6-18-08 M. Stefan Strozier

ENERGY

President Bush today has called for lifting the decades-old ban on offshore drilling, and this is a good idea. Offshore oil rigs actually create marine habitat in the form of reefs. The arguments about this subject fall on two sides: those who say it won’t make a difference and hurt the environment and those who say it will yield oil quickly, and help America. These rigs will also create American jobs. I’ve also read that it’s better for America to manufacture its own oil, instead of paying for it from less savory sources. The argument that offshore oil well drilling will hurt the environment is inaccurate, and one of those arguments used to influence people through marketing efforts, rather than the truth. As for whether or not drilling will yield profits, that’s debatable, and once you start crunching numbers who can say accurately? It depends how you analyze the numbers that matters. The point is that we can’t predict the future. What if the green revolution is a failure? We need a backup plan, and producing our own oil is such a plan. Finally, the notion to tap into our strategic reserves is also useless talk, and something which will change little. I’m surprised to hear Obama even mention it. We should use up our strategic reserves – however long that will last us, maybe a couple months in a tough summer – and then move forward with a new plan. They amount to a bombing target and not much else, and cost money through maintenance. Congress is to blame here because they have taken no action. Too often the refrain is “that’s just how Washington works” but that’s not accurate, and never was the case prior to 1965. Think of FDR, or Kennedy, Eisenhower, Lincoln, Jefferson. There were men of action. But since the culture wars of the 1960s, everything must be carefully considered first and then nothing happens. Much could have been done for many years to avert our present crises. Congress’ low poll rating is well-deserved. Investing in solar, wind, etc. is great but the main motivation with doing that is emotional. It makes us feel good and happy to go green. People who want to be happy are a dangerous lot. The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

THE INTERNET

We invite anyone to contribute to our think tank and widen our reach. In looking at our competitors, I see they are simply sharing ideas. As with things like advertising or publishing, the Internet changes everything. Think tanks were much more influential when the “old media” was in place, and an expert could go on TV and share his ideas and people would take note. But with the Internet, there is no quote-unquote party line. The only line exists between those who grew up with the old media and those who did not. What is the role of a think tank, then, in the digital age? It is not the same as it was in times past. No matter who is writing for the Cato Institute, for example, what that person is writing might go altogether unnoticed. A “center” – let’s call it – should not seek to be a blog, like the Huffinton Post. That Web site is linked to many places and its main advantage is the speed with which it updates. A printed newspaper doesn’t stand a chance against the Huffinton Post. Bloggers create topics these days, like journalists used to do. So the role of a think tank is also to create ideas and stories, but at a much deeper level. Thus, we don’t need a lot of people writing for us, or need to be linked to everyone in the world. We – whoever ends up writing for CSPSAPC – simply needs to examine issues as in-depth as possible, and thinking about them does not necessarily mean graphs and charts, as this is not a corporation watching its bottom line grow. A few good writers and some good readers are all we need.