Wow. Another opportunity for the White House and its Fox News apologists to take a hit at the "liberal media." After Scott McClellans cries of "media credibility" (yeah, this from the same shill who gave access to and frequently called on the planted Jeff Gannon at White House press conferences...), we have here a repeat of Rather-gate. Heads must now roll, even though the event in question is entirely plausible and well within the degratory practices which have been documented at Guantanamo. Never mind of any event that might have occured - blame the reporting of such an event, demand the rolling of some heads, and brow-beat the media into towing the Bush line(and just where was W during those unaccounted periods at the Tx. Guard? Not as important as getting Dan Rather off the air, I guess). To cavalierly claim that Newsweek is responsible for a dozen lives clearly ignores the fact that this administration is responsible for over 1,600 wasted so far in a chase for non-existent WMDs. Oh, wait, it was to remove a tyrant. No, hold on, it was to bring democracy to the Middle East...Well, it sure wasn't for that oil that some Texas company was paying kickbacks to Saddam a few years ago.
actually as far as general energy sources they have foud that methane gas(gas coming of the rotting garbage in out dumps) is safer and cheaper to harvest...however what most people are not aware of is that E85 fuels are more readily available in about any kind of car and it is 50 cent per gallon cheaper and it is produced for the most part in the states..giving rise to corn and soy bean prices....the other option is hybrid vehicles...if more people would take an interest in the engines they buy in their cars then the motor companies would realize they have to convert and damn the oil intersts in order to sell cars/.....the free market would rule the decision.
I agree with your point and that is why I was using sarcasim. I truly believe if we had pursued alt fuels in the late 70s and early 80s instead of bowing to special interests, then not only would our environment be better off but so would our dependency on crude and foreign governments. There, that is my soap box speach for the day.
Unfortunately, there are those who seem to think that energy independence, even considering our current consumption, is painless.
The cheap ride is over, and we had best get used to it.
Sir, what you have untapped in these two states is low-output stuff. There is a raft of stripper wells out there, but they cannot produce enough to matter much.
The easy oil, the big oil, in this country is gone. Even the hotly debated stuff in Alaska will not contribute significantly over the long run. It will also be expensive to tap.
Meanwhile, Bush and the boys back down from increased vehicle mileage standards. He'd rather subsidize the ethanol industry (Archer Daniels Midland, perhaps one of the biggest hogs at the government trough comes to mind) even though the energy required to produce and distribute ethanol exceeds its energy contribution. And hydrogen...?
God forbid we should be learning to use less of this stuff.
By the way, who all attended brother Cheney's energy policy conference and what did they say? Inquiring minds and all that...
What kennedy did is not a lot different than what Bush is doing now. Kennedy attempted to get a foot hold in asia with a base plant and it back fired just like Soviets attempted to do with cuba
McCain is a good man, but his only hope lies in his prostituting himself to the nutzoid reactionary/religious components of his party. They are driving the bus.
In 2000 or 2004 I would have voted for McCain in a heartbeat.
Hillary will not run seriously; she is not electable, and she knows it. She may pretend to run in order to manifest some effect on the ultimate condidate's policy outlook.