Also, a lease is defined by a long term engagement where you pay over time. It’s hardly a racket on the government’s part. Have you ever leased a car? Leased an apartment? The government is leasing a massive amount of land where the oil companies pay very little for per acre. There’s a chance jack-shit is there, but if oil IS there, the oil companies make money hand over fist. The fact that the government doesn’t let them break the lease is not a racket — it’s sound “business” on the government’s part. Without the government taking some money in from the process, it’s just “giving away” land that you or I would have to actually pay for. The lease saves oil companies money because they do not have the repsonsibility to OWN it (which would be extremely expensive when you factor in property taxes).

However, as I stated above, if the land is crap, why are futures being speculated on it?!

Additionally, Exxon told the government in one of those many, many oversight meetings that they did not have enough equipment to drill more. Well, if that’s true, how is leasing ANWR going to solve that?

The oil companies CANNOT have it both ways!

If there is no oil and no prospect for oil, why are they paying for leases? They could just, you know, not pay for leases and save some money. So let’s pretend there IS no oil there — at all! Then that means that the futures market of oil is — drum roll — corrupt! Either way you slice it, there’s something fishy going on. The oil companies want to have their cake and eat it too. Well, guess what? Either the land is crap and speculating futures on that land is fraud OR the land is good and you need to get your damn drills out there and drill!

You know, I wondered about this every since I read your comment, and I heard the former CEO of Shell talking the other day, and he indicated that the way the leases work is that the government puts them up for lottery and then, of course the highest bidder wins.

The leases are then set for a specified number of years; he indicated usually at least 5, but many times for 10. Now, this gives the company the authority to use their own equipment to go lookling for the oil, i.e. drill test wells, do seismic studies, that sort of thing. But, and here’s the rub, even if they don’t find any oil, they still have to pay the leases! Smooth racket the government has going, if you ask me.

Tell these companies “Sure, you can pay us money to look for oil on our land, but if you don’t find any, you’ll still be paying us for the next 10 years!”

Anyway, he also indicated that, as far as he knew, that every well that could produce oil was doing so.

Just thought I would share what I heard.

But then, I think I can answer my own question: it’s because smart, educated people are harder to fool and control. The more stupid and ignorant you are, the easier you are to lead, program, and brainwash.

Yes, that is the answer. As ParrotLover points out, this was easier before widespread literacy and translation (a.ka. the invention of the printing press). Interestingly, the RCC institutionalized many of the techniques for control employed by organized religions, but today they seem to at least have found some level of stability in their relationship with science. Even the pope has said that creationism is absurd.

Anyway, yes, one of the tenets of intellectualism and the scientific method is to question assertions and authority and that terrifies religious authorities since their claim to authority is based on made up stories.

When those you are controlling can’t even read the source material, it gives you an edge to make up whatever crazy thing you want.

Of course, the Republicans have applied this same philosophy ever since the Reagan administration. Only, it’s keep the truth out of the hands of the general public, and make up any crazy thing you want that suits your agenda.

But then, I think I can answer my own question: it’s because smart, educated people are harder to fool and control. The more stupid and ignorant you are, the easier you are to lead, program, and brainwash.

Okay, I get the Forrest Gump thing now.

The idea of gentle idiot as president makes me want to watch “Being There” again.

Forrest Gump was a kind and loving innocent, quite different to the guy in charge now. There is nothing kind, loving or innocent about pure evil.

I didn’t mean to imply that Bush = Gump (although that is an amusing thought). I was reacting to the movie on a whole and how it beats you over the head with the notion that “hey, it’s okay if you don’t know anything, you’re still going to accomplish everything you want in life” and just how much Sue Blue’s observation reminded me of that movie. In fact, the movie goes further than that, every character in the movie that does know something has something horrible happen to them. They get maimed, diseased, killed, etc. Being smart and educated in Forrest Gump was as much of a death sentence as a female character who has sex in an 80s action movie.