As global oil reserves get smaller and smaller, does anybody seriously think we are going to leave that oil under the ANWR forever as a monument to our restraint? If so, they don't understand America. That oil is coming out, the only question is when.

So taking that premise as true, under what terms do we want it to be retrieved? In the near future, where the political will exists to apply environmental controls, or in the further future, where we are too ravenous for oil to stop to consider the local environment. This land isn't close to anybody, and when push comes to shove, people won't care what happens to it.

Environmentalists like to think of themselves of thinking far into the future (I know I do). Have they really done so in this case, or are they in denial about what the coming shortage of oil is going to do to the world?

This is about the forced sexual acts one of the employees inflicted on a subordinate. The Department of Justice refused to prosecute. Why? They won't say.

Somtwhat off topic, but perhaps we should praise the folks in the DOI Office of the Inspector General who proved that not ALL government employees are corrupt or incompetent.

Offshore drilling, as part of a comprehensive energy platform that included environmental sustainability, development of alternative sources of energy, conservation and energy efficiency, could make sense, if we had faith in the integrity of the government officials entrusted in implementing the agenda.

Fuck faith. The American system government wasn't designed to work on faith, it was designed to work on openness, oversight, and public participation. The trend away from this has been clear for decades, and massively accelerated in the past eight years. Even if Obama wins, even if Jesus Christ won a write-in campaign with Buddha as his VP, it wouldn't be time to sit back and say, "Phew, now we can trust the government again." We need to crack the government wide open and let the public in.

Having faith in the integrity of people you don't know -- whoever is in the top spot -- is simply dumb. The integrity of the system needs to be restored.

So taking that premise as true, under what terms do we want it to be retrieved? In the near future, where the political will exists to apply environmental controls, or in the further future, where we are too ravenous for oil to stop to consider the local environment.

I think it might be a good idea to wait for Bush to be out of office before writing any lease deals for offshore drilling. I think Bush is a willing pawn of the oil industry, and I think he would screw the American people by giving the oil companies unreasonably favorable terms.

"This scandal does not illustrate whether or not offshore drilling is a good or bad idea. What it demonstrates is that lax, irresponsible government is a bad idea."

I understand what you are saying here. Theoretically this makes no difference whether offshore drilling is a good or bad idea. But practically it shows us that opening up these protected sights would be a mistake. We only have this government, and they will continue to exert no oversight. They will give these contracts to the oil companies and we will have to pay the externality costs.

Styles seems to be trying to spin this incident, just in a different way from the conservationists. First he rationalizes the misbehavior. Then although he understands how this could happen, he assures us that he never witnessed such actions. Then he throws those whose actions he rationalized under the bus. Then he makes his case for further drilling. He never mentions how a corrupt government can fix these systemic problems. Sounds more self serving than thoughtful.

Finally I want to ask why not exploit it? These leases will harm the environment and provide little benefit other than improving the oil companies' bottom line. The other side in the debate uses any lie possible, so what's wrong with exploiting some facts to make our case?

they might have a leg to stand on.

They could demand that all the ILLEGALITY occurring be investigated and that the perpetrators be jailed.

Instead, we have a society of Mandarins, leaders of both parties above the law and unaccountable to anyone but themselves.

It was well known that Clinton brought drugs in thru Arkansas and thhat the Bush family is waist deep in the trade.

The whole of government is insanely corrupt.

So it is funny that someone can point and bitch about drugs and sex.

The rest of America is fed up with this crap. Maybe the elevation of someone who SEEMS to actually care about this nation, someone like, dare I say it, SARAH PALIN, might fix this fucked up mess.

Maybe the elevation of someone who SEEMS to actually care about this nation, someone like, dare I say it, SARAH PALIN, might fix this fucked up mess.

Of course she seems to care. Her handlers have been very careful to project that image. They sure as hell wouldn't have her act like she doesn't care.

Unfortunately, her short political career leaves us little real track record to judge her by. However, the small amount of real information that has leaked out so far doesn't look very encouraging.

but what really impressed me about her was her allegiance earlier in her life to the Alaskan separatists.

What they believe, that the US is headed down the wrong path into war and bankruptcy, is what ANY intelligent and aware person who LOVES this nation and what it stands for, and who is not hopelessly married to party politics, SHOULD be believing and thinking.

I believe that therefore for this reason, Palin WILL win, her belief straddling and going BEYOND party politics to a genuine love of this country.

Now, the Alasakan separatism story may be made up, for all I know, maybe she IS just a tool of big oil, but until I see evidence to the contrary, I will tend to believe this connection is genuine.