What to do about gas prices?

Today while driving from Buffalo to Erie, PA I was listening to a radio program discussing what to do about the challenge of these crazy high gasoline prices.  President Bush says he wants to do more domestic drilling.  Some say we should make ethanol from corn, switchgrass, or other plant matter.  Maybe we need more “plug-in” hybrid cars that will run on the electricity from your house.

As these prices have risen, people have been asking, “How high do gas prices have to rise for people to change their lifestyle?”  Changes people could make are: buy a smaller vehicle, use public transportation, telecommute, and walk.  Reports indicate that $4 is the answer to the question.  People are starting to do all of these things in order to save money.  The new problem is that many communities don’t have capacity in their public transit systems to handle the increased demand.

We all know that the Japanese and Europeans have been using public transit for decades.  Why not here in the US.  That’s easy: we have a huge country.  Our cities are large.  People want larger families and a little elbow room.  I have looked at riding the bus to work in Louisville, but it would take me about an hour instead of 15 minutes, I wouldn’t save much money, and I would lose a great deal of flexibility and freedom.  For me and many of my co-workers, gas could climb to $6 per gallon and we would probably still drive. 

Let me present my solution to this problem.  I can’t claim 100% originality on this idea, but I don’t remember where I read some of these thoughts (sorry!).  Since $4 a gallon appears to be the magic number that is moving people to change, we need to institute a tax that will ensure the price at the pump never drops below an inflation adjusted $4 a gallon.  Maybe the price should actually be a little higher – say $5.  I realize there would probably be an economic impact of this; but it is vital that our country gets off our dependance of Middle Eastern oil and stops funding terrorism.

People will figure out to deal with the higher price of fuel.  Let’s consider giving trucking fleets better pricing to keep the economy rolling.  Any tax revenue could be used to improve public transit in our communities.  Several years ago Salt Lake City built a light-rail system leading from from the southern part of the Salt Lake valley to downtown.  People were very skeptical of ridership.  However, people love using it to go watch a Utah Jazz basketball game, watch Mormon General Conference, or work downtown.  Now, several years after the initial build, TRAX is opening new east-west lines with plans the extend it out Salt Lake International Airport.  This is definitely a success story.

There is something of   a stigma against using public transit – especially riding the bus.  This isn’t an issue in other countries.  For instance, I saw many people on dates on Saturday night that were happy to use the bus to reach their destinations.

We need to drill for new sources of oil in our own country.  Supply goes up, price goes down.  Our country is more secure.  We need to figure out how to get oil from shale.  We need to figure out how to vastly improve the gas mileage of our vehicles.  But we also need the impetus to help us make the infrastructure improvements.  The only thing that will do that is maintaining high gas prices.  The question is whether our politicians and publis will have the will to make these vital improvements. 

I welcome your input.

Unexpected Consequences of Same-Sex ‘Marriage’

Same-sex marriage has made major headlines recently.  Comedians love to comment on how close-minded people are that don’t want this to move forward.  Jon Stewart, the un-funny host of Comedy Central’s The Daily Show, said something like, “California has legalized same-sex marriage.  And it still exists.  So why is God punishing the Midwest.”

I cam across a very enlightening article from The National Catholic Register by Jennifer Roback Morse discusses the consequences of this decision that have little to do with whether a state declares legal a couple’s union.  The entire article can be read here.  

Let me lift some noteworthy quotes.

Legalizing same-sex “marriage” is not a stand-alone policy, independent of all the other activities of the state. Once governments assert that same-sex unions are the equivalent of marriage, those governments must defend and enforce a whole host of other social changes.

…Recently, a Methodist organization in New Jersey lost part of its tax-exempt status because it refused to allow two lesbian couples to use their facility for a civil union ceremony. In Quebec, a Mennonite school was informed that it must conform to the official provincial curriculum, which includes teaching homosexuality as an acceptable alternative lifestyle.

At last report, the Mennonites were considering leaving the province rather than permit the imposition of the state-sponsored curriculum on their children.

And recently, a wedding photographer in New Mexico faces a hearing with the state’s Human Rights Commission because she declined the business of a lesbian couple. She didn’t want to take photos of their commitment ceremony.

Marriage between men and women is a pre-political, naturally emerging social institution. Men and women come together to create children, independently of any government. The duty of caring for those children exists even without a government or any political order.

Marriage protects children as well as the interests of each parent in their common project of raising those children.

Because marriage is an organic part of civil society, it is robust enough to sustain itself, with minimal assistance from the state.

By contrast, same-sex “marriage” is completely a creation of the state.

Same-sex couples cannot have children. Someone must give them a child or at least half the genetic material to create a child. The state must detach the parental rights of the opposite-sex parent and then attach those rights to the second parent of the same-sex couple.

The state must create parentage for the same-sex couple. For the opposite-sex couple, the state merely recognizes parentage.

In her essay in The Meaning of Marriage, Seana Sugrue argues that the state must coddle and protect same-sex “marriage” in ways that opposite-sex marriage does not require.

Precisely because same-sex unions are not the same as opposite-sex marriage, the state must intervene to make people believe (or at least make them act as if they believe) that the two types of unions are equivalent.

Public schools in California are soon going to be required to be “gay friendly.” A doctor has been sued because she didn’t want to perform an artificial insemination on a lesbian couple. A private school is in trouble for disciplining two female students for kissing. All in the name of supporting the rights of same-sex couples to “equality” with straight couples.

The fact that opposite- and same-sex couples are different in significant ways means that there will always be scope for the state to expand its reach into more and more private areas of more and more people’s lives.

…Perhaps you think people have a natural civil right to marry the person of their choosing. But can you really force yourself to believe that wedding photography is a civil right?

Maybe you believe that same-sex couples are entitled to have children, somehow. But is any doctor they might encounter required to inseminate them?

Advocates of same-sex “marriage” insist that theirs is a modest reform: a mere expansion of marriage to include people currently excluded. But the price of same-sex “marriage” is a reduction in tolerance for everyone else, and an expansion of the power of the state.

From Slate: Leave Hitler Out of It

Recently I read an interesting, though unapologetically biased, book about the differences between Europe and the US. The book is titled Inside the Asylum: Why the UN and Old Europe are Worse Than You Think by former Defense Department Undersecretary Jed Babbin.

He explains a key moment in our nation’s history which set us apart from the Europeans. Think of the line in the Marine Corps hymn “…to the shores of Tripoli…”

Back in the early days of our country the Barbary Pirates were terrorizing the Mediterranean and eastern Pacific. These pirates were much less likable than the ones glamorized in today’s Disney movies – or the Veggie Tales movie The Pirates Who Don’t Do Anything – a family favorite. They would attack any ship whose country hadn’t paid their sponsoring nations – Tunis, Algeria, Libya, and Morocco – a handsome ransom. Many European countries were paying, and the amount the US paid amounted to 20% of the government’s revenues. This resulted in the First and Second Barbary Wars – and the reestablishment of the US Navy. In this instance, Congress authorized deployment of ten ships to put an end to the payment of escalating ransoms and provide for freedom of the seas. One could say that the US ended a policy of appeasement and instead stood up to the bullies and came out victorious. This all in the infancy of our nation.

This is but one example of the instances Mr. Babbin points out other where the US and European countries were threatened by terrorists and responded in different ways. Certainly he couldn’t pass up the chance to mock Neville Chamberlain’s infamous appeasement of Hitler.

That brings me to the title of this blog entry. In her article, Anne Applebaum asks us to stop identifying every bad guy as Hitler, ad anyone who wants to take a diplomatic approach toward them as Chamberlain.

“Invoking the Nazis also changes the tenor of a debate. There may be good, tactical reasons for choosing not to negotiate with Hezbollah or the Iranian regime, for example (the best reason, usually, is that the relevant diplomats are fairly sure that negotiations won’t work). But calling opponents of this policy “appeasers” distorts the debate, giving tactical choices a phony moral grounding. In reality, circumstances do change, even where “terrorists and radicals” are involved, as this administration in particular knows perfectly well.”

It is easy to fall for the bait when these tactics are used – especially when such a strong historical example stares us in the face.  However, it requires a firm mind in these difficult times to push through to clear debate.  I congratulate Ms. Applebaum on a courageous article.

Norwegian Submarine Superstitions

While participating in the NATO-led submarine escape and rescue exercise Bold Monarch 2008 this last week, I had the very cool experience to ride a small submersible from the ocean surface down to the sea floor where the Norwegian submarine Uthaug was sitting waiting for us.

Knowing that I would be on the submarine for several hours, I brought along a small backpack with a couple of Fortune magazines to help pass the time after we had exhausted the tour of the boat and explanations of operations from the crew.  Another rider, a Navy captain, had the same idea, but he had put his laptop computer in his backpack.  After we had successfully found the submarine, mated, opened the hatches and climbed down into the submarine, I had my backpack over my right shoulder and the Navy captain’s bag in my hand held at about chest level. 

At this stage, I passed a man who looked just a few older than me wearing very generic clothing (no discernible uniform) and several days of scruff on his face.  He stopped me and said, pointing specifically to the bag on my shoulder, “Get that bag out of here, now!  I’m not joking!  if you don’t get that off my ship now, we are going to cut it!”  Very shocked, I responded, “Why?”  “Because i am the captain of this ship, and I said so.” 

Naturally, i went back to the hatch we came down through and sent the bags back up.  At this point I thought: this might be a very long next several hours until the exercise is over and we can surface the submarine and disembark.

Over the next hour or so I learned why he had responded so harshly: the Norwegian submarine force is apparently very superstitious.  Here is a list of things you don’t do on a Norwegian submarine – as it was explained to me by more than one person:

• No backpacks.  You wear a backpack when you are walking on the shore.  The words “walking ashore” mean the same as “running aground” in Norwegian.  Not a good thing.
• No flowers.  You take flowers to funerals.  Submarining is already dangerous enough.
• No priests.  Similar reason.  No, I didn’t tell them that I am an Elder, and also a Priest.  No need to stir the international pot.
• Do not say the word horse.  Horses were once used to pull caskets to burial sites.  See a theme here?
• No umbrellas.  You use an umbrella when it rains, which could be likened to flooding on a submarine.  By bringing an umbrella on board, you are saying that you are expecting a flood.
• No whistling.  It sounds like rushing air.  Many things are pneumatically driven on a submarine.  You are simulating a dangerous environment by whistling.

There is no doubt in my mind that he would have destroyed my backpack and its contents if I would not have complied with his request. However, a female Canadian Naval officer had been on boardsince earlier in the day when a small boat had dropped her off before the submarine had submerged.  She had also innocently brought a backpack on board for the same reason.  The crew members didn’t notice until the small boat was gone.  So, the young seaman who let her on was fined a case of beer by the captain.

The submarine captain later explained to us the problems of nuclear submarines and the beauties of the diesel boats.  My first experience surfacing on a diesel was certainly memorable and ended up being very enjoyable as well.   I also got another lesson in international relations.

On Submarine Rescue, Afghanistan, Terrorism and Pakistan…

I just returned from participating in a NATO-led submarine escape and rescue exercise called Bold Monarch 2008 held off the southeast coast of Norway.  Over a dozen countries provided equipment or specially-trained personnel to support the exercise, while several other countries sent observers to see how this international effort might affect their own fleets.  In total about 24 countries were represented. 

I spent one morning talking with a senior Pakistani submarine officer about the war in Afghanistan and 9/11.  He wondered how a country could send destroy a school full of children in the hopes of potentially killing a single terrorist.  Instead of having just one terrorist hating America, now you have 89 families who hate the US.   He also told me that many of these people in Afghanistan have been involved in war since the Soviet Union invaded them back in 1979.  Even though America invaded as liberators from the Taliban, these people still have nothing to lose.  Many of them have nothing other than a gun.  So they have nothing to lose.  They have already lost everything.

I asked him what people in Pakistan thought about the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001.  He said that people were very sad.  In a country of roughly 160 million, there will always be a few people that will want to burn the American flag; but overall, his people were very sad.

This was a wonderfully enriching experience for me.  Many countries that have been enemies in the past were working very closely together.  Some examples are the US and Russia, Greece and Turkey, Argentina and the UK, and even India and Pakistan were both there.  When the Russian submersible escape vehicle AS-34 made history by successfully transferring people from a foreign submarine for the first time, one of the people was from Israel.

Check the official sie of Bold Monarch 2008 here.