As the Democratic National Convention is about to start I want to step back and address a question I am often asked. Why am I not a supporter of Senator Obama?

I have been asked that by dozens of White Americans that presume I must be for Obama because he is Black. I have been asked that by almost as many African Americans for the same reasoning. And there are the far smaller group of Americans, of all color and ethnicity, that wonder because they presume I must agree with the Democratic Party policies.

So let me state this clearly, I do not support Senator Barrack Obama at this time. I doubt if I will ever support him. And I disagree with the Democratic policies he supports.

It’s not because I was a democrat and want to switch parties like the bitter Clinton Democrats. They are often White women, upset that a White woman was denied the chance to run for President. Their switch of support, like Debra Bartoshevich, seems like sour grapes more than anything else. And Democrats are responding in kind, splitting their party.



Which leads these Democrats to the right choice for the wrong reason.



Besides the fact that I think Democrats are a split party, created by the Clinton campaign, there are other issues.

Senator Obama has no experience. His own Vice Presidential pick has said he thinks Obama is unqualified. If Senator Biden, and Senator Clinton, agree with Senator John McCain how strong and qualified is Obama?

Senator Obama will be increasing taxes. He has already voted to do so for those making $31,850 or more. My belief he will limit himself to those making an unknown and ambiguous amount qualifying them as rich is shaky at best. His expressed view that businesses, of all sizes, need to pay more in taxes strikes me as harmful to a weak American economy.

Senator Obama has stated often that our dependence on foreign oil is bad. No surprise. Yet he still only considers the idea of domestic drilling. But how else will there be a stopgap to allow us to fund and create alternative energy sources? And his position on oil shale is directly Party line. How about cleaner coal? How about Nuclear energy?

Senator Obama is exclusive in his plans, targeting only the renewable energy plans that benefit stock positions held by Speaker Nancy Pelosi. How is that a grand benefit to America when only options that profit a few are considered? How is that different than the claims made by Democrats that Republicans are in the pocket of big oil, aren’t they in the pocket of Wind and corn ethanol (which has already increased the cost of food)?

Senator Obama has stated he would speak with any threat to America, no matter the provocation. He would speak with Iran, a nation that has sought the wholesale destruction of America and Israel for 30 years now. Like mere words would stop them from their declared God-given need to wipe us off of the earth. Obama is not God, especially to the

Senator Obama would run from Iraq as quickly as possible. There is no consideration for the outcome of such actions. There are no qualms about the probable increased threat to average Americans in their homes. Terrorism has not stopped since 9/11, it just hasn’t hit our homes stateside. But thousands of orphans given no choice and every reason to blame America will grow up looking to kill America. Just as they did at the end of the Gulf War, in 5 – 10 years they will strike American soil after a retreat that will be viewed in the Middle East as a defeat of America, and thus a vindication of Al Quida and other such groups.

Senator Obama wants to give millions the support of the Government. That in itself is not a bad thing, except that it is funded by Americans and perpetuates the ideal that America would rather feed the hungry rather than teach them to fish for themselves. It creates a culture that cannot support itself; and for those that think this means minorities remember that there are more Whites in prison, on welfare, and/or in Government care than all minority groups combined.

As I mentioned the Democratic Party is split. Not on substantive differences – as the voting records of Clinton and Obama are virtually the same. It is split on racial lines, due largely to the efforts of the Clinton campaign.

It is split with a Vice President that disagrees on key issues in a massive manner from the Democratic Presidential nominee he would work for. A VP that would not vote for a less experiences candidate, one that has done less bi-partisan work than he has in a decade. A VP that embodies the ‘old’ politics that Obama has railed against throughout the primaries.

So what makes Senator Obama the right man at this time?

Labels: Democratic National Convention, Democratic Party, energy alternatives, Iraq War, Nancy Pelosi, Senator Barack Obama, Senator Biden, Senator Hillary Clinton, tax increase

Recently I mentioned how I felt that having Speaker Nancy Pelosi speak on the first night of the Democratic National Convention was a mistake. I felt it was a massive strike against Senator Obama.

“Speaker Nancy Pelosi may look good to the women that only care about having a woman’s face in a leadership position; but anyone that has followed what the Democrats said in the 2006 mid-term elections may have a different opinion. The 110th Congress is a complete failure. The Democrats have failed to do any of the things they promised in their 2006 campaigns. And Speaker Nancy Pelosi led the charge to stalemate.”

I continue to feel that way, and I believe that strike 2 has just been dealt.

“Which brings us to Madame Speaker’s 2007 financial disclosure form. Schedule III lists “assets and ‘unearned income’” of between $100,001-$250,000 from Clean Energy Fuels Corp. - Public Common Stock.” Clean Energy Fuels Corp. is a natural gas provider founded by T. Boone Pickens.

“She, and other investors, stand to gain a substantial return on their investment if gasoline prices stay high and municipal, state and even the Federal governments start using natural gas as their primary fuel source. If gasoline prices fall? Alternative fuels and the cost to convert fleets over to them becomes less and less attractive.”

CLNE also happens to be the sponsor of Proposition 10, a ballot initiative in Pelosi’s home state of California to dole out a combined $10 billion in state and federal funds for renewable energy incentives. Namely: Natural gas and wind.”

So effectively we see that Nancy Pelosi is in the pocket of alternative energy companies. It’s basically the same claim being made by Pelosi and other Democrats against Republicans. And it’s just as bad as what they say the result is with Republicans.

Speaker Pelosi has walled-off any discussion of domestic drilling for oil. She has refused to allow any votes on the subject. And according to her most recent comments on Larry King she will only consider possibly allowing a vote on domestic drilling IF it also includes alternative energy incentives.

Effectively that means that Speaker Pelosi wants alternative energy to get more money to earn more money for herself. The higher the cost for oil, the better her alternative energy stocks will do. And the American public be damned.

Of course many other Democrats believe in this same style of system as well. Senator Obama wants to increase electricity costs, is against domestic drilling (though he has suggested he might be open to drilling in recent speeches – campaign speeches designed to get him elected), and has stated that higher oil costs is good because it will force people to use less oil. Don’t mind the fact that higher energy costs mean more Americans will lose their homes and businesses, and will force a slow down in the economy that makes unemployment higher.

But look at it from a different point of view. Senator McCain stated at 4:33pm on Aug 13, 2008 in a news conference that creating nuclear energy plants would create 700,000 jobs. McCain is also more in favor of domestic drilling.

If there was a move in the nation to do domestic drilling, building nuclear plants, and alternative energy – and each of these ideas would employ 500,000 Americans – there would be a boost to the economy and a reduction in the cost of oil and energy. Speaker Pelosi would make money on her stocks (though not as much) and so would oil companies, utilities, 401K’s, and the average American (via energy cost savings).

But according to Nancy Pelosi and other Democrats, domestic oil is a bad thing since it means oil prices would drop. Also nuclear energy is opposed as well. That’s 1,000,000 American jobs they don’t want to create, at least. That means that unemployment will go higher since businesses of all sizes will not be able to afford the higher cost.

Of course Nancy Pelosi will make more money though.

So I will return to my original thought. Is having Speaker Pelosi speak at the DNC a positive? Especially since she represents a Democrat-led Congress that not only has done nothing they promised in 2006, but is also actively looking to hurt American families. While lining her own pockets with more money.

Strike 2.

Labels: Congress, Crude oil prices, Democratic National Convention, domestic drilling, energy alternatives, Nancy Pelosi, nuclear energy, Senator Barack Obama, U.S. economy

Energy, crude oil, and more energy. The Presidential race has taken yet another turn of late, ignoring the issues of last month and rolling on the bandwagon of the latest issue pushed by pundits and the news media in their quest for ratings. The 24-hour news cycle continuing to seek the latest item to get viewers to keep the channels glued on their programming.

Too bad for the American public though.

It’s so bad that I have spoken to several people across the country that are just starting to pay attention to the candidates, only now starting to compare them. And most have little to no idea what the candidates have promised or said before. Even worse are those that think the candidates have this or that position because they saw a 15 second bit of polispeak on a news show, or a 30 second commercial of pure spin.

Thus most Americans are not asking why Senator Barack Obama has yet to attend a townhall meeting with rival Senator John McCain, an opportunity that he initially said “sounds good” and was looking forward to. To date he has not attended a single event.

Most Americans are not wondering what Senator McCain will actually do about the economy. Not just the energy issue but the whole economy. Everyone seems to have forgotten the fact that McCain has admitted his weakness on this subject and therefore deserves great scrutiny on his plans.

Everyone has put the nationalized healthcare issue on a back burner. When was the last time you heard either candidate explain how children will be sure to be covered during their tenure. Senator Obama has failed to explain how he will fund his program, or how he will ensure that it becomes the first Government agency to actually maintain its budget or be efficient.

And both candidate are really glad that the aging nation is no longer asking what is going to be done about Social Security. It’s still going to fail, and very soon. But with a growing population of retiring Americans, this critical issue has been tiptoed around and dance far away from. But our next President will HAVE to enact something to deal with the pressing issue during their 4 years in office.

Perhaps this is why both candidates are solidly in the mid-forties, statistically even, in all the polls tracking them day by day. Neither can get a majority of Americans yet, but then again the majority of Americans have only heard of one issue or another, and a commercial or 2. There really isn’t a reason to have a strong opinion yet, unless you have followed the candidates for a couple of years (like I and a few bloggers have), followed all the primaries and primary debates, are blindly Democrat or Republican, or a racist.

So since most people have no real reason to lean either way, and while the candidates are racing each other to get more centrist politically – with polispeak defending each turn in policy – I have to say that I think the first candidate to pick a Vice-President and to give a clear view of all their policies will win the election.

And I must add that this would be vitally important for Senator Obama. With the swooning support of the major news media and the ultra-liberal far-left wing of the Democratic Party he won the primary race. But that group of Americans is vastly far from what the average American believes on all the important issues. All the talk of momentum, young voters, and groundswells of support still can’t allow him to gain 51% in the polls (with the exception of a quick burst right after his ‘use the soldiers for political gain’ rockstar tour of the Middle East and Europe – was over 51% for 3 days).

And if you think I’m wrong, where is there a quote in the last 2 weeks, no let’s look at a month, actually go 2 months to find quotes on what the candidates will do about education.

The big point is this, energy and crude oil are important. In the last 40 years neither political party has made any moves to help the nation. Based on the current and potential cost of oil, either candidate Must make changes in our policies if elected. So note who said what they will do, but also ask what else they are willing to do. And perhaps you might want to ask them about the issues that the pundits and news media got bored with months ago. Or you can just search my blog.

Vote because it counts. Vote because it’s your right. Vote because after the election you can’t change the President.

Labels: education, energy alternatives, nationalized healthcare, Polispeak, Presidential election race 2008, Senator Barack Obama, Senator John McCain, Social Security, townhall meeting

The 110th Congress is now on vacation. You might be asking yourself when they haven’t been. I know I have.

The Democrat led Congress has earned and justified the 14% approval rating it has recently received. And a big cheer should be made that they increased the rating by 3%, from the all-time lowest rating for Congress ever. That includes just before and after the Civil War.

You might ask what has this Congress done?

Well they don’t work longer than any other Congress – though it was a campaign promise. They haven’t achieved any of their major goals. They haven’t even really lived up to their rally call in the 2006 mid-term elections, which was change if you forgot. Well, if you count the numerous Congressional hearings then they did change a few things – how much money was wasted.

This Democrat led Congress boosts the achievements it made, like U.S. Troop Readiness, Veterans' Care, Katrina Recovery, and Iraq Accountability Appropriations Act, 2007,. Of course they leave out the fact that this emergency funding was required because their refusal to fund the military in the first place. And the funding, finally passed in May 2007, runs out in September. Also note that the only way the Democrats would allow funds to go to our troops that are actively fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan was by attaching an increase to minimum wages and funds for the victims of Hurricane Katrina.

And yes I know that an early funding was vetoed by President Bush, Again the Democrats knew what they were doing, wasting time and money. They knew that President Bush would not give the enemies of our nation (and people fighting our troops are enemies) the means to hurt our soldiers by telegraphing our moves with a timeline. He told the nation as much. But they did it anyway to try to look like I don’t know what.

And of course there was the farm subsidy act, Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008. A real brainstorm here. This act increased food stamp benefits which is a good thing since it also increases ethanol production – corn ethanol. Corn based ethanol increases the cost of food. Thus food stamps have to have more benefits just to stay even with the higher price of food. And higher food prices is a leading cause of inflation.

Speaking of energy and Congress, notice that Nancy Pelosi and the Democrats will not allow a vote about domestic drilling? So they are pushing corn ethanol, which 96% of the nation cannot buy or use, and is less efficient that gasoline, and is actively increasing the cost of food. And they are really only pushing ethanol. All other alternatives are off the table.

Does that make sense? Considering no one knows what energy source is the best for mass production shouldn’t they want to try everything? Shouldn’t we be ramping up wind, solar, hydroelectric, biomass, grass or sugar based ethanol, nuclear, and domestic drilling all at once? Considering none of these will be the answer for at least 5 to 10 years, imagine what the cost of oil will be if we don’t start trying everything now then.

But I detract (and yes I blame Republicans for the energy mess equally, though corn ethanol and refusing to even have a vote is purely Democrat).

The 100th Congress has been very busy though. It takes work to avoid having debates about domestic drilling, and to be in nearly non-stop meetings. There have been Congressional hearing on so many issues that Democrats make sound like absolute importance. They just use the polispeak and obfuscate the facts a bit. Like the massive hearings on the lawyers the President fired (CONTINUING INVESTIGATION INTO THE U.S. ATTORNEYS CONTROVERSY). Democrats were all revved up on this.

What was obfuscated? The fact that each of those lawyers work at the pleasure of the President. Meaning that at any time, for ANY reason the President can fire any of them. It’s not illegal, and every President has done this. But the Democrat led Congress had to find a reason why the President fired these lawyers and tried to find a law that was broken, where no law exists. There went several weeks.

A few other top hearings that resulted in nothing:

WHY DEFICITS MATTER

IMPROVING THE LABORATORY EXPERIENCE FOR AMERICA'S HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS

COMPETITION AND THE FUTURE OF DIGITAL MUSIC

AN UPDATE: PIRACY ON UNVERSITY NETWORKS

MEETING TO DISCUSS MATTERS PERTAINING TO THE CONTESTED ELECTION IN THE 13TH CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

CREDIT CARD PRACTICES: CURRENT

GASOLINE PRICES, OIL COMPANY PROFITS, AND THE AMERICAN CONSUMER

The list goes on and on.

To help out in listing a few more items I found this video



So my overall point is this, there is an election coming up. Not just for the Presidency but also for Congress. When you go to vote consider why this Democrat led Congress has the lowest approval ratings ever. Consider why President Bush, who is not brilliant and has made mistakes, is regarded better than Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and the Congress by 10%. Consider that every major policy issue that the Democrats promised to do in the 2006 elections still have not happened, and that they have spent more time looking for people to blame than passing laws to help the nation.

Perhaps it’s me but I expect a Congress to do something. For god sake they couldn’t even get together to pass an Act to apologize for slavery. House voted yes the Senate just let it go by.

In November you can vote to keep the Democrats leading Congress, if not the nation, or you can “vote for change”. Unless you have a perverse desire to see if Congress’ approval rating can reach single digits.

Labels: Alberto Gonzales, Congress, Democratic Party, energy alternatives, ethanol, Harry Reid, Iraq, Nancy Pelosi, oil prices, President George Bush

Here we go, the polispeak is in full force. Senator Obama has suddenly realized that Iran affects the price of oil. In fact he has been advised, recently one would assume, of the following:



Now let’s ignore the fact that both the Democrats and Republicans share equally in the lack of alternative energy sources for America in the past 40 years. Neither side can point a finger as ultimately both sides failed the American people on this issue, multiple times.

Rather I want to focus on a scenario.

Senator Obama has made it clear time and again that he wants to speak with Iran. Let’s say he is President (which is not all bad) and he does speak with Iran. Say the meeting goes ok, or so we are lead to believe. They promise not to create any (more) nuclear weapons. And then they go out and “shut down the Straight of Hormus”.

What does President Obama do? Speak with them more? What argument or negotiation can he make that is better than the, at least, $300 a barrel price of oil in the mere first minutes of the blockade? What would be better than the probable $500 a barrel price that would come easily in the first day?

Considering that Senator Obama has repeatedly stated that a strong offense, ie military, is not the means he would use first – and/or possibly ever – what recourse does he have?

Well Democrats have said that higher oil and gasoline prices are good. Because they will force America off of oil. That we need to use alternative energy. So the thought of $12 a gallon for gasoline must be thrilling to them.

Of course if this is true then you have to wonder if President Obama would say anything to Iran. Or if he could say anything that he felt was better than having higher oil prices.

At the same time remember this. If oil suddenly went to $300, heating oil 3x overnight. Gasoline goes to $12 and people will horde it in a manner that would make the 1970 look like a vacation. Millions would not be able to heat or cool their homes. Tens of thousands of businesses would close overnight. Unemployment would rocket past the levels last seen during the President Carter Administration. The cost of every good in America, or sold overseas, would be so high that a gallon of milk would cost like buying printer ink cartridges today.

So while Senator Obama is trying to use Iran as a scare, and a source of blame only on Republicans, remember the facts.

Democrats are as much to blame as anyone. Democrats want oil prices higher. Obama wants to talk to Iran. Obama does not like to use the military (even in the case of a 9/11 type of incident).



Diplomacy while businesses shut down, cost of everything skyrockets, and people freeze. That’s a really great plan. And every American will he stateside to experience every second of it.

Labels: Democratic Party, energy alternatives, Iran, oil per barrel, oil prices, Senator Barack Obama

I was looking through the net today, trying to get back on pace with the Presidential election, and I ran across an interesting post by Andy Ostroy on the Huffington Post. Its title is Why Obama Must Become President.

The post is filled with problems. Problems about America’s racial past, our economic current, and our unsure future. It highlights the failures of the President Bush Administration, and several points that I’ve heard ultra-liberals spout since Democrats started announcing their intention to run in 2007. And not once does it give a reason to vote for Senator Obama.

Mr. Ostroy correctly points out the many hurdles that were in the way of a Senator Obama nomination. He hints at the racial bias and emphasis used against Senator Obama throughout the primaries. He even quickly glanced over the fact Senator Obama has virtually no experience. But none of those are reasons to pick a President.

His main reasons why Senator Obama should win can be summed up in these 3 things:
He is Black
He is not President Bush
It’s a good thing for the Democratic powerbase

That’s it.

Now I would love to see a Black President in my lifetime. I agree that

“America needs to get over itself and finally break down these walls of racism. It's time that its citizens stop viewing each other through the prism of color, and focus instead on the person beneath the skin.”

But a President is more than just a color barrier. Racism is a major issue in America, I know because I have lived with its influence in my life. But it is not the only nor main issue in America.

“Whites would finally be presented with a black president and be forced to confront their inherent fears, while hopefully accepting the cultural reality that success or failure in the Oval Office has nothing to do with race. And for some blacks, they would no longer be able to hide behind the contention that the "system" is keeping them down, and instead assume a greater responsibility for their own successes and/or failures.”

This is all true. A Black President would be a great force in defeating stereotypes and excuses all too readily used and portrayed in the media and many people’s lives.

But how would Senator Obama’s color change the economy? How would his eternal tan prevent Iran from creating nuclear weapons? How would the breakdown of stereotypes end the Iraq and Afghanistan Wars, or disuade groups like Al Quida from attacking Americans?

Race is a central theme in America, but it has little power over national economics, international policy, or national defense – to name a few issues.

So I have to reject the premise made by Mr. Ostroy that

“But if Obama loses to McCain in November, that will be an even greater statement of where America is with regard to race. That a candidate from a severely weakened party, who votes in virtual lockstep with Bush, could beat Obama while voters voice that they so desperately want and need change, would signal that having a black president is, in 2008, perhaps too much change.”

The election in November is not about what race the majority of Americans want to lead the nation, but who is the best person. The best person with the best plan – that can realistically be implemented – is the person who should win. That may or may not be Senator Obama, but you would never be able to know from Mr. Ostroy’s post.

Is President Bush’s apporval rating low? Yep, and those of the 2 year Democrat-led Congress are even lower. Government as a whole has failed the American people on many levels. Each party has failed to live up to promises and expectations. President Bush has failed to recognize and react to his mistakes in a timely manner, and the Democratic Congress can’t stop trying to blame the Administration for every ill known to man and actually pass a few of the laws they polispoke their way into office for.

Yet neither potential Presidential candidates has a last name that remotely sounds like Bush or Pelosi. Thus change from the abysmal political leaders of this nation, whether Democrat or Republican, is assured. The question that remains is which is best.

The energy problem in America is the result of 30 years of both political parties failing to act. The only actual answer is to say that America will investigate all energy avenues – including domestic drilling, nuclear, new refineries, switching to sugar and grass based ethanol as well as wind, solar, geothermal, biomass, and so on. But neiter political party is willing to say that, and the candidates both seem unwilling to annoy some of their political followers in favor of a real solution for the nation.

Similar statements can be made about real fixes to Social Security, Education, and the Economy. But when it comes down to it, one of the biggest issues facing this election is experience, not color.

Does America want a President that has decades of experience, or a candidate that will be learning on the job. Both have their good and bad points. Neither involves race. To say that it does is to overstate an issue and bully some into acting in a manner they don’t believe in. That’s wrong.

Mr. Ostroy makes a great emotional post. It sets up a wonderful argument over the importance of how the media and politics still use race to make the playing fields uneven. If this were an election for Govenor, or Mayor, then it might make more sense; but this is about the President and in all honesty it is not a priority.

I have long said that all fanatics are wrong no matter what the cause or reason, and that any decision made based on a fanatical view is misguided in the least. I feel that is true of suicide bombers, bailouts for dumb economic decisions, and elections.

If you want to vote for Senator Obama, or McCain, have a reason. Race is not a reason but a cause if it is the only basis for the decision. It’s fanatical reasoning, and in my eyes therefore inherently wrong. There are reasons to vote for either, and your vote does count. Don’t waste it on just one issue that does not resolve any other issue America will face in the next 4 years or decades. If you do I guarantee that you won’t like the result.

Labels: Andy Ostroy, Congress, energy alternatives, ethanol, huffington post, Nancy Pelosi, nuclear energy, Polispeak, President George Bush, Senator Barack Obama, Senator John McCain, Social Security

Finally there is a glimmer of honesty coming from some politicians, though the polispeak rages on. Where might I have heard this? Was it Senator Obama admitting that, yes you, will have your taxes raised? Was it Senator Clinton admitting that universal healthcare will be worse than the current system? Was it Senator Dodd stating that he did get a special deal unavailable to average Americans? Was it Congressman Murtha apologizing to the 8 Marines, and the Armed Forces in general?

No it was not any of the above. Such honesty would likely stop the earth from spinning. No the glimmer came from Representative Maurice Hinchey (a Democrat, and sadly from my state, NY). He gave up the polispeak to state that he believes that the Government should nationalize oil refineries, if not the oil companies.



Now his views and those of Malia Lazu are stupid. Not that they are as individuals but their ideas about nationalization, or in other words moves to socialize the nation are.

Perhaps in an idealistic world nationalization is a great idea. But in such a dreamland, communism works to benefit everyone (unless you believe in any form of God). Then again, reality is the only state of existence human beings (that are not on mind altering drugs) live through.

Let me explain how stupid I feel these ideas are.

First, the Government is a failure at everything it runs. No surprise right? Only the Government employs people without qualifications (ie your local DMV or post office or former-FEMA head Michael Brown) and virtually guarantees their lifelong employment. Add to that the fact that the Government is inefficient. There is not a single department that uses less money to run than the year prior. Try to use a .25 cent stamp. Compare the budget of the FDA in 1970 to today (if you aren’t busy keeping your kids from playing with lead toys or eating E-coli laced food). And that is with the advent of computers and programs specifically designed to increase efficiency.

Second, the Government is schizophrenic. On a regular basis the Government fails to act or acts against itself. That’s because the various departments have policies or missions that overlap some other department or law or political group. Every election there is a sway of priorities and with it funding. Just look at the energy needs of America. We knew what our needs would be with high probability, yet from 1970 on we legislated (under Administrations of both Parties) fewer refineries, removed the ability to drill for domestic oil, and selected the worst options to pursue for energy alternatives.

What in the world makes anyone think that the Government can run a national healthcare program or oil companies? Let me correct that. Why do some think that the average American is so dumb as to believe that the lopsided, inefficient, debacle of Government organization is better than market and/or individual decision making?

I will accept that 80% of the oil in the world is owned by national companies. But none of those countries are as large, wealthy, diversified, successful, or free as America. Do we really want to compare Venezuela, Mexico, or Sweden to America? Seriously.

Malia Lazu does skip over the heart of American life.

“…the goal of corporations is to make as much as possible for their shareholders...”

That ideal built the nation. Microsoft made home computers, and therefore the internet, a reality. They did it because of the profit. The decades of computers and the internet being created and used by academia (1950 – 1980 at least) didn’t make it one penny more affordable or usable by the public. The same can be said of most ever industry in the nation.

“…if were going to start talking about crazy policies, like killing our environment…”

Please someone do tell me which politician or policy mentioned killing our environment? Not an interpretation that comes up with that statement, but an actual intent to kill our environment. Because you can interpret anything if you try.

But if you want to look at crazy policies try this – spend 25 years ignoring any energy alternative, then pick one alternative (that no other nation uses) without consideration of the consequences and pour billions into it. That is stupid and crazy.

And yes I mean corn ethanol. If you wonder why the portions of your food are smaller, or the same size and more expensive, just look at corn ethanol. And while you are at it ask an eco-freak why we use corn ethanol even though it is believed to be the singular cause of dead zones in the Gulf of Mexico. Directly killing every living thing in the Gulf, that is a crazy policy killing our environment. [For those that don’t know, every nation that is successfully using ethanol makes it from grass, not food.]

The Presidential election will decide the energy path of this nation for decades. That is if that future President has the balls to say ‘Making a single choice is the wrong choice. America is defined by picking the best out of a bunch; and we need a bunch of energy options.’

Any Presidential candidate that refuses to make that kind of statement should not discuss anything about energy. Because anything less is either a lie, or based in the stupid notion that the best answer for the future is known today.

As Neil Cavuto correctly states, energy policy in America over the last 30 years has been

“It’s your way, or my way, or the highway.”

That policy, followed with steadfast implacability by both Republicans and Democrats, has led to an increase in crude oil prices of 1566%. How much higher will that price go in 10 more years of the same policies?

How much higher will the price be, and the worse off citizens will live with, in a socialized oil industry?

Labels: Congressman Murtha, energy alternatives, Malia Lazu, Neil Cavuto, Polispeak, Representative Maurice Hinchey, Senator Barack Obama, Senator Dodd

Earlier today I wrote about oil shale, and it’s potential to help ease energy needs in the future. I received an email later in the day from a Mr. D.B. [I’m withholding his name since he did not publicly make a comment] pointing me to information found at The Wilderness Society. The specific page I was directed to mentions (with a nice use of bold tags and darkly worded writing) how oil shale is ineffective as a fuel source today, will not affect prices today, and that any new action is inadvisable since oil companies have access to oil shale today.

I never stated that oil shale or anything else will resolve the price of crude oil, or the need of energy in the United States, tomorrow. In fact in the few lines I devoted to a timeline I clearly stated a far future point.

“Now since there is no oil shale market (yet) and given that mining shale is a very different process from drilling for oil, I would imagine that several oil companies will be looking for acquisitions and joint-venture deals with mining companies that have the ability and experience in this field. Schlumberger, Shell, EnCana, Chattanooga Corp, Fushun Mining Group, Tosco Corporation, Petrobras, Viru Keemia Gripp are just a few involved in some aspect or projects with oil shale. I doubt that the number of companies will decrease in the coming years.”

But I will say that not acting today on multiple energy sources simultaneously will only create a bigger problem in the future. It is the inaction and political bickering of past Congresses that has lead to the problems of today. In 1973 America knew that foreign oil was a problem. It was $10 then. Since that time we have decreased our refineries, decreased our drilling, blocked multiple sources of drilling, blocked or hindered multiple pathways for energy research, and cherry picked the worst energy alternatives in the world. Thus oil today is $140, gasoline at $4.07.

I will also dispute the claim that oil shale is unusable as an energy source. It may have difficulties but several nations use it today. They may not be the size of the U.S. but they are creating power via oil shale. Thus near term use is a reality (unless you believe that Estonia has a secret ability to generate most of its power from oil shale). In fact Canada, Turkey, Jordan, and Egypt all have plans to use oil shale to some degree or manner for power generation. Effective use, which the article states is maybe a decade away, is near-term especially as other nations find means to use this resource.

Thus already 2 of the major themes to not START a serious oil shale program are defeated between this post and the last. The big question, which I know little about, is what are companies doing currently.

The article states that a handful of companies haver some land with oil shale reserves. It states that nothing has been done with this land. It does not state whether environmental regulations will allow the mining of shale, or any other material. Just like the oil reserves found of the coasts of America, we know where it is and comnpanies hold rights to explore – but federal and state regulations prevent any action on them. The article completely fails to address that issue, which is a factor that has helped to cause the current environment.

The article wastes no space in stating we should not rush into oil shale, but it gives no space to any alternatives. It is that kind of philosophy that leads to problems that cause a rush to action. Again, I was not advocating oil shale or any single energy source. I advocate (and believe the government needs to mandate) all energy sources. I think we need to require oil shale development, and solar, geothermal, wind, biomass, grass-derived ethanol, nuclear, and coal as well as oil. Developing all of these ensures that America will have power at reasonable prices in 10 years, 20, even 50 years after all oil is gone.

Now I can understand why no alternative was suggested. Wilderness Society has since 1935 sought to protect wild nature. They are like other groups that prevent logging to save spotted owls, and refuse to allow drilling in ANWAR. The friends I grew up with, went to college with, served in the millitary, and currently live around would call these people treehuggers. Not meant in a nice way.

While I respect their love of nature, I am a city-dwelling internet using, motorcycle riding man of the 21st century. I fully understand that to live the lifestyle we all enjoy there are sacrifices that must be made. I also understand that technology and understanding of the environment have improved enough that we can minimize the impact we make to gain the fuels and resources we need. I futher understand that the only way for humanity to cease it’s impact on nature is to give up computers, cell phones, iPods, cars, lights, television, movies, plastics, hamburgers, you get the point.

Mr. D.B. may have many reasons to believe that oil shale is not viable today. And I agree with some. But I am willing to work on it and other ideas so when we need it in 10 or 20 years we will be ready. Their argument would have you light a candle.

But choose for yourself.

Labels: ANWAR, Canada, Congress, energy alternatives, Jordan, oil shale, Turkey, Wilderness Society

As I write this President Bush is expected to discuss offshore oil drilling in America, and the opportunity of Oil Shale mining. In recent years I have heard a lot about oil shale and its mining, but I really didn’t know anything about it. Like most I expect the thought of oil shale made me think of a rock that is filled or comprised of oil. That is not the case.

Oil shale is a fine grain rack filled with kerogen. In heating the oil shale a gas from the kerogen is released which can be used in heating homes and creating power, or the gas can be cooled to create a synthetic petroleum-like oil. The use of that oil is similar to the uses for crude oil, but they are not the same thing.

How much oil shale is there, and is anyone using it? Those are the next questions I had. The answer may well surprise you as it surprised me. There is estimated to be 3 trillion barrels of oil equivalent of oil shale in the world. The United States is one of the major sources of deposits in the world with 1.8 trillion barrels equivalent under Colorado, Wyoming, and Utah. This is in comparison to the 267 billion barrels of oil estimated in Saudi Arabia (as of 2006). And currently first world and emerging nations including Germany, Russia, China, Israel, Brazil, and Estonia all have varying degrees of oil shale industries producing energy and fuel. Who knew.

Now consider this, mining companies - such as BHP Billiton, Anglo American, Kazakhmys, Vedanta Resources, Xstrata – and oil companies have been having a strong year as energy is on the forefront of political and investment minds. With the rise in speculation of crude oil prices, rising gasoline and home heating oil prices, and calls for alternative energy sources oil shale stands to be more actively in the public domain than ever before.

Now since there is no oil shale market (yet) and given that mining shale is a very different process from drilling for oil, I would imagine that several oil companies will be looking for acquisitions and joint-venture deals with mining companies that have the ability and experience in this field. Schlumberger, Shell, EnCana, Chattanooga Corp, Fushun Mining Group, Tosco Corporation, Petrobras, Viru Keemia Gripp are just a few involved in some aspect or projects with oil shale. I doubt that the number of companies will decrease in the coming years.

Opportunity abounds for the investor and individual that seeks it. How you take advantage of this potential is up to you. But I would expect that oil shale will become a greater factor in at least American energy future plans than ever before.

Labels: Anglo American, BHP Billiton, Colorado, Crude oil prices, energy alternatives, Fushun Mining Group, Germany, kerogen, oil shale, Petrobras, Saudi Arabia, Schlumberger, Tosco Corporation, Utah

If you have looked at the stock market (U.S.) lately then you cannot have missed a couple of things. Banks are still reeling, Lehman Brothers being the latest in a string of major financials that have had to seek out financing to shore up massive losses. Oil companies are getting a lot of negative publicity due to the election year politics. Energy alternatives are sparking another round of interest, as the generally do every election year for the past roughly 20 years.

But what has garnered a lot of attention is the sector that no one has really spoken about in some time. The technology arena. In particular the latest mega-deal, Yahoo and Microsoft. Everyone has heard some aspect of it, and opinions are flying.

Now the deal officially died last week. Microsoft won’t raise their price or even offer one for Yahoo. Yahoo for its part made a deal with Google, allowing ads from the leading search engine to appear on Yahoo for $300 million. So the shake up begins.

Microsoft has had it’s price raise because it won’t be buying anything, and stockholders will be happy about not having the books burdened with Yahoo. Google is happy as they seriously increase ad revenue with the increased exposure. The likelihood of increase revenues for higher ad fees and increased numbers are on the horizon and analysts will be checking the quarterly reports to see if a new trendline confirms this speculation.

Those looking at what may happen should keep an eye out on Yahoo. After failing to be bought by Microsoft, and only securing a deal that really benefits Google the shareholders are boiling. The desire for bigger profits is going to weigh heavily on the CEO and Board. Something is going to need to be done.

I expect that a couple more deals and the takeover of a smaller technology company will be in the air for Yahoo. Plus an expanded advertising sales campaign will likely unfold within the slow summer quarter showing better numbers as fall unfolds. If I am correct opportunity may abound in the disappointment this deal failing has caused.

But that is just one outlook. What do you think?

Labels: energy alternatives, Google, Lehman Brothers, Microsoft, search engine, stock market, stockholders, Yahoo

On the best day, in the best markets, investing is difficult and stressful. But the current market environment is far from the best of anything. Even so there are a few things we can definitely say about this current cycle. Most notable is that this may well be the year of raw resources, commodities, and the mining and energy companies that find them.

As many of the stockbrokers I have worked with are wont to say,

“You don’t need to be a rocket scientist to figure this out.”

[Something I stopped saying after having said that to a rocket scientist who still disagreed with my analysis of a stock position.]

Energy is a critical issue in every world market right now. Whether it comes from oil, ethanol, coal, geothermal or any other source. Considering the constant demand in the U.S., the increasing demand in China and India, and the growing desire to have cleaner energy (for whatever reason) this is not a short-term issue. Yet oil and energy companies are under political attack. And thus there is an opportunity. If you know where to look.

There are far too many speculating in the commodities markets, particularly oil, right now. The rise in oil is attributed by many to be directly tied to that speculation. Given the current political environment and election I would not be surprised to see legislation enacted to raise the margin requirements in commodity trading up to 50%. Even if it is not raised (or to that level) the mere action of talks occurring in D.C. will hit that market hard. So I suggest another old broker ideal, look where the market isn’t hottest.

Coal. It’s one area that isn’t getting a lot of conversation on cable news channels at this time. It’s a fuel that is available, abundant in the U.S., and with current and future technology cleaner than ever before. It’s also easier to improve technology to make it even more clean, and last I checked no environmentalists were seeking to block its mining to save any owls.

Gold. When economies are shaky, or perceived to be, everyone wants their hands on at least some of this yellow metal. With Lehman Brothers reporting a $6 billion bailout similar to other financials earlier this year, the economy is in question still. While gold has retreated in recent months from its run at the start of the year its way off the lows. And it would take little to spark another run, like maybe a weak dollar. Sound familiar?

The other precious metals. If gold is good, platinum is sweet. And silver is their poor cousin.

Uranium. If we aren’t using oil, and coal hasn’t been looked at, the only immediate answer left is nuclear. Short term it solves many questions, and it’s very clean. As pressure builds for politicians to investigate all energy alternatives nuclear will hit the table again. Add just one or 2 new power plants and there will be a spike in this mined resource on expectation of a growth spurt in the industry not seen since the 70’s.

Now there are other reasons to be in mining stocks for the near, mid and long term. I don’t think most need more though. No one knows which of these mined materials will be the first to run. The political environment hinges on the person elected President. The economic forecast is in shadows currently.

But probability says at least one if not all of these will have their value increase. And the best hedge may be owning the mining stocks as opposed to the particular individual material. Yet another old saying is

“don’t mine the gold, sell the picks and axes”.

The turmoil in the stock market is hardly over. The price of oil may even out. At least till winter hits. But I will guarantee that talk about energy, and therefore mined materials will not end before the Presidential election at it’s soonest. Any rocket scientists want to speak up?

Labels: economic forecast, energy alternatives, ethanol production, Lehman Brothers, mining stocks, nuclear energy, political environment, precious metals, presidential election, rocket scientists