The Croaking of the Stooge: The NYT Wants Anything Except Drilling Oil.

The New York Times—aka the Walter Duranty Papers [1]  is a propaganda machine[2] that uses retrospective ways of ‘thinking’ to construct their articles. In this narrow political realm, the main political topic is first selected, frequently in a crisis, and the piece is then written in retrograde since the conclusion is already known. An appropriate word chucker is then assigned the task of rotating the propagandistic levers and thus produces the piece. Facts or truths, not very important in politics, are judiciously sorted for bias and slants and when selected are pieced together in such a manner that the conclusion of the piece is supported in any way possible by the text within the limits of the dictionary. Depending on the seriousness of the talking point, the use of illogic, absurdities, and outright lies may be inserted into the blather at any necessary point to influence the reader.

Today, we examine the frantic efforts of the The New York Times—aka the Walter Duranty Papers [3] as they try to give any and all reasons why we should not drill for oil.

In an article entitled: Making America Stupid by Thomas L. Friedman Op-Ed Columnist Published: September 13, 2008 we read this:

“Imagine for a minute that attending the Republican convention in St. Paul, sitting in a skybox overlooking the convention floor, were observers from Russia, Iran and Venezuela. And imagine for a minute what these observers would have been doing when Rudy Giuliani led the delegates in a chant of “drill, baby, drill!””--[4] [Emphasis is mine in all quotes.  This link references all quotes in this essay unless otherwise noted.]

 …and the meaning of this theatre is thusly revealed:

““Yes! Yes! Drill, America, drill!” — because an America that is focused first and foremost on drilling for oil is an America more focused on feeding its oil habit than kicking it.”

From this infantile taunt, we are presumably to conclude that our enemies are applauding our stubborn attachment to cheap energy and that, somehow, they would be happy about the US increasing the supply of oil, which would, certainly, lower the price of crude and the profits of these totalitarian rat bins. It is almost as if this is a piece of reverse psychology where we are taunted to do the wrong thing. Cheap oil for the US ensures our military and economic dominance of the world. The New York Times knows that.  Inexpensive energy drives the capitalistic juggernaut that has crushed the phony leftist command economies of the past and the Marxists look like fools because of their anti-profit mantras.  The idiot Marxists need oil more than we do.

Now, to support the choice not to drill we are presented with  a cornucopia of hokum and fluff to peruse such as:

“Of course, we’re going to need oil for many years, but instead of exalting that — with “drill, baby, drill” — why not throw all our energy into innovating a whole new industry of clean power with the mantra “invent, baby, invent?”

There is much absurd with this mush. We have worked on energy inventions for decades and decades and not much as been invented that will replace oil at reasonable cost.

[#1] We have been looking at alternatives to crude oil for decades and there is no satisfactory substitute in abundance to be had. The honking and waving of glittery tinsel about wind energy merely falls on the cutting room floor of these follies when an analytical editor whacks out the bad parts of the filming episode.  Ethanol, with a current price of $5 per gallon does not have the same energy content as octane so using pure ethanol would get us maybe 18 miles per gallon. Trying to produce ethanol from food merely raises the price of food. An article by Steve Miloy[5] entitled Picken’s Natural Gas Nonsense puts some reality about using natural gas in perspective.

“A new natural-gas-powered car, such as the Honda Civic GX, for example, is almost 40 percent more expensive than a conventional Civic ($24,590 versus $17,700).

While tax credits can reduce the cost by thousands, somebody -- either you and/or taxpayers -- will be paying the difference.

If natural gas fuel saved you, say, $2 per gallon, then you'd have to drive 124,020 highway miles or 82,680 city miles to break even on fuel costs against the $6,890 purchase price premium.”-- Steven Milloy September 11, 2008

[#2] We have been looking at ‘inventions’ for solar power for decades and like hydrogen fusion technology the last 50 years have not given us much. Cars cannot be rationally propelled by solar panels or windmills. Worse, of electric cars the battery is way too heavy [about 1600 lbs] and that dead weight must be dragged around from start to finish until the battery is dead. The driving range of electric cars is short compared to fuel fired vehicles. Even worse, the electricity needed to charge these cars would derive mostly from coal-fired plants. So, we wonder where the savings might come from. Electric cars pollute as much or more than oil fired cars under these conditions.

[#3] Windmills are a neat idea but only in places where the wind blows, such as Martha’s Vineyard and the East side of the Rockies, but the electric lines needed to connect long stretches of wind machines to the main grid would be very long and costly.

Notice that wave machines are apparently off the table along with geothermal.  Where is the hydrogen gas variant?? The lowest polluting car would be he one where the hydrogen and oxygen from the sea were separated by nuclear power,  thenstored and transported to supply stations and the combustion product becomes pure water. This will be a great idea until some leftist EcoNazi tells us that water is a pollutant or a climate changing gas.

Now, we take a look at the NYT’s thoughts about nuclear power:

“… McCain talks about how he would build dozens of nuclear power plants. Oh, really? They go for $10 billion a pop. Where is the money going to come from? From lowering taxes? From banning abortions? From borrowing more from China? From having Sarah Palin “reform” Washington — as if she has any more clue how to do that than the first 100 names in the D.C. phonebook?”

They can generate electricity cheaper than any other known way. Yes, they are expensive, but we all know that the ones we already have lasted 25 years+ and France seems to know how to make them work safely. Japan is doing well with nukes. Where did France get the money to build theirs? From raising taxes? How about we just prohibit Congress and the courts from interfering with new nuclear plant construction and see how much money we can save? How about a tax-free investment scheme where taxpayers would invest in new nuclear plants and make a bunch of money? How about a nice healthy tax cut to spur growth in the energy sector of our economy?

Friedman sums up with this nonsense:

“Sorry, but there is no sustainable political/military power without economic power, and talking about one without the other is nonsense. Unless we make America the country most able to innovate, compete and win in the age of globalization, our leverage in the world will continue to slowly erode. Those are the issues this election needs to be about, because that is what the next four years need to be about.”

Here, our propagandist inserts a mandatory condition or stipulation that gives us the usual left-wing ‘all or nothing’ message. This is all phony anyway. The effort of the left is not to even think about US dominance of the world in their globalization schemes because if we did and dominated the competing countries we would be even more successful and be in position to undermine the Marxists and Islamo-Fascists, friends of the leftists at the New York Times.  Many of these leading leftists think we should limit growth. [6] If our economy was doing better because of more oil drilling we might use that to start another war against maniacs like Iran or North Korea or cleanse Cuba of its Castroism.

If we drill and consume our awesome reserves and use the time to build new energy systems then we can, as usual, produce cheaper energy and beat our idiots Marxists and Islamo-Fascists in commerce, war or on any other scale.  That is what the Times fears. We will just keep on growing and getting stronger and the lefties will never have a chance to compete. Incoherent propaganda screeds like these are so phony and  so easily constable that they are comedy.

Our enemies on the left are stupid and we should keep them stupid and cheap energy is one way to do that.

rycK

Comments: ryckki@gmail.com