The early posts on this blog refer to ways to clean out the junk in your life, to reduce your debt and to get to a better place. With the exception of working too much sometimes, I've succeeded in achieving my goals. I wish you luck in achieving yours. I now use this blog to share what I find interesting.
Sarah Palin translated
Personally, I had no knowledge that oil was a fungible commodity where they don't flag the "molecules" where it's goin' and where it's not.
Additionally, now that I know that "in the sense of the congress today, who know that there are very very hungry domestic markets, that need that oil first." and that Sarah Palin believes "that what congress is going to do also is not to allow the export bans to such a degree that it's Americans that get stuck holding the bag without the energy source that is produced here and pumped here."
What the eff did that mean?
I'll try and translate. Please keep in mind, that I'm probably going to be somewhat incorrect since I will have to take liberties to make her sound intelligible.
Scrap that... I've listened again. I'm going to have to "channel", there is no English translation:
(I'm assuming that she didn't really mean "molecules", but that she has heard and understands what "fungible" means)
"US produced oil is an easy to trade commodity that gets shipped to a lot of different places. both in and out of our country. Some of the oil produced in the US is actually exported outside our borders to other countries. As a result, since we also use oil, we end up having to find oil that we must use from other sources to replace the oil that we have exported.
I suggest that we make sure that we have some oversight into the amounts of oil that we allow to be exported so that we have maximum benefit from our own natural resources first."
That being said. (Assuming that I'm right) I still can't make out the benefit she is proposing.
Potentially, she could be saying that we could save some money by not selling and buying back amounts of oil... but really, it's a commodity. we'll both pay and receive what the oil is worth, it's probable that we would make money, not lose it.
She could be talking about ready availability. we'll have more oil readily available in the upper western states who receive oil from Alaska since other regions get oil pumped in from other sources. (hence my gas shortage here in GA, while you in California are probably setting gas cans on fire just to spite my inability to drive.)
But since we produce so little oil, both of those would probably have little effect.
Anybody have any idea what she is saying?
Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)
Post a Comment