40 Comments

• 1. Some Assembly Required  |  July 11th, 2008 at 12:49 pm

  McCain attacked Obama for not showing up to vote for the bill which would give Iran Terrorist status. Funny thing though, McCain didn’t show either. Funny, no mention of that here though

• 2. OhioOrrin  |  July 11th, 2008 at 12:55 pm

  Recruiting goals met for June

  The active Army brought in 9,365 new soldiers in June, 101 percent of the goal of 9,250.

  http://www.armytimes.com/news/2008/07/army_recruiting_071008w/

  and the caissons go rolling along…

• 3. LiberalMind  |  July 11th, 2008 at 1:02 pm

  Is Karl Rove still violating the law and ignoring a subpoena, refusing to testify?

  Please tell the audience how you can defend this outright disrespect for the law.

• 4. Magnum Serpentine  |  July 11th, 2008 at 1:30 pm

  The True Flip flopper

  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ioy90nF2anI

  and

  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GEtZlR3zp4c

  very interesting videos.

  “…The world wonders” Fleet Admiral Chester Nimitz, pacific Theatre, World War II 1945

• 5. Danish Artist  |  July 11th, 2008 at 1:40 pm

  Nancy Pelosi has completely shut the door on expanding our efforts to drill for oil. Just like that, Nancy has decided that companies can use the areas that have already been approved for exploration. Period. End of story. She calls the idea of drilling in areas that are protected “a hoax.” Well isn’t that comforting? Better get used to these high gas prices.

  Just a few points: Yes, there are some areas that have been opened to exploration, and yes, the oil companies have yet to pull any oil out of them. But there are some explanations. One, they’ve found no oil there to extract. Two, if there is oil there the depths involved and other logistical problems make extraction either impossible or far too expensive. The point here is that there are other areas where oil can be extracted economically .. and those are the areas shut down by Democrats.

  Of course, according to Nancy Pelosi, the real problem is the Republicans. She says that efforts to expand drilling are “a decoy to punt your attention away from the fact that [Republican] policies have produced $4-a-gallon gasoline.” Really? What policies are those Nancy? Tell me what policies the Republicans have supported that has caused our gas prices compared to Democrats. The truth of the matter is … you’re all failures.

  Here’s what’s going on. Democrats understand that there is a strong likelihood that oil prices will drop – perhaps a lot – if the United States announces that we’re opening up ANWR, the Florida Gulf Coast, the outer continental shelf, the oil shale lands out west and other areas to oil exploration and recovery. OPEC countries would immediately put downward pressure on prices in hopes that they could derail or forestall the new American effort. Democrats also know that the voters in this country have this nasty tendency to blame – or credit – the party controlling the White House for good and bad economic news. Democrats won’t do anything that might allow the Republicans to look good … even if you have to pay five bucks a gallon for gas.

  Aren’t you people just going to love it when Pelosi, Reid and Obama are running the whole show?

  MANY THANKS TO ENVIRONMENTALISTS …

  … for refusing to become a part of the solution. BP wants to expand on oil refinery in Whiting, Indiana. That would be a good thing, considering that a shortage of refineries is one of the many reasons why gas prices are so high. But one group of people out there is determined to see that this expansion never happens … environmentalists. On Wednesday of this week, The Natural Resources Defense Council filed a lawsuit that challenges air permits granted to BP’s refinery by the State of Indiana.

  Just keep these details in mind … This investment by BP has the potential to increase gas and diesel output by 1.7 million gallons a day. It will also create 2,000 construction jobs and 80 new permanent jobs.

  This environmental group also says that the permits granted by Indiana “simply do not protect the public and do not live up to the law.” Don’t you love that phrase, “protect the public”?

  Do you remember the story earlier this week about Columbia? It seems that the “human rights” groups working down there were actually not promoting human rights at all. Instead they were working on behalf of the communist FARC rebels. And so it is with the “environmentalists.” Their concern isn’t the environment. Their concern is to slow and, if possible, cripple the American economy. They’re anti-capitalist radicals, not people worried about our environment.

  Liberals putting politics, party and special interests above the PEOPLE. You know, THE PEOPLE, the PEOPLE, you libs keep quoting in polls (in the polls the PEOPLE want new drilling) and government for THE PEOPLE.

  If only liberal actions were consistent with what they repeated ad nauseum.

• 6. Magnum Serpentine  |  July 11th, 2008 at 1:47 pm

  Someone needs Anger management. They need it very badly.

  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-CazKanlYDg

  and

  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y2D_mhqDRBY

  And

  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fSlAJ5hkAC4

  Goodness, angry man. Needs help I would say.

• 7. Magnum Serpentine  |  July 11th, 2008 at 1:50 pm

  DA,

  Oil prices will drop if the big wig big greed big oil would just drill on the land they already control.

  But then, big oil will not drill because they know if they do, their price gouging of the citizens will fail and prices will drop.

  Good day.

• 8. neocon  |  July 11th, 2008 at 1:51 pm

  Wouldn’t it be great if the Town Hall debates were going on so we could get a real sense of where both candidates stand and how quick they are on their feet to respond to concerned citizens questions?

  Oh well………

• 9. HeyHey  |  July 11th, 2008 at 1:53 pm

  “McCain attacked Obama for not showing up to vote for the bill which would give Iran Terrorist status. Funny thing though, McCain didn’t show either. Funny, no mention of that here though”

  Saw that this morning. Hypocrite? Liar? Gaffe? Senior citizen moment? Apparently he can’t remember his stances on alot of things when asked.

  “When McCain was asked for his position on the issue, he said—with a nervous laugh–“I certainly do not want to discuss that issue.”

  The reporter pressed. “But apparently you’ve voted against—“

  “I don’t know what I voted,” McCain said.

  The reporter explained that McCain voted against a bill in 2003 that would have required health insurance companies to cover prescription birth control. “Is that still your position?” she persisted.

  During the awkward exchange, with several lengthy pauses, McCain said he had no immediate knowledge of the vote. “I’ve cast thousands of votes in the Senate,” McCain said, then continued: “I will respond to—it’s a, it’s a…”

  It’s pretty sickening to watch the cast of “Morning Joe” laugh it up and fail to acknowledge that this is a pretty big stumble by McCain. Not only is his campaign sending mixed messages about a rather important issue to millions of Americans, the Senator is so clearly confused and caught in the headlights as he’s called out on a blatant flip-flop.”

• 10. FreeTibet  |  July 11th, 2008 at 1:54 pm

  “Wouldn’t it be great if the Town Hall debates were going on so we could get a real sense of where both candidates stand and how quick they are on their feet to respond to concerned citizens questions?

  Oh well………”

  Are you referring to the staged Town Hall debates that McCain is currently doing?

• 11. Dennis  |  July 11th, 2008 at 1:57 pm

  Nobody with anything to say on Freddie Mac’s or Fannie Mae’s free falls this day? Curious. What an eloquent testimony this crumbling economy is to the Republican era of deregulation.

• 12. Eric T  |  July 11th, 2008 at 2:00 pm

  Danish Artist-

  Pelosi and Obama want us to suffer!!!

  Steny Hoyer a more moderate democrat, has shown support for some drilling.

  Here in Detroit, the Marathon refinery is expanding creating some construction work, when done they will be able to refine heavier sour crude from Canada. Light sweet is expensive, sour crude is much cheaper

• 13. OhioOrrin  |  July 11th, 2008 at 2:03 pm

  ***EXTRA EXTRA READ ALL ABOUT IT***

  Obama cuts-off the Left’s Nuts!!!

  WASHINGTON (CNN) — Sen. Barack Obama’s vote for a federal surveillance law that he had previously opposed has sparked a backlash from his online advocates, who had energized his campaign for the Democratic presidential nomination.

  Many of the liberal blogs who touted the Illinois Democrat early on have blasted Obama for changing his position.

  One post on the blog DailyKos.com called Obama’s decisions to vote for the bill a “sellout” and a “tactical blunder.”

  http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/07/11/obama.netroots/index.html

• 14. Ricorun  |  July 11th, 2008 at 2:27 pm

  Danish Artist either is Neil Boortz, or is masquerading as him. At any rate, I responded to his/their same comment on another thread. I did. Me. I wrote it myself. Because, in Rush’s immortal words, “I don’t carry water for anyone.” Okay, Rush didn’t say that exactly. He said he wouldn’t anymore. Anway, here goes my own little straight talk express…

  Danish Artist (or should I say Neil Boortz): Just a few points: Yes, there are some areas that have been opened to exploration, and yes, the oil companies have yet to pull any oil out of them. But there are some explanations. One, they’ve found no oil there to extract. Two, if there is oil there the depths involved and other logistical problems make extraction either impossible or far too expensive. The point here is that there are other areas where oil can be extracted economically .. and those are the areas shut down by Democrats.

  I think the economics of the issue is an essential point. While drilling domestically would certainly reduce our foreign energy dependence in direct proportion to the amount produced, it won’t affect the price of oil unless it’s actually cheaper than foreign sources. So if the price at the pump is the primary issue, then it becomes important to ask the questions, how much oil are we talking about and at what cost?

  If the answers are “not much” and/or “pretty high”, then maybe Pelosi is right. I’m not saying she is, I’m just saying I don’t know. Not completely anyway, I’m aware of recent analyses by the EIA on ANWR and the outer continental shelves that suggest they wouldn’t help much in terms of price at the pump — a few cents at most. Better than nothing I suppose, but not exactly a game-changer. Also, I’m not sure the latter included shallow, close to shore areas of the Gulf (the study doesn’t explicitly say). And either way whatever is produced domestically would help to reduce our depence on foreign oil. It is mostly for that reason, not price, that I’m for it (where it can be done responsibly). By the same token though, I’m not so naive as to believe it would be anywhere near a complete fix. For that you need other things.

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

  At any rate, if the argument is that the already leased locations are too expensive to drill on, then that significantly constrains the number of locations that might. And that’s kind of important. It should be kept in mind that oil is a fungible commodity — it’s price is set on the world market. Thus, for an increase in domestic supplies to have an effect on the price at the pump it has to be extracted at a low price. That’s also true of any other supply from any other source. That’s why we have, up to now, preferred to buy our oil from foreign sources. In fact, that BP refinery you (actually, Boortz) mentioned is intending to get their crude from a foreign source: Canada. From an energy security standpoint, Canada is better than anywhere else, but it’s still foreign.

  I heard a good quote on the radio the other day. The person (I don’t remember who) said, “If all politicians were angels we wouldn’t need an informed electorate. But they aren’t, so we do.”

• 15. Deejah Thoris  |  July 11th, 2008 at 2:37 pm

  3. LiberalMind | July 11th, 2008 at 1:02 pm

  The word around the Capitol law firms is that Rove will be found in contempt and a warrant will be issued on 28 July 2008 for his arrest.

• 16. Eric T  |  July 11th, 2008 at 2:40 pm

  Ricorun-

  They need to grab the easy oil, that they know is there. ANWR, no expensive exploration needed, no guessing, they know it is there and all they gotta do is get it out of the ground.

• 17. InDaVa  |  July 11th, 2008 at 2:47 pm

  Rico,

  I’ve called DA out on his Neal Boortz persona in the past as well.

• 18. Tractatus  |  July 11th, 2008 at 3:19 pm

  there is a strong likelihood that oil prices will drop – perhaps a lot – if the United States announces that we’re opening up ANWR, the Florida Gulf Coast, the outer continental shelf, the oil shale lands out west and other areas to oil exploration and recovery.

  This talking point has been proven wrong so many times, it’s not even funny anymore. But it’s a safe bet that DA the Boortz Repeater and his ilk will continue to use it as though it holds some sort of truth.

• 19. Danish Artist  |  July 11th, 2008 at 3:30 pm

  DA,

  Oil prices will drop if the big wig big greed big oil would just drill on the land they already control.

  But then, big oil will not drill because they know if they do, their price gouging of the citizens will fail and prices will drop.

  Good day.

  Magnum Stupidity, did you not read the post? Obviously not. Just because they control the land does not mean the oil is easy to get at. Again, with the usual talking point. Again (what’s this the 10+ request), show proof of your assinine claims above? or STFU!

  InDava - comment on the content and not the source. Obviously, that is more important to you than the content, but then again you libs can’t comment on topic. The content does not change either way (if I post the article or just the link). The content is the same. Why reinvent the wheel? At least Rico made the attempt. Comment on content or STFU!

• 20. Danish Artist  |  July 11th, 2008 at 3:39 pm

  As you can see Rico, in the form of MS and Indava, we do not have an informed electorate.

  There are just too many MSs and Indavas out there which gives us politicians like Pelosi and Reid for example. There are too many individuals that have been educated in the failing government school system (another failed system supported by those of the likes of Reid and Pelosi).

  The liberals complain about oil and gas prices and then turn around and pull this magnum stupid stunt. Well, all for the sake of an election. Their need to obtain power outweighs the need for the PEOPLE to have affordable energy. To the uninformed electorate, the problems and causes are what their politicians tell them it is, while offering no solutions.

  MS still offers the same unsubstantiated arguments - they are just talking points, really. The libs need an uniformed electorate, how else can they convince people to vote for them other than those with the same ideology.

• 21. Danish Artist  |  July 11th, 2008 at 3:47 pm

  Tractatus,

  Repeating your talking point does not match recorded history. For example, in the mid 80’s, production in the Gulf of Mexico would be cut because those at OPEC would produce at a level that would make production from the GOM not cost effective. This alone proves your talking point for what it is - bullsh!t.

  These areas are prohibited from production by our own government. The price of oil makes producing from some of these areas cost effective. But, then we have liberal politicians who have to answer to their special interests and an election to win as to be a solution to a problem.

  So, stop regurgitating the liberal counter argument. Your ignorant foolishness has no place here.

• 22. Deejah Thoris  |  July 11th, 2008 at 3:52 pm

  “InDava - comment on the content and not the source.”–Danish Artist

  LMAO!

  So you are saying that if I quote seomthing from dailyKos you’ll take on face value? LMAO!

  You are totin’ some heavy constipation there Danish.

• 23. Pain  |  July 11th, 2008 at 3:59 pm

  “Their need to obtain power outweighs the need for the PEOPLE to have affordable energy.”

  21. Danish Artist | July 11th, 2008 at 3:39 pm

  So when the “permanent majority” ran American government from 2000 to 2006 what were they doing consolidating power or making sure the PEOPLE had affordable energy?

• 24. Ricorun  |  July 11th, 2008 at 4:07 pm

  Eric T: They need to grab the easy oil, that they know is there. ANWR, no expensive exploration needed, no guessing, they know it is there and all they gotta do is get it out of the ground.

  It’s not quite as simple as that. Nonetheless, you’ll get no argument from me. Talk to John McCain — he’s still against it. Be that as it may, all indications are that ANWR is the largest, most cost-effective domestic field known, and probably with the smallest long-term environmental effect as well. But by the same token, all indications are that it’s not likely to be a game-changer in terms of the cost of filling your tank.

  You want a game-changer? Consider this: tighten fuel ecomony standards:

  Some officials said the administration has also minimized the benefits of tighter fuel-economy standards by assuming that oil will cost $58 a barrel in the future, compared with its current price of $141.65. While the EPA calculated in a May 30 draft that stricter standards would save U.S. society $2 trillion by 2020, officials revised that figure last month — using the $58 estimate — to predict that they would save only between $340 billion and $830 billion.

  Okay, so using the much lower $58 estimate the US would save only between $340 billion and $830 billion(!!!). And McCain has recommended offering a $300 million prize (poorly defined at that) to anyone who can develop a ground-breaking battery (or some other zero emissions technology). Considering the disparity in the numbers (and though I’m sure whoever does develop a ground-breaking battery won’t turn the prize down), I’m guessing there’s plenty of incentive already there. Rather, I’m guessing the money would be better spent doing things that the Bush adminstration is already doing (if you want to criticize where criticism is due you also have to be prepared to give credit where credit is due), e.g., working with manufacturers to develop integrated standards, and working with companies to streamline the process between concept and mass production.

  To me, the bottom line is that eventually we need to wean ourselves off oil as much as possible, particularly of the foreign variety. Increasing fuel economy standards is the most obvious component — the biggest, fattest, lowest hanging fruit on the tree, you might say.

  By way of full disclosure, I drive a Chebby Silverado 1500 double-cab pick-up. I love it. It’s like driving around in a living room, and it’s perfect for hauling big toys, lumber, exhibit booths, and moving lots of people and an equal number of dogs from one place to another. It even has a button on the steering wheel that activates a stick if people in the back seat get out of hand. How my mother would have loved that. Then again, it’s not the only vehicle I have access to. My sweetie has a Scion Ax, which comes with a carrying handle on the roof, a handy fob on the front bumper that you can attach to your belt, and gets about 1000 mpg. Okay, I’m exaggerating. But it IS small. And that’s the vehicle we use whenever we don’t need a monster.

• 25. Danish Artist  |  July 11th, 2008 at 4:51 pm

  Pain,

  Republicans were not the permanent majority during those years. They did not gain control of the Senate until 2002. But I digress, YES they did try to pass legislation to allow drilling in ANWR and other places during those years. Have you forgotten the liberal talking points concerning Bush, Cheney and big oil?

  DEEJA THORIS, Uh, I would have argued the content of what you posted. It would not have been to hard to argue that point, anyway. In my view, it would not have been dismissed outright because of the source.

  Add three more to the uninformed electorate: Pain, DEEJA and tract.

• 26. Magnum Serpentine  |  July 11th, 2008 at 4:57 pm

  DA

  I did read your post

  However, the Congressional investigation into big oil showed that there was tons of oil, easy to get to oil, on the land they already control. Further the congressional investigation found that big oil chooses NOT to drill because they are afraid that the prices will come down.

  Sorry, I don’t listen to big oil’s stories or the murk coming from george on big oil.

• 27. InDaVa  |  July 11th, 2008 at 5:00 pm

  “InDava - comment on the content and not the source.”

  Open thread DA. I can comment on what I like. In this case, you got called out again. I can goto Neal Boortz’s website to read his content and comment there if I’d like. You regurgitate him verbatim. Plus, Neal Boortz is way off on alot of his info. I want to know what you think? Not Neal Boortz, you. Or are you in complete agreement with him…or are you him. :) When you actually do comment YOURSELF it is nothing more than insults and you dismiss facts as talking points.

  “So when the “permanent majority” ran American government from 2000 to 2006 what were they doing consolidating power or making sure the PEOPLE had affordable energy?”

  I would like to hear your comment on the above quote?

• 28. Finishline  |  July 11th, 2008 at 5:12 pm

  “Americans have got to understand that we are paying present-day retirees with the taxes paid by young workers in America today,” he (McCain) said. “And that’s a disgrace. It’s an absolute disgrace, and it’s got to be fixed.”

  Who said McCain does not understand economics? After about 20 years in office he now understands how the only true functioning government program works. Just sad every grubby politician dips into the trust fund for their own pork projects.

  We had this debate before, if McCain and the Repugs want to bring up private accounts at a time the DOW just hit a two year low, I think even Pelosi is up to it.

• 29. Tractatus  |  July 11th, 2008 at 6:30 pm

  Did I call it, or did I call it? Danish Boortz has found his talking point, and he’s gonna continue repeating it no matter how much the fact say he’s wrong. And as an ironic finish, he’ll try to impugn the intelligence of those who know better than him. Basically, he’s a perfect Bushie: ignorant and bitter.

• 30. Danish Artist  |  July 11th, 2008 at 8:12 pm

  Magnum Stupidity, saying “However, the Congressional investigation into big oil showed that there was tons of oil, easy to get to oil, on the land they already control. Further the congressional investigation found that big oil chooses NOT to drill because they are afraid that the prices will come down.”

  Does not make it so. Show your proof or STFU!

  InDava, AS YOU STATED OPEN THREAD I CAN POST WHAT I LIKE. I POST ITEMS THAT I KNOW ARE TRUE….SHOW THAT THE INFORMATION IS INCORRECT, RATHER THAN ASSUMING THAT IT IS.

  Also, I commented on the gumdrop computer’s incorrect comment. Try to keep up.

  Tratatus, show where I am wrong. You source is dubious at best - a left wing think tank. I gave you proof …. mid-80’s when oil production in the GOM was being cut back due to OPEC producing more to make producing oil in the GOM less cost effective. GOT THAT: Opening those wells in the GOM made OPEC increase production to lower the price of oil. The lower price of oil made it less cost effective to produce from the GOM and buy their oil instead.

  GOT THAT. To you and your ignorant left, it is a talking point, to me and those that worked the GOM it is REALITY!

• 31. Tractatus  |  July 11th, 2008 at 8:23 pm

  In my view, it would not have been dismissed outright because of the source.

  You source is dubious at best - a left wing think tank.

  Let me know this is another juxtaposition you can’t understand. (HINT: It highlights your hypocrisy.)

  In the meantime, it’s funny that you call factcheck.org a “left wing think tank” when, of course, it’s nothing of the sort. In fact, you should like it–it really cuts Obama down to size as well and points out his lies, half-truths, and BS. It is interesting, though, that you reflexively recoil from it and try to file it away as some left-wing organization. To you, facts really do have a liberal bias, apparently. Hell, even McCain has admitted that this offshore drilling proposal would have a psychological benefit and not a real-world one.

• 32. Danish Artist  |  July 11th, 2008 at 10:19 pm

  No, tract, I called the source used by factcheck.org a liberal think tank. Obviously, you did not bother to look at the sources used by factcheck.

  But again, you have a liberal think tank talking point and I have reality. I was there. I was affected by the OPEC increase in production. I left the GOM because of it. When OPEC cut back, the GOM slowly began to produce once again.

  Now we are in a position where we cannot increase production output - no new wells. OPEC can continue to cut production and cause an increase in price. The opposite of what happened in the GOM. They can cut production because they know we do not have readily available alternative supplies - thanks to the liberal politicians pandering to their special interests.

  Of course, it would be years before we saw any benefit from any new drilling. But according to you liberals, we should do nothing as a result.

  Liberal short-sightedness once again has risen up to bite us in the ass. If ANWR drilling passed during the Clinton era, we would be seeing results from those wells.

  Remind me, what is the solution offered by Obama and the liberal controlled Congress that promised common sense legislation to lower gas/oil prices - a promise in 2006 election????

  still waiting…….

• 33. Ricorun  |  July 11th, 2008 at 11:17 pm

  Tractatus, through his link to factcheck.org, provided a piece or info I was missing, the government’s definition of the outer continental shelf: The OCS is composed of the “submerged lands, subsoil, and seabed” under the seas extending from 3 to 9 nautical miles from the U.S. shoreline, depending on the state, to at least 200 nautical miles outward, according to the federal government. So in other words, all of the areas relevant to the federal moratorium are included in the definition. The relevance of that is, according to the EIA, full exploitation of those areas will likely blunt the rise of oil prices by a few cents a gallon — sometime after 2020.

  See, the trouble with your 70s analogy is that in those times the issue was artificial manipulation of supplies by a monopoly. OPEC nations, which at the time represented a much greater percentage of world oil supplies than they do now, wanted to punish the West for support of Israel during the Yom Kippur War. So they turned off the spigot. Besides causing a dramatic rise in prices it had lots of ripple effects which ended up shooting them in the foot. For one thing, oil was essentially removed from the electrical grid as a predominant fuel almost everywhere in the world (that alone was HUGE). CAFE standards were introduced. Transportation and supply networks were dramatically transformed. Alternative fuels started getting investigated (Brazil is a notable example in terms of transportation fuels), and oil exploration was expanded. The decade between 1975 and 1985 (or so) saw a glut of non-OPEC oil come on line, not only in Mexico but Alaska and the North Sea fields also. In short, it wasn’t just Mexico that broke OPEC’s back (and vice versa), it was a whole constellation of things that could be loosely grouped under two general headings: better efficiency and more diversification. Suddenly we were awash in a sea of oil. But we used it up (relatively speaking).

  The dynamics underlying the current dilemma are different than the 70s. For one thing, OPEC isn’t as powerful as it once was. They can influence the market, but they can’t control it. And even if they could it’s not at all likely they would to any great degree. Most of the OPEC nations are far more diversified than they were in the 70s. The aren’t just oil patches anymore. They have their fingers in everything. And it would be bad for business to cripple their customer’s economies. In short, there is no credible indication we’re experiencing an artificial supply crunch. We’re experiencing run-away demand, mostly fueled by places like China, India, Indonesia, etc. And we can’t do anything about that. Consequently, even if we could flood the market with supply (which we can’t) we will ultimately fail in bringing down prices much — because we simply can’t produce enough of it cheap enough. Like you said, DA, most of our resources are expensive to exploit.

  What we can do is reduce our demand faster and more cost-effectively than others. The other advantage of doing that is it’s a permanent solution — you don’t have to pay for whatever you don’t burn. In that regard (i.e., demand destruction) I think the same general principles apply in the present case as they did in the 70s, but not the details. In other words, the way out of the dilemma is to improve efficiency and expand diversification, just as it was then. But I also think it goes without saying that the details have changed — a lot. Well, better mechanical efficiency (i.e., more miles per gallon) will certainly play a big role, as it did back in the 70s, and in much the same way. But unlike the 70s we can’t simply replace half of our oil use with some other fossil fuel (T Boone Pickens notwithstanding, lol!). And we aren’t going to drill our way out either. The EIA doesn’t think so. The oil execs don’t think so. CERA doesn’t think so anymore (and that’s a big deal). Even the IEA doesn’t think so anymore (and that’s an even bigger deal).

  We need something else. In terms of the transportation sector, currently the most obvious contributor is batteries. The advances in lithium ion cells in the last few years have been impressive. On that basis, just about every major car company is expecting to have a plug-in hybrid by 2010. And there’s this one little company in the great state of Texas called EEStor who is still operating in stealth mode, but who claims to be working on an ultracapacitor that could knock everyone’s socks off — assuming it works, and assuming it’s cost-effective. Never say never, I guess. But I’ll believe it when I see it. I am sooooo hoping tho, lol!

  Besides batteries there are biofuels. The biofuels option is frought with peril. Nonetheless, bioethanol alone accounted for about 5.5 billion gallons of fuel in 2006 — one year. Compare that with the EIA’s mid-level estimate of the entire contents of ANWR: 7.6 billion gallons. That’s total. Not per year. Makes you really hope the second and third generation biofuels hurry up, don’t it?

  Then there’s hydrogen, which is now still fabulously expensive. Like natural gas it has a low energy density (even lower than natural gas), and is difficult to contain and transport. But it’s quite high in power density, which (combined with the fact that it readily reacts with oxygen) makes it explosively flamable. Nonetheless, LA just opened the first commercial hydrogen filling station and made a hundred or so hydrogen powered vehicles available to high profile greenie types. A similar program was recently announced in Japan. So apparently it has some appeal. But really, compare that to battery-centered, largely entrepreneur-driven concepts like Tesla, Phoenix, Zap, or Project Better Place (the last is a business model, not a manufacturer).

• 34. Magnum Serpentine  |  July 12th, 2008 at 12:17 am

  DA,

  They have copies of the hearing at the web site CSPAN It was several hearings. One thing I noted was that these hearings revealed that the republic party has fallen into lock-step with big oil On some of the questioning some of the Democratic leadership call out the oil companies for not drilling on land that they already control. It was very fun to watch the big profit greed oil executives twist nervously as the Democratic leadership revealed the truth.

• 35. Danish Artist  |  July 12th, 2008 at 6:34 am

  Magnum Stupidity,

  Provide the proof, paste links to said documents.

  It is that simple. Or isn’t it? Stop regurgitating the tired talking point and “go to this website”.

  Otherwise, you’re stalling.

• 36. Magnum Serpentine  |  July 12th, 2008 at 7:15 am

  DA

  http://www.c-span.org/

  When you get there, there is a search window you can put the terms you want to look up in. I am not going to do it for you.

  And I am not stalling.

  On another note, got a few more video’s

  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E8gBBEKkbKc

  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GQnvCMev9dk

  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mNFJk0JkHyc

  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lOwrixe3NEI

  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cN10_6pyshQ

  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YJ6hQcqQDIw

  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ncBPB5odB8A

  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AXRlG_6Bk-8

  The truth is out there

• 37. Jeremiah  |  July 12th, 2008 at 7:17 am

  Sad news……Tony Snow has died.

• 38. keystoneRepublican  |  July 12th, 2008 at 11:35 am

  The FDIC takes control of IndyMac Bank. Speculation is that it could be the most expensive ever.

  The article states that “10,000 IndyMac customers could lose as much as $500 million in uninsured deposits”.

  All because of greed…Borrower purchased homes beyond their means so they could keep up with the Joneses and the lenders were all to willing to oblige so they could make money.

• 39. Danish Artist  |  July 13th, 2008 at 12:47 am

  DA,

  your “proof” is a joke. The videos are the liberals grilling oil companies for the profits. Are you serious, this is proof - high profits? Squirming? Hardly. Catastrophic Global Climate Change? Oh please. McSame as Bush - wow your proof is irrefutable. Your C-SPAN hearing transcripts are they for real? Searched “hearings and oil”, “hearings and oil drilling” - nothing to back up your claims of the reasons for non drilling. I can see why you are not going to do it, because so far it does not exist.

  I see liberals wanting to dictate how oil companies should spend their money. “I want to take those profits” politicians who hate capitalism. I see liberals not wanting to give relief to the American people but expect private companies to do so regardless of their commitments to their shareholders in the form of 8-10% profit margins for necessary dividend payments to investors. Like any commodity, the consumer pays for the cost of the item, labor, distribution, profit, PLUS TAXES and PRICE MINIMUMS SET BY LOCAL GOVERNMENTS TO PROTECT GAS STATION OWNERS from BIG RETAILERS. Government can offer relief but I don’t see them doing anything on their end.

  Oil companies’ profits are not due to gasoline prices. There are hundreds of useful products based on hydrocarbons and they sell a lot of those items. Do you know the difference between profit and profit margin? Profits can increase while their profit margins remain the same. Their profit margins have not increased. They have been consistent over the years.

  It’s everybody else’s fault but the liberal politicians who place unrealistic restrictions to satisfy their special interests. That has nothing to do with the supply of oil available to this country. Nothing to do with supply and demand - just pure greed, right? You are a fool. YES WE CAN? But Obama and the liberals say NO to new drilling, new refining, new nuclear, new wind, new solar, new hydroelectric, etc etc etc.

  Your proof is lacking to back up your assinine statements that oil companies refuse to drill on land they already own. Restrictions on new drilling locks companies into areas that the oil is too expensive to get at or the technology is not available. Liberals are not going to deny their special interests during an election year.

  The truth is out there. I have seen your “truth”and it is irrelevant so now STFU. You gave nothing but the equivalent of Saddam’s document dump. So much information to sort through and so little relevant content. Yes, you are stalling.

• 40. Danish Artist  |  July 13th, 2008 at 12:51 am

  Magnum Stupidity,

  your “proof” is a joke. The videos are the liberals grilling oil companies for the profits. Are you serious, this is proof - high profits? Squirming? Hardly. Catastrophic Global Climate Change? Oh please. McSame as Bush - wow your proof is irrefutable. Your C-SPAN hearing transcripts are they for real? Searched “hearings and oil”, “hearings and oil drilling” - nothing to back up your claims of the reasons for non drilling. I can see why you are not going to do it, because so far it does not exist.

  I see liberals wanting to dictate how oil companies should spend their money. “I want to take those profits” politicians who hate capitalism. I see liberals not wanting to give relief to the American people but expect private companies to do so regardless of their commitments to their shareholders in the form of 8-10% profit margins for necessary dividend payments to investors. Like any commodity, the consumer pays for the cost of the item, labor, distribution, profit, PLUS TAXES and PRICE MINIMUMS SET BY LOCAL GOVERNMENTS TO PROTECT GAS STATION OWNERS from BIG RETAILERS. Government can offer relief but I don’t see them doing anything on their end.

  Oil companies’ profits are not due to gasoline prices. There are hundreds of useful products based on hydrocarbons and they sell a lot of those items. Do you know the difference between profit and profit margin? Profits can increase while their profit margins remain the same. Their profit margins have not increased. They have been consistent over the years.

  It’s everybody else’s fault but the liberal politicians who place unrealistic restrictions to satisfy their special interests. That has nothing to do with the supply of oil available to this country. Nothing to do with supply and demand - just pure greed, right? You are a fool. YES WE CAN? But Obama and the liberals say NO to new drilling, new refining, new nuclear, new wind, new solar, new hydroelectric, etc etc etc.

  Your proof is lacking to back up your assinine statements that oil companies refuse to drill on land they already own. Restrictions on new drilling locks companies into areas that the oil is too expensive to get at or the technology is not available. Liberals are not going to deny their special interests during an election year.

  The truth is out there. I have seen your “truth”and it is irrelevant so now STFU. You gave nothing but the equivalent of Saddam’s document dump. So much information to sort through and so little relevant content. Yes, you are stalling.