[Rhodes22-list] Baffle them with Bullshit

[Bill Effros]

Brad,

You repeatedly cite sources you apparently don't read.

You said

"The choke point for the world oil market is the Hormuz Strait.  Half of 
the worlds oil supply must pass this point..."

The source you cite says, in the summary at the top "/In 2003, the 
Persian Gulf countries (Bahrain, Iran, Iraq, Kuwait, Qatar, Saudi 
Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates) produced about 27% of the world's 
oil"  /I'm sure if either one of us reads on, we will discover that not 
100% of the Persian gulf oil goes through the Straits of Hormuz.

I trust I don't have to help you too much with the math, but if they 
only produce 27% of the world's oil, it is not possible for them to ship 
50% of the world's oil through the straits even if they don't put 
anything through pipelines or use any oil domestically.

That does not mean that I think the Straits of Hormuz are not important.

It does mean that if we continue to make decisions based on this kind of 
sloppy work we should not be surprised to see the rest of the world eat 
our lunch.

Bill Effros

Brad Haslett wrote:
> Bill,
>
> I do have time to fact check what I write.  Here's your sign!
>
> http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/pgulf.html
>
> I'm leaving for work but will happily provide you with all the
> evidence you want to support what I write when I return.  While your
> down there with your head in the sand, look around for some reality
> pills and perhaps some tranqilizers before YOU hit the send button.
>
> Brad
>
>
> On 7/5/06, Bill Effros <bill at effros.com> wrote:
>> Brad,
>>
>> Will you PLEASE stop making stuff up!
>>
>> I don't have time to fact-check everything you write, and you obviously
>> have more free time than almost any other working person, so I'm asking
>> as nicely as possible for you to fact-check your own stuff before
>> hitting the "Send" button.
>>
>> Maybe, just maybe, cutting taxes for the rich at the same time you are
>> conducting a war using "Emergency" off-budget appropriations has
>> SOMETHING to do with inflation.
>>
>> Half the world's oil supply does not go through the Straits of Hormuz.
>>
>> Try to think about it a little more before attempting to scare the world
>> into agreeing with positions based on emotions and fudged facts.
>>
>> Thank you,
>>
>> Your Friend,
>>
>> Bill Effros
>>
>> Brad Haslett wrote:
>> > Wally,
>> >
>> > Actually "they" have threatened to shut off oil production several
>> > times.  The most recent example was Iran a few weeks ago.  You are
>> > correct, they need the oil money as much as we need the oil, but that
>> > is rational thinking.  Iran, for example, is not led by rational
>> > thinking men.  Depending on what economist you want to listen to, we
>> > can withstand an average energy price increase of around 10% per year
>> > before it starts to disrupt markets.  We are on the edge of an
>> > inflationary period as we speak, largely due to the run-up in energy
>> > prices, and also to some extent the result of a growing economy. The
>> > choke point for the world oil market is the Hormuz Strait.  Half of
>> > the worlds oil supply must pass this point and any disruption, even
>> > for a few days, would send prices skyrocketing.  Who benefits from
>> > high oil prices?  The same folks who have the oil.  All of the US Big
>> > Oil companies  account for about 15% of total production. We have the
>> > strategic reserve, but that will be held off the market to fuel the
>> > military response. Try not to think about it too much.  It get's very
>> > scary.
>> >
>> > Brad
>> >
>> > On 7/5/06, TN Rhodey <tnrhodey at hotmail.com> wrote:
>> >> Philip,
>> >>
>> >> Who has threatened to shut off oil production? They can't shut us off
>> >> from
>> >> oil, they need to sell oil to make money. Let's face it the price of
>> >> oil has
>> >> jumped and we are not in dire straits.
>> >>
>> >> Wally
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> >From: "3drecon" <3drecon at comcast.net>
>> >> >Reply-To: The Rhodes 22 mail list <rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org>
>> >> >To: "'The Rhodes 22 mail list'" <rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org>
>> >> >Subject: RE: [Rhodes22-list] Baffle them with Bullshit
>> >> >Date: Wed, 5 Jul 2006 01:54:01 -0400
>> >> >
>> >> >Bill,
>> >> >
>> >> >    Your George Soros, Nancy Pelosi Talking Points are showing
>> >> again.  Nazi
>> >> >Germany:  I could go on for hours.  Suffice it to say, it was a
>> >> house of
>> >> >cards.  They never had the resources, the oil, the population, the
>> >> >production capacity. . . not to mention the political and military
>> >> >mis-steps.  If the western response had been more firm and sure (ala
>> >> >Churchill) Hitler wouldn't have gotten as far as he did.
>> >> >
>> >> >    Not all resources are oil.  Choke ours off and see what
>> >> happens.  Choke
>> >> >off the liberal's beloved EU and see what happens.  We use oil.  We
>> >> need
>> >> >oil
>> >> >and we have to keep the commerce in that region open, or should we
>> >> let the
>> >> >despots close down the mid-east oil traffic?
>> >> >
>> >> >     We launched a few cruise missiles alright.  Too little, too
>> >> late under
>> >> >Saint Clinton.  Let's see what the "religion of peace" had brought
>> >> us.  The
>> >> >first Twin Tower bombing.  The attack on our embassy in Africa.  The
>> >> Khobar
>> >> >Towers bombing.  And the Cole which was under Clinton's Watch 
>> (October
>> >> >2000).  Not to mention Somalia which Bin Laden said was what
>> >> convinced him
>> >> >we would not respond to an attack on us since after Clinton expanded
>> >> the
>> >> >mission, he cut and ran after the attack on our Rangers (after Les
>> >> Aspin
>> >> >refused the commanders on the ground armored vehicles).
>> >> >
>> >> >     I suppose you will tell me that we don't need oil as part of 
>> our
>> >> >national security plan?  What has Rome to do with it?  How many 747s
>> >> did
>> >> >Rome have?  Cars?  Trucks? Trains?  Etc.  I guess we'll defend our
>> >> country
>> >> >with bronze swords and wood shields?  What does Rome command to-day
>> >> >(besides
>> >> >Catholics)?
>> >> >
>> >> >    When we are culturally sensative against an enemy that is 
>> neither
>> >> >culturally sensative nor morally sensitive and it causes our
>> >> soldiers to
>> >> >die
>> >> >when they otherwise wouldn't, I don't make the distinction.
>> >> >
>> >> >    I think perhaps it's time for you to stop shovelling it out.  
>> And I
>> >> >haven't once gotten a "free pass" for old time or any other sake.
>> >> >
>> >> >Philip
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >-----Original Message-----
>> >> >From: rhodes22-list-bounces at rhodes22.org
>> >> >[mailto:rhodes22-list-bounces at rhodes22.org]On Behalf Of Bill Effros
>> >> >Sent: Tuesday, July 04, 2006 10:27 AM
>> >> >To: The Rhodes 22 mail list
>> >> >Subject: [Rhodes22-list] Baffle them with Bullshit
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >Philip,
>> >> >
>> >> >So nice to have your political claptrap back on the list.  It's so
>> >> >scattershot, it's hard to know where to start.  You like to string
>> >> >together a bunch of non sequiteurs which you seem to believe will 
>> bring
>> >> >any reader to your point of view.  For me, it's just "If you can't
>> >> >convince them with logic, baffle them with bullshit."
>> >> >
>> >> >Where to start? Where to start?  History doesn't prove that might 
>> makes
>> >> >right.  Nazi Germany?
>> >> >
>> >> >Oil is a resource, but not all resources are oil.
>> >> >
>> >> >We didn't fly airplanes into Arab buildings, we flew cruise missiles
>> >> >into Arab buildings.
>> >> >
>> >> >Yes, we do blow ourselves up around women and children, only we 
>> call it
>> >> >"collateral damage".
>> >> >
>> >> >"We need one to have the other?"  What does that mean?  Ancient Rome
>> >> >didn't have oil -- still doesn't have it, today -- but they sure had
>> >> >National Security.
>> >> >
>> >> >"Culturally sensitive" has a different meaning from "morally
>> >> sensitive".
>> >> >
>> >> >What baffles our friends and delights our enemies are people who 
>> can't
>> >> >see the difference.
>> >> >
>> >> >Knowing when to act...When Clinton attacked Bin Laden, Republicans
>> >> >started the "Wag the Dog" mantra.  Who were you quoting then?
>> >> >
>> >> >What was Bush's response to the Cole attack?
>> >> >
>> >> >And just exactly when did Bin Laden say what he based his 
>> decision to
>> >> >attack us on?
>> >> >
>> >> >You've gotten a free pass on a few go-rounds of this stuff for old
>> >> >times' sake, but the days of shooting from the hip are over.
>> >> >
>> >> >Bill Effros
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >3drecon wrote:
>> >> > > Wally,
>> >> > >     I don't separate Oil (i.e. resources) from National
>> >> Security.  We
>> >> >need
>> >> > > one to have the other; otherwise, we are at the mercy of 
>> anyone else
>> >> >with
>> >> > > resources.   We did not fly into Arab buildings.  They flew into
>> >> ours.
>> >> >We
>> >> > > didn't invade Kuwait, Iraq did.  We don't blow ourselves up
>> >> around women
>> >> >and
>> >> > > children.  As a matter of fact, we willingly hamstring 
>> ourselves and
>> >> >cost
>> >> > > our young men and women their lives as a result to be "culturally
>> >> > > sensitive".  This baffles our friends there and delights our
>> >> enemies.
>> >> >To
>> >> >a
>> >> > > certain extent, might makes right, as you put it.  History proves
>> >> that.
>> >> > > Knowing when to act and how is the trick.  I agree with the
>> >> strategy,
>> >> >though
>> >> > > I may differ with the specific targets at the time.  We spent too
>> >> many
>> >> >years
>> >> > > apologising and letting the radicals have their way.  Bin Laden
>> >> said he
>> >> > > based his decision to attack us on our response (or lack 
>> thereof) to
>> >> > > previous attacks.
>> >> > >
>> >> > > Philip
>> >> > >
>> >> > >
>> >> > > -----Original Message-----
>> >> > > From: rhodes22-list-bounces at rhodes22.org
>> >> > > [mailto:rhodes22-list-bounces at rhodes22.org]On Behalf Of TN Rhodey
>> >> > > Sent: Saturday, July 01, 2006 7:44 AM
>> >> > > To: rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org
>> >> > > Subject: RE: [Rhodes22-list] Reply to Frone Crawford
>> >> > >
>> >> > >
>> >> > > Philip,
>> >> > >
>> >> > > I guess you are a proponent of the old might makes right theory?
>> >> I  used
>> >> > > that theory on my little brother and it worked out real well. I
>> >> always
>> >> >got
>> >> > > the big piece of cake. I am not sure if this is the best strategy
>> >> for
>> >> > > diplomatic relations. Should we not shoot for a higher standard?
>> >> > >
>> >> > > You ask what better reason then oil? We should go to war when our
>> >> >National
>> >> > > Security is threatened.
>> >> > >
>> >> > > Wally
>> >> > >
>> >> > >
>> >> > >> From: "3drecon" <3drecon at comcast.net>
>> >> > >> Reply-To: The Rhodes 22 mail list <rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org>
>> >> > >> To: "'The Rhodes 22 mail list'" <rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org>
>> >> > >> Subject: [Rhodes22-list] Reply to Frone Crawford
>> >> > >> Date: Fri, 30 Jun 2006 15:25:48 -0400
>> >> > >>
>> >> > >> Frone
>> >> > >>
>> >> > >> I didn't say I was comfortable with the Republicans, I said they
>> >> are
>> >> >closer
>> >> > >> to the Libertarian philosophy than any other "electable" party
>> >> to-day.
>> >> >I
>> >> > >> assume you allude to the Patriot Act in the "incessant drive by
>> >> the
>> >> > >> Republicans to limit personal rights and invade our private acts
>> >> and
>> >> > >> thoughts" as well as the moral chest pounding.  I am opposed 
>> to the
>> >> >Patriot
>> >> > >> Act.  I think it will be/has been abused just as the RICO act
>> >> was and
>> >> >is
>> >> > >> abused.  I don't agree with the moral grand-standing any more
>> >> than I
>> >> >agree
>> >> > >> with the liberals banning "hate" speech, becoming anti-religious
>> >> and
>> >> > >> forcing
>> >> > >> the Bill of Rights on the States, contrary to the Founders
>> >> intent.  I
>> >> >also
>> >> > >> don't see a conspiricy in "a propaganda machine  leading us to
>> >> >pre-emptive
>> >> > >> war, welfare for the agri / timber / oil companies,  selling off
>> >> our
>> >> > >> resources to pay the unconscionable deficits".  The real problem
>> >> with
>> >> >oil
>> >> > >> is
>> >> > >> the restriction on drilling, exploration and refineries; simply,
>> >> supply
>> >> >and
>> >> > >> demand.  I don't know what you mean about the "agri/timber
>> >> issues, but
>> >> >if
>> >> > >> that's what it takes to make our country prosperous, then that
>> >> is what
>> >> >we
>> >> > >> should do.  A poor person never gave me a job (wealthy and
>> >> corporations
>> >> >did
>> >> > >> (and government).  I will say here that I do one of the few
>> >> legitimate
>> >> > >> government tasks. . . defense (and as a civilian,
>> >> declassification).  I
>> >> > >> assume by your comment about oil, you believe we "went to war
>> >> for oil".
>> >> >If
>> >> > >> so, what better reason besides retaliation?  Oil is in the 
>> national
>> >> > >> interest.  If we can secure international oil routes and
>> >> supplies by
>> >> >going
>> >> > >> to war, so what?  Liberals like to say we should go to war in
>> >> Zambia,
>> >> >or
>> >> > >> Zimbabwe or elsewhere in the African continent. If not for 
>> precious
>> >> >metals,
>> >> > >> oil or resources, why?  If it is not in our national 
>> interest, why?
>> >> >What
>> >> > >> the hell were we doing in Serbia?  That is a European created
>> >> problem
>> >> >and
>> >> > >> they should police it.  We have no national interest there.
>> >> > >>
>> >> > >> Philip
>> >> > >>
>> >> > >>
>> >> > >> -----Original Message-----
>> >> > >> From: rhodes22-list-bounces at rhodes22.org
>> >> > >> [mailto:rhodes22-list-bounces at rhodes22.org]On Behalf Of
>> >> > >> FCrawford0707 at aol.com
>> >> > >> Sent: Friday, June 30, 2006 10:46 AM
>> >> > >> To: rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org
>> >> > >> Subject: Re: [Rhodes22-list] To DAVE about Virginia and in reply
>> >> > >>
>> >> > >>
>> >> > >>
>> >> > >> In a message dated 6/30/2006 8:47:51 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
>> >> > >> 3drecon at comcast.net writes:
>> >> > >>
>> >> > >> Frankly, I see the Democrats relying on Big Government and
>> >> growing it;
>> >> > >> however, having said that, the Republicans, in recent years have
>> >> >changed
>> >> > >> course to
>> >> > >> appease the liberals (who will not vote for them, no matter
>> >> what) and
>> >> >have
>> >> > >> their own brand of government growth.  I am a  Libertarian.  The
>> >> > >> Republicans
>> >> > >> are the only electable party that come  closest to that
>> >> philiosophy for
>> >> > >> now,
>> >> > >> so
>> >> > >> I identify with them.  The  interesting thing is the Founding
>> >> Fathers
>> >> >would
>> >> > >> have been considered  liberals!
>> >> > >>
>> >> > >>
>> >> > >>
>> >> > >> Philip - I am interested in your conclusion that as a
>> >> Libertarian, you
>> >> >are
>> >> > >> somehow comfortable with the Republicans.  I find the incessant
>> >> drive
>> >> >by
>> >> > >> the
>> >> > >> Republicans to limit personal rights and invade our private acts
>> >> and
>> >> > >> thoughts
>> >> > >> to be at odds with my own Libertarian leanings.  The abuse of
>> >> power by
>> >> >the
>> >> > >> present administration is frightening - a propaganda machine
>> >> leading
>> >> >us
>> >> >to
>> >> > >> pre-emptive war, welfare for the agri / timber / oil companies,
>> >> >selling
>> >> > >> off
>> >> > >> our
>> >> > >> resources to pay the unconscionable deficits, not to mention the
>> >> > >> corruption
>> >> > >> and incompetence.  I am not a strict Libertarian, in that I
>> >> feel  there
>> >> >are
>> >> > >> roles best filled by government - for example, dredging and
>> >> >maintaining
>> >> > >> the
>> >> > >> ICW.
>> >> > >> There was a great idea thirty years ago that, if  followed, 
>> would
>> >> >perhaps
>> >> > >> have put our society in a happier and less contentious  frame
>> >> than we
>> >> >are
>> >> > >> going
>> >> > >> thru now - that of the negative income tax, in place of  all the
>> >> myriad
>> >> >of
>> >> > >> government administered support programs that don't really
>> >> serve the
>> >> > >> constituency
>> >> > >> intended, and which produce a whole lot of waste.   With a 
>> negative
>> >> >income
>> >> > >> tax, the neediest are supported without the cost and  waste of
>> >> >bureaucratic
>> >> > >> infrastructure.  No one makes out better financially  by not
>> >> working,
>> >> >so
>> >> > >> the
>> >> > >> "welfare syndrome" is not present.
>> >> > >>     Frone Crawford
>> >> > >>     s/v Sunday Morning
>> >> > >> __________________________________________________
>> >> > >> Use Rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org, Help? www.rhodes22.org/list
>> >> > >>
>> >> > >> __________________________________________________
>> >> > >> Use Rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org, Help? www.rhodes22.org/list
>> >> > >>
>> >> > >
>> >> > >
>> >> > > __________________________________________________
>> >> > > Use Rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org, Help? www.rhodes22.org/list
>> >> > >
>> >> > > __________________________________________________
>> >> > > Use Rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org, Help? www.rhodes22.org/list
>> >> > >
>> >> > >
>> >> >__________________________________________________
>> >> >Use Rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org, Help? www.rhodes22.org/list
>> >> >
>> >> >__________________________________________________
>> >> >Use Rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org, Help? www.rhodes22.org/list
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> __________________________________________________
>> >> Use Rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org, Help? www.rhodes22.org/list
>> >>
>> > __________________________________________________
>> > Use Rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org, Help? www.rhodes22.org/list
>> >
>> __________________________________________________
>> Use Rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org, Help? www.rhodes22.org/list
>>
> __________________________________________________
> Use Rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org, Help? www.rhodes22.org/list
>