What’s the bill for these 176 passed measures, since Bush seldom vetoes anything? After all, who pays for all of these “measures”? The government doesn’t simply print new money — it comes out of our pockets!

Folks, if our Congress actually comported itself within the bounds of the Constitution, it would only be in session for about four weeks out of every year. However, since at least two of the branches of government decided that nothing is outside the Congress’s realm, it stands to reason that their power requires them to meet all year.

To paraphrase Alexis de Tocqueville: The American Republic will endure only until our representatives realize they can bribe us with our own money. Interesting how long they’ve been doing just that, with none of us the wiser.

Just because I question the timing of peak oil doesn’t mean I’m against conservation. You make several good points regarding the difficulty of getting at most of the remaining oil.

I’m all for alternative fuel sources, higher mpg requirements, etc. I’m just having a problem with the BS that is happening in the name of “tight supplies” when our immediate problem is lack of refining capacity, not oil availability.

Nonetheless, I’ve enjoyed the discussion. Hope we can continue it another time. And, if you have a moment, please read the link I placed @252 and share your thoughts.

SEIZE THE CACHE!

blair is britains gonzales
doan is gsa’s gonzales
tenet is cia’s gonzales
sherry williams is halliburton’s gonzales

gonzalez is the 43’s gonzales

43 is OUR gonzales!

uh oh.

Hugh @ 187

Rayne, I think we are at near peak oil. My own guess is around 2012 although we may not know until a year or two after it happens. Given that we are so near the peak, the price of oil is actually extremely undervalued. If you have a highly prized commodity and the supply is about to decline, the price should skyrocket. This hasn’t happened yet but probably will. The price manipulation we are seeing now is not in that category. This is the kind of thievery you would expect from oil executives padding their bottomline and retirement packages. It’s massive but will be dwarfed by the squeeze between peaked oil and the push for continued global economic growth.

I’m no expert, but a case can be made that there is plenty of oil available.

This is not to say we shouldn’t do all we can to conserve energy; of course we should! It is to say that yelling “peak oil” is probably a way to keep pushing prices higher.

People who don’t believe in peak oil are often called cornucopians and there are plenty of them out there. The problem is that they have to go further and further afield to come up with new oil: deeper offshore drilling, drilling in more marginal areas, reworking old fields with new methods, oil sands, oil shale, oil from coal and so called renewables like ethanol. Most of these take significant inputs of money, energy, and water, and destroy the environment. Even so they still don’t come up to what we are currently getting from oil. So at some point in the not too distant future easy oil will peak and the harder to get oil will not make up the difference. That is when things are going to hit the fan. We should be taking steps now to address this, and, of course, none of this gets to the relationship between fossil fuels and global climate change.

This is not to say we shouldn’t do all we can to conserve energy; of course we should! It is to say that yelling “peak oil” is probably a way to keep pushing prices higher.

And I have a completely different reaction when thinking about “peak oil”; I believe that our biggest problems with oil are the kinds of damage that a petroleum-based economy produces, and the national security issues that come of petroleum consumption. Peak oil as a concept provides impetus to stop using the stuff. I’d rather the price did increase to encourage us to stop using it, which in turn causes price collapse.

Dreamcatcher at #228, I find myself wondering what the DC Madam was hoping to accomplish by releasing this info?

If most of her clients are/were Republicans it will certainly do little for their reputations. In light of their impeachment of Clinton, it could be pretty amusing.

Could it be that she thought this would force those with the power to do so to quash the prosecution?

She kinda missed the market on this one–in Spring 2006 the Bush administration was quashing prosecutions right and left. Now, not so much.

rwcole @ 220

“One eyed anti-christ”

Here we go- the war of scriptures is about ta commence– OK Clusterfuck- YOUR turn!!

W: “I know you are, but what am I?”

W: “I’m rubber. You’re glue….”

Brisingamen @ 241

Dreamcatcher at #228, I find myself wondering what the DC Madam was hoping to accomplish by releasing this info?

If most of her clients are/were Republicans it will certainly do little for their reputations. In light of their impeachment of Clinton, it could be pretty amusing.

Could it be that she thought this would force those with the power to do so to quash the prosecution?

yes

And shake loose some donations. The IRS has seized all her assets.

I think “look with one eye and refuse to look with the other” is an oblique reference to hypocrisy, like our own “white man speaks with forked-tongue.”

And the evil eye, a big deal in the ME. My (Christian) Palestinian corner store guys have a nazar anti-evil-eye amulet in their window (inconspicuously, and they seemed embarassed when I asked about it).