My Horrific Subconscious Has Surfaced

Most nights when I dream it consists of normal scenarios, such as going to math, or a friend's apartment. Because I am used to dull dreams, last nights dreams seemed even more eerie.

In the first dream I was a detective called to an urban area that was covered with dead bodies, littered across the city scape due to lack of law enforcement. The entire dream was gray enhanced, like that color scheme Lord of the Rings was filmed in.

In the second dream the Joker, played by Heath Ledger, was killing people and using their bodies to make paint for a piece of art he was working on. This dream accentuated black and made all colors dark and velvet-like. A nice pair of dreams going into Christmas, eh?

My life

P.S. This blog is totally random, and yes, I did just start the blog with a P.S.

The boys at the elementary school i work at call me daddy, most likely because I am one of the only male tutors that works there. We play dodge ball. Sometimes I hit them in the face.

Lauren and I just watched the Dark Knight, which I think is an amazing movie, and she hated it! Weird right?

The Herald Journal has been hosting a series of letters to the editor from Cache Valley's public as of late. These letters have all revolved around one man's fear of what it would be like to see two men kissing on the jumbo tron. This stemmed a religious discussion and debate that reignited the gay marriage issue. Awesome!

Now for your enjoyment, some of the funniest papers I have ever read.

Steam Wars

I found these awesome action figures, which are based on the Star Wars galaxy. They combine aesthetics from the original Star Wars universe and an 18th/19th century industrial steam look. Darth Vader and Boba Fett are shown below. Other characters from the Star Wars universe can be seen at www.sillof.com

Opposition to Drilling in ANWR

I wanted to add another blog, so I thought I would post this testimony I wrote in opposition to opening the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge for oil and gas drilling.

I. I write this testimony in opposition to the bill U.S.U 5: the Arctic Coastal Plain Domestic Energy Security Act, which would open part of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) to oil and gas drilling. Current U.S. policy has protected the ANWR from oil and gas drilling in order to preserve the 19 million acres of natural lands located in northeast Alaska. Bill U.S.U 5 would alter current U.S. policy by allowing exploration and drilling of the 1.5 million acre coastal plain of the wildlife refuge to refine the estimated 11 billion barrels worth of oil, making this no small economic prospect. (Almanac of Policy Issues)

II. Those in favor of U.S.U 5 support this measure because of the economic benefits and accomplishments they believe drilling in the ANWR would yield. Such benefits and accomplishments, in the minds of supporters, would include a reduction in the United States’ dependence on foreign oil, especially that coming from the Middle East. Drilling could lower the price of oil, resulting in decreased gas and energy prices, which would lead to potential economic growth. Such measures could benefit Alaska’s economy, and create thousands of jobs. Those who support the proposed measure believe the above measures can be achieved and executed without damaging the land and species native to the ANWR.

III. However, I oppose U.S.U 5 due to a few major reasons which contest the merits of the measure. The first being the distraction of the American public from the larger issue at hand, which is excessive consumption. Second, drilling in the refuge would not be a short term solution, given it could take more than a decade before production began. Even if oil refining and production was successfully executed, it may have little, if any influence, on current oil and gas prices. Finally, executing oil production may potentially cause more environmental harm than supporters of the measure claim, or anticipate.

IV. Energy independence is a major goal and driving source of those who support changing current U.S. Policy in order to open the ANWR to oil and gas drilling. And it is a noble goal, but it not only distracts us from the problem of excessive consumption, it fuels it. As of 2007, the United States was consuming far more than its fair share at 20,730,000 barrels of oil a day, which makes up roughly one quarter of the 82,234,000 barrels produced globally each day. (NationMaster.com) But with a population of about 300 million, the United States makes up only about 4% of the global population, which is nearly 7 billion and growing rapidly. (Census) In addition, even if the problem of excessive consumption is removed from play, it is estimated that refineries in the ANWR “would only produce 876,000 barrels of oil a day during peak,” (Tsang) which would make up a very small portion of the 20,730,000 barrels of oil the United States consumes each day. It would hardly move the nation towards its goal of energy independence. “By 2050, there may be as many as 10 billion people living on Earth.” (learner.org) Countries such as China, which boasts a population of more than 1 billion citizens, will contribute to this problem of excessive consumption as they continue to become more industrialized and reliant on oil for their energy requirements. With a population that will continue to increase at rapid rates, this excessive consumption will continue to rise as well, bringing humanity closer to depletion and damaging environmental effects. Conflict such as war and genocide may arise as we fight over rapidly decreasing resources on which we rely. This excessive consumption will potentially yield a negative impact on the abundances of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, which not only cause damaging effects, such as acid rain and adverse health effects, but contribute to the climate change which threatens the planet. The U.S. should instead take measures to increase fuel standards of vehicles. If the U.S. raised fuel standards to 40 miles per gallon, 6.5 times more energy than the ANWR oil deposits could produce would be saved. (Tsang)

Drilling in the ANWR is often seen as a way the U.S. can satisfy the short term energy demands that have resulted from recent crises, given that there are few other ways energy demands can be met, due to limited technological capabilities and increasing needs. However, it is estimated that it would take ten years before production began (Tsang) and fifteen to twenty years before production peaked at a fast development rate, according to the Energy Information Administration. I would argue that ten to twenty years is hardly a short term solution. Even if production began, refineries in the ANWR “would only produce 876,000 barrels of oil a day at peak production” (Tsang) which would make up only a small fraction of the oil Americans consume each day. (Tsang) This figure could be even smaller ten years from now due to population growth and demand. It must also be noted that oil prices are influenced by a global market. There are currently 82,234,000 barrels of oil being produced each day. (NationMaster.com) The 876,000 barrels of oil production in the ANWR would produce would make up only about 1% of this number. In addition to this figure, countries around the world are seeing an increasing rate of demand as they become more industrialized. The nation of China, which was noted earlier, “overtook Japan as the world's second-largest consumer of oil in 2003 and is closing in on the US, with demand for oil growing at about 15% a year.” (BBC News) According to the International Energy Agency, oil demand will increase by about 2.2 million barrels each day next year, in comparison to the 1.5 million barrel a day increase in 2007. (BBC News) These major factors suggest the 876,000 barrels of oil the ANWR would produce each day will have little to no effect on oil prices and U.S. demand. According to the U.S. Energy Department, drilling in the ANWR would have an effect of less than fifty cents on the price of a barrel of oil. (MSNBC) The U.S. would be better off investing its resources in the development of alternative sources of renewable energy, which could very well be achieved in the same time period of 10-20 years it would take to reap the benefits of drilling in the ANWR. In addition, the prospect of alternative renewable energy would create new jobs and end much of our dependence on both domestic and foreign oil.

In 2005, President George W. Bush gave a speech in which he claimed that if drilling in the ANWR was permitted, only 2,000 acres would be used. This would be a very small portion of the 19 million acres that make up the ANWR. Unfortunately, rather than being in one large 2,000 acre chunk, oil deposits are spread across the 1.5 million acre coast of the ANWR in more than thirty pockets. So, in essence this 2,000 acre figure only accounts for where oil rigs would touch the ground. However, in order to produce and transport oil effectively, companies in charge of the operation would have to utilize much more than 2,000 acres of the coast. Pipelines would be needed to move oil, along with roads necessary for transportation. This connecting web of roads and pipeline would further damage the natural habitats located in the refuge. While the “footprint” of the operation would only be an estimated 2,000 acres, the operation would spread over an area of about 640,000 acres, which is the equivalent of one thousand square miles, putting a much more significant dent in the ANWR, driving wildlife from their natural habitats. (Natural Resources Defense Council) The ANWR has been compared to the Serengeti in Africa, given the two hundred wildlife species that reside within its boundaries. Opening the refuge to the industrial activity of oil and gas drilling would likely do a great deal of harm to the communities of these two hundred species, especially because the coastal plain of the ANWR is seen as the primary center of wildlife activity. The oil exploration and refining of areas west of Prudhoe Bay is often used to argue that industrial oil production activities and wildlife can coexist peacefully without any adverse effects. However, the Alaskan Fish and Wildlife service concluded that the area west of Prudhoe Bay which consisted of only 100 acres, significantly smaller than the spread out 2,000 acre ANWR proposal, affected the local Caribou who came to the area to give birth to their offspring, driving them away from the areas of industrialization. (Natural Resources Defense Council) Imagine the effects thirty to forty drilling sites of 50 acres which are connected by miles of pipeline and roads would have in comparison. Species would migrate away from the coastal habitats, which they occupy in enormous numbers, having to change their resource base and natural habits. Shipment of oil could result in catastrophic effects such as the Exxon Valdez oil spill which had catastrophic environmental effects. I would argue that executing an operation that would have such drastic effects is not worth an amount of oil that may consist of little more, or even less than we consume in a year.

In conclusion, I would encourage both those in support and opposition of the presented measure to advocate investment in more efficient, alternative, renewable energy sources which will truly wean the U.S. from its dependence on foreign and domestic oil. As the billionaire tycoon T. Boone Pickens, a man who made his fortune from oil, said, “I've been an oil man all my life, but this is one emergency we can't drill our way out of. But if we create a new renewable energy network, we can break our addiction to foreign oil.” (Pickens)

Works Cited

1. Almanac of Policy Issues http://www.policyalmanac.org/environment/archive/crs_anwr.shtml

2. Tsang, Clara. “Arguments against drilling in ANWR” http://www.people.carleton.edu/~cdavidso/Geo190/Case2Briefs/Tsang2.htm

3. NationMaster.com http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/ene_oil_con-energy-oil-consumption

4. The U.S. Census Bureau (Census) http://www.census.gov

5. BBC News http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/7048600.stm

6. MSNBC http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4542853/

7. Learner.org http://www.learner.org/interactives/dailymath/population.html

8. Natural Resources Defense Council http://www.nrdc.org/land/wilderness/artech/farc2000.asp and http://www.nrdc.org/land/wilderness/arcticrefuge/facts1.asp

9. T. Boone Pickens: His Life, His Legacy (Pickens) http://www.boonepickens.com/

KSL's book burning to Rep. Rob Bishop: Things in the political realm of Utah that have disturbed me as of late.

I was disturbed when I heard of a KSL radio contest in which the winner had the 'opportunity' to burn a book written by Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi. I am aware of Pelosi's poor reputation, which is even more profound in one of he two most republican states in the nation, and based on the performance of the U.S. congress over the past few years, I can understand her low approval rating, but does that justify a book burning that leads one to draw mental connections of the book burning scene in 'Footloose', or Nazi Germany?


I have never been a fan of Rep. Rob Bishop, who represents Utah's first district, and my disappointment increased recently after hearing of his rude treatment of an Iraq war veteran. The veteran sent requests to all Utah delegates so that he might inform them of problems he had seen in the war in Iraq. Rob Bishop was the only delegate which refused to meet with the veteran, so the veteran decided to go to a public Q&A session which Bishop was the speaker of. The veteran rose to ask his question, and because Bishop was familiar with the veteran's criticism of the Iraq war, he rudely interrupted him and did not allow him to speak.

I respect the differing ideologies within politics, but we as Americans should not allow fear, ignorance, or group think lead us to shutting out voices from the other side. When we embrace and appreciate what the other side has to say, we can compromise and actually get things done in this country.