It's Oil Lies I Tell You

This week's mid-week rant is late, (and will probably be a bit short) for good reason, in that my health has been suffering for a couple of days.  Just as I get back into the swing of things however, I find that the truth is suffering far more than I have while I have been regaining my strength.  It's campaign season after all, and whether you're running for a nomination, or already running for the highest office in the land, it seems to be a requirement for the truth to take far more of a beating than my tired old carcass has taken this week.

The same president who refused to let the Keystone XL pipeline become part of a Congressional bill a couple of months ago and deferred approval to 2013, now has the political temerity to stand in front of a pile of pipe in Oklahoma and say that he's trying to expedite the process.  In typical campaign fashion, he blamed political opponents for attempting to circumvent a process that he felt needed more time three months ago; while now telling applauding audiences that he will cut regulatory red tape (that his Administration created) to speed the process up.       

Note:  The president and candidates for office are likely to see much more in the way of applauding audiences this year, since recently passed legislation makes it illegal to protest in the presence of someone guarded by the Secret Service ... like the president and presidential candidates.

He went on to say that he's going to order federal agencies to expedite the approval process that he once delayed (after all, the project has only been under review for three years).  Curiously, few in the media seem ready to point out that President Obama has no dog in this hunt, as the section of pipeline being built does not require federal approval; and none seem ready to use the term 'flip-flop' in discussing the President's restatement of his previous strongly held position, one which greatly appealed to his core constituencies in the environmental movement.

In a CNN piece offered today, he also said "Anyone who says that we're somehow suppressing domestic oil production isn't paying attention".  Now for those of you not paying attention, this is one of the lies by omission.  Oil production is not being suppressed by the Administration, since it comes from wells whose drilling began long before the President took office.  Fewer permits are being issued for new exploration however, and vast tracts of land have been placed out of reach for exploration by this Administration.  This bodes ill for future long-term domestic production. 

There was more 'creative truth' forthcoming in the Oklahoma speech, when the president said "the price of oil is set by the global market", going on to blame unrest in the Middle East for the higher prices.  Curious then, that the price of oil is higher now than during the Arab Spring or the Iraq War; nor did they reach current pricing levels even during Egypt's popular uprising and the uncertainty of its ability to control the Suez Canal.  

What wasn't mentioned in the speech however, is that oil is traded in US dollars; and that as our unaddressed national debt continues to go up faster than a 'shovel ready project' and the government printing presses held by the Federal Reserve continuing printing this fiat currency at a record pace, the value of those dollars continues to diminish in value for real goods like gold, silver, and OIL.  Hence this inflated currency will not buy as much oil as it used to, and prices effectively go up. 

It's not all lies however. Some is merely a misleading way of telling the truth.  For example, the President said in a speech in Columbus later today that, "America's dependence on foreign oil has gone down every single year." (since he took office in 2009) This statement has some truth to it, if you use the excuse that the current floundering economy requires less oil to fuel it, and therefore depends less on foreign production.  This however, is like saying 'My out of pocket expenses were down this year, because I was dead'.    

Now before those of you flying your Republican flags dislocate your arms by patting yourself on the back, try and remember that none of your candidates has yet to put together a cohesive energy policy.  They remain content to castigate the man in the Oval Office, while presenting no alternatives other than 'Drill baby, drill'.  Newt Gingrich, mostly irrelevant now in the process anyway, has gone so far as to make $2.50 gas part of his stump speech; as if his wishing it were so will make it so.  

How then will he achieve this objective? More drilling would certainly bring up production and reduce prices, but as we've been reminded far too often, it take 5-7 years to bring a well into production; long after the first term of an Obama replacement were to end.  Oh sure, price controls mandating $2.50 per gallon for gas could be instituted, but not only would this have a negative impact on future drilling; but it hardly seems the reaction of someone who calls himself a  Capitalist and small government Conservative.

Rick Santorum is calling the current Administration policy that of "N-O", but this seems a strange attack from another supposed small government candidate who is already talking about calling out a new morality police to end pornography.  He also has failed to produce what anyone would even laughingly call an energy policy as part of his bid for the highest office in the land, being too concerned with winning the religious right instead of the fiscal right; something that's long been his Achilles heel.

The Republican frontrunner Romney is quick to slap the Administration around on what it's doing, inferring that this is about making gas on par with an alternative energy agenda that they've been pushing (which may the only truth being spoken here), but is much slower on the draw in describing what he'd do instead.  Perhaps this former business executive (and not career politician) thinks that this is situation is like what we were told about the now two year-old Patients Affordable Health Care law (Obamacare) that might be his opponent's largest achievement in office.  It's a situation where we should vote for him before we learn what his energy policy is.

The truth of the matter is that 75% of the potential Republican nominees energy position amounts to little more than, 'The other guy is a bad man, doing bad things'.  (I thought about using 'The other guy's a bad man and a doo-doo head'; but didn't want to slander the President for fear that I would quickly find myself doing an interview with the Secret Service.) 

I won't go into Ron Paul's position in great detail, in spite of the fact that it agrees with mine (or is it vice versa).  He believes that the real culprit in the oil crisis is inflation.  He in fact went on "The Tonight Show" earlier in the week (no, I don't watch Jay Leno, but read about it after the fact here), and described the problem rather succinctly.  Holding up a silver dime, he went on to explain that based on the current value of silver (approx $30 per ounce) that you could buy a gallon of gas (even at its current price) for the precious metal value of the weight of this 10 cent coin.  The cost of everything unfortunately, goes up when our currency is no longer based on the real value of real things, and when we allow the Federal Reserve and the Federal government to play games with the value of currency and the credit rating of the nation.  (But of course Ron Paul's opinions are crazy.)

The bottom line here is that with this one rare exception, everything that you're being told about the price of oil, and the subsequent price of a gallon of gas ... is Oil Lies.

                      

Ideology And Vaclav Havel

"Why bother with a ceaseless and in fact hopeless search for truth when truth can be had readily, all at once, in the form of an ideology or doctrine?  Suddenly it is all so simple.  So many difficult questions are answered in advance!  So many laborious existential tasks from which our minds are freed once and for all!"

- Vaclav Havel

Havel is notable for being the last president of Czechoslovakia and the first president of the Czech Republic; and I find this quote from the noted essayist, poet, and politician occasionally poking out its ugly head as I watch both the political left and the right participating in Washington's 'business as usual'.   

The endless puppet show of the Republican debates goes on, as the mainstream media continues to tell us that Mitt Romney is the presumptive candidate; ignoring anyone else in the field, unless it's to speculate on when that current challenger will implode certainly seems to fit the bill.  Perhaps they feel that by the power of repetitive suggestion that non-Democrats will stop paying attention, accept their shrill and dismissive rhetoric as gospel, and stop questioning those seeking the highest office in the land on the Republican side. 

Meanwhile, any candidate questioning the pre-existing national party doctrines as defined by political pundits is marginalized to the point of non-existence.  Caught up in what Thomas Sowell would call 'Stage One Thinking', and ignoring the potential risks of sound-bite solutions that candidates are forced to give in the debate format they are handed, they refuse to accept anyone and anything beyond per-established political doctrine.  If this is what party politics and the electoral process has come to, maybe it's time to leave the party.  

The President continues a speaking tour that's little more than campaign to swing states at taxpayer expense to promote a plan that has already turned into a carcass picked more cleanly than last week's Thanksgiving turkey.  Some less cynical than I, might even find it strange that he feels he can do more good promoting it in stump speeches than working in Washington with legislators already caught up in their own ideologies.  Perhaps this is what leadership has come to mean (though I highly doubt it); though one cannot help but question how the oft heralded spirit of compromise is supposed to work when what we're handed is little more than strictly adhered to ideology from the bully pulpit of the White House.  

This however, is how the current resident of the White House got to reach that exalted position (as did many of those before him), and it's no doubt the way he intends to maintain 'the last job he will ever have'. This too is a well-known doctrine of politics.

Meanwhile the 'dance of the dead' (well, brain dead at least) goes on in Washington, where 535 legislators can't agree on the what a budget is or how to pass one, don't seem to know what constitutes a spending cut and can't agree on when such a cut will happen even when they agree that in fact it must, and attempts to operate the nation's economy on a principle of 'Wimpy Economics' that says we can pay for spending cuts tomorrow with tax increases today.

And while most agree that closing some of the loopholes in the tax code that Congress itself created is a good idea, ideology (and the 2012 elections) prevent them from doing so.  While most likewise agree that we cannot continue to spend and increase our national debt at current rates, ideology again prohibits them from doing anything to address this problem as well.

They ignore common sense and the basic principles of math including addition, subtraction, and the calculation of percentages; all the while telling us that they do so in the name of an ideology that's either inconsistent, contradictory, or both.  And while both parties attempt to tell us that this debate is all about holding firmly to such ideology, we all know that it's more about political expediency and not throwing away a gig that pays in excess of $165k in tough economic times.  Even those as apparently ignorant as those we hired as 'public servants' know better than to do anything that might lead them to having to look for a new job in this economy.

Adding insult to injury, we watch in stunned silence as information is released that the Federal Reserve lent over $7 trillion dollars to banks around the world (and plans to lend more).  Of course why we would expect a group of unelected bureaucrats who are nothing more than independent bankers to do otherwise is a mystery to me.  After all, who better than the financial experts who either participated in or blithely sat by and watched as the world's economy went to hell should we trust to act in our best interests rather than their own (or that of their brother bankers)?  

And while we prop up the world's financial system with electronically printed money that our grandchildren's grandchildren will be paying for, we have the comfort of knowing that those running the banks will continue to receive the exorbitant bonuses promised to them by contract, as those in charge simply play the game by the rules that they created, following the time honored ideology that got us where we are today.


I wonder if Mr. Havel chuckles or cries as he recognizes the terrible truth he has taught us?

.

Sell Crazy Someplace Else

"Sell crazy someplace else. We're all stocked up here." 

- Jack Nicholson from "As Good As It Gets.

That's it ... 'nuff said.

OK, I guess that I can't leave it at that, as much as I'd like to.  But let's face it, that train (the crazy train) left the station a long time ago; and not only is it not coming back, but as Ian Anderson said in 'Locomotive Breath', "the train won't stop going, no way to slow down".  It would be nice however, if somebody would let you off for a rest once in a while, especially during what has already become another never-ending election season.  You see, during election season, every time someone dares to turn one of our sacred cows into steaks, the mental wards seem to let loose great streams of naysayers to speak to the Media.  Don't believe me, then let me cite some examples:

Rick Perry says that Social Security is a 'Ponzi Scheme' and everyone is up in arms.  How dare he attack one of the most important programs in the history of this nation!  Of course the fact that Social Security fits the definition of a Ponzi Scheme like a glove (and not the ones from the OJ Simpson trial) is irrelevant. The facts get thrown out the window because Social Security is in fact part of the fabric of American Society (and that fabric seems to be more than a little frayed these days).  After all Rick Perry must be a kook since he's a Republican from the same state as George Bush and that strange Ron Paul guy (who's not only also skeptical of this unsafe safety net, but tells the not-so-pretty truth about most of the rest of this country's economic problems).  Besides, the AARP and a lot of the early investors don't want hear the truth about Social Security for fear that they'll lose out on the money promised to them when they were forced by the government to join it.

Some candidates are saying that Global Warming is true, some are saying its not!  OK, even if we concede some validity to the prospect that the planet is getting warmer (for the sake of argument), do we therefore need to concede that the sole cause of it is Man?  Yes, I know that Man's technologies produce carbon dioxide, methane, and other 'Greenhouse Gases', and that Man could therefore be part of the cause.  On the other hand, there's a lot of other things on the planet that produce Greenhouse gases that could be contributing (like cows and pigs, and oh yeah ... volcanoes).  If the planet is in fact getting warmer though, couldn't it also have something to do with that big bright ball of fire that we see in the sky.  You know ... the Sun.  Let's face it, this planet has been getting warmer and colder since it was formed; and a lot of the same guys that are telling us that the Man is causing the planet to get warmer now were telling us that Man was causing the planet to get colder 40 years ago.  Which is it?  Or do we need to concede both sides of the equation to them so that there's justification for massive government regulation designed to save us (if it doesn't kill us first).  Besides, the guys trying to make the case can't get the weather right from day to day or year to year, let alone decade to decade or century to century; and seem to change theories far more often than they change their underwear.  (Sorry, that's not fair.  I have no idea how often they change their underwear.  Hey, maybe we can get some government funding to do a study and find out.)

Republican candidates are saying The 'Theory of Evolution' is right, no wait it's wrong.  No wait, it's a still theory, not proven fact.  New evidence is coming to the attention of scientists every day that cause this 'theory' to be modified; but that's what you're supposed to do with scientific theories.  You test them against the evidence and change them to fit the facts.  The 'Theory of Evolution' has itself evolved significantly since first proposed by Charles Darwin; and while he'd probably still recognize it, I'm not sure he could stake a claim to it any more.  As for the alternative proposal, that every form of plant and animal on the planet was created in seven days, I for one am just as skeptical.  The only proof seems to be a book that has been translated more times than 'Gone With the Wind' and probably become more garbled with each translation than Brent & Stuart Tarleton's speech when they tried to chat up Scarlett O'Hara at Tara.  Factor in that many of these translations were done at the behest of the government in power at the time or by a Hierarchical church bent on proving a point or controlling the peasants, and maybe we should all be more skeptical.  That doesn't make what was written wrong, but neither does it make the latest translation proven fact. 

The Democratic candidate seems to believe we can spend our way out of the current recession.  The discussion really heats up when talk begins about how to get us out of our financial doldrums.  In spite of crushing debt in this country, there seems to be a body of opinion that says that spending more money that we don't have is the answer.  Red or Blue, take your pick.  Both have managed to ignore easily provable facts of mathematics and contributed to the continuing disaster by endlessly debating their reliability for more years than I have been around.  Recently they seem to spend most of their time with their fingers in their ears singing "la la la la la" when you try to talk to them, until you want to slap them sillier than they already are.  The two sides of the argument often seem limited to the ones who say it's really not problem in the first place and those that believe we can fix it without spending less.  When someone does at long last stick their neck out far enough to concede the proven scientific principles of addition and subtraction are true, they cut it off, castigate the perpetrator as an apostate or a loon, and propose a fix that involves not reducing the spending, but reducing the rate at which spending increases.  You know, it's this kind of thinking that normally leads people to grand new chapters in their lives ... usually Chapter 7 or Chapter 11. 

Ahhhhhhhh!  Where did I leave my damned duct tape?

Of course this list of insanities could go on and on (hmm, sounds like an old Stephen Bishop tune), but doing so could be considered symptoms of obsessive / compulsive disorder (yep, back to the Nicholson reference); and I think you're starting to get the idea anyway. Besides it's almost time for one of the twice weekly therapy sessions I attend during election season (which means year round these days) in the misguided hope that it will help me to cope with the madness. Let me tell you though, for those of us really paying attention to what's going on in the country these days, we're already getting plenty of crazy.  Go sell yours someplace else.