Opuscula Dems energy Activities Do not compute

ACCORDING TO BloombergQuint ^{https://tinyurl.com/n2edtczh}, the

U.S. Is Already Exporting Oil From Strategic Reserve at Record Pace

YET, the Democrats are kowtowing to the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) to sell oil to the U.S. BECAUSE the Democrats are shutting down oil and natural gas pipelines.

Anyone remember what happened when the U.S. was dependent on OPEC oil in the 1970s? VA (!) guaranteed mortgages were at 21%.

 I AM NOT BLAMING the Democrats energy stupidity on POTUS.

Based on too many appearances, it seems the gentleman is not fully cognizant. Someone in the party IS pulling his strings.

The Democrats are promoting clean air — that means getting rid of fossil fuels: coal, oil, natural gas, and, although I have not heard it mentioned, nuclear.

All well and good.

HOWEVER the Democrats are putting the cart in front of the horse. (Horses also are on the Democrats’ hit list. About 44 percent of livestock emissions are in the form of methane (CH4). The remaining part is almost equally shared between Nitrous Oxide (N2O, 29 percent) and Carbon Dioxide (CO2, 27 percent)) ^{https://tinyurl.com/b46jtyps}


Gary Varvel cartoon in The Times Examiner (Greenville, SC) , 11/11/2020 (https://tinyurl.com/ecphb4t6)

The problem is simple: there is almost zero infrastructure to replace fossil fuels.There is TALK about wind farms and solar collectors.

Unfortunately, these are not ready for “prime time” in most locations. (Florida seems an exception; Florida Power and Light (FPL) — not the government — is investing heavily in solar collectors to supplement other resources, including nuclear.)

The push for electric-powered vehicles is slowed by the lack of charging stations. Unlike ubiquitous gas stations, charging stations are (relatively) few and far between, at least in the U.S. (Israel, being smaller, is far ahead of the U.S. in making charging stations available.)

How will the charging stations be powered?

Electricity from a fossil-fuel plant? Solar? Other? And how will power be delivered to the charging stations?

What no one seems to consider is (a) battery life and (b) tire life.

Owners of Toyota’s Prius report the car’s batteries have about a 10-year life before they must be replaced. They also claim that tires wear out much faster than on a lighter gasoline-powered vehicle.

Ignoring public transportation

Railroad tracks cris-cross the U.S.

Most of the rails are for freight trains and almost none are suitable for high-speed rail travel. As “developed countries” are rated, rail travel in America is third world, laughable. Admittedly, the U.S. is larger than most European countries so rail travel in the U.S would need to be very fast and very comfortable.

Airplanes are fast, but no longer are comfortable; private cars are slow, but may offer some comforts. Buses have the disadvantages of both airplanes and private cars.

Meanwhile, with the Democrats selling American oil to Asia (and coal to China), prices at pump inevitably will go up … and up as the supply-and-demand balance shifts. That applies to all conveyances — cars, trucks, trains, planes, ships.

As fuel prices increase, so too prices to move people and goods from Point A to Point B. This will exacerbate the supply chain issues.

POTUS once claimed no one can define “Supply Chain.”

Without stating he is wrong (again), in simple terms (even POTUS can comprehend), the supply chain is:

*  Moving raw materials to production

*  Moving the finished product to a transportation medium (ship, train, truck, inter-modal)

*  Moving the product to the seller (wholesaler, retailer)

*  Moving the product to the purchaser


Simplified supply chain (https://tinyurl.com/kk8v5u3v)
 

Scott Adams "Dilbert" cartoon for 25 Sep 2021 (https://dilbert.com/strip/2021-09-25)
 
---
 
 
 
 
PLAGIARISM is the act of appropriating the literary composition of another, or parts or passages of his writings, or the ideas or language of the same, and passing them off as the product of one’s own mind.
Truth is an absolute defense to defamation. Defamation is a false statement of fact. If the statement was accurate, then by definition it wasn’t defamatory.
Web sites (URLs) beginning https://tinyurl.com/ are generated by the free Tiny URL utility and reduce lengthy URLs to manageable size.
 
 
 
 
Comment on Plans don't compute

Opuscula Human or humanoid? Who is asleep In the White House?

WHO STOLE AMERICA’S PRESIDENT?

The man who “hid out” during the recent presidential primaries and general election — yet still managed to be elected U.S. Chief Executive — apparently is a humanoid robot similar to, but perhaps not as “smart,” as Sophia. ^{https://tinyurl.com/25majm3a}

The person known as POTUS (President Of The United States), among other polite and impolite titles, simply cannot be for real.

 

No thinking person would

•  Try to force a country to host a U.S. consulate for a non-state sworn to the host state’s demise — despite the action being illegal under U.S. law

•  Try to force two warring factions of the aggressor non-states to join forces against a common enemy, the only democracy and solid U.S. ally in the region

•  Attempting to get into bed with a nation that has threatened to physically destroy the U.S.

•  Kowtow to a country that considers America a “paper tiger” and beneath contempt

•  Issue executive fiats that are beyond the scope of the office and the U.S. Constitution

Yet the person or humanoid robot posing as POTUS is doing all of those things.

Sleepy Joe

Some of his political rivals refer to POTUS as “Sleepy Joe.” That is one of the nicer sobriquets applied to him.

Deserved?

POTUS often seems to be mentally “elsewhere” during press presentations; he rarely answers even “easy” questions, preferring to have his minions chase the media — media generally friendly to POTUS — from the room.

In one instance, a visiting dignitary was willing to respond to questions from the media and POTUS shut him up: “No questions.”

When he DOES answer a reporter’s question, e.g., is the U.S. going to give illegal aliens $450,000 each as compensation” for breaking the law?

No, he replied; that’s “garbage.”

The next day, having been advised by people supposedly reporting to him and following his lead, he began back-tracking. As this is keyed, no one knows how much will be paid — the whole process now is secret — and what percentage of the “compensation” will go to the lawyers representing the criminals. (Let’s see. 40% of $450,000 is “only” $180,000 per litigant, adult and child.)

For the record, it was Democrat Obama that established the “cages” for captured illegals. Trump gets the blame for an Obama/Biden administration action.

Tasks ignored

Similar to Jacob Rodney Cohen ^{https://tinyurl.com/4d5cbb3n}, POTUS apparently gets no respect from his staff.

He appointed his vice president as the point person for the border issue.

The vice president has visited borders in central America and in Europe, but carefully avoided visiting the U.S.-Mexican border where criminals are crossing as freely as ants to a picnic basket.

Cartoon of ants raiding picnic

POTUS’ point person on the supply chain issue has managed to avoid visiting West Coast ports where, as this is keyed, more than 100 vessels are waiting to discharge cargo.

Conversely, his predecessor in the White House was encouraging, perhaps coercing, U.S. companies to “bring manufacturing back to the States.” He had some success.

Take down the flag

POTUS has embarrassed the U.S. and shown the U.S.’ “friends” that they cannot depend on the nation to keep its promises.

An agreement to exit the Afghanistan quagmire was inked by the previous administration. It came with several requirements that the Taliban was required to honor else the agreement was void.

The Taliban breached the agreement, but POTUS went ahead and pulled out most U.S. troops, but not all (as the body count reflects) and he abandoned many Afghans who had been working for the U.S. to the hands of the “new’ Taliban, an entity that is strikingly similar to the “old” Taliban.

The U.S. has gone, since POTUS was sworn in, from energy independence to begging OPEC, the folks who brought the U.S. outrageous inflation in the mid-1970s, to sell us oil products.

Because he is controlled by a faction that would allow Americans to freeze rather than warm themselves with — gasp — fossil fuel (oil, gas, coal) in the cause of clean air, he is shutting down oil and gas pipelines. (Oil via tankers from OPEC apparently are exempt.)

Unfortunately, the U.S. lacks the infrastructure to replace fossil fuels with wind, solar, and water power. Even these non-fossil fuel substitutes have an environmental impact.

These shut-downs are no surprise. One of his first actions was to cancel the Keystone pipeline, following in Obama’s footsteps.

Meanwhile, the U.S. is selling coal (as it has been doing for several years) to China so that China can continue to develop war materiel to use against the U.S. while leading the world in air pollution.

Illustration by Gary Varvel for Creators Syndicate (https://tinyurl.com/ahrcm74m)

Private jets, motorcades to save earth

The recent UN’s COP26 in Paris and its follow-up in Glasgow saw politicians and “environmentalists” flying in to the venues, many in private jets. Once on the ground, they were escorted in motorcades. In the case of POTUS, the motorcade allegedly was 80-vehicles long, and of those vehicles, many were mammoth SUVs (GM Escalades, Ford Excursions) made even less environmentally “friendly” by being armored.

China and Russia were notably absent.

POTUS led the way by promising to spend billions of U.S. taxpayer dollars not only to reduce the U.S.’ environmental impact, but to help developing nations (not defined) avoid negatively impacting the environment.

The problem for POTUS is that Congress must appropriate the money.

Such promises in the past have proven empty since the executive cannot force the legislative to do its bidding on all things.

Given the economy of the U.S. in late 2021, and the fact that mid-term elections are nigh, POTUS’ pledge is just words, hot air.

POTUS’ promotion of electric cars apparently fails to take into account

The cost and inability of the “Average Joe” to afford one

The environmental impact or replacing limited lifetime batteries and tires that wear out faster

The lack of charging stations across the country and the infrastructure to get electrical power to those stations

Nothing is without challenges.

States’ rights

While it may not lead to another civil war, POTUS’ fiats and executive orders are trampling on states’ rights.

POTUS has decided that all employers of 100 or more people must have 100 percent COVID vaccinated staff. The health benefits are still out on that.

The questions:

Does POTUS have the authority to mandate vaccinations nationwide?

When did the Federal government supplant states in areas not granted to it by the Constitution and its several Amendments.

Article VI, Paragraph 2 of the Constitution is commonly referred to as the Supremacy Clause.

This should not be a prerogative of any government for a malady of the COVID variety. Mandating smallpox vaccinations is another matter. Polio vaccinations, pneumonia vaccinations, and even seasonable influenza vaccinations have been, and should remain, individual decisions.

For the record, this scrivener IS vaccinated, including the booster.

POTUS also has decided that dock workers and most auto workers must be union members.

The problem is, many states have freedom of choice — “Right to Work” laws.

Despite Article VI, Paragraph 2 (ibid.), the several States in most cases cannot be coerced into accepting a presidential fiat. Insisting on implementing a presidential whim first results in court cases. The vaccination fiat already is slated to be heard by several Federal District courts.

 

---

 

 

 

 

PLAGIARISM is the act of appropriating the literary composition of another, or parts or passages of his writings, or the ideas or language of the same, and passing them off as the product of one’s own mind.

Truth is an absolute defense to defamation. Defamation is a false statement of fact. If the statement was accurate, then by definition it wasn’t defamatory.

Web sites (URLs) beginning https://tinyurl.com/ are generated by the free Tiny URL utility and reduce lengthy URLs to manageable size.

 

 

 

 

Comment on Human or humanoid?

Getting it wrong - again Presidential Comedian

 

THE INCUMBENT AT 1500 Pennsylvania Avenue either is a failed comedian or a total fool.

According to the president of the U.S., once a highly respected office, the current title holder told the world that the Republican candidates for president are not qualified to debate other nations' leaders since they couldn't handle CNBC moderators.

His audience of camp followers and sycophants laughed on cue, failing to realize that

• The Republican candidates DID put the "moderators" in their place and
• The "moderators," liberals out to make fools of the GOP candidates, were instead proven to be fools BY the candidates.

Following the president's teleprompter thoughts, would people really expect Russia's Putin to ask a U.S. president if he (or she) could do math? Would China's leader, Xi Jinping, President & General Secretary of the Communist Party, ask which comic books the president preferred? Would even Iran's Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Seyyed Ali Khamenei, crazy as he is, ask a U.S. president an equally ridiculous question?

Only a liberal, in Hilary's pocket, CNBC moderator would ask such idiotic, irrelevant questions of candidates standing for election to the nation's highest office.

Indeed, would anyone at CNBC ask Mrs. Clinton if her husband was still having affairs with young women or smoking pot - but, naturally, not inhaling; would they ask her why she decided to violate both law and policy to set up a private email service and maintain a personal email account for State Department communications, also illegal and against policy?

As a former honest print reporter and editor - the term "journalist" has been disgraced by the current crop of men and women with agendas - I resent the way the media, tv and print, have forgotten how to report, as Jack Webb (tv's Sgt. Joe Friday, LAPD) never intoned, "just the facts" (Even bloggers need to check their "facts"; something today's' "journalists" apparently cannot bother to do.)

FOR ANOTHER take on the CNBC vs. GOP candidates debacle that the president managed to get wrong, see Deadline Hollywood's RNC Rips GOP Debate Moderators: “CNBC Should Be Ashamed”

The president thinks CNBC won the debate, but any one who watched it knows otherwise. Even Putin, Xi, and maybe even Khamenei would realize that any of the GOP debaters could go toe-to-toe with them. Republicans have done that in the past, and have had greater success than their Democratic counter-parts.

White House & Iran For whom Is POTUS Working?

 

IF WE CAN AGREE THAT the U.S. State Department does, or at least should, do the bidding of the President of the United States, a/k/a POTUS*, then we understand that two recent State-related events originated at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue (the White House).

Item 1:

A Wall Street Journal report revealed that the US expedited the release of several Iranian convicts (including arms smugglers) in an effort to pave the way for negotiations over Iran's nuclear program. In 2009, Iran reportedly passed “a wish list” to the US detailing actions the US should undertake to improve ties with Iran. The secret list included the names of Iranian prisoners it wanted the US to release. In 2010, Oman brokered the release of three American hikers who had accidentally crossed into Iran from Iraq and had been arrested by Iranian authorities. In the following years, the US assisted with the release of two Iranian convicted arms smugglers, a retired senior diplomat and a prominent scientist convicted of illegal exports to Iran. However, today, four American citizens remain imprisoned or unaccounted for in Iran. (Emphasis mine.)

The administration’s actions demonstrate a pattern of acceding to Iranian demands. While the US originally demanded a “full suspension of uranium enrichment as required by multiple U.N. Security Council resolutions,” the US is now permitting Iran to continue enriching uranium with 5,060 centrifuges. The US originally insisted that Iran shut down Fordow but now over 1,000 centrifuges will remain in this underground facility largely impenetrable to attack. Similarly, while restrictions on Iran’s development of ballistic missiles were once considered an important part of any deal with Iran, now they appear to be excluded from the deal. President Obama’s objective that Iran should not “have the capacity to develop a nuclear weapon” has been downgraded to limiting Iran’s breakout time to one year, a period of time analysts believe is too short to effectively detect and diplomatically respond to a breakout attempt. Finally, recent reports that the US may be caving on the essential issues of sanctions and the disclosure of Iran’s past atomic military research has compounded the sense that the emerging deal is deeply flawed. Former director for Middle East affairs at the National Security Council, Michael Singh, and former Senior Advisor on Iran at Hillary Clinton’s State Department, Ray Takeyh, have both argued that because US objectives have shifted, the emerging deal adheres closer to Iran’s red lines than to our own.

Item 2:

The State Department today refused to allow a reporter for the Washington Free Beacon to attend a press briefing given by lead negotiator Wendy Sherman and threatened to call security to have him removed.

The Free Beacon article continued:

Two State Department officials booted the Free Beacon from a room where Wendy Sherman, the undersecretary of state for political affairs, was talking to reporters, despite the Free Beacon’s being credentialed by the Austrian government for the ongoing Iranian nuclear talks. … Melissa Turley, a State Department official, approached a Free Beacon reporter and demanded that he leave the room. … “You have a press pass from the [European Union], not from me,” Turley said, after being informed that the Free Beacon was officially credentialed to cover the event.

Both Turley and a second State Department colleague threatened to call “security” to remove the reporter. The Free Beacon cited Western observers at the talks who attributed the State Department’s behavior “to jitters over media coverage revealing a still growing list of concessions being made to Iran by the Obama administration.” Such concessions include the administration’s reported willingness to allow Iran to limit inspections of military sites, which many experts consider a necessary element of verifying that Iran’s nuclear program is strictly civilian.

Given the constant acquiescence of POTUS to the ayatollah, the question must be asked: "For whom is POTUS working?" The U.S. and its supposed allies, or Iran? It would appear to be Iran.

No matter the answer, the U.S.' credibility has been reduced to zero; how far we've fallen since Theo. Roosevelt sent the "Great White Fleet" to show the flag in support of of his "Speak softly and carry a big stick" diplomacy.

 

* POTUS is not to be confused with the recently popular SCOTUS, Supreme Court of the United States. Alphabet soup lovers, rejoice!

ERM-BC-COOP: You have to wonder

According to an article in the Knoxville (TN) News Sentinel, Don Cook, the National Nuclear Security Administrator’s deputy administrator for defense programs, said the government shutdown this fall cost the agency $330 million. And that was just for defense programs around the complex, Cook said this morning at the ETEBA’s annual Business Opportunities Conference at the Knoxville Convention Center.

So how much money did POTUS save vs. how much did POTUS' shut down cost the country - in dollars and in image?

From a risk management point of view, it appears someone failed to consider the consequences.

What did POTUS shut down?

He shuttered the Internal Revenue Service, the IRS. While that had to make a lot of people happy, it cost the nation income.

He closed the federal lands- the parks and forests.

Closing the parks meant that while expenditures were reduced - no salaries to furloughed personnel - there was zero income from visitor fees. Maintenance on the properties was put off, only to be made up later.

Visitors come from around the globe not only to see our cities, but to enjoy our parks and monuments. Putting up "Closed 'Cuz we can't accord to open" signs is disgraceful and, in the end, it wasn't true anyway.

Forest lands and open ranges managed by the US Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) were closed to people who normally pay to log trees and to send livestock to graze the land. Roads were allowed to deteriorate making people who could access the lands spend extra to repair vehicle suspensions. The road repairs still had to be made, but now the potholes were bigger and deeper.

Federal workers had to go on unemployment, some were forced to use food stamps and to turn to local (state) welfare agencies. Instead of paying taxes on their wages, they were forced to take tax money.

There are ways to cut expenditures. On the top of my personal list is to discontinue Saturday residential mail delivery. The USPS claims its financial woes are linked to the Internet, so at least those with an Internet connection won't miss Saturday delivery, particularly when the delivery is mostly bills and "junk" mail.

Then there is the Affordable Care Act disaster. Millions to develop a Web presence that doesn't work. Making flat statements that POTUS won't do something and then being forced by reality to do what he said would never be done.

The "bottom line" is that the nation's bottom line is no better - and in some cases it is worse - than before the shut down.

I know POTUS is not a risk manager, but it might have been good if he had sought input from a real risk manager, not a "yes man" who pretends to manage risks.

For want of a nail . . .

ERM-BC-COOP: When “terrorism” isn’t

 

$$s, not bodies determines

 

POTUS claims the bombs in Boston are an act of terrorism. ( http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2013/04/17/certifying-an-act-of-terror/)

The insurance companies say “Not so.”

It’s not “terrorism,” the insurers claim, until the Secretary of the Treasury, the Secretary of State, AND the U.S. Attorney General together agree that an event is “terrorism.”

So far, that has not happened. As POTUS appointees they should be expected to do as their master instructs them to do, but is there any evidence that POTUS as given his appointees directions to declare the bombings as terrorism, despite his public pronouncement. Writing in the Wall Street Journal’s Law Blog, a Jacob Gershman article headed Certifying an ‘Act of Terror’ ( http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2013/04/17/certifying-an-act-of-terror/) notes that “Robert Hartwig, president of the Insurance Information Institute, an industry trade group, said he believed the Boston attack caused minimal property damage, making it unlikely that property and casualty insurance losses would top $5 million. That’s the threshold dollar amount for classifying an attack as terrorism under the insurance law. Below $5 million, Mr. Lew can’t certify — even if the purpose of the bombing was to coerce the government or intimidate the American people.”

On the other hand, Mark Russell, writing for Newser ( http://tinyurl.com/d23gwnm) notes that “while property damage may not rise above $5 million, medical costs could easily top $9 million, says NBC News. Boston's hospitals have been lauded for the amazing job they did in treating more than 180 wounded, but that sort of response costs big money, and the prosthetic devices and rehabilitation that will be needed will increase costs even more over time. Each emergency room visit costs an estimated $40,000 to $50,000 and longer-term hospitalizations can cost upward of $200,000. Hospitals might reduce their rates for some hardship cases or not bill entirely, but administrators say they have not begun to think about costs. “This is going to be really expensive," says one health economist.

The Act, Title 1 – Terrorism Insurance Program is found as a PDF file at http://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/fin-mkts/Documents/hr3210.pdf .

Whether something is, or is not, “terrorism” for non-government folk apparently is defined by the dictionary source the person prefers.

Merriam-Webster Online ( http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/terrorism) defines “terrorism” as the Systematic use of violence to create a general climate of fear in a population and thereby to bring about a particular political objective..

My Webster’s Unabridged (©2001) defines the word as
1. The use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce sep. for political purposes,
2. The state of fear and submission produced terrorism or terrorization,
3.A terroristic method of governing or of resisting a government.

Wikipedia ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definitions_of_terrorism) tells us that “There is neither an academic nor an international legal consensus regarding the definition of the term "terrorism". Various legal systems and government agencies use different definitions of "terrorism". Moreover, the international community has been slow to formulate a universally agreed upon, legally binding definition of this crime. These difficulties arise from the fact that the term "terrorism" is politically and emotionally charged.”

According to the U.S. Law Code ( http://terrorism.about.com/od/whatisterroris1/ss/DefineTerrorism_5.htm), ”(2) the term “terrorism” means premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents;”

I understand Google has its own, unique definition for “terrorism,” but I was unable to find it – ‘course I use Dogpile as my default search engine.

The “bottom line” may be that to you the Boston bombing is terrorism, to POTUS the Boston bombing is terrorism, and to this scrivener the Boston bombing is terrorism, but to the Terrorism Insurance Program and to private insurers, until it costs more than $5 million, it is not terrorism. But if not terrorism, then what?