"...even McCain admitted as much when he said on Monday, "I don't see an immediate relief, [but] the fact that we are exploiting those reserves would have psychological impact that I think is beneficial."

Psychological benefit for who? Ah, wait. Let's take a look further on in the comments.

@Pablo:

[brings up a bunch of talking-points straight out of an oil-company brochure about love for his grandmother, why other energy sources suck, etc]:

"That looks like oil is still the best energy supply! If we found something better and cheaper, i'm all for it! But we haven't found it yet!

PS: I have never worked for an oil company! I'm not paid by an oil company, i'm writing this for free, because we still haven't found a better source of energy! It may not be politically correct, but it's factually correct."

Well, why the hell not? You'd be able to buy your grandmother a new Humvee pretty easily, and then all the liberals who hate her would be sooooo jealous. Make sure it's yellow, so it stands out.

Also, you're kind of overusing the whole "it may not be politically correct, but it's factually correct" thing. Just because you say it, that don't make it true.

There are plenty of energy sources out there, and almost all of them are cheaper than oil when you factor in AVAILABILITY. Solar power is free. Wind power is free. Tidal power is free. Are there issues concerning generation, storage, and transmission? Sure thing. But that doesn't mean we just avoid them altogether.

By your reasoning, if drilling all over America in protected lands helps slow the rate of increasing fuel costs (which is debatable, and unlikely in the extreme), it's worthwhile. But why not slow the rate doing things that help relieve us of our dependence on oil in the first place? Why just keep feeding the habit? Why take the environmental risks, too?

@NotOrbitBoy:

Governments do not have a strong track record of creating technological road maps.

That is the domain of free markets and entrepreneurs.

...over-taxing and over-regulating them will hamper their efforts.

Since when? I can think of quite a few governmental track records for creating technology, ranging from the space program to nuclear energy to the automobile industry. Hell, even the oil industry got its start with the government. The very Internet we're posting on in is a direct result of government technology study.

I'm no fan of big government, but I'm really getting sick of the constant straw-man arguments that smear government for no reason. Are we all THAT in love with capitalism that we should all be so blind to its flaws and disparage anything that isn't a for-profit company as somehow evil? Are corporations sooooo badly off right now? Are we walking past CEOs in rags on the sidewalk, begging for change so they can pay their incredibly painful corporate taxes?

On the flip-side, I can think of about 10 companies right off the top of my head that have behaved utterly abyssmally as a direct consequence of lack of government regulation.

@rocket999

Why are motorcycles so loud, and why is that legal?

First, a quick lesson. Stock motorcycles do comply with noise and emissions regulations. Aftermarket pipes may drastically alter both of those qualities of a bike, and have other effects, too. So make sure your ire is directed in the right place: it's not the motorcycle manufacturers--for the most part--who make their bikes loud.

I'm not going to create an artificial divide between cruiser riders and sportbike riders in this arena. The issue applies equally to us both, though I suspect there's a measure of "we're not so bad, it's those fools' fault" in both camps.

As a motorcycle rider myself, I can sympathize with your complaint (and I tend to leave my bike in mostly stock form). From our perspective (not mine, but collectively, many motorcycle riders feel this way) loud pipes keep us safe. If you ride a motorcycle for even a day, you're sure to be cut off at least once by some cage-driving, newspaper-reading, mascara-applying, cell-phone yappin' idiot who's not paying attention at all to his or her surroundings.

To my knowledge, there have been no studies about whether loud pipes actually save lives or not. My gut tells me not so much, since another reason to put loud pipes on a street bike is to increase the performance by upping the available torque or horsepower. I'm sure that most riders are their own worst enemies, so any "safety" gained by making car drivers aware of you is no doubt offset by the risks of driving a faster bike.

There's another hidden motivation here, and this one is more globally applicable to the noise-pollution issue at large. That's the fact that one person's noise is another person's music. Take the loud pipes on a motorcycle. Quite a few people (the bike owner and his peers, for starters) think that the sound of their bike is melodious. Ask any Ducati owner about how they feel when they wind up their 1098R. You'll get answers like, "soul-stirring," "awe-inspiring," "sexy as hell." I've heard all those myself personally.

So yeah, they're loud. And motorcyclists probably don't make any friends for themselves by putting aftermarket pipes on their bikes. But this seems to be an area where some study, and also advances in technology, could help everyone. There are soon going to be all-electric motorcycles hitting the market, and hybrid bikes, too. When you factor in the lawsuits by the blind people getting hit by Priuses creeping up on them, this starts to make a little more sense, and helps illustrate how a certain amount of sound is a good thing for the general public.

Interesting times!

Well, then you should go ahead and officially consider yourself a liberal now.