Given Cheney's reported correction, will George Will follow?
SUMMARY: The AP reported that Vice President Dick Cheney's office has acknowledged that "he was mistaken when he asserted that China, at Cuba's behest, is drilling for oil in waters 60 miles from the Florida coast" -- an assertion Cheney took from columnist George Will. Does Will plan to offer evidence in support of his claim, or will he issue a correction?
In a June 5 Washington Post column headlined "The Gas Prices We Deserve," George Will noted that U.S. companies have not been permitted to drill in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and asserted, "Drilling is underway 60 miles off Florida. The drilling is being done by China, in cooperation with Cuba, which is drilling closer to South Florida than U.S. companies are." Vice President Dick Cheney then made a similar claim about China drilling off the coast of Florida in a June 11 speech to the United States Chamber of Commerce. But a June 12 Associated Press article reported that "Vice President Dick Cheney's office acknowledged on Thursday that he was mistaken when he asserted that China, at Cuba's behest, is drilling for oil in waters 60 miles from the Florida coast."
The AP further noted that Cheney "cited his source as columnist George Will" and continued:
Cheney's office said in a statement to The Associated Press that the vice president had erred.
"It is our understanding that, although Cuba has leased out exploration blocks 60 miles off the coast of southern Florida, which is closer than American firms are allowed to operate in that area, no Chinese firm is drilling there," according to the statement.
Cuba clearly is interested in developing its deep-water oil resources, estimated at more than 5 billion barrel, including areas within 60 miles of Key West, Fla., energy experts said.
Jorge Pinon, a senior energy fellow at the University of Miami specializing in Latin America, said Cuba has awarded offshore oil leases, or concessionary blocs, in its offshore waters to six oil companies -- none of them Chinese -- and soon may announce an agreement with Brazil's state oil company, Petrobras.
"But no one is currently drilling in any of those concessions," said Pinon in a telephone interview. Pinon, who supports drilling in the eastern Gulf and believes it can be done without hurting the environment, said China is being raised as an unnecessary "boogeyman" by drilling proponents.
"There is no actual drilling yet. ... There is exploration," said Johanna Mendelson-Forman, a senior fellow on energy and Latin America at the Center for Strategic and International Studies.
In light of Cheney's correction, does Will intend to offer evidence in support of his claim, or will he issue a correction?
With their granny spectacles perched low on the nose of future media missteps, comes another edition of MMFA's "to do list".
:)
Tommy wrote:
>>With their granny spectacles perched low on the nose of future media missteps, comes another edition of MMFA's "to do list".
I will never criticize any poster's grammar, because doing so is snobbish, pointless, contradictory to an understanding of the good use of language, etc. However, allow me to make an exception here.
You have written a sentence with a dangling modifier. The word after the comma following "missteps" should modify the phrase that comes before it--or put more simply, that word should be the doer of the clause. I think the sentence should read "With their granny spectacles perched low on the nose of future media missteps, MMFA adds another item to its "to do list". I can't be sure, though.
The only reason I point this error out is that in this case it really impedes my understanding of what you are trying to say. I honestly don't understand your intention, if you are criticizing MMFA, or pointing out that the media has made another big mistake, or what.
I believe he's criticizing Media Matters. I have no doubt that he is.
Media Matters will occasionally echo one posting they've already made. That's why they cover apologies of people they cover. That's why they cover KO's WPITW nominations. That's why they cover things like this. They are reinforcing something they've already posted about with this posting.
Tommy doesn't want them to reinforce anything. He doesn't want them to make most of the points they do, and certainly wouldn't want those points to be strengthened by further examples. That's why he and his ilk often post the WITH posts and complain that Media Matters is harping on minor issues. They know that it's valuable for Media Matters to reinforce what they say, so they do their darnest to disrupt that effort in every way possible.
Exxon-Mobil and the CIA are presently recruiting Cuban expatriates from the Miami area, to invade these off-shore oil rigs, in a privately financed operation called "Bay Of Oil Pigs"...
Because if we allow all of that salty waxy Carribbean Crude to fall into the hands of the Chinese, then it's just a matter of time, before Wal-Mart will be retailing it back to us, at the low discounted price of $3.00 per gallon...
It's a kind of a "domino theory" thing...
Not at all related to Snoopy's comment but I wanted to get mine off my chest.
These days it has become a common practice to say the high oil price is because of 'China and India have increased demand'. This, I think, has permeated to the level of 'Saddam did 911' in American thinking and is only a red herring.
Excuse me? The price of oil almost doubled in the past year. Can any one of the analysts and the newsreaders that endlessly repeat the increased demand (from China India no less) mantra cite doubling (or even a 20% increase) in actual comsumption from China, India or any other country in the past year? I did not think so.
The real cause is speculation. The same speculation that got us the housing market bust is getting us $4-5 / gallon gas price.
Thank you 4Cents!
I have been screaming this at my radio for a month now. Demand used to be 85 million barrels per day a few years ago and now it is only 87 million. It has DECREASED in the US and Europe and increased a bit in Asia. This small % increase is NOT enough to raise oil by $70/barrel in ONE YEAR. There is nothing happening in the market that justifies $3 jumps on so many of those days. The oil futures speculation was removed from scrutiny by a bill written by former Texas Repub Phil Gramm a few years ago. They have figured out how to manipulate the market somehow. Gramm is now an econ consultant for McCain, btw.
Senator Carl Levin has been working on that speculation problem: http://www.carllevin.com/news/2008/06/12/senate-floor-statement-on-oil-and-gasoline-prices/
Here is just part of what he says:
Excessive market speculation is a factor that we can and should do a better job of controlling, and the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, which I chair, has been on the case of speculators for years. Congress recently took an important step by passing - over a veto from President Bush - my legislation to close the Enron Loophole.
But that is not enough.
Over the last two years, energy traders have moved a significant amount of U.S. crude oil and gasoline trading to the United Kingdom, beyond the direct reach of U.S. regulators - and British regulators don't place limits on speculation like we do.
I call it the "London Loophole," and it needs to be closed.
Earlier this week, I pushed for action to close the London Loophole, which is included in the Consumer-First Energy Act.
What's with the "required to purchase electric vehicles?" Many of us would LOVE to buy an electric vehicle. Unfortunately, they have been squashed and are not available. Have you seen the movie, "Who Killed the Electric Car?" Have you seen any stories about the elusive RAV4 electrics that are out there? The RAV4 electrics can go 250 miles on one charge, so they are practical for pretty much anybody. There is an electric sports car in Europe that can go 200 mph.
If we opened up drilling, any oil would not be available for 10 years. There are dozens of avenues we can go down to drastically reduce our dependence over that decade without harming the environment. To top it off, if we come up with a practical alternative, we could market it to those up and coming societies and make up some of that whopping trade deficit.
SORRY ABOUT THE ALL CAPS - BUT:
REREAD THE ABOVE ENTRY UNTIL IT IS STUCK IN YOUR HEAD LIKE A BAD SONG - TEN YEARS UNTIL VIABLE OIL PRODUCTION OFFSHORE, IN ANWAR (ALASKA), ETC. UNTIL THEN - WHO IS QUASHING ALTERNATIVE VEHICLES? YOUR GOVERNMENT AT WORK.
Talk about boogeymen, Oscar.
Instead of feeding this reckless oil jones, why not invest full tilt in clean, renewable energy? Screw the oilmen. Open the markets wide for real competition, the handful of oil producers have obviously colluded to keep prices and profits high. Were the oil market truly free, at least one of these producers would lower their prices to undercut the competition. But there is no competition. Screw 'em.
Your thinking is, quite frankly, emblematic of the bassackward thinking that has left conservatism way behind the curve in the energy debate.
So, you talk about solar panels taking up all that farmland...in the desert? OK. And simply because you don't "think" we can plant enough wind turbines doesn't make that type of renewable of energy impossible.
I think you know that there is no single cure all, that it will take reearch, development and a combination clean energy sources that are regionally specific. There is no reason to wait before we start investing in green energy, it will be 2018 before petroleum from ANWR will be gas in our tanks. And don't bother complaining about subsidizing a green economy, we already prop up our fossil fuel based economy. Hell, the oil companies want us to pay for their new refineries. We spend our tax dollars on military protection for their oil interests.
Just keep defending the status quo if you must. It's the main reason the right will be left behind. We need bold, brave thinking and a commitment to breaking our oil addiction, not capitulation to the old, destructive ideas.
60 miles offshore and our intelligence service is giving Cheney bad data ????
George Will is the intellectual, snobby version of the Wizard of Oz. He puts on such a show of being so smart and aloof that people just eat up his BS as if it were ice cream. However, even a cursory analysis of anything that comes out of his mouth shows that he has absolutely no idea what he is talking about.
Sorry, Bruce, I thought you were talking to me when you were addressing Jawill. But my point still stands about Will in relevence to his general illogic.
Will seems to be in a time warp of some 30 + years ago and hasn't evolved in his thinking/ideas. Should MMFA subject that to scrutiny everyday? That's the overarching theme we're trying to relate.
"In light of Cheney's correction, does Will intend to offer evidence in support of his claim, or will he issue a correction?"
IN answer to this question, I expected someone to note that Cheney's office feeds the media stuff in order to then quote the recipients.
Here is another rather clear instance. Of course George Will will clear up nothing! He was just repeating what he got from Cheney's office.
Moreover, shouldn't the vice president of the United States, with all the information available to his office, be ashamed to quote a columnist on such a serious matter?