Domestic Oil Production
To the Editor, the Gazette:
noted that legislation aimed at opening the Alaska National Wildlife Reserve (ANWR) contained no provision that any such oil would in fact be limited to sale in the United States. Although the article doesn't mention them, the same is true of proposed off-shore sources. So citing new drilling as a "way out" of our dependence on foreign oil is a complete red herring.
Originally, the North Shore Alaska oil was legally limited to domestic refineries, in response to the similar situation existing when that source was new and we were subject to the Arab oil embargo. Later, as the embrago was lifted, under the guiding hand of Alaskan Sen. Ted Stevens, the ban on exporting this oil was reversed, to permit the more profitable sale of this crude in Asia.
As of today, most Alaskan oil is refined in California. But California refineries actually have lower capacities now than they did when the Alaska pipeline was new, and are operating at or near capacity. Any new sources released by off-shore drilling or opening ANWR could not be added to the supply stategically supporting America, because in spite of record profits oil companies have not increased refinery capacities in the U.S.
If new sources are limited to U.S. consumption, there is nothing to stop oil companies from simply diverting current U.S. sources now being refined in California to the orient to make way for the new-souce oils, increasing our strategic situation not one whit.
I know that oil is "frangible" ... that is, it's one big market, regardless of where it's pumped out of the ground and refined. And, of course, I support the most efficient allocation of this resource by the forces of the market in order to keep the price of finished consumer products as low as possible.
But the repeated mantra that off-shore and ANWR drilling is a means of solving our domestic strategic dependency on "foreign" oil and/or as a means of controlling soaring prices is ridiculous; the total contribution of these new sources would at best be only a fraction of a percent of total world-wide production, which is the only metric which counts.
Unless our government is willing to force construction of new domestic refineries immediately, and unless legislation permitting drilling off-shore and in ANWR forces such production by law to go to those new refineries for domestic use only (both of which would probably be an economic disaster), these new sources will go to Asia to be refined and used.
J. Michael Riley
1136 Chambers Dr.
Colorado Springs CO 80904
719-632-9853
Moby Dick - Not the Car
Chagrined, I searched through my well-thumbed copy of Melville's masterwork for evidence that your literary educator friend might find credible, and present herewith the following photocopies (see attachment in PDF format.)
I make no accusations nor do I draw conclusions, but I do have some observations:
a) The chapter title is "A Squeeze of the Hand." This might seem an emotionally innocent title to you, but I suggest consulting with any of your male relatives, especially any of them who have spent any long periods of time at sea or otherwise alone or in the exclusive company of other men.
b) I direct your attention to the third paragraph on page 532, which begins "Squeeze! squeeze! squeeze!" and only comment to the extent that you must never overlook that the substance at issue here is sperm.
c) The paragraph noted above ends on page 533 as follows:
"... nay, let us all squeeze ourselves into each other; let us squeeze ourselves universally into the very milk and sperm of kindness."
d) The next paragraph, should you have missed his point entirely, goes on:
"Would that I could keep squeezing that sperm forever!" and goes on to note his preference for sperm-squeezing with his pals on the Pequod to "the wife, the heart, the bed, the table, the saddle, the fire-side, the country;" and would happily instead squeeze out that sperm "eternally." I know that whaling certainly has this effect on me, and in your interviews, you may find similar sentiments.
Lest you think all of this is my own perverted projection onto poor Herman's almanac, which itself is pure, and free of all reference to sex except for the unfortunate and otherwise meaningless coincidence of the word "sperm" in two very disparate circumstances (notwithstanding that the prolonged and finally fatal pusuit of a large, white, sperm-shaped devil is the very substance of the book) let me refer you again to the central incident in Chapter LXXVII, The Great Heidelburgh Tun, and the subsequent chapter, Cistern and Buckets, in which the Pequod's Indian harpoonsman is tasked with climbing atop the inverted head of a slain sperm whale lashed to the side of the ship, prying open the brain case wherein the sperm oil is to be found, and dipping it out with buckets into the rendering cauldrons, described as follows:
(Seeking to maximize the retrieval of sperm from the head of the whale...):
"Tashtego has to ram his long pole harder and harder, and deeper and deeper into the Tun, until some twenty feet of pole have gone down."
(Tashtego, the Indian whaler, inadverently falls into the Tun, the whale's voluminous reservoir of sperm oil, and may drown, a circumstance compounded by the coincidental tearing loose of the whale's head from its moorings to the side of the Pequod, and plunging to the bottom of the sea. Queequeg, with whom Ishmael slept in the opening chapter of the book, dives to his rescue...):
"... a loud splash indicated that my brave Queequeg had dived to the rescue ... Now, how had this noble rescue been accomplished? Why, diving after the slowly descending [whale's] head, Queequeg with his keen sword had made side lunges near its bottom, so as to scuttle a large hole there; then, dropping his sword, had thrust his long arm far inwards and upwards, and so hauled out our poor Tash by the head. He averred, that upon first thrusting in for him, a leg was presented; but well knowing that that was not as it ought to be, and might occasion great trouble;- he had thrust back the leg, and by a dexterous heave and toss, had wrought a somerset upon the Indian; so that with the next trial, he came forth in the good old way - head foremost. As for the great head itself, that was doing as well as could be expected." [i.e., the whale's head continued to sink.]
Does this sound somewhat like the emergency recourse of a midwife to a breach birth? A helpless one bathed in sperm being brought out into the world by a skilled practitioner. No, no, just my imagination again. But read on:
"And thus, through the courage and great skill in obstetrics of Queequeg, the deliverance, or rather, delivery of Tashtego, was successfully accomplished ..."
"Midwifery should be taught in the same course with fencing and boxing, riding and rowing."
Not to stretch a point too much, but the next paragraph begins:
"I know this queer adventure of the Gay-Header's will be sure to seem incredible..." which probably is just a coincidence of meaning-drift of the words "gay" and "queer" in the century-and-one-half since the book was written, but the rest, I think, stands the test of time and Melville's intent. He was writing a homo-erotic adventure here.
One last observation. The chapter titles in between "The Great Heidelburgh Tun" and "A Squeeze of the Hand" include The Nut, The Pequod Meets The Virgin, Pitchpoling, The Fountain, The Tail, Schools and Schoolmasters, Fast Fish and Loose Fish, Heads or Tails, and disgustingly and all too graphically, if you're inclined to see things my way, The Pequod Meets The Rose Bud.
I rest my case.
M.
p.s. I was at first inclined to play off of your story about Robert and Conor and say "I could go all day," but considered the subject and demurred.
Here's a kinda interesting article from Slate concening the environmental consequences of Netflix:
http://www.slate.com/id/2196651/
Here is what I think may be a bit hyperventilated reaction to said article:
Economics is more important than environmentalism.
by Ralph7 08/11/2008, 8:09 PM #
Because I am rational, I agree with the scientific consensus on human caused global warming. I support evolution as a proven fact (DNA replication with gene mutation), and agree that Darwin’s Theory of Natural Selection is the best explanation for speciation. I accept replicable research on gravity and relativity as factual science. In fact, I accept all modern science, until a paradigm shift proves a concept false. Likewise, I accept the scientific consensus on economics, and that free market capitalism is superior to socialism. .
Economics is more important than environmentalism: We contend that the threat of socialism has the potential to murder far many more humans than global warming. We maintain that socialism has already murdered hundreds of millions of people; and more socialism will directly murder millions of more people, where as the threat from global warming is far less consequential.
We reject any Government oversight that restricts the free market for environmental purposes. There is no evidence that we Westerners can stop developing nations (China, India, Brazil and etc.) from using fossil fuels, so Western effort (which hinders economic growth) will be fruitless at best, but most likely destructive.
From a personal perspective, Earth is around 4.5 billion years old. Many times throughout our planet’s history the Earth has been warmer. Geologic research shows global warming increases biodiversity (There is some definitive research that shows that warming increases marsupial biodiversity in the relatively closed environment of Australia.). Additionally, during the Quaternary, the Earth has been unusually cool, and we are living in an unusually cool era near the end of the ice age, so warmer planet is the Earth's norm. Animal/plant population shift from the Equator to the poles will not be catastrophic. Also, Global Warming may increase precipitation in the southern hemisphere thereby increasing rainforest density (see NASA research). Further, CO2 is a natural gas and not a pollutant that is required for plant life, which may increase due to increased rainfall.
Therefore, we consider the global warming’s Armageddon projections to be fear mongering with a hidden agenda to spread Marxism. Though you will argue that we a loosing both, we choose humanity over the penguin or any animal that dresses too formally.
Is it possible to discuss these things with a measure of calm while keeping one's eye on the doughnut rather than becoming obsessed about the hole? I hope so. Here is my measured, and I hope, calm and reasonable, reply to Ralph7:
Re: Economics is more important than environmentalism.
by jmyke 08/11/2008, 10:05 PM
Ralph7 ... I'm sorry, I don't know who that is, but apparently, somewhere between the first paragraph and the rest of this excellent comment, Ralph7 revealed himself to be a member of the royal family through use of the royal "we." "We" who?
Much of what you have said I would agree with, but please don't presume to express yourself as representing some amorphous "we," unless you state the millions, thousands, hundreds, or maybe even one other person whose opinions you are voicing.
"We" know no such thing as that alarm about global warming is masking an agenda for the advance of Marxism. I haven't a Marxist bone in my body, but I certainly have some alarm. Being a rational person, as you say you are, I feel reasonable actions by reasonable people can ameliorate these effects or even neutralize them.
Economics versus environment is a false choice. We are stewards of our environment, not its totalitarian dictators. The environment has no regard for our welfare, one way or the other. The environments of the planets Mercury, Venus, and Mars are blithely unaffected by man, therefore environmentally pure, in a sense "green." But nons of them is a really great place for human beings to live, work, or earn a profit. I think it's in our interest to steer the environment of this planet in a human-friendly direction, if possible.
If we want the Earth to continue to offer us the stage on which to play out our lives, loves, and ambitions, we must be attentive to keeping it an amicable place for our species. This is not Marxism; it is common sense. Hostility toward our own environment is not a choice in preference of economy. It is a preference for ignoring our responsibilities, our self-interest, and our patrimony.
Characterizing resonable efforts to sustain a liveable environment as Marxist seems much more alarmist to me than simply trying to our best.
Oh, and by the way, here's Ralph7's measured, calm, and reasonable response to my comment:
The fact that you fail to acknowledge that the environmental movement is laced with Marxism makes you either too dogmatic or too irrational to debate. Rational people cannot debate intellectually dishonest ideologues.
Is there an intellectually honest enviro out there?
And one more word from me to whoever Ralph7 are:
Re: Economics is more important than environmentalism.by jmyke 08/11/2008, 10:37 PM
I did not, and do not speak for any sort of "movement," just myself. I'm a retired businessman, capitalist, and employer with some environmental concerns. Who are you, that you may speak as "we?" You seem very excitable.
