Diversity is not a word associated with the BYU student demographic. It is true that we have students from numerous countries. It is also true that the majority of BYU students have either spent significant amounts of time in foreign countries or speak a second language. Although these experiences and associations might enrich us, we are anything but diverse. This is blatantly apparent in our political views.

In the words of Stephen Colbert, we have republicans and staunch republicans. The BYU Democrats Club has a small following of democratic students who band together against the overwhelming wave of conservatism at BYU. This last statement may have made you uncomfortable. You are thinking, “What is wrong with conservatism?” There would be a similar problem if it was an overwhelming wave of liberalism. With only one party represented, beneficial ideas that could have come as a result of bipartisan dialogue are smothered.

I served my mission in India and met people with very different viewpoints. I once told a Sikh man that resurrection was a very logical doctrine. He in turn told me that reincarnation was more logical then resurrection. It was at that point that I realized that logic had nothing to do with it. Resurrection seemed logical to me because I had grown up with the idea. I am not advocating reincarnation but am pointing out how other people’s views seem equally as logical to them as ours do to us. Sometimes we let our background influence ideas without realizing the merits of an opposing view.

Although the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints encourages its members to be involved in the political process, it is officially politically neutral.  You might not know that going to Brigham Young University.

According to state party records, Republican professors outnumber Democratic professors 10 to 1.

"One of the most troubling elements ... is the growing Mormon tendency to find absolute or at least superior, even divine, truth in the Republican Party platform," Eugene England, a professor of English and registered Republican said in a 1998 Daily Universe article.  "Political parties do not have truth -- they have perspectives," he added.

Despite this, all too often, professors and students at BYU speak as if the Republican party is the "true" party.  They point to America's declining morals and blame it on liberals, despite the fact that a Republican has been president 20 of the past 30 years and despite the fact that Barack Obama's views on such controversial topics as gay marriage and abortion mirror that of the church's.

Before election time each year, this official church statement is read over each pulpit which "affirms [the Church's] neutrality regarding political parties, platforms, and candidates." Importantly, it also stresses that, "principles compatible with the gospel may be found in various political parties."   This goes to show that the church encourages us to look at both sides of the issue and vote based on which one most closely follows what we believe.

Round two of the JB’s.

Now that we have looked into some of their excessive strengths, let’s take a gander at their weaknesses: Both men have obvious weaknesses that dramatically affect them. Bond’s notorious weaknesses are found in the lifestyle of the sixties in drinking, gambling, and women. His reckless habits often lead him to trouble and while not explored on screen, we all know the consequences of such carelessness: beer belly, debt, and illegitimate babies. I feel that his weaknesses are used as an accent to his coolness in that he’s so debonair that he’s above the real consequences of such behavior.
Bourne’s weakness, by comparison, is his driving force. He’s not emotionally stable. After suffering a couple of bullets shots and nearly drowning, he suffers from amnesia. Wired has to say, “Often confused by clouded memories and depressed, Bourne seems like a self-absorbed hero. He often fights just for himself — to restore his own memory and past. There is rarely a greater call to duty in his hunt for those who made him what he is. It’s not the great desire of a true hero to be left alone, but that seems to be Bourne’s greatest wish.” His weakness, as Wired describes it, is that he’s only focused on himself and whatever will help him regain his memory.
So, which one has the lesser evil? While Bond’s weaknesses don’t have such a dramatic effect as that of Bourne’s I still contest that Bourne wins this one. Bourne’s weakness is what drives him. It is his power and motivator to find answers and while he isn’t fighting world-renowned bad guys like Bond, he fights the corruption within the good guys.
Personal characteristics aside, what about the actual films centered on these super-spies? The all-knowing Wikipedia enlightens us. With an incredible twenty-two films (and counting) to the James Bond legacy and seven separate actors portraying Mr. Bond, the 007 films have made quite the impression on history. Starting in 1962 with Sean Connery as James Bond in Dr. No, and most recently in 2008 with Daniel Craig as Bond in Quantum of Solace, the Bond films have always attracted large audiences. With a whooping total of $11,686,214,000 in inflation-adjusted total box office revenues, it has been one of the most successful movie franchises ever.
Bourne, being a significantly shorter series, the first installment, The Bourne Identity, starring Matt Damon was released in 2002, and third, The Bourne Ultimatum, was released in 2007. Overall, the three films grossed $945,600,303.

To be continued…

Okay, so I feel like I’m just spewing off facts about the movies…I’m working to stick-ify it

Oil and Joseph of Egypt

My goal in this post is to try out some new ideas to make my paper sticky. I am going to write things out just for the exercise of going through it and let anyone who reads comment on its effectiveness.

My basic argument is very simple. If America wants to be truly independent and prepared for the future of the energy market then it needs to stop drilling its oil and save it. If we are worried about running out of oil in the future and being left with nothing to provide energy then we should save the billions of barrels of oil stored beneath American lands.

My core is that true oil independence comes when we have plenty of it stored for when an energy crisis does come. This is akin to the story of Joseph who was sold into Egypt (but not his coat of many colors). Joseph interpreted one of the dreams of pharaoh to mean that Egypt would have seven years of plenty and then seven years of famine. Instead of having seven years of very competitive business, Joseph led Egypt in saving vast amounts of food for the upcoming famine. When the famine came and the rest of the world was crippled by starvation, Egypt was strong and prosperous. Their food stores not only gave them stability but an incredibly strong economic and political upper hand with all of their neighbors. With ever-shrinking estimates of how long the world’s oil reserves will last, America will be the strongest if it would save this resource for the coming oil famine.

There is always an outcry among the American population, the press, and politicians who claim that America is too dependent on foreign sources of oil. They believe that by allowing our oil to be imported that we are subject to the whims of foreign oil exporters. What they forget is that foreign oil exporters need and want business. It is true that they might be able to withhold oil for a while but in the end they cannot function without us. They need business and there is no place in the world like America for oil consumption.

Another worry about buying oil from foreign markets is that market prices are too unstable and expensive. A basic economics explanation clarifies the absurdity of this worry. A higher demand for a product will lead to a more expensive price. If demand continues to rise then the price will also rise. If demand falls, so will the price. In effect, we, the consumers, actually control the market prices. If an oil supplier sets their prices too high then people will not buy as much and prices will have to fall for the producer to make profit.

Here are some attempts at stick analogies/stories that might help:

According to the U.S. Department of Energy, oil currently supplies 40% of our total energy needs and 99% of the energy we use in our cars and trucks. In essence, every boat, car, truck, plane that you have ever seen would be nothing more than a useless hunk of metal without oil.

Exhausting America’s oil supplies is like forcing us to hand over our driver’s license and car keys. Without this oil, we cannot function.

True dependence on foreign oil is not having our own reserves to fall back on. It is like hoping to one day retire but without having ever saved any money.

Benedict Arnold and how we are betraying ourselves.

The Future of the Record Industry

     iTunes recently upped the price for a single song, making the biggest hits $1.29 instead of 99 cents. While that 30 cent raise will eventually leave a dent in your wallet, it's still a deal compared to what one Boston University student had to pay. Joel Tenenbaum, a postdoctoral student at BU, had to pay a whopping $22,500 a song after being found guilty of illegally downloading and distributing 24 copyrighted songs. In retrospect, I'm sure Tenenbaum would gladly have forked over $30 for those same songs instead of becoming the target of a record industry lawsuit.

     The Recording Industry Association of America, or RIAA, is on a mission to stamp out online music piracy. As album sales continue to tumble and the record industry faces a massive loss in revenue year after year, this is their game plan.  It seems to make sense; illegal downloading has coincided with dwindling album sales, so sue the downloaders and start making money again.  The only problem is, it doesn't work.

     It all began in 1999 when Shawn Fanning, a Northeastern University student created a peer-to-peer file sharing network that allowed Internet users to download and distribute music and other media files easier than ever before, and for free.  Trouble emerged in 2000 as acts such as Metallica, Dr. Dre, and Madonna filed lawsuits after their music leaked online.  It did little to slow Napster's massive popularity and growth.  In February 2001, Napster was reported to have 26.4 million users.

     By July 2001, Napster was shut down.  In its place, other illegal downloading sites sprung up across the web.  For the record industry, it was all downhill from there.  1999 was the highest profile year for the industry, with $14.6 billion made.  By 2009, those figures were down to $6.3 billion with no signs of getting any better.

     Despite the dwindling revenue, there was a silver lining to the dark cloud of online piracy.  British alternative band Radiohead demonstrated this in late 2000 when they released their first No. 1 album, Kid A.  Kid A wasn't a particularly commercial album, in fact, no music videos were made for it, and no singles were released from it.  The band actually credited their album's success to the buzz it received after leaking online three months before its release.

     "Most of us really are criminals. Almost everybody owns a little stolen music," said Lev Grossman in a Time magazine article.  "But a little piracy can be a good thing. Sure, O.K., I ripped the audio of the Shins' Phantom Limb off a YouTube video. But on the strength of that minor copyright atrocity, I legally bought two complete Shins albums and shelled out for a Shins concert. The legit market feeds off the black market. Music execs just need to figure out how to live with that."

     The record industry has a point - illegal downloading is illegal - there is no way around that.  Stubbornly suing pirates however, doesn't solve the problem.  Rather than attempting to irradiate illegal downloading,  they need to find a new business model that works in the Internet age.

http://www.baldguyweb.com/blog/2010/02/compensating_musicians_and_rec.php

A little more interesting

There are many questions that have plagues mankind for centuries. Questions that inspire thought, that stimulate conversation, that provoke philosophical debate, they can even cause quite the controversy. Which came first, the chicken or the egg? Divine creation, or the big bang theory? Even Coke or Pepsi causes quite the stir. I wish to address one of the most divisive questions ever to be posed to man and the answer might not be a clean cut one. Bourne or Bond?
These two super-spies are infamous and legendary. Both have incredible strengths, both also have weaknesses. Which, after all is weighed and compared, will reign high king for his stunner abilities and off the charts coolness? It’s gotta be Bourne.
The notorious JB’s (James Bond, Jason Bourne) need to be examined side-by-side in order to see the how easily Bourne tips the scale in his favor. Let’s first examine sheer strength. Sure, Bond can carry his own in a scuffle between the 007 and whomever his nemesis of the film is, but he depends too heavily upon his weapons. Brian Tallerico, a journalist concedes “Daniel Craig proved that Bond could be a physical force as much as an expert marksman,” but then he continues to say, “but there's a history of Bonds that we think we could take. Timothy Dalton? Bourne would need one chop move to the neck to take that punk down. Roger Moore? Don't get us started. Even Brosnan would be Bourne toast. There's a reason that all the Bonds need a cadre of weapons for every assignment.” Bond relies too heavily on technologu, that if he were to find himself without, he would also find himself highly useless. Bourne, on the other hand, needs only just that—his hands. His greatest weapons are the parts of his body. In fact, the technology just slows him down! So, Bourne one, Bond nothing.
Next: weapons. Moviefone compared the two and had to say “Bond relies on a wide array of tech gadgets -- invisible cars, force-field-producing watches -- to combat his foes. Bourne prefers to use whichever household items are nearest -- magazines, books, pens… to bludgeon his attackers into submission.” While Bond does have cooler cars and gadgets, Bourne makes use of EVERYTHING to manipulate his opponent. Bond just takes what someone else, the ingenious “Q”, gives him and uses it and let’s face it, most of Bond’s gadgets don’t even exist. Bourne though, uses whatever he has available, assembles in a split second as he is on the move and still completely renders his opponent unconscious. He doesn’t need invisible cars or force-fields, he can achieve the same means with a fan, a flashlight, and a closed door. Bourne two, Bond zip.
While this is only a tasty morsel of the epic battle of the spies, more to come includes dabbles in comparisons on morals, storylines, characters, acting, and maybe even attractiveness. We’ll see!


PS-this is awesome.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PGltN2llcuw&feature=related

For some reason the hyperlinks weren't working for me...I have them in the real copy of the draft, I promise!

The New Topic--Oil

Drilling any of America’s oil—whether from the frozen tundra of Alaska, the black gold of Texas, or the watery depths of American coasts—is destructive to the future stability of America. I do not mean environmentally damaging because that is an entirely different debate. What I am talking about is the future economic, strength of America being at risk as a result of oil drilling.

Since oil drilling began, it has been apparent that oil wells do not last forever. Eventually, the oil wells will dry up and we will have to turn to an alternate source of energy not only in the United States but also across the world. According to the U.S. Department of Energy, oil currently supplies 40% of our total energy needs and 99% of the energy we use in our cars and trucks. This takes on new meaning when you realize that every car on the road would be completely useless without oil. Beyond the effect that it would have on your daily life, oil is crucial to our military. Our advanced weaponry and equipment would all be totally useless without oil. America would stand vulnerable before any other country that had oil to fuel its attack

The estimates for how long various oil reserves will last are unclear but all agree on one thing: all oil reserves will eventually dry up. Saudi Arabia has the largest portion—19.5%--of the world’s oil reserves hidden under its sands. Canada comes in second at 13.5% followed by Iran, Iraq, and the UAE with 9.9%, 8.3%, and 7.2% respectively. What this means for the US is that 4 of the 5 biggest oil reserves in the US come from countries who are not concerned with the well being of America. Canada, as a result of its proximity to the US, can be considered a trusted ally and are of no cause for concern. Upon examining these 5 countries we can see that the oil in these countries will not last much longer than 100 years. When the oil is gone we will all be on our hands and knees, crippled by the lack of oil.

The American government is aware of the problems that a disruption in the supply of oil could cause to its citizens and its military. In response to this, it has set up the Strategic Petroleum Reserve off the coast of the Gulf of Mexico. This reserve can hold 727 barrels of oil or, in other words, is the largest oil reserve in the world. In addition to these reserve, there is a separate reserve that can be used for heating oil in the North Eastern region of America. Accord to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, America uses almost 20 million barrels of oil per day. That means that our nations reserve would last us just over a month and probably less if there was a sudden military crisis.

What we often forget is that the US has over 20 billion barrels of untapped oil in the ground. This is enough oil to supply the US for 8 years. If we stop drilling our oil we would have reserves to protect ourselves. We would have oil when all other sources dry up. Some people say that America is dependent on foreign oil sources. This is only true if it is our only source of oil. If we were to save our oil in reserve, we would not be dependent on foreign oil but would, in fact, be more independent from foreign oil in the future.

Sticky Hunter Paper Edited A 'Lil Bit

Imagine studying for a science test using an outdated textbook with old theories and information that has been proven false. No matter how hard you studied, it wouldn’t help you on the test. It might actually make your score worse!
The United States is facing a major science test of its own, one that it cannot afford to fail. It’s a test on how the country will tackle the looming pollution problem. A lot of different ideas on how to slow pollution and its effects on our environment have been brought up, but will they really work?
Cap and trade is one such proposed solution to the pollution problem. The idea is that the government sets a limit, or cap, on how much emissions are allowed to be released every year. Organizations are then given permits by the government allowing them to pollute. Over time, the cap is reset lower forcing organizations to pollute less. If organizations are able to reduce their emissions, they can trade their permits to other organizations for money. Cap and trade has support because it is viewed as a way to cut down on pollution and allow organizations to profit from being environmentally friendly.
Despite the good intentions of cap and trade, it’s actually been proven to increase emissions! Just like cramming for a science test with an outdated textbook, no matter how hard we try, it’s just not going to work.
Cap and trade was first implemented on a large scale in Europe in 2005. After three years, emissions actually rose by almost two percent. During that same time, emission in the United States rose, but it was small – a fraction of a percent. If emission in Europe rose more than double than they did in the United States with legislation trying to combat it, why would we want to try it out?
To understand why cap and trade doesn’t work, one must understand why it backfired in Europe. A major reason it didn’t work was the misuses and abuses in the system.
Billionaire and investor George Soros said that the cap and trade system “can be gamed; that’s why financial types like me like it – because there are financial opportunities”.
The initial step of setting the cap is problematic because organizations have billions of dollars at stake. Energy is a big money business and organizations will spend millions of dollars lobbying and persuading government officials to ensure the cap as well as the terms of the legislation benefit them. This is what happened in Europe.
Some companies that have become notorious for exploiting financial opportunities such as Enron and Goldman Sachs, were early supporters of cap and trade. Goldman Sachs in particular saw cap and trade as an enormous opportunity to profit from. President Obama conservatively estimates the legislation to create a $646 billion market for carbon credits that will only go up in price as they become more and more of a commodity, a commodity that organizations like Goldman Sachs would love to get their hands on.
After the cap was set too high in Europe, the market was awash in permits. The organizations that had historically polluted the most received the most permits; they were basically rewarded for polluting. Many organizations even got free permits because they were based on predictions of future emissions levels.
To make matters worse, organizations could look for the financial opportunities and loopholes to make more money while failing to reduce emissions. That happened in Malaysia where the Sinar Mas corporation cut down forests. Forests are brakes on climate change, taking in carbon dioxide. The company then took the razed land and planted palm oil trees. Although the trees didn’t make up for the ecological damage the company caused, they earned permits and was able to pollute more than the cap should have let them.
Organizations could also exaggerate how much carbon they emitted or were planning to emit. By embellishing the numbers, they are able to claim they are lowering their emissions without actually doing anything and, in the process, earn more permits.
Some might argue that the problems encountered in Europe don’t necessarily have to happen in the United States. That is true, but it disregards the fact that there aren’t many examples of legislation being passed that manages to plug all the loopholes; it just doesn’t happen.
Even in the best of circumstances, it’s likely that cap and trade would do little to combat pollution. Many scientists say that cap and trade might inch the global climate down a fraction of a degree over several decades. Climate scientist Chip Knappenberger says that cap and trade would reduce the earth's future temperature by no more than 0.2 degrees Celsius by 2100. Considering the massive economic damage that many predict would befall the United States for adopting the legislation, is it worth less than a degree change in the global temperature over the course of a century? That fails to take into account developing nations which are expected to contribute extraordinarily to global emissions levels. China, for example, uses coal for 70 percent of its energy needs, needs that will only continue to grow as it becomes more industrialized. Even if the United States managed to find a way to make cap and trade work, the miniscule gains would be overshadowed by emissions from other nations.
Cap and trade is plagued with too many problems. The Washington Post said, “Cap-and-trade regimes have advantages…but they are complex and vulnerable to lobbying and special pleading, and they do not guarantee success.”
A solution to our global pollution problem must be found, but cap and trade is not the way. No matter how hard we try, making cap and trade work is like studying from an outdated textbook. The United States needs to look at new ideas and plans and find a better solution. The solution is finding alternate sources of energy. Although supporters of cap and trade will argue that the pressure of a lowering cap will force organizations to seek alternative sources of energy, it's unlikely that a centrally planned, government run scenario will do that. It will take a free market and technological innovation to reach that goal.