Addicts (and pushers) have no shame

[Malone LaVeigh]

Published on Sunday, January 26, 2003 by the Observer/UK
US Buys Up Iraqi Oil to Stave Off Crisis
Seizing reserves will be an allied priority if forces go in
by Faisal Islam and Nick Paton Walsh in Moscow


Facing its most chronic shortage in oil stocks for 27 years, the US has this month turned to an unlikely source of help - Iraq.

Weeks before a prospective invasion of Iraq, the oil-rich state has doubled its exports of oil to America, helping US refineries cope with a debilitating strike in Venezuela.

After the loss of 1.5 million barrels per day of Venezuelan production in December the oil price rocketed, and the scarcity of reserves threatened to do permanent damage to the US oil refinery and transport infrastructure. To keep the pipelines flowing, President Bush stopped adding to the 700m barrel strategic reserve.

But ultimately oil giants such as Chevron, Exxon, BP and Shell saved the day by doubling imports from Iraq from 0.5m barrels in November to over 1m barrels per day to solve the problem. Essentially, US importers diverted 0.5m barrels of Iraqi oil per day heading for Europe and Asia to save the American oil infrastructure.

The trade, though bizarre given current Pentagon plans to launch around 300 cruise missiles a day on Iraq, is legal under the terms of UN's oil for food program. <MORE>

I think it was Lenin who said, "Capitalists will sell you the rope you use to hang them." Someone ought to tell Saddam.

 

[PATH]

You just can't make this stuff up/ It just gets curiouser and curiouser with each passing day!

 

[T.Stahl]

Essentially, US importers diverted 0.5m barrels of Iraqi oil per day heading for Europe and Asia to save the American oil infrastructure.

Thank you! Now I know why gas prices will rise in Europe.

 

[Rangerover]

I think it was Lenin who said, "Capitalists will sell you the rope you use to hang them." Someone ought to tell Saddam.

Yeah. If the world had followed Mr. Lenin's advice more closely we'd all be, "Drinkin' that free bubble-ubb and eatin' that rainbow stew", now wouldn't we comrades?

 

[Sean Smith]

Published on Sunday, January 26, 2003 by the Observer/UK
...
by Faisal Islam and Nick Paton Walsh in Moscow

Three words: consider the source.

 

[Marko Kloos]

Thank you! Now I know why gas prices will rise in Europe.

The reason why you pay three times as much for gas as we do is the fact that your government sees it fit to put a 300% tax on gasoline products, and then collects VAT on the sale of the already taxed gas.

But hey, someone's got to fund all that "free" education, and provide for the Sozialhilfe crowd. (Neat bumper sticker seen here: "If you think health care is expensive now, wait until it's free.")

I sympathize with you...thankfully I only have to pony up a fifty to fill my tank every once in a while when I visit the family. I still remember the holes left in my wallet from filling up my 323i when I was a young Unteroffizier. My next car after the BMW was a Citroen 2CV...lousy performance, but a huge monetary relief.

 

[jmbg29]

Yeah. If the world had followed Mr. Lenin's advice more closely we'd all be, "Drinkin' that free bubble-ubb and eatin' that rainbow stew", now wouldn't we comrades?

Mmmm...stew!

Sandi who?

 

[T.Stahl]

Yeah Lendringser, I know. Actually it's even triple taxation, mineral oil tax plus ecology tax times VAT.

My next car will be an 3-litre Audi A2. No, three litre consumption per 100km, not displacement.


But nevertheless, gas prices do rise when the US government buys more fuel off the European market in Rotterdam to keep the gas prices low in the states.

 

[Standing Wolf]

Obvious solution: drill A.N.W.R.

 

[Malone LaVeigh]

Obvious solution: drill A.N.W.R

Obvious solution for drug addicts: Find some place to get more stuff...

 

[gburner]

From one junkie to another...

Malone,

While you have that clear view from high atop your soapbox, why not look around your own domicile and note the myriad products that you consume that are brought to you courtesy of your local petro-chemical pusher. Eliminate all of those and you'd be geekin' like a $200
a day doper that's $175 short. Pots and kettles are both black, my brother.

 

[Malone LaVeigh]

Ho hum. Another "straw man" attack. We went over all this back on TFL. I'm talking about national policy. You're attacking me because I may (you really don't know anything about my lifestyle) not live like a monk in a cave.

We have a looming energy problem based on our over-consumption of fossil fuel. Along with a host of other social, economic, environmental and geo-political problems. Solutions that rely on increasing supply, especially piddly increases like that projected for ANWR, don't move us in the direction we're going to need to go sooner or later anyway.

 

[gburner]

Attack?

Malone,

I certainly did not mean to attack you
and regret that you took it that way.
I was (apparently lamely) attempting to humorously point out that ALL of us are responsible for this problem, not some nebulous entity that we can rail at. Nor did I suggest that you should live in a cave. Over 40 % of every barrel of oil imported into the US is made into gasoline. What kind of vehicle do you drive? Do you keep your tires properly inflated? Do you walk or use a bicycle for short trips? Do you use public transportation? Is your house energy efficient. Do you recycle your petroleum based plastic trash? Do you turn off lights and appliances when not at home?

This is not a straw man arguement. You, me and everyone else here are Mr. and Ms. Average American and we consume energy at an enormous rate. Just like you can't blame McDonalds if you're obese, you can't blame the governmnt if you're strung out on high octane or the amazing utility of plastic. You can be a junkie, blame your dealer, the man, society, the government or whatever OR
you can show some self control, reliance and discipline. Wean yourself of that which you are addicted. Encourage and assist others to do the same. Demand alternatives to the perto enslavement from which we all suffer. We can do it,
brotherman.

Now, let's brew up some decaf, sing a little Kumbaya and wash some of the panes in that glass house of yours.

 

[Cal4D4]

Where oh where shall we go Mr. LaVeigh? Fission gives us some very nasty leftovers. Burn alcohol and you have a problem with net energy production and an embarrassing load of aldehydes in the environment. Fusion is promising, but will helium be the next pollutant? A goodly chunk of my state was developed around mobility. A huge chunk of our national industries is based on petroleum as a starting point or energy source. All the alternative sources together and a huge dose of minimalistic living may meet our current needs, but let's start by shutting down most of the entertainment industry. Most electronic items require tremendous fossil fuel either in the starting materials or in the production processes. Zap all Fed and state fact finding junkets, Congresspeople can telecommute from their home states, eliminate energy waste and fraud in all levels of the gov. Redesign all states so they don't rely on roadways. From now on it's Old Dobbin and the apple cart for local travel, a fine sailing schooner for longer passages. Return to the age where all goods are locally produced and local mineral deficiencies can't be balanced by imported foods.
Give us a meaningful solution.

 

[jmbg29]

Obvious solution for drug addicts: Find some place to get more stuff...

You are assuming that everyone will go along with the "addict" analogy.

Most thinking people reject it wholeheartedly. Life on Earth requires energy. Get over it. We aren't going back to rubbing sticks together to make a fire for warmth. Not now, not a billion years from now. We are purchasing a commodity that is no different than any other energy commodity. Big deal.

Sniveling about oil isn't going to change a thing. Humans are on the threshhold of passing from the Space/Computer Age into the Hydrogen Energy/Robotics/AI Age. Fuel cells, Sterling engines, nano-technologies and micro-processors to run damn near everything are already here.

Join the rest of us if you wish, or not. Stay stuck in the hand-wringing, sky's falling, we'realldoomed 1960s for all I care.

Curious how the watermelons (green on the outside, red on the inside) and the death-cult nuts both pine for barbaric days that will - thank God - NEVER come again. One group laments that we aren't all stoned in a treehouse somewhere, and the other group of animals simply wants to stone us. Twin sons of different mothers I guess.

If the happy little hipster tree-huggers spent one 10th of the energy they expend boohoohooing all day long, on inventing practical alternatives, we would have had SUVs that run on doughnut holes by now.

Instead, every day is filled with doom and gloom.

BTW, how do you know that our sole purpose in the universe isn't to put all of that carbon back up in the atmosphere where it belongs? Could be just as plausible as anything else.

Then again, without the "using oil is the end of us all" mantra, the left would be stuck with having to recognize their philosophy for what it is, raw, unadulterated, envy and jealousy.

 

[Marko Kloos]

jmbg29 nailed it. The eco-fascists are no more pro-environment than the animal-rights radicals are pro-animal. (You know the kind...the ones that see nothing wrong with harming a hunter to prevent them from killing a deer.)

The main motivator for both of these groups is not the love of animals or the environment, but the hatred of people. To both groups, humanity is a cancer and a parasite of this planet. Their chosen groups only let them inflict harm on other people in a socially acceptable manner.

When we run out of oil, the same thing will happen as when we ran out of whale oil in the 1800s: not a damn thing. We will have switched to an alternative energy source.

P.J. O'Rourke sums it up pretty well:

"We're told cars are wasteful. Wasteful of what? Oil did a lot of good sitting in the ground for millions of years. We're told cars should be replaced with mass transportation. But it's hard to reach the drive through window at McDonald's from a speeding train. And we're told cars cause pollution. A hundred years ago city streets were ankle deep in horse excrement. What kind of pollution do you want? Would you rather die of cancer at eighty or typhoid fever at nine?"

 

[Master Blaster]

The best you can do is try to be energy conscious ane efficient, without giving up the creature comforts.

Me, I buy only energy star rated appliances for my home, washer, dryer, dishwasher, water heater, furnace, this makes sense economically because these appliances pay for themselves in energy and water savings over time, but they do cost more up front.

We use flourescent lights in all of our fixtures where possible. I try to buy efficient vehicles that still meet the needs of a family of four. We recycle anything possible like .45 acp, 9mm, .357 mag .38spl, and .32 acp brass. glass, paper, cans, etc


I ride public transit whenever possible (R2 for 11 years everyday when I worked in Philadelphia)

I teach my children to do the same.

If everyone did this we would be less dependent on foreign oil, and less damaging to the environment.

I believe in doing it myself rather than waiting for the Government to force me.

Many folks do not share my view though

 

[David Park]

As has been stated, we need energy for our society to function. We use oil as our primary energy source because it's cheap and plentiful, at least compared to other sources. Liberals try to alter this reality, by making oil less cheap (through taxes) and less plentiful (through bans on drilling). However, the free market will always find a way around artificial roadblocks, which leads to the seeming absurdity of buying oil from Iraq even as we plan an invasion. Guess what: even if the silly "oil for food" program didn't exist, we'd still be buying their oil, because the free market includes the black market, and sanctions are just another artificial roadblock. In short:

liberal --> :banghead: <-- free market

 

[CZ-75]

Malone,

I certainly did not mean to attack you
and regret that you took it that way.

Forget it. He's playing the victim card as a red herring to divert attention from the deficiencies of his argument. Since we know nothing about the guy other than he lives in Kali, leans left, owns a gun, and studies runoff for a living (presume a public sector job), we don't have sufficient information to knock him off his soap box when he preaches to us about how we should adopt some eco-ascetic lifestyle.

Simple, yet unpopular, solution to the dilema of pollution and diminishing resources is to promote birth control. Why should everyone live like a dog so we can feed tens of millions of new resource hungry, waste-producing mouths each year?

All prosperous countries have low birth rates, as makes sense since land, food, resources are finite. Technology may push the envelope, but there may be decades of stagnation to consider until the next new development comes along.

Those on the left seem to neglect broaching the topic, probably since it means fewer uninformed voters to buy with packs of cigarettes come next election. They'd rather bitch about widespread poverty and suffering that only they can fix through reallocation of resources from those who have them already.

Doom and Gloom 101. Ad infinitum, ad nauseum.

 

[Figmo]

Word of wisdom from from Bill Whittle at:

http://www.ejectejecteject.com/

"To say this war is all about oil is factually identical to saying that this war is all about maintaining our society and lifestyle. If that is not worth fighting for, what is? One may find that offensive ideologically, but my experience with the people who have SPLIT WOOD NOT ATOMS on their bumper stickers have actually split very little wood in their lives. If one feels deeply about NO BLOOD FOR OIL, you must either drive a solar-powered electric car, ride a horse or a bicycle, or walk. You must remove your home from the city power grid. You must discard all plastic items. You must also abandon television, radios and movies, all of which rely on electricity generated by oil. You must forgo modern medicine, surgery and dentistry, likewise driven by oil-fired electricity at many stages. You must grow your own food.

Do all of these things, and you will have my frank admiration for your dedication to a moral cause. Do anything less and you are a hypocrite mouthing an easy lie in an attempt to strike a pose of moral superiority."

 

[Malone LaVeigh]

I'm going to try to respond to all in order:

Malone,

I certainly did not mean to attack you and regret that you took it that way.

My mistake. The word "attack" was the product of a rushed reply.

What kind of vehicle do you drive? Do you keep your tires properly inflated? Do you walk or use a bicycle for short trips? Do you use public transportation? Is your house energy efficient. Do you recycle your petroleum based plastic trash? Do you turn off lights and appliances when not at home?

I actually would answer pretty well to most of those, though I know no one's really interested. Of course there's more I could do. My point was that there is much more that can be done on a national policy level to make it much more probable that the outcomes we need to have happen will in fact happen. Hoping everyone will voluntarily "do the right thing" (which at least you and a select few around here recognize) displays a lack of understanding of basic market microeconomics. There is no incentive to conserve energy. It's just too darned inexpensive from the individual perspective. (That doesn't mean it's actually inexpensive. We pay an arm and a leg for the stuff in taxes to support our military, for instance, but that could take us off in a whole other direction.)

Where oh where shall we go Mr. LaVeigh? ...

You're right, there are a lot of technical problems with finding viable alternatives. Unfortunately, right now, there are no efforts underway to find those alternatives. This country thought it was worth while to make a massive effort to put a man on the moon, but for some reason feels that it's better to go to war than to put some effort into developing alternatives.

You are assuming that everyone will go along with the "addict" analogy.

Only the intelligent ones.

Life on Earth requires energy. Get over it. We aren't going back to rubbing sticks together to make a fire for warmth.

gburner has a "straw man" retort that belongs to you. If I thought it would get past your knee-jerk reaction, I'd bother to reply.

Sniveling about oil isn't going to change a thing. Humans are on the threshhold of passing from the Space/Computer Age into the Hydrogen Energy/Robotics/AI Age. Fuel cells, Sterling engines, nano-technologies and micro-processors to run damn near everything are already here.

Apparently there's still a lot of money to be made by some of the pretlzledent's friends if we have a small war. BTW, you sound just like Timothy Leary in his latter days...

Curious how the watermelons (green on the outside, red on the inside)

Uh-hyuck! See "knee-jerk" comment above.

Then again, without the "using oil is the end of us all" mantra, the left would be stuck with having to recognize their philosophy for what it is, raw, unadulterated, envy and jealousy.

...and if you didn't have "the left" to blame for everything, you'd probably be ranting about space aliens.

The eco-fascists are no more pro-environment than the animal-rights radicals are pro-animal.

See above. You guys would be more entertaining if you did blame everything on aliens...

The best you can do is try to be energy conscious ane efficient, without giving up the creature comforts.

Me, I ...

Good on ya. Now I'd like to see things set up to reward good behavior instead of punishing it.

Now the chorus cries, Malone! You socialist! Why should the government have a hand? Answer: It already does. Our friend here will have to pay for GW's war just like you SUV drivers. When my taxes are spent to widen freeways and put in interchanges, it doesn't matter if I drive or not. And the gas tax just pays a fraction, so don't go there.

As has been stated, we need energy for our society to function. We use oil as our primary energy source because it's cheap and plentiful, at least compared to other sources.

The only problem being that the energy market isn’t free. I, for one, would be happy if the end users of energy really paid the whole price at the pump. Unfortunately some of the prices are a little hard to fix, such as air pollution, etc.

Liberals try to alter this reality, by making oil less cheap (through taxes) and less plentiful (through bans on drilling).

Liberals want to fix the symptoms without addressing the root causes. It’s better than nothing…

Since we know nothing about the guy other than he lives in Kali [yes], leans left [how little you know…], owns a gun [or two…], and studies runoff for a living (presume a public sector job) [that’s a passable approximation], we don't have sufficient information to knock him off his soap box when he preaches to us about how we should adopt some eco-ascetic lifestyle.

Yo! When did I say anything about adopting any kind of lifestyle? You want any cheese with that whine?

All prosperous countries have low birth rates, as makes sense since land, food, resources are finite.

You socialist, you. Julian Simon would give you a big spanking… Why, the next thing you’ll say is some nonsense about “limits to growth.â€

Those on the left seem to neglect broaching the topic, probably since it means fewer uninformed voters to buy with packs of cigarettes come next election.

Leftists like Paul Ehrlich, Garret Hardin, Dave Brower, Ed Abbey…

 

[jmbg29]

...and if you didn't have "the left" to blame for everything, you'd probably be ranting about space aliens.

No. What I would be left with is a world with people that would mind their own business rather than want to steal other's money because they have "too much".

I would be left with a world that had people in it that figure that they should look after their own first; then having done that, give of their time and their charity to help others second rather than hold the gun of the state to the heads of those that they deem worthy of being robbed.

You know the cowards that I mean. They hide behind terms like "social justice" in order to rationalize their mob rule mentality.

Without them, just the simple things in life would be left.

FWIW the American socialists are little more than an annoyance. They enjoy their S.U.V.s and their TVs and their microwaves enough that they do little more than seek recognition for the lip-service that they give to whatever fruitcake "issue" they think will catch on that week.

Hey! Hey! Ho! Ho! Fruitcake Idea has got to go, stay, come back later... whatever.
Street performance, giant puppets, bullhorns, placards, blahblahblah....

Try though they might, they will never really do much more than moan on the sidelines. Well, that and come up with things like suing gun companies because their guns fire when the trigger is pulled, or dragging their fat- ed kids into court and blaming the McDonalds corporation for the ton and a half of lard in the kid's pants. Giving us all the bill with out-of-control insurance/business/court costs, etc.

You know, the little things that make everybody's life so much better.

As for the real leftists? Well, everybody knows that the only good commie is a dead one.

Sandi who?

 

[Drjones]

Liberals want to fix the symptoms without addressing the root causes. It’s better than nothing…

You mean like how most liberals consider gun crime to be a "symptom" and they react by banning guns?

 

[Mute]

Ah yes! Mr. Holier Than Thou speaks again. What "community standard" are we peddling this time? Let's just do away with the Constitution and install a dictatorship that fills your bill. That should resolve all this country's problems and wrong-doings won't it?

Just what makes your ideas to limit other people's actions, right and moral, while other people doing the same thing should be considered despotic and an infringement.

You have the luxury of living in California with a large number of people who believes as you do. Move to Texas and see how it feels to be in the minority. Let's see how you deal with "community standards" then.

 

[TexasVet]

We have a looming energy problem based on our over-consumption of fossil fuel.

Liberal lie number 203,856.

If you think that we will be using oil for fuel in another 50 years, you are a technological illiterate. The fossil fuel (as FUEL) era is going to be the shortest single energy era in history. Just like the "dangerous, oh my god, what are we gonna do with all that" reactor waste.
There is enough oil to last 200 years at a MINIMUM now at the projected rate of increase in use. This of course totally ignores the rate of advancement in technology. We will be using hydrogen in twenty years as the MAIN source of fuel. Enough of that to last, what, a billion years? And 20 years after that, something that hasn't even been thought of yet.
Meanwhile, the smart ones will start trying to buy up all that "dangerous" waste, because radiation is ENERGY. And you can always find a way to use energy, no matter what the source.