blogsNH - Exploring the world - Comments

Vast Reply

C. dog e. doG — Tue, 5 Aug 2008 21:03:19 -0400

O.k., o.k -

Here's my top choices for vast spaces:

1. Great Northern Plains - both awe inspiring and eerie. Would love to one day see them repopulated with vast herds of bison - seems fitting for such a lonely place.

2. Alaska, pretty much anywhere - even in mid-summer, winter seems just a cold breath away. Lots of wildlife, including the humans. Last place, and only place that had the vitality of a frontier.

3. Badlands - are bad-ass. Very weird environment.

4. Most of Wyoming - desolate and dreary; not a cup of tea for me.

5. California? - I've heard from some that Northern Cal mountains make mo-hills out of men.

So Bill, what are your top picks for vast, wide-open spaces?

- Fondly reminiscing of places I can spread my wings,

- C. dog e. doG

GEE Guys..................

Bill Bunker — Tue, 5 Aug 2008 20:42:18 -0400

Out of the loop for a couple of days and you practically shut my blog down. I could only read this on my Blackberry as I was traveling a long way away, but, it did go overboard.

How about commenting on some of the other points like the vastness of the country, etc.

Bill

Where do all the fence posts lie?

C. dog e. doG — Tue, 5 Aug 2008 18:13:40 -0400

Clay -
Would you please provide us the perimeters for permissible speech? It's unclear to me where your boundaries are. I believe we were all operating well within bounds we are both comfortable and familiar with. We're used to Mikey's rants - stuff we also see on occasion in his letters to the Monitor editor - and I like to think he inspires us to reach for the stars, or at least provides a good laugh. Our retorts are usually a step or two back and up from his. And when compared to material thrown down by George Carlin, Chris Rock, Damon Wayans, Eddie Murphy, the talking heads, and partisan political minions, what we wright pales in comparison, and we stayed a considerable distance from Carlin's 7 deadly words.

What brought on this change? Did any of the participants complain? If anyone had grounds to do so, it should have been me, Bill, or Judy considering the nature of the vitriol thrown at us. But we're big boys and girls and we can take it. Perhaps for those more sensitive than us, the Monitor could implement a rule that they could request removal of material directed at them. Or the Monitor could implement a rating system along the lines the movie industry uses. Or better yet, they could choose not to participate.

And for the record, I am not a racist, in fact quite the opposite as attested by who I find attractive.

- Poised atop my keypad waiting for clearance,
C. dog e. doG

This comment thread is over

Clay McCuistion — Tue, 5 Aug 2008 14:18:16 -0400

I've deleted the last several posts here.

They went so far over the bounds of civility that I had no choice -- and it was on both sides.

I generally allow the political discussions here fairly wide leeway in terms of our user agreements. However, please note that we have the ability to delete the accounts of those who do not abide by them.

Thanks.

Be careful What you Wish...

Scott Ives — Tue, 5 Aug 2008 09:18:21 -0400

OBAMA...OBAMA...OBAMA... after that silence! Try to find three people who support this man that have any idea what he really wants to do if elected President. If you do find three people they will all tell you a different story about his platform. Not their fault it's hard to keep up with him these days.

When asked they all say "he's for change" its just difficult pinning down what, where, when and how that change will come about. If Obama is elected, it will be like the scene when Dorothy wakes up in the land of OZ. "I don't think were in Kansas Toto!

Be careful what you wish!

Ahhh....

Jehardy — Mon, 4 Aug 2008 18:47:05 -0400

Ahhh.. I can only assume this is my threat of Chairman Mao's Communist party taking my well earned land and livelihood away from me. Because I've made the mistake of working hard for it.

It must be "redistributed" to those less fortunate. I'd laugh, but it's really not funny. You don't know what you're voting for Mikey. And you'll scream the loudest when you realize it.

You'd better prepare for

Michael Evans — Mon, 4 Aug 2008 18:16:37 -0400

You'd better prepare for your move, Judy, because if history serves as a guide, you will be looking at a much larger Democratic majority in Congress after the election along with a Democrat in the White House. Bye, bye and I hope you enjoy your new home.

Yo, Dog! Good points..

Jehardy — Mon, 4 Aug 2008 18:06:55 -0400

Dog,

Amusing, as always. Mikey does have some interesting points..but I just don't "buy" them.

Americans demanded less and drove less. Why isn't that the reason the price dropped?

Hmmm..

Well, darn it - it musta just been a "ka-winky-dink" that is mysteriously happened at the same time of the announcement and speculators speculated better times ahead. But there I go again, basing opinions on reality, cause and effect, and other foolish things. He believes the above statement, yet his second sentence almost seems to question what he believes, no?? I see this quite often from my Liberal, well meaning, friends.

"I believe this because.. hmmmm.." ???.. then I get that deer in the headlights kinda look that says, Wow - I am questioning myself? Never spoken out loud, of course.

Even the links in your new post don't tell me much Mike.. I say kiddingly of course.. Here is the link to your car's MPG, here's the link to your car's MPG if your tires are properly inflated!!

You know what? I am ALL OVER that tires properly inflated thing, I made sure to do it b/c Obomber told me to. Yet, the change in my MPG, was... nothing!!

Perhaps my tires were fine all along. Curious.

Michael at least does admit that we all pay for the Gub'mint.. so there is a small foothold in reality there. Thank you, Michael. Glad to hear you're a paying stiff, like the rest of us. Wanna pay lots more? Keep voting for the Utopia, that is not coming.

Thanks for playing,

Judy

Oil is slippery when wet

C. dog e. doG — Mon, 4 Aug 2008 17:04:08 -0400

Judy, Judy, Judy -
It's not nice to press Mother Nature Evans for sourcing, though he's the first to pull that trigger on Bill. I too tried linking - he duped us, he bloody well duped us! Even if true that some bureaucrat sitting in some cubicle in some Washington stink-tank said this, so what - he/she's a bureaucrat, a sub-human parasitic life form found lurking in the hallways and confines of government buildings that feed by sucking the lifeblood out of productive human beings.

As you adroitly pointed out, prices are already falling - what better fact do we need than reality? I'm sure Mikey's waiting for the updated DNC talking points on how to address this, perhaps by shielding our eyes from gas pumps, just like they have done with the recent plunge in global Tº (rememba' that Mikey, it was -.5 Cº last year).

So let's get real and break out some components of the recent oil price surge:

Fallen $: factors are many including financing wars and mortgage fiasco.
Increasing demand: primarily China and India
Gob'mint barriers to increasing supply: Alaska, offshore
Commodity traders/speculators: they look at 1 - 3 and logically conclude future prices will go up, up, up, so they do same to current price until it reaches new equilibrium. Change 1, 2, or 3, and price will float to a new equilibrium, up or down. That's how commodity markets work and are supposed to work.

So what should we do to make price and/or quantity go down, assuming you want price to go down? (Remember, there's all sorts of vested interest groupies who don't want oil prices to go down: alternative energy gurus and contractors, oil company investors: stockholders, leaseholders, etc., Mikey and The Chicken Littles, Michael Please-no-Moore, and the rest of crazy crew.)

I've said it before - implement sensible, high yield investments to upgrade your house, and your car. You can reduce your house heat consumption by at least 20%, probably closer to 40% by the beginning of winter, and make 15% or more ROI - better than most Wall Street bets. If you wish to become baptized in saintly green, go get Lebo-ized. If done on massive scale, oil price would drop precipitously, but lazy people won't, so their natural consequence is to pay more for energy.
Drill more. Yes, supply does matter, and given the elasticities of demand, both short and mid-term, this does matter, at least the commodity traders think so, and so do I. As they see prospects for future prices dropping as new supplies are scheduled to come on board, the reason to hold current oil for high prices later falls, and so do current prices.
Don't be a moron and finance a house you can't afford with volatile financial instruments, and don't own stocks in banks that offer this form of financing.
Participate in only one war at a time?

What not to do? Wait for Mikey and his cohorts to invent new technology to mystically transport you to a world where energy is free and we live in harmony with Mother Nature ... though I would love to take a hit of that magic dust they snuff to come up with this stuff.

And remember, all this from a guy who is not a big fan of oil. But boy, oh boy, I wished I had invested in the stuff about 3 years ago.

- Waiting for the Leaning Tower of Oboma to fall over on McCain,
C. dog e. dog

Prove that this was cause and effect. You can't.

Michael Evans — Mon, 4 Aug 2008 15:44:09 -0400

Bush’s announcement that he’d lift the ban on offshore drilling caused oil to plummet by $17.00 a barrel in just a few days.. most of us are now paying 20 cents or more a gallon less at the pump. Won’t make a difference? Americans aren’t that stupid. Even Obomber is now waffling on drilling.

Americans demanded less and drove less. Why isn't that the reason the price dropped?

From the Government, Judy, the one you and I pay for.

Michael Evans — Mon, 4 Aug 2008 15:42:19 -0400

From George Bush's Energy Department and Environmental Protection Agency. (hat tip: Get Energy Smart! Now!)

Their joint site fueleconomy.gov is loaded with fuel-saving, money-saving tips. Keep your tires properly inflated, for example, and you can save up to 12 cents a gallon.

Compare that immediate savings from that single tip, with what coastal and Arctic National Wildlife Refuge drilling combined would get you two decades from now: 6 cents a gallon.

UH Huh???

Jehardy — Mon, 4 Aug 2008 15:20:51 -0400

Where's the source of this Michael, The New York Times? Nancy Pelosi? A Soros sponsored announcement? Just curious. I thought maybe this was a link, but it doesn't seem to be going anywhere.

I saw a clip this morning with Madame Pelosi claiming our drilling would not make a difference for 10 years, and then it would only be a difference of a couple cents. What planet is Pelosi living on? Madame Speaker, I respectfully say you are an idiot. Perhaps her endless induction of botox injections has had a negative effect on her ability to think clearly.

Look out, he’s leaning to the right!!

Judy

According to a U.S.

Michael Evans — Mon, 4 Aug 2008 14:54:46 -0400

According to a U.S. Department of Energy report, opening all areas off the coast of the Atlantic, Pacific and the Gulf of Mexico to new drilling "would not have a significant impact on domestic crude oil and natural gas production or prices before 2030.

If we haven 't solved the energy problem by 2030, we and the planet are going to be in very deep trouble, no matter whether you like it or not. These are the facts. Sorry, Charlie.

No Argument Here

Scott Ives — Mon, 4 Aug 2008 13:25:38 -0400

Bill,

I couldn't agree more! The thing that troubles me is the lack of reasoned debate. I think I recall a time when people could discuss issues without resorting to personal attacks. I want paasionate debate and I want people to be respectfull of one anothers opinion. I enjoy reading your blog because you make logical fact base arguments for the things you believe in....as you can probably surmise we agree far more than we disagree. Thanks for being an island of sanity!

Scott

Not Partisan....Common Sense

Bill Bunker — Mon, 4 Aug 2008 11:11:00 -0400

Scott,

Maybe I am a partisan on this issue but I only see the other side as partisan. I do not support Big Oil, big profits, greed, etc. but do want to keep a healthy economy.

Progressive thought is that this is their opportunity to get their agenda through. I do not believe that, at the end of the day, Americans will go off of oil "cold turkey" or support those who will change their economic lives forever.

However, there is no reason why we can't commit resources to developing alternative energy while producing more oil at home. Even the most conservative Democrats oppose clean coal, geo thermal, more drilling and nuclear.

They have no plan. The divide between Americans is very deep. It is more a divide about philosophy than it is the desire to obtain the same results.

Compromise is the only way that we are going to be able to solve this problem. Compromise is 50:50. In that spirit, the approach to make us independent of Middle East oil by drilling at home while at the same time, developing new energy sources is the most reasoned and logical way for us to approach it.

Without an economy, we will never be able to develop alternative sources and will become a third world nation.

In the United States today, agenda is dictated by which special interest group screams the loudest and is covered by friendly press.....the only thing that will change that is to tap into peoples wallets......that is happening now and something those on the Left are so unaware of as they are blinded by their own doctrine.