Thomas Friedman brought us one of the best opinion pieces that I have read in a long while yesterday. It seemed to be inspired by two things, the prominence of Sarah Palin in the news lately, and the struggle of climate bills to pass legislation. He didn’t specifically mention Palin, which was nice to see, but he referenced her notorious catch phrase, “drill baby drill.” The reason this article was so good was that it was a near perfectly sound logical argument. He laid out a straightforward case to explain why alternative energy and climate bills are good, regardless of one’s stance on global warming or off-shore drilling. He showed the hypocrisy of the proponents of keeping oil as the primary source of energy, and he did it in a fashion that was structured so well that it is almost impossible to miss his point. Opinion-based journalism in all areas is missing the logical connection in argumentation. Arguments are made but proper reasoning is lacking, Friedman got past this. Here is an excerpt from his piece:

So, as I said, you don’t believe in global warming? You’re wrong, but I’ll let you enjoy it until your beach house gets washed away. But if you also don’t believe the world is getting more crowded with more aspiring Americans — and that ignoring that will play to the strength of our worst enemies, while responding to it with clean energy will play to the strength of our best technologies — then you’re willfully blind, and you’re hurting America’s future to boot.

I strongly suggest giving the article an entire read through.

Kelly Jacobsen

League of Conservation Voters Internship Summary

September 28 – October 9

Since I last reported, quite a bit of progress has been made towards climate change legislation in the Senate (and perhaps that’s why I’ve been a bit slow to write this update.)

On September 30, Senators John Kerry and Barbara Boxer introduced the Clean Energy Jobs and American Power Act. While the bill is quite the mouthful, it is also very strong at this stage of things. The bill was introduced at pass conference in front of the Capitol, which I attended, along with all other League of Conservation Voters staff and interns.

For me, the experience was quite the treat. Not only did I get to see one of my favorite senators, John Kerry, but I was also able to listen to some of the greatest environmental champions in the Senate speak. Senators in attendance included: John Kerry – MA, Barbara Boxer – CA, Kristen Gillibrand – NY, Jeanne Shaheen – NH, Bernie Sanders – VT, Sheldon Whitehouse – RI, Frank Lautenberg – NJ, Mark Udall – CO, Tom Udall – NM, Ben Cardin – MD, Amy Klobuchar – MN.

My favorite speaker of the event was Senator Tom Udall of New Mexico. He referred to the need to continue carrying the message of climate change action across the country by saying, “It’s been said, but not everyone’s said it.”

On October 6, LCV held a lobby day to thank Members of Congress who have supported climate change legislation in the past and urge those who will be voting soon to support the Boxer-Kerry legislation.

Over 25 directors of Conservation Leagues from across the country flew in for these meetings and I was able to sit in on appointments with Senators Barbara Boxer and John Tester.  I was very honored to be chosen for the Boxer meeting because she obviously has a great insight on what it is happening right in the Senate. As the author of the bill, she didn’t need to be lobbied, but she did provide excellent insight into how organization like LCV can help pass the legislation.

Things continue to move forward this week. Over the weekend, Senator Kerry ran an op-ed in the New York Times with Senator Lindsey Graham, making a great showing for bi-partisan support for the Clean Energy Jobs and American Power Act. However, with bi-partisanship often comes sacrifice.  Republicans who may be vote for this bill will be pushing for more provisions involving clean coal, nuclear, and drilling – all things that can weaken this strong bill.

Hearings on the Kerry-Boxer bill are expected to begin October 27 and mark-up on November 2. Many people are still pushing for a floor vote this year, although that is dependent on the progression of the ever-daunting health-care debate.

Oh, the Progressives! The progressive dream of a man-made Utopian society will kill our prosperity and our culture. This is illustrated by it’s ideological war against energy sources such as oil, coal and natural gas. Of course we should explore “green” alternatives, but without making ourselves slaves to foreign oil. President Obama reinstated the ban on off-shore oil drilling, endangering our national security for the “Green Dream.”

But the economic policies of an expansion of government and uncontrolled debt by the Obama administration will also effect our energy independence. Sarah Palin explains why.

The British newspaper The Independent reported today that Gulf oil producers were negotiating with Russia, China, Japan and France to replace the dollar in pricing oil with a basket of currencies.[1] According to the Wall Street Journal, Arab oil officials have denied the story, but even the possibility of such a talk weakens the dollar and renews fears about its continued viability as an international reserve currency.[2] In fact, today a United Nations official called for a new global reserve currency to replace the dollar and end our “privilege” to run up huge deficits.[3] We can see the effect of this in the price of gold, which hit a record high today in response to fears about the weakened dollar.[4]

All of this is a result of our out-of-control debt. This is why we need to rein in spending, and this is also why we need energy independence. A weakened dollar means higher commodity prices. This will make it more difficult to pay our bills – including the bill to import oil.

In his book Architects of Ruin, Peter Schweizer points out that the Obama administration is focusing primarily on “green energy,” while ignoring our need to develop our domestic conventional energy resources.[5] We’re ignoring the looming crisis caused by our dependence on foreign oil. Because we’re dependent on foreign nations for our oil, we’re also at their mercy if they decide to dump the dollar as their trade currency. We can’t allow ourselves to be so vulnerable to the whims of foreign nations. That’s why we must develop our own domestic supplies of oil and gas.

Though the chant of “Drill, baby, drill” was much derided, it expressed the need to confront this issue head-on before it reaches a crisis point.

Bottom line: let’s stop digging ourselves into debt and start drilling for energy independence.

[1] See The Independent

[2] See WSJ

[3] See Breitbart

[4] See Yahoo

[5] See peterschweizer.com

As progressives dance in the fields of Utopian dreams to our destruction, we need to reverse Obama policies of weakening the dollar and the refusal to drill for energy independence.

Hopefully we will start making changes in November 2010.

From WSJ.com:

You read that headline correctly. Unfortunately, the Obama Administration is financing oil exploration off Brazil.

The U.S. is going to lend billions of dollars to Brazil’s state-owned oil company, Petrobras, to finance exploration of the huge offshore discovery in Brazil’s Tupi oil field in the Santos Basin near Rio de Janeiro. Brazil’s planning minister confirmed that White House National Security Adviser James Jones met this month with Brazilian officials to talk about the loan.

The U.S. Export-Import Bank tells us it has issued a “preliminary commitment” letter to Petrobras in the amount of $2 billion and has discussed with Brazil the possibility of increasing that amount. Ex-Im Bank says it has not decided whether the money will come in the form of a direct loan or loan guarantees. Either way, this corporate foreign aid may strike some readers as odd, given that the U.S. Treasury seems desperate for cash and Petrobras is one of the largest corporations in the Americas.

But look on the bright side. If President Obama has embraced offshore drilling in Brazil, why not in the old U.S.A.? The land of the sorta free and the home of the heavily indebted has enormous offshore oil deposits, and last year ahead of the November elections, with gasoline at $4 a gallon, Congress let a ban on offshore drilling expire.

The Bush Administration’s five-year plan (2007-2012) to open the outer continental shelf to oil exploration included new lease sales in the Gulf of Mexico. But in 2007 environmentalists went to court to block drilling in Alaska and in April a federal court ruled in their favor. In May, Interior Secretary Ken Salazar said his department was unsure whether that ruling applied only to Alaska or all offshore drilling. So it asked an appeals court for clarification. Late last month the court said the earlier decision applied only to Alaska, opening the way for the sale of leases in the Gulf. Mr. Salazar now says the sales will go forward on August 19.

This is progress, however slow. But it still doesn’t allow the U.S. to explore in Alaska or along the East and West Coasts, which could be our equivalent of the Tupi oil fields, which are set to make Brazil a leading oil exporter. Americans are right to wonder why Mr. Obama is underwriting in Brazil what he won’t allow at home.

Written by Donnie Wilson

Yet again the Obama administration is doing the exact opposite of what they told the American public they were going to do. This week The Wall Street Journal reported that the Obama administration plans to invest $2 billion in drilling off the coast of Brazil.

The U.S. is going to lend billions of dollars to Brazil’s state-owned oil company, Petrobras, to finance exploration of the huge offshore discovery in Brazil’s Tupi oil field in the Santos Basin near Rio de Janeiro. Brazil’s planning minister confirmed that White House National Security Adviser James Jones met this month with Brazilian officials to talk about the loan.

The U.S. Export-Import Bank tells us it has issued a “preliminary commitment”  letter to Petrobras in the amount of $2 billion and has discussed with Brazil the possibility of increasing that amount. Ex-Im Bank says it has not decided whether the money will come in the form of a direct loan or loan guarantees. Either way, this corporate foreign aid may strike some readers as odd, given that the U.S. Treasury seems desperate for cash and Petrobras is one of the largest corporations in the Americas.

Keep in mind that this is the same administration that scrapped oil leases in Utah, banned offshore drilling, and introduced a bill to permanently ban drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. I seem to remember that during Obama’s campaign he rallied against oil companies and the use of fossil fuels. He claimed that he was aiming to reduce our dependency on foreign oil, yet he is investing 2 billion in U.S. taxpayer dollars in a Brazilian oil company? This is the same guy who said that he wanted to raise gas prices to reduce our dependency on foreign oil. Why did Obama have such a change of heart in such a short period of time? It’s simple. Obama needed to pay off the man who essentially put him in office.

According to a filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, George Soros, through his hedge-fund firm Soros Fund Management LLC, sold 22 million U.S. listed common shares of Petrobras. He recently purchased 5.8 million of the company’s U.S. traded preferred shares. Is it a coincidence that Soros repositioned himself in Petrobras to earn dividends just a few days before Obama committed $2 billion in loans and guarantees for Petrobras’ offshore operations? My guess is no.

If you aren’t familiar with George Soros, here is a little background information. According to Forbes, Soros is the 29^th richest person in the world. In his own words Soros has been “having a very good crisis”. He made $1.1 billion last year. With this amount of money it is no surprise that Soros largely funded and officially backed the organization MoveOn.org. MoveOn.org played an essential role in Obama capturing the Democratic nomination, despite Hillary Clinton having a large lead in the popular vote. He also donated large amounts to Obama’s campaign. Soros is also a former director of the Council on Foreign Relations, which in itself is scary. To give you an example of the kind of power that Soros has the Obama administration is replacing our foreign policy “The Bush Doctrine” with “The Soros Doctrine”. Soros told The Wall Street Journal this; “I have made rejection of the Bush doctrine the central project of my life.” It is no surprise that he financially backed Obama to implement policy and gain wealth at the expense of the American people. Obama returned the favor by investing tax payer dollars in a company that Soros owned shares in. The notion that political ties with big oil companies and the dominating elite will end with the Obama administration and the Democratic Party in power has already proven to be false. It is nothing more than tactical lies to continue to pull the wool over the eyes of the American people.

It seems as if the mainstream media can’t seem to find a way (or is deliberately ignoring) to expose the Obama-Soros connection. In the future I will further explicate the relationship between Obama, his puppet master George Soros, and the engineered recent financial collapse.

Regardless of the ties between Soros and Obama, both parties should be furious. Drilling off shore is a slap in the face to Obama’s green supporters, even if the drilling isn’t in the U.S. It is hard to believe that he chose to drill off the coast of Brazil while he refuses to drill off of our own shores. That should infuriate conservatives in support of investing in our own land.

The fact that this story is not getting any mainstream coverage should throw up red flags, regardless of political affiliation.

In yet another asinine move, and they are coming almost daily from Barack Obama and his fifty czars, we are now going to assist Brazil to drill offshore for oil. Two friggin’ billion dollars of assistance!

But what about the environment you may ask?  The environment can go swim with the fishes as far as the socialist power mongers intent on destroying America are concerned!

Drill There, Si!  Drill Here, No!

From the Wall Street Journal:

Obama to underwrite off-shore drilling

You read that headline correctly. Unfortunately, the Obama Administration is financing oil exploration off Brazil.

The U.S. is going to lend billions of dollars to Brazil’s state-owned oil company, Petrobras, to finance exploration of the huge offshore discovery in Brazil’s Tupi oil field in the Santos Basin near Rio de Janeiro. Brazil’s planning minister confirmed that White House National Security Adviser James Jones met this month with Brazilian officials to talk about the loan.

The U.S. Export-Import Bank tells us it has issued a “preliminary commitment” letter to Petrobras in the amount of $2 billion and has discussed with Brazil the possibility of increasing that amount. Ex-Im Bank says it has not decided whether the money will come in the form of a direct loan or loan guarantees. Either way, this corporate foreign aid may strike some readers as odd, given that the U.S. Treasury seems desperate for cash and Petrobras is one of the largest corporations in the Americas.

after all, we can’t let Brazil suffer from the vagaries of OPEC controlled oil price manipulations now can we?

Oh, and Brazil has a socialist in charge now too!  Birds of a feather and all…

Hat Tip:  This Ain’t Hell

I attended a joint meeting of the Accomack and Northampton county Democatic Committees that was attended by State Senator Ralph Northam, Delegate Lynwood Lewis, and Candidate for Lt. Governor Jody Wagner in Nassawadox.  Their website has some excerpts from that meeting.  I’ve added a link to their site on my blog as well.

As far as their not being in support of off-shore drilling goes; I will say this — I don’t want to lose one single JOB from the Navy or NASA nor do I want any pollution added to our waters.  I want all those jobs and the money they bring to the Eastern Shore AND I want every dollar and every JOB that off-shore drilling might bring.  Don’t just say ‘NO’ to a concept that you haven’t taken the time to explore.  The answer to breaking America’s dependence on foreign oil could start right here in Virginia.  The royalties that we could enjoy might be the difference between being able to offer our students the best schools in the union and our residents income that they could use to buy the best health care in the country.  That is, if we take advantage of that possibility.

“In response to questions from local radio show host Melody Scalley about offshore oil drilling, both Lewis and Northam strongly declared their opposition to drilling, citing it’s potential for environmental and aquaculture industry disruption as well as the problems that it would cause for NASA operations and expansion. Lewis also gave a spirited defense of the American public school system in response to her support of school vouchers.”

What they did not mention was that Del. Lewis went on to say that ‘while he had the opportunity to attend private school he would not want to undermine the public school system by allowing school vouchers’.  The topic of improving education had first been raised by one of his own constituents, mine was a follow up question to that.  My response was that although “he had that opportunity (to attend private school because his family had the means to send him) he would not allow his constituents to have that same opportunity?”  He repeated that he would not want to ‘undermine the public schools’.

You have to understand, it’s not about supporting or undermining PUBLIC SCHOOLS it is providing for PUBLIC EDUCATION the means for which (the money) should follow the student to the school of THEIR choice and NOT the government monoply of schools that the government chooses to provide.  School vouchers (or tax credits) would allow for a greater diversity in education, the end result of which would be to provide a BETTER PUBLIC EDUCATION for ALL OF OUR CHILDREN.  Not just the ones whose parents have the means to send them to a private school or move to a better neighborhood where the better government run schools are located.

Just consider for a moment why America is known for a competitive and excellent higher education system (post-secondary) while at the same time being known for a declining elementary and high school system?  When we consider  international comparisons; our primary education system does not score well.      The education provided in most developed countries outperform The United States, especially at high school level.

So again, why do you think that is, exactly?  Why do most colleges and universities offer a far superior education than our primary schools?

It is because most of our colleges and universities are PRIVATELY OWNED and they COMPETE with the public colleges.  The result is that they ALL offer a better education.  The same principal should be used in our primary school system.  The money should follow the kids to the school of their parents’ choice.

Competition in the market place results in the best service at the lowest price with the best selection.  If your child has an aptitude for science why should they attend a school whose best teacher is in the art class?  If your student excels in computer science why should they attend a school that has an emphasis on shop.  If your child is a special needs student that would benefit by attending a school that focuses on addressing those needs; wouldn’t you rather have the option of sending your child to a school that places an emphasis on teaching your special needs child?

Government is not the answer, it is part of the problem.

melody scalley

Nuts and bolts of off shore drilling.

Jim at Point Arena Basin is reporting that Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar will be hosting some regional meetings on development of the outer continental shelf including one in San Francisco at the University of California-San Francisco’s Mission Bay Conference Center in San Francisco, California, on Thursday, April 16.

More details through the link above.

By ZACHARY COILE

President Obama is shelving a plan announced in the final days of the Bush administration to open much of the U.S. coast to oil drilling, including 130 million acres off California’s coast from Mendocino to San Diego.

On Tuesday, Interior Secretary Ken Salazar ordered the plan be put on hold while his agency conducts a 180-day review of the country’s offshore oil and gas resources. Salazar’s critical comments about the plan signaled that the new administration will seek to rewrite it if not completely scrap it.

The Bush proposal “opened the possibility of oil and gas leases along the entire Eastern seaboard, portions of offshore California and the far eastern Gulf of Mexico with almost no consultation from states, industry or community input,” Salazar said at a news conference in Washington. “In my view it was a headlong rush of the worst kind.”

He said his agency will hold four public meetings over the next few months – one in Alaska, one on the West Coast, one along the East Coast and one near the Gulf Coast – to hear from governors, local officials, industry groups and environmentalists about the plan.

Salazar did not directly address the bigger question: Whether Obama will seek to renew the three-decade-old presidential moratorium on drilling off most of the East and West coasts, which Bush lifted last July amid growing public anger over soaring gas prices.

He echoed comments made by Obama during last year’s campaign that the administration would be open to more offshore drilling, but only as part of a broader energy policy focused on producing more renewable energy from wind, solar, geothermal as well as tidal and wave power.

“For those of you from the oil and gas industry … I pledge to you that you will have a seat at the table,” Salazar said. “We need your expertise and your resources as we move forward. But as President Obama has said and as I believe … a drill-only energy approach, onshore and offshore, is not enough.”

The congressional moratorium on offshore drilling also expired last year, and the Bush administration moved quickly to forward a lease sale plan that would open areas off most of the U.S. coast, from the Gulf of Maine to Chesapeake Bay and the Outer Banks of North Carolina to the Gulf of Mexico, plus the Pacific Coast. The plan also opened new areas of Alaska’s Bristol Bay and the Arctic Ocean.

Bush’s top Interior officials released the plan on Jan. 16, the final business day of the Bush administration, knowing the new president was likely to rewrite the plan.

Oil industry leaders were disappointed by Salazar’s announcement. Barry Russell, president of the Independent Petroleum Association of America said, “This unnecessary delay will hold America back, at the precise moment when we need to move forward the most.”

But environmentalists praised the move, calling it a sharp break from the pro-drilling policies of the Bush administration.

“We are hopeful that today’s announcement marks a new beginning for an agency that has badly wandered off track during the Bush era,” said Richard Charter, who lobbies for Defenders of Wildlife.

In California, the Bush administration’s plan would open three major areas, one in Northern California and two in Southern California, which it claimed had “known hydrocarbon potential.”

The plan would have allowed drilling on 44 million acres of federal waters off Humboldt and Mendocino counties, and 89 million acres off San Luis Obispo, Santa Barbara, Ventura, Los Angeles and San Diego counties.

One of the leases would have required special directional drilling equipment to reach oil beneath the Santa Barbara Ecological Preserve. In Southern California, there are 79 existing leases with 43 producing and 36 undeveloped.

Chronicle Environment Writer Jane Kay contributed to this report.

Reprinted from The San Fransisco Gate (2-10-2009)

Over at MasterResource.org, Michael Lynch states that, “an increase in offshore drilling is still on the policy table, which suggests Obama is taking a more rational approach to energy policy than many of his colleagues.”  I’m not going to hold my breath.  There’s too much pressure on politicians from the green lobbies.  Plus, gas is pretty cheap right now.  Gas prices will have to get really high before people will come around to opening up more space for drilling.

All that aside, Lynch has excellent arguments for off-shore drilling.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/12/20/oil.drilling/index.html

In the  last days of the Bush administration, we are seeing the beginnings of the drive for offshore drilling.  The first state to open up is Virginia, where a potential of more than 100 million barrels exist.  This is the first real drilling on the Atlantic Coast in 30 years.

The question is whether Obama will resist pressure from his left.  Greenpeace, the Sierra Club, and numerous others are pushing the new administration to quickly stop offshore drilling.

Obama himself said he was in favor of offshore drilling in the summer, when gas prices were hovering in the $4 range.  However, many were suspect that he was pandering to the gas conscious in the crowd.  Now as president-elect, will he keep his word, and allow drilling to continue?

The issue of off-shore drilling was propelled to the national stage when U.S. Presidential Candidate John McCain issued his bold statement “drill here, drill now” at rallies across the country. We find ourselves in a situation in which we are addicted to oil. China’s rapid industrialization and reckless speculation on the Commodities Futures Exchange have pushed up demand for oil to a recent peak. Although alleviated by the collapse in the stock market, higher demand will likely soon return. In this situation, increasing supply relative to demand is roughly the equivalent of attempting to wean an alcoholic off alcohol by making it cheaper.

Offshore drilling poses a massive threat to our environment and biological diversity. For starters, off-shore oil rigs have significant risk of oil spills. One spill in Campeche, Mexico poured 140 million gallons of crude into the Gulf of Mexico. The oil decimated populations of fish, corral, and other marine life. Proponents claim that the scenario of an oil spill is a worst-case scenario meant to scare people away from an idea that is essentially good. However, in 2001, the worlds biggest oil rig sunk off the coast of Brazil. Yes, it collapsed, and sunk. The practice is also virtually impossible to regulate effectively. For instance, in 1992 alone, Chevron pleaded guilty to 65 violations of the Clean Water Act and paid the Federal Government $8 million dollars in fines. Not that that undid the damage. Their lack of internal safety standards is also disturbing. For example, in 1997, federal inspectors found that Chevron had failed to fix a broken anti-blowout valve in their rig off the coast of Ventura. But, no big deal, the valve only ensures that pressure does not exceed the valve’s maximum capacity and cause an uncontrollable oil spill.

Even without an oil spill, over its lifetime an oil rig can dump as much as 90,000 tons of drilling fluid and metal cuttings into the water surrounding it. It will also drill as many as 100 wells each of which pours nearly 25,000 pounds of toxic metals like lead and mercury as well as carcinogens like benzene into the water. Their contribution to air pollution exceeds that of 7,000 cars driving 50 miles a day. In Louisiana, where some offshore drilling already occurs, on average, 62 square miles of costal wetlands are lost each year. This is a major problem because costal wetlands reduce the effect of storm surges like the ones that breeched the levees of New Orleans during hurricane Katrina.

But what are the benefits? While our nation consumes 25% of the world’s produced oil, America has only 3% of the world’s proven oil reserves. That three percent includes all of the on-land sites. If we were to allow offshore drilling, most industry experts have concluded that it would take a decade for oil companies to get the proper permits, produce the equipment, and conduct the planning necessary for new oil rigs. The necessary equipment is not mass produced leading to long construction periods, installation is complex and the sediment under which oil is located often requires more advanced engineering. In short, we can’t drill our way to energy independence.

However, let us assume for a moment that the Republicans are correct in saying that off-shore drilling will be effective. That result would be far worse because in addition to a slew of ecological problems, free-market forces would prevent the development of alternative energy. The lowered price of crude oil would make would make alternative energy, even with current federal subsidies, unattractively expensive. Investors would understand this and be hesitant to invest in green technology as it would be unlikely to make any money. Thus, research and development of alternative energy would be severely impaired.

Off-shore drilling is a politician’s pander to Americans crying out for relief from high gas prices. Most people don’t know the difference and it helps some people get elected, but it’s a bad policy.

Two numbers have been seared into the minds of millions of Americans: $4/per gallon of gas and $145/per barrel of crude oil. Explanations abound for how we arrived at this seemingly inconceivable position. Increased demand from China and India, as well as price speculation appear to be the front-runners.

However, what is less clear is how we as a country begin to find solutions to skyrocketing costs. One idea that appears to be gaining favor among the general public is to step up exploration for domestic sources of oil.

But, will increasing supply through domestic exploration really help the average consumer?

I posed this question in a previous post, offering contradictory evidence to the claim that more drilling will solve our problem of run away pump prices. The basic message from the NPR story linked in the post was that even if we open up all available areas of ANWAR and the outer continental shelf, the possibility of increasing supply would not come about for at least ten years. Furthermore, the market for ANWAR and outer continental shelf oil would not be restricted to the United States. No, folks, it would be for sale to the highest bidder on the planet (think of those pesky Chinese and Indians).

In the intervening weeks, I have yet to see a credible study, a credible report, or a credible economic forecast regarding the utility (for today’s consumer of fossil fuel) of increased drilling. I did find plenty of evidence regarding the daunting scientific challenges of global climate change, which is irrefutably linked to increased fossil fuel use. But, I’ve yet to uncover anything compelling on the broad economic advantages of ANWAR/outer continental shelf drilling.

So, I turn to you, reader of the Clearly New Mexico blog. Do you have credible evidence of how the American public stands to gain from more domestic exploration? If so, please post something in the comments section. Or, email me at mattbrix@gmail.com.

Really, I am interested in knowing if the evidence exists.