On the Treatment of 5th-Graders

Man, if Al Gore was right about one thing, it was those Internets. Without them, my intellectual contributions to the community of Thinking Men would be limited to my own head. If Gore was right about another thing, it’s that the use of fuel has become quite inconvenient. Clearly, with the price of a gallon of gas exceeding $4.00, oil, at least, is increasingly economically inconvenient. Despite claims and popular opinion to the contrary, though, the extent of its ecological inconvenience is still debatable.

Through the efforts of Gore and his audible legions, inquisitions into the actual danger and existence of man-made global warming have regrettably become taboo. Question any aspect of the Green movement and expect to be met with dismissive derision. To do so is to risk being called a conservative. Direct the question at Al Gore or Dartmouth College’s members of the Big Green Bus, two highly intelligent and extremely visible advocates of the movement, and they’ll treat you as though you’d lose magnificently in Are You Smarter than a 5th Grader?

For example, the Big Green Bus’ website, in an attempt to explain the wondrous effects of operating on vegetable oil rather than standard gasoline, employed the following illustration of the carbon cycle:



Of course, the suggestion here is that carbon emissions from an automobile using vegetable oil would have no net effect on the environment. Indeed, it seems to be a natural process. However, if the carbon cycle functioned in this perfectly cyclical manner, then how could carbon emissions from burning petroleum be harmful?

As it happens, many forms of biofuels, including that on which the Big Green Bus runs, are actually more pollutive than gas. However, the existing discourse suppresses this insubordination to the Green cause.

Meanwhile, Gore rebuts questions about the validity of his claims in An Inconvenient Truth and the existing debate in the scientific community about the extent of anthropogenic contributions to global warming with the following:

There's really not a debate in the mainstream scientific community. It is the most serious threat that our civilization has ever faced. Look at the fires out in California right now. Look at the epic flooding in the Midwest. Look at the stronger storms, and all predicted. The, the entire North Polar ice cap, Tom. Been there three million years, it's the size of the lower 48 states, and the scientists now say that there's a 75 percent chance it'll be completely gone during the summer in, in as little as five years. This is happening on our watch. We have got to respond.

There have never been floods or storms before? There have never been wildfires before? Strange, because it seems (please forgive my anecdotal evidence, Mr. Gore) that almost every summer there are rampant fires in California. And they are so dangerous because Californians are too afraid to permit necessary, controlled burns of underbrush.

Gore bases many of his assertions on a climate model developed by the UN, whose accuracy has been significantly discredited. A new study published in Physics and Society, a publication of the American Physical Society, notes that, at best, that model overstated the effect of CO2 on temperature by 500-2000%, if it isn’t completely unreliable. Meanwhile, despite Gore’s claims, several more studies reveal that the span and thickness of ice in the arctic is at near-record highs and that average earth-surface temperature has actually decreased in the last couple of years. Clarifying Gore’s claim of a consensus, a recent polling by the Association of Professional Engineers, Geologists and Geophysicists of Alberta of more than 51,000 scientists found that only 26% attributed global warming to “human activity like burning fossil fuels.”

So much for a consensus.

Now, I don’t doubt global warming exists or has existed until recently. I’ve seen enough seemingly reliable evidence to indicate that it is. Indeed, the world warmed and cooled on its own long before the avarice and recklessness of the Industrial Revolution provided us with the means to destroy the world ourselves. However, as an individual with a background merely in the social sciences, I do not purport to understand, in even the vaguest manner, the complexities of the hard sciences like Gore or most advocates of the Green Movement.

If the emission of greenhouse gasses does have an adverse effect on the climate, “emissions trading” is the most efficient policy to both deter pollution and then rectify the harm it causes. However, the efficient application of that policy requires that policy-makers understand the cost to society of a unit of pollution. And it seems that, as of yet, the members of the American Physical Society aren’t close to agreeing on the harm of a unit of pollution.

Considering that about 10% of United States’ GDP is expended on energy, overstating the effects of energy in an emissions-trading marketplace would represent an incredible waste of resources and could be economically disastrous. Unfortunately, many individuals and groups interested in “spreading awareness” about global warming have displayed an inclination for hyperbole and fabrication with the details of global warming.

Before proper policy can be made, further investigation into the causes and effects of global warming must first occur, while both politicians and their constituents must maintain an open mind about the actual ramifications of human activities.

On the Curse of Maurice Clarett

The United States Army officially notified Caleb Campbell, recent West Point graduate, on Wednesday that he would not be allowed to pursue a career in professional football without first fulfilling his obligations to the Army in a “full-time, traditional” manner. This mandate came shortly after the Department of Defense overruled the Army’s long-standing policy that permitted West Point graduates capable of playing professional sports to fulfill their obligations to the Army as recruiters if they were to make an active roster.

The policy change came a day before Campbell, a seventh-round draft pick of the Detroit Lions this year, was to report to Lions training camp and a day after Campbell reportedly agreed to a three-year contract with the Lions, though he had yet to sign it. A number of commentators have argued that the timing of change in the rule is the problematic issue in that it’s cruelly unfair to Campbell. I agree that if the military was in the business of fairness and comity, it will have undermined the credibility of its dealings in either.

However, beyond fairness, the timing of the rule change could be legally problematic, and he ought to be grandfathered in under the previous rule, an open contract Campbell could agree to. The Detroit Lions undertook costly actions to secure the rights to Campbell’s labor: they scouted him, exhausted one of their limited draft picks, and earmarked a portion of their similarly limited “rookie pool” salary to allot to Campbell in arranging a three-year contract, to which he reportedly verbally agreed. None of those would have happened had the Army’s long-standing policy not been in place.

Campbell and the Lions could plausibly fight this issue in court. Sadly, the Lions and Campbell likely won’t because Campbell isn’t a top prospect. The likelihood that he would have made the team is uncertain in the first place. To the Lions, Campbell’s value may not be worth much more than some undrafted rookie safety, whose talents wouldn’t come with the cost of legal fees and the possible public condemnation for interfering with military operations during a period of war. Out of deference to and a fear of affronting an employer he clearly respects, Campbell will doubtfully challenge the Defense Department’s mandate.

Or perhaps Campbell recalls the gloriously catastrophic career of Maurice Clarett and the result of his attempt to sue for the right to play in the NFL. And anyone in his right mind would take a promising career as a military officer over what Clarett has become.

On Shooting Up Fox

One of hip-hop’s few remaining respectable talents – indeed, my favorite – Nas and representatives of ColorOfChange.org attempted to deliver boxes filled with 620,127 signed petitions to Fox News’ headquarters in New York City yesterday. The petition claims that its signers want network president Roger Ailes to “find a solution to address racial stereotyping and hate-mongering before it hits the airwaves.”

In reality, the 620,217 petitioners merely sought to carry out a wanton attack on the one prominent news network whose commentators’ political opinions consistently do not reflect their own. When asked later that evening on the Colbert Report to explain his grievances with Fox News, Nas, a professional wordsmith, could not even muster the weakest anecdotal or circumstantial evidence of any transgression on the part of Fox News:

“I mean it’s obvious. Anybody that has eyes and ears can see that [Fox News anchor Bill O’Reilly] is out of control. He knows what he’s doing. You know what I mean? It’s out of line, and the things he’s saying is [sic] worse than the worst rap lyrics I’ve ever heard.”

Stephen Colbert couldn’t maintain his character in the face of Nas’ mind-numbingly hypocritical claim, pausing before responding, “O’Reilly?!” Presumably, Colbert's astonishment was partly the result of his familiarity with Nas’ own advocacy of murder in songs such as “Shoot ‘Em Up," the chorus of which is: “Shoot ‘em up. Just shoot ‘em up. What? Kill, kill, kill. Murder, murder, murder.”

Nas’ demonstration is merely one formal attestation to the more discouraging and shameful issue that a large, vocal sect of liberals – at least 620,127 strong – cannot tolerate views contrary to their own and the individuals who hold them. Despite regularly purporting themselves as the group of tolerance, many liberals cannot themselves tolerate the existence of conservative thought and have shown a willingness to act to stop its expression. Similar to the ColorOfChange’s demonstration yesterday, in 2005, Democratic Representative Maurice Hinchey led the attack on conservative talk radio, introducing legislation to restore the unconstitutional Fairness Doctrine, which endeavored to suppress conservative commentary on the radio.

The same ghastly intolerance motivated the deplorable actions of protestors at an anti-war demonstration last week in Santa Barbara, where individuals spat on a veteran of the Iraq War, repeatedly called him a rapist, and slung other profanities at him. This attitude compels, condones, and even encourages the hateful speech hurled at conservatives and President George W. Bush, in particular, heard on that same video, in Nas’ comments about O’Reilly, and over the course of the last 7.5 years.

Beyond blotting the respectability of progressives and their message at large, the hateful hypocrisy of this sizable sect of liberals further exacerbates the destructive partisan acrimony plaguing political discourse these days. This antidemocratic attitude undermines the respectful, intellectual dialogue necessary for constructive and responsible public policy. Sadly, this is just fine to this movement’s spokesman: “When [O’Reilly] wants to come holla at me, be ready for Hannibal Lecter," Nas said in 2007. "He don’t [sic] deserve an intelligent explanation.”

On Oozing Rashes

Brett Favre’s pesky “itch” to return to the NFL has developed into a festering, puss-spewing infection afflicting the Packers’ standing with their supporters, Favre’s remembrance (perhaps), and presumably Aaron Rodgers’ psyche. While ESPN’s degreeless, English-butchering “analysts” continue to debate the situation daily by mulling the same concerns of who’s being unfair to whom and the significance of Favre’s catharsis to Greta Van Susteren, two critical issues remain unconsidered by the professionals thinkers.

As with any decision between options, it is imperative to consider both the short-term and long-term impacts of the available options at hand. In the short-run it is unknown who is the better player, Favre or Rodgers. Favre played terrifically last year, playoff game-losing interceptions notwithstanding. However, each of the two years prior Favre played horribly. So, weighting each of the last three seasons equally, there is a 33.3% chance that Favre will be even a capable player this year. Weighting last season more because it’s more recent, there’s about a 50% chance he’ll be good again. Rodgers, meanwhile, played very well in the one game he saw considerable time last year, and even though it was also against a very good team, it would be irresponsible to assume his performance from less than one full game is representative of his performance over the same period. In the short-run, the benefits of the performance of Favre relative to that of Rodgers are uncertain, if unlikely. There are also the well-documented costs to the Packers of being perceived by their fans as having dissed one of the franchise's best players ever.

Most importantly, though, – and this is what has been completely absent from the discussion – are the long-term implications if the Packers decided to retain Favre as their starter. If Favre were to return as the team’s starter, Rodgers would spend the fourth year of his five-year contract as the team’s backup quarterback. Assuming Rodgers were to start the following year, the final year of his contract, the Packers will have invested five years of a first-round pick’s salary in Rodgers, and their return would be one season of production as a starter. (Of course, this were to depend on Favre abdicating after this season, a big contingency if he had his way.) Even worse than that, they would have only his production from his first season as a starter on which to base their decision of whether to offer him a contract the following year – and for how much and for how long. What if Rodgers got hurt in preseason next year? How would they decide on his career? Even if he stayed healthy, though, how many quarterbacks impress in their first year as a starter? How different would the career paths be of so many quarterbacks – and the successes of so many teams – be if teams had to make a long-term financial commitment to a player after just his first season? Troy Aikman and John Elway might have been cut from the Cowboys and Broncos. Worse yet! Vince Young might have landed an even greater commitment from the Titans.

Further still, how many quarterbacks, after three years as a starter would have merited a different outcome than ultimately happened? Byron Leftwich probably would still have a starting job in Jacksonville. (And he’d be successful.) And David Carr would still be holding back the Texans.

If the Packers’ dilemma is an issue of fairness, consider how dreadfully unfair it would be to Aaron Rodgers to allow him to enter free agency in what would be the beginning of the prime of his career without having had the opportunity to prove his abilities to potential employers. Any contract offer he would receive would be diluted with caution and uncertainty. Not allowing Rodgers to capitalize on his professional talents at the peak of their value in the labor market, out of deference for the dithering desires of another washed up player, would truly be what is unfair here.

It isn’t an issue of fairness, though. It’s one of what is in the Packers’ best interest. And the Packers need to be able to know if Rodgers should be the team’s long-term quarterback. That requires that Rodgers be the team’s starting quarterback for at least two seasons, of which this year will be the first.

So the Packers should let Favre’s itch and hurt feelings fester all they want. They’re making the prudent decision to kick him to the curb, even if most haven’t yet realized why.

Introduction

I’m a late entrant to the “blog-o-sphere” so I don’t expect to be creating a deadspin.com or dickmorris.com any time soon – or ever – but I would like to voice opinions on matters that the media at large, politicians, "analysts", athletes and/or other relevant individuals have not expressed entirely or adequately.

Since I am a late entrant, I expect my first several entries will be on topics that have already been heavily traversed: the Iraqi War, McCain v. Obama, Brett Favre's return, etc. I intend to do so because I believe my opinions on these matters are both highly significant to the conversation surrounding each issue and have been absent or inadequately presented to this point.

I expect my future posts will pertain mostly to current events in sports and politics. I'll probably digress into other nerd-related topics (ie. I'm planning on analyzing Risk strategies... and I'm an avid trading card collector) from time to time, too, though.

I look forward to contributing the public discourse and to hearing your thoughts on my thoughts.