Warren Buffett Exposed: The Oracle of Omaha and the Tar Sands

The Nation Of Change has the very interesting article, Warren Buffett Exposed: The Oracle of Omaha and the Tar Sands. The article explains Buffet’s investment interests in various outcomes of the tar sands development in Canada.  Here is my reaction that I posted  to the article:

This is all valuable information to have, but there is no conclusion to all this breathless prose. I kept waiting with a, “yes, yes, but so what?”

As an investment a few years ago, I looked at tar sands, myself. At the time the investment was too over-priced for the risk involved. If Buffet is smart enough and has the diligence to wait until the time is ripe, I can’t fault him for that.

As the article indicates, it is not always easy to determine what is the least polluting alternative. That is why I favored sufficient time to do the environmental review of Keystone before I made up my mind.

Maybe you didn’t intend it that way, and maybe it was my own bias that had me waiting for the punchline. I applaud any article that increases my knowledge without presuming to know how I need to react to that knowledge.

On second thought maybe it was the word “Exposed” in the headline that set my expectations. The mention of meetings with Obama were meant to make me infer something or other, but I have resisted making that inference.

As you know from my postings, I am no idolater of President Obama, and I recognize that the worshipping at the feet of Warren Buffet tends to go overboard.  Even though I don’t feel it is my duty to be fair and balanced in this blog, I still like to set the record straight every now and then, no matter which direction it goes off the rails (pun intended).

Spell checkers, particularly the one in Forefox, dislike my use of the spelling worshipping. The modern way seems to no longer double up the final consonant in a word that has a preceding vowel and you want to add the suffix ing.

Initially I caved to the wants of my spell checker, but it looks so wrong to me, that I prefer to go back to the old way which Google tells me is still acceptable.

The new way makes it look to me that I would pronounce the word as wor-shipe-ing because the single consonant between the two i’s makes the first one a long i. Perhaps it is that the two i’s are in different syllables that is the key to making the pronunciation agree with the spelling. Whatever the case, it still looks horribly wrong to me, and I will resist.

Leave a comment

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.