MarlinAddict

The problem is, if you DON'T accept their plan, violence could potentially increase... But would it be worse than the violence the freed Al Qaeda operatives would cause?

Addicted to Regulation The real reason for America's foreign-oil dependence. BY PETE DU PONT Wednesday, June 21, 2006 12:01 a.m. EDT In his State of the Union Address, President Bush said that "America is addicted to oil." But it would be more accurate to say that America is addicted to opportunity, and oil and its products help us seize it. American oil consumption is indeed rising, from more than 15 million barrels a day in the early 1980s to more than 20 million today. It is likely to continue to increase--another 33% over the next 25 years, according to the U.S. Department of Energy--because crude oil is a useful substance. Some 40% of our oil consumption is for cars and light trucks; 32% for buses, railroads, ships, trucks and agricultural machinery; and another 17% goes into petrochemicals to produce products from plastic to paint. These uses represent opportunities, not addictions. The problem is that America's domestic petroleum production has significantly declined, from 10 million barrels a day in 1970 to about 5 million today. Our response has been increasing importation of oil, now more than 12 million barrels a day. So expanding America's energy production is the obvious priority. Common sense would suggest that we should begin tapping into the estimated 102 billion barrels of oil sitting under America's Outer Continental Shelf and in Alaska. That domestic supply could replace America's importation of foreign oil for some 25 years. But our country's political establishment, from Congress to the press and the presidency, has worked for a quarter century to prevent increases in our energy supply. In 1980 President Carter imposed a "windfall profits" tax on oil companies, which raised $40 billion rather than the $227 billion promised. Rather than easing energy shortages, the tax reduced domestic oil production by between 3% and 6% and gave imported oil from foreign countries a competitive advantage that increased imports of foreign oil by about 10%. In 1990 the first President Bush issued a presidential directive forbidding access to about 85% of Outer Continental Shelf oil and natural gas reserves. In 1998 President Clinton extended the moratorium through 2012. In 1995 Mr. Clinton vetoed a budget bill that would have allowed oil exploration and drilling in part of the Alaska Arctic National Wildlife Reserve. Prudhoe Bay fields, just to the west of ANWR, have delivered 15 billion barrels of oil through the Alaska pipeline to the U.S. market without damage to Alaskan land, caribou or other wildlife. ANWR contains 10 billion barrels of oil, so Mr. Clinton's veto today is costing America about a million barrels of oil each day. Yet Congress has repeatedly defeated efforts to open ANWR to exploration. As the Heritage Foundation points out, the U.S. "is the only nation in the world that has placed a significant amount of its potential domestic energy supplies off-limits." Congress has also limited the capacity to refine our oil. After Hurricane Katrina, a bill to streamline the refinery permitting process--we have not built a new one since 1976--and encourage the building of refineries on closed military bases was blocked in the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee when every Democratic senator, along with Jim Jeffords (I., Vt) and Lincoln Chaffee (R., R.I.) voted "no." We could reduce our importation of, and "addiction" to, foreign oil in various ways. Nuclear power is one. We have 104 nuclear power plants in operation in America that provide clean energy and decrease by 700 million tons the CO2 released into our atmosphere each year. But we have stopped building nuclear power plants: Construction of the last one began three decades ago. President Bush has proposed the Nuclear Power 2010 Initiative to facilitate plant construction. Sixteen companies have expressed interest, and 25 new nuclear plants are under consideration. Offshore drilling for natural gas is another way. There are some 420 trillion cubic feet of natural gas on the Outer Continental Shelf. We currently consume about 23 trillion cubic feet per year, so that amounts to a 19-year supply. But the House last month voted 217-203 to block the opening of some Outer Continental Shelf areas to natural gas exploration and drilling. Then there is ethanol, the heavily subsidized energy produced from crops like corn, soybeans and sunflowers. Ethanol producers receive a 51-cent-a-gallon federal subsidy, which cost the government $1.4 billion last year, and are protected from international ethanol imports by a 2.5% tariff and an import duty of 54 cents a gallon. But it is not clear that ethanol is a good economic or energy bargain. Producing it requires diesel fuel for tractors to plant and harvest the corn and fertilizers, and pesticides to allow it to grow, so it takes about seven barrels of oil to produce eight barrels of corn-based ethanol. But then more truck or rail fuel is required to deliver it, since there are no pipelines from corn country to urban areas, making shipping ethanol about double the cost of shipping gasoline. In the end ethanol may be a more expensive fuel. Sen. Charles Schumer (D., N.Y.) says there is no policy reason for ethanol: "If the ethanol producers and the corn growers weren't benefiting from this, we wouldn't be doing it." Cleaner coal technology--we have 200 years worth of coal--is being pursued, as are other energy sources such as wind and solar power that may ultimately be some help in meeting our energy needs. So what does the political establishment think of all these energy alternatives? Except for ethanol, wind and solar power, not much. Sen. Hillary Clinton's energy speech to the National Press Club last month perfectly (and politically correctly) makes the establishment's point. Yes, she is for wind power, solar power and increasing the amount of oil stored in the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, all good things. But she is also: ? For a windfall profits tax on oil (though she doesn't call it that), which would, as in 1980, reduce domestic oil production; and for higher taxes on oil companies so government, rather than the market economy, can regulate energy production. ? Against the construction of additional nuclear power plants--America's cleanest source of energy--because of her "real concerns" about the "quality of the oversight provided by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission." That translates into not enough governmental control over an industry that is too hot to touch politically. ? Against ANWR drilling (she has voted against it half a dozen times), and against additional offshore drilling. ? For greatly expanded--and greatly subsidized--ethanol production. Her overall goal is "reducing our dependence on foreign oil by at least 50% by 2025." But expanding nuclear power, drilling for the proven reserves of oil and gas off our coasts, and even eliminating the ethanol import tariffs and subsidies all are politically incorrect energy policies that the Washington establishment will not permit. That's too bad, because they are the correct policies that would help a great many Americans enjoy greater opportunity. But that's the political establishment's thinking, which makes government control--not oil--the addiction that is misdirecting our national energy policy. Wall Street Journal

The world's greatest oxymoron: Microsoft Works

US fears imminent N Korea missile test By Demetri Sevastopulo and Stephen Fidler in Washington and Anna Fifield in Seoul Published: June 11 2006 21:54 | Last updated: June 11 2006 21:54 North Korea is preparing for a possible test of an intercontinental ballistic missile with the potential to hit the US, according to Washington officials. A senior official said there were ?enough indications? to suggest that Pyongyang was getting ready to fire a Taepodong-2 missile from a launch pad in eastern North Korea. It would be the Stalinist state?s first test of a longer-range missile since 1998 when Pyongyang generated an international crisis by unexpectedly firing an intermediate-range Taepodong-1 over Japan. Test preparations are far more advanced than on previous occasions when North Korea appeared to be gearing up for a launch. The Taepodong-2 is a two, or three, stage ?integrated? missile. The three-stage version consists of a solid-fuel booster rocket strapped atop a Scud missile attached in turn to a short-range Nodong missile. The US is monitoring the launch site to see if North Korea starts final assembly of the missile. If North Korea fuelled an assembled Taepodong-2, it would increase the probability of a test, since the move is difficult and dangerous to reverse. Pyongyang ? which is keenly aware that the US can monitor its preparations by satellite ? could be bluffing. Kim Jong-Il, the North Korean leader, has a history of performing eye-catching stunts when he feels he is being ignored, which has happened recently as Washington focuses on resolving nuclear tensions with Iran. Another US official said he might be ?playing games? to get attention. While the preparations could be for a satellite launch, the US is positioning military assets to track any launch. In 1998, North Korea claimed that its Taepodong-1 flight was a satellite launch. The senior official said there was no ?definitive evidence? that Pyongyang would go ahead with the test. ?We are still not sure that it is ready to launch,? the official said. ?This could be a lot of training. It could be political manoeuvring . . . we are not on the edge of our seat yet.? He added that South Korea was ?vigorously? urging China to lobby North Korea to abandon the test. Ban Ki-moon, South Korea?s foreign minister, last week said the preparations were of ?great concern? ? comments that underscored South Korean anxiety given that Seoul has traditionally played down the chances of any inflammatory actions by the North. The official said the US wanted to avoid creating a crisis because ? that is what North Korea wants?. Financial Times

Anyone remember the May 16 game in Atlanta, when Willingham was up with bases loaded and a 3-2 count, and instead of walking in the winning run on a pitch 10 inches off the plate, he was punched out? Also, there was a strange catcher interference call that went against us on an unnatural swing; Willis was squeezed and Hudson had a 3-foot wide strike zone? The ump - Dreckman. It's one thing to blow a close call. Dreckman has shown a strong tendency to blow "no-doubters" - and in our games has done so with all such calls, without exception, going against the Marlins. His integrity is already in question. He'll be behind the plate tonight - could be interesting.

This douche augmented that little comment by saying that the husbands were planning to divorce them before 9/11 hit. She's also avocated that Timothy McVeigh blew up the wrong building in the wrong state...said he should have blown up the NY Times building instead... I saw the TV interview, and no such comments about the divorces or McVeigh were made. Also, I read the except from of her book regarding the widows online in a story covering these comments (I have no desire to buy any of her books), and no such comments about the divorces are made there. The McVeigh comment does sound like something she would say/write, though. She has made the comments about McVeihgh in the past...I should have clarified that. "My only regret with [Oklahoma City bomber] Timothy McVeigh is he did not go to the New York Times Building." [New York Observer, 8/26/02] and in regards to the divorces... http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/ne...t_id=1002648990 Elsewhere in the book, Coulter refers to the widows as "witches" and asks, "how do we know their husbands weren't planning to divorce these harpies"? Thanks. The except I saw didn't include the items mentioned "elsewhere." She might be getting pretty close to libel. Who's her publisher, Looney Tunes? I can think of 168 other regrets she should have for the Oklahoma City bombing.

This douche augmented that little comment by saying that the husbands were planning to divorce them before 9/11 hit. She's also avocated that Timothy McVeigh blew up the wrong building in the wrong state...said he should have blown up the NY Times building instead... I saw the TV interview, and no such comments about the divorces or McVeigh were made. Also, I read the except from of her book regarding the widows online in a story covering these comments (I have no desire to buy any of her books), and no such comments about the divorces are made there. The McVeigh comment does sound like something she would say/write, though.

So what if Al-Zarqawi was the 'self-proclaimed leader of Al-Qaeda in Iraq"? I could say exactly the same thing if I wanted to. It's not very difficult. He was dangerous, of course, but I really think that his role was being overstated because of his taunting of the United States for a long time, and his constant media exposure. However, the reality is, he was a small fish in a BIG pond. Sorry, but he wasn't "self-proclaimed" as the Al Qaeda leader in Iraq: Although bin Laden anointed Zarqawi as prince of Al Qaeda in Iraq, the two men were widely seen to be rivals, with Zarqawi keen to outshine bin Laden?s fame and notoriety. Khaleej Times

First hint that something was wrong was the luxury (competetive balance) tax. The luxury tax does not get distributed to the teams, the revenue sharing does. While I wouldn't be surprised if the morons at ESPN didn't know that, I'm pretty sure Bud knows that.

With respect to Iran, the British, French, and Germans were the ones who initiated an effort without the United States, regrettably, to begin to try to move to curb the nuclear possibilities in Iran. I believe we could have done better. I think the United States should have offered the opportunity to provide the nuclear fuel, test them, see whether or not they were actually looking for it for peaceful purposes. If they weren't willing to work a deal, then we could have put sanctions together. The president did nothing. John Kerry, Presidential Debate, September 30, 2004

MLB contributed $20 million to the Nats new stadium. Wrong. MLB has promised to loan DC $20MM if the stadium runs over budget. The loan is to be repaid, with interest, from public parking revenues. Wrong MLB, which owns the Nationals, also agreed to contribute $20 million toward the cost of the stadium, proposed for a 20-acre site near South Capitol Street and the Navy Yard, although it did not agree to cover stadium overruns, a key sticking point in the negotiations between the District and baseball officials. And it attached several conditions to the agreement. Washington Post

Did the help the Nats? Did the help the Twins? Will they help the A's? So why would they help the Marlins? MLB contributed $20 million to the Nats new stadium. Also, if Loria doesn't get a stadium, MLB has to forgive a $38.5 million loan to Loria that he used to purchase the Marlins. If MLB had a brain, it may as well contribute at least $38.5 million towards the stadium. Also, I believe Loria will be getting about $15.5 million from the sale of the Nats.

Bloomberg estimated the number of new claims to be 310,000. It came in at 367,000 - another huge increase. Then they publish this report: Initial jobless claims increased 42,000 in the week that ended May 13 to 367,000, the Labor Department said today in Washington. Excluding a 46,000 increase in applications in Puerto Rico, first-time filings would have been around 312,000 last week, a Labor spokesman said. Bloomberg Actually, what the "Labor spokesman" said was that Puerto Rico accounted for about 20,000 of the increase in claims (the official report (NOTE: limited time link) shows Puerto Rico accounted for 20,046 (near bottom of the page). Last time I checked, 367,000 less 20,000 did not equal 312,000. In the last month alone, concensus of the economists published by Bloomberg has underestimated by 88,000 on new jobless claims, as it's been missing by being way to optimistic on most of its economic forecasts. It their efforts to cover their rears, they've now resorted to outright lies. The PR results were due to government layoffs as it tried to find a way to cover it's deficit - which was resolved last Saturday with a bank loan. Next week we should, hopefully, for the first time in about 6 weeks, see a decline in new unemployment claims.

Too bad we can't get our lame duck to do the same. President Cheney? *shivers*

It sound like it may be problems with a pregnancy Hill leaves team to be with wife By Joe Capozzi Palm Beach Post Staff Writer Saturday, May 13, 2006 PITTSBURGH ? Marlins infield coach Perry Hill has left the team for the second this season because of a family emergency, and the team doesn't know when or if he'll be back. Hill, who has been credited by Mike Lowell and Orlando Cabrera for helping them win Gold Gloves, left the team after Thursday's home game against Atlanta. Hill, who also is the team's first-base coach, returned home to Lantana, Texas, to be with his wife, who is pregnant. He left the team for 10 days in April to be with his wife. "He felt bad about leaving again. He felt like he was letting the team down. I said, 'By no means are you doing that,' " manager Joe Girardi said. "I told Perry, 'Go home and take care of your wife and call us when things are all right.' That's how we left it.'' Girardi, who discussed Hill's situation Thursday night with team President David Samson and General Manager Admin Beinfest, said the team has no idea how long Hill could be gone. Hill, who could not be reached Friday, is under a contract that expires at the end of the season. He has the longest tenure with the Marlins' organization ? since 2002 ? of anyone on Girardi's coaching staff. "When you're dealing with family, I don't worry about time. The right time is when everything's OK,'' Girardi said. Hitting coach Jim Presley will fill in for Hill as first-base coach. If Hill's absence is extended, Girardi said the team would consider bringing in another coach "because we'd be short-staffed.'' Hill was working with an infield of Miguel Cabrera, who is playing third base full-time for the first time in his career, and three rookies. "Perry, in a sense, is irreplaceable because he is so great at what he does,'' Girardi said. Presley might be gone Wednesday and Thursday to attend his son's college graduation. Palm Beach Post I hope all of them will be ok.

Whew - it is good to be wrong. The trade deficit for March was "only" 62 billion (details not release yet, but my guess is that the $US may have fallen enough to where we were finally able to export enough wheat to get back to a surplus in food). That should help the slow the fall of the $US. It will likely continue to fall, but it was going down way too fast. Bush's deficits, along with Greenspans artificial boost, are going to still continue a dramatic fall of the $US, and we are still facing inflation that is not due to an overheated economy but rather due to an overabundance of $US, but hopefully it will slow down a bit. We have to get fiscally responsible, cut the deficit by cutting spending. Unfortunately, I don't think anyone in DC wants to cut spending.

About 2 months ago we had a couple threads going on the defict, economy, etc. Some point were (attempted to be made) about how the deficit is leading to an excess supply of $US, that foreign governments were growing tired of the $US, and that the value of the dollar would drop. Well, it's happening. Back when the aforementioned threads were active, oil was at $US 66, the Euro/$US was 1.17, and gold was at $540 (actually, it fell to $538 during that time - I had another buy order executed). If you work the math (66 / the 1.17 Euro/$US exchange rate), the price of oil, in Euros, was about $56.41. This morning, oil is at about $US 73 - up about 10.6%. The Euro/$US exchange rate is about 1.29. Oil in Euros is only 56.59 - up less than 1/3 of 1% - virtually unchanged. Gold started its upward movement right after the Fed announced on Nov 10 that it would discontinue disclosing the M3 money supply (which includes $US held by foreign central banks) on March 23. On March 23, gold took off again as more an more foreign central banks dropped their holdings of the $US. It took gold nearly 3 years to move from $US 400 to $US 500. It took 5 months to move from $US 500 to $US 600. It took 3 weeks to move from $US 600 to $US 700 - and a week to be pushing up to $US 730 (spot gold actually went above that this briefly morning) - and in the last week the talking heads on Squawk Box, Bloomberg, etc. finally noticed. New jobs were way down (about 65,000 less than expected), newly unemployed is extremely high. Retail sales are down from excpectations, inventories up (inventories follow sales - look for factories to cut back). So, in short, at least as far as oil (and virtually all other imports), the inflation is due almost solely to the decline of the $US, not the US homeland economy. With the decline in the $US, it is easier for us to export, but, thanks to Clinton's role (who, along with Greenspan and Bush created this perfect economic storm), we don't manufacture much of anything to export. In about 15 minutes, we get the latest foreign trade numbers. The experts predict a deficit of $67 billion. Personally, I fear that it will set a new record at $69.5 billion - this would a wonderful time to be wrong. We are entering economic territory that has never even been theorized.

Debating politics goes no where, no ones just going to change their mind, ight as well debate religion while your at it.. I don't agree. If the participants have open minds, they can learn a thing or two, sometimes find a thing or two they believe to be true in fact are not, and change/harden/soften their views. Without open-minded debate, it's tough to find compromise, and then nothing is ever accomplished.

Most wells in the US have historically been abandoned after pumping out only about 2/3 of their capacity. It gets more costly as the wells lose natural flow and artificial methods are employed. However, as the price of oil rises, the recovery of that oil becomes relatively more cost effective, and what have been "dry" wells may become producers once again.

^_^ )-->QUOTE( ^_^ @ May 10 2006, 5:58 PM) 1143012[/snapback] i am not sure what you are looking at for the fy 1998 info. according to the congressional budget office's historical report: http://www.cbo.gov/budget/historical.pdf there was a budget surplus of $1.9 billion in fy 1999 and $86.4 billion in fy 2000. and then there were overall surplusses of $69.3, $125.6, $236.2, $128.2 (in billions) fy 1998- fy 2001. the congressional revenues were that much greater than their outlays those years, thus those were surplusses. I am not sure why the cbo would either lie or not correct their info. and yes you are right I was reading it wrong before the current public debt is $4.59 trillion. (fy 2005 report). it has only gone up, it is the percentage of the debt the public owns that went down under clinton and rose again under bush. but the actual $ amount went up under both. 1998 is the first year that Clinton proclaimed a budget surplus. All the surpluses you mentioned were budget surpluses, not what really did happen. The actual deficits for FY 1998 - FY 2001 were (in billions) $113, $130, $18, and $133. During that time, while the budget was for a combined $559 billion surplus, the reality was a $394 deficit (or, about 10 months worth of last year's deficit). In total, the budget for those four years was off by $953 billion. The CBO is just that. However, they do not receive any revenues or make any expenditures, just budgets and use historical budgeted figures. The US Treasury is the reality. The receive the revenues and make the expenditures. In short, the US Treasury has the historical real figures, whereas the CBO has the planned amounts. Just as I can budget my household, and show a surplus, my wife can, in reality, turn that into a deficit.

^_^ )-->QUOTE( ^_^ @ May 10 2006, 4:57 PM) 1142949[/snapback] you are talking about a couple of different things. what clinton proclamation is, is a surplus in the federal budget, nothing to do with the national debt. "Clinton hails $70 billion federal surplus Saving Social Security is next challenge, he says WASHINGTON (AllPolitics, September 30) -- President Bill Clinton announced Wednesday the federal government will post about a $70 billion budget surplus for the 1998 fiscal year, and called the historic surplus the first of many to come. "We have waited a long time for this," said Clinton. "Tonight at midnight, America puts an end to three decades of deficits and launches an era of balances and surpluses." " http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/199...clinton.budget/ according to the congressional budget office only 2 years since 1962 had years where the federal budget did not end in notable red tape, fy 1999 and fy 2000. when clinton took office the national debt held by the public was $49.4 and when he left it was $33.0 . as of fy 2005 the public now owns $37.4 of the national debt. http://www.cbo.gov/budget/historical.pdf You are correct in that the budget and deficit are different. The 1998 budget was a hoax, the the deficit is reality. While Clinton may have budgeted for a surplus, in reality, the budget was not met and a deficit did indeed occur. As of FY 2005, the actual amount of debt held by the public, as opposed the budgeted amount, was $4.601 trillion of the national debt.

^_^ )-->QUOTE( ^_^ @ May 10 2006, 4:03 PM) 1142880[/snapback] cnn says 31-33% fox news says 38% Either one is much better than what he gets from my household.

The five trillian was a projected 15 year result. It actually went from 2.7 trillion surplus to 7.5 trillian or so deficit. That makes this counted STUPID. Whoever wrote that is kinda out there... Your numbers are a bit off. First off, another lie was Clinton's proclamation that we had a $70 billion surplus in 1998. It was actually a $113 billion deficit. The last annual surplus we had was in 1960 ($581 million). However, the annual deficit did get down to about $18 billion in fiscal 2000, which was the closest we've come to a surplus since the 1969 $10 billion deficit. As for the national debt, to which your figures more closely match, it was about $4.188 trillion when Clinton came in, and rose about 38% to $5.728 trillion when he left - without ever incurring a surplus. As of yesterday, the debt was $8.364 trillion - a ludicrous increase of about 46% in the 5+ years of the Bush administration. Source: US Treasury

Id say his negatives far outweigh the positives. -enormous budget deficit You could have quit right there.

So, again, if random people are partaking in this clearly illegal behavior, lock 'em up or whatever you do to people who have committed that crime. However, it's still worse when people in power interfere in our so-called democracy on such a grand scale. As bad as those Kerry supporters get it, whoever in the White House set this up should get it worse. But, that's assuming they're guilty and this isn't some huge misunderstanding. Aw, geez, now that you said that it turns out we were pretty much having a violent agreement.