Politico notes the House Speaker Nancy Pelosi called the recess as expected, but the Republicans decided to hang around and pontificate to the ether. The C-SPAN cameras have been shut off.
I find this sort of thing to be amusing, but wonder how much effect it will have in the long run. It would probably be fairly easy to paint the Republicans as being as much to blame for the oil problem as the Democrats, since the Republicans were in the majority for so long (and I expect this will be one of the main media responses). However, one can never tell with politics. If the Republicans can force the Democrats to return, it could damage the Democrat’s standing a bit, and from my viewpoint, that’s a good thing.
Update: they stopped at 5pm.
From a tip by Big Bang Hunter
This will be it for today from me, kids. I am pushing the limit I think.
This is all rather amusing. Feh. Pelosi has gone home to save the planet.
This will be a great thing, cranky and here’s why.
This comes right on the heals of Krauthammer’s astonishing piece about the real negative effects to the planet of the US curtailing their drilling efforts. Plus we have one Democrat being asked if gas were $10 pet gallon would she allow more drilling and she bobbed and weaved. Other Dems are echoing this position.
The American people are getting a clear lesson that a lot of Dems care more about Teh Gaia than they do about the peoples’ wallets. That is not short or longterm winning strategy.
– Maybe not JD. Theres a few pols whispering that Bush may call the gang all back into session.
– This could be one of those rare cases where public anger forces the Dems hand. I don’t see the whole country losing interest in this one, sonce you get reminded everytime you gas up.
– Also, people noticed oil prices dropped below 130 from just a single symbolic move by Bush, which makes the Dems “10 years” argument ring hollow. The Dems are running out of excuses.
It’s a damn shame the C-Span cameras have to be cut off, this being such a video culture and all. Will NPR run the story honestly, ya think? (Not a fucking chance). So how’s about ABC,NBC,CBS,MSNBC,CNN? Heh.
– Take heart. FOX is taping and showing cuts from the house floor.
I think alot of the recent price drop was due to demand destruction showing up in the weekly inventories. Not that Bush had nothing to do with it, just that there were other important inputs.
“Also, people noticed oil prices dropped below 130 from just a single symbolic move by Bush, which makes the Dems “10 years†argument ring hollow.”
You would benefit from a study of the oil industry, as well as the principle of causality.
– Fuck you Barrett, and the Marxist gorse you rode in on. The only thing you know about the stock market is that its located somewhere in Manhattan.
– What you and the rest of your brain dead gaggle is counting on is that none of the idiots on either side of the aisle know what the word “futures” means. You just repeated it.
Oh, come on Barrett. You can do better than that.
– This is not a bullet point
– Neither is this.
* This is more acceptable.
1. This is also commonly used for the purpose.
2. I have never ridden a “gorse.”
3. I have ridden horses, but am unaware of what their political views may have been, it having never occured
There are other ways to format bullet points, of course, but I’m not sure how to bring them into fruition outside of MS Word.
“Oh, come on Barrett. You can do better than that.”
Not without charging for it, no.
Carin – That was Barrett’s “A-game”, unfortunately.
* Actually, it now occurs to me that numbered listings such as these probably aren’t technically regarded as bullet points, although they do fulfill a similar function. I regret the error.
* I am aware of the irony of me making fun of someone for making a simple typo and then accidentally forgetting to finish writing my own sentence on the subject of horse philosophy, and I can assure you all that I am somewhat embarrassed over it, although, in my defense, I am not used to writing on that particular subject and became confused as to why I was doing so midway through.
– None of which is in response to the point. The point being that only a group of knuckle headed partisans with a “party above country” agenda, and zero economic education, would make some of the asinine excuses the Dems have floated to justify their obstructionist actions.
– But if you’re locked in on debating typos I’m sure the group will give you their undivided attention.
It would probably be fairly easy to paint the Republicans as being as much to blame for the oil problem as the Democrats, since the Republicans were in the majority for so long
Here is the problem with that strateeegery.
The exchange between Minority Leader McConnell and Sen. Salazar standing in for Majority Leader Reid will still make a good piece of video to play as a substitute for today’s House action.
Resurrecting an old Gingrich trick, they provoked Pelosi to resurrect Foley’s response.
It’s too bad Pelosi isn’t from a reddish enclave like Spokane (Foley’s stomping ground).
“The only thing standing between you and reasonable gas prices is a Democrat”
“None of which is in response to the point.”
Your friend Sdferr has already objected to your assertion that gas prices fell “from just a single symbolic move by Bush.” Perhaps he is a Marxist. You should call him a bunch of names.
“The only thing you know about the stock market is that its located somewhere in Manhattan.”
“The stock market” is not located anywhere, being an abstract entity. Several stock exchanges are located in lower Manhattan. I used to work nearby, so I know where they are.
C’mon, folks. Barret’s not a lefty. He’s just indistinguishable from one.
Just reading a comment by Barrett Brown makes me sleepy.
Do you really think the average guy on the street follows the oil markets? Oil is volatile and subject to various external factors, including speculation, weather, and mideast tension. If the U.S. made a serious move to offshore drilling, anything can happen.
“I used to work nearby, so I know where they are.”</i”
– Well thats certainly a start. Now maybe, armed with that locale info, you can move on to discovering what the word “futures” means.
– Then you can come back and we’ll grade you on understanding and retention.
– and I can grade myself on tag closure.
“If the U.S. made a serious move to offshore drilling, anything can happen.”
– cynn, please. The US has three times the oil and gas reserves of the three biggest ME oil suppliers. You have some money you’d like to bet on what would happen within two weeks to the world oil price futures if we simply announced we were opening all of it to exploration?
“- and I can grade myself on tag closure.”
I give you an “A” for effort. I will also provide you with this wonderful gift: [link Ed]
Pushing the press out of the House galleries doesn’t play well with American ethos. Same thing really for turning out the lights and the cameras. Just won’t sit well with ordinary folks if they ever find out about it.
Zzzzzzzzzzz
I give you an “A†for effort.
I give you a C- for dissembling and (intentionally) failing to address the points under discussion.
“Same thing really for turning out the lights and the cameras.”
Maybe they’re just trying to save energy. Seriously, though, I agree with you that the Democrats are playing a dangerous game. Had they simply left and let the Republicans do whatever they feel the need to do, it would play better. On the whole, though, if I were an incumbent of either party, I’d be very uncomfortable with this sort of nonsense. It’s almost as if both parties have a bet going on to see which one can make the collective congressional approval rating go down fastest. They probably have money riding on it.
– And you Barrett, need a link to tiny URL’s. your link just fucked up the page formatting. Go to your room.
“- And you Barrett, need a link to tiny URL’s. your link just fucked up the page formatting. Go to your room.”
Did it? I don’t know how these things work. Apologies. Incidentally, I am already in my room.
– Either that, or click on “view”, and study the page source to learn the proper way to set a “text” directed link.
“I give you a C- for dissembling and (intentionally) failing to address the points under discussion.”
Good luck on getting tenure.
I am not obligated to immediately begin having a serious policy discussion with someone who begins the discussion by being rude and making bizarre assumptions about my political orientation based on the fact that I don’t agree with him about the cause of the recent reduction in oil prices. If you would like to discuss this issue with me, simply say so.
– Make a provably false declarative statement.
– Get called on it, and veer off on anything you can use to avoid the subject.
– Continue. Rinse and repeat.
– Back pedal, and sound reasonable, and whine for understanding.
– Avoid debate on the points.
– The only thing left is to claim you were just kidding, you were badly misunderstood, or the dog ate your brain.
The thing is, BB, we’ve seen people “debate” with your style before. Invariably, they turn out to be lying douchebag “progressives”. It’s one of those “lessons of experience” thingies.
“Make a provably false declarative statement.”
I’m afraid my recollection differs from yours. Could you point it out for all to see? Doing so will certainly discredit me further, so it is in your interest to do this, innit?
“The thing is, BB, we’ve seen people “debate†with your style before. Invariably, they turn out to be lying douchebag “progressivesâ€Â. It’s one of those “lessons of experience†thingies.”
A few days ago, you were given some very good advice by Sdferr, whom I respect and whom I assume that you respect as well. He conveyed to you that it is not in your interest to continue conducting yourself in the manner in which you have chosen to conduct yourself. You should listen to your friend.
* You call that a bullet point?
• This is a bullet point! (Alt + 0149)
• As satisfying as it is to type, “You would benefit from a study of the oil industry, as well as the principle of causality,” it is of little use to the discussion by itself. Please indicate how and where the previously referenced linkage between Bush’s symbolic gesture and the price of crude on the global market is faulty and provide three examples.
• The proper format for creating an HTML link on PW is the following: link text, though you should omit the spaces inside the HTML tags. The actual length of the URL is irrelevant if you do it this way.
Erratum:
• The previous bullet point explaining the proper formatting for an HTML link did not come out as anticipated, given that the HTML engine decided to “fix” my tags. Those responsible have been sacked.
• The correct format must therefore be faked, e.g., [a href=”http://url.com”]link text[/a], where [ = .
– You see Barrett, thats the basic problem that SecProgs start out with, and why, as a group, you generally have a reputation of “doesn’t work and play well with others”.
– Item. You need to regroup and come to grips with the fundamental fact that the topic is not about “You”.
– Item. Additionally, you need to cope with the fact that no one cares to “discredit” you. Again, its not about “You”.
– Thread jacking is a intellectually dishonest pastime, so why would you expect consideration?
– Never mind. We know the answer.
Erratum redux:
• The previous bullet point explaining the proper formatting for an HTML link did not come out as anticipated, given that the HTML engine interprets all angle brackets as tags, even if they’re poorly formed. Those responsible have been sacked.
• The correct format follows: [a href=”http://url.com”]link text[/a], where [ equals < and ] equals >.
• This is my last attempt. WordPress is a certifiable torture device anymore.
BB: So if the U.S. announces it is going to siphon, extract, and strip mine the entire country then the price of oil will plummet? And gasoline will naturally follow? Because that’s just the way it works!
“Please indicate how and where the previously referenced linkage between Bush’s symbolic gesture and the price of crude on the global market is faulty…”
I will, but, again, I would direct you to Sdferr’s comment in which he makes the same case that I am making, which is that BBH is wrong to say that the recent decrease in gas prices is “from just a single symbolic move by Bush.” Not only is this unproven, but it is very unlikely because there are many factors at play in futures, and oil futures are, in my estimation, among the most complex of them all with regards to the manner in which the underlying variables are not only numerous, but wide-ranging and esoteric. So, you know, I wrote something to the effect that BBH probably does not understand the oil industry if he really thinks that “just a single symbolic move” is responsible for this decrease, and that, likewise, he needs to be careful with the way in which he employs causality.
“… and provide three examples.”
I’m afraid that I don’t understand what you’re asking for exactly. Please advise.
Barrett is more punchier and more readable today. Yay Barrett!
– Thanks for your efforts dicentra, but they are misplaced. The use of a dash is my way of para starting, and always has been.
– Barrett, in his infinate wisdom, misunderstood their purpose and launched into a useless set of comments, even in error themselves, aimed at something that itself was in error.
– But hey. Its a great way to threadjack for attention, and even more important, avoid the subject.
#8
It’s called too much money chasing after too few goods.
“BB: So if the U.S. announces it is going to siphon, extract, and strip mine the entire country then the price of oil will plummet?”
I would imagine it would rise, since the strip mining of the better portion of a large continent would require quite a bit of oil in and of itself. It would a very interesting project, though, and would put the Russians to shame, which is a plus.
As a periodic service to the HTML-challenged, I offer a template for linking:
<a href=”*”>#</a>
Copy and paste the above string.
Replace the asterisk (only; leave the quote marks) with the URL of the site you wish to reference. The easiest way to do that is to go to the page, highlight the contents of the address bar, copy it, then come back to the string, highlight the asterisk, and paste.
Replace the pound sign with the text you want to appear in orange as a clickable link.
Simple enough, no?
Regards,
Ric
If the U.S. sincerely announces its intention to drill, quite a bit of the price due to speculation will be removed. Not all, certainly, since demand will continue to increase and supply will probably not increase quickly unless the current suppliers do something about it. The price due to demand will still likely remain higher than we’d like.
Yeah, I’m not sure of the linkage either exactly. I don’t think it works like that. But if those Democrat people think releasing oil from the Strategic Reserve can lower prices, then why they don’t think actually drilling new oil can lower prices is a conundrum. I don’t think they really want lower prices is what I think. This is all very useful to them for promoting their wacky carbon schemes.
“You see Barrett, thats the basic problem that SecProgs start out with, and why, as a group, you generally have a reputation of “doesn’t work and play well with othersâ€Â
I’m assuming that SecProg is wacky RelNut code for secular progressive. I am not a progressive. My audience often ends up being made up largely of progressives, but that’s because secular types tend to be progressive. Bedfellows, etc.
oh. #46 is the old unpunchy Barrett. Darn it.
“- But hey. Its a great way to threadjack for attention, and even more important, avoid the subject.”
The subject, at that point, was that I don’t know where the “stock exchange” is, that I am a Marxist, and that I should copulate with myself or be copulated with or something to that effect. I addressed those subjects with all the seriousness with which I am accustomed to handling unsourced and inaccurate allegations delivered in a rude and misguided way. If you’d like, you can explain to me how I should have responded to an “argument” that began with “fuck you” and then managed to somehow devolve even further from there.
Now you’re just doing it on purpose.
“Now you’re just doing it on purpose.”
Heh. Could be.
I cannot seem to stay awake.
C’mon, folks. Barret’s not a lefty…
That is correct, to occupy a position requires substance.
Whether drilling for oil will affect future prices is not the whole picture.
The fact is, there is plenty of profit to be made exracting and marketing a desireable, and necessary, commodity.
That some of this profit might actually be earned within the United States is apparently too much for the likes of Pelosi, et.al. Who just don’t like to see American’s succeeding at much of anything.
I am not obligated to immediately begin having a serious policy discussion
Barret, you’ve shown that you’re incapable of having a “serious policy discussion” with anyone here, on any subject.
You’re a B.S. artist.
That is all.
That some of this profit might actually be earned within the United States is apparently too much for the likes of Pelosi, et.al. Who just don’t like to see American’s succeeding at much of anything.
Speaker Pelosi needs to be able to demonize the Oil companies, so she can play to her constituency. I hear the tree sitting is good there this time of year.
Jobs, too, ThomasD. Jobs for real American Americans.
Barrett gets points for being mildly entertaining. But, the whole cryptic “be nice to Barrett because you don’t know who he is” was sort of off-putting. Kinda like he was a special-secret guest. Fuck that shit. You either hang with the PW (and what it dishes) or you don’t.
You’re a B.S. artist.
Well, I don’t know if that’s exactly right. I think he’s not trying to be serious.
Check this out. Obama maybe changing tune on offshore drilling. Maybe.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080801/ap_on_el_pr/obama
Sez Obama: “…”If, in order to get that passed, we have to compromise in terms of a careful, well thought-out drilling strategy that was carefully circumscribed to avoid significant environmental damage  I don’t want to be so rigid that we can’t get something done.”…”
Or what?
Why is it so bad for me to express my opinion of the way you’ve been acting? I think you act like a typical mendacious douchebag, of the type generally exemplified around here by a retard that calls itself “Semanticleo”. You’re a bit more verbose than ol’ Semen, but your comments have just as much substance: none.
Baracky is just trying to make us all sick I think.
Baracky is just trying to make us all sick I think.
He doesn’t work for the FDA!
He conveyed to you that it is not in your interest to continue conducting yourself in the manner in which you have chosen to conduct yourself. You should listen to your friend.
Yea, I’m sorta with Rob on this. I’m not hip with the mysterious act “you don’t know who you are talking to” crap. You are here as you present yourself. I think people were a little punchy the other day, but so what?
BB: “You would benefit from a study of the oil industry, as well as the principle of causality.”
Nonsense. At its simplest, it is a matter of near constant petroleum output being pursued by growing demand for petroleum. As a matter of fact, the US oil output has been deceasing and refining capacity has enjoyed only marginal improvement, with the last new refinery built during the Carter administration, adding a structural bottleneck in the expansion of output.
ANY commodity, under these conditions, would undergo a price increase.
But, then, the Dems don’t really want to solve this problem, either through the increase in supply or through the introduction of adequate substitutes to alleviate demand — ethanol is *not* an adequate substitute, taking nearly as much energy to produce as one obtains from the final product and only economical due to government mandates on its use, protective legislation preventing the importation of foreign ethanol and financial subsidy.
The Democrats are playing with fire — when 51% of Californians are in favor of offshore drilling and Pelosi and company are *still* blocking it, going so far as to indicate their disdain for the consumer by indicating their opposition even in the event of $10 per gallon gasoline, they are in full bull-goose denial.
I almost have to wonder how the Republicans are going to screw up this opportunity
“I think he’s not trying to be serious.”
Actually, I am, when I am engaged in a polite way by someone who would like to discuss an issue. I responded in great detail to several questions about the issue of oil prices, but a few of the commenters here don’t appear to be interested in actually discussing that. I get really tired of being accused of Marxism, for instance. If my political stance is of some concern – and I gather that is, since I’ve been referred to here as a “fascist,” a Marxist, a “SecProg,” a liberal, a Democrat, whereas I am none of these things – anyone can ask me directly what my political stance is, and I will answer them.
From what I’ve found, he’s a jester for the left. And maybe it’s the old farm boy in me, but when someone puffs themselves up as something special, I can’t help but think they’re really just tiny, worthless, and aware of it.
Is O! starting to remind anyone else of Barney Fife?
– Ok. Futures 101. First of all, if you’ve ever spent 15 minutes in the “pit”, much less worked in it as I have, the thing you learn, and never forget, is that the most important driver of futures prices is plain old human emotion, some intelligent thinking, and lots of guessing.
– For instance, and I doubt you’re even aware of this Barrett, I can drive futures prices apeshit if I simply buy an unusually large set of blocks at a slightly elevated price. The rest of the pit bidders will see that, think I’m in possession of some inside info, and start following me like lemmings. Guess what happens to the futures price on a commodity when a group of pit bidders start buying and bidding willy nilly?
– Now take the fact that for the last year large money reserve houses have been sinking huge chunks of reserve funds into oil futures.(the guys who handle the investments of billions of market funds from IRA’s, 401K’s, and Insurance company trusts and income.)
– Put those together. It doesn’t require rocket science.
– Why are they doing that?
(bullet time for Barrett – sort of bedtime for Bozo)
• For the last 15+ years the Democrats, driven by the Eco-nut lobby, has been obstructing any homeland exploration, thereby assuring continued American dependency on foreign oil resource for the foreseeable “future”.
• Neither the Democrats/Republicans, nor the White house seem to understand what “future” “availability” means to the “futures” market.
• Both domestic and foreign oil demand is expected to grow in the “future”, without a congruent increase in supply, since America has shown it will not expand, and its not in the interests of outside oil suppliers to increase production, particularly since artificial shortages always leads to higher prices.
– The reason that most laymen cannot grasp this simple concept is the very idea of the word futures. People typically think in terms of the here and now. They generally, as Barrett illustrates once again so very well, think “now”, and that is not what drives commodity prices.
– I won’t even get into the refineries mess. Yet another subject.
– The reason Bush’s statement had some effect on futures pricing is the bidders (called speculators, although to be fair anyone that buys and sells significant blocks of futures shares is in effect speculating) had to factor in the possibility that just maybe the assholes that run this country were finally showing some signs of getting serious about resource access, maybe even starting to understand the market, and the very meaning of the word “futures”.
– Now armed with just that most rudimentary knowlege, what would you suppose will happen if America, tomorrow morning, announced it was going to add an increase of 200% of potential oil to the world supply?
– Take you time.
“Nonsense. At its simplest, it is a matter of near constant petroleum output being pursued by growing demand for petroleum. As a matter of fact, the US oil output has been deceasing and refining capacity has enjoyed only marginal improvement, with the last new refinery built during the Carter administration, adding a structural bottleneck in the expansion of output.”
I agree with you. I don’t understand how my assertion that Bush did not single-handedly cause the recent drop in oil prices contradicts what you are saying.
whereas I am none of these things – anyone can ask me directly what my political stance is, and I will answer them.
Consider yourself asked.
cynn, please don’t drag strawmen into the discussion. Nobody is suggesting that we “siphon, extract, and strip mine the entire country” other than a few nutcases, plus these guys, who may not be altogether serious.
Significant oil production is easily possible without much environmental impact. The oil platforms off the West Coast could start back up in a period of months if not weeks, with absolutely no visible change in the environment — the tarballs on the beach are natural and do not come from the platforms; there are tar pits, like La Brea, under the ocean. In fact, even as we speak there is significant oil production in Beverly Hills and adjacent suburbs. The equipment is nicely camouflaged, which is easily affordable at even half the current price, and Mr. Doheny’s windfall is still there. California crude is nasty, heavy, chemical-laden stuff, but it’s shallow and under pressure, almost as easy to produce as Saudi Arabian, and the refinery techniques for handling it have been well understood for half a century.
There are significant oil reserves all the way up the middle of the country, from here in Texas (where fields are shallow, and as a consequence have been largely exploited, though there’s a lot left) all the way into Alberta and Manitoba. Oil wells in Kansas? — damn right. Good crude, too. Plus the newly-discovered (or, rather, newly-exploitable) field in North Dakota, eastern Montana, and southern Alberta.
There is an arbitrary line which divides the Gulf of Mexico into eastern and western parts. The eastern part is currently off limits. All the infrastructure is in place for drilling, needing only the go-ahead, and the structures in east and west sections are identical; crude could be flowing from the eastern Gulf in one to two years.
The waters off northeastern Alaska also have oil. I’m not talking ANWR here — objections to drilling there are stupid and based on misconceptions, but the people holding those misconceptions are too stubborn to give up — I’m talking offshore. That area, too, is currently off limits. It would take quite a while to develop it, but it isn’t out of the question; the technology exists.
There is significant oil off the coast(s) of New Jersey, Delaware, and Maryland’s Eastern Shore. People there used to claim that the tarballs came from the Germans sinking tankers in WWII, but that isn’t so — they’re natural, like the ones in California. That would take longer to develop, because the platforms would have to be well offshore where the water is deep, but, again, ten years is ‘way too long — it didn’t take ten years to develop the North Sea, where the water is three times as deep and cold enough to freeze your a* in minutes.
And that’s just the easy bits of petroleum itself. The Colorado oil shales are there, are immense, and are readily extracted — all the techniques have been developed; the only thing lacking is the go-ahead. Yes, we’re talking strip-mining, but again, the techniques have already been developed to restore the land afterward; it was part of the mandate from the beginning. The oil companies would be glad to finance biologists who could seek out and preserve species, for re-introduction after mining is complete.
When oil was cheap, it made sense to let other people live with the environmental burdens so we could have what we needed. A big part of current oil prices comes from three things: increased world demand, growing environmental sensitivity on the part of oil producers, and the delighted discovery by oil producers that they have us over a barrel. They can charge whatever they like and we are forced to pay it or go hungry. Adding supply takes pressure off world demand, which would tend to lower prices. Adding supply here makes us less dependent on the whims of the sheiks of Abu Dhabi and the sons of Ibn Saud, and reduces the flow of money they can use to get up to mischeif. And doing it ourselves means that we are less subject to the (perfectly true) accusation that we don’t give a damn about the environment as long as it’s somebody else’s that gets spoiled.
I’m sorry I didn’t get a picture just now — a windmill-pylon base just went by: a tapering tube of welded steel, a hundred feet long and twelve feet in diameter at the base. It will eventually support a ten-megawatt wind turbine. How many of those will be needed to provide America’s energy resources? How long will it take to put them up? If more oil won’t solve the problem because it’ll be ten years before it’s on-line, how the Hell will you solve the problem with “alternate energy” sources that need twice that for any meaningful output? The oil is here. Drill here. Drill now.
Regards,
Ric
(And build more refineries!)
Arrrgh. Comes of not following my own prescriptions :-( Cranky-d, there ought to be a </a> after “guys”, above. Would you be so kind?
Regards,
Ric
I got a very solid nap out of that. WOO and YAY to BB.
Is O! starting to remind anyone else of Barney Fife?
Yeah, but Michelle is definitely not Thelma Lou!
“Yeah, but Michelle is definitely not Thelma Lou!”
Auunt Esther
I read it even all orangey like that. You forgot the part about the jobs.
“Consider yourself asked.”
I am a libertarian, and have been so since the age of 15. Currently, though, I do prefer to the Democratic Party to the Republican Party for several reasons, and do prefer Obama to McCain, but will be contributing to Bob Barr, whom I respect very much and who has the good sense to share my initials. That I’m a libertarian, I think, is what Sdferr was suspecting when he told some of the commenters here to stop making fools of themsleves by making lots and lots of claims about me that can easily be refuted by the public record, as Sdferr seems to have discovered some of my work. I sincerely doubt that it matters, though; I could be elected president and start nuking China and gutting the entire budget and I would still be denounced here as a Marxist.
“Comment by happyfeet on 8/1 @ 5:37 pm #
I read it even all orangey like that. You forgot the part about the jobs”
Yea happy I always wondered why the Dems weren’t slammed for outsourcing (many of them union) energy jobs?
The orange is the opposite of soporific.
BB, what do you think of Christine Smith?
BB, I never thought you were anything but what you wrote about yourself there. Libertarians have a very distinct way of writing and interacting.
A way about them. Sometimes they grow out of it.
Never heard of her. Is she one of our splinter candidates, like ol’ Eric Dondero? The threads over at Reason were the finest thing on the tubes during the GOP primaries, when Dondero would drop by to talk about what great libertarians Romney and Giuliani are.
– So, lets review:
• Opening up ALL forms of domestic resource would increase the world oil availability something like three-fold the present demand.
• Immediately effecting market prices not ten years like the Dems are parroting for partisan reasons.
• Make America completely independent on foreign oil, AND in a very real way, disengaging us from foreign involvement, which we have heard the Dems yammering about for decades.
• Stop the financial bleeding of American wealth overseas.
• Provide a rough estimate of 750,000 additional jobs.
• Provide the necessary breathing room while we develop alternate energy.
• Improve the control of protection of the environment, instead of getting oil from Africa, or Russia, or other contries that, in fact, could care less about environmental damage.
• Give the electorate, particularly the middle class a damn break on the coost of living for a change.
– Naturally for all these reasons the Left is against it.
– I’ll let Barrett explain why.
Ya know, the last self-proclaimed “libertarian” ’round here who supported Obama was also against due process, in favor of eugenics, and was a rather nasty bigot.
Like I said before, Barrett, your style matches that of one of the biggest pains in the asses around here. Your attitude does, too, with the addition of the “don’t you know who I am” vibe. If you don’t like the response you’ve gotten back, well, perhaps that’s the reason why.
“Libertarians have a very distinct way of writing and interacting.”
This is due to in part to the health problems that arise from living in our super-secret underwater libertarian enclaves and snorting lines of gold dust all night long during our orgies.
Yeah, dre’s right. You wanna build an oil storage tank? Call the Boilermakers International. Want to build a refinery? Same deal and add in the Pipefitters. Nuke Plant? Offshore rig? Same deal. Ironworkers, Electricians, all of the big construction Unions will benefit from a serious effort to build out energy infrastructure. And then remember that these Unions are a small fraction of the entire construction industry in the US.
Christine Smith was the leading Libertarian Party candidate prior to Bob Barr getting the nomination. So I take it that you do not belong to the Libetarian Party.
Which could explain why, while I agree with them on many policy positions, I find them insufferable asses not worth the effort to deal with.
Heh.
“Your attitude does, too, with the addition of the “don’t you know who I am†vibe.”
I never told anyone who I was or let on anything about my life other than that I like to drink lots of coffee and think Piers Anthony is not a particularly good sci-fi writer. The only reason that you know what you know about my career is that people started looking up my name for some reason or another and began posting links to some of my work.
I wish I cared. I really do, but I’m so tired of Politicians and their mouth pieces that they could all sit in a circle, sing Kumbaya and light themselves on fire and all it would get from me is a shrug. This ‘drill oil’ bit is ridiculous. One, it would take 10 years to get the oil to the pump. Two- there are already outstanding leases which have not been explored and drilled by the oil companies, so I don’t see why the coastal shelf is suddenly the ‘hot topic’. Three, pumping all the oil out of the ground will do no good if we don’t have the capacity to actually refine it into gasoline (or home heating oil) and right now we don’t. The oil companies are too busy lining their executive’s pockets to worry about building or expanding production/refining capacity. Finally, the Republicans seem to have forgotten awfully darned fast about their own habit of shutting down debate and votes when they had the clear majority of anything that was inconvenient for their party platform. Both parties are full to the brim with hypocrits who pull the same, childish garbage over and over.
“Christine Smith was the leading Libertarian Party candidate prior to Bob Barr getting the nomination. So I take it that you do not belong to the Libetarian Party.”
I do not follow the nomination process, and neither do many libertarians, because the plank is fairly unchanging and its only a matter of who has the best chance to get whatever votes we can pull from the “real” parties.
I see Barrett as a huge Boston Legal fan.
“- Naturally for all these reasons the Left is against it.
– I’ll let Barrett explain why.”
I’ll pass, thanks.
“…This ‘drill oil’ bit is ridiculous. One, it would take 10 years to get the oil to the pump. …”
More nonsense on stilts promulgated by who knows who. Where did you get this crap for a meme, Robert/Michigan?
“…This ‘drill oil’ bit is ridiculous. One, it would take 10 years to get the oil to the pump.”
– Bullshit talking point #1, since “now” has nothing to do with “futures” pricing. Its about future availability, which the Dems are careful never to talk about.
“…there are already outstanding leases which have not been explored and drilled by the oil companies…
– Bullshit talking point #2. The oil leases HAVE been researched and initially explored. Theres little or no cost effective oil in those locales. A pure strawman on the part of the Dems, and they know it.
– The third point, shutting down debate, is not worth responding too, unless you think the childish argument “they did it too” is somehow a good excuse for screwing the entire country.
Robert/Michigan makes Barrett seem reasonable.
This ‘drill oil’ bit is ridiculous. One, it would take 10 years to get the oil to the pump.
Well Robert I live in East Texas right in the middle of one of the oldest oil fields in the USA. The fact is drilling a well takes weeks not months and accessing large pipelines take months not years. There are several factors which do take long periods of time and many are related to the red tape, and really the things which take the longest have nothing to do with drilling or transporting.
Two- there are already outstanding leases which have not been explored and drilled by the oil companies,
Robert that is just a talking point its just not accurate. You see oil isn’t everywhere and there is no “evil” oil company which would set on a known oil reservior, only a complete fool would believe they would. If you believe that crap get yourself a rig and drill in your back yard, Why aren’t you doing that?
The oil companies are too busy lining their executive’s pockets to worry about building or expanding production/refining capacity.
Right and you know that how? Here in East Texas over 80% of the oil companies and oil field service companies that were here in the 70’s and the 80’s are gone, they simply don’t exist anymore. The big companies shrunk to such small work forces that over the last couple of years hiring and equiping crews has been a huge struggle. Companies have had to bring very old rigs out of scrap yards and put them to work because rig count in the US had dropped to about 1000 rigs. New rigs cost tens of millions of dollars and most take a year or longer to build, of course there is a waiting list for those rigs. That’s not a sign that “evil” oil companies are setting on their profits it because the companies that built rigs have mostly gone out of the business. Sure were in a big hole but it is because most US oil companies have been barely hanging on for more that a decade. You argument is totally inaccurate.
– OT – The scuttlebutt has it that WalMart has been warning its middle level and line managers that if the Dems win a greater majority in Congress, and/or the WH, WalMart will be forced to unionize and it will cost jobs and benefits, and force the company to downsize. Discuss.
royf-
Very good arguments. Did you happen know Hayden Brown? You don’t happen to live in Jacksonville or Tyler, do you? If so, please e-mail me, as I’ve got a couple of questions for you.
Well, so far we agree.
That’s a lie, and you’re repeating lies from liars. The California oil platforms already have the wells drilled — at most they need a “workover”, which is a matter of a few weeks or even days. The eastern Gulf could be on line in two to three years max, because the infrastructure for producing the platforms already exists; ANWR would be about the same. Colorado oil shale is a three to five year proposition. And what’s the alternative? Look up solar cell production. How long to ramp up to produce enough solar cells to be useful? — thirty years at present rates. It’s not just the lie that bothers. It’s that the alternative assumption, that everything else can be done now but oil cannot, that constitutes wilful and blameable misrepresentation.
True but totally irrelevant — those leases have been explored; there’s little or no oil there that can be exploited, so the oil companies paid out the money for the lease and the exploration and got nothing. Like in my back yard.
Because there are several coastal areas — California, the eastern Gulf, and New Jersey/Delaware/Maryland, among others — where there are known substantial deposits that cannot be exploited under current law.
Bullshit. All that’s needed is permission from the NIMBYs and BANANAs — which is to say, the real estate agents who run local Governments and think anything Victoria Regina didn’t have in her front yard “lowers property values” — and more refinery capacity can be on line in a maximum of two to five years, depending on the area. Hell, the East Coast and California sites are still there, waiting for environmental cleanup so they can be gentrified to the profit of the same real estate agents and developers.
Uh hunh. That is, in fact, a significant barrier. Tell me, if you had been the target of a continuous program of vilification for half a century, how anxious would you be to bail your fellow citizens out of a jam? The poster child there is Exxon Valdez, where “fair employment practices” required the oil company to employ a careless drunkard as a ship captain, and when he came the predictable cropper blamed the oil company.
Unh huh.
Got a mirror? Irrelevant in any case to what we do now.
Regards,
Ric
BB: “I agree with you. I don’t understand how my assertion that Bush did not single-handedly cause the recent drop in oil prices contradicts what you are saying.”
Wrong point — I am refuting your errant thesis that oil markets are some grandly mysterious thing that not even you could understand. They respond under the same economic stimuli as any other market.
I would posit, however, that there were three stimuli that led to the reduction in price — first, petroleum and its main downstream product, gasoline (at least during this season) had reached the tipping point — the price at which behaviors change and a surplus of gasoline to build. Second, Bush eliminated one-half of the political “double lock,” creating doubt in the minds of the speculators that the current model — static supply and growing demand — might change. Lastly, the shift in the attitude of the American people’s attitude — the American people are threatening to rise up on their hind legs and tell the Congress what for and smash the other half of the double lock.
I think I’m gonna have to throw Robert from Michigan under the bus.
That is NOT the Robert I knew. And I knew a few Roberts from Michigan.
The oil companies are too busy lining their executive’s pockets to worry about building or expanding production/refining capacity.
The oil companies have been thwarted by the byzantine juggernaut known as Gubmint Red Tape. That “ten-year” figure you parroted from the Dem’s talking points refers to the interminable approval process for drilling or adding on to an existing refinery. Notice that I did not say “building new refineries,” because getting approval for THAT is pretty much impossible because of the Enviros.
Finally, the Republicans seem to have forgotten awfully darned fast about their own habit of … blah, blah, blah… childish garbage over and over.
Robert, you seem like a newcomer here. Tu quoque isn’t an effective argument in these parts, nor is ad hominem, reductio ad absurdum, and just about any of those listed here.
Furthermore, it’s really discouraging to see that your comment drops out of the sky with no reference whatsoever to Ric’s #80, missing </a> notwithstanding.
How could a libertarian prefer Obama to McCain?
Carin: “How could a libertarian prefer Obama to McCain?”
The same way they would prefer burning down a house to setting off a few bug bombs.
“How could a libertarian prefer Obama to McCain?
– Well, all you’d have to do is disavow every single tenant that the Libratarian party platform stands on, and the rest would be a piece of cake.
– Which gives you some idea of how much credence you can put in the things Barrett claims.
Carin: “How could a libertarian prefer Obama to McCain?â€Â
I am guessing fingerprints on the uterus are a key clue to this mystery.
BBH: “Well, all you’d have to do is disavow every single tenant that the Libratarian party platform stands on, and the rest would be a piece of cake.”
Comme ci, comme ca — ask three Libertarians a question, get four opinions. This is why I am a libertarian and NOT and Libertarian. My tolerance for pig-headed stupid has bounds and the poly/druggy/stupid wing of the party just plain annoys me.
Be part of a lefty social circle, and be dependent on the approval of lefties for your bread and butter?
So, if Barrett is a libertarian who like Obama … I’m thinking he’s prolly one of those drawn to the libertarian party due to it’s position on illegal drugs.
Libertarians can’t get anything done. Hey let’s go stand over here with these impotent people. Ok now everybody look serious and thoughtful.
“#
Comment by Carin on 8/1 @ 7:05 pm #
How could a libertarian prefer Obama to McCain?”
Dems Vietnam strag: Destroy the Hillary village to save it.
BB
Thanks I get kind of upset when people talk about how well oil companies are doing since I have seen first hand the closure of many companies. I’m not employed in the oil business myself but everyone in East Texas (as I’m sure applies in every community which rely on the oil business) have seen the lost of good jobs and revenue over the last 20 years.
I don’t know anyone by that name and I live in Longview about 35 miles east of Tyler.
[…] who had the sale on cojoneys, and why didn’t Republicans find ‘em sooner? h/t cranky-d […]
royf-
Thanks for responding, I appreciate it. I’ve been to Longview once, very pretty area. Part of my family went through the very same thing you’ve been talking about, particularly towards the late ’80s, having owned some land that was being leased by an oil company. Thanks again, and good luck to you, sir.
– I have a few Libertarian friends. They’re a bit whacko, but generally good hearts. Like Dread alludes too, if you got 500 Libertarians together, you’d have 500 factions, Its doubtful you could ever get a consensus on any issue. Sort of a living example of the “fierce American independence”. even moreso than the Independents.
“How could a libertarian prefer Obama to McCain?”
Well, the Republican Party has devolved from a party that once stood for both cultural conservatism and fiscal responsibility into a party that has shown its true colors on the matter of fiscal responsibility but which still stands for cultural conservatism for the most part, whereas the Democratic Party is somewhat more in line with my own beliefs about whether or not the state ought to make criminals of a significant number of American citizens who engage in various sorts of consensual behavior, and has managed to become more fiscally responsible than the Republican Party, largely by default. Of course, there are many libertarians who prefer the Republican Party for various reasons, some of which are pretty solid.
I have just the one Libertarian friend. His girlfriend is making him vote for Baracky. They live in Chicago, so it doesn’t really matter.
…the Democratic Party … has managed to become more fiscally responsible than the Republican Party…
Definitely the pro-drug wing of the Libertarian Party.
@ #51: WordPress turned your plain old typed-in quotes into “smart quotes,” which don’t mean the same in HTML as plain old typed-in quotes. So people should replace the quotes and asterisk, all, with the URL surrounded by plain old typed-in quotes.
This really would work better with HTML formatting buttons or even a WYSIWYG comment editor. For those who actually need such things. Lacking that, preview really is indispensable. Even I should use it, when it’s available, even though I nevre do.
“Definitely the pro-drug wing of the Libertarian Party.”
My take on that is exactly the same as the millions of people who have abandoned your party in the last couple of years and who will continue to abandon it until such time as the Republicans manage to demonstrate that they can be trusted to refrain from the absolutely ridiculous level of debt and deficit that has been racked up by a Republican president who didn’t veto a single bill until it came time to appease the Kathryn Jean Lopez crowd with the stem cell funding veto. Do you not acknowledge that many of the people who used to give the GOP the benefit of the doubt believe that?
Oh please. The Democrats said Social Security didn’t need fixing. They don’t have the fiscal policy smarts of your average barista.
I don’t disagree with any of that, and the Republicans ain’t my party. The assertion you made is that the Democrats are “more fiscally responsible”. That is fucking nuts, Obama and the Dems are hellbent on destroying the entire economy if you believe even have the shit they are spewing.
Aw, geez. Not this shit again.
I told you, follow the uterus, it never lies.
I like the Republican Party, it’s just individual Republicans what suck. I’ll not name names just now. But you’re on my list and you know who you are.
And also Ted Stevens is going to jail. Yay! I hope he loses everything and dies face down in a snowbank with reindeer shit on his head.
Face up would work too.
I like the Republican Party, it’s just individual Republicans what suck. I’ll not name names just now. But you’re on my list and you know who you are.
Ok, now I’m paranoid. Who’s Happy talking about?
Happy’s probably referring to me. Ever since I took the last piece of pie, he’s been giving me the evil eye.
Please stick around, Mr. Barrett Brown, because while I disagree with you on the on-balance attractiveness of the Democrat Party (they seeming liars to a man/women, and they having no defensible platform under them that any can see) I like your views on the Republicans.
And you’re amusing, which brings out more funny from ‘feets, both of which we could use around here these days.
PS: To all: When does a dramatically weakened (and weakening) dollar factor into the price of oil? A quart of oil does indeed cost just what it did many years and decades ago…in at least one fellow commodity, say, a precious metal, more or less. It would appear green paper has a tendency to shift value at a touch higher rate than stuff you can do interesting and valuable things with. Yeah, that’s decidedly un-Republican too, but y’all have come to at least tolerate me lately, so I’ll risk it.
Carry on.
Oh. You already know the worstest ones. Hagel and Grassley and Specter and that woman who talks funny and Grampa Munster Warner. And Lindsay. Sad little pansy. The list goes on, but you get the idea.
Barrett is definitely growing on me I think. He has promise, that one.
The more I think about it, the more I like Ric Locke’s suggestion to increase the size of congress and draft the members at random.
If he stayed there for a really long time so he got good and stuck to the ground and then when they finally started digging him up they struck some bubbling crude, that would be really cool too. Somebody could get a sitcom outta that.
Urm, me too.
Lets add in Lugar, the two Maine ladies (is one of them the funny talker?), Larry Craig, and George Voinovich too.
Yes. The one from Maine is the funny talker. I used to think she had had a stroke or something, and I almost felt bad for laughing at her. But nope. No stroke. She’s just every bit as feckless as she sounds.
Susan Collins with the quaver. If not a stroke though, could be a sign of something else.
Voinovich. He and Lindsay play dress-up together is what I heard. Does this petticoat match my assless chaps, that sort of thing.
could be a sign of something else
she’s deranged and sanctimonious?
whaa? bilious, I am.
Well, besides her higher cognitive function being impaired by who knows what, education, social circles, the speech thing could be some other sort of brain problem. Or nervous system thing. Like mild MS or something.
– Feets, they absolutely adore him in Alaska, hes the one that snagged the oil rebate for every resident. For the low end of the tax scale its almost like no income tax when you balance the two out.
– I think they will try to elect him and let him serve even if hes in the slammer.
“As with most neurological disorders, the cause is not fully understood. Benign Essential Tremor(BET) is more common in females and often does not present until age 40 to 50. …”
or
“…adductor spasmodic dysphonia with tremor. …” (that’s the one creepy Diane Rehm has I think.
or
“…Other disorders such as Parkinson’s disease, ALS, and cerebellar ataxia may have vocal tremor as a component of the voice disorder but are rarely mistaken for BET. …”
She’s from Maine.
Ok, ok. Jeez. You can be nice to the retarded lady. I have lots of niceness credits from all the things I haven’t said about Cindy McCain.
She’s on the list at the bottom of this page, hf:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spasmodic_dysphonia
crap. ok now I feel awful.
PS: To all: When does a dramatically weakened (and weakening) dollar factor into the price of oil? A quart of oil does indeed cost just what it did many years and decades ago…in at least one fellow commodity, say, a precious metal, more or less. It would appear green paper has a tendency to shift value at a touch higher rate than stuff you can do interesting and valuable things with. Yeah, that’s decidedly un-Republican too, but y’all have come to at least tolerate me lately, so I’ll risk it.
A decidedly valid point about the price of oil relative to other commodities.
Also precisely why we need to begin expanding our own production. Inflation is not ‘just’ the government printing more money, it is government printing money in excess of production. Two ways to limit inflation are to print less money, or produce more goods and services. Oil is a valuable good and increased production would help ease inflationary pressure.
That guy Scott Adams of Dilbert fame is on there too.
thank you, actually. That could have been worse I guess.
I knew about Stevens and oil. But that was his job.
Every time I hear her speak I wish someone would stuff a sock in her mouth. Sorry, I just don’t like what she has to say.
Yes. But if I remember right she has really godawful hair and she looks like the commander of the Galactica. Maybe I can work with that.
He’s currently trailing the Democrat challenger by 13 points. They haven’t had their primary yet (Does Hillary know this?) so here’s hoping they can get someone slse in there who can win the seat.
No, wait. That’s the other one.
this one. Ack. Susan Collins, she actually has a nice sort of down-to-earth look to her. Crap.
Stevens needs to resign. He’s done. An embarrassment to the party. His family should sit him down for a little chat I think.
We need to work on bringing back at least a little of the shame culture, though I haven’t got any good ideas as to how. I’m always ashamed but I think it could be genetic with me.
Well, I’m feeling a bit ashamed, really. I think maybe I’ve contributed more than my share to this little thread. I would take it as a kindness if we didn’t really refer back to this one. Ever.
You’re supposed to not understand Mainers, ‘feets. It’s part of their charm.
“The new material is called thallium-doped lead telluride.
The development could have a direct application for converting car engine exhaust heat into electricity, according to a statement from the university.
Using thermoelectric materials for generating power is not new. It is the group’s improvements on this type of alloy that are newsworthy.”
From Lynne Kiesling’s Blog, Knowledge Problem
Telluride? Dude! Let’s shred!
Ric, sorry I couldn’t fix the tags sooner, I was out with my father consuming large quantities of Guiness.
Aw, don’t.
Unless you gave it to her.
Thanks, McGehee. I’ll take that as absolution.
Thanks for fixing the tag at all, cranky-d. I’m just sorry I mucked it up.
A last thought before I turn in: Why is it always ten years? I mean, what’s magic about that number? “Oh, it’ll take ten years, so it isn’t worth starting.” Didn’t anybody ever plant a tree?
Regards,
Ric
#
Comment by Sdferr on 8/1 @ 5:52 pm #
Yeah, dre’s right. You wanna build an oil storage tank? Call the Boilermakers International. Want to build a refinery? Same deal and add in the Pipefitters. Nuke Plant? Offshore rig? Same deal. Ironworkers, Electricians, all of the big construction Unions will benefit from a serious effort to build out energy infrastructure. And then remember that these Unions are a small fraction of the entire construction industry in the US.
Excellent point. More shifts at the scrapyard/ iron mines. More work at the steel mill, same with the tube mill. More trucks and trains moving around. Carpenters, electricians, technical teachers,caterers, more of everything needed. And then once it’s built there’s the running and maintenance of the thing.
#178
Ric. It’s a nice round number to scare the constituents. It don’t mean shit. Money makes the monkey dance. Twice the money? he’ll dance twice as fast.
A last thought before I turn in: Why is it always ten years? I mean, what’s magic about that number?
I can give you the answer for three easy payments of just $19.95.
#179: Not to mention the fact that the large measure of financing for all of this economic stimulus infrastructure would come from those evil windfall profits of oil and gas companies. Might be just a bit more workable than extracting a portion of said profits and sending $1000 checks to teh working families.
Again I have to reference Krautmammer’s article at NRO and the hidden environmental causes of out dopey “save the planet” energy policy. By not exploiting our own resources we force ourselves to buy energy from countries that have neither the expertise nor the inclination to protect the environment that exist here in the US.
Thus we are willing enablers of counties like Nigeria and the like who spill oil at a prodigious rate to satisfy our own energy needs.
The whole “saving the planet by not drilling” is a demonstrable lie as exactly the opposite occurs. Real energy policy is a balance between conservation, efficiency, technological innovation and securing supply. Pelosi and Reid would rather stroke the radical environmentalists vision of massive economic suffering to force American citizens to give up their bloated, out of proportion energy ways to accomplish a shining light example that will cause the likes of China and India to hang their heads in shame and stop raping teh Gaia.
So all of you low to middle income families out there: Take your $1000 redistribution checks extracted from funds that could be spent on domestic energy infrastructure, chew on the prices and STFU, we’re trying to save the planet!
Catching up on this interesting thread. A couple of thoughts (for what they’re worth)
– really excellent summary about the drilling situation Ric- there was alot in there I didn’t know. Thanks for taking the time to put it together.
– Our culture is too instant gratification and too much about finding an immediate solution. 10 years ? So what? However, if you can somehow explain the process to the American people (the ones who will listen) like Ric did above, it basically debunks the democrats entire argument- ie it takes too long. McCain can win on that issue if he can get up to speed on it and be able to articulate it in a debate (assuming the One who Walks on Water agrees to one).
– the 10 year thing is nebulous anyway – honestly, this is America and if there’s money to be made, Americans will figure out a way to do it better and fast and probably even safer and cleaner then any other country in the world is doing it. Its the environmental regulation that slows down the process. I’ve done environmental work and the paperwork appears to either be pointlessly voluminous or written by retarded monkeys.
– the wheels have to start turning and we have to start somewhere. Its pretty scary to what extent the environmental lobby has a stanglehold on the democratic party. I think it really will hurt them in the November, especially if oil prices don’t drop much between that time and now.
But BJ, for single people Baracky is offering even less than a decent pair of earrings. He makes me feel so cheap.
Obama appears to be suggesting he will steal money from large American Oil companies (and thus from their shareholders) to fund his generous $1000.00 giveaway to some voters. I’m still learning about this proposal so please forgive the lack of detail. Why will anyone sit still and watch or worse, applaud this sort of wrongdoing? I get upset when passersby walk into my yard to take oranges and grapefruit from my trees without my permission. Why would owners stand by when this feckless putz offers to take away their dividends?
[…] stunt? Maybe. Certainly, a little theatre. But sometimes opportunity presents itself, and if you’re a frustrated Republican (or Blue […]
An interesting article in our local paper today, The Daily Herald, Fox Valley edition.
Seems the EPA has approved the building of a coal fired electric plant on Navaho land. The Navahos really want this projet in order to provide jobs and a steady income to their nation.The usual suspects, not so much. Even the governor Bill Richardson is trying to get the courts to stop it.
I’m all for it simply because it isn’t another freakin casino and we could use, you know , the energy. They got a shitload of coal in Navaholand. So it works out. How many kilowatt thingys does the Sierra Club generate?
Isn’t that sort of like Stalin asking how many divisions the pope has? Heh.
unless it’s to save the planet! you better cut your carbon use right now, because in ten years we’ll all be frying. (Nevermind Al Gore’s been saying this kind of thing for, what? close to twenty years?)
@ #177: There’s no sense crying, as they say, over spilt milk. Best to just grab a paper towel, wipe it up, and resolve to be more careful.
Or just get a cat.
Deep punditry, dude. Oranges in your backyard, God-fearing shareholders and the Baracky-is-bad meme all in one post.
Duuuude, I just thought of something. The fish need their dividends. The awesome American oil companies are stealing oranges from the fish’s backyard but the fish aren’t getting any dividend checks.
Theft is ok.
BECAUSE THE FISHES!
Well, theft is o.k. if it’s aimed at the right people.
Like rich folks. Or corporations. Every body knows that those fuckers need a little talking to. And O!… is the man to do it.
Wha… where did that organ fanfare come from?
Why a thousand bucks, you ask? Because the Bush stimulus was six hundred.
Why take if from the oil companies? Because they have all those billions in hand right now, and if they aren’t shoved up against the alley wall they just might pay dividends on their stock.
Sonsobitches.
Anybody notice that the energy industry is about the last sector of the U.S. economy making a profit?
And here come the Democrats. They are here to… help.
solar cells are very good but they are not very efficient and they are costly~~;
solar cells these days are not yet very efficient in generating electricity*.,