MOO! - ChicoEsquela's Blog - Bakersfield.com

MOO! - ChicoEsquela's Blog - Bakersfield.com http://people.bakersfield.com/home/Blog/ChicoEsquela http://www.sounddogs.com/previews/2106/mp3/274602_SOUNDDOGS__co.mp3 http://www.sounddogs.com/previews/2106/mp3/274602_SOUNDDOGS__co.mp3 en-us It really IS as simple as THIS............... http://people.bakersfield.com/home/Blog/ChicoEsquela/30206 http://people.bakersfield.com/home/Blog/ChicoEsquela/30206 <a href="http://hughhewitt.townhall.com/columnists/HughHewitt/2008/07/11/its_the_oil,_stupid">http://hughhewitt.townhall.com/columnists/HughHewitt/2008/07/11/its_the_oil,_stupid</a> Swimming & Drooling............ You Gotta LOVE This Dog! http://people.bakersfield.com/home/Blog/ChicoEsquela/30176 http://people.bakersfield.com/home/Blog/ChicoEsquela/30176 Officer Rikki's bio Breed: Bloodhound DOB: 10/05/05 Birthplace: Quebec, Canada <img height="131" alt="Rikki" src="http://www.bakersfieldcity.us/police/K-9/images/RIKKI.JPG" width="100" /> Her partner and handler is Senior Officer Andrea Pflugh.  Rikki is the first Bloodhound for the Bakersfield Police Department. Her specialty is tracking/trailing.  Rikki will be trained to follow the individual scent of a human.  Rikki will be utilized to find missing children, Alzheimer's patients and even bad guys as long as she has an item from that person to smell and get their scent.  Rikki is very loving and good natured.  Her favorite past times are swimming and drooling. Obama Will Revive Redistributionism................. http://people.bakersfield.com/home/Blog/ChicoEsquela/29905 http://people.bakersfield.com/home/Blog/ChicoEsquela/29905 Reviving Redistributionism New data from the IRS will be out in a few weeks on who pays how much in taxes. My contacts at the Treasury Department tell me that for the first time in decades, and perhaps ever, the richest 1% of tax filers will have paid more than 40% of the income tax burden. The top 50% will account for 97% of all federal income taxes, while the bottom 50% will have paid just 3%. Source and rest of article:<o:p></o:p> <a href="http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121555916730437401.html?mod=opinion_journal_political_diary">http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121555916730437401.html?mod=opinion_journal_political_diary</a> Did Anyone see the Asteroid reported on KCAL9? http://people.bakersfield.com/home/Blog/ChicoEsquela/29440 http://people.bakersfield.com/home/Blog/ChicoEsquela/29440 You never know......... <a href="http://www.fas.org/spp/military/docops/usaf/2020/app-r.htm">http://www.fas.org/spp/military/docops/usaf/2020/app-r.htm</a>    Obama and Dems Lying About Oil Leases............. http://people.bakersfield.com/home/Blog/ChicoEsquela/29418 http://people.bakersfield.com/home/Blog/ChicoEsquela/29418 <div id="post_message_1029344">WSJ: Obama, Democrats Lying About "Nonproducing" Oil Leases —Ace Caught between public anger over $4.00+ per gallon gas and their anti-oil base which cannot countenance additional drilling of any kind, Democrats have trotted out an extremely stupid talking point -- make oil companies drill where they currently hold leases before allowing any additional exploration. If they can sell this stupidity, they can claim they are in fact for additional oil production -- they're the ones trying to pressure the oil companies to stop "stockpiling" oil-rich lands -- while holding the line on additional wells, thus appeasing their base. No Republican would be permitted such a convenient absurdity; the MSM would demolish it. But the rules are always different for Democrats, and the media is determined to help sell this lie. Except for a few conservative-titling outfits, <a href="http://online.wsj.com/article_print/SB121478199392114387.html" target="_blank">such as the WSJ.</a> Oil companies take leases not because they know there's oil on the land (or under the sea), but because they think there might be oil and need the lease in order to explore that possibility and to secure the legal right to pump it if they do find it. It's simply ridiculous to assume, as the Democrats' talking points do, that each and every lease actually contains a huge amount of recoverable oil, and the oil companies are simply refusing to drill there. Instead, the claim goes, the oil companies are clamoring for the right to grab up additional leases... which then, of course, they will also leave untouched. Why are oil companies securing leases for oil they know is there but have no intention of drilling? If their goal is to not drill, why bother with the expense of a lease at all? They're all in on it together, in this conspiracy theory, so they can all just agree to not drill at all. They hardly need to pay the government money for the right not to drill. This is all so ridiculous that the entirety of the MSM should have called this dishonest spin for what it is. But they didn't, of course, and so the WSJ is left to explain the obvious: <blockquote>To deflect the GOP effort to relax the offshore-drilling ban – and thus boost supply while demand will remain strong – Democrats also say that most of the current leases are "nonproducing." The idea comes from a "special report" prepared by the Democratic staff of the House Resources Committee, chaired by Mr. Rahall. "If we extrapolate from today's production rates on federal lands and waters," the authors write, the oil companies could "nearly double total U.S. oil production" (their emphasis). In other words, these whiz kids assume that every acre of every lease holds the same amount of oil and gas. </blockquote>In other words, they're assuming that that the currently-nonproducing leases can produce the same amount of oil as the producing ones. And yet the productive wells were not chosen at random, were they? They were explored because they were the most likely to have oil, and then they were drilled because the exploration proved they had oil. This is like assuming that because your wife agreed to marry you when you asked her to, you can randomly walk down the street proposing to strangers and enjoy the same 100% success rate. <blockquote>Yet the existence of a lease does not guarantee that the geology holds recoverable resources. Brian Kennedy of the Institute for Energy Research quips that, using the same extrapolation, the 9.4 billion acres of the currently nonproducing moon should yield 654 million barrels of oil per day. Nonetheless, the House still went through with a gesture called the "use it or lose it" bill, which passed on Thursday 223-195. It would be pointless even if it had a chance of becoming law. Oil companies acquire leases in the expectation that some of them contain sufficient oil and gas to cover the total costs. Yet it takes years to move through federal permitting, exploration and development. The U.S. Minerals Management Service notes that only one of three wells results in a discovery of oil that can be recovered economically. In deeper water, it's one of five. All this involves huge risks, capital investment – and time. </blockquote>It also involves guessing at where one's resources are best used. If ExxonMobile has, say, thirty leases, and the money and equipment and manpower to only explore on, say, five areas at a time, they're obviously going to go after the most likely sites first, and the least likely areas will remain "nonproducing" in the interim. But even the most likely sites are in fact highly unlikely to produce recoverable oil. It's a numbers game. Oil can be found -- but they need to be able to look in a lot of places. <blockquote>... Yet companies are not allowed to explore where the biggest prospects for oil and gas may exist – especially on the Outer Continental Shelf. Seven of the top 20 U.S. oil fields are now located in analogous deepwater areas (greater than 1,000 feet) in the Gulf of Mexico. In 2006, Chevron discovered what is likely to be the largest American oil find since Prudhoe, drilled in 7,000 feet of water and more than 20,000 feet under the sea floor. The Wilcox formation may have an upper end of 15 billion barrels of recoverable oil and should begin producing by 2014 – perhaps ushering in a new ultradeepwater frontier. </blockquote>But by all means let's try to force companies to drill where they have little hope of finding oil. Via <a href="http://hotair.com/archives/2008/06/30/obama-misleads-on-oil-leases-wsj/" target="_blank">Hot Air, which also makes this point:</a> <blockquote>Demanding drilling first on all extant leases is an absurd position to take when they don’t have any indication of accessible oil from the preliminary studies. It amounts to drilling dry holes at a cost of tens of millions of dollars each just to demonstrate the futility. Who do you think will pay that cost? Hint: it won’t be Barack Obama or Congress, but the people who drive up to the pumps every day.</blockquote></div>  <div>Source: The Wall Street Journal</div> "Dr." Mark Martinez -- Some Questions -- Feel Free to Use Surrogate Chica to Answer....... http://people.bakersfield.com/home/Blog/ChicoEsquela/29247 http://people.bakersfield.com/home/Blog/ChicoEsquela/29247 I just got done dong a short run to Richgrove........ Listened to your radio  "show" on 1230 AM........... I have a few questions for you, again feel free to utilize surrogate Chica to answer (I know I scare you as I have your number) these very basic questions I had listening to your  "show"----- 1) A caller called in and said he made less than $50,000 per year gross. You said you were in the same situation. I will, of course check this, but is that really the case? Or were you just Lying (poetic license you might rejoinder as a defense) ....... Just WHAT is the real truth? 2) You admitted that you have a diesel truck and pay the relevant high prices thereto. Why do you have such a vehicle in these times of conservation being the ultimo facet of our solution to the energy problems? It sounded like you have a full size diesel pick up which is not needed in your line of  "work"..... 3) You had someone supposedly representing Chevron on there you kept referring to as  "Uduak from Chevron" purported to be a real and true spokesman for Chevron Oil. The man kept touting Obama and his energy policies and directing people to his website -- punctuated by his mis-statements on the details of the oil and gas business........ Was this man chosen to be a real spokesman for Chevron or someone you brought on to just tout Obama under that guise?  (I had to wonder when he made statements that are easily provably false re the O&G business by any competent geologist-geophysicist-petroleum engineer)...... What have you to say to these questions Mr. "Dr." Martinez? (or will we be treated to more from the lipid loquacious Easter candy again?) I was just wondering................. http://people.bakersfield.com/home/Blog/ChicoEsquela/29104 http://people.bakersfield.com/home/Blog/ChicoEsquela/29104 Surely those people whose lives are affected need a lot of physical labor type help plus food, furniture, clothing, etc. I don't care what your heritage is, when you are need, people should help. Just wondering... Where are all of the Hollywood celebrities holding telethons asking for help in restoring Iowa and helping the folks affected by the floods? Where is all the media asking the tough questions about why the federal government hasn't solved the problem? Asking where the FEMA trucks (and trailers) are? Why isn't the Federal Government relocating Iowa people to free hotels in Chicago? When will Spike Lee say that the Federal Government blew up the levees that failed in Des Moines? Where are Sean Penn and the Dixie Chicks? Where are all the looters stealing high-end tennis shoes and big screen television sets? When will we hear Governor Chet Culver say that he wants to rebuild a "vanilla" Iowa, because that's the way God wants it? Where is the hysterical 24/7 media coverage complete with reports of cannibalism? Where are the people declaring that George Bush hates white, rural people? How come in 2 weeks, you will never hear about the Iowa flooding ever again? Gun Owners -- Pay Attention! http://people.bakersfield.com/home/Blog/ChicoEsquela/29101 http://people.bakersfield.com/home/Blog/ChicoEsquela/29101 <table class="storycontent" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0"> <tbody> <tr> <td colspan="2"> <div class="mxb"> <h1>US court overturns DC handgun ban</h1> </div> </td> </tr> <tr> <td class="storybody"> <table cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0" width="226" align="right" border="0"> <tbody> <tr> <td> <div><img height="170" alt="A Colt .45 semi-automatic pistol (file image)" hspace="0" src="http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/44780000/jpg/_44780838_colt.45handgun(fileimage).jpg" width="226" border="0" /> <div class="cap">DC residents have been barred from keeping handguns for 32 years</div> </div> </td> </tr> </tbody> </table>  A ban on handguns in Washington DC has been ruled unconstitutional by the United States Supreme Court. The US capital, which has some of the toughest gun control laws in the US, had challenged a lower court ruling striking down the ban. It is the first such case considered by the court in decades and is expected to have effects on gun laws across the US. Debate over the exact meaning of the constitutional right to keep and bear arms has raged for years.  </td> </tr> </tbody> </table> If you care at all about Big Money in Politics............ http://people.bakersfield.com/home/Blog/ChicoEsquela/28693 http://people.bakersfield.com/home/Blog/ChicoEsquela/28693 ..... this should interest you. Of course it will go down along partisan lines (just as the blog entries at bottom of article) but what do YOU think? <a href="http://themoderatevoice.com/politics/democratic-party/20496/obama-will-opt-out-of-public-campaign-financing-for-election/">http://themoderatevoice.com/politics/democratic-party/20496/obama-will-opt-out-of-public-campaign-financing-for-election/</a> Now that the proverbial  "shoe is on the other foot"  as far as who has the REAL money, we are witnessing a  "C" change in Dem remonstrations on public financing of campaigns,  but just watch the Dems emphasize: 1) He never REALLY promised 2) Public financing legislation is meaningless (now that the prodigious fund raising Obama machine is in play)   Pat Buchanan on Obama and Race http://people.bakersfield.com/home/Blog/ChicoEsquela/28620 http://people.bakersfield.com/home/Blog/ChicoEsquela/28620 Its worth a look.............. (for all) <a href="http://www.buchanan.org/blog/?p=969">http://www.buchanan.org/blog/?p=969</a>