Liberal Science: Oil Extraction Could Cause the Globe to Deflate

Lon wrote: Ransom is right, if you look at the official White House pictures of the function, it is clear that the White House was trying to keep this matter secret. It seems obvious that as the stars posed for their publicity photos they were thinking how clever it was that this was going to be kept a secret. – in response to The Alice-in-Wonderland President

OK. Let’s get this straight: The White House didn’t seek to keep this secret, even though they had discussions about keeping it secret. Yet it remained secret until the revelations in Kantor’s book despite the White House not trying to keep it secret. The secrecy happened just by coincidence?

Obama ought to go by the name Mr. Coincidental, because everything that happens on his watch you all defend by acting like it’s just a coincidence.

The worst economic recovery since the Great Depression and Obama’s president: That’s just a coincidence.

Obama puts billion of taxpayer money into loan programs for green companies that just coincidentally are tied to his biggest financial supporters.

Every time a financial crisis happens, Obama pals Buffett or Soros just coincidentally happen to be around to buy preferred stock or some other investment that’s backed up by government credit.

The ATF walks guns to violent Mexican criminals with no follow through, coincidentally when the ATF and the Obama administration are pushing for scrapping the 2^nd Amendment.

I’ll let the readers take it from here and list all the other coincidences that have happened under Obama.

MsAllison wrote: It's adorable the way John Ransom believes this crap of Kantor's. Kantor interviewed the Obamas once, decided that there was tension between them and that might make a juicy book and then spoke to WH staff people to get their opinions and then fabricated a novel in which Mrs. Obama recklessly spends "The Taxpayers' Money" on her personal pleasures. – in response to The Alice-in-Wonderland President

Liberals have called me a lot of things, but never have I been called adorable by them.

On the rest of it, she thinks you’re nuts, in a real, clinical and medically certifiable way.

Kantor’s liberal pedigree is impeccable. Columbia, Hahvahd, Slate, New York Times. She’s been covering Obama and Michelle for quite some time.

But what really tells me she is on the mark- besides the fact that everything we learned from her book is consistent with what we see in Obama’s presidency- is that the Obama folks have been out doing the full court press to rebut her.

I never pick on Michelle Obama because I think generally it’s cheap to drag someone’s family into political slugfests. But I’ll make an exception here because Michelle injected herself into the fight.

In response to Kantor’s book Michelle did a puff interview saying that she was tired of being depicted as an angry black woman. Well here’s an idea for you then Michelle: Stop acting like an angry black woman. And Mr. President, if you are truly concerned with the deficit, then stop spending money the country doesn’t have. Or here’s a novel idea: Present a balanced budget…or a budget that will get one (1) vote.

Because we know already that at least part of the book is true that Obama claims is fabricated. Former press secretary Robert Gibbs says that he apologized to Michelle for an incident that the White House says never happened.

It’s like I wrote in the original story: “It only ‘looks’ bad if you get caught, I guess.”

Truth01 wrote: Ransom said: “Obama’s policies have sought to provide short-term, dependent-creating panaceas for declining employment rather than long-term employment opportunities.” What is being done are stop gap measures they are not intended to be long term. It is an attempt to buy time until the economy gains traction. Unfortunately I have not heard one idea from the Republican side that is any better. – in response to Obama Can’t See Unemployed from Martha’s Vineyard

Stop gap measures don’t work. They just increase dependency. The solution isn’t more unemployment benefits, but more jobs. You do that by getting out of the way and letting the economy do its proper job.

Here’s one GOP solution that had bipartisan support and which the president is ducking for political reasons only: Approve the XL Keystone Pipeline.

The idea that the pipeline is a threat to water in Nebraska is a stalling tactic only. It ignores the fact that in Nebraska alone there are already 20,570 miles of pipeline and XL would add about 400 more miles.

From the US Department of Transportation: “The energy transportation network of the United States consists of over 2.5 million miles of pipelines. That's enough to circle the earth about 100 times. These pipelines are operated by approximately 3,000 companies, large and small.” The number of pipeline incidents is going down, not up, if you don’t count the Obama administration’s disastrous record on pipeline safety.

Note in the graph above the red line with the marker that says “Platte.” That’s the same Sandhills area where the XL Keystone Pipeline is proposed to go through Nebraska.

We’ve been operating pipelines in the country- including the Sandhills- for decades without degrading the environment.

Kathy18 wrote: Love your columns John. The only thing I would add is that I personally don't like being laid off and am not one of those who would vote for him because I get unemployment benefits. I will go out and campaign for whoever gets the Republican nomination. In my long life I have never been without work for so long and Obummer's policies are just keeping the destruction in place. – in response to Obama Can’t See Unemployed from Martha’s Vineyard

Of course you want to work. Conservatives understand that Americans have no animus against work. You won’t find a harder working country than the USA.

In the 1970s when the welfare state dominated our economy, full employment was considered by economists to be around 7 percent. There was no way our economy could provide jobs for that last 7 percent economists told us.

Then Ronald Reagan was elected and we started to roll back regulations on business and started to rein in the welfare state. By 2000, unemployment bottomed out at 3.8 percent, a number that economists had told us two decades previously was impossible.

So, when Democrats talk about income inequality, they shouldn’t forget to add in the 4-5 million people who will be permanently unemployed if they keep running things their way. Don’t forget the $5.5 trillion that the economy won’t produce in GDP over ten years if the Democrats switch us back to a welfare state.

Sharty wrote: For the first time, a scientific study has linked natural gas drilling and hydraulic fracturing with a pattern of drinking water contamination so severe that some faucets can be lit on fire. The peer-reviewed study, published today in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, stands to shape the contentious debate over whether drilling is safe and begins to fill an information gap that has made it difficult for lawmakers and the public to understand the risks. – in response to Scientists Discover Gassy Liberal Pseudo-Science

Pretty thin circumstantial evidence as admitted by the researchers of an old report

The worst that can be said on the basis of the report you cited is that industry used faulty casings- and even that’s not certain.

And by the way, there are legal remedies in place for homeowners who think their water has been contaminated by drilling. Those remedies will probably suffice to make drillers act responsibly.

But as the British geologists have said, the risks of contamination of ground water aren’t that widespread.

You want to live in a world where there is zero risk. I think there is an acceptable level of risk for most things. You want to cite the exceptions and pretend like they are the standard rule.

There were a dozen train accidents in the US this year with at least 16 fatalities. Over the last 3 years there were only 9 serious incidents involving 175,000 miles of hazardous liquid pipelines with 7 fatalities, yet you probably still want the government to build high speed trains while damning another 1700 miles of pipeline.

Remember at Love Canal it wasn’t the chemical company, but the local school board that acted irresponsibly by using land that they knew was contaminated by toxic chemicals. The rest of us don’t get off as cheaply as the government does when you cede power to them over our lives based on incomplete, biased and shoddy science.

David4 wrote: Documented goof in the article: Five of six Nobel committees are in Sweden, not Norway. Only the Peace Prize committee is in Norway. The goof doesn't change the effect of the article, but it is still a goof. – in response to Scientists Discover Gassy Liberal Pseudo-Science

You are correct. It should have read “Peer-review for such efforts have widely consisted of 1) Approval by the Nobel Peace Prize Committee, which is controlled by the Labour and Socialist parties of Norway (really)”

Unrealistic wrote: A new question, are we shrinking the earth by deflating it? We know oil and natural gas are pressurized, if one thinks of the earth as a balloon and relieves said pressure with say a syringe is not the whole reduced by the removal of internal volume? – in response to Scientists Discover Gassy Liberal Pseudo-Science

This is probably a good question for Rep. Hank Johnson who did that bang-up work on the question of whether the island of Guam was going to capsize if too many people rushed to the edge of the island too quickly.

No, I can’t. We’ve already had this discussion many times. The article wasn’t about your goofy theories.

I also got to pick who went to the US House of Representatives and to the US Senate. I admit we have more work to do there, but I take a great deal of pride that we kicked the liberals out of the House, in part because it probably just burns you.

Uncle America wrote: John, you forgot to mention that Bill Daley isn't leaving but is going to be heading the Obama campaign. A senior Obama campaign aide told CNN on Monday that Daley will serve as one of the co-chairs for Obama's re-election campaign. – in response to Wrong Chicago Guy Resigns from White House

Kirk92 wrote: After reading all of these comments I have to ask, am I on the "Daily Kos"? What is all of this class envy doing on TH? Hey, businesses go out of business. Someone got to break them up. Vultures are as necessary in the free market as they are in the desert. I feel like I'm on a board with a bunch of Flea Party trolls. – in response to Mitt: All American Vulture Capitalist

I worked in private equity. I once did a hostile takeover of a bank that was in trouble. I know how companies like Bain work. And I have no problem with it.

But while it doesn’t automatically disqualify Mitt for my vote, it doesn’t particularly qualify him either.

Obama, the coziest of all with Wall Street, is going to run a “The Rest of Us” versus “Wall Street” campaign.

You see, I'm in favor of free market capitalism, which, judging by Mitt's record, he is not. That’s why I think his candidacy is problematic.

You might have noticed that the American people are kind of sick of the cozy relationship that Wall Street has with Washington regardless of who is in power.

Do you really think that after TARP, MF Global, Solyndra, etc. that the country is looking to be saved by an investment banker with Romney’s public policy background? Or that Wall Street needs to be saved by more legislation honchoed by a private equity guy?

Why not just nominate Warren Buffet or George Soros to run the country? Isn’t Mitt the same kind of banking “technocrat” that Europe has running the show now?

You assume that just because Romney was an investment banker that somehow he's a free market guy.

He's not. Mitt Romney is purely and simply what we know him to be: A big government opportunist.

It all goes to electability. And the Bain background combined with Mitt’s lack of respect for free markets in public policy punctures the electability myth surrounding Mitt, I fear.I hope I’m not right about that because it looks like he’s going to be the guy.

Further, whether that government skewing of the markets comes from the Federal, State, or Local levels, is only a difference of scale, not a fundamental difference of kind.

I don't know anything about this tax so am shooting from the hip here, but would think the citizens of that county would have had to vote to approve such a tax.

If they wanted to pay a higher tax rate to enhance critical infrastructure why is that government skewing markets? Infrastructure is a necessity in many instances of business location decisions. If a county government (via what I assume was a formal vote by the citizens) wants to pay to make their county look better to potential businesses - why is that a problem?

I would agree with you though, that if the feds hand over dollars from one area to another in order to enhance infrastructure to create an advantage over another that is patently unfair. To me, the more local the decisions - even of government, the better and more efficient our dollars are used...

Here's a trip down memory lane:

Dumber than a box of rocks democrat congressman Hank Johnson suggests island of Guam could tip over because of too many people...

“My fear is that the whole island will become so overly populated that it will tip over and capsize.” Give credit to Admiral Robert Willard, Commander of the Navy’s Pacific Fleet, for keeping his composure, saying “*astounded silence*....We don’t anticipate that.”

Democrat socialists - exceeding the potential for blatant idiocy since the beginning of their existence.

Interesting thought, though I don't fully understand. In an earlier post you emphasized the following quote: "A new quarter-percent tax on DeKalb County residents financed infrastructure improvements such as roads and railroad exchanges that benefited Steel Dynamics, Bercaw said" I don't know anything about this tax so am shooting from the hip here, but would think the citizens of that county would have had to vote to approve such a tax. If they wanted to pay a higher tax rate to enhance critical infrastructure why is that government skewing markets? Infrastructure is a necessity in many instances of business location decisions. If a county government (via what I assume was a formal vote by the citizens) wants to pay to make their county look better to potential businesses - why is that a problem? I would agree with you though, that if the feds hand over dollars from one area to another in order to enhance infrastructure to create an advantage over another that is patently unfair. To me, the more local the decisions - even of government, the better and more efficient our dollars are used...

Agree with you that localized decisions generally → smarter decisions.

I'm not sure if the county citizens voted on it or not—it would be good to find out. I would like the idea of that better than an imposed tax.

Though this could be taken a step further—and made even more localized—where the government middlemen are removed entirely from the process. For instance, instead of having a government tax (be it imposed or voted upon), one could set up an investment fund or something of this nature that local people voluntarily put their money into, etc. When the free-market is unleashed, the possibilities are interesting and endless.

Though this could be taken a step further—and made even more localized—where the government middlemen are removed entirely from the process. For instance, instead of having a government tax (be it imposed or voted upon), one could set up an investment fund or something of this nature that local people voluntarily put their money into, etc.

In theory a great idea, but they would need to recoup their ivestment, a gap that is usually filled by municipal bonds, which are again given preferential tax status (though I think for a good reason).

Problem as I see it is that there are too many leeches, to few investors. On something like a local or county level tax (if authorized by a vote of the citizens) there is majority buy in. If optional, the leeches won't pay even if they benefit. Thats a tough reality that I have a hard time getting my head around for an investment only approach to work.

In my area I floated the idea of raising the per child enrollment fee for public school. It went nowhere. Part of that is likely union teachers not wanting to be directly accountable, the other part though was people with kids saying they shouldn't have to pay more since they pay property taxes.

I do to, and I have multiple kids in public school. I only think it is fair to have more of that cost on me (since they are my kids using the resources) than the community in general. I should pay more, and have more voice, than the no kid hippee down the street that wants more class time spent on studying the social inequalities of post-modern fart making art, but nobodey seems to think thats right - even some of the people with kids in the system.

I'm not sure what the solution is when people using the resources wont even step up.

When the free-market is unleashed, the possibilities are interesting and endless.

100% agree.

Take care.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.