A Letter to My Friend, The Governator
Dear honorable governor and friend,
I'm writing to ask you to reconsider your opposition to lifting the ban on drilling off the coasts of the United States. Though, of course, the congressional ban can be rescinded independent of your voice, you're still a heavyweight in one of the largest coastal states in the nation. I agree with what you said this past week: "California's coastline is an international treasure." But it's also a national treasure that can help to remedy our gas crisis.
A recent Gallup Poll discovered that 57 percent of people are in favor of drilling for oil in coastal and wilderness areas that are presently off-limits. Unfortunately, you and Congress continue to refuse to represent that majority; and it's only going to grow.
Last week, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who is from your state, said, "We cannot drill our way to energy independence." But I agree with Rush Limbaugh, who retorted: "Yes, the hell we can. It's that simple. And yes, the hell we should. It's that simple. Drill here. Drill now. Pay less. We're the United States of America. We can do it."
President Bush might not be the most popular politician at the moment, but he was right this past week when he said: "We should expand American oil production by increasing access to the Outer Continental Shelf, or OCS. Experts believe that the OCS could produce about 18 billion barrels of oil. That would be enough to match America's current oil production for almost 10 years."
What most Americans don't realize is that there is an enormous amount of natural gas offshore, too, and with those prices nearly doubling during the past year from roughly $6 to more than $12, we can take some action there, as well, before another winter arrives and our heating bills go through the roof.
Arnold, my hope is that you are not being muscled by environmental thugs when the majority of Americans need and are crying out for your representation, too. We must be willing to lay aside our partisan politics and do what's best for Americans. Now is not the time to cater to the coral-reef crowd, especially when drilling is much more environmentally safe than it was in 1981, when the ban to drill was enacted.
We must look firmly into the eyes of environmentalists and say, "We, too, care about our environment, but when our economy is being hit to this degree, we must drill now and drill responsibly." As Interior Secretary Dirk Kempthorne recently said to Glenn Beck, "We know how to do it with the greatest of environmental sensitivity, and we now need to say, 'Let's get going.'" And about the possibility of leakage from oil platforms, he replied: "We have 150 times more natural seepage than we get seepage from the oil and gas platforms. … What used to traditionally be 10 acres were wellhead, we're getting it down to now 1/2 an acre per wellhead because of directional drilling, which we've learned to do from the offshore activities. You can go down and go in any direction up to 10 miles underground and tap the reserves." David Sandalow, an energy expert at The Brookings Institution, said the environmental risks of oil spillage are so minimal that "it's like walking an extra 20 feet a day to lose weight; it's just not enough to make a difference."
Most of us are beginning to turn green over the green barrier to remedy our energy crisis and soaring gas prices. And that's OK. It's time for a little righteous anger. We need to say, as Bill Bixby used to say and your fellow muscleman Lou Ferrigno played out in "The Incredible Hulk": "Don't make me angry. You wouldn't like me when I'm angry." Even better, each of us needs to declare that famous "Network" line, "I'm as mad as hell, and I'm not going to take this anymore!" Or maybe it's just high time we all stood up and said, once and for all, to oil dependency and high fuel prices, "Hasta la vista, baby."
It is time to terminate the 1981 congressional moratorium against drilling within 200 miles of our coasts. That restriction might have worked during a time of energy abundance, gasoline being roughly $1 a gallon, and pre-9/11 terrorism, but it is obsolete today and actually counterproductive. We also need to develop oil shale resources, open Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to drilling, expand domestic oil-refining capacity, and fight now to produce alternative forms of energy.
Arnold, I invite you and the rest of the nation to join me, Newt Gingrich and more than 1 million other Americans in signing the petition to Congress to drill here and drill now (www.AmericanSolutions.com). The petition is pressing on toward the goal of 2-3 million signatures by the time of the national conventions. We must keep momentum moving, and we need your help.
Your and America's friend,
Chuck Norris
To find out more about Chuck Norris and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate Web page at www.creators.com.
COPYRIGHT 2008 CHUCK NORRIS
DISTRIBUTED BY CREATORS SYNDICATE INC.
|
 |
Comments
|
7 Comments | Post Comment
|
|
Hi Chuck, just a short note this time. I am still with you in Drilling in the USA and using our own oil. We do need more refineries, but first we have to make them LISTEN TO US, THE PEOPLE, after all it is our God given right to do what we can to help our economy. GOD is the one that put it in the ground, and if he had not wanted us to use it, he would have left it out. I signed the petition and mailed it to several people for them to sign. Like I said before, the place we are at now is where the Middle East wants us and I don't like that. We don't need them if we can drill our own oil. It makes me very angry when "smart" people think they know it all. So I am mad, mad as hell and I think it is time for all Americans to stand up and say NO MORE spending my money for what you want, NOW, I want it spent on what I WANT. You keep fighting Chuck and I will stand beside you. GOD'S BLESSINGS ALWAYS.
Ms. jimmie
Comment: #1
Posted by: MS. JIMMIE HAUKOS
Tue Jun 24, 2008 4:19 PM
|
|
|
|
Dear Mr. Norris: You have to earn my friendship. And if you have to look to Rush Limbaugh for an ally, you should know you're seriously going down the wrong path. You're kind of acting like a dinosaur. You know what happened to them. The environment suddenly changed and down they went. Could be a lesson there. ................................................................................................................................................................................................
There is a big difference between mob rule and democracy, so don't get too excited about the polls. The test of true leadership and worthiness of membership in species homo sapiens is the ability to say no to that set of sheep and cow genes we all carry. You know, the ones that make us want to seek comfort in the herd-- eat now, think later, and when we've really gorged ourselves, get fleeced, milked, or worse. ..............................................................................................................................................................................................
Frankly, I'm tired of all this mindless right wing double talk. It brings in lots of money on radio shows and even TV these days, but its starting to rot us from the inside out. You've given patriotism a bad name, and I'm darned if I'm going to let a bunch of party-now, die-later plunderers of the family jewels cash in the best of God's green earth for some short-term energy fix that any junkie can tell you will do nothing but put off the pain. .................................................................................................................................................................................................
I want my kids to live on a planet that is alive and healthy, not withering away under the onslaught of parasites masquerading as human beings. I'm setting my sights for the center, and you should too. Forget the right, forget the left. Just look for the common sense center, and you will find where you need to go. Don't go for the get rich quick schemes, and remember the “conserve” in conservative. .............................................................................................................................................................................................
And for crying out loud, don't forget your kids, and theirs and theirs and theirs. They have to live on this planet too, and they deserve one with clean air, clean water, ice caps, polar bears, and every single one of God's creatures you share the world with right now. You've got to get away from the cash-it-in-now herd. I'm standing my ground to do the right thing, and you can too. That's the way you will earn my friendship. ................................................................................................................................................................................................
Sincerely,
The Governator
Comment: #2
Posted by: Masako
Tue Jun 24, 2008 5:06 PM
|
|
|
|
Drilling into the US oil resources will clearly have a localised environmental effect on the immediate landscape. Hopefully, the technology exists to minimise this local effect. But I believe it will be the only real environmental one.
As for manmade CO2 emissions affecting "climate change," (a more general term than "global warming," because climate is always changing), one environmentalist, Tim Flannery, declares in his book, The Weather Makers, ISBN 1-920885-84-6, p 28: “CO2 that humans have liberated by burning fossil fuels [since the Industrial Revolution]…is the cause – directly and indirectly – of around 80% of all global warming…"
However, nowhere in his book does Flannery identify any causal link between manmade CO2 emissions and "global warming." His conclusion, therefore, appears to be alarmist.
Solar physicist and climatologist of 40 years' standing Douglas V. Hoyt stated in 1997, “The two most important factors in causing climate change are solar luminosity increases [attributable in large part to changes in sunspot decay rates and sunspot structure] and the decreased number of explosive volcanic eruptions, which together can explain about 80% of the warming seen since 1880. The other 20% of the variation is caused by a combination of miscellaneous climate forcings and measurement errors. There is no need to invoke increases in carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases as major factors in climate change in the past, nor is there any solid evidence to indicate they will play a major role in future climate change."
Dr Hoyt's analysis is supported by independent researchers. Nearly 99.8% of the "greenhouse effect" from greenhouse gases (significantly less than 20% overall - see Hoyt above) comes from natural sources, mostly water vapour about which humans can do nothing. Even cessation of all fossil fuel combustion worldwide would have little or no effect on "climate change."
What is also significant is the observation that CO2 levels in the atmosphere follow increases and decreases in global temperatures (which have not shown any statistically significant change in the last 200 years) not the other way around. That is, CO2 release into the atmosphere (of which manmade CO2 is less than 4%, i.e. roughly less than 4% of 0.2% of greenhouse gases in total). And atmospheric CO2 levels have been much higher in the pre-industrial past than they are now.
All this additional data is available on the site of the Association of British Drivers. Well, being gas-guzzling motorists, they would publish that kind of stuff, wouldn't they? But I suggest their site is worth a visit. As a bible believer, I disagree with their evolutionary timescales, but in this case, that is merely a matter of horizontal scaling of the graphs.
In sum, to drill or not to drill is a key question for you, our American cousins, but I don't think the answer should be compromised by fears of excessive global warming, which remains something of a 'Chicken Little' syndrome.
Comment: #3
Posted by: Alan O'Reilly
Fri Jun 27, 2008 9:15 AM
|
|
|
|
Mr. O'Reilly, I would like to introduce you to Dr. Peter Duesberg. He's the infamous retrovirus researcher who made such a big splash many years ago by claiming that the scientific evidence proved HIV does not cause AIDS. You and he have much in common, except perhaps for the success he's achieved with his particular clown act. And then for your consideration there are the cigarette companies who kept their lucrative cancer stick scam alive for decades by using "science" to deny what was plain for everybody to see. There's a common theme here. It's money. ...................................................................................................................................................................................................... In this life there is always another sucker out there somewhere waiting to buy your trash if you wrap it up nicely enough (just look at the fortune Rush Limbaugh's piled up), and yes, the law kind of is what's boldly proposed and forcefully argued. But in the end, one simple truth will continue to roll over the planet as carbon leaps out of the ground and into the sky and water in one form or another: If you treat your world like a garbage can, it will become one.
Comment: #4
Posted by: Masako
Fri Jun 27, 2008 10:15 AM
|
|
|
|
Hello there, Mr M. I had a suspicion my post might upset you. As it happens, though, I am somewhat grateful, insofar as you have given me an excuse to amend my earlier post. The sentence "That is, CO2 release into the atmosphere (of which manmade CO2 is less than 4%, i.e. roughly less than 4% of 0.2% of greenhouse gases in total)" was inadvertantly not completed.
It should read "That is, CO2 release into the atmosphere (of which manmade CO2 is less than 4%, i.e. roughly less than 4% of 0.2% of greenhouse gases in total) does not cause change in global atmospheric temperature, it follows change in global atmospheric temperature."
That said, your comments indicate the well-known tendency to rely mainly on ridicule and ad hominem tactics in any kind of exchange. We have such commentators by the shed load over here, in all areas of debate. It is selfish on my part but I often wish they'd emigrate en masse to your side of the pond or just about any place but here.
Comment: #5
Posted by: Alan O'Reilly
Fri Jun 27, 2008 3:07 PM
|
|
|
|
Mr. O'Reilly, your post doesn't upset me so much as depress me. But please let me apologize. I didn't mean to ridicule you personally though I see it sure comes off that way. ................................................................................................................................................................................................
I do of course, disagree with you, as apparently do most of the scientists who are looking at the issue of global warming. I concede we really can't prove scientific certainty what is going on with the planet except that it IS getting warmer for whatever reason, the oceans are losing fish, clean water is getting more scarce, the air is having to accommodate more and more of the contamination we generate, world population is mushrooming out of control, and frankly, the world is just plain filling up with human-made crap of one type or another. ...................................................................................................................................................................................................
So what I would like you to concede is that you really don't know whether added carbon dioxide is contributing to the warming of the planet, and the best you can do like all the scientists are doing is try to reason your way to a plausible conclusion. There are still lots of people on both sides of the issue, but I can tell you one thing: You and I will not be around to find out what the answer really is. .......................................................................................................................................................................................................
Our kids may, though, or perhaps it will be their kids. And what are they supposed to do if your conclusion is wrong? You present a great argument, but I'm just not willing to bet my planet on it. And I'm not willing to bet my kids on it either. ................................................................................................................................................................................................................
I noticed your reference to the Bible, and I want you to know I believe in God, too. I also believe that we are supposed to be stewards of this beautiful world He gave us. We have an obligation to preserve the environment that supports all of His beautiful creatures, and every time we drive another one of His species into extinction, we are collectively committing one of the greatest sins imaginable. .....................................................................................................................................................................................................
So if you consider yourself a conservative, I do wish you would give a second thought to what many would consider a more genuinely conservative approach to the problem Mr. Norris and apparently you too feel will be solved by more and more drilling. Again, I apologize to you for the tone of my last note.
Comment: #6
Posted by: Masako
Fri Jun 27, 2008 4:36 PM
|
|
|
|
Sir; You might not impress anyone with your brains, but in the hopes that you have some redeeming qualities let me tell you something. Whether the shores of this polluted land are national treasures, or international treasures, there is little point in turning it over to oil companies for free when they charge for everything we buy. Where are the royalties which should support our public lands and Native American, and ease our tax burden? Are we just giving this land cheap for them to glut because we can't live without them making billions? Get real. Slap some sense into yourself. That's and order. Consider this: We already have a problem with global warming, pollution, and a trashed out oceans that still manages to feed much of the world. Why make our worst problems worse to make our least problems little better? Expensive gas teaches people that socialism isn't so bad, and that anarchy, economic, or political is poverty. Expensive energy forces people to think about how they will use it. It forces them to make reasoned choices. And even if reasoned choices leads them away from the republican party, in the long run it will make them rich and the rich poor. We can always sell our national treasures to a handful of rich folks. It is best if we only sell those we can take back intact. I don't care if we give them the whole country. We can have it back for the asking. And it is time to ask. Thanks, Sweeney.
Comment: #7
Posted by: James A, Sweeney
Mon Jun 30, 2008 8:49 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
