Today the Senate voted to proceed with a budget plan should there be drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. They still have to officially authorize the drilling, but many perceive this as the crucial step. Close vote on the budget 49 to 51.

I'm emotionally disgusted by this horrible abomination of a budget plan.

See, this is my problem with this. Why is it up to the Senate to deide this in the first place? The question should only be up to the people of Alaska.

Don't they need 2/3rds, though?

And, no, there shouldn't. I'd rather have the government force everyone into buying hybrids and banning everything else outside of buses and trains than drill in Alaska just to protect the gas companies.

Democrats, stay firm. It'll only hurt you. If the oil industry gets more out of the drillings, it means more money for them which means bigger donations to the GOP.

How do you go on living day to day then? Seriously, look around you. If this is bad enough to make you feel emotionally disgusted, there'll be plenty to make you take the short-end of it...

America never ceases to amaze me.
"Omg Why does teh world hate us Paris Hilton?"
"Omg i dont knoooo lindsay lohan lets ask those little ugly birds trapped in the oil we accidentnatlly spilled!"
"Ooooooh ok, my breasts are fake btw"
"Omg mine too"
"OMG!"

Notes to self: Stay on topic. No more slowmoing lindsay lohan

Yes well you know instead of me writing my usual crock of righteous goodness lets just pretend i did it ok? Yes thats easier for me.

I think it's a bigger deal than that. This could have catastrophic effects on the Alaskan wildlife. I feel pretty strongly about this whole thing; their should *not* be oil drilling going on in Alaska.

It's nice and warming to see that the Democrats are still all about choice

How exactly do you say shut up in Russian, again?

Oh, I don't know if this is a bigger deal than the destruction of Brazil's and Africa's wildlife. Those are far more important. Not only do they contain a much greater amount of animal and plant species (unequalled in the world; thousands, if not millions of animal species are yet to be accounted for and named), but any damage caused will be harder to make up for, if ever.


Anyways, I've known this would happen for years; it's ceased to disgust me. American politics, in general, has ceased to disgust me. I just pity your grandchildren.

Its not about choice krem, its about encouragement. I know you don't like taxation at all, but as it stands, we could chose to at least not give tax rebates to purchasers of hummers eh? As far as selection, I don't think its up to Alasksa. These are not individual countires, they are the 50 united states, that means some decisions about what happens within their borders are of national concern. Now that I've established I think it should be up to the federal government to decide (I don't mean that in a harsh way, I'm just saying that I do think the federal should decide) I think it would be interesting to hear the arguements. Strapped for cash? Massachusettes tried to open up its first casino to fund repair and maintenance of the Mass Pike. In return for authorizing its construction, permission, setting up an easy exit ramp for it, etc, it would get part of the revenue. There are plenty of other alternatives to this, which is irriversable, not just as far as envirnment put employment forms and how these regions will be industrialized.

American politics is boring. Try and follow, say, Italian politics, that ought spice up your life.

Good thing I'm not having any! \:D/

As to Brazil and Africa, yes, but we don't legislate over there, so its different. We should however be finding ways to encourage those respective governments to stop deforestation. Lovely little things like setting international environmental standards that, you know, we actually endorse by signing ourselves to them.

This is what makes me "emotionally disgusted".

Yes, I know situations in Brazil and Africa are not so hot right now with regards to the wildlife.

But, just look at that. All because of profit-driven oil.

It's not about cash, it IS about choice. Look, if we start drilling in Alaska, we will have greater supply of oil. More oil = lower costs for consumers. When companies can save, they spend more money on R&D. More R&D = quicker transitioning towards VIABLE alternative fuel options. There is reason why a disproportionate amount of research is taking place in the U.S. and not in poorer countries.

Italian politics is....yeah.


I have this terribly slanted image of Italy. See, my admiration for Dante and Michelangelo makes me forget for a second just how exceptional they are, and how rotten Italian politics is. Italy...has never quite lived up to the genius it has given birth to. France has had it much easier. You see, they never had the kind of genius that required them as a whole to live up to, exempting Descartes :razz:.

By the way, there is no provision in the constitution (except for the catch-all "interstate commerce", which the Congress applies to everything) that authorizes the federal government to protect the wildlife. That's why it should be up to the state of Alaksa.

I would never eat at that restaurant.

No love for Voltaire, eh?

By "finding ways to encourage" do you mean "give them money"?

Its very easy to blame America for this.
Because as a society who guzzles the same oil - we are entitled to calling the bigger guzzlers the culprits.

So yes, All Americas fault.

Again.

I think they should make "fatty powered" cars where people "burn" fat for engine gumption - then people could refuel at McDonalds.

So you are protesting all chinese restaurants? Thats our secret ingrediant for roasted duck

No, it's Canada's fault!

Ya, no grandkids for me either. I don't want them to live in a world like this.

Em, international standards won't work. Why? Because you're basically forming an oligarchy.

And what do we know about oligarchies?

If one member refuses to cooperate, it will crumble. Like OPEC, what with their members secretly pumping oil on the side and somesuch.

If deforestation and other economic activities that are hazardous to the environment prove to be economically beneficient, then it will continue. The key is either to discourage consumers from buying the products, or introduce an alternative.

In that regard, America, more than any other country, can affect change. Actually, I think it's the only one big enough to do so. China you can write-off; they'll take anything right now.