Bruce McQuain, of the always thought-provoking and very economically libertarian QandO blog, has an interesting post that provides a good overview of just how many large natural gas resources there are in the U.S. and the world.

http://www.qando.net/?p=10647

Add to that our vaste coal and oil resources…

Folks, there is absolutely no excuse anymore for the United States (or the world, for that matter) to be dependent upon Middle East oil and gas resources.

Does anyone disagree?

Alternately, we could simply follow the President’s advice and go out and buy new fuel-efficient electric cars that cost a small fortune.

Israel as the next Saudia Arabia?

According to this article in the Wall Street Journal, Israel’s unusually large and high-quality shale oil reserves may yield as much oil as all of Saudi Arabia’s proven oil reserves.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703806304576242420737584278.html

These discoveries are in addition to of Israel’s recently diclosed gas reserves, also anticipated to be vaste.

There are few countries in the world as reality-based as Israel, because Israel has no other choice. It must be reality based in order to survive. This convinces me that Israel will waste  no time in developing these deposits, not only for self-sufficiency but also to gain leverage with the international community. Imagine the political consequences,, if you would, if Europe no longer had to depend upon the Middle East for its oil.

Oh, I wish I could say the same about our own country, rich beyond imagination in oil, gas and coal reserves. In our own country, a far-too-comfortable bourgeoisie entertains unicorn visions of Shangri La-like utopias, unspoiled by any energy development other than windmills and solar panels manufactured in China. The price of these idle visions is steep, as measured by lost jobs, investment capital, trade balances and tax revenues, not to mention military missions to fund our energy needs and keep world energy supplies safe. The self-satisfied American bourgeois elites sleep well, oblivious to the environmental, economic and social disasters inflicted upon our own country and others to satisfy our presumptions of environmental virtue. Not even a record recession (depression?) and all its accompanying miseries is enough to shake our self-satisfied masses from their ut-opium dreams.

The bottom-line is that most of the bad international news that we read about today, from Iraq to Libya, Iran, North Africa, Sudan, Nigeria and world jihadism in general, has to do with the quest for affordable energy. Take away oil as an issue by crashing its price on world markets through oversupply, and most of these issues cited above simply fade away, along with the revenues transfered to countries that use them to fund activities inimical to our prosperity and civilization. Crash the price of fuel, jihadism dies. Crash the price of fuel, the world’s poor and unemployed benefit. Israel gets it, we don’t.

North America enjoys the world’s largest deposits of oil, gas and coal. Europe has recently discovered immense gas deposits that should more-than meet its internal needs. It’s time for our civilization to wake up: we should be developing our own energy resources as a crack pace, if for nothing else than to avoid a world disaster. War and poverty also have environmental consequences.

This is the cozy mansion New York Times‘ columnist Tom Friedman calls home:

Judging by its size, it probably has a carbon footprint roughly equal to a small nation’s:

As the July edition of the Washingtonian Magazine notes, Friedman lives in “a palatial 11,400-square-foot house, now valued at $9.3 million, on a 7½-acre parcel just blocks from I-495 and Bethesda Country Club.” He “married into one of the 100 richest families in the country” – the Bucksbaums, whose real-estate Empire is valued at $2.7 billion.

Heating and cleaning the pool alone probably consume enough energy to power a factory.  The picture above is somewhat out of date, so things may have changed, but I’ll note that Friedman’s solar panels are, well, conspicuously absent.

All of which makes it screamingly funny when Friedman, after a first paragraph so profoundly ignorant its laughable (I’ll get back to it later), offers the following idea as a means for the Tea Partiers to gain the New York Times‘ seal of approval:

But should the Tea Partiers actually aspire to break out of that range, attract lots of young people and become something more than just entertainment for Fox News, I have a suggestion:

Become the Green Tea Party.

I’d be happy to design the T-shirt logo and write the manifesto. The logo is easy. It would show young Americans throwing barrels of oil imported from Venezuela and Saudi Arabia into Boston Harbor.

The manifesto is easy, too: “We, the Green Tea Party, believe that the most effective way to advance America’s national security and economic vitality would be to impose a $10 “Patriot Fee” on every barrel of imported oil, with all proceeds going to pay down our national debt.”

Friedman is right that America shouldn’t be dependent on foreign oil, but he seems to have forgotten that it’s his own party (and his own paper) that has made it virtually impossible for America (a) to drill, (b) to process oil shale or (c) to produce meaningful nuclear power.  Instead, he’s hooked his wagon to solar and wind energy, both of which are incapable of servicing America’s energy needs.  This means that Friedman wants to make us economically suffer by taxing us even more, without enabling us to have any viable energy alternatives.  (He also thinks a carbon tax is a hunky dory idea.)

A $10 a barrel tax  and a carbon tax may be irrelevant to a man living off of “one of the 100 richest families in the country,” but it will destroy America’s industry and, frankly, every thing else but for her wealthiest class.  In other words, Friedman has neatly spelled out the recipe for an economic meltdown similar to Zimbabwe’s and one that will leave the same outcome:  a poverty stricken nation, centered around a small, fabulously wealthy (and, inevitably, corrupt) ruling class.  We already know which niche Friedman has carved out for himself.

But really, what can one expect from a man who shows his profound ignorance and sneering disdain for America — not to mention his shallow intellectual dilettantism — in his very first paragraph.  (See, I promised I’d get back to it.) I usually wait until deep within my posts to sound this stupid:

I’ve been trying to understand the Tea Party Movement. Sounds like a lot of angry people who want to get the government out of their lives and cut both taxes and the deficit. Nothing wrong with that — although one does wonder where they were in the Bush years. Never mind. I’m sure like all such protest movements the Tea Partiers will get their 10 to 20 percent of the vote.

That paragraph has just got everything one would expect from someone living and work in the one of the ritziest, and most liberal, parts of the world.  In mere sentences, we get oozing condescension for the foolish, impenetrable masses; contempt for the anger that sees people taking to the street, Constitutions in hand, protesting a rapacious federal government; and, of course, the inevitable attack on George Bush.

As to that last point (“where the heck were they during the Bush presidency?”) I think this simple chart is a good starting point for explaining where these same frustrated (as opposed to angry) people were before Obama; or, more accurately, why they weren’t taking to the street to protest government overreach:

Need I say more?  No, I don’t think so.

UPDATE:  Turns out — no big shock here — that Friedman’s not the only green colored hypocrite.

I got an email poll from my representative Lynn Woolsey.  I was willing to take the poll, even though it would mean newsletters from her, until I actually read the poll.  It’s a dishonest one, and makes intelligent responses impossible.

Here’s the whole email, with my comments in red:

As you may know, Congress is developing new energy legislation which could create millions of new ‘green collar’ jobs, end our nation’s dependence on foreign oil, and confront the threat of global warming.  [We'll just skip quickly past the fact that I think those "green collar" jobs are chimerical, that there are other ways than green to end the nation's dependence on foreign oil, and the threat of global warming is a scam.]  I’m hoping to get your thoughts on this issue, so please complete this very brief survey and let me know what’s on your mind.  At the same time you can subscribe to my electronic newsletter and stay up to date on the latest news from Washington.

Thanks

3 questions on energy

How concerned are you about our nation’s current dependence on fossil fuels? [The problem with the following series of three choices is there predicate, which is that there are only two sources of energy:  foreign fossil fuels and wacky, expensive, often polluting "green" sources.  There are a lot of Americans who believe in domestic drilling and extraction from domestic shale.  With those false choices, all poll results will be skewed.]

Very – Our nation must take immediate steps to develop cleaner, domestic energy alternatives.

Somewhat – This is a long term problem, but currently there is no serious threat, and we don’t have to take any immediate steps.

Not at all – There’s nothing to worry about. The U.S. can continue to rely on foreign fossil fuels.

Which of the following actions do you believe would do the most to end our dependence on foreign oil? [Is it just me or did the three choices given conspicuously (a) leave out ANWR and shale and (b) solely call up the specter of ruining lovely coast lines?]

Significantly increase government spending towards alternative energy production such as solar, wind, and biomass.

Improve efficiency standards for cars, trucks, household appliances, and factories.

Expanded domestic oil drilling in areas such as the California and Florida coasts.

None of the above.

Would you support efforts to require corporations to pay for the pollution they generate, and, in turn, reinvest this revenue in the development of alternative energy? [This is the only semi-honest question asked. You know which answer I would pick. Indeed, this question is good enough that it may be worth filling out that darn poll. What do you think?]

Yes – Energy independence must be one of our nation’s top priorities. These are long term investments that will increase our future economic and national security, and protect the planet.

No – The federal government should not get involved in individual industries. In addition, efforts to decrease pollution will harm businesses at a time when our nation’s economy is already in trouble.

Not sure, haven’t made up my mind.

Obama finally came out from hiding to talk a bit about the economy.  One of my liberal friends found this the most exciting aspect of his speech:

“We’ll be working out the details in the weeks ahead, but it will be a two-year, nationwide effort to jumpstart job creation in America and lay the foundation for a strong and growing economy,” Mr. Obama said. “We’ll put people back to work rebuilding our crumbling roads and bridges, modernizing schools that are failing our children, and building wind farms and solar panels, fuel-efficient cars and the alternative energy technologies that can free us from our dependence on foreign oil and keep our economy competitive in the years ahead.”

You could see my friend thrilling to the Rooseveltian aspect of it all:  the government will rebuild America.  It’s the CCC and WPA all over again — never mind that after several years of those programs, the US was mired in an even worse depression than that which Roosevelt inherited.

My friend outlined all of the wonderful alternative energy sources that could be created once Obama got his hands on the reins of energy creation.  He waxed lyrical about a way to use mirrors and water to create steam all over America’s vast plains and deserts, and then to run this steam into interconnected turbines that would power America.

“It can be done,” he said.  “They’re already building the prototypes in Nevada.”

“If it can be done,” I asked, “and it’s so wonderful, why hasn’t the private sector already stepped forward?”

“You don’t understand,” was his reply.  “All of these are isolated efforts, like the telephone system a hundred years ago.  They need to be tied together so that they work effectively.”

“I do understand,” I said.  “But why doesn’t the private sector build this infrastructure tying together all these great sources of clean energy creation?”

“Because of all the regulations blocking them,” was his answer.

“So you’re saying, aren’t you, that the problem isn’t too little government, it’s to much government?”

“No, that’s not what I’m saying.  The government needs to bring them all together.”  (Always the government.)

My last word was that if Obama can cut the Code of Federal Regulations by 80%, freeing up money and ingenuity without using government money, he will be the greatest President in history.  I got a blank stare in response.

Cross-posted at Right Wing News

If I had to give one single reason for drilling the hell out of whatever energy resources America has to offer, it would be to de-fund the medieval sharia system that thrives in Saudi Arabia.  Right now, Egypt is in an uproar because a 53-year old Egyptian physician convicted of malpractice against one of the innumerable members of the Saudi royal family has been sentenced to receive 1,500 lashes.  (That’s not a typo:  1,500.)

That Saudi Arabia is the worst kind of sadistic, misogynistic, anti-Christian, antisemitic, backwards sharia state is a tragedy for its citizens.  That we continue to fund it (to the tune of billions of dollars) by refusing to use our own energy resources is practically a criminal act on our part.

You’ve all heard the question that is the title of my post, haven’t you?  Is an audience necessary for a sound to have meaning or even existence? And what if, in our world, the intermediary to the audience bugs out?  That’s today’s question, as Republicans vigorously debate the new drilling despite the fact that, Pelosi shut down the House, turned off the lights, and sent all her Democrats home.  And with the lights and mikes off, the media has mostly gone home, except those who try to display it, not as an act of substantive importance, but one of conservative silliness.

It seems to me though, in the wonderful world of the internet, we have the perfect opportunity to defang the MSM once and for all.  Go to the same Politico post to which I linked above, which describes what’s going on, and email it to your friends, and post it on your blogs, and talk about it to people.  In this Brave New Internet World, the MSM doesn’t have to be there; we the American people can be there instead.

To get you started, here is some of the Politico coverage:

Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and the Democrats adjourned the House and turned off the lights and killed the microphones, but Republicans are still on the floor talking gas prices.

Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) and other GOP leaders opposed the motion to adjourn the House, arguing that Pelosi’s refusal to schedule a vote allowing offshore drilling is hurting the American economy. They have refused to leave the floor after the adjournment motion passed at 11:23 a.m. and are busy bashing Pelosi and her fellow Democrats for leaving town for the August recess.

At one point, the lights went off in the House and the microphones were turned off in the chamber, meaning Republicans were talking in the dark. But as Rep. John Shadegg (R-Ariz..) was speaking, the lights went back on, and the microphones were turned on shortly afterward.

But C-SPAN, which has no control over the cameras in the chamber, has stopped broadcasting the House floor, meaning no one is witnessing this except the assembled Republicans, their aides, and one Democrat, Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio), who has now left.

Only about a half-dozen Republicans were on the floor when this began, but the crowd has grown to about 20 now, according to Patrick O’Connor.

“This is the people’s House,” Rep, Thaddeus McCotter (R-Mich.) said. “This is not Pelosi’s politiburo.”

Democratic aides were furious at the GOP stunt, and reporters were kicked out of the Speaker’s Lobby, the space next to the House floor where they normally interview lawmakers.

“You’re not covering this, are you?” complaing one senior Democratic aide. Another called the Republicans “morons” for staying on the floor.

The Politico story is exciting, too, because in a series of updates it’s clear that the Republicans are becoming more energized and the Dems more angry.  Keep in mind that the Dems and the Republicans know that the vast majority of Americans, tired of seeing their energy bills climb needlessly, are in favor of drilling.

UPDATE:  Finally, some live (ish) video.  Hat tip to the Anchoress, who is blogging about this here.

At long last, the Republicans are showing some mojo.  Let’s give them our help by keeping this a talking-point.

Flopping Aces is blogging too (and has a great cartoon).

I must work, but I have to give you a couple of quick links, one of which you may want to act upon and one of which is just nice to know.

On the “you might want to act” (by contacting your representatives in D.C.), Right Wing News offers useful information about the expiration on a major drilling ban:

Yesterday, the fine folks over at Americans for Prosperity alerted me to the fact that the election issue of all election issues has been dumped into the GOP’s lap.

You see, on October 1st, 2008, “the existing bans on Outer Continental Shelf drilling and oil shale leasing expire — unless Congress specifically votes to extend the bans.”

What will likely happen, according to AFP is that “Congressional leaders will likely try to sneak an extension into supposedly ‘must-pass’ last-minute spending legislation.”

Republicans, including most importantly, John McCain, should refuse to support ANY legislation that extends the drilling ban. That means they should speak out against it, they should vote against it, and George Bush should veto it if it comes across his desk.

This should not be a issue in the 2008 election, the GOP should make it THE ISSUE of the 2008 elections.

Even with gas prices as high as they are, the Democrats want to keep a drilling ban in place while Republicans want to take action that will help reduce prices, in the short and long term. What do you think the American people are going to think about that news if the GOP has the guts to make it a centerpiece of their electoral strategy?

The GOP, John McCain included, is already talking the talk on this issue and if they walk the walk and the Democrats predictably, yet foolishly, fight to keep us from drilling, this issue alone could literally make the difference in the presidential race and save multiple seats for the GOP in the House and Senate.

So, take a look at what I have written and take a look at the letter the AFP has been sending around to Congress that follows and call your senators and congressmen, call your favorite talk radio host and get them talking about this, write your favorite bloggers, and email your friends. If the Republican pols on the Hill see that this is taking off, they will get on board, too, and it can change the face of the political landscape in 2008.

Read the rest here.

Also, I thought I’d pass on to you some excellent news I learned from Steve Schippert (who blogs at The Tank and Threats Watch).  It seems that Al Qaeda, once famed for its tight, practically impermeable network, is falling apart:

This Washington Post report that Abu Ayyub al-Masri has, according to the Iraqi interrogation of captured al-Qaeda in Iraq leaders, fled Iraq for Afghanistan is perhaps the most significant report to come out of Iraq since the fall of Baghdad. It may not readily jump out at readers as such, but trust me when I stress that it is, and will prove such without doubt in due time for those who may question or doubt. Read it all and read it carefully.

The insurgency has collapsed, an implosion brought about by the clear splintering of what was once a cohesive al-Qaeda in Iraq. Each of the new leaders for the various splintered groups spoken to by WaPo in the article presents a different view on the status of al-Masri’s intent in leaving Iraq and his status as overall leader, but the differences themselves evidence a splintering, no matter what each believes. And the key to breaking and defeating an insurgency is to fracture cohesion. Done. Meaning: Don’t get too hung up on one guy saying he is keeping the seat warm for the Egyptian to return from the Mother Ship in Pakistan. If others refuse it, it’s fractured. Game over.

Now, that does not mean we’ll be hosting the Sundance Film Festival in Baghdad or Ramadi any time soon. The various disjointed cells are quite capable of and will carry out lethal acts of terrorism through bombings and the like. but the cohesive insurgency’s concerted run at the Iraqi government is finished.

Read the rest here.  It’s quite heartening, although I’m sure the MSM will miss its significance and ignore it too.

UPDATE:  And one silly link regarding another Obama lie.  (H/t:  Thomas who blogs here.)

IBD does an enjoyably neat job of cutting Nancy Pelosi down to size:

When challenged in an interview with Politico.com about her bullheaded refusal to let Republicans submit energy policies for approval, Pelosi resorted to risible hyperbole to justify her iron-fisted rule of the House parliamentary process.

“I’m trying to save the planet; I’m trying to save the planet,” she responded. “I will not have this debate trivialized by their excuse for their failed policy.”

If the San Francisco Democrat’s magisterial narcissism isn’t off-putting enough, her intent should be. She’s saying that her importance to the survival of Earth transcends our system of open government, elections and power-sharing. Because she’s trying to save the world, she can’t be challenged and dissent will not be tolerated.

Read the rest here.

Oh, speaking of stupidity regarding oil policy, get a load of this video of Barack Obama advising us to dig out our tire air gauges to save the planet, along with John Hindraker’s little reality check.

Click here to view the embedded video.