South Texas: Energy and jobs
….The economic transformation is the result of a new drilling method, hydraulic fracturing, combined with horizontal drilling, that allows companies to extract oil and gas from impermeable layers of shale. Major industry players have joined the Eagle Ford project, including Anadarko, Range Resources and Shell. Chesapeake Energy of Oklahoma City signed a multi-billion dollar deal with the Chinese state-owned oil company to raise cash to drill in the shale.
No solid estimate of likely production has been made, but THE AMERICAN PETROLEUM INSTITUTE SAID THE FIELD SHOULD YIELD BILLIONS OF BARRELS OF OIL. THE PROJECT ALREADY SUPPORTS 12,600 FULLTIME JOBS, AND BY 2020 COULD ACCOUNT FOR $11.6 BILLION AND NEARLY 68,000 JOBS IN A 24-COUNTY AREA, according to study in February by the University of Texas' Center for Community and Business Research….
Wealth comes to the have-nots. If the left had their way, these people would still be struggling.
Energy and the Economy
Texas has always been known for its oil, but the black stuff has been overshadowed recently by the ‘game-changing’ shale gas boom in the state and across the rest of the country. The Barnett, Woodford, Haynesville, and Eagle Ford shales all contain significant and commercially viable deposits of gas, which has attracted a number of drillers to these formations, looking for a piece of the action. All this attention has, however, also turned up a surprising amount of oil in a place that has been drilling steadily for over one hundred years. ANALYSTS NOW BELIEVE THESE NEW DISCOVERIES IN TEXAS AND OTHER STATES COULD SIGNAL THE BEGINNINGS OF ANOTHER OIL BOOM IN THE UNITED STATES, AND IMPORTANTLY, HELP WEAN THE ECONOMY OFF OF IMPORTED FOREIGN OIL.
The biggest problem standing in our way is not technology but politics. The left has been warning us about peak oil and the need for renewable energy (where there are all kind of technological problems). This doesn’t fit their world view.
Meanwhile “Unexpectedly” nothing seems to be working out
….I also believe that journalists and members of the Obama Administration are not the only people who are surprised. LOTS OF “OBAMA FAITHFUL,” WHO WERE QUICK TO EMBRACE HIS ECONOMIC RHETORIC AS THE 2008 CRISIS UNFOLDED, ARE NOW GENUINELY SHOCKED THAT THINGS HAVEN’T WORKED OUT.
President Obama, of course, ran a successful campaign by portraying himself as the “un-George W. Bush” candidate. While painting his actual opponent John McCain as a “carbon copy” of Bush back in 2008, Mr. Obama was able to rhetorically juxtapose his policies on just about everything – economic matters included – with President Bush’s policies, and A MAJORITY OF VOTERS WENT WITH THE GUY WHO WAS OFFERING “CHANGE.”
THE FLAWED ASSUMPTION that many of our fellow Americans made – an assumption that many are still making today – is that PRESIDENT OBAMA’S POLICIES MUST BE GOOD, BECAUSE THEY’RE DIFFERENT FROM THOSE OF HIS PREDECESSOR. This assumption not only entails a lack of knowledge of both Presidents, but it also entails some horribly wrong-headed assumptions about economics, itself.
Stop and ask some of the Obama die-hard’s. You’ll find many of them still juxtaposing Bush with Obama, and their conclusion is simple: “Obama good, Bush bad.” And from this they often try to derive thoughts on economic policy, which frequently end up looking something like “government good, business bad.”
THINK ABOUT IT. IT’S A FAIRLY COMMON BELIEF THAT “UNDER BUSH THE ECONOMY WAS UN-REGULATED, AND THAT’S HOW OUT-OF-CONTROL BUSINESS PEOPLE DROVE US OVER THE CLIFF. But now that it’s regulated, things can only get better.” President Obama still reiterates this theme, in a variety of different ways.
OF COURSE, THE IDEA THAT OUR ECONOMY IS, OR WAS “UN-REGULATED,” IS UTTER NONSENSE….
This piece is a good one to dissect the left’s rhetoric about the problem being the lack of regulations. In fact, the only area where a lack of regulations was a prime cause of the economic disaster was Fannie and Freddie.
Russ Feingold: "This game's not over until we win."
He was trying to stir up the crowd in Walkerville today.
Isn’t this the definition of a political gaff, that is, a politician says something that is true?
Everyone just might have underestimated Mitt Romney.
Serious competitors for the Republican presidential nomination have dropped out of the running. ROMNEY HAS FLEXED HIS FINANCIAL MUSCLE WITH A $10 MILLION-PLUS ONE-DAY FUNDRAISING HAUL. Most of all, his narrow, economy-focused message appears to be resonating amid growing alarm about the unemployment rate – which rose above 9 percent the day after Romney declared his campaign.
And in one poll, an ABC News/Washington Post survey released last week, Romney actually led President Barack Obama by 3 percentage points. That’s the best general election showing any Republican has had in a long time.
As Ann Coulter said when asked if she would support Romney if he got the Republican nomination, “I would vote for Charlie Sheen against Barack Obama.” Stand by… we are in for a lot of “unexpected” polls, news, etc. where Obama will be way behind the Republican.
Weiner politics shows the Weiner isn’t a winner for Democrats
"Anthony Weiner needs to resign so that he can focus on his family, focus on his own well-being," Wasserman-Schultz said on Sunday’s "Meet the Press."
AT A BASIC LEVEL, THE DRIVE TO PUSH WEINER OUT IS SMART POLITICS FOR DEMOCRATS. After all, before his troubles began to come to light Memorial Day weekend, they were on something of a roll. Opposition to the Medicare plan championed by Republicans had unified their caucus, provided a winning issue in a special election in upstate New York, and was looking more and more like a ticket to gains in next year’s House elections. BUT NO IS TALKING MUCH ABOUT PAUL RYAN AND MEDICARE NOW. IF WEINER WOULD JUST GO AWAY, MAYBE THEY COULD GET BACK TO THEIR "ALL MEDICARE, ALL THE TIME" STRATEGY.
But the outrage being expressed is also highly selective. This becomes clear when you compare Weiner’s problems to those that his New York colleague, Charlie Rangel, recently faced….
Salon seems to think this is odd that politicians would be political.
Paul Krugman: The Prophet of Socialism
CHRISTIANE AMANPOUR’S EYES DARTED BACK AND FORTH IN FEAR, AND HER MOUTH TWISTED IN DISGUST, BECAUSE SHE COULD SEE WHERE THIS WAS GOING. A guest on her Sunday-morning political talk show, ABC’s This Week, was getting dangerously overexcited, and something very regrettable was about to happen….
…..Cut to Amanpour’s horrified face. Cut back to the guest. Then it happened.
The guest said, “SOME YEARS DOWN THE PIKE, WE’RE GOING TO GET THE REAL SOLUTION, WHICH IS GOING TO BE A COMBINATION OF DEATH PANELS AND SALES TAXES.”
It was all the more horrifying because the guest was not a conservative, not an opponent of Obamacare. This guest was an avid liberal, A PARTISAN DEMOCRAT, AND AN ENTHUSIASTIC SUPPORTER OF GOVERNMENT-RUN HEALTH CARE. HE WAS ENDORSING DEATH PANELS, NOT WARNING ABOUT THEM. He was saying death panels are a good thing. And it was even more horrifying because of who this guest was. This was no fringe lefty wearing a tinfoil hat, churning out underground newspapers in his parents’ basement. This was an economics professor at Princeton, one of the country’s most prestigious universities. This was the winner of the Nobel Prize in economics, the highest honor the profession can bestow. This was a columnist for the New York Times, the most influential newspaper in the world. THIS WAS PAUL KRUGMAN, LIVE, ON NATIONAL TELEVISION, ENDORSING GOVERNMENT CONTROL OVER LIFE AND DEATH. AND WHILE WE’RE AT IT, LET’S RAISE TAXES ON THOSE WHO ARE PERMITTED TO LIVE.
Sarah Palin had it right. Paul Revere did warn the British about the colonials and Paul Krugman warned us that Sarah Palin was correct about “Death Panels.”
Over the Weekend on Talk Shows
Miss the political talk shows because the weather was so nice. You can read what happened here.
Where’s the Heat?
GLOBAL GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS HAVE RISEN EVEN FASTER DURING THE PAST DECADE THAN PREDICTED BY THE UNITED NATIONS INTERGOVERNMENTAL PANEL ON CLIMATE CHANGE (IPCC) AND OTHER INTERNATIONAL AGENCIES. According to alarmist groups, THIS PROVES GLOBAL WARMING IS MUCH WORSE THAN PREVIOUSLY FEARED. The increase in emissions “should shock even the most jaded negotiators” at international climate talks currently taking place in Bonn, Germany, the UK Guardian reports. But there’s only one problem with this storyline; GLOBAL TEMPERATURES HAVE NOT INCREASED AT ALL DURING THE PAST DECADE.
The evidence is powerful, straightforward, and damning. NASA satellite instruments precisely measuring global temperatures SHOW ABSOLUTELY NO WARMING DURING THE PAST THE PAST 10 YEARS. This is the case for the Northern Hemisphere mid-latitudes, including the United States. This is the case for the Arctic, where the signs of human-caused global warming are supposed to be first and most powerfully felt. This is the case for global sea surface temperatures, which alarmists claim should be sucking up much of the predicted human-induced warming. THIS IS THE CASE FOR THE PLANET AS A WHOLE.
IF ATMOSPHERIC CARBON DIOXIDE EMISSIONS ARE THE SOLE OR PRIMARY DRIVER OF GLOBAL TEMPERATURES, THEN WHERE IS ALL THE GLOBAL WARMING? We’re talking 10 years of higher-than-expected increases in greenhouse gases, yet 10 years of absolutely no warming. That’s 10 years of nada, nunca, nein, zero, and zilch.
This is a big problem for the alarmists. Global Warming was their ticket to control, but in the end they couldn’t control what nature did.
I started eating meat again...
YES, THIS FROM THE GUY WHO ONCE SAID THAT MEAT EATERS ARE BAD PEOPLE.
I guess that must make me a bad person.
Well, unlike many other carnivores, I'm at least cognizant of the fact that I'm exploiting animals for my own well-being. While I have made the move to a diet that contains meat, I am not completely at peace with it. I am fully aware and respectful of the fact that the meat on my plate comes at at price, that being the life of another animal.
But I have my reasons. MY DECISION TO EAT MEAT AGAIN WAS DRIVEN BY HEALTH CONCERNS. I was a vegetarian for over ten years and I did so primarily for ethical reasons. It was in the last several years of being a vegetarian, however, that I grew increasingly concerned about my health. An increasing number of studies started to point at the importance of meat protein and animal fat—not to mention the perils of soy (which was a staple for me). Moreover, MY PERFORMANCE AT THE GYM WAS STALLING. MY ENERGY LEVELS WERE CONSISTENTLY LOW AND I WAS MAKING VERY LITTLE GAINS. This was an indication to me that something wasn't right.
So, after a decade of avoiding meat, I was curious to see if a reintroduction to animal protein could change the situation. I SWITCHED TO THE PALEO DIET AND WITHIN THREE MONTHS MY BMI WENT DOWN FROM 17% TO 12% AND I GAINED NEARLY TEN POUNDS OF MUSCLE MASS. I was astounded. And add to that an improved sense of well-being, mental clarity and energy— I was sold. My experiment with eating meat exceeded even my own expectations…