Three Way News
Your Source. For everything. Really.
Contributors
- Hammer
- Jambo
- Libby Mae
Current Poll
Recurring features
Hammer's Favorites
- Dobson v. Sponge-Bob
- Calvin, the nest egg
- Pat's predictions
- Bachmann spins Cupertino
- 205 atheists assume the bench
- Fox spins Oil for Food
- Fact check: highest taxed state
- Gen. Myers v. Reality
- Janice Rogers Brown
- Killing Field
- Kline hates Big Bird
- Vote Luca Brasi!
- Cornyn's Stalinist Supreme Court
- Rumsfeld's hidden metrics
Jambo's Favories
- Dolphin research updates
- We all shine on
- If you have to write...
- Columnist NY Times should have
- Truth about taxes
- Fourth of July
- Movie objects
- Lost in supermarket
- Dysfunctional Farmer Labor party
- Punks you hated
- Some preacher from east
- Winning issues
Thursday, November 10, 2005
How to get John Kline to vote "No" to drilling in ANWR
Moderate Republicans in the House found a way to strip drilling in ANWR from the budget bill:
Twenty-five Republicans, led by Rep. Charles Bass of New Hampshire, signed a letter asking GOP leaders to strike the Alaskan drilling provision from the broader $54 billion budget cut bill.
"Rather than reversing decades of protection for this publicly held land, focusing greater attention on renewable energy sources, alternate fuels, and more efficient systems and appliances would yield more net energy savings than could come from ANWR and would have a higher benefit on the nation's long-term economic leadership and security," they said.
Predictably, Gil Gutknecht and John Kline signaled their support for drilling in ANWR, because as their oil masters bid. They'd sooner extract the oil from The Martyrdom of St. Stephen than require an Escalade to improve fuel efficiency by a half of a tenth of a mile per gallon.
How do we get Big Gil and John "Lockstep" Kline to vote against ANWR? I puzzled on this for literally minutes. Then I remembered that it's the 35th anniversary of Sesame Street and that John Kline hates Big Bird.
How do you get John Kline to vote against drilling in ANWR? Easy. Pay Big Bird a good salary to supervise the inevitable scrubbing of Caribou. Require the oil companies to affirmatively hire Fraggles. Put the Count in charge of auditing Exxon's balance sheet. (One, two, three: Three billion in windfall profits. Ah ha ha ha!)
This type of persuasion might not work on Big Gil. We might have to make him watch Muppet Treasure Island until he cracks.
8 Comments:
I doubt you'll ever get John Kline to vote against ANWR because he is smart enought to understand that energy independence and a strong economy are important components of national security. ANWR is just one part of the energy equation, but tree-hugging liberals don't want to drill anywhere.
Modern extraction techniques will NOT harm the wild life, but even if it did whacking a few caribou would not matter in the larger scheme of strengthening our national security and our vibrant economy.
We live in serious times, which is why the inherent silliness of liberalism will eventually reduce it to a marginal political philosophy.
By 
Right Hook, at
6:08 PM
John Kline...is smart enough
Now there's a phrase you don't hear every day.
Even the people pushing ANWR drilling admit it won't do us a bit of good for at least a decade. Sure would be nice if conservatives thought that far ahead about anything else in politics. But that's all the ANWR debate really is, politics. Oil companies are much less excited about the area than conservatives are because they realize that the cost benefit ratio for drilling up there is not really all that great.
And even if we did get the oil out of there the effect on our oil needs is practically zero since all it would do is increase the world supply of oil by a fraction of a percent which really doesn't do us much good. I had to laugh at the vote last week to require that all the ANWR oil only go to the American market. Anyone with even a basic understanding of economics (ie not the modern Republican party) knows that makes as much sense as saying you are only going to put this water in one end of the pool.
And we do live in serious times, but happen to be governed by very silly people.
What are the other parts of the energy equation? More production and ... and ... more production? If you want a serious discussion about energy more oil isn't much of a contribution.
There are several components to the energy equation, some of the major ones being:
- More production
- More refining capacity - the environmentalist whackkos have stopped construction of new oil refineries for 30 years.
- Less regulatory interference (e.g. requirements of "designer" fuels for different regions, dumbass CAFE standards, EPA bureucratic red tape, etc.)
- More nukes
- Free market economics and pedal-to-the-metal capitalism
We would have had ANWR on line by now if our former Commander-in-Heat hadn't vetoed it in 1995.
Silly liberal notions of E-85, biodiesel, windfall profits taxes, price controls, or subsidising alternative energy sources like wind and solar will just make things worse. Private industry will eventually introduce PRACTICAL alternative energy sources when it is economically feasible to do so.
And I sure wouldn't impune John Kline's intelligence when your side features dullards like Mark Dayton, Betty McCollum, Barbara Boxer, Nancy Pelosi, Algore, Howie "the scream" Dean, Ted Kennedy, "Dingy Harry" Reid etc.
By Right Hook, at
9:14 PM
"...your side features dullards like..." This concerns me. And it's not just coming from people on the right. There are plenty of references here to W's intelligence. If you are a Minnesotan, then Mark Dayton is YOUR Senator as much as Norm Coleman is. W is MY president, even though I didn't vote for him, and I disagree with the direction he is taking our country. I do pray for him. Perhaps political colloquy is by its nature divisive and heated. That's why I'm concerned about politics consuming our public school science curriculum.
Just as I thought: more production, more production, and more production. That's not a strategy, that's a mantra.
There is a lot of name calling here. Makeover Mark Kennedy. John Lockstep Kline. Smilin' Norm Coleman. Partisanship has been reduced to marketing. I suppose if I had better ideas, I wouldn't name call quite so much.
Not me. I like all the name calling, it's half the fun of blogging. If I had to limit my self to factual analysis on, say, Katherine Kersten, I'd still have plenty to say but might not bother to say it nor would most people be interested in reading it. It would be a totally different story if I were a mainstream journalist but I'm not. I'm a snarky guy who gets a kick out of bitching about politics. I hope that in the process I pass along some interesting thoughts but I see my "job" as a blogger as being somewhat less restrained in my opinion than "real" journalists. That said, I like to think the insults here are at least fair and sometimes even entertaining. And the ones that aren't fair are so obviously satire that no one gets too bothered. For example, I don't really think that a mere glimpse of KK will turn a man to stone. In fact I think the opposite is true, if you know what I mean.
<< Home
