AN OPEN LETTER TO NEIL CAVUTO OF FOX NEWS

You appear to be a pleasant slightly chubby guy Neil. You are the successful uncle that the traditional family loves to have over for Sunday dinner so that the young members can admire you as a positive and informative role model. But in truth, this particular nephew is greatly disappointed with you.

Hopefully, at that dinner table you would communicate with us in plain common sense terms when asked to be informative. You would not hide behind the jargon of your profession i.e., supply and demand, market forces at work, hedging, and so on. You would answer your favorite nephew in the simplest terms that he could understand, and if necessary you would blame things that shouldn’t be so on (bad men doing bad things).

In my years studying economics at Columbia, I emerged becoming aware of certain basic realities. The genuine, unaltered economic conditions can be enumerated on the fingers of one hand. The rest of economics is much of a science as alchemy and the professionals in the field are constantly struggling to be wrong less than half the time. Even those realities on that one little hand can be perverted and negated by industry, governmental, and “economist” interference. One of the most obvious examples is elasticity. We made the butter demand elastic by encouraging the production of margarine. We subsidized the margarine industry. We then subsidized the dairy industry by buying their butter from them. The ironic result was that when the direct federal food surplus was being used for distribution to poorer families in the 60’s, working people who did not need assistance were buying margarine in the markets while the unfortunates were being given free butter. No, cholesterol had nothing to do with it back then.

When we speak on alternate sources of energy, we are talking about the elasticity of petroleum. Again, subsidies, special interests, and the whole host of infernal demons plaguing US government swoop down and interferes with the remaining realities of that one little hand. I won’t bore you with the obvious inanities of producing ethanol from corn or from leaving nuclear energy as the mad relative locked up in the addict. After all, a polite nephew does not want to berate his uncle.

Like alchemists, economists protect themselves from accountability by developing and sharing whole plethora of terms, secrets, and formulas that are purposely not to be understood by anybody but themselves and cover up the fact that the philosopher stone is strictly in their mines or away to leach on the genuinely productive elements of society.
I am afraid that too often your program seems to be a social gathering of alchemist.

But let’s get back to this naïve uninitiated but genuinely concerned nephew of yours:
1. Uncle Neil what does it mean when we lease federal land for exploration and extraction, one of those fingers on that little hand says that there is value given for value received, what value is BP given for drilling for oil on presently leased land in Alaska. What value is received by the United States government and US citizens in return?
2. Underground oil reserves (and they are usually underground) are not unlike huge lakes. Now if you stick a giant straw in any even in the remotest corner of such lakes you are theoretically able to drain the entire lake. Though I understand that specific procedures such as the pumping in of water to push up the actually petroleum may make certain locations additionally desirable the basic principle remains the same. In other words, Uncle Neil if BP sinks its straw in Cuban waters it can drain the so-called American oil reserves in Florida waters. When we are still arguing over drilling off the coastal waters.
3. If international (foreign) oil companies pool their extractions from their many leases – American or otherwise, and go on to the world market, what difference does it make which political territory any of this petroleum is coming from, in other words Neil tell me why the Alaskan oil extracted by BP in Alaska is treated differently than were it to be forthcoming from anywhere else? Hopefully, there is a distinction, otherwise, we are bunch of idiots.

Just tell me how and make your nephew happy.

PS
If government is so completely inept that we can neither explore, extract, nor refine our own petroleum effectively, why is gasoline selling for half of our price in Mexico?

CAN WE DRILL OURSELVES OUT OF THE ENERGY CRISIS?

I haven't got the slightest idea. And chances are neither do you. The entire subject of how and who is compensated when a barrel of oil is actually extracted on a US government leased parcel seems to be a subject steeped in the mystery equivalent to a major arcana.

I tried the internet, but apparently most experts refuse to answer questions that are:

Hypothetical

"On Average"

Forthcoming from anyone who is not a lease-holder or other principal

Now, I understand how the terms of the original lease will vary one from the other etc., but not having a lifetime to spend on the internet looking for a Good Samaritan to merely explain how the petroleum affected is likely to get to market, to the refinery, to the gas pump-and for how much, I entreat some TV network to run some kind of informative special on the subject. It is so "au rigeur" to currently take endless hours posing the hypothetical question which is the title of the article, and then additional hours on the so-called "poll results." Frankly this is a lot like limiting oneself to asking canines to rate Alpo and then interpreting the results on the basis on whether they walk towards the food-bowl when they are starving.

To me, understanding even the simplest dynamics is of the utmost importance. How does additional drilling on US Federal lands lower our dependance on "foreign" oil, if it makes no difference whether BP is getting its oil from Alaska or off the coast of Cuba? Point is, is that the case-or not? If the difference is set in minor technicalities, then we are merely dependent on the world petroleum speculators and where the petroleum may originate from is almost completely immaterial.

The US government may lease the lands on our behalf but it neither extracts nor refines any of the resulting product. What do we get back when BP pumps out a barrel of Alaskan oil? A percentage of the market price when the lease was first arranged-say a percentage of $14/bbl?

A percentage of the world market price? 

Do we have the right to ask that that oil go directly to us us to satisfy our needs, or is it it merely pooled in with all of BP's other. Even if it stays here, who arranges to choose how or when it is refined? Basically, does the US government have any special control on said petroleum?

Can we drill ourselves out of the energy crisis? It is bad enough when "experts" declare a range of between 3 and 20 years before any of the benefits of new drilling reach us. Not knowing what those benefits actually would be, in terms we can understand, can only reinforce the original response:

We don't have the slightest idea.

OBAMA, THE NEW AMERICAN GOTHIC

The problem when personalities, in any field, having been ill-defined and ambiguous in the past, suddenly decide to spin themselves a "new image," is that it is difficult to tell whether they are "rediscovering" or "reinventing" themselves.

Possibly casting all modesty to the wind, feeling that he will most likely receive 93-6% of the black vote even if attired in the trappings of Grand Wizard, Poobah or whatever, Obama's first national campaign ad, extolled and trumpeted his own personal commitment to strong family values and hard work-the "Kansasonian Ethic" as we may now refer to it. Featuring a number of old photos where he is exclusively in the company of whites their obvious message screams at us:

"Look! I feel comfortable with them and they feel comfortable with me!"

Unfortunately, Obama's mother took a hard left turn from this "Ethic" on his way to being conceived. Abandoned by his father at the age of two, he then ends up in Indonesia with his mother where we can only assume she is playing the part of a modern Dorothy trying to find her way back to her wholesome farm friends. Under circumstances still requiring a bit of explanation she ends up dumping him on her parents who now shift their "Middle American" heritage a bit further West, to the Polyglot and highly racially tolerant state of Hawaii.

Attending an elitist school, he further distinguishes himself by becoming a valuable member of the latter's basketball team. Somewhere between there, Occidental College and eventually Harvard, he suddenly realizes he is black.

Eventually, he writes a book expressing  his blackness- "Dreams of my Father." Not much to be said about the Kansasonian Ethic up to this point. His associations with  various personalities once he takes up residence on Chicago's 1st Congressional District, now seem to push him into the Black Darkness of victimization, activism, liberation theology, all of which he has apparently decided only recently to push under the bus.

It took a long time but as the famous characters are quoted: "Toto this isn' t Kansas anymore!

This all smells suspiciously of a major rebuild job. And we all look forward eagerly to hearing about his new Heart, Brain, and Courage?

JAPANESE TO BUILD AMERICAN NUCLEAR PLANTS

With so much of the corn-growing US region recently underwater, one cannot help but try and look away from the entire American Ethanol producing debacle for a hopeful glimmer of sanity, possibly in the nuclear energy direction.

The one thing that all prominent Democrat spokespersons have held in common recently has been the pointed omission of nuclear as a desirable alternative in making this country less dependent or foreign oil. One by one, they have listed bio-fuels, wind, solar, etc. but hardly hydro-electric and NEVER nuclear. What is the real reason behind this phobia?

Possibly the very concept of nuclear is somehow even "less green" then drilling in ANWAR. On the other hand, if as it is said it would take 15 years or so for us to actually receive the benefits from said exploration and drilling, isn't it all a bit of a moot point in any case? How many new, safe nuclear plants could we have operational during that same time period?

Now what should be somewhat irritating to the majority of Americans, residing in the most technologically advanced resourceful, and generous nation on earth is that whether it is reliance on "foreign" petroleum, or domestic petroleum, or nuclear power, it all seems to end up as reliance on "foreign" something. As most remaining primitive US cave-dwellers know by now, Alaskan oil is extracted by BP (British Petroleum) and even if ANWAR were to be opened up, there isn't a ghost of a chance a genuinely American concern would be involved.

We had to draw the line somewhere, and we did it with the mental deficiency only a constituency-bribed leadership can be capable of. We decided to push for the manufacturing of American ethanol, using good old American corn and subsidizing good old American farmers. So what if we could buy the stuff cheaper from others producing it more intelligently (and cheaper)? So what if we were going to be driving up the prices of an ever-increasing number of everyday staples on the American table? So what if, at least indirectly, this could result in placing maybe hundreds of millions of people on this planet that much closer to starvation? It was an ALL-American effort- corn, farmers and subsidies.

As stated, I looked in the nuclear direction for a hint of future sanity. To my surprise, my first internet results indicated that the Japanese were willing to help us build some nuclear plants. I was surprised because frankly, and I suspect as a majority of other Americans, I have been a cave-dweller in nuclear matters. The Westinghouse Electric Corporation, that shining beacon of American ingenuity, product development, and yes "nuclear" knowhow hadn't really been known as that in quite a while, or for that matter been American. The old familiar name may have received some continued usage in order to sell some minor appliances-relying on grandmother's nostalgia possibly-but corporately it had been known for some time as BNFL.

That is correct-British Nuclear Fuels Limited. And quite recently it has in turn been bought out by Toshiba. Toshiba expects to win 33 N-Plant orders by FY 2015. Hopefully they will be able to fit us in. Isn't it about time that the American government actually went into the energy business instead of merely talking about it?

AFTER THE PRIMARY-BACK TO CAIN AND ABEL

The election circus has packed up and in a sense moved to another town, in a matter of speaking. So while the poles and tents go up again and the bearded lady combs her whiskers etc., it gives me a chance to return to one of my favorite subjects-the Bible.

Last night I watched a full hour of speculation by heavy-duty scholars on the true meaning of the Cain/Abel incident and the many riddles (?) it posed. Even Muslim sources were used to embellish, do heavy construction on, and speculatively dramatize the relatively cut and dry Biblical account. It reminded me a bit of some of those hominid anthropological soap operas slapped together using computer generated special effects by other respective "scholars." All extrapolated from a single knuckle bone or such dug up somewhere.

As I see it, there is really only one question raised by the account, why did God favor one sacrifice over another? At first glance it would seem that giving up a first-born lamb is on its face more impressive a sacrifice than merely burning a few handful of grains. But was it really? Keep in mind that eating of the flesh of animals was forbidden to man until the covenant with Noah some time later. So if this lamb was male, it was useless for future milking, most likely superfluous as a stud, and good only for its wool. A considerable loss of one lamb-skin, doubtlessly "if" the lamb was sacrificed in its entirety.

Mercifully later in the program the allegorical meaning of Abel as the nomadic sheepherding element contrasted with Cain as the agricultural city-building one, was recognized. The preference shown by God for one over the other does not require much of an imagination. The account was written by the nomadic sheepherders, though by that time themselves also city-dwellers in part, in order to justify something in their past. Joshua's genocide in Caana?

The most elementary pitfall is to assume that Genesis was written in the same chronological sequence as it what it recounts. In truth, we have no idea what the first incidents, the first imageries placed down in writing were. In all likelihood they were the closest incidents to current memory and then worked backwards to support and validate them, allegorically if nothing else. But there was a bit of incoherent slippage without a question. Apparently, the scholars back then were not as concerned as the present ones are to validate as many Biblical incidents as being historically accurate.

Creation taking place in  days or phases can be easily forgiven, but the reference to God in the plural shortly after, (by a monotheistic people!?) can not. Apparently the oral tradition relied upon dated back to the pre-Egyptian "captivity" (!?) -only after which was the monotheistic connection to be contrived. The snake in the garden then of course did not lie, so how can we then refer to Satan as the "great deceiver?" Adam and Eve were apparently kicked out because they now apparently knew too much and if they continued to eat of the Tree of Eternal Life in the Garden, what was there then distinguished from also being "gods?" (I did not use caps there in order not to offend.) Muslims thought it was a nice recruiting touch later by making Paradise on Earth (Eden) re-attainable, though there is nothing in the Bible to indicate this.

And so on. Many, way too many people have died over interpretations and/or pretexts provided by the millennial obsession over this mostly mythical nationalist epic. There is probably more basis for fact in Virgil's Aeneid than in the former. Though it is undeniable that the earlier work eventually contains a plethora of more or less historical references, both the context and perspective in which they are presented tend to be unabashedly distorted to support what was then a current agenda. It was a matter of history being written backwards so to speak.

Scholars derive such comfort when they think they can find some archeological support for the existence of a Sodom. But how does that encourage us to believe that whole tremendous disaster that be-felled it according to the Bible, was primarily due because almost its entire population wanted to have sex with two angels?

I think that maybe it is time for us to go on. The fact that the Christian West risks total conflict with the Muslim East over Jewish Israel-all of them claiming kinship to Abraham and literally worshipping the Bible, should give us something to ponder. Let us evolve beyond it before we supply all the fire and brimstone needed by its god.

McCAIN'S DILEMMA

In the coming November elections which may be expected to bring out disastrous results for the Republican Party in both Houses, a potential victory at the presidential level could help soften the blow but:

If Senator McCain either selects a running mate or  directs his campaign in order to reinforce his position with the Christian Right, any hopes of success will quickly vanish. The time will have come to win the endorsement of the American people and stop worrying about passing the litmus tests a minority segment of a minority party had previously expected him to.

At a first perfunctory glance some of the possible choices for a running mate are rather obvious:

1. A woman. On the other hand chances are she would have to be unwaveringly pro-life. If this were the case, it would not add much to the ticket. Female Hillary supporters are overwhelmingly likely to be pro-choice. Additionally, pro-life women are likely to vote Republican anyway.

2. A black man. Such a running-mate would mercilessly be characterized as an Uncle Tom from just about every black pulpit in America. Even if his being on the ticket were to increase the Republican take by 20% (and here I may be generous)-20% of 13% is still less than 3% of the national. I suspect that would not be a higher percentage then then number of whites negatively affected- those not willing to vote for a black man under any circumstances.

3. A black woman. Condoleeza Rice is the one who comes to mind and I have previously emphasized her potential in disrupting the cohesion of the Democrats. Since then, I have had second thoughts. I assume she has a pro-life position and her inclusion on the ticket would only re-inforce the "fourth Bush-term" attack on the McCain candidacy. Nobody by the way has been able to imagine her in a traditional family setting.

4. A Governor from a crucial "swing-state." There are inherent dangers in this which I call the "push me, pull me" factor. Such an individual may be instrumental in delivering a clearly defined number of electoral votes in a specific area(s), but what if  this also accompanied by say a 2% -5% overall loss of support in the rest of the nation? In how many states would such an effect turn out to be decisive? And how many electoral votes, would that entail?

5. A young up and coming personable type, identifiable with an obvious minority. The governor of Louisiana. Will he help bring in black votes? Latino votes? Asian votes? What about those distrusting Americans that stick to their guns and religion for comfort? A crap-shoot to say the least.

6. Someone already a household name who was previously crushed by the litmus tests so irrelevant in the national election. Someone young enough to balance the age factor at the head of the ticket and having enough executive experience to take over confidently if needed. Also someone who would have a play at the entire center which considers itself independent. Rudolph Giuliani? Fortunately for the Democrats this is highly unlikely to happen.

7. Someone to whom McCain is repaying a personal debt. Governor Crist? Though such a selection would also fulfill the criteria of Item 4, if it were too obviously apparent, it could actually bring the greatest defeat of all once all the votes are counted.

Truly independent thinking and personal sincerity are what will sway Americans when election day comes. Further this will apply to the bottom of the ticket as well as the top. The choice for running-mate may play a major role in determining the over-all perception of the public, more so than at any time I can remember.

Think carefully Senator McCain.

    

THE LATEST NUT IN THE OBAMA FRUITCAKE SURFACES

Father X, I am not going to give him additional publicity by referring to his actual name, showed up at Hate Central recently to put on his own show for the appreciative audience. Altering his voice as well as he could to sound like a "bro" this humble servant of the young black lord, showed his love, affection, and loyalty to him by driving another nail in his cross.

Considering his vow of poverty, unless it has been suspended for those ministering in that area of Chicago, Father X I suspect may have done it for any number of reasons, but I must assume not the gaining of the means with which to move up and become Reverend Wright's neighbor in the ritzy white neighborhood.

1. He could have done it for his 15 minutes of fame, hoping that they could be stretched indefinitely even though to the detriment of the man he professed to "serve."

2. He could have done it because he deeply resented that same vow of poverty and attacked other people no to so limited-their 401 K etc. (Or maybe just another homeless Marxist?)

3. He could have done it because of a personal feeling of guilt, which he felt we other whites should share. (Have you tried self-flagellation, padre?)

4. He may have done it because he had his nostrils wide open for some sister in the hood and wanted to get her booty.

5. He may have done it because he just needed to be loved and accepted by those around him.

6. He may have done it because like Wright he also wants Obama to fail in his quest for the Presidency. (Seeking a real revolution and not merely the presidency?)

Whatever the reason, the archdiocese, with the blessing of Rome, should send this clown to minister either in Darfur, or worse yet Martha's Vineyard. The unusual thing about circuses, as this entire nominating process has shown itself to be is this:

The clowns in regular circuses usually appear in skits between major acts. In Obama's case they seem to be insistent on upstaging him-the main attraction. (What is the missy thinking or saying about Father X right now? Are you folks inviting him for dinner? Or are you going to help him "catch" the next bus?)

No, I am not "feeling the love" but rather all the hate. It is sad.