Once again, Europe is taking the appeasement approach with an aggressive dictator. In fact, European leaders (?) are saying less to condemn Russia than they did in condemnation of Saddam Hussein.
Of course, that was the entire point of Russia’s power play in the Caspian basin. All but one of the oil pipelines that supply continental Europe run through Russia. The remaining pipeline runs through Georgia. Little wonder then that the notoriously weak-kneed French, Germans, etal. Are soft-selling their objections to the Anschluss currently underway. It’s kinda like expecting a crack-addict prostitute to stand up to her dopedealer-pimp-boyfriend when he betas her. Yeah, she should, but few have that inner strength.
Ah, but if the euros knew they had an alternate source of oil, would they grow a spine? Maybe. They wouldn’t turn into hawks, but maybe they would at least show some support when some one (Uncle Sam to the rescue) steps in to fight tyranny and aggression.
So where is this oil source? You guessed it – right here in the good ole’ U.S of A. We have lots of oil in Alaskan hinterlands and in offshore deposits in the outer continental shelf. We can’t get to it because the eco-nazis want us all to live like Grizzly Adams – never mind that they don’t live what they preach, they expect us to suffer for their ideology.
Oh yeah, and drilling also provides good paying blue collar jobs that we desperately need. That’s probably the biggest reason for liberals to oppose drilling – it would show capitalism at its best, once again.
Wednesday, August 20, 2008
Wednesday, June 11, 2008
Feeling the Pinch
Anyone else think that $4/gal is totally nuts? At the risk of sounding like an old fart, I still remember when $1/gal got skipped for being too expensive.
It seems most people like to blame OPEC for not producing enough or the oil companies for charging too much. Nice. It's always fun to point the finger at some one else. Remember mom's little adage 'when you point your finger at someone else, there's always three more pointing back at you'? Never has this statement been more true than America's current energy troubles. We have allowed this to happen, most of us by inaction and silence.
First of all, the pump price of gasoline has as much to do with our domestic refining capacity as it does with the oil supply. Wanna know why oil spiked after Katrina & Rita? Houston and New Orleans represent nearly half of the total refining capacity of the US. Oops. Oh, and since people have been slow to trickle back into the city below sea level, wedged between a lake, a major river and an ocean (oh Lord, don't let me get started on that insanity!!), do ya think maybe the New Orleans refineries aren't back to full capacity yet?
So increasing refining capacity would decrease gas prices. Ah, but we haven't built a new refinery in 40 or 50 years. (This is where Bill O'Reilly blames the oil companies -- duh-- more refineries would mean more profit in the long run, so that dog don't hunt Mr. OReilly). A coalition of eco-freaks and NIMBYs (Not In My Backyard) has used an avalanche of lawsuits to prevent the building of new refineries. At the same time, many states (at eco-freak urging) have adopted laws requiring a number of exotic fuel blends. This effectively reduces our refining capacity further since refining capacity must be dedicated to the additional blends.
So here's an idea -- and a constitutional one at that! Congress should mandate which blends can be required across state boundaries. Under the Constitution, Congress has sole power to regulate interstate commerce. If we limit the number of blends refineries must produce, we effectively increase our refining capacity. This solution can produce noticeable effects in six months to a year (perhaps less, I'm being conservative - go figure). The delay time would depend on how long it takes the refineries to retool. Now, if a state wanted a blend not on the allowed list they can get around it - by having a refinery built in their state. (I love double-barreled solutions).
Of course, we'd have to be careful and deliberate in deciding which blends are on the allowed list. The panel making the recommendations can not be overloaded with politicians or eco-freaks, though it should certainly include these groups. Automotive companies as well as oil companies should have a significant showing at the table since they are the ones who know about refining and using oil. If these groups are marginalized, the recommendations will be trash.
Wow, this already getting long so I'll make the rest short and sweet. We will still need to acquire more oil - preferably from a reliable, secure source. Oh wait, we already have oil we can depend on -- OUR OWN OIL!! Yes, ladies and gentleman, the US has no shortage of crude oil deposits within it's own national boundaries. We have major deposits along the continental shelf, Alaska (Anwar) and the Gulf of Mexico. Much of the off shore sites are along the California coast and the southern east coast (Florida & the Carolinas). Unfortunately again, the NIMBYs and eco-freaks have stopped the utilization of a needed resource. Folks have been trying to drill in Anwar since at least the mid 90's. Even though we can access this vast reserve with a very small facility (due to new innovations that allow horizontal drilling) the eco-freaks have continued their campaign to keep this country dependent on hostile nations. While Congress has severely curtailed domestic oil drilling in the Gulf of Mexico, China is pedal-to-the-metal exploring and developing this field. Nice. Now, thanks to the eco-freaks, Chinese tanks will be burning oil that should be in American cars. Instead of taking the kids to soccer practice, that oil will be crushing student demonstrators or charging in to neighboring countries.
One last note, we are still finding or finding ways to access oil in our own lands. Minnesota has a vast (I mean VAST) oil deposit that we can now get to due to the recent development of horizontal drilling techniques. I think Minnesotans are smart enough to tell the eco-freaks what to kiss if they try to stop development.
It seems most people like to blame OPEC for not producing enough or the oil companies for charging too much. Nice. It's always fun to point the finger at some one else. Remember mom's little adage 'when you point your finger at someone else, there's always three more pointing back at you'? Never has this statement been more true than America's current energy troubles. We have allowed this to happen, most of us by inaction and silence.
First of all, the pump price of gasoline has as much to do with our domestic refining capacity as it does with the oil supply. Wanna know why oil spiked after Katrina & Rita? Houston and New Orleans represent nearly half of the total refining capacity of the US. Oops. Oh, and since people have been slow to trickle back into the city below sea level, wedged between a lake, a major river and an ocean (oh Lord, don't let me get started on that insanity!!), do ya think maybe the New Orleans refineries aren't back to full capacity yet?
So increasing refining capacity would decrease gas prices. Ah, but we haven't built a new refinery in 40 or 50 years. (This is where Bill O'Reilly blames the oil companies -- duh-- more refineries would mean more profit in the long run, so that dog don't hunt Mr. OReilly). A coalition of eco-freaks and NIMBYs (Not In My Backyard) has used an avalanche of lawsuits to prevent the building of new refineries. At the same time, many states (at eco-freak urging) have adopted laws requiring a number of exotic fuel blends. This effectively reduces our refining capacity further since refining capacity must be dedicated to the additional blends.
So here's an idea -- and a constitutional one at that! Congress should mandate which blends can be required across state boundaries. Under the Constitution, Congress has sole power to regulate interstate commerce. If we limit the number of blends refineries must produce, we effectively increase our refining capacity. This solution can produce noticeable effects in six months to a year (perhaps less, I'm being conservative - go figure). The delay time would depend on how long it takes the refineries to retool. Now, if a state wanted a blend not on the allowed list they can get around it - by having a refinery built in their state. (I love double-barreled solutions).
Of course, we'd have to be careful and deliberate in deciding which blends are on the allowed list. The panel making the recommendations can not be overloaded with politicians or eco-freaks, though it should certainly include these groups. Automotive companies as well as oil companies should have a significant showing at the table since they are the ones who know about refining and using oil. If these groups are marginalized, the recommendations will be trash.
Wow, this already getting long so I'll make the rest short and sweet. We will still need to acquire more oil - preferably from a reliable, secure source. Oh wait, we already have oil we can depend on -- OUR OWN OIL!! Yes, ladies and gentleman, the US has no shortage of crude oil deposits within it's own national boundaries. We have major deposits along the continental shelf, Alaska (Anwar) and the Gulf of Mexico. Much of the off shore sites are along the California coast and the southern east coast (Florida & the Carolinas). Unfortunately again, the NIMBYs and eco-freaks have stopped the utilization of a needed resource. Folks have been trying to drill in Anwar since at least the mid 90's. Even though we can access this vast reserve with a very small facility (due to new innovations that allow horizontal drilling) the eco-freaks have continued their campaign to keep this country dependent on hostile nations. While Congress has severely curtailed domestic oil drilling in the Gulf of Mexico, China is pedal-to-the-metal exploring and developing this field. Nice. Now, thanks to the eco-freaks, Chinese tanks will be burning oil that should be in American cars. Instead of taking the kids to soccer practice, that oil will be crushing student demonstrators or charging in to neighboring countries.
One last note, we are still finding or finding ways to access oil in our own lands. Minnesota has a vast (I mean VAST) oil deposit that we can now get to due to the recent development of horizontal drilling techniques. I think Minnesotans are smart enough to tell the eco-freaks what to kiss if they try to stop development.
Wednesday, May 14, 2008
The Political Middle Class
In my previous post, I delineated my view that small business owners are the middle class. This is of course an economic definition, and while these individuals can weld political power just as any other citizen, there is a middle class built into our political structure.
If you look at how we operate today, there appears to be only two tiers or classes of people - the ruled and the rulers. You are either a citizen or an elected official. In theory of course, this could work as the people elect the officials. Thankfully, our founders were smart enough to set up a system that can work in the real world, not just in theory.
Take a good look at the Constitution. Now everyone is aware that we have three branches of government which share power and are intended to keep each other in check. There are also three different political entities specifically delineated in the Constitution. These are the federal government, the citizens, and the states.
States rights, unfortunately, has become a passe cause since the end of the Civil War. In fact, our teaching of this period in history seems designed to ignore the entire issue of states rights. Let's start with the name a civil war is a conflict in which one group within a nation attempts to wrest power from some other ruling faction. In the Civil War, the southern states attempted to secede from the union. This is not the same as taking over by any stretch of the imagination. This more like a petulant child getting angry with his playmates, collecting up his toys, and going home.
The fact of the matter is that there were two issues at stake during the War of Southern Secession - slavery and states rights. Each side was right on one issue and wrong on the other. To press the point, slavery was already declining in viability during the time leading up to the war. Slavery worked under an agrarian economy, but the time of agrarian-based economies was ending. Much of the world, including the south was developing an industrial base. Most leaders in the south knew the time of slavery was ending. It was a common issue of discussion -- what would the future look like? Further, many of the political leaders in the north where not ardent abolitionists -- they just wanted to press the advantage against the faltering south. In other words, they wanted to kick someone who was already down. I imagine the true believers in abolition were only conditionally happy with the political support they got from these types. It's probably akin to the reaction within those of us who have loved this nation much of our lives have to the people who began wearing flag pins after 9/11.
But enough of the history lesson. The political power retained by the states in the Constitution is intended to be a bulwark against federal hegemony and the degradation of individual rights. The checks placed on states' powers in the Constitution serve two purposes: protect individual rights and protect the small range of powers held exclusively by the federal government.
Then by virtue of their place in the Constitution, the states are the middle class of our political structure. Most people would acknowledge that our economic middle class has been squezzed for the past few decades. An honest view of history shows that our political middle class has been under attack for over a century.
If you truly love the United States of America, if you admire the Constitution of our country as one of the greatest documents crafted by the mind of man, then you must stand up and fight for our political middle class. If you cherish individual rights (the actual rights laid out in the Constitution, not the ones concocted in the fevered imaginings of unelected judges) then you must defend states' rights. If the political middle class is completely subsumed by the federal government, then you can kiss your individual rights away -- they'll be gone eventually.
If you look at how we operate today, there appears to be only two tiers or classes of people - the ruled and the rulers. You are either a citizen or an elected official. In theory of course, this could work as the people elect the officials. Thankfully, our founders were smart enough to set up a system that can work in the real world, not just in theory.
Take a good look at the Constitution. Now everyone is aware that we have three branches of government which share power and are intended to keep each other in check. There are also three different political entities specifically delineated in the Constitution. These are the federal government, the citizens, and the states.
States rights, unfortunately, has become a passe cause since the end of the Civil War. In fact, our teaching of this period in history seems designed to ignore the entire issue of states rights. Let's start with the name a civil war is a conflict in which one group within a nation attempts to wrest power from some other ruling faction. In the Civil War, the southern states attempted to secede from the union. This is not the same as taking over by any stretch of the imagination. This more like a petulant child getting angry with his playmates, collecting up his toys, and going home.
The fact of the matter is that there were two issues at stake during the War of Southern Secession - slavery and states rights. Each side was right on one issue and wrong on the other. To press the point, slavery was already declining in viability during the time leading up to the war. Slavery worked under an agrarian economy, but the time of agrarian-based economies was ending. Much of the world, including the south was developing an industrial base. Most leaders in the south knew the time of slavery was ending. It was a common issue of discussion -- what would the future look like? Further, many of the political leaders in the north where not ardent abolitionists -- they just wanted to press the advantage against the faltering south. In other words, they wanted to kick someone who was already down. I imagine the true believers in abolition were only conditionally happy with the political support they got from these types. It's probably akin to the reaction within those of us who have loved this nation much of our lives have to the people who began wearing flag pins after 9/11.
But enough of the history lesson. The political power retained by the states in the Constitution is intended to be a bulwark against federal hegemony and the degradation of individual rights. The checks placed on states' powers in the Constitution serve two purposes: protect individual rights and protect the small range of powers held exclusively by the federal government.
Then by virtue of their place in the Constitution, the states are the middle class of our political structure. Most people would acknowledge that our economic middle class has been squezzed for the past few decades. An honest view of history shows that our political middle class has been under attack for over a century.
If you truly love the United States of America, if you admire the Constitution of our country as one of the greatest documents crafted by the mind of man, then you must stand up and fight for our political middle class. If you cherish individual rights (the actual rights laid out in the Constitution, not the ones concocted in the fevered imaginings of unelected judges) then you must defend states' rights. If the political middle class is completely subsumed by the federal government, then you can kiss your individual rights away -- they'll be gone eventually.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)