Exxon VS Ed Begely Jr.

Here’s a question for the environmentally aware. Who is environmentally more friendly Exxon or Ed Begely Jr. Exxon drills, drums, and delivers Millions of Barrels of oil every year. That oil is then refined into Gasoline and other products, which drive our industrial society. Cars use the fuel and spit out nasty CO2 and other noxious chemicals. Most devastating of all, Exxon was in charge of the vessel Valdez, which dumped over 250,000 barrels of oil into the pristine Prince William Sound, devastating over a thousand miles of Alaskan coastline.

Mr. Begely, on the other hand, drives an electric vehicle charged by the solar panels on the roof of his house. He recycles just about everything. He probably doesn’t need to take trash to the curb more than once a year. He has a solar barbecue/oven in his back yard. He powers his television with a bicycle generator. At least part of his garden is watered by ‘grey’ water from his home (dishwater, shower water, etc). This man is the epitome of the environmental movement. Hard to imagine that anyone could compare this iconoclastic idol of greenpeace could be put anywhere near Exxon, the great menace to the earth.

I contend that Mr. Bagley is the greater evil of the two. Although he entertains a few people from time to time (I enjoyed him in Seventh Heaven, but wasn’t a target audience for St Elsewhere), I can’t say that he employs a lot of people with his skills. Exxon on the other hand employs hundreds of thousands. They employed over 10,000 people for the Valdez spill alone spending over $2 Billion trying to clean up their mess. If it weren’t for the steady stream of oil into this country, trucks wouldn’t be delivering goods to our supermarkets, department stores, and health food centers. Because of that oil, manufacturers are able to target larger markets and make products in greater quantity allowing economies of scale to take hold. Food can get from parts of the country that grow it well to where it is needed. People’s time is freed up so they can come up with new ways to view the world.

Exxon is guilty of polluting, but they are also guilty of creating the assets that funded the television shows in which Mr. Begley acted. These are the same funds that then bought him Solar Cells (which have yet to produce a net watt of electricity), an Electric car, and the spare time to sort all of his recyclables so that his taxes can pay for their disposal.

If I am pressed to choose between big business and some pansy ass fanatics, I am going to choose big business.

Create, Consume, Channel

This is my answer the dogma put forth by the anti-capitalists: Reduce, Reuse, Recycle . While I agree with the sentiment of the motto (I hate having to deal with excess waste), I realize that it misses a fundamental aspect of why our system of commerce works. It ignores the fact that the way to building wealth (and the free time to consider the implications of ones actions) is through the creation of goods and services that make others lives easier (giving them time to ponder). Those goods and services must be consumed. They must be allowed to be consumed with vigor (although not with abandon). If people like the product they will buy it. If they don't they won't.

Reduce, reuse, recycle is really talking about maximizing the efficiency of the whole process. In our system, the optimum way to track efficiency is to track profitability. The more efficient the entire process is, the more profitable it will be.

Traitors?

I have seen headlines in newspapers, on Fox News, and many other locations that had the gall to label the people who marched in protest of the possibility of war as TRAITORS. While I completely disagree with their position, I support their right to rally and march in opposition of whatever cause they wish.

The traitors of the day are the people like me who didn't march with signs saying:


"To Elbe with Saddam"
"Saddam! Get out now!"
"Free Iraq! Let's go in!"
"It is about the Oil! Don't let Saddam use it to kill Kurds!"
"Let individuals speak!"
"We get to march in opposition, why don't the Iraqis?"

I hope that I can mitigate my traitorous act, by speaking here, though few will actually hear it.....

Intemperate thoughts on War

I support the right of people to assemble and voice their concerns over the affairs of government. Without such expression, we might not question the actions that out leaders orchestrate. We must constantly question. Without questions, leaders will have no feedback.

That said: I disagree with just about everything the marchers espouse. Peace is not obtained by drawing lines in the sand and backing up and drawing a new line. Some argue that we shouldn't draw any lines, but they are wrong. If you don't define the boundaries of acceptable behaviour then all behaviour becomes acceptable. We (the silly united nations) decided that Iraq crossed the line. We (the UN) decided that Iraq should be disarmed of Weapons of Mass Destruction. Iraq refused to comply. The UN has made itself irrelevant to the esablishment of peace on this planet when it refused to back up its resolutions (I believe there have been 14) with something more harsh than a "Saddam, we mean it this time".

The war in Iraq IS about oil. It is; however, not about cheap gas for americans. It is about the power the Oil represents to the regime that controls it. Saddam has shown repeatedly that he is desperate to join the Nuclear Brotherhood by any means possible. I do not completely trust those that lead this country (this has to do with the fact that you have to be liar in order to get elected in this country in any election that is greater in scope than local), but I do trust that they will do everything within their power to keep from being exposed as a complete liar. The easiest way to do this on a subject of the magnitude of a War with Iraq is to obfuscate as little as possible. Bluffing at this point in the game would hurt the esteem of any politician involved more than backing down from the war.

War can be avoided. Saddam just needs to start coughing up the materials we no he has or he needs to abdicate and get the hell out of Baghdad. If he starts toeing the line, we will happily allow him to continue breathing.

The people of Iraq DO NOT have the ability to speak freely. All interviews with journalists are monitored to ensure that people do not speak anything that will offend his exalted excellency. 100% votes of confidence are sure signs that something stinks.

I look forward to a world filled with peaceful commerce. Peace of this scale will not be achieved until the leaders of all the world recognize the importance of the individual. The power the United States enjoys is the summation of individuals striving to find solutions to make their lives a little easier. They worked hard and in the process created unforseen wealth. We unleashed to power of the individual and won. It is disquieting to tyrants, socialists, and communists to have it demonstrated to them that allowing individuals free reign results in the greatest good.

President Bush, Secretary Powell, Tony Blair all want peace. Putting your soldiers in harms way is the last thing they want to do. But they have to be ready to do it to defend those individual rights. Depicting these gentlemen as blood thirsty politicians set on furthering their power base by indulging in war is nothing more than a win win ploy by there adversaries. Bush will be lambasted if he heads to war, but he would be equally criticized if he were to not go. Ridding the world of Saddam will make him more popular. That doesn't mean that is why he is intent on doing it.

If the Iraqis want to be free of Saddam, the war will be easy. If they want Saddam, then we shouldn't go, and we should probably turn the area into glass.