Ready For $4/Gallon Gas Prices in February?

Well, at least Bush and Cheney and Blackwater execs and the bastards who benefited most from the subprime mortgage crisis can afford to fill up the tanks of their Humvees. The rest of us? Maybe not so much.

After crude oil prices surpassed their previous record high at above $100/barrel, pushed in part by the assassination of Pakistan's opposition leader Benazir Bhutto and even moreso by the worsening situation and escalating violence in Nigeria, some experts predict that, rather than see "at the pump" prices begin to moderate out again (they actually fell to below $3/gallon in some places - NOT Vermont, but some places), we may very well see $4 per gallon prices before Valentine's Day.

And if Bush further steps up his violent rhetoric toward Iran, we might see them climb higher still.

Obviously, we're not just hurting at the gas pumps. The Bushies further cut funding for energy assistance for money-strapped Americans needing help to pay astronomically high fuel prices.

The Last Debate of 2007

Argh. So many debates, so long before the actual vote is NOT a good thing.

If you haven't already read it, I highly recommend Ralph's list of questions he'd like to see addressed at round two of the Iowa debates: the Dems in the last debate of 2007. [How do I nominate Ralph to be the next moderator?]

I'm listening to the debate now though it caught me by surprise. CNN kept saying the debate was Thursday night but at 2 PM ET, they fed us some of the worst audio possible (sounds like it was recorded in my washing machine). However, what I noted FIRST were these points:

-- CNN made a big and rather demeaning deal of the Dem senator candidates who took private jets to rush to Iowa after voting on the energy bill today as in "oh, really, they couldn't save energy going together by plane?" - I don't mind the question but why the hell is this standard NEVER, EVER applied to the Bushies or the Republicans in general? We ALL need to be smarter about energy use; if only Democrats do it, it won't work.

-- Why were Mike Gravel and Dennis Kucinich kept OUT of the Dem debate today (which CNN applauded as a smart move) yet Alan Keyes (who? well, we last saw him mosh pitting in the 96 Republican presidential race), who not even Republicans seemed to know was running until last night, allowed to debate in the GOP version?

-- If CNN thinks it's "helping America" with its "approval meter" showing where viewers like and dislike debate points by candidate, they're screwier than their Kyra Philips is dumb as denuded dirt.

-- Moving up the caucuses and primaries is a massive mistake; we'll eliminate good candidates way too early which, sadly, may be the point.

Proof Is In The Papers: How Cheney Sold American Energy to Enron, Ken Lay, And Others

If you want to feel even more sick than you do seeing your latest electric bill or the rising total as you fill up your tank with gas, check out the piece I wrote at All Things Democrat about some of the "truth" finally beginning to leak out about Dick Cheney's energy task force and the way it was bought and paid for by energy conglomerates, Ken Lay and Enron, and the lobbyists they make so rich.

Iraq: Our War For Oil Proven By U.S. Army's Visit

Granted, President Bush has in several speeches made it clear that we waged war in Iraq for "cheap" oil (like those cheap prices now? - heh) and before we launched the war in mid-March 2003, then Assistant Secretary of Defense (and now a man who had to leave the World Bank for serious fraud) Paul Wolfowitz said the Iraq war would pay for itself in cheap gas. But a report in yesterday's New York Times made it abundantly clear that we went to Iraq to hand their oil fields over to oil and energy companies (many of them American) for unheard of profits. Why else would the U.S. military be demanding the so-called democratically elected representatives of Iraq to sign an oil deal (the real reason for the surge) "or else."

BAGHDAD, June 11 — The top American military commander for the Middle East has warned Iraq’s prime minister in a closed-door conversation that the Iraqi government needs to make tangible political progress by next month to counter the growing tide of opposition to the war in Congress.

In a Sunday afternoon discussion that mixed gentle coaxing with a sober appraisal of politics in Baghdad and Washington, the commander, Adm. William J. Fallon, told Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki that the Iraqi government should aim to complete a law on the division of oil proceeds by next month.

Be clear: there is NO good reason for anyone in the U.S. military to be telling the democratically elected rep of ANY country what to do re: oil. That this happened gives us the conclusive proof that this is why we went to Iraq.

Bob Herbert: "The Passion Of Al Gore"

[Ed. note: See my post at All Things Democrat for more of what I see as the important differences between true leaders and politicians.]

Herbert has written many powerful columns, but this one hits me just at a time when I find myself (for the first time) really wanting him to run for president in 2008 because I think he may be more than a leader than many of the politicians who do want the job.

Al Gore is earnestly talking about the long-term implications of the energy and climate crises, and how the Arctic ice cap is receding much faster than computer models had predicted, and how difficult and delicate a task it will be to try and set things straight in Iraq.

You look at him and you can’t help thinking how bizarre it is that this particular political figure, perhaps the most qualified person in the country to be president, is sitting in a wing chair in a hotel room in Manhattan rather than in the White House.

He’s pushing his book “The Assault on Reason.” I find myself speculating on what might have been if the man who got the most votes in 2000 had actually become president. It’s like imagining an alternate universe.

The war in Iraq would never have occurred. Support and respect for the U.S. around the globe would not have plummeted to levels that are both embarrassing and dangerous. The surpluses of the Clinton years would not have been squandered like casino chips in the hands of a compulsive gambler on a monumental losing streak.

Mr. Gore takes a blowtorch to the Bush administration in his book. He argues that the free and open democratic processes that have made the United States such a special place have been undermined by the administration’s cynicism and excessive secrecy, and by its shameless and relentless exploitation of the public’s fear of terror.

The Bush crowd, he said, has jettisoned logic, reason and reflective thought in favor of wishful thinking in the service of an extreme political ideology. It has turned its back on reality, with tragic results.

So where does that leave Mr. Gore? If the republic is in such deep trouble and the former vice president knows what to do about it, why doesn’t he have an obligation to run for president? I asked him if he didn’t owe that to his fellow citizens.

If the country needs you, how can you not answer the call?

He seemed taken aback. “Well, I respect the logic behind that question,” he said. “I also am under no illusion that there is any position that even approaches that of president in terms of an inherent ability to affect the course of events.”

But while leaving the door to a possible run carefully ajar, he candidly mentioned a couple of personal reasons why he is disinclined to seek the presidency again.

“You know,” he said, “I don’t really think I’m that good at politics, to tell you the truth.” He smiled. “Some people find out important things about themselves early in life. Others take a long time.”

Read the rest here.

Turns Out Bush Does Have A Timeline For Pulling Out of Iraq

It just happens to be about 40 or 50 or 60 years from now, while our soldiers play Halliburton cops for big oil.

Iran, Here We Come?

With Vice President Dick Cheney's nasty rhetoric about Iran delivered while in that part of the world late last week, is it any surprise that the national average per gallon price for gas is now $3? Much of the country is already paying far more than that, with no obvious obstacles to hitting $4/gal prices this summer.

I'm also worried about this report from the International Atomic Energy Agency (or IAEA, the nuke watchdogs of the United Nations), claiming that Iran may have overcome problems which might otherwise slow down their technological work regarding nuclear weaponry. Very recently, the IAEA was saying quite the opposite: that the U.S. was manufacturing propaganda about Iran and its nuclear efforts to perhaps justify an attack there.

While I've read several articles on this matter since last night, it is not immediately apparent to me whether it's "right" to say Iran is well on its way to nuclear weaponry or whether, with the change in U.N. secretaries, the IAEA may be getting pressure from the Bush Administration to make their reports sound scarier re: Iran. Stranger things have happened, and much of them since January, 2001.

Gotta Love Those Gas Prices, Eh?

King Bush keeps sniping at Iran while dancing with the Saudis and the rest of us pay BIGtime.

Has Anyone Read About Ford CEO Keeping Our President From Getting Blown Up?

[In the OOOPS, Found It Department: Ford Motor CEO Saves Bush From Setting Himself on Fire And finally the CEO of Ford Motor Company is being credited with literally saving President Bush's life. Alan Mulally said the president almost plugged an electrical cord into the hydrogen tank of a special Ford hybrid vehicle at the White House last week. Mulally said he violated protocol and grabbed the president"s arm to prevent Bush from setting himself on fire.] Idiot. And no, I'll leave you to wonder if I mean Bush for trying something so stupid or Ford's CEO for.. well... taking care of a large problem wrapped up in a very tiny mind and soul.

I caught just a part of this story on Democracy Now today, yet it's not in their show headlines. I wrote briefly about Bush's 3-20-07 trip to Ford for a photo op with a hybrid Ford Escape (and god nows we need to escape from the Bushiess) documented here.

But nowhere do I see the story referenced about Ford's CEO having to jump in before Bush did something assinine (which he seems to do every second of every day) like trying to insert an electrical hose into a hydrogen only conduit, which would have resulted in a healthy-sized B-O-O-M!

If anyone knows of a link, please give a shout.

High Energy Prices Giving You Gas?

In just under a week, gas prices have gone up on average of six (6) cents per gallon. This brings the national average per gallon to $2.61, considerably lower than what my home state and many others are seeing.

In fact, look at the gas price graphic on my right hand sidebar, and you'll see that most of the blue states pay far more, on average, than their red state brethren.

Funny how that works.

While pundits were predicting around the middle of last week that it was "unlikely" we would see $3+/gallon by summer, California passed that benchmark a few weeks ago. Where I live in Vermont, it's tough to see anything less than $2.60.

Couched In The Iraq "Surge" Vote Is Very Sweet Deal for American Fuel/Energy Companies

I am massively pissed that the Senate voted today to approve an additional - and whopping! - $122 Billion (we've already spent well more than half a trillion on the war that would pay for itself) for Bush's Iraq "surge" regardless of provisions for a time line for an exit strategy.

But getting too little attention is a part of this bill which HANDS mostly American energy/fuel companies a deal for Iraq oil which will give them an unheard of percentage of profits. I would think that Iraq oil belongs to Iraq and that the Bushies should NOT be able to give it away to Exxon, etc.

From Think Progress on the Iraq "redeployment":

The Senate Appropriations Committee “approved a $122 billion measure Thursday financing wars in Iraq and Afghanistan but also calling on President Bush to pull combat troops out of Iraq by next spring. The bill, approved by a voice vote, is similar to one the House began debating Thursday. The White House has threatened to veto the House measure and issued a veto threat against an earlier, similar version of the Senate withdrawal language.”

And once again, the bully monarch Bush demands things go HIS way, or the low way.

PSA: Spring Ahead...

Uh... you need to change your clocks to reflect this far-earlier-than-normal Daylight Savings Time arrival at 2 AM Sunday (presented to us by a Congress that insists:

1) global warming is a myth,
2) that the supply of fossil fuels is infinite as long as we
a) keep attacking and "liberating" oil producing nations and
b) pretend that dinosaurs live concurrently with humans and
3) won't do anything more useful to address the energy crisis than fuck around with the time while they drive their honkingly huge SUVs around with nobody else in the vehicle)

This public service announcement (PSA) is brought to you by the same person who tells you that the only mankind-contemporaneous dinosaurs among us are in Congress.

Paul Krugman: "Colorless Green Ideas"

I found this Paul Krugman column (available in full at Welcome to Pottersville, btw) terrific, but also reminded me of a major columnist (who shall go nameless until his lawyer supposedly talks to my lawyer) who took a certain degree of embrage in an email to me because I mocked some of his views, including one on global warming. Ah, the ties that bind, especially when they're power red ones.

Anyhoo, trying to conserve energy - whether because of global warming and the effects our "temperature adjustment" mechanisms affect it or simply to preserve supplies on non-replenishing fuel sources - should be non-partisan AND color (as in blue vs. red) blind. Here's a snippet:

The factual debate about whether global warming is real is, or at least should be, over. The question now is what to do about it.

Aside from a few dead-enders on the political right, climate change skeptics seem to be making a seamless transition from denial to fatalism. In the past, they rejected the science. Now, with the scientific evidence pretty much irrefutable, they insist that it doesn’t matter because any serious attempt to curb greenhouse gas emissions is politically and economically impossible.

Behind this claim lies the assumption, explicit or implicit, that any substantial cut in energy use would require a drastic change in the way we live. To be fair, some people in the conservation movement seem to share that assumption.

But the assumption is false. Let me tell you about a real-world counterexample: an advanced economy that has managed to combine rising living standards with a substantial decline in per capita energy consumption, and managed to keep total carbon dioxide emissions more or less flat for two decades, even as both its economy and its population grew rapidly. And it achieved all this without fundamentally changing a lifestyle centered on automobiles and single-family houses.

The name of the economy? California.

There’s nothing heroic about California’s energy policy — but that’s precisely the point. Over the years the state has adopted a series of conservation measures that are anything but splashy. They’re the kind of drab, colorless stuff that excites only real policy wonks. Yet the cumulative effect has been impressive, if still well short of what we really need to do.

The energy divergence between California and the rest of the United States dates from the 1970s. Both the nation and the state initially engaged in significant energy conservation after that decade’s energy crisis. But conservation in most of America soon stalled: after a decade of rapid progress, improvements in auto mileage came to an end, while electricity consumption continued to rise rapidly, driven by the growing size of houses, the increasing use of air-conditioning and the proliferation of appliances.

In California, by contrast, the state continued to push policies designed to encourage conservation, especially of electricity. And these policies worked.

People in California have always used a bit less energy than other Americans because of the mild climate. But the difference has grown much larger since the 1970s. Today, the average Californian uses about a third less total energy than the average American, uses less than 60 percent as much electricity, and is responsible for emitting only about 55 percent as much carbon dioxide.

Read the rest here.