Obama Oil Myths

This one has been bugging me since long before the election, but I kept putting it on the back burner for when I had more time and I didn't want to come out as trying to sway votes. Today's headline about the US being the top oil producer in the world, in five years, reminded me to get back to it, though. I have read and heard, over and over, from news sources, blogs, and private individuals that Obama is doing everything from purposely blocking new oil well leases to waging total war on fossil fuels and trying to make the US a third world country. I usually pontificate on the sources of rumors, the need to justify the accusations with hard evidence, and give counter arguments but there is just too large of a body of falsehood to tackle in one sitting. So, I'm just going to work my way chronologically through the major myths I've heard over the years and let you do the majority of reading.

The US, because of or despite Obama - whichever lens you wish to view through - is projected to be the world's top oil producer. Regardless of your chosen lens, that fairly debunks the meat of almost all myths around Obama's supposed goals of eliminating drilling and attacking all fossil fuels. Now for a look back at all of the attacks.

1. The Republican backlash in the the aftermath of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill, actually baffles me. Usually I understand where they are coming from, and sometimes even agree, but the push for more drilling immediately after the spill, and basically ignoring any need for a moratorium, whatsoever, pretty well disgusted me.

"Because there was a suspension of belief on the part of the oil industry that an accident like this could ever happen, a suspension of drilling was necessary to bring those companies back to reality," -- House Environment and Natural Resources Committee Chairman Ed Markey, D-Mass.

THE WORST ACCIDENTAL MARINE OIL SPILL IN HISTORY. Let that sink in for a second. How long is long enough, to try to get your hands wrapped around what happened and to hopefully safeguard against it happening again? Now read through this timeline and ask if any of those steps should have been hurried or ignored. Buried in there is also a nugget of information about early expansion plans the Obama Administration had, but shelved until a later date, due to the spill. The intent was there, but hey, they actually had to make a responsible decision to hold off in the wake of a disaster. It would be entirely conceivable that the aftermath of the spill would still be hitting the industry hard within 5 years, but just two years, TWO YEARS later, drilling is booming. Granted, there is a new regulatory entity and further regulations, but such is the price of sins.

2. The $2 billion to Brazil is actually chronologically out of order, but it only gained significant press after the DH spill, so I'm putting it here. Oh, the humanity...if it were true. There is virtually no truth to either the statement or the implication that Obama prefers to help other countries instead of the US. There are plenty of myth-busting sites for this one, but Politifact sums it up best:

"First, the number is wrong. Although there was an initial commitment for $2 billion, it ultimately became a $308 million loan guarantee. Second, Perry ignores that the Ex-Im Bank is an independent federal agency, and he is wrong to attribute its actions to Obama. The initial commitment came when it was controlled by Bush appointees. And although the Obama appointee voted for the $308 million loan guarantee, there is no evidence that it done at the behest of Obama."

3. The Keystone XL pipeline denial is probably the softest myth of the bunch. Here is a fairly concise description of the views from both sides. You're either for or against the reasons Obama gave for rejection of rapid approval, if you actually know what he said, but unfortunately, the rejection gets distorted into tree-hugging, liberal, anti-Big Oil, anti-jobs, etc., etc. and the majority on the Right don't realize or care that there were valid concerns over the time to vet the project. Also, Obama's action is characterized as "killing" the project, when it was never more than a delay. Word on the street is that approval is imminent.

4. From Romney's mouth:

"All of the increase in natural gas and oil has happened on private land, not on government land, [....] On government land, your administration has cut the number of permits and licenses in half."

This one doesn't need a lot from me because here is a good breakdown of those statements. And This article sums up the first four years best:


"Obama has attempted to take a middle-of-the-road approach to energy development throughout his presidency.

He's resumed leasing in the Gulf of Mexico after the BP (BP) disaster, plans to allow drilling in the Arctic, and has done little to restrict hydraulic fracturing -- or fracking -- in domestic oil and gas fields despite fears that the process is contaminating ground water.

But the number of permits issued and acres available for drilling have generally been lower under Obama's administration than in George W. Bush's administration, which preceded it."


So there you have it, he has behaved like, wait for it, a moderate Democrat!

Tyson's Foods: The New Old Target

Remember when it was all the rage to hate on Target because it was a French-owned company...which turned out to be patently false. To this day, in my household, we still jokingly refer to it by the French pronunciation of "Tar-gjay". Well, it seems that another company, Tyson's Foods, has landed in the cross-hairs of junk chain email forwarders...since 2008! I evidently missed the first round, because I've only just become aware of it through my first email on the topic. So, here's the real deal and my thoughts.


This one has been around the block a few times:

http://www.snopes.com/politics/religion/tyson.asp
http://urbanlegends.about.com/od/business/a/tyson_foods.htm

As a matter of practice anyway, more and more companies are reducing the number of fixed holidays and increasing "floating" holidays. I currently only have 6 fixed and 3 floaters. Generally speaking, it is in a company's best interest to observe holidays when their employees wouldn't otherwise be productive anyway, and it isn't uncommon to have regional, state, and even religious holidays observed outside of "normal" federal holidays to mitigate the problem, although floating holidays are becoming the preferred method of handling the issue. Further, any company is free to observe whatever work and holiday schedule it deems appropriate based on whatever criteria it so chooses, e.g. Chik-Fil-A is not open past 10 p.m. or on Sundays, unlike all other fast food chains. Inversely, there are plenty of companies that operate stores/shifts/operations during federal holidays and nobody complains about that practice when they either offset with other days off or holiday pay.

Something else to consider is who/what is being hurt when targeting companies. Tyson's Foods Inc. is actually one of the leading Christian owned, faith-in-the-workplace, and charitable donators in the country and a model for Christian valued companies:

http://www.tysonfoods.com/Media-Room/News-Releases/2010/06/Tyson-Chaplaincy-Program-Featured-by-The-Wall-Street-Journal.aspx

http://www.minyanville.com/special-features/articles/john-tyson-christian-church-chaplain-methodist/5/19/2010/id/28276

I think it is fair to say that the majority of people who would be incensed by the chain emails, take action (not buying Tyson's), and forward on, fall into the Christian category, and are probably even strong supporters of Christian valued companies, faith-based organisations, etc. So, it is actually counter-intuitive and counter-productive for them to attack a company which espouses their very same values. Just goes to show that you really need to check your info. I NEVER trust anything I've been blindly forwarded. 99% of the time it has turned out to be false, or at the very least a misrepresentation of the facts/events.


On a side note, I find it very uplifting that Tyson's would show such religious tolerance and understanding to work with the Unions on a compromise for Muslim employees. That makes me want to support them more, not less.

The Gaffe Pole, or How To Kill a Shark

Amid the recent fervor over Obama's "The private sector is doing fine" gaffe, I have been extremely frustrated over the now-common polarization based on sound bites instead of message. To be clear, here in the opening, I am neither defending Obama's words, nor defending his policies. I could have easily written this a hundred times over the years, based on some gaffe by a politician on either side. It just so happens that, in this case, I was paying more attention to the news at the time and have had more opportunity to gauge the reactions of the media and masses.

So let's get the current news and debate out of the way. As a primer, I encourage everyone to read the full transcript of Obama's press conference. Buried in there is the offending comment that has led to these basic accusations, in a myriad of forms, about Obama:

• He is out of touch with the American worker and business.
• He hates the private sector (read into that all of the various things he is doing to destroy it).
• He is delusional and/or lying.

Now take quotes from the ENTIRE press conference and see if the rest of his words match what the GOP would have you presume he meant by the gaffe (and I've included some content that extends to American homeowners and workers since the GOP extrapolates the private sector to mean all of the non-1%):

"But the hole we have to fill is much deeper and the global aftershocks are much greater. That's why we've got to keep on pressing with actions that further strengthen the economy."

"If there's less demand for our products in places like Paris or Madrid it could mean less businesses -- or less business for manufacturers in places like Pittsburgh or Milwaukee."

"In the meantime, given the signs of weakness in the world economy, not just in Europe but also some softening in Asia, it's critical that we take the actions we can to strengthen the American economy right now."

"If Congress had passed it in full, we'd be on track to have a million more Americans working this year. The unemployment rate would be lower. Our economy would be stronger."

"But they left most of the jobs plan just sitting there. And in light of the headwinds that we're facing right now, I urge them to reconsider. Because there's steps we can take right now to put more people back to work."

"In addition, since the housing bubble burst, we've got more than a million construction workers out of work. There's nothing fiscally responsible about waiting to fix your roof until it caves in. We've got a lot of deferred maintenance in this country. We could be putting a lot of people back to work rebuilding our roads, our bridges, some of our schools. There's work to be done; there are workers to do it. Let's put them back to work right now.

The housing market is stabilizing and beginning to come back in many parts of the country. But there are still millions of responsible homeowners who've done everything right but still struggle to make ends meet. So, as I talked about just a few weeks ago, let's pass a bill that gives them a chance to save an average of $3,000 a year by refinancing their mortgage and taking advantage of these historically low rates. That's something we can do right now. It would make a difference.

Instead of just talking a good game about job creators, Congress should give the small business owners that actually create most of the new jobs in America a tax break for hiring more workers."

"And the short-term problems are: How do we put people back to work? How do we make the economy grow as rapidly as possible? How do we ensure that the recovery gains momentum?

Because if we do those things, not only is it good for the people who find work, not only is it good for families who are able to pay the bills, but it actually is one of the most important things we can do to reduce deficits and debt. It's a lot easier to deal with deficits and debt if you're growing, because you're bringing in more revenue and you're not spending as much because people don't need unemployment insurance as much; they don't need other programs that are providing support to people in need because things are going pretty good. 

Now, that's true here in the United States, and that's true in Europe. So the problem I think President Clinton identified is that if, when an economy is still weak and a recovery is still fragile, that you resort to a strategy of "let's cut more" -- so that you're seeing government layoffs, reductions in government spending, severe cutbacks in major investments that help the economy grow over the long term -- if you're doing all those things at the same time as consumers are pulling back because they're still trying to pay off credit card debt, and there's generally weak demand in the economy as a whole, then you can get on a downward spiral where everybody is pulling back at the same time. That weakens demand and that further crimps the desire of companies to hire more people. And that's the pattern that Europe is in danger of getting into."

"...let's not underinvest in the things that we need to do right now to grow. And that recipe of short-term investments in growth and jobs with a long-term path of fiscal responsibility is the right approach to take for, I think, not only the United States but also for Europe."

"And so, if Republicans want to be helpful, if they really want to move forward and put people back to work, what they should be thinking about is, how do we help state and local governments and how do we help the construction industry. Because the recipes that they're promoting are basically the kinds of policies that would add weakness to the economy, would result in further layoffs, would not provide relief in the housing market, and would result, I think most economists estimate, in lower growth and fewer jobs, not more."

Throughout the above content there is reference after reference about continued concern over private sector growth, job creation, small businesses, etc., etc. Of course it's swathed in political rhetoric, but try to get anything less from any politician.

The highlighted section above represents the crux of the President's intent and the real context of the offending statement:

"The truth of the matter is that, as I said, we've created 4.3 million jobs over the last 27 months, over 800,000 just this year alone. The private sector is doing fine. Where we're seeing weaknesses in our economy have to do with state and local government -- oftentimes, cuts initiated by governors or mayors who are not getting the kind of help that they have in the past from the federal government and who don't have the same kind of flexibility as the federal government in dealing with fewer revenues coming in."

Face palm. Were the words stupid? Yes. Should he be taken to task a bit? Absolutely. Does anyone who actually listened/read to the entire conference, and, more importantly, has listened to everything the Administration has put out, really feel he thinks the private sector is fine? The administration does the usual political spin on any good numbers it can find, but I have never heard elsewhere a proclamation that all is well. Trying to stay on message about his proposals, it's pretty obvious that he incorrectly balanced the public and private sector against each other with a value of "fine", which has a more absolute connotation, and would have been better served to have said the private sector is doing "better" (which is obviously up for debate). It's asinine to proceed on the assumption he thinks everything is coming up roses, and base your political view on something so narrow. What everyone should really be debating is whether or not increased government spending, in the form of the various programs and public sector job creation, is the correct strategy. THAT is the important message and differentiation between Obama and Romney, not whether Obama hates the private sector and is out of touch.

I went to the GOP Oracle, Limbaugh, to get a review of the attack points, and I came across these quotes in  couple of transcripts:

"So when he comes out and says, "The private sector is doing fine," people who have a genuine intelligence and an understanding of matters economic understand that that is a huge gaffe."

"Now, not even Obama can believe that, and does he really expect us to buy it?"

Yes Ditto-Heads, Rush is telling you that it's a gaffe (unintentional act or remark...) and that Obama could not possibly believe it. Of course Romney has had a lot to say on the matter as well and I'll use him to kill two birds with one stone here. First I'll address the accusation that, by backpedaling, Obama proves he meant what he said. Second, I'll segue to the gaffe roundup.

Who remembers this Romney quote: "I’m not concerned about the very poor."? Pulling from the previous theme, do we really think that? Is that what he meant, literally? When he tried to repair the damage, or backpedaled, did that discredit him further or is that the natural political action? I, for one, would be damn scared of a politician who stood by their gaffes and didn't try to fix them. Here's an MSNBC clip that shows the "backpedal" with some commentary (chosen for no other reason than it was one of the first Google pulled up). And Romney makes a very good point in his retraction -- he "misspoke" -- about the burden of speaking in public all of the time. Basically, these guys are "always on" and there is zero tolerance for mistake. Who of you could speak in public all of the time and never make a mistake? He who is without sin among you, let him be the first to throw a stone....

So who else has made gaffes and what were the accusations leveled? All of the below are absolutely taken out of context, so do the research if you want to know the real intent:

Romney (campaign speech): Accused of being "out of touch" for the above quote.

McCain (campaign speech): Accused of being "out of touch" for this comment during the financial meltdown:

"Our economy, I think, still the fundamentals of our economy are strong."

Al Gore (interview): Accused of being delusional and/or a liar:

"I took the initiative in creating the Internet."

John Kerry (campaign speech ): Accused of being a flip-flopping liar:

"I actually did vote for the $87 billion before I voted against it."

W has so many gaffes that there are pages and YouTube videos dedicated to him/them, so I won't bother trying to pick one out (to be fair, the majority are just flubs of speech, not true political gaffes, but he still has to hold the record). That may seem unfair, but Dem or GOP, you have to admit he was a gaffe machine. He was accused of being...just about everything.

And I could go on deeper through more presidents and hopefuls. The point being that none of these really matter in the grand debate of what's important, yet this is what people cling to for their decisions, rather than go into the context and look beyond the gaffe. And then we get pundits who guide their flocks away from doing their own research and thinking and instead tell them things like, "This was a window in to the real [enter Name]", or "He/She backpedaled, so you know he/she is lying", "They're so out of touch that they can even say something like [enter gaffe]". Sound familiar? They reduce the discussion down to some fundamental kernel of "truth" that they are the purveyors of and you should base all decisions on.

Break the cycle and ignore the gaffe and soundbite drivel that you know isn't true. Dig into the issues and policies. Look at the totality of speech and doctrine. Make informed decisions from a diversity of views and information. If you do that, then I gladly accept your disagreement with my views and choices, as should anyone. If not, then I have nothing for you other than to offer to open the gate to the sheep pen so you can go stand with the others.