Now this is REALLY messed up...

[caseydog]

Personally I say exploit the oil in the Gulf of Mexico and Alaska. Oil prices would drop and the ME oil cartel would be begging and make cultural reforms, if demanded, before we pumped one barrel out of those wells.

So who is preventing us from this?

That sounds nice, but there isn't enough oil there to meet our insatiable demand for the stuff, even if we drilled every square mile of Alaska and the Gulf of Mexico. Besides, if we started doing that now, it would be ten years from now that we would see the peak benefits.

The biggest supply of the stuff is in the ME, and mostly in Saudi Arabia, Iraq and Iran. Isn't that nice.

When you are dependent on something the way we depend on oil, I guess it is easy to compromise your values.

[Classic Finn]

[Miriam C.]

:roll:

Amazing how a simple HUMAN RIGHTS abuse turned so quickly to a we have no right to tell others they can't abuse. Somehow the plight of this girl got lost in the discussion.

If you write your representatives and a scornful letter to your local NOW (not out working--- should be national organization of women) chapter perhaps some influence could change the world for the better.

Course that is not as much fun as jumping up and down about the truly untouchables like an oil company. Or the Bushes or who ever.

[Woody]

Although I feel for the girl. It becomes rather apparent that NOW is going to be powerless in the third world period. I really doubt they can even remotely make a dent in those cultures of that cultural mentality. Women in those countries have to have power there to begin with to make even the smallest change. Unfortunately women don't have rights or postion of power to begin with. You are talking of cultures and beliefs that are in somes cases thousands of years old. To apply our way of thinking on this subject in the United States to them is a fools errand. Women in those countries are chattel, second class citizens and they have limited or no rights period. If you understand the mentality, they are the only ones who can apply change, but it has to come from inside those countries. Not us applying what we have established here. For us to force them is only to compound the problem. Think about it when they come here they still follow the way of there system. I have seen reports in this country lately of abuse here of a third world type happening here. So it still happens due to the simple fact that it is so hardwired in those countries. It continues on this soil after even after they have been here for years and seen the light of our culture.

[caseydog]

Although I feel for the girl. It becomes rather apparent that NOW is going to be powerless in the third world period. I really doubt they can even remotely make a dent in those cultures of that cultural mentality. Women in those countries have to have power there to begin with to make even the smallest change. Unfortunately women don't have rights or postion of power to begin with. You are talking of cultures and beliefs that are in somes cases thousands of years old. To apply our way of thinking on this subject in the United States to them is a fools errand. Women in those countries are chattel, second class citizens and they have limited or no rights period. If you understand the mentality, they are the only ones who can apply change, but it has to come from inside those countries. Not us applying what we have established here. For us to force them is only to compound the problem. Think about it when they come here they still follow the way of there system. I have seen reports in this country lately of abuse here of a third world type happening here. So it still happens due to the simple fact that it is so hardwired in those countries. It continues on this soil after even after they have been here for years and seen the light of our culture.

Okay, I'm confused. We are told by our President on a regular basis that we are "bringing freedom and democracy to Iraq." If this is true, then why can't we bring freedom and democracy to Saudi Arabia?

I just can't believe that our President might not be telling us the whole truth, and nothing but the truth about our mission to bring "freedom and democracy" to Iraq, so why not do the same for Saudi Arabia?

But, instead of bringing "freedom and democracy" to the "kingdom" of Saudi Arabia, where there is no democracy, and where they punish rape victims, we are selling Saudi Arabia weapons of mass destruction, including some of our best stuff, like M-1A2 Abrams battle tanks, M-2A2 Bradley armored vehicles, F-15E Strike Eagle attack aircraft and Patriot surface-to-air missiles.

It appears that our mission to bring "freedom and democracy" to ME nations is a bit selective.

Another thing that confuses me is that the ME nation that is closest to having a functioning democracy is Iran, and we want to bomb them, too.

Of course, I'm not really confused. We like "freedom and democracy" when it likes us. Hugo Chavez was democratically elected, and we supported a coup a few years back that failed to take him down. We don't like him, and he doesn't like our government leaders. So what? The only reason we care about Chavez is because Venezuela has oil. Otherwise, we'd ignore him like we ignore most African nations that have nothing we want.

We may not be able to "fix" Saudi Arabia, but at least we can stop rewarding them for bad behavior, can't we?

And since the Iranian people (like my next-door neighbor who fled Iran because he's not Islamic), are generally okay with us, so why threaten to bomb them and turn them into enemies?

The only thing that is as messed up as the Middle Eastern nations, is our Middle Eastern policy. It's like we decided to deal with a hornet's nest by whacking it with a two-by-four.

In the words of the wise and beautiful AuntiM -- Rant Off.

[Claw]

Personally I say exploit the oil in the Gulf of Mexico and Alaska. Oil prices would drop and the ME oil cartel would be begging and make cultural reforms, if demanded, before we pumped one barrel out of those wells.

So who is preventing us from this?

That sounds nice, but there isn't enough oil there to meet our insatiable demand for the stuff, even if we drilled every square mile of Alaska and the Gulf of Mexico. Besides, if we started doing that now, it would be ten years from now that we would see the peak benefits.

The biggest supply of the stuff is in the ME, and mostly in Saudi Arabia, Iraq and Iran. Isn't that nice.

When you are dependent on something the way we depend on oil, I guess it is easy to compromise your values.

http://www.news.cornell.edu/Chronicle/0 ... thles.html
http://www.americanfreepress.net/html/g ... d_oil.html

I disagree with your statement there isn't enough.
But would tend to agree with your statement on integrity.

[caseydog]

I disagree with your statement there isn't enough.
But would tend to agree with your statement on integrity.

Well, I tend to disagree with your disagreement with me.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_reserves

CD

[Claw]

"The United States has the largest known concentration of oil shale in the world, according to the Bureau of Land Management and holds an estimated 800 gigabarrels of recoverable oil, enough to meet U.S. demand for oil at current levels for 110 years. "

The quote above from your source provide a significant 'threat' apart for the resources that I linked. Actual production is not as important as the ability to produce. Our own self inflicted regulation prevents the ability to use many of these abuntant resourses. Thus the last line in my original post.

[caseydog]

"The United States has the largest known concentration of oil shale in the world, according to the Bureau of Land Management and holds an estimated 800 gigabarrels of recoverable oil, enough to meet U.S. demand for oil at current levels for 110 years. "

The quote above from your source provide a significant 'threat' apart for the resources that I linked. Actual production is not as important as the ability to produce. Our own self inflicted regulation prevents the ability to use many of these abuntant resourses. Thus the last line in my original post.

This ought to be another thread, but here is the part of the quote you left off...

"Unfortunately, oil shale is much more difficult and expensive to extract and refine than conventional oil and oil sands. Oil shale must be produced by mining rather than drilling, and the shale contains a waxy oil precursor known as kerogen rather than liquid petroleum. Despite that, oil shale could be developed given high enough oil prices, and the technology for converting oil shale to oil has been known since the Middle Ages, although the scale of the mining and processing operations would be vastly greater than anything done in history."

We're talking strip mining like you have never seen before. Is it worth it, just so we can keep wasting energy?

That is another trade-off -- a lot like looking the other way with Saudi Arabia just so we can waste energy.

CD

[Claw]

The point, my friend, is not about energy consumption but the hold these arcaic governments have upon us and their ability to treat their population the way they do because of that power. We are going to consume, waste or not is fodder for another thread, and our ability to be less dependent leaves them in a situation of need not power and therefore our ability to demand cultural change. My point is that our dependence is created by regulation inflicted by those special-interests we are dependent upon. I believe we have the brains to source this oil in an eco-friendly manner from the Gulf of Mexico, Alaska or these shale deposits but do we have the political will?

[Kurt (Indiana)]

CD, now we know everything not to do and who screwed it all up; what's your plan for a remedy? Do you have one? How far into the future will it become reality?
What is it?

I'm kidding (partially) because I don't see much public information on this.

Seriously, what aside from nuclear power and hydrogen fuel cells (for cars) are on the horizon?

These have all been around for some time but will we then be dependent on them as they become developed? What about supply and cost due to demand?

Here's an idea that we could use almost immediately. Why not use our web of electronic communication to cut back on travel (tele-commuting). It is not new but companies are very reluctant to allow it in many cases. It would sure cut down on the dependece on fuel.

I've been harping on this for years. I've written several Senators but they just don't get the message. They don't even seem to understand the concept.

What do you think?

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-f ... s-business

[caseydog]

The point, my friend, is not about energy consumption but the hold these arcaic governments have upon us and their ability to treat their population the way they do because of that power. We are going to consume, waste or not is fodder for another thread, and our ability to be less dependent leaves them in a situation of need not power and therefore our ability to demand cultural change. My point is that our dependence is created by regulation inflicted by those special-interests we are dependent upon. I believe we have the brains to source this oil in an eco-friendly manner from the Gulf of Mexico, Alaska or these shale deposits but do we have the political will?

I agree that we are kissing arab behind because of our dependence on their oil. I guess we just disagree on how we can get out of that position.

I don't think we can drill our way out of it. Or mine our way out of it. That's based on a lot of research I have done. I'm not suggesting that you haven't done any research of your own, but we have come to very different conclusions, it appears.

I'm just calling it as I see it. Everyone is free to do their own homework and come to their own conclusions.

I say this, because I don't want our lack of agreement to become an argument. It is what it is -- a disagreement.

CD

[caseydog]

CD, now we know everything not to do and who screwed it all up; what's your plan for a remedy? Do you have one? How far into the future will it become reality?
What is it?

I'm kidding (partially) because I don't see much public information on this.

Seriously, what aside from nuclear power and hydrogen fuel cells (for cars) are on the horizon?

These have all been around for some time but will we then be dependent on them as they become developed? What about supply and cost due to demand?

Here's an idea that we could use almost immediately. Why not use our web of electronic communication to cut back on travel (tele-commuting). It is not new but companies are very reluctant to allow it in many cases. It would sure cut down on the dependece on fuel.

I've been harping on this for years. I've written several Senators but they just don't get the message. They don't even seem to understand the concept.

What do you think?

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-f ... s-business

Good points.

As for "what is my plan?" Well, nobody listens to me. I'm not a congressman, or a Senator -- and definitely not the President.

I did not run for these offices, so I don't bear the same level of responsibility that they do.

I DO vote. I do try to pick candidates that I feel will do the right thing. Sometimes they do, and sometimes they don't.

My own personal belief is that conservation is the best, and easiest way to ease our dependence on these backwards ME nations. And, I walk that walk -- not as much as I should, but I'm always pushing myself to do better.

I think that your "work over the web" idea is outstanding. It's just so darned hard to get a lot of employers to do it. I have a few friends that do, and it works great for them.

Fuel cells and new technologies hold hope for the future, but conservation is the low-hanging fruit. We can do that right now. And, a lot of it is not that hard, and doesn't require much sacrifice. A lot of conservation measures save individual consumers money, too.

Like Miriam said, it's time we tell our elected leaders that punishing rape victims is not something we can reward with big arms sales and foreign aid dollars.

Only about 40-percent of Americans bother to vote. I'm guessing that 80-percent of those who do vote are part of a narrow interest group, like the religious right, radical left, or other group that doesn't represent the average Joe. If that's true, how in the world can we expect our elected officials to represent common Americans who don't like what's going on.

CD

[Kurt (Indiana)]

"My own personal belief is that conservation is the best, and easiest way to ease our dependence on these backwards ME nations. And, I walk that walk -- not as much as I should, but I'm always pushing myself to do better.

I think that your "work over the web" idea is outstanding. It's just so darned hard to get a lot of employers to do it. I have a few friends that do, and it works great for them. "

Yahoo, we have reached some common ground.

I'm a real cheap skate when it comes to enery consumption. After all it comes out of my pocket, so why waste it. Sensible conservation is essential and I'll be nearly everyone can agree to that one.

Let's face it, the polititions aren't going to fix anything until it is totally hopeless and they can get votes by saying so.

It is a frustrating thing for sure. I'd like to see insentives (and they probably exist) for developing the fuels of the future.

[jeep_bluetj]

But conservation, as worthy as it is, won't reduce our energy dependance. We (all the world, not just the U.S.) need to be as energy indeopendant as possible.

My personal plan (and y'all can tell I'm an engineer)

1. Nukes. Lots and lots of nukes. We won't make the mistakes the russians did. Western nukes are really dang safe. Safer than WWIII.

2. Biofuels. (Diesel, but ethanol is ok too)

Both #1 and #2 exist RIGHT NOW. not tomorrow, not after development, but today. They're both dang environmentally friendly too.

We could end up using 90% less fossil fuels. Can't get that with any amount of conservation.