The Company You Keep

Personally, I do not care whom Barak Obama wants to associate with as long as he is not the President. A President with friends that have radical views is troublesome. Friends of the President would have access to the President and the chances for influencing the President become a real concern.

I know that personally, I have friends and then I have acquaintances. What differentiates me from Obama is that I know the difference. I do not have dealings with and avoid having to interact with some of my acquaintances. My friends however, are just that, friends. We visit and socialize together because we are friends. Lately, Obama has been trying to disassociate himself with his radical pastor Wright. It is hard to determine if the breakup of this friendship is genuine or just another political ploy. I have my suspicions about such a public discourse.

The press seems anxious to buy into the breakup without a peep of doubt. This has the effect of increasing my suspicions. Regardless of how genuine this breakup turns out, Obama seems to cultivate radical friends. Obama is reported to be friends with the Marxist radicals William Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn. I will repeat my concerns about having radical friends with the kind of access that friends will have to the President. No matter who you are, your friends do influence you. A person must be careful of the friendships he cultivates. Choosing the wrong friends and
associates can cause you grief.

Daylitesun.net has more political writings by Robert Gross. Follow the link to the Index of Articles.
daylitesun index

_Robert-

Blaming the Oil Companies

Email: Today I received an email from a friend. It was one of those chain emails meant for forwarding. The thrust of the text was that the narrator had this friend who worked at Halliburton who suggested that the way to bring gasoline prices down was to stop buying products from Exxon and Mobil gas stations. The theory was that if Exxon/Mobil were hurt badly enough that they would have to lower their gas prices.

The Blame: The thrust of the narration of this email was to suggest that the Oil Giants Exxon/Mobil had control of crude oil prices. On Exxon leases where they own the rights to the oil, their wellhead cost is probably $15.00 or less/barrel. They do make a lot of money off of those leases by selling their downstream products as if their crude prices cost whatever the market dictated. Those totally owned leases are a minority holding for Exxon/Mobil. The many foreign countries that Exxon/Mobil has to deal with also expect a share in the booty for the oil extracted from their sovereign lands and coastal areas. Wellhead cost goes up dramatically dealing with those foreign governments. One result of having to pay for the extraction of the oil in foreign lands is that the profit margin for Exxon/Mobil is small. The dollar figure is high, but they are a very large company with an unimaginably large volume of business.

Profit Margin: Suppose there were two bread makers. One hired a lot of people and made a lot of bread. The other bread maker operated a 'family' business with just his immediate family to make the bread. The bread that both produce cost the same amount of money, but the bread maker who sold the most bread made the most money. Even though they have the same profit margin, because of the volume of the first bread maker, he was able to earn more. But what a difference in value to the community that the larger bread maker makes. Many people are able to make their living from those larger bread sales, including the workforce, the vendors, and the owners. The further downstream effect was also good. The very people that made money from the bread also spent some of that money in other shops and in turn, helped those shop keepers and their employees.

Exxon/Mobil: The oil giant is like the large bread maker. There are untold thousands of ordinary people making their living from Exxon/Mobil. They include but not limited to - the drilling crews, oil field service companies, pipe manufacturers, bit manufacturers, well loggers, poor people in countries that most of you wouldn't even visit, the thousands of repair and vendor shops that service the oil industry, and refineries and all of the dependent businesses that depend on refining oil. In the downstream marketing sector of the business, there are the truckers, the filling station workers, the station owners, and the many restaurants and their employees. And Guess what? All of the people who are fortunate enough to work in the oil business in some capacity spend their earnings with all of the other businesses who employ millions.

What if: Suppose Exxon/Mobil cut their prices dramatically. It would not take long for their supplies to run short because everybody would be purchasing from them. When Exxon/Mobil supplies run low, guess what happens to the price of oil? You guessed it; the price would go higher, instead of lower. Their lower prices would encourage motorists to use the cheaper fuel and thus deplete the oil and fuel stocks in this country. When the supply is low, the prices go higher.

Remedies: If there was a way to solve the problem without compromises of some sort that solution would already be enacted. But because the remedies are not without compromises, every possible solution angers some constituency or the other. The environmentalists wield the largest club. The United States has great reserves of oil but oil companies cannot drill in most locations. We have proven energy resources in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) in Alaska, almost boundless reserves of coal, oil and gas reserves offshore Florida and California, and oil producing shale in the Rocky Mountains. These are known energy reserves that could help with the price we pay for both electricity and auto fuel. Then there is Atomic Energy. Atomic energy is clean and would free us from using millions of barrels of oil or millions of tons of coal, but again, the environmentalist will not allow it. The paranoia spread by the environmentalist garners enough public support to keep Atomic energy off the table.

The Mid-Streamers: Lastly, other than the above-mentioned remedies for cheaper energy are the speculators. These people purchase oil contracts without ever needing the first drop of oil, but insert themselves into the bidding process for the delivery contracts for oil. A good trader can make millions trading in oil contracts by driving up the settling price for those who do need the crude oil. A slight change in the way the market operates might have an effect on the bid price of oil; that change would be to require anybody who wins a contract for crude oil to have to take delivery of that oil before he can resell it. That would not deny anybody from trading in oil contracts, but would certainly bring more responsibility to that market. For the first time, these buyers would have to worry about storage, transportation, and the resale of the oil.

In Conclusion: Hurting Exxon/Mobil only hurts us. It makes a lot more sense to increase our domestic supply and crowd out those traders who do so much harm to us. Also, we must adopt atomic energy. That investment would not only help with energy costs but also with the environment.

Please leave a comment. Your opinion is important.

Curious about the Future? Check out my Science Fiction historical account of what the future will be like. Follow this link and delve into "The History of the Future"
http://www.scanfuture.net/

Why Not A National Band?

Sousa's Band in the Early 1900's

There are not many alive today that can recall the memory of John Phillip Sousa and his band coming into town. Sousa's band was inspirational to all who heard it. He played in small town parades, in schools, in concerts, and in Washington. His band was a national treasure. Everybody who heard John Phillip Sousa's band play felt that swelling of patriotic pride that filled their hearts and gave them the chill of goose bumps. The band instilled in them that sense of knowing that this is the greatest country on Earth and that they were part of it.

Sousa gave us some of our greatest marches. "The Stars and Stripes Forever", "The Washington Post", and "Semper Fidelis" are just a few of his works. We hear our patriotic marches so seldom anymore. Consider yourself lucky if you get the opportunity to hear one of our fine military bands in a parade or at a military function. Schools do not seem to have the stomach for playing patriotic songs anymore. Political correctness does not allow for an open display of patriotism. It is a sad affair.

It does not have to be this way. What I am advocating is a national band. Not just a couple of kazoos and a floogle horn, but a real band. Create a band capable of going into our cities and towns and rekindling that spark of patriotism and pride from living in the greatest nation on Earth. A band that is capable of both concerts and marching to thrill all Americans to the core. Too many of our young people have never heard a live band playing those patriotic marches that make you soar with national pride. A national band can, and should be created.

The opposition to such a band would be the Democrats. Their message is one of doom and gloom. The last thing they want to see is a show of national unity and patriotism.

I welcome your comments,
You can read more of Robert's writings at http://www.robfg.com/
Robert

Limbaugh vs. O'Reilly

Rush Limbaugh: There are no pretenses about neutrality with Rush Limbaugh. He espouses the Conservative Viewpoint, not party affiliation. Although the Republican Party is the largest of the national political parties with a conservative bent, Rush does not hesitate to passionately decry any departure from Conservatism. Reminiscent of William Buckley's articulate style of deductive reasoning, Rush drives home his point(s) using logical reasoning. He reinforces his point(s) with demonstrably accurate research.

Optimistic: Rush is never dour. His optimism and well-articulated views acts as both foil and shield for his listeners to use against the endless stream of pessimism from the left. The listening audience feeds off of Rush's optimism and humor.

Not a Crusader: Crusades are not for Rush. He believes that empowerment of the people with reason and knowledge will accomplish more than emotional tirades. Emotionalism is the tool of the left that brings together unreasoned mobs to demonstrate for causes about which they have little real understanding. Rush realizes that demonstrations are fodder for the "drive-by media" (A Rush Limbaugh coined phrase.) to exploit.

Uses Reason: Rush has painted a bull's-eye on the intellect of the American people. His decision to inform by reason rather than incite with clichés and unfounded declarations is what endears him to the millions that tune in everyday to listen.

Braggadocio: Although I find his name-dropping and bragging a bit boring, the substance of his shows overcomes these negatives. The perception of his being a person needing the center stage to brag about his acquaintances or that exclusive golf outing may be just his way of saying "I have arrived". I am certainly no psychoanalyst, but these excursions of braggadocio are so minor that overlooking them comes easy. If I were in the same position as Rush, I'm sure I would want to crow about it.

Bill O'Reilly: Bill O'Reilly is an independent commentator, adroit at fence straddling for feigning neutrality. He is a crusader for populist ideas with a real knack at ferreting out those occurrences that support his crusade du jour.

Pot Stirrer: O'Reilly puts the spotlight on the outrageous events of our society. He is the consummate pot stirrer. His research staff occasionally leaves him out on a limb without any depth of understanding about the subject he is debating. At times, he is brilliant in the one-on-ones with guest, and at other times, clearly demonstrates a lack of preparation for such encounters.

Still a Fan: That being said, I do not want to give the impression that I am not a fan of O'Reilly. Bill takes up many subjects that need airing. And for this, I give kudos to O'Reilly. Where we part company and profoundly disagree with Bill is with his declarations. Declarations based on nothing more than Bill's interpretation of "what-ought-to-be" and assume that whatever Bill O'Reilly thinks is the end of the discussion. Often his declarations are emotional and derived in part on Bill's feel for what his audience wants to hear. Bill does not make his declarations in a vacuum. He gets a lot of feedback and knows what works and what does not. This feedback gives Bill insight as to the thinking of his audience and he often shapes his delivery to play to his listeners.

Flying High: Bill O'Reilly does not have the same talent for articulating an issue when compared to a Rush Limbaugh. It is far easier to make declarations than to justify them. Bill's ratings and stature are high at Fox News. It is my belief that O'Reilly has let his importance inflate his ego. Some of the pronouncements made by Bill assume that he believes he has power beyond being a commentator. But who knows, maybe the fires he lights will actually result in helping our society.

Closing the Border

There is one major point in the 'close the border' debate that is not getting any attention. The impression that is being allowed to circulate is that of a poor Mexican peasant who just wants to make a living for his family. It is assumed that the Mexican will continue to do low-end crappy jobs that nobody else wants to do as long as he/she is in this country.
If that were true, then we would not have so many illegal immigrants in this country. The truth is that these Mexicans do not want to do these crappy jobs no more than anybody else. As soon as they can move up to a better job, they do. And when they move up to a better job, the crappy one becomes vacant again, so say hello to another illegal immigrant. It is a revolving door that is never satisfied.
We definitely need a guest worker program, but only for those jobs that are not being fulfilled by our domestic labor force. I find it both sad and incredulous that we don't seem to have the ability to set up employment centers along the border to accommodate those employers who cannot find the help they need domestically. Such a system could be set up, but there is no will to do so.
Enter politics: The Republicans don't want a legal program because they would lose their advantage of not having to pay taxes and other benefits for the worker. The Democrats see these workers as voters and want them to become citizens. The end result is nothing. What the American citizens want doesn't matter. We still get an open border for cheap labor, and registration drives for their vote. The Dems also reject the idea of a tamper-proof national I.D. card. Without some means of knowing who a voter is and his/her status as a citizen, we degrade our election process.
The revolving door at the border must be closed, and a guest worker program instituted if we are ever going to come to a solution for the labor we need. The present system of allowing the under the table economy and a constant need for more workers must be shut down.

Your comments are welcome,
Robert
I have written more on the subject. Follow the link to the index of articles you will find on my website at Daylite Sun Index