»
Discussion
»
The Alley
»
It's Official...
| The Alley |
|
It's Official... |
|
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA 
|
Senate rejects oil drilling in Alaska wildlife refuge Defeat for White House Wednesday, March 19, 2003 Posted: 4:20 PM EST (2120 GMT) Environmentalists oppose a proposal to open up the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge for oil drilling. WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Senate on Wednesday narrowly rejected oil drilling in an Alaska wildlife refuge, rebuffing the Bush administration on a top energy goal it had hoped to win with a wartime security appeal. Despite intense lobbying by pro-drilling senators and the White House in the hours leading up to the vote, Democrats mustered the support needed to remove a drilling provision from a budget resolution expected to be approved later this week. It is now official. The United States has the most riduculous Congress in the history of the country. Well, the Democrats did promise that they would change things if they got in.....they kept their promise. An interesting postscript to this is that this story wasn't listed in the Yahoo headlines, nor was it listed on the "Latest Headlines" segment, which lists over 20 of the day's important stories, nor did I see it on the network tv news. I had to look it up on google to find it. Gee, I wonder why... Could it possibly be that our friendly left-wing news agencies knew how negative of a reaction it would cause among the Joe Six Packs who are shelling out almost 4 bucks a gallon while we are sitting on enough oil to drastically reduce our dependence on foreign oil? Nah, it can't be that, can it? Congress has taken pathetic to a new level...nice going. |
||
| © Copyright 2008 Michael Mack - All Rights Reserved | |||
|
serenity blaze Member Empyrean
since 2000-02-02
Posts 27738 |
Can you explain to me why it's pathetic? |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Actually, serenity-gal, I'm writing a small story about it. I'll let you see it when i'm finished. It's about the year 3050 and a father is helping his young son review past civilizations. He tells his son about an ancient country called the United States of America, the strongest, most successful country in the history of the world. He spoke of how the people lived in relative freedom and citizens were free to be as successful as they could be. He told him how this country went to the aid of other countries threatened by dictators, gave billions of dollars in aid to needy countries, and was the true world leader, economically and militarily. His son then asked what had happened to this great country. The father recounted the middle east wars, the rise of terrorism and their takeover of middle east governments,and their subsequent assault on the United States. He told him how they joined with other sympathetic oil-producing countries who also hated the United States and, together, they shut off the supply of oil to the U.S., basically parylizing the country and rendering their military useless. In the end they were able to attack and destroy the United States, and the greatest nation in the history of the world ceased to exist in that capacity, following the likes of Rome, Sparta and Greece. The son lamented how such a wonderful country was defeated just because they had no oil. The father then told him that wasn't true. They actually DID have oil, more than they could possible use. The boy said he didn;t understand. If they had it, why didn't they use it, to which the father explained that environmental groups and certain political parties blocked any attempt to use it, citing damage to the environment among other such bits of reasoning. The boy still didn't get it. They made it possible for their country to be destroyed because they didn't want to hurt the environment? He didn't see where the sense in that lay. Guess what? Neither do I. Yes, Karen...pathetic. We have more oil than we will ever need...in Alaska, in the Dakotas and offshore. There was a discussion with an environmentalist yesterday on tv. It was pointed out to him that the size relationship between Anwar and Alaska was the equivalent of a postage stamp on a tennis court. He replied that it didn't matter - the environment was very delicate and one never knows what can damage it. Florida passed a law that prohibits off-shore drilling out to a minimum distance of 250 miles at the same time Mexico gave permission to drill off-shore 80 miles from Key West. We have to go out 250, China drills 80 miles away. Nice. Australia has been drilling for 0ver 40 years with no mishaps. Perhaps we can have them teach us how to do it, since the environmentalists are so certain we can't do it safely ourselves. So what do we do instead? We buy the oil from other countries that we don't want to produce, we send billions out of the country, much of which is used to fight us...all of this because a certain part of our government does not want to have us use our own natural resources. You don't call that pathetic? Still don't want to use our own oil? How about nuclear energy then? Nope... they don't want that, either. France, which should be on no one's list of countries to emulate, uses nuclear power for over 90% of their energy usage. Obviously they are much smarter than we are. My friend, I use that word because it describes the refusal to use our own resources and instead watch our prices on anything to do with oil skyrocket and keep us in the grip of foreign governments....and for what? There is no concrete proof that our oil exploration would be detrimental to the environment...it is the fear tactic that the environmentalists and Democrats use...the "what if..." warnings. When the senate majority leader was on tv today he said, "Yes, I heard about the Republican solutions to our energy crisis...drill, drill, drill" and he spat it out as if it were the most distasteful thing he'd ever had to say. I ask again....why do you think the results of this vote received practically no public exposure? They know that a good portion of the American public would use the same word you request that I explain....pathetic. |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
Because if it received exposure then maybe people would see who is really at fault...the Democrat controlled Congress. We can't have that now can we? After all, if oil prices stabilized due to our plans to start using our own resources, then prices wouldn't keep going through the roof, and it would be one less thing they could blame on Bush, or any future Republican President. |
||
|
oceanvu2 Senior Member
since 2007-02-24
Posts 1066Santa Monica, California, USA |
Maybe it's part of a brilliant master plan. If we continue to buy oil from other countries until they no longer have enough left to export, we will be able to tap our reserves and go neener-neener-neener. As an alternative projection of the 3050 senario, maybe fathers and sons in the US will gather together to sing praises to the oil companies, which have abandoned price gouging and ruthless profiteering now that they have total control of the world's last remaining supply. Uh huh. Nuclear energy has a few problems. There was that, uh, Chernobyl thing, and the Arizona fiasco with the plant that never came on line because it, ah, didn't work. Even so, as the post points out, the French have a handle on it. So, two more 3050 scenarios: fathers and sons will be happily driving their electric vehicles recharged by atomic energy based power plants built here by the French. Or, alternatively, Fathers will have to explain to sons why the greatest nation in the world is now an unapproachable wasteland because construction of the energy plants was contracted out to Halliburton. Bio-deisel may provide som interim relief, though it it had for me to imagine a-real world scenario where everything is powered by cowfarts and Wesson oil. Somone, somewhere, I'll venture, is close to figuring out how to economically split the water atom into hygrogen and oxygen, or figure out how to generate electricity from the difference in the temperatures of ocean currents. After the oily-garchy gets over it, or figures out how to profit from it, this budding Prometheus will eventually be vindicated, just as Tesla was. We're sure in a pickle now, though. Best, Jimbeaux. |
||
|
oceanvu2 Senior Member
since 2007-02-24
Posts 1066Santa Monica, California, USA |
Denise: Re: “Because if it received exposure then maybe people would see who is really at fault...the Democrat controlled Congress." There are currently 233 Democrats and 202 Republicans in the House of Representatives. In the Senate, there are 49 Republicans, 49 Democrats and 2 Independents. This (Class of 2006) is the first time the Democrats have held the majority in the House since 1994. In terms of percentages, 54% of House members are Democrats and 49% are Republicans. The Senate is split 50/50. Does the post suggest that 31 Democrats in the House of Representatives control the Congress and run the country, despite a Republican Executive Branch and a conservative Supreme Court? Or that the Exceutive Branch has somehow decided to go along with whatever that “gang of 31” suggests? Or that all Democratic Representatives and Senators always agree with each other and always vote the same way? Vice President Cheney is the President of the Senate and ultimate tie breaker, unless he’s given that up along with his assertion that the Office of the Vice President is not part of the Executive branch. Nancy Peolsi is Speaker of the House. That looks like a 50/50 split in leadership of the joint Congress to me. Congress creates and presents legislative and administrative bills through the process of negotiating toward consensus. The hypothetical “gang of 31” can’t achieve consensus to bring a bill of impeachment against President Bush. Not much overwhelming control there. Best, Jimbeaux  [This message has been edited by oceanvu2 (05-17-2008 11:40 AM).] |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
Control doesn't have to be overwhemling to be control. They even did damage when they weren't technically in conrol via their constant use of the filibuster to prevent issues from being brought forward for a vote. That shows how much they care about democracy. They blocked the people's representatives from even having a chance to vote on various issues. And the Republicans share the blame as well for not pushing for filibuster reform when they had the chance. If it weren't for the Democrats we would be pumping and refining our own oil instead of investing money in bio-fuel technology that has not only not brought fuel prices down as claimed, but has also increased the cost of corn and everything else, right on up the food chain. Have you seen the prices at the supermarket lately? Pretty soon we won't even be able to afford spaghetti or macaroni, the traditional staple of the poor, i.e, the middle-class family. And if a Democrat gains the White House, see how fast the taxes go up. Hillary or Obama won't be able to sign that bill fast enough. And it won't be just on the "wealthiest", as they are saying on the campaign trail. Getting rid of Bush's tax cuts will affect all of us, since his tax cuts helped all of us, not just the "wealthiest". (The Democrats actually had a "symbolic" vote a month or so ago, to do just that). What else can they do? They have to finance their socialized "free" health care in some way! You think the wait in the E.R. is long now? Just wait until the government is in charge. And then they will probably tack on another tax, estimating each individual's carbon footprint on the planet and give some of the funds to Al Gore and his friends to finance another book and movie, in their never-ending endeavor to validate their worth in the world, after the politicians first give themselves their much deserved salary increase, of course, for serving their constituents so well. I doubt humankind will be around in 3050. Father and son will have either died waiting for medical care or have starved to death for lack of money to buy food. Mother Earth, in all her splendour, will flourish, unmarred by the taint of humanity, but, alas, there will be no one left to worship at her feet. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Denise, i am forced to disagree. Spam and vienna sausages are the traditional staples of the poor!  |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
Wow, Mike, you can still afford those? I almost bought some this week, but I had to put them back. I needed the money to put in the gas tank to get me back home. I barely made it to the supermarket in the first place, running on fumes the way that I was. Sigh. Maybe next time. Until then I can dream!  Is it my imagination, or does that corn gas not last as long as the old fashioned kind? |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Alrighty, then. I'm learning here! Our energy crisis is because of the oil companies profiteering and price gouging and we should not engage in nuclear energy because of Chernobyl. I'm glad the powers that be didn't apply that logic to air travel with the first airplane crash! As far as waiting for other countries to run out of oil, there's a great plan but we won't see it and neither will our children or grandchildren, unfortunately. Oh, yes, and damn that Halliburton, once again! You left out another future scenario, Jim. The residents of what was once the United States will be enjoying the pristine beauty of Alaska and their ears will be kept warm by the earmuffs under their turbans. As I have heard many times, the answer to our energy crisis is....somebody will think of something. Nobody knows what that something is but they are all confident that the "something" will show up to save our non-drilling derrieres. Yep, Jim, we ARE in a pickle but you haven't mentioned why we should be with all of the resources we have. No environmentalist will even debate their position. They speak of pristine beauty and the delicate nature of the environment but they run from anyone who asks them to be specific. Have you ever heard Gore debate his positions? He won't. Just as you here have not mentioned any point detrimental to using our own oil, neither will they. They just try to be threatening enough to cause people to say, "No, we shouldn't drill. Somebody will think of something!" It reminds me of the old joke about the preacher caught in his house during a flash flood. Rescuers came by to get him out but he said, "I'm not worried. God will save me!" Then he had to climb up into the attic as the water rose and a boat came by, calling for him to get in. "No problem", he said. "God will save me." Then he had to go out onto the roof as the water kept rising. A helicopter came by and dropped a rope. He waved it away, calling "God will save me!" Eventually he drowned and, when reaching Heaven, he looked up God and asked him, " I don't understand, I've been in your service my entire life. Why didn't you save me when I needed you?" God replied, "What do you want from me? I sent you men, a boat and a helicopter!!!" That's where we are right now, ignoring the obvious solutions and counting on that "something" that "someone" will create to save us. The water is rising..........  Forget the corn oil, denise. I'm working on a miniature windmill that fits on the hood. My previous idea didn't work because all of the gerbils died |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
Here's the part that continues to both frustrate and confuse me, Mike. How can you simultaneously see this as the greatest country of all history and, it would seem, the stupidest? Remember, now, you're not "really" blaming the politicians for anything; you're blaming the majority of Americans who elected them, and for that matter, the ones who apparently couldn't manage to elect better alternatives. In a democracy, everything that happens is OUR fault. As to the issue itself, I'm pretty much in the dark as to the dangers (if any) of drilling for oil. Would I want an oil rig thumping away in my back yard? Probably not, though I'd like to think I could remain open to negotiation. If the offer is good enough, I suppose I could always move. Maybe to Alaska? It's honestly a little difficult for me to be either compassionate or angry over this. It too much reminds me of a junkie who, having gone through his savings, is now ready to mortgage his house to get his next fix. What started out easy, even enjoyable I suppose, is starting to get harder now. And it's going to keep right on getting harder and harder and harder, until eventually the junkie is willing to give up anything and everything he once held dear. Ultimately, I have to think the solution isn't to find more ways to get a fix. That's just short term thinking. The solution is to get off the junk. Anyone got a horse for sale? |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
How can you simultaneously see this as the greatest country of all history and, it would seem, the stupidest? Good question, Ron. It frustrates and confuses me, too. We are not the country we once were and I don't like the future of the USA, either. Somewhere we got lost along the way. Perhaps we have been beaten down by the "can't fight city hall" syndrome. Government has gotten too big, too powerful and they have a blank check. They are not responsible to the people anymore and the people are not organized enough to do anything about it. Is it our fault? Sure....but then Hitler was the German people's fault, Mussolini was the Italians' fault, and Saddam Hussein was the Iraqi people's fault. I still find it amazing that people vote for a party that advocates still MORE government in our lives. It's honestly a little difficult for me to be either compassionate or angry over this. Then I have no idea in the world what makes you either compassionate or angry. We are speaking of a vital product of our lives, which we use every day, which controls our economy, which sets our prices and dictates where our earnings go, a product that we purchase from countries who use part of our own money to fight us, a product that we actually have in abundance and do not use while we continue to send out billions to other countries for it......and it's unimportant to you? Then our economy must also be unimportant, along with our independence, I suppose. Your "junkie" example makes no sense to me whatsoever. It too much reminds me of a junkie who, having gone through his savings, is now ready to mortgage his house to get his next fix. We haven't gone through any savings - that's the problem. We still have all of our savings because we won't use them! We are the senile old man who will die of hunger with a million in his mattress. until eventually the junkie is willing to give up anything and everything he once held dear. and we are willing to give up....what? What are you suggesting we are giving up that we once held so dear when you acknowledge you can't see any dangers in drilling for oil? We would be giving up nothing except our dependence on other countries. Is that such a bad thing? Are we junkies because our society, along with every other society in the world, has been set up to rely on oil? I think that label is a little far-fetched. Ultimately, I have to think the solution isn't to find more ways to get a fix. That's just short term thinking. The solution is to get off the junk. Here we can agree. We ARE dealing in short term, now, though, and we have our own resources to get through it if we will just use them. Long term? What's wrong with nuclear power? Why are certain areas of the government and environmentalists against that? That would get us off the 'junk'. I'm sure there are scientists and great thinkers working overtime to come up with SOMETHING....but when will that happen? There will one day be a cure for cancer, too, but that's not helping anybody who has it now. To me it is completely illogical to not use our own natural resources while paying billions to other countries for it and watching our economy, and the buying power of every American, jerk at the whim of those who control oil production. It's something that I CAN show compassion and anger over.....and I do. |
||
|
serenity blaze Member Empyrean
since 2000-02-02
Posts 27738 |
Maybe I'm just taking this all too seriously. I'm new at taking things seriously though, so I guess I may have some over-zealous moments of seriousness. (Short-lived, and usually cyclic with the moon and um, other personal unmentionables.) I think the partisan slants have been irking me for a long time though. I really don't think playing the blame game (on either side) is in the best interest of the American people. It's akin to sitting around in a smoke-filled building, arguing over if there is a fire, and then arguing over who started it. I happen to think it's best to just co-operate with each other and salvage what we able to salvage. What we need right now, and I do mean "yesterday" are people with some foresight and organizational abilities. Not more needless needling. And speaking of needles... I like Ron's junkie analogy too. Although, just "getting off the junk" is a much more complicated process than just a decision of "Well, I won't do that again." Sometimes a proposed cure is worse than the problem. (I honestly thought Methadone was um, how someone got off heroin. It can be, but withdrawals from Methadone are like, ten times worse.)<--stay with the analogy there, now. But I was intrigued by this statement, Mike. "We are not the country we once were" Wouldn't it be awful if we were? Wouldn't that make us a stagnant entity, oblivious to the changes that have gone on without us? So I'll start another thread using that as a quote if you don't mind, Balladeer. A nice, non-partisan thread, I would hope. I realize other people might find these threads amusing, but I happen to think that we truly need a unified country to maintain strength and integrity. As a comparatively young nation, I also think we need to show some signs of maturity at this point, and own our mistakes and yes, remember our history. It's a simple part of the now famous, sometimes successful 12-step program to make an honest self-evaluation, apologize for that which we can't amend, and make reparations whenever possible. But forgive me my lack of humor these days regarding party loyalties. While it might be good fun in some instances, I think it is damaging in times of crisis. And honestly, I don't see how any attempt to preserve the ecology of our planet can be viewed as pathetic. Now. I'm off to start that other thread... |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Sometimes a proposed cure is worse than the problem. Yep, Serenity, sometimes it is. The question is....is it in THIS case? Your generic statement is nothing more than....generic. I don't see how any attempt to preserve the ecology of our planet can be viewed as pathetic. Fine. Then show us where using our own resources, oil or nuclear power, would be detrimental to the ecology. Your statement is, once again, only generic. No one really gives any answers...they just make generic statements, like the Dali Llama or a sage. Sometimes a proposed cure is worse than the problem More of the same..... I really don't think playing the blame game (on either side) is in the best interest of the American people. Fine. Let's cut all political parties out of it. There is a group in congress that will not allow us to use our own natural resources. They are backed by, and support, the environmentalists. The news agencies cooperate with them to keep it away from the public eye. I think it is wrong.....no political parties mentioned. What DO you think is in the best interest of the American people then, Karen? Paying billions to foreign governements for a product we have in abundance? Spending more in gasoline, oil-based products like plastics, goods which cost more because of the rising costs of transporting them? Does THAT sound like it's in our best interest? I could care less about party loyalties concerning this issue. As I stated before, if I saw a candidate of ANY party promising to use our natural resources to lesson our dependence on foreign oil, I would vote for him. |
||
|
serenity blaze Member Empyrean
since 2000-02-02
Posts 27738 |
I'm just a simple person with simple ideas. But it does seem to me that the mothership Earth has to be non-compromised in order to heal. The United States is as dependant on the planet as every other country. What you call generic, I simply call non-partisan. I wanna be a windfarmer, m'self. My feet still carry me around. Maybe not as as efficiently, but they still do. I happen to think even our urban planning sucks. Have you ever lived in a suburb with no transportation? Each of these "better living communities" that have popped up across the U.S. are all designed for families with cars. This means tht each adult living there generally ends up with a gas guzzling albatross. Cars infuriate me. But I concede I HUG my air conditioner. If I could talk to "Him-Who-Hides-Money" you'd better believe we'd have solar panels. I know it can be done because I see it getting done and I know the potential savings would rival the low interest rate he's getting at the bank. Am I generic? Sure. But not as generic as some. Most people do not even give a damn. I'm not the brightest crayon in the box, but there are better answers than, to use Ron's analogy, slapping the last tired vein in junkie's foot. The only thing left after that is the neck, and that's playing with certain death, <--Just call that generic street smarts.  There is no one easy answer Mike. But generic Karen, if she had her way, would hand pick some of the best minds on the planet to address them for her. For all of us. (Heh--inappopriate content--sorry Ron!) |
||
|
oceanvu2 Senior Member
since 2007-02-24
Posts 1066Santa Monica, California, USA |
Ah, Deer -- You're still locked in the oil is the only answer postion. It's the current answer, not the only answer. Fifty years ago, nobody knew for sure what could be done with atomic power, if anything, though there were theoretical expectations. One hundred and twenty five years ago, almost everything was coal/steam powered, and what to do with the thick gooey stuff bubbling up in Pennsylvania was still a question. 300 years ago, "fuel" consisted of wood, peat, and dried cow poop. I don't think even you, you ol' recidivist, suggest we go back. Chernobl can't be ignored, nor the Arizona fiasco. Both happened. The French have a handle on it. Use their technological ability. Halliburton can't build an office building that our own foreign service diplomats choose to enter. The notion of someone, somewhere, coming up with a better energy answer isn't wishful thinking. Just the crudest look at the evolution of technology, from shaping rocks to splitting atoms, suggests that technology evolves as need arises. The next genius to come along might even be, shocking as it may seem, a Muslim. And hey, I'l bet you he or she will patent it and share. The brief history of oil is a history of ruthless exploitation for gain. Can we lay a little guilt on oil company "Greed?" Yep. I think Upton Sinclair wrote a novel/expose about a while back, and someone recently had the temerity to make a movie called, ah, "Greed." How do you think the oil barons made their money, by being "nice guys?" Heck, in this country, first, they used to shoot each other, or have someone do it for them, then, growing up, they just litigated competitors to death. In Iraq, Iran, Khazakstan, and Argentina, etc, they still just shoot each other. But better times are a'comin'. Maybe we'll all wind up like England, pumping off the coast in the North Sea and having some of the highest gas prices anywhere... Karen: "Mother Earth" did perfectly well without us for billions of years. It's probable that it will do perfectly well for billions of years after we are gone. Then the sun will blow up. But we won't be around to care. The notion of a "Mother Earth" is a religious or superstitious notion. I think you know that. Do we "owe" anything to the "Earth?" I don't think so, and I don't the the planet Earth gives a darn one way or another. Does the Earth owe us anything? I don't think so. Or if it does (if the Earth has an "itness" in a metaphysical sense,) I wish it would stop bestowing such gifts as hurricanes, tsunami waves, cyclones, floods, drought, earthquakes and other fun tectonic events. Twenty years ago we were talking about Global Colding. Now we are talking about Global Warming. Both conditions were/are real. There have been temperature fluctuaions as far back as geologists are able to trace. The planet does it's thing with profound indifference to whatever, or what "nothing" is around at the time. Can we utilize resources in harmony with what the planet currently has to offer for the good of our species? Probably. Will the Earth give a darn one way or the other? Of course not. It is not an anthropomorphic entity. It is, ah, "The Third Rock" from OUR "Sun," and that's pretty much it. Bet you dimes to donuts ther are more such fortunately situated rocks around, but I don't think either of us will be here to collect. Best, old irascible Jimbeaux. Sometimes I amaze myself. I think that was a rant! |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Jimbeaux, that is the best response I've ever read from you and I agree completely. You're still locked in the oil is the only answer postion. It's the current answer, not the only answer. You are wrong and you are right. I am NOT locked into to the only answer mode. I AM locked into the current answer one, though. I fully expect that, one day, someone WILL come up with an alternative, perhaps something we have not even considered. That does not help our current situation, though, and our current situation is what should concern us while the great minds are working on the future solutions. We have the answers and we won't use them....makes no sense. |
||
|
oceanvu2 Senior Member
since 2007-02-24
Posts 1066Santa Monica, California, USA |
Hi Deer. I probably spoiled my remarks by going back and revising while you were posting. Plus, it's not my "best" response. It's just one of the few we more or less agree on. Laughing, Jimbeaux |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Nah, not really. Your revision added to your rant but had basically nothing to do with the topic at hand. Oil companies having a history of greed has little to do with using/not using our own oil supplies. |
||
|
serenity blaze Member Empyrean
since 2000-02-02
Posts 27738 |
It's okay to make fun of me and my religion by mocking my terminology. That's not exactly new to me. Another thing that's not exactly new is the date of that "news" item: "Wednesday, March 19, 2003" Now, I've already admitted I'm not the brightest crayon in the box, and oh yes, my religion comes into question as well via the terminology I used, so for the sake of argument, I will type "PLANET Earth." (Shaking my head, tsk..Jimbeaux, you didn't think I was one of those goth-types who practice Wicca because I like the accessories, did ya?) But for the sake of argument, I'll not personify the planet, okay? Mike? I will grant you that there is little evidence that oil drilling impacts nature--we have a few oil wells around and the fish seem to like them. And my brother supported his family nicely when he worked for OILMOP. I do seem to recall a nasty oil spill in Alaska too....the date is vague, but the pictures of people wiping down the suffering oil-covered wildlife is still pretty vivid. But anyhow, since I know we are friends, let's keep it a friendly discussion.  Can you tell me, say, a ballpark figure of how much oil we import? Who is the major supplier of that? Is there a way we can compare the monetary difference between a barrel of U.S. oil to OPEC crude? [This message has been edited by serenity blaze (05-19-2008 12:25 AM).] |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
I can do better than ballpark. my friend.. March 2008 Import Highlights: May 12, 2008 Preliminary monthly data on the origins of crude oil imports in March 2008 has been released and it shows that two countries exported more than 1.50 million barrels per day to the United States. Including those countries, a total of three countries exported over 1.20 million barrels per day of crude oil to the United States (see table below). The top five exporting countries accounted for 69 percent of United States crude oil imports in March while the top ten sources accounted for approximately 88 percent of all U.S. crude oil imports. The top sources of US crude oil imports for March were Canada (1.727 million barrels per day), Saudi Arabia (1.535 million barrels per day), Mexico (1.232 million barrels per day), Nigeria (1.138 million barrels per day), and Venezuela (0.858 million barrels per day). The rest of the top ten sources, in order, were Iraq (0.773 million barrels per day), Angola (0.375 million barrels per day), Algeria (0.232 million barrels per day), Ecuador (0.231 million barrels per day), and Brazil (0.188 million barrels per day). Total crude oil imports averaged 9.385 million barrels per day in March, which is a decrease of (0.221) million barrels per day from February 2008. Canada remained the largest exporter of total petroleum in March, exporting 2.303 million barrels per day to the United States, which is a decrease from last month (2.464 thousand barrels per day). The second largest exporter of total petroleum was Saudi Arabia with 1.542 million barrels per day. Our problem is not only in drilling for oil, it is also building refineries, which we have not done for over thirty years, handcuffed by the same roadblocks that do not allow the oil drilling. Interesting that Canada is our largest oil importer. Thank God they are not as concerned about the destruction of their pristine beauty as we are or we would really be in trouble! |
||
|
serenity blaze Member Empyrean
since 2000-02-02
Posts 27738 |
Cool beans Mike! I have been blowing off my housework because I'm finding this fascinating. I didn't know that Canada was our largest supplier! And how much do they charge per barrel and how much do WE charge? And what about the expense of turning crude oil into petroleum? Um, Show me the money? But seriously, I'm learning a lot tonight, so thank you. I found this site interesting too: http://thestateofamerica.wordpress.com/2008/05/01/an-update-on-americas-oil-dependence/ I've just finished an interesting article written by Robert Kennedy, Jr. too. But let me read a bit and absorb... I've got to read this one too: http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/ask/crude_types1.html And I also came across this-- http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/ask/crudeoil_faqs.asp So...I'll shrug off the environmental issue for a bit and study. |
||
|
wisdomofthesword Member
since 2007-12-17
Posts 224the last place on earth |
all I have to say is be glad you only "shelling out almost 4 bucks a gallon" last time I filled the car up it cost almost $10 a gallon I don't care if you think I'm a fool but don't ever tell me so |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
While oil demand grows higher by the day, supplies are in a constant state of flux… The Middle East’s tinder is constantly catching fire, and the other major crude oil players are either unfriendly (like Venezuela and Nigeria) or simply running out of oil (like Mexico and the North Sea region). But Alberta, Canada’s oil sands, once too costly for crude oil refineries to process, have suddenly become a veritable black gold mine. Now… * The cost of refining crude oil from tar sands has dropped from $29.63 a barrel to $13.21 – and continues to fall as oil production ramps up. |
||
|
serenity blaze Member Empyrean
since 2000-02-02
Posts 27738 |
Thank you for your patience with me, Mike. But even if I toss out my emotional reticence, your argument isn't making sense to me financially. It doesn't even seem to be a quick fix economically. I mean, maybe it's just me, but if I read the sources I've offered and the sources you've offered, it's just not adding up. Granted, I'm not good at the mathy stuff, so if someone who is could explain it to me (gently please--like with a good ANALOGY--HINT-Winkie-HINT-RON---maybe I could see your point? Because my numbers aren't adding up. I'm not understanding how we can ever produce oil at a competitive price. Is there some evidence that Alaska is sitting on all the oil we'll ever need? Because by your own admission, other oil producers are running out. I think it's pretty evident that we'll have to make a transition from fossil fuels to other sources of energy. I also think it is evident that it won't be easy. But other countries are already doing it. I realize I'm a little slow, but I had no problem understanding this excerpt from an article in Vanity Fair-- The Next President's First Task-A Manifesto by Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. "We know that nations that "decarbonize" their economies reap immediate rewards. Sweden announced in 2006 the phaseout of all fossil fuel (and nuclear energy) by 2020. In 1991, (1991! Now there's the foresight I was talking about) the Swedes enacted a carbon tax--now up to $150 a ton--and as a result thousands of entrepreneurs rushed to develop new ways of generating energy from wind, the sun, the tides, and from woodchips, agricultural waste, and garbage. Growth rates climbed to upwards of three times those of the U.S." And there's more-- "Iceland was 80 percent dependent on imported coal and oil in the 1970s and was among the poorest economies in Europe. Today Iceland is 100 percent energy-independant, with 90 percent of the nation's homes heated by geothermal and its remaining electrical needs met by hydro. The International Monetary Fund now ranks Iceland the fourth most affluent nation on earth. The country, which previously had to beg for corporate investment, now has companies lined up to relocate there to take advantage of its low-cost clean energy." So I think I stand by that decision you quoted as "pathetic". Yanno? I've never really been anywhere outside of the country, so the internet has helped me tremendously in regard to keeping up with world viewpoints. Katrina literally hit home that we are far behind in our technological house-keeping. Nobody ever suggested that the Neatherlands be depopulated in phases. They built a flood protection system of admirable quality. I'm sure there's a lot more techno stuff we could utilize that I'm not even aware of... We are blowing money on an optional war while our own house is in need of repair. I'm not saying any of this because I like a certain political party--I'm dismayed with both of them. I'm not saying this because I don't love my country. I'm saying it because I do. We need to be put on an energy diet--and there is no quick fix diet. It's going to be painful but it simply must be done. [This message has been edited by serenity blaze (05-19-2008 12:01 AM).] |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Well, I don't know, Serenity gal. refining crude oil costs 24 bucks a barrel and we're paying well over a hundred...I must be missing something. Is there some evidence that Alaska is sitting on all the oil we'll ever need? Because by your own admission, other oil producers are running out Yes...and yes to the Dakotas and yes to offshore. |
||
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1973_oil_crisis . |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Dear Folks, According to Wikipedia, there is in fact an enormous amount of oil in Alaska. As much as 16,000,000,000 barrels (or sixteen billion). Wow! It turns out, though, that most people think that there's only about a 5% chance of it being that high. At the more likely level of about half that, and if all the oil was reserved for United states use, as certainly it should be, that means the United states would have enough oil to last us an additional 525 days. Roughly a year and a half. Don't believe me, check Wikipedia yourselves. Near as I can make out, additionally, and I certainly await the correction of anybody who has better information here, it looks like the drilling rights would go to Shell. Now Shell may sound and look familiar to all of us as a red, white and blue all-American company, but it started out Dutch and it's a multi-national. The amount of money that Shell stands to make from this deal is in the many many Trillions of dollars; more than even I could spend on a hot weekend in London, with my wonderful wife, Elaine. I should be so lucky to get the chance. And being a multi-national, it feels no particular loyalty to selling our own oil to us. It may just as well sell that oil in the fine old Capitalist tradition to Japan or China. It owes its loyalty to its shareholders. This has always been one of the problems with the scheme of drilling in the Arctic Wildlife sanctuary; that while we are left with all the damages and have to live with them like the third world country we are rapidly becoming, the benefits all go elsewhere, to multi-national pals of the neo-conservative Republican leadership and to Japan or China or whomever can pony-up the largest and most tasty pile of greenery. In return we get sweet and wonderful fantasies like the ones the Republican leadership distributes to those who want to believe that these Republicans are the same ones who stood up to the vested interests and the environmental despoilers under Teddy Roosevelt; or the same ones who were willing to do Dollar-A-Year service for the government during world war II; or who spoke out for fiscal responsibility during the fifties. These are not the same breed of people, and we are the worse for it. And this environmental scheme, which they are doing their best to sell to some of the finest patriots this country has ever produced, is absolutely shameful. And I wish I could say otherwise. In reading the comments about raising taxes, I'm sad to say that I think they need to be raised. The amount of debt we have spent ourselves into over the past eight years through these tax cuts, the war in Iraq and the unfortunate and unnecessary giveaways to the drug companies have written virtually blank checks on the treasury. The republicans passed these bills eagerly. The democrats were spineless in failing to stand up to the challenge of facing these bills down by whatever means necessary. On both sides there were mitigating political factors that should not have kept these bills from being defeated as they were written. Having run up the bills, we can scarcely deny the need to pay them. Nor should we disregard the warnings David Stockman issued during the Reagan administration about using debt as a way of walking away from government responsibilities to the poor and the dispossessed. In this case, from even the military and the returning troops. It's not going to be easy to recover from a spree like this one, and I can see the blame being apportioned already by the people who ran up the debt in the first place over the personal belt tightening it will take to pay it back. I really am sorry. I don't want to shell out extra either; I really don't. Denise, especially, I'm sorry. |
||
|
icebox Member Elite
since 2003-05-03
Posts 4383in the shadows |
What if we humans all use up all the rest of the world's oil and THEN we drill for our own and process our own oil shale into oil and turn our own coal into gasoline; who sets the world price then...for the next thousand years??? |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
With all due respect, I don't see where tax-raising has anything to do with this topic at all. |
||
Mistletoe Angel 
since 2000-12-17
Posts 32816Portland, Oregon |
Greetings everyone!  This is my first appearance here on Passions In Poetry for about three months now, and I expect to make an official poetic comeback next month! I want to take the moment, though, to say that, while I agree with Michael that the 110th Congress is one of the most ridiculous and ineffective Congresses in the history of our antion overall, this is one move that I applaud them on, for reasons I've tirelessly stated previous times in previous threads here, but I will reiterate in a summarized form. We need to move beyond the rhetoric of "This oil will move Maryland for 100 years", etc. and crucially make the leap of faith toward a more sustainable energy economy infrastructure. You talk about the jobs that would be lost by not drilling in pristine wilderness areas like this, yet they would only be temporary jobs and, when you contrast that to the tens of thousands of new jobs that would be created through researching alternative fuels, eco-friendly energy structures, bioswales, etc..........I think we can both see what is the more economically-potent option. Secondly, none of us know exactly how much oil is there, but by the most accepted estimations, it is such a small amount that it's only approximately more than 2% of our nation's U.S oil supply, and is not even enough to last us any more than 6 to 11 months. And, if that waqsn't enough, would take 10-15 years to put on the market anyway. Finally, these barons at Exxon-Mobil and elsewhere say that only 2000 acres will be drilled on along the Coastal Plain. Yet, according to the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), oil under the Coastal Plain is spread across the entire 1.5 million acres, where the 2000-acre limitation would not require that the 2000 acres of production and support facilities be in one compact contiguous area. That limitation only addresses "surface acreage covered by production and support facilities." It only includes where oil facilities will actually touch the ground. The USGS also estimates that the amount of oil likely to be recovered from the Arctic Refuge would be no more than 0.3% of the World's reserves, and would do nothing to help secure the nation's energy independence. "Energy independent" doesn't just mean ending the reliance of our oil from foreign nations. It also means looking toward renewable sources, NOT expanded oil drilling. And THAT'S precisely why it was a good move for Congress to block this. Sincerely, Noah Eaton "If we have no peace, it is because we have forgotten that we belong to each other" |
||
|
icebox Member Elite
since 2003-05-03
Posts 4383in the shadows |
I guess I missed it; who is talking about taxes here? |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Dear Icebox, 'Twas I, 'Twas I, a' talking about taxes and tax hikes; I confess it publicly, I do, yes I do! I was responding to the concerns raised by Denise in response number six in this thread. They seemed valid to me; I addressed them sympathetically. I thought they appeared valid, too, to Balladeer, who even joked with Denise in his response number seven about the outcomes the tax increases might have on the poor. The poor might be forced to eat Vienna sausages, I think he said. I thought he was pretty clever, actually. When I started to take the subject seriously in my response—I thought the exchange I mentioned above indicated it seemed apropos—Balladeer seemed to think the subject out of line. Sorry Balladeer, I'm not sure I understand how in this case. Offense was unintended, though the discussion was, I thought, useful. And Denise, I wish you wouldn't use "Democrat" to substitute for "Democratic." It is a partisan usage and it comes across as insulting, in the same way people with an anti-semitic agenda used to use the word Jew as an adjective as well; as in "a Jew lawyer" or "a Jew politician," and thus found a way to turn almost any noun into a slur, even an accurate one. If you were "Jewish," which is the appropriate adjectival form of that word, and you complained about being demeaned (as in being used meanly, lowly, or in a debased fashion) in this way, it was likely that you would be considered to be at fault simply because you were displaying your characteristic qualities of being, you know, sort of stuck up, and likely to complain over the least little thing. You know those Jews. I'm not thrilled about the whole linguistic routine being pulled on democrats now either. It's pretty much identical to the Jewish material above. If a Democrat complains it's because Democrats can't take a joke. Are egg-heads, Are bleeding hearts. Whatever the explanation, it's frequently phrased as another slur. If democrats complain, is it because they're, you know, "Liberal" and "those people" think that disgusting kind of thing; good people don't even want to consider dropping the use of torture of civilians picked up off the streets of Iraq for bounty money and held without proof or trial, on suspicion. Just because the President does it, doesn't mean it's right, you know. I mean, just because the President killed a whole bunch of people and called it collateral damage, does that mean you'd do it too? Not in your neighborhood at least, I'd bet. Affectionately, BobK. |
||
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Ron: quote: Ron, I suspect that Balladeer would remind you of a like phenomenon we all know ... where love and criticism (right or wrong) are often at their peak, in our own immediate families. A brother might squabble with his sister more than anybody, but would be the first to defend her if it came to it. Stephen. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Spam and vienna sausages are the traditional staples of the poor - Balladeer The poor might be forced to eat Vienna sausages, I think he said. - BobK, referring to the above Balladeer statement. Wow, Bob. You have outdone yourself  Stephanos....right. |
||
|
serenity blaze Member Empyrean
since 2000-02-02
Posts 27738 |
Welcome back, Noah. You've been missed.  |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: Okay. But if he calls her stupid, does it mean he really thinks she's stupid? Either Mike's complaints are valid and we're all being very stupid, or they're not valid and we can go back to being great. I don't see how we can be both (unless perhaps we're being greatly stupid?). If the brother truly believes his sister is uncommonly stupid, but still comes to her defense when someone else calls her stupid, I certainly have to respect his sense of loyalty. It would really makes me wonder, though, which one of them is the most stupid? Oh, and Bob? For what it's worth, focus isn't a four-letter word. We can talk about anything you want, but can we try doing just one of them at a time? |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
I'm really at a loss, Bob, as to why you think using "Democrat" to describe members of the Democratic Party, insulting. They refer to themselves as Democrats, for crying out loud. Or are they alone allowed to use the word Democrat, and the rest of us, Independents and Republicans, have to use something else? Should we call them Democratics? Maybe a list could be created of all the acceptable words that wouldn't offend, since you seem to think "Democrat" is now an insult. Now we have a D (Democrat) word, and an L (Liberal) word and a P (Progressive) word to which you take exception? So please, tell us what we are allowed to call them. Or maybe, we shouldn't be allowed to say anything unless we are members of that political persuasion? I think it would be far more productive to discuss policy or values, not change the subject, throw up smoke screens, and waste time finding offense where none exists nor was intended. I think, more to the point, offense is sometimes taken because someone is not being agreed with, that has nothing to do with a particular descriptive phrasing. Not agreeing with someone is not insulting. It is simply not agreeing with them. If the one not agreed with takes offense at that, well, then they have a problem. I just happen to disagree entirely with the Democratic view of the world and their policies. And that's my right. And it's my right (so far) to voice that disagreement. |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Dear Denise, You are a poet, and know the difference between a noun and an adjective. I am a Democrat (noun). I belong to the Democratic Party. "Democratic" in this case is an adjective. I do not refer to myself as a "Democratic." That would be a confusion of the noun and the adjectival forms of the word. Similarly I do not use the phrase"The Democrat Party" because it, too, is a confusion of the noun and adjectival forms of the word. I also notice that the word is a coinage among Republicans. Independents for the most part and Democrats almost entirely avoid it because it is an ugly formation, and as I said in the post above, it is the same sort of Linguistic attack Republicans have used before, as in the fuss made about the word "Liberal" by those such as Mr. Limbaugh, who have tried to reduce it from its dictionary definition to "The 'L' word." In both cases it is an attack not only upon the Democratic Party, but also upon the english language. Nobody but the Republicans is attempting to change the language in either case. The only ones trying to be insulting here are the Republicans. You certainly have every right to say what you wish, as long as you attempt to do so within the bounds of agreed upon decorum. I do not have to grant them to you, though, and I see no reason why you should suggest that I am trying to abridge them. I function under the same restrictions myself, and I would rather not see myself as a victim of my right of free speech. As to my discussion of issues of language rather than grappling with substantial issues of politics, we must disagree on this. First, I believe that linguistic distortions are political issues and have a profound effect on the framework in which the discussion takes place. Second, if you'll notice my earlier contribution, you will notice my reference to the Wikipedia article. Wikipedia is a generally politically neutral source of data, which is why I chose it. I wanted to be clear that I wasn't trying to offer straight liberal points of view. When I discuss issues with people here I generally make it a point to let people know where my information comes from, so they can make up their own minds how to weigh it. If it is a lefty wing source, I will say so. If it is right wing, I will say so. I try to be as objective about this as I can be, even if it works against me. The wikipedia article on the alaska wildlife sanctuary oil deposits said that there was most likely only about a year and a half's worth of supply for America there, if that were the sole source. 525 days they said. This was a far cry from the virtually limitless supplies that other folks were talking so confidently about. I also pointed out that the people who would be doing the drilling would be selling the oil on the open market, and that there was no guarantee that they would have to sell that oil to us, and that the companies doing the drilling were not likely to be American companies but multinational companies with no loyalties to the U.S. but those they could buy or have bought from them. To my mind, Denise, these were fairly telling political points that went unanswered. To balladeer, I am sorry I didn't get his quote right, but I did, on the other hand, even in the excerpt that he used indicate that the I was offering an approximation rather than a quote, and that I may have it somewhat off. The spirit of the quote was not to distort what you were saying, and if you felt that it was, I'm even more sorry than getting the approximation wrong, though I thought the approximation was ball-park okay. So, Denise, if there was something political of substance you thought I should have addressed but didn't, please let me know and I'll do my level best. You should know though that I do not even pretend to be in favor of everything the Democrats do, though I am proud to be one, so you may find that in some instances I agree with you or with the spirit of that about which you're writing. I think that people who honestly want the best for their country and can talk about it honestly frequently have more in common than what you'd imagine, no matter what their formal political affiliations. As Harry Stack Sullivan used to say, "We're all much more simply human than anything else." My best to you, BobK. |
||
|
Not A Poet Member Elite
since 1999-11-03
Posts 3885Oklahoma, USA |
Though linguistically incorrect, I find it most difficult to view references to "The Democrat Party" as political slander or even disrespectful. As for it being a Republican contrivance, well I think we need some evidence of that. As a Republican, I feel sure one can contrive more colorful and, yes disrespectful, words for Democrats than, well, Democrat. That said, however, I will do my best to refrain from said practice. Actually, I'm not sure whether I have been guilty of such blasphemy or not. I'm pretty sure I have not do so in writing. Denise, will you please get hold of yourself and stop it too? Pete Never express yourself more clearly than you can think - Niels Bohr |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Dear Not A Poet, Thank you. I appreciate your thoughtfulness. I has assumed that the phrase was a Republican contrivance. Your question set me back on my heels a bit, and I decided to check. It was, it was much older than I'd thought, and the back and forth between parties has been more complex than I'd imagined. I leave this Wikipedia link for you to explore should you wish to check out this interesting little piece of linguistic and political history and to get a more accurate take on it than I was previously able to supply. Thank you once again. BobK. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democrat_Party_(phrase) |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
A very interesting link. I guess just maybe it is not a Limbaugh contrivance, after all, since I don't think he was broadcasting in the 40's. With all due respect, Bob, Democrats are known for coming up with red herrings to complain about, trying to make something out of nothing for headline exposure. That fact that they, including you, would get so incensed and insulted by a phrase used since 1890 seems to bear that out. If I were to say Liberal party, would it be more appropriate to say Liberalistic party? We certainly have an overabundance of things to be genuinely upset over more important than people having hurt feelings over the usage of democrat and democratic, wouldn't you say? |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Either Mike's complaints are valid and we're all being very stupid, or they're not valid and we can go back to being great. I don't see how we can be both (unless perhaps we're being greatly stupid?). I checked my comments and I don't see anywhere where I used to the stupid, relating to the American people. Did I call the Congress pathetic? The press pathetic? Oh, yes, but I don't completely go along with your premise that the fault is ours because we elected them. We are very restricted on who we can elect and, more times than not, it is a choice of the best of the bad. The American people are some of the kindest, most giving, most sympathetic people on Earth. Whenever there is tragedy anywhere in the world, Americans are there to chip in and do their part for others. I doubt anyone can deny this. Are they stupid? Let me ask you this...is a wife who stays with an abusive spouse stupid? Well, I suppose you can say she is...but is it that simple? In my opinion, the problem is that the American people have traded in their individuality for complacency. There was a time the government could be held responsible for their actions...no longer. There is no outrage. Thanks to a government that has continued to expand into every area of our lives, it has become impossible to fight them. We sold ourselves for unemployment checks, food stamps, school lunch programs. We allowed ourselves to become completely dependant on govermental control. We see pork passed around like donuts, government waste, criminal activities among congressmen and there is not even outrage. There is only a throwing up of hands and saying, "Well, that's politics." We see candidates caught in blatant lies and we smile with a "So what's new? All politicians lie." It doesn't even bother us. The days of a Boston Tea Party have long since passed. Whever tragedy occurs, we immediatley scream, "What is the government going to do for us?" Our schools accept free lunch programs, ignoring the fact that they are putting themselves in the government's pocket. They don't care...just keep the money coming. The government does whatever it wants and we accept it. Just keep the food stamps coming. There was a time we were responsible for our actions and our lives. We don't want that responsibility anymore. We want to be taken care of, I suppose. Do something, government! That's what we want. I cannot imagine families planting "victory gardens" in this day and age when it is so much easier to just scream, "Government, feed us!" These are not the actions of those who built this country and got through the depression and two world wars. Should congress want to pass a bill that we don't agree with, they simply piggyback it to another to get it through. When we find out, we don't complain. "You can't fight City Hall". Should a topic comes up that could incite strong feeling, like the one in this thread, they simply make sure it receives as little public exposure as possible and let it slip by. Is it our fault? Sure...we allowed the government unlimited control over us. We have allowed them to be unaccountable to us. We traded our hands-off's for handouts. Does that make us stupid or an abused spouse? You make the call.... |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Dear Balladeer, No, Balladeer, you're correct here, it was not a Limbaugh contrivance. I find the man unpleasant while others find him illuminating or entertaining, and I tend to attribute evil to him out of habit. I even recall writing his name recently in some context, and in an earlier draft of this paragraph included an apology to you for falsely attributing that locution to him. But in reviewing what I've written thus far on this subject, I cannot find a place where I've actually done so, even though I remember doing it. I may have deleted it in a fit of temporary good judgement, have written something about the man in another context, or simply not found it in my quick glance over the text. quote: Who knows this about Democrats, Balladeer? Which red herrings would these happen to be? and what are the clear issues that these red herrings serve to distract the public from? In this case I have interpolated the phrase "the public" myself, because the two of us need to have some sort of agreement about who is being mislead by the operations you describe here. Only after the two of us get some sort of clear answer to those questions can we begin to make a rational decision as to whether "something" has in fact been made from "nothing" or whether a valid piece of information has been added to the public discussion around one of those issues you've left unspecified. Without the appropriate details, we are both left with our feelings to fall back on. Your feelings tell you that what you've just said is True, True, True. My feelings tell me that your lips say Yes, but your Heart means No. We both need more than our very real and intense feelings to go on here, and the details need to be concrete. That way we have a better chance at understanding where our thinking diverges. Maybe we can also understand where it overlaps as well. Both are always useful. quote: I suggest that you may have missed the part of the article where the nature of the phrase as a slur was discussed and elaborated. How the phrase is pretty much used by Republican partisans alone in a derogatory context and how the Democratic party has taken offense at it for more than sixty years. I had not been aware of the duration of the slur; I had thought it recent, and have found it nasty every time I have heard it used in somewhat the same fashion that people used to alter my last name when I was in grade school and chuck it back at me in a distorted fashion, with a cruel and mocking schoolyard twist, as bullies have enjoyed doing since language was invented. Perhaps some of you have had the same experience. I detect the same snickering undertone here. Apparently the Democrats have tried, Heaven help us, to retaliate by finding a similarly irritating twist on "Republican." Some of the absurd results are also in the article. quote: I don't know. These are both phrases invented for the occasion. If you were, however to say "The Jew Lobby," it would indeed be more appropriate to say "The Jewish Lobby," wouldn't you think? I do know that the word "Liberal" has been systematically pilloried, and I think that is inappropriate. I try not to smear the names of others. Unlike the common Western wisdom, I do believe that words can wound as badly as sticks and stones, and that anybody who doesn't believe them to be at the very least painful at times is either out of touch with their feelings or plain not paying attention. quote: I would say that one can discuss things in an atmosphere or good will or an atmosphere of rancor and any of the states in between. Whatever you can do to keep the discussion on a more cooperative and less rancorous basis while keeping your principles intact is to your mutual advantage. You have to ask yourself about why somebody would chose an unnecessarily rancorous arena for discussion of that overabundance of things to be genuinely upset over than necessary. What possible advantage does it convey? I am honestly confounded. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Which red herrings would these happen to be? and what are the clear issues that these red herrings serve to distract the public from? In this case I have interpolated the phrase "the public" myself, because the two of us need to have some sort of agreement about who is being mislead by the operations you describe here. Fair enough, Bob. One that pops right up off the top of my head was when Bush used JFK quotes to support his position on tax cuts. Democrats hated that. They, along with tv commentators, blasted it. Was it illegal? No. Was it an infringment on copyrights? No. Was there absolutely anything wrong with it at all? No. So what did they do? They attached their own wording to it. They called it "sleazy", "underhanded", "hitting blow the belt". On This Week, George said, "Well, wasn't it a little disrespectful?" They were so angry about the fact that it was exposed that JFK and Bush had the same thoughts on tax cuts that they went into a complete attack mode to try to discredit it and cause people to forget that JFK had actually said those things....there's a red herring and the reason for it, Bob. There are others. |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Thank you, Mike, that's a bit better. I'm not exactly clear about the time and details of the situation, so I don't think I can give you as good a response as you deserve, and you should bear in mind that I don't agree with all things Democratic, as we've discussed before. But I'll try to ball-park it and trust you to supply more information as we go to help us look at the situation in detail. The situation when Kennedy came to office in 1960, as I recall it, was that the highest tax brackets paid in the neighborhood of about 90% tax on income they made over whatever the cut-off point was at the time. Both of us would have to do further research to tie down exactly what those figures were. As I recall, the tax for the same bracket in England was the same or even higher. There were ways around these taxes even then, such as the use of tax exempt municipal or government bonds, which preserved income and even allowed it to grow at a modest rate, safe from taxes, in return for what were thought to be "socially useful" investment strategies. Kennedy himself, when he entered office had some portion of his money tied up in tax exempt municipal bonds. He felt that cutting the capital gains tax and income tax rates from the then current extraordinarily steep rates would serve as a stimulus to investment. Whether that was the case or not is unclear, but it does seem to have worked that way. Were the distribution of wealth still the same today as it was 50 years ago, and were the rate of taxation still the same, the effect of tax cuts might also have remained the same. If you remember, we went through the outlook for the use of tax cuts a few weeks ago when we were talking about how useful tax cuts might be in the current economy. I had to do some research to find an article for you in the Conservative anglo/american magazine The Economist that explained why even most conservative economists thought the Laffer curve doesn't predict current economic conditions and why tax-cuts lose money for the governments. (They only pay for about 70% of the money lost, apparently.) If you can find that old thread, the list of articles and research is there. So if Mr. Bush is using Mr. Kennedy's arguments to support his proposal, I would suspect there may actually be a reason for the cries of outrage. Without more information, I cannot say for sure. Did, for example, Mr. Kennedy's tax cuts pay for themselves? The Economist, suggests that Mr. Bush's are not doing so now and will not in the future. Did Mr. Kennedy's tax cuts serve to stimulate the economy as a whole? It's not very clear that Mr. Bush's tax cuts are able to do so. I am not suggesting, by the way, that I know the answer about Mr. Kennedy's policies. I do not know the answers there. I am able to suggest that those people who are offended may know or think they know those answers. They may be right or wrong; I haven't researched it yet. We do not know that Bush and Kennedy have the same thoughts on tax cuts, we only know that one wanted to cut tax rates of 90% and the other wanted to cut tax rates ion the mid-30's. One tax rate even I find confiscatory. The other is, by the standards of most industrial nations, extraordinarily reasonable. Not that I want to pay it, mind you; but it is reasonable. I would also venture to say that when you suggest that tv commentators blasted it, you may be stretching things a bit. I say this without looking at the reports themselves at this point, though I will, if you'd like me to. I'd be willing to bet that there wasn't much critical said on Fox, for example. That the rest of the major networks remained reasonably quiet about it, including Tim Russert, and that only a handful of commentators mentioned it at all. And that the majority of the comment was from Fox news being critical of those who Fox news thought shouldn't have said anything. Did you see anything except on Fox news about this, other than packaged reports about these commentators with edited clips being shown on Fox news itself? You certainly may have. I'm not much of a TV watcher myself, but I can't recall any coverage of this at all. I believe you that it was there, of course, but I'm wondering if the difference in our viewing habits may account for the different emphasis each of us seems to place on the story. Now for this actually to qualify as a red herring, it would need to be a distraction from something else of rather larger import that was happening at the same time. Since I don't know the time line on this, I need your help in locating what that might be. Your thesis is that the Democrats were using this to draw public attention away from some sort of more important public issue—using it as a red herring—what might that issue have been at that time? It should have been to the advantage of the Republicans to have discussed this other issue openly and directly and not to have let themselves or the public interest be distracted. This has, so far been quite interesting for me, by the way, and I hope for you as well. I'm as interested in tracking down Democratic fouls as Republican ones. I know that there as many rascals on either side of the divide. My interest is in seeing that the decent people of both parties be able to work something out. Being a Democrat, my hopes are more with the Democrats, but I know there are decent and honorable Republicans around as well. Best wishes, Mike. Your, BobK. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
He felt that cutting the capital gains tax and income tax rates from the then current extraordinarily steep rates would serve as a stimulus to investment. Whether that was the case or not is unclear, but it does seem to have worked that way. Bob, if it worked that way then I don't understand why it should be unclear to you. Obviously he was right. So if Mr. Bush is using Mr. Kennedy's arguments to support his proposal, I would suspect there may actually be a reason for the cries of outrage. There were no reasons given, Bob. No one that I recall did anything to rationalize it as you are doing, other than to cry foul. I would also venture to say that when you suggest that tv commentators blasted it, you may be stretching things a bit. That the rest of the major networks remained reasonably quiet about it, including Tim Russert, and that only a handful of commentators mentioned it at all. Thank you, Bob. You are forcing me to dig into it further, which I will do. My thank you is genuine. I like to get to the bottom of these things. No, I'm not stretching, according to my recollections. I still remember the Round Table discussions on this topic along with Peter Jennings being VERY outraged over it. This is not new. A topic or a phrase becomes a hot button that the news agencies focus on and saturate the airwaves with. One thing that limbaugh does is focus on these things. Yes, I know that he does not rank high on your Christmas list and he can indeed come out with outrageous things but he collects montages of these "hot buttons" and plays them, which make them not his creation but actual footage of the events. I recall when the word gravitas became the hot button. You would not believe the amount of usage that word got in the space of no time at all. There were at least two dozen soundbytes of all of the news anchors alive working that word into their newscasts over the space of a very few days. A word that I don't think had EVER been used in newscasts before now became the NEVERMORE of the news agencies. It was ver humorous, actually. This topic on using Kennedy's words became another one that was well-exercised. Now for this actually to qualify as a red herring, it would need to be a distraction from something else of rather larger import that was happening at the same time. What was happening was Bush making a case for his tax cuts. The Democrats came up with nothing to fault them with and were obviously put on the defensive by their standardbearer's words being used to support them, so they simply came up with the "disrespectful and sleaziness" tactic to lead minds away from the facts and focus on areas that had actually nothing to do with the topic at hand. You may take exception to mu comment that they had nothing to fault them with but they are still proving that statement to be true, as in the currently passed debate when, faced with the figures that capital gains tax cuts had ALWAYS throughout history stimulated spending and growth, Hillary and Obama both said they would STILL raise them and could give no specific reason for doing so. If someone were to say "That BobK is really a smart fellow" and I respond "Yes, but he wears orange socks", that is to me a red herring, something to detract thinking to another area, which is what they did. Please reassure me you don't wear orange socks! |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
The controversy this time stems from John F. Kennedy in advertisements that support President Bush's new tax cut plan. Senator Ted Kennedy is fuming over JFK's name and image being used to support tax cuts, something he vehemently opposes. These ads in question compare the massive tax cuts of JFK to those of Reagan and Bush, and rightfully so. This ordeal is only a small part of the larger problem; that modern day Democrats and socialists have hijacked the good name of John F. Kennedy. One of JFK's key economic plans included massive, across-the-board tax cuts, similar to those of Reagan. Much like the 1920's and 1980's, it was these tax cuts that led to the Golden Kennedy-Johnson years. JFK quote - "An economy hampered by restrictive tax rates will never produce enough revenues to balance our budget - just as it will never produce enough jobs or profits." Another reason, Bob, why the Democrats did not get into specifics about the tax cut comparison was that Kennedy's cuts were MUCH more favorable to the rich than Bush's. That is a matter of record easily obtainable. Exposing that, however, would take away their "big stick" about how Bush favors the rich...so they resorted to ambiguities, like sleazy. |
||
|
icebox Member Elite
since 2003-05-03
Posts 4383in the shadows |
I do not recall the Kennedy-Johnson years as being all that "golden." Maybe it is just me, but if those years were so great for lots of people, why did the country then elect Nixon? |
||
|
serenity blaze Member Empyrean
since 2000-02-02
Posts 27738 |
Y'got me. I was half-blind, covered in a rash, running around nekkid and waiting to be scheduled for surgery. OH. The more things change the more they stay the same...?  <--can we make that a wagon?  |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Dear Balladeer, You really should read the whole of my post, and not simply the part that agrees with you. I try to be even-handed because I believe the truth doesn't fit into narrow boxes on the left or the right, though I'm much more inclined to see things from the liberal left or further. There's nothing wrong with listening to Limbaugh or Fox if that not where you stop listening. If you were on a jury and doing your duty correctly, you would be obligated to listen to both sides with reasonable objectivity before making a decision. I've heard sound bite compilations as well. Any number can play. I've never heard one for the word "pro-active" which I first ran across in a book on psychotherapy about 25 years ago. The authors apologized for using it, acknowledged it was jargon, and said that it was better that the customary usage "active" because it meant more active than active. It sounded like E-Z-Grow to me then and it sounds like E-Z-Grow to me now, but the word has grown like a weed. You could do one heck of a video montage of stuffed shirts using that word too. If you wanted, you could edit them down by name, or weight, or hair color or, yes, even political party and make any group look spectacularly like foolish stuffed shirts. If Limbaugh picked the word "gravitas," which is straight Latin, you can imagine how many times through history somebody must have done the same thing, tagging another group as stupid for the use of that word. Greeks versus Romans. Romans versus Goths. Eastern Empire Versus Western Empire. We have thousand of years of history to choose from. It must have been done thousands of times. A tax cut to inject money into the economy is an economic maneuver, like a left turn or a right turn in a car. Any two given drivers can make one and state the need for one. Their words may even be similar in saying why the maneuver is needed. What makes one useful and makes the other dangerous is the context. One may lead to a broad highway, the other to a brick wall. The context of the Kennedy tax cut was a tax structure where the top tax bracket was about 90%, and where the United States itself was the place where it made the most sense for capital to be in the world. If capital were to be freed up, the United states is where it would most likely come, right? Today the top tax rates have been in the mid thirties, well below the place where Kennedy cut it to. Further cuts do not pay for themselves, they cost the government and the economy money and they make the government and the economy and the country weaker. The capital that is freed up by the tax cut does not tend to stay in the country because this country is no longer the best place in the world to put down your economic bets. In this economy, in this country, tax cuts are a full speed left turn into a brick wall. To use Kennedy's comments to sell them is, at a minimum, deceptive and misleading. The maneuver is the same, but we're not at the same place on the highway. The maneuver allows the multinationals to become less entangled legally with this country and those companies who have previously had to comply with U.S. law and to do business in a way that is compatible with U.S. interests, are now able to sever their interests from those of the U.S. without any apparent consequences. Bechtel and Halliburton are examples. While the current tax cuts may in fact be good for those companies and their investors, they do not appear to have anything to recommend them for the U.S. public at large. I wish they did. If indeed The Republicans National Committee or whomever paid for the ads in question used Kennedy's words while understanding that this was the actual situation, then "sleazy" seems to be at least a gesture in an appropriate direction. I would have difficulty imagining The Party as a whole being unaware of the differences the past thirty years have brought. No orange socks in my drawer, Mike. I still look at them longingly in the Liberal Shoppe, every time I go in to get my spark plugs changed at the Barbara Streisand tune-up Center. But my wife is afraid all my Liberal friends will think I'm a hunter. I tell her it's unlikely, with the amount of time I spend looking for a good boat, one large enough to allow me to do comfortable flip-flopping on all the important issues. ELaine says, though, that Flip-flopping is not just for Democrats any more. I can't tell you how sad that makes me. I shall probably have to look into the Kennedy tax cuts. I never knew very much about them, and I do have to thank you for bringing them to my attention. Your assertion that they were much more favorable for the rich seems in particular curious to me, so I'd like to start out there. As always, very interesting, especially when we get as concrete as we can. Both of us. It tends to strip away party rhetoric on both sides, and gets us down to what people need and how are we getting it for them or preventing them from having it. Returning vets, the poor, the displaced, the crazy, the retarded, the elderly, the corporations, the services such as fire police and other public safety services, roads, all these things are often beyond the ability of any single citizen to support, and we must count on each other in some way. We have a lot to talk about, and it all seems fascinating discussion. What about individual responsibility? I thought I'd toss that in as well. Hope all is going beautifully in Sunny Florida, YrS, BobK. Dear Icebox, Why did we return to Nixon? I think it was because the country was split about the Vietnam war. Johnson who had served as a lightning rod for opposition to the war made the decision to withdraw from the race because he was so unpopular. He had a 35% approval rating. He was smart enough to know he was in disgrace. The two emerging candidates on the Democratic side were Eugene MacCarthy and Hubert Humphrey, and they were campaigning on issues around the Vietnam war. Humphrey, as sitting Vice President was stuck defending the unpopular war; though he was personally against it, to say so would have made him seem like a wimp without personal integrity. When Martin Luther King was assassinated, the entire country exploded around issues of race and violence. George Wallace, former Governor of Alabama, entered the race as a third party player and took the State of Alabama, normally a Democratic State at that time. When Robert Kennedy entered the race and breathed new life into the Democrats, it seemed that they would win anyway. The riots declined, the country grew quieter, and Nixon, who was running on a Law And Order ticket, began to slide back in the poles. When Kennedy was assassinated the whole thing blew up again, and the race went to Nixon because of the divisions with the Democratic Party, and the violence inside the country at the time, largely due to the feeling of helplessness among minorities and the feelings of rage among the working class toward them. In addition, the Republicans promised a speedy end to the war, but in fact expanded it and kept it going until 1975. In other words, Nixon offered an easy solution to the chaos that people saw around them in 1968. I believe we are still paying for that decision, whether it was the correct or incorrect one. I believe, of course, incorrect. My best to you, BobK. |
||
|
Not A Poet Member Elite
since 1999-11-03
Posts 3885Oklahoma, USA |
quote: Bob, now that we're all trying to be very particular and accurate in our choice of words, please refrain from referring to The republican National Committee as "The Republicans National Committee." [Emphasis mine.] |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Good question, icebox. The GI's caught in the augmentation from 800 up to 16,700 sent to Viet Nam under his rule may not have shared the belief that it was Camelot. |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Dear Not A Poet, I am sorry, and of course you're correct. In my case my spell check didn't catch the typo, and I'll try to proofread more closely. The conversation is so lively at this point that I'm more focused on trying to be coherent and to iron out the leaps in logic and continuity and to prevent my own glaring prejudices from tainting what I'm trying to say too badly to catch some of these important points. As I said earlier, you've been extremely gracious, and I'll try to make a point of doing better. Balladeer is absolutely correct about the upgrade in forces in Vietnam during the Kennedy era. Kennedy had a sort of romance with the the notion of special forces and he was a romantic about the spread of communism and the cold war alike. I think he missed the dimension of that conflict as civil war and I think he missed how thoroughly we had been bamboozled by the French into pulling their chestnuts out of the fire. I hope he would have thought to correct his mistakes himself, since he's always been something of a hero of mine; one of that peculiarly Democratic kind (maybe not, I hope) who can be heroic and have flaws as well. There's a wonderful novel by Charles McCarry called The Tears of Autumn about Vietnam, Kennedy and the Diems that feels like a Greek tragedy. McCarry is, in my opinion, one of the better novelists of our time, though greatly under-appreciated. Many academics would probably want to run me out of town for suggesting this, but I hold by the opinion stubbornly. McCarry was a former C.I.A. case officer and can make sentences contradance and chapters waltz until they very politely bow to you and smack you in the face. My thesis is that even in Camelot, the guys swamping out the stables never had a chance to look up far enough to get dazzled by the stars. Let alone if you were in some foreign country and the people you were trying to help were trying to kill you. I don't suspect that's all that different now, Mike, do you? Bill Mauldin pretty much had the mind set covered in all those Willie and Joe cartoons back in WWII. Not A Poet and Balladeer, I'm grateful for all the let-me-have-a-look-at-the-facts folks out there. Democrat or Republican, they're hard to find and well worth working at in order to keep the dialogue going. Sincerely, BobK. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Actually, Bob, truth be known, I considered JFK larger than life also. I admired him very much and, as far as Viet Nam is concerned, it wasn't a good idea to escalate it in the way he did but I have read articles, and I believe them, that, if he had lived, he would have started pulling them out during his second term, realizing the mistake made. Unfortuntately, LBJ was not JFK. I admired the way he handled the Cuban missile crisis and the way he stood up to big steel...he was a "presidential" president. |
||
|
Not A Poet Member Elite
since 1999-11-03
Posts 3885Oklahoma, USA |
I was not a fan of JFK before but he certainly won my respect, and even admiration, in his handling of the Cuban missle crisis. Unfortunately, I can't think of any redeeming qualities for LBJ. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Few people can, Pete... |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
I remember my very great anger at LBJ and the way he dealt with Vietnam and the people who disagreed with him about it. I found that especially difficult from a Democratic President, who should have thought several times over about the wisdom of fighting a land-war in asia and taking the side of a corrupt political dictatorship whose pretenses to representing democracy were pretty clearly a tissue of lies. We chose them, I think, because they represented themselves as anti-communist, which was probably true enough, not because they had any love for democracy. Good reasoning for a fine senate majority leader, whose concern must be party loyalty and party legislative agenda; not so good for a President, whose goals must be on a more strategic level than that. On the other hand, LBJ did get past the Kennedy civil rights package, which had been stalled in the Senate and which looked like it might go down the tubes before Kennedy's assassination. He did get many of the Kennedy social programs passed and he did get funding and support for the space program passed and continued. Many of these things he did at enormous cost to the Democratic coalition that had kept the Democratic party in power for much of the time since 1932. What had been a solid Democratic southern vote shifted almost en masse to the Republican party in reaction to the new Democratic stand against segregation and racial discrimination. That part of what had been the Democratic party has been an enormous management problem for "The Party of Lincoln" ever since, as the formerly Dixicrat part of the Republican Party has very different feelings about Mr. Lincoln than the rest of the Party, and the former Dixicrats have demanded a large voice in the running of the party today. While the Democrats are reasonably free to celebrate the extension of civil rights, having shaken free of the Dixicratic burden, the Party of Lincoln, paradoxically must sell the legacy of the great Liberator down the River, having happily accepted the far-right burden of the Dixicratic vote in return for power. Both Democrats and Republicans probably have LBJ to thank for this massive political redistribution of power. My thesis, of course. I'd love to hear how somebody else reads it. But I do believe that the civil rights and economic stimulus and social support packages supported by Kennedy did get through both Senate and Congress by dint of LBJ's careful navigation. I think he accomplished that, and that it's probably unfair to take that away from him. Just as it's unfair to make excuses for him about his failed Vietnam policies. Thoughts or comments on this. I know Folks may not agree, so I'm interested in how and where. Sincerely, BobK. |
||
|
|
⇧ top of page ⇧ |
|
| All times are ET (US). All dates are in Year-Month-Day format. | ||
