Another Tuesday

where to start?

*****UPDATED 11 July 2008*****

so anyway, I hope your Fourth of July and the weekend were splendid. It was non-stop-bop here at Casa de Miguel, replete with hikes through the woods, science museums, and finished off with a wiener roast and 'smores. Or however you spell it. Whatever. Wonderful weather, the only cloud in the sky was having to listen to someone to whom I would gladly give one of my kidneys rant large about life in "...the gulag of George Bush's Amerikkka...". And you people still wonder why I drink. Yeah, I'll give the kidney, but it'll be well worn....

But I digress; there are things at hand that need to be disseminated.

Mike of Cold Fury fame brings us Myths, busted, linking to an IBD editorial on the whole "drilling" debate. A snippet of the IBD piece:

• "Oil companies are sitting on 68 million acres of oil leases and refuse to drill."

This is yet another slander of "Big Oil" by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi — one that has become a major talking point for Democrats in Congress. It's completely dishonest.

Oil companies have spent billions of dollars for those leases. Drilling has increased by more than 66% since 2000. They are searching for oil even as you read this. Some parts of those 68 million acres will have oil, some won't. But at $145 a barrel, you can bet oil companies have plenty of incentive to find it.

That said, 68 million acres is in fact a minuscule amount. Some 94% of federal lands — 658 million acres — remains off-limits to exploration. Another 97% — or 1.7 billion acres — of federal offshore properties likewise remains off-limits. These lands contain tens of billions of barrels of recoverable oil. It's there for the taking, now.

A few weeks back, Q and O had a great post on the "68 million acres" debate and the definitions of "producing vs. non-producing" leases, but I can't find it now. I'll keep digging and will advise.

*****UPDATE***** Here's the Q and O post on "inactive leases"

Speaking of Q an O, McQ takes a good look at Senator Obama's "national service plan":

It is one thing to encourage service. It is quite another to make it "compulsory". When it becomes compulsory, it is no longer service, it is a form of servitude. No matter how benign, when participation is mandated and rewards are withheld if requirements of the mandate aren't fulfilled, it becomes a form of tyranny.

Elsewhere; Ace brings us a link to a British Muslim who actually appreciates GWB's leadership:

The fact is you guys hate Mr Bush because he is not a hypocrite and you are used to hypocrites as your leaders. We hate what we don’t understand.

Yes, yes, all you bleeding heart liberals are cringing out there. I can just hear you. But the fact is, Mr Bush has had to take some very tough decisions and the world needs people who can not only talk but also act tough and admit mistakes.

Of course you think Mr Obama is going to make a difference, but as I write this, he’s already giving all the signs of somebody who will say anything to get into power only to act in exactly the same way as the Washington clique he aims to replace!

Hating George W. Bush is not only dull and unoriginal, but it shows a complete lack of understanding of the world in which we live in.

Perhaps, the elusive "moderate Muslim" has been found. Maybe not, his closing snark (that I'm reading as sarcasm, your mileage may vary) may belay his true beliefs:

And for those of you who still don’t buy into what I’m saying, look at the Middle East. Bush single-handedly managed to unite the Arabs in their hate for him.

Given how difficult uniting the Arabs is, it takes a special man with special skills to achieve this. He is just the kind of man to bring about peace in that region!

Late, tired; you know the song. Feel free to sing along. I'll do Senator McCain vs. Senator Obama tomorrow or Thursday (or next week, we'll see how it goes).