May I ask how you know this to be factual?

Jebbie, it's the same kind of frighteningly brilliant insight that renders Mr. Todd's political analyses so cogent and prescient. Just back off, lest he turn his truth-ray in your direction.

Can you imagine the abashed and crestfallen patrons at Andrew's local bar, when he uses these sophisticated dick-size ripostes? I bet they slink away, unable to retaliate.

And how could a person possibly reply to such trenchancy?

Did he ever stop to consider why my wife started calling my "Mooser"? (Jeez, I hope not, and don't anybody else!)

Anybody know a good theripist?

Let us remember Mr. Todd kindly, he came to scoff, but stayed to bray.

is too much! Now I see Glenn's got a new post up, so I gotta read that before I can leave the house. Oh well, here goes.

What's the latest imbroglio at the seraglio?

You do realize that "Big Oil" just posted its biggest quarterly profits ever (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080801/ap_on_bi_ge/earns_oil). The top six western oil companies had Q2 profits of $51.5 billion. Exxon Mobil set a new all-time record for any US corporation with a quarterly profit of $11.68 billion.

Yes, that's because the price of oil has been at historic highs because of concerns about tightening supply. Hence the demand for drilling. This news to you?

You do realize that there are over a hundred countries in the world with a GDP of less than $51.5 billion. And that there are more than sixty countries with a GDP of less than $11.68 billion. And that those numbers aren't revenue for the oil companies, but profit on revenue.

And your household income is probably a hundreds times that of many families in African nations. Like your point, it's sad and has absolutely nothing to do with the issue at hand.

The oil companies are really caught in a squeeze and the Republicans are really trying to help them out. In fact, the House Republicans are so vexed at the Democrats refusal to stand up for big oil and allow them to do more drilling that they are spending their summer vacation putting on theatricals in favor of big oil (http://rawstory.com/news/2008/Urging_drilling_House_GOP_members_refuse_0801.html). One gets the impression that the oil companies are paying them, not by the bill, but by the hour.

Well you should qualify that - one Democrat's refusal to allow a vote on whether to allow drillling.

And the oil companies are not caught in a squeeze evidently, but you should bear in mind, since it seems to escape you, that it is not they who determine the market price for oil.

That's why a) Obama has suddenly decided offshore drilling is a good idea (and if Obama decides it's a good idea so will bernbart), and b) McCain received more than $1 million in contributions from oil companies in June after he flipped in favor of drilling (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/07/26/AR2008072601891.html).

The ironic thing is he spoke out against it July 7th when prices were actually higher. Anyway, I'm happy he's disappointed the left again.

As for you, apparently you have no point other than sheer outrage at the size of oil company profits. Fine - we get it. Now go away.

With the criticisms of "you know". A daily reader of Digby and Glenn, I was thinking how much I enjoy listening to both of them in this conversational format. While listening, I was thinking I wish Digby would have a daily audio post, something like Democracy Now has been doing for years. As illuminating as I find both of your writing, the added human dimension of expression, inflection deepens the content for me. And most importantly, I think we need media like this to counter the screaming Bill O's and Chris Mathewses (whose "conversation" surely contains a couple "you knows" too, right?)

I don't know what's going on in this comments section, but it's giving me a headache. Seems like that game "Why Don't You?/Yes But": some people feel more important when they have "advice" to give...

Just don't mail it in the vicinity of any sororities (or their storage facilities). The FBI may be watching.

As I say, always a pleasure to watch a real artist.

Yes, that's because the price of oil has been at historic highs because of concerns about tightening supply. Hence the demand for drilling. This news to you?

This is simply hogwash. What you say is not true. In fact it's not even close. Supply concerns may affect day-to-day fluctuations, but that is not what is driving high oil prices. There are two major factors involved: a) Unregulated commodities markets and greed (http://www.businessweek.com/lifestyle/content/may2008/bw20080513_720178.htm) and b) the loss of value of the dollar (http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=9490).

The first of these was what the bill (HR 6604) that the House Republicans managed to defeat (because it took a two-thirds majority to pass) was designed to regulate and hence keep the price of gas down. Score one for the Republicans/Big Oil.

The second is just a by-product of the Bush administration's fiscal incompetence. The price of a barrel of oil has just about quadrupled since March of 2003. At the time of the invasion of Iraq oil was selling at around $30 a barrel; now it is around $130. But in the same time period the dollar has lost about half its value so around half of the price increase comes from the weakened dollar (when the dollar goes down against international currencies, internationally priced commodities priced in dollars go up because it takes more dollars to buy the same amount).

The high oil prices are not a result of supply and demand since OPEC is still capable of expanding supply to keep up with demand (although they keep it close to keep the price high).

More drilling isn't about increasing supply in any meaningful way. The US imports more than two-thirds of its oil and more drilling isn't going to double its production. More drilling is about the fact that the oil companies make most of their money out of their exploration and production efforts. More drilling is about making more profits, not about increasing supplies, although the unscrupulous try to sell it as a solution to all the US's supply problems.

And the oil companies are not caught in a squeeze evidently, but you should bear in mind, since it seems to escape you, that it is not they who determine the market price for oil.

This is what is known as ignoratio elenchi or, more commonly, a straw man argument. It is called "ignorance of the refutation" because even if it is true (which in this case it is) it doesn't refute the argument against which it is directed. Who sets the price of oil is irrelevant to the oil companies' profits.

Yes, the oil companies don't determine the market price for oil (although you don't seem to have a clue who or what does), they are just riding the wave. Higher oil prices mean higher profits because markup is a percentage of cost. But the oil companies make most of their money at their exploration and production arm (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080801/ap_on_bi_ge/earns_oil) anyway, so that's why they want more drilling. High oil prices are just a plus (a windfall, if you will).

As for you, apparently you have no point other than sheer outrage at the size of oil company profits. Fine - we get it. Now go away.

It's not surprising that you don't get the point. I expect that happens a lot. The point that you couldn't seem to find was that you are posting bullshit. More drilling won't increase supply in any meaningful way and it won't lower gas prices in any meaningful way. Saying that Republicans are pushing for more drilling in order to reduce gas prices is just bullshit, especially when the House Republicans killed a bill that would have helped to reduce gas prices by curbing speculation and profiteering.

There may be some outrage at the obscenely high oil company profits, especially when, as you point out, most of the world lives in abject poverty, but what is more outrageous is that big oil and the Republicans want even higher profits which they hope to get by more drilling while they try to pass off more drilling as a way to increase supply and reduce prices. This is just the old bait and switch that the Bush administration is famous for.

As for going away, you seem to be the one who is out of his depth here, economically illiterate, and pushing hogwash as economic fact. I suggest you go back to playing in the shallow end of the pool.