« Steny's Bold "Ignore the Rubes" Strategy | Main | Telecom Immunity Passes »

June 20, 2008

Comments

I suppose when you're McCain's age -- as old as the hills, I'm told -- seven years feels like the blink of an eye.

(If this is out of bounds, please feel free to delete the comment and accept my apologies in its stead.)

I agree with ari, I mean the man was born before the invention of the jet engine. He thinks in timelines longer than those to which most of us are accustomed. He can remember when there was no "under god" in the pledge of allegiance. Well, on a good day he can.

Did I mention he is very old?

Seriously though, what is the point in drilling if you aren't going to increase refinery capacity? And big oil has testified to Congress that it has no interest whatsoever in increasing refinery capacity. So what's the point? Were they lying?

I think that this, and perhaps providing additional incentives for states to permit exploration off their coasts, would be very helpful in the short term...
"You keep using that phrase. I do no think it means what you think it means."

My bet is that production from these fields will never catch up with depletion from fields currently being produced, so the decline of US oil production will only be slowed, not reversed. Even the opening of the North Slope couldn't keep up with the decline in the lower 48 states back in the 70s and 80s. These ANWR and OCS fields are smaller and harder to get at.

He can remember when there was no "under god" in the pledge of allegiance.

So can I. It came in when I was in grade school.

Did I mention how unattractive, and unconvincing, your ageism is? (It's one of the few open prejudices one can proudly display, unlike racism and sexism, which have to be smuggled in and denied.)

And how extra determined that makes me to be sure to vote so I can cancel out whatever callow claptrap you, with no sense of tradition, honor, or respect, have fallen for?

Or should I simply cite "My Generation" (by The Who, if you need historical help): "Why don't you just F- f- f- f- fade away?"

(FWIW, there are plenty of good reasons to oppose McCain. Age isn't one.)

Hope I die before I get that old.

(I'm racist and sexist too! And callow, untraditional, dishonorable, and disrespectful! And I'm about to steal the curb feelers off your Oldsmobile!)

now_what: I'm with dr ngo.

Plus, when you feel tempted to make a big deal about McCain's age a propos of nothing at all, just think to yourself: I could point out his age in order to suggest that he might become confused, overlook important details, etc.; or I could just point out that he is, for whatever reason, confused, overlooks important details, etc. It's an utterly superfluous display of prejudice, in this case, since it honestly doesn't matter whether McCain is the way he is because of age, laziness, or whatever.

Going after our oil now would be foolish. We refine 5 billion barrels per year domestically. There are 20 billion barrels on Federal lands (48 months). There are 68 billion barrels offshore (13 years). In comparison, the ‘strategic reserve’ is 2 months worth of oil.

Let the rest of the world sell their oil for paper money.

Go polar bears.

Go Obama.

On the one hand, 7-10 years would sort of seem like "short term" to someone of McCain's again. However, at the same time, considering his age, 7-10 years is also a rather significant period of time, where at the end of that period McCain will be hitting average male life expectancy in the U.S. So it is hard to discern if somone would perceive their pending demise a "short term" time frame. People tend to try to rationalize death as always far off. But then again, old people think about it a lot more and are more aware of it's impending arrival.

It's an utterly superfluous display of prejudice

So what? Displays of prejudice on age are written into the Constitution. You can't be president if you are younger than 35, and it isn't unreasonable to argue that you shouldn't be allowed to be president if you are older than 70, either. Half the people in the country say they would less likely to vote for a candidate that old.

Yes, there are plenty of other reasons to oppose McCain. Those are in addition to his age, not instead of it, although I find it difficult to believe that some of them are not related. Yes, I know, the Republicans get all mad when people mention how old McCain is. So what? He's too old to be president.

So the argument continues to be something along the lines of "won't help in the short run so don't do it." Ramirez captures my thoughts on that exactly here . What if we had brought it on line last decade?

And who can truly predict what the situation is going to be like ten years from now?

These ANWR and OCS fields are smaller and harder to get at.

Part of the reason justifying drilling now. The pipeline is in place. If you delay drilling too long, there will be no option to remove the oil short of building another pipeline. Drilling would extend the life of the pipeline to 2030.

Bush proposed exploratory drilling on ANWR, a move that would have occupied 2,000 acres in an area the size of South Carolina. Here is a visual analogy .

I'm from Alaska originally. A big problem I have with the discussion on ANWR is how it ignores state sovereignty and Alaska's state compact. The federal government agreed to give Alaska 90% of the revenue off of federal lands and then closes them up to any development. Alaska is entitled to drill in ANWR if it can do so in an environmentally safe way.

And the analysis I have seen re gas prices ignores other effects on the economy, such as a stronger dollar from less imports, jobs (200,000 nationwide from ANWR drilling alone) etc.

In some ways I would be in favor of "banking" the oil there for future use but not with the pipeline in place.

And to show that my sense of political humor is not limited to the right, this is one of
my favorites in the offshore drilling debate.

What about the fact that the oil companies already have a couple million acres leased on and offshore that they arent drilling? What about the oil wells in this country that arent pumping because it isnt worth their while to pump? This ploy is just as transparent as the gas tax holiday...The sad thing is how many people buy this stuff.

What if we had brought it on line last decade?

Well then you'd shave $.08 a gallon off your next fillup this weekend.

Driving 55 MPH would save you more.

So the argument continues to be something along the lines of "won't help in the short run so don't do it."

Personally, I phrase the argument more succinctly: "Won't help, so don't do it".

We (meaning the human population of the planet) have burned through all of the oil ever extracted and refined, to date, in a little over 100 years.

Demand is increasing. If the total amount of oil left in the ground, everywhere, is twice the amount we've pumped to date, and we were somehow able to bring all of the remaining oil to the table, we'd probably be good for, at best, another 100.

So, in the most optimistic scenario, we're just kicking the can down the road to our grandkids.

An economy based on the widespread availability of oil at anything remotely approaching an affordable price has no future. Period.

We've been living in a lovely dream world, and we've been damned lucky to have it. Good for us, I guess. It cannot, and will not, last.

We need to change the way we live. We can choose to change, or change will be imposed on us, but change we will.

Thanks -

I need to slightly correct bc when he says.

Bush proposed exploratory drilling on ANWR, a move that would have occupied 2,000 acres in an area the size of South Carolina. Here is a visual analogy .

While this is true, it does leave out the fact that Bush's proposal (and every bill offered to date to open up ANWR) also included by royalty forgiveness for companies doing the exploring as well as tax credits for doing so.

I have absolutely no problem developing ANWR. But one of the main reason it hasn't been done, besides opposition from environmentalists, is that oil companies wouldn't begin exploration without major concessions on royalties and tax credits.

Perhaps now at $130 plus a barrel they feel it can be profitable without them.

He's too old to be president.

And you're too bigoted - or too dumb - to vote.

But guess what? You're allowed to, under the Constitution. (Assuming you're over 18 . . .) So be my guest.

Back In The Day we were taught tolerance. I guess that's one of the things, along with history, that got lost in the shrinking of the curriculum.

Pity.

A responsible government would cancel environmental permitting law for energy projects. It would immediately start hundreds of nuclear power plants and electrify the regional rail systems. We do not have a responsible government, but may end up with one in the next decade (if we’re lucky).

There were 1.5 billion people in the world before oil. The world’s population has grown almost linearly by one person for every 4.5 barrels per oil per year of increased pumping output. Leading to Brick Oven Bill’s First Theory of Demographics:

World Population at Equilibrium = 1.25 * [1.5 billion + (x/4.5)]

with x = billions of barrels of oil output per year
1.25 accounts for technological and genetic advances in agriculture since 1900

The First Theory of Demographics is applicable only in the absence of a responsible government. Equilibrium follows overshoot. Should be an interesting century.

Back In The Day we were taught tolerance. I guess that's one of the things, along with history, that got lost in the shrinking of the curriculum.

Look, I agree that we shouldn't use McCain's age as an issue. But how do you square the above with this.

And you're too bigoted - or too dumb - to vote.

Again, I agree with you. But it is possible to not support a candidate due to his age and not be either bigoted or dumb.

Obviously you're passionate on this topic, but I think your passion is getting the better of you.

On the bright side, they've lifted the maximum age for Part 121 airline pilots from 60 to 65!

But it is possible to not support a candidate due to his age and not be either bigoted or dumb.

In general, certainly. In this particular case, however, . . . .

Obviously you're passionate on this topic, but I think your passion is getting the better of you.

Why, thanks. (Blushes.) At my age, having my passion get the better of anything is an accomplishment.

On the bright side, they've lifted the maximum age for Part 121 airline pilots from 60 to 65!

Hot d**n! I've got six months left to qualify!!

Please don't. Think of the children.

Please don't. Think of the children.

Really think of the children.

Well, *I* would be overjoyed if I were on a plane and it turned out that the pilot was dr ngo.

Davebo:

You're right about the breaks to oil companies, which is pretty standard. Alaska has also always given up a huge amount of its 90% share in the proposed legislation to try to get the project moving, to no avail. I wonder what New York would say if it was entitled to 90% of the revenues for mineral rights off of federal land and had fields comparable to Alaska's and a percentage of federal land comparable to Alaska's. We ignore the issue because we are so, so federal these days.

Sorry to have brought up the age thing early in the thread. I tried to be clear, with my caveat, that I was kidding around and not trying to stir up trouble. I rarely comment here because the community norms elude me. It's clear, though, that glibness isn't the order of the day. Which is fair enough. Lesson learned.

ari: as far as I'm concerned, your "glibness" was well within bounds. I took no offense at your comment.

But for goodness' sake don't fly on any plane that I'm piloting. *I* wouldn't.

(Just thinking of the children.)

Thanks, dr ngo. I'm glad you weren't offended.

So the age limit for airline pilots isn't worthy of condemnation, but the suggestion of an age limit for presidents is? Priorities, people.

And, apparently, telling a 17 year old she can't vote, telling a 20 year old he can't drink, telling a 34 year old she can't run for president - none of those are bigoted and dumb.

The poll numbers are really interesting. When asked what age was ideal for a president, 2% responded with someone in their 70s, like McCain. 98% of Americans are bigoted and dumb, by dr ngo's formula.

The really interesting part is that in all the polls asking these questions, the older the person being polled, the more likely they were to be opposed to the idea of an elderly candidate. Dr ngo is an outlier in that respect. Perhaps the rest of the old people have a different experience with aging. I think the experience with Reagan's in-office dementia might have influenced people, also.

But, anyway, you can call me all the names you want, dr ngo. Insult me all you want. Based solely on his advanced years, I find John McCain to be an unsuitable candidate for president. No argument you have advanced has given me the slightest reason to change my mind - unsurprising, given that your most cogent argument so far has been something on the order of "You're bigoted and dumb".

I remain unconvinced.

and perhaps providing additional incentives for states to permit exploration off their coasts

incentives... to permit exploration?

oh brother

Well, *I* would be overjoyed if I were on a plane and it turned out that the pilot was dr ngo.

The horror! The horror!

Back In The Day we were taught tolerance.

So all the stuff I've heard about the 1960s being a time when there was no longer any respect for the old - that's all untrue? Or is it just that teenagers then realised that it was their generation who should be deferred to (whatever their age was).

On a more serious note, I don't think it's ageist to note that there are important issues concerning mental health problems in old age. Here's are some statistics on dementia prevalance with age (as percentage of the age group):

65-69 1.4%, 70-74 2.8%, 75-79 5.6%, 80-84 11.1%, 85+ 23.6%

This measures only quite severe problems, not lesser degrees of cognitive impairment, but it shows there are fairly steep increases as one ages.

These are, of course, only averages, and is is perfectly possible that any individual 70 year old (or even 90 year old) has no mental health problems at all. I don't think this is in itself a reason why somebody should be unsuitable for a job. However, there are other specific problems with dementia (or lesser cognitive impairment of the same kind). One is that the person him/herself may be unware of developing problems, both because the onset is gradual and because their awareness of reality is itself diminished. Secondly, the gradual (and non-linear) nature of the changes may also make it difficult for those close to the person concerned to recognise and confirm that there is a problem.

All this means that a person may be some way on into decline (with it already affecting their performance) before the problem can be recognised. In a job where someone is not making critical decisions and has friends/colleagues/boss able to tell them when their performance is declining (or even if necessary to remove them from the post), that doesn't seem to me a problem.

However for a head of state that does seem to me to a difficult issue. There are a lot of cases (not just Reagan) where politicians have started to suffer quite severe age-related problems in office (Harold Wilson and Winston Churchill, for example). I don't think age should be the key issue on which these matters are defined (I'd take Winston Churchill at 70 over George W at 55 anytime), but I don't think it biased to consider it as one factor.

Back In The Day we were taught tolerance.

So all the stuff I've heard about the 1960s being a time when there was no longer any respect for the old - that's all untrue?

Back In The Day was, for me, the 1950s. I'm a pre-Boomer, despite the anachronistic "Who" reference. (Cf. "Kids, Don't Know What's Wrong With These Kids Today!" - from the musical "Birdy")

And no, I won't get quietly onto the ice floe onto which some commentators are hoping to consign my declining days (decades?). Nor will I go gentle into that good night.

You heard it here.

Back In The Day we were taught tolerance.

So all the stuff I've heard about the 1960s being a time when there was no longer any respect for the old - that's all untrue?

Back In The Day was, for me, the 1950s. I'm a pre-Boomer, despite the anachronistic "Who" reference. (Cf. "Kids, Don't Know What's Wrong With These Kids Today!" - from the musical "Birdy")

And no, I won't get quietly onto the ice floe onto which some commentators are hoping to consign my declining days (decades?). Nor will I go gentle into that good night.

You heard it here.

Back In The Day we were taught tolerance.

So all the stuff I've heard about the 1960s being a time when there was no longer any respect for the old - that's all untrue?

Back In The Day was, for me, the 1950s. I'm a pre-Boomer, despite the anachronistic "Who" reference. (Cf. "Kids, Don't Know What's Wrong With These Kids Today!" - from the musical "Birdy")

And no, I won't get quietly onto the ice floe onto which some commentators are hoping to consign my declining days (decades?). Nor will I go gentle into that good night.

You heard it here.

What we were not taught, obviously, was how to avoid multiple posts on the asyetunimagined internet. Apologies.

I, for one, don't trust anyone over 30. I've betrayed myself too many times.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Blog powered by Typepad