Jamesian Philosophy Refreshed

Does anyone else understand this? In the second debate, asked about energy policy, Trump responded with an example of his customary stream-of-consciousness. I won't quote it or try to dissect it all. But it ended with this. Trump talked about how foreign companies are buying US companies in the oil & gas market, in order to get a hold on their plants. They are "buying so many of our different plants and then rejiggering the plant so they can take care of their oil." Huh? I don't know what he means by this and nobody yet has been able to enlighten me. Let's take a stab at it: he means buying oil companies to get their refineries? Let's try to be specific. In 2011, a major international oil company, Statoil, spent $4.4 billion Brigham Resources, a small but innovative shale-oil firm active in North Dakota.  Statoil is 67% owned by the Kingdom of Norway. So is Norway having refineries (or "plants" in any sense) rejiggered so they can t...

Meg Jacobs has written Panic at the Pump, a history of the 1970s energy crisis in the US which, in her view, destroyed post New Deal liberalism, bringing a generation of small-government conservatives to power. There were two distinct oil shocks: the first arising from the Yom Kippur War and the resulting embargo (1973-74), the second from the fall of the Shah in Iran (1979). I haven't read the book, except for brief excerpts available online. I notice it here only as a work likely to prove of interest for my astute and ever-curious readers. Here's one of those brief excerpts:"[T]he embargo stunned Americans, as if they had come under a surprise attack, if not an outright act of war, because of the serious implications for the economy and the country's security. By 1973, Americans relied on oil for almost half of their energy needs, and each day imports made up an expanding portion of the country's supply." Imports, the author says, were 36% of US oi...

Another term of the U.S. Supreme Court has come and gone. This year, the one case that is THE ONE, destined for the history books, not just the law books, is clearly ... well, there are at least two, and they were both decided very near the end of the term. The court addressed the latest challenge to a pillar of Obamacare, and it offered constitutional protection to the institution of marriage between homosexuals.  I'll discuss each of those opinions in the second part of this three-part review. Today, I'll say a few words about each of three second-tier decisions, so to speak.  In increasing order of importance as I quite subjectively determine that, I've decided to include here Oneok v.Learjet (on preemption in the US energy markets); Brumfield v. Cain (on the death penalty and the mentally handicapped); Zivotofsky v. Kerry (separation of powers and recognition of the boundaries of foreign countries). They each raise questions foundational enough to make ...

If crude oil isn't going to make its way across the interior of North America by pipeline, it will do so by rail. And in fact that is the recent trend. Someday soon I may work on a detailed statement of the pros and cons of these two methods of transporting the stuff. For the moment, though, I'll just collect some potentially useful links here. I'll make a related observation, though one on a higher plane of abstraction, tomorrow. Here's an article from the early days of oil pipelines, when they were considered "marvels." A 1937 issue of Popular Science.  Each of the following links is a good deal more recent than that. From an oil-industry trade journal, more than a year ago.  Each of the following links is a good deal more recent than that, too. Safety issues with pipelines. For the basics on TransCanada's Keystone Pipeline System, start here. For a discussion of the proposed extension, the Keystone XL, start here. For criti...