[: neon :] NewEnglandOnlineNetwork

NewzBites: Pelosi screws-up (not again), Obama's revenge by proxy(?) and why crude has fallen 21% in just two weeks

There is a ton of news that deserves Front Page attention this morning, but since we want to focus on one particular story, we'll first list the others below that you should be aware of - - - and then discuss a very interesting and very important story in our next post. A hint? It's about a major Democratic fundraiser uncomfortable with Obama . . . and her reasons why.

EDITORIAL

Anyway, here are the other stories of significant interest:

Anti-Obama Bloggers Say They Were Silenced...
This first story pains us the most. Read the article behind the link and make your own assessment as to whether anti-Obama blogs are being silenced. Now, whether Obama's people, i.e., his staff, have anything to do with these alleged efforts, to be fair, we know not nor is there any available evidence for or against. But politics of every stripe also love using surrogates (MoveOn.org on one side, SwiftBoat Veterans on the other) while publicly disavowing any formal connection, so who really knows at this point. We'll just have to wait and see.

PELOSI PRIVATELY TELLS DEMS THEY CAN BACK DRILLING...
This one is a no-brainer. We believe Nancy Pelosi has exhibited disgraceful House leadership behavior with her obsessive partisanship that has overshadowed her duty to serve the American people - - - all of the American people. But her obstinacy against offshore drilling is primarily hurting the "working" American families she loves to always claim are her first priority.

Gas price falls to 11-week low...
And why have the gas prices at the pumps fallen so dramatically, especially after George "I want to control America" Soros and others have declared the oil commodity unstoppable in its movement upward? Because Bush, despite a very long list of foolish, even stupid moves, did something very right when he put offshore drilling on the public table and took enormous pressure off the so-called demand for Middle Eastern and Venezuelan oil. The effort to transfer America's well-deserved and hard-earned wealth into the hands of both Middle Eastern countries and the greediest of crude speculators by raising prices so inexplicably and artifically high, Americans said enough and overwhelming welcomed the option of drilling and controlling our own commodities - - - forcing both Obama and Pelosi to concede defeat - - - although one does have to wonder whose side they were on to begin with.

Greedy Real Estate Agents, Predatory Lenders & McDonald's Cooking Oil as Fuel Alternative

EDITORIAL

Two bits of news caught our attention this morning.

The first story says the McDonald's units in The Philippines (Makati outlets) will be donating used cooking oil to help co-power Manila's Police Cars:

With oil prices at crippling highs, the project would convert cars in the Makati financial district to run on a mix of 40 percent diesel and 60 percent cooking oil, its police chief Senior Superintendent Gilbert Cruz said.

With approximately 141 McDonald's within just 30 miles of our location near Boston, one can only imagine how much power they could provide for city and state vehicles. And when you add Maine, Vermont, New Hampshire, Connecticut and Rhode Island McDonald franchise locations, include other fast food/hamburger outlets who cook with the same oil, the question then becomes, why aren't we doing that here?

Nevertheless, kudos to Makati and to McDonald's Corporate for their smarts and for helping our environment.

* * * * * * * * *

GET RESTITUTION FROM THE LENDERS & REAL ESTATE COMMISSIONS . . .
NOT THE TAXPAYERS

The second story is about home prices in May dropping by the largest percentage in the history of the index that covers these patterns, from a year ago.

Boston, in particular, was listed along with Tampa, Detroit, Minneapolis, New York, Dallas and Atlanta, because they all showed a smaller annual decline.

Certainly not the best news.

Now, since we've never been fans of the false market conditions too many otherwise greedy real estate agents have been perpetrating on the public since at least 1986, nor the too many foolish buyers who never do their own neighborhood homework and blindly believed too many greedy real estate agents, we do feel for those buyers who were intentionally (allegedly) misled by their particular greedy real estate agents and/or by the alleged predatory lending practices of too many mortgage loan originators, an industry that is currently the target of Federal and State probes nationwide for too many allegedly illicit practices.

(That was possibly the longest running paragraph ever).

But those homeowners now in a financial bind certainly do not all deserve a bailout from the coffers of the U.S. Government, a.k.a., we the taxpayers. That could and should come from lender restitution (as an alternative to prosecution) and also include the related commissions of the greedy real estate agents as well.

Fat chance either will ever happen, but the fact that those of us who did not get caught up in the hype and easy-profit hysteria - - - while still having to endure the bragging rights from those who did - we're pretty darn pissed-off that our tax money will be bailing them out. Salt on the wound, or something like that.

From a less personal, more serious and economic pov, however painful these times are or may become for some homeowners, in the long run, realistic, stabilized pricing is what our local economies need for sustained growth. Home ownership is a business, repeat, a business, just like any other, not a guaranteed right for every American - - - nor an irresponsible, commoditized profit center for every greedy real estate agent or mortgage broker.

Bailing out America's homeowners will only reward those lenders who made the mistakes in the first place, and allow the greedy real estate agents to keep their undeserved commissions.

That's merely our opinion.

What's yours.

we invite you to email us your comments

Some major power behind wind farms

Yesterday, T. Boone Pickens, the famous oil tycoon and brilliant investor, announced his intentions to help offset our nation's excessive dependence on oil with a huge plan - offered to both Obama and McCain as well - to focus on the most cost-effective and renewable source of energy . . . wind from wind turbine farms.

And here's his commercial that he's apparently spending ten million of his own cash to air on national television networks:

And just today, General Electric announced that it had expanded (to $4 billion) its investment in turbine wind farms with

76 wind farms worldwide with a total capacity of more than 4,000 megawatts. The company plans to spend $6 billion on renewable energy by 2010.

. . . GE Energy Financial Services has or will invest in 76 wind farms worldwide with a total capacity of more than 4,000 megawatts. The company plans to spend $6 billion on renewable energy by 2010.

. . . They include a 126-megawatt wind farm in Wethersfield, a 106.5-megawatt farm in Chateaugay and a 97.5-megawatt site in Altona. Combined, the turbines can generate power for about 110,000 homes, the company said.

These are all magnificent steps in the right direction.

Now, if only the neighbors of The Kennedys, (plus video) whose spacious properties overlook Nantucket Sound, wouldn't get their gilded pantyhose in such a knot over the thought of Sound-based wind farms dotting their water landscape, then maybe we in Massachusetts could continue setting the national trend and agenda for successful energy creation and distribution through either land-based or sea-based wind turbine farms.

OPEC, speculators and American oil companies: which candidate has the guts to create a serious alternative energy plan?

REVIEW

OPEC's public rationales and the logic they employ make little or no sense when one studies their words, as you wonder who taught them the market concepts of supply and demand and as we think about which American Presidential candidate will have the guts to develop a serious alternative energy plan for America's future.

Strategy One
In the basic supply-demand concept, companies naturally and understandably want the ideal, which is to have demand for their product be much greater than the supply they produce. That allows the company to maintain a higher price for that product, sometimes referred to as a premium, and in the world of capitalism, consumers pay "what the market will bear."

Strategy Two
Additionally, some companies make the effort to control the absorption rate with which their products enter the marketplace, which simply means that they want to control - and maintain, through how much they produce - their preferred prices for their products as often as they're able.

Now, the first strategy is standard fare. No big whoop.

But the second strategy is where we've had problems with OPEC and America's oil companies. We've heard almost minute-by-minute contradictions over the years as to why the price of a barrel of oil suddenly spikes up . . . a fire at a particular facility or pipeline, some civil unrest in a major oil-producing country, etc., etc.

But now, because the equities markets (stocks) worldwide are doing so poorly and because the U.S. dollar is so painfully low against the Euro, the Yen and numerous other world currencies, despite the lowest interest rates from The Federal Reserve and World Bank, we're now hearing an ever-growing chorus of contradictions - and internal division - coming from OPEC as to why we're fast approaching $150 a barrel oil.

For example, does OPEC like the $4 plus per gallon in the U.S.? Some oil ministers say no, because it hurts demand. True enough.

Yet today we have King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia, the world's number one oil exporter, blaming speculators while also calling on consuming countries to get used to high prices.

Also today, we have Chakib Khelil, the president of OPEC, say that they have concerns that future demand for oil may be in jeopardy because of the now increased chances we'll find some alternative fuels.

Hey, you can't, on the one hand, expect us to believe you're unhappy with the current price per barrel because it so negatively impacts demand, then tell us to get used to paying $4 per gallon or more at the pumps while at the same time express concern about a loss in future demand and still expect us to believe that the blame for current prices fits squarely on commodity speculators!

And if you're so concerned with future demand on the wane, wouldn't you want to do whatever it took to discourage or prevent your customers from pursuing fuel alternatives, either by making price adjustments down or at least increasing production so that natural economic supply and demand forces create a more stable and reliable environment for everyone?

Oh, then of course, there's the P.R. part of this picture.

With the manipulations and threats OPEC has made for the past 35 years - along with the inexplicable record profits American oil companies have enjoyed - we may all be just about ready to start kicking each of them to the curb, little by little.

We can start by putting Turbine Wind Farms (with solar panels) atop every acre of landfill, connected nationwide to a grid that stores and distributes enough energy to power their respective communities - and still be able to share the surplus elsewhere.

Hey, it works in Hull, MA.

It can work for us all with the power of a new President behind us.

Hey Al Gore, would 'ya talk to the Kennedys for us?

EDITORIAL

Where's Al Gore when you really need him?

Last week, just before the start of the Memorial Day weekend, we took a trip to Hull, MA and on the way back, made sure we shot some video of their apparently very successful Wind Turbine towering above the town. This is the same Wind Turbine, in concept, that alternative energy advocates want to put into Nantucket Sound, as Wind Farms. But unfortunately, sound energy policy - definitely no pun intended - has been trumped, so to speak, and again with no intentional pun, because these turbines would then be within eyesight of the wealthy waterfront homes of the Kennedys and their fellow neighbors of Hyannis.

Last we checked, they have (whomever they are) somehow managed to stop the Wind Farm installation in Nantucket Sound. Whether they've done so for the self-serving reasons of preserving their pristine backyard waterfront views or because they feel entitled to unfettered sailing throughout Nantucket Sound, despite the projected as substantial energy savings from such an effort, there are no Wind Farms in a body of water where they could do the most good and become a respected prototype to further our nation's goal of reducing our dependence on oil.

Is this yet another example of Al Gore, Teddy Kennedy (our prayers are still with him) and John Kerry forever telling us how we should behave, yet they're entitled to march to their own drummers?

Whatever.

The hypocrisy of some celebrity green: exceptions to their rules?

EDITORIAL

"Hypocrites! They're all hypocrites! Mind they do not take you in, Thomas."

Such were the words I remember speaking when playing King Henry the Eighth (bellowing to Sir Thomas Moore in political Socialist Robert Bolt's A Man for All Seasons) while in my disastrously embarassing first semester of college, way back when.

But truer words have never been spoken, especially when it comes to so-called green celebrities, those allegedly devoted, dedicated, environmentally conscious lot who preach the good word to us - - - while going off on their merry ways with a seemingly chronic do as I say, not as I do mantra.

Today, the British newspaper The Daily Mail highlighted some of the more egregious faux-pas (what is the plural of that phrase?) that actually evoke more derision and mockery than anger.

For instance, Babs, Barbra Streisand, aside from her magnificent voice that has blessed our airwaves and stages for almost five decades, has been an outspoken, nay, ardent environmentalist, Liberal Democrat and of course, Al Gore supporter.

But catch this. (Sorry for the giant print, but that's how their .jpeg image turned out).

Thirteen, 53-foot semi-tractor trailers and four rental vans?

Then there's stuff about Leonardo DiCaprio, Madonna, Brangelina, Prince Charles, but for fellow Jersey boy and commercial jet pilot John Travolta, this was even beyond excessive (Again, sorry for the giant print, but that's how their .jpeg image turned out):

In that big jet all alone.

Well, he certainly has the right, but it's nevertheless a pretty ugly way to be caught with your hypocrisy showing.

Ethanol, biofuels, skyrocketing food prices, $4 per gallon @ the pumps and hey, where is Al Gore?

EDITORIAL

If you took a position that became untenable, unworkable, impractical and unpopular because you and your supporters had myopically failed to anticipate the full financial consequences of what you were recommending and the pain you were now causing, especially to poor folks, you probably wouldn't be available either.

We're talking about biofuels and the negative impact many are saying they're having on worldwide food supplies, as per The New York Sun:

“I don’t think anybody knows precisely how much ethanol contributes to the run-up in food prices, but the contribution is clearly substantial,” a professor of applied economics and law at the University of Minnesota, C. Ford Runge, said. A study by a Washington think tank, the International Food Policy Research Institute, indicated that between a quarter and a third of the recent hike in commodities prices is attributable to biofuels.

Last year, Mr. Runge and a colleague, Benjamin Senauer, wrote an article in Foreign Affairs, “How Biofuels Could Starve the Poor.”

“We were criticized for being alarmist at the time,” Mr. Runge said. “I think our views, looking back a year, were probably too conservative.”

So why is everyone looking for a statement from poor Mr. Gore?

“Crop-based biofuels are not part of the solution. They, in fact, add to the problem. Whether Al Gore has caught up with that, somebody ought to ask him,” the professor said.

Frankly, we're active environmentalists, recycling paper, plastic, batteries, ink cartridges, fluorescent lights, we're even buying hybrid vehicles, essentially taking whatever steps are necessary to do our part in preserving and protecting our environment.

But now, faced with $4 per gallon prices at the pumps, OPEC warning us of $200 a barrel for oil, warehouse clubs restricting sales of certain foods, articles detailing the unprecedented coming food shortages in the U.S., riots and death from rising food prices in the Caribbean, the domino effect that surging fuel prices have on air travel, weekly grocery bills and overall forced cutbacks in spending worldwide - as well as the mounting scientific challenges to and allegations against his environmental theories - at this point, we kind of think Al Gore should have just retired, maybe sit on the front porch of his estate smooching Tipper, do lunches with Leonardo DiCaprio or count chads.

Ouch?

Hey, if the above isn't sufficient proof that Al Gore has gotten it all wrong and that too many innocent and poor are now paying the price, then let's just wait for some more suffering, you know, just to be sure.