Who's Lacking?

Well the old "atheism is a lack of belief" line was trotted out again recently, and sadly it was by an atheist. I really can't stand that phrase, and it's a definition that theists have tried to yoke us with for a LONG time. So long in fact that most atheists blindly accept it without thought. Well that's a huge mistake, and the reason is that word "lack". Let's examine what it means.

TheFreeDictionary.com:
lack
1. Deficiency or absence
2. A particular deficiency or absence
v. lacked, lack·ing, lacks
v.tr.
To be without or in need of
v.intr.
1. To be missing or deficient
2. To be in need of something

Merriam-Webster:
lack
1 : to be deficient or missing
2 : to be short or have need of something

Answers.com:
lacking:
1. Lacking an essential element: defective, deficient, incomplete, wanting.
2. Deficient in a usual or needed amount: absent, wanting. See excess/insufficiency/enough.
Not having a desirable element

Deficiency, to be in need of, defective, incomplete, wanting, not having a desired element - are these the things that reflect your relation to god belief? Are we deficient? Do we desire god belief? Do we wish for it? Well I certainly hope not. For those of us who never had it, I can't say we've missed out on something great. I'd say it's like missing out on getting hepatitis or crabs. For those of you who've gotten over your god belief, are you worse off now? Do you feel short of something now? Do you long for the days of delusion? Once again, I hope not.

If we're going to say anyone is lacking, I'd say it's the theist, not the atheist. The theist lacks a firm grip on reality, intellectual honesty, quite possibly empathy, and judging by postings online, I'd say the ability to spell or turn off their caps lock keys. What I've suggested as a more appropriate definition is:

atheism: the rejection of claims for the existence of a god or gods for lack of evidence

Short, sweet, and to the point. Implied is the scientific method, the process by which we, through evidence and experience, make rational decisions about the world around us. We're not going to take a claim on just faith, and we won't take an argument alone for something's existence, we require evidence. After all, you can't argue something into existence.

So feel free to use my definition, or if you can find a better one, go for it, but I urge you all to stop using "lack of belief". Don't allow yourself to be defined by theists. It's not like they have our best interest at heart.

Atheist Trick - Contrived Proof

One of our own has offered a false proof in order to persuade everyone to conclude that "a reasonable atheist cannot argue for the death penalty". Now that may be true, and you may even believe it's true, but as rational and logic loving people who strive for objectivity and who condemn others, namely theists, for failing to live up to these standards, it's all the more important to not simply accept this ridiculous argument because you like the conclusion it reaches. To do so would be intellectually dishonest and hypocritical. Likewise, you also can't in good conscience simply ignore it, or in some way excuse the behavior because you sympathize with his goal. That's classic ends justify the means thinking and is wrong. Once again, this is no different than religious moderates turning a blind eye to or somehow excusing acts of terrorism.

It might help to think of his argument as a card game. The definitions are the cards with which we are to play with, the premises are the rules by which we have to play and the conclusions are the results of playing the game. I said the argument was fractally wrong, and to show that, I will go through all parts of it and show how it's wrong on multiple levels, and on layers within levels. I'll apologize now for the length of this dissection...

Definitions

Definition 1: Murder. Now in any syllogism, you're free to invent terms and give them your invented definition. However, it's completely disingenuous to pick a pre-existing term that is not only universally known already but which resonates so strongly. Let's visit Merriam Webster's definition:
mur·der: 1: the crime of unlawfully killing a person especially with malice aforethought
2 a: something very difficult or dangerous (the traffic was murder) b: something outrageous or blameworthy (getting away with murder)

So from step one he recklessly gives away the whole game. Through an appeal to emotion, he intends to prejudice you through the use of that word. How can you possibly consider "murder" in a positive context? The deck is stacked in the houses favor now, but that's not the only card. We can skip self defense since, as something to cite to serve his motives which already has a preloaded positive connotation, he didn't need to alter the definition.

Definition 3: Execution. Ah, here we have some cleverness. Once again, let's return to Merriam Webster:
ex·e·cu·tion: 1: the act or process of executing : performance
2: a putting to death especially as a legal penalty
3: the process of enforcing a legal judgment (as against a debtor); also : a judicial writ directing such enforcement
4: the act or mode or result of performance
5archaic : effective or destructive action

Now at first you might think his definition is an acceptable paraphrasing, but look again, specifically at what's absent. Do you see it? The word "legal". Oh he says "performed by an official body, such as the government", but is that the same? Look at any of an assortment of events over the last 7 years from our current Administration. Were they legal? As time goes on, more and more the answer keeps coming back as "no". So once again we have an appeal to emotion, the sentiment that, in light of recent events, things carried out by the government are not necessarily legal and with most of you (I hope) generally equating legal with good, he's deliberately steering you to think of execution as not legal, as not good. This becomes important later since he quickly ties murder and execution together.

Definition 4: Revenge. What I take issue with initially is "infliction of harm". Let's look at harm.
harm: n. 1. Injury; hurt; damage; detriment; misfortune.
2.That which causes injury, damage, or loss.
v. t. 1.To hurt; to injure; to damage; to wrong.

Look at what's there - hurt, damage, WRONG. Well, how's that for loading a definition? Now what's a more conventional definition of revenge?
revenge n. 1 : a desire for revenge
2 : an act or instance of retaliating in order to get even
3 : an opportunity for getting satisfaction
t. v. 1 : to avenge (as oneself) usually by retaliating in kind or degree
2 : to inflict injury in return for

Try the free dictionary or encarta if you don't like Merriam Webster. Try a thesauras and you get punitive, retaliative, retaliatory, retributive, retributory and many others which suggest the idea of retribution, of righting a wrong or imbalance, not an act of inflicting harm. Now in fairness I did find harm used in a 1913 edition of Webster's. Now Ex may be long in the tooth, but I think even he has a more up to date dictionary lying around, and he certainly has access to the internet, so I can't imagine this was an accident. Once again, another card is marked. Now the next few, since they serve his purpose as is, he didn't need to alter but then you have a most devious marking of the last card.

Definition 7: "A reasonable person is an individual who does not rely on conclusions that can’t be drawn logically." Well that sounds fine, doesn't it? Well not quite. You see the thing about logic is it's as good as what you put into it. It's the old adage of garbage in, garbage out. Since I'm working to show you that Ex is essentially putting garbage in to his logic construct, then it goes to show that the result will be garbage out. So if that's the case, would you still say that you can rely on a conclusion that's drawn logically? Try these works of logic:

Premise 1: All mammals have fur.
Premise 2: Platypuses have fur.
Conclusion: Platypuses are mammals.

Premise 1: All birds lay eggs.
Premise 2: Platypuses lay eggs.
Conclusion: Platypuses are birds.

Conclusions are dictated by premises, so depending on what the premises recognize or ignore, the conclusions reached can differ from what's actually true. This is garbage in, garbage out, and is the guideline for evaluating stage two:

Premises

If a premise is unacceptable, then whatever conclusion is reached, no matter if it's logically valid, will not necessarily be true. Take for instance:
Premise 1: Women are not smart
Premise 2: Jill is a woman
Conclusion: Jill is not smart.

Now although the logic is valid, would you accept the truth of the conclusion? Of course not, since premise 1 is unacceptable. So by way of what a premise recognizes, ignores or whether it's true or not, it can falsify the truth of the conclusion despite the conclusion being logically valid.

Premise 1: Murder is morally wrong.
Well that should be something everyone would go along with easily, but because of the definition he used or the actual word "murder"? Remember, he defined murder as willful killing of another human being. What of war? Alright, maybe you can call that self-defense (tell that to the Iraqis). Alright then, how about mercy killings? Is it morally wrong to be a Kevorkian? How about pulling the plug on someone in a hospital who has no hope of recovery? Still sure? Still think this premise is solid?

Premise 2 is probably acceptable to most, but then there's:
Premise 3: Murder is “worst” when done with pre-meditation and malice aforethought. This is dubious, again because of the choice of "murder". As in premise 1, is mercy killing the worst form of willful killing another human being because it was planned? Now the last part of the premise, "malice aforethought" is VERY important, and is yet another skewing of the game. Consulting Law.com's dictionary:
malice aforethought: n. 1) the conscious intent to cause death or great bodily harm to another person before a person commits the crime.
TheFreeDictionary.com:
malice aforethought: n - (law) criminal intent; the thoughts and intentions behind a wrongful act (including knowledge that the act is illegal)
So he slides in this idea of criminality for the action which is important for premise 3 but really has a big effect on:

Premise 4: Executions are pre-meditated and performed with malice aforethought.
He's just declared executions are criminal. Gosh, I wonder how this "proof" might conclude? Hmmmm

Premise 5: An incarcerated person is not actually perpetrating violence, nor does he or she pose an imminent threat.
This can easily be challenged. First, there's the possibility of violence to another inmate, guard or anyone in the prison. Second, there's the possibility of violence if the person escapes. Third, if the person has others not incarcerated willing to carry out his wishes, he can command acts of violence.

Premise 6: Revenge is a passionate act, driven by a primal urge, not reason.
I have to challenge this as an absolute. Although any notion of equality of retribution is conspicuously absent in his definition for revenge, it certainly doesn't exclude it as a possibility. I would argue the adage "an eye for an eye" is not a primal urge and is in fact driven by reason for wouldn't a primal response be to take far more in retribution that was initially lost? This too is revenge and therefore I see this premise flawed.

Premise 7 I'll grant and Premise 8 is fine except for the deliberate tainting by the use of "cold and calculating" to describe how executions are carried out, for generally that phrase has negative connotations. Premises 9 and 10 are pretty straightforward.

Premise 11: There is no evidence that the death penalty acts as a deterrent on others from perpetrating crimes.
Well there are studies that say so, and then there are experts which dispute the studies. Likewise, experts are split on whether it is or isn't a deterrent. One possibility that there isn't solid evidence is, according to Lifeguard, "negative consequences of one's behavior are only effective deterrents if the consequences are immediate and certain, which, in our legal system, they are not."

Premises 12-14 are entertaining. I certainly agree with 12. 13 is one of those you immediately want to agree with but you can't. First off, "bullshit" is vague and how it's used is also vague. Is the idea that it's inerrant and the word of a god bullshit? Yeah, probably. Is it bullshit that most of it wasn't written by who it's claimed to be written by? Yeah, probably. Does that encompass literarily? If so, I don't think it's bullshit. Is all the historical accounts bullshit? No. Are all the rules and advice bullshit? No. So 13 is far too vague. As for 14, "an eye for an eye" is not a biblical invention. No doubt it goes back to the formation of the Golden Rule and is seen in the Code of Hammurabi as Lex Talionis or "Law of Retaliation".

Premise 15 seems fine and without researching the issue of the death penalty further, I guess we should let premise 16 stand.

Conclusions

So we've got our cards, we've got our rules, so now it's time to play. I think it's important to see not just where the plays are falsified by dubious or inaccurate definitions and premises, but also where they are logically invalid.

Conclusion 1, through omission of mercy killings, may not be true. Logically valid, but not necessarily true.

Conclusion 2
Now this one is going to take some time, and it should be noted that Ex has realized he needs to do a bit of editing to Definition 1 to make it work, but I find it still doesn't, not just due to the definitions and premises but logically. After his edit, he explains it like this:
A = Murder
B = Execution
X = Willful Killing
Y = Morally Wrong

Definition 1: The willful killing of another human being is murder.
Definition 3: An execution is the willful killing of another human being, performed by the government of a civilized state.
Premise 1: Murder is morally wrong.
Conclusion: Execution is murder and therefore morally wrong

X -> A (from the new Definition 1)
B -> X (from Definition 3)
Therefore, B -> A.
A -> Y. (from Premise 1)
Therefore, B -> Y. (Which is Conclusion 2 in its rewritten form.)


I find step 3 is invalid. You cannot leap to the conclusion B -> A.
Let's try changing just one of the variables:
A = murder
B = voluntary euthanasia
X = willful killing
Y = morally wrong

Definition 1: The willful killing of another human being is murder.
Definition 3: Voluntary euthanasia is the willful killing of another.
Premise 1: Murder is morally wrong
Conclusion: Voluntary euthanasia is murder and morally wrong

X -> A (Definition 1)
B -> X (from Definition 3)
Therefore, B -> A. (Voluntary euthanasia is murder)
A -> Y. (from Premise 1)
Therefore, B -> Y. (Voluntary euthanasia is morally wrong)

Now of course you could agree with this. After all, Y is open to opinion. Alright, try B = involuntary euthanasia. Wow, we just proved the Republicans were right and that pulling the plug on Shiavo was murder and morally wrong. Yikes! Let's try some wholesale changes:
A = walking
B = running
X = human locomotion
Y = slow

Definition 1: Human locomotion is walking
Definition 3: Running is human locomotion
Premise 1: Walking is slow
Conclusion: Running is walking and therefore slow

X -> A (Definition 1)
B -> X (from Definition 3)
Therefore, B -> A. (Running is walking)
A -> Y. (from Premise 1)
Therefore, B -> Y. (Running is slow)

or

A = lying
B = acting
X = Pretending to be someone you're not
Y = morally wrong

Definition 1: Pretending to be someone you're not is lying
Definition 3: Acting is the process of pretending to be someone you're not
Premise 1: Lying is morally wrong
Conclusion: Acting is lying and therefore morally wrong

X -> A (Definition 1)
B -> X (from Definition 3)
Therefore, B -> A. (Acting is lying)
A -> Y. (from Premise 1)
Therefore, B -> Y. (Acting is morally wrong)

I think this is flawed due to the leap from B -> A, and certainly flawed due to the potential variance in reader acceptance of Y. Furthermore, the conclusion's truth is thrown into doubt due to the earlier challenges to the premises and definitions.

Failure of Conclusion 2 invalidates conclusions 3 and 15.

Conclusion 4 is unsound due to the successful challenge of premise 5.

Conclusion 5 is valid but possibly unsound due to challenges of definition 4 and premise 6

Conclusion 6 is valid and sound

Conclusion 7 is unsound because an implied but unstated premise necessary for the conclusion is false. The implied premise is that when a criminal pays for his crime, he's paying the victim. The most glaring evidence of this is the common phrase of criminals "paying their debt to society". Clearly the intent is not that the criminal's punishment is a payment solely to the victim to compensate them in full for the crime perpetrated on them, but to society. It is society that sets laws and it's society which decides the punishment or cost for violating them. Furthermore, if the implied premise were true, then no punishment could be administered, including incarceration.

Conclusion 8 is valid but possibly unsound due to the ambiguity of premise 13. If my opinion is that the bible is not the inerrant word of god, what better way to justify that opinion than to quote the bible itself, specifically its contradictions. How best to undermine the supposed authority of Leviticus 18:22 than to question why one doesn't follow Leviticus 11:7-8 or 21:16-23?

Conclusion 9 is valid but possibly unsound due to challenge of premise 11 and possibly definition 7

Conclusion 10 is valid but possibly unsound due to challenge to definition 7 and possible falseness of conclusion 5

Conclusion 11 is unsound since conclusion 4 is unsound

Conclusion 12 is valid but possibly unsound due to possible untruth of conclusion 8

Conclusion 13 is unsound because conclusion 7 is unsound

Conclusion 14 is valid but possibly unsound due to challenge to premise 1

Conclusion 15 unsound because conclusion 2 is invalid and unsound

Conclusion 16 is not possible due to the results of conclusions 9-13 and 15.


Still awake? I know, I was tempted to doze off there several times too, but what kept me going was anger. Make no mistake, I take no pleasure in this disassembling of Ex's proof. I felt compelled to do it because, once again, you can't just magically turn a wrong into a right because you believe your intentions are good. That's an example of fundamentalism 101, what we fight daily from the religious, and we most certainly can't allow ourselves to behave like that. A proof is created to test a hypothesis or to make a deduction based on some known facts. It is not to be a twisted and contrived creation to "prove" your dogmatic beliefs. If your beliefs can't be proven, than you must reevaluate your beliefs. Also, if you can't honestly convince another of your beliefs, then dishonest methods are not then permissible.

Free Government Money for Irresponsible Idiots

You know that saying, "good guys finish last"? Well add to that sensible and responsible guys, too. This fucking kills me!. The Senate is playing with a bill that would create a $300 billion fund to help homeowners who have recently learned the hard way what exactly "adjustable" in adjustable rate mortgage means. So in other words, these idiots who couldn't comprehend the mortgage they were signing into and have no clue what living within their means is all about now will get assistance to help pay what they had no right in trying to buy in the first place. Well fuck me!

I'd like a home. It seems frivolous to be throwing money away on rent every month but we don't make much and to complicate things, since I'm self-employed I can't show a guarantee that I'll be making a specific amount next next year or even next month, so aside from simply being not the best bet to give a mortgage to, I personally would worry about paying it. Well it turns out I've been a complete fool, haven't I? Not only would there have been tons of banks that would have loaned me oodles of cash to get a home (there's plenty of stories out now of banks fudging the books to give loans to undeserved people), but now it seems I wouldn't have had to worry about meeting the requirements of the loan thanks to some soon to come government assistance, $300 billion worth. Goddamnit!

I'm old school. I pay my bills off in full every month, bought my car instead of leasing it, research the things I buy before I buy them to get the best I can afford and maintain those products as close to new as I can for years, I don't squander money on frivolous things and I don't gamble or play the lottery. I sensibly, responsibly live within my means and you know what? That not only makes me rare in this country, but now it seems it might make me a jackass because irresponsibility and ignorance are what's rewarded here.

Maybe I need to move to Canada. At least getting speeding tickets would be more fun.

Dobson, A Real Fruitcake

So the fruitcake known as James Dobson apparently just discovered Obama's Call to Renewal Speech of 2006 and described Obama's interpretation of the Constitution as a fruitcake interpretation. First, Obama's speech (which, btw, I was first made aware of just weeks ago from everyone's Happy Hominid, the Evolutionary Middleman):



Among other bits that Dobson got bent over was this bit:

"I may be opposed to abortion for religious reasons, but if I seek to pass a law banning the practice, I cannot simply point to the teachings of my church or evoke God's will. I have to explain why abortion violates some principle that is accessible to people of all faiths, including those with no faith at all.”

Dobson's response?

“What the senator is saying there, in essence, is that I can’t seek to pass legislation for example, that bans partial birth abortion because there are people in the culture who don’t see that as a moral issue and if I can’t get everyone to agree with me, it is undemocratic to try to pass legislation that I find offensive to the Scripture. That is a fruitcake interpretation of the Constitution.”

He went on to say, "you can see I’ve managed to raise my blood pressure here," but let me tell you sir, you've raised mine through the roof. First, let me point out that in order to have a proper interpretation of the Constitution, you have to have read it first. There's absolutely no way anyone who has read it could possibly come up with such an objection to Obama's comment. Now if you want to justify your nonsensical positions like abstinence programs, banning contraceptives, banning HPV inoculations, banning RU486, denying equal rights to gays, or banning abortions solely on biblical grounds, go ahead. Knock yourself out. Obama's point was that you're not going to convince enough people to sign on to your fruitcake bus to crazy town with that kind of enticement. You have to somehow (good luck) give some kinds of non-biblical reasons to support your points.

Now in my opinion, Obama was being kind, for I can't see how it should even be legal to base legislation on the bible or any holy book. THAT flies in the face of the Establishment Clause of the Constitution. Of course Dobson would know that if he read it, or perhaps he did but, like our current administration, simply wiped his ass with it afterwards and flushed it away. This asshat has no respect for either the Constitution or democracy, and therefore, I say, no respect for the United States of America, for any one who would put their religion above their country is no American, and is most definitely a fruitcake.

94th Carnival of the Godless

40 blog posts of godless goodness are all included in this most recent Carnival, and two of mine are there. Nifty. Now despite that fact, it's still a good carnival. ;)

Offshore Drilling Reactions' Correlation to Religiosity

While debating the issue of offshore drilling, I've noticed some interesting things about those clamoring for drilling, and I find it interesting how they're in line with religious thinking. Now I'm not sure which comes first, the religion leading to the thinking or the thinking leading to the religion, but I can't help but notice at least a correlation, so let me elaborate on that.

First, which I touched on in my last post, is the issue of faith. I've seen absolutely no effort to research this issue on the part of those I've debated with. In addition, there's been little to no honest questioning of the plan exhibited. There's simply been blind acceptance that opening up the coastline for drilling will result in more of that liquid gold flowing here in the US to satiate our need for not just gas, but affordable gas. Taken on faith is:
• The oil companies will drill rather than keep supplies low to maintain high prices
• The oil companies, saving lots of money drilling their own rather than buying oil, will pass the savings on to us
• That drilling is perfectly safe
and a new one I didn't think of when I wrote my past post:
• That the oil companies would sell here rather than somewhere else where they might get more money for it like India or China

Simply nothing short of blind faith have I seen from these people. The thoughts above apparently have never entered their minds and when you bring them up, they dismiss them, as if the oil companies have a track record of humanitarian behavior. I can't comprehend this. Where does this disconnect from reality come from? How does one so easily slip into fantasies of the mind over facing and coping with reality? Is this a product of religion, or does religion prosper in such fertile ground?

Next, I want to address a VERY common statement I hear from these people and that's "well we have to do SOMETHING!" Since when did doing something stupid be a better alternative to either doing nothing or taking a moment to weigh options BEFORE we do something? This urgent 'damn the torpedoes' recklessness I find frightening. I can't help but notice a similarity to a common gripe we have with the religious and that's their need to have any answer, no matter how ridiculous, to questions. There's a real anxiety for them to say "I don't know" and leave things like that. There's also resistance to really working that hard to find other answers when one, no matter how dubious, is within easy reach. Is it intellectual laziness? I don't know. Is it a byproduct of religion or does religion prosper from intellectual laziness and anxious need for ANY answers? I don't know, but the two go hand in hand.

Then there's the obvious lack of empathy. These so-called "clean and safe" modern drilling methods are still permitted to blast 90,000 pounds of toxic drilling mud into the water. On top of that, you have the possibilities of accidents or simple build up of seemingly negligible spills and runoffs accumulating to form tar balls and such. Oh, but boo hoo for the pretty environment when we need gas, right? Well what are two main industries for people of coastal states? Fishing and tourism. Both could potentially suffer as a result of offshore drilling. That's real, flesh and blood people that could be affected, not to mention the ripple effect of property values plummeting. This complete disregard for not just other human beings but fellow Americans is appalling and for what, so they can fill their SUVs cheaply? I've touched on this before when exploring the Golden Rule, but I see christianity, with it's perversion of the Golden Rule, as devoid of empathy. Now does being a christian kill your empathy or are those who lack empathy naturally drawn to christianity?

Another issue is blind acceptance of authority. Now maybe this is an offset of faith, but no one I've debated seems willing to address the possibility that this offshore drilling is simply a political stunt. I ask if there's any parts to this plan that obligates the oil companies to drill, to pass their savings from drilling over buying on to us, or even to sell here rather than abroad and I get no response. Bring up how Bush and McCain are in bed with and bankrolled by oil companies and once again, silence. Point out how Crist getting on board with the plan is a blatant example of willingness to throw his own state under the bus for the sake of his own political aspirations to try and land the VP nomination and once again I get silence. Either the thought doesn't enter their minds that their party leaders would make a move sacrificing them or anyone for their own gain or perhaps they just dismiss it as not possibly being true since they believe their leaders would never do such a thing. This blind, unquestioning loyalty and respect of authority is both frightening and dangerous and yet again I can't help but notice the correlation to religion. Is blind loyalty to authority necessary for religion or does religion create in one a blind loyalty to authority?

Lastly, there's the scapegoating. Most of these people onboard with offshore drilling feel perfectly comfortable blaming "those damn liberals, environmentalists and Congress" for all this since they're the ones who've kept us from getting at that precious black nectar for decades. Oh yes, it's all their fault since not having enough domestic oil is the reason for the high gas prices and not:
• The war in Iraq
• Saber rattling at Iran (Fear that the straight of Hormuz could close drives up speculation)
• Venezuela nationalizing its oil industry
• Falling interest rates (oil is traded in US dollars and with the dollar falling, OPEC speculators work to drive up the costs to offset falling dollar)
• OPEC not pumping to match demand
• MASSIVE increase in demand from Asia, specifically India and China
And again we have a favorite pastime for religion, blaming others for our ills. Oh yes, it's those damn liberals and environmentalists. If it weren't for them, we wouldn't be in this mess. Oh please.

So I don't know what to say. The correlations are striking to me, but it's not so clear to me which comes first, the ugliness or the religion. Perhaps it's a combo. Perhaps it's a symbiotic relationship. Who knows? I don't, and although I'd like to know, I can live with not knowing for sure right now, because if I couldn't, well, you know what that might lead to...

Why offshore drilling is a stupid plan

If you came here expecting some environmental argument, you're going to be disappointed. If you're figuring on me just repeating Obama's arguments that it's "another example of short-term political posturing from Washington, not the long-term leadership we need to solve our dependence on oil" you'd be wrong. You'd also be wrong if you expected yet another valid point that Obama is pointing out which is:
"Much like his gas tax gimmick that would leave consumers with pennies in savings, opening our coastlines to offshore drilling would take at least a decade to produce any oil at all, and the effect on gasoline prices would be negligible at best since America only has three percent of the world's oil."
Nope, none of that is what I want to bring up today as the reason why the offshore drilling plan is flawed. The reason is something that generally is a loser, and that's faith.

The faith inherent in this plan boils down to faith that the oil companies have our best interests in mind. Now do you think that's wise? Let me explain. Alright, so we allow them to drill more oil. Who says they will? Supply and demand dictates the market and if supply grows, the price drops. Sounds great for us, but not so much for the oil companies. So let's say they do drill more. Well first, I'm sure it will be costly up front for the oil companies to set up new drilling platforms. They have to first search for the oil, find the best site to set up, erect the platform, staff the site, and of course work out transport and so forth. Sure, the expense is nothing compared to their recent record profits but they'll still use the expense to justify needing the continuation of the tax break they already get. Hell, they could even use it as blackmail, suggesting that if they don't keep it they may not drill. Lastly, there's the faith that the lower cost of oil for the oil companies as a result of drilling their own instead of purchasing it, would automatically translate to lower prices in gas. Why would it?

Let's pretend we roast and sell coffee, and a pound goes for $10. It costs us $5 to get coffee beans from say Costa Rica. After roasting costs and other crap we make $2-3 a pound. Now let's say we buy a farm and grow our own beans so our bean cost is only $2 a pound. Would we be more inclined to drop our coffee prices to $7 a pound or giddily enjoy the extra $3 we now can make off of our coffee? Maybe we even love that extra cash so much that we call other coffee companies who also begin producing their own beans and convince them we should all try to stick to around $10 a pound.

Sound mean? Heartless? Greedy? Diabolical? Hell, that's business, baby. So you think oil companies wouldn't follow the coffee roaster example, even in part? You want to put your faith in that and call that a solution? Is that any more reasonable than praying for lower gas prices? Nothing fails like prayer, and faith is not a solution, especially when it's faith in oil companies doing the right thing for people. You've got to be kidding me.

One last thing I'd like to point out. Douglas Holtz-Eakin, a McCain advisor, said about opening off shore drilling that "[t]here is an important element in signaling to world oil markets that we are serious." Yeah, seriously desperate. That's always a good message to send to suppliers, that you're seriously desperate for what they are selling. Very nice.