Well, it’s time to get back to work. I got out of the hospital yesterday. Now my illness is primarily from watching the news.

I just saw a clergyman claim that god defined marriage for us. It may make him feel good to spout such nonsense, but it’s still nonsense.

It amazes me that people are so ready to fight to the death based on such obvious ignorance. Is marriage strictly the purview of god? Not really.

While some refuse to accept same-sex marriage under any circumstances, others are so willing, if only they are called civil unions. Someway, that is supposed to make a difference.

The first question that comes to mind is: were Adam and Eve married? Who cares?

It may seem difficult for some to understand but there are other sources of information on a large variety of subjects that are not the Bible. Sorry, but I had no idea how to break it gently.

Marriage is mentioned, praised, cursed, described and otherwise cited in many, many sources. There are law books that speak to it. They also cover divorce.

There are magazines from which you can select your victim for god’s holy institution from a bevy of wannabe American citizens living in the Philippines, or perhaps even some atheists in the Ukraine.

I was wondering how god, the Christian one, obviously, was able to get people of other religions and no religion to create this particular institution. They were able to do this even without access to the holy writ, or e-mail, or texting. God works in mysterious ways. From all of this, we must assume that god blesses even these unsolemnized unions.

So, just why is there such an institution? We don’t require the chanting of a holy incantation for the purchase of that new flat-screen television, a new computer or another mule. They are merely property. But, so, until recently, was a wife. While we engaged in a silly, expensive ritual only for one type of property, it still involved the acquisition of property.

Why the different treatment? Because the ownership of a crypto-human being is somewhat more complex and involves more people than that Lazy-Boy recliner.

Taking on that wife involves her family. It involves your extended family. It may involve a dowry.

While Best Buy and LG will forswear any connection with that flat-screen as soon as it is opportune, the connection of the young lady to her original family quite frequently remains strong. But, there are two unique, very special considerations that come with this type of property.

First, is the special consideration of the children. They are going to carry his name. He needs a way of assuring they are actually his. He must bind his new piece of property to himself as securely as possible. Making a public show, involving both families and the community, is all intended to put a very obvious brand on her. It is a way of getting the public involved in helping ensure his property isn’t tainted.

Then, their are the inheritances of the children. He certainly doesn’t want the bounty of his life to go to another man’s brood.

Back in the day, few people had any property of their own; not their shelter, not even their bed. They were serfs. It was the property of their lord. About the 13^th Century, serfdom was ending. People began to actually own a pitiful bit of property. Passing it around or down required records. The number of people involved required a more elaborate way of specifying who was doing the transferring. From this came the appearance of the surname.

The government needed to keep records. It needed to tax property of far more people than before. The church, really as part of the government, also began keeping vital records: births, marriages and deaths.

Oops. The creators of marriage forgot to let god define it for them. Really, it wouldn’t be fair to god to burden him with all of the details of property transfers.

Spouses are no longer considered property; at least for most Westerners. So, an important part of the original purpose of marriage no longer obtains. We have, however, complicated it in some ways. We now accept that rights and obligations are tied together.

Now, marriage is, in the minds of most of its participants, based on love, on caring for each other. This brings certain rights, such as making health decisions for your loved one. Since marriage is really a relationship recognized, facilitated and made official by government, the government must define marriage. It must define it as the people are actually involved in it. As our concept is one of government of, by and for the people, the government must address the needs and desires of the people involved in these relationships.

This is not a realm where the government rules. It is an area where the government must keep up with the society. There are property and other relationships that the government must be able to arbitrate, when necessary. It must recognize same-sex marriages for it to play its proper role.

It is strange that the most vociferous opponents of same-sex marriage want to discard and disregard matters that they claim to hold dear.

They claim to abhor the very thought of government intrusion in their lives. In fact, they only honor that idea when they see it as useful to their immediate goals. They also demand small government. Again, their adherence to that imperative is situational. In reality, these opponents are ignorant. They are bigots, liars and false in their claims of allegiance to Christianity.

.

.

Bookmark It

Hide Sites

Have you ever heard a politician advocate cutting taxes? Have you ever been alive?

The refrain is constant. It is pure bullshit. They tell us it will create jobs. The facts show otherwise.

I can state the facts from here to the end of ignorance and it will do no good. I can show the facts. Most people will not be persuaded. What to do? My only remaining option is to explain why it is nonsense in the simplest of terms possible.

I hope that using the word ‘reason’ will not scare off too many people.

First, a few of those facts that so many have been immunized against. The thought of cutting taxes is seductive. Very few Americans want to pay for what they want. Just think of the popularity of the lotteries, of sales. Pay attention to how frequently the word ‘free’ pops up everywhere. Cutting taxes is more popular than bad taste on reality television.

Despite the constant complaints of the government being too big and too expensive, all of us want more – more lanes on our commute, more police protection, more clerks at the department of motor vehicles, more potholes repaired, more, more, more.

Some of the same shysters calling for smaller government are proposing policies that would require a G-Man in every bedroom and doctor’s office. Perhaps they will all be volunteers.

When was the American economy most robust? In the decade or so following the Second World War. But, you say, how could that be? How, indeed? Our economy had to absorb over 10 million military men returning to civilian life. Did we cut taxes? Actually, no.

During the 1950s, the marginal tax rate was 91%. Not everyone paid that. It was just the top rate for the wealthy. That’s what is called a fact; something that causes the tax cutters dyspepsia. Their remedy is to ignore  those pesky facts.

Now, the average effective tax rate for corporations is about 12% and Mitt Romney paid less than 14% on more than $20 million. Where is the economic boom? Where are the jobs?

Let’s unwrap at rare commodity – reason. If a company has more income than outgo, you have a decision to make. Do we keep it or, do we apply it to investment or expenditures? If we keep it we call it profit and pay taxes on it. If we invest it in growing or improving the company or spend it on such things as pay raises or benefits or even creating more jobs, we don’t have to pay taxes.

The government, any government, is large enough that whatever it does or doesn’t do molds the economy. It just can’t help it.

If the government reduces taxes on the wealthy for not investing, it’s possible they won’t invest. The same for corporations. If the government increases taxes on those who just want to keep it in their pocket or the Cayman Islands, that money is likely going to be invested instead.

Cutting taxes reduces the incentive to create jobs.

Is that just playing intellectual games? No. Comparing the tax rates to the health of the economy proves it, without exception.

The chart covers 1913, the beginning of the income tax, to 2003, the last rate change. It begins low but increases to pay for WWI. Conservative dogma created the trough of the 1920s, which lead to the Great Depression. During our most productive period it was in the 90s. The latest lows lead to the present economy.

If you see what you think is an exception, be careful. The game may have been distorted by borrowing large amounts of money. You can enjoy a better lifestyle on a credit card – temporarily. The problem is that paying it back removes much needed investment resources from the game. Debt repayment does not create jobs.

The real reason many of these politicians propose tax cuts has nothing to do with aiding the economy. It is to implement the goal of one of the most ridiculous ideologies ever conceived. They wish, as one wag said, to shrink government to such an extent that it can be drowned in a toilet. Real sophisticated philosophy.

Why eliminate government? To eliminate regulation. Regulations would be unnecessary if everyone behaved. They don’t.

Just look at the results of the greed that helped Wall Street take over half of all the profit in the country. They did this without producing anything but paper and economic disaster.

Much regulation addresses criminal activity: theft, fraud, et al. A regulation is just a type of law. How about getting rid of laws against theft, murder, assault, and such? A good idea? Of course there are stupid regulations. There are stupid laws. Does that suggest that the answer is to eliminate all laws or the government? No. It suggests reviewing the regulations and laws to take reasonable action.

If the people touting reduced taxes for corporations and the elite actually believe that it would create jobs or improve the economy they are fools. Those politicians whining about reducing taxes that know better are tools. You are well-advised to ignore both.

.

.

Bookmark It

Hide Sites

Is money speech? The Money Court says it is. I’m becoming a believer.

The deference shown by the Court to those with money was clear with that brilliant joke known as the Citizens United decidion.

Today, Roberts and Alito provided further evidence that money is more important than people. I really didn’t think we needed any more proof of the Court’s venality. It’s so blatant they don’t even try to disguise it.

I can’t mention the Citizens United decision without at least a brief comment. If money is speech then those with money get more speech.

Even were we stupid enough to accept the nonsensical lie that corporations are people, giving some ‘people’ more speech than others, transforms the almost sacred tenet of equality under the law into a cruel joke.

Anyway, what did those mental giants, Justices Roberts and Alito, do to embarrass these United States today?

The question was what the consequences would be if the Court struck down the mandate. They mused that it would cause great financial difficulties for the insurance companies to lose all of that income and still be required by other parts of the act to cover preexisting conditions and be barred from dropping sick people.

So, not only do those ‘people’ with more money get more speech, they also jump to the head of the line for consideration of their problems. After getting to the head of the line, they get to stay there.

If the subject is medical care, and ‘corporate people’ rarely avail themselves of health care, would it not be normal to first ask what the impact would be on real people? You know – the sick.

If the Court takes away coverage from the additional 15 million to be added to Medicaid, the millions of family members past school age but not yet 26 years of age that are already benefiting, those with preexisting conditions, some of whom are already covered, and several other, smaller groups, what will be the effect? That was not the 1^st question they asked. It wasn’t the 2^nd question they asked. It wasn’t among the questions they asked. You asked about their priorities? Oh, you didn’t need to.

There is much speculation about severability. Usually, in any bill of even minimal complexity, legislators include a severability clause. That means, the legislature is saying that, if any part of the law is overturned, the remainder remains in effect.

The bill that became the Affordable Care Act (aka Obamacare) had such a clause. For some reason it was removed before enactment. It may be that someone wanted to play a game of chicken; daring the courts to revoke the entire act. Without an inside source, the reason for such an unusual move is mere conjecture.

Still, though the courts are restrained by a severability clause, many think that without one the entire act must fall. I am far from convinced that any court would see themselves as so constrained on such an important case. They may or may not sever, if they rule against the mandate, of course. At this point, that remains another real question. It is not a given.

Some argue that it would be preferable for Obama if the entire act failed. The idea is that it would so energize his base and moderates that he would easily win and bring in sizable majorities in both houses of Congress. Perhaps. But, that is a considerable gamble.

The worse outcome is the likeliest; a 5-4 decision in either direction.

None of this would be of concern had they just expanded Medicare for everyone. I’m pessimistic. I think that if Obama had ¾ Democrats in both houses the lobbyists and their puppeteers still would have too great a hold on both parties to pass it.

.

.

Bookmark It

Hide Sites

How do I do it? Is it just another demonstration of my wisdom or, possibly, just dumb luck?

Please keep your opinion to yourself.

If you didn’t read my article from the 27^th of September 2010 or have forgotten it, It would be a good preface to this post. To go there click on the link to Foreclosure.

My article emphasized the benefits of my suggestions to the families facing the loss of their home. It also mentioned that the economy would recover much quicker by speeding up the recovery of the real estate market, the largest segment of the economy.

Now comes a study showing that my general suggestions also would benefit the banks, the investors, Freddie and Fannie. Freddie, Fannie and the Treasury Department have acknowledged the correctness of the conclusions of the study. It would save taxpayers a ton of money. So, let’s get on with it. Recovery, here we come.

Whoa. There’s a little snag. The player that has the ability to make this happen refuses. Who is this spoilsport? The Federal Housing Finance Agency. Obama has tried to get Edward J. DeMarco, the acting director, to go along. The problem is that the FHFA is an independent agency.

As the study shows, all of these benefits to the banks, investors, Freddie, Fannie, the Treasury and the taxpayers result from writing down the principle on houses that are under water.

Foreclosed houses sit there. Unless the mortgage holder spends money cutting the grass and maintaining the property, weathering will reduce the value of that property. It will also reduce the value of all the properties in the neighborhood.

So, if reducing the principle is the miracle solution, the banks must be rushing to cut, cut, cut. Wrong.

Another study just came out from the economists at the Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland. It shows that the banks are seriously overpricing foreclosed homes in Ohio. You don’t think Ohio is bucking a trend, do you? They are not an outlier. If the other Federal Reserve banks replicated the Cleveland study, it is a safe bet that the results would be similar.

Just think. One person has the power to significantly speed up our economic recovery, but refuses.

If he is too simpleminded to grasp the concept, he is too simpleminded to hold that position. If he does ‘get it’ but refuses to act, he has an agenda that needs to be exposed.

.

.

Bookmark It

Hide Sites

I try to keep my readers abreast of what’s really going on. Occasionally, I can steal the beat on the major media. Check out last week’s article at Unnatural Gas.

This is an article from the web site of the Christian Science Monitor. They no longer publish a dead tree version but, back when I was a journalist, they were held by the profession to match the status the New York Times enjoyed in its heyday. It was must reading for members of the profession. That seems not to have changed. They confirm my lucky clairvoyant reportage.

The following is a copy and paste. There has been no editing; just a few comments added by the editor.

By Mark Clayton
Staff Writer
Christian Science Monitor
updated 3/9/2012 11:08:14 PM ET

Often lost in the political wrangling over the controversial Keystone XL pipeline – on hold after President Obama rejected TransCanada’s initial
construction proposal – are some key findings that run counter to the rosy picture of abundant supply and lower prices so often painted by US
politicians.

Canadian companies backing the Keystone XL – touted as enhancing US energy security with a big new surge of imported Canadian oil – actually expect it to supply more lucrative Gulf Coast export markets as well as raise Midwest oil prices by reducing “oversupply” in that region.

ed: The article contains many conflicting claims. (The correspondent did a good job.) Just take notice of who is speaking and to whom. If a representative of Keystone tells the public that the result will be lower prices, while testifying to the government of Canada that it will raise prices, which do you believe?

These little-publicized findings are contained in the studies and testimony of experts working for TransCanada, the company that wants to build the pipeline from Alberta’s tar sands across America’s heartland to Gulf Coast refineries.

Some of these concerns popped up, albeit briefly, in US congressional testimony last year on the pipeline project, and have given rise to a recent
proposal to bar the sale of Keystone oil overseas.

In the latest round of Capitol Hill fighting over the pipeline, Senate Democrats on Thursday defeated a Republican amendment to the transportation bill that would have fast-tracked the project by stripping the State Department of its approval authority and giving it to Congress.

In February, legislation to force US approval of the pipeline passed the House 237-187. That bill would strip the president of authority to block the
project and give the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 30 days to approve the pipeline.

But most of the heated partisan rhetoric over job creation and gasoline prices glosses over what Keystone would or wouldn’t do for the US.

TransCanada’s Case

“Keystone will bring many benefits to the United States, but I believe the most important role that Keystone will play is to bring energy security to the United States during what has been recently some very unsettling times overseas,” Alex Pourbaix, TransCanada’s president for energy and oil pipelines, said in a congressional hearing in December.

So, would TransCanada support US legislation requiring Canadian oil and products refined from it, such as diesel, to be sold only in the United States, asked Rep. Ed Markey (D) of Massachusetts, “so that this country realizes all of the energy security benefits your company and others have promised?”

“No, I can’t do that,” Mr. Pourbaix said.

In an e-mailed statement, TransCanada spokesman Terry Cunha writes that Keystone XL could help cut US reliance on Mideast and Venezuelan imports “by up to 40 percent.” He cites a 2010 US Department of Energy study that he contends says more Canadian oil would “help reduce US imports of foreign oil from sources outside of North America.”

ed: Interesting. The claim is it would help reduce reliance on Mideast and Venezuelan imports, while the existing pipelines from Canada to the Midwest already provide overcapacity so oil can be exported from the Gulf.

Most analysts agree that more Canadian oil flowing south would help reduce imports from other regions. Less obvious, however, is the fact that the
Keystone XL pipeline is not actually needed to bring all that new Canadian oil to the US – a flow now projected to rise to 1.7 million barrels per day
by 2030, according to the same DOE study. Often characterized by proponents as validating the need for the pipeline, that study actually found
that Canadian oil import growth will go on at “almost identical” levels through 2030 using existing and new pipeline capacity as well as rail
shipments – whether or not Keystone XL is built.

Political Backlash

Even so, supporters in Congress continue to call Keystone XL “a no-brainer” from a US energy-security standpoint, also arguing it would benefit consumers by lowering gas prices, too. Keystone XL’s “supplies from reliable sources leads to lower costs, thereby putting downward pressure on prices,” one study on TransCanada’s website says.

According to this premise, Keystone XL would move up to 830,000 barrels of Canadian crude south each day, boosting economic activity by billions of dollars and creating thousands of new jobs – though their precise number is hotly disputed.

Yet in January, Mr. Obama, under pressure by Republicans, reiterated his previous decision to deny permission to build the Keystone XL– at least for now. The pipeline “would not serve the national interest at this time,” Dr. Kerri-Ann Jones, an assistant secretary of State, subsequently told the House subcommittee on Energy and Power, citing “unresolved concerns” including energy security, economic effects and environmental impacts.

TransCanada replied to the denial by saying it would resubmit its construction proposal to address the environmental concerns, and on Tuesday a company executive reportedly said new plans that rerouted the pipeline away from the sensitive Nebraska Sandhills region would be ready in weeks.

But the president’s denial unleashed a furor as GOP presidential candidates and oil industry backers lambasted the White House for denying the US
economy oil and jobs.

“The president demonstrates a lack of seriousness about bringing down unemployment, restoring economic growth, and achieving energy
independence,” GOP presidential hopeful Mitt Romney said in a statement.

Newt Gingrich said the decision “weakens America’s national security and kills thousands of well-paying American jobs,” while oil industry advocate Jack Gerard, president and CEO of the American Petroleum Institute, called the project “essential,” and said, “It must be approved and built.”

Higher Oil Prices In The Midwest?

But others, including environmentalists who oppose the pipeline mainly because extracting oil from tar sands releases more greenhouse gases than other methods of harvesting oil, also argue the pipeline will do little or nothing to boost US energy security and will actually lead to higher oil prices in the Midwest.

“Rather than providing the US with more Canadian oil, Keystone XL will simply shift oil from the Midwest to the Gulf Coast, where much of it can be exported to international buyers – decreasing US energy supply and increasing the cost of oil in the American Midwest,” concludes a new study by the Natural Resources Defense Council, a New York-based environmental advocacy non-profit group, citing numerous TransCanada studies and the transcripts of Canadian federal hearings.

But it’s not just environmentalists who are howling in the wilderness.

“The firms involved have asked the US State Department to approve this project, even as they’ve told Canadian government officials how the pipeline can be used to add at least $4 billion to the US fuel bill,” (emphasis by ed) Philip K. Verleger, president of PKVerleger LLC, a Colorado consulting firm that specializes in research on oil market economics, wrote in a Minneapolis Star-Tribune commentary last March.

US farmers who spent $12.4 billion on fuel in 2009 could see those costs rise to $15 billion or higher if the pipeline goes through, he projects. At
least $500 million of the added cost “would come from the Canadian market manipulation,” he wrote.

How Much Would Keystone Pipeline Help US Consumers?

“Millions of Americans will spend 10 to 20 cents more per gallon for gasoline and diesel fuel as tribute to our ‘friendly’ neighbors to the north,” the
highly respected Dr. Verleger wrote. “The Keystone XL pipeline will move production from Canadian oil sands to a deepwater port from where it
can be exported.”

But that is not merely Verleger’s opinion. It’s based on findings of the economic consultants hired by TransCanada – contained in their analyses of the pipeline’s impact on Canadian oil producers and in official testimony before Canada’s National Energy Board.

“Existing markets for Canadian heavy crude, principally [the US Midwest], are currently oversupplied, resulting in price discounting for Canadian
heavy crude oil,” concludes a 2009 analysis on behalf of TransCanada by Purvin & Gertz, Inc., an oil economics firm based in Houston. “Access to
the [US Gulf Coast] via the Keystone XL Pipeline is expected to strengthen Canadian crude oil pricing in [the Midwest market] by removing this
oversupply. This is expected to increase the price of heavy crude to the equivalent cost of imported crude.”

Gulf Link To Global Markets

As a result of those increases in the price of heavy crude in the Midwest and sales of higher-margin refined products shipped out from Gulf Coast
refineries to other markets, Canadian oil producers could be expected to reap $2 billion to $3.9 billion more each year, the analysis says.

“Shippers on the Keystone XL Pipeline have contracted for access to the [US Gulf Coast] market for their oil sands production and refining needs,”
the Purvin & Gertz study concludes. “Not only will this directly benefit these shippers, it will also provide a benefit to all [Western Canadian] heavy
crude producers by increasing the price they receive for their crude, as well as providing significant pipeline capacity to an alternative market” on the US Gulf coast.

Why Canadian crude oil producers would choose Keystone XL when other pipelines to the US are running well below capacity has much to do with diversifying away from the US market to more lucrative markets in Europe, China, and other Asian countries, Verleger and others argue. Trends seem to support this thesis.

Over the past five years, exports from the US Gulf Coast have soared as refiners sitting in tax-free zones near Port Arthur, Texas, have shifted production away from gasoline and toward higher-margin diesel. Since 2007, overall US exports of diesel and other products have jumped 134 percent, the US Energy Information Administration reports. Of US exports, two-thirds is shipped abroad from Gulf Coast refineries – now more than 2 million barrels a day and up from just a quarter of today’s level a decade ago.

That trend was captured in testimony Sept. 17, 2009, before Canada’s National Energy Board. Seven Canadian companies were willing to pay
higher pipeline tariff costs for using the Keystone XL pipeline, the testimony showed, in order to bypass Midwest refineries by sending 500,000
barrels per day, the lion’s share of the pipeline¶s capacity, to Gulf refineries.

Valve To Relieve Midwest Oil “Oversupply”

In addition to winning higher prices for Canadian oil in the Gulf, the pipeline would boost revenues by shuttling existing oil supplies out of the
Midwest – boosting prices, the Canadian study and testimony also show.

“So seven shippers or seven producers are, in your view, pursuing this strategy in order to increase the [Midwest oil market] and Ontario prices. Do I have it right?” D. Davies, a Canadian energy board examiner asked Thomas Wise, the Purvin & Gertz expert who authored the economic analysis for TransCanada.

“If a minority of the barrels were sold at the Gulf Coast at a Gulf Coast price, that would have the effect of raising the price not only in the Midwest and Ontario but in Western Canada,” Mr. Wise responded.

In hearings last May and December, TransCanada officials admitted to US legislators that the pipeline will indeed increase the price paid for
Canadian oil in the Midwest – but suggested those higher crude oil prices would not necessarily mean higher gasoline prices in that region.

The pipeline would reduce the “discount on Canadian oil” currently paid by US refiners – an oil price increase for US refineries, Pourbaix said in a
congressional hearing last May. Even so, “that crude will still remain the cheapest source of crude by a long shot that U.S. refineries have access to,” he testified.

“If you add significant new supply to a static demand for a product in a market, you should see the price go down,” Pourbaix explained. “So it is my
absolute expectation, that over time, with incremental supplies of Canadian crude oil coming into the US market, you will see downward pressure on refined products prices, throughout US markets.”

In his e-mailed response, TransCanada’s Mr. Cunha cites a June 2011 report by IHS CERA, an energy economics firm that reached similar
conclusions. “Prices at the pump will drop when America¶s largest refining region (the Gulf Coast) becomes less dependent on the world¶s highest
priced crude (OPEC),” he wrote. “Foreign importers will have to cut their prices if they want to compete with the cheaper Canadian crude . . . We
would argue the overall US price per barrel will drop as refiners pay less for foreign and domestic oil competing with a higher volume of cheap
Canadian oil.”

ed: Remember that the admitted reason for sending the oil to the Gulf is to charge the higher world prices.

Testimony and supporting documents north of the border stating that Keystone XL would raise Canadian crude prices has set off alarm bells with
several US legislators – while leaving others unmoved.

Legislators React To Findings

Rep. Ed Whitfield (R) of Kentucky, who chaired two hearings into the Keystone XL, heard positive testimony about the pipeline – as well as
contradicting testimony that it would do little or nothing for energy security while raising Midwest oil prices. He still likes the project, however.

“If our president decides that sending aircraft carrier strike groups to the Strait of Hormuz to defend oil flow is in the national interest, then one
would also think a pipeline from Canada that would help eliminate our Middle East oil imports also serves the national interest,” Mr. Whitfield said in a prepared opening statement for the hearing he chaired.

ed: Be careful. The reason for protecting traffic through the Strait of Hormuz is to ensure supplies to our friends and allies and to ensure stable prices. We do not import oil from that area.

In an e-mailed statement, Whitfield’s press secretary adds that the pipeline “will help lower the price of gasoline by bringing more oil supply to the
market” and says the Department of Energy “specifically states that gasoline prices in all connected markets would go down.”

But Sen. Ron Wyden, an Oregon Democrat, was alarmed enough to call last year for a Federal Trade Commission (FTC) investigation into the matter based in part on the Canadian National Energy Board testimony.

“While the full nature of the arrangements agreed upon by the Canadian shippers is unclear, there is clear indication that there is a coordinated
‘strategy’ among Canadian suppliers to gain higher prices,” Senator Wyden wrote Jonathan Liebowitz, chairman of the FTC in an April 6, 2011, letter. “This will have the effect of manipulating supply levels allowing prices of oil refined in [the Midwest oil market] to rise and ultimately benefitting the Canadian companies with higher prices.”

On Thursday, it was Wyden who put forward an amendment to the transportation bill that would have prohibited the sale of the Keystone oil overseas and imposed other regulatory requirements. His amendment was defeated 64 to 34.

ed: Keystone, the government of Canada, 64 US Senators and the majority of the members of the House do not want the oil restricted to this country.

Reacting to Obama’s previous decision to bar approval for Keystone XL, TransCanada made it clear it considered the project too vital to delay for long.

“Until this pipeline is constructed, the US will continue to import millions of barrels of conflict oil from the Middle East and Venezuela and other
foreign countries who do not share democratic values Canadians and Americans are privileged to have,” Russ Girling, TransCanada’s president and chief executive officer said in a statement.

“This project,” he continued, “is too important to the US economy, the Canadian economy and the national interest of the United States for it not to proceed.

ed: The project is so important to the economy and national interests that Keystone must be permitted to raise prices in the Midwest to divert oil to the Gulf for export at higher pries.

.

.

Bookmark It

Hide Sites

I had just turned 50 and was standing in the checkout line at some store. Among the items they were trying to give a last-minute impulse push were a few greeting cards.

One of the cards seemed targeted particularly to me. It was a birthday card. It said that once you were over the hill you started picking up speed.

I think that in the arena of our public discourse we are definitely over the top and tearing down the hill at a breakneck speed.

The rhetoric to which we are constantly exposed is certainly not deserving of being called considered. It is to the point that real debating, even real arguing is no longer possible.

I just noticed where Sarah Palin is now claiming that Obama  is “bringing us back . . . to days before the Civil War” when racial discrimination was prevalent. When racial discrimination was prevalent? Does she mean that it hasn’t been prevalent since the Civil War? I guess she is guilty of a special, twisted, negative hyperbole. Whatever, her claim can hardly be considered to be connected with whatever Obama has done, the present reality or actual history.

Rick Santorum’s latest claim is that, “Obamacare is, in fact, the death knell for freedom.” Really? My first thought is, ‘Does he really think that what everyone is calling health care reform is really health care reform?’ Were the changes embodied in the Affordable Care Act significant enough to effect our freedom? Is our freedom that weak? Is it that tenuous? If so, we are in deep shit from factors and forces far more powerful and pervasive than Obama’s tinkering with health care insurance.

Are there any facts involved in Rick’s claim? First, there has been no health care reform. The insurance companies were required to enroll a couple’s offspring up to the age of 26. There goes our freedom. They were not permitted to deny someone for a preexisting condition. Well, I guess that kills the insurance companies’ freedom.

The companies were required to offer affordable policies to those not part of a group. People were required to purchase insurance. They were denied the freedom to force the taxpayer to pay their medical bills. Those too poor to purchase a policy were forced to allow the government to help them pay for it.

Those items cover 30 million of the uninsured. The other 17 million are unaffected. At least 17 million escaped “the death knell for freedom.”

Rick also claims defeating Obama makes the 2012 election the most important “maybe in the history of this country.” Is that true? Do you agree? The elections of 1860 and 1932 are the first that come to mind. Given a little time for reflection, it would seem to to be an important election only if one of the alternatives wins.

Obama is a communist, a socialist, a fascist, Hitler, a Kenyan, a radical, a _______ (fill in the blank). It’s possible he is a socialist. He hired all those people from Wall Street to run the economy. They are devotees of corporate socialism. I’ll have to research the others. At least those investigators Trump hired should be back from Hawaii soon.

Trying to list all of the lies and hyperbole would get me in Dutch with my Internet host. Thankfully, Rick and Sarah provided their screeds on just one day.

The point is that when one side debases the issues with lies and hyperbole the other party must resort to the same tactics or keep quiet. There can be no debate. There can be no argument.

It eliminates any possibility of discourse. It eliminates compromise. It eliminates democracy. It severely damages society. Those doing this are destructive of everything this country was intended to represent. They call themselves patriots. They call themselves Christian. They are neither. Those words are meant as camouflage.

These people may have one or more reasons for their use of these tactics. Their reason may be ego, or power, or celebrity, or to change the world to match their little delusions. The most dangerous are the ones that believe their own vile claims.

We are certainly going downhill at an ever increasing speed. It is, or is quickly becoming, beyond our control. That way lies disaster. Is there nothing we can do? Perhaps those altruists at the pharmaceutical corporations will develop one of their miracle drugs for us. Could they actually develop the Soma that Aldous Huxley wrote of?

.

.

Bookmark It

Hide Sites

Many of the statements about the availability and costs of gasoline share a similar odor with the gas that is one of the favorite subjects for the jokes of middle school boys. In both cases the sounds come from the same orifice.

It’s almost impossible to find a discussion of differences on this issue where either party employs any facts. For such a common commodity, it seems strange that it is so little understood. This also applies to all of the peripheral issues.

If you pay attention to the news you expect the price of gas to approach or reach $5 a gallon. It very well may, but do you know why? Not if you listen to the politicians and talking heads.

Will Newt or anyone else be able to to get the price down to $2.50? Only in your dreams . . . and their lies. There are several factors that go into the pricing and neither Newt nor the other liars control any of them. Neither does the president.

Quick, what is the cost of a jar of mayonnaise, a can of beans, a pound of tomatoes? You, as everyone else can quote the almost latest price of gas at one or several stations – but probably not most groceries or other everyday items. Which has inflated the most? Which, the fastest? Which hits your pocketbook harder? Gas holds a special place in our hearts. Gas is a political football.

Let’s dispel a few lies. Is the price outrageous? Yes, but not at the pump. Below is a chart of prices from 1918 to 2012, both in raw numbers (black) and adjusted to 2012 dollars (red). The points on the graph are each the average for a year, not the highest or lowest of a year.

Notice that the lowest price in real dollars immediately preceded our installing oil men in the Oval Office and as President of the Senate. It’s probably just a coincidence.

But Obama is making prices go up and making us more dependent on oil from the Middle East – isn’t he? Not really.

Imports have declined every year of his administration. He has opened up more federal lands for drilling. He has approved more drilling sites.

We now have more oil wells than the rest of the world combined. Last year we exported more oil than we imported. Put that in your pipe and smoke it, as a substitute for all of the smoke the politicians and oil companies have been blowing in your face.

Despite the whining of the rabid, with their fatuous cry of “Drill, baby, drill,” we are drilling. The real problem is that we devour 25% of the world’s supply but have only 2% of the reserves.

The Future

Americans want cars.They also want to fill them up. That doesn’t quite make us unique. The Chinese want cars and they will want to fill them up.

China has added 30 million new cars to the streets and highways in the past 5 years. They added 10 million in just one year. That means that much more competition for a limited resource. My guess is that those extra cars might put a little upward pressure on prices.

Well, there’s still plenty out there. Not really. In the past we found reserves faster than we were using it. That hasn’t been true lately. We have topped the big hump. We’re on the downhill slide. We don’t have enough to reach even close to the end of this century at the present levels of demand. Increased demand means running out sooner. Lots of potential car buyers are going to be upset when they can’t be like us.

We think and talk almost exclusively in terms of miles per gallon. It’s true, 70% of our oil goes to transportation. That still leaves 30%. So, what’s that for?

We use petroleum for fertilizers, medicines and plastics. We need to forgo using it all up on transportation, until we find alternatives for those other uses. The future could look pretty bleak if we just keep buying SUVs and pickup trucks to run across town to buy a loaf of bread and a gallon of milk.

Costs

Tell me how much that tankful set you back. No. Multiply the number of gallons by almost $17 each. You might look more favorably on alternatives if that all came out of your debit card every time you stopped at that convenience store.

$17 a gallon? Where did that figure come from? Well, that includes the costs of military excursions related to protecting our interests in a guaranteed flow.

By the way, our interests in oil production in the Middle East may not strike some as all that important since we don’t get any from there. Our biggest source of imported oil is Canada. Also on our list is Mexico, Columbia, Venezuela and a couple of countries in West Africa.

What? We don’t get any from the Arabs? No. And we don’t get any from Alaska either.

Then why do we care about those Arab countries? Because that’s the source for our friends in Europe and a few other places. Despite the grandiose bragging of some of our politicians, we cannot get along alone.

Those aircraft carriers patrolling the Strait of Hormuz cost money. We have been worried lately about how the finances of Greece will harm our economy. Imagine if all of Europe, Japan and the Commonwealth crashed simultaneously. It might cause those numbers in the bottom right-hand corner of your television screen to plunge lower than it has ever been in your lifetime.

We are paying to protect the sea lanes and facilities around the world for our benefit and that of others.

Beyond the military costs there are the environmental costs. The oil from the Alaskan pipeline (remember the Exxon Valdez) goes to Japan. Why? because the unloading in Los Angeles would pollute that stuff you breathe far above medically acceptable levels. The pollution of the air, the soil, our crops, even our farm-raised fish, takes a significant toll on health care costs.

Perhaps you’ve heard of that proposed pipeline called Keystone XL. Jobs, jobs, jobs. Yep. One to two thousand temporary jobs and 50 or so permanent ones. Canada bears a lot of the pollution burden of the fracking process. It ain’t oil. It has to be fracked to get oil out. Then it has to be refined. They want to pipe it down to Texas, as if Texas needed more refineries polluting their air.

But we’ll get more oil. Nope. It’s headed to China. If they don’t get the easy route to Texas, they will have to cross the Rockies. Either way, the oil goes to China. We get 50 permanent jobs and dirtier air.

Canada could both frack and refine and ship it to the Midwest, where the pump prices are fairly high. But they just want the pipeline to go through the Midwest on its way to China. At the cost of tremendous pollution, Canada gets a lot of money. We get bypassed.

Oh, don’t forget the $4 billion cost of corporate welfare to the oil industry while it is enjoying the biggest profits in its history.

Do you remember those $4 gallons a couple of years back? What drove up the prices? Gamblers. Instead of the oil companies and airlines buying from the producers, “investors” bought futures solely to sell them at a big profit. They did well for awhile. But most of them got their asses handed to them when the bottom dropped out.

They had driven the price up from a nominal $55-60 per barrel above $140. That’s a nice profit for them. Did they say thank you?

Who were these “speculators?” Major university endowment funds, state employee retirement funds, major corporations and such.

You would think that the beating they took would make them wary of doing it again. Harvard lost 27.3% of its endowment; in the neighborhood of $11 billion. That’s a pretty nice neighborhood. They depend on their endowment for a third of their operating budget. They had to lay off 275 people. The genius in charge of that was Larry Summers, later Chief Economic Adviser to Obama.

Just last week it was estimated that 70% of our oil is under contract to these gamblers. They are so smart they never learn.

There are other factors. Iran’s actions induce instability and, therefore, an upward push. The world presently has a production capacity which provides us about a 3 million barrel a day cushion. That is not a comfortable margin.

Why are we insisting on persisting on the wrong course?

Finally

The oil industry and politicians have put us in this mess by obstruction and delay. These problems would not exist if the 1973 embargo had spurred us to address them.

Anyway, now comes the coal industry to save us with clean coal. It’s just a minor detail but there is no such thing. There are no scientists not beholden to the coal industry that can see far enough into the future to see the breakthrough to make coal clean. 50% of our electricity comes from coal, the dirtiest of all carbon-based fuels.

A follow up article can be found at Keystone XL Redux.

.

.

Bookmark It

Hide Sites

It’s true. If you mix religion and politics, you get politics.

Perhaps it was only a coincidence. Perhaps it was the recent emergence of that voice of the 12^th Century, Rick Santorum.

Whatever is was, something spurred the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops to declare war on the administration. Perhaps it was coordinated. Perhaps not. Whatever, the GOP immediately fell into lockstep.

It appears that the bishops have a perverted idea of Christianity. They spoke of the church’s right; the church’s freedom of religion. They said that it was the church and its subsidiary institutions that were protected from some hypothetical abuse by the government.

They said it was the church’s right and responsibility to make the decision as to who controlled a woman’s body. And here, all along I was thinking that the most important aspect of Christianity was an individual’s relationship with God.

If that is correct, then every Catholic that runs a business or other organization has the right to a waiver. How could so many eminent and dedicated religionistas miss the most important point? See? They mixed religion with politics. They ended up with politics. The bishops didn’t kill God, they just told him to take a hike.

I must be right because some Republican congressmen subsequently are trying to pass a bill giving everyone running an organization to opt out for any reason. I think that is spelled – chaos.

The government doesn’t just introduce new rules without notice. They involve interested parties before writing a rule. Then they set aside a period for hearings and input. Then they put the final draft in force. The surprise you see expressed ain’t for real. It didn’t just come into the awareness of the players.

Detour

I can’t help it. I must take a quick detour to reality here.

This issue would never have arisen if we had a sane, i.e, single-payer, health care system.

Our system of providing most people with health insurance tied to their employment was meant as a war-time expedient. We had full employment back then and the government was otherwise occupied.

I doubt that those who created this, shall we say, abortion, envisioned 47 million people being uncovered or the problems it brought when changing jobs.

It may have been designed by Rube Goldberg. The employer decides what coverage and which insurance company the employee gets. Then the government provides the incentive of a subsidy to the company. Then, instead of you or your doctor or the hospital being responsible for determining your treatment, the insurance company has the ultimate say so.

For their benevolence, the insurance company only takes about 30% or so of the total. It also increases costs by disincentivising savings. If the pie gets bigger, their share is worth more. As mentioned below, you are essentially a slave to your employer with regard to a matter as critical as your very health.

Back On Track

It is also an attempt to strip women of their rights and protections. Don’t worry. That is just a first step. They’ll take the men’s rights later, after the precedents are established. That may have already begun. They intend to ban all means of contraception. I had a vasectomy in 1973. Does that mean I can’t be a Catholic? Can I still be an American?

Will the Catholic church pay for a reversal? Will Medicare pay? Must I pay? Must I move to Scotland?

It seems that these paragons of religious virtue believe that life begins at erection and ends at birth. I have trouble understanding why so many of them oppose prenatal care, as well as postnatal.

I admit to being surprised to hear that 98% of Catholic women have practised birth control. I expected 70, maybe even 80%. It appears that the church wants to require the government to help them enforce church edicts, as it obviously cannot do it for itself.

Most people are probably as ill-informed about the church’s stand on birth control as I was. It became official church policy way back in biblical times, in 1930, December 31^st, to be specific. It came as part of the papal encyclical Casti Connubii (Latin: “of chaste wedlock”) promulgated by Pope Pius XI.

The justification contained therein seems a bit tortured. There was a Hebrew gentleman who died without issue. His father ordered his other son, Onan, to impregnate his sister-in-law. Onan apparently didn’t want more heirs for daddy’s stash. He screwed his sister-in-law but pulled out and spilled his seed upon the ground. Then he did it again, and again. How many times? I don’t know but he visited her multiple times.

Onan’s behavior was in violation of tradition. I think it was the spilling seed part but it could have been that he repeatedly enjoyed her favors, without producing any customers for Gerbers. Anyway, he was punished. God struck him dead and onanism was named after him. Double jeopardy.

The widow still needed a tax deduction. She came up with a brilliant idea. She dressed up as a prostitute and planted herself on the road she knew her father-in-law was taking for a trip. In her disguise she was able to get him to provide himself an heir. Naturally, he was disgusted with her trickery but God wasn’t angry at either one, so he kept his thunderbolts in his quiver.

There are some lessons there. I think one is that masturbation is a capital offense. However, prostitution, frequenting prostitutes and incest are acceptable in the eyes of God. I understand that there is a much stronger defense of birth control in the encyclical Tutti Fruittii.

Some women die in childbirth. But I have been told that other aspects are somewhat more enjoyable. Must an infertile couple abstain their entire lives? Did God make a mistake by making it so pleasurable? That seems to be what the Catholic ayatollahs are telling us. It’s kind of confusing that one of mankind’s most important obligations is, without intent to dirty more diapers, so abhorrent to God.

Although the resulting mixture is politics, I have these nagging thoughts. Doesn’t it seem that God gave women the greater responsibility for reproduction? He even gave them Bayer aspirin. Yet, sometimes a man will try to usurp that plan by raping a woman. Then, sometimes politicians rape usurp that design by legal legerdemain. They have to do it that way because they don’t enjoy the benefits of Sharia Law here.

If you are not a politician, but only a lowly employer, you can still take control of women’s lives. You can subject them to unwanted pregnancies. You can make it less likely that a cancer gets diagnosed. You can take away your slaves’ right to privacy, as well as health care.

I know that the Supreme Court made the worst decision since the Dred Scott case with their intentional stupidity in the Citizens United fiasco. Despite their perversion of the Constitution, organizations are not people. Organizations have no constitutional protections in the original document, the Bill of Rights or the other Amendments. People do.

The government is required to provide for the welfare of the people. The Catholic church can make no such claim on the government.

The church may sponsor hospitals, schools and other institutions of merit but that is not required. And, the government is not required to favor them over the constitutional rights of individuals. Neither is the government required to give these nonprofit organizations an advantage over their competition by exempting them from paying taxes.

During the brouhaha I watched an interview of the then-archbishop of Washington, DC. When it was brought to his attention that the Catholic institutes under his jurisdiction had been providing health insurance coverage for quite some time, he plead ignorance. Georgetown University there has a campus population of 20,000. The  Catholic University of America sports another 8,000. In fact, most Catholic law schools in this country have been complying with nary a demurral.

I would have more respect for the church making their specious arguments if they would forgo their government subsidies when fretting over the atrocious treatment they receive from the government.

The government’s constitutional responsibilities are supposed to address the rights and welfare of people, not institutions, even religious ones.

These church related institutions employ non-Catholics. They serve non-Catholics. The government cannot constitutionally permit them to deny those people their rights. The government cannot constitutionally permit them to deny Catholics their rights either.

The church has the right to recommend whatever tenets they wish. Abiding by those tenets of the church is a decision that falls ultimately to the individuals. It is their conscience that governs whether they honor those tenets or not. To involve the government in the enforcement of those tenets is to mix religion and politics. If the church wishes to play a political role, it must first forgo its government subsidies and any special treatment accorded to religious groups.

I’ll skip the arguments related to the constitutional requirement of  equal treatment under the law as regards giving some people or organizations advantages denied others.

Mixing religion and politics not only results in politics, it leaves a residual, septic hypocrisy.

Bookmark It

Hide Sites

You probably think that the most appropriate symbol for America is the flag, the bald eagle. the Liberty Bell or the greenback.

Wrong. That’s America’s symbol, right there. The contented cow.

It exhibits itself as contentedness but I suspect it is based largely on complacency and the laziness engendered to a great extend by the automobile, as described in my previous article.

We constantly brag about our freedom while, as noted in a previous article, our freedom of the press has tanked to a ranking of 47^th in the world. What was our reaction to the despotic dimensions of the Patriot Act? Was there a reaction?

The Tea Party came into being based on anger, justifiable anger. Anger, however, isn’t sufficient. Those responsible for the problems that led to the anger quickly saw an opportunity and co-opted the movement. Career politicians, funded by billionaires and corporations, perverted honorable intentions. The new goals they set were strictly for the benefit of the 1%.

Speaking of the 1%, on the apparent other end of the spectrum, there developed the Occupy movement. They had very much the same complaints against the very same culprits. They did not enjoy the same financial support. They suffered from an overzealous avoidance of leadership, limiting their potential impact.

While the vultures co-opted the Tea Parties, they took a different tack with Occupy. The ultra-conservative elite employed the “liberal media” they own to minimize the impact and hippy-ize that movement.

Neither movement is likely to have the long-term, revolutionary resolution required. But, they both deserve accolades for getting off their rumps and making the attempt.

The rest of us, the overwhelming majority, the much more typical Americans, remain seated on our contented asses. What does it take to get us to act on our own behalf? The Great Depression? World War Redux?

We have bought into the lies. We can be a manual laborer, a ditch digger for our entire productive life and retire on our 200-foot yacht. All we have to do is give the Wall Street casinos our retirement funds. The Dow Jones drops from 14,000 to 6,500. Our ‘investments’ lose over half their ‘value.’ Our trust in the vultures is comparable to that of the followers of David Koresh or Jim Jones. so don’t worry. They have our best interests at heart while they gamble with our life savings, our futures.

But, you say, the market has recovered back to the 13,000 level. And you really believe that the stock market is a reliable indication of the health of the economy? Is the economy that strong? Will this bubble refuse to burst? You’re so certain as to once again trust your future to the vagaries and vacillations of that fraud?

It’s obviously not just the Tea Partiers and the Occupiers that are dissatisfied with the state of the nation. While we may not agree on the solutions, we all have a fairly good grasp of the problems. We do need to agree on who is responsible. Except for sins of omission,it isn’t you or me. It’s those who own the country and the politicians.

My favorite aphorism is: The more you do of what you’ve done, the more you’ll have of what you’ve got. What have we been doing? Buying all of the latest and greatest toys, decomposing on our couches, trusting the miscreants and pretending we are still the greatest country of forever. What have we got? What ever it is, it isn’t a situation we are happy with. Still, we are contented – just as the Carnation cows.

.

. 

Bookmark It

Hide Sites

Could we exist without the automobile? The question pops into my head every time I stop at the pump, but there is reason for doubting the possibility.

One of every ten jobs in the country is manufacturing cars or supplying the manufacturers. Add in the dealers, the repair shops, gas production and distribution and a few odds and ends and it comes to about one in seven jobs.

I was much younger and lighter while in grad school but I enjoyed walking. The school was on Massachusetts Avenue in Washington, D.C. My studio apartment was a little more than a block away. I parked my car in the basement garage and drove to the supermarket in Silver Springs, Maryland every Saturday.

The rest of the time I walked. It might be to the Smithsonian museums, the Jefferson and Lincoln Memorials, Burger King for my weekly Whopper, the corner grocery store or DuPont Circle to watch a few games of chess. The District was a wonderful place to walk.

At the time the Embassy of the USSR was a block away. I must have been the star of many video tapes walking past so often. The staff took the top two floors of our apartment building. They never spoke. They never smiled. They never took the same elevator. That was quite an object lesson.

New York City is walker friendly, though not so friendly in other ways. Living in Los Angeles was hell. When I first moved to L.A. I had no car. Pedestrians there are known as California cripples. I quickly acquired a small Honda motorcycle. That sufficed for a few months, until my wife and daughter arrived from Korea.

I was born in a town of about 3,500 Mayberry-type souls. One grandfather was sheriff; the other chief of police and city manager. We walked. Everyone said hello. Stores were next to each other.

Later, I was mayor of a small town, a bedroom for Atlanta, where you drove to the parking lot of the dry cleaners, then drove to the parking lot of the bank and on and on. Then they invented malls. The idea being to recreate the small town by making it possible to walk from store to store.

A lot is lost while riding in a car. You focus primarily on the roadway. You miss out on most of the scenery. It’s difficult for the odor of the roses to seep through the air conditioning. You miss out on the heat, the cold. You miss out on most of what makes up life.

Speed feeds on itself. We want to get there quicker, no matter where there is. Our impatience grows. That impatience spills over into other aspects of our lives. We get lazy. We get used to sitting in the car seat. That also spills over.

Most of our ancestors seldom, if ever, wandered more than 25 or 30 miles from where they were born. Many daily commutes are further. The difference in the pace at the downtown office from the pace in the bedroom community induces stress.

Our cars have molded our lives. It hasn’t been an unmixed blessing.

The other night, Jon Stewart’s guest on the Daily Show was Brad Pitt. He brought up the question of what cars would be like if they had not yetr been invented but we had today’s technology. He asked if they would be powered by a limited fossil fuel that required an expensive military to protect our access and transferred half a trillion dollars a year out of the country. Would we choose a fuel that polluted? Interesting questions. Basically, something so integral to our economy, our lives, is based on technologies more than a century old.

I’m not ready to give up my trusty, internal combustion-powered steed. However large a role as it plays in my life, I can’t ignore the less than salutary effect it has on my routine, my psyche, my health and my wealth.

In the next article I intend to examine how one aspect of this is related to our present predicament and impedes our addressing our problems.

.
.

Bookmark It

Hide Sites