So you thought the fuel in the white container attached to your barbecue grill is some cheap fuel? You were wrong! Propane is a versatile fuel and it does not come cheap. Today there is a rising demand for propane across many sectors, such as residential and commercial, petrochemicals, farming, transportation, and several other industries.
Propane is extracted from natural gas or refinery gas streams, and its prices vary according to the customer, the season and the region. Propane is produced as a by-product in oil refineries and from natural gas plants. Since propane is produced as a by-product, propane demands cannot be adjusted when there is a demand for propane. Propane can also be bought from the international energy market via pipeline or sea tankers. Propane imports account for about 10 percent of the propane used in the US.
There are several factors that effect propane prices. Some factors are common to petroleum products, while others are specifically related to propane. Propane prices are affected by crude and natural gas prices. However, crude oil seems to be a big determiner of propane costs, since propane primarily competes with crude-oil based fuels in the market. As with any other item, propane prices are influenced by the demand-supply balance. The proximity of supply also determines the price of propane, and customers placed farthest from the major supply are likely to pay more.
The markets are also another big determiner of propane prices. Propane serves different markets, from producing petrochemicals to crop drying in farms, each with its own characteristics and needs. Propane prices in these markets are usually influenced by factors such as the prices of competing fuels, the distance propane travels to reach the user, and the volume of use. Residential demand, for example, is dependent on the weather, and so propane prices usually peak during winters. Today the residential and the commercial sector accounts for about 45 percent of all propane used in the US.
The petrochemical industry uses about 38 percent of the propane in the US. Propane is used by the industry to make plastic, cosmetics, alcohol, fibers and other commodities. With a rise in the prices of propane, the petrochemicals industry can easily switch over to other raw materials. Such a wider choice of this industry is a major driver for propane prices. Moreover, even within the petrochemical industry the demand is regional, because of the high concentration of petrochemical plants in the Gulf Coast region.
And You Think Conservatives Are Intolerant?
Check out this doozie of a story on the hostility raised toward conservatives in a college graduate-level classroom in (you guessed it) Massachusetts. Now I thought it was supposed to be conservatives that squelched free expression and exchange of ideas? I thought it was supposed to be conservatives that acted like the Gestapo?
Care to guess the topic generating all the hypocrisy by the liberals in the classroom? Gay marriage. By the way, this guy's writing is hysterical....
Me vs. World - WillingtonWorld (hat tip: The Corner)
Care to guess the topic generating all the hypocrisy by the liberals in the classroom? Gay marriage. By the way, this guy's writing is hysterical....
Me vs. World - WillingtonWorld (hat tip: The Corner)
Born In Iraq, Raised In America
I just came upon this awesome story. The blogger is a US Army journalist who just got back from serving in Iraq. He wrote the story of a young Iraqi boy who came to America in the 1990s, then decides he has to give something back and signs up to go to war in his former homeland. A must read.
Born In Iraq, Raised In America -- InIraqFor365
http://desert-smink.blogspot.com/2005/02/homeless-vet.html
Born In Iraq, Raised In America -- InIraqFor365
http://desert-smink.blogspot.com/2005/02/homeless-vet.html
More on Barney Frank and Easongate
A week ago today, my post on Barney Frank challenging a ludicrous claim by CNN's Eason Jordan helped generate a lot of attention for this blog. Most of the big conservative blogs Instapundit, Roger Simon, Hugh Hewitt, Little Green Footballs and others linked us.
Well, now it's my turn to tip my hat to a number of great bloggers who have been doing a great job covering this story, including one of my favorites. Dirty Harry links to a Michelle Malkin who contacted Barney Frank about the incident. She writes
Powerline (the only major conservative blog which has not yet linked us) weighs in here, here, here and here, that last post announcing he debut of the blog Easongate.
Hugh, Dirty Harry and Powerline all provide further links to a variety of thoughtful posts on the topic.
Well, now it's my turn to tip my hat to a number of great bloggers who have been doing a great job covering this story, including one of my favorites. Dirty Harry links to a Michelle Malkin who contacted Barney Frank about the incident. She writes
Dirty Harry has more on "Easongate" here, here, here and here, linking to another favorite blogger Roger Simon. Hugh Hewitt is also all over it: here, here, here and here.
I asked Rep. Frank again if his recollection was that Jordan initially maintained that the military had a deliberate policy of targeting journalists. Rep. Frank affirmed that, noting that Jordan subsequently backed away orally and in e-mail that it was official policy, but "left open the question" of whether there were individual cases in which American troops targeted journalists.
After the panel was over and he returned to the U.S., Rep. Frank said he called Jordan and expressed willingness to pursue specific cases if there was any credible evidence that any American troops targeted journalists. "Give me specifics," Rep. Frank said he told Jordan.
Rep. Frank has not yet heard back from Jordan.
Powerline (the only major conservative blog which has not yet linked us) weighs in here, here, here and here, that last post announcing he debut of the blog Easongate.
Hugh, Dirty Harry and Powerline all provide further links to a variety of thoughtful posts on the topic.
European & gay activist attitudes toward Republicans--judging without knowledge
In a comment to my post on Chris Matthews keynoting the LCR convention, one critic wrote
Indeed, I know countless gay men and lesbians who have served on committees (and in party offices) in states as diverse as Virginia, California, Nevada, Maryland, Georgia, Louisiana and Florida. To be sure, some have received a cold shoulder from social conservative party activists, but other leaders have welcomed them.
In reading that comment, I was reminded yet again how many who criticize the GOP have never attended a GOP gathering -- or even talked to a gay Republican active in the party.
This attitude reminds me of the negative attitude so many Europeans have towards Americans in general and our nation's conservative leaders in particular. Some on the left (especially in the MSM) act as if European opposition to an American president is a new thing, coming with the supposed "unilateral" foreign policy of President George W. Bush. Twenty years ago, "sophisticated" Europeans held similar feelings about our then president. Living in Europe during the late 1980s, I witnessed first hand the narrow-minded opposition to Ronald Reagan among many such Europeans.
When I was Eurailing/backpacking across the continent during the last year of the Gipper's second term, I stayed at the Youth Hostel in Verona, Italy. At dinner one night, I struck up a conversation with the guy sitting next to me. I introduced myself in Italian, but when I recognized his accent, I spoke to him in German. Unable to recognize my accent, he asked where I was from. As soon as he learned that I was American, this German young man began to attack our Ron, ascribing sinister motives to the American people for electing him twice (both times, I might add, with a majority of the popular vote). He assumed that because I was educated, spoke three languages (and a smattering of a fourth), lived in France (which I did at the time) and studied at the Sorbonne that I would have to oppose America's Great Communicator.
Well, for nearly an hour, in good German, I defended the greatest American president of my lifetime. When I noted why people elected him--he appealed to our best hopes offering a positive vision of our nation and what we could accomplish--this German man insisted that I had it wrong. Yep, a German was telling me that I got it wrong about why my fellow citizens twice elected the Gipper -- and why I cast my first vote for president for that great (and good) man.
This man acknowledged that he had never previously talked to an American who had voted for our fortieth president. He had never visited the United States. He hadn't even read American newspapers. But, he "knew" all about my fellow citizens--and our political concerns. He said he was stunned that an American (in near flawless German) could so articulately defend the man he -- and so many of his peers -- reviled.
I don't know if this man changed his attitude toward Americans who supported the Gipper. He never showed up when we were supposed to meet to see a production of "AIDA" at the Arena the following day. But, at least, in talking to me, he confronted an American who challenged his narrow view of our great land -- and its most popular president of the second half of the twentieth century.
Like this European who claimed to know so much about Americans and their political choices, so many gay activists (and their allies on the left) claim to know everything there is to know about Republicans -- and their attitudes toward gays. They hold that the GOP wants to exclude us and attack us. Yes, there are some within the party who were rather we weren't there. And some who are as obsessed with gays as Michael Moore and Barbara Boxer are with President Bush. And yet, when I was more active in the party, I experienced exactly the same thing that my blog-league noted in a post earlier today, "people I've interacted with in the GOP could care less that I'm gay. They care if I'm a productive person, active in the party, and willing to work hard."
It's unfortunate that these negative stereotypes of Republicans persist in certain gay circles---just as negative stereotypes of American conservatives persist in many elite European circles. And just as the reality of Americans differs from European stereotypes, the reality of our party's treatment of individual gays differs from the stereotypes of many gay activists, including some who call themselves Republicans. It's too bad that the nation's largest gay and lesbian Republican organization with a full-time Washington office has not been promoting the inclusive reality of the GOP to the gay community.
Well, this will be one Republican event where you will at least have a seat at the table. . . . Any other Republican events would exclude you from even cleaning the table.These words reminded me of the countless sweeping generalizations about Republican attitudes toward gays I hear (or read on the web) on an almost daily basis. Most gay critics of the GOP assume that the Republican Party excludes gays. And yet, while several state parties (Texas and North Carolina come to mind) have excluded Log Cabin from setting up a booth at their state conventions, I have not yet read (nor heard) of a state party which has prevented individual gay men and lesbians from attending GOP events or serving on state (or local) party committees.
Indeed, I know countless gay men and lesbians who have served on committees (and in party offices) in states as diverse as Virginia, California, Nevada, Maryland, Georgia, Louisiana and Florida. To be sure, some have received a cold shoulder from social conservative party activists, but other leaders have welcomed them.
In reading that comment, I was reminded yet again how many who criticize the GOP have never attended a GOP gathering -- or even talked to a gay Republican active in the party.
This attitude reminds me of the negative attitude so many Europeans have towards Americans in general and our nation's conservative leaders in particular. Some on the left (especially in the MSM) act as if European opposition to an American president is a new thing, coming with the supposed "unilateral" foreign policy of President George W. Bush. Twenty years ago, "sophisticated" Europeans held similar feelings about our then president. Living in Europe during the late 1980s, I witnessed first hand the narrow-minded opposition to Ronald Reagan among many such Europeans.
When I was Eurailing/backpacking across the continent during the last year of the Gipper's second term, I stayed at the Youth Hostel in Verona, Italy. At dinner one night, I struck up a conversation with the guy sitting next to me. I introduced myself in Italian, but when I recognized his accent, I spoke to him in German. Unable to recognize my accent, he asked where I was from. As soon as he learned that I was American, this German young man began to attack our Ron, ascribing sinister motives to the American people for electing him twice (both times, I might add, with a majority of the popular vote). He assumed that because I was educated, spoke three languages (and a smattering of a fourth), lived in France (which I did at the time) and studied at the Sorbonne that I would have to oppose America's Great Communicator.
Well, for nearly an hour, in good German, I defended the greatest American president of my lifetime. When I noted why people elected him--he appealed to our best hopes offering a positive vision of our nation and what we could accomplish--this German man insisted that I had it wrong. Yep, a German was telling me that I got it wrong about why my fellow citizens twice elected the Gipper -- and why I cast my first vote for president for that great (and good) man.
This man acknowledged that he had never previously talked to an American who had voted for our fortieth president. He had never visited the United States. He hadn't even read American newspapers. But, he "knew" all about my fellow citizens--and our political concerns. He said he was stunned that an American (in near flawless German) could so articulately defend the man he -- and so many of his peers -- reviled.
I don't know if this man changed his attitude toward Americans who supported the Gipper. He never showed up when we were supposed to meet to see a production of "AIDA" at the Arena the following day. But, at least, in talking to me, he confronted an American who challenged his narrow view of our great land -- and its most popular president of the second half of the twentieth century.
Like this European who claimed to know so much about Americans and their political choices, so many gay activists (and their allies on the left) claim to know everything there is to know about Republicans -- and their attitudes toward gays. They hold that the GOP wants to exclude us and attack us. Yes, there are some within the party who were rather we weren't there. And some who are as obsessed with gays as Michael Moore and Barbara Boxer are with President Bush. And yet, when I was more active in the party, I experienced exactly the same thing that my blog-league noted in a post earlier today, "people I've interacted with in the GOP could care less that I'm gay. They care if I'm a productive person, active in the party, and willing to work hard."
It's unfortunate that these negative stereotypes of Republicans persist in certain gay circles---just as negative stereotypes of American conservatives persist in many elite European circles. And just as the reality of Americans differs from European stereotypes, the reality of our party's treatment of individual gays differs from the stereotypes of many gay activists, including some who call themselves Republicans. It's too bad that the nation's largest gay and lesbian Republican organization with a full-time Washington office has not been promoting the inclusive reality of the GOP to the gay community.
Bush Approval Rating -- 57%
Oh the horrible wails that must becoming from the Senate offices of Edward Kennedy....
Bush shows highest ratings in a year - USA Today (via Polipundit)
Bush shows highest ratings in a year - USA Today (via Polipundit)
Advocate Profile of Bob Kabel
Thanks to Ted (ChargingRhino) for reminding me about this profile on Bob Kabel in the Feb. 15 issue of the Advocate. I had actually planned to do a series of postings about the 2/15 Advocate. Best laid plans...as they say.
From the Kabel profile.... here's a good exchange showing the automatic bias of the Advocate, contrasted with the real life experience of Kabel.
An experience that I share with Kabel, by the way.... I've been treated more hatefully by fellow gays for being Republican than by fellow Republicans for being gay. Frankly, people I've interacted with in the GOP could care less that I'm gay. They care if I'm a productive person, active in the party, and willing to work hard.
From the Kabel profile.... here's a good exchange showing the automatic bias of the Advocate, contrasted with the real life experience of Kabel.
Will other party chiefs work against you?
I don’t anticipate any problem. From decades of experience I can tell you that in the ranks of the hundreds of party leaders all over the country, there is a remarkable openness to understanding the lives of gay people. Gay people have a job to do in educating and reaching out to them. I think a lot of what we saw in 2004 was a result of our failure to do that enough.
An experience that I share with Kabel, by the way.... I've been treated more hatefully by fellow gays for being Republican than by fellow Republicans for being gay. Frankly, people I've interacted with in the GOP could care less that I'm gay. They care if I'm a productive person, active in the party, and willing to work hard.
A social conservative's admission--divorce worse than gay marriage
In an opinion piece on a Virginia legislator's proposed "Family Bill of Rights," Stephen Baskerville, President of the American Coalition of Fathers and Children summarizes many of the social conservative arguments against gay marriage. Yet, this piece also includes a startling admission by Mike McManus, co-founder with his wife Harriet of Marriage Savers--bold added in text below for emphasis:
Because social conservatives see the "traditional understanding of marriage" as having been undermined, it behooves those who push gay marriage to point out how gay marriage could strengthen the institution. They would need to talk about values and mutual responsibility more than they talk about "rights." Jonathan Rauch does a great job of his in his excellent chapter "What is Marriage For?" in his otherwise uneven book, "Gay Marriage: Why It Is Good for Gays, Good for Straights, and Good for America."
More important than the attitude this article reveals is McManus' admission which I bolded in the first paragraph of the quotation. Divorce is a greater threat to families, particularly children, than gay marriage. As we discuss gay marriage, let us take on the social conservatives on their own turf and remind them what McManus has acknowledged. Let us stand up for strong marriages and say we want marriage to foster lasting relationships. And that we understand how, while necessary in many cases, divorce is a greater threat to the institution than monogamous gay unions. And that more often than not, divorce harms the children of the dissolved marriage while lasting same-sex unions provide psychological and spiritual benefits for both partners.
And to better understand the social conservative case against gay marriage, read the whole article from which I quoted above.
Hat tip: Lgbt-politics listserv.
. . . same-sex "marriage" is not only a threat to the marriage and the family. It may not even be the most serious. As Michael McManus of Marriage Savers points out, "Divorce is a far more grievous blow to marriage than today's challenge by gays."McManus (as you may recall) is a social conservative columnist who had a contract with the Department of Health and Human Services.I don't agree with what Chirstensen says, but note the context in which he places the opposition to gay marriage -- and the opening it provides for those who advocate expanding the definition of this ancient institution.
Indeed, it is very likely same-sex "marriage" would not even be an issue were it not for the severe weakening of marriage that has already occurred due to divorce and out-of-wedlock births. "Commentators miss the point when they oppose homosexual marriage on the grounds that it would undermine traditional understandings of marriage," writes Bryce Christensen of Southern Utah University. "It is only because traditional understandings of marriage have already been severely undermined that homosexuals are now laying claim to it."
Because social conservatives see the "traditional understanding of marriage" as having been undermined, it behooves those who push gay marriage to point out how gay marriage could strengthen the institution. They would need to talk about values and mutual responsibility more than they talk about "rights." Jonathan Rauch does a great job of his in his excellent chapter "What is Marriage For?" in his otherwise uneven book, "Gay Marriage: Why It Is Good for Gays, Good for Straights, and Good for America."
More important than the attitude this article reveals is McManus' admission which I bolded in the first paragraph of the quotation. Divorce is a greater threat to families, particularly children, than gay marriage. As we discuss gay marriage, let us take on the social conservatives on their own turf and remind them what McManus has acknowledged. Let us stand up for strong marriages and say we want marriage to foster lasting relationships. And that we understand how, while necessary in many cases, divorce is a greater threat to the institution than monogamous gay unions. And that more often than not, divorce harms the children of the dissolved marriage while lasting same-sex unions provide psychological and spiritual benefits for both partners.
And to better understand the social conservative case against gay marriage, read the whole article from which I quoted above.
Hat tip: Lgbt-politics listserv.
Iranian 'Insurgents' Plan Snub To Mullahs On Islamic Revolution Anniversary
Here's some more encouraging news from the brewing unrest in Iran.
Let's transform the 26th anniversary of the Islamic Revolution into a show of its rejection -- Student Movement Coordination Committee for Democracy in Iran (SMCCDI). The SMCCDI is encouraging all Iranians to take the following actions this week:
In addition, the SMCCDI notes "Compatriots may dye their right index finger with blue ink in the now well-known sign of "Right of self-determination."
Well-known sign, huh? I wonder why Democrats didn't feel the need to show the same solidarity last week during the State of the Union.
Let's transform the 26th anniversary of the Islamic Revolution into a show of its rejection -- Student Movement Coordination Committee for Democracy in Iran (SMCCDI). The SMCCDI is encouraging all Iranians to take the following actions this week:
At 9:00pm (Iran's local time) on Wednesday February 9, 2005, to massively gather in all Iranian cities main sidewalks and squares (such as Vali E Asr in Teheran, and Tchar-Bagh in Esfahan), on foot or by bringing cars in order to jam them in such a way as to disrupt law enforcement deployment and function.
From early morning till 9:00pm, on Thursday February10, 2005, that Iranian cities should become empty "dead cities". Compatriots should avoid strictly any presence in main squares and streets in order to cut off the claws of the regime from any use of propaganda.
Again on Feb.10, 2005, from 9:00pm on, Iranians should jam the sidewalks and squares as the night previously, and all lights shut off in homes and businesses as before, and the darkness should be used to protest in any way possible.
In addition, the SMCCDI notes "Compatriots may dye their right index finger with blue ink in the now well-known sign of "Right of self-determination."
Well-known sign, huh? I wonder why Democrats didn't feel the need to show the same solidarity last week during the State of the Union.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)