A point that's so obvious that the MSM can't seem to comprehend it:

As dumb as this claim is, and it is stupid on it's face, the one that continues to bug the shit out of me is when the Dems keep whinning that any additional drilling offshore or in ANWR wouldn't yield any oil for a number of years. Instead, they want to invest in unproven technologies such as electric cars and solar and wind which will cost significantly more, require a massive overhaul of supporting infrastructure and...wait for it...won't yield any results for even more years if ever. Yet, nobody points out this obvious yet inconvenient truth.

This whole thing is a blatant excuse to rework our economy to favor more enlightened and ecology happy energy sources to support the myth of man made global warm..er climate change.

That's from Jack Straw.

I personally have trouble making that point because it's so goddamned obvious I feel like I'm condescending even to mention it.

However, the MSM has no such excuse -- they conduct interviews with these people day-in, day-out, and certainly it would be newsworthy to have a Democrat explain why we shouldn't explore for oil, which might take five years to show any benefit, but we should put al our eggs in the "new technology" basket, which will take ten years to show any benefit. If ever.

Posted by: Ace at 11:23 AM | Comments (67)
Post contains 232 words, total size 1 kb.

In case you hadn't heard, Gleen is taking Keith to task for his remarkable flip-flop on FISA/telecom immunity.

Both were wrong on this issue initially. Gleen, however, is at least consistently wrong, and does not flip-flop in order to keep up with Obama's flip-flops.

Keith Olbermann called Bush a traitor, fascist, and ally of terrorists for demanding immunity for telecoms. Now when Obambi supports the same measure, he's called... "strong." Strong to not allow himself to be rolled by the Republicans on the issue. Strong to stand up to the "far left" on the issue.

Uhh... why wasn't Bush similarly "strong" for advocating immunity? Why wasn't he "strong" for standing up to the "far left"?

(It's also interesting that Keith Olbermann's mind can only discuss the subject in terms of political advantage. You would think that maybe he could address the issue in national security terms, but, alas, no. Not anymore. Oh he was able to discuss what he would call "national security" implications when he was bashing Bush -- "siding with terrorists!" -- but now that Obama has joined Bush, such considerations are no longer considered, and the question simply becomes another horserace/political positioning one.)

Keith Olbermann has gotten around to defending his own amazing flip-flop -- on the Daily Kos, of course. He claims Obama's position is different than Bush's, and hence supportable, because while the measure provides civil litigation immunity for the telecoms, it does not foreclose the possibility of future criminal prosecution by the state, and that makes all the difference.

Of course Olbermann did not make any reference to this being a key consideration in his previous rants, nor did he mention it in calling Obama "strong." Obama himself doesn't cite that this as reason for his flip-flop, either, to Keith Olbermann's chagrin.

It's also simply stupid. There's a doctrine forbidding this -- entrapment. Entrapment is defined legally as the undertaking of a criminal act, but only due to the urging of an agent of the state; without that urging, the crime would not have been committed in the first place. Obviously entrapment applies here; the telecoms didn't offer up their records to the Bush Administration like a dealer hawking crack in the street; the Bush Administration came to them, urged/demanded they assist in the War on Terror, and provided legal opinions that this was lawful and proper.

Obama can't prosecute them for an alleged "crime" that occurred only due to the state's urging and with the state's reassurance that it was in fact not a crime at all.

Duh.

So Olbermann can continue to spin, but the fact is, when Bush does it, it's fascist, treasonous, and "siding with terrorists." When The Chosen One does it, it's "strong." And understandable. And even... praiseworthy.

He's always been a joke, a carnival barker hawking political pornography. But some on the "far left" (also known as "his audience") finally seem to be noticing.

Maybe the "far left" will demonstrate "strength" similar to Obama's by tuning him out.

Posted by: Ace at 10:59 AM | Comments (33)
Post contains 510 words, total size 3 kb.

Caught between public anger over $4.00+ per gallon gas and their anti-oil base which cannot countenance additional drilling of any kind, Democrats have trotted out an extremely stupid talking point -- make oil companies drill where they currently hold leases before allowing any additional exploration. If they can sell this stupidity, they can claim they are in fact for additional oil production -- they're the ones trying to pressure the oil companies to stop "stockpiling" oil-rich lands -- while holding the line on additional wells, thus appeasing their base.

No Republican would be permitted such a convenient absurdity; the MSM would demolish it. But the rules are always different for Democrats, and the media is determined to help sell this lie.

Except for a few conservative-titling outfits, such as the WSJ.

Oil companies take leases not because they know there's oil on the land (or under the sea), but because they think there might be oil and need the lease in order to explore that possibility and to secure the legal right to pump it if they do find it. It's simply ridiculous to assume, as the Democrats' talking points do, that each and every lease actually contains a huge amount of recoverable oil, and the oil companies are simply refusing to drill there. Instead, the claim goes, the oil companies are clamoring for the right to grab up additional leases... which then, of course, they will also leave untouched.

Why are oil companies securing leases for oil they know is there but have no intention of drilling? If their goal is to not drill, why bother with the expense of a lease at all? They're all in on it together, in this conspiracy theory, so they can all just agree to not drill at all. They hardly need to pay the government money for the right not to drill.

This is all so ridiculous that the entirety of the MSM should have called this dishonest spin for what it is. But they didn't, of course, and so the WSJ is left to explain the obvious:

To deflect the GOP effort to relax the offshore-drilling ban – and thus boost supply while demand will remain strong – Democrats also say that most of the current leases are "nonproducing." The idea comes from a "special report" prepared by the Democratic staff of the House Resources Committee, chaired by Mr. Rahall. "If we extrapolate from today's production rates on federal lands and waters," the authors write, the oil companies could "nearly double total U.S. oil production" (their emphasis).

In other words, these whiz kids assume that every acre of every lease holds the same amount of oil and gas.

In other words, they're assuming that that the currently-nonproducing leases can produce the same amount of oil as the producing ones. And yet the productive wells were not chosen at random, were they? They were explored because they were the most likely to have oil, and then they were drilled because the exploration proved they had oil.

This is like assuming that because your wife agreed to marry you when you asked her to, you can randomly walk down the street proposing to strangers and enjoy the same 100% success rate.

Yet the existence of a lease does not guarantee that the geology holds recoverable resources. Brian Kennedy of the Institute for Energy Research quips that, using the same extrapolation, the 9.4 billion acres of the currently nonproducing moon should yield 654 million barrels of oil per day.

Nonetheless, the House still went through with a gesture called the "use it or lose it" bill, which passed on Thursday 223-195. It would be pointless even if it had a chance of becoming law. Oil companies acquire leases in the expectation that some of them contain sufficient oil and gas to cover the total costs. Yet it takes years to move through federal permitting, exploration and development. The U.S. Minerals Management Service notes that only one of three wells results in a discovery of oil that can be recovered economically. In deeper water, it's one of five. All this involves huge risks, capital investment – and time.

It also involves guessing at where one's resources are best used. If ExxonMobile has, say, thirty leases, and the money and equipment and manpower to only explore on, say, five areas at a time, they're obviously going to go after the most likely sites first, and the least likely areas will remain "nonproducing" in the interim.

But even the most likely sites are in fact highly unlikely to produce recoverable oil. It's a numbers game. Oil can be found -- but they need to be able to look in a lot of places.

...

Yet companies are not allowed to explore where the biggest prospects for oil and gas may exist – especially on the Outer Continental Shelf. Seven of the top 20 U.S. oil fields are now located in analogous deepwater areas (greater than 1,000 feet) in the Gulf of Mexico. In 2006, Chevron discovered what is likely to be the largest American oil find since Prudhoe, drilled in 7,000 feet of water and more than 20,000 feet under the sea floor. The Wilcox formation may have an upper end of 15 billion barrels of recoverable oil and should begin producing by 2014 – perhaps ushering in a new ultradeepwater frontier.

But by all means let's try to force companies to drill where they have little hope of finding oil.

Via Hot Air, which also makes this point:

Demanding drilling first on all extant leases is an absurd position to take when they donÂ’t have any indication of accessible oil from the preliminary studies. It amounts to drilling dry holes at a cost of tens of millions of dollars each just to demonstrate the futility. Who do you think will pay that cost? Hint: it wonÂ’t be Barack Obama or Congress, but the people who drive up to the pumps every day.

Posted by: Ace at 10:17 AM | Comments (42)
Post contains 1012 words, total size 6 kb.

Seems like a high body count for an accident.

A military shooting demonstration in southeast France on Sunday left 16 people wounded, including children, when real bullets were used instead of blank ones, officials said.

Four of the wounded were in serious condition, including a 3-year-old child, Bernard Lemaire, chief of the regional administration in Aude, said on France-3 television. Fifteen of the injured were civilians.

A Defense Ministry official said the incident occurred during a demonstration of hostage-freeing techniques at the Laperrine military barracks. The official said investigators will look into why real bullets were used.

No information was immediately available about what kind of weapon was used.

The soldier who fired the shots has been detained, Lemaire said. He said the injuries were likely an accident but that it could have been a "criminal act."

Thanks to chickpea.

Posted by: Ace at 09:34 AM | Comments (49)
Post contains 170 words, total size 1 kb.

It's being billed as a major speech but listening to it now, it's pretty much about Obama and how "I will never question the patriotism of others in this campaign. And I will not stand idly by when people question mine.”

Now he's into the 'American can be made better' is really patriotism stuff.

Fearless prediction...Andrew Sullivan will LOVE this speech.

He does have a lapel pin on. I can't tell if it's one of those false patriotism flag pins or not.

He's broken it down to 3 elements...a 'gut love of country', a willingness to speak up when the government is wrong and sacrifice/service.

There's absolutely nothing new or interesting about this speech but it will be hailed as some sort of revelation about what it means to be patriotic.

In the sacrifice section he takes a swipe at Wesley Clark, without naming him, for his remarks on McCain.

You can read the speech here.

One favorite quote:

And it is up to us to teach our children a lesson that those of us in politics too often forget: that patriotism involves not only defending this country against external threat, but also working constantly to make America a better place for future generations.

When we pile up mountains of debt for the next generation to absorb, or put off changes to our energy policies, knowing full well the potential consequences of inaction, we are placing our short-term interests ahead of the nationÂ’s long-term well-being. When we fail to educate effectively millions of our children so that they might compete in a global economy, or we fail to invest in the basic scientific research that has driven innovation in this country, we risk leaving behind an America that has fallen in the ranks of the world. Just as patriotism involves each of us making a commitment to this nation that extends beyond our own immediate self-interest, so must that commitment extends beyond our own time here on earth.

Enacting a Democratic domestic agenda is the highest form of patriotism! more...

Posted by: DrewM at 08:29 AM | Comments (78)
Post contains 502 words, total size 3 kb.

Michael Totten describes part of his journey in Eastern Europe:

“My name is Michael,” I said to a young boy. “What's yours?”

“Mario,” he said.

“Mister, where are you from?” said a little girl.

“America,” I said.

“Yay!” The kids cheered.

Albania is fanatically pro-American, which is perhaps a bit counterintuitive to many Americans since it is at least nominally a Muslim-majority country. The conventional assumption that Muslims hate Americans everywhere isn't true.

Click over to read the whole thing, with pictures! I especially like his improvised sign-language for "danger." I would have freaked out too.

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at 08:14 AM | Comments (13)
Post contains 108 words, total size 1 kb.

Apparently hope and change doesn't include pesky things like free speech or dissent.

...It isn't just conservative sites that Google's Blogger platform is eliminating. For instance, www.comealongway.blogspot.com has been frozen and this one is a Hillary supporting site...

Its not just the VRWC that the Obamistas are electronically shooting in the head either -- the pogrom extends to Hillary supporters as well.

More HERE and HERE. more...

Posted by: Purple Avenger at 05:22 AM | Comments (52)
Post contains 101 words, total size 1 kb.

It's almost laughable that someone who is supporting Barack Obama would have the chutzpah to go after John McCain on experience and qualifications to be President but behold the modern day Democratic Party.

Clark said that McCain lacked the executive experience necessary to be president, calling him “untested and untried” on CBS’ “Face the Nation.” And in saying so, he took a few swipes at McCain’s military service.

...“He has been a voice on the Senate Armed Services Committee. And he has traveled all over the world. But he hasn't held executive responsibility. That large squadron in the Navy that he commanded — that wasn't a wartime squadron,” Clark said.

“I don’t think getting in a fighter plane and getting shot down is a qualification to become president.”

As Lex points out, that's not exactly the sum total of McCain's experience.

Also, "Spook86" at In From the Cold compares McCain's hostile attitude toward his captors to Clark's rather chummy behavior with Balkan murderers and concludes...

Say what you will about his "executive experience." At least John McCain knows how to handle himself in the presence of the enemy.

As the saying goes, read the whole thing.

Wasn't it just 4 years ago that Democrats were telling America only a military veteran like John Kerry (who served in Vietnam, in case you hadn't heard) was fit to serve as POTUS? Funny how one short election later that's been modified to 'serving' as a 'community organizer and 2/3 of a term in the Senate'.

Hope. Change. Stupidity.

Posted by: DrewM at 02:06 PM | Comments (144)
Post contains 277 words, total size 2 kb.

Remember when mentioning Barack Obama’s middle name was something you had to apologize for? That’s only for Republicans silly. Now using the ‘H” word is a sign of your devotion to Him.

Emily Nordling has never met a Muslim, at least not to her knowledge. But this spring, Ms. Nordling, a 19-year-old student from Fort Thomas, Ky., gave herself a new middle name on Facebook.com, mimicking her boyfriend and shocking her father.

“Emily Hussein Nordling,” her entry now reads.

With her decision, she joined a growing band of supporters of Senator Barack Obama, the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee, who are expressing solidarity with him by informally adopting his middle name.

…Jeff Strabone of Brooklyn now signs credit card receipts with his newly assumed middle name, while Dan O’Maley of Washington, D.C., jiggered his e-mail account so his name would appear as “D. Hussein O’Maley.” Alex Enderle made the switch online along with several other Obama volunteers from Columbus, Ohio, and now friends greet him that way in person, too.

Me? No, IÂ’m not Drew Hussein M. I am Spartacus.

Posted by: DrewM at 12:34 PM | Comments (114)
Post contains 199 words, total size 2 kb.

There Were Some Bruised Feelings

It's hard to believe, after some of the flamewars we've had over the years, that our virtual selves aren't outfitted with alligator hide.

But we aren't. Last night, Stinky Esposito literally insulted everybody on the blog with one comment.** Because of a nifty little script on the new site that reads your cookie and inserts your blog-name there. So when the comment appears, everyone will see their own name in the sentence.

Goes like this: [ you ]

But with no spaces.

If you delete all your cookies and then view the page again, instead of your name, you will see simply the word 'you' in all the areas your name had been inserted.

As soon as you post another comment, whatever name you put in the name field will again be inserted.

I felt hurt and sad when Stinky said those terrible things to me last night.

Then I noticed everybody else was acting just as horrified, and wondering what they did to get singled out, and giving him shit.

So it became kind of funny.
You may consider this thread a place to play with the feature, tell stories about each other, and flame all your fellow morons by name in one fell swoop. Kind of a twist on the ol' flame war concept.

I'm going to see if it works in a main page post. If it does, you should see your handle here: [you]

**only shows up and only works on the new site.

Posted by: LauraW at 12:08 PM | Comments (251)
Post contains 261 words, total size 1 kb.