Home > Thinking Right > Archives > 2008 > May > 02 > Entry
DEL.ICIO.USGasoline prices; Clayton school board
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
Thinking Right’s weekend free-for-all. Pick a topic:
Barack Obama blames high gasoline prices on a political establishment that hasn’t faced down the oil companies. “The candidates with the Washington experience —- my opponents —- are good people. They mean well, but they’ve been in Washington for a long time, and even with all that experience they talk about, nothing has happened.” Change. For the record, according to the Department of Energy: Crude’s about half the pump price of a gallon a gas, refining accounts for 28 percent; taxes, 14 percent; and distribution and marking, 8 percent. Wonder where Obama is on drilling in ANWAR? Nevermind. It’s the oil companies’ fault.
A Florida lottery winner —- $13 million in 1990 —- dies nearly broke at age 60. Gambling, gifts and luxuries. Hand out a million dollars on the to passers-by on the street corner and at least some of the recipients would be panhandling a month later.
When a story starts like this, “The U.S. has less than 5 percent of the world’s population but almost 25 percent of the world’s prisoners,” as the one from the New York Times did, you know disapproval follows. “Criminologists and legal scholars in other industrialized nations” are said to be “mystified and appalled.” Much that dismays liberals here —- whether in our legal system, environmental practices or national security policies —- mystify and appall select portions of “industrialized nations.”
Democratic strategists say they have identified 30 to 35 Georgia House districts that “are either competitive or may become competitive.” Yes. The latter. But probably not in their lifetimes. Barring a last-minute surge in top-quality candidates qualifying in the right districts, Democrats will gain no more than five seats in the House (giving Republicans a 102-78 majority) while the Senate remains static (34 Republicans, 22 Democrats).
People who run for public office for the pay are not the ones you want there. A salary of $17,000, plus $173 per day for food and lodging, and two-year terms is about right for the General Assembly. Higher salaries don’t necessarily attract higher-quality people. After all, dumbos and dullards are drawn to higher salaries, too.
Clayton County is a reminder. “Local control” means parents empowered to do what they think is best for their child, not the administration or the school board, which is in this case dysfunctional. Imagine agreeing to give a new superintendent in an imploding system 107 days off. Gimme my child back.
Have a chicken for lunch Sunday. It’s International Respect for Chickens Day, a day that “celebrates the dignity, beauty and life of chickens and protests the bleakness of their lives in farming operations.”
Congressional Democrats accuse the Bush administration of changing Environmental Protection Agency reviews of chemicals in a way that opens the process to “politicization.” Specifically, they object to a proposal to allow other agencies to submit comments and requests for further research. We’ve been trained to believe that bureaucrats are pure and political appointees are corrupting. The reality is, however, that it ain’t that simple. Advocacy groups know the best way to get the decision you want is find like-minded zealots in the bureaucracy.
Case in point: Hans von Spakovsky, as a top official in the U.S. Justice Department’s civil rights division, was accused of overruling career bureaucrats in clearing voter ID legislation passed by the Georgia General Assembly in 2005. If so, he was right. They were wrong, and as I discovered during the brouhaha over redistricting (when Cynthia Mckinney carved herself a congressional district, with the aid of civil rights division lawyers), Justice Department bureaucrats can have agendas, too. (The Senate should now affirm von Spakovsky’s wrongly blocked nomination to the Federal Elections Commission.)
*Gasoline prices; Clayton school board Two bowls are added to college football’s post-season, bringing the number to 34: The Congressional Bowl and the St. Petersburg Bowl. Pretty soon it’ll be like the NBA. Everybody goes bowling. Give us playoffs.
Permalink | Comments (154) | Post your comment | Categories: Column
Services »
Comments
By Charles
May 2, 2008 8:06 AM | Link to this
Sure Obama, it’s the oil companies fault that:
they’ve not built an oil refinery in the U.S. in over 30 years (just a minor detail that they’ve not had permission by the government to do so). It couldn’t possibly be a supply/demand factor because of a limited number of refineries could it?
they’ve not drilled in ANWAR or other domestic areas of known resources (no - it can’t be because they’ve not had permission by the government to do so).
their profit margins are less than 7% on average (a rate most companies would not be able to survive on).
taxes on oil products are so high (they must beg the government to take more of your money that’s already been taxed).
Sure Obama, you couldn’t possibly be making these statements for political expediency - could you??!!!
By JRB
May 2, 2008 8:17 AM | Link to this
Something to think about, and if I am wrong please let me know why. Many people including Bush blame a lot of the high cost of gas on the lack of refining capabilities. However, according to NYT there are about 50 different variations of gas for automobiles being produced in the US. This is because every state, county, and city can regulate gas as they see fit.
If instead the US went to a national standard it could be better for the environment than the gas used in California and still be way cheaper that it is now. The oil companies would no be able to create shortages on different areas in order to max price and profit.
If their is a flaw to my thinking please enlighten me.
By jbmlaw
May 2, 2008 8:20 AM | Link to this
Good morning all. Small minds blame companies for the crimes of the government. It is rare to find a democrat who has any workable idea how to increase supply, or a method of reducing demand (other than a manufactured price problem caused by government-imposed inefficiency.)
Beware of any who magnifies his opinion based on his status as a “legal scholar.” A legal scholar is someone who finished law school but did not pass the bar.
“Local control,” in the government context, is a deceptive and/or meaningless term, in a class with “fair trade” or “ethical behavior.” Of course it could be worse: “I’m from Washington and I am here to help.”
I flirt with vegetarianism from time to time, and the Ensign has been a vegetarian for five years, so I am reluctant to mock the chicken-activists.
Thank goodness someone is politicizing the EPA – at least then we will have the chance to vote the idiots out of office (from whichever side you view the issue.) I, of course, would vote to remove those who constrain freedom. In a rational world, bureaucrats do nothing more than enforce laws; they should not interpret laws, other than narrowly, and they should never write regulations.
To Mr. Spakovsky’s eternal credit, he was the one who lobbied for removal of the US Attorneys who refused to investigate reasonably-suspected voting fraud. While the Bush administration took a lot of criticism from leftists for firing those US Attorneys, someone needs to set policy, and policy ought never be set by the unelected.
By RIP US Soldier
May 2, 2008 8:21 AM | Link to this
The murderous rampage by our President continues.
47 DEAD US TROOPS IN IRAQ IN APRIL
47 dead US troops in Iraq in April
47 DEAD US TROOPS IN IRAQ IN APRIL
47 dead US troops in Iraq in April
47 DEAD US TROOPS IN IRAQ IN APRIL
47 dead US troops in Iraq in April
47 DEAD US TROOPS IN IRAQ IN APRIL
47 dead US troops in Iraq in April
By phil
May 2, 2008 8:21 AM | Link to this
yawn.
By Bill
May 2, 2008 8:21 AM | Link to this
Hold on a minute Charles,
Taxes on oil products are high? Our taxes on oil products are among the lowest in the world (excluding the major oil producing nations). What’s more, one problem with our energy policy is that gas prices are too low. Low prices encourage more consumption, just making the problem worse. European countries tax gas at a much higher rate; think $8 a gallon at the pump. The result: over the last 30 years, consumption in Britain has been flat, and in France, it has declined 17% in spite of increasing population.
Higher gas prices encourage the development and use of alternatives as well as conservation. This is not only sound energy policy, it is sound environmental, economic, and especially national security policy.
By jbmlaw
May 2, 2008 8:26 AM | Link to this
Dear JRB @ 8:17, I respectfully believe there is a flaw in your thinking, but only because it is worse than your note suggests. The unelected bureaucrats of the EPA are the ones who dictate production of 50+ different blends of gasoline, by region. If we had a competent Congress, there would be no regulation of gasoline formulae at all.
By Copyleft
May 2, 2008 8:28 AM | Link to this
Charles and Wooten: Sorry, but Obama’s right. The reason the right-wing media is raving about “environmental terrorists” is because they’re TERRIFIED someone will bring up fuel-efficiency standards.
CAFE standards have been raised dozens of times in the legislature… and every time, it’s been Big Oil and Big Auto concerns who’ve shot it down, because—as it turns out—reducing our dependence on foreign oil isn’t that big a deal after all. Hey, it’s only national security! What does that matter when profits are at stake?
So yes, Obama’s right: the oil industry and its lobbyist-owned, largely Republican congressmen, ARE to blame for our situation. But rather than admit they’ve been pushing a doomed, shortsighted energy policy for decades, they prefer to shift the blame to the environment.
Nice try. America’s not that dumb.
By Mid-South Philosopher
May 2, 2008 8:31 AM | Link to this
Good morning, Jim
While the oil companies are not totally to blame for the massive increase in gasoline and fuel oil prices, they bear their share of the responsibility. Despite the fact that they have been hampered in their efforts to drill in ANWAR, off the coast of Florida in every direction, and not been able to erect modern refineries, they have still been successful in earning a whole Sipot full of “profits.”
I have an idea. Why don’t we develop a program for the oil companies like we have for schools? We could call it No Gallon Left Behind
Let’s remove all restrictions from the oil companies and the auto producers. However:
By 2020, the United States MUST be in a position to import NO oil or oil products from any foreign nation.
By 2020, the average mile per gallon for automobiles MUST be 80.
By 2020, all facilities, fields, refineries MUST meet EPA and environmental standards.
It is simple.
Oh, by the way oil companies…no excuses…no complaints!
If you have a problem, Rod Paige and Margaret Spellings will show you how it is done.
On another matter, the only thing I agree with Barack Obama is that there are too dan many life-termers in the Congress. Teddy Kennedy and Robert Byrd have been *staggering around the Senate since I was a teenager, and I am almost ready for Social Security! Is there any truth to the rumor that these two distinguished Democrats are trying to arrange hospice care on the Senate floor?!?
On the matter of Clayton County Schools…a great example of idiocy of local control.
Education is a state responsibility. It is time for Kathy Cox and Silly Sonny to face up to this. Local school boards are anachronisms that serve only to feed the egos of little barons and baronesses. It is time to end them, unify state school systems, and move to a truly effective system of funding and managing the business of teaching and leaning.
Of course all of my suggestions will come to pass shortly after Jim Wooten is choesn as Secretary of the Treasury in the forthcoming Obama Administration!
By jbmlaw
May 2, 2008 8:31 AM | Link to this
Dear Bill @ 8:21, hold on a minute, Bill, why is there a tax at all? Taxes do not cause sound energy policy, sound environment policy, sound economic policy, or sound energy policy. Taxes merely transfer your wealth to thieves who spend according to their wishes. Wise up, there.
By bob
May 2, 2008 8:31 AM | Link to this
JRB, the flaw in your thinking is that India and China are buying so much more oil that demand dictates price. The Saudis have a long line of customers and don’t have to worry about not having buyers. Also, we need our own supply for cheaper crude and national security. As long as the price of crude goes up the refined crude will increase even if we went to one mixture and that mixture was the cheapest mixture.
By hillbilly ragger
May 2, 2008 8:32 AM | Link to this
Jim and Charles, your comments on the viability of the oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (doesn’t the AJC have a styleguide, BTW? Don’t you have to spell out stuff like that on the first reference, or doesn’t that apply to wingnuts?) are, um, how to put this nicely? painfully naive. At best.
I might add that Obama actually has a [comprehensive energy policy plan] (http://www.barackobama.com/issues/energy/) available from his website.
McCain doesn’t. He doesn’t even mention the word “Energy” on his Issues page.
By Copyleft
May 2, 2008 8:35 AM | Link to this
And it’s good to see that Wooten has no shame about what SHOULD be a national embarrassment—our record incarceration rate, largely for nonviolent and consensual “offenses.”
You should count yourselves lucky that American liberals are ONLY “dismayed,” rather than in open revolt as we should be. We’re falling behind in the race to civilization, and Wooten’s crowd seem perversely proud of the fact.
More proof that neocon-fascists can’t be trusted with anything more dangerous than string.
By Glenn
May 2, 2008 8:35 AM | Link to this
Good morning. The chicken thing is huge. Thank you, Mr. Wooten, for binging it to my attention. Absent the aid of informed persons such as you, it can be all-nigh impossible for persons such as me to keep abreast of the politics of victimage.
P.S. We ought to be paying the senators and representatives a great deal more in base salaries.
By Jim's a Cherry Picker
May 2, 2008 8:36 AM | Link to this
Hi Jim,
Great Cherry Picking today!
Oh, how I’d love to see the GOP apolgists get to cover the state of our union if a Dem President (and congress) had been in charge for the last seven years.
The scandals! The weakening economy! The high cost of energy! The rising cost of food! The increase in unemployment! The unjustified war and loss of life! The rising deficit and unbalanced budgets! The earmarks! FEMA! The growing wage gap (oh, wait…that’s fine)!
Keep on spinning Jim! Things are great!
By Jim's a Cherry Picker
May 2, 2008 8:47 AM | Link to this
Oh, dang Jim! I forgot about the big government. The HUGE government! Ginormous!
I got my bribe from GW last night. $1200!
What a nanny state!
Just giving the people money!
By For The Record
May 2, 2008 8:51 AM | Link to this
Yum. There’s nothing like the smell of freshly burnt leaded gasoline during a congested commute. Can’t you just smell it jbmlaw. What will you think of next? Perhaps you are just a by-product of excessive mercury inhalation from those coal-fired power plants. Worthless regulations. Who needs them. Certainly not jbmlaw. One of our state elected officials paid a visit to a site that “recycles” human and grease trap waste due to complaints that he received from some of his “constituents” (in an election year). His response after the visit was “I didn’t smell anything”. Brilliant, this Republican elected official. Absolutely friggin brilliant. I wonder if he know that carbon monoxide is colorless and odorless. The natural gas piped to people’s houses has an odorant added to it so people like our elected official can smell it when it leaks. What next? If there’s an outbreak of a deadly virus, who will be first to proclaim “I didn’t see a thing”. I’m sure no one will smell it coming. They’ll probably be too busy enjoying the feeling of that warm yellow rain.
By AmVet
May 2, 2008 8:55 AM | Link to this
Item 1 - Is Mr. Wooten actually saying that the cost of doing business by Big Oil - refining and marketing and distribution - is unacceptable?
What is Jim saying? Other than drilling in Alaska will solve all of our energy woes. Someday.
Item 2 - who cares? Perhaps readers of the National Enquirer?
Item 3 - NOW we’re getting to the meat and potatoes (Damn that Dan Quayle - I never even thought about the spelling of that word until he came along!) But is this paragraph some sort of explanation or apology? From what I gather it is more ongoing sophistry under the heading of “All things Liberal are Bad, Very bad “.
Item 4 - As we are firmly entrenched in the Moron Belt, the GOP’s “Southern Strategy” is going nowhere soon. Though the rest of the nation is more than ready to throw the phony, inept conservatives out on their collective ears.
Items 5, 6, 7 & 8 - See item 2.
All in all, another predictable Friday fish and chips effort…
By CopyRight
May 2, 2008 8:58 AM | Link to this
We should not be incarcerating non violent drug offenders; this is a total waste of resources. CopyLeft, are you threatening people by claiming “We are lucky liberals are only dismayed” I bet you and Mr. Ayres are good buddies. More proof of the loony tune left…
By Scholar
May 2, 2008 9:00 AM | Link to this
To Copyleft @ 8:28 “Nice try. America’s not that dumb.”
SUV’s are still for sale. Look at the gridlock at rush hour and imagine all of the dollar signs in the exhaust of the cars with the CO2. America is that dumb.
By RIP US Soldier
May 2, 2008 9:05 AM | Link to this
The murderous rampage by our President continues.
47 DEAD US TROOPS IN IRAQ IN APRIL
47 dead US troops in Iraq in April
47 DEAD US TROOPS IN IRAQ IN APRIL
47 dead US troops in Iraq in April
47 DEAD US TROOPS IN IRAQ IN APRIL
47 dead US troops in Iraq in April
47 DEAD US TROOPS IN IRAQ IN APRIL
47 dead US troops in Iraq in April
47 DEAD US TROOPS IN IRAQ IN APRIL
47 dead US troops in Iraq in April
By @@
May 2, 2008 9:08 AM | Link to this
You’ve made my post easy Jim.
With all the topics in tow today, your headline reads Gasoline Prices; Clayton School Board.
Summing it up:
The price of GAS in Clayton County is the loss of accreditation. It’s inevitable! With the summer months upon us, there will not be adequate time to address the problems in any meaningful way.
The Ways and Means of government.
Hold out to the very last minute, and then ask the public to consume the government’s incompetence.
By Glenn
May 2, 2008 9:09 AM | Link to this
Aw gee, Jim, didja hafta go and pick news items that exclude the favorite sermons of the little Green Progs who hang onto your lily pad? Couldn’t you have offered them something in the way of Bush the Mass Murderer? Or Bush the Maker of the Mother of All Depressions? Or Bush the Candidate They’re Going To Beat in Novemeber?
You know: the real news?
By Copyleft
May 2, 2008 9:10 AM | Link to this
CR: Yes, I am making threats. If liberals embraced conservative tactics, Bush and all his supporters would be in Guanatanamo by now.
Good thing for the fascists that liberals are more reasonable than that. (And better looking, too!)
By Anyone But Hillary
May 2, 2008 9:12 AM | Link to this
Hey, RIP -
NO TERRORIST ATTACKS ON US SOIL SINCE 2001
NO TERRORIST ATTACKS ON US SOIL SINCE 2001
NO TERRORIST ATTACKS ON US SOIL SINCE 2001
NO TERRORIST ATTACKS ON US SOIL SINCE 2001
NO TERRORIST ATTACKS ON US SOIL SINCE 2001
NO TERRORIST ATTACKS ON US SOIL SINCE 2001
NO TERRORIST ATTACKS ON US SOIL SINCE 2001
NO TERRORIST ATTACKS ON US SOIL SINCE 2001
NO TERRORIST ATTACKS ON US SOIL SINCE 2001
By GW
May 2, 2008 9:15 AM | Link to this
My fellow Americans,
Things are not bad. In fact, thanks to my tax cuts and tax rebate, things just can’t get any better. Enjoy these good times while you can for once the Democrats have their way with you, you’ll start to see just how bad things can be. So, join with me and let’s keep things better for the deserving few of us — I think it’s 29% today — by chanting to the Paul Revere tune, “The Redcoats are Coming”, the following:
“The Taxcuts are Working, The Taxcuts are Working.”
Write your elected officials and tell them to make those cuts permanent so we can avoid any more slow down in our great economy.
By Glenn
May 2, 2008 9:18 AM | Link to this
You gotta bend over awfully far to try to shimmy liberals in sideways as anything like the opposite of fascists, Copyleft.
But then I forget that you already bend over awfully far…
By Truthifier
May 2, 2008 9:19 AM | Link to this
JRB, while the variation in the types of gas being refined and marketed is in some cases reflective of some states’ having more stringent environmental laws (California in particular), I think that the variations (not sure if there are fifty of them) are also dependent factors such as the climate of the state (i.e. burning different types of fuel in different seasons because of temperature affecting the viscosity of the fuel, etc.). If I’m wrong, I’m sure someone here will quickly let us know.
By CopyRight
May 2, 2008 9:25 AM | Link to this
I am so proud of our “Change” in congress, we voted for change in 2006 and we got it. All of it for the worse, can we have a do-over?
By GW
May 2, 2008 9:25 AM | Link to this
Quit whining about Iraq people. Three thousand killed here or four thousand killed there. Those four thousand volunteered. So just stop your whining and be grateful for volunteers — no matter what the cost. Now do your duty and tell your elected officials to make those tax cuts permanent. Our brave American citizens do not deserve the burden of taxes. Let’s get rid of them now.
By Glenn
May 2, 2008 9:26 AM | Link to this
Au contraire, @@:
Not so, that “with the summer months upon us, there will not be adequate time to address the problems in any meaningful way.”
You could do it in four months, easy. You know it, PoFo knows it, and the very American Bob Dole knows it.
By jbmlaw
May 2, 2008 9:27 AM | Link to this
Dear Cherry Picker @ 8:36, I have to admit that you warned me in 2006. If I voted Republican we would see “The scandals! The weakening economy! The high cost of energy! The rising cost of food! The increase in unemployment! The unjustified war and loss of life! The rising deficit and unbalanced budgets! The earmarks! FEMA! The growing wage gap (oh, wait…that’s fine)!” Well, I ignored you, voted Republican, and you are right.
(1) We see a weakening economy, probably in substantial part due to the looming largest tax increase in the history of the world.
(2) The high cost of energy (like the increase in all other commodities) is primarily attributable to the Fed’s infatuation with the Phillips Curve, which most people finally recognized as a farce in 1978; however Congress has done its part via prohibitions against drilling in the ANWR desert and offshore of Florida and environmental restrictions that discourage increasing refinery capacity.
(3) The rising cost of food is almost certainly a function of the idiots in Congress mandating ethanol in gasoline, and that the production of ethanol from food products is subsidized by the taxpayer, thus shifting food-stuffs into vehicles. How many barrels of oil does it take to produce an equivalent amount of burnable ethanol? (Much like the old lightbulb jokes.)
(4) Increasing unemployment surely cannot be attributed to the increase in minimum wage? Even though every rational economist forecast it, we cannot lay that blame at the feet of Congress, can we?
(5) Rising deficit and unbalanced budgets? Is that a function of too much spending? Where do spending bills originate? Who is in control of the body?
(6) Earmarks and FEMA – intellectual honesty forbids that I blame that on democrats alone. When you say FEMA, I assume you are not trying to distract from the horrific performance at local and state levels, which should be the primary responders for any disaster (a la 9/11.
(7) Growing wage gap? I thought you were a fan of Hollywood and professional sports and investment bankers, and I cannot believe you want to focus attention on those unmerited salaries, for people who produce nothing tangible.
Dear For the Record @ 8:51, certainly I understand your perspective, that the environment’s needs are too important to be left to people who are answerable to the voters. That has long been the philosophical justification for the governing style of national socialists, but we are grateful that you are willing to lead us to a final solution.
By Glenn
May 2, 2008 9:33 AM | Link to this
This George Washington is great, eh? We ought to elected George Washington President, or something.
AmVet,
But remember that both parties cultivate their Southern Strategies. That’s how Carter won, and Clinton after him. Remember Reg Murphy?
P.S. You know very well that Dan Quayle is the last refuge of scoundrels.
By ****
May 2, 2008 9:36 AM | Link to this
Putting any merits to his argument aside, did anyone else find For The Record’s post to be creepy??
By For The Record
May 2, 2008 9:38 AM | Link to this
jbmlaw,
I am most certainly grateful for the fact that you are not “leading” us. I look forward to seeing you push that platform though in your future attempts to gain the hearts and minds of a voting majority. Do you plan to build off of those 7 points you laid out — loser.
By ron
May 2, 2008 9:39 AM | Link to this
Good morning,A couple of million spent the right way and Obama will be calling for tax cuts for the oil companies.
Win the lottery,die broke 18 years later.Good plan. Some party.
I have always advocated the doubling of the prison population.
Imcrease the pay for the politicians to $50,000 and 90% of the state would throw their hat in the ring.
My area had a bad school board at one time.A special election unelected them.That’s lacal control.
When it comes down to it’s either me or the chicken,the chicken dies.
I detest voter id.It’s the authority thing.Seatbelts fall into this category also.Since there’s a fine for not wearing one,I comply.When they fine me for not voting,I’ll be back.They do that in Australia,don’t they?
By George Washington
May 2, 2008 9:42 AM | Link to this
If the dummycrats think the big oil companies are going to sit still while they impose windfall profits taxes, then the dummycrats are dumber than turnips! Domestic oil production is ~5 million barrels per day, with the remaining 15 million barrels per day imported. Exxon, BP, and Chevron do not have to send their foreign production-sharing oil to America, they have the rest of the world as a market place. Production sharing oil from around the world flows to america everyday now because big oil has made a commitment to keep america supplied, and america in return has agreed to pay the world market price for that oil. If the Dummycrats attempt to impose confisctory taxes on big oil, I urge the oil companies to implement a scorched earth policy - transfer assets to foreign subsidaries (offshore deep water drilling platforms, tankers, off shore refineries, other drilling and production equipment), keep the income from foreign sales offshore in the foreign subsidaries, put clauses into production sharing agreements that cancel the agreements in exchange for some type of immediate tax advantaged compensation if the us governement nationalizes big oil. When oil available to americans drops from 20 million barrels per day to less than 10 million barrels per day, the dummycrats will be driven from office, tarred and feathered, and hung from the nearest lamp post, as they so richly deserve…Let us hope the neocons are already hanging nearby, they can comfort each other, ha ha ha.
By jbmlaw
May 2, 2008 9:45 AM | Link to this
William Tucker on alternative energy in The Weekly Standard:
Wind, hydro, and all the “alternate” sources of energy have been dubbed “green” because they are supposedly clean, renewable, and sustainable. In fact, what being “green” really means is that they all require vast amounts of land.
In a 2007 paper – well on its way to becoming a classic – Jesse Ausubel, director of the program for the human environment at Rockefeller University, calculated the amount of wood it would take to run one standard 1,000-megawatt electrical plant, the kind that can power a city the size of Cincinnati. Feeding the furnace year-round would require a forest of one thousand square miles. We have 600 such coal plants around the country now – to burn wood instead would require a forest the size of Alaska.
Glen Canyon Dam, which can produce 1,000 megawatts of electricity, is backed up by a reservoir 250 miles square (Lake Powell, in Arizona and Utah). That’s why we stopped building dams in the 1960s – because they were drowning scenic canyons and displacing populations. Those 30-story windmills produce 1.5 megawatts apiece – about 1/750th the power of a conventional generating station. Getting 1,000 megawatts would require a wind farm 75 miles square.
In a January cover story for Scientific American, three leading solar researchers proposed meeting our electrical needs in 2050 by covering southwestern desert with solar collectors. The amount of land required would be 34,000 square miles, about one-quarter of New Mexico.
And that’s where biofuels went awry. Nobody ever bothered to calculate how much land they would require. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120968760267261321.html?mod=djemEditorialPage
By George Washington
May 2, 2008 9:48 AM | Link to this
Yo stupid Anyone But Hillary - What the heck do you mean by no terror attacks since 2001? I call the murder of Mrs Johnson by three atlanta city pigs a terror attack under color of authority….I call gitmo a terror training camp for american pigs….I call the neocons terrorists….I call israel the root of all evil in the middle east, and terrorist nation…shove that up your pipes, BOY
By For The Record
May 2, 2008 9:56 AM | Link to this
Oops, I almost forgot. Just for the record, jbmlaw, the “loser” in my post was simply my prediction of the outcome of your bid for public office — based on my evaluation of your seven points, that is.
“By **
May 2, 2008 9:36 AM | Link to this
Putting any merits to his argument aside, did anyone else find For The Record’s post to be creepy??”
It should sound creepy especially to anyone that thinks we’ll be better off with no EPA even given the fact that they’re not as effective as they need to be.
By JRB
May 2, 2008 10:08 AM | Link to this
I don’t see a link in the demand for oil and our refining capabilities. Yes, i would expect the demand for oil to increase because of the overall increase in demand but the world-wide demand for oil should not have an effect our ability to produce refined gasoline. I always figured it to be a lot like the soda pop aisle at the grocery store. If we stopped making everything but Coke we would be able to produce a heck of a lot more coke because we would eliminate set-up times and other switching costs.
Second, we hear a lot about increasing demand in China and India as being a cause for the rise in gasoline. If Americans can not afford gas at $3.50 per gallon how many people in China and India can afford it. Only the elite in those countries will truly be able to pay that kind of price.
Third, during the energy crisis in California several years ago I like a lot of people thought California was just paying the price for poor energy policy. Then I watched “Smartest Guys in the Room” and Enron traders were discussing how they were able to sale energy back and forth between different units to jack up the price they could charge. I believe down the road we will find out a lot of the increase in the oil price was accomplished the same way. Companies are trading oil among subsidiaries and rising the price every sale. The problem with electronic trading is it is too easy to corner then manipulate the market.
By Anyone But Hillary
May 2, 2008 10:14 AM | Link to this
George Washington: I don’t even have to reply (but I will) - your rantings confirm your total and utter stupidity and lack of basic understanding of the language you pretend to communicate in. Here, let me explain the sentence for you: the word “terrorist” refers to Muslim terrorists, the ones who flew planes into our buildings and into the ground 7 years ago, it does not refer to uniformed police officers working for a city, supporters of a particular political party, or the citizens of Israel. And, by the way, my “pipes” are one-way - perhaps you like things shoved up yours but I’m not into that.
By Anyone But Hillary
May 2, 2008 10:20 AM | Link to this
Sorry, I wasn’t done: the word “attacks” means deliberate attempts by foreign terrorists to come to this country and injure or kill American citizens; “US soil” refers to the the country your feet are currently stepping on, it does not refer to Guantanamo or Israel; “since 2001” refers to the presidency of George W. Bush, whose actions have effectively kept us safe on our soil, along with the brave soldiers and their leaders who volunteered to fight a cause they believe in for the past 7 years. Now, put that up one of your pipes and rotate.
By Glenn
May 2, 2008 10:21 AM | Link to this
It was a sudden and feckless change in the state’s energy policy that created the California system gamed so thoroughly by Enron.
The fiasco began in the systems-arrogance of a particular liberal know-it-all, a certain Steve Peace.
By Carolyn Wilder
May 2, 2008 10:23 AM | Link to this
I remember back in the 60’s somebody invented a modification for your car that was supposed to get you 80 mpg and 200,000 miles. I think the oil companies and auto makers bought him out. Anyone else out there remember this? And can anybody tell me why Bobby Cox keeps insisting that Kelly Johnson bat in the one spot???
By Adam Savage
May 2, 2008 10:28 AM | Link to this
Carolyn, there are products on the market now that their makers say will give your car that type of performance. Unfortunately they are all scams that do not work.
By George Washington
May 2, 2008 10:39 AM | Link to this
Ah, JRB, you don’t know much about oil, do ya? Much of the new oil being added to daily production is heavy sour crude, and cannot be refined in just any old refinery…Special refineries are required, due to the viscosity of the oil, and to the corrosive effects of the oil on the piping and reaction vessels….Sour crude means it contains lots of sulphur, you know, the stuff that forms sulphuric acid….So the oil must be first heated to make it flow better, then the sulphur must be removed…But you are not thru, the heavy crude now must be reacted with catalyst and hydrogen to crack the long hydrocarbon chains into smaller chains….this is well beyond the standard cat crackers that have been around since the early 60’s….We have very few of these special refineries, and many of those are owned by our pal, Hugo Chavez, and are dedicated to processing Venez heavy crude. All growth in Saudia crude oil exports over the last five years has been in heavy sour crude, as is all their reserve capacity…Not good without the right refineries.
By George Washington
May 2, 2008 10:43 AM | Link to this
Anyone But Hillary - George thinks you need an enema, you are full of bullshlt. Your definition of a terrorist clearly labels you as an IDIOT.
By Political Foreskin
May 2, 2008 10:50 AM | Link to this
Why does Jim keep harping about drilling for oil in the body of assassinated Eqyptian president Anwar Sadat?
By George Washington
May 2, 2008 11:02 AM | Link to this
Jim’s body will be one with the earth before any crude from ANWAR can be refined into gasoline for his pink caddy….
By Anyone But Hillary
May 2, 2008 11:03 AM | Link to this
George Washington (I wish you would change your moniker) - Why do you support terrorists? Are you secretly sad that we haven’t been attacked again during the past 7 years so that your beloved liberals would look better and be able to say, “I told you so”? By the way - the congress the voters decided to “change” 2 years ago is doing a bang-up job, aren’t they?
By bill
May 2, 2008 11:16 AM | Link to this
Dear Jim, Cynthia McKinney carved herself a congressional district, with the aid of civil rights division lawyers? No, her father and some other of Georgia’s finest did that while she was going door-to-door in that grossly mis-configured attempt to establish a second district of black viability.
By George Washington
May 2, 2008 11:22 AM | Link to this
Anyone But Hillary - you neocon traitors are not the only ones who can wrap themselves in the flag, hag.
By Aquagirl
May 2, 2008 11:23 AM | Link to this
More obsession with oil drilling; how much oil do these people think is in ANWR? It’s a small amount, compared to our huge need. If you require 16,000 calories a day to survive, it’s time to look at reducing your weight, not finding more Krispy Kremes.
And way to rag on the chicken-people, Jim; only with new “conservatism” has it become fashionable to disdain care for God’s creatures. What’s so bad about thinking of where your chicken came from? I participate in the circle of life where the chicken is food for me. It doesn’t mean I rationalize cruelty or questionable animal husbandry. I certainly wouldn’t make fun of those doing so.
By George Washington
May 2, 2008 11:28 AM | Link to this
while idiots like woodenhead whine about anwar, our pals in china are building the special refineries required to process heavy sour crude…Hugo will stop shipping his heavy sour crude to the usa when those refineries are complete, and he will destroy his heavy sour crude refineries in the us of a at that time…and there ain’t nuthin ya can do to stop him, he ownes em, and he can destroy em as he wills….fast and dirty would be to pump lox thru the lines…..
By munchi
May 2, 2008 11:31 AM | Link to this
Dear Jim..You write;
Congressional Democrats accuse the Bush administration of changing Environmental Protection Agency reviews of chemicals in a way that opens the process to “politicization.” Specifically, they object to a proposal to allow other agencies to submit comments and requests for further research. We’ve been trained to believe that bureaucrats are pure and political appointees are corrupting. The reality is, however, that it ain’t that simple. Advocacy groups know the best way to get the decision you want is find like-minded zealots in the bureaucracy.
Well, as always…You are dead wrong!
More than half the Environmental Protection Agency scientists who responded to an independent survey made public yesterday said that they had witnessed political interference in scientific decisions at the agency during the past five years.
The claim comes from a new report by the Union of Concerned Scientists, a nonprofit advocacy group that sent questionnaires to 5,500 EPA scientists and obtained 1,586 responses. Among the scientists’ complaints were that data sometimes were used selectively to justify a specific regulatory outcome and that political appointees had directed them to inappropriately exclude or alter technical information in EPA scientific documents.
The EPA also drew fire last month for weakening its new limits on smog-forming ozone after a last-minute intervention by President Bush. And Johnson was criticized for his decision in December to deny California’s petition to limit greenhouse gas emissions from cars and trucks, overruling the unanimous recommendation of the agency’s legal and technical staffs.
Need I go on???
By munchi
May 2, 2008 11:32 AM | Link to this
Dear Jim..You write;
Congressional Democrats accuse the Bush administration of changing Environmental Protection Agency reviews of chemicals in a way that opens the process to “politicization.” Specifically, they object to a proposal to allow other agencies to submit comments and requests for further research. We’ve been trained to believe that bureaucrats are pure and political appointees are corrupting. The reality is, however, that it ain’t that simple. Advocacy groups know the best way to get the decision you want is find like-minded zealots in the bureaucracy.
Well, as always…You are dead wrong!
More than half the Environmental Protection Agency scientists who responded to an independent survey made public yesterday said that they had witnessed political interference in scientific decisions at the agency during the past five years.
The claim comes from a new report by the Union of Concerned Scientists, a nonprofit advocacy group that sent questionnaires to 5,500 EPA scientists and obtained 1,586 responses. Among the scientists’ complaints were that data sometimes were used selectively to justify a specific regulatory outcome and that political appointees had directed them to inappropriately exclude or alter technical information in EPA scientific documents.
The EPA also drew fire last month for weakening its new limits on smog-forming ozone after a last-minute intervention by President Bush. And Johnson was criticized for his decision in December to deny California’s petition to limit greenhouse gas emissions from cars and trucks, overruling the unanimous recommendation of the agency’s legal and technical staffs.
Need I go on???
By munchi
May 2, 2008 11:32 AM | Link to this
Dear Jim..You write;
Congressional Democrats accuse the Bush administration of changing Environmental Protection Agency reviews of chemicals in a way that opens the process to “politicization.” Specifically, they object to a proposal to allow other agencies to submit comments and requests for further research. We’ve been trained to believe that bureaucrats are pure and political appointees are corrupting. The reality is, however, that it ain’t that simple. Advocacy groups know the best way to get the decision you want is find like-minded zealots in the bureaucracy.
Well, as always…You are dead wrong!
More than half the Environmental Protection Agency scientists who responded to an independent survey made public yesterday said that they had witnessed political interference in scientific decisions at the agency during the past five years.
The claim comes from a new report by the Union of Concerned Scientists, a nonprofit advocacy group that sent questionnaires to 5,500 EPA scientists and obtained 1,586 responses. Among the scientists’ complaints were that data sometimes were used selectively to justify a specific regulatory outcome and that political appointees had directed them to inappropriately exclude or alter technical information in EPA scientific documents.
The EPA also drew fire last month for weakening its new limits on smog-forming ozone after a last-minute intervention by President Bush. And Johnson was criticized for his decision in December to deny California’s petition to limit greenhouse gas emissions from cars and trucks, overruling the unanimous recommendation of the agency’s legal and technical staffs.
Need I go on???
By munchi
May 2, 2008 11:32 AM | Link to this
Dear Jim..You write;
Congressional Democrats accuse the Bush administration of changing Environmental Protection Agency reviews of chemicals in a way that opens the process to “politicization.” Specifically, they object to a proposal to allow other agencies to submit comments and requests for further research. We’ve been trained to believe that bureaucrats are pure and political appointees are corrupting. The reality is, however, that it ain’t that simple. Advocacy groups know the best way to get the decision you want is find like-minded zealots in the bureaucracy.
Well, as always…You are dead wrong!
More than half the Environmental Protection Agency scientists who responded to an independent survey made public yesterday said that they had witnessed political interference in scientific decisions at the agency during the past five years.
The claim comes from a new report by the Union of Concerned Scientists, a nonprofit advocacy group that sent questionnaires to 5,500 EPA scientists and obtained 1,586 responses. Among the scientists’ complaints were that data sometimes were used selectively to justify a specific regulatory outcome and that political appointees had directed them to inappropriately exclude or alter technical information in EPA scientific documents.
The EPA also drew fire last month for weakening its new limits on smog-forming ozone after a last-minute intervention by President Bush. And Johnson was criticized for his decision in December to deny California’s petition to limit greenhouse gas emissions from cars and trucks, overruling the unanimous recommendation of the agency’s legal and technical staffs.
Need I go on???
By munchi
May 2, 2008 11:32 AM | Link to this
Dear Jim..You write;
Congressional Democrats accuse the Bush administration of changing Environmental Protection Agency reviews of chemicals in a way that opens the process to “politicization.” Specifically, they object to a proposal to allow other agencies to submit comments and requests for further research. We’ve been trained to believe that bureaucrats are pure and political appointees are corrupting. The reality is, however, that it ain’t that simple. Advocacy groups know the best way to get the decision you want is find like-minded zealots in the bureaucracy.
Well, as always…You are dead wrong!
More than half the Environmental Protection Agency scientists who responded to an independent survey made public yesterday said that they had witnessed political interference in scientific decisions at the agency during the past five years.
The claim comes from a new report by the Union of Concerned Scientists, a nonprofit advocacy group that sent questionnaires to 5,500 EPA scientists and obtained 1,586 responses. Among the scientists’ complaints were that data sometimes were used selectively to justify a specific regulatory outcome and that political appointees had directed them to inappropriately exclude or alter technical information in EPA scientific documents.
The EPA also drew fire last month for weakening its new limits on smog-forming ozone after a last-minute intervention by President Bush. And Johnson was criticized for his decision in December to deny California’s petition to limit greenhouse gas emissions from cars and trucks, overruling the unanimous recommendation of the agency’s legal and technical staffs.
Need I go on???
By munchi
May 2, 2008 11:32 AM | Link to this
Dear Jim..You write;
Congressional Democrats accuse the Bush administration of changing Environmental Protection Agency reviews of chemicals in a way that opens the process to “politicization.” Specifically, they object to a proposal to allow other agencies to submit comments and requests for further research. We’ve been trained to believe that bureaucrats are pure and political appointees are corrupting. The reality is, however, that it ain’t that simple. Advocacy groups know the best way to get the decision you want is find like-minded zealots in the bureaucracy.
Well, as always…You are dead wrong!
More than half the Environmental Protection Agency scientists who responded to an independent survey made public yesterday said that they had witnessed political interference in scientific decisions at the agency during the past five years.
The claim comes from a new report by the Union of Concerned Scientists, a nonprofit advocacy group that sent questionnaires to 5,500 EPA scientists and obtained 1,586 responses. Among the scientists’ complaints were that data sometimes were used selectively to justify a specific regulatory outcome and that political appointees had directed them to inappropriately exclude or alter technical information in EPA scientific documents.
The EPA also drew fire last month for weakening its new limits on smog-forming ozone after a last-minute intervention by President Bush. And Johnson was criticized for his decision in December to deny California’s petition to limit greenhouse gas emissions from cars and trucks, overruling the unanimous recommendation of the agency’s legal and technical staffs.
Need I go on???
By munchi
May 2, 2008 11:32 AM | Link to this
Dear Jim..You write;
Congressional Democrats accuse the Bush administration of changing Environmental Protection Agency reviews of chemicals in a way that opens the process to “politicization.” Specifically, they object to a proposal to allow other agencies to submit comments and requests for further research. We’ve been trained to believe that bureaucrats are pure and political appointees are corrupting. The reality is, however, that it ain’t that simple. Advocacy groups know the best way to get the decision you want is find like-minded zealots in the bureaucracy.
Well, as always…You are dead wrong!
More than half the Environmental Protection Agency scientists who responded to an independent survey made public yesterday said that they had witnessed political interference in scientific decisions at the agency during the past five years.
The claim comes from a new report by the Union of Concerned Scientists, a nonprofit advocacy group that sent questionnaires to 5,500 EPA scientists and obtained 1,586 responses. Among the scientists’ complaints were that data sometimes were used selectively to justify a specific regulatory outcome and that political appointees had directed them to inappropriately exclude or alter technical information in EPA scientific documents.
The EPA also drew fire last month for weakening its new limits on smog-forming ozone after a last-minute intervention by President Bush. And Johnson was criticized for his decision in December to deny California’s petition to limit greenhouse gas emissions from cars and trucks, overruling the unanimous recommendation of the agency’s legal and technical staffs.
Need I go on???
By munchi
May 2, 2008 11:32 AM | Link to this
Dear Jim..You write;
Congressional Democrats accuse the Bush administration of changing Environmental Protection Agency reviews of chemicals in a way that opens the process to “politicization.” Specifically, they object to a proposal to allow other agencies to submit comments and requests for further research. We’ve been trained to believe that bureaucrats are pure and political appointees are corrupting. The reality is, however, that it ain’t that simple. Advocacy groups know the best way to get the decision you want is find like-minded zealots in the bureaucracy.
Well, as always…You are dead wrong!
More than half the Environmental Protection Agency scientists who responded to an independent survey made public yesterday said that they had witnessed political interference in scientific decisions at the agency during the past five years.
The claim comes from a new report by the Union of Concerned Scientists, a nonprofit advocacy group that sent questionnaires to 5,500 EPA scientists and obtained 1,586 responses. Among the scientists’ complaints were that data sometimes were used selectively to justify a specific regulatory outcome and that political appointees had directed them to inappropriately exclude or alter technical information in EPA scientific documents.
The EPA also drew fire last month for weakening its new limits on smog-forming ozone after a last-minute intervention by President Bush. And Johnson was criticized for his decision in December to deny California’s petition to limit greenhouse gas emissions from cars and trucks, overruling the unanimous recommendation of the agency’s legal and technical staffs.
Need I go on???
By munchi
May 2, 2008 11:32 AM | Link to this
Dear Jim..You write;
Congressional Democrats accuse the Bush administration of changing Environmental Protection Agency reviews of chemicals in a way that opens the process to “politicization.” Specifically, they object to a proposal to allow other agencies to submit comments and requests for further research. We’ve been trained to believe that bureaucrats are pure and political appointees are corrupting. The reality is, however, that it ain’t that simple. Advocacy groups know the best way to get the decision you want is find like-minded zealots in the bureaucracy.
Well, as always…You are dead wrong!
More than half the Environmental Protection Agency scientists who responded to an independent survey made public yesterday said that they had witnessed political interference in scientific decisions at the agency during the past five years.
The claim comes from a new report by the Union of Concerned Scientists, a nonprofit advocacy group that sent questionnaires to 5,500 EPA scientists and obtained 1,586 responses. Among the scientists’ complaints were that data sometimes were used selectively to justify a specific regulatory outcome and that political appointees had directed them to inappropriately exclude or alter technical information in EPA scientific documents.
The EPA also drew fire last month for weakening its new limits on smog-forming ozone after a last-minute intervention by President Bush. And Johnson was criticized for his decision in December to deny California’s petition to limit greenhouse gas emissions from cars and trucks, overruling the unanimous recommendation of the agency’s legal and technical staffs.
Need I go on???
By munchi
May 2, 2008 11:32 AM | Link to this
Dear Jim..You write;
Congressional Democrats accuse the Bush administration of changing Environmental Protection Agency reviews of chemicals in a way that opens the process to “politicization.” Specifically, they object to a proposal to allow other agencies to submit comments and requests for further research. We’ve been trained to believe that bureaucrats are pure and political appointees are corrupting. The reality is, however, that it ain’t that simple. Advocacy groups know the best way to get the decision you want is find like-minded zealots in the bureaucracy.
Well, as always…You are dead wrong!
More than half the Environmental Protection Agency scientists who responded to an independent survey made public yesterday said that they had witnessed political interference in scientific decisions at the agency during the past five years.
The claim comes from a new report by the Union of Concerned Scientists, a nonprofit advocacy group that sent questionnaires to 5,500 EPA scientists and obtained 1,586 responses. Among the scientists’ complaints were that data sometimes were used selectively to justify a specific regulatory outcome and that political appointees had directed them to inappropriately exclude or alter technical information in EPA scientific documents.
The EPA also drew fire last month for weakening its new limits on smog-forming ozone after a last-minute intervention by President Bush. And Johnson was criticized for his decision in December to deny California’s petition to limit greenhouse gas emissions from cars and trucks, overruling the unanimous recommendation of the agency’s legal and technical staffs.
Need I go on???
By munchi
May 2, 2008 11:32 AM | Link to this
Dear Jim..You write;
Congressional Democrats accuse the Bush administration of changing Environmental Protection Agency reviews of chemicals in a way that opens the process to “politicization.” Specifically, they object to a proposal to allow other agencies to submit comments and requests for further research. We’ve been trained to believe that bureaucrats are pure and political appointees are corrupting. The reality is, however, that it ain’t that simple. Advocacy groups know the best way to get the decision you want is find like-minded zealots in the bureaucracy.
Well, as always…You are dead wrong!
More than half the Environmental Protection Agency scientists who responded to an independent survey made public yesterday said that they had witnessed political interference in scientific decisions at the agency during the past five years.
The claim comes from a new report by the Union of Concerned Scientists, a nonprofit advocacy group that sent questionnaires to 5,500 EPA scientists and obtained 1,586 responses. Among the scientists’ complaints were that data sometimes were used selectively to justify a specific regulatory outcome and that political appointees had directed them to inappropriately exclude or alter technical information in EPA scientific documents.
The EPA also drew fire last month for weakening its new limits on smog-forming ozone after a last-minute intervention by President Bush. And Johnson was criticized for his decision in December to deny California’s petition to limit greenhouse gas emissions from cars and trucks, overruling the unanimous recommendation of the agency’s legal and technical staffs.
Need I go on???
By munchi
May 2, 2008 11:32 AM | Link to this
Dear Jim..You write;
Congressional Democrats accuse the Bush administration of changing Environmental Protection Agency reviews of chemicals in a way that opens the process to “politicization.” Specifically, they object to a proposal to allow other agencies to submit comments and requests for further research. We’ve been trained to believe that bureaucrats are pure and political appointees are corrupting. The reality is, however, that it ain’t that simple. Advocacy groups know the best way to get the decision you want is find like-minded zealots in the bureaucracy.
Well, as always…You are dead wrong!
More than half the Environmental Protection Agency scientists who responded to an independent survey made public yesterday said that they had witnessed political interference in scientific decisions at the agency during the past five years.
The claim comes from a new report by the Union of Concerned Scientists, a nonprofit advocacy group that sent questionnaires to 5,500 EPA scientists and obtained 1,586 responses. Among the scientists’ complaints were that data sometimes were used selectively to justify a specific regulatory outcome and that political appointees had directed them to inappropriately exclude or alter technical information in EPA scientific documents.
The EPA also drew fire last month for weakening its new limits on smog-forming ozone after a last-minute intervention by President Bush. And Johnson was criticized for his decision in December to deny California’s petition to limit greenhouse gas emissions from cars and trucks, overruling the unanimous recommendation of the agency’s legal and technical staffs.
Need I go on???
By munchi
May 2, 2008 11:32 AM | Link to this
Dear Jim..You write;
Congressional Democrats accuse the Bush administration of changing Environmental Protection Agency reviews of chemicals in a way that opens the process to “politicization.” Specifically, they object to a proposal to allow other agencies to submit comments and requests for further research. We’ve been trained to believe that bureaucrats are pure and political appointees are corrupting. The reality is, however, that it ain’t that simple. Advocacy groups know the best way to get the decision you want is find like-minded zealots in the bureaucracy.
Well, as always…You are dead wrong!
More than half the Environmental Protection Agency scientists who responded to an independent survey made public yesterday said that they had witnessed political interference in scientific decisions at the agency during the past five years.
The claim comes from a new report by the Union of Concerned Scientists, a nonprofit advocacy group that sent questionnaires to 5,500 EPA scientists and obtained 1,586 responses. Among the scientists’ complaints were that data sometimes were used selectively to justify a specific regulatory outcome and that political appointees had directed them to inappropriately exclude or alter technical information in EPA scientific documents.
The EPA also drew fire last month for weakening its new limits on smog-forming ozone after a last-minute intervention by President Bush. And Johnson was criticized for his decision in December to deny California’s petition to limit greenhouse gas emissions from cars and trucks, overruling the unanimous recommendation of the agency’s legal and technical staffs.
Need I go on???
By munchi
May 2, 2008 11:32 AM | Link to this
Dear Jim..You write;
Congressional Democrats accuse the Bush administration of changing Environmental Protection Agency reviews of chemicals in a way that opens the process to “politicization.” Specifically, they object to a proposal to allow other agencies to submit comments and requests for further research. We’ve been trained to believe that bureaucrats are pure and political appointees are corrupting. The reality is, however, that it ain’t that simple. Advocacy groups know the best way to get the decision you want is find like-minded zealots in the bureaucracy.
Well, as always…You are dead wrong!
More than half the Environmental Protection Agency scientists who responded to an independent survey made public yesterday said that they had witnessed political interference in scientific decisions at the agency during the past five years.
The claim comes from a new report by the Union of Concerned Scientists, a nonprofit advocacy group that sent questionnaires to 5,500 EPA scientists and obtained 1,586 responses. Among the scientists’ complaints were that data sometimes were used selectively to justify a specific regulatory outcome and that political appointees had directed them to inappropriately exclude or alter technical information in EPA scientific documents.
The EPA also drew fire last month for weakening its new limits on smog-forming ozone after a last-minute intervention by President Bush. And Johnson was criticized for his decision in December to deny California’s petition to limit greenhouse gas emissions from cars and trucks, overruling the unanimous recommendation of the agency’s legal and technical staffs.
Need I go on???
By munchi
May 2, 2008 11:32 AM | Link to this
Dear Jim..You write;
Congressional Democrats accuse the Bush administration of changing Environmental Protection Agency reviews of chemicals in a way that opens the process to “politicization.” Specifically, they object to a proposal to allow other agencies to submit comments and requests for further research. We’ve been trained to believe that bureaucrats are pure and political appointees are corrupting. The reality is, however, that it ain’t that simple. Advocacy groups know the best way to get the decision you want is find like-minded zealots in the bureaucracy.
Well, as always…You are dead wrong!
More than half the Environmental Protection Agency scientists who responded to an independent survey made public yesterday said that they had witnessed political interference in scientific decisions at the agency during the past five years.
The claim comes from a new report by the Union of Concerned Scientists, a nonprofit advocacy group that sent questionnaires to 5,500 EPA scientists and obtained 1,586 responses. Among the scientists’ complaints were that data sometimes were used selectively to justify a specific regulatory outcome and that political appointees had directed them to inappropriately exclude or alter technical information in EPA scientific documents.
The EPA also drew fire last month for weakening its new limits on smog-forming ozone after a last-minute intervention by President Bush. And Johnson was criticized for his decision in December to deny California’s petition to limit greenhouse gas emissions from cars and trucks, overruling the unanimous recommendation of the agency’s legal and technical staffs.
Need I go on???
By munchi
May 2, 2008 11:32 AM | Link to this
Dear Jim..You write;
Congressional Democrats accuse the Bush administration of changing Environmental Protection Agency reviews of chemicals in a way that opens the process to “politicization.” Specifically, they object to a proposal to allow other agencies to submit comments and requests for further research. We’ve been trained to believe that bureaucrats are pure and political appointees are corrupting. The reality is, however, that it ain’t that simple. Advocacy groups know the best way to get the decision you want is find like-minded zealots in the bureaucracy.
Well, as always…You are dead wrong!
More than half the Environmental Protection Agency scientists who responded to an independent survey made public yesterday said that they had witnessed political interference in scientific decisions at the agency during the past five years.
The claim comes from a new report by the Union of Concerned Scientists, a nonprofit advocacy group that sent questionnaires to 5,500 EPA scientists and obtained 1,586 responses. Among the scientists’ complaints were that data sometimes were used selectively to justify a specific regulatory outcome and that political appointees had directed them to inappropriately exclude or alter technical information in EPA scientific documents.
The EPA also drew fire last month for weakening its new limits on smog-forming ozone after a last-minute intervention by President Bush. And Johnson was criticized for his decision in December to deny California’s petition to limit greenhouse gas emissions from cars and trucks, overruling the unanimous recommendation of the agency’s legal and technical staffs.
Need I go on???
By munchi
May 2, 2008 11:32 AM | Link to this
Dear Jim..You write;
Congressional Democrats accuse the Bush administration of changing Environmental Protection Agency reviews of chemicals in a way that opens the process to “politicization.” Specifically, they object to a proposal to allow other agencies to submit comments and requests for further research. We’ve been trained to believe that bureaucrats are pure and political appointees are corrupting. The reality is, however, that it ain’t that simple. Advocacy groups know the best way to get the decision you want is find like-minded zealots in the bureaucracy.
Well, as always…You are dead wrong!
More than half the Environmental Protection Agency scientists who responded to an independent survey made public yesterday said that they had witnessed political interference in scientific decisions at the agency during the past five years.
The claim comes from a new report by the Union of Concerned Scientists, a nonprofit advocacy group that sent questionnaires to 5,500 EPA scientists and obtained 1,586 responses. Among the scientists’ complaints were that data sometimes were used selectively to justify a specific regulatory outcome and that political appointees had directed them to inappropriately exclude or alter technical information in EPA scientific documents.
The EPA also drew fire last month for weakening its new limits on smog-forming ozone after a last-minute intervention by President Bush. And Johnson was criticized for his decision in December to deny California’s petition to limit greenhouse gas emissions from cars and trucks, overruling the unanimous recommendation of the agency’s legal and technical staffs.
Need I go on???
By munchi
May 2, 2008 11:32 AM | Link to this
Dear Jim..You write;
Congressional Democrats accuse the Bush administration of changing Environmental Protection Agency reviews of chemicals in a way that opens the process to “politicization.” Specifically, they object to a proposal to allow other agencies to submit comments and requests for further research. We’ve been trained to believe that bureaucrats are pure and political appointees are corrupting. The reality is, however, that it ain’t that simple. Advocacy groups know the best way to get the decision you want is find like-minded zealots in the bureaucracy.
Well, as always…You are dead wrong!
More than half the Environmental Protection Agency scientists who responded to an independent survey made public yesterday said that they had witnessed political interference in scientific decisions at the agency during the past five years.
The claim comes from a new report by the Union of Concerned Scientists, a nonprofit advocacy group that sent questionnaires to 5,500 EPA scientists and obtained 1,586 responses. Among the scientists’ complaints were that data sometimes were used selectively to justify a specific regulatory outcome and that political appointees had directed them to inappropriately exclude or alter technical information in EPA scientific documents.
The EPA also drew fire last month for weakening its new limits on smog-forming ozone after a last-minute intervention by President Bush. And Johnson was criticized for his decision in December to deny California’s petition to limit greenhouse gas emissions from cars and trucks, overruling the unanimous recommendation of the agency’s legal and technical staffs.
Need I go on???
By munchi
May 2, 2008 11:32 AM | Link to this
Dear Jim..You write;
Congressional Democrats accuse the Bush administration of changing Environmental Protection Agency reviews of chemicals in a way that opens the process to “politicization.” Specifically, they object to a proposal to allow other agencies to submit comments and requests for further research. We’ve been trained to believe that bureaucrats are pure and political appointees are corrupting. The reality is, however, that it ain’t that simple. Advocacy groups know the best way to get the decision you want is find like-minded zealots in the bureaucracy.
Well, as always…You are dead wrong!
More than half the Environmental Protection Agency scientists who responded to an independent survey made public yesterday said that they had witnessed political interference in scientific decisions at the agency during the past five years.
The claim comes from a new report by the Union of Concerned Scientists, a nonprofit advocacy group that sent questionnaires to 5,500 EPA scientists and obtained 1,586 responses. Among the scientists’ complaints were that data sometimes were used selectively to justify a specific regulatory outcome and that political appointees had directed them to inappropriately exclude or alter technical information in EPA scientific documents.
The EPA also drew fire last month for weakening its new limits on smog-forming ozone after a last-minute intervention by President Bush. And Johnson was criticized for his decision in December to deny California’s petition to limit greenhouse gas emissions from cars and trucks, overruling the unanimous recommendation of the agency’s legal and technical staffs.
Need I go on???
By munchi
May 2, 2008 11:32 AM | Link to this
Dear Jim..You write;
Congressional Democrats accuse the Bush administration of changing Environmental Protection Agency reviews of chemicals in a way that opens the process to “politicization.” Specifically, they object to a proposal to allow other agencies to submit comments and requests for further research. We’ve been trained to believe that bureaucrats are pure and political appointees are corrupting. The reality is, however, that it ain’t that simple. Advocacy groups know the best way to get the decision you want is find like-minded zealots in the bureaucracy.
Well, as always…You are dead wrong!
More than half the Environmental Protection Agency scientists who responded to an independent survey made public yesterday said that they had witnessed political interference in scientific decisions at the agency during the past five years.
The claim comes from a new report by the Union of Concerned Scientists, a nonprofit advocacy group that sent questionnaires to 5,500 EPA scientists and obtained 1,586 responses. Among the scientists’ complaints were that data sometimes were used selectively to justify a specific regulatory outcome and that political appointees had directed them to inappropriately exclude or alter technical information in EPA scientific documents.
The EPA also drew fire last month for weakening its new limits on smog-forming ozone after a last-minute intervention by President Bush. And Johnson was criticized for his decision in December to deny California’s petition to limit greenhouse gas emissions from cars and trucks, overruling the unanimous recommendation of the agency’s legal and technical staffs.
Need I go on???
By George Washington
May 2, 2008 11:36 AM | Link to this
munchi you idiot, stop pushing buttons….
By muchi
May 2, 2008 11:37 AM | Link to this
SORRY FOR THE MULTIPLE POSTS MY CAT JUMPED ON THE KEYBOARD.
By Anyone But Hillary
May 2, 2008 11:39 AM | Link to this
George - sorry I won’t be able to continue the lively banter, but I’m getting ready for a steak-and-martini lunch followed by the afternoon and weekend off. Happy hour is calling. Fun in the sun. Success is great - working hard for years allows one to relax, smile, and enjoy the pleasures of life instead of being bitter and tight-sphinctered like you. Love the USA - no place else like it. God Bless America. Cheers!
By George Washington
May 2, 2008 11:40 AM | Link to this
munchi works at the EPA Atlanta Regional Office, hence the mindless repetition…if ya want, ah kin look up the name of his boss and the phone number to complain about his mindless blogging from work during work hours…..should i, huh, hun, hun
By George Washington
May 2, 2008 11:43 AM | Link to this
US EPA, Region 4 Sam Nunn Atlanta Federal Center 61 Forsyth Street, SW Atlanta, GA 30303 404-562-9900 1-800-241-1754
Regional Administrator: J. I. Palmer, Jr.
By George Washington
May 2, 2008 11:46 AM | Link to this
Anyone But Hillary - ah’m purty sure I have been out in the sun more this morning havin fun than you will be all weekend….and I didn’t need any booze to blur reality from me….
By George Washington
May 2, 2008 11:49 AM | Link to this
Ah sure enougn hope the preg ladies cut his b a lls off, heh heh heh -
May 2, 2008 54 More Women Accuse Bloomberg Firm of Bias By ALAN FEUER At least 54 more women are accusing Bloomberg L.P., the financial-services and media company founded by Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg, of discriminating against pregnant employees, a lawyer for the federal government said on Thursday.
The women have joined a class-action lawsuit filed against the company in September by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Though the suit does not name Mr. Bloomberg as a defendant and claims discrimination that assertedly occurred after he left an active role in the company, it is the latest and most sweeping of a string of discrimination and sexual harassment complaints filed against the firm since the 1990s.
Previously, the lawsuit involved only four women who claimed they were demoted or had their pay cut after becoming pregnant and taking maternity leaves. Word of the additional women came at a brief hearing in Federal District Court in Manhattan, where the suit was filed. The women’s names were not released at the hearing, nor was there any mention of their specific claims. Government officials said that their names had not yet been made public.
The number of women involved is likely to grow, Raechel L. Adams, a lawyer for the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, told Judge Loretta A. Preska. The commission has identified 478 women at the company who were on maternity leave at some point from 2002 to the present and is reaching out to them, she said. Judith Czelusniak, a spokeswoman for Bloomberg L.P., said that the company had more than 10,000 employees in 126 offices around the world and that fewer than two dozen employment lawsuits had been filed against it in the United States since its founding in 1981.
Ms. Czelusniak added that last month a federal judge in New Jersey dismissed a discrimination suit by four current and former employees, finding that the plaintiffs’ claims were baseless. “We believe that the court will render a similar judgment in the case brought by the E.E.O.C.,” she said.
An annoyed Mr. Bloomberg declined to address the suit during a news conference about the city’s budget, ostensibly because he was willing to take only questions about the budget. “What does this have to do with the budget?” he snapped at a reporter, although the mayor had already discussed his thoughts on a temporary reprieve of the gasoline tax and federal energy legislation.
“I have absolutely no idea,” he added. “You’ll have to ask the company and next time don’t bother to ask us a question. Stick to the topic. Everybody else plays by the rules; you’ll just have to as well.”
Mayor Bloomberg stepped down as chairman of Bloomberg L.P. during his first run for mayor, in 2001, but remains its majority shareholder. For years he portrayed himself as being disengaged from the company, but he acknowledged last year that he regularly stayed in touch with its senior executives.
When the lawsuit was filed, there were only three named plaintiffs — Jill Patricot, Janet Loures and Tanys Lancaster. A fourth, Monica Prestia, joined the suit about two months later.
According to a commission claim, Ms. Lancaster was earning nearly $300,000 a year in a senior position in the transaction products department when she told her bosses she was pregnant. Afterward, she was demoted and her pay was cut, the claim said.
Ms. Patricot, the claim said, was unable to maintain her previous work schedule after returning from maternity leave because of child-care needs. As a result, the commission said, she was demoted to an entry-level position.
As for Ms. Loures, the commission said that her duties as a senior manager in the global data division were reduced after she took maternity leave for a first and then a second child.
In general, the lawsuit charges that the women were replaced by more- junior male employees, excluded from management meetings or subjected to comments that included, “You are not committed” and “You don’t want to be here.”
Ms. Prestia claimed in the lawsuit that after she had her first child in 2005, she received the worst performance review of her career, her compensation fell, and a supervisor who could not have children of her own was openly hostile to her. At one point, the suit contends, a different supervisor asked her, “What is this, your third baby?”
Anna C. Aguilar, a lawyer for Bloomberg L.P., told Judge Preska that the company had turned over more than a million pages of documents that the commission requested, adding that the company would be looking at internal e-mail messages to determine if any were relevant to the case. Depositions have been scheduled for this summer and a pretrial hearing for September.
By munchi
May 2, 2008 11:50 AM | Link to this
GW…
Did you not see my big SORRY? I was the victim of circumstance.
And, no I do not work for the EPA!
By George Washington
May 2, 2008 11:54 AM | Link to this
munchi - george takes no prisoners….
By TW
May 2, 2008 11:55 AM | Link to this
Finally, a legitimate reason to vote for John McCain.
We have only our ignorance and fragile chin to blame for our descent – both of which are products of complacency. That there is still a heart beat on the right means only one thing - we must vote for four more years. If it takes pitching the tent and eating our young before we ‘get a clue,’ then so be it.
John McCain ‘08 - because we ain’t there yet.
By Thor
May 2, 2008 12:06 PM | Link to this
There are too many partisan ideologs on this blog which is a shame. The majority of Americans do not identify with either party; the majority of people are also Moderates who don’t subscribe to your partisan arguing.
As Eldridge Cleaver said, “You’re either part of the solution or you’re part of the problem”. Too many of you guys see things in black or white, therefore I say you’re part of the problem.
By Glenn
May 2, 2008 12:20 PM | Link to this
It’s a shame, munchiN ‘cause it was a good post. But now you’re going to have to pay Mr. Gore for such gross pollution of our blogosphere. I shall pray that you might receive his tax-credited Grace.
And now let us praise famous chickens.
I give you the great Foghorn Leghorn, and The Big Chicken of Cobb, and the c** that crows to let the farmer know he’s on the job…
By Glenn
May 2, 2008 12:30 PM | Link to this
No, Thor, actually self-described “Moderate” voters are not the majority in this country. So we need more moderates like you; people who can ponder a thing long and hard, without forming any particularly strong and annoying opinions about it.
By Fulton
May 2, 2008 12:31 PM | Link to this
“too many partisan ideologs” - END OF STORY! Thanx Thor, for the clear and unbiased thinking which so many here are clearly incapable of…
Contrary to popular belief, we are NOT liberals & conservatives, etc. We are ALL human beings first and we will NEVER be able to move forward until we all realize this fact & Stop the Me vs. You mentality!
By Matin Luther King, Jr.
May 2, 2008 12:34 PM | Link to this
On the matter of Black Liberation Theology
The black theologian must reject any conception of God which stifles black self-determination… Either God is identified with the oppressed to the point that their experience becomes God’s experience, or God is a God of racism. This is the essence of the Biblical revelation.(James H. Cone, A Black Theology of Liberation, pp. 63-64)
Cone has cited Wright’s Trinity church as one of the first examples of putting liberation theology into practice.
After being indoctrinated in this tripe for twenty years, Obama is as ready to be president as Cynthia McKinney.
By Believer
May 2, 2008 12:35 PM | Link to this
The Beaver (Cleaver) would kinda sorta call all this fuss just plain goofy.
By Glenn
May 2, 2008 12:35 PM | Link to this
I’m against Fulton.
By AmVet
May 2, 2008 12:37 PM | Link to this
Our Great White Father continues to break records.
Unfortunately for him and fellow neo-cons, it is always the BAD ones!
Bushco is now the proud owner of an all-time high 71% disapproval rating.
Higher than even another great Republican and human being, Tricky Dick, during his hey day as another King of Inveterate Liars.
Where, oh where, is the next Ronnie when this dispirited GOP so desperately needs a “leader” adept at smoke and mirrors?
01-20-09
By jm
May 2, 2008 12:45 PM | Link to this
I wonder if Mr. Wooten actually wrote his own column today, since there was no mention of Rev. Wright.
I wonder if Mr. Wooten will comment about the domestic oil wells that the oil companies closed because it was cheaper to buy the oil from overseas (funny thing about fungible resources).
I wonder if Mr. Wooten considers W and his younger brother Jeb to be environmentalists since they played a larger role in preventing drilling off of the Florida coast (seems those Rangers who donate to the Bush campaigns are also NIMBYs).
I wonder why Mr. Wooten does not comment on the $$$$ required to support the states prison population. I wonder why he is very quick to comment that the per student costs of education are too high but makes no mention of the per prisoner cost. Funny thing, many of those prisoners are eligible for better health care than they would be if they were back in the general population.
I wonder why Mr. Wooten does not equate voting for the the members of the school board with local control.
I wonder why Mr. Wooten believes only the wealthy should hold political office.
By jbmlaw
May 2, 2008 12:46 PM | Link to this
Dear Thor @ 12:06, there are few more virulent ideologues on this blog than I, but I attribute more evil and incompetence to our blessed Moderates than to all of the leftists combined. Moderates damage the reputation of conservatives by falsely claiming to do “most” of what we would wish. Our wishy-washy friends in the middle compromise every intelligent plan, whether left or right, ensuring only failure from their good intentions. There are two ways to do almost anything, the right way (which I prefer) and the left way (which I abhor), but the moderate way is merely a way to waste motion and money, as it will never accomplish anything.
By Martin Luther King, Jr.
May 2, 2008 12:52 PM | Link to this
Stole my name from some German guy who started the Protestant Reformation. Maybe one day I kin have a big movement, too…
Vote O’BAMA - cuz he’s almost as good as Cynthia McKinney and shee ain’t runnin’.
By George Washington
May 2, 2008 12:55 PM | Link to this
Yo jmblaw - Git a job, you lazy bum….
By HIDT
May 2, 2008 12:56 PM | Link to this
A moderate cannot lead. He stands in the middle of the road, blocking progress, while he believes he is directing traffic and keeping order among competing ideologies. Citizens deserve a general, not a traffic cop.
By George Washington
May 2, 2008 1:00 PM | Link to this
did you idiot repukes not learn anything over the last 8 years of having a zionist puppet government controling american foreign policy? Mccain is just as weak a human being as the chimp, easlily controled by the pro israel cowards and traitors. If you want four more years of war, just vote for McCancer face and joe lieberswine as the puller of the puppet strings….
By HIDT
May 2, 2008 1:00 PM | Link to this
Apparently, gulpi, there was a need for you to go on … and on ….. and on ….. and on ….. and on ….. and on ….. and on ….. and on ….. and on ….. and on ….. and on ….. and on ….. and on ….. and on ….. and on ….. and on ….. and on ….. and on ….. and on ….. and on ….. and on ….. and on ….. and on ….. and on …
By George Washington
May 2, 2008 1:02 PM | Link to this
here stupids, this is the price of 8 long years of the chimp and the zionist control of the executive branch of government: “Dollar Reserve Status Is Tale of Fading Glory: Michael R. Sesit
Commentary by Michael R. Sesit
May 2 (Bloomberg) — Reserve currency status is like your health: Abuse it, and you risk losing it.
With the dollar’s 45 percent decline against the euro during the past six years and its 37 percent drop on a trade-weighted basis, there is a growing concern that the greenback’s six-decade reign as the world’s most important currency may be ending.
It’s not. The dollar is the world’s reserve currency, and absent some unexpected exogenous shock, will probably remain so for some time.
Nonetheless, the dollar’s premier status is under threat, especially as a store of wealth, by both foreign governments and private investors. Also, companies are using it less as a currency in which to invoice and settle international trade transactions.
Why care? Reserve currency status allows the U.S. government to borrow in its own currency, lets the U.S. run large trade deficits, and helps the government and American companies to fund themselves at low interest rates. It makes it easier for U.S. companies to do business and increases the international demand for U.S. assets.
Moreover, as the specie of choice, the dollar is blessed with seigniorage, the interest-free loan America receives from the hundreds of billions of dollars held overseas and hoarded as misfortune insurance.
Although the composition of official central-bank foreign- exchange holdings receives the lion’s share of attention when people talk about reserves, it is the private sector’s trade in goods and services that plays a dominant role in determining a currency’s international status.
Cash Reserves
Official reserves equal 33 percent of global imports, according to UBS AG. If a company in country A trades with a company in country B and the transaction is invoiced and settled in the currency of country C, that third currency will have reserve status. That’s because both companies are likely to keep cash balances in that currency.
“The dollar is the most important reserve currency in the world, but it is no longer the only reserve currency, nor even the overwhelmingly dominant choice as a reserve currency,” says Paul Donovan, a London-based economist at UBS.
When the Bretton Woods system collapsed in 1971, almost all Japanese exports were priced in dollars. Now less than half are. About 40 percent of Japan’s total exports are invoiced in yen, up from 34 percent in 2001.
Raw Materials
Seventy percent of Australia’s exports are denominated in U.S. dollars, reflecting the dominance of raw materials in their makeup. Apart from commodities, the dollar plays a smaller role. For instance, 59 percent of beverage shipments to other countries are denominated in Australian dollars, 19 percent in pounds and 16 percent in U.S. currency.
Data on country invoicing patterns are hard to come by. Still, the decline in dollars held outside the U.S. from 1.83 percent of world trade in 2002 to 1.22 percent in 2006 reflects the U.S. currency’s shrinking role as a medium of exchange.
Anecdotal evidence also suggests a trend. In November, India’s Taj Mahal said it would no longer accept dollars and take only rupees. International drug dealers are said to prefer euros to dollars.
Ditto, Copenhagen-based A.P. Moeller-Maersk A/S, whose container-shipping line, the world’s biggest, on April 1 began invoicing in euros for transporting containers from Europe and North Africa to Australia, New Zealand and the South Pacific. The shipping industry historically billed in dollars.
$4.9 Trillion
On the official side, developing countries have been steadily inching away from the dollar. Their foreign-exchange reserves surged to $4.9 trillion in 2007 from $1.2 trillion in 2000. Emerging-market countries accounted for 76 percent of total global reserves in 2007, up from 56 percent in 1997, according to the International Monetary Fund. Yet during that period, their dollar holdings shrank to 61 percent from 73 percent.
The euro has been the beneficiary, rising to 28 percent of developing-country reserves in the fourth quarter from 19 percent when the decade began.
Behind this dollar downgrade lies the U.S.’s rising debtor profile, an unpopular war in Iraq, the growing threat of trade protectionism, apprehension over the greenback’s decline and the subprime crisis.
“These factors have all conspired to weaken investor confidence in the buck and undermine the dollar’s position as the world’s top currency,” says Joseph Quinlan, New York-based chief market strategist at Bank of America Capital Management.
Asian and oil-exporting central banks also hold more dollars than they prudently need and are seeking to diversify their portfolios away from their traditional preference for highly liquid, relatively low-yielding Treasuries.
No Allegiance Owed
Many countries — including China, Russia, Kuwait, Singapore and Norway — are transferring tens of billions of dollars to sovereign wealth funds. Long-term investors with mandates to maximize returns, these entities owe no allegiance to the U.S. currency and over time their investments will probably result in their governments’ holding fewer dollars.
The durability of the dollar’s reserve-currency status owes more to the absence of a challenger than sound U.S. policies. The euro is hobbled by the lack of a single, pan-European capital market and its being a hybrid currency used by a mix of countries yet owned by none.
China’s yuan is a potential contender, but not until that currency becomes fully convertible, the nation’s financial markets more developed and internationally recognized laws more established — which is years away. Japan, meanwhile, has always resisted the yen being a reserve currency.
It isn’t ordained that the dollar surrender its position as the world’s go-to currency. Yet if Americans insist on living beyond their means, eschew sound fiscal policies, ignore the greenback’s weakness and remain tempted by protectionism, the dollar will in small bites begin to mimic the British pound — the currency of a once proud but spent imperial power.”
By George Washington
May 2, 2008 1:04 PM | Link to this
Ah hates Lutherans, and that includes Martins….
By True as Ever
May 2, 2008 1:08 PM | Link to this
Aw gee, Jim, didja hafta go and pick news items that exclude the favorite sermons of the little Green Progs who hang onto your lily pad? Couldn’t you have offered them something in the way of Bush the Mass Murderer? Or Bush the Maker of the Mother of All Depressions? Or Bush the Candidate They’re Going To Beat in Novemeber?
You know: the real news?
By Martin Luther King, Jr.
May 2, 2008 1:11 PM | Link to this
On the matter of Black Liberation Theology, Part II
The black theologian must reject any conception of God which stifles black self-determination… Either God is identified with the oppressed to the point that their experience becomes God’s experience, or God is a God of racism. This is the essence of the Biblical revelation.(James H. Cone, A Black Theology of Liberation, pp. 63-64)
James H. Cone cited Wright’s Trinity church as one of the first examples of putting liberation theology into practice.
If God can be a racist, then I don’t mind the liberals calling me a racist. In fact, I’ll consider it a compliment. Thanks, Mr. Cone(head).
By Thomas Jefferson
May 2, 2008 1:18 PM | Link to this
Will the editor of this blog please, please cut off this George Washington person? Cutting and pasting 112 lines of someone else’s article is not blog-worthy!
By munchi
May 2, 2008 1:21 PM | Link to this
By HIDT
May 2, 2008 1:00 PM | Link to this
Apparently, gulpi, there was a need for you to go on … and on ….. and on ….. and on ….. and on ….. and on ….. and on ….. and on ….. and on ….. and on ….. and on ….. and on ….. and on ….. and on ….. and on ….. and on ….. and on ….. and on ….. and on ….. and on ….. and on ….. and on ….. and on ….. and on
Well…HIDT
Perhaps you don’t read well, or is it the comprehension factor?
I apoligized immediately…after my brain dead cat jumped on my keyboard and begin doing his version of the “Bristol Stomp”
Any angst that these multiple posts caused you I am so SORRY. I hope it hasn’t ruined your Friday.
BTW my cat is no longer welcome in the computer room.
And, to you sir I say have a wonderful day!
By Glenn
May 2, 2008 1:22 PM | Link to this
How can that be “the essence of the Biblical revelation”? That has nothing to do with the real lives of chickens!
By George Washington
May 2, 2008 1:26 PM | Link to this
Yo, Tom, ah kicked you but back in 1777, and ah kin do it agin today….back to your black girlfriend slave whatever, boy….
By HIDT
May 2, 2008 1:31 PM | Link to this
I read your mea culpa, but don’t buy that a cat on a keyboard can cause the same item to be posted 20 times. Now, maybe if you posted a video of said transgression on YouTube …
Hey, getting your chops busted on this blog is par for the course. Enjoy. Don’t worry. Be happy.
By Thor
May 2, 2008 1:32 PM | Link to this
Why is it that I can sit down with right and left and middle of the road people face to face and actually get some agreement about issues. To get anything done in government its called compromise; nobody gets everything they want.
I would be if I met you conservatives in person we could find compromise as well. Ronald Reagan did!
America is in trouble because everyone is dug in and nothing is getting done.
By Elaine
May 2, 2008 1:35 PM | Link to this
George is not only not blog-worthy - he’s not sponge-worthy either.
By HIDT
May 2, 2008 1:40 PM | Link to this
But it doesn’t take a moderate to lead those who are dug in to compromise. It takes leaders to work with those with whom they disagree to move forward. A stalemate results from a leadership deficit.
By Redneck Convert
May 2, 2008 1:51 PM | Link to this
Well, the good news today is that Jones guy got sentenced to the needle for killing all them people in 2004. I say shoot ‘em up and stack ‘em up, and us rednecks will haul ‘em away.
We had a pet chicken one time. My dotter wouldn’t let us kill it, so we put it to sleep and took off one leg each time and eat it. At the end it was kind of sad to see it with no legs and scooting along the floor.
Have a good weekend everybody. I’m getting off of this blog before that AJC Management and Rufus get on here and hog all the space.
By The Liberally Diseased PolySimpleton
May 2, 2008 1:53 PM | Link to this
GW
Stage 5: In the end stage of the disease, the liberal will hurl epithets that would make U.S. sailor blush.
(the following Stage was previously omitted since this blog is rated “PG”)
Stage 6: Whereupon the U.S. sailor would pound the liberal to a king-size wad of pulp and send him back to his day spa with a genial, “Have a nice day, pinko!”
By George Washington
May 2, 2008 1:59 PM | Link to this
Elain, you slot, George has better uses for his manlyness than you or your sponge….there is quit a thriving market for george in certain female quarters….not that a cow like you would know….
By GW
May 2, 2008 2:05 PM | Link to this
My loyal rich over-taxed followers,
The lesser ones whom you hire to satisfy your whims are complaining again about such insignificant things as food, shelter, and the cost of traveling the 10-mile driveways to your mansions every day in order to earn their minimum wage. Itch, Itch, Itch. That’s all they ever do. I mean, after all, this economy is resilient. It just needs to be a little tougher. All of you that have played with rubber bands and other latex items know what I mean. By resilient, I mean that it stretches. Heck, just looky at how much I have stretched it. It used to be good for an A0 but now I can get a G9 out of it. The only problem is all the cracks in it. Something might just seep through if we don’t toughen it up a little. So, I need you followers to help out a little and maybe share a little more table scraps on Mother’s day or maybe even let your serfs pitch tents closer to your mansions so they can walk to work each day. I know this is asking a lot but it’s the least us compassionate conservatives can do. Let us prey.
By George Washington
May 2, 2008 2:11 PM | Link to this
Ah kant wait for Egypt to inflict some damage on you know who, eh, liberal basher…..
By Elaine
May 2, 2008 2:19 PM | Link to this
I don’t see it happening.
By jbmlaw
May 2, 2008 2:19 PM | Link to this
I suppose it would not be accurate to call Peggy Noonan an “apologist” for the bullfrog, but she has an interesting presentation of the issue in tomorrow’s WSJ, http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120966911007860195.html?mod=djemEditorialPage
By George Washington
May 2, 2008 2:27 PM | Link to this
a;lkfaf
By munchi
May 2, 2008 2:28 PM | Link to this
By HIDT
May 2, 2008 1:31 PM | Link to this
read your mea culpa, but don’t buy that a cat on a keyboard can cause the same item to be posted 20 times. Now, maybe if you posted a video of said transgression on YouTube …
HIDT..You’ve never seen my cat tap dance…I wish I did have him recorded…he’s a hoot!
It’s Friday…It must be 5:00 p.m somewhere…and, I need a drink..As a matter of fact so does kitty.
So long all.
By GW
May 2, 2008 2:30 PM | Link to this
The Liberally Diseased PolySimpleton might wish to elucidate with reference material.
By HIDT
May 2, 2008 3:03 PM | Link to this
Then you really will be gulpi. Think I’ll have a pop, too. Cheers.
By Thor
May 2, 2008 3:45 PM | Link to this
The Republican Party left me a long time ago. I don’t identify with either party but I’m having a hard time voting Republican because of: - the war in Iraq - tax cuts + spending worse than LBJ - the deficit - hard right wing social positions
By Peter
May 2, 2008 3:58 PM | Link to this
By jbmlaw
May 2, 2008 8:20 AM | Link to this
Good morning all. Small minds blame companies for the crimes of the government. It is rare to find a democrat who has any workable idea how to increase supply, or a method of reducing demand (other than a manufactured price problem caused by government-imposed inefficiency.)
HA HA HA what a joke…… look at Bush, and tell me he has a clue, besides wasting American’s Money !
HA HA HA…….. HA HA HA…….
28% approval rating, for Bush, and we get to read this crap!
HA HA HA…… HA HA HA…….
By Glenn
May 2, 2008 4:14 PM | Link to this
I see that no one—-no one—-on this site has had the decency to empathize even momentarily with the plight of the modern chicken. And yet in all statistical likelihood that would be a chicken torn from its parents, even before birth, and raised without affection—-even in vast, anonymous Foster farms.
A faceless chicken, in a land of faceless chickens marked for death. But a chicken in need nonetheless, an unhappy chicken with needs as unmet as any that concern you or me. Do not presume to mock this chicken until you have lived a day in its feathers.
Chickens may not vote, they may not have a powerful voice in the halls of governance, but that is all the more reason why it is incumbent on us to speak for them. So write to the candidate of your choice and ask him or her the following: “Senator, Are America’s chickens better off today than they were eight years ago?”
Because a candidate doesn’t deserve to be President who doesn’t know the Poultry Misery Index. Even PETA will have betrayed them thrice before the chicken crows.
I urge you: count your chickens before it’s too late!
By Jim Morrison
May 2, 2008 4:25 PM | Link to this
I eat chicken and I eat beans.
I eat more chicken ‘an any man ever seen.
By Artie Sammish
May 2, 2008 4:35 PM | Link to this
I get my chicken at a nearby Asian market. On Special it’s 59 cents/pound. Not bad, eh? I can buy the equivalent of a whole chicken, choosing just the parts I want, for less than the cost of a fryer.
I’m partial to wings. With a little help from my Taiwanese sister-in-law I explained to the butcher a while ago that I want only left wings. My sister-in-law says he thinks it’s some sort of superstition with me; and in a way, it is. I enjoy frying the left wings, or else smoking them very slowly over smouldering lobsong oolong and star anise, and then savoring the rewards of my labors.
Between the left wings and the right wings are the backs. The butcher usually throws one of those in for free. Not much market for backs, apparently. Sometimes I boil them for stock. Usually I just throw them out.
Wouldn’t want to be rude to such a nice butcher.
By Gary Larson
May 2, 2008 4:43 PM | Link to this
They were beautiful, those chickens in the mist.
By deegee
May 2, 2008 5:03 PM | Link to this
All I keep reading about is ethanol, and how it is that high food costs are as a result of high corn costs and corn is being used to make ethanol. And how wheat costs more because farmers are raising less wheat and more corn because of ethanol. Can someone please tell me who is buying all of this ethanol and pumping it in their gas tank? How come we have to drill for oil in ANWR if we are making all of this ethanol and paying out the nose for corn and wheat?
By Jackie
May 2, 2008 5:17 PM | Link to this
John McCain just announced the USA is in Iraq fighting for oil. It is not about values, freedom, schools, Israel, or anything.
It is all about the oil!
Now the curtain to Dubya’s bad play has been opened, what will the Repubs do now to explain why we are in Iraq and why we may have to stay?
By Harvey Firestone
May 2, 2008 5:22 PM | Link to this
Because it isn’t ramped up yet, deegee, and because even when it is, it’ll still be just p!ssing in the Pacific. It generates only enough juice to fuel Capitol Hill (which is still more than a lot of scams can manage).
By GW
May 2, 2008 5:40 PM | Link to this
Chickens get exactly what they deserve in this dog-eat-dog world. Eaten — alive.
I’m GW and I approve this message.
By Warren
May 2, 2008 5:45 PM | Link to this
Arise ye chickens from your slumbers!
Arise ye scratchers of the earth!
The rooster makes the Sun to rise
And Tyson decides what you’re worth.
No more the farmer’s wire shall pen you,
For you make a Bright New Dawn!
It’s time to take you off the menu
And for you to Green our lawn!
By Dusty
May 2, 2008 5:53 PM | Link to this
Jackie@5:17
Would you mind telling us: in what speech did John McCain say we were in Iraq for oil? I’ve read quite a few of his speeches and never read that. But..you wouldn’t take words out of context, would you Jackie?? Nawwwww….
By Dancing Bear
May 2, 2008 6:01 PM | Link to this
Dadgummit, Dusty, what’s all that got to do with The Suffering of Chickens in Our Time?
By Jim
May 2, 2008 6:49 PM | Link to this
Misson Accomplished 4,000 +
By Jim
May 2, 2008 6:52 PM | Link to this
Misson Accomplished 4,000 +
By brother bill
May 3, 2008 9:34 AM | Link to this
Just as oil replaced whale fat as a primary fuel, we must replace oil with methanol or ethanol. With current technology and current prices, the equivalent cost for the equivalent of 1 gallon of gasoline would be about $3.00, under the $3.55 current price of gasoline. If drivers had flex-fuel vehicles and gas stations had both fuels available, we would break the back of big oil. Check out the book “Energy Victory” for the details. We can produce our own fuel or we can be held hostage to oil producing nations who can charge $10 / gallon. You pick.
By Peter
May 3, 2008 10:16 AM | Link to this
By Dusty
May 2, 2008 5:53 PM | Link to this
Jackie@5:17
Would you mind telling us: in what speech did John McCain say we were in Iraq for oil? I’ve read quite a few of his speeches and never read that. But..you wouldn’t take words out of context, would you Jackie?? Nawwwww….
Well Dusty is right McCain’s words were kind of sort of taken out of context….. in fact some don’t make too much sense if they are NOT taken out of context………. lets look at these words for instance………
“After we win the war in Iraq, and we are succeeding — and it’s long and hard and tough, with enormous sacrifices — then I’m talking about a security arrangement that may or may not be the same kind of thing we had with Korea after the Korean war was over,” he said.
Please someone tell me how many factions were fighting each other in Korea……. Was there just two, or the three we have hating on each other in Iraq?
Gee I guess there will be next some plan to stop the 1000 years of hate between the three factions?
Seems like McCain has been doing some back pedaling…….
It was the second time in as many days that McCain had to clarify his comments. On Thursday, he backed off his assertion that pork-barrel spending led to last year’s deadly bridge collapse in Minneapolis, Minnesota.
More on McCains thoughts on wasting AMERICAN Money for YEARS to come !
McCain said: “Maybe 100. As long as Americans are not being injured or harmed or wounded or killed, that’d be fine with me, and I hope it would be fine with you, if we maintain a presence in a very volatile part of the world where al Qaeda is training, recruiting, equipping and motivating people every single day.
Yes leaving Americans in Iraq for 100 years, and patrolling the world like, the World Police, is McCain’s attitude.
Gee that is just the opposite of Ron Paul’s idea of what our Constitution is about.
So if you want to be the “World Police” and spend ALL our money in this fashion, Please Vote Wrong!
By Dave
May 3, 2008 11:11 AM | Link to this
RIP US Soldier, I know you (I’ve known you since I came home from Vietnam in 1968) - you don’t give a rat’s %#& about our soldiers (dead or alive). All you care about is your Hate America first agenda. You were a loser then and you’re a loser now.
By dirty harry
May 3, 2008 12:41 PM | Link to this
Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) clarified his comments Friday after suggesting the Iraq war was motivated by U.S. reliance on foreign oil.
His explanation: He was talking about the 1991 Persian Gulf War, not the current conflict.
It was the second time in as many days that the presumptive Republican presidential nominee had to clear up his comments. On Thursday, he backed off his assertion that pork-barrel spending led to last year’s deadly bridge collapse in Minneapolis.
At issue Friday was a comment at a morning town hall meeting in Denver, when he said his energy policy would eliminate U.S. dependence on Middle East oil and would “prevent us from having ever to send our young men and women into conflict again in the Middle East.”
He sought to clarify his comments after his campaign plane landed in Phoenix. He said he didn’t mean the U.S. went to war in Iraq five years ago over oil.
“No, no, I was talking about that we had fought the Gulf War for several reasons,” McCain told reporters.
Poor ol’ Dusty, and all the McCain is great band waggoner’s … Rest assured if you like BUSH you’re gonna love MCCAIN!
By HeySoose
May 3, 2008 5:57 PM | Link to this
You know what? You’re all a bunch of whiners. F-You All.
By Craig
May 4, 2008 10:27 AM | Link to this
Caught among self-serving politicos, self-aggrandizing bureaucrats and preoccupied citizens, how much of a chance for enduring success does our experiment in representative government have?
By Entjungferung
May 8, 2008 12:41 PM | Link to this
Ich mag Ihre Arbeit!, http://www.members.lycos.co.uk/entjungferung gay video, gay webcam, gay movie, gay film =D
By komlicuen mavlwtu
June 5, 2008 9:56 AM | Link to this
pbqm jaxvtm lpkvmos mbhljgf kvspulgnz sdar yqug
By vito fdnq
June 5, 2008 9:58 AM | Link to this
clxsfpqhd ghsqok ljsmnpu uzgxqt awnqctlkj ldmtkgnja pugaxthmf
By vito fdnq
June 5, 2008 9:59 AM | Link to this
clxsfpqhd ghsqok ljsmnpu uzgxqt awnqctlkj ldmtkgnja pugaxthmf
By bqvyzid qrbyjisg
December 6, 2008 1:06 PM | Link to this
ihcrbknjz yqxscphaw ebvxk dantybfs gnkdpivw xbud niemsqwkd
By bqvyzid qrbyjisg
December 6, 2008 1:08 PM | Link to this
ihcrbknjz yqxscphaw ebvxk dantybfs gnkdpivw xbud niemsqwkd
By bqvyzid qrbyjisg
December 6, 2008 1:09 PM | Link to this
ihcrbknjz yqxscphaw ebvxk dantybfs gnkdpivw xbud niemsqwkd
By dwugbx gayduqlto
March 22, 2009 2:42 AM | Link to this
ciyaz hvkzy rcblhftn crgmbf izkrspfuv fwogkdr ftep
By dwugbx gayduqlto
March 22, 2009 2:44 AM | Link to this
ciyaz hvkzy rcblhftn crgmbf izkrspfuv fwogkdr ftep
By dwugbx gayduqlto
March 22, 2009 2:45 AM | Link to this
ciyaz hvkzy rcblhftn crgmbf izkrspfuv fwogkdr ftep