The Upcoming Oil Issue...

Right now, people are very concerned about prices at the pump.

Those prices are hurting low-income people quite badly, while our politicians wring their hands publicly yet do nothing.

But the real crunch is coming this winter. See, gas prices affect us in a slow, gradual leeching of our budget; a tiny bit at a time. But the cost of heating oil comes in huge chunks - and this year those chunks are likely to be bigger than a heck of a lot of people can afford.

$850 a fill-up? That's up $350 from last year; I personally know quite a few families that aren't going to be able to afford it.

The interesting thing here, of course, is how many of those families are going to come from the north-eastern, solidly "blue" states that the Democrats count on for support in the Presidential elections; I wonder how many of those voters are going to be questioning the sanity of stopping domestic drilling, when they have to choose between food and heat this winter?

For Lily...

...Visiting your page, I am mindful of something.

6. If you think you are reading someone's words in a certain tone, and it makes you want to retaliate, please ask first what was intended before unleashing a reply you may regret later. Remember that typed words on a screen can be read in many different ways, and people may leave out punctuation in their thoughts accidentally. In many cases, punctuation helps one to figure out the tone, but it is not the case every time.

I will be honest and tell you that after the events on nanabanana's page I have been following a policy of simply ceasing to comment on threads once you post in them.

That's not my preferred method of discourse, and excludes me from many discussions that I honestly really wanted to participate in.

But I DO realize that - for whatever reason - I rub you the wrong way. There's nothing wrong with that; I know people who cause me the same reaction.

As I said in comments on Carter's page; you hereby - here's another copy for your personal use - have it in writing that if you simply ask me for clarification, rather than assuming I intend personal attacks - I reserve those for the "anarchy" threads in the robust debate group as much as I can - I will ALWAYS gladly oblige.

I disagree with a lot of people on a lot of things; finding yourself on the other side of a debate from me isn't anything unique or unusual.

But please, never assume that I am unwilling or unable to expand upon a point. I am always willing to go the extra mile to ensure that my specific intent and meaning is clear to whoever I'm talking with; that's simply common courtesy. You are always, always welcome to ask questions, request clarification, or whatever you need.

As I said; you're not gonna agree with me all the time, and that's fine. But it's a whole lot less likely to cause acrimony if we're both 100% sure what the exact stance of the other actually IS before the shouting starts.

I often find that people "feel" things without being able to articulate why they think that way. IN MY EXPERIENCE - and I stress that, because of course I'm not always right - the overwhelming majority of the time, when someone cannot actually provide a reason for their stance, it's because that stance is mistaken. Because of that, I encourage people to spell out - specifically - the exact reasoning they used to reach that point; the exact ideas that drive their thinking.

Some people find that to be offensive. Barring the aforementioned anarchy threads, I do try to avoid that, but people, I find, can take offense at anything if they try hard enough.

At any rate; you are certainly under no obligation whatsoever to give me the benefit of the doubt on anything that I say.

But if you take the chance and simply ask for clarification, I might surprise you.

At any rate, I wish you the best; and if you continue to find me enormously irritating, simply tell me so, and I will resume my Elite Master Plan of simply staying out of your way.

Another Chairman Maobama Note (Thanks Mike! Genius!)

Right.

You know how Senator Obama is always going on and on about how he's not a Muslim?

That's his brother Malik, holding a picture of the two of them with someone else, in traditional Muslim dress, in 1985.

Suuuuuuurrrrrre you weren't. And your association with Louis Farrakhan, founder of the Nation of Islam - you know, the organization of Muslim communists - proves nothing, either.

Someday, people will stop drinking the Kool-Aid, Senator. And then what will your excuse be?

Happy Father's Day.

It's that day of the year when you are supposed to thank your father for the (relatively) thankless contribution he's made to your growth and development.

And make no mistake; it is relatively thankless.

Because for all that your mother can go on and on about carrying you in her body for 9 months, you wouldn't have been there in the first place, if not for your father.

But who gives guys the credit? A woman can work, or not; guys can work, or go to jail. But that's ok; because most guys accepted that a long time ago.

We accepted that by and large we were doomed to work our lives away in thankless jobs, killing ourselves with stress, so that every single show on television with a father character can portray us as retarded, beer-swilling monkeys. We accepted that we can contribute 50% of the genes to our children, and bear 100% of the financial responsibility for them, and yet in a divorce, have no rights whatsoever. We accepted that women can accuse us of sexual harassment - or any sexual misconduct, for that matter - and that we will be held as guilty even if acquitted, but we can't accuse them of the same thing.

We accepted that women have choices we don't; rights we don't; opportunities we don't; and get credit they frankly don't deserve.

We accepted that no matter how hard we labor in their defense, their upbringing, their sustenance, their education, their housing and food and clothing, if we divorce, it's our fault.

We accepted that it's ok for an ex-wife to tell our children - after that divorce that's all our fault - that we're complete criminals, and yet we can't do the same thing.

We accepted that it's no longer allowed to spank a child, even though THAT tactic is CLEARLY not working, and despite the fact that it worked perfectly well on US.

We accepted that no matter the argument, if it's about child-rearing, we don't get to win any of them, EVER.

And you know what? Somewhere along the line, we started losing the urge to BE fathers.

Single motherhood is growing at an enormous rate, as more and more men treat their children like their mothers: expendable. Disposable.

Because fatherhood used to have benefits.

My father wasn't perfect, God knows. But when my parents got divorced, there was never any question that he was still my father. He continued to pay for us, give us advice - and when we needed it, which was often enough, discipline - give us an example to live by, and BE A FATHER.

And what did he get in return?

My father was my hero. He was the only person I had, growing up, that I was always 100% sure was on my team. We sure as hell didn't see eye to eye very often - although as I get a little more experience under my belt, I find myself coming around to his point of view more often than not - but I got that from him, too, and he knew it. We were both stubborn as an angry mule.

But I never, ever doubted him. He wasn't perfect, and had a lot of problems to overcome - and sometimes he failed - but I never once saw a day when he didn't TRY. He always worked to the hilt, did everything and anything in his power to keep our family going, tirelessly; he worked LITERALLY until the day he died; the morning he died he went to my mother's house to watch a football game after finishing a project for a client.

He gave his LIFE to give my brother and I an example of how to be a good man, and I try every day to live up to that.

But there aren't too many of us left who bother.

So I have a challenge for you. All of you. Male or female, I don't care.

Go to your father. Or your children's father. Your grandfather. And thank them.

Thank them for all the contributions they've made to your life and the lives of your children; thank them for their example, their perseverance, the fact that they're still sticking it out when so many other men have given up on families.

Whether or not you've been taught to believe this, YOU OWE THEM THAT.

You OWE them the level of respect that someone who gives THEIR LIFE to support you deserves.

They didn't do it because they're brainless, drunken stumblebums who are only functional when rescued and guided by women.

They did it because they loved you enough to do it.

And that deserves better from you than they've ever gotten, I guarantee.

My father was my hero. But he sure as hell deserved better from me than he ever got. Your father does too.

It's Father's Day.

Go out and give it to him.

Just So's Y'all Know...

Trent Reznor, musician, producer, songwriter, remixer, and the heart and soul of the popular alternate music group Nine Inch Nails, is cool.

How cool?

Well, after the success he had selling his last 2-CD set - "Ghosts" on his band's website for $5 a copy, he decided "what the hell?"

So, he's giving away his newest CD, "The Slip," for free.

Yeah, you heard me. FREE.

In fact, the NIN.com website encourages downloaders to - actually says "we encourage you to:"

"remix it
share it with your friends,
post it on your blog,
play it on your podcast,
give it to strangers,
etc."

Now, that's just cool.

Get Ready For Some Laughter.

See, I wasn't kidding the other day when I reported that the Senate Select Committee On Intelligence report - the Rockefeller report, if you will - had vindicated the President, showing that every pre-Iraq War claim he made was backed by intelligence data.

And Nancy Pelosi knew it would.

I know she did, because the Democrats have been loudly trumpeting for years about how they wanted to impeach President Bush for lying to the American people - and yet she, among other Democratic leaders - has fought mightily to keep them from doing that very thing.

They even sold bumper stickers, remember?

So, why stop them? I mean, President Bush is hated; surely impeachment is a logical next step for the Democrats, especially considering they've been yabbering about doing it for the last five years.

I mean, the only reason to stop them would be...

...

...If you knew you couldn't convict him.

So Speaker Pelosi has been hauling on leashes like mad, trying to keep the Democrats under control.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has repeatedly said she would not support a resolution calling for Bush's impeachment, saying such a move was unlikely to succeed and would be divisive.

But there's always gotta be one.

Monday night, Dennis Kucinich introduced articles of impeachment, claiming that President Bush:

• lied to the American people (impeachable,)
• committed war crimes (impeachable,)
• used false pretenses for starting a war (impeachable,)
• failed to provide adequate equipment for the troops (laughable, considering it was Congress that shot down the spending bills for it,)
• illegally detained prisoners (impeachable, except the detainees weren't detained illegally - there was a court decision about this just today, actually,)
• broke laws using signing statements (true, but laughable since it's legal,)
• isn't helping global warming (wtf?)
• didn't do well at responding to Hurricane Katrina (again, laughable considering the President isn't in charge of FEMA, and it was the governor of Louisiana, Kathleen Blanco, who told President Bush PERSONALLY that they didn't need federal help AFTER THE LEVEES HAD ALREADY BROKEN,)
• isn't doing anything about voting rights (laughable considering we all have them - even people in jail)
• hasn't fixed Medicare (laughable since Kucinich was one of the ones that voted against the President's proposed reform of that agency,)
• and doesn't reply to Congressional subpoenas, which is laughable since the President has no legal obligation to do so.
  

That last being why the Clintons got away with it, by the way.

So, of the not-very-many actual impeachable offenses there, there remain NONE of which the President has not been cleared in advance.

Now, this is an election year.

And this means that the President has less than 7 months until the question of impeachment will be a moot point, because he will be out of office.

Going by the Clintons, again (I have no other example, since I wasn't even born - nor was my grandfather - when they attempted to impeach Andrew Jackson) there's no chance whatsoever that the impeachment of President Bush will actually take place. This kind of proceeding takes years; 7 months won't cut it.

And so, despite what Speaker Pelosi has done to try to prevent this kind of jackassery, in an election year, the Democrats are all going to sign on a political suicide pact, to try to impeach a lame duck President with mere months remaining in office who has been acquitted in advance of the only actual criminal charges in the lot.

So, get ready to laugh.

Because ALL the House Democrats signed the articles of impeachment.

Which means that - in an election year - they're going to be President Bush's absolute best advocates; their hearings will serve only to get the truth out there about the Iraq war and its genesis, and that CANNOT go well for the Democrats.

See, if they actually BELIEVED all their crap about pulling the troops out, they would have done it already. They haven't, because they know good and damn well that the war over there was justified morally, it was justified for humanitarian reasons, military reasons, self-defense reasons; and now they have no choice but to show the whole world that same truth.

President McCain, I salute your military service, and wish you well in your term in office!


...Oh, and in other news... Remember those stimulus checks that aren't supposed to work, and we're all gonna gang up and make fun of?

Yeah, they've caused the biggest surge in retail sales in six months, and nearly totally reversed the negative trend in the market.

Suck it, haters. I bought a new TV.

Serenity looks friggin' awesome in 720p.

Right; It's Time For Another Campaign Trail Update!

Some few of you might remember a while back - August of '07, specifically - when I posted a whole series of 10 election predictions.

Right.

Then I posted when the first set of them came true.

Then I posted again with more of them.

As of now, I am 7 for 10 - and the three remaining ones were predictions about what would happen AFTER the elections.

You see, #'s 6 and 9 are now 100% confirmed, with #2  being at least partially so.

That would be:

2. There will be sex scandals "discovered" about each and every Republican candidate.

As, indeed, has been the case with everyone with a significant chance of winning the nomination; Giuliani's marital issues have been brought up, as was Mitt Romney's support of polygamy in the past. McCain's family has been brought up repeatedly, despite the fact that he seems happily married now, and everyone pretty much considers it a dead issue. There are still reporters around trying to flog that dead horse some more, though.

6. The only two candidates running who have decent platforms will not get their party nominations. (That'd be Bill Richardson of the Dems, and Ron Paul of the GOP.)

(I will note here that this was before ol' Dr. No came completely off the rails - or at least before I realized he was. I can forgive - to a degree - foreign policy retardedness if you can get domestic issues on track, but fundraising with Nazis was a bit much.) You'll note that the confirmed candidates are Barack Obama and John McCain. Actually, i could have posted this one as true months ago, but I wanted to hold off until the Democrats settled on one nominee first.

9. No matter the outcome of the election, there will be a slew of angry rants by people with tiny brains, demanding the removal of the electoral college, as though that would somehow improve things.

You'll note that this one we didn't even have to wait for the end of the election to find out; people started making dumbass rants about the electoral college months ago.

For the record, my view is that the electoral votes should be divided - at a state level - by the percentage of the popular vote, in the individual state - and apportioned to the candidates proportionally. The only other thing I would change is to require the electors - nationally - to follow their state's results, and vote as directed, removing the "vote my conscience" option from them.

Of course, in strict point of fact, if they actually did this, the Republicans would be in the White House for the next, oh, I dunno, always.

Considering that both the Republicans and Democrats are messed up - although to different degrees and in different ways - that's a bad idea, too.

So, anyway, this is my third "confirming my own suspicions" post about the '08 elections.

Hopefully I won't have to post after the elections confirming the other ones, too. But so far I've been dead in the black.

I Would Like To Draw Your Attention To Something, KJ.....

Since all along, you have been one of the most rabidly anti-Bush people in my friends list; you deserve to have this pointed out to you.

The Washington Post just reported today on the Senate report - the Rockefeller one - about whether or not, in fact, "Bush Lied, People Died."

Their conclusion is that, despite the fact that Senator Rockefeller has been trying to claim that the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence report makes the President out to be a liar, in fact the report itself does no such thing.

Points to ponder:

On Iraq's nuclear weapons program? The president's statements "were generally substantiated by intelligence community estimates."

On biological weapons, production capability and those infamous mobile laboratories? The president's statements "were substantiated by intelligence information."

On chemical weapons, then? "Substantiated by intelligence information."

On weapons of mass destruction overall (a separate section of the intelligence committee report)? "Generally substantiated by intelligence information."

Delivery vehicles such as ballistic missiles? "Generally substantiated by available intelligence."

Unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to deliver WMDs? "Generally substantiated by intelligence information."

But that's not all.

But statements regarding Iraq's support for terrorist groups other than al-Qaeda "were substantiated by intelligence information."

Statements that Iraq provided safe haven for Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and other terrorists with ties to al-Qaeda "were substantiated by the intelligence assessments," and statements regarding Iraq's contacts with al-Qaeda "were substantiated by intelligence information."

The report is left to complain about "implications" and statements that "left the impression" that those contacts led to substantive Iraqi cooperation.

Right. The Senator in charge of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence has been digging for years - YEARS - and has found that BUSH TOLD THE TRUTH BASED ON THE INFORMATION AVAILABLE AT THE TIME.

Now, we can debate whether or not that information was faulty all week, if you'd like; but nothing - NOTHING - will change the fact that that intelligence, intelligence Hillary Clinton STILL agrees with, by the way - was developed by the intelligence appointees of William Jefferson Clinton.

All That, And Then Some...

I have several points to discuss today, all of which are interconnected, and so this might seem a little disorganized.

Bear with me.

First, I'd like to talk about "teams." On the other side of the world from us, there's a place where two teams are fighting for their goals. Let's call it what it is: a war. It's a war that's been going on for a good while now, and both teams are a bit tired. But they're fighting over land - cities and country both - that ultimately belong to a third team, which is basically just hunkering down and trying to wait it out. The third team has been having a rough time; no food, no water, no electricity, sometimes no housing, and dodging bullets and bombs when - all too frequently - the fighting of the other two teams spills into the residential neighborhoods.

Now, I know that you know exactly where I'm talking about. And I know that an awful lot of you have stances on that war that you're not willing to alter, regardless of facts and logic; that's your right. What I'm going to ask you to do, though, is to set that aside for five minutes; set aside all the things you "believe," and try to see things from the point of view of a member of that third team.

You're hungry, thirsty, exhausted, terrified; you've been told all your life that one of the teams fighting for your land is pure, unadulterated evil, and that your soul itself depends on clinging to, and supporting, the other team. But the longer the two teams are side-by-side, the more cognitive dissonance you get. One team - the team you've been told all your life is pure evil - is trying to help you. They bring water, food, blankets - and GIVE THEM AWAY. They build hospitals for the sick and injured, and train doctors to treat them; they build schools for the children, they got the electricity turned on for the first time in years, after bringing engineers over thousands of miles just for that purpose; they're helping rebuild homes destroyed by violence; many, many of them have taken bullets in your defense.

They're not perfect; there was a scandal a while back where some of their people humiliated and frightened prisoners; but those people were not only disgraced, but in fact themselves imprisoned. The team you've been taught is pure evil not only follows - strictly - the law of war, they extend its protections to their opponents, who according to that very law, are outside its protections by virtue of their own actions. And yet, you're told, they're evil.

You're told this by men who routinely murder innocent bystanders "to make a statement." By men who habitually, repeatedly, openly, and intentionally torture, kidnap, and murder; men who behead children on television with knives, proud of their capacity for atrocity. You're told this by men who bomb the hospitals, schools, and mosques you depend on, just because they have been built or defended by the other team; men who wear no uniform, hide in shadows, strike from behind, indiscriminately.

You're told about the atrocities committed by the other team - atrocities you've never seen - by men who have committed atrocities before your very eyes, men who kill civilians and bystanders ON PURPOSE. You're told of the slothful, wasteful ways of one team - men tirelessly laboring in your defense, who have not seen their homes in years, for YOU - by men who murder your neighbors, to terrify you into giving them tribute.

And when you ask that team, these men and women who are supposedly so evil that any barbarity is acceptable in defense against them, "Why are you here?" they answer "To get your government up and running, so you can defend yourselves; as soon as you're ready for that, we'll go home."

Is it any wonder - any REAL wonder - that the facts don't support the notion that we're losing the war in Iraq? The facts paint a very different picture from the things the media tries to sell us here in the States. In FACT, over 45% of the territories in Iraq have fully transitioned into the control of the Iraqi government, which now has 171 BATTALIONS of army troops, and 36 BATTALIONS of National Police, at its hands; an additional 30% of the provinces are expected to transition completely within the next 4 months.

In FACT, the enormous bulk of the expenses we've incurred in the course of the war have been spent building infrastructure for the Iraqis; water purification plants, power stations, phone lines, roads, hospitals, schools; at this point, the Iraqi government is outspending us nearly two to one on strictly military expenses.

To give you an idea what 171 battalions means, a battalion is a force consisting of between 500 and 1500 men, and is generally considered the smallest force unit capable of full independent operations - in other words, able to function self-sufficiently without orders and resupply from higher. So, that number - 171 battalions - means the Iraqis have fielded approximately 171, 000 soldiers, and 36, 000 police. Those men are making a difference, not just by their skills, but by their presence; the fact that they exist tells the Iraqi people that we're serious about getting them on their feet and then going home. We are no longer an occupying force to fear and distrust - because we've proved we mean what we say.

We're winning in Iraq by contrast; the comparison between our troops and those of the insurgents is not flattering, and we could not HELP but win, if we simply hold on long enough.

I will come back to this.

Secondly, I'm going to talk about "insanity." Famously, insanity has been defined as repeating your actions, and expecting different results. For decades, U.S. policy in the Middle East has been insane by that definition; time and time again we have gone to the negotiating table with "leaders" who then breach the agreements made almost before the ink they used to sign them dries.

And yet, despite the fact that the Qur'an says that it is the duty of every Muslim to deal dishonestly with unbelievers, despite the fact that several organizations in the Middle East have in their very charters language stating their goals as the destruction of Israel, the destruction of the West, the destruction of America - I'm looking at you, HAMAS - positions against which there can be no negotiation except bullets, we have American politicians advocationg yet another meaningless round of negotiations with HAMAS, "discussions" with Iran, "meetings" with known hostile leaders.

When the other side openly, loudly, and often, declares their intent to destroy or subjugate you, it behooves you to believe they mean it. "Negotiating" with someone who claims that their God demands your utter destruction at their hands, is not only insane but criminally stupid.

I will come back to this, as well.

Third, I want to discuss Iran. Iran, with Libya as a close second, has been the world's largest state sponsor for terrorism for decades. In fact, it was a hostage crisis in Iran - if anyone can be bothered to remember, or read, that far back - that helped elect Ronald Reagan 28 years ago. Iran, a nation whose leader has for years called loudly and often for the destruction of the West; a nation whose political leader is a powerless figurehead; a nation whose fanatical theocratic ruler has supported terrorism in all its forms, openly, for decades - and SPECIFICALLY denounces the American leftists and their influence in Iran - this nation is trying to build nuclear weapons.

They've denied it loudly; but despite their claims that their nuclear project is strictly peaceful, strictly for power generation, they refuse to allow IAEA inspectors - the U.N. International Atomic Energy Agency - to examine their facilities.

If their intentions were truly peaceful, they would have nothing to hide. But they do; and if they get a nuclear weapon, it will be in the hands of Osama bin Laden, or men like him, almost immediately.

All of these things are why we CANNOT and MUST NOT elect Senator Barack Obama to the Presidency of the United States.

Set aside the fact that he is a communist - taking money from someone who earns it and giving it to someone who does not, a cornerstone of many of his proposed economic policies, is a founding principle of communism - set aside the fact that he plays race politics as a matter of course; the fact that he is decisive only when he has an opinion poll to support his position; the fact that he is inexperienced in a leadership role; the fact that he is affiliated with the racist organization "the Nation of Islam," leave all these facts aside.

Senator Obama has said openly that he will betray the trust of the Iraqi people, and the honor of this nation, by pulling our troops out immediately, regardless of the readiness of the Iraqi government. He has repeatedly spoken of his intent to negotiate - again - with groups like HAMAS, and governments like Iran.

But most frighteningly, he has said openly that if he is elected, military options against Iran's nuclear program are off the table.

We MUST not elect this man, because America cannot afford a crater, where once stood a city of millions, as an OBJECT LESSON.

I personally don't like Senator McCain; I don't agree with many of his policies, and frankly, his health makes me think that we are likely electing his chosen vice-president to the Presidency; I believe there are unquestionably many men or women better suited for the job than is Senator McCain.

But Senator Obama is not among their number.

And I do not want to be proven right, at the cost of the lives of millions.

Make no mistake; see clearly through the candidates' rhetoric. When you vote for Senator Obama this November, you are voting for a future in which the lives of millions of Americans will turn to ash in an instant, their hopes and dreams and lives forever wasted, because of YOUR VOTE.

And when that happens, the blood of those millions will be on YOUR HANDS.

Senator McCain may not be able to stop it; nuclear terrorism may in fact be an inevitable future for us. But Senator McCain is at least willing to TRY. And for that reason, if no other, he has my vote.

A Strange Situation

Usually, I find myself so strapped for time that I don't have any chance to write anything, so my blog posts aren't as frequent as I'd like.

Now is not then. Weirdly enough, I find myself with such a vast backlog - literally perhaps a hundred fifty handscrawled pages - that some of my posts are going out of date, being fairly topical.

So, this weekend, I am going to try - since I have 4 days off (A MIRACLE!!) - to post as many of them as I can.

Some of them will be out of date.

Cope.

You will still see what I had to say about it when it was relevant, and that counts for something, doesn't it?

Anyway, if you don't choose to read or post comments on them, I will understand; a whole load of posts at once can be a bit much. But you're all more than welcome.

Just So You Folks Know:

Right now, the U.S., thanks largely to its taxes, is the 108th most-expensive place on the planet to buy gasoline.

But wait. It gets better. Some U.S. Senators are proposing a massive hike in gasoline taxes, because they believe that making gas so expensive that people will use less of it is a good thing.

Want to see the result of raising taxes as much as our Senators are talking about? See, all the other countries in the top ten have taxes approximately at the rate that our lovely leadership is calling for.

So:

In the U.S., the average price of gas - in U.S. Dollars - per gallon, as of April: $3.45 - #108!

In Portugal, the average price of gas - in U.S. Dollars - per gallon, as of April: $7.84 - #10!

In Germany, the average price of gas - in U.S. Dollars - per gallon, as of April: $7.86 - #9!

In France, the average price of gas - in U.S. Dollars - per gallon, as of April: $8.07 - #8!

In Belgium, the average price of gas - in U.S. Dollars - per gallon, as of April: $8.22 - #7!

In Iceland, the average price of gas - in U.S. Dollars - per gallon, as of April: $8.28 - #6!

In Monaco, the average price of gas - in U.S. Dollars - per gallon, as of April: $8.31 - #5!

In the Netherlands, the average price of gas - in U.S. Dollars - per gallon, as of April: $8.37 - #4!

In Britain, the average price of gas - in U.S. Dollars - per gallon, as of April: $8.38 - #3!

In Norway, the average price of gas - in U.S. Dollars - per gallon, as of April: $8.73 - #2!

In Eritrea, the average price of gas - in U.S. Dollars - per gallon, as of April: $9.58 - #1!



Thanks, Senators http://itsgettinghotinhere.org/2008/05/13/lieberman-warner-bill-dirty-energy-in-the-name-of-climate-protection/" target="_blank">Lieberman and Warner! Thank you http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,298271,00.html" target="_blank">Representative John Dingell! Because "global warming" can be stopped, if only we bankrupt everyone who drives! Yay!