From Melissa.
How many times have you heard someone from the Left write sumpin' like this?
For example, today we import more than 58 percent of our oil from other countries, which makes us vulnerable to international disruptions and with oil at $70 a barrel, represents a dangerous outflow of capital from this country. Bad as that may seem, by 2025 we will probably be importing 70 percent of our oil, according to estimates by the U.S. Energy Information Administration (www.eia.doe.gov).
OK. That's bad. So far, so good. Now said liberal writes.
However, even if we drop the ban on oil drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, and if projections of oil reserves in that area prove valid, we would still have to import 66 percent of our oil at ANWR's peak of production in 2025, the EIA estimates.
So what he is saying is why should we open up ANWR if it's only gonna help us out by 4%? No, let's not have more production because that would be bad. What we need is conservation and alternate energy sources. Like nuclear power. No. Nuclear power bad. Wind good. No. Not off coast of Taxachusetts. Wind bad. Solar good. No I'm sure the environmental dipsticks would find sumpin' wrong with putting solar panels in the desert. It would probably kill some obscure, insignificent insect like the liberalus asshatus insectus
We cannot create more oil beneath the ground, much as we might wish to do so, but if we choose to do so, we have the technology needed to wring more out of each unit of energy we consume, in the process making ourselves more competitive economically, less vulnerable to international energy disruptions and more responsible stewards of the planet we will someday leave to our children and their children.
See. It's for the children. All good liberals gotta love the children.
This is from a column by Jay Bookman, one of the resident liberals who writes for the Atlanta Urinal and Constipation.
The liberals in Atlanta have the same mindset over transportation. They've cited some studies that say even if we build a whole bunch more highway capacity by 2020 traffic will be even worse than it is now. So their solution is, of course, let's not widen the highways, let's have more mass transit. That is, mass transit that will be more expensive than the roads and mass transit that no one wants to use because, just like MARTA, it will suck and not go where people want it to go. Does it go to Turner Field? No. Howza 'bout the Georgia Dome? No.
But back to Jay. I'm sure Jay is vehemently opposed to drilling in a small postage stamp area of ANWR because of the caribou or the whales or some other poor dumb animal who doesn't really give a fuck and wouldn't be affected. I'm sure he's also opposed to any offshore drilling, too.
Just like mass transit. If it will not completely solve the problem, the liberals want another solution that won't completely solve the problem either, but it will make them feel better because they think it is for the environment (or for the children.). Less cars. Less polution. Less oil. Less cars. It's for the children.
Thomas Friedman recently wrote a column about this. (No link since it's the New York Times and they think you should have to pay for their bullshit.) In this column, he suggested a $1 per gallon gas tax. The perfect liberal solution: A tax increase. This tax would be dedicated to things that would decrease our reliance on foreign oil. Ya know. Stuff like ethanol and biofuels. Hydrogen cars. Other miracles of modern technology.
This sounds pretty good until you think that the Social Security Trust Fund was supposed to only be used for Social Security. That was before the politicians raided it for other programs. Anyone think that the $1 per gallon gas tax would only be used for energy projects? OK. Anyone besides the liberals who drop by here every now and then? No. I didn't think so.
As usual, my way is to let the free market do its job. Sure. Let's have conservation. I'm all for that. If people want to buy hybrids or smaller fuel efficient cars, let them. Trust me. If oil remains above $70 a barrel, the public will eventually demand that we open up ANWR and our coasts to exploration. Especially when they see China drill off our coast. They're doing it for Mexico. That's our oil people. That's oil that the Dimocrats don't want us to use.
If oil remains high, we'll start looking more and more at alternate sources that were not feasible at $20 per barrel oil, like oil shale. But as we are doing this, we would be stupid not to exploit the oil we know exists in ANWR or off of our coasts. But wait. I'm talking about Dimocrats here. I forgot all about Poof! PFM.
That is their energy policy.
Posted by denny at June 20, 2006 10:23 PM
Actually, MARTA does go to the Georgia Dome (Dome/GWCC/Philips Arena Station on the West Line), and the reason it doesn't go to Turner Field is because when MARTA was in planning back in the 1970s, the city of Atlanta would not allow a MARTA station near the Alanta-Fulton County Stadium because they feared the city would lose parking revenue (bullshit).
Adding freeway capacity wouldn't help either, because while it relives congestion in the short term, eventually the roads fill back up again (and the reason why "Freeing the Freeways" [in Atlanta] back in the '80s was a joke).
My personal belief is that there should be a balance between roads and rail, and since Atlanta has done a good job on roads, they should now focus on alternate transportation (expanding MARTA) and not make the problem worse. But, then again, I could be wrong.
Top notch Denny! We should be charging El Douchebag Pussidente Fux multiple barrels a day before even tappin into ANWR, but then again, we should've drilled off the coast of KA 10 years ago too! Thanks liberals! You fucking people are on acid!
Posted by: CharlieDelta on June 21, 2006 03:14 AMDenny, do you think a $1 per gallon gas tax is incompatible with free market ? You increase the oil-cost, so the consummers look immediately for alternative solutions, and the free market brings those solutions ?
Posted by: Prosper on June 21, 2006 08:38 AMThe quest for perfection is the enemy of the good. Liberals are never satisfied with anything unless it is perfect. Of course, perfection is unattainable.
However, theories are always perfect. That is why liberals worship theories no matter how many times they fail. The theory is never wrong: It just wasn't done right.
What we really need is a manufacturing process that will allow us to turn liberals into usable fuel for our cars. We'd never have an energy shortage problem again, and life on the political front would be oh so much better.
Posted by: Vulgorilla on June 21, 2006 10:06 AMFor real fun with leftards, I like to bring up the nonorganic theory of "fossil" fuels. It's plausible enough, but not very popular; you know, like the idea that global warming is a naturally occurring event and humans aren't responsible for skinny polar bears.
Posted by: Duncan on June 21, 2006 10:48 AMThere are oil reserves in many more stares than that map shows. There is oil in Illinois, Kansas, Wyoming and that includes pumpable as well as shale oil.
Change the EPA rules and oil will be flowing.
Prosper - I think a $1 per gallon tax is unnecessary for the reason I stated. It would just put more money in the hands of politicians and they wouldn't spend it for the desired purpose. We went through this in the 70's. When the cost of gasoline reaches a certain price, people will start conserving. That's what happened in the 70's. People downsized their cars back then. Gummint mandated better fuel efficiency for cars, but that wasn't what made American auto companies manufacture more fuel efficient vehicles. It was the influx of cheap fuel efficient cars from Japan. Leave gummint out of the loop since they will only make the problem worse. I don't like using the tax system for behavior modification. We're overtaxed anyway. The last thing we need is yet another tax. AS I said in the post, for the Left, the solution to every problem contains a tax increase.
Posted by: Denny on June 21, 2006 11:29 AMTom - I stand corrected on MARTA. I have no problem with spending some of the gas revenue on mass transit if it is done right. This is Atlanta and they'll fuck it up. That being said, we need to update our freeway system also. To not do so is the height of stupidity.
Posted by: Denny on June 21, 2006 11:34 AMWhy are libs always championing causes "for the children" when they're so concerned with ripping them out of the womb and killing them? I'm so cornfused...
Posted by: Dar on June 21, 2006 11:45 AMYou could say though, that MARTA is incompetent and not exactly good with money in the following scenarios:
1. When MARTA adds a new member to its board whose only qualification is that she rode MARTA (and lives in public housing)
2. When MARTA spends $85,000 on a Christmas party even though service has been cut by 20% in the last decade
3. When MARTA spends money on shit that ain't necessary for a transit system, such as personal trainers and unused computers
And that is just the tip of the iceberg...
That said, MARTA needs to clean house, i.e. get people who know how to run a transit system and not people who kiss Atlanta mayoral ass.
And as far as roads are concerned, I myself actually reverse my position on road building in that the freeway system needs to be expanded, but the policy behind it should not be made by real estate developers looking to make a quick buck (Ask Tom Moreland and Wayne Shackleford [former DOT commissioners during the 70s & 80s] about how they were bought off).
Tom - Then I guess we're pretty much in agreement. I actually wrote a post about the unused computer scandal when it happened.
Dar - Don't you understand? To a liberal it's only a fetus until it is completely out of the woman. Not a chld, but a fetus. That's how they can justify something as barbarous as partial birth abortion. I've always wondered how they could be pro-abortion and anti-capital punishment. I think it was Ann Coulter who said liberals like to protect the guilty and kill the innocent.
BTW, I just added you to my blogroll under Military Bloggers.
I agree with Denny that an oil tax isn't going to cut it. The bureaucrats in D.C. will find a way to waste it, misappropriate it. If they can fuck up Social Security, they can fuck up anything.
Speaking of wasting money, I can't believe Denny has posted links and news stories related to the federal funds that were squandered in post-Katrina Louisiana. You know? The debit cards they handed out like Halloween candy. Prisoners (still in jail) receiving checks from FEMA. Emergency money wasted on plastic surgery and cruises around the world. Jesus H. Christ...
What's hilarious is that Denny predicted it. The flood waters hadn't receded an inch before Denny told us there would be a rampant waste of federal relief aid. He must have a crystal ball bedside or sumptin'. As soon as the stories about the wasted funds started to surface, I thought about GOC in Atlanta.
And you know what? This hypothetical $1 "gas tax" would be wasted as well. Let the free market control the prices. As soon as people can't afford to fill up their 11 MPG SUV's, they'll find another way to get around. Works every time...
Posted by: Marksman2000 on June 21, 2006 04:40 PMTo be more accurate, I can't believe HASN'T posted links and news stories to the related matter...
Hiccup.
Posted by: Marksman2000 on June 21, 2006 04:42 PMWe have more oil in shale than the entire ME and we can do nothing about it.
Posted by: Sandy P on June 21, 2006 04:51 PMIs the tem "Fossil Fuel" even accurate? It is very little more than a theory. An altenative may be the abiotic theory of oil formantion. See http://www.freeenergynews.com/Directory/Theory/SustainableOil/
Posted by: Richard on June 21, 2006 05:53 PMOil comes from old age of the earth. Just like coal and all minerals.Enough said as to where the fuck it comes from. When are we going to be allowed to drill for our own?
Posted by: gene Hall on June 21, 2006 08:36 PMOil contains more energy per unit mass than it takes to extract it into a useable form. Ethanol requires more energy to make than it contains per unit mass. Electric or hydrogen powered vehicles are even more energy inefficient than oil burners for just that reason. Are electric vehicles clean? Sure, if you get your electricity from hydroelectric dams or nuclear power. Forget about burning coal or natural gas for electricity. Come to think of it, the Greenies scream about dams and nuclear power plants, too. You get less energy from electricity than it takes to create it. It's that pesky law of nature called "Conservation of Matter".
Posted by: Ralph Gizzip on June 21, 2006 09:24 PMGene-
Only when the idiotic liberal mindset is exterminated will we ever drill for our own. I still like Michael Savage's idea of charging Vicente Fuckface Fox 10 barrels for every ILLEGAL wetback over here from his shit-hole country.
"This tax would be dedicated to things that would decrease our reliance on foreign oil. Ya know. Stuff like ethanol and biofuels. Hydrogen cars. Other miracles of modern technology."
Uh huh, ethanol is some good shit. Sucks up water like a sponge so it requires some hellacious special handling and you can't pipeline it so transportation from the corn belt is a problem. And it has a lower BTU content than gasoline. Only people benefitting from that stuff are the corn farmers and the distillers.
Don't know much about biofuels but I have a suspicion there will be major problems there as well.
Everytime I hear hydrogen car I think about the Hindenberg. Just where I want to be in rush hour. On a freeway full of fuckin' bombs.
Posted by: Myron on June 21, 2006 10:43 PMPROSPER DUCK!!!......If you ever hope to make a credible impact with your posting`s with regard to an American problem , you must first forget the first axiom of a liberal .
That Axiom is when confronted by any problem, the solution is to levy a tax on it. It is funny in that anytime this happens ,the problem seems to get worse, the liberal answer then is to tax it at an even higher rate. Why liberals can not see that throwing money at a problem never works is one of the great mysteries of the real world.
A free market which relies on investment into solutions which generate profit always work , that is why the tax cuts of Kennedy, Reagan & Bush stimulated the economy igniting an expanding economy & recovery. The sad part is when the electorate stick their heads back in the sand & place the dimocrats back in power, the first thing the dimocrats do is dream up some Government welfare or assistance plan , levy a tax to cover it, ignore the economy & be mystified when the program runs short of money & the economy tanks.
It is not rocket science , a free market economy will heal or repair itself, even the communists have managed to figure this out. Look at Eastern Europe today,China , then compare to the socialized West European countries.These countries might not be completely sold on capitalism but to stimulate their respective economies the only solution which provided results is just that.
Prosper.... for your own intellectual satisfaction, research as you will any of the leftwing thinktanks you favor to find even one occasion where a punitive tax levy or increase has generated a net improvement or economic benefit. I think you will again find you have missed the point.
Posted by: Dudley1 on June 22, 2006 08:04 AMDUDLEY1 MUG (you're right, it's fun!)
I believe in free market, but i believe in political vision too. So, if you believe in a specific path to improve your society, you change the rules and you let the market solve the problem.
I don't think free market was able to save itself in 1929. Enters the New Deal of Roosevelt...
Taxes are just a tool for state interventionism.
Too much government is bad, but not enough is not good either...
I know, i missed the point...
Posted by: Prosper on June 22, 2006 10:13 AMhttp://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13474997/
Posted by: Erik on June 22, 2006 12:00 PMErik-
Msnbc is a joke, as is the whole global warming bullshit from the left! Notice how they have no mention of the WMD's that were found in Iraq? Kind of convienient don't you think??
"the first thing the dimocrats do is dream up some Government welfare or assistance plan , levy a tax to cover it, ignore the economy & be mystified when the program runs short of money & the economy tanks."
Yes, sir. Yes, sir. Etch it in stone on a D.C. monument but people still won't learn.
It wasn't MSNBC that caught my attention, rather the National Research Council: http://www.nationalacademies.org/nrc/
I find it unlikely that politics are involved, and any shouts of that resound of the infamous "Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy" remarks.
Interesting that it is a Republican congressman that is involved. Maybe a read of at least the summary of the report is required, rather than saying something about "the left" and media bias. I'm not trying to make any personal attacks or flare any testosterone, but come on now.
I will believe the word of a group of leading scientists before I believe the word of any politician.
Posted by: Erik on June 22, 2006 03:22 PMErik -
Global Warming Claims Overheated
Gore Slams Gobal Warming Critics
I read somewhere that the polar icecaps on Mars are shrinking. Must be the Martians creating all those greenhouse gases.
Go the your library and check out a copy of Micharl Crichton's State of Fear. Yeah. It's a novel, but he has some interesting documentation.
Why is that you are so resistant to the possibility/probablity that humans are at least partly to blame for the Earth's rising temperatures, all snarkiness aside? Do you not believe that the all the stuff that gets thrown into the atmosphere has some affect?
Posted by: Erik on June 22, 2006 07:56 PMErik - Possibly because 30 years ago the same people talking about global warming were talking about global cooling.
Posted by: Denny on June 22, 2006 09:14 PMErik:
In 1883 a volcano south of Sumatra, east of Java erupted/exploded.
Temperatures around the world were dropped for somewhere between 5 and 15 years. (Estimates differ). _At least_ 2 degrees C/year for 3 years, the temperature average was depressed _worldwide_.
It's an order of magnitude issue. Short of atomics (approximately 900 have been detonated in the open-air - you think burning gas beats that?), we're just not going to make *that* big of a difference. There are lots of checks/balances and nature has a way of balancing out things.
The sun's been hotter than in recent years. I dare say it's got a lot better chance of affecting temperature than whether my SUV gets 2 more miles per gallon.
Prosper:
"Denny, do you think a $1 per gallon gas tax is incompatible with free market ? You increase the oil-cost, so the consummers look immediately for alternative solutions, and the free market brings those solutions ?"
While a *better* idea than some, the problem comes with that being a *tax*. As the "hybrid" owners in california can tell you, when governments get addicted to taxes, they're not giving them up. So when gas got expensive, and people bought smaller cars, and bought less gas. And the tax revenue went down... So.. the answer? Tax gas AND milage!
Since it's a tax, it also makes the "logical" step a black market of non-taxed fuel.. which means you've got to have police to enforce...
Additionally, there's the "Manhatten Project" fallacy that comes in. "We could fix this with enough money!" Err, no. First, you get the idea. In 1939, we *knew* we could make Pu-239 and U-235 (mostly) go *boom* easily. The problem was... we didn't *have* any Pu-239. Or enriched Uranium. Or know for certain how much we needed. Or how to make it *not* go *boom* until we wanted it to. *That* took 2 billion in 1944 US Dollars. But the *goal* was known. How to get there is what took the finding.
We don't have a similar known goal ahead. Batteries are currently at the limits of chemistry. "Alternative" fuels provide less power, with more problems in extraction/refining/storing/transporting/fueling.
Posted by: Addison (the other one) on June 22, 2006 09:45 PMProsper.... You said the free market was unable to save itself in 1929 so enter the new deal & Roosevelt.
First point if you continue on with your quest for knowledge is the essential first points of the new deal were first proposed by President Herbert Hoover not Roosevelt, the democrat`s blocked adoption of any of these proposals . When Roosevelt was elected he & the democrats adopted them ,claimed them as their own , expanded on them & this is what became the new deal.
The free market failed in 1929 just as it had in preceeding & has in subsequent time`s for the same reason`s........ uncontrolled speculation with out any control over the financial manipulation `s which fuel the speculation , it is greed which brought about the shortfall that precipitated the collapse of the stock market. A free market is a misnomer in that a system of control over the process is indeed neccessary for the success of the system & protection of the investor, again because of the human variable called greed.
Political vision is a BS term to cover the fact most politicians have no vision for the public at large only how to enhance their power & line their pockets. The public be damned full speed ahead is the real agenda of most politicians.
Actually you are getting the point ....you said, too much government is bad, not enough is not good either. You do see the balance which is required, the question is who should ultimately control that balance, our form of government states we the people, not they the ruling aristocracy or privileged class. This is the point that the leftwing liberal`s miss.