A Question for Kerry and the Left
It has been very clear from the beginning that the terrorist’s strategy has been to inflict enough damage on our forces that we would cut and run. Bin Laden is on tape even before 9/11 telling is supporters that the had nothing to fear from the US because we would never do anything serious and even if we did attack they would only have to kill some of our forces and we would cut and run. He cited Somalia and Lebanon as examples. In light of this Spain was a major victory for the terrorist, thus it is no surprise that since their victory in Spain the terrorist forces have been emboldened and there attacks have stepped up.
Given this fact, do the Democrats have any responsibility for how they mount their criticism of Bush? I am not questioning their right to criticize Bush, or to even to argue that they shouldn’t, but rather do they have a responsibility to frame their criticisms of Bush in a way that will not give aid to the Terrorist and encourage them to launch even more attacks?
Currently it seems to me that Kerry really needs to be very clear that however much he may disagree with Bush decision to go into Iraq, the decision was made and a Kerry administration is now committed to wining in Iraq. He can say that this may be done with the UN or however he wants to do it, but the end result needs to be that the terrorist forces should have no reason to believe that they will fare better under Kerry than under Bush. Frankly it would probably help his campaign if he could make people think the terrorist would actually do worst under Kerry.
As long as the terrorist have the perception that their attacks might be undermining Bush, and a Kerry administration might go the way of Spain, they will be emboldened and our soldier and others will continue to die. Worst of all if Iraq is added to the list of places were the US cut and ran, the war on terror will get a lot worst before it gets any better.
If ever there was a need for Vandenberg’s statement of “Politics ends at the water’s edge” it is now.
Oil Prices
Well summer is just about here and once again oil prices are high. As I have said for many summers now, it is a systemic problem that will only get worst until we stop trying to blame the big bad oil companies, and actually decide to fix the problem. Unfortunately the environmentalist, do not want us to fix the problem. For many years they wanted high gas taxes, but not too surprisingly were never able to get the support of the American people. So instead they have simply imposed greater and greater restrictions that are having the same effect.
The June issue of the National Geographic has an interesting article on oil. It has a chart that breaks down the price of oil. The chart is based on $1.57 average price. At that price $0.15 (10%) goes to distribution and marketing and $0.24 (15%) to refining. So a total of $0.39 (25%) goes to the oil companies out of which they have to pay the cost of distribution marketing and refining, and still have some left over for profit. $0.75 (48%) goes for the cost of crude oil. The remain 27% is State and Federal taxes, and this is based on a National average of $0.43 per gallon. However it varies form state to state with Alaska being the lowest at $0.26 and Hawaii being the highest at $0.54.
As this points out, the biggest factor in the price of oil is the cost of crude oil, which is currently at or near an all time high. But his is set by the world market and influenced by OPEC, and other producers. The Oil companies have little control over this. The second biggest factor is taxes, which exceed the other remaining costs combined. The rest only makes up 25%.
So does it really make much sense to year, after year, after year, after year, after year, to continue of focus on the oil company profits as the reason for the rise in oil prices, when their profits amounts to pennies on the gallon, where as the government is making $0.43 per gallon?
The solution to the oil problem is really pretty simple. Sure conservation is an important part, but is not the complete answer. We must also drill for more oil and builds more refineries. This will improve the supply, weaken the effect of OPEC and thereby keep the price of crude at reasonable levels. As for refineries we have not built one in 30 years and the ones we have are running 96% capacity, which is essentially full time. This is why prices spike when ever there is a fire. More refineries will ease the pressure on the system and allow it to be more flexible, thus avoiding major price spikes due to disruptions, such as last year went prices went to $3 – $4 a gallon in Arizona.
Unfortunately it will take a lot of time to do it in an environmentally safe way. For example it is expected to take 10 years to bring AWAR on line. Had the environmentalists not blocked it, it would already be open and easing the current situations.
The Privileged Planet
I also finished Guillermo Gonzalez and Jay Richard’s “The Privileged Planet.” While not as good as Brian Greene’s, it was still an interesting read on many levels. Their basic aim is to challenge the Copernican Principle, which is the claim that there is nothing unusual or special about the planet we live on. Their basic claim is that the earth is a very special planet in two ways. One, in terms of its ability to support intelligent life; and two, in its ability to allow us to learn about the laws of nature. They do this by surveying a lot of recent finding of science that shows the planet earth is a lot more unique and special than was once believed.
There jumping off point is Eclipses and the unique relationship of the Earth, Moon and Sun that make it possible. They discuss the importance to life of having such a large moon, and how unusual such a moon is. The also discuss the importance of Eclipses to the discoveries of Science. From there they proceed, starting with conditions on the planet itself and working out to the solar system and finally the universe itself. At each step the uniqueness, importance for life, and for scientific discovery are discussed.
I found this interesting at two levels. One of course was the argument they were making. However the other was the fact that this was simply a very interesting look at a broad range of scientific investigations which is valuable in and of itself. For example, at one point they were discussing the ability of artic ice to act as data recorders for a wide range of phenomena. Not only was this interesting in and of itself, but then when I started my next book, Rubicon, the author discusses that one of the ways we know about industrial production in the Roman era was through studies of artic ice.
The last third of the book deals with some other issues, such as how the history of Copernican Revolution has been distorted, (e.g. Copernicus was never persecuted by the Church). A more detailed description of the Copernican Principle and it prediction, and how those prediction have held up to recent research (simple answer is not very well). Attempts by scientist to preserve the Copernican Principle in light of the evidence against it. Interestingly the last chapter before the conclusion is “The Skeptical Rejoinder” were they address 14 objections to their theory.
There are also and interesting appendix on the Drake equation. This is the equation that Carl Sagan used to claim there were millions if not billions of planets that could support intelligent human life. Sagan based this on just a few factors. In the appendix they update the equation to include 20 of the factors, (and there are probably more). Based on the probability of just 13 of these the chances of there being at least one advance civilization in our Galaxy (including us) is 0.01. In short, the fact that we are even here is going against the odds.
It would seem that the Earth is a very special and unusual place in the universe. Again I would recommend the book.
The Fabric of the Cosmos
I finished Brian Greene’s The Fabric of the Cosmos. It was very good book, if you are at all interested in cutting edge physics and cosmology presented in a way that a person with little or no physics training can understand (i.e. no math), I highly recommend it. The first ¾ of the book is one of the best surveys of the history of the physics of space and time that I have read. Greene present the issues and questions in a clear an very understandable way, and does so in a historical timeline, such that each new discovery is placed into it context at the time. The result is that you get not only a good ideal of what the current views are, but also how these views were arrived at.
I though particularly interesting were Einstein’s repeated attempt to disprove Quantum Mechanics, which while they ultimately failed, were still an important part of the process in arriving at where we are today.
Also of value were the recent findings. The last such book I read on this subject was in the late 80s. Since there have been a lot of new and sometimes startling findings. For example, in the last book I read one of the big issues was whether or not enough matter would be found to slow the Big Bang so that there could be a collapse. A collapse was a necessary part for theories that the Universe cycles, i.e., that there is a Big Bang and expansion; then at some point the expansion would slow and stop and then being to collapse again until there was another Big Bang and the whole thing would start all over. The startling discoveries has been that not only is the expansion not slowing so that it could collapse, but it is in fact accelerating, which pretty much rules out all hope some future collapse.
The last quarter of the book moves beyond what is fairly well established and more into speculations. For example, he discussion not only the various current competing theories, but also the possibility of teleporters and time machines. This part was interesting, but was not as good as the first part of the book. And some of it, such as his discussions of the issue of freewill were somewhat lacking.
Still overall a very good book
Kerry and the Nomination
It is reported that Kerry is thinking about delaying accepting the nomination. I understand the reasoning and logic behind it, and it does make some sense. But to me this points out just one more absurdity of the whole Campaign Finance system. After all if a candidate can wait 5 weeks, why don’t they just accept whenever it is most advantageous for their campaign. Why doesn’t a candidate simply keep raising money until say October, then take the $75 million so that can flood the airways in the last couple of weeks? Then again if they can do this, then exactly what is the purpose of the spending limit in the first place?
It was primarily the democrats that pushed CFR laws, but as with so many laws they push, they seem only to be good as long as they hinder Republicans. Thus the CFR laws were great in 1996 when they limited Dole’s spending, keeping him effectively broke until the convention (Clinton even filed a suit questioning Dole’s ability to fly around the country.) However, once they begin to affect democrats, then suddenly it is ok to find some way around them
