Thursday, February 06, 2003

Righteous Fury in it's purest form

There's been a debate at Sand in the Gears that went over the 150 post mark. It started about Viggo Mortenson but quickly morphed into dissent on the war. I kinda lost my shit, but I have to say that some of the stuff I posted in some of my better writing. This was posted by me (go down, way down, past 100+ posts) on Sand in the Gears:

Davey, and anyone else who cares, (con't)

Here's what my beef is and what I've been trying to say: The biggest culprit in the War on Terror and what now seems all but inevitable Gulf II is Oil. I'm not saying the war is all about oil, but it is a huge component and the main fundraising cabability that our enemies have. We have compromised ourselves ethically, politically, and financially over and over in pursuit of a commodity, a commodity I remind you that is heavily subsidized. Heavily meaning as in hundreds of billions of dollars, something conservatives are supposed to hate. Here's one of the articles I linked -

VITAL STATISTICS: 15 Largest US Government Subsidies to the Oil IndustryThe following list details the millions of dollars of US taxpayer money that the US government gives to oil industry in subsidies. Subsidies are sums of money given by the government specifically to support and/or stabilize industry. They are given without any obligation to pay them back. All dollar amounts are in MILLIONS.

1. Oil Defense: Defense operations to protect and secure Persian Gulf oil shipments and infrastructure.
US$10,459 - US$23,333

2. Strategic Petroleum Reserve: Storage of crude oil to be used during price shocks and supply disruptions to stabilize domestic supply.
US$41,560 - US$5,427

3. Foreign Tax Credit: Allows a portion of foreign tax payments to be credited against, rather than deducted from, US taxes due.
US$486 - US$1,057

4. Accelerated depreciation of machinery and equipment: Allows machinery and equipment within the oil industry to be depreciated more quickly than their actual service lives.
US$720 - US$976

5. Excess of percentage over cost depletion: Allows firms to deduct more than their investment in oil properties from their taxes.
US$335 - US$746

6. Public liability for plugging, abandoning, and remediation of onshore wells: Annualized shortfall in bonding (insurance) levels needed to cover existing liabilities in on-going operations.
US$119 - US$451

For more just go back to the link I postedabove, there's another eight more listed.

By the way the $418 million you speak of is just ONE PROGRAM, for ONE YEAR'S BUDGET cited by the Cato Institute. You can see the stat for yourself by clicking onto the link and reading their report.

Oil is why we totally bend over not just backwards but forwards (if you know what I mean) to accomodate the Saudis and other nations that hate us and fund terrorism (I can reference that with evidense, it just takes more time). A real solution does mean becoming energy independent. I'm glad we can agree on something.

And I am sorry to say Davey than ANWAR is a very small spit in the bucket solution. There was an article disputing the amount of oil in ANWAR, how both the oil industry and the environmental lobby got it wrong. The article cites info straight from the Dept of Energy, so if you disagree with those stats take it up with them. The article discusses that it's only worth drilling for if oil is at a certain price per barrel, meaning economically recoverable oil. From this article (linked) -

At $15 per barrel in 1996 dollars, if you take the mean estimate, there's actually no economically recoverable oil there. If you look at the $20 per barrel case, it's 3.2 billion barrels. If you look at the $25 case, it's actually 5.6 billion barrels.

The United States consumed an average of 19.5 million barrels of oil per day in 2000, according to the Department of Energy. At the BEST CASE SCENARIO, when oil is more expensive, $25 a barrel, the 5.6 billion barrels in ANWAR would solve our problem for 288 days. Two Hundred Eighty Eight DAYS!!!! (5.6 billion barrels of gas in ANWAR / 19.5 million barrels a day = 287.18). And what happens after that, anybody?

Currently we produce only about 25% of the fuel we need domestically (I could be off, please correct me if I'm wrong). Drilling ANWAR only adds at the most another 5% for an extended period of time. That is not a solution. For every gallon of gas you purchase approxiamatetly 10 cents goes to the house of Saud, the same nation that helps fund terrorism, the same nation that so many conservatives accuse of having blood on their hands but are totally unwilling to do anything about it except displace Caribou in Alaska. This is not to mention all the money that goes to Iraq, and all other oil producing nations that hate our guts and then turn around and give OUR MONEY that we pay to them and give it to terrorists. Drilling ANWAR means that Saudis will wind up with only about 9.5 cents per gallon. Does that half a penny make you feel better now? Instead of the terrosits flying first class they'll have to take coach.

Drilling ANWAR is not a solution, and if you can't see that after all the yelling and screaming and bloggin I've done, if you can't conceed this one little indisputable fact because I'm a liberal or any other number of reasons, then I have no idea what to tell you. If this is you solution then God help us we are totally fucked!

On the other hand higher CAFE standards are at least a much bigger step in the right direction. Democrat Kerry and Republican (or RINO if it suits you better) McCain have proposed higher standards and it won't go thru, thank you President Bush. Democrats (excpet maybe the ones from Michigan) support this idea. This is part of the solution, so yes Dems have ideas other than throw money at it. Bush's counter proposal is raise the standard 1.2 Gallons. F$%#ing fantastic strategy.

I know what you're thinking. "Thats more than Clinton" You're right, it is more. But 3000+ Americans weren't killed while Clinton was President. Huffington woke to our national dirty little secret (oil funds terrorism), when are you? Before you go ape, let me clarify this that I am NOT ASKING YOU TO EXONERATE CLINTON. Just please hear me out and focus on the present.

If Bush said tomorrow "We need to do everything within our power to get rid our our out of control oil habit", at least admitted we have a problem with Saudi Arabia that he has overlooked until now(which he and many of his cronies / supporters / contributers are HUGE benficiary), and actually made good on those words, you have no idea how impressed I would be. I can forgive. I can't say it would change my vote but I'd call me Senators, my Rep and say this is the way to go, heap praise in the President, as long as it was half way decent plan. But that's probably not going to happen. The hydrogen mention in the SotU address is nice, if it happens and I'm betting it most probably won't. A reminder - he has already backed out of his campaign promise about passing legislation about lowering emmisions. I had no idea that promise was made but I would have bet a hefty chunk in vegas if they gave odds on presidential campaign promises. Anyone who would think that after all those campaign contributions from Big Oil that Bush would do anything of the sort is smoking something. And to think that now he'll really push the hydrogren thing? It's most probably a delaying tactic for a real solution like higher CAFE standards, but thats just my not so humble opinion.

All this factual info comes to this - I read plenty 'o criticism coming from the right about Saudi Arabia. WHAT ARE YOU GONNA DO ABOUT IT? The only thing I've heard is "Let's invade SA and take back their nationalized oil fields." thank you Anne Coulter. God help us if this ever happens.... but at the very least you will have finally done something instead of blowing hot air and posting on the net, as profoundly stupid as that idea is. At least you can finally say you've overcome your Dissassociation Disorder. Coulter still rips into Dems / Libs but says nothing to the President. What a pathetic loser.

By the way, just to clarify things, I really don't want to see the US do anything like that. Even if Saudi Arabia deserves it.

What I have said is conservatives have kept mum on this one issue and don't criticize the President on something so glaringly obvious, and it's profoundly disturbing. Dissociative Disorder is a condition diagnosed by Psycologists, here's an oversimplified textbook definition -

What Is Dissociation? - Dissociation is a mental process which produces a lack of connection in a person's thoughts, memories, feelings, actions, or sense of identity.

I'm hearing everything you're saying. Are you hearing me out? Did you read my post about telling off the Saudis. And I am well aware measures have to be taken (become more energy independent) before we can tell them off.

I'm saying it's a lot easier to tell the Saudis and the Arab world how you feel thru your dollars instead of blood and bullets. Instead you have managed in your heads to separate our totally ridiculous totally enabling totally ass backwards foreign policy and our incredibly compromised President and his entire administration in regards to oil and your hatred for Saudi Arabia. It's time to wake up out of your petroleum induced slumber. You hate those bastards but you keep giving them more money and you're unwilling or unable to do anything to curb our national addiction to oil. You keep enabling the American companies (some of which are owned by an awful lot of people in this administration) that give these theocratic ass backwards American hate fommenting nations their money. You don't even say anything to the President when it comes to how we altered our immigration policy.

I know that every heartfelt GOPer loves to blame our immigrant problem on the Democrats. Please do me a favor and answer this very simple question - After 9.11 the President changed the US immigration policy for a slew of Muslim nations that were considered a threat. Saudi Arabia wasn't on that list. Why not? OR more importantly WHY DO YOU THINK our President didn't apply this policy for Saudi Arabia, the nation that produced 15 of the 19 hijackers from 9.11?

I know why, I'd be happy to tell you why, but if you're going to be so foolish as to ignore this and many other clear as day, tell tale signs and continue to pull this ridiculous charade by sticking your fingers in your ears and yelling "Clinton and Liberals and Chomsky, oh my!", well then the only thing I can say is what I've said before. In light of the overwhelming and damning evidense I've cited and the common sense I know you have, if you're gonna spend your time berating a bunch of pacifist hippies while the real criminals do their dirty work inside the White House because of your dissassociative disorder, all I can say is WE ARE TRULY FUCKED!!!! Can you hear that loud and clear?


And now Davey, my special note for you;

Intersting reading you linked too, by the way. I especially enjoyed the Gregory Palast site. If anyone wants a laugh - head on over and click the "Theft of Presidency" section. There you can read juicy articles about how a racist Jeb Bush suppressed the black vote. Yet somehow, even though our own media was salivating for just such a story - it didn't get much play here. Only in Britian. I wonder if that could have been because of a lack of actual facts??? Hmmmmm. - by Davey

Alright, one last off the subject post - do yourself a favor about Palast, read this first- it's about the list of the voters that were purged from the Florida voter roles pre 2000 election day. People were purged because they were "criminals". There are a slew of invalid purges, including one guy that was convicted of a crime in 2007. Click here is you dare! Straight outta Minority Report yo.

Hey, maybe it's just a coinky dink that most of the voters are (a)Black and (b)Democrats. But if you can look at this, coupled with the fact that Jeb and Katherine Harris have in fact admitted some fault (they did settle with the NAACP), and then see nothing other than the "liberal news media" that you want to see, well then there is absolutely nothing I can say to.

By the way PBS produced a program in Florida 2000 and included Palast's report, but many didn't show it because they felt it was inappropriate after 9.11. They thought it might ruffle too many feathers. They were probably right. Yeah, the European Press loves this stuff. But it doesn't dispute the facts.


Post a Comment

<< Home