Who does what with the power?

in the early 70's, independent oil companies owned/controlled 85% of the world's known oil reserves. Today independent oil companies own/control 7% of the world's known oil reserves. The rest is owned/controlled by oil producing countries.

The question is: what was the price of oil/gasoline when the oil companies had complete pricing control? About 35 cents/gallon. And what is the price of oil now when pricing control is held by OPEC, Russia, and the like? About $4.00/gallon. A 1000% increase in the price of oil when control shifted from independent oil companies to third world countries. So who's evil?

Perfection, redux

Here is a 1970 125cc Penton 6-day Steeltanker dirtbike (the same model I raced as a teenager) I restored from July 2005 to December 2007 (tank signed by Mr. Penton himself). Have you ever seen a more classically beautiful bike? ... like a 1965 Mustang.

How many of you have talismans from your youth that are like a time machine when you see one of them?

Everything and Always

This article by Stanley Kurtz, here, is a scathingly precise indictment of Barack Obama's linkage with Jeremiah Wright's view of the U.S. and his responsibility to it (or not). Upon sending it to a Democrat friend of mine, she answered "Interesting article about Rev. Wright." She is very bright (and a lawyer), and her subtle, economical reply was meant to convey that the article held no relevance to Barack Obama's candidacy. But I begged to differ with my reply ...

Yes, Laura, and "I'm shocked, shocked! to learn that gambling is going on here!" was interesting insight only into Rick's Cafe (or did it say something about Captain Reneau as well?).


I understand that there is nothing that would persuade you to not support the Democratic candidate (whomever that was), but when I state that I am deeply troubled about the Democratic candidate and the ramifications of him being President, you'll know in large measure what's at the root of my (and millions more who will see the obvious linkage) concern.

No matter who the Democratic candidate was, I would think that his/her policy stances were too far left - I see the world from a 'more right' angle than do Democrats. No big problem there, just a difference of opinion/technique. At the time, I thought Bill Clinton's positions would end up being too left of center for my taste (but if he'd just kept his pecker in his pants, I'd have ended up thinking that he deserved a mid to upper 'B' grade as President overall). But it never ocurred to me to worry about Bill Clinton's loyalty to the United States. And since Obama is a Democrat, it follows that I think that his policies would be too leftist for my comfort zone. Again, that would be a difference of opinion/technique. But it's his belief system (as indicated by his own words and actions for 20 years) that is intolerable - it goes way beyond a mere difference of opinion/technique. You can argue that Obama won't govern from the springboard of his beliefs and intrinsic view of the world and the U.S.'s place in it. But you cannot reasonably argue that the preponderance of evidence doesn't indict him on what are those beliefs and intrinsic view.

ps -

Balance of probabilities

Balance of probabilities, also known as the preponderance of the evidence, is the standard required in most civil cases. The standard is met if the proposition is more likely to be true than not true. Effectively, the standard is satisfied if there is greater than 50 percent chance that the proposition is true. Lord Denning, in Miller v. Minister of Pensions,^[2] described it simply as "more probable than not."

Her reply ....

And why, Larry, if you had not already decided that you were vehemently opposed to Obama would you be more willing to attribute another person's words to him than his own? I hope he governs from the springboard of his beliefs. So, no, I don't know what's at the root of your concern. As I said, last I checked Rev. Wright was not running for president. The article had many insights and observations about Wright, but last I studied logical fallacies, the writer provided no evidence that Obama shared those views other than his speculation that (1) Obama read the cited articles in The Trumpet and (2) he consequently must share those views. Assuming that premise (1) is correct, I know you know better than to think that (2) logically follows. But even putting aside logic for the moment, you, for instance, as do I, pride yourself on reading and listening to many different perspectives and viewpoints. Hopefully, this country has not come to one "right" way of thinking, but again assuming it has, are you agreeing with the writer that you believe and ascribe to everything you read? Mr. Kurtz no doubt thinks highly of his own opinion, but thankfully when I deal with the preponderance of the evidence standard in court such opinions are not evidence and are excluded.

and my closer (the reader can decide who is on firmer ground) ...

Laura, I'm not a lawyer, but when did what someone "says" in court carry more weight than what that person 'did' or than the 'evidence says'?

if I had begun attending Wright's church and had managed to somehow sleep thru all of the cheering and hoopla in a few years worth of sermons and then picked up and thumbed through the Trumpet, as someone who loves my country and does NOT agree with the messages of this publication and this pastor, I wouldn't have continued to subject myself and my FAMILY to this kind of hatred and anti-American sentiment, and neither would anyone else who also disagreed with the messages being taught there. So, logically, the converse is that anyone who did stay and subject his family to this environment does agree with the messages being taught there. That's what concerns me about Obama. His beliefs, as evidenced by his past repeated actions, concern me a great deal, and I believe you'd be going ballistic if he was a Republican (or if his poll numbers suggested that Clinton was a much stronger bet to beat the Republican).

And just to be clear, what this very precise article logically lays out is the conclusion that Obama has lied his butt off when he claims to have no knowledge of Jeremiah Wright's beliefs and spoken/written messages of those beliefs (prior to throwing his 'uncle' under the bus - if I weren't so cynical (rational?) I'd say "better late than never", but motive is key here). This is a damning look into Obama's character and fitness to be a leader of ALL of the people (he would be better placed as a black preacher, where he could best utilize his amazing oratory skills and not have to lie about his beliefs in order to further his personal ambitions) and, as I say, If he was a 1) Republican, 2) corporate CEO, or 3) an Army general, you'd be freaking out, too.

I know I started this thread. But I'll not speak of Wright again - actually, no reason to speak of Obama again, either. There's no further debate in my mind about who he is or what he believes (but that still leaves plenty of wood (McCain and Clinton) for us to chop

Glad your brother is BETTER!

lks

(W)Right is Wrong, and It Is What It Is

At least, as long as one knows what "is" is.

Democrats' propensity for splitting hairs is Olympian. First Bill Clinton wants to wax metaphorical about what "is" is (under oath, no less). Now B.H. Obama would have us believe that he was "Shocked, Shocked! to find out gambling was going on in the casino." Puhleeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeze.

He knew what was being taught by Irreverend Jeremiah Wright, and further more he approved of it, both with his time, his presence, his money, and through the implied submission of his family (by the explicit exposure of his family) to the authority of Irreverend Wright and the environs of his church. Obama claims he wasn't "there" to hear the vicious and despicable sermons that are being shown on the media and YouTube, and had no idea that Irreverend Wright was teaching that kind of hatred ..... Really???! I beg to differ, he knew exactly what was being taught in that church. Upon what do I base that argument? It's a two-pronged foundation:

1) Look at the hundreds of people in the congregation for those sermons in question. What you see is not shock ("we've never heard this kind of toxic invective before!") and an angry exit by most, if not all, of these people. What you see is wild cheering, and heads nodding vigorously in the affirmative. This speaks to two truths - 1) these people, by the reality of not being shocked, indicate that they've heard this type of sermon many times before, and 2) their cheering and clapping indicate that not only have they heard it before, but they SUPPORT it wholeheartedly.

2) A church 'congregation' is a group of people of 'like' life-views and beliefs who gather - or congregate - to share those views and increase their conviction of them. So for Obama to sit in the congregation for TWENTY years! is a bulletproof indication that he 1) knew what was being taught week in, week out, and 2) he agreed with it. If not, then why would he continue to sit under this this poison spewing church (would you?) and have this poison spewing pastor baptize his children (would you?)?

The only other explanation is that he didn't personally believe the garbage being dumped on him for 20 years, but he sat there because it was politically strategic for him to be affiliated with that church and that congregation.

So there you have it. Either Obama is a completely convicted believer and follower of Irreverend Wright and Wright's hate list, or he is a cynical, scheming politician who subjected his family to years of abusive mental poison in exchange for some political advantage.

Where am I wrong?