"IN THE NEWS"

[lunachic]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wyatt Earp http://www.teamster.org/action/polit...FuelLetter.pdf

This is good, when it is addressed someone should be involved, other then those stated.
Has anyone seen any of our letter's or statements?
well we should see them?

[Bullwinkle]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Greyfoxx I've found two other forums I'm researching with a bit more care this time ..... I'll keep you up to date.

I tell you what.

I would generally respond privately to most of what you said, but I will make an exception this time, since you feel the need to publicly bash the site in your oil thread, and I can easily read between the lines of your reasoning for posting this. Apparently, somebody got offended about a private infraction (which is a stock feature of the forum, and a commonly used tool).

Since there are some things that need to be said publicly as well as a few things personally to you, I will conserve time and post it all here.

First off, I have received nothing but complaints regarding your constant barrage of oil posts at this forum, which is the main reason I opened a politics forum here, and ultimately moved all your stuff in there. The last time you got ignorant at this site, I showed up and seen what was posted and literally blew up in anger, and posted something publicly, when I should have used our moderating system and handled it privately. I have little tolerance for a member being bashed though, so I handled it in a public manner, and encouraged you at that time take your oil rants elsewhere.

Instead of leaving, you stayed. Why? because on most forums the members or the staff would have ran you off long ago.

Now, apparently, we have someone who got a little upset over a private infraction, which is a stock tool for this and many forums. What it does, ( and I will explain it in more detail in another thread shortly) is provided an unbiased method of moderating, which I wanted to have in anticipation of future growth and the potential need for additional moderators. It is a private way of dealing with things, but it only remains private until the on who receives the infraction or warning goes whining to other members, which, judging by this previous post, is obviously the case. As I said, I will explain the infraction/warning system more in detail in another thread.

With all that said, and the fact that you are here publicly announcing that you plan to let everyone know of another forum to go to in efforts to get them to leave here, you are being banned permanently. You will be proud to know that you are only the 2nd person to be banned from this forum since it was created, which tells you how much freedom you have in this forum as opposed to the many others out there. I would have handled your whining post here via the infraction/warning system, but since you feel the need to publicly announce that you are going to find a new forum for everyone here, I don't see the need in extending you any further respect.

Enjoy your new home.

For everyone else reading this:

First, I would like to apologize for allowing this forum to lose focus on being what it is supposed to be, a trucking forum. I felt the need to open up an additional forum to give a place for people to discuss the April shutdown, and while I still think it was a good idea, it unfortunately drew in some people with political agendas, and we spent the last couple months talking about oil, rather than talking about trucking. This is changing, effective immediately. Talk about all the oil issues you want, just do it in the politics forum.

As for anybody else that may have been the lucky recipient of the whining about an infraction that Greyfoxx apparently received from one of our members, I hope that you will take the time to read what the system is and what it's purpose is, before taking the same route that greyfox took.

And one final time, I will stress that personal attacks and constant insults toward members of this community will not be tolerated. I have posted this in several threads in the past few months, this forum will no longer be making threads asking for it to stop, instead, action will be taken.

Thanks for listening (I mean reading, LOL) and sorry to have to post yet another long winded rant.

[freightmaster]

1-Greyfoxx,
2-Pro1driver

Boy,I think I would rather be on Bush's RED LIST, than Bull's shit list...

[Wyatt Earp]

Dollar's gain and easing tensions push oil lower - International Herald Tribune

[Wyatt Earp]

Oil falls more than $4 - Jul. 7, 2008

[Wyatt Earp]

There must be an error on the last shortcut. Should read oil falls more than $2 not $4

[Wyatt Earp]

Oil Slips Below $141 as Dollar Strengthens - Futures Commodities Overview * News * Story - MSNBC.com

[Wyatt Earp]

Everyone needs to see this 1

The After Hours Oil Scam - Seeking Alpha

[Wyatt Earp]

Oil finally dropped below $140 per barrel yee hawwwwww

[Wyatt Earp]

Offshore oil drilling: An early jump in Florida - Jul. 5, 2008

[Wyatt Earp]

Oil falls as investors focus on demand, Middle East - Jul. 8, 2008

[BANDIT]

Now here is some earth shattering news......I can't believe that someone actually spent the time and money it took to do this study.......oops, yes I can, this is the USA...

Study: As gas prices go up, auto deaths drop

2008-07-12 01:33:02
By JOAN LOWY Associated Press



WASHINGTON (AP) — High gas prices could turn out to be a lifesaver for some drivers. The authors of a new study say gas prices are causing driving declines that could result in a third fewer auto deaths annually, with the most dramatic drop likely to be among teen drivers.
Professors Michael Morrisey of the University of Alabama at Birmingham and David Grabowski of Harvard Medical School said they found that for every 10 percent increase in gas prices there was a 2.3 percent decline in auto deaths. For drivers ages 15 to 17, the decline was 6 percent, and for ages 18 to 21, it was 3.2 percent.
Their study looked at fatalities from 1985 to 2006, when gas prices reached about $2.50 a gallon. With gas now averaging more than $4 a gallon, Morrisey said he expects to see much greater drop — about 1,000 deaths a month.
With annual auto deaths typically ranging from about 38,000 to 40,000 a year, a drop of 12,000 deaths would cut the total by nearly a third, Morrisey said in an interview with The Associated Press.
"I think there is some silver lining here in higher gas prices in that we will see a public health gain," Grabowski said. But he cautioned that their estimate of a decline of 1,000 deaths a month could be offset somewhat by the shift under way to smaller, lighter, more fuel-efficient cars and the increase in motorcycle and scooter driving.

I would never have thought that as gas got more expensive and people couldn't afford to drive, that there would ultimately be less traffic deaths.......

[TN. TRUCKERS WIFE]

Quote:

Originally Posted by BANDIT Now here is some earth shattering news......I can't believe that someone actually spent the time and money it took to do this study.......oops, yes I can, this is the USA... Study: As gas prices go up, auto deaths drop 2008-07-12 01:33:02 By JOAN LOWY Associated Press WASHINGTON (AP) — High gas prices could turn out to be a lifesaver for some drivers. The authors of a new study say gas prices are causing driving declines that could result in a third fewer auto deaths annually, with the most dramatic drop likely to be among teen drivers. Professors Michael Morrisey of the University of Alabama at Birmingham and David Grabowski of Harvard Medical School said they found that for every 10 percent increase in gas prices there was a 2.3 percent decline in auto deaths. For drivers ages 15 to 17, the decline was 6 percent, and for ages 18 to 21, it was 3.2 percent. Their study looked at fatalities from 1985 to 2006, when gas prices reached about $2.50 a gallon. With gas now averaging more than $4 a gallon, Morrisey said he expects to see much greater drop — about 1,000 deaths a month. With annual auto deaths typically ranging from about 38,000 to 40,000 a year, a drop of 12,000 deaths would cut the total by nearly a third, Morrisey said in an interview with The Associated Press. "I think there is some silver lining here in higher gas prices in that we will see a public health gain," Grabowski said. But he cautioned that their estimate of a decline of 1,000 deaths a month could be offset somewhat by the shift under way to smaller, lighter, more fuel-efficient cars and the increase in motorcycle and scooter driving. I would never have thought that as gas got more expensive and people couldn't afford to drive, that there would ultimately be less traffic deaths.......

what an idiot, I guess when everyone is living in the streets the death rate will REALLY decline.

[BANDIT]

If this doesn't scare the people of this country, I have no idea what it will take......I guarantee there are a bunch of people who deal with this financial institution that are wide awake today>>>>

Government shuts down mortgage lender IndyMac

2008-07-12 07:20:27
By ALEX VEIGA AP Business Writer



LOS ANGELES (AP) — IndyMac Bank's assets were seized by federal regulators on Friday after the mortgage lender succumbed to the pressures of tighter credit, tumbling home prices and rising foreclosures.
The bank is the largest regulated thrift to fail and the second largest financial institution to close in U.S. history, regulators said.
The Office of Thrift Supervision said it transferred IndyMac's operations to the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation because it did not think the lender could meet its depositors' demands.
IndyMac customers with funds in the bank were limited to taking out money via automated teller machines over the weekend, debit card transactions or checks, regulators said.
Other bank services, such as online banking and phone banking were scheduled to be made available on Monday.
"This institution failed today due to a liquidity crisis," OTS Director John Reich said.
The lender's failure came the same day that financial markets plunged when investors tried to gauge whether the government would have to save mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
Shares of Fannie and Freddie dropped to 17-year lows before the stocks recovered somewhat. Wall Street is growing more convinced that the government will have to bail out the country's biggest mortgage financiers, whose failure could deal a tremendous blow to the already staggering economy.
The FDIC estimated that its takeover of IndyMac would cost between $4 billion and $8 billion.
IndyMac's collapse is second only to that of Continental Illinois National Bank, which had nearly $40 billion in assets when it failed in 1984, according to the FDIC.
News of the takeover distressed Alan Sands, who showed up at the company's headquarters in Pasadena, Calif., to find out when he could withdraw his funds.
"Hopefully the FDIC insurance will take care of it," said Sands, of El Monte, Calif. "I'm also kind of kicking myself for not taking care of this sooner, sooner as in the last couple of days."
A couple of dozen customers could be seen outside the building, reading fliers handed out by FDIC staff. The agency set up a toll-free number for bank customers to call.
IndyMac Bancorp Inc., the holding company for IndyMac Bank, has been struggling to raise capital as the housing slump deepens.
IndyMac had $32.01 billion in assets as of March 31.
A spokesman for the lender referred media queries to the FDIC.
The banking regulator said it closed IndyMac after customers began a run on the lender following the June 26 release of a letter by Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., urging several bank regulatory agencies that they take steps to prevent IndyMac's collapse.
In the 11 days that followed the letter's release, depositors took out more than $1.3 billion, regulators said.
In a statement Friday, Schumer said IndyMac's failure was due to long-standing practices by the bank, not recent events.
"If OTS had done its job as regulator and not let IndyMac's poor and loose lending practices continue, we wouldn't be where we are today," Schumer said. "Instead of pointing false fingers of blame, OTS should start doing its job to prevent future IndyMacs."
The FDIC planned to reopen the bank on Monday as IndyMac Federal Bank, FSB.
Deposits are insured up to $100,000 per depositor.
As of March 31, IndyMac had total deposits of $19.06 billion.
Some 10,000 depositors had funds in excess of the insured limit, for a total of $1 billion in potentially uninsured funds, the FDIC said.
Customers with uninsured deposits could begin making appointments to file a claim with the FDIC on Monday. The agency said it would pay unsecured depositors an advance dividend equal to half of the uninsured amount.
During a conference call with reporters, FDIC Chairman Sheila C. Bair said the agency would cover all insured deposits and then try to recover its costs by selling IndyMac's assets.
"We anticipate trying to market the institution as a whole bank," Bair said. "How much money we derive from that will depend on who gets paid what."
Holders of unsecured IndyMac debt may not fully recover their investment, Bair said.
"Generally if a creditor is secured, they are at the top of the claims priority," she said. "If they are unsecured, they're pretty low on the claims priority and probably will take some type of haircut with this, but we have not had a chance to do a thorough analysis to know ... how extensive those losses will be."
IndyMac spent the last two weeks trying to reassure customers that it was not near default.
On Monday, IndyMac announced it had stopped accepting new loan submissions and planned to slash 3,800 jobs, or more than half of its work force — the largest employee cuts in company history.
In the letter to shareholders, IndyMac Chairman and Chief Executive Michael W. Perry said the drastic measures were made in conjunction with banking regulators to improve the company's financial footing and "meet our mutual goal of keeping Indymac safe and sound through this crisis period."
The plan was supposed to generate roughly $5 billion to $10 billion per year of new loans backed by government-sponsored mortgage companies, Perry said at the time.
But the run on its deposits ultimately short-circuited the strategy, prompting regulators to take action Friday.

[TN. TRUCKERS WIFE]

Now let's just think about how much worse thing can get:
VIENNA - The head of the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries warned yesterday that oil prices would experience an "unlimited" increase in the event of a military conflict involving Iran because the group's members would be unable to make up the lost production.




"We really cannot replace Iran's production - it's not feasible to replace it," Abdalla Salem el-Badri, OPEC's secretary-general, said in an interview.


Iran, the second-largest producing country in OPEC after Saudi Arabia, produces about 4 million barrels of oil a day out of the daily worldwide production of close to 87 million barrels.


The country has been locked in a long dispute with Western nations over its nuclear ambitions.


In recent weeks, the price of oil has risen higher on speculation that Israel could be preparing an attack on the country's nuclear facilities. The saber rattling intensified this week with missile tests by Iran.


That has further unnerved oil markets because of concerns that any conflict with Iran could disrupt oil shipments from the gulf. In New York, crude oil climbed $5.60, to $141.65 a barrel.


"The prices would go unlimited," el-Badri said during the interview, referring to the effect of a military conflict. "I can't give you a number."
Iran has insisted that its nuclear program is for purely peaceful purposes.


El-Badri, a former oil executive who has headed the oil industry in Libya and served as deputy prime minister of that country, called for a peaceful solution, and he hinted that an additional conflict in the Middle East besides the continuing conflict in Iraq would be severe and long-lasting.
EDITOR:James Kanter
New York Times News Service / July 11, 2008

[2xR]

I highly recommend reading these six pages. The articles are intelligent, well written, and cover a broad spectrum of oil topics, complete with references and links. Bookmark it and take a few days to digest it all. You'll be glad you did.

THE OIL RESERVE FALLACY

A sample of what you'll read:

Quote:

To begin with, one of the most revealing speeches about world oil reserves went unremarked in 2006. The head of the world's largest oil company, Saudi Aramco, said: “We are looking at more than four and a half trillion barrels of potentially recoverable oil. That number translates into 140 years of oil at current rates of consumption, or to put it anther way, the world has only consumed about 18 percent of its conventional oil potential. That fact alone should discredit the argument that peak oil is imminent and put our minds at ease concerning future petrol supplies.”

Read, the 4th page, to discover what genius' our media outlets are when reporting about oil:

Quote:

The Media Chorus has one view of oil reserves The "watchdogs" of the press and public interest groups tend to miss the mark on complex scientific issues. They do not have, as Lippmann noted in a letter to Alice Hamilton in 1928, the necessary technical information. They wait, instead, to be supplied. CBS, AFP, the Washington Post, the New York Times, the Financial Times, Mother Jones and many others have been well supplied with proven oil reserve information from the Department of Energy and the oil industry. However, they have not sought -- nor apparently have they received -- any additional information. A recent search of the Lexis-Nexis database has failed to turn up a single instance of oil reserve estimates being questioned by journalists. Most of the time, not even the qualifying term "proven" is added to the description of the massive reserves of the Middle East. If it comes as a surprise that we have based our policy discussions on a fallacy, it is, perhaps, nothing more than a reflection on the myopic tendencies of pack journalism. But it isn't easy to dig beneath the surface of this issue. With DOE and the oil industry promoting a narrow view, even the normally sensible Worldwatch Institute opines that the bulk of future supplies will have to come from the Persian Gulf region. Similar views have come from most of the K Street think tanks in Washington DC.

There are some profound conclusion stated on the 6th, and last, page of the article. Here is a sample:

Quote:

First, to the extent that oil reserves are a factor in Middle Eastern politics, it would be possible to greatly reduce the stakes and open some avenues to peace. US and European disengagement from oil dependency on the Middle East is not at all impossible, nor does it depend on renewable, nuclear or other alternative energy technologies with varying degrees of reliability.

I, personally, don't get a lot of my information from the "mainstream" media, nor, from the bOObs on Capital Hill. I prefer to find, and read, in depth studies, done by folks without agendas. This is one worth spotlighting. Read, learn, and enjoy...

[freightmaster]

You all have been sold down the river! Sad but true, face the facts and prepare...

[rebel]

How about that? Can I have some cheap fuel now?

[BANDIT]

Three big things happened on Iraq this week. They could mean the beginning of the end of the war.
But since the media have mostly ignored them, I wanted to make sure you saw what's going on.
Here's the scoop:
Iraqis want U.S. Troops out. No one was expecting Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki to speak up in favor of withdrawal—after all, he's close with the Bush administration. But with elections in Iraq coming up, and a great majority of Iraqis opposed to a prolonged U.S. occupation, Maliki can't afford to toe the Bush line. So he's surprised everyone by standing up this week for a timetable for troop withdrawals and a date certain to end the war. The LA Times headline reads, "Iraqi prime minister advocates withdrawal timeline."1
As a result, the "endless war agreement" Bush has been pushing fell through. Since January, hundreds of thousands of us pushed Congress to stand up to President Bush's proposed treaty with Iraq, which would have tied the next President's hands and made it much harder to get out. This week, the Washington Post reported that that agreement has fallen through—Iraqi leaders are putting their feet down and demanding a much shorter agreement.2
And now even the Pentagon is considering faster timelines. According to reporter Michael Hirsh at Newsweek, "a forthcoming Pentagon-sponsored report" will recommend a big drawdown of troops—suggesting "that U.S. forces be reduced to as few as 50,000 by the spring of 2009, down from about 150,000 now."3
In other words, it's now clear: Most Americans are for a timeline, and so are most Iraqis. And even experts in the Pentagon agree.
For his part, Barack Obama is using these developments to hammer home the point that John McCain and President Bush are now isolated in their resistance to any kind of timeline for withdrawal. He wrote an Op-Ed in the New York Times yesterday that reaffirmed his commitment to a timeline that would have all combat troops out of Iraq in 16 months.

It concludes, "Unlike Senator McCain, I would make it absolutely clear that we seek no presence in Iraq similar to our permanent bases in South Korea. . . [F]or far too long, those responsible for the greatest strategic blunder in the recent history of American foreign policy have ignored useful debate in favor of making false charges about flip-flops and surrender. It's not going to work this time. It's time to end this war."4
It's important that we all work to get the word out about these developments. You can even start by just forwarding this email. Most Americans still don't know that the Iraqis want us out. And that may be the single most important fact to share at this point in time.
I'm always shocked when someone points out that it's been six years since we first started working together to prevent an Iraq war. This week, we're turning a corner in that fight. Bush's permanent war agreement has fallen through. The Iraqi politicians are speaking up. And if we keep working together, we just might see the remaining holdouts in Washington coming around as well.

I personally do not support Obama nor McCain as our next leader.

[lunachic]

Quote:

Originally Posted by BANDIT Three big things happened on Iraq this week. They could mean the beginning of the end of the war. But since the media have mostly ignored them, I wanted to make sure you saw what's going on. Here's the scoop: Iraqis want U.S. Troops out. No one was expecting Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki to speak up in favor of withdrawal—after all, he's close with the Bush administration. But with elections in Iraq coming up, and a great majority of Iraqis opposed to a prolonged U.S. occupation, Maliki can't afford to toe the Bush line. So he's surprised everyone by standing up this week for a timetable for troop withdrawals and a date certain to end the war. The LA Times headline reads, "Iraqi prime minister advocates withdrawal timeline."1 As a result, the "endless war agreement" Bush has been pushing fell through. Since January, hundreds of thousands of us pushed Congress to stand up to President Bush's proposed treaty with Iraq, which would have tied the next President's hands and made it much harder to get out. This week, the Washington Post reported that that agreement has fallen through—Iraqi leaders are putting their feet down and demanding a much shorter agreement.2 And now even the Pentagon is considering faster timelines. According to reporter Michael Hirsh at Newsweek, "a forthcoming Pentagon-sponsored report" will recommend a big drawdown of troops—suggesting "that U.S. forces be reduced to as few as 50,000 by the spring of 2009, down from about 150,000 now."3 In other words, it's now clear: Most Americans are for a timeline, and so are most Iraqis. And even experts in the Pentagon agree. For his part, Barack Obama is using these developments to hammer home the point that John McCain and President Bush are now isolated in their resistance to any kind of timeline for withdrawal. He wrote an Op-Ed in the New York Times yesterday that reaffirmed his commitment to a timeline that would have all combat troops out of Iraq in 16 months. It concludes, "Unlike Senator McCain, I would make it absolutely clear that we seek no presence in Iraq similar to our permanent bases in South Korea. . . [F]or far too long, those responsible for the greatest strategic blunder in the recent history of American foreign policy have ignored useful debate in favor of making false charges about flip-flops and surrender. It's not going to work this time. It's time to end this war."4 It's important that we all work to get the word out about these developments. You can even start by just forwarding this email. Most Americans still don't know that the Iraqis want us out. And that may be the single most important fact to share at this point in time. I'm always shocked when someone points out that it's been six years since we first started working together to prevent an Iraq war. This week, we're turning a corner in that fight. Bush's permanent war agreement has fallen through. The Iraqi politicians are speaking up. And if we keep working together, we just might see the remaining holdouts in Washington coming around as well. I personally do not support Obama nor McCain as our next leader.

thank-u, this made me feel better...................
now onto the 27TH