A Pipeline of Propaganda

This entry is part 4 of 4 in the series Email Lies
The following is an email I just received followed my my observations.
——————————————————————————————————————
…….Original Message……..
From:
To:
Sent: Tuesday, May 24, 2011 7:13 AM
Subject: FW: Just 74 MILES!!!

Just 74 Miles of Pipeline Needed !!

Please think about this when you are paying $5.00 or more for fuel.

This video from CONGRESS is an eye opener, FOLKS! IT’S GONNA KNOCK YOUR SOCKS OFF!!!

The MEDIA did NOT tell us about this speech in Congress! Turn your sound up, and click below, then pass it on. It needs to be heard by the American people.

THIS IS A SPEECH FROM 2008 AND WE STILL HAVEN’T COMPLETED THE 74 MILES!!!!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MlfmvwxxgHM

—————————————————————————————————–

My Response:

Yea, this is an interesting speech. The most critical truism about the whole video was said in the first 10 seconds….

…America still does not have an effective energy policy!!

The thing about it is, that even if ANWR were fully developed along with the measly 74-mile pipeline, no more oil could be pumped through the existing 48″ pipeline from Prudo Bay to Valdez than is being currently pumped at full capacity 24/7. The amount of oil delivered daily cannot be increased above the maximum tolerances allowed by the main pipeline. The price of oil cannot be reduced by more reserves regardless of where they are drilled from!!

Now because this last statement makes reasonable sense and because I increased my font size and highlighted it in red, a lot of people would believe it to be true in verbatim when in fact it is not. As is usual with propaganda, there are elements of truth mixed in with misleading statements, incomplete analysis and false assumptions. It is always easy to use propaganda techniques to sway opinion on subjects that most people have unclear or ill-informed knowledge about.

This email is a pretty standard piece of propaganda using biased, hot-button keywords and phrases like;

…think about this when you are paying $5.00 or more for fuel

The MEDIA did NOT tell us

then pass it on. It needs to be heard by the American people

Then, what a shocker it was to hear in the YouTube video a Representative from Alaska pitch (unbiased?) for increased oil production in his state. In the video he uses the phrases like “Your friends and your allies…bringing suit…preventing drilling”, “polar bears or some other little type of animal”, “$4.62/gal”, “wind and hippy-hoppies type things”…. No bias here right?

Real FACTS

U.S. Petroleum Consumption 18,771,000 barrels/day

Maximum Alaskan pipeline daily throughput 2.136 million barrels/day, avg.

Current U.S. Total Petroleum Exports 2.024 million barrels/day

Sources:http://www.alyeska-pipe.com/pipelinefacts.html , http://www.eia.doe.gov/energyexplained/

We are exporting out of the country nearly as much as the maximum delivery capacity of the whole pipeline.

U.S. Field Production of Crude Oil (Million Barrels per Day)

George Bush B. Obama

2001   2002   2003   2004   2005   2006   2007   2008 2009   2010

5.801  5.746  5.681  5.419  5.178  5.102  5.064  4.950 5.361  5.512

So much for the myth that the present administration is curtailing production! http://www.eia.doe.gov/dnav/pet/pet_crd_crpdn_adc_mbblpd_a.htm

 

What most people just can’t seem to wrap their brain around is that oil is a global commodity whose daily production is controlled by major producers. If one country increases its production, another one will lower theirs in order to maintain pricing. Increased US production can have an impact on our trade imbalance and reduce our purchases from unfriendly nations (both worthwhile endeavors) but there is no guarantee that the increased production will be used in the US and will have little if any net effect on price structure (pennies/gal). The price structure is controlled by major oil companies and producer countries within a supply/demand structure and pricing is further inflated by excessive speculation.

 

Tell your representatives that you are not going to tolerate the theft of our hard earned money and want this speculation stopped. Instead of trying to defund the regulatory watchdogs that failed to do their jobs leading to our fiscal nightmares, we need our congress to get off their corporate backed asses and implement policy to end and return the theft of our national assets from the bankers, insurance executives and Wall St. hucksters.

 

The ONLY way to guarantee lower future fuel prices is to reduce demand by switching to a new fuel source(s). Increased fossil fuel production will never have anything more than temporary price spike reductions at best. Supporting increased domestic production while curtailing the discovery and development of renewable fuel sources only further impowers the current power structure to keep us captured and dependent on them while perpetuating the transfer of wealth from the bottom and middle class up to the wealthy plutocracy.

 

Because renewable resources can be made from nearly any type of plant that can be grown and be continually produced, with increased utilization, competition and advancements in economies of scale will cause future fuel prices to remain stable with pricing going in the downward direction instead of always in the upward direction. Reliance on a continually depleated fossil fuel will inevitably always get more expensive.

 

The sooner we develop a SENSIBLE ENERGY POLICY that fosters the utilization of cleaner renewables, the sooner we again will prosper.

Tell your representatives to quit taking political campaign bribe money and eliminate subsidies for ALL energy sources. And tell them not to cut research funding for alternatives that allow for domestic energy production.

 

Our future and continued prosperity depends on it.

Petri Survey: May 2011

Dear Congressman Petri,

I have just (begrudgingly) completed your recent survey inquiring about our feelings and positions on a variety of issues. I say begrudgingly because the survey is a very limited and often misleading set of questions with limited, ambiguous answer options. If you truly wish to know what your constituents think, then the surveys should be much more specific rather than general in nature and you should offer the ability to comment and clarify on given responses to each question.

My answers to many of the questions posed in this survey are dependent on many other related factors that are associated with the issues raised. In my opinion, this survey is practically useless in conveying the true beliefs of many respondents who have participated. However, please continue to offer these types of opportunities to hear from us, your constituents, but also please attempt to make the questions and answers less misleading, more specific and with better transparency so that you may vote on legislation with a true understanding of constituent input.

Respectfully,
Todd Hudzinski
Princeton, WI

—————————————————————————————————-

Representative Petri’s survey follows in blue and red text. Black text is my comments;

Your views and opinions are of vital concern to me. Please take a few minutes to answer the important questions listed below.

Do you believe that federal deficits are a serious matter requiring a strong response?

A) Yes
B) No Federal deficits ARE a serious matter but a strong response is not a valid question. I expect my representatives to make REASONED responses. A strong response says nothing about whether it is a right response.

In order to balance the budget, would you be willing to make cuts in the following areas?

A. Health Care

Yes  / No -  Yes if you mean cutting waste, fraud and abuse while providing mechanisms for fair and full coverage for all Americans
No if you mean transferring all health care provisions to the whims of for-profit businesses.

B. Low-Income Assistance (Food Stamps, unemployment, etc.)
Yes No No to cutting assistance and/or fraud investigation. Yes to policies that increase or support the manipulation of or dependency on welfare as a permanent lifestyle.

C. Defense
Yes No Yes to wasteful and unnecessary programs, bases and foreign involvement. No to research and intelligence training and implementation.

D. Homeland Security
Yes No No to border and port controls, intelligence gathering and disaster preparedness and response capability. Yes to wasteful and unnecessary screening, privacy infringements and activity directly infringing on constitutional rights and principles.

E. Foreign Aid
Yes No Yes to cutting aid to foreign entities without verifiable return concessions by them that support our constitutional principles. No to aid that helps to address humanitarian and democratic issues in foreign lands.

F. Transportation
Yes No No to cutting infrastructure, especially such that builds on the inevitable replacement of fossil fuels. Yes to funding that promotes continued inefficiency, dependency and sprawl.

G. Education
Yes No No to funding for the equitable capacity to receive quality primary or the pursuit of secondary education. Yes to cutting funding that has no attached means to judge efficacy.

H. Social Security
Yes No No if it means the reduction or elimination of the SS system. Yes to the payment of funds to the un-needy.

I. Agriculture
Yes No Yes to eliminating subsidies to factory farms and other destructive commodity subsidies. No to research, promotion of family farms and sustainable agricultural practices.

J. Veterans Benefits
Yes No NEVER

Would you favor Congress limiting the availability of the home mortgage interest tax deduction?

A) Yes To those who don’t need it
B) No To those who only have a single home

While the Social Security program may not be responsible for our current budget problems, the program does face several years of operating deficits. Without changing benefits for current retirees or those close to retirement, would you support these changes for future retirees?

A. Slowing the growth of future benefits over several years
Yes No No the level of benefits should not be infringed upon for those that are in need.

B. Raising the cap on income subject to tax (currently $106,800)
Yes No Yes and No depending on if any other solutions are implemented. Fairness is the determinant.

C. Means test for benefits
Yes No Yes, SS should be treated as an insurance policy where those that need it can claim it and those that don’t need it can donate their share to a variety of causes.

D. Provide benefits on a sliding scale based on income
Yes No No to a sliding scale of payments into the fund, maybe to a sliding scale of receipts dependent on need but only if other more effective and equitable measures have not been enacted.

E. Gradually increase retirement age for current workers
Yes No Yes and No based on occupational realities.

F. Increase tax rates for all workers
Yes No No/not sure. The realities of the system in terms of inputs/outputs and expectations overall need to be clarified and communicated.

G. Voluntary transfers of some Social Security contributions to private accounts
Yes No Yes if voluntary and only a percentage. Freedom of choice should be promoted but also consequences and personal responsibility need to be clearly delineated.

One of the recommendations put forth by the President’s Debt Commission was to convert the Medicare system from a government-run insurance program to a system where Medicare participants are given a voucher to purchase insurance in the private market. Would you support such a change?

CORRECTION: The question above is somewhat misleading. Instead of saying that the recommendation was “put forth” by the President’s Debt Commission, the question should read that this recommendation was “discussed” by the President’s Debt Commission. THERE IS A HUGE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE INSINUATION AND THE REALITY OF THE WAY THIS AND OTHER QUESTIONS IN THIS SURVEY ARE ASKED!

A) Yes Not Sure/ Don’t have enough information to make a choice/ question is not clear
B) No

Despite passage of last year’s health care law, the future of health care reform remains an open question. Which of the following most closely matches your current position on this issue?

A) Be patient, find out if the new system works
B) Replace the new system with Republican alternatives (competition, tort reform, health savings accounts, etc.)
C) Single Payer/Government-run system
D) Other At least you provided an “other” option as there are few if any simple answers.

Some say that new revenues are necessary to balance the budget. If so, which approach do you prefer?

A) Increase taxes on the wealthy
B) Tax reform to spread the tax burden more broadly
C) No change. Improving economy will increase revenue.
D) Other Again, there are many other options not listed. Those that are listed need to be more clearly defined. I would say B. but am more interested in a fairly distributed tax than a “broadly spread” one. As is most of this survey, this option is definitionally unclear.

Please indicate your age range

18 – 34
35 – 59
60+