Posts in the category Smart Energy Policy
Last week, Republican presidential candidate John McCain said he wanted more of Colorado's water for downstream users like his home state of Arizona. Editorials, Colorado leaders like Sen. Ken Salazar and Congressman Mark Udall, both Democratic and Republican local officials, and well, just about everyone else in Colorado pretty much said: "Hey, McCain: Over our dead bodies…."
Everyone, that is, except Club 20.
Club 20, which boasts itself as the "Voice of Western Colorado," has been very vocal about the benefits of the oil and gas industry and is quick to come to the draw to defend it against proposed rules and regs. However, it's not natural gas that runs the engine in the West, it's water. One would think Club 20 would at least mumble about McCain's proposal to steal more water away from the Western Slope, but there has been nothing but silence coming from the 50+ year old organization.
Does that have something to do with Big Oil supporting McCain's campaign?
If Club 20 is unwilling to defend Western Slope water for whatever political reason, maybe it's time for the Western Slope to start up another organization that will.
Everyone, that is, except Club 20.
Club 20, which boasts itself as the "Voice of Western Colorado," has been very vocal about the benefits of the oil and gas industry and is quick to come to the draw to defend it against proposed rules and regs. However, it's not natural gas that runs the engine in the West, it's water. One would think Club 20 would at least mumble about McCain's proposal to steal more water away from the Western Slope, but there has been nothing but silence coming from the 50+ year old organization.
Does that have something to do with Big Oil supporting McCain's campaign?
If Club 20 is unwilling to defend Western Slope water for whatever political reason, maybe it's time for the Western Slope to start up another organization that will.
Let's see, if you divide $114 million dollars for natural gas leases on the Roan Plateau by 55,000 acres, it averages out to $2,100 an acre. The life of the wells could last for at least 20 years or more, so that brings the cost down for energy companies to $100 or less a year per acre. If it roughly takes about a year's worth of production to pay for all the costs, taxes, etc. during the lifetime of the well that still leaves another 19+ years of almost pure profit for private enterprises.
So, as with so many gas leases before the Roan, Americans like you and me get shafted by giving away all this precious wildlife habitat, clean water resources, wilderness and such -- in addition to the oil and gas underneath our public lands. Then, we pay out of our back pockets exorbitant prices for the oil and gas to use in our homes, autos and businesses. Now who in the hell ever thought this scenario was fair?
Wouldn't it make sense that instead of letting energy companies get all the cash from our publicly owned resources and paying pennies to gobble up and destroy our precious lands and coastal waters, we should nationalize energy production and put the profit back to the public coffers instead? Heck, we'll just hire the energy companies to drill it for us. Then, fire sales on environmental sensitive and irreplaceable places like the Roan Plateau will at least have some value to the American public, instead of to the profit margins of a select few.
So, as with so many gas leases before the Roan, Americans like you and me get shafted by giving away all this precious wildlife habitat, clean water resources, wilderness and such -- in addition to the oil and gas underneath our public lands. Then, we pay out of our back pockets exorbitant prices for the oil and gas to use in our homes, autos and businesses. Now who in the hell ever thought this scenario was fair?
Wouldn't it make sense that instead of letting energy companies get all the cash from our publicly owned resources and paying pennies to gobble up and destroy our precious lands and coastal waters, we should nationalize energy production and put the profit back to the public coffers instead? Heck, we'll just hire the energy companies to drill it for us. Then, fire sales on environmental sensitive and irreplaceable places like the Roan Plateau will at least have some value to the American public, instead of to the profit margins of a select few.
Here's a way to change politics in Mesa County, once one of the state's more conservative areas: buy the Grand Junction Daily Sentinel newspaper.
On Wednesday, Jim Kennedy, Cox Enterprises chairman and chief executive, announced the company was selling the Daily Sentinel and its other newspaper holdings in North Carolina and Texas "as part of an ongoing strategic review of our portfolio and enables us to maintain our strong and stable financial performance by further paying down debt." Meaning, in non-biz wiz-words, Daily Sentinel profits have been declining so Cox wants to dump it.
There were warnings that something was amiss. In July, the Daily Sentinel's new publisher Alex Taylor -- and great-grandson of the Cox Enterprise founder -- put the kibosh on plans to build a new facility. And it has been no secret, noting that Denver may soon be a one-paper town, that the newspaper industry in general has been blindsided by the Internet.
However, let's go back to how Republican fortunes could change in Mesa County should the Daily Sentinel fall into the wrong, or should we say, "left" hands. Certainly, over the years, the Daily Sentinel has well served its conservative political base. Yet overnight, attitudes have begun to change in Mesa County ("drill anywhere, drill forever" probably had something to do with it…) leaving the Daily Sentinel and its conservative venue -- and revenue -- stuck in a rut.
It will be interesting to see if the new owner(s) recognize that conservative and pro-industry stances no longer reflect the local readership nor help the bottom line in Western Colorado.
More on the Cox sale: http://www.gjsentinel.com/news/content/news/stories/2008/08/13/8_13_www_GJSentinel_sale.html
On Wednesday, Jim Kennedy, Cox Enterprises chairman and chief executive, announced the company was selling the Daily Sentinel and its other newspaper holdings in North Carolina and Texas "as part of an ongoing strategic review of our portfolio and enables us to maintain our strong and stable financial performance by further paying down debt." Meaning, in non-biz wiz-words, Daily Sentinel profits have been declining so Cox wants to dump it.
There were warnings that something was amiss. In July, the Daily Sentinel's new publisher Alex Taylor -- and great-grandson of the Cox Enterprise founder -- put the kibosh on plans to build a new facility. And it has been no secret, noting that Denver may soon be a one-paper town, that the newspaper industry in general has been blindsided by the Internet.
However, let's go back to how Republican fortunes could change in Mesa County should the Daily Sentinel fall into the wrong, or should we say, "left" hands. Certainly, over the years, the Daily Sentinel has well served its conservative political base. Yet overnight, attitudes have begun to change in Mesa County ("drill anywhere, drill forever" probably had something to do with it…) leaving the Daily Sentinel and its conservative venue -- and revenue -- stuck in a rut.
It will be interesting to see if the new owner(s) recognize that conservative and pro-industry stances no longer reflect the local readership nor help the bottom line in Western Colorado.
More on the Cox sale: http://www.gjsentinel.com/news/content/news/stories/2008/08/13/8_13_www_GJSentinel_sale.html
In a recent survey about how state voters feel about the oil and gas development, it looks like the recent multi-million dollar advertising campaign didn't buy a lot of goodwill for The Industry.
The survey, conducted by RBI Strategy and Research last month, asked voters to rate the oil and gas industry in Colorado. According to the poll, 40% of the respondents statewide viewed The Industry very unfavorably compared to 20% in the opposite corner. (See the Grand Junction Daily Sentinel article here: http://www.gjsentinel.com/news/content/news/stories/2008/08/12/081308_1b_oil_gas_polling.html )
On the Western Slope where most the new drilling has occurred and where most of the negative impacts on the environment, water and air are felt, a whopping 60% of the voters surveyed had a very to somewhat unfavorable attitude towards oil and gas development compared to 35% of those voters who like to be drilled here, now and often.
Since spring, The Industry has poured millions of dollars into a campaign against new regulations considered by the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission (COGCC). Some of these new rules would direct oil and gas companies to line their chemical waste pits to prevent seepage into the ground water table and oblige them to notify health officials about the dangerous chemical compounds used in drilling methods. The Industry has also donated millions of dollars to the campaign to fight Amendment 113, a proposal that would eliminate the special severance tax write-offs and generate over $300 million to higher education, transportation, and to communities dealing with drilling impacts.
Probably not lost on Coloradan voters, oil companies have also announced record profits this year -- on top of record profits made in previous years. Looking at the results of the poll, perhaps The Industry's threat about leaving Colorado because of the new COGCC proposed rules that would protect health and safety haven't seemed to resonate in the voters' mind. And Colorado voters don't appear to be sympathetic to The Industry's whine about losing tax breaks either.
Now if the millions of dollars had been spent towards more environmentally sensitive drilling practices and community projects instead of hot-air advertising campaigns, perhaps survey results would have faired better for The Industry.
The survey, conducted by RBI Strategy and Research last month, asked voters to rate the oil and gas industry in Colorado. According to the poll, 40% of the respondents statewide viewed The Industry very unfavorably compared to 20% in the opposite corner. (See the Grand Junction Daily Sentinel article here: http://www.gjsentinel.com/news/content/news/stories/2008/08/12/081308_1b_oil_gas_polling.html )
On the Western Slope where most the new drilling has occurred and where most of the negative impacts on the environment, water and air are felt, a whopping 60% of the voters surveyed had a very to somewhat unfavorable attitude towards oil and gas development compared to 35% of those voters who like to be drilled here, now and often.
Since spring, The Industry has poured millions of dollars into a campaign against new regulations considered by the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission (COGCC). Some of these new rules would direct oil and gas companies to line their chemical waste pits to prevent seepage into the ground water table and oblige them to notify health officials about the dangerous chemical compounds used in drilling methods. The Industry has also donated millions of dollars to the campaign to fight Amendment 113, a proposal that would eliminate the special severance tax write-offs and generate over $300 million to higher education, transportation, and to communities dealing with drilling impacts.
Probably not lost on Coloradan voters, oil companies have also announced record profits this year -- on top of record profits made in previous years. Looking at the results of the poll, perhaps The Industry's threat about leaving Colorado because of the new COGCC proposed rules that would protect health and safety haven't seemed to resonate in the voters' mind. And Colorado voters don't appear to be sympathetic to The Industry's whine about losing tax breaks either.
Now if the millions of dollars had been spent towards more environmentally sensitive drilling practices and community projects instead of hot-air advertising campaigns, perhaps survey results would have faired better for The Industry.
Report by FOX-31 TV:
(Very, very x-posted)
Turnout was huge here in Lamar for the "T. Boone Town Hall". The doors were to open at 11:30, but when I arrived at 11:40 I found disappointed townsfolk trudging away. The Elks Lodge was already full!
Knowing there is no such thing as no room for the media, I went on up the drive anyway, and attached myself to some other press folks heading in. Success!
Part of the reason it was so crowded is that word HAD gotten around, and people traveled in from Oklahoma, Kansas and New Mexico, as well as all over Colorado. Many of our elected officials showed up: Mark Udall, Wes McKinley, Buffie McFadyen, plus John Stulp (Colorado Ag Sec and a local boy), and a bunch of local politicians and candidates for office.
T. Boone Pickens and Mark Udall
Mr. Pickens' presentation was well-received by the crowd. Buffie McFadyen joked later that we should mark this day down in history because a crowd in Lamar applauded for Al Gore. It seemed to me that there was a sincere effort towards bipartisanship coming from both the podium and the audience, and for that alone I would give this new Pickens Plan tentative approval.
I will post more later tonight. I took a ton of pictures and notes because I want to do a good job recapping the pros and cons of this project. But today is also the last day to register Mike for high school, and later we're having our last meeting to finalize plans for the Sand and Sage Fair parade, which is happening Saturday. So I have to do a fade to black for now....
Turnout was huge here in Lamar for the "T. Boone Town Hall". The doors were to open at 11:30, but when I arrived at 11:40 I found disappointed townsfolk trudging away. The Elks Lodge was already full!
Knowing there is no such thing as no room for the media, I went on up the drive anyway, and attached myself to some other press folks heading in. Success!
Part of the reason it was so crowded is that word HAD gotten around, and people traveled in from Oklahoma, Kansas and New Mexico, as well as all over Colorado. Many of our elected officials showed up: Mark Udall, Wes McKinley, Buffie McFadyen, plus John Stulp (Colorado Ag Sec and a local boy), and a bunch of local politicians and candidates for office.
T. Boone Pickens and Mark Udall
Mr. Pickens' presentation was well-received by the crowd. Buffie McFadyen joked later that we should mark this day down in history because a crowd in Lamar applauded for Al Gore. It seemed to me that there was a sincere effort towards bipartisanship coming from both the podium and the audience, and for that alone I would give this new Pickens Plan tentative approval.
I will post more later tonight. I took a ton of pictures and notes because I want to do a good job recapping the pros and cons of this project. But today is also the last day to register Mike for high school, and later we're having our last meeting to finalize plans for the Sand and Sage Fair parade, which is happening Saturday. So I have to do a fade to black for now....
If you've been reading your newspaper(s) this week, you've probably read that the righties really thought they had Rep. Mark Udall caught in a "broken promise." They've been crowing about it for two days.
Just one problem -- they're full of crap.
Udall votes to oppose ending Congressional session
If you don't know what I'm talking about, read this, this, or this. Or maybe don't bother--it's all pretty stupid as it turns out.
Just one problem -- they're full of crap.
Udall votes to oppose ending Congressional session
It turns out that Rep. Mark Udall kept his promise after all to oppose Congress taking its summer break without first considering a crucial energy bill.
Udall, the Democratic candidate for the U.S. Senate, took a drubbing this week from his Republican opponent, Bob Schaffer, when he missed the vote on whether to recess.
During a debate Monday with Schaffer, Udall vowed to oppose the recess unless energy legislation was considered.
The resolution Wednesday called for Congress to adjourn by Thursday, Friday or Saturday of this week and return to Washington Sept. 8. For that resolution to be official, there had to be a final adjournment motion sometime this week.
In floor action today, the House voted on the final adjournment motion. Udall joined Republicans in requesting a recorded vote to oppose the motion to adjourn.
"I think the House should continue trying to pass legislation to improve our national energy policies," he said.
If you don't know what I'm talking about, read this, this, or this. Or maybe don't bother--it's all pretty stupid as it turns out.
Phil Graham former Senator and current Economic advisor to Presidential candidate John Mc Cain, believes we're a nation of whiners. If he were a liberal he'd be accused of hating America. I wouldn't go that far but it does appears Graham hates Americans enough to call them whiners and tell us any economic woes we are experiencing are merely figments of our whining imagination. Can you blame him? After all, a complaint against our economy is a direct attack on the failure of the economic philosophy Graham and his conservative buddies worked so hard to build. He was instrumental in de-regulating the home mortgage industry himself. If you lost your home because you were duped into signing a flexible rate mortgage by being told you could re-do it later, you can thank conservative economics and Phil Graham personally. Read More »
This is looking kind of bad, folks:
Feds look at Schaffer oil deal in Kurdistan
Update: The Dead Guvs sum this one up:
If you were trying to imagine something worse than defending sweatshops and forced abortions on American soil...well, here you are. Horrifying, isn't it?
Feds look at Schaffer oil deal in Kurdistan
An oil contract U.S. Senate candidate Bob Schaffer helped negotiate in Iraqi Kurdistan is one of several production deals the U.S. State Department has flagged as problematic for Iraq and its attempts to establish a national oil policy.
The oil contract, finalized in November 2007, allows a subsidiary of Schaffer's former employer, Denver-based Aspect Energy, to produce oil on a nearly 104-square-mile plot in the Dohuk Governate in northern Iraq.
Schaffer confirmed Wednesday he was one of several Aspect Energy executives who visited Kurdistan in November 2006 and laid the groundwork for the company's oil deal.
The Kurdistan Regional Government, which governs the semiautonomous region of Iraq, has moved during the past several years to aggressively develop crude oil resources in northern Iraq. Those efforts run counter to moves to implement a national oil policy.
According to a June 23 report from the nonpartisan Government Accountability Office, Aspect Energy's oil contract and roughly two dozen other similar deals have been a point of contention between Iraq and the Kurdistan Regional Government.
"The (Kurdistan Regional Government) has negotiated an estimated 25 contracts with foreign oil firms, which the Iraqi federal government claims are illegal," according to the report.
Update: The Dead Guvs sum this one up:
As we discussed late last week, this is another potentially devastating situation for Schaffer, possibly worse than the Abramoff/Marianas scandal--which polls show has already seriously damaged his election prospects. The finalization of an Iraqi petroleum law is viewed by most experts as critical to the stabilization of Iraq, and the story emerging here is about American oil companies--like Schaffer's--who were more concerned with getting 'a piece of the action' than they were with supporting American foreign policy goals in Iraq.
Is there even another former Congressman out there who voted to invade Iraq, then immediately went to work for an oil company pursuing contracts there? We're not aware of any. That's bad enough, but the idea that the contracts he pursued could be prolonging the Iraq war instead of helping end it?
If you were trying to imagine something worse than defending sweatshops and forced abortions on American soil...well, here you are. Horrifying, isn't it?
Brace yourself for the "October Surprise." Will it help McCain? Who cares! It will put all our lives at risk. Here's the scenario…
Sometime before January 20, 2009, Israel will probably attack Iran, targeting the nuclear facilities that they fear will give Iran the nuclear capability to attack Israel. Ironically, the more likely that Obama is to be elected President, the more likely is this scenario, as the Israelis will want to do it while they have the continued unquestioning support of Bush and Cheney.
It is Bush and Cheney who have been the primary source of threats to attack Iran, but given their lame duck status, the stretched state of the US military and the adamant opposition of the Pentagon, it is unlikely that the US will do it directly. But evidence is mounting that Israel will.
Thomas Powers argues convincingly in "Iran: The Threat" (NY Review of Books, July 17, 2008, 9-11) that the US lacks the military and economic capacity to take on Iran, being stretched to the max in Iraq and Afghanistan. Yet the alarmist rhetoric of war continues unabated. John Bolton likens Iran's danger to a new September 11 with nuclear weapons (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11849446/).
But Iran, like Iraq, has never been a threat to the United States - it is a threat to Israel. The link to the United States is the "joined at the hip" policies that result in US foreign policy being formulated in Jerusalem. The reasons for that extend beyond international relations to religious beliefs in the "Last Days" and inception of Armageddon, typified by the preaching of John Hagee, who is supporting John McCain. (http://www.jedreport.com/2008/03/john-mccains-em.html)
Which brings us around to the price of oil. The consensus of the economics profession is that the soaring price of oil is not due to speculators. "buying a futures contract doesn't directly reduce the supply of oil to consumers ." (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/27/opinion/27krugman.html?_r=1&oref=login)
But futures contracts reflect beliefs about the future trends of supply and demand. And while it is undoubtedly true that growth in China, India and the developing world increase demand and drive up prices, and while it is also true that unrest in Nigeria raises worries about supply disruptions, that does not seem to be enough to cause $4 and $5 dollar jumps in prices in a single day.
Instead it appears that the oil markets are expecting severe supply disruption that could only result from an impending major war in the Middle East. All signs indicate that such a war would be triggered by an Israeli attack on Iran's nuclear facilities. "Israel has conducted ostentatious long-range air exercises over the Mediterranean, and one former chief of staff has called an attack inevitable if Iran continues its nuclear work." And John Bolton thinks it could happen after the American election but before the inauguration. ("It's Later than You Think" The Economist, June 28th, 2008, 16). Iran appears to expect such an attack and has issued a warning that is guaranteed to drive oil prices up again …According to the Financial Times ("Tehran Issues Warning to Israel, June 30, 2008) Iran would close the Straits of Hormuz and the Persian Gulf and strike Israel with long range missals.
Play that one out in your mind. Israel strikes Iran, Iran strikes back and shuts off oil exports from the Middle East. Hamas and Hezbollah come out shooting on Israel's northern and southern borders and bring in Syria, which in any case has a mutual defense treaty with Iran. The US comes to Israel's defense from bases in Iraq and Afghanistan. Do the Russians stand by during a major shooting war on their southern border? Seems unlikely. There is a mutual defense treaty that exists through the Shanghai Cooperation Organization that addresses mutual defense issues among China, Russia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, and Tajikistan, and which has included summit meetings with Iran (Iran Seeks Membership http://www.wmdinsights.com/I19/I19_EA2_BishkekSummit.htm).
Meanwhile, the US Senate stages a hearing aimed to address the surge in oil prices by blaming speculators and closing obscure loopholes in regulation that allow parallel oil trading in London. The hearings are chaired by the Senator from Israel, Joe Lieberman (I, CN). ("Lieberman Seeks Limits to Reduce Speculation" http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/12/washington/12trade.html)
It will be a lovely little war.
Sometime before January 20, 2009, Israel will probably attack Iran, targeting the nuclear facilities that they fear will give Iran the nuclear capability to attack Israel. Ironically, the more likely that Obama is to be elected President, the more likely is this scenario, as the Israelis will want to do it while they have the continued unquestioning support of Bush and Cheney.
It is Bush and Cheney who have been the primary source of threats to attack Iran, but given their lame duck status, the stretched state of the US military and the adamant opposition of the Pentagon, it is unlikely that the US will do it directly. But evidence is mounting that Israel will.
Thomas Powers argues convincingly in "Iran: The Threat" (NY Review of Books, July 17, 2008, 9-11) that the US lacks the military and economic capacity to take on Iran, being stretched to the max in Iraq and Afghanistan. Yet the alarmist rhetoric of war continues unabated. John Bolton likens Iran's danger to a new September 11 with nuclear weapons (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11849446/).
But Iran, like Iraq, has never been a threat to the United States - it is a threat to Israel. The link to the United States is the "joined at the hip" policies that result in US foreign policy being formulated in Jerusalem. The reasons for that extend beyond international relations to religious beliefs in the "Last Days" and inception of Armageddon, typified by the preaching of John Hagee, who is supporting John McCain. (http://www.jedreport.com/2008/03/john-mccains-em.html)
Which brings us around to the price of oil. The consensus of the economics profession is that the soaring price of oil is not due to speculators. "buying a futures contract doesn't directly reduce the supply of oil to consumers ." (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/27/opinion/27krugman.html?_r=1&oref=login)
But futures contracts reflect beliefs about the future trends of supply and demand. And while it is undoubtedly true that growth in China, India and the developing world increase demand and drive up prices, and while it is also true that unrest in Nigeria raises worries about supply disruptions, that does not seem to be enough to cause $4 and $5 dollar jumps in prices in a single day.
Instead it appears that the oil markets are expecting severe supply disruption that could only result from an impending major war in the Middle East. All signs indicate that such a war would be triggered by an Israeli attack on Iran's nuclear facilities. "Israel has conducted ostentatious long-range air exercises over the Mediterranean, and one former chief of staff has called an attack inevitable if Iran continues its nuclear work." And John Bolton thinks it could happen after the American election but before the inauguration. ("It's Later than You Think" The Economist, June 28th, 2008, 16). Iran appears to expect such an attack and has issued a warning that is guaranteed to drive oil prices up again …According to the Financial Times ("Tehran Issues Warning to Israel, June 30, 2008) Iran would close the Straits of Hormuz and the Persian Gulf and strike Israel with long range missals.
Play that one out in your mind. Israel strikes Iran, Iran strikes back and shuts off oil exports from the Middle East. Hamas and Hezbollah come out shooting on Israel's northern and southern borders and bring in Syria, which in any case has a mutual defense treaty with Iran. The US comes to Israel's defense from bases in Iraq and Afghanistan. Do the Russians stand by during a major shooting war on their southern border? Seems unlikely. There is a mutual defense treaty that exists through the Shanghai Cooperation Organization that addresses mutual defense issues among China, Russia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, and Tajikistan, and which has included summit meetings with Iran (Iran Seeks Membership http://www.wmdinsights.com/I19/I19_EA2_BishkekSummit.htm).
Meanwhile, the US Senate stages a hearing aimed to address the surge in oil prices by blaming speculators and closing obscure loopholes in regulation that allow parallel oil trading in London. The hearings are chaired by the Senator from Israel, Joe Lieberman (I, CN). ("Lieberman Seeks Limits to Reduce Speculation" http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/12/washington/12trade.html)
It will be a lovely little war.
Life's most persistent and urgent question is, 'What are you doing for others?'
Current mood: inspired
Category: Life
Have we not come to such an impasse in the modern world that we must love our enemies - or else? The chain reaction of evil - hate begetting hate, wars producing more wars - must be broken, or else we shall be plunged into the dark abyss of annihilation.
Martin Luther King, Jr.
He who passively accepts evil is as much involved in it as he who helps to perpetrate it. He who accepts evil without protesting against it is really cooperating with it.
Martin Luther King, Jr.
(WAR = EVIL)
THIS IS MY FAVORITE ONE......
An individual has not started living until he can rise above the narrow confines of his individualistic concerns to the broader concerns of all humanity.
Martin Luther King, Jr.
I refuse to accept the view that mankind is so tragically bound to the starless midnight of racism and war that the bright daybreak of peace and brotherhood can never become a reality... I believe that unarmed truth and unconditional love will have the final word.
Martin Luther King, Jr.
NO I LIED....these next two are my favorite ones...... I so would go to jail if I had too!!!!
An individual who breaks a law that his conscience tells him is unjust, and who willingly accepts the penalty of imprisonment in order to arouse the conscience of the community over its injustice, is in reality expressing the highest respect for the law.
Martin Luther King, Jr.
A nation that continues year after year to spend more money on military defense than on programs of social uplift is approaching spiritual doom.
Martin Luther King, Jr.
It is not enough to say we must not wage war. It is necessary to love peace and sacrifice for it.
Martin Luther King, Jr.
Our scientific power has outrun our spiritual power. We have guided missiles and misguided men.
Martin Luther King, Jr.
A genuine leader is not a searcher for consensus but a molder of consensus.
Martin Luther King, Jr.
A man can't ride your back unless it's bent.
Martin Luther King, Jr.
A man who won't die for something is not fit to live.
Current mood: inspired
Category: Life
Have we not come to such an impasse in the modern world that we must love our enemies - or else? The chain reaction of evil - hate begetting hate, wars producing more wars - must be broken, or else we shall be plunged into the dark abyss of annihilation.
Martin Luther King, Jr.
He who passively accepts evil is as much involved in it as he who helps to perpetrate it. He who accepts evil without protesting against it is really cooperating with it.
Martin Luther King, Jr.
(WAR = EVIL)
THIS IS MY FAVORITE ONE......
An individual has not started living until he can rise above the narrow confines of his individualistic concerns to the broader concerns of all humanity.
Martin Luther King, Jr.
I refuse to accept the view that mankind is so tragically bound to the starless midnight of racism and war that the bright daybreak of peace and brotherhood can never become a reality... I believe that unarmed truth and unconditional love will have the final word.
Martin Luther King, Jr.
NO I LIED....these next two are my favorite ones...... I so would go to jail if I had too!!!!
An individual who breaks a law that his conscience tells him is unjust, and who willingly accepts the penalty of imprisonment in order to arouse the conscience of the community over its injustice, is in reality expressing the highest respect for the law.
Martin Luther King, Jr.
A nation that continues year after year to spend more money on military defense than on programs of social uplift is approaching spiritual doom.
Martin Luther King, Jr.
It is not enough to say we must not wage war. It is necessary to love peace and sacrifice for it.
Martin Luther King, Jr.
Our scientific power has outrun our spiritual power. We have guided missiles and misguided men.
Martin Luther King, Jr.
A genuine leader is not a searcher for consensus but a molder of consensus.
Martin Luther King, Jr.
A man can't ride your back unless it's bent.
Martin Luther King, Jr.
A man who won't die for something is not fit to live.
Can we all admit to ourselves now that "free markets" and unregulated capitalism do not serve our national interests? One word typifies the failure of a greed based system to provide for our security. That word is Oil! Or as Upton Sinclair would say Oil!!!!!!! Despite what the neo-cons would have you believe, government serves a purpose. And yes, if it needs to meddle in the affairs of business if it's in the public's interest then it has an obligation to do so.
Oil is running our lives. It's a political bludgeon and we are addicts for it. We need and use plastics and fuel to power our daily lives. Oil can warm us in winter and cool us in summer all the while powering our vehicles including our military and emergency services. For decades we've been sold the notion that there is no other way. We must rely on this and this alone. To do otherwise would ruin the economy they say. We must, if need be, go after these resources by force. If we pollute stretches of coastline so be it. If we rape the consumer so a handful of wealthy people can be wealthier so be it. This is the order of all things. Thanks to the oil men. We love oil so much we would lay down with countries that foster the most outward hate towards us.
Drilling is not the answer. Environmentalists don't have the power to stop this energy monopoly juggernaut. There are leases available for purchase right now and the big oil companies don't want them anyway. They are corporations whose only responsibility is to share holders. Our security is of little concern to them, after all the oil men cry, there's nothing they can do about supply and demand. Yeah, right. And cigarettes aren't harmful to your health and asbestos doesn't cause cancer. Why do we allow corporations to screw the citizens of the world over when we have a document called the Constitution that is designed to prevent this from happening? Don't believe me? Think the founders were free marketeers and capitalists to the core? Then do some reading, you're wrong.
Corporations were not to last more than one's life time. Monopolies were abhorred. Accumulated wealth in too few hands was seen as an opportunity to return to the tyrannical rule of the King of England. Before terms like communist and socialist were common, the founding fathers looked to industry and business with as much trepidation as they did military rule or an all powerful executive. Yes, most were wealthy men, but they knew few were as virtuous as they and rights of people depended on protections from too much wealth being used against them. *gasp!*
Wouldn't have been prudent 30 some years ago to listen to Jimmy Carter about our energy policy? One that relied on conservation and not consumption as the current crop of political flacks want? One that turned away from conventional fossil fuels to solar, wind and thermal renewable resources? In Europe where stricter standards were placed on fuel efficient vehicles their economies managed to do fine and their vehicles and technology evolved along with it. In the States we have the same auto manufacturers making electric vehicles for sale there, telling us the technology doesn't exist and would be too costly if our government would do what's best for the people it represents and force them to comply to making better vehicles here.
Can we abandon the proven failure of this neo-con dream, that capitalism and corporations through markets will provide what's best for the public? It isn't supply and demand that has us being gouged at the pump. Demand is down, the price keeps going up. These aren't free markets they are fixed markets. And we are allowing industry to fix the system! That's what government is for! It's to protect our interests from this maddness. Consider the following, we rely on private contractors for providing military services now more than ever conceived of before. Our government actually promotes no bid, cost plus contracts to military contractors! War profiteering is being encouraged as a matter of business! Eisenhower would kick some tail if he were alive today. We actually trust our nations ports to private foreign companies from areas of the world where our American way of life is demonized. We've allowed millions of manufacturing jobs to leave our shores. The only industry mentioned in the Constitution is the press, the media. Often referred to as our 4th Estate of government, once viewed as essential to our liberty, has been allowed to merge and conglomerate into the hands of a few select individuals more concerned with making a buck than providing for an informed electorate. And at times, the NY TImes for example, it's worked in collusion with our government instead of questioning it.
I know this rant smacks of that scary old socialism. Because in a black and white world there is only that and capitalism. But we live in a world of color, not a utopia. There is a middle ground between the two that FDR found that brought us into our greatest age and we need to return to that. We have the buying power, we can control our own markets. In this age of heightened fear of terrorist attack we can't allow "free" markets to protect us. we need regulated markets that protect American workers, their jobs. We should have the right to feel secure that we are not one medical diagnosis away from complete bankruptcy. We should have control over our own destiny as a nation and not as some world business partner that allows our public policy decisions be solely driven by greed and in control of only a few.
Oil is running our lives. It's a political bludgeon and we are addicts for it. We need and use plastics and fuel to power our daily lives. Oil can warm us in winter and cool us in summer all the while powering our vehicles including our military and emergency services. For decades we've been sold the notion that there is no other way. We must rely on this and this alone. To do otherwise would ruin the economy they say. We must, if need be, go after these resources by force. If we pollute stretches of coastline so be it. If we rape the consumer so a handful of wealthy people can be wealthier so be it. This is the order of all things. Thanks to the oil men. We love oil so much we would lay down with countries that foster the most outward hate towards us.
Drilling is not the answer. Environmentalists don't have the power to stop this energy monopoly juggernaut. There are leases available for purchase right now and the big oil companies don't want them anyway. They are corporations whose only responsibility is to share holders. Our security is of little concern to them, after all the oil men cry, there's nothing they can do about supply and demand. Yeah, right. And cigarettes aren't harmful to your health and asbestos doesn't cause cancer. Why do we allow corporations to screw the citizens of the world over when we have a document called the Constitution that is designed to prevent this from happening? Don't believe me? Think the founders were free marketeers and capitalists to the core? Then do some reading, you're wrong.
Corporations were not to last more than one's life time. Monopolies were abhorred. Accumulated wealth in too few hands was seen as an opportunity to return to the tyrannical rule of the King of England. Before terms like communist and socialist were common, the founding fathers looked to industry and business with as much trepidation as they did military rule or an all powerful executive. Yes, most were wealthy men, but they knew few were as virtuous as they and rights of people depended on protections from too much wealth being used against them. *gasp!*
Wouldn't have been prudent 30 some years ago to listen to Jimmy Carter about our energy policy? One that relied on conservation and not consumption as the current crop of political flacks want? One that turned away from conventional fossil fuels to solar, wind and thermal renewable resources? In Europe where stricter standards were placed on fuel efficient vehicles their economies managed to do fine and their vehicles and technology evolved along with it. In the States we have the same auto manufacturers making electric vehicles for sale there, telling us the technology doesn't exist and would be too costly if our government would do what's best for the people it represents and force them to comply to making better vehicles here.
Can we abandon the proven failure of this neo-con dream, that capitalism and corporations through markets will provide what's best for the public? It isn't supply and demand that has us being gouged at the pump. Demand is down, the price keeps going up. These aren't free markets they are fixed markets. And we are allowing industry to fix the system! That's what government is for! It's to protect our interests from this maddness. Consider the following, we rely on private contractors for providing military services now more than ever conceived of before. Our government actually promotes no bid, cost plus contracts to military contractors! War profiteering is being encouraged as a matter of business! Eisenhower would kick some tail if he were alive today. We actually trust our nations ports to private foreign companies from areas of the world where our American way of life is demonized. We've allowed millions of manufacturing jobs to leave our shores. The only industry mentioned in the Constitution is the press, the media. Often referred to as our 4th Estate of government, once viewed as essential to our liberty, has been allowed to merge and conglomerate into the hands of a few select individuals more concerned with making a buck than providing for an informed electorate. And at times, the NY TImes for example, it's worked in collusion with our government instead of questioning it.
I know this rant smacks of that scary old socialism. Because in a black and white world there is only that and capitalism. But we live in a world of color, not a utopia. There is a middle ground between the two that FDR found that brought us into our greatest age and we need to return to that. We have the buying power, we can control our own markets. In this age of heightened fear of terrorist attack we can't allow "free" markets to protect us. we need regulated markets that protect American workers, their jobs. We should have the right to feel secure that we are not one medical diagnosis away from complete bankruptcy. We should have control over our own destiny as a nation and not as some world business partner that allows our public policy decisions be solely driven by greed and in control of only a few.
The Denver Post highlights some recent votes by Colorado's congressional delegation, and the results are fairly typical, but still worth noting.
Bottom line: Members of Colorado's Republican delegation are far out of the mainstream of their own party, and are not representing Colorado's interests in the least.
For example: Read More »
Bottom line: Members of Colorado's Republican delegation are far out of the mainstream of their own party, and are not representing Colorado's interests in the least.
For example: Read More »
UNAFRAID is the title of my latest book. Its subtitle is A NOVEL OF THE POSSIBLE, and it's my effort to lift up our absurdly low level of expectations about politics. It's possible, and if we don't we are NOT going to take our country back, no matter how many campaigns and candidates say we will.
What do I mean? Well, for starters, please spend a minute sampling the book. You'll get it in an instant. Then tell me what you think...
This weekend, I happened to be looking through a batch of old clippings from the Basement of Doom, part of a lot we bought at an estate auction many years ago. This headline, which my research says is from a January 1953 editorial from the Pueblo Chieftain, said:
It's About Time We Awoke To The Oil Industry's Double Talk
Opening sentence: "We wholeheartedly endorse the ultimatum given by Governor Thornton and the chairman of the State Legislature's special oil tax committee to the oil industry to come up with a "fair and equitable" plan for its own taxation or take what the Legislature will hand it."
A little Googling showed me that Gov. Thornton had gotten tired of waiting for the oil industry to quit whining about how more taxation would kill the industry in Colorado. (Gosh, doesn't THAT sound familiar?) They had promised to come up with a plan everyone could live with, on their own, if the voters would just kindly not vote in an oil severance tax bill on the fall ballot.
Well, of course once the election was over the oilies didn't live up to their promise. So Gov. Thornton put his cowboy boot down in January and said they had THREE DAYS to come up with something, or the Lege would do it for them! And that's exactly what happened.
I will have to leave it to economists and/or historians to fill in the blanks of what happened between those days and now. Makes you wonder, though. Will someone in 2063 be looking back and marveling at how our elected officials stepped up to do the right thing for the state and the people way back in 2008?
We can only hope.
It's About Time We Awoke To The Oil Industry's Double Talk
Opening sentence: "We wholeheartedly endorse the ultimatum given by Governor Thornton and the chairman of the State Legislature's special oil tax committee to the oil industry to come up with a "fair and equitable" plan for its own taxation or take what the Legislature will hand it."
A little Googling showed me that Gov. Thornton had gotten tired of waiting for the oil industry to quit whining about how more taxation would kill the industry in Colorado. (Gosh, doesn't THAT sound familiar?) They had promised to come up with a plan everyone could live with, on their own, if the voters would just kindly not vote in an oil severance tax bill on the fall ballot.
Well, of course once the election was over the oilies didn't live up to their promise. So Gov. Thornton put his cowboy boot down in January and said they had THREE DAYS to come up with something, or the Lege would do it for them! And that's exactly what happened.
I will have to leave it to economists and/or historians to fill in the blanks of what happened between those days and now. Makes you wonder, though. Will someone in 2063 be looking back and marveling at how our elected officials stepped up to do the right thing for the state and the people way back in 2008?
We can only hope.
I was listening to yesterday's news about the current occupant of the White House on his farewell tour of Europe. This phrase was used by the reporter in the form of, "The last visit to Europe by President Bush."
I realized that this is a very positive development. I'm looking for more "lasts" of anything and everything for the coWH. The case against the mis-administration regarding Iran is particularly damaging.
It's clear that since entering office that the coWH has acted against the best interests of the United States on relations and policies towards Iran; the jumbled focus of his European tour sound bite script. Rather than advancing the best interests of the US, the current mis-administration has consistently played to the advantage of Ahmadi-Nejad and the ruling Iranian radicals. Read More »
I realized that this is a very positive development. I'm looking for more "lasts" of anything and everything for the coWH. The case against the mis-administration regarding Iran is particularly damaging.
It's clear that since entering office that the coWH has acted against the best interests of the United States on relations and policies towards Iran; the jumbled focus of his European tour sound bite script. Rather than advancing the best interests of the US, the current mis-administration has consistently played to the advantage of Ahmadi-Nejad and the ruling Iranian radicals. Read More »
While doing our due diligence looking into claims made in recent independent ads, we discovered something pretty interesting.
A few months ago, we took a routine screenshot of Senate candidate Bob Schaffer's biography web page at his former employer's site, Aspect Energy. Here's what it said.
Sounds about right, doesn't it? I mean he doesn't come right out and say "he led Aspect's delegation to Iraq in search of oil development contracts," but it doesn't seem at first glance like he's hiding anything.
Unless you read the bio they replaced it with a few weeks ago:
Amazing how quickly you can go from Aspect Energy's point man for "sourcing and development of international oil and gas exploration opportunities" to helping "educate Congress about the benefits of wind power including its positive impact on the environment, job creation, and its importance to making the United States less dependent on foreign sources of oil," don't you think? Were precautions against whiplash necessary?
Actually, all it took was a text editor.
All told, a rather dishonest little "greenwashing," as we noted in a press release a few minutes ago: Read More »
A few months ago, we took a routine screenshot of Senate candidate Bob Schaffer's biography web page at his former employer's site, Aspect Energy. Here's what it said.
Bob Schaffer
CHx Capital - Vice President Emeritus
Bob Schaffer is Vice President for business development at CHx Capital, LLC where he is involved with a variety of energy, mining and education projects. Additionally, Bob is actively involved in international business development activities for Aspect Energy, including sourcing and development of international oil and gas exploration opportunities for the Company. In 2007, Bob Schaffer provided notice to Aspect and CHx of his intention to run for the United States Senate. Bob Schaffer resigned his position with CHx Capital, LLC / Aspect Energy, LLC effective December 21, 2007. We wish him the best of luck and offer him our congratulations for his contributions to energy and wind development efforts.
Sounds about right, doesn't it? I mean he doesn't come right out and say "he led Aspect's delegation to Iraq in search of oil development contracts," but it doesn't seem at first glance like he's hiding anything.
Unless you read the bio they replaced it with a few weeks ago:
Bob Schaffer
CHx Capital - Vice-president Emeritus
Bob Schaffer previously acted as Vice-President for business development at CHx Capital, LLC. Bob was involved in a variety of wind power investments, international energy opportunities, and education projects. Bob worked to improve the US Wind Industry. Specifically, he worked to increase entrepreneurial opportunities for small business owners by ensuring that wind-specific tax credits could be utilized indirectly by wind developers classified as small business owners. Bob helped educate Congress about the benefits of wind power including its positive impact on the environment, job creation, and its importance to making the United States less dependent on foreign sources of oil. In 2007, Bob Schaffer provided notice to Aspect and CHx of his intention to run for the United States Senate. Bob Schaffer resigned his position with CHx Capital, LLC / Aspect Energy, LLC effective December 31, 2007. We wish him the best of luck and offer him our congratulations for his contributions to energy and wind development efforts.
Amazing how quickly you can go from Aspect Energy's point man for "sourcing and development of international oil and gas exploration opportunities" to helping "educate Congress about the benefits of wind power including its positive impact on the environment, job creation, and its importance to making the United States less dependent on foreign sources of oil," don't you think? Were precautions against whiplash necessary?
Actually, all it took was a text editor.
All told, a rather dishonest little "greenwashing," as we noted in a press release a few minutes ago: Read More »
Yeah, that makes a lot more sense:
McCain clarifies remark linking oil and Iraq war
Really clears things up, doesn't it? We didn't invade Iraq in 2003 for oil, we invaded Iraq in 1991 for oil. But not really for oil, it's just that there's lots of oil in Iraq and we're "dependent." And let's not forget that occupation of Kuwait stuff (like McCain apparently did), you know, the reason the UN went along with our invading Iraq in 1991. I always thought that was a bit of a pretext, but of course to have said so in 1991 would have risked being called a "traitor" or a "Saddam sympathizer" by Sen. McCain.
And the fact that in 2003, we were still (wait for it) dependent on foreign oil, and Iraq was still (wait for it) sitting on a second-largest proven reserve of oil in the world...wow, wait a minute, I must be getting confused again.
Seriously, any way you try to explain this remark just raises more giant red flags, but that's the rub with uncomfortably truthful slips of the tongue. J'accuse, Senator.
McCain clarifies remark linking oil and Iraq war
Republican John McCain was forced to clarify his comments Friday suggesting the Iraq war involved U.S. reliance on foreign oil. He said he was talking about the first Gulf War and not the current conflict.
At issue was a comment he made at a town hall-style meeting Friday morning in Denver.
''My friends, I will have an energy policy that we will be talking about, which will eliminate our dependence on oil from the Middle East that will prevent us from having ever to send our young men and women into conflict again in the Middle East,'' McCain said.
The expected GOP nominee sought to clarify his comments later, after his campaign plane landed in Phoenix. He said he didn't mean the U.S. went to war in Iraq five years ago over oil.
''No, no, I was talking about that we had fought the Gulf War for several reasons,'' McCain told reporters. One reason was Saddam Hussein's invasion of Kuwait, he said. ''But also we didn't want him to have control over the oil, and that part of the world is critical to us because of our dependency on foreign oil, and it's more important than any other part of the world,'' he said.
Really clears things up, doesn't it? We didn't invade Iraq in 2003 for oil, we invaded Iraq in 1991 for oil. But not really for oil, it's just that there's lots of oil in Iraq and we're "dependent." And let's not forget that occupation of Kuwait stuff (like McCain apparently did), you know, the reason the UN went along with our invading Iraq in 1991. I always thought that was a bit of a pretext, but of course to have said so in 1991 would have risked being called a "traitor" or a "Saddam sympathizer" by Sen. McCain.
And the fact that in 2003, we were still (wait for it) dependent on foreign oil, and Iraq was still (wait for it) sitting on a second-largest proven reserve of oil in the world...wow, wait a minute, I must be getting confused again.
Seriously, any way you try to explain this remark just raises more giant red flags, but that's the rub with uncomfortably truthful slips of the tongue. J'accuse, Senator.
UPDATE: Here's a link to the Denver Post coverage.
Mark Udall has issued a press release responding to the challenge Hillary Clinton has issued on the gas tax holiday:
Mark Udall has issued a press release responding to the challenge Hillary Clinton has issued on the gas tax holiday:
UDALL ANSWERS CLINTON GAS TAX CHALLENGE, STANDS WITH COLORADANS FOR MEANINGFUL ENERGY RELIEF
Yesterday in Indiana, Hillary Clinton challenged every member of Congress to go on the record with a position regarding her proposal to temporarily suspend the federal gasoline tax, and state whether they were with her or against her. Senator McCain has offered the same proposal, despite experts from all sides declaring that this plan will not actually lower costs for drivers.
Today, Congressman and Senate candidate Mark Udall responded to the challenge:
"There is no issue I have spent more time on in my public service career than working for real, responsible change in our energy policy - the kind that breaks our addiction to foreign oil and puts us on a path to greater national security, a stronger economy, and lower energy costs for our families. There is certainly no question that families are hurting with the soaring cost of energy and need relief.
"The so-called 'temporary gas tax holiday' that Senators Clinton and McCain propose won't deliver this needed relief. This will not create the economic relief they say it will, because prices will continue to rise until we address the real source of this problem. We do need to provide immediate relief for families hard-hit by spiraling gas prices, and we can do that by demanding the President stop adding to the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. This will ease the production crunch that is causing these skyrocketing gas prices.
"Senator Clinton claimed yesterday that I either stand with her on this proposal or stand with the oil companies. To that I say: I stand with the families of Colorado, who aren't looking for bumper sticker fixes that don't fix anything, but for meaningful change that brings real relief and a new direction for our energy policy. We can't afford more Washington-style pandering while families keep getting squeezed.
"It is exactly the kind of short-sighted Washington game that keeps us from getting real results to our energy problem. Experts across the ideological spectrum agree that it will increase the deficit, drain money away from Colorado roads and bridges, and hurt the environment, all without actually making prices lower for drivers."
Posts By Month
Posts
God humors Focus on the Family prayers for rain
Posted Aug 28, 2008 10:40am
Comments (0)
The enemy within cont'd
Posted Aug 28, 2008 9:19am
Comments (0)
Corrupt Influence on Our Military
Posted Aug 27, 2008 10:01am
Comments (1)
The enemy within
Posted Aug 26, 2008 8:19am
Comments (3)
Some alternative choices to the DNC on Open Salon
Posted Aug 26, 2008 12:57am
Comments (0)
ProgressNow in pics!
Posted Aug 25, 2008 1:08pm
Comments (0)
White Paper Justifying Iraq War Written Three Months before Intel Report Arrived
Posted Aug 25, 2008 2:19am
Comments (0)
What about Joe? Two views
Posted Aug 24, 2008 10:44pm
Comments (2)
Susan in the City: An Overview with Illustrative Cartoon
Posted Aug 22, 2008 12:11pm
Comments (0)
Obama's is thinking about WHO for VP?
Posted Aug 22, 2008 10:13am
Comments (2)
All Network Posts >*NOTE: ProgressNowAction is not responsible for the content of member postings.
