MSNBC again hosted Lott in discussion of McCain's energy policy without disclosing that Lott is a lobbyist for gas and oil companies
SUMMARY: On MSNBC Live, anchor Chris Jansing discussed Sen. John McCain's energy policy with former Sen. Trent Lott but failed to disclose that Lott is now a lobbyist for major energy companies. Earlier this month, Andrea Mitchell discussed energy policy with Lott and Sen. John Breaux on MSNBC Live but failed to disclose that both are lobbyists for oil and gas companies.
On the June 24 edition of MSNBC Live, anchor Chris Jansing discussed Sen. John McCain's energy policy with former Sen. Trent Lott (R-MS) but failed to disclose that Lott is now a lobbyist for major energy companies. Lott and former Sen. John Breaux (D-LA) formed the Breaux Lott Leadership Group and now lobby on behalf of oil and gas clients Chevron, Shell, and Plains Exploration & Production Co. MSNBC's failure to identify Lott as a lobbyist for oil and gas clients comes after anchor and NBC News foreign affairs correspondent Andrea Mitchell discussed energy policy with Lott and Breaux on the June 9 edition of MSNBC Live but failed to disclose that both are lobbyists for oil and gas companies.
Discussing McCain's recent calls for offshore drilling, Jansing said, "Senator McCain, like President Bush, supports now offshore drilling. Senator Obama does not. This is a policy reversal for Senator McCain. Is it going to hurt him?" During the subsequent discussion, Lott said: "It's time we quit fighting in America about having an energy policy. We have got to have an energy policy, and let's do it all. Let's do drill. Let's do nuclear power. Let's do clean coal. Let's do alternative fuels. Let's do solar, wind. Let's do conservation. Quit arguing over whether we produce more or conserve more. Let's do it all. That's the solution."
According to a Media Matters for America search* of the Lobbying Disclosure Act Database, Lott and Breaux are registered to lobby Congress on behalf of the following energy companies:
- Plains Exploration & Production Co. (PXP). Effective date of registration: 1/1/08. According to its website, PXP "is an independent oil and gas company primarily engaged in the activities of acquiring, developing, exploring and producing oil and gas in its core areas of operation: California, Rockies, Gulf Coast, Gulf of Mexico, Texas Panhandle, South Texas and the Permian Basin of the United States."
- Chevron USA Inc. Effective date of registration: 2/15/08.
- Shell Oil Co. Effective date of registration: 3/1/08.
Mitchell also did not identify Republican National Committee (RNC) deputy chairman Frank Donatelli as a former registered lobbyist for energy sector clients ExxonMobil and Dominion Resources prior to joining the RNC, while discussing McCain's call for offshore oil drilling during Donatelli's appearance on the June 17 edition of MSNBC Live.
From the 3 p.m. ET hour of the June 24 edition of MSNBC Live:
JANSING: Good afternoon, I'm Chris Jansing. One day after John McCain's chief strategist said that another terrorist attack would benefit McCain, the presumptive Republican nominee has changed the subject. In Santa Barbara, one of the country's most environmentally sensitive cities after the 1969 oil spill there, John McCain proposed offering tax credits and other incentives to address the energy crisis.
MCCAIN [video clip]: In the short term I'd like to give you a little relief for the summer on the gas tax. I don't see an immediate relief, but I do see that exploitation of existing reserves that may exist and in view of many experts that do exist off our coast is also a way that we need to provide relief, even though it may take some years. The fact that we are exploiting those reserves would have a psychological impact that I think is beneficial.
JANSING: Joining me now, Trent Lott, former Republican senator from Mississippi. Senator, good afternoon to you.
LOTT: Good afternoon, Chris. Glad to be with you.
JANSING: Before we get to Senator McCain's energy proposals, his adviser Charlie Black has now apologized for saying that another terrorist attack would be an advantage for John McCain. I'm wondering what your reaction is to these comments. It's been painted a little bit like something a lot of people have been thinking about but simply wouldn't say because it's not PC, frankly.
LOTT: Well first, I know Charlie Black is one of the finest people in Washington, D.C. I have known him for a long time. I consider him a personal friend, so I have to admit that. He has apologized for it, and certainly would have probably chosen a different way to say that. But he was responding to a question. There's no doubt in anybody's mind that when it comes to foreign policy, defense, the terrorism issue, John McCain is strong in that area, and sometime I worry that the American people have sort of, you know, stopped being aware or they have kind of forgotten the real dangers that we face from terrorists all over this country and around the world. So I know that's what Charlie was saying. He was basically saying, look, this is a strong suit for John McCain based on his background, his history, his leadership in this area. He didn't mean to, you know, to say it or make it sound the way it did, that oh, good, you know, if we had another strike it would be beneficial. You shouldn't look at it that way. But you should look at the fact that you need the strongest possible person that will deter another terrorist attack.
JANSING: Perhaps six months ago a lot of people would have thought that national security, the war in Iraq, would be the number one issue. Clearly now with the price of gas, with what's going on in the housing market, we're looking at yet another pocketbook election. Senator McCain, like President Bush, supports now offshore drilling. Senator Obama does not. This is a policy reversal for senator McCain. Is it going to hurt him?
LOTT: Hey, when times change, when circumstances change, sometimes you have to be prepared to change your position. We're talking about this being a change campaign. Look, we've got a problem. America and a lot of Americans are being adversely affected by the cost of gasoline, home heating fuel, all the energy costs. Corn ethanol has certainly had an impact on food prices. So it's time that we do some different things, some innovative things. John McCain has been emphasizing that. He has an energy policy. He said, yes, we should drill, but he also says, you know, we should, you know, lead in nuclear power. France gets most of their power from nuclear power safely. They decided how to deal with this waste that they have. But, look, Obama has no plan, and John is doing innovative things. He said, look, let's suspend the federal tax temporarily. He said, look, let's give, you know, a $300 million award to a company that will actually come up with a battery-driven automobile. You know, we've got to go after energy with passion.
JANSING: But Senator, this is a change for him. And is it fair to say that in one instance it's change that you're dealing with, changing circumstances, but when the other guy does it, you call it flip-flopping?
LOTT: Well, I'm sure that there's some unfairness that goes both ways, but, frankly, I think John McCain has been moving in the right direction. But, look, here is what I have been saying for the last five years. It's time we quit fighting in America about having an energy policy. We have got to have an energy policy, and let's do it all. Let's do drill. Let's do nuclear power. Let's do clean coal. Let's do alternative fuels. Let's do solar, wind. Let's do conservation. Quit arguing over whether we produce more or conserve more. Let's do it all. That's the solution.
[...]
JANSING: Senator Lott, always a pleasure to talk with you, sir. Thank you.
LOTT: Thank you.
When an interviewee might have a conflict of interest in the subject matter he is discussing, that potential conflict should always be mentioned.
It's as simple as that. A Democrat or a Republican, doesn't matter.
Did you even read his comments? Which company was he representing when he voiced HIS OPIONION "Let's do conservation"?
The bottom line is MMFA is grasping....again.
He doesn't have to mention his company at all.
All he has to have is a potential conflict of interest and whatever news organization is using him as a source of opinion on the subject has an obligation to tell us about that potential conflict of interest.
There doesn't have to be any proof that he ia actually distorting reality because of a real conflict of interest. All there has to exist is a potential conflict of interest for the media to be obligated to reveal it to their listeners. It's part of journalistic standards to do so.
"...to have is a potential conflict of interest and whatever news organization is using him as a source of opinion on the subject has an obligation to tell us about that potential conflict of interest."
For this to hold true then those that leave the political field should not be put at the front desk representing news organizations, or for that matter any one with a predisposed opinion is also discredited before being heard.
Mikeh, he"cannot be trusted to offer an opinion". Really, if he represents certain companies, do you trust his "opinion" to be unbiased or perfectly honest? So the anser is NO..cannot be trusted.
Mikeh, "straws that small"!! So you admit to the straws even being there.
This man may be a moral man but he will justify any false statements by saying, "I was only doing my job"....so is MMFA. What is the big deal with someone pointing out that this guy is working for the gas and oil industry.? The Repubs and the talk show people constantly remind us that Pres. Bush is not an oil man, so MMFA informs people what this guy does.
"so MMFA informs people what this guy does. - princeofwheels"
No, what MMFA disclosed is only some of the companies he his firm represents.
No, his opinion on both the issues of energy and the environment are both highly suspect because he is a lobbyist for oil companies and gas companies. And since you brought up his clients in the big food industry, his opinions on food safety are also suspect if he ever talks about that issue.
Returning to Lott's suspect positions on energy and the environment, since these companies cover Lott's monetary bottom line, his opinion os bought and paid for.
Also, since Chris Jansing deliberately covered up Lott's ties, not only can we say that jansing is a right wing Republican herself, we can also start questioning what friends and/or associates that Jansing has to the oil industry. It's clear that GOP-GE-NBC/MSNBC sanctions, if not DEMANDS, spro-corporatist conservative Republican conflicts of interests from their reporters. Not that I'm saying that Chris Jansing has such potential conflicts of interest.
"Lott's suspect positions on energy and the environment, since these companies cover Lott's monetary bottom line, his opinion os bought and paid for....see it real"
Who then paid for him to say "Let's do alternative fuels. Let's do solar, wind. Let's do conservation."?
Who then paid for him to say "Let's do alternative fuels. Let's do solar, wind. Let's do conservation."? - mikerhyner8202
You tell us, Mike, you asked the question, not me.
-See it real-
You stated his opionion is bought and paid for. Please answer the question: who then paid for him to state "Let's do alternative fuels. Let's do solar, wind. Let's do conservation."?
You're really going to play dumb and pretend to not understand the conflict of interest here?
Wesley is not playing dumb. He really is dumb. :-)
I believe disclosure is the preference, not infringement on freedom of the press. Nice try at diversion, though.
Wise up Mary. I was not defending Lott or his comments.
Berg and I were discussing the relevance of knowing someone's background...which is the point of mmfa's thread. If you want to pick a fight about the truth and tactics of Trent Lott...you'll have to find another dance partner.
A tenet of journalistic integrity is to identify people with potential conflicts of interest.
They violated that tenet.
It's not your preferences that matter. It's a principle that supersedes your willingness to allow those potential conflicts of interest to skate by. Both journalists and the people they interview need to have their potential conflict of interests pointed out.
"It's not your preferences that matter. It's a principle that supersedes your willingness to allow those potential conflicts of interest to skate by. Both journalists and the people they interview need to have their potential conflict of interests pointed out."
Exactly. Chris Jansing's deliberate omission of Lott's ties to oil and gas lobbyists means that we have to look into her conflcits of interests and/or her ties to oil and gas and/or her personal investments in energy stocks.
Wesley,
In a situation where there is gray, such as here, we need to know who is advocating for what and why
Fine with me if you think that is necessary...I think it might be helpful but not necessary. Honest reporting and vetting of the accuracy is what is necessary.
Being an advocate for a certain policy does not rule out the credibility of the spokesperson...the honesty of his facts defines his credibility. It's a weak assertion by mmfa...because of their blind partisanship...that a paid or unpaid spokesman is dishonest by definition.
In this case if mmfa thinks Lott is not credible because of distorting the facts...they should have pointed out those inaccuracies...that would be most beneficial.
Being an advocate for a certain policy does not rule out the credibility of the spokesperson...the honesty of his facts defines his credibility. It's a weak assertion by mmfa...because of their blind partisanship...that a paid or unpaid spokesman is dishonest by definition.
In this case if mmfa thinks Lott is not credible because of distorting the facts...they should have pointed out those inaccuracies...that would be most beneficial.
Do you really still not get this? If not, WZWriter might be right.It has nothing to do with whether or not Lott was lying or slanting information to benefit any company he lobbies for.It has to do with the news source not identifying the potential conflict of interest this Senator or any other person might have.
Lott has a potential conflict of interest. Listeners should be told that to help them evaluate Lott's claims.
It's not a weak assertion by Media Matters, because they never claimed that Lott wasn't credible. Someone with a potential conflict of interest can and often is credible despite that potential conflict of interest. Media Matters didn't say anything about Lott's credibility. They talked about the news source not acknowledging his potential conflict of interest.
The only thing I can imagine is that you are trying to distract us from the real issue here. Journalists should point out the potential conflicts of interest of the people they interview. It has nothing to do with your smear of Media Matters that they are blindly partisan. It has to do with journalistic integrity.
On the millions of acres in leases and permits that big oil already has, instead of stockpiling them to soak the consumer.
"Let's do nuclear power..."
As soon as we can find a private insurer who will take on the liability of insuring the plants, instead of passing the risk on to the taxpayers.
And as soon as we can find investors willing to take on the entire financial risk instead of having to secure huge sums of taxpayer money so they can recoup their losses when the plants do not reach their life expectancy and repairs are too costly.
"Let's do clean coal..."
If it ever becomes clean.
On the millions of acres in leases and permits that big oil already has, instead of stockpiling them to soak the consumer.
And the millions of acres in leases do not have proven large oil reserves, not have they been explored yet.
And as soon as we can find investors willing to take on the entire financial risk instead of having to secure huge sums of taxpayer money so they can recoup their losses when the plants do not reach their life expectancy and repairs are too costly.
You mean like how the $1.6B windfarm project in Delaware, also partially being funded by taxpayer money, is going up as we speak? The one that will provide energy costs at 5x the current rate, while also only being able to supply 16% of the areas power, whereas the nuclear plant would have supplied 5x the power, and 5x less the cost per Kwh.
"Let's do clean coal..."
If it ever becomes clean.
Or we could just do solar and wind...whenever they are actually worth the cost. Not sure if you're aware of the current scientific limitations, but a recent study estimated that we would need to use 33% of the ENTIRE WORLDS STEEL just to power the US using windfarms...not to mention the amount of space it would take. Wow, what a tradeoff.
A. Provide some links.
B. Maybe the people of Delaware were not that hip on having another nuclear plant in their back yard. Those of us in the mid Atlantic region who were around for Three Mile Island have our reservations about nuclear plants in our neighborhoods.
Sure.
Heres links and quotes from the Delmerva wind project - and if you seriously think the taxpayers voted for that over a nuclear plant, think again. Anyway, from the proposal:
The revised project, which includes a commercially unreasonable pricing escalator, imposes significant additional risk as well as cost on Delmarva’s SOS ratepayers;
Bluewater shifts the project’s risk associated with cost increases during construction to Delmarva SOS ratepayers, and thus, the ratepayers - not Bluewater - assume full
responsibility for any losses incurred with project delay and/or failure;
http://www.delmarva.com/energy/renewable/windissue/summary/
http://www.dailytech.com/Massive+Offshore+Wind+Park+to+Power+Delaware+Homes+by+2012/article12180.htm
And wasn't it you saying that the company should be fully liable? Hmm.
Here is another link stating the comparison between wind power and the current nuclear plant in vermont:
The proposed 27 wind turbines, combined, can generate up to 48.6 MW of power (1.8 MW each). Vermont Yankee nuclear power plant produces 550 MW.
http://www.glebemountaingroup.org/Articles/windturbinesnotmagic.htm
Thanks for the links. It sounds like Bluewater is trying to hose the state of Delaware. That does not go very far in proving an argument against wind power in general. I also didn't see anything backing up your assertion that the people of Delaware would have rather had a nuclear plant.
I have talked about company liability in the past, in the context of paying for the total environmental costs of their product. This is the exact opposite. This would be a subsidy for the purposes of reducing environmental damage, not subsidizing environmental damage itself. That would be the tax breaks and free land grants and decreased environmental regulations that we currently hand over to the fossil fuel industries, as well as pretty much all chemical industries.
Let me be clear. My point was not that I am against nuclear power in theory. My point was that nobody wants it in their neighborhood, even proponents of it. Personally, I think it is not a smart path to go down in the long run given that we still need to find and extract finite resources for it. Also, the issue of employee and community safety as well as waste storage is a long way from being fully addressed.
Personally, I think it is not a smart path to go down in the long run given that we still need to find and extract finite resources for it.'
Actually, its already known that we have enough resources to power the entire world with nuclear power for longer than man has been on this planet.
"the nuclear plant would have supplied 5x the power, and 5x less the cost per Kwh"
And who's going to foot the bill if it becomes another Three Mile Island? Congratulations, taxpayers, you've just paid hundreds of millions for another sealed, unusable, unrepairable concrete relic that will never produce power ever again. You best hope it doesn't happen to the plant's other reactors.
And who is going to foot the bill if it becomes another Chernobyl since private insurance companies won't go near it? Given the precedent recently set by the U.S. Supreme Court, I have a feeling the plant owner will barely feel it in his pocket book.
Wow, you really need to stop drinking the bong water.
Chernoble's reactor design was one that was deemed bad and not accepted by US standards, even before it was built. The thought that you would even try to pass that as a talking point proves that you know absolutely nothing about nuclear facilities and power.
In fact, the other talking about of Three Mile Island is quite a laugh in itself. Let alone the fact that there were not determined deaths - not even one inside the plant itself, should prove to be enough. The fact is that 1 accident in the US, that could have been prevented through quality control standards that should have been implemented and have since, out of 100+ reactors in over 45 years proves the safety of nuclear power. Considering that more people have died falling down the steps at work than have working in nuclear facilities, proves my point.
The people of France who get 75+% of their power from it would disagree.
The people of France who get 75+% of their power from it would disagree.
So.
Its okay to say you have no idea about nuclear power facilities or the risks with them. But to hate on them to follow other sheep is not the way to make an argument.
Again, and i feel like im beating a dead horse, please tell me the risks you are talking about and exactly how they will happen.
Google "risks associated with nuclear power".
Because 48+ years of nuclear is proving you wrong.
48+ years that we've been lucky.
Go and google "risks of working in a manufacturing facility", or "risks of falling down the stairs".
So in your mind, something going terribly wrong at a nuclear plant is comparable to what you have listed above?
Again, you're speaking in hypotheticals of "what-if's", when the facts and history are laid out for you.
We've been lucky in the past and we may not bee so lucky in the future.
Seeing as how nothing has gone terribly wrong w/ US nuclear facilities, the risk of being in a car accident is far worse.
Again, we haven't been playing a game of roulette for 48+ years. We've been supplying cheap, clean, and massive amounts of power with zero deaths or faulty reactors.
Seeing as how nothing has gone terribly wrong w/ US nuclear facilities, the risk of being in a car accident is far worse.
Something going wrong at a nuclear plant has the potential to kill alot of people and damage or destroy large amounts of land and peoperty. A car accident is not comparable.
Do you think private insurers would insure a nuclear plant?
Building a home in the mountains of california has the potential to spark a larger fire destorying more land, and possibly killing people as well.
And yes, of course they would, without a doubt. Given that there have been no deaths in 48+ years, and one small accident due to negligence? Its a more sure thing, and larger money maker than life insurance itself.
And yes, of course they would, without a doubt.
I'm looking at an article that says The Price Anderson Act was passed because no private insurer would insure nuclear plants.
At the time of the Act's passing, it was considered necessary as an incentive for the private production of nuclear power — this was because investors were unwilling to accept the then-unquantified risks of nuclear energy without some limitation on their liability.
Just an FYI - the reason is partially because nuclear facilities CANNOT be solely produced by a private third party firm, they can only invest in it, and own partial. The US Govt HAS to build part of it due to no private parties allowed to have certain technologies of nuclear documents and designs in their hands and control. Therefore, since a third party cannot solely build it on oversight, they would not also insure the entire project. Nowhere does it say they would not insure the plant, only that they would not accept sole responsibility w/o limitations.
A progressive website, go figure. Biased, information spinning? Go to true science &/or government websites, then come back.
Where are you getting your information from?
Loonz, there are risks to driving down the road each day (ask the relatives of the 35,000/yearly killed in the US alone). Do we stop driving cars or do we assume the risk is worth the benefit of being able to come and go as we please?
Some people will not drive because of that risks associated with it.
And some people like you are scared of nuclear risks - contrary to the real world.
So we should all just stop driving?
And some people like you are scared of nuclear risks - contrary to the real world.
There are risks associated with it that could kill vast amounts of people and we shouldn't be taking that risk.
Therefore, we shouldnt be driving cars, allowing manufacturing facilities of any nature, banning cell phones, etc, etc, etc.
Being afraid of risks that have never happened in almost 50+ of nuclear power is not a reason to halt the use and production of them.
Therefore, we shouldnt be driving cars, allowing manufacturing facilities of any nature, banning cell phones, etc, etc, etc.
If those things had the potential to kill vast amounts of people in one swoop, I would say banned them.
Well seeing as more people have died from each of them, perhaps you ought to think about that...
I would if they killed vast amounts of people in one swoop.
"So we should all just stop driving?"
No, not as long as there are insurance companies willing to sell us car insurance.
I believe we've been lucky.
I know we've been lucky. Davis Besse near Toledo, OH had a hole in its reactor cover that went unnoticed and came within a few milimeters of releasing radioactive gas.
And on my electric bill every month there's a $7 surcharge for a different nuclear facility (Perry).
So you won't admit who is going to foot the bill. Not surprising. All you have, like the nuclear industry itself, is promises. Promises that private insurance companies still refuse to buy into.
Despite all the latest promises of safety and new designs, the taxpayer, not the owner or his insurer, are forced to bear all of the risk.
Who is going to foot the bill for what? My claim was that altneratives, solar & wind power, the tax payers are footing the bill just as they are with nuclear.
Don't we insure these nuclear power plants because no private insurer will bare the risks associated with them?
but in the US, due to a maximum $300M payout, the government must insure them.
If they're so safe, why worry about that?
My car has a 5 star crash rating, why do i have to insure it? Because with everything, there can be risks of the smallest level, usually due to negligence - not faulty design or processes.
Negligence at a nuclear power plant could get a lot of people killed.
And hasn't happened yet in 48+ years. More people are killed in negligent car accidents in 1 second in the US, than are in 48+ years of 104 combined US nuclear facilities.
And whyu did the Price-Anderson Act become necessary?
BECAUSE NUCLEAR PLANT INVESTORS DON'T WANT THE RISK AND BECAUSE PRIVATE INSURERS WON'T INSURE NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS.
If the investors and insurers don't believe in it enough to take 100% of the risk, why should we?
The right talks a big game about getting big government out of our lives, but when it comes to government protecting the pocket books of wealthy nuke investors and insurers, they're ready and willing to sign on the dotted line.
"You mean like how the $1.6B windfarm project in Delaware, also partially being funded by taxpayer money, is going up as we speak?"
Well, no. There's a distinct difference in between a nuclear plant and a wind farm, especially when it comes to overall risk and economics.
What's the risk involved if a windmill breaks down? Perhaps a few in grand parts and labor while all the other mills at the farm continue to turn and produce power?
What's the risk involved if a nuclear plant breaks down? What if one of the many highly specialized and insanely expensive components breaks suffers a mechanical failure? A few million in parts and labor and weeks or months spent off line producing no power? What if it's a catastrophic failure that would render the reactor unusable? Or worse?
What's the risk involved if a nuclear plant breaks down? What if one of the many highly specialized and insanely expensive components breaks suffers a mechanical failure? A few million in parts and labor and weeks or months spent off line producing no power? What if it's a catastrophic failure that would render the reactor unusable? Or worse?
Quality & safety checks are put in place to prohibit those - as evidence of the contrary to your argument. In fact - outside of the three mile island debacle going offline due to poor standards - please show me in the 48+ years of nuclear power that your worst case scenarios HAVE happened.
Let alone that the Chernobyl design was rejected by the US before it was built in the Ukraine in the 1970's.
and a windfarm to provide power to only 16% of what a nuclear facility could costs $1.6B, let alone the 5x the Kwh cost to the rate payer.
again, what is your point?
HELLO??? THE RISK!!!!
The risk that investor and insurers WON'T TAKE. The risk that we are forced to take by way of big government.
The Trojan Nuclear Power Plant, a short distance from my home.
Brought online in 1976 with an expected life of 35 years. After major incidents of radioactive water leakage inside the facility, PGE decided that generator replacement was too expensive and shut the plant down permanently in 1993, 18 years short of its expected lifespan. PGE then had the gall to ask the taxpayers to compensate it with $550 million to make up for the construction costs and profits that would have been made had the plant stayed online until 2011. Utilizing a state referendum, Oregon voters overwhelmingly told PGE to go F*** themselves.
How is this any different than Obama pushing Ethanol while his advisors are directly linked it?
We've already seen the nightmares of using corn for Ethanol, so why even push that anyway? Oh yeah, I forgot, the environmentalist "renewable" thing....no matter how much "renewable" hurts the rest of the nation.
I don't know what the difference is; but the issue here is Lott bending over grabbing his ankles and letting big oil have it's way with him. Answer yes and with glee!!
http://www.ontheissues.org/International/Trent_Lott_Energy_+_Oil.htm
Sure, he probably is being paid for being an advocate. But the point is, that there is no supply issue in terms of supply/demand. And if global warming is the hoax that many people this it is...what exactly is the point behind conservation?
And if global warming is the hoax that many people this it is...what exactly is the point behind conservation?
Buddy, you're in the fringes if you think global warming is a hoax.
Very true...in a free market. But right now is not a free market, its liberal government legislation that is forcing it.
We never had a free market. The market is being control by big corporations and liberals want to establish some balance.
Is that also your stance on the fairness doctrine? Time after time of having liberals on the radio, and no one listens, thus having to take them off the air...the only way to remove conservatives from their listeners is to mandate that liberals be put on the air by corporations & channels that people actually listen to?
Ahh, makes sense now. The only question I have though, is why dont you want that implemented on the television? Please, id LOVE to hear your answer on that.
Why are you going off on these tangents?
And I'm not an advocate of the fairness doctrine.
Why is he going off on tangents?
Because that's why he gets paid to do.
He can't allow us to discuss the actual topic, which is that people who are interviewed who might have conflicts of interest need to have those conflicts of interest pointed out to their listeners. It happens way too often.
shoes,
Is NPR liberal? Why are ordinary Americans paying real money to keep to keep it on air?
BTW, may be you see it coming, but I heard Severin here in Boston today also peeing in his undies about the fairness doctrine.
Wow, you are starting to sound like a true progressive here today, congratulations! Although, here in colorado , the citizens who just good factory jobs making wind generaters would disagree with your assertion that the upcoming shift to renewable energy does not benefit any citizens.
http://www.ncbr.com/article.asp?id=93273
So let me get this right..flaunting you THEORY around makes people who don't believe your THEORY, on the fringe?
Ahh, yes. Science at its best. Coulter says it best regarding liberals:
"Either its true, or more research is needed"
So let me get this right..flaunting you THEORY around makes people who don't believe your THEORY, on the fringe?
It's not a theory, it's fact.
"Sure, he probably is being paid for being an advocate" thank you. Nice to see one of my conservative inner net buddies see the light.
You might put on these shoes pardner, what if a lobbyist for a medical company that specializes in abortion equipment was on a TV news show advocating a pro-choice POV?
They do it all the time. In every market. Ever seen an infomercial? lol
I wasn't referring to any sort of tv show, merely stating that people - whether they be politicans, businesses, advocates, etc - always speak to the public about something they are behind, and usually because of money.
Just as Lott is probably paid by oil companies, obamas advisors have their hands in the ethanol cookie jar, and most likely the wind & solar cookie jars too. Unfortunately for them, the solar and wind jars aren't so deep, and the cookies will run out very quickly.
you can use all the freaking wind and solar you want and there will always be more!!
You mean accept for the fact that the wind doesnt always blow, and the sun doesnt always shine...therefore, the energy from them is not constant nor reliable.
Wait - so now we can power our country when the sun shines in Saudi Arabia? Call me crazy, but thats pretty far fetched.
No is one saying that wind doesnt always blow somewhere, or that sun doesnt shine somewhere. The fact is that its not a constant resource in a stand still place to provide power, let alone the fact that we have trouble storing the energy from it. We can hardly even power a car for nominal period of time, much less constant lights, heat, and AC in 300 million homes and cars.
No, its the fact that the country has been based on oil since the industrial revolution. Something that takes 100 years to create, doesnt take 2 years to remove.
I went off topic by showing the bias of this site
When has MM ever hidden its bias? If you prefer balance, read MM and then check out some right wing site.
-- How is this any different than Obama pushing Ethanol while his advisors are directly linked it? -- columbus
Yikes...that one has them running for the hills...LOL
Nope, because it's not our central form of fuel
The country is proving that we cannot even use it as a viable alternative for 6 months, much less make it a central form of fuel.
it's not $4 plus a gallon
Correct, its slightly cheaper. However, are you forgetting that you get less MPG, which actually makes each MPG more expensive?
we don't buy corn from terrorists and...
And if we drilled our own oil, we wouldnt buy it from them either.
Nature provides both air and water for free
Drilling is not the answer, we need to get off oil bot find more of it. Its finite, we need to accept that now and move on. In the meantime I suggest we remind the Saudis whose boss and pull our protection from the region, tell them that the price of protection is tied to the price of crude.
Then we need to buy ourself time by regulating the current oil market, tie the price to something tangible so it's not all speculation and doo dah crazy luck.
Nuclear isn't the answer either. The prospect of fifty more nuclear power plants with no waste storage plans is terrifying. That and they provide fun targets for people who want to kill us.
That McCain is out touting his energy plan in front of oil executives while Americans are starving at the pump is telling.
Nuclear isn't the answer either. The prospect of fifty more nuclear power plants with no waste storage plans is terrifying. That and they provide fun targets for people who want to kill us.
There are 104+ nuclear facilities operating in the US for 48+ years now. There has only been a single accident, due to negiligence of not following the quality control checks, that resulted in zero deaths, not even in the facility itself.
Second, the amount of waste that comes out of a nuclear facility in 1 year is smaller than the size of a barrel of oil. Thats BEFORE fuel reprocessing which uses 97% of that waste for fuel again. Throughout 48+ years of nuclear processing, we can store all the waste generated (combined) in a mountain hole the size of a garage, like france, or we can drop the containers into the ocean deep out. The half lives of the waste are relatively short, and have been scientifically proven to cause no damage to the ocean or its habitat due to the short half lives.
The prospect of an attack on a nuclear facility is a moot point. Not if 38+ years has it happened here. Let alone the fact that a nuclear facility is as hard to enter as fort knox, the durrent esigns of the reactors are done so to be able to stand the hit of an airplane without being destructed with walls at over 20 feet thick of concrete composite.
I know you are just repeating what you hear as left wing talking points, but I advise you to stop being a good little sheep, and do some scientific research before making baseless claims.
Drilling is not the answer, we need to get off oil bot find more of it. Its finite, we need to accept that now and move on.
No one knows exactly how much we have left, but what they do know is that current proven reserves, using current techology, can last over 50+ years. Factor in the technology advancements of shale oil, which can last the US 100 years in itself, and I dont see the finite argument holding any substantial merit.
However, if we used your logic that its finite so lets not use it, we may have well never started. Thus, never enduring the industrial revolution, or the US rise to economic or military power.
There are 104+ nuclear facilities operating in the US for 48+ years now. There has only been a single accident, due to negiligence of not following the quality control checks, that resulted in zero deaths, not even in the facility itself.
And there have been how many attacks on US soil in 200 years and we've altered our entire society around that so I'm not sure what you mean with your numbers. What would be the result of one plant melting down anywhere in the United States? How about two over time?
Second, the amount of waste that comes out of a nuclear facility in 1 year is smaller than the size of a barrel of oil. Thats BEFORE fuel reprocessing which uses 97% of that waste for fuel again. Throughout 48+ years of nuclear processing, we can store all the waste generated (combined) in a mountain hole the size of a garage, like france, or we can drop the containers into the ocean deep out. The half lives of the waste are relatively short, and have been scientifically proven to cause no damage to the ocean or its habitat due to the short half lives.
Howa about some supporting data for all that? Links?
The prospect of an attack on a nuclear facility is a moot point. Not if 38+ years has it happened here. Let alone the fact that a nuclear facility is as hard to enter as fort knox, the durrent esigns of the reactors are done so to be able to stand the hit of an airplane without being destructed with walls at over 20 feet thick of concrete composite.
Two words. Dirty Bomb. There are people that would whore out their grandmother for a price and there have already been people intercepted trying to sell nuclear by product to the baddies for use in said weapon.
I know you are just repeating what you hear as left wing talking points, but I advise you to stop being a good little sheep, and do some scientific research before making baseless claims.
Settle down there Mister Wizard. What kind of research have you laid out here?
However, if we used your logic that its finite so lets not use it, we may have well never started. Thus, never enduring the industrial revolution, or the US rise to economic or military power.
Ever hear the expression quit while you're ahead?
We know its a problem now, we know it'll be a problem later, we should do something about it now, so we don't suffer for it later
Pretty simple
The reasons that things are a problem right now are not due to limitations oil supply or the techology to extract oil for usage.
Speculation, politics, and trading are the causes for the energy issues.
Speculation, politics, and trading are the causes for the energy issues.
That much we agree on. Too bad the Republicans block every Democratic attempt to curtail that.
And it is finite. By your numbers 100 years tops. That means our grandchildren will deal with what we delayed on.
No. The true laws of economics and supply and demand debunk that thought. If there was a TRUE supply issue, cheaper alternatives would arise thus lowering the demand on Product A by itself.
What happening right now, is the government is at fault for the price of Product A, and using other excuses for it (global warming, supply, blame game, etc). They are trying to force alternatives on the market, but what they are not understanding about laws of supply and demand and economics, is that alternatives are only good and viable when they can meet or exceed the current expectations of Product A, while also being cheaper and more readily available.
Wind, Solar, Hybrid, electric power cars, etc = none are cheaper, viable sources of energy.
Therefore, if we played things correctly, our grandchildren would not be dealing with anything but using alternatives that are cheaper and produce more power. And even at the road were on, they may still - however, the fault in this process is the current force of government which is taking out the middle of the equation to force us to pay higher prices for underperforming sources of energy.
Supply side economics, yea!
Still only a hundred years though, right?
And why are Saudis puzzled again? They claim no supply issues, no changes that justify the spike
Why has OPEC delcared that the real price of oil should be $55 a barrel, since there are no supply restrictions - yet come out yesterday and say that no matter what, the price per barrel will not decrease?
Lets all be real here. If there was truly an oil shortage, the saudis and other opec countries would not be selling the oil at all, or hijacking it for $10,000 a barrel knowing that they have no other way for income to the country. They are sitting back and laughing, knowing that we have more than enough oil in the current wells for several decades, but since no one else is drilling, they can charge whatever they want.
Supply side economics work wonders in a free market. Thats one of the most sure things, if there is one.
I know much about this as my father is a chemical engineer and just recently retired from the Perry Nuclear Power Plant in Perry, OH.
Its too late for me tonight to rack up links for you, but I suggest that if you are skeptic, to actually do the digging yourself.
Oh, so he has a dog in the fight too
Figured
And yeah, I do my own research thanks. We don't have the am radio network you ditto heads have for the hive mind. Links give you more credibility though, something you lack
Okay, so now we know that you're the poster who's changed names about 20 times and every time you come back you always know someone important or influential or you've been to a super-secret place that only the 'special' people get to go to. You have some kind of inside knowledge that makes you one of the elite and we should all bow down to your exquisite knowledge.
Not.
I went off topic by showing the bias of this site, and proving that Obama & his advisors are doing the same thing as McCain and Lott?
Showing the bias of this site? MMFA doesn't hide the fact that they are a left-leaning site and that they focus on a particular type of misinformation in the media. Of course it's bias, just like Newsbusters.
Clearly thats correct - but I find humor in the blooters yelling about lott and mccain, when obama is doing the same thing. then they get defensive and accuse me of "thread derailment".
I just hate the "he did/does it too" argument.
If you ever want to put in Latin to impress your friends, it goes like this:
Ad hominem tu quoque, which means literally "against the man; you too."
Understandable, but MM should not post a claim about a candidate as if there is something wrong with it
It's their site; they can do whatever they want. Why don't you start your own website and stop complaining about this one?
I've never stated that they were wrong in their claim. Im just stating that you shouldn't get mad when the exact tables are turned. Sometimes, you need to take the good with the bad, and realize that being hypocrtical solves nothing.
Media Matters covers conservative misinformation. By stating that they only cover that, they are not being hypocrites when they don't cover what you claim is liberal misinformation.
When you bring up that you think that Media Matters should change what they cover, that's derailing a thread. When you bring up nuclear power or anything else on this thread besides talking about how these journalists didn't point out the potential conflict of interest that Senator Lott has in discussing this topic because of who HE lobbies for, then you're derailing a thread.
"MM should not post a claim about a candidate as if there is something wrong with it, when the other candidate they are pandering for does the same thing"
They didn't. They don't. They won't. Their complaint is about the MEDIA not disclosing Lott's ties to big oil. Nothing to do with ANY candidate for any office. IT'S THE MEDIA, STUPID.
Lott left the Senate because he didn't want to wait until 2015 to become a lobbyist and because of some investigations involving his brother-in-law. MSNBC is about as liberal as FOX NEWS is fair and balanced.
THANK YOU.
njguy93@yahoo.com
AND THEY WON'T!!! MSNBC,CNN, ABC, NBC, CBS AND FOX NEWS ARE GOING TO GO OUT THERE WAY TO MAKE SURE MCCAIN WIN THIS RACE. NOW IF THAT WAS A OBAMA SUPPORTER THEY WOULD TALK ABOUT IT TO MAKE OBAMA LOOK BAD. I LOVE HOW WHEN MCCAIN IS UP IN THE POLLS THEY DON'T SAY THINGS LIKE IT'S ONLY JUNE, MCCAIN IS IN TROUBLE OR THE POLLS MIGHT BE WRONG. LOOK FOR THEM TO BE TALKING ABOUT THE GALLUP POLL 24/7 TODAY. AND IF ZOGBY HAVE A POLL OUT WITH MCCAIN AHEAD THEY WILL PUT HIS POLL UP. THEY ONLY PUT ZOGBY UP WHEN A REPUBLICAN IS UP.