some interesting facts

[so.cal.fan]

*****************

The rest of the country [including George W. Bush's energy secretary

Spencer Abraham, who wants Californians to suffer through blackouts as

justification for drilling for oil in Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife

Refuge] seems to be just fine with letting Californians dangle in the

breeze without enough power to meet their needs. They laugh at

Californians' frivolity.....(not so...let's keep real here)

******************

Well, everybody. Here's how it really is:

California ranks 48th in the nation in power consumed per person.

******************

California grows more than half the nation's fruit, nuts and vegetables.

We're keeping them. We need something to eat when the power goes

out.

******************

We grow 99 percent or more of the nation's almonds, artichokes, dates,

figs,

kiwifruit, olives, persimmons, pistachios, prunes, raisins and

walnuts. Hope

you won't miss them.

**

California is the nation's number one dairy state. We're keeping our

dairy products. We'll need plenty of fresh ones since our

refrigerators can't be relied upon. Got milk?

**

We Californians are gonna keep all our high-tech software in state.

Silicon Valley is ours, after all. Without enough electricity, which
you're

apparently keeping for yourselves, we just plain don't have enough
electricity to make enough software to spare.

**

We're keeping all our airplanes. California builds a good percentage

of the commercial airliners available to fly you people to where you

want to go.

When yours wear out, you'd better hope Boeing's Washington plant can

keep

you supplied. There isn't enough electricity here to allow us to

export any more planes than we need ourselves.

**

And while we're at it, we're keeping all our high-tech aerospace stuff,

too, like the sophisticated weapons systems that

let you sleep at night, not worried you might wake up under the rule of

some

foreign kook.

**

Oh, yeah, and if you want to make a long-distance call, remember where

the satellite components and tracking systems come from. Maybe you

could get back in the habit of writing letters.

**

Want to see a blockbuster movie this weekend? Come to California.

We make them here. Since we'll now have to make them with our own

electricity, we're only making enough for our state with our states short
supply of electricity.

Even if we shot them somewhere else, the labs, printing facilities,

editing facilities, and sound facilities are all here.

**

Want some nice domestic wine? We produce over 17 million gallons per

year.

We'll need all it to drown our sorrows when we think about the fact that

no

matter how many California products we export to make the rest of

America's

lives better, America can't see its way clear to help us out with a

little electricity. You can no longer have any of our wine.

**

You all complain that we don't build enough power plants. Well, you

don't

grow enough food, write enough software, make enough movies, build

enough airplanes and defense systems or make enough wine.

**

This is your last warning, America. Lighten (us) up before it's too

late.

**

Love,

The Californians

[Tom]

So how in Hell did you guys get in the fix you are in?
I am serious-what happened to your energy infastructure to put Californianin the dark so to speak?
It is my understanding that it was caused by your state government screwing up royally. I could be wrong. If I am, please set me straight. I sure do't want this sort of ting happening in my backyard, but Isure son't want to spend money bailing out peolpe who brought it on themselves. If you've got the real facts, share them-you might change my mind. It seems to me that a lot of crap is being blamed on "W" that started on dear ole uncle Bill's watch.
So what's the reat of the story??
Tom

[Tuffmug]

W's laughin' and doin nutin cause good old Texas boys gamin' the market and raking in the cash!

Conservative Republican Mantra: F**k You, I've got mine and I want yours" too!

[smf]

Tuffmug,

So...., it _helps_ "good old Texas boys" to NOT sell a product to a market in need? Grassy knoll theories all around!

I read months ago where the California wholesale/ retail (legislated) structure was to blame. I also didn't know we here in Texas cornered the market for oil and natural gas. Some folks in Oklahoma and Louisiana are really gonna be pissed when they find out their royalties are fictitious!

From the outside looking in this all reminds me of parents blaming public schools for their kids' problems. Everyone's to blame except those most responsible.

[Tuffmug]

SMF,

Not talking about blame. California did get itself into a bind by creating structure of market that could be used to rape them. GWB is policeman looking other way while rape occurs!

[Larry Hamilton]

I don't think I have seen a tap dance like this one, at least since my kids were wayward teenagers. The value of California to the nation is not the issue. Who can deny what is? The issue is how did they get to this point. I have yet to hear, "we did this to ourselves by kowtowing to every environmental whim of the moment, but now we are in trouble and need some help getting out of it.." to that i am receptive.

But to this i am not:

"we are in trouble because you wont give us more energy than we can afford, because W cronies in texas charge too much"

and to paraphrase an American who spends most days on the radio around lunch time:

"...if cheap is good for the government to enforce, why not make it [electric power] free? hmmmmmmmm?"

this is one of two things, a monumental misunderstanding of economics or a sophomorical denial and kill the messenger ploy.

so, I say to you California, keep on dening why you are where you are and you get not one damn symbolic cent from me.

[hurrikane]

I believe it was the gov of Calif that said in 1991 " in 10 years central electrical supply will be obsolete and we will fondly wish it goodby". They haven't built any new power resourses in Calif in over 15 year. No problem finding a home for the bobcat though.

Why is it that GW is in office for 4 months and this is his fault. there was a bigger ass in there for 8 years..what about him.

did you know Richard Millhouse Nixon was the first president of the United States with all the letters for the word criminal in his name?

the second was William Jefferson Clinton.

Coincidence....I think not.

[ceejay]

Originally posted by smf

I also didn't know we here in Texas cornered the market for oil and natural gas. Some folks in Oklahoma and Louisiana are really gonna be pissed when they find out their royalties are fictitious!

You are right about that! If anyone wants to send me fictitious run checks, I'll take them.

Anyway, I'll probably say some unpopular things here, but that hasn't stopped me before. There are two issues here the way I see it:
1. Natural gas (which I will call "gas" below) and oil prices
2. Electric and gasoline prices

Consumers pay for the latter directly but they are not in a vacuum because of the raw product prices. The "Texas oil companies" do not control gas and oil prices. If they could, they probably would (and you'd really know it) but they can't. Evidence for that comes from just 30 months ago where gas was $1.25/mcf and oil was $10/bbl vs. $4.00/mcf and $29/bbl now.

Since the Regan era our national energy policy has been "cheap is good." I've heard politicians asking for electric price caps. I'm NOT in the electric business but I can't think of less effective than that unless oil and gas prices are limited, because if gas prices are higher, the cost of making the power is higher. I can't imagine a company making electricity and selling it at a loss intentionally, so companies are likely to shut down their electricity production.

So, many are likely saying, "then let's cap oil and gas prices." But, if prices are capped shouldn't they also be "floored (supported)" when prices are low? Or, do Americans really have the "god-given right" to life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness and CHEAP ENERGY .

If product prices are regulated, then US exploration will be reduced. It's just a risk-reward thing like looking for a value bet at the races. The energy business is actually very similar to racing! Exploration wells have high risk. "Development" wells have less risk. A higher degree of risk is acceptable at $30/bbl than at $20/bbl. And look what's happened with higher prices: More drilling activity and more exploration (rather than just development) wells are being drilled.

[Larry Hamilton]

it also occurs to me that the "rape" charge above is also a incorrect metaphore. Criminal masturbation is more accurate.

[Tom]

This first step insolving problems is to define the problem. In this case, it is lack of electricity.

The next step is to contain the problem-short term fixes.
In this case, it pay thorugh the nose to whoever will sell it to you (containment sometimes hurts!)

The next step is to identify the root cause of the problem. Has California done this? And verified it as he real cause?

The next step is to identify alternative solutions to solve the problem, not band aid it. Has California done this?
If you conside bail outs a solution, then yes.

The next step is to idnetify what controls need to be put in to place to prevent the problem from ever happening again. Don't hold your breath on this one.

Finally, you have to verify that your corrective action worked and to set up monitoring systems to keep track of the situation.

How many of these things GWB provide?

Evey day, millions of us common citizens go through these motions to improve our businesses, to satisfy our cutomers, to improve our lives. It is just the way things get done in the real world.

Californina, when you are prepared to come and ask for short term help while you implement a thorough, workable long term solution, then I will support giving you money to help contain the problem while you solve it.
Until then, we can't help you. Grow up-this is the real world. It isn't easy. (pssst....maybe you could turn off some of those neon lights over the Beamer delaerships?)

Tom

[bdhsheets]

As the 21st century roles in, we have continued the mantra of the 90's, "It's someone else's fault and not mine!" and this especially applies to California!

While deregulating the power industry in California in an era of "cheap oil and natural gas", buying massive amounts of power from across state lines was very much in vogue, even California utilities got in on the act. Buuuut there were caps put in place on the local utilities as to how much they can charge you nice Californians. Soooo as the price of oil and natural gas sky-rocketed, the power producers outside the state jacked up their prices but the local utilities were prevented from passing on the increases, thus SUBSIDIZING Californians gas and electric bills for months, what a deal!!!!!!!! While Chicagoans like myself saw my home heating bills more than double this past winter.

The sad state of events is that our country has no energy policy at all, not Clinton, Bush Sr., Ronnie, Jimmy, Jerry, Tricky Dick, LBJ, Kennedy etc, etc., has had a policy, nor has any Congress gotten off their collective dead asses to do something about it. The gasoline lines in the 70's should've woken their silly asses up, but it's business as usual.

Don't be fooled that only one party is in bed with the oil, natural gas and electric companies. It's an orgy in D.C.!

Some years ago the Gallup organization asked peoples opinions of Congress. Overwhelmingly the people thought that Congress sucked BUT that their guy was okay, go figure.

Oh well, sorry California, welcome to the real world!

Regards,

bdhsheets

[so.cal.fan]

"sheets" How ya been?
I heard it's been raining in Chigago?
Thanks for clarifying our problem here in Calif.
I guess what you are saying is they are all crooks and bums, and that is the way it has always been.
I guess I sort of agree with you. Sad,
The Californians was sent to me over the internet, by an unknown author. I thought some of the facts were interesting, even though it was facetious. I didn't know we were 48 in consumption of energy!

[andicap]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by bdhsheets
[B]As the 21st century roles in, we have continued the

The sad state of events is that our country has no energy policy at all


Because the best energy policy is to use less (and search for alternatives). If demand dropped even 5%, prices would plummet.

Hasn't anyone heard of supply and demand? It's so capitalistic. The more you use, the higher the price.
Gas-gouging SUVs cost the rest of us because of the demand they create. (and when they rollover they increase the insurance costs for the rest of us as well.)

So until Americans themselves start to conserve -- and stop believing they have a God-given right to use all the energy they want -- we will have an energy problem. And no politician has the will to create suicide by asking them to do that.

andicp

[Tom]

Detroit learned nothing from the gas problems of the '70's...they just keep on rolling out those pieces of s**t cars that waste gas, roll over, kill people, and generally are just cash cows for them. The car-monsters are too busy arguing over which came first, the roll-over or the tire seperation.
My take on this is, is the auto industry thouroughly corrupt becasue of people like Stronach, or are people like Stronach thoroughly corrupt becaseu of the auto industry?
(Ponder, ponder)
Tom

[Tuffmug]

You "Adam Smith, invisible hand FREE MARKET magic of unfettered capitalism" guys make me laugh!

Unfettered capitalism and truly free markets are the two toothless hicks in the movie "Deliverance" who made Ned Beatty squeal like a pig!

California now has the closest thing to free markets. If you really believe in free markets you should demand the same for your state! Why should they be the only ones allowed to squeal like a pig.

[andicap]

Tuffmug,
I'm no "Adam Smith" advocate. (I think our philosophies are alike on this one).
I was trying to be ironic in pointing out that George Bush's energy policies are not capitalistic at all (laws of supply and demand).

Here's an article from Bloomberg from a few days ago that I love;

Bush's Energy Plan: Capitalism or Communism?: William Pesek Jr.

By William Pesek

Washington, May 30 (Bloomberg) -- Stephan Richter isn't a fan of Joseph McCarthy and the U.S. senator's Communist witch-hunt during the 1950s. That
hasn't kept Richter, president of a Washington think tank, TheGlobalist.com, from accusing President George W. Bush of Communist leanings where his energy
policies are concerned.

When he took office as the 43rd president, no one suspected that the former Texas governor and self-described capitalist would show sympathy for Soviet-style economics. Bush fans and Republican party members will no doubt shudder at the mere suggestion. Yet, Richter argues, that's pretty much what Bush's pro-production energy proposals indicate.

``Beyond all the rhetoric on energy conservation, the future course of U.S. energy policy is rooted in the unwavering belief that America has a
birthright to cheap energy,'' Richter argues.

It's a good point. The ideas coming out of the Bush White House -- that energy supplies are limitless -- hardly seem capitalist in spirit.
Capitalism, many will agree, is a system of managing finite resources efficiently. By contrast, Communism --in its economic guise -- is about endless opportunities. Under certain conditions, Communists believe, society
can produce enough to satisfy everybody.

Remember Stahanov

It's telling that the Bush plan relegates to the back burner measures like demand management, conservation and the development of renewable energy
sources.

This, together with its peculiar fascination with coal, makes it seem as though the Bush White House is hell-bent on reviving the memory of Soviet folklore hero Alexei Stakhanov. A 1930s miner, according to legend, Stakhanov single-handedly produced several times his daily coal quota in just one shift. He inspired the Soviet-sponsored ``Stakhanovite Movement'' to boost
production at all costs.

Consequently, enormous human, economic and environmental costs were disregarded for the supposedly noble goal of increasing output. ``This case
seems eerily consistent with the underlying logic of the Bush energy plan,'' Richter says. ``Nothing, the administration believes, should stand in the way
of America increasing its production of energy.''

Another `Ism'

Bush, of course, isn't a Communist. He's a politician taking the path of least resistance. Telling Americans to drive smaller cars, ride the bus to work or wear a sweater instead of cranking up the heat wouldn't be the most politically expedient thing to do. That's especially true of a president who not only received piles of money from major oil companies during his
campaign, but hails from Texas, where he, too, used to be an oilman.

``It's an `ism' all right, but not communism; rather, fascism,'' says Paul McCulley, a managing director at Pacific Investment Management Co. in Newport, Beach, California. ``It's the historically regular hubris of the
custodian of the global reserve currency, which lets you break all the rules that you advocate to others.''

Still, the Soviet experience offers lessons to the Bush team and its pro-production energy philosophies. Even today, after a decade of economic reform, Russia still uses more energy for every dollar of gross domestic
product than any other country in the Group of Eight, Richter says. Yet Russia's prodigious level of energy consumption is a sign of weakness, not strength. In the New Economy of bits, bytes and fiber optic cables, a high -- and growing -- reliance on Old Economy fossil fuels will only increase the cost of that energy and the pollution it causes.

Lip Service

There's another element of Bush's energy strategy that echoes the philosophies of Joseph Stalin, Mao Zedong and, more recently, the leadership of North Korea: The oft-repeated need for American energy independence. Bush, like Communist leaders, is ignoring the theories of 19th century British economist David Ricardo, who argued that free international trade produced
mutual benefits. Many of Ricardo's contemporaries regarded all trade with great suspicion.

Bush seems to be in the anti-Ricardo camp where energy is concerned. That may explain why the hardly new fact that the U.S. imports more than 50 percent of
its oil is suddenly being viewed as a great evil and a source of strategic vulnerability. The solution, according to the White House, is boosting domestic production. Hence Bush's desire to drill for oil in Alaska's Arctic
National Wildlife Refuge.

Yet if the strategic need for energy is really that pressing, why isn't every alternative, including conservation, being exploited to the utmost? Bush is
paying lip service to pro- conservation folks by talking more about the need for Americans to be responsible and even offering some tax credits to encourage the use of fuel-efficient cars.

Energy an Afterthought

Let's face it, though, energy is an afterthought for the Bush team. Vice President Dick Cheney said as much when he dismissed conservation as a ``personal virtue'' and ``not a sufficient basis for a sound, comprehensive energy policy.''

Shouldn't the White House at least pretend that energy conservation is a good idea? Shouldn't it at least suggest Americans might be wise to use less gasoline?

``That's a big no,'' Ari Fleischer, White House spokesman, said. ``The president believes that it's an American way of life, and it should be the goal of policy to protect the American way of life. The American way of life is a blessed one. And we have a bounty of resources in this country.''

Runaway Consumption

Virtually no boost in production can keep pace with the projected surge in U.S. demand over the next 20 years. The U.S. Energy Information Administration estimates that Americans' need for natural gas will rise by 62
percent, while demand for electricity and oil increase by 45 percent and 33 percent, respectively, over that period. This, at a time when global demand is poised to explode. If China and India, the world's two most populous nations, maintain economic growth rates of between 5 percent and 10 percent in the year ahead, they will consume exponentially more energy.

``In an era when the costs of runaway consumption have become painfully obvious, there is a reason why the communist economic system, with its belief
in limitless possibilities, has gone bankrupt,'' says Richter. ``In that sense, the Bush Administration's energy plan seems to pull the country back to an entirely different place -- and to a mode of thought that the U. S. has long opposed.''