Governor Jindal is leading a revolution of conservative reform in Louisiana.

by Newt Gingrich

"I have tried at every point

to seek God's wisdom

on the decisions I made,

and I made it my business to speak up

on behalf of the things

God tells us are important to Him."

— Sen. Jesse Helms, R-N.C., (Oct. 18, 1921 - July 4, 2008)

A couple of the really bizarre attacks on logic on the website are illustrated below. I won't dissect the whole snake oil sales pitch here, although maybe I will later.

From the page "Get the Facts" - purportedly exposing "myths" surrounding domestic oil production:

"MYTH": The U.S. only has a small percentage (from 2-6%) of the world’s oil supplies, and since oil is a global commodity, our increased production won’t affect prices much if at all.

"FACT": This estimate of 2-6% of the world’s oil supplies does not hold up to scrutiny.

In oil shale alone, found in the Green River Formation in parts of Utah, Colorado, and Wyoming, the U.S. has approximately 800 billion barrels of recoverable oil, or over three times the proven reserves of Saudi Arabia. This comes from a midpoint estimate in a 2005 RAND study done at the request of the Department of Energy, and a higher end estimate puts the number at over one trillion barrels.

Furthermore, there are vast areas of the United States and its outer continental shelf where it is illegal to even look for oil. Exploration routinely yields additional resources far larger than initial estimates.

A couple points.  Yes, the RAND study does indicate that there is probably around 800 billion barrels of recoverable oil reserves in shale oil onshore.  Newt & company left out the RAND conclusion that exploiting shale oil would likely cause crude oil prices to fall by 3 to 5 percent, which works out to about $7/barrel, which translates into roughly $0.05/gallon of refined gasoline.  Hmmm, that doesn't get us gasoline at <$4/gallon. That's if OPEC doesn't reduce production to keep prices up.

Oh, and by the way, the oil shale is predominantly in the west, where there are increasing water rights fights over scarce water.  Between 2 and 5 barrels of water from the Colorado River are needed to produce each barrel of oil from oil shale.  Plus a significant amount of energy, on the order of a magnitude more than conventional oil, is needed to produce the oil.  And what you get is high-sulfur kerogen, which can be blended as a feedstock with crude oil at a refinery, but can't be used by itself to make gasoline.  For more information on shale oil, see the RAND report quoted on Newt's website (read the whole thing, not just the executive sumary), or Wikipedia, or the Dept. of Interior's Oil Shale and Tar Sands Information Center.

From the same page:

"MYTH": Drilling for unconventional sources, such as tar sands or shale oil, is too costly and creates a large carbon footprint, among other environmental problems.

"FACT": The aforementioned RAND study demonstrated that if the price of a barrel of oil was as “high” as $90, current technology would make oil shale competitive in the market. With a barrel of oil approaching $140, the notion that extracting oil from shale is too expensive is simply untrue.

The environmental footprint argument would make more sense were it not for recent innovations by companies like Shell Oil, which has developed an in-situ method for extracting shale oil that would use relatively little water and does not involve making creators on wide portions of land. Instead, heating rods are stuck into the earth that heat the shale and then oil falls into a pool below to be collected. It should also be noted that early research suggests this method could be competitive even if oil was as cheap as $25 per barrel.

Here again a couple half-truths.   The RAND study actually says "Given the capital and operating cost estimates, we project we project that the price of low-sulfur, light crude oil, such as West Texas Intermediate, will need to be at least $70 to $95 per barrel for a first of-
a-kind oil shale operation to be profitable."  The report also states that, due to what the authors refer to as the "hurdle price", crude oil must be priced significantly higher than the profitability price of $70 to $95 per barrel, and have an expectation of staying high, before investors would be motivated to invest in the process.  By example, the authors note that gas-to-liquids technologies, although profitable at crude oil prices in the low $20 per barrel range, were not developed on a commercial scale until crude oil reached and maintained a hurdle price well above $30 per barrel.  If you extrapolate from that (not really recommended, but we'll do it for arguments sake), crude oil would have to stay well above $140 per barrel for an extended time.

And while the early Shell prototype in-situ methods show some promise for reducing the environmental footprint, the RAND report still indicates that the total environmental footprint from shale oil extraction and kerogen production to be magnitudes larger than conventional crude oil production.

As far as the "$25 per barrel" in-situ costs, that is assuming that they can reach their goal of producing 3.5 barrels energy equivalent for each barrel of energy input.  So far they haven't, not by a long shot.  Oh, and add into the equation that the Shell in-situ technique drops the recovery ration from 80% to a little over 40% .  In other words, instead of 800 billion barrels of recoverable oil, you only get about 450 billion barrels.  Still a lot, but not the 800 billion that is claimed on the website.

For some more background, see here or here.

Our Session trainers:

David All - President of the David All Group

Sendhil Panchadsaram - Media Strategist amongst many other impressive credentials.

Their current websites:

Act Blue - democratic fundraising website - over $57 Million raised since 2004.

Slate Card - new Republican fundraising website. David and Sendhil are running both sites for a cut rate fee compared to other fundraising sites. Their new fees are running at 3.95% - Per David - they are just trying to break even to get more money for candidates. I don't know about you - but anyone that disavows wanting to make money is immediately suspect in my book. Now - if the "break even" includes their salaries, I can understand that.

That being said, it's an interesting site. User driven Issue badges give a quick idea of what the candidate stands for. The two most popular issues are 1. Defeat radical Islam and 2. Cut the Pork. I supposed I should not be surprised considering it IS a Republican fund raising website.

Interesting to note - they also raise money for PAC's.

This is not a heavily trafficked site as of yet - there is no marketing budget. Makes me think that maybe they should be in it for the money just a little bit - maybe they could pay for some marketing and advertising. Overall, I liked Slate Card. It has a lot of potential for networking amongst patriots to find candidates to support.

Refreshingly,this is not the originators main job. It does seem that the plug for their websites is over now. I did sign up - slatecard.com/texaspatriot. I may or may not do anything with it. I did add Ron Paul to my list! I couldn't get anything to come up for a Presidential race search, however. Looks like there may be a couple of bugs in the system.

On to the integration of the internet with everything else.

David says treat the internet like the aquarium. Make it interesting and keep people coming back. The need for a dynamic website is critical. John McCain's webpage has nothing to do with the candidate - but gets a lot of hits. If I could remember how to get the stats on this, I would - but considering I'm keeping up with the presentation I'll have to check later.

I will give David props for giving an interesting presentation. He's light, funny, and an engaging speaker.

"The Long Tail of Politics"... because of the internet these days - there is always more room for content because eventually people will get to it. Both Davil and Sendhil agree - the internet can start a movement. Examples... Obama, Dean and of course, Ron Paul. They are right that the message and the way it's delivered is what makes it effective. Obama and Dean, IMO, are using their funds to create the content that Ron Paul's supporters did on their own. Of course, I could be slightly biased!

They do have it right though. You have to hit every possible media outlet. Youtube, Twitter, celebrity endorsements - it does help to get the traditional media to promote your information as well. Money helps.

What's killing me about this presentation though - is they are talking about executive orders etc... but not whether an executive order actually has the power to stop offshore drilling. (They are talking about Gingrich's Drill Here. Drill Now. Pay Less. campaign). OK, Ok, I get it - this is about integrating the internet into your campaign, not issues. I can't help thinking about it though.

The problem is - it's still playing to the Left-Right paradigm. They are hitting all the buzzwords of the day - the hot topics. All gloss, no substance. I would say most Ron Paul people get the idea of how to use the internet.

David and Sendhil's Tips and Tricks for Success: Identify the Message, Niche and Audience. Getting the right message, of the right issues to the right people. Talking to the people who give a shit is a lot more effective than pissing in the wind. That last line was me summing it up. Not them. They've been doing very well not using any kind of profane language.

It's all coming down to the KISS principle. Message, Niche and Audience - if you have identified these three things - you can keep it going through asking supporters to pass it on. Seriously, how many times have you gotten an email from one of these sites asking you to donate or sign up now that your friend, Susie Down the Street, as done so already? You wouldn't want Susie to be in the know about something you aren't aware of! This is 21st Century keeping up with the Jones'. Or should that be the Gates'?

Keep the message on point and short. I know that I very rarely read a whole article of anything. There's just no time to read everything. I watch partial videos - if it's really good, I will keep watching. If it's okay and I think I want to hear more - I have it playing in the background. If it's not immediately compelling, I move on to the next thing.

It's 11:15. I'm getting hungry. Haven't really learned anything new yet. Wikipedia is the topic at the moment and I'm very happy David and Sendhil recognize that Wiki is NOT the place to go if you want to actually get the truth about anything. Of course, you can argue truth is relative.

I am really glad they are entertaining - I was afraid they were going to be boring, but I've been pleasantly surprised.

I think they gave a pretty good overall presentation. They hit the high points of getting the message out, different tools to use, and keeping the message short and to the point. The attention span of the average internet user is very short - and no one wants to spend tons of time reading long articles. For example, I think Gary North has a lot of really good things to say - but his emails are long and I usually leave them to last, if I have time.

I'm looking forward to the next presentation. I hope the speakers are as engaging. Lunch time!

You can sign the petition, here.

Anonz, did I mention elsewhere that G.W. Carver’s biography was a book I read when I was nine or did you just happen to throw his name out there?? I could not figure out why the man wasn’t more famous, ah yes, bc he’s black, that didn’t make any sense to me then nor does it now. Sorry I deleted that other remark, responded on the far side though, think you understand, check it.

...and you and anyone else can 'talk' 'rant' or 'comment' for as long as you want here, just uh, please use a safe place to do that...

On another note, and bc it's my blog I'll add this: last night I decided to pass on another night out, just wasn't in the mood. I caught a videocast about a brain researcher, Jill Bolte Taylor, who had a stroke resulting in a 'powerful stroke of insight.' It was just amazing/touching/all that. I love the study of the brain/function, I also enjoy talking with people who have one ; ) figuring out what makes us all tick, etc, etc...she descibes the left/right brain detail from the inside out so conversationally, and had the unique opportunity to research her own brain, very powerful. I'd would love to meet her. It was fascinating...check it @ www.ted.com

Ok, now for more of Anonz’s words…it's long but well worth the read.

‘…Now let’s examine the Republican non lawyer names you have put forward.

1. President Bush - I predict that soon after leaving office lawyers will become his best friends. He will be charged with so many crimes for what he and his administration did while he was in office that he will be spending a lot of time with lawyers. Probably the only crime he will avoid is being tried as a war criminal, the one crime that I have come to believe he is surely guilty of. But what do I know, I am not a lawyer. hahaha, you know a lot, anonz, and GWB is probably meeting and retaining atty’s as we speak/write so the games will be over before they’ve even begun, it’s unfortunate but not beyond the Bush family and its fellow repug’s connections though, now is it?

2. Vice President Cheney - Yes Cheney is a businessman. Perhaps that’s why he knows the value of a few good no-bid contracts. A little lawyer knowledge might have alerted him to the illegality of it all. ah, but he’ll have a heart attack and die soon, although he made it through his lastest incident…and the one before that…

3. Newt Gingrich - Yes, he was a history professor. Too bad he didn’t appreciate the axiom that if one doesn’t learn the mistakes of history, he is destined to repeat them. He would have gotten a lawyer to help him hide his 1994 $4 million book bribe. He was paid back by those he orchestrated legislation for to benefit their corporation or personal enrichment. Fox paid him off for his services. Had he been a lawyer maybe he could have claimed the $4 million as a legal fee. As it was he was given a $4 million dollar advance on a book that everyone knew might sell 8 copies to people outside his family. he’s such a whore for $’s
In 1997 he was fined and accepted a $300,000 penalty for violating the House ethics rules. I mean, there is no end to the greed of these scoundrels. He already had made more that $10 million in bribes since 1994, yet here he was still taking whatever he could get his greedy little hands on. Every rich man knew under his leadership, the American government was for sale to the highest bidder.
Before you make an argument for this thief remember his quote “To the degree I have made mistakes, they have been errors of implementation but never of intent,” you think he sought the advice of a good lawyer before he made that statement? to the degree that I have knowledge, the ambigious usage of this statement was designed by a well paid attorney
A year later, 1998, his own cronies recognized that his greed was drawing too much attention to their on larceny ways and they forced his out. Wanna bet he couldn’t have used a good lawyer to argue his case. he’s such a whore for $’s, oh wait, I already said that : )

4. Tom Delay - Yes he was an exterminator. So I guess he was familiar with the exterminating process the American people had to go through to rid themselves of his services. Be honest, if ever a man needed some good legal advice it was this crook. the way you turn a phrase totally amuses me, have I told you that?2005 House Majority Leader Tom DeLay was indicted by a Texas grand jury Wednesday on a charge of conspiring to violate political fundraising laws, forcing him to temporarily step aside from his GOP post. He is the highest-ranking member of Congress to face criminal prosecution. These guys just enter politics to fleece the American people. What do you admire most about Tom? The amount of graft he was able to get, or the poker face he maintained after every charge while continuing to make crooked deals for a few dollars more. Tell me who your heros are and I’ll know who you are. oof, babe, I just love it when you get tough like that, ‘I’ll know who you are,’ rrooaarrr…hee hee

2006 WASHINGTON, Jan. 7 - Having secured a guilty plea from the lobbyist Jack Abramoff, prosecutors are entering a new phase of the corruption investigation in Washington and are focusing on a lobbying firm that has even closer ties to Tom DeLay, the former House majority leader who is under scrutiny in the scandal. - You think this Tom hates or loves lawyers about now. I guess it would depend on how much jail time they can help his avoid. repubs never get jail time or I mean, never DO jail time, do they?!

2007 DeLay is facing criminal charges stemming from political contributions to Republican candidates in Texas, and two of his former aides have pleaded guilty in a wide-ranging corruption probe of disgraced GOP lobbyist Jack Abramoff. - I’m guessing that if you could have found better examples of good honest Republicans to use as examples of why non lawyers are better representatives of the people you would have used them. But damn this is pathetic. So far all you have presented us with are crooks, scoundrels, would be crooks, as yet un-convicted crooks and everyone of them in need of a lawyer good or otherwise.

5. Boehner - House Minority Leader was a plastic manufacturer. Maybe that why his pretense to working for the people seems so plastic.
The blatant hypocrisy on display here is stunning.
When ordinary Americans were being wiretapped, Boehner’s attacked them and their right to privacy, claiming “I believe (phone companies) deserve immunity” from the law. But when Boehner himself was being wiretapped, he had no hesitation to claim his own right to privacy, claiming “no one is above the law.”
When ordinary Americans are victimized, Boehner’s taken every opportunity to caricature their representatives at EFF and ACLU as “unscrupulous trial lawyers” who are “trying to find a way to get into the pockets of the American companies.” But when Boehner himself is the victim, suddenly defense attorneys don’t seem so unscrupulous to him, and he has no problem employing his own litigators to receive a $1.1 million reward.
Related Issues: NSA Spying, Privacy
Again the question arises, is this the best you have to offer? About now lawyers are looking pretty good. So far, all you have given us are thieves, opportunists, hypocrites, and liars. All, I might add, have sought the services of the very profession that you and them purport to despise. I guess until you need one, you just keep them in a pile of shit. hmmm, no wonder why BC is underground, I think you scared him off, hahaha

6. Bill Frist - Yes, Bill is a heart surgeon. Perhaps that’s why when you see his voting record, you will understand why he seems so heartless when it comes to the ordinary citizen’s plight. The striking thing is how often he blatantly sells out to the big corporations at the expense of the people he is supposed to represent. Here’s a man who does not want to go to jail for taking bribes so he votes to allow lobbyist to give “gifts” to Congress(see Bill on government reform below). One would think if he had asked a lawyer he would have learned the difference between a “gift” and a bribe. He voted on keeping “soft” money contributions. Guess he hasn’t yet met a bribe he doesn’t like. I present his voting record, you be the judge.

Bill Frist on Government Reform. sorry, I edited, not good, ‘nuff said Okay so how did he vote on helping the little people who need help paying their medical bills? You guessed it. He voted against the people in every instance when their interest opposed the “gift” giving corporations.
Bill Frist on Health Care. sorry, I edited here again & cut to the chase, his quotes and votes? All bad… I could quote more instances of this shyster ripping off the American people while quoting god and wearing the flag on his lapel. But you get the picture. (dig the word ‘shyster’)

Bill, you say that “The Lawyers’ Party sees these sorts of people, who provide goods and services that people want, as the enemies of America.” I say that the people should be able to receive the goods and services that they want without price manipulation and being poisoned by those goods and services, or having their environment poisoned by the production or disposal of them.
Bill you say “Against whom do Hillary and Obama rail? Pharmaceutical companies, oil companies, hospitals, manufacturers, fast food restaurant chains, large retail businesses, bankers, and anyone producing anything of value in our nation.” I ask you how many of these groups have to be guilty of price manipulation, providing bad goods and services, and polluting the environment? Are you saying that the people can’t have one without the other? Psst…whisper…yes, I think he is, anonz…

Bill, lawyers do what they are trained to do. They represent both sides. Everyone of your businesses have lawyers. Most of the time they employ them to write contracts that give them the upper hand over the little guy who will purchase their goods and services. Why would you deprive the purchaser of a lawyer to insure that he gets what the business man hired a lawyer to say that he is getting. It seems that you are arguing for lawyers for only one side.

Bill, take a breath. Stop for a moment, resist parroting the spiel that the Republican party puts out for the little republican-wanna-be-big-business-man-so-he-impress-his-woman and think for yourself. However, to do that you will FIRST have to read that Constitution that you keep alluding to. Is that why men do dumb s**t, to impress their women?? Seriously??

If you do, you will find that it is about establishing a country of LAWS. Yes, Virginia, the Constitution is about LAWS. Laws that establish how we, the people, will allow our government to govern us. It is not about getting rid of the lawyers, the laws, or the freedoms that those laws are meant to protect.
As for this pathetic spiel “Today, we are drowning in laws; we are contorted by judicial decisions; we are driven to distraction by omnipresent lawyers in all parts of our once private lives. America has a place for laws and lawyers, but that place is modest and reasonable, not vast and unchecked. When the most important decision for our next president is whom he will appoint to the Supreme Court, the role of lawyers and the law in America is too big. When lawyers use criminal prosecution as a continuation of politics by other means, as happened in the lynching of Scooter Libby and Tom Delay, then the power of lawyers in America is too great. When House Democrats sue America in order to hamstring our efforts to learn what our enemies are planning to do to us, then the role of litigation in America has become crushing.” shame on you for not giving credit to the Republican party for providing you with it. I personally helped write some of that bullshit (oh, I’m sorry to hear that…)

By-the-way, the Supreme Court appointments are so important because the Republicans want to legislate from the bench what they can’t get passed in both house of the legislature. Using their judicial appointees they seek to protect their asses from going to jail, to ensure that if the lower courts find against the big money interest, big corporate punitive damages, jerry rigging elections, pole taxes, vote fraud, and ripping the Constitution apart, the bought and paid for Supreme Court appointees will over turn them. This is EXACTLY why I’m voting for Obama…even if it were the only reason, it’s still a great one.

OK, guess we’re going one more day of the ‘sweet pea monologues’ I could end it here, 3 days of good stuff is 3 days of good stuff, but I don’t believe that nonsense of too much of a good thing isn’t good for you…that’s BS, so one more day, I’ll wrap on Friday with comments and maybe some q & a if necessary…

You know how to reach me, or maybe could you post a comment right here? Just click on comments and do your thing, your all anonymous to me. It's just a thought...and yesterday, I threw that stalking thing in as a spoof/goof, uh yeah, who'd admit that if they really were doing it? Good catch, anonz ; )

and then this:

Doing something about the price of oil basically comes down to two kinds of strategies. The first strategy is getting us off of oil. This in my opinion is the best strategy but it's something that will take many years if not decades. The second strategy is to make oil cheaper. This is, at best, short-term and therefore the one most politicians like to talk about.

The first strategy, Long-Term Strategy, usually involves all kinds of nebulous, conceptual plans about exploring alternative energy sources, such as, wind, solar or nuclear and includes creating alternative fuel infrastructures. They often entail a "manhattan project-style" focus and investment from the top-down, governmental-level and usually involve some level of personal-behavior changes, such as recycling, more energy-efficient appliances and switching to CFL light bulbs. I think this is a very well thought out plan but would require a major push from the top down, it's Scientific American's Solar Grand Plan.

While I personally think these long-term plans are all necessary they won't ever happen if the price of oil is low and (consequently) gasoline sits at $2 or $3 per gallon. The costs of these alternatives are simply too high to compete with cheap, energy-dense gasoline. It just won't happen. History tells us it won't happen. During the oil crisis of the 70's the cost of gasoline was higher (quadrupled in price in just few months) and it's availability was less (sharp decline in production) than it is today and yet where are all of the alternative fuels? There was no push then and there will be no push now. The nature of the Long-Term Strategy is just not politically expedient and the fuel shortages and high prices just didn't last long enough. They were a hiccup.

I know that's kind of downer to think about but let me give you a little hope. If the high cost of gasoline remains high and will likely remain so for the foreseeable future, if not forever, then and only then will the Long-Term Strategy look more and more appealing and may actually gain some political ground. In my mind, the only way that I can see the Long-Term Strategy ever happening is to have gas remain at $4, $5 or $6 a gallon. Maybe hope isn't the right word, but you get my point.

The second strategy, Short-Term Strategy, is to try and alter the price of a barrel of oil or directly affect the price of a gallon of gas immediately. These kinds of strategies are the most politically expedient and will almost certainly make no difference in the long run. An example of this strategy you see today is McCain's suspend-the-gas-tax-for-three-months strategy. Politically-expedient, pathetically-pandering and ineffectual to say the least. In 2000, The great state of Indiana suspended the state gas tax when gasoline was a horrific $1.75 a gallon. It did nothing then and has had no effect whatsoever (maybe except contributing to $30 million dollars worth of a budget shortfall from lost tax revenue). So let's check my arbitrary list. Politically-expedient, check. Pathetically-pandering (I won't mention this was all done in the summer and fall run ups to the 2000 election cycle), check. And ineffectual, what's the price of gasoline today?, check.

I don't want to create the impression that I am drawing some kind of false dichotomy. Many groups propose a combination of the above strategies. However, you can often tell when their strategy is a short-term one when the long-term elements are often nothing much more than lip service and vice versa.

That brings me to the reason for this post. There is a new strategy being touted by the one and only Newt Gingrich. His organization, American Solutions, has a new campaign called Drill Here, Drill Now, Pay Less.

Here's a YouTtube of Gingrich giving a speech on this very topic,

"The 3 things you could do immediately that would dramatically lower the cost of oil..."

1) The first thing Gingrich proposes is that President Bush immediately release oil from our strategic oil reserves. The purpose of this strategy is directly impact the price of a barrel of oil, short-term, by punishing oil speculators. The theory goes that if you release this oil and flood the market with supply and since our demand for oil remains relatively steady there will be a correlating drop in price. This also has the very sweet taste of revenge added in because many oil futures speculators will lose their shirts, having bet that prices will continue to rise.

I'd like to make one minor point and that is if we decide to release 50% of our oil reserves we will only be able to release 4.4 million barrels a day of oil onto the market for a maximum of 80 days. To put this into little bit of perspective, the U.S. consumes 21 million barrels of oil a day. I don't know what the impact of this release will do to actual gasoline prices and I dare say no one knows for sure either, although I'm sure someone could come up with a more reasonable prediction, it looks like for something shy of 3 months we will be able to increase total oil on the market by 20%. The impact of this exercise in reality is that it will have no effect to our over-time steady supply of oil. This will only create a temporary dip in the price of gasoline, at best, and at worst it will eliminate half of our strategic oil reserves since we aren't sending anymore oil into the oil reserves. It will however severely hurt anybody with oil futures that come due during this short-lived time of lower price per oil barrel. Of course, punishing oil futures speculators is exactly Gingrich's point.

Here's where I have a major problem with this strategy in principle. The purpose of our government in regulating equities markets is to create trustworthy and transparent markets. The regulations that went into effect after the Great Crash of 1929 in the U.S. effectively created the modern regulatory institution of the SEC whose purpose was to ensure that our markets could be relied upon. There are reams of regulations dedicated to preventing or at least making it very difficult to execute a mass "pump and dump" scheme on the markets, therefore, liquidating peoples money and creating turbulence in the marketplace.

What Mr. Conservative, lassez-faire Republican Newt Gingrich wants to do is to artificially "dump" on the markets. What ever happened to the free market, sport? Talk about the worst kind of market tampering. Another case of political ideology trumping the lip service this guy pays to "conservative principles". The funny thing is you get all kinds of people who decry any kind of regulation of the markets and at the same time they actually support this guy.

2) The second thing he mentions is looking where the oil is. He mentions Rocky mountain shale oil, drilling in Northern Alaska and drilling for oil in the Gulf. What Mr. Gingrich fails to mention is the environmental damage that shale oil requires. If you didn't know shale oil requires that you take a "reserve", dig out the shale and suck out all of the oil. Whole mountains are dug up to do this. Drilling for oil also has major environmental issues which is precisely why it is illegal to do so. Because if Brazil screws up an oil rig in the Atlantic the environmental impact affects more than just Brazil. I'm not sure Gingrich is aware but our oceans are all connected. I have actually been in Florida swimming at a beach that had globs of oil in the water from a recent "oops" on an oil rig. There are reasons this activity is not allowed.

The other thing to notice is that he bills this as an immediate solution. The exploration, drilling and start-up time for a new drilling site, even if approval and permits were in place today, takes years before the first barrel is shipped to a refinery which takes additional time to refine into gasoline before it goes to market. His "immediate" solution years if not upwards of a decade.

I do want to bring your attention to the total lack of information citing any negative effects that drilling has. According to Newt, there's no reason we shouldn't be doing this. Psst, notice the name of the campaign.

3) The third "immediate" thing we could do is "maximize alternative fuel sources" and speaks very clearly and correctly about what we can do with nuclear power and a switch to an hydrogen economy. I support that one hundred percent but I question how Gingrich's plan will accomplish this. Again, immediate seems to be a relative-term. Does anybody know how long it takes a nuclear power plant to come online? The Canadians have managed to build and bring online a nuclear reactor in 6 1/2 years, however in the U.S. more reasonable estimates have been coming in at 10-15 years from start to finish.

This perhaps reveals my bias against Gingrich but his third point is little more than lip service to a long-term strategy. I can, however, say this with a clear conscience because his campaign is not called Nuclear Here, Nuclear Now, Pay Less. No, his plan is called Drill Here, Drill Now, Pay Less.

Seriously his simple 3 point plan comes down to a lobbying effort to get us to drill in the Gulf coast and in the ANWR region of Alaska. Period. He knows that no President is going to funk with the markets by dumping oil from the strategic oil reserves. There's just simply not enough oil to have any real impact beyond punishing speculators in the short-term. He knows no President would want to show how little our strategic oil reserves actually contain and that it isn't much more than a PR campaign.

Gingrich also knows that nuclear is not an immediate solution to anything. It simply takes too long for nuclear power plants to go live to have any impact "immediately". Turning garbage to gas? "More fuel-efficient" vehicles? Please. This comes off as nothing more than a hand-waving exercise.

To further drive home my point, here is follow-up video from Gingrich,

Please note that of the three points he mentions earlier he chooses to reiterate that you can "speak out about the need for higher production and lower prices" (Item #2 above)  and that we should call our Senators and tell them that we want them to "follow a policy of drilling here, drilling now, so that we can all pay less" (again, Item #2). To further his point he then speaks about the two new oil reserves that Brazil has found and that, by the way, Brazil is energy independent. He wants us to talk to our congressman about shale oil strip-mining, drilling off our coasts and in Alaska. (Again, Item #2)

To end his follow-up he warns us about the new Warner-Lieberman bill that would raise gas prices. This evil about to be perpetrated on the people is an attempt to cut green-house gas emissions by 65% of 2005 levels by the year 2050. Of course, Gingrich has a problem with this since he doesn't accept the science behind Global Climate Changes. In addition, the rise in gas prices he cites is likely attributed to a study underwritten by the National Petrochemical and Refiners Association. Will this bill likely raise gas prices? Probably, however I would like to see a study performed by a disinterested party. By the way, the study said that this bill would increase gasoline prices by .48/gallon, by 2034.  I'm pretty sure I've seen gas go up about a $1 in just the last 16 months from good old supply and demand economics.

To sum it all up. The arguments are inconsistent internally by containing pathetic market tampering vs. Gingrich's long held conservative free market rhetoric. The purpose of this campaign is to open drilling in the ANWR region and elsewhere, despite the smoke and mirrors of the "maximize" alternative fuel sources bullet point. And I think Gingrich's follow-up pretty much confirms my point. And his plan offers a long-term strategy for gaining energy independence only if we produce and refine oil here. This does nothing to switch us to the ultimate in energy independence, renewable energy. We've only shifted our reliance on a finite supply of energy from one place to another that will not "benefit" us for another decade.

I remain skeptical Mr. Gingrich.

O'Reilly summed up the book by suggesting that it 'showed what America can do if it stops all the divisiveness.'

Maybe I'm wrong, but hasn't O'Reilly built his entire successful TV career on being divisive, on arguing loud and long with anyone who disagrees with him and giving no ground?

And didn't speaker Gingrich very successfully for a while build his career on direct confrontation with his political opponents, on giving no ground?

Despite that, there was no indication from either gentleman that they picked up on the ironic nature of pointing out that America can succeed if it stops "all the divisiveness" and that their respective careers succeeded by going in the opposite direction.

Making this even more ironic, within seconds, O'Reilly shifted focus back to attack mode, going after some Vermont legislator whom he accused of being responsible for the horrible death of the young girl who was allegedly killed by her Uncle.

In Mr. O'Reilly's world, this legislator, whom he described as corrupt as well as being responsible for the poor girl's murder, deserved the blame because he had been key in blocking passage of Megan's law.

And since the accused had a prior rape conviction, according to Mr. O'Reilly, the man never would have been out of prison if Megan's law had passed in Vermont.

The only problem was, the O'Reilly version wasn't true.

And my new hero, Fox anchor and legal expert Megyn Kelly, pointed that out.

It turns out the accused was convicted of raping an adult. Megan's Law would not have applied in this case.

Mr. O'Reilly, however, did not offer an apology or admit to a mistake.
He just moved on.

Apparently, the elimination of 'divisiveness' only has value in Newt Gingrich works of fiction.

Here, according to Newt, is a partial list a Bobby's achievements in only six months...

(...)

* Six Major Tax Cuts worth more than $500 million, including eliminating taxes on business and capital investment and the largest personal tax cut in the history of the state - a $300 million reduction in personal income taxes, worth up to $500 for an individual and $1,000 for a family.

* Governor Jindal brought about a Transformation of Job Creation and Retraining. He completely eliminated the Department of Labor and passed a guarantee for employers that Louisiana educational institutions will train its workforce to meet their needs, and if they fail, they will retrain workers for free.

* He created $10 million in Opportunity Scholarships so 1,500 poor children in New Orleans can escape failing public schools.

* Jindal led the passage of The Health Care Consumers Right to Know Act, creating transparency of cost and quality for the first time in Louisiana's health care system.

* Bobby Jindal expanded the number of charter schools in Louisiana from 42 to 100.

* He passed legislation cracking down on child molesters and also passed a resolution calling for the creation of involuntary civil commitment of sexually violent predators to keep them confined for treatment after they complete their prison terms.

And here's a seventh achievement...

Louisiana's Third Bond Rating Boost in a Week

All this, and Governor Bobby Jindal is just getting started. Just last week he vetoed $9 million dollars in pet projects and pork barrel spending in the legislature's budget - another area in which this 37-year-old governor is showing the way to Washington.

Not coincidentally, Jindal also announced that for the third time last week, Louisiana's bond rating had been raised by a major credit rating agency.

(...)

Read it all...

Congressional Republicans made matters worse in 1995, when they attached a rider to a huge appropriations bill forbidding the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration from spending any money to raise fuel standards. That law, in effect until 2001, made any change in CAFE standards impossible, says Representativeve Edward J. Markey, a Massachusetts Democrat who has pushed for better fuel efficiency.

Now Gingrich refuses to admit he did anything wrong, because, “our culture favors driving long distances in powerful vehicles and the car as a social expression.” Not that Gingrich is the only brain-dead pseudo-psychologist on Capitol Hill. Here's John Dingell who has faithfully protected his Auto Company constituents for 30 years.

“The American auto industry has sold the cars people wanted,” he says. “You’re going to blame the auto industry for that or the American consumer? He likes it sitting in his driveway, he likes it big, he likes it safe.”

So all of this head in the sand stupidity will have to change. Our fuel standards will have to climb like the rest of the world (see chart). The simplest way is to charge a gasoline tax like most other developed countries. But that's not the end of the American way of life, as the head of Shell Oil makes clear.

Consumers overseas might not like higher taxes on gasoline, but they’ve adapted, says Jeroen van derVeer, chief executive of Royal Dutch Shell, the European energy giant. “A society can work, can function and can grow even at higher fuel prices,” he says. “It’s a way of life — you get used to it.”

In Mr. van derVeer’s native Holland, for example, gasoline sells for more than $10 a gallon, with $5.57 of that going to taxes. Even in Britain, which has substantial North Sea production, gasoline sells for $8.71 a gallon.

We will get through this Interregnum. It will be more painful that most politicians are letting on. But the creativity of America should not be doubted. In the meantime we can buy the new energy conservation technology from Japan, who started getting their energy act together 30 years ago.

The United States Senate's Democrat Majority Leader Senator Harry Reid of Nevada says often, "We cannot drill our way out of the energy problem."

A rigid environmentalist, Senator Reid says, "Oil makes us sick.  Coal makes us sick."

Above: Senator Harry Reid.  He is so
"green" he wore a green tie for his
official Congressional portrait.

Mr. Reid also said on June 18, “The math is simple: America has just 3 percent of the world’s oil reserves, but Americans use a quarter of its oil. And the Energy Information Administration says that even if we do open the coasts to oil drilling, prices wouldn’t drop until 2030.”

Contrast this to the position of former Speaker of the House of Representatives Newt Gingrich, the Republican from Georgia.

Mr. Gingrich is so pro-drilling that he has created an on-line petition called "Drill Here, Drill Nor, Pay Less."

Mr. Gingrich outlines his petition on-line and in countless TV interviews beginning about June 18.

Mr. Gingrich: The language is simple but powerful: “We, therefore, the undersigned citizens of the United States, petition the US Congress to act immediately to lower gasoline (and other fuels derived from oil including diesel) prices by authorizing the exploration of proven energy reserves to reduce our dependence on foreign energy sources from unstable countries.”
.
"If we want less expensive gasoline, diesel and other fuels and to reduce our dependence on foreign dictators, then we have to demand that politicians cut through the red tape and put policies in place that will increase domestic production," according to Gingrich.

Above: Newt Gingrich

"It isn’t possible to regulate, tax or sue our way to lower fuel prices. While alternative energies are desirable in the long term, Americans need relief now," Mr. Gingrich says.

The Gingrich petition also states: "America still has the world’s largest supply of fossil fuels. We have more coal than any other country by a huge margin. We have abundant oil and gas reserves. We have the potential for nuclear, wind, solar and biofuels in tremendous quantities.  And, critically, America is still technologically the most advanced nation in the world, despite decades of bad policies and politics."

Paul Driessen is a senior policy adviser for the Congress of Racial Equality and Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow, and author of "Eco-Imperialism: Green power - Black death." He has written a commentary on why American should drill for oil in the Sunday, July 6, 2008 Washington Times.

In Mr. Driessen's Times commentary he says, "Drilling is no silver bullet. But it is vital. It won't generate overnight production. But just announcing that America is finally hunting oil again would send a powerful signal to energy markets ... and to speculators, many of whom are betting continued U.S. drilling restrictions will further exacerbate the global demand-supply imbalance and send 'futures' prices even higher."

We at Peace and Freedom tend to agree with the Republican or Gingrich/Dreissen position for two reasons:

1) Secretary of the Treasury Henry Paulsen has said that sending billions of U.S. dollars out of the U.S. every day is the single largest problem with the U.S. economy.

2) America established itself as a technology leader staring around the World War II time-frame.  I witnessed that technolgy, harnessed and in action, as a young boy watching transfixed on TV as an American first walked on the moon in 1968.  After that I witnessed technology and the safely harnessed nuclear atom aboard U.S. Navy nuclear powered aircraft carriers, cruisers and sumbarines.  I even crossed under the Atlantic Ocean aboard a nuclear powered submarine.

So I have a confidence formed by fact and reality, in America's ability to tackle tough challenges and to solve them through hard work, investment, diligent care and technology.

The thought that America is unable to drill, say, in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) or off the coast of Florida, without causing environmental harm, is totally contrary to my knowledge and experience of Americans and American technology.

We refuse to drill not because we cannot drill without harming the environment.  We refuse to drill because we will not tackle the tough assignment.

See Mr. Paul Dreissen's commentary on "Why America Should Drill"
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/jul/06/time-to-drill/

In response to skyrocketing gas prices, liberals say, practically in unison, "We can't drill our way out of this crisis." What does that mean? This is like telling a starving man, "You can't eat your way out of being hungry!" "You can't water your way out of drought!" "You can't sleep your way out of tiredness!" "You can't drink yourself out of dehydration!" Seriously, what does it mean? Finding more oil isn't going to increase the supply of oil?

[vodpod id=ExternalVideo.621382&w=425&h=350&fv=%26rel%3D0%26border%3D0%26]

Bolton: Israel Strike On Iran ‘During Bush’s Term Makes A Lot Of Sense’

But that’s exactly what former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich suggested as a possibility Friday in a speech to a small group at the home of Republican state House candidate Muhammad Ali Hasan.

Hasan, who joked that he is trying to fill Gingrich’s shoes, lives in Beaver Creek and is a candidate for House District 56, which includes Eagle County.

Gingrich’s speech drew chuckles from the crowd as he poked fun at the Democratic party’s approach to the high cost of gas.

“There’s an ideology on the left that would like everyone to walk,” he said. “If everyone on the left wants to say, ‘You’re not paying enough, let’s keep sending the money to Saudi Arabia … let’s make sure that Iran and Russia have all the money they need,’ I just think people are going to think this is nuts.”

The purpose of Gingrich’s appearance was to tell the attendees about a new organization he started as a grassroots approach to lower the cost of energy, especially gasoline, in the U.S.

“Here’s my theory,” he said. “Almost everybody in America pumps their own gas, so they stand at the pump for three to five minutes getting really mad — and they do it on average twice a week, so there’s this wave building.”

His organization, called American Solutions, is intended to channel that wave. He hopes it will be a tri-partisan group composed of at least 50 percent of each major political party in the United States, including the Independent party.

Gingrich said the goal of the organization is to find issues that garner nonpartisan support and unite Americans to find solutions to those issues.

“We were looking for … red, white and blue issues rather than red versus blue issues,” he said. “We found over 100, and we found the American people have a lot of common sense; it’s the elites that are nuts.”

Read the rest here.

I do like McCain but I wish he would get some fire in him and really start campaigning on the issues. Bring up Obama's record and lack of experience and why he is the best choice for America. I don't agree with McCain on all the issues but I feel comfortable if he were president. Especially if more supreme court justices are needed. I also like McCain's energy plan. I agree with Hannity 'Drill here, Drill now and pay less". This is from the Americansolutions.com website. We also need to suspend the federal gas tax to give us some temporary relief and find alternative sources of energy.

Even though I think Obama and Clinton are faking "unity" they are bringing their party together and the republicans need to do that too. In Obama's universal health care plan he wants to give illegal immigrants free health care. I am all for coming to America and making a better life for you and your family but come over here legally or become legal even if you hop the fence. We should not be paying for illegal immigrants when legal citizens cannot even get health care or benefits. We are not socialists. Obama really frightens me on so many levels. I believe McCain will win the presidency but he does need to step up.

The real part of their proposal that nobody talks about it that it advocated releasing oil from our strategic reserve to immediately increase supply. The idea is that our own domestic drilling to allow us to refill our strategic reserve later.

I’m not necessarily opposed to drilling, but there seem to be far too many false promises floating around.

As some of you know, I officially hate politics and everything to do with them. I promise to make this brief but John McCain, who I would have voted for had I not given up politics, joined the eco friendly fray by PROMISING to write a check for $300 big ones for the first one "who can develop an automobile battery that far surpasses existing technology". I personally am holding out for more before I commit.

Not to be outdone by a fellow Republican, Mr. "Contract with America" Newt Gingrich battles McCain by saving us all from high gas prices. If only he would throw in $300 big ones.

And finally, tonights excellent online free storage tip begins at Humyo. They are offering (free of charge) 30 big ones (GB) of online free storage space. Check it out [via Lifehacker] [source Humyo]

Charles R. Black Jr., one of McCain's most senior political advisers, said in an interview with Fortune magazine that a fresh terrorist attack "certainly would be a big advantage to him." He also said that the December assassination of former Pakistani prime minister Benazir Bhutto, while "unfortunate," helped McCain win the Republican primary by focusing attention on national security.

"His knowledge and ability to talk about it reemphasized that this is the guy who's ready to be Commander-in-Chief. And it helped us," Black told the magazine in its upcoming issue.

What's with all the terror talk lately from the Rethugs? Newt Gingrich, John Bolton. and Rudy Noun Verb 9/11 Giuliani have all been flapping their lips and doing their best Chicken Little imitations. Who told them that these kind of scare tactics would work? Oh wait....now I remember.....

Original DVD cover.

The comment reinjected the fear of terrorism into the campaign as both candidates had been shifting their conversation to the economy and $4-per-gallon gasoline. It also vividly recalled the 2004 contest between President Bush and Democratic Sen. John F. Kerry, in which Republicans repeatedly questioned Kerry's ability to protect the country from terrorists.

The comments also returned the political spotlight to McCain's advisers and, in particular, to Black, who has drawn criticism for his long lobbying career and his representation of controversial foreign governments.

...snip...

Black earlier this year severed ties to the lobbying firm he founded. Records show that his firm had represented the Pakistan People's Party, which Bhutto led until her death.

Asked about the comments by reporters while campaigning in California, McCain said: "I cannot imagine why he would say it. It's not true. I've worked tirelessly since 9/11 to prevent another attack on the United States of America. My record is very clear."

...snip...

In a strongly worded statement issued yesterday afternoon, the campaign of presumptive Democratic nominee Barack Obama called Black's comments a "complete disgrace."

"The fact that John McCain's top adviser says that a terrorist attack on American soil would be a 'big advantage' for their political campaign is a complete disgrace, and is exactly the kind of politics that needs to change," spokesman Bill Burton said.

...snip...

Traveling with McCain, Black faced reporters in California to acknowledge his mistake. "I deeply regret the comments.

Here's a little history on Charlie Black, from The Nation via Yahoo News:

Black has a long history of rough-and-tumble politics, on behalf of some of the most controversial figures in this country and abroad.

Black was a protege of the late GOP operative Lee Atwater, who coldly implemented the Republican Party's racially divisive "Southern strategy." Both Atwater and Black were longtime advisors to former North Carolina Senator Jesse Helms.

...snip...

When he wasn't working on GOP political campaigns, Black was a leader of what the Center for Public Integrity termed "The Torturers Lobby." As a lobbyist for Black, Manafort, Stone & Kelly, Black represented the likes of Mobutu Sese Seko in Zaire, Ferdinand Marcos in the Philippines and Jonas Savimbi of Angola.

In 1992, as Ken Silverstein of Harper's recently noted, Spy magazine ran a profile of Black's lobbying firm. "Spy reviewed the operations of a number of top beltway lobbying firms and ranked Black, Manafort as the 'sleaziest' of the firms it surveyed, giving it a 'blood-on-the-hands' rating of four," Silverstein writes. "That was a full bloody hand more than the rating accorded to lobbyist Edward van Kloberg, whose clients included Saddam Hussein and Nicolae Ceausescu of Romania."

More recently, as the chairman of BKSH & Associates (a subsidiary of Mark Penn's firm Burson-Marsteller), Black flacked for disgraced Iraqi exile Ahmad Chalabi and the Lock, the shadowy PR firm that covertly placed US military propaganda in Iraqi news outlets.

...snip...

Since 1999, BKSH earned over $4 million in lobbyist fees on behalf of 11 Iraq war defense contractors, including Lockheed Martin and United Technologies. As recently as February, Black was conducted his lobbying work from aboard McCain's campaign bus, the "Straight Talk Express."

On a lighter note, if you are in the mood to read a little about another kind of ghost, check out my post over at American Street!