As you may recall, we have questioned whether the money S.C. spends trying to lure movie productions here is well spent. The Commerce Department does not question it, however, even after "Nailed" had to leave town after running out of money several times. You have to wonder whether an employer that keeps failing to pay its employees is the kind of business you want in town, even if one of the employees it brings in is a total babe.
But the Commerce Department doesn’t wonder. Here’s a release I got today:
S.C. Department of Commerce Announces Two New Feature Films Approved to Shoot in the Palmetto State
COLUMBIA, S.C. – June 25, 2008 – The South Carolina Department of Commerce today announced two new feature films have been approved to begin filming in South Carolina in 2008. Both productions are quality family entertainment that will offer a positive reflection of South Carolina.
“Band of Angels” is a Hallmark Production directed by Bill Duke. The film traces the history of the Fisk University Jubilee Singers from their roots as a struggling opera company to their early success as gospel and spiritual singers. It is set post Civil War and will be shot primarily in and around Charleston.
“Dear John” was written by Nicholas Sparks and is a New Line studios production with Production Designer Sarah Knowles. New Line studios and Knowles both worked on “The Notebook,” which was filmed in South Carolina in 2003. “Dear John” will be directed by Lasse Hallstrom, who directed Julia Roberts, Dennis Quaid and Robert Duval in “Something to Talk About,” which was also shot in South Carolina in 1995.
“Dear John” is the story of a soldier who falls in love with a conservative college girl who he plans to marry, but time and distance take their toll on the fledging relationship. If the production company opts to move forward, the film will be shot in multiple locations along the South Carolina coast.
“Both of these productions were recruited under the incentive guidelines revised by the Department of Commerce and the Coordinating Council for Economic Development. As a result, the state did a much better job of utilizing our crew base in South Carolina. The film recruitment success this spring should end the debate that South Carolina needs to pay more to recruit more films to the state. The goal relative to film recruitment should be to lower the negative fiscal impact and create jobs for South Carolinians. The productions recruited since the first of the year are a step in the right direction to achieve both goals,” said Joe Taylor, Secretary of Commerce.
“Even with the national writers’ strike slowing productions around the country in the fall of 2007, South Carolina enjoyed its strongest spring of film recruitment ever. With four feature films and a television series, our resident crew base has been virtually fully utilized. The focus of film recruitment should be employing South Carolina residents and keeping the South Carolina crew base working is the strongest measure of film recruitment success,” said Daniel Young, Executive Director of the Coordinating Council for Economic Development.
“The New Daughter” completed filming along the coast in May and “Nailed” has completed production in the Columbia area. “Army Wives” is still in production filming in Charleston.
“Band of Angels” is currently in preproduction and is scheduled to begin filming in South Carolina soon. Individuals interested in applying for work on the production should contact the South Carolina Film Commission or visit www.filmsc.com.
“Dear John” has been approved for film incentives by the Coordinating Council for Economic Development. The production company is still finalizing details concerning the production including the exact schedule.
-###-
Notice how Commerce worded that: “Nailed” has completed production in the Columbia area.
That’s a funny way of putting it, in light of the facts.
Of course, I’m sure that there was some positive economic impact while the production lasted. I hear, for instance, that a certain underground bar across from the State House got so much business from cast and crew — including at various times Paul Rubens and a guy who was in "X-Men" — that they recently they had to shoo out some of the "Nailed" folks so they could close the place.
But as much as I love movies — and I do — we on The State‘s editorial board remain unconvinced that money spent in this sector is worth it.
Related Posts
Anything that needs subsidies is a questionable business venture. The subsidies create lots of pie jobs for South Carolinians with political connections, but without the talent to actually run a real movie business.
And how much sense does it make for working class taxpayers in a poor state to subidize the incomes of Hollywood actors, directors, producers, NFL players, etc?
Oh, come on, guys. I can see St. Matthews or Six Mile or Coosawatchie as the next Hollywood.
Why can’t you?
The two comments above depict a typically facile worldview.
Truth: Film shoots have an economic impact no matter the size of the production, and as such, offering a tax incentive makes sense. Not on the order of attracting a BMW plant, but every little bit helps. “Nailed,” had it had studio backing and a more mainstream (ie, dumbed-down script), would have been a $60m budget and not a $25m one, leaving many of those dollars behind in its glamourous wake–as this production did.
In any case, you can see from the amusing anecdote about The Whig that local businesses do benefit. My own store was patronized by Mr. Russell and other members of the crew numerous times(as were other 5 Pts businesses), so I know first hand.
Of course, a mainstream studio-backed picture would never have had to seek out a cheap location like Columbia. They’d have shot on stages in LA and done the rest in DC.
And with only two days left, pickup shots in DC, and an A-list cast like that, I predict “Nailed” will be completed–just not here.
So Brad are you a fan of the Whig… do you like $.50 Taco Tuesday? Or is it the gouda mac and cheese and sweet potato fries?
There’s no doubt that despite the problems with financing (which was hollywood issue not an incentive issue) Columbia hit it big with the “Nailed” Crew and Cast and made quite a bit of money, and lets not forget those South Carolinians who were hired to participate whether as extras/stand-ins or as crew members and PAs – they’re still getting paid despite the producers hit and miss money gathering skills, which means even more money to pump back into the economy as these folks buy things, hopefully more than just gas.
To paraphrase a previous poster:
“My store benefitted from a film shoot once, so it follows that film shoots should be subsidized by taxpayers”
Wow. This is the kind of piercing logic and persuasive reasoning that bring me back to this blog over and over again.
By the way I have no store, but if film shoots are going to bring in totally babe-ilicious movie stars and models for me to gawk at, then I say we should subsidize them too.
dave
The most heavilty subsidized industry in America is the oil industry. If it wasn’t we’d be spending about $8/gallon for gasoline.
I presume by “facile” you mean lacking depth, James. Well, let me plumb matters a bit more, since you think your store benefiting from a filmmaking tax subsidy gives the subject depth.
Typically, films make fun of anyone in the South who’s not black. I’m not black, so that gives me two reasons against subsidizing films being made here: 1) I don’t want to pay someone to make fun of me; 2) I don’t want to subsidize your store, because you irritate me.
But thanks for giving me the opportunity to feel facile in another sense of the word.
All I said was the big supporters of taxpayer subsidies for cinema ventures are those lining their pockets with Other People’s Money – the Dept of Commerce employees, the out-of-state producers, actors, directors and crews, and the local businesses plugged into the system.
“Facile” means skilled, that things are easy to do, so I take it as compliment that Mr. McAlister notices how easily I exposed movie subsidies as another welfare scam.
I’d like to know exactly how Bud thinks that the oil industry is so heavily subsidized, but I don’t want to listen to any of the other silly liberal nonsense he’ll inevitably spew so I haven’t the stomach to ask him.
In any case, I read a statistic in an article today at American Thinker that shows that oil companies on average have paid three times as much in taxes over the last 25 years as they’ve taken in profits. In other words, for every dollar of profit they’ve made they have paid the non-producing, business inhibiting, drag-on-the-economy, pimple-on-the-a$$-of-progress government that Bud loves so much three dollars.
If the oil industry is involved in any subsidies, it seems to me that IT subsidizes the government – not the other way round.
Just sayin. David
Does that “three times” number include fuel taxes to? (As oposed to just corporate taxes and windfall profit taxes?)
http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/1168.html
Oil companies make 9.0 cents per gallon of gasoline.
Federal, state and local taxes average 45.9 cents per gallon of gasoline.
IOW, government makes 5 TIMES as much profit as the oil companies do, without any investment or risk.
Source: Congressional Research Service, May 2008
“government makes 5 TIMES as much profit as the oil companies do, without any investment or risk.”
Which is different than saying they are taxing the gas companies for all of that.
How does the amount collected in federal, state, and local taxes on gas compare to the federal, state, and local outlays for roads, bridges, and environmental clean-up of petroleum products? (e.g. in particular, what % of the tax at the pump is essentially a usage fee, and what percent is used to subsidize other parts of the government)
One set of figures shows expenditures on roads in 2003 were $121 billion… total taxes collected on fuel were less than $100 billion.
http://nats.sct.gob.mx/nats/sys/tables.jsp?id=10&i=3
http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/1168.html
(I’m apparently not being very google savvy today as those are the best I’ve turned up so far.)
I am not attempting to make the case that the oil industry should not be taxed. As a related issue, I have made the point elsewhere on this blog as loudly as I could that corporations DO NOT PAY TAXES. PEOPLE pay taxes, meaning that ultimately, ANY taxes paid by Exxon or BP are simply passed on to their customers…in other words, WE pay every penny of the taxes our government forces the oil industry to collect.
In any case my point isn’t that we shouldn’t pay some taxes, it is that Buds’ attempt to assert that government subsidizes the oil industry is ridiculous on its’ face.
David
NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) — Record oil prices netted Exxon Mobil a $10.89 billion profit in the first three months of the year, sharply higher than a year earlier but short of Wall Street estimates and below what was needed to set a new all-time profit record.
-CNN Money
If this doesn’t qualify for ludicrous profiteering I don’t know what does. They can earn this kind of profit because our bloated military ensures the free-flow of oil from the various places we import it from. In addition, we subsidize oil company profits by the endless construction of more and more miles of roads that allow a single person the luxury of driving a Hummer into work alone. And then there’s all that pollution we’re subjected to. Indeed we are subsidizing an addiction – pure and simple.
And I don’t believe your statistic which says the gov’mnt spent $121B on infrastructure while collecting $110B in taxes. Maybe so…it just doesn’t sound legit to me.
In any event, that statistic does not mean that it’s right for government to collect three times as much in taxes per gallon as the company which explores, extracts, transports, refines, stores, transports to retailers and sells makes per gallon.
It just doesn’t.
As I think about it, it’s actually sort of amazing that we can even get the gasoline we need: Investors actually put up with this robbery and harassment from their own government. It’s a beautiful ‘ting.
David
You’re a loon bud.
David
“If this doesn’t qualify for ludicrous profiteering I don’t know what does.”
Shouldn’t whether $10.89 billion is ludicrous depend on how much the inputs were and also take into account surrounding years profits/losses as well? (e.g. if they only spent $1 bil to make that, sure, if they spent $220 bil, then certainly not)
“And I don’t believe your statistic”
Like I said, its the best I could find. I found another on an NC site saying that spending on highways was something like $90 billion for that year, so if you added in local roads it was in the ball park.
“that statistic does not mean that it’s right for government to collect three times as much in taxes per gallon as the company”
I assume you aren’t claiming we should stop building roads unless the oil companies make several times more in profit than we spend on them? What would you prefer to fuel taxes to pay for roads? Since its the “people” paying for it, why does it matter if its on the fuel or on the car or by the person, or whatnot. (We apparently can’t even figure out how to tax sales over the internet, so I don’t see how we’re going to get some system to allocate money from you to the separate road maintainers and environmental control people based specifically on where you were driving and what it was you were driving).
The average vertically integrated oil company makes 8% profit. Many years, Exxon and others have made much less than that.
Because of sudden increases in prices of existing inventories, Exxon has temporarily made profits approaching 19%.
There have been 30 federal investigations of price gouging and fixing in the last decade, and all of them found nothing wrong, but Democrat socialists continue to put on a circus for their profit-hating constituencies.
5 Tech companies make more than Exxon
http://www.techvat.com/5-tech-companies-more-profitable-than-exxon-mobil.html
Hey! That director never called me to take him to get his nails done by Betty Lou Thelma Liz — with her tried-n-true Texas Nail-Doing Thingies! What’s up with that? Ran out of Moolah? She would have been VERY reasonable.
Lee makes an outstanding point about the average profitability of petroleum companies.
People like Bud and Just Saying take one abstract number ~ the profit number for one oil company in one specific year ~ and then use that to attempt to build this horrible picture of that company as a price gouging, profiteering, evil bloodsucking entity while completely ignoring context and industry history. Shallow thinkers and angry liberals then buy this Barbara Streisand (BS) because they have an agenda, want someone to blame, and oil companies make EZ targets.
For grownups who are willing to take a reasonable look at this industry:
-Context demonstrates that the exploration, extraction, refinement and retailing petroleum are huge undertakings that require massive capital outlays and tremendous investment by people willing to take risks. I have no problem whatsoever with a company making billions a year if that company must expend tens of billions a year to make it.
-Industry history demonstrates that even though oil companies are enjoying a boom at present, there are many years in the recent past in which the companies lose money. The long term average profit for companies in this industry is, as Lee pointed out, 8%.
Taxes extracted by government amount to more than 8% of gross revenues. That’s all I am saying. Government makes more from a gallon of gas than does the company which produced that gallon. This is an irrefutable fact. And it is the grownup way to look at this whole thing, as opposd to the views of Bud and Just Saying. David
“Just Saying … use[s] that to attempt to build this horrible picture of that company as a price gouging”
I did no such thing. In fact I called Bud on it. (Go back to my post of Jun 26, 2008 3:29:08 PM and check!)
I also pointed out that much of the taxes from the gas aren’t extracted on the profits of the oil companies, but at the pump from the consumers. Are you arguing that gas companies would raise there prices if we reduced the taxes? And what is a better use fee for road improvements than taxes at the pump (roughly proportional to vehicle size and miles traveled = road damage caused)? (Now, I am certainly not defending other uses of gas taxes except for clean up.)
Mattheus Mei,
Please see official apology @ “Hillary’s diehards: For them, fight goes on” post.
🙂
I liked that underground bar when it was a dive called Rupert’s Blue Dog Cafe.
If The Whig offered lunch, I’d try it out.
Just, your statistic may be correct, as I said I don’t know. I don’t want to even waste time attempting to refute it by finding my own stat that says different.
My only point here was that it doesn’t have the ring of truth to me given what else I know about the players in this whole charade. It is crystal clear to me that if there is any profiteering and bloodsucking going on, it is being done by the government and NOT by companies in the oil industry.
Given the anecdotal evidence I see in my own life concerning the poor condition of infrastructure, it is difficult for me to swallow the notion that government is soaking us through oil companies and still can’t keep up paying for infrastructure needs.
The gross mismanagement of highway funds and the corruption and ineptitude of those running the highway department in our state are the evidence I use to make my mind up about the federal program. A LOT of money gets collected/extorted from taxpayers (and you are right, gasoline isn’t the only way we are taxed) and we have hard evidence at the state level that this tax money is pissed away.
If, arguably, the government closest to the people (state government) is most answerable and responsive, then I’d say the corruption and abuse of taxpayers we see in South Carolina is actually a “best case” meaning it’s a lot worse at the federal level.
And we have hard, recent evidence for how bad it is at the federal level too: There are billions supposedly socked away in the federal highway fund which have been extracted and extorted from taxpayers over years of gouging at the pump. And yet, immediately after the recent Interstate bridge collapse in Minnesota, we heard the obligatory chatter and noise from the ruling class in congress that taxes were going to have to be raised to “fix our infrastucture.”
I throw the Barbara Streisand (BS) flag. There is definitely a flag on the play.
That’s all I’m saying.
David
Hey, bud, whatcha think about Obama asking his donors to pay off Hillary’s $10 million in campaign debt? How do ya think that makes the donors that gave their widow’s mite to his campaign feel? Getting a feel yet for how well Obama will waste everyone else’s money?
Hey, bud, whatcha think about Obama asking his donors to pay off Hillary’s $10 million in campaign debt? How do ya think that makes the donors that gave their widow’s mite to his campaign feel? Getting a feel yet for how well Obama will waste everyone else’s money?
Hey, bud, whatcha think about Obama asking his donors to pay off Hillary’s $10 million in campaign debt? How do ya think that makes the donors that gave their widow’s mite to his campaign feel? Getting a feel yet for how well Obama will waste everyone else’s money?
People like Bud and Just Saying take one abstract number ~ the profit number for one oil company in one specific year ….
-David
That’s not an “abstract” number. Check out a Picasso painting sometime if you want to see “abstract”. The 10+ billion dollar quarterly profit is a real, concrete number that illustrates how much the oil companies are profiteering from our very real pain at the pump. Defend the grotesque profits of the oil companies if you must but do so using “real” terminology and not by misusing the English language.
Lee and p.m.: Facile as in, so simple or obvious as to be useless.
By the way, this is the usage your parents and teachers meant when they characterized y’all as such.
And,
I absolutely, categorically and positively denounce and reject the idea that government is subsidizing the oil industry. This is just SO silly and ridiculous!
Bud has made this up out of whole cloth…citing a CNN (for crying out loud!) piece about one years’ profits of one company. Buds’ non-point is ridiculous because:
A) He’s a hopelessly biased hack liberal.
B) He cites ridiculously biased sources that are the laughing stock of whatever is left of the mainstream news industry, and
C) He does not understand the oil industry (or any other industry)~ he just knows he’s against it. He then omits context/history, and twists and contorts whatever few facts he does eventually use in order to make whatever liberal point he thinks he has.
NO SOUP FOR YOU!
David
David, now that you’ve had your little tirade why don’t you provide some facts. This seems simple enough.
1. Exxon-Mobile made 10+ billion dollars in profits during the first quarter.
2. Average price of a gallon of gas – $4.07.
3. Military spending in Iraq for the purpose of defending oil resourece, about $4/month.
So even at $4+/gallon we’re still not paying enough to cover the actual costs if all our military expenditures TO DEFEND THE OIL RESOURCES are included.
I hate to change the subject on everybody but we have Breaking News. The State Newspaper has finally printed an article about Clyburn and his award of money to friends and family. It is in today’s paper. Would you believe that the writer of the article is not identified? Below is the last two paragraphs of the puff article.
Mr. Clyburn did not invent congressional earmarks – a point his critics too
often overlook. They are no doubt as old as our federal budgeting process,
and their largest growth spurt came while Republicans controlled the House,
the Senate and the presidency. In a perverse way, the fact that he is the
most successful earmarker in the S.C. delegation speaks to his clout. And
it’s hard to argue when he says he is serving the best interests of his
constituents by pumping federal money into a district that was drawn to
include our state’s poorest areas.
But neither he nor the rest of the Congress is serving the best interests of
our nation by doling out federal tax dollars based on the clout and tenacity
of the local legislators rather than the needs of our entire society.
Even those dollars that go to places in dire need of financial infusions
often aren’t used wisely. Mr. Clyburn has long argued – and rightly so –
that his district is in desperate need of economic development. But the
earmark system doesn’t allow him to direct huge sums of federal money to
provide water and sewer, to improve the schools, to provide wireless
internet access and fund other improvements that will make the area more
attractive to employers. Instead, it allows him to build a bridge through a
swamp – which wouldn’t even make the top 100 list of projects that could
spur growth.
By all means we should raise questions about specific earmarks – and the
efforts by Sen. Jim DeMint and others to force some sunlight onto the
often-secretive process should help us do that. But the real problem isn’t
who gets the earmarks; it’s that they exist at all. Until they are
eliminated, we will always have federal funding going to organizations that
can be linked in some way to the lawmakers who are writing them. And we will
always have tax money used in less than the best ways.
Apparently, Mr. McAlister can’t summon a justification for taxpayers subsidizing rich movie stars and producers, so he dismisses the critics as unworthy of his efforts. We here this lame ad hominem substitute for debate by liberals every day, in every discussion.
That’s not changing the subject Slugger. Your post is right on point. I would bet that some of the tax money Clyburn sprayed on his family and friends was derived from taxes on gasoline.
Jim Clyburn is the poster boy for profligate liberal, fat cat democrat good ‘ol boy politics both in South Carolina and in Washington. The fact that he’s re-elected term after term says a lot more about his constituency to me than it does about his competency as a representative.
It is not surprising to me that The State newspaper has only printed a puff piece on this old rascal. He’s their kind of politician. What kind of defense is it that Clyburn did not invent congressional earmarks? How does that make what he’s done and continues to do right? I thought that Nancy Pelosi promised a clean sweep after she and the other hogs like Clyburn won the House.
Sickening. Typical, but sickening. David
Doesn’t that last paragraph harsh on pretty much everyone in both parties except DeMint?
Wow, everyone jumped off topic in the combox
OK folks. You need to read this article from The State yesterday. The article goes on to state that ethanol is cheaper than gasoline. Well maybe it is after the producers of ethanol get billions of our tax money for grants. And, do not forget how much the farm subsidity bill provided to the farmer to grow the corn to make the ethanol with our tax money. I suggest you read the article.
Subject: Emailing: The State 06-26-2008 SC passes ethanol law challenged by oil companies.htm
If the reporters actually believe half the disinformation they serve up as news, no wonder the editorials are so detached from reality.
Since the SC Secretary of Agriculture declaured that it is legal to adulterate gasoline with up to 10% ethanol and still sell it as gasoline, be aware that your vehicle will not get as many miles from a gallon, and the ethanol will destroy the fuel pumps, hoses, and carburetors of many older vehicles, especially motorcycles and most outboard marine engines.
Slugger, the way ethanol is being sold to the public is a scam. I have heard a commercial for one of the auto dealers in town touting how his cars run E85, and how great that is because E85 is sixty cents cheaper a gallon than straight gasoline.
What these charlatans DON’T tell you is that ethanol does not contain as much potential energy measured in BTU’s as does gasoline. What this means is simple: You have to burn a bunch more ethanol than you do of gasoline to get an equivalent amount of work ~ ie. to propel your car down the road.
What this means in practical terms is that a car burning E85 will get considerably less gas mileage than the same car burning straight gasoline. I’m talking something on the order of a third fewer MPG.
There IS NO FREE LUNCH. There never has been. There never will be. Period.
People who race cars which burn ethanol have long known this…it is one reason why fuel mileage is such a concern in Formula One. One primary reason they use it is that it has an extremely high octane rating, meaning that they can increase compression ratios to otherwise ridiculous levels for max horsepower without the detonation they’d get on gas. Ditto for top fuel dragsters.
Besides all that, the ecological impacts of burning alcohol are being questioned now, and it looks like ethanol brings it’s own set of problems for the environment that no one foresaw. Again, no free lunch.
Ethanol is a scam. And it is needlessly inflating food prices.
David
One of the favorite tactics of the neo-con is to tell a lie over and over and over again until the MSM regard it as true. The latest example is the lie about hurricanes Rita and Katrina that these storms did not cause oil spillage. In spite of the most modern preventive measures available the damaged rigs did, in fact, leak thousands of gallons of oil into the Gulf of Mexico. That’s why we don’t drill off-shore. Add the pollution costs to offshore drilling to the subsidized profits of the oil industry.
And even without a major storm the drilling operations cause a huge amount of pollution:
the problem of drilling-related pollution is not limited to the aftermath of natural disasters. Offshore oil production also brings with it the risk of spills from tanker accidents, which are devastating to ocean and shore life as well as seaside tourist economies. Then there’s the chronic pollution from drilling operations. The Rainforest Action Network estimates that over its lifetime one normally operating oil drilling rig will. The operation of a large rig in the Gulf will:
* dump more than 90,000 metric tons of toxic drilling fluid and metal cuttings into the ocean;
* drill between 50 and 100 wells, each of which will dump as much as 25,000 pounds of toxic metals including lead, chromium and mercury, and potent carcinogens like toluene, benzene, and xylene into the ocean; and
* pollute the air as much as 7,000 cars driving 50 miles a day.
-Institute for Southern Studies
And to the engineers,
Yes I know that BTU’s are a measure of thermal energy and not potential energy. A minor point that does not alter my greater arguement…which is that ethanol will not do an equivalent amount of work per unit volume as will straight gasoline.
Just wanted to head off any nit-picking about insignificant points that amount to nothing more than fur around the hole.
David
Besides all that, the ecological impacts of burning alcohol are being questioned now, and it looks like ethanol brings it’s own set of problems for the environment that no one foresaw. Again, no free lunch.
-David
I agree completely. Ethanol has many problems and should not be subsidized. In fact I think this is one area that liberals and conservatives agree. Ethanol is just not the answer.
Having said that, it should be pointed out that without ethanol our oil supply situation would be even worse. Ethanol accounts for a substantial share of our motor fuels right now and without it gasoline would be even more expensive. That may explain the price differential between gasoline and diesel since you can’t add ethanol to diesel the way you can with gasoline.
Yes, we should eliminate subsidies for ethanol. But expect the price for a fill-up to go up.
Listen up bloggers. Bud agrees partly on something. ” Ethanol is not the answer”. Now go get that Miller Lite and celebrate. It may not happen again anytime soon.
Still another GOP lie exposed. But will the MSM brand this conservative mantra for the fraud that it is.
With President Bush and the Republicans calling to lift the ban on offshore drilling of oil and gas, one claim from many Republicans in support of drilling suggests that China and Cuba are either already drilling or about to start, just 50 miles off the coast of Florida. But a report in McClatchy Newspapers says that this is untrue. It states: “… no one can prove that the Chinese are drilling anywhere off Cuba’s shoreline.” It adds: “China is not drilling in Cuba’s Gulf of Mexico waters, period, according to Jorge Piñon, an energy fellow with the Center for Hemispheric Policy at the University of Miami.” Despite these assertions Vice President Dick Cheney said in a speech to The US Chamber of Commerce: “George Will pointed out in his column the other day that oil is being drilled right now 60 miles off the coast of Florida. We are not doing it, the Chinese are, in cooperation with the Cuban government. Even the communists have figured out that a good answer to high prices are more supply.”
The news story I heard was that China had sent oil drilling equipment to Cuba but had not actually started the drilling.
Red China and Cuba drilling oil given to them by American leftists – ah, that worms the hearts of many anti-American Democrats!
We finally heard from Rep. Clyburn in The Herald newspaper (Rock Hill June 28th). On the editorial page the article is written by Rep. Clyburn “Earmarks benefit state”.
He denies helping any family or friends with money going to any project in his district. They may have once worked their, or in the same building.
His largest concern is that “my detractors at Citizens Against Government Waste, Or CAGW, aren’t being fully transparent themselves”. He accuses these organizations of funding McCain.
So. There you have it. The Sun News had it all wrong. Now don’t you feel better about having Rep. Clyburn represent the state of South Carolina in Congress?
No matter WHAT China does. No matter WHAT Cuba does. No matter what Chile, Argentina, Brazil or Freedonia do…the United States ought to begin RIGHT NOW now aggressively drilling anywhere and everywhere we have evidence that there are petroleum reserves under our lands and territories and under our littoral waters.
RIGHT NOW.
AGGRESSIVELY.
Brad and Buds’ opinion notwithstanding.
david
If Brad and bud own stock in an oil company, they can vote against drilling offshore or in ANWR, or Utah and Colorado. Otherwise, it’s none of their business.
The mineral rights on public land are part and parcel of the conditions of statehood for all the western states and Alaska.
While Brad is away the mice will play.
I want to change the subject. There is an article in today’s State that you should read. Below is a couple of comments from the article.
Article by Charles Krauthammer
Subject: Emailing: The State 06-28-2008 Obama’s newfound flexibility.htm
The below is taken from this article.
The truth about Obama is uncomplicated. He is just a politician (though of
unusual skill and ambition). The man who dared say it plainly is the man who
knows Obama all too well. “He does what politicians do,” explained Jeremiah
Wright.
When it’s time to throw campaign finance reform, telecom accountability,
NAFTA renegotiation or Jeremiah Wright overboard, Obama is not sentimental.
He does not hesitate. He tosses lustily.
Why, the man even tossed his own grandmother overboard back in
Philadelphia – only to haul her back on deck now that her services are
needed. Yesterday, granny was the moral equivalent of the raving Reverend
Wright. Today, she is a featured prop in Obama’s fuzzy-wuzzy get-to-know-me
national TV ad.
Not a flinch. Not a flicker. Not a hint of shame. By the time he’s finished,
Obama will have made the Clintons look scrupulous.
Did you see the Iranian demonstrators in protesting America on the weekend television news channels? What caught my eye were the signs for Barak Obama.