National Review: Faith-Based Energy

Victor Davis Hanson has written an interesting editorial over at The National Review concerning President Obama's seeming distaste for expansion of domestic oil drilling. For the most part, he barks up a one-sided tree, as most opinion pieces seem to do, but he has valid questions and comments, until they're probed more deeply than most Americans care to bother.

Hanson's largest criticism of the Obama Administration's energy policy is their lack of expanded domestic oil production, but he also raises questions about the true power of OPEC in relation to the international oil market, as well as the possibility of the complete elimination of America's dependency on foreign energy. That final comment -- that America needs to reduce our intake of non-domestic product -- is entirely accurate. We are currently operating on a decades old energy policy that dictates an incredibly lopsided intake of crude oil compared to our domestic production, and that policy could only realistically be changed if the policy began at the White House. The other complaints mentioned by Mr. Hanson are, frankly, near-sighted. American oil reserves are less than 10% of the total reserves on the planet, and that number would only increase marginally if extraction was increased to allow for the exploitation of oil sands or further offshore drilling. The reality is that OPEC holds a monopoly on oil -- other sources may undercut their prices, but the supply of that cheaper oil would be so limited that it would have a minimal impact on the price per barrel.

Also, it bears mentioning that while the economic benefit of expanded drilling is questionable, the environmental impact is well-documented. In this time of increased global awareness, America would be best represented as a leader in internal environmental policy, as well as a proponent for cleaner energy sources.

It is true that the United States could be a short term powerhouse in the production and distribution of fossil fuels, but that policy would see us wrung dry in decades, with no recourse but to purchase fuel at whatever price it was offered. Once everything is said and done, I take solace in knowing that my gas is a fraction of the price that drivers in Europe pay (in Ireland, for example, a liter of gasoline is over one and a half euros, which translates out to over $8 a gallon).

“Needful Things,” or “Birth Control Boogaloo”

Does the federal government, in its hotly contested plan to offer a national health insurance mandate, have the constitutional power and, frankly, the cajones to break a fundamental tenant of our society -- religious freedom? The debate rages on, fueled by rhetoric from pastors and congressmen that rally either side unto the day of reckoning. USA Today’s Editorial Board have one foot firmly planted in the conservative heartland, claiming that forcing employers who hold religious beliefs that do not allow the use of contraception to provide said contraception to their religiously diverse staff is a step too far. These shadowy, and apparently diverse, editors go on to claim that these rules, complete with exceptions for institutions that are entirely made up of individuals opposed to contraception, such as the Catholic Church, are an affront to the freedom to practice any religion, any way the practitioner sees fit.

I find this argument flaccid, at best. Freedom is the ability to choose how to live your life, not the ability to deny the choices of others. If an employer were to deny coverage of birth control, that employer would essentially be denying their employees the freedom of choice. It is true that the government wishes to deny that same “choice” -- namely, that employers would be required to offer birth control coverage, regardless of their own personal beliefs -- but that denial is in no way detrimental to the practice of religion, nor does it force immorality onto the employer. Even in the most extreme of circumstances, the enabler would most certainly be the federal government, and I think God would be sympathetic.

To be perfectly honest, I see no reason to articulate such one-sided rhetoric. These pieces are written solely for the benefit of those people who already agree with the opinion, especially in this instance, where so few facts are given, and the tone is that of moral outrage rather than logical reasoning. Likewise, the refuting editorial by Kathleen Sebelius was not written to change opinions, but to explain the reasoning behind the clause, which is common sense in the face of aggrieved morality, and that does not have a history of flowery outcomes. These pieces, that simmer the intricacies of moral topics down to a simple black and white argument, are the reason that we can no longer discuss politics or religion amongst polite company.