Monday, November 23, 2009
First Legal Memo
Thursday, March 12, 2009
Honorary Last Essay as an Undergrad
COM 469
Final Paper
10 March 2009
Seymour Hersh, My Lai, and the Ethics of Kant
The Vietnam War is considered by many to be one of the lowest points in modern American history. Taking place against the backdrop of the dramatic social upheaval of the 1960s, amidst the Civil Rights movement, counter-cultural revolution, and other civil strife, the Vietnam War was the focal point of American foreign policy for nearly a decade. Unlike previous wars, where domestic dissent was either effectively muted or simply non-existent, this war featured a large and vocal anti-war contingent, in numbers great enough to effect serious government attention. Adding to the dilemma was the fact that the Vietnam War was a complicated, murky entanglement, which was difficult to justify and even more difficult to explain to the general public. The government's inability to clearly do so led to a progressively growing sense of distrust amongst the population, perpetuating the “us vs. them” mentality that clouded, for example, the presidency of Richard M. Nixon.
1968 was perhaps the darkest moment of the conflict, as massive civil unrest rocked the country at home while casualty reports from the war reached record highs. That year, Martin Luther King and Robert F. Kennedy were assassinated, racial and political riots erupted nationwide, and anti-war protests reached critical mass. Yet one of the worst stories of 1968 would not be told until November of the following year, when Seymour Hersh first broke the story of the My Lai Massacre. In 3 reports, produced independently and carried by the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, Hersh told the shocking story of the massacre of 347 Vietnamese civilians (many of them women and children) by American troops in the small village of My Lai. These reports, a clear example of Kant's Categorical Imperative operating in Hersh's journalistic ethic, greatly changed the course of the debate surrounding the war, and provoked domestic and international outrage. “No one wants to hear about U.S. Troops as 'bad guys' too,” Hersh later said (Eberting, 2000). But without this effort, the government might have been able to control public support indefinitely, tenuous or not. Instead, his report blurred the line between the good and the bad, focusing alternatively on the right and the wrong, while providing firm and actionable evidence to those with moral opposition to war.
* * * * *
In March 1968, an Army squadron, led by Lt. William Calley, attacked the small Vietnamese village of My Lai in an attempt to flush out suspected Viet Cong. Hersh's initial report, published on Nov. 13, 1969, suggested only Calley's involvement in the massacre, noting that “the Army is completing an investigation of charges that he deliberately murdered at least 109 Vietnamese civilians in a search-and-destroy mission” (Hersh, 1969). The first report includes many tentative details about “Pinkville,” the Army code word for My Lai, as well as interviews with Calley's fellow soldiers, who generally defend him (“They're using this as a Goddamned example... he's a good soldier,” says one) and try to place his actions in the context of the fog of war (“You can't afford to guess whether a civilian is a Viet Cong or not---either they shoot you or you shoot them,” says another). Generally, however, the first article is relatively non-committal, focusing primarily on the yearlong military investigation of the event which resulted in Calley's official charges.
It is the second article, provocatively titled Hamlet Attack Called Point-Blank Murder (Hersh, 1969), published exactly one week later, which introduces the larger story and conspiracy. In this story, Hersh interviews actual witnesses to the event, and reports that the investigation is not limited to Calley but includes several others from his squad as well. Unlike the first story, which indicated several possibilities but offered no hard evidence, this story is full of graphic and shocking detail, much of it likely difficult for the average American reader of the time to digest:
“They just marched through shooting everybody,” said Michael Terry, then a member of the C Platoon. “Seems like no one said anything... they just started pulling people out and shooting them.” At one point, he said, more than 20 villagers were lined up in front of a ditch and shot. “They had them in a group standing over a ditch---just like a Nazi-type thing... I don't remember seeing any men in the ditch. Mostly women and kids.” Later he and the platoon team he headed... noticed “some of them were still breathing... they were pretty badly shot up. They weren't going to get any medical help, so we shot them. Shot maybe five of them... a lot of guys feel that they (the South Vietnamese civilians) aren't human beings; we just treated them like animals.” (Hersh, 1969)
In addition to shocking first-hand accounts such as these, Hersh also introduces Ronald Ridenhour, a former GI and close acquaintance of several of the accused, whose “persistence prompted the Army to begin its high level investigation in April.” Casually, yet pointedly, Hersh leaves unanswered the question of whether the Army would have started the investigation unprompted. Without directly saying so, Hersh here raises the specter of conspiracy in not just the low levels of the isolated squadron, but in the high levels of the US military itself.
Hersh's third and final article, published five days after the second, raises the number of civilians murdered from 109 to 370 (it would later be officially notated as 347), and contains even more first-hand accounts of the atrocity. In a 2008 interview entitled 40 Years Later, Hersh retells the story of his exchange with Paul Meadlo, a soldier involved directly with Calley in the incident, who is the primary focus of the third article:
One of the mothers in the bottom of the ditch had tucked a boy underneath, and he climbed up...and began to run in a panic. Calley said to Meadlo, this kid from Southern Indiana, plug him. Meadlo, one on one, couldn't do it... So Calley, with great derring-do, took his carbine, ran behind the kid and shot him in the back of the head. Everybody remembered that. The next morning, Meadlo gets his leg blown off, to the knee, and they call in a helicopter to take him out. And while he's waiting he starts issuing an oath, a real oath, chant: “God has punished me, Lieutenant Calley, and God is gonna punish you.” (Gladstone, 2008)
Although this story is described briefly in the third article, the words of the oath were omitted, and it is interesting to hear Hersh's retrospective emphasis on it---especially as it highlights his ethical bias.
The third article nonetheless excoriates the military through its selective quotation. “We were all under orders,” Meadlo said. “We all thought we were doing the right thing. At the time it didn't bother me” (Hersh, 1969). Hersh's continued selection of quotes containing phrases such as “We just thought we were supposed to do it” and “I know it was far more than 100 as the Army now says” helps him push along his categorical theme, calling out a previously unchallenged U.S. Military for its systematic wrongdoing. It is a theme he has returned to frequently throughout his career, most recently in breaking the Abu Ghraib story, and it is a theme reflective of the philosophies of Immanuel Kant.
* * * * *
Hersh's motives in breaking the My Lai story lie not in directly attacking, nor directly impugning, the military and its role in our society. Rather, Hersh wants to hold the military accountable to the same standards which apply to all citizens, and he continually chafes at the leeway afforded to those who commit atrocities in the midst of war. To Hersh, and to Kant, murder is never acceptable, under any circumstances. As Merrill states, “Kantian journalists would not act so as to bring about some kind of consequence; rather, they would simply act in accordance with duty to a guiding principle... Such a duty binds a journalist” (Merrill, 1994).
Indeed, Hersh has had to operate for most of his career as an independent, separated from the mainstream press by a determination for investigative reporting and a slightly cantankerous style. David Carr notes this in his tributary article From My Lai to Abu Ghraib: “Unlike his colleagues at newspapers or on television, Mr. Hersh can be quite subjective in his judgments, anyone who is reading his current magazine articles is well aware he is against the war” (Carr, 2004). In addition, Hersh has always been more than willing to make public appearances in defense of his positions, and is not afraid of using his public persona as a soapbox. When asked by Brooke Gladstone, during the 40 Years Later interview, if we'd learned anything from history, Hersh immediately replied: “Are you suggesting that the American leadership learns from the past? I don't think there's much evidence for that. As we had hell to pay after Vietnam, we're going to have hell to pay (after Iraq)” (Gladstone, 2008).
Merrill notes that “a categorical duty would be one that, regardless of the agent's particular desire, should be done” (Merrill, 1994). In a 2000 panel discussion with other investigative reporters, Hersh sounds a ringing endorsement of this philosophy: “There is a certain time when you've got to stop being defensive about the stories you write. You just have to. You can't go around explaining everything that people say... there's a point when you say 'look, there's a story there. If you don't want to believe it, there's not much I can do about it' ” (Eberting, 2000). This sort of ethic, while most refreshing in today's era of packaged and sterilized journalism, does have its consequences---one doesn't make many friends. David Carr, in comparing Hersh to the more affable and famous Bob Woodward, indicates that Hersh may actually enjoy this status: “While Mr. Woodward is on a first-name basis with many of the administration's highest ranking officials, Mr. Hersh sticks to the back channels for articles that often countervail the official wisdom” (Carr, 2004).
Holding everyone accountable to the same standards, especially those in power who have been entrusted with protecting the Constitution, should be one of the primary goals of any Kantian journalist. While it may ruffle the feathers of the powers-that-be, it is the journalist’s duty to provide citizens with cold, hard facts, allowing them to be informed in their democratic decision-making. Regardless of the impact on powerful citizens or the national pysche, it is categorically imperative that the rule of law pertains to all citizens of any country interested in preserving its freedom.
* * * * *
The impact of the My Lai scandal was instantaneous, and for quite some time dominated the news. From the initial Hersh reports through the conviction of Lt. Calley in spring 1971, the My Lai massacre was an ongoing media firestorm. It became a two-pronged scandal, as other journalists investigated not only the actual event, but the cover-up that followed.
As evidence of the crimes committed in My Lai began to emerge in the wake of Hersh's revelations, a New York Times editorial declared that the atrocities 'may turn out to have been one of this nation's most ignoble hours.' In April 1971, Time magazine asserted that 'the crisis of confidence caused by the Calley affair is a graver phenomenon than the horror following the assassination of President Kennedy. Historically, it is far more crucial.' In these renderings, the My Lai massacre was a pivotal event, not just in the history of the Vietnam War, but also in that of the American nation as a whole. (Oliver, 2006)
In light of this story and its place in history, it is important to remember that it might not have ever been published in the first place. Hersh even had to create his own wire service in order to convince newspapers to initially run the story: “Nobody wanted to take responsibility for publishing it, so we found a way to take away the responsibility. Once you get the onus off the individual newspaper, they feel like publishing it” (Eberting, 2000). It is, of course, impossible to know how events would have progressed had the atrocity not been brought out into the light. But it suffices to say that things would have been different.
Throughout the early years of the war, the government was generally able to control the message on the war, despite progressively increasing casualty numbers and dwindling public support. However, all of this changed with Seymour Hersh's My Lai reports, and for the first time, the government was put on the defensive, forced to publicly condemn the actions of its own soldiers. For an aggressively anti-war investigative reporter such as Hersh, as well as those searching for ways to bring the war to a close, the reports were a milestone and a real turning point. They were not only a critique of war conduct in the present tense; they were also a talisman and warning to those contemplating war in the future. Hersh, fueled by Kant's Categorical Imperative and sense of justice, was uniquely able to show that in any war, the distinction between good and bad is cloudy at best; there will always be good guys amongst the enemy and bad guys amongst ourselves. Instead, the proper approach is to simply and clearly ask what is right and wrong, and to pursue a sense of standardized justice for all.
Bibliography
Carr, David. (2004) Dogged Reporter's Impact: From My Lai to Abu Ghraib. The New York Times, May 20, 2004.
Eberting, Cindy. (2000) Uncovering War Atrocities – Stories Have Always Been Tough Sells.
The IRE Journal, September/October 2000.
Gladstone, Brooke. (2008) 40 Year Later: Hersh on My Lai. NPR, “On the Media,” August, 15, 2008. Produced by WNYC, New York, NY.
Hersh, Seymour (1969) Ex-GI Tells of Killing Civilians at Pinkville. St. Louis Post-Dispatch, November 25, 1969.
Hersh, Seymour. (1969) Hamlet Attack Called Point-Blank Murder. St. Louis Post-Dispatch, November 20, 1969.
Hersh, Seymour. (1969) Lieutenant Accused of Murdering 109 Civilians. St. Louis Post-
Dispatch, November 13, 1969.
Merrill, John C. (1994) Legacy of Wisdom: Great Thinkers and Journalism. Iowa State
University Press, Ames, Iowa.
My Lai Massacre. (2009, March 11). In Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.phptitle=My_Lai_Massacre&oldid=276401557
Oliver, Kendrick. (2006) Coming to Terms with the Past: My Lai. History Today, February 2006.
Tuesday, November 4, 2008
Election Day 2008
I'm skeptical as ever regarding Obama's plan for America, and I have yet to trust any politician. However, I'm going to support his presidency (should we find out later tonight that he's won) and will consider voting for his second term should he follow through on his lofty promises. He does have a chance of removing some of the deep cynicism embedded deep within my psyche---and conversely, he could also be the biggest disappointment in history.
For better or worse, today is the beginning of a new era in this country.
Sunday, September 21, 2008
The End of the "Free" Market?
I only wish that the collapse of conservative ideology could happen in a vaccuum and didn't have to drag the rest of us down.
Saturday, September 13, 2008
Drill Drill Drill
COM 471
08/15/08
The U.S. presidential campaign has always been a home for outlandish claims and vague policy promises. From the first President Bush's “No New Taxes” refrain to the current's “Restoring Integrity to the Oval Office,” presidential candidates have never shied away from lofty, persuasive appeals long on emotion but short on facts. As these two examples (and countless others throughout our sordid electoral history) show, these claims are generally nothing more than lip service designed to mobilize voters around a candidate's cause. This year's presidential campaign is no exception. In fact, with all of the current concern over energy, the economy, and the environment, it should come as no surprise that political discussion around the water cooler these days involves the one issue that binds together those three major policy rails: Offshore Oil Drilling.
Republican candidate Senator John McCain, attempting to direct the tenor of this ongoing debate, recently reversed his longstanding position supporting the Congressional ban on drilling in the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS). McCain now argues in favor of drilling, and has featured this issue in the forefront of many of his recent stump speeches and campaign advertisements. Drilling, McCain argues, would help the United States achieve 3 major objectives: (1) a reduction in the price paid by consumers at the gasoline pump; (2) greater energy independence for the United States as a whole; and (3) a reduction in the U.S. trade deficit as a result of lessened oil imports from abroad. (McCain, 2008)
Obviously, McCain's proposal comes at a time when consumers are facing increased pressure at the pump, with gasoline prices having recently reached into all-time record territory. Offshore drilling is such a critical issue that it is literally featured first on his campaign website, ahead of even the current housing crisis and wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Considering a recent Rasmussen poll found that nearly 70% of Americans support offshore drilling, it is easy to see McCain's political motivation. But will offshore drilling really help achieve the objectives McCain has identified---or is this rhetoric simply red meat designed to appeal to the broadest political base possible? A close analysis of McCain's three major claims shows it to be just another false electoral promise, steeped in emotional appeal yet severely lacking on facts. Let us examine each claim on its own merit.
- - - - -
Claim 1: Offshore drilling will help to reduce gasoline prices
Oil prices, and subsequently, gas prices, have reached record highs in 2008, creating economic and financial hardships for millions of Americans. A number of separate solutions have been offered, amongst them a moratorium on the Federal gasoline tax (also proposed by McCain), pleas to oil-producing countries such as Saudi Arabia to increase production, and even the conversion of formerly food-producing crops such as corn into the oil replacement ethanol. However, none of these solutions has made much of a dent in the price of gasoline, and the high prices continue to affect the overall economy, which has been teetering on the brink of recession for much of the past two years. Because of its critical place in a society which has been built upon the abundance of cheap oil, gasoline price increases have affected all facets of the economy and created a tense environment for nearly every American. Considering the failure of all other approaches in reducing the price of gas, offshore drilling seems to be a perfect solution---or at least the only one left---and the fact that a majority of Americans support lifting the ban seems logical.
Unfortunately, however, many independent economic sources, both liberal and conservative, have roundly criticized the position that offshore drilling will have any immediate reduction in the price of gas at the pump. The Bush Administration's own Department of Energy, in their 2007 “Annual Energy Outlook,” was blunt in their assessment of the impact offshore drilling would have at the pump:
Access to the Pacific, Atlantic, and eastern Gulf regions would not have a significant impact on domestic crude oil and natural gas production or prices before 2030. Leasing would begin no sooner than 2012, and production would not be expected to start before 2017. Because oil prices are determined on the international market, however, any impact on average wellhead prices is expected to be insignificant. (DoE, 2007)
This bland analysis from an administration comprised of many former oil executives should be taken seriously, yet claims such as McCain's are allowed to take root without any factual analysis of the reality of his position. The last sentence of this quote is most important, as it invalidates practically McCain's entire claim that increased supply through domestic production will help drive down prices; since oil is a global commodity, it is traded on the international market, and that is where costs are determined. The more liberal Boston Globe hits directly on this point, in no uncertain terms:
"Suppose the US produced all its oil domestically," said Robert Kaufmann, director of the Center for Energy and Environmental Studies at Boston University. "Do you think oil companies would sell oil to US consumers for one cent less than they could get from French consumers? No. Where oil comes from has no effect on price." (Boston Globe, 2008)
This basic economic principle---of shared global resources determining price---lays bare McCain's proposal and exposes it for what it is: simple red meat in the heat of an election campaign. The record highs recently achieved in oil prices come from increased demand, from rapidly-developing countries like China and India, and has literally nothing to do with supply, which has not fluctuated or decreased in the same time period. Recent events prove this equation: the reductions achieved in the price of oil over the past three weeks have come with no increase in supply whatsoever, but instead have come as a result of the largest drop in U.S. demand since 1982: “U.S. oil demand during the first half of 2008 fell by an average 800,000 barrels per day compared to the same period a year ago, the biggest volume decline in 26 years, the Energy Information Administration said on Tuesday.” (Reuters, 2008) Although McCain has admitted that economics is not exactly his strongest suit (“I’m going to be honest: I know a lot less about economics than I do about military and foreign policy issues---I still need to be educated.” [McCain, 2005]), reversing the roles of supply and demand is a most egregious error for the presidential candidate of a major political party.
- - - - -
Claim 2: Offshore Drilling will Result in U.S. Energy Independence
While this is most certainly related to the principle of shared global resources as discussed above, refuting the very idea of such a thing as energy independence in a global economy, the claim still deserves its own discussion. McCain's claim that drilling will result in energy independence is facetious at best, and this is due to the tiny impact any offshore drilling would have in overall worldwide supply. According to the National Resources Defense Council (NRDC), America's oil production has been in decline since its peak in the early 1970s, at which time the U.S. was the world's largest producer, a title since assumed by Saudi Arabia. “With just three percent of the world's oil reserves, our nation simply doesn't have enough oil to impact the global market or drill our way out” of our dependence on foreign oil. (NRDC, 2008)
The real driving force for U.S. Energy independence will not come from drilling into what amounts to an additional 920 days of oil supply, which, according to the DoE, is what comprises the proven reserves of the outer continental shelf. (DoE, 2007). Instead, McCain's arguments for drilling obscure the real solutions for energy independence such as conservation, new technologies, and greater maximization of available sources such as solar, wind and nuclear power. While, to his credit, McCain does mention these additional solutions (especially nuclear), they often come across as secondary, almost token, policy positions built around the centerpiece of increased domestic oil production. But as McCain’s rival for the presidency, Barack Obama, often remarks, any policy involving increased oil production amounts to nothing more than a “gimmick.” (CNN, 2008)
Even independent sources such as influential Texas oilman T. Boone Pickens have begun to call for energy independence through a set of initiatives aimed at reducing our dependence on foreign sources of crude oil. For example, the “Pickens Plan” calls America the “Saudi Arabia of Wind Power” and makes the claim that nearly 20% of electricity power could be supplied by wind farms alone:
The Department of Energy reports that 20% of America's electricity can come from wind. North Dakota alone has the potential to provide power for more than a quarter of the country. A 2005 Stanford University Study found that there is enough wind power worldwide to satisfy global demand 7 times over — even if only 20% of wind power could be captured. (Pickens, 2008)
Pickens goes a step further with his plan, calling for increased domestic natural gas production to “bridge the gap” between oil-based gasoline energy and future clean technologies such as hydrogen. In fact, he suggests that we are already well-prepared to transition directly into this cleaner and more abundant source of energy:
Natural gas is significantly less expensive than gasoline or diesel. In places like Utah and Oklahoma, prices are less than $1 a gallon. Natural gas is our country's second largest energy resource and a vital component of our energy supply. 98% of the natural gas used in the United States is from North America. But 70% of our oil is purchased from foreign nations. (Pickens, 2008)
- - - - -
Claim 3: Offshore Drilling will help Reduce the National Trade Deficit
Discussion of the U.S. trade deficit is generally reminiscent of a complex shell game---it is incredibly easy to highlight one area (in this case, oil imports) while obscuring another (domestic fiscal policies such as the recent “stimulus package”). Politicians love to talk about the trade deficit because it is incredibly easy to manipulate statistics to favor one’s position. McCain’s claim that 41% of the U.S. trade deficit is due to oil, while factually-based, obscures many of the intricate and sophisticated factors which contribute to that deficit. The most glaring obfuscation is that of the role of the global currency market on imports and exports. Over the past 8 years, the value of the dollar has declined by nearly 60% when measured against the Euro and other major international currencies (OANDA, 2008). This raises a simple economic question of purchasing power, and McCain’s claims completely ignore the fact that the purchasing power of the dollar is considerably less than it was even just a decade ago. Even though we’re not importing much more oil today than in 1998, it costs considerably more to do so today because of the incredibly weak dollar. While McCain is correct that 41% of import expenditures are due to oil, he fails to mention this important economic component. Were the dollar to regain its footing in international currency markets, the trade deficit would be immediately reduced without producing a single additional drop of oil.
Another major factor impacting the U.S. trade deficit is the impact of the recently-passed “Economic Stimulus Package” of 2008. In order for our empty Treasury to provide $600 individual tax rebates to millions of citizens, the government had to borrow billions of dollars from international investors (coincidentally, from rich oil-producing nations benefiting from the recent skyrocketing oil prices). This, along with the aforementioned weakness of the dollar, drove up the trade deficit this year more than any other mitigating factor, including oil. According to the Congressional Budget Office, the nonpartisan financial wing of the government, the deficit had been reduced to less than $170 billion for fiscal year 2007, but had grown to a projected record high of $482 billion for 2008. Jim Nussle, the director of the CBO, confirmed the dynamics behind this rapid increase: “The primary reasons that there will be larger deficits in 2008 and 2009 are because of the bipartisan growth package or stimulus checks… as well as slower economic growth.” (CBO, 2008).
Interestingly (and quite compellingly), some economists have even indicated that the current deficit and related economic woe is good for the long-term energy outlook in the United States. While noting the short-term hardships on the current economy, most notably the trade deficit, the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco argues that such hardships will force a change in the oil-based economy and lead to a broader change in habits in both business and public usage:
…It could take a while for the U.S. trade deficit to adjust in response to persistently higher oil prices, as businesses need time to install new, less energy-intensive equipment. However, one positive and important implication is that eventually the U.S. Economy will become more energy-efficient, which, in turn, would help contain the cost of oil imports and increase the economy’s flexibility in absorbing future oil price increases. (FRBSF, 2006)
- - - - -
Emotional Appeal: Should We Pump Every Last Drop of Oil out of the Ground?
The previous sections of this essay have focused on factual refutations to the three main points of John McCain’s plans to lift the ban on offshore oil production. However, at this point, I would like to make a more personal, emotional argument against offshore drilling, in the hopes of appealing to one of the main traditional platforms of the Republican Party: Family Values. For the party so closely associated with these values, it often strikes me as ironic that there is not more of a concerted effort to provide a long-term plan to make the world a more livable place for our children and grandchildren. “Drill, drill, drill” seems incredibly short-sighted.
Oil is almost always closely associated with gasoline and energy, but rarely mentioned is its greater impact on our quality of life through the thousands of other products derived from it. Plastic, one of the most ubiquitous innovations of the 20th Century, has made an incredible impact on today’s modern society. It is almost impossible today to imagine a world without plastic. Our quality of life would be nowhere near what it is today without this amazingly flexible and malleable substance, and it is an integral component in almost every aspect of our modern lives. Plastic, for example, provides safe repositories for food, has been critical in the development of computing technologies, and has allowed the inhabitants of our large planet to feel closer to one another through improved communication. And there are a million more uses for plastic. For proof, just look around you!
Other usages for oil run the entire spectrum of the modern economy, with important niches in medicine, technology, construction, and many other industries. For example, polyester, an oil derivative, is the most prevalent fabric in the world, long ago replacing cotton (an incredibly energy-inefficient crop which drains the world’s rivers) as the foundational basis of the textile industry. Chemicals derived from oil are used in many of today’s complex medicines, such as treatments for cancer and multiple sclerosis. Our roads would still be paved with cobblestone if not for the invention of asphalt, which uses oil to bind together gravel as a solid, durable substance. This is only the tip of the iceberg of the overall oil economy (one could spend an entire essay discussing only the non-fuel-related uses of oil), but even these few examples underscore our modern reliance on petrochemicals and their importance in our daily lives.
While scholars have debated the coming of “peak oil” for decades now (“peak oil” refers to the point at which we as a global society have used more oil than is remaining in the earth’s crust), it is not debatable that oil is a limited resource. Some scholars have said that peak oil has already occurred, as far back as the 1970s, while others say it won’t happen until the 2050s. Regardless of the details, the simple fact is that one day our global supply of oil will run out. It is unavoidable. Thus begs the ethical question: Should we continue to drill for oil until every last drop has been exhausted in order to save a few pennies at the gas pump? Or, considering all the amazing non-fuel uses for this wonderful resource, should we leave some in the ground for future generations? This is not a question I aim to answer, and I really have no right to answer it anyway. This, instead, is a question for every parent of every child on the planet. While consumers are most certainly under strained financial pressure due to current high energy costs, this pressure pales in comparison to the post-modern nightmare one imagines when considering a future without petrochemical products. Surely the party of Family Values needs to consider the implications of a drastic drop in our quality of life.
- - - - -
Clearly, the presidential campaign is not, and has never been, a place for factual-based claims and big-picture analysis. Instead, for centuries, our candidates have played off our emotions, hopes and fears in order to win elections and control policy from the White House. Both of the major political parties are players in this traditional pageant, and neither party is innocent of the transgressions of truth germane to a country which values free speech and democracy. Deception is a “necessary evil of democracy”, as F.F. Centore has said, and it has always been our duty as informed democratic citizens to sift through the marketplace of ideas with our own rationality and attention to critical thinking. Yet, the recent debate over offshore oil drilling is one of the most blatantly fallacious arguments ever to grace the campaign trail, coming at a time when this issue instead requires hard truth, new ideas, and forward thinking. John McCain’s cunning obfuscation of some of the most basic economic facts behind this argument is nothing short of stunning. These false claims need to be addressed and inserted into the public debate, especially with polls showing overwhelming support for the lifting of the ban on offshore drilling. And after we’ve debunked these false claims and have moved beyond this specious discussion, perhaps it will finally be time to address some of the larger concerns our oil-based society faces as we move into a future with oil as a limited, and not abundant, resource.
Bibliography
Centore, F.F. Two Views of Virtue: Absolute Relativism and Relative Absolutism. Greenwood Press, Boston, MA. 2000
CNN. “Obama Slams McCain’s Energy Policy.” http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/06/24/campaign.wrap/index.html
Congressional Budget Office. “2008-2009 Budgetary Forecast” http://www.cbo.gov/search/sitesearch.cfm?criteria=trade+deficit+forecast
Federal Reserve Bank, S.F. “Oil Prices and the U.S. Trade Deficit.”http://www.frbsf.org/publications/economics/letter/2006/el2006-24.html
McCain, John. “Presidential Campaign Website.” www.johnmccain.com. 2008.
NRDC. "Take Action: Tell Congress You Don't Buy the Lie" http://www.nrdconline.org/campaign/stop_arctic_and_offshore_drilling
OANDA. “Currency Converter and Historicals.” http://www.oanda.com/convert/fxhistory
Pickens, T. Boone. “The Pickens Plan.” http://www.pickensplan.com/theplan/
Rasmussen Polling Service. 2008. http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_politics/67_support_offshore_drilling_64_expect_it_will_lower_prices
U.S. Department of Energy. “2007 – Annual Energy Outlook.” Energy Information Administration.
Wangsness, Lisa. "New Offshore Drilling Not a Quick Fix." Boston Globe, June 20, 2008.