The State of our Union

Post-9/11 Era Forum

Headlines today, in brief:

Senate votes in Favor of allowing oil drilling in Alaska Wildlife Refuge.

Way to go, guys. Drilling for minimal amounts of oil in a national wildlife refuge which is home, in part, to endangered caribu, wolves, foxes, birds, plants, etc, etc. Not to mention the precedent now set which says: it doesnt matter what's over the ground, if there's oil underneath it. Very responsible. My kids will thank you, I'm sure.

House Ok's 81.4 BILLION DOLLAR war spending plan.

again, thats 81.4 BILLION DOLLARS. meanwhile, social security is in trouble, the poor cant afford health care, and our public education system is on the rocks. Again, its easy to see that we have our priorities straight. And, just so you truly understand how that money, which is the SECOND round of spending for this pointless war on foriegn soil is being spent, here's the next headline:

108 held by US have dies in Afghanistan/ Iraq.

Allen Dulles once said, upon the printing of the government issued report on John F. Kennedy's assasination: "The American people do not read." I'm beginning to belive him. Is anyone awake out there? 108 prisoners, helpless under our protection, subject to international protection laws, have died as our prisoners? Does anyone else read thier news? and there scary part is, this is the filtered news!!!!! Of course, we can at least count on the 'coalition of the brave' set up by Dubya, right? um....

Bush says coalition in Iraq not crumbling

Why does he say that? because every other country in this 'coalition' is pulling troops out, Itay is almost out alltogether, and several other countries, including spain, Hungary, Norway, Poland, Netherlands, Ukraine, Portugal, New Zealand, Thailand, Phillipines, and Nicaragua have withdrawn either all or most of thier troops. Not that any other country had a lot of troops to begin with: the largest contributer? Britain, with....8,000 troops. the next largest: south Korea, with 3500. Lets just say, there hasnt been a huge outpouring of support here.



I hate to beat a dead horse, but again, this is our FILTERED news. (see my post in '..man behind the curtain...' thread). Quickly, this is news that passes through five major corporations, which have ties, not incidentally, into major energy companies, entertainment industries, car industries, service providers. Basically, these are huge conglomerates. Very huge. And 95% of all news consumed by the American public goes through these channels. Tha means, if one of these conglomerates decides that a news story is detrimental to business...it wont run on any of the networks. That's why you see the same stories on all the major network channels, and in all the major newspapers. Check it out for yourself.

no one has any response to this?

Wolf_eyes: Senate votes in Favor of allowing oil drilling in Alaska Wildlife Refuge.

Way to go, guys. Drilling for minimal amounts of oil in a national wildlife refuge which is home, in part, to endangered caribu, wolves, foxes, birds, plants, etc, etc. Not to mention the precedent now set which says: it doesnt matter what's over the ground, if there's oil underneath it. Very responsible. My kids will thank you, I'm sure.

The only surprised thing about this is that Bush has waited so long to start drilling in Alaska.

House Ok's 81.4 BILLION DOLLAR war spending plan.

again, thats 81.4 BILLION DOLLARS. meanwhile, social security is in trouble, the poor cant afford health care, and our public education system is on the rocks. Again, its easy to see that we have our priorities straight. And, just so you truly understand how that money, which is the SECOND round of spending for this pointless war on foriegn soil is being spent, here's the next headline:

Bush is spending a staggering amount even for a country the size of the US. He says he wants to run America like a business. Well has anyone taken a look at the businesses he ran in his previous incarnatio before he became president?

The lions share of this money is spent on security, which says a lot about how the re-construction in Iraq is going. There's an enormous army of private security personel, a mercenary force being paid far more than the troops, which understandably isn't going down well with some.

108 held by US have dies in Afghanistan/ Iraq.

Allen Dulles once said, upon the printing of the government issued report on John F. Kennedy's assasination: "The American people do not read." I'm beginning to belive him. Is anyone awake out there? 108 prisoners, helpless under our protection, subject to international protection laws, have died as our prisoners? Does anyone else read thier news? and there scary part is, this is the filtered news!!!!! Of course, we can at least count on the 'coalition of the brave' set up by Dubya, right? um....

It's remarkable how tolerant Americans have become to such facts. Abu Grahb caused some controversy but the soldiers at the bottom were allowed to take the rap, scandalous in itself.

Since then we've heard that the US is sending prisoners to Syria (?) Egypt, and Suadi Arabia so they can be tortured without us getting our hands dirty. Britain has all but admitted it will now use information gathered under torture.

Bush says coalition in Iraq not crumbling

Why does he say that? because every other country in this 'coalition' is pulling troops out, Itay is almost out alltogether, and several other countries, including spain, Hungary, Norway, Poland, Netherlands, Ukraine, Portugal, New Zealand, Thailand, Phillipines, and Nicaragua have withdrawn either all or most of thier troops. Not that any other country had a lot of troops to begin with: the largest contributer? Britain, with....8,000 troops. the next largest: south Korea, with 3500. Lets just say, there hasnt been a huge outpouring of support here.

Is Iraq such a big story in the US? It gets scant coverage in Britain now. Don't many people presume that Iraq is now on a inevitable course leading to something better? Lack of coverage may well be allowing these countries to get out, rather than anything to do with the actual situation in Iraq.

I hate to beat a dead horse, but again, this is our FILTERED news. (see my post in '..man behind the curtain...' thread). Quickly, this is news that passes through five major corporations, which have ties, not incidentally, into major energy companies, entertainment industries, car industries, service providers. Basically, these are huge conglomerates. Very huge. And 95% of all news consumed by the American public goes through these channels. Tha means, if one of these conglomerates decides that a news story is detrimental to business...it wont run on any of the networks. That's why you see the same stories on all the major network channels, and in all the major newspapers. Check it out for yourself. [/QUOTE]

Do the majority of people watch news? And isn't taking an interest in foreign affairs a minority pursuit? It would be interesting to know the stats for audience watching factual television shows. Thankfully the net is not completely controlled by the big media giants although there is a constant drip drip giving the impression that the net is so dangerous it must be brought to heal.

For a White House that has been highlighted for their backgrounds in business, they seem to be doing a poor job of keeping us in the black. But what can you expect when you cut your revenue and increase spending at the same time.

The legacy of this president will be that he created runaway deficits. The funny thing is he says that he doesn't want to leave any problems for our kids, or in this case, leave problems for people like me in the future. Thanks George.

I have been astonished to hear that Alaska national wildlife refuge was going to be drilled. I mean - as H@ts said, what is really surprising is that Bush has not already decided it, but nevertheless ... it is a real shame.
This goes far beyond a matter of a national legitimate decision regarding the use of domestic territory. What we are talking about is the world we are going to leave it to our children. Bush's decision, endorsed by the american Congress, is one of the most shameful political decision made these latest years.
I hope lots of people will protest against this criminal decision.

Get out! Criminal? For who?
What's criminal is being held hostage by middle-east oil.
Humans have interfered with the environment and endagered species since the world began. Every time a city grows, it happens. If we continue to popolate the earth, where would you think we should go? What has happened to the French and English country side. No damage, no environmental impact?

Well at least they stopped the Fox hunting.

You know, for once I agree with at least a part of your post. Yes, there has been damages and environmental impacts in our "old Europe" countries, for that's where the industrial revolution has started with its cohort of side-effects on the environment. Worst, not so far ago, Chirac had the audacity to launch a nuclear testings campaign in Polynesia, ashaming lots of people like me.
But ... precisely because we know first hand the consequences of our wrongdoings ... doesn't mean that we don't learn from them and that other countries should do the same.
Alaska as a wildlife refuge is a natural asset belonging to your grandchildren, not you. Moreover, its value for tourism is such that it should be preserved so that future generations enjoy it, while making money of its beauty by welcoming tourists. What will you do of a degraded environment, without resources when they will have disappeared, in a few decades ?
There are plenty of resources already in Canadia or in Russia to stop being dependent of the ME - I work in that field, USA1, I know it. What's more, the priority is to be independent from fossile fuel to build a sustainable economy - here again in the interest of your grandchildren.
Even oil companies are skeptic at the perspective to dril over there.

Further, the potential amount of oil in the ANWR is trivial compared the consumption of the United States on a daily basis. Not to mention the fac t that the very small amount of oil actually there will not even be avalibe for our consumption for another 7-12 years. Quite simply, its another short-term desicion which will, without a doubt, suffer our children long term consequences.
If you would like to debate the history of mankind and thier impact on the environment, I feel that you most likely have eaten a poisonous toad and begun halucinating. Man has done little but crap on mother nature since his inception, and we are only now beginning to see the relative consequences. Do you for one instant believe that drilling for oil in a national wildlife refuge will not affect the flora and fauna which are native to the area? Or do you simply think that it is worth it in order to save 5 cents a gallon on gas ten years from now? I'm confused, republicans, at what point does our future become cost-effective?

I wish I had more time to reply, but deadlines are approaching. Let me quick reply, and get back a more detailed response later in the week.

I work for nine newspapers. I get my news from AP press releases. Granted, they are not always the most reliable source, especially since I get them early in the morning and they sometimes change throughout the day. Nevertheless, my post clearly states, at the end, that this is filtered news. which means, among other things, that it is clearly, by my own words, les than reliable.

So, citing sources...(a paraphrase from an AP press release)

'...experts estimate that there is as MUCH AS 10 billion barrels of oil....or as LITTLE AS 3 billion...'

That high end estimate comes from 'drilling proponents', the people who most want to see drilling in ANWR. This article, by the way, was pubilshed on CNN.

Here's a more direct quote, from a similar article, again, CNN:
"The 19-million-acre refuge was set aside for protection by President Eisenhower in 1960, but Congress in 1980 said its 1.5 million acre coastal plain could be opened to oil development if Congress specifically authorizes it."

same article: "Bush has called tapping the reserve's oil a critical part of the nation's energy security and a way to reduce America's reliance on imported oil, which account for more than half of the 20 million barrels of crude use daily. The Alaska refuge could supply as much as 1 million barrels day at peak production, drilling supporters said.

"We won't see this oil for 10 years. It will have minimal impact," argued Sen. Maria Cantwell, D-Washington, a co-sponsor of the amendment that would have stripped the arctic refuge provision from the budget document. It is "foolish to say oil development and a wildlife refuge can coexist," she said. "

ok, so, lets do some math. BUSH friends (those in favor of drilling, keep in mind) estimate that ANWR COULD produce UP TO 1 million barrels a day at peak. It will take years to reach PEAK performance. 1 million barrels is 1/20th of our CURRENT consumption, by conservative estimates. So, at PEAK performance, by estimates of those who most want to see this drilling take place, ANWR COULD produce 1/20th of our CURRENT daily needs (daily needs are rising, ironically, daily).

I dont have time to go into the endangered species act right now, but you are right that I misspoke on the Caribou, they are only protected, not endangerd. SEveral of the other species I mentioned, however, are, in fact, endagered.

where do you get your news?


PS

Thank you for responding to the issues at hand. However, I would appriciate it if you refrain from calling me a 'drama queen'. It is unbecoming of an online debate forum, and further, makes me question your authenticity as someone who wishes to debate/discuss, and not just hurl insults. Not to mention it makes you seem less intelligent than your other posts seem to indicate. Thanks.

Wolf

quickly again. A CBS special report:
"_At least 108 people have died in American custody in Iraq and Afghanistan, most of them violently, according to government data provided to The Associated Press. Roughly a quarter of those deaths have been investigated as possible abuse by U.S. personnel. "

dont take my word for it, check it out yourself.
further, I dont believe in 'pretty low for a war'. If people die, in our custody, voilently, we are responsible, bottom line. It is unacceptable.

no time now, more later.

Gdog

The kind of pollution of coasts and seas by hydrocarbons, immediatly following the wreckage of a tanker, is the most visible of them all because it affects large surfaces and great numbers of living species simultaneously.
However, without downplaying the significance of this kind of events, hydrocarbons are easily digested by micro-organisms. In the long run, environment get rid of this pollution.
But when an ecosystem is permanently disturbed by polluting man activities this is another concern. Hence the major pollution by hydrocarbons does not come from accidental tanker wreckages, but from degassing and industrial activities, including and in the first place oil drilling.
I wish I can find an independant and objective scientific study on these concerns. I will post it.
Now, the rest of the controversy concerns the side-effects of fossile oil burning on the atmosphere. What is proven is that it has consequences on the global climate, and pursuing a policy consisting in consuming an ever increasing quantity of oil is not reasonable nor sustainable.
Instead of drilling .... did the government ever bothered to study the possibilities to set up power plants exploiting the sea waves energy offshore Alaska ? Or windmills ?
It is important to see the whole picture in order to make an opinion.

"I thought I explained my answer and the motivation behind it quite clearly. But if you feel further dissection would help to justify my comments, then so be it.

First off, I've always subscribed to the notion that answering any single post on an internet forum was purely a voluntary decision. I've been an infrequent poster for awhile here, and while I've never chosen to use the ignore function, I have judged many posters to be useless to engage in discussion. If I see a poster flagrantly ignoring fact and logic to spew his or her vitriol neatly packaged for consumption by others of similar leanings, I, at times, feel an obligation to interject some reality into that thread."


Again, this second paragraph, with language including 'flagrantly ignoring fact' and 'spew his or her vitriol (which, for those less verbose, means in this context, I suppose, 'anything sharp or caustic')', smacks of baiting to me. Im not interested. I find it intriguing though, that you adress the 'mood' of my posts, instead of the facts and arguments presented.



"If you felt threatened by the tone and thrust of my arguments, or felt I was flaming or baiting you unnecessarily, then I must suggest you ignore my opinions and lump me in with Curley Joe or any other poster whose writing style offends you or is too agressive to deal with."


Suggestion noted.



"I apologized because it was never my intent for you to get your feelings hurt by my observations. As I previously stated, I post on forums in the same style I would engage you in person. Maybe in person, you would simply call me a jerk and walk off, maybe assault me, who knows. But I have a terrible habit of calling a spade a spade (spade being a small shovel, not a racial slur, just to be clear). "Drama Queen", you seemed to have found the dictionary description of the words, which really seem to fall short of the intended meaning. I'll clarify:

In my opinion only, "drama queen" is defined as someone who overdramatizes the situation to lend it more creedance than it maybe deserves. The "queen" aspect is historical and not in reference to gender in an insultive manner. (Ever heard of "drama king"?). Re-read your initial post. You demoan your childrens future with no Alaskan wildlife at the hands of the clueless oil junkies(not verbatim of course, but its certainly the gist of your statement). My assessment is......drama queen. Spinning overly dramatic scenarios based on partial truths, and in the case of the Caribou, pure adulterated fabrication. Holding out the number 108 for prisoner deaths like it was a one day slaughter of innocents, rather than the relative infantisimal number it is compared to ANY previous conflict of this size."


There's a lot there that you seem to be struggling with. Firstly, I disagree that I overdramatized. I consider it of the utmost importance that we are going to ruin a national wildlife refuge for the consumption of limited amounts of a highly polluting, unrenewable resource. In fact, I consider it so important, on a social, political, and natural level, that I think I should have been more dramatic. Obviously you disagree. In that case, I have some questions for you. What, in your opinion, is more pressing than the state of the earth's environment (including but not limited to: global warming, sea, air pollution, overpopulation, consumer waste, ozone damage, etc)? At what point does our environmental future become cost effective, as opposed to the possibility of saving a few cents on gas in ten years? Why do we consider it acceptable to set a precedent of drilling for oil in a national wildlife refuge? How will this solve our long-term problems with dependence on oil? Call me a drama queen if it makes you feel better about yourself or your position, but please, adress the issues if you are going to start a discourse. As far as the 108 deaths being out of context...I'll do some digging. You are correct in implying that I am not an expert on the subject, but I will do my best to find out what I can and report back.



"Where will you acknowledge there has been no significant ecological disaster in Alaskan oil drilling, notwithstanding Exxon Valdez, which was single human error?"

OK, I hereby acknowledge: there has been no single overwhelming ecological disaster in the Alaskan oil buisness, besides Exxon Valdez. Where will you acknowledge that it only takes a single human error to destroy an entire eco-system? And, if that is not enough, read JY's post, see how daily, non-disastrous oil work damages life.

"Where do you acknowledge that military and civilian deaths are mere blips compared to the pre war estimates I've seen you use in past posts."

I am not refuting your claims, but....which past posts?

"In closing, I bear you no ill will. I represent pretty much the opposite side of the street on most issues you seem to hold dear. I dont sugarcoat, downplay, or dilute the substance of my stand to engage you in a politically correct and safe verbal environment. Perhaps my posting style is too honest and straightforward to the point of seeming hostile. Not my intention. But portrying my straightforward style as evidence of lack of intelligence is no less insulting than what you are claiming.
As far as you being insecure about your position, I can only interpret your response. If you feel the need to highlight only the points which bolster your argument while ignoring the context of how that point relates to the situation as a whole, then maybe that could be seen as an insecurity.

But you said it, I never did.

respectively.......g"


Again, react and speak how you want. I was simply trying to present you with an alternative...a way that people like myself, 'on the other side of the street', might listen to what you have to say, instead of dismissing it. I would rather look at you as a fellow human being than a conservative or republican. I have to believe that though I disagree with you, however strongly I think you are in err, that essentially you are only trying to do what you believe is best. That you are, despite my greivances, doing what you think you should do...just like I am. Therefore, I would rather discuss the issues, find out why you believe that what you are doing is right, and try to understand it. I would rather talk to you as someone who, like me, is passionate abou the state of the world. As someone who is different, not an opponent. Maybe thats not out of reach for us, yet, but the more we use agressive, confrontational language, the further we separate ourselves. The system is set up so that we are innefective if we are not united. Consider that. The more we squabble and bicker about the less important things (i.e., name calling), the less chance we have of coming to some sort of comprimise, and therefore, the less chance we have of seeing real change.

Wolf

I hate to see this discourse end, but I cannot hold it up from this side alone. Still, I feel that we approached some rather important issues here. maybe we can meet on them again another time...

A thread related to environmental concerns may be initiated somewhere so that people interested can chime in.

Every nickle not spent on Arab oil is OK in my book. I'm tired of being held hostage.

American Thinker. Running on Fumes?

http://www.americanthinker.com/arti...article_id=4309

The arguments presented in this article are solid ones...except for the fact that they ignore the glarinlgy obvious. Problems with oil prices? supply, demand, etc, etc. I get it. But lets not forget the single most important part: OIL IS A NON-RENEWABLE RESOURCE. That means, simply, that we are running out. With demand up, and no signifigant amount of federal funds, research, or incentives into making cars more feul efficient, indeed, the great american thinkers moving further and further into the land of low gas mileage, enourmous-engined SUV's and cars, we are only, in the end, screwing ourselves. Its this lack of long-term thought that has haunted and damaged the human race since its inception, be it god or science.