Oil and Gas Prices

I'm posting this blog for a second time, as it certainly is pertinent to the situation now. I originally posted it last December.

I saw a part of a special on CNN about oil, and a "possible" crisis, which, if I remember correctly, the show dates for 2009. I didn't see the entire show, but one of the things that interested me in particular was when members of Congress were asking oil company executives how oil and gas prices were set (this was in the Fall of 2005, I believe). Essentially, the execs claimed that they had nothing to do with the prices, that the prices were set by world markets. One Republican senator eventually said that he had not heard a satisfactory answer to how prices were set. He's not alone.I wonder how many shares of stock these execs have in any or all of the oil and gas related companies? How often do they, or their investment people, deal in the oil and gasoline futures' markets?Speculation has been running high for several years now and I can just imagine...."This is breaking news on XONN, your 24 hour cable news source. I'm Dan Ratherbe, in Philadelphia.It has just been reported to us by our local affiliate in Cleveland, Ohio, that a man was adding a quart of oil to his car when the bottle slipped from his hand and fell to the ground, spilling the remaining contents onto his driveway. We'll bring you further updates, as they are available."Ten minutes later."This is breaking news on XONN, your 24 hour cable news source. Hello, I'm Dan Ratherbe.As reported by XONN a short time ago, a man dropped a quart bottle of motor oil in Cleveland while working on his car. Since that time, oil prices have soared more than a dollar a barrel. We now take you live to our reporter, Wolf Blitzkrieg, at the futures market. Hello Wolf, just what seems to be going on there with this price jump?""Hello Dan. Well, traders heard our report from Cleveland, and they said that this incident will contribute greatly to the world oil shortage, especially as OPEC just announced two days ago, that they are cutting production by 10 barrels a day. Another important development has come to our attention. We have gotten numerous reports that gas stations across the country are raising gasoline prices, even as we speak. All and all, a VERY news worthy day. Now, back to Dan Ratherbe, in Philadelphia.""Thanks for your report, Wolf. Please stayed tuned to XONN for updates on this still developing story."Does anyone feel that this might well be the way oil and gasoline prices are REALLY set? I think I'll email this to that senator I mentioned above. Hey, my answer is more credible than the answers from the oil execs, so don't laugh, and besides, I had to buy another quart of oil after I dropped that one. And remember the old saying, "Oily to bed, oily to rise."

You Can't Turn Your Back On the Greedy

While most people and the media have been focusing on the price of gasoline, the "disciples of greed" have been bidding up the price of natural gas. Just when you thought you had nearly paid for last winter, they're preparing to take you to the cleaners next winter, if not before. They NEVER, EVER REST. You'd have to stay awake 24 hours a day, seven days a week to even be near keeping up with these members of the American Al Qaida; the terrorists among us. Again, these are the VERY wealthiest people on Mother Earth! Their money managers may even be more ruthless than the clients.

Just another word on gasoline prices, Friday on CNBC, one of these American Al Qaida actually had the nerve to try to put spin on gas prices, saying that the cost of gas is a relatively small percentage compared to the actual cost of the vehicle and maintenance on that vehicle. Of course, cobra venom is a very small percentage of a snake, too. What a bunch of scoundrels!!!

When will we say, "We've had enough!" ?

Government Intervention Is Necessary

For years we've heard how if only we would help the oil companies, they would supply our energy needs and build new refineries, etc. Well, the Bush Administration gave big tax breaks to the oil companies, and now all of these years later, we hear about tight supplies, refinery outages, refining capacity below 90% and no new refineries. All of the BS was just that, BS. The money went to many of the wealthiest people in the world. There is no incentive for oil execs and investors to build capacity in anything; they're raking it in in record amounts, and there is no end in site. Soon we'll all be vassals of the world oil kingpins, if we aren't already. It is time for the government to act, although with Bush as president, the chances of ANY action is virtually nil, but the end of his term is in sight. (Hey, I hear "hallelujahs and amens!") With a country so dependent on petroleum products, we can't leave such a commodity in the hands of the few. This is a national security issue, too, as terrorists have plotted many times to damage oil well production and or refineries.

It is time for the government to build refineries of its own, or to just plainly "nationalize" the entire oil industry. If such a proposal came to the fore, the oil execs would cringe, look hell wards, and scream, "Oh! Oh! This is the big one. I'm comin' to join you John D.!" The pressures continue to build. Something is going to have to give eventually. Either we have some political solution by "evolutionary means," or there is going to be action by "revolutionary means." I can't imagine that the American people are just going to continue to stand idly by while more and more wealth is transferred to the richest people in the world.

The Gap Between Us

I guess because of our history of people coming from all over the world to settle in The United States, we don't always know much about other areas of the world. That might sound contradictory, but it really isn't. Many folks came to these shores to escape dictatorship, oppression, religious persecution, economic ills, or some other suffering in their own land. Just think, it has to take something pretty bad to make people want to leave the land of their birth. I think that's probably why many, when they got here, tried hard to become Americans. Perhaps later, they thought of the ways of their homeland. In fact, I don't recall where I heard this, but I've heard it more than once, that immigrants frequently (but certainly not always) tried to make sure that their children were totally American, but when it came to their grandchildren, they began to talk and teach them about their country or region of origin. And we Americans like to celebrate our various ethnic heritages, but we always remember that we're Americans first.

If I remember correctly, maybe a decade or so ago, when asked to give a location for Ireland, something like a fifth of American children thought it was in the Pacific. And this was about Ireland, where Americans celebrate St. Patrick's Day like it was OUR holiday! We aren't great about the details of other places in the world.

Now, when it comes to much of the Muslim world, the average American knows even less. Before, it seemed almost unnecessary, but with increasing violence in the past decade, culminating in the 9/11 attacks, that part of the world has become front and center to us. Like college students who waited to the last day to study for their finals, we are now forced to "cram" for a very important exam. So far, we haven't gotten the knowledge to pass. I'm not much into a lot of conspiracy theories, so I won't dwell on how we got into Iraq, but the fact is we're there, and a further fact is, we were not prepared to be there. Winning the war on Saddam was not difficult, nor was it terribly painful for us. Winning the peace and stabilizing the country seems to be a mission without end, but with endless pain. To me, it is because we didn't understand where we were going. After numerous reasons for our invasion, the Administration settled on establishing a "democratic" Iraq. That appeals to most Americans, and in many ways, the overall strategy seemed to be right; a democratic Iraq could help change the entire Middle East. Turning blueprints into reality is something else.

A number of years ago, The Food Network had some shows about life and food in the Middle East, and in Morocco and Algeria, I believe. While there were several different countries involved, they all shared many cultural similarities, especially the Muslim faith. Now, I'm NOT trying to play stereotypes here, but many scenes featured foods being cooked on stones, and grains being pounded into flour with rocks by the woman/women of the household. On any given weekend, Americans like to go camping so we can "rough it," although even then, we have to have a portable TV, a radio, a CD player, and any one of a number of computerized gadgets to send and read emails, or to connect to the Net. There aren't too many of us really willing to "rough it" anymore. Yet, in many countries, and NOT just in the Middle East or North Africa, a fairly significant segment of the population "rough it" every day; it is their way of life. I'm not putting it down. But it does begin to show the divide we have with many folks around the world. We look at them as kind of "primitive," and they can't even imagine what we're like, except that we seem to be threatening their beliefs with women's rights, gay rights, sex education, etc.

As folks settled America, some wandered into the backwoods and into the mountains where they stayed for generations. When "civilization" came to their parts, there was "culture clash." It is still going on to this day, but is just less obvious to most. I hope all of you have seen one of the great Tarzan films with Johnny Weissmuller, "Tarzan's New York Adventure." Talk about "culture clash!" As Tarzan looks out the window of the plane hovering over New York City, he views the "jungle" down below; a jungle of tall buildings. He asks Jane about it. She says that in civilization people live that way. He asks why, and she says, "So they can get things done faster." Tarzan asks why, and she says ,"To save time." Tarzan again asks, "To save time? Why?" Jane then says something to the effect that all the scribes in the world haven't figured that one out. People in many "westernized" countries lead pretty fast lives. We want things quickly, and we jump from one fad to another. In many of the Middle Eastern/North African countries, life is much slower. Many folks don't own a lot, and they don't expect much. I suppose there aren't many fads to capture their attention either. They have by their very way of life something we pretty much lack, patience. Lest we forget, the planning for 9/11 took bin Laden and associates 5 to 7 years. Can you imagine Americans taking that long to plan anything? We'd lose interest after a few months, if not a few weeks.

Did you hear the story from last week, where Christian and Muslim religious leaders sponsored a soccer game to show unity. It was in Europe (I think it was in perhaps Sweden. I hear things on the radio while I'm working, and the basic story sticks with me, but the details get sketchy.) Anyway, come game time, the Muslims refused to play, because the Christian team had women on it. So much for any unity. It's a small story, but it points up the difficulties that exist. If we can't agree about a soccer game, how can we agree about bigger issues?

One other important thing, in my opinion: Many of these countries have not had many human rights' laws. They have been ruled by dictators of some sort, or by colonial powers. Some have managed to gradually bring in the force of law, but in many cases, the force of law is that of ancient times, and the law of "might makes right." Let me tell you, this is NOT going to change any time soon. It will take a long time, just as it did in westernized countries. American-style democracy developed in increments, it just didn't happen when the Constitution was ratified, and we still argue about the details of our democracy.

To me, there is something of a "civil war," not only in Iraq, but within Islam itself. Iraq "may" be the crucible, the Stalingrad-like battle that tips the advantage one way or the other. On one side, there are those Muslims who want the religion to be modernized, at least to some extent. On the other hand, there are those who want Muslims to live under the religious beliefs from centuries ago. Let's hope the reformers make progress...sooner, rather than later.

Hey, I've gotta run! I have to find a good smooth stone to cook my flat bread.

Importance of Pakistan

I don't know if you've been paying attention to the recent upheavals in Pakistan, but if you haven't, take a moment to check out your favorite news sites for stories about this important country.
Why is Pakistan so important? It is a Muslim country, with something like 99.5% of the population being of the Muslim faith. Now, you might say, "So? Lots of countries have populations that are 99.5% Muslim." Pakistan is different from those other Muslim countries because it has nuclear weapons. That is a difference some Muslims would like to eliminate, especially those adhering to the likes of Bin Laden. There have already been numerous stories about Pakistani military personnel or Pakistani nuclear scientists having had contact with the militant Islamists.

Until after World War II, Pakistan was a part of India. While a British colony, the population of all India were united against a common opponent...Britain. The people wanted the British to leave and grant them freedom. Once it became clear that the British would indeed be leaving, the religious split, particularly between Muslims and Hindus came to the fore. It was incredibly violent and brutal, with many thousands killed on both sides. From this developed a terrible hatred between the two religious segments of the population and the eventual partition of India into a Hindu dominated India and a Muslim dominated Pakistan. There was a great movement of people, as the small Hindu segment living in the Pakistani areas moved into India, and many Muslims in India moved into Pakistan. Pakistan was literally divided into two parts, the one which is still Pakistan today, and the other part like about a thousand miles east/southeast, which in the early 1970s became the independent country of Bangladesh. The hatred between India and Pakistan grew even more intense over the area known as Kashmir. Most of the area is under Indian rule, but it contains a large Muslim population. The dispute over this area has festered for decades, and I'm sure, if you've paid much attention to news stories over the years, you've heard about bombings and killings in Kashmir. (I should note, that while Pakistan is essentially an all Muslim country, India has a substantial Muslim minority.)

During their colonial rule of "India," even the British had problems in many of the areas which later became Pakistan. When we hear today about Bin Laden possibly hiding in border areas in Pakistan, it is these almost "lawless" regions where he is thought to be.

The government of Pakistan is a military dominated dictatorship, which pays a certain homage to Islam, but is not in the radical Islamist camp. While Americans love to talk about freedom for others, if anything happens to the Pakistani government, and a militant Islamist group takes control, LOOK OUT!!! India would almost certainly be their first target (India also has nulcear weapons), but what other Muslim fanatics would have access to "the bomb" is another scary notion . Fanatics have tried to kill the head of the current Pakistani government, Musharraf, on several occasions. I'm not one to uphold dictators, but sometimes self interest has to get the nod. Iraq has shown us that toppling a dictator can be easy; after all, that part of the war in Iraq was not terribly difficult. It is the AFTERMATH than can be hell, especially in countries where we really don't understand the political and religious divides. Pakistan is a similar country. It has faced West in many ways (at least the government and many elements of the population), but it also has a fanatical Islamist element, and tribal chieftains who control their own areas, and where the "national" government is not welcome.

So, hopefully things will settle down in Pakistan and that will also help to keep us safer too.

My Parents

As we head toward Mother's Day and then Father's Day, I wanted to write a few things about my parents. It took me awhile, but I finally developed an appreciation for the sacrifices they made for their children. I guess that appreciation came much too late, but at least I did come to that realization.

When I was growing up, my father worked at a jewelry store, and later he was an auditor for an auto parts company, and then a steelworker. He had been injured (his back) in World War II in the Pacific, and he had severe bouts of pain over the years, but he always went to work. He slept on a board periodically to help his back pain. He was known for his quick temper, but he could also be as understanding and nice as anyone could imagine, especially with kids, and he was very devoted to his grandchildren during the 1960s, often taking them to parks and for rides.

My mother worked as a seasonal employee and as a replacement during vacations for a toy manufacturer (1950s) and during the early 1960s she worked part time for a department store. There's no question but that she never really got over the death of my one brother during the 1950s. Interestingly, she let me have something of a "loose rein" as I grew up; allowing me to venture blocks from home, when other kids in the neighborhood were restricted by their parents to our own block only. On the other hand, she overly protected my younger brother.

During the mid to late 1960s, they worked together for an office cleaning company to supplement the family income. When you're a kid, you don't realize how much they worked to try to give us a decent standard of living. My dad worked 9 to 5 at the auto parts company, and then came home, ate dinner, and off the two of them went to clean offices, sometimes having to travel a pretty good distance, and returning home in the wee hours.

Anyway, all I can say is, "Thanks Mom and Dad for all of the hard work you put in!"

Note: added 5/9/07
My mother died in March, 1991 and my father in October, 1999.

Discussions With An Acquaintance

I have an acquaintance with whom I exchange some written notes and letters about many issues of the day. I thought I'd post some of the things I'd written to him recently, with some of the less relevant things edited out.

First, I had told him that I hear the word "revolution" mentioned more than perhaps I have ever heard it since the 1960s, mainly about economic issues. He responded that he felt it wouldn't happen any time soon, as most people, but especially the young people needed to create a revolution, are too self absorbed. He gave a much longer answer, but that was the gist of it. So I replied:

As to a “revolution,” you make some excellent points about young people and how so many, young and older, are just concerned with themselves. Democrats seem to have lost their voice over time, although they may be regaining it slowly, but surely. If I were wealthy, I’d hope that the Democrats succeed in many ways, to mute some of the anger that is continuing to grow out here in the real world. If you look back at the Depression, the wealthy wrung their hands and said the end was near, just because of what I’ll call in general, “The New Deal.” In my opinion, it was the New Deal policies (not all of them) that helped save the very system for the wealthy. For one thing, Roosevelt closed the banks for a while, and the world didn’t end. They reopened to a much calmer atmosphere. But on revolution again, I just am saying that I hear the word tossed about now, not that many may actually mean it, but it is interesting that the term is being used, unlike at any time I can remember. I told you before, that I owned a working class bar for eleven years. Even during those times (the 70s and half of the 80s) I didn’t hear my customers use that term very often, and I had some pretty radical folks, but during that day and age, workers had more rights, in my opinion, and many workers made “decent” wages and benefits, by the standards of those times. These things are being curtailed for workers at an alarming rate today, and the proceeds are going into the pockets of the very wealthiest Americans.

He then mentioned how the wealthy have so much control of the country now. My reply:

And you’re absolutely right, the wealthy control so much of the country, that for us to ever get back to where we were (like I was saying in the 70s & 80s) it will be VERY difficult. If there were a revolution, and wealthy people were lined up against the wall to be shot, I can just imagine though, that some of these (expletive deleted) would have a final request: “Can I call my money manager to ask him if there’s some way I can take it all with me?” Well, I do agree with you, I doubt that revolution is in the cards for any time soon. I just hope the Dems turn up the heat, because that’s the best we can hope for now.

He noted that he was dumbfounded by the '04 election result, that is, that so many Americans supported Bush.

Yes, Bush still has support, but he’s been so discredited, that I just don’t think many of us believe anything he says anymore, and that’s sad! This administration just seems TOTALLY incompetent! We only have one president, and I think many people, regardless of party affiliation, want to give support to a president, but this guy has blown it! He still has power though, with the veto. He seems disconnected from reality much of the time, and I suppose if I’d sent so many people to their deaths and injuries, I’d want very much to believe that it was all worth it, but the polls show (and the big poll last November) that Americans don’t believe we’re winning.

In a response to me, the guy mentioned that he felt that I'd missed some of his point about Bush and the support he has. He felt that people should be totally outraged by many of Bush's policies.

I really didn’t miss your point about Bush, and actually many folks ARE outraged about a number of things about this administration, and certainly should be, but they (the Administration) have played the “terrorist” card and the “national security” card very effectively up until last November’s election. As you noted previously, Kerry wasn’t great, and that also played into Bush’s re-election. Kerry had many flaws, as even his own advisers have admitted, and let’s not forget, the polls prior to the election showed that even a majority of people who said they planned to vote for him, also indicated that they were not all that thrilled with him; that is, they weren’t passionate about him.

Sometimes, people like you and I, who follow politics and pay a lot of attention to national and world events, forget that most other folks DO NOT pay that much attention to these things. Most voters have a kind of “casual” interest in politics, and while I wish we could change that, it is just a fact. Unfortunately, (and I’ll skewer both parties on this, not just the Republicans) the political advisers/consultants have mastered these “sound bytes,” as they’ve come to be called. They are short and to the point (although their complete truthfulness is frequently called into question), and they can be devastating to a political opponent. Kerry’s failure to quickly respond to the Swift Boat ads gave his opponents a leg up. Further, his changing story about events in Vietnam made even his supporters cringe. His opponents brought out all of this, and very effectively. Part of his problem was, in my opinion, that he essentially said, “Vote for me, because I’m not Bush,” and at that point in time, it just didn’t fly with enough voters. Again, his consultants have admitted since ’04 that they laid back and expected Kerry to win, because Bush was so “wounded,” and that they didn’t really hit home on a number of things, issues which were largely corrected in the congressional elections of last November.

Never to be accused of being competent, Bush flubbed his second term, right from the get go. He took on Social Security “privatization,” and it was dead before it started (most of us know that something has to be done about SS, but he blew it). To me, he could have regained much of his popularity and support if he’d have gone the health care route, and worked with Democrats and Republican leaders to get universal coverage of some kind, probably phased in over several years. Whether that would have “saved” his presidency, I don’t know, as the war issue just hangs over this administration like a death wreath. And, look at LBJ, he got lots of social programs passed, but his legacy still remains Vietnam.

The guy then lamented the outcome of the '04 election (again), and how voters could ever have chosen Bush (again).

You make some very good points, but in ’04, you were ahead of the other voters. Now, I think the voters (or the “public”) are ahead of the politicians, including many Democratic politicians.

He kindly noted that he felt that I have missed my calling and that I should be some kind of political consultant (Notice that the word "con" is part of that word.)

You’re too kind! Besides, I’ve never missed my calling…I always make it to supper.

He also made a few comments about Kerry, noting that he understood that Kerry wasn't great, but that he clearly felt him to be the better choice. I commented:

(Kerry's) been far better at articulating his positions since the campaign, than during the run up to the election, in my opinion. Like it or not (and you & I don’t/didn’t like it) Bush laid out much more clearly what he stood for, and “at that moment,” people chose him. To me, the key words are “at that moment.” Let’s not forget the “Great Society” of LBJ, among other things. “At that moment,” we wanted many of those programs, but not long afterwards, we had second thoughts about much of his program. I come from a VERY Democratic and populist neighborhood*(see note below), but even many folks there were questioning some Great Society programs. But, that’s good!!! In the end Americans do tend to know what works and what doesn’t, although it can take us awhile to figure things out, which is kind of natural, as it can take time to see how things go.

And you surely shouldn’t short change yourself, as you were ahead of many Americans in ’04. Now many folks are much closer to your position, than to Bush; not that they totally embraced Bush’s policies then, but Kerry just didn’t offer a hell of a lot of alternative, at least in a coherent, articulate way. He’s really been something of an undistinguished senator for all of these years, and I recall that many people I knew, at first thought him to be BOB Kerrey (spelling? I think he spells his name this way, but I’m not sure, and I’m too lazy to look it up.), the former Democratic senator from Nebraska, and someone I COULD have been passionate about. Anyway, once Howard Dean imploded with his “yell,” which the media latched onto, and as they are wont to do, people turned to Kerry, seeing him as the only viable alternative, and as someone who could “BEAT BUSH!” At that point, Bush was reeling, and the polls showed that Kerry had a substantial lead in a “hypothetical” match up. After that, I’ve already said what I feel happened... I should note, I told a former boss of mine, who’s a very staunch Democrat, that Kerry had many weaknesses, but at that time (about June, ’04) he scoffed and said, “Bush is done!”

We Americans seem to want things too quickly. We’re always in a hurry. Unfortunately, in my opinion, we are the same with politics and news in general. We want to plop our asses down in front of the TV, pick up the remote, put on our favorite news channel and get what Bush said today, what Kerry said today, who had an accident on “Dead Man’s Curve,” what the weather will be like tomorrow, and who won the ballgame, all in about two minutes or less. Then with a “Whew! Now I know what’s going on,” we can turn to whatever channel has a rerun of “Gomer Pyle” or “Gilligan's Island.” This has made us VERY susceptible to those sound bytes that politicians in both parties use so effectively, and also to the stories that the media latch on to (What, because Dean went “Yeeehaaaw,” that somehow disqualifies him from being a candidate? Hey, maybe he watches reruns of “Gomer Pyle,” too.). So, Mr. X sees this Swift Boat ad about Kerry, and then he hears on the news that Kerry has told his story this way in whatever the hell year it was, then he wrote a book and said something a little different, and now he’s saying this, and pretty soon, Kerry’s a mess in the mind of that voter. His “I voted for the war, before I voted against it,” comment only solidified his image in the minds of many voters, that’s why the Republicans kept running it. Voters who had been “somewhat disposed” to vote for Kerry previously, suddenly felt uncomfortable with him, and they chose to swallow hard and for vote for “W,” again, even though they weren’t happy with many things. And you think you ramble at times…

More on point to your last reply, you’re right, the power of the presidency has increased in many ways under Bush. I am encouraged somewhat by the ’06 elections, and the increasing voice Democrats are finding. (I ended with some hand written...ah...scribbles, as the guy sometimes refers to me as a "radical." So I wrote, "I really don't mind the "radical" label, and perhaps you remember the song by Supertramp, "The Logical Song," which has the words, "Watch what you say, they'll be calling you a radical, a liberal, fanatical, criminal..."

* That “populism” is instilled in me to this day, as I’m sure you can tell. And don’t forget, I was in business too, so I understand both sides of some of the issues. Most working class folks understand that businesses have to make money, although there is a tiny minority that seems to be afraid that someone will make a nickel off of them. Anyway, working class people also know when they’re being “taken,” and when the rich just keep taking, regardless of how well off they already are.