Friday, April 15, 2016

The Gimlet Eye: Sterling started strong, but finish line eludes~

15 April '16

Sterling had a good first half to the week as UK inflation for March exceeded expectations. However, on Thursday, the pound was undermined against the US dollar as the Bank of England made it clear that the economic risks, especially for the finance sector, of a Brexit were significant.

Sterling started strong, then faltered Sterling made gains across the board throughout the start of the week before stumbling somewhat on Thursday.
Although no significant market data was released on Monday, sterling found support as investors looked to cash in profits from the negative sterling movement seen the previous week. UK inflation data for March was released on Tuesday, and with an increase of 0.5% beating economists’ forecasts and showing the highest growth in over a year, sterling took further positive steps against its major trading partners. 

This positive sentiment lasted into Wednesday, as sterling reached two-week highs against both the euro and US dollar as retail sales in the US showed a surprise contraction. Sterling struggled on Thursday however, losing all the gains seen against the US dollar throughout the week, and falling away from recent highs against the euro as Bank of England (BoE) policy makers voted unanimously to keep interest rates on hold.
There is little data released today which is likely to lend support to sterling, with only construction output data expected from the UK. Investor sentiment will instead be turned towards the US, where consumer sentiment figures could see the dollar struggle should they disappoint in the same fashion as Wednesday’s retail sales data. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Monday, April 11, 2016

Hezekiah Collins married 1)Anne Wheeler, 2) Elizabeth Surface

Re: Stewart A. James Price
By Leslie Ballou March 29, 2007 at 09:55:18
In reply to: Re: Stewart A. James Price
Gayle Sensabaugh 3/28/07

Unfortunately my husband knows nothing about his family.They never talked about stuff, which I think is sad.

I have been able to find a little bit about Martha Jane's family.I will post it here:

Modified Register for Hezekiah COLLINS-2440

First Generation

1. Hezekiah COLLINS-2440was born in Of Albamarle County, Virginia.

Hezekiah married (1-MRIN:1105) Anne WHEELER-2572daughter of Micajah WHEELER-2585 and Sarah-2588 (MRIN:1150) on 1 Jun 1785 in Albemarle County, Virginia. Anne was born in Of Albamarle County, Virginia. She died before Nov 1802.

They had the following children:

2 F i. Sarah COLLINS-2358was born about 1793.
Sarah married (MRIN:1136) BLAND-2565 .

+ 3 M ii. Micajah COLLINS-735was born about 1797.

Hezekiah married (2-MRIN:1135) ELIZABETH SURFACE-2544on 20 Nov 1802 in Albemarle County, Virginia.

They had the following children:

+ 4 F iii. Nancy COLLINS-2438was born on 7 Apr 1805. She died on 10 Apr 1876.

+ 5 F iv. Lucinda COLLINS-2504was born about 1806.

6 F v. Catherine COLLINS-2586was born about 1807. She died in 1847 in Troy, ,Ohio .
Catherine married (MRIN:1151) John Adam WOOLWINE-2587on 29 Sep 1828 in Montgomery County, Virginia.

Second Generation

3. Micajah COLLINS-735(Hezekiah) was born about 1797 in Of Montgomery County, Virginia.

Micajah married (MRIN:216) Elizabeth-2344 . Elizabeth was born about 1791.

They had the following children:

7 F i. Susan COLLINS-2345was born about 1822.

8 F ii. Nancy V. COLLINS-2346was born about 1829.

9 M iii. Alexander COLLINS-2543was born about 1830.

+ 10 F iv. Martha Jane COLLINS-105was born about 1830.

11 M v. Joshua COLLINS-2347was born about 1835.

4. Nancy COLLINS-2438(Hezekiah) was born on 7 Apr 1805 in Montgomery, Virginia. She died on 10 Apr 1876 in Montgomery, Virginia.

Nancy married (MRIN:1095) Adam Radford PRICE Sr.-2403son of Henry David PRICE I-2398 and Anne Maria GARRISON-2400 (MRIN:1087) on 3 Oct 1826 in Montgomery,

Virginia. Adam was born on 14 Oct 1796 in Rockingham, Virginia. He was christened on 7 Sep 1797 in St Peter's Lutheran Church, Montgomery, Va. He died on 30 Mar 1880 in Montgomery, Virginia.

They had the following children:

12 F i. Hulda Jane PRICE-2570was born on 13 May 1827 in Prices Fork, Montgomery, Virginia.
Hulda married (MRIN:1146) Jacob FISHER-2560on 24 Sep 1849 in Montgomery, Virginia.

13 F ii. Mary Elizabeth PRICE-2568was born in 1829 in Montgomery, Virginia.
Mary married (MRIN:1147) John OLINGER-2561on 4 Dec 1848 in Montgomery, Virginia. John was born on 4 Aug 1819 in Montgomery, Virginia.

14 F iii. Eliza Ann PRICE-2569was born on 26 Apr 1831 in Price's Fork, Montgomery, Virginia. She died on 24 Feb 1862.
Eliza married (MRIN:1148) John Adam FISHER-2578"Rad" on 15 May 1852 in Montgomery, Virginia. John was born on 4 Jun 1829 in Augusta, Virginia. He died on 17 Sep 1864 in Virginia.

15 F iv. Nancy PRICE-2573was born in 1834 in Montgomery, Virginia.
Nancy married (MRIN:1149) William R. PERFATER-2579 . William was born in 1828 in Virginia.

16 F v. Catherine PRICE-2571was born in 1836 in Montgomery, Va.
Catherine married (MRIN:1131) James Cloyd RITTER-2541 .

17 F vi. Arminta PRICE-2574was born on 17 Apr 1837 in Prices Fork, Montgomery, Virginia. She died on 1 Mar 1898 in Prices Fork, Montgomery, Virginia. She was buried on 2 Mar 1898 in Zack Price Cemetery, Montgomery, Virginia.
Arminta married (MRIN:1145) Zachariah PRICE-2555son of Henry David PRICE II-2402 and Anna Mary SURFACE-2425 (MRIN:1093) in Mar 1860 in Montgomery, Virginia. Zachariah was born on 11 Apr 1834 in Montgomery, Virginia. He died on 20 Mar 1913 in Montgomery, Virginia. He was buried in Zack Price Cemetery, Montgomery, Va.

18 F vii. Lucinda Katherine PRICE-2581was born on 20 Mar 1839 in Montgomery, Virginia.
Lucinda married (MRIN:1130) James Cloyd RITTER-2541in 1863 in , Montgomery County, Virginia, USA.

19 M viii. Adam Radford PRICE Jr.-2566was born on 17 Apr 1841 in Prices Fork, Montgomery, Virginia. He died before 1870 in Montgomery County, Virginia.
Adam married (MRIN:1132) Sarah E. HARLESS-2542on 11 Jun 1863 in , Montgomery County, Virginia, USA. Sarah was born in Mar 1844 in Montgomery, Virginia.

20 F ix. Amanda M. PRICE-2567was born in 1843 in Montgomery, Virginia.
Amanda married (MRIN:1137) William HELVEY-2545 .

21 F x. Almeda Fanny PRICE-2575was born on 11 Nov 1845 in Montgomery, Virginia. She died on 18 Apr 1885.
Almeda married (MRIN:1127) William Jackson PRICE-2539in 1868 in Montgomery, Virginia. William was born on 30 Jan 1842 in Montgomery, Virginia. He died on 9 Nov 1901.

22 F xi. Susan Rebecca PRICE-2576was born on 5 Jun 1849 in Price's Fork, Montgomery, Virginia.
Susan married (MRIN:1129) William H. BARTON-2540on 16 Nov 1871 in Montgomery, Virginia. William was born on 1 Nov 1824 in Botetourt, Virginia. He died on 13 Oct 1888. He was buried in Price's Fork, Montgomery, Va.

5. Lucinda COLLINS-2504(Hezekiah) was born about 1806.

Lucinda married (MRIN:1090) William DOUGHERTY-2505on 4 Nov 1819 in Montgomery County, Virginia.

They had the following children:

23 F i. Catherine DAUGHERTY-2506was born about 1830.
Catherine married (MRIN:1121) Henry David PRICE III-2520son of Henry David PRICE II-2402 and Anna Mary SURFACE-2425 (MRIN:1093) on 11 Feb 1853 in , Montgomery County, Virginia, USA. Henry was born on 8 Feb 1826 in Montgomery, Virginia. He was christened in St Peters, Montgomery, Virginia.

24 F ii. Nancy A. DAUGHERTY-2507was born about 1840.

25 M iii. Harry T. DAUGHERTY-2508was born about 1842.

26 F iv. Alice V. DAUGHERTY-2509was born about 1855.

Third Generation

10. Martha Jane COLLINS-105(Micajah, Hezekiah) was born about 1830 in Augusta County, VA.

Martha married (MRIN:37) Stewart PRICE-104son of Alexander PRICE-205 and Sarah "Sallie" PRICE-206 (MRIN:64) on 10 Dec 1855 in Virginia. Stewart was born on 16 Oct 1833 in John's Creek, Giles, Virginia. He died on 12 Jun 1908 in Virginia. He was buried in Blacksburg, Montgomery, Virginia.

They had the following children:

27 F i. Mary Elizabeth PRICE-106was born in 1852 in Montgomery County, Virginia.
Mary married (MRIN:65) Ezekial DUKES-113on 7 Mar 1878 in Lee County, Virginia.

28 M ii. David Floyd N B PRICE-107was born in 1857 in Montgomery County, Virginia.

+ 29 F iii. Sarah Emily C. PRICE-108was born in Jan 1859.

30 F iv. Diana Fanny PRICE-109was born in 1860 in Montgomery County, Virginia.
Diana married (MRIN:67) David LAMBERT-115on 5 Aug 1880 in Lee County, Virginia. David was born in Lee County, Virginia.

31 M v. Stuart Alexander James PRICE-110was born about 1864 in Montgomery County, Virginia.
Stuart married (MRIN:68) Rachel Ball-116on 9 Feb 1885 in Lee County,

Virginia. Rachel was born in Lee County, Virginia.

32 M vi. Huey E. Crockett PRICE-111was born about 1864 in Montgomery County, Virginia.

+ 33 F vii. Matilda Jane PRICE-69was born on 2 Dec 1868. She died on 12 Apr 1944.

34 F viii. Ellie PRICE-112was born in Nov 1869 in Montgomery County, Virginia.

Fourth Generation

29. Sarah Emily C. PRICE-108(Martha Jane COLLINS, Micajah, Hezekiah) was born in Jan 1859 in Montgomery County, Virginia.

Sarah married (MRIN:66) Jehail DORTON-114on 9 Feb 1880 in Lee County, Virginia. Jehail was born in Dec 1846 in Lee County, Virginia.

They had the following children:

35 M i. Oscar DORTON-2426was born on 15 Feb 1888 in Scott County, Virginia. He died in May 1970 in Los Angles, California.
Oscar married (MRIN:301) Madora L BAKER-575on 28 Feb 1907 in Jeffersonville, Clark County, Indiana. Madora was born on 5 Nov 1888 in Kentucky. She died on 25 Sep 1964 in Los Angles, California.

36 F ii. Pearl Della DORTON-2427was born in May 1891 in Virginia. She died in 1981.
Pearl married (MRIN:345) Samuel Clinton BAKER-1926on 26 Oct 1907 in Jeffersonville, Clark County, Indiana. Samuel was born in 1888 in Kentucky. He died in 1937.

37 F iii. Bessie Willard DORTON-2419was born on 27 Jan 1893 in Virginia. She died on 9 Jul 1970 in Louisville, Jefferson County, Kentucky. She was buried in Pennsylvania Run Cemetery, Louisville, Jefferson County, kentucky.
Bessie married (MRIN:1064) George NAPPER-1933on 13 Oct 1914. George was born about 1890. He died on 4 Oct 1964 in Louisville, Jefferson County, Kentucky. He was buried in Pennsylvania Run Cemetery, Louisville, Jefferson County, kentucky.

38 F iv. Cora R DORTON-2373was born in Dec 1894 in Virginia.
Cora married (MRIN:1096) Fred SHIRLEY-1282on 2 Mar 1912 in Jeffersonville, Clark County, Indiana.

39 F v. Eckie DORTON-2356was born in Feb 1897 in Virginia. She died on 28 Nov 1922 in Jefferson County,Kentucky.
Eckie married (MRIN:1062) James O NAPPER-1942 .

40 M vi. Henry DORTON-2434was born in Apr 1899 in Virginia.
Henry married (MRIN:1106) Dorothy UNKNOWN-572 .

33. Matilda Jane PRICE-69(Martha Jane COLLINS, Micajah, Hezekiah) was born on 2 Dec 1868 in Lee County, Virginia. She died on 12 Apr 1944.

Matilda married (MRIN:26) Alexander Henry QUESENBERRY-68son of Alexander

QUESENBERRY-97 and Rebecca Jane SMITH-98 (MRIN:36) on 3 Mar 1886 in Lee County, Virginia. Alexander was born on 29 Jul 1863 in Lee County, Virginia. He died on 27 May 1937.

They had the following children:

41 M i. Floyd Harmon QUESENBERRY-42was born on 17 Dec 1885 in Lee County, Virginia. He died on 23 Mar 1970 in Portsmouth, Norfolk, Virginia. He was buried on 25 Mar 1970 in Woodlawn Memorial Gardens, Virginia Beach, Virginia.
Floyd married (MRIN:11) Eva Elizabeth MULLINS-43"Evie" daughter of James Calaway Calvin "Cad" MULLINS-80 and Annis STAPLETON-81 (MRIN:27) on 17 Jul 1910 in Big Stone Gap, Wise, Virginia. Eva was born on 2 Nov 1891 in Eidson, Hawkins, Tennessee. She died on 21 Nov 1983 in Portsmouth, Norfolk, Virginia. She was buried on 25 Nov 1983 in Woodland Memorial Gardens, Portsmouth, Norfolk, Virginia.

42 F ii. Rebecca J. QUESENBERRY-70was born on 3 Apr 1887 in Lee County, Virginia. She died in Lee County, Virginia.
Rebecca married (MRIN:38) Blacks WILLIAMS-2217 . Blacks was born in 1887 in Virginia.

43 M iii. Milford Spencer QUESENBERRY-71was born on 6 Aug 1889 in Lee County, Virginia. He died on 7 Nov 1958 in Norton, Wise, Virginia. He was buried in Powell Valley, Wise, Virginia.
Milford married (MRIN:39) Mattie Elizabeth SKEENS-2227on 29 Apr 1915 in Big Stone Gap, Wise, Virginia. Mattie was born in Jul 1890 in Powell Valley, Wise, Virginia. She died on 12 Dec 1976 in Kingsport, Tennessee. She was buried in Powell Valley, Wise, Virginia.

44 M iv. Hughey Robert QUESENBERRY-79was born on 10 Mar 1891 in Virginia. He died before 25 Jul 1986 in Big Stone Gap, Wise, Virginia. He was buried in Jonesville, Lee, Virginia.
Hughey married (MRIN:45) Nancy Ann EAGLE-410 . Nancy was born about 1902 in Virginia.

45 M v. John Hyatt QUESENBERRY-73was born on 24 Jan 1893 in Lee County, Virginia. He died on 3 Jul 1964 in Lee County, Virginia. He was buried in Lee County, Virginia.
John married (MRIN:41) Fannie SHELTON-2235 . Fannie was born in 1902.

46 F vi. Estelle M. QUESENBERRY-74was born on 20 May 1894 in Lee County, Virginia. She died on 20 Aug 1976 in Big Stone Gap, Wise, Virginia. She was buried in Powell Valley, Wise, Virginia.
Estelle married (MRIN:42) Bill B. EGAN-2251on 25 Dec 1916 in Wise County, Virginia.

47 M vii. James Edgar QUESENBERRY-75was born on 24 Mar 1895 in Lee County, Virginia. He died on 6 May 1951 in Big Stone Gap, Wise, Virginia. He was buried in Powell Valley, Wise, Virginia.
James married (MRIN:40) Ethel SKEEN-72on 1 Feb 1917 in Wise County, Virginia. Ethel was born in 1894. She died in 1972. She was buried in Powell Valley, Wise, Virginia.

48 F viii. Nancy L. QUESENBERRY-76was born on 27 Sep 1898 in Lee County, Virginia. She died on 25 Jul 1986 in Chesapeake, Virginia.

Nancy married (MRIN:43) Hobart DORTON-2192on 4 Jul 1917 in Wise County, Virginia.

49 M ix. Samuel O. QUESENBERRY-77was born on 17 Apr 1900. He died in Oct 1970.

50 F x. Ollie M. QUESENBERRY-78was born on 3 Oct 1902 in Lee County, Virginia. She died on 3 Oct 1925 in Big Stone Gap, Wise, Virginia.
Ollie married (MRIN:44) Willard WILLSON-2193 .

If you would like me to send you all the info I have on the Collins, just let me know.


Friday, April 8, 2016

The Gimlet Eye: Will voters leave the EU ?

Currencies like sterling 
and the US dollar faced pressure this week due to both unfavourable domestic data and global economic conditions. The euro was an exception, however, as it benefitted from weaknesses from the other two currencies.

Currency markets are still being driven by sentiment, which can change in an instant, depending on the circumstances.
Sterling has come under serious pressure this week, losing value across the board as fresh concerns emerged that the UK could vote to leave the EU in June’s referendum. 

With Purchasing Managers’ Index (PMI) data from the construction and services industries failing to show strong growth at the start to the week, sterling found itself largely at the mercy of investor sentiment. 

Added to these were a number of opinion polls suggesting a preference among voters to leave the EU. 

Sterling found itself falling to its lowest level since June 2014 against the euro, while also falling to a five-week low versus the US dollar. When compared to a basket of currencies, sterling currently sits at a November 2013 low, and still remains vulnerable to further downward pressure


Tuesday, April 5, 2016

The Gimlet Eye: The art of persuasion; Stooping to conquer...

In the Gospel of St John, Jesus finds himself cornered.

The Pharisees present him with a woman accused of adultery, and petition him for advice.
'Master', they say. 'This woman was taken in adultery, in the very act. Now Moses in the law commanded us, that such should be stoned. But what sayest thou?'
The Pharisees, of course, aren't really interested in Jesus' moral take on the matter. And Jesus knows it. Instead,their motives are altogether less salubrious. What they're actually trying to do is get him embroiled in a legal wrangle. According to Mosaic Law, the woman, as the scribes correctly point out, should be stoned. No problem there - under normal circumstances. But with Palestine now under Roman occupation, things have changed. Mosaic Law has ceded to Roman Law - and if Jesus upholds the former over the latter, he leaves himself open to the inevitable charge of incitement. But that's the least of his worries. Conversely, if he decrees that the woman should not be stoned, he stands accused of precisely the opposite charge - turning his back on the ancient traditions of his forefathers. And that's no picnic either.

A crowd has gathered, and tensions are running high. Getting out of this, it would seem, is a pretty hard ask even for the smoothest, of smooth-talkers - let alone an itinerant carpenter with no rhetorical training whatsoever. What happened next is described thus:

This they said, tempting him, that they might have to accuse him. But Jesus stooped down, and with his finger wrote on the ground, as though he heard them not. So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her. And again he stooped down, and wrote on the ground. And they which heard it, being convicted by their own conscience, went out one by one, beginning at the eldest, even unto the last: and Jesus was left alone, and the woman standing in the midst.(John, 8: 6-9; author emphases.)
This passage from the Gospel of St John is unique. It's the only recorded occasion in the entire New Testament during which Jesus writes anything. Speculation is rife among Biblical scholars as to what those words might have been. The sins of the woman's accusers? Their names, perhaps? 

They will, of course, forever remain a mystery. But from a psychological perspective, precisely why Jesus should feel the need to write anything at such a moment constitutes an even greater conundrum. 
It doesn't make sense.
Unless, that is, he had something up his sleeve. Might the words themselves have been a smokescreen? The significance of his actions lie less in the writing itself - and more in the act of producing it?

Let's take another look at Jesus' body language during his encounter with the Pharisees. The exchange, in fact, comprises three distinct phases. On first being challenged, what is his initial reaction? Well, we note from the text that he immediately 'stoops down' (antithesis: incongruity: appeasement). Then, when the elders persist in their sophistry, he 'lifts himself' back up again to deliver his famous riposte (confidence: assertiveness) -before reverting to a stooping posture and resuming a pose of appeasement. It's a well-crafted move aimed at shifting and stealing momentum. 
Sure, Jesus certainly has a great line in 'casting the first stone'. And, what's more, he almost certainly knew it: it's one of the finest examples of flipnosis I've ever come across.But he does, however, still have a problem. At the end of the day, no matter how great a line it may or may not be, no matter how insightful the argument, it still delivers a challenge to the Pharisees. And could, despite its genius, have seriously pissed them off. 

An eventuality, no doubt, of which Jesus was well aware. And which explains, contrary to theological conjecture, why he didn't just speak in the one language, he spoke in two. One modern, phonemic, opaque. One ancient, silent, profound   .


Friday, April 1, 2016

The Gimlet Eye: A sterling glimpse of the future

The euro has been leading the pack this week, sterling in second place and the US dollar lagging behind as cautionary words from the head of the Federal Reserve seem to put pay to further increases in US interest rates any time very soon. The UK vote on its membership of the European Union seems too close to call, putting pressure on the pound as it falls to fifteen month lows against the euro.

It’s been a mixed week for sterling, with surprise gains against the US dollar overshadowed by a plunge back to the lowest level in 15 months versus the euro.With a UK bank holiday on Monday, subdued trade volumes allowed sterling to make limited gains across the board, and the British currency continued to see positive movement against the US dollar, pushing to a one-week high as Federal Chair Yellen was cautious about reviewing interest rates due to lingering low inflation in the US. 

Despite seeing a slight downturn on Thursday against the dollar, sterling heads into Friday in a relatively strong position against the American currency, thanks to a better-than-expected UK economic growth figure of 0.6%. Sterling saw a less positive performance against the euro, however, with a fresh poll putting the campaign to leave the European Union neck and neck with the campaign to remain. Coupled with broad euro strength, this sent sterling into negative territory against the single currency.

Today sees the release of the purchasing managers’ index (PMI) for manufacturing. Following a recent run of weak growth data over the past few months, any unexpected increase could provide a welcome boost for sterling.

Monday, February 22, 2016

William John Bennett:Grim Legacy of Reagan's Grim Reaper of Public Education

William John Bennett

The American teacher and scholar William John Bennett (born 1943) was chairman of the National Endowment for the Humanities (1981-1985), secretary of the Department of Education (1985-1988), and director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy (1989-1990) During the 1990s he was codirector of Empower America and an active spokesperson for conservatism.
William John Bennett was born in Flatbush (Brooklyn), New York, on July 3, 1943. His family was middle-class and Roman Catholic. He grew up on the streets of Flatbush and described himself as "streetwise." He first attended PS 92 but later transferred to Jesuit-run Holy Cross Boy's School. His family moved to Washington, D.C., where he graduated from Gonzaga High School, another Catholic institution.
Bennett was mostly raised by his mother, but he early found inspiration in such male American heroes as Abraham Lincoln, Roy Campenella, and Gary Cooper. From these life stories he derived an axiom that heroes are necessary for moral development of children and that this development requires adult guidance as well as inspiration. His high school football coach also provided a role model of mental and physical toughness and convinced Bennett of the value of competitive sports.
Bennett went to Williams College to play football. He was an interior lineman who earned the nickname "the ram" from an incident where he butted down a coed's door. He worked his way through Williams, and later through graduate school, with scholarships and part-time and summer jobs and with student loans that finally totaled $12,000.
Graduating in 1965, he studied philosophy at the University of Texas and wrote a dissertation on the theory of the social contract. (At that time John R. Silber was chairman of the Department of Philosophy and later dean of the College of Arts and Sciences.) He did not study all the time. In 1967 he had a blind date with Janis Joplin, and he also played guitar with a rock and roll band called Plato and the Guardians. While working on his Ph.D., which he earned in 1970, Bennett taught philosophy and religion at the University of Southern Mississippi for a year (1967-1968). He went on to study law at Harvard University, and worked as a social studies tutor and hall proctor (1970-1971) until he earned his J.D. degree.
He then moved across town to Boston University, where Silber had just become president. There he served as an associate dean of the College of Liberal Arts for a year (1971-1972) before becoming an assistant professor of philosophy and an assistant to Silber from 1972 to 1976. One of his duties was to escort military recruiters through crowds of antiwar protesters, a duty made easier by his football training.

Opening the Door to Government Service

Meanwhile, he was becoming better known nationally. He served on a review panel for the National Endowment for the Humanities (NEH) in 1973 and was chairman of the "Question of Authority in American High Schools" project of the National Humanities Faculty, a conservative group, the same year. He next was associate chairman of the group's bicentennial study, "The American Covenant: The Moral Uses of Power." He was also writing articles. Among these were "In Defense of Sports" in Commentary (February 1976); "The Constitution and the Moral Order" in Hastings Constitutional Law Quarterly (Fall 1976); and "Let's Bring Back Heroes" in Newsweek(April 15, 1977).

William John Bennett

In May 1976 he became executive director of the National Humanities Center, which he had co-founded with Charles Frankel, a philosophy professor from Columbia University who took the office of president. When intruders murdered Frankel in 1979, Bennett assumed Frankel's position as well. The same year he co-authored Counting by Race: Equality from the Founding Fathers to Bakke and Weber with the journalist Terry Eastland. The book attacked affirmative action and the Supreme Court for legitimizing it.

A registered Democrat who described himself as sympathetic to "neoconservative" causes, Bennett drafted the arts and humanities section of the Heritage Fund"s Mandate for Leadership(1980), a series of recommendations for President-elect Ronald Reagan. He became a Republican and was rewarded by Reagan, who appointed him to replace Joseph Duffy as head of NEH in December 1981. One of his rivals for the job was Silber. As director, Bennett proved abrasive and controversial. He acceded to Reagan's budget cuts for the agency and criticized faddish projects, including three documentaries made with NEH funds: "From the Ashes … Nicaragua Today," "Women Under Siege," and "Four Corners, A National Sacrifice Area?" He argued for a return to a strict definition of the humanities and promoted summer seminars for high school teachers. His major goal, to teach students the core of Western values, appeared inTo Reclaim a Legacy: A Report on the Humanities in Higher Education in November 1984. This report, along with Bennett's refusal to comply with Equal Employment Opportunity Commission affirmative action goals at NEH, earned him the enmity of women's and civil rights groups.
In November 1984 the office of secretary of the Department of Education became open when T. H. Bell resigned under right-wing pressure. Reagan had wanted to abolish the position, but decided instead to appoint Bennett after such conservatives as Jerry Falwell approved of him. In February 1985 he assumed the position.

Controversy in Two Jobs

Bennett proved even more controversial as the secretary of the Department of Education than he was at NEH. In his first press conference he supported Reagan's cuts in the student loan program, saying that some individuals should not go to college and that others should divest themselves of stereos, automobiles, and three weeks at the beach. Later the same year Americans United for the Separation of Church and State sued to force him to observe the Supreme Court ruling that public school teachers could not teach remedial education at private schools at federal expense. He attacked the educational establishment; said some colleges and universities were overpriced; deplored the high rate of student loan defaults, particularly in proprietary schools; and denounced Stanford University's revised curriculum, which de-emphasized Western civilization in favor of a broader study of world cultures.
Privatize Privatize Privatize
He favored education vouchers, merit pay, and a constitutional amendment mandating the federal government to remain neutral in the matter of school prayer. He emphasized moral education based upon the Judeo-Christian ethic while denouncing values clarification and cognitive moral development.

He remained in the limelight with appearances as a substitute teacher of social studies in a number of city schools and with many speeches and articles in the popular press. He was the author of First Lessons: A Report on Elementary Education, published by the U.S. Office of Education in 1987, which lists his personal convictions concerning elementary education. The same ideas appear in Our Children and Our Country: Improving America's Schools and Affirming the Common Culture (1988). Bennett also wrote American Education: Making It Work(1988) and The De-valuing of America: The Fight for Our Culture and Our Children (1992). Bennett's focus in education was on the three C's: content, character, and choice. It was his tireless advocacy of these that left his most lasting legacy on the education agenda of the 1980s.
Bennett resigned from the Department of Education in September 1988 to join the Washington law firm of Dunnels, Duvall, Bennett, and Porter. He had married Mary Elayne Glover late in life (1982) and needed the extra income to support his two sons.
However, the pull of public service proved too great. In January 1989 President George Bush appointed him head of the Office of National Drug Control Policy with the mission to rid the nation of drugs. Bennett was once again in the throes of controversy because of his outspoken views and his abrasive personality. He himself was an inveterate smoker and successfully kicked the habit in order to set an example. He pushed for more severe penalties for drug dealers, even saying that he had no moral qualms about beheading guilty parties as was done in Saudi Arabia. He used the metaphor of a war in urging the use of American military forces in Colombia and Peru to destroy supplies and set a goal of making Washington a drug-free city. Bennett announced his resignation November 8, 1990, claiming much progress. However his critics disagreed. Bennett considered becoming chairman of the Republican National Committee (RNC) but decided to devote his time to speaking, writing, and becoming a senior editor of the magazine National Review.
In 1993 Bennett published an anthology titled The Book of Virtues, which included stories, poems, essays, and fables intended to teach children values. The book sold very well, bringing in a profit of $5 million for Bennett and prompting him to publish similar books, including The Moral Compass: Stories for a Life's Journey (1995).

Spokesperson for Morality

Bennett was strongly favored as a presidential candidate by the conservative wing of the Republican Party in 1994, but he did not run. Instead, he continued to speak out on various topics. He joined the campaign protesting Time-Warner's investment in Interscope Records, which produced some of the most hardcore gangsta rap. He later took aim at some television talk shows. Bennett's issues found their way into the 1996 presidential campaign; even without running, he helped set the national agenda. He was also in demand on the public-speaking circuit, commanding $40,000 per speech. He served as codirector of Empower America, an organization dedicated to the promotion of conservative ideas and principles. Michael Kelly of the New Yorker called Bennett the pitchman of the new moral majority and "a leading voice of the force that is driving American politics right now—the national hunger for a moral society."

Further Reading

There is no full-length biography of Bennett, but his profile and critiques of his programs appeared frequently in popular magazines. Examples of these are portraits in the Wilson Library Bulletin (Spring 1982), Time (March 20, 1985; September 9, 1985), and the New York Times(January 11, 1985). Critiques of his programs at NEH can be found in Nation (April 14, 1984) andNational Review (March 8, 1985). A critique of his tenure at the Office of Education can be found in the Chronicle of Higher Education (September 21, 1988), while an appraisal of his success in the drug war is in Newsweek (January 29, 1990). Also see New Republic (June 17, 1996). For articles by Bennett see Harper's (January 1996) and Newsweek (June 3, 1996; October 21, 1996). See the Empower America Web site at <>.
Bennett's ideas are best explained in his books, including Counting by Race: Equality from the Founding Fathers to Bakke and Weber (1979); Our Children and Our Country: Improving America's Schools and Affirming the Common Culture (1988); and The De-valuing of America: The Fight for Our Children and Our Culture (1992). □
Cite this article 
Pick a style below, and copy the text for your bibliography.
  • MLA
  • Chicago
  • APA
"William John Bennett.Encyclopedia of World Biography. 2004. 22 Feb. 2016<>.

Sunday, February 21, 2016

"the Mighty Marcellus" a Bust: We're paying the US Energy Information Administration For WHAT ?

 Nicholas Arguimbau,
 retired attorney

My friend and former colleague, Nicholas Arguimbau, a retired attorney gave me permission to share this with you. I think it's well worth reading, and I you will tell me what you think of it,
It's Time to Call the Shale Gas Revolution as well as "the Mighty Marcellus" a Bust. And Time is Long Overdue to Ask What We're paying the US Energy Information Administration For.
Nicholas C. Arguimbau.
Here's a February 4, 2016 production graph for the United States shale gas industry It's from David Hughes, who's been a natural gas geologist in Canada and the United States for over 35 years. His data are the latest government production statistics. The writer believes it is the most up-to-date graphic display of "peak shale gas" and "peak Marcellus."
These events were predicted by this writer in "2015: Is It The Year Marcellus Shale Gas Peaked And Then Began Falling As Fast As It Rose?" In the course of research, the writer has learned quite a little not only about the Marcellus shale but about how people go about fooling each other and themselves. Come aboard folr the ride!
hughes february4chart!cid_image001_gif@01D16044.gif
The entire US shale gas industry is being brought down by its largest play, the Marcellus, in Pennsylvania and West Virginia. Here's how things look on the ground. Restaurants that used to be packed are now virtually empty. Almost every drilling company company has laid off workers and reduced its capital budget. Drilling rig counts, a surrogate for future new production, dropped by half, from 120 to 59, between 2013 and 2015, and dropped by half again, from 59 to 29, in the last nine months, leaving total production supported primarilly by pre-exiating, "legacy" wells which in shale gas plays typically lose about one third of their present production each year.:
This is no temporary pause caused primarily by a downturn in prices, from which the drillers will inevitably and quickly recover when and if prices recover. The Marcellus took off on its incredible rise shortly after the price of gas dropped 50% into clearly insufficient-to-pay-for-drilling territory.A poorly understood aspect of the entire shale revolution is that it follows a bizarre financial pettern - while the industry has seemingly thrived, the wells alone have almost never paid for themselves in production (See "2015: Is It The Year Marcellus Shale Gas Peaked And Then .. ". ), and likely never wil, because as the price of gas goes up, likely so will the cost of drilling and fracking,l. Some, folks in the business,notably the CEO of the failng giant, Chesapeake Oil aand Gas, have openly talked about the virtual impossibility of making ends meet from gas sales alone. Needless to say the direct drilling costs are only one part of the costs of running a company. If that is true now it likely always will be. The drillers are disinclined to talk about their finances, so there is a "Those who say don't know and those who know don't say" aspect tol the busuness, but happily a recent study established an accurate cost for drilling and fracking ($7.5 million per well), which may be compared to known figures about wells and their production. . A fracked well, unlike a traditional verticall well. is physcally very complex and has a short life span. If these aspects are sufficient to make them uncompetitive with traditional oil and gas, there is no reason for that to change. Moreover, the fracked-gas driller has to keep drilling constantly because production drops rapidly from existing wells. Production depends more on the rate at which wells are drilled than on the total number of wells, so wells have to keep being drilled as fast as the money coming in will allow. Moreover it is difficult to halt the production of a fracked well once production begins. The net result is that it is difficult to save either incoming money or fracked gas until the price goes up. Billions have been lost that way.
The drillers depend upon two limited resources - the gas, and the investors with the gas leases they are willing to purchase; and when one of them peaks, production peaks; with drilling unable to pay for itself, peak investment inevitably comes before peak gas. And that, in this writer's opinion, is what has happened to Marcellus, and must happen to almost the entire "shale revolution," both oil and gas. They've been mining suckers more than gas and oil, and have hit "peak suckers." It's a Ponzi scheme. This writer is saying nothing new. It's all laid out in the best-documented piece of jpournalism you'll ever read:: Dan Urbina, "Insiders Sound an Alarm Amid a Natural Gas Rush," New York Times June 25, 2011, The scam's continuance, bilking investors of billions in the subsequent five years, is a barely believable chronicle of mass societal dysfunction.

There is a remarkable simultaneity in the events of Bakken and Marcellus, but if the companies are to be perceived as"sucker miners" rather than oil and gas drillers thousands of miles apart, then they are competitors for the same limited resource, and the simultaneity makes perfect sense. This writer saw the tell-tale markings of a drying-up limited resource in the steady decline of the Marcellus growth rate starting at the beginning of its clmb, but the mathematics is the same whether the limited resource is gas or suckers, so the growth curves look roughly the same.
There is of course another source of funds that can potentially keep the drilling going in the absence of sufficient income from gas sales: loans. The conventional model of borrowing to start a business, the start-up loan, will provide capital for physical construction, and/or funds for initial operarion before incpome begins to come in sufficient to cover operation and profits Loans in the shale gas business are an entirely different animal. With gas sales insufficient to cover ongoing operations, how can a loan ever be secured or paid off? The answer is to have confidence that the business will always be rapidly growing, and to secure loans against future sales. Future sales can always secure present costs no matter how uneconomical present operations may be. This is Marcellus, up to last year, and it is largely the history of Chesapeake Oil and Gas, the one Marcellus driller with a well-understood history... And by the way,we have just learned how addictive the GDP is if to the great majority of businesses now financed on debt. With a strong GDP, you can finance any business selling widgets for less than they cost.

Why doesn't the Energy Information Agency warn us about these things?
Here is its projection of US natural gas ptoduction - a vision of endless growth, published in 2015, when rig counts for shale gas, not only in the Marcellus but everywhere else, were plummeting, a sure sign of an impending crash.
A chart like this one and many similar ones ialso mply ultimate production many itimes that which has been found by USGS to be possiblee with existing technology, yet EIA fails to explain what new technology would be necessary or when if ever it might be developed. In the case of Marcellus the discrepencies are explicit, becaujse USGS had concluded that Marcellus had technically recoverable reserves of 84 trillion cubic feet of gas, EIA conceded that to be correct, yet' EIA's projection implied ultimate production of several times the technically recoverable reserves, an impossibility in the absence of new unknown technology. That's something EIA keeps to itself. Investors see EIA's "up into the wild blue yonder" charts and assume they are buying into a sure thing. EIA projections like this one are essentially fraudulent, and instead of warning investors that they are falling into a trap, assure them that their investments have the security of gold.
This is nothing new
When EIA's staff were internally meeting in 2009 to discuss "peak oil" issues, they used a chart which showed worldwide production of conventional petroleum plummeting after 2012, yet publicly, EIA was claiming that peak oil would not occur until the 2030s. The same non-public chart's decline rates are reflected in the goals set for fossil energy reduction in the Waxman-Markey bill and in the goals set in the later Kerry bill, so it appears that EIA perceived reality one way, but described reality completely differently. The difference made it appear that the industry was being asked to cut their ultimate production severely, when in reality the proposed legislative goals did little more than require that the industry not extract more oil than existed.

It has been assumed for half a century, based upon oil geologists' experience, that an oil reserve's peak production occurs roughjly at the same time as half of the reserve has been expended. At the middle of the last decade, roughly one trillion barrels of oil had been produced and all the world's leading energy agencies (but one) perceived that approximately one trillion barrels remained, implying that peak conventional oil would occur in the middle of the last decade. In fact it did. The one dissenting agency was EIA, which claimed that there were two trillion, not one trillion, barrels of conventional oil yet to be exploited, In part this claim came from an absuredly optimistic assumption as to discovery of new conventional-oil reserves. Discoveries had been steadily dropping since the seventies, when they peaked. It has always taken approximately 30 years to progress from discovery to peak production of an oil reserve, and consequently, peak production pretty much had to be 30 years beyond the seventies. As the famous oil geologist ___ Campbell aptly put it, "You can't produce it before you discover it." EIA's contrary assumption was based upon the downward slope of discoveries dramatically reversing itself for no believable reason.
That was the first device used by EIA to talk itself out of a peak in the last decade. The second was a steadfast reliance upon OPEC's numbers as to its reserves. OPEC reserve numbers had been known for decades to be manufactured to permit individual countries to expand production in accordance with an OPEC rule tying production to reserves. When a report from Oxford University, which has never been challenged, stated that the OPEC reserve number overstated reserves by an amount equal to a full decade's global production at current rates, that didn't faze EIA. OPEC's fraud became EIA's fraud.
You may read the details of the above, with ample documentation, in this writer's "The Imminent Crash Of Oil Supply
And then there is the subjectg of what "oil" is. Naturally enough, most folks equate "oil" with petroleum, and assume as much when they read a chart. EIA makes many more charts of "oil" production these days than of petroleum production. Some smart type apparently observed that since peak natural gas was expected to come later than peak petroleum, peak "oil" woujld be later than peak petroleum if some portion of natural gas was redefined as "oil." It's the sort of word play for which oil and gas lawyers are famous. Or so it seems, because "oil" acquired a definition including within it, a portion of the natural gas known as "natural gas liquids." The notion has a sound of rationality to it until you learn what the natural gas liquids (NGLs) are.
This writer became familiar with them 35 years ago when invited to speak about the Dow Chemical Company in Alaska, where Mitsubishi and Dow were investigating whether to build a plant on the North Slope to manufacture petrochemicals with them. They re absolutely not part of the oil but part of the natural gas, which was the whole trouble with them. In an arctic climate, they condense in a natural gas pipeline and prevent it from functioning, and, when the Mitsubishi-Dow project failed, forced all the natural gas from the North Slope to be flared. If they had been part of the oil, there would not have been a problem. So NGLs became famous. In subarctic climates, they are neither liquid nor a substitute for petroleum, and are transported in natural gas pipelines. But a chart of current "oil" production is roughly flat, reflecting the continuing growth of natural gas production, with its NGLs, whereas a chart of current petroleum production is downsloped. How convenient!. "Thanks to the shale revolution, oil production has not yet peaked." I guess this is what you call a "white lie."
And so it goes. EIA seems incapable of drawing a public chart with a future downslope.
The economic hopes and fears of everyone in the world rise and fall on what EIA has to say, There is an uncanny equivalence between energy consumption and the gross domestic product, and there are those who say it iso mpossiblre to decouple them.Tverberg, "Is it really possible to decouple GDP Growth from Energy Growth?"…/is-it-really-possible-to-deco…/ Congress, to its credit, attempted to decoujple the politics of GDP from the number-crunching of EIA. Not only was EIA made separate from all other United States government entities, but an agency was created to audit its work, the Professional Audit Review Team. Both have failed miserably, as demonstrated by the above few examples. .. In this writer's opinion, a good method fro straightening tings out would be for people to demand details of the analysis under the Freedom of Iformatikon Act when confronted with a wildly wrong prediction. The ability of government analysts to fudge knows no bounds, but when we fail to use the tools available, we have little more than ourselves to blame folr the results.
A note: The writer has omitted some links for convenience of reading. If in need, the reader should be able to find the links by reading the New York Times piece and my articles

 "The Imminent Crash Of Oil Supply and "2015: Is It The Year Marcellus Shale Gas Peaked And Then .. 

[Key words: Marcellus, Ponzi scheme, peak Marcellus, peak shale gas, David Hughes, Chesapeake Oil and Gas, rig counts.],
The author is a retired lawyer who lives happily with his dog and cat and 40 fruit trees in Western Massachusetts.He is doing a little on a personal level notwithstanding Naomi Klein’s declaration that we can and apparently should do nothing to reduce CO2 emissions at all until the revolution comes. The fossil fuel industry would naturally endorse her position because (1) The carbon budget will long be exhausted before the revolution comes, (2) the revolution will never come unless its adherents have put aside the capitalists’ greed and sociopathy and replaced them with Henry Thoreau’s ethics and moderation, and (3) the industry would go broke if people boycotted its products. The writer’s colleagues say he is "religious" or "unscientific" or "immorally trying to look better than other people." They are likely right. How can we ever understand our quirks? In any event the author has no car, keeps his thermostat at 50, purchases no silly plastic electronics from China, maintains a vegetarian diet that should be vegan etc. but a long way from zero carbon. It’s easy to be conscientious if your are poor :-); may the limits to growth make us all very poor very soon. If 7 billion people did the same they could look their grandchildren in the eyes and say"We tried to make things OK for you." Without grandchildren the writer tries to say the same to his blameless neighboring chickadees.
reductions if more of the public were practicing real emissions reductions. He hopes others will do likewise.