Friday, July 25, 2008

Pants-On-Head Retarded Politicians on Petroleum Panic


With oil prices rising and not a clue in the world what to do about it, it only makes sense that politicians have started incorporating the blame game into their discourse. Actually, what they've started is blaming the most humorously-inappropriate people that they can think of for our petroleum woes. I think it's supposed to be a game, or perhaps a basic intelligence litmus test.

We begin with a scintillating McCain campaign ad:

The announcer in the ad says, "Gas prices — $4, $5, no end in sight, because some in Washington are still saying no to drilling in America. No to independence from foreign oil. Who can you thank for rising prices at the pump?"

A photograph of Obama appears on the stage as a voiceover of a crowd chants: "Obama, Obama, Obama!"


Hmm. . . all this time, I was under the delusion that oil tycoons already had permits for drilling to the tune of 44 million acres. Besides, doesn't it take something like a decade to build a refinery? Either the many sources reporting this (including many government sources) are incorrect, or McCain's counting on America's talking point-fueled ignorance to make the actual data a moot point. Hey - all of the major candidates this time around supported ethanol-based corn fuels, so Election 2008 isn't exactly a meeting of the minds.

Still, I've gotta give McCain credit for knowing his audience - a spot criticizing the free market for creating a situation where oil companies have an incentive to limit supply wouldn't have flown too well with the Sean Inanity crowd.

Then we have newly-elected Utah Representative Jason Chaffetz's prodigious utterance last week:

"There's no doubt that Democrats are the problem. We've done what they've suggested, and look at the results — since (House Speaker) Nancy Pelosi took over, gas prices have doubled," Chaffetz said. "Energy is our most pressing need — and ANWR appears to be part of the solution."

Oi! - Again with the ANWR stuff! And what's with this Nancy Pelosi business? Is she the one who's been running the country for eight years? Is there just the smallest smidgen of a chance that oil prices were increasing before Pelosi started her run as speaker? Or is this just stupid dishonest muckraking from a party team player who's going to do his damndest to continue to demonize the other side and make things even worse?

Tell me what I've won!

Hmm. . . I wrote often last year about the role of context in daily life. Only the dishonest have to lose from a lack thereof.

4 comments:

  1. Good morning Clumpy...

    You are correct about the blame game and I make no attempt to justify any politicians finger pointing.

    But as a Chaffetz supporter here in Utah, let's reason together on some of the problems with "Oil" and lets see if we can find common ground:

    1st, You wrote: "With oil prices rising and not a clue in the world what to do about it..."

    I would propose that you and I and/or any two reasonable people really could agree on what we should do about it.

    Accordingly, would you agree with the following "plan" (as if I was smart enough to plan anything) as to solutions we could work towards?

    And if not, what parts do you disagree with? (And that IS a legitimate question because if we don't agree then I want to know why you don't agree so I can learn rather than argue from my limited viewpoint):

    1a) Short term, anything we can do to increase domestic production will improve the price because of increased supply...yes?

    1b) Short term, anything we can do to increase domestic production will mean less dollars being sent overseas to countries that either hate us or at best aren't giving us a warm fuzzy secure feeling when we think about them...yes?

    1c) Long term, anything we can do to become energy independent of the world (self sufficient in other words)is a good thing...yes?

    1d) Long term, anything we can do to develop alternative fuel sources other than oil will help us become self-sufficient...yes?

    1e) Short term or long term, burning our food supply to make energy (a la ethanol)is a really dumb approach to alternative fuels..especially because it takes so much existing energy to do the converting of food to energy that the only reason it is economically viable is because of government subsidies...yes?


    2nd, you wrote: "doesn't it take something like a decade to build a refinery?"

    2a) As thinking people, doesn't it seem self-evident that it really doesn't take 10 years to build a refinery? It MAY take 10 years to complete the existing system's applications and approval process and whatever other legal and bureaucratic red tape is involved...but that's a political problem.

    SO short term and long term, anything we can do to fix this political problem will certainly allow us to build refinery's quickly...yes?


    3rd, you wrote: "oil companies have an incentive to limit supply"

    3a) What do you see is an incentive for oil companies to limit supply? This is a real question, not an argument: I don't see any incentives to limit supply, so what am I missing that you are seeing?

    4th you wrote: " Jason Chaffetz's prodigious utterance..."There's no doubt that Democrats are the problem. We've done what they've suggested, and look at the results — since (House Speaker) Nancy Pelosi took over, gas prices have doubled," Chaffetz said."

    4a) This may be just a point of order, but I have spoken with Chaffetz personally many times...and what I have heard him say in regard to Pelosi and the Democrats is simply this: When campaigning for election in 2006, Pelosi and other Democrats used "high gas prices" as a campaign issue and promised to bring gas prices down...which is true...and then prices have continued to go up since 2006...which is also true.

    Now, forgetting the blame game...as I said I make no attempt to justify any finger pointing... Chaffetz' point that Democrats made it an issue and promised to being prices down only to be followed by the prices going up IS a valid point to make against Democrats as not being part of the solution...yes?

    4b) And by the way, Chaffetz won the Utah Republican Primary by blasting incumbent Republicans as not being part of the solution as well. You have to give him a point for at least blaming BOTH parties incumbent members rather than just one party...yes?

    Thanks!

    Frank
    www.ourcaucus.com

    ReplyDelete
  2. Wow! Quite a lengthy reply! Thanks for being so active in your cause.

    I'll throw one thing out first: I actually admire Chaffet's zeal, as well as his victory over apathetic Party tool Chris Cannon, who was used to getting elected as a matter of course. I'm quite libertarian and like Chaffetz's ability to get people involved in politics even in a one-party state like Utah. He has an indie sensibility that politics needs more of.

    So the focus of my post was that white-washing history and trying to pin the tail on your enemy is rarely beneficial to the country. My focus was McCain but I included Chaffet's statement as evidence of a trend (we'll get to that later).

    But I often play Devil's advocate on my blog, so you can bet that phrases like "Pants-On-Head Retarded" were used more for their visual quality than as a personal attack. (Though, in retrospect, the subsequent paragraph on Chaffetz seems a lot angrier than I had intended. I should steer away from politics during my afternoon workbreaks :).

    All right - point by point:

    1a) Yes, increasing domestic petroleum production will improve oil prices. One problem is that oil prices are exactly where the petroleum industry likes them; they're seeing record profit margins and nothing short of direct government interference will change that. It's arguable that Alaska features some richer deposits than other areas in the U.S., but it's sort of a red herring as more than 44 million acres have already been put under lease for oil development, an offer big petroleum has yet to take up. As of now they're drilling on only about 25 percent of their leaseable land. At any rate the time it takes to build a good refinery makes the "short term" part of the question moot to some extent (see 2a of course).

    1b)Absolutely. As a matter of personal survival I'm willing to permit a bit of economic inefficiency to avoid directly supporting despotic regimes with strong anti-US sentiment.

    1c) Again, energy is one of the few things in which I support some form of isolationism (food and medicine are two others). Not allowing other nations to dictate whether we run smoothly is a good thing.

    1d) Yes! I'm enthusiastic about alternative fuel sources; a nice extension of 1c would be if individuals could remain independent in their own energy needs, using solar- or water-powered engines. I realize that this is a long way off, and that the petroleum industry has a nasty habit of buying off anybody who starts any significant research, but the idea of kicking oil for good gets me excited (well, we'd still use it for plastic and such. . .).

    1e) The whole corn ethanol thing is a prime example of special interest groups and political expediency dictating U.S. law. I think it's a shame that so many politicians have fallen for it.

    2a) True. It's mainly government meddling. It would take years regardless, but I'm inclined to believe that perhaps some of the petroleum industry's hesitancy to start their drilling stems from the nasty way government has of mucking with the machinery, so to speak.

    3a) Well, there's a really nasty, unintuitive chart that details the habits of monopolies. In a nutshell, monopolies tend toward lower quantities and higher prices, leading to a surplus of consumer demand and a whole bunch of deadweight. For something with the low elasticity of oil, the industry essentially gets to dictate the quantities they will produce as well as the price.

    They're a profit-oriented business like any other, and part of the current malaise stems from the fact that they've chosen a setup that has resulted in record profits. Thus Hillary's plan to tax petroleum on its own production would have resulted merely in even higher prices.

    ---

    "Chaffetz' point that Democrats made it an issue and promised to being prices down only to be followed by the prices going up IS a valid point to make against Democrats as not being part of the solution...yes?"

    I spent a good hour researching this, and I think the fact that none of the news agencies who reported this have made an effort to put this statement in context stands as part of their condemnation and obsoletion.

    So, blaming Pelosi specifically for rising gas prices would have been short-sighted, but it would be valid to point out using the Speaker as an example that neither party is fulfilling their pledge to "lower gas prices". Still, the statement that "there's no doubt that Democrats are the problem" shows a bit of short-sightedness and party rhetoric.

    Of course, I happen to feel that the hordes of left-wingers (and right-wingers) merely blaming Bush for the problem are misguided as well, but we can only hope for a world where people analyze the data and make conclusions rather than pointing fingers.)

    Hey - Chaffetz is an exciting political figure who has to make dozens of statements a day. I'll give him the benefit of a doubt on this one (that he was referring to broken campaign promises rather than blaming "Democrats" in general).

    "And by the way, Chaffetz won the Utah Republican Primary by blasting incumbent Republicans as not being part of the solution as well. You have to give him a point for at least blaming BOTH parties incumbent members rather than just one party...yes?"

    Yeah - I've always respected reason and impartiality in candidates. We need a return to candidates who believe in issues and fight for something they've thought long and hard about and truly believe in rather than the hordes of lip-synching goons we have now. I may disagree with Chaffetz on a few other particulars (which I won't even bring up here as that's not the point), but I don't think that somebody who takes a moral stand and stands by it could possibly hurt the country or our politics. It's hard to argue that Chaffetz hasn't done just that.

    For those of us who fall out of traditional party classifications (libertarians like me, constitutionalists like Ron Paul or independent-minded conservatives like Chaffetz), criticism is often high. Moving toward ideas can't be a bad thing :).

    ReplyDelete
  3. By the way, I recommend Frank's site (the Independence Caucus as www.ourcaucus.com) for at least a casual visit.

    There's some good stuff there, and I'd urge some of my more web-savvy, grassroots-minded readers to take up their offer for a little design volunteer work...

    ReplyDelete
  4. Clumpy!

    Thanks for the endorsement of our site.

    But have you seen it lately?

    The Bailout Tea Party has begun...and we have people signing up from all over the country.

    Take a look. We need people like you and people like those who read your blog.

    www.ourcaucus.com/teaparty.html

    ReplyDelete

Thanks for commenting - I reserve the right only to delete ads, nonsensical spam or comments indistinguishable from such.

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.