I think everyone should read the following, it was a letter to the editor of one of our small local newspapers from Julia Brabenec of North Port and I quote:
    "This came to my attention and I think it is something that everyone ought to read, as it says a great deal about the nonsense being spread concerning the issue of marriage.
    'The Presidential Prayer Team is currently urging us to: "Pray for the President" as he seeks wisdom on how to legally codify the definition of marriage. Pray that it will be according to Biblical principles.'
    Any religious person believes prayer should be balanced by action. So here, in support of the Prayer Team's admiral goals, is a proposed Constitutional Amendment to codify marriage on biblical principles. Let us be satisfied with nothing less:
    A. Marriage in the United States shall consist of a union between one man and one or more women.(Gen 29:17-28; II Sam 3:2-5)
    B. Marriage shall not impede a man's right to take concubines, in addition to his wife or wives. (II Sam 5:13, I Kings 11:3; II Chron 11:21)
    C. A marriage shall be considered valid only if the wife is a virgin. If the wife is not a virgin, she shall be executed. (Deut 22:13-21)
    D Marriage of a believer and a non believer shall be forbidden. (Gen 24:3; Num 25:1-9; Ezra 9:12; Neh 10:30)
    E. Since marriage is for life, neither this Constitution nor the constitution of any state nor any state or federal law, shall be construed to permit divorce. (Deut 22:19; Mark 10:9)
    F. If a man dies without children, his brother shall marry the widow. If he refuses to marry his brother's widow or deliberately does not give her children, he shall pay a fine of one shoe. (Gen 38:6-10; Deut 25:5-10)"

    You may not like the sarcasm of this letter, but it is an example of several of my themes. I hope you will reread the passages. Doing so helps you retain an updated interpretation.
    It is an example of literalness and male chauvinism. When I first read these passages, at age twelve, I didn't think too much about them; however, when I read them again at age nineteen, at the height of my sexuality, I found them revolting. When I read them again much later, when I understood the context within which the passages were created, I came to an entirely different conclusion. Learning is recursive.
    These passages are not the word of God, they are the words of the elders coping with a very difficult problem. Remember, most of these passages are a part of an oral tradition, they were not written until nearly a thousand years later.
    At that time the tribes of Israel were struggling for survival and at the same time they were trying to maintain their identity as a people. They needed every child that the women under their control could bear, so the passages are not as male chauvinistic as they appear.
    We can only guess, but at that time I would be willing to bet that half of the children didn't reach their first birthday and that less than a third reached age five. Very few women died during child birth, most died from infections following child birth and the men died in combat, the tribes were almost continually at war, fertile land was scarce.
    It is an example of why you cannot interpret statements out of context, you may need statements from an entirely different source before you can understand the statements under consideration or you will miss the message.
    It is an example of the danger of using history to solve a problem because the first solution, the old one, will inhibit other solutions and if you apply an old solution out of context you will force the problem to fit the solution, a terrible error because it will not solve the problem.
    It is an example of the disadvantage of restricting solutions to an ideological frame work, the number of solutions are limited and could be zero and again the problem is forced to fit the solution.
    It is an example of not defining the problem, you can't solve a problem if you can't define it.
    What is the problem?

Return to Comments table of content
 

    Let me begin with a little history. As you know the first oil well in the US was drilled in PA, but the oil industry didn't really begin until after the big strikes in OK and TX and the wide spread use of the automobile. Smaller fields were discovered in KA, OH, WY, and MI and a large field in Southern CA. After WWII off shore fields were discovered in the Gulf and off Southern CA and later the North Slope field in Alaska was developed.
    The first refineries were built near the oil fields because transportation was lacking and the refineries were inefficient and consumed about ten per cent of the oil; therefore, it was cheaper to ship the finished product long distances than to ship the oil long distances and the finished product a short distance. Even though modern refineries are much more efficient the same economics still holds.
    The transportation of oil evolved from shipment in barrels on wagons, on rail box cars, on trucks; to tanker trucks, to rail tank cars, to boats, to pipelines, and to ocean super tankers carrying 2 million barrels of oil.
    Oil was first shipped in forty gallon wood barrels by wagons and box cars. The story has it that the buyers were complaining that they didn't receive forty gallons because the barrels leaked, so the sellers began putting two extra gallons in each wooden barrel so the buyers wouldn't complain. The barrel remained at forty two gallons even after steel barrels replaced the wood barrels.
    When I first began tracking crude oil production and finished product consumption in 1964, the US produced 12.1 million barrels a day and consumed 13.3 million barrels a day. World oil consumption was about 28 million barrels a day. Until the first oil embargo we never paid more than $1.25 a barrel for imported crude oil and most of the time much less.
    US production rose slightly as new fields were developed, but old wells are being depleted faster than new wells are being brought into production so our production is now below 8 million barrels a day, including the North Slope oil and off shore oil.
    Our consumption rose to 19.6 million barrels a day before and dropped to 16.7 after the second oil embargo. World oil consumption was about 40 million barrels a day. Since then our consumption has risen about 3% a year. World consumption was 80 million barrels a day last year. The estimate for this year is 83 million barrels a day with an estimated addition of 2 million next year.
    Our crude oil consumption has remained about 20 million barrels a day because natural gas has replaced heating oil and heavy fuel oil in homes and industry so the oil industry has been importing much more finished product (gasoline and heating oil) from over seas. It's cheaper to import than to convert heating oil and heavy fuel into gasoline and since we must import to meet our demand it's cheaper to import the product to the location of the customer than to import the crude oil and refine it and then ship it to the customer.
    Pipelines are the cheapest way to ship oil followed by boats, rail tank cars, and the most expensive way is by truck. The cost also increases with increasing distance, a fact that most people ignore for some unknown reason, when considering the price of gasoline at different locations. Plus they ignore the different state gasoline taxes and sales taxes.
    Geography determines how oil is shipped. Mountains and large bodies of water make pipelines economically infeasible, the east and west coasts have very few pipelines and have the highest shipping costs. Because of the mountains and the lack of pipelines crossing them, oil can NOT be moved freely any where in the nation.
    Because of this limitation the oil industry divides the nation into three areas, the east coast, the west coast, and mid continent. Each area is for all practical reasons completely isolated from the others. This isolation places severe economic penalties when shipping oil to meet demand in each area.
    'Not in my back yard' also plays a very important role in determining the location of oil facilities. No new refineries have been built since the '70's and no new pipelines have been built except along existing right of ways. Electric power transmission lines have the same problem, natural gas pipelines have had more success in obtaining right of ways because people prefer gas to oil or electricity.
    I laugh when politicians say, 'We need more refineries.' More is not better, more will not solve the problem. Why build more refineries or any oil facility if we have to import crude oil to meet our needs, it's cheaper to import finished products. Besides, and even more important, the oil industry knows we don't need more facilities, if we conserve we could reduce our imports by 4 million barrels a day, maybe more. And most important of all, why build any facility that will only be used for less than ten years, oil production will be at maximum by then and we will be forced to conserve.
    That's why I'm disgusted with our politicians, they are not leading, they don't even understand the problem and refuse to learn. I have written my congressmen and senators since 64 and mostly, the only response I get is a form letter.(If you have read some of my other works, maybe now you can understand my contempt and venom. Sheer stupidity, I can't stand it. Enough.)
    When I first joined Leonard Refineries in 59, Michigan had more than eight refineries, today it has zero. Then Michigan produced thirty six thousand barrels a day, today less than four thousand. The refineries were small, only one refined more than eight thousand barrels a day. As the wells became unprofitable, the refineries closed and sold their assets to other oil companies.
    Remember, it takes energy to get energy, a well must pump enough oil to pay for the electricity, gas, or diesel fuel to pump the oil, an operator to check on the well and perform routine maintenance, the fuel for the truck and a driver to transport the oil from the well to gathering pipelines, to pay for the lease of the well site, etc. This does not include the capital costs, seismic work to find the drill site, the cost of drilling the well, pipe, pipelines, or any of the equipment needed. When a well does not cover the basic costs it will be shut down and the lease forfeited.
    As long as a well and / or a field pumps enough oil to cover basic costs, it will be operated in the hope of recovering the capital costs. This is the case of the North Slope field. This field has been a major disappointment, it never produced its projected quantity and the wells are depleting much faster than anticipated. This why the oil companies involved want to drill in the Arctic National Wild Life Refuge. With additional wells they might recover their capital investment in the Alaskan pipeline or at least get a better return on their investment if the price increases in crude oil has not provide the necessary return already.
    If you have read my other works, you know that I'm an environmentalist, but here is a case where I side with the oil companies. My argument goes like this: once resources have been spent I like to see them used to the fullest extent. The Alaskan pipeline is already there, lets use it, but don't be overly optimistic about the amount of oil produced from the Arctic National Wild Life Refuge, I have a gut feeling that it will be just as disappointing as the North Slope field.
    The oil industry can produce oil with minimum impact on the environment. Yes, there will be spills, accidents, and mistakes, this is a risk I think is worth taking. Besides, why are we so concerned with preserving small pieces of land when we are unwilling to preserve the whole world by not reducing our consumption of fossil fuels?
    To me this piece meal approach is, just, plain stupid and a waste of resources. I mean it's like a doctor treating a patient with a life threatening leg infection saying, 'The patient died, but I saved his leg.'
    We must reduce our population and our use of fossil fuels or we will become extinct, it's a matter of when, not if. And I want my grandchildren to have a chance.
    At 40 million barrels a day we were dumping excess carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, now at 80 million barrels a day we are pouring carbon dioxide into it. Remember, for each molecule of carbon dioxide we dump into the atmosphere, we are removing a molecule of oxygen. I'm rather fond of breathing, how about you?
    As long as I'm digressing from my main topic, let me add: a conjunction of major tsunamis will occur in five years. The solar sun spot maximum and the possibility of drought, the maxing out of oil production, a world population over eight billion, and the baby boomers retiring. Are we ready?
    Now back to my main topic. In 59 the US had 52 integrated oil companies and many non integrated oil companies. Integrated means that the company does all four activities required, production, pipeline, refine, and market. When I retired only twenty six integrated oil companies were left, today even less. I don't know the exact number, but would guess at eight.
    Leonard refineries bought three small refineries, the rest were shut down and scrapped. Then CFP bought Leonard and merged it with a production company in Canada and changed the name to Total Petroleum (North America). More acquisitions and increases in refining capacity brought Total to forty two thousand barrels a day. Modern refineries have at least two hundred fifty thousand barrels per day of capacity.
    More acquisitions nearly tripled Total's refining capacity. Total's MI refinery was shut down because it was too small and not economical. In my opinion part of the blame lies with our bureaucrats and politicians. The MI refinery processed Canadian asphaltic crude. The bureaucrats and politicians in their infinite wisdom, screwed up our energy relationship with Canada and Canada would not sell Total any asphaltic crude. When the MI refinery could no longer make asphalt, its economic days were numbered. Later, Delmar Diamond Shamrock bought Total and later another oil company bought them.
    Michigan is a microcosm of the oil industry. Michigan is surrounded by water, with little crude oil production, with a large demand for finished product, with two crude oil pipe lines (both coming from and going to Canada) and two product pipe lines (of any size) with three terminals and five boat terminals. That means that all products must be trucked from the terminals to customers, very expensive. The average per gallon-mile was 56 miles, remember the truck has to return.
    The east coast does not have any oil fields, so obviously all crude oil must be shipped to the refineries by boat or pipeline. Since the number of pipelines crossing the mountains are few and the size of the pipe small, most of the crude oil is brought in by boat.
    'Not in my back yard' severely restricts the number of refineries on the east coast so a large share of gasoline and heating oil is shipped in from refineries over seas making the east coast vulnerable to price changes and inventory constraints.
    The west coast has similar constraints with one big exception, the Los Angeles basin oil fields. For many years these oil fields have supplied all of the west coast needs. As demand grew it was cheaper to import crude oil and products across the Pacific because only the smallest tankers can pass through the Panama canal and the only pipeline across the southern desert was very small. It's cheaper to import than to build bigger pipelines or a bigger canal.
    When the Alaskan North Slope field was developed economics again played the dominant roll. The oil industry wanted to build a pipeline down the east side of the Rockies, but the cost was, just, too great. The interest on the oil in the line out weighed all other considerations. Bigger is not always better, too big means economically infeasible.
    Remember, the oil in the pipeline can never be removed and someone must pay for the oil in the line. Once the line is full then you can remove as much as you put in.
    Since the north slope production was greater than the west coast demand and with no economic way to transport the crude to the mid continent, the oil industry shipped the Alaskan oil to Japan and exchanged it for OPEC oil to be delivered to the gulf coast. Certainly, Japan gets cheaper oil than if they bought OPEC oil directly, but would you do it for nothing?
    From an oil perspective, the mid continent is a country unto itself. Since most of our crude oil production is in the mid continent, that is where most of our refineries, pipelines, and other oil facilities are. It's also the area with the lowest costs.
    Since refineries require large amounts of cooling water, most refineries are built near large bodies of water, cooling towers are more expensive, so most of our refining capacity is on or near the gulf coast. Which in turn makes the gulf coast the most economical place to import crude oil. Costs increase with distance from the gulf.
    The oil industry tries to maintain about seven days of inventory and can go as low as a three day supply or as high as ten days without economic penalty. This does not include the inventory available at high use industries, such as, airlines, trucking, rail, farm storage, etc. Since oil consumption is very predictable, the oil industry tries to maintain a minimum inventory to meet demand to keep the cost of inventory low.
    For a country so dependent upon energy, the lack of knowledge about energy, its constraints, and its economics is appalling. I hope this short explanation increases the amount of knowledge in this area.
    All the numbers presented here are from memory, but they are accurate enough for the purpose intended. I passed all my records to the person who took my place when I accepted another position. If you would like to know more about my background go to 'Thoughts' then to 'Who am I'. Also, if you have not read 'What We Should Do', 'Oil Price Spikes', 'No Out Cry' all in 'Comments', and 'Tsunami' in 'Thoughts', please do.
    News paper articles are a recombination of the above comments.

Return to Comments table of content

    When I heard, 'Tax cuts create jobs,' for the umpteenth time, I decided to do the calculations for myself. I think I saw these calculations somewhere before, but I can't remember where.
    Let me begin with a tax calculation based upon one hundred families with incomes and tax rates as listed in the table below. Allow each family to deduct $10,000 for the standard deduction plus personal exemption. Seven of the bottom 20 families are on unemployment. Assume that the budget is balanced.

    No of        income     taxable      tax           tax           Budget
  families                       income     rate          paid          Balanced
      1        1,000,000    990,000     70        693,000
      9           200,000    190,000     40        684,000
    10             50,000      40,000     30        120,000
    30             30,000      20,000     20        120,000
    30             20,000       10,000    10          30,000
    20             10,000               0      0              0

    Now put a tax cut in to effect. Two families came off unemployment and earned 10,000 each saving the government 20,000.

No of         income      taxable     tax              tax      Budget Deficit
families                      income    rate             paid      at year end
  1         1,000,000    990,000     40          396,000     -297,000
  9            200,000    190,000     30          513,000     -171,000
10              50,000      40,000     25          100,000       -20,000
30              30,000      20,000     15            90,000       -30,000
30              20,000      10,000       9           27,000         -3,000
20              10,000         0            0                    0        20,000

                                                                                -501,000

    Two $10,000 jobs for a $500,000 deficit, if tax cuts create jobs, it's certainly not cost effective.
    Now assume a 2% per year inflation rate for twenty years and a 20,000 standard deduction plus personal exemption.

  No of     income        taxable     tax         tax        Budget Deficit
families                      income    rate       paid        at year end
    1      1,460,000    1,440,000    40     576,000     -117,000
    9         292,000       272,000    30     734,400        50,400
  10           73,000         53,000    25     132,500        12,500
  30           43,800         23,800    15     107,100       -12,900
  30           29,200           9,200      9       24,840         -5,160
  20           14,600                         0                0        29,200

                                                                              -42,960

    Now assume a 30% increase in population over the twenty years.

  No of      income          taxable    tax        tax      Budget Surplus
families                         income   rate      paid      at year end
   1.3      1,460,000    1,440,000    40    748,800      55,800
 11.7         292,000       272,000    30    954,720    270,720
 13.0           73,000         53,000    25    172,250      52,250
 39.0           43,800         23,000    15    139,230      19,230
 39.0           29,200           9,200      9      32,292        2,292
 26.0           14,600                         0              0       37,960

                                                                             438,252

    You can change the numbers however you like, but it should be obvious that the tax cuts didn't balance the budget or improve the economy. All the tax cuts did was give people more money and caused inflation. The narrowing of the budget deficit and  improvement in the economy came about because of an increase in population. Now you know how the politicians came up with the rosy forecast of a budget surplus in ten years.
    What they couldn't predict was the sharp increase in the price of oil which put us into a recession because the increase in the price of oil took a large sum of money out of our economy. Do you really think a 25 basis point change in the federal funds rate can control inflation. A one penny change in the price of gasoline has more impact on the economy than a quarter of a basis point by the fed.
    The most important impact of a tax cut or a decrease in the fed funds rate is psychological. It makes people feel confident and they spend more money than normal which then gives a temporary increase to the economy until inflation increases and reverses the psychology.
    When people spend more than normal they create a surplus demand greater than normal thereby creating surplus jobs more than normal. This can become a self perpetuating cycle until inflation sets in. Then all the surplus spending decreases and the surplus jobs disappear. Again, this can become a self perpetuating cycle causing deflation and eventually, a recession.
    I think it was fitting that the longest bull market in history led to the slowest recovery in history. The bull market was fueled by huge deficits and we will pay the price. It's just a matter of when.
    Tax cuts do not create jobs, psychology does. We're not smart enough to create the psychology without betting the farm. "A way of thinking is at the same time a way of not thinking" to quote S I Hayakawa. People let their egos block their view. They feel good because they have another zero on the end of their income. They have more paper money today than yesterday, but in buying power they have less than they did yesterday. We are not better off than we were twenty years ago. We, just, think we are. Very few check. Anyone on a fixed income can attest to it.
    An economy is a zero sum game. It can never be greater than the sum of the productivity of its members nor greater than the amount of money the participants in the market place, both foreign and domestic, are willing to spend for the goods and services produced in the economy. The production of goods and services can never be greater than or less than the demand for those goods and services, otherwise deflation or inflation will occur.
    The only way an economy can grow is by increasing the number of people or by inflation. Economists like a small amount of inflation because they don't know how to handle a deflationary environment. They think they know how to handle an inflationary one.
    The standard of living can increase without an increase in the economy by being more efficient and by using cheap energy allowing prices to be reduced (importing cheap goods or services has the same effect as cheap energy). Remember, the standard of living is not the same as the economy. But efficiency and cheap energy brings on the problem of what do you do with those unemployed by the efficiency and the cheap energy.
    The unemployed are no longer contributing to the production side of the economy. The efficiency actually lowered the economy by lowering prices. If the unemployed are supported by tax dollars this will cause inflation because the unemployed will take money out of the economy while not contributing any production.
    If the lowering of the ecomony is balanced by the inflation caused by the tax supported unemployed, dangerous undercurrents in the economy can go undetected until it is too late to prevent their effect on the economy. Inflation also occurs when people live longer causing a change in the distribution of the population. The increase in the number of retired people contributes to the demand side of the economy, but not to the production side.
    I hope you realize that we cannot keep increasing our population and that cheap energy is a thing of the past.

Note: At the time I did the calculation the number of people per household was 2.1. Since only about 2/3 of the household file income tax returns and only about 2/3 of the population is considered in the work force, the ratio of number of people filing income tax returns to the number of workers in the work force remained  1 to 2.1, hence one millionaire equals two unemployed.

Return to Comments table of content
 

    It does not matter that I disobeyed my own religion
            I must defend myself and I must have revenge.
    It does not matter that civilization ceases for a while
            I must defend myself and I must have revenge.
    It does not matter that anarchy and chaos reign
            I must defend myself and I must have revenge.
    It does not matter that bullets, rockets, and bombs explode
            I must defend myself and I must have revenge.
    It does not matter that someone's blood is on the ground
            I must defend myself and I must have revenge.
    It does not matter that people are homeless
            I must defend myself and I must have revenge.
    It does not matter that widows and orphans are hungry and crying
            I must defend myself and I must have revenge.
    It does not matter that ...
            I must defend myself and I must have revenge.

            I must defend myself and I must have revenge
                    until everyone else is dead and I'm the only one left alive.
 
 

    You and your followers will not go to heaven because God called you to help the Palestinians, not to kill Jews or Americans. You are not following the teachings of the Koran. Killing does not help the Palestinians it only placates you desire for revenge. God abhors revenge. You are wasting you time, your money, and your life.
 

Return to Comments table of content
 
 

Top management is doing such a wonderful job,
        million dollar raises that should do the trick,
                but we gotta have another tax cut.
Inflation is on the rise,
        a quarter point raise by the FED that should do the trick,
                but we gotta have another tax cut.
Unemployment is too high,
        more immigration that should do the trick,
                but we gotta have another tax cut.
Our schools are under funded,
        build more prisons that should do the trick,
                but we gotta have another tax cut.
Day care is sorely needed,
        longer prison terms that should do the trick,
                but we gotta have another tax cut.
Pollution is too high,
        lower the standards that should do the trick,
                but we gotta have another tax cut.
Global warming is increasing,
        give tax incentives for bikinis that should do the trick,
                but we gotta have another tax cut.
The ant hills in the driveway are too high,
        buy a 4 by 4 that should do the trick,
                but we gotta have another tax cut.
We need more exercise,
        get a ATV, a personal water craft, or a snowmobile that should do the trick,
                but we gotta have another tax cut.
The deficit is too high,
        sell more government bonds that should do the trick,
                but we gotta have another tax cut.
Oil prices are too high,
        buy another SUV that should do the trick,
                but we gotta have another tax cut.
The economy is not growing fast enough,
        buy a wide screen TV that should do the trick,
                but we gotta have another tax cut.
Social Security and Medicare are in trouble,
        make Russia Roulette the national pass time that should do the trick,
                but we gotta have another tax cut.
Oil is short supply,
        get a second Hummer that should do the trick,
                but we gotta have another tax cut.
We have the most unique civilization the world has ever known,
        reduce government spending that should do the trick,
                but we gotta have another tax cut.
 

Return to Comments table of content
 

Hawking's question, 'and what is there for God to do?'
    Choose the no boundry condition so that the cosmos will be like God, always is and always was.

Wheeler's statement, 'Everything is information?'
    No, John, everything is a bit at another level, information is only available to the system that creates it.

Return to Comments table of content
 

    I sent this comment as an email on April 04.
    I'll bet that the 911 commission never implicates the parties most responsible for the 911 disaster. Let me set the stage.
    Every organization has its own unwritten rules, Total Petroleum (North America), my employer, was no exception. When I first became a frequent flyer, I learned that if a pilot didn't greet me in the waiting room of the company hanger, to go into the flight room so as to let them know that I was there.
    The second thing I learned was that if a pilot asked a question, I was invited to join them, otherwise they had something to do and I was to return to the waiting room.
    One day I followed the above procedure and when I entered the flight room one of them asked me if I had heard about an irate passenger that almost brought down a commercial airliner. The three of them had been discussing three incidents in six months where a passenger broke down a cockpit door and entered the cockpit and interfered with the operation of the plane.
    The latest one required all three of the cockpit crew to subdue the man. The navigator and the copilot managed to keep the man away from the pilot until the pilot put the aircraft on autopilot, then the three of them held the man down while a flight attendant sedated him. The entire event took more than fifteen minutes and the plane lost five thousand feet of altitude before the pilot could set the auto pilot.
    This event triggered the pilot's union to request the strengthening of all cockpit doors. The FAA and the airline companies said they would look into it. That conversation took place more than thirty years ago!
    Also, more than twenty years ago when terrorist struck Europe several times, the European airlines adopted strict rules as to how the cockpit crew was to enter the plane and once in the cockpit they were to lock the door and not open it, until security clearance was givin after they were back on the ground. The EU urged the U.S. airlines to follow the same rules. Has anything happened?
    That's why congress passed the survivors act to compensate the victims of 911, if this had come out in court, two airlines would not be in business today and the rest of the airlines would probably be still grounded, with the possibility that we would have had an economic collapse.
    Why else do you think a 911 family gets more money than that of a killed or wounded vet from Iraq. The vet has little or no effect on the economy.
    Don't say that money doesn't talk!

Return to Comments table of content
 

    I was watching a spider, outside my window, dying from hypothermia and starvation like so many people around the world when the following memory returned. I had a unique and lasting experience involving my classmates in my advanced organic chemistry class('56) that encapsulates my thankfulness.
    The class was a very time consuming class, lab started at eight, five days a week, and on a good day we could leave by two. For those who didn't brown bag it, the others would watch your experiments for you while you went to eat or to go to another class.
    Of the twelve in the class, six were foreign students. Six of us decided to go to the student union for lunch, two girls, one from Sweden, she was a blond as she could be, the other from Columbia. Four guys, one from Nigeria (he was blacker than the ace of spades), one from South Africa (a milk chocolate colored black), myself, and another white from the US.
    As we approached the student union, a group of blacks tried to encourage the Nigerian and the South African to join a black advocate group. They walked along side our group giving them a number of reasons why they should join.
    Finally, the South African had had enough, he stopped walking and said in a very loud voice, 'You niggers don't know what discrimination is'. The girl from Columbia said, 'You Americans don't know how lucky you are, you're healthy and well fed. In my country, you either have a maid or you are one'.
    With that said, the US blacks departed and we continued to the student union. The girl from Columbia cried all the way. She found the lack of opportunity for her countrymen so intolerable. I can't remember her exact words, but it was something like this, 'I would rather be a maid in your country than a Queen in mine.'
    In addition to trying to console the girl from Colombia, the South African and the Nigerian told personal stories about the more vulgar forms of discrimination they had suffered in their country. At first the girl from Sweden was shocked, even though she was well traveled, she had led a very sheltered life. As the stories became even more vulgar, she became very agitated, she couldn't believe what she was hearing. She couldn't believe that anyone could be so vulgar and so cruel.
    Then as I was paying for my food, the man behind me said, 'Isn't that awful.' 'What do you mean?' 'Well, look at that', and he pointed to a large round table where the girl from Sweden and the Nigerian were having an animated discussion. What could I say? I was at a loss for words, I simply turned and walked away. I often wondered what the man thought when he saw me and the South African join them.
    By the time she reached our table, she was talking very loudly. The people near by could not help but over hear her, but they could not hear the Nigerian so they came closer. When I arrived at the table she stood and asked other blacks near by if what the Nigerian was saying was true.
    Before the other two classmates came to our table, the other students in the room began to gather around listening to our discussion. The two hot button topics back then were racial discrimination and who should control nuclear weapons. The first hydrogen bomb was detonated about a year earlier.
    When it became apparent that she was not going to calm down some one changed the topic. Among students, the foreign students were not bashful, in fact they were very vocal. When they stated their position on who should have nuclear weapons, the crowd around our table increased in number and moved closer.
    I'm positive that our citizens were very surprised at their position. Every one of them were dead set against nuclear weapons, they didn't want their countries to have them, but all agreed that if anyone was to have them, they wanted the US to have them and they felt we should be more open about what we were doing and going to do, they didn't like the secrecy.
    More people gathered around our table when the foreign students began to share how they viewed us. They thought the US was a great big arrogant obnoxious bully. Our freedoms ended at our borders. We didn't pay attention to the rest of the world, our way was the only way, and we were wasting our money, we did not give them the help they really needed.
    But they were continually amazed at our willingness to help, our generosity, and we championed the underdog. Most had suffered discrimination in our country, some times just because they were foreigners. But many times they were surprised when they were discriminated against by some Americans, other Americans would defend them, assist them, or offer them aid. They found our spirit contagious. It infected them and they didn't want to lose it.
    An odd fact about the discussion was that the other people around us didn't interfere with our discussion other than to answer her questions with a yes or no or to ask us to speak louder. When we finished eating, we had to fight our way through the crowd.
    This event occurred either the sixth or the seventh day of the class. By the second day of class we had become a close knit group. This event dramatically increased the bonds of the group.
    The class was evenly divided between male/female white/non white foreign/domestic. The other two foreign students that I didn't mention were a girl from Germany, her family survived the bombings, etc. of World War II, and a boy from China, his family had survived the Japanese occupation and later escaped to Hong Kong from the communists.
    All the foreign students were from wealthy families, the girl from Columbia was from a very wealthy family, even so, all were very aware of the inequities of their own society. Every one of the foreign students wanted to stay in the US, not one wanted go home except to hear their native tongue spoken. All spoke beautiful English, not American, we could understand them, they had difficulty understanding us, we use too many idioms.
    I learned more about the world, the US, our role in the world, how the rest of the world viewed the US, male chauvinism, discrimination, language, sex, etc. during that course than the rest of my life combined. The animated discussion between the girl from Sweden and the Nigerian became a never ending discussion. The discussion was not continuous, but it didn't conclude until the wake we held in the lab after finals, complete with chem lab cocktails. Not a dry face in the group, but we were never to meet again.
    The foreign students were uninhibited and when the foreign girls talked frankly about sex, the American women became uninhibited. Our discussions were no holds barred discussions and no topic was prohibited. The class was time consuming as I have said, but the discussions were captivating, no one wanted to leave. Many times we stayed even after we had finished our experiments.
    99% of our people can not even begin to comprehend the power we have, our influence on other people. We don't have to flex our military might or spend billions of dollars. We just have to be ourselves. We have an esprit de corps that is more powerful than any thing known to mankind. It is this spirit that I want to keep alive. It is this spirit that makes us Americans. It is this spirit for which I'm most thankful.
    This spirit is our greatest strength and at the same time our greatest weakness. We have committed many atrocities defending the spirit against real and perceived threats. In defending our spirit, we rally around a leader or a group and if that leader or group makes an error or perverts or allows the perversion of the ideals of the spirit, our nation commits a grievous error in spite of our ideals and even contrary to our ideals.
    Unfortunately, the media plays an exaggerated role in creating a leader. For example 9/11, we would have rallied around a newspaper boy that day if the TV cameras had focused on one. This is why the importance of a free press cannot be over emphasized. We must have an instrument that forces us to examine our motives, our actions, and the results there of.
    Our current situation is a continuation of what began under Eisenhower. Ike was not a leader, he was a politician and he could not break his loyalty to the military and disclose the liars. A true leader would have had the strength to do so. And we have been fighting the pseudo threat of communism ever since.
    Today terrorism is substituting for communism and a misguided country is not paying attention to the most pressing problems of our day. We will pay a price for our inattention, it's not a matter of if, it's a matter of when.
    In the past the time lag between the error and the penalty has varied from less than a year to as long as twenty. So don't become complacent if the penalty doesn't come quickly, it will come.
    I hope you will join with the others who are trying to prevent the destruction of our spirit. We can only destroy ourselves, no other force is strong enough to defeat our spirit. If we lose our spirit, we will lose the fourth greatest gift mankind has ever received and it maybe lost forever.

    Like the girl from Columbia said, we don't know how lucky we are.

P.S. Thanks Giving is my favorite holiday
 

Return to Comments table of content
 

    When the Fed chairman started lowering interest rates, I was not surprised, but when he kept lowering them, I was. He didn't stop until rates were at 1%, way to low to accomplish what he said he was trying to do. That was to help stimulate the economy. When he started to raise rates, I was again puzzled. At that time the economy was not doing well, job creation was falling, and inflation as gauged by the CPI was mild. So why was he raising rates?
    It finally dawned on me, rates were lowered not only to stimulate the economy, the primary reason was to shore up the financial industry for what was to come. He didn't disclose his true reason so as not to create a panic.
    He warned Washington several times about the deficit with zero response. When the dollar continued to fall after the first of the year, he changed the Fed stance and warned that interest rates would be rising and at a steady rate. I hope the change in stance was not too late.
    You see, Greenspan is trying to stabilize the dollar, again without creating a panic. The dollar has been setting new lows against all major currencies almost every week this year and on Friday set a new all time low against the Euro.
    True, a lower dollar will help our trade deficit, but our bonds are more important. If the dollar falls to far we are in deep financial trouble. The foreign investor will start selling our bonds instead of buying them. Depending on how fast events unfold will determine how severe the coming recession will be and if the mental midgets in Washington make a major mistake or if we have a major event, look out '29 we will set a new record.
    What to watch? If the dollar continues its slide, interest rates keep rising, and Washington does nothing to control the deficit, grab your hat.
    What to do? First, don't borrow any more money, pay off as many debts as you can, own gold, gold coins, gold stock. Buy resource stocks especially the metals. Agri business stocks may also help. Do not own government bonds or dot com stocks. Avoid risky stocks. Your goal should be to limit your losses not to make money. We should know by March if Greenspan has moved quickly enough.
    Greenspan can only do so much and then it is out of his control. If events start to happen quickly, get a supply of dry foods, oat meal, dried beans, etc. and canned goods and pray.

    The other side of the coin.
    Have you ever wondered how the Japanese have done it, financially that is? For many years following the second world war, the Japanese, by their own laws, could not buy our bonds, but their government would allow their banks and industries who were in financial trouble to buy our bonds.
    The Japanese save money, a bachelor was not considered eligible unless he had 300,000 yen in the bank. But the Japanese banks only paid 1% or less on deposits. The Japanese banks then bought US bonds at 3% or more (during '79-'80 our thirty year bond had a 14.7% interest rate). As long as the exchange rate didn't change to much, the Japanese banks were gaining Yen hand over fist. Our government was unofficially financing the Japanese.
    This happened because the Japanese were buying US dollar denominated bonds, in other words they were buying our bonds with our dollars. They exchanged yen for dollars and then bought our bonds. At maturity they received dollars which they exchanged for yen at the current rate.
    Because exchange rates changed rapidly following the Korean war, a foreign investor had to be very careful when buying US dollar denominate bonds because if the dollar fell against their currency they could lose a lot. They could, also gain a lot, if the dollar rose against their currency.
    For example, if their dollar was equal to our dollar and they bought our bonds at 4% and the dollar fell by more than 4%, the foreign investor would not make any money.
    This happened to the Euro recently. Not long ago the Euro was one for one with the US dollar. Today the Euro is worth $1.2 or more. If a foreign investor bought our bonds at $1 and received 4% interest, at maturity they would receive 1.04/1.2 or .87 Euro for every dollar they invested, not a good investment.
    To combat the changing value of the dollar our government began selling bonds denominated in other currencies. Now, using the same example as above, the foreign investor would not lose any money, they would buy our bonds in Euros and receive interest and principle in Euros regardless of exchange rates.
    So who loses the difference? We do.
    At maturity our government must buy Euros at the given exchange rate and pay the foreign investor back. In other words, we borrowed $1 and paid back 1.04 * 1.2 or 1.25. Our deficit increased by 25% not 4% because we have to borrow more money to pay them back.
    This is the other side of the coin.
    And it has Greenspan worried, very worried because our deficit could balloon out of sight. And if our deficit becomes large enough, the foreign investor may perceive that we might not be able to pay them back. If that happens the market psychology would change. Markets are driven by psychology and a vicious circle would be formed. The foreign investor would sell our bonds and the dollar would drop more, so the foreign investor would sell more and the dollar would drop more, and so on.
    I know this sounds draconian and depressing, but I urge everyone to get a history book, one that gives the details, not just a summary, of the hyper inflation event that took place in Germany following the first world war. Believe me, hyper inflation is draconian. People will starve and freeze in the midst of plenty because no one will have enough money to buy the gasoline to transport our food or to buy the fuel to heat our homes.
    Such events happen without warning, none. And when they start no knows when and where they will stop. The best we can do is to prevent one before it starts and as best I can tell we are too close.
    There is very little most people can do. But there is one thing everyone can do, send your congressman and both of your senators a three word message 'Balance the budget' and send it to them every month until congress does so.
 

Return to Comments table of content
 

   I'm proud to be an American. We are the most unique, most powerful, most dynamic society in the history of the world. We can change our political control without death and destruction. Our willingness to help and our generosity is contagious. We champion the underdog. Etc.
    We adapt rapidly. Change is a part of our lifestyle; new technology is incorporated very rapidly, mostly to our benefit.
    I have witnessed the beauty of our society, and we should enjoy it. I have lived a comfortable and mostly pain free life, and we should keep it.
    I don't think of myself as being special, nor do I think my experiences are out of the ordinary because they are mine. I did have many more excellent teachers than my children did, the impact of the foreign students on me cannot be overstated, and my military service was unique.
    During one eight week period I had no assigned duties except that I had to be in formation every morning and evening. Besides shooting pool, playing ping pong, and shooting every weapon of the Army, I read every nonfiction book in the post library and began to read selectively from the Colorado Springs Public Library, an activity that has continued to this day.
    I have learned from many people: strangers, neighbors, friends, and family; and I'm ever grateful that I didn't have to experience what they did. In addition to my study of military history, the veterans of my family and friends of my father taught me about the Second World War. The veteran college classmates and the veterans when I served in the army taught me about the Korean War. I know of some of the atrocities we have committed.
    In addition to my study of our political history, I have spent many hours listening to survivors of the Holocaust and Japanese and German concentration camps. I have walked through the mud, sewerage, and garbage of the cardboard box slums along the Mississippi and Missouri flood plains and the Dallas railroad yards. I have been in the slums of many large cities within walking distance of the fancy hotels and convention centers I have visited.

    Reclamation projects.  We reclaimed the land, but did we reclaim the people.
    Desperate people do desperate things.

    I have been in homes with dirt floors. Friends have told me of their travels to the rural areas of China, South America, India, etc. I have visited my friends in nursing homes. I have handled dead bodies. I have bandaged bloody people. I have seen the ugly side of life and our society.
    I'm proud to be an American, but I'm not blind.
    We are unwilling to admit we have made a mistake. We lie to ourselves and create fantasies to avoid facing our mistakes. We are obsessed with winning. Greed and escapism dominate our thinking, our history, our actions. We are right. Our way is the only way. We are number one. We must always have our own way. We have a sacred 'cow'. We worship our own 'idol'. We have our own 'myth trilogy'.

    'The victors write history' and 'all history is interpreted history.'

    The writers of history have a vested interest in what they write, sometimes their own survival, but, more often, what they choose to write about is determined by how popular the people or events are. They want people to read what they write; people avoid reading unpopular topics.
    Our history involving the Indians and slavery is an example of the victors and interpreted history. The history of Nixon, Reagan, and Clinton is an example of popularity. At the end of his career, Nixon was unpopular and the commentators didn't treat him very kindly. Clinton was popular, but his sex exploits were very unpopular, and that part of his life was not treated kindly. Reagan was very popular and his grievous mistakes are almost completely ignored.
    Because of the bias of history, I must reject all religious and political statements until the truth of the statements are supported by at least one other independent source. All the writers of religion and politics have a vested interest.
    For example, who told us that the ancient Hebrews were the chosen people? Who told us that God gave them Israel? I cannot accept the implied assumption that God was parochial. In fact the New Testament says that God was not parochial. Do you call that consistency?
    Look at our churches -- we have the biggest choir, we have the largest band; we have the most people in our congregation. We entertain you. But where is the Word. 'Seek the truth and the truth will set you free.' 'The new has come, the old has passed away.'
    Truth is ignored. Look at the Laffer curve and Creation Science. Science is suppressed, only to be used if it can create more money. Truth is sacrificed to our idol, money. God did create us, but not how the creation stories tell it. We won't let the old pass away.
    Large segments of our population refuse to examine their own fantasies and the rest are co-conspirators because they allow the fantasies to continue unchallenged. Who told us we are great? Who told us our cause was just? Who told us we are righteous? Who told us we are doing God's will? Who told us our way is the right way? Who determines our values?
    Have you ever read your child's history book? Look at the pseudo truths we perpetuate. 'I cannot tell I lie, I chopped down the cherry tree with my little hatchet', but does the same book tell that he ordered the Army to massacre the Indians of the Hudson River Valley and up state New York because they helped the British. That was the excuse, but the real reason was to open the same area to the settlers.
    What about good old Ben, 'A penny saved is a penny earned'. A wise and upstanding man; a leader of our country. He probably had more illegitimate children than any other significant historical person. Lincoln freed the slaves, but only as a last resort. We dropped the atomic bomb on Japan to end the war!
    These pseudo truths are not innocuous, they allow our thinking to be warped and once implanted they are extremely difficult to correct. We made deals with ruthless dictators and warlords to prevent Communism and other pseudo threats. Our dealings with Central and South America and many other countries are a travesty. If we included our mistakes honestly in our history books, our children would not be able to finish reading them before they graduated.
    Why do we continue the fantasy? We hate to lose. We don't want to look at anything unpleasant. We must maintain the appearance of perfection at all costs. We don't want to admit we made a mistake. We don't want to see ourselves, and, if we don't maintain the fantasy, we would be forced to look at ourselves, heaven forbid. Look at our entertainment. We are constantly kicking the 'bad guys' in the ass. Doesn't that make you feel good, but are we willing to look at ourselves? Many times, we are the bad guy. So we create a fantasy, so we can avoid it. We got the bad guys didn't we?
    Look at our advertisements. We sell sex. We sell ego status. We sell appearances. We sell the 'Madison Avenue' image. We sell the American Dream. We sell 'things' to keep our false economy going. Greed. We have sacrificed truth and honesty to our idol money.
    Our sacred cow plays a significant role in our economy. Most of our lifestyle revolves around our sacred cow. We kill people with our sacred cow, but that is the price of progress, but if people die from some other cause that is horrible. When the market raises the price of gasoline we grumble, but we pay it. But if our government raises the gasoline tax, people are killed. (Snipers shot and killed several truckers who didn't join a boycott of a proposed gasoline tax increase.)
    Look at the rotten deals we have created to keep gasoline prices low to feed our sacred cow. As much as possible we have paid foreign producers as little as possible in the name of a free market. Free to who?
    We should use the free market as much as possible, but we should never force a problem to fit a solution. The free market should have worked in the airline industry, but look at the mess deregulation caused. The 'free' market in the hospital, drug, phone, electric, and gas industries is a joke and a waste of resources.
    Are we better off than we were last year or the year before, etc.? No. We refuse to do the simple arithmetic that would dispel our fantasy. We would rather escape than face our problems. We move to the suburbs; we watch sporting events; we watch plotless movies; we exercise our throttle and brake muscles; we use recreational drugs; we refuse to face ourselves; therefore, we cannot solve our problems.
    Recreational drugs, what a euphemism. How can we even consider any drug to be recreational?
    We brainwash ourselves to avoid facing ourselves, but worst of all we brainwash our children. What kind of a future are we creating? What happens to our children when their fantasies, their religion, the American dream, the Madison Ave. image, I must win, I must look good, clash with reality. How many psychotic and depressed people have we created? How many people die disillusioned, robbed by our fantasies of the satisfaction of having lived a good life?
    We spend way too much time working and commuting. We spend much of our lives in a car. To make up for the time lost with our children, we substitute things. I agree that a rich environment stimulates brain development, but tender loving care is much more vital. Things can never replace TLC. The damage done is irreversible. Our children adopt things as their goal.
    What an empty life we are living. We have many things, we have more quantity but less quality. We have very little personal contact, very little dialogue, very little time to read, very little time to reflect.
    I was a very unhappy child when I learned that Santa Claus was not a real person, and learned that adults were not telling me the truth. But that was mild compared to the unhappiness I felt when I discovered that my Sunday school teachers were not telling me the truth. They were telling me their belief, not what the Bible said.
    As I learned more of the truth, my sadness left me and was replaced by nausea and anger. I was no longer surprised by new revelations. I only wondered, how bad could it get?
    People are killed to prevent abortion. We deny other people the knowledge of family planning because some won't let the old pass away, and, at the same time, many people die from AIDS and starvation.
    For most people their only source of information is from the media, and the media is dominated by ideologues. How warped can we and our children become?
    Talk about the ends justifying the means. Our political arena is a prime example of how warped we have become. Nixon was cheered as he left office after he resigned. And the Republican Party has been trying to make the Democrats look bad ever since. Look bad because they were unwilling to face the fact that they had made a mistake. Carter was crucified by the Republican spin machine and the media. Do you remember what he did to deserve such treatment? But worst of all, we made a hero of a drug dealer.
    Only in America could this happen. Our myth trilogy distorts our thinking. More is better. Bigger is better. Free enterprise (money) can solve all problems. If you steal on grand scale, you will become famous, you made money, you became rich. But if you steal on small scale, you go to jail. If you tell a small lie to gain political advantage, you will be shunned. But if you tell a big lie, you will be granted power and become a status symbol. If your actions injure a few, you will be persecuted; if many, you will become a saint. If you transport an ounce of marijuana you go to jail, but if you transport drugs by the planeload you become a hero.
    Truth and honesty are sacrificed to our idol, money, and to keep our fantasy alive. Reagan disobeyed Congress and ordered (directly or indirectly, it doesn't matter, as Commander in Chief he was responsible) the CIA to ship drugs to his own people. But this was quickly swept under the rug, and he became known as the 'Great Communicator'. What did he communicate, the equity of our judicial system?
    He should have been brought to justice, but, with the memory of Nixon still in the minds of many people, very few had the stomach to even think of such action. We were completely unwilling to face the fact that our leader had committed a horrific error in judgment, way beyond any reasonable bounds, and we created a fantasy to avoid facing the facts. And now we must keep the fantasy going because facing the facts now would be very ugly.
    This fantasy has allowed ideologues to take control of our media and government and to distort the facts to the point that we are now living in fantasy land, nearly divorced from reality, 'Don't confuse me with the facts, I know what I want to believe'. A persuasive argument is not even necessary. Any statement we want to believe is all that is needed.
    Deceit and deception are at an all time high. We do not allow leading statements or questions in our courts of law, why do we allow them in our politics?
    We talk about truth and honesty, but are we? We talk of educating our children, but are we? We talk about saving our environment, but are we? We talk about improving our lives, but are we?
    What do we talk about? We talk about how much money we can make in our 401K's. We talk about how well we can retire. We talk about cars. We talk about sports. We talk about the big house we may buy away from the slums. We talk about THINGS. We don't talk about people or ideas. Least of all we don't talk about our problems.
    We don't seek knowledge for it's own sake. If it does not show a return on investment, we shun it. We can't solve our problems if we don't know, and a return on investment education rarely solves a nontrivial problem.
    Must we suffer a catastrophic event before we remove the veils that blind us?
    We must learn the opposite of our myth trilogy -- bigger is not always better; more is not always better; and free enterprise cannot solve all problems. We must put our sacred cow, as we now know it, out to pasture. We must reduce our idol back down to what it was meant to be, a medium of exchange. We must remember at all times the difference between material and nonmaterial resources.

    Money is not the measure of all things.

    We continually place our bias on another person's words. We must change. We must seek the truth. We must let the old pass away. We must eliminate greed and escapism and let our other qualities take control before it is too late.

    AMERICA look in the mirror, see yourself, and slowly and carefully wash your face clean.
 

Return to Comments table of content

    During a trip to the Rose bowl with a student from Germany, I became very aware of how many idioms, clichés, proverbs, etc., we use in our every day speech. We could understand her perfectly, but she could not understand us. We were constantly interpreting our idioms, etc., for her.
    While the use of idioms, etc., is efficient, it can be very misleading because we tend to quote only the part that supports our position and that can lead to very lazy thinking because we do not examine other possibilities.
    For example, 'A little knowledge can be dangerous', we use only the first verse when the second verse is much more important and would expand our thinking.
    During the time I served as a customer service chemist the marketing department made a request for technical help and I was assigned to help. One of our jobbers went bankrupt and marketing didn't want to lose his customers and since we were his largest creditor we took control of his business.
    The jobber went bankrupt because of very poor business practices one of which was that he didn't keep inventory controls, he claimed his drivers were stealing from him but he could not prove it because he didn't have any records.
    The first thing our company manager did was to set up inventory controls. At the end of his first day on the job which happened to be a Saturday, he measured the amount of product in each of the tanks with a dip stick. A dip stick is nothing more than a twelve foot yard stick. He put water detecting paste on the bottom foot of the stick and stuck it into each tank though a sampling hole on the top. When he removed the stick he could see the liquid line and read the number of inches of product in the tank to a quarter of an inch and also knew how many inches of water was in the bottom of each tank. Then by referring to a chart on each tank he could calculate how much product was in each tank.
    On Monday morning before the drivers began to load their trucks, he stuck each tank again and to his surprise the gasoline tank had lost a large amount of product. Immediately, he knew there was a leak. He closed the valve on the line at the bottom of the tank. Then he had a contractor remove the dirt from the underground line from the valve to the loading rack with a back hoe and they discovered a union that was never brought up tight. Obviously, it had been leaking since the first day the underground line was put into operation. No wonder the jobber went bankrupt.
    The union was tightened and the line was put back into service and that would have been the end of the story except for one very important detail. The jobbers bulk plant was next door to a grain elevator and about a week later the grain elevator had a fire in a small basement underneath the office.
    They called the gas company to check on a small hot water boiler that was on the dirt floor in the basement. When they went to check the boiler they discovered small flames coming from the ground in many places. They shut off the gas at the street but the flames continued to burn. They stuck a probe into the ground next to the largest flame and took a sample of the gas. The sample was analyzed and it was not natural gas.
    The elevator manager went to our bulk plant manager and asked if he had a leak. Then phones started ringing in many offices. The insurance company of the elevator went ballistic and our bulk plant manager asked for help.
    After a survey of the bulk plant and the elevator, I contracted a gravel company to bore holes between the bulk plant and the elevator with their gravel sampling auger. Two insurance inspectors were present when the holes were bored and when the auger brought up gasoline saturated soil they were very concerned about a possible fire if some one threw a cigarette near one of the holes.
    One of the insurance inspectors was a smoker, he threw lit cigarettes into and around the holes, but nothing happened. To further test their concern I took a sheet of newspaper, opened it fully, folded it on the diagonal, and then rolled it into a long cylinder. He lit one end of the paper cylinder for me. I then approached a hole, crouched down low, extended my arm, and moved so the lit end of the paper was over the hole. I did this to each hole that had gasoline soaked soil and each hole burned with a low flame. After I had lit the fifth hole the insurance inspector took his cigarette lighter and lit the sixth hole before I could stop him.
    If you have ever heard a flame front propagate down a cylinder, it is a sound you will never forget. That sound caused him to recoil ever so slightly, but enough to prolong his life. When the flame front reached the speed of sound it detonated and a flash of bright blue flames shot fifteen feet into the air singeing a small amount of his hair as he recoiled. His partner had to support him when he stood, his face was ghost white and he was shaking. He knew he had been within a fraction of an inch of death. Several minutes later he said, 'Now I know why you did what you did'.
    He had a small amount of knowledge and it was very dangerous, it almost ended his life. He knew that each hole that I lit burned gently and assumed all of them would and that brings us to the second verse and if he had known the second verse this event may not have happened. 'A little knowledge may be dangerous, but a little ignorance may be deadly.'

Return to Comments table of content

     All the facilities and activities of the oil industry are expensive, a million dollars is considered small change and service stations are probably the least expensive and off shore drilling the most expensive for a single unit. Most people can not even contemplate the size of the numbers commonly used in the petroleum industry. At the same time most people would be surprized that very small numbers can decide the location of oil facilities.
     At a price of sixty dollars a barrel, inventory costs are very high. To give you an idea of how large the problem is consider the following. We consumed 21 million barrels a day last year, that is one billion two hundred sixty thousand dollars a day. A one cent change per gallon is 882 million dollars a day.
     To meet our consumption demand we must import seven super tankers every day. Each super tanker holds about 2 million barrels. Not very many people have ever seen a 100,000 barrel storage tank. These tanks vary in size, but most are over 160 feet in diameter and over 30 feet high. Four of them could be placed in a standard city block. That means that five city blocks would be needed to hold the crude oil delivered by one super tanker and thirty five city blocks would be need to hold the amount of crude oil we consume in one day and 254 city blocks would be needed to hold a seven day supply.
     At sixty three dollars per barrel of crude oil the price per gallon is $1.50, now would you change how you shipped crude oil to save $.0001 per gallon?
     When the Alaskan North Slope field was developed $.0001 per gallon was the deciding factor. The oil industry wanted to build a pipeline down the east side of the Rockies. The interest on the oil in the line out weighed all other considerations. Bigger is not always better, too big means economically infeasible. Remember, the oil in the pipeline can never be removed and someone must pay for the oil in the line. Once the line is full then you can remove as much as you put in.
     At that time the inventory costs of a pipeline down the east side of the Rockies would have cost $5,000,000 more a year than the alternative. The pipeline capacity was to be 3,000,000 barrels per day, so lets do the calculation. 5,000,000 divided by 3,000,000, then divide by 42, then divide by 365 days per year and the saving is $.0001087 per gallon.
     The oil industry is driven by fractions of cent per gallon because of the astronomical volumes we consume each and every day in this country.

Return to Comments table of content

    On a piece of paper write your answers to the following questions. You should not need more than one line for each answer.
Part one.
Name the logical operators.
Write the basic logical statements.
Construct a truth table for each.
What are the basic implications of these statements.
Part two.
    Write down the requirements or attributes, the advantages, and the limits or disadvantages of the following: democracy, mass production, fair markets, science.
Part three.
What is the main source of our energy?
Name the most common sources of energy we use.
What are the attributes and limits of each source of energy?
How much do you use?How much does our country use?
How much does the world use?

    How many answers did you write down?
For part one you should have had a minimum of 14.
For part two you should have had a minimum of 16.
For part three you should have had a minimum of 25.
    To be an effective citizen you should know and be able to use with ease all of basic answers to part one. As for the answers to parts two and three, in a country so dependent on all of the answers, why is so little known?
 

Return to Comments table of content

    Thirty years ago a truck driver was shot and killed because he didn't join the boycott on a potential five cent increase in the federal gas tax. The above is an extreme example of what happens when our politicians try to raise the gasoline tax. We go bananas. But when OPEC increased the cost of gasoline by a dollar a gallon all most people did was bitch.
    Bitching about the price of gasoline is counter productive. It does not stimulate thinking only more bitching. We need new ideas. We need to change what we are doing. We need to change our life style.
    The only way to bring the price of gasline down is by conservation because it will be at least five years before any new technology will have any impact. To bring the price down by conservation we must bring demand down below production.
    Shouldn't we be conserving gasoline? Wouldn't an increase in the gasoline tax tend to promote conservation?
 

Return to Comments table of content

    Data is objective, but the value of data decreases as the level of abstraction increases. Information is subjective, but it can approach objectivity as follows.
    I feel hot.
    The statement is subjective because the word 'hot' is at an undefined level of abstraction and different people will have a different opinion or point of view.
    The temperature is 85 degrees.
    The statement is almost as objective as is possible. There can be no difference of opinion or point of view. Why? Because all of the words are at the lowest level of abstraction and the sentence is at the lowest degree of freedom.
    Some examples of statements that convert to information in decreasing order of objectivity.
    Logical statements: p or q, 1 + 1 = 2, A + B = C, etc.
    Counting statements: we have twelve eggs.
    Measuring statements: The temperature is 85 degrees.
    Comparison statements: He is taller than me.
    Each subordinate clause and abstract word increases the degree of freedom of a statement. Don't confuse variable with abstraction, i.e., A + B = C, the symbols are variable but they are not abstract. When the meaning of a word relies on context the degree of freedom also increases.
 

Return to Comments table of content

    Contrary to any impression you may have gotten from my messages, I'm a very progressive conservative. I was one of the Mt Pleasant Jaycees who helped elect John Engler to his first term in office. The conservatives I have known were not liberal with the truth and shared five common goals. They wanted to be practical. They wanted a smaller efficient and effective government. They wanted less government spending implying a balance budget. They wanted a strong defense. They wanted more individual freedom and less government interference.
    When I read 'global warming was a liberal hysteria so universities could get more government grant money', my blood boiled.
    The statement implied many things. First, I can make a very good case that the universities were soft peddling environmental issues so they wouldn't lose grant money. Second, it implied that there was no scientific basis for global warming. Third, it implied that all who affirmed global warming were liberals. Fourth, it implied that we don't need to change. Fifth, it implied that the writer was a conservative.
    When a scientist examines the data and says, 'This is dangerous, we should change what we are doing to be on the safe side'. Who is the conservative and who is the liberal?
    When anyone intentionally violates the rules of logic and intentionally exploits the error of allness to deceive other people, they are using idiot logic and are 'idiotologues', they are not conservatives, they are nothing, they are liars. The ends do not justify the means.
    Look at what the 'idiotologues' gave us? Star wars. The largest government in our history, even more so, if you count all the contractors and subcontractors. They are outspending the liberals. Look at the inefficient and ineffective spending in Iraq, the hurricanes Rita and Kitrina, and home land insecurity. A shortage of troops and equipment for the Iraq. Wire tapping, denying due process, want required prayer in school, want to limit the reproductive freedom of women, limiting the reproductive knowledge of both men and women, no family planning, limiting the rights of gays.
    You can have more individual freedom or you can have more government requirements, restrictions, or limits, but you can't have it both ways.
    It's no wonder that the native americans said, 'White man speak with a forked tongue', the idiotologues want it both ways when it is to their benefit.
    If you are paying attention to what the 'idiotologues' are doing and trying to do, how can you call them conservatives?
 

Return to Comments table of content

    I retired in '88 so I don't have access to what I consider reliable numbers and must rely on my memory. The last numbers that I remember is that only three oil producing countries have any appreciable excess capacity Iran, Russia, and Saudi all the rest are at maximum and/or have declining production.
    In spite of the talk from Iran and Venezuela which is hot air, all of the oil producing countries were deficit spending prior to the last major increase in crude oil prices. On a per capita basis their entitlement programs make ours look puny. Every oil producing country needs every dollar they can get and they finally learned that they can get more money by increasing the price of oil rather than by selling more.
    Besides if they can't produce more they can't sell more.
    We can't control our own destiny, we have no control over the price of oil.
 

Return to Comments table of content

Continue