javadocsr

You guys are bad. You sure you want to wait until they immigrate before dropping the bombs? Oh but, tax revenue... right, can't forget the green.

Haha, I like the joke that goes, "How do you make Texas the 3rd largest state? Cut Alaska in half." Anyway... Sure, reduce the US consumption... suggestions (that SUV-buying Americans will buy into) as to how? I think we're trying, on one hand with miserly hybrids and the like. On the other hand, automakers can't make enough SUVs and Hemi-powered vehicles to satisfy the buying public. I think more drum-beating for that dance is what is needed and not crying over something to boost the economy, and reduce dependence on OPEC. If people are going to still buy big, heavy, fuel-swilling cars, no matter what is offered in the showrooms right now, would you rather pay another country for oil, or your own? Maybe, just maybe fuel should be $3-$4 per gallon? Just a thought.

M'kay.. I usually avoid the political topics but some of the information being posted is all wrong and I think before anyone casts an opinion, they need to have their facts straight. Before I rant, I voted 'YES.' First, that AlaskaBucks website completely distorts the truth. The Permenant Fund Dividend Checks that citizens in Alaska get every year are a small fraction of the returns on investments from oil development and production royalties paid by the oil companies. This is because the oil companies are leasing the rights to search for, drill and remove the oil from Alaska's land. It is not federal money. The lease money is invested in stocks and bonds by the fund trustees, and a small portion of the 'profit' from these investments goes into the 'kitty' that is distributed. They use a five-year average to value the check amounts, so that a horrible year of investments does not destroy the fund. So, it's not actually the more that gets pumped, the fatter my Dividend Check. Well, the more that gets pumped, the more jobs there are here, and the more those of us related to the oil production industry make in our salaries, there's no denying that. For the record, my PFD check last year was $919.84, so big deal, right? Although it might not seem like much money to you and me, Alaska has some very remote and near-third world village environments, where the natives living there have the PFD as their only source of actual cash during the year. They live off of the land, but to buy anything, they need the PFD to improve their quality of life. Second, I've worked in the oil industry for engineering firms. I've visited Prudhoe Bay, the ANWR region, and a variety of other regions where oil development is possible and/or ongoing. Oil development does not kill the area. If anything, it protects the region from being destroyed by its other potential users, the locals. Without the strict guidelines that the developers have to follow, the peoples of the state contaminate the areas with trash, toxic debris in the crap they leave behind, dump into the streams, with no recourse from people who really care about the protection of the environment. Drilling isn't going to drive off ancestrial herds of caribou. You should see the herds that are around the trans-alaskan pipeline... they were there before, they're still there now, unchanged. Besides, the proposed development in ANWR is a small portion of a huge preserve in an enormous state. Alaska is a huge place, not that tiny map you see when the weatherman is showing the national forcast... I totally agree though, that we should research alternative fuel sources. However, in the meantime, wouldn't it be nice to reduce our dependence on mid-east oil? There's no question why there are U.S. forces in Iraq, is there? Take a look at the price of North Slope Crude. You'll see that it's very competitively priced (cheaper even at times) when compared to OPEC prices. I could go on an on about how nature preserves are all wrong, and actually do more harm than good, but I'd better stop. Besides, it'll leave room for me to pad my post count. :)