Nature Lover wrote on Mar 4, 2008 12:26 AM:I just love how nature left us those vast deposits of valuable odorless colorless natural gas as hidden treasure for those who find it and for those who unlock it’s hiding places and use it to help bring prosperity, and security to our country. Electricity is necessary for our living standards and economy but most of us around here heat our homes and many of us cook with natural gas. Also natural gas is the cleanest and most efficient and economical fuel to generate electricity among newer fuel powered power plants. I have been reading about a very small publicly owned company that recently got a big lease on a lot of nearly barren land in New Mexico They just got their permits to conduct seismic tests and drill 3 or 4 test wells. This nature lover is pleased to see people out there looking for the buried treasure that nature put there in this otherwise nearly unused wasteland. The part that is used for cattle grazing can still be used for grazing. DD will probably find some excuse to complain. But in this case DD’s usual complaints of "Big Oil Bullies," "elite executives and investors with BILLIONS", "dependence on terrorists and dictators" simply do not apply here. And this is NOT FILTHY OIL. IT IS NICE CLEAN NATURAL GAS from New Mexico. Every productive GAS field in the USA helps to increase the security of our country and contribute to our national economy.

Floyd The Scientist wrote on Mar 4, 2008 12:42 AM:Yesterday, DD Wiz said "Floyd is also correct that solar electricity connected to the grid will also automatically shut down when the gird goes down." In the very next paragraph he says that solar "is not at the mercy of transmission lines going down." And that's after accusing me of engaging in a nonsequitur! You need to leave the thinking to us benevolent scientists, DD Wiz, and just do what we say.

Snowbird-2 wrote on Mar 4, 2008 12:53 AM:DD Wiz made several mistakes in his posts yesterday.
1. He said the high voltage transmission lines like the Sunrise link that "cause fires every time the wind blows." Really now! That is an outright lie! HIGH VOLTAGE TRANSMISSION LINES like the Sunrise Power Link started NONE of the San Diego county fires and very rarely start one anywhere. There is a suspicion that one of the fires was caused by a much LOWER voltage LOCAL area distribution line. And even that is not proven yet. Some experts think that a guy wire to a pole was wrongly energized and made sparks where the guy wire fromthepole was attached loosely to the ground anchor making sparks when the wind whipped it.
2. DD says the Recent Florida Power Failure was caused by "centralized long-distance transmission." That is simply not true. It was caused by the failure of certain equipment at one power plant connection that should have keep the problem local, or by human error, yet to be determined. It was definably not due to downed power transmission lines.
3. DD advocates here "local generation". There are localities due to geography here in California that allows pollution buildup. The Clean air people dictate that not much electricity be generated in these many localities. It probably takes about a minimum of 500-600 megawatts at a cost of $600 to $750 million to build the smallest highly efficient compound cycle gas fired plant. The much smaller peaker plants are a lot less efficient and make more pollution per megawatt of power but are needed to provide peak power needs on certain hot days for several hours at a time. Thus an economic sized plant requires a customer base larger than Escondido. However EVERY plant like that has to be shut off completely for periodic maintenance, including certain things that may require weeks of down time. Therefore EACH locality would have to have TWO local plants instead of ONE local plant with one setting idle most of th etime to provide constant power UNLESS the locality is connected to other power plants in other localities BY HIGH VOLTAGE TRANSMISSION LINES.
4. DD says transmission lines "require devastation of sensitive habitat." Oh sure! It would devastate what? There are tens of thousands of acres of the same habitat nearby for all the little insects, snakes, and rodents, and animals up to and including the bighorn deer. This is a ridiculous argument that obstructions throw out at every chance. It really means nothing in this case. -

EatingTheirOwn wrote on Mar 4, 2008 5:04 AM:LOL, I love it. I'm finding out more and more about Hussein Obama's past through leaks from the Clinton campaign. I didn't know Hussein had so many dealings with Islamists, did you?-

to Eating wrote on Mar 4, 2008 6:41 AM:Oh, yes, Obama had "dealings" with "Islamists", ie, Muslims. And Romney had "dealings" with cultists, ie, mormons. Lieberman with "zionists", Kennedy with "papists", and Bush with God, personally. So many dealings! Rummy dealing with Saddam! Bush dealing with the hand of the House of Saud. Cheney's daughter with that state bill you're so obsessed about,whatever it is. Dealings dealings dealings. This is how the democracy the founders fought for works. Innuendos about dealings. We don't deserve it. -

Jim Basset's confused wrote on Mar 4, 2008 8:14 AM:Mr Basset makes the error of thinking that winning is the most important thing. This is certainly true when the battle is justified, when we are threatened or have close allies that are, and when other efforts to resolve the problems have failed. Unfortunately, since WWII, we've not been in a "war" where these conditions were in place (except perhaps Gulf War I). We have "won" quite a few, like that fabulous, stirring victory over Granada, and the valiant effort in Panama. But overall, the "wars" we've been in have been built on lies, promoted by politicians in the pocket of a vast industrial complex, and fought with the blood and money of ordinary citizens who, too late, saw through the ruse. Iraq is just the latest exercise in death that our "leaders" and their bosses have perpetrated. The fight against the Taliban and al Qaeda would be a justified one, but because it seemed politically difficult (after all, that's a tough part of the world to win battles easily), Bush opted for what he idiotically thought would be a "slam dunk". He even bought a flight suit for the occasion. Fact remains: when we have a just war to fight, all Americans line up in support of it. These have been few and far between since 1945, I'm afraid. Hence, Basset is right: we've been losers.

DD Wiz wrote on Mar 4, 2008 8:27 AM: The post from "Floyd The Scientist" (12:42am) indicates some difficult understanding the perfect consistency of my comments yesterday (3/3 - 10:18pm) that: "solar electricity connected to the grid will also automatically shut down when the gird goes down" and that "is not at the mercy of transmission lines going down."
The whole point is that basing your supply of electricity on long-distance transmission lines that have a tendency to blow over and start fires and cause the grid to go down instead of locally-produced on-site generated power from many diverse points of origin that is far more stable and reliable is exactly what will cause the grid (and everything tied to it) to be less likely to go down in the first place.
He then gives us his real motive: "You need to leave the thinking to us benevolent scientists, DD Wiz, and just do what we say."
That is it! That is the bottom line. The energy companies and their apologists are terrified of losing control of tens or hundreds of thousands of on-site, consumer-owned points of production instead of centrally-managed government-directed monopolies (corporate welfare) where they have all the power.
They are terrified of having you think for yourselves. "Floyd's" last line says it all: "leave the thinking to us ... and just do what we say!"
Case closed. Thank you, "Floyd," for this admission.

DD Wiz wrote on Mar 4, 2008 8:28 AM: The post from "Snowbird-2" (12:53am) inaccurately misquotes me, explicitly stating that I said the San Diego wildfires were caused by "high voltage transmission lines." I did not specify high voltage. And if you do a Google search on "San Diego" and "wildfires, transmission lines" you will find many excellent, objective news sources reporting that many of the fires that threatened my home (coming within 1/10 mile; 6 homes less than a mile from mine destroyed) were caused by transmission lines bringing power into the county.
The remaining statements from "Snowbird-2" are pointless efforts to minimize the FACT of unnecessary problematic risks of centrally-managed long-distance transmission. NOTHING in any of these statements provides the slightest discrediting of the FACT that rooftop solar, both residential and commercial, is feasible NOW.
The negativists continually misrepresent the current costs. If they were not able to find deals that matched mine, then they didn't try very hard, or perhaps didn't really want to because they have a pre-determined conclusion to justify.
Increasingly, the North County Times and other credible, objective news sources are reporting the many businesses and homes that are now going solar. The hobbyists have had their day and have done their part; it is now practical for mainstream consumers, and will only become moreso as time goes on.
In our case, we completely zeroed out our electricity bill.
The total costs were far less than what the science deniers have claimed, for a system to power a substantial home with considerable air conditioning demands.
There were not actually any out of pocket upfront costs, because those costs were covered by a refi on the house, with a responsible 30-year fixed loan in which we also reduced our interest rate, and the change in our house payment is less than our electric bill. And even if one has to sell their house prior to the statistically-computed payback period, don't forget that you are not just paying back the costs of money that has been spent, such as a vacation -- you also have a major capital improvement to your house that immediately increases its resale value.
The fact that so many homes and hard-nosed, bottom-line businesses are doing this, shows it is now feasible.
The last line from "Snowbird-2" uses the term "obstructionists" but it is the energy company apologists who are trying to (apologies to William F. Buckley, Jr.) "stand athwart history yelling STOP!"
Don't listen to the "can't do" negativists and whiners.
Anyone with reasonable credit and equity can do this -- NOW!

JUST CURIOUS wrote on Mar 4, 2008 8:29 AM:EatingTheirOwn wrote on Mar 4, 2008 5:04 AM: I sure would like to know. Will you supply the information or where it can be obtained?

No sweat! wrote on Mar 4, 2008 8:31 AM:I don't really see why Republicans make such a fuss about Obama's middle name or his presumed dealings with Muslims. After all, their guy Bush goes to Saudi Arabia, holds hands and exchanges gifts with the leadership there. That's a theocratic Islamist nation, where Osama Bin Laden and most of the people who attacked us on 911 came from. They torture people, give women no rights at all, and are anti-democratic. Talk about dealings! This is the guy you folks voted for twice! I don't think anything in Obama's past can compare to this record, which didn't bother the right at all. -

DD Wiz wrote on Mar 4, 2008 8:37 AM: The published letter from Trent Hamlin states that "the best power plants are nuclear" (without mentioning exorbitant initial capital outlays for all that goes into construction, or the ongoing problem of waste disposal which I'm sure he doesn't want in his back yard) but bemoans the lack of constructing more of them, for which he claims the only alternative would be "more coal-fired plants that are the dirtiest."
While we can agree with the revulsion of non-renewable FINITE FILTHY FOSSIL FUELS such as coal, even extraordinarily expensive "clean" coal (really just means less FILTHY), we do not agree that this is the only alternative. I look out over the Escondido valley and see, literally, hundreds of empty rooftops begging to be put to use accepting God's free gift of energy instead of spitting in His face, rejecting His gift and digging instead into the slime of filthy corporate-profiteering ooze.
And solar is not the only alternative. There is also wind, geothermal, hydroelectric and hydrogen fuel cell. Until we have actually made the effort to utilize these energy-rich sources, rushing headlong into FILTHY and dangerous alternatives to line the pockets of the greedy is pure foolishness, unless you happen to be one of the few who pockets the enormous ransom collected.

DD Wiz wrote on Mar 4, 2008 8:50 AM: The posts from "EatingTheirOwn" (5:04am) and "to Eating" (6:41am) make reference to Obama's alleged "dealings" with Islamists.
While the current context is mostly smear-type innuendo about relationships that do not actually exist in any form, a valid point to note is that Obama has stated his intent to establish open lines of communication with enemy states.
Having "dealings" with enemies is not the same as agreeing with them, conceding to them, or in any way compromising the goals or values of the United States. In most cases, having "dealings" is far more effective in advancing our real interests than having wars. Right-wing pro-war extremists are fond of noting that Bill Clinton famously supported "regime change" in Iraq, but not so quick to point out that his method for getting there did not include war or invasion. Instead, he maintained and enforced strict no-fly zones, completely neutered Saddam and turned him into a pathetic, impotent shadow of the strongman bully created by Reagan, Rumsfeld and Bush I. By the time Clinton was through with him, the WMD that Reagan-Rumsfeld-BushI had propped him up with were completely gone, and the Clinton policy of undermining him from within was working.
After Bush II diverted our resources from the real war on terror against his family friend, Osama bin Forgotten, and Al Qaeda in Afghanistan, to the pathetic, toothless, declawed tiger of Iraq, he finished the job of knocking over the hollow straw man Clinton had left for him, but because of his warlike methods, bogged us down into an unnecessary quagmire and created the chaotic breeding grounds for terrorists and insurgents to move in and create the devastation we are now witnessing.
I think I like the Clinton-Obama approach a lot better.
Heckuva job, Ronnie-Rummy-Poppy-Bushie!

esteban wrote on Mar 4, 2008 8:57 AM:No sweat...the Saudi's do own us and that bothers me. I don't remember hearing any condemnations or apologies from the Sauds after 9/11. We should be owning them, not the other way around. They should pay us for allowing them to exist peacefully in that part of the world.-

esteban wrote on Mar 4, 2008 9:03 AM:To DD and Ms. M from yesterday...Both of you believed there were WMD's in Iraq. We are not buying your story that you were all knowing. You are just Monday morning QBs and nothing else. I'll bet as the Twin Towers were falling, you knew the hijackers were Saudis too. ...

Ron wrote on Mar 4, 2008 9:24 AM:Ah, and there you finally have it! Exactly what I've been saying for the longest time, out of the mouth.. finally! From Not A Wiz @8:28 AM: >>>Anyone with reasonable credit and equity can do this -- NOW!>>>
Per-zackly!
At $32,500 per household {quoted from yesterday} that's a huge debt/second. Which is exactly why many can not afford them, and mandating them would place the cost of the home beyond many. And what would be the pay-off on that, if you consider the evil investors of UNEARNED INCOME loaning you the money @ what? 6%, 7%, 8%...? If you have ... how does he say it? Oh, yes.. "reasonable credit and equity."
Opps, maybe your a sub-primer...?
And how many of you know that baseline users are subsidized by you? Oh yes... the State requires SDG&E to have a tier system, and those who stay under a certain kwt hour profile, get the lower rates. In order to spread the costs, those who exceed the "baseline" pay the higher rate to offset the baseline user.
SDG&E customers are charged about 4 cents per kilowatt hour for a certain amount of energy use, called a baseline allowance. The state legislature mandated this allowance to give low-income customers affordable electricity to meet basic needs. The allowance changes based on where a customer lives and the time of year. For example, Oceanside customers near the beach get an allowance of 310 kilowatt hours of electricity per month in the summer, while Escondido customers get 359 kilowatt hours. Once customers exceed that baseline allowance, they pass through a series of tiers which charge them more based on how much they use. Customers start paying about 2 cents more per kilowatt hour when they use from 100 percent to 130 percent of their baseline allowance. Price increases continue until customers exceed 300 percent of that allowance, at which point they pay an extra 15 to 16 cents more per kilowatt hour.
But that isn't the only charge for SDG&E customers. Their baseline allowance and usage rates only pay for power they use and getting the energy to them. Then, customers are charged for how much it costs the utility to produce the electricity, which is set at 8 1/2 cents per kilowatt hour no matter how much electricity is used.
SDG&E officials say they aren't sold on the "tiered" system. They said the utility would prefer a system where all customers are charged for the energy they use because it would promote more conservation. People get a false sense of their energy usage in the first two tiers and it could lead to increased energy use and higher bill prices, they said.
Kind of like... Bus fares? Remember last week when I wrote about sale taxes paying 70% of the cost to run NCTD? Once this Government gets it's paws into the free market, the rest of us get the shaft. Just remember, when ever you look at your electric bill, your paying more, so some will pay less.

Ron wrote on Mar 4, 2008 9:34 AM:I don't know about you, but I have noticed over the last few weeks Not A Wiz has taken on a more religious tone in his posts. Have you?
Yesterday he spoke to some kind of 12-step program for repentant fossil fuel users, and today, he says: "God's free gift of energy instead of spitting in His face, rejecting His gift and digging instead into the slime of filthy corporate-profiteering ooze."
Sounds almost like rejecting the gift of salvation, doesn't it?
And I thought oil & coal were made by Gaya-Mother Earth?
I spoke about this a few weeks ago, in that, his general tenure has taken on qute an "Evangelical" tone of late.
I've run into my share of Bible thumpers in my life, and Not A wiz is beginning to sound a lot like them.

OBSERVATION wrote on Mar 4, 2008 9:49 AM:"This notion that the United States is getting ready to attack Iran is simply ridiculous. And having said that, all options are on the table."
- George W. Bush-

Ron wrote on Mar 4, 2008 9:51 AM:I would say to my good friend.. No sweat! @8:31 AM, I don't know either, why anyone make such a fuss about Obama's middle name or his presumed dealings with Muslims. After all, it was the Clinton's surrogates who first suggested there was something wrong. i.e. ex-Sen. Bob Kerry-D, Clinton hack.
And according to Muslim tradition, if your Father is Muslim, your a Muslim. It simply does not matter what you claim to be. But, hey.. it's America, as far as I know... he's a Christian. Didn't Hillary say something close to that, too? LOL
But, I think you kind of go off the map when you say: "I don't think anything in Obama's past can compare to this record, which didn't bother the right at all." Really?
Well, we shall see, won't we?
Just this week, his business partner "Big Tony Tony" Rezko is obviously in trouble. He is a defendant in at least a dozen Chicago corruption and fraud lawsuits. And word on the street is, federal investigators may just call Obamaman to testify. Mr. Obamaman’s name is likely to surface during the trial, if only because $10,000 of the money Rezko is accused of extorting wound up in Mr. Obamaman’s 2004 Senate campaign. There is nothing to indicate that Mr. Obama did any favors for "Big Tony" Rezko, but there is ample evidence that "Big Tony" Rezko did favors for Obamaman. But even as the Obamaman said when the property deals first surfaced in late 2006, Obamaman said he had done nothing wrong. In a statement at the time, he also said: “It was a mistake to have been engaged with him at all in this or any other personal business dealing that would allow him, or anyone else, to believe that he had done me a favor.”
We shall see...
And weren't we supposed to see the most ethical Congress in history?

Chuck wrote on Mar 4, 2008 10:04 AM:>>These have been few and far between since 1945,>> If the US has a problem with wars, its because the liberals dont let them fight the war. If the war isnt going to be fought with enemy obliteration being the goal, then what is the point. What the Marines should do is send all the panty waist generals home and give command to the lieutenants and captains, and allow the Marines to do what they were trained to do. This "shoot second" policy isnt working

Chuck wrote on Mar 4, 2008 10:08 AM:>>...the Saudi's do own us and that bothers me>> The Saudis own us because Bush [won't] tell the liberals to go shove it, and order maximum oil, coal and gas extraction here. But, as long as these oil prices continue to wreck our economy, the liberals celebrate

If you're actually interested wrote on Mar 4, 2008 10:10 AM:Bob Edwards, formerly of NPR, now of XM radio, has had non-partisan experts from a variety of fields on his radio program talking about what the Presidential candidates' positions are on many questions. Immigration, health care, education, etc etc etc. I'm sure that if you Google the Edwards show, you will find these nice, brief summaries of what stands the candidates take on many things. If you are interested, that is, in tossing out the slogans and slurs in favor of information.

Ms M wrote on Mar 4, 2008 10:15 AM:esteban wrote on Mar 4, 2008 9:03 AM To DD and Ms. M from yesterday...Both of you believed there were WMD's in Iraq. Esteban, do you know me? Did you and I have a conversation about WMD's before the invasion? I did not think so - Esteban because you say something does not make it true especially something so stupid. If you knew me then you would know that when the Twin Towers were falling, tears were falling down my face at the hideousness of what I was seeing as ALL AMERICANS did. Why all the ugliness with your responses. Why can't you just have a civil discussion?

poor esteban wrote on Mar 4, 2008 10:15 AM:This poor guy just will not accept reality as it stares him right in the face! He will believe anything to avoid admitting his collusion with a grotesque error. No, esteban, this was all explained to you yesterday. Many knew that at one time Saddam had WMDs because we sold them to him. Many also knew that times had changed, that Saddam was fully contained and harmless, that the UN inspectors were all that was needed in Iraq. Many, many liberals (and others) said so prior to the war. Many nations who would have had good reason to fear a truly dangerous Iraq didn't buy the WMD story either, and therefore were a coalition of the unwilling. No, esteban, it was you and your pals, all gung-ho for death, that bought it all, hook, line, and sinker. You were duped, wrong, bamboozled. Many of us weren't, including Obama, and we had it right, we nailed it, while you sent American kids to die for no reason. Sorry, it's only the truth. And not only that, but my guess is that you'll trumpet the great McCain for President, who will bring the Bush mindset back to the White House and stay the course in Iraq while al Qaeda continues to increase its strength. Even facing the truth today, you'll vote for the same lie in November. Incredible.

Ron wrote on Mar 4, 2008 10:25 AM:Is it just me, or do I correctly perceive something here in the Clinton campaign? I mean... at first the Clinton's were OK with not allowing Michigan & Florida seating their delegates, now they are willing to fight to seat them? Do you really think if she were ahead, that she'd be wanting this, if it helped Obamaman? I don't think so. And then, back in Nevada when SEIU backed Obama, then the Clinton's had a problem with how the Caucases? Off to court. After they had signed a pledge a year before? It totally reminds me of Gore and 2000. When they get behind, and think they'll lose... then they go to court, and break out the big artillery. If you agree to obey the rules of the game prior, then you should abide by those same rules, even if it hurts you. Are you Dem's finally see'ing what we have been looking at all these many years now? That the Clinton's are "in it" for themselves? And adding insult to injury, you got ole Bill out there telling those South Carolinians they were nothing more than "Jesse Jackson voters?"
You got Clinton surrogates floating all kinds of rumors, like slush fund/drug dealer, floating the picture in his "Muslim" garb. You guy's have got to be see'n this for what it is. It is the Politics of Personal Destruction, as practised throughout the Clinton years. Or are you still willing to make excuses for their bad behavior against one of your own?

Chris wrote on Mar 4, 2008 10:42 AM:Well this is just great. Now we have another place to start a war. ONe of our submarines launched three cruise missles (three million dollars) at some village in somalia. ONe account said we killed four civilians another said that we wounded three civilians, killed three cows, a donkey and partly destroyed a house. The residents are marching in protest. Another group who hates America for our freedoms and Licentiousness. I am just so proud of our military. Now we also armed the Sudanese governmet ( the ones responsable for killings in Darfur) and got our puppets in Ethiopia to invade Somolia in order to prop up our sommali friends. If "to Chris" is reading this I would hope that maybe he will start investigating what I have been telling everyone about the U.S. being the main reason for world unrest. Onward and upward for more places to start wars. I am sure Nick will be happy that all his Marine Corps buddies will have more places to show their stuff.

Ms M wrote on Mar 4, 2008 10:46 AM:Ron wrote on Mar 4, 2008 9:51 AM And weren't we supposed to see the most ethical Congress in history? And compared to the repub. congress - it is! LOL You guys set the standard so low it will takes years to get to what the consv. have done. LMAO!!!!!!!!!!!!

Ms M wrote on Mar 4, 2008 10:48 AM:esteban wrote on Mar 4, 2008 9:03 AM:To DD and Ms. M from yesterday...Both of you believed there were WMD's in Iraq. Are you a mind reader? did we have a conversation? HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA Esteban you are just too funny!

DD Wiz wrote on Mar 4, 2008 10:50 AM: The post from "Ron" (9:34am) suggests that my posts of late have taken a more religious tone. My comments can be taken literally or metaphorically (like "Mother Nature"), depending on your belief system.

DD Wiz wrote on Mar 4, 2008 10:51 AM: The post from "Ron" (9:51am) shows the desperation of the character assassins of the Republican slime machine, as they dig furiously about trying to find any hint of scandal in Obama's past. Oh, they've found it! Tony Rezko!
Hello, there are accusations, which Reziko denies. I understand you want to destroy all civil liberties, but the man is presumed innocent until found guilty, which he has not been.
That said, not even the accusations bear even the slightest hint of involvement of Obama in any wrongdoing of any kind, whatsoever.
How about if we go digging through the backgrounds of every person "Ron" has ever met or done business with and, if we find even something with which to bring an as-yet-unproven ALLEGATION, then we'll forbid "Ron" from accepting any position of responsibility for the rest of his life.
Obama's statement about, "It was 'wrong'" was a reference to appearances only, because he understands the reality that there are character assassins waiting to throw mud and slime from the politics of personal destruction; he understands very well about people epitomized by "Ron's" rather disgusting post. Pretty abysmal, even by "Ron's" standards.
How about if we hold McCain to the same standards? Anyone he has ever been involved with? Lobbyists? REPUBLICAN fund raisers who are now in jail? (Not just accused.)
Can you say Keating and Lincoln Savings and Loan in the same mouthful?

Oh, Ron wrote on Mar 4, 2008 10:54 AM:As you say, "there is nothing to indicate that Mr Obama did any favors for 'Big Tony'..." and yet this doesn't stop you from saying "We shall see", and "weren't we supposed to see the most ethical Congress in history?" You sound like someone who thinks guilty unless proven innocent, when it's a Democrat involved. I'm all for looking into every nook and cranny of each candidate's life, just as was done with Bill and Hillary. Let's put them under oath, with a recorder, and get the truth. You know, like your guy Bush gave us. Now whatever DID happen to all those emails? But this is Ron, we must remember: if a Republican is ever found to have done wrong, find a Democrat who has done wrong. This lets the Republican off the hook. Sick! But more importantly, at least so far, most Americans are standing up to the Ron way of doing elections. Part of Obama's appeal is that he has tended more towards the high ground of campaigning (not perfectly, but a mile better than the competition), in other words, most of us are sick to death of Ron's way, the way of Rove, of innuendo, of leaks and retractions. Hillary's trying it out, and it's costing her, maybe even costing her the nomination. But Ron and his ilk can't do anything else...as DD said, if all you got is dirt, do dirt.

Right you are, Ron wrote on Mar 4, 2008 10:59 AM:I'd say the Clintons are so into the politics of personal destruction that they are becoming positively Rovian in this way. At worst, they remind us of Republican-normal. Ask Max Cleland or John McCain. For that matter, if you want the piece-de-resistance of personal destruction, just look at the Clinton years and the time, money, and effort the Republicans devoted to one thing only: getting him. I haven't seen anyone do anything remotely of that scale, have you? Didn't think so. And McCain was part of that witch hunt! Another proud Republican. Another hero, even if Bush did put it out that he had an African American child and was made, you know, coo-coo in Nam.

0412 wrote on Mar 4, 2008 11:11 AM:Chuck wrote on Mar 4, 2008 10:08 AM:Me and my five liberals do not celebrae high gas prices. We pay them too at the pump. You continue with your pat statements. If Bush wanted oil, gas and coal extratction, his rubber stamp Congress just had to vote it.
They did not. by the by, Chuck, Bush was able to unleash his buddies in the coal industry into mass coal extraction. That is why they have blown mountain tops up in the great Smokies. Of course, all the residents who live below the summits no longer have any drinking water. But what the hey. You free market stock owning fascists jump for joy.

Nick wrote on Mar 4, 2008 11:15 AM:"The Whizzer" is correct when it comes to soalr power and our local power grids. When the grid goes down, you will be disconnected from the grid. The point of Solar Power is to not need the grid. As long as you have an adequate battery system in place to store all the converted electricity from your solar, you will be fine. For instance, my inlaws have a house on 200 acres in Alaska that is Completely Off The Grid. A rather large Solar System and batteries for daily power, a diesel generator for emergencies and 4 wells spaced around the property with a rather large 15,000 gallon water storage tank for increased water pressure and fire protection. I, for one, am all for Solar Power. My biggest problem for all the "super environmentalists" are what to do with all the batteries. You see, you need lot's of large batteries to really store any power. 3 or 4 car size batteries isn't going to do much for you. So the question, is what do you do with bank of 30-40 batteries when it is time to replace? No matter how hard you try to be environmentally friendly, there will always be a downside. Thoughts "Whizzer" ?

0412 wrote on Mar 4, 2008 11:19 AM:Chuck wrote on Mar 4, 2008 10:04 AM:> Here is Chuck showing his military ignorance again. Fighting the terrorist is a guerrilla war not a conventional war. There are no pantry waste Generals in the USMC.
Go on up to Camp Pendleton and call the Call the base commander a panty waist. But be careful, you might end up with your panties on your head and wake up in Gitmo.
Sorry, thee was one Marine General who was a panty waist, Peter Pace, Chairman of the Join Chiefs. He followed Rummie around like a dog. Pace sat up and speak whenever Rummie gave him the command.

DD Wiz wrote on Mar 4, 2008 11:22 AM: The post from "esteban" (9:03am) persists in his delusional fantasy (either that or desperate propaganda effort) of trying to convince those who can actually remember that they didn't really know what they really did know before the war, that THERE WERE NO WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION in Iraq. Even the Bush administration knew this, as we now have proof of their intentional (impeachable) lies and deceit in this regard.
As I noted yesterday, and as confirmed in the posts from "Ms M" (10:15am) and "poor esteban" (10:15am), most of the world knew there were no WMD's! Don't you remember (or weren't you paying attention) when the Bush Administration's own weapons inspector Scott Ritter said there no WMD, and all the conservatives like Limbaugh and Hannity ridiculed him? Then U.N. weapons inspectors Hans Blix and Mohammed El Baradei said the same thing, and more trash talk from conservatives. Our long time allies the Germans and French, who supported us after 9/11 and in the first Gulf War, were not fooled.
Do you remember all the ridiculing of the French (sorry, Charlie)?
Do you remember "Freedom Fries" and how they were later quietly changed back to "French" fries?
Twenty-three U.S. Sentaors and an even higher percentage in the House, were not fooled
Heck, I even had it up on my website BEFORE THE WAR, and I'm just an illiterate 3rd-grade dropout!
So sorry you missed the scoop, but a lot of people who just get their news from Fox Noise and right-wing ranters missed out. You weren't alone.

Spreading democracy in the Middle East wrote on Mar 4, 2008 11:23 AM:Remember how Hamas was democratically elected to lead Palestine? From the UK Guardian, QUOTE: The Bush administration, caught out by the rise of Hamas, embarked on a secret project for the armed overthrow of the Islamist government in Gaza, it emerged yesterday.Vanity Fair reports in its April edition that President George Bush and the secretary of state, Condoleezza Rice, signed off on a plan for the Palestinian president, Mahmoud Abbas, to remove the Hamas authorities in Gaza. The plan called for Washington’s allies in the region to funnel arms and salaries to Fatah fighters who would lead a rising against Hamas. But the project was controversial even within the administration, the magazine reports. “There were severe fissures among neoconservatives over this,” David Wurmser, a former Middle East adviser to the vice-president, Dick Cheney, told the magazine. “We were ripping each other to pieces.” ENDQUOTE Ah, funneling arms and money to people that the voters had rejected, with the purpose of overthrowing the elected government. Ah, spreading freedom and democracy via state-sponsored terrorism. Even dear Condi thought it a dandy idea. But it was repulsive even to some neocons! I bet Cheney was against it: he is actually in charge, you know, and it didn't happen. QED See? Here's another problem with thinking of the US as the world's policeman. The policeman gets a salary and should have no stake in the various problems s/he is patrolling. But with us, we like to say that one minute, we're the cop insuring order and law, but when law goes against our political and economic issues, we suddenly turn in our badges and become a player. No, the police-the-world idea is bogus through and through. Just a slogan to make the war-mongers feel good about themselves.

DD Wiz wrote on Mar 4, 2008 11:24 AM: The post from "Ron" (9:24am) continues to make guesses (giving him the benefit of more doubt than he likely deserves) and get wrong answers. He claims to cite a cost estimate of "32,500" to solarize a house which he CLAIMS to be from my post of yesterday. He gets this by dividing the number of houses I said could be covered by the total cost but as usual, he is either deceptive or careless, and does not quote me exactly.
I said MORE THAN 40,000 houses could be fully solarized for that amount, not exactly 40,000. In fact, my house was LESS THAN $30,000 to completely zero out my electric bill, and many houses would be much less if they are smaller or in areas that need less air conditioning.
I also noted that additional options are for partial solarizing to just remove the highest above-baseline tiered rates, or partial costs as incentives to induce more of those who are ready to move forward but just need a little extra incentive in return for making an important public contribution.

0412 wrote on Mar 4, 2008 11:26 AM:Ron wrote on Mar 4, 2008 10:25 AM: Ron is absolutely correct about the Clintons in this election. One might think that Karl Rove is advising them on the sly. I don't buy the 3 AM ad either. When that phone rang, I think Hillary would roll over and tell Bill to get it.

nate wrote on Mar 4, 2008 11:31 AM:to chuck: I just want to make sure i heard you correct. you are blaming the liberals for bush's lack of smarts."The Saudis own us because Bush [won't] tell the liberals to go shove it, and order maximum oil, coal and gas extraction here. But, as long as these oil prices continue to wreck our economy, the liberals celebrate". so first you are for an old fossil fuel that we should have stopped you using about 20 years ago. I mean i have a computer in my pocket, but we still depend on a million year old, dirty, sludge. thats progress. One more thing did you really say liberals are celabrating why are country goes into a recession. I feel bad for you chuck. you are forgetting the fact we are all americans and suffer together. do you just want to split our country in half with liberals on one coast and conservatives on the other. Would you like a possible civil war? Even republican can admit now they blew it with their vote. Bush might possibly be the worst president in our history. I know you will blame it all one the dems.

Question and request for Chuck @ 10:04 wrote on Mar 4, 2008 11:36 AM:Question: who, exactly, is the enemy in Iraq that we are supposed to obliterate? Request: Since you think you know, would you mind telling the generals, because clearly they have no idea. Thanks for your help in this noblest of causes.

esteban wrote on Mar 4, 2008 11:39 AM:"poor esteban" yes I probably will vote for McCain because the libs are gutless when it comes to defence. ... Obama and Hillary (more so Obama) would kneel down and surrender to Al Queda in a second, then claim victory for getting out of Iraq. If we leave Iraq now, Iran will take over and that part of the world will be worse off than ever. Hold on, I already know your argument..."Well if we just would have left Iraq alone, they wouldn't have bothered anyone..." Well guess what, we didn't, so now we have to FINISH IT. Repubs understand rthis, [Democrats] do not. That is why you libs are a danger to my country. Man I'm tired of being right (every pun intended).

Floyd The Scientist wrote on Mar 4, 2008 12:02 PM:Ah, the doublethink continues! DD Wiz jumps on the last line of my posting in which I say "leave the thinking to us benevolent scientists" and claims it means we "are terrified of having you think for yourselves." BINGO! Whenever we apply the scientific method to the global warming hysteria he champions, he responds with the LIBERAL FUSILLADE OF BLATHER about scientists who have reached a political consensus and thus no thinking for ourselves is permitted. That's two major gaffes in 24 hours, DD, and you can believe me because I'm wearing my WHITE LAB COAT.

Concerned-1 wrote on Mar 4, 2008 12:10 PM:What a bunch of crap. You post all the DD Wiz crapola and sensor the rest of us. Arrrrg!

Ron wrote on Mar 4, 2008 12:40 PM:Not wanting to totally re-argue the lead up to the Iraq War, but Not A Wiz @11:22 AM does leave a lot off the table, in his response to esteban@ 9:03am. Stating "THERE WERE NO WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION" is, of course, all hindsight, and Monday Morning Quarterbacking. Something lefties love to do, in all military operations.
But let's examine his statements, shall we? YES We Shall..!
1) The Bush lies. Well, they were in fact, the same "lies" believed by Hillary Clinton, as she personally stated that she had been "advised" by her husband's advisors prior to her Aye vote. We also know, the rest of the world intell services had the exact same intell, in that, they were sure Hussein still had them, and the means to re-constitute them, as needed.
This was Scott Ritter's own position in 1999, Ritter wrote Endgame: Solving the Iraq Problem - Once and For All in which he claimed that Iraq had obstructed the work of inspectors and attempted to hide and preserve essential elements for restarting WMD programs at a later date. QUOTE: "I think the danger right now is that without effective inspections, without effective monitoring, Iraq can in a very short period of time measured in months, reconstitute chemical and biological weapons, long-range ballistic missiles to deliver these weapons, and even certain aspects of their developing of nuclear weapons. program." He rejected the notion of removing Saddam Hussein’s regime by force. Instead, he advocated a policy of diplomatic engagement, leading to gradual normalization of international relations with Iraq in return for inspection-verified abandonment of their WMD programs and other objectionable policies. During Ritter's {Senate Committee on Armed Services} testimony about the inspection process, Senator Joseph Biden stated "The decision of whether or not the country should go to war is slightly above your pay grade." Biden voted AYE.
In regards to Hans Blix and the "French", I hoping wiz ole buddy is aware that the French were one of the country's who vetoed his appointment, and perfered Rolf Ekéus, along with Russia. Russia in particular would have profited hugely from the increase in energy prices following the Iraq conflict and continuing tensions with Iran. {See how this works?} Blix personally admonished Saddam for "cat and mouse" games {left over from Hussein's treatment of Ritter} and warned Iraq of "serious consequences" if it attempted to hinder or delay his mission. Blix claimed that "If Iraq had provided the necessary cooperation in 1991, the phase of disarmament, under resolution 687, could have been short and a decade of sanctions could have been avoided." 17 resolutions & 12 years, Hussein would not abide by the necessary actions he was required, under the UN resolutions. Blix had little credibility in Washington due to his inspection teams failures and Iraqi obfuscation during the mid to late 1990s {under Clinton} which culminated in the limited airstrikes of Operation Desert Fox in late 1998.
As to Mohammed El Baradei is this not the same guy who a year ago told us that Iran was cooperating, and our own intell told us, 5 years later, they had stopped refining fissile materials? After we found out they had not 10, as ElBaradei claimed to know through Iranian cooperation, but 33 nuclear centrifuges? After some 20 years of secret programs? And right now, the UN is going ahead with sanctions? ElBaradei and the IAEA also failed to detect the “nuclear supermarket” run by a Pakistani scientist. Inspector Clueso? And has not Elbaradei been accused of being "soft" on Iran, and repeatedly attempted to remove content harmful to Iran from his reports and pressured IAEA officials to follow suit?
And as to "Our Friends" the Euro's. Pleaseeeeeee....
The Germans and French, who supported us in the first Gulf War, were perfectly willing to allow Bosnia to continue until "WE" stepped in first?
"...not fooled..." my eye, cowards!
And conflicting interests.
And finally, as to the twenty-three U.S. Sentaors and an even higher percentage in the House, were not "fooled?" If you actually go back and look at each of those persons voting records, as I have, what you'll find is a 95% voting record against any kind of military action, even when it's a righteous war. Their mostly anti-war types, like Dennis Kucinich. That is, unless, we are using the military as a "Glorified Meals on Wheels", then they vote AYE.
And if your arguing that these 23 were not "fooled", that means Hillary was fooled, and can not be trusted as President. She'll get fooled again, as the Who used to say.

Ms M wrote on Mar 4, 2008 12:42 PM:esteban wrote on Mar 4, 2008 11:39 AM That is why you libs are a danger to my country. Esteban, the danger to our country is the consv. when they invaded a country for nada, zippo, zilch reasons. And I would be tired if I were you ALWAYS having to defend your party. Do you guys EVER do anything right? It can be a chore working so hard to blame everyone else and not standing up and taking responsibilty for your misdeeds.

Ron wrote on Mar 4, 2008 12:53 PM:I must again remind my ole buddy Not A Wiz @10:51 AM. I didn't find this stuff, the Clintons found this stuff. And several Chicago newspapers.
No desperation here. Obamaman said it was a mistake, I take him at his word. He should have known better, but I guess that house Big Tony Rezko offered through his wife, was just too good to pass up? Of course, he's innocent until proven guilty, but again.. I did not point this out. Hillary Clinton's operatives have tried frantically, but not effectively, to interest U.S. news media outside Chicago in Obama's possible connection with his home state's latest major scandal. So, you'll have to speak with them.
As to holding McCain to the same standards? Sure! If he's dirty, he should not be in the White House, nor in the Senate. I think the guy's been there too long, as it is. All that feather bedding and empire building makes me, personally, nervous about "public servants."
Lobbyists? Are legal, and in the Constitution. REPUBLICAN fund raisers who are now in jail? And we deserve not less than a few Democrats to be in there right along side. Can you say William Jefferson, Democrat, Louisiana?
$90K Cold Cash? LOL Believe me, I'm partisan, but not that way.
As to McCain's involvement with the
Keating Five? I thought he was cleared?
If it bothers you, then it bothers me. Let's say we cut a deal? K?
I'll accept getting rid of McCain, if you'll go along with getting rid of Abscam Murtha? Deal?

Concerned-1 wrote on Mar 4, 2008 12:55 PM:You know, after reading these posts day after day, I think today's letter from Stanley Peterson makes a lot of sense! Ralph Nader for President, now that would be a change.

oh, esteban wrote on Mar 4, 2008 1:03 PM:If you read the exerpt from Obama's speech I posted a few days ago, you'll see that he was a strong supporter of the war against Al Qaeda and the Taliban. Iraq was another story. Did you notice that the President of Iran just visited with the Iraqi leadership and signed a number of treaties. A real mutual admiration society, it is, with our children generous enough to patrol their streets in harm's way so they can plan Iraq's future together. This was, if you forgot, the democratically-elected (remember the courageous purple-thumbs?) leadership of Iraq. Tell me: how do you define "finish the job" in Iraq? It looks from here like thanks to you and your president, Iran was able to use our troops to win the Iran-Iraq war with no casualities. Heckuva job. Let's stay the course.

Oh, esteban PS wrote on Mar 4, 2008 1:06 PM:The "argument" about how we shouldn't have been in Iraq is only an "argument" if it serves as a model or a warning for Americans who get propaganda from their leader to do yet another war. Did we as a people learn anything from the Iraq invasion story? Some did. You and McCain seemed to have learned zero. In a couple of years, if you win, we will be having this conversation again, with another country that "we shouldn't have" invaded or bombed. And you and your man, then as now, will stay the course to finish the job.

Concerned-1 wrote on Mar 4, 2008 1:10 PM:Per the letter today from Robert Ross, he's right the Golden Triangle is jinxed. Someone needs to wait a long time and develop it according to needs, not "wants." You know it was Indian land a long time ago. Maybe the Pechangas or Palas would like it back.</