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