Confirmed: NV Caucus Process is Seriously Flawed!

Earlier this year, shortly after Nevada Caucus day, I sent a letter to the Democratic Party expressing my concern about the Caucus process. Basically, the Republicans conducted their Caucus first thing in the morning and didn't allow any party affiliation changes. The Democrats, however, conducted theirs subsequent to the Republican Caucus and allowed people to register and/or change their party affiliation at the Caucus.

I expressed concern at the time that the process, as it unfolded, could allow Republicans to participate in their Caucus to vote for their strongest candidate, and then allow them to change affiliation and participate in the Democratic Caucus, voting for who they perceived to be the weakest Democratic candidate. To my dismay, I didn't even get a response back from the Nevada Democratic Headquarters folks.

Well ... on Tuesday (8/12/08) I worked as a poll worker at the Nevada Primary election, and my concerns were confirmed by the lady who sat next to me at the polls. She is a Republican who participated in the Republican Caucus. Shortly after we dealt with a disgruntled voter who complained vehemently of not being able to participate in the Caucus, she turned to me and said wasn't sure the Caucuses were conducted fairly. She went on to say she was quite surprised when Republican Caucus workers told everybody that because their Caucus was concluding before the Democratic Caucus were to start, if folks wanted, they could also participate in the Democratic Caucus. She said they encouraged Republicans who were present to head on over to the Democratic Caucus, temporarily register as a Democrat and vote in the Democratic Caucus. Once it was over, she said they said, "you can just re-register as a Republican before the August Primary."

She just didn't think that was right ... and frankly, neither do I!

PC Magazine: Air Car May Be Available in U.S. by 2010

I've been watching the news for a while and waiting with baited breath to be able to buy one of these. Today, PC magazine ran an article about MDI's air car. Here's a copy of their article:


Cars running on nothing but air could soon start rolling up emissions-free mileage here in the United States.

Developed by a former Formula One engineer at the European MDI corporation, the air car is already a working prototype of a personal vehicle utilizing compressed air propulsion. After a round of alleged deals with the Indian Tata motors and various Japanese automakers, MDI has recently licensed the technology to the New York-based Zero Pollution Motors, which plans to build a 6-seat version of the air car. The company is even eyeing the American market with a price target of less than $18,000 for the initial model delivered in 2010.

According to Technoride, Zero Pollution is aiming for a top speed of 90 mph and a range of 800 miles - a claim some deem to be technologically outlandish. "It is possible to power a car with compressed air, but the mileage claim is at the edge of possibility," said John Callister, director of the Harvey Kinzelberg Entrepreneurship in Engineering program at Cornell University's College of Engineering. "No one's really proven a six-seater passenger car [can get] any better than 75 miles to the gallon."

Ensign Sends Out Reprinted Editorial From The Washington Post

For some time now, I've been writing (and re-writing) Senator Ensign saying "drilling is not the answer" and I've been getting reply after reply saying how proud he is of his stance that "we need to drill off-shore and in ANWR to remedy our current energy dilemna." Today, I got an email from his press office with a reprint of the following editorial that was printed in the Washington Post.

It appears that he thinks this one editorial supports his stance that drilling for oil is paramount to solving all of America's problems. The author, however, clearly indicates that drilling is NOT the answer and that alternative energy sources are a necessary step we need to take as a nation. What's disappointing is that the author mentions nothing of the infrastructure that it will take to support transportion that will use alternative forms of energy. Here's the article:

'Snake Oil' — Debunking three 'truths' about offshore drilling
Tuesday, August 12, 2008; Page A12

The Natural Resources Defense Council Action Fund has taken out full-page ads in this newspaper and others to decry offshore drilling for oil as "George W. Bush's Gasoline Price Elixir" that is "100% Snake Oil." The environmental group calls on supporters "to stop the giveaway of our coasts." It is urging visitors to its Web site to send a pre-written letter to their members of Congress that says, "I am not buying the lie ... that sacrificing the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and America's coastal waters to oil drilling would make a real difference in gas prices — either today or twenty years from today!" And the missive adds, "With just three percent of the world's oil reserves, our nation simply doesn't have enough oil to impact the global market or drill our way to lower prices at the pump."

The NRDC's arguments above neatly encapsulate the position taken by environmentalists and other opponents of offshore drilling. And they include a couple of good points. Contrary to the baldly political suggestions regarding lower gasoline prices by President Bush and Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), drilling would make no impact on today's pain at the pump because it would be years before any oil flowed from the Outer Continental Shelf. We agree that the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, with its varied and sensitive ecosystems, should be preserved. In the quest for new sources of energy, there are trade-offs. That pristine area must remain off-limits. But there are three "truths" masquerading as fact among drilling opponents that need to be challenged:

• Drilling is pointless because the United States has only 3 percent of the world's oil reserves. This is a misleading because it refers only to known oil reserves. According to the Interior Department's Minerals Management Service (MMS), while there are an estimated 18 billion barrels of oil in the off-limits portions of the OCS, those estimates were made using old data from now-outdated seismic equipment. In the case of the Atlantic Ocean, the data were collected before Congress imposed a moratorium on offshore drilling in 1981. In 1987, the MMS estimated that there were 9 billion barrels of oil in the Gulf of Mexico. By 2006, after major advances in seismic technology and deepwater drilling techniques, the MMS resource estimate for that area had ballooned to 45 billion barrels. In short, there could be much more oil under the sea than previously known. The demand for energy is going up, not down. And for a long time, even as alternative sources of energy are developed, more oil will be needed.
• The oil companies aren't using the leases they already have. According to the MMS, there were 7,457 active leases as of June 8. Of those, only 1,877 were classified as "producing." As we pointed out in a previous editorial, the five leases that have made up the Shell Perdido project off Galveston since 1996 are not classified as producing. Only when it starts pumping the equivalent of an estimated 130,000 barrels of oil a day at the end of the decade will it be deemed "active." Since 1996, Shell has paid rent on the leases; filed and had approved numerous reports with the MMS, including an environmentally sensitive resource development plan and an oil spill recovery plan that is subject to unannounced practice runs by the MMS; drilled several wells to explore the area at a cost of hundreds of millions of dollars; and started constructing the necessary infrastructure to bring the oil to market. The notion that oil companies are just sitting on oil leases is a myth. With oil prices still above $100 a barrel, that charge never made sense.
• Drilling is environmentally dangerous. Opposition to offshore drilling goes back to 1969, when 80,000 barrels of oil from an offshore oil well blowout washed up on the beaches of Santa Barbara. In 1971, the Interior Department instituted a host of reporting requirements (such as the resource development and oil spill recovery plans mentioned above) and stringent safety measures. Chief among them is a requirement for each well to have an automatic shut-off valve beneath the ocean floor that can also be operated manually. According to the MMS, between 1993 and 2007, there were 651 spills of all sizes at OCS facilities (in federal waters three miles or more offshore) that released 47,800 barrels of oil. With 7.5 billion barrels of oil produced in that time, that equates to 1 barrel of oil spilled per 156,900 barrels produced. That's not to minimize the danger. But no form of energy is perfect or without trade-offs. Besides, if it is acceptable to drill in the Caspian Sea and in developing countries such as Nigeria where environmental concerns are equally important, it's hard to explain why the United States should rule out drilling off its own
  coasts.

The strongest argument against drilling is that it could distract the country from a pursuit of alternative sources of energy. There's no question that the administration has been lax on that front. True leadership would emphasize both alternative sources and rational approaches to developing oil and natural gas. No, the United States cannot drill its way to energy independence. But with the roaring economies of China and India gobbling up oil in the two countries' latter-day industrial revolutions, the United States can no longer afford to turn its back on finding all the sources of fuel necessary to maintain its economy and its standard of living. What's required is a long-term, comprehensive plan that includes wind, solar, geothermal, biofuels and nuclear -- and that acknowledges that oil and gas will be instrumental to the U.S. economy for many years to come.

Source: The Washington Post

So let me see if I understand this. Sen. Ensign thinks this justifies his stance and that if we approve drilling in ANWR and offshore, the prices at the pump will dramatically fall to prices we haven't seen in decades and all will be well in the U.S. for years to come. Yeah right. Maybe he needs to read a few of the EIA reports using official energy statistics from the US Government:

• Impacts of Increased Access to Oil and Natural Gas Resources in the Lower 48 Federal Outer Continental Shelf ... from paragraph 5: "The projections in the OCS access case indicate that access to the Pacific, Atlantic, and eastern Gulf regions would not have a significant impact on domestic crude oil and natural gas production or prices before 2030. Leasing would begin no sooner than 2012, and production would not be expected to start before 2017."
• Analysis of Crude Oil Production in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge ... this report details specifics relative the the time line requirements necessary to begin delivering oil from ANWR in 2018, at the earliest.

So Senator Ensign, are ordinary Americans supposed to all go bankrupt waiting until 2018-2030 on the products of expanded drilling? I don't think so! We need a comprehensive energy program that has strategic goals for

• shifting energy production to alternative energies,
• building infrastructure to support alternative energy transportation (electric plug-in hybrids and natural gas propelled vehicles),
• incentives for U.S Automakers to offer programs for converting gas-guzzling vehicles from gasoline to electric plug-in hybrids or natural gas, and
• incentives for early introduction, nationwide of electric plug-in hybrids, compressed air-propelled, and natural gas powered vehicled.

There's an old adage: "If you don't know where you're going, any road will get you there." That seems to be the way Congress operates. They just throw one thing after another at the wall to see what sticks. Well, that needs to change. They need to look at creating a strategic plan and then passing legislation that supports that plan. We need to be on just 'one' specific road that will deliver us to energy independence in the most expeditious manner ... not on 15 or 20 different roads that may or may not get us to where they think we should be by 2018 or worse, by 2030.

'Voting for Drilling' ... A Congressional Fairy Tale

As I was catching up reading a number of my favorite blogs this morning, I came across this article: Oooh, nuance!: The Krugman Speaketh. It's a great article.

I've also spent, over the last few days, way too much time watching CNN and listening to both sides of the drill/don't drill arguments. I've come to the conclusion that it's all just a bunch of politically ... pandering ... crap! If Congress actually had the means and authority to break out the equipment and 'drill' ... that would be one thing, but they don't. They presume that by merely passing some congressional bill to approve of off-shore drilling (and don't even talk to me about drilling ANWR into swiss cheese), the oil companies would immediately go out and begin drilling. And in their fairy tale world, that would instantly translate into gas prices dramatically falling overnight to levels we haven't seen in decades. Yeah, right. Fat chance that fairy tale has any basis whatsoever in reality!

If the oil companies were to start the drilling process ANWR 'today' ... it would take 10 years before we'd see anything at the pump. If they were to start drilling 'off-shore' today ... [according to the EIA] it wouldn't make ANY difference at the pump until 2030! So tell me ... how does all this political posturing help ordinary American citizens make critical decisions like ... "where am I going to get enough money to put gas in the car as well as put dinner on the table?"

Heck, the Oil Companies knew years ago that the supplies of oil are limited and that we're now on the downhill side of the availability slope. They could care less about discovering and drilling for new sources of crude oil. They're too busy liquidating their business. Take a read through the internet and you'll find one article after another about the billions of dollars the oil companies are spending to buy back their own stock ... thus making sure that those who supported them over the years get their money back before the oil companies finally close their doors for business.

Why do I say that? Well, think about the number of refineries that have burned down over the last few years ... and that the oil companies haven't replaced. There hasn’t been a new refinery built in the U.S. since 1976. For those who are mathematically-challenged, that's 32 years. Then, take a look at the leases they're sitting on. The oil companies could drill today, on any one of the nearly 68 million acres of leases they already hold, if they were so inclined ... but they're not. They're risk averse to the possibility of bringing in even one dry hole.

So how is 'drilling' the answer? It isn't! Allowing the oil companies to turn our hemisphere into swiss cheese won't make one iotas worth of difference in the price of gas at the pump, or heating oil for your furnace. The real answer is developing a comprehensive strategic plan for moving the U.S. away from oil products. We desperately need a strategic plan that not only aggressively shifts energy production to wind, solar, geothermal and nuclear energy, but one that looks at building supporting infrastructure that will be absolutely necessary to support it.

For years now, the introduction of either electric plug-in hybrid vehicles and/or natural gas powered vehicles has been stuck in a catch 22 conundrum. The automakers don't want to produce and market those types of vehicles because consumers wouldn't buy them. And they're right, because there would be no place to refuel them. You might be able to get somewhere, but you wouldn't be able to get back. The utilities (electric and natural gas) companies (or third-party companies for that matter) don't want to spend billions of dollars to build infrastructure to support non-existent vehicles. And there it stands, and will continue to stand until some visionary person leads us down a different path.

Because this year is an election year, we're hearing a lot about oil and alternative energy. What we haven't heard anything about is 'infrastructure' ... from any party's candidate. Frankly, I don't think either Obama or McCain understand what it's really going to take to reduce America's dependence (to the tune of $700 Billion/year) on foreign oil. And it's not just them. Do you think either of them is going to be able to get that circus they call a Congress to toe the line to get the job done without doubling the already outrageous national debt?

So far, I've only seen one person who's stepped up to the plate to begin aggressively taking the steps necessary that will lead us in a direction that would reduce our reliance on middle eastern oil ... T. Boone Pickens. Thank you sir 'for putting your money where your mouth is' as the saying goes, and actually doing something that will ultimately make a difference for ordinary Americans who are desperately trying to make ends meet.

Bush Admin takes further steps to erode Womens' Rights

If it wasn't enough for Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Mike Leavitt to appoint Dr. Eric Keroack as the Deputy Asst Secretary for Population Affairs which oversees Title X, now he's taken it upon himself to interject his personal religious beliefs to redefine "abortion" in an attempt to deny contraception to women and make it the law of the land.

Dr. Keroack believes that the use of birth control is 'degrading to women,' and wrongly defines birth control as 'abortifacients.' [WP] He also believes that premarital sex damages the female brain, making non-abstinent women incapable of forming emotional bonds. [Raw Story] Yet, this is the man who Secretary Leavitt recommended to President Bush to oversee the nation's family planning grants as well as oversee programs related to women's health (e.g., cervical and breast cancer screening). Hello?!?!?! Dr. Keroack may have resigned from the HHS on March 29, 2007, but it doesn't take a genius to figure out who probably helped Secretary Leavitt draft his proposed regulation.

The draft could still be revised or rejected. Or, the administration could enact it at any point; no congressional approval is needed. While the next elected President could overturn the regulation, if he's so disposed, it's not something I personally would like to see put in place in the first place. Here's what others are saying about the draft regulation:

• From the Chicago Tribune: HHS proposal fuels birth-control debate ... "(HHS) is reviewing a draft regulation that would deny federal funding to any hospital, clinic, health plan or other entity that does not accommodate employees who want to opt out of participating in care that runs counter to their personal convictions, including providing birth-control pills, intrauterine devices and the Plan B emergency contraceptive."
• From the Wall Street Journal: Treating the Pill as Abortion, Draft Regulation Stirs Debate ... "The draft also extends the conscience objection to most staff members and volunteers working for health-care providers. So, for instance, an employer couldn't punish a clinic receptionist for refusing to make appointments for patients seeking birth-control pills."
• From Clarksville Online (Clarksville, TN): Proposed HHS regulation could impact accessibility to birth control ... “One of the most troubling aspects of the proposed rules is the overly-broad definition of “abortion.” This definition would allow health-care corporations or individuals to classify many common forms of contraception – including the birth control pill, emergency contraception and IUDs – “abortions” and therefore to refuse to provide contraception to women who need it.” - Sen. Hillary Clinton and Sen. Patty Murray in a joint letter to HHS
• From Reproductive Health Reality Check: HHS Moves to Define Contraception as Abortion ... "Up until now, the federal government followed the definition of pregnancy accepted by the American Medical Association and our nation's pregnancy experts, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, which is: pregnancy begins at implantation. With this proposal, however, HHS is dismissing medical experts and opting instead to accept a definition of pregnancy based on polling data."
• From Medical News Today: Washington Post, WSJ Examine Reaction to Draft HHS Rule that could limit Birth Control Access ... "Susan Wood, a professor at George Washington University, who resigned from FDA over the agency's handling of emergency contraception, said that the proposed rule is "another example of this administration's disregard for science and medicine in how agencies make decisions.""
• From ThinkProgress.org: OB/GYNs With Objections To Abortion Should Not Have To Refer Patients To Other Doctors ... "HHS Secretary Michael Leavitt wrote a letter to the American Board of Obstetrics and Gynecology (ABOG), stating that providers with moral objections to abortion should have no obligation to refer patients."
• From Reproductive Health Reality Check: Title X in Jeopardy from Anti-Abortion, er, Anti-Contraception Groups ... "The Family Research Council, backed by an unknown group of 80 anti-contraception groups, has sent a letter to President Bush urging him to make federal funding for family planning centers - Title X funding - more restrictive."

If you'd like to personally express your disdain of this proposed regulation, here's the contact information for the HHS:

The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
200 Independence Avenue, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20201
Telephone: 1-202-619-0257
Toll Free: 1-877-696-6775

Politicians Just Don't Get It!

You and I have an income which is generally fixed and determined by our earned income. We have a budget that is composed of both fixed and variable expenses ... and if we're lucky, a line item somewhere for a bit of savings. We have to work within that budget or risk bouncing checks, and experiencing repossessions,and foreclosures ... or worse, legal actions that could land us in jail. If it looks like we'd have a deficit, we cut back on our spending and/or go out and get a second job. The point I'm trying to make is that we actually work to earn additional income to cover any projected outlays beyond our budget.

It seems that politicians can't comprehend those principles. What applies to us should apply equally to them, but that just doesn't seem to be the case. Over the last 8 years, it's become quite apparent that they believe they have an inexhaustible wallet from which they can frivolously waste taxpayer monies on every little pet project they can think up, as well as continue wasting it on a war that most of us believe we NEVER should have started in the first place. Whenever they want to spend more money, they don't have to go out and get another job or two, they just raise the debt ceiling and then begin spending more money. Since Bush and his cronies took office, they've raised the debt ceiling 5 times and they're looking at raising the debt ceiling again before the end of the year:

• 06/28/2002 S. 2578 Public Law 107-199: Increased from $5,950 Trillion to $6,400 Trillion
• 05/27/2003 H.J. Res. 51 Public Law 108-24: Increased from $6,400 Trillion to $7,384 Trillion
• 11/19/2004 S. 2986 Public Law 108-415: Increased from $7,384 Trillion to $8,184 Trillion
• 03/20/2006 H.J. Res. 47 Public Law 109-182: Increased from $8,184 Trillion to $8,965 Trillion
• 09/29/2007 H.J. Res. 43 Public Law 110-24: Increased from $8,965 Trillion to $9,815 Trillion
• Proposed: H.J. Res 92 would increase the debt ceiling to $10,615,000,000,000.00 (Introduced 6/5/2008)

According to GovTrack.US, H.J. Res 92 is scheduled for debate, though I haven't seen anything yet that might indicate when it would come to the floor for that debate and vote.

If that news isn't bad enough, the Washington Post recently reported that, "the federal budget deficit will grow to a record $482 billion in the fiscal year that begins in October, ..." Keep in mind that that's just the currently-proposed budget! If out-of-control earmark spending continues at its rampant pace, deficit spending will rise well beyond $500 Billion, requiring yet another increase in the debt ceiling. If you've been listening to what McCain and Obama are proposing in terms of new and additional spending, whoever is elected will need to significantly raise taxes as well as raise the debt ceiling to make it through just 2009, let alone the rest of his term. Though McCain claims he'll not raise taxes, he'll soon find that there is no other way to get past the legacy of debt left behind by the Bush Administration. Obama has been careful not make such a claim and, in fact, has indicated he would allow the Bush tax cuts to expire, thus automatically increasing taxes. But, given the current financial strain on family budgets, that action alone could do serious harm to many families' abilities to live within their budgets.

from Treasury Direct.gov


I want a better choice! As I see it, this election is just more of the same old politics. Republicans want more of the same failed policies that have doubled the national debt over the last eight years and generated record budgetary deficits. Democrats want to introduce massive social programs for which there is no available budgetary slack to fund them. Once again, I find myself faced with making the same old choice of having to vote for the lesser of the two evils.

I yearn to vote for a real leader who could lead us down a different path ... one with some common sense ... one who would take a hard look at government spending and start slashing wasteful and unnecessary programs and spending from the budget ... one who would spend no more than 90% of what it takes in from taxpayers and who would use that excess 10% to pay down the national debt. I also want to see someone on the ballot who doesn't just do something because it's politically expedient, but who develops a comprehensive strategy for handling problems we're facing as a nation. Here are just three examples:

• Energy is more that just oil. We need an energy 'strategy' that also includes wind, solar, geothermal, and nuclear. I'm getting real tired of all the folks (especially Sen. Ensign) talking about drilling our part of the hemisphere into the equivalent of swiss cheese in pursuit of oil, oil and more oil. As the business jargon goes, hey ...' think outside the box' folks. We need to wean ourselves off using oil and ethanol to propel our vehicles. We need to shift to propelling vehicles with something like natural gas, electricity, and/or air. However, as a nation, we don't have infrastructure to support that, and we never will until we can find leaders who are willing to lead us down that path.


• Health care is another concern. Well, just maybe 'health care' needs to be a regulated industry, like utilities are. If you have insurance, you've probably noticed that a hospital or a lab will charge let's say, $30-40 for an X-ray, yet your insurance company has negotiated a $7 fee for that X-ray, so the hospital/lab accepts $7 and writes off the difference. If you don't have insurance, you end up paying the full $30-40 fee. Well, maybe there should be regulated 'reasonable & customary' fees that're equivalent to what insurance companies typically pay for services instead of creating government sponsored "comprehensive health care plans" as are being proposed by the democrats. If fees were regulated and caps were placed on malpractice awards (so doctors could actually afford malpractice insurance), maybe more folks could actually afford health care.


• With the vast numbers of baby-boomers reaching full retirement age within the next 3 years, social security is destined to become a major budgetary issue. For years now, the government has been financing a significant portion of the national debt by 'borrowing' from the Social Security Trust Fund (if you want to call it that ... it's all just a bunch of creative bookkeeping entries). Social Security trust funds are only 'invested' in a special type of Treasury bond (an IOU of sorts) that can only be issued to and redeemed by the Social Security Administration. The money to repay those special IOUs comes from current taxes. In ten years (2018), when S/S begins paying out more than its taking in from payroll taxes, the government could be in the position of having to pay S/S benefits with IOUs unless they significantly increase taxes. And, that's not going to go over well at all.

Like many other Americans, I'm getting tired of the rhetoric. I'm looking for some leadership. I desparately need our next President to set national strategies, and work dilligently at getting all branches of our government to contributing to achieving goals. We need someone in the White House who is willing to cut unnecessary programs, governmental bloat and unneeded agencies. We need a leader who will help our nation become energy independent and governmental representatives who are fiscally responsible in the use of taxpayers' monies.

The Time for Liberty

Liberty and freedom are still a new ideas. Though many voices throughout history have led the way, we still need to spread the message: Real Change embraces Liberty; the time for Liberty is now.



Bob Barr for President '08

Gates Reopens Aerial Refueling Tanker Bidding Process

Defense Secretary Robert Gates reopened the Aerial Refueling Taking bidding process today and took it out of the hands of the Air Force procurement offices. Instead, he put the Pentagon's chief weapons buyer, John Young in charge of the reopened process:

Gates: Pentagon will reopen $35B tanker bid

Act II: H.R. 6256-Responsible Ownership of Public Lands Act

Introduced on June 12, 2008, H.R. 6256 would direct the Secretary of the Interior to establish an annual production incentive fee applicable to federal onshore and offshore lands that are subject to a lease for production of oil or natural gas under which production is not occurring. It would prescribe a fee amount for each acre of land from which oil or natural gas is produced for less than 90 days in a calendar year.

H.R. 6256 would also establish an Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Fund to serve as depository for fees received under this Act. Energy programs that would be eligible for funding from this fund would include:

(1) low-income home energy assistance;
(2) advanced vehicles research, development, and demonstration;
(3) energy storage systems to support electric drive vehicles, stationary applications, and electricity transmission and distribution;
(4) next-generation wind turbines;
(5) weatherization assistance low income housing; and
(6) wind and solar energy research and development.

On July 1, it was referred to the House subcommittee on Energy and Environment. If it can even make it out of committee, it probably won't take all that long for the Grand Oil Party to filibuster it or vote it down since it has similar provisions to H.R. 6251 (Responsible Federal Oil and Gas Lease Act) which they already voted down.

What a shame! Have Republicans (the Grand Oil Party) completely lost touch with reality throughout America today? Have they forgotten their promises to serve and protect their constituency bases? Enough is enough! They need to stop protecting the unrealistic profit margins of Big Oil companies'. Using profits for buying back billions of dollars of their outstanding stock so they don't have to share their outrageous profits is not what any consumer would consider 'reinvestment' in their business infrastructure. Why aren't they 'reinvesting' in their business to assure continued availability of gas and oil products? It's because they've gotten so conservative in protecting their precious profits that they're too averse to taking the risk to explore for oil on the leases they've had in their possession for decades. Republicans need to stop protecting Big Oil and start protecting their consumer constituencies instead.

Wake up people .... if the Republicans now in Congress can't or won't break their relationships with Big Oil and begin taking action that improves conditions for their constituencies, then we need to get them out of the Congress and elect people who will.

Air Cars to Hit Streets in India & Europe

In previous blog entries, I mentioned the CityCat air-powered cars and posed the question, why can't U.S. car-makers do something like this? Are they married to big Oil and lost their innovative spirit?

Well, a French company, MDI has partnered with an Indian company and together, they've developed the necessary technology to power vehicles with compressed air. They expect to begin putting air-powered cars on the streets in India and Europe late this year. With any luck, we'll be able to purchase one of these cars in the U.S. some time in 2010. It would be perfect for us as we toodle around our small town for one thing or another, or down to the market to stock up on a few groceries.

Check out the CATvolution blog and these YouTube videos: