Drudge Retort: Red Meat for Yellow Dogs
Monday, March 31, 2008

Elizabeth Douglass: Hi. My name is Elizabeth, and I'm addicted to oil. Is there a 12-step program out there for me? Not exactly. Even if there were, kicking the habit would be a daunting task. Oil is just way too useful. Its byproducts are almost everywhere, and my daily life practically oozes petroleum.

Liberal Blog Advertising Network

Menu

Subscriptions

Author Info

califchris

MORE STORIES

Special Features

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in the discussion of this weblog entry should note the site's moderation policy.

BWAH!

we're not as addicted to oil and oil by products as we are the commodities that are brought to us by them.

we normally spend approximately two-fifty to three hundred dollars a week for household goods (everything from soup to nutz) - i spent just shy of three hundred dollars today and the clerks in the stores i went to were all mumbling, "...truckers are probably going on strike...people are stocking up...can't keep the shelves full..."

some articles that we buy only monthly have doubled in the last couple of months - the basics such as eggs, milk, flour, pork, paper/plastic products, toiletries and first aid supplies.

i venture to guess what people on minimum wage are doing to get by.

we're in full-tilt ponzi scheme.

if you're able, plant a garden and get a few chickens.

I found this article very interesting when I read it in its entirety this morning in the Los Angeles Times. Unfortunately, the online article is much shorter and that is the version that I had to use for this story.

Perhaps because I only think of oil used for fuel purposes such as gasoline for our cars, I never realized just how many other products also owe their existence to black gold.

The line that caught my eye and interest the most was the following which described only a few of the many items containing chemicals or products derived from oil:

The raw, black, gooey stuff is not what's omnipresent. Instead, it's chemicals derived from oil and natural gas that bring us adhesives, medicines, inks, plastic resins, synthetic rubber, nylon, detergents ... toothbrush and toothpaste, plus shampoo and other hair products, hand cream, face lotions, nail polish, rubbing alcohol, bandages, deodorant, contact lens cases and solutions, brushes, combs, plastic pill containers, throw rugs, razors, paint on the walls, finish on the fake wood cabinets, the plastic toilet seat, plastic parts in the toilet, shower head and shower door, caulking, drain stoppers....

I don't see how we are going to be able to cut back on oil since it's the chemicals derived from the oil that enable us to have so many needed necessities. Even if we were able to get a source for alternative fuel to run our cars, that doesn't guarantee that we would also be able to reproduce all the other chemicals we get from oil for so many other uses.

In fact, after reading this article today and learning just how intertwined oil is with so many other products we depend on in our day to day existence it didn't make me want to try and cut back on my use of oil or its products. Call me greedy, but upon reading this article I wanted to run out and buy some stock in oil production companies.

*sigh*

Screwed up the "bold" portion again.
Only the section in blockquotes should have been in bold.

Already have the chickens and the garden. Will protect both with my guns. When I run out, I will use my guns to take what I need from non-gun owning libs.

All I can say is that I can't believe that someone finally wrote an artricle about oil that says what I've been saying to libs for years. Of course, every time you hit them with the idea that so many different things are made because of oil, they revert to some insane defection about Bush or Cheney.

The loonies will start screaming Bush-hater at me again, but I must blame the SOB for that too.

As I lie awake again wondering why we're In Iraq killing 800 Americans a year and lord knows how many Iraqis, I do become aware that every single reason Bushies gave us for that misbegotten adventure has been debunked: Not just no WMDs, but no Al Qaeda, no "terrorists," no link between that nation and the Saudis who died in that ill-fated 2001 protest. Nothing. Nada. Bush WANTED a war ...

We're there for oil. Yes, it's still used in your products, Liz. It nears four bucks a gallon at the gas pumps now, Liz, and don't think for a moment that that's not by design. When you call Big Oil profits obscene, you insult all obscenity. And surely a healthy percentage of those billions go into Bush and Cheney's pockets.

Hope that helps, Liz. herm

Already have the chickens and the garden. Will protect both with my guns. When I run out, I will use my guns to take what I need from non-gun owning libs.

Posted by retnluvnit at 2008-03-31 06:44 PM | Reply | Flag:

Come to my house and get what you need....I don't own a gun, I promise.


WINK WINK! KA-BLAMM!

Chris: There are plant-based "plastic" products that can be used instaed of oil-based products, including auto interior parts. We toss away so much plastic like shopping bags, shipping peanuts, styrofoam containers that it only makes sense to use something else.

North... I AGREE.. We need to do something.

Herm, are you taking medication for you parinoia? Big Business... Corupt governemnt.... Jeezzz. Do you really think it will be better with dems in the house?

my spelling and typing stinks, sorry.

"Herm, are you taking medication for you parinoia? Big Business... Corupt governemnt.... Jeezzz. Do you really think it will be better with dems in the house?"

Paranoia, Ret. Corrupt. Medication. Not to nitpick. But yeah. It will be better. It won't be fixed, but it will be an improvement. Real reform will be stymied by a wave of Rets blocking it an every turn. If that's paranoia, do you have an effective med? herm

You know what I would like to see. Everything that is made from Oil and made OF Oil labeled where their crude oil comes from. If say Castrol Motor Oil is made from crude oil from say Saudi Arabia it would be labeled Made from Saudi Arabian Crude and so on and so forth. THAT is what I would like to see happen.

Larry Mohr

We need to bring back the electric car, Diesel-electric tractor trailers, and mandate hybrid cars with all electric plug in options for short commutes.

We would save so much gas! Big oil would never approve. LOL!

Solar, wind and hydroelectric could also add to the grid to help power our "electric" drive vehicles.

HEMP! HEMP! HEMP!

Already have the chickens and the garden. Will protect both with my guns. When I run out, I will use my guns to take what I need from non-gun owning libs.

Posted by retnluvnit


Thou shall not steal*


*When convenient for you.

This story actually goes:

"Hi. My name is whining chicken little scared that the big bad carbon monster is going to eat me. But I will hypocritally complain, drive my car to the anti big oil rallies, fly to the next global warming awareness concert and go on with life as usual.

Oh, yeah, the rest of you do something about this because I refuse to change my lifestyle

truckers are supposed to go on a six day strike tomorrow - we'll see if they get any relief.

in light of that event, we're now set up like a lazy mormon family - enough food for at least a year! yup, our garden's even started.

many of our neighbors have chickens, ducks, and turkeys. as for me, i'll go vegetarian.

Posted by LarryMohr at 2008-03-31 07:55 PM

You know what I would like to see. Everything that is made from Oil and made OF Oil labeled where their crude oil comes from.

And this will accomplish what?

By the way, the labels for oil used in the U.S. will be labeled 1. Canada, 2. Mexico, and 3. Venezuela, and of course, 4. U.S.A.

What will you do with the information? Will the public be "sensitized?" Then what?


HEMP! HEMP! HEMP!


The only smart comment in this thread.

Product Gallons per 42 Gallon barrel

gasoline 19.5

distillate fuel oil (Includes both home heating oil and diesel fuel) 9.2

kerosene-type jet fuel 4.1

residual fuel oil (Heavy oils used as fuels in industry, marine transportation and for electric power generation) 2.3

liquefied refinery gasses 1.9

still gas 1.9

coke 1.8

asphalt and road oil 1.3

petrochemical feedstocks 1.2

lubricants 0.5

kerosene 0.2

other 0.3

Figures are based on 1995 average yields for U.S. refineries. One barrel contains 42 gallons of crude oil. The total volume of products made is 2.2 gallons greater than the original 42 gallons of crude oil. This represents "processing gain."

Products from oil:
Oil's Products


Transport

Petrol and diesel are probably the first things that spring to mind when one thinks of the uses of oil. The biggest problem is with aircraft which cannot use alternatives like electricity. Along with their excessive consumption, this will be one of the first to be cut back.
page break
Electricity Generation

Farming

One important use for oil which many people are unaware of is agriculture, and not just to fuel tractors and combine harvesters. Fertilisers and herbicides are oil- and gas-based, and farmers use animal feeds that come from around the world.

The example of North Korea shows us what happens to agriculture when oil products are removed. After the Korean war, it had developed a modern farming system depending on machinery and oil-based fertilisers. After the Soviet Union fell, Communist aid to the country stopped and they were unable to purchase oil and supplies. Without oil, farm machinery was sitting idle (80% of its capacity by 1998) and large proportions of the population had to return to agriculture. Unfortunately the soil had been drained of nutrients over the years and, without fertilisers, it was unable to produce the same output as before. Crop yields fell by 60% over the period 1989-1998. Unless it can get access to oil and fertilisers again, the population will decline until it reaches a sustainable level.


Air conditioners, ammonia, anti-histamines, antiseptics, artificial turf, asphalt, aspirin, balloons, bandages, boats, bottles, bras, bubble gum, butane, cameras, candles, car batteries, car bodies, carpet, cassette tapes, caulking, CDs, chewing gum, cold, combs/brushes, computers, contacts, cortisone, crayons, cream, denture adhesives, deodorant, detergents, dice, dishwashing liquid, dresses, dryers, electric blankets, electrician's tape, fertilisers, fishing lures, fishing rods, floor wax, footballs, glues, glycerin, golf balls, guitar strings, hair, hair colouring, hair curlers, hearing aids, heart valves, heating oil, house paint, ice chests, ink, insect repellent, insulation, jet fuel, life jackets, linoleum, lip balm, lipstick, loudspeakers, medicines, mops, motor oil, motorcycle helmets, movie film, nail polish, oil filters, paddles, paint brushes, paints, parachutes, paraffin, pens, perfumes, petroleum jelly, plastic chairs, plastic cups, plastic forks, plastic wrap, plastics, plywood adhesives, refrigerators, roller-skate wheels, roofing paper, rubber bands, rubber boots, rubber cement, rubbish bags, running shoes, saccharine, seals, shirts (non-cotton), shoe polish, shoes, shower curtains, solvents, solvents, spectacles, stereos, sweaters, table tennis balls, tape recorders, telephones, tennis rackets, thermos, tights, toilet seats, toners, toothpaste, transparencies, transparent tape, TV cabinets, typewriter/computer ribbons, tyres, umbrellas, upholstery, vaporisers, vitamin capsules, volleyballs, water pipes, water skis, wax, wax paper

Hey let's put labels on every shipment of gas to show where it came from. I am sure that won't increase the cost of refining oil. Moron

if you're able, plant a garden and get a few chickens.

Posted by nanc

Already have the chickens and the garden. Will protect both with my guns. When I run out, I will use my guns to take what I need from non-gun owning libs.

Posted by retnluvnit


So does that mean you guys are willing to take some responsibility for what you admit is happening?
Oh that's right, the Government and Administration you so slavishly supported for the last 7 years has nothing to do with this. It's not their job to help the country run well.

"HEMP! HEMP! HEMP!"

Posted by Jomama

Debauchery! Debauchery! Raaaaawk!!


(Sorry J, just can't help myself.)

i'm of the mind that it's the individual's job to tend to their own business, tfd - LESS GOVERNMENT!

whether you like it or not, we've ALL supported the government for a very long time regardless of party.

get rid of special interests, planned parenthood, pbs; let the public fund the arts, and the list goes on. cut the fat - that's what the rest of u.s. have to do!

give charity back to the rich churches.

"My name is Elizabeth, and I'm addicted to oil. "

Hello, Elizabeth. You are not addicted to oil. You choose to live in a society that uses oil as the basis for a multitude of products. You choose to revel in the incredible variety of luxuries that were inconceivable as little as 100 years ago. You choose to partake in the bounty of products that can only be manufactured and/or delivered through the use of oil.

You're not an oil addict.

You're an oil slut.

But you can change this. Of course, this would mean that you would have to radically modify your life and your lifestyle. There are those right here in the United States who have chosen to live almost entirely without the benefits of oil. They choose to live without cars, central heating, electronics, etc. And there are those who exist in other parts of the world, though not necessarily by choice, without the benefits of oil entirely. Perhaps you can choose to move there.

No? Too much change for you? Too much for you to sacrifice? Then admit what you are, an oil slut, and cease your puling.

tfd - a very timely article that speaks to these times.

zot - with all the oil products we use, we should be oil barons!

"i'm of the mind that it's the individual's job to tend to their own business, tfd - LESS GOVERNMENT!

whether you like it or not, we've ALL supported the government for a very long time regardless of party.

get rid of special interests, planned parenthood, pbs; let the public fund the arts, and the list goes on. cut the fat - that's what the rest of u.s. have to do!

give charity back to the rich churches."

Posted by nanc

Okay... So what's this rantage got to do with the price of tea in China... er... uhm... I mean the price of oil in Saudi Arabia?

i'm of the mind that it's the individual's job to tend to their own business, tfd - LESS GOVERNMENT!

whether you like it or not, we've ALL supported the government for a very long time regardless of party.

get rid of special interests, planned parenthood, pbs; let the public fund the arts, and the list goes on. cut the fat - that's what the rest of u.s. have to do!

give charity back to the rich churches.

Posted by nanc


As usual, you refuse to answer the question. It's a simple one.
Do you hold the current administration responsible for the mess they've created? And will you take the blame for voting for them twice.

zot - with all the oil products we use, we should be oil barons!

Posted by nanc


Maybe you should be asking W that question and not Zot.
Why, in 2004, you voted for a man who spent his whole life in the oil business, yet had already proven he couldn't keep gas prices down, is beyond me.

TFD.. Poor, poor child.

Nanc jsyt curious do you support government funding of the military, and if so why?

Someone tell me, how can the United States government/president dictate what the price of a barrel of crude coming from another country will be? Bush rightfully gets the blame for a lot of things, but I'm a little foggy as to how this is his fault. Just looking for a little clarity.

how are you doing with the fact that the worlds second largest oil reserves are not pumping to feed the world market? supply is being artificially restricted. just one minor point

the dollar has lost much of its value. due to economic policy. if dollar was 50% stronger, oil would be 2 dollars a gallon. just another little point

***"Nanc jsyt curious do you support government funding of the military, and if so why?"
SALARYMAN***

Because the Constitution says the government has to.

Article I, Section 8.
"The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense..."

"To raise and support armies..."

"To provide and maintain a navy..."

JW,

Step 1: Invade a major oil producing nation.
Step 2: Bungle ever aspect of reconstruction.
Step 3: Rattle saber at other oil producer.
Step 4: Hold hands and play kissyface with third oil producer.

Starting to get the picture?

Someone tell me, how can the United States government/president dictate what the price of a barrel of crude coming from another country will be? Bush rightfully gets the blame for a lot of things, but I'm a little foggy as to how this is his fault. Just looking for a little clarity.

Posted by jwil72


That's not what I'm saying, of course the President doesn't control the price of oil. That the policies of his administration have some effect on those prices is a fact, but that's not even the point I was trying to make.
My point was that, this particular President, George W. Bush, was born into the oil industry. He spent his entire life living and working in it. He knew and was intimate with the world's leading oil men since the day he was born. You're telling me he doesn't understand it and the major players enough to get his way, or make a difference? Or is not the lives and comfort of the American people he was elected to serve not enough motivation? It's not like the oil companies aren't making obscene profits hand over fist. He's not asking them (his good personal friends) to actually sacrifice for the good of the country or anything. They can still get rich, maybe not quite so rich.
It all boils down to the fact that oil and the business of oil was supposed to be the one thing that W was actually good at. And we can all just plainly see how his handling of that is working out. Even his staunchest supporters are looking forward to the third-worlding of America.....

if you're able, plant a garden and get a few chickens.

Posted by nanc

Already have the chickens and the garden. Will protect both with my guns. When I run out, I will use my guns to take what I need from non-gun owning libs.

Posted by retnluvnit

JW,

You conveniently cut off the parts that you dont like from the Constitution. Lets have a look at the whole thing shall we?

Article 1 - The Legislative Branch
Section 8 - Powers of Congress

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To borrow money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;

To establish Post Offices and Post Roads;

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;

To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings; And

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

***"the dollar has lost much of its value. due to economic policy. if dollar was 50% stronger, oil would be 2 dollars a gallon. just another little point"***

I agree, the dollar has lost value, but the Euro is stronger than the dollar at this point and they are paying over $7 per gallon, twice as much. Is that due to fiscal mismanagement also? I'm not an economist, as you can tell, so I'm looking for hard facts, real reasons Bush and the government is to blame.

You asked if she supported government backed military, so I provided those exact statements from the Constitution that explicitly outline the powers of the federal government in regards to the raising and maintaining of a military. I did not "conveniently" leave out anything, I "conveniently" provided the info that was required.

We could use nuclear as the French and Japanese do. We could increase the use of natural gas which we have. We could increase the use of coal which we have.
We could even convert coal into diesel which the Germans did in World War II. We could drill for additional oil, oil which we have, but we won't. Instead Liberals will spend all there time crying. It is the one thing they are capable of doing!

Liberals will spend all there time crying.
Posted by Burt


No, we do spend some time learning proper grammar.

tfd - i hold the last four or five administrations responsible for the mess we're in today. now, what to do?

JW,

You know exactly why I asked that question, and you did cut off the parts that did not support Nanc's argument. ( and yours unless I miss my guess)

When I run out, I will use my guns to take what I need from non-gun owning libs.

Posted by retnluvnit

That's what I told my neighbors when the year 2000 came rolling along. I think it woke them up.

"As I lie awake again wondering why we're In Iraq killing 800 Americans a year and lord knows how many Iraqis, I do become aware that every single reason Bushies gave us for that misbegotten adventure has been debunked: Not just no WMDs, but no Al Qaeda, no "terrorists," no link between that nation and the Saudis who died in that ill-fated 2001 protest. Nothing. Nada. Bush WANTED a war ..."

Posted by herm"

Herm, this isn't targeted at you...


"But the government's explanation for 9/11 is the truth."

"i hold the last four or five administrations responsible for the mess we're in today."

Twenty-nine years ago this summer this country had an administration which knew something had to be done about our addiction to oil.

In the words of that administration:

"We can't go on consuming 40 percent more energy than we produce. When we import oil we are also importing inflation plus unemployment."

"We've got to use what we have. The Middle East has only 5 percent of the world's energy, but the United States has 24 percent."

"Our neck is stretched over the fence and OPEC has a knife."

"There will be other cartels and other shortages. American wisdom and courage right now can set a path to follow in the future."

"The real issue is freedom. We must deal with the energy problem on a war footing."

"The energy crisis is real. It is worldwide. It is a clear and present danger to our Nation. These are facts and we simply must face them."
Imagine if we had faced those facts 29 years ago. Is there any doubt we'd be, if not oil-free, close to being energy independent?

Where are we going to be 29 years from now?

Hans

how about easing up on the restrictions that prevent us from drilling our own oil?

"how about easing up on the restrictions that prevent us from drilling our own oil?"

The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results.
Hans

"i hold the last four or five administrations responsible for the mess we're in today. now, what to do?"

Let our country dissolve, then recreate itself however it can. Or else create a dictatorship so people will spend all their time worrying about how to survive and not about the dictator's policies. Or, maybe, we can restore and maintain the kind of balance of power envisioned by the founding fathers.

Hans,

You know that "vision" stuff doesn't count: it was suggested by a Democrat.

***"JW,

You know exactly why I asked that question, and you did cut off the parts that did not support Nanc's argument. ( and yours unless I miss my guess)"

Posted by Salaryman***

Yes, I know why you asked the question. You wanted to back into a nebulous argument about "providing for the general welfare of the United States." A clause that we could argue about all day and then some. What is not debatable is the Constitution explicitly compels the government to fund the military. NANC stated, in essence, that we needed to "trim the fat" i.e. get rid of some of the programs not explicitly contained in the Constitution. YOU asked if she supported government funding of the military and why. Government funding of the military is explicitly called for in the Constitution. You asked the question, I answered it. You should have chose a different angle. If you wanted a different answer, or someone to fall into your trap, you should have asked a different question. If I'm wrong about why you asked the question, I apologize.

last year, the oil companies made 123 billion dollars in profits.

i just heard on tv that these same companies consider alternative fuels to be decades away - the here and now is fossil fuels.

happy vacationing everybody.

I guess ol' Liz hasn't hit rock bottom yet.

Hybrid cars and alternative fuels won't catch on until the american consumers hit rock bottom. Do you remember the gas lines of the 70's? That's when 4 cylinder cars caught on with their better fuel economy. We hit rock bottom then. That's the realistic mentality of the American consumer which drives our economy.

This wouldn't be a problem if the Liberals would let us drill on our soil. If they let us drill on our soil then we wouldn't be in Iraq or the Middle East. It would take the power away from the regimes and the terrorists. We are their biggest consumer. It also doesn't help that the economies of China and India have taken off with an insatiable need for oil at the same time.

The Liberals may have won the environmental cause but let them "man-up" to the consequences of that victory. I don't expect they will do that. They will just continue to blame Bush and the Republicans.

Remember Liberals..... The oil controversy did not start with Bush. It has been going on for years. The demand increases as the population increases at an exponential rate. This is only a finite resource.

I'm being realistic not "pie in the sky" idealistic........

how about easing up on the restrictions that prevent us from drilling our own oil?

When some proposed ANWR, I went and did some calculations. Utilizing the likely amount of oil that can be recovered - 10.4BB. That over a period of 65 years.

We EXPORT 1,317,000 barrels a day.

If we stopped exporting the oil we already recover, we'd reach the ANWR 10.4BB equivalent in 21 years. 21 versus drilling out ANWR for 65 years.

it really doesn't matter whose fault the current situation is...
that said.... and i know jimmy carter's presidency was a failure to most... his energy plan had merit.

www.pbs.org

all the best

JW,
I could argue that the statment about armies in the Constitution is just as nebulous. In fact I feel that there was no intent to have a standing army at all. But the fact remains that it is in the purview of the US government fund and administer welfare programs.

I grow tired of the people that chant less government, less government and when the suggestion is made to also cut the military they do an about face and say oh no you can't cut that! That is what I was aiming at with my question wich was never answered by the way.

"it really doesn't matter whose fault the current situation is..."

Of course it does. If we don't assess blame, we might elect the jagoffs again.

I feel that there was no intent to have a standing army at all.

Interesting point. Prior to the National Guard we had volunteer and conscripted regiments formed in the states and under the command of the Secretary of War.

Renamed the Department of Defense and staffed with conscription it went from military to bureaucracy and now it teeters on verge of a business.

The one redeeming factor is that the Sergeants and Chiefs still run the show though they've been forced to suffer the fools in the Bush Administration.

I'd really like to see Chuck Hagel run the DoD.

***"JW,
I could argue that the statment about armies in the Constitution is just as nebulous. In fact I feel that there was no intent to have a standing army at all. But the fact remains that it is in the purview of the US government fund and administer welfare programs."
SALARYMAN***

How could you make that argument? It is an enumerated power, explicitly called for in the Constitution.

"To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;"

"To provide and maintain a Navy;"

I see no place in the Constitution that says the government shall feed, clothe, and shelter citizens. You should go back and read Jefferson's views on what he thought the government's role should be in people's everyday lives. I do believe the government has an obligation to provide for the indigent, but not to the standard we see today, and not the welfare state some intend. You say that your question has not been answered, but I'm still not sure what your real question is. If your asking if government funding of the military is constitutional, I say yes, it's spelled out in plain english. If you are asking (or saying) that "provide for the welfare of the United States" means the federal government is responsible for wiping every individual's ass everytime they take a shit in life, I say no, wipe your own ass.


Two words: General Welfare"

James Madison Jr., House of Representatives, February 1792:

I, sir, have always conceived--I believe those who proposed the Constitution conceived, and it is still more fully known, and more material to observe that those who ratified the Constitution conceived--that this is not an indefinite Government, deriving its power from the general terms prefixed to the specified powers, but a limited Government tied down to the specified powers which explain and define the general terms. The gentlemen who contend for a contrary doctrine are surely not aware of the consequences which flow from it, and which they must either admit or give up their doctrine.

It will follow, in the first place, that if the terms be taken in the broad sense they maintain the particular powers afterwards so carefully and distinctly enumerated would be without any meaning, and must go for nothing. It would be absurd to say, first, that Congress may do what they please, and then that they may do this or that particular thing; after giving Congress power to raise money, and apply it to all purposes which they may pronounce necessary to the general welfare, it would be absurd, to say the least, to super add a power to raise armies, to provide fleets, &c. In fact, the meaning of the general terms in question must either be sought in the subsequent enumeration which limits and details them, or they convert the Government from one limited, as hitherto supposed, to the enumerated powers, into a Government without any limits at all.

I shall be reminded, perhaps, that according to the terms of the Constitution, the Judicial Power is to extend to certain cases only not to all cases. But this circumstance can have no effect in the argument, it being presupposed by the gentlemen that the specification of certain objects does not limit the import of general terms. Taking these terms as an abstract and indefinite grant of power, they comprise all the objects of Legislative regulation as well such as fall under the Judiciary article in the Constitution, as these falling immediately under the Legislative article; and if the partial enumeration of objects in the Legislative article does not, as these gentlemen contend limit the general power, neither will it be limited by the partial enumeration of objects in the Judiciary article.

Here's the premonition. Madison was Nostradamus...

There are consequences, sir, still more extensive, which, as they follow clearly from the doctrine combated, must either be admitted, or the doctrine must be given up. If Congress can apply money indefinitely to the general welfare, and are the sole and supreme judges of the general welfare, they may take the care of religion into their own hands; they may establish teachers in every State, county, and parish, and pay them out of the public Treasury; they may take into their own hands the education of children establishing in like manner schools throughout the Union; they may undertake the regulation of all roads, other than post roads. In short, everything, from the highest object of State legislation, down to the most minute object of police, would be thrown under the power of Congress; for every object I have mentioned would admit the application of money, and might be called if Congress pleased provisions for the general welfare.

General Welfare - the abuse continues

In short, everything, from the highest object of State legislation, down to the most minute object of police, would be thrown under the power of Congress; for every object I have mentioned would admit the application of money, and might be called if Congress pleased provisions for the general welfare.

Thomas Jefferson:

"Our tenet ever was, and, indeed, it is almost the only landmark which now divides the federalists from the republicans, that Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but were to those specifically enumerated; and that, as it was never meant they should raise money for purposes which the enumeration did not place under their action; consequently, that the specification of powers is a limitation of the purposes for which they may raise money."

""But the government's explanation for 9/11 is the truth."

Link please! That, general, is the simple response. The slightly more complex one is that yes, a bunch of Saudi Arabians (Bush pals) crashed planes against the WTC, Pentagon and in in Pennsylvania field. They're now dead. They had no tie to Iraq or Afghanistan. The government doesn't even try to concoct any fictions more bizarre than that, general. So what part of the government's explanation for the Mideast war do you deem to be truth? herm

***"Link please! That, general, is the simple response. The slightly more complex one is that yes, a bunch of Saudi Arabians (Bush pals) crashed planes against the WTC, Pentagon and in in Pennsylvania field. They're now dead. They had no tie to Iraq or Afghanistan. The government doesn't even try to concoct any fictions more bizarre than that, general. So what part of the government's explanation for the Mideast war do you deem to be truth? herm"***

What are you talking about? Did you wander into the wrong thread? Don't worry HERM, Oliver Stone will solve this mystery for you.

"As I lie awake again wondering why we're In Iraq killing 800 Americans a year and lord knows how many Iraqis, I do become aware that every single reason Bushies gave us for that misbegotten adventure has been debunked: Not just no WMDs, but no Al Qaeda, no "terrorists," no link between that nation and the Saudis who died in that ill-fated 2001 protest. Nothing. Nada. Bush WANTED a war ..."

The 9/11 commission's investigation was thorough and all the evidence was considered.

Comments are closed for this entry.


Drudge Retort

Home | News | Comments | User Blogs | Nooner | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Copyright 2012 World Readable