ROSEN: Slimy Senate showoffs

By Mike Rosen, Rocky Mountain News (Contact)

Published May 30, 2008 at 12:05 a.m.

Text size

More Opinion Columns & Blogs

Comments

May 30, 2008

2:58 a.m.

Suggest removal

paperboy_80110 writes:

Guys like Rosen think that the free market cures all ills. This is the big problem with conservatives: they find a thing that works and they act like it's the only thing that works.

But in this case, I'm afraid he's right. His characterization of the Senate and their motives is accurate. If there is evidence of unfair manipulation of prices or profiteering, specific charges should be made. All they are doing is play-acting so the gullible electorate thinks they are trying to do something about the high gas prices. What the senators should be doing is formulating an energy policy that is going to ease the transition from a carbon based fuel economy to something renewable and less threatening to the environment.

ANWR should not be opened. It isn't going anywhere, so it will always be there to fall back on if needed.

I am a liberal and a registered Democrat. $4.00 a gallon gas is fine with me. It has needed to happen for a long time now. Blaming the oil companies is stupid, and if congress goes too far it is dangerous too. I'm not any fonder of Exxon than the next liberal, but if they weren't out there doing what they do very well, we'd all be screwed. The free-market can in fact do some things better than any other system in some cases, most especially the rather simple supply and demand struture of the crude oil markets.

All senators should know this. Most do. They all pander to an ignorant electorate.
May 30, 2008

5:46 a.m.

Suggest removal

Lwayfan writes:

This is why the global warming hoax is not just a silly game played by Al Gore, but can result in real harm to real people. We need to depend on oil for at least the next 15 to 20 years before the price of alternative energy falls to the point where more it becomes economical to use alterate sources of energy. Until that time, the global warming hoax is holding all of us hostage and making it extremely difficult to live and go to work. That is a problem. Please Congress...just let us drill and refine!
May 30, 2008

7:17 a.m.

Suggest removal

Michael writes:

Drill Here. Drill Now. Pay Less.

http://www.americansolutions.com/acti...
May 30, 2008

7:25 a.m.

Suggest removal

Michael writes:

"ANWR should not be opened. It isn't going anywhere, so it will always be there to fall back on if needed." - paperboy
It is needed NOW.
"I am a liberal and a registered Democrat. $4.00 a gallon gas is fine with me." - paperboy
Really? Do you have a family to support? Is having to pay $4.00 a gallon impacting your decisions on food for your family, medicine, mortgage, other necessities and maybe saving for the future? How elitist of you to say since it is "fine with me" everyone else should be able to deal with it too.
I can pay it too, but I see many who are being stretched thin and it impacts the entire value chain of everything we buy. It is a tax on our nation that stifles economic growth. But I guess that doesn't matter to you as most liberal Democrats have no clue what makes the economy work or grow.
May 30, 2008

7:55 a.m.

Suggest removal

teblackman writes:

The reason that gas/oil costs are rising is that the supply/demand model is partially broken. Many nations subsidize their citizen's gas costs such that they are immune to cost increases. Also, so many gas companies are owned by nations and they are more interested in short term profits than long-term investments. Our country doesn't even allow much exploration with so much of our coastline and 'environmentally sensitive' areas off limits. Building refineries is also very difficult as well in this nation.

What is the solution? The only option that 'we' really have is to open up more land and coastlines for exploration and development. The new drilling technologies are very environmentally safe and we need to open ANWR to drilling (not all of it, say 0.1% of the land). This won't help anytime soon but we got ourselves in this mess by electing democrats and gutless republicans so we deserve it.

I parked my Expedition (can't sell it, because it isn't worth anything right now) and purchased a little Chevy Aveo. Everyone will have to start making decisions like this in the near term or pay more for gas.
May 30, 2008

8:09 a.m.

Suggest removal

pak writes:

China has built 150 coal fired powerplants since 2005 and placed online 186,000 mw of new coal fired power. Renewables only work 33% of the time and have to be supplemented by dispatcheble gas, which means more gas demand. Because gas is in short supply, we import 20% of our needs as LNG from the same countries that hate our guts. Nuclear is an option, but we import 80% of the fuel and the enviros are trying to stop domestic mining and processing activities. Man's contribution to world GHG emissions is only .20% of the total and insignificant. The answer is pulverized coal for electricity, coal to liquids and coal gasification using our own abundant energy resources!!!
May 30, 2008

8:09 a.m.

Suggest removal

irisman writes:

Mike Rosen is suddenly an expert on climate change. Amazing!
May 30, 2008

8:10 a.m.

Suggest removal

vdisk writes:

I agree with Mike on this one. Would have been nice to see one of those executives stand up and say, "We [name of company] have spent the last year delivering a total of 12 TRILLION GALLONS OF GASOLINE to the market. [or whatever]. How much gasoline have you, Senator, delivered to the market. Prices are high to signal the need for more supplies in the face of rising demand. That's what the price mechanism does. My company is responding to it. We are delivering more gasoline than ever. How much, are you, sir, delivering? Zero? Then why are YOU lecturing ME? If we are in a time of crisis because of high oil prices, which we are, then you would serve your nation better by resigning your Senate seat and joining the effort to actually deliver gasoline to the market that is desperate for it! Believe me, that would be much more useful than standing on the sidelines criticizing those of us who are delivering gasoline. Or if you're not willing to be part of the solution, then at least get the hell out of the way, and go back to doing what you do best which is taking taxpayer money and giving it away in earmarks to the special interests so they'll fund your relection campaign coffers."

Wouldn't that have been a nice speech to hear?
May 30, 2008

8:34 a.m.

Suggest removal

CL writes:

Wow, this is so over the top I wonder if SASQUATCH ghost wrote it.

I certainly agree this hearing was an opportunistic dog and pony show to make it look like the politicians are doing something to reduce gas prices and a windfall profits tax is a very bad idea (how will increasing taxes reduce prices?). If they wanted to investigate anything I could >>maybe<< see looking into possible antitrust violations given the consolidation that has taken place in the oil industry.

>>It was a "show trial" that would have made Joseph Stalin blush.<<

Oh please, talk about excessive hyperbole! When Stalin put you on trial your very life was at stake

>>you're the ones blocking new refineries and nuclear plants<<

Umm.. they've been issuing nuclear plant licenses for almost 2 years now
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/...
with more in the pipeline - the NRC projects an additional 2,900 MWe online by 2013 (and I'd like to see much more).

I keep hearing that new refineries have been blocked, but nothing specific is ever mentioned. I know that refinery capacity has been greatly increased over the decades. Anyone have a good source on specific refineries that have been blocked (and please spare me the worldnetdaily and WSJ editorial stuff)?
May 30, 2008

9:24 a.m.

Suggest removal

Roni writes:

Mike,

Thank you once again, for your clear, brutally honest, level-headed work!
We’ll getter posted on www.GoodNeighborLaw.com
I just completed a piece - not quite as elegant - but likewise requesting the senate investigate environmental groups responsible for suing their way into shutting down resource production in America.
Al Gore expects us to run our vehicles on his snake oil. His little weather packet product is defective and deserving of a recall.
The senators time would be better spent implementing a “Zero Net Loss Production Acre” policy, using Baseline Acre Production to determine to what extent land and water may or may not be taken out of resource production.
This is a matter of National Security!
We should be vigilant about making sure we never jeopardize our safe, steady supply of American grown food. Food comes first. Then fuel. Then dead last the pretty whatever’s to look at or play on.
Sure. Folks should have the right to sell their water shares or acres. And in the case of water, purchaser should not assume they can additionally take away beneficial use by remaining share holders. Water shares should be sold on the mandatory condition that remaining shareholders continue to be served uninterrupted. This means who-so-ever purchases shares, attaches a mutually agreed (with remaining shareholders) plan that commits continued water delivery to remaining shareholders.
State and federal governments should also be expected to purchase…not take water -and be held to compliance with before mentioned mandatory condition.
There’s not one valid reason why any cause should usurp water or land usage away from resource production. Ever!
May 30, 2008

9:35 a.m.

Suggest removal

Eli writes:

"possibly if and when the Oil companies pay their fair share in taxes now that they make such staggering profits..."
-Froward69

What is their "fair share"? Exxon/Mobil paid $30 billion in taxes in 2007. The rate was 41%. What would be fair?
May 30, 2008

9:39 a.m.

Suggest removal

spencerr writes:

CL, not specific examples, but an interesting article that gives a few different points of view about refining capacity. http://money.cnn.com/2007/04/17/news/...

And the enviros, until recently, have made it very difficult for nuclear facilities to gain initial licenses and are still making it difficult to start up new coal-fired plants, even the cleaner gasified and superpulverized coal (granted, some people still don't like the CO2 emissions). I have no doubt that it is not a cake walk to get brand new refining facilities permitted either. Not in my backyard. And it is easier than ever for the enviros to at least temporarily block these things because the permitting process cannot go forward while the greenies are suing the would-be builder/operator because the project might (or might not) cause negative effects on the yellow bellied three toed salamander and all the other wildlife that occupies small niches in specific localities.

It seems like in the end, however, local and enviro opposition to it is forcing refining offshore...you draw your own conclusions.
May 30, 2008

10:03 a.m.

Suggest removal

rickg19611 writes:

"Elect a Democrat majority in Congress, and we will reduce gasoline prices." - Nancy Pelosi, October 27, 2006

Gasoline prices have risen 44.6% since that fraudulent Democrat promise was made. And now the same lying clowns claim they have new answers to solve the problem.

Only morons and brainless idiots would believe Democrats after their proven track record of failure.
May 30, 2008

10:15 a.m.

Suggest removal

StraightTalk writes:

Recently I ran across a list of U.S. Policies with an impact on Energy. I think this is a politically non-partisan list. There's plenty of blame to spread around to both the "left" and the "right." Here's the list:
1. Limited areas available for offshore drilling;
2. Stopped the rise of CAFE standards for automobiles;
3. Restricted nuclear power generation of Electrical;
4. Federal Reserve policies since 2001 led to a very weak US dollar (raising Oil prices);
5. Energy conservation policies? None
6. Iraq and Afghanistan wars contributing to Middle East tensions
7. No major United States funding for R&D on energy;
8. Kept CAFE standards for light trucks/SUVs much lower than autos;
9. Failed to raise efficiency standards for appliances for decades;
10. Provided no tax incentives for consumer purchases of hybrid automobiles;
11. Suburban Sprawl: Americans, on average, live further from where they work than Europeans do;
12. Mass transit system not a high priority;
13. Allowed tax credits for residential solar power to expire;
14. No special capital gains treatment for VC alt.energy investment
15. Ridiculous corn ethanol policy helped drive food prices higher also;
16. Amongst the lowest gasoline taxes in the developed world;
17. No special capital gains tax treatment for clean energy technology development;
18. Created a tax incentive (ADCS) that encouraged purchases of large inefficient vehicles;
19. Game changing breakthroughs over the past decades in solar, battery, or energy generation technologies? None
20. Exempted light trucks, SUVs, and pickups from gas-guzzler tax;
21. Discouraged clean coal, including gas liquification from coal;
22. Limited (or non-existent) state tax incentives for building energy efficient homes;
23. Failed to aggressively promote compact fluorescent light bulb;
24. Limited hydro-electric power generation;
25. Aggressive tax incentives for battery technology development? None
26. Failed to aggressively promote efficiency improvements for residential energy use, transmission of power, or consumption;
27. No new oil refineries built in the USA over the past 25 years.
------------
Comments?
May 30, 2008

10:23 a.m.

Suggest removal

Eli writes:

Straight Talk,
If you're looking for serious and open debate that goes into detail on the items mentioned, that list is WAY too big for a forum such as this. Threads on this page have gone for a hundred comments or more on CAFE standards alone.
May 30, 2008

10:45 a.m.

Suggest removal

Ted_in_Vegas writes:

Going back to Paperboy's comment about being OK with $4.00/gallon gas. Do you realize that means everything else is more expensive too?

Go to a grocery store and try to find something that got there withtout the benefit of a diesel or gasoline-powered vehicle. The transporters of goods have to pay more for fuel too and they pass that increased expense to their purchasers - the stores/chains - who then pass the increased cost to their customers - us.

If you're OK with $4.00/gallon gas, then you're also OK with $4.00/gallon milk; $2.00/loaf of bread; and higher food costs across the board. In fact, nearly everything you buy will go, or has gone, up in price.

In case you missed the implication, those who are limited incomes will then be able to buy less food (sometimes NO food), less housing (sometimes NO housing) and the same goes for clothes.

It never ceases to amaze me how liberal-party economics hurts mostly those whom the liberal-party proclaims to want to protect - the poor and needy - and how the Dimocrats never seem to realize it.
May 30, 2008

11:09 a.m.

Suggest removal

CL writes:

>>CL, not specific examples, but an interesting article that gives a few different points of view about refining capacity.
http://money.cnn.com/2007/04/17/news/...

Thanks spencerr, I'll take a look at it. I know there are refinery issues that cause problems, such as having to provide region-specific blends and having to change the blends with the seasons but I haven't seen anything specific on blocking refineries (but then I haven't really looked either).

My understanding with nuclear that several things caused construction of new plants to come to a halt. Part of it was environmental opposition (which BTW seems to be changing) but also tightened regulations after 3 Mile Island and Chernobyl and other problems like Fort St. Vrain. A good deal of that was certainly reactionary, but some IMO were needed as well. Another factor was that it became cheaper to build coal or gas plants - partly because of the tighter nuclear regulations but also technologies made gas-fired plants (at the time) cheaper and easier to build and operate - remember the big switch to build gas-fired plants some years ago?

What's happening now with nuclear is there have been many advances that make them much safer and less expensive. On top of that, there were several regulatory changes a few years ago that simplified licensing. I'm not familiar with the specifics of the changes so I don't have an opinion on if they were too many changes or too few.
May 30, 2008

11:18 a.m.

Suggest removal

dilligaf writes:

Oh those poor oil executives. I hate to see the rich picked on. I'm almost in tears. This is nothing but twisting the arms of the American people and idiots like Gene and the other blind con's buy right into it. Gene said: "There was even an opinion poll out the other day showing people have had it with paying more for gasoline, and that they would favor drilling in 'protected' locations if it meant no more price increases." Are you people that stupid to buy into this BS. Am I suppose to yell UNCLE?
May 30, 2008

11:52 a.m.

Suggest removal

Eli writes:

Dilligaf,
Let go of the emotion for a second and make a realistic suggestion. What is a "fair" profit? If everyone on the left thinks oil companies make too much money, where should the line be drawn? Do we increase that tax rate of 41% that Exxon/Mobil paid? Should we set a limit on what their profit margin should be? Or should we set a limit on the dollar amount that the company can make in profits? Maybe a limit on the price per gallon? What do you suggest?
May 30, 2008

12:08 p.m.

Suggest removal

p_myers661 writes:

rickg19611 and Froward,

Political party affiliation is almost meaningless in this area.
Waiting until we need ANWR sounds great until you realize that if we began drilling tomorrow, IF we had no delays in pipeline or other transport systems we would not get any benefit from that area for five or, more likely, ten years.

We need to increase refinery capacity. We have benefited from better technology that increases refinery production without more facilities. That benefit is now almost exhausted. We can ignore the reality supply and demand creates. No, that's wrong. Reality creates supply and demand and the consequences of ignoring that reality include higher prices for fuel and greater difficulty in all areas of modern life.

We no longer live within our communities. We get our food from the world market, not the local one. Our consumer goods are made all over and we use them.

Our food choices are limited by their cost. Some just dig deeper to pay. Others are already in deeper than they can afford. The old solution was to switch from meat to beans and grains. Today the price increases begin with grain prices which are inflated by ethanol production. BOTH parties backed this boondoggle and neither is willing to admit their mistake. If they pull all subsidies, they will create a crisis. A gradual withdrawal will require courage, honesty and a lot of changes that could make voters in those areas angry.

We can't sustain these increases for extended periods. Fortunately, the market seems to have topped out. If, as is usual, there are a few more minor bounces before the big drop we will have steady prices for the summer and they will begin to drop like stones in September and October. No one wants to buy at the top of the market, there isn't enough profit available. That means there won't be a crisis by the time the next Congress goes into session so they'll just let it ride.

That's one reason no one wants to go to the extreme trouble of getting a nuclear or other energy plant online. Once the immediate crisis is over, people stop thinking about the problem until next time. Any anti-development group can delay or derail a new plant. Companies would risk millions of dollars with no certainty that they could end up with anything to show for it. some states let any group with objections to delay permitting, and then building and then bringing online any plant.

The greenies will pitch a fit about more facilities whether coal, natural gas or nuclear. Their dream of renewable energy might be practical one day. They think that by having a tantrum and blocking any new energy production plants they can force reality to change to meet their expectations.
May 30, 2008

12:11 p.m.

Suggest removal

TroyJGrice writes:

Some afore-mentioned, bizarro-world ideas from collectivists for reducing gas prices:
1) Windfall taxes on refiners (huh?)
2) Raise gas taxes (say what?)
3) Centrally Planned Energy Policy ('planned' by bureaucrats that just voted to pay millionaire farmers $200B)
4) Force reeling auto industry to increase fuel efficiency (?)
5) Redistribute income (tax credits) to hybrid buyers
6) Lower the speed limit to 55 (why stop there, why not 25?)

How will any of these ideas reduce our cost of living? Sure, they will move money around from an unfavored political group to a favored one, but it doesn't solve the problem.

If you want gas prices to come down do the following:
1) Stop inflating our money supply through FED credit expansion.
2) Stop bailing out Wall Street and let the markets correct so the "speculators" will stop parking their cash in commodities.
3) Stop dropping bombs on the Middle East.
4) Load all congressmen onto a cruise ship and sink it off the coast of ANWR.

Within 30 days you will have $1.00/gallon gas.
May 30, 2008

12:16 p.m.

Suggest removal

WestminsterJ writes:

Rosen:
When the world crude price is high, oil company profits climb just as they plunge when world oil prices slump.

Yeah, when is the last time oil profits "plunged"? Oil profits remain consistently high, no matter what happens, which is an infallible indication that there is a lack of true competition. But Mikey only drags out classical economic models when it suits his purposes.

Mikey has a bad record on price fixing and price gouging. In 1999-2000, he was adamantly defending Enron against the charges that it was trying to fix energy prices in California. Enron was later found guilty of exactly that.
May 30, 2008

12:38 p.m.

Suggest removal

jaymoveonorg writes:

If the Congress allowed more domestic drilling and permits to build refineries, coal, gas and nuclear plants then just think how many jobs we would create domestically. These jobs can not be moved to another country. These jobs are good paying jobs as well. These jobs pay local and Federal taxes. Right now Exxon actually has passed Wal-Mart as the biggest employer for a US company. Wal-Mart pays very low wages but Exxon actually has good paying jobs like engineers, adminstration, accountants, production hands, etc. This does not even include the number of service and transportation companies they hire to get the drilling done.

Yes solar, wind and other renewable manufacturing plants can be built to meet our energy needs. Unfortunately, as we all know it does not mean those manufacturing plants would be built here. They would probably be moved to China eventually and in turn not create jobs for Americans.

So by increasing new drilling and building new power plants we would not only help decrease the price of oil and gas but we would be creating new jobs for Americans today and tomorrow. Instead we want to continue to send our money to OPEC countries? That makes no sense!
May 30, 2008

12:43 p.m.

Suggest removal

jaymoveonorg writes:

WestminsterJ,
You obviously forgot how the price of oil was in the 30's in the early 90's and then plumeted below $10 a barrel. When an oil company spends money on a new project they base it upon what they think the oil company will make in the future (since most projects take years to complete). When the price of oil drops they lose money. You need to see how the oil company stock prices and profits actually did plumet back in the late 90's when oil was trading at $10 a barrell. Please keep your facts straight.
May 30, 2008

1:13 p.m.

Suggest removal

MrPeabody writes:

The hypocrisy of our Congress is laughable. A group of our esteemed leaders parades Oil Execs in what Mark Steyn calls “a dinner theatre version of a Soviet show trial” and grills them.

Their idea of DOING something is to sue OPEC for limiting supply. Steyn has a better idea - we should sue our own Congress for doing exactly the same thing with our own domestic reserves - limiting supply. Congress says it wants to decrease our dependence on foreign sources but for over 30 years has pursued policies that do exactly the opposite of what they say they want to do.

The poor and middle class bear the burden of rising energy prices.

Fortunately, the public is starting to see through such charades. The winds are changing, in terms of public opinion. The rhetoric out of Washington doesn’t match what we are experiencing and the squeeze it is putting on many of us in our family finances.

Two polls just came out. The first poll showed that 90% of Americans reject the increased energy costs that will occur under the proposed Lieberman-Warner Global Warming bill, when electricity and gasoline cost increases are taken together.

http://www.nationalcenter.org/PR-Poll...

A recent Gallup Poll showed that 57% of those polled in a random sample of 1,013 adults said we should allow drilling in coastal areas and those areas of the U.S. now off limits. It also revealed that 53% thought we needed price controls but only 20% thought we should be rationing gasoline. I wonder how many of them were adults when Jimmy Carter imposed price controls in the 1970s? They obviously didn’t learn much from it.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/107542/Maj...

Says Gallup in their commentary;

“While price controls may seem like a simple solution, economically, they simply don't work over time. Right now, gas in the United States is being rationed -- and supply and demand balanced -- by price. In fact, significant "demand destruction" is taking place as Americans are driving less. What price controls do is artificially hold down gas prices, preventing a further decline in the demand for gas while simultaneously reducing the incentive for companies to produce more.

Economic analysis suggests that the almost inevitable result of gas price controls would be gas rationing -- and no one who knows the history of the gas lines of the 1970s wants a recurrence. For that matter, Americans oppose the idea of gas rationing by a 79% to 20% margin.

While Gallup's new poll results suggest that the link between price controls and rationing might be a good and effective argument against the imposition of price controls on gas, Americans' dissatisfaction with record gas prices may be reaching a tipping point where emotions may well supersede logic. That is how wage and price controls became law in the United States in the 1970s.”
May 30, 2008

7:01 p.m.

Suggest removal

Faux_Noise writes:

It was a "show trial" that would have made Joseph Stalin blush.

That's disgusting hyperbole you should apologize for.
May 30, 2008

11:46 p.m.

Suggest removal

WestminsterJ writes:

mwanacek-
So profits dropped briefly once in the last 30 years.
The consistently high profits in the oil industry would not occur in a competitive market. Big oil is uncontestably an oligopoly.

And, btw, anyone who can't see that the obscene compensation drawn by the top executives in both the oil and other industries is in itself compelling evidence that the market mechanism is broken has lost any rational and moral sense.
May 31, 2008

12:26 a.m.

Suggest removal

60s4ever writes:

I thought that the upstream operations of oil companies, exploration and production, make money when the price goes up, and the downstream operations, refining and retail, make money when the price goes down.

Also, during the late 80's and early 90's, when the oil companies did have layoffs, the top execs still awarded themselves huge bonuses.
May 31, 2008

5:22 a.m.

Suggest removal

Michael writes:

"Also, during the late 80's and early 90's, when the oil companies did have layoffs, the top execs still awarded themselves huge bonuses." - 60s4ever
Executive bonuses are generally tied to the company's performance in some way, not to how many people the company employs. Layoffs may have occurred, but the key metrics to the stockholders (the people who own the company 60s) are stock price, revenue, and earnings. These are how a company is measured. I guess you missed econ class too while out protesting or doing whatever you did in the "60s".
May 31, 2008

9:02 a.m.

Suggest removal

Ted_in_Vegas writes:

Why would anyone want to build a refinery in Colorado Springs? Is that a port city? Where's the harbor?

Or, is it a pipeline city? I thought the main east-west pipelines followed (loosely) he east-west interstates. I thought I-70 went through Denver, not Colorado Springs!

Titancain shows his/her ignorance of real world issues. Very common. Probably hasn't learned anything about real-world economics either.
May 31, 2008

9:31 a.m.

Suggest removal

Roader writes:

WestminsterJ wrote:
"So profits dropped briefly once in the last 30 years."

Profit Rates by Oil Industry Segment, 1977-2003
http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/pe...

Looks like profits went to zero several times. Current profits are in the 8% range, which appears to be about average.

“And, btw, anyone who can't see that the obscene compensation drawn by the top executives in both the oil and other industries is in itself compelling evidence that the market mechanism is broken has lost any rational and moral sense.”

Then apply your metric to all industries. The market must be broken for everything – food, shelter, clothing, software, health care, etc., etc., etc. – because compensation for top exec’s is similar for all industries when taking risk into account. It’s the risk/reward continuum. Who should we appoint to set exec compensation to ensure that it reflects your standards for “rational and moral sense”? Then let’s start with your own compensation. Many third-world citizens would no doubt consider your compensation to be “obscene.” Perhaps those people can participate in your next compensation review and adjustment.
May 31, 2008

11:24 p.m.

Suggest removal

60s4ever writes:

Michael,

The name is about the music of the decade. I do performance metrics for a living. I also worked for an oil company in the 70's, 80's and 90's. The company performed badly and the execs still got huge bonuses as they were awarded by their buddies on the board. When they cut costs, they talked the talk but didn't walk the walk for themselves. The worst part is that they had the police escort people from the company. That was the last draw for me and I left 2 months later when I found another job in another industry. That said, the oil execs don't have a monopoly on greed as a lot of other corporate execs do the same thing.
June 1, 2008

11:50 a.m.

Suggest removal

greenleaf writes:

Mr. Rosen,

I am fundamental disagreement with Mr. Rosen in this energy debate. First of all, when it comes to energy use, conservation is far more than a "temporary mitigation" as he calls it. This implies that we should conserve only so long as the resource is in short supply. Technology has brought us amazing innovations such as hybrid cars, CFL bulbs, LED lights and lightweight composites for use in auto and aircraft frames, all of which conserve limited energy resources. These products are not only here to stay but will be joined in the future by a host of products that employ advanced technologies to save energy without asking for sacrifice from the consuming public.

Certainly, other cutting edge technologies will help the supply side of the energy equation as well. Conservation technology will dovetail seamlessly with any energy resource new or old and should be the first concept considered and not the last.
June 1, 2008

11:52 a.m.

Suggest removal

greenleaf writes:

Squatch,

Buddy, are you still paying $10 at the pump? Man, they do see you coming don't they?
June 2, 2008

11:40 a.m.

Suggest removal

ollie writes:

Rosen is nothing but a shill for the right wing and oil companies.
June 2, 2008

4 p.m.

Suggest removal

jay writes:

I was driving back into town this morning there was rosen, preaching against equal rights for all americans.

seriously, why does the rocky give these freaks from the independence institute the bully pulpit?

http://colorado.mediamatters.org/issu...
June 2, 2008

8:14 p.m.

Suggest removal

GetReal writes:

jay,

As usual, you have no clue what you're talking about.

Your link to the repeatedly discredited mediamatters site turns up a search for The Independence Institute.

If you have a problem with something Rosen said, explain in you own words why.

Better yet, why didn't you give Mike a call during his show and argue your point unscripted and man to man?

We both know the answer to that one, don't we?
June 3, 2008

9:45 a.m.

Suggest removal

Eli writes:

I love Media Matters. The site is hilarious. Take this gem of a headline:
"Caldara let GOP candidate make inaccurate claims regarding 'radical environmentalists,' energy development"

I haven't read the article that headline leads to, but still..."let" the candidate make inaccurate claims? How exactly does Caldera "let" him make any claims? What is Caldera supposed to do, scream at the candidate in question to shut the hell up?
And for that matter, everybody knows that talk radio is biased. It's SUPPOSED to be biased, unless it's an actual news program that you're listening to. A conservative commentator on the radio is going to have conservative views and bring up conservative points. Anyone who needs Media Matters to tell them this is clearly beyond any and all hope of having any sort of common sense (that means you, jay).

Here's another absolute gem:
"Rocky published op-ed from affirmative action foe without identifying her position with Independence Institute"
What the hell? Who cares? Why is that even the least bit relevant? I'm generally opposed to affirmative action, and am not in any way affiliated with the Independence Institute. What does that have to do with anything? What if you have an individual who is affiliated with the Independence Institute, but happens to take a differing view on the specific issue of affirmative action, and actually supports it? Would this be noted by media matters? If people like Jay support affirmative action and make a case for why, and my argument to refute his points were "Jay made a case for affirmative action, but failed to note that he is not affiliated with the Independence Institute", people would laugh at me (and rightly so).

Jay, let go of the Media Matters links. The website is a joke and nobody is going to take you seriously while you're posting links like that. Think for yourself for once.
June 3, 2008

11:32 a.m.

Suggest removal

jay writes:

i love it when you guys try to pretend that media matters listing the inaccurate, incosistent or misleading rhetoric from the right is somehow invalid.

it's the far right's own rhetoric. how is the far right not credible on the far right?
June 3, 2008

11:46 a.m.

Suggest removal

Eli writes:

"how is the far right not credible on the far right?"

First of all, "far right" is very much subjective.
Second, it's not the "far right" commentating on the "far right". It's Media Matters arguing with points brought up by conservative commentators.

If you think that the statement "Rocky published op-ed from affirmative action foe without identifying her position with Independence Institute" is in any way at all relevant to the arguments made in the piece, by all means explain why, if you can.
June 3, 2008

2:09 p.m.

Suggest removal

jay writes:

it's the far right's own words...why are you running from their own verbage? it's either evidence of a solid position or it's not. either these folks are upfront that they're members of a political hack tank championing views held by extremists...or they aren't.

pouting isn't going to help.
June 3, 2008

2:25 p.m.

Suggest removal

Eli writes:

Okay jay, I see you have nothing relevant to say here since you've resorted to your usual insults and catch phrases ("pouting", "running", etc). You've offered virtually no explanation as to why a statement like that would be relevant to the arguments made in the article in question. Instead you're just starting to throw your usual temper tantrum.
Since you obviously have no reasonable or logical argument to make, I won't waste any more time on you. Go throw a fit somewhere else.
June 3, 2008

2:58 p.m.

Suggest removal

jay writes:

lol...sorry sister, i wasn't the one throwing the fit. you're the good little footsoldier trying to say that that mean old media matters just isn't playing fair by listing the far right's own rheteoric and noting that when they speak to media outlets they pretend that they aren't far right wing lobbyists.

those nasty, cruel bastards. maybe you should write them a letter.
June 3, 2008

3:12 p.m.

Suggest removal

Eli writes:

Rather than offer realistic and reasonable analysis of the points (or in the examples given, the lack thereof in my opinion) made by Media Matters, your response is to insult me by calling me a footsoldier. Given the fact that you absolutely refuse to question a site which openly admits its bias, could it be that you're the one refusing to employ any critical thinking skills here, jay?
Try not to be such a puppet. Offer your own insight. Why does affiliation with Independence Institute make the arguments in question any more or less valid? People will take you much more seriously when you offer your own analysis rather than parroting whatever you see on a left wing website.
Better yet, maybe you could even offer your own analysis of the column above rather than just posting a link to a left-wing website and running like hell until someone calls you on it. How can you possibly expect to be taken seriously when you can't even develop your own opinions without being told what to think by websites like Media Matters?
June 3, 2008

4:48 p.m.

Suggest removal

Ted_in_Vegas writes:

Jay has no insight, he regurgitate somebody elses' lines; he simply thinks anyone who doesn't agree with him is somebody's puppet.
June 4, 2008

6:28 a.m.

Suggest removal

yaakovwatkins writes:

Oh I get it. The right has to identify itself as conservative but liberals don't?

Froward, your understanding of science is missing. Powering cars with solar and wind is impossible.
June 4, 2008

10:07 a.m.

Suggest removal

jay writes:

"Why does affiliation with Independence Institute make the arguments in question any more or less valid?"

when did I make this claim, eli?

please cut and paste it or concede that it is a strawman argument.

you can whine all you want...but listing the far right's own inaccurate or misleading rhetoric and noting that they consistently refuse to identify themselves as far right wing lobbyists when propagandizing to local media outlets isn't part of some vast liberal conspiracy. it isn't lying. it isn't underhanded.

when did accountability become a four letter word in the extremist conservative ranks?
June 4, 2008

10:41 a.m.

Suggest removal

Eli writes:

I see you still don't know what a straw man argument is, jay. Had I twisted your words in order to make a point easier to refute, it would be a straw man. I did not do that. What I gathered from your post is that the arguments made should not be seriously considered because of affiliation with the Independence Institute. Considering this statement I think it's perfectly reasonable for anyone to get that implication:
"they're members of a political hack tank championing views held by extremists"

If I misunderstood, then I apologize and I look forward to your clarification as well as your confirmation that you would also like to see liberal commentators disclaim any affiliations they may have with any left wing organizations before writing an opinion column.
June 4, 2008

10:47 a.m.

Suggest removal

Eli writes:

"they consistently refuse to identify themselves as far right wing lobbyists"
That is a matter of opinion and perspective, jay. Again, "far right" is highly subjective.
And as always, you need to let go of the "conspiracy theory" thing. Have you ever noticed that you are consistently the only person to bring up conspiracy theories on most of the threads you post on? Paranoid much? Relax, jay. It's not healthy.
June 4, 2008

10:52 a.m.

Suggest removal

Eli writes:

"...noting that they consistently refuse to identify themselves as far right wing lobbyists when propagandizing to local media outlets isn't part of some vast liberal conspiracy. it isn't lying. it isn't underhanded"
By the way, jay, THIS quote would be a straw man argument. Remember the definition of a straw man?
Person A has position X
Person B ignores position X and presents position Y

This is exactly what you did. I never said anything about a conspiracy. I never said it was lying. I never said it was underhanded. Your arguments are straw men.
June 4, 2008

11:44 a.m.

Suggest removal

Cwillyrun1 writes:

France doesn't seem to have any problems powering their country off of nuclear, but the NIMBY's always want the plants built somewhere else besides close to them. Sorry, but the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. Are oil companies making too much in profit? If the revenue only is taken into account, without looking at taxes and reinvestment costs. If speculators are reigned in and a new refinery or refineries are built, it would ease the price increases. But the refineries aren't being built because of NIMBY's. Has a new refinery even been built in the last 30 years?

Now we have Barrack Obama, who suggests windfall taxes or taxes on anything over $80 a barrel would reduce gas prices. I'm not sure what he's on, but his idea would only mean higher gas prices. Those taxes would only be passed onto the consumer. Also, where does the money from taxes go? It doesn't go back into our pockets, so it's an indirect tax increase on consumers. Some of the supposed energy answers are too flawed, yet the shortsighted politicians favoring them call us dumb for not supporting them. Ethanol, for example, has caused an increase in food costs, by either taking corn out of the food chain or by farmers cutting wheat production in favor of corn, causing wheat prices to go up. The dairy industry is hit hard by lack of corn feed at low prices, so we pay more for dairy products too. That doesn't even take into account the fact that corn is a thirsty plant and there's a water shortage in the western U.S.! The ethanol mandate would mean having roughly the square mileage of Kansas doubled for new corn fields. Where's the water coming from to increase production, and how much will it cause our water rates to go up? I read something about hybrid cars.... nice idea, but wait until an owner has to spend a couple thousand just for a new battery. Cost effective my a$$!

I can't take Al Gore and his position seriously when he violates the things he stands for. "Green", yet he buys carbon footprint credits because he's a large user of energy. Hypocritical. He burns jet fuel by flying all over, yet expects us to conserve. I have no problem conserving, but I'll do it by choice and when the circumstances warrant it. So, blaming high gas prices solely on oil companies is a narrow view.
June 4, 2008

11:55 a.m.

Suggest removal

jay writes:

"That is a matter of opinion and perspective, jay"

no...that is a matter of fact...which is, apparently politically inconvenient for you...brought to light by those evil folks at media matters.

again...why is accountability for one's own rhetoric and actions such a foreign concept with you folks on the far right?

i just don't see the big problem. why attack the messenger?
June 4, 2008

12:03 p.m.

Suggest removal

Eli writes:

Jay,
You seriously think that individual perspective has no bearing on whether someone is "far left" or "far right"? Really? I mean, I know there is some objectivity there...for example I think we can both agree that the Communist Party USA is on the left end of the spectrum and the NRA is on the right. But your individual opinion and perspective has virtually no effect on just how far left or right a person or organization is? It's a matter of indisputable fact? You can't seriously believe that.

And you've offered no clarification regarding my 10:41 post. Should I just give up on that?
June 4, 2008

12:39 p.m.

Suggest removal

jay writes:

"You seriously think that individual perspective has no bearing on whether someone is "far left" or "far right"?"

when did i claim this? you're 0 and 2 on misrepresenting my positions.

again...why not take accountability for one's own rhetoric and actions? why attack media matters for simply compiling the far right's own rhetoric? why attack them for pointing out that the independence institute constantly tries to pretend that they're not extremist lobbyists when they speak to the media?

again...don't attack the messenger.
June 4, 2008

12:49 p.m.

Suggest removal

Eli writes:

You very clearly claimed that calling Independence Institute an "extremist" organization is a matter of fact, not opinion. If I am at all mistaken, please clarify. If you could do so without simply repeating yourself, it would be much appreciated. If not, don't bother with a response.

"why attack them for pointing out that the independence institute constantly tries to pretend that they're not extremist lobbyists when they speak to the media?"

What I did was question the relevance of an affiliation with Independence Institute, be it for Rosen's column above or for the specific column mentioned in the example I provided regarding affirmative action. In fact, my exact words were "Why is that even the least bit relevant?". Your response was to throw a hissy fit. I suppose you have no insight on this?
June 4, 2008

1:49 p.m.

Suggest removal

jay writes:

you said, "You seriously think that individual perspective has no bearing on whether someone is "far left" or "far right"?"

please cut and paste my post that claimed this or concede the point.

otherwise, more whining about the independence institute getting called out on the fact that they pretend they aren't right wing lobbyist group. you are more than welcome to believe that that information isn't "relevant" considering the input the rocky and other media outlets give them, but do you really believe that resorting to attacking folks like media matters for bringing that politically inconvenient fact to light really makes you anything but less than relevant on this subject?

i personally would rather know if someone is selling the public on a particular issue...but that's just me. you could always remain ignorant during those times and still live a fruitful life.

i'm going to choose against ignorance...and will probably not join you in attacking those who seek to dispel ignorance by simply bringing attention to extremist sources own rhetoric and actions. i'm going to go ahead and side with accountability. but that's just one guy talking.
June 4, 2008

2:22 p.m.

Suggest removal

Eli writes:

"...the independence institute getting called out on the fact that they pretend they aren't right wing lobbyist group"
-jay

From the Independence Institute website:
"Unlike other organizations which see government intervention as the only solution, the Independence Institute seeks to explore all alternatives, emphasizing private-sector and community-based solutions."

I'd say this agenda is certainly from the right side of the political spectrum. If you view this to be "far right", "extremist", or simply a lie to cover some sort of alternative far right agenda then I'd say we can agree to disagree. If you go with the latter of those options, I'd also question why you accuse others of conspiracy theories on a regular basis. Would seem a bit hypocritical, wouldn't it?

If you pay attention, you'll notice that the quote you used in your last post was a question, not a statement. A simple "no" would have sufficed if I misunderstood your position. A clarification would have been even better. Perhaps your only intent was to claim that Independence Institute being an extremist organization is an indisputable fact. I'd disagree with "extremist", but I guess you're entitled to your opinion there. Since I've asked for clarification and you refuse to provide any, I guess we'll never know.

You refuse to offer any insight as to why an affiliation with Independence Institute is relevant to either the column above or to the column referenced in the example I provided. My guess is that you realize it is not relevant to the arguments provided in either column, and you're desperately trying to avoid admitting as much.

I think I'm done for the day. You've been dodging my 10:41 post for quite some time now, so I give up. You've resorted to straw man arguments as seen in your 10:07 post, and now you're reverting back to your normal childish insults. It's obvious you have nothing relevant to say here.
June 4, 2008

2:26 p.m.

Suggest removal

jay writes:

I think we're done here unless you have anything other besides the defense of ignorance.
June 4, 2008

2:51 p.m.

Suggest removal

jay writes:

so...once again...this time without the whining...anyone have a clue why the rocky gives these clowns from the independence institute so much talk time?

http://colorado.mediamatters.org/issu...

http://colorado.mediamatters.org/issu...
June 4, 2008

7:42 p.m.

Suggest removal

Shadow writes:

The real question that is not being asked is as follows:

With the tax rate being a 4 to 1 over the profiet margin, what is the government doing with all the cash they are making at the pump?

Liberals want to complaign about the oil execs making too much money. The conservatives say that it is a free market and that they being over charged. I agree. If an oil company declares 1 billion in profiets then the government has made 4 billion in revenue. So what is the governemnt doing with all that money.

Bottom line is simple. The oil companies are in buisness of oil. They are responsible to their share owners ( that is those who own stock in the company. Something many with 401ks have in their portfolio. Take a look at it sometime).
If you raise the taxes on the oil companies they only pass it on to the consumer as an expense that we pay for.

The real shame of this dog and pony show by congress is that the oil execs did not have the cajones to tell congress where to get off with their over stuffed pockets.
June 5, 2008

10:47 a.m.

Suggest removal

Ted_in_Vegas writes:

Once again, Jay runs from logic and retreats into name calling...

Gets old, Jay; try growing up and thinking for a change. Oh, I forgot, you're reprobate mind can't handle the use of wisdom.
June 5, 2008

11:06 a.m.

Suggest removal

jay writes:

maybe you can tell me, ted, since eli has failed to do so...why media matters posting the right's OWN RHETORIC isn't credible?
June 5, 2008

1:02 p.m.

Suggest removal

jay writes:

here you go, ted, let me give you an example to chew on.

amy oliver is a director at the independence institute and was caught in trying to rationalize the bigoted stance they take on gay marriage...

"Discussing the issue of gay marriage on her 1310 KFKA program, Amy Oliver stated, "Nobody is saying that gay people can't get married. They just have to marry somebody of a different sex."--from colorado media matters.

now...question...is there anything wrong with noting her discrimantory remarks and position on this issue?

is holding her accountable for her rhetoric nefarious in any way?
June 5, 2008

1:39 p.m.

Suggest removal

jay writes:

discriminatory...discriminatory remarks....typing a little fast for my own good.

here's another example of blatant inaccuracies (lies) told by someone from the independence institute...this time...our own mike "rose colored glasses" rosen:

"Echoing the same falsehood he had stated six days earlier, Newsradio 850 KOA's Mike Rosen on May 22 asserted that Sen. Barack Obama has said he would "talk to Hamas without preconditions." Obama's campaign has released a statement saying that the Democratic presidential candidate "does not support negotiations with Hamas until they renounce terrorism, recognize Israel's right to exist, and abide by past agreements.""---colorado media matters.

now, i ask again, what isn't credible about noting mike's inaccuracy? is it somehow not fair to bring to light his misstatements or flat out lies?

if mike is ignorant about the details that's one thing...but he seems like a smart guy...so that scenario doesn't really pass the smell test now does it?

i just don't see a vast left wing conspiracy at work here people. i don't see anything but facts from these folks.

why is that so scary to you 25%'ers?

Home › Opinion › Opinion Columns & Blogs

ROSEN: Slimy Senate showoffs

By Mike Rosen, Rocky Mountain News (Contact)

Published May 30, 2008 at 12:05 a.m.

More Opinion Columns & Blogs

Share

Comments

Featured

Columns & Blogs