Well, it beats the heck out of EIGHT MORE YEARS! :shock: The latest catch-phrase to capture the overfed upper-middle class middle-aged whities would make sense if we were talking dentistry, but here are some observations -- and no, 'fog, I'm not posting any links from any blogs. It may be a weird concept to you, but I continue to make my own observations and express my own ideas: 1. If we want to cut imports of foreign oil, we can do that immediately. We've always been able to do that. Why don't we? It's because foreign oil is cheaper than oil we produce domestically. Think of it like football players. English players are more expensive in England than are players from Asia, Africa, and the United States. [Marcus Bent 18million pounds/Brian McBride, 900,000 pounds] 2. Oil companies buy oil as cheaply as they can and sell it -- post refinery -- for the highest rate the market will bear. This is called capitalism. Oil companies buy foreign oil because they know their competitors will, and they want to keep making a profit. After all, why stop selling gasoline for $3.85 a gallon using imports, when using domestic would make you sell it for, say, $4.15? Because the guy down the road might not, and consumers tend to go for the cheapest gas. Consumer demand is the single greatest reason for our use of foreign oil. 3. There are two ways to bring down oil prices -- increase supply and decrease demand. Decreasing demand can begin immediately. In fact, it already has. People have stopped buying new gas guzzlers, have tried to sell the ones they already own, and have cut down on recreational driving. Things that make the aforementioned rich fat whities chuckle -- you know, like tuning your engine periodically and using properly inflated tires -- also can immediately reduce demand. This is good in terms of "reducing our dependence on foreign oit" but it doesn't do anything financially for American oil producers. So, 4. Drill Baby Drill. The idea here is that we can reduce consumer cost by increasing supply. Okay, I'll buy that. So why didn't anyone in the administration react positively to the proposal to tap the strategic reserve? I mean, the strategic reserve is there for periods of emergency. Certainly people losing their homes and food prices going through the roof should be an emergency, right? Or is this just the "new reality" of Republican governance? But I digress. No, the answer is that increasing the flow of already mined oil would have had an IMMEDIATE effect on supply, but it would not have been a financial windfall for American oil producers. 5. Increased off-shore exploration and drilling in ANWAR, on the other hand, provide new development contracts to American oil producers. These efforts will also increase the levels of tax breaks and incentives to oil producers. This is sometimes known, churlishly, as corporate welfare. It also accomplishes two things that directly benefit the Republican party -- and, I suppose, at least 2% of the people who regularly vote Republican: Your number one financial support base suddenly has even more money to donate to your elected officials -- AND -- in the name of National Security -- you've been able to dismantle two major environmental protections. And, since environmentalists tend to vote Democratic, it's all good. 6. What's the drawback? Well, newly acquired oil carries with it the costs of exploration and infrastructure. Those first 100,000 barrels of oil include all the drilling, building, pipeline, refining costs for the entire oil field. What's the result? Well, for one thing, it makes oil from new sources MORE EXPENSIVE THAN OIL FROM OVERSEAS. 7. Care for another drawback? It takes time to find the best place to drill and to mount a successful drilling operation. In other words, in exchange for huge tax giveaways to the oil companies [that most of us will have to make up for either in our own taxes or in even further reduced social services], we'll have to wait a significant period of time before we see even that more expensive oil. How long? Well, anywhere between 2.5 to 5 years WAS the given. When the always-efficient-never-to-be-doubted administration first suggested new off-shore drilling and overturning ANWAR protections, even Fox News said it would take a couple of years for the new oil to reach the marketplace. Then, obviously, the memo arrived and, in the course of 12 hours, Fox News revised those estimates downwards to "a matter of weeks." 8. Is this an out and out lie? Of course it is. You can't make oil flow more quickly just because saying so supports Republicans. Now there WAS a logical reason behind all this once upon a time. In the relatively recent past, we've been able to reduce the price of oil just by THREATENING to drill in ANWAR or actually get serious about increasing the fuel efficiency of Detroit's products. NOT ANY MORE, however. When the rest of the world was already conserving, it was the US market that made prices go up and down. More American gas guzzlers=higher world prices; threat of increased American oil exploration=lower prices. But ... 9. NOT ANY MORE. Ladies and gentlemen, let me draw your attention to India and China. 10. So, if we want to reduce our use of foreign oil, either we pay significantly more for domestic oil, or we use less. On the other hand, if what we want to do is put more tax dollars in the hands of individuals and corporations who will, in turn, donate even more money to the RNC and Republican politicians, then ... DRILL BABY DRILL! Oh, and about all that money-saving off-shore oil, for the second time in a month, gasoline prices in my area are going up. Why? Because a major Gulf hurricane in bearing down on ... off-shore oil platforms. Never mind. a three-word chant [even if it only consists of two words] is usually enough to drown out logic and planning.