So what does it mean to be "Behind the Curve?" It can be applied to almost any situation. It is a baseball term, whereby if you're thrown a curve and your not out in front of the curve, you're not going to contact the ball, but now the term has found its way into the lexicon. So, what does it mean to be "Behind the Curve?" Is it necessarily a bad thing, or more just the way it is - reality I mean?

The first area in which we are "Behind the Curve," is in energy development and acquisition. But this is nothing new at all. This will disappoint many of you, but reality dictates that far more often than not the need proceeds the fulfillment. Technology responds to need with an answer. That's not to say the solution arrives at the exact moment one would desire, but it is still the reality.

Again, many will not like this but the facts remain: until the last year or so oil was plentiful (it still is) and CHEAP! When oil was $25.00 a barrel where is the impetus to develop new and expensive technologies? How can a justification be made to a company's board of directors that billions should be sunk into experimental technologies when oil is $25.00 a barrel? And how can an oil company be held responsible for this?

Well, since we have 150 million cars in the US and they all run on refined oil, where is the obligation for oil companies to develop a competing product? That's stupid! Isn't it the position of Big Oil to drill, transport, refine and sell oil derivatives? Of course it is, and that's what they do.

I own a deli. I am obligated to develop a competing technology? Am I obligated to open another deli that strictly caters to any specific nutritional requirement? So, if I owned a bakery is it incumbent upon me, the bakery owner to then open a "healthy food" establishment, since a bakery is clearly not producing and selling "healthy?" Of course not - that's an asinine position.

So, do you in your personal life open a business that competes with what you are already employed doing? If one owns a lawn mowing business, is it incumbent upon the business owner to develop alternatives to grass? That's as ignorant as about anything anyone could expect, now ain't it? Now that the reality has presented itself that alternatives are needed, it is the time for the technology genius to respond, and respond they will. But it will take time - that's reality folks!

So, now we have a need for more oil & natural gas, and since that's what Big Oil does, shouldn't we stfu and let 'em do what they do best? I know this is a simple concept, but it seems to have become lost in these hyper-partisan days of an upcoming presidential election.

And this "68 million acres of leases Big Oil already owns" is sophistry in the extreme. For your edification, Big Oil has to PAY for those leases regardless if oil is there or not. They have "X" number of years to develop & pump the oil or they lose the lease. If the land has oil the oil companies have to pay to renew the lease term, just like leasing an apartment. So, if there is no oil there is this Big Oil's fault? If I lease you 10 acres of land and I demand you grow corn, yet the land is a swamp, are YOU the bad guy? Will you renew the lease with the stipulation you grow corn if that is a physical impossibility?

Now according to mainstream media talking points Big Oil is an evil, Capitalist, money grubbing enterprise. If that's so, explain to me why Big Oil is NOT pumping the oil for which they could earn $140.00 a barrel and for which they already own leases on the 68 million acres? If there were oil there Big Oil, the evil Capitalist Empire would drill the damned stuff! When I hear this talking point I know I am listening to a partisan or an idiot. Now, if you're a partisan, fine - I get it. If you're an idiot . . .

Have I successfully explained WHY it is demagoguery to blame Big Oil for the need for new energy? The truth is the environmental lobby is dead set against any fossil fuels and nuclear power, so if ya wanna know who is responsible for the current mess look to your nearest tree hugger.

Wanna fix this problem? Drill the Continental shelf. There are 88 BILLION barrels on the US Outer Continental Shelf (OCS). Wanna fix this? Do as Hitler did in WW2 and turn coal into synthetic fuel. Wanna fix this? Build nuclear power plants AND develop wind, solar, fuel cells and develop ANWR. Has anyone else noticed that oil has fallen $11.00 a barrel SINCE Bush lifted the Executive ban on OCS drilling? Coincidence? I'll betcha there's a damn boatload of you fine folks that will say, "yep, just a coincidence." Amazing!

Wanna see oil continue to fall in price? Write your Congressional representative and tell 'em "Drill it all and drill it now," and the price will plummet as soon as Congress gets off the dime and opens up all areas to drilling. Tell 'em to build atomic power plants and prices will fall further. I know there are many who disagree, but that's an emotional or purely partisan response. Common Sense (there's that damned phrase again) would dictate that when we tell the OPEC despots to kiss our collective asses, prices will fall dramatically.

So can you see how it works? A need presents itself and those in the business of responding to the need do so. When oil was $25.00 a barrel there was no need to develop an alternative to cheap and plentiful energy supplies. This is not rocket science friends. But its IS a political football and anyone from either side of the political fence that pretends anything else is just playing partisan politics. Considering the need, isn't this about as irresponsible as one could be? To see a real and desperate need and then to play politics with the solutions that are right in front of our faces? That's demagoguery in it's highest manifestation.