Print This Article!


Oil tycoons have astonishing wealth

For observable reasons, I do not necessarily blame gas station operators or small investors in oil companies for the high price of gas.

However, we have all seen examples of the absolutely astonishing wealth created and displayed by oil tycoons when oil was selling at $20 to $30 a barrel just a few years ago. You can be sure that the wealth created by $100 to $125 a barrel will be beyond imagination and belief.

Consider that the cost of getting oil out of the ground and delivering it has not increased appreciatively over the past couple of years. I suggest that opportunity and greed for windfall profits is the cause of the increased cost.

The tycoons often point the finger of blame at a lack of refineries. It seems to me that with the reported $40-billion-a-year profit, they could afford to build a refinery or two — and in a location that is environmentally acceptable to everyone concerned.

On the other hand, for the first time in history, the oil industry is forcing people to use mass transportation in larger numbers. Not an altogether bad result of their greed. Unfortunately, mass transportation is not an option for millions of us.

I suggest some old-fashion price fixing is not likely to be a disincentive for business as usual considering the absolutely astonishing wealth oil was producing at $20 to $50 a barrel. What investor is going to turn their back on that kind of opportunity and wealth?

James Bonner
Mount Vernon


Overpopulation theory is false

A Chinese proverb says, “One hand cannot cover all the world’s eyes.” Yet it seems that this is what some environmentalists contrive to do.

A review of Mr. Donald Stephens letter to the editor, dredges up ancient prognostications from the likes of Paul Ehrlich, who in his 1968 book, “The Population Bomb,” predicted hundreds of millions of deaths by the 1970s.

Notice that while they continually lament the excess of human population, they do not consider their own lives to be superfluous. Followers of the “overpopulation” doctrine, with its attendant apocalyptic prophecies, consider their own lives irredeemably precious while the lives of others, particularly the weak and vulnerable, are viewed as worthless.

Mr. Stephens finds commendable China’s one-child policy. Meanwhile, the U.N. asserts that restrictive reproductive policies in China and India have resulted in the genocide of at least 60 million born and preborn girls, resulting in disastrous gender imbalances and increased violence against women.

While it is true that the world’s population is expected to reach about 9 billion by 2050, and subsequently decline, many believe the world can support much larger numbers. (Norman Borlaug, Nobel Peace Prize winner and “father of the Green Revolution,” has stated that “the world has the technology — either available or well advanced in the research pipeline — to feed a population of 10 billion people”).

Currently, the entire world’s population could fit into the state of Texas with approximately one-fourth of an acre allotted to each person. Apparently, in their omniscience, environmentalists have deemed this intolerable, and propose that some people have gotta go.

Perhaps their creed should include self-immolation.

Margaret Barton
Anacortes


Moved by Middle Eastern radical

My hometown pastor said jokingly that presidential candidate Kennedy was collecting bowling balls for a rosary for the Statue of Liberty, should he be elected. Then he added that he intended to vote for “that son of a devout Quaker mother,” Richard Nixon.

I respected my pastor, but that November I voted for JFK

Jesse Jackson and I once lived in the same neighborhood, and we both went to nearby Baptist churches. I even attended a meeting of his Operation Breadbasket, but I doubt that Jesse and I share identical political or theological views.

I do confess to having been unduly influenced by a young Middle Eastern radical who challenged long-standing religious practices.

He attacked priests and community leaders, calling them callous and hypocritical. He openly defied traditionalists by performing prohibited acts on their holy day and then justified his actions with the humanistic assertion that the holy day was intended to be a holiday from labor, not a religious burden. This infuriated the legalists even as his pardon of an adulterous woman outraged the moral absolutists. He even criticized the practice of praying aloud in public places, saying it was all a pious show. (National Day of Prayer?)

In return, he was harshly criticized for the company he kept, with references to the backgrounds of his closest associates. Scandalmongers (ala Fox News) noted that several were known subversives, others quick-tempered and potentially violent.

One worked for the foreign occupation force as a revenue agent, and another proved to be an informer. A reputed prostitute was seen with him. Local gossips described him as a glutton and wino.

Because of his growing popularity, the religious establishment conspired to frame and execute him.

Today, probably only his social programs would be attacked and his political reputation trashed. That’s progress, I suppose.

Larry Edwards
Burlington