Drill For Oil; It's Good for the USA

Share

Environmentalists worry about the impact of our quest for oil as an energy resource and talk about preserving the pristine environment. I ask, to what purpose then, do you propose oil exists? To separate geological strata between which it happens to be sandwiched? Oil exists to be used.

Long ago, a great patriot challenged the Tories by admonishing them to make use of the means which the God of Nature provided them. It is a fact of religious belief that true believers know God will not do for us what we ought do ourselves. We are expected to ask him for help, do all we can, and then believe he will make up the difference.

One great tenant now lost to America but which DeToqueville praised in our pioneer spirit was the principle of self-reliance. De Toqueville pointed out that, on the cusp of civilization men were required to use their ingenuity and utilize whatever they could find for their survival. The intrepid pioneers were much akin to the native Americans, whom environmentalists usually laud, using and reusing whatever they had in new and improved ways, knowing that the Wells Fargo Wagon might not bring their Sears and Roebuck order for months or years, assuming the Indians didn’t waylay it.

Many people point to the times of trouble in America. Even now, we have hurricanes bearing down on the nation that threaten the livelihood of our citizens, while some residents of New Orleans still report languishing suffering in their own neighborhoods. Yet, we know that every year hurricanes or storms or earthquakes or floods or snows will interrupt our plans and put us at inconveniences. Between those events, there exists time aplenty in which to live providently and lay up in store, thus making proper use of the means which the God of nature provided us.

Daniel interpreted the dream of Pharaoh, telling him to store up during the seven years of plenty for seven years of subsequent famine. Egypt fed the world for almost a decade because Pharaoh hearkened to Daniel’s counsel. Proper stewardship, which allows us as masters of the planet to use her resources so long as we do not abuse them, demands that we go get the oil, and use it. The world has come to depend on the United States to provide for its needs/wants; without our efforts, most of the rest of the world will slide back into the dark ages and starve. Self-reliance, not self-abasement, is the policy that will bring about the destruction of the powers of darkness, the renovation of the earth, the glory of God, and the salvation of the human family(citation).

Besides, if we disarm ourselves by taking ourselves off of oil as a means to save the planet, neighboring nations that envy our power and success will take advantage of the opportunity. China or Russia would love to capitalize on our weakness, conquer our lands, enslave our people, and expend our resources for the aggrandizement of empire, and they won’t care how much they pollute or how many it kills, because this is not their homeland.

If America wishes to be free, she must continue fueling the fires of freedom with fossil fuels.

Modern Heretics

Share

I am the modern heretic. I do not shop at Whole Foods, Abercrombie and Fitch or Honda. I have never smoked, drank, or done any drugs. I drive the speed limit and pay my taxes. I am holding out for the right woman despite my desire for physical intimacy. I read Locke, Montesquie, and Voltaire and play the guitar at night instead of watching House, Lost and the Simpsons. I ignore the corrupt document of the establishment.

I do not buy their premise because God gave me a mind with which to think and my parents taught me how to use it. I think I am one of the only true scientists on the globe. I admit my own ignorance, and I seek to cure it, but not by spending my way to sainthood in modern society.

Budget Surpluses

Share

I grow weary of hearing about Bill Clinton's "budget surpluses" that George W. Bush supposedly squandered. When was the last time you remember the federal government collecting more money than it spent? It last happened during the Jefferson administration. That's why we have budget deficits and the budget deficit clock. The government always has to borrow money.

During Kenny Guinn's last term as governor of Nevada, however, we saw what would happen if there actually were a surplus. Guinn gave money back to the people, in the form of a DMV registration rebate. Mine totaled about $75, which basically paid the registration that year of one of my vehicles.

Bill Clinton's budget assumed no changes in revenues or expenditures into the future, which is absolute foolishness. Government, like entropy, always increases unless acted upon purposely by an outside force. Add unexpected disasters like fires, floods and hurricanes to costs of combat in Kosovo and Somalia, and the fact that Clinton expanded every welfare program, and it was not possible for there to ever be a budget surplus under the Clinton administration.

Without spending cuts, real cuts, not decreases in expansion from 11% requested by an agency to 4% increase allowed by the Bush administration, budget surpluses remain outside the realm of possibility. If there were any, the only honorable thing for a leader to do would be to pay down the excess debt incurred by his predecessors or refund the money equally to all taxpayers from whom government stole it.

Clinton was a liar then. He remains a liar now.

Stay on Target

Share

I hate listening and talking to liberals, because they never answer my questions. They use verbal techniques and logical fallacies to answer by not answering and take control of the situation.

I hate the phrases they use. If “everybody knows”, why don’t I? For that matter, why are we even discussing it if it’s so obvious? Clear condescension shines through in that false premise.

Liberals are very adept at the false premise. They say things as if it’s a foregone conclusion, as if everyone knows, without ever providing evidence. Much as I dislike Ross Perot, at least he came prepared with pie charts. They are the teachers to whom I used to complain and ask them to cite their source. I try, in this blog and in everything I write, to show where things come from, to show that the ideas are not some fly-by-night delusion of mine and backed up with someone possessed of credentials to comment on the topic.

Liberals love logical fallacy. George Bush was president on 9-11, therefore via ad hoc, the terrorist attack was his fault or as a response to his presidency. George Bush is the president, therefore he’s responsible for gas prices rising. Nevermind that Bill Clinton was the president not nine months prior to the terrorist attack, which was well-planned and not spur of the moment or that Democrats control Congress. Things that occur together are not always causative or resultant; sometimes they just happen to occur and are not related, even if they will be because they coexist.

Finally, liberals always divert conversation to a new topic. They answer the question they wish was asked if they answer a question at all, but usually they simply launch into some tirade of talking points orchestrated to dull our minds and senses. When they ask me questions, they usually don’t care what I think or why, they’re looking for something from which to launch another question. They don’t listen, and when they speak, they say very little of use or substance.

Unfortunately, this seems to be something many folks do. I rub people wrong a lot by speaking my mind and being upfront. I figure I save time and effort being upfront and honest with people, and my friends usually appreciate it, even when it upsets them. Plus, it does not seem helpful to politicians to be on the “straight talk express”, since everyone who promises that speaks in circles.

Sanctuary Cities

Share

All over the United States, there exist a series of cities where mayors and governors welcome refugees and offer sanctuary. By and large, these cities attract lawbreakers, usurpers, and the rabble by which tyrants gain power (directly through force of their arms or indirectly by making villains of them). The cities welcome illegal aliens or those fleeing the jurisdiction in which they commit a crime, and there’s not a damn thing we can do about it.

Every refuge for the righteous is eventually encroached upon. My ancestors fled persecution for their religion, first to Plymouth and then to Deseret Territory. As they became prosperous, other people grew jealous thereof and attempted to lord over them. Sanctuary cities however serve as gathering grounds for the jealous, from which they can launch their campaigns to conquer the profitable and put them into bondage and then glut themselves from our labors. The denizens of such cities are and idle people, full of mischief and subtlety, who believe they were wronged by people they’ve never met and deserve exigent mercy their acts notwithstanding. CS Lewis said on his radio broadcast that “what you are comes through in what you do”, and they show themselves by their defiance of our law as the enemies of civilization.

Offering a sanctuary for lawbreakers undermines the premise of right and the rule of law. A society without law cannot endure, for it undermines all the purpose for society. Said Thomas Paine, “Society is created by our wants, government by our wickedness…for were the impulses of conscience clear, uniform and irresistibly obeyed, mankind would need no other lawgiver.” The fact of the matter is that people do NOT listen to themselves, and sometimes they won’t even fear the law.

People who defy the law run away from themselves. They really want to escape consequences, which is contrary to all the laws of the physical world and to the demands of justice on the universe at large. Said an ancient prophet: And if ye shall say there is no law, ye shall also say there is no sin. If ye shall say there is no sin, ye shall also say there is no righteousness. And if there be no righteousness there be no happiness. And if there be no righteousness nor happiness there be no punishment nor misery. And if these things are not there is no God. And if there is no God we are not, neither the earth; for there could have been no creation of things, neither to act nor to be acted upon; wherefore, all things must have vanished away.

Without law, what is the point?

Santuary cities therefore eliminate all reason and rationale for a civilized society and for the advent of men. They constitute a part of a greater plot to reduce mankind to the level of the Austrelopithecine, so that the few who tell us it’s for our own good may lord over us and use us as their beasts of burden. As they tell us to rage against the machine, remember that it is the law which gives us what we know. If we remove the law, we change the equation, and then it will be the end of the world as we know it.

Held in Reserve

Share

The Democrats keep touting release of oil from the strategic oil reserve as a way to alleviate higher prices at the pump. The fact of the matter is that if that will solve the problem, why won’t it help if we drill for more? This seems like a simple issue of supply and demand, whereby if they increase supply by releasing that oil, prices might fall. However, with nothing to replace it that will no longer work as a strategy, so any relief it has will be temporary and minute.

America keeps a strategic oil reserve so that if, God forbid, the flow of oil from overseas suddenly stopped, we could still defend the nation for about a week. Tanks and planes cannot and will not in the foreseeable future run on any other fuel. If you rob the military of that fuel supply, how will they defend the nation?

How is it strategic to release it to the general populace? Senator Obama and Representative Pelosi show their ignorance and incompetence by endorsing this policy. The general populace does so many things that do nothing of strategic value to the nation. It is not strategic for us to pick up dry cleaning, pop into a club, grab a six-pack, work out, hit starbucks, rob a bank, drive to work, etc.

If more oil will lower price, let us drill. That will last a lot longer than a week anyway.

Hear and Heed the Call

Share

My best friend asked me the other day why I thought most folks don’t support the military more than they ought and more than they have. Beyond the fact that we’re currently at war and that Americans grow war-weary even though they want to win, I think it comes down to emotions. Most of the folks with whom I interact who disprove of the war or of my entering war do so for one of two reasons. Either they fear losing someone for whom they care or they place self over all else.

I understand their fear. I remember thinking at twelve that I might not see my father again when he went to war. People surrender control of themselves and their reason to fear. Fearful Americans prefer not to lose something they love, whether it be the soldier himself or to be forced away from the comfort of their familiar surroundings through a PCS in the military. Military life is not easy- you do sign a contract that governs more of your life than other vocational arrangements. If you are of the disposition that wants to control all the minutia, military life is not for you, but it does not mean that you should dissuade someone else from making that choice because you happen to disagree. This tendency focuses priority on self instead of on neighbors, which is contrary to happiness and to the faith of our fathers.

Sometimes, the reservations go beyond fear to outright selfishness and focus completely on self, and so military service constitutes an inconvenience to the type of life they imagine up to themselves. Ironically enough, most people don’t live the idyllic lives they envisioned, so this argument is actually completely moot. Not to be outdone, however, this group does not want to trade immediate safety and security for a greater degree of putative future freedom and opportunity.

By and large, in my experience those who resent a man’s decision to go to war have ulterior motives. Such opposition constitutes naught but a means to make one feel guilty, as they project their own selfishness. They tell me, “If you do that, I’ll never see you again,” trying to manipulate me into do that which they think is best for them, regardless of what value the options are to me. I understand the fear of losing a family member, of losing someone you love; my father went to Iraq in 1991 and flew combat missions over Baghdad. However, if the enemy comes here, and God forbid beats us, there is nothing left to prevent the wanton and random loss of any family member. Ask the Jews of Europe (or read Harry Mulisch’s The Assault). They view the world through rose-colored glasses and hope for a peaceful panacea that will not necessitate sacrifice, hoping that the dire events predicted may not happen in their time. Nothing great was ever won without sacrifice.

During the Great War and then the Second World War, men in uniform constituted a desired and desirable class. This trend extends through all novels of the romantic era and all romantic novels of the modern era (Jane Austen’s Pride and Prejudice, or The Notebook for example where the targets of affection are often redcoats and turncoats). Truth be told, you have no greater statistical risk of dying in combat than of dying today on your commute home from work by a bee sting, drunk driver, aestheroschlerosis, ad infinitum.

I ask all of those who despise our soldiers to rise above our love for contentment and ease and remember that good lives are not those where every wish is fulfilled and we live in ignoble ease. Good lives are those that pursue noble ideals. Said Theodore Roosevelt: “When men fear work or fear righteous war, when women fear motherhood, they tremble on the brink of doom; and well it is that they should vanish from the earth, where they are fit subjects for the scorn of all men and women who are themselves strong and brave and highminded.” Be not weary in well-doing, for without the selfless sacrifice of our forbearers to wit, none of us would enjoy the life we do today.

Not Worth the Weight

Share

When I decided in earnest to join the military two years ago, I knew I needed to get into better shape. Much as I loathe jogging, knowing it to be my weakness and an integral part of the military fitness battery, I started a rigorous exercise program that, despite the holiday season and extensive vacations that June, brought me down over 20 pounds in seven months. All this I accomplished while still indulging in garbage food (donuts, M&Ms, etc.) and building up muscle mass underneath. By the time the date arrived at which I would have reported for training, I could pass the test, despite being in piss-poor shape the year before. It took a while and some sacrifices, but less than I thought once I started a concerted effort to reach my goal.

Our politicians tell us that even if we start drilling it will take too long to bring the commodity to market. The cars people bought yesterday will be on the road for the next 15 years. As such, even if we switched perfectly to alternative fuels, we need that fuel now for decades because regular Americans cannot afford to go out and replace their vehicles. No matter how big of a deal you get, with rare exception, everyone is upside-down in their cars and owe more than they’re worth, so frugal folks like myself are disinclined to incur a car payment when there’s oil to be drilled, refined, and brought to market.

My father recently thought about getting a small sedan to alleviate the gas expense occasioned by the Suburban he drives. After valuation of the payment, assuming he could not pay it off with cash on hand, and the extra insurance expense, he decided it would cost MORE to do that than continue to drive the Suburban. His Suburban is well-cared for but only worth about $4000 if he could sell it in this market, but it’s worth a lot more than that to him since it gets him to work, tows his boat and jet-skis, and means he need not buy a newer vehicle and incur a monthly accounts payable to the tune of hundreds of dollars.

As you may be able to tell, I am not a member of the military. In the end, I have been temporarily restricted from applying for an unrelated matter. Do I regret all the running, cycling, and swimming? No. I feel really good about myself, and I’m arguably in the best physical shape of my life. Staying the way I was wasn’t worth the weight. Yet Congress insists that leaving things as they are is the wave of the future. They continue to look to the future without considering the opportunities of the present. While I look forward to something else, I consider the cost. Getting in shape for the military cost me six hours per week of exercise and a lot of food I really wanted to eat. What will be the cost of “eco-friendly” fuel? I don’t think it will be worth the wait.

Yes or No Will Do

Share

As I listen to famous media commentators and hold my own conversations, I come across a disturbing and irritating trend. Unfortunately, much as I would like to accuse liberals as having a monopoly on the subject, in general the people in the know upon whom we depend for the straight story refrain from answering the questions.

Politicians never answer questions where they know they are wrong. They either deflect the question and change the subject or they answer the question they WISH they were asked and take the opportunity to pontificate on whatever their pet topic happens to be. Even Senator John Ensign (R-NV) when I ask him straight questions sometimes dodges the broader issue, much as I like him.

When taken below in Jabba’s Palace and asked, “You are a protocol droid are you not?”, C-3PO begins a tirade on his qualifications and expertise. The asker stops him short and says, “Yes or no will do”. Ditto.

I don’t need a bunch of excuses or reasons. I trust their judgment, although perhaps I shouldn’t. I need to know what they will do and what they believe so that I can make a reasoned argument for MY position and dispel their concerns/reservations. However, I think they want to be all things to all people; Barack Obama certainly does. Tell me where you stand or get out of my way.

Upside Down in Our Assets

Share

Last night, I talked with my dad about the current mortgage crisis and how many people owe more on their homes than they could sell them for. He pointed out that almost everyone is upside down in their car, so this should come as no surprise for folks. However, this morning I read an article about the value of small cars, where the author predicated his point of view on the Edmunds/Bluebook valuation of his car. Cars are not assets; they are tools. I posted the following in rebuttal:

Bluebook value is only one way to value a car, and for my own part the least useful.

Seeing as how I never plan on trading in a car since I usually drive them into the ground, my 1995 Saturn SL1 is fully depreciated to where it’s of negligible monetary value as a resale or tradein. However, compared to other cars, it has great value to me.

I’ve owned the car outright for years, meaning that I do not make regular obligatory payments every month. While it may cost me $200/month here and there in repairs, every month I don’t expend money in repairs is money in my pocket. Even with a new(er) car, periodic repairs and maintenance are often not factored in to cost of ownership or relative residual value compared to new.

My car nets me a whopping 40mpg fuel economy. In order to match that, I’d have to spend $20K on a new car to replace it. To beat that economy, I’d have to spend thousands more.

As my Saturn is fully depreciated, I pay the absolute minimum registration ($40/year in NV) and my insurance costs are also low, since even if I did wreck the thing it’s not worth very much. I have full coverage because it only costs me $5/month more and replacing the windshield (which I’ve done three times) costs $400-500 (very poor design).

I do my own car maintenance, and given that there are 20 Saturns at PickNPull, I have plenty to choose from when I need replacement parts. Plus, the modular nature of this particular model means replacement parts should be available until I retire from the military.

Finally, but not least, my car is ugly. You may not see that as an asset, but I do. Nobody wants to ding or dent it, and it has enough of those already that I don’t stress out if someone scratches it like I did with my Dodge Ram (sold it years ago). I am also proud of my passive anti-theft device: manual transmission, AMFM Stereo Cassette, manual windows, doors, etc., and peeling paint. The car is simple to repair, easy to operate and cheap to own, and I don’t feel bad about the environment either with 40MPG, although I think that argument relies mostly on conjecture than anything else.

Almost everyone is bottom up in their car. Remember that as you hear about people who are bottom up in their homes. The best you can do, unless your car is a 1942 Rolls Royce Phantom II or similar collectible, is break even.