Friday, February 01, 2008

I now see Obama Hillary the new uniting compassionate Conservatives replacing the Destructive war monger phonies Bush Cheney and surviving...

I now see Obama Hillary the new uniting compassionate Conservatives replacing the Destructive war monger phonies Bush Cheney and surviving for the same reason Bush has!
I got up last night and heard something pleasurable for once and I wanted to discuss it early because it has tremendous implications and I wanted to get it out before I have to go to the VA shortly. I first want to say the outage yesterday of the internet throughout the middle east was no accident nor was it a coincidence that Israel and certain others who just happen to be of interest to us was no accident.We discussed it yesterday and I recommend you look at the link about HAARP. It will be denied of course but it is a fact and it will be used to control the world and its future to our interests.

I have to digress to discuss the love fest that occurred last night between Obama and Hillary. I have said many times in the past that the old Right is wrong and dead and that we are the new Right. We are the new compassionate conservatives out of necessity to bring our Nation together after Bush has ripped it apart with his perverted version. I am happy to see that the Republican party is more divided than ever between the the purist warmongers McCain and Giuliani and the Religious war mongers Romney and Huckabee. I hope it continues to divide the party and many Republicans and independents will come over to the democrats realizing that we can unite and protect America while bringing her back to where she was before Bush destroyed her to create his version.

Last night we came together! Democratic rivals Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama spent their last debate before next week's Super Tuesday contests pointing out differences on Iraq, health care and the economy -- but without all of the finger-pointing that's marked their campaigns. The exchange was in sharp contrast to previous debates because of the absence of political sniping, yet was one of the most substantive policy discussions yet in the race for the nomination. On Iraq, Obama said he'd be more able to end the war because he opposed it from the beginning. He said Clinton's vote to authorize the use of force there would undermine her efforts to bring it to an end. Both Obama and Clinton said they support ending the war. On health care, Obama defended a plan he says would make insurance affordable to everyone who wants it, but not require everyone to buy it.

The Illinois senator said his proposal would require that all children be covered and allow young people to remain on their parents' health insurance up to age 25 -- but would not require adults to purchase care. "Every expert who looks at it says there won't be anybody out there who wants health care who will not be able to get it," he said. Hillary said "It is so important that as Democrats, we carry the banner of universal health care. The pair praised former North Carolina Sen. John Edwards, who dropped out of the Democratic race this week. Both are vying for his supporters. Picking up his causes will make an Obama Hillary ticket unbeatable!

Thursday's debate differed from the last time the two took to a stage together -- at a contentious January 21 debate in South Carolina in which the front-runners peppered each other with sharp attacks. In contrast, on Thursday the two smiled, laughed at each other's jokes and repeatedly complimented the other when they agreed. Obama got laughs when asked about how he might counter Republican charges against "tax-and-spend liberal Democrats." "Well, first of all, I don't think the Republicans are going to be in a real strong position to argue fiscal responsibility, when they have added $4 trillion or $5 trillion worth of national debt. I am happy to have that argument," he said.

Clinton drew cheers when she responded to a question about how a Clinton could promote change after decades of a Clinton or Bush in power. "It did take a Clinton to clean up after the first Bush, and I think it might take another one to clean up after the second Bush," she said. The longest and loudest applause line of the night came when CNN's Wolf Blitzer noted that many Democrats have said they'd like to see a Clinton-Obama or Obama-Clinton ticket in November. Neither ruled out the possibility of selecting the other as a running mate. Obama and Hillary will come together and win

**This is absolutely perfect! Laying to rest both past barriers at once by nominating and electing both a Black man and a Woman. Oh the implications! This would be perfect! Billary would be Obama's Cheney! It is a role Hillary and Bill are well suited for. Obama and Hillary have the finesse to bring America together and back again! I would no longer be concerned about Obama getting assassinated for the same reason Bush would not be. the alternative would be much worse. An assassinated Bush would bring the horror of Cheney. To the right an assassination of Obama would bring the distasteful reality of Billary at the helm. I am almost giddy at the prospects of our future now!
James Joiner
Gardner Ma


Dave Dubya said...

Let's hope an overwhelming majority of electoral votes can be won by the Dems. I still worry that if it is close, the Republican anti-democracy machine will steal another election.

And, of course, plenty of time still exists for the crime cartel in power to do its dirty work. Plan on seeing all kinds of "terror threat level alerts" like before the 04 election. The fear card will be played relentlessly. Sabre rattling with Iran and Pakistan will be ramped up. We can expect a significant escalation in Afghanistan as well.

Regardless, it will be an interesting election year.

an average patriot said...

You know I share your concerns!the electoral College, the voting machines, a new war, Iran, Pakistan, natural disasters in America, there are a myriad of concerns. Obama's assassination, martial law, cancelled elections, man the elections will be interesting if we even have them.
I just caught that Coulter said if McCain wins the nomination she would campaign for Hillary. Geesh are things ever screwed up. By the way where you been man? Taking a writing break?

Dave Dubya said...

Egad! Coulter would sink Hillary if she supported her. Twisted.

Lately I've been writing some more songs. They require a little more tweaking than regular posts. Especially for a part time "non-writer" like myself. Although I consider myself a rather ungifted lyricist, I hope to be recording something soon.

an average patriot said...

I agree! A Coulter endorsement would be the kiss of death! I forget where i read that article but here is an inteview with the asshole Hannity on her endorsing Hillary
Good luck with the sone writing. Maybe I will get to hear one of them!

an average patriot said...

Here it is. It was on cnn. coulter endorses Hillary

Dave Dubya said...

What a twit! Let's give it a day or two. Watch her sputter on about how nobody got her "joke" in the "liberal media".

an average patriot said...

I wouldn't doubt it at all but the bitch is serious i saw the video! I have to laugh! I can see Hillary disclaiming and distancing herself from it. I think I remember Anne the mouth speaking ill of Hillary and Bill. quite a while back after she said some of the Dems should be blown up I called her to be held for terrorism and the mouthy ditz should be!

Larry said...

Obama doesn't need Hillary as he can get the votrs on his own.

However so many people hate Hillary she needs Obama, as many will refuse to vote if Obama isn't the nominee.

Larry said...

This just scratches the surface Jim:

The failed Presidency of George W. Bush
President Bush is a forgotten man. Giving his last State of the Union speech, he was overshadowed by a tempest in a teapot. (Did Barack Obama snub Hillary Clinton or merely turn to talk with another senator?)

We need a breather from the campaign, so we will focus on why history is likely to record George W. Bush's eight years in office as a failed presidency.

Ideology has nothing to do with it; Bush had the opportunity to be a great president.

Former President Clinton famously complained that his term could never be acclaimed as "great" because he never presided over a war. (Instead he had peace and prosperity and squandered them, accomplishing little of moment.)

After 9/11, Bush could have become a great leader. But the very day that hell spewed from the skies, Bush did not know whether or not to return from Florida to Washington. His eventual leadership in those terrible weeks was steadfast but he used up the good will of most of the world by pushing his doctrine of preemption. Invading Iraq on false pretenses, he has overseen a war that has lasted longer than our participation in World War II with far less to show for it.

Bush's contribution to education (aside from mangled syntax) has been the No Child Left Behind Act. But it has amounted to an unfunded mandate on the states and embroiled thousands in angry confrontation by making teachers teach only what children need to pass tests and forcing cutbacks in such subjects as art and music.

Bush leaves the country with a $9.2 trillion debt, largely because of the war in Iraq, which he defends against all criticism. In an infuriating gesture, he waited until this month -- seven years too late -- to declare war on earmarks, the congressional practice of quietly tucking money away in the budget for special home-state projects.

He espoused the philosophy of "compassionate conservatism" but then abandoned it, leaving a few desultory "faith-based initiatives" and a larger gap between rich and poor. Not a thing has been done to help people with no health insurance, but he vetoed a plan to expand children's access to health care. He vows to cut out 151 popular programs to save $18 billion but has spent $609 billion on Iraq and Afghanistan.

He demanded that Social Security be privatized, but when the country vigorously protested, he gave up trying to keep entitlements from eventual meltdown.

With the nation fighting to stave off recession as food and energy prices soar and home foreclosures mount, he didn't have his own stimulus plan but endorsed a too-little-too-late plan devised in the House to give taxpayers rebate checks and incentives to businesses. He vowed to veto one-time checks for seniors dependent on Social Security or extension of unemployment assistance for the jobless. And how did his administration miss the signs that financial institutions were in crisis over sub-prime mortgages?

Bush's foreign policy dissolved into gauzy nothingness, victim of the endless war in Iraq. His legacy will be insisting, without factual basis, that democracy would spring "sui generis" to life in the Middle East and that Iran, Iraq and North Korea were an "axis of evil."

With evidence indisputable that the world faces a serious challenge in global warming, Bush abrogated what should have been U.S. leadership to deflect tomorrow's catastrophe. As for pursuing energy independence, for years he gave little but lip service.

Federal agencies are in disarray. Those supposed to guard the public's health, including the Environmental Protection Agency, Consumer Product Safety Administration and Food and Drug Administration, are widely conceded to be broken.

With debate raging over immigration, Bush could not even stake out a leadership position in his own party. Having stirred up a hornet's nest on the issue, he went inside the house and left it to others to deal with the stingers.

Hurricane Katrina and the bridge collapse in Minneapolis were stark testimony to the nation's crumbling infrastructure. But Bush had no plan to prepare the country to face fixing its roads, bridges and levees or care for its victims.

After the exhausting Clinton presidency, Bush had a strong economy and Americans' good will. The last eight years have been tumultuous, marked by arrogance, Bush's refusal to listen to the oldest and wisest in his own party and staggering incompetence.

It is difficult to believe that the e-mails the White House purposefully deleted, or the thoughtful letters Bush never wrote or the memoirs of disdained members of his Cabinet, such as Donald Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney, will cause historians to reverse that assessment.

There is good reason why the president's disapproval rating has been over 50 percent for longer than that of any other president in half a century. There is good reason why the GOP candidates almost never mention his name.

As Bush's would-be successors bark and bicker, joust and jostle, it is useful not to forget Bush or why we stage this contest every four years and what is at stake.

(Scripps Howard columnist Ann McFeatters has covered the White House and national politics since 1986.

Larry said...

Try this Jim:

By Gaither Stewart

A beginner journalist in Rome asked my advice about an upcoming interview with a well-known media exponent and famous opportunist of Italy’s extreme right-wing —the young lady had qualms because, as she said, she understood nothing of politics. Well, since ignorance of politics didn’t seem like an auspicious start, I outlined my views on the reality of current Italian and European politics.

An intelligent person however, she framed her questions so that the interviewee had little chance to expound his crude political theories. Until her last question: “What did he think of the future of our society?” At that point the dikes broke. In a rush of words he predicted that in the not too distant future people would forget that the atrocities of Communism, Fascism and Nazism had ever happened.

When I opined that this interview was support for burgeoning Fascism in the world today who claim Fascism and Communism, Right and Left, are the same, and that we should hope the atrocities of Nazism and Stalinism would not be forgotten so easily and that she would compromise herself by signing the article, she shrugged and said, “They pay me.”

Ignorance of politics that conditions everything in life is lethal for a writer, but in that context her words, “They pay me,” were vile. She did not comprehend that journalism is compromised when it loses its autonomy and is subjugated to political power.

It’s true that no more than one can choose the age in which he lives can one live without the age in which one is born; we are children of our times … and to some degree consonant. The laws of the age of science and technology demand agreement if not homogeneity as a condition of existence: to work and exist means to collaborate within a system in which the actions of each are prescribed. Action is homogenous when it conforms to the requirements of the system.

Still, the fact is, the goals of the apparatus are seldom those of the individual. Personal conscience is too easily reduced to conscientiousness in the execution of one’s duties from which is born the concept of conformist conscience. The result is the hegemony of “behavioral psychology of adaptation”—to be increasingly less oneself and more like everyone else. Technological society works against individual ideas—and for homogeneity.

Being different is not only non-remunerative but also arouses suspicion. The paradox is that authenticity—being oneself or knowing oneself, which wise men have long prescribed—in the conformist society becomes pathological behavior, as if being oneself were a disease. In the darkest periods of Brezhnevian Soviet society, dissidents were whisked away to psychiatric clinics.

Authoritarian systems rely on compromised writers to portray false images; they fear the truthful portrayal of reality. The compromised writer follows the victors; conformity and opportunism go hand in hand. Inevitably he sticks to the middle; he avoids saying what he feels for fear of his place in society. He is the conformist per se.

The compromised writer is aware that many people do not like being told the truth and he is willing to write what he is told people want to hear and to bend with the prevailing wind. He is a fearful writer.

Freud instructed that the things the writer is inhibited to write are usually the most important and the things that press him the most. Self-editing and self-censorship are not the same thing. Once the writer stops in mid-sentence and censors something he wants to say, something he knows he should say, for the sole reason that he might be breaking some social-political rule of correctness, he is on his way to compromise.

Compromise in journalism and literature leads straight to the banalities of writing—the terrible to-do about petty problems of ordinary existence or in its most degenerated form about the radiant futures of totalitarian societies. The headache of choosing a vacation destination or workers with shining eyes gazing toward the horizon of the future cannot be a substitute for themes like injustice and human suffering.

Commitment stands at the opposite pole from compromise. The modern concept of committed literature emerged from the conflict of 20th century ideologies that have reflect the deep social changes of our times—the domination of Nazism and Communism in Europe, the victory of world Capitalism over Communism, and today the clash between market ideology and the rich world on one hand and on the other the growing rebellion of the impoverished four-fifths of our planet.

Today’s social situation obligates the writer to examine his position in the world and his responsibility to other men. It obligates the writer to approach his work in a committed way. To resist the temptation of compromise and conformity the writer must be devoted to autonomy. The honest writer must stand inside society—not in the shadows of the periphery—and he must tell the truth.

I believe that commitment to truth is inherent in good writing. It is a moral absolute. To write is to reveal an aspect of the world in order to change it. In that respect writing is didactic.

Commitment and involvement are closely linked. However, though involvement is inevitable for the writer, his commitment does not come about automatically. Not all writers are even conscious of their involvement; but the committed writer is aware of the world around him and his writing is the result of his attitude toward it.

Thus commitment involves the writer’s trying to summarize and then reflect through his work a picture of the human condition—which is also social—without however losing sight of the individual. Exponents of committed literature reject the fallacy that art is a thing apart; despite the obstacles politics raises, writing, I believe, is part and parcel of the social.

Writing is a social act insofar as it derives from the will to communicate with others and from its resolve to change things. The writer wants to remake the world.

In France, Bernard-Henri Lévy and other so-called nouveaux philosophes, made careers debunking intellectual commitment. After the fall of Communism in East Europe their message was that one could no longer take socialist ideas seriously. Lévy said: “When intellectuals let themselves believe in a community of men, they are never far away from barbarism.”

Reductive, to say the least. No less than an apology for totalitarianism. Lévy and friends became opportunistic journalists and found easy targets among French committed writers: they said that Sartre had after all flirted with terrorists of the German Baader-Meinhof Gang and Régis Debray trained in guerrilla warfare in Bolivia with Che Guevara. Post-commitment intellectuals find themselves in the blind alley of having to try to justify social injustice. Conformists under the guise of free marketers tell us that rich countries have no responsibility for problems of the Third World—as if we didn’t all belong to the same world.

According to the Russian Communist theorist Georgy Plekhanov, “the belief in art for art’s sake arises when artists and people keenly interested in art are hopelessly out of harmony with their social environment.” It has been said that art for art’s sake is the attempt to instill ideal life in one who has no real life and is an admission that the human race has outgrown the artist.

Here fiction and journalism are linked. Instead of the “radiant future,” committed writing depicts the lives of other people, however ugly or illuminating. It contains both human truths and human potential. Since my daughter’s measles or a flat tire on the way shopping are boring and their presentation in fiction is mere recording, the literary author must instead total up and interpret human experience.

I personally want to see the heroic in a fictional hero, but I don’t want lies. I want the hero to offer me counsel on how to live better. On the other hand, to describe poor people as happy simply because they finally have shoes is nonsensical. The portrayal of the masses as happy because a new political party is in power is deceit.

Similarly I find the depiction of globalization of economy and capital as the spread of democracy, security, and well being not only absurd but also immoral and evil. War is not peace. Disasters will always be disasters. And it is insane to call catastrophes victories for mankind.

The road of commitment is lined by the canonical names of literary history. At the time of the French Revolution, Wordsworth wrote his greatest poems like “The Ruined Cottage” and “The Old Cumberland Beggar”— which depict the sufferings of the English lower classes. Shelley—labeled by Harold Bloom the Leon Trotsky of his day—and Keats and Hazlitt, realized Wordsworth’s genius for teaching and instilling in others sympathy for all those in distress. For Wordsworth, counted genius, transcendence and his personal epiphanies. He was forever the stranger. An aura of otherworldliness marked his genius and rankled his contemporaries because he spoke from the beyond. But through all his strangeness, he cared.

They all care, the committed writers. Commitment may be expressed also in the writer’s search in himself for authenticity, reaching deep into himself to the place where truth lies. As Saul Bellow writes in his essay, “The Sealed Treasure”, the only thing we can be in this world is human. And we all care about truth, freedom and wisdom.

Just as did writers in totalitarian societies—Fascist, Nazi, Communist, Fundamentalist—also writers in today’s market economies ineluctably face the choice between compromise and freedom.

Yet, art does not need a revolution to be real art. It does not even require political freedom. One can’t tell real writers what to do. For true art, party ideology or party discipline or political correctness does not exist.

Many people turn up their noses at the word extreme. They don’t trust it. It is a dangerous word. Extreme provokes displeasure and doubt, for even worse extremism is hovering nearby.

Alberto Moravia stressed that the writer is obliged to be extreme. No great writer, he says, was not extreme. That is, sincere. Can one think that Baudelaire and Rimbaud, Dostoevsky and Tolstoy, Nietzsche and Ibsen, were not extreme, that is, sincere, in the deepest sense of true to themselves? With sincerity in mind Gabriel García Márquez taught his students of journalism to cultivate bias. To risk. To be committed. We have to reject measure, that beloved rule of creative writing classes, as we are obligated to reject social conformity and political correctness.

Asked what the writer is to do, Albert Camus suggests in The Myth of Sisyphus—written in 1940 amidst the European disaster but no less applicable today: “The tyrannies of today are improved; they no longer admit of silence or neutrality. One has to take a stand, to be either for or against. Well, in that case, I am against.”

Here, two more words about committed literature, which is often accused of being political writing. Honest committed writers reply that moral conflicts of the day have a political background and that nearly every aspect of our lives is related to politics. As the case of the young journalist I mentioned above shows, an understanding of politics is fundamental in order to understand what the writer must oppose and what he can defend.

Understanding politics does not mean participation in politics; literary writers are not much good at it anyway. Chekhov advised writers to “engage in politics only enough to protect themselves from politics…. A bit of ideology and being up to date is most apropos.”

The enormity of universal problems today has overwhelmed the objection that modern society has made the concept of literary commitment obsolete. On the contrary, it seems. Not only social problems like alienation but also questions of truth and freedom, war and peace, market economy and poverty, the environment and scientific advances, underline the heightened need for socially aware committed literature.

Committed writers believe that human freedom itself is a social conquest and must be constantly reclaimed. Good writers are aware of the danger of forgetting literature in the name of commitment. Unlike writers of compromise, they succeed in overcoming the threat through their ethical-aesthetical approach to their work: all in all, after everything is considered, they don’t believe that anything can replace good literature.

an average patriot said...

We lost power and just got it back due to wind and ice storms. Anyway i think you are right and that hillary can be Obama's attack dog as Cheney is to Bush. It would work for me. Time for a drink! Winter in New England!

enigma4ever said...

sorry about the storms...we too have been having it...
I don't want Obama and Hill together- but it was so nice and see a REAL discussion of the issues....

( I blogged it too- come on over..)

an average patriot said...

That scunbag is fixated with his legacy! As I said years ago that SOB will go down in history as the piece of shit who destroyed America. That will be and is his legacy!
Larry I'm looking at your comment and you know it sucks but Bush could care less what people think of the disarat or what they think. His or his handlers new order is al that matters.
I still refuse to believe there is going to be an alection this year!

an average patriot said...

larry Fascism rules the world today and it will destroy our future. It was set in motion by the chief slime ball. It will not be controlled or quelled.
I like that piece on extremism, we need it now and I am prepared to lead the way. I wrote Jerome today in response to what he sent me and the man is really getting it. I think I am getting to him and something will get done. I feel good about things after Jerome, Barrak and yesterdays events.

an average patriot said...

The storms knocking out power are an inconvenience but it is only temporary thankfully, at least for now. We are so spoiled.
With all that is environmentally going on around America, in China, and around the world, what the heck are we doing heading to war and worsening things, We are at war with nature.
I was going to discuss this once more but so much that must be discussed keeps cropping up it's unbelievable! Take care, Namaste!

Dave Dubya said...

As the young woman said, "They pay me." There's the corporate media in a nutshell. All compromised, all the time.

Whenever we watch TV news we just need to envision the banner on the screen, "They pay us to decide for you."

an average patriot said...

That's a pretty cool take! it pisses me off that the media thinks they know anything at all. They do not. They are biased and no longer experts.
We in the trenches where this is all taking place are the experts today. They will never listen to us so they will never have the right answaers.
I have been perusing the news and it is a friggen nightmare. All I keep hearing is Arlen Specter wanting to investigate spygate with the Pats WTF is wrong with us? I think I am going to do something on that line today!

Brother Tim said...

Believe this: The MSM knows about everything, they're just not going to put it out in the open. Any investigative reporter that insists on publishing certain items, will soon find himself in the unemployment line. And any editor that may agree with him, will find himself in the same line too.

As for an Obama/Clinton ticket: It's the worst thing that could happen for the Democrats; Americans in general; and Obama in particular.

You must keep in mind, that the Clintons will do ANYTHING to gain power. She has been compared to a Cheney Vice-presidency. Not so. Cheney has total control over Bush. If Clinton didn't have that control over Obama, the Neocons would off him in a heartbeat. They would probably make it look racist, saying skinheads or white separatists were responsible. Hillary could then take over and declare martial law, which is the goal of the Neocons. Obama would have to have a 'death wish' to put Clinton on his ticket, I just can't see him doing that.

I firmly believe that if Clinton is involved in ANY way in the general election, we will have at least 4 more years of Repug Rule.

an average patriot said...

you know I have been saying it is too prophetic the Kennedy's saying Obama is just like JFK knowing his demise. I really would expect Obama to be assasinated.
However I do think Obama would keep her in line, she could be his Cheney attack dog, and it would make him assasination proof. Because as with Cheney the alternative would be an even worse nightmare.

Brother Tim said...

But it wouldn't be a worse alternative to the Neocons, it would be a better alternative.

The Clintons being under the Democrat label means nothing to me. They are Neocon to the core. Most people believe Neocon is synonymous with Republican. This is just not so. There are an abundance of Democrat Neocons. Check out Clinton's voting record in the Senate, and when you've done that, check out her financial backers. This is no coincidence, Jim. If he puts Hillary on the ticket, Obama's a 'dead man walking'. There is no single man who could keep the Clinton Machine in line once they get a toe-hold in the White House. Believe It.

amphibious said...

I hope you're correct thatObama/Clinton can win but one can only dream of Gore/Kuchinik.
How will the hard heads in DNC square the circle of Obama/Clinton or Clinton/Obama?
Each leaves them wide open to attack from their putative supporters, never mind the Raving Right. I'm terrifed that either combination is a loss, given your voting system.
Now i read that Nader is 'considering'! Much as I'd like him in office, he still bears ultimate responsibility for Gore losing. I suppose that we should be grateful to Perot for doing the same to Poppy in 1992 but he was only a moron, whereas his evil scion is actually dangerous. Poppy served and fought, Shrub shirked and grovelled.
One thing that I've never seen any comment on is the cost of pumping US oil. When the TAPIS price was hovering around $10-14 in 1990, Texan oil cost $28 to get out of the ground. I can't imagine that it is any less now.

an average patriot said...

I agree with you under normal conditions on a vote for Hillary being a vote for Repugs. You know, Bush agrees with you. However that was pre Obama! I believe Obama will keep her in check bar election cancellations, martial law, and assassination. Can you believe what we are talking about and our dilema today? Surreal, that friggen Bush!

an average patriot said...

I agree! NeoCon has nothing to do with the Republican party nor doe it have anything at all to do with Conservatism! Hillary is a neocon and a vote for her is a vote for the Repblicans. Don't worry Obama will persevere!

an average patriot said...

I really can't see an Obama Hillary ticket because of Bill. Though it will be Obama definitely if there are elections, they are fair, and he is not assasinated!
What tenuous underhanded times we are in and they will get much worse. Like you I prefer Gore but Alas I don't see that happening but we do need him.
I do believe obama will be a good President but I do not see anyone turning around the negative forces Bush has set in motion for our future around the world. Hold on Buddy!
Now, quickly ! You hit a subject I talk about frequently and that is Americaan oil. It is a long subject and I will expound on it when I and you have the time for it. There is a reason why Bush is preparing to gum up the entire worlds supply of oil except ours! Not Texas bud but Colorado! There is more there than the entire world combined!

amphibious said...

AAP - I know less than nowt about Colorado oil, do tell. Mad Mark Steyn (despite his other ..err.. sterling qualities) seems obsessed with Canadian shale oil but any chemist will explain (if asked) that the input is greater than the output, it is staggeringly polluting as Zud Afrika found out with SAFCOL during apartheid and has unfortunate jelly tendencies below -10Fahrenheit, which probably had more to do with the Nazi failure to take Stalingrad than anything else.

an average patriot said...

This was a year and a half ago. Affordability is well on its way. I just recieved an investment Email about it. It explains why Bush is willing to gum up the entire worlds energy supply.
Shale oil and oil sand being reexplored equal $5 Fuel before you Know It!
I was researching this last night and woke up this morning to hear that oil and fuel stocks are the hot stocks today with a 12% increase overall. What a coincidence!
I was a bit surprised to find out the following on Shale oil!
A headline on an old newspaper reads: Oil Shale Development Imminent,". That edition of the defunct Grand Junction News, was published at the dawn of the 20th century.
More than a hundred years later, instability is roiling world oil markets, and Americans are paying $3 a gallon for gas. And oil shale fever is again rising in the geologic region known as the Piceance Basin, part of the Green River Formation
that stretches across the rugged plains of northwestern Colorado and parts of Wyoming and Utah.

There is no dispute that a thousand feet below the isolated ranch country here on Colorado's western slope lie almost unimaginable oil riches. It's locked in sedimentary rock -- essentially immature oil that given a few million years under heat and pressure would produce pools of oil easy to extract.

The Energy Department and private industry estimate that a trillion barrels are here in Colorado -- about the same amount as the entire world's known reserves of conventional oil. The entire Green River Formation might hold as much as 2 trillion barrels.

supposedly secretly Pushed by the Bush administration and legislation from Congress last year, and spurred by oil prices above $70 a barrel, the energy industry is mobilizing to unlock the secret of oil shale. As it has before, oil shale holds out the hope of a USA no longer dependent on foreign oil. Shell Oil is engaged in a multiyear test of a new technology for extracting the oil. Previous efforts that were uneconomical and environmentally destructive entailed mining the rock, crushing it and heating it above ground to release the oil.

Shell's new process involves sinking heaters deep underground, cooking the rock at 700 degrees and recovering the oil and natural gas with conventional drilling.

For a decade, Shell has been ramping up its research on private property here. It is also one of a handful of companies vying for research and development leases on larger tracts of federal land nearby. That could lead to full-scale development across 1,200 square miles of western Colorado.

Early results are promising, says Terry O'Connor, a vice president in the oil giant's unconventional resource division. But, he admits, "no one has been able to develop oil shale on a commercially sustainable basis.

That is $3 fuel that is here now, then I hear this a while back and more started making sense!

Legendary oilman T Boone Pickens says he doesn't believe that the oil sands are an effective substitute for our fuel needs. Pickens said Tuesday that huge development costs and a tight labor supply will prevent the Alberta oil sands and other unconventional means of production from covering the shortfall in supply. That said, Pickens holds a big stake in both the Canadian Oil Sands Trust [TSX:COS.UN] and Suncor Energy.

When Pickens was in the Alberta oil sand fields in the 60's somebody said this isn't going to work, it isn't possible. It'll all have to be subsidized to a level, said, before they'd make money you'd have to have $5 oil," Pickens says laughing. "We never thought it would happen."

Two years ago I did a story on shale oil and oil sand but it did not go over well because people felt it would never happen. Knowing all the research and development that has been put into these alternatives!

Knowing that T Boone Pickens has invested multiple millions in this! Knowing that between us and Canada we have the more reserves than the entire world combined!

Knowing that he said refining it would not be profitable until fuel hit $5 per gallon, you have to believe that $5 gas wall be here before you know it!
My question is have the oil companies purposely been driving up the prices in order to justify retrieving this huge reserves at our expense? Also at the expense of the environment and alternative fuel sources!

James Joiner
Gardner, Ma