Showing posts with label politics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label politics. Show all posts

Monday, September 29, 2008

Painting the World Red & Blue

What if the world could vote in America's 2008 presidential election? Thanks to The Economist, now they can ... sort of. The magazine has created a Global Electoral College, modeled after America's own quirky Electoral College system (click here to learn how it works). It doesn't really count for anything, but it's an interesting exercise nonetheless.


So, if you're curious about who Brazil, China, Russia, or India want as the next president of the United States, now's your chance to find out straight from them (also check out the results table). Right now, there's a shocking amount of blue on the map. Voting closes at Midnight London time on November 1, so get out the (world) vote!

Thursday, September 25, 2008

And God's Vote Goes To...

God isn't Democrat, Republican, or even Independent. He doesn't support McCain, Obama, or any one politician's agenda. He's isn't swayed by Biden's Catholic background or excited about Palin's conservative credentials. God simply hasn't blessed any political party or agenda with His stamp of approval.

Despite that fact, many Christians seem to have sworn allegiance to one political party or another and, sadly, often turn on fellow believers who sympathize with or (God forbid) support the opposing party. I'm not sure how or when these battle lines were drawn. Perhaps it's rooted in the "culture wars" between "conservatives" and "liberals". Perhaps it's fueled by differing personal convictions or political priorities. Frankly, I don't care much what your reason is — there simply isn't a valid excuse to cannibalize the body of Christ. Christians are to be known by their love for one another, are they not? Surely a civil dialogue is possible. And surely Christ's followers possess the wisdom and humility to participate in politics that transcends partisanship. No one is perfect, yet grace is sufficient for all. Amen? By all means, please participate in politics. But your Savior is not a Republican or a Democrat, and He will not rise from, or descend on, Capitol Hill.

That said, God isn't necessarily neutral on the issues. But His priorities are clear. Jesus never singled out abortion or gay marriage as "fundamental issues". Is God pro-life? Absolutely — in a far broader sense than the best of us. Does God call homosexuality a sin? Yes, He does — but it's just one sin among many. In fact, as far as we know, Jesus never mentioned abortion or homosexuality during his ministry on earth. But he did make it a point to rip the self-righteous hypocrites a new one and come down hard on consumerism (also, Mark 10) and self-interest. When directly asked to name the fundamental issues he replied: "Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind...[and] Love your neighbor as yourself." Then he showed the world how it's done by dedicating his time on earth to caring for the sick, the poor, the outcasts, and sinners. Stop right now and read Matthew 25:31-46. That's how Jesus says individuals will be judged — not by whether they voted Republican or Democrat, but by whether they cared enough to act on behalf of the least of these. James 1:27 explains that religion God accepts as pure and faultless is "to look after orphans and widows in their distress". Are these the issues and causes that get us fired up? Are we humble? Selfless? Loving? Giving? I'm not saying abortion and gay marriage don't matter; I'm just pointing out that, even from a purely Biblical viewpoint, they aren't the only issues to consider when casting your vote — nor are they even the most important.

Blind loyalty to a political party isn't an option for Christians. Nor is one- or two-issue voting. As election day approaches, do your research with open eyes and a critical mind.

Faithful citizenship doesn't hinge on allegiance to a political party. God's not impressed by "American values" or "conservative" political views — He's righteous, not right-wing. So let not the American citizen boast in his citizenship, or the Christian voter boast in his vote, but let him who boasts boast about this: that he understands and knows the God who isn't partisan, who judges all men, and rules every nation, tribe, and tongue. Do justly, love mercy, and walk humbly with Him.

Friday, September 12, 2008

Obama vs. McCain

I don't really care who you're voting for in November. What I want to know is why. Have you weighed the issues? Really? Or has your ability to make an informed decision been hijacked by partisan bias and seductive soundbites?

You see, there's a problem with today's American political system — there are only two viable political parties (despite the drop-in-the-bucket efforts of independents). This effectively frees the two opposing candidates from any real obligation to win over the American people. Instead, all a presidential candidate needs to do to succeed is turn the American people against his opponent. It's either/or, so the seemingly less evil candidate triumphs by default.

Since the candidates don't have to clearly outline their strengths, weaknesses, positions, or plans in an effort to win your vote (instead they'll use illogical promises and inspirational rhetoric to blow smoke up your backside), we're left to educate ourselves as best we can. Here, your sources matter. If you get your information exclusively from Rush Limbaugh and Fox News you're probably convinced that McCain can do no wrong and Barack Obama is a secret Muslim in league with terrorists. If you only watch John Stewart and MSNBC, you probably drank Obama's kool-aid months ago and think McCain is Bush the Third. A balanced diet is essential. If you don't listen to both sides you'll never see the bigger picture, never understand the nuances, and ultimately make an ill-informed, emotionally-charged decision that, post-election, will leave you with a smug grin and unrealistic, overoptimistic expectations (should your candidate win) or a bitter attitude and unfounded, apocalyptic thoughts (should he lose). The truth is, neither candidate is that bad ... and neither is that great. Don't take my word for it, though. Do your own research.

One great resource is The Undecided Voter's Guide to the Next President from HarperCollins. Browse the complete text or use the search tool to find a comprehensive rundown on McCain (pgs. 48 – 92), Obama (pgs. 281 – 326), and even Biden (pgs. 329 – 336). Palin, never a candidate for president, is mentioned just once in the section on Hillary (p. 227). Other great nonpartisan resources are USAVoter and the Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life. Bookmark them and return often. Then, check out these other sites for more information:

Learn about the Democrats
Learn about the Republicans
Learn about Obama
Learn about McCain
Learn about Biden
Learn about Palin
Overwhelmed? To help clarify things a little, often it's best to hear the candidates speak for themselves. If you haven't already, watch the videos from the civil forum on faith hosted by Rick Warren of Saddleback Church (or read the transcripts — you can find a decent side-by-side comparison of the candidates answers here). Whatever you do, don't miss the presidential and vice-presidential debates (tip: keep an open mind as you listen, and don't listen to any pre- or post-debate commentary). Personally, I'm withholding a final voting decision until after I've heard McCain and Obama discuss the issues on live TV (here's the debate schedule; if you miss the live broadcasts, you should be able to find on-demand playback at the new website MyDebates). Finally, your most important resources are probably truth-sniffing sites like Snopes, FactCheck, and Regret the Error.

In the end, careful investigation (or a night spent watching Comedy Central shows on Hulu) will reveal that both McCain and Obama are flawed individuals with some flawed ideas. If you find yourself automatically rushing to "your candidate's" defense, fess up — you're biased. And before you become too critical of "the other candidate", please note that a careful look in the mirror (or a short conversation with an honest friend) will reveal that you're also imperfect. Surprise! We're all human. My point is, whatever your ideals, you'll need to compromise on some issues to endorse either candidate. And compromise in our democratic political system is okay; indeed, it's essential. There will never be a perfect candidate. It's up to us, to the best of our meager abilities, to determine who is best suited for the job. As you weigh the issues and sift through the propaganda, please exercise wisdom, discernment, and humility. And, always — always — consider the possibility that you're mistaken.

Monday, September 1, 2008

Creating a Sustainable Future (Facing the Energy Crisis: Part 3)

Fossil fuels are on their way out whether we like it or not. Which, in the end, is fine — over time, the human race can adapt to survive without oil and coal, especially if we begin changing our lifestyles and developing solutions today.

But not just any solutions will do. If the energy crisis teaches us anything, and I hope it teaches us much, it must teach us the importance of sustainability. As we wean ourselves from dirty, dead-end fossil fuels, we must be careful not to develop new dependencies that could lead to other crises further down the road. Our efforts at sustainability must extend far beyond energy to include the atmosphere, oceans, freshwater (Wired had a great article a while back about the threat of freshwater shortages), architecture, materials, waste, food, and, indeed, all natural resources and processes. Bottom line: it's time for a little creative problem solving.

Recently, both presidential candidates have taken this task a little more seriously, although their lofty campaign rhetoric still contains significant traces of fantasy and foolishness. Private investors (doubtless you've heard of the Pickens Plan), auto manufacturers, and even Big Oil companies all have their ideas about what to do. Although I don't consider Al Gore to be entirely credible (was that a Nobel prize for hypocrisy...?), his We Can Solve It campaign is very well intentioned, and his "plan" to convert 100% of America's energy into clean energy in 10 years (although probably unrealistic and prohibitively expensive) is just the kind of go-for-broke effort this country needs.

Here's where we should start:

Encourage U.S. Innovation. In Part 2, I suggested a carbon tax as a way to make fossil fuel use unattractive. But there's another side to that coin: the more undesirable gas-powered transportation and coal-fired electricity (i.e., the status quo) become, the more desirable the alternatives seem. This throws the doors wide open for innovation. With the appropriate disincentives, it shouldn't be long before Americans scramble to change their personal habits and fight to adopt emerging carbon-neutral innovations. New business innovations will blossom as manufacturers begin competing for customers looking for the most efficient, carbon-neutral products available. Almost immediately, the competition inherent within our capitalist system starts working to propel desirable change. A revenue-neutral carbon tax must be the foundation of any serious energy plan.

Additional incentives may play a role from time to time. For example, it could be helpful to offer government "prize money" for demonstrating certain cost-effective breakthrough innovations in energy and efficiency, similar to McCain's (unbelievably extravagant) $300 million incentive for an exponentially better electric car battery.

Stop Using Corn-based Ethanol as Auto Fuel. Immediately. There's probably a future in biofuels of other sorts (e.g., biodiesel), so encourage research in this field. But corn-based ethanol is a government-funded failure. It might burn somewhat cleaner (even that is questionable), but it's not cost-effective, or remotely sensible. Food prices are escalating and half the world is starving, so let's maybe boost our exports and feed people instead of liquidating food supplies by turning them into inefficient oil alternatives.

Invest in Wind & Solar. (Same goes for hydrogen fuel and other, more experimental energy sources.) Remove all current fossil fuel subsidies and use the money to subsidize sustainable energy development and production instead. Encourage private investment, research, and development, but as a rule, don't dump government money into any unproven or underdeveloped technologies. Wind and solar offer fantastic potential as renewable fuel sources, but they're still not efficient or cost-effective enough to provide broad-scale alternative energy. Besides, weather-dependent energy production brings it's own set of challenges (some companies are already rising to meet those). That said, we can't be afraid to adopt new technologies as they emerge (and private investors like Pickens should be encouraged and supported in their efforts). Expect innovations in these fields, and work to integrate them quickly.

Take Full Advantage of Geothermal & Hydropower. These are great natural, sustainable energy sources. Whenever available and wherever possible, we should tap into them. We already know how. Also, the huge potential of tidal power remains largely unexplored.

Start Relying More on Nuclear Energy. New nuclear plants have to be a huge part of any serious clean energy plan. Nuclear plants currently supply only about 20% of U.S. electricity, yet nuclear energy is arguably the safest, most reliable, sustainable, cost-effective method of energy production in the world ... with a tiny carbon footprint. This is proven technology. It's time we stopped being afraid of it. Especially since nuclear "waste" is close to 100% recyclable (see France and the U.K.). Future innovations in this field (e.g., fusion research) are bound to bring even greater efficiency. Still not convinced? Talk to former Greenpeace pioneer-turned-nuclear energy advocate Patrick Moore.

Decrease Wastefulness & Inefficiency. Finally, one of the most obvious (and increasingly necessary) ways to relieve the U.S. energy crisis (and save ourselves a load of money) is to use less energy. As they say, waste not, want not. Consider this: Americans use five times more than the average world citizen. That's right — although we represent just 5% of the world's population, we use nearly a quarter of the world's energy. Even the average homeless American has a carbon footprint twice the size of the world average. Researchers from MIT suggest we can cut fuel consumption 50 percent in 25 years. That seems reasonable — in theory, it shouldn't be hard for us to scale back even more than that. In practice, however, the greedy, selfish, lazy part of our human natures often needs a bit of a nudge to stir us from complacency.

Here, a carbon tax will certainly help. But in some cases, more new taxes and restrictions may also serve to influence citizens' and corporations behavior for the better.

One place to start would be taxing the manufacturing and sale of new vehicles and appliances that do not conform to strict efficiency and emissions standards (used vehicles/appliances would be exempt). This would discourage people from buying (and manufacturers from making) certain models. Odds are, every new car will be a hybrid in 12 years anyway. Another idea, provided that there's sufficient public transportation available, is banning cars that don't have special permits (e.g. fuel-efficient taxis, emergency vehicles, etc.) from within city limits — encouraging walking, cycling, subway trains, etc. as energy-saving alternatives. We could even go so far as to outlaw certain vehicles for private or recreational use (always providing exceptions for demonstrated business needs). Some of these measures sound extreme, but they're all worth looking into.

On a more simple, personal level, it's time to evaluate our lifestyles. Simplify. Reduce. Reuse. Recycle. We have to be part of the change we're hoping for. It won't be easy. It won't be without cost. But it's within our reach.

Additional Reading:
Part 1 — Making Sense
Part 2 — Treating Fossil Fuels with Foresight

Thursday, August 14, 2008

Treating Fossil Fuels with Foresight (Facing the Energy Crisis: Part 2)

In the spirit of making sense, it's time we started thinking long-term about energy and the environment. Even if you discount the arguments of various global warming/climate change doomsday prophets, you're going to have a hard time sounding intelligent arguing that wastefulness and air pollution are good things.

But even if the environment were in pristine condition (it's not), we'd still be headed for trouble. Why? Because nearly 80% of U.S. electricity comes from non-renewable resources and nearly 100% of U.S. transportation systems are dependent on non-renewable resources. "Non-renewable" means "incapable of being replaced by natural ecological cycles or sound management practices." Let me break it down: sooner or later these resources will run out completely. Thanks to population growth and the rise of the developing world, that'll probably happen sooner rather than later. So, to prepare for the future, we need to start doing things differently today.

Here's what we do:

Force Big Oil to Develop Its Land. The fact is, it'll be quite a long time (if ever) before we can completely eradicate oil use in the U.S., so if we're truly going to be energy independent, we'll eventually need to drill for more oil on our own turf. Here's where we start drilling: on the land Big Oil companies already lease from the federal government. Right now they have about 68 million acres of oil-rich land stockpiled, and they've left it unexplored and undeveloped. So ... what were you saying about supply and demand? C'mon, Big Oil, you're not fooling anybody. Be honest, remember?

Permit Offshore Drilling. But do so only after Big Oil starts producing on the land it already leases. If executed responsibly, it's not the worst idea ever. And if we absolutely need more oil, drilling for it off our own coasts is better than importing it from foreign war zones and hostile nations. Even then, I have a few caveats: even as a short-term solution, offshore drilling is far from ideal. Yes, it helps move us (just a tiny, tiny step) toward energy independence, but it does nothing to address environmental concerns and long-term sustainability. Even worse, it only serves to perpetuate our dependence on oil. It also runs the unnecessary risk of damaging the tourism industry and local economies for some of our shoreline destinations. That said, if local and state governments support drilling in certain regions, the Federal government should let them — and charge Big Oil big money for the lease.

Save the ANWR Coastal Plain ... For Now. Despite what you hear, there aren't any good environmental reasons not to drill in ANWR. This oil-rich region is little more than a barren wasteland and developing 2000 acres out of over 500,000 square miles wouldn't come close to disrupting the ecosystem or damaging its natural beauty. The piping infrastructure is already in place from the nearby Prudhoe Bay oil field, so development in this area would be (relatively) inexpensive. However, as I mentioned above, drilling in ANWR now will only serve to perpetuate our dependence on oil. Catering to our dependence on oil today, while it might bring a temporary spike in supply and short-term relief from skyrocketing prices, could fatally delay overdue innovation and speed the inevitable day when the earth runs dry ... leaving us with a nonfunctioning transit system and the surface temperature of Venus. As bad as price increases hurt now, it's better to use the cost of oil as a disincentive for overuse and a catalyst for innovative and radical change. Now is the time to transition to renewable energy and, perhaps more importantly, a sustainable American lifestyle. If innovations come slowly or the transition to renewable energy doesn't go as smoothly as we hope, it'll be better in the long run if we've saved our precious ANWR oil reserve for when we truly need it. Bonus: if it turns out we don't need it, we can export it at a premium to the other oil-starved countries.

Preserve the National Oil Reserve. Our reserve is for emergency use only. Needless to say, it astonished me when Barack Obama suggested handling the energy crisis by tapping into our national reserve. Dear fellow Americans (and Senator Obama), this is reality talking: $4 for a gallon of gas isn't the end of the world (to put things in perspective, gas costs about double that in Germany). Certainly, rising gas costs are putting a squeeze on some people. But high oil use is putting a squeeze on the entire country, the environment, and the world's resources. There are other, better, but sure-to-be-politically-unpopular solutions to high prices at the pump (keep reading). Catering to our dependence on oil and artificially lowering prices by depleting our national reserve is short-sighted and foolish. See above.

Phase Out Fossil Fuel Power Plants. Do away with fossil fuel subsidies and use the money to subsidize sustainable energy development and production instead. Currently, fossil fuel-fired plants account for nearly 80% of U.S. electricity production, burn non-renewable resources, and aren't doing the environment any favors. Still, even if the need for coal and petroleum is eliminated completely, we should continue to harvest and store these natural resources for a rainy day (if anything, our national reserves should be expanding). Also, as we phase out many of these plants, we should investigate ways to repurpose and/or recycle the existing infrastructure. And, of course, we need to be careful to replace the jobs lost when scaling back these energy sectors.

Make Fossil Fuel Use Unattractive. In direct contrast to McCain's ill-advised suggestion that we suspend the gas tax and Obama's equally short-sighted and potentially more damaging plans to provide relief at the pump, we phase in a revenue-neutral carbon tax. The plan outlined by the Carbon Tax Center is brilliant.

Yes, this is one of those sure-to-be-politically-unpopular solutions I spoke of earlier. But hear me out: taxation always acts as a disincentive. Therefore, the Federal government can use taxes to indirectly influence citizens' behavior — most people will alter their lifestyle to avoid higher taxes. Since we're trying to decrease our national dependence on oil and fossil fuels, it makes sense to create or increase taxes on these items to discourage consumers from overusing them.

Also note that I'm suggesting a revenue-neutral carbon tax. That means the government wouldn't be allowed to take any more money from the American people than it already does by heaping a carbon tax on top of everything else. Rather, they'd have to scale back other taxes to offset the tax on carbon (this is called tax-shifting) or implement some sort of rebate/dividend program. Personally, I'm a huge fan of scaling back the Federal income tax or significantly shifting the tax brackets. This would lessen existing disincentives for earning more and let Americans keep more of their paychecks, a desirable scenario with the possible pleasant side-effect of stimulating the economy.

Lastly, bear in mind that this tax would be phased in. That is, it would start off on the lower end of the scale, and then increase some percentage annually to give individuals and businesses the opportunity to adjust. Commitment to keep raising the tax is important to ensure that long-term, energy-critical decisions are made with the increasing cost of a large carbon footprint in mind. With the appropriate disincentives, it shouldn't be long before Americans change their personal habits and adopt emerging carbon-neutral innovations.

Either way, the oil-guzzling lifestyles we Americans have grown so accustomed to needs to change. The sooner we start, the easier it'll be in the long run. In the end, it's all about foresight.

Additional Reading:
Part 1 — Making Sense
Part 3 — Creating a Sustainable Future

Thursday, August 7, 2008

Facing the Energy Crisis: Making Sense (Part 1 of 3)

I'm growing tired of the pandering political responses to our economic and environmental energy crisis vague promises, illogical challenges, and imbecilic proposals that cater to popular (uninformed/misinformed) opinion, big corporations, and big-shot environmentalists. In what's shaping up to be a fairly tight presidential race between Senator Change and Senator Straight-talk, I was hoping for more imaginative (or at least sensible) policy ideas. In the absence of such, I've drafted a rough plan, offered in three parts.

Part 1 — Making Sense

Set Broad, Meaningful, and Inspiring Goals
. We'll never hit the target if there isn't one. And it won't matter if we hit it if it isn't any good. Let's try something like: "Achieve complete energy independence & sustainability within the next 20 years." Crazy? Maybe. I'd call it visionary. Let's not be underachievers, here. In pursuing such goals, it's important to keep other factors in mind — funding, energy costs (for production and consumption), the national economy, local economies, trade, foreign policy, global responsibility and world leadership, etc. But it's time to move away from "reduce greenhouse gases to 80% of 1990 levels by 2050" jargon. Those type of goals are painfully uninspired and completely meaningless to ... just about everybody. Kyoto Protocol, anybody?

Start Defining Our Terms. Efficient, sustainable, carbon-neutral, zero-emissions, environmentally friendly, renewable, eco-centric, green — everyone is making claims these days, and almost none of these claims are regulated. Fuel efficiency and energy efficiency aren't necessarily the same thing. Just because something gets better gas mileage doesn't make it better for the environment. And just because it's better for the environment doesn't mean it's better for the country, the economy, or the world. Are we talking about relief at the pump or relief for the planet? Let's not confuse the issues.

Be Honest. Unless it really is significantly better for the environment, don't call it "green" if that's not its color. Admit to some inconvenient truths, like the fact that shaping wise environmental policy for our future will require compromise and sacrifice. The economic situation may get worse before it gets better. Admit that Cap & Trade is a bad idea and "carbon offsets" are little more than useless gestures. Admit that manufacturing fuel-efficient hybrid and electric cars isn't always as environmentally-friendly as people assume. Just be honest. People are confused enough as it is.

Additional Reading:
Part 2 — Treating Fossil Fuels with Foresight
Part 3 — Creating a Sustainable Future

Thursday, July 24, 2008

FreeRice: Ending World Hunger & Poor Vocabularies

If you've ever wished there was something you could do to help end world hunger (or if you've ever wanted to learn the definition of words like "neologism"), you absolutely must visit FreeRice.com on a regular basis.

FreeRice is a website with two goals:
  1. Providing free English vocabulary to everyone
  2. Providing free rice to hungry people
In partnership with the UN World Food Program and Poverty.com, FreeRice donates 20 grains of rice every time you correctly guess the definition of a vocabulary word. Granted, 20 grains of rice isn't much, but thousands of other people are playing, too. Since October 2007, users have helped FreeRice donate more than 39 billion grains of rice to feed more than a million people.

If you check out their FAQs, you'll read that the United Nations estimates that the cost to end world hunger completely is about $195 billion a year. 22 countries have joined together to raise this money by each contributing 0.7% of national GDP. While some countries have already met this goal, others are being a little slow. Sadly, the U.S. is one of the slow ones. FreeRice suggests you support your country's participation by sending your government a letter — can't hurt, right?

So, do the smart thing and bookmark FreeRice and play whenever you've got a spare minute. Everyone knows you fritter away hours on the internet anyway — you may as well feed starving people and make yourself smarter while you're at it. Besides, if you don't brush up on your vocabulary, you're never going to win an honest game of Facebook Scrabble. I'm at vocab level 50 on FreeRice. Let's see what you've got.

Yes, that's a challenge. Bring it.

Tuesday, July 22, 2008

Video: The Media is in LOVE with Barack Obama

These mashup videos from the McCain campaign aren't that great, but they do call warranted attention to the media's unabashed bias toward Barack Obama. It's a strange mix of funny and sickening (one fellow compares the media's love for Obama with the love of a 9th grade boy. WHAT?). Obama's drooling fan club is really starting to turn me off to the candidate, which is a shame. That said, I haven't heard enough intelligent substance from either presidential candidate to make an honest, well-informed decision about who I'll cast my vote for in November. You haven't either. We'd all do well to keep an open mind.