Saturday, May 31, 2008
We missed the opportunity to take oil when we could
Letters to the Editor
Recent letters to the editor
- Pick of the day: Passing the buck won't stop abuse
- Letters: Illegal traditions should not be tolerated
- Pick of the day: Teacher's conviction should scare parents
- Letters archive
From the RoundTable blog
Read the latest entries
We missed the opportunity to take oil when we could
Regarding "Airlines in vital fight with oil prices," May 23 Business story:
Does anyone remember the Cold War? Russia and the United States were in a struggle to see who could build the most nuclear weapons. The United States was likely the richest country in the world and, through sheer spending power, drove the U.S.S.R. into a dire state of economy.
The same thing is now happening between the United States and OPEC, with the shoe on the other foot. By refusing to increase production, OPEC has driven the price of oil to its highest point in history.
How long will it be before the United States has to succumb to whatever the Arab world dictates? Instead of invading Iraq in search of nonexistent WMDs as a pretext, why didn't we declare war with a sufficiently large force to take over the country and confiscate its oil industry while we were strong enough to get away with it?
Would that have been any more immoral than the quagmire we have let ourselves be drawn into? What can or will Congress do to rectify the oil crisis, which is hurting our country even more than the 9/11 attack? Talk about a do-nothing body. Where are our statesmen of yore?
Science and religion have different roles
Past religious control over science never changed the fact that the Earth revolves around the sun, in spite of dictated doctrine and persecution. Scientific data are always open to debate and challenge, but accepting an idea as true and seeking "data" to support it is not, never has been, and will never be proper scientific methodology.
No amount of Bible-waving will change that.
Religion and science should have complementary roles in society, and overlapping them always causes trouble. Religion cannot answer scientific questions and science cannot formulate moral or ethical actions. Science provides tested data, but how we choose to use that data falls into the philosophical.
One example: Technology can keep more humans -- premature through old age -- alive, but cannot define if and when we should or should not morally do so. Society must determine how the law speaks to new dilemmas generated by new information.
Those who take the often contradictory Bible (or any organized religion) as absolute, should focus less on how we got here, browbeating those who disagree, and spend more energy on solving the issues plaguing human survival on this planet.
Bravo for naming scientific sources
I applaud James W. Laughner's documentation of sources of scientific information ("Scientists know: Global warming is real," May 29 commentary). This is particularly important when the commentary is based on science.
U.S. won't drill its way to enough oil
Recent letters blame high gasoline prices on the Democrats blocking drilling in sensitive areas. In 2002, Gov. Jeb Bush had his brother, President Bush, block drilling off the coast of Florida. John McCain says he is opposed to drilling for oil in Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.
They are all Republicans. So it's not just Democrats who oppose drilling for oil in environmentally sensitive areas.
The reality is that U.S. oil production peaked in 1970. The cheap, easily refined oil has been found and most of it removed. We could drill anyplace there is even a rumor of oil and never again be self-sufficient.
Most of the increase in oil and gas prices is due to worldwide demand. President Bush has made it worse. His invasion of Iraq added to speculative pricing by further destabilizing the Middle East. His economic policies have resulted in a weak U.S. dollar, which increases the price we must pay for oil.
As far as needing new refineries, to maximize profits oil companies have been closing refineries for more than 25 years. In 1982 there were 301 with excess capacity. Now there are 149.
We talk peace, but honor war
Speakers bemoan wars and hope for a future world of peace. Yet the thought nags me that we humans do not really want a peaceful world. Has there ever been a culture that valued the peacemaker as much as it celebrates the warrior?
Does not each young male harbor perhaps the unformed desire to go off to war and return with a chest full of medals and scars to show? (Note the youthful assumption that he will return.)
Shakespeare's Henry V expressed it well: "He that shall live this day, and see old age, will yearly on the vigil feast his neighboure and say 'tomorrow is Saint Crispin:' Then will he strip his sleeve and show his scars, And say, 'These wounds I had on Crispin' day ... .'"
Naturally, Bible verses are quoted to support never-ending wars. The good old Bible can always be counted on to back any view, on any subject, in any age. Still, the glimmer of hope remains that someday we will tire of lip-service to peace and actually conclude that life is still worth experiencing, even without the all-consuming excitement of war.
