I'll stand by the facts rather than O'Reilly tactics of always attaching a personal insult, ideally some sort of labeling or name-calling, to any expression of political opinion. Crude oil futures have been rising, not sinking: http://www.wtrg.com/daily/crudeoilprice.html

This Administration's own DOE says that potential price spikes remain a danger given global uncertainties. That's an understatement, esp. given the extremely volatile situation in Venezuela, which supplies oil equaling the entire global daily excess capaity. Moreover, forecasts of price stability or decline have assumed increasing Iraqi stability. Want to bet on that?

Conversely, if you believe oil prices will stay the same or decline, then pumping in Alaska makes no economic sense. The Administration's own reports estimate that the Alaskan wildlife reserve has about 16 billion barrels of oil under it, but at current prices only between 3 and 10 billion barrels will be worth pumping. The economically recoverable oil at sub-$30 prices represents at most what the US consumes in crude in 9 months, maybe half that. Is it worth trashing one of the last great wildernesses of this country for that?

Whether one thinks oil prices will go up or down, more energy could be "generated" via conservation and demand reduction, esp. in the SUV market, than by Alaskan drilling.

Congress and various federal agencies received more comment on Alaskan drilling than on just about any other issue, ever, overwhelmingly in opposition to drilling. It's just lazy to oversimplify the issue by labeling the millions of Americans opposed to exploitation of one of the last great wildernesses -- which number includes plenty of economists and respected scientists -- as "treehuggers" or "crybabies". Such name-calling should not even be necessary between intelligent people.