Truthfully Relative

So I had a thought the other day. If you believe that truth is absolute, then you inadvertently believe in God. God can't exist without absolute truth, and neither can absoluteness (in anything, but particularly in truth) exist without God. Not necessarily God in the Judeo-Christian sense of the word, but somehow, there has to be a higher power - if anything is to be absolute.

And, if you believe that truth is relative, then you do not necessarily believe in a higher power. Without said God, relativity is the rule.

Allow me to briefly provide an illustrative example. Lets say that two people are in court testifying about the of a particular third person. Now, Person A insists (and truly, genuinely believes) that they saw Person B Person C (who was found in an alleyway without any additional witnesses and minimal corroborating evidence). But Person B passionately insists (and believes) that they did NOT Person C. Who is correct? Is each persons truth relative to their position, point of view, and other factors? Or is there one correct truth regardless of what Persons A and B believe? If you agree with the latter, then somehow, someway, there must be some higher power to differentiate. It doesn't even have to be a spirit - it could simply be time, or existence. But somehow, there is something greater. If, however, you believe the former, then there is no need for a God/higher power, because nobody needs to differentiate, and therefore each person is his own God.

Which brings me to the dilemma - Can you believe that truth is relative, and still believe in God?

Conservatives

I have a friend who is a self-procalimed conservative. Not so far right to qualify as fundamentalist (actually, he's pretty centrist), but definitely with a strong conservative lean. And incredibly vocal. He supported McCain all the way through the campaign with an intense passion. He was even a little concerned about how liberal McCain had been in the past. But on Nov. 4th, he set aside his thoughts, and supported Obama. Not because of a change of heart, but because he was the one who had been elected. "He's my president," he said to me. "And I'm going to support him because I believe in the beauty of the American system more than I believe in my own views." Why can't people like him run the country?

On Community and Politics

I'm not sure why people only care about politics for about 7 months every 4 years. Some people don't even care that much. But it continues to amaze me, the amount of people who put elections on a back shelf after the elections, where it gathers dust for 3+ years, until the next election. Why? Why does the political arena only matter when we are electing a president?

I understand the need for both a political stratum, and an apolitical stratum - one is more involved than the other, based on a balance theory, like yin and yang. There has to be one for the other. But really? People don't seem to care... at all. Taxes, national security, energy policy, gay marriage rights; everything affects everyone. If we make gay marriage legal, it means that those individuals (who were previously taxed as individuals) now get the tax benefits of being married. Which means that the money the government was getting from them is going to have to come from somewhere else. Granted, it will be minimal - the tax increase per person would be negligible, but, it still has an affect - because we live in a community.

But we seem to have lost that sense of unity. Notice that it's part of the word community. There's a reason for that. Maybe that's my biggest criticism of America right now - we live in a world of greed and personal gains. Not of community. What happened to the days when neighbors would bring food to one another, when you lived within walking distance of the grocery store - and actually walked, when people said hi to one another on the streets, instead of avoiding eye contact? Where did it go? And how do we bring it back?

Energy - The Solution

This one is going to be short. Not because I believe the answer to our energy woes is simple, but because I don't have very many of them. Actually, I don't have any of them. These are more proposals than anything. And by no means are they complete or comprehensive.

1. Don't Drill Offshore. That's not going to do anything, and will only be a waste of money and resources, and perpetuate the problem.

2. Stop Subsidizing Oil. (Maybe using a phased out program, or a new law with a sunset clause). The problem is not just economic, nor is it just political, the root of it is cultural. And the only way the American people are going to cut down on their oil consumption is if it gets too expensive. Europe does it.

3. Develop alternate energy sources - immediately. Retrain people to repair wind turbines instead of a coal power plant. A variety of sources are needed, and that's not a bad thing. That's called security. If we can do it now and do it well, we can even sell the technology to other countries, and make a profit. Wind, Solar, Geothermal (on a small scale - I'm not advocating turbines over Old Faithful), even some Biofuels, and even (for a short time, as a transition) natural gas and coal. They are still exhaustible and polluting resources, but better as a transition fuel than petrolium.

Bottom Line - Get off oil. Get off now.

The Liberal Media

I was recently framed as a child-killer.

Not directly. It was passive association, really, and very vague. But it was there nonetheless. I don't know if anyone still watches 60 minutes, but last week, there I was, framed for killing children in Hong Kong by recycling computers. I didn't mean to.

Not that I'm really that upset about my association with that, I was trying to do a good thing, as was everyone else at that event. And, yes, given some research, I do believe that even the owner of the company in Englewood was trying to do a good thing. There were a series of steps that the box went through (and a variety of companies, not all American), before it got to Hong Kong.

I just think it's interesting that the media can so easily spin something that they claim as investigative to create a negative connotation regarding someone. They claim it's investigative journalism, they claim that they are trying to expose people who are exploiting others, to reveal the truth and bring justice to those who can't speak for themselves. But are they really being objective? Can they really uncover the truth?

The media, regardless of the image they try to convey, is a business. They have to capture and audience, and be interesting enough to generate a profit. And that's really what media is all about. It's just another integral part of our capitalist system. They have to find the stories that will generate the best pictures and capture the audience. So how much can we really trust the media? In that 60 minutes episode, what exactly did they leave out (or not bother to figure out)? And how come we give the media so much credibility? Was 9/11 a consipiracy? Is there information that the government is not giving us about the JFK assination? Not to critique investigative journalism, or uncovering the truth, but since Watergate and Vietnam, it seems like the media and politics have not been on the same side. FDR successfully used the media to win 4 elections.... but since then (although, some say Barack Obama's use of the internet is progressive) no politician has seen the media as an ally. So, although media sources can balance each other, it all comes down to this: What are we not being told?

Taxes

With the recent election, I think it's interesting, all this buzz about taxes. I understand both sides, and don't really know if I truly support one side over another. But, I do think it's interesting to see the American People's reaction to taxes. Here in Denver, on election day, Denver Public Schools passed a tax raise to increase funding for their struggling schools. But in Douglas County, one of the more affluent counties in the area, a simmilar tax failed to pass. Hmmm.......

I think it's fascinating that the American people pay some of the lowest taxes in the world, and yet we continue to hold tightly to all that we have. Our schools are struggling, roads in disrepair, economy and energy situation in crisis, and yet $3.50 a gallon for gas is too expensive, despite already heavily subsidized prices. We have, in my interpretation, this sense of greed, general distrust, and entitlement. We want the best out of everything without giving anything. (I'm being cynical here, this isn't entirely true.) People are willing, in this struggling economy, to pay $1000 for a super bowl ticket, but not $200 a year in property taxes to assist a struggling community. Why is that? Why is it that we feel that we must be allowed to spend our money how we choose, despite the desperate need of some, and the failing state of some of our communities? How can people justify sending their children to schools that are failing to employ enough teachers and spend money doing frivilous things?

Isn't it the job of the government, and of citizens as members of a larger community, to hold one another accountable, to support one another, and to carry each other through times of crisis? How does keeping reasonable and logical taxes fit into that?

I don't pretend to have an answer, or know the solution. I am not an economic specialist (or a specialist at all, really). I'm just wondering. And what, if not raise taxes, are we going to do about our floundering infrastructure?

Election

Barack Obama won. I'm sure everyone knows that by now, but the sound of it, a resonating "President Obama," still makes my heart sing. : ) Throughout my short life, I can recall very few political events, and none like this. In my much younger years, I vaguely recall the Monica Lewinsky Scandal, though I knew nothing about it at the time, and since then few snippets of political happenings. The 2000 elections with the Florida recount crisis, 9/11, the invasion of Iraq, the 2004 elections, and few political speeches in between. At the time, I did not even remotely understand the implications or importance of what was going on, the decisions that were being made. It was simply happening, and something that we tried to talk about in school without much success, or understanding.

But this year, this time, I remember. And I understand. It's phenomenal, the transformation I have seen in myself. I can remember the first time I heard Barack Obama's name, at a book signing in Denver in late 2005. And since then, I have grown from a skeptic to a passionate supporter. Finally, I've begun to think for myself, to realize my own political clout, as well as others. And the importance of the American political process.

The years in which I have grown up have been dismal, as far as political stance and pride go. Travelling, and hearing of others' travels, made me understand that America was hated, looked down upon, worldwide. I felt the need to defy American sterotypes, to bridge my heritage and redeem, by some small action, my corner of the American image.

Although the elections are over (and how delightful they were, on most counts at least) I know this has been incrediby important. I (as a young, liberally leaning woman) have found myself inspired by our President-Elect. His rhetoric, yes, played a significant role. But more than that, the way he speaks of America, of his hertiage, of his pride, has made me the most proud I have ever been. Although my life has been short thus far, and I indeed have not paid that much attention to politics until this election season, I have found myself fascinated with modern politics. Barack Obama has inspired me in a way I didn't know was possible, has brought me hope and pride I have never felt before, and has, for me, awakened my political drive.

Although it was a close race, with valid arguments presented by all, fought hard by both sides, it is over now. Despite the residual tensions, the anger and frustration by all about one issue or another, it is my hope that we can take a lesson from Senator John McCain. His gracious and heartfelt acceptance speech was humbling and refreshing, and it is my hope that we can accept our differences, pick up the pieces of this battle, and move together behind our newly elected president. Because if we don't, that will be more divisive than anything else.

Energy - Offshore Drilling

Ok, so this is energy, part 2. Offshore drilling is such a big topic that it gets its own section. : )

Offshore drilling involves drilling into deepsea and/or continental shelf wells of oil reserves to extract and refine the oil for the consumer. Some people seem to think it's going to be a magic and quick fix to the oil problem. It's not. Here's the deal with offshore drilling:

1. It's incredibly expensive to remove the oil. The deeper it is, the more difficult (and hence more expensive) it is to get at. Even offshore drilling on the continental shelf is significantly more expensive than land drilling. Because it costs more to find it, produce and put in place the technology to remove it, remove it, and get it refined and to the consumer, the net energy is drastically reduced, and therefore becomes an incredibly inefficient way to produce energy.

2. It will take a while to get the oil out, and even when we do, it may not go into the American market. Just because it's "domestic" drilling (technically anything further than 12 miles offshore is international) doesn't mean that it's going to go directly into our market. The independent companies are going to sell the oil to the highest bidder - and that is most likely going to be China. We have some of the cheapest gas in the world right now (Europe pays between 6 and 9 dollars a gallon in many places, Canada about 5, and China about 6), and the government subsidies are growing because of the rapidly increasing demand and decreasing supply. Other countries are paying much higher prices than we are, and the gas will go to them first.

Now, there is a valid point that adding oil to the market, regardless of where it goes, will increase the overall supply and therefore lower prices, but the amount of oil we are going to get from our shores (and even our land), compared to the amount the world produces, is not going to lower the prices by much, esepcially with government subsidies.

3. Only about 35-70% of available oil is actually removed from the drilling site. This leaves us with open wells and unprofitable drilling riggs offshore. Often, the projected costs and net energy are calculated using the highest of these rates (anywhere from 60 - 100% extraction), and when less is removed, prices skyrocket, and net energy plummets.

4. Fish don't particularly like to swim around drilling rigs. The environmental impacts, the costs to restore lost fish populations, coral structures, and other damages match or often exceed the amount of profit made from offshore drilling rigs. And the impact can be deadly for some species. The highly concentrated human activity, particularly when setting up a rig, interferes with the natural cycle of fish reproduction, and since tropical fish and coral reefs are already sensitive to change, the damages outweigh the benefits. The risk of spillage, seepage, and other environmental damages have drastic and irrevocable consequences.

5. The net energy of oil from offshore drilling is much lower than that of other resources. The cost of setting up a rig, drilling into the continental shelf, protecting against environmental damages (which is often overlooked to increase profits), transporting the crude oil to a refinery, refining the oil into usable petrolium, transporting the petrolium around the country to be either put into cars and released, or further refined into other products such as plastics and rubbers, then, when the life of that product is up, appropriately disassembling it for degration, is enormous. Often, what we find is that the environmental protection and proper disassembling factors are largely ignored to increase profit.

Ultimately, it's a short term fix for a long term problem (which nobody can really deny), and we are eventually going to have to move on. Why should we waste resources and time and precious environmental land to fix soemthing that we wouldn't be fixing? See a problem yet?

Life

A recent series of events (some bigger than others) has led me to a new conclusion - Death is really nothing. And I mean that in a variety of ways. Death is something that we can't control, nor is it something we look forward too, and since we can't look back on it, it ultimately doesn't matter. Death should mean nothing.

But it does. In so many ways it defines who we are, who we become, and how we live our lives. Because it is such an overwhelming thing, to humans, we either ignore it completely, or are completely consumed by it.

But why? Why should we let our death define our life? There's no point. Number one, it just creates negative energy that is useless. In general, most people can't control when or how they die. Obviously, trying to skateboard across the highway or cliff dive into a shallow pool is not a good decision, and will probably increase your chances of death. But most people are rational enough not to do something like that. So, for example, lets say you are walking down the street, and are afraid that someone is going to jump out and mug you. You don't have any control over that, and if it is going to happen, it's going to happen regardless of whether you are afraid or not. So why worry? (Just a disclaimer - I'm not saying don't be aware of your surroundings.)

Also, my new theory is that regardless of what you believe about the afterlife - whether you are athiest or christian or hindu or muslim, I think something happens. According to Newton's laws, energy can be neither created nor destroyed. And, I would argue that there is something that creates life that is more than just neurons firing in your brain. If that were so, people wouldn't have personalities, quirks, and the human race wouldn't be where we are today. So, there must be something else out there. Some energy, some human force that makes us who we are. Something, be it a spirit or a ghost or just some amorphous blob of existence, that cannot be destroyed. It can change forms, but won't ever cease to exist. And that is how I have recently come to the conclusion that there is either, 1) an afterlife (in the judeo-chrisitan sense of the word), or 2) reincarnation. Maybe not reincarnation in full, maybe personalities splice and different traits go to different people, but something else. Beyond that, I don't know. But theres something.

And that brings us comfort. So now, the question becomes, why do you believe what you do? And do you really believe it?

Energy - The Problem

So, I was initially going to do this in one post, but the issue is so big and there is so much to discuss, that I think I'm going to do it in multiple sections.

The problem is as follows (at least as far as I am concerned)

1. The Culture of the United States is too oil-dependent. Everything from rubber to plastic is made from oil or oil derivatives. Many people don't consider how much oil they are really using. Even when buying a car, one must take into consideration the amount of oil that it takes not only to run the car, but to produce the materials, to transport them, assemble the car, to transport it, and to disassemble it.

2. Most of the oil the US uses is imported. Economics is driving foreign policy right now, and the ability of nations to withold their oil, or to impose taxes, etc. gives them a disproprtionate amount of power on the world stage. Although some of our oil comes from friendly countries, such as Canada and Mexico, others come from unfriendly countries such as Venezuela, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and other Middle eastern countries.

3. The US Government subsidizes oil usage in the United States. Because of the subsidies in the form (mostly) of tax breaks, the government is inadvertently perpetuating the use of oil over other technologies. When actual cost (including extraction, transportation, technology costs, and environmental impact costs without government subsidies) are compared, wind power is the cheapest to produce, transport, develop, and has the lowest environmental impact, relative to its net energy.

But, because the government reduces the cost of gasoline to the consumer, people don't bother to look at actual cost, and it becomes the cheapest and most effficient to the consumer. Because people have failed to use other types of energy, most companies who attemt to develop and use alternate energies fail or abandon their attempts in favor of petrol-based products.

4. Producing and burning oil and oil-derivative products damages the environment. Extracting it is incredibly hard on the environment. Although technology has gotten better, and many regulations have become laws, the technology still impacts the environments and many restoration laws are ignored. Burning oil adds carbon dioxide to the air, and in turn, compounds the warming of the globe. Although many other factors contribute to global warming, burning oil is (in my mind) undeniably contributing to the problem.

5. Oil is a non-renewable resource. And the US only holds 3% of it (as a generally accepted statistic).

Although there are many other factors that play into the development of an oil-based economy, and problems surrounding such a dependence, I would argue that these are the main ones. The problem manifested

Beginnings

During my short life (so far), I have discovered one thing, and one thing only, that is always true about politics. Nothing is ever what it seems. The political race this year is the only one that I am truly old enough to remember, or understand. And this is the first year that I have felt truly motivated to get involved in politics. That's one of the reasons I started this blog. I want to investigate, to the depth that time and resources will allow, what EXACTLY each candidate (both mainstream and third party) stands for, what attacks they are levying against the other side, and ultimately, the truth. Although, actually, all truth is relative, but that's a philosophy discussion I hope to get into later, not something for this late-night blog. I intend to, over the course of the next few weeks, get into the nitty gritty details of politics, with as objective a point of view as possible. I want to truly understand what I am voting for, and what exactly is going on in this strange world I inhabit. I will try to separate my political and moral views from what I research and write, but I will not always be able to do that perfectly. If anyone else is out there and listening to me rant, I would love ideas about issues, candidates, and anything I may have missed. : ) So, no time tonight to get into much of anything. I'll sign off, and get back to this later, but be looking for some new and exciting posts soon about the way I see it.