‘Our allies the Saudis’ could really use some belt-tightening as a result of reduced global demand. Chavez is another good example. Maybe that’s why the Democrats oppose reducing the price of oil, it would hurt the dictator they love the most.

Beagle on August 17, 2008 at 11:26 AM

I’d like nothing more than for us to turn the environmentalist spin on lil’ Hugo: Venezuela’s oil is really, really crappy, by world standards, from what I gather – very heavy with sulfur and other stuff that requires special, more expensive processes to refine. For all of Chavez’s bluster, the main place where Venezuelan oil is refined is in the USA.

So if we want to truly break Hugo’s dreams of being Castro’s successor as strongman to Latin America, as more American crude oil sources come on line (that is, lighter, less sulfurous crude), we begin imposing heavier costs to deal with removing the sulfur from Hugo’s crude. After all, Nancy wants to “save the planet”, and that sulfur has to go somewhere. Better it be somewhere else, other than America. Stick that up yer pipe, Hugo baby, while you bash America yet again!

As for our resident troll alphie, you guys are just feeding him. There will be no argument anyone here can possibly make that would change his mind, so it’s not worth your effort, IMHO.

And as for this question:

I still can’t quite grasp why the dems seem so opposed to domestic energy production. Could one of you guys help me out?

funky chicken on August 17, 2008 at 12:01 PM

Answer: follow the money and leverage. There are three forces at play, all which combine to form SanFranNan’s anti-American oil policy:

1. Special interests: from “Big Ag” (mainly ADM and ConAgra) down to small producers, farmers have realized that being paid corporate welfare tax incentives to grow non-food corn and other fuel crops earn them much more money than food crops, given Congress’ desire to pander to powerful constituent bases at the expense of American security (which, come to think of it, is similar to the reason why so many politicians refuse to enforce existing laws on illegal immigration, but that’s another story). This issue is why price supports for crops never seem to go away in spite of ever more efficient production methods. It’s also an issue governments around the planet face, not just the US – e.g., try to import rice without duties into Japan; it just won’t happen.

2. Special interests: the so-called environmental movement. Having learned that “alternative” fuels are so bloody expensive, the environmental lobby supports ever-increasing fossil fuel prices so that at some point, their alternatives begin to make sense. The problem with this point is that because there is still so much supply of fossil fuels to be had (the “Peak Oil! Peak Oil! The world is ending!” group notwithstanding), natural market forces won’t justify pricing anywhere close to a break-even point for alternatives for many years yet. The simple fact is, outside of nuclear power, crude oil, coal, and natural gas are the most efficient energy sources for most needs, in terms of extractable calorific content. Of course, there are many other reasons why the environmental lobby are in lust with alternative power schemes, but again, like agriculture, it comes down to their addiction to corporate welfare tax incentives provided by the biggest Sugar Daddy of all, the US Government.

But by themselves, these two special interests would not stand for long, except for the third item, which acts as a catalyst for the first two:

3. The Left’s continued need for, and dependence upon, a state of fear and misery as the justification for its support of increasing Government intervention in the markets and personal freedoms. Without the power that comes from control of the government purse, the Left’s policies and philosophies would simply vanish like a fart in the wind. With the exception of providing for a standing army in wartime and managing the maintenance of and enforcement of laws, there is normally not much for a government to do, to justify its existence. As people began to realize this fact over history, they rejected, and even overthrew, their oppressively heavy-handed governments, wanting instead to be able to live their lives in peace and earn a living without paying taxes for services in which they saw no immediate benefit. Perhaps the most poignant example of this realization was Bastille Day in France; the Boston Tea Party follows right behind that.

So the Left must “sell” Government as the source of all solutions, big and small, in order to justify its existence. To this end, it will latch onto any state of fear it can find, or else create, to motivate the populace into freeing up the purse strings of money and power. It will make Devil’s bargains with dictators and throttle progress in its homelands in order to justify its need to derive power by controlling tax policy.

SanFranNan and the Obamessiah tacitly admit that the only thing wrong with $4.00/gallon gas prices is that the price rise happened too fast, causing people to take notice of it. They could literally care less that the bulk of increased costs for crude oil go to countries and stateless groups that use those funds to harm US interests and threaten the safety and security of US citizens. Indeed, the Left will eventually use these security threats to justify ever increasing efforts to “help” its citizens on the basis that there are nasty threats abroad, and that if they only could increase Government’s ability to “do something about it”, things would be better.

The prospect of American energy independence scares the crap out of Democrats because if it ever happens, employment will rise, poverty will fall, and people will become too busy earning their own wealth to care what Government will claim it can do for them.

/rant OFF

Wanderlust on August 17, 2008 at 8:14 PM