NATURAL GAS, THE UNAPPRECIATED ECONOMIC STIMULUS

We all readily notice the drop in gasoline prices, each time we go to the pump. It's a big deal. It's a big deal especially for low wage earners, for whom the recent drop means another $75 to $100 in fuel savings per month.
This makes it a big deal for the economy.

Natural gas is an ingredient used to make fertilizer, antifreeze, plastics, pharmaceuticals and fabrics. It is also used to manufacture a wide range of chemicals such as ammonia, methanol, butane, ethane, propane and acetic acid.  

Many manufacturing processes require heat to melt, dry, bake or glaze a product. Natural gas is used as a heat source in making glass, steel, cement, bricks, ceramics, tile, paper, food products and many other commodities. Natural gas is also used at many industrial facilities for incineration. 

We as consumers don't necessarily readily appreciate the savings in nearly everything we buy, at the grocery store or the shopping mall, as a result of low natural gas prices, because the benefit can be obscured by sheer complexity, or it may be that the effect of low natural gas prices is in many cases are merely off setting other upward pressures on pricing. Tremendous benefit, none the less. 

I've been watching natural gas prices for years now. Six years ago, when natural gas was pricing at around $7 per mmBTU, I spent good money to convert my home heat to heat pumps. Seemed brilliant at the time. For the last few years, prices have held fairly steady at around $4, that is, until the fracking revolution in the US (thank God for private property laws) began to flood the US market with both oil and natural gas. The price of natural gas today sits at $2.24 per mmBTU, an unprecedented development. Look for it to spike a bit in November and December, as it always does, but we're probably looking at $2 or so for the foreseeable future.

This is a huge development for every man, woman, child, manufacturer, and retailer in the country. Huge. It is estimated that for every 10 cent drop in natural gas prices, $300 million accrues to the listed companies on the DOW. So the drop from $4.50 to where it is today means a whopping 23 times that amount, or around $65 billion to those firms alone, and the DOW doesn't comprise all enterprises in the country that will benefit.

The price of natural gas in the rest of the world has remained a bit above that prices in the US. Because Russia dominates natural gas production outside of the US, many European firms have decided to manufacture in the US, principally because of the price of natural gas. No small benefit this, and it is just beginning.

I'm not against coal at all, as a matter of fact, I'm for coal if only because Barack Obama is trying to destroy the coal industry. But natural gas is now competing with coal as a feedstock for electric power generation. And it's cleaner. 

The American fossil fuel industry has been under constant assault by this administration, and by extension, so has the American economy. It should be clear by now that this was a deliberate attempt to weaken America, by an anti-american who sits in the White House. He would not approve the Keystone pipeline, Obama would not allow drilling on our shores or on our public lands. But the fracking revolution took place on private property, with leases already in place, and he could do nothing about it. It must grind him that capitalism still exists in this country. He must feel the private sector is like some weed in the garden that gets lopped off, uprooted, snipped and sprayed, and it still won't die. 

I'm optimistic now that we'll make it to the end of this particular emperor's reign, and if American capitalism survives, we can thank hydraulic fracking, horizontal drilling, and private property laws.

CHOOSING SLOTH

Just some thoughts on abortion and the words that have come to dominate the discussion:

"Choice". It's a word that has become the semantic lynchpin of the abortion movement.  It's because the word ''choice" segues so seamlessly to the word "right". The "right" to choose.

So, if there's a right to choose, does the right somehow free someone from the repercussions of the choice?

Is it a "right" to choose to take someone else's property? Is it a "right" to make any choice that harms someone else? Don't one's choices make them who they are? If the latter is true, then, a little introspection on the part of females who want to have the "right to choose" would be in order.

So let's examine the choices involved in having arrived at the point where a woman would want to choose to abort a fetus during say, the second trimester of her pregnancy.

A woman will have had to have made several choices already, to get to this  particular time of choosing.

She will have had to have chosen first to have sex outside of marriage.

She will have to have made the choice to have unprotected sex.

A choice will have been made to have unprotected sex with a man with whom she has no intention of having a child.

In order to arrive at the point where she may exercise her "right" to choose to abort this child in the second trimester, she will have had to have chosen not to use a morning after pill. A reasonable precaution is thus rejected.

By procrastinating and eschewing preventive precautions, this woman will have displayed she cares not about the probability that a fetus that has grown in the womb for a period of months may feel pain. Certainly more pain than a lesser-formed zygote. That is a choice too.

She will have chosen either to make the father aware (if she knows who he is), or not.

These are all choices.

How do these choices shape this person? I'm speaking of her psyche. Her will power. Her sense of self. Will she choose poorly in other areas of her life, because the "right to choose" to abort relieves her of any repercussions as a result of all her choices to that point?

Isn't this a formula for this person to become slovenly? Isn't this just laziness? Can women really avoid the shame? We have evidence now that some of these women are haunted the rest of their lives.

Is the "right to choose" really worth the inevitable diminution in character that is engendered here?

What havoc feminism has wrought.

Women who value their chastity are sexier, too.

WHY THE LIBERAL MEDIA WON'T DIE

Once again, in last night's Republican debate, we witness the spectacle of an obviously biased performance by the moderators at CNBC.

I'm pretty sure no one on the right side of the political spectrum is surprised at this, except maybe the RNC, but many of us probably still don't understand how leftist media keeps its hold on the news. Or so much of it, as is still the case.

After years of clinging to the claim of objectivity, it seems the major left-leaning outlets, both broadcast and print, have "come out", and are no longer attempting to hide their bias towards all things conservative. I find this interesting, but not surprising. They feel they are needed now, right now, because liberalism is perceived by liberals to be under siege, at this very point in time, perhaps now more than ever. That's why they've come out. Credibility and relevance were once both cherished by the media, they now perceive the situation to be so dire that all they can hope to retain is relevance. Credibility be damned, we have a job to do.

For clarity, let's name names. ABC, CBS, NBC are the network TV players. CNN, MSNBC, PBS, and CNBC the core cable representatives.  Many conservatives now see Fox News applying for membership, but that's a topic for another time.

On radio, we have NPR and a number of successful left-wing talk radio shows-oh wait!.....So strike that last one. Then we have the New York Times, LA Times, Washington Post, and the great majority of blue city rags across the country to represent the dominant print media.

I choose to look at this landscape through the eyes of a business owner, which requires it be viewed through the disciplines of marketing, mission, and making money. With the leftist media, admittedly it's not that simple, but indulge me for a while.

The money comes from ad revenue. Ok, that's simple.

The market? Well, eyeballs-viewers and readers, and ears. Eyeballs and ears. The more the merrier, right? One would think the product would be..... information. What kind of information? Just news, or is it more than that?

It's more than that.

But they all do sell news, so let's examine the selling of news in isolation for a moment.

Who wants news? Well, statistically, everyone. We all want to be in the know on events, and people and places in which we are interested. So, do the above-mentioned left-wing purveyors of news want the whole market? Everyone? Or do their actions reveal they are niche-marketing? It is obvious they are niche marketing because it is evident they are perfectly willing to insult those niches they aren't going after. And niche marketing is not a bad business model, quite the contrary.

So it must be that it's not just about the news.

Obviously, they consider what they're selling to be more than just news. So just what are they selling, if not just news and information?

A plurality in this country remains to this day, pro-life. A plurality of potential eyes and ears in America wants a balanced budget. A plurality of this huge potential market does not consider itself to be either victimized, or among the victimizers. So the left-wing purveyors of news begin by eschewing, or in business we say....writing off, more than half the potential market they could conceivably garner, in their willingness to provide only that which the target minority niche would be willing to purchase. It's worse than that, they're willing to insult and berate (and be caught lying by) more than half their potential market. So what do they perceive their mission to be?

I think they see themselves as educators. First and foremost, as educators.

Educators of the masses. Core product be damned. It's still selling, it's still marketing, and so it's still good business, that is, to attempt to change people's minds such that they become purchasers of what the business is constantly stocking and re-stocking on its shelves. And we'd all have to admit, they've had some success at this over the years.

Some of this is due to frustration with the actual education establishment. The schools and universities keep turning out more of the "non-converts" than the media would like. Though we on the right perceive that our schools are doing a pretty good job of enlisting our young to the leftist cause, the leftist media is just not satisfied. So they see it as their mission to fill the void. After all, their ideology is so right, and it should be so easy for everyone to embrace.


So, are the media selling indoctrination, or is it that their chosen niche market just happens to crave what they are making available? A combination of both?


No marketing thrust by any business could be complete without a market analysis. The business would analyze how customers relate to their product, what product segments are hot and cold, and why customers are buying their product.

Since we've attempted to establish that the leftist media see themselves as educators, what do they perceive in their "pupils"?

Liberalism, which is what these people are selling under the guise of news and information, is an ideology. If it weren't for history, and if it weren't for events on the ground (daily events, in the last seven years), which refute the supposed virtues of this ideology, then this belief system wouldn't be such a tough sell. But it is. Liberalism is actually under constant assault.  By reason, experience, and events. It's why history has to be revised. It's why news has to be "colored", it's why news events must be ignored, obscured, and cherry-picked. Opinion must be "shaped" or liberalism in America wouldn't last a month.

Having once been a liberal, I can tell you that this phenomenon, that is, the shaping of news and the revision of history and perceptions, is demand driven. Let me repeat that. Demand driven. The liberal tribe is a warm place. It has trappings, rewards-psychological ones and social ones.  It's a very difficult place to leave. Only significant emotional events will cause one to even want to leave, and the loss of everything and everyone you hold dear is usually the price of an out-bound, one-way ticket.

Those who hold liberal views have a difficult time maintaining their beliefs. Being infantile, chronically envious of others, and favoring emotion over reason helps. Have you ever noticed how liberals love polls? They cannot maintain the very fragile beliefs that liberalism is composed of, without the comfort of knowing that others hold these same beliefs.

They therefore require constant affirmation for these beliefs, find strength in numbers, and must, absolutely must, see themselves as permanent occupants of the moral high-ground.

And that's where the leftist media come in.

Take for example, abortion. Do conservatives realize how difficult it is, psychologically, to be simultaneously opposed to capital punishment while accepting as normal the killing of a fetus in the womb in the name of convenience? This my friends, is not a formula for good mental hygiene. It's a high wire act for the brain. Is it any wonder Sarah Palin literally drives them nuts?

How about maintaining the moral high-plain while defending the last 60 years of welfare policy? Do they not see the devastation it has wrought? The utter and complete devastation among precisely those communities they profess to care for? They do, and they really need help averting their eyes. Once again, this is where the leftist media come in. The product is a salve. It's a balm. It's a blinder. It's required. Constantly. I could go on, as I'm sure most of you could, with examples of failed beliefs liberals must juxtapose in their brains, and struggle to reconcile, but you get the drift.

So, the leftist media, what are they REALLY doing, and what are they REALLY selling? And why does this mean they will never die, never go away?

What they are really doing is filling a perceived void.

What they are really selling is affirmation. Constant affirmation. Constant affirmation for demonstrably failed beliefs. Affirmation required for their chosen target market's psyche to maintain not only the warped beliefs, but required to maintain psychological equilibrium, and their sense of self. Your liberal friend or relative? He or she NEEDS CNN.

And that's just their core market. Then there's the rest of us, which they will always believe to be susceptible to persuasion. They simply cannot understand, and will never understand, why their product won't be sought by all, once properly educated as to its virtues.

Pretty good business model that, whereby the target market comes to you willingly, not merely desirous of, but craving, for the existential purpose of maintaining their sanity, what you have to offer. No marketing needed to keep them as customers, just keep the product on the shelf. And as long as you have the core market locked up, why not at the same time try to increase market share with a little educating?

The leftist media. They're the drug dealer, and their customer has to have it. They don't have to pass the bag in an alley. They can do it out in the open, on Main Street. Passersby can partake if they wish. The authorities smile at them and nod. Pretty cool, huh?

So leftist media are going to be around awhile.

As long as there is envy among humans, as long as there are beliefs born of envy, as long as socialism  possesses an allure for the envious to gravitate towards, there will be purveyors of the required affirmation for these beliefs. And that's what the leftist media are providing. They are offering affirmation, they don't even have to sell it, but they do have to offer it in the morning, in the afternoon, nightly, weekly, monthly-constantly, because just like a drug, its effects wane, or, in the case of this particular ideology, the customers are finding their beliefs, also constantly, to be refuted by events and results no one holding these beliefs wants to see or hear about.

As I said, none of us are surprised that the mods at last night's debate were attempting to "color" the news. It's what they do. They have customers to satisfy.

It's business.

WHY TRUMP IS (STILL) WINNING

1-Because he doesn't use a teleprompter. This contrasts with the coldness Obama has always exuded, and it became so tedious people are literally craving someone who will talk WITH them, without his head on a swivel.

2-Donald Trump CONNECTS with the emotions of his listeners. Those emotions? FEAR and ANGER.

3-There's something there for everyone. He's disparaged by both parties, and the media too.

4-Donald Trump doesn't allow the media to trick him, as a matter of fact, he's been fooling them. This is no small thing, as no one likes the media.

5-He's manly. Another favorable contrast with his soon-to-be predecessor.

6-He's an outsider. People hate Washington DC, and just about everything in it.

7-Donald Trump actually answers questions. How refreshing is that?

GOWDY GOES FOR PATRICK KENNEDY

From the Daily Caller today, we have a video of Greta Van Susteren's interview with Trey Gowdy, chairman of the House Benghazi Committee, as to where the investigation is headed after nine hours of testimony from Hillary Clinton.

Though not named during the interview by Gowdy, it appears that second-in-command Patrick Kennedy will now receive some scrutiny. It is clear that Gowdy seems to feel that, since Hillary Clinton took no responsibility for anything that occurred on that fateful evening, he's going to put Hillary's underlings in the witness chair until someone does take responsibility.

This is a brilliant strategy in my view, given the obstacles the committee has faced and continues to face as a result of the extreme lack of cooperation from this administration.

Kennedy will have to take the fall, or toss the singed potato to someone below him. This is what a good prosecutor does.

Gowdy points out in the interview that Kennedy was one of the officials who appointed, along with Hillary, the members of the Accountability Review Board, who in the end recommended that four lower-level State Department officials be disciplined. Patrick Kennedy of course, was not among them. Interesting no?

So we'll have to wait to see who will take the rap for Hillary. Or perhaps the potato will be tossed to the White House?

It was also mentioned by Gowdy that General Petraeus will be testifying soon, in addition to Kennedy.

Somebody is guilty of negligent homicide, Trey Gowdy knows it, anyone who's been following Benghazi knows it, and with the obvious attempt to withhold documents by State and others, this is the way it's going to have to be, if justice is to be served.

Speaking of justice, in the end the Obama administration may rue the day it decided to keep the DOJ on the sidelines.

The Benghazi perfidy by our leaders may never see a courtroom, but it may see enough evidence for a public indictment-a verdict by the people, which could and should be a burden to Obama and Hillary the rest of their lives.