John Edwards has a lot of 'splaining to do.

Edwards was very clear in his condemnation towards those who would not take their marriage vows seriously. He spoke frequently of his devotion to his ailing wife, and was vocal in criticism of (R)s caught with their pants down.

And today, the news is headlining MSM news sites that Sen. Edwards is admitting that he was involved with the woman at the center of the story no one would tell except the National Enquirer. But, he assures anyone listening, he wasn't the baby's daddy. The timing wasn't right for that, he says.

Now, I know, the progressives will claim that this is all about the sex, and that's what gets the waters roiled for those of us who don't support Sen. Edwards. They just don't get it, do they?

The issue is integrity.

Integrity has been defined as making sure that what one does when the lights aren't shining on you matches what you say when they are. I think one could add to that definition that integrity is shown when one is able to 'fess up rather than cover up.

I watched how my parents dealt with my dad's terminal cancer. I saw how she stood with him, stood for him when necessary, as he declined. It would never have occurred to her to go elsewhere during his illness. She was committed to him, and that superceded any selfish desires.

Edwards had the affair (strike one), lied about it repeatedly (strike two), and now says "but I didn't father the child" to try to trivialize the affair.

Three strikes, John. You're out.

Obama opened himself up to a lot of criticism with the "air pressure" statement. I know that is really not his entire energy policy, but his full statement was that proper tire inflation would do more for energy prices than drilling off-shore, or wherever McCain thinks we should drill.

To be fair, "O" has reversed his view on drilling, since the polls clearly indicate he was marching to a non-populist drummer on that issue; but let's look at some of the arguments against drilling.

Argument 1: Drilling won't return anything useful for seven/ten/fifteen/thirty years

That would have been true had we started from scratch twenty years ago. However, there are plenty of producing wells, and moth-balled wells, that can be producing in anywhere from six months to two years. The company I work for is one of those pioneering sideways drilling, allowing the oil and natural gas companies to use existing wells and reach new pockets with a few days of work, rather than the months that are required in a new field. To some extent, that kind of work is already happening.

Argument 2: Big Oil will just raise the price...

The only way ths works is with a level of collusion among the industry giants that boggles minor conspiracy buffs like me. The biggies are in competition with each other. I pass several clusters of gas stations on my way home, and I see it all the time; one station drops the price, the others have to follow suit to get any customers. Coordinating the ballet of the pricing signs would require a coverup that defies mortal capacity. We can't even keep military secrets that are vital to national security off the front page of the New York Times - how likely is it that the big oil fatcats could be involved in such a large conspiracy and get away with it?

Argument 3: Demand is rising globally; more supply won't help

Demand is dropping here in the US (primarily due to the price). Most analysts looking at the global market recognize that the East (China and India, not Boston) has only just started what is bound to be a masssive increase in demand. As that continues, the curve will shift, and not in a way we will like. China is cash-rich, and will be able to buy up the mideast oil faster than you can say "currency rate".

Is that a reason to give up on producing more? That seems backwards to me. Seems like we should be getting more into the production game to keep pace, at the very least, with demand rather than trying to avoid it.

Here's a thought; if we are sitting on large oil reserves, and China gets thirstier than the mideast can supply, where will they go for the oil? We could become a source, equalizing our trade debt, and buying back some of our debt China holds. Or we could sit on this ocean of resources and pray that the People's Republic doesn't decide that they will exploit what we are ignoring. Over our dead bodies, you say?
Exactly my point.

Argument 4: We need to be developing other sources...

Great. Let's do. But the reality is that we are completely, utterly dependent on oil. If you were facing an operation, imagine the surgeon saying, "Blood is nice, but it has a limited supply. We're going to switch your blood out with vinegar while you're asleep." My guess is you might cancel the surgery. And see about having that doctor committed.

Wind power sounds nice. But wind farms only work if you have wind. That means that much of the country would need some alternate source of energy during calm periods. Or some honkin' big rechargable batteries. Is that the back range of the Rockies, Cletus? No, Maw, that's the front range of the Duracells.

Solar is great for water heaters, or swimming pools (the largest use of solar, according to today's Wall Street Journal). I moved from Cincinnati back to the sunny south because I have seasonal affected disorder. In layman's terms, I am affected by lack of sunlight. The kind required to get much from solar panels. I saw an estimate that we would need a solar farm larger than the state of Texas to provide a fairly insignificant amount of power.

Nuclear - I include it, in part, just to see if any liberals will hyperventilate. But it is the most efficient and reliable alternative out there. As others have pointed out, even France depends on nuke power. Heavily. But good luck getting that by the eco-warriors.

And to move the power... from any of these sources, the WSJ article mentioned earlier will require tens of thousands of miles of cable to get the power from places where they might be generated to all the folks who need to use it. That will be a budget-buster for sure.

Argument 5: We need to get away from fossil-fuel cars

Alternative fuels - how's that working for you? Like what's going on in the price of corn? Wait until we plow over the state of Iowa in order to produce enough corn to replace something like 10% of the gas used by cars.That will be fun. Oh, and watch the price of beef in the fall. People bailing out of the cattle-and-fowl-as-food industry flooded the market earlier this year, in anticipation of the cost of staying in business. That will lead to shortages in beef and poultry in the next several months. And I'm completely ignoring the food riots in other parts of the world because the American breadbasket (and others) were focusing on gas rather than pedestrians.

Oh, and at the moment, the process of creating ethanol still causes more CO2 than regular gas refining. But don't let that bother you.

Electric cars - I love the purely electric cars currently on the road. Especially when the shriners wear the clown suits while driving them.

But at the moment, electric cars can't go more than 30-ish miles before the juice runs out. That's one way to my office. THat's half-way to the office for many in metro Atlanta, and I know we're not unique among larger towns.

There is also the question of where all that power for all of those electric cars will come from. Let's see, the West Coast, Chicago, and the Northeastern Corridor have rolling brownouts every summer. Seems like we're a little short on electric power already. And I have yet to hear one of the geniuses backing electric cars to recognize that "cheap electric power" will not be so cheap once you and I are totally dependent on it.

And lastly, the projected price of the best thing the electric developers have so far is around $48,000. Granted, the price will drop as new innovations come out; but that can hardly be seen as relief for the common person.

No way around it - the current energy situation is not pretty. But you can not build an energy plan around technologies that only work on the scifi channel. Nor can the average American afford the price to make Obama's dream a reality.

NASA has announced that the Phoenix Mars Lander has discovered salt in the soil of the red planet. NASA engineers seemed a little giddy when they made the announcement, but it was later explained that scientists in the control room play a drinking game based on elements identified by the lander.

"Oh, yeah, " said one researcher who asked not to be identified, "We each take a shot when our element is found."

And how are the elements assigned?

"We have a pretty honkin' big computer down here."

There may or may not be some kind of life on Mars, but there certainly is at NASA.

Empress Nancy pulled the plug on C-SPAN and sent her minions home...but, finally, the Republicans are showing some spine. Ignoring the rush for the exits, a dozen GOP reps stayed on the floor, denouncing her highness' high-handed approach to governance. A few more have joined the ranks, and continue to talk to anyone listening about the Dem leadership's overbearing efforts to silence the opposition. They are primarily protesting the fact that they have been blocked from even raising the issue of drilling for oil, a measure that enjoys roughly 75% support from the American people.

I believe Nancy is protecting her tribe, making sure the Republicans can't use their votes on this issue against them in the current campaign season...but it may also be that Queen Nancy knows she would lose if she allowed the showdown to happen.

The lights in the House are off. The mics are dead. Queen Nancy did cut the feed to C-SPAN so there would be no coverage. But the Republicans who stuck around recognize a golden opportunity. It ain't the Boston Tea Party, Part Deaux; but at least, this one time, the folks we elected to represent us are trying to do that even in the face of dictatorial leadership.

Viva la revolution.

JJ the Magnificent, or Je$$e as I've seen him called elsewhere around these parts, has convinced me; it really is okay to use words that you tell others not to use. What's good for the goose is good for the gander, unless I'm said goose.

I submit the following guidelines for any future references to me:
- I am 'caucasian', but I find that label offensive. I'm not a big one for caucuses. If you voted in a caucus this year, you may refer to me as caucasian, but I probably won't like it very much.
- My heritage includes quite a bit of Irish. Only fellow Viking-Irish-English-Missourian-Americans can refer to me as 'Mr. Potatohead' without getting a shillelagh up side the head. If you are a former VP, 'Mr. Potatoehead' is also unacceptable.
- I am one-thirty-second Cherokee. If you call me a redneck, you'd better be referring to my pickup truck and hound dog. Wait, I don't have a dog.
- I am heavy-set. If you wear pants with a waist of 42" or above, you may refer to me as 'The American Buddha', but you thin-lings had best keep such comments to yourself.
- I am balding. See previous comment r.e. 'American Buddha'.

Yessir, I feel tremendous freedom to now dictate how others should refer to me, and absolutely no pressure to treat others in the same way. Thanks, Mr. Jackson.

I believe Jesse Jackson is an intelligent man. I disagree with his viewpoint on 99% of the issues, but he has to have some smarts to be able to continue to shake down American businesses so successfully.

But there is something about having a microphone in front of him that drops his IQ. The science of recording technology is his kryptonite. There can be no other explanation.

A few samplings of Jackson's gaffes:

• 1973: Nixon was unsympathetic to blacks because, among his top advisors, "four out of five are German Jews"
• 1979: Few Jewish reporters "have the capacity to be objective about Arab affairs"
  
• 1984" Jewish people are "Hymies" and New York City is "Hymietown"

The list goes on. Since most who will read this post are either familiar with Jackson's silver tongue or know how to use g00gle, let me suggest that we look a little closer at Jackson's template for an apology.

He never regrets making the remarks.

No, seriously; stop giggling. It's true. He regrets that he was overheard, he regrets that some have chosen to interpret the comments to be offensive, he regrets that people are focusing on what he said rather than how the government (or specifically those with an (R) next to their name) are really to blame.

Look at his 'apology' for his tasteless comments caught by Fox on Sunday: "It was not a public speech or a declaration."

Um, Mr. Jackson, you were in a TV studio, sitting in front of a microphone. You may not have meant for it to be a public speech, but it was.

Truth is, he regrets being caught.

I see someone else in the news who has learned from Mr. Jackson. Barack Obama is also unable to apologize for doing something wrong without focusing on how he was misunderstood, how his comments were misconstrued, how he is only sorry that it might detract from his messianic persona.

Guns and Bibles, anyone?

One difference, though. Where Jackson has no regrets, Obama regrets almost everything. I saw an article in the Atlanta paper today where the author pointed out that an internet search on 'Obama' and 'regrets' returns over a million hits (who says he hasn't accomplished much?).

But neither is ever to blame.

Jerusalem was a mess. Babylon had carried away most of the able-bodied men and women into captivity, Nebuchadnezzar had destroyed the wall around the city, and the economy was a wreck.

Atexerxes and his Persian empire, the one that replaced the Babylonians in prominence and dominance, had a little different management style. He sent many of his captive Isrealites back to Jerusalem and used a governor to be his eyes, ears, and hands in Judah. One of those governors was named Nehemiah.

Nehemiah stepped into an ugly situation. Those who had money were lending it to their countrymen at ruinous rates. Those who could not pay would face foreclosure that generally meant giving one's children, wife, and self into slavery to work off the debt.

Stop me if this sounds familiar.

Nehemiah was entitled to special treatment as the governor. He could levy taxes as he saw fit,  was entitled to nice food every day, had a boatload of cash from Artexerxes with which he could buy up the land  from under the working poor.

But he didn't.

Instead, he used the cash for a massive bailout plan, paying off the debts of many of the people so they could be freed from captivity. He went out and worked on the wall as it was rebuilt, shoulder to shoulder with the people he was ransoming. And he had a serious heart-to-heart (I would use the phrase "come-to-Jesus meeting", but we're still a few centuries early for that) with the wealthy folks, specifically those who were enslaving their fellow Isrealites. He reminded them that what they were doing was a direct violation of God's commands, but added that even if it weren't, they knew what they were doing was not the right thing.

Nehemiah rebuilt the wall. He restored a flailing economy. His story is recorded in an area of scripture generally reserved for prophets.

So how is it that he could convince people to work against their selfish interests to do something better for the country?

He led by example. He had moral authority to ask others to sacrifice, because he did not take advantage of his priviledged position. He not only had a bully pulpit, but he had a place to stand - on his convictions.

I think this is one of the reasons we are struggling with whether to go to the polls this year. It isn't just that we disagree with the policies and politics of McCain, Obama, et al. It is, for some of us anyway, the feeling that no one who is still in this contest believes much of anything they say on the campaign trail, with the possible exception of Ralph Nader.

And no, I'm not voting for Ralph.

Whatever happens in this election, I sincerely hope that whatever party ends up being the party of the Conservative body looks for someone who is a true believer. A believer not in the religious sense, but in the sense that they carry true convictions. That they can't be bought easily by the typical tradeoffs we expect in Washington. That they don't take advantage of personal position for their own gain, but that they use their authority to help people outside their circle of friends. That they recognize the value of the individual as more than a vessel towards re-election, but as a contributor to the American experiment.

It's a crazy dream, but it's mine.

Thanks to Andy Stanley, NorthPoint Community Church, for the inspiration this week.

Senator Obama pledged yesterday that his proposed administration would make faith-based program support by the government something more than "a photo op." Writing as a devout Christian and fledgling Libertarian, I suggest a different approach. Let's get the government out of the charitable support business altogether.

Study after study has shown that private organizations do a much better job of getting charitable dollars in the hands of those for whom they are intended than government ever could. The current administration used that as their basis for establishing the office for faith-based initiatives. They thought that money the government was collecting and handing out could be better directed through this office. I think the Prez' heart was in the right place; but he started from a false assumption. The assumption is that government has any business in helping the poor.

This assumption took root from the War on Poverty, and has flourished to become a large portion of the federal budget. If someone were to step back and look at the whole picture, they might say that the War on Poverty has only brought more poverty.

I would suggest that federal income taxes be cut by the same percentage that now goes toward charitable causes and programs that support the needy. Let's see what would happen if people were given back the money they earned and were given more of an opportunity to support the programs that work, programs that get the money to where it is used for helping the poor rather than the administration of the charity.

Doubtless, some charities would fail, particularly those that have received millions in taxpayer dollars but use it for everything but really helping people get out of poverty.

Arthur Brooks, in his book The Surprising Truth About Compassionate Conservatism: Who Really Cares found that conservatives are much more willing to give to help those in need than were liberals. Liberals like to support causes, not people, says he. Brooks, by the way, is a self-professed lifelong liberal. This was supposed to be a tell-all about how uncaring conservatives are. The facts didn't fit his hypothesis. I appreciate when someone can accept the facts rather than say that their research must be flawed.

The Better Business Bureau has a list of charities and "Wise Giving Reports" which detail the collection and distribution of funds for charities. There are other sources.

The point is, we can make good choices in terms of what we support. We are much better equipped to make decisions about what set of needs we feel should be supported than any set of beaurocrats ever would be.

Power to the people.

It has been said that "No Child Left Behind" has been a failure, as schools are forced to spend a fair amount of the year teaching to the test, rather than focusing on other indoctrination efforts. This causes a strain for many educators, as they signed up for the opportunity to mold little minds into small minds, not to teach specific subjects such as mathematics or reading.

In recognition of the failure of this program, I suggest new legislation called "No Child Undirected." The heart of this proposal consists of IQ tests to be administered at grades 1 and 6. Once a median has been established, a child's direction in life will be determined based on his or her score.

For those students who score above the median, they shall be given an education with college prep and essential life-skills in mind. For instance, financial planning at the level required for a CFP (Certified Financial Planner) should be required for this group of students. They will also be required to memorize the Constitution and the Bill of Rights and take firearms training. As they move out of their years in education, they should be granted the same choices of occupation and location available to all today.

Regarding the other group of students, they should be given classes on self-esteem and encouraged to read pop culture magazines. They will be specifically groomed for the jobs for which they are best suited - sanitation engineer, haircare professional, Congressional Representative - and will be assigned a specific living location upon graduation. Those locations will be strategically chosen along the most active fault lines, within coastal cities that sit below sea level, and near nuclear waste facilities.

This may seem harsh, but a certain level of population control will be required as thisa half of the population is generally the most prolific.

The details need a little work, to be sure; but I feel reasonably certain that this plan would cure much of what ails this nation today. I would suggest this effort be undertaken by the next Congress.

And so it goes. Last week we had the Supremes deciding foreigners involved in attacking US troops had Constitutional rights. Let's all hold hands and sing, "We Are The World."

The courts are now deciding who should and shouldn't be labeled an 'enemy combatant.'

Why should we bother with all this election nonsense? The Judicial can just decide what's best without the help of those other pesky branches of government. Might as well refer to the Executive and Legislative as 'twigs' rather than 'branches.'

Knowing what we do about how the good folks in China treat ethnic Uygurs, especially those who are proven to have ties to terrorist groups, let me suggest that we just send Hazaifa Parhat back to China. I'm sure he will appreciate the kindnesses shown him as a guest of the state there compared to the treatment he has suffered under U.S. hands.

As Admiral Painter says in The Hunt for Red October, "This business will get out of control. It will get out of control and we'll be lucky to live through it."

Amendment 1 of the Constitution is worded plainly:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people to peaceably assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Every American should be a Constitutional scholar. It is a great document, and the Bill of Rights is an easy read. But somehow it has become the domain of legal scholars who have taken what was very simple, very elegant, and turned it into a document full of subtlety and nuance, one which should not be taken in a topical reading.

The "Establishment Clause," the first part of the first amendment, is very simple: Congress will not establish a state religion - written specifically to avoid the "Church of England" situation where the monarch becomes God's primary mouthpiece.

Compare the simplicity of the amendment to the guiding interpretation of the current day. The most obvious misapplication is the summary dismissal of God from the classroom. The argument is that one cannot present anything related to God without infringing on the rights of someone who believes in a different god, or in no God at all.

I've never really thought of the Constitution as being designed to protect anyone's feelings. See the last part of Amendment 1 - "free speech."

God in school wasn't an issue until the public school system was developed. Prior to that, if you wanted specific values taught to your children, you took them to a school that supported your values. That can still be done, but now the private school is the exception rather than the norm and is out of reach financially for many Americans. This is part, but certainly not all, of the reasoning behind the home school movement. But now, in California, even that avenue is being aggressively pursued by those who cannot believe that a parent might be able to impart wisdom to their own children without a state license.

A further example can be found in local governments around the country. The ACLU is trying to have a city government in Michigan stop the practice of having a prayer to open their sessions. They argue this somehow establishes a state religion.

It has been a few months since the last news item about the Ten Commandments appearing in some courthouse - we're about due for that to come up again.

To these, and the multitude of other cases where God is on trial, I ask a simple question: if the mere mention of God in these arenas is establishing a state religion, who would be the head of this odd denomination?

I have friends across the spectrum of belief - from atheist/agnostic to snake-handlin', old-time-religion - who are involved in education. What common religion would come from each of them being able to teach without a muzzle?

Oh, and the phrase "separation of church and state" - look closely, and you'll discover them ... not to be there. The roots of the phrase, per Wikipedia, is a letter from Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptists. In his letter, he is simply restating that the government should avoid becoming a religious body. The phrase has been hijacked to mean something quite different, much like the First Amendment.

Newsweek has an article titled Time of the Tough Guys which would be more aptly titled Tough Time for the Top Guys. The thesis of the article is that leaders around the world are all suffering fairly low approval ratings. Vlad "What, Me Dictate?" Putin has one of the best ratings, somewhere around 32%. England's Gordon Brown comes close at 30%, with also-rans Hu Jintao and Sarkozy falling in line in the mid 20s. Only Iran's Mahmoud Ahmadinejad scored lower than El Presidente Bush on this survey, and not by much.

Worth mentioning that this survey was conducted with a worldwide poll, and the scores were cumulative for the globe. In other words, most people agree the Tieless Wonder from Tehran should be voted off the island.

Of course, Bush would be next to go in this poll.

There are a number of conclusions one could draw from the poll. I agree with the author that much of the score reflects a global feeling of the blahs. I believe that it also gives the lie to the old saying, "There's no such thing as bad publicity." It would appear that the more a leader's name is in front of people, the more they see that leader as being somehow responsible for their misery.

I think one might link this to the excitement in some other countries regarding Obama. He must be great, the logic would run, because no one knows anything about him. A coworker just returned from France this week after visiting his wife's family in the French countryside. All everyone wanted to talk about with him was Obama. He is a rock star there as well.

And, predictably, none of them had a clue what he actually wants to do as President.

People really are the same wherever you go, aren't they?

Somehow your Intro to Econ classes must have skipped over this basic principle in economics. Maybe the professor is a free-market-denier. Maybe you were busy texting the chick three seats over that day. Who knows.

But somehow, this concept didn't get through. So I'm here to help. And no, I'm not from the government. I'm from that old school of thought that ordinary citizens can be helpful.

Let's start with why I think this concept needs to be addressed. I read a story this morning in the Washington Post in which presidential contender Barack Obama's spokesperson said,

"John McCain's plan to simply drill our way out of our energy crisis is the same misguided approach backed by President Bush that has failed our families for too long and only serves to benefit the big oil companies."

 This is faulty logic on two fronts (at least), as well as an awkward and predictable attempt to wed McCain to Bush in an area where they have held different views. But let's focus on the economic reality of supply and demand.

The iPod was once a unique device. When they first came out, people paid hundreds for ten dollars worth of parts. Apple could charge an arm and a leg because they were nearly alone in the digital jukebox business. Now you can find a knockoff of the iPod at any number of stores for $15.

Why are they so cheap? Multiple reasons, but the primary reason is that now there are more.

The iPhone is experiencing similar downward price pressure because there are other phones coming to market with similar features.

The more of something there is, the less people are willing to pay for it.

Oil comes from a limited set of suppliers. The US sits on a huge stockpile of oil, but environmental groups have pressured the Congress to prevent us from tapping those resources. The environmentalists' view is that the deer and the antelope won't have as many places to play if we put in some drilling rigs. But the majority of Americans are a little less concerned about the deer and the antelope at the moment than they are their own livelihoods.

There are plenty of arguments to be made about whether our lifestyle is a little out of control, but the focus here is on the pressure that a limited supply has placed on the price of oil.

In short, less supply equals higher price.

The current price structure in the US is in part a response to speculation about oil futures. Every article I've read about the futures market cites "supply fears" as what is fueling the higher bidding on oil futures.

So what does one do to alleviate fear about future supplies? You increase future supplies.

Think of it this way: Suppose you had expressed your concern about being able to afford college to your parent(s) or legal gaurdian(s) back when you were in sixth grade. If he/she/they had said, "Don't worry. I'll take care of it," you may have felt some assurance. How much more assured would you have felt if he/she/they had established a savings account with regular deposits to cover your college expenses? In this case, the supply of money would ease your fear of future calamity, reducing your tension and letting you get back to your baseball card empire.

Similarly, if the US were to ease restrictions on drilling within our borders and territorial waters, the futures traders would no longer have fears about our future supply. And in a short time, we would have a greater current supply. Oil has proven itself to be supply-elastic, meaning that the price of oil has been affected, dramatically, by the supply on the market. See the Arab oil embargo of the 70's for details.

One other thing that I want to point out about the comment from Obama's campaign staff: Read it slowly and you'll see that it makes no sense.

Logic fault 1: 'misguided approach ... that has failed our families for too long'. We haven't tried this yet. When did this approach fail?

Logic fault #2: 'that only serves to benefit the big oil companies'. How does big oil benefit from lower prices?

Class dismissed.

For the last decade plus, it has been common to see comments from the left including something about "Republican family values" as a little poke in the eye for a series of marital failures and odd behavior that has been, well, too common. It really doesn't matter that the same issues and items have been regularly popping up on the left side of the aisle, some say, because they don't hold themselves up as paragons of virtue.

One could have a sociological discussion about whether people in positions of power are inherently more ego-centric and less likely to hold to the beliefs they claim to represent, but that's not really the point here.

Over the weekend, news broke that Chris Dodd, among others, 'may have received' a sweetheart deal on multiple loans from Countrywide Financial. If that company isn't familiar to you, take a look at what pushed Jim Johnson out of his position in helping Obama narrow the list for veep-wannabes last week.

This is getting fun.

The chair of the committee that is supposed to keep an eye on the mortgage industry got special favors from Countrywide. Dodd says he didn't know he was getting a special rate; what a shame that he was so unfamiliar with something so central to what his committee should have been watching. Others have been mentioned as receiving similar treatment; fortunately, so far, the names have all been followed by a (D).

So ... now I guess we know what the Dems mean when they talk about their deep concern about the 'mortgage crisis' ...

Those evil, rich oil companies. How dare they make a really big profit? Let's stick it to them by taxing the obscene part of their profits.

I see a couple of problems with the opening paragraph here, not counting grammar and punctuation.

1) Big profit. Whenever someone starts using non-specific measures for what is acceptable or not, I get nervous. What is the magic number where profits move from acceptably large to grotesquely huge?

The old business joke's punchline says, "We may sell at a loss, but we'll make it up in volume." I would not suggest that the oil companies are selling at any kind of loss, but I would suggest that their margin is low. It is a high-volume business, and an expensive one to run. Look at profit margin, not just net profit.

2) Let's stick it to them. So let me understand; these companies are soulless slaves to profit, who can charge us whatever they want because they deal in a commodity we all need. Does that sum it up?

Okay, so let's say we tax them 50% on their profits above some magic number, say $2B just for argument. Um, what keeps them from just charging us more to cover the tax?

Congress has sticks (taxes) and carrots (tax breaks) to modify behavior. Every time it uses the stick of taxation to beat some evil company into doing the will of the Congress, one of two things happen; either the company/industry goes belly up, or the prices paid by the companies' customers raise to cover the tax.

Since it seems unlikely that anyone but a few in the 'green' army would really like to see the oil companies cease to exist, we are left with
 two plausible explanations for why Congress would consider raising the taxes on big oil. Either the members of Congress want to try to refocus the national disgust off of their own incompetence and get us unified and angry against someone, anyone else ... or else they just don't have a clue as to who really gets hurt when they pull the trigger on a new tax.

I'm guessing 'clueless' is the answer for the majority of those who would support such a tax.