A Failure To Discriminate

One the the most memorable lines, if you're a movie buff, from the '60's is the line from Strother Martin: "What we've got here is a failure to communicate." (Cool Hand Luke, 1967.)

It was a much more polite way of saying, "hey, you're not listening." It puts the onus of responsibility for this failure directly upon the person receiving the information. And it foreshadows future consequences for future actions.

Discrimination is one of those words that has been tagged for eventual elimination. But, what we've got here is a failure to discriminate.

The word "discrimination" got tagged this way in the 1960's, as federal laws were put into place to prohibit the practice of discrimination. That is to say, where discrimination was based upon race--or in a more practical definition, the color of ones' skin--that practise was to end. A brief history could be written here, but for our purpose we will make do with a reference to Brown v. School Board and later federal legislation referred to as Civil Rights legislation.

People who opposed the Civil Rights Movement failed to understand the intent and language of our nation's 14th, 15th and 16th Amendments. What those acts did was to effectively extend the individual rights of a citizen enumerated in the Constitution (and its amendments) to individual citizens living in the separate states. The resultant effects of those amendments are still being debated in much more rarified environments than found here.

What was made law was that for reasons of race, gender and religious belief, discrimination in public accomodation, housing, employment and education was ended. At least by legislative act, although the implementation of this prohibition occasionally hits the wall of practise.

Illegal discrimination is a practise that is, and should be, shunned. But, is it necessary to remove the word "discrimination" from our practical lexicon? I would argue that it has been, and that the effect has been disastrous.

Punch into your choice of search engine the phrase "we will remove discrimination in all its forms". This phrase has been and is used a a guidon for the efforts to end the usefullness of the word. In an attempt to remove discrimination in all its forms, we are left with the responsibility to make practical, rational, choices without the benefits of choice's tool.

The power to discriminate.

Let's take a look at one definition of "discriminate" from Merriam-Webster's Second Edition: "To separate (like things) one from another in comprehension or use by discerning the minute differences."

It is in this form of discrimination that we gain such an important, useful and practical tool. And the one tool that will be necessary for us to make appropriate decisions, both politically and in the direction and the curriculum we want our education system, our public schools, to take in educating our kids.

There is a current trend, in education and politics, to blur the distinctions between "like things" in making decisions about appropriate or practical things. The best example of this failure to discriminate is in the current public discussion over energy.

Your governor, your democrat politicians, your public schools' teachers are telling you--and your kids--that we need to place investment emphasis on forms of energy production that currently aren't used.

So, let's just take a look at that statement and attempt a little discrimination. The governor, the Left's political leaders, and the teachers in your public schools are telling you and your kids that the only investment that they want to see in energy production are in areas that we currently don't use. That is to say, when it comes to electricity produced by geo-thermal sources, wind sources, solar sources, wave sources, we don't currently use these sources to produce electricity. The reason why is simple to discern. They either don't work efficiently, dependably or at all.

What are our efficient, dependable sources of energy, that work? You know what they are. It's oil, natural gas, hydro, coal and nuclear. Why are they efficient? Because the value of the product they produce--electricity--is worth more to the consumer of that energy than the utilized resource is by itself. That is, the utilization of the resource, from building oil wells and refineries, gas wells and pipelines, dams, and coal and nuclear power plants creates a value greater than the cost of these resource uses.

How can we define this additional value? Perhaps an economist would point to the profits associated with this resource utilization. Men, either acting individually or in association with one another, will pursue the ends of producing usable power from these resources without the intervention of government. These are practical sources of power. Their efficiency is indicated by the spread between cost of production and the demand for its use. People are willing to spend a lot of money on affordable energy sources. But what is happening now is not the same practical process of decision-making. What is being suggested, both by Lefty politicians and public school teachers is something different in type and kind.

The decision has been made--by some--to deny us, the people of the United States, access to our natural resources. On a day that environmentalists are celebrating the addition of another 8,600 acres of Oregon resources to those which have been locked away from use, development and benefit to all Oregonians for the benefit of some, locally the debate to use a natural resource has centered around the decision to dig a trench, and then cover it back up.

Leftists and public school teachers have gotten to the point where we cannot--or they cannot--discriminate between the practical and the impractical. In an earlier post I pointed out an article from the Daily Astoria that talked about Northwest Natural Gas building a new supply line to Astoria, for its customers in Clatsop county. That's a good idea. And when you're building a new trench line, it's a practical idea.

But what the Leftists and public school teachers are saying, and telling your kids, is that we need to do something else. Instead of natural gas, we should be spending our time and wealth attempting to use wave, solar and wind energy to light our homes and power our factories.

And yet none of these technologies have been shown able to produce a profit to those who choose to use them. So, just like the terrible gasoline (ethanol) that we're forced to use to drive our cars, the Leftists and public school teachers assert that we must mandate the use of wave, solar and wind energy. Or, that they advocate terrible energy choices that shows they have no ability to discriminate between practical ideas and impractical ideas.

How do people, or groups of people, end up adopting impractical ideas that they put time, energy and wealth into? Well, they want to change the world.

What do your school kids hear when asked about business in America? It's all about the evil corporations and their greed. See, rather than being a report card on the success of businesses activity, profits are evil. Rather than serving as proof of the practicality of a business activity, it is the impractical that gains their support, because there isn't any profit! Profits are bad, corporations are bad. And do I even need to mention the regard with which these folks view Republicans?

What motivates this great impracticality? A failure to discriminate between practical and impractical ideas.

I don't know what is worse, having politicians who are unable to make practical decisions, or knowing that our school kids are being taught that these impractical ideas are the "right" ideas. I recall a conversation I had with a school kid last year who asked a simple question. The question was, what advantages, what was the good, that could result as gas prices increased?

I immediately thought about the good for America of keeping more of our money here in America. One of the economic reasons for our failure to utilize our nation's shale oil resources has been the comparative price advantage of importing foreign oil. You've probably heard that this nation has vast oil resources, resources that have lain untapped because the comparative cost of production is significantly higher than the price we pay to import oil.

I also pointed out that another good result for America was developing new energy from America's coal reserves. As I'm sure you know, America has vast reserves in coal. The money for extraction, transportation and utilization would all be for American workers and American companies.

I asked him if he had ever been to Ranier High School. He had, so I asked if he knew how they were able to build such a fantastic facility in such a small community? It was a huge advantage to the parents and children of the Ranier School District to have a community partner like the Trojan Power Plant. Rather than maintain the facility, and continue to provide the region with cheap electricity (Trojan represented twelve percent of Oregon's total energy production) the company decided to fold up its tents and move on. Opposition from Leftists and school teachers made keeping the plant open a greater liability than a benefit to the company that owned the plant.

Take a look at Ranier High School now. See the results of a declining economic base. It's really, quite sad.

But these people--Leftists and public school teachers--have never let the practicality of an idea influence their thinking. Even in the case of Ranier's public schools. Even to the detriment of the children of the district.

Discrimination. "To separate (like things) one from another in comprehension or use by discerning the minute differences."

Energy is energy, right? So what's the difference between advocating LNG and solar power? They are like things. So what are the "minute differences"?

You should really think hard before signing up for the "Change!" school bus. One of the most disturbing statements I heard recently, attributed to an English teacher, was his comment that Republicans were bad because they were only concerned about profits. Indeed.

The young man I spoke with about the effects of high oil prices did do me one favour. I asked him what he did with the information I'd given him about energy choices and he handed me a paper he had written for his Economics teacher. In it he wrote that high energy prices meant that we were more likely to invest in wind, solar and wave energy.

I pointed out that we had talked about shale oil and coal. He pointed out that his "Economics" teacher had told him that the only real alternatives to foreign oil were wind, solar and wave energy.

Discrimination.

I started this posting thinking about a famous line from a movie. So, I'll end it the same way, this time with Melvin Udall's reply to the question of why he wrote "women so well?"

" I think of a man, and I take away reason and accountability. " (As Good As It Gets, 1997.)

I wish I could write like a Leftist or a school teacher. I wish I hadn't an ability to discriminate. But there you are. Maybe it will get easier after the "Change!"