My mom sent me this email forward (http://urbanlegends.about.com/library/bl_dubai_ski_resort.htm) today about the the indoor ski resort in Dubai.
I thought about writing back and pointing out the stupidity of blaming the Arabic countries for the greed of American oil companies, but I can't even get her to quit watching Faux news.
OK, I have to ask the stupid question. How is this an ad for the democrats?
It shows the price of gasoline spike after Katrina, and it shows that Exxon/Mobil stock price went up about 50% between May 2004 and March 2005, and pretty much continued mucking about there ever since. The last graph really confuses me, because its not even on the same timescale as the prior two, and only 2 of its data pairs occur in the in the same period of time as the first two graphs. Moreover, one of those data pairs is 2006, which both logically and according to the data is not counting the whole of 2006 (how could it?) Their contributions don't move significantly after 1996, except for an apparent push to get the current president into office in 2000, but again, that's speculation given this data.
What we have here is data, with no connecting fiber, other than Exxon/Mobil's stock hit its current level, give or take a few dollars, a year ago, and the price of gasoline has been rising. There's not even an attempt to draw a causal connection between them, its just a flash of graphs with a weak correlation between them (or no correlation, if you count the third graph), and a slogan.
I'm certainly not saying that the oil industry doesn't have extremely strong ties with the current administration and that the oil industry isn't profiteering off the recent damage done to the petroleum industry, but I think its important as democrats, people of a liberal persusasion, and rational human beings to make clear and concise arguments that stand up to basic mathematical scrutiny, or at least provide an explanation if they don't.
Hmm.... how did I end up on this soapbox? *steps down*
So, am I missing the forest for the trees here? Is there some obvious connection between the datasets that I'm missing?
Cheap oil is not a good issue to campaign on, because there's no honest way anyone can deliver on promises; the rise in oil prices seems to mostly be due to increased demand, largely from China. However little I like ExxonMobile, it is literally their business to make money selling oil, and I don't think it's fair to criticize them for being successful at it. There are other problems with making oil prices a wedge issue: we can't afford to become even more dependent on oil, and there's always global climate change.
That said, it is still "the economy stupid" and oil prices are likely to affect Republican political prospects as much as losing a war in Iraq. Blah.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
branchandroot
(no subject)
Date: 2006-04-23 10:59 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2006-04-24 01:08 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2006-04-24 01:09 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2006-04-24 12:43 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2006-04-24 01:27 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2006-04-24 09:23 pm (UTC)I thought about writing back and pointing out the stupidity of blaming the Arabic countries for the greed of American oil companies, but I can't even get her to quit watching Faux news.
*sigh*
(no subject)
Date: 2006-04-24 10:35 pm (UTC)It shows the price of gasoline spike after Katrina, and it shows that Exxon/Mobil stock price went up about 50% between May 2004 and March 2005, and pretty much continued mucking about there ever since. The last graph really confuses me, because its not even on the same timescale as the prior two, and only 2 of its data pairs occur in the in the same period of time as the first two graphs. Moreover, one of those data pairs is 2006, which both logically and according to the data is not counting the whole of 2006 (how could it?) Their contributions don't move significantly after 1996, except for an apparent push to get the current president into office in 2000, but again, that's speculation given this data.
What we have here is data, with no connecting fiber, other than Exxon/Mobil's stock hit its current level, give or take a few dollars, a year ago, and the price of gasoline has been rising. There's not even an attempt to draw a causal connection between them, its just a flash of graphs with a weak correlation between them (or no correlation, if you count the third graph), and a slogan.
I'm certainly not saying that the oil industry doesn't have extremely strong ties with the current administration and that the oil industry isn't profiteering off the recent damage done to the petroleum industry, but I think its important as democrats, people of a liberal persusasion, and rational human beings to make clear and concise arguments that stand up to basic mathematical scrutiny, or at least provide an explanation if they don't.
Hmm.... how did I end up on this soapbox? *steps down*
So, am I missing the forest for the trees here? Is there some obvious connection between the datasets that I'm missing?
(no subject)
Date: 2006-04-25 01:20 pm (UTC)That said, it is still "the economy stupid" and oil prices are likely to affect Republican political prospects as much as losing a war in Iraq. Blah.