Sunday, March 18, 2012

Smartest President Ever?

I have long hoped to be presented with evidence that shows the brilliance of our current president. He has been touted as one helluva smart dude. "Smartest guy in the room" and such. I guess that depends who is with him in the room. If it's Joe Biden...

This Mark Steyn piece provides some insights. He speaks of a recent speech the Einstein-in-Chief gave and the side-splitters he issued to mock his opponents. What also isn't funny, however, is that I hadn't heard of these "gaffs" before reading Steyn's column. Why is that, do you think?

Anyway, the subject of Obama's brain, such as it is, has been on my mind of late due to the price at the pump lately. Around my neck of the woods, its been between about $4.19-4.29 per gallon for regular unleaded. And what's President Solyndra been doing about it? Pretty much anything he can to drive that price up higher while favoring failing alternative energy companies that aren't employing anyone.

I recall an interview I heard not too many years ago wherein the man being interviewed spoke of supposedly dry oil wells having oil once more. I've mentioned this in past discussions regarding the subject of limited resources. Apparently there is a theory that is in opposition to the fossil fuel theory. This was first presented by the Russians from research begun during Stalin's time. The attendant link, from another poorly written article at American Thinker (where, as we know, among the hundred plus contributors, there's not a decent writer in the bunch) includes links of its own to sources that flesh out this theory for those so inclined as to read them.

The link also includes a video of a collection of clips of Obama repeating a mantra that there is no "silver bullet" answer to dealing with our energy problems and dependence on foreign oil. Is this stupidity from the smartest prez ever, or a calculated lie? The link that carries said video presents a refutation of Barry's claim that we possess only 2% of the world's oil supply (down from 3% according to previous speeches). Whatever the case, it is not very smart to fail to understand what is at stake here.

Regardless of whether or not one believes we have enough oil for the next 200 years, or the next fifty, there is no doubt that lifting moratoriums and prohibitions on drilling and production will lower the price at the pump. It's simple supply and demand where if the supply is perceived to be about to increase, the price will drop to reflect that increase. The positive effect on the economy should be obvious. If the cost to transport goods goes down, profits from the sale of those goods goes up.

This is so basic. I thought this guy wants to be re-elected? I'm guessing he has some plan to make some of this happen before we get too close to November. Then the question will be how smart the voters are.

9 comments:

Dan Trabue said...

Marshall...

whether or not one believes we have enough oil for the next 200 years, or the next fifty, there is no doubt that lifting moratoriums and prohibitions on drilling and production will lower the price at the pump. It's simple supply and demand where if the supply is perceived to be about to increase, the price will drop to reflect that increase.

And that would be a rational conclusion IF one supposed that it was rational to only worry about one's own generation. BUT, if one is concerned about life beyond the 10-200 years from now when fossil fuel accessibility will decline, then it is the utmost in stupidity and selfishness to demand a temporary price decrease to help "ME. NOW." at the cost to future generations.

Indeed, it IS wisdom to note that there is no magic bullet to magically create cheap resources out of thin air indefinitely. The wise person builds his house on a firm foundation, another smart guy once said.

The fool builds HIS house on sand.

I vote for wisdom over foolishness. Living within our means over raping the world now at the cost of our children and their children. You disagree?

Marshall Art said...

I certainly disagree with your perceptions upon which your conclusions are based. You've never explained why depleting our resources now, rather than during the next generation, or the generation after, or after that, even matters. If the resource is finite, then it will be depleted at some point and at that point that generation will suffer the effects of the absence of the resource. If it's inevitable, what difference does it make when the resource is depleted and by whom? If everyone acts as if the resource is finite and conserves in a manner that pleases you, they are only putting off what will happen anyway and NO ONE will benefit by the use of the resource.

Continuing to work backwards from the end of your comment, it's not an issue of creating cheap resources out of thin air. It's a matter of lowering the price of a resource now at our disposal for the benefit of this generation and the ones that follow, if you believe that bettering life now will be a benefit to future generations. You seem to believe this only if it follows your ideology about what constitutes a better life. For most people, it means jobs and needed products that are affordable. Even if I conserve on the gas and heat I need, I still need them and lowering the price of fuel is imperative. Continuing price hikes threaten my job and my ability to get to it. It raises the prices of all goods and services as each are delivered by means that require the fuel of which we have plenty.

As to the finite nature of oil, you apparently haven't read the linked pieces at all. Here is one of the sources cited in the linked piece of great note.

We don't need to have high gas prices regardless of whether or not the resource is finite. This economy demands that the anti-oil attitudes be stifled in order to help get us back on track. Lowering fuel and heating costs, so greatly impacted by the stupidity of leftist policies, is essential in that role.

And by the way, I'm not looking for a "temporary" decrease in the price of oil, nor is anyone else with common sense. If we are allowed to access our own reserves of oil, the "temporary" nature of price drops will only be affected by natural forces of the free market economy, not the artificial inflationary effects of bad leftist policy. Those price drops will be sustained to the extent normal market forces will allow.

Dan Trabue said...

I'm aware of abiotic oil theories. I have not seen anywhere near a consensus opinion in the scientific community that it is anything but snake oil being promoted by those who wish to cling to an unhealthy addiction.

Marshall Art said...

That believers in the current theory dismiss the new theory is not news, or uncommon. But lack of consensus does little to refute the evidence for the newer theory. Obviously, much is at stake should the abiotic theory pan out. The most obvious is that we need depend on foreign oil at all. And of course, also lessened would be our concern for what will be available for future generations.

Furthermore, folks like yourself, for whom the use of petroleum is seen as sinful, the companies that extract, refine and market it as evil, and the push for alternatives worth any cost, including the incredible carnage being done to our economy, are far more concerned with demonizing than actual progress that makes sense.

As I mentioned, news of wells refilling themselves is not uncommon. At the very least, this points to a massive distortion by your side in describing the current state of affairs. We have more oil, far more, than Barry and the greenies would prefer the public realize. It does not serve them to remove the excuse that we have so little and that it is not feasible to get at it, or that we can quickly benefit by it.

Thus, my last statement is further validated by your comments. Foolishness is expecting the average citizen to fall for their crap. Foolishness is in those like yourself who do.

Wisdom is in the knowledge that we already have the means to both supply our needs and at the same time, reduce its costs to the consumer, while still pursuing alternatives. The difference is that we now would have the time to develop those alternatives in a manner that makes them actually viable, rather than forcing them upon the nation under fear-mongering about the amount available to us.

Feodor said...

"That believers in the current theory dismiss the new theory is not news, or uncommon. But lack of consensus does little to refute the evidence for the newer theory.”

Wow. Marshall actually quotes Newton, Darwin, Marx and Freud with approval. Thought I would never see the day.

Marshall Art said...

I merely stated a fact, feo. It says nothing about the viability of a theory, but only that immediate and total agreement isn't necessary for the new theory to be true. Trying to spin that into agreement or approval with a specific theory is deceitful.

Feodor said...

You really do have semantic disabilities, don’t you!? How can you confuse open sarcasm for a wish to mislead? Unless… you’re also stupid.

Marshall Art said...

Only an arrogant prick like yourself would believe his "clever" attempt at sarcasm would translate easily to the printed page. Only a complete idiot would see clarification as confusion. You are both. I made no accusation of a wish to mislead. I merely overlooked your comment and stated the intention of mine.

Marshall Art said...

I inadvertently deleted one of Feo's brilliant posts (sarcasm). Here it is:

-------------------------------------

"I made no accusation of a wish to mislead."

Earlier: "Trying to spin that into agreement or approval with a specific theory is deceitful.”

Look up deceitful. (I can’t believe you have to be taught the definition.)

-------------------------------------

This would be brilliant (not really) if in fact I did accuse you of trying mislead. As I was already commenting on your "sarcasm" not translating, I don't see as how I could firmly accuse your comment of doing anything one way or the other, thus, "trying to spin". You must know my now that I have no trouble with direct accusations regarding you. Of course, that standing accusation that you are a false priest indicates deceitfulness as a general aspect of your character, so I can understand your confusion.

Here's a tip: as you fail at trying to be clever, you also should give up trying "gotcha" games.