Woman to Woman

By D

June 27, 2008 8:36 AM | Link to this

I had to go shopping for a new car unexpectedly with my sister this week because her car was totaled — not her fault and she will be fine, thank God.

I was at the dealership looking at gas mileage on some of the new cars — 15 MPG for a sedan. I couldn’t believe it in this day and time that something like this would be displayed so promenently at the dealership. I drive a small SUV and get about 23-24MPG and as soon as I can afford something better will be getting that myself, but gee, 15 for a sedan? What is wrong with this picture?

By Shelly

June 27, 2008 9:36 AM | Link to this

I bet you two weren’t complaining when you each had your first sexual experience in the back of one of those “low-mileage vehicles.” If you’d gotten nailed by that guy (or girl) who didn’t call you afterwards in the back of a Honda Civic instead, you probably be ranting about the shortcomings of economy cars despite gas prices. What Hypocrites!

By DFunk

June 27, 2008 9:39 AM | Link to this

You know not all of us are driving the low MPG automobiles, but it seems to me that Andrea thinks that all of us should “pay the price” for those that did buy them. I drive a small SUV in the 22 to 25 MGP range. I purchased my auto over 3 years ago because at the time hybrids were very hard to come by and this had good MGP for the time. I have to drive 64 miles a day round trip to my job because there is no public transportation alternative (which I would love) in my area to get me to work on time (8am), I can’t affort a home closer to work and my company does not offer teleworking. I am a “worker bee” so I am not making big $$ but I do stay afloat. I shop sales, clip coupons, buy store brands and live in a small home within my budget. But the cost of gas is really hitting people like me hard. It sounds like Andrea wants to “punish” people like me by raising gas taxes and putting a further squeeze on my budget for the dumb choices of others who purchased these gas drinking autos. Raise the ad valorem tax on autos with low MPG and get your money from those people and stop sucking my blood!

By Mara

June 27, 2008 9:47 AM | Link to this

Should the U.S. have allowed…?!!! Shouldn’t honesty compel you to say “Should the GOP have allowed…?”

Democrats and environmental groups have been harping on this for decades, yet every attempt to significantly raise CAFE standards has been consistantly blocked by the Republicans.

I’ve read more than one essay whining about the “dam-ed hippie tree-huggers” and protesting that “we Americans” have a moral right to drive a 2 mpg vehicle if we wanted and how unacceptable it is for the government to try and force manufacturers to build anything they didn’t want to build.

“Nobody would buy them” some say. Well, nobody really knows whether they’d sell or not, because we weren’t really given much of a choice.

By kimberly

June 27, 2008 9:48 AM | Link to this

I have a friend who drives a Porsche Cayenne (SWEEEEEEET! He let me drive it on the highway. Come to Mama you fine piece of responsive powerful engineering… mmmmmmm…. yes….) sorry.. um… He got the $25K tax write off to which Andrea refers. Something about it being a “farm vehicle” even though his business is in the city, and he’s frightened by fresh air and livestock. Yes, people who squawk about “gub’mint interference” are ignoring all the ways that the government currently supplements the wealthy. They’re too many to count, but SHHHHHH! We’re not supposed to know!

By enoch

June 27, 2008 9:57 AM | Link to this

Andrea is either smoking crack or hoping we are.
When has the government raised taxes to cushion the blow of future price increases? If we followed that policy we would have six dollar gas, not four. Who thinks they would now be reducing taxes? Like most liberals who thinks prices should reflect what they think is “good” for us in their all knowing wisdom, she would jack up taxes to control our decisions. And this is freedom?

By StewieGriifin

June 27, 2008 10:06 AM | Link to this

Lets all run out and buy a hybrid. Oh, wait, some hybrid owners are complaining of health issues from driving theirs. Hybrids can cause leukemia, especially in kids. All those batteries, electric motors, and the wiring to control them cause HUGE electromagnetic fields. Driving a hybrid is like living directly under high voltage power lines. And it’s a pretty well known fact power lines cause cancer. Thanks liberals, your pet project you’re trying to force on all of us is dangerous and will kill us.

By Mara

June 27, 2008 10:10 AM | Link to this

Hey kimberly. How’s it goin’? You missed saying “Hi” to Jack, Chilao, Gob and Lyrazel yesterday…

I don’t know about the “farm vehicle” thing, but I do know that there was some huge tax break for SUV’s because they were considered “light trucks” and/or “work trucks” because they were built on pick-up truck chassis and frames.

By chuck

June 27, 2008 10:11 AM | Link to this

Hey everybody. Just got back from Eastern Europe on a mission trip. What a blast. I almost got weaned from this blog while I was gone. Alas, I made the mistake of reading it again and had to respond. I hope everybody has been doing well.

Well this is the most typical lefty answer of all time:

Increasing gas taxes when the price was right would have been sensible intervention. Higher prices would have cushioned the impact of the inevitable gas hikes and lessened our hunger for oil, funding much-needed highway improvements.

Yes, this makes so much sense. Paying more ALL ALONG TO THE GOVERNMENT would have made these increses EASIER to handle for all of us. So if we had been paying those higher prices TO THE GOVERNMENT, it would have cushioned the blow of even HIGHER prices.

Maybe, we should increase taxes on food to cushion the impact of future increases in food prices. This could actually REVOLUTIONIZE the idea of government. Instead of using taxes as minimally as possible to fund limited government, we should actually be using taxes for the purpose of social engineering. We’ve had it wrong all along.

By Chilao

June 27, 2008 10:16 AM | Link to this

As someone who experienced first-hand the 1973 oil embargo, with the resulting gas-station lines while traveling around the country in a mid-60s GM small V-8, I have driven since 1975 a manual four-cylinder, and since 1984 a manual 5-speed. No, not the same two all those years. LOL Anything less than 30mpg/hwy since then for me has been unacceptable.

So I really have no sympathy for all the American consumers who felt it was appropriate to reward Detroit’s manuever to get around the government-mandated fuel economy standards by classifiying passenger vehicles in the form of SUVs as TRUCKS, because it really reflected the American mindset of the world owes us cheap natural resources.

So you can be sure I have no intention of doing some volunteer 20 percent reduction in driving, to basically reward those same consumers for their glutten-ness. In fact, did a 4000-mile road trip a few months ago, of course at 40+ mpg.

Europe foresaw these same issues years ago, taxed petrol accordingly, and the result is generally higher gas mileage vehicles. excluding of course the German Autobahn 160mpH vehicles. I once saw a BMW engine stripped down in a garage in Frankfurt and talk about some fine engineering. Definitely NOT a Honda. LOL

I can agree with Shaunti’s comment(shock, yes, I know) that government’s priority years ago should have been alternatives to oil. I think Jimmy Carter was trying but we the country chose Reagan instead.

By Chilao

June 27, 2008 10:18 AM | Link to this

we should actually be using taxes for the purpose of social engineering. We’ve had it wrong all along.

we knew you’d come around, Chuck. LMAO

By USinUK

June 27, 2008 10:22 AM | Link to this

James -

just so you know, I sent one more response on the last thread (I hit “send” before answering your last question)

By Mara

June 27, 2008 10:24 AM | Link to this

enoch - you may be surprised to find out that more than one liberal agree’s with you about the raising the gas tax, though we might disagree on why it’s a bad thing.

My rationale is that it would disperportionately harm those least able to absorb the extra costs. John Schwenkler had an item about this yesterday.

“What about the “not successful” factory worker who has to drive to work - no public transportation, no bike route, no community close to the factory to live in? Does he deserve the punishment of $5 a gallon gas?

What about my family that has to drive to a far out suburb to visit my very ill grandma at a specialty hospital? She has a rare illness that few facilities are equipped to deal with. There is no public transportation to this area. We visit her daily. Should we be punished by gas prices on top of the hardship brought on by illness?

These gas prices on top of the rising cost of food is making many “unsuccessful” people’s lives miserable. But I guess that’s okay, because we aren’t successful - we deserve suffering and punishment.

And -

…the realities of day-to-day life for many poorer rural Americans, who rely especially heavily on automobile travel and lack real public transportation options, mean that taxes on gasoline are straightforwardly regressive.

The wealthy have alternatives: they can, if they live in higher-density areas, take the train or the bus, or they can buy more fuel-efficient cars, or they can switch jobs or telecommute. But those living in tiny houses in rural Alabama and driving tens of miles to low-paying factory jobs have no such options, which means that it is likely that they will end up paying the lion’s share of a gasoline tax in terms of both relative and - perhaps - absolute income as well.

If progressive taxation is “immoral”, levying especially high taxes on purchases that are disproportionately inescapable parts of the lives of the rural poor is downright evil.

By chuck

June 27, 2008 10:29 AM | Link to this

Mara, come on. You didn’t really write this drivel did you?

Should the U.S. have allowed…?!!! Shouldn’t honesty compel you to say “Should the GOP have allowed…?”

Democrats and environmental groups have been harping on this for decades, yet every attempt to significantly raise CAFE standards has been consistantly blocked by the Republicans.

Here I thought you believed in individual freedom. In the early 1980’s Toyota made a Tercel that got 50 mpg in town and 55 highway. Geo Metros got 45 in town and 53 highway. Where are those vehicles now? Apparently nobody wanted them. They aren’t around anymore. I’m not going to waste my time crying about high gas prices. I don’t like them, but I’ll make my own decisions about how I want to deal with them. My vehicles are paid for. It would cost me way more in payments, ad valorem taxes and insurance to buy a newer more efficient model. So, for the time being, I’ll get lower mileage and enjoy driving my paid for 2003 Impala which I love.

BTW, everybody should know that these prices are a ploy to get congress to open up drilling in ANWR and off the coast. If they would go ahead and pass the dang legislation, these prices would come down tomorrow. We are being held hostage and I don’t like it, but there isn’t much we can do about it and keep our system of capitalism and our freedoms. Trust me, If I could convert my car to something cheaper, I’d do it in a heartbeat. I hate sending my money to the Saudis (which by the way, only spend about $2.00 per barrel to get oil to market).

By chuck

June 27, 2008 10:48 AM | Link to this

Thanks Chilao. It was a revelation.

Europe foresaw these same issues years ago, taxed petrol accordingly, and the result is generally higher gas mileage vehicles.

4 years ago when I went to Europe for the first time, gas prices were $3.80 a gallon THEN. They are over $7.00 NOW. Tell me how that forestalled the problem. They drive around in little bitty cars that can barely go up a hill, much less haul a family and groceries. If you want to call that progress, feel free. I on the other hand believe in American ingenuity. I DON”T WANT TO LIVE IN EUROPE. I’m an AMERICAN. AS ALWAYS, Americans will figure this out, and we will do this better than anyone else possibly could.

This isn’t a government problem, it’s an AMERICAN problem. We need to attack it the way we have attacked all of our other problems. AS ALWAYS, we will solve it.

By Spock

June 27, 2008 10:59 AM | Link to this

The whole thing is consumer driven. Low MPG vehicles is not what the buying public wants. They don’t care what kind of MPG a vehicle gets, they want what strokes their fancy.

By USinUK

June 27, 2008 11:00 AM | Link to this

Hey Chuck! Welcome back - which part of E Europe did you go to?

They drive around in little bitty cars that can barely go up a hill, much less haul a family and groceries. If you want to call that progress, feel free

that’s not only because of petrol prices - don’t forget, we have itty bitty roads here that a ginormous Denalai would just not work on!! even in the London burbs, we have a lot of country lanes that require one person to drive right. on. the. shoulder. if someone is coming the other way.

although (and I never thought I’d say this) - I agree with Chuck - tax de-incentives just wouldnt’ work in this case - primarily because of what Mara said (the dent it would cause in the poor’s pockets).

By USinUK

June 27, 2008 11:05 AM | Link to this

they want what strokes their fancy

I think that’s illegal in GA

By James

June 27, 2008 11:10 AM | Link to this

To USinUK (Everyone else please disregard):

1) Should an unborn baby be anesthesized before it is killed?

So then, you DO Believe that babies feel pain in at least 10% of abortions (amounting to tens of thousands annually) and they should be anesthesized after 26 weeks ? Is that correct? And IS that being done even if the baby is malformed, or handicapped or whatever ? And if NOT why not?

2) A “baby” is a “fetus” ?

To me we are always talking about an “unborn human being” with different developmental terms used (i.e., fetus) along the way. But, inspite of your previous slip up in referring to the fetus as a baby “being carried to term” I have another question.

What do you call the “woman” in the first trimester (pre-pre-pre-mother), second trimester (pre-pre mother) and third trimester (pre-mother)? I have only heard the term “mother” used in the medical field.

As I said before, a mother is NEVER more a mother than when that baby is totally dependent on her in that supposedly safe, soft womb.

By chuck

June 27, 2008 11:18 AM | Link to this

Hey USinUK. Moldova, Romania, Bulgaria, Hungary. Did some work in some orphanages and clinics. It’s true that some of those roads are narrow, but most of the cities I was in had normal, almost American like roads, except way more potholes. The real problem in Eastern Europe is that there is no place to park them.

As for the “Denalai”, I was in a 45 foot bus that didn’t seem to have much of a problem operating.

By chuck

June 27, 2008 11:24 AM | Link to this

Hey, see ya’ll next week. Have a great one.

By Mara

June 27, 2008 11:26 AM | Link to this

chuck, actually I drove a Geo Metro for many years. Ended up replacing the clutch twice, the rear assembly once and the back window a couple times. It was a really fun car to drive. “Zippy”, if you know what I mean. I loved that car, but driving it on the expressway, dwarfed by the gazillion SUV’s, trucks, and semi’s was definitely nervewracking because I couldn’t see around them, and I was never sure they would notice me. When the motor started to go, we decided to get a sedan. One of the things that sold us on the model we chose was its economy. We just rolled it over to 100K last week and we still get 30-35 mpg. Not as much fun to drive as the Metro though.

And yes…I do believe that Republicans are the ones who consistantly blocked updating CAFE standards. Had they not blocked the new regulations, the auto companies would have HAD to update their SUV’s etc. Asking them to make the vehicles more efficient isn’t the same as telling them not to produce them.

Do you honestly think that nobody would purchase an Escalade if it got 25 mpg or better?

Spock - So do you think that the manufacturers can’t make a fuel efficient vehicle with nice styling and good engineering? Why do you think that economy cars are all pretty dull, style-wise?

By USinUK

June 27, 2008 11:30 AM | Link to this

Chuck -

The real problem in Eastern Europe is that there is no place to park them.

seriously!

As for the “Denalai”, I was in a 45 foot bus that didn’t seem to have much of a problem operating

we have a road that goes on for about 4 miles - twisty and turny with hedges on each side (pastures and farmland on the other side of the hedges) - eeeesh, I hate to think of a 45’ bus on that! or even a Suburban, for that matter!

but, as long as you stick to main roads, you’re fine. the problem is, most people here don’t live on main roads.

Moldova, Romania, Bulgaria, Hungary. Did some work in some orphanages and clinics

wow - I am impressed - that had to be some seriously hard work.

By USinUK

June 27, 2008 11:45 AM | Link to this

James -

*So then, you DO Believe that babies feel pain in at least 10% of abortions (amounting to tens of thousands annually) and they should be anesthesized after 26 weeks ? *

first of all, I misspoke - according to JAMA, the threshhold is 30 weeks. secondly, you’re talking about less than 1% of abortions are 3rd trimester - not 10%. lastly, in the less than 1% of abortions in question, I don’t know what the doctors do regarding anesthesia - more importantly, I don’t know what the effect would be on the woman - I’m not a physician, so I’m not qualified to answer the question of what the best care FOR THE WOMAN would be.

What do you call the “woman” in the first trimester (pre-pre-pre-mother), second trimester (pre-pre mother) and third trimester (pre-mother)? I have only heard the term “mother” used in the medical field.

I call her a woman.

As I said before, a mother is NEVER more a mother than when that baby is totally dependent on her in that supposedly safe, soft womb.

sorry, but that has to be the dumbest thing I have ever read. being a mother (frankly, being a parent of either gender) is MUCH harder than being pregnant. a woman in a coma can be pregnant - so what?

getting up for 10/2/4-o’clock feedings, soothing a baby with colic, cleaning up poopy diapers that would qualify for Superfund Status, being there to help with schoolwork, loving a teenager, counseling them when they’re having friendship drama, teaching them to drive, preparing them for life.

criminey, James, THAT is what being a mother or father is all about - being pregnant lasts only 40 weeks - the rest of it lasts a lifetime and is a HECKUVA lot more important.

sheesh.

By Mara

June 27, 2008 12:13 PM | Link to this

getting up for 10/2/4-o’clock feedings, soothing a baby with colic, cleaning up poopy diapers that would qualify for Superfund Status, being there to help with schoolwork, loving a teenager, counseling them when they’re having friendship drama, teaching them to drive, preparing them for life. Criminey, James, THAT is what being a mother or father is all about - being pregnant lasts only 40 weeks - the rest of it lasts a lifetime and is a HECKUVA lot more important.

shout it out, sister!!! hear, hear!

By USinUK

June 27, 2008 12:18 PM | Link to this

As I said before, a mother is NEVER more a mother than when that baby is totally dependent on her in that supposedly safe, soft womb.

one more thought on that - using this standard, a pregnant woman on crack is more of a mother than someone who is taking care of 5 kids, taking them to school, helping with their homework , schlepping them off to soccer practice, teaching them values, etc

good grief.

By James

June 27, 2008 12:25 PM | Link to this

To USinUK (everyone else please disregard):

1) “……….. you’re talking about less than 1% of abortions are 3rd trimester - not 10%. lastly, in the less than 1% of abortions in question, I don’t know what the doctors do regarding anesthesia……….”

Approximately 1,000,000 abortions in the U.S. each year. I’ll accept your figure of 1% = 10,000 in the third trimester (after 5 months) according to the website I checked. 10,000 human beings (pre-matures babies are saved at five months now) that are killed (torn apart) each year WITHOUT being anesthesized (because the doctors don’t do it and you know why). Shame, shame, shame.

2) “I call her a woman”

Everyone else (even doctors) calls her “the mother”…… the “baby” shower……when is your baby due……how is the baby doing ……

3) ” sorry, but that has to be the dumbest thing I have ever read. being a mother (frankly, being a parent of either gender) is MUCH harder than being pregnant. a woman in a coma can be pregnant - so what?

getting up for 10/2/4-o’clock feedings, soothing a baby with colic, cleaning up poopy diapers that would qualify for Superfund Status, being there to help with schoolwork, loving a teenager, counseling them when they’re having friendship drama, teaching them to drive, preparing them for life.

criminey, James, THAT is what being a mother or father is all about - being pregnant lasts only 40 weeks - the rest of it lasts a lifetime and is a HECKUVA lot more important.”

Ah, but USinUK you do err. Only ONE PERSON can be the mother BEFORE that baby is born. ANYONE (including the father or the adoptive family) can be the “mother” afterward by doing all of those things. My wife and I had twins and “I” was just as much a “mother” as she was then. MY POINT STILL STANDS ….. A mother is never MORE a mother than when that baby is TOTALLY dependent on her in the supposedly safe, soft womb ……….. because only SHE can be that mother THEN. That is the most important time because based on our current Supreme Court ruling that womb is either a place of LIFE or a place of DEATH.

And “sheesh” to you to ………….

By Chilao

June 27, 2008 12:26 PM | Link to this

doesn’t Mother imply birthing?(past tense)

I know you say to a pregnant woman So you are going to be a mother?.(well, usually you would say “mommy” but…LOL)

By Chilao

June 27, 2008 12:29 PM | Link to this

and I think that is a record, getting into the abortion issue THREE hours(or was it less?) into the new topic. LMAO

By USinUK

June 27, 2008 12:35 PM | Link to this

Chilao -

and I think that is a record, getting into the abortion issue THREE hours(or was it less?) into the new topic. LMAO

sorry - that’s my fault - this is spill-over from a discussion on the last thread. I just didn’t want to toggle back and forth between threads.

my apologies to the class

By James

June 27, 2008 12:39 PM | Link to this

To Chilao:

I’m sorry Chilao, but USinUK didn’t want to have to “flip over” to the other appropriate blog. I am trying to accommodate her.

By USinUK

June 27, 2008 12:41 PM | Link to this

James -

each year WITHOUT being anesthesized (because the doctors don’t do it and you know why). Shame, shame, shame

unless you are a doctor, then you shouldn’t go second-guessing their reasons.

Everyone else (even doctors) calls her “the mother”…… the “baby” shower……when is your baby due……how is the baby doing ……

wow - your powers of debate are masterful. women who decide to continue with their pregnancies and plan to keep the baby after it’s born are called “mothers” … again. so what???

because only SHE can be that mother THEN

and only the man can provide the sperm to be a “father” … again, so what???

okay, heading home - may be on later tonight, may not.

By Chilao

June 27, 2008 12:49 PM | Link to this

Just learned a new definition for ‘mother’.

Moth·er [ múər ]

noun Definition:

slimy mass on vinegary liquid: a slimy mass of bacteria and yeast cells that forms on the surface of alcohol being converted into acetic acid. It is added to wine or cider to make vinegar.

[Mid-16th century. Probably < obsolete Dutch moeder< Middle Dutch moeder “female parent”; from its part in the production of vinegar]

By Chilao

June 27, 2008 12:51 PM | Link to this

I guess that is what I get for not making my own home vinegar, otherwise I would have known that “new”(to me) definition for mother.

By James

June 27, 2008 12:59 PM | Link to this

1) You ignored the part about 10,000+ third trimester babies aborted each year. 84% of Americans are against that yet those 10,000 innocent lives were terminated. And the reason doctors won’t anesthesize them is that they would have to admit what they are ….. human beings who feel pain. We treat our animals better than that. God help us.

2) Your logic on what constitutes “life” and “motherhood” is truly astounding ….. and sad.

3) I wish you well. May God have mercy.

Over and Out…………….

By kimberly

June 27, 2008 1:01 PM | Link to this

Sounds like James doesn’t want to get an abortion, y’all! In a country that values individual freedom, he does not have to get one. He can be responsible for making his OWN decision about his own body. Amen, James! You are free to NOT have an abortion! God bless America.

By Gale

June 27, 2008 1:29 PM | Link to this

Drop the abortion thread. Neither side will change their minds.

I really don’t understand why there is such a problem with manufacturers and high MPG. My 1984 Mazda 626 routinely got 33 to 36 mpg and it had 300k miles on it when I had to give it up because it was basically rusting apart. (Michigan salt) That was not a light, tiny car; granted, it was manual transmission and four-cyl. I swore to myself years ago that I wouldn’t buy an American made car because they apparently refused to make small cars. They essentially forced many people to buy foreign cars if they wanted something smaller than an impala.

But I agree with many. This is not a matter for the government. I personally think all the gas tax should be dropped. I used to think they should raise the tax and use it to fund public transit. I changed my mind. The decision makers cannot think beyond more and wider roads. Likewise, there should be no subsidy of vehicles. Capitalism is best. My wallet rules my decisions. I feel bad for people who make a lot less than I do and pay a higher percentage of there income for fuel. Can’t help them. They have to make their own wallet decisions.

Just a thought; Have you thought about what you would cut from your expenses if you had to start cutting expenses? I would probably cut cable TV first, but I think my partner would out-vote me. I use a prepaid cell phone. That doesn’t cost much. I wonder how many of the city-working-poor would be willing to give up the $20 a pop nail job every week? (I won’t include the rural poor because I don’t know any.)

By WOW

June 27, 2008 1:33 PM | Link to this

Yes, more taxes are always a good idea. Idiot!

By USinUK

June 27, 2008 2:18 PM | Link to this

Gale -

Drop the abortion thread. Neither side will change their minds.

which is pretty much what I said yesterday (don’t believe in abortion? then don’t have one) … but, nooooo … James thinks he can prove himself RIGHT, by gum …

By George Washington

June 27, 2008 2:21 PM | Link to this

What do you say to a woman with two black eyes? Nuthin’, ya already told her twice…..

By Mara

June 27, 2008 2:35 PM | Link to this

Gale - Have you thought about what you would cut from your expenses if you had to start cutting expenses?

we ditched our land-line and highspeed internet. I’m a bibliophile, so cable television I could take or leave. The honey-bunny on the other hand would go into withdrawl without his WWF and Speed Channel. We eat less processed food and more fresh, which takes longer but tastes better and is cheaper per serving. And we’ve turned the water heater down a tad for the summer.

kimberly - Sounds like James doesn’t want to get an abortion, y’all

LOL!!! girl, you crack me up…

By Archie

June 27, 2008 3:20 PM | Link to this

My answer to the topic question is another question, what could you do about people buying SUV’s? I don’t agree with Andrea about raising taxes because the problem is folk just don’t have the money!! People have to drive where they have to drive so I don’t agree Andrea’s attitude of making folk stay home and consuming less, but I do agree with Andrea about offshore drilling not being the great solution to all problems. I do think the market system works in terms of fuel efficient cars being bought as Shanti suggests. As far as this gas stuff goes I do not think one side has all the answers and I do think oil companies are gouging the public but the public has a responsibility to not buy big gas-guzzling vehicles.

By RF

June 27, 2008 3:21 PM | Link to this

Wow, it’s like old home week here all of a sudden!! Chuck- good to hear the mission trip went well. Although I can be very liberal on many issues, I think mission trips are a good eye-opener for many who take our cushy way of life for granted. I’d love to line my ninth graders up and send them to Africa or Eastern Europe for about two weeks and see how many of them last!! LOL I’ve just today finished teaching summer school- YAY!! I’m with you on keeping the paid for cars, but I would be willing to spend a little to convert them to another fuel source, if one can be found that is easily adaptable to combustion engines.

You should all look up some of the photos of all the development in the last 20 years in Dubai (United Arab Emirates). It makes the greed and excess of the USA look poor! Even when oil prices were much lower, we were helping to finance a real estate BOOM over there that is going to put UAE at the top of the list of most desired countries to live in. IMO, whether we like it or not, we’re going to have to find a way to increase gas mileage, offer options for other fuel sources, and seriously cut down on our unnecessary driving. I found I could cut out miles by just planning my errands better and cooking at home more often. That and driving at a more reasonable speed regardless of traffic has helped out quite a bit. I’ve also left the big ‘ol truck in the garage and driven the heck out of my Honda. If there’s not a reason to leave the house or we just want to go grab some junk food, I tell my boys we’ll have to either wait or walk. It is helping us conserve and it’s been an easy adjustment so far.

We were headed towards better fuel efficiency in the late 70’s and early 80’s. The cars weren’t all that much to recall, but they did get awesome mileage. We have to get back to that again and put the mammoth SUV’s out to pasture. I too remember the oil embargo and gas lines. We survived, but we learned for a while that we had to sacrifice creature comforts for economy- and I remember having some pretty nice little cars for a while there.

By andrea

June 27, 2008 3:44 PM | Link to this

Sarvady here—-just to clarify, bloggers—I was suggesting raising gas taxes back in the day, not now. You may still disagree with that notion—-I just wanted to be clear…

By ConservativeDem

June 27, 2008 4:03 PM | Link to this

Why can you not understand! If we had drilled in our country 30 years ago instead of listening to drive by media rants, mpg and oil consumption would not really matter except to individual tastes and concerns. Europe is still there—get your plane ticket or cruise liner ticket. My forefathers said Europe sucks and I believe them. Maybe it is the European in you that is holding our country hostage to the middle east oil cartels. Hey some of you europe wanna be’s what if we were drilling 5 million more barrels of oil a day here in this sorry no good for nothing country, what would the price be? Please respond!!!

By kimberly

June 27, 2008 4:16 PM | Link to this

People who have kids in the suburbs will understand: Even if you have only one or two children, you drive several children around regularly. It’s called carpooling! One parent takes, another picks up. The little tykes get big, and often come with equipment, bats, balls, sticks, skates, GEAR that we spend a fortune on. Responsible parents have space enough to fit the children and cargo safely, and have a vehicle that’s reliable and safe on the road. Yes, you might SEE me by myself in it driving to work because there’s no transit system that goes to my office. After work, I’m hauling kids. (Unless you’d rather I ignore them completely, say “no” to sports and activies, and let them wander the neighborhood on foot looking for trouble.) I have the smallest SUV I can get away with, and this one gets much better mileage than my last one. (Hint: it ain’t made in America and I couldn’t afford the hybrid.)

Yes, let’s please do encourage and incent the development of more efficient and alternative energy sources! Let’s look forward, not backward.

By kimberly

June 27, 2008 4:29 PM | Link to this

…if we were drilling 5 million more barrels of oil a day here in this sorry no good for nothing country, what would the price be? Please respond!!!

Okay, but I have to respond with a question: If we allow the oil companies to expend the money to set up more drilling operations here, in our our currently-protected and dwindling preserved natural areas, (and they would assuredly get MORE tax breaks for doing so), and in three to eight years (I hear differing estimates) this expensive endeavor starts to yield more American oil at our gas pumps, and increase the total amount of world oil by what… one percent? three percent?:

DO YOU THINK THEY’RE GOING TO SELL GAS TO YOU AND ME FOR LESS THAN THE CURRENT WORLD MARKET RATE? Like, in what universe is that gonna happen? (The year 2015: “Oil is $230/barrel. Gas is $9/gallon. But for YOU… heh… $2.50, just like the old days good buddy….”) Do you?

By Julie

June 27, 2008 4:34 PM | Link to this

OK -wow -started reading about the gas prices and gas-guzzlers and got sucked into the abortion debate! Sorry for continuing off the real topic, but I don’t know what other thread USinUK and James were on, so I feel the need to inform James of something. First of all, I would like to know where you got the statistic that 10,000 3rd trimester abortions are performed in the U.S. every year. That may be correct, but it sounds a bit high and like something off of an anti-choice site. Do you have any idea what it takes to HAVE a 3rd trimester abortion in the U.S.? Multiple doctors and even hospital boards (because these are usually performedin hospitals and depending on the reason) have to sign off on the procedure.A woman in her 3rd trimester cannot waltz into a clinic and get an abortion -no questions asked. Usually these abortions happen when the woman (mother, parents -whatever) is made aware through testing that she is carrying a fetus that is so malformed it will either not even make it to term or never survive more than a day or two at most outside the womb. A number of genetic mutations that are FAR more severe than Down’s or other problems people live with can occur, and for the people who have to deal with them it is a sad and horrible matter indeed. However, it would be even sadder for most to deal with constant public inquiry about a pregnancy and waiting out those final months knowing that you’re basically carrying a dead baby. Some do choose to carry to term -why I don’t know -and then they have to have a funeral. SO, James, before you think there are 10,000 or however many women a year out there waking up one morning in their 6th or 7th month and deciding to willy-nilly skip off to the abortion clinic because suddenly they don’t want to be pregnant -think again.

By Pointer

June 27, 2008 4:53 PM | Link to this

Julie - the ‘other thread’ is last week’s topic, this topic started today. but the ‘other thread’ is that first link below this box, labeled “what’s behind the liberal-conservative ideological divide in America” and normal posting there ended yesterday.(under ‘recent woman to woman columns’)

that’s all they meant by other thread.

By Crawdaddy

June 27, 2008 6:28 PM | Link to this

I think that people should drive whatever car they want. The government has no business dictating people’s consumer choices. The automakers have been making small gas sipping cars for decades. Americans do not like small cars. Who wants to drive an escort? I go to the AJC auto show every year and the gas mileage average was terrible! And this was a year in which many SUVs were discontinued. I think the American consumer should decide what type of vehicles dominate the highway.

By James

June 29, 2008 1:49 PM | Link to this

To USinUK and Kimberly :

If you wish, please go to the “Ideological Divide” blog ……………

By JokesOn

June 29, 2008 3:10 PM | Link to this

Sounds like james is hung up on terminology that does’t even connect to the actual (legal) debate/position:

You have possibly two individuals rights at stake. Which supersedes which? This question exists even IF you think that a fetus has a soul and/or rights. IF you do not believe that it exists, you do have a better argument; but it is not necessary.

I think logic dictates that no matter which you believe, a fully formed person with years of accumulated successes, responsibilities and such clearly has more of a right, all else being equal. If that fetus does not have some eternal soul/person-hood to be lost; the answer is not even a challenge to get at.

By James

June 29, 2008 3:20 PM | Link to this

To JokesOn:

Wrong blog. These people don’t want this debate here.

By TomG

June 30, 2008 8:23 AM | Link to this

What difference does it make? What we have to do now, is set up a PLAN. Looking back does not fix anything.

By USinUK

June 30, 2008 8:31 AM | Link to this

Tom -

What we have to do now, is set up a PLAN. Looking back does not fix anything

exactly - we need to use both the carrot AND the stick to encourage car companies to produce cars with better CAFE standards in the short-run and improve R&D into alternative-fuel cars in the medium- to long-run.

either way, off-shore and ANWAR drilling in a complete non-starter.

By lovelyliz

June 30, 2008 8:31 AM | Link to this

The government can’t force us to buy this auto or that, but what is can regulate are the fuel efficiency standards.

By Craig

June 30, 2008 8:34 AM | Link to this

I should have had more foresight and self-discipline than to purchase in October 2005 an SUV averaging less than 22 mpg. I’m paying for my mistake every time I purchase gasoline. My last trip to the pump- three days ago- cost me $78, an amount equal to my first car payment. Maybe my fellow citizens and I will habituate the conservation of energy in my lifetime. The future of our experiment in self-government depends upon our so doing.

By Truth

June 30, 2008 9:12 AM | Link to this

Kimberly

I personally think that most of the world’s problems are caused by it’s dependence on oil. But that dependence is not going to stop because of a politically motivated “movement” here in the US. Here in the states, we might be able to slowly wean ourselves off that dependence in many years, but remember that electric cars are actually coal powered cars (most electricity is generated by coal burning generators) and hybred technology is more often used to bring gas guzzling SUVs up to the standards of most other vehicles.

When we allow drilling under the watchful eye of the EPA, the chances of environmental damage is much less than if the drilling is done in unregulated areas which is pretty much the rest of the world.

I’m just asking you to consider: preventing the possibility that controlled damage on our shores almost guarantees massive environmental damages in other parts of the world. And some of that pollution will find it’s way here.

Of course there are many other reasons to lesson our dependency of foreign oil. The strategic importance is staggering. The less oil we produce, the more control other countries will have on our government and our economy. We don’t elect leaders in other countries and the most oil rich producers usually have leaders that have the political leanings of Hitler and Pol Pot.

Oil was used by the US to isolate Japan, forcing Japan to attack China before WWII. We do not want to be dependent on anyone for our energy. As I said, the strategic importance is huge.

By JokesOn

June 30, 2008 9:29 AM | Link to this

When we allow drilling under the watchful eye of the EPA, the chances of environmental damage is much less than if the drilling is done in unregulated areas which is pretty much the rest of the world.

Fact: oil companies are currently drilling on 20% of the land they have permits for.

By Truth

June 30, 2008 9:43 AM | Link to this

USinUK

either way, off-shore and ANWAR drilling in a complete non-starter.

Please explain why populated areas in other parts of the world are less important than ANWAR?

“Off shore” is open to the world, but not to us. That seems crazy to me. Please explain why we shouldn’t be able to drill where other countries are already exploring? You know they will drill if they find oil. US companies can’t even explore. There is a specific sight that will allow China to have off shore rigs with a view of Key West.

Again, we need to negotiate with American Oil Companies instead of folding our arms, holding our breaths, shaking our heads and screaming: NO, NO, NO.

I think the oil companies are ripe for regulation, if we had a government that was not owned by the petroleum industry. Neither political party is even approaching the subject, but even then, we would need to exploit our own sources.

BTW. Had a great, very relaxed week. Found a very interesting piece of land that was a hippy commune as recent as the 90’s. I am looking at buying the whole thing. They had even rigged an old grist mill to produce a pretty dependable source of electricity. The price is almost Oklahoma Land Rush prices (with inflation). It is an isolated valley that is truly heaven on earth.

By Truth

June 30, 2008 9:48 AM | Link to this

JokesOn

So they have actually found obtainable oil on 20% of the land they have explored. Wow. That is great.

By USinUK

June 30, 2008 10:42 AM | Link to this

Truth -

BTW. Had a great, very relaxed week

so, no ghosties?? I’m sure you met some cool people and had some good grub, though :-) good filming?

reasons it’s a non-starter: 1) it’s going to take 10 years (minimum) before oil started coming out of the ground - and, yes, even the oil companies have confirmed that

2) even if they could get it out of the ground tomorrow, refineries have reduced their capacity to keep oil prices high (it isn’t just the speculators)

3) even if they could start getting oil out of the ground tomorrow and even if the refineries increased their capacity so that we could double production - WE’D STILL RUN OUT OF OIL.

We’re not talking about air, we’re talking about a limited resource for which we’re going to need to find a replacement sooner rather than later. Relying on home drilling is just putting off the inevitable.

By lovelyliz

June 30, 2008 11:10 AM | Link to this

Oil drilled in the United States is sold at world market prices. There is nothing that would force the oil companies to sell American oil to Americans at a discounted price.

As far as refineries go, there is no incentives for oil companies to build more refineries. They aren’t maintaining the ones they have now. Running at max capacity or increasing it would mean capital $$$ disappearing from the bottom line and that’s not good for business.

By USinUK

June 30, 2008 11:18 AM | Link to this

lovelyliz -

As far as refineries go, there is no incentives for oil companies to build more refineries. They aren’t maintaining the ones they have now. Running at max capacity or increasing it would mean capital $$$ disappearing from the bottom line and that’s not good for business.

you, my friend, have hit the nail on the head - it’s why oil companies don’t drill on more than 20% of the land they have permits for, it’s why refineries won’t increase production, and why OPEC has limited production.

limited supply = higher prices.

Econ 101

By JokesOn

June 30, 2008 11:21 AM | Link to this

So they have actually found obtainable oil on 20% of the land they have explored. Wow. That is great.

Clarification: From the interviews and reports I have read they are drilling on 20% of the land they have permits for that are known to have oil.

Relying on home drilling is just putting off the inevitable.

It does not even put off the inevitable. It may, when finally in full production, drop gas to the price it was one year before that “start time.”

By Truth

June 30, 2008 11:34 AM | Link to this

USinUK

so, no ghosties?? I’m sure you met some cool people and had some good grub, though :-) good filming?

Great grub. Lots of crazy noises, but no real ghost sightings. I am pretty sure that the sounds were not caused by living people. Cats, dogs, foxes, really big rats? A possibility, but they sure seemed to be produced on cue. I am very skeptical of shows that always have some positive proof of ghosts.

Cool people? Mostly really old, crazy rich people that came from coal mine money. and they are as crazy as a sh*t house mouse. I managed to obtain rights to three old photos to use. Most towns dump hundreds of old photos in my lap.

Wierd thing about the way people drive. The roads are EXTREMELY twisting and winding. I was raised in the mountains so I can drive on curvy roads pretty well. I would be slinging the Volvo around on those roads, going about as fast as I could go and I would look in my rear-view mirror and Grandpa in his 1968 Ford Fairlane would be riding my as*. And this is the same old guy that drives 30 mph in the left lane down on the four lane.

People in big cities are rude, but people from small mountain towns are crazy. But all in all, had a blast. The old hippy commune is very cool. They tried to garden, but never really figured it out. The valley is in a deep hollow and some of it NEVER sees direct sunshine. The only way to access it is with a good four-wheel drive or fly in. We flew in on a ancient Piper Cub with big balloon tires. It had been owned by one of the hippies that apparently was a trust fund kid. It was abandoned and was seized by the county because of a tax lean. The parcel is about 300 acres but about 250 acres is straight up and straight down.

Back to your post:

Our options are not good. I would love to read about that solar powered auto or the Off the Grid Department at Home Depot, but until that happens, we need to use our own resources instead of resources from other countries.

By USinUK

June 30, 2008 11:35 AM | Link to this

It may, when finally in full production, drop gas to the price it was one year before that “start time.”

let’s see. I’m a company making record profits (in the buh-buh-BILLIONS). I have a choice: I can either spend money to drill right off Destin beach and maybe increase supply which would, in either circumstance, lower my profits. Or I can maintain the status quo and keep profits high while keep outgo low.

hrrrmmmmmmm … tough decision.

By JokesOn

June 30, 2008 11:47 AM | Link to this

I would only be willing to open up ANWAR if the oil companies would guarantee that we would get the oil.

Already policy in place that requires US drilled oil to be sold here. I believe there is a small loophole for areas that are closer to other countries than mainland US. Like how 10% or so of Alaskan oil is shipped to Asia.

By USinUK

June 30, 2008 11:49 AM | Link to this

Truth -

People in big cities are rude, but people from small mountain towns are crazy

now, THAT made me laugh out loud. my sister’s best friend has mountain relations - she said they all have tight, pinched faces, are mean as a wet cat and, as you say, absolute nutters.

glad you had a good trip (even if you didn’t see any ghosts) - when are you heading across the pond? is the Bath trip still on?

I would only be willing to open up ANWAR if the oil companies would guarantee that we would get the oil

I tell you what - after watching “Ice Road Truckers” and seeing what the companies go through to get drilling supplies to the great white tundra, I just can’t think that all that expense that will need to be outlayed is going to lower our prices one. tiny. bit. Like I said earlier, if I was an oil company, why would I WANT to pay out all that money and risk reducing my profits???

it is going to take some time to wean us off petrochemicals

you are SOO dead on right. yes, auto usage is a problem, but plastics are going to be the next great issue to tackle.

By Truth

June 30, 2008 12:40 PM | Link to this

USinUK

I spent more money on gas last week than I have spent in the last two months. The Volvo was thirsty and every little trip was 50 miles down the road. I filled up five times and the price of gas was crazy in those little home owned markets. I was paying $4.35 for regular.

Whatever, something needs to be done, fast. I couldn’t imagine feeding even a Honda Civic if I was driving in from say, Woodstock. People can’t move and people can’t rush out and buy a Honda Insight (I think they quit making those).

Crazy old coal miners. These were the sons and daughters of the old “company store” miners that Tennessee Ernie Ford sang about.

16 tons and what do you get? Another day older and deeper in debt. St. Peter don’t you call me cause I can’t go, I owe my soul to the company store.

Except these were the people that owned the mines and the stores. Their lack of respect for people of lesser means is nothing less than disgusting. The coolest person I met was the old pilot that flew us into the Hippy Valley (as it is called) He flew in WWII and I’m pretty sure we flew in the same plane that he flew in WWII. I wasn’t worried about his skill. I was worried that he would die on approach. LOL!! (Wasn’t funny at the time.)

I think the show is doomed. It’s hard to make lots of weird sounds into a TV show. The producers want it to be an “honest” ghost hunting show, but the network is raising hell about the shows already produced. I shot two of them, and they were just not scary, or interesting or anything else that would make them good shows to watch. So if someone doesn’t either decide to ditch the “honesty” part or we actually video tape a ghost real soon, I won’t be in Bath. I need to return to Coal Mine Country in four weeks to shoot the make-ups and re-enactments for this show.

But who knows? I haven’t looked at my footage yet and when a High School film class shot there, there was a very clear image of a woman in several of their shots. Of course, I haven’t seen it, but they said that she looks like the woman that owned the Inn. They are supposed to get a copy to me, but we will see. I’m becoming very skeptical.

By USinUK

June 30, 2008 1:14 PM | Link to this

It’s hard to make lots of weird sounds into a TV show. The producers want it to be an “honest” ghost hunting show, but the network is raising hell about the shows already produced

yeah, we have a show, GhostHunters, here in the UK - and that’s what the majority of it is. but, because it’s shot in “night-vision”, you see people in a greenish haze with huge, dilated pupils talking about how they just got a chill up their spine … and, it works. although, the minute the “medium” starts asking certain ghosties to start making their presence known and you hear a pebble skittering across the floor in the distance, it makes you think that the sound guy is desperate for SOMEthing to happen …

the hub and I watched a program on the Amityville house about a month or so ago and the newspaper had pictures from a seance they held at the house - in one picture, there was a VERY clear picture of a little boy peeping around a door frame. was it real? who knows. but it makes for interesting teevee.

I owe my soul to the company store

that reminds me of soooo many great movies that came out in the late 1950s/early 1960s about the small towns that were owned and run by a single family (everything from Peyton Place to Long, Hot Summer) - great films, but MAN, what that must have been like to live under their shadow.

By Truth

June 30, 2008 1:51 PM | Link to this

USinUK

that reminds me of soooo many great movies that came out in the late 1950s/early 1960s about the small towns that were owned and run by a single family (everything from Peyton Place to Long, Hot Summer) - great films, but MAN, what that must have been like to live under their shadow.

Now THAT”S a documentary. The river that I was baptized in was salty from the pollution from a DOW Chemical plant up on the Holston river in a little town called Saltville. Same thing. All the houses are little mill houses that were brought in on rail cars and in many of the coal mining communities, the sewers still pour into the mountain creeks. They are fixing most of them, but it is an expensive proposition.

Ghost Hunters wss the show they sent me to see if I was interested. It was what they didn’t want. They had the crazy idea that if we get nothing, that we make the show about getting nothing. Sort of like a “Seinfeld” without Larry David, Jerry Seinfeld, comedy, writing, acting or a budget. The checks aren’t bouncing yet so I will keep working until they tell me to stop. Like I said, I haven’t seen the footage so maybe I have a ghost hillbilly hoe-down and just don’t know it yet. I start digitizing the footage on Thursday so if I see any banjo playing spooks, I’ll let you know.

BTW, I managed to get a couple of CDs from a local band that plays pre-bluegrass Appalachian Music. It is very Celtic sounding. They use a dulcimer, guitar, mandolin and a bunch of weird wooden flutes. They actually worked with a local college and researched many of the tunes. Almost all songs are instrumental and some songs are really nice, mostly the ballads.

By chuck

June 30, 2008 2:11 PM | Link to this

Good afternoon everybody.

USinUK, why do you keep repeating this? It just isn’t true as I’ve told you more than a couple of times.

1) it’s going to take 10 years (minimum) before oil started coming out of the ground - and, yes, even the oil companies have confirmed that

*I was watching a news show with three oil industry experts this weekend. All 3 agreed that the first oil could be pumped within 3 years MAX. In certain places off shore, they said it could be much SOONER, because the infrastructure (pipeline) already exists and could easily be tapped into.

Here are some facts about ANWR, that the left doesn’t want us to know:

The latest U.S. Geological Survey estimates are that the entire “1002 Area” contains up to16 billion barrels of recoverable oil. If found, this oil could replace all of our imports from Saudi Arabia for more than 30 years!

Estimates are upon discovery a major oil field could be developed using modern technology, affecting only a tiny 2,000-acre sliver of the 1.5-million-acre “1002 Area” of the Arctic coastal plain — one hundredth of a percent of the entire 19-million-acre ANWR area.

There is absolutely no indication that environmentally responsible exploration will harm the 129,000-member Porcupine caribou herd. In fact, the history over the past 26 years at neighboring Prudhoe Bay shows the opposite. There the Central Arctic caribou herd has more than tripled in size, from 6,000 animals in 1978 to 19,700 today. Caribou will flourish as they have throughout Alaska, where caribou out number people three to two. No hunting by non-Natives will be allowed.

75 percent or more of Alaskans support drilling. This includes the native Alaskans who live in the vicinity of the area where ANWR drilling would occur, although the few who oppose drilling get most of the media attention.

Here is some recent polling data that I found interesting as well. This poll was conducted last Thursday:

Three in four likely voters – 74 percent – support offshore drilling for oil in U.S. coastal waters and more than half (59 percent) also favor drilling for oil in the Alaska National Wildlife Refuge, a new Zogby International telephone poll shows.

A majority of likely voters across the political spectrum support offshore oil drilling, with vast majorities of Republicans (90 percent) and independents (75 percent) in favor of drilling for oil off U.S. coastal waters more than half of Democrats (58 percent) also said they favor offshore drilling. Republicans (80 percent) and political independents (57 percent) are much more likely to favor drilling for oil in ANWR than Democrats (40 percent).

By RF

June 30, 2008 2:27 PM | Link to this

plastics are going to be the next great issue to tackle

USinUK- plastics and discarded cell phones are on my “hit-list”. I saw a report yesterday that said used cell phones number in the millions on average daily. The lead, lithium, etc. from the batteries poses as big a health risk, if not bigger, than the non-degradable plastics filling up our landfills. How did we so easily become such a non-chalant disposable world? Plastic everything and electronics that we throw out like yesterday’s newspaper. My friends laugh at me when I discuss recycling and think I’m nuts for washing water bottles in the dishwasher and refilling them with tap water. My boys don’t care as long as it’s cold. We’ve saved a sizable amount by reusing plastic bottles. I have a gallon juice jug that has been repurposed as an iced-tea pitcher. It’s amazing the uses one can find for empty milk jugs and drink bottles.

By chuck

June 30, 2008 2:41 PM | Link to this

I thought you knew something about economics USinUK:

Like I said earlier, if I was an oil company, why would I WANT to pay out all that money and risk reducing my profits???

They aren’t per se, SELLING OIL, they are selling GAS. THEY ARE BUYING OIL. Even if the price of oil was reduced by half, they would still make more money refining oil THEY PRODUCED. Yes they are benefiting somewhat by high world prices, but you forget that we are IMPORTING about 1/3 of our oil.

How is drilling for oil that THEY CAN PRODUCE AT $5-10 PER BARREL AND THEN REFINE, going to REDUCE the profits they are making while PAYING $140.00 per barrel.

By chuck

June 30, 2008 2:53 PM | Link to this

Hey RF, the people at BK laugh at me when I bring my beat up old mug in to get my Turbo Joe on Sunday mornings. Why use styro when you can use a travel mug over and over?

BTW, BP just brough its first well online in its “Thunder Horse” oil field. From discovery to oil was just 9 years and they were drilling in water over 6000 feet deep and had to build the pipeline from scratch. It won’t take anywhere near that in shallower water where pipelines can be tapped into.

By bkay

June 30, 2008 3:19 PM | Link to this

When Gov’ts plan ahead, aka Japan in the 70s, (& tax car engines on their size) everyone benefits Industry can be pushed in the right direction. Our ‘Free Market’ is a drag on the working person because anti-Gov’t regulation forces have so little understanding about the sacred ‘Free Market’ they elect the most short sighted (“conservative”) candidate on the ballot. Hence our current recession.

By Garbage

June 30, 2008 3:20 PM | Link to this

Supply vs Demand If I want a car that gets 1 mile to the gallon, I should be able to buy it. If I want one that gets 50 miles to the gallon I should buy. I do not need the government to take care of me. They ruined Social Security and so many other things why blame them for this. This is so stupid, consumers dictate what companies produce, and when consumers demand something, companies that stay in business listen.

By JokesOn

June 30, 2008 3:41 PM | Link to this

FYI-

1970s • In response to the oil price shocks of the early 1970s, Congress passed the nation’s first fuel economy standards in 1975. The law called for a doubling of passenger vehicle efficiency—to 27.5 miles per gallon—within 10 years. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) was also given the authority to set a separate standard for “light trucks,” which at the time accounted for only onefifth of new vehicle sales.

• That fuel economy law gave NHTSA the authority to propose standards beyond 27.5 mpg for passenger vehicles, subject to veto by the Senate.2

• Domestic automakers predicted fuel economy improvements would require a fleet full of subcompacts. In 1974, Ford testified the standards could “result in a Ford product line consisting …of all sub-Pinto-sized vehicles.”3 Congress passed the law anyway, and today Ford’s top seller is its FSeries pick-up.

1980s

• Vehicle efficiency increased steadily throughout the early 1980s, due to phase-in of the fuel economy law. Between 1975 and 1985, passenger vehicle mileage doubled from around 13.5 to 27.5 mpg, while light trucks increased from 11.6 to 19.5 mpg.

• In the mid-1980s, Ford and GM, however, lobbied the Reagan Administration to lower the standard. NHTSA complied, setting a 26 mpg standard for 1986, prompting Chrysler Chairman Lee Iacocca to declare, “We are about to put up a tombstone, ‘Here lies America’s energy policy.

Taken from: http://www.pewfuelefficiency.org/docs/cafe_history.pdf

By bruce becker

June 30, 2008 3:45 PM | Link to this

The President provided $15K tax rebates to small businesses as incentive to buy SUVs after 9-11. PS The president falsely stated in his first state of the union address that he would spend $7 billion on Alternative Energy research. He didnt.

Look to your mighty warrior leader for the causes of our energy crisis, increased demand and failure to provide new sources of energy and entirely new models of distribution.

Every 8th grader for a generation has been told this day was coming.

By bruce becker

June 30, 2008 3:49 PM | Link to this

the adolescent delusion that you can do whatever you can afford is causing this crisis. We sometimes have to put individual PREFERENCEs aside for the common good.

By chuck

June 30, 2008 4:11 PM | Link to this

Well, the communists have been heard from now. Welcome aboard Becker.

What do you drive?

By Truth

June 30, 2008 4:44 PM | Link to this

bruce becker

Look to your mighty warrior leader for the causes of our energy crisis, increased demand and failure to provide new sources of energy and entirely new models of distribution.

And in the very next paragraph you write:

Every 8th grader for a generation has been told this day was coming.

Do you actually read what you write? So what were the eighth graders told?

There will be a Republican President that will appear in the 21st century that will pass policies that will use up all our oil

So where is this school? Do they know anything about lottery numbers? How about sporting events? Can they tell me who will win the World Series this year? There is money to be made.

I’ll say it one more time, but whether you are smart enough to accept it is still a question:

Our country’s problems did not start in 2001. Our problems with the Middle East did not start in 2001. Large cars did not first appear in 2001. GW Bush did not dream up the problems that started the Iraq war. Understand?

We sometimes have to put individual PREFERENCEs aside for the common good.

So who gets to decide what we buy for the common good? Freedom is a complicated thing. You educate people and then let them decide. It’s not that your idea of the government dictating how we conduct our lives for the common good is new. Every dictator and despot has used these exact same ideas.

How about if we decide how we live our lives. It’s that freedom thing that is so annoying to so many, but it’s a big deal here in the good old US of A.

By USinUK

July 1, 2008 9:18 AM | Link to this

Chuck -

I’m in the middle of a frustrating battle with my printer (oh, it thinks it’s winning now, but it hasn’t bested me, yet) …

but, to address your complete denial about the time it would take for off-shore drilling …

http://www.thebulletin.us/site/index.cfm?newsid=19817794&BRD=2737&PAG=461&dept_id=576361&rfi=8

Industry experts however have said there is no way it could be. If the ban were lifted tomorrow, it could still be 20 years before full-scale productivity, they say.

“If you opened it up today, it would take about 10 years for production to begin and it would take about another 10 years before you reach peak productions,” said Philip Budzik, an energy information administration analyst.

Presently, 574 million acres of the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) off the coasts of Florida, California, and the eastern seaboard are off-limits for drilling.

The Mineral Management Service (MMS) estimates resources in these areas total 18 billion barrels of crude oil and 77 trillion cubit feet of natural gas.

If Congress were to allow drilling, several steps would need to taken before oil began flowing.

First, the MMS would examine environmental work that needed to be done on a prospective drilling site. Then the highest bidding oil company would lease the site. Once the company is awarded a lease would have to submit an exploration plan, approved by the MMS.

During exploration, if initial drilling proves successful, a permanent platform is built with a few oil wells, but not enough wells to reach full production levels. Over a number of years, more wells are built to maximize production.

This process could potentially take longer than two decades in deeper waters.

“Deep water drilling rigs are in short supply right now. There’s a waiting list of a couple years before producers could be able too use them in the deep water,” Mr. Budzik said.

see also:

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/06/24/1164646.aspx

Adding that some research shows that drilling in ANWR would only “reduce our dependence on foreign oil from 70% to 67%,” Feeney added, “I’m not sure most Americans would think that’s really worth the price of admission.”

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

And the relief at the pump, such as it is, wouldn’t be immediate — it would take several years, at least, for the oil to begin to flow, which is time enough for increased demand from China, India and the rest of the world to outpace those relatively meager savings. “Right now the price of oil is set on the global market,” says Kevin Lindemer, executive managing director of the energy markets group for the research firm Global Insight. President Bush’s move “would not have an impact.”

there’s more, but I need to get back to this bloodybloodybloodybloody printer

By GoodOne

July 1, 2008 9:20 AM | Link to this

There will be a Republican President that will appear in the 21st century that will pass policies that will use up all our oil

Is that from Nostradamus?

By USinUK

July 1, 2008 9:46 AM | Link to this

Chuck -

got the printer sussed (HAH! USinUK - 1, bloodybloodybloody printer - 0)

How is drilling for oil that THEY CAN PRODUCE AT $5-10 PER BARREL AND THEN REFINE, going to REDUCE the profits they are making while PAYING $140.00 per barrel.

10 years ago, it cost just under $10 to find and produce oil - but that was “easy” oil, and easy oil production is cheap. However, now, you’re talking 10 years later, with MUCH higher commodity prices (think of all the steel we’re talking about for deep-water platforms) and much higher production costs.

Think about what would go into an ANWAR drilling operation. There is NO existing infrastructure, so it’s not like Exxon could just drive up there, plug in and start drilling. First, they would need to build their infrastructure (power, water, accommodation, etc). Secondly, access to ANWAR is limited by the weather, as well, so time is going to extend the calendar for build-out which is also going to extend the cost. Then, you’re talking the actual machinery they’re going to need for the drilling.

So, if you really think Exxon is just going to jump right on it, reducing their profitability when they don’t know where the oil is or how much there is available - well, I disagree. They answer to shareholders who aren’t going to take too kindly to going “all in” on a crapshoot.

By kimberly

July 1, 2008 10:22 AM | Link to this

Seriously… does anyone believe that ANY oil company, no matter how they get the oil, is going to sell it here for LESS THAN the going rate on the global market? (American oil executives have already proven where their loyalites lie, so don’t delude yourself you’ll get any favors because you wear a flag pin on your lapel.) Now, I’m not a bloviated math whiz or anything, but wouldn’t production of American oil have to be a humongous amount in order to significantly affect the world supply? Mathematically, if we could produce two or three more percent of the world’s oil, wouldn’t it affect prices worldwide by an amount so small no one would notice? Sorry, but I can’t approve destroying the last beautiful bits of natural wilderness to maybe bring down gas prices by two-tenths of a penny. If anyone thinks that’s a bargain, I’ve got a nice mountain-top chalet in Florida to sell you.

By USinUK

July 1, 2008 10:30 AM | Link to this

I’ve got a nice mountain-top chalet in Florida to sell you.

ooooo… does it come with a pass for the ski lifts???

By AnotherOne

July 1, 2008 10:35 AM | Link to this

and since most of the current price of a barrel of oil is only being driven up by money-grubbing capitalistic SPECULATORS……

By Truth

July 1, 2008 10:50 AM | Link to this

USinUK

I just don’t get the argument about ten years. I tend to agree with you that after seeing Ice Road Truckers, it would be a hell of an undertaking. But the TransAlaska pipeline is already in place so that part of the infrastructure is ready.

But I said it yesterday, we will need oil in ten years, probably much more desperately than we need it now.

Democrats have said for several years now that the Iraq War was about the oil. I agree. I don’t think we went into Iraq to steal their oil ($4.35/gallon. we OBVIOUSLY are not stealing it.) but we are there to protect one of our main sources. We are now fighting the energy wars of the 21st century that my old chemistry teacher used to go on and on about back in 1969. Robot guided planes and tanks really are fighting in the Middle East over oil. The old SOB was right.

As the wolves will become hungrier and hungrier for the last pieces of meat, I would rather this wolf have it’s own meat. If current trends continue with countries like China and India becoming more and more industrialized, the world will be fighting in more and more energy based wars. How crazy would it be for us to be setting on our own supplies while we are sending our children to die for foreign oil. How crazy would it be for China to have oil derricks in Cuban waters, literally in sight of Key West while we are fighting for the last drops of oil in the Middle East?

We HAVE to look beyond the next 5 or six years. We will move beyond oil, but this fairy tale that we can do it instantly or even in a few years is going to leave our children in a hell of a mess.

My kid drives a Honda Insite. I am scared to death to think about him in that thing. I drove Fiats when i was a kid, they were tanks compared to that thing. It is like a piece of paper. The doors feel like they are made of Styrofoam. Not to mention electrical radiation. Electric cars are coal powered cars. The ONLY answer is Hydrogen and you can’t make asphalt or plastics out of hydrogen.

!0 years is about when we are going to need that oil the most.

By Truth

July 1, 2008 11:00 AM | Link to this

Kimberly

We need to produce our own oil. Don’t you understand that with the world becoming more and more industrialized, oil will become more and more precious, TO EVERYBODY.

Our children are dieing for it now. What do you think is going to be happening in ten years from now?

I hate the oil companies. They are the scum of the earth, but the Democrats are just as scared of them as the Republicans are. What are they doing? Threatening to tax them more? Ooooo. Scary. We will pay those paxes. They need to be regulated just like the coal industry and most agricultural products are. But the last person to try that was good old Smilin’ Jimmy Carter and his own party ran from him like he had the plague.

But if you think that not allowing them to drill is hurting only the oil companies, you aren’t paying attention.

By Lyrazel

July 1, 2008 11:09 AM | Link to this

What continues to amuse me is the fact so many blame everyone else but fail to see the problem is with the consumer who purchased oversize guzzling mammoths as vehicles, bought homes 90 miles from work, bought into the 17 mile away grocery store with Chilean produce to have grapes in winter, consumed so many cheap goods from outside sources that now it is rare to find anything made in the USA.

Maybe if we address these problems realistically and independently our own daily life might be easier to deal with and solutions can be found.

By USinUK

July 1, 2008 11:18 AM | Link to this

Truth -

But the TransAlaska pipeline is already in place so that part of the infrastructure is ready.

you forget how big Alaska is - the pipeline is a couple of hundred miles from ANWAR (its closest point is in a rugged mountain region). The infrastucture I mentioned was just for their drilling operation - you need to feed/house all your workers as well as build your drilling operations.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Anwrmap.jpg (ANWAR region)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Transalaskainternational.jpg (pipeline)

10 years is about when we are going to need that oil the most.

think about all the advances we could make in 10 years on our oil-reliance! as someone else alluded to earlier in this thread - JFK made it a national priority to go to the moon within 10 years and we did it.

with all the US has gone through - 9-11, the Iraq war, the security threats with Iran, our relationship with the shady Saudis - if whoever is elected our next president asked the country to step forward to reduce our reliance on oil and said it was going to be a national priority to move to other renewable resources by 2018, don’t you think we would and should do it?

if there’s one thing I know about my country, it’s that we’re pretty darned plucky - we are innovators and achievers and could move to energy independence if the weight of the government was brought to bear. Not just for US safety and security, but for the world’s security and for the environment.

“If I am not for myself, then who will be for me? And if I am only for myself, then what am I? And if not now, when?” Rabbi Hillel

By Truth

July 1, 2008 11:27 AM | Link to this

Lots of saber rattling going on in the Gulf region.:

http://rawstory.com/news/afp/USsayswontallowIrantoshutke_06302008.html/

If Israel takes out Iran’s nukes, Iran will close the straights of Harmuz. Now if that happens, we have to go to war with Iran. Why? Because we can’t access our own oil and we still depend on the Middle east for our supply. If we didn’t depend on them for our energy, we could Support Our Troops, Bring Them Home (like every tard sign on my street says).

Yes, that’s an over simplification, But it seems that putting the security of our oil supply at the whim of whether or not Arabs and Jews can get along is just nuts.

By kimberly

July 1, 2008 11:28 AM | Link to this

We need to produce our own oil.

Truth, isn’t oil produced by decaying organic matter trapped under the earth’s crust and pressurized for like, millions of years or something? I don’t know about you, but I’d like retire in the next 20 years, Dude. Millions of years is a long time. (Maybe Dow chemists can produce it in a lab now? That must be a pretty big lab! Hope the watchful eye of the EPA is monitoring the waste products from that….)

You’re almost right: We need to produce our own sources of energy! Even better, we need to produce devices and processes for harnessing existing energy, like from that ginormous ball o’ burning radiation 93 million miles from here. Sounds like what we need are GREEN JOBS in GREEN INDUSTRIES that can put people to work turning waste into something useful, creating energy from what we now take forgranted, and building products to use that energy that others will buy. Now if we only had a senatorial candidate running on that platform…. Wow, that would be AWESOME!

By Timekeeper

July 1, 2008 11:31 AM | Link to this

USinUK—you are awfully chatty for someone at 4:30 am. Have noticed most of your posts tend to be made in sleepy time—

By USinUK

July 1, 2008 11:35 AM | Link to this

Truth -

But it seems that putting the security of our oil supply at the whim of whether or not Arabs and Jews can get along is just nuts

check out the links I posted to Chuck earlier … I can’t remember which one it is, but one of them stated that drilling in alaska would reduce our reliance on middle-east oil from 70% to …. 67%.

woohoo!! smell the independence.

By USinUK

July 1, 2008 11:40 AM | Link to this

Timey …

the clue is in the name …

By USinUK

July 1, 2008 11:43 AM | Link to this

Time -

you realize that the UK is ET + 5 hours, not ET - 5 hours, right?

By Truth

July 1, 2008 11:44 AM | Link to this

USinUK

OK, so let the oil companies worry about that. Your own sources say they can do it in ten years. Fine. Have at it.

So in the meanwhile, in our capitalist country, innovation and good old American know-how does what politicians could never do and completely changes how cars are powered. We still need the asphalt, we still need the plastics. Our consumption of petroleum will have dropped like crazy, but we will still need massive amounts.

Do you remember 1998? Wasn’t that about two days ago? I have a great little sports car that is new, but the Volvo i took to Virginia is older than 10 years old. Many, many cars in Atlanta are over ten years old and in 2018, there will be many cars on the road that are out there now.

I wish it was going to happen in ten years, but it won’t. I appreciate your optimism, but we will need gas for quite a while.

By USinUK

July 1, 2008 11:57 AM | Link to this

Truth -

I wish it was going to happen in ten years, but it won’t. I appreciate your optimism, but we will need gas for quite a while.

we can greatly reduce it, if we try. I’m not saying that the US can be completely petroleum-free by 2018, but I think we can make HUGE strides to having non-combustible engine cars on the roads, to using non-petroleum-based products for our asphalt and to creating other non-petroleum-based polymer products.

as for 2008 cars on the road in 2018 - yep, you’re right. there will be (criminey, I drove my Honda into the ground by the time I traded it in for a VW) - but, again, even if we’re just starting to have fleets of non-combustible-engine cars rolling off the assembly lines, don’t you think that’s an improvement?

By Truth

July 1, 2008 11:59 AM | Link to this

kimberly

Hey. I am Mister Green. I would love to have my home “Off-the-Grid”. One of my goals in life is to be the guy that convinces the president of Lowes and Home Depot to put in an “Off-The-Grid” section in their stores. I want us all to be happy, wealthy and wise, but it’s going to take a while. We don’t even have the technology on the road that is going to fix it. Hybreds only reduce oil consumption, does not eliminate it. Electric cars are coal powered cars. It’s going to take hydrogen and that is not going to even be introduced for a few years.

We will need oil for many years. I don’t like it, but that don’t make it go away.

By USinUK

July 1, 2008 12:10 PM | Link to this

Truth -

It’s going to take hydrogen and that is not going to even be introduced for a few years.

nope - believe it or not, GM has already produced a hydrogen-cell car … and she is GORGEOUS!!! It really is the coolest thing since sliced bread. Top Gear featured it a couple of years ago … check out YouTube - look up James May and hydrogen car (I know they used to have a clip, don’t know if it’s still up).

the chassis is completely interchangeable so your car can be a coupe one day and a minivan the next … the wheel moves from left-hand to right-hand drive (handy for those of us who take the chunnel to France for dirty weekends with our husbands) … and there are no pedals - all the controls are on the wheel.

I. WANT. ONE.

By Truth

July 1, 2008 12:15 PM | Link to this

USinUK

OK, Let’s take that 3% reduction in demand. Let’s consider the worst possible scenario. Let’s take your and my optimism in the American Spirit and say that hydrogen is made available in 5 years. Real cars, not paper cars burning hydrogen. Buicks burning hydrogen. They will sell like crazy and that demand will drop considerably. So that would make that 3% rise dramatically as the need decreases. .

We need the oil. And we will really need it when China and India start fighting over the Middle East.

BTW. Aren’t you guys supposed to be PROGRESSIVE? Doesn’t that mean thinking ahead? I personally think that the entire Democratic approach involves the punishment of the oil companies. The taxes, the denying of drilling rights. Just look at most of the posts on this board.

They are richer than God and they protect themselves. Taxes aren’t going to hurt them, it is going to hurt us. I would be pretty sure that few oil company execs has kids fighting in Iraq. The only thing that would hurt them and not hurt all of us at the same time is government regulation, or at least the looming threat of regulation that would keep their crooked asses in line. But that is not going to happen, that is not unless we replace almost every politician in Washington and outlaw lobbying. And you know, I don’t see any Democrats jumping up to do either one of those things.

By Truth

July 1, 2008 12:25 PM | Link to this

USinUK

we can greatly reduce it, if we try. I’m not saying that the US can be completely petroleum-free by 2018, but I think we can make HUGE strides to having non-combustible engine cars on the roads, to using non-petroleum-based products for our asphalt and to creating other non-petroleum-based polymer products.

I agree. that’s why that 3% would be much higher in 10 years.

We are not going to agree on this (big surprise) but as usual, I am right and you are wrong. I have to go and work now so I can buy my hippy valley where the livin’ is easy. Fish a’ jumpin’ And the cotton is high. Your Daddy’s rich and your Mamma’s good lookin’ So hush . . well you know the rest.

I really do need to run. Talk to you soon. You too, Kimberly.

By USinUK

July 1, 2008 12:38 PM | Link to this

Truth - (responses in no particular order)

They are richer than God and they protect themselves. Taxes aren’t going to hurt them, it is going to hurt us

I absolutely agree with you here - I think the “windfall tax” is an asinine idea - although, we as a country do need it considering how our national debt is spiralling out of control. The good thing is that tax revenues will increase, anyway, even without the windfall tax (despite the fact that corporations dont’ really pay the entirety of what they owe, windfall profits will still lead to more paid to the IRS)

Aren’t you guys supposed to be PROGRESSIVE? Doesn’t that mean thinking ahead?

why, yes, it does. and, the Dems have drafted numerous bills to encourage greater investment in alternative fuels - all successfully killed by the GOP.

They will sell like crazy and that demand will drop considerably. So that would make that 3% rise dramatically as the need decreases

for it to make that big of a difference, there would have to be a mandate that no combustible engines would be allowed on the road.

We need the oil. And we will really need it when China and India start fighting over the Middle East.

Criminey - you’re worried about India? they may have nukes, but I think China’s the bigger worry if they get riled.

By chuck

July 1, 2008 1:34 PM | Link to this

Your first link quotes an analyst, but he is wrong. As I pointed out yesterday:

BTW, BP just brough its first well online in its “Thunder Horse” oil field. From discovery to oil was just 9 years and they were drilling in water over 6000 feet deep and had to build the pipeline from scratch. It won’t take anywhere near that in shallower water where pipelines can be tapped into.

The key here is two-fold. Even a new oil field where they drilled in water over 6000 feet deep, they brought wells on in just 9 years building EVERYTHING from scratch. SECOND, There is already some infrastructure in place in the gulf, and they will be drilling in MUCH SHALLOWER WATER. This reduces the amount of time considerably.

Your second source quoted Michael Feeney:

Michael Feeney, the executive director of the land trust for Santa Barbara County and a professional land conservationist

Not exactly an expert on petroleum extraction and also not a NON-BIASED source.

By chuck

July 1, 2008 1:38 PM | Link to this

BTW, we only import 60% of our oil and NOT 70% as you posted earlier. I have trouble trusting a source that doesn’t know that. In addition, 2/3 of our imported oil comes from NORTH AMERICAN sources…Canada and Mexico.

By kimberly

July 1, 2008 1:52 PM | Link to this

Truth, I am SO GLAD to know you’re a fellow green lover! Wooo-HOOOOO! Me too! I’d love to see the State of Georgia take the lead in turning agricultural waste (not food) into energy. Lord knows we have plenty of waste here, of all kinds, (not the least of which are wasted minds….) We should put people to work reaching forward for solutions, not hold them back pandering to the old status quo.

Hey, I’m just curious as to whether you’ve decided which Senate candidate to support, and whether your admitted concern for “off the grid” living matters enough to affect your vote. Votes matter more than words, you know.

By Mara

July 1, 2008 2:06 PM | Link to this

the United States exports approximately 12.5% of our domestically produced petroleum.

I’m no economist, but it seems to me that if we need oil so badly that we’re arguing the merits of destroying pristine wildlands to gain a few percentage points of inventory…perhaps we should quit selling that 12.5% and, I don’t know,…maybe use it ourselves?

By JokesOn

July 1, 2008 4:44 PM | Link to this

If we doubled the mileage that cars get, would that (in effect) be like doubling the reserves of oil? Not to mention, it would be a little more realistic, no?

By USinUK

July 2, 2008 8:35 AM | Link to this

Chuck -

Your first link quotes an analyst, but he is wrong

Chuck, with all due respect, if I have a choice between trusting the facts / figures of someone who actually studies the industry for a living and someone in eastjeebus GA who teaches 8th graders … call me silly, but I’ll put my £££ on the expert.

btw - to back up his claim, here’s the summary of his analysis: http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/servicerpt/anwr/results.html

key takeaway:

With respect to the world oil price impact, projected ANWR oil production constitutes between 0.4 and 1.2 percent of total world oil consumption in 2030, based on the low and high resource cases, respectively. Consequently, ANWR oil production is not projected to have a large impact on world oil prices.

Main uncertainties:

The size of the underlying resource base. There is little direct knowledge regarding the petroleum geology of the ANWR region.

Oil field sizes. The size of the oil fields found in ANWR is one factor that will determine the rate at which ANWR oil resources are developed and produced.

The quality of the oil and the characteristics of the oil reservoirs. Oil field production rates are also determined by the quality of oil found, e.g., viscosity and paraffin content, and the field’s reservoir characteristics, i.e., its depth, permeability, faulting, and water saturation. This analysis assumes oil quality and reservoir characteristics similar to those associated with the Prudhoe Bay field. If, for example, the oil discovered in ANWR has a considerably higher viscosity than the Prudhoe Bay field oil, e.g., over 10,000 centipoise, then oil production rates would be lower than projected in this analysis.

Regarding your selective cherrypicking of what you read - did you not see this in the Time article (from the link above):

The reason is simple: the U.S. has an estimated 3% of global petroleum reserves but consumes 24% of the world’s oil. Offshore territories and public lands like ANWR that don’t allow drilling may contain up to 75 billion barrels of oil, according to the EIA. That may sound like a lot, but it’s not enough to make a significant difference in a world where global oil demand is expected to rise 30% by 2030, to nearly 120 million barrels a day. At best, greatly expanding domestic drilling might eventually lower the proportion of oil the U.S. imports — currently about 60% of its total supply — but petroleum is a global commodity, and the world market would soak up any additional American production.

As far as the Gulf of Mexico, there’s more to it than just Destin Beach. In fact, the GoM IS deepwater drilling -

http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/energy/2008-06-19-deepwater-oil-offshore-drilling_N.htm

Deepwater oil fields, those below more than 1,000 feet of water, represent one of the final frontiers of oil prospecting. The good news is that there’s plenty of oil in such deposits, especially here in the Gulf of Mexico and off the coasts of Brazil and West Africa. The bad news is that much of that valuable crude lies in complex geologic formations, hidden beneath a mile or more of troublesome salt layers — meaning these new reservoirs will be costly to develop and thus will do little to eliminate $4-a-gallon gasoline.

So, first of all, your Thunder Horse example pretty much proves my point that it’s roughly 10 years to production - thank you. Secondly, the article above further proves my point that the GoM IS deep water production, so tack on another 10 years there and note that the expense will pretty much eliminate any gas savings at the pump.

Lastly, regarding your “we get most of our oil from our neighbors” assertion:

http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oilgas/petroleum/datapublications/companylevelimports/current/import.html

North and South American countries came in places 1, 3 and 5 – Saudi Arabia is #2 and Nigeria is #4 (for both crude and total imports). Iraq is currently in the #6 position, but now that the oil industries have divvied up the no-bid contracts, I’m sure Iraq will be in the Top 5 Hit Parade within a year.

please. before you post - stop, think and do a little research.

By Truth

July 2, 2008 8:43 AM | Link to this

USinUK

why, yes, it does. and, the Dems have drafted numerous bills to encourage greater investment in alternative fuels - all successfully killed by the GOP.

I’d like to know what those bills were and what was included. Democrats are famous for titling a bill for a small part of the bill, such as the “Save The Spotted Owl” bill would also have lots of pork and even more very radical, ultra liberal issues. The democrats have done exactly that since 1994.

for it to make that big of a difference, there would have to be a mandate that no combustible engines would be allowed on the road.

I disagree. Hydrogen powered cars is not like hybreds or paper thin electric cars. It is a real fuel that could easily replace gasoline. 500 horse power Mustangs would be around. It does not require that we put our families in Styrofoam protection against 18 wheelers. SUVs would be no problem. I think the public would flock to those kinds of cars.

Criminey - you’re worried about India? they may have nukes, but I think China’s the bigger worry if they get riled.

China in itsself is enough, but look for many other developing countries to start playing a part in that need for oil.

By USinUK

July 2, 2008 8:46 AM | Link to this

Jokesy -

all I can say is god luv ya for sticking with the (ahem) “debate” with James … the minute someone starts with the Nazi comparisons, I pretty much check out. you’re a far more patient person than I.

By USinUK

July 2, 2008 9:06 AM | Link to this

Truth -

I disagree. Hydrogen powered cars is not like hybreds or paper thin electric cars. It is a real fuel that could easily replace gasoline. 500 horse power Mustangs would be around. It does not require that we put our families in Styrofoam protection against 18 wheelers. SUVs would be no problem. I think the public would flock to those kinds of cars.

I think we’re arguing the same side here - when I say combustible engines, I’m talking about hybrids and traditional gas-powered cars. H-cell and electric cars are different. And, for the record, there’s no flipping way you could pay me enough to take a Smart car on I-75. However, for poodling around in the city, you can’t find a better car - talk about being able to fit into tight parking spaces!!

did you see my post yesterday about James May and the h-cell car on YouTube?? look it up!

Democrats are famous for titling a bill for a small part of the bill, such as the “Save The Spotted Owl” bill would also have lots of pork and even more very radical, ultra liberal issues.

I gotta ask … what’s an “ultra-liberal issue”??? I mean, liberal, I understand … but “ultra-liberal” - this, I gotta hear.

By Truth

July 2, 2008 9:15 AM | Link to this

kimberly

There are so many issues that we could tackle. But the same negativity that I see here against further exploration, I am seeing everywhere. There was a huge protest over in Grant Park to a a man who put up a modern windmill to supplement his power. Most said that since it didn’t completely power his home, that the visual impact on the neighborhood (of mostly run down rat traps) wasn’t worth it.

It is going to take many, many solutions to our energy problems. Just building houses that pump air through underground chambers (like a basement) before heating or cooling the air would cut those costs to almost nothing. Passive solar heaters for heating water would help. Apartment complexes damn up creeks to make a community lake that has enough hydro-power to supplement the power demands for the complex. Multi-story houses have lots of hot air in the upper floors and cool air in the lower floors, but I just recently read where a company is finally selling air exchange units that will pump the cool air to the upper stories and the hot air to the lower ones.

“Off The Grid” is a lot of common sense and it is hardly even considered in most new homes. It is not like the transportation industry that has few options.

Hey, I’m just curious as to whether you’ve decided which Senate candidate to support, and whether your admitted concern for “off the grid” living matters enough to affect your vote. Votes matter more than words, you know.

If you are asking if I would vote for a Democrat because of promises they made during their campaign for office, the answer is an emphatic NO.

I think the democrats make great promises, but they simply forget about them when they take office. Where is my Universal Health coverage that the Clintons promised? They can’t blame Republicans for that. Washington was completely controlled by democrats for two years before the Gingrich Revolution. Where is the low gas prices that Nancy Pelosi promised if they were given Congress in 06?

A lot of people don’t like the promises Republicans make and people especially don’t like that they usually do what they say they will do. I don’t like a lot of the things that Republicans do, but I usually know what I am getting with a Republican. With a democrat? Who knows what they are going to do after they get in office? And I can’t support a candidate that would add to the Democrats’ control of Congress. there are waaaaay too many issues like the support of people like George Soros who have nothing good in mind for our country to consider. This is a capitalist country and I believe the newer Democrats in Congress are more socialist than capitalist and you can’t govern a capitalist country with a socialist government.

However, if I saw that a particular democratic politician had the spine to stand up to the lunacy of the Democratic Party and also had actually taken action to support more “Off the Grid” housing, I could very easily vote for them. I’m not seeing action. I’m seeing politicians making promises. Fool me once …

By Truth

July 2, 2008 9:40 AM | Link to this

USinUK

I gotta ask … what’s an “ultra-liberal issue”??? I mean, liberal, I understand … but “ultra-liberal” - this, I gotta hear.

Abortion. Unions having control of our educational system. “Fairness Doctrine” (nothing fair about that) Environmental concerns over the well being of the people of an entire region, anti-solution oriented energy policies. Pro socialism, anti-capitalism policies. You know, the things we discuss on here.

By USinUK

July 2, 2008 9:59 AM | Link to this

Truuuuthyyyyy … come on …

Abortion. Unions having control of our educational system. “Fairness Doctrine” (nothing fair about that) Environmental concerns over the well being of the people of an entire region, anti-solution oriented energy policies. Pro socialism, anti-capitalism policies. You know, the things we discuss on here.

abortion - 80% of the public believes in a woman’s right to an abortion, so I guess the vast majority of US citizens are “ultra liberal”

union control of education - 1) GA is a right to work state, so teachers aren’t unionized, 2) state depts of ed control the curriculum with local boards of ed making more specific decisions.

the Fairness Doctrine??? are you kidding me??? other than a couple of mumblings about it, where is the support on EITHER side for a major push on the Fairness Doctrine?

Environmental concerns over the well being of the people of an entire region - I don’t even know what that means. do you mean environmental concerns over the economic development of an area?

anti-solution oriented energy policies - encouraging investment in alternative fuels IS solution oriented. too bad your side blocked it.

Pro socialism, anti-capitalism policies - depends on what you mean by socialism - the GOP wants gov’t money to go to corporations - the Dems think gov’t is of, by and for the people. And, despite what you think - taxes and industrial regulations aren’t anti-capitalism - it’s called paying for the services you use and market controls to prevent abuse.

By Mara

July 2, 2008 10:40 AM | Link to this

Abortion. Unions having control of our educational system. “Fairness Doctrine” (nothing fair about that) Environmental concerns over the well being of the people of an entire region, anti-solution oriented energy policies. Pro socialism, anti-capitalism policies. You know, the things we discuss on here.

if these are the “ultra-liberal” issues…which one’s are merely “liberal”? Cuz these sound a lot like mainstream liberal concerns, even if they are mischaracterizations (thanks, USinUK, for defining them more honestly)

By USinUK

July 2, 2008 10:49 AM | Link to this

hi Mara

~~~waving~~~

By Truth

July 2, 2008 11:01 AM | Link to this

USinUK

abortion - 80% of the public believes in a woman’s right to an abortion, so I guess the vast majority of US citizens are “ultra liberal”

Give me the link that says this and I need to see the specific questions that were asked in the survey. I would also like to see the demographic that was surveyed and the region of the country that survey was conducted.

1) GA is a right to work state, so teachers aren’t unionized, 2) state depts of ed control the curriculum with local boards of ed making more specific decisions.

Oh sure. You can get a job in Atlanta teaching in a public school without being a member of the GAE, but let’s see how long you keep that job without becoming a member. unions use intimidation. Georgia is a free work state, but how do you feel about Walmart? Have you been paying attention to the war between progressives and Walmart? Why do you think that is?

the Fairness Doctrine??? are you kidding me??? other than a couple of mumblings about it, where is the support on EITHER side for a major push on the Fairness Doctrine?

It hasn’t been an issue since 1994. That’s when the Republicans took Congress from the Clinton Democrats. Let Obama win with a Democratic control of Congress. I’ll bet you $50 that you will start hearing a lot about it. Democrats hate FOX, Limbaugh and anyone who does not support them like the major networks.

Environmental concerns over the well being of the people of an entire region - I don’t even know what that means. do you mean environmental concerns over the economic development of an area?

It’s a million issues that are forced upon locals by people who do not live there. The vast majority of Alaskans support drilling in ANWAR. Some of them have actually been to ANWAR as opposed to the vast number of people who are certain they know everything about ANWAR, but could not point to it on a map.

Before I started doing what I do, I worked in television news. I went to protest after protest involving saving a habitat of some animal that no one had ever heard of. 90% of those involved very angry trust fund kids who were clueless about the actual issues, but never turned down a reason to raise hell. I would overhear conversation like: weren’t you at the Phipps Bend nuclear protest last week. WOW. What a fckin’ party, man. And we kicked some real as.

In the meanwhile, the media (me) was promoting the story. The trust fund kids would leave, we would leave, the laws were changed, very little environmental improvements were made and a lot of people became unemployed. It was a party for the spoiled rich kids, it was show business for us. But for the people who lived in these places, it was a very real disaster.

Remember the snail darter? It prevented the building of a damn that was basically the last hope for a community. They cancelled the damn and low and behold, snail darters have turned up all over the world. That was not the only place they appeared and they were not in danger. The rich kids had a hell of a party, though.

Phipps Bend Nuclear power plant? GONE!! Disassembled, costing billions. Spotted owl that has cost the Northwest lumber people billions. The list is long.

Just do-good, knee jerk issues that seem like a good idea unless you take the time to really look into the facts.

encouraging investment in alternative fuels IS solution oriented. too bad your side blocked it.

Government mandated encouragement? Economy destroying encouragement? “The People” are not just democrats. “The People” IS industry and neighborhoods and new housing and development. “The People” are the people that are suffering right now because of gas prices. Gas prices that they were told would go down if they voted for democrats. “The People” are who actually pay the industrial taxes in the form of higher prices. I am “The People” and “The People” paid $82.35 last night for four bags of groceries. I am waiting for somebody, any f*ckin body, to do something for “The People”. Not just talk about it, not just play political games with promises they will never keep, but actually give “The People” a break.

Can anybody give me an Amen!?

By Truth

July 2, 2008 11:06 AM | Link to this

Mara

if these are the “ultra-liberal” issues…which one’s are merely “liberal”? Cuz these sound a lot like mainstream liberal concerns,

You are exactly right. The far left now controls your party. You are running the most liberal voting member of the US Senate for president. What had been considered as far left issues now steer your party.

Good point.

By Truth

July 2, 2008 11:26 AM | Link to this

USinUK

Part of that Sermon was wrong. They did complete the Telico Dam project, but when I left the media up there, it had been stopped. Didn’t mean to mislead you.

By Lyrazel

July 2, 2008 11:27 AM | Link to this

Just my two cents: One problem I have with the people who rush to demand abortion become illegal is they do not understand how many abortions happen naturally. One is clinically labeled as having an abortion if child is: stillborn, preemie and any false pregnancy thus condemning women because of a physical ailment or even birthing child too early; this is why the law will always stand. Yet the big problem abortion fights obscure is the rapid decline in qualified OBGYN doctors especially in rural areas due to skyrocketing medical insurance. Women skipping examinations because of lack of having OBGYN service is becoming more common in this big western nation. However, notice that no politician has even mentioned this sad fact of truth… no anti abortion organizations mentions that if all planned parenthood clinics were shut down there would be even fewer OBGYN services to women. So here in the 21st century women are still less important in politics than if a vehicle has green emissions….Ah, its a really depressing topic.

Wish you all the very best and a glorious 4th holiday be had by all… burn a wiener for me boys & girls and wave a flag for our heros living and lost.

By USinUK

July 2, 2008 11:31 AM | Link to this

Truth -

Re abortion polls - here’s one used by FOX: http://www.pollingreport.com/abortion.htm

and here’s one used by MSNBC: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11795147/

and, lastly, here’s an older one from CBS: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/01/22/opinion/polls/main537570.shtml

Oh sure. You can get a job in Atlanta teaching in a public school without being a member of the GAE, but let’s see how long you keep that job without becoming a member. unions use intimidation.

well, at last count, my sister was an English teacher for 22 years without joining a union. and she’s only 5’1”.

Democrats hate FOX, Limbaugh and anyone who does not support them like the major networks.

so? just cuz we hate FOX (and have been enjoying the decline in their ratings), that doesn’t mean Dems are trying to resurrect Fairness. For one thing, the FD wouldn’t apply to FOX since it’s a cable station, not network. Secondly, corporations own network news. Corporations that make major campaign donations - no one is going to risk alienating the Mouse, GE or Viacom).

Government mandated encouragement?

yes, the gov’t has all kinds of inducements for particular behaviors (like homeownership, for instance).

I am waiting for somebody, any fckin body, to do something for “The People”. Not just talk about it, not just play political games with promises they will never keep, but actually give “The People” a break.*

and how much higher would your bill have been if the gov’t was not capping prices on dairy? and how much more dangerous would that food have been if we didn’t have an FDA to inspect it, require truth in labeling and inspect the grocery store where you bought it? and how much more dangerous would your drive to the grocery be without federally mandated safety standards in your car?

I could go on, but I think you get my point.

Spotted owl that has cost the Northwest lumber people billions. The list is long.

logging is doing just fine, thank you - especially with this administration opening up the national parks to their logging friends. as for the other issues, environmental studies are conducted - people can protest until the cows come home, but if the environmental data aren’t there, it doesn’t matter. if the data ARE there, then, sorry, but yes, we are STEWARDS of this planet and should do what we can to maintain some kind of ecological balance.

By USinUK

July 2, 2008 11:40 AM | Link to this

Truth -

The far left now controls your party

you mean the “far left” that has capitulated on every. flippin’. one. of the GOP bills, including the FISA nightmare? that “far left”?

or do you mean the “far left” that actually supports abortion rights, the “far left” that believes the best way to combat abortion in the first place is by comprehensive sex ed and available access to birth control, or the “far left” that wants clean air and water, the “far left” that wants affordable medical care … or do you mean the “far left” who believes that “supporting the troops” means more than putting a $.20 cent yellow ribbon magnet on the back of your car

By Mara

July 2, 2008 11:41 AM | Link to this

You are exactly right. The far left now controls your party

well, who defines what is “far left”? And what makes them “far left” as opposed to merely “liberal”? I’d like to know. Nor would I mind finding out how far “left” these issues actually are from the mainstream.

By Truth

July 2, 2008 11:54 AM | Link to this

Lyrazel

I understand that abortions need to be legal. With our modern society, we simply can’t support the number of children that our promiscuity produces. (Notice I said “our”. With my past, I am not the one to preach about that.)

My problem is with the acceptance of abortions in our society, resulting in what I believe to be many, many more abortions that could have been prevented with real sex ed and real education about what abortion is and how it affects a hell of a lot more people than the single woman who is having the child. “My body, my choice” is not the final word. There is at least one other human being involved that should be a large part of the decision. it is literally a matter of human rights. Then there is the man that created the child. The family of the child, all issues that screaming about “Let them carry the baby for 9 months” is not going to solve.

The best way to prevent abortions is to prevent pregnancies. If telling the children in sex ed classes the truth about what abortions really do to everybody, maybe a few kids will stop and at least use a raincoat. Teaching children that unborn humans have absolutely no rights is killing millions of people. That’s right, people. Just like you and me will all the potential that we had. This nonsense of calling a unborn baby a fetus, dismissing the fact that the fetus is a human fetus is just that: nonsense.

We are not going to stop all abortions, but 850,000 a year? 33,000,000 over the life of Roe vs Wade? That’s the equivalent of 1/10th of our national population. Maybe it’s just a stupid superstition, but I believe in Karma, and we simply cannot kill that many people without some sort of consequences.

By Mara

July 2, 2008 12:35 PM | Link to this

so I did some checking, trying to find out what the “mainstream” views on some of Truth’s issues actually were. Since only three items were actual, defined issues(abortion, economy v environment, and energy policy) these were the ones I looked for. And because the Gallup polling group is generally considered fair and non-partisan, that’s where I ended up.

Truth, would it surprise you to know that according to the polls, the “far left” generally falls well withing the mainstream?

abortion - “relatively few Americans are positioned at either extreme of the spectrum of beliefs — saying abortion should be legal in either all cirumstances (26%) or illegal in all circumstances (18%). The majority falls somewhere in the middle.

Gallup’s root question measuring these abortion attitudes simply asks, “Do you think abortions should be legal under any circumstances, legal only under certain circumstances, or illegal in all circumstances?” The trend, which dates from 1975, shows a majority of Americans have consistently fallen into the middle group.” - http://www.gallup.com/poll/27628/Public-Divided-ProChoice-vs-ProLife-Abortion-Labels.aspx

environment vs. economy — Six in 10 Americans favor more conservation over more energy production. Although a recession is looming, Americans continue to favor protecting the environment even at the risk of curbing economic growth in a new Gallup Poll, conducted March 6-9-2008…Americans continue to say (by a seven percentage-point margin, 49% to 42%) protection of the environment should be given priority even at the risk of curbing economic growth. - http://www.gallup.com/poll/105715/Half-Public-Favors-Environment-Over-Growth.aspx

energy policy — This poll result suggests that President Bush’s proposals this week to end bans on drilling for oil in areas held as off-limits and for opening up leases for oil shale production in federal lands may be generally in sync with majority American public opinion.

This question about drilling in off-limits areas was asked in this fashion for the first time in mid-May and was not part of a long-standing Gallup trend. Thus, while we do not have a good indication of whether or not these particular attitudes have changed recently as a result of the rapid rise in the price of gasoline, they suggest a broad approval at this time on the part of Americans for expanding oil production in off-limits areas.

The current May poll result does, however, show a somewhat different attitude than Gallup has measured over the years in specific reference to opening up the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska for oil exploration. - http://www.gallup.com/poll/108121/Majority-Americans-Support-Drilling-OffLimits-Areas.aspx

though this last item, energy policy, indicates a growing support for drilling in some protected areas, Gallup points out that this is the first time they’ve asked the question, so one should not view it as a changing trend…especially considering the numbers in the first poll, which shows that Americans, by and large, like clean air, clean water, wildlife sanctuaries, national forests and such.

Even given the slight right-wing advantage of the energy policy poll, I don’t see how the issues as defined by you as being “far left”, could realistically be called anything except, perhaps, slightly left of center.

By RF

July 2, 2008 12:47 PM | Link to this

Truth- the catch-22 of sex ed. has been an issue for decades. You’re right- we need to tell and show kids the truth and scare the bejesus out of them about the potential consequences of not using protection. I still remember the pictures from my high school days- they made me think twice! Schools try, but parents complain that we’re overstepping our boundaries. We wouldn’t have to if parents would have the same frank information available and actually sit down and share it with their kids. Schools have also tried teaching abstinence. Yeah right, like some horny teenage boy is going to listen to someone saying, “now don’t do that until you’re married!”

This is one of the tug-of-war issues between conservatives and liberals. The far right simply doesn’t see the need for honest sex ed. in schools for fear of encouraging sex, but also doesn’t want to fully teach the children at home. As a moderate, I’m encouraging my boys to wait and giving them as much info. as possible as to why. I’m also making sure there are condoms available should I suspect they’re about to cross that line. It’s not that hard to do, but parents have to either teach the kids or stop complaining and let the schools give them all the facts.

By GOB

July 2, 2008 12:50 PM | Link to this

Oh sure. You can get a job in Atlanta teaching in a public school without being a member of the GAE, but let’s see how long you keep that job without becoming a member. unions use intimidation.

Completly not true. When I started teaching, I had to go to a county-wide orientation at which different booths were set up. There was a GAE booth, but it was one of about 10 different things (credit unions, insurance, etc). The nice ladies working the booth even gave me a free pen and notebook. That was how intimidating they were. In the several years since then, the most “pressure” or intimidation that I have encountered is receiving an email or two each school year from our local school rep (a teacher at the school) letting us know about pending legislation, along with GAE or PAGE’s views.

Somehow I have been able to hold fast against the seemingly insurmountable pressure and still get a new contract every year. I just have to tell myself “be strong, I wont let the union intimidate me today” everyday in the mirror before I leave for work…

By Truth

July 2, 2008 12:52 PM | Link to this

USinUK

you mean the “far left” that has capitulated on every. flippin’. one. of the GOP bills, including the FISA nightmare? that “far left”?

No I mean the far left that voted for FISA and the Iraq war until the going got rough and they saw a huge political advantage by taking the bold stance that war and gathering intelligence is bad.

or do you mean the “far left” that actually supports abortion rights, Liberal stances have encouraged abortion by claiming that only the pregnant woman had rights.

the “far left” that believes the best way to combat abortion in the first place is by comprehensive sex ed and available access to birth control,

Comprehensive sex education would be the key, if that were possible. How about if an abortion or two is shown to the students? How about if we interview some women and see the mental trauma that abortions cause the woman that has just gone against every instinct a mother has and has killed her own child. Too much comprehensiveness for you? We need to reduce the number of abortions. Sex ed has helped. Now if they start telling the truth about abortions, that would help, also, but it would hurt the multi-billion dollar abortion industry that pours millions into the pockets of the DNC.

*or the “far left” that wants clean air and water, *

I will admit that it is a horrible thing to belong to a party that desperately wants to be breathing dirty air and drinking dirty water. We talk about it a lot, you know: how good dirty air smells and how delicious dirty water tastes. When the kids were small, we would always look for the dirtiest places to have picnics. We do love that pollution. We really do.

*the “far left” that wants affordable medical care … *

I have a medical savings plan. I pay for catastrophic coverage which is pretty cheap for an old fart like me, but I have never (knock on wood) had any health issues. So I use the money from the savings to go to checkups and even dental. I could use smaller payments, but the alternative of just buying comprehensive coverage, like most people have would cost so much that i couldn’t afford it. That’s a program enacted by Republicans. Democrats said they were going to help, so they gave all the medical decisions over to the insurance companies. Those are the same insurance companies that are their number one lobby money source. Who would have thunk it? Republicans helped me. Democrats hurt me.

Before 1994, I had never had anything on PBS because it was a liberal, snobbish, educational grant wasteland that was bleeding money. The Republicans ordered the restructure of the publically funded network and to date, i have aired 14 series, thats 182 television shows on a system which offers alternative free programming to PBS stations all around the country that still exist because the Republicans fixed the system. Republicans helped me … TREMENDOUSLY. Democrats hurt me.

or do you mean the “far left” who believes that “supporting the troops” means more than putting a $.20 cent yellow ribbon magnet on the back of your car

it’s very convenient to believe that people who put ribbons on their car only do that. I didn’t realize it, but the Atlanta Airport has become known for applauding returning soldiers. I shot a story for a network from your neck of the woods on it. Soldiers said that they loved to see the support. They honestly expect to see protesters when they get home,(Conservative protester? Probably not) but instead they see applause and they commented on the ribbons on cars. It’s too bad you have so much resentment for those ribbons.

Conservatives support the troops in so many other ways than the ribbons. This morning on FOX, some pizza guy had arranged to send thousands of his pizzas to Iraq so the folks could celebrate the 4th with pizza. DHL was delivering them for free. Not exactly what you would see promoted on MoveON.org. Pizza is minor. But there are thousands of opportunities to support the troops and many of them are promoted on conservative web sites and on FOX. Democrats can buy yard signs that say Support the Troops, bring them home. There is always that. I see a lot of very angry Democrats that claim that they resent having to support the mission in order to support the troops. Without the mission, they have no job. Without the job, there is no military and without the military, they are just young people, looking for a job.

So … democrats support young people.

Hell of a bold stance.

Don’t want to get contentious here but I am not feelin’ the love. I need to work. You guys have a good afternoon.

By RF

July 2, 2008 12:56 PM | Link to this

Oh sure. You can get a job in Atlanta teaching in a public school without being a member of the GAE, but let’s see how long you keep that job without becoming a member. unions use intimidation

Actually, that’s not true. I taught fifteen years before I joined any professional organization. They approach you, but you aren’t pressured or threatened to join. They can’t force or intimadate you to join or get you fired if you don’t. GAE, et.al are not unions and do not have any control over contracts, strikes, etc. They are lobbying organizations whose activities are limited to that realm. I have never been a member of GAE and I’ve taught twenty years. I don’t join because the dues are too high for what services they provide teachers. GAE also has limited influence because of competing organizations- PAGE (Prof. Assoc. of GA Educators)being one of the biggest. There are also lobbyists from the national organizations (there’s one for every subject area out there) who dabble in lobbying at state levels when there’s an important issue. I have seen in recent years where the legislature voted against the ideas of GAE and PAGE even when there was heavy lobbying. They’re not as powerful as people like to think and they’re not the Teamsters.

By Archie

July 2, 2008 12:59 PM | Link to this

Good post at 12:35 pm Mara because although I accept the liberal label I don’t lean that way on every issue. When it comes to gay marriage I am far left but when it comes to abortion,environment,energy policy I am just slight left of center. Now when it comes to shacking up I am conservative because I don’t think folk ought to do it. I do believe the market system can work out a lot of issues but not all issues. Also gasoline is not,is not the only thing that’s overpriced in this country.

By Mara

July 2, 2008 1:20 PM | Link to this

How about if we interview some women and see the mental trauma that abortions cause the woman that has just gone against every instinct a mother has and has killed her own child.

only if we balance it out with other women who’ve had abortions and are neither traumatized nor particularly haunted by their decision.

By Truth

July 2, 2008 1:29 PM | Link to this

Teachers

I will admit that the GAE isn’t exactly the teamsters, but this is a free work state. The NEA is one of the most powerful unions in the country.

Mara, thanks for taking the time at 12:35 I usually read this stuff over morning coffee and I have to work for the rest of the day. I’ll address your points in the morning.

RF Good to hear from you. Abstinence for teenagers? Acne does a better job of encouraging abstinence than any program I have ever seen. I lost my virginity after Wednesday night prayer meeting. Abortions need to be feared as much as pregnancies, not as an easy way out of pregnancies. THEY SCREW PEOPLE UP. Trust me. I know.

USinUK

Buenos Aires. Via con enchilada.

By RF

July 2, 2008 1:44 PM | Link to this

Acne does a better job of encouraging abstinence than any program I have ever seen ROFL!

I found that being an officer of the Nerd Herd also significantly reduced opportunities as well! My best friend used to tell me that the local baptist church back parking lot was one of the more popular makeout spots back in the day but my buddies and I were far too nervous to ever find out.

Yes abortions can be an emotional turmoil. As a teacher, I’ve witnessed that also. That’s an issue I’m torn on for many reasons, but I don’t feel it needs to be a legal issue. Moral issues like that just can’t be legislated fairly.

Actually, the NEA is a powerful lobby also. They don’t have power to negotiate contracts or order strikes. Some states have unions, but there aren’t many, and most of those are in the north. The NEA is the largest educational lobby with lots of influence in DC, but it’s not a union.

By GOB

July 2, 2008 1:49 PM | Link to this

Truth - NEA being a powerful national lobby hasnt done a whole lot for any teacher at the local level, particularly in GA. Look at what they propose, and then look at reality. They oppose NCLB, but it has taken years for any substantive changes (states setting their own rules, etc, and we have no idea if that will work), they push for higher education budgets, but states continue to reduce school funding (GA included).

Not exactly beating the doors down getting things done with all their intimidation tactics.

By Lyrazel

July 2, 2008 1:55 PM | Link to this

Truth,

We are not going to stop all abortions, but 850,000 a year? 33,000,000 over the life of Roe vs Wade? That’s the equivalent of 1/10th of our national population. Remember the statistics you quote me includes miscarriages that are clinically cataloged as abortions, premies, stillbirths, false pregnancies. Please, also they include as abortions legitimate WANTED pregnancies where by fault of god the baby/fetus died or was not brought to term. So, do you really support legislation that would put all those women, all those OBGYNs in jail?

How can we teach sex education to children when we cannot address the problem as adults? Sure, scare tactics terrifies 8 year olds, but what about a 26 year old man? Little late for high school scared straight programs…Should men who were fathers be jailed if the woman has an abortion? Fair is fair, takes two.

By Mara

July 2, 2008 2:02 PM | Link to this

Archie - as I’ve said before, most people have a mix of liberal-moderate-conservative opinions. I self-identify as a liberal because I lean left on most social issues, which seems to be the prism through which political ideology is judged. Meanwhile, my conservative views on immigration, fiscal responsibility, balanced budgets and the Fair Tax go unacknowleged.

fun w/babelfish ~~ Me temo gatos con parches en los ojos ~~ (arrrghhhh…) LOL!!

By GOB

July 2, 2008 2:09 PM | Link to this

There is a very interesting look at the outcome of Roe vs Wade in Freakonomics. The idea isnt exactly universally accepted, but the numbers dont lie. The premise is that Roe vs Wade predated a dramatic drop in the crime rate across the country by about 15 years because there were large numbers of women who aborted their pregnancies that in the past would have brought a child into an unsafe home, or into an area that would have led to a likely life of poverty and crime.

Anyway, the book is certainly worth a read. And since education has been brought up today, it also talkes about test score based teacher pay and what can happen as a result (it wasnt pretty).

By RF

July 2, 2008 2:15 PM | Link to this

which seems to be the prism through which political ideology is judged

Excellent point! That has, over the last few decades, become the standard for determining political affiliation. I wonder why it seems more of an issue for the right, though. My more liberal friends fully accept my choice to be a moderate and not choose total party affilitation one way or the other. My conservative friends just get all up in arms when I lean left. I don’t completely get the reason why that’s such a bad thing to them.

By Answer

July 2, 2008 2:40 PM | Link to this

My conservative friends just get all up in arms when I lean left. I don’t completely get the reason why that’s such a bad thing to them.

Because they know Their Kind are going the way of the Neanderthals/Dinosaurs as the country and world progresses forward. You know, Death Throes and all that.

By Gandalf, the Grey

July 2, 2008 2:44 PM | Link to this

So Kimberly sleeps with a guy because he has a hot German car, then wants to see that b@stards taxes go up because it get poor mileage. She loves her cars and speed, but doesn’t want her kids to have the same privledge because the polar bears and Caribou wouldn’t like it. She thinks taxes are good, she controls her body and thinks murder is choice, hot date for some one. Please pray for him folks.

By Archie

July 2, 2008 2:46 PM | Link to this

My conservative friends just get all up in arms when I lean left. I don’t completely get the reason why that’s such a bad thing to them.

Because they are nuts!!! I obviously don’t know them so I am joking around but I have worked around people that are real riled up about their conservative views. I would be thrown out of the church if I gave my view of certain things but if I am asked I will give my view straight out with no chaser.

By Truth

July 2, 2008 2:53 PM | Link to this

Teachers

The problem with education is the funding. Poor people go to crappy schools which produce more poor people to go to the same crappy schools that their parents attended.

Fix the schools by investing money that is now used for so much pork. If we changed the way schools are funded, all schools would be equal and that is the ultimate equality. That is truly giving everyone the same chance. It erases the lingering effects of slavery and generations of poverty. I am tired of hearing stories about people who have struggled and made something of themselves even they were raised in Appalachia or in the ghetto. Why should different parts of the country have drastically different educational systems? Stop moving kids around and fix the schools.

Our educational funding system designates the caste system in this country. You can make it out of your parent’s caste, but no one is about to give everyone the chance. “We will highlight really strong students who have made it past our road blocks” as a sign of victory has always struck me as being really crazy.

Does anyone really wonder why the vast majority of really bad schools are in the poorest areas? You all may have noticed that neither party is really talking too much about our educational system. You probably get it, but we don’t.

Back to work.

By Mara

July 2, 2008 3:16 PM | Link to this

RF - My conservative friends just get all up in arms when I lean left. I don’t completely get the reason why that’s such a bad thing to them.

to a “conservative” there has never been, nor will ever be, any issue where the liberal view has any merit at all. In my opinion.

By The Smirking Chimp

July 2, 2008 3:20 PM | Link to this

Conservative republicans suffer from a form of mental illness. Americans have watched them embrace family values and discover ethics, while stealing an election and contriving circumstances for starting wars. They have worked tirelessly to undermine the American Constitution while frantically waving the flag. They firmly believe in the privatization of government and consistently ignore the inconvenient history of the American taxpayer bailout of one failed/scandalized corporation after the next.

Republican mental illness manifests itself in the duality that conservatives want to turn the clock back to mom, apple pie, and that good, ol’ time religion, while unmercifully exploiting every natural
resource until the ravaged earth will no longer support life. Turning yet another profit takes precedence over their own survival.

By Jack

July 2, 2008 3:50 PM | Link to this

Chimp. I agree with your post about Republicans as the current administration is not composed of conservatives, just Republicans. Spend, spend, spend. Borrow. Spend more. Geez.

By USinUK

July 3, 2008 8:52 AM | Link to this

RF -

This is one of the tug-of-war issues between conservatives and liberals. The far right simply doesn’t see the need for honest sex ed. in schools for fear of encouraging sex, but also doesn’t want to fully teach the children at home. As a moderate, I’m encouraging my boys to wait and giving them as much info. as possible as to why. I’m also making sure there are condoms available should I suspect they’re about to cross that line. It’s not that hard to do, but parents have to either teach the kids or stop complaining and let the schools give them all the facts.

RF, you are my HERO!!!

and, Truth, while I know your heart is in the right place, kids need HONESTY about sex, not scare tactics. Criminey, we want kids to have someone they can go to if they have questions - they won’t go to anyone who tells them that if they have sex, their hoo-ha will explode. and, again, I know that you have issues about abortion, but no one I know who has ever had an abortion has ever had a second thought about it much less felt suicidal or depressed about it.

and that includes me. I’ve never been suidical. I’ve never cried about it. I’ve never “wished I had it to do all over again” - EVER. It was the right thing for me 20 years ago - and it’s the right thing for me today.

Which is why the shock / horror tactics that the right is trying to use on women offends me so much (you’ll want to string yourself up!!! you’ll hate yourself for the rest of your life!!! you’ll look back and regret!!!).

By USinUK

July 3, 2008 8:56 AM | Link to this

BTW … here’s a funny article about sex ed (Brit stylie)

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/article4226522.ece

First, sex is, essentially, quite funny, and if you can’t get a few laughs out of explaining it to a five-year-old, you’re missing out on one of the big perks of parenthood. Especially if you razz it up a bit. Who knows at what point my seven-year-old will realise that women’s ovaries do not, in fact, make a “hatching” sound when they ovulate. Or that the umbilical cord isn’t a kind of “skin seatbelt” to stop the baby “falling out”.

very funny (you can skip over the bits about the Eurovision Song Contest and Ian Beale)

By Zoo Keeper

July 4, 2008 8:41 AM | Link to this

The Smirking Chimp

It’s good that you understand that chimps love to throw feces. Stole an election? LOL!! Poor baby. I bet $1,000 that you don’t know what the SCOTUS ruling was that kept the Democrats from changing the Florida laws that would have given Gore the election. I loved the factv that Democrats whined about stolen elections by Diebold right up until they won the 06 Congressional race. Smirking indeed.

contriving circumstances for starting wars

On this one, you are insulting monkeys. Not even the most ignorant primate could believe that Bush contrived the same reasons that democrats had listed for 8 years. See if you can get your monkey fingers to click on this clip of democrats talking about WMD since 1998.

http://www.bercasio.com/movies/dems-wmd-before-iraq.wmv

Happy fourth, Monkey. Don’t get too p** off about all the people celebrating America. We all know what monkees do when they get mad.

By Truth

July 4, 2008 9:42 AM | Link to this

Happy Fourth all.

By USinUK

July 4, 2008 10:42 AM | Link to this

Happy 4th, Truth!!

pasta del fuego and buenos nachos!!! :-)