ON OIL: We SHOULD Shoot The Messenger

The message we are getting on this "crisis" is all smoke and mirrors. This is one of those "you had the power all along, just click your heels three times" moments. First, remove the "crisis" mentality. THAT is raising gasoline prices. Of course, there are global factors. The most serious concern out there is the standoff with Iran, OPEC's second-largest oil producer, over its nuclear ambitions. But it really is as simple as: price is determined by the market, the market reacts to fears and consumer behavior. It appears this nation is all about mega-consumption and that in itself is dictating the price we pay for it.

On labeling the oil companies as the culprit...

Ask yourself (at least three times) if you really want to cap the profits a company can make. An oil slick slippery slope there! First, let's put the profits in perspective. The oil companies are making about 8.5% profit. If that is just too much for us allow then there are many in line before them to be cut off at the knees. Banking: 19.1%, The Drug industry: 17.6%. Profits for the oil companies are sure up in the 2006 first quarter but before you draw your sword, would you be surprised to find out that Yahoo first quarter earnings are more than double the oil company's earnings? Now, our nation is not dependent on Yahoo of course (although some may argue that). But do you believe that companies providing necessary products have a heavier burden and less right to profits than those providing discretionary products? One might argue they may be even more deserving of profit windfalls...they are supporting a global infrastructure.

On Bush's challenge to oil companies saying he expects them to invest their profits in oil production and exploration...

This is a ruse. Bush and his Big Oil buddies know it. This was Bush patting us on the head and pacifying us. (political party posturing) Before you write the oil companies saying "Yeah! What Bush said!". The oil companies already do this in a Big Oil way! And now, they are spending more on exploration - on average 53% more than last year. While we are on this subject, don't think the Federal Government is doing a lot of crying over all this. In this first quarter alone, Exxon, Chevron and ConocoPhillips turned over a combined $13.8 billion in sales taxes - about 7% of their total revenue.

The Federal tax on gas is 18.4 cents per gallon. There has been some call to lift all or a portion of this. On the surface it sounds great, doesn't it? It really isn't. We go back to consumer behavior here. There will be a rush on those drives down the coast and we will hop in our RVs and we will take the SUV down the street for a loaf of bread instead of walking. All that would do is raise demand as well as worsen the government deficit.

On the Windfall tax...

First, let's not forget this is no new idea. It has been tried before. It didn't work in the 80's and there is no reason it would work now. If the oil companies are taxed further, who do you think will pay for it? The end-user of course. Also, according to a report of the Congressional Research Service (CRS), the windfall profit tax of the 1980's drained $79 billion in industry revenues that could have been used to invest in new oil production, leading to 1.6 billion fewer barrels of oil being produced in the United States from 1980 - 1988.

Frustrating problem we have here, I know. But if you need a culprit, shoot the messenger because the messages we are getting are deliberately convoluted. The more we look to government to solve this problem, the more disappointed we will be. We can take the biggest and most effective step on our own. Lower our personal consumption. The price will be driven down. We want it to be more complicated than that and it just isn't.

Buy 3 fewer gallons of gas a week. Pssst....3 fewer gallons of gas a week - pass it on.

Always Remember and Don't Ever Forget...He Is THE DECIDER

"I am the decider, I decide what is best"

President Bush in one of his Earth Day speeches 4-22-06 (that all somehow turned to Iraq, or to defending his posse)

Thank you Mr President, that makes it all clear for me. Because I am sure you are unfamiliar with what you said, I will make it clear to you---I will speak slowly.

C U L P A B I L I T Y

YOU make the decisions.

Please remember your powerful proclamation during your impeachment hearings.

If You Protect It, It Will Provide

That is our Earth, an undemanding lover and provider. I have maintained a belief that our life here truly is a very delicate chain that is left incapacitated by the neglect of even one small link.

I encourage individual responsibility in protecting our provider. Even for those who do so much, there is always more to do. Unfortunately, our provider is subject to legislation. It's treatment, be that respect and protection or ambivalence and abuse is determined by the philosophy behind the political power. This administration has proven to be a frightening keeper of our Earth. Please review and become outraged over these examples:

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is prematurely closing a Midwest research library following proposed budget cuts by the Bush Administration, even though the cuts have yet to be approved by Congress. Approximately 27 libraries are subject to more than 80% in budget cuts.

In February, Bush's Interior Department announced a draft five-year offshore drilling plan that proposes opening up at least 2 million new acres in the Gulf of Mexico, plus tracts in Alaska's Bristol Bay and off the coast of Virginia that are currently off-limits.

Bush administration proposes to weaken the Clean Air Act. With an energy policy suspiciously crafted by undisclosed executives, air pollution regulations that protect industry's bottom line rather than citizens' health, and a Clean Water Act policy that eliminates 60% of protected waters and opens the surrounding land to developers. A Clean Water Act that allows water management districts to dump polluted water as long as they don't generate pollution themselves (a deliberate loophole that allows for Florida's Lake Okeechobee to be completely polluted and pose a serious health risk - closing arguments on this litigation were just a couple of days ago).

More aggressive efforts by this administration to enable drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR).

Voluntary "Performance Track" EPA Program...yes, voluntary, self monitored. The program recognizes companies that have "high-quality environmental management systems". These so-called top environmental performers are rewarded with more lenient federal oversight, including looser hazardous-waste storage requirements, less frequent monitoring by the EPA of their air emissions, and placement on a "low-priority" list for routine inspections by EPA officials. The main problem with Performance Track is that Bush officials never imposed an oversight system to evaluate the performance of these supposed industry eco-heroes.

Our national parks are targets as well. The Bush Administration's National Parks Management Revision proposal effectively removes significant language about the importance of conservation above all else in park decisions.

A recent Bush administration decision aims to remove protection for Oregon Coast coho under the federal Endangered Species Act.

The Bush Administration proposal to roll back Americans' right to know about chemical hazards in their neighborhoods. The Administration's proposal would make it even easier for industries to pollute with hazardous chemicals in secret.

Past and Notable quotes by this administration that I had to include:

"If we are saying that the loss of species in and of itself is inherently bad -- I don't think we know enough about how the world works to say that."
-Interior Department Assistant Secretary Craig Manson, appointed by President Bush to position overseeing the Endangered Species Act, Los Angeles Times, Nov. 12, 2003

"We need an energy bill that encourages consumption."
-President Bush, Sept. 23, 2002, Trenton, New Jersey, speech

"First, we would not accept a treaty that would not have been ratified, nor a treaty that I thought made sense for the country."
-President Bush on the Kyoto Climate Change Treaty, Washington Post, April 24, 2001

"Natural gas is hemispheric. I like to call it hemispheric in nature because it is a product that we can find in our neighborhoods."
-President Bush, Austin, Texas, Dec. 20, 2000

Hmmmmm. Ok, shaking off those rather odd comments...

Stand up for our provider. Fight this administration's attempts to perpetuate the continued rape of our planet.

Please visit and support:

Earth Justice
BushGreenwatch
Save Our Environment

Some Changes 'Round Here

From the blogger formerly known as "Lesbiencestmoi".

Over there to the left I explain the reasoning a little bit so I won't repeat it here. I mainly just wanted to say...

WELCOME to "The Anti-Right"

If that sounds a little aggressive well, like the tag line says, it was time to turn up the volume a little bit. A part of what I believed set me somewhat apart was the fact that I will not roll around in the proverbial rhetoric muck, and that won't change. But I am a political dissenter and part of a group that needs a strong, unified voice. With these changes, I am basically raising my voice a little bit.

A RESPONSE To Comment On My Previous Post - GOOD DEBATE GOING HERE

My "Deny...Then Rationalize" post received a comment from "Subsunk". I felt this comment and my response graduated the debate and called for a new post.

Subsunk writes:

"Now, in my opinion Bush heads the most criminal administration in our history exercising massive abuses of power. I say this because we are in a war which at its foundation violates the Geneva Conventions on many levels. Intelligence was manipulated to duplicitously gain the trust and support of the American people. He and his administration willfully trample human rights to further an agenda of control, power and greed. I say this also because he is a proven liar. He tells Americans they should be willing to sacrifice their liberty for security. A concept that wholly goes against the American philosophy."

So who has manipulated intelligence? The administration who has kept it secret, or the press who has leaked only that which makes the government look evil? And once the intelligence has been declassified and released, who has claimed that it was done for political purposes? The Time article on prisoner 063 breathlessly claims to delineate "torture" of a detainee who is supposedly treated to "extremes" of hot and cold (from 60 degrees to 80 degrees), sleep deprivation (4 hours of sleep daily for 7 weeks), withholding of food and water (unless the prisoner finishes answering the question asked and for no longer than 3-4 hours), and items of clothing (hats and gloves to handle religious items, not underwear, pants, or shirts). And you believe that constitutes torture?

I worked harder and longer on my ships for years than this. If you consider these methods torture, then you are the weakest excuse for humanity I have ever seen. My troops suffered more than this twit on their best day because they WANTED to be better than he is.

You claim the Geneva Conventions have been violated, yet there is NO, I say again, NO evidence of wholesale violations whatsoever. Sure a couple of dozen servicemen have been prosecuted and punished for abusing detainees. Less than 5 have been acused of killing or severely injuring detainees. That is better than the murder rate in America as a whole. There is no violation of the Geneva Conventions because there has been no significant abuse. France abuses more prisoners in their own prisons because they are the third worst prison system in Europe. And conditions in Middle Eastern prisons are 10x worse. So who is the torturer here?

Now who is the proven liar? She who insists there is manipulation of intelligence (which I have personally seen, by the way), lies from the Chief Executive (which have not been seen, unless you can point them out and I can show you what he actually said in the transcript), and "willfully trampl[ing] human rights to further an agenda of control, power and greed" (where? -- show me where your personal rights have been infringed? Have you been imprisoned or fined for saying what you want, going where you want, or sleeping with whomever you wish?).

Show me the violations, dear. Then I'll believe you. Until then, I guess I must quote you about yourself:"the PERFECT example of your ease with distorting the truth, distorting statements, spinning it to suit your view and then stating it as if it were fact."

"I respect your opinion but disagree with you resorting to name calling. That solves nothing."

Carry on, dear. I guess I will wait for your answer. I also guess I won't hold my breath.

Subsunk

My Response:

Subsunk,

Thank you for adding your thoughts. Let me first say that I think you jumped to an assumption here that my references were largely about alleged torture. Although I could not condone torture at all, I believe there to likely be a very fine line between gaining needed intelligence by any means and torture and I don't pretend to know where that line is or should be drawn. I believe the convictions so far regarding torture have been justified as needless denigration and torture cannot become a routine American practice. We are trying to maintain the "rules of war" against an enemy who doesn't operate within the rules, this is bound to back up on us at times.

As far as specifics with regard to actions by this President and this administration.
Bush and his administration misled Congress and certainly the American people about his urgent reasons for taking us to war. And if you want to argue that he was completely unaware that the intelligence was false, then who is responsible? Also, that argument is hard to make when we know that Bush (in the SOTU) told us that Iraq was buying uranium from Africa when he already had the reports that this evidence was completely forged. If he did not have a pre-determined plan to go to war no matter what, why would he make this very public and blatant lie? He also maintained the WMD lie when he knew the UN could not and never did find any evidence of this. He also maintained the lie of falsely linking Iraq to Al Qaeda.

One has to consider so much when discussing Geneva conventions violations (as well as violations of other international treaties).

1. Bush administration authorized a war of aggression against Iraq - a sovereign nation.
2. Bush administration authorized and still authorizes conduct of the war that involve the commission of "war crimes". This is not just the torture issue although this is widely argued but even the method of previous and current attacks. Under the Geneva Conventions and customary law, it is a war crime to launch indiscriminate attacks affecting the civilian population or civilian objects in the knowledge that such attacks will cause excessive loss of life, injury to civilians, or damage to civilian objects. The distinction between combatants and non-combatants is fundamental to all humanitarian law. You can go all the way back to the 6 day "shock-and-awe" bombing campaign on Baghdad, a city of 5 million people.
3. In October, 2001 Cheney and Addington committed grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions by directing that a Presidential order be drafted authorizing the indefinite detention without charge of detainees and their subjection to military tribunals.
4. In January, 2002, Gonzales committed grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions by advising Bush in written memos to suspend the application of the Geneva conventions to detainees.
5. On February 7, 2002, Bush committed grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions by issuing in February 7, 2002 a Memorandum stating that Geneva Convention does not apply to detainees, "unlawful combatants".
6. In October 2001 Bush issued a secret finding authorizing the CIA to kill those he designated, either US citizens or non-citizens, anywhere in the world.

Human Rights Violations:

Subsunk, I am sure you don't mean to say that I have no right to point out human rights violations unless I myself have somehow been personally violated? These crimes are committed against a nation, a people. However, that being said, my human rights are violated by this administration by the continual attempt to subvert the constitution and use it as their tool to deny rights instead of protect them.

1. Bush authorized the secret, illegal, warrantless wiretapping of US citizens. Even arguments that we should be willing to sacrifice liberty for security does not make it any less of a subversion of the constitution.

Also, the US Human Rights Network last year took the unprecedented step of sending a detailed memo to the Bush administration cautioning them to look at their egregious human rights violations. I can't imagine anyone trying to deny these blatant and proven truths.

1. Coercive and unreliable interrogation techniques that amount to torture and cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment have been defended and promoted
2. Criminal trials have been conducted in military tribunals that do not provide adequate transparency or due process protections.
3. Foreign nationals have been deported to third world countries where it was likely they would be tortured.
4. More than one thousand immigrants in the US were rounded-up immediately after September 11th in a manner that was arbitrary, discriminatory and violated basic human rights

Furthermore, this administration has still failed to ratify half of the major international human rights treaties, including:

1. The Convention on the Rights of the Child (ratified by every other country in the world except Somalia).
2. The Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (ratified by 177 countries -- over ninety percent of the members of the United Nations).
3. The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (ratified by 97 countries).

Subsunk, from someone who studies, collects research and works diligently to remain aware, even this lengthy response feels like the tip of the iceberg. When I read your (almost) challenge to respond, my first response was - whew, where do I begin? You sound like an intelligent person with access to interesting information that places you in a good position to debate this and I happily discuss it with you. I offer you my interest and my attention to anything you bring to the debate.

PLEASE WELCOME MY FIRST RENTER

I am trying this for the first time and I think it is not only a great promotional tool, but a great way for us bloggers to get even closer and better know one and other.

Haunted House Dressing
The Official Site of Writer Jeremy C. Shipp...

is a fascinating blog. If you are looking for something completely unique, this one is not to be missed. Here is a little taste of what I am talking about. This is taken from Jeremy's intro / profile:

Hello, welcome to Haunted House Dressing. This is a place where toasters run free and hippos climb trees. Read what you want. Ignore what you don't. Laugh, cry, and tickle some nuns while you're at it. They won't mind. Throw a stinky old sock in the stinky old well, and all your dreams might come true (depending upon the humidity level). Beware of the garden gnomes lurking in (almost) every shadow. They're waiting for their chance to climb on your head and do a jig. All in all, it behooves you to have some weird fun, and think some weird thoughts. If you don't, the ground will open and an army of polka dot penguins will spew forth and eat up all the fish. And then they'll die of mercury poisoning, and then you'll feel guilty. Oh so guilty.

Need I say more? Scroll down a bit on the side bar to click thru to

Haunted House Dressing.

Deny...Then Rationalize

This news is only just breaking and I have already heard and read so many outrageous comments by Bush supporters. I am not angered by that, I more want to plead with them to stop staunchly taking a position that makes them a mockery. I sincerely do not mean to denigrate when I say that. It almost saddens me when I see and hear good Americans passionately involved in this country's political footprint, but somewhere cross the line between supporting their President, even their party and blindly rationalizing a President's abuses of power just because he "was their guy". When are they going to question? When are they going to be angered over their betrayed loyalty? When are they going to show this administration that even their supporters have an absolute obligation to demand the truth?

A couple examples of my responses to rather surprising arguments from the right...

The President has the authorization to declassify any information.
The President...an ethical President does not act in a vacuum. Especially when it comes to N.I.E's, an administration does not whisper in the VP's ear to leak it to the press. Especially when it is done to beat up someone who publicly presented facts that undermined the President's core rationale for taking us to war. You can't sell that now matter how well you paint it. On this, an AMERICAblog comment provides the following link to the executive order issued by the Bush administration that covers handling of classified material. (Executive Order 13292).

Well, Valerie Plame was just an analyst.
Outing an undercover C.I.A. officer is a crime. Period. And please consider that even Bush, before this broke denounced the action as a crime that would be "taken care of". Also, he had plenty to say on this issue "before". Now, with this information out, "the White House has no comment".

This seems to show the typical pattern - first deny and when you can no longer deny...rationalize. How long does someone do this before they finally admit they are simply backing the wrong horse?

Democracy Is Not A Process

Democracy is not a process. It is a cumulative mentality. It is a desire and a determination burning at the heart of a people.

Democracy will not be created by the wave of a mighty sword. It will not be created by painting a democratic face on a nation. It will not be created by the occupiers speaking it into microphones and cameras. It will not submit to the agenda of an occupier. It is bigger than that. What is true, real and miraculous about democracy is intangible. It cannot be touched and manipulated. It cannot be forced into existence by an outsider's bombs and guns.

Democracy rises gloriously from the sacrifices made in battles waged by those who desperately seek it. That is its only growth pattern. Absent that, democracy cannot and will not thrive.

Ahh, The Holidays

Wal-Mart is now being labeled "most wanted" in the Christmas / Holiday feud. I will get to the feud itself in just a moment but the following is a possible solution for Wal-Mart.

Wal-Mart Stores, Inc

**MEDIA ADVISORY** **FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE**

Wal-Mart fully respects that in a time of war, rising energy costs, natural disasters, and world-wide terrorism, we as a people are still able to focus on matters of such great import.

Although we don't necessarily object to being mentioned on cable news every day, we are dedicated to resolving the B2C greeting conundrum during the Christmas / Holiday season.

Because litigation against large companies is now a career option, we would like to avoid being sued over semantics. Effective immediately Wal-Mart will post the following in all of its stores.

Thank you for shopping Wal-Mart and please register your greeting of choice by wearing one of the following stickers we have provided. Please note: If your sticker is not clearly visible, Wal-Mart will not claim responsibility for any incorrect or offensive greeting.

Welcome to Wal-Mart, Merry Christmas
Welcome to Wal-Mart, Happy Holidays
Welcome to Wal-Mart, Happy Hanukkah
Welcome to Wal-Mart, Happy Kwanzaa
OR
Holiday Shmoliday...don't smile and greet me with anything, I'm only here to save 5 bucks on a 2 quart Crock-Pot.

Register today and win a free Sam Walton Bobblehead * (subject to availability)

###

Now, I would like all of you bickering brats to sit down and listen to me for a few minutes. You know you are one of the bickering brats if you have EVER said "Hijacking Christmas", "War against Christmas", "the word Christmas is offensive" or if you have EVER even entertained the notion of banning the colors red and green.

Ok, do I have your attention? NO Bill, you sit back down and just shush up. If you don't want me to treat you like a two year old, then don't act like one. Now...all of you, your silly and embarrassing behavior will not be tolerated any more. I am going to explain this once and then I expect you all to drop this nonsense.

In this country we acknowledge and honor many holidays. November December and January have always been considered our holiday season as several of our religious holidays fall in this period. NO Bill, there is more than one religion, hence more than one religious holiday. I won't tell you again to be quiet. Now, where was I...ah yes, our religious holidays. Here are some of the wonderful celebrations we look forward to during our season.

November 1 All Saints Day (Roman Catholic, Protestant, Lutheran)
November 3 or 4 Eid El Fitr (End of Ramadan) (Islamic) [Date is approximate with sighting of the moon]
November 12 Birth of the Baha'u'llah (Baha'i)
December 8 Feast of the Immaculate Conception (Roman Catholic)
December 25 Christmas (Roman Catholic, Protestant, Eastern, Greek and Russian Orthodox)
December 26 First Day of Hanukkah (Jewish)
December 26 -January 2 Kwanzaa
January 1 New Year's Day (not a religious holiday but I assume there will never be a debate that January 1st is indeed the first day of a new year)
January 2 Eighth Day of Hanukkah (Jewish)
January 6 Feast of the Epiphany (Roman Catholic, Eastern, Greek and Russian Orthodox)

Isn't that spectacular. Such beautiful harmony in diversity. Only in America. How fortunate we are indeed.

Let me tell you a short little story. When I was a young teenager, my mother was the editor of a local newspaper. I used to help her with her business Christmas Cards. She told me we needed to find cards that said "Happy Holidays". (Isn't this a great story so far kids? Here comes the good part) I say "how come?". "Because", she says "Not everyone's holiday is Christmas". "Well yeah, but it is still Christmas". "Of course it is Christmas, but would you give a birthday card to your father on my birthday?" "No". "Exactly, so we can either take this list of 150 people and find out the particular holiday they celebrate or we can make it easier and be polite and get "Happy Holiday" cards for all of them". Kids, it was as simple as that. And that is when I understood, especially when addressing a large group, it is simply a consideration - a polite thing to do - to use "Happy Holidays". Finding that to be, in any way, an attack on or the willful oppression of Christians would be....well....stupid, right? Yes. And it turns out, my mother (brilliant as she was) did not dream up that little ditty on her own. No, most everyone will whip out the "Happy Holidays" line as a way of sending their holiday wishes to someone regardless of their faith or religious celebration.

I would ask if there are any questions so far but I am frankly so sick of listening to you all and I have the floor until you can come to your senses.

Now to those of you on the other side of this bickering. Let me start by saying that we will be purchasing a small island for the Plano Independent School District in Texas. They will be forced to reside there and it will be named Land of The Profoundly Stupid With Entirely Too Much Time On Their Hands or "LOPS Island". Some of Plano's actions that led to this decision include a ban on candy cane distribution when a religious card is attached, a ban on parents giving religious-oriented items to one another on school property and banning the colors red and green from a "Winter Break Party," requiring parents to bring only white plates and napkins. Kids, remember when I said a few minutes ago that Christmas WAS one of the holidays in our holiday season? For those of you who are not Christians, you will not burn to a cinder at the sight of a cross, Christmas tree or at hearing the word "Christmas". (And if you do burn to a cinder...well then you had a bigger problem than acting stupid and silly).

We can all freely celebrate our holidays...all of them. We can acknowledge them, learn from them, appreciate the beauty and history in them, see and enjoy symbols of them around us and respect them. This bickering is only about trying to push someone over saying "my way is the only way". Sorry, it doesn't work like that in this country.

Now, if I hear one more peep out of any of you with this ridiculous stupidity, you will be shipped off to LOPS Island before you can say... [insert greeting of choice here].

Editorializing The Supreme Court Confirmations / Nominations

As a confirmed democrat, an outspoken liberal, a member of a minority, perhaps oppressed group (a woman and a lesbian)...I am not afraid of John G. Roberts.

Let us set a high and noble standard for those we appoint to the top bench. Where should that bar rest? It should rest where we find reasoned excellence in the center of any debate. Intelligent answers to complicated issues can only be found with objective voices from both sides.

The Robert's confirmation has been politically motivated, let us make no mistake. Even understanding that Bush appointing Roberts was politically motivated should not sway us from evaluating what the confirmation will mean to the notion of constitutional justice. Constitutional Justice. Understanding the importance of that does not lend itself to extreme views. Would a true liberal who is not an ideologue be more apt to support Roberts or Ginsburg? I have challenged my fellow liberal intellectuals with this question.

My argument is this: stop supporting the mentality of the person and start looking at the methodology of the judge. I find a perfect example in noting that Ginsburg, who represents my political leaning, attempts to set precedent with little constitutional foundation because it will further the liberal agenda. Ruth? Try defending for one moment, a concept that wholly goes against your politics. Only then, are you exercising constitutional objectivity.

John G. Roberts is our Chief Justice...and I am not afraid. Now, Harriet E. Miers has been nominated to fill the Supreme Court seat left empty by Sandra D. O'Conner and everyone seems afraid. The left is baffled at the moderate choice, the right is angered at the moderate choice. Is she a quiet but radical evangelical? Is she a Christian with a sympathetic agenda favoring pro-choice and homosexuals? Please let her be all of the above. Only then, can she lend a true ear to both sides of critical arguments.

Those who desire true constitutional justice will be those who wish for the greatest minds to oversee the interpretation of constitutionality in an ever-changing environment. Those left standing will not be the Ann Coulter or the Michael Moore of this era. Our Constitution has outlived those of their ilk. Our Constitution remains a living document and thrives under the care of absolute gifted objectivity.