cyrusmartin's Blog

Obviously, the main reason why McCain made his choice for VP was the fact that this person is female. Rational analysis dictates that there were numerous other candidates possible for this selection that would have been far superior and much much more in line with The McCain camp's theme of "Experience".

So if the choice was made on the grounds of sex, then why not choose a FAR more experienced and MUCH more known public servant?

Why in God's name would he pass over someone like our own Senator?


What was he thinking????


Here's some of the experience the Republicans could have cited as justification in choosing Senator Hutchison. Here is what you COULD have had...



In 1993, Texans elected Kay Bailey Hutchison to the United States Senate in a special election, making her the first -- and, to date, the only -- woman elected to represent the state in the Senate. One year later, she was re-elected to a full six-year term. And in 2000, she received more votes for her re-election to a second full term than any other statewide candidate had ever received. In 2006, she was again re-elected by an overwhelming margin. She serves in the Senate leadership, having been elected by her colleagues to be chairman of the Republican Policy Committee in the 110th Congress, making her the fourth-highest ranking Republican senator and the highest ranking Republican woman. Sen. Hutchison also serves on the Republican National Hispanic Assembly (RNHA) National Advisory Committee.

Defense and Foreign Policy

Senator Hutchison has played a vital role in shaping America's defense policy and fulfilling our nation's promises to our veterans as former Chairman and now Ranking Member of the Appropriations Subcommittee on Military Construction and Veterans Affairs and as a member of the Appropriations Subcommittee on Defense . She introduced and passed legislation creating an Overseas Basing Commission, which conducted a comprehensive review of the U.S. military's global footprint to help ensure that our Armed Forces are prepared to meet 21st century threats. She currently serves as Chairman of the Board of Visitors for the U.S. Military Academy at West Point.

Homeland Security

The senator worked to secure funding for an additional 1,500 Border Patrol agents to strengthen enforcement of immigration laws. In 2004, she helped pass the National Intelligence Reform Act, which included provisions she authored to ensure greater screening of air cargo. That legislation instructs the Transportation Security Administration to establish a database of known shippers, develop facility security plans, and mandate use of worker identification cards.

During her term as Chairman of the Commerce Committee's Subcommittee on Aviation, she played a major role in drafting the airline security bill passed by Congress after the September 11 terrorist attacks.

Tax Relief and Family Support

Senator Hutchison has consistently championed tax relief for working families. In recent years, she has led the fight to provide relief from the marriage income tax penalty and to reestablish the deduction for state and local sales taxes for Texans. Senator Hutchison has worked to reduce marginal income tax rates, eliminate the death tax, and lower taxes on capital gains.

Early in her Senate career, she was lead sponsor of a bill to create the new Homemaker IRA. It allows spouses who do not work outside the home to save for retirement through an IRA.

Education and Science

Senator Hutchison has authored legislation to help recruit mid-career professionals and retirees into teaching positions. A provision included by Senator Hutchison in the No Child Left Behind Act requires "report cards" that give parents regular updates on the performance of their child's school. Senator Hutchison was also able to allow parents to place their children in a single-gender school or classroom by removing barriers that prevented local school districts from offering this choice.

Senator Hutchison was instrumental in establishing The Academy of Medicine, Engineering and Science of Texas (TAMEST). It is the centerpiece of her effort to support research and development while promoting Texas as a science state. During her tenure in the U.S. Senate, Texas has moved to third in the nation in receipt of federal research and development expenditures.

From January 2005 to December 2007, Senator Hutchison served as Chairman, then Ranking Member, of the Science and Space Subcommittee of the Commerce Committee, overseeing NASA and the National Science Foundation. In December of 2005, the president signed into law the Senator's five-year blueprint for NASA's exploration and research initiatives.

Transportation

In December of 2007, Senator Hutchison became Ranking Member of the Aviation Operations, Safety, and Security Subcommittee, having led efforts in 2006 to repeal the anti-competitive Wright Amendment, which limited flights out of Dallas Love Field Airport. Originally intended to encourage growth at Dallas-Fort Worth International Airport, the harmful provision artificially inflated air fares at both airports. At the Senator's encouragement, airlines and airport owners reached an historic agreement -- now enacted into law -- that will remove unfair barriers and restrictions at Love Field.

Senator Hutchison became the Ranking Member on the Committee on Commerce, Science & Transportation in July of 2008.

Personal History

The senator's Texas roots run deep. Thomas Rusk of Nacogdoches was the first Texan to hold the U.S. Senate seat she currently occupies. He and Senator Hutchison's great-great-grandfather, Charles S. Taylor, were friends and both signed the Texas Declaration of Independence.

Senator Hutchison grew up in La Marque, Texas and graduated from the University of Texas and UT Law School. She was twice elected to the Texas House of Representatives. In 1990, she was elected Texas State Treasurer. In June 2000, she and several colleagues coauthored Nine and Counting: The Women of the Senate, and in 2004, she released her second book, American Heroines: The Spirited Women Who Shaped Our Country. Sen. Hutchison published her most recent bestseller, Leading Ladies: American Trailblazers, in October 2007.

The senator lives in Dallas with her husband, Ray, and their two children, Bailey and Houston.

Awards And Recognition (Partial List)

• Air Force Association Distinguished American Award, 2008
• Sewall-Belmont House and Museum's Alice Award, 2007
• Connie Mack Lifetime Achievement Award from the Susan G. Komen Foundation, 2007
• National Guard Association of Texas Charles Dick Medal of Merit, 2006
• Association of the United States Army Outstanding Legislator Award, 2006
• American Legion National Commander's Distinguished Public Service Award, 2006
• Forbes Magazine's 2005 World's 100 Most Powerful Women
• Deep East Texas Council of Governments 2005 Legislator of the Year
• Named "Mr. South Texas" by the Washington's Birthday Celebration Association for 2005
• Women's Foreign Policy Group Inaugural Congressional Leadership Award, 2004
• Hispanic Association of Colleges and Universities, National Leadership Award, 2002
• National Military Family Association Award for Service to Military Families, 2001
• CLEAT Award for Support of Law Enforcement, 2000
• Texas Women's Chamber of Commerce 100 Most Influential Texas Women of the Century, 1999
• Texan of the Year, Texas Legislative Conference, 1997
• Inducted into the Texas Women's Hall of Fame, 1997
• Republican Woman of the Year by the National Federation of Republican Women, 1995
• Outstanding Alumna, University of Texas, 1995

I know that there are a lot of Republicans out there that are frustrated by McCain's terrible judgment thus far and by his irresponsible ploy to choose Mrs. Palin from Alaska as his VP. I would like to offer my sympathies on this and also offer an alternative.

Your convention has not yet been finalized.

There is still time to avoid the train wreck that is coming.

Add Mike Huckabee's name to the nomination at your convention.

There is still time to fix this and have a candidate with integrity and sound judgment.

Do this and you may just win my vote in November.

I would actually consider it.



Keep the faith Conservatives.
Vote Huckabee!!!!


I like Mike!!!!!


Huckabee '08


-Cy

Obama/Biden!!!!!

Yo Joe!!!









...Remember... Knowing is half the battle.

Bringing down the level of humor a little.
Maybe this wont go over all the Righties heads.
Yaaay for chilish humor!
Yaaaay!!!!



Eeee III EEE III OOOO

...and on that farm he had some cows.

Eeee III EEE III OOOO

With a "Moo Moo" here and a "Moo Moo" there...
Here a "Moo"... There a "Moo"...
Everywhere a "Moo Moo"

Old McCain had a farm...

Eeee III EEE III OOOO

...and on that farm he had some sheep

Eeee III EEE III OOOO

With a "Barraaaack" here and a "Barraaaack" there...
Here a "Barraaaack"... There a "Barraaaack"...
Everywhere a "Barraaaack"

Old McCain had a farm...

Eeee III EEE III OOOO

...and on that farm he had some self righteous arrogant jerks

Eeee III EEE III OOOO

With a "OBomber" here and a "Hussein" there...
...and a "Baby Momma" here and a "Terrorist Fist Jab" there...
 ...and a "Osama" here and a "The One" there...
 ...and a "Elitist" here and a "Uppity" there...
 ...and a "Rev Wright" here and a "Farrakhan" there...
 ...and a "Unpatriotic" here and a "Communist" there...
Here a "BLEEP"... There a "Liar"...
Everywhere a "Right Wing Frady Cat"

Old McCain had a farm...



EEEEEeee IIIIIIII EEEEEEEEEEeeee IIIIIIIIIII OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOoooo....

I am exploring my new-found sense of humor.
I was told to lighten up so lets have some fun.
We see silly Obama pics and videos all day long so lets have a few for the other side.

It's all in good fun.
-Cy










This is the best one.



Ron Paul... heh...


-Cy

This is a commentary I wrote yesterday for another web site.
It's pretty long but if you want to read it, please do.
Feel free to respond however you think is appropriate.
heh
I know... I know... I basically just painted a target on my back by saying that.
Anyhoo... here goes...

The Right is Wrong

By: Cyrus Martin

August 21, 2008

 

            Conservative: As defined by Merridian-Webster

Main Entry: 2conservative

Function: noun

Date: 1831

1 a: an adherent or advocate of political conservatism bcapitalized : a member or supporter of a conservative political party2 a: one who adheres to traditional methods or views b: a cautious or discreet person

            There are really only three major distinctions that a politically minded person inside The United States can claim as their own: Liberal, Moderate or Conservative. Some people choose to avoid these distinctions entirely because while each possesses a range of positive attributes, there are also stark negatives that come along for the ride. None the less, these are the columns into which all politicos will fall. In the following essay, I will attempt to outline what I believe to be the worst of these and why I have arrived at this conclusion. I will shed new light on the group that has brought the most suffering upon the people of this country and continues to distort its own image as the “Right” party. Of the three, clearly the worst are the Conservatives.

            Before you dismiss this essay as a partisan, slanted, spun, twisted, distorted or prejudiced report, please give me the opportunity to explain my perspective on this topic. I have not arrived at this conclusion without much discussion and debate. This is not something I choose to believe out of convenience or because it suits some interpretation that benefits me the most. Indeed I was once someone that claimed the label of “Conservative” proudly and without hesitation. I did so in full certainty that I was correct in this choice and without any real consideration that I could be wrong. It would take many many years before I would challenge this assumption… but when I did… I found it increasingly difficult to justify my belief and nearly impossible to rationalize to anyone I attempted to convert to my way of thinking. There are many reasons for this and I will explain them in detail throughout the course of this essay.

            If you are someone that constantly challenges your beliefs and searches for truth in your life then I have aimed this document directly at you. I think that I am a fairly reasonable person but I know that I have closed my mind to certain issues from time to time. Each time that I rethought something that I had chosen to dismiss without diligent consideration, I found that I could learn more about myself and the world than I ever expected. As a Christian, this has been extremely interesting. Often we associate Conservatives with Christians and I had always assumed this label… however this may not be the truth. These kinds of paradoxes are present throughout this discussion. Please join me now as I explain my belief that the Conservative movement is (at best) a confusion of beliefs and morality and (at worst) a deliberate deception used by and against Americans that want to be good… or at least claim to.

 

            Article 1: Economic Conservatism

 

            The principle of Economic Conservatism can be defined as a system of economics that restrains spending and encourages fiscal responsibility. Another definition might be: an economic system that limits taxes and spending on behalf of The Government. Either of these definitions would be considered correct by a Conservative however both of them are in fact lies. The problem with Economic Conservatism is that this principle is considered to be tied to Moral Conservatism and therefore correct… but this is a contradiction. To be more specific, Economic Conservatism is a self centered, Darwinian process of controlling wealth. These are heavy charges though so please weigh the following and decide for yourself.

            An Economic Conservative is someone who seeks to control their own assets with as little outside interference as possible. The idea is to maintain in-flow while reducing out-flow at every opportunity. This alone would be acceptable and even desirable if it were not done at the expense of the community. Economic Conservatives place their own individual interest and finances above all other interests. Profits, losses and expenses remain focused on the individual. This process is considered ideal to build wealth even if it is done at the cost of sustaining the resources used to perpetuate it.

            The problem with viewing a singularity as an island is that no one exists autonomously. We are all dependent on one another even if we think we are not. Companies require workers, workers require an employer, money is needed to buy goods and resources, roads are needed for transportation, sewers remove waste, police keep us safe, our military stands guard and we all breathe clean American air. None of this is free but all are required. Economic Conservatism (if implemented fully) would destroy most of these because of the primary function of all Fiscally Conservative entities: Maximize profits and limit expenditures to only the necessary costs and only if the benefit outweighs the cost of the expenditure.

            Who would provide Government services if there was no government? One major argument by Economic Conservatives is that the private sector can perform all tasks better than the government. From a profit oriented perspective, this makes no sense. Privatizing services such as The Police and Fire Departments would alter the services to such an extent that their primary function would be impossible to maintain. In order to generate a profit, your local Emergency Services would be forced to focus on concepts and processes that generate the most money. All other services would become lower priority or even ignored. Imagine the reality of restricted gear, coverage areas, techniques, facilities and personnel based on profitability. Fiscal Conservatism would change the focus from saving lives to making a buck. How is this moral?

            Taxes are bad right? Nobody likes to pay for anything and an Economic Conservative generally views taxes as an unnecessary expenditure. Taxes are evil and wrong and need to be stopped. The only problem with this is that an Economic Conservative has no problem benefiting from the resources and services provided by taxes. Imagine for a moment that everything was controlled by private corporations. How much would you pay to use the road in front of your house? What daily fee would be reasonable for a new bridge down town? How about a fee for the soldiers in the army or for keeping your police department from relocating to a more profitable neighborhood? If you pay for all of these services then you are paying taxes. The difference between these services being public vs. private is the focus of their existence and who they answer to. No taxes would mean no government services and that would mean that privately owned businesses would dictate the safety and functionality of your family at every level.

            Darwin believed in Natural Selection. Economic Conservatives also believe in this principle though they may not believe that they do. In fact, the entire argument that is made to justify a system of fiscal conservatism is “Survival of The Fittest”. An economic system based around the idea of natural selection seems to exist in contradiction of the basic premise that this is founded in morality. Surely a moral system would take into account factors such as claiming responsibility for not only profits but also for the costs of doing business in a community. Surely a moral system would recognize “National Loyalty” as more than just a slogan to be used to generate profits. Surely a “conservative” system would seek to protect the traditions and culture of the people it employs and serves rather than weigh their value over their cost.

            Economic Darwinism such as this does not recognize the benefit of using tax funds for projects that do not directly benefit the individuals that pay the largest portion of taxes. The elderly, the poor, undereducated, unfortunate, the abandoned and the minority will never share the same basic interests as the wealthy. Their realities are polar opposites to those of the rich. No matter how hard these groups may work or how driven they are, the odds will be stacked against their success. Without the support of organizations with the power to improve schools, roads, infrastructures and a hand up in hard times… many are doomed to continued poverty and hardship. The organization in the best position to provide this help is our government. While success has not always been achieved in hard times (such as during Hurricane Catrina) and there is constantly the need for revision in policy and implementation… our government is designed to provide social services while answering to the voting public regardless of their economic standing.

            Economic Conservatism is in fact a lie. This is merely a designation used as an excuse to take advantage of every factor that benefits an individual or business while ignoring the responsibilities of that entity to the community and environment in order to maximize personal profit under the guise of moral authority. This is a barn painted to look like a house. It can be called a house… decorated like one… praised as the best house ever built… but it is what it is. The need to disguise this lie with labels like “moral” or “Christian” is disturbing once the actual system is analyzed. Recognizing such obfuscation is crucial if our economy is to ever become truly responsible to all of the people and not just to the few that have manipulated us to worship their brands and products.

           

 

            Article 2: Moral Conservatism

 

            A Moral Conservative is a person that lives life according to moral guidelines that are limited to what is viewed to be correct and good. A Moral Conservative generally holds these morals as part of a religion or faith which is integrated into every aspect of their world view. In America, these are generally people that would consider them selves to be “Christians” although the designation of Moral Conservative is not limited specifically to any one belief system. It is not what is believed specifically that identifies a Moral Conservative. It is the conviction of self righteousness.

            Some in this category would view themselves as living a “right” life while viewing others that do not share their morality as being “wrong”. This is not a prerequisite however it is fairly common. Some Moral Conservatives do not look down on others because they have simplified their world view to encompass only their own personal belief system and have dismissed the views of others rather than compare them. While this could be considered arrogant by some or irrational by others, it is none the less real to those that make this choice. Because these individuals choose to view themselves as “right” then they are unable to consider other perspectives and are handicapped against the concept of acquired knowledge. This exists to varying degrees among Moral Conservatives but should not be viewed as an absolute requirement.

            Are all Christians Moral Conservatives? No. In fact, an argument could be made that any true Christian is NOT a Moral Conservative. An explanation of this can be found in The Bible. By researching the actions of Jesus, a Christian would discover that he was in fact a revolutionary in his day. He challenged many of the old beliefs and traditions that were accepted as “Right”. His primary concern was for his fellow man and for educating all of us as to the need to save one another. While his teachings provided specific laws that we all should follow, he often chastised those that viewed themselves to be above others. “Judge not lest ye be judged”

            By the same token, a Christian’s concern was specifically outlined by Jesus. He warned all of us against building up our treasures on this planet rather than in the kingdom of God. He often sought out charity and praised those that gave of themselves without thinking of their own benefit… or whether or not a donation was tax deductable. Jesus taught us to be open to new ideas and to always seek the truth even if it was not convenient or traditional. All of these principles seem to contradict a Moral or Economic Conservative’s view of life and priorities. This would seem problematic for someone claiming to be a “Conservative Christian”.

           

 

            Article 3: Cultural Conservatism

 

            Just like mom used to make… right? We all have memories from our childhood that we reflect on from time to time that put a smile on our collective face. Many of the old traditions and attitudes we know from our pasts have helped shape us into the people we are today. Some of this is good and some of it is not… for example… the views our parents or their parents held on issues such as class or race. Cultural Conservatism can be a double edged sword.

            Having conservative traditions is not a bad thing. We all have family traditions that we love. My grandmother used to make Christmas candy and although she has passed on and I have no interest in making candy myself… I still remember when she did with great affection. We get together on Birthdays and Christmas every year to celebrate and exchange gifts. These are very good traditions and help us all maintain a bond of unity and shared prosperity. Just because it is a conservative tradition that does not make it wrong… however we must be careful when we label our traditions as conservative.

            A conservative tradition is one that does not change or at least does not change much. Not all traditions should be labeled as conservative though. If your family traditionally goes to church on Easter then this is clearly conservative and there is absolutely nothing wrong with that. If your family traditionally throws eggs at cars on Halloween though then I doubt many people would consider this conservative. Also, just because the tradition is conservative that does not make it right.

            A common conservative tradition in The South is to not associate with poor people. This is clearly against the teachings of Jesus though and therefore not a correct one. Perhaps your family sets off fireworks every 4th of July even if there is a drought. That would be bad as well. Maybe your conservative traditions dictate that you will not date outside of your race. There are many conservative traditions that are not good for us and cause us to either make unnecessary mistakes or force us to miss out on many of the best opportunities life has in store.

            It is valuable to live life with conservative traditions but I would not recommend that anyone live their life as a Cultural Conservative. If you define yourself by traditions that are mostly or completely conservative then you will undeniably suffer for it. We should all value our family beliefs and customs but we should also have the courage and conviction to evaluate the traditions of the past so that we can decide if change is required. After all, even though traditions are of value… the world is always moving forward.

 

            Article 4: Conservatism vs. Liberalism

 

            For some, the choice seems to be A or B. You are either a Conservative or a Liberal. Conservatives are like dogs and cats. These two designations tend to view one another in very black and white terms. This is a good way to identify a member of either affiliation. Conservatives typically view Liberals as Communists with “bleeding hearts” whereas Liberals will sometimes refer to Conservatives as Fascists or hypocrites. Neither observation is correct… but these do give us an important insight into the mindset of each side.

            Are Conservatives fascists? No. Of course not. A Conservative is an American and most of them believe in Democracy. The problem is that typically they have a warped view of what that means. A Conservative is primarily concerned with his own wealth and rights and usually feels defensive as though he or she is being threatened with the prospect of change. A Conservative seeks to “conserve” their world. This is great as long as it does not impose hardship on the rest of us… which all too often… is an unfortunate consequence of the self centered philosophy they prescribe to.

            Are Liberals “Bleeding Heart Communists”? Some probably are… but the vast majority of Liberals are socially conscious and have a philosophy that views America as a whole and not simply as a bunch of individuals seeking to better themselves at the expense of one another. The Liberal mindset is to try new things… to seek new information and to feel free to make mistakes along the way. They are not perfect or correct on all issues… but caring about the poor and about being responsible does not equate to Communism.

The biggest disagreements between Conservatives and Liberals seem to come from the issues that are viewed in completely opposite ways on either side. Issues such as Abortion tend to raise the most eyebrows for both groups and the debates often become heated and passionate. Conservatives center their arguments on belief and morality as do Liberals. The individual interpretation of what that morality is will cause explosive tensions. Cats and Dogs…indeed…

 

Article 5: Assessment and Conclusion

 

Why are Conservatives worse than Liberals? The answer to this is simple. Conservatives claim the right to associate themselves with Christianity, morality and social correctness. As outlines above though… this is clearly not true. Conservatives are no better than Liberals. In fact, because they claim superiority through lies and distortions then I am forced to conclude the only reasonable truth… that Conservatives may be the “Right” party but this does not make them right. A self righteous claim of moral, cultural, religious, economic and social authority with so much evidence to the contrary can only be called what it is… hypocrisy. It is for this reason that Conservatism is in fact the greater of two evils… and shame on them for saying otherwise.

Call yourself what you want but you have no right to claim superiority to anyone else. Being religious is not the same as being a Christian… even if you attend a Christian church. Being conservative in the same way is not tantamount to being righteous. We have different perspectives and we all have a right to them unless we are hurting our fellow Americans. Ask yourself if you are right and why you feel it is so important to be right. You might find that you aren’t as “conservative” as you used to think you were. You might even be surprised at what you actually believe.

            God is omnipotent. God is all knowing. God is righteous. You are not God. You may believe in God and believe that you are good… but you have no right to place yourself above anyone else… especially if you claim moral superiority. Assuming you are a Christian, please take a moment to read The Bible before you lay claim to it. We all have a lot to learn from each other.

 

Matthew 7:4 - American Standard Version
Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me cast out the mote out of thine eye; and lo, the beam is in thine own eye?

 

Hey everyone.
I was gone for a week so my apologies on not participating in the debates here. I have to admit that I thought about you guys. heh.
Anyway...


I have a challenge I want to throw down.
Lets see if you are up to it.
The rules are simple.

Write a 1 paragraph explanation as to who you are voting for in November. You have to pick a candidate but it can be one of the known independents that are running as well. Describe why you are voting for this person and what you think about their policies.

I will include the best of these paragraphs in a new series of videos I am going to be doing for Youtube.


Now here's the catch...

There are 2 rules:

1. You can only talk about your candidate. Do not mention anyone else.
2. You can not be overtly offensive or hateful.


Lets try it out.
Anybody up to the challenge?

-Cy

This is a good article that goes into some depth about the reality of the situation. Please giuve it a read.

Thanks!
-Cy

By Moira Herbst 
Provided by

Breaking with an 18-year ban imposed by his father, President George W. Bush recently lifted an executive order prohibiting oil exploration in U.S. coastal waters. With that act, Bush said on July 15 at a Rose Garden news conference, "the only thing standing between the American people and these vast oil resources is action from the U.S. Congress."

Meanwhile, an organization led by former U.S. House Speaker Newt Gingrich, American Solutions, is promoting a "Drill Here. Drill Now. Pay Less." campaign, collecting more than 1 million signatures to petition Congress to "act immediately to lower gasoline prices" by allowing exploration off America's coasts.

Told in political sound bites, the message is simple: Many people believe the U.S. has walled off a vast gold mine of oil in coastal areas that could be tapped to lower prices.

"We have reserves that aren't being explored or developed, and this environment of high energy prices presents a great opportunity," says Charles Davidson, CEO of Houston-based Noble Energy, an oil and natural gas producer. He says it "would be a great win for the country" if Congress follows Bush's lead and lifts the ban.

The reality, as usual, is far more complicated. Drilling in the now-restricted areas would require years of extensive seismic research before a single rig could operate. Even then, companies would not embark on such massive projects unless the profitability were clear. What's more, the federal Energy Information Administration estimates that access to new U.S. deposits would not significantly affect overall domestic production for 22 years.

Still, the extreme crimp of high fuel prices has mobilized efforts to expand U.S. oil production. "If the ban is lifted, more studies can be done to find out where the best resources are," says Cathy Landry, a spokeswoman for the American Petroleum Institute. "Every day we wait is a day further from more oil production. We need to get started."

Enough to Make Us Energy-Independent?

How much oil and natural gas is there offshore? No one really knows.

According to estimates from the Interior Dept.'s Minerals Management Service (MMS), the U.S. has roughly 18 billion undiscovered and technically recoverable bbl. of oil and 76 trillion cubic feet of natural gas. Eric Potter, associate director of the Bureau of Economic Geology at the University of Texas at Austin, says that if these areas are opened up now, by 2025, 1 million additional bbl. per day could potentially be added to the market. Using International Energy Agency demand forecasts, by 2030 this production would equal less than 5% of U.S. daily consumption, and less than 1% of global daily consumption.

"It would certainly help," says Potter. "But it won't make us energy-independent."

Still, lifting the ban is politically popular among Americans desperate for action on soaring energy costs. Almost three-quarters of American adults "strongly" or "mildly" favored increased drilling for oil and natural gas in offshore water, according to a CNN/Opinion Research poll conducted on June 26-29, higher than in previous polling.

Potential Hot Spots

The oil-services industry is capitalizing on the political momentum, targeting several coveted areas where it wants the freedom to explore. One is the eastern Gulf of Mexico off the coast of Florida, where the MMS says about 3 billion bbl. of oil could be recovered. This area, which includes the natural gas-rich Destin Dome 30 miles from Pensacola, could prove most accessible because of existing equipment in other parts of the Gulf. In addition, there's the currently off-limits Atlantic coastline's estimated 3.8 billion recoverable bbl., and a potential 10 billion recoverable bbl. lie beneath currently off-limits Pacific waters.

The oil industry has been pressing lawmakers for access. The National Ocean Industries Assn. (NOIA), which represents 300 companies engaged in offshore oil and gas drilling, spent $200,000 in the first quarter, according to a disclosure form filed in the House. The group, whose members include drilling giants Diamond Offshore Drilling  and Halliburton, used the money to press for lifting the offshore oil ban and on a variety of other issues. NOIA also includes companies that would more immediately benefit from more access: seismic exploration companies including CGGVeritas, WesternGeco, a subsidiary of oil-services firm Schlumberger PGS Geophysical.

Other industry groups eagerly support such a switch. "At today's [oil] price levels, there is lots of interest in offshore areas," says William Whitsitt, president of the American Exploration & Production Council, a trade group for independent oil companies including Devon Energy, Noble Energy and Apache. The American Petroleum Institute (API) also supports lifting the ban.

No Guarantee to Drill

But while companies and their lobbyists are gunning for access, there's no guarantee they'd ultimately produce more fossil fuels. First, seismic exploration data have not been updated for more than a quarter century, and extensive testing would be required before companies made decisions on capital allocations. And any oil that is recovered would go into the global marketplace -- not directly into U.S. consumers' cars. (The API counters that new supplies anywhere would help to lower overall consumer prices.)

Democratic lawmakers are raising such arguments to oppose new production in coastal areas. They point to MMS data showing that 83% of the area now leased by energy companies in the Outer Continental Shelf is not producing energy. While there are 2,200 producing leases in that space, an additional 6,300 are nonproducing. Democrats have proposed the "Drill Act," which they say would spur exploration on already available lands in Alaska, the West, and the western Gulf of Mexico. "There may be good and sufficient reasons why the companies that lease this land are not producing oil from it, but I believe we need to ensure that there is diligent development of existing leases," Senator Jeff Bingaman (D-N.M.), chair of the Senate Energy & Natural Resources Committee, told the Senate on July 16.

Noble Energy's Davidson disputes the notion that companies are intentionally not drilling on leased areas, citing the complexities of obtaining the proper government permits and seismic research. Also, wells selected for drilling may come up dry because of faulty data. "Energy companies are trying to pursue every idea we can," says Davidson. "I find the idea that leases are lying fallow a real stretch."

Conservative Companies

Meanwhile, some prominent politicians are beginning to support the idea of coastal drilling -- or at least some aspects of it. Sen. Kent Conrad (D-N.D.), for instance, says he supports more oil drilling in the Gulf of Mexico but has not committed to domestic offshore drilling elsewhere. In June, Governor Charlie Crist (R-Fla.) reversed his long opposition to drilling off the state's coast, citing the financial pain high prices are inflicting.

With oil prices extremely volatile, companies are being conservative on their capital spending, fearful of an abrupt end to the bullish run. The uncertainty was highlighted the week of July 11-18, when crude oil futures tumbled more than 12%, to settle at $128.88 on July 18 from a July 11 record high above $147.

If the oil ever does flow from U.S. coastal areas, its ultimate destination offers another wrinkle to the issue. Crude oil sloshes around a vast global marketplace, where energy producers aim to secure the best price. That means U.S.-sourced crude could be sold anywhere a consumer is willing to pay more. Former Vice President Al Gore, who opposes lifting the moratorium, raised that point at a July 17 news conference on energy policy. "You take an oil deposit right off the coast of California -- that's more likely to be sold to China -- said Gore.

Moira Herbst is a reporter for BusinessWeek.com in New York.

http://www.wflxfox29.com/Global/Story.asp?S=871
4331

Oh boo hoo...

Dont worry, you will find something else to whine about.
Sorry. This time Obama is not evil... but go on... keep trying. You can do better.
I believe in you.
Yes you can!

-Cy

Obama: Slavery reparations not the answer Posted: 11:13 AM ET Sen. Barack Obama on the campaign trail.

SPRINGFIELD, Illinois (AP) — Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama opposes offering reparations to the descendants of slaves, putting him at odds with some black groups and leaders.

The man with a serious chance to become the nation's first black president argues that government should instead combat the legacy of slavery by improving schools, health care and the economy for
all.

"I have said in the past — and I'll repeat again — that the best reparations we can provide are good schools in the inner city and jobs for people who are unemployed," the Illinois Democrat said recently.

Some two dozen members of Congress are co-sponsors of legislation to create a commission that would study reparations — that is, payments and programs to make up for the damage done by
slavery.

The National Association for the Advancement of Colored People supports the legislation, too. Cities around the country, including Obama's home of Chicago, have endorsed the idea, and so has a major
union, the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees.

Obama has worked to be seen as someone who will bring people together, not divide them into various interest groups with checklists of demands. Supporting reparations could undermine that
image and make him appear to be pandering to black voters.

"Let's not be naive. Sen. Obama is running for president of the United States, and so he is in a constant battle to save his political life," said Kibibi Tyehimba, co-chair of the National Coalition of Blacks for Reparations in America. "In light of the demographics of this country, I don't think it's realistic to expect him to do anything other than what he's done."

I am very impressed by this.

Republicans and Democrats working together for a chage.
Very nice.

I will keep all of those involved in this lifted up in prayer.
Thank you.
-Cy

ST. PETERSBURG, Fla. - Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama said Friday he would be willing to support limited additional offshore oil drilling if that's what it takes to enact a comprehensive policy to foster fuel-efficient autos and develop alternate energy sources. 

Shifting from his previous opposition to expanded offshore drilling, the Illinois senator told a Florida newspaper he could get behind a compromise with Republicans and oil companies to prevent gridlock over energy.

Republican rival John McCain, who earlier dropped his opposition to offshore drilling, has been criticizing Obama on the stump and in broadcast ads for clinging to his opposition as gasoline prices topped $4 a gallon. Polls indicate these attacks have helped McCain gain ground on Obama.

"My interest is in making sure we've got the kind of comprehensive energy policy that can bring down gas prices," Obama said in an interview with The Palm Beach Post.

"If, in order to get that passed, we have to compromise in terms of a careful, well thought-out drilling strategy that was carefully circumscribed to avoid significant environmental damage — I don't want to be so rigid that we can't get something done."

Asked about Obama's comment, McCain said, "We need oil drilling and we need it now offshore. He has consistently opposed it. He has opposed nuclear power. He has opposed reprocessing. He has opposed storage." The GOP candidate said Obama doesn't have a plan equal to the nation's energy challenges.

In Congress, both parties have fought bitterly over energy policy for weeks, with Republicans pressing for more domestic oil drilling and Democrats railing about oil company profits. Despite hundreds of hours of House and Senate floor debate, lawmakers will leave Washington for their five-week summer hiatus this week with an empty tank.

"The Republicans and the oil companies have been really beating the drums on drilling," Obama said in the Post interview. "And so we don't want gridlock. We want to get something done."

Later, Obama issued a written statement warmly welcoming a proposal sent to Senate leaders Friday by 10 senators — five from each party. Their proposal seeks to break the impasse over offshore oil development and is expected to be examined more closely in September after Congress returns from its summer recess.

The so-called Gang of 10 plan would lift drilling bans in the eastern Gulf of Mexico within 50 miles of Florida's beaches and in the South Atlantic off Virginia, the Carolinas and Georgia, but only if a state agrees to the oil and gas development along its coast. The states would share in revenues from oil and gas development.

Drilling bans along the Pacific coast and the Northeast would remain in place under this compromise.

The plan also includes energy initiatives Obama has endorsed. "It would repeal tax breaks for oil companies so that we can invest billions in fuel-efficient cars, help our automakers re-tool, and make a genuine commitment to renewable sources of energy like wind power, solar power, and the next generation of clean, affordable biofuels," Obama noted.

"Like all compromises, it also includes steps that I haven't always supported," Obama conceded. "I remain skeptical that new offshore drilling will bring down gas prices in the short-term or significantly reduce our oil dependence in the long-term, though I do welcome the establishment of a process that will allow us to make future drilling decisions based on science and fact."

Nevertheless, Obama said the plan, put forward by mostly moderates and conservatives led by Sens. Kent Conrad, D-N.D., and Saxby Chambliss, R-Ga., "represents a good faith effort at a new bipartisan beginning."

Earlier in the day, Obama pushed for a windfall profits tax to fund $1,000 emergency rebate checks for consumers besieged by high energy costs, a counter to McCain's call for more offshore drilling.

The pitch for putting some of the economic burden of $4-a-gallon gasoline on the oil industry served a dual purpose for Obama: It allowed him to talk up an economic issue, seen by many as a strength for Democrats and a weakness for Republicans, and at the same time respond to criticism from McCain that Obama's opposition to offshore drilling leads to higher prices at the pump.

In linking McCain to the unpopular President Bush, Obama struck a theme from Ronald Reagan's successful 1980 campaign against President Jimmy Carter by asking a town-hall audience in St. Petersburg: "Do you think you are better off than you were four years ago or eight years ago? If you aren't better off, can you afford another four years?"

Obama primed the crowd by noting new government figures showing 51,000 jobs lost last month and citing 460,000 jobs lost over the last seven months. He tied other bad economic news from the Bush administration to McCain and offered his energy program as one route to relief.

"This rebate will be enough to offset the increased cost of gas for a working family over the next four months," Obama said during a two-day campaign swing in Florida. "It will be enough to cover the entire increase in your heating bills. Or you could use the rebate for any of your other bills, or even to pay down your own debt."

August 1, 2008McCain ad on Obama: 'They will call him The One' Posted: 04:03 PM ET
From CNN's Rebecca Sinderbrand and Tasha Diakides
A new McCain Web ad pegs Obama as ‘The One.’

(CNN) – After a week of bare-knuckle political brawling on the trail, it seemed Friday John McCain’s campaign had found religion.

In a Web ad e-mailed to supporters, the McCain team painted Barack Obama as a recipient of near-messianic hype – and a candidate all-too-willing to believe it.

“It shall be known that in 2008 the world will be blessed. They will call him ‘The One,’” says the announcer in the minute-long video, over images of light shining from the heavens and a gospel music-like soundtrack, interspersed with clips drawn from Obama speeches.

“And he has anointed himself. Ready to carry the burden of The One,” continues the announcer. “He can do no wrong. Can you see the light?”

By the end of the ad, Obama seems to have received a promotion from mere Messiah to possible divinity: Charlton Heston’s Moses is shown parting the Red Sea, proclaiming “Behold His mighty hand!” as Obama’s presidential seal rises from the waters.

“Barack Obama may be the one. But is he ready to lead?” concludes the announcer.

On a flight to Panama City Florida, McCain senior adviser Nicolle Wallace told reporters that the video had been designed as a bookend to what the campaign believed had been a very successful week.

In a CNN poll of polls Friday, the Arizona senator cut Obama’s Monday lead by half, to three points.

Wallace added that the ad – which she described as respectful of all faiths — was intended to rally the presumptive Republican nominee’s supporters, and that there was an "important role for humor in all campaigns. I think all of us would slit our wrists if it wasn't for that."

Filed under: John McCain

This should please the righties.


Wal-Mart mobilizes against Democrats: report

(Reuters) - Wal-Mart Stores Inc is mobilizing U.S. store managers to lobby against Democrats in November's presidential election, fearing they will make it easier for workers to unionize, The Wall Street Journal reported on Friday.

In recent weeks, thousands of Wal-Mart managers and department heads have been summoned to mandatory meetings at which the retailer stresses the downside for workers if store workers unionize, the paper said.

About a dozen employees who attended meetings in seven states said executives stressed employees would have to pay hefty union dues and get nothing in return, and might have to go on strike without compensation, and warned that unionization could force the company to cut jobs as labor costs rise, the Journal reported.

The Wal-Mart human-resources managers who have run the meetings didn't tell those attending how to vote in the November elections, but made it clear that voting for the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee, Sen. Barack Obama, would be tantamount to inviting unions in, the Journals said.

Wal-Mart could not be reached immediately for a comment.

(Reporting by Purwa Naveen Raman in Bangalore; editing by Jeffrey Benkoe)

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080801/us_nm/walmart_democ
rats_dc

''It will not be negative on my part under any circumstances. If I could think of a way constitutionally, I would ban negative ads.''
- John McCain




Obama says McCain ads show he has no new ideas

(CNN) — Barack Obama is charging that rival John McCain doesn't have any new ideas and that's why the Arizona senator's campaign is focusing its energy on anti-Obama ads.

"You haven't heard a positive thing out of that campaign in a month. All they do is try to run me down," Obama said while campaigning Wednesday in Union, Missouri.

The accusation came the same day that the Obama campaign released an ad comparing McCain to President Bush, and the McCain campaign released one likening Obama to Britney Spears and Paris Hilton.

"Since they don't have any new ideas, the only strategy they've got in this election is to try to scare you about me," Obama said.

Obama said McCain and Republicans are trying to paint him as a candidate who is "too risky."

"Basically what they're saying to you is, 'We know we didn't do a good job, but he's too risky.' Well let me tell you something. When we are in such dire straits economically, when our foreign policy has gotten so messed up, what's the bigger risk: choosing change, or choosing to do the same things that got us into this mess in the first place?"

-----------------------


McCain's Political Ads Go Negative

By Liz Halloran Wed Jul 30, 3:23 PM ET

Sen. John McCain's presidential campaign is going negative in its advertising against the expected Democratic nominee, Sen. Barack Obama.

The Wisconsin Advertising Project, a nonpartisan group that monitors and analyzes political advertising, finds that ads aired by McCain and the Republican National Committee are "more negative" than those aired by Obama. Ninety percent of Obama's ads are positive and don't mention McCain. One third of McCain's campaign ads are negative, researchers found.

And all of the RNC's ads compare the two candidates, referring to Obama negatively, the research group says.

The advertising reflects what many political experts say is the character of the campaign so far: that the election is shaping up, essentially, as a referendum on Obama's fitness to become president and commander in chief. "This campaign is about Barack Obama, not John McCain," says Ken Goldstein, the project's director.

Earlier in his campaign, McCain asserted that he would avoid negative advertising. Most recently, he has impugned Obama's patriotism over Iraq and over a stirred-up controversy about skipping a visit with wounded soldiers in Germany.

The majority of political discussion on these blogs revolves around the Presidential election. This time around, a lot of interest has been generated and there are considerably more of us talking about the candidates.

This should be a good thing... however...

There does seem to be a negative focus to most of the blog entries regarding the election. This is to be expected. It is politics after all... but driving up the opposing candidate's negatives does not get votes FOR the other candidate.

What do I mean by this?

Lets imagine our candidates are Bob and Bill.

Well if I tell you not to vote for Bob because he is bad and nasty and evil then how is this going to translate to a positive for Bill?

You would have to believe that Bill is not all of those things you accuse Bob of being.
Naturally, a lack of these negatives would be perceived as desirable however the lack of these negatives does not necessarily indicate that Bill has any positives.

Part 1 of your strategy has been to discuss the negatives of Bob but you must also discuss the positives of Bill.

In fact, it would probably be a good idea to discuss more of Bill's positives than Bob's negatives lest you appear to be covering up for a lack of positives in Bill and instead opting to exaggerate Bob's negatives.

If the group of people discussing Bob's negatives outweighs the group discussing Bill's positives then this could result in a backlash from the group still trying decide between the two.

This can be amplified if the group discussing Bob's positives greatly outnumbers the group discussing Bill's negatives.

Balance is key if the pro Bill group is interested in promoting their views.

Now there is another factor that could prove problematic...
If the pro Bill group has difficulty discerning or articulating positives for Bill then this may come across as an unintended anti Bill factor.

Please be mindful of how you choose to promote your ideas and attempt to diminish those of opposing bloggers. None of us want to do more harm than good in an attempt to promote a candidate.

Thanks
-Cy

Maybe I am mistaken... can somebody tell me what this means?
I'm open to other interpretations.
...sounds like he is changing his mind.

What do you think?
-Cy


McCain backs off his no-new-tax pledge

By CHARLES BABINGTON, Associated Press Writer 2 hours, 51 minutes ago

WASHINGTON - Republican presidential candidate John McCain's signal that he may be open to a higher payroll tax for Social Security, despite previous vows not to raise taxes of any kind, is drawing sharp rebukes from conservatives.

ADVERTISEMENT
if(window.yzq_d==null)window.yzq_d=new Object(); window.yzq_d['zNuMEUWTSQE-']='&U=13f5rkav1%2fN%3dzNuMEU
WTSQE-%2fC%3d674272.12804985.13083877.1442997%2fD%3dLRE
C%2fB%3d5406809%2fV%3d1';

McCain's shift has come in stages, catching some Republicans by surprise. Speaking with reporters on his campaign bus on July 9, he cited a need to shore up Social Security. "I cannot tell you what I would do, except to put everything on the table," he said.

He went a step farther Sunday on ABC's "This Week," in response to a question about payroll tax increases.

"There is nothing that's off the table. I have my positions, and I'll articulate them. But nothing's off the table," McCain said. "I don't want tax increases. But that doesn't mean that anything is off the table."

That comment drew a strong response this week from the Club for Growth, a Washington anti-tax group. McCain's comments, the group said in a letter to the Arizona senator, are "shocking because you have been adamant in your opposition to raising taxes under any circumstances."

Indeed, McCain frequently has promised not to raise taxes.

At a July 7 town-hall meeting in Denver, he said voters faced a stark choice between him and Democrat Barack Obama.

"Sen. Obama will raise your taxes," McCain said. "I won't."

In a March 16 interview with Fox News' Sean Hannity, McCain said he would cut taxes where possible, and not raise them.

"Do you mean none?" Hannity asked.

"None," McCain replied.

Both candidates have said Social Security's funding formula needs to be changed to ensure the program's long-term viability. Obama has called for imposing a new payroll tax on incomes above $250,000. Currently, only incomes up to $102,000 are subject to the 12.4 percent payroll tax, which employers and employees split evenly.

When Obama announced his plan June 13, McCain's top economic adviser, Douglas Holtz-Eakin, told reporters that as president McCain would not consider a payroll tax increase "under any imagineable circumstance."

McCain has made no specific proposals for Social Security, refusing to rule in or out anything to strengthen the benefit program for retirees and the disabled. Both candidates have said that, if elected, they would try to work out details with Republican and Democratic lawmakers.

Asked for an explanation of McCain's latest comments, campaign spokesman Tucker Bounds said the Arizona senator "has a clear and demonstrated record of opposing tax increases. John McCain is going to cut taxes" and improve government discipline, he said.

Promises never to raise taxes have bedeviled past Republican officeholders. Before being elected president in 1988, George H.W. Bush said, "Read my lips, no new taxes." But facing severe budget problems, he reneged on the promise. Some conservative groups never forgave him.

___