Slashdot Mirror


House Dems Turn Out the Lights On the GOP

Politico is reporting that while GOP leaders opposed a motion to adjourn the House, the Democrats have closed up shop and even turned out the lights. While the lights and microphones have since been turned back on, it makes for an amusing mental image and possibly even a few dark YouTube video spoofs. "Only about a half-dozen Republicans were on the floor when this began, but the crowd has grown to about 20 now, according to Patrick O'Connor. 'This is the people's House,' Rep, Thaddeus McCotter (R-Mich.) said. 'This is not Pelosi's politiburo.' Democratic aides were furious at the GOP stunt, and reporters were kicked out of the Speaker's Lobby, the space next to the House floor where they normally interview lawmakers."

92 of 1,143 comments (clear)

  1. Wow, that's mature by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    It's great that C-SPAN covers kindergarten now.

    1. Re:Wow, that's mature by Svartalf · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Save that it wasn't the liberals that were doing this silly stunt...it's the ones that claim to be conservatives. The House adjourned for vacation. The Republican's chose to act like little kids and try to press for oil drilling that won't make a drop in the sea's worth of real change and call it an "Energy Policy".

      Shameful, really.

      --
      I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
    2. Re:Wow, that's mature by knavel · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The "liberals" are not the ones literally throwing a tantrum here. Both parties need to f***ing grow up.

    3. Re:Wow, that's mature by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Actually, it is both sides acting childish.

      Democrats for taking their ball and going home. Republicans staying around whining like a 4 year old.

      Those people who think one side or the other is acting properly while the other side isn't, is just ... well stupid.

      They get paid for working full time, I suggest that they work like the rest of us "regular" people and take only two weeks per year vacation.

      I know, silly me to expect the public servants to act like servants rather than bosses.

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    4. Re:Wow, that's mature by Slightly+Askew · · Score: 3, Informative

      The house adjourned prematurely instead of discussing energy policy. Let's emphasize the correct word here.

      --
      Public use of any portable music system is a virtually guaranteed indicator of sociopathic tendencies. -- Zoso
    5. Re:Wow, that's mature by philspear · · Score: 4, Informative

      At least they're not engaging in fisticuffs.

      like they did around the civil war
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preston_Brooks#Sumner_Assault

      and again in 1902:
      http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/minute/Senate_Fistfight.htm

      Or like they do in Bolivia:
      http://www.blinkx.com/video/fist-fight-in-bolivia-congress/BUTRtHbu7LQxO1wF

      And we can at least be glad no one got shot by the vice president.
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preston_Brooks#Sumner_Assault

      Er... uh... well, rather at least no one was MURDERED by the vice president in this instance.

    6. Re:Wow, that's mature by everphilski · · Score: 3, Informative

      Yes, they voted themselves a paid one-month vacation, by a margin of one vote. Almost directly down party lines. All republicans save four voted nay, to stay in session and hammer out issues except for four who abstained. 17 democrats joined said republicans, 6 abstained. The rest of the democrats voted themselves a vacation.

      link

      And yes drilling will help. The very news of drilling will bring oil prices down. Speculation of approval of drilling has already brought prices down already, over $20 under the high of $147. Gas prices at least where I live are down $0.15 - $0.20 since six weeks ago. Tell people you are drilling and yeah, the oil won't enter the stream for 10, 15 years but the speculative properties alone will drop crude by another $20 or $40, easy.

    7. Re:Wow, that's mature by Svartalf · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Actually, the House moved to Adjourn at the scheduled time- because what was being proposed wasn't actually pressing business (Like a WAR...). That's not taking their ball and going home- that's just doing what ends up happening each and every year since the beginnings of the current form of Government we have in the US. It's far from the same thing as the antics going on right now from the Republicans.

      --
      I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
    8. Re:Wow, that's mature by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      What? You think *talk* of drilling brought oil down $20? Really? You mean it wasn't the fact that the economy is falling like a rock, unemployment is up and that for the first time in memory americans actually drove less?

      It was talk about drilling?

    9. Re:Wow, that's mature by stinerman · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Tell people you are drilling and yeah, the oil won't enter the stream for 10, 15 years but the speculative properties alone will drop crude by another $20 or $40, easy.

      That is, and I'd hope you agree, completely irrational.

      If you were an oil trader and knew that if we started drilling today and that oil wouldn't get used for another 10 years, why in God's name would that affect your bidding on contracts for September delivery?

    10. Re:Wow, that's mature by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 4, Insightful

      So the energy and oil crisis isn't pressing? Then let the Democrats explicitly say so, and give the (R) campaign fodder for the Nov elections.

      I'm not defending the (R) either. They do the same sort of crap all the time too. I'm sick of both parties.

      Vote Third Party in November.

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    11. Re:Wow, that's mature by Mspangler · · Score: 3, Insightful

      "If you were an oil trader and knew that if we started drilling today and that oil wouldn't get used for another 10 years, why in God's name would that affect your bidding on contracts for September delivery?"

      Economics is the flip side of politics, and politics is mostly psychology. So yes, perception of the future is often as important as facts.

      See also; self-fulfilling prophecy.

    12. Re:Wow, that's mature by Graff · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Tell people you are drilling and yeah, the oil won't enter the stream for 10, 15 years but the speculative properties alone will drop crude by another $20 or $40, easy.

      Actually by most industry estimates there will be a noticeable increase in oil production in just 5 years. Yes it will take 10 years or so to get the full benefit but any increase in production will help in the meantime.

      Another thing to note is that 10 years ago Bill Clinton vetoed offshore drilling. If he had not done this then we would be reaping the full benefits of offshore drilling TODAY. For the Democrats to NOW use the excuse "you won't get the benefit for 10 years"...well that's just patently ridiculous.

  2. The motion to adjourn passed... by stinerman · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I'm missing the story other than Boehner and gang are trying to make a fuss about nothing.

    The motion to adjourn passed, so the Speaker banged the gavel and they went home. Am I supposed to think that the Democrats are somehow disregarding the rules of the House and refusing to let Republicans speak?

    1. Re:The motion to adjourn passed... by $RANDOMLUSER · · Score: 3, Funny

      Exactly. Robert's Rules of Order, do you speak it motherfucker?

      --
      No folly is more costly than the folly of intolerant idealism. - Winston Churchill
    2. Re:The motion to adjourn passed... by WinPimp2K · · Score: 4, Informative

      Yep, you missed the story.

      When the motion to adjourn was made, over 100 Republicans were signed up to speak for 5 minutes each on oil/energy. The Dems abused the rules (and yes the Republicans do this too, but not nearly as much) in an attempt to prevent those folks from speaking. Now some (most) of those Republicans were undoubtably (Sturgeon's Law) going to be an utter waste of their 5 minutes.

      What you do is ask how often does the Speaker order the lights, microphones, and cameras shut down when the House adjourns? (C-SPAN is contracturally required to carry whatever is being said in the House regardless of whether or not it is in session).

      So I'm not going to tell you what to think, but what I plainly observed was the Dems gaming the system (the rules of the House) to prevent the Republicans from speaking. When it comes to gaming the system, the donkeys in both House and Senate have shown far less restraint than the elephants. (Or would you prefer Red vs Blue?)

      --

      You either believe in rational thought or you don't
    3. Re:The motion to adjourn passed... by SBacks · · Score: 4, Funny

      I move to table this line of jokes.

    4. Re:The motion to adjourn passed... by elrous0 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Apparently Republicans have forgotten that they're in the minority now (an easy mistake to make, considering how Democrats have spent most of the last two years on their knees). Republicans have also apparently forgot how THEY treated Democrats when they were the majority (forcing them out of hearings, refusing to debate bills, shutting down Democratic filibusters, etc.)

      --
      SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
  3. That's not all! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    The summary didn't state everything. Pelosi was trying to stop a vote concerning foreign oil drilling. The REP's are currently mad and speaking to the public who have gathered in the upstairs gallery, arguing (one-sided, of course) their concerns and solutions for rising gas and energy prices.

    1. Re:That's not all! by stinerman · · Score: 5, Informative

      Not bringing up votes on bills that the Speaker doesn't like is very standard practice and has gone on for decades.

      Any bill can be brought to the floor by 1/2 of the House via a discharge petition. Republicans apparently don't have the votes to bring the bill to the floor over the objections of the Speaker.

  4. A cheap and embarrassing Republican stunt by jamie · · Score: 3, Insightful

    What actually happened, of course, was that the House adjourned for its August recess. As scheduled. Just like it does every year. Presumably it was scheduled months in advance. Everyone knew it.

    Except this time the minority party refused to, you know, leave. Though the government is not in session, the Republicans insist on hanging around anyway.

    Why? Not to get any work done. They're sticking around in the hopes of getting some press simply for being stupid.

    It may work. If the Democrats did this, the media would be happy to portray them as whiny little losers who didn't know when to go home. (Which would basically be accurate.)

    But since it's Republicans doing it, the media -- including Slashdot, in this case -- will find amusement in what the Dems "did" to the GOP. Politico, which is generally an organ of the Republican Party, is true to form by calling Democrats "furious" and "complaing" [sic]. Slashdot says the Dems "turned out the lights on" them and giggles that the Democrats left even though "GOP leaders opposed a motion to adjourn." (It doesn't matter what "GOP leaders" wanted. The motion to adjourn passed. So the House adjourned. Learn 2 parliamentary procedure, noobs.)

    Calling the House a "politburo" (meaning "the policymaking committee of a Communist party") because it adjourned on schedule is -- and here I have to agree with the Democrat who was quoted -- moronic.

    And the issue the GOP is demagoguing is gasoline prices and offshore drilling. This pushes today's stunt from ridiculous to pathetic. The Department of Energy's official projection is that if offshore drilling were legalized immediately, "any impact on average wellhead prices is expected to be insignificant" -- even in 2030.

    And that's an inflated stat, since its numbers include hypothetical drilling off the coast of California. The GOP is pushing to allow states to allow OCS drilling if they choose -- "states' rights," as the slogan goes. And California's politicians, including its Republican governor, have made it clear the state will not allow more drilling off its coast. So the actual benefit of the current GOP proposal would be about 2/3 of the DoE's hypothetical. In 2030 :)

    It's hard to believe that the Republicans would hang around a vacated government building after everyone's gone home, and yell into a bullhorn about how Congress needs to debate lower gas prices right now -- not in September! -- when Bush's own Department of Energy admits any changes would have zero effect on oil prices for 9 years and "insignificant" effect after that.

    The GOP's twitter feed indicates their dogma du jour is: "drill here drill now to get us through the next 10 to 15 years." Again, the DoE's projections indicate zero effect on oil production or prices for the next 9 years, and "insignificant" effect after that.

    It's unbelievable how pathetic our national politics has become. This embarrassment is why we need the grownups back in charge. And every media outlet that fails to make clear why the stunt is pathetic is part of the problem. Sadly, I include Slashdot in this.

    1. Re:A cheap and embarrassing Republican stunt by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      "complaing" [sic]

      Heh, a Slashdot editor picking on others' spelling.

    2. Re:A cheap and embarrassing Republican stunt by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      You didn't need to cheapen your post with the silly, biased commentary.

      "It may work. If the Democrats did this, the media would be happy to portray them as whiny little losers who didn't know when to go home. (Which would basically be accurate.)

      But since it's Republicans doing it, the media -- including Slashdot, in this case -- will find amusement in what the Dems "did" to the GOP."

      Seriously? You think the media and slashdot have republican bias?

    3. Re:A cheap and embarrassing Republican stunt by CorporateSuit · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Maybe when the country is headed full-force into a recession, it's not time for a 5-week vacation when there are laws to be passed. It's time to roll up the sleeves and get to work. The United States isn't ok right now. It's fragile and crumbling. Those elected officials want to spend their August kicking up their shoes when unemployment is at an all-time high?

      The Republicans are acting childish. It reminds me of what I would see in highschool when the teachers would strike -- but the Democrats are running away from the problems that need to be solved. It's their job, and it's not done yet, so they deserve no recess in August, no matter how long they've planned it. This isn't a retail job at Wal-mart where the company will be ok if one worker leaves for 6 weeks.

      But after everything is said and done, after seeing at least 4 major laws passed that grossly violate the constitution in the last 2 weeks, it's almost a reprieve to see them out for a few weeks. The only reason I'm sure they don't use the constitution as toilet paper is because some of them would actually read if that were the case.

      --
      I am the richest astronaut ever to win the superbowl.
    4. Re:A cheap and embarrassing Republican stunt by Toonol · · Score: 3, Interesting

      True. Politics have been silly, trite, and corrupt for the history of the Republic. Not always, but certainly the day-to-day running of the government has been just as stupid or worse. In some ways, we're less corrupt and more transparent now then ever.

      Have a lot further to go before we get out of the negative numbers, though.

  5. Republican grandstanding by NiceGeek · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Yawn...."Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) and other GOP leaders opposed the motion to adjourn the House, arguing that Pelosi's refusal to schedule a vote allowing offshore drilling is hurting the American economy. They have refused to leave the floor after the adjournment motion passed at 11:23 a.m. and are busy bashing Pelosi and her fellow Democrats for leaving town for the August recess."

    What a load. Even if the offshore drilling is allowed it will be many years before we see any benefit from it (assuming that prices actually go down) More corporate welfare from the Repubs.

    1. Re:Republican grandstanding by rossz · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Even if the offshore drilling is allowed it will be many years before we see any benefit from it

      That was their excuse ten years ago. It would take ten years to see any benefit, so why bother?

      --
      -- Will program for bandwidth
    2. Re:Republican grandstanding by NiceGeek · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Then I guess the vote could wait a few weeks without the economy imploding yes?

    3. Re:Republican grandstanding by Kohath · · Score: 4, Informative

      They won't be holding the vote in a few weeks. Pelosi doesn't intend to ever have the vote.

    4. Re:Republican grandstanding by Notquitecajun · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You're expressing the WORST argument for not drilling. Oil companies know better than ANYONE precisely how much it costs to get a drop out of the ground. Do you really think they would be pushing to drill in other areas if drilling where they already have leases were cost effective - particularly at the pace prices have been growing for the past 3 years?

      Do you REALLY think that those "evil" oil companies just want to be mean to everyone and run rampant and pillage? They're out to make the most cost-effective dollar by drilling for oil.

      Think about it this way - they AREN'T drilling on those leases because they WON'T make any money doing it....and I would trust their word on how much money they make off of oil than yours, unless you're some sort of petro-economic engineering expert.

  6. Corrected quote by eviloverlordx · · Score: 4, Funny

    'This is the lobbyists' House,'

    I think that's closer to what he was trying to say.

    --
    'Loose' is when your pants are three sizes too big. 'Lose' is when you misuse 'loose'.
  7. 'This is the people's House' by Legion_SB · · Score: 3, Funny

    GOP: "We must protect this House!"

    --
    'a';DROP TABLE users; SELECT * FROM DATA WHERE name LIKE '%'... if you're reading this, it didn't work.
  8. Didin't the GOP do this too by clonan · · Score: 5, Informative

    As I recall in 2003 the GOP chair of a committee refused to allow the Democratic members of the committe to speak, ignored a motion to continue the hearing and stormed off WITH the gavel in hand...all this beacuse the dems wanted to call some witnesses for testimony.

    I forget the details but google knows all.

    1. Re:Didin't the GOP do this too by Insightfill · · Score: 4, Informative

      As I recall in 2003 the GOP chair of a committee refused to allow the Democratic members of the committe to speak, ignored a motion to continue the hearing and stormed off WITH the gavel in hand...all this beacuse the dems wanted to call some witnesses for testimony.

      Ah, yes. That was quite an event. Check wiki for the June 17th event where it happened. There was also a case where the Dems held an 'unofficial' gathering which was so unofficial that they couldn't use any titles, such as 'chairman', as the GOP held the majority then. Regardless, Jim S. crashed that party and pulled the same stunt. Still looking for the story of the second case.

  9. you think that is something ? by unity100 · · Score: 4, Informative

    wait until you see the singapore or korean parliament footages. circus doesnt describe it.

    even in turkish parliament there has been a lot of fights, and one representative was killed even, by a stray fist landing unintendedly.

  10. It has already been many years by Kohath · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Even if the offshore drilling is allowed it will be many years before we see any benefit from it...

    And you guys have been saying that for many years. That's why we couldn't fix the problem back then too. Now, many years later, it is not fixed.

    More corporate welfare from the Repubs.

    Translation: "Americans can't have cheaper gas because some corporation might make some money. It's worth it to have poor people suffer just so you can stick it to those nasty corporations."

    1. Re:It has already been many years by amRadioHed · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The point is that more drilling isn't a fix. More drilling in the US will provide a relatively small amount of oil which will delay our energy problems for months, maybe a few years at best.

      The Republicans are putting on a show today because it looks good to the unwashed masses, but getting their drilling won't solve our energy problems.

      --
      We hope your rules and wisdom choke you / Now we are one in everlasting peace
  11. Well, by danzona · · Score: 3, Funny

    I for one welcome our new Republican overlords... wait a minute

  12. Re:And the Republicans are hacking the system... by chaboud · · Score: 3, Funny

    First, it hardly seems cool to hijack the floor and irk a bunch of Congressional police who should be going home to try and ram some unlikely legislation through before a scheduled vacation.

    Secondly, typing the PIN into the PA on accident isn't hacking, especially when that PIN is probably "12345." That only counts as being a hacker in a Harrison Ford movie. Real hacking films, like "Hackers" and "Jurrasic Park" show us true hacking, where you fly through file-systems in 3D.

  13. how about no politics crap in slashdot? by swschrad · · Score: 4, Insightful

    all it is is flames in both directions. we have more important things to discuss. like, for instance, goatse.cx

    --
    if this is supposed to be a new economy, how come they still want my old fashioned money?
  14. It's called speculation... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Oil prices are high because speculators think future supply will be low. If we drill, speculators may think future supply will be higher. This will lower current prices even though the oil won't be immediately available.

    1. Re:It's called speculation... by ArcherB · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Speculators aren't idiots and know exactly how little oil is in the US reserves. Which still doesn't explain the sneaky and underhanded antics of the conservatives. Having the lights turned out on them is exactly what they deserve, they shouldn't try to sneak in and enact legislation while everyone is on vacation.

      Maybe those people that I elect and pay shouldn't be on vacation while I'm looking for second job so I can pay for the gas to get to my first job!

      --
      There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
    2. Re:It's called speculation... by spun · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You can spout whatever ill informed opinions you like, but look at the facts. We have a total of 21 billion barrels of oil in reserve. We used 20 million barrels a day in 2004 according to the CIA world fact-book. That amounts to a little over three years of reserves at 2004 usage levels. That simply won't lower the price of gas, all it will do is put more money in the oil companies' pockets when they are already making record profits.

      --
      - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
    3. Re:It's called speculation... by gnuman99 · · Score: 4, Informative

      Why do amateurs, non-traders (in anything) keep thinking that this is all "speculators" or "commies" or some other bullshit that is driving oil prices high?

      Commodity traders CANNOT affect long term oil prices if there is no problems with supply. The reason is if you buy oil, you have to take delivery of that oil. If supply outstrips demand all the time, the price will only go up if the traders pile up oil like crazy. But then what?? They have to SELL it on THE SAME market as the suppliers anyway. So, at some point in the future you end up with A LOT of extra supply getting pumped in and commodity traders end up LOSING A LOT OF MONEY!

      Fortunately, these people are NOT so stupid to lose hundreds of billions to make oil prices go up for few weeks.

      And don't even start to bring out the denier points about "record rentals of oil tankers", "oil tankers 4x price what they used to be" and similar crap that the global warming deniers bring up ("mars is warming" and similar horseshit). Smoke and mirrors, not reality people.

      The REAL cause of the high prices is NOT the traders, it is the problems with supply. Supply cannot keep up with the DEMAND. So, prices go up. Prices go up until there is more supply, which will just not going to happen any time soon no matter what, or the demand drops. So far, the demand dropped a LITTLE. So, prices are coming down.

      In commodity trading, you never think years in advance, you think days or maybe weeks in advance. The largest ??? regarding supply is still Israel/Iran issue. Then there is the problems with Nigerian supply. And finally, the demand for oil inside a lot of the oil producing countries is INCREASING VERY FAST (thanks to heavily subsidized fossil fuels there), meaning their exports are suffering. See Mexico as one very good example of that.

      If Republicans were serious about an energy policy of the country, they would first mandate that ALL new pipelines between urban centers be able to carry both natural gas and hydrogen. And then they would fix the fiscal budgetary issues and start to invest in translating this economy from carbon to hydrogen. That's what they are there for - *strategic* planning, not reactionary shit they dreamed up because they are up for election in few months.

    4. Re:It's called speculation... by joelwyland · · Score: 3, Informative

      Congress always adjourns at this time of year. Everyone gets a vacation, just like you do. Just like your boss pays you vacation days, we pay them vacation days.

      The only reason the GOP is pulling this crap is that they are relying on gas prices as a wedge issue for the Presidential Campaign. So, how about you turn your ire at campaigning at them since all of the QQing they are doing right now is an attempt to elect John McCain.

      It's really an amazingly insulting ploy. The people responsible for the horrific gas prices are just pointing the fingers at the Democrats and people believe them. Seriously, man, take a step back and look at this for real.

    5. Re:It's called speculation... by gb506 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Not much, huh?

      ANWR: 10 billion barrels
      Outer Continental Shelf: 18 billion barrels (estimated; the actual total is undoubtedly much higher, since exploration has been banned)
      Oil shale: 1 trillion barrels

      That's quite a bit.

      I read your post, found it idiotic, saw it was posted by "spun", then it made sense. You're the same turd who who placed blame for the tiger attack incident at the San Francisco Zoo earlier this year on the fact that the zoo was privately owned. Because, you know, private businesses are always out trying to devise ways to kill the people who give them money.

    6. Re:It's called speculation... by joelwyland · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Explain why the price of oil dropped quite a bit the same day the Bush rescinded the executive ban on drilling then?

      That's too easy: The oil companies benefit from the Republican policies. They want them to stay this way. They drop the prices temporarily on the same day that their puppet makes his announcement. See it works?! Aren't we awesome! Hey what's that over there! Look a monkey!

      The oil companies have thousands of miles of land that they have already leased from the government and have full permission to drill. They aren't doing it. Having access to more land isn't the problem. This is all a spin campaign. Why is it so hard to see that?

    7. Re:It's called speculation... by stinerman · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Well most speculation isn't 5 or 6 years in the future. It's done a few months ahead.

      If Congress said "drill wherever you want" right now, we would see exactly 0 barrels of that oil this year.

    8. Re:It's called speculation... by fprintf · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I take exception to your characterization of the current gas prices as "horrific". C'mon, I mean the Holocaust was horrific, the beheading on the bus in Canada yesterday was horrific. Gas prices making a tank of gas for an SUV almost $100 is not horrific.

      As far as I am concerned, the less driving we do the better off we are. That is why I opposed recent moves in Connecticut to lower the state gas tax (doing what I can, by writing my state lawmakers). Lowering prices a few cents only puts $0.20 a week per $.01 drop in price, hardly something to raise my taxes elsewhere to cover.

      --
      This post brought to you by your friendly neighborhood MBA.
    9. Re:It's called speculation... by Sloppy · · Score: 4, Insightful

      That simply won't lower the price of gas, all it will do is put more money in the oil companies' pockets when they are already making record profits.

      As you can see from replies, the extra stuff you threw in at the end of that sentence, only distracts people. The fact that the oil companies are making record profits, is utterly irrelevant to your point. But then it gets people to complain about that part (the irrelevant and unimportant tangent) of your statement, and then they're no longer listening to what you really said.

      If people want to bitch about the proposed drilling changes, they should focus on the costs of the drilling (environmental, I guess? or is there a government subsidy here too?), and compare that to the expected benefit (nearly null). Throwing in additional snipes at the oil companies just turns it into an us-vs-them bitchfest, instead of the cost/benefit analysis that it should be.

      I swear, every single thing I've read about this topic, has included this irrelevant bullshit, and the result of it has been the same every time: complete lack of communication.

      --
      As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
    10. Re:It's called speculation... by JoeFromPhilly · · Score: 5, Insightful

      What differentiates a fair profit from an outrageous one? If a gallon of gas is worth $4, why not sell it for that much?

    11. Re:It's called speculation... by BobMcD · · Score: 3, Insightful

      A fair profit fairly earned is one thing. This is something else.

      Exxon's projected profit: $11.68 billion

      Exxon's 2007 revenue: $404.55 billion

      So on $400 an $11 markup is gouging? I want to shop where YOU shop.

      Their last record, by the way was $11.66 billion last year. At that time gas was $1/gallon cheaper, so it stands to reason that this 'record' is actually poorer performance.

      AND, do you want to know who's #2 in the 'record profits' field? Is it Shell, Conoco, etc? Nope, it's Walmart. Look it up.

      This is a talking point, and little else.

    12. Re:It's called speculation... by Culture20 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries makes the prices (via altering supply), U.S. oil companies ride the wave.
      It's kind of like blaming RC Cola for a rise in soda prices. They'll get increased profits as they raise to match Coke and Pepsi, but they didn't start the rise.

    13. Re:It's called speculation... by spun · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You do know that shale oil is incredibly difficult and expensive to process, right? So, the actual amounts that are economically extractable are minuscule compared to demand.

      And, you know, private businesses exist to make money, not ensure the safety of anyone. If it looks cheaper to do something dangerous, they will do it. Remember the Pinto recall?

      --
      - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
    14. Re:It's called speculation... by kbielefe · · Score: 4, Interesting

      You're a little behind on your news cycle. They missed the analyst estimate, but not by much.

      An interesting statistic caught my eye while looking over their financials:

      • Exxon Mobil's increase in profits over the same quarter last year: $1.6 billion
      • Increase in taxes paid by Exxon Mobil over the same quarter last year: $2.5 billion

      Now who's #1 in the "record profits" field? Can you say "conflict of interest?"

      --
      This space intentionally left blank.
    15. Re:It's called speculation... by vux984 · · Score: 4, Informative

      What if my business isn't sustainable with a 5% profit margin?

      Why exactly wouldn't it be?

      If your business isn't sustainable after ALL your expenses are paid, including your salary, r&d costs, and any other costs you might incurr and there is still money left over (hint - that's the 'profit'), then you are completely incompetent.

      In a small sole proprietership, where the owner doesn't draw a wage, but rather just 'keeps the profits' as his compensation, then sure, if the profits aren't high enough to adequately compensate him, he will close the business. But it would be more accurate to say in that situation that from the perspective of the business, that it is actually unprofitable, because its not covering the cost of keeping its most important 'staff member'.

      Corporations aren't run like this. Profits are used to grow the business (and growth, by definition, implies that it has already been 'sustained'. and in some cases, paid back to shareholders as dividends.

      So in the case of big-oil, record profits are just that: an opportunity for them to grow and to further line the pockets of shareholders and investors.

      So quit harping on the "record profits" of the oil companies. It just demonstrates your complete lack of understanding of economics at the most basic level.

      While you just demonstrated your complete lack of understanding of business at the most basic level.

    16. Re:It's called speculation... by holt · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Yep. The key indicator is the return on invested assets, which is a percentage, not the raw dollar amounts. Most people don't understand that a business needs to make a reasonable return, or the assets would be better invested in other endeavors.

    17. Re:It's called speculation... by truthsearch · · Score: 4, Interesting

      But I have no doubt that eventually the American people will demand accountability from these turds, and from anyone who enabled them.

      Ha! I wish! Once these people are out of office they'll go about their happy lives bothered by no one. Their family and friends will be richer and more powerful than 8 years ago. Congress and the judicial system will do nothing and the public will demand nothing. Most will say, "Well, he's out of office, so he's not doing me harm any longer." They'll be wrong, but they'll be content.

      Other than that, great post.

    18. Re:It's called speculation... by mweather · · Score: 3, Informative

      If the US has so little oil worth drilling, why is China (dealing with Cuba) drilling 50 miles off the coast of Florida.

      If the world has so few whales, why do the Japanese hunt them? Because scarcity breeds profits.

    19. Re:It's called speculation... by altinos.com · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Of the 40,000 active oil fields in the world, not one of them is refilling itself.

      Geochemist Says Oil Fields May Be Refilled Naturally http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=990CE3D91530F935A1575AC0A963958260&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=2

    20. Re:It's called speculation... by Martin+Blank · · Score: 4, Insightful

      What do you feel is a fair profit? The average net profit made by the major oil companies is about 9%. The following companies make profit levels that exceed that (based on most recent ratio of net income over total revenue):

      • IBM (10%)
      • Red Hat (11%)
      • Sybase (11%)
      • Sun Microsystems (12%)
      • Oracle (28%)

      At what point do you call for a windfall tax on these companies?

      --
      You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.
    21. Re:It's called speculation... by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 5, Informative

      If you're going to do "Conservative math" and divide quarterly profit by annual revenue, you're going to come up with whatever numbers you want, like inany Republican economic analysis.

      If you leave out a $290M Exxon-Valdez settlement (pennies on the dollar owed, and a onetime charge on decades of legal operations), Exxon actually profited $11.97 BILLION. Annualize that number, and you get $47.88 BILLION profit. Of about $404.55 BILLION 2007 revenue, that would be about 11.8% profit. On such a huge, global operation, with retail prices hitting all kinds of ceilings (like people forced to decide to skip food, healthcare or gas/heat), that is a fabulous profit rate on a fabulous amount of revenue. More than 5% profit on such huge revenues would still be fabulous. Especially when the rest of the US economy, that these giant revenue extractions are strangling, is shrinking and failing.

      Now, if you want to go for Conservative economics gold, just suggest something irrelevant like "Wal-Mart is #2". Congratulations!

      --

      --
      make install -not war

    22. Re:It's called speculation... by superbus1929 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Our administration is manned by two people who earned their money in the oil industry.

      Said administration has used policies that have given tax breaks to said oil companies, invaded a country rich in oil on flimsy information, and have more or less legislated around the oil industry.

      THAT is what defines a profit as outrageous. They did it with help, at the cost of the average layperson.

      --
      Let's stop dilly-dallying and just change "-1: Overrated" to "-1: Disagree" or "-1: Doesn't Subscribe to Groupthink".
  15. Dems are doing their jobs??? by clonan · · Score: 4, Insightful

    You are assuming that everyone is going to go hang out at their own 1000 acre ranch.

    Congress adjourns BECAUSE we are a representative democracy. Most congressmen go to their home districts and then spend all their time meeting with the people (YOU) to better understand what you want and represent you better.

    This is congress doing their job.

    What really tells is how active Congress is when they are in session. This Congress has been very active even though all the important legislation has been vetoed. Personally I am looking forward to meeting with my representative (Jim Marshal D-Ga) without having to fly to Washington.

  16. on topic? by owlnation · · Score: 5, Insightful

    News for Nerds... er, ok.. how is this?

    Were the lights turned off by robot running linux?

    Seriously editors, the best way to compete with Digg is not to compete with Digg. People will come.

  17. There's a rationale to this by Wildfire+Darkstar · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Elected representatives are supposed to remain in touch with the districts they represent. Having them remain in Washington, D.C. 11 and 1/2 months a year makes it difficult to do that.

    Not, of course, that every representative uses his or her vacation time to keep in touch with his or her constituents, mind you. But that's part of the point, at least.

    --
    Sean Daugherty "I have walked in Eternity -- and Eternity weeps."
  18. Re:Yesterday: $11b in profits for Exxon, today...? by Poppa · · Score: 4, Insightful

    You are an idiot. Gross profit means nothing. Their profit margin was about 8%. There are many more companies with a higher profit margin.

  19. Crude Oil is an appreciating asset by jayveekay · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The value of crude oil has gone up considerably in the last 10 years. All the oil that was not pumped out of the ground under the U.S. and burned in the last decade is now much more valuable, and if you can avoid pumping and burning it for another 10 years then it will be still more valuable.

    Given that Americans are handing huge bills to future generations, including a $10 trillion debt and another $80 trillion in unfunded liabilities (Medicare, Social Security), it is nice that some valuable resources can be passed on too. It is unfortunate that many Americans seem to think "If we don't drill and burn this crude oil now, *I* won't benefit from it! Drill Drill Drill, Burn Burn Burn! It's MY crude oil and I want to BURN it NOW!"

    1. Re:Crude Oil is an appreciating asset by Solandri · · Score: 3, Insightful

      (Ignoring for the moment the environmental aspect of burning oil.)

      It's only an appreciating asset up to the point where we develop alternative energy technologies that make it obsolete, as we're clamoring to do. Then it becomes as worthless as whale oil. Well, maybe not quite that worthless, since it'll still find a use in plastics manufacturing, but that only accounts for 5% of current oil consumption.

  20. Has It Occurred to you? by sycodon · · Score: 3, Insightful

    any impact on average wellhead prices is expected to be insignificant
    zero effect on oil production or prices for the next 9 years

    It's ths kind of thinking, or lack of it, that got us into this problem in the first place. You folks can't think 6 inches in front of your dicks. IF it does take that long to get production started, then GET THE FUCK STARTED ON IT!

    And despite the drugs you are on, if the situation was reversed, then ABCCBSNBCMSNBCCNN would have folks up there covering it like flys on horse crap.

    --
    When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
  21. Selective outrage by Kenrod · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Politics is mostly theater, faux outrage, and pandering. Why would a stunt like this cause the average Slashdot reader's blood to boil?

    Because it's the GOP pulling the stunt. I don't recall much scoffing at Dennis Kucinich's attempt to hold impeachment hearings on President Bush. No, I guess that was all about a righteous avenger shining a spotlight on The Greatest Evil Our Planet Has Ever Known.

    These kinds of stunts get the media's attention and some coverage for issues one party or the other thinks is important. The fact that the Democrats didn't even hold a vote on domestic drilling despite overwhelming public support is something that ought to be mocked.

    --
    Good heavens Miss Sakamoto - you're beautiful!
  22. Unsubstantiated Claims by Woundweavr · · Score: 4, Informative

    You've a great deal of unfounded claims there.

    The Dems abused the rules (and yes the Republicans do this too, but not nearly as much) in an attempt to prevent those folks from speaking. ...
    When it comes to gaming the system, the donkeys in both House and Senate have shown far less restraint than the elephants.

    This was not an abuse of rules, nor would any reasonable observer claim the Democratic Party members have "abused" the rules as aggressively (nor broken as many) as the Republicans who control the House for the previous 12 years. Simply adjourning - which cuts off formal floor debate inherently - is not comparable to changing bills after they had been passed, holding votes open longer than permissible or the abusive use of holds (in the Senate). Your claims to the contrary are transparently partisan.

    What you do is ask how often does the Speaker order the lights, microphones, and cameras shut down when the House adjourns? (C-SPAN is contracturally required to carry whatever is being said in the House regardless of whether or not it is in session).

    I know Congress has a deserved reputation for wasting money, but somehow I don't think they keep all the microphones, cameras and lights on in the months they spend adjourned. And C-Span is not contractually required to carry what is being said in the House regardless of whether or not its in session; you invented that out of whole cloth. They frequently don't show House debate - for instance if there is a major political story or an important House committee meeting. To make such a suggestion implies an almost total lack of familiarity with the channel.

    The Ds adjourned. They didn't let the Republicans control the agenda. Boo-hoo. The House is designed for majority rule and the Republicans should get used to it since few 'experts' think they'll have more than 200 members next term.

  23. Re:Hateful Democrats... by Kenrod · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Exactly. Instead of drilling domestically, where we know we can do it cleanly and for little political cost, we import oil from places like Mexico and Nigeria where environmental regulations are lax, and places like Saudi Arabia and Venezuela, where the governments are actively working against our interests in the world. This makes no sense and I don't see how any thinking person can think this policy - Nancy Pelosi's policy - is helping to save the planet.

    --
    Good heavens Miss Sakamoto - you're beautiful!
  24. Unwashed Masses? by DesScorp · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "The point is that more drilling isn't a fix. More drilling in the US will provide a relatively small amount of oil which will delay our energy problems for months, maybe a few years at best."

    More drilling alone isn't a fix by itself, but it's patently stupid and dishonest to say that more oil in the supply line won't help prices.

    "The Republicans are putting on a show today because it looks good to the unwashed masses, but getting their drilling won't solve our energy problems."

    I notice that, to liberals, when the issue is liberal and popular with Americans, then they're a great and wise people, righteous in their anger at the Republicans. But when the issue is conservative and supported by Americans, they're stupid unwashed masses.

    If you were really concerned about us solving our energy problems, you'd actually let us solve them. We've got plenty of ways to do it... more drilling, more shale, more coal to gasoline, more nuclear... liberals just don't like those options. What you're really mad about is that we won't do it your way... with nothing but biofuels and electric cars.

    --
    Life is hard, and the world is cruel
  25. Nancy "Marx" Pelosi by MikeD83 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    While I agree the stunt is a little immature I commend them for drawing attention to such an important issue- Nancy Pelosi. She has refused to allow the house to vote on offshore drilling.

    First and foremost, unless the issue involves human rights: such as legalizing rape or murder, the house has a right to vote on it. The people of this country have a right to vote on subjects- that's what makes a democratic republic.

    Second, I am one who feels the price of oil would drop with offshore drilling. It's a simple supply and demand problem. The supply is scarce so the cost rises. This allows oil speculators to raise the price even higher. Oil industry experts believe that oil could reach the market in 3 years; don't believe the 7-15 year nonsense. See 1980s oil glut for how supply and demand effect oil prices.

    Third, I truly believe moving away from oil as a fuel source is the ultimate solution. This will not happen today, tomorrow, or 10 years from now. The correct action today is to unburden the lower class and the economy with the cost of gasoline by increasing oil supply.

    Fourth, anyone who believes that Exxon makes excessive profits is a moron. 11.68 billion on 138.07 billion of revenue- 8.45% profit. That's considered an average profit in the business world.

    1. Re:Nancy "Marx" Pelosi by Hemogoblin · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It's a simple supply and demand problem. The supply is scarce so the cost rises. This allows oil speculators to raise the price even higher.

      What's up with this "speculation" scapegoat recently? Like you said, oil price is a supply and demand problem: oil future's trading doesn't effect supply or demand since most of the contracts are never physically settled. To quote the Economist, "And since no oil is ever held back from the market, these bets do not affect the price of oil any more than bets on a football match affect the result."

      I bloody hate people who trash futures and the basic derivatives, because these instruments can be extremely helpful for the economy. For example, hedging costs and reducing revenue volatility.

      Read this article on the Economist, and maybe you'll learn something.

  26. "Prematurely" based on what? (Circular Logic) by Woundweavr · · Score: 4, Informative

    Your argument is essentially that they acted inappropriately because their adjournment was premature and was therefore a premature adjournment.

    There was a perfectly valid vote where a majority chose to adjourn. Republicans wanted to take control of the agenda. They were not allowed to. The Senate had adjourned the day before. Its grandstanding by a party too used to being able to bully Democrats.

  27. Oh the irony... by ivan256 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    If the Republicans cut off debate on the Democrats and went home for vacation, I can guarantee you that this story would have been about the Republicans censoring the Democrats.

  28. Re:Protest by stinerman · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The whole thing was done to protest the Democrats' plan of adjourning the Congress so that there would be no more calls on the House floor to open up oil expoloration, something that, despite your opinion on the matter, the public overwhelmingly supports.

    The public is wrong. The price of crack has gone up and instead of trying to get off, they're demanding increased supply.

    The motion to adjourn passed? Of course it did. Right along party lines.

    Yeah, that tends to happen in the House, where the majority tends to do whatever it wants. In the Senate, the minority has more rights. And your party has played the Senate rules and Harry Reid like a fiddle. Seriously and with no sarcasm, well done. If the Democrats had 1% of the balls your guys have, we'd have never been in Iraq. THAT would have kept oil prices down.

    What's the approval rating of Congress now? 9 percent?

    Mostly because the Democrats promised all sorts legislation on which they couldn't deliver. Again, your party has done a good job of using the Senate rules to keep popular Democratic bills from getting passed. Republicans know most people don't care (or even know) about cloture motions or other arcane parliamentary procedures. All your average person knows is that Democrats promised they'd fix everything the Republicans screwed up and they're not doing it.

    The Democrats "Dogma Du Jour" is you people are just going to have to do with less and pay more for it. I'll take our position over yours all day long.

    I wish they had the balls to say that. The American people need to be told the score without any fluff. The age of cheap oil is over and it's going to take some sacrifice to get our economy switched over to renewables. We can't drill our way out of this even if we wanted to. India and China took our advice and liberalized their economies which made them a competitor for the same oil we are using.

  29. Re:Actually, look it up... by elrous0 · · Score: 5, Funny

    Yes, because Newt Gingrich and Dennis Hastert were *SO* well-known for their kind-hearted efforts to make peace with the opposition party and affect bi-partisan legislation. Nope, no heavy-handedness with those guys.

    --
    SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
  30. Citation by DesScorp · · Score: 3, Informative

    The public overwhelmingly supports it? Citation or you're just talking out your ass. The last 3 polls I saw stated exactly the opposite.

    My pleasue. Here you go. I got my poll results from CNN. Where are you getting yours?

    73 percent of Americans favor offshore drilling.

    I'd call 73 percent overwhelming, wouldn't you? And even in California, long an anti-drilling bastion, support for drilling is now at 51 percent and climbing.

    --
    Life is hard, and the world is cruel
  31. It's not about the fundamentals by Pinky's+Brain · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Increased capacity down the line might move oil producers to increase their production now (because of the decreased future profits from keeping it in the ground). 20-40$ per barrel is of course a stupid amount of money to account for that.

    The market doesn't speculate based on fundamentals though, the market speculates on based on what they perceive the market will speculate on based on what they perceive the market will speculate on based on what they perceive the market will speculate on .... based on the fundamentals. Pumping up bubbles is a completely rational thing to do when leverage is available (and the collapse of the housing markets have made a lot of capital available for oil speculation). Or at least it's rational as long as you think you are smarter than everyone else, better able to find the percentage advantages needed to make the most of the leverage and smart enough to see when to get out.

    It's not so much that the announcement of drilling would change the fundamentals, but everyone expects it to be the pin prick which will burst the bubble (which thus becomes a self fulfilling prophecy). Don't be the one left holding the bag ;)

  32. How about the CNN source? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

    http://money.cnn.com/2006/05/09/news/economy/oil_cuba/index.htm

    US companies didn't bother to submit a bid because legally they couldn't drill that close to US shore. China has no such limitation.

    1. Re:How about the CNN source? by mweather · · Score: 4, Insightful

      http://money.cnn.com/2006/05/09/news/economy/oil_cuba/index.htm

      US companies didn't bother to submit a bid because legally they couldn't drill that close to US shore. China has no such limitation.

      I think they didn't submit bids because they didn't want to go to prison for violating trade sanctions against Cuba.

    2. Re:How about the CNN source? by pugugly · · Score: 3, Informative

      Ummm - sir, you are lying - from the article.

      "Adding insult to injury, the Times said U.S. firms were invited to bid on the Cuban contracts, but were barred by the U.S. government due to the country's longstanding economic embargo of communist Cuba."

      --
      An Invisible Entity of Vast Power whose existence must be taken on faith alone: Liberal Media
  33. Yes I can by Woundweavr · · Score: 5, Informative

    Changing a bill after it had been passed

    One aspect of the pending FBI investigation centers on Young's role in securing a $10 million earmark in the $286.5 billion highway bill passed in 2005. The earmark, which was inserted in the bill after final passage by the House of Representatives and Senate, was for a study of a highway ramp sought by a Florida real estate developer. At a fundraiser while on a trip to Bonita Springs, Fla., to inspect the site, Young received more than $40,000 in donations.

    Holding open vote

    CBS News correspondent Bob Fuss reports there was chaos on the Hour floor as Republican leaders passed the bill by holding a five-minute vote open for almost 50 minutes until they could convince two Republicans to change their votes.

    They buttonholed lawmakers for last-minute lobbying as Democrats complained loudly that the vote should be closed. Finally two GOP lawmakers switched from "no" to "yes," giving the bill's supporters the margin of victory.

    (additional examples)
    It is against House rules to keep a vote open in order to alter the outcome.

    a recorded vote by electronic device shall not be held open for the sole purpose of reversing the outcome of such vote.

    "Abusive holds" is difficult to quantify but I'd point towards Tom Coburn's extensive holds.

  34. Exactly by Nerdposeur · · Score: 4, Interesting

    If...

    the price of oil = X dollars + (opening a wildlife area to drilling and damage)

    ...then we are not lowering the price of oil; we're just paying for some of the oil with financial resources and some with environmental resources.

    The price of oil has still gone up.

  35. Re:Cancel vacation to pass more laws? by spun · · Score: 4, Insightful

    What laws did they put in effect that are causing you to go broke? I'm not going broke driving to work, maybe your budget problems aren't actually congress' fault, you ever think of that?

    --
    - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
  36. Re:Cancel vacation to pass more laws? by Harlequin · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Did you mean this part of the article:

    recent Department of Energy studies [show] that drilling in the outer continental shelf will have an "insignificant" impact on costs in the next two decades.

  37. Re:Cancel vacation to pass more laws? by pugugly · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It's always congresses fault when the wealthy or conservatives go broke.

    contrawise

    When democrats, the poor, or liberals are having issues, it's due to our lack of personal responsibility.

    Didn't you get the Memo?
    ---------- Pug

    --
    An Invisible Entity of Vast Power whose existence must be taken on faith alone: Liberal Media
  38. How many of those stories did you notice recently? by weston · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Maybe you're not aware of it, but from the mid 90s to 2006, there's all kinds of shut-out stories of precisely the kind you're talking about -- the Republican party didn't episodically decide to shut the Dems out, there was a concerted effort and plan for marginalizing them as fully as possible. Take a listen to Act III of This American Life's Houses of Ill Repute episode if you're interested in some perspective.

    Personally, I don't recall stories during that time period about how the Republicans were censoring the Democrats, but perhaps, since you have *guaranteed* that it would be covered in that manner, you can put up some examples.

  39. Get your facts straight by AySz88 · · Score: 3, Informative

    So on $400 an $11 markup is gouging? I want to shop where YOU shop.

    I wanted to point out that those numbers are $11 billion per quarter and $400 billion per year. The correct numbers are $11.68b profit this quarter, on $138b revenue this quarter.

    AND, do you want to know who's #2 in the 'record profits' field? Is it Shell, Conoco, etc? Nope, it's Walmart. Look it up.

    I looked it up and you are incorrect. As of April 2008, the number two spot, sorted by profits, is indeed Royal Dutch Shell. Walmart is way down there at #19 (you'll have to count). See http://www.forbes.com/lists/2008/18/biz_2000global08_The-Global-2000_Prof.html .