Dazed and Confussed
I just got out of my speech 1050 class (trying to fill that CI requirement). Today we had the assignment of giving a persuasive speech. It was definantly interesting. Of the 40 class members around one third talked about the environment in one way or another. The most interesting was a talk about why we should not drill in ANWR. I was amazed because every fact presented was quoted from the Serria club. Listening to the speech you would have thought that drilling would cause the entire collapse of the ecosystem there. One fact that was mentioned was that we could only get enough oil for the equivalence for one days use in the U.S. I have heard conflicting assessments. The guy who gave the speech is not a hippie tree huger either, he is a yokal cowboy, he seems like a really good, normal guy with no agenda. That is the most disturbing part of the evening. So I guess my question is how are we to make policy that is effective and realistic if the only information that is spread around out there is subjective and only used to persuade people to one side of the debate.? Don't we need objective facts to make decisions? Or maybe the facts that I have are wrong because I got them from Jim Hansen and the Cato institute? I am up for enlightenment.