Alternative Fuels, or Alternative Distribution of Wealth?

Another disadvantage of the high price of oil is that when there is a concentration of wealth, there is a disproportionate amount of power. When the Standard Oil Company was broken up at the turn of the century, it marked the beginning of the breakup of monopolies by Pres. Roosevelt. The concentration of resources controlled by one group also represented a concentration of power. Today, this is most visible in the form of the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC). This group acts as a cartel to control the production of oil throughout the world. In this fashion it controls a source of energy for those that do not produce oil, or have sufficient production for their country's needs. Again, through the concentration of wealth, this body, benevolent or not, has attained a measure of power. The DeBeers cartel is another example of how a group can keep the price of a product artificially high by controlling the production of that product.

As alternative fuels are developed, those that harness or produce those resources begin to amass their own measure of power. It is possible that these alternative fuels producers could supercede the oil producers, if they are able to concentrate their power. Unfortunately, the oil producers already have the means to distribute fuels to the public and could hardly be supplanted for their ability to deliver the alternative products as well.

The socialistic response would be to tax the large concentration of power and redistribute that resource (read wealth) to those that are less endowed. Interestingly enough, many of the labor unions in the United States, have as part of their by-laws specific language stating that their purpose is to redistribute wealth to the poor and the downtrodden. I have never known a labor union to reach out to those that can't pay union dues....but I digress.

History has proven, time-and-again, that empires do not last forever. They come and they go, and as one disappears, another rises. The AT&Ts of the world have produced AT&T Wireless, and the Standard Oils (SOHIO) have produced ChevronTexacoUSA, Inc., etc. We may someday be running our vehicles on coconuts, and the fuels power would be amassed in more tropical climes as opposed to the desert moguls of today....Power and the amassing of wealth, seem to go hand-in-hand. Or maybe this transigence of power is only a fleeting thing. Maybe there is a greater, altruistic, egalitarian source of power. It will all depend on whom you put your trust. As for me and my house...this is Just an Observation.

What is All the Hub-bub on Fuel Prices?

As gasoline prices approach $4.00 per gallon, it is interesting to see all the globalists bark about how the profiteers are gouging the public. First, crude oil prices have risen, not just because of fuel usage, but it is used in many other products, such as nylons, plastics, coatings, vinyls, etc. Reflect on how much a part of our lives oil hase become. There are many growing and emerging economies that have increased the demand for oil, as well as fuel for power generation. How much of our digital age is powered by electricity, and how much of that electricity is generated by petroleum products, or by-products...but back to gasoline. In the state of California we have local area "Air Quality Management" districts who are charged with keeping our air quality at livable levels. They have recently legislated stricter controls that will require refineries to spend more money to upgrade their manufacturing processes and....guess how they are going to pay for it....Out of their "excessive" profits?....Silly, they are going to raise prices! Most likely that will also require the special California fuel formula that is not made by out-of-state companies, so the supply will be limited even further. California experienced this a few years ago, and gasoline prices spiked.

There are there reasons for the current high prices (See How Stuff Works) , but three of the current compelling explanations are as follows:

(1) OPEC has not expanded capacity much since 1979.
(2) Non-OPEC is nearing it's long-term production peak (we're running out).
(3) China is booming (India, too).

The China reason is evident especially since they have contracted with Cuba to drill off-shore of that island-nation (90 miles from Key West, FL). Plan to see more offshore platforms from Miami.

Now it is time to discuss the most sacred of all american cows....the environment (brought forward by the NIMBYs), and I think that the comparison is pretty dead-on. We have so much in the way of resources that are available to this nation, but are held off at an arms distance, because of a questionable, somewhat religious observation (environmentalism). Offshore drilling (California & the Gulf of Mexico), new refineries, drilling at ANWR (Alaska) and at other places has not been allowed in the U.S.A. for over 40-years. It is time to start looking at our long-range strategic vulnerability. If for any reason, we are cut off from the oil that we import from terrorist-rich areas, the country would be in a panic. The Iraq debate would seem like an afternoon tea in comparison.

An additional item that doesn't get discussed is the taxes that the governments (State, Local, & Federal) impose on gasoline. It would be sufficient if it was limited to cents/gallon, but some are in percentages, so that when the price of gasoline goes up, so does the tax collected. Has anyone called for a repeal of the Government-gouging? California gasoline has up to $.75 per gallon in various taxes. This is also a "regressive" tax (liberalese for "the rich aren't getting enough wealth re-distributed"), because the less income you have, the more you are adversely affected. I don't think that the oil companies are making THAT much profit.

Yes, this is a complex issue, but it is made more complex because of all the different self-interests, we have lost the big-picture. I would think that all the self-flogging that we see from the left about how we should be paying $5.00/gallon, is pure nonsense. The common sense approach tells us that we should look after our own needs first, try to preserve our economy, our people, all the meanwhile trying to work out a long-term solution to keep the looneys from having a strategic control of the world market. Which brings us back to the beginning.....is it really a global strategy to complain about profiteering from higher international oil prices, when it is a free global market that is causing the profits to rise? Doesn't government controls fly in the face of global unity, the way tariffs prevent free trade. It seems to me to be a bit of a dichotemy....but this is Just An Observation.

Aristotlean Social Science

Everyone knows the first thing that we learned in science class...Aristotle, the Greek Scientist , taught that the earth was the center of the universe. Subsequent generations proved Aristotle to not quite have it right. What was his problem? Did he not follow the scientific method? or maybe because he did follow the scientific method, he arrived at this conclusion. I believe that he and many of the intelligentsia of his time suffered from the problem of "presentism". Presentism is basically a type of pride, pride being the downfall of all societies and civilizations, that creeps into the society when people become basically, full-of-themselves. Presentism is more insidious; it is the tendency to judge history through present-day morality. It is the prism through which the past is seen as barbarian.

For instance, slavery is an abominable practice and anyone that would entertain the idea of using slaves would suffer the wrath of political correctness. But, not too long ago in the world's history, slavery was accepted by some. I would never condone it, or even allow it to be promoted, but can we really judge prior generations as evil, for their practice of slavery? Similarly, during WWII because of the Japanese aggression, many thought that Americans of Japanese descent should be separated out from the general population. Thus, many were taken from their homes and businesses and put into internment camps, supposedly for their own safety. Many of these people went willingly and some even went out of their way to prove their loyalty to America. Present-day historians have condemned this act and even sought monetary compensation to the descendants of the victims. Do we really understand what it was like? Maybe, but saying that what was done was immoral, is not fully understanding what all the contributing factors were, that led to the internment solution. The juxtaposition of present-day morality to morality at the time of WWII will never be equal and never be fair. Fast-forward to 9/11/2001, the day that extremists attacked New York City. Many innocent lives were lost and there was much clamor and much hysteria about who the enemy might be. Cooler heads prevailed, but from the killing fields of the Taliban and other hotbeds of fundamentalism, many enemy combatants were collected and sent to a modern-day internment camp. This time many were quick to avoid the mistakes of the past, to a fault, as they were, either for political or possibly moral reasons, easily given to forsake things like profiling, listening stations, interrogation, and heaven-forbid, psych-ops, to obtain information from the declared enemy.

Well, you get the point. I wonder sometimes about how future generations will judge our time and the social mileposts that we establish. Will they try to understand our weaknesses? Will they judge us for our hedonistic "sexual revolution", or the drug culture that has led to a society of contrand and illegitimacy. Primarily, I hope that they don't make the same mistakes but seek to live to a higher law from a higher source....but as always this is....just an observation.

Do the Ends Justify the Means (to accomplish the Ends)

It has always been a tenet of Marxism that the Ends justify the Means...that the greater good is always served by force. This has a familiar ring to many people because of what occured prior to coming into this world; a kind of deja vu. Any kind of End, or goal, or utopia must be deserving on merits alone. If it is a true goal, or of a truth, then there is only one way to reach that truth, and that is to follow the path of truth. You cannot reach truth by following a lie. A lie only leads you away from the truth; therefore, you may define the truth by the opposite, or opposition. For instance, you can only find heat, if you follow heat, like moving towards the sun. If you follow cold, it will lead you to cold; but by reaching the cold you will only know that you have not reached the heat. Once you reach the cold you will have gone to the far reaches of our solar system, and you will need to go backwards to find the heat. No matter how long you follow the cold, you cannot reach heat by following the cold. In this way you cannot reach your End. If the Means are true, then it will lead to a true End. They are inseparable because, the adage, "all roads lead to heaven", like "all roads lead to Rome" was never true. It was the vanity of men that they overlooked the truth.

And so it is today. Many governments, political movements, etc. seem to be bent on populist agendas that seem to ebb and flow, but never reach a knowledge of the truth. Isaiah prophesied that Babylon would rise and be a great nation and would scatter Israel to the four corners of the earth. But, where is Babylon's greatness today? Where is the greatness of Egypt? of Rome? It has gone the way of all the earth, because the End did not justify the Means and the Means were not true, because the End was not true. Israel is returning as Isaiah prophesied; that is the truth.

Karl Marx could not have known what the End would be, because he could not follow truth; he was an amoral relativist, bent on authoritarian force to make people follow his manifesto; the collective, over the individual.

Individual freedom has been given to us by our creator and cannot be taken away, only given up by each individual for a path of personal non-accountability. This hearkens back to an earlier crossroads that we met, in an earlier time, in the Grand Councils, where we had the opportuntity to leave our first estate and progress to our second estate....but just as true as this existence is, this is Just an Observation! You still have to choose for yourself.....

Political Races - A Good Investment?

It is almost the end of one of the earliest Primary Election seasons in U.S. History. By next week. The country will have a clear idea of their choices for President for November's election, but in the intervening months there will be many who will regret the decisions that were made in the early months, which others have termed, "Buyer's Remorse". Will this remorse extend to other parts of the campaign?

I have often wondered about the monies that are collected by candidates for this early election period. So far Baraq Obama has raised $138 million, Hillary $134 million and John McCain $53 million (see website). Mitt Romney had raised $105 million before he dropped out of the race. By my simple math-brain, that makes John McCain the best investment with the best return. Campaigns have become a black-hole for waste, with campaigners spending millions on temporary, get-out-the-vote rallys and party-party-parties. Can you imagine anything more debaucherous than spending money on political campaigns? Well, maybe a duplicate security clearinghouse because it is located within your congressional district and providing useless jobs for voting constituents. Can't we think of a better use of valuable resources? I thought that during the previous 7-yrs. the politicians were concerned about how we were spending the money that went to defense and tax relief to "taxpayers", but not a second thought for tossing money down the political rat-hole.

At this point Obama looks like the riskiest investment, but I think that Hilary poses the biggest risk. With Obama forging ahead and Hilary spending money like there is government-run healthcare tomorrow, there is no hope of Hilary being able to pay back any large amounts of money, due to lack of support.

In the end it all comes down to how you want to spend your disposable, or in some cases, only income.....But for me and my house, this is....Just an Observation.

"The Natural" is a metaphor for Life?

I spent the afternoon yesterday with my wife watching the Robert Redford movie, "The Natural". I would get into the technical accolades of this movie, but that is for another website... It is amazing, though, how many up-and-coming & veteran stars were in this movie, let alone seeing it for the first time in H-dizzle (pardon my unhip use-of-slang reference; my kids would cringe, and probably are, at this reading). Back to The Natural....we come into this life full of talents and optimism, just like Roy Hobbs, when he went against the Whammer. He acknowledged that he was "the best there ever was" and thought he was invincible. He didn't just stick with the fundamentals and do his job. He had to get all flashy and arrogant. Well, along came the psycho hose-beast (played magnificently by Barbara Hersey) who dashed all his hopes, and saw an opportunity to grab his coat-tails of fame...Fast forward to 16-years later and he has fought back (a much wiser and humbler Roy Hobbs) to fulfill the dreams he had from boyhood, at the same time fighting of the cynical manipulators and hangers-on (especially when he asks Max Mercy played by Robert Duvall, if he has ever played the game. Max says, "....well, no").

The point: We come to life with lots of promise, talent and gifts, but sometimes we are beaten down by life. Do we let it keep us down and do we fight with all our might to not only help ourselves, a secondary benefit, but first to help others and lose ourselves in the service to others, who can't do it for themselves? You be the judge, but of course.....this is just an observation.

This Time, Look Behind the Curtain

Much has been said about immigration and the poor immigrants that come to America looking for a better life, and doing the jobs that most Americans won't do and sacrificing even their families to get money to live on.....and on. All this amounts to political slight-of-hand. Most of these arguments occur in the larger urban areas, where the "wannabes" need slaves to maintain their lifestyles.

Historians have said that it is the Roman Legions that built the Roman Empire as they went about conquering different lands and peoples, showing their superior knowledge, culture and engineering....But the Legions didn't do most of the work, it was the slaves that they captured and had to continually conquer in order to get things built. It was the elite classes that took in slaves and allowed the elites to spend their time in debauchery. What about the Egyptians?? Their empires lasted for centuries. Was it because of their superior intellect? Was it because of their cultural superiority? Was it because of their intermarriage within the same family? No, it was because of their slaves! The same with the Babylonian and Assyrian empires. They became "great" because of their oppression of other peoples and used them to do their dirty work.

The U.S. is going down this same road. The cultural elites may assuage their conscience by paying them a pittance, but it amounts to slavery. The circumstances may be a little different because they are not being conquered and brought into the U.S., but come here willingly, but nonetheless they are being used as slaves.

I was reading about Pres. Calderon of Mexico calling the U.S. racist (see article) for the way we treat immigrants. I wish he were a little bit smarter, or maybe more precise in his language (it might be the translation), because the immigrants are actually treated just fine. It is the people that enter the U.S. illegally that aren't treated well. It begins at the U.S./Mexico border where on the Mexico side the Mexican police and armies actually abuse, rape and extort their own people. You don't have to take my word for it, see the latest issue of National Geographic Magazine.

Does Pres. Calderon just kick in the spin machine (read "sincere lying") to draw sympathy to Mexico's failed social system/government. That is why I say, look behind the curtain (as in the Wizard of Oz) There is no substance to the bloviation of the political animal, and no truth as well. Do they cry equally for the immigrants coming into Mexico from poorer Central American countries? The Mexican Government encourages its poor to enter the U.S. illegally; Is that fair? If people desire to enter this country, they can do it legally, then the infrastructure to support them in the U.S. wouldn't be overwhelmed, as it is today. There are repeated stories about Emergency Rooms and hospitals throughout the country that have to close because of the inundation of illegals that don't/can't pay for services rendered. Lawyers representing illegals have taken advantage of property owners and have seized their properties unjustly, while the illegals were trespassing.....and on.

This country's priorities are upside down. The criminals are rewarded, while the innocent are punished, all while the politicians are pandering for voters (who are not citizens and are not legally allowed to vote). But this is ......just an observation.