing about many of these more futuristic possibilities is that in addition to the supply potential, the energy sources are much more decentralized. This is fascinating because decentralization will bring infinitely greater energy security than is imaginable with the more conventional large-scale energy sources destined to dominate the next quarter century.
What a great legacy we could we leave our children by bequeathing energy security.
Undoubtedly calls for a serious energy policy will go unheeded due to the lack of public demand and the vested antagonistic interests of those who hold the reins of power. If the seventies did not shock people into reality, I doubt the present situation will either. We know with disturbing certainty the alternative: the coming military budgets will be gruesome thing to behold.
Almost as gruesome as the imperialist acts that our greed and intellectual sloth will compel us into.
32 Comments:
In general I agree with your points. The US has been profligate with energy, and with its national security.
This requires a 3-point programme:
(1) curbing oil consumption by increasing taxes, particularly on motor fuel. Not to European levels, but certainly much higher than at present. You certainly should be looking at the $3 gallon
(2) promoting energy efficiency in a much more concerted way than at present
(3) progressively developing nuclear power until it accounts for around 50% of national electricity generation
Randy,
Great post. You should get riled up more often.
I think you said far better than I could how I feel about the Alaskan drilling. I have no problem with that per se, but unless it is part of a larger strategic initiative, it is nothing but a band-aid. I think we have to be comprehensive in our approach.
It is pathetic our government isn’t doing anything. I’ve worked for oil companies most of my adult life, including right now. I’m not anti-oil, but still I see the strategic consequences of inaction and you know our leaders do too. What I honestly think is probably a bit too cynical for a lot of people, but I believe the power elite is consciously choosing to ignore the problems because of the political risk of proactive approaches. They would rather manage a crisis than head it off because they can make political hay out of a crisis. Knowing this, they realize that to manage the inevitable conflicts they are anticipating will require some extraordinary military muscle. Strong military spending gives them short-term power and long-term tools for military intervention.
Fixing things would be better for all of us, but it just isn’t in the cards. Politicians are loath to propose anything that might possibly be associated with individual sacrifice. I have echos of Shrub and Co telling us that we are in a War on Terror, but just to live our lives normally. Sacrifice for your fellow man or succeeding generations just isn’t in our vocabulary any more.
And people wonder why I think America is already dead.
The weakness of our mass transit system is pathetic. I use mass transit when I can, but the problem is the system is so poor, I really can’t make it work much of the time. And it isn’t just a matter of trying harder. Granted, I have a long commute, but if I were to try to take mass transit the entire route it would be three hours each way. I’m not an ideal example, but I know a lot of people with more reasonable needs who just find it nearly impossible in DFW. The situation is somewhat better in the big Eastern cities, but even there because of cut backs it is often difficult.
You would think that people would support mass transit for selfish reasons. Sitting on a train is a lot more pleasant than sitting in a traffic jam.
CG,
The migration back into the city is already on. I think there is a killing to be made by buying real-estate in blighted inner city areas. Property prices are skyrocketing in areas with convenient access to downtown areas. You should see the prices fetched for small unspectacular flats near downtown Dallas.
Suarav,
I don’t think you are being paranoid at all. I think the problems and risks of nuclear energy are very real and must be addressed. But what angers me is how it has become one of those third rail issues: nobody will touch it out of fear.
Terrorism is one problem with nuclear energy. One thought I’ve had is that perhaps we should build somewhat centralized facilities on public lands in the West. This would make the facilities and materials easier to secure. There of course is a balance there because larger facilities make more tempting targets.
Suarav,
I guess I am biased based on my mass transit experiences. In Philadelphia, my commute was generally less time consuming than driving. The SEPTA train fares were so high, I was not saving much money at the time: it took the train for convenience. Here in DFW, the Trinity Railway Express adds about a half hour each way to my commute, but it does save me a lot of money because I am offsetting a lot of miles (in Philly, it was few miles but more traffic). I get the additional benefit of being able to read or write for 45 minutes of my commute so the hour a day I invest in mass transit yields an hour and a half of constructive time.
Some of the problem is the old chicken and egg thing. You have to have a good service first to attract customers. Customers are relatively low to change fundamental patters so mass transit isn’t going to generate enough cash flow initially. This is a classic government enterprise just like the interstate highway system. The systems can be privatized after they are built, but the huge losses in the initial stages will scare away private capital.
HAHAHA. Windmills would work. Which makes me think…you could also put some biomass electric generators in Foggy Bottom to convert all that BS into electricity.
Seriously though…I’m surprised nobody has objected to my nuclear suggestion with any vigor. Maybe the world has changed and we really are ready for that.
Stilldeamn,
I for one am not excited by the alcohol stuff because it seems to be such a band-aid. That said, I would think some for of ethanol usage is certainly in order. E85 in particular is no great assistance in terms of greenhouse gases-though it can be a small help there as well.
Perhaps there are some things that I do not know about E85-feel free to educate me. But in the motor vehicle area, natural gas seems to me to be a much more exciting short-term help. This is kind of an interesting summary.
Even Alan Greenspan follows the Disenfranchised Curmudgeon: http://cnn.com.
Randy,
I agree that wind power is a useful thing that should be pursued. While it would not be a solution by itself, it would be a logical part of any sensible energy program. If you want to assume some pretty minimal impacts, it all adds up. Here are some numbers off that I worked up based on data available here.
Roughly 17% of our total energy requirements are met by crude oil. The US imports roughly 50% of that, so our dependence on foreign oil is around 9% of our total energy needs.
Now I’m just thinking about the national security aspect for right this second, but the goal would be to replace about half or a little more of that foreign oil with other supplies. So what we need to find is alternative sources for about 6% of our crude demands.
Looking at the data, if we upped our coal production 10%, that would be over 3% of our total energy needs. Now I’m not pretending that all of these feedstocks are interchangeable, just trying to get some perspective. Natural gas use increases of 10% would provide another 3%. A ten-fold increase in solar and wind power would add another 3%.
Now the real picture is more complex. You can’t just trade one for the other. But a real investment in Natural gas conversion for automobiles is a no-brainer. It is very easy to see how that alone could seriously dent our reliance of foreign oil. And while wind and solar don’t solve the problem, I think you can see how a little bit of increase there could shave a percent or two off of our needs.
And I haven’t even discussed conservation or nuclear energy. Nuclear is already a big part of our energy picture supplying 11% of our total energy needs. An increase in nuclear energy production of a mere 25% would add another 4%.
Now this is all a bit deceptive as our energy needs are growing. But it is pretty plain that alternative sources could make a huge dent in our reliance on foreign oil. We just need the resolve to pursue it.
David and Sally,
I certainly do not mean to imply that there are no problems with nuclear power. On the point of expense, I would have to do some research to get terribly specific, but I remember clearly that a lot of the argument against nuclear power in term of cost was related to the cost of litigation. That would probably be something worth digging in to. But the thing is, cost is a relative thing. What is the cost of a crisis in supply? Just because it doesn’t make cost sense in terms of a balance sheet doesn’t mean it is not the right thing to do in terms of national priorities.
On nuclear waste, I know there has been substantial progress in that area as well, but I agree that it is a big problem. I would suggest that expansion should involve pre-planned waste disposal. Waste could be disposed of directly at the site if we were intelligent with site location. Perhaps we would investigate and not pursue more nuclear power, but I tend to doubt it because of the large potential. But this is why I said that this needs to be approached from an intellectual level and not an emotional one. There are real problems with nuclear as an option, but we need to take a rational look and see if we can make it fit.
And David you are correct that nuclear doesn’t directly affect the dependence on foreign oil. What I am suggesting is that perhaps in the near term, natural gas might best be used in automobiles. Also, increasing the supply of electricity can reduce the price of electricity or otherwise make electric vehicles more attractive.
In short, I don’t think anything seems to be an easy fix. I think in the near term, however, natural gas for automobiles is pretty much the way to go. It helps with both our reliance on foreign oil and with greenhouse gas emissions. We should be doing something as a society to encourage that while the other forms of energy supply have time to be developed more fully.
And BTW, 30 years late in this case is definitely better than never.
Sally,
Yes. The cost of the environmental lawsuits artificially drove up the “cost” of nuclear power plants. Don’t misunderstand; I think there are environmental concerns. But we should address those strategically and not litigate them to the point that the project is not feasible.
And no, I didn’t run off Texas Conservative. He is a good friend of mine. Sometimes he posts more regularly than others. If you don’t know it already, I don’t run people off. It would take pretty extreme behavior to get me to change that too. I certainly don’t mind being disagreed with but I will always be very vigorous in my responses.
BTW, I sent my previous post to Focus on the Family. Somebody from that domain read my post on the blog today. Do you think I’ll get a reply?
C.G.,
I have only read the 1st chapter in the book Perfectly Legal. I’ve been real busy at work and off time was too precious not to spend it with family.
As a charter member of the Libertarian Accountant Fundamentalist-America’s True Manly Environmentalist, or LAF-ATME, we have opinions on the current subject matter.
I agree with C.G. that a fuel tax would nearly devastate the poor. Not only in direct taxes, but increased cost in everything transported by fuel burning vehicles, food, clothes, etc. Everything.
One of the great advantages the U.S. has economically is our non-punitive taxation of fuel. If we are to remain competitive internationally and fuel prices double through taxation, something will have to give to remain competitive, and that something is real wages. If C.G.’s underpinnings are in a wad now over 40 million uninsured, wait till the number triples because companies can’t afford that luxury anymore.
Re: nuke plants. Bring ‘em on. We have a technology advantage now over nuke plants of yesteryear and third world countries of today. There is no reason for the US not to be a leader in this area. The environmentalist wackos propaganda machine has worked and reasonable thinking people respond like Pavlov’s dog each time certain tainted code words are mentioned. Nuclear (or as “W” says it, nucular,), rain forest, baby seals, ozone, global warming, Freon. I’m twitching right now.
Whatever alternatives to fossil fuel MUST be economically feasible. We have enormous known reserves that we should use. And some have postulated that it might be far greater and even sustainable. For security sake we need to limit use of foreign oil, but that does not necessarily mean that if we can’t use foreign, we can’t use any. Fossil fuel gives the best bang for the buck, and the consumers know it.
Photovoltaic is extremely expensive and impractical, although cool for you Y2K guys that want to live off of spam, crackers & MREs. Wind is great. I just moved to Green Mountain Energy reseller of electricity. They have wind generators they are shutting down because they are generating more electricity than they can sell. You gotta have a market. It has to compete. Hydrogen cars are cool, until you realized the amount of fossil fuel electricity went into creating the hydrogen, the car, and the delivery system, just so the end user can have warm fuzzies watching a trail of water vapor come out his tail pipe.
Finally, it was Tony’s pestering that stimulated this cameo. As one of 6 billion shifting blame for my own action to others. Its Tony’s fault.
Prof. Ricardo
Common,
"...protecting a Caribou just doesn't work for me."
Of course we need to protect them. You don't want the meat to spoil before it gets to the table do ya? I think we should use the herds on the wildlife refuge to feed the hungry drill rig workers that bring us that delightful black syrup. If God had not meant man to eat these Caribou, He would not have made them out of meat.
Prof. Ricardo
I have little doubt that those numbers regarding ANWAR drilling and the CAFÉ are based on fact. Conservation is a huge potential swing. Not to mention that if Conservation is encouraged in an intelligent way, the long-term effect would be to make our products more competitive. As global energy demands increase, we could be able to use this as a strategic advantage.
DavidR hit it on the head when he said, if God didn't want me getting drunk he wouldn't have made yeast. I think that argument is kind of weak. I’d also add that Genesis 1:29 says that plants and animals are given to the dominion of man for food. There is no real warrant to suggest that we are free to simply as we please with the earth and other living beings.
I’m not a Green, but rather and old time conservationist. I believe we need to prudently protect our natural environment but that we should balance such things against the progress of man. And I further agree with DavidR that drilling in the Anwar is a concern primarily because the simpletons will go, “whew, problem solved!” And of course the conservatives will smugly assert that they yet again rescued America from liberals that would have us all sit in unheated homes and ride bicycles. Otherwise, I think careful drilling in Anwar is a good thing but we still need the strategic energy policy I’m calling for.
On the cost effectiveness of energy. I just want to be clear here: I think while new technologies today aren’t cost effective, with further research and development they most certainly will become so. Prof can dis photovolatics if he wishes, but steady progress has been made. There is technology on the lab bench that has the potential of pushing efficiency up a full order of magnitude. I do not suggest anything is a total solution. I do suggest that perhaps many different energy sources will not just make sense, but excel at certain applications. Look at the growth in solar powered lighting for public signs, or the new solar powered yard lights that I just bought. Wind has long worked in the Windswept west and should continue to be pursued. Fuel cells will undoubtedly have a role in certain applications.
Rather than simply nitpicking the problems of these things and clinging to the still distant hope of hydrogen fusion, we need to invest now. This is where I go off the rails with my libertarian brethren. The American economy has excelled primarily because of the genius of free enterprise. However, it is folly not to give proper credit to key government support over the years such as the Interstate Highway System and the enormous facilities gifts at end of the Second World War.
Randy,
I am all for term limits, but the need to be constitutional. I would also put at an equal priority constitutionally prohibiting ballot access restrictions that operate to keep Republocrats in office and third parties on the fringes.
The term limits I have suggested in the past are: 1) President > one 6 year term, 2) Senator > three 3 year terms, 3) Congressmen > 3 two year terms, 4) additional restriction for federal elected office of 9 consecutive years and with a 3 year gap, 12 total years.
And the third thing, which may be more important than any of the others: Constitutional amendment forcing public financing of all campaigns.
Ideally, I would also like to see some form of testing to qualify for a voter registration card. This also could be done, but only with a Constitutional amendment.
As far as parties on the “left”, I have to tell you the old left-right labels have ceased to make any sense to me. If they work for you, great, but I’d like to see a lot more parties myself.
David,
Still no response from Focus on the Family. I guess I won’t hold my breath any longer.
I am still shocked that somebody at FOTF bothered hitting the website though as I sent the text to them in my email.
Randy,
Great quote. I’ve never seen that before. It reminds me of one of the Screwtape Letters, but I don’t have that volume here to find the citation. Screwtape definitely made that argument.
It is worth noting that Jesus never told us to build Cathedral’s. He never donned the vestments of the Temple. It is no accident that as Christians have vacillated on these simple teachings, that evil has resulted.
I’ve thought about writing a book about what Jesus would have to say about American Christianity and its political involvement. I just don’t think Jesus would be as approving of Tom Delay as is the Religious Right.
I have left large institutional religion probably for good. I go now to a Christian Church and generally adhere to the ideas of the restoration movement. I am excited to be in a Church that actually believes in outreach and the teachings of Christ. I think getting back to the basics are where it is at in terms of the great Commission and truly making a difference.
CG,
While I’m concerned about Global Warming, I’m not seriously worried at this point. I think the doomsayers are as overstated as the Idiothoffes are understated.
The problem with it is that the science is not conclusive, but the evidence is continuing to mount that something should be done. While I have consistently railed against over-reaction, I’m growing with impatience at no reaction. It is so striking to me when you look at natural gas in motor vehicles what a win-win prospect that is for the US and the world. By developing cheap NG engines and refining an economical delivery system, we could have a technology that would make us world leaders in an important arena. And falling short of that, we could eliminate our dependence on foreign oil and greatly reduce green house gas emissions. It is unconscionable that we aren’t doing more to encourage the development of these technologies.
Tony
Prof can dis photo-volatics if he wishes, but steady progress has been made.
I have read magazines, books, and catalogs galore on solar panels/electricity/setups, etc. Their cost effectiveness depends more on distribution difficulties than cost/watt of fossil fuel electricity. I have no problem of people wanting to supplement or replace the grid with solar, wind, or whatever. I like the idea of energy independence, both personally and nationally. However, I am against punitive taxes to herd us towards one direction or another. Solar panels are coming down in price slooowwwly, and they are increasing in output efficiency. They are coming on board just as fast as they should. Kind of market driven, if you will. I like that.
Re: Global Warming, Paul Harvey mentioned today (4/25) that a significant global warming meeting had been cancelled. All the blizzards and snow is screwing up traffic, I guess. Just got off the phone with a client in Colorado. He says there’s a foot of snow on the ground. All the snow this year has been hampering construction. They tell me that the severe winters are actually a symptom of global warming. I love it. A theory where no evidence can contradict it. If the temperature goes up, its global warming. If the temperature goes down, its global warming. I’m not as worried since the same sky-is-falling crowd said in the 70's we were heading towards another ice age. I figure one will offset the other very nicely.
David & C.G.
Re: CAFÉ mpg requirements for vehicles. What mpg do you propose? How do you suggest engineers get there? Do the vehicles you currently drive reflect a commitment to your ideal of higher mpg’s?
Thanks,
Prof. Ricardo
Elk taste good too.
C.G.
You said:“Some believe it is very conclusive, and the only confusion is coming from the industry paid "scientist" to make up arguments against it... i.e. introduce confusion.”
From a Walter E. Williams column, my current fav economist:
According to the July 2001 Consumers' Research article "Global Warming Science: Fact vs. Fiction," written by Mark LaRochelle and Peter Spencer, the media have it all wrong. The news media have leaped to erroneous conclusions from a summary of a yet-to-be-released 3,000-page report. A follow-up study on global warming was released June 2001 by the National Research Council of the National Academy of Science.
MIT Professor Richard Lindzen, one of the NRC panelists and lead author of the IPCC report says: "Our primary conclusion was that despite some knowledge and some agreement, the science is by no means settled. We are quite confident (1) that global mean temperature is about 0.5 degrees Celsius higher than a century ago; (2) that atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide have risen over the past two centuries; and (3) that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas whose increase is likely to warm the Earth. But – and I cannot stress this enough – we are not in a position to confidently attribute past climate change to carbon dioxide or to forecast what the climate will be in the future." Adding, "That is to say, contrary to media impressions, agreement with the three basic statements tells us almost nothing relevant to policy discussions."
That conclusion shows just how much confidence we can have in what the media and environmental radicals tell us.
You say, "Williams, are the environmentalists lying and deliberately frightening us?" That's part of their strategy. Consider what environmentalist activist Stephen Schneider said in a 1989 issue of Discover: "We have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we may have. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest."
Here's what former Sen. Timothy Wirth, D-Colo., was quoted as saying in Michael Fumento's "Science Under Siege": "We've got to ride the global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we'll be doing the right thing, in terms of economic policy and environmental policy."
Dr. Fred Singer, president of The Science & Environmental Policy Project in Arlington, Va., says there are four different independent data sets for measuring temperature. First are thermometers at weather stations around the world. They show warming over the past 30 years, but not in the United States. The second are weather satellites. They show no warming. The third are weather balloons. They show no warming. The fourth are called proxy data – tree rings, ice cores, lake sediments, etc. They show no warming.
We choose sources of information that agree with our worldview. It causes less stomach acid. I just thought I would give you one such bit of info from this side of the argument.
Prof. Ricardo
Prof,
Well, that is a nice head in the sand approach to energy independence. You like the idea but you are unwilling to do anything to achieve it.
I suppose our differing attitudes have something to do with the apparent urgency. I for one am not comfortable sitting idly by and allow countries such as Saudi Arabia and Venezuela acquire the means of our destruction through our own unwillingness to come to grips with reality.
Ideally, I would agree that I don’t really want the government to herd us toward particular solutions. But the exigency of the moment dictates that we should be doing something to encourage us to move in some direction. I am more of the tax credit kind of bent on a lot of this stuff: gently nudging the cost-benefit ratio to favor newer technologies. But I have always favored direct government funding of basic research and I think the areas of nuclear fusion and hydrogen combustion belong in this category.
I share your skepticism on Global Warming as I stated above. That said, I think it is just good common sense to not continue to dump CO2, Nox, and Ozone into the atmosphere. While the hysteria is unwarranted, I just think it is smart to work toward a better way.
On CAFÉ. I think that short term we should look to improve fuel economy by 25% and 50% in the not too distant future. But I would actually change it to an individual vehicle standard and heavily tax the vehicles that don’t meet the standards.
Don’t lose track of what I’m saying: I view this as a true emergency. It takes years to get this stuff on-line and starting now is the only hope.
Prof,
I agree with William’s summary sort of…the problem I have is using our uncertainty as a justification for doing NOTHING. That kind of thinking leads to things like the Iraq war. I suppose for some people that might seem a good thing, but I like to do things for reasons.
The sad thing is that this discussion illustrates one of the key themes here at the Disenfranchised Curmudgeon: by tolerating a two party mentality, people can only think at one extreme or the other. The truth is that dumping crap into the environment cannot possibly be a good thing. The truth is that over-reaction or hasty reactions can lead to new and unanticipated problems (think MTBE here). The ideas that we need to do nothing or we need to do everything are both equally absurd.
Oh, and I try very hard to read sources that disagree with me. In fact, I try to avoid sources that I know in advance will simply parrot my own outlook.
WhooHoo! I just got another hit from the Focus on the Family domain. This was from a different computer too.
{sniffle} Somebody actually cares. {sniffle}
CG,
FOTF would’ve been better off paying me to write that letter for them. I might have disagreed but I could have at least kept Dobson out of a logical ditch.
Rambling on the “N” word.
Except for the security issue, I think the military’s use of small nuclear power plants to power ships and subs demonstrates the safety of using nuclear power for energy production, if indeed they are the same kinds of power production units that the civilians could use. I am ignorant of such things. Neighborhoods, huge businesses like General Motors Corp, and small townships could all be independent of a “grid” tie-in with large multi-state grids prone to black outs and brown outs. Of course, security is an issue, so in a world of post 9/11 where bad boys will be bad boys, unless each place has such a security force as is necessary (I have no idea what Comanche Peak has), its all just a dream.
Prof. Ricardo
Tony: “...the problem I have is using our uncertainty as a justification for doing NOTHING.”
I am not opposed to either progress, nor corporate concern, nor even all governmental nudges and restrictions to better our society. However, the track record of our government at responding emotionally and quickly to perceived difficulties or needs, warrants a much closer, less emotional, less political analysis and more equitable solutions.
Every governmental action benefits some group and hurts another. Many governmental actions are initiated solely to benefit some small group at the expense of some greater group. Whether you agree with the particular programs are determined in part on whether your pet groups are being benefitted or hurt.
There are many groups that greatly dislike, for a multitude of reasons, big business, technology, free enterprise, western philosophies, advancements, and superiority, the “current administration,” and a host of other reasons that may not be relevant to you or me in a discussion of energy and such. You would think that if the government passed a law requiring 10% alcohol in automotive fuels that that would be decided mainly upon the weighing of feasibility, air pollution, effect on fuel economy, distribution, maintenance increase of autos and equipment, etc. However, it might have more to depend on farm groups lobbying for greater demand for their product, turning up the heat to politicians to mandate an additional demand for their product. With governmental authority to mandate so many sweeping changes (most outside of their constitutional authority given them, I might add), my default mode is to be suspicious of anything the government wishes to do, regardless of what the publicly announced intentions and goals are. Have I swung too far in my caution? Maybe. However, the more I delve into the behind the scenes workings in government, even into my beloved founding fathers, the more cynical I become of man doing a selfless act for the good of all through government.
Whether you believe in my level of caution, skepticism, or paranoia, please note that it is not random or without basis. Such are most of the beliefs espoused on these blogs. Note also that I am here to learn and fellowship more than teach. A wholly selfish act on my own part I admit.
Prof. Ricardo
Prof,
Well with that post you and I have a lot of agreement. I totally share your distrust of government. In fact I have written in these pages that a return to “gridlock” inside the beltway would be a good thing. I never saw that as an evil at all because it seemed then, as it does now, that whenever the Government does anything, it is almost never progress these days.
So in a very real sense, I tend to write idealistically. I do not find that wallowing in despair over the dysfunctionality of the Government is productive. Granted, I’m often walking a fine line and I still do that plenty. Your analysis preferring that the Government not get involved is generally one to which on many issues I do in fact ascribe.
The thing about an energy policy is that it isn’t just an ordinary policy discussion in my mind. This is the stuff that can at the low end destroy America and on the high end perhaps bring on Armageddon. And the matter is, of course, tightly coupled with the “War on Terrorism”. I can think of no other policy gaffe to better illustrate the lack of serious commitment to combating terrorism than the administration’s unwillingness to address our energy reliance on the Middle East.
In short, while I may share your suspicions about the Government, a call to action in this arena is just calling for ordinary defense of our nation at a time of great peril.
I would add that I have no doubt your opinions are not developed randomly or haphazardly. That is why I value your contributions. In truth, we have a lot of very thoughtful and substantive people posting here and it is a delight to learn from one another.
I guess he reads my blog: Shrub for nukes.
Randy,
That quote gets at the heart of my thinking on the subject. But it goes farther than that simple truth. I think Christians today have a serious communication problem. We live in a post-modern world but our language is from another era entirely. We are wildly out of touch with not just what people are thinking, but how they think.
I have credited Francis Schaeffer and Daniel Boorstin for shaping my thoughts in this area many times. Honestly, I do think that The Image should be required reading for every American and How Shall We Then Live for every Christian. These books in particular really turned the light bulbs on for this Curmudgeon. I actually think what they say is more profound because they wrote so far in the past, and you can see how their observations have continued to play out.
But the point is that we are not doing our part of the Great Commission if we are not attempting to communicate. Communication is a difficult thing. What people hear when we speak is seldom what is meant. When people listen to many of the “prominent” Christian voices, they do not hear a message of love. They do not hear the Good News of Grace.
I believe this problem is compounded by tying ourselves to base political factions. Those standing outside the body of Christ look at these ties with a very jaundiced eye. They see the hypocrisy of the politicians and assess the value of Christianity, in part, on our attitude toward these very public figures. Politics is a very seedy and slimy business and we should distance ourselves from it at every opportunity. And if we do that, we will have a much better chance of having our life changing message heard and accepted by the society as a whole.
Randy,
I can not speak highly enough of The Image and
How Shall We Then Live.
I stumbled on the Image about ten years ago. I became a Boorstin fan because of his writings on history and had already read his stuff extensively when I happened on the Image in the University of Pennsylvania bookstore. I loved it immediately because he really connected the dots of several things which were on my mind at that time. If you want to understand how the media works in the contemporary mindset, this is a starting place. His concept of pseudo-events has been recognized by scholars on both the left and right as foundational.
Schaeffer is simply essential reading for Christians. I’d also say that Schaeffer should be read by non-Christians who want to understand the thoughtful Christian’s perspective on modern belief systems. Schaeffer certainly doesn’t speak for all Christians, but I don’t think he is far off the mark for most. How Shall We Then Live is one of his later works that kind of sums up what he had written before and is a bit lighter than his other books. Schaeffer, if you don’t know, had a passion for reaching young people. Back in the 50s and 60s he was concerned about young people and the philosophical stuff they were picking up in Universities. He and his wife founded a boarding house in Switzerland for young people seeking Truth. All that said, his works are far from just pure intellectual stuff and How Shall We Then Live is very user friendly.
The links above will get you to Amazon where you can find used copies at very reasonable prices.
Randy,
I think the fact that so few get it is nothing more than the redeemed man’s two natures. But I think more than a few get it. Even some of the bigger name evangelists seem to get it and are starting to talk about it at times. I’ve head Alistair Begg and Chuck Swindoll both address this issue in different ways.
It is so very hard to criticize evangelists as an evangelical Christian because of the words of Christ. I am painfully aware when I’m critical that “there but for the grace of God go I”. I’m prone to the same fits of human arrogance as those who I criticize. But then nobody said the Christian walk was an easy walk, especially not Jesus. When I get into this arena publicly, it is my prayer that I approach things in a way of which Christ would approve. This is why I like to talk more about how the political activism affects our witness than the apparent hypocrisy of prominent evangelists. Besides, I do not know the heart of people involved in the unholy union of Church and politics and that is between them and God. But I do know I seem some fruits that do not appear to be fruits of the spirit.
Good luck with your reading. Those are all great books. I’m working on the Issacson Franklin biography now myself. I don’t think it is quite as great as advertised, but it is very good. If you are interested in biographies of that era, you can’t beat the McCullough biography of John Adams. And it is my prayer that Schaeffer can mean even half as much to you as he has meant to me, though I know he isn’t for everybody.
Randy,
I hope you enjoy Schaeffer. If you like it, I have to tell you that How Shall We Then Live is not his best book. But what I have found is that it wets people’s appetites for more of his work. How Shall We Then Live sounds kind of dated at the very end. It is a shame that Schaeffer cannot update the work because I think it would be fascinating. My favorite of his is The God Who Is There, which most people read back to back with Escape From Reason. All great books.
Schaeffer actually wrote an entire book on the communication thing, but its title escapes me at the moment. If you like the book and want more, I’d encourage you to just get one of the volumes of his Complete Works because it will save you energy hunting down the others.
I actually just received Schaeffer’s Christian Manifesto. Hopefully I can crack that within the next few months.
And the cool weather is just awesome. I love it. I'm wearing long-sleeves in May in Dallas. I would've never believed it could happen.
The problem with the Dems is the same as with the Republicans: no soul. The GOP has found a set of rhetorical devices that get people going. The Democrats have not done that, hence a failure to “relate” their “message”. This is why I think the time is right for real third parties. If anyone of sufficient stature stands up and leads the charge, people will respond to an agenda with soul. That is the reason why Ross Perot did so well. Cast a public figure, such as the ones from my well-castigated list of ideas a few months back, in the role that Perot tried to perform, and a tidal wave of support could be had. Perot was only limited by his own megalomania.
Post a Comment
<< Home