 |
What They've Thought
|
||||
|
|
||||
What They Thought May 7, 2006 Alan
Caruba Click here for columnist bios |
|||||
As I am sure you have read or heard somewhere, “the world is running out of oil” and we’re all doomed. Unless we can figure out how to run our cars on soy sauce, it’s back to bicycles and horses. Well, not quite. Here’s what a U.S. Energy Information Administration 2002 report had to say: “At year-2000 consumption rates, the world has many thousands of years of crude oil and crude oil substitutes (heavy oil, oil sands, and shale oil) remaining.” When people tell me that America is too dependent on foreign oil imports, I keep telling them we have lots of oil, but thanks to the environmentalists, our own government has made it either too costly to get at it or access has been restricted because the bulk of our undeveloped energy resources is found on federal lands or federally controlled areas offshore. This is what happens when the federal government owns nearly half the landmass of the nation. Myths about oil are constantly repeated by the mainstream media. The truth, however, is available from open sources such as a U.S. Geological Survey that estimates the United States has almost 175 billion barrels of oil reserves. The survey cites 21.9 billion barrels of known oil reserves and an estimated 150 billion of “undiscovered” reserves. Why wouldn’t Big Oil go elsewhere to tap known or newly discovered oil reserves when faced with a government that is hostile to permitting access to our own? Alaska alone is still a treasure of oil and natural gas. Alaska’s North Slope, home to the Artic National Wildlife Refuge, is known to have the potential of providing millions of barrels of new oil production. If we started now, it would be available in ten years, maybe less. In reality, Congress has delayed access for some three decades! Yes, you’re paying more for oil and, yes, you will continue to do so because the U.S. government has failed to grant access to our own known reserves of oil and created “environmental” roadblocks to the building of new refineries. Meanwhile, we keep hearing that the world is running out of oil. I am not going to dispute geologists and others who know far more about these matters than myself, but I am encouraged by reports of new oil discoveries. Let’s take a look at what is actually occurring worldwide. • In 1995, crude oil production in Australia began in its Wanaea and Cossack fields, located 81 miles off the northwestern coast. The fields were estimated to contain 200 million barrels of recoverable oil. • Six years ago in Kazakhstan, Kazakhoil Aktobe was making plans to begin development of three new oil fields. • In 2003, new oil fields were found in Iran with reserves estimated as high as 38 billion barrels though analysts expressed the view that only a fraction of that might be commercially worthwhile because it is what is called heavy crude which is more expensive to process. • More recently, an oil field rivaling the largest in Mexico was discovered just off the coast in the Gulf of Mexico. The new field is estimated to yield up to 10 billion barrels. Extraction is not expected to begin for about a decade. • In March 2005, Egypt’s oil minister announced that three new oil fields had been discovered near the Gulf of Suez with estimated total reserves of 70 million barrels. These were the first discoveries in the area in nearly forty years. Egypt has a proven reserve of 2.7 billion barrels of oil and 1.2 trillion cubic meters of natural gas. • In late 2005, Libya announced the discovery of two new oil fields in the south of that nation. They are estimated to have a production capacity of 252 million barrels a year. A coalition of Spanish, French, and Norwegian oil companies that found the new fields will share the profits. • The Middle East will continue to dominate the world’s known reserves of oil. Saudi Arabia has the largest, followed by Iraq. In Oman, four new oil fields were recently discovered. The Sultanate’s crude oil exports were over 238 million barrels in 2005. • Even New Zealand has discovered oil. The Tui Area oil fields in the offshore Taranaki Basin, will be the country’s first stand-alone offshore oil development. Nearby oil fields in Amokura and Pateke were discovered in 2003 and 2004 respectively. When everything gets going, an estimated 50,000 barrels a day are expected, but that could rise to 120,000 barrels in time. • The president of Russia’s Union of Oil and Gas Industrialists wants to see more oil development in Eastern and Western Siberia. A new field offshore of Sakhalin, a large island just off the mainland, plus a new pipeline to Russia’s Pacific coast is going to increase the world’s supply of oil. • China’s a very big place. Not only are they going to compete for the world’s oil, they have had their own fields since 1960. In 2001, Chinese researchers announced the discovery of new gas and oil deposits in Tibet in southwestern China. It is an area called the Qiantang basin and initial estimates, though speculative, suggest that China may have hit a mother lode. If it turns out to be true, many of the world’s major oil companies will make significant investments. There are more than a dozen Chinese oil fields currently pumping crude. • In April, ExxonMobil announced that its affiliate in Nigeria had started production from the world class Erha deepwater development, some sixty miles offshore. It will come on-stream later this year and will ramp up to produce up to 150,000 barrels a day by the year’s end. I know about the “Peak Oil” theory that says we either have or are about to reach the point of diminishing returns regarding the world’s oil supply, but these recent discoveries suggest there is still plenty of oil to be found. Alas, a lot of it is under the control of nationally run oil companies in countries that don’t invest in new production and don’t like the U.S. very much. What is lacking, however, is the political will of Congress to remove the regulatory barriers that would insure an America less dependent on imported oil and with the capability to refine the increased supplies this nation will require. We don’t have an oil problem. We have a government problem. |
|||||
Islam seems to have their very own version of scholar, which reminds me a great deal of the leftist version of a scholar, throwing himself on the flooring, kicking and screaming when he doesn’t get his way. The Palestinians have elected Hamas into a position of power and are now very upset that we in the West aren’t as happy about it as they are. They are even more upset that we aren’t going to fund them anymore. But that’s the nice part about freedom of choice. Yes you can choose to elect a bunch of pinheads to run your country. But we can also choose to not support you. That’s right kids there are consequences to your actions. The really nice part about all of this is the fact that we don’t have all of Arafat’s lies and whines to obscure the fact that the people of Palestine have elected a terrorist organization into power. I’m kind of loving this in a major way. The Palestinians have for years ranted and raved about America being in the back pocket of Israel, never mind the fact we’ve been helping to keep them afloat with our money. I’ve no doubt that we’re mere days away from the Palestinians accusing Israel of having told us to cut the funding for the Palestinians. It won’t occur to any of these slack-jawed dimwits that if Israel can tell us to stop funding them then the Israelis are the ones that allowed them to be funded in the first place. That’s the nice part about being a radical, you don’t have to think and what you believe doesn’t have to make any sense at all. What a wonderful and special place they live in. Now we have a few of those special scholars issuing Fatwas stating that the mid-easterners have to support the Palestinians financially and spiritually as well as politically. This will of course do one of two things: The Mid-East will begin to pull together or it will tear itself apart. I don’t really see any of these people pulling themselves together any time soon for a very simple reason. They speak of Saladin and do so with a reverence that is almost surprising. They speak of uniting under the green flag of Saladin one day. But at the same time one of the most repressed groups of Moslems happens to be the group from whence their revered hero sprung the first time. That’s right Saladin was a Kurd. Now you understand why every one of those nations over there freaks out at the mere mention of the Kurds being a separate nation from the rest of them. They want to unite the Mid-East under the green flag of Islamic revolution but each nation wants to be the one holding the flag. They are all in agreement except for one thing: Each of them want to be in charge. From what I’ve seen they are a bunch of children over there and can’t seem to grow up. They blame everyone else for their problems and when someone doesn’t agree with them in all ways they want the cut his head off. The lesson that the Palestinians are supposed to be learning now is that there are consequences to their actions. To all of you left-wingers out there in LA LA Land I do understand that we will be facing higher gas prices because of some of the issues we’re facing, but you have been advocating higher gas prices so we’ll use less oil. Grow up and say thanks you incessant whiners. To those of you who claim to be conservative and whine about the war, I have little to say other then I’m sure glad you weren’t around during WWI or II. You guys make Neville Chamberlain look like a visionary. But this would be a nice time for both groups to grow up a little. As far as the war going on a little too long, I agree with you on that - a little. I’d like to see the Sunni triangle flattened the next time they decide to go nuts. I think it’s time to give all of them a little lesson on personal responsibility. Since they seem to be lecturing us for backing our regimes it’s time to let them know what they’re talking about. When Russia and China decide to complain we need to give them their traditional answer of stuff it in your ear. Not to mention the fact that they are the primary suppliers to these terrorist regimes. When that dolt in Iran decides to threaten us again with nukes and such we need to tell him that we agree that they should have nukes. We should no longer argue as to whether they should or shouldn’t have nukes. Then we should deliver them to Iran via airmail. Got sun block? R.A. Hawkins Web Site Contact Back to Top |
|||||
[Note: I recently sent the following letter to the FCC. At the time of publication, they hadn’t responded—much less given a redress of grievances—yet.] Dear Commissioners of the Federal Communications Commission, I must say as an American my entire life I am stunned by what this country has come to. I have just about had it with the “sexually” suggestive commentary coming out of my television this morning and would like to file a formal complaint with the Commissioners of the Federal Communications Commission in hopes that you will rectify the situation and consider further safeguards to prevent the kind of “sexually” suggestive commentary I heard coming out my television set this morning in future network broadcasts such as the one I was subjected to this morning which I was thoroughly appalled by on network TV. At roughly 7:02 AM EST this morning I was minding my own business and tying my shoes when, suddenly, I was subjected to what I could only describe as a sneak attack on a captive audience member by NBC news personality Brian Williams during a “segment” on today’s “The Today Show” (Fri., April 28, 2006). Mr. Williams was filing a report from the site of Hurricane Katrina in New Orleans, where he was filing a report on the rebuilding of homes destroyed by Hurricane Katrina. Things started off innocently enough, as they always do, but just when I allowed myself to become engrossed by this heart-rendering story Mr. Williams decided he would see if he could slip something by the American people and FCC decency standards by referring, and I quote, to the “erecting” of new homes. “Erecting”? Let me ask you something, Commissioners: Is such language honestly necessary at 7:02 AM EST? Are there no other words in the English language, that Mr. Williams must stoop to “erecting” in front of millions of television viewers? First, Janet Jackson’s “nipple.” Now this. Where does it end? We are all adults here. We are all well aware of what it means to “erect,” and we are all comfortable with “erecting” in the company of fellow adults — as long as it’s within reason. But this is a word, as I’m sure you’ll agree, which could easily be construed as something much different; indeed, something “sexual.” And that being the case, I am just shocked by Mr. Williams' distasteful decision. Moreover, I am disgusted by the idea that he would get away with “erecting” under the cover of this thing we call “news.” I do not have children, but I ask you: What if I did? And what of the many men such as myself in this country who do? Our children don’t know what it means to “erect” something. They don’t know the difference between an “erection” and an “erection.” Should men like me be forced to explain “erecting” to our children as they wait for their school bus? Should we be forced to explain why it’s unnatural to talk about “erecting” when they get to school that day? I don’t have time to explain such “erections” at 7:02 AM EST. Nor, to be frank, would I be comfortable with explaining such “erections” at such an hour of the day even if I had time at such an hour of the day to explain them. Surely Mr. Williams knows this about me and his many millions of captive “The Today Show” viewers. Does he take us — tax-paying, law-abiding United States citizens — for fools? Does he think we will think nothing of his “erecting” on national television in the morning? Well, if America is a free country, then I would like to assure him: As an American my entire life, I most certainly will not. Finally, to make matters worse, Mr. William’s segment about the rebuilding of homes devastated by Hurricane Katrina quickly somehow transitioned into a segment grilling our commander-in-chief, President George W. Bush, who was in New Orleans lending a personal hand in the rebuilding of devastated homes. The NBC television network has already made its agenda clear to me with such programming as “Cheers,” “Will & Grace,” and “The Book of Daniel,” as well as its insistence on using a mascot named, if you’ll excuse me, “the NBC peacock.” But Mr. Williams' willful use of the aforementioned “e” word in a segment about a national tragedy and President Bush brings NBC’s lack of shame to a whole new level. Clearly, NBC stands for “Never Before-seen levels of out-and-out Classlessness in front of me and the president and millions of innocent American children.” During his segment this morning, Mr. Williams also took the opportunity to infer that President Bush’s approval numbers were “low” (not a direct quote), and then asked the President about his thoughts on a partisan Senate report calling for the deconstruction of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). Have the people of New Orleans not been through enough, that they need Mr. Williams' ill-timed questions of the President as he attempts to help them rebuild (or as Mr. Williams would call it, “re-erect") their devastated community? Between this and the release of a movie about United Flight 93 a mere four years and seven months after the attacks of September 11th, I am frankly, Commissioners, appalled. I do not know how much longer these subtle sneak attacks on the American people must continue before someone finally stands up and does something about them. But I am writing this letter to you in hopes that it will be the first important step towards desperately needed change. I will never watch a single airing of NBC’s “The Today Show” in which men like Mr. Brian Williams use words like “erecting” again. If it were up to me, this show would be taken off the air, as, in my estimation, it has already done enough damage to the Republic for which I stand up straight each morning. We have already suffered through one Hurricane Katrina, and we do not need this “storm” of inappropriateness on the part of Mr. Williams or his NBC colleagues. I am willing to help. Please advise. Thank you for your time. Very sincerely,
Jonathan David Morris Web Site Contact Back to Top |
|||||
The burning issue in Washington today is high gas prices, and it won’t go away anytime soon. Americans are not happy about paying $3 per gallon at the pump, and they want something done about it. But price controls won’t work, and allegations of price gouging and “windfall profits” amount to nothing more than congressional grandstanding. No government official or politician is fit to define a “fair” price for gas or a “fair” profit for oil companies. This is not the Soviet Union. The last thing we need is centralized government planning when it comes to our precious energy supplies. The price of oil, like everything else, depends on supply and demand. What we really need to focus on is how government keeps the supply of refined gasoline too low. This is not as easy as demanding price controls, and does not fit into 30-second sound bites. But as with so many issues, we must peel away decades of government interference to really understand the problem. Most people understand that federal restrictions on exploring, drilling, and refining domestic oil have made us dependent on various questionable Middle East governments. We should expand this into a greater understanding of how American foreign policy increases gas prices here at home. Before the war in Iraq, oil was about $28 per barrel. Today it is over $70. Iraq was a significant source of worldwide oil, but its production has dropped 50% since 2002. Pipeline sabotage and fires are routine; we have been unable to prevent them. Furthermore, the general instability in the Middle East created by the war causes oil prices to rise everywhere. The sooner we get out of Iraq and allow the Iraqis to solve their own problems the better. Soaring gasoline prices are one giant unintended consequence of the war, pure and simple. Even so, many war hawks are seriously agitating for an attack on Iran — another major supplier of worldwide oil. They are not concerned one bit about the impact such an attack would have on the wallets of average Americans; their obsession with regime change in Iran trumps all common sense. But let me be clear: An attack on Iran, coupled with our continued presence in Iraq, could hike gas prices to $5 or $6 per gallon. We also must understand the effect monetary policy has on gas prices. The price of gas, like the price of all things, goes up because of inflation. And inflation by definition is an increase in the money supply. The money supply is controlled by the Federal Reserve Bank, and responds to the deficits Congress creates. When deficits are excessive, as they are today, the Fed creates new dollars out of thin air to buy Treasury bills and keep interest rates artificially low. But when new money is created out of nothing, the money already in circulation loses value. Once this is recognized, prices rise — some more rapidly than others. That’s what we see today with the cost of energy. If we want to do something about gas prices, we should demand greatly reduced welfare and military spending, a balanced budget, and fewer regulations that interfere with the market development of alternative fuels. All subsidies and special benefits to energy companies should be ended. We also should demand a return to a sound commodity monetary system. And in the meantime, let’s eliminate federal gas taxes at the pump. That alone would save Americans 18.4 cents per gallon. By contrast, oil companies only make about 10 cents per gallon. So maybe it’s government that’s being greedy. Oil prices are at a level where consumers reduce consumption voluntarily. The market will work if we let it. But as great as the market economy is, it cannot overcome a foreign policy that is destined to disrupt oil supplies and threaten the world with an expanded and dangerous conflict in the Middle East. And it cannot overcome a monetary policy destined to inflate our dollars into oblivion. Rep. Ron Paul Web Site Back to Top |
|||||
A good teacher sets measurable goals and objectives for the students. A clear expectation, reinforcement of key ideas, and focusing on the main concepts during each lesson is the key for a successful classroom experience. Students, fortunate enough to have a teacher that understands this, will assimilate knowledge and be able to recall information when asked specific questions about a given lesson. Worksheets, which follow up on the classroom discussion and reading, further aid in student retention. Fuzzy goals, unorganized lessons, and a lack of uniformity to classroom structure sabotage a student’s ability to grasp the importance of any material because when there isn’t a clear direction or end goal, they become lost and “check out.” This phenomenon is really no different than if a student is asked to read a book written at a level that is too difficult to manage. Because neither heads nor tails can be made of it, it is left unread. Information must be introduced in manageable chunks, made understandable, and students must be able to interact with it at their level while at the same time, challenging their beliefs and ideas with more sophisticated concepts. Clear goals, clear expectations, and manageable information are necessary for success in any endeavor outside the classroom, as well. Superior leaders appreciate the value in being able to measure what has been accomplished toward meeting targeted ends. Productive people are able to set reasonable objectives for themselves. For example, a writer doesn’t take on the entire Civil War in one essay. Rather, it is more manageable to take on a specific aspect of the war and cover it in one chapter or paper. Over time, the entire war could be covered in all its complexity; however, justice could not be done in one sitting. In plain speak, lists are made, tasks are checked off. It feels good to accomplish what needs to be done. Students in the primary grades and middle school should be “introduced” to ideas about U.S. and World History. In general, they won’t be expected to read an assortment of materials which go into depth about a particular aspect of history unless they are putting together a paper or presentation on a person, place, or thing. In that event, it is too much to expect of a student (unless perhaps gifted) to make sure that sources reflect numerous point of views. It is likelier that a student will consult Encarta and perhaps thumb through a book or internet article and that will be the end of it. And this is fine, for this age level. Complicated ideological discussion cannot be expected and should not be part of the curriculum because the students simply do not have the resources yet, to answer with a sophisticated argument for or against an idea; rather they are likelier to regurgitate what they have heard at home or at school. Generally, sophisticated discussion is likelier to evolve in high school and college when students are expected to mine for information from a variety of sources, and where teachers are expected to provide different perspectives and challenge students’ ideas so that they can see things from another viewpoint. Indeed, the idea is not to proselytize, but to challenge accepted ideas with a variety of counterpoints and show the student how others might see the same situation. As a matter of fact, a lifelong learner needs to read about a subject, written from a number of different perspectives, to actually begin to grasp the intricacies and complexities before making judgment. There is value in taking into consideration a variety of positions before defending one’s own. Regardless of the grade a student is in or whether a person is even in school, the ability to manage chunks of information is what makes a person a lifelong learner. Unfortunately, many students today do not learn much in the way of U.S. and World history beyond the middle grades. Those who are required to take a year of World and U.S. History in high school or college are often subjected to teachers who proselytize (Jay Bennish, Ward Churchill) or have been exposed to Social Studies books which denigrate the founders and framers of this country, promote only the most positive aspects of other special interests and ignore the negative features of their growth. The importance of learning the basics of U.S. and World history in the primary and middle grades and then critically assessing history in high school and college is so to be able to apply that knowledge when confronted with real time situations facing our country today. Without that background, it is likelier that a person will succumb to a knee jerk reaction to events or be swayed by special interest agendas; unable to understand the nuances involved in every situation. Understanding our own, as well as the heritage, language and government of other cultures goes a long way toward negotiation and finding ways of getting along or conversely, realizing that conflict of interest is irresolvable and determining a course of action. Our country today is involved in a war against radical Islam. We didn’t take the first shot. Just as the Union didn’t take the first shot at Fort Sumter, we didn’t engage the terrorists with force, sometimes deliberately so (Lebanon & the U.S.S. Cole). Like President Lincoln, who understood that a house divided against itself could not stand, President Bush inherently understood that a culture whose objective is to dispose of those who do not follow their beliefs is an imminent danger to people or countries that disagree. Something needed to be done about it. Yet, the difference between the two men is very important, to note. President Bush began U.S. engagement by voicing that those who are not with us are against us. This was a strong pronouncement; reminiscent of General Grant, who understood that only total war would show the South that the North would not accept any conditions of surrender and General Sherman who showed no mercy to those supportive of the enemy. Still, with all the rhetoric, this administration has not committed to total war. Instead, it practices a policy of minimalism and restraint in war and continues to accommodate itself to a portion of the people in this country who do not understand that appeasing our detractors is no different than passing the compromises our country made to accommodate that “peculiar institution" of slavery instead of eliminating it from the start. The conditions at Andersonville and other prisons during the Civil War were deplorable (prisoners were freezing to death and catching dysentery) yet people actually worry about the “humane treatment” of prisoners at Abu Ghraib (prisoners have been made to wear underwear on their head). Imprisoned terrorists wouldn’t hesitate to kill in order to meet their own goals and objectives. President Lincoln suspended “The Writ of Habeus Corpus” in order to assure public safety yet President Bush has been accused of violating our civil liberties by implementing the Patriot Act. There has even been talk of impeaching the president on uneducated grounds. Obviously, the chunks of information have been too hard for detractors to assimilate. Like President Lincoln, President Bush’s poll numbers are low. One of the reasons is because the mainstream media has not shared with the American people when particular objectives have been met in attaining our goals in this war. Instead, the focus has been on the failures. Most recently, the media gave an inordinate amount of attention to former Generals coming forward to speak out against the way the military campaign is being run. General McClellan, who President Lincoln fired, actually ran against Lincoln on a platform which would have immediately ended hostilities and allowed slavery to continue in perpetuity. Can anyone imagine the United States with slaves in this day and age? Good leaders have clear goals and objectives. The North won the “War Between the States” by outlining three goals and using all of its resources to meeting them. It succeeded in the course of four years to blockade the ports, take the Mississippi; dividing the Confederacy, and capturing Richmond. Each time objectives were met, President Lincoln’s supporters could see the progress being made toward the goal of saving the Union. This is what kept him in office. Conversely, they could also see the failures. This almost prevented his reelection. Because of the nature of a terrorist enemy, President Bush appears to have vague goals and objectives. The American people do not know where the next military campaign will be fought or how it will be won. I have faith that Tony Snow, a former educator, who has a “New Media” background, will do a better job of explaining what we are doing in this war and how we are achieving our goals so that the American people can follow each accomplishment and see the progress being made. The value in history is to learn from it. There will be those who will disagree with my assessment and I am open to listening to any well reasoned, informed arguments for alternative ways to fight the war in which we are currently engaged. Unless people can advance opinions based on fact, it is unwise to suggest this administration is wrong in its goal to preserve our way of life by eliminating enemies whose objective is to eliminate us. If anyone can rise to this challenge, please, talk me out of my position. Make me see it your way. In President Bush’s word, “Bring it on.” Nancy
Salvato
Web Site Contact
Back to Top
|
|||||
©2004-2006 by their respective authors. Reprinted by permission. |
|||||
|
news | constitution | bill of rights | our view | your view | their view awards to win | awards we've won | resources | goodie shoppe our mission | about us | contact us | privacy policy | site map | home This page last updated on Tuesday, May 9, 2006 11:17 AM Optimized for Microsoft Internet Explorer |
|||||
|
site content ©2002-2006 site design by |
|||||
