An Answer To Paul Hodes' "I'm Working Hard To Solve The Nation's Energy Crisis"

Are you talking about oil producers or oil refineries Bill?  There is a difference.  Some companies do one and some do both.  When we hear the word profits, what profits are we learning about?  Producers or refiners?  Has the price to produce a barrel of oil increased by the amounts we've seen the price go up week after week?  If so, then the oil producers have a serious program and need to work on getting control of their costs.  Most of us don't believe that their costs have increased at the same rate as their selling prices have.  If you can prove otherwise, please do.  Refiners costs will go up with each purchase they make when the price of oil skyrockets the way it has in the past few years. 

Let's stick to Paul Hodes point.  "oil company proits up 34%."  Not TRUE....Dollar profits are up but percentage profit is not.

Business strive to improve percentage profit.  Dollar profit means nothing and certainly does not mean that oil companies are goughing.

The cost of crude and speculators deive up the price of oil.  Yes, costs go up but as a percentage, oil company profits have not gone up.

Some claim that the reason the price increases is because the demand increases with India and China demanding more oil.  But they increase in demand has not gone up 1300%.

All the more reason to drill here and bring some of that revenue into this country.  Also it is time for Iraq to pay back what we have invested there with some reasonably priced oil.

I think the purpose of your blog post is to attack  Rep. Hodes who I know you dislike immensely.  It is your opportunity to advance YOUR agenda.  You could care less what Hodes actually says or does.  You just want to attack.

No, Michael, but in true progressive fashion, take the focus off of the FACTS and throw in emotion to confuse people.  I do care what he does because his policies are ineffective and do not have the best interest of NH residents at heart.  He is the purest politician that we have had represent NH in a very long time.  Much like the Chicago style hard nosed tough guys out for themselves.  

Your obsession with drilling will not reduce the price of oil for decades to come, if then.  First, there is no equipment to be used to begin an immediate drilling bonanza.  It will take years before such equipment is available.  Once available, it will take many more years before and significant oil will be found and produced.  The Bush Administration estimates that none of that oil will be one the WORLD market until 2030, long after you and I are gone.  The oil companies have millions of acres of leases already that they could drill on.  I've read that there are fields in Montana and North and South Dakota that are being drilled now that could produce enough oil to last the US demand for generations.

Those are stories that we are hearing but once again, if we have the will we will find the way.  I answered the millions of acres of land....they are too difficult to extract from.  Like I said in the blog, exchange those acres equally for where the oil companies can drill known oil and set a time limit.  It is true about those oil fields in the West but we need to drill heavily everywhere.

Michael, stop driving home talking points, I covered all of your regurgitation of so called "facts" in the original blog.  Did you even bother to read it?  Or just respond with talking points?

I would highly recommend a book by David Sandlow, Freedom From Oil. 

David Sandlow is an ultra progressive author and not a reliable source.  I have read abridged notes from his book and it is hard core agenda.

This should be America's energy goal...to be free from carbon based energy sources.  David's book offers very doable suggestions as to how we move beyond oil, if we only had the political leadership to do so. 

The government collects over $125 billion from carbon based fuels.  We hear from progressives that we can produce "cheap" energy, "almost free".  Where are the feds going to get their tax revenue if oil goes away.

We need the leadership of a John F. Kennedy who pushed to put a man on the moon 40 years ago. 

Exactly, but according to your comments above, you don't think we have the ability to build drilling platforms and develop oil for 20 years.  Why would you think that we are able to put something that is an idea or hunch together so quickly?

America can certainly free itself of oil dependence long before we'd see a drop of oil from off shore leases that the government holds in the name of the American people.  It's time to be smart, and forward looking. 

So we can't develop oil for 20 years but we can develop the unknown quicker????   What???????

Just this morning on GMA we saw a prototype of an electric car from General Motors called the Volt, a plug-in hybrid that hope to have on the market by the fall of 2010.

That takes electricity.  Electricity takes hydro, nuclear and oil to power it.  What is the difference.  Environmentalists want dams dismantled, are against nuclear and oil.  Where is this electricity going to come from???

This car also only goes 100 miles on a charge and you have to have a special charger to make it work that costs $$$$$$.   Do Americans have the $$$ to buy one of these, they won't have trade in cars if we stop oil.  Also, they have not thought of how to dispose of the batteries......hazardous waste Michael.

 That isn't that far away.   You cannot prove that the price of gasoline fell $.20 because of Bush's announcement removing the ban on offshore drilling. 

Then it was a really strange occurance.  Can you prove otherwise.  I will tell you what, Congress should announce that they will lift the offshore ban and if it drops again, then we drill.  If not we put the ban back on..........you would lose and would never agree to that arrangement,  as you know it is the truth.

During the same period of time, Americans drove over a billion miles less and demand went down.  Of those offshore leases, when they do get released, only 20% will ever see a drill.  The other 80% are off the coasts of CA and FL who will not allow drilling in their waters.  

So you support state's rights in that case but not in other cases?????   You can't have it both ways and Crist and Schwarzenegger  could do anything they want executively.

 I'm afraid you've been duped, Bill, et al, if you really additional drilling is going to bring down the price of gasoline.  It isn't going to happen.   You need to educate yourselves instead of climbing on a band wagon with empty promises.

I am afraid you have fallen for the propaganda, Michael, et al.  Don't look now but your hatred and shameful disregard for your fellow NH citizens and your agenda are showing front and center!

Oh, give me a break, Bill.  If anyone has an agenda and lives on propaganda it is you and your rightwing neocon friends.  Your whole purpose is to destroy Paul Hodes.  You've told me that over and over.  And we've seen your attempts, in letters and blogs posts that try to do that. 

When the government experts say it will be years before you'll see any additional oil, and that what you'll see won't be much, I am going to take their word over that of some arm chair propagandist who gets his information from Rush Limbaugh and Faux News.  Give us all a break, Billy Boy.

No Michael,

Paul Hodes spent an immense amount of our tax dollars in franking to self promote.  Hell, even the Monitor pointed that out and excoriated him.

Paul Hodes is a public figure, who wrote a column telling us all of the wonderful things he is doing EXCEPT providing that relief to NH citizens and families.

It will be even longer before you will see alternative energy sources because they have to be invented.

Why is it that everything is always about personalities and accusing someone of attacking someone.  Hodes is fair game and I intelligently answered his points one by one.  He is a dogmatic individual and is agenda driven. 

In the past, he has stated that he is a "proud progressive".  However, he was elected to represent the best interests of New Hampshire, not his individual political beliefs.  Not unlike most others in Congress. He represents all citizens in his district, not just those who agree with him.

Dispute facts like oil company profits.  I explained how the economy and business works.  

Let's say this.....you have an E-Bay business and you had sales of $4000 last month with profit of $3000.  This month you had sales of $8000 with profit of $6000.  Are your price goughing?????   Should we take your 'wiindfall profit' away?  Come on Michael, it is Economics 101!

I will put my "facts" up against your "facts" any day....any day!!!!!!!!!!!!! 

Let's say this.....you have an E-Bay business and you had sales of $4000 last month with profit of $3000.  This month you had sales of $8000 with profit of $6000.  Are your price goughing?????   Should we take your 'wiindfall profit' away?  Come on Michael, it is Economics 101!

Now take say an oil company whose cost to produce 10 barrels of oil is $600.00 and they sell it for $1200.  The next month their cost remains the same, but they've looked around and can see that they could sell the same about of oil for $1500.00 or $1800.00.  Is that not price gauging?  What happens when all the oil producers sit down in a tent in a desert somewhere and decide together they sell that $60.00 barrel of oil to the world market for $200.00, is that not criminal behavior?  Is that not what oil companies are doing? 

The cost is not the same so your argument is bogus.

Crude oil has been going up so, hence, the price of oil goes up.

When oil producers sit down in a tent somewhere and decide oil policy that is called....

OPEC.

Your conspiracy theory is really getting old.   

We need oil to make our economy move. Someday it may be another type of fuel, until that day American families cannot long continue to pay$3 to $4 a gallon for gasoline. It will in a very short time lead us to economic ruin. Drilling effects the price in two ways, in the short run it signals the market that there will be increased supply.

That tells speculators that within a short period of time(by market standards)supply will be adequate to demand and this stabilizes pricing to true market value. The other thing that happens is that additional domestic supply generates tax revenues which in turn can be used for R&D for alternatives. 

One thing does puzzle me though...Why does it matter which parties candidate lies to us, are we still led to believe that it all depends on what the definition of is... is?

Bottom line, Scott, they want off of oil.....most hate it and are angry about some perceived price goughing.

If they sell more their net profit will be larger......it is too bad that our educational system has failed us to the extent that people do not understand how economy and business works.

Of those that do, half are progressive and want to fool the masses.

On another note......John Edwards.......what despicable S.O.B. would do that while his wife has terminal cancer. Now, I would be willing to bet that if it was Mitt Romney or John McCain or any Republican it would be on the mainstream press 24/7.

Honestly though, they all lie and spin for the perpetuation of their own futures and holding power Democrats and Republicans alike..........Hodes is no different.

What guarantee do you have Scott, that the price of oil would come down if the US announced that more drilling will be allowed in what are not protected areas in 20 years or so?  What guarantee do you have that other producing nations wouldn't reduce their production in order to keep pricie high.

Europeans have been paying high prices for gasoline for decades and their economies are doing ok.  They've learned to do things differently than we do.  It is time, IMHO, for Americans to learn that we can no longer live like oil is an unlimited resource.  I believe we will.  But  drilling is not the answer.  We need to use our brains to change the course, or our children will be forced to live as if America were a third world country.

Michael,

What guarantee do we have that we will be able to find a replacement for oil and keep the economy strong? What guarantee do we have that China and India will not surpass us and buy us up beyond what they have already done today?

What guarantee do we have that we will even be here tomorrow? Sure, use our brains but in the meantime........we need oil to get to that point.

Oil is so abundant but the issue is that because of global warming theory, you folks see this as an opening to stop oil "cold".

You are correct, Eurpopeans have learned to do things differently....they use NUCLEAR!!!!

The environmental extremists block any solutions. We need to develop alternatives while we drill and produce exiting energy sources. You show concern for heating oil for the upcoming winter but your belief is that we need to be off of oil.

It costs $35,000 to change over a home to 100% solar. Who can afford that. It takes 20 years to recoup the savings.......at the 20 year mark, you will have to replace the solar panels.

Scott is correct...........and your solution is based on doctrine not reality.

Why is it that you don't seem to grasp that if you open these areas tomorrow, it will still be many years before you see a drop of oil from them.  In the mean time, what do we do.  We pay high prices, or we find substitutes.  I happen to think that America is able to take on this challenge and win.  100 years ago our ancestors had to give up whale oil because they were running out.  We have to do the same today.  Find another alternative or alternatives.  We can do this without additional drilling in delicate off shore environments.  

Where do you propose to put the nuclear waste?  In your backyard?

The way progressives debate is to find reasons why we can't do things. All of which is based on personal political belief and agenda based doctrine.

You are viewing the glass as half empty. Announcing to the world that we are going to drill aggressively now, will signal the world that we are through with their crap and to convince us that we should not, they will drop their prices.

Over the last 6 months oil prices have gone up $1.25 to $1.50 per gallon. To now assume that "that is it! they are never coming down" is disingenuous.

You want to develop alternatives. That will not happen in a weak economy. We tax the oil companies about $125 billion....that revenue can not be easily replaced.  The issue is that you are against using oil in total while we develop new sources.

This is like other progressive viewpoints......everything is relative and roadblocks have to be thrown up to block any other agenda but theirs, with excuses why things can not be done......far from JFK's...."Ask not......country."  You have no will to try anything unless it fits your world view.....no flexibility and no consensus.

It is un-American to force any company to give up profits because we just don't like their product and want to find an alternative. That is called Communism and Totalitarianism. And...that is what dictators and even Hitler did....nationalize industry.

You love to preach about giving things up because in your self absorbed intellectual world view you seem to feel enlightened enough to tell the rest of us how to live.

The whale oil comparison is a stretch....what extremist site are you taking information like that from?

Nuclear? They are developing systems now but the best bet is Yucca Mountain.

Bill, it is your team that finds reasons why we can't do things.  I've been trying to get through  to you that we do things like develop new renewable recourses for energy, that we build hybrid vehicles that can plug into the electrical grid, that we can do things cleanly and efficiently.  I don't understand why you can't understand that.  I know you  are a bright man. 

BTW, the people of Nevada don't want your waste in their state.  But I assume you don't think they should have a voice in it.  

But for me, this thread is losing interest.  I'm tired of banging my head against a wall.  I guess time will tell how America will go.   

Michael,

I have already answered your posts on these points.

1)  Electric cars-Take electricity that is generated by dams(environazis want them dismantled for the stubbed nose striped bass), coal produced (you don't want that), oil (you don't want that).  They will only go 100 miles at 50 MPH.....where do you dispose of the batteries???????????????????

2)  Develop anything that you want...... but short term we need oil.

Yucca Mountain is far enough and in a desolate area.......that is most logical.

YES WE CAN!!!!!   But we can't develop new oil, we can't develop clean coal, we can't develop natural gas, we can't develop nuclear....all of which are known energy sources.

But WE CAN....screw around with theoretical energy sources that will not produce the BTU that we need to be a thriving economy.

In response to your closing comment.  If Obama wins, it will be with a razor thin plurality and in the words of John Kerry, Al Gore and Democrats in 2000 and 2004......"it is not a mandate".   

Mikey, Mikey –
Tired tunes, man, tired tunes. Soundin' like the stale ol' ramblings of the Grateful Dead, which we thankfully got rid of years ago on the music scene.

I. Rubber-band man's elastic demand
Let's start with your claim of a 1300% price increase. Do you want to explain how you exaggerated or manipulated this number, or did someone else do it for you, perhaps Moveon.org puppeteers?

Your understanding of fundamental economics is embarrassing, bordering on public schooling obscene. As anyone with a passing familiarity with the soft science knows, price change is all about elasticity of demand and supply, as I previously mentioned on several occasions. (You once again demonstrate the public schooling incapacity to learn, but an annoying capacity to parrot, over, and over.)  To put it in a way you'll understand, the price is what the price is, so stop fretting about how much the Joneses or the Evanses are making from selling the stuff. For those who find this too high, there are straightforward actions they can take to do something about it, in fact many things, as I also previously enumerated: drive less, buy higher MPG cars, insulate houses, use a wood stove, blah, blah, blah. That is the nature of price, it signals to people whether to buy more or less of something. Now I admit, this is for those intrepid adults who no longer need a wet nurse Nanny State. For the rest, wait and hope Nanny finds "political will" to coddle you to death, or till death.

Of course, that only deals with the demand side. Ironically, the Demublican/Republicrat duopoly have prevented mean old oil man from tapping less expensive oil, and concurrently have taxed the hell out of existing production. Forgive me if I don't share your crocodile tears over the harm caused by the high oil prices, prices your "caring" politicians are complicit in. If they really cared, they would drop the taxes. The absence of such action shows what they really care about: bringing shakedown money into Nanny's coffers so she can show how much she cares about the pain she caused after hobbling her victims - reminds me of Kathy Bates in Misery, but her acting is sooo much more believable (I'm her biggest fan).

Of course, drilling more oil (increasing supply) will decrease price; it's the nature of the beast. But the more skillful among us question whether they want to be beholden to this beast, or any beast. Look at the charts, Mikey, they go up, they go down. Scott is spot-on how speculators interpret such moves to increase supply. But you are also right! (Whaaaa?! Have I just stumbled upon the holy grail of mending fences between you and Bill? Could this be the Grand Unifying theory? I'm afraid it's just another coincidence of concurrence). America's slacking demand will also have an affect on price. By George W., maybe you are getting the hang of this demand elasticity thing. And if Americans in substantial numbers keep burning less fuel, it will continue to decline. Ditto for the supply side, that thing your dear friend Ronnie Reagan stressed so much.

II. Oil does Suck ... your wallet
All this said, I too think people should wean themselves from oil, and Nanny while they are at it (her milk has soured so). Nothing good comes from dependence on Big anything. And any chance to help staunch the flow of taxes to Nanny sounds good to me. (Though I do fear what the thugs will tax as a replacement, maybe "legal" drugs?) Given the historic record of oil prices exhibiting an oddly commodity-like behavior, how many more times does someone have to be hit by volatile prices before they decide to switch partners? It's becoming a downright abusive relationship. Next, Mikey will be claiming "battered consumer syndrome" for the coddled masses. So the issue isn't so much proving whether or not Bush's recent lifting of the anti-constitutional band on offshore drilling sent commodity traders scuttling to safer waters, it's the near certainty that future price spikes will happen again. In which case, the issues becomes what each of us should do about that.

What we don't need is some stinkin' JFK wanna-bee ridin' in on a white pony to take our money to send some rocket jockeys to the moon, or the equivalent for new energy. There are plenty of technologies out there – in the book stores, in the libraries, on the web – to ween yourself off oil by huge %'s by winter! And if you want to add some tax credit 'bribery', I'm all for that, though Mikey I noticed this was noticeably absent from your recommendations, but not Bill's. Another thing that makes me go hmmmm about "progressives" like you Mikey – doesn't sound like progress to me, rather old-school mob shakedowns.

Regarding carbon fuels and electric cars, Mikey, I hear music again ... "where does all the electricity come from?"

You're right that Bill has a thing for Paulie Cracker Hodes ... I noticed it too. But can you blame Brother Bill? Paulie's a politician - they only have fleeting associations with the truth and their constituencies to get their cracker votes.

Now, Mikey, its your turn and those of your ilk to take a bow on the political propaganda stage and leave us alone. I think we will muddle along just fine without y'all.

– Enjoying my near oil-free existence in New Hampshire's highland,
C. dog e. doG

Your attempts at humor, Dogpile, just don't do it for me, pal.  FYI, I just don't bother with it.  But you certainly are invited to continue sharing it with Mr. Bunker, et. al.  But don't address anymore comments to me, because I'm not going to be reading any more of them.  Thanks.  

Sorry you feel that way, at least you, as a progressive had the testicular fortitude to respond.  I am surprised by your unwillingness to respond further, which proves my point that you folks are not interested in consensus.  And you worry about fascism.....there is no debate or anyone willing to do so in a fascist society.....we are willing to come to agreement, compromise and discuss things with the facts.

Sorry if that is not something that you are willing to do. 

Let me tell you the issue I have with Hodes, c.dog e. dog........

1) He is a lawyer and we have too many of them in Washington as it is. I had little interest or support for his predecessor as well.

2) He is arrogant, smug and inflexible in his views. He represents us from agenda versus consensus. He is not my representative but he does represent my state.

3) Last year, he met with Blue Star Mothers and others whom I know and showed a level of disrespect (it was on tape) and to support him, his wife, Peggo came along and got involved in the discussion. She was not elected and does not represent anyone in NH. His demeanor was arrogant.

4) He used public funds for "franking", in true political fashion.

5) He ran on taking his backbone to Washington and has voted in lockstep with his party over 90% of the time. Almost half of his constituents are not in his party and do not support those positions. They are not being represented. He shows no consideration for them.....where is that backbone? I ain't in Washington.

I am sure that he is a nice guy personally but he does not come across that way to many.

Dog, I am aware that many people probably see me as an ass____! The issue is, that if we roll over and let politicians take advantage of us, we lose. If they do so anyway, and as an American, I stand up and try to get the other side of a message out, I have done what I can.

I was angry about the last election in 2006 because the ballot was so simple to vote straight ticket. I believe that had a lot to do with the outcome. This time, I understand that it will not be the same format so I think it will make people think rather than just check off one box.  I voted for Democrats and Republicans and an independent but I read through the ballot and just did not take the 'straight ticket' approach...which is knee jerk.

I do not care for my representative, Shea-Porter either. With Shea-Porter, it is more about philosophy as she seem to not be arrogant or smug at all. With Hodes, the picture of him filling a constituents tank with gas on his franking piece reeked of slimy politician.

Listen, there are Republicans who I can not stand as well. I did not like Bass either. I just wish that we had representatives who were not out for themselves. In Hodes case, I believe he is out for himself. In Shea-Porter's case, what I believe is that she means well for the state; it is just not the approach that I believe will work.

It is a matter of style and perception. Hodes leaves me with with a doubtful feeling. I am not sure if that is the attorney demeanor which he oozes or a perception that he creates.

Dog, at the end of the day, I like everyone and I'd bet if I met him on the street that he would be a great guy. If he met me, I believe he would personally like me as well. This is more about agenda and politics......I want the best for my children and some of the stands that he has taken, and Shea-Porter as well make it harder on NH Families.

No matter what anyone thinks, someone has to point out the other view on issues. The Monitor does occasionally but others don't want it to be revealed, hoping that their ideas and agenda will be able to ramrod their agenda through.

We have enough laws and enough special interests calling the shots. What we need is freedom and minimal government intervention in our lives. Hodes agenda does not resemble that at all; that is the main issue that I have with him.  Hey, Judd Gregg has ticked me off a couple of times as well.

That's funny, Mikey, I haven't found a one of your postings funny either ... ever, at least not intentionally. Is that because you're one of those humorless schoolmarms I so unfondly recall from my tortured days spent in the "public" school penitentiaries? But I do recognize your valiant effort in the last post - "dogpile" - and before that - "dog pooh" - those were hysterical! Where do you come up with this stuff, by rummaging around in your old teacher notes when you taught 3rd graders, or were they the ones teaching you? ... I miss your stock retorts – "racist", "fascist", "NeoCon" – good times, good times.

What's so funny is that you are so funny, but you just don't get the joke. It's hard for me to believe you are for real, and not some caricature of a liberal concocted by a neo-con squirreled away deep under the White House. Don't tell me, you're going to Denver later this summer to wear one of those kooky hats and chant praises like a re-born Christian yute to your False Messiah?

Oh, I doubt it's gone by unnoticed by others that you have not so cleverly avoided the substance of my postings, in addition to the mirth, with your diversionary antics. I'm still waiting for your calculations on school affordability for parents, and now your cogent discourse on demand and supply dynamics as they relate to commodity pricing, and actions people can take to lower their energy bill. I won't wait up, but I'll leave the light on for ya. Here me snooze. Got any more funny jokes, like your recent letter to the Monitor editor?

- Laughing out loud at Mikey from high on my perch hidden deep in the vastness of the White Mtns,
C. dog e. doG

Bill -

Don't get me wrong. I'm all for calling politicians to task. With rare exception, they only represent one person very well. I have found all NH's recent crops sent to D.C. lacking in any kind of fundamental understanding of and appreciation for freedom. If you ever find a candidate who is an exception to this rule, please publicize it. Till then, keep giving them hell, Bill. I think your blog is the best thing since ... since Thomas Paine distributed some rabble-rousing pamphlets some time ago.

- Waiting for more great topics and a little Common Sense,

C. dog e. doG

I fully respect anyone's right to debate or not as they see fit to do. What I find troubling however is it seems to be okay to label some of the conservative bloggers as fascists, racists, or even in jest dog excrement. What is more offensive, the challenge to defend your facts and ideas, or the denigration of intelligent comment because your opinion is different?

I will of course honor anyones right to respond or not as the spirit moves them but there seems to be something wrong with this premise...

Scott

Hey Scott,

I have thought about the unwillingness of those progressives who refuse to debate and came to a couple of conclusions.

1)  They are angry about the elections of 2000 and 2004 and do not care how they reverse the last 8 years, as long as they do.  They are not interested in consensus but want to just become the dictators that they feel Bush has been.  Therefore, they are not interested in debate because that takes them off of their game.

2)  They only argue in 'tit for tat' fashion.  They seem to look for all of the negatives.  Like when they claimed that Bush suspended Habeas Corpus.  That did not apply to citizens living on U.S. soil.  They are so disingenuous about their claims and propaganda.

What I would love is a philosophical discussion of what progressives see as a society.  The issue is, most Americans would say....."no way".  So, instead, they will continue to refuse to debate with facts and dismiss good sources using trumped up rhetoric from groups like MoveOn and Think Progress as factual evidence that our country is going to 'Hell in a hand basket'. 

I have to say, though, Mike does reveal more than most of them and he will tell you what they really think.  He is not shy about the philosophy.

It brings me back to what Hillary said during the election about a "shared society" and  "some people are going to have to give some things up".  That sums up their agenda.

Obama has even talked about 'redistribution' of wealth.  However, if they came out and preached this as their ultimate goal and revealed the impact it would have on the average person, they could not win an election for dog catcher.

Conservatives are obvious and frank about their intention and their vision of economy, government, etc.  Progressives are more clandestine.......that is reminiscent of Marxism....but it is not surprising. 

Those that complain about the rich and taxes soon find out that the liberal agenda leaves no one unaffected by the cost of their programs and policies. Also the definition of rich to liberals is considerably different then the millionaire, billionaire, crowd. It often begins with families that make closer to fifty thousand then fifty million.

Sounds good in the sound bite though! What is more insidious then the thief in the night who steals from you and leaves you with what little you were able to protect or the politician that boldly tells you of his intended theft but leaves you with the proud pronouncement that it is for the greater good?

Like Bill, I just want to be left alone! I want to be able to save for my eventual retirement, to pay for my children's education and to pursue happiness with as much gusto as I can reasonably afford.

The price for this freedom is eternal vigilance against the forces that take the fruits of my labor in order to provide for the greater good. What liberals always fail to mention in all of their grand schemes is what do people who work hard and play by the rules get for their forced generosity?

They get to do without! There are no programs for the people who are the most productive, there isn't even a small chorus of thank yous from those who receive the benefit of these programs, they are after all an entitlement.

The accusation of greed is used to silence those who simply wish to responsibly provide for their families and choose those who they wish to share their bounty and charity!

Dog,

This is from yesterday's Monitor.  Seems that all of these great alternatives are not so great after all

Billy Bo Jangles -
You dance so nimbly with oil in the lead topic. I errantly skipped this article thinking it was only about algae oil, which I've read about previously and won't hold my breath for its commercialization.

Recurrent themes in all this oil/energy discussion?
1. No good oil replacements on the near horizon, vis à vis vehicles, but we can live with that for some time, likely a long time, by making smart individual choices now.
2. In many situations, some "alternative" energy technologies make sense: several solar, some wind turbine, some water (mostly tapped out), geo-thermal (very geographically limited), ground-source heat pumps.
3. In most heating situations, old technologies (wood and coal) are cheaper than oil and gas, but they make more pollution.
4. Sensible ROI efficiency enhancement technologies keep making sense, article after article, point after point.

Top of my list for efficiency improvement: INSULATION. Insulation always makes home heating cheaper – no matter the energy source, including solar! In Sweden they've made super-insulated houses that require no heating system. I feel like that poor damn pastor in the Beatle's song writing a sermon no one will hear. Evidently adding insulation to one's house isn't sexy enough to garner the avid attention of the liberati, or many others for that matter, even with those sexxxy Swedish houses. But all it does is keep making dollars and sense. Maybe what it needs are catchy campaign slogans: "Add insulation, kill a terrorist!", "Insulate your home against Armageddon!", "Swedish insulation is so Hot!", "Insulate for the chil'ren's sake ...".

I suggest you have a blog topic for each leading technology contender to winnow the wheat from the chaff. Selecting the best energy source for a particular application all depends on a lot of stuff.

– Fantasizing about my stripped-down, Super-insulated, Swedish brick house in the cold of NH's winter,
C. dog e. doG