Burn the Iran Flag!Burn the Iranian Flag!

Friday, June 20, 2008

just one good tug...

Yeah, it's an old picture, and one that I blatantly ripped off from the Zombietime Blog. I always wanted to know just how loud this Red Diaper Doper Baby would scream if I ripped that damn bumper sticker off of her chest. Not that there'd be anything to see. That's one ugly c...well, you get the idea.

Zombie, love your work.

Thursday, June 19, 2008

What your politicians are telling you about the high price of oil and exploration:

“For many Americans, there is no more pressing concern than the price of gasoline. Truckers and farmers, small-business owners have been hit especially hard. Every American who drives to work, purchases food or ships a product has felt the effect, and families across the country are looking to Washington for a response,”

“My administration has repeatedly called on Congress to expand domestic oil production. Unfortunately, Democrats on Capitol Hill have rejected virtually every proposal, and now Americans are paying the price at the pump for this obstruction.”
“Congress must face a hard reality: Unless members are willing to accept gas prices at today’s painful levels or even higher, our nation must produce more oil and we must start now.”
--President George Bush

Makes sense to me. Now let’s hear from the moronic side of the argument:

“There is no way that allowing offshore drilling would lower gas prices right now. At best you are looking at five years or more down the road.”

Democrat Barack Obama

The only reason I don’t call him a f*king loser is cause he might actually win. Then WE would be the f*cking losers.

“Another bad idea.”

“It’s going to take 10 years to fully get that oil out of the ocean. It’s a fragile ecosystem,”

“You know this president, all he wants to do is drill, drill, drill. There is very little on conservation, on fuel efficiency for vehicles. Just last week the Congress failed to pass a solar tax credit — give more incentives to renewable energy, solar and wind. A one track mind — drill drill drill — that’s not going to work,”

Democrat Bill Richardson

This from the guy who was in Charge of Energy during the Clenis’ reign of terror? Even this pendejo cannot be this frakking stupid.

Wednesday, June 18, 2008

A letter to your congressmonkey

Energy for America

Congressman _____________:

I am concerned that the long term strategy of the Congress (both Democrat and Republican) seems to be to allow the forced turnover of our wealth to foreign nations, many of which would love to do us harm economically, if not militarily. Currently, we import approximately 60% of our oil. This comes from the U.S. Government site FuelEconomy.gov.

Since we have known about oil reserves in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR), oil companies have been prevented from exploring and exploiting this area due to questions about potential environmental hazards. I can certainly understand the concern that Congress has regarding this issue, but with the price of oil nearing $150.00 per barrel, and gasoline prices nearing $5.00 per gallon, and tangible evidence of economic damage being done to the U.S. economy as a direct result, it seems to me, and many of your constituents (who are voters) that Congress should act to improve the quantity, and quality of our energy sources to ensure the long term economic health of the nation.

We should be exploring for new sources of oil in ANWR, in the Bakken Formation, and off of our coasts. To not do so while asking supplying nations to increase production, causes us to look the fool to the rest of the world and frankly, to your constituents.

Why have we not opened one new refinery in the last 30 years? Why have we not granted a license for a nuclear power plant since 1977? Our need for energy to grow our economy has not abated; our cost for the same energy goes up daily.

Why are we not seriously exploring coal? Liquefied coal is a huge alternative to oil, and the United States is the “King” of Coal. Coal can also do more than fuel cars; it can also run our power plants that supply our homes with electricity. This should be studied now, and implemented now.

The time has long passed for an alternative fuel vehicle. With several manufacturers, GM, Tesla, and Tata among them, we have electric, hydrogen, and even compressed air vehicles being developed. Why can’t we as a nation help fund research and development in order to get these vehicles in U.S. showrooms faster and better?

We’ve had several chances to develop clean, reasonably inexpensive energy for the American people in the last three decades; yet we have squandered each opportunity. Now we are paying the price for the shortsightedness of this Congress and its predecessors. The time for complaining is past; we need to get to work of powering this nation, so we as a nation do not suffer an economic or national security crisis.

We need to continue the work of this great republic, but we cannot do it by allowing our energy needs to be ignored, as they have for the past three decades. The time to act is now, before the suppliers completely control us. Of the top 15 nations supplying our crude oil, here are but a few: Saudi Arabia (1,453,000 bbl per day), Nigeria (1,115,000 bbl per day), Venezuela (1,019,000 bbl per day), Russia (106,000 bbl per day) and Libya (85,000 bbl per day). Do we want these nations to have future control over our foreign policy? Before you say that won’t happen, remember the 1973 and 1979 oil shocks were a result of foreign nations attempting to control our foreign policy.

This Congress, like so many before it, has ignored the problem for far too long; something must be done now for the future security of our republic. It is time to do something now. What are you prepared to do?

I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.

Sound familiar? It’s the Oath of Office you took when you became the representative of the people. The Constitution is under attack from both foreign and domestic enemies now. Why can the Congress not do its job and defend the Constitution?

It is your duty as a duly elected representative of the people to represent the people. This should be kept in mind at all times.

Thursday, June 12, 2008

This idiot wants to be president

This stupid motherfucker thinks that higher gas prices are good? Acceptable?

We should be drilling in our country. That will lower the prices. Supply and demand baby, supply and demand.

The Obamatron will never understand. He's never had to be an actual capitalist.

I'm so proud of my productive congressmonkey

Ciro Rodriguez, (Moron-Texas) a Dimocrat.

Here's what this idiot wasted my tax dollars sponsoring this 110th Congress:

1. H.RES.483 : Recognizing the 63rd Anniversary of Big Bend National Park
2. H.RES.666 : Recognizing and celebrating the 35th anniversary of Guadalupe Mountains National Park
3. H.RES.963 : Supporting the goals and ideals of National Salute to Hospitalized Veterans Week
4. H.R.2173 : To amend title 38, United States Code, to authorize additional funding for the Department of Veterans Affairs to increase the capacity for provision of mental health services through contracts with community mental health centers, and for other purposes.
5. H.R.2542 : To authorize the Secretary of Homeland Security to make grants to hire, train, and equip local law enforcement officials on and near the southern border of the United States, as well as to reimburse the costs of paying overtime to such officials
6. H.R.2688 : To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 103 South Getty Street in Uvalde, Texas, as the "Dolph S. Briscoe, Jr. Post Office Building".
7. H.R.2689 : To require the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to establish a program for the provision of readjustment and mental health services to veterans who served in Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom, and for other purposes.
8. H.R.2855 : To provide for transitional emergency assistance to certain members of the Armed Forces and veterans who are severely injured while serving on active duty, to expand and improve programs for caregiver services for those members and veterans, to require improved screening and care for traumatic brain injury for returning servicemembers and veterans, and for other purposes.
9. H.R.3556 : To amend the Family and Medical Leave Act to provide an additional 12 weeks of leave for a family member to care for a member of the Armed Forces who is seriously injured in combat.
10. H.R.4309 : To require the Secretary of Transportation and the Secretary of Commerce to submit to Congress reports on the commercial and passenger vehicle traffic at certain points of entry, and for other purposes.
11. H.R.5663 : To amend title 38, United States Code, to provide for an increase in the rates of basic educational assistance payable under the laws administered by the Secretary of Veterans Affairs.
12. H.R.5664 : To amend title 38, United States Code, to direct the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to update at least once every six years the plans and specifications for specially adapted housing furnished to veterans by the Secretary.
13. H.R.5826 : To increase, effective as of December 1, 2008, the rates of disability compensation for veterans with service-connected disabilities and the rates of dependency and indemnity compensation for survivors of certain service-connected disabled veterans, and for other purposes.
14. H.R.5869 : To authorize additional resources to identify and eliminate illicit sources of firearms smuggled into Mexico for use by violent drug trafficking organizations, and for other purposes.
15. H.R.6176 : To authorize the expansion of the Fort Davis National Historic Site in Fort Davis, Texas, and for other purposes.
16. H.R.6177 : To amend the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act to modify the boundary of the Rio Grande Wild and Scenic River.

Now I'll grant you, some of this is important stuff. What's he done to help his constituents? Is he taking up the challenge of letting oil companies drill so we don't have to pay $4 fucking dollars a gallon? This guy wants us to suffer. I don't know why.

Personally, I think he's on dope.

Wednesday, June 11, 2008

The politics of oil shale

Fortune talks to Sens. Orrin Hatch and Wayne Allard about the roadblocks to oil shale production.
By Jon Birger, senior writer
NEW YORK (Fortune) -- You'd think this would be oil shale's moment.
You'd think with gas prices topping $4 and consumers crying uncle, Congress would be moving fast to spur development of a domestic oil resource so vast - 800 billion barrels of recoverable oil shale in Colorado, Utah and Wyoming alone - it could eventually rival the oil fields of Saudi Arabia.
You'd think politicians would be tripping over themselves to arrange photo-ops with Harold Vinegar (whom I profiled in Fortune last November), the brilliant, Brooklyn-born chief scientist at Royal Dutch Shell whose research cracked the code on how to efficiently and cleanly convert oil shale - a rock-like fossil fuel known to geologists as kerogen - into light crude oil.
You'd think all of this, but you'd be wrong.
Last month, the U.S. Senate's Appropriations Committee voted 15-14 to kill a bill that would have ended a one-year moratorium on enacting rules for oil shale development on federal lands (which is where the best oil shale is located). Most maddening of all - at least to someone like myself not steeped in the wacky ways of Washington - the swing vote on the appropriations committee, U.S. Sen. Mary Landrieu, D-La., voted with the majority even though she actually opposes the moratorium.
"Sen. Salazar asked me to vote no. I did so at his request," Landrieu told The Rocky Mountain News. A Landrieu staffer contacted by Fortune doesn't dispute this, but notes that Landrieu did propose a compromise which Republicans rejected.
She was speaking of U.S. Sen. Ken Salazar, D-Colo., who has emerged as the Senate's leading oil shale opponent. Salazar inserted the aforementioned moratorium into an omnibus spending bill last December, and in May he proposed a new bill that would extend the moratorium another year.
Salazar's efforts have essentially pulled the rug out from under Shell (RDSA) and other oil companies which have invested many, many millions into oil shale research since the passage of the Energy Policy Act of 2005, which established the original framework for commercial leasing of oil shale lands. (Last year, oil shale represented Shell's single biggest R&D expenditure.)
Salazar says he's simply trying to slow things down in order to ensure environmental considerations don't get trampled in the rush to turn western Colorado into a new Prudhoe Bay. But, ironically, his bid to extend the moratorium comes at a time when his fellow Senate Democrats have been blasting Big Oil for not reinvesting enough of their profits into developing new sources of energy.
I recently spoke with Republican U.S. Sens. Orrin Hatch of Utah and Wayne Allard of Colorado, the two lawmakers working hardest to end the oil shale moratorium. Here are some excerpts from the interviews:
Fortune: Why do you consider developing oil shale such a high priority?
Sen. Hatch: We have as much oil in oil shale in Utah, Wyoming and Colorado as the rest of the world's oil combined. Liberals and environmentalists can talk all they want about wind, solar and geothermal - all of which I'm for - but last time I checked, planes, trains, trucks, ships and cars don't run on electricity. 98% of transportation fuel right now is oil. Ethanol is the only real alternative, and we're seeing that ethanol has major limitations.
It's pathetic. Environmentalists are very happy having us dependent on foreign oil. They're unhappy with us developing our own. What they forget to say is that shipping fuel all the way from the middle east has a big greenhouse gas footprint too.
Fortune: Any hope of changing Sen. Salazar's mind? After all, he says he's not opposed to oil shale production in principle.
Sen. Allard: His mind seems pretty set. His argument is, if we delay this, it gives us an opportunity to phase it in gradually. But he's got it turned around. We need the rules and regulations in place first. When the oil companies go to bid on their leases, they need have some idea what their royalties might be and what their remediation requirements might be [for restoring the land at spent drilling sites].
Fortune: Have you talked to Shell about this?
Sen. Allard: We have, and they've indicated a great deal of frustration. They've put it this way: Look, we can't continue to invest millions and millions of dollars in this kind of research without seeing some light at the end of the tunnel.
Fortune: Sen. Salazar insists he just wants to take things more slowly.
Sen. Hatch: Sen. Salazar and the Colorado governor [Democrat Bill Ritter] say they don't want it to happen too fast. Well, the existing law that I sponsored [which became part of the 2005 energy act] makes it abundantly clear that each governor gets to decide how quickly developments should move forward in their respective states. [Salazar and Ritter] know that. What they're really doing is making sure that the governor of Utah and the governor of Wyoming never gets to make that decision for themselves.
Fortune: One of Sen. Salazar's environmental concerns involves water and the big draw on local water supplies required for oil shale production. Based on my reporting in western Colorado last year, this seems like a legitimate concern. What's your take on this?
Sen. Hatch: Let's compare it to ethanol. Corn needs about 1,000 barrels of water for the energy equivalent of a barrel of oil. That's a crazy amount of water, but it's worked out alright so far because corn is grown in rainy areas, for the most part. But if you want to increase the amount of ethanol, you're going to have to go to irrigation, and then there will be major water limits on how much we can afford to grow.
On the other hand, the Department of Energy estimates that oil shale will require three barrels of water for every barrel of oil.
Fortune: Of course, water is a lot scarcer in western Colorado than it is in Iowa.
Sen Hatch: It is, but remember the oil companies are going to use and recycle the water. And while we're on the environmental impact, let's talk about land use and wildlife habitat. One acre of corn produces the equivalent of 5 to 7 barrels of oil. One acre of oil shale produces 100,000 to 1 million barrels.
Fortune: With gasoline at $4, why this isn't this more of a front-and-center issue for consumers and voters?
Sen. Hatch: I'm generally the last guy to lambaste the media, but generally you do not hear these facts. We're sending $600 billion annually to enemies of our country. If one acre of oil shale produces 1 million barrels of oil, that's 1 million barrels that we would not be importing from Russia and the Middle East. People are going to go berserk when they find out that all along we had the capacity, within our own borders, to alleviate our dependency in an environmentally friendly way.
Ironically, the local governments in Colorado's oil shale areas do support oil shale development, but it's being stopped by the ski-resort elites. A couple months ago, an article came out about how the city of Aspen was being besieged with building applications equating to about $2 million in development a day. Now if those nice, rich people in Aspen really cared about the environment, they might save an acre or two of those beautiful forests they're building on and support some oil-shale development in the not-so-nearby and not-so-beautiful oil shale areas of Colorado.
Fortune: Has oil shale development always been a partisan issue or is this something new?
Sen. Allard: It is something new. The issue with the Democrats now is they want to cut off any source of carbon. And there are those in the Senate who believe the more expensive you make gasoline, the less driving people do and you force conservation by making driving so expensive people can't afford it.
First Published: June 6, 2008: 2:14 PM EDT

Monday, June 09, 2008

Friday, June 06, 2008

Who is pro-energy?

Take a guess...

Who's to Blame for High Gas Prices?

For several decades, the Democratic Party has pursued policies designed to drive up the cost of petroleum, and therefore gas at the pump. Remarkably, the Democrats don't seem to have taken much of a political hit from the current spike in gas prices. Probably that's because most people don't realize how different the two parties' energy policies have been.

Congressman Roy Blunt put together these data to highlight the differences between House Republicans and House Democrats on energy policy:

ANWR Exploration House Republicans: 91% Supported House Democrats: 86% Opposed

House Republicans: 97% Supported
House Democrats: 78% Opposed

Oil Shale Exploration
House Republicans: 90% Supported
House Democrats: 86% Opposed

Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) Exploration
House Republicans: 81% Supported
House Democrats: 83% Opposed

Refinery Increased Capacity
House Republicans: 97% Supported
House Democrats: 96% Opposed


91% of House Republicans have historically voted to increase the production of American-made oil and gas.

86% of House Democrats have historically voted against increasing the production of American-made oil and gas.

Thursday, June 05, 2008

From Last of the Few