9/26 Obama vs. McCain, Presidential Debate 1, Summary and Analysis, Stop Blaming Corporate America

We are carefully rummaging through the debate at this time and have so far come to the conclusion that little was said in the first round that was all that interesting.  With further analysis, we may be proven wrong, and there could be key items we are missing, so we will try carefully to glean the important points as we watch more closely.

It appears to us that both candidates in this debate spoke of the central problem (which is the economy) with hyperbole and promises rather than practical solutions and explanations.  Neither man gave us the warm feeling in this presentation that they knew how to pay for their programs or tax cuts or how to exactly target our problems.  Obama said he did, but he still didn’t say how other than to say he is going to close loopholes and tax people that make over $250,000.  John didn’t say at all but at least has an energy plan that could work which, if effective, could reverse the trade deficit over time.

We are broke guys.  We have no money.  We cannot promise things to Americans we don’t have.  Got it?

Get America on board!!  Stop pandering to us.  We want a program that treats America as though it were a business.  A responsible business certainly, that cares about its employees and benefits those that work for it.  McCain did speak of rewarding those that perform and holding those accountable that do not.

Overall, we, America, want to make a profit.  Got it?  No more deficits.  No more tax cuts. No more short term solutions that make you look good but that cost billions of dollars we do not have.

Make it freakin’ work again.  Make what work?  America.  Americans will come to the rescue for that kind of plan.  One they can understand.  Make a plan that makes the United States a “profitable” nation so we can build our own Dubai on chump change!!!

Get off the pulpit for a minute and think.  Think like the CEO’s Obama criticizes without giving any thought about all the absolutely phenomenal CEOs that have made this nation great!!  Lee Iacocca, Bill Gates, Steven Jobs, the list goes on and on.  These men either are paid well or were, but they are greats and people to remember for their accomplishments and legacy.  McCain and Obama have made the critical mistake of making the C in CEO stand for criminal.  But every entrepreneur, like Bill Gates or Henry Ford in his garage, has the potential in the US of becoming great.  And there are many fewer criminal CEO’s like Ron Skates of Data General, Dennis Kozlowski of Tyco and Executives of Enron than there are greats and heroes.  The bad seeds exist, but corporate America is huge, and for every low life thief, there are thousands of hard working dreamers and achievers that made their lives and companies into something great.  Blaming every CEO for the wayward few is like blaming our Sun in the billions of stars in the Milky Way for being warm and contributing to Intergalactic warming!

There appears to be a scapegoat game going on, in an attempt to place the culpability at corporate America’s feet for our problems!!  You say you care about middle class America, but there are many aspiring businessmen in the middle class that hope to grow their business and hope to some day make it to Wall Street as a legitimate public company.  Do they want to benefit from their work?  Yes, of course they do!!  Wouldn’t anyone?

Corporate America (Wall Street) is not the criminal; it is a stupid concept.  Don’t many of us, if not most of us, work for public companies?  We are Wall Street?  Main Street is Wall Street or at least they have a major intersection where they flow into each other.  Get it?

Given the latest requirements for oversight on companies, including “Sarbanes Oxley“, many small companies are going bankrupt, and leading companies like Open Pages, Inc, have grown at an astronomical rate, benefiting from demand for software that provides the automation for tracking accountability and corporate controls.  How can two men say how bad governance is, when the fact is that these laws, in come cases, are so stringent, they have placed some small companies out of business due to the expense of the accounting alone, and others have had to severely delay financial reports due to new laws regarding how they report? (See Broadcom, Marvel Communications, etc.).

We are not saying that better governance and regulations won’t help.  We are saying that it tends to fall the hardest on companies that are new and trying to thrive in today’s economy.  So, while Senator  Obama thinks that imposing more regulation is a good thing to protect America, in turn, he has to think about the impact of Sarbanes Oxley on a huge number of small companies that, like so many, are on the brink of success or failure.  Many failed as a result of the cost of more stringent regulation, so you could be damaging the very middle class you claim to be supporting.

Corporate America and its CEOs in general are heroes.  They are men that made it in the battle to forge a successful business.  Some are rogue, but it is not the balance.   Someone has to realize and stand up and ask, if you put Corporate America and its CEO’s out of business by treating them all as criminals, who picks up the slack?  Because they, gentlemen, are making the bulk of the private sector jobs, not you.

Right now, stop your NIMBY policies and the corporate hatred.  Make heroes out of US corporations and honor those that have been successful.  Then they will have an incentive to help us build a better America.  If you continue to chastise them and alienate them, they will continue to seek a way out of the US into other more favorable environments.

Your problems are huge, but Corporate America did not cause it.  Alan Greenspan with his bubble causing interest rates caused this problem combined with a short sighted dependency on foreign oil.  American policies of indefinite spending and deficits caused this problem.  Allowing ourselves to depend on other nations for our primary needs caused this problem.  No more blaming our best achievers in America.  No more making promises that cost billions while we wallow in debt.  No more denying that we consume vastly more resources than we generate, when we need to generate more and consume less.

We cannot consume 24% of the world’s oil and generate a small fraction of that and hope to survive economically.  We have enough resources here to provide all our needs, but we need to take the less ideal path for the short term to deliver the ideal path for the long term.  Energy independence is required as quickly as possible any way we can achieve it, followed by a nation that strives for ecological gains.  We cannot afford the reverse; it will surely put us in the poorhouse.

– 0 –

We will be back for more after a closer review of the debate content…

Full Schedule of the debates here.

In Retrospect, Palin Is NO NIMBY. Heroic Speech Questions Obama’s Double Speak

In her September 3rd speech accepting her selection as the Vice Presidential candidate for the Republican Party, Palin astutely stated, “U.S. reliance on imported oil poses a national security risk, and energy policy should include everything from expanding domestic drilling to finding alternative fuels”. 

The Democrats appear to think we should continue to import our resources while we take decades to bring on alternative fuels, but with the NIMBY attitude of the US, that isn’t going to happen any time soon. We need to break the ecology extremists that would save a chicken at the expense of a human life. These liberals would see our economy crushed before they would stop sending huge amounts of American currency to the home of the terrorists that executed the 9/11 terrorist attacks.

Palin went on, “”We need American energy resources, brought to you by American ingenuity, and produced by American workers.”

Palin showed that she has more savvy and is more cognizant of America’s situation than the Democrats which are still planning on addressing our national deficit by blocking energy advances in America and continuing to import foreign oil at huge expense.

We are NIMBY’s. It has to stop. It has to stop now. the Democrats support NIMBYism and are desperate to continue to add to our national deficit and to discourage the tapping of US resources and inherent creation of US jobs.

These policies, combined with a set of programs that would cost nearly the national deficit with no logical explanation of how to pay for them, has driven us away from Obama.

Obama has a chance to sway the moderates like us to his side, but it isn’t lying in his commercials. He has to answer several questions.

1. How do we reduce our dependency on foreign oil ASAP? We have a hint. It isn’t ethanol.

2. How do we pay for 400 billion dollars worth of Democratic programs with only what Obama states is a small tax increase on those making over $250,000?

3. How do you roll back Bush Tax Cuts without raising taxes? Aren’t raising taxes and rolling back tax cuts the exact same thing?

4. How can you say you will solve Social Security Problems by taxing people a decade from now, when you know you can’t possibly even be in office by then? Wouldn’t that just be deferring responsibility to your successor?

Those would be our questions to Obama in the debates, and we are not CBS, a pandering network in Obama’s pocket.

If you, our readers, can provide the answers to any of these questions above, we welcome your input, because we sure can’t.

NY Times Endorses McCain? Says Economy in Collapse! Reuters Says US Citizens Are Idiots. Hundreds Of Thousands DIE!

The New York Times reports we are in a total calamity according to our Federal Reserve.

If indeed this is factual in any way, which in the case of the NY Times, it most often is not, we have to examine how we got here.

We believe the primary cause is our dependency on foreign natural resources because of our NIMBY attitude.  We also believe this strongly suggests that Obama is not up for the job.  His proposal is to spend nearly the entire deficit on his programs without resolving the economic problems or our trade deficit first.

Obama wants health care that takes on people with pre-existing conditions.  This is either a hollow promise or one that puts us in the poor house as a nation.  He also wants to convert us over to alternative energy, but again has no plan and would keep on importing our natural resources at a huge rate at the expense of the dollar.  He also seems to want to blame our crisis on Republicans when the bulk of the problem was brought on by Alan Greenspan during his tenure along side Bill Clinton (when the stock market bubble occurred).

We believe if the economy is in this dire of a crisis, Obama is the last person we want at the helm.  We need to start now to tap our natural resources ASAP, creating American jobs in the process.  We cannot be NIMBY now.  The government cannot let ecology groups and liberals destroy our economy any longer.  Ecology has to take a back seat to economic destruction.  If our economy fails, ecology won’t matter one iota.

Reuters Says US Citizens Are Idiots. Hundreds Of Thousands DIE!!

We are seeing articles that totally question the intelligence of the American People. This liberal article tries to make a claim that hundreds of thousands died in a Shiite cleansing (compare that to the total death count of all American Soldiers in the war thus far, 4000 and the number killed in the 9/11 attacks, 3000).

How gullible does the liberal press think we are? Do they honestly believe hundreds of thousands of people were killed and their bodies disposed of in days? And do they have any evidence at all? Must have been one heck of a problem on garbage pick up day. Can’t just put those bodies in the recycle bin. Brings to mind the Monty Python parody, “Bring out your dead”.

Of course, this is all total nonsense… a fabrication to make the war look horrible, to refute the success of the Surge and to support Obama with lies.

This media nonsense should be “cleansed”. Maybe we can get the Shiites to visit Reuters?

Part IV: Obama Versus McCain on Natural Resources & Fossil Fuels: Obama Will Save The World, But the US will Go Broke in the Process

This is a continuing series on the Primary Issues of the Presidential Election 2008. | Read Round One: McCain Versus Obama on the issue of Health care. | Round Two: Their take on the Iraq War. | Round Three: Obama Versus McCain on Free Trade. | Part One of Round Four on Natural Resources and Fossil Fuels, here. | In Part Two, we think the Democrats, Republicans And We All Are Misguided. | Part Three: McCain’s Position. Hypocrites Need Not Apply!! | Part Four: Obama Will Save The World, But the US will Go Broke in the Process | Round five: Is the US the Melting Pot or the Stagnation Pot? The candidate’s position on Immigration | Round Six: On the Issue of Abortion | Round Seven: McCain Versus Obama on Social Security: Obama Needs a Fundraiser, McCain Missing in Action | Part one of Round Eight: McCain Versus Obama on National Security, Obama’s Position | Part two of Round Eight: McCain Versus Obama on National Security, McCain’s Position

Barack Obama’s Position:

Senator Obama believes that America must commit to a new national energy policy focused on improvements in technology, investments in renewable fuels such as wind and solar power, and greater efforts in conservation, efficiency, and waste reduction. Shifting from our current investment and consumption practices to this new direction will be one of the great leadership challenges in the coming decade.

Wow, amazing how much that sounds like McCain’s policy. Do they have the same writers?

With the Department of Energy telling us that U.S. demand for oil will jump 40% over the next 20 years and with countries like China and India adding millions of cars to their roads, the price of oil is approaching a breaking point.

Point taken (pun intended), but the fact is as our economy weakened and our demand for oil waned, oil prices collapsed nearly immediately from nearly $150 a barrel to under $100. China and India had nothing to do with it. As we clearly demonstrated in our prior articles, we dwarf the usage of these countries and likely will for the next decade.

In addition to the high economic costs of our foreign oil dependence, the current consumption of fossil fuels has threatened the future health and well-being of not only our citizens, but our natural resources and air quality as well. Investments in cleaner and more efficient energy technologies must play a central role in mitigating these threats to our health and our environment.

Agreed, but the NIMBY environmentalists won’t even let you put in Wind Farms. Where will we place these technologies, in outer space? Is Nuclear on your list?

Recognizing the importance of energy security to national and economic security, Senator Obama has proposed the creation of a Director of National Energy Security in the Office of the President. This position, akin to the National Security Advisor, would oversee and coordinate all administration efforts on national energy security and policies.

Another reference by a candidate to “energy security” instead of “energy independence”. The latter will automatically lead to the former, and no assigned “Director” can change that fact.

Renewable Fuels

Senator Obama is a leading advocate for increasing the use of renewable fuels to reduce our nation’s reliance on foreign petroleum. In 2005, he enacted into law a tax credit for installing E-85 ethanol refueling pumps at gas stations across the country.

Fact is ethanol and methanol have proven to be a joke. We cannot generate enough from products we depend on for food, it is more expensive than gasoline and it pollutes just as much if not more. It is “renewable”, but we can’t renew it fast enough, so it is pointless.

In the 109th and 110th Congress, he joined with Senator Lugar to introduce the American Fuels Act to increase domestic production, distribution, and end uses of biofuels. Among other improvements, the American Fuels Act would expand the manufacture of ethanol-capable vehicles, offer tax credits to spur cellulosic fuel production, require clean-fueled transit buses bought with federal dollars, and provide incentives to ethanol plants to invest in E-85 blending equipment on their premises.

Ethanol is a joke. We would love to see alternate fuels adopted, but that has to be incorporated with a plan to use our own resources of fossil fuels and drop our trade deficit, or we will be so poor, we won’t have the funds to pursue alternative sources of energy at all.  Certainly, that will reduce our usage, but we don’t consider poverty for Americans a viable solution.

Alternative fuels like hydrogen and natural gas are great, but are you so naïve as to believe this can be accomplished within any reasonable time frame? Our cars and the trucks that deliver most of our products throughout the world do not run on bio-diesel, hydrogen or natural gas. Are we to phase them out? By when? Will the US help pay for the trucking industry to transition from diesel to alternative energy sources and where will these alternate energy sources come from?

This is all a pipe dream Senator with no real plan.

Fuel Efficiency

As the author of the Fuel Economy Reform Act, Senator Obama has worked to gain bipartisan support for an innovative approach to raising automobile fuel efficiency standards (also known as “CAFE” standards) and break two decades of inaction and deadlock on reforming fuel economy laws. This proposal has attracted cosponsors from both parties – maintaining support from long-time champions of improving fuel economy standards while attracting support from traditional opponents. The bill would establish regular, continual, and incremental progress in miles per gallon fuel efficiency by an increase of four percent annually, and preserve flexibility by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration to vary the rate of improvement and how best to technologically achieve those fuel economy targets. President Bush endorsed a similar approach in his State of the Union speech in January 2007.

We agree that improving fuel efficiency is a great thing, but it is naïve as well. People buy larger vehicles because they need them. Trucks can carry things, a Geo Prism cannot. SUVs cater to families, the Honda Civic does not. There is nothing you can do about that short of dramatically changing the way cars are built. More hybrids, fine, but who will pay for that? They cost vastly more than regular fuel vehicles, don’t get anywhere near the gain in fuel economy as they imply (20% is often the gain, it would take the entire life of the car to save back the fuel difference), and leave us with hazardous waste (the battery) every few years.  In addition, the complexity of the manufacturing process for these automobiles and their replacement battery packs emits more Carbon Dioxide than the fuel savings garnered from the electric motor, so you are solving nothing.

There are other technologies, but none are practical at this time. We would like you to be more explicit, because if we are talking ethanol again, we have a real beef with your plan Senator.

Investing in New Technologies

Senator Obama introduced the “Health Care for Hybrids Act” to provide health care assistance to domestic automakers in exchange for their investing 50% of the savings into technology to produce more fuel-efficient vehicles. His proposal has been praised by President Bill Clinton, the University of Michigan’s auto research center, and numerous newspapers.

In May 2007, Senator Obama, along with Senator Harkin, authored the National Low Carbon Fuel Standard Act (S. 1324), which requires a 10% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions in the national transportation fuel pool by 2020, a reduction of about 180 million metric tons of emissions in 2020 – the equivalent of taking over 30 million cars off the road. The Obama-Harkin fuel standard embraces the growth of the renewable fuels market, including corn-based ethanol, cellulosic ethanol, and biodiesel as a key component of fighting climate change, while creating incentives for lower carbon emissions in their production.

Read Senator Obama’s Speech on the National Low Carbon Fuel Standard

Praised by Bill Clinton? Pshaw. Why would Bill Clinton praise a Democrat? Never happen.

Interesting numbers thrown out, but no different from what John McCain has stated and no more realistic. Can you think of a reason the rest of the world hasn’t done this Senator when we already import most of our cars? Is it because they are dunces? Of course not. It is because it isn’t practical. Automobiles are manufactured and sold worldwide. If the nations that build our cars could come up with such technologies, don’t you think they would have by now?  Japan already makes the best hybrids, not the US.

It is cute to offer US Automakers a discount to produce cleaner and more fuel efficient cars, if they all weren’t nearly bankrupt because they cannot build decent cars in the first place.  I don’t think many Americans want to add more complexity to the automobile they purchase from Ford or GM when they have enough trouble with quality as it is.  Maybe you can instead give the tax discount to the Japanese?

Working to Lower High Gas Prices

Oil companies are enjoying record profits while consumers are suffering from record high gas prices. In the 110th Congress, Senator Obama has introduced the Oil SENSE Act to eliminate unnecessary tax breaks to the oil industry. A version of the bill was passed by House of Representatives in January 2007.

In the 109th Congress, Senator Obama sponsored legislation, the FILL UP Act, requiring oil companies that made at least $1 billion in profits in the first quarter of 2006 to invest at least 1% of the their total reported first quarter 2006 profits into installing E-85 pumps.

Senator Obama also worked with Congressman Rahm Emanuel to obtain several million dollars to establish the first ethanol-to-hydrogen refueling station for refueling Chicago natural gas bus fleets.

All wrong. If you want to impose a tax on Oil companies, we are all for it. Make them build some refineries and drill responsibly and tap resources to use our current technologies. You can force them to invest in natural resources, but you can’t force a NIMBY population to allow you to even install wind power.

It all comes down to priorities Senator. Priority one. Energy Independence. Priority two. Energy Alternatives for electricity and heating piercing NIMBY conservationist groups. Priority three. Building an infrastructure for alternative fuels, but not ethanol or methanol, they just aren’t practical.

Conclusion

Senator McCain is the only one that has the foresight to realize that all our cars, hundreds of millions of them, are powered by gasoline. All our trucks that deliver products in the US are powered by diesel. Most of our electricity and heating comes from burning coal, oil or natural gas.

It is not practical to think that within any reasonable time frame we can change that. It is not realistic and it would destroy our economy in the process. It places the entire burden on us to convert while continuing to pay foreign nations for our current resources and maintain a huge trade deficit to do so. It is not a financially viable solution.

When you have run up your debt and you can’t pay the bills, you can do one of two things, try to pay down your debt and get control of your finances, or you can declare bankruptcy. We believe the only way to approach this problem is to reduce our dependency on an ever-growing importation of an international supply of natural resources.

This is vastly more practical and can be done with our current infrastructure and not with incredible expense to the citizen to convert cars, trucks and buses to use alternative fuels that would likely cost us more than gasoline. Building the infrastructure, converting our cars, converting our energy plants will cost an astronomical amount of money. Where will that money come from if we do not first get our trade deficit under control?

Round 4: McCain (but we want to see less pandering, the liberals are delusional here, McCain must point it out)

Read Round Five: Is the US the Melting Pot or the Stagnation Pot? The candidate’s position on Immigration

Part III: Obama Versus McCain on Natural Resources & Fossil Fuels: McCain’s Position. Hypocrites Need Not Apply!!

This is a continuing series on the Primary Issues of the Presidential Election 2008. | Read Round One: McCain Versus Obama on the issue of Health care. | Round Two: Their take on the Iraq War. | Round Three: Obama Versus McCain on Free Trade. | Part One of Round Four on Natural Resources and Fossil Fuels, here. | In Part Two, we think the Democrats, Republicans And We All Are Misguided. | Part Three: McCain’s Position. Hypocrites Need Not Apply!! | Part Four: Obama Will Save The World, But the US will Go Broke in the Process | Round five: Is the US the Melting Pot or the Stagnation Pot? The candidate’s position on Immigration | Round Six: On the Issue of Abortion | Round Seven: McCain Versus Obama on Social Security: Obama Needs a Fundraiser, McCain Missing in Action | Part one of Round Eight: McCain Versus Obama on National Security, Obama’s Position | Part two of Round Eight: McCain Versus Obama on National Security, McCain’s Position

This is McCain’s opinion.  We believe it panders a bit too much in an attempt to get votes.  While we agree with Obama on Trade, this is an important facet of trade, and John is much more realistic in his approach than Obama.  However, he spends most of his time sounding overly NIMBY.  We have cut out many of his positions from his site.

Many, like those of Obama, are nonsense pandering to the conservationists and not making a stand to show us how narrow minded we can be.  Climate change happened over centuries, we cannot fix it in 4 years guys.  Don’t patronize us, get real!

From John  McCain:

Open Space

Economic development is essential to a strong American economy but urban sprawl shouldn’t be allowed to expand unabated at the expense of our remarkable wild and scenic public lands. Instead we should promote responsible growth and encourage state and local officials to implement open space initiatives and establish green corridors within our communities. This will require strengthening federal tools like Land and Water Conservation Fund that emphasizes recreation and the protection of wildlife areas.

Climate Change and Energy Independence

Climate change is the single greatest environmental challenge of our time. The facts of global warming demand our urgent attention, especially in Washington. Not only does our dependence on foreign oil bring about sizable national security risks but the preponderance of scientific evidence points to the warming of our climate from the burning of fossil fuels. We can no longer deny our responsibility to lead the world in reducing our carbon emissions.

John McCain has announced The Lexington Project, a comprehensive energy and climate strategy to provide America with secure sources of energy, ensure our continued prosperity, and address global climate change. This plan includes the elements necessary to achieve these objectives by: producing more power, pushing technology to help free our transportation sector from its use of foreign oil, cleaning up our air, addressing climate change, and ensuring that Americans have dependable energy sources.

This strategy recognizes that we must reexamine our national energy policy and enact reforms that allow the market to do more to open new paths of invention and ingenuity. And we must do this in a way that gives American businesses new incentives to develop clean and renewable energy technologies. The most direct way to achieve this is through a cap-and-trade system that sets clear limits on all greenhouse gases, while also allowing the sale of rights to excess emissions.

We have an opportunity for American agriculture to be a major player in the pursuit of energy independence through the development of bio diesel and cellulosic energy. In moving forward, we must integrate environmental policies that maintain quality wildlife habitat near and downstream of farmland. The past quarter century shown that environmental stewardship programs like the Conservation Reserve Program and the Wetland Reserve Program have helped reduce wetland loss, improve water quality and minimize soil erosion. As we build our new energy economy, these programs should be recognized as good agriculture practices central to sustaining healthy ecosystems.

Our Response:

All that is fine John, but it is a solution for fifty years from now, we need a solution now.  But John expanded on this view.

John Continues:

“The next president must be willing to break with the energy policies, not just of the current administration, but the administrations that preceded it, and lead a great national campaign to achieve energy security for America,” McCain said Tuesday.

Our Response:

Finally someone with some guts, although we would call it energy independence which, in turn, leads to energy security.  If we were independent of foreign oil, we would not be at war in Iraq today, and it is highly likely we would not have experienced 9/11.

John is now supporting offshore drilling to tap our resources, and we are glad to see someone finally has the guts to support offshore drilling in the face of naive self-centered NIMBY conservationists?  Are we finally breaking away from the “prima donna” attitude and accepting some responsibility for ourselves?  Maybe not…

“When America set aside the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, we called it a ‘refuge’ for a reason,” he said.

We are getting mixed messages, but at least we are hearing some approach to providing access to US natural resources that sooner than later will reduce our dependencies on international oil and our trade deficit.

It is absolutely foolish to assume that anyone will stop drilling, destroying their habitats and killing other human beings to provide for our needs if we will not provide for our own.

One liberal diatribe makes this quote: “According to your best estimate, when will “drilling here and drilling now” reduce the price of gasoline in the United States?”  You don’t have to ask the candidates this question, you know the answer.  Sooner than if we take no action at all.  A central argument against taking action has been that results are not immediate.  By this argument, you should never attempt any long term objective.  If you can’t deliver results today, it is too late.  And year after year, while you maintain that “can’t do” attitude, other nations will eat you alive and your trade deficit will soar as you continue to import natural resources you already have for blood money.  Had we strongly pursued energy independence ten years ago, we would likely be independent today.  We didn’t do it.  Why?  It wasn’t because we believed in our environment and it wasn’t because we cared about pollution, etc.  It wasn’t cost effective.  Ten years ago, imported oil was cheap.  But as it turned out, the deluded idea we could import our resources has resulted in the loss of huge numbers of human lives and cost us more economically than we ever imagined.  That is hindsight, but we don’t need hindsight now to know we need to fix the problem and to see we have the resources to do it within our grasp.

The answers we are reading from the candidates also skip over a major problem we face in the US with respect to gasoline prices.  We do not have enough refineries.  Build them, with new technologies and governed by our laws.  To hell with the special interests.  If we don’t do it, someone else will and we can guarantee you it won’t be in their citizens’ interests or ours.  It will be in the name of money.

The liberal side completely escapes us as does John’s desire to pander to them.  We believe we should drill anywhere feasible, Alaska, Offshore, wherever we can.  Build refineries.  Accelerate the use of coal for petroleum, tap oil shale, and build alternative energy sources in the face of NIMBY self-interest groups.

Through it all, we guarantee you, the US will do it much cleaner and with much more consideration to the environment and human rights than any other nation on earth.  Get used to it.  We consume.  Why destroy our economy in our wake?  Take responsibility for ourselves!  It will yield results.  And if anyone asks you for a date for when it will deliver results like the liberal diatribe above?  Ask them for a date when we will be independent of foreign oil if we don’t take action.  Hypocrites need not apply!

Read Obama’s Position: Obama Will Save The World, But the US will Go Broke in the Process

PART II: Obama Versus McCain on Natural Resources & Fossil Fuels. Dems, Reps And We All Are Misguided

This is a continuing series on the Primary Issues of the Presidential Election 2008. | Read Round One: McCain Versus Obama on the issue of Health care. | Round Two: Their take on the Iraq War. | Round Three: Obama Versus McCain on Free Trade. | Part One of Round Four on Natural Resources and Fossil Fuels, here. | In Part Two, we think the Democrats, Republicans And We All Are Misguided. | Part Three: McCain’s Position. Hypocrites Need Not Apply!! | Part Four: Obama Will Save The World, But the US will Go Broke in the Process | Round five: Is the US the Melting Pot or the Stagnation Pot? The candidate’s position on Immigration | Round Six: On the Issue of Abortion | Round Seven: McCain Versus Obama on Social Security: Obama Needs a Fundraiser, McCain Missing in Action | Part one of Round Eight: McCain Versus Obama on National Security, Obama’s Position | Part two of Round Eight: McCain Versus Obama on National Security, McCain’s Position

We have an incredible dichotomy. We want clean air, to reduce green-house gases, to preserve our natural wildlife, and yet we use 24 percent of the world’s oil!! How can we, as a nation that believes in such ideals, still use 24 percent of the world’s oil? Fact is, we prove in practice, we don’t truly have these ideals, but we do have a NIMBY attitude.

We pass off the responsibility of tapping the resources to others and import it when we ourselves possess massive energy resources. And we don’t just hand off our responsibilities to Arab nations. In our first article of this series, we asked our readers which nation we import most of our oil from. Here is the answer, are you ready?

The nation exporting the most oil to the United States is Canada. We have vast reserves of natural resources in the United States while the nation immediately to our North is exporting oil to us as fast as they can tap it. We are honestly standing up and saying we will not drill on our land and use our resources, while our next door neighbor to our North provides most of our needs? Could we be any more hypocritical?

And take a look at number 3 folks. Do you honestly think that the two nations closest to us geographically are so vast in natural resources relative to us that we should import their resources at incredible expense while our trade deficit explodes?

We borrow the following chart from the US Energy Information Administration.

Crude Oil Imports (Top 15 Countries)
(Thousand Barrels per Day)

Country

Jun-08

May-08

YTD 2008

Jun-07

YTD 2007


CANADA

1,883

1,840

1,888

1,905

1,881

SAUDI ARABIA

1,479

1,579

1,523

1,501

1,407

MEXICO

1,124

1,116

1,193

1,392

1,454

VENEZUELA

1,085

1,030

1,012

1,135

1,109

NIGERIA

946

851

1,036

893

1,022

IRAQ

693

583

674

573

476

ANGOLA

636

464

496

502

568

BRAZIL

280

318

221

121

158

ALGERIA

269

440

319

504

494

RUSSIA

228

119

109

29

135

KUWAIT

179

263

219

263

193

ECUADOR

178

162

192

166

195

COLOMBIA

177

245

182

143

108

CHAD

107

57

101

80

69

LIBYA

89

96

76

144

66

Total Imports of Petroleum (Top 15 Countries)
(Thousand Barrels per Day)

Country

Jun-08

May-08

YTD 2008

Jun-07

YTD 2007


CANADA

2,359

2,346

2,472

2,410

2,470

SAUDI ARABIA

1,493

1,604

1,538

1,534

1,434

MEXICO

1,254

1,218

1,304

1,529

1,590

VENEZUELA

1,215

1,171

1,172

1,364

1,356

NIGERIA

1,020

918

1,092

968

1,080

RUSSIA

764

441

474

285

400

IRAQ

693

583

674

573

476

ANGOLA

649

476

506

514

580

ALGERIA

492

620

535

709

718

VIRGIN ISLANDS

314

340

336

218

319

BRAZIL

314

335

246

161

205

UNITED KINGDOM

286

237

223

345

310

NETHERLANDS

264

192

167

171

126

ECUADOR

184

162

200

168

199

KUWAIT

183

263

222

263

200

This map of the world which clearly demonstrates the highest use of oil per capita is educational. However, we believe it is a bit misleading. Warmer climates use less oil and more developed nations also use more. Still, it is very clear who the largest consumers are. We constantly hear about the increase in demand among developing nations, but we still dwarf their usage and we still import most of it. Interestingly, some of the major exporters, like Saudi Arabia, have very little use for the oil they export. Think about that for a minute. What else do they have to offer, and yet we are at war in Iraq, in part to protect our interests in the Persian Gulf?

Recently, our demand for fuel dropped off. When it did, our dollar strengthened, demonstrating a strong correlation between our trade deficit and the value of our currency. (see our article on Trade). It seems that most articles we have read on the matter have the cause and effect totally backwards. They are claiming oil prices dropped in response to a stronger dollar. Wrong!!! The weakened economy collapsed our demand for oil. That, in turn, reduced our trade deficit, which strengthens the dollar.

When you were in Junior High School, you likely read this book. It started with the famous quote “Call me Ishmael”. Does it ring a bell? The name of the book was “Moby Dick”. It was written about the hunt for an evil white whale by Captain Ahab and originated out the biggest whaling port in the world, New Bedford, Massachusetts. New Bedford, at the time,  was known throughout the world.

New Bedford still has a lone whaler on the hunt, holding a harpoon in his whaling boat, as a landmark in front of their public library, but worldwide the city is now an unknown spec. They do have the largest whaling museum in the country, and we think you should visit this museum to gain a better understanding of our history with respect to energy use. Why? Because the hunt for whales was based on our dependency on energy, specifically whale oil for lighting. We knew nothing about fossil fuels. We depended on whales for our energy. “Uncle Jed” would be rich had he owned a whaling ship. We murdered whales at will, a beautiful and intelligent animal, to provide for our nation’s energy needs.

We nearly caused the extinction of whales in the process, but thankfully, we discovered an alternative… fossil fuels. Our basic energy needs now are met almost entirely, directly or indirectly, by fossil fuels.

Initially, the US was able to meet its own demands for fossil fuels. Eventually, we could no longer satiate our own appetite, and in the mid 1900s, we started to import our resources in excess of what we consumed. A famous personality, M. King Hubbert, defined the concept of “peak oil” saying we would eventually run out of oil, and by a specific date, the cost would start to escalate. This theory has been brought to the forefront again and again, and is used at every spike in oil trading prices, because those on the long side want to make money. It has little to do with reality. There are enough fossil fuels in one form or another to last us hundreds more years and many are cost effective, but domestically, we are a NAMBY PAMBY NIMBY population.

The Environment and Us

We (US citizens) seem to care about our environment. We care about the warming climate, pollution, the decline of the rain forests and the transition away from the use of fossil fuels. Other nations think about money or survival. They are willing to sacrifice the world’s rain forests for their own benefit. They are willing to provide us oil and other fossil fuels at any cost to make a profit or eat. They do not care about their natural resources or the world’s. These other nations have major problems that lead to disaster with respect to natural resources world wide, and, in the same way we nearly killed off all whales in pursuit of our energy needs, they will kill off and destroy all their natural resources and even each other to provide our market, regardless of what it does to the world’s environment.

Every gallon of oil, every farm product, and in fact, every natural resource, we choose to import, when we already have access to those resources in large quantities within our own borders, is a cop out. It is not saying we are protecting our environment or our desire to preserve our jobs. It says we are not willing to accept responsibility for our own actions. We want to blame others while we drive our cars to work, heat our homes and consume natural resources at a higher rate per capita than any other nation in the world. We are not willing to accept the damage it causes within the US, but we are willing to encourage it outside our borders, no matter what the consequences, so we can blame others.  This becomes even more evident when you realize we import such a vast amount of petroleum from Canada, but we want to protect Alaska.  Does the US population have any concept of geography?

People throughout the US try to understand why we are hated throughout the world in the way we are. We have a theory. It is because we value ourselves above them. It is because we think our lives, our way of living and our children are worth more than theirs. We think that if we purchase oil from another nation, we preserve our environment within US borders. By tapping others resources, we pollute their environment, but we keep ours clean. Somehow, we believe, in an isolationist fashion, that if we do not tap our resources within our borders, it is OK, because someone else will suffer the consequences.  We will not have to experience the results, “out of sight, out of mind”.

The deluded idea is we are acceptable in our minds, because those nations will make the hard decisions, and without any percentage of the consideration we have for our environment, tap and export their resources. Is it worth it to us to preserve a blind fish in a cave, while other nations destroy thousands or millions of species to feed us the same amount of oil? They don’t care, we do. And because we care too much, we are misguided.

Read Part III: McCain’s Position. Hypocrites Need Not Apply!!

Part I: Obama Versus McCain on Natural Resources & Fossil Fuels. Are McCain and Obama NIMBY Advocates?

This is a continuing series on the Primary Issues of the Presidential Election 2008. | Read Round One: McCain Versus Obama on the issue of Health care. | Round Two: Their take on the Iraq War. | Round Three: Obama Versus McCain on Free Trade. | Part One of Round Four on Natural Resources and Fossil Fuels, here. | In Part Two, we think the Democrats, Republicans And We All Are Misguided. | Part Three: McCain’s Position. Hypocrites Need Not Apply!! | Part Four: Obama Will Save The World, But the US will Go Broke in the Process | Round five: Is the US the Melting Pot or the Stagnation Pot? The candidate’s position on Immigration | Round Six: On the Issue of Abortion | Round Seven: McCain Versus Obama on Social Security: Obama Needs a Fundraiser, McCain Missing in Action | Part one of Round Eight: McCain Versus Obama on National Security, Obama’s Position | Part two of Round Eight: McCain Versus Obama on National Security, McCain’s Position

This article is divided into parts. This first part includes our opinions regarding our use of fossil fuels and the direction we are taking to provide for our needs as well as to reduce our dependencies on those fossil fuels. It also makes suggestions that may seem somewhat radical for resolving these problems. In subsequent parts, we will look to expand on what we can do as a nation and look at the candidates, lining up their positions to see which best aligns with our opinion of how to approach the problem.

We are a “prima donna” nation. We (not the writers of this publication, but all of us) believe that it is all about us. We seem to believe that the world revolves around the United States, and if we protect our part of the world, it is just dandy if the rest of it falls into oblivion.

In some nations, it is all about a power grab to see who can get the most out of those resources, not how to preserve their environment or even preserve lives as they murder or enslave their countrymen for financial gain. Those that have gotten rich off of the US, like the Arab Nations, are more concerned with how to spend all the money than they are with how they destroy our environment. Despite all the billions that Saudi Arabia has made from oil, when have you ever heard they were investing in a plan to help reduce the world’s dependency on fossil fuels or offered a plan to reduce so-called greenhouse gases?

We have had many disasters throughout the world with respect to natural resources. We in America care about those disasters. A five billion dollar punitive damages award was the largest set of punitive fines ever handed out to a company for their irresponsibility, and it was leveled against Exxon for the Exxon Valdez spill in Alaska.

Unfortunately, money talks. Recently, Exxon lawyers and the company’s financial influence led to the ratcheting back of that award to a paltry 500 Million dollars by our Supreme Court. This was a pathetic slap on the wrist and a very small portion of Exxon profits as they have taken advantage of our resources and consumption to make billions.

Irrespective of this irresponsible action by our Supreme Court, we as a nation, do care about our environment, but our reaction to such disasters has been to become overly cautious at home. We have new technologies to tap oil shale, but we are so worried about damaging the environment we have tied up the progress for years. We have massive oil reserves in Alaska and in the Gulf of Mexico, but we are reluctant as a nation to tap them because we are concerned about the damage to our environment. Despite the fact that we have never had a nuclear plant disaster in the United States (although we came close years ago at Three Mile Island), and despite huge advances in our technology, we have essentially halted the advancement of the use of Nuclear Energy within the US.

What does that show? We care. We think our fight will help the world to survive. We all seem to want the environment to be clean, to preserve every species, to maintain our national wilderness. We, as a nation, above all others throughout the world, will fight to defend and propagate our world. Problem is, we are too self-centered and approaching it all wrong.

We continue, like Al Gore, to preach to the choir. We are a very small part of the problem, although, because of our consumption of fossil fuels, we may be a huge part of the source. We have to address our consumption while removing the guilt imposed by people like Al Gore that use huge amounts of energy while telling the rest of us we are at fault. And we do not believe addressing our consumption necessarily, in the short run, means reducing it.

NIMBY Mentality

In our supposedly noble fight to maintain our environment, we have clearly favored the US environment over that of the rest of the world, despite the fact we consume such huge quantities of the world’s resources. We consistently demonstrate a not in my back yard (NIMBY) “prima donna” mentality. It is fine for us to build new refineries, just not where we need to build them, in America. It is great that we are drilling less and using fewer of our natural resources, so long as we can import them from elsewhere. Let other nations destroy their environments and we will gladly use their resources while we babble on about alternative energy to make ourselves feel better. As long as we don’t see it, that is fine with us.

Our NIMBY attitude is so extreme, we preach about alternative energy, but actually block projects that would reduce our dependency on oil and help clean our environment. This was exemplified when a battle arose over a plan for a wind farm for Cape Cod, Massachusetts that would generate nearly half the electrical supply for Cape Cod and the islands of Martha’s Vineyard and Nantucket. It was hoped that this wind farm would be in place by 2005. It didn’t happen. Why? NIMBY!! Wayne Kurker, president of Hyannis Marina, formed the “Alliance to Protect Nantucket Sound”, specifically to fight the wind farm proposal.

This quote from Wayne demonstrates how everyone in America seems to feel. ”A good portion of us who migrated to Cape Cod came to enjoy Nantucket Sound, and if Nantucket Sound becomes an industrial, electrical generation area, then it’s no longer the national treasure that people currently feel it is. We look at this as our wilderness, our national park.”

Great point Wayne, made despite research demonstrating how good the project would be for the Cape and how we could have set an example for the rest of the nation to turn to alternative energy sources. It is fine to pollute the rest of the world, burn coal and oil to generate our electricity, just don’t ask us to do anything about it in our back yard.

We, as a nation, must discard this NIMBY attitude. We have to tap our own natural resources now and also execute new revolutionary plans for alternate energy. We have to reduce our dependency on foreign oil to reduce our trade deficit and strengthen our dollar and to put us in control of our own destiny. Or should we instead bomb Iran?

Then, after we have solidified our financial position and become essentially independent of foreign oil in any way we can, we can better focus on alternate energy sources to reduce our use of fossil fuels. We are saying to pursue all solutions, now, whether they are ideal or not so we control our own destiny.

We are suggesting immediate action to drill in Alaska and in the Gulf of Mexico as well as tap other resources in the United States. We have the largest reserve of coal of any nation in the world. We can build refineries that convert this coal into petroleum that is cleaner burning than the petroleum we use now. The refineries may pollute more, but we have technologies to assist us. And we have enough coal to make enough petroleum to last the United States 200 years! We should tap our Oil Shale reserves and build new safer Nuclear Power Plants and we should do it now!

And when we are done, and as the world realizes we are willing to supply our own needs, our dollar will strengthen, our trade deficit will drop sharply!  We may even start exporting natural resources to the rest of the world as we steadily reduce our need to import them.  We can further develop alternate energy technologies with the money we didn’t give to other nations to meet our needs.

Let’s leave Part 1 with a question we will answer when we return. What nation does the United States import the most oil and petroleum from? The answer will surprise you.

FIND THE ANSWER to the above question on the next article: Democrats, Republicans and We All are Misguided