Gold Fever on the Air

Gold!  Gold!  There’s gold in them thar hills!  Gold!  [enter the John Huston dance]  Gold!  Roll out the idol!

Gold is that precious metal which has been used as coins, in jewelry, religious idols, in bars to look at and hoard, clothing, cutlery, and food service since history was first recorded—and probably before.  Uses now include electrical and computer technology.

In times of trouble, people buy pure gold to retain value in their wealth.  But whether it’s gold—or even diamonds in some cases—you’ll never retain value by buying gold at the top of the cycle.

Until 1974, the London gold price was under $100 an ounce.  In 1974, the average price was $159; in 1999 279; in 2000 $279; in 2005 $445; in 2007 $695; and the closing price on 9/30/2008 is $885.

The current forecast is for gold to reach $904 through 2009.  And remember, if you buy gold bullion or coins, you’ll be paying a premium.  If you buy gold jewelry, you’ll be paying for the artistic efforts as well as the constituent parts.

Based on past volatility and the expected rebound of our economy, I don’t think you can expect gold to advance too much over the near term.  Let’s say, $1000 at the top.

So, for the time being, it doesn’t seem to make sense to buy into the increasingly prevalent gold purchase commercials.  The premiums themselves will cut your value, and you’ll be stuck with the gold if the price drops.  If you want value, don’t sell your old jewelry.  Keep it around.  There’s no premium to that.

If there’s gold in them thar hills, it’ll be tough to get with all the ore milling, taxes, claim jumpers and pyrite mistakes.  Besides John Huston’s dance, you have to deal with a wild group not needing ‘no stinkin’ badges!’

Just strengthen your marriage, and you can keep your wedding band on.

Gas Pains for the Environment

Common sense dictates that some of the more important keys to American energy independence are:  more oil exploration and drilling; more natural gas exploration and drilling; more nuclear plants; more wind farms and solar panels—but not more bio fuels because diversion of corn and other plant life to the fuel market increases food prices more than is reasonable.

T Boone Pickens—with the concurrence of Aubrey K McClendon—both bigwigs in the Oil and Natural Gas industries—has created a plan for our energy independence.  I checked it out on both their websites.  Steven Milloy of Junk Science.com has covered the subject of Picken’s Plan in detail on Townhall about the Iran claims and several other misrepresentations.  I’ll take a different tack here.

Pickens states that Compressed Natural Gas [CNG] is the answer to our skyrocketing fuel prices.  While it may be part of a solution, it’s certainly not the only answer.  There are far more compelling choices noted above.

In the words of Pickens:

“Converting just 10% of America’s vehicles to CNG will lower U.S. oil                 consumption enough to save nearly 50 billion dollars each year. That’s $50             billion less spent on foreign oil.  Let Washington put those billions to work as             incentives to build and buy CNG vehicles like the rest of the world enjoys.

This can be accomplished in less than 10 years if you have the right leadership.”

Pickens goes on to give us the mathematical reasoning behind his plan.

“According to the Energy Information Agency [EIA], the amount of ‘Finished             Motor Gasoline’ used in 2007 was 9,286 thousand barrels per day.

9,286 thousand barrels/day = 9.286 million barrels/day. This is roughly 10             million barrels/day and 10% of this would be one million barrels/day. (The             9,286 number also appears on the EIA’s ‘Petroleum Basic Statistics’ page.)

1 million barrels/day x $130/barrel* x 365 days/year =
$47.57 billion (“nearly $50 billion”)
*$130/barrel as of July 2008.”

On the McClendon site is offered:

“America uses a lot of oil. Every day, 85 million barrels of oil are produced             around the world. And 21 million of those are used here in the United States.

That’s 25% of the world’s oil demand. Used by just 4% of the world’s             population.

Can’t we just produce more oil?

World oil production peaked in 2005. Despite growing demand and an                 unprecedented increase in prices, oil production has fallen over the last three         years. Oil is getting more expensive to produce, harder to find and there just             isn’t enough of it to keep up with demand.

The simple truth is that cheap and easy oil is gone.”

And:

“Cheaper:  Natural gas is significantly less expensive than gasoline or diesel. In     places like Utah and Oklahoma, prices are less than $1 a gallon…

“Incentives For Consumers To Drive CNG Vehicles:  “A modest federal             incentive is now in place for American consumers to buy CNG-fueled vehicles,         and some states and cities add to that amount. It applies to the purchase of the         Honda Civic GX, the only CNG vehicle currently made in the U.S.

But additional incentives are needed to help consumers convert their current             vehicles from gasoline to CNG.

An additional federal incentive is available on the purchase of a home refueling         appliance. It’s basically a compressor unit that is installed to draw on the             natural gas pipeline in your home.”

Now, let’s consider this plan for a moment.  My data and calculations just don’t jive with those of Pickens in many places.  Firstly, he claims how clean and efficient a CNG fueled vehicle would be.  We should build or convert enough vehicles to equal 10% of the cars on the road.  Fine and dandy, but he doesn’t tell you that a CNG vehicle costs about 40% more than a standard car of the same make.  Expect conversions of  on-the-road cars to be pricey as well.  Since supply and demand will regulate the CNG prices, they’ll end up to where the gas prices are now.  There’s no economic reason for making the change to CNG.  You’ll never get your money back.

And the price of CNG?  CNG per gallon [actually shouldn't this be cubic feet?] costs range from [one station at 70 cents] from about $2 to over $4 in California alone.  The rest of the Country [impossible to find CNG in the middle states] ranges from about $2.50 to $3.90 per gallon.  I saw prices less than $2 in the Tulsa area, but still above $1.  And we can’t all go to Oklahoma to fill up, can we?  But the prices on Pickens’ price maps don’t have an explanation.  Are they for gallons or cubic feet?  And what can a car see as miles per gallon [cubic foot.]

Pickens’ Plan conveniently leaves out any discussion of miles per gallon in converted vehicles.  According to recent data, a CNG fueled car has only half the range of a gasoline vehicle.  Of course, Pickens doesn’t say that either.

Besides, if 10% of the vehicles around are CNG fueled, do you think the per gallon price will stay the same?

I’d look for these two gentlemen leading the charge towards higher prices as ‘fair’ in light of the cleanliness.  And, they also want you to buy a government-subsidized appliance to tap into your home natural gas supply to fuel your car.  Do you really want to play around with your home gas supply?  And—wait a minute!  What he’s really getting at is to increase not only automobiles but the number of homes that use natural gas as well.  There it is.  This whole plan is a clever ruse to increase his income through increased natural gas sales.  And I bet he’ll be selling those tapping appliances as well.

But back to the ideas.  Pickens’ idea that oil production peaked in 2005 is seriously flawed.  For one thing, the Eastern potentates have partially closed the valves to keep the prices high.  They need to open them up again.  And, coincidentally, the powers-that-be seem to be delaying delivery of oil to keep the prices high.

If we can get the Democrats in Congress to let us drill offshore [where the oil is and not 50 miles away] and in that tiny portion of the landscape called ANWR, World oil production will be substantially increased, mostly in the US.  And we can wave goodbye as the Middle East oil money begins to dry up and the Emirs have to reduce the number of wives and sizes of their palaces.  Now those would be great reasons for rejoicing here in the US.  Maybe the Saudis will have to delay importing sand for their palace moats.

The Pickens Plan features are based on incorrect calculations because they have faulty assumptions.  According to Elmhurst College:  “Although all fractions of petroleum find uses, the greatest demand is for gasoline. One barrel of crude petroleum contains only 25-35% gasoline. Transportation demands require that over 50% of the crude oil be converted into gasoline. To meet this demand some petroleum fractions must be converted to gasoline. This may be done by “cracking” – breaking down large molecules of heavy heating oil; “reforming” – changing molecular structures of low quality gasoline molecules; or “polymerization” – forming longer molecules from smaller ones.”

Thus Picken’s use of the current per barrel oil price is wrong.  It should only be half as much.  Thus with the corrected calculation below includes exact figures instead of gratuitous ’roundings.’

928,600 barrels/day x $106.89/barrel* x 50% x 365 days/year =
$18.1 billion
*$106.89/barrel as of Sep 26, 2008.

Quite a difference isn’t it?

But, while we might save $18.1 billion in gas costs, how much does he expect us to pay for CNG?  There won’t be any savings no matter how he presents it.

For argument’s sake, the Pickens’ savings figure presented is not $50 billion but only $18.1 billion.  But why does Pickens think that money we supposedly save is going to be used by the government?  Pickens says:  ‘Let Washington put those billions to work as incentives to build and buy CNG vehicles like the rest of the world enjoys.’  So, who pays for our CNG fuel?

Is he proposing a tax equal to his proposed pitiful savings?  Where else would the money come from?

No, I think the Pickens Plan is a dud, and we should stay away from it.  Thank you Mr Pickens and Mr McLendon, but please be honest in your advertising and stay away from environmental issues that you can only solve with flawed data and conclusions and self serving expectations.

Shoring up the Falling Building with Balsa Planks

Is anyone surprised at the current contentiousness about the proposed federal bailout?  And is anyone surprised that some of the people trying to solve it are the same ones who screwed things up in the first place?  It’s no news that Barney Frank, Chris Dodd, and Presidents Carter and Clinton and their cronies are largely responsible for the failures.  Frank and Dodd, right up to the blowup, kept claiming everything was fine [as they accepted large donations from F & F], and they led the efforts to rebuke Republican attempts to rein in Fannie and Freddie.  And all of them, going back to 1977 [Biden was in office; McCain hadn't run yet], have been pushing and prodding the F & F twins to put pressure on banks and other financial institutions to provide mortgages to people who couldn’t afford them.  They made these loans to illegal immigrants!  They made large loans to people who had no income except food stamps and welfare!  They lent 100% or more of the value of the home in some cases!  And when those homes couldn’t be sold quickly at a profit, the owners defaulted.  Surprise!

During the Clinton years we had the same thing.  In 2005, John McCain and the other Republicans tried to create oversite and reform for F &  F, but were stopped by Democrat/Clinton pressure and votes.  And that was only one of the many tries from the Republicans, though they weren’t as noisy or insistent as they should have been.

Step back a moment.  We must recognize that our economy is based on capitalism, and such a system, by definition—just like morality and the World—requires both successes and failures, good and evil, wealth and bankruptcy.  Now, I’m not saying that this current huge failure—which everyone but the main stream media seems to know how was created—should continue without some government aid.  I’m just not sure how much aid should be proffered [if any] or how it should be considered.

The ‘nanny state’ concerns me very much.

Currently, I don’t trust Pelosi, Reid, Frank, Dodd, Clinton, Obama et al to propose or structure relief in this crisis.  They haven’t solved anything of importance yet.  So, I have no problem with the Republican efforts to change the bail out.

And if you think this is bad, wait until the eleventh hour when Social Security is about to collapse, and the Democrats cry ‘woe is us!’ when they’ve been the ones who have fought tooth and nail to keep saner minds from doing anything to fix it.  It was the Democrat Congress that perpetuated taking the social security payments into the general fund providing the Social Security Administration with ‘paper’ to cover it.  And the Congress has never, and doesn’t appear to ever want, to pay the funds back.

The quick fixes of tax increases, later retirement ages, and other band aids won’t work in the long run.  Republican suggestions including partial privatization [just a tad folks, just a tad] keep being rejected.  [Listen, nobody's going to be investing his paltry sums in risky home mortgages.  Get a life!]

Maybe now, the Democrats will sit down to serious discussions concerning Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid.  Maybe.  But I doubt it.  There’s still too much posturing and blaming the other side around us now.  So, we who are still here to see the actual demise of the Social Security system can thank the Democrat Congresses from over the years for another debacle.  Oh, but oh, if the Congresses had simply left the system alone with it’s collections, the SSA would be solvent for many years to come.

Besides, Congress likes to wait until the last minute when their children are about to collapse before suggesting socialism to save it.

And I’d like to remind you, my friends, of all the debacles—especially in the economy [via socialism] defense [via weakness], war on terror [via weakness], and foreign policy [via wishy-washy words without force]—you’ll be seeing if Obama wins the White House.

Snake Oil and Vinegar?

It’s a shame how the Democrats want to punish Joe Lieberman for speaking at the Republican convention.  It’s a shame that the party of ‘tolerance’ can’t accept the free choice and speech of a US Senator.  It’s a shame that the Democrats want to ‘punish’ a Senator who is no longer a Democrat.  But, as usual, the Democrats are shameless and self-serving.  They are the party of Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and the Clintons.

What’s next for the Democrats?  Oh, I know.  They’re trying to punish the Governor of Alaska for wanting to protect infant life; for exercise her second amendment rights in owning and using a gun; for wanting to protect and raise her family in private with her husband; for having much more executive and decision making experience than their ideal, Barack Obama—say, that makes her better qualified than the entire Democrat ticket, doesn’t it?

It seems the only people Senator Obama doesn’t want to punish are his daughters if they ever make the ’sex’ mistake that befalls so many teens.  He doesn’t want them ‘punished’ with a live baby.  What a sad way to talk about the miracle of birth.

And the Democrat vultures have descended on Alaska to dig [or manufacture] dirt about Sarah Palin.  And in the same spirit, the ‘independent’ investigator of the ‘non-event’ ‘troopergate’ has ceded subpoena power to the Democrats.  Even though the fired official in question says that he was never asked to fire anybody, nor was he pressured to do anything, the waste of time goes on.  And as usual, the Democrats don’t want any facts to get in the way of their march to personal destruction.

Well, that’s okay, because Sarah Palin is on the Republican ticket as the Vice Presidential candidate.  And she doesn’t really care that the Democrats want to punish her for being pro-life, pro-second amendment, pro-family, a woman not a Liberal.

And you know what?  The Democrats will never succeed.  Sarah Palin is now on the national scene, she’s a strong executive and will make an excellent Vice President.  The Democrats can look to nothing but failure and continued irrelevance in the future.

American Voters!  Don’t let yourselves and your neighbors down by falling prey to the snake oil salesman of the Democrat Party!

Dave and the Snake Oil Salesmen

My response to the two comments on my ealier entry ‘Palin, Obama and the Future’ are too long for the comment section, so I’ll just present it as a new blog entry.  I’ll try to contact my opponents so they can read this.

I seem to have raised your hackles, Dave.  But I haven’t missed any news. The people of this Country don’t need a Supreme Court decision in order to read the Constitution, which guarantees the right to bear arms.  And I never mentioned Obama in this arena.  Methinks you’re crying too much.  And, despite your assertion, the Democrats/Liberals DO want to restrict gun ownership of the individual.  They’ve spearheaded hundreds of gun-restricting bills and laws all over the Country—always against law-abiding citizens.  As Casey used to say:  ‘…and you can look it up…’  Besides, Senator Obama is one of the most Liberal individuals in politics, right up there with Joe Biden and Ted Kennedy.

I don’t believe that Senator Obama has clearly articulated anything about the rights of the people.  His usual manner is that of the epitome of righteousness handing down pronouncements from high.  Stop drinking the Kool-Aid, Dave.

If the Senator was so sure the Democrats/Liberals could break the glass ceiling, why wasn’t Hillary selected for his running mate?  Or Dane Feinstein for that matter?  He could have picked radical Liberal and feminist, Bella Abzug—but she’s dead, as many of the voters of the coming election in his ‘represented’ part of Illinois will be.  No, the Senator wants to talk the talk but walk the good-old-boy path.  And that’s why he chose Joe Biden.

Statements and comments giving details about my positions are all over the Internet, and I don’t intend to reproduce them here for your easy reading, Dave.  This is an opinion piece and not a scholarly treatise needing citations and references.  Besides, common and proven knowledge doesn’t need a citation.  Roe v Wade was wrong—big time.  The Constitution, common sense, and inate spirituality of any human would seem to guarantee life, where the Roe v Wade decision is guaranteeing death—and that’s un-Constitutional, and it should, by rights, be overturned.  The ‘right to choice’ is simply a phrase meaning the right to kill an unborn baby.  And the baby’s right to life IS in the Declaration of Independence [and echoed in the Constitution]: ‘…to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness’ and ‘…nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law…’ for one instance.  Not a one of forefathers ever expected Roe v Wade, and in general they would have hated the use of it to demean life.

The Supreme Court has been wrong in the past, and it is wrong with Roe v Wade.  Do you still believe that Dred Scott was property, Dave?  All Supreme Court decisions must be studied with an open eye on the radical Liberals sitting on the bench.

Once again, stop the Kool-Aid drinking.  There is no such thing as a Constitutional separation of Church and State.  That’s just the position of flawed individuals.  The Constitution simply states:  ‘Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…’  That’s pretty simple.  The forefathers simply wanted to steer clear from a state religion, but they expected a religious faith to be prominent in daily life.  The left has turned over every slimy rock it could find to throw at organized religion, especially the Roman Catholic.  Listening to the left, you’d think the Catholics were trying to organize a Catholic-run government headed by the Pope.  You and your fellow leftists don’t understand the Constitution any more than you do any religion, it’s ethos, or it’s modern agenda.

And, furthermore, as a bonus:  there is no Constitutional guarantee of privacy.  There are sections that touch the edge of such an issue, but don’t specifically guarantee it.  Ever wonder why?  Personal rights are one thing, but defense against a common foe is another.  You and the ‘can’t we just get along’ crowd are seriously deficient in the abilities to deal with real life.  Go back to school and take something other than basket weaving [with apologies to the fine basket weaving craftsmen of the World.]

But I do agree with you on one thing, Dave.  We don’t agree on Roe v Wade or probably any other issue.

And now on to Christian Liberal.  Who’s they?  You won’t identify them.  Are you afraid to?  Don’t you know?  Or are you concerned that someone will call you on such a general statement like I am?

That’s an out and out lie that Clarence Thomas is ‘the only black man in America who hates civil rights.’  He doesn’t.  And you’d know that if you studied both him as a person, an author, a speaker, and a Supreme Court Justice.  All you’re doing is perpetuating myth and ignorance.  Grow up and smell the roses of knowledge.

Patriot missiles are defensive weapons, not offensive.  I guess you don’t know that, do you?  I mean, you seem so sure of your lies and misrepresentations.  And, I don’t know of anyone or any entity who rapes the environment the way you profess.  The Patriot Act was one way to help insure our protection.  Firstly, we must use all our resources for our populace.  If you want pristine and want to live on an island separate from real life, go find one.  We would all be pleased.  Secondly, security of our Country demands that the harbored terrorists here be monitored, as well as their communications overseas.  Give a little, gain a lot.

Your insult to Sarah Palin is gratuitous, despicable, and further proof that you are a Liberal but not a Christian.  It’s a despicable thing to say in any forum.  And yes, I’ll give you a break.  I’ll not go into detail about how ignorant and ranting you are as a perfect example of the often worthless left.

As for change, both John McCain and Sarah Palin have proven themselves as foes of the establishment when it errs.  And they offer a freshness that Washington hasn’t seen in years—decades actually.  Senator Obama has no record or experience, and Senator Biden is part of the good-old-boy network.  We don’t need any snake oil they’re selling, especially when it’s from a new kid on the block.

Palin, Obama and the Future

Well, of course the left has gone ballistic over the selection of Sarah Palin.  She stands for everything they want to destroy: life, 2nd ammendment, glass ceiling, etc. etc. and so forth [sorry King!]

Sarah Palin is pro-life in all cases and willing to raise a ’special needs’ baby instead of aborting it; the left [the mainstream media is to be included within the term 'left'] is pro-abortion, or murdering the unborn baby—or partially born baby—if the woman [or the leftist pundits] want it.  Talk about playing God.

Sarah Palin is pro-second ammendment, and a lifelong member of the NRA.  She owns guns and uses them in hunting to keep meat on the table.  The left wants guns out of the hands of law-abiding citizens, but have no answer for the criminals—or those on the left who surrepticiously own them.  They don’t care that homeowners and others can’t defend themselves.  They also, logically, are attacking the US military, probably in part because they have guns and use them.  ‘Can’t we all live together?

Sarah Palin has been an effective and laudable Governor of Alaska for the past two years [while Obama was in the midst of his multi-year run for the Presidency] with many listable accomplishments [I'm not going to repeat them here; they're available on the net to anyone who wants to read them again]; the left questions her abilities and experience to ‘be a heart beat away from the Presidency’ while never questioning Obama’s complete lack of experience and proven ability to be a Governor, let alone President.

Obama, himself, has said that he was a poor ‘community organizer’ [and the meaning of that 'job' is yet to be understood], yet the left chooses that mundane [but locally important?] job to be good experience to be a President of the US.

Sarah Palin’s family is off limits, and the radical media and bloggers need their butts tanned for the smears, innuendos, lies, and irrational contempt.

The list goes on, but it should be noted that it’s quite obvious to any thinking person that Sarah Palin is more qualifed in temperament and experience to be President than Obama or Biden is.

So, is it any wonder at the attacks from the left?  They’ll continue, because no matter what Sarah Palin and John McCain do, the radical left will always berate them, smear them, and lie about them.

And oh, by the way.  A McCain election could mean the thrusting of Sarah Palin on the National stage with such force that she’ll automatically be the front runner for the Presidency after McCain.  And the Democrats can’t survive that.  And that may account for the panic and anger.