Tuesday, July 2, 2013

Megyn Kelly Moving to Primetime at Fox News

TVNEWSER ^ | July 2 | Merrill Knox

Megyn Kelly is moving to primetime for Fox News Channel, the network announced this afternoon. But to which hour, is not known. Since 2010, Kelly has anchored the two-hour afternoon show “America Live.”
“Megyn is an exceptional talent who has successfully filled and surpassed each role we have given her at the network,” Fox News chairman and CEO Roger Ailes said in a statement. “Her ability to command the screen, delve into the facts and lead a debate is what makes her one of the most sought-after anchors in the business.”
Kelly signed a new contract with Fox News in May. Last fall, before negotiations got underway, Ailes told TVNewser, “We have a great relationship. Eventually, we’d love her to stay here and be even a bigger star.”
“Roger Ailes hired me nine years ago when I was new to this business and he had little other than instinct to suggest it might work out,” Kelly says. “I was grateful to him then, remain so today, and am excited for this next opportunity.”
The move is scheduled to happen after Kelly returns from maternity leave. But it was not announced, and it is not immediately clear, which primetime hour Kelly will anchor. Primetime in cable news typically means 8-11pm. Fox News Channel’s top two shows are O’Reilly at 8pm and Hannity at 9pm. “On the Record with Greta Van Susteren” at 10pm just finished the second quarter as the sixth-most watched show on Fox News,
The network also announced that it has signed long-term deals with Van Susteren, as well as with Bret Baier, Shepard Smith, Bill O’Reilly and Sean Hannity. Adding intrigue into what may come next, Mediaite reported that “earlier this spring” Van Susteren met with CNN chief Jeff Zucker “inquiring about a potential return to CNN.”

(Excerpt) Read more at mediabistro.com ...


Unclean at Any Speed, Electric cars don’t solve the automobile’s environmental problems!

IEEE Spectrum ^ | 30 Jun 2013 | Ozzie Zehner

Last summer, California highway police pulled over pop star Justin Bieber as he sped through Los Angeles in an attempt to shake the paparazzi. He was driving a hybrid electric car—not just any hybrid, mind you, but a chrome-plated Fisker Karma, a US $100 000 plug-in hybrid sports sedan he’d received as an 18th-birthday gift from his manager, Scooter Braun, and fellow singer Usher. During an on-camera surprise presentation, Braun remarked, “We wanted to make sure, since you love cars, that when you are on the road you are always looking environmentally friendly, and we decided to get you a car that would make you stand out a little bit.” Mission accomplished.

Bieber joins a growing list of celebrities, environmentalists, and politicians who are leveraging electric cars into green credentials. President Obama once dared to envision 1 million electric cars plying U.S. roads by 2015. London’s mayor, Boris Johnson, vibrated to the press over his born-again electric conversion after driving a Tesla Roadster, marveling how the American sports coupe produced “no more noxious vapours than a dandelion in an alpine meadow.” Meanwhile, environmentalists who once stood entirely against the proliferation of automobiles now champion subsidies for companies selling electric cars and tax credits for people buying them.
Two dozen governments around the world subsidize the purchase of electric vehicles. In Canada, for example, the governments of Ontario and Quebec pay drivers up to C $8500 to drive an electric car. The United Kingdom offers a £5000 Plug-in Car Grant. And the U.S. federal government provides up to $7500 in tax credits for people who buy plug-in electric vehicles, even though many of them are affluent enough not to need such help. (The average Chevy Volt owner, for example, has an income of $170 000 per year.)
Some states offer additional tax incentives. California brings the total credit up to $10 000, and Colorado to $13 500—more than the base price of a brand new Ford Fiesta. West Virginia offers the sweetest deal. The state’s mining interests are salivating at the possibility of shifting automotive transportation from petroleum over to coal. Residents can receive a total credit of up to $15 000 for an electric-car purchase and up to $10 000 toward the cost of a personal charging station.
There are other perks. Ten U.S. states open the high-occupancy lanes of their highways to electric cars, even if the car carries a lone driver. Numerous stores offer VIP parking for electric vehicles—and sometimes a free fill-up of electrons. Mayor Johnson even moved to relieve electric-car owners of the burden of London’s famed congestion fee.
Alas, these carrots can’t overcome the reality that the prices of electric cars are still very high—a reflection of the substantial material and fossil-fuel costs that accrue to the companies constructing them. And some taxpayers understandably feel cheated that these subsidies tend to go to the very rich. Amid all the hype and hyperbole, it’s time to look behind the curtain. Are electric cars really so green?
The idea of electrifying automobiles to get around their environmental shortcomings isn’t new. Twenty years ago, I myself built a hybrid electric car that could be plugged in or run on natural gas. It wasn’t very fast, and I’m pretty sure it wasn’t safe. But I was convinced that cars like mine would help reduce both pollution and fossil-fuel dependence.
I was wrong.
I’ve come to this conclusion after many years of studying environmental issues more deeply and taking note of some important questions we need to ask ourselves as concerned citizens. Mine is an unpopular stance, to be sure. The suggestive power of electric cars is a persuasive force—so persuasive that answering the seemingly simple question “Are electric cars indeed green?” quickly gets complicated.
As with most anything else, the answer depends on whom you ask. Dozens of think tanks and scientific organizations have ventured conclusions about the environmental friendliness of electric vehicles. Most are supportive, but a few are critical. For instance, Richard Pike of the Royal Society of Chemistry provocatively determined that electric cars, if widely adopted, stood to lower Britain’s carbon dioxide emissions by just 2 percent, given the U.K.’s electricity sources. Last year, a U.S. Congressional Budget Office study found that electric car subsidies “will result in little or no reduction in the total gasoline use and greenhouse-gas emissions of the nation’s vehicle fleet over the next several years.”
Others are more supportive, including the Union of Concerned Scientists. Its 2012 report [PDF] on the issue, titled “State of Charge,” notes that charging electric cars yields less CO2 than even the most efficient gasoline vehicles. The report’s senior editor, engineer Don Anair, concludes: “We are at a good point to clean up the grid and move to electric vehicles.”
Why is the assessment so mixed? Ultimately, it’s because this is not just about science. It’s about values, which inevitably shape what questions the researchers ask as well as what they choose to count and what they don’t. That’s true for many kinds of research, of course, but for electric cars, bias abounds, although it’s often not obvious to the casual observer.
To get a sense of how biases creep in, first follow the money. Most academic programs carrying out electric-car research receive funding from the auto industry. For instance, the Plug-in Hybrid and Electric Vehicle Research Center at the University of California, Davis, which describes itself as the “hub of collaboration and research on plug-in hybrid and electric vehicles for the State of California,” acknowledges on its website partnerships with BMW, Chrysler-Fiat, and Nissan, all of which are selling or developing electric and hybrid models. Stanford’s Global Climate & Energy Project, which publishes research on electric vehicles, has received more than $113 million from four firms: ExxonMobil, General Electric, Schlumberger, and Toyota. Georgetown University, MIT, the universities of Colorado, Delaware, and Michigan, and numerous other schools also accept corporate sponsorship for their electric-vehicle research.
I’m not suggesting that corporate sponsorship automatically leads people to massage their research data. But it can shape findings in more subtle ways. For one, it influences which studies get done and therefore which ones eventually receive media attention. After all, companies direct money to researchers who are asking the kinds of questions that stand to benefit their industry. An academic who is studying, say, car-free communities is less likely to receive corporate funding than a colleague who is engineering vehicle-charging stations.
Many of the researchers crafting electric-vehicle studies are eager proponents of the technology. An electric-vehicle report from Indiana University’s School of Environmental Affairs, for instance, was led by a former vice president of Ford. It reads like a set of public relations talking points and contains advertising recommendations for the electric-car industry (that it should manage customers’ expectations, to avoid a backlash from excessive claims). Even the esteemed Union of Concerned Scientists clad its electric-car report in romantic marketing imagery courtesy of Ford, General Motors, and Nissan, companies whose products it evaluates. Indeed, it’s very difficult to find researchers who are looking at the environmental merits of electric cars with a disinterested eye.
So how do you gauge the environmental effects of electric cars when the experts writing about them all seem to be unquestioned car enthusiasts? It’s tough. Another impediment to evaluating electric cars is that it’s difficult to compare the various vehicle-fueling options. It’s relatively easy to calculate the amount of energy required to charge a vehicle’s battery. It isn’t so straightforward, however, to compare a battery that’s been charged by electricity from a natural-gas-fired power plant with one that’s been charged using nuclear power. Natural gas requires burning, it produces CO2, and it often demands environmentally problematic methods to release it from the ground. Nuclear power yields hard-to-store wastes as well as proliferation and fallout risks. There’s no clear-cut way to compare those impacts. Focusing only on greenhouse gases, however important, misses much of the picture.
Manufacturers and marketing agencies exploit the fact that every power source carries its own unique portfolio of side effects to create the terms of discussion that best suit their needs. Electric-car makers like to point out, for instance, that their vehicles can be charged from renewable sources, such as solar energy. Even if that were possible to do on a large scale, manufacturing the vast number of photovoltaic cells required would have venomous side effects. Solar cells contain heavy metals, and their manufacturing releases greenhouse gases such as sulfur hexafluoride, which has 23 000 times as much global warming potential as CO2, according to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. What’s more, fossil fuels are burned in the extraction of the raw materials needed to make solar cells and wind turbines—and for their fabrication, assembly, and maintenance. The same is true for the redundant backup power plants they require. And even more fossil fuel is burned when all this equipment is decommissioned. Electric-car proponents eagerly embrace renewable energy as a scheme to power their machines, but they conveniently ignore the associated environmental repercussions.
Finally, most electric-car assessments analyze only the charging of the car. This is an important factor indeed. But a more rigorous analysis would consider the environmental impacts over the vehicle’s entire life cycle, from its construction through its operation and on to its eventual retirement at the junkyard.
One study attempted to paint a complete picture. Published by the National Academies in 2010 and overseen by two dozen of the United States’ leading scientists, it is perhaps the most comprehensive account of electric-car effects to date. Its findings are sobering.
It’s worth noting that this investigation was commissioned by the U.S. Congress and therefore funded entirely with public, not corporate, money. As with many earlier studies, it found that operating an electric car was less damaging than refueling a gasoline-powered one. It isn’t that simple, however, according to Maureen Cropper, the report committee’s vice chair and a professor of economics at the University of Maryland. “Whether we are talking about a conventional gasoline-powered automobile, an electric vehicle, or a hybrid, most of the damages are actually coming from stages other than just the driving of the vehicle,” she points out.
Part of the impact arises from manufacturing. Because battery packs are heavy (the battery accounts for more than a third of the weight of the Tesla Roadster, for example), manufacturers work to lighten the rest of the vehicle. As a result, electric car components contain many lightweight materials that are energy intensive to produce and process—carbon composites and aluminum in particular. Electric motors and batteries add to the energy of electric-car manufacture.
In addition, the magnets in the motors of some electric vehicles contain rare earth metals. Curiously, these metals are not as rare as their name might suggest. They are, however, sprinkled thinly across the globe, making their extraction uneconomical in most places. In a study released last year, a group of MIT researchers calculated that global mining of two rare earth metals, neodymium and dysprosium, would need to increase 700 percent and 2600 percent, respectively, over the next 25 years to keep pace with various green-tech plans. Complicating matters is the fact that China, the world’s leading producer of rare earths, has been attempting to restrict its exports of late. Substitute strategies exist, but deploying them introduces trade-offs in efficiency or cost.
The materials used in batteries are no less burdensome to the environment, the MIT study noted. Compounds such as lithium, copper, and nickel must be coaxed from the earth and processed in ways that demand energy and can release toxic wastes. And in regions with poor regulations, mineral extraction can extend risks beyond just the workers directly involved. Surrounding populations may be exposed to toxic substances through air and groundwater contamination.
At the end of their useful lives, batteries can also pose a problem. If recycled properly, the compounds are rather benign—although not something you’d want to spread on a bagel. But handled improperly, disposed batteries can release toxic chemicals. Such factors are difficult to measure, though, which is why they are often left out of studies on electric-car impacts.
The National Academies’ assessment didn’t ignore those difficult-to-measure realities. It drew together the effects of vehicle construction, fuel extraction, refining, emissions, and other factors. In a gut punch to electric-car advocates, it concluded that the vehicles’ lifetime health and environmental damages (excluding long-term climatic effects) are actually greater than those of gasoline-powered cars. Indeed, the study found that an electric car is likely worse than a car fueled exclusively by gasoline derived from Canadian tar sands!
As for greenhouse-gas emissions and their influence on future climate, the researchers didn’t ignore those either. The investigators, like many others who have probed this issue, found that electric vehicles generally produce fewer of these emissions than their gasoline- or diesel-fueled counterparts—but only marginally so when full life-cycle effects are accounted for. The lifetime difference in greenhouse-gas emissions between vehicles powered by batteries and those powered by low-sulfur diesel, for example, was hardly discernible.
The National Academies’ study stood out for its comprehensiveness, but it’s not the only one to make such grim assessments. A Norwegian study published last October in the Journal of Industrial Ecology compared life-cycle impacts of electric vehicles. The researchers considered acid rain, airborne particulates, water pollution, smog, and toxicity to humans, as well as depletion of fossil fuel and mineral resources. According to coauthor Anders Stromman, “electric vehicles consistently perform worse or on par with modern internal combustion engine vehicles, despite virtually zero direct emissions during operation.”
Earlier last year, investigators from the University of Tennessee studied five vehicle types in 34 Chinese cities and came to a similar conclusion. These researchers focused on health impacts from emissions and particulate matter such as airborne acids, organic chemicals, metals, and dust particles. For a conventional vehicle, these are worst in urban areas, whereas the emissions associated with electric vehicles are concentrated in the less populated regions surrounding China’s mostly coal-fired power stations. Even when this difference of exposure was taken into account, however, the total negative health consequences of electric vehicles in China exceeded those of conventional vehicles.
North American power station emissions also largely occur outside of urban areas, as do the damaging consequences of nuclear- and fossil-fuel extraction. And that leads to some critical questions. Do electric cars simply move pollution from upper-middle-class communities in Beverly Hills and Virginia Beach to poor communities in the backwaters of West Virginia and the nation’s industrial exurbs? Are electric cars a sleight of hand that allows peace of mind for those who are already comfortable at the expense of intensifying asthma, heart problems, and radiation risks among the poor and politically disconnected?
The hope, of course, is that electric-car technology and power grids will improve and become cleaner over time. Modern electric-car technology is still quite young, so it should get much better. But don’t expect batteries, solar cells, and other clean-energy technologies to ride a Moore’s Law–like curve of exponential development. Rather, they’ll experience asymptotic growth toward some ultimate efficiency ceiling. When the National Academies researchers projected technology advancements and improvement to the U.S. electrical grid out to 2030, they still found no benefit to driving an electric vehicle.
If those estimates are correct, the sorcery surrounding electric cars stands to worsen public health and the environment rather than the intended opposite. But even if the researchers are wrong, there is a more fundamental illusion at work on the electric-car stage.
All of the aforementioned studies compare electric vehicles with petroleum-powered ones. In doing so, their findings draw attention away from the broad array of transportation options available—such as walking, bicycling, and using mass transit.
There’s no doubt that gasoline- and diesel-fueled cars are expensive and dirty. Road accidents kill tens of thousands of people annually in the United States alone and injure countless more. Using these kinds of vehicles as a standard against which to judge another technology sets a remarkably low bar. Even if electric cars someday clear that bar, how will they stack up against other alternatives?
For instance, if policymakers wish to reduce urban smog, they might note that vehicle pollution follows the Pareto principle, or 80-20 rule. Some 80 percent of tailpipe pollutants flow from just 20 percent of vehicles on the road—those with incomplete combustion. Using engineering and remote monitoring stations, communities could identify those cars and force them into the shop. That would be far less expensive and more effective than subsidizing a fleet of electric cars.
If legislators truly wish to reduce fossil-fuel dependence, they could prioritize the transition to pedestrian- and bike-friendly neighborhoods. That won’t be easy everywhere—even less so where the focus is on electric cars. Studies from the National Academies point to better land-use planning to reduce suburban sprawl and, most important, fuel taxes to reduce petroleum dependence. Following that prescription would solve many problems that a proliferation of electric cars could not begin to address—including automotive injuries, deaths, and the frustrations of being stuck in traffic.
Upon closer consideration, moving from petroleum-fueled vehicles to electric cars begins to look more and more like shifting from one brand of cigarettes to another. We wouldn’t expect doctors to endorse such a thing. Should environmentally minded people really revere electric cars? Perhaps we should look beyond the shiny gadgets now being offered and revisit some less sexy but potent options—smog reduction, bike lanes, energy taxes, and land-use changes to start. Let’s not be seduced by high-tech illusions.

Obama's Email Full of Lies in Response to My Email Opposing the Immigration Bill.

White House email 

The White House, Washington

Dear XXX:

Thank you for writing. I have heard from many Americans who are concerned about immigration, and I appreciate your perspective.
Americans are frustrated with our Nation’s broken immigration system, and I share that frustration. We need an immigration system that is fair and helps grow the middle class by ensuring everyone plays by the same rules. That is why I have proposed a commonsense plan that would continue to strengthen our borders; crack down on employers who knowingly hire undocumented workers; create a path to earned citizenship for immigrants here illegally that requires them to pay taxes, learn English, and pay a fine; and streamline the legal immigration system so America can continue to be a magnet for the best and the brightest from around the world. That is how we can reaffirm our heritage as both a Nation of immigrants and a Nation of laws.
To make these fixes, we need Congress to act—and I remain deeply committed to working in a bipartisan way to enact commonsense immigration reform. But until they take action, my Administration will continue to do everything we can to strengthen our borders and enforce the law.
Since I took office, we have invested an unprecedented amount of resources, technology, and manpower to secure our borders. Our efforts are producing real results. Today, our Southern border is more secure than ever, with more law enforcement personnel than at any time in American history—and there are fewer illegal crossings now than at any time in the past 40 years. Crime rates along the border are down, and we have seized more illegal guns, cash, and drugs than in years past. In addition to doing what is necessary to secure our borders, my Administration is implementing a smart, effective immigration enforcement policy that includes taking action against employers who knowingly exploit people and break the law.
Smarter enforcement also includes focusing our resources on high-priority individuals who threaten our national security or pose a threat to the safety of American communities, and not on young people who were brought to this country as children through no fault of their own. On June 15, 2012, the Department of Homeland Security announced it would allow eligible young people who do not present a risk to our national security or public safety to apply for temporary relief from deportation proceedings and apply for work authorization. This is not a path to citizenship, and it is not a permanent fix—only Congress can provide that. It is a temporary measure to allow us to focus our resources wisely while giving a degree of relief and hope to talented, driven, and patriotic young people who are American in every way but on paper.
My Administration has also worked to strengthen, streamline, and update our legal immigration system through administrative reforms—making it easier for employers, immigrants, and families to navigate the system. Through the innovative “Entrepreneurs in Residence” initiative, we are gaining insight into business realities and streamlining existing pathways for highly skilled, foreign-born entrepreneurs to create businesses and jobs in our country. In 2012, I issued an Executive Order to make it easier and safer for international travelers to visit America, and to create a national strategy to better reap the economic benefits of travel and tourism. We have worked to support family unity by providing a provisional waiver for certain American families to reduce the length of time United States citizens are separated from their loved ones during the immigrant visa application process. We have also reduced barriers to citizenship by creating tools to help applicants through the naturalization process.
By creating a 21st-century immigration system that is true to our principles, our Nation will remain a land of opportunity, prosperity, and freedom for all. To learn more about my Administration’s plan for immigration reform, please visit www.WhiteHouse.gov/Immigration. For additional information and resources on current immigration and enforcement efforts, I encourage you to visit www.DHS.gov or call 1-800-375-5283.
Thank you, again, for writing.
Barack Obama

Washington Post: So, sequestration actually hasn’t been hell on earth! (at least not for Obama)

Hotair ^ | 07/02/2013 | Guy Benson

I thought I’d re-up this story from the headlines. White House fear-mongerers hardest hit:
Before “sequestration” took effect, the Obama administration issued specific — and alarming — predictions about what it would bring. There would be one-hour waits at airport security. Four-hour waits at border crossings. Prison guards would be furloughed for 12 days. FBI agents, up to 14. At the Pentagon, the military health program would be unable to pay its bills for service members. The mayhem would extend even into the pantries of the neediest Americans: Around the country, 600,000 low-income women and children would be denied federal food aid. But none of those things happened. Sequestration did hit, on March 1. And since then, the $85 billion budget cut has caused real reductions in many federal programs that people depend on. But it has not produced what the Obama administration predicted: widespread breakdowns in crucial government services.
The Washington Post recently checked 48 of those dire predictions about sequestration’s impact. Just 11 have come true…In some cases, politicians transferred cuts from high-value programs to lower-value ones. Employee travel was limited. Maintenance deferred. But in other cases, they found “cuts” that didn’t cause much real-world pain. The Justice Department, for instance, prevented furloughs by “cutting” $300 million in money that had already legally expired, as well as $45 million meant to house detainees who didn’t exist. This is why the sky didn’t fall. Sequestration was intended to show there was no longer any escape from austerity in Washington. There was.
Lessons: (1) The dire predictions were false, and (2) Washington politicians — even liberal ones — really can find waste and fat to trim when push comes to shove. Contrast this reality with the alarmist forecasts of imminent meltdown the White House peddled for weeks in advance of the miniscule spending reductions. Those “cuts,” incidentally, took effect four months ago yesterday. The zombie apocalypse should be arriving any minute now. But if it doesn’t, perhaps our massively in debt federal government could survive another haircut or two — and withstand some longer-term reforms while we’re at it.

Plea Entered Not Guilty in Trial of Fort Hood Jihadi Nidal Hasan

Atas Shrugs ^ | 7/2/2013 | Pamela Geller

According to quranic teachings, he is not guilty. Hasan continues to make a mockery of our legal system.
Nidal Hasan Back in Court to Enter Pleas KCEN TV, Jul 02, 2013 (KCEN) -- The accused Fort Hood shooter Nidal Hasan was back in court today to enter his pleas. He refused to enter his pleas and requested three more days, because an attorney has offered to represent him. Hasan wanted that time to decide on the new attorney.
The judge said the request was "untimely" and called it an obstruction to the administration of the court martial. The military judge entered a not-guilty plea for the devout Muslim Army psychiatrist charged in the deadly 2009 Fort Hood jihad that resulted in the wholesale slaughter of 13 Americans. Hasan screamed "allahu akbar" while mowing down our troops.
Under military law, a death penalty case requires a plea of not guilty.
Jury selection is set to start July 9, with testimony to start in August.
(Excerpt) Read more at atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com ...

President Hillary? After All That? Good Grief!

The New Terrapin Gazette ^ 

Failure as secretary of state should automatically disqualify one for the office of president. President of pretty much anything.

So the female who told General Petraeus he certainly appeared to be lying, the nutty oratrix who put on a disgraceful accent for a black audience, the harridan who exploded when asked hard questions about her mismanagement of her secretariat, and the woman who offended the sensibilities of millions of Mexicans with her ignorant lack of tact will now have to cope with yet more facts about the unnecessary tragedy that cost four US civil servants their lives.

One would think Hillary’s burden of guilt would be crippling — but no, the woman who could not place blame where it belonged when betrayed by her eternal adolescent of a faux husband intends to press on. Pity her, pity her daughter, and pity the nation that makes the mistake of following her into the Slough of Despond.

(Excerpt) Read more at newterrapingazette.com ...

Former Mexican official: Immigrants will become Mexico’s burden if US does not take more!

The Daily Caller ^ | July 1, 2013 | Elizabeth Dorton

A former Mexican cabinet member says the U.S. should accept more low-skill migrants from Central America, because otherwise the migrants would stay in Mexico.
If they can’t get into the United States, “they’re going to stay in Mexico, creating a burden for us that we have to carry,” Jorge Castañeda said on “Al Punto,” a Spanish-language show on Univision.
“I think Mexico should raise its voice much more clearly and forcefully to say that if the United States wants a wall, it needs to have more doors in this wall, with more bells at these doors so that Mexicans and Central Americans can enter the United States with papers,” he said, as translated.
He criticized the items in the bill meant to address border security, as well as concern to the number of temporary work visas the bill will create, which he believes to be too small.
The Center for Immigration Studies reports that Castañeda criticized the Mexican government for being too passive when discussing the bill with the United States, out of respect for not becoming involved in foreign affairs.....
(Excerpt) Read more at dailycaller.com ...

Harvard has a new US Shale Oil Study forecasts US as world number one oil producer!

Next Big Future ^ | July 02, 2013

July 02, 2013 Harvard has a new US Shale Oil Study forecasts US as world number one oil producer with 16 million barrels per day of all liquid oil in 2017 Email ThisBlogThis!Share to TwitterShare to Facebook In a paper titled “The Shale Oil Boom: A U.S. Phenomenon,” [64 pages] Maugeri wrote that the unique characteristics of shale oil production are ideal for the United States -- and unlikely to be mirrored elsewhere in the world. These factors include the availability of drilling rigs, and the entrepreneurial nature of the American exploration and production industry, both critical for the thousands of wells required for shale oil exploitation.
Maugeri, author of a 2012 report forecasting rapid growth of global oil production and belying the notion that oil output has “peaked,” argues in his new paper that the boom in U.S. shale oil production is central to the overall U.S. oil surge. If oil prices remain close to today’s levels, total U.S. production of all forms of oil [all liquids includes natural gas liquids and ethanol] could grow from 11.3 million barrels per day to 16 million barrels per day by 2017.
The dramatic surge in U.S. shale oil production could more than triple the current American output of shale oil to five million barrels a day by 2017, which would likely make the United States the No. 1 oil producer in the world, according to the new study by researcher Maugeri at Harvard Kennedy School.
NOTE - The United States is already the world's number one oil producer in terms of all liquid oil production.
The shale oil counts as crude oil so 10.4 million bpd would put the US as the number one crude oil producer in the world in 2017 unless there is increased production from Russia and/or Saudi Arabia. Updated EIA oil production comparison between USA, Russia and Saudi Arabia is here.
He used a possible best-case scenario encompassing a West Texas Intermediate (WTI) price of $85 per barrel in 2013, $80 per barrel in 2014, $75 in 2016, and $65 long term, along with an 8 percent per-well cost reduction per year through 2017 (that is consistent with what is already happening across the shale industry), and the progressive easing of the transportation problems that now imply significant price discounts for most of U.S. shale crude oils. My projection of the total U.S. oil potential also assumes that, from 2013 to 2017, more than 6,000 new oil producing wells are brought online annually in the shale/tight oil arena alone
Maugeri said the number of American shale oil wells in North Dakota and Texas could soar from the current 10,000 to more than 100,000 working wells by 2030. He said steady improvements in technology and cost would continue to drive industry growth in the shale oil fields in the Dakotas and Texas.
The United States holds more than 60 percent of global drilling rigs, and 95 percent of American rigs can perform horizontal drilling, which along with hydraulic fracturing (“fracking”), is necessary to exploit shale oil.
Some Details
He estimates of recoverable oil reserves from Bakken-Three Forks is about 45 billion barrels.
Given the oil price scenario he used for this study, he assumed that if the number of Bakken’s new producing wells increases progressively by 12–20 percent a year from 2013 on, the play may reach a crude oil production of 1.8 mbd by 2017.
Given the oil price scenario he used for this study, he assumed that if the number of Eagle Ford’s new producing wells increases progressively by 15–25 percent a year from 2013 on, this shale formation could reach a crude oil production of 1.5 mbd by 2017.
He assumed that, from 2014 on, the number of new producing wells would increase by 25 percent a year, allowing the Permian Basin shale crude oil production to exceed 1.3 mbd by 2017.
Considering the scarce data available for all U.S. shale oil plays other than the Big Three, he could not model the evolution of their future liquids production.
However, according to a probabilistic method (with a ±50 percent probability ratio of production, based on yet-to-find discoveries) assuming a number of new producing wells per year growing from 200 to 1,000 in 2017, with an average production of 30,000 b/d of crude oil during the first 12 months, he projected a cumulative crude oil production from all other U.S. shale oil plays of 400,000 crude oil b/d by 2017. This could be a highly conservative estimate, but in the absence of more reliable data, it is not possible to go beyond that hypothetical assumption.
Winners and Losers
The US will have less oil imports if this happens. Coal usage will be a loser, but more coal will be exported. Ethanol and biofuel liquid growth will be flat or negative.

Roseanne Barr Says 'Arm All Teens,' Wishes Trayvon Martin Shot George Zimmerman First!

Breitbart's Big Hollywood ^ | July 1, 2013

The prosecution has been having a hard time so far in case against George Zimmerman, the man who shot teen Trayvon Martin during a heated exchange in Sanford, FL last year.
Roseanne Barr long ago decided the case on her own, and now she's wishing Trayvon had shot and killed Zimmerman first.
"Arm all teen-agers," the socialist sitcom star says in one of many tweets today on the subject.
too bad trayvon was unnarmed, or GZ would be the dead one. ARM ALL TEENAGERS!
The comedian stands to the far left on most issues but is a Second Amendment advocate.
Barr, who has struggled with weight issues for decades, also called Zimmerman, who has gained significant weight since the day of the shooting, "a big fat @$$ed person."
(Excerpt) Read more at breitbart.com ...

Civil war veterans at Gettysburg anniversary in 1913 – in pictures

Here's What Happens If You Don't Sign Up For Obamacare (Sorting out the confusion)

Business Insider ^ | 07/02/2013 | MANDI WOODRUFF

We're months away from cutting the ribbon on the new online marketplace for health insurance, but the vast majority of uninsured Americans — the very people the Affordable Care Act is meant to help — still have no idea whether they'll be in the shopping mood or not.
According to a recent survey, nearly two-thirds of uninsured Americans say they haven't decided whether or not they'll buy health insurance by the Jan. 1, 2014 deadline (even though they'll have to pay a penalty if they don't).
Another 10% say they flat out won't buy in at all.
We understand the hesitation. Change is hard enough when it's simple to understand, let alone when it has to do with things like insurance, health care policy, and your own financial and personal well-being.
"People just don't understand how this is going to affect their wallet, what prices are going to be and what this could really cost them," said Laura Adams, InsuranceQuotes.com senior insurance analyst.
Here's what you need to know:
1) What is this new health care exchange all about?
The health care exchange (aka The Marketplace) is the centerpiece of the Affordable Care Act, an online marketplace where consumers can shop around for health care plans, just like auto insurance. All 50 states will have their own marketplaces, some of which will be run by the federal government and some of which will be run by individual states.
Delays notwithstanding, the marketplace opens on Oct. 1, 2013 and people will have until Jan 1, 2014 to pick up a policy if they want to escape penalties. There, you'll be able to choose from four different varieties of plans, platinum (highest benefits), gold, silver, and bronze (lowest benefits).
(Excerpt) Read more at businessinsider.com ...

This German Woman Has Been Living Without Money For 16 Years (Here's how she did it...)

Business Insider ^ | 07/02/2013 | MANDI WOODRUFF

As we edge closer to a cashless society, some consumers are quietly challenging the idea of money in the first place––by giving it up completely.
Daniel Suelo, 50, traded his nine-to-five for dumpster diving and a cozy cave in Utah's canyonlands back in 2000.
But even before Suelo, there was Germany native Heidemarie Schwermer. In her early 50s, Schwermer decided to see what it'd be like to leave her cushy job as a psychotherapist and live money-free, a journey that's been documented in the film "Living Without Money."
Sixteen years later, she hasn't looked back. Schwermer, now pushing 70, recently took a pause during her stay in Hamelin, Germany to chat with Business Insider about why she decided to leave everything behind.
WWII refugees, Schwermer's family fled from Prussia to Germany in the 1940s. Her father had owned a successful coffee roastery and kept a nanny and full-time gardener on his payroll. "We were well-off but ended up as riff-raff," she says. "Then we became rich again and (we) had to defend it. I've always had to justify myself, whether we were rich or poor."
Throughout her life, she became fascinated with finding ways to live without money. A former teacher and psychotherapist, Schwermer formed Germany's first exchange circle, "Give And Take Central" in 1994. The group helped locals exchange simple services like babysitting or house cleaning for tangible goods. "I noticed that I needed money less and less," she told Business Insider. "And so I thought, I can try to live one year without money."
Schwermer attempted to live without money at least four times, she says, but it wasn't until a friend asked her to house sit for three months that she finally took the plunge. "I said, 'The time is right. Now I'll do it.'
(Excerpt) Read more at businessinsider.com ...


Wall Street Journal ^ | 01 July 2013

If you think the federal student-loan program looks like a bad deal for taxpayers, imagine how it would look with honest accounting. And now you don't need to imagine thanks to a new report that's receiving far too little attention. Turns out that the official "savings" for taxpayers of $184 billion over the next decade really add up to $95 billion in losses.
Here's the scam: Lawmakers peddle what is a massive subsidy for universities while claiming that student loans generate a windfall for the taxpayer. This phony windfall is conjured by creative accounting that politicians mandated via the Federal Credit Reform Act of 1990. Specifically, the law requires a deliberate under-counting of the cost of defaults.
This is partly how a Democratic Congress and President Obama managed to enact ObamaCare in 2010 while claiming that their big entitlement expansion would reduce costs. The health plan was paired with legislation that made the U.S. Department of Education the originator of roughly 90% of all student loans, which in turn generated billions in imaginary budget "savings."
To its credit, the Congressional Budget Office has noted on various occasions that while the law forces it to use this Beltway math, CBO knows it's not accurate under fair-value accounting. And in a new report on the costs of student loans made in the decade ending in 2023, CBO quantifies the size of this discrepancy at $279 billion. CBO adds with its typically wry understatement that Washington's mandated accounting method "does not consider some costs borne by the government."
(Excerpt) Read more at online.wsj.com ...

Obama and the crumbling of a liberal fantasy hero

Financial Times ^ | July 1, 2013 | Gideon Rachman

It has taken a long time, but the world’s fantasies about Barack Obama are finally crumbling. In Europe, once the headquarters of the global cult of Obama, the disillusionment is particularly bitter. Monday’s newspapers were full of savage quotes about the perfidy of the Obama-led US.

It is not entirely Mr Obama’s fault that he became the vessel into which liberals all over the world poured their fantasies. Of course, like any politician, he pumped up expectations when running for office.
(Excerpt) Read more at ft.com ...

The Exception




Kiss my ring!




Oh Look...


Supports Working Class




My Dream!


Not Done Lying Yet!




No Welfare


Scandal Soup


Craven Waterboy Media Attempts to Sweep Egyptian Anti-Obama Protest Pics Under the Rug...

Reaganite Republican ^ | 02 July 2013 | Reaganite Republican

Such images from 'largest protest in human history' (17 million!)
against dubious Muslim Brotherhood regime not newsworthy?

With the White House conspicuous by it's silence... 
how many Americans are even aware of the 
sort of people we're backing over there?

Obammunist propaganda rags -i.e. Washington Post- are attempting to mock the demonstrators and paint anti-US/Obama/Patterson protests as illogical, but it's plain to see for any intellectually-honest person that the Obama Administration has backed (and given F-16's to!) an oppressive, anti-democratic, and not very popular Islamist regime in Egypt... and millions over there have already had about enough of it.

This isn't the first time the US press has buried major anti-Obama sentiment in Egypt, mind you...

Pics gallery/etc at Reaganite Republican...

Breaking the College Tuition Monopoly

CNBC ^ | July 2 2013 | Jake Novak

It's been drummed into the heads of Americans for going on a century: Getting a college education is the best way to ensure future career and financial success.
Couple that mantra with government-backed programs keeping student loan rates low and what do you get? The monster known as American college tuition, something that's grown well past the rate of inflation for more than five decades.
And it also has spawned a trillion-dollar student loan debt, much of which will never be repaid. The taxpayers will be left holding the bill, just like they were when the housing market went bust.
Because of the deep-held belief that Americans have about the value of a college education and de facto government backing, universities feel no marketplace pressure to rein in spending, force tenured faculty to actually teach or provide students with an education that will get them jobs.
But the glory days for the academic industry may be coming to an end...
The more the public gets the caveat emptor spirit when it comes to choosing a post-high school path for themselves or their children, the better the choices will become.
The free market has a way of creating healthy competition that way.
By any definition, there should be a lot more tuition price competition in the college market. The U.S. has more than 4,100 four- and two-year colleges... As long as the government makes sure loans—no matter how expensive—will be available to just about any student, exactly what incentive do colleges have to lower tuition prices?
The result is that most Americans don't have as much choice when it comes to how much they spend on college as they do when it comes to homes, cars and food...
(Excerpt) Read more at cnbc.com ...

Obamacare Regulation Effectively Bars Catholics from Owning Health Insurance Companies

Cybercast News Service ^ | 7/2/2013 | Terence P. Jeffrey

The final version of Obamacare’s “preventive services” regulation that the Department of Health and Human Services published on Friday discriminates against faithful members of the Roman Catholic Church by effectively barring them from owning and operating health-insurance companies.
This is because the regulation orders health insurance companies to provide sterilizations, contraceptives and abortion-inducing drugs to all female beneficiaries except those insured by “religious employers”--which, according to the regulation, includes only actual “houses of worship” (n.b. parish churches), their immediate auxiliaries, associations of houses of worship and the “exclusively religious activities of any religious order.”
The Catholic Church teaches that sterilization, artificial contraception, and abortion are intrinsically immoral. The church also teaches that Catholics are not allowed to cooperate in evil acts such as abortion--which the church says is a form of murder.
Under the final regulation, even Catholic organizations such as Catholic hospitals, universities and charities are not counted as “religious employers.”
Thus, if a Catholic university wanted to seek out and do business with a health-insurance company whose owners ran their company wholly in keeping with Catholic teachings, the university would not be allowed to do so because all insurance companies providing health insurance to Catholic universities will now be required to pay for sterilizations, contraceptives and abortion-inducing drugs for the employees of those universities.
When the final version of the regulation was proposed earlier this year, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) presented comments to the Department of Health and Human Services pointing out that the regulation would require insurers who had conscientious objections to the mandated services to nonetheless provide them.
“Those without an exemption or accommodation include conscientiously-opposed individuals, for-profit employers (whether secular or religious), nonprofit employers that are not explicitly religious organizations (even in cases where their objection is religious in nature), insurers, and third-party administrators,” the USCCB said in comments dated March 20, 2013. “Respect for their consciences demands some adequate legal protection, but under the current proposed regulation they have none.” “In addition,” said the USCCB in its March 20 comments, “the proposed regulation fails to recognize the religious and moral objection of insurers and third-party administrators (TPAs). All insurers and third-party administrators will be required to provide, or administer and arrange for, respectively, a plan with contraceptive coverage, with the narrow exception of insurers and TPAs that serve only exempt ‘religious employers.'”
The regulation defines as “religious employers” only those that fall under Section 6033(a)(3)(A)(i) and (iii) of the Internal Revenue Code—the aforementioned houses of worship, their immediate auxiliaries, associations of houses of worship, and religious orders.
In the final regulation that HHS issued Friday, a non-profit organization that “holds itself out as a religious organization”—such as a Catholic hospital, university or charity--can “certify” that it objects to providing sterilizations, contraceptives and abortion-inducing drugs in its health-care plan. But that does not exempt that Catholic organization from facilitating coverage for these things for its employees—nor does it exempt the Catholic organization’s insurance provider from paying for these things.
In fact, under the regulation, if a Catholic hospital, university or charity refuses to buy coverage for the objectionable services, the regulation affirmatively commands that the health insurance company providing coverage to the organization must provide the organization's employees and their dependents with free sterilizations, contraceptives and abortion-inducing drugs. If the “religious organization” self-insures, the regulation requires that the third-party administrator for the self-insurance plan must either pay directly for the objectionable services or “arrange” for an insurance company to do so—also free of charge to the employees and their dependents.
The regulation says the government will give insurance companies discounts from the fees they pay to participate in the government-sponsored insurance exchanges to compensate them for the direct payments they make to cover sterilizations, contraceptives and abortion-inducing drugs for the employees of religious non-profits such as Catholic hospitals, universities and charities.
An insurance company that refuses on moral and religious grounds to pay for abortion-inducing drugs is barred by the regulation from taking as customers individual private citizens, for-profit corporations and their employees, non-religious non-profits and their employees, and religious non-profits and their employees.
The Catholic Church has always taught that abortion takes the life of an innocent human being, and that Catholics cannot cooperate in it. In modern times, the church has made clear that this extends to abortions carried out by pharmaceutical, rather than surgical, means.
“But no word has the power to change the reality of things: procured abortion is the deliberate and direct killing, by whatever means it is carried out, of a human being in the initial phase of his or her existence, extending from conception to birth,” Pope John Paul II wrote in the 1995 encyclical letter Evangelium Vitae.
“The moral gravity of procured abortion is apparent in all its truth if we recognize that we are dealing with murder,” the pope said.
“The deliberate decision to deprive an innocent human being of his life is always morally evil and can never be licit either as an end in itself or as a means to a good end,” declared the pope. “It is in fact a grave act of disobedience to the moral law, and indeed to God himself, the author and guarantor of that law; it contradicts the fundamental virtues of justice and charity. ‘Nothing and no one can in any way permit the killing of an innocent human being, whether a fetus or an embryo, an infant or an adult, an old person, or one suffering from an incurable disease, or a person who is dying. Furthermore, no one is permitted to ask for this act of killing, either for himself or herself or for another person entrusted to his or her care, nor can he or she consent to it, either explicitly or implicitly. Nor can any authority legitimately recommend or permit such an action.’” The pope said that all human beings have both a duty and a right to refrain from cooperating with evil acts like the taking of an innocent life.
“Christians, like all people of good will, are called upon under grave obligation of conscience not to cooperate formally in practices which, even if permitted by civil legislation, are contrary to God's law,” he wrote. “Indeed, from the moral standpoint, it is never licit to cooperate formally in evil. Such cooperation occurs when an action, either by its very nature or by the form it takes in a concrete situation, can be defined as a direct participation in an act against innocent human life or a sharing in the immoral intention of the person committing it.
“This cooperation can never be justified either by invoking respect for the freedom of others or by appealing to the fact that civil law permits it or requires it,” said the pope.
“Each individual in fact has moral responsibility for the acts which he personally performs; no one can be exempted from this responsibility, and on the basis of it everyone will be judged by God himself.
“To refuse to take part in committing an injustice is not only a moral duty; it is also a basic human right,” he said. “Were this not so, the human person would be forced to perform an action intrinsically incompatible with human dignity, and in this way human freedom itself, the authentic meaning and purpose of which are found in its orientation to the true and the good, would be radically compromised. What is at stake therefore is an essential right which, precisely as such, should be acknowledged and protected by civil law. In this sense, the opportunity to refuse to take part in the phases of consultation, preparation and execution of these acts against life should be guaranteed to physicians, health-care personnel, and directors of hospitals, clinics and convalescent facilities. Those who have recourse to conscientious objection must be protected not only from legal penalties but also from any negative effects on the legal, disciplinary, financial and professional plane.”
In June 2102, the Catholic bishops of the United States unanimously approved a statement declaring Obamacare’s sterilization-contraception-abortifacient regulation a “violation of the personal civil rights” of health insurers.
“The HHS mandate creates still a third class, those with no conscience protection at all: individuals who, in their daily lives, strive constantly to act in accordance with their faith and moral values,” said the unanimous bishops. “They, too, face a government mandate to aid in providing ‘services’ contrary to those values—whether in their sponsoring of, and payment for, insurance as employers; their payment of insurance premiums as employees; or as insurers themselves—without even the semblance of an exemption.”
In their comments on the regulation in March, the bishops said that the proposal continued to be “an unjust and unlawful mandate.”
Under this regulation, the only people who will be able to own and operate health insurance companies in the general American marketplace will be people willing to follow the Obama administration’s regulatory command that they facilitate and pay for abortion.
Catholics cannot do that.