Posts with the tag drilling

Ohio House Bill 278

Vesper — Sun, 14 Dec 2008 00:00:59 EST

Help me, internet, you're my only hope

Last year, my local college Lakeland Community College was approached by several oil and gas companies courting them for the rights to dig natural gas wells on their campus. John D. Oil and Gas Company won the bid to dig five natural gas oil wells on the campus. ("LCC was the first college in Ohio to be founded by a vote of the people." yet we, the people and students had no say in the matter.) One of the primary investors and the leader of the board of trustees for Lakeland Community College was one of the Holden Family, big environmentalists in the area. (They created and oversee the Holden Arboretum.) When I spoke to Mike Mayher about the wells he assured me that John D. Oil and Gas Company was being as environmentally responsible as possible that they were using new tools and "wet drilling" technology to invoke as little disturbance to the environment as possible.

Today, (12/13/08) I went to a meeting today headed by NEOGAP a local group tied to OGAP (Oil and Gas Accountability Project) among the many people who showed up to the event were three graduate students from MIT, who have founded a group called extrACT, and came to Lakeland Community College from the south in Texas and New Mexico as well as Colorado where this kind of business is already happening. What I heard at this meeting was disheartening at best. Natural gas wells like the ones on Lakeland's campus have been popping up all over Ohio, some without any permission, with few if any royalties being paid to the land owners whom have the well on their properties. A week ago, Neogap was involved in a meeting at a Unitarian Church where a spokeswoman from OOGEEP (Ohio Oil and Gas Energy Education Program)claimed that the drilling processes used throughout Ohio were environmentally safe and sound, the stuff used to perform this drilling is mostly soil and sand and 1% Mystery Substance. I was not at the meeting myself, but Nick O'Neal, an employee of the Lake Metroparks was and he said the woman claimed that the mystery substance was "also in diapers" and so obviously MUST be safe.

A lot of these sites have the bulk of the information and they definitely know more than I do but here is how it all runs down: A state, in this case Ohio, "deregulates" oil and gas drilling within the confines of its state removing the rights of local governments to decide where drilling can and cannot happen in their communities giving that power to a new branch of government. In our case, that branch was a sub office of the Ohio Department of Natural Resources, the Minerals division. (House Bill 278) Natural Gas oil wells begin popping up all over the state with little or no consideration for their location and bypassing and ignoring all local laws regulating them. (Especially laws that keep them from digging near where children play) People are then forced, via mandatory polling, to have wells dug on there property even if they do not agree to it because the rest of the community does. Frank Skalla was one of the men who spoke to us at this meeting, he is part of a non-profit organization called LOGS (Love Our Green Spaces) recently a city park in Highland Heights was targeted by Bass Energy for a natural gas well, and the community in Highland Heights revolted against the drilling. The petitioned the city to slow down the process then started a charter amendment to protect the city park. Contained within that amendment was specific wording that protected the city parks and other green places from commercial interests. The people of Highland Heights voted overwhelmingly for the amendment and stopped the drilling, now, Bass Energy is suing the city of Highland Heights.

Ohio is now one of the least regulated states in regards to Natural Gas and Oil drilling. The MIT Group, extrACT is supported by MIT's Center For Future Civic Media and they will soon be implementing new tools to help local areas chart and report dealings with oil and gas companies, as well as health and illness outbreaks in areas where wells are pre-existing (the ODNR (Ohio Department of Natural Resources) refuses to, and does not report on illnesses or incidents.) These tolls will include Landman Report Card (It will probably be renamed something else here for Ohio as Landmen is mostly a southern term that we do not have up here) which is basically a review site, kind of like rotten tomatoes, but for oil and gas businesses so users can write about their experiences with these companies and write up and report issues with these companies for others to view. Also, a Drill Well program, which will be using something like google maps to chart where oil wells are as land owners are not obligated to inform you if you have a well on your property when you rent or lease land from them. (Also, the EPA is forbidden from getting onvolved in this at all, as there is a special law that excludes oil and gas companies from the Clean Air and Clean Water acts) Once these sites go up online I will be updating this entry with the relevant information. Please, if you live in the greater NE Ohio area, or if you are an environmentalist at all, spread the word. We need people to contact Senator Tim Grendell who is sympathetic to the works of the environmental organizations like OGAP, NEOGAP and extrACT who are speaking out against this and needs your letters. I am also looking for information on Norbert Lauder and and Tom Kneehouse who both seem to be involved in this matter in some manner according to speculation.

The Truth about Drilling to Prosperity - an open letter

Mark Daniel Merritt — Thu, 09 Oct 2008 13:27:35 EDT

An open letter to Senators Obama and Biden:

First, let me commend both Senator Obama and Senator Biden on the terrific campaign that they are running and their successful debates. They both are behaving in a way that is polished, tasteful and above board. This is the kind of campaign EVERYONE should be running, rather than attacking people for what their middle name is, or with whom they may have served on the board of a charity. I serve on several boards of non-profit groups, and I have never once asked the other board members what they were doing in 1969 while I was 8 years old. Good for Senators Obama and Biden for not bowing to use those kinds of tactics!

Secondly, I am a former Republican who is now 100% in favor of Barack Obama. I have donated to his campaign and have volunteered when I have been able. One issue that has popped up a couple of times in the debates makes my blood boil. The Republican candidates have raised the issue of drilling for oil now in the US as if it is some kind of magic bullet that will fix things overnight. We all know that is not the case and they know it too. This drilling to prosperity idea is a lie.

I want to make it clear that I have no associations whatsoever to the energy industry or to Mr. Pickens. I am a concerned citizen and I have common sense. Who says that the government lifting bans on drilling will cause any actual drilling? The oil companies are only going to drill if it is in their best interests to do it. It costs millions of dollars to drill for oil. The oil companies aren't going to do that unless they are convinced that the oil is there. Anything else would be stupid. I have yet to see any conclusive proof of significant, US reserves of oil that can be tapped which will change the status quo now or in the future.

The politicizing of the cost of gasoline is just that—politics as usual. No one wants to pay more for anything than we used to pay for it. Especially something we use a lot of. But consider this--gasoline costs about three times what it did in the early 1990's per gallon. Ironically, milk has had a comparable increase in price per gallon. Both used to be about $1.30 per gallon back then, and they are at or near $4.00 per gallon now. So why is there no outcry over the cost of Milk? Why is there no chant for farmers to beat their cows over the head for that one more drop of milk that could (at least theoretically) lower the price? This is all politics, and mindless politics at that. McCain and Palin are pandering to people who have jumped on a bandwagon that is on the "road to nowhere."

The only concrete, long-term solution to the US energy problem is to change completely over time from oil-based fuel to alternative fuels. I endorse real solutions over bandwagon solutions that really do not get to the bottom of anything but make a group of uninformed citizens feel better. I think it is time that the Obama campaign unmasks this kind of pandering for what it is. At the same time, I would encourage Senators Obama and Biden to think through the proposals of T. Boone Pickens. The propositions offered by Mr. Pickens possess the potential to put our country on the road to an enduring oil-free solution, while at the same time offering a significant interim overhaul to our energy problems by converting significant portions of our current oil-based energy uses over to other types of energy such as wind, solar and clean natural gas—all of which we have an abundance of here in the US.

So, the next time Senator McCain or Governor Palin raise this issue of "drill baby drill," why not unveil this for what it is--pandering to a group of people who have not taken the time to examine the facts that “drill here, drill now” incontrovertibly solves nothing; and then offer a tangible solution. I genuinely maintain that the “Pickens Plan” can furnish this solution. I do not know Mr. Pickens, or what his motives might be for having presented his plan. But I have studied his plan and I believe it will work. I am convinced that Senator Obama and Senator Biden are mindful individuals, and I am positive they can discern that the plan is a much better solution than the phony baloney offered by their opponents.

Again, I thank Senators Obama and Biden for the extraordinary campaign that they are running. I am so enthusiastic about real change. And I honestly trust in their candidacy to bring that kind of change. I just detest seeing this one issue go unanswered or partially answered since I think it is on the forefront to the future of our nation. We don’t just need change for change’ sake, we need changes that are real solutions to real problems facing our country. We need Barack Obama and Joe Biden in the White House!

Very Sincerely, your friend and avid devotee,

Mark Daniel Merritt

Mount Airy, NC

Dems gettin bamboozled depressingly easily

Choice Voter — Sat, 27 Sep 2008 16:36:54 EDT

Look: FDR created the FNMA which was basically crucial to the creation of a Middle Class in the USA. (Were they immature enough to say "Fannie" back then?) LBJ privatized it-- a thoroughly foolhardy move. (Notably, at least one book makes the strong case that Johnson was among those responsible for the murder of JFK, who had BTW a few months prior just put money creation/backing in the hands of Congress, taking it back from the unaccountable, private entity called "Federal Reserve". (Hey BO, how about estimating the M3 Money Supply for us?!!?)) This key backstory of FNMA is never mentioned on US MSM: what it tells us is that privatization aint workin out for us.. which even the uber-capitalism worshipping Wallstreeters are realizing now.. threating the planet with imminent Great Depression if their losses aint immediately Socialized.. gains to be privatized when they occur though, of course! (Anyone else notice how Randi Rhodes (www.therandirhodesshow.com) seems to think she invented the phrase "socialize the risk, privatize the gains"..?... I actually heard it in a Noam Chomsky (http://www.zmag.org/znet/writers//?next=21) speech some 20 years or so ago.)

Couple this weakminded sheepishness ("bipartisanship" used yet again... this is getting so, so old... as a euphamism for [Dems cave after putting up a measly rhetorical resistance to Repug agendae]) with that which we see towards the offshore drilling ban. I appreciated Barack mentioning a few times how absurd it was that the Right spinmachine made headway in convincing people to favor drilling, when the numbers show it would amount to a grand total of a few cents-worth change in gasoline price, which wouldnt even happen until almost a decade from now. Trouble is, he was far too Kerry-like in doing this, as he is with many things: way, way too niceguy in his approach, not utilising the gobs of glaring, huge negatives which the typical US TV idiot population have no idea are out there because they dont read something like WWW.COMMONDREAMS.ORG everyday.
How about using some of this massive fundraising exposing how manipulative and exploitative it is for Repugs to mislead people like this? Seems they must have focus-grouped it, and the degree to which this bashes environmentalists and hippie surfers is way more attractive to the the gas-guzzling fat-ass idiot masses than any sane, sciententifically sound argument about cost/risk/reward analyses.

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/opinion/380377_thomasonline26.html

Do NOT trust Paulson:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/anatole_kaletsky/article4820549.ece

http://www.mediachannel.org/wordpress/2008/09/26/are-we-on-the-verge-of-the-deluge/

Fighting Untruths

Nancy — Sat, 20 Sep 2008 00:43:32 EDT

The Internet is a funny thing...it has so much information, and yet so much misinformation! Case in point...at my school, we can sit around having great discussions about all kinds of things. The other day I was saying I only go back to visit Texas (I moved east three years ago) about once a year to see my accountant. A colleague said - wow...must be a great accountant. So I mentioned that I own a little land where they have drilled for natural gas and am part-owner of an oil well - so the accountant in TX knows how to deal with that on our taxes. (I waited for the question of if I rode a horse to work when I lived there - LOL).

So - this led to a discussion of drilling off-shore for oil and what I thought about it - and I said it was a terrible idea! I brought up Gore's Challenge to America for 100% clean energy in ten years... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NAnQ1cFA_zM

Wind and solar are the way to go...did you hear about Bloomburg's idea to put wind turbines on the skyscrapers of NYC? What a great idea! How about solar panels on the roofs of all the townhouses and apartments that are being built for affordable housing in NJ? I wish I had solar panels on roof of MY townhome - but it goes against the covenants.

So - most of the people were listening and agreeing. Then one guy said "yeah - but it takes years to recoup solar panels....and while we're fighting about drilling off-shore, the Chinese are already doing slant drilling off the coast of Florida, taking OUR oil and selling it back to us". HUNH?? So I searched - and sure enough - found that rhetoric on a bunch of right-wing websites - none with hard data to back it up. But that's the scary thing...so many people don't need the hard data - they believe what they want to believe. How do we fight the untruths?

Offshore Drilling

bfree — Tue, 16 Sep 2008 11:51:08 EDT

Anyone who drives across the country (particularly in Southern California and Texas) can see idle oil wells everywhere. A rancher in North Dakato recently struck a rich oil deposit on his property - without exploratory drilling.

The reason the oil industry does not tap these existing resources is simply to keep prices high. Gas prices have dropped over the past few month - not because of newly drilled oil wells - but due to reduced gas spending (through the increased use of hybrids, or reduced travel).

Supply and demand - as the demand goes down, so do gas prices.

The push to open up ecologically sensitive sites like ANWR and the California/Florida coasts is to simply give more "free" lands to the oil industry. At best, this will simply increase our dependence on oil, and put more money into foreign hands. At worst, it diverts our focus/resources from the real solution: rebuilding our nation's infrastructure: roads, bridges and power grids - all of which generate jobs that cannot easily be exported overseas.

By creating a new, efficient and united power grid, we will enable the use of new power plants: geothermal, wave/tide/dams, solar (and even clean-burning coal and oil) - spurring market-driven competition, innovation, and electric cars - which in turn will create new jobs, increase exports, and strengthen our economy.

Just say no to the oil industry puppets: Bush/Palin. The Republican party has many strong/experienced women as governors and industry execs - their choice of Palin is quite transparent.

Drill, Drill, Drill (Eve Ensler on Sarah Palin)

Brandi Lou — Mon, 15 Sep 2008 11:02:31 EDT

I am having Sarah Palin nightmares. I dreamt last night that she was a member of a club where they rode snowmobiles and wore the claws of drowned and starved polar bears around their necks. I have a particular thing for Polar Bears. Maybe it's their snowy whiteness or their bigness or the fact that they live in the arctic or that I have never seen one in person or touched one. Maybe it is the fact that they live so comfortably on ice. Whatever it is, I need the polar bears.

I don't like raging at women. I am a Feminist and have spent my life trying to build community, help empower women and stop violence against them. It is hard to write about Sarah Palin. This is why the Sarah Palin choice was all the more insidious and cynical. The people who made this choice count on the goodness and solidarity of Feminists.

But everything Sarah Palin believes in and practices is antithetical to Feminism which for me is part of one story -- connected to saving the earth, ending racism, empowering women, giving young girls options, opening our minds, deepening tolerance, and ending violence and war.

I believe that the McCain/Palin ticket is one of the most dangerous choices of my lifetime, and should this country chose those candidates the fall-out may be so great, the destruction so vast in so many areas that America may never recover. But what is equally disturbing is the impact that duo would have on the rest of the world. Unfortunately, this is not a joke. In my lifetime I have seen the clownish, the inept, the bizarre be elected to the presidency with regularity.

Sarah Palin does not believe in evolution. I take this as a metaphor. In her world and the world of Fundamentalists nothing changes or gets better or evolves. She does not believe in global warming. The melting of the arctic, the storms that are destroying our cities, the pollution and rise of cancers, are all part of God's plan. She is fighting to take the polar bears off the endangered species list. The earth, in Palin's view, is here to be taken and plundered. The wolves and the bears are here to be shot and plundered. The oil is here to be taken and plundered. Iraq is here to be taken and plundered. As she said herself of the Iraqi war, "It was a task from God."

Sarah Palin does not believe in abortion. She does not believe women who are raped and incested and ripped open against their will should have a right to determine whether they have their rapist's baby or not.

She obviously does not believe in sex education or birth control. I imagine her daughter was practicing abstinence and we know how many babies that makes.

Sarah Palin does not much believe in thinking. From what I gather she has tried to ban books from the library, has a tendency to dispense with people who think independently. She cannot tolerate an environment of ambiguity and difference. This is a woman who could and might very well be the next president of the United States. She would govern one of the most diverse populations on the earth.

Sarah believes in guns. She has her own custom Austrian hunting rifle. She has been known to kill 40 caribou at a clip. She has shot hundreds of wolves from the air.

Sarah believes in God. That is of course her right, her private right. But when God and Guns come together in the public sector, when war is declared in God's name, when the rights of women are denied in his name, that is the end of separation of church and state and the undoing of everything America has ever tried to be.

I write to my sisters. I write because I believe we hold this election in our hands. This vote is a vote that will determine the future not just of the U.S., but of the planet. It will determine whether we create policies to save the earth or make it forever uninhabitable for humans. It will determine whether we move towards dialogue and diplomacy in the world or whether we escalate violence through invasion, undermining and attack. It will determine whether we go for oil, strip mining, coal burning or invest our money in alternatives that will free us from dependency and destruction. It will determine if money gets spent on education and healthcare or whether we build more and more methods of killing. It will determine whether America is a free open tolerant society or a closed place of fear, fundamentalism and aggression.

If the Polar Bears don't move you to go and do everything in your power to get Obama elected then consider the chant that filled the hall after Palin spoke at the RNC, "Drill Drill Drill." I think of teeth when I think of drills. I think of rape. I think of destruction. I think of domination. I think of military exercises that force mindless repetition, emptying the brain of analysis, doubt, ambiguity or dissent. I think of pain.

Do we want a future of drilling? More holes in the ozone, in the floor of the sea, more holes in our thinking, in the trust between nations and peoples, more holes in the fabric of this precious thing we call life?

Eve Ensler: Drill, Drill, Drill

September 2008

i heart eve ensler, even more so now than ever before. this woman has awed and inspired me for many years. i came to know her through the Vagina Monologues, which i was lucky enough to see her perform solo back in 2001, and have followed her work --literary and altruistic-- ever since. she is a playwright/performer/activist and the founder of V-Day, a global movement to end (sexual) violence against women and girls. they just celebrated their 10th anniversary, V to the Tenth, in New Orleans. google her if you dare and pass this piece along to the ones you love, especially those with a vagina! thanx. i hope these words find you all snug as bugs in rugs. take care and g'nite. <3, B.

taken from the Huffington Post, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/eve-ensler/drill-drill-drill_b_124829.html, during yet another shameless, self-imposed media blitz brought on by severe tropical weather and political unrest :l

DRILLING...OIL GOING TO THE HIGHEST BIDDER!

Mike Ciriello — Sun, 14 Sep 2008 21:57:00 EDT

All oil drilled goes on the WORLD market.

The highest bidder gets the oil.

Increased drilling off the coasts of America will guarantee two things. Oil companies will make more money and oil and gas extracted will be sold to the highest bidder and the highest bidder could the US, or, it could be China or Japan or India or France. If you think more drilling is going to save you money, or make America "free from foreign oil", think again.

Can oil be drilled off our shores without a major environmental disaster destroying your favorite beach? Probably. But that's not really the question we should be asking...the question should be who does off shore drilling really help?

The average American consumer, giant multinational corporations or anyone really? In this political season when the facts get lost and are replaced by lies that appeal to the emotional instincts in all of us, it's good to have information from non-partisan, unaffiliated, sources to understand that not all problems have easy answers. This is one of them...to drill or not drill is not as simple as some would have us believe.

(MORE...)

Offshore Drilling - A Message from Barack Obama

Alan in Elgin, IL — Sat, 13 Sep 2008 16:58:17 EDT

senator_obama@obama.senate.gov
Wed 9/10/08 10:14 AM

Dear Alan:

Thank you for advising me of your opposition to oil and gas drilling in offshore lands of Alaska, Florida, and Virginia. I appreciate hearing from you, and share your concern for our country's sensitive marine areas.

Continued proposals to drill for oil is not the answer to solving our country’s energy problems. Our country needs a more balanced national energy policy that promotes conservation and the development of renewable energy sources. I support increasing the fuel efficiency standards for automobiles, promoting the use of biodiesel and ethanol fuels, and creating incentives for private companies to explore the possibilities of alternative forms of renewable energy. By relying more on energy conservation and shifting our country's goals toward exploring and expanding viable sources of renewable energy, we can develop a sound energy policy that also preserves our planet’s natural resources. Encroaching upon the vulnerable habitats of our coastline is not only bad environmental policy, it is short-sighted energy policy as well.

With regard to high oil prices, the Energy Information Administration reports that drilling in the Outer Continent Shelf in the Pacific, Atlantic and eastern Gulf regions in areas that are not open to drilling “would not have a significant impact on domestic crude oil and natural gas production or prices before 2030. Leasing would begin no sooner than 2012, and production would not be expected to start before 2017. Because oil prices are determined on the international market, however, any impact on average wellhead prices is expected to be insignificant.” To view the full report, you can visit:

http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/aeo/otheranalysis/ongr.html

In addition, a House and Senate Joint Economic Committee analysis found that drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuse could reduce fuel prices between 1 to 4 cents by 2018, an amount that could be reduced should the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) choose to limit oil production -- a strategy they have employed in the past. I have enclosed this study for your reference.

The solution to mitigating gas price shocks, therefore, is further distancing the nation from OPEC pricing and making a long-term transition to alternative energy sources and improved conservation or development of oil and natural gas substitutes. Without this approach, oil and gas drilling will only postpone what will be a major crisis -- far worse than current conditions.

In the short term, however, I have worked to address the unchecked speculation that is occurring in our energy markets and contributing to the fuel price volatility experienced by motorists. On June 12, 2008, I joined my colleague Senator Dick Durbin in introducing S. 3130, a bill to increase transparency in the oil futures markets by providing greater resources to the Commodity Futures Trading Commission to detect and punish price manipulation and excessive speculation. This bill also moves the CFTC inspector general out of the CFTC Chairman’s office, and stops speculators from escaping U.S. regulations by manipulating the use of foreign markets.

You may also be interested to know that I introduced the Oil Subsidy Elimination for New Strategies on Energy (Oil SENSE) Act last year to repeal more than $3.7 billion of unwarranted subsidies, programs, and tax incentives for oil and gas companies that were included in the 2005 Energy Policy Act. The Oil SENSE Act also requires oil and gas companies to resume payment of royalties for the production of oil or natural gas from Federal land, which could be worth more than $7 billion over the next 5 years. By removing unnecessary incentives that only encourage the expansion of offshore drilling, we can allot more resources to incentives that promote the development of renewable energy resources.

Finally, I also support the Consumer-First Energy Act of 2008, a proposal introduced in May by Senator Reid, as it addresses the root causes of high gas prices I discuss above.

Again, Alan, thank you for contacting me. You can rest assured that I will continue to be a strong voice for our environment while working with my colleagues to develop policies that will lead to true energy independence while ensuring environmental sustainability.

Sincerely,

Barack Obama
United States Senator

Palin Interview Says A Ton About McCain

Michelle — Sat, 13 Sep 2008 13:01:41 EDT

This week, Sarah Palin gave her first unscripted (although highly prepared for)interview, nearly two weeks after accepting her Republican vice presidential nomination. Although the interview spoke volumes about Palin and her inability to lead our nation, that is not my focus. Rather, my focus is on John McCain and how Palin’s interview is evidence of why he is unfit to serve as President of the United States of America.

In her interview last night, when asked if Obama should have picked Hillary Clinton as his running mate, Palin replied derisively, “I think he's regretting not picking her now, I do.” (Los Angeles Times, Sept. 13, 2008) Of course, what Palin failed to mention is that Barack Obama did not pick Hillary because, rather than focus on what would bring the most “wow factor” during this election or what could possibly get him a few more votes in the here and now, Obama focused on choosing a vice presidential running mate that would make the best president. After careful review of all of the potential VP candidates’ credentials, Obama realized that Biden has the Senate, foreign policy, national security and economic policy experience to successfully lead America.

McCain, on the other hand, chose Palin precisely for that “wow factor.” Seeing that Obama had chosen Biden and not Hillary, he hoped to create a media frenzy (which he did) by choosing a female running mate. Hoping to galvanize voters that might have been in that Clinton camp while, at the same time, appeasing the Christian conservative base that McCain has so much trouble connecting with, he settled on Palin despite her utter inexperience. McCain did not pick Palin because she would make the best president – that is clear. No, he chose her because she could possibly bring him the most votes right now and getting into office is all that McCain cares about right now. In choosing Palin, McCain failed America and it’s people – he is not planning what is best for America’s future, he is only planning what is best for John McCain right now.

If elected, should John McCain be unable to serve his entire term as President, McCain leaves us with Sarah Palin as President. Below is a an outline of Palin’s weaknesses, weaknesses that McCain knew Palin had when he chose her, but weaknesses that he was willing to overlook in an effort to get that extra vote; weaknesses that show McCain was not putting his “country first;” and weaknesses that we, as the American people voting in this election, cannot allow ourselves to overlook.

Foreign Policy is Foreign to Sarah Palin

Aside from a trip last year to Kuwait with a stop in Germany, in her 44 years of life Palin has not traveled outside the continent of North America, only having visited Mexico and Canada. (abcnews.com, Sept. 11, 2008) In the dangerous world we live in today, how can we have a president who has never even been to the very countries that are our allies, or even more importantly, our potential enemies?

When pressed during her interview, Palin admitted that she had never met with a foreign head of state. Of course, she only admitted it after attempting to fudge that she had – this would have been yet another lie to the American people had Charlie Gibson not caught it. (abcnews,com, Sept. 11, 2008)

When asked by Charlie Gibson if she agreed with the "Bush Doctrine," Palin was clearly, and embarrassingly, stumped.(abcnews.com, Sept. 11, 2008) I guess no one prepped her on the Bush Doctrine in the two weeks she spent in Alaska with McCain’s top policy advisors preparing for this interview. (New York Times, Sept. 11, 2008) Apparently the Bush-Doctrine of a preemptive strike on another nation that we believe poses a threat (ahem…Iraq!) was not important enough for her to be prepped on. That should tell us something.

Asked how the proximity of Alaska provides insight into Russian actions, shereplied: "They're our next door neighbors and you can actually see Russia from land here in Alaska, from an island in Alaska." (abcnews.com, Sept. 11, 2008) Unless Palin is some sort of superhero and she can actually see Russia’s actions when standing on this island, then no, that does not help to answer the question at all.

Palin’s War-Focused Mentality

During her interview, Palin stated “that Georgia and Ukraine should be admitted to NATO and that the U.S. should be prepared to go to war if Russia invades Georgia again.”(The Wall Street Journal, Sept. 12, 2008) She then went on to say that we cannot repeat the Cold War after, thankfully, winning the Cold War during the Reagan administration– the Cold War was actually ended three years after Reagan left the White House. (Los Angeles Times, Sept. 12, 2008) I guess none of the six colleges that Palin attended over six years taught her about the Cold War. (Associated Press, Sept. 4, 2008)

Palin also "said that she believed a nuclear Iran presented a threat to 'everyone in the world' and that if Israel's existence was threatened by those weapons it had a right to defend itself." (abcnews.com, Sept. 11, 2008). When asked if we would cooperate with Israel in that event, Palin replied that “We cannot second guess the steps that Israel has to take to defend itself,” implying that we would cooperate with an Israeli decision to take out Iranian nuclear facilities, thus going to war with Iran in support of Israel. ( abcnews.com, Sept. 11, 2008)

Palin’s Disregard for the Environment

Palin "also reversed her stand on the cause of climate change, telling ABC News that she believes 'man's activities certainly can be contributing to the issue of global warming.' Less than a year ago, she said the opposite."(Los Angeles Times, Sept. 12, 2008) If Palin, against all scientific evidence, believes that global warming isn’t primarily man-made, how can Palin work to provide solutions to ease global warming? The solution must stop the problem at the root – of course, despite the volumes of scientific evidence proving otherwise, Palin conveniently believes the root lies elsewhere, making reducing global warming, should she lead our nation, difficult at best.

Despite the fact that McCain disagrees with US drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR), Palin adamantly supports the idea. In fact, she has gone so far as to sue the U.S. Department of the Interior for it’s May ruling to list the polar bear species as threatened on the endangered species list. The decision is the result of nine U.S. Geological Survey Studies that find 2/3 of the world’s polar bear species population -and ALL of Alaska’s- will disappear by mid-century because of ice loss. Because for as long as the polar bears are listed as an endangered species we cannot drill in ANWR, Palin is ruthlessly aimed at removing the bears from the endangered species list, calling the ninegovernment studies highly speculative and questionable, insisting their populations are stable. Apparently, Palin prefers to put the interests of big oil ahead of that of our planet and its people, specifically, the environment and people of Alaska, her home state. Not exactly the best quality in a possible future president, is it?

Caution – Social Agendas May Differ

When asked about abortion, Palin replied: “I am pro-lfe. I do respect other people's opinion on this also, and I think that a culture of life is best for America.”(Los Angeles Times, Sept. 13, 2008)

“On stem cell research, the McCain campaign released a radio ad Friday touting his support for stem cell research the Bush White House -- and Palin -- opposes. Palin said she ‘owes it to Americans’ to explain her personal opinion which ‘may end up different than what the policy in an administration might be.’”(Chicago Sun-Times, Sept. 13, 2008)

So, on the issue of abortion, it is both McCain and Palin’s personal opinion that women should not have the freedom to be able to choose to have an abortion in America. Yet, they both feel it proper to overturn Roe v. Wade if elected and make their personal opinion the law that all Americans must follow, whether they agree with Palin and McCain or not. And on the issue of stem cell research, because McCain and Palin disagree, Palin’s personal viewpoint (that stem cell research should be outlawed) will not be vigorously pushed into policy by the administration. This doesn’t seem like a government of the people and for the people – seems more like the government of McCain for the people that agree with McCain. After all, even Palin’s viewpoints don’t influence McCain so how can we, as the American people, stand a chance of having his decisions influenced by our needs? And the inconsistencies among McCain and Palin mean that should Palin need to take office, we will have a president with a different social agenda than the one she is replacing. An America that changes at the whim of its leaders is not the democratic and free America that our forefathers worked so diligently to found.

Palin Loves Earmarks, Actually

Palin likes to claim she is a Washington outsider, always opposing earmarks, but as Charlie Gibson exposed during their interview:

She was a vigorous supporter of the “Bridge to Nowhere” (even wearing a t-shirt supporting the cause), a bridge slated to be built with $398 million in federal funds to a small island with only 50 residents, a project that is now the poster child for needless government spending.

This supposed “Washington outsider” hired a powerful Washington lobbyist in order to get the funds for the “Bridge to Nowhere,” the same bridge McCain ads say she opposed.

After Congress abandoned the infamous “Bridge to Nowhere” and it became a national embarrassment, then Sarah Palin changed her stance to that of opposition, but Alaska still kept the $223 million it had received to build the bridge that never came to be.

Although McCain ads tout McCain and Palin as “mavericks” fighting against earmarks, under Palin, the state of Alaska, the second least populous state in the U.S., received $155 million in earmarks for 2008; Illinois, Obama’s state and one of our most populous states in the U.S., received only $22 per person for 2008. That is ten times the amount of earmarks per person for Palin and Alaska– not such a “maverick” when you look at the numbers, eh?

This year alone, this “maverick” requested $3.2 million in earmarks to study the genetics of harbor seals and the mating habits of crabs – the same type of earmarks that McCain/Palin in their speeches and ads have said they will fight if elected. By selecting Palin as his running mate, McCain stands in support of Palin’s history, her excessive use of government ear marks, her ties to powerful Washington lobbyists, actions that prove neither McCain or Palin are or will be the “maverick” agents of change they repeatedly claim they will be.

McCain, in choosing Sarah Palin, has done a disservice to America. Not only has he picked a candidate that is inexperienced in matters of foreign policy and national security, issues that are crucial to the continued safety of the American people, but he has also picked a candidate with a history of, even in the sparsely populated state of Alaska, working with lobbyists, supporting earmarks, abandoning important environmental issues, and failing to abide by established ethical standards. McCain has chosen “wow factor” over who would make the best President, he has chosen “wow factor” over who is best for America and it’s people. When he made this decision, he wasn’t thinking about the family that just had their home foreclosed on, the single mother that just lost her job, the elderly couple who can’t afford to heat their home this winter or the parents taking on third jobs to pay for their child’s cancer treatment which is not covered by insurance – no, McCain was thinking about how he could best manipulate the American people to get himself elected. When McCain chose Sarah Palin, he put McCain first and his country second. We can’t make the mistake of electing someone who has forgotten the American people even before he has been elected.

Hurricanes and their impact on oil prices

Angie from Miami, FL — Fri, 12 Sep 2008 17:05:48 EDT

The Republicans want to drill off shore in the Gulf of Mexico without understanding the economic repercussions that this represents. While Florida and the other Gulf shore states enjoy passive weather 6 months out of the year the other 6 months were are threatened with storms and hurricanes with great potential of destruction. If the destruction was not bad enough, we then suffer the immediate interruption in the production of oil. All the oil rigs are evacuated and the production stops! This drives the price oil up and here we go again. Americans paying higher costs for fuel each and every time we have a hurricane or a tropical storm. ENOUGH we need other fuel sources and stop our dependence on petroleum.
Another year of storms and another year of high fuel costs.
The price of a barrel of oil went down significantly in the past several days but our fuel prices in Florida went up, thanks to Hurricane IKE. WE CAN NOT CONTINUE TO DO THIS.

Obama campaign exposed! - Special interest groups

CumberlandGeorge — Fri, 12 Sep 2008 03:56:50 EDT

This is just shameful. This shows you what the Obama/Biden campaign is really all about.

Obama claims he is running a campaign opposed to special interest groups. What puts the lie to such claims is this button put out by the Obama campaign:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v343/SGeorge/Obama_polar_bears.jpg

My Protestant Faith Pushes Me To Obama

A Goner — Thu, 11 Sep 2008 21:20:14 EDT

As my Catholic brethren see the inconsistencies in the Republican party about the abortion issue and poverty. I too as a Protestant see the issues in a similar light.Today, Sept. 9, I was listening to a radio editorial on WMBI - Moody Bible Radio here in Indianapolis. The editorialist commented about the high gas prices, the foreclosures, the daily struggle to make ends meet and then he began to emphasize... this is why we need to drill for oil now and utilize America's resources.... you can guess the rest.This sounded like a talking point straight from the Republican Nat'l Convention to this radio station's editorial board. I'm sure that these comments are repeated in small town America - hundreds of towns - several times a day. I expect no less from Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and Laura Ingram.I was in agreement till he got to the drill for oil now...every thinking person knows who is informed that drilling domestic oil in the Arctic won't do anything for 10 years at the earliest to make a dent on our foreign oil dependency.I saw the RNC. I appreciate John McCain's service to our country. His wife's life of service was highly inspirational and admirable. My father fought in WW II in the Royal Air Force, he was in London (when it was being bombed by the Germans, an enemy to the free world at that time) and my grandfather fought in WW I in the Royal Navy (ditto).Just what did Viet Nam do to the US? Ho Chi Minh, a high school history teacher, went to the UN in 1948 (?) and asked for VietNam's independence from France and said he wanted Viet Nam to have a constitution similar to the US and that George Washington was his hero. The French did not want to let this colony go... must have some natural resource... and so Ho Chi Minh asked China and Russia for help because he couldn't get help from the US to gain independence from France. That's why there is so much discomfort about discussing the Viet Nam War and going to Iraq on false pretenses that there was WMD... has the same cloudy distortion. Robert McNamara met Ho Chi Minh after the war, they sat down together, and after 20 years, he realized the war really was unnecessary. There are videos and books about McNamara that attest to this.That dog of delusion isn't barking in a lot of woods anymore... especially the rest of the world... they are not in denial about the leadership and the direction this country is going... we are in denial. It cost the German people a lot to remain in denial sixty years ago, although we have no one figurehead at this time. we are battling against a mentality, mindset, world point of view - - is John McCain the man of the hour to continue the Bush mentality four more years?Well, it's up to us to vote for him or someone else (thank goodness we have Sen. Obama as an alternative) and I'm at the place where we will get what we deserve if we don't pay attention and get involved.Having said that, this is America, you can fool some of us all of the time, but you can't fool everybody all of the time - we are too diverse.I think in every race, religion, creed and nationality, there will always be a remnant of people that God can use who are not persuaded by the "mob" psychology of racism, sexism, religious intolerance, classism, etc. to exploit, kill another human or group of people. Today, 2008, Hindus are burning Christians out of their homes and villages in India, just like in Darfur....genocide on a large or small scall. Jesus said your worst enemies would be in your own household... who's watching our house? Women are being killed or beaten up by their own husbands right here in the USA... Thank you Sen. Biden for pushing that bill helping women who are victims of domestic violence!It is no secret that the Southern Democrats who were Baptists and Pentecostals (segregated until Azusa St. Revival) who believed in segregation and racist ideology based on the Bible ran to the Republican party back in the 60s as Lyndon Johnson said they would. That mentality (I'm better than you), although more subtle today, is more of an elitist distinction of educated vs. non-educated, rich vs. not rich, then merely race, nationality or religion... Amazing the fingerpointing is at the blacks who respond with Liberation Theology such as Rev. Jeremiah Wright. Thank goodness he exhorts his flock to trust that vengeance is to be in God's hands and they should turn the other cheek and forgive while making progress in society, get educated, contribute meaningfully and maintain their dignity while serving their community and country. Rev. Wright was a Marine. The majority of Church folk have not quite caught on to the subtle fact that the RNC has evolved into the party of: millionaires, billionaires and the almost at my first million nouveau riche. It is the party of the Jones's not the Barney Smith's. Small town America really still naively believes only the RNC stands up for God, guns and pro-life and marraige, as if somehow Democrats and Independents are not God-fearing people who share common interests with them. Just how insane is that assumption that 50% of Americans are evil liberals!Some people will never vote for Sen. Obama even if it is against their own best interests to vote for four more years of Bush/McCain. Even if it would actually be helping the work of Christ in a meaningful secular way... dealing with poverty, homelessness, health care, etc. to vote for Obama, some will never sway this way. But many have and many will... there's hope.When Jesus comes.... He'll straighten out everything and everybody... He just asked us to "hold the fort." Be salt... Be light in the darkness... Watch and pray.. Give hope.. Have Faith and Show Love. Bottom line "Love your Creator... Love your fellow man as you love yourself... Do unto others as you would have them do unto you."I'm voting for Barack because he represents CHANGE I CAN BELIEVE IN!Barack the Vote '08!!!

Republican Hush Money

Miz Clark — Wed, 10 Sep 2008 21:58:07 EDT

I must be a psychic! It looks as though I may have been correct in Republicans trying to steal royalties from Alaska. I don't want to call her a sellout, but why else would you accept the nomination? See the letter below from an Alaskaian Senator who is opposed to drilling.

The Honorable Samuel W. Bodman

U.S. Department of Energy

1000 Independence Avenue, SW

Washington, DC 20585

Dear Secretary Bodman,

On June 3, 2008 and July 30, 2008 respectively, your Department issued and affirmed an order pursuant to Section 3 of the Natural Gas Act that will allow two major integrated oil companies – ConocoPhillips and Marathon Oil – to export 98.1 billion cubic feet of Alaskan natural gas to Japan and other Pacific Rim countries. This order, which will allow the export of as much natural gas as is used by 1.4 million American families in a year, comes at a time when the President had demanded that the moratoria on oil and gas drilling along our environmentally-sensitive coastal areas be lifted and Americans are being warned that their winter heating bills are going to be dramatically higher. The Administration is trying to have it both ways – arguing that we need to drill everywhere because we don't have adequate energy supplies, while finding that we have so much energy that big oil companies can export it overseas and keep prices here at home higher than they would otherwise be. On its face, the order that Department has issued to allow the continued export of Alaskan natural gas does not meet the public interest test required by the Natural Gas Act and I respectfully request that you review and revoke it.

As you know, the United States has been exporting natural gas from Alaska to Japan since 1969. Historically, these exports were deemed in the public interest because there were no pipelines to the lower-48 states and no West Coast LNG terminals to bring this gas to market. Indeed, even in this most recent order, which would allow ConocoPhillips and Marathon to continue to export Alaskan natural gas when their current long-term authorization expires next April, the Department dismissed the possibility of supplying this gas to the lower-48 and only considered the local need for this natural gas within Alaska in its determination that the proposed export met the statute's public interest test.

What the Department should have fully considered, but did not, was the need for this natural gas in the lower-48 and the fact that the capability to import LNG to the West Coast has been commercially available as of May 15, 2008 – the date Sempra LNG, a subsidiary of Sempra Energy, announced that its Energía Costa Azul LNG terminal in Baja California was ready for commercial operation. In fact, the Department appears to have relied upon inaccurate and out of date information submitted by ConocoPhillips and Marathon on this point. For example, the Department's June 3rd order cites arguments by these companies that, "(w)ith respect to national need, CPANGC [ConocoPhillips Alaska Natural Gas Corporation] and Marathon state shipment of LNG from the Applicants' Kenai LNG facilities to the lower 48 states does not appear to be a viable option due to certain regulatory and economic hurdles."

The hurdles cited by the companies, according to the Department, are the Jones Act which restricts shipments between U.S. ports to U.S. flagged vessels, the argument "that there are no existing U.S. west coast LNG receiving terminals," and the cost of shipping LNG to the East and Gulf coasts would be prohibitive. The Costa Azul facility was specifically designed to provide natural gas to U.S. markets, as well as Mexican customers. It is connected by a cross-border pipeline system capable of delivering natural gas to the U.S. market today, and that system is being expanded to provide even more capability. Under the North American Free Trade Agreement, there are no additional duties or tariffs on natural gas trade between the two countries. And because your Department already approves all exports and imports of natural gas between the U.S. and Mexico, it (and you) should be well aware of these capabilities. Since the facility is located in Mexico, the Jones Act does not apply.

Coming as it does, at a time when the Energy Information Administration (EIA), an agency within your own Department, is projecting that American consumers will be facing these high natural gas prices, it is inconceivable that the Department would accept, and apparently base its own decision upon, such flawed and out of date information. As described by the EIA in its most recent Short-Term Energy Outlook, Americans are facing dramatically higher natural gas costs this year, and especially this winter. According to EIA, the average price of natural gas consumers are expected to pay this winter will increase by more than 22% nationwide, and by more than 24% in the Western U.S. where the Alaskan gas would add to supply. EIA projects that natural gas prices will continue to remain high in future years with the spot price in 2009 averaging 25% more than 2007.

McCain's attacks on energy policy are wrong

Gerald from Germany — Wed, 10 Sep 2008 19:09:46 EDT

In their convention speeches Senator McCain and Gov. Palin, were clearly using
false allegations and misleading claims about Senator Obama's position and
about Alaska's capability and necessity of providing a reasonable amount of
oil for energy independency. Furthermore it seams to me Senator McCain
does not realize vital economic and strategic aspects of Senator Obama's
energy plan.

Let us gather the facts first:

Palintology

Ralph — Wed, 10 Sep 2008 13:49:45 EDT

The cover of this week’s edition of Newsweek is emblazoned with one word: Palin-tol-ogy. How appropriate that it sounds like paleontology, the study of ancient life, based largely on fossils. As a recovering Republican, I have been amazed at how unabashedly McCain/Palin recycle Ronald Reagan’s 30-year old ideas as solutions to today’s far different problems.

On taxes, McCain/Palin want to make the Bush tax cuts permanent. This, despite the fact that marginal tax rates are far lower in 2008 than they were in 1980, and that the forecast budget deficit for federal fiscal year 2009, beginning next month, will be the largest ever recorded in our nation's history. Over the past eight years, Republicans have succeeded in tripling our nation's debt.

On energy, McCain/Palin give lipservice to alternative energy such as wind, solar and tide, while chanting "Drill, baby, drill!" John McCain has deliberately avoided voting on all eight attempts to pass a bill extending vital tax credits and production subsidies to expand our wind and solar industries, and pandered for votes by supporting a gas tax holiday which would only promote more gasoline consumption and intensify our addiction to oil. Gov. Palin favors opening even the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil drilling.

On health care, McCain/Palin propose eliminating our ability to receive health coverage through our employers tax-free. If enacted, this policy will cause many employers to discontinue health insurance coverage since there is no tax advantage to employees. Employers would prefer to provide employees additional pay, rather than provide health insurance, since wages and salaries increase at about the rate of inflation, while health care costs rise at two or three times the rate of inflation. If enacted, this will push additional people into the individual health insurance market, which carries administrative expenses that are three times higher than those of group health plans. As a result, more Americans will be uninsured, and more will be under insured.

On regulation, McCain/Palin propose getting even more regulation "off our backs," even though we've been deregulating for nearly 30 years. We are now bearing the costs of deregulation as we bail out Bear Stearns, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and watch our home values shrink as a result of the subprime mortgage disaster. We may bear additional costs as the U. S. auto industry seeks $50 billion in taxpayer guarantees to finance retooling as it works feverishly to make vehicles that deliver better fuel economy. Had we increased fuel economy standards gradually over the past 20 years, through regulation, as the rest of the world has done, this retooling would have happened in the normal course of business, and without the need for taxpayer guarantees. An added benefit would have been reduced dependence on foreign oil.

So call it Palintology, backward for the future or forward to the past, these fossilized policies aren’t change. They’re more of the same.

10 Reasons I'm Supporting Obama

Elana Fertig — Tue, 09 Sep 2008 16:11:27 EDT

1. Obama was a lecturer in constitutional law at one of the most respected law schools in the country, University of Chicago and was the president of the Harvard Law Review. Both of these positions require high grades and achievements while in law school and take a top level intellect. He has backed these positions up with 10 productive years in both local and national politics, with state and federal service.

2. Obama recognizes the important of federal ethics and public accountability. His first task as a new senator was to bring an ethics reform bill to the senate and in 1998 passed the toughest campaign finance law in Illinois history. He also reached across the aisle and with Senator Tom Coburn (R-OK) passed a law to create a Google-like search engine to allow the public to track federal grants, contracts, earmarks, and loans online. Having previously worked for a government contractor, I recognize the necessity of having both public and government oversight to avoid million dollar hammers.

3. Obama is surrounding himself with experts with diverse opinions to get a broad view on all the issues. He expects and inspires a healthy and productive dialog among people with differing opinions that produces cogent, well thought out, and productive actions and policies. Moreover, his superb communication skills enable him to explain these complex ideas to the general public and inspire action in otherwise apathetic groups of people. This has been exemplified in how much he has inspired the youth of this country. Also, though a religious man , Obama recognizes the sanctity of the separation of church and state and refuses to change his principles to appeal to the religious right in his attempts to court their votes. Moreover, he refuses to let religion play a role in education, promising science-based education and more realistic sex education.

4. Even Americans like myself with insurance covered by employers are feeling the effects of rising medical costs. Obama has a carefully constructed a health care plan that would oversee insurance companies to reduce costs and provide health care for those who cannot afford it (http://www.barackobama.com/issues/healthcare/) In 2003, Barack Obama sponsored and passed legislation that expanded health care coverage to 70,000 kids and 84,000 adults. In the U.S. Senate, Obama cosponsored the Healthy Kids Act of 2007 and the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) Reauthorization Act of 2007 to ensure that more American children have affordable health care coverage. He also understands the need for women's health care, and in Illinois and Washington and has created a task force on cervical cancer, provided greater access to breast and cervical cancer screenings, and helped improve prenatal and premature birth services.

5. Obama has first hand experience devising solutions for the less fortunate that empower them to build themselves up through work opportunities, not merely accept a check from the government. He is back ing this commitment up with ideas to support parents through reasonable health care and day care plans that would enable parents to better balance work and family. On a state level, Obama created the Illinois Earned Income Tax Credit for low-income working families in 2000 and successfully sponsored a measure to make the credit permanent in 2003. The law offered about $105 million in tax relief over three years.

6. Obama recognizes the importance of strong public education to put future generations of Americans at the same level as their international counterparts and to have opportunities in a society with increasingly fewer "blue collar" jobs. He has promised to fund all levels of education, from zero to five early education to supporting more student loans and need based assistance at the university level. He has promised to back this up by recruiting more teachers, and paying them the salaries they deserve for all the hard work that they put in. This area is one of Obama's greatest strengths politically. In the Illinois State Senate, Obama was a leader on early childhood education, helping create the state's Early Learning Council. In the U.S. Senate, Obama has been a leader in working to make college more affordable. His very first bill sought to increase the maximum Pell Grant award to $5,100. As a member of the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions committee, Obama helped pass legislation to achieve that goal in the recent improvements to the Higher Education Act. Obama20has also introduced legislation to create Teacher Residency Programs and to increase federal support for summer learning opportunities.

7. Obama listens to scientists in his policies, including support for stem cell research and science based education, not biblical public education. He is also pushing for more funding for science research and education, which have historically been responsible for many of America's accomplishments and status internationally.

8. Obama has strong environmental policies, and is pushing for additional jobs and national security through funding of real alternative energy policies. His policies are based on the scientific necessities outlined in the Nobel Prize winning International Panel on Climate Change document. Though this document is controversial in the media, speaking as a PhD scientist in Numerical Weather Prediction, I can verify that this document is well accepted within the meteorology, environmental science, and broader scientific community. Because of the importance of these environmental issues, Obama has not succumbed to short-term and short-sighted bandaids like a gas tax holiday or off shore drilling.

9. In spite of the rumors to the contrary, Obama has been consistently strong on Israel, introducing the Iran Sanctions Enabling Act of 2007, co-sponsoring the Palestinian Anti-Terrorism Act of 2006, and publicly supporting Israel in its war against Hezbollah. Though he has been outspoken against the war in Iraq, Obama recognizes the=2 0need for force in the fight against terrorism, and is calling for our forces to be redeployed in Afghanistan, where the Taliban and Al Quada are alive and well. Moreover, he's also willing to negotiate with our enemies with much needed dialog and has no intentions of acting as a unilateral force.

10. It seems very likely that the next president will have the opportunity to appoint two supreme court judges in his next term. Obama has pledged to appoint scholars of the constitution and people not swayed by political hot issues like abortion. While I have tried to keep this positive for Obama, I must mention here that in an appeal to the religious right, McCain has pledged to appoint judges who will overturn Roe vs Wade, even in cases of rape and incest. Any moderate should think carefully about this before voting McCain and remember this is a life time appointment that has far longer lasting consequences than any actions of an individual president.

FYI

Kim from Farmington, NM — Mon, 08 Sep 2008 18:50:18 EDT

Europeans pay more tax on gas than Americans. +/- 75% (Europe) +/- 19% (USA)

If you take out the tax, Europeans actually pays less.

All of the oil drilled in Alaska goes overseas.

So increased drilling in Alaska will not benefit us at all.

McCain's Energy Policy Myths: Part 1

Harry — Sat, 06 Sep 2008 08:30:50 EDT

Despite repeatedly being disproved, John McCain and his campaign along with the rest of the GOP are dishing out the same false claims about their energy policy. While they propose a 'do-everything' approach, the story behind the policy is anything but. Here are some of the facts to shed some light on these myths.

1. Myth #1: Drill here, drill now (aka Drill-baby-drill)

McCain wants to open up additional offshore drilling leases to oil companies. That's all fine, if existing oil leases are fully being exploited. Unfortunately, that's not true. Here are some numbers from the Bush administration's own 'pro-drilling' experts:

http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/aeo/otheranalysis/pdf/tbl10.pdf

There are a total of 58 billion barrels of oil in known reserves, of which 40 billion barrels worth of leases have already been given. Of these, oil companies are currently only drilling for 8 billion barrels worth of oil. What about the leases for the remaining 32 billion barrels of oil? As it turns out, there are a number of reasons why those are not being drilled.

New Orleans: The City That Won't Be Ignored

Chinni — Fri, 05 Sep 2008 23:42:11 EDT

New Orleans: The City That Won't Be Ignored
By Naomi Klein - September 3, 2008

..Gustav should have been political rat poison for the Republicans, no matter how well it was managed. Yet, as Peter Baker noted in the New York Times, "rather than run away from the hurricane and its political risks, Mr. McCain ran toward it." If this strategy worked, it was at least partly because Barack Obama has been running away from New Orleans for his entire campaign..
..There are plenty of political reasons for this, of course. Obama's campaign is pitching itself to the middle class, not the class of discarded people New Orleans represents. The problem is that by remaining virtually silent about the most dramatic domestic outrage in modern US history, Obama created a political vacuum. When Gustav hit, all McCain needed to do to fill it was show up..
..It was also the time to recall that during Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, the official Minerals Management Service report found more than 100 accidents leading to a total of 743,400 gallons of oil spilled throughout the region. To put that figure in perspective, 100,000 gallons is classified as a "major spill.".. ..Obama was not able to make these kinds of arguments when Gustav hit. That's because his campaign had made another "strategic" decision: to compromise on offshore oil drilling. Again a vacuum that had been opened up was rapidly filled by the Republicans, who instantly (and absurdly) linked the hurricane to the need for "energy security."..
..In moments of crisis, it is possible to speak hard truths with great force and clarity. But when the truth has gone silent, lies, boldly told, work almost as well.

Healthy Energy Development: Protect Our Lands, Waters, and Public Health

Alan in Elgin, IL — Fri, 05 Sep 2008 14:56:31 EDT

As Congress returns to its few remaining weeks in session this year, the Senate is poised to hold an Energy Summit and the House appears ready to move forward on comprehensive energy legislation, which could include the repeal of billions in subsidies for oil and gas companies, opening some areas for offshore drilling, extending tax breaks for efficiency programs and wind and solar development; subsidies for mass transit, and curbs on oil speculation.

Whatever shape this legislation takes, it's essential that Congress ensure protection for our land, waters, and public health.

http://action.wilderness.org/campaign/healthy_energy/w66xsed4q36djj7?

SOS

Mickiboop (P.O.B.) Be the Change — Thu, 04 Sep 2008 22:48:19 EDT

Same Old Sh--! The republican conversation never changes! Just like Barack says - no new ideas, and drill now! The biggest applaud McCain received tonight was for his line on drilling!

Sept 3 - RNC Speeches by Giuliani and Palin

Maryann — Thu, 04 Sep 2008 13:38:00 EDT

Tonight we witnessed an enormous lack of responsibility from the Republican Party as Rudy Giuliani stood up at the podium and incited the chant from the audience “drill, baby, drill.” This viewpoint was also backed up shortly after by Sarah Palin, and it shows the stance of these politicians to be one of instant gratification instead of a carefully thought out plan for the future of America. Clearly they have not looked into the long term effects of their destructive and pointless actions, and really, how can they? They live so deeply within the pockets of the oil industry and its lobbyists, it is quite obvious very little light or intelligence filters in.

The deficit of conscientiousness among Palin and Giuliani in their speeches tonight was truly saddening. Palin and Giuliani have shown a complete lack of compassion for America, her beautiful lands, wild animals, and the legacy of leaving something for our children and their children to enjoy. Instead of focusing attention on current technologies and sources of alternative energies they go with the same old tired oil drilling approach. It has been widely acknowledged that drilling offshore will not gain us anything for over 20 years! Yes, I agree that we should be doing something, but in 20 years do we really still want to be completely dependent on oil? We should be pouring those drilling resources and monies into alternative sources that will help out now, like solar and wind powers. These forms of energy are unlimited, available, and ready for clean consumption right now!

The corruption runs rampant among Republicans who want to see the wealthy oil executives steal even more from the American people and destroy the few areas of untouched natural beauty left. It is wrong, it is disgusting, and it needs to be stopped. The only hope we have for the future is in Barack Obama who doesn’t owe dirty oil anything and can finally move us forward as a nation. I have great faith in the American people and I know when Obama is President of the United States, we will re-emerge as the global leader in alternative energy for a very bright, clean, and ethically responsible future.

Extreme Environmental Activists

jeffrey — Wed, 03 Sep 2008 18:12:26 EDT

Palin says on youtube, Glen Beck show, that "extreme enviromnetal activists" are trying to make a big deal about ANWR, and that we need to open Alaska to more oil production.

I say it's our natural resource, not the oil companies playground.

Issues: Wildlands from 2005, No surprises.

to see the original context, go to web page:

http://www.nrdc.org/land/wilderness/artech/farc2000.asp

Drilling in the Arctic Refuge: The 2,000-Acre Footprint Myth
Oil development would stamp a spiderweb of industrial sprawl across the whole of the refuge's 1.5-million-acre coastal plain.

Proponents of opening the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil development continue to make the claim that oil could be extracted by drilling on a mere 2,000 acres of the refuge. Here are the facts that give the lie to this canard.

ARCTIC REFUGE LAND GRAB

Map: see what drilling will do

President Bush made a speech on March 9, 2005 in which he repeated the widely discredited claim that the oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge could be reached by drilling on only 2,000 acres.

"Thanks to advances in technology...we can now reach all of ANWR's oil by drilling on just 2,000 acres," he said. "Two thousand acres is the size of the Columbus [Ohio] airport. By applying the most innovative environmental practices, we can carry out the project with almost no impact on land or local wildlife."

His assertion goes back to two bills that were intended to placate those who reject the idea of turning one of America's last pristine wildernesses into oil fields. In August 2001 and April 2003, the House of Representatives narrowly passed energy legislation (H.R. 4 and H.R. 6, respectively) that would have opened the Arctic Refuge to drilling, but included an amendment "limiting" the oil industry to developing only 2,000 acres of the refuge's 1.5-million-acre coastal plain.

The amendment that introduced the limit, sponsored by New Hampshire Republican John Sununu, stated (Section 6507(a)(3)): "The secretary shall...ensure that the maximum amount of surface acreage covered by production and support facilities, including airstrips and any areas covered by gravel berms or piers for support of pipelines, does not exceed 2,000 acres on the coastal plain."

Close examination, however, reveals that the oil industry could not possibly develop the coastal plain in a compact, contiguous 2,000-acre area, and the way the amendment was worded would open up the entire refuge coastal plain to development, which would damage it permanently. Below is a look at the realities of the "2,000-acre footprint."

Oil Infrastructure Would Spread Across the Coastal Plain

The relatively little economically recoverable oil in the refuge is not concentrated in one large reservoir within a 2,000-acre area but is spread across its 1.5-million-acre coastal plain in more than 30 small deposits, according to the U.S. Geological Survey.1 To produce oil from this vast area, supporting infrastructure would have to stretch across the coastal plain. Networks of pipelines and roads obviously would fragment wildlife habitat. (For a map of what a 2,000-acre oil and gas development scenario on the coastal plain would look like, go to http://www.nrdc.org/land/wilderness/arcticmap_2000acres.pdf.)

The oil field industrial sprawl on the North Slope provides a relevant example. Including drill sites, airports and roads, and gravel mines, it has a footprint of 12,000 acres, but it actually spreads across an area of more than 640,000 acres, or 1,000 square miles.2

Proponents of drilling in the refuge also point to the 100-acre Alpine oil field west of Prudhoe Bay as the state-of-the-art model for developing the refuge. But the 2,000-acre "limitation" would allow 20 oil fields the size of Alpine scattered across the refuge's coastal plain.

Even if the 2,000 acres were contiguous, such an area could cover a lot of ground. For example, the 12-lane-wide New Jersey Turnpike, which stretches more than 100 miles across the state, covers only 1,773 acres.3

The so-called 2,000-acre limitation would have allowed oil development to take up as much area as the following items, which could be connected by a network of pipelines and roads:

1,500 football fields;4
20 Mall of Americas;5 or
52 airport runways, 50 more than the number at Columbus International Airport.6

The House Bills Would Have Opened the Entire Coastal Plain

The House bills would have opened the entire 1.5-million-acre coastal plain of the Arctic Refuge to oil and gas leasing and exploration. The so-called 2,000-acre limitation would not have required that the 2,000 acres of production and support facilities be in one compact, contiguous area. As with the North Slope oil fields west of the Arctic Refuge, development could be spread over a very large area.

The 2,000-acre limitation only addressed "surface acreage covered by production and support facilities." In other words, it only includes the area where oil facilities actually touch the ground. Using Rep. Sununu's math, the 37 miles of pipeline at the Alpine oil field west of Prudhoe Bay would take up less than one-quarter of an acre of the Arctic Refuge coastal plain -- where the pipelines' 12-inch-diameter posts hit the tundra.7 The limitation also would not have covered land excavated to bury pipelines.

The 2,000-acre limitation would not have included seismic or other exploration activities, which have significantly degraded the arctic environment west of the coastal plain. The oil industry conducts seismic activities with convoys of bulldozers and "thumper trucks," which drive over extensive areas of the tundra. Meanwhile, exploratory oil drilling requires moving heavy equipment, including large rigs, across the tundra. The limitation would not have prohibited oil companies from drilling exploration and production wells anywhere on the entire 1.5 million-acre coastal plain.

The 2,000-acre limitation also would not have included gravel mines or roads. The House's limitation would have allowed for 20 oil fields the size of the 100-acre Alpine oilfield west of Prudhoe Bay, which required a 150-acre gravel mine and 3 miles of roads. And more roads are planned at Alpine.8 Meanwhile, oil companies in the North Slope oil fields excavated gravel from mines that stretched over 2,000 acres, and then covered 10,000 acres of tundra with gravel for roads, drilling pads and building foundations.9

Finally, development will affect areas well beyond the boundaries of roads, pads and other facilities. The journal Science reported in the late 1980s that the cumulative impact of oil exploration and development on the North Slope has indirectly affected more tundra than what was directly filled or excavated.10 More recently, biologists found that decreased caribou calving within a 2.5-mile zone of pipelines and roads show that the "extent of avoidance greatly exceeds the physical 'footprint' of an oil-field complex."11

Notes

1. U.S. Geological Survey, 1999, "Oil and Gas Potential of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge 1002 Area, Alaska, " (U.S. Department of the Interior, Open File Report 98-34); see also, Richard A. Fineberg, "Understanding the U.S. Geological Survey Analysis of Estimated Oil Beneath the Coastal Plain of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, " Fairbanks: Research Associates (June 20, 2001).

2. Washington Post, "Reluctant Regulator on Alaska's North Slope, " September 13, 2000; GIS analysis, Ecotrust/Alaska Conservation Alliance, Conservation GIS Support Center (2000).

3. There are 1,219 "lane miles" contained in the New Jersey Turnpike (the road itself is 118.5 miles) and all lanes are 12 feet wide. This comes out to 1,773 acres. That number does not include the shoulders because no exact number of miles of shoulders was available. If one assumes that shoulders run along either side of the turnpike for the entire length (118.5 miles) then that would add 287 acres, making the total 2,060 acres (the shoulders are 10 feet wide). See: http://www.nycroads.com/roads/nj-turnpike/.

4. A football field is 360 feet by 160 feet, 57,600 square feet, or 1.322 acres. National Football League, 2001. See: http://www.nfl.com/fans/rules/field.html.

5. The Mall of America is 4.2 million square feet. That equals 96.4 acres (rounded to 100, or 1/20th of the proposed drilling area). See: http://www.mallofamerica.com/moa/servlet/ SMTMall?mid=369&pn=STATIC&frame=main&rs=0&file=General/media_fastfacts.html.

6. Port Columbus (Ohio) International Airport has two runways: one is 10,125 feet long; the other is 8,000 feet long, according to the Columbus Regional Airport Authority. Both runways are 150 feet wide (personal communication with Columbus International Airport by Elizabeth Heyd, Natural Resources Defense Council, on March 14, 2005). The two runways cover a total of 62.4 acres.

7. The 34-mile pipeline connecting Alpine to the oil fields to its east has 2,760 Vertical Support Members (VSMs) while the 3-mile in-field pipeline for Alpine has 450 VSMs. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Alaska District, Permit Evaluation and Decision Document, Alpine Development Project, Colville River 18 (2-960874), p. 3 (February 13, 1998); Each VSM is approximately 12 inches in diameter (personal communication John Schoen, National Audubon Society with Alaska Department of Fish and Game (August 2001), which equals 3.14 sq. ft. 3.14 sq ft. X 3210 VSMs = 10,079.4 sq. ft, or roughly one-quarter acre.

8. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Alaska District, Permit Evaluation and Decision Document, Alpine Development Project, Colville River 18 (2-960874), p. 2 (February 13, 1998); U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Alaska District, Colville River 17 (4-960869) to Nuiqsut Constructors (Alpine gravel pit) (June 24, 1997).

9. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Comparison of actual and predicted impacts of the Trans-Alaska Pipeline System and Prudhoe Bay oilfields on the North Slope of Alaska, draft report, Fairbanks, p.12 (December 1987); U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Northeast National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska Final Integrated Activity Plan/ Environmental Impact Statement, Tables IV.A.5-3 and 5-5 (August 1998); State of Alaska, Department of Natural Resources (DNR), North Slope lease tracts database, (March 28, 2001).

10. Walker, D.A., P.J. Webber, E.F. Binnian, K.R. Everett, N.D. Lederer, E.A. Nordstrand, and M.D. Walker. 6 November 1987. "Cumulative impacts of oil fields on Northern Alaska landscapes," Science Vol. 238: 757-761.

11. Nellemann, C. and R.D. Cameron. 1998. "Cumulative impacts of an evolving oil-field complex on the distribution of calving caribou, "Can. J. Sool. 76: 1425-1430.

last revised 3.15.05

A Pragmatic Energy Policy We Can Vote For

Yatman in California — Tue, 02 Sep 2008 20:10:37 EDT

Amongst Sarah Pallin's thin resume as a small town mayor and short tenure state governor, we should not overlook her built-in credibility in energy production especially drilling for oil as the sitting govermor of Alaska with 80% approval rating. In an CNBC interview, she suggested that drilling in ANWAR can be done safely and responsibly and given this interview was taped before her arrival on the national scene, this must reflect the views of most of her contituents.

Although no one believe that offshore drilling or Alaskan drilling is the end all solution to our energy independence, it has resonated with voters as something we can control to possibly lower gas price (Buy American). Instead of trying to educate voters unsuccessfully on why we would not vote on offshore drilling in Congress (I watched Nancy Pelosi do unsucessfully in This Week in Northern California), we need to take a bold step on telling voters what we will do to address their short term anxiety and long term needs. My suggestions are as follows:

Common sense for the common good

commonsense — Mon, 01 Sep 2008 17:59:56 EDT

Welcome to my blog. I have written on other blogs, but unfortunately they were way to crazy for me. This blog is to exchange ideas, clarify issues that you just don't understand, or just feel like sounding off.

I am just a grandmother, never been real active in politics, but mad as hell about the past eight years. I am a retired RN, live in a Republican yuppie community. I'm tired of spoiled rotten children, people who expect to get everything they want without working or earning it. Charities are run not for the common good, but just to show off who has the most.

Let's get on track, and try to help eachother.

My first comment is on the GOP VP nominee. Please, this I have researched and none of it comes from some self-centered website.

Ms. Palin:

beauty contestant, mayor of a town of 67,000, elected Governor by running against a man who was under investigation for corruption, she is against equal pay for women, Pro-Life, against sex education in schools, believes that global warming is just a natural occurance and not created by humans, wants the Polar Bear taken off the Endangered Species List, believes that drilling in Anwar will not cause any damage to the enviroment, has presented her daughter to public ridicule about her pregnancy without being married, has not given any thought to the war in Iraq eventhough her son is being deployed there, has no economic policy for Alaska, let alone the Federal Government and appears to make decisions on emotion rather than facts.

Now: let us all know if this is the kind of a woman you think would be capable of becoming President of the United States.

Let it be known, that this woman gives us all a bad name, and I for one, find her an insult to my intelligence.

Hurricane proves more drilling wont help energy situation

Ed in Prince Frederick — Sat, 30 Aug 2008 10:17:44 EDT

Drill, Drill, Drill. Thats all that John McCain can say about his energy policy. Well, look at what the effects of a hurricane threatening the Gulf Oil Rigs can do to that policy.

It reveals how vulnerable we are to oil and the fact that the Republicans want to showcase their entire energy plan into drilling.

Without a well balanced source of supply in the future (like Obama advocates) from wind, solar, nuclear bio-fuels and clean coal we are doomed to repeat over and over the problems associated with oil drilling, transportation and use.

Drill Here Drill Now

Robert — Thu, 28 Aug 2008 08:22:33 EDT

The Obama Campaign needs a better defense against the "Drill Here, Drill Now" plea from the Republicans. The Republicans are successfully seducing people into believing that the Democrats are inherently opposed to all drilling and are unwilling to take action to help the American people. The assumption behind this campaign is that oil prices are high just because we have not opened ANWAR and the California Coast. Let's take a look at the facts:

First, we are already drilling here and drilling now. According to the Baker Hughes Rig Count, there are currently 1998 active drilling rigs in North America. That is triple the number of rigs of only 10 years ago and more rigs than at almost any time since 1960, except for the years from 1978 to 1985. Major exploration is already occurring in the Gulf of Mexico, Colorado, Montana, Wyoming, and North Dakota. The notion that we have completely banned drilling in the U.S. is completely false.

The Drill Here, Drill Now response is that the best places to drill are off-limits. However, according to the 2006 national assessment from the Minerals Management Service, there are 86 billion barrels of oil equivalent on the outer continental shelf. The majority--46 billion barrels--is believed to be in the Gulf of Mexico, and the vast majority of the Gulf of Mexico is already open to drilling. So, if 46 billion barrels of oil is not an attractive drilling location, what makes California and Alaska so much more enticing?

The Drill Here, Drill Now argument also says the oil could flow much sooner if only we didn't have those pesky environmental regulations. There is a bigger delay for offshore drilling than the environmental permits; the Continental Shelf requires offshore drilling rigs. Currently, there is a global shortage of rigs and after a contract was signed, it would take several years to build the new rigs required do the drilling. Or, the rigs would have to be moved from somewhere else in the world, causing a loss of production somewhere else--in such a case oil prices would not fall.

Politically, the Democrats cannot put themselves in the position of being opposed to all drilling. The message should be that we are already drilling here, drilling now, and drilling at record levels. So, we are obviously not opposed to drilling. We need to continue drilling and developing domestic sources of energy in an environmentally responsible manner.

What we should oppose is drilling here, drilling now, drilling everywhere and suspending all environmental reviews, just to perhaps save a few pennies at the pump, instead of pursuing a long-term solution which puts the U.S. on the road towards a sustainable energy policy. (Drilling is inherently a short-term solution when the U.S. continues to consume 20 million barrels per day.)

Finally, if the Republicans are so convinced that drilling is the solution to the oil crisis, why didn't they open all these areas to drilling between 2000 and 2006, when they were in control of Congress and the White House? After all, oil prices rose from $20/bbl to nearly $80/bbl (post Katrina) during that time frame. This hypocrisy needs to be exposed.

Big Oil and John McCain

Bent Frederiksen — Tue, 26 Aug 2008 13:03:01 EDT

As John McCain promotes off-shore drilling and stating "Drill Now", clearly he wants the drilling now and even faster, IF he becomes President. Afterall, he has some favors to pay back, as he is getting major contribution from the Oil / Gas Companies for his Presidental Election.

According to the non partican group "Center for Responsive Politics", John MCCain have received to this date, $1,531,269 in donation from Oil and Gas, http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/select.php?ind=E01

Furthermore, a total of $14,729,299 has been donated to the Rep. party in this election cycle of 2008, approx 74% of all donations made by Oil - Gas Industries. This does not incl. donations to Levin Funds, created by the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002.

The Second largest contributore in 2008.....you guessed it...Exxon Mobil :-) and was the biggest contributor in 2004 presidental election :-)

Yup..."drill now" at the tune of Millions of dollars to the Rep. Presidental Election.

http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/indus.php?ind=E01

Data collected from Center for Responsive Politics, www.opensecrets.org

Kolbert nails McCain on Offshore Drilling!

Eric — Fri, 22 Aug 2008 01:35:41 EDT

This is an excerpt from Elizabether Kolbert's New Yorker article:

The Department of Energy estimates that there are eighteen billion barrels of technically recoverable oil in offshore areas of the continental United States that are now closed to drilling. This sounds like a lot, until you consider that oil is a globally traded commodity and that, at current rates of consumption, eighteen billion barrels would satisfy less than seven months of global demand. A D.O.E. report issued last year predicted that it would take two decades for drilling in restricted areas to have a noticeable effect on domestic production, and that, even then, “because oil prices are determined on the international market,” the impact on fuel costs would be “insignificant.”

So in other words..

Dear John,

Where are you getting your information? You are running a platform that is at odds with fact. Either you have haphazardly chosen an energy platform without thinking about what you're saying, you're lying to the American public, or you're lying to yourself to appease Republicans. Whether it's one, two or all three, all I know is I don't want a president who does any of these things! I want someone intelligent (not even amazingly so, I'm OK with mediocrity), honest and who can speak their mind. I want Barack Obama.

It’s time for real solutions and forward thinking

Jeff Blaha — Thu, 21 Aug 2008 09:59:00 EDT

The following Letter to the Editor was published recently in the Progress-Index and the Hopewell News. Please follow my lead...Write and let your voice be heard. True patriots honor and support the free exchange of ideas that our country was founded upon.

To the Editor:

I am a proud American whose job requires considerable time on the road in my own vehicle, at my own expense. Like most families in the Tri-Cities, I feel the pain at the pump. We face tough choices and need some relief!

I have been carefully watching and listening to the presidential candidates debate the issue of energy independence. It’s a hot topic in the news that I would like to address.

John McCain’s solution to our energy crisis is to allow oil companies the right to drill off our coasts. Like his proposed Gas Tax Holiday, “Drill Here, Drill Now” is nothing but a big gimmick that shows he wants to win votes more than provide real solutions. Once he realized that he could get some votes with it, McCain flip-flopped on his long-held opposition to more offshore drilling. All experts agree that any oil from new coastal wells wouldn’t even hit the market until after the next presidential election in 2012 and would have little impact on the world price of oil. What most folks don’t realize is that the energy companies already have access to 68 million acres of ocean floor they could be exploiting now, but choose not to. McCain cannot guarantee that these companies would drill in any of the new expanded lease areas that he wants to give away.

The big oil companies are making record profits on the backs of average Virginians like you and me. They have a vested interest in keeping us dependant on their product. The oilman, George Bush has been in their back pocket for years and now Big Oil has John McCain to take his place. The oil industry has donated over $1.2 million to the McCain Campaign since he has come out in support of the big energy companies. Even if we exploited all of the known reserves in the US, we will never have enough oil to become independent of foreign suppliers at our current rate of consumption. True energy independence can only be achieved by moving away from oil as a primary energy source.

Barack Obama would move aggressively to end our dependence on oil by making it an urgent national priority. He offers a comprehensive plan that focuses on conservation, higher mileage standards for the car companies, and a $150 billion, 10-year investment in renewable and alternative fuels. While not entirely opposed to offshore drilling, Obama believes we need to force energy companies to use or lose those 68 million acres of federal oil and gas leases they are stockpiling. He has also offered a plan to close the “Enron Loophole,” created by McCain’s economic advisor, Phil Gramm that allows for the unregulated energy speculation that drives up the cost of oil. For immediate relief for working people, Obama proposes taking just 2 percent of these record profits from the oil companies to fund a $1,000 rebate to help average families cope with increased fuel costs. I have nothing against making an honest dollar, but these profits are obscene especially when we must struggle to put some gas in the tank just to get to work and back.

We need smart leaders who are willing to stand up and tell us not only what we want to hear, but what we need to know. It’s time for real solutions and forward thinking, not the same old election-year gimmicks. McCain/Bush policies have nearly brought this country to ruin. We can’t afford another four years of Republicans calling the shots in Washington.

Jeff Blaha

Colonial Heights

Drilling for Oil or Drilling for Dollars?

Ralph — Tue, 19 Aug 2008 15:46:24 EDT

In June, John McCain reversed policies saying, "We’re gonna drill here! We’re gonna drill now!” A policy change favoring energy security, or financial security? Count me as cynical, but I note a Washington Post headline reading, "Industry Gushed Money After Reversal on Drilling." McCain’s enthusiasm for drilling must be powered, in part, by having far more success than the typical oil company. His drilling-for-funds hasn't hit a dry hole yet.

Offshore drilling talking points, are oil companies responsible enough to be allowed to drill for more oil?

Kumar from Dublin, OH — Mon, 18 Aug 2008 18:48:10 EDT

    When John McCain and his fellow Republicans push for offshore oil drilling right here and right now I don't think that they are actually thinking about the consequences of their actions. The 20 some years ago when the Exxon Valdez crashed in Prince William sound a killed over 250,000 animals in less than four hours. I feel the energy crunch in the high prices of gasoline just as anyone else, but American oil companies are not responsible enough to be allowed to do more drilling. Case in point Exxon has still yet to pay they are fine imposed to them by the federal courts. They are consistently and constantly trying to fight the court case against them, my guess is they are going to appeal it as long as humanly possible.my best guess is that they have absolutely no intentions of ever paying the proper amount of money that the government and one in its lawsuit against them. Ultimately oil companies just cannot be trusted to do the right thing. They can spend a couple million dollars out of their billions of dollars of profits in PR and very limited research but that is not going to snow will meet over, nor should it let you the public be snowed over to.

    I think the question should be asked to John McCain win the next oil spill happened in Exxon Valdez or British Petroleum or shell chooses not to take responsibility chooses to steal any decisions against them for as long as humanly possible is key and the Republican Party going to clean up that coastal region? Or are they basically do is shift the cost to the state that was dumb enough to allow it.

    The other issue that's being completely ignored is the leading us and the complete cheapness of the oil companies. Oil companies own about 68 millions of lessed land that holds oil currently. But they are not able to get sued because they don't want to spend the money and the research to get that oil out of the ground. They basically want cheaper while that they can turn around and overcharged the rest of us for. Unlike the rest of us that are willing to work hard for our money and oil companies do not.

    I'm sure John McCain and his Republican cronies that have allowed corporations like Exxon, Halliburton and Enron to extort the American public will put together some kind of catchy ad campaign to blind and distort the truth and to snow over the American public. And judging from the past eight years they will do it successfully and Americans will spend another eight years on her knees for the oil companies.

   Kumar Rachuri

Johnny Go Get Your Drill

John Corrigan, 42nd Ward Democratic Committeeman — Sun, 17 Aug 2008 14:30:45 EDT

What’s all this talk from John McCain about using oil drilling to solve our nation’s current energy crisis? That solution will take us ten years to implement and only save us – if we’re extremely lucky – three percent at the gas pump. Now maybe when you’re almost 80 years old and having spent 30 of those years inside the Beltway in Washington, DC, ten years seems like a short period of time and a few pennies seems like a lot of money, but I think that the American public deserves a solution that will come faster and result in larger savings. Obama’s comprehensive energy plan does exactly that and that’s one reason it’s absolutely critical that Senator Obama is elected our next President.

Johnny Go Get Your Drill

John Corrigan, 42nd Ward Democratic Committeeman — Sun, 17 Aug 2008 11:05:31 EDT

Confronting Republican Congressmen Protesting in DC

s valdez — Sat, 16 Aug 2008 17:51:38 EDT

My name is Shane Valdez and I am concerned citizen that is passionate about politics. I am currently working for the campaign of Blake Cummings who is running against Tom Cole in District 4 of Oklahoma. I have become extremely concerned with the Republicans that have remained in DC to protest and demand that the democrats bring Congress back into session to have an up and down vote on drilling in ANWR and the Outer Shelf. The energy crisis is much more complex than a simple up and down vote on drilling. We cannot allow the Republicans to hijack the energy issue by exploiting our struggles at the pump. However, I do believe that the Democrats should have a strong counter attack ready in case this movement gains ground amongst the general public.

I think that the voting records of those that are protesting should be highly scrutinized in order to find out how they voting on key energy issues over the past 7 years. For example, how did they vote when raising fuel efficiency standards was on the table? If they are so concerned with the problems that Americans are facing at the pumps, why did they vote against raising fuel efficiency standards. If they are so concerned with struggling American families, why did they vote against the minimum wage raise? How have they voted on increasing funding and tax rebates for alternative fuels and research? Where were they when the American people needed them for those votes? They weren't there for us when we needed better mileage in our vehicles or better paychecks to deal with rising costs. But as soon as there is something in it for the oil companies, they are ready to go to bat supposedly for the American people. We have to expose these protesting Republicans for the hypocrites that they are. Where would GM and Ford be today had Congress raised fuel efficiency standards a few years back? Instead, now they are fighting not to go into bankruptcy. The same way that the Bush administration exploited the American public after 9/11 to make a power grab in all aspects of our government and executive privilege, the Republicans are trying to exploit the economic crisis that Americans are facing at the pump and in all aspects of life to make a power grab for the oil companies.

I am against drilling in the currently restricted areas of our country, but I feel that because of right wing propaganda, this election may hinge on that issue. The vote for drilling in these areas may be what the uninformed public wants. What is the strategy to counter this?

I think the Democrats are in a similar situation that the Republicans were in just before they lost office in 2006 when the public wanted a vote on the minimum wage issue, so they presented a minimum wage bill with the elimination of the inheritance tax attached to it. They refused to give an up and down vote on minimum wage.They then accused the Democrats of not supporting a minimum wage increase and heralded themselves as the champions of the little people.

If it comes to the point where a vote is unavoidable, giving them an up or down vote should be out of the question.

I think the bill should be multi-faceted just as the energy issue is multi-faceted.

How about a drilling bill that is attached to things the Republicans would look bad voting against and would expose their true intent. Some of us could stomach drilling if the bill also raised fuel efficiency standards, only allowed companies to drill that gave a specific percentage of profits to alternative fuels research, did not allow these companies to sell the oil overseas, did not allow the debt owed for these leases to be forgiven as they were a few years back for drilling in the Outer Shelf, and did not allow the companies to sit on the leases without drilling just so nobody else drills them.

This election may hinge on the reaction given to the protesters in DC should their movement gain momentum. We need to be prepared to face them head on. Please let me know your thoughts about this topic.

Sincerely,

Shane Valdez

McCain Full of **It

Bill F — Fri, 15 Aug 2008 10:48:10 EDT

It seems John McCain's ever increasing list of criticisms about Obama just keeps reflecting back at him. Even the media is finally coming around to see the hypocrisy of most of McCain's attacks. Here's just a small sample...

McCain supported the Iraq War and is planning on staying there as long as necessary to "get the job done" -- even if the Iraqi government we created wants us out. Now he says, in support of Georgia, that in the 21st century no country can invade a soveriegn nation. Can't have it both ways Johnny. It probably doesn't help that his foreign policy advisor is on Georgia's payroll. Not only will a McCain presidency lead to economic depression and another war in Iran, but now we can add a nuclear standoff with Russia. It seems more and more that McCain is planning on ushering in the end of the world.
McCain claims Obama's "victory lap" around the world -- the one McCain taunted him into -- was presumptive and acting like the president already. Now we have McCain talking about Georiga and Russia as if he is already the Commander in Chief. He's even taken it upon himself to "disbatch" senators to the region. Talk about cocky! He just can't wait to fight!
This may not be McCain's fault, but many -- especially Republicans -- are saying John Edwards, knowing he cheated on his wife, should not have run for president. Well, let's not forget that Mr. McCain was courting Cindy McCain before he was divorced from his first wife. In fact, he began seeing Cindy while wife number one was severely injured from a car accident and laid up in a hospital bed. Of course he obviously doesn't think much of wives in general, as it is widely reported that McCain blew up publically (see McCain's temper) at her in front of reporters and said, and I quote, "At least I don't cake on the makeup like a trollup, cunt!" And now, Mr. Temper's wife has a ouchie hand after "shaking hands with a supporter". Sure. And I'm Barney Rubble. Could this have been a Tom Buchanon moment! (See The Great Gatsby) And talk about hypocritical -- McCain wears quite a bit of makeup to cover all his surgeries to remove cancer from his face. Hey, isn't that the same desease Liz Edwards has? Coincidence -- I think not! (I know, I know, I'm getting looney)
McCain claims all Obama will do is raise taxes and cut jobs. Well, if you're one of those amongst the most wealthy and greedy -- those who cause all the economic problems -- he will. If you're a normal to well-off person -- ya know, the ones we need to buy stuff to get the economy going but can't because WE HAVE NO MONEY -- those making under 200,000 a year, you're getting a MUCH better tax deal than with McCain's "plan". When the question comes up in debate, McCain is going to look foolish. "Uh, uh, if you raise taxes to the rich, they will cut employees to make up the difference, and uh, uh, jobs will be lost, unemployemnt, uh, uh, Regan, uh, huh, voodoo economics....uh...." SHUT UP JOHN. Say what you mean -- the rich folks are so damn greedy that if they have to personally pay a little more tax, they will make sure they make a gazillion dollars by screwing their employees and hurting the middle class! The same reason why cutting the tax on gas wouldn't help the consumer, because the GAS MEN would just see it as an opportunity to put more in their pockets and less into the governement AND RAISE PRICES. The rich, wealthy, and well-connected have one agenda, stick it to the regular guy as much as they can get away with so they can make the biggest profit possible without paying their share into our society through taxes. That is what McCain supports. Hard-working, white, working class voters -- PAY ATTENTION!!!! McCain would just assume you were homeless on the street selling crack as long as you don't touch any of Cindy's treasure! Hypocrite!
Last for today -- though there are many more examples (I just might give my self a stroke thinking about them) -- Mr. Drill-here-and-drill-now seems to think increasing the supply of oil by a bucket or two is going to help lower prices (see the previous point to see what will happen if that does happen). IDIOTS. We keep saying the same thing, most often in the summer. It's their way of robbing us blind. The oil companies jack up the prices immeasurably getting everyone in a tizzy, then roll them back a bit just as quickly, usually at the end of the summer (see current prices dropping). When it's over, we're thrilled we have these new low prices and completely forget just how low they were before the summer. Ex. we start the summer at say 2.99 a gallon (still way too high). Then, prices soar for this BS reason or that to 4.29. We all go nuts and say we're going to have to fix the system. Then, as summer ends, the prices "drop" to 3.85 and we're all happy and relieved -- AND TOTALLY FORGET JUST TWO MONTHS AGO IT WAS 2.99. I'm just saying. McCain and his oil buddies are hosing us at the pump! Don't forget that as soon as he became Johnny Hold me, thrill me, kiss me, DRILL ME McCain, he automatically got a 2 million dollar dump from oil companies. We see his base, and it's remarkably similary to Bush.

So, to recap, if McCain is elected, I predict...

The Second Great Depression, followed by...
WWIII with Western Countries taking on Iraq, Iran, Afganistan, Palestinians, and other Muslims we piss off, followed by...
A nuclear show down with Russia, as McCain, still trapped in the Cold War in his aging, alzhiemer's mind, tries to protect Georgia and all other countries who lobby him, followed by...
THE END OF THE WORLD by nuclear bombing from all parts of the globe to all other parts. There'll be so much war with McCain we won't even know who we're shooting at. Let's just help China's on our side... oh, wait, it doesn't matter -- THE PLANET WILL BE OBLITERATRED!!!

There's the new slogan -- "A vote for McCain is a vote for THE END OF THE WORLD". I see the commericial now, will the REM song in the background (with persmission of course -- RIGHT JOHNNY!). And McCain calls Obama "The One" AKA Antichrist. More hypocrisy!

****Today's blog was "catharsis" for me. If you were offended, sorry. Unless you were a Republican or rich, wealthy, or well-connected -- then -- TOO DAMN BAD!!!

******UPDATE********

I just read some interesting history I was unaware of. Go to Google or Wikipedia and plug in "Keating Five Scandal" and learn something new about our buddy Johnny McCain. Why this has not come up in the media, I have no idea.

A conversation between Obama Supporters

Bobby from Germantown, MD — Tue, 12 Aug 2008 14:46:04 EDT

As for Obama, I hear you. But I must disagree. He scored big points with critics and financial analysts when he eschewed the gas tax holiday earlier this summer during the primary because he knew it was "floated" just to score political points. He didn't look like a politician by taking that position which is why he gained points during that time when both McCain and Clinton embraced the idea. When it has counted, he has shown strength, leadership and character through the Jeremiah Wright and Bill Ayers messes and the war in Iraq. He's been right on all of the the issues and I think at the end of the day he plays into THEIR game by flip flopping for political points. By changing his position on an issue that is going to be a focal point of the campaign, he puts himself in a difficult position of having to defend his change in light of the following: drilling will not have the impact at the pump for decades, drilling jeopardizes the environment and he took a hard-line albeit correct position on a similar issue (the gas holiday tax). This fall during the debates, when Jim Leherer or Tom Brokaw asks him why he changed his position when he was right on the issue, what's he going to say? "I was behind in the polls." He running for change not the regular status quo. His message resonates. It is strong. There is simply no argument that John McCain can make that separates himself from the Republican record. He can't defend it. What's not working for Obama are the political gimmicks that he's employed lately. The speech in Germany (not needed too much; the face time with the world leaders, all of whom agreed with his positions on the war, the environment and the economy was plenty), this e-mail that I received the other day that I could sign up to receive a text the moment he named his VP candidate, that stupid Barack Obama for President that looked like the Presidential Seal.By saying/doing these things, he giving Karl Rove material to work with. The Republicans were afraid of Obama during the primary because he was a prodigious fundraiser and he stuck to message and his strategy of cherry picking the right races to gain delegates. They had nothing to work with because they can't use the race issue. Even though they will play the "Willie Horton" card, that plays into Obama's hands. The Clintons had no answer for him because of his "high road" tactics. Now that he's off his message he's becoming more vulnerable. He's giving Rove a target. With John Edwards cheating on his dying wife, it is not a stretch to say that Americans probably have no trust for their politicians. Barack was/is that breath of fresh air that we desperately all need. By changing his positions on issues on which he is correct, because he is not polling strong enough in August, he looks like the same old same old. And if given a choice between a black same old same old and a white same old same old, I fear that Americans (the lambs) will choose the white one. He has to stick to his message of change and register more new voters. That's the only way he can assure his victory. There will probably, roughly be a 40/40 split between he and McCain. The 10% is up for grabs. That 10% is probably people who if most likely pushed would vote for McCain barring a meltdown by McCain's campaign or a scandal, etc. Barack has to infuse that 10% with new voters, young voters who will vote for him. That is the only way to insure victory. If Barack has to depend on "Regan Democrats" to elect him President, he is in trouble. And if he sounds like the same old politician who has flip flopped on issues he won't attract the new voters he needs to give him a statistical edge. I hope I'm wrong. But I doubt it. ....Please listen to us, we are worried, give us the same that made us believe in you from the beginning. Be brave we believe.

Decentralized Renewable Energy

Ethan — Sat, 09 Aug 2008 23:16:39 EDT

Our discovery and reliance on fossil fuels has boosted our civilization and technologies. Peteroleum-based energies are the result of thousands of years of decayed plant matter accumulating over the ages. The long-chained hydrocarbons which we utilize for the primary basis of our combustable fuels and lubricants are the life force of our ubiquitous combustion engines and economy. One may ask, what is responsible for the this buildup of this bioenergy which we have so successfully learned to take advance of, in order to advance our society? The sun provided all of the input to grow plants that ultimately did not perish entirely, namely long-chain fatty acids, in biological form. Our society has thus articficially acquired this buildup of biological energy and converted it toward our work and advancement. The question remains, will we be able to sustain the bubble when the resevoir runs out? Our demand for energy is seemingly endless. Yet the now realizable amount of gainable energy decreases with every barrel removed from the proven reserves. Is it possible that we have not yet discovered the largest oil field yet in the world? Unlikely, but luckily the primary source of energy has remained throughout time. The sun remains the raw form of energy to earth. Without plants to gleam the source, we would have no fossil fuel or food fuel.

While our current energy infrastructure is efficently set up to provide in a top down, single provider fashion, this does not work in the plant kingdom, nor will it work in the twenty first century and onward. Plants do not relie on a gasoline pump to derive energy. Each and every plant must photosynthesize or perish through the covert use of chlorophyll. Chlorophyll is the epitome of a decentralized energy infrastructure. Each and every household must begin the transformation towards a decentralized energy infrastructure. The future requires that every household must have on it wind generators and solar panels. Currently, if a "consumer" produces more energy than he uses, and his electricity meter actually runs backwards, the power companies are not required to pay the "consumer" the same price per kilowatt hour as charged by the company. In the twentyfirst century, the utility companies must pay users of the electrical grid an equal amount for their electricity minus a handling fee to pay for the maintenance power lines.

Renewable energy will provide a surplus of energy to all in a horizontal manner. Municipalities will distribute power as needed to cloudy and wind-lacking areas. The forces to resist such proposed changes are many, but we can provide incentives to new companies that produce wind and solar power.

A finite amount of concentrated energy is left on the earth in the form of uranium and crude oil. In the case of products that must be purchased at any price, such as energy, finite means monopoly and energy wars, akin to those that we are already seeing. Iraq will prove to be first of many wars in which energy is the primary motivation and justification for occupation, coup d'tau, or terrorism. Nuclear and fossil-based energies are dangerous to the environment and the life forms that inhabit it. The old order and those who benefit from it are all that stands in the way of national progress and personal energy independence.

The Oil Drum

James Middleton — Sat, 09 Aug 2008 03:50:47 EDT

http://www.theoildrum.com/story/2005/9/28/115543/198

Go to the above site. Use the information there to create talking points. People, we CAN win the war of words against McCain. We just need to flood the media with the TRUTH.

The truth is that it will take YEARS to get oil out of the Gulf of Mexico. By that time, we could have created a million new jobs at home -- by investing in solar, wind, and other renewable energy products.

Enjoy.

- Sammy

Know-Nothing Politics

Chinni — Fri, 08 Aug 2008 12:10:47 EDT

Know-Nothing Politics

By PAUL KRUGMAN August 7, 2008

..know-nothingism — the insistence that there are simple, brute-force, instant-gratification answers to every problem, and that there’s something effeminate and weak about anyone who suggests otherwise — has become the core of Republican policy and political strategy. The party’s de facto slogan has become: “Real men don’t think things through.” In the case of oil, this takes the form of pretending that more drilling would produce fast relief at the gas pump..
..In any case, remember this the next time someone calls for an end to partisanship, for working together to solve the country’s problems. It’s not going to happen — not as long as one of America’s two great parties believes that when it comes to politics, stupidity is the best policy.

Adopting Boone PIckens

NYOD — Fri, 08 Aug 2008 09:16:25 EDT

Postulate: The First U.S. candidate for president who adopts the Boone Pickens wind corridor as an essential element of his campaign will wind the presidency.

Typically, Republicans have won the psychological war for "drill drill drill" -- hereinafter referred to as "shrill shrill shrill." Explaining their position via timely responses to "shrill shrill shrill" has not characterized the better-informed Democratic position.

In the meantime, the winning message, for this issue, is repeated again and again by T Boone Pickens in what will be free advertising to the candidate who adopts most of his program -- with compromised amendment to drilling in certain places without stringent controls.

Take over the drilling issue NOW... PLEASE READ THIS

MantisMKE — Thu, 07 Aug 2008 17:21:12 EDT

I am posting a statement made on fivethirtyeight.com that Senator Obama should take head of RIGHT NOW!! I believe that if he did this election would be over right now, it takes away McCains only smoking gun... PLEASE SOMEONE IN THE OBAMA CAMPAIGN READ THIS!!

The Gang of 10: Obama's Checkmate? #fullpost {display:none;}

I try and avoid using grandiose rhetoric of this kind. But there is a potential checkmate scenario sitting on the board for Barack Obama, and it involves the 'Gang of 10' energy compromise bill currently being floated by a bipartisan group of ten senators.

The compromise proposal -- formally the New Energy Reform Act of 2008 -- is a complicated piece of legislation, but involves three or four basic components:

-- Opens additional drilling areas in the Gulf of Mexico, and allows Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia to elect to permit drilling off their coasts. Existing bans on drilling off the West Coast, including in the ANWR, would be preserved.
-- Dedicates $20 billion to R&D on alternative fuels for motor vehicles.
-- Extends a series of tax credits and incentives, such as for the purchase of hybrid vehicles.
-- Funds the above -- at total cost of about $84 billion -- by closing tax loopholes for petroleum companies, in conjunction with licensing fees.

Barack Obama has come out with lukewarm support for the bill. McCain has come out with what amounts to lukewarm opposition to it, objecting to the removal of the oil company tax loopholes.

There would be tremendous electoral upside to Obama in making his support for the legislation full-throated, by signing on as a co-sponsor to the legislation and making the Gang of 10 a Gang of 11. Consider the benefits of such action:

- Would take the drilling issue off the table. Offshore drilling polls well, favored by roughly 2:1 margins. But more than that, it gives the Republicans a rhetorically effective detour by which they can bypass most of the debate on energy policy, and much of the debate on the economy in general. The passage of a bill -- particularly one that had Obama's support -- would mitigate the issue and force the Republicans to argue the economy from much weaker ground, such as the Democrat-friendly territory of social security, health care, and middle class tax cuts.

- Would make Obama look bipartisan. The Republicans supporting the bill aren't your usual cast of Gordon Smiths and Susan Collinses. Instead, they are center-right types: Saxby Chambliss, John Thune, Lindsey Graham, Bob Corker, and Johnny Isakson. Obama's claims to bipartisanship would be very credible.

- Would make McCain look obstructionist. The converse of this is also true, substantially undermining Obama's claims to be a moderate/maverick.

- Would highlight McCain's loyalty to Big Oil. Even worse for McCain is his reason for opposing the bill -- his refusal to remove oil company tax loopholes. In this populist climate, and particularly in the wake of Exxon's record-setting profits, that is a potentially lethal position to hold.

- Would recast 'flip-flops' as 'compromises'. One of the potential drawbacks to Obama voicing more aggressive support for the legislation is that the McCain campaign would try and highlight is reversal on the offshore drilling issue. However, Obama has a couple of relatively persuasive defenses. Firstly, McCain flip-flopped himself on this very issue. And secondly, Obama can begin to build a narrative that explains his flip-flops by some means other than electoral opportunism. Namely, flexibility is required in order to engineer bipartisan compromise: he is willing to support drilling, but only if oil company tax loopholes are closed, and only if there are provisions to invest those tax revenues in alternative fuels. Since essentially all of Obama's shifts have been toward the center rather than the left, this might pay dividends not only on the drilling issue itself, but also in other instances in which he has changed his position.

- Would help Obama in electorally significant states. The bill is rather cleverly engineered in terms of electoral politics. It permits drilling in the swing states of Virgnia, North Carolina and Florida, but does not permit it on the West Coast, where the measure is significantly less popular. There might also be some secondary benefit to Obama in supporting the moderate Democratic senators who have championed the legislation. If Kent Conrad shoots a commercial in North Dakota, and says "This man had my back when the chips were down and it was time to lower your gas prices and secure America's energy future", that is very persuasive stuff.

- Would distance Obama from Pelosi and Reid. Increasingly, the right is trying to lump Obama together with Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, and the extremely unpopular institution of the Congress. Supporting the compromise would allow Obama to keep Pelosi, who has been attempting to prevent a drilling bill from coming to a floor vote in the House, at arm's-length, and create the perception that he is in charge of his own destiny.

- Preempts a non-compromise drilling bill from passing. And frankly, it might also be doing Pelosi a favor. Intrade now forecasts that there is about a 50:50 chance of a drilling bill of some kind passing by the end of the year. What Pelosi is essentially doing is gambling that gas prices will decline over the summer while the Congress is on recess. If gas prices continue to go up, however, Pelosi could face an insurrection from swing-district Democrats, putting her at a Morton's Fork between allowing a vote on a drilling bill that wouldn't include compromise provisions (but which nevertheless would almost certainly pass), or attempting to plug the dam at the potential cost of a material number of House seats.

- Preempts McCain from doing the same. I believe that McCain made a significant and potentially even fatal mistake by opposing the tax loophole closure provision of the bill. But Obama may only have a limited amount of time to exploit it. There are too many electoral benefits to this bill for one or the other candidates not to come out vociferously in favor of it, and if Obama does not do so first, McCain may do so instead. Ninety percent of electoral politics is possession, and whomever grabs the apple first will make the other candidate look like a follower.

Frankly, it would not surprise me if the Obama campaign is already keyed into this maneuver. Last Friday, they sent up a trial balloon in the form of Obama's softly-voiced support for the compromise. The trial balloon did not burst; Obama took very little flak for his apparent flip-flop on the drilling issue, whereas the Republicans were reduced to a frivolous taking point about tire gauges. Then this week, Obama began to hammer McCain on his support for oil company tax breaks, highlighting McCain's reason for opposing the compromise measure. Everything is all set up for Obama to move on the issue literally overnight. If he gets the optics right, he will leave McCain in an unenviable position.

McCain makes fundamental error in economic discussion.

Nick — Thu, 07 Aug 2008 12:27:53 EDT

McCain at a townhall meeting this morning said something that caught my attention...he said something along the lines of...

"We have to drill for more oil! Obviously if you increase the supply...I mean...obviously if supply goes up price will go down!" *cheers

But I thought about it, and my economics studies and i remembered a fundamental idea of economics that is seen in the below:

B. The Law of Supply
Like the law of demand, the law of supply demonstrates the quantities that will be sold at a certain price. But unlike the law of demand, the supply relationship shows an upward slope. This means that the higher the price, the higher the quantity supplied. Producers supply more at a higher price because selling a higher quantity at a higher price increases revenue.

This is what Obama has been saying all along. There is also a term called Inelastic Demand, which describes an unchanging demand for something regardless of price most of the time because of overall need. Examples are Medicine, and in this case gasoline. We will most likely buy gasoline because we need it.

If Obama capitalizes on these fundamental mishaps it will help ensure himself on better understanding the economy.

Its a fundamental error of thought! Increase supply of oil, price will increase because it is inelastic! People will buy regardless!

Art of the Deal

Marty — Thu, 07 Aug 2008 09:04:40 EDT

Here's what's so frustrating about the politically tone deaf position the environmentalist wing of the Democratic party is taking: opening up more off-shore drilling is not economical and the oil companies know it.

Balanced Article from Gristmill on Obama Offshore Shift

Tom Pearce Palm Beach Community Organizer — Thu, 07 Aug 2008 00:43:47 EDT

Drill he or won't he?Enviros unhappy with Obama's offshore-drilling shift, but pleased with his energy planPosted by Kate Sheppard at 5:46 AM on 05 Aug 2008

Many in the environmental community are annoyed by Barack Obama's change of position on offshore drilling, even while they applaud his comprehensive energy plan.

The Democratic candidate had staunchly opposed new drilling on the outer continental shelf, but then shifted his position on Friday to say he would be open to some drilling if it were necessary to reach compromise on a broader energy plan -- like the one introduced by a bipartisan "Gang of 10" late last week. That plan, which Obama indicated he could support, calls for limited offshore drilling as well as increased investment in clean energy, with the overarching aim of reducing America's oil dependence.

Friends of the Earth President Brent Blackwelder was quick to criticize Obama's position switch. "Friends of the Earth Action endorsed Barack Obama in May in large part because he spoke out against the 'gas tax holiday' gimmick that would have done nothing to reduce our dependence on oil," Blackwelder said in a statement Monday afternoon. "That's why it's so disappointing to see Obama now say he would consider expanding offshore drilling, even though he knows it is not a real solution to the energy crisis that is devastating our environment and our economy." Blackwelder also criticized the "Gang of 10" legislation for including funding for liquefied coal and nuclear power.

Adam Kolton, the senior director of congressional and federal affairs for the National Wildlife Federation, says there's been more than enough compromising on drilling already, pointing to the large portion of the Gulf of Mexico that was opened to drilling in 2006 and the part of the National Petroleum Reserve in Alaska that President Clinton freed up in 1998. "In the case of the environment, we've been compromising," he said. "I mean, at some point, you can say let's compromise, but you keep giving away more and more."

Kolton also criticized the "Gang of 10" plan. "This is like a BLT sandwich with just the lettuce and tomato," he said. "There's no bacon. We've got to have things that really move us away from our addiction to oil and help solve global warming. This proposal doesn't get it done."

League of Conservation Voters President Gene Karpinski knocked the compromise mindset too. "Once we have a new president and more forward-thinking members in the House and Senate, we don't believe we will need a 'compromise' on offshore drilling, which will be yet another giveaway to Big Oil and will provide no relief for hard hit consumers," said Karpinski in an statement to Grist. "We will resist any effort to pay this ransom which George Bush, John McCain, and Big Oil are demanding in exchange for the release of real investments in clean, renewable energy."

Finally... a true leader!

Jennifer Jenks, Cleveland,OH — Wed, 06 Aug 2008 21:34:39 EDT

Americans are starving for leadership, and while there's never a wrong time for a good leader to step up, there is such a thing as it being too late! With the championship on the line, you can't be afraid to go for it on fourth down. It may only be an analogous cliché-but the truth remains that if you play the game to NOT lose, then lose is exactly what you'll do. The citizens of the United States cannot afford for their public servants wait for action until January. It is time for those that wish to lead, to step in and resolve the stalemate in the Senate. That is precisely what Senator Obama has done by disclosing that in order to achieve his energy end-game he would consider supporting some off-shore drilling.

Americans need to remember that rarely does one answer solve any major problem and also to know that those answers rarely come from only one source. Specifically, America's chosen leaders need to get back to the Founding Fathers' understanding that the true power of America lies wholly immortalized within one phrase… "We the people…" At no point in our country's history has there been any significant achievement produced solely on an individual's efforts. Even the most influential leaders in our country's illustrious past: Washington, Jefferson, Lincoln, Roosevelt, Kennedy and others, all needed the support and efforts of a great many people to realize America's proudest achievements.

Specifically, the issue requiring broader consideration is the oil/gas price crisis that is crippling an already fragile, disenfranchised and disillusioned American public. We the people need help. The proposed solutions offered by both political parties are at best, incomplete. It may be difficult to stomach, but it has to be admitted that the proposals not only need one another, but also compliment one another. The Republican led proposal that opening safe and responsible exploration into the the outer continental shelf and the Western Oil Shale reserves currently seem to be the only way to begin the realization of America's independence from Middle Eastern oil. However, under the current lack of economic regulation and enforcement potential of environmental policies with regards to big business and Energy Commodity trading-opening these options would prove disastrous not only for our environment, but also our economy. Neither of which can afford a new round of attacks to their already delicate integrity. Additionally, without the Windfall Profits Tax, the oil companies would obviously utilize their incredible profits to further their own position on top as America's power brokers and monopolize the domestic drilling opportunities made newly available. The net result would mean at least another decade or two of lost time devoted to research and innovation in the area of alternative power sources. Conversely, the reimplementation of Energy Commodity trading regulation and Windfall Profit Taxes without the promise of new economic opportunity for big oil companies would likely lead to a repeat of past events: reduction of US based production-thereby increasing both cost to consumers and America's dependence on foreign oil production.

The solution, however, must be a cooperative between, not only, Washington officials but also between Washington and US based oil companies. If oil companies and law makers negotiate, perhaps they would modify the Windfall Profit Tax proposal to allow tax credits for the utilization of those profits for alternative power innovation, thereby allowing the industry the ability to reinvent itself for the future of global power needs, as well as reestablishing America's place-ahead of the curve.

It seems almost elementary that combining the two aspects of the proposed legislation is ultimately the most advantageous direction for all parties involved-most notably, of course are the American people. As a society, we can no longer afford to only think of hear and now, by the same token, we have a lot of ground to make up from a seven year deficit in forward progress. The reality of today is that we are in fact, standing at the breaking point and on the brink of chaos. If we continue to ignore the absolute necessity of forward progress any longer, the result will be catastrophic for every aspect of American society. The road that we must embark on together is both thorny and long-there will not be a populace unaffected by the turbulent times ahead. And that is precisely why we must once again come together and move forward, as "one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."

Alaska & Offshore Drilling

bfree — Wed, 06 Aug 2008 13:34:34 EDT

The GOP has been harping on drilling in ecologically-sensitive sites such as ANWR and various offshore locales for over a decade.

This, despite the fact that the US has numerous idle oil wells, and - as demonstrated by a recent oil strike by a rancher in North Dakota - has ample domestic drilling sites that are not ecologically sensitive.

Nor is drilling for new oil going to reduce gas prices in the near future. In fact, we have recently seen a drop in gas prices - without drilling in ANWR nor offshore sites - instead, the drop in gas prices came from a simple market reality: supply and demand. As demand goes down (through conservation, alternate energy sources, use of hybrids and fuel-efficient cars), so does the price.

So why does the GOP continue to sell the idea that drilling in ANWR and offshore sites is critical to our national energy strategy? Primarily due to the fact that the GOP had long abandoned its conservation roots (eg. Teddy Roosevelt) to the Democrats, and has come to the absurd conclusion that saving fisheries, tourism, natural resources and our food supply is somehow anti-capitalist, and detrimental to national security. The GOP is no longer a "conservative" party - fiscally, environmentally, militarily or constitutionally.

I would suggest what's detrimental to our national security is a party and president that continues to press for ongoing oil dependency, wages pre-emptive foreign wars in a failed attempt to control additional oil, increases our national debt while weakening our dollar, and encourages torture with the arbitrary holding of people indefinitely without charge.

I respect Senator McCain for his national service, and his former days as a political maverick - however, he has made it clear that he intends to continue the Cheney/Bush drive to keep us dependent on oil, and to keep US troops in the Middle East "for a 100 years". We, as a nation, cannot afford this.

It is my hope that Senator Obama does not succumb to the GOP's fallacious argument that offshore drilling is essential for reducing near-term gas prices. Nor am I crazy about his plan to give out handouts (fuel "rebates" - another form of McCain's tax holiday) - I'd rather see the money spent rebuilding our infrastructure and encouraging people to buy electric/hybrid cars.

Obama Energy Plan & Why We Can Not Drill Our Way Out

Wayne C. — Tue, 05 Aug 2008 03:13:47 EDT

I decided to put together an blog with as much energy facts as I could find after being thoroughly annoyed at the lack of real and factual information on the "news". People are throwing around numbers that have no basis in reality and no one seems to want to challenge them or discuss the issue thoroughly. I state right now that anyone can use this data as they see fit to get the word out. I would not mind credit, but frankly do not care that much as my priority is to educate as many people as possible.

First I have some links to recent stuff based on Obama's new energy plan (this new fact sheet is somewhat updated version of his original one), mostly taking other items such as forcing companies to use their present leases that was on the website into the actual document. Anyway here is some discussion from CNN on Obama's energy plan discussed today and in the links just prior to this.

http://money.cnn.com/2008/08/04/news/economy/obama_energy/index.htm?cnn=yes
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/08/04/campaign.wrap/index.html
http://money.cnn.com/2008/08/04/news/economy/obama_energy/index.htm?cnn=yes

Now here is a link that discusses how much just improving tire pressure would save each day. Now this is not Obama' energy plan as McCain claims, just a comment he made during a town hall meeting, but still not a bad idea is it? As Olbermann noted tonight Charlie Christ, Arnold Schwarzenegger, NASCAR and the NHTSA all support this idea. Note it mentions tire inflation would increase efficiency by 3% and with proper maintenance that goes to 4%, that is a rough estimate of 600,000-800,000 barrel/day, which is 3-4 times the amount of oil the OCS (see below) would provide.

Tire gauge solution is no joke

Now for the scientific teeth to my discussion. This is a bit more complicated and requires some study, but I have tried to summarize prior to pointing to the appropriate links from the US government's Energy Information Administration (EIA).

Following are EIA studies on ANWR (Arctic National Wildlife Reserve) and OCS (the outer continental shelf that laws presently prohibit use of). What you will see is that ANWR will increase daily output by at best, in 2030, 1.45 million barrels/day and the OCS will add at best, in 2030, 200,000 barrels/day. Now keep in mind that presently we use just in the US 20.7million barrels/day. That means if we are REALLY lucky (I used the best case high resource noted in the documents rather than mean or low) we will add 8% to our domestic production per day from these two sources. Not to mention you will note they comment that of course oil is sold on the world market and it is likely (without changes in conservation other than recent CAFE law Obama help push through Congress, bill was initially Senate Bill S-767 "Fuel Economy Reform Act", but eventually passed after compromise as "Renewable Fuels, Consumer Protection, and Energy Efficiency Act of 2007 (H.R. 6)") that it will go up to what they state is estimated to be 117.6 million barrels/day. Now in the scope of world use that means the additional 1.65 million barrels/day (again best case) that ANWR and OCS would add is 1.4%. Also note that the reference case on each is what oil companies already have the right to use and far exceeds both of these sources. This certainly gets us no where near being free from foreign oil, assuming the Republicans suddenly write a law regulating the oil industry to only sell US oil in the US. I think that is highly unlikely, since "free trade" and "capitalism" is the solution of all that ails the economy. Finally, remember that these offshore and Alaskan sources of oil are much harder to reach and extract (I have been to the North Slope it is not an easy place to work), so will require more expense and energy just to get there and get the oil out.

DOE offshore drilling information

EIA "Analysis of Crude Oil Production in the Artic National Wildlife Refuge"

EIA "Impacts of Increased Access to Oil and Natural Gas Resources in the Lower 48 Federal Outer Continental Shelf"

Well based on these facts does this drilling that could damage our environment sound like a good idea? Remember Katrina did cause environmental damage as noted in the politiFact.com. I think this shows that Obama's ideas of setting high goals and providing the funding and incentives to make more efficient cars (CAFE standards, plug in hybrids...), increase energy conservation (building improvement, efficient lighting...), create new technologies (wind, solar, clean coal & safe nuclear), increase production from lands already permitted for drilling and innovate is really the way to go. If we do not succeed completely, that is fine at least we can try and improve and reduce our dependence not just on foreign oil, but oil period. These gains will be far greater than any that can be achieved from drilling in ANWR or OCS. Not to mention the job creation, technology and manufacturing base will now be in the US rather than overseas. This is the "Change We Can Believe In"Wayne

See why even BATMAN is AGAINST off-shore oil drilling!

TrueAce — Tue, 05 Aug 2008 01:02:55 EDT

"Holy barrel of oil, Batman!!"

GM took your EV-1 away from you, too??"

See why even Batman is against off-shore drilling!

Mr. Obama,

Your acceptance of an energy policy that embraces off-shore oil drilling will be your downfall.

The GOP is towing the Bush Administration line which is geared up to cloak the fact that the Auto Industry has been shirking the already-established, viable and workable technology of an electric car whose battery can last longer than General Motors ever publicly acknowledged, because the Federal Government and the Auto Industry are in bed with Big Oil. Enough is enough. The public does not exist to bolster Big Oil. General Motors and all other auto-makers, be on notice that the public is ON TO YOU, now that the video, "Who Killed The Electric Car" is becoming more and more widely known.

Ten senior Hess Corporation executives and/or members of the Hess family each gave $28,500 to the joint RNC-McCain fundraising committee.

John Lewis-Dickerson, Atlanta — Mon, 04 Aug 2008 20:44:47 EDT

Multiple Oil Company Executives Gave Huge Contributions To Electing McCain Just Days After Offshore Drilling Reversal

By Greg Sargent and Eric Kleefeld - August 4, 2008, 12:47PM

Ten senior Hess Corporation executives and/or members of the Hess family each gave $28,500 to the joint RNC-McCain fundraising committee, just days after McCain reversed himself to favor offshore drilling, according to Federal Election Commission reports.

Nine of these contributions, seven from Hess executives and two from members of the Hess family, came on the same day, June 24th, the records show. The total collected in the wake of McCain's reversal for the fund, called McCain Victory 2008, from Hess execs and family is $285,000.......

ARTICLE- http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/08/oil_company_executives.php

Ending the Energy Crisis Now - McSame!!!

Mickiboop (P.O.B.) Be the Change — Mon, 04 Aug 2008 14:55:46 EDT

I guess since prices are down, McSame and the republican congress are racing to do the biding of Big Oil by pushing for a vote to "Drill Right Now"! After listening to them this morning, they seem to be worried that they will loose this argument if the price of gas continues to come down. How many of you want to bet that a barrel of crude will go back up by 1 to 2 dollars tomorrow, and gas at the pump will rise by at least 3 cents...

Republi-Con Artists

Robbi Jean — Mon, 04 Aug 2008 10:52:48 EDT

The protests currently being led by the Republicans are a wonderful bit of theater staged to help McCain sell a bill of goods to the American people. Energy independence my arse. They are rattling their sabres, accusing the Democrats of holding up much needed legislation to allow for off-shore drilling, when in fact such drilling would be of virtually no help in the energy crisis.

This is a false issue, dragged out by the Republicans to distract the public from the fact that they don't have any good ideas to get out of this mess. Washington Republicans have sold out to big oil. They are too beholden to Big Oil to truly take a stand to change the direction of this nation's energy policies. They do not care if lower-income families are struggling to survive in this economic crisis as long as the Fat Cats are getting fatter.

Both McCain and Dubya have admitted that off-shore drilling would not make any difference to our oil supply for 7-10 years because it would take that long to even produce any crude oil. Even then, the supply would go into the world market where it would be a drop in the bucket of oil supplies on the planet. ANBAR is another false issue - there are approved areas for drilling in Alaska that do not endanger life, but it is easier to create a false issue out of the Democrats blocking ANBAR drilling.

The Republicans pretend not to know this, even as their party leaders admit it publicly. The also don't tell the public that there are many areas on land in the Continental US appoved for drilling that the oil companies are not interested in developing. Land drilling in areas not protected for envitronmental reasons is far preferable to off-shore drilling.

This staged protest in Congress just reinforces the corruption of the Republican Party. They manipulate the 'low information' voters with false issues, spurious conflicts and so many lies that it is hard to believe anyone anywhere in this country can vote for an Republican for any office in the country.

Obama doesn't have to make negative personal attacks against McCain - he just has to tell the people the truth. It doesn't need to be presented as self defense, it just has to be factual. McCain has revealed his own lack of scruples in this campaign and Obama needs to fight back with the truth. And the truth is, as T. Boone Pickens' ads are clearly stating, the US cannot drill its way out of this crisis.

Obama's lead in the polls has evaporated, and it must be blamed on the misleading negative ads the Bad Guys are putting on the air in areas where truth is in short supply. I know something of that demographic. I have family members who were Union members all their lives, who collect Union pensions; blue collar workers who support the Rebublican Party because they don't understand how anti-union the Bad Guys are. I have siblings who still believe Iraq was involved in 9/11 and had WMD.

We must continue to get the truth out there. This country is in trouble now and cannot afford four more years under the control of the Evil Empire. So far McCain has shown no honor or integrity, but he is making so much noise - like a child throwing a tantrum - that it distracts voters from real issues. Let's throw a bucket of cold water on this childish old man. His campaign is a disgrace for a man who was once a true hero.

No Compromise ! No Such Thing as Clean Offshore Drilling!

Tom Pearce Palm Beach Community Organizer — Mon, 04 Aug 2008 00:11:56 EDT

Senator Obama please remember there is no clean compromise on offshore oil drilling!

After Katrina: Oil Spill First Responders
Megan Sever
When Hurricane Katrina struck the Gulf Coast in August, no one was immune from its rage. The hurricane hit oil and gas infrastructure particularly hard. More than 100 platforms were destroyed or lost, major pipelines were shut down, and refineries and oil storage sites lost power and were flooded and heavily damaged. While thousands of people rushed out of the area, struggling to avoid rising flood waters, some folks were rushing in. They were hoping to prevent — or at least quickly clean up — what would become America’s largest oil spill since the 11-million-gallon Exxon Valdez spill in Alaska in 1989

ON-Shore Drilling!

♫Parodee♫ — Sun, 03 Aug 2008 08:13:59 EDT

More Offshore Drilling??!

Laurie from San Diego, CA — Sat, 02 Aug 2008 10:47:58 EDT

I just heard on CNN radio news that Obama has flipped on the offshore drilling issue. WHAT???? I look on the website and he still has a paragraph under Energy Policy that states he will require oil companies to exploit their existing leases.

Is this true? If it is, I would be really, really disappointed. Today, I was planning on sending the campaign another donation, and buy some Obama gear. This news froze me in my tracks.

I won't comment on it until I hear from the campaign whether or not this act of BLATANT pandering is true. (And by pandering I don't meant to the supposed "center"; I mean blatant pandering to big oil. It is not that hard to explain to the American public why the additional leases would benefit no one other than big oil)

Please Obama, say it ain't so!!!!

Viable Solution to Energy Crisis 2008

Concerned Voter — Sat, 02 Aug 2008 09:47:25 EDT

We the People: In order to resolve the Supply vs. Demand issues we face in the area of Gasoline Prices and Energy supply in general:

The Department of Energy needs to develop a Request for Proposal (RFP) to contract the extraction of US owned oil for the benefit of the US citizens. As it stands, the US government (we the people) have allowed the oil companies to extract the oil, transport, refine and distribute this oil at a profit. I am not against a profit as it is good business sense. The issue here is the allocation of these funds. Who is getting the profits? Could the value of this asset be better distributed (perhaps to "We the people")?

Clearly, big oil companies are not supporting maximum extraction as this will increase supply and thereby reduce prices - again good business sense, but no help to the same US population that ultimately SHOULD own the oil that is being sold back to us via a LEASE Program. Further, the oil companies are not "playing well with others" where they are putting profits ahead of national security. As our debt grows overseas and we are putting money in the hands of our enemies, one would think that US oil companies would step up to the plate and produce more oil. While they claim that they are producing at the maximum levels, keep in mind as I said above that it is good business sense to maintain supply levels significantly below demand levels to ensure maximum return in investment (ROI).

Even if the US were to entirely fold, oil companies (international in scope) would have the ability to sustain their position due to the world's addiction to oil - the allegiance and paper would change, but the profits would remain the same. They don't care about the US (United States)- get it??

I pose this question:
If a farmer had a mule, a single bottom plow and 10,000 acres of land (clearly more than his mule could plow), why would he want 68,000,000 more acres of land - how would he benefit from having more land?

Note: This is the existing number of acres ALREADY available for drilling under lease from "We the people" and does not address the addition of the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) and/or Alaska National Wildlife Reserve (ANWAR).

Answer: If he held onto the land while prices went up, the land becomes more valuable. Substitute the word oil for land here… it equals borrowing power and as we all know, the one with the most money wins (thinking of the oil lobbyists that seem to own OUR government).

As it stands, Conoco Phillips has said that they don't even have enough drilling equipment to support more oil wells if more land were provided (this in response to a request to increase supply).

When it comes to the congress (republican members), they claim that they need more land to drill. Democratic members believe that the oil companies are not drilling as much as they should to manipulate supplies. My solution completely erases both arguements...

The Meat of the Matter:
Clearly the current Lease format for the extraction of United States assets (oil) is unconstitutional. We already own the oil, our representation (Congress) has granted "a favor" to the oil companies to drill on this land and (pay attention to this) SELL the oil at a profit to presumably anyone that will pay them for it ANYONE - we the people are actually giving our oil away (for free) and gaining only the money provided to us by the leasing of the land and evidently the mineral rights. The placing of a lease that includes the mineral rights make the oil their property ONLY where there is an existing lease.

Without a mineral clause in the lease, the oil is NOT their property to sell, they wouldn't lease without it - do you think there is oil down there?! Since "We the People" own the land, the mineral rights and any other assets (gold, silver, copper) that are found on that land, any lease should include the value of any minerals found on that land... They DO NOT, just FREE access to the minerals that lie below. The implementation of this LEASE program by our representatives (both house and senate) has resulted in the ability for oil companies to extract oil with a worth that far surpasses the cost of the lease and to sell this asset back to us (We the people) at record profits. These critically important energy assets that are located under US Government "US Citizen" owned soil are now being debated as to whether to let the oil companies can have more of OUR oil to sell back to us... It seems that I am not the only person that KNOWS this.

As this oil is currently an "American" owned asset, we should simply produce a Request for Proposal that would allow a proper competition toward the extraction of this oil to be used as an American asset for US Citizens. Watch the oil lobby start SCREAMING like a baby at this option. No more free ride, if they want to drill for oil and put it on the market, they will need to buy land and drill it - just imagine! The next thing we need to watch is OUR congress allowing sales of currently held US Government owned (our) land to some nameless group of environmentalists - AKA BIG Oil.

The Solution:
In short, the contractor extracts the oil, transports crude, refines it, and provides the distribution facilities/locations that will be under the auspices of the Department of Energy. This oil should NOT be placed in the current Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR) as the oil currently held there can only be released under the direction of the President - been there, done that and NO one person should have that power over our general supply.

This contract should be provided by the Department of Energy (DOE) and costs should be recovered in a similar manner to the United States Postal Service through purchase of fuel. The true cost of the extraction, transportation, refining and distribution network (with locations) will be significantly less than the current cost as the oil companies add profits to this price "at the pump".

Clearly, speculation would no longer be a player in this market, currently held leases would be rescinded by the holders as the cost effectiveness of holding leases (without further development) would evaporate faster than the gasoline that they are [not] producing. Further, when America becomes able to infuse large quantities of oil into the US market, this will reduce demand locally and abroad thereby reducing the current cost of crude per barrel globally.

I fully understand that the US Government cannot make a profit (participate in business) but there are currently cases where "self funding" is fully supported (i.e. US Postal Service). As this is the case, I strongly recommend that all non-productive leases be terminated immediately with an RFP to hit the street as a HIGH priority toward the extraction of this oil, further, the RFP should include the transportation, refining, and distribution of this asset to the American people for our use ONLY.

As these distribution facilities should be Government owned, the upcoming mandates for supply of Alternative Fuels will be already in hand and distribution sites will be available to bolster the introduction of transportation energy alternatives as we anticipate that the oil supply will eventually run out.

As it stands, we have high unemployment, gasoline is extremely expensive and we are giving favors to groups and businesses that "do not play well with others". I appreciate good business sense and know that the US Government cannot run a business for a profit. The US Postal Service is self funding - contracted to provide transportation of mail as a basic service to the people of America and abroad. There is no good reason that the Department of Energy cannot adopt a similar paradigm in support of an inexpensive (yes I said it INEXPENSIVE) energy supply while alternatives are explored, exploited and introduced.

We need to reduce our CO2 output in any event (whether there is global warming or not) just from a pollution standpoint. This is a long-term "stop-gap" method of leveraging what we already own while we develop and introduce alternative transportation fuels.

As an aside, we are already paying to support the Department of Energy, why don't we incorporate the US Postal Service model and reduce our expenses by removing profit, increasing competition and paying our fuel bills to the US instead of OPEC? Big oil cartels do not equate to competition, the introduction of this contract would do so through the process of contract award - standard issue "Best Value" results from response (from competitors) and review of DOE contracting officers.

To summarize, since we the people already own the oil, oil companies cannot legally sell it back to us for a profit unless we give them a LEASE on US GOVERNMENT LAND - (OUR LAND). Leases on these US Government lands have provided the oil companies the legal ability to sell our US assets, either back to us or even abroad for a profit. This clearly forms a significant (clear and present) National Security Risk when they choose to reduce supply and grow our dependence on foreign oil (that they are also drilling by the way). We went to war in Iraq for these reasons, why do we not respond similarly here??

WE THE PEOPLE are in a dire situation and need full exploitation of these assets immediately (all of the currently available acreage), thus a contract including full extraction - to the pump distribution should be created by the Department of Energy. The Contractor should respond with a time table, Milestone deadlines, production quotas, distribution plans and strategic locations for sites.

This is essential to the immediate extraction of these wholly owned US assets. In the event that the "big oil" companies don't wish to participate, I guarantee that there are US iron mines, US steel mills, and an unemployed US workforce that will be very happy to support this patriotic goal. I say this because of what Conoco Phillips stated about the oil rigs and availability. We can even mine the iron, open the steel mills back up and produce every piece of this system using US workers and making our economy better in the process.

Results, if conducted correctly will be an immediate drop of oil prices due to the wholesale evacuation of speculators, reduced costs of oil due to the known supply quotas, more driving, bolstering the funding for our failing infrastructure and the reduced or eliminated need to support the Department of Energy through our taxes.

Reasonable compromise or triangulation?

Sherman from Tampa, FL — Sat, 02 Aug 2008 08:27:27 EDT

Over at DailyKos, there is a thoughtful diary about Obama's support of the "Gang of 10" approach on energy. I think it's wrong, but it's thoughtful. Here's the gist of it:

Would a limited compromise on offshore drilling - which won't accomplish much of anything, but is politically popular - be worth it in a tradeoff with some serious, sound policy making that really COULD make a difference? I'd need to see the details, including stringent environmental protections in any new oil drilling areas, but overall I'm open to a "grand bargain" that would really break our oil addiction, not to mention the power of OPEC. My guess is that a lot of Americans would be as well.

The devil's in the details, and something doesn't smell right about this: Florida is the only state in this plan that gets no choice, no options, nada. As a Florida resident and someone who thinks of myself as an environmentalist, I'm troubled.

And I can now forget about getting my spouse to canvass: after FISA and now this, she's ready to throw in the towel.

Gas Station

Jack — Fri, 01 Aug 2008 21:25:42 EDT

White screen. Desolate desert shot, wind, loud, then fading to quiet background noise.

Focus to Bush lookalike staring with intent, concentration slightly to the right of the camera, looking into the distance.

He is wearing a grey jumpsuit, hand on a steel handrail reminicent of mad king george in his flight suit on the carrier deck.

A double ring of a tire triggered gas station bell rings. ’George’ frowns, then turns and jogs off screen to the left.

Camera pulls back and pans left, showing that the rail is the edge of a gas station and ’George’ is jogging up to an extra long black limo sitting at a gas pump.
The place is old and worn, sand covers most of the tarmac.

Shot of sand swirling as we transition to the second shot.

’George’ is handing a white bag and soft drink container to the driver, who is wearing white gloves.

As the car drives off, showing diplomat plates. ’George’ turns to camera, dust in the air behind him as the camera moves left and pans right, moving ’George’ to the left side of the screen showing the pump, and a dilapidated gas station with a hand painted sight ’Arbusto’. There are dark storm clouds building in the distance.

’George’ faces the camera, right hand pocketing a wad of foriegn bill. He raises his left hand, gives a thumbs up and says ’Mission Accomplished folks.’

The camera pulls away from a tv screen being watched by ’The Candidate’ sitting at a serious desk reminiscent of the desk in the Oval Office.

He turns to the camera and just says:

"Please. On November Fourth go to your polling place and vote Democratic to restore Democracy to America."

Still shot of a single polling booth with an American flag next to it.

Fade to black.

Rebuilding Our Economy

bfree — Fri, 01 Aug 2008 11:12:14 EDT

We have become a nation of speculators, gambling on stock and mortgage loans - borrowing/consuming from abroad, and producing less at home. We outsource our livelihoods, and our major export has increasingly become weapons and war. Our national debt is unconscionable.

In order to stabilize our economy, we need to:

Stop our massive spending on pre-emptive wars.
Eliminate subsidies to profitable corporations.
Increase support for small businesses.
Establish universal healthcare so that workers can focus on providing for their families.
Fix our social security system, pay down our debts, and balance our budget.
Invest in infrastructure that cannot easily be outsourced abroad: an efficient/robust power grid, safe roads/bridges, public transportation, secure ports.
Reduce our dependence on fossil fuels; invest in the development of alternative energy sources and become innovators in "green" energy and conservation.
Invest in our schools; encourage travel abroad in order to experience how others do things, and how Americans might increase trade with other nations/cultures.

This is not rocket-science, nor is it costly to implement. It merely takes political courage and leadership on the part of our president and congress - and for people to stop expecting handouts in the form of "tax-breaks". Taxes are good - if they are an investment in our future.

A massive investment in improving our power grid will create local jobs; encouraging businesses to develop renewable fuels will increase our export potential; encouraging the auto industry to switch to electric/hybrid cars will reduce polution, greenhouse gasses and our dependence on foreign oil.

Spending money on new oil wells and offshore drilling is exactly the wrong thing to do - as it increases our dependence on oil, and further subsidizes an already wealthy/profitable industry. As one travels the country, it is easy to spot thousands of idle oil wells that could be pumping oil now - the oil industry keeps them idle waiting for gas prices to rise enough to make it worth their time to pump/transport/refine/distribute the fuel - we don't need additional drilling.

McCain wants to continue spending our budget on wars (he said it's likely that we'll have troops in Iraq for the next 100 years); he wants to increase our dependence on oil (offshore drilling and drilling on national preserves); he intends to increase our budget deficit through continued "tax cuts" and "tax holidays"; he dismissively calls universal healthcare "socialized medicine".

I ask our next president to invest in rebuilding our infrastructure (ala TVA), help out small businesses (SBA), help break our dependence on oil (foreign and domestic) - and lead Americans out of the mentality of free money in the form of tax breaks and subsidies to wealthy corporations.

Will More Drilling Mean Cheaper Oil?

jgabriel — Thu, 31 Jul 2008 17:29:04 EDT

This article is about a month or so old, but it's still very relevant, as the debate over offshore drilling rages on.

"...even if tomorrow we opened up every square mile of the outer continental shelf to offshore rigs, even if we drilled the entire state of Alaska and pulled new refineries out of thin air, the impact on gas prices would be minimal and delayed at best. A 2004 study by the government's Energy Information Administration (EIA) found that drilling in ANWR would trim the price of gas by 3.5 cents a gallon by 2027."

http://www.time.com/time/business/article/0,8599,1815884,00.html

Are Oil Companies Already Sitting on 10,000 Off-Shore Oil Leases Refusing to Drill While Sceaming for More Drilling Rights?

Ken — Thu, 31 Jul 2008 17:08:21 EDT

I read in these blogs here somewhere that the oil companies have over 10,000 leases both offshore and in Alaska where they already have governmental permission to drill and aren't doing it. Is this true? If so, how come the general public hasn't been informed about this? Could it be that the oil companies don't actually WANT to drill and possibly lower the price at the pump and that all the hoopla about off-shore oil drilling is an attempt to fatten their largesse while they can as the media provides the smoke screen and the gasoline-starved public supplies the demand in this latest stage of the ever-unfolding Cheney plan?

GOP Is Losing The Off-Shore Drilling Argument

Mikeystyle — Wed, 30 Jul 2008 11:46:15 EDT

The oil companies want more oil rights in the U.S. to lock up the rights to all of our domestic oil—and then not tap into it, so they can increase prices. Why else would they be asking for more drilling rights when they’re not using the rights to 68 million acres of public land already (that’s larger than the state of Colorado). Furthermore, we only get as little as 12%-16% of oil profits from these lands, whereas in Canada they get 20% to 40%.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=baIwSYpUCWs

Senator Steven's Indictment and Off Shore Drilling

Obamanizer — Tue, 29 Jul 2008 16:25:54 EDT

Where's MoveOn.org to run useful and educating commercials?

When off shore drilling becomes one of the biggest GOP talking points (and you can bet it does), then somebody has to show the conservative leaning public the associations between big oil and the people that call for expanding our drilling the loudest.

Oil Industry Gushed Money After McCain's Reversal on Drilling

John Lewis-Dickerson, Atlanta — Sun, 27 Jul 2008 14:01:56 EDT

Industry Gushed Money After Reversal on Drilling

by Matthew Mosk

WASHINGTON - Campaign contributions from oil industry executives to Sen. John McCain rose dramatically in the last half of June, after the senator from Arizona made a high-profile split with environmentalists and reversed his opposition to the federal ban on offshore drilling. Oil and gas industry executives and employees donated $1.1 million to McCain last month — three-quarters of which came after his June 16 speech calling for an end to the ban — compared with $116,000 in March, $283,000 in April and $208,000 in May.......

ARTICLE- http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/07/26/AR2008072601891.html?nav=rss_politics

Get on to solutions

! Steffen from European Union, Dr. - Together We Can! Yes. We. Can. — Wed, 23 Jul 2008 19:22:32 EDT

Big Oil stands by Bush plan drilling:

“It’s an American problem,” said John Hoffmeister, president of Shell Oil, “adding that the powers that be in Washington need to “quit the rhetoric and get on to solutions.”

So, maybe they are right - let's get on to solutions.

But the solutions are not the old misleading, are not sucking people's money away again! Solutions are not drilling holes in pocket of costumer!

Solutions are solutions in new energies!

Let's go on to solutions! Yes. We. Can.

It will take a certain type of American to get the job done. People like those that are fighting for the change that Barack Obama is promising, people want get back the own independence, don't want be predicated on oil companies.

Because of this I started a new group in Obama network: " Carbon neutral home - people's own little power plants - Carbon Neutral Village" http://my.barackobama.com/page/group/Carbonneutralhome-peoplesownlittlepowerp

Feel free to join the group. The people need all informations. Write down your personal success story. People want participate into the new energies! They only need help! There is a need for cheaper products and knowledge what the costs are! Bush was helping the oil companies with tax gifts - lets help the people!

Like we have it in plan of campaign:

Green Collar Jobs

Plan for renewables, fuel economy and energy efficiency will help create 5 million new green collar jobs.

So I am remembering the personal success story of James Peters, Newport, Oregon. He wrote for example: " It is my belief if I can begin installing these units for local people here. the rage will catch on, like a wild fire. .." or ".. I took your poster to a Obama rally here in Newport. at the County Fair.. it was such a hot item, I had to run to LazerQuick and print up more.. I did that two times yesterday, printing up more than 750 posters. added to my original 125 made the total 875." [the poster is spoken about is from http://changeforbetterworld.blogspot.com/2008/07/new-gold-rush.html]

Let's go on to solutions! Yes. We. Can.

Drill to lower gas prices

danno — Mon, 21 Jul 2008 01:16:31 EDT

I am not clear as to why so many Republicans (and few Democrats) think we can get out of the high price of gasoline by opening up the trifecta of ANWR, OCS, and shale reserves.

Michelle Bachman (Representative from my state of Minnesota) is on the recording for saying that if we do this we can again see $2 at the pump.

This just does not make any logical sense. Unless you believe that the price of oil has been speculated in price by 100%. And if that is true the fastest way to fix that would be to regulate the futures market of oil to eliminate the 'speculation mark-up.' Cause guess what - the actual supply increase from the 'trifecta' is 5 to 30 years off.

So short of regulation of the futures market what can we do now?

1. Conserve - find more ways to cut down our oil consumption

2. Write your congress men and women to open up research into energy

And this is about it. We have reached a point where we need a bridge to the future, a bridge where we are not dependent on oil, where we are self-sufficient in our energy needs - to get there the answer is not just looking for more oil, is not just nuclear, or wind or solar, or some chemistry with coal - the answer is all of the above in the right measure, until we have eliminated our dependence on oil.

BTW I believe we should reserve our natural resource of oil, because we are going to need it for things besides burning it the future.

McCain: Oil Rigs ‘Very Successfully’ Survived the Impact of Hurricanes

John Lewis-Dickerson, Atlanta — Sat, 19 Jul 2008 15:48:57 EDT

Here are some photos of the success that McCain is touting:

BLOG by Pat Garofalo- http://thinkprogress.org/2008/07/18/mccain-rigs/

Sen. Obama Declares Offshore Drilling Off the Table

David Rothmiller — Sat, 19 Jul 2008 12:03:43 EDT

Official Statement on new Offshore Drilling:

If offshore drilling would provide short-term relief at the pump or a long-term strategy for energy independence, it would be worthy of our consideration, regardless of the risks. But most experts, even within the Bush Administration, concede it would do neither. It would merely prolong the failed energy policies we have seen from Washington for thirty years. Senator Obama believes Americans need real short-term relief, which is why he has proposed a second round of stimulus with energy rebates for working families. And over the long-term, Senator Obama understands that our national security and the survival of the planet demand a real strategy to break our dependence on foreign oil by developing clean, new sources of energy and by vastly improving the energy efficiency of our cars, trucks and our economy. He is ready to lead such a transformation.

Senator Nelson - D-Florida - 2006 Drilling for Oil Legislation - PASSED

Barbara — Fri, 18 Jul 2008 10:45:20 EDT

Yesterday, trying to find authentic news (anyone else discouraged by what our news reporters call 'news'?) I happend upon C-span with the live talk from Senator Bill Neslon of Florida. I can't find his transcripts or the recorded video, but I did email him requesting this.

Please - Mr. Obama and all other democrats that are being shoved under the bus for standing up against this newest campaign against all reasonable thinking people regarding drilling for oil - please - review this legislation and make it known so that this issue can be put to bed.

On Thursday, July 18 2008, Senator Neslon was talking about the legislation that was passed TWO years ago regarding the question of drilling. I missed most of the talk. But I did find this article dated December 6 2006: Clearly, both Republicans and Democrates worked 'together' making compromises, and did this together. Why is this not being talked about????

Congress sends oil drilling legislation to President Bush Source: Copyright 2006, Miami Herald
Date: December 9, 2006
Byline: Lesley Clark
Original URL

Drilling for oil and natural gas in the deepest waters off Florida's Gulf shores would be allowed for the first time under legislation that is headed for President Bush's signature.

Early today Congress gave final approval to a measure that allows for energy exploration in a huge swath of the Gulf of Mexico 125 miles south of the Panhandle. Rigs would be barred 235 miles off the coast of Tampa and nearly 325 miles from Naples.

The measure -- approved by the Senate, 79-9, shortly before 2 a.m. and earlier passed by the House -- marks a victory for industry groups who waged a yearslong battle, and a major setback for environmental groups and some Florida lawmakers who had long fought efforts to explore Florida waters.

Members of the Florida delegation were divided in the debate over the legislation.

''Drilling in the eastern Gulf of Mexico not only threatens Florida's $57 billion tourism industry, but also America's most pristine shoreline,'' said Rep. Jim Davis, a Tampa Democrat who led the charge against drilling and is leaving office after an unsuccessful bid for governor.

But the bill had the backing of Florida's two senators, Democrat Bill Nelson and Republican Mel Martinez, who said it offers permanent protection for Florida's coastline at a time when pressure to open up federal land to energy extraction is increasing.

Martinez, who negotiated the measure with input from Nelson, rebuffed suggestions that the delegation could successfully maintain its total ''no drilling'' stance.

''I think what we've done is good for Florida,'' Martinez said of the legislation, noting it provides for buffers of hundreds of miles -- much farther than the House had wanted. 'Some folks would say, `no drilling,' but that's a pipe dream. Protecting Florida is the next best thing we could do.''

Many Gulf Coast lawmakers pleaded for its passage, arguing that oil royalties from exploration would help restore hurricane-damaged wetlands.

''The Louisiana delegation for decades has been asking for help, and it's been like a tree falling in the woods, unheard,'' said Rep. Charlie Melancon, D-La.

``This is an opportunity to do something for energy production and to do something for America's wetlands.''

To sweeten the deal, lawmakers rolled the measure into a package of popular tax breaks, including a federal income-tax deduction for state sales taxes, a provision that affects states like Florida that don't have a state income tax.

''This vote is a victory for families worried about their soaring energy bills,'' Sen. Pete Domenici, R-N.M., chairman of the Senate Energy Committee, said before the Senate acted.

Environmentalists assailed it, with Environment Florida director Mark Ferrulo calling it an ''early Christmas present to Big Oil'' and a ''stocking stuffed with tar balls'' for the state of Florida.

''The giveaway of 8 million acres of waters directly off Florida's coast to the oil industry is bad news for anyone who cares about the health of our marine wildlife and coastal environment,'' Ferrulo said, noting that if the bill is signed into law, Congress will have given a green light to the first oil drilling rigs ''in history'' off Florida's coast.

But Gov. Jeb Bush, once a critic of drilling in even far-away waters, said he could live with the legislation because it gives the state a 125-mile buffer -- and puts it in writing, as opposed to leaving it up to the whims of a future president.

''It's better to have that kind of permanency than have a change of policy in the out years,'' Bush told reporters in Tallahassee.

The measure split a once-united Florida congressional delegation, with many Republicans suggesting that rising energy costs made it critical to allow limited drilling in the Gulf in exchange for some protection.

Democrats and environmentalists argued that Congress would be better off addressing energy conservation and new sources of alternative fuels.

''If Congress was serious about offering real energy solutions, then we would be examining the true environmental and economic impacts of offshore drilling and exploring the use of clean, renewable energy technologies, increased fuel efficiency and conservation,'' said Rep. Robert Wexler, a Boca Raton Democrat.

Both of Florida's senators, Nelson and Martinez, voted for the bill. In the House, where the vote was 367-45, all of Florida's Republican House members, except for Miami's Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, voted for the measure.

Ros-Lehtinen joined in voting against the measure with Democrats Davis, Wexler and Reps. Alcee Hastings of Miramar, Kendrick Meek of Miami and Debbie Wasserman Schultz of Weston.

Miami Herald staff writer Gary Fineout contributed to this report in Tallahassee.

Why is Bush working double time for Big Oil?

Tom16384 — Wed, 16 Jul 2008 03:08:28 EDT

Bush's family oil business must be worth a lot for him to work double time to get Big Oil to drill on California's beautiful coastlines. Not a lot of people know there are already oil wells in California. These off-shore oil wells will not represent any reduction in gas price, but will represent Big Oil's absolute control over our governments if they become successful. Our federal government is already controlled by oil interests; witness Bush's family oil business and Cheney's Oil ties; witness the filling of federal posts by oil executives. Increased oil profits in California would cement Oil interest control in California state government.

What does Big Oil want? They want control. They want your money. They want your environment, and they want to own your green technology. They can double your gas price if you do not give them what they want. Sounds scary? Well, you should be scared because their threats are already been carried out.

Just remember it was McCain who first opened this Oil Drilling can of worms. There can be no doubt that McCain's interest lies not with you, but with Big Oil. We must carry Senator Obama to a victory in November, since it is our future that is at stake here! Let this be a battle cry that is heard everywhere!

Drilling Without Oil, Tax Cuts Without Growth

John Lewis-Dickerson, Atlanta — Tue, 15 Jul 2008 21:34:32 EDT

Drilling Without Oil, Tax Cuts Without Growth

by: Dean Baker

McCain proposed offshore drilling in environmentally sensitive areas, attempting to show he cares about lowering gas prices for everyday Americans. Despite the inability of this drilling to lower gas prices anytime soon, the media picked up on his posturing and promoted it, rather than offering a critique.

Senator McCain is in the unenviable position of running on the track record of a president with the worst economic performance since Herbert Hoover. He has adopted the strategy of ignoring the record while embracing his predecessor's policies. McCain is betting the media will be so incompetent that they will not notice. He might be right. The basic story here is very simple. The centerpiece of Senator McCain's economic agenda is the continuation of the Bush tax cuts.........

ENTIRE ARTICLE- http://www.truthout.org/article/drilling-without-oil-tax-cuts-without-growth

Dubya Dis's Daddy

Colleen from Cleveland, OH — Mon, 14 Jul 2008 12:11:20 EDT

President Bush is lifting the executive ban against new off-shore drilling ventures—a ban initiated years ago by President Poppy; and a ban fiercely supported by brother Jeb all the while he was Governor of Florida.

Why should American taxpaying consumers allow more coastal drilling, by American Oil Companies, when we get no direct price benefit from American production? Every barrel of oil that American Oil Companies produce is sold on the world market to the highest bidder. These unpatriotic sleaze balls even charge the U.S. Military +$4.00/gallon. Yet, our government gives these pathetic price-gouging, pirates billions of dollars in subsidies!!! Why should we allow these unscrupulous bandits to drill off our coasts? Even Texas billionaire oil-man T. Boone Pickens says we can’t drill our way out of this addiction. How stupid can we be???

If Congress is willing to venture into these troubled waters, then there must be consumer-friendly pre-conditions for any new off shore drilling agreements. For example:

1. The IMMEDIATE elimination of all existing congressional subsidies to the Oil Companies.

2. An IMMEDIATE congressional subsidy, in comparable total value, of consumer retail gasoline prices (e.g. a “contra” Federal gas tax).

3. An IMMEDIATE 20% reduction, from current market, for purchases made by the Federal Government for National Security/Strategic Reserves, and for Department of Defense/Military Operations.

Congress should NOT pass any legislation allowing new off shore drilling, WITHOUT guarantees of IMMEDIATE consumer relief—period!

Demand for Oil Is Not "Driving" Increased Gas Prices

Germaine — Sat, 12 Jul 2008 09:13:10 EDT

The truth is that U.S. demand for oil compared to the supply, has decreased.

Using data from the Energy Information Administration (the official energy statistics of the U.S. government). Comparing 2008 data to 2002, we find that compared Supply/Demand for oil is down by 2.1%. However, gas prices have increased by 152% since 2002. Again, the demand for oil goes down and gas prices skyrocket.

Finally, I did a correlation analysis to determine how much gas prices depend on the supply/demand for oil. From 1994 to 2001, the demand for oil accounted for 56% of the increase in gas price. However, from 2002 to 2008, the demand for oil only accounted for 10% of gas price increases.

The official government data shows that:

1) there is no increase in the demand for oil when compared to oil supply
2) the large increase in gas prices has nothing to do with the supply/demand for oil.

Read the full article here:
http://www.easttexasonline.com/city/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=47:oilgas&catid=39:national-politics-articles

Bitchin' About Oil

Michael Hubbard — Tue, 08 Jul 2008 11:43:01 EDT

RFK, Jr has a great radio show called "Ring of Fire" I learned this from it today(I'm paraphrasing so please,
bear with an amateur).

President Bush sent THREE, that's three (3) Texas oil exploration companies into bankruptcy with his careful managment practices because he couldn't find oil. But now he claims he can find
some in the deep ocean.

The pseudo conservatives are trying to blame the new Democratic party controlled Congress for these high gas prices because they won't allow companies to drill in certain areas, mainly
via offshore drilling. This is all nonsense based on Bush's own energy department data. They estimate that there are 18 billion barrels off the coast and 10 billion in the arctic wildlife preserve
(otherwise known as Anwar), that sounds like a lot but the energy department says that we won't see any impact on price via coastal drilling until 2030 and even then it would be insignificant.
so it's not a short term solution or long term solution for that matter. Furthermore the energy department says that Arctic drilling would take about 75 cents off a barrel of crude oil by 2025. Over the course of the Bush administration the price per barrel of oil has gone up 100 dollars a barrel of crude oil.
75 Cents off a barrel of crude oil translates into a whopping savings of about 2 cents at the pump off a gallon of gasoline. Remember, this is in a few decades from now and if you add in the oil from the windfall of oil drilled off the coast, so we can say in another quarter of a century that we'd be saving about another 4 cents off the price of a gallon of gas making for a grand total of 6 cents off at the pump! THIS IS NO SOLUTION TO OUR PROBLEMS!! But that's how it's been sold by the Republican in Chief! Not to mention the billions of dollars it'll take to extract that oil when the oil companies right now are about 10,000 permits behind on what they've already got permits to drill for!! Where on God's good Earth are they going to find the time to start more drilling projects?

On top of that Bush had a friendly Congress that gave him anything he wanted from 2001 to 2006 when the American people said enough to getting hosed everyday. Bush never seemed to want to drill, not very badly at least. The Republican party at large had control of both houses of Congress from 1994 until they screwed things up so bad they lost it in 2006. If this was such an important issue for Republicans you'd think they'd have made a serious effort to do this during the TWELVE YEARS that they were in charge. Especially in the FIVE YEARS that they had a president
in office that was more than just friendly to them.

I'm not against drilling for oil off the coast or in Anwar either! I just don't think it'd matter right now if we all of a sudden got a windfall of Jed Clampett types and got enough oil pulled up here in America either. Why not? The oil that is extracted isn't guaranteed to go to America just because it was brought up by an
American company! Crude oil normally goes up for grabs on the global market where our severly weakend dollar can't compete in a bidding war with stronger currency, like the commie money that was made by American companies selling American jobs to the lowest bidder. Then we've got Hannity and Limbaugh (damn! 400 million dollar deal Limbaugh) saying that Obama would turn us into a communist or at best a socialist country. Looks like the major corporations have a strong preference to doing business with the commies over us anyway. Personally this electrician thinks Obama has only the best intentions of actually getting this country back to work, he won me over early on just by hitting hard at these trade deals. All he really has to do to ensure he is indeed elected is to keep the jobs and trade deals at the forefront of the debate because that's the real problem, the core of it at least. But heck, even if Obama did magically find a loophole in the Constitution to turn us into Commies then maybe, just maybe our CEOs would
bring a couple of jobs back to us! It'd take a government strong arm to force them to keep it in America and not punish Americans with a high price for keeping it here. Then you'd hear Hannity and Limbaugh telling any Lemmings that are still being fooled by them that it's un-American for Congress to do something like that. They'd be right, it's not typically an American thing to force a company to have ethics but it did used to be an American thing for
American companies not to bite the hand that feeds them. They at least knew that they owed their customer a solid square deal, after all, it's the American customer that paid for those yachts and vaction homes.

But the long and short of it is that we are running out of oil world-wide, signifigant amounts of oil anyway to sustain in the long run and we know that though it's a long run, it's a fast one when it comes to consumption. So why not instead of putting those billions of dollars into developing drilling off the coast, why don't we spend that money on coming up with something different? I say we make a deal with Mexico to grow sugar cane so we can buy it and turn it into ethanol. That way the illegals can go back home to their families and work. We'll have a whole new venue for employment refining cane into a fuel. NOW THERE'S A TRADE AGREEMENT that's somewhat AGREEABLE!

Plus maybe buying sugarcane from friendly latin countries then maybe it would bring some of our food costs down. Remember, the lation countries tend to like us, unlike our current energy suppliers over yonder in the mid-east.

Speculation and Gasoline Prices

Colleen from Cleveland, OH — Fri, 27 Jun 2008 19:33:17 EDT

Oil Companies and other “price protectionists” are quick to discredit, or minimize, the impacts of rampant "speculation" on the dramatic run-up in the price of oil/gasoline. Nevertheless, there is little real doubt that unfettered, undercapitalized, irresponsible, speculative trading, by massive players, has helped to create a rapidly growing price bubble that unfairly burdens global consumers. The “Enron Loophole," and every other loophole known to man, must be plugged as a necessary first step in establishing some greater semblance of trading responsibility and price stability--in a market that is everything but "free."

The world's oil commodity supply is so tightly and secretly controlled and manipulated by a handful of nation-states, cartels and corporate colluders, that "no-skin-in-the-game" speculators can feel abundantly secure in knowing that free market competition will not likely burst their risky bubble. And, the fact that the resulting inflated prices are then substantially subsidized by many governments, serving the vast majority of the world’s citizenry, severely and unfairly disadvantages American consumers—directly and indirectly.

Why should American taxpaying consumers support more coastal drilling when we get so little direct benefit from American oil production supplies? American consumers get no governmental subsidies on gasoline. Only the price-gouging, profiteering Big Oil Companies get governmental subsidies!

America’s ill-served consumers are coerced into buying prescription drugs in Canada and gasoline in Mexico. What a sorry state of affairs! It’s time for our elected government officials to get serious about reducing gasoline prices. Congress must start by enacting meaningful legislation to close speculation loopholes—NOW!

Sierra Club RAW: McCain Caught on Tape

Curtis — Fri, 27 Jun 2008 15:07:43 EDT

Link to article: http://sierra.convio.net/site/MessageViewer?em_id=60961.0&dlv_id=54641&JServSessionIdr009=44e1jrh4x3.app23a

Please note our new RAW email address, raw@sierraclub.org.

Issue #259
June 27, 2008
McCain Caught On Tape
Josh Dorner
This week after touting his misguided plan for offshore planning while visiting the site of one of the nation's worst environmental catastrophes -- the 1969 Santa Barbara oil spill -- McCain had a major YouTube moment that showed his rank hypocrisy when it comes to nuclear energy.

The Arizona Senator is a major proponent of nuclear energy -- going so far last Thursday as proposing a whopping 100 new nuclear plants. According to utilities' own cost estimates, this plan could cost more than $1 trillion! This is nothing more than a costly, dirty, and dangerous distraction from the real solutions to global warming -- clean, renewable energy and energy efficiency.

Worse yet, John McCain believes that the people of Nevada should get stuck with the 77,000 tons of dangerous high-level nuclear waste that have already been created by the nuclear industry. He sees no problem whatsoever with transporting waste across 45 states and putting it at the unsafe and unproven Yucca Mountain repository.

While McCain is fine with forcing all that nuclear waste on Nevada for all time and eternity, he's unwilling to have it in his own backyard for even one day. A YouTube clip (fast forward to 1:14 for the goods) uncovered by the Sierra Club just this past Wednesday shows McCain firmly shaking his head no and saying he wouldn't be comfortable with nuclear waste traveling through his home state on its way to Yucca Mountain.

Interviewer: What about the transportation? Would you be comfortable with nuclear waste coming through Arizona on its way, you know going through Phoenix, on its way to uh Yucca Mountain?

McCain (Shaking Head): No, I would not. No, I would not.

Looks the like the straight talk express just came off the rails! (Again.)

Juxtaposition as Mind Control

Bigname Scientist — Fri, 27 Jun 2008 00:51:17 EDT

Individual Mind Control, aka Manchurian Candidate, is fiction. But Population Mind Control, aka psychological operations (psyops) and so called "Influence Science" does work. No individual can be forced to change their mind, but statistical sampling over time proves that some people do change their minds. Crowd psychology-based psycholinguistic and theatrical techniques can dramatically change the outcome of a poll or a vote. George Bush's popularity rating soared to 90% in September 2001.

Juxtaposition is more subtle, but here's how it works: Juxtapose a politician's picture next to an unrelated headline about a murder or a story about embezzlement, and watch their popularity ratings fall. Have authorities, who should have inside knowledge, like Condi Rice, Don Rumsfeld, and his "War Heads" shills repeately mention Iraq and 9/11 in the same breath, and polls will show that 70% of Americans came to believe Saddam was "behind" 9/11 (even though people previously believed the culprit was Bin Laden or other Islamic crazies, and Saddam was a secular dictator.)

Now McCain is running this picture ad all over the Internet. Not only does it misrepresent Obama's position on Diplomacy, but it juxtaposes Obama with the Reincarnation of Satan/Saddam, the unspellable Amadinajad!!! And the yes/no buttons don't even work!!

Well, it really sucks that this ad WILL be effective because of biologically-determined weaknesses in Human Psychology, that we subconsciously learn to associate spatial and temporal juxtapositions

Personally, I think Influence Science is an abuse of Psychology and should be banned. Until it is, I have taken the liberty of getting even with McCain's psyops team, with the following image juxtapositions:

My final image juxtaposition about McCain's campaign's use of his heroism so beyond the pale, that I can't preview it for polite company; please DON'T look!

John McCain-leading us down the path of self destruction.

Dougydad — Thu, 26 Jun 2008 22:48:44 EDT

John McCain, where do I start.. We are supposed to be proponents of peace right? Ok, rules of engagement in Iraq say don't do anything until fired on.. am I missing something? Did Iraq attack us to start with and I missed it? I remember an attack that was attributed to Bin Laden..he was supposed to be in Afghanistan..JOHN, WAKE UP- women and children giving GI's flowers in Iraq and smiling are nice, but while fires are destroying homes in the west, floods are destroying homes in the northeast and floods are taking out homes and farmland in the center of OUR own country, our people are crying. Where is the funding to help them - in Iraq. Where is the military muscle to help clear or rebuild or technology to blast out curves in the Mississippi so it doesn't flood millions of acres? - In Iraq. What are we getting from Iraq? Free Oil??? HELL NO.

Oh JOHN, what about your wife owning so much of an interest in Budweiser? You can see why you don't want her paying the same tax rate us normal people do, you make too much money.. and oh hey! What about your basically non-stand on the border?? Could it be because there is a Mexican Beer Comany Owner on the BOARD OF DIRECTORS of Budweiser?? Can you say presidential conflict of interest? John is just another typical republican telling the public what you want them to believe and taking care of the upper 10% of America who can get even richer when the rest of us suffer.

Oh JOHN!! Ever think about an oil spill off the east coast of Florida? Gets into the Gulf Stream and polutes the whole east coast within 4 days, half of it in two, with no way to contain it so quickly. That's what I call 70's mentality like when Carter said move to alternative energy and the republicans chose the alternative of drilling in Alaska. Look where that has gotten us now.

Barack, you are the only hope America has, McCain and his supporters have just proven time and time again, they only care about their interests in the name of America, and not America's interests. Or else they are just idiots.

If the oil companies need more places to drill for oil, why aren’t they tapping the 68 million acres they’re already approved do drill on?

Mikeystyle — Mon, 23 Jun 2008 15:04:47 EDT

According to the U.S. Minerals Management Service, of all the oil and gas believed to exist on the Outer Continental Shelf, 82 percent of the natural gas and 79 percent of the oil is located in areas that are currently open for leasing. Great graphics and sources at the Congressional report linked below:

http://resourcescommittee.house.gov/images/stories/Documents/truth_about_americas_energy.pdf

King George and his final gift to big oil

Rick Adis — Sun, 22 Jun 2008 22:28:42 EDT

I have decided to call Predident George W. Bush "King George" since he appears to have lost sight of his roll in the American political process. Perhaps his appointment by his dad's friends on the Supreme Court launching his loosing career as President may have gone to his head. Especially since he seems to think the Constitution of the United States is irrelevant and that he has acquired special powers granted to him perhaps by himself or John Yu. Just in case you are not familiar with YU he was one of the main government attorneys responsible for Gitmo and tapping our phones.

Maybe I give King George to much credit. But, can anyone really be so stupid? No my friends, it has to be more than just good old fashion stupidity. Guess what?? It's all about greed, power and oil. Remember the secret energy meeting with VP. Dick Cheney and the heads of the oil companys? I'm sure they were not discussing the weather in Florida. Now mind you I am not a conspiracy nut however, there are just to many unanswered questions. But, enough of all that.

Speaking of memory, remember six months or so ago when John McCain's campaign was on the rocks? Broke and failing the press had already written him off. His mavrick ideas destined for oblivion? Wow!! What happened? He got a shot in the arm from the RNC. Why would they do that? Well perhaps it was because, like Bush, McCain suddenly wants to give tax breaks to folks making more than $250,000.00 per year. (Wish I made that) McCain, like Bush, reversed his position and now magically wants to drill off the continental shelf and at ANWR in Alaska. (Wish I could have been a fly on the wall at the RNC meeting with McCain)

Bush in his continuing effortrs to return political favors and knowing his days are numbered is trying, through the RNC surrogate, John McCain to tie up the loose ends for the oil companys and deliver whats left for oil drilling and exploration. His final gift to the corporations who have faithfully supported his failed presidency.

Why do I think that? Lets look at the fact oil companies already have leases for thousands of square miles of land and coastline but, are using less than twenty one percent of the area. This leaves more than seventy nine percent unused. So why does Bush/McCain continue to espouse the virtues of off shore drilling and drilling ANWR? Especially when the oil companys are not using this area and folks like Exxon - Mobile are reporting record profits of some after tax revenue of $11,000,000.00 for the first 1/4 of this year. By the way, Exxon is not alone in record profits. Chevron, BP, and others are enjoying mega profits at our expence. Consider also the fact, oil refining is running at 89% capacity. Even if we had all the crude the world had to offer we couldn't refine it. At least not until oil companies sepend some of that mege profit and build one or two.

Sounds like a Bush / oil Christmas to me.

Oil companies aren’t tapping the 68 million acres of untapped land they already have access to

Mikeystyle — Sun, 22 Jun 2008 18:45:29 EDT

The oil companies say they need more places to drill for oil, yet they currently have access to 68 million acres of untapped land with oil and gas reserves that aren’t being used.

The 68 million acres of leased but inactive federal land have the potential to produce an additional 4.8 million barrels of oil and 44.7 billion cubic feet of natural gas each day.

This would nearly double total U.S. oil production, and increase natural gas production by 75 percent. It would also cut U.S. oil imports by more than one-third, reducing America's dependency on foreign oil.

A bill by Congressman Rahall would force oil and gas companies to either produce or give up federal onshore and offshore leases they are stockpiling by barring the companies from obtaining any more leases unless they can demonstrate that they are producing oil and gas, or are diligently developing the leases they already hold, during the initial term of the leases.

http://www.americablog.com/2008/06/if-only-there-was-us-land-where-big-oil.html

The Off-Shore Drilling Scam

John Lewis-Dickerson, Atlanta — Sat, 21 Jun 2008 15:54:05 EDT

Another Scheme from the Greed Machine

The Off-Shore Drilling Scam

By ALAN FARAGO

No Americans aren’t going to trust Republicans on the expansion of offshore oil drilling to lower the price of gasoline. Just add this to the long list of errors, missteps and miscalculations reflected in the recent AP-Ipsos poll: “When other surveys are taken into account, the general level of pessimism is the worst in almost 30 years.”

In Rassmussen Reports, Dick Morris writes that McCain has outflanked Obama “big time”. “His call yesterday for offshore oil drilling—and Bush’s decision to press the issue in Congress—puts the Democrats in the position of advocating the wear-your-sweater policies that made Jimmy Carter unpopular.”

Morris is absolutely wrong........

ENTIRE ARTICLE- http://www.counterpunch.org/farago06212008.html

Call McCain's Bluff on Drilling

Marty — Sat, 21 Jun 2008 10:57:51 EDT

Republicans believe that high gas prices may have handed them a potent cudgel with which to bludgeon the Democrats. As they see it, pain at the pump allows them to blame Democrats for siding with
"tree-hugging" environmentalists in blocking oil companies from drilling for oil and natural gas in environmentally sensitive areas. Without environmentalist interference, they argue, U.S. companies could have been producing oil in American territory that could be used to expand supply and keep prices down. While giving lip service to alternative sources of energy, they insist that the Bush/McCain's prescription for high oil prices is more drilling would not only help lower energy prices but also improve national security.

Of course, all of this is cynical nonsense. Gasoline prices are set by market forces in the here and now, and don't depend on guesses about what will happen in the long term future. Moreover, because OPEC can increase or reduce its production at will, the cartel could maintain high prices if it wanted to simply by reducing production to compensate for the increase in American production. Because oil is a commodity, its price would float to the worldwide market price determined by supply and demand; the fact that the oil comes from the U.S. will not affect its price to Americans. Even if all restrictions on domestic energy exploration and production were lifted today, the first drop of gasoline from that effort wouldn't arrive at the pump until at least 10 years from now.

Unfortunately, the American public is not sophisticated enough to understand even these basic facts about oil, and it doesn't have the attention span needed for Barack them. There is real pain and fear out there about what rising gas and food prices are going to do to an American way of life based on plentiful and cheap petroleum, and people want action. That's why the Republicans think this is a good issue.

Democrats could stand and fight on this, but if they do, sound bite politics that pits a quick, simple and intuitive (though fallacious) Repbulican argument against a thoughtful, complicated and potentially painful Democratic solution is likely to benefit the Republicans.

That's why Democrats need to work toward a bipartisan compromise on this issue that at once neutralizes the Republican argument, highlights Democratic concerns about the environment, addresses the economic pain the public is now experiencing and shows that the Republicans are more serious about helping their corporate friends than doing what the public wants done.

The way to do this is simply to agree to more drilling.

Before you take out your flame thowers and stop reading, let me finish my argument. Please believe me when I say that I'm one of you, and I'm not a moron. I don't trust the oil companies, I'm passionate about the environment and I'm scared to death about global warming. I understand we can't drill our way out of the current problem and I understand that every new barrel of petroleum makes all of these problems worse.

I would propose that Congress remove the ban against drilling for oil, but only under the following conditions:

All exploration and drilling must take place in the most environmentally sensitive manner using only techniques approved by government agencies. Energy companies would have to post bonds guaranteeing that any spills or other environmental impacts are promptly addressed;
Energy companies must post a significant bond guaranteeing active good faith exploration and production of oil and gas on federal lands;
The U.S. receives a fair market royalty for all oil extracted;
Active exploration for more oil and gas must commence within 60 days after the signing of any lease, construction of the facilities to extract oil and gas must begin within 1 year after the signing of any lease and production must begin within 5 years. Failure to meet any of these deadlines would result in termination of the lease and forfeiture of the completion bond and any investment made in the effort.
To prevent speculation, leases could not be sold or transferred without the consent of the U.S.; the consent could be withheld for any reason or no reason;
Congress imposes, with Republican consent, a price floor for gasoline, say $3.50 per gallon, that will prevent a return to cheap gasoline and encourage conservation and the development of alternative energy sources.

This compromise would put the Republicans on the defensive immediately. The oil companies already control millions of acres of federal land, and yet, have failed or refused to exploit those acres. Some people say that the oil companies are stockpiling land, waiting for prices to climb even higher. Yet, the oil companies acquired these leases when the world market price was below $50.00 per gallon; obviously the world price has at least tripled, and so, if there were going to be a time to make a killing, it would be now. They should at least be mobilizing to rake in these profits.

Because they aren't, a fairer interpretation of their action or inaction is that the oil companies have determined that the cost of getting the oil out of the ground will be higher than the profits they could get from the oil. I would be willing to bet that the same is true of the oil the Republicans are screaming about now.

The people who run the oil companies aren't stupid. They know that despite the potential for profit, oil and gas exploration and development is risky and expensive. The reserves that the Republicans are pointing to are not proven, and it will take a significant amount of time and money to determine how much oil, if any, is actually there.

Oil company executives also know that even though prices today are high and that there has been a significant increase in demand for petroleum from developing countries eager to modernize, given high enough energy prices and enough time, capitalism will encourage the introduction of an innovation of some sort that will, in turn, encourage a shift away from petroleum, thus depressing its price. They probably also suspect that, given the sharp uptick in prices over a relatively short period of time, the current price probably includes some inflation caused by speculation. While the price of petroleum probably isn't going below $100 per barrel any time soon, they know that when the speculative bubble pops, prices will take a nose dive. Thus, while an investment in hard to get, risky petroleum may make business sense at $135 per barrel, it may not make sense if the price sinks to $115 per barrel.

Thus, just as economic considerations are probably currently persuading oil company executives not to use the land they have, economics could well also persuade them that drilling in ecologically sensitive areas is just not worth the risk, particularly given the restrictions the U.S would impose.

While the Republicans may cry about these restrictions, it's hard to imagine average Americans complaining. In public opinion survey after survey, most Americans say they want both a clean environment and plentiful energy. How would the Republicans plausibly argue against a requirement that oil companies proceed carefully and that they provide meaningful guarantees that they will clean up after themselves? In an era of fraudulent dealings from companies like Enron and give-aways to companies like Haliburton, how do you argue that American taxpayers shouldn't get a a fair return from the oil companies on oil extracted from federal lands and ocean floors. If we really are in the clutches of an oil crisis, why shouldn't we insist that oil companies move with dispatch in trying to increase the supply of oil?

Obviously, the most difficult of these restrictions is the floor requirement. Democrats should require it, because without it, the market won't provide an incentive for people to cut back on petroleum usage or to invest in renewable energy sources; it's also a key requirement of the environmental community. Interestingly, this provision is likely to place the Republicans in a terrible bind, because their corporate allies may well insist that expensive oil and gas exploration and development requires some assurance that the oil companies can make money at it. Because the oil companies will want it and the public probably won't (but needs it for its own good), Republicans would be faced with complaining about an anti-populist provision or else dealing with the complaints of their corporate masters. As a result, they're likely to be quiet about it, particularly if the floor is set somewhere below what the price of gas is right now.

By going along with the call for more drilling, Democrats deprive the Republicans of a potent election year argument while seeming to be willing to work in a practical bipartisan way. Their argument is simply that just like the Republicans, they are for more production; they only want it done in an environmentally sensitve way that protects the American taxpayer. Moreover, given that more drilling is not a solution to the current problem and is not likely to happen anyway, Democrats would be giving up little to gain much.

Threat of Global Warming

Tom16384 — Thu, 19 Jun 2008 01:02:03 EDT

The curse of Global Warming makes severe weather occurring more frequently. California is suffering from a drought condition. Iowa and Illinois are experiencing record flooding. These are just some hints of the full force that we will encounter in the future unless we achieve some real changes in the next eight years. We need our Solar, Wind, Tidal power, and plug-in vehicles now. All Bush or McCain knows is to drill oil wells everywhere. That is what Big Oil wants us to do, which is just going to dig us into a bigger hole, and doom us to the full wrath of Global Warming.

Senator Obama has a plan to tackle Global Warming directly. We need to unite together to achieve real changes for America!

No Way to Off Shore Drilling!

James in Navarre — Wed, 18 Jun 2008 14:51:15 EDT

As a resident of Florida and home to some of the world's best beaches, any attempt for major oil companies to come in and ruin the enviroment, I am vehemently opposed to. The Democrats are right when they said our energy consumption of oil is not a over night fix. Bush and McCain are pandering to the fears of voters and I pray that America see thru this ploy. NO WAY to Off Shore drilling on any coast.

Instead let these oil companies pitch in financially and physicallly to find a more clean and resourceful way of supplying our energy needs.

McCain and Bush: Energy through the drill

Joshua Schroeder — Wed, 18 Jun 2008 12:10:01 EDT

When Tom Daschle was leaving the Senate, he gave an interview where he described meeting Bush for the first time. Daschle recalls that Bush said, "“There’s only one real word for my energy policy, and that’s drill.”

Now McCain seems to have bought this boneheaded Bush policy hook-line-and-sinker.

Gas prices are horrific now. They're hurting people all across the country who are dealing with the recession. But we need to look carefully as to how to responsibly handle the energy crisis. Alternative energy sources can be developed that are sustainable, environmentally sound, and clean. However, Bush and McCain seem obsessed with the idea that we can "drill" our way out of our problems. The newest arugment that this duo is making is that we have to increase off-shore drilling.

Off-shore drilling is an intensive practice that requires the construction of enormous platforms, disrupts ecosystems, and returns fossil fuel energy sources that are non-renewable, heavily polluting, and the cause of some of the worst ecological disasters we have ever known. In the meantime, Bush's administration has cut funding to research and development of alternative energy sources and technologies and there is no indication that McCain will reverse this trend.

If you want to live in a polluted, doomed to bust, energy-starved world that is depedent on invasive, old technologies of the past, then by all means support the Republican energy policy of the drill.

But I won't be joining in on this madness.

NO OIL NEEDED

J. KRAKKER — Wed, 18 Jun 2008 10:55:04 EDT

I have worked on this project for 5 years. Having been offered a buy out to not build my automobile power plant. Investors from as far away as Japan have read my proposal and want it for themselves. I have refused to surrender the American Dream.

So I put this out to you Senator Obama, I believe in the direction you are going and so I put this in your very hands, and that of your supporters. I have created what I call a Transduced Engine. Originally I designed it to be in a motorcycle but the system is more suited for the auto industry.

The Transduced Engine uses no fossil fuels meaning NO GASOLINE, and has no emmisions. It is a sealed fluid dynamic worm drive system with compressed air charged system. I can state this, it changes the very direction of an electric Hybrid. The Transduced Engine uses a rail of compressed fluid drivers, and magna chargers that recharge the cars lightweight battery as it drives. Unlike hybrids my powerplant charges itself.

Why havent others invented it. Because people forget that small inventors are what MADE AMERICA, but if your not some Big 3 or famous scientist you could not possibly have an idea worth helping the world.

Reality is this Sir. My invention is the real deal it has no fuel injection, no spark plugs, no spark plug wires, no radiator fluid, no brake fluid, no exhaust pipes, cadilatic convertors, in short it looses the entire tradition of the gasoline and desiel engine.

It puts the Big 3 and the Oil Companies on the chopping block. I want to give my invention to our people, our America to show we are strong. My engine can be adapted to fit in any car, truck, bus or semi. My Transduced Engine would change the entire outlook on fossil fuels usage.

All it takes are those willing to accept change and make a differnce to grow with the times. The Transduced Engine would eliminate the need to drill for oil off our shores, and Alaska's wilderness.

It would though cripple the oil companies, and the Arabian Kings because we would not need them. My power plant could be ready for full production in a year. At 1/3 the cost that the Big 3 spend on fossil fuel or Hybrid engines alone. Being that my designs looses 1/2 of what they put into vehicles today.

Best Wishes Senator Obama on becoming our next President.

Issues Suggestions

Kim Who'sSane 4 Barry & Joey — Wed, 18 Jun 2008 09:49:18 EDT

Its been all over the news lately and i know Americans in particular are Very worried about the Rising costs of gas fillups so I have a few points i will like Barack to address when speaking publicly about these issues.

NB: i previously thought i saw a link for supporters to post thoughts on issues but i can no longer decipher where it was.

Habeas Corpus:

we all know Barack is a lawyer but he should not play into the game the repubs are trying to snare him into right now. they are trying to bait him on the issue of strongly supporting the supreme court rulings. we know this may be true but when Barack is defending his views on the situation he should only point to the fact that suspected terrorist are just That and as humans they Need to have their fair trials in a reasonable timeframe from the time of their capture and in the event they are found guilty they will be dealt with accordingly. the main issue here is the fact that the suspects need to be viewed as being given their day in court in a reasonable amount of time and it does not necessarily have to be in a US court with US citizen rights. i do not know the specifics of how they are supposed to be tried under NATO laws but just projecting that image that America does indeed have a legitimate intent to try these captured "terrorists" in a reasonable time frame will gain us some credibilty worldwide. Barack should also stave off using "Lawyer Speak" when addressing such issues. just use n educative but plain English when making a point on this issue.

Off-Shore Drilling:

McCain's latest flip-flop does not really change anything when it comes to reducing Gas Prices (at least in the short run). However it makes him seem as the progressive candidate even though it is still up to individual coastal states if Congress removes the ban. When Barack is answering questions about his views on this issue, i will like him to stick to his already proposed plans (windfall etc.) while still insisting that he is Very Open to alternatives such as Nuclear and Drilling so long as there have been Established Environmental Protection Safeguards and the Willingness of the Oil or Nuclear companies agreeing to be Held Fully accountable for any Mishaps that may occur during the process. however he should state that investing in alternative fuels that are more friendly to the Environment are His Highest Priority and try not to look like He is completely blocking out any possibility of safe drilling and Nuclear research as viable alternatives. this way he will be both Environmentally Friendly and assure the "Oil Heads".

McCain's oil spill

Tom16384 — Wed, 18 Jun 2008 02:17:46 EDT

Today an oil spill washed up on a popular public beach near Oakland, California. Among this backdrop, Big Oil's buddy John McCain proposed opening oil drilling off the coast of California. The plain fact is that America has only 3% of the world's oil deposit, so this drilling will never lower gasoline price. It would only further enrich Big Oil's fat pockets. This drilling every-where ploy is something that came right out of Oil lobby's play-book.

Letter On Drilling For Oil

J J Clark 93614 — Tue, 17 Jun 2008 19:38:39 EDT

The Oil Drilling Scam Its Not Lack Of Oil, its lack of refinery capacity that directly affects gasoline supply! WHY, You ask? In 1982 there were 301 Oil refineries in the US, today 149. The 301 processed 17.9 million bpd, today the 149 process 17.4 million bpd. US demand is 20.8 million bpd, leaving a deficit of 3.8 million bpd! This limits supply and drives up gas prices! “In 2001, Sen Ron Wyden presented to Congress a report arguing that these (refinery) closings were calculated choices intended to increase oil company profits. Fewer refineries means less product in circulation, which means a lower supply-to-demand ratio and more profit. Wyden's report cites internal memos from the oil industry implying that this reduction was a deliberate attempt to curtail profit losses.”

In 2008, total domestic crude oil output is projected to average 5.1 million bpd, the same as in 2006 and 2007. If we were to increase this by 1 million bpd (In ten years, by the way!) with drilling in ANWR this would represent .04% of world production and be most likely offset by an equal decrease in OPEC production, accomplishing nothing! Drilling is not the answer!

"I don’t understand economics very well", John McCain

J J Clark 93614 — Tue, 10 Jun 2008 16:12:09 EDT

The Fox In The Henhouse

Ex Sen. Phil Gramm, lobbyist for a Swiss bank heavily involved in the housing crisis, co-chairs John McCain's presidential campaign, advising McCain on economic matters.

This is the same Sen. Gramm, that on December 15, 2000, with his Republican majority in congress, as part of their anti-regulatory crusade, pulled a sly legislative maneuver that led to the multi billion-dollar sub prime meltdown.

As part of a $384-billion bill, Gramm slipped in the Commodity Futures Modernization Act that was written with financial industry lobbyists and contains the infamous "Enron Loophole". The deregulation features of this act are the major contributing factors to two economic disasters: The sub prime meltdown and unregulated speculation in oil futures. Many economic analysts now contend that speculation in oil futures are contributing up to 70% of the cost of gas!

Senator McCain has suggested Gramm as a possible Secretary Of The Treasury. McCain often expresses that he, himself, is not strong on economics, but this disastrous appointment would put an individual, who's deregulation philosophy has directly contributed to housing's financial failure and rampant oil and gasoline prices, in charge of US economic policy. Can America afford another Republican in the White House?

Congress is scrambling to respond as millions of people approach the summer vacation season under the threat of $4-per-gallon gasoline,

Inspired in Florida - a Recovering Republican — Mon, 12 May 2008 16:21:19 EDT

The Republican Members of Congress have finally seen the writing on the wall that the patience of voters with the foreign oil cartels is seriously waning. But their answer won’t fix the supply and demand problem, and will have devastating environmental impact.

Senator Obama has clearly defined the problem here

Foreign Oil: America's 20-million-barrel-a-day oil habit costs our economy $1.4 billion a day, and $500 billion in 2006 alone. Every single hour, we spend $41 million on foreign oil.

Climate Change: As a result of climate change, glaciers are melting faster; the polar ice caps are shrinking; trees are blooming earlier; more people are dying in heat waves; species are migrating, and eventually many will become extinct.

A Senate vote on a GOP plan is scheduled for Tuesday. The American Energy Production Act S. 2958. The Democratic Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has promised to bring up a Democratic package before the Memorial Day congressional recess.

Except for halting the flow of oil into the government's Strategic Petroleum Reserve, which to me is a no-brainer, neither plan is likely to go very far. Both will be challenged by filibusters by opponents, meaning they would require 60 votes to advance.

But let’s look at the Republican plan, and then look at some Ranking of Energy and Natural Resources Committee Members 110th, 1st session, by party, from the League of Conservation Voters.