Sunday, September 14, 2008

Innocent! Speculators were driving the price down!

Wrong again...the Court of Public Opinion and Ignorant Politicians wrong!


This is what we get for not teaching economics and business in our grammar and high schools.

In one of the broadest and most authoritative studies to date, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission has offered hard statistical data that financial trading hasn't been driving price moves. The CFTC conducted an unprecedented Wall Street data sweep and scrutinized millions of transactions worth billions of dollars between January and June of this year.
Commodity futures markets have grown fivefold by volume over the last decade, while becoming more complex. "Index traders" are one cause. These pension funds and other institutional investors don't buy options for commercial use, but rather roll them over from month to month as passive long-term investments. "Swap dealers," usually investment banks, operate off the main exchanges and sell customized futures packages to firms. These aggregations of options and derivatives are designed to match particular needs and spread risk more broadly.
Lo and behold, the CFTC found that index traders and swap dealers actuallyreduced their stake in crude oil futures as prices spiked. The number of contracts held by these investors betting that prices would increase -- the net long position -- fell by 11%, and more were shorting oil than going long over the six-month period. In other words, index traders and swap dealers were driving the future price of oil down.
Commodity index funds also have a much smaller share of the oil market than everyone thought: just 13%. Even if the figure was 70% or more, as some assumed, it wouldn't have mattered. In a futures exchange, trades are matched, so one trader's gain is another's loss. The overall volume is irrelevant.  MORE....

Charles Gibson; Dr. Jekyl and Mr. Hyde?





Comparison of Charles Gibson's interview's with Gov. Palin, and Sen. Edwards


Creative Editing?  

A tip of the hat to http://justoneminute.typepad.com for this lead...

Was ABC News Kidding?




Newsbusters offers an unedited transcript of Governor Palin's interview with Charles Gibson of ABC News.
Now, do you remember - prior to the release of the first interview, that this was the ABC tease:



EXCLUSIVE: GOV. SARAH PALIN WARNS WAR MAY BE NECESSARY IF RUSSIA INVADES ANOTHER COUNTRY

Here's what really happend...

ABC News Edited Out Key Parts of Sarah Palin Interview





transcript of the unedited interview of Sarah Palin by Charles Gibson clearly shows that ABC News edited out crucial portions of the interview that showed Palin as knowledgeable or presented her answers out of context. This unedited transcript of the first of the Gibson interviews with Palin is available on radio host Mark Levin'swebsite. The sections edited out by ABC News are in bold. The first edit shows Palin responding about meeting with foreign leaders but this was actually in response to a question Gibson asked several questions earlier:
GIBSON: Have you ever met a foreign head of state?
PALIN: There in the state of Alaska, our international trade activities bring in many leaders of other countries.
GIBSON: And all governors deal with trade delegations.
PALIN: Right.
GIBSON: Who act at the behest of their governments.
PALIN: Right, right.
GIBSON: I’m talking about somebody who’s a head of state, who can negotiate for that country. Ever met one?
PALIN: I have not and I think if you go back in history and if you ask that question of many vice presidents, they may have the same answer that I just gave you. But, Charlie, again, we’ve got to remember what the desire is in this nation at this time. It is for no more politics as usual and somebody’s big, fat resume maybe that shows decades and decades in that Washington establishment, where, yes, they’ve had opportunities to meet heads of state … these last couple of weeks … it has been overwhelming to me that confirmation of the message that Americans are getting sick and tired of that self-dealing and kind of that closed door, good old boy network that has been the Washington elite.
Next we see that Palin was not nearly as hostile towards Russia as was presented in the edited interview:
GIBSON: Let me ask you about some specific national security situations.
PALIN: Sure.
GIBSON: Let’s start, because we are near Russia, let’s start with Russia and Georgia.
The administration has said we’ve got to maintain the territorial integrity of Georgia. Do you believe the United States should try to restore Georgian sovereignty over South Ossetia and Abkhazia?
PALIN: First off, we’re going to continue good relations with Saakashvili there. I was able to speak with him the other day and giving him my commitment, as John McCain’s running mate, that we will be committed to Georgia. And we’ve got to keep an eye on Russia. For Russia to have exerted such pressure in terms of invading a smaller democratic country, unprovoked, is unacceptable and we have to keep…
GIBSON: You believe unprovoked.
PALIN: I do believe unprovoked and we have got to keep our eyes on Russia, under the leadership there. I think it was unfortunate. That manifestation that we saw with that invasion of Georgia shows us some steps backwards that Russia has recently taken away from the race toward a more democratic nation with democratic ideals. That’s why we have to keep an eye on Russia.
And, Charlie, you’re in Alaska. We have that very narrow maritime border between the United States, and the 49th state, Alaska, and Russia. They are our next door neighbors.We need to have a good relationship with them. They’re very, very important to us and they are our next door neighbor.
GIBSON: What insight into Russian actions, particularly in the last couple of weeks, does the proximity of the state give you?
PALIN: They’re our next door neighbors and you can actually see Russia from land here in Alaska, from an island in Alaska.
GIBSON: What insight does that give you into what they’re doing in Georgia?
PALIN: Well, I’m giving you that perspective of how small our world is and how important it is that we work with our allies to keep good relation with all of these countries, especially Russia. We will not repeat a Cold War. We must have good relationship with our allies, pressuring, also, helping us to remind Russia that it’s in their benefit, also, a mutually beneficial relationship for us all to be getting along.
We also see from Palin's following remark, which was also edited out, that she is far from some sort of latter day Cold Warrior which the edited interview made her seem to be:

We cannot repeat the Cold War. We are thankful that, under Reagan, we won the Cold War, without a shot fired, also. We’ve learned lessons from that in our relationship with Russia, previously the Soviet Union.
We will not repeat a Cold War. We must have good relationship with our allies, pressuring, also, helping us to remind Russia that it’s in their benefit, also, a mutually beneficial relationship for us all to be getting along.
Palin's extended remarks about defending our NATO allies were edited out to make it seem that she was ready to go to war with Russia. 
GIBSON: And under the NATO treaty, wouldn’t we then have to go to war if Russia went into Georgia?
PALIN: Perhaps so. I mean, that is the agreement when you are a NATO ally, is if another country is attacked, you’re going to be expected to be called upon and help.
But NATO, I think, should include Ukraine, definitely, at this point and I think that we need to — especially with new leadership coming in on January 20, being sworn on, on either ticket, we have got to make sure that we strengthen our allies, our ties with each one of those NATO members.
We have got to make sure that that is the group that can be counted upon to defend one another in a very dangerous world today.
GIBSON: And you think it would be worth it to the United States, Georgia is worth it to the United States to go to war if Russia were to invade.
PALIN: What I think is that smaller democratic countries that are invaded by a larger power is something for us to be vigilant against. We have got to be cognizant of what the consequences are if a larger power is able to take over smaller democratic countries.
And we have got to be vigilant. We have got to show the support, in this case, for Georgia. The support that we can show is economic sanctions perhaps against Russia, if this is what it leads to.
It doesn’t have to lead to war and it doesn’t have to lead, as I said, to a Cold War, but economic sanctions, diplomatic pressure, again, counting on our allies to help us do that in this mission of keeping our eye on Russia and Putin and some of his desire to control and to control much more than smaller democratic countries.
His mission, if it is to control energy supplies, also, coming from and through Russia, that’s a dangerous position for our world to be in, if we were to allow that to happen.
That answer presented Palin as a bit too knowledgeable for the purposes of ABC News and was, of course, edited out. Palin's answers about a nuclear Iran were carefully edited to the point where she was even edited out in mid-sentence to make it seem that Palin favored unilateral action against that country:
GIBSON: Let me turn to Iran. Do you consider a nuclear Iran to be an existential threat to Israel?
PALIN: I believe that under the leadership of Ahmadinejad, nuclear weapons in the hands of his government are extremely dangerous to everyone on this globe, yes.
GIBSON: So what should we do about a nuclear Iran? John McCain said the only thing worse than a war with Iran would be a nuclear Iran. John Abizaid said we may have to live with a nuclear Iran. Who’s right?
PALIN: No, no. I agree with John McCain that nuclear weapons in the hands of those who would seek to destroy our allies, in this case, we’re talking about Israel, we’re talking about Ahmadinejad’s comment about Israel being the “stinking corpse, should be wiped off the face of the earth,” that’s atrocious. That’s unacceptable.
GIBSON: So what do you do about a nuclear Iran?
PALIN: We have got to make sure that these weapons of mass destruction, that nuclear weapons are not given to those hands of Ahmadinejad, not that he would use them, but that he would allow terrorists to be able to use them. So we have got to put the pressure on Iran and we have got to count on our allies to help us, diplomatic pressure.
GIBSON: But, Governor, we’ve threatened greater sanctions against Iran for a long time. It hasn’t done any good. It hasn’t stemmed their nuclear program.
PALIN: We need to pursue those and we need to implement those. We cannot back off. We cannot just concede that, oh, gee, maybe they’re going to have nuclear weapons, what can we do about it. No way, not Americans. We do not have to stand for that.
Laughably, a remark by Gibson that indicated he agreed with Palin was edited out:
PALIN: But the reference there is a repeat of Abraham Lincoln’s words when he said — first, he suggested never presume to know what God’s will is, and I would never presume to know God’s will or to speak God’s words.
But what Abraham Lincoln had said, and that’s a repeat in my comments, was let us not pray that God is on our side in a war or any other time, but let us pray that we are on God’s side.
That’s what that comment was all about, Charlie. And I do believe, though, that this war against extreme Islamic terrorists is the right thing. It’s an unfortunate thing, because war is hell and I hate war, and, Charlie, today is the day that I send my first born, my son, my teenage son overseas with his Stryker brigade, 4,000 other wonderful American men and women, to fight for our country, for democracy, for our freedoms.
Charlie, those are freedoms that too many of us just take for granted. I hate war and I want to see war ended. We end war when we see victory, and we do see victory in sight in Iraq.
GIBSON: I take your point about Lincoln’s words, but you went on and said, “There is a plan and it is God’s plan.”
Gibson took her point about Lincoln's words but we wouldn't know that by watching the interview since it was left on the cutting room floor. I urge everybody to see just how the unedited version of the first interview compared to what we saw on television  by checking out the full transcript. It is a fascinating look into media manipulation via skillful editing.
—P.J. Gladnick is a freelance writer and creator of the DUmmie FUnnies blog.


Now compare Gibson's approach to interviewing John Edwards in 2004.  Now.... what does this say about Charles Gibson?

Gibson Didn’t Pound Edwards in 2004; Asked Him If GOP Attacks Made Him Mad

Photo of Tim Graham.

As Charles Gibson interviewed young vice-presidential nominee Sarah Palin, some might wonder: did Gibson (then a co-host of Good Morning America) throw tough foreign-policy questions at John Edwards in 2004, since he had only four and a half years experience in public office? No.
Gibson’s first John Edwards interview after he was nominated for vice president came on the September 2, 2004 Good Morning America, on the Thursday morning of the Republican convention in New York. Gibson didn’t ask any quiz questions about his readiness or about foreign policy. Instead, he asked six questions about how the Democrats would respond to the GOP going after the Democrats "hammer and tong last night." Gibson merely asked Edwards how he felt about it, and then demanded to know: "You speak with such equanimity this morning. Didn't they make you mad last night?" Edwards replied in part: "Oh, I thought they were over the top, completely over the top." Gibson repeated: " Did you get mad, though?"
Edwards appeared that morning on ABC, CBS, CNN, and NBC. At the time, we reported in the MRC Cyber Alert: "After being the most critical of last night's Republican speeches...ABC's Charles Gibson was the gentlest with Edwards, sticking largely to questions about the candidate's feelings. He asked if the Democrats went too easy 'not to engage as directly' in Boston....On CBS, Edwards stammered as Hannah Storm demonstrated a surprisingly hard-news approach, asking for Kerry-Edwards specifics" on counter-terrorism policy.
The Gibson interview -- or lecture about how the Democrats failed to whip Republicans hard enough -- began with this introduction:
CHARLES GIBSON: In the first half-hour, we talked about how direct were the attacks from the Republicans on the podium last night, directed at the Democratic ticket of John Kerry and John Edwards. A response this morning from John Edwards, the vice-presidential nominee of the Democratic Party. I talked with him a few moments ago.
GIBSON: Senator Edwards, they went at you hammer and tong last night from the podium here at this Republican Convention, saying the fundamental security of this country was at stake in this election, questioning John Kerry's ability to be commander in chief. I wonder how you felt as you listened.
JOHN EDWARDS: I thought there was an enormous amount of anger coming out of the Republican Convention. The contrast couldn't have been more dramatic with our convention and what John Kerry and I talked about. We talked very specifically about our plan to keep the American people safe, to deal with the fact that five million people have lost their health insurance while John, while George Bush has been in office. That four million people have fallen into poverty and almost two million people have lost their private sector jobs, and what we're gonna do about the war in Iraq. Instead, what we heard last night was a lot of angry rhetoric.
GIBSON: Did it make you in any way second-guess the decision at the Democratic Convention not to mention George Bush from the podium so often, not to engage as directly?
EDWARDS: No. In no way. The truth is that what John and I did at the, at the Democratic Convention, which is to portray a vision and a plan of hope and optimism, it's who we are. It's what I believe the American people are, Charlie. I mean, if the American, the American people are not represented by what we heard in that room last night. I mean, that sort of anger and personal diatribe. I mean, they want something better. They believe in something better. They believe, in fact, what John and I believe, that if we're sensible and smart, that tomorrow can be better than today. And that's the kind of America that John and I want to create.
CHARLES GIBSON: You have used this line about two Americas and they have turned that from the podium night after night after night, saying, A, that there aren't two Americas, and, B, that what's really there are two of, two John Kerrys. And they get into this theme about John Kerry's conflicting votes on various issues. How are you going to answer that?
JOHN EDWARDS: Oh, very simply. They're in New York poking fun at, at the fact that there are two Americas and out here in the real world, I mean, I've been out on, meeting with people, meeting with folks who have lost their jobs. These people -across the country, they're living it. I mean, these people who have lost their, millions of folks who have lost their health insurance and whose incomes have gone down, they can't pay their bills anymore, they're struggling everyday just to get by. The millions of people who have fallen into poverty. A lot of folks who've worked hard all their lives and now have nowhere to turn. I mean, the truth is, we can do better than that, and they can make all the fun about it they want in New York, but out here in the real world, people are living it and we have a plan to make their lives better and we're going to fight for these folks.
GIBSON: This crowd was chanting "flip-flop" last night. It is this elemental issue that they're trying to make that there are two John Kerrys, citing his conflicting votes on a number of issues.
EDWARDS: Yeah, but the truth is, Charlie, I know this guy. I know him very, very well. He's somebody who's an American hero, which is actually what Zell Miller said just a couple of years ago. He's somebody that all of us look up to and respect. He's got inner strength and courage and these, these are the kinds of personal negative attacks that you see when you've got the kind of record that this administration has. I mean, the facts are overwhelming about what's happened in this country in the last four years, and what's happening on the ground in Iraq right now, and the American people are looking for an alternative and we want them to know what it is specifically we would do differently.
GIBSON: You speak with such equanimity this morning. Didn't they make you mad last night?
EDWARDS: Oh, I thought they were over the top, completely over the top. And, and actually what bothered me more than anything was in the midst of -I mean, there was, if you, if you got up and went to your refrigerator to get a Diet Coke, you would -you would miss everything Dick Cheney had to say about health care and everything he had to say about jobs. I mean, this is the first, we've had 11 straight presidents in this country, Charlie, who have created jobs. This is, until George Bush. You know, we've got all these folks who are having trouble with their health care premiums going up, 26, 27 hundred dollars, and what do they have to say about it? Nothing. I mean, don't people deserve to know from their president and vice president what it is they've done and what it is they're going to do? And instead, all we hear is a lot of rhetoric about, about their opponent. I mean, I just think leaders in this country, the American people deserve leaders who are better than that and do better than that.
GIBSON: Did you get mad, though?
EDWARDS: Oh, yeah. I was, I was, especially about the personal attacks against John Kerry, because they're false. I know this guy and I know what he's made of inside and he's ready to lead this country.
GIBSON: John Edwards, good to talk to you. Thanks very much.

The following is thanks to Phyllis Chesler


The following comment illustrates the difference between how Gibson interviewed Obama and Palin:
cedarford:A woman at a Hillary website (nom de plume - Nancy Kallitechnis) posted what she found reviewing Gibsons questions to Obama compared to the questions he later asked the VP nominee Palin:
The following is a breakdown of the questions asked of the nominees:
Obama interview:
How does it feel to break a glass ceiling?
How does it feel to “win”?
How does your family feel about your “winning” breaking a glass ceiling?
Who will be your VP?
Should you choose Hillary Clinton as VP?
Will you accept public finance?
What issues is your campaign about?
Will you visit Iraq?
Will you debate McCain at a town hall?
What did you think of your competitor’s [Clinton] speech?
Palin interview:
Do you have enough qualifications for the job you’re seeking? Specifically have you visited foreign countries and met foreign leaders?
Aren’t you conceited to be seeking this high level job?
Questions about foreign policy
-territorial integrity of Georgia
-allowing Georgia and Ukraine to be members of NATO
-NATO treaty
-Iranian nuclear threat
-what to do if Israel attacks Iran
-Al Qaeda motivations
-the Bush Doctrine
-attacking terrorists harbored by Pakistan
Is America fighting a holy war? [misquoted Palin]
There’s no doubt the Charles Gibson interviews showed extreme prejudice against Palin and extreme favoritism towards Obama…He constantly questioned her ability to lead but never questioned Obama’s ability to lead..

The Solution to Immigration Problems In The UK

Problem solving UK style....

We've been wrestling with this issue for decades, and still are.
The Brits have come up with some solution to the problem, and
although they have a different set of circumstances being an island,
the solutions seem to have some merit....

The Balanced Migration group is calling for a stop to net immigration:
it proposes that the number of immigrants (from outside the EU) who
are given permission to settle here should be kept to roughly the same
as the number of British citizens who are emigrating. This wouldn’t
affect temporary work permits or family reunion, but it would significantly
cut the population explosion here.


What about all the jobs that immigrants do, and would be 
neglected if the flow of workers was stopped?  

No Problem....there's an ample supply of replacements, 
and this is the part that I love:

The answer is simple. There are already plenty of British citizens here
to do it. I don’t mean the unemployed Britons here, though some of
them might be suitable as well. I mean two other groups. 
The vast army of state sector workers should be redeployed. They
should be allowed to keep their job security, salaries and pensions,
but they should become social care workers. They should, in person,
look after the old, the sick, the mentally ill and the displaced; 
MORE.... 

Canadian Election Update - Heating Up

Focus on Canada for a few minutes.  Remember....our largest trading partner....the ones with a bunch of oil and gas...the ones who buy a lot of stuff from us as well?  Yeah, those guys.

Here's the latest news on their Federal election (one aspect of which is fantastic....it's over in weeks!).

Conservative leader and Prime Minister Stephen Harper gestures while delivering a speech during a campaign rally in Habour Grace, Newfoundland on Saturday.
Chris Wattie/Reuters
Conservative leader and Prime Minister Stephen Harper gestures while delivering a speech during a campaign rally in Habour Grace, Newfoundland on Saturday.

Week two of the federal election campaign began Sunday with Liberal Leader Stephane Dion attempting to close a widening gap with the Conservatives by trying to capitalize on Newfoundland Premier Danny Williams' animosity toward Stephen Harper.
Mr. Dion was to fly to St. John's, N.L. Sunday where he planned to campaign Monday following Williams' stinging rebuke of the ruling Tory party.
"A majority government for Stephen Harper would be one of the most negative political events in Canadian history," the outspoken Newfoundland premier opined last week.
Mr. Dion needs to build momentum after a week of polls showed Mr. Harper and the Conservatives pushing ever closer to a coveted majority. While some polls offered a more optimistic view of Conservative fortunes, they generally showed Harper jumping out to an early lead in the opening days of the five-week contest, showing modest gains compared with the virtual horse race depicted by pollsters when Parliament was dissolved.
The Conservative gains came despite some significant missteps by their war-room that forced Mr. Harper to apologize for an Internet ad that showed a pigeon defecating on Mr. Dion, and he also suspended a top staffer for suggesting a man whose son was killed fighting with the Canadian Forces in Afghanistan was actually a partisan Liberal.  


Apparently, a major issue in the campaign is having the country be exactly in the middle of the political spectrum.....like Goldilocks, not too hot, not too cold.....just right.

 "I think the Canadian public has become more conservative," Harper said in New Brunswick as the first week drew to a close. "At the same time, I don't want to say the Canadian public is overwhelmingly conservative, or that it is necessarily as conservative as everybody in our party, and that means that our party has to make sure that it continues to govern in the interests of the broad majority of the population."

 MORE....of the same.


And here's some additional insight from the Wall Street Journal:

One candidate believes in low taxes, gun rights and a strong national defense. The other has a dog named Kyoto and promises to levy a new carbon tax on industry. Any guess who is favored to win the Canadian federal election set for October 14?
The answer is Prime Minister Stephen Harper of the Conservative Party, who was elected in January 2006 on a platform to strengthen the military and cut taxes. He has done both. And though he once pledged not to call an early election, he did so on Sunday, explaining that the current parliament has become so "dysfunctional" he can't govern without a new one.
Mr. Harper's main opponent is the Liberal Party's Stéphane Dion, a former environment minister who chaired the U.N. climate change summit in Montreal in 2005. The Conservative minority government would have to add 28 seats to its present 127 to seize a majority, and Mr. Harper is on record saying he doesn't expect that. But he clearly believes that, despite a slowing economy and the loss of the 97th Canadian soldier in Afghanistan last Sunday, he can beat Mr. Dion. The reasons are instructive.
Mr. Harper has restored the country's international prestige by demonstrating political courage on Afghanistan. The Liberals had sent Canadian troops there in 2001 but began agitating for withdrawal when things got difficult. Mr. Harper has refused to cut and run, and he has chastised those NATO partners in Europe who have shrunk from the fight. He has also boosted defense spending so Canadian troops are properly armed.
By contrast, Mr. Dion had sought to withdraw Canada's Afghan contingent "with honor" before 2009. His effort failed, even within his own party, and earlier this year Mr. Harper won an agreement with the Liberals to stick it out in Afghanistan until 2011.
Like Americans, Canadians are also worried about the economy and aren't eager for a tax increase. Mr. Harper has cut the corporate tax rate to 19.5% and has a plan to reduce it to 15% by 2012. (The U.S. rate is still 35%.) He has also reduced the national sales tax by one percentage point to 5%. That boost to consumer purchasing power may have helped Canada avoid recession in the first half of this year. GDP shrank in the first quarter by 0.8%, grew a meager 0.3% in the second and may not do better than 1.1% for the year, according to Finance Minister Jim Flaherty. Mr. Harper argues that now is not the time to raise taxes.
Mr. Dion has a different view, proposing what he calls "the Green Shift." It would impose C$15.4 billion (US$14.4 billion) of new taxes on Canadian industry for their carbon emissions while cutting income taxes. Mr. Harper calls Mr. Dion's plan "the Green Shaft" and likens it to Pierre Trudeau's 1980 "national energy policy" which, the Prime Minister said last week, "was designed to screw the West and really damage the energy sector." Though he added that there is a difference: "This will actually screw everybody across the country." The fellow can be blunt.
The larger question is what Mr. Harper would do with a real majority. In 2005 his Liberal opponents portrayed him as a far-right extremist. Yet like his countrymen, he has shown little appetite for extreme positions, and if anything he has proven to be a steady leader who until recently has worked effectively across party lines. Even the separatist movement in Quebec seems to have lost its mojo during his tenure. That may be why Canadians are likely to ask him to stay on.  MORE....

Drill Here, Drill Now! (not really.....)

The folks at Investor's Business Daily have seem to be saying the the Democrats proposed Drilling Bill is a bit of Election stage dressing.  Political gamesmanship with such an important issue? Of course!

This type of Bill-for-elections-sake concocting is usual.  Everybody in Washington (and the Press) knows the game that being played.  Well, almost everybody.  There appears to be a small band of easily duped Republican Senators who are seemingly oblivious to the game being played, and who have signed on to vouchsafe this fraud on the people while proving air cover for the Democrats.  Well,on November 4th, you get to express your opinion on this one way or the other...

The House is likely to vote either Tuesday or Wednesday on a bill that would let states approve offshore drilling from 50 to 100 miles off their coastlines. Beyond that, drilling would be allowed with no regard to what the states want. The eastern Gulf of Mexico would be closed until 2022.
But the bill does not include "revenue sharing" with the states. That is, they won't get a cut of the profits from drilling.
Sham Legislation?
Without that, argue Republicans, oil industry spokesmen and state representatives, the bill has no incentive for states to actually allow drilling.
"If you are going to do it, there should be revenue sharing with the states," said Tamra Spielvogel,representing the National Conference of State Legislatures [NCSL].
The nonpartisan NCSL is neutral on the congressional debate itself, but has called for at least 50% revenue sharing with states should Congress pass a drilling bill.
Rep. Mike Pence, R-Ind., a leading pro-drilling voice, said a "strong financial incentive" to states is key to any compromise.
Anything short of that smacks of a less-than-serious attempt to expand domestic drilling, he says.
Cathy Landry, a spokeswoman for the American Petroleum Institute, described the 50-to-100-mile region off of state coasts as "the sweet spot." But she too said that without revenue sharing, states won't be on board.
Giving the all-clear to far-offshore drilling won't do much either, she said.
"Essentially they are saying, oh, you can have 100 miles out. Well, in many of these places there is no infrastructure at all and it is likely deep water and incredibly expensive" to drill, Landry said. "Companies are going to say, 'Should I go out into the middle of nowhere or should I go abroad where investment is more palatable?' "   MORE....

Today's New York Times, the preeminent Democrat-biased Main Street Media outlet, demonstrates how upsetting Gov. Palin's selection as the Republican Vice-Presidential candidate has been.  Not one, not two, but twelve separate opinion pieces either savaging both Palin and McCain, or just highly critical.


I found it interesting that if you were to substitute the name Obama in place of Palin in many of the critiques, it would read just the same, but seem to come from the opposing side.


  1. Bob Herbert: She’s Not Ready
  2. Editorial: Gov. Palin’s Worldview
  3. Once Elected, Palin Hired Friends and Lashed Foes
  4. Frank Rich: The Palin-Whatshisname Ticket
  5. Thomas L. Friedman: Making America Stupid
  6. Maureen Dowd: Bering Straight Talk
  7. Paul Krugman: Blizzard of Lies
  8. McCain Barbs Stirring Outcry as Distortions
  9. Active Role for Palin’s Husband in Alaska Government
  10. The Upshot on Palin and Her Updo
  11. A Sharp Attack on Obama
  12. Palin Reviews Are In, and Gibson Got an ...
The MSM are in a rage over Palin.  Somehow that feels good....

Wind Harvesting



Wind-power, a compelling vision.

How wonderful it would be if we could harness the wind and the tides and provide the energy needed to fuel our infrastructure.  Like the old water mill's and wind mill's that had once helped drive our society's advancement, the lure of harnessing seemingly free and plentiful energy, is powerful.  
in 2005 Willett Kempton, a University of Delaware professor in the school’s College of Marine Studies,..with a team of students, led by Amardeep Dhanju, .found that Delaware’s coastal winds were capable of producing a year-round average output of over 5,200 megawatts, or four times the average electrical consumption of the entire state. “On the wholesale electricity markets,” Dhanju wrote, “this would produce just over $2 billion” in annual revenue.

It so happened that the day Dhanju’s semester-long research project was discussed, Kempton had invited several wind entrepreneurs to class. Mandelstam was the only invitee to show up in person. It was then that Mandelstam had his eureka moment. The amount of power Dhanju was describing, Mandelstam knew from Kempton, was but a small fraction of an even larger resource along what’s known as the Mid-Atlantic Bight. This coastal region running from Massachusetts to North Carolina contained up to 330,000 megawatts of average electrical capacity. This was, in other words, an amount of guaranteed, bankable power that was larger, in terms of energy equivalence, than the entire mid-Atlantic coast’s total energy demand — not just for electricity but for heating, for gasoline, for diesel and for natural gas. Indeed the wind off the mid-Atlantic represented a full third of the Department of Energy’s estimate of the total American offshore resource of 900,000 megawatts........
Last year, onshore wind power added more than 5,200 megawatts of new electrical capacity to the grid — or nearly a third of America’s new generating capacity, surpassing all other forms of new generation except natural gas and amounting to enough electric capacity to power one and a half million homes. While it’s true that wind is still a tiny part of the energy picture — just 1 percent of the total electricity portfolio in the United States and 3.3 percent in Europe — more than a quarter of the 20,000 megawatts of the world’s new wind capacity last year was installed in North America, where all the global wind-energy players have set up shop, lured by the low U.S. dollar and the high rate of returns. “In America,” explains António Mexia, chief executive for Energias de Portugal, which bought the Texas wind company Horizon Energy, “you can put up a 200- or 300-megawatt wind park. You can’t do that in Europe.” Indeed, in the continental United States, resources are vast — with more than eight thousand gigawatts of potential electricity blowing overhead. “The amount of wind energy potential in this country,” says Walt Musial, a principal engineer at the National Renewable Energy Laboratory’s National Wind Technology Center, “is bigger than the national grid itself.”
The potential of this capability is compelling, but the issues of intermittency and variability lead to more issues regarding storage; the issues of subsidy lead to legitimate questions of how to measure real benefit, how to choose between competing technologies, who chooses, and whose ox gets gored.  

Mark Svenvold's discussion with the wind entrepreneur Peter Mandelstam, helps to fram the issue, put it in perspective, and makes an argument for moving forward.  MORE....

Video Of The Week

Blog Subjects

Our Blogger Templates Web Design

  © Blogger template Brooklyn by Ourblogtemplates.com 2008

Back to TOP