Corporate Colonialism – They are carving up Africa again

When are the poor countries of the world going to catch a break. First they are conquered by the countries of Europe. Then they are handed over to corrupt and inept “local” leadership. Finally they are bought and paid for by the new corporate elites. This is just to0 nasty for words. But this is humans finest hour.

Africa: The New Land Grab in Africa – An Alarming Scramble for the Continent Is On

Agazit Abate

3 November 2011

Multinational corporations are buying enormous tracts of land in Africa to the detriment of local communities. Agazit Abate warns that the land grab puts countries on the path to increased food insecurity, environmental degradation, increased reliance on aid and marginalisation of farming and pastoralist communities.

The recent phenomenon of land grab, as outlined in the extensive research of the Oakland Institute, has resulted in the sale of enormous portions of land throughout Africa. In 2009 alone, nearly 60 million hectares of land were purchased or leased throughout the continent for the production and export of food, cut flowers and agrofuel crops.

Land grab was in part spurred by the food and financial crisis of 2008 when international bodies, corporations, investment funds, wealthy individuals, and governments began to re-focus their attention on agriculture and food as a profitable commodity. As outlined in the reports, the consequences of land grab include increased food insecurity, environmental degradation, community repression and displacement, and increased reliance on aid.

MEET THE INVESTORS

While media coverage has focused on the role of countries like India and China in land deals, the Oakland Institute’s investigation reveals the role of Western firms, wealthy US and European individuals, and investment funds with ties to major banks such as Goldman Sachs and JP Morgan. Investors include alternative investment firms like the London-based Emergent that works to attract speculators, and various universities like Harvard, Spelman and Vanderbilt.

Several Texas-based interests are associated with a major 600,000 hectares South Sudan deal which involves Kinyeti Development LLC, an Austin, Texas-based ‘global business development partnership and holding company’ managed by Howard Eugene Douglas, a former United States Ambassador at Large and Coordinator for Refugee Affairs. A key player in the largest land deal in Tanzania is Iowa agribusiness entrepreneur and Republican Party stalwart, Bruce Rastetter.

US companies are often below the radar, using subsidiaries registered in other countries, like Petrotech-ffn Agro Mali which is a subsidiary of Petrotech-ffn USA. Many European countries are also involved, often with support provided by their governments and embassies in African countries. For instance, Swedish and German firms have interests in the production of biofuels in Tanzanian. Addax Bioenergy from Switzerland and Quifel International Holdings (QIH) from Portugal are major investors in Sierra Leone. Sierra Leone Agriculture (SLA) is actually a subsidiary of the UK based Crad-1 (CAPARO Renewable Agriculture Developments Ltd.), associated with the Tony Blair African Governance Initiative.

:}

I just wanted to post the villains. For the rest of the analysis, go there and read that. More tomorrow.

:}

Nuclear Power In The United States Is Dangerous

When are we going to admit that we are sitting on a time bomb. Nuclear power was always a dumb idea…though pushed in part by rocket scientists…and now it is a plague. How else do you explain my waking up to these 2 headlines on the same day?

http://af.reuters.com/article/energyOilNews/idAFN1E75R19920110628

New Mexico aims to protect US nuclear lab from fire

Tue Jun 28, 2011 6:00pm GMT

Nuclear weapons lab closes due to fire danger

* Fire has potential to double or triple in size

By Zelie Pollon

SANTA FE, N.M., June 28 (Reuters) – New Mexico officials raced on Tuesday to bring in more fire crews and equipment including radiation monitors as an out-of-control wildfire raged near the preeminent U.S. nuclear weapons laboratory.

Firefighters managed to keep flames off Los Alamos National Laboratory property throughout the night on Monday as the blaze continued to grow, reaching 60,741 acres (24,580 hectares), said Lawrence Lujan, a spokesman for the Santa Fe National Forest.

The laboratory will remain closed on Tuesday and Wednesday due to fire danger, lab spokesman Kevin Roark told Reuters.

Fire officials said the so-called Las Conchas blaze had the potential to double or triple in size. Several towns are under mandatory evacuation, including the nearby city of Los Alamos, with a population of around 12,000.

Los Alamos National Laboratory was established at the end of World War II to house the top secret Manhattan Project to build the first atomic bomb. It still serves as home to the nation’s largest nuclear weapons cache.

Situated on a hilltop, 35 miles (56 km) northeast of Santa Fe, lab property covers 36 square miles (38 square km). Today the lab employees nearly 12,000 people in a range of research and development areas.   Continued…

:}

Please read more but it will scare you to death how close to an actual disaster we came. Is this one in the making?

http://www.allheadlinenews.com/articles/90052753?Missouri%20River%20flood%20water%20threatens%20Nebraska%20nuclear%20power%20plants

Missouri River flood water threatens Nebraska nuclear power plants

Because of residents’ worry of a nuclear disaster, rumors about the true conditions of the two plants circulate in the state.

The rising Missouri River flood water continues to threaten the two power plants in Nebraska. To assess the situation, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Chairman Gregory Jaczko visited the Fort Calhoun plant on Monday morning.

clearpxl

The Fort Calhoun Nuclear Station, located 20 miles north of Omaha, is one of the two nuclear plants in the state being monitored by the NRC because of the threats of inundation from the Missouri River.

The Fort Calhoun plant has been closed since April for refueling. Its parking lot is flooded, plant employees need to walk on a catwalk to reach the facility. An inflatable water-filled barrier that surrounds the plant was punctured by machinery on Sunday, but the plant operators assured residents that key areas of the facility are not in danger of submersion.

However, plant employees briefly switched to diesel backup generators to keep the nuclear fuel at the site cool because the flood water got too close to electrical transformers.

The other plant, Cooper Nuclear Station, is on higher ground and continues to operate. However, reports said the station is close to shutting down because flood water had reached critical levels.

Because of residents’ worry of a nuclear disaster, rumors about the true conditions of the two plants circulate in the state.

The rumors include an alleged two-mile radius no-fly zone declared by the Federal Aviation Administration on the air space around Fort Calhoun because of a radiation leak and the declaration of a Level 4 emergency at the facility.

The plant operators denied the reports.

:}

Did I mention that there now appears to be water leaking into the basement of the facility. More tomorrow if we are still alive.

:}

Nuclear Power Plants Are Old And Dangerous Worldwide

Questions have been raised about the safety of Nuclear Power Plants around the world since the incident in Japan. I will get to Japan in a couple of days but first this just out from the AP. Turns out the US has some worries of its own. They have just been covered up.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=137291169

AP IMPACT: US Nuke Regulators Weaken Safety Rules

by The Associated Press

LACEY TOWNSHIP, N.J. June 20, 2011, 03:38 am ET

Federal regulators have been working closely with the nuclear power industry to keep the nation’s aging reactors operating within safety standards by repeatedly weakening those standards, or simply failing to enforce them, an investigation by The Associated Press has found.

Time after time, officials at the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission have decided that original regulations were too strict, arguing that safety margins could be eased without peril, according to records and interviews.

The result? Rising fears that these accommodations by the NRC are significantly undermining safety — and inching the reactors closer to an accident that could harm the public and jeopardize the future of nuclear power in the United States.

Examples abound. When valves leaked, more leakage was allowed — up to 20 times the original limit. When rampant cracking caused radioactive leaks from steam generator tubing, an easier test of the tubes was devised, so plants could meet standards.

Failed cables. Busted seals. Broken nozzles, clogged screens, cracked concrete, dented containers, corroded metals and rusty underground pipes — all of these and thousands of other problems linked to aging were uncovered in the AP’s yearlong investigation. And all of them could escalate dangers in the event of an accident.

Yet despite the many problems linked to aging, not a single official body in government or industry has studied the overall frequency and potential impact on safety of such breakdowns in recent years, even as the NRC has extended the licenses of dozens of reactors.

Industry and government officials defend their actions, and insist that no chances are being taken. But the AP investigation found that with billions of dollars and 19 percent of America’s electricity supply at stake, a cozy relationship prevails between the industry and its regulator, the NRC.

Records show a recurring pattern: Reactor parts or systems fall out of compliance with the rules. Studies are conducted by the industry and government, and all agree that existing standards are “unnecessarily conservative.”

Regulations are loosened, and the reactors are back in compliance.

“That’s what they say for everything, whether that’s the case or not,” said Demetrios Basdekas, an engineer retired from the NRC. “Every time you turn around, they say `We have all this built-in conservatism.'”

:}

dot dot dot

:}

Unprompted, several nuclear engineers and former regulators used nearly identical terminology to describe how industry and government research has frequently justified loosening safety standards to keep aging reactors within operating rules. They call the approach “sharpening the pencil” or “pencil engineering” — the fudging of calculations and assumptions to yield answers that enable plants with deteriorating conditions to remain in compliance.

“Many utilities are doing that sort of thing,” said engineer Richard T. Lahey Jr., who used to design nuclear safety systems for General Electric Co., which makes boiling water reactors. “I think we need nuclear power, but we can’t compromise on safety. I think the vulnerability is on these older plants.”

Added Paul Blanch, an engineer who left the industry over safety issues but later returned to work on solving them: “It’s a philosophical position that (federal regulators) take that’s driven by the industry and by the economics: What do we need to do to let those plants continue to operate? They somehow sharpen their pencil to either modify their interpretation of the regulations, or they modify their assumptions in the risk assessment.”

:}

Much more tomorrow

:}

Oil And Gas Speculators Are 15-30 % Of The Price

Everyonce in awhile the Peak Oil website finds a real gem of an economic analysis or some other thing related to energy markets and energy consumption. The following is a dandy with the source website as well.

http://peakoil.com/

http://www.econmatters.com/2011/05/speculation-does-not-explain-high-oil.html

Friday, May 6, 2011

Speculation Does Not Explain High Oil and Gasoline Prices? Please!!

By EconMatters

WTI (West Texas Intermediate) Crude Oil futures traded at its lowest in almost two months in New York on Thursday, May 5 in its biggest selloff in two years, plunging 8.6% on the day to below the $100 mark (Fig. 1).  Brent crude on ICE also dropped as much as $12.17, or 10%, which was the largest in percentage terms not seen since the Lehman Brothers financial crisis, and the largest ever in absolute terms, according to FT.

The epic waterfall was partly due to the combination of a strengthening dollar after European Central Bank President Jean-Claude Trichet said he wouldn’t raise interest rates, and a surging U.S. first time jobless claim that sent oil, silver and other commodities plunging.

Big Speculators Moving Out

There has been a long debate about how much of a role speculators play in the oil market.  However, this latest big price move in one day strongly suggests something more than fundamentals is at work.

That is, some big players (i.e. speculators) decided to move out of commodities, either to take profits, or for risk off trades, as crude and gasoline market fundamentals have not changed much since the start of the year to warrant such a run-up of prices in recent months (Fig. 1).

Link Between Oil Storage & Speculation??

Some, like Ezra Klein at The Washington Post, and Jerry Taylor and Peter Van Doren, senior fellows at the Cato Institute, have suggested that speculators are not the ones causing high oil and gasoline prices.

For example, in this article, Klein partly quoted Michael Greenstone, an energy economist at MIT, and concluded that:

“Speculators make money by pulling oil off the market, putting it in inventory, and selling it later…So if you’re seeing speculation, you should be seeing a massive run-up in inventory. And we are seeing a bit of an inventory bump, particularly in recent weeks. But not enough of one.”

Taylor and Van Doren also drew a similar conclusion in an article at Forbes stating that since there’s not a massive increase in oil storage to cause a physical supply shortage, so do ‘put away the torches and pitchforks’ as speculators are not to blame for the rise in oil and gasoline price.

Reality Check – Shorts & Paper Barrels

I guess all four gentlemen live right next door to the U.S. Fed in the ivory tower and just as detached from reality.

:}

More tomorrow.

:}

I Was Looking For A Joke – What I got was this

I typed in “best way to avert a nuclear disaster” thinking that I might get a joke or something other then Japan’s smoking nukes. I was wrong but this guy is pretty insightful.

http://www.marketoracle.co.uk/Article26916.html

Nuclear Power Industry Praying Japan Will Avert a Nuclear Disaster

Stock-Markets / Nuclear Power Mar 14, 2011 – 10:59 AM

By: Martin_D_Weiss

Explosions and meltdowns at nuclear reactors in Japan this past weekend will forever change the world of energy.

Authorities have already scheduled widespread power outages starting today — and they could continue the planned outages for weeks or even months.

Nuclear power plant explosion in Fukushima, Japan, on Saturday, following that nation's strongest earthquake in history.
Nuclear power plant explosion in Fukushima, Japan, on Saturday, following that nation’s strongest earthquake in history.

But that’s just a metaphor for the sustained global energy shortages that are likely, as the safety and long-term viability of nuclear power comes under more intense scrutiny than at any time in history.

How do we know that’s the likely outcome?

Because prior nuclear disasters, such as Three Mile Island and Chernobyl, had a major long-term impact on nuclear plant construction.

Moreover, those two disasters were ultimately written off to antiquated facilities or poor safety precautions. In contrast, the Japanese nuclear industry prides itself on safety, and the plants struck by the earthquake had far better staff training and equipment, including multiple back-up systems, all of which failed.

Some nuclear experts will counter that newer and safer technologies now exist or can be developed. But given the history of similar promises in the past, those are bound to fall on deaf ears.

The public will now ask …

Is there a fundamental incompatibility between the potential dangers of nuclear energy and the unpredictable wrath of Mother Nature?

That question defies any quick answer and could take years to resolve. Until then, further growth in nuclear power production could be drastically reduced, with potentially far-reaching consequences:

  • Chronic global energy shortages, especially in countries that were counting on new nuclear energy for a large portion of their electric power.
  • Massive, long-term upward pressure on crude oil prices as producers, consumers, and investors upwardly revise their forecasts of fossil fuel demand.
  • Vast sums of investor money diverted from nuclear power plant construction to other alternative energy sources, such as wind, solar, and bio-fuels.

:}

Still battling viruses. So hopefully more tomorrow.

:}

Illinois HB 14 Is A Very Bad Idea – Utilities try to escape regulation again

Monopolies are a bad thing if you listen to most capitalists. Except when you supply public services like supplying electricity or natural gas. OK so then everyone agrees that those companies need CLOSE regulation to make sure they do not cheat. Well not quite everybody.

http://www.whig.com/story/news/Electric-rates-031111

Published: 3/11/2011 | Updated: 3/19/2011

By DOUG WILSON
Herald-Whig Senior Writer

SPRINGFIELD, Ill. — Ameren Illinois electric customers would pay an additional $5 a year — less than 50 cents a month more — so the utility can upgrade electric and gas delivery under a plan being considered by state lawmakers. State Rep. Jil Tracy, R-Mount Sterling, is concerned about those higher rates. She is researching the proposed legislation that would allow the rate increase and permit utilities to adjust their rates each year under a different regulatory system. “I think it’s very much a work in progress. We have been having public hearings, and I’m not sure how the bill will end up,” Tracy said of HB 14. As a member of the House Public Utilities Committee, Tracy attended a Tuesday hearing on the rate hike and the regulatory issue. “I don’t want to see bills rise, but there’s no doubt we need to improve the grid,” Tracy said. The $5 annual charge for each Ameren Illinois customers would improve delivery systems for the electric system and the gas system. “These investments will provide significant benefits to the state of Illinois and our energy customers, and will allow Ameren Illinois to provide the safe, reliable and affordable service our customers expect,” said Craig Nelson, Ameren senior vice president.

:}

http://foresightdesign.org/blog/2011/03/illinois-environmental-council-opposes-hb14-legislature-holds-hearing-on-electric-utility-proposal/

Illinois Environmental Council Opposes HB14: Legislature Holds Hearing on Electric Utility Proposal

Thursday (Mar 17) was the deadline for legislation in both the Illinois House and Senate to move out of committee.  While some legislation may receive extended deadlines, most proposals that don’t meet the Thursday deadline will not move further.  Check out IEC’s legislative tracker to determine which bills have not yet moved out of committee.

HB14:
Last week, on March 10, the House Public Utilities Committee and Senate Energy Committee held a joint subject matter hearing on HB14, a proposal from ComEd.  HB14 would change the way ComEd and Ameren are regulated.  It would allow them to receive automatic rate increases if they invested in both the existing grid and in smart grid technology.   At the hearing, ComEd suggested that this rate increase would be about $3/month for each customer, in addition to any normal rate increases.

David Kolata, Citizens Utility Board executive director and IEC board member, expressed concern at the hearing that this legislation would give consumers the “bill without the benefits.”  Smart grid technology uses digital two way communications with a consumer’s home.  Smart grid done right should increase energy efficiency, lower bills for consumers, and otherwise prepare for a clean energy future.  As written, HB14 does not include any renewable energy or energy efficiency provisions.

On the same day as this hearing, Exelon CEO John Rowe was quoted by Crain’s as saying, “Smart grid we are reluctant to embrace, because it costs too much and we’re not sure what good it will do.” Exelon owns ComEd. Read more in Crain’s about this disconnect between the discussion of smart grid technology that occurred Mar 8th and comments by Exelon’s CEO.

:}

More tomorrow

:}

Cheap Energy Is The Problem – Until we change that more disasters await

This is an excellent article on why we have had the disaster in Japan.

http://www.consumerenergyreport.com/2011/03/17/how-much-are-you-willing-pay-nuke-free/

How Much Are You Willing to Pay to be Nuke-Free?

Posted by Robert Rapier on Thursday, March 17, 2011

A Plan to Phase Out “Dirty” Energy

After the Deepwater Horizon spill in the Gulf of Mexico, someone said to me “We have to stop all offshore drilling.” My response was that I could get behind that idea, but I wanted to know what sacrifices the person was willing to make. That turned out to be the end of the conversation, because usually the people campaigning against these sorts of things believe that the consequences will be all good (no more oil spills) with no real downside (like less energy available). I can tell you with absolute certainty that we can live with no offshore drilling, but I can also tell you that the price of your fuel would be greater — and probably far greater — than it is today.

Nuclear power plants fill a need — cheap energy — that consumers demand. Are you willing to give it up?

I believe that the reason we have so much “dirty” energy is that we demand cheap energy. I spoke to a reporter in Japan this week about the crisis at the Fukushima nuclear plant, and he said he couldn’t help but notice that despite some rolling blackouts now, Japan remains very much a country with all of the lights on.

Root Cause: Consumers Demand Cheap, Abundant Energy

This gets right to the heart of why we have nuclear power: We demand cheap energy; energy so cheap that we can afford to leave all of the lights in the house on all day long. Both coal and nuclear-generated electricity are viewed as cheap relative to many other options — admittedly debatable given charges of government subsidies and the occasional environmental calamity — as well as reliable (again, environmental calamities notwithstanding).

My response to the reporter was that I love lobster, but I rarely eat it because it is so expensive. If they served $2 lobster at McDonalds, we would all consume much more lobster and of course the supply of lobsters would be under pressure. If we all demanded cheap lobster and got angry when our lobsters became more expensive, politicians would work to give us what we want lest they be voted out of office. We would see all sorts of lobster-related subsidies designed to bring us all cheap lobsters (which have to be paid through taxes and/or deficit spending). Consequences of our cheap lobster demands — higher deficits and possibly no more lobsters — would be pushed onto another generation.

:}

What he does not say is why we were sold cheap energy. That is sold on the idea instead of sustainability. It’s because resources are seen as free. Buy them, dig them up and sell them. More next week.

:}

Newt Gingrich And Energy Policy – For energy advice he calls his mother and his daughter

OK I can only take this for another day and I am done. These guys really do not know what they are talking about. They make up numbers that have no basis in this universe, and the reality is they only survive because they take huge amounts of industry money.

http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/Newt_Gingrich_Energy_+_Oil.htm

Newt Gingrich on Energy & Oil

Former Republican Representative (GA-6) and Speaker of the House

Kyoto treaty is bad for the environment and bad for America

Kyoto is a bad treaty. It is bad for the environment and it is bad for America. It sets standards that will require massive investments by the US but virtually no investments by other countries. The Senate was right when it voted unanimously against the treaty. We should insist on revisiting the entire Kyoto process and resolutely reject efforts to force us into an anti-American, environmentally failed treaty.

The US should support substantial research into climate science, managing the response to climate change, & in developing new non-carbon energy systems. It is astounding to watch people blithely propose trillions of dollars in spending on a topic on which we have failed to spend modest amounts to better understand.

It is astounding to have people focus myopically on carbon as the sole source of climate change. The world’s climate has changed in the past with sudden speed and dramatic impact. Global warming may happen. On the other hand it is possible Europe will experience another ice age.

Source: Gingrich Communications website, www.newt.org Dec 1, 2006

Focus on incentives for conservation & renewable resources

A sound American energy policy would focus on four areas: basic research to create a new energy system that has few environmental side effects, incentives for conservation, more renewable resources, and environmentally sound development of fossil fuels. The Bush administration has approached energy environmentalism the right way, including using public-private partnerships that balance economic costs and environmental gain.

Hydrogen has the potential to provide energy that has no environmental downside. Conservation is the second great opportunity in energy. A tax credit to subsidize energy efficient cars (including a tax credit for turning in old and heavily polluting cars) is another idea we should support. Renewable resources are gradually evolving to meet their potential: from wind generator farms to solar power to biomass conversion. Continued tax credits and other advantages for renewable resources are a must.

Source: Gingrich Communications website, www.newt.org Dec 1, 2006

Stop scare tactics about drilling in Alaska

It is time for an honest debate about drilling and producing in places like Alaska, our national forests, and off the coast of scenic areas. The Left uses scare tactics from a different era to block environmentally sound production of raw materials. Three standards should break through this deadlock.

  1. Scientists of impeccable background should help set the standards for sustaining the environment in sensitive areas, and any company entering the areas should be bonded to meet those standards.
  2. The public should be informed about new methods of production that can meet the environmental standards, and any development should be only with those new methods.
  3. A percentage of the revenues from resources generated in environmentally sensitive areas should be dedicated to environmental activities including biodiversity sustainment, land acquisition, and environmental cleanups in places where there are no private resources that can be used to clean up past problems.

Source: Gingrich Communications website, www.newt.org Dec 1, 2006

Gas tax sounds OK in DC, but not outside Beltway

When the Bush Administration tried to convince me that a gasoline tax increase would be okay and would barely be noticed, I tested the theory with two phone calls. First I called my mother-in-law in Leetonia, Ohio, and then I called my older daughter in Greensboro, North Carolina. My mother-in-law is retired, at the time, aged 75. She has a lot of friends who live on limited incomes, and driving happens to be one of their pleasures. She was personally against the idea of a gas tax increase, and she thought the idea would go down very badly with her friends. Then I called my daughter Kathy. She runs a small business, and her husband is the tennis coach at the university. Her reaction was, to put it mildly, scathing. “What planet do they live on?” she asked. She thought such a tax increase was the very antithesis of why people had elected the Republicans. After those two conversations, any doubts I may have had simply vanished, and I opposed the tax increase. Source: Lessons Learned the Hard Way, by Newt Gingrich, p. 29-30 Jul 2, 1998

  • Click here for definitions & background information on Energy & Oil.
  • Click here for policy papers on Energy & Oil.
  • :}

    God what slime. More tomorrow.

    :}

    Michelle Malkin(tent) And Energy Policy – Green means you’re a thief

    Read more at the Washington Examiner: http://washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/columnists/2010/12/michelle-malkin-dems-lame-duck-land-grab-wont-pass-without-fight#ixzz1BgnnDjMF

    Michelle Malkin: Dems’ lame-duck land grab won’t pass without a fight

    By: Michelle Malkin 12/15/10 8:05 PM
    Examiner Columnist
    Environmentalistshate sprawl — except when it comes to the size of their expansive pet legislation on Capitol Hill. In a last-ditch lame duck push, eco-lobbyists have been furiously pressuring Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., to pass a monstrous 327-page omnibus government lands bill crammed with more than 120 separate measures to lock up vast swaths of wilderness areas.Despite the time crunch, Senate Democrats in search of 60 votes are working behind the scenes to buy off green Republicans. House Democrats would then need a two-thirds majority to fast-track the bill to the White House before the GOP takes over on Jan. 5.

    Yes, the hurdles are high. But with Reid and company now vowing to work straight through Christmas into the new year (when politicians know Americans are preoccupied with the holidays), anything is possible. The Constitution is no obstacle to these power grabbers. Neither is a ticking clock.

    The Democrats’ brazen serial abuse of the lame-duck session is as damning as the green job-killing agenda enshrined in the overstuffed public lands package.

    Earlier this month, Reid assigned worker bees on three Senate committees — Energy and Natural Resources, Commerce, and Environment and Public Works — to draw up their public lands wish list. All behind closed doors, of course.

    House Rep. Doc Hastings, R-Wash., rightly dubbed it a “Frankenstein omnibus of bills” and pointed out that the legislation “includes dozens of bills that have never passed a single committee, either chamber of Congress, or even been the subject of a hearing.”

    The sweeping bill bundles up scores of controversial proposals, including:

    — A stalled land transfer and gravel mining ban in Reid’s home state of Nevada.

    — The designation of the Devil’s Staircase Wilderness in Oregon as a federally protected wilderness where logging and road development would be prohibited.

    — Multiple watershed and scenic river designations that limit economic activity and threaten private property rights.

    — The creation of massive new national monument boundaries and wilderness areas along the southern border opposed by ranchers, farmers, local officials and citizens.

    One New Mexico activist, Marita Noon, said the federal plans to usurp nearly a half-million acres in her state would result in an “illegal immigrant superhighway” off-limits to border security enforcement. Security analyst Dana Joel Gattuso pointed to a recent General Accounting Office report on how environmental permitting rules and land-use regulations have hampered policing efforts at all but three stations along the border

    :}

    I actually left out the energy part. It is near the bottom. If you can bear the the Washington Toiletpaper for even a moment, go see. More next week.

    :}

    Morris and Gann On Energy Policy – Obama bad McCain good

    What a difference the evaporation of 5 $$$ gasoline and 2 years makes. Obama is President and one of the greenest Presidents we have ever had. McCain is not. Gasoline, though rising, is at 3.25 $$$ a gallon. Electric cars have just rolled out of two car companies, one of which Obama saved through a bailout. The electrics are popular and have waiting lists. The new normal for cars is 40 miles to the gallon. Of course I have the advantage of hindsight but I was pointing out that Obama had the superior energy policy back then so I can crow alittle.

    http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/06/mccain_scores_with_offshore_dr.html

    June 19, 2008

    McCain Scores With Offshore Drilling Proposal

    By Dick Morris and Eileen McGann

    John McCain has drawn first blood in the political debate following Barack Obama’s victory in the primaries. His call yesterday for offshore oil drilling — and Bush’s decision to press the issue in Congress – puts the Democrats in the position of advocating the wear-your-sweater policies that made Jimmy Carter unpopular.

    With gas prices nearing $5, all of the previous shibboleths need to be discarded. Where once voters in swing states like Florida opposed offshore drilling, the high gas prices are prompting them to reconsider. McCain’s argument that even hurricane Katrina did not cause any oil spills from the offshore rigs in the Gulf of Mexico certainly will go far to allay the fears of the average voter.

    For decades, Americans have dragged their feet when it comes to switching their cars, leaving their SUVs at home, and backing alternative energy development and new oil drilling. But the recent shock of a massive surge in oil and gasoline prices has awakened the nation from its complaisance. The soaring prices are the equivalent of Pearl Harbor in jolting us out of our trance when it comes to energy.

    Suddenly, everything is on the table. Offshore drilling, Alaska drilling, nuclear power, wind, solar, flex-fuel cars, plug-in cars are all increasingly attractive options and John McCain seems alive to the need to go there while Obama is strangely passive. During the Democratic primary, he opposed a gas tax holiday and continues to be against offshore and Alaska drilling and squishy on nuclear power. That leaves turning down your thermostat and walking to work as the Democratic policies.

    McCain has also been ratcheting up his attacks on oil speculators. With the total value of trades in oil futures soaring from $13 billion in 2003 to $260 billion today, it is increasingly clear that it is not the supply and demand for oil which is, alone, driving up the price, but it is the supply and demand for oil futures which is stoking the upward movement.

    The Saudis have made a fatal mistake in not forcing down the price of oil. We could have gone for decades as their hostage, letting their control over our oil supplies choke us while enriching them. But they got greedy and let the price skyrocket.

    :}

    Just so we are clear here, the Greedy Saudi’s had nothing to do with the gasoline prices, speculators and greedy refinery owners did. But then they are these guys friends so they couldn’t possibly see that. More tomorrow.

    :}