12 June 2008

12 June 2008

the Good, and the Fugly

so anyway, I hope your Carbon Belch Day was a smashing success. I fell a little short of my forecasted incremental 186 lbs. of CO2, I'll re-calculate and will advise.

Today was supposed to be A.Good.Day. I present the reason why:

Help us, Zombie Reagan!

For my troubles in searching for the vid that was "just right", I found three YouTube vids of the event that were besmirched by BDS idiots. What the hell is wrong with those people?

Then there's the Supremes "habeas" decision today. And you people wonder why I drink. Ace, who knows the law thing, posted an "off the cuff" analysis that originally quelled my fears, although his subsequent updates prove my fears to be right. I first heard the news via Gabriel Malor's post at AoSHQ; all the cool kids are talking about the decision, like Cold Fury and Four Right Wing Wackos. See also: BlogRoll. If I read any more Volokh, my head will explode....

Twenty-one years from now, I wonder what people will be saying about today's events. Will we be allowed to speak twenty-one years from now?

Almost lost in the shuffle is Victor Davis Hanson's New York Post op/ed today. I first saw it via Ace, again, the "in crowd" is all over it like a bum on a bologna sammich. To excerpt Ace's excerpt:

The wealthier and better-educated seem less concerned about gas prices.

From my informal conversations, I'd go even further: The wealthy, especially political liberals, also like that high-priced gas translates into less burning of fossil fuels by others and will help accelerate research into alternative energies.

But what these elites don't seem to realize is that the energy policies they advocate are paralyzing almost everyone else - and that the truly ethical and environmental solution would require embracing positions long considered anathema to traditional liberalism.

The debate in Congress over more refineries and nuclear-power plants; drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and off our coasts; and developing oil shale, tar sands and liquid coal has been a predictable soap opera: Grasping Republicans supposedly wish to enrich energy companies, while idealistic Democrats want only to protect the environment. But those stances, hatched in the days of $1.50-a-gallon gas, should be revisited in light of different moral considerations.

One is fairness to the poor and middle class. Like it or not, radical environmentalism appeals to an elite not all that worried when gas prices rise or electricity rates go up - since fossil-energy use goes down.

But a paradox is that most environmentalists think of themselves as egalitarians. So, instead of objecting to the view of a derrick from the California hills above the Santa Barbara coast, shouldn't a liberal estate owner instead console himself that the offshore pumping will help a nearby farm worker or carpenter get to work without going broke?

Go read everything. We'll talk again soon.


Post a Comment

<< Home