For general discussion and debate. Possible talking point: oil and gas prices.
$139 last Friday. Can you imagine? Over $4 a gallon now nationally, approaching $5 in California. Are we now at the point where this is hyper-inflationary and economically harmful?
Maybe more important, in an environment where Democrats control Congress, and might next year also hold the White House, what are the not only possible but politically viable short and long-term solutions?
Amongst such supply options as ANWR, shale, off-shore, etc., should we also be considering commodities trading regulations in order to reduce the speculative element?



















Editor at Large
Comments Policy
And now, today's
June 11, 2008 - 09:00 ET by Roger the ShrubberAnd now, today's salmonella-free Shrub Report®:
Troy was sacked on this day 3192 years ago (supposedly). No word on Brad Pitt's ankle injury, though. Died on this day: Robert E. "Conan" Howard (suicide in 1936), John Wayne (stomach cancer in 1979), Billy Bats (the guy twitching in the trunk from Goodfellas, in 1970), Deforest "Bones" Kelley (of stomach cancer in 1999) and, on a lighter note, Timothy McVeigh entered Hell on this date in 2001.
Democrats lied, people died. Here is a good take on it.
Here is the latest example of the Left standing on its collective heads and telling the world it is upside-down.
Speaking of the Worst Congress Ever. As usual, they are tackling the important, tough issues.
Huh?
Pennsylvania state employees will be furloughed on July 1st unless the budget is worked out. The state House and Senate respond by passing a smoking ban. Casinos are exempt, of course. Others, however, are not.
The United States are to blame for all the homosexuals in Islam. Of course, who WOULDN'T want to kick these asses?
Oh, the humanity!
She is 63 today, but, boy-oh-boy, she was hot way back when…
Heard at DNC HQ: dammit!
The Not Ready For Prime-Time Player bumbles his way to lose more Jewish support. This loser make Bush seem suave and debonair!
The Picture of the Day.
Today's shocker: the UN partners with terrorists.
Cue Nelson Muntz…
And, finally, the Clint Eastwood-Spike Lee War heats up…
Don't forget
June 11, 2008 - 09:27 ET by Uphillabout Ron Paul and his convention.
I only include pertinent,
June 11, 2008 - 10:42 ET by Roger the ShrubberI only include pertinent, important news on the Shrub Report....
Of course.
June 11, 2008 - 11:14 ET by UphillMy apologies. We know you would never put anything in the Shrub Report® that might bait you-know-who.
No worries...
June 12, 2008 - 04:01 ET by sarcasmoDoug Wead, as usual, covered the story honestly -- ignored media bias and all. Doug's "Soviet" analogy is telling, considering the rules made up on the fly this time.
JMR
The tax & spend drug war looks racist in the real world.
Not Ready for Prime Time
June 11, 2008 - 09:46 ET by Hero Squad"The Not Ready For Prime-Time Player..."
I thought this was going to be an Al Franken update. I think you tapped on something Minn. Republicans should be using from now until the election, if they haven't already. "Al Franken, still a Not Ready for Prime-Time Player."
*****
"People only insist that a debate stop when they are afraid of what might be learned if it continues." - George Will
RtS
June 11, 2008 - 11:28 ET by RESTLESS 1Here is another candidate for "mother of the year" for your consideration.
"This liberal would be all about socialize -- uh, uh, would be about basically taking over and the government running all of your companies."-Maxine Waters 2008
Holy crap, great story!
June 11, 2008 - 11:38 ET by Roger the ShrubberHoly crap, great story!
Hey,
June 11, 2008 - 11:39 ET by RESTLESS 1Have you seen this story about those hateful "lesbians"?
"This liberal would be all about socialize -- uh, uh, would be about basically taking over and the government running all of your companies."-Maxine Waters 2008
damn "straight:)" what
June 11, 2008 - 11:55 ET by TruthMongerdamn "straight:)"
what are these natives of Lesbos thinking?!?!?!
Let's get back to banning Native-American sports team names...
McCain not ruling out Bloomberg for VP?
June 11, 2008 - 09:05 ET by Prester JohnSen. John McCain praised Mayor Bloomberg yesterday - talking up Hizzoner as a strong candidate for governor and refusing to rule him out as a vice presidential candidate.
http://www.nypost.com/seven/06112008/news/nationalnews/mac__mike_still_in_veepstakes_114982.htm
Sigh.
Bloomberg?
June 11, 2008 - 09:30 ET by pbthinkerMcCain keeps trying to give me a reason to not vote for him. As it is, I have to hold my nose just to enter the polling booth, if Bloomberg is on the ticket even that will be tough. The things McCain is saying about oil, etc. and the way he votes on these issues, makes me question if he's really capable of doing what the country needs right now. He'd better hope that it doesn't just come down to judges, since I'm not sure he can be trusted to do the right thing there either.
Democrats: Stuck on Stupid since 2000.
Why would he favor
June 11, 2008 - 09:47 ET by Hero SquadWhy would he favor Bloomburg over his predecessor? Giuliani would make more sense (though not my first choice, either.)
*****
"People only insist that a debate stop when they are afraid of what might be learned if it continues." - George Will
Where the H is my duct tape!!!!!
June 11, 2008 - 14:41 ET by motherbeltMcCain keeps trying to give me a reason to not vote for him.
You and me both, PB....
I saw that earlier this AM...
Not surprising though. What could be more appropriate than a pseudo-Republican choosing a Democrat who decided to call himself a Republican just to get on the NYC ballot!
A matched set.
mb... I heard this too
June 11, 2008 - 17:02 ET by bigtimermb...
I heard this too this morning..along with all the other usual stick the conservatives in the eye for a day BS for McCain.
Guess it will become unusual now to not hear another soundbite from McCain telling us to just go away...daily.
Bloomie...yeah right...and it would not surprise me one bit.
"Never murder your opponent when he is committing suicide." ~ W. Wilson
bt....if he takes Bloomberg as his
June 12, 2008 - 11:45 ET by BEGRUNTVP choice, then I'm with you, I WILL NOT VOTE FOR HIM. No ammount of nose holding on my part could allow me to vote for that ticket.
"If a man does his best, what else is there"?
General George S. Patton Jr.
Beginning of the Rezko Fallout Here in Illinois
June 11, 2008 - 09:08 ET by arbin82From the Land of Lincoln.
Thought everyone would be interested in this memo from the Illinois State Democratic Party regarding the Illinois Governor who is a Democrat and his involvement in the Rezko situation.
My favorite quote (emphasis mine):
"One thing we earned from the George Ryan case is that we should excise a tumor when it is first discovered; not leave it in the body to continue to spread and do further harm"
The Democrats are calling their Governor a cancer!
Brilliant!
It's appropriate to quote Ted Butler (again)
June 11, 2008 - 09:14 ET by sarcasmoSo I will:
Combined with yesterday's fully cloaked open letter suggesting the CFTC might want to look into dealers who literally claim to be selling more silver than exists on this planet above ground, things look pretty manipulated beyond just oil, to me...If the CFTC is going to regulate, they should finally, um, get busy actually-regulating. Some of us are getting out of breath from blowing this whistle at them over the years. And I stand by my prediction: When the metals manipulation manure hits the fan and it's clear the CFTC has totally failed, they'll cry for more tax money just as surely as I'll say "I told you so." They'll probably get it, if history's any judge...
JMR
The tax & spend drug war looks racist in the real world.
Twilight Zone Alert
June 11, 2008 - 09:19 ET by taterCan't believe this came from a San Fransciso newspaper.
Islam in America's Public Schools: Education or indoctrination.
www.sfgate.com/cgi-b...
www.theholyrosary.org
"There is no problem, I tell you, no matter how difficult it is, that we can not resolve by the prayer of the Holy Rosary." -Sister Lucia
Great article...
June 11, 2008 - 12:15 ET by TruthMonger"While groups such as People for the American Way, Americans United for Separation of Church and State, and the ACLU express outrage at any semblance of Christianity in America's public schools, very little clamor has met the emergence of Islam in the same arena. An occasional press release, such as the one put out by the Minnesota chapter of the ACLU regarding TIZA, will surface, but by and large, the arbiters of separation of church and state or in this case, mosque and state, have gone silent. The same can largely be said for the federal government and, in particular, the State Department. No doubt, Saudi dollars and influence are part of the problem."
Islam in America is nicely exposing Islam - and all kinds of leftard crap as well - to way-long-overdue scrutiny:)
Islam has put the left in a very, very awkward position
This will also bring besieged Isreal's plight much more sympathy - and rightly so...
Can't believe this came
June 11, 2008 - 14:45 ET by motherbeltCan't believe this came from a San Fransciso newspaper.
You're right, it's like Pod People took over the paper!
If San Francisco is complaining about it, you know it has to be bad!
CAIR is being allowed to dictate how Islam is portrayed in textbooks. They get away with it by disguising this religious teaching as exploring another "culture."
Islam is a gathering storm
June 11, 2008 - 15:05 ET by TruthMongerIslam is a gathering storm for libs...
Muslims are staunch moral conservatives...
But they have legions of traditional right wingers here terrified...
Libs can't figure out what to do about it at present...
There is only one quick
June 11, 2008 - 09:29 ET by NL207There is only one quick "fix" to the oil supply problem: Kiss the dictator's arse. Thank you Democrats + RINOs.
Through diplomacy, cajole OPEC into increasing production 2 million bbls per day. That may be difficult, but it is the only way to eas the problem until new supplies can be brought on line.
In the background we should prepare for all out war and bring offshore, ANWR and oil shale all on line. We as a nation could boost our production from 5 --> 8 million bbls per day from those sources given 2 or 3 years of effort.
What's keeping Exxon from bailing out of the USA?
June 11, 2008 - 09:32 ET by upcountrywaterand selling it's remaining USA holdings to Citgo?
All bureaucrats need their projects, plans COMPLETED before they leave office..SO THAT THEY CAN TAKE CREDIT FOR IT!
. Drilling somewhere will take longer than their stay in office... Taxing takes just a moment to impose.
Liberals62%
IranianUranium
Ocean's Boiling
June 11, 2008 - 09:42 ET by Hero SquadAnyone catch the Ocean City, MD. Tourism ad on Drudge and Fox?
Great fun, and a subtle jab at the Global Warming Alarmists.
So glad I'll be spending my vacations on its shores this year. You know, before the oceans boil up.
*****
"People only insist that a debate stop when they are afraid of what might be learned if it continues." - George Will
Let's Do IT!!!
June 11, 2008 - 09:45 ET by pbthinkerI would love to see the Republicans put out their proposals and get them voted on. If the Democrats are willing to put their no votes, on these bills, let them do it and then hold them accountable for the price of gasoline.
If you're a speculator, why wouldn't you bet against the U.S. doing anything to solve it's energy problems, with the Democrats in charge? I just hope that, somehow, we can get this into the voters minds as they head for the polling booths. Democrats equal high gas prices and Republicans equal lower gas prices.
The days of 19.00 per barrel are over, but there's not need for us to be fighting the affects of $134.00 oil, just because the Democrats won't deal with it.
Democrats: Stuck on Stupid since 2000.
absolutely, let the Demmies
June 11, 2008 - 12:23 ET by TruthMongerabsolutely, let the Demmies squirm in the $5 gal gas world they've created for us
they certainly can't fix it anytime soon - if ever - because the solution probably involves alot of domestic drilling and nuke plants...
and they can't bitch about the crimp on driving and flying - it's great for the environment, and hurts the eeeeeevil oil companies
hey democrats - be careful what you wish for next time:)! enjoy...
Higher gas price = good for everybody
June 11, 2008 - 09:50 ET by blogonatorSuburban sprawl, obesity, war in Iraq... they're all tied to cheap gas. Once we can wean ourselves off this commodity, we'll all be much better off. I welcome more expensive gas as the market force that will compel us to innovate our way to a better place. America has always been good at that.
You know what I'm not seeing so much of from the MSM? Someone saying the obvious that Congress is at the intersection of clueless and powerless with regard to "fixing" the price of gas. More government intervention is maybe not the best idea here.
Nut. Save a SeAL, club
June 11, 2008 - 09:54 ET by bassndudeNut.
Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!
blogonator
June 11, 2008 - 10:17 ET by DaieBlogonator-Do What??? Maybe I missed the sarcasm.
I would really like to have a discussion with my liberal CT neighbors about why our state is so bad. All I here is complaints about how high electricity is, gas, taxes you name it. My neighbors won't even fathom that maybe things are so bad because we have a Democratic controlled house and senate. Yes, our Governor is a Republican but she couldn't do anything if she wanted to. CT is paying the second highest gas prices in the US. Why is that because we have some of the highest state taxes in the US. Now we are getting another 5 cent state gas tax increase come July. The price we pay for gas is just one example of how bad things are in CT. There are tons of houses for sale because people can't afford to live here. Of course no one would want to buy these houses because people want $250,000 for one bedroom houses on minimal land. Our electric rates are sky high and Cl&P keeps getting approved for more rate hikes. Of course it doesn't matter if we cut down on how much energy we use. CL&P has gotten smart and now our delivery service rates go up...not our supply rates. My electric bill is double what my parents pay per month in VA. Even with them running central air all summer. I don't have any A/C. I can't afford the $500 to $600 a month electric bill that my friends pay to run A/C. It's cost $180 to get a driver license in this state. You buy a car they don't tax you for what you pay for the car but for the blue book value. I could be here all day. My point is that I get so tired of hearing people complain in CT that things are so bad when they continue to elect the same people responsible for all this JUST because they are Democrats.
Sorry for the rant! It's very frustrating listening to people complain and then they do nothing about it.
Tighten your belt, ride it out
June 11, 2008 - 10:42 ET by blogonatorWhy are we turning to the federal government to fix the "problem" of higher gas prices?
We've had cheap gas for decades, artificially cheap. Now that ride is over. The government can't fix this problem. Drill in ANWR? That will bring online comparitively a few drops in the bucket 10 years from now. What to do now? Sell your SUV for scrap. Move closer to your place of employment. Get over your love of cheap plastic imports.
This problem will resolve itself if the market is left alone. Really expensive oil makes other sources of energy much more attractive. T. Boone Pickens is putting up windmills for goodness sake.
http://blogs.wsj.com...
In the short term people might just have to sacrifice and modify their behavior a little. We've done this sort of thing before, back in WWII. If someone with a bit of respectability asked us to do it again, I bet we would. Instead we get the Repubs yelling at the Dems and vice versa about how they're the ones at fault. Government isn't the answer here.
Great ideas blogonator
June 11, 2008 - 10:55 ET by DaieThose are great ideas but not realistic for some of us. My husband and I don't choose to live in Ct but that's where he is stationed. We can't afford a house closer to the Sub Base. I can't afford a $300,000 house. Any house in the area of the Sub Base we could afford wouldn't accommodate the 5 of us. Of course even if I wanted to sell my house and move closer to where my husband works NO ONE is buying houses right now...at least not around here...and we can't afford two mortgages. Navy housing is not an option because there is not enough of it. Let me get rid of my SUV...that I am still paying on and get a smaller car that won't hold all of us. Last time I checked it's illegal to tie your children to the roof. I would love to get a different car but I can't afford another car payment on top of the ones I am paying. So, while your solutions sound great it's not practical for all of us. So please get off your high horse before you think you know the answers to everyones problems. I do agree that the government needs to stop fighting and do something about it but things are not always as simple as you want to make them out to be.
I don't presume to know your situation
June 11, 2008 - 11:24 ET by blogonatorSorry if that came off as too pushy. I just want people to get beyond two bits of conventional wisdom:
1. Cheap gas is objectively good.
2. The government owes me cheap gas.
I think we'd all be better off if more of us recognized those two statements as false. Of course coming to that point will, as I said, require some sacrifice. Good luck to you regardless.
1. Cheap gas is good. 2.
June 11, 2008 - 11:50 ET by ckc12271. Cheap gas is good.
2. You're right, the government doesn't owe me cheap gas. They owe it to me to stop making it unnecessarily higher. They owe it to me to get the hell out of the way so those who are willing to sell me cheap gas can do it.
the greatest generation...
June 11, 2008 - 12:29 ET by TruthMongerI don't want to come across un-sympathetic here - but my grandparents raised 5 kids in a pretty tiny house - my grandfather never owned a new car in his entire life, grandma painted the soles of her feet black to hide the holes in some of her shoes...
there are so many economizing things we choose not to do - because we don't want to - not because we can't...
Want to?
June 11, 2008 - 12:41 ET by blogonatorAt some point you no longer have a choice. Oil is a finite resource. Government can't fix that.
it's not finite some
June 11, 2008 - 14:05 ET by TruthMongerit's not finite
some "dried up wells" that have been sealed for a decade or two have recently been re-opened and lo and behold they have oil in there again
truthmonger
June 11, 2008 - 12:53 ET by DaieI am not trying for sympathy. My husband and I have never owned new cars either. Both of ours are used. I guess I should have been more specific when I was talking about houses. We do live a good distance away from where my husband works. We bought our house because of it's size 2400 sq ft and it's price. The houses we looked at that were closer to where my husband works were around 1200 sq ft and the asking price was around $300,000. We got our house for half of that. When we bought our house gas was only around $2.25 so things were a lot different. The point I was trying to make is that things are not always as simple as some people would like to make it...I wasn't trying to get sympathy. Also, this is not your grandparents time either. I just wanted to vent about how bad CT can be and how no one is willing to change it by voting out the Dems who made it this way. I didn't want it to turn into people thinking that I am trying to get sympathy or anything. Just trying to point out how some people can be so loyal to a party that are doing the things those same people complain about.
Daie - Dems never vote their bad apples out of office
June 11, 2008 - 13:19 ET by Dee BunkI'm in your same boat here in IL. The Dems control the City of Chicago, The Governor, the House and Senate and the courts for the most part. Everyone I know (most of whom are Democrats) can't stand our Governor (Blagovich) they all think he's dishonest and yet they will still vote for him over any Republican.
I do agree with TM though that we all have a lot of comforts we can do without and just because we have to struggle some for a while doesn't justify turning things over to social programs.
The economy will always ebb and flow and go through cycles and everytime it goes through a lower one, Dems want to straddle the country with more entitlement programs that we'll be stuck with for ever and will always be a drag on the economy and keep poor people stuck.
No one here is starving like in other countries unless they are drug addicts who sell their food stamps and spend their welfare on Drugs or alcohol. Poor people can still be treated at public Hospitals and get free vaccinations and other treatment from their health department.
If the government keeps people too comfortable then many won't even try to better themselves. They get stuck because when they start out working they are just to maintain what they get in government benefits. It's hard for many people to work hard and try to advance when they know they can sit back and collect a check and maybe do some cash work on the side and be more comfortable.
Only in America do poor people have cars and big screen T.V.'s.
Only in America do poor
June 11, 2008 - 13:34 ET by TruthMongerOnly in America do poor people have cars and big screen T.V.'s.
...and I understand Daie's challenges - these housing prices are completely ridiculous it's true - but my point is Americans have become accustomed to some very nice things - it's become outrageous to think of moving to another part of the world for cheaper living and opportunity - but that's what our ancestors did...
We could move to Northern Canada or South America and set up a colony...
It would be damn hard for me to do actually it to say the least...
I agree TM - and I understand her challenges too
June 11, 2008 - 13:56 ET by Dee BunkIt seems that she is still smart enough to not expect government to solve everything with knee jerk responses like this idiotic energy bill.
Blog, ANWAR could be on line
June 11, 2008 - 10:56 ET by bassndudeBlog, ANWAR could be on line and oil flowing inside of 5 years. 10 billion barrels of oil is not a drop. And that is just what the know is there. They say there may very well be more. As for me, I am in the market for a new truck. Looking at a 3/4 ton Hemi. Just doing my part.
Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!
bass... That argument
June 11, 2008 - 11:18 ET by Clear thinkerbass...
That argument about taking 10 years so it won't make a difference is BULL S**T, and these people know it. It's a lousy straw man type of argument. If Bill Clinton had not signed off on protecting ANWR 10 years ago, we could possibly have it online today!
If the USA was to go an a drilling spree the price of oil would start to come down.
"Abstain from McCain"
CT, exactly. It would take
June 11, 2008 - 11:23 ET by bassndudeCT, exactly. It would take less than 45 days to drill the well, after they had the rig set. The time line of years comes only from the green regs they have to comply with to get in there to start. Stream line the enviro, and you will have oil flowing in a year, start to finish. They can drill, and make a very small footprint and wildlife would florish.
Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!
These people infuriate me
June 11, 2008 - 11:29 ET by Clear thinkerThese people infuriate me with their screwed up logic!
"Abstain from McCain"
Eisenhower
June 11, 2008 - 11:38 ET by Giles Winterbourne"...establishment of the original Arctic National Wildlife Range in 1960."
"In 1960 President Eisenhower established the 8.9 million acre Arctic National
Wildlife Range, in order to protect its "unique wildlife, wilderness, and
recreational values.""
Clinton...
June 11, 2008 - 11:46 ET by Clear thinkerI never said that Clinton established ANWR, and you know it!
"Abstain from McCain"
Clinton bashing
June 11, 2008 - 14:06 ET by Giles WinterbourneHowever, it seems it was easier to do a bit of Clinton bashing rather than note that ANWR has been a protected area since 1960.
And what about 2006 budget?
"...but drilling proponents suddenly found it hard to get the measure
accepted by a majority of the House. That's because Democrats oppose
the overall budget bill, a fact which gave House GOP opponents of
drilling in the Arctic enough leverage to have the matter killed." (CBS)
"But on Dec. 21, 2005, the Senate blocked – for the
time being – drilling in the wildlife refuge when the Republican
majority failed to secure a 60 per cent majority needed to prevent a
procedural move. It effectively killed the attempt to approve drilling
in the region" (CBS)
Too bad for you...
June 11, 2008 - 14:45 ET by UnsaneClinton (et al) had his opportunity and did NOTHING.
But thanks for confirming yet again that you are a guilt-ridden Nanny State Socialist.
Res tantum valet quantum vendi potest.
???
June 11, 2008 - 19:45 ET by Giles Winterbourne???
Clinton bashing Giles...
June 11, 2008 - 19:54 ET by Clear thinkerClinton bashing
Giles... You are very good at 'spin'. You must work for the MSM.
"Abstain from McCain"
Hey Giles
June 11, 2008 - 20:08 ET by Cool ArrowCould you explain what "for the time being" means?
Are you saying "for the time being" is a term which necessarily refers to a period of no less than two years?
When is "for the time being" over?
LYDSEXICS UNTIE
read the article, then
June 11, 2008 - 20:14 ET by Giles Winterbourneread the article,
then apply your knowledge of recent American history, or google it.
Spin and squirming, you
June 11, 2008 - 20:27 ET by Clear thinkerSpin and squirming, you have a future!
In the Dem party.
"Abstain from McCain"
Well, thinking clearly about it
June 11, 2008 - 20:50 ET by Giles WinterbourneWell, thinking clearly about it,
he was asking me to parse another author's words. The meaning is clear enough by reading the article.
And it doesn't take much to read about recent efforts .
Leave the clear thinking to
June 11, 2008 - 20:52 ET by Clear thinkerLeave the clear thinking to me.
"Abstain from McCain"
Thanks Giles
June 11, 2008 - 21:41 ET by Cool ArrowAnother author's words introduced into the thread by you.
"If you don't know, I won't tell you" is a great comeback every time.
Here you are bolstering your argument with another writer's quote, but couldn't defend it if your life depended on it.
Thanks.
LYDSEXICS UNTIE
I agree. Why limit the
June 11, 2008 - 20:45 ET by Roger the ShrubberI agree. Why limit the bashing to the dumbassity of Clinton when then entire Democrat(ic) party is to blame?
You have just laid out two examples of the inept Democrat(ic)-run Congress thwarting any chance of drilling for oil. Congratulations.
Roger... This is one
June 11, 2008 - 20:57 ET by Clear thinkerRoger...
This is one issue I think will backfire on the Dems always siding with the enviros. When people are in the streets screaming for their heads, drilling for our own oil will be a GREAT idea. The Dems will suddenly and magically change their minds. We just need to keep up the pressure just like we did with the Amnesty issue.
"Abstain from McCain"
You can thank
June 12, 2008 - 00:53 ET by SchnikeysYou can thank RINOs.
------------------------------------------------------------
"It could be the answer to our age-old, philosophical question, 'Why are we here?' PLASTIC!"
Schnikeys... Nail on
June 12, 2008 - 01:00 ET by bigtimerSchnikeys...
Nail on head!
With McCain leading the way....he has already stopped years of progress...and he is still proud...think Grand Canyon...
Gawd I am sick of that....
"Never murder your opponent when he is committing suicide." ~ W. Wilson
President Tree Hugger
June 12, 2008 - 01:14 ET by Cool ArrowI dare say there's dern few people who have actually been to ANWR.
Fewer still who can school you on the "delicate ecosystem"
But Juan McNugget wants you to know it's there and he's horrified at the thought of holes being drilled in it.
I know, I know, think of the Supreme Court.
LYDSEXICS UNTIE
Hi bigtimer,
June 12, 2008 - 03:16 ET by SchnikeysHi bigtimer, thanks.
Perhaps it is laziness on part of the GOP and many of its supporters that is causing (or at least greatly helping) the downturn of conservatism.
I think it would behoove Macdaddy a little more on many a level if he stopped by Newsbusters (or at least did an internet search, for crying out loud) to read about some of this.
------------------------------------------------------------
"It could be the answer to our age-old, philosophical question, 'Why are we here?' PLASTIC!"
Let me get this right,
June 12, 2008 - 09:53 ET by NL207Let me get this right, Giles, you are claiming that because a few RINO's who do not represent the mainstream of their party side with the Democrats on a particular issue, namely, oil and gas drilling in ANWR, that this constitutes proof the "Republicans" as a party are blocking drilling in ANWR?
This perhaps explains why you think anthropogenic global warming is a problem. Your interpretation of that data runs parallel to the above reasoning.
Basic reading comprehension.....
June 12, 2008 - 12:33 ET by Giles Winterbourneskewed, at best --
Someone blamed Clinton for lack of drilling in Arctic National Wildlife Refuge - I've pointed out that it was origionally protected by Eisenhower's (R) signing into being the Arctic National Wildlife Range by a Republican, based on scientific data, and since Clinton's veto, voted down with help from Republicans.
As before, actually reading the cite would help if there is a problem with context.
Science Knows Best, So Shut Up And Do What It Says
June 12, 2008 - 15:06 ET by UnsaneSo, you won't be shrieved of your guilt until every single one of us completely surrenders to the idea of being ruled by an oligarchy of scientists (whose views, contrary to science can NEVER EVER be challenged, no doubt) that will have total, micromanaging control of our lives?
After all, they will know best, right?
I wasn't raised to want to be a ward of the State. Apparently you were.
Anyways, Clinton could have permitted drilling in ANWR and did NOTHING. And spare me the whines about how precious that area is for wildlife - I have actually been north of the Brooks Range. Here's betting you haven't.
Res tantum valet quantum vendi potest.
better science out there?
June 12, 2008 - 16:09 ET by Giles WinterbourneSo, where is there better science out there showing a lack of environmental impacts?
Have the most recent reports shown a lessening in environmental / wildlife impacts?
Or should we just take your undefined 'been there' as the defining word and proof it is OK to drill?
Or maybe there are real ecological and environmental reasons why continued efforts to drill have been unsuccessful?
And sweetheart, the rest of your rant, well.......
Sweetie pie
June 13, 2008 - 05:40 ET by UnsaneSo, I am correct then that you wish to cede as much freedom as possible to science...well, that is, the science that fits YOUR world view?
Trust me, sweetie pie, as one that has been well north of the Brooks Range, we can drill up there. It's just a mere matter of logistics and those questions have been answered long ago as Prudhoe Bay/Deadhorse, the Dalton Highway and the oil pipeline can attest. I hardly see the issue with coughing up a mere 2% of ANWR for this project.
Unless, of course, you are a Leftist hell-bent on strangling America's economy because of overwhelming guilt.
Res tantum valet quantum vendi potest.
nice try in avoiding the issue at hand
June 13, 2008 - 11:08 ET by Giles WinterbourneIt is not a matter of 'ceding freedom' (and nice try in avoiding the issue at hand), but rather using carefully gathered knowledge to make informed decisions.
So, choosing between your 'trust me' and the informed, detailed, deliberate observations of people with credibility is a no-brainer.
And the amateur psychology reminds me of a Republican Senator making a video diagnosis (cspan/youtube) ....
Contradictions collapse
June 14, 2008 - 23:37 ET by UnsaneUltimately, "ceding freedom" IS the subject at hand. I like having economic freedom, don't you?
Knowing the state of AK as I do, I say drill ANWR. It couldn't hurt.
So, choosing between your 'trust me' and the informed, detailed, deliberate observations of people with credibility is a no-brainer. In other words, as I have so repeatedly pointed out, the concept of critical thinking, or even thinking for yourself, is lost on you. Sure, I look at the same observations, but I also include what I know of science and nature to come up with different conclusions sometimes. In the case of this thread, I am including what I learned up there by living there.
You choose the "trust me" approach constantly and don't even know it.
Res tantum valet quantum vendi potest.
CV ?
June 15, 2008 - 12:53 ET by Giles WinterbourneSo, when I see a CV that actually indicates some expertise, some credibility in the field, then your opinion could be considered along with those who have established and demonstrated that expertise and credibility.
A 'been there' doesn't indicate either.
You do realize that in
June 12, 2008 - 16:02 ET by NL207You do realize that in Eisenhower's time nobody knew there was any recoverable natural gas or oil in ANWR? The Prudhoe Bay deposit was not discovered until 1967.
"President Dwight D. Eisenhower created the Arctic National Wildlife Range in 1960. Seven years later, the discovery of oil just west at Prudhoe Bay began the conflict between oil and wilderness on the North Slope of Alaska. In 1980, President Jimmy Carter signed legislation that doubled the size of the wildlife range, conferred on it wilderness status, and renamed the area the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR). In doing so, he set aside 1.5 million acres of coastal plain for possible oil exploration pending further study. And in 1987, the Department of the Interior recommended full-scale oil development on this so-called 1002 area of ANWR"
Even Jimmy Carter, the nincompoop President, recognized the need to develop the petroleum reserves in ANWR and provision was made for this back in 1980. Clinton and the current batch of Democrats have essentially renegged on this plan.
Drop the "scientific data" crap. The original decision was made in the absence of any information about the petroleum resources in ANWR. This decision by Clinton and the current crop of Dems has its roots in politics and nothing more. If the MSM were daily trumpeting how the Dems were to blame for high gas prices [which they are] and how pumping one million bbls a day from ANWR could reduce the price of gas by 62 cents a gallon, which no less an authority than Chuck Schumer has admitted, these crooked libs would switch positions faster than a pro at the Chicken Ranch.
make sure you're not wasting
June 12, 2008 - 16:47 ET by Giles WinterbourneOr you could just do a few things to make sure you're not wasting what you've got and save more than the 62 cents.
The reasons the Refuge area was protected were valid and continue to be so. Impacts beyond the coastal plain were, and continue to be, a concern that impacts decision making.
Or consider The End of Cheap Oil as an Opportunity (WC)
-------
"WHAT DID THE DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR CONCLUDE ABOUT THE
MAGNITUDE OF ANWR OIL RESOURCES?
The Department of the Interior's conclusions about the magnitude of oil resources in the ANWR coastal
plain have been the source of confusion since the DOI ANWR Legislative Environmental Impact Statement
was released. The actual conclusion was:
1. There is a 19 percent chance that oil is present in the coastal plain under conditions that would
allow commercial recovery (Le., large quantity in one place, good quality oil, permeable reservoir
rock).
2. If oil is present in commercially recoverable form, its estimated mean volume is 3.23 billion barrels
of recoverable oil.
in terms of the decision to allow or block leasing of the coastal plain, the DOI assessment means that:
1. There is an 81 percent chance that no commercially recoverable oil will be discovered, In that
case, the total impact of leasing will be restricted to the impacts of the exploratory program, No
permanent facilities will be built –no pipelines, no production facilities, and no permanent crew
quarters.
2. There is a 19 percent chance that commercially recoverable oil will be found. In that case, the expected
vaIue of the magnitude of the oil Iikely to be recovered is 3.23 billion barrels. The value of
this oil must be weighed against the effects, negative and positive, of building and operating the
pipelines, production facilities, and other extensive infrastructure involved in producing this
volume of oil in an Arctic environment..
U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, Oil Production in the Arctic
National Wildlife Refuge: The Technology and the Alaskan Oil Context,
OTA-E-394 (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, February 1989).
Whoops. Wrong again. That
June 12, 2008 - 20:20 ET by Roger the ShrubberWhoops. Wrong again. That is twice now that you have tried to pass off outdated, incorrect "information" as facts to back up your rather lame and feeble argument.
I guess if you can't dazzle 'em with brilliance, baffle them with bullsh*t, eh?
The value of this oil must be weighed against the effects
June 13, 2008 - 10:18 ET by Giles WinterbourneThe work you point to says:
"Technically recoverable oil within the ANWR 1002 area (excluding
State and Native areas) is estimated to be between 4.3 and 11.8 billion barrels
(95- and 5-percent probability range), with a mean value of 7.7 billion barrels
(table 1)."
My cite says:
"There is a 19 percent chance that commercially recoverable oil will be found. In that case, the expected
vaIue of the magnitude of the oil Iikely to be recovered is 3.23 billion barrels. The value of
this oil must be weighed against the effects, negative and positive, of building and operating the
pipelines, production facilities, and other extensive infrastructure involved in producing this
volume of oil in an Arctic environment."
So, improved chance to get 1 more billion barrels......
And note that your cite does not cover ecological issues.
Still a no-brainer. There are way too many ways to decrease the consumption of oil through efficiency.
Hey Giles, try to keep up,
June 13, 2008 - 10:22 ET by bassndudeHey Giles, try to keep up, will ya? Your off on your stuff here. Are you getting this information from AlGores "cite"?
Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!
Basic reading comprehension.....pt2 or 3 or 4....
June 13, 2008 - 11:17 ET by Giles WinterbourneNope, previously cited data :
U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, Oil Production in the Arctic
National Wildlife Refuge: The Technology and the Alaskan Oil Context,
OTA-E-394 (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, February 1989).
and
USGS Arctic National Wildlife Refuge,
1002 Area, Petroleum Assessment, 1998, Including Economic Analysis
There are way too many ways
June 13, 2008 - 10:28 ET by Roger the ShrubberThere are way too many ways to decrease the consumption of oil through efficiency.
Come back when you wakey-wakey from dreamland, Get off the junk, Sparky.
DoE
June 13, 2008 - 11:12 ET by Giles WinterbourneActually, info from DoE, as previously cited.
How wasting resources is 'the rightful American way of life' is somewhat puzzling.
That may be because your
June 13, 2008 - 11:23 ET by bassndudeThat may be because your not a "rightful American". Either that, or your very easly puzzled.
Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!
Thanks for the laugh
June 13, 2008 - 12:07 ET by Giles WinterbourneIs it possible that you could make a substantive comment rather than go to a failed insult level ?
FYI: '...your not a "rightful American".'
S.B. YOU ARE or YOU'RE.
Your insuation that we have
June 13, 2008 - 12:25 ET by bassndudeYour insuation that we have the attitude, a la Clinton, "we are entitled" was the insult. I just responded. And you did not include the "It is possible...." It was not an insult, but more speculation on my part.
Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!
Like I said, come back when
June 13, 2008 - 11:23 ET by Roger the ShrubberLike I said, come back when you get off the junk. Your "solutions" are laughable, and rather naive and childish.
Glad it works for you,
June 13, 2008 - 12:14 ET by Giles WinterbourneInsults seem to be your modus operandi. Glad it works for you, though by now you've probably noticed it doesn't do much for intelligent discourse.
And just what are your solutions?
Not that you actually
June 13, 2008 - 12:33 ET by Roger the ShrubberNot that you actually deserve an explanation...
It's pretty simple:
Drill drill drill.
At the same time, build nuclear plants, take advantage of our vast coal resources.
At the same time, research and develop newer, cleaner energy. You do all at once, not "conserve". How stupid is that?
It will take time, but not if tree-hugging douchebags like you can not handcuff this country's ability to sustain itself, with crap lawsuits and delaying tactics.
So spare me your standard Think Progress talking points. Your Jimmy Carter plan has us do minuscule, inconsequential token things while that will hardly effect the cost of fuel, while this country quickly goes down the tubes.
You have earned what disrespect you have received here with your inane ideas, and misdirection (dare I say, lies?). You obviously do not live in the same world as the rest of us.
Interesting equivalency
June 13, 2008 - 13:43 ET by Giles WinterbourneInteresting equivalency of insulting (tree-hugging douchebags) with disrespect.
Says a lot about your ability of hold civilized discourse.
Not to mention the 'Jimmy Carter' plan, if fully implemented and continued would have prevented just about all the problems we're now facing -your world, so to speak.
Funny, you did not deny
June 13, 2008 - 15:18 ET by Roger the ShrubberFunny, you did not deny being a tree-hugging douchebag, so that speaks volumes, about how right I am.
You also had no rebuttal for what I think we should be doing, which is hardly shocking, because you already had shown an inability for understanding logic and reality.
Not much to debate about when you have nothing but 20-30 year old already-debunked statistics to back up your worst-president-ever pathetic energy policy.
This discussion is over. You may go now.
Basic reading comprehension.....pt2 or 3 or 4....
June 13, 2008 - 17:18 ET by Giles WinterbourneBasic reading comprehension.....pt2 or 3 or 4....
or 5
or 6
Good luck with the drilling, and getting nuclear, and coal plants OKed. There are enough reasons why they aren't already in place.
And maybe one reason is reasoning like this:" Recent
evidence that automobile use is declining in America and that some
Americans are making significant -- and in some cases not readily
reversible -- changes in their lives because of escalating gas prices
should be worrisome signs for those who love liberty. (CNS)
No
device is more in keeping with the American spirit than the automobile.
Privately owned cars and trucks allow us to go where we want, when
want. They are freedom machines.
Still, some liberals would like to use government to force Americans out of their cars.
They believe in socialized transportation, not free-market transportation."
Thanks for the discourse.
Yeah, nuclear
June 13, 2008 - 18:58 ET by Giles Winterbourne""Consumers expect reasonably priced energy, and the
company's due diligence process has led to the conclusion that
it does not make economic sense to pursue the project at this
time," Bill Fehrman, President of MidAmerican Nuclear Energy
Co..." (Reuters)
Mental Midget time again
June 13, 2008 - 21:31 ET by Roger the ShrubberFrom the same article:
From 2007-2009, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission has said it expects to receive 21 applications to build 32 new reactors in the United States, including MidAmerican's Idaho reactor. As of Jan. 24, the NRC has already received four applications to build seven reactors.
You might want to read this, too.
Are you being this stupid on purpose? Care to play some more, or have you suffered enough embarrassment for one day, Pumpkin?
Rog... Would that be
June 13, 2008 - 21:40 ET by Clear thinkerRog...
Would that be Pumpkin Head by any chance?
"Abstain from McCain"
Don't forget SCANA
June 13, 2008 - 22:21 ET by Giles WinterbourneOperating term in the first article: "..expects to receive.." from 07-09. So how many so far?
From the second article, apparently a bit of stuffing your foot in your mouth: SCANA is dropping their plans.
Also from your industry mouthpiece source: "We believe that we’ll see 4-8 new plants in the first wave – in
commercial operation by 2015-2016. We also know the rate of
construction depends on a range of factors (most beyond our control),
including electricity market conditions, the capital costs of nuclear
and other baseload technologies, commodity costs, environmental
compliance costs for fossil-fueled generating capacity, natural gas
prices, customer growth, and availability of federal and state support
for financing and investment recovery."
Yup, market may not have a need, subsidies from federal and state may not be available, and they don't bother to mention costs of waste storage. Sounds like a viable industry to invest in.
And "..if..." the first four to eight plants were built on schedule and on-budget then "...confidence gained by completing the first projects on time and within budget estimates will support the decision-making process." Big IF; how is the track record so far?
Sorry, but nuclear has consistently underachieved, suffered from cost overruns, and after 50 years, still needs to be subsidized to be remotely viable.
Nice try at claiming victory and attempts at clever insults, which really strengthen your arguments.
What's the problem?
June 14, 2008 - 23:42 ET by UnsaneFrance gets 78% of their power from nukes. Why not us? Oh, and unlike France, we (as well as Finland) have a place to put nuclear waste. Couple that with reprocessing, and the possibility of selling any excess energy production to our neighbors, and...
...well, what's the problem?
Res tantum valet quantum vendi potest.
The Canadians are drilling just on their side of anwr
June 13, 2008 - 12:06 ET by upcountrywaterIce road truckers, are hauling oil rigs just a few miles to the East of Alaska's ANWR.
Cuba drilling 55 miles from Florida..
See a trend here???
Liberals62% ain't no fixin stupid
IranianUranium
Giles, are you REALLY this
June 13, 2008 - 11:56 ET by NL207Giles, are you REALLY this gullible or do you think we are all this gullible? You are quoting median values, not mean values. Median is not the expectation value of any probability function.
Try this report commisioned by the state of Alaska. Its about the same age [1986] as the report you are citing [1989]. Look at the numbers in it. It says there that mean BOE for ANWR is at least 9.64 Billion
This article, published in 2005, says "ANWR contains a mean expected value of 10.4 billion barrels of technically recoverable oil"
You are not even working from accurate data. How can you possibly arrive at a rational conclusion?
NL207, that would involve
June 13, 2008 - 12:27 ET by bassndudeNL207, that would involve traveling to reality. I dont thing Giles goes that direction.
Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!
Actually, 95%
June 13, 2008 - 13:11 ET by Giles WinterbourneActually, 95% certainty, as stated in your own link.
And 'AWB Disappointed Sen. Cantwell Tried To Kill Oil and Gas Exploration in Alaska's ANWR', your link above from the Assoc. of Wash. Business is hardly the science resource.... Why not cite the actual data
Eisenhower - yet again it's
June 11, 2008 - 14:01 ET by TruthMongerEisenhower - yet again it's Republicans who took the real lead on the environment:)...
incidentally I'm told we can drill sideways off shore without even bothering the wildlife on land - and even if we do set up a huge stinking oil plant and boom town with slums and brothels, etc - it's still an infintessimally small part of 9 million acres isn't it...?
most of the damn caribou will never even see the place
And a few conservationists and scientists
June 11, 2008 - 14:22 ET by Giles WinterbourneNice try,
"National Park Service scientists George Collins and Lowell Sumner
explored the eastern Brooks Range. Inspired by its natural values, they
published an article that launched the campaign to permanently protect
the area: Northeast Arctic: The Last Great Wilderness." (FWS)
"...conservationists Olaus and Mardy Murie. His
"Arctic Valley" report opened with some Service poetry and detailed the
diversity of flora and fauna in this mysterious region. The
comprehensive paper, among other influences, helped convince Congress
and the Eisenhower Administration to protect the region in 1960." (NG)
"In 1980, President
Carter signed the Alaska National Interest Lands
Conservation Act, or ANILCA, which doubled the size of the
Arctic Range and renamed it the Arctic National Wildlife
Refuge." (DW)
clap clap the root word
June 11, 2008 - 14:34 ET by TruthMongerclap clap
the root word of "conservationists" speaks for itself, IMHO:)...
Flora and fauna? Its lichen
June 11, 2008 - 14:40 ET by bassndudeFlora and fauna? Its lichen and weeds! Of which I dare you to find any in January, even a warm one. Place dosnt even thaw till june or july.
Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!
wee bit more than that
June 11, 2008 - 20:34 ET by Giles WinterbourneThe Arctic National Wildlife Refuge is home to some of the most diverse and spectacular
wildlife in the arctic. The Refuge's rich pageant of wildlife includes 36 fish species, 36 land
mammals, nine marine mammals, and more than 160 migratory and resident bird species.
alaska.fws.gov/nwr/arctic/wildlife.htm
Entertainment value
June 11, 2008 - 14:49 ET by UnsaneYou know what's funny?
I'll bet you have never been to that part of the world.
I say we drill there - besides, even National Geographic admits that the amount of territory needed in ANWR for drilling purposes only makes up 2% of its total acreage.
But no, Giles is full of rage and overwhelming guilt that the United States is the world's most powerful and advanced economy in the world, so if he can do anything to make it a sixth-world nation, in the name of absolving HIS guilt, so be it.
Res tantum valet quantum vendi potest.
republican manipulation of the legislative process
June 11, 2008 - 13:37 ET by Giles WinterbourneNot to mention, the only way it got voted on in 2005 was the republican manipulation of the legislative process by including ".... the drilling in a Pentagon measure".
Awwww, did those evil nasty
June 11, 2008 - 13:48 ET by Roger the ShrubberAwwww, did those evil nasty neo-cons take advantage of those poor, innocent sleepy-eyed Democrat(ic)s? They are such a devious, evil bunch, aren't they?
no one knows how many road
June 11, 2008 - 13:57 ET by TruthMongerno one knows how many road projects the Dems have put in "education" bills over the years...
"Drill in ANWR? That will
June 11, 2008 - 11:46 ET by ckc1227"Drill in ANWR? That will bring online comparitively a few drops in the bucket 10 years from now."
Which is 10 years sooner than those mythical, alternative energy sources that don't even exist. Maybe had they not put it off limits 10 years ago, we'd be tapping it now, 10 years later.
Help me out here...
June 11, 2008 - 12:07 ET by blogonatorIs your point that we should stop innovating because oil is great and it will never run out? If so I disagree.
Innovation is fine and
June 11, 2008 - 12:11 ET by Clear thinkerInnovation is fine and dandy, but until anything works as economical as oil and Nuke power we need to drill like crazy and build Nuke plants. There is no logical reason to destroy our economy until all this innovation can be put into place.
"Abstain from McCain"
Now we get to the heart of it
June 11, 2008 - 12:33 ET by blogonatorOil was economical. Now it isn't so much. Increasing supply could perhaps lower the cost of a gallon of gas, but with all the speculators out there, we may even be beyond that having an effect. W. can hang out with the Saudi princes and kiss backsides all day long, but at some point they are going to say we can't pump it any faster.
Oil is a resource in limited supply.
Given that, given that the vast majority of this limited resource is far outside of American control, why should we continue to cling to oil and piss on alternative technologies? The longer we tie our economy to oil, the more hamstrung we are by the sheiks, by Hugo Chavez, by Putin. The painful adjustment happening now will only be more painful if we focus on prolonging it (drill more!) rather than moving beyond it (invest in alternatives!).
"vast majority"....is that you JoZeF?
June 11, 2008 - 14:06 ET by BlondeYou are incorrect on several points.
The ABILITY of the US to pump oil and refine it is in limited supply...not the supply of oil located in areas in which we are allowed to drill. Fact. ANWR. Gulf of Mexico off of Florida (gee...the Chinese are drilling of Cuba).
Sounds like you'd rather ruin the economy and wring our hands while waiting for "alternative technologies". Why don't you go see exactly how much oil we actually import from the ME? Whine on, though. It's so much easier than coming up with a solution.
David Gregory, do you know which damn network you lie for? ~ Uncle Jimbo, @Blackfive
Vast majority, yep
June 11, 2008 - 15:23 ET by blogonatorhttps://www.cia.gov/...
We have oil in America, some of it probably still undiscovered. It's not enough for our needs. We will not achieve energy independence without leaving the petrol economy behind.
You just can't see beyond an oil powered US economy. Why? What is stopping you? Are you on Exxon's board? Where is it in the bible that cars have to run on gasoline?
Sounds like you're pefectly content to rely on other countries, some friendly and stable, most not so much, to keep the lights on in your house. I'd rather not.
Hatred/fear/envy gets you nowhere
June 11, 2008 - 17:43 ET by UnsaneYour intense hatred/envy of ExxonMobil is showing again. Hate to break it to you, but petroleum is used for a lot more that providing the fuel and lubircation of cars and trucks.
We have oil in America, some of it probably still undiscovered. It's not enough for our needs. Which is why I would like to see greater reliance on our uranium and coal, and yes, oil supplies.
Sounds like you're pefectly content to rely on other countries, some friendly and stable, most not so much, to keep the lights on in your house. I'd rather not. I'd rather do EVERYTHING. Import when needed but if not, why should we? I am all for energy independence, but nor do I live in complete, total fear of the outside world, either. Without the Alberta oil sands, Canada's economy would have actually contracted over the past five years, according to some reports I saw while visiting there some weeks back.
Res tantum valet quantum vendi potest.
Your inflated self image is showing again
June 12, 2008 - 07:48 ET by blogonatorDon't presume to read my mind. I don't hate Exxon. I don't invest in them because I don't think oil is the way of the future. I don't think they or any corporation should be looking for free money from the government. It's called free market economics. Look it up. I also think they would do well to diversify their core business given the state of the world's oil reserves. BP used to stand for British Petroleum. Now they're marketing themselves as Beyond Petroleum.
More blather
June 12, 2008 - 15:13 ET by UnsaneFor someone who doesn't hate Exxon, you seem to be doing a lot of Exxon bashing here. So don't whine when I draw inferences based on the best available information I have.
You cry that no corporation should be looking for free money from the government. Yet, you are okay - you LOVE - the idea of the government stealing from ExxonMobil. Sounds like ExxonMobil hatred to me...
I also think they would do well to diversify their core business given the state of the world's oil reserves. The state of the world's oil reserves? Considering the high price of oil is making more of it than ever within economical reach, I see the state of the world's oil reserves as fine - unless you want to once again fall back on 1970s rhetoric.
BP used to stand for British Petroleum. Now they're marketing themselves as Beyond Petroleum. That is mostly due to the vast army of ingrates (like yourself) running around the world, hating Hyper-Evil Big Oil, while the whole time they suck their collective tits dry.
Res tantum valet quantum vendi potest.
Bubbles
June 11, 2008 - 14:59 ET by UnsaneUm, I think you mean kissing PM Harper's backside, and Premier Stelmach's backside.
You have an infinitely better chance of putting gasoline in your tank that originated in Canada - specifically, Alberta - than the Middle East.
Shocking as this sounds, WE have Hugo Chavez by the throat when it comes to oil. Not many places in the world can refine the type of heavy, sour crude that comes out of Venezuela. Some time back, he threatened to sell his crude oil supplies to China. I eagerly welcome it, because they don't have the facilities that the Carribean islands and the southern United States does for refining his crude.
And he is consistently screwing himself. The state firm PDVSA had a track record, pre-Chavez, of extremely professional management and of having a staff that spoiled its oil fields with tons of TLC - required there, for the oil fields of Venezuela are not easy to work with or to have bear fruit. Now that Chavez has essentially removed the best and the brightest from PDVSA to staff it with cronies and loyalists, the oil fields are starting to descend into hell, and this is only hurting Venezuela.
Again, I hear you say that "oil was economical". This is the same rhetoric of the 1970s. It didn't hold then and still doesn't. It's the same logic that has grabbed many other commodities: tulips, Japanese stocks and real estate, housing here and many other parts of the world, dot-com stocks, and so on. When people start to say that "commodity X" can stay expensive forever, you know the bubble is on.
Res tantum valet quantum vendi potest.
"This is only hurting Venezuela"?!?
June 11, 2008 - 15:46 ET by blogonatorWhen oil is pulled off the market for whatever reason, supply goes down. Price will go up in response to that. My point remains: oil is a finite resource and most of it is not under our control which forces us to rely on unstable countries and unstable people (Chavez among others) to keep our tanks full. This is unsustainable.
Your comparisons of oil to tulips, Japanese stocks, real estate, dot-com stocks and so on are weak at best. Oil is location specific and a finite resource. Compare that to tulips and houses? You can't.
But, go ahead, prove me wrong. Get yourself a commodities broker that will help you short sell on the price of oil. Maybe it will collapse to its level of the 1990s.... What do you mean that's a bad investment? :P
Utter nonsense refuted
June 11, 2008 - 17:56 ET by UnsaneYour comparisons of oil to tulips, Japanese stocks, real estate, dot-com stocks and so on are weak at best. Oil is location specific and a finite resource. Compare that to tulips and houses? You can't. Absolutely I can. You need to do a LITTLE more than whine that my comparison is weak.
IIRC from A Random Walk Down Wall Street by Burton Malkiel, there was an early 1980s attempt to corner the silver market. Silver, like oil, is location specific and a finite resource. Yet, the price in that commodity jumped specifically because a individual - or a group of individuals - attempted to corner the market. Eventually, the attempt failed, the bubble popped, and prices came down yet again from the stratosphere.
Now, while I am not saying that oil is being cornered, the same principles apply here. Reading your posts here, it is as if you are saying that oil is somehow immune to speculation, economics, and virtually every other phenomenon that has hit every other commodities market. Nonsense.
By the way, tulips are both location specific and a finite resource. You can't just grow tulips anywhere; they need TLC, and they are a finite resource. Yes, there is a finite number of tulips out there.
Real estate is a finite resource: unless you live on the Big Island of Hawaii or Surtsey, land isn't being made. It is finite and only covers 30% of the earth's surface. It is also location specific: name me ONE real estate agent that isn't constantly preaching "location, location, location".
Japanese stocks and dot-com stocks, and biotech stocks were bid up relentlessly in their times by people exactly like you who didn't think that Isaac Newton inhabits the economics and financial realms. They got burned just as you will.
As for selling short in oil, there are plenty of people who are. Word on the street is that Georgo Soros has sold short on oil left and right. Politically, the man is an idiot, but he doesn't have the money he has by being stupid.
And as for Venezuela: if they take their oil off the market, they shut themselves out of the oil market, thus, they stop making money. Oh sure, I suppose that Hugo could laugh as the demand for light, sweet crude goes up, but that will be cold comfort for families in such places as Caracas. Their eggs are all in one basket, not only in terms of relying on high oil prices, but also relying on who will buy, and can actually make use, of their oil. (If you are China, what sense does it make to buy oil you can't refine, much less oil that will be more costly to bring into the country due to the shipping costs?)
Res tantum valet quantum vendi potest.
Seeing what you want to see, not what I write
June 12, 2008 - 08:00 ET by blogonatorI never said oil was immune to speculation. And I'm not going to get burned by whatever happens from here, trust me. You don't know where I put my money.
Here, have a look at this. Now you go find a similar page with tips for growing your own oil well, and I'll conceed. I guess tulips are location specific like McDonald's hamburgers and Starbucks lattes are location specific. You can't get them just anywhere. :P
Word on my street is just hearsay too. I try not to win arguments by refering to it.
Remediation
June 13, 2008 - 05:53 ET by UnsaneMcDonald's hamburgers are indeed location specific. The cows can only be raised in certain places. Starbucks coffee is indeed location specific; coffee can only be grown in certain places and indeed, it gets worse as far as coffee goes. I prefer Colombian coffee, and, well, I can only get Colombian coffee from Colombia, hence the name. (Colombian coffee is stronger, IMHO, and there is so much eye candy down there...it's a bit of a tip of the hat.)
It is good to see that you recognize the fallacy of your own "location specific" cry that you use to try to make oil unlike any other commodity.
You seem to think that oil is immune to speculation. You also seem to think that oil is special in ways that other commodities are not (think "location specific", an absurdity if there ever was one, for LOTS of commodities are "location specific" as you have seen). Both are 100% incorrect.
And I'm not going to get burned by whatever happens from here, trust me. You don't know where I put my money. Someone here is a little defensive!!! I meant your whole argument; whether or not you put your money in oil is none of my business, and I could care less anyway.
Word on my street is just hearsay too. I try not to win arguments by refering to it. Actually you don't seem to try to win arguments period. May I suggest remedial economics to go with the remedial mind-reading?
Indeed, tulips and oil and everything else is a finite, scarce resource. That is what the study of economics is all about, a point that seems lost on you. And I probably could put an oil well in my backyard. I DO live in TX after all.
Res tantum valet quantum vendi potest.
"Oil was economical" Have
June 14, 2008 - 23:53 ET by NL207"Oil was economical"
Have you priced out any of the "alternative" energy sources lately against oil? Oil is still the champ, even at current prices. The sole biofuel that is competitive with oil at the present is Brazilian sugar cane based ethanol.
Energy by Unsane
June 11, 2008 - 14:40 ET by UnsaneThat ride (of cheap gas) is over?
Isaac Newton can be found in the world of economics and he's not dead.
We need to be doing - well, EVERYTHING. If people still want to live 20 miles from work, so be it. If people want to drive vehicles that get 5 gallons per mile, so be it. So long as they don't come crying to me about gas prices.
In the meantime, we need to be drilling/exploiting our own crude oil and gas reserves, finding new and creative ways to use our coal reserves - such as liquefying coal - and yes, we need more nukes. If France can get 78% of their energy from nukes, why can't we? AND we have our very own disposal site for waste - only Finland has any such facility. Not even France does, with all the nuclear energy they rely on.
Res tantum valet quantum vendi potest.
blogo... So you like the
June 11, 2008 - 11:12 ET by Clear thinkerblogo...
So you like the idea of more Nuke power plants and drilling for domestic oil? If so, I agree!
Hell, I invite anyone to start drilling in my back yard. I will supply all the iced tea you can drink.
"Abstain from McCain"
Hey CT, you can do it
June 11, 2008 - 11:26 ET by ckc1227Hey CT, you can do it yourself.
http://www.wthr.com/Global/story.asp?S=8348967
ckc... He sure has the
June 11, 2008 - 11:33 ET by Clear thinkerckc...
He sure has the right idea.
Imagine just one million people in this country having an oil well in their back yards and each one only produced 100 barrels a day.
"Abstain from McCain"
That would be sweet. Heck,
June 11, 2008 - 11:39 ET by ckc1227That would be sweet. Heck, 10 barrels a day each would be great. Frankly though, I'm surprised he was ever allowed to pump his first gallon. He must have slipped through the cracks. No way they'd ever let a million folks do it.
No, I don't like them
June 11, 2008 - 11:43 ET by blogonatorBut if the people want them, go ahead. Drill in ANWR. Put a nuke plant in your backyard. Spread processed uranium on your toast in the morning if that's your thing.
But don't ask me and my tax dollars to support you. And don't ask me to pick up the external costs either if something goes awry.
I like high gas prices. I like high nuclear energy prices too because it encourages us to move on from these 19th and 20th century technologies. What's next? I don't know, but I'm looking forward to finding out.
"But don't ask me and my
June 11, 2008 - 11:44 ET by Clear thinker"But don't ask me and my tax dollars to support you."
If we allow Exxon to drill in ANWR, how will that be tax supported???
Your statement makes no sense.
"Abstain from McCain"
Try not to oversimplify my point
June 11, 2008 - 12:21 ET by blogonatorExxon gets tax breaks. Corporate welfare. If Exxon wants to build a new operation in ANWR, if Alaskans and Americans want to let them, if Exxon is willing to invest some of their own profit in the future of their company and industry, go for it. When Exxon starts looking for some kind of public funding for this venture, that's where I draw the line.
Here's some food for thought: http://www.businessw...
My broader point is this: short term, it's going to do next to nothing for us. Long term it serves only to keep us hooked on oil which is not beneficial to our country.
Tax breaks are your tax
June 11, 2008 - 12:28 ET by bassndudeTax breaks are your tax dollars? That is a real streach. It is not your tax dollars. If you own a company, and the goverment takes your money in taxes, and they take enough you cant pay the workers, invest in innovation, so the goverment gives you a tax break, that is welfare? Again, your Nuts.
Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!
US businesses are publicly
June 11, 2008 - 12:33 ET by TruthMongerUS businesses are publicly subsidized in all sorts of ways - it's how the US runs - and it works by and large...
TM, the blog talks like
June 11, 2008 - 12:38 ET by bassndudeTM, the blog talks like these companies do not invest their profit money into exploration and research. The way he sees it is Exxon takes tax money from the goverment for those activities and hordes all its profits away. In reality it is those profits that 50% of those who retired with 401K's get a part of their income. No one person owns any of the oil companies, they are public companies, owned by the share holders.
Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!
"corporate welfare" is just
June 11, 2008 - 12:47 ET by TruthMonger"corporate welfare" is just one of thousands of liberal strawmen
but I do know of one "outfit" in DC that rakes in over a trillion dollars a year now - most of it is non-taxable profit - the rest is largely just building rent:)...
"The way he sees it..."
June 11, 2008 - 12:50 ET by blogonatorGood theory, if I was who you think I am. Don't confuse me with your average liberal, or your average conservative. These ideologies don't serve me or anyone particularly well.
Don't tell me corporate welfare doesn't exist. You'd have to be willfully ignorant to make that statement.
Don't tell me Exxon doesn't benefit from tax breaks.
Don't tell me I have to put up with supporting technologies and corporate activities I don't want to support. That's goes against individual freedom and is straight up un-American.
I don't care who you or anyone else invests their 401K monies in. That's your call. But don't compel me to invest in these companies too by giving them tax breaks. Less tax revenue from them means more taxes for me, or where else do you suppose taxes come from?
Don't tell me the gov't doesn't pick Exxon's pockets
June 11, 2008 - 15:05 ET by UnsaneDon't tell me Exxon doesn't benefit from tax breaks. So the government should, instead, viciously punish the shareholders of that great American corporation for succeeding (via confiscatory taxation)? The government should steal, steal, and steal some more from ExxonMobil for succeeding at what it does?
Damn, too late, the government ALREADY does that. We have poor people we need to coddle and baby, don't you know...
Res tantum valet quantum vendi potest.
there is a synergy between
June 11, 2008 - 15:16 ET by TruthMongerthere is a synergy between the gov and business - and I don't think it's helpful to call it corporate welfare - unless maybe we're talking about some ridiculous farm subsidies out there - now that's CW...
but from where I sit right now it's the Fed and it's bureaucrats that gets most of the "welfare" in this country - at least half of the bureaucracy is completely un-necessary...
Right on
June 11, 2008 - 16:03 ET by blogonator"Corporate welfare" is a loaded term and perhaps a distraction from my point. I do agree that in a healthy economy there is a synergy between government and business. Taxes and regulation are needed, but should not be so severe as to stiffle the market. I also completely agree our federal government is too bloated.
False dichotomy
June 11, 2008 - 15:58 ET by blogonator"viciously punish"?!?
You're pulling words out of the air.
Taxes on corporations are here to stay. And you know what? Yes, I would rather have Exxon taxed than have me taxed. Not just because I'm not a shareholder in Exxon, but because I don't think the government should be manipulating the market by rewarding some businesses with free money and not others. That sort of behavior is counterproductive and breeds corruption.
Just as the "windfall profits tax" is a dumb idea, giving Exxon a tax break and passing those missing taxes on to me is a dumb idea too.
Waaaaahhhhh!!!!!!!!! Tax breaks!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
June 11, 2008 - 18:06 ET by UnsaneYou are mistaken in that whine that I am puling words out of the air. The government punishes the producers and the most successful in society with the tax structure the way it is now. This past week, the government wanted to steal even more from the oil companies that you so hate with a "windfall tax". Now, you might like the government screwing ExxonMobil while leaving you alone, but no poor man or failed business ever hired me.
At the moment, I find myself in the world's oil business capital. The economy of Houston is not powered by the poor and the failed. That to me is fairly obvious anywhere I go here.
You whine and scream about tax breaks for ExxonMobil because you ache for the government to steal as much from them as possible. As for me, I could care less about ExxonMobil: if you want to bitch about tax breaks, I'd suggest bitching to the same government that gives 40% of the population a FREE RIDE, while saddling the top 60% of wage earners with 99.94% of the tax burden. (But I don't see you doing that; proof that all you want is to see the successful pummeled and screwed.)
Res tantum valet quantum vendi potest.
Why didn't you say you were from Houston?
June 12, 2008 - 08:05 ET by blogonatorIt's all coming into focus now.
On a positive note, it looks like we have a similar disposition toward the income tax. Do yourself a favor and drop out of the mind reading classes. They aren't doing you any good.
Do some remedial mind reading
June 12, 2008 - 15:19 ET by UnsaneYour intense hatred for the ptroleum industry is showing again. I am not FROM Houston - I did briefly live here and I am working on taking a job from here to my eventual final destination, but no, I am not from here, and nor do I work in the oil industry. (Or, perhaps, do my yearly trips to Houston to watch my Astros in action somehow make me complicit with Hyper-Evil Big Oil?) So, you whine about my "mind reading skills", yet you presume to read mine. Contradictions collapse. Perhaps you want to look into remedial mind reading.
Maybe you don't want to leave evidence of your oil company hatred on the board. That is how I "read your mind".
Res tantum valet quantum vendi potest.
Ok blogo...
June 11, 2008 - 12:29 ET by Clear thinkerYou are impossible, so good luck with your lame arguments.
"Abstain from McCain"
Thanks
June 11, 2008 - 12:59 ET by blogonatorAnd you keep imagining "one million people in this country having an oil well in their back yards." Fantasy makes for a good escape from reality. Or do you think dirt = oil?
Drill, drill,
June 11, 2008 - 13:45 ET by mastersofdeceitDrill, drill, drilling
http://www.whittierd...
Are you saying you cant
June 11, 2008 - 16:19 ET by bassndudeAre you saying you cant find one million wells on private property in America?????
Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!
Nope.
June 11, 2008 - 16:27 ET by blogonatorI'm saying "one million people in this country having an oil well in their back yards" is complete fantasy.
blogo... I'm
June 11, 2008 - 16:45 ET by Clear thinkerblogo...
I'm baaack!
Please explain why it would be fantasy. Out of a population of over 300 million people, why is there no possibility that oil could be pumped from 1 million backyards?
"Abstain from McCain"
Given the state of reality...
June 11, 2008 - 17:04 ET by blogonatorWith most home owners owning the mineral rights under their homes, the fact that we don't have 1 million people with derricks in their backyards leads me to conclude, via Occam's razor, that probably there isn't any oil there. Now you prove there is this huge unexploited resource. Have fun! And welcome back CT!
This isn't Saudi Arabia where you can stick a straw in the ground and get oil. If it was, we wouldn't have any need for Saudi Arabia would we?
Not a very good
June 11, 2008 - 17:20 ET by Clear thinkerNot a very good response.
We have a huge country with oil in many places.
I live in the Blue Ridge Mountains and we have oil under us. And I found out recently that there is oil under most of Appalachia. This is one area of the country that nobody ever thought of looking for oil in. Then add in all the places that we know oil is available. With as much oil that is still to be harvested under privately owned U.S. property, I'm betting we could find 1 million property owners to come up with the initial investment to drill.
And in all of my proposal I never once considered drilling on government land.
"Abstain from McCain"
You want to know the saddest thing about this whole stupid idea
June 11, 2008 - 21:57 ET by general companyYou want to know the saddest thing about this whole stupid idea, (of the profit sharing plan for big oil) it will most probably "scare" the price of gas up even more. What do you think would happen with the price if they were talking about where and how we are going to get oil and were we are going to build a few refineries? hmmm
"Television is a freak show" Bernie Goldberg
Yes, if it weren't for
June 11, 2008 - 11:35 ET by ckc1227Yes, if it weren't for cheap gas and American innovation, we could be just like all the other second and third world countries out there.
Damned evil oil companies.
at the intersection of
June 11, 2008 - 14:47 ET by motherbeltat the intersection of clueless and powerless
Yup....to paraphrase the State Farm commercial...The whole bunch of them standing on a big red spot saying "We're SO there!"
the coming ice age
June 11, 2008 - 11:11 ET by SouthJersey1953It is 15 degrees cooler here today than yesterday. I am afraid we are heading for another ice age. At this rate, the planet will be frozen solid by July 4th.
That would be awesome. Then
June 11, 2008 - 11:19 ET by MassConservThat would be awesome. Then my Firecracker popsicle won't melt so fast.
Wow, you survived a 15
June 11, 2008 - 11:23 ET by ckc1227Wow, you survived a 15 degree swing in a 24 hour period, yet a 1 degree increase over a 100 years is going to kill us all.
Why is it simply accepted
June 11, 2008 - 11:25 ET by mattmWhy is it simply accepted that the Dems are going to control everything after the next election? They control Congress -with the LOWEST approval numbers EVER?
If ever there was a chance for a "3rd Party" to assert itself, it's now.
You don't get to "assert"
June 11, 2008 - 11:32 ET by sarcasmoWithout ballot access. I love the Washington, DC section: "No Procedure - Cannot Start." Anyway, it's all so inexpensive (har!) and easy (HAR!) that I'm sure an even dozen parties will instantly get ballot access so they can compete! ;) Either that, or maybe all the stuff I've been saying here for years about ballot access leading to a tax-and-spend vs borrow-and-spend "choice" duopoly was 100% right...
JMR
The tax & spend drug war looks racist in the real world.
Meanwhile, in TX
June 11, 2008 - 15:07 ET by UnsaneYou can always try TX, where ballot access is an excuse, not an issue...
Res tantum valet quantum vendi potest.
1 out of 50 ain't just bad
June 11, 2008 - 17:00 ET by sarcasmoIt sucks. Like I said...
JMR
The tax & spend drug war looks racist in the real world.
Learning
June 11, 2008 - 18:07 ET by UnsaneYou are learning!
I'm proud.
Res tantum valet quantum vendi potest.
Learning what I've been saying for years??
June 12, 2008 - 03:41 ET by sarcasmoI'm confused about your pride, because this is yet another "I told you so." Yep, it's another area where we're questionable on adhering to our own Constitution's principles. "Pride" = cluelessness, and I'll quote Richard Winger (the expert on this issue) for why:
“This is about VOTER rights. Pound it in. People have a right to vote for the candidate of their choice. It's isn't a free election otherwise. Even the former president of Iran has criticized the U.S. for our lack of freedom in our elections. It would help the U.S. image worldwide if Oklahoma would fix this dreadful blot.”
When the likes of Iran can rank on a US state like Winger said, that means "Oklahoma happens to suck in this area." Like it or not, I told you so long ago, and you've whined about it since, until this recent spate of "clueless pride." The change, while weird, is not helping your image much, but at least the results of polls like this add a humor factor. I voted "incompetent" along with the majority.
JMR
The tax & spend drug war looks racist in the real world.
Utter nonsense continued
June 12, 2008 - 15:28 ET by UnsaneSweetie, instead of whining about unfair ballot access laws, do something to make the Libertarian party more palatable to voters (fat chance). Again, I fall on the example of TX, which, last election I saw, had a Libertarian for virtually every office. (Which is why your repeated whining about ballot access laws rings hollow. It is easier to whine and scream about conspiracies rather than admit that there are elements of the Libertarian party which makes them 100% unpalatable to voters, and as such, they will not be voted into office.)
and you've whined about it since ANY disgreement with Sarcasmo somehow = whining, mostly because he simply cannot tolerate disagreement.
The change, while weird, is not helping your image much, - Instead of worrying about my image, I suggest you worry about your own, and the severe damage it is doing to your own cause. For a Libertarian, you seem to be very much a busybody in that regard. Isn't that what Leftists do?
Res tantum valet quantum vendi potest.
Party affiliation changes daily....
June 12, 2008 - 16:02 ET by Roger the ShrubberWait a minute. I thought Sarky-poo was a Republican. At least since the beginning of the year, when he was still a Paulian disciple.
A jaundiced pipsqueak calls it quits
June 13, 2008 - 06:01 ET by UnsaneRoger, I think we all need to keep Sarc in our thoughts (for some)and prayers (for some). I was watching KTRK in Houston last night, and they covered Ron Paul officially dropping out of the race. You could see the sadness in all the Paulbots' eyes...
It is embarrassing enough that Paul represents TX, but why does he have to besmirch the Houston area (a close second to San Antonio on my list of places to live in TX!)? Anyways...
He then talked about setting up some organization, the name of which escapes me for now. He whined about doing something no one has managed to do for 6000 or so years of civilization: finding an inflation-proof currency. He also uttered the phrase "foreign policy". I was dining as I saw that. I almost choked on my food hearing THAT for painfully obvious reasons.
So, for one last time, to quote my old man:
"That jaundiced pipsqueak wants to be President???"
Res tantum valet quantum vendi potest.
That's how McCain seems to me, every day.
June 13, 2008 - 06:30 ET by sarcasmoAnd here, just for you. Now you can claim I don't think for myself again.
JMR
With a bonus.
The tax & spend drug war looks racist in the real world.
I guess when your only
June 13, 2008 - 08:52 ET by Roger the ShrubberI guess when your only defense of worshipping a fossil like Paul is by accusing McCain (who is younger than The Lord and Saviour) of being a fossil, you apparently would end up using links to other people's thoughts as examples of "thinking your own thoughts".
Brilliant move. Not only can you not think for yourself, but you throw a "zinger" at the presidential candidate few here at Newsbusters even supports. Oooooo scary.
No wonder you thought DasBlimp was a stroke of campaigning genius.
You may go now.
Be clear!!!
June 14, 2008 - 23:51 ET by UnsaneI don't chase links, as I have stated repeatedly. Isn't reading supposed to be fundamental? Some poster here sure loves to tell people that...
How does McCain seem to you every day? When writing, clarity is fundamental.
Res tantum valet quantum vendi potest.
But principles don't, Whiner.
June 13, 2008 - 06:07 ET by sarcasmoI'm still a Republican. Like it or not. Deal with it.
And there's even a hypothetical condition where I'd vote FOR McCain, but it's a very unlikely one. And principles mean I've found that ballot access restrictions benefit big government, so I'm against 'em no matter what letter is by my name. And you're both upset by it, which is amusing.
JMR
The tax & spend drug war looks racist in the real world.
Whew! That explains the
June 13, 2008 - 08:42 ET by Roger the ShrubberWhew! That explains the daily belly-aching of "anti-Libertarian bias", the same mantra you were chanting when you were genuflecting at the Church of Ron Paul.
"Deal with it" - Are you sure you aren't a Libertarian still? I mean, statements like that are something an immature little boy would say... Especially when you use it every third post, even when it seems oddly out-of-place and unnecessary.
Speculators
June 11, 2008 - 11:56 ET by dboNoel, I read with interest your great article at NRO the other day. Although I basically agree with your conclusions, particularity about short term trends on essentials like food and fuel, being a layman and having virtually no working knowledge of complex financial markets I thought I might play devils advocate for a minute. The first question I would ask is”What has fueled the speculation”? which goes hand in hand with my usual default question of “Is more government the solution or is more government the problem”. Since speculators have been around since the beginnings of mankind what is it about this particular time that keeps increasing speculation. As we saw in 1980 with the dramatic rise in the price of gold and other commodities, increased speculation was triggered by double digit growth in the money supply starting in the 1970’s. What role does “Helicopter Ben” and the federal reserve have in this? In addition I wonder if perception has become reality in regards to the supply and demand of oil. The perception has become that because of China, India and growing western economies for that matter, supply can not keep up with demand because of government policies in all western countries in large part due to the caving in to environmentalists. I was always under the opinion that true speculators “but low and sell high” thus in the long term actually smoothing out highs and lows in the market. The one caveat to the efficient market hypothesis is that the market can not account for people’s psychology. I wonder if it is government policy that is the source of the problem and fueling speculators psychology?
http://www.townhall....
DBO
June 11, 2008 - 14:36 ET by Noel SheppardDBO,
I think there's a variety of modernization issues at play that likely will cause bubbles in assets for the rest of our lives unless we do something about it. These clearly include the internet, 24/7 electronic trading, and globalized financial institutions. Let's understand that a person in China can now wake up on Sunday morning and electronically purchase oil. You couldn't do that fifteen years ago.
Do you think there was actually a fundamental reason for NASDAQ increasing by 250 percent in 18 months after October 1998? I don't. What we have now in our world is a totally connected global financial network with trillions of "dollars" chasing yield. And, the prevailing investment strategy is "momentum" which is largely divorced from fundamentals. Momentum traders buy a thing because it's going up...PERIOD. And they keep buying until it stops going up.
Furthermore, didn't my segment in that article demonstrating how supply between 2002 and 2007 has actually outpaced demand convince you that this rise is by no means fundamental? How can a commodity rise 600 percent in value when more of it is being produced than used? That's preposterous. But, here we are.
Now, granted, there should be some terrorist/geopolitical premium in oil. How much, and should it be more or less than it was shortly after 9/11 or after the Iraq invasion? If oil was at $20 in 2002 after the WTC attack, what should it be now if supply is meeting current demand -- WHICH IT IS?!?
Moreover, is it just a coincidence that prices have risen 600 percent on the NYMEX while volume has risen 600 percent? Think that's just happenstance?
I'm sorry, as a former arbitrageur, I don't. Now, I don't know what oil should be trading at, but the runup from $50 in January 2007 to today's $136 looks EXACTLY like what happened to the NASDAQ in its final blowoff run. EXACTLY. And that was absent fundamentals. ns
Qestion for Noel
June 11, 2008 - 15:12 ET by UnsaneNoel - As I'm sure you know, bubbles have been the bane of the financial world for centuries, ever since the days of the South Sea bubble and the tulip bubble in the Netherlands. My question is - since we all know bubbles are bad news and eventually hurt a good number of people (witness this oil bubble) - what CAN be done to prevent them in the future? I for one can't see a way it can be done, given human nature...
Res tantum valet quantum vendi potest.
Uns
June 11, 2008 - 16:45 ET by Noel SheppardUns,
Consider how separated in time previous bubbles were compared to now. Bubbles used to be separated by centuries. This is now our third in ten years. What's causing all these bubbles? Excessive leverage. Now, in the case of the tech bubble, it was a mixture of leverage and under-regulation of IPOs. Both have easy fixes.
In the case of real estate, the issue was under-regulation of ARMs. Simple fix: borrower must qualify at the fully-indexed rate. If all the ARM borrowers from 2002 thru 2007 had to qualify at the fully-indexed level, the housing/credit crisis NEVER happens. Period.
Simple fix to the current explosion in oil and food prices: lower position limits for speculators, raise margin requirements for speculators, count overseas transactions in our position limits. Oil drops 50 percent in two weeks. So does corn, soybeans, wheat, etc.
Sorry to the gold and silver fanatics, but those metals collapse as well.
I don't think you can prevent investment bubbles. Instead, you can slow their growth and pop them sooner once you recognize they're happening. Seems simple to me. ns
If those metals collapse
June 11, 2008 - 17:05 ET by sarcasmoI'll be quite surprised, because as my double-cloaked over 2 solid days in a row posts have shown, "journalists" have not done their jobs. (Although it's heartening to see that someone in the WSJ "gets it," about the gab standard!)
Anyway, I'm all for honest regulation and margin requirements, but you can't sell/obligate the stuff that can't, by definition, exist. And yes, when this one hits the fan, I will be saying "I told you so," so if metals prices further collapse, feel free to do the same. I'm not worried...
JMR
The tax & spend drug war looks racist in the real world.
Noel,
June 11, 2008 - 19:04 ET by RESTLESS 1From an article by "Consumer Watchdog" I linked two days ago.
"Increase in margin funds that traders must put up in energy markets to
help suppress speculation. Currently, traders only have to put up 5% to
7% of the worth of the purchase, instead of the 50% required on stock
trading. This makes it cheap to speculate."-link
This was from a list of recommendations made by the group to lower oil prices.
If what they say here is true, no wonder oil goes up beyond what common sense would dictate. The "sweet spot" for drilling purposes was $28.00-$36.00 a barrel in the mid 90's. The price today is just ridiculous.
Also, do you think there might be any shenagins going on between the bigger speculators of oil? I mean, this can't be all "greedy" oil execs. Most of them don't need the bad press. It just seems that all of what you are saying should be obvious, especially to seasoned traders, yet it seems to get more and more out of control.
"This
liberal would be all about socialize -- uh, uh, would be about
basically taking over and the government running all of your companies."-Maxine Waters 2008
Dennis Kucinich presents Articles of Impeachment
June 11, 2008 - 12:12 ET by DyneSince this site is dedicated to exposing media bias, I'd like to inform everyone that none of the major media outlets, including the liberal side (ABC, CBS, CNN, etc.) and the neocon side (FOX) reported on this, and I have yet to see it appear here on NB, so here you go.
http://rawstory.com/...
http://kucinich.hous...
For such an event that matters to the country quite a bit more than whether or not McCain has a clean bill of health or if Obama should wear a flag pin on his lapel, why did NB not report on it?
"Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we," Bush said.
"They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our
people, and neither do we." -George W. Bush
Dyne... I'm betting that
June 11, 2008 - 12:15 ET by Clear thinkerDyne...
I'm betting that not many people think this is news. I know I don't. It's just a waste of time.
"Abstain from McCain"
Ct... ...and tax-payers
June 11, 2008 - 18:33 ET by bigtimerCt...
...and tax-payers money...as usual.
"Never murder your opponent when he is committing suicide." ~ W. Wilson
Tax money... Absolutely!
June 11, 2008 - 18:41 ET by Clear thinkerTax money...
Absolutely! How could I forget all the millions that would be wasted on impeachment proceedings just so a couple of liberals can try to stick it to Bush. If the libs really want impeachment to go forward, I say they raise their own damn money to do it.
"Abstain from McCain"
Because, Dyne,
June 11, 2008 - 12:18 ET by BlondeKucinich does it about every other month. Yawm.
Popeye Pelosi says impeachment's off the table.
The only reason it's getting any mention at all is because Rob Wexler (Obama's Florida campaign chair) has signed on. Wexler is the liberal twit representative from Palm Beach, Florida.
Old news. BTW...this site is about exposing liberal media bias. Where is the bias in letting Kucinich's & Rob Wexler's partisan hackery go unreported? Hmmmmm?
David Gregory, do you know which damn network you lie for? ~ Uncle Jimbo, @Blackfive
Actually, this was
June 11, 2008 - 12:20 ET by ThisnThatActually, this was mentioned by Fox News in the past 24 hours. Showed a video of Kucinich. I forget when it was mentioned, however.
___________________________________
If you can read this, thank a teacher. If it is in English, thank a Soldier. - My barber
I guess your steel trap of
June 11, 2008 - 12:50 ET by Roger the ShrubberI guess your steel trap of a brain neglected to notice that this website is devoted to LIBERAL media bias, not moonbat douchebag media bias. Hell, this story did not even warrant inclusion on the award-winning Shrub Report®.
Perhaps, in the future, you could supress your erection over Kucinich long enough to understand what kind of website you are at, and that it is not 2004 anymore.
I bet it does get lonely living on the kook fringe, doesn't it?
Dyne, what are you talking
June 11, 2008 - 13:34 ET by mastersofdeceitDyne, what are you talking about?
It's on the CNN politics frontpage.
http://www.cnn.com/P...
Dyne, what are you talking
June 11, 2008 - 14:50 ET by motherbeltDyne, what are you talking about?
It's on the CNN politics frontpage.
Dyne (waving hand): Oh, nevermind.....
Say whuuut?
June 11, 2008 - 12:16 ET by RackieMore proof of a US healthcare crisis?
Bad news for fans of Socialism
June 11, 2008 - 18:14 ET by UnsaneOur Leftist friends who think the government OWES them a doctor free-of-charge will like this even less:
Sun, November 18, 2007 - Enough to make you sick: Government monopoly on health care is killing us financially and literally
By IAN ROBINSON
There is a good reason Alberta spends more on health than any other province in the nation -- $3,695 per person -- and yet we wait longer for care.
The Fraser Institute notes that if an Albertan sees a family doctor -- if you're lucky enough to have a family doctor, which in Alberta is fast becoming a mythical creature on the same order as a unicorn -- and are referred to a specialist, the average wait before actually getting treated is 19.5 weeks.
This is not good.
It is not even up to the sad standard set by other Canadian provinces.
Our American cousins look at such numbers and are appalled.
Yet there is a very good reason for this.
It is because the economic model for our health-care system, in Alberta and across the country, would be instantly recognizable to Josef Stalin and Mao Zedong.
Mao and Stalin didn't believe in the rights of individuals to make economic decisions on their own, and neither do those who become hysterical and cry like little girls denied tickets to the new Avril Lavigne tour when it is suggested an absolute government monopoly on health care is killing us, financially and literally.
We have taken the economic model of the Soviet and Maoist collective farm -- the result of which was generally widespread starvation -- and applied it to the delivery of health care.
Anyone surprised by the fact it doesn't work is probably also surprised Jack Layton isn't prime minister, the sun rises in the east, sticking a knife into a toaster hurts and that you can sit in a Calgary hospital emergency room suffering a serious gallbladder attack for eight hours before getting a shot of Demerol, which happened to the wife of a friend of mine recently.
Despite our institutionalized disdain in this country for all things American, if a U.S. citizen doesn't have health insurance and goes to a county hospital where medical care, as it is in Canada, is "free," the wait for treatment for a gallbladder attack is .... you guessed it ... about eight hours.
The average Canadian, with his much-lauded, universal medical system, is treated like the average American without health-care insurance.
Countries that provide a compassionate and intelligent mix of private and public health care simply do better.
A recent survey of 28 countries that offer universal health care saw Canada place 26th in terms of medical outcomes for every dollar spent, 18th in access to CAT scans and 22nd in infant mortality.
Because of the presence of (gasp of horror!) capitalists in the systems outperforming ours, such as Australia, they have embraced the discipline of the free market, which delivers any product -- from iPods to heart surgeries -- more efficiently and effectively.
We place so low because if you're not rewarded for efficiency ... you'll be inefficient.
We used to have a mixed system in this country.
Some doctors remained in the public system. Others opted out all the way.
Some took publicly insured patients and extra-billed them.
That has all been taken away in the name of equality -- the same sort of equality lauded by Mao and Stalin -- and the result has been predictable.
This country saw health care costs rising and decided it would .... restore free market discipline?
Naw.
We decided to limit the number of doctors graduating and, in a peculiarly Alberta solution, blew up a freaking hospital without having built a new one first.
So we now have doctor shortages and hospital bed shortages and the only people surprised are the same ones wondering how come the sun rises in the same place every day.
It'd be enough to make you sick if you weren't afraid you wouldn't get timely treatment.
Res tantum valet quantum vendi potest.
To each according to his needs?
June 11, 2008 - 18:36 ET by dboGood article Unsane. There are 5 million Canadians that don't even have a family doctor. What do these people do when they need one? They go to emergency rooms for even simple things like colds and clog up the wait lines there. The whole idea when the system was created in 1967 was to provide universal access to healthcare. Instead, just the opposite has happened (although it is universally bad). A big news story around Vancouver lately has been that there ia a 6 month!! wait to have a mammogram. The sad thing is that study after study has shown it doesn't matter how much money they throw at the system, wait times never get any shorter. The government just keeps throwing band-aids at the problem.
http://www.cbc.ca/he...
Meanwhile, on the Today Show McCain says...
June 11, 2008 - 12:52 ET by Prester John...oil companies should "share" their profits???!!!
At a time of record oil prices and record profits -- when oil companies are getting various tax breaks and financial incentives from the federal government -- shouldn't those companies "be able to give something back to the consumer?" NBC's Matt Lauer asked McCain. "Absolutely," McCain replied.
"And they should be investing in alternative energy and they should be giving back to the consumer and they should be embarking on research and development that will pay off in reducing our dependence on foreign oil," McCain said.
"The point is, oil companies have got to be more participatory in alternate energy, in sharing their profits in a variety of ways, and there is very strong and justifiable emotion about their profits," McCain said.
http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewPolitics.asp?Page=/Politics/archive/200806/POL20080611d.html
I wonder how ol' Cindy would like to be told to share her "profits" and to be more "participatory" in alternate beverages?
Just think folks, we're not even out of June yet. What can we expect from McCain for the next 5 months?
Ay carumba, Batman!
Today in the mail I
June 11, 2008 - 14:53 ET by motherbeltToday in the mail I received an envelope with an 8x10 photo of John and Cindy McCain, thanking me for my support (I didn't) etc and as a "reminder" of something or other, I forget what. LOL
Anyway, I'm thinking instead of photos, they should be sending out rolls of duct tape.....(Oh, and don't forget the nose clips....)
Prester... And people
June 11, 2008 - 18:27 ET by Clear thinkerPrester...
And people chide me for my tagline.
"Abstain from McCain"
New crap cannon has
June 11, 2008 - 13:34 ET by ckc1227New crap cannon has protestors worried.
As an aside, I bet using real, bonafide crap in their cannons instead of water or rubber bullets would work much better.
GUESS THE POLITICAL PARTY
June 11, 2008 - 13:50 ET by billbA major flood occurs, politicion A, does not go to the scene in deference to the victims of said disaster.
Another major flood occurs and likewise, politician B does not appear at the disaster.
The press excoriates poitician A, but praises politician B
Obama and Frank Marshall Davis
June 11, 2008 - 13:49 ET by ricklailWhen is somebody going to report on the relationship between Obama and Frank Marshall Davis. From the looks of his speech in Raleigh, to paraphrase, take from the oil companies and give to you to pay for gas and other bills is right out of the Marxist playbook. Davis was a big advocate of Marxism.
“A debate is a conflict which clarifies a position. A dialogue is a conversation which compromises a position.” –John E. Ashbrook, The New Neutralism II, P. 7
My tagline notwithstanding, this is a bubble
June 11, 2008 - 14:32 ET by UnsaneMy tagline notwithstanding (and I still back the tagline 100%), I suspect the price of oil per barrel is now being bid up due to pure speculation right now.
Yeah, I get that we have more players on the market now (China, India), but that's not enough to have the price of oil where it is right now. Especially considering what is happening to demand: the amount of miles Americans drove dropped in March 2008 by 4% compared to March 2007.
If statistics like these continue to pile up, the bubble will eventually pop, and then it will be interesting to see how much the bubble deflates.
Res tantum valet quantum vendi potest.
Unsane, while I agree that
June 11, 2008 - 14:38 ET by bassndudeUnsane, while I agree that it is speculation keeping the prices up, I do belive it is speculation on future demand. China has no problem with the rising fuel prices. They and India keep the prices low at the pump, for the populas. This is going to catch up to them. The question is how much debt are they willing to rack up?
Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!
Interesting points
June 11, 2008 - 15:28 ET by UnsaneYou raise a very interesting point about gas subsidies. I remember when I visited China two and a half years ago I was told that gasoline prices were subsidized. I am not surprised India would - the government there still has tons and tons of fingers in the economic pie even after all of the privatization they have done since the early 1990s.
Speculation on future demand to me is a little silly, especially considering an article I read in Maclean's not too long ago. Reading it, we have made massive strides in energy efficiency since the late 1970s. I'd pull some specific numbers out from it, as I still have that copy, but it IS several hundred miles away, unfortunately. Betting on future demand back then would have been folly - sure, demand would have risen along with, say, population, but not nearly as much as one would have been led to believe back then due to technological advances (such as much more efficient aircraft, for example). But you're right, that could well be what is happening, which again, presents some problems.
Res tantum valet quantum vendi potest.
Unsane, would you please
June 11, 2008 - 15:00 ET by motherbeltUnsane, would you please translate your tagline?
The best I can do (40 years since I took Latin) is something like "a thing is only worth what you can sell it for"
Is that close?
motherbelt
June 11, 2008 - 15:21 ET by UnsaneI just PMed you a translation. But you basically got it.
Res tantum valet quantum vendi potest.
Apparently, this wasn't the
June 11, 2008 - 15:41 ET by Roger the ShrubberApparently, this wasn't the Jim Johnson that the Not Ready for Prime Time Player knew...
I wanna drag sports in here...
June 11, 2008 - 17:03 ET by Lord ElicaniHere's one entertainer/athlete who's proud of his country:
David Ortiz, known so much better as Big Papi, became an American citizen today, saying “It’s a great country. I’m proud to be here.”
Chances ESPN notes this?
Murrow turning over in his grave
Murrow turning over in his grave
Ed Murrow had a child and the damn thing went wild
- Lindsey Buckingham
Ann Coulter..
June 11, 2008 - 19:40 ET by MightyMouthHas me ROFL again! Great Column.
...the best line is this:
"The sheer repetition of lies about Bush is wearing people down. There is not a
liberal in this country worthy of kissing Bush's rear end, but the weakest
members of the herd run from Bush. Compared to the lickspittles denying and
attacking him, Bush is a moral giant -- if that's not damning with faint praise.
John McCain should be so lucky as to be running for Bush's third term. Then he
might have a chance."
"There are two types of people in this country; those who provide freedom and those who enjoy it." MM says...
Thank you MM...thank you
June 11, 2008 - 19:57 ET by bigtimerThank you MM...thank you Ann.
"Never murder your opponent when he is committing suicide." ~ W. Wilson
Top of the evening to you BT!
June 11, 2008 - 20:16 ET by MightyMouthand here is MM's link of the day!®
"There are two types of people in this country; those who provide freedom and those who enjoy it." MM says...
MM... ...LOL, my oh my
June 11, 2008 - 20:25 ET by bigtimerMM...
...LOL, my oh my seems familiar...think I sent that out myself...folks that is one good one and worth the time!!!
I am always so happy to see you here when you show up sporadically..sure miss your everyday posts.
"Never murder your opponent when he is committing suicide." ~ W. Wilson
Thats great,
June 11, 2008 - 20:41 ET by general companyThats great, thanks
"Television is a freak show" Bernie Goldberg
John McCains...
June 11, 2008 - 19:40 ET by Clear thinkerJohn McCains energy policy...
"His energy plan says nothing about oil drilling. Instead, McCain is pushing for alternative forms of energy -- especially an expansion of nuclear power."
He's almost as scary as Obama.
"Abstain from McCain"
I am 100% behind more
June 11, 2008 - 19:43 ET by Roger the ShrubberI am 100% behind more nuclear power. As long as it accompanies oil drilling, of course....
Me too. "Abstain from
June 11, 2008 - 19:49 ET by Clear thinkerMe too.
"Abstain from McCain"
I wouldn't mind nuclear
June 11, 2008 - 20:05 ET by balboaI wouldn't mind nuclear power so much if we could find safe ways of disposing of the waste.
How about the basements of
June 11, 2008 - 20:07 ET by Clear thinkerHow about the basements of our Liberal/Marxist Universities?
"Abstain from McCain"
Interesting idea ct...
June 11, 2008 - 20:29 ET by MightyMouth...one worth further consideration. The sterilization rates for liberals would surely increase. That combined with prophylactic rise of abortions would breed them out in only a couple of generations.
"There are two types of people in this country; those who provide freedom and those who enjoy it." MM says...
MM... Seems I ain't so
June 11, 2008 - 20:30 ET by Clear thinkerMM...
Seems I ain't so dumb after all.
"Abstain from McCain"
Your tagline proves that my friend!
June 11, 2008 - 20:37 ET by MightyMouth:-)
"There are two types of people in this country; those who provide freedom and those who enjoy it." MM says...
MM... I agree with you
June 11, 2008 - 20:41 ET by bigtimerMM...
I agree with you about Ct's tagline...what I am wondering is...did you change your mind about McCain from awhile back?
Just curious...
"Never murder your opponent when he is committing suicide." ~ W. Wilson
Well bt...
June 11, 2008 - 20:48 ET by MightyMouthMaybe I have changed my mind about McCain. It's just that everytime he opens his mouth I want to slap him! But maybe that's just me, I am sure I am in the minority. <sigh>
"There are two types of people in this country; those who provide freedom and those who enjoy it." MM says...
Well MM...You are not alone
June 11, 2008 - 20:59 ET by bigtimerWell MM...You are not alone whatsoever...
Only difference with me is I have listened to this guy on the Senate floor for years now, watched what he has done to our side of the aisle regarding things of the utmost importance to the conservatives... and to top it off, what he did to the President while all of this war was going on... and of course the msm isn't going to make a big to-do about it, they agree with it, he all the while thinking it is going to get the msm to aide and abet him during his campaign again.....
Wrong.
I am so sad/upset with what we have for candidates during this time of utmost importance to all of us here in the USA.
McCain cannot help but sticking it to us all everyday anymore...I put two or three links somewhere with his latest....I can't even get hot anymore...I expect it...and get ill.
Just my two cents...
"Never murder your opponent when he is committing suicide." ~ W. Wilson
I feel your pain BT
June 11, 2008 - 21:38 ET by MightyMouthI know you are probably not a ditto head, but Rush has some great parodies of McCain (and obama) on his website.
Sometimes you just have to sit back and watch this unfold... and if you can muster a chuckle now and then... know that America is so strong that no one man could bring it down. (now... one man and both houses and eventually the SCOTUS... that's something different).
Oh crap, now I feel bad! :-)
"There are two types of people in this country; those who provide freedom and those who enjoy it." MM says...
MM... I have heard them
June 11, 2008 - 21:45 ET by bigtimerMM...
I have heard them on Rush...I love them, I do have to sit back and chuckle in life, especially with politics or I would go insane...and I most certainly do not ever give up on the back-bone of this country...I know better...not gonna' happen...ever!
Only aggravating thing is what always happens in between...time goes by so swiftly...and time can do so much.
"Never murder your opponent when he is committing suicide." ~ W. Wilson
Yay! Mightymouth is back!
June 11, 2008 - 21:05 ET by Dee BunkMaybe you've been around and I just haven't seen you, but it's good to see you here.
Thanks so much dee
June 11, 2008 - 21:32 ET by MightyMouthI miss my NB buddies too...
Unfortunately my duties now take up my daytime hours so the only time I can catch the NB crowd is in the evening. Glad to see the familiar names (and some cool new ones too) at NB.
"There are two types of people in this country; those who provide freedom and those who enjoy it." MM says...
MM, great to see you in here again.
June 11, 2008 - 22:20 ET by R D HelmAnd I know what you mean, as I am working 65 hours+ a week these days. Free time is hard to come by.
:-(
thanks RD
June 11, 2008 - 22:36 ET by MightyMouth...ha! this "terrible" economy has forced my company into overtime. And it seems the Europeans can't buy enough of our services. LMAO, these damn free markets are affecting my checking account (for the better).
"There are two types of people in this country; those who provide freedom and those who enjoy it." MM says...
MM... Aha! That's where
June 11, 2008 - 22:48 ET by bigtimerMM...
Aha! That's where you've been...is this a great country or what!
I am so happy for you and yours.
"Never murder your opponent when he is committing suicide." ~ W. Wilson
MM, glad to hear it.
June 11, 2008 - 22:53 ET by R D HelmOf course, I gave up on the land surveying/construction business here in Atlanta and decided to get into the car retail bizz.
LOL-Can't exactly say my timing was all that great.
You are obviously another
June 12, 2008 - 10:37 ET by Roger the ShrubberYou are obviously another victim of George Bush's tax cuts for the rich.
It's about time I saw your ugly mug around here!
I wondered what happned to
June 12, 2008 - 10:51 ET by bassndudeI wondered what happned to you. Your playing "Capitolism". Fun game!
Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!
boa... France is still on
June 11, 2008 - 20:13 ET by bigtimerboa...
France is still on the planet isn't it?
By the way...think Yucca Mountain.
My gawd, us tax-payers have paid out of the butt for this to have already been in use and the whiz kids in the Senate keep holding this up too...
"Never murder your opponent when he is committing suicide." ~ W. Wilson
Duh!
June 11, 2008 - 20:22 ET by MightyMouthBalboa, the world has been safely disposing of nuclear waste for decades! What ARE you talking about?
"There are two types of people in this country; those who provide freedom and those who enjoy it." MM says...
It's not an exact science.
June 11, 2008 - 20:34 ET by balboaIt's not an exact science. There always wind up being leaks and contamination, etc. The more we do it, won't we create more opportunity for disaster?
"It's not an exact
June 11, 2008 - 20:40 ET by Clear thinker"It's not an exact science"
Neither is crossing a busy street.
"The more we do it, won't we create more opportunity for disaster?"
Same can be said about crossing a busy street.
There is risk in everything we do in life, so the best we can accomplish is to minimize the risk. Modern storage of Nuke waste would be safe. Or, it would be as safe as possible, which is pretty darn good considering technological advances.
"Abstain from McCain"
typical lib speak (with all due respect amigo)
June 11, 2008 - 20:45 ET by MightyMouthEverytime one leaves the house one invites "disaster". So don't leave the house! we can always go back to the stoneage. Oh but that doesn't work either does it?? cavemen had it a little tougher than we do. Jeeze, what ARE we to do?
"There are two types of people in this country; those who provide freedom and those who enjoy it." MM says...
Yes, but we've come along
June 11, 2008 - 20:48 ET by balboaYes, but we've come along far enough that the inherent danger of leaving the house is pretty low. I'm not convinced the same exists for waste disposal.
I'm not convinced the same exists for waste disposal.
June 11, 2008 - 20:54 ET by MightyMouthNow what gives you that idea? You must have massive amounts of evidence that nuclear waste is NOT being disposed of safely. Hate to call you on this (NOT) but you are being an alarmist. There... I said it.
"There are two types of people in this country; those who provide freedom and those who enjoy it." MM says...
MM... Wow, you sure are
June 11, 2008 - 21:01 ET by Clear thinkerMM...
Wow, you sure are in a forgiving mood tonight. Win the lottery or something?
;-)
"Abstain from McCain"
LOL Ct... Well he's
June 11, 2008 - 21:04 ET by bigtimerLOL Ct...
Well he's Mighty Mouth...he always wins the day!
One way or the other...
"Never murder your opponent when he is committing suicide." ~ W. Wilson
ha ha guys...
June 11, 2008 - 21:08 ET by MightyMouthI got a 4.0 in my Anger Management class this semester. :-)
"There are two types of people in this country; those who provide freedom and those who enjoy it." MM says...
Well here's an article from
June 11, 2008 - 21:08 ET by balboaWell here's an article from just the other day:
"Yucca Mountain safety plan is 'doomed,' nuclear company says"
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-yucca6-2008jun06,0,5309730.story
balboa!...
June 11, 2008 - 21:18 ET by MightyMouth<sigh> puleeezzzee!! More alarmism? Thanks for proving my point...
(still love ya, hehe)
:-)
"There are two types of people in this country; those who provide freedom and those who enjoy it." MM says...
The safe way.....that was vetoed by Jimmuh Carter.....
June 11, 2008 - 20:34 ET by BEGRUNTwas the breader reactor...............It re-used all of the spent fuel rods. I'm not completely familiar with the mechanics, but that's it in a nut shell, the way it was put to me.
"If a man does his best, what else is there"?
General George S. Patton Jr.
Thanks for the input BEGRUNT...
June 11, 2008 - 21:14 ET by MightyMouth...so I looked it up... and I am thinking to myself, why not? We have the technology and resources, we just don't use them! Now who's fault is that? It doesn't seem to matter if its republicans or democarts in power, NOTHING has been done for 30 years!
"There are two types of people in this country; those who provide freedom and those who enjoy it." MM says...
Thanks MM.......
June 11, 2008 - 21:43 ET by BEGRUNTIt is something that everyone has forgotten. Your absolutely right, nothing has been done in over 30 years. Had we confronted this problem early on, 1980, on, we could have had a viable alternative fuel source. I mean, come on, we built the "lunar rover" for gods sake, in 1971. I dont remember the fuel station it used on the moon?
"If a man does his best, what else is there"?
General George S. Patton Jr.
Just for fun
June 11, 2008 - 21:50 ET by UnsaneOh, how FUN it would be to drive lunar rovers here on earth!
They were powered by plutonium.
Environmentalists everywhere would explode with rage! It would be a sight to see...
:-)
Res tantum valet quantum vendi potest.
Unsane................................
June 11, 2008 - 22:13 ET by BEGRUNTROTFLMAO!!!!!!!!!
"If a man does his best, what else is there"?
General George S. Patton Jr.
The only thing I can think..
June 11, 2008 - 22:09 ET by MightyMouth..it must be the entrenched bureaucracy. Decades old mandates that were given and blindly accepted. And since the real bureaucracy doesn't get replaced every 4-8 years like the president, the "traditions" still prevail. We are talking about people with secure jobs and pensions here (unlike us poor dumb bastards that actually contribute to the GNP). In short, the problem is systemic.
"There are two types of people in this country; those who provide freedom and those who enjoy it." MM says...
What to do with waste?
June 11, 2008 - 20:44 ET by UnsaneFrance gets 78% of their power from nukes. But only TWO countries in the world have permanent disposal sites for nuclear waste. France is NOT one of them.
France also does a lot of waste reprocessing. In fact, their reprocessing facility at Le Havre (IIRC) reprocesses nuclear waste from places as far away as Japan.
As bigtimer points out, the United States has Yucca Mountain. Finland designated an island just off its southern coast as its disposal site for waste. Back in 2002, Finns voted for a new reactor...although I don't know what the progress is on the said reactor.
Huge strides have been made in nuclear reactor safety. I say let's build those bad boys.
Indeed, we buy enough power from Canada via their nuclear facilities and hydroelectric plants,especially in the northeast. What if we generated enough nuclear energy to sell to Canada and Mexico? It could be done...that's what France does routinely by selling its energy to its neighbors.
Res tantum valet quantum vendi potest.
Empty caves...
June 11, 2008 - 20:49 ET by Clear thinkerAnd we could use a lot of the empty caves in Afghanistan and Pakistan for storage. Just put signs up at the cave entrances that read "Pig Farm" and we won't even need to hire security!
"Abstain from McCain"
Actually, from what I've
June 11, 2008 - 21:05 ET by balboaActually, from what I've read, France gets 78% of their electricity from nuclear plants, but it amounts to 18% of their total energy use. And there seems to be debate on the safety of La Hague.
La Hague
June 11, 2008 - 21:15 ET by Cool ArrowDidn't they quit making that ice cream because all the honey bees are dying off?
LYDSEXICS UNTIE
Some moe thoughts
June 11, 2008 - 21:22 ET by UnsaneAmounts to 18% of their total energy source? Hmmm...got a reference? I prefer book form.
They debate the safety of Le Havre, but I haven't heard of an accident there yet. And note that Japan sends them waste to reprocess. Japan! That isn't exactly a hop, skip and a jump away...
Finally, we could reprocess waste, and use Yucca Mountain as well.
Res tantum valet quantum vendi potest.
People have many doubts
June 11, 2008 - 21:31 ET by balboaPeople have many doubts about the safety of Yucca, too.
Here's a letter from Mycle Schneider: http://www.nationalpost.com/opinion/story.html?id=530428
I would love to go nuclear and not have to worry whether or not oil will run out, but there are safety issues that I think aren't solved yet.
Hopeless...just
June 11, 2008 - 21:39 ET by bigtimerHopeless...just hopeless.
"Never murder your opponent when he is committing suicide." ~ W. Wilson
Hey, nuclear waste is a
June 11, 2008 - 21:46 ET by balboaHey, nuclear waste is a concern to me. I'm funny that way.
You're right, bal
June 11, 2008 - 21:51 ET by Cool ArrowMaybe they should make a movie that will scare America back into the stone age. We could get Jane Fonda and Jack Lemmon (OK, he's dead, but stay with me).
OK, you got me, it's been done before, and during the 30+ year moratorium we've done nothing (acceptable to the environmentalists) to eliminate the concerns. Why? I'd submit it's because the cause is already won by the greenies.
Meanwhile on another front the greenies have turned their attention to fossil fuels and done their part to ensure the poor think twice before procreating. We're installing corn chutes into our cars even as we speak.
Well, the Libs knew global hunger would increase, but maybe they aren't the caring individuals they claim to be.
BTW, don't touch that DDT. That's part of their extermination program also.
LYDSEXICS UNTIE
Whine and complain no matter what the solution is
June 11, 2008 - 21:56 ET by UnsanePeople had doubts about flying, too, yet planes carry millions of passengers everyday.
But let's just throw up our hands and completely give up, stop innovating and trying, and start the path to Nowhere, eh?
Here I am tossing out solutions and your response is to just whine about each one. Fortunately most Americans actually take RISKS and innovate, and invent, and propel the society forward, in spite of the whiners, the complainers and doubters.
Res tantum valet quantum vendi potest.
Unsane... You have to
June 11, 2008 - 21:59 ET by Clear thinkerUnsane...
You have to keep in mind that bal is one of those "I surrender" people.
"Abstain from McCain"
I'm all for innovation and
June 11, 2008 - 22:05 ET by balboaI'm all for innovation and trying. I NEVER said stop trying. But I'd just like to feel better about waste disposal before we start whole hog on implementing nuclear power.
I'm not whining; I'm voicing concerns. Geez...
I agree with you bal
June 11, 2008 - 22:16 ET by Cool ArrowThere are concerns with the technology that have been put on the back burner since the greenies won the "No Nukes" movement.
We've been lazy and even gluttonous with our conspicuous consumption of oil, and now we look for alternatives. But in 30 years since the last plant was built, the concerns have not been addressed.
I don't think there's anything wrong with raising your concern. We should have answered the questions years ago.
LYDSEXICS UNTIE
bal
June 11, 2008 - 22:17 ET by MightyMouthYou guys have been "voicing concerns" for 30 years. And now you see where that has gotten us. Geez...
"There are two types of people in this country; those who provide freedom and those who enjoy it." MM says...
Just trying to keep
June 11, 2008 - 22:23 ET by balboaJust trying to keep Americans from glowing and growing third arms. :-)
Maybe you guys should try...
June 11, 2008 - 23:10 ET by MightyMouth...showing examples of third arms.. then you wouldn't have to listen to guys like me calling you alarmists... and if I may: dumb asses.
Well not you specifically balboa, but just maybe guys who think like you.
"There are two types of people in this country; those who provide freedom and those who enjoy it." MM says...
Oh Mighty One... I am
June 11, 2008 - 23:16 ET by bigtimerOh Mighty One...
I am truly cracking up laughing here...that was one of the best posts of the night...
Priceless...
"Never murder your opponent when he is committing suicide." ~ W. Wilson
I have my little moments..
June 11, 2008 - 23:24 ET by MightyMouth..bt. thank you for the kudos. My problem is I am at my best just before bedtime. Speaking of which:
MM out for the night! God bless all! and good night...
"There are two types of people in this country; those who provide freedom and those who enjoy it." MM says...
Night MM... Bless you and
June 11, 2008 - 23:42 ET by bigtimerNight MM...
Bless you and yours..don't stay away so long...I sure miss ya'... your humor and wit is sorely missed here!
You and Jack as an unintentional team were hysterical at times....
"Never murder your opponent when he is committing suicide." ~ W. Wilson
You know I'm exaggerating.
June 12, 2008 - 11:07 ET by balboaYou know I'm exaggerating.
Bal - nuclear waste isn't
June 11, 2008 - 22:18 ET by Free StinkerBal - nuclear waste isn't any harder to handle than anything else you don't want to touch with your hands.
Just mix it with cement, makes "bricks" out of that and stack them in some unused corner of the desert. Nevada, for example, has plenty of unused space.
Robert Heinlen discussesd this some 30 years ago and called nuclear waste "one of the non-problems the anti-technology crowd delights in"
Well, sure, we should take
June 11, 2008 - 22:21 ET by balboaWell, sure, we should take all our waste disposal cues from sci-fi writers...
So you are saying he is
June 11, 2008 - 22:29 ET by Free StinkerSo you are saying he is incorrect in his facts?
Or was that just a sly ad hominum against Heinlein?
I have no idea if he's
June 11, 2008 - 22:33 ET by balboaI have no idea if he's correct or not, but I wouldn't take his word because...he's a writer. What does he know about nuclear waste? Now, if I want to know about fictional giant bugs? I'm going right to him. He's my first call.
Ooooh! A dig against
June 11, 2008 - 22:37 ET by Free StinkerOoooh! A dig against Starship Troopers.
That's a two-fer!
"Don't forget to vote this fall. Not for McCain, not ever, but there might be a Conservative Rep or Senator that Needs Your Vote" --Free Stinker
http://www.instantrimshot.c
June 11, 2008 - 22:44 ET by balboahttp://www.instantrimshot.com
bal.....that's classic!!!
June 12, 2008 - 12:52 ET by BEGRUNT"If a man does his best, what else is there"?
General George S. Patton Jr.
Starship Troopers
June 11, 2008 - 23:01 ET by Unsanebalboa better not be slamming the Heinlein novel.
Starship Troopers was a great book. Now, the movie on the other hand - as it has nothing at all to do with the novel (although I loved Denise Richards in that flick)...
Res tantum valet quantum vendi potest.
bal.....did you see.............
June 11, 2008 - 22:31 ET by BEGRUNTmy earlier post? "Breader Reactor".....this attempts to control the problem...
"If a man does his best, what else is there"?
General George S. Patton Jr.
I have the link open, but
June 11, 2008 - 22:35 ET by balboaI have the link open, but haven't read it yet. I vill.
Ya, ya....ok .......
June 12, 2008 - 12:50 ET by BEGRUNTyou betcha......LOL.....h/t..."Fargo"
"If a man does his best, what else is there"?
General George S. Patton Jr.
Begrunt
June 12, 2008 - 22:44 ET by RESTLESS 1Speaking of breeder reactors, I came across this recently. It is a Light Water Breeder Reactor. It ran for 5 years, but would have been expensive to build, even with lower cost infrastructural materials. Too many measurements, something like 2,000 per fuel cell, made it costly. That was in 1977. I would think robot technology and the like would make it less expensive, relatively speaking, today.
Anyway, it is a big file, but it looks interesting. I have only gotten through the first 2 or three sections. You may be able to make more sense of it than I.
Here is a shorter synopsis of the above link.
"This
liberal would be all about socialize -- uh, uh, would be about
basically taking over and the government running all of your companies."-Maxine Waters 2008
But, but, but...
June 11, 2008 - 23:07 ET by UnsaneBut how do we NOT try without building a few more reactors here and there? And thus risk generating more waste?
Res tantum valet quantum vendi potest.
My heart and prayers go out
June 11, 2008 - 21:09 ET by bigtimerMy heart and prayers go out to the Boy Scout Camp near Sioux City Iowa...four are reported dead so far...I really feel the heartbreak and anguish families have to be going through at the moment.
"Never murder your opponent when he is committing suicide." ~ W. Wilson
Neal Boortz has uncovered the real Giles Winterbourne!
June 11, 2008 - 22:29 ET by R D HelmGOVERNMENT EDUCATED IDIOT OF THE DAY
Where
would we be without our constant daily reminders of the general stupidity ...
occasional ignorance ... of American voters? I think you'll really enjoy this
line. The question in the newspaper is:
Should Congress Continue To Fund National Public Radio?
Now ..
click on the link and look at the citizen who responded to this question.
The highly-intelligent and no-doubt Democrat stalwart Richard Guess said:
"Congress should continue paying for it because if they don't, the taxpayers
will end up paying for it."
Just
damn. Does the average voter in America actually believe that if Congress passes
a bill to fund something that the Congress is paying out of pocket to do so?
Where in the hell does this guy think they get the money? This is why we have a
government that is so willing to spend your tax dollars on pork projects ...
because the average person isn't smart enough to realize that they are, in turn,
actually paying for it. It's no wonder we have a nation that's in sad shape ...
we've allowed people like this the chance to vote!
(h/t: Boortz.com)
________________________
LOL-Well, now we know. :-)
June 13 in history
June 13, 2008 - 22:39 ET by Giles WinterbourneOn June 13, 1966, Miranda rights were born.
On June 13, 1967, Thurgood Marshall was appointed to the Supreme Court.
On June 13, 1971, The New York Times began publishing the Pentagon Papers. (Progressive.Historians)
Very special, Giles
June 13, 2008 - 22:51 ET by BlondeLast weekend, on the anniversary of D-Day (which was never mentioned once that I saw or read)....all the press had on the agenda was "Obama & Clinton meet secretly".
And your point was?
David Gregory, do you know which damn network you lie for? ~ Uncle Jimbo, @Blackfive
Evenin', Blonde.
June 13, 2008 - 22:59 ET by R D HelmIf Giles' post above is any indication of his linear intellectual abilities, it explains a great deal.
I know you KWIM, but I doubt he has the foggiest clue.
In a way, I find that somewhat amusing. :-)
The truth is insensitive. - Neal Boortz
Ah yes, RD
June 13, 2008 - 23:01 ET by BlondeBut I just have a difficult time with handling totally off-topic posts like that.
I deal with the children all day long...is it too much to ask to have adult (intellectual) conversation, after dark?
Liberal twitism (or childish employees...take your pick!) is extremely tiring. I deal with it all day....it's more than enough!
David Gregory, do you know which damn network you lie for? ~ Uncle Jimbo, @Blackfive
Blonde,
June 13, 2008 - 23:12 ET by R D HelmYeah, you would think that Giles would have at least included this not-so-subtle development:
June 13: Hitler unleashes his long-promised "secret weapon" against England. Over the next 80 days, V-1 rocket bombs will kill 5,500 civilians and cause widespread destruction.
Then again, Giles probably thinks going after Hitler was an "illegal" act on our part.
LOL-Hell, he probably considers Roosevelt a war criminal. I shudder to think what his opinion of Truman might be.
After all, Giv'em Hell Harry ordered the nuking of Hiroshima and Nagasaki without so much as blinking, fully realizing it would save far more lives in the end.
Hell of a guy, that Harry. :-)
The truth is insensitive. - Neal Boortz
Give 'em Hell, Harry
June 13, 2008 - 23:17 ET by BlondeI've been to the Truman Museum in Independence, MO about fifteen times...very cool place.....very fifties.
Harry was too cool for school. And if he were still alive, he'd be a Republican.
Not that it matters, mind you. John McCain isn't...I am totally offended by him lately...and I said I'd give him my vote, but lately, I'm not so sure. "no drilling"...."CEO equity pay"....
I am thinking the demedia may have it right...he's gone off his rocker.
David Gregory, do you know which damn network you lie for? ~ Uncle Jimbo, @Blackfive
Blonde,
June 13, 2008 - 23:38 ET by R D HelmAnd if he were still alive, he'd be a Republican.
LOL, actually, he'd be a conservative.
What is more, he'd probably call Obama a sniveling wuss, just before he punched him out.
The very sight of Ted Kennedy would probably make him puke!
And Harry Reid? :-O
I bet ol' Harry S. is acheiving some rather high RPM's in his grave right about now.
The truth is insensitive. - Neal Boortz
You say you want a revolution
June 13, 2008 - 23:33 ET by nkviking75$139 last Friday. Can you imagine? Over $4 a gallon now nationally, approaching $5 in California. Are we now at the point where this is hyper-inflationary and economically harmful?
Maybe more important, in an environment where Democrats control Congress, and might next year also hold the White House, what are the not only possible but politically viable short and long-term solutions?
I suppose a coup d'etat is out of the question. ;-)
When you put the clowns in charge, don't be surprised when a circus breaks out.
Just checkin' to see how
July 18, 2008 - 16:04 ET by UphillJust checkin' to see how many of ya came back to see the new comment.