just me

I just don’t get why so many people think that Obama is too much of a risk to be our next President. For fuck’s sake, most of these people voted George W. Bush to TWO terms. The first time Dubya was elected, I was bitterly disappointed, but I was willing to give him the benefit of the doubt. Here was a guy that spent two terms as governor of Texas, was a failed oilman, owned a stake in the Texas Rangers, a previous coke-head, dodged Vietnam, earned himself a DUI, and never left the USA until after he was elected President. He’s slightly less incompetent than his younger brother Neil, who was “a player” in the Savings and Loan fiasco that We the People bailed out from 1986-1996 at a cost of $160.1 BILLION (funny note — John McCain, part of the “Keating Five”, had a hand in the S&L mess as well). Google “Silverado Savings and Loan” and “Neil Bush” and see what you find. While you’re at it, try “Keating Five”, “Lincoln Savings and Loan” and “John McCain”. But I digress.

In my mind, Barack Obama is no less of a risk than anyone else who has run in the last quarter century. Sure, you never know until they’re in office, just like any other job in the world. Nixon had plenty of experience and look how he turned out. And now the GOP has the gall to pick Gov. Palin of Alaska for their VP? Two term mayor of a town of 9,000 and 20 months in office as governor, and they think she’s more qualified than someone who worked as a community organizer/activist, civil rights attorney, law professor, member of the Illinois Senate for 8 years, and 4 years as the Junior Senator from Illinois.

In my honest opinion, the real reason many people consider Obama a risk is because he’s not white. That’s right, I said it. A lot of this country is still bigoted and racist, especially older generations.

I imagine because of my continual rants of people emailing crap without verifying if it’s true or not, my mom has gotten into the habit of asking me if it’s true/hoax/cause for concern. I honestly am happy that she does this. So a few weeks ago she forwarded one on to me from my aunt and uncle (her brother and sister-in-law) about how “the liberals care more for flowers than they do for America.” Basically, it was about why we should drill in ANWR and why it really won’t harm the environment. Below is my response to them. I haven’t heard back from them since.

Let me start off by saying I’m neither a Democrat nor a Republican. Both parties care nothing for fixing anything, unless it helps them retain power…

I can’t vouch for the validity of the photographs, but the maps and the size of ANWR are accurate. Spills will happen (in 2006 there was a spill of between 134,000 and 268,000 gallons of oil near Prudhoe Bay) and roads will need to be built, as there are zero roads within or leading into ANWR. But even though there are no roads, there are thousands (at least 5,000) native Inupiat peoples that live in ANWR and depend on the flora and fauna of the area.

Sure, jobs will be created and there will be oil pumped out, but it’s a tiny amount of oil and a relatively small number of jobs. According to the Department of Energy’s EIA (Energy Information Administration:

“The opening of the ANWR 1002 Area to oil and natural gas development is projected to increase domestic crude oil production starting in 2018. In the mean ANWR oil resource case, additional oil production resulting from the opening of ANWR reaches 780,000 barrels per day in 2027 and then declines to 710,000 barrels per day in 2030. In the low and high ANWR oil resource cases, additional oil production resulting from the opening of ANWR peaks in 2028 at 510,000 and 1.45 million barrels per day, respectively. Between 2018 and 2030, cumulative additional oil production is 2.6 billion barrels for the mean oil resource case, while the low and high resource cases project a cumulative additional oil production of 1.9 and 4.3 billion barrels, respectively.”

“Additional oil production resulting from the opening of ANWR would be only a small portion of total world oil production, and would likely be offset in part by somewhat lower production outside the United States. The opening of ANWR is projected to have its largest oil price reduction impacts as follows: a reduction in low-sulfur, light crude oil prices of $0.41 per barrel (2006 dollars) in 2026 for the low oil resource case, $0.75 per barrel in 2025 for the mean oil resource case, and $1.44 per barrel in 2027 for the high oil resource case, relative to the reference case.”

For the average case, drilling in ANWR would reduce crude oil by 75 cents, in 2025. The total production from ANWR would be between 0.4 and 1.2 percent of total world oil consumption in 2030. So, we won’t see any oil for at least 10 years, and at best the price per barrel of oil (not per gallon of gasoline) will drop by $1.44 in 19 years. To me, that sounds like a huge waste of time and money. Instead, we should be investing our time and money on weaning our country off of oil, not just “foreign oil.” The more we invest in alternative energy sources for the production of electricity the less oil and natural gas we’ll need to import, which will bring the price of oil, and therefore gasoline, down.

Furthermore, the U.S. consumes 20,687,000 barrels of oil per day (as of 2006). At best, and only at it’s peak, we would be able to extract 1,450,000 barrels of oil per day. Since the entire world consumes a total of 83,607,000 barrels of oil per day (as of 2005), we Americans use nearly 25% of the worlds oil but account for less than 0.5% of the total population of the planet (300 million out of over 6 billion). The real kicker is that the total world production of oil is 82,532,000 barrels of oil per day (as of 2005). So, not only are we using much more than our fair share of oil, but we’re using it faster than we’re finding it. Sounds like a recipe for disaster to me. If I spend more money than I make it’ll eventually catch up to me, and then I’ll really have problems.

There is no magic bullet to save us from this energy crisis. People want simple solutions, but there are never simple solutions to complex problems. And this is a problem that has been decades in the making. I don’t profess to speak for God (or Jehovah or Allah or…), but I’d imagine he’s extremely disappointed at how humanity has run (ruined?) this beautiful planet. Aren’t we supposed to be stewards of the Earth?

Mike
—
“A free America, democratic in the sense that our forefathers
intended it to be, means just this: individual freedom for all,
rich or poor, or else this system of government we call
democracy is only an expedient to enslave man to the
machine and make him like it.”
- Frank Lloyd Wright