The SEC of History

Circumstances provide the great people of history with means and positions to be great. I agree with the theory that social, economic, and cultural circumstances are what move history. To put it more simply it should be said that history is moved by the social, economic, and cultural situations but the great leaders and philosophers make history. But to say that a single individual can actually move it, as in shape it to be what it is, is nothing more than arrogance. Granted, the more well known individuals of history have provided substantial contributions, whether by military, political or intellectual prowess. However, they, in and of themselves, could not move history, their contributions were a result of their current situation and/or environment. Someone would have to ask, is there a great man born every generation that can keep a culture or society alive, therefore, moving history along? Or, is it that the cultures and societies survive despite the lack of great leaders and philosophers?

The ability of a single person to move the events of a society is not possible. When an individual attempts to force change, as we can see in ancient Egypt when Amenhotep attempted to introduce the idea of monotheism, it can have disastrous effects. In the example given, too much emphasis was given to the religious change that everyday political affairs were neglected. The result was the loss of Syria and Palestine and the general discontent of the people. The Egyptian culture and society was so strong that one man could not change it, to do so would have required a major social, economic, and cultural disaster or breakdown. This is just one example of why the great man theory is not valid. Amenhotep made history. But he did not move it. We can again see this in the movie “The Sorceress” where a priest attempted to override the long standing traditions of a village. He attempted to do this via logic from the church’s perspective and out right force. Neither of these worked and the people of the village, specifically the women kept on with their practices and traditions in secret. In the end, a compromise was arranged and the traditions of old took on a new face but were still the same.

In the Western Sudan the thing that moved history in that region was its economic wealth. It was rich in gold and salt. Its history was maintained by oral traditions; therefore, there was no room for a great man. Given that stories are generally about individual persons some might mistake this for following the great man theory, but it lacks the ability to go beyond a few generations. Unless there is a great leader born in every generation or two so that at least one is alive at any given time to keep the culture and history moving, it is culture and society that keeps history moving.

In China, we have the contributions of a major philosopher, Confucius, which helped to establish a long lasting culture and society. Again we have something that might be a subscription to the great man theory. However, during the time of Confucius, China was in state of chaos. This state of chaos gave the ideas of Confucius an appeal that allowed them to take hold. If it were not for the times and conditions it would be highly improbable that these ideas would have taken hold. Those ideas represented a form of stability. Because of this state of affairs the ideas of one man helped to shape a society. But if the situation was of an amiable one it is doubtful that Confucius’ ideas would have even been though of, so, again, not the man but the situation, the social, economic, and cultural conditions, moved history. Confucius, just one man, made it into the annals of history because of his profound statements. He did not make into these annals because he moved; just that he had a major contribution.

Throughout all of history we can see several great leaders, such as Charlemagne, Caesar, Aristotle, Plato, Alexander the Great, and several more great people that it could almost be argued for the great man theory. But in all cases these great men were only in the right place at the right time. Usually the circumstances were of a chaotic nature or some state of disarray; thus, allowing these individuals to step up and take a stance to change things. If the situations were even slightly different it still remains a possibility that they could still be great but improbable that they would have made the same impacts or have even been the same person. For the theory of the great man to work there would have to be a great man born every generation or two to keep a culture or a society alive and history moving. Therefore, it is social, economic and cultural influences that continue to move history and assist the great people in making history. The making of history comes from the contributions an entity makes to the movement of history. An individual might have an opportunity to change the course of history but that individual can not move it by themselves, therefore we have the SEC of history, that regulatory agency of historical transactions.

Checks, Balances, Reality, Myths and the Patriot Act

The Patriot Act: Does it ignore the checks and balances of the constitution and infringe on citizens’ rights? Or, does it keep the checks and balances and preserve citizens’ rights? According to Viet Dish and Michael Battle it does both. Dish and Battle believe it does not infringe on our rights but actually protects them and embodies checks and balances. Both Dish and Battle agree that it is a necessary and helpful piece of legislation. I agree that the Patriot Act preserves checks, balances, and citizens’ rights. To give a better understanding of these statements, I will summarize the arguments presented by Viet Dish and Michael Battle, and provide an analysis of their articles, discussing how each made their arguments. Then, finally, concluding with why I agree.
Viet Dish’s article appeared in the periodical Human Events on 16 May 2005 under the title “Patriot Act Exemplifies Checks and Balances.” His argument is presented as a rebuttal to a group known as the PRCB or Patriots to Restore Checks and Balances that has been running a campaign of misinformation against the Patriot Act. Dish points out in several places where the PCRB has made claims that some aspects of the Patriot Act are unconstitutional. Specifically he cites Sections 213 (“sneak and peek”), 215 (“library”), and 802 (domestic terrorism) as the prime components of the PCRB’s campaign (Dish 7). Dish discusses each section in turn and shows how the PCRB is wrong.
With something of parallel agreement, Michael Battle argues in his article, “Reality vs. Myths,” how the Patriot Act helped break through the “legal ‘wall’ that prevented law enforcement and intelligence officials from sharing information” (12a). He argues that it protects civil liberties while still allowing law enforcement and prosecutors to prevent any more violent attacks within the United States. Battle argues that “it has been critical in helping us dismantle terrorist cells, disrupt terrorist plots and capture terrorists before they have been able to strike” (12a). He further argues that the state prior to the Patriot Act was one in which a group or individual, being investigated for a variety of reasons by different sets of independent investigators, was in fact plotting actions against the US. But the legal barriers (which are never detailed) prevented the sharing of information that would enable the law enforcement and the prosecutors to prevent much worse actions than what the independent investigations were trying to find.
Throughout both of these articles each author shows a significant ethos, the appeal to the author and his authority, on the subject. Dish, a law professor, shows through his word usage and logos that he is well informed and has conducted in depth research. He says, “To date, not one court or congressional committee has found evidence of any abuse of the powers under the Patriot Act” (Dish 7). He also notes that “not one civil action has been filed against the government under Section 223, which allows citizens to seek damages for any willful violations of the act.” (Dish 7) These statements show that he has done his research and also give him a standing where ethos is concerned.
Michael Battle gives a clear statement, “As a federal prosecutor,” to establish a definitive appeal to ethos (Battle 12a). The statement tells the reader that Battle knows what he is talking about. Battle furthers this by telling us about a case he worked on, in which he was investigating a terrorist cell. In the investigation preceding the Patriot Act his teams could not communicate the information they gathered among themselves, whereas, after the Patriot Act they were able to and, consequently, were able to stop this terrorist cell.
However, Dish and Battle differed in their use of pathos and logos, in that Dish used more logos than Battle, who used pathos the most. Dish’s strong appeal to logos helps the argument that the arguments of some organizations are untrue. Dish says, “To date, not one court or congressional committee has found evidence of any abuse of the powers under the Patriot Act.” Dish continues to argue that, even if they had been used, some have been used well before the Patriot Act came into being. He states, “Law enforcement officers have in fact utilized delayed-notice search warrants for decades.” He further argues: “the provision is more protective of constitutional freedoms than ordinary criminal procedure.” Where pathos is concerned, Dish seems to not have made an attempt; however, Battle did. (Dish 7)
Battle’s attempt at Pathos is achieved by the way the article is written. Battle wrote it from a personal perspective. He tells of his experience that before the Patriot Act, law enforcement officials and prosecutors had trouble with putting all the pieces of several investigations together. This brings the reader in and calls for him/her to give sympathy to what is said and the idea behind it.
Dish and Battle made their arguments in a comparison of the sentence structures of each author. It is noticeable that Battle uses a more simple form, neither too long nor complex. Dish use more complex and longer sentences. In reading each, a reader should notice how much easier it is to follow Battle’s conversational tone than Dish’s dry and academic tone. Through the uses of these different tactics the reader will notice that the more formal language of Dish gives off the definite logos (the appeal to logic) touch that it seems Dish was after; Battle’s casual tone, sentence structure, and word usage give off the definite pathos (the appeal to the readers’ emotions or sympathy) touch.
From the arguments presented by Battle and Dish, I agree that the Patriot Act gives law enforcement the tools that they need to maintain security and stop violent acts before they happen. Dish’s article shows through logic and fact that the government is trying to be proactive rather than reactive. History, especially September 11th 2001, shows that to be reactive allows for destruction and death, where as, proactive action, however controversial, has the potential to stop destruction and death before it happens, as can be seen when you combine Battle’s and Dish’s statements and the events of September 11th 2001.
Viet Dish’s citations of the most controversial elements of the Patriot Act bring to light the pro-activeness which allowed Michael Battle’s investigation to succeed. Michael Battle’s investigation supports Viet Dish’s argument, thus, giving a reasonable argument supporting the necessity and validity of the Patriot Act, and giving rise to my agreement and support of it.

Works Cited, all documents Posted

Battle, Michael. “Reality vs. Myths.” USA Today; 21 July 2005:12a. EBSCOhost “Academic Search Premier” http://www.epnet.com. University of Idaho Library 18 Oct 2005.

Bidstrup, Scott. "Gay Marriage: The Arguments and the Motives" http://www.bidstrup.com/marriage.htm, 30 December 2006

Dickinson, Tim and Stein, Jonathan. “Chronicle of a War Foretold.” Mother Jones; October 2006, 61-69.

Dish, Viet. “ Patriot Act Exemplifies Checks and Balances.” Human Events 61/17 (2005): 7. EBSCOhost “Academic Search Premier” www.epnet.com. University of Idaho Library 18 Oct 2005.

Krauthammer, Charles. “Let’s Have No More Monkey Trials.” Time 166/6 (2005):78. Academic Search Premier EBSCOhost. University of Idaho. 9/30/2005
www.epnet.com.

Larocca, James L. “We need to talk about the war.” Long Island Business News; 29 Sept. 2006, 53: 41, 12A. MasterFILE Premier 28 Nov. 2006.

McQuillan, Laurence. “Bush puts first price tag on the war: $74.7 billion.” USA Today; 25 Mar. 2006, 9A. Academic Search Premier 28 Nov. 2006.

Powell, Bill. “IRAQ: The Hidden Cost of Peace (cover story).” Fortune; 147: 6, 81-82. Academic Search Premier 28 Nov. 2006.

*Unger, Craig. “THE WAR THEY WANTED, THE LIES THEY NEEDED.” Vanity Fair; 7/2006, Issue 551, 92-156. MasterFILE Premier 28 Nov. 2006.
U.S. Government, Office of Management and Budget. “Defense Budget.” http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/pdf/Defense-07.pdf; 1-2. 25 Nov. 2006.

* cited in document as printed pages 1-18.

The Monkeys Are Having Another Trial?

Monkey’s have trials? No, however there are human court trials that bring out the monkey in us all. These trials are part of an on going debate of religion vs. evolution. Charles Krauthammer is giving us his side as well as a bit of history of the on going debate. Here I provide a summary and analysis of Krauthammer’s article and a bit of my own thoughts on the subject.
In his article, “Let’s Have No more Monkey Trials,” printed in Time on August 8th, 2005, Charles Krauthammer discusses religion invading science. He points out in the first paragraph how the nation is fed up with organizations, such as the A.C.L.U., limiting the freedom of religion. Which then leads to the discussion of conservative school-boards “attempting to rewrite statewide standards for teaching evolution” and how the Catholic Church views science and evolution. Thus leading to the discussion of why religion cannot replace science. Krauthammer then provides some historical reference to the continuation of the religion versus science argument. This then leads to Krauthammer’s position or point of view for this article. Krauthammer’s statement “What we are witnessing now is a frontier violation by the forces of religion.” From which Krauthammer goes on to show that science is not encroaching on the territory of religion and questions the validity of religion trying to fill the holes that science is not able to fill at this time. He finally concludes with an argument that “To teach faith as science is to undermine the very idea of science…to discredit the welcome recent advances in…public expression of religion.” Through out all Krauthammer makes effective appeals to Pathos and Logos while his appeal to Ethos is weak. I’ll discuss these in the following paragraphs.
First I’ll start with Krauthammer’s attempt at Pathos. The respect for religion, shown by his statements "most salutary restoration," "welcome recent advance in permitting the public expression of religion," (78) reflects a great attempt at pathos, while attempting to argue that religion has no place in the scientific field or class.

The attempt at Ethos that Krauthammer makes is best shown through in his use of historical references, statements involving historical debates like this one between "…Dutch clergyman and astronomer David Fabricius, who could not accept Johannes Kepler's discovery of elliptical planetary orbits. Why? Because the circle is so pure and perfect that reason must reject anything less." (78) Krauthammer’s idea is to show that he has done some homework and to show the reader that this debate is not new. But, it appears to me that it is a weak attempt because he could provide some more evidence that reflects what science has done to prove this and other things concerning evolution and Intelligent Design.
However, this evidence does feed Krauthammer’s attempt at Logos. The Logos of Krauthammer’s is that science and religion are too different in their thoughts and processes that neither can be taught as the other. In the second and conclusion paragraphs he states that religion can only undermine its resurgence except by imposing itself on science. He argues that “To teach faith as science is to undermine the very idea of science. To teach it as science is to discredit the welcome recent advances in permitting the public expression of religion.” (78) Here Krauthammer states his meaning, religion can not be science and science cannot be religion. Where there are gaps in science, religion should not make attempts to explain them. Thus the argument finds its basis in the question of religion's place in the classroom. Krauthammer states that "if you believe that science is reason” and “reason begins with recognizing” the “existence of an immanent providence, then this is science.” (78) However, Krauthammer argues that these ideas are not what science is. He says “Science begins not with first principles but…observation and experimentation.” (78) These statements follow a definite linear logic. The basis of the whole argument is that where facts are given and where the ideas of religion have been disproved, religion can not fill in for science. Science is not religion and religion is not science.
However, for an effective and objective debate, Krauthammer’s article includes very little information or evidence. The only facts or evidence, he presents are a speech by Christoph Cardinal Schonborn of Vienna (paraphrased), and historical data based on an argument between a Dutch clergyman and astronomer and another astronomer concerning elliptical orbits, and his definition of science, as quoted in the previous paragraph. Otherwise he presents nothing more than his own opinion. What should be added on his part are evidence showing what intelligent design is, what science does and does not know, and what could happen should the two be mixed in a science classroom.

Despite the lack of helpful evidence, Krauthammer’s choice of words could have an important impact in persuading a reader to align themselves with his ideas and arguments. Words with strong connotation like “invasion,” “undermine,” “gratuitous attempts,” “modern step child,” “most powerful and elegant,” and “bedrock,” all of which would carry some strong connotations for those easily swayed or of a like mind. They also show how negative Krauthammer is toward Intelligent Design. Like most articles of this sort, he is looking to “preach to the choir”, as it were. Krauthammer is making an attempt to rally or rile up those against Intelligent Design while not trying to get himself branded as an extremist.

Like the choice of words, Krauthammer’s use of long and complex sentence structure with moderate language shows that he is a somewhat knowledgeable person that wishes to be understood by a broad audience. I would also say that the use of this strategy helps to shield him from too much general criticism. The sentence structure also helps to hide the limited amount of support he has produced for his argument. After reading the whole article an average reader would either absolutely disagree or absolutely agree. If Krauthammer were to have used shorter less complex sentence structure, he would have not been able to make his point as clearly, and he would have had to put in a lot more supporting evidence and arguments.
Overall, Krauthammer made an effective opinion based argument. However, to truly argue the point Krauthammer needs more evidence. He lacks evidence in showing that science is right or that religion is wrong. Or that either should stay out of the way of the other. At this juncture, the argument of evolution and creation or intelligent design, either could be accurate. From my point of view, both are right. I have found that the development of the universe is neither by pure chance or physics, nor by an actual creator. I tend to believe that, in a way to put it, the universe is like a computer program; a program written in such a fashion that it is learning, or develops from other input, similar to when a scientist combines two molecules and comes up with a new substance. With the advancement of quantum physics and quantum mechanics this idea is becoming more and more real. From all this, it could be said that where Krauthammer argues against the religion filling the wholes of science, it may be possible religion can. Religion would need to change some of its philosophies and maybe incorporate some science, but it possibly could. Unfortunately, I do not have enough background knowledge to argue this case further. Krauthammer does not change my mind on any matter, nor does he really persuade me to change my views. From his article all that has changed for me is that I have developed an interest in learning more about Intelligent Design. Neither side seems to have a clear claim to the development of the universe or Homo Sapiens-Sapiens. When all is considered, as far as Krauthammer’s article is concerned, the argument and debate needs more time and evidence or maybe some more monkey trials. Or, should it be said, more trials by monkeys?

Janitor’s Perspective of the Palouse Mall

In contrast the Palouse Empire Mall has busy and slow days. This has not in the time I that have been employed there been more evident than this weekend. Saturday was extremely busy. Sunday was the slowest I have seen the Mall.
When the Mall is slow the smells from the restaurants are fresh and enticing. The popcorn trails, the drink spills, and the trash are all in short supply. The halls are quiet and pleasant allowing for contemplation as the janitor walks up and down them. There are no calls for garbage pick ups, no calls for spill clean ups and no calls for various other reasons. The pager does not go off once. Giving a janitor time to consider his homework for classes and time to get to the side jobs he does not otherwise have time for.
The smells of food and coffee are welcoming and enjoyable. The mall music can be heard; normally it consists of a variety of genres. Thus, the music makes the shift seem to go quicker. He has time to stop and have a snack or have a cup of coffee with a merchant or two. These are the days to stop him and ask how he is doing and were the restrooms are.
When it is busy a janitor can hardly move through the halls with his cart. The pager seems to go off every other minute. He seems to be going non-stop; going up with a big gray garbage cart, coming back with a load of boxes and smelly, leaky bags. It is on these days that he gets calls for spill clean ups, is chasing trails of popcorn, and is dumping garbage continuously. It never seems to end on these days. Closing time is something he looks forward to, until he goes down the halls for the final clean up and sees that there are spills he did not get to or see before.
The smells of food and coffee are his bane on these days. They mean messes and trash and endless calls. These days are the days not to talk to a janitor. On these days do not ask him where the restrooms are, he has to clean them as well, or how he is doing. You are likely to get a short answer that will amount to “I am very busy. Is there something I can do for you?” spoken in rushed, short, curt tone of voice.
As a janitor I appeal to Pathos by calling attention to the restrooms. Customers use them all the time and seem to not care if they make a mess. I hope to make my readers aware that someone does have to clean them. During busy days the messed up restrooms make a janitor’s day even more unpleasant. But on slow days he has time to keep them up, so it does not seem so unpleasant.
For Ethos I try to bring my voice into use by carrying an almost conversational tone. As a writer I have found that conversational tone gives the best impression of my self. I also chose my observation to be that of something I am familiar with and that can possess a positive and negative view of which I can use my experience to validate or support it, to show the reader that this is not a light topic of some flippant curiosity such as a coffee shop or restaurant. Also, my intent is to show that what others do have a consequence on the work or life of another.
In appealing to Logos I try to bring in a rationale that not getting called continuously for other peoples’ messes helps to make him more pleasant, friendly, and helpful. I hoped to relate that crowds hamper the effectiveness of a janitor’s work in the hope that someone might realize this and offer to clear a path or put the paper-towel they used in the waste bin. Finally, I want to show that a janitor is not just a person who pushes a broom or mop but also someone who is in the business of customer service.

Nuclear Energy, another Bush Policy Debate?

In the Bush Administration’s National Energy Policy(NEP): Reliable, Affordable, and Environmentally Sound Energy for America’s Future, Vice President Cheney and an energy taskforce wrote that nuclear power is a safe and reliable energy source and the industry has a good record. This is evidenced by the NEP’s statement that nuclear reactors “have dependable record” and they “discharge no greenhouse gases”. [Bush Administration’s National Energy Policy (NEP): Reliable, Affordable, and Environmentally Sound Energy for America’s Future] Nuclear power also generates 20 percent of the nation’s power and for ten states it accounts for 40 percent according NEP. Although this excerpt, found in The Allyn & Bacon Guide to Writing, brief edition, forth edition, by John D. Ramage, John C Bean, and June Johnson, pg 91, does not give us all the information that is surrounding the article, it can be seen that there is not an argument for the other side of the topic. There is no discussion of meltdowns, accidents, or other hazards, such as what to do with the waste. In the next article we get to see the other side a little.
This next article written by columnist Marianne Means in an op-ed piece published by Hearst Newspapers on April 12th, 2001, entitled “Bush, Cheney Will face Wall of Opposition If They Try to Resurrect Nuclear Power” is a definite challenge to the idea of nuclear power. Marianne Means’ point of view here is that people will not stand for such a potentially deadly power source to be used. Ms. Means stated that “The industry has been moribund in this country since the partial meltdown at Three Mile Island more than two decades ago set off fierce emotional resistance to an unreliable technology capable of accidentally spreading deadly radiation”. [Means, Marianne, op-ed, “Bush, Cheney Will face Wall of Opposition If they Try to Resurrect Nuclear Power”, published by Hearst Newspapers, April 12th, 2001] Ms. Means also brings up the argument about the waste. The NEP only said “Provide for the safe expansion of nuclear energy by establishing a national repository for nuclear waste”. [NEP] Ms Means points out “No state wants to be the repository of the more than 40,000 tons of high-level nuclear waste currently accumulating at 103 commercial reactor sites around the country.” [Means] However, she like the NEP does not give the other side. Ms. Means neglects to discuss improvements in reactor functions, and safeguards that have been put in place since the meltdown or to propose an idea for the safe disposal of waste.
A point to make about both articles, neither article says anything specific about the problems or benefits of nuclear energy. NEP only says, provides no proof, that reactors or plants are safe and effective. Means mainly points out the human perspective. For a person to really understand the debate one must look in depth by researching the nuclear power industry, safety upgrades and regulations, waste disposal proposals, and efficiency and economic factors.

Give Up Some Rights to Fight Terrorism?

It is a good idea to limit or moderate certain liberties and rights. I say this because when terrorists come to out country they basically have the same rights we do as natural or naturalized citizens. Thus, they can perform the same things we can without someone asking anything.
Let’s say, for example, John the terrorist goes into an explosive shop and wants to buy two thousand dollars worth of explosives. He pays in cash. This should perk the clerk’s curiosity, but anyone can pay in cash if they so please. So, the clerk thinks nothing of this. A couple of days later a building is blown up and hundreds or thousands of people die.
The clerk could or would have been able to stop this if he simply had to ask John for a permit or some other proof that he needed the explosives. To get this John would have had to provide information about his person. Undergo an investigation of his background, and various other privacy invasive things. But now, because of the Patriot Act and Homeland Security Act, John would have to apply for a permit and the spending of two thousand in cash is a red flag to tip the clerk that he should have extra proof of John’s intent or at least report the transaction to the authorities.
However, to relinquish these rights to the government, will likely lead to further infringement of our rights. If one takes a look at the history of our government and their promises to return things they “borrow”, you will find that they do not. An example is Social Security. During World War Two the government need more money to help pay for the war, they asked for the use of Social Security. They got it but forgot to return it. They still count it as part of the general treasury. Hence, we hear the argument that we can not privatize it because of the loss to the treasury.
So, if we let them “borrow” our freedom of speech, right to privacy, and any others in the name of National Security, they will argue that other liberties and rights are hampering the effort to fight terrorism. Thereby, opening the flood gates of a government that no longer meets the one our founding documents proposed and the people accepted.
No, I say it is time that some actually do something. It is time for the people and the government to get kicked into gear as far as working to defend and secure as well as to maintain our own economy, life, and overall country. Pull our noses out of our neighbors’ business and focus on our problems. As a wise man once stated (I may be paraphrasing as it has come through so many sources I can not remember who told me the first time) “take care of your house first, then with what is left help others”. Terrorists would cease to attack us if we do not impose our will on them or their economy. We must understand that we can not fight wars for others all the time. We must understand that there are a multitude of cultures and beliefs. We must realize we really are not a supper power in the rights and beliefs department. Once all these things are realized and we try to work with rather than be overlords to the world, we will see the brighter side of things and become wealthy not only in economics but in culture.

However, despite all of this I do think we should put limitations on those who visit or have not lived here for very long. But, we must be careful not to let slip our own rights, lest we lose all that we have fought for and gained in the last couple of centuries. So no, we do not need to sacrifice rights or liberties, we may need to limit some liberties that are potentially harmful. But not to sacrifice, ask for moderation. In all truth, I feel that is the best way to handle these difficult times. To give up even part of our freedoms would in a way be supporting the terrorists. How many come from countries that are ruled by a dictator or rebellious groups that put whole populations below the dirt in value and/or treatment? Is this how we want to end up? Moderation, will keep us in line with the foundations of our country and beliefs in what it should be. Sacrifice puts us in line with the terrorists’ and their supports’ ideas for our country and beliefs.

What will happen when the oil is gone?

Fuel and energy consumption is growing exponentially. Governments and corporations seem to be unwilling to make plans for the near term or for reducing consumption and long range plans for developing alternative fuel and power. So, this question must be asked, what is the world going to do when the oil runs out and the demand for power surpasses production or becomes so expensive that people cannot afford to drive, use electricity or even maintain industry?

Demand for oil based products is already high and getting higher. Here are some facts that shows in 1998 the consumption growth rate change was 0.8 percent, meaning that consumption grew 0.8 percent over the previous year. The following year, 1999, consumption grew 1.7 percent. It was estimated that the growth rate for 2000 would be 2.4 percent. These figures show that consumption is growing exponentially. As a result, soon prices will sky rocket. Debt will increase as people struggle to pay for even the basic necessities. When all is said and done, bankruptcy will be the word of the day.

Individual desires for large, fuel guzzling vehicles, household appliances, and other gadgetry will only fuel this crisis more, as auto makers and other manufacturers design and build according to what consumers buy. Mr. William Clay Ford, Jr. is interpreted saying, by Danny Hakim of the New York Times on April 18th, 2004 in the article “A Fuel-Saving Proposal From Your Automaker: Tax the gas”, “customers want bigger and faster Cars… not efficient ones.” So long as consumers buy, thereby demanding, auto and appliance makers will fight regulation and continue to assist in increasing the overall demand for energy and fuel. The Bush Administration supports this in its National Energy Policy by stating that “over the next 20 years, U.S. oil consumption will increase by 33 percent, natural gas…by 50 percent, and electricity…by 45 percent.”

As a result of the afore mentioned analysis the Administration plans to increase domestic production of even more oil, gas, and coal, further increasing the depletion of the reserves. But on the bright side, the Administration does propose using more diverse power sources such as hydropower, nuclear power and other non-hydro renewable sources currently at hand. However, they make no provision for transportation, except to increase oil production.

We, the world, need to figure out a reasonable but fast solution. Otherwise, we could experience a regression to a pre-industrial society.