Contact
The new political fact of distraction
Michael Swickard
I am quite taken by the fact that facts no longer seem to be in vogue in our society. In the last 10 years or so our news media seem to represent a truth-less society. Example: The electronic recordings of what one person says often are ignored by that person who says, “I never said that,” regardless of the contrary data.
Even more of a problem is the use of distraction to keep citizens from dealing with the real core issues. In today’s society, opinions hold favor with people because they are so much more useful in political debate. For one thing, opinions do not have to be founded on fact, though I think they should be. Often opinions are framed as facts and held as facts when the listeners cannot distinguish between facts and opinions.
More so, in today’s society what you believe seems to be more important than the reality of the facts. In storytelling, of course, you should not let facts mess up a good story. But when we, as a society, are trying to deal with the important problems of our society, facts are ever so critical.
How does distraction work? Perhaps call it deception, since the point is to get people looking at the wrong things, to get people thinking about lesser problems. Currently a huge deception is going on in the media where every day a myriad of less-important things keep citizens from noticing the critical problems concerning the five core election issues: government reach, energy, employment, financial insolvency and security.
Why these five? These five are what will truly change our lives for the better or worse. Each of these five is an area in which bad policy really destroys our country. After these five core areas, everything else is subservient to those concerns. Example: This week some people lost whatever mind they had when Obama supporters in Florida put the president’s picture in the flag of our country instead of the stars. So what?
There are hundreds of distraction stories, starting with the critics known as birthers who spend their political capital in a losing game. Me, I could not care less where this president was born now that he is in office. I care about this president’s actions and their effect upon me.
Facts that are obscured by opinions
In this political debate little time is spent on the facts of government reach into our lives and whether that reach is the legitimate role of government in a free society. Little time is spent on the role of the president’s energy policy as it applies to the cost of energy. Likewise we are not seeing the president’s role in jobs, our desperate financial crisis and the security of our nation. This election is centered on these five areas.
All of these topics have facts that are obscured by opinions. Fact: Fuel is about twice as expensive as it was three years ago. The reasons are several, but all go to supply and demand. It is quite disturbing to hear one side say that increasing the oil supply in the U.S. through drilling will not lower the price of fuel.
The truth of how prices are adjusted in energy is right out of Economics 101: increases of supply or decreases of demand lower prices. The president’s plan to require an increase in gas mileage for car makers will lower prices at some point, but not until those standards are on the ground, which will be in years. Contrast that to drilling, which has an immediate effect upon the futures market, the place where tomorrow’s prices are set.
People out of a job are really out of a job even if the government gives assistance. No amount of fiddling the job figures changes what is really happening to our society because we have so many people outside the job market. Looking the other way as perhaps one person in five is not employed does not help the situation.
Also, continuing to spend $3.7 trillion a year while taking in $2.2 trillion is a society-killer regardless of the people saying you cannot cut enough to bring those figures back in line. The government went up by 40 percent in the last couple of years. It can come right back down if there is the will to do the financially correct things. Having members of Congress say that the runaway spending is not a problem is a huge problem.
Finally, we have extreme security challenges being ignored by people who should know better. As lesser nations go nuclear and cartels buy off law enforcement in our country and others countries, American citizens are very much in danger. Putting our heads in the sand makes us easier to be destroyed by people of evil intent.
‘Are you going to believe me or your ears?’
These areas of concern are being ignored by the media and citizens. On the campaign stump candidates are followed all day long by reporters. At each stop the politicians amend their remarks to curry favor with that set of voter. Often they play fast and loose with facts. This seems odd since we are an electronic age where what people say is recorded. So by the end of the day reporters have several versions of the truth and it is not reported. Confronted politicians ask, “Are you going to believe me or your ears?”
Americans can continue to be distracted or they can vote the facts.
Swickard is co-host of the radio talk show News New Mexico, which airs from 6 to 9 a.m. Monday through Friday on a number of New Mexico radio stations and through streaming. His e-mail address is michael@swickard.com.
8 comments so far. Scroll down to submit your own comment.
Leave a response
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Dr. Swickard, natgas is a regional, not global market like oil is. Natgas is not very mobile and transportable, little import and export capacity exists between regions. And the US is a giant producer in that small, regional market, unlike oil. Natgas price is far more likely to respond to short term increases in supply or drops in demand. This fall and winter was a perfect storm, lower demand due to warm weather and the recession, and more supply due to increased drilling and production (primality on state and private lands, as fed land was still restricted due to Obama/Salazar policies) in the mostly tight shale gas plays.
Any idea when Bush Cheney Rumsfeld Rice and the war mongering Republicans who lead us into an illegal invasion of a soverign Nation in which we had major oil interests are going to apologize? How about be accountable for war crimes set by the Geneva Convention? Or the blatant slaughter of our Patriots?
hmmmm?
I am told I am correct in my column – that increases in supply do constrain price. Great! Then, I am told that the scale of drilling in the US is too little to be felt. Really? But explain this: why did the regional price per CCF of natural gas dropped by about a third in the last few months. It was $3.75 and is now around $2.50. People in the US drilled and produced much more regional natural gas. It is a regional price because in Europe the CCF is $8.00. Maybe you would like to say Econ 101 works for natural gas but not oil.
Back to oil: the North American regional price for West Texas Intermediate reacts to three influences: total oil supply, oil refining capacity and finished product distribution issues. All of these issues are dynamic and all go back to the political energy policy. The US has not built new refineries to keep up with increases of the various required blends of gasoline of which there are about 400. And because of the specific blends, some refineries operate at less than 100 percent at times as the blend they are set up to produce reach capacity. This causes the supply of available gasoline at the pump to drop because the blend of “cracked” oil may not be what a specific market can use for political reasons. More refining capacity does lower the price of fuel.
Then there is the effect of blend and distribution on pump price. A few years ago the Phoenix area had gasoline suddenly go to $5.00 a gallon because the pipeline that carried their very specific blend of fuel from El Paso ruptured and Phoenix city laws would not allow any other blend into the city. After an outcry the blend specific requirement was relaxed and the price went back to nearly normal while the pipeline was being repaired. An example of the dynamic aspect of the distribution system is that road tankers cost at least 100 times more for distribution than pipelines. The more we use pipelines, the lower the price goes. If the Alaskan Pipeline had been connected to the lower 48 states by pipeline, our fuel costs would have reflected that savings.
Each of these three areas are dynamic and can cause price fluctuations. The president and everyone carrying the political water for him are wrong that drilling will not lower the price of gas at the pump. But do this: ask the poor slub standing at the pump watching most of his/her discretionary funds being sucked out of the wallet, ask that person if there will be a change in their voting this fall.
Mr. Swickard, The statement you make is only true in a closed system. Our resources, such as oil and gas, are part of and open system globally. So, your statement here is archaic and naive. Supply may be “local” but, demand is global.
“Fuel is about twice as expensive as it was three years ago. The reasons are several, but all go to supply and demand. It is quite disturbing to hear one side say that increasing the oil supply in the U.S. through drilling will not lower the price of fuel.
The truth of how prices are adjusted in energy is right out of Economics 101: increases of supply or decreases of demand lower prices.”
Amazingly this commentary on facts has no facts. As Mark Twain said: “Get your facts first, and then you can distort them as much as you please.”
The AP article is hardly news or insightful, and of course the AP has a political agenda to push as well, not one of the most objective sources of info. Looking at recent history, as today, US production increases due to increased drilling were not enough of a change in the global markets to impact prices much, which were not really determined globally until after 1973 or so. It’s simple math, the global oil production is around 73 million barrel per day, the US produces about 5.5 million of that, or less than 8%. So even if US production were to skyrocket to say 8 million barrels per day, which could happen but would require ten years or more and would need to be preceded by aggressive and quick enabling legislation from Congress and the White House to open the federal lands necessary (highly unlikely with Obama and the Senate). Since global production and markets decide prices primarily in the longer term, an increase of say 3 million barrels per day in a 73 million barrel per day market over the next ten years reduced by the probability of legislative action to enable, near zero, yields no change in oil prices. This would definitely change if the market had a reduced uncertainty of legislative action, as in Republicans and conservative Democrats joining to overcome the extreme political pressure and huge amounts of money in the enviro-lobby, and having a Republican or conservative Democrat in the White House. Not likely, so drill baby drill makes no impact on the oil prices now.
“Having members of Congress say that the runaway spending is not a problem is a huge problem.”
Its not considered “runaway spending” and there are plenty, including some commenters here, who don’t think we’ve spent (er I mean borrowed) enough. Even some Nobel Prize winning economists.
“It is quite disturbing to hear one side say that increasing the oil supply in the U.S. through drilling will not lower the price of fuel.”
Is that one side the vast majority of economists, the New York Times and the Associated Press? Funny that in an article that decries using opinions when there are facts, Swickard uses his opinion that drilling more will drop the price of gasoline — even though history disproves this.
Read the Associated Press fact check. And then write a correction.