Snake Oil

I've been reading a book called American Creation: Triumphs & Tragedies At The Founding Of The Republic, by Joseph J. Ellis. You may know him for writing Founding Brothers, for which he won a Pulitzer. I just finished the chapter on the creation of the two-party system. Ironically, the person most responsible for its creation would also condemn the very demon he released from Pandora's Box. I refer of course, to Thomas Jefferson. I won't go into the gory details of how it call came to pass. That will be for another post. But in reading about the creation of the two-party system and watching the current events on the news, I am reminded of this creation's insidious nature.

To my overall point, I want to look at the debate that is going on right now in Washington between the Republicans and the Democrats over the price of oil and what can be done about it. It's boiled down to two positions. The Republicans are pushing for opening up offshore drilling and the Democrats want to release oil from the strategic reserve both in the name of lowering the price of oil.

Apparently, both parties think we are morons. Let me be quite clear on both positions. Neither one would have an impact on oil prices. NONE.

Let's start with offshore drilling. We would not see any impact toward an increase in supply for a decade or more. How does that help? There are already countless land leases in the United States for oil companies to drill, that are going unused. Why is that? Have they explored the land and deemed it dry? I honestly don't know the answer to that question. Discussing this with a friend and colleague today, he suggested that offshore drilling may just be easier for the oil companies. It was a hypothesis on his part, but probably right on target. I would like to know the answer to that underlying question before we give license to open up more areas to drilling.

Now, the idea of releasing oil from the strategic reserve is just as idiotic. First of all, the whole idea of a strategic reserve is preparedness for a national emergency, like a military invasion, or a natural disaster calamity, not price stabilization. The idea that this would be a reasonable alternative to help bring down the price of oil is laughable. Even if we came to a national consensus that releasing oil from the strategic reserve was a good idea (and you will never convince me short of an actual emergency), there isn't enough oil to make a dent in the price of oil.

So while both parties are blustering and billowing at each other, pretending to get something done for the American people, the real problems are being ignored. "What are the real problems?" I'm glad you asked. How about starting with refining capacity. The biggest problem is not lack of supply. The biggest problem is we don't have enough refineries to process the oil. Why don't we have enough refineries? Because there are too many communities that don't want them. They fight them tooth and nail and then they complain about the price at the pump. We haven't even mentioned the fact that some states have different requirements on how gasoline is refined. Having a national policy on refining standards, would also help. There is an example where a lack of national regulation is actually costing the consumer more money, if Exxon has to refine oil for California one way, and another for New Jersey, and another for Florida. Pick the state that has demonstrated the most success with its standard for oil refinement and go with it. How about the low dollar policy that we've had for the last 7+ years? Guess what? The dollar goes down, the price of oil goes up, as does the price of ALL imports. Nobody in Washington is talking about how devalued the dollar has become on international markets.

In the meantime, there is a total lack of leadership on this issue. Where is the president, like Kennedy did with challenging the nation to put a man on the moon in 10 years? Where is Congress? With the demise of the Cold War, have we completely lost all motivation as a nation to accomplish great things?

The reality is we have to have all options on the table. If we need more domestic production, then let's find out why these oil leases are being unused. If we need more refineries, we need to build them. Do we need alternative energy? Absolutely. This isn't just an environmental issue. This is an issue of national security. We will never have enough oil to be self sufficient. So we keep importing oil from nations that hate us. Saudi Arabia, Venezuela, Russia, just to name a few. We are funding nations that work toward subverting us. We need to stand up and challenge ourselves to find sources of alternative energy that can support us in the long run. Again, everything is on the table. Solar, electricity, wind, even nuclear have to be an option. In the meantime, we have to bridge the gap with oil and there are no easy answers to bringing the price down.

The two parties are trying to distract us from reality. Don't buy into it. There is no third party that can balance out the dialog and say, "Hey, wait a minute. None of this makes sense." I once had a co-worker share a salty euphemism from her youth. She said her momma told her, "Don't [pee] on my head and tell me it's raining." That's what the two parties are doing to us on this issue. Thanks Mr. Jefferson.

Detour to Crazytown

The Angry Moderate is furious. In fact, please indulge me whilst I take little detour to Crazytown. What has me so furious? Well, it's probably a story that most people in the U.S. have paid little notice. The story is the tragedy that has unfolded in Zimbabwe culminating in the recent fraudulent run-off elections that resulted in Robert Mugabe being sworn in to office for a sixth term, as President of a country that used to be the breadbasket of Africa and now he has run into the ground to the point where they cannot produce enough food to feed their own people and inflation is so out of control that it costs $6 Billion Zimbabwean dollars for a loaf of bread, if you can find one.

For those of you who have not been following, it's simply too long a story for me to sum up, but here is an excellent recap from the Washington Post from 7/5/08 that describes in greater detail what happened. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/07/04/AR2008070402771.html

The first principle of any government is to protect their own citizens. The purpose of democratic, republican government (emphasis on the little d and little r) is the protection of the minority from the tyranny of the majority. Zimbabwe, and also recently Burma (Myanmar)'s purposeful lack of warning and aiding their people from one of the biggest typhoons in their nations history, serve as stark examples of governments that have blatantly ignored these fundamental principles.

My answer to this is where most of you will probably think I've gone off the rails. If I were president, the first thing I would do is revoke the Executive Order that forbids the CIA or any government agency from actively or covertly participating in the assassination of a foreign leader.

Yes, I am perfectly aware that this was put into place precisely because the United States participated in some assassinations in the past that did more harm than good. Two examples would be, the assassination of Salvador Allende in Chile and the backing of the ruthless dictator Augusto Pinochet and our backing the coup that lead to the installation of the Shah of Iran, whose overthrow by the Iranian Revolution of 1979 we are still paying for.

But I am too disgusted to be swayed. The only answer for Zimbabwe is to assassinate Mugabe and his comrades. He will never relinquish power until he dies and then one of his cronies will assume power. Meanwhile, the African Union stands by and does nothing, mostly because many of its members have the same track record on elections and their own rule. Most disappointing is South Africa's Tabo Mbecki, who is supposed to be mediating, but instead does nothing. It is puzzling how quickly South African forgets the aid of pressure and sanctions from democratic western nations that helped end Apartheid and give Mr. Mbecki the opportunity to even serve as head of state.

Africa claims it can solve its own problems and does not want to be dictated to by the west, but more often they ignore their problems and use anti-colonialist rhetoric to hide behind their inaction. Equally, the U.N.'s effectiveness is strangled by China and Russia who hide behind the concept of self rule to avoid real sanctions. Once again, themselves not wanting to one day be held to account for their own actions toward their respective people. Ironically, China's response to the earthquake in the Sichuan Province was a shining example of how a government should respond when their people need them. They are no democracy, but still upheld the primary basic principle of government. This does not however make up for the anemic response by the international community to stand up to rogue governments who torture and murder their own people. The international framework has failed.

How many lives and dollars would have been saved by simply assassinating Saddam Hussein instead of invading Iraq? Yes, it's a total hypothetical, but still it bears thinking about.

I know there are plenty of reasons not to have a policy of active or covert assassination, but I am in no mood to be rational. Perhaps tomorrow.

What are WE going to DO?

Today's post comes from our regular contributing blogger ARC (A Radical Centrist).

Gasoline is over $4 per gallon and the push for ethanol is driving global food prices higher (no it’s not just the recession). What are we going to do about it?

That is the important point in any problem. What are we going to DO? We can keep talking about “energy independence” and alternative or renewable energy. We can keep hoping the market will fill the need. Or we can DO something.

The US Department of Energy has a great website, though I doubt it is oft visited. On that site you can find information on solar(1) and wind energy and even wind maps(2) indicating the areas best suited for wind farms. Elsewhere you can find maps indicating average solar intensity for use in generating power(3). The market is barely starting to turn to these sources AFTER we have entered a real decline in oil availability(4) and a spiking of prices. But the “market” is not geared for long term thinking. It is a short term system based on filling an existing need and profiting off of it. So this image of going green is more PR than substance. Often the market actor who anticipates a trend or need looses out on market share. Just look at BetaMax, Apple (particularly in the 90s) Computers, or the Tucker automobile. And frankly that is just how the market should be, profit driven. So as long as these alternatives remain more expensive (and more inconvenient for industry) than traditional generation methods they will not go mainstream.

But government is different, government should be solution driven, forward thinking, forcing the market to respond to conditions that improve our standard of living and our society as a whole. Government should protect us, the market should enrich us. Much like scientific and religious views of creation both should be taught in school, just not in the same classroom, these two systems are not necessarily mutually exclusive. In fact they can each benefit from the other. Government enacted safety regulations for automobiles were anticipated in the Tucker (seat belts, safety windshields), but the industry did not adopt them ‘til they were forced to. When they were made to do “the right thing” they still managed to make money.

In what may be a bad example, the auto industry took off on two pillars in the 1950s. First the market drove auto and oil companies to buy up commuter rail systems and shut them down all over the country (more than 5000 miles in Los Angeles alone) in order to force people to use cars(5). Second, and to my point, the Federal government, under first Franklin Roosevelt and, to a greater extent later, Dwight D. Eisenhower, started building the national highway system(6). That highway system promoted the use of cars, and increased interstate commerce. If we had built the highway system based on “market” actors taking the initiative we would be driving around on 2 lane highways and paying tolls for the privilege.

I know highways are a pedestrian example to use here, but it gets straight to the point. Government can and should set the conditions to steer the market to our benefit not just our short term profit. Energy is the biggest problem we face right now, driving up prices, driving up our cost of living, making us more dependent on others. Stop incentivizing the market status quo with oil company tax breaks. Create competition and force them to change their business paradigm.

A solar farm, using existing photo-voltaic cell technology, measuring 100 miles by 100 miles (that is a lot I know, 10,000 square miles) placed in the desert southwest would more than meet the peak electrical demand for the entire United States during daylight hours(7). A farm only 10 miles by 10 miles would meet more than 1% of our demand. It does not sound like a lot, but it would be a BIG start. Expensive, probably, but if the government does it, they don’t need to make profit, they need only charge the national average per kw/h in order to give the market a push, and start getting us off fossil fuels. Any financial return on the investment could be reinvested into sustaining the system and developing newer solutions. If it pays for itself great! If not, it is still cheaper than the alternative of doing nothing.

An average 1 MW wind turbine can provide power day and night, year round (as long as the wind is blowing) for over 200 homes(8). Again, not a lot, but if each subdivision had one, wow, what an impact that could have.

I could go on and on and on. And that is part of the problem. We could TALK about hydro power, thermal energy, even new technology nuclear power, or hydrogen. Then we could TALK some more about bird strikes on wind turbines, the cost of solar cells, how ethanol is driving corn (and indirectly wheat) prices up, the dangers of nuclear power, nuclear waste, or how we are running out of water so making hydrogen is foolish. Meanwhile oil gets scarcer, the climate gets warmer (which will kill a LOT more birds than any wind turbines) the market gurus get richer, and the average American gets poorer.

To paraphrase a once popular and altogether kitschy television show, “We have the technology; we can make it better…” We just need to do something. So what do Senators Obama and McCain propose we do?

ARC

(1) http://www1.eere.energy.gov/solar/
(2) http://www.eere.energy.gov/windandhydro/windpoweringamerica/wind_maps.asp
(3) http://www.americanenergyindependence.com/solarenergy.html
(4) http://www.simmonsco-intl.com/research.aspx?Type=msspeeches
(5) http://www.urban-renaissance.org/urbanren/index.cfm?DSP=content&ContentID=508
(6) http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/programadmin/interstate.cfm
(7) http://www.sandia.gov/news/resources/releases/2004/renew-energy-batt/Stirling.html
(8) http://www.citizensenergy.com/english/pages/28/about-wind-energy

4th of July

Greetings everyone. Sorry, it's been a long time since I've posted, but I have been recuperating from surgery. In honor of Independence Day, here is a special post befitting the occasion, by guest author Thomas Jefferson with assistance by John Adams and Benjamin Franklin. If you prefer, here is a link where it is being read by celebrities.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZxTvS-kyHzs


IN CONGRESS, July 4, 1776.

The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America,

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.--Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.
He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.
He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.
He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.
He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.
He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the Legislative powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.
He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.
He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary powers.
He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.
He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our people, and eat out their substance.
He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.
He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power.
He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:
For Quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:
For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:
For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:
For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:
For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury:
For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences
For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies:
For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:
For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.
He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.
He has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.
He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.
He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.
He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.

In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our Brittish brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which, would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.

We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.

The 56 signatures on the Declaration appear in the positions indicated:

Column 1
Georgia:
Button Gwinnett
Lyman Hall
George Walton

Column 2
North Carolina:
William Hooper
Joseph Hewes
John Penn
South Carolina:
Edward Rutledge
Thomas Heyward, Jr.
Thomas Lynch, Jr.
Arthur Middleton

Column 3
Massachusetts:
John Hancock
Maryland:
Samuel Chase
William Paca
Thomas Stone
Charles Carroll of Carrollton
Virginia:
George Wythe
Richard Henry Lee
Thomas Jefferson
Benjamin Harrison
Thomas Nelson, Jr.
Francis Lightfoot Lee
Carter Braxton

Column 4
Pennsylvania:
Robert Morris
Benjamin Rush
Benjamin Franklin
John Morton
George Clymer
James Smith
George Taylor
James Wilson
George Ross
Delaware:
Caesar Rodney
George Read
Thomas McKean

Column 5
New York:
William Floyd
Philip Livingston
Francis Lewis
Lewis Morris
New Jersey:
Richard Stockton
John Witherspoon
Francis Hopkinson
John Hart
Abraham Clark

Column 6
New Hampshire:
Josiah Bartlett
William Whipple
Massachusetts:
Samuel Adams
John Adams
Robert Treat Paine
Elbridge Gerry
Rhode Island:
Stephen Hopkins
William Ellery
Connecticut:
Roger Sherman
Samuel Huntington
William Williams
Oliver Wolcott
New Hampshire:
Matthew Thornton