Off Shore Drilling

 

There have been calls to grant the oil companies additional leases, specifically in northern Alaska and for offshore drilling. The argument is that by giving new leases to the oil companies, America will be able to get rid of high gas prices and its dependency on foreign oil. Indeed, both presidential candidates have jumped on the bandwagon as it appears that more and more Americans are biting into this load of bullcrap.

And a load of bullcrap it is. First of all, why allow the oil companies new leases if they have yet to explore many of the areas on which they have permits on, but have yet to commence exploration. We are not talking about one or two unexplored areas, but almost one third of the permits given to the oil companies remain unexplored. The oil companies are like little greedy boys that want second helpings after having eaten only one bite of their meal. No, oil executives, finish your plates up and eat all your vegetables before asking for more. Finish exploring ALL the areas in your current portfolio before putting your claws into new territories.

Next, it will be years before we see the first drops of oil that would result from granting new permits. Expeditions need to be mounted to do geological surveys, test drills need to be made, and a whole infrastructure needs to be built before the those first drops flow through the pipeline.

Furthermore, America is so addicted to oil that now the majority of the crude it consumes is of foreign origin. America consumes a quarter of the worlds oil, but only has reserves equal to 3 percent. There is no way that America could reduce its dependency on foreign oil even if we drilled everywhere and pumped out all the domestic reserves. Given current consumption patterns, America will always be dependent on foreign oil for the majority of its needs.
 
So, drilling is not the answer. Supply is not the dominant factor in oil prices. However, what has proven very effective in lowering the price of crude by half in only 3 months is a dramatic reduction in demand. Every month, Americans consume fewer billions of gas compared to last year. By making small changes to their driving habits, Americans have forced the price of gas down fro over $140 per barrel to around $70 per barrel in 3 months. Imagine what we could do to the price at the pump if we made an additional little effort by converting our fleets such as city buses, delivery trucks, postal trucks to bio-diesel, propane, and other alternative fuels. In just a couple of short years, we could reduce consumption by several billions of gallons more than we could ever drill, and we would be able to do it within a very short time span.

Elitists

The Republican party has made a practice of branding foes 'elitists' at least since the 2004 election when George W. Bush faced off against John Kerry. It's just one of Karl Rove's contributions to our political discourse. Now they're at it again. Surely everyone on the planet knows that Barack Obama is an elitist now, thanks the McCain campaign.

The problem with this label is that it tends to stick to a candidate, sullying his or her accomplishments, while nobody really examines the veracity of the charge. "Obama is an elitist" has become a truism to John McCain, Sarah Palin and the Republican party, but what does that even mean?

In order to assess whether someone is an elitist or not, it might be useful to examine what elite and elitism even refer to. Elites exist in every professional field in our society. From basketball, to medicine, to industry, to, yes, politics. Most of the time we don't actually object to the idea of an elite class of people.

When, for instance, was the last time you heard the NBA called elitist because they don't recruit any short, middle-aged women with average basketball ability? Sarah Palin, for instance. She has experience, having played basketball in a small town high school. And she didn't abort a Down's Syndrome baby. Surely the former fact would qualify her, while the latter fact would entitle her by moral superiority to play professional basketball. Okay, maybe not so much.

No, we're all perfectly happy to leave NBA careers to people who have amazing talent and great accomplishments in basketball. You know, the elite athletes who can compete at the highest levels of the sport. The NBA is likely to go on discriminating against short, middle-aged women for the foreseeable future. Does that make them elitist? Of course not.
It's meritocratic. People are promoted up the ranks because of their ability- demonstrated ability. Their talent and their accomplishments, which make them elite athletes, do not make them elitists. They don't stomp their feet and demand to be granted contracts because they deserve them based on being special. They earn their positions by merit, which is exactly the opposite of elitism.

One of the problems we have with the label 'elitist' in the United States is that a lot of the time we fail to understand social class, preferring to believe we live in a classless society. We'd like to think our society works meritocratically. The question arises then, why there are very few people of working class backgrounds at a school like Yale where admission is very competitive, while a person who is well connected or whose parents have made significant donations to the school, can get in without a particularly stellar background. That is elitist. It emphasizes who someone is over what that person has done. It emphasizes status over merit.

Elitists believe they're elite because of who they are, and are thus entitled to certain perks. When you enter into a real competition for something there is a tacit understanding that both competitors have an equal claim to the prize, but that the outcome will be decided by merit. Elitists don't compete because they aren't, in the words of Sarah Palin, "seeking your good opinion," or anyone else's. You aren't as important as they are, so why would they bother? They claim what they believe is rightfully theirs because they were born more deserving than you and they don't have to prove it.

Paul Fussell, who wrote the book "Class: A Guide Through the American Status System," points out that the really, really rich, the elitists whose money and family connections place them on par with royalty, don't ever "seek your good opinion." They don't dress to impress, for instance, or stoop to competion with the likes of the lower classes. There simply is no status symbol, or accomplishment that would express their importance. The absurdity of Rove politics, though, has led to the word "elitist" having come to mean intellectual, or educated. Not entitled. When intellect and education become faults, then what are we treating as strengths? Their opposites? The real elitists depend on it. 
 
A person who gets into the US Naval academy, not because of his achievements, but because both his father and grandfather are four star Admirals is a good example of an elitist. That person, of course, is John McCain, who lately has been calling Barack Obama an elitist.

McCain never had to bother with working all that hard, as most of our children would have to in order to get in. His surname stood in for accomplishment. McCain went on to graduate fifth from the bottom of his class, but was nevertheless made a pilot. He partied his way through pilot school, crashing a fighter jet into the Gulf of Mexico while still a trainee, but graduated anyway. Actually, McCain "lost" five Navy planes during his career. Lost, in this case, a euphemism for "crashed." But oddly, nobody thought to take away his wings. Well, the Vietnamese eventually did, since they presumably didn't care what a big-shot his father was.

Contrast that with Barack Obama. The so-called elitist. At the end of his first year at Harvard, he was selected as an editor of the law review based on grades and a writing competition. During his second year he became president of the law review, a full-time volunteer position functioning as editor-in-chief and supervising the law review's staff of 80 editors. He graduated JD magna cum laude. That's the sort of accomplishment that makes a person elite in our society. It doesn't make one an elitist.

Oh, there was Obama's statement about people clinging to guns and religion because they're disillusioned with government. As someone whose family spends holidays after the Thanksgiving or Christmas dinner and some Sundays after church, target shooting in the woods, I'd say his statement was both sympathetic and accurate.

You don't really have to look at backgrounds to figure out who the elitists are, though. Not really. They're the people who, instead of talking about political issues in a presidential race, would rather stick to scurrilous personal attacks, like branding an opponent as an elitist over blackberry tea. The question is: since when is being highly intelligent, or having a superior education, or tremendous talent a detriment in someone invested with tremendous power?

Union Card Check

The so-called card check issue is the basis for considerable political discussion concerning employee's rights to form a union. It is a contentious issue that many support and an apparent equal number oppose. So exactly what are the tenets of the proposed card check legislation that is currently stalled in congress?

Under present law, employees can form a union by signing a card expressing their desire to unionize. If 30% or more sign the cards, the cards are submitted to the National Labor relations Board (NLRB) who will organize a secret ballot election to determine the outcome of the employee desires to form a union. If more that 50% of the employees sign the cards then the union is presumed to exist by virtue of this card check process. However, an employer can request a secret ballot election that would challenge the card check process and therefore cause a formal secret ballot election to take place to determine the final outcome of the unionization process.

Unionization advocates want the current employer right to call for an election to be eliminated if 50% of employees vote to form a union based solely on the card check process. No secret ballot election would be necessary.

The Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA) was introduced by Senator Kennedy (D-MA) in the Senate and is supported by Senator Schumer (D-NY) and others. The bill passed the House of Representatives by a vote of 241-185 in March 2007, but has been stalled by a filibuster in the US Senate.

The debate over card check is framed in several ways based on support or non-support of the issue.

Advocates for unionization state that without a union, employers will not recognize worker rights and will not implement job safety, pension plans or adequate health insurance without pressure from a union that supports employees. Advocates hope to obtain the necessary congressional votes to advance the legislation which was supported by President-elect Obama during his campaign.
Those that oppose the card check legislation state that the opportunity to vote using a secret ballot is being over turned. They believe the card check process will subject those that are asked to sign the cards to be exposed to unreasonable pressure by union organizing efforts. States that have right-to-work laws already champion worker rights concerning job safety, pension plans and adequate health insurance through state legislation and are concerned about unions replacing the state as the arbiter of employee rights and benefits.

Card check will continue to remain a contentious issue and ultimately the resolution may depend on the final make-up of the 111th Congress. Meanwhile, one can expect that card check will continue to be a topic on network and cable news television as well as a frequent topic in newspapers and editorials.