Wednesday, June 11, 2008

Save the Fish, Screw the Farmers



California outlawed getting water from its deltas due to an endangered fish named shad living in them. Now California is in the middle of a drought, and who is going to pay for the shad?

The hard working farmers of America and of course,You and I. Good thing those liberals 'love' the working class.

California grows 80% of the nations produce. That produces is grown by farmers, that require water. This water shortage doesn't just mean that the state will have to take shorter showers, it means that the farmers are going to pay more for their water and get rationed. Already many farmers have been dramatically affected by this water shortage. (But don't worry about the shad, they can still have water for THEIR families) This also means, higher cost of produce for us all.

The hypocrisy of politics. This party that claims to be 'fighting for the working man' continues to push polices and practices that hurts the working man the most. What's a shad good for anyhow? How come the shad is more important that the life blood of our farming community?

Right now, what is the number one issue that is putting the crunch on the working class? What's making blue collar truck drivers lose money daily? Increase the price of food? That would be gas. And not surprisingly the majority of the United States supports drilling on US land for oil. But the 'party of the working man' seems to love the condors more than the working man, as it is a democratic congress that continues to block drilling for oil on US soil.

Why aren't Americans more upset that we are SITTING on millions and millions of gallons of oil, and fields of natural gas but our congress is too busy spending our tax dollars trying to impeach a lame duck president? But I digress, the issue at hand is that you can not please the environmentalists AND claim to be a hero to the working class.

One of our presidential candidates opposes US drilling which is reason enough not to vote for him, and evidence that he doesn't care as much about the working class as he does about his image...and the birds.

34 comments:

Aimee said...

AMEN! Thanks for giving me another reason to dislike Obama. Can you help me like McCain more? I'm a little disenchanted...

Democracy Lover said...

It would really help to get the facts straight here. For example, the "we are sitting on millions of barrels of oil" canard. Any new exploration, say in the Artic wildlife refuge, would not yield significant production for about 10 years and then would not be enough to have a significant impact on prices.

The water restrictions in California were imposed by the Republican governor (not by "liberals"). Efforts by local groups to save the shad are being stymied by the US Fish and Wildlife Service and I'm rather certain that the shad are not the cause of the water shortage.

The answer to our energy problem is not desperately drilling everywhere we can to get the last drop of precious crude. The answer is to develop alternative energy sources, and push conservation.

The devotion of American politicians of both parties to the so-called "free market" ideology has left us with a built environment that simply cannot function without cheap gasoline. Had our politicians made more attention to the environment over the last 60 years, the working class would be a heck of a lot better off now.

Lastly, it is indeed unfortunate that no time or tax dollars will be spent impeaching the President. The failure to do so is a gross abdication by Congress of their Constitutional responsibilities.

Salt H2O said...

DL-
You have a pattern of making statements with out backing them up. If you click on the hyper links in my post, and here you'll find support for everything I have stated- including the suply of oil AND natural gas on US soil.

1. I have no issue by a drought declared by the Governor who is indeed a republican (in name only). It's the inability to take water from the deltas (which is where my issue lies) was a ruling by a liberal judge.

2. I absolutely agree that the answer is not drilling everywhere and finding alternative resources of energy. HOWEVER, at the moment we do not have these alternative resources. It would make sense to drill in the interum- while the sources are being discovered in order to give financial relief to the working class.

3. How would the working class be better off if the politcians had been paying more attention to the environment 60 years ago? You can't simply blame a free market economy with environmentalism.

4. Do you read the news? Kunich spent HOURS of Congresses time reading his statements for impeachment. What good would it do to impeach a lame duck president- who is on his way out- when there are so many more pressing natures facing this country at this time? It's grandstanding and it does absolutely nothing to help the american people that congress represents.

Salt H2O said...

Aimee-

I have a hard time liking McCain as well.

The best suggestion I have in comparing the two is doing a LOT of research. Find the issues that are important to you and find out where they stand and what they have done to support those issues.

Which would be challenging to do with Obama, because he hasn't put his name on one signifcant piece of legislation nor has he actually voted on the majority of bills placed in the Senate. (unless you count voting 'present' taking a stand)

Robin said...

I'm so darn glad we didn't name one of our kids Shad. Whew!

Kory, you are singing my song loud and clear and I will join you in the chorus! I 100% agree with your post.

You are in my blog today.

Democracy Lover said...

The problem with focusing on drilling now and with the devotion to so-called free market "solutions" is that there won't be any development of alternative energy that way. The short-term profits will be in drilling and that's what the energy companies will do. We could save more by conservation next year than we will get from US drilling for the next decade.

I think you missed my point about our built environment. We constructed interstate highways, housing developments scattered over miles and miles far away from places of employment and shopping malls set on acres of asphalt far away from downtown. Our urban transit systems were systematically destroyed and now Americans live in sterile developments of near-identical houses segregated by economic class (Gunnysack Meadows from the low $300's, Dior Hills from $800,000, etc.) We often don't know who our neighbors are, we have to drive an hour or more through traffic to work and if we run out of milk, we have to get in the SUV and drive 5 miles to the nearest store. It is an environmental disaster caused by our devotion to "market forces" and our fear that "big government" might impede "progress" by zoning or planning.

P.S. Kucinich was talking to an empty room. The only money being spent was on the C-SPAN cameras. As for impeachment, there is nothing more important to the future of this nation than restoration of Constitutional government. Besides, Bush is going to veto anything they pass to help the American people.

Steve said...

Salty,

I'm going to have to agree with 90% of DL here; and not b/c we are cut from the same "bleeding heart".

The problem here isn't supply in the US. Our refineries operate at 100% capacity every single day of the year. Adding more supply of oil won't add more supply of gas and other oil related substances we use in a slew of other everyday items. Until a new refinery will be built, which takes years, and one hasn't been built in about 30 years, mainly due to the Not In My Backyard Types, which do NOT bend in any particular way, but do prefer to worry about their own needs over that of the country, drilling is a waste of resources.

Oil is the OLD commodity. Water will be the oil in the future AND alternative energy is the ONLY way to lower gas prices, by lowering demand.

BTW, alternative technologies such as hydrogen and other powered vehicles has been around since at least the 90's, but the country (businesses and Congress) have refused to invest in the infrastructure due to the cheapness of oil/gas during this time. I worked on a project at DoD where the military had a bunch of alternative powered jeeps, etc., but used the old gas guzzling ones b/c gas was so cheap and they didn't see the need to build any refueling stations for the other types on their bases, thus they sat unused in garages all over the country.

Salt H2O said...

Steve-

I don't think liberals have bleeding hearts. If they did they'd never decide to save the Shad and put California farmers out of work.

I agree with everything you said. Completely. I'm big on alternative energy. We need another refinery- it takes about 7 years to build one. However, it doesn't take so terribly long to extract natural gas.

If we start drilling/ building now we'd still be in an energy crisis until the refineries are built and the oil is drilled. There would STILL be a push for alternative fuels.

We have no idea where the country is going to be in 7 years, or how much that technology is going to cost the working class american.

7 years from now the working class american will not able to afford a hydrogen car, or afford to retro-fit their existing car. They barely can afford the car they have. They are going to be tied to the price of gas regardless of other fuels enter the market.

Have you seen someone impoverished driving a hybrid? The poor don't drive Hybrids, yupees do.

I don't have the faith in the system that you do. I don't think that 7 years from now we'll have an alternative energy source that is readily availble to our nation's poor. Our truckers won't be able to purchase new trucks 7 years from now. The easiest way to give them financial aid is to lower the price of gas that goes into their car.

Steve said...

How sad is it that supposedly the greatest country ever can't make alternative energy happen in 7 years?!?!? This is the same country that beat (with some help from the Brits, etc) the strongest army the world had ever seen up to that point in less than 4! You know why, b/c the country united. You are right, it can't be done when corporations run everything like they do now. This might sound crazy, but I'd bet that if Nazi Germany started in 2008 instead of 1938, we wouldn't go to war with them b/c we'd be too worried about our economic ties with them and the rest of the EU. Sad, but I believe it. Bottom line, if we, the smartest and most well financed country can't change what we put into our cars in 7 years, then that says more than all our blogs put together.....

Cameron said...

It sounds like we should have drilled and refined oil seven years ago. Hmm, isn't that what President Bush tried to do, oh seven years ago when he took office, but was thwarted by democrats and greenies? Not such a dumb shrub now, is he.

The high energy prices of today are exactly what environmentalists wanted. They, like Steve, saw alternative energy Jeeps sitting around because oil was cheaper. So they forced oil to become expensive.

The problem is that at the same time our political grandstanding policies forced energy prices upwards, nothing was allowed to replace it. Wind farms, solar panels, hydro dams - all nice, but when it comes right down to actually building them, there's always some environmental reason not to.

I have one of the most fuel efficient vehicles out there, getting 38 mpg. I didn't get a hybrid because I didn't have the extra $5k to spend. Now, not even my "green" 38 mpg car is enough to save my pocketbook. So yesterday I went looking for a cng vehicle because natural gas is only 63 cents a gallon in Utah. It costs $10k to convert my existing car to cng. You can't buy a new one in Utah because Honda is the only company that makes them and they only sell in California - for $25k. That is, unless you're a government fleet, then you can buy them. Which is how I found the car I did. It was an old gov't car being sold on ebay. It has 120k miles on it and is ten years old. It sold for $10k.

I think that's what Salt is talking about. Preach all you want about alternative fuels and vehicles, but you're doing nothing but screwing a couple hundred million Americans who don't have an extra ten thousand dollars lying around.

Steve said...

Again, MORE oil isn't the answer. It's a band-aid. We need other options. We have to remember that hybrid cars and other alt fuel vehicles are still pretty new and mostly a fringe market. As the demand goes up, more companies will offer them, creating more competition and better efficiency in design and construction, meaning more affordable cars. It's exactly what happened in the early 80's when Japanese cars came onto the scene. You can already see this with the Smart car. It's sold out for 2008.

As for other options, I have some friends that travel the country in an RV b/c they are in a band. Obviously, gasoline would have made making money a lot harder. So they converted their RV to run on used vegetable oil. At their gigs, they take the used stuff from the bar or nearby restaurants, who have to pay someone to take it away anyways, for free and run all over the place. They haven't had to pay to put fuel into their RV in months! If you build it, people will come.

Another issue beyond gas is our power supply. Yucca mountain is another example where over active imaginations defeat logic. :(

Cameron said...

Again, buying a new car is not the answer for millions of Americans.

If converting a car to run on vegetable oil costs less than the $10k to convert it to natural gas, then by all means spread the word.

Vanilla Vice said...

1. Nuclear energy.
2. We have plenty of oil left on this earth - it's just too expensive to extract in small pools and not plentiful enough in large quantities which is cheaper to extract.
3. Refineries are falling apart. They stop for 1 week a year to modernize, and if they aren't done, they get back to work otherwise they lose millions. We should build a few for obvious reasons.

We need a cheaper way of extracting the smaller pools of oil that is available - and like I said, there's a ton it's just not economically viable (until now and we're hitting $4.50 a gallon in CA).

You can also blame high gas prices on the Olympics and China's consumption. Had the Olympics been somewhere else, we would not had this crisis until Sept. Want to watch China at our mercy? Watch THEM run out of oil and we'll get our dollar back when we come up with alternative energy that they need to make cheap goods in their sweat factories.

Saudi Arabia is also storing a lot of oil and not putting it on the market as they are planning communities.

Free market is the way to go - the government should be providing nothing but tax incentives to companies with alternative energy research (and not f-ing ethanol which is an expensive additive that drives the price of gas even higher).

Also, I am having a hard time with the term Lame Duck. Although it's original meaning was one who lost power, it's more modern meaning is one who loses power through an election - a one termer. This isn't your fault. It's the media's. Technically Clinton was a Lame Duck when impeached but no one slandered him because he was on his second term.

Democracy Lover said...

While alternative fuels provide part of the answer, conservation and rail are also needed. If the poor working people everyone here seems so concerned about cannot buy a new car and cannot fill the tank of their current car, then we need to insure that our public transportation systems are more robust. That will require government investment. We need conservation - that will require government investment. We will require a massive investment in alternate energy technologies - by government.

The idea that we should provide more tax breaks as incentives to the most profitable corporation in the history of the world so they might actually do something useful to help the nation is a cruel joke.

The reason we have $4/gallon gas and a trillion dollar occupation in Iraq cannot be blamed on the environmentalists. That is the fault of the "free market" worshipers who won't countenance any government program to fix the mess. If we had paid attention to Jimmy Carter on this issue instead of starting our nation spinning down the toilet bowl with Reagan, we would be laughing at the oil prices right now.

Steve said...

Here, here DL! Carter doesn't get enough credit. They have even spun the Iran hostage crisis to make it sound like Reagan freed them when it was really the work of Carter and his administration.

BTW, none of these tax credits or investments by government can happen by lowering taxes or quite possibly keeping them at the current level. If we want a better tomorrow, we have to be willing to pay for it.

Launchpad said...

DEMOCRACY LOVER

1) "Had our politicians made more attention to the environment over the last 60 years, the working class would be a heck of a lot better off now."-DL

What country are you talking about? Talk about miss linking logic. What link between the working class and the environment you are talking about?

Furthermore, you must be blogging from Russia or maybe Europe or perhaps China. The "working class" in the USA has never had it better. Let's get some perspective. Sixty years ago was 1948. What has happened since? It's not hard to show that over that period of time US working class real standard of living has risen at an unprecedented rate and surpassed those of other nations. Your argument is poor in that the consequence of what you imply is the opposite of what you intend and has no link to the cause you state. I am as green as the next guy but lets not be ridiculous. I think you may have misspoken this one.

2) It's "unfortunate that no time or tax dollars will be spent impeaching the President" -DL

How many presidents have been impeached? The only president that has been impeached (Clinton) was impeached by the House and stopped in the Senate. The process has never been completed and impeachment talk is asinine. It is foolish to think that any impeachment talk with Bush will materialize. Congressmen are out to make a name for themselves. This is why we have baseball players testifying before congress about steroid use. Congressmen have much more useful policies to promote than to waste our tax dollars on this.

And yes this (Kucinich comment) is a waste of tax dollars. We are paying for his current salary and perpetual retirement as the public is distracted from real issues.

The most useful work that is done in congress is not nearly as entertaining as impeachment talk. Feckless congressmen, that have no creative policy proposals, start having major-league baseball hearings and talk about impeachment. Yes congress has a responsibility to impeach the president, but that is not the focus of their job. It is a power check.

3) Oil Pricing
Let me start off by saying, the high price of oil is the best thing that could happen to America. The current price of oil has awoken the beast of the financial markets and opened the flood gates to billions of investment capital working on alternatives to oil (the free market you seem to hate is working on a solution you would love). No matter what the price of oil is in the future; the private sector has awoken and is inundating this sector with research investments. That free market that you seem to have issues with is solving the problem a lot faster than Carter would have. Obviously the peanut farmer had some great ideas about energy production and the environment, but that was not the problem with Carter. The problem was two fold: 1) we did not have the technology at the time to be able to take on the challenge 2) he had no ability to create urgency with this issue. Let’s stay away from the hypothetical history it is pointless.

YOU ARE RIGHT ON ONE POINT--Opening drilling would be a band-aid. Is that bad? NO. Usually a band-aid is used to solve a smaller problem so that a larger one (infection) does not develop. This is exactly what our country needs. We still need to feel the pain of oil dependence (which we will) but not have it kill us.

The current oil price is based partially on 1) current supply and demand and 2) on speculation of future supply constraints. Every one is aware of the problem and alternatives are being sought after. Of course it would take a few years for US drilling and exploration to be brought on line. That is not the point. Oil prices will go down based on expected future supply and demand constraints. Opening up US drilling would offer short term relief. Also, stop thinking of the Exxon Valdez when you think of oil. Drilling oil is not as damaging as you seem to think.

4) The "nation [has been] spinning down the toilet bowl with Reagan" –DL

Please don’t toe the DNC party line. Do you know what has happened since Regan? You must have been born in the 90's.

At the start of Regan's presidency if you would have said, "In 8 years the cold war will be over, the US will be out of the period of stagflation and starting longest economic growth period in this nation's history" you would be counted as a fool. Like all presidents you take the good with the bad, but don’t just blast Regan with out any substance. Even Obama had good things to say about Regan.

"I think Ronald Reagan changed the trajectory of America…He put us on a fundamentally different path because the country was ready for it. …government had grown and grown but there wasn't much sense of accountability in terms of how it was operating. …he just tapped into what people were already feeling…we want a return to that sense of dynamism and entrepreneurship that had been missing."- Barack Obama (http://www.openleft.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=3263)

5) "That is the fault of the "free market" worshipers who won't countenance any government program to fix the mess.” “The devotion of American politicians of both parties to the so-called "free market" ideology has left us with a built environment that simply cannot function without cheap gasoline."

Don’t say this. You sound like you live in a cave. The so-called "free market" you hate has provided you with more positive outcomes that you will ever know. I would love for you to name 5 government programs (aside from the obvious of armed forces, legal system, and police) that you think are more effective than the private sector.

6) Your Suburban sprawl rant

Did you actually use “we don’t know our neighbors” as an argument on this one?

DEMOCRAY LOVER I realized your problem, you fall into a category of individuals who run on a superficial knowledge (thinking it is complete) and end up on a random blog offering incomplete bits of information. You don’t know what you don’t know, but the scary part is; you actually think you know.

Launchpad said...

STEVE

Steve. I have read your blog postings and responses. You seem reasonable, and more importantly—rational. Don’t encourage DL. You make cogent arguments for the Left. DL does not. Let’s promote reason and logic.

Steve said...

Uh oh Salty,

I've got your brother (I think!) as a fan. The end is nigh! Indeed! haha.

As for Democracy Lover, he is well intentioned. I was there not so long ago. The problem is not so much what you think (I would hazard to agree you and I have very similar hopes and desires to the direction this country and the world goes), however, I've guess I've become more jaded/cynical/logical/pandering in my experiences. Basically, our country will always be a little "backwards" when it comes to societal needs. It's ingrained into our based upon the individualality encouraged by the early years of this country. With that being said, I've learned that you have to fight the system from inside, not out, to get anywhere. It's way more frustrating and difficult, but it's the only hope we have to prevent the country to turning into the misguided policies of 1890's and 1920's.

Basially, the electorate is to placid and distracted to really do what is in its best interest, thus you have to use the system in place to make changes on their behalf. You should read "Party and Class".

Democracy Lover said...

Two little comments: First, on the whole "we should drill in the US" argument, this post says it much better than I can - including graphs and pictures.

Second, I am pretty cynical about our nation's ability to meet societal needs - not because of the individuality encouraged by our early history, but because our political system is completely in the hands of corporate lobbyists. Fighting the system from the inside is virtually pointless unless you have the millions to slather "donations" on your Congressman.

It is indeed a sad day for America when a President who has lied us into a war, turned us into a nation that kidnaps and tortures people, outs CIA agents at will, and made the Justice Department a partisan hit squad can sit quietly in the White House with no fear of ever being brought to account for his crimes. And that is largely because the "opposition party" refuses to be faithful to their oath of office.

Salt H2O said...

DL-
You weary me.

One of my favorite blog friends is Steve- he drinks the same kool-aid you do. The other day my brother and I were talking about how much we like Steve simply because when he disagrees he is logical and unemotional- and doesn't sound like he's regurgitating what he heard from Keith Oberman the previous evening.

I appreciate that you care enough to put time and energy into continually posting comments. However, I was tempted today to simply delete your comment because you're not only repeating yourself-you're posting sound bites, which are quite off topic from this post. This post was about a liberal judge who deemed fish need the water in California more than farmers.

And how the democrats that claim to love the poor- love the environmentalists more (does the poor have lobbyists? no, but environmentalists do)

There is a difference between intellectual conversation and simply throwing words.

If you chose to continue repeating yourself and feel compelled to have the last word- I will delete the comment- because this is my blog and as such- I control who has the last word.

Tom Quinn. said...

I thought I saw Steve Buscemi at a taco stand in Burbank. It ended up not being him, but I did stay for a taco.

natsmom said...

I am really enjoying your blog AND I think I was one of your YW leaders when I lived in La Costa in the early 1990's before I became a Zonie, which was before I became a Texan, which is what I am currently. I'd like to be in touch by email, but don't want to post my email address in the comments for all the world to see. Any suggestions?

Julie Schiller

pr0le said...

http://www.anwr.org/gallery/pages/55-Permanent_wilderness.htm

I say we bend ANWR over and tap that thing for all it has. Who says a little short term relief (ten years from now) isn't worth destroying a little piece of land the size of South Carolina?

Oh wait... sometimes those silly facts get in the way: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4542853/ Well, we all know that "Energy Department" is run by a bunch of ((liberals)) anyway.

Salt H2O said...

pr0le-
Thre's more than just ANWAR (and where they want to drill in Anwar is not in the area the size of South Carolina, Anwar is the size of South Carolina)

The energy department has no controll over where they drill- congress does.

It is absolutely ridiculous for the United States not to explore EVERY source of energy we have. ESPECIALLY since diesel trucks which ship everything we consume will not be easily replaced. And "POOR" America can not afford a new car, much less a hybrid- or a hydrogen car.

But who gives a rats about what the poor can or can't afford? Let's save barren land that no one is using and come up with no other solutions aside from 'conservation' of energy. Damn poor who drive to work each day! Damn truck drivers who bought their own trucks. They deserve to pay more money for gas! While all of those bleeding heart democrats can smug in their hybrids.

pr0le said...

The article wasn't about who decides where we drill, it was about the extremely small benefit we get for doing it:
"Opening an Alaska wildlife refuge to oil development would only slightly reduce America’s dependence on imports and would lower oil prices by less than 50 cents a barrel, according to an analysis released Tuesday by the Energy Department."

And:
"[T]he crude could begin flowing by 2013"

So destroying any part of this Alaska coastline (definitely NOT barren, by the way - that's why it's called a wildlife refuge) will drop a barrel of oil a total of $0.50 according to the Energy Department. We're not talking $0.50 a gallon here folks, we're talking a barrel of unprocessed oil. Honestly I wouldn't bother cutting out a coupon for that little a cost savings, let alone destroying part of America.

I don't have a hybrid - I can't afford a hybrid. You know what I'm doing? I'm reassessing my spending priorities and reworking my budget to deal with the price of gasoline. I'll start using public transportation more - already have. I'll consolidate my errands, I'll be more conscious in my driving habits, I'll adjust. We just can't keep living like the resources of this earth are infinite and expect no consequences.

One other point relating the the original blog post: I'd hardly call sport fisherman environmentalists. Conservationists, maybe (at least when it comes to fish), but not environmentalists. Not when they're taking *away* from the environment. I'm a sport fisherman myself, btw.

pr0le said...

Forgot to mention the going price for a barrel of oil right now: a little over $140.

Can you imagine the store ad for that? "Now through independence day save $0.50 on your purchase of $140 or more!"

Salt H2O said...

The pictures of Anwar that they show on TV and in articles is not where they want to drill. It's like showing pictures of the California Coast line when in reality they're looking to drill in Baker California- they're both California technically, just showing pictures of the Coastline tugs at the heart strings.

It sounds like you mis-read the part about the fish.

The fish are 'saved' by a liberal judge- (not by fishermen) you can't fish for the Shad because they are endangered.

The farmer's can't use the water from the levys due to this judge stating that the shad are more important than their livelyhood.

Hence the big catch 22 with liberals- do you save the fish or do you save the poor farmer that needs that water dearly for his livelyhood? Do you drill for oil for the trucker's rigs or do you save the environment and put the blue collar truckers out of work, and drastically raise the price of food?

pr0le said...

Salt H2O,

I went back and reread the story you linked to about the farmers need for water, and even watched the video this time. Nowhere in the whole story was any talk of a liberal judge (did someone check his ID for his liberal status, by the way? Or are we just assuming he's a liberal because he's a judge?) ruling in favor of the fish.

The story *did* mention a drought. It seems like you're grasping at straws here. Just because you heard Glenn Beck say it doesn't make it true.

Also, have you been to Alaska? I've spent some quality time there and I've yet to see an ugly part of the state, especially on a coastline.

Your questions at the end of your last comment are less of a catch 22 than just a plain old moral quandary. I'd like to think that it doesn't have to be quite so black or white - that there's a good middle ground in there when it comes to the fish issue.

On the trucker/oil drilling issue though, there is no middle ground. Drilling in ANW(A?)R provides NO real benefit. If you don't believe the Department of Energy I don't know who you'll believe (who is credible anyway - that excludes Limbaugh, O'Reilly, Beck, etc). The fact is we all have to suck it up and change our lifestyles and start finding solutions to our energy needs. We've lived the high life for too long - it was only a matter of time. We have had some of the cheapest oil of any non-oil producing country. We've kept the cost of oil artificially low, and now we're going to pay for it in the back end. Bitching about it won't change the facts.

Salt H2O said...

LOL! prOle sweetheart- I heard the story on NPR. (though I do love Glenn Beck, but I'm far to intelligent and original to regurgitate someone else's opinion on my blog. I figure if someone wants Glenn Beck's opinion- they'll go get it from him)

The story about the SHAD was linked on the the "If it's yellow let it mellow" blog- I hate link redundancy but here it is again.
shad link

I don't care if a judge calls himself a liberal or not- he put the needs of fish over the needs of people- which would make him a liberal.

Yes, I've been to Alaska. It is a beautiful place.

I'm not so concerned about my ability to 'suck it up'- more concenred with the guy who lived next door to me, who rented a two bedroom apartment and had his son living with him, and was a truck driver.

I can suck it up- my poor neighbor who is as blue collar as it gets- his lively hood is being squashed by the inability for the US to EXPLORE finding more oil. He can't bus the food he trucks. There is no way for him to conserve gas.

There is more than just Anwar- I've seen pictures of where they want to drill and it isn't coastline.

I'm not going to profess to be knowlegable as to the amounts of oil, nor do I have the time in my life to continue to research- but I do know that Utah has been pushing to explore the oil in their mountains, there's a great deal off of Florida, California and Texas as well.

I am all about conservation- and alternative energy, but the poor cannot afford alternative energy- but our country is a LONG LONG way from a viable alternative solution, and until we find our own oil, we will be at ther mercy of our enimies.

With the majority of our food being trucked- soon the less fortunate will not be able to afford food either.

It's naive and arrogant to tell those that cannot afford to pay for food- because the gas that ships it is expensive- to suck it up.

Cameron said...

"The fact is we all have to suck it up and change our lifestyles and start finding solutions to our energy needs."

Tell that to poor people. Like in Maine, where heating oil has quadrupled in price in 3 years, and is expected to continue to rise this winter. Your argument is nothing more than "let them eat cake."

Salt H2O said...

Here's an additional shad link

pr0le said...

Salt H20,

Your first link is the one I found when searching for this story, and why I made the comment about sport fisherman - that's what the story was about.

The second link shows that once again, despite what we'd like to think, there are limits to our natural resources. The smelt are the canary in the coal mine. Most likely the judge would not have placed the temporary restriction on the delta had California not been suffering from drought conditions. The judge is trying to temper the effects on the ecosystem due to overuse. Do you know what happens to a body of water without a thriving fish population? It becomes unusable even to farmers because it harbors so much bacteria and algae.

Cameron,
I realize how it sounds, but what are we going to do? To reiterate: drilling in or around ANWR will produce crude oil 6 years from now (a trickle at first) and reduce the price of a barrel of oil from $142.00 to $141.50, assuming current prices.

ANWR is not an option! Sure it'll make shortsighted conservatives sleep better at night knowing we're raping some of our own land for the benefit of some oil companies, but it won't provide real results. So what's our alternative? Much like the people of Iowa coping with flood water, we're going to have to suck it up and deal. I know this offends the delicate sensibilities of many people, but that's what we're looking at.

pr0le said...

Oh, and I know the comment "he put the needs of fish over the needs of people- which would make him a liberal" was just bait, and like my friends the shad, I'm not going to bite.

Salt H2O said...

pr0le-
There are many sides to the delta debate. The more I read the more intricute the issues are- if the desires were simply to maintain the quality of water in the delta for the use of humans- and that alone I would understand. It's when we start being concerned about the fish for fish sake that I get annoyed and frustraited.

Again, when it comes to Anwar in particular- I'm not an expert. However, there is more than one place to drill in this country- which is what the close of my post advocates- EXPLORATION of US oil. (not just Alaskan oil)

For a party that is so concerned about 'working america' you think they'd be a bit more open to finding local solutions to the oil crisis- having oil 6 years from now is a hell of a lot better than no oil at all.