Equal, Not the Same: Identity Politics is Toxic to Our Republic
I had an engineering professor in college who once horrified an entire class with a single word. A student asked him if he believed women and men were equal.
“No,” he replied. Eyes widened. Jaws dropped. Gasps could be heard in the next county. He explained.
“What does it mean to be equal? Women and men are clearly not the same. Men are – on average – taller, heavier, and stronger. Women can, on average, withstand pain longer than men. Men have more natural tendencies to focus on one thing while women more naturally multitask.”
He went on to reference some very fascinating statistics about the statistical differences between men and women in everything from alcoholism to depression, and performance in math and verbal tests. I remember one statistic in particular… that boys were nearly ten times more likely to be diagnosed as ADD or dyslexic. I remember because of my own experience with ADD. He ended with, “does that sounds equal to you?”
Leave it to an engineer to give a scientific answer to a political question.
This wasn’t a diversity lecture. It was a statement of reality. Equality does not mean “sameness.” Difference, we once believed, was the spice of life. Some have lost this in the recent drive to make everyone across the country think and say the exact same things, adopt the same beliefs, or vote the same way. If they don’t, they face de-platforming from social media and banishment from polite society.
Together with this push to make everyone think the same things is a push to forbid criticizing anyone who doesn’t look like you. President Trump recently came under fire from Rep. Elijah Cummings over the border crisis. The president responded with a series of tweets strongly questioning Cummings’ record serving the people of his own district, Baltimore, Maryland. Baltimore has long been one of the most dangerous cities in America. Baltimore is just two-thirds the size of Austin, Texas, for instance, yet suffers about nine times more murders per year. Baltimore, a historic American city with enormous potential, is losing population while violent crime, boarded up buildings, trash – and yes, rats – render it in heartbreaking condition. This is awful for the people of Baltimore. Rep. Cummings has held that seat since 1996. It’s not out of bounds to point any of this out. The process of identifying the problems can help find solutions and address them. Identity politics prevents us from finding real solutions.
Those who are the first to claim that criticism of someone who is of another race is somehow racist immediately slammed the president and accused him of hate and racism. As if it is somehow racist to critique someone if you are not the same as they are.
Since when is it hate or racism to want what’s best for our fellow Americans? Since when is it hateful to question the public record of anyone elected to public office?
It’s not, of course. Just as we’re all free to criticize Republicans of color like Sen. Ted Cruz, Housing Secretary Dr. Ben Carson, Candace Owens, and others on the right, it’s fair game to criticize Rep. Cummings. And by the way, a 20-year-old video has recently come to light of Rep. Cummings describing Baltimore as “drug-infested.” He has known of his city’s problems for decades. What has he done to solve them?
By trying to make criticism of his record out of bounds based on race, they’re really saying, “What you say reflects badly on us, therefore shut up!”
Well, no. That’s not how our republic works.
Identity politics is toxic for our country. It’s divisive, it prevents us openly discussing issues so we may find solutions to them, and it’s morally repugnant. Identity politics is based on the assumption that you can only understand or represent me if you are the same race, gender, nationality, or sexual orientation as I am. This is either racist, classist, bigoted or all three. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. dreamt of a day we would all be judged not by the color of our skin, but by our character. Have some, who claim to revere King, abandoned this dream?
If we’re all equal – and we are – we’re all equally subject to fair criticism.
This article originally appeared on PJ Media.
It’s Time to Celebrate American Energy Independence
This summer we reached a milestone in the American energy industry. The United States now produces 12 million barrels of crude oil per day. This shatters the record set a year ago, which in turn shatters the U.S. production record set way back in 1970. The United States is now the world’s top energy producer.
We didn’t break the record by sheer luck. In fact, if the Democrats had their way, we wouldn’t have broken the record at all.
Think back to 2011. Gas prices were near $4 a gallon. The entire nation was searching for a solution to what at the time seemed like prices that would only increase.
High gas prices disproportionately hit the poor the hardest. High gas prices impact everything from their commute to work, to how much they end up taking home each paycheck.
But in 2011, you’d have been hard-pressed to find a Democrat who had a solution. One who certainly did not was President Barack Obama.
As gas prices rose and rose, the president – who I should point out had no experience whatsoever in the energy industry – said, “We can’t just drill our way out of the problem. If we’re serious about addressing our energy problems, we’re going to have to do more than drill.” He made these remarks in May 2011, and later mocked those who chanted “Drill Baby Drill” in the runup to the 2012 election.
Fast forward to 2019. President Obama and everyone who agreed with him has been proven wrong.
The United States – not Saudi Arabia or Russia – is now the world’s largest crude oil producer. This was unthinkable a few years ago, when politicians bemoaned our dependence on foreign oil, without ever offering any solutions.
In the new energy economy Texas leads the way and is almost certain to exceed 5 million barrels per day, or about 40% of the total American output.
As if to underscore just how huge a player Texas now is, a company here recently inked a deal to export natural gas – to Saudi Arabia.
So how did we get here? How did things change so much in just eight years?
On the science side, we have made major oil discoveries in the past few years. The Permian Basin in West Texas is much larger than previously thought. The United States is now estimated to have 293 billion barrels of oil under the ground. That’s more than both Saudi Arabia and Russia, to say nothing of oil-producing countries like Iran and Venezuela.
And thanks to improved engineering and extraction techniques, we can recover more and more of that oil than ever before. If you think I’m referring to fracking, you’re right. Fracking is driving the Texas energy boom. Fracking is also driving the boom in North Dakota. Fracking is keeping prices at the pump much lower than they were 8 years ago.
At the same time, as a Texas energy regulator, I’m pleased to tell you that in our state, we encourage energy development that is clean and responsible. We go after violators and fine them. We plug abandoned oil wells. We protect our precious environment. We have created a regulatory environment that is fair and predictable for producers and for consumers.
Now, we still have work to do. We need to continue finding ways to move product to market, which means roads and pipelines from the fields to ports and refineries. The Trump administration is working with Texas, deepening the Port of Corpus Christi and improving the Port of Brownsville – projects that mean good jobs and improved throughput and stability for America’s increasing energy independence. Whether you live in Texas or not, these projects will benefit you by helping keep pump prices low and reducing the impact of price shocks such as instability in the Middle East. And we should pursue an all-of-the-above strategy that includes wind, solar, nuclear and other ways to generate power.
We shouldn’t listen to those who would punish Americans with higher energy prices for their own political purposes. From Barack Obama to Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, they have been proven wrong time and again.
For the first time in generations, America is producing more energy than any other nation. This strengthens our economic security and our national security. We have achieved this through hard work, good science and commonsense regulation. Every American should be proud of this accomplishment. Let’s celebrate American energy independence.
This article originally appeared on PJ Media.
A nightmare for the American dream, and a tyrant's expensive fantasy
“Farting cows eliminate air travel we only have 12 years to save the planet or we’re all gonna die!!” It’s difficult to keep up with all the insanity coming from the Green New Deal’s Democrat proponents. The Green New Deal resolution and frequently asked questions spell out an all-out assault on freedoms we hold dear, from our jobs to our energy to what we would be allowed to have for lunch.
My objective is to ensure Americans have access to affordable, reliable energy that is as clean as possible. The Green New Deal does not achieve any of that. In fact, it would render the federal government far more powerful at the expense of the states and citizens. That’s the wrong way to go.
Let’s unpack one Green New Deal idea for example: eliminating “farting cows.” It sounds funny, but there are serious issues in play.
The FAQ the Green New Deal’s proponents released mentioned eliminating “farting cows.” That elicited chuckles and they promptly retracted the FAQ (but the web never forgets). They didn’t abandon the Green New Deal or its goals and when pressed on why flatulent cattle even merited mention, the Green New Deal’s architect and Twitter fad, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, New York Democrat, said she was really aiming at “factory farming.”
Another word for “factory farming” is ranching. The Green New Deal takes direct aim at ranching. Texas has nearly 250,000 farms and ranches, covering about 13 million acres and numerous jobs.
I’m a conservative, but in Texas beef is not a partisan thing. From liberal Austin to the more conservative parts of the state, are restaurants with names like Franklin’s, Iron Works, Black’s and Smitty’s. Depending on who you talk to, these spots are either great or off-the-scales mind-blowing. What are they known for? Beef brisket, primarily.
The Green New Deal is not just poor leadership and an overbearing lurch toward dangerous, unrealistic energy policy. It’s an arrogant scheme to permanently put government in your face in new and obnoxious ways, as AOC clearly says: “But we have to take a look at everything, and what we need to realize about climate change is about every choice that we make in our lives, you know?”
Every choice? The Green New Deal would put the force of government into “every choice” we citizens make? That’s what she said, so we have to presume it’s what she actually meant and it’s not a bug in the plan. It’s a feature.
This gives government the power to rip the fajitas right out of your tortillas. Plus Philly cheesesteaks, Chicago meat lover’s pizza, New York strip – gone, gone, gone. But you can presumably keep your tortillas if you like your tortillas (unless the corn or flour came from a “factory farm”).
On a more serious note, your freedom to choose how you live your life goes away too, dictated by a massive, over-powerful government Miss Ocasio-Cortez believes is “in charge” of your life — and if you question her, you’re just “shouting from the cheap seats.”
In reality, those of us elected to public office are servants, not “in charge” of the people. I represent 28.5 million Texans regulating oil and gas production at the Railroad Commission. I’m not in charge of Texans — they are my bosses.The 800,000 in AOC’s New York district are supposed to be her bosses. Incidentally, I’ve created hundreds and hundreds of jobs. In her short career, AOC has already killed 25,000 jobs. Texas leads the way as the United States steps up to lead global energy production. New York depends on Texas energy to keep the lights on and the trains running.
Leaders propose workable ideas that can be implemented to help people. For instance, we can harness scientific research conducted at the University of Texas (which is funded in part by revenues from oil production), to turn the water obtained from drilling into fresh water to alleviate the issues states such as California and Texas face. That’s looking at the big picture and being constructive. It’s real leadership.
When you tally up the Green New Deal’s assault on fossil fuels and its assault on farming and ranching, it is a senseless economic assault on Texas — and the national economy.
Then factor in that the Green New Deal’s purpose would be to dictate every choice, from the food on your plate to whether you will even be allowed to have children. This makes the Green New Deal a tyrant’s dream, and a nightmare for the American dream.
This article originally appeared on the Washington Times.
Commentary: Who Gets the Green in the Green New Deal?
Recently there has been a lot of talk about the Green New Deal, a resolution proposed by some in Congress, which would – in theory – lay out a plan to convert our entire economy to net-zero carbon emissions. But after reading the resolution, this Green New Deal reads more like a Democrat wish list than an actual plan. This is not leadership.
While it is easy to throw out a wish list and call it “bold ideas,” a leader also thinks about the implications of these ideas. A leader owns the implementation, not just the message. Since there is no mention of funding or practical paths forward, the Green New Deal is not only hollow, it is dangerous. It is nearly impossible to make happen, and if we blindly attempted, it would cost the country trillions of dollars, plus have potentially tens of trillions of dollars of negative economic impact.
The worst part is, I believe if pieces of this “Deal” became law it would do more to harm than good, while forcing struggling Americans to subsidize the wealthy.
Let me explain:
Imagine James who is an African-American living in Antioch, but working downtown in San Francisco. He makes $45,000 per year. Because housing in the Bay Area is unaffordable, James drives the 45 miles to and from work each way every day, paying about 80 Cents more per gallon of gas than the national average just because he lives in California. California’s gas tax was structured to limit money for addressing congestion to $250 million – less than 1percent of the $2.88 billion the tax is anticipated to generate.
Because California refuses to increase traffic capacity to encourage public transportation use, James doesn’t just drive 45 minutes. James’ drive is more like 90 minutes each way. With an average 25 mile per gallon car, James spends about $3,000 per year on fuel. But he spends so much time idling his gas mileage is actually closer to 20 so his fuel costs are much higher.
It gets worse. California’s environmental policies increase electricity costs too: 58 percent above the national average.
Additionally, between 2000 and 2014 many African American and Latinos shifted from central cities to eastern suburbs. Many families are doubling or tripling up in homes because they cannot afford single family housing. In 2016 and 2017, the combination of increased congestion and more vehicle miles traveled reversed decades of air quality improvements in California. The very policies California passed to help the environment, similar the Green New Deal, are harming the environment.
At the same time, California’s politicians have decided they want more electric vehicles on the roads. That’s fine. But while federal electrical vehicle subsidies are expiring, California may increase its incentive from $2,500 to $4,500. So, those who are buying electric cars benefit while those paying gasoline taxes get hurt. Who buys electric cars? The average Tesla purchaser is overwhelmingly a white, upper class male making $143,000 a year. Should this be subsidized?
The effect: California’s poorest, minority communities are being taxed to subsidize some rich guy’s Tesla. Does this make any sense?
This situation is so out of hand a civil rights group is suing the state of California for re-segregation due to its environmental policies.
The lawsuit says “California’s climate policies guarantee that housing, transportation and electricity prices will continue to rise while ‘gateway’ jobs to the middle class for those without college degrees, such as manufacturing and logistics, will continue to locate in other states.”
Do we want this across the entire country?
Just in California alone they need 3.5 million new housing options to deal with homelessness and unaffordability. California has the highest homeless population, and the highest homelessness rate, in the nation. But rich white people use the California Environmental Quality Act to challenge multi-family housing units located in existing urbanized areas, at the expense of working minorities, all because of California’s version of the Green New Deal.
I am a huge environmentalist. As Texas Railroad Commissioner I regulate the oil and gas industry and I am passionate about boldly going after those who harm the environment or our communities. The fact is, most operators in this state are good, responsible people who care as much about their world as I do. Because we take energy regulation seriously in Texas, I was disappointed the “Green New Deal” promotes policies that aren’t realistic and would devastate many of our citizens.
How can we help the hard-working poor and middle class in this country? By making the basic needs to sustain life reliable and affordable. If James lived in Texas, he would pay $2,600 less for the same energy needs. That’s like a percent pay increase. Now is not a time to ask poorer people to subsidize rich people’s choices. Now is a time with all of the energy development in this country and in this state to make sure everybody has access to affordable, reliable energy to make energy one less thing they have to worry about.
This article originally appeared on Chron.