Dedrick wrote on Jun 21, 2008 1:58 AM:OK.. lets say, for the sake of argument that global warming is real. The ice caps are melting. Polar Bears are dying. Human induced carbon emissions is the cause and Americans are the number one polluters. What are you going to do?? How much of your money should you give to the government to solve global warming? Can it even be solved? What should we do? Should we stop driving cars that run on gas. Should we shut down what's left of Detroit? Should we close all the paper factories? How long will it be before the government wants to charge us for breathing? We do exhale CO2 and the American population is growing. We are over the 300 million mark. How much time do wh have left before we cause the Earth to fry itself?

Everyone knows that the number 1 cause of the Earth warming is the sun; so lets put the sun out. Wait, can't do that. Everything would die. So lets just deal with the greenhouse gases shall we. Everyone knows that the number one greenhouse gas is water vapor. So lets just drain all the water out of every ocean, river, lake, and stream so that it doesn't vaporize. Wait, can't do that. Where would we put all the water? Besides, you can't tell people to stop using water because it causes global warming. We would all die. We'd die laughing at you because that would be funny.

How about methane? Lets get rid of all the methane. But wait. Can't do that. We need methane to heat our homes. After all, methane is the number one component in natural gas. You can't tell people they can't heat their home, cook food, barbeque, or fart because methane causes global warming.

What about ozone? Ozone is a greenhouse gas and it is a huge component of smog. Lets get rid of all the ozone. But wait. Can't do that. What would we use to block the sun's harmful rays? Besides, after all the fuss we made in the 80s about there being a hole in the thing, we can't tell the American people that ozone causes global warming.

What's left? Ah yes, Carbon Dioxide; CO2. It only makes up 0.038% of the Earth's atmosphere. Yes. We can use this. Lets tell people that Carbon Dioxide causes global warming. Besides, the only functional use for the stuff is making dry ice and who needs dry ice when they can use real ice made from the best stuff on earth; water. Never mind the fact that every living thing on the Earth produces carban dioxide. Never mind the fact that we need CO2 to transmit visible light and absorb infrared. Never mind the fact that volcanic eruptions put more carbon dioxide in the air than all the humans, animals, and automobiles combined. After all, we already have them paying for smog checks. This will be easy to make people believe that CO2 causes global warming.

Global warming is the equivilant of a pimple on Jessica Simpson's face; yeah it's there and it's ugly. But in a few days it will go away and she'll be beautiful again. Or maybe we need to get a big ol' bottle of Proactiv and spray it in the stratosphere. I'm sure that will solve the problem.

Contrarian wrote on Jun 21, 2008 4:33 AM:Junious Montgomery makes an excellent point, though he doesn’t understand why. Just like 2006, this is a change election. Any Democrat could win against any Republican because a majority of Americans are sick and tired of people of Mr. Montgomery’s ilk screwing things up for everybody else.
Why not let the Democrats have a chance to screw things up? It's their turn again. Equal opportunity and all that.

Contrarian wrote on Jun 21, 2008 5:17 AM:You really have to feel for Mike Campbell, David Klistoff, Edward Karlson, and Junious Montgomery, today’s obdurate right-wing letter writers. Their time at the helm is over and their views of the world have been rejected.
But, hey, there’s always 2010, 2012 and beyond, and only if Obama turns out to be a terrorist plant. Otherwise, I see the current Republican Party roaming the wilderness in the minority for some time.
With the demographic deck stacked against them, these past years really were their last shot unless and until they revert to true Republican ideals. When will they learn that if they were a socially moderate, fiscally conservative and militarily judicious party they would command a 60% governing majority?

to Edward Karlson wrote on Jun 21, 2008 7:06 AM:Ed, do you want justice for September 11th, 2001? Then why would you not want the perpetrators brought out to the light of day, put on trial, and shown for all the world to see. You sit by quietly while our president attacks Iraq, a country that did not attack us, was not a threat to us, and had nothing to do with 9/11. You don't seem to care that Osama Bin Laden is safe in Pakistan, and our government does NOTHING to bring him to justice. Our president has said he doesn't think about him any more, and has written him off as irrelevant. As an American, I find that unacceptable. I want justice. Do you?

DD Wiz wrote on Jun 21, 2008 8:48 AM:The published letter from Robert Greenamyer not surprisingly warms my heart.
Yet another example of the growing number of homeowners disproving the Big Oil apologists and the "can't do" pessimists who insist that solar is still not feasible.
Only question I have for Robert would be about the electric bill "near zero." Either he didn't get enough panels or he is including SDG&E's obscene non-waivable connection charge of $5 per month, which I would consider a separate service charge from the cost of electricity.
And when AB1920 passes, SDG&E will be required to buy back all the excess electricity for those of us who produce more than we consume, and then it will be time to invest in even more panels and we can join those who profit off those who don't think solar really works.
In the meantime, I support redirecting the Sunrise PowerStink boondoggle funds and applying them to assist low-income homeowners in making solar affordable for them, too.

Chuck wrote on Jun 21, 2008 8:52 AM:>>>>Supreme Court gives terrorists aid and comfort>>>> Its true, and we can heartily thank GHWB I for that with his appoitment of Souter. We all knew Ginsberg and Breyer are mindless puppets for the ACLU and cant think for themselves, but for conseravtives to add Souter is a crime

DD Wiz wrote on Jun 21, 2008 8:56 AM:The post from "Dedrick" (1:58am) is just another another tragic victim of the DUMBING DOWN of science education in the CONSERVATIVE WAR AGAINST SCIENCE by the Big Oil Bullies and pushers of our addiction to non-renewable FINITE FILTHY FOSSIL FUELS purchased from dependence on terrorists and dictators, as he regurgitates Big Oil propaganda using the phony pseudo-science of someone rambling on and on about something he knows nothing about.
He misstates the science as he recklessly dismisses conclusions from a consensus of scientific agreement in peer-reviewed academic and scholarly journals which conform to the rigors of scientific methodology.
No one has denied that there are natural cycles, including those of the sun. However, it is the scientific community that has identified the role of human contribution bringing the extremes of fluctuation far outside the normal upper/lower historical control limits. It would be utter arrogance to think that our species can wantonly distribute billions of smog-producing engine units throughout the globe, pumping out billions of tons of greenhouse gases every hour, continuing for a hundred years, and think it isn't going to have any impact.
Of course, that is exactly what those who profiteer off these FILTHY fuel sources want you to believe, and far too many suckers are falling for it.

Two kinds of justice wrote on Jun 21, 2008 8:58 AM:Historically, "justice" has meant two very different things. One is "revenge". Your tribe/family/race/ilk hurt someone in my tribe/family/race/ilk, so someone from yours must pay in kind. We see this constantly on this blogspace when people celebrate the killing of any Iraqi. In this view, all are "terrorists" and so deserve to die for 911. This is a very primitive and irrational form of justice, but it seems to feel good. The down side, of course, as the Hatfields and McCoys knew well, is that it is self-perpetuating, it never ends but only produces more and more death. The other kind of justice is based on "laws". So when someone does something to you or your people, it's that person that needs to be dealt with, rationally, according to rules that we've come to believe in. Our way of life is built on this idea of justice. No cruel and unusual punishment. Habeas corpus. Due process. Innocent 'till proven guilty. Everyone supported our desire to get al qaeda. Almost everyone supported our war with the Taliban, since they explicitly sided with bin Laden. Few supported the Iraq invasion, and those who did had first to be fooled into thinking it fit into the second kind of justice, our kind, by linking Saddam to 911. Bush and McCain love to appeal to the 'revenge' kind of feelings that exist in many of us, the desire for blood in exchange for blood, no matter whose, to reclaim our sense of being powerful. We can and should be better people than this.

Oh my wrote on Jun 21, 2008 9:04 AM:Did you see all the posts yesterday about the gender of the person who posts under "Oh" (me)? This became an object of fascination for some reason, with, of course, the inevitable homophobic attitudes leaking into the conversation. For some men, clearly, homophobia and contempt for women are linked. How many gay jokes and insults are based on gay men being, in some way, like women? Ugh! What could be worse than THAT?! (Chuckle, chuckle) Both gays and women, in this view, are not "real men", right? This would be quite laughable (this desperation to reassure oneself of one's manhood) if it didn't have such terrible consequences in the social world, even in the family, where these real men have to deal with actual women and male children to raise. Oh, my. (Oops, I forgot: real men don't use "Oh"...gotta be a chick or a f%g, right?)

Ron wrote on Jun 21, 2008 9:11 AM:Musta been another meeting last night of the Starbucks-Prius-coffee clutch group last night. You know the type. These are the same people who drive around in their cars, meet at Starbucks, with the intention of saving the world, one cup at a time.
Now, while they may consume less gas in their Prius, it is utter stupidity to think the car they are driving was not built on oil. Or the coffee they are drinking was not delivered to the store by oil. Not to mention the refining of raw materials, the transportation, and all the other necessary steps, all requiring oil, to help their little meeting happen.
Today, I'm again counting.. one, two... three more letters all against building the Sunrise PowerLink.
Why? Why are they opposed? What is the key reason they are opposed? Is it the enviroment? No... it's energy profits.
They all say it. Andrea Seavey,
Blair Reynolds, and Robert Greenamyer all say it, just as other's have said it. The KEY reason they are opposed to the PowerLink is: The "Powerlink {is} about money, {and} not energy.
Actually it is about both. And why can't it be about both? I mean.. really!
What we really have here is a merger, of sorts. The anti-capitalist groups have globed onto the enviromentalist crowd. How we got to this point in this country where we are actually listening to this utter nonsense, quite frankly is just beyond me. Everyone works for a "profit", be you a worker, an employer, whatever you do. You plan on making money to support yourself, your family, and your community. No one works for free, not even these mealy mouthed enviro wannabe's sittin at Starbuck's lovingly gazing at their status symbol sittin in the parking lot. For me, personally, I'm just getting a bit tired of hydrocarbon hypocrisy, and bigotry. And this anti-capitalism hypocrisy and bigotry, as well. I think what stands out to me most is this bogus charge about SDG&E plumbing so-called "filthy" electrical power up thru the grid. That maybe true, but those same people are against any new power lines, even if it could be proven only "clean" power was being delivered thru them. They simply do not want power lines, period. It would not matter to them if the power was generated by wind, solar, or geo...
the power line is what they oppose.
And like all good little socialists, they have their little "menu" of choices for you to choose from. But, the only two choices on the menu is a hybrid car & a solar panel. They like to refer to this as a "public policy framework." I call it, what it is. Stealing freedom & liberties.

Apollo wrote on Jun 21, 2008 9:22 AM:Re: Edward Karlson (letter)
No Ed, it is not the freedom loving American patriots who believe in Constitutional protections who are giving aid and comfort to the enemy.
The cowardly traitors doing that are the ones who ask us to give up everything this nation stands for because we are cowering in fear. To surrender our freedoms and our most fundamental Constitutional safeguards is to turn over those freedoms to dictators and admit the terrorists have won.
Those who cut and ran in the war on terror are the ones who let Osama bin Laden escape when we had him cornered at Tora Bora, and diverted our military resources away from the real war on terror and to a phony distraction so Bush's oil cronies could get their filthy paws on the vast Iraqi oil fields.
The contracts were signed this week.
Mission Accomplished.
Bush and Cheney incompetent? Dumb? Like a fox!
Understand that their failure in Katrina and Midwest flooding is because they don't care - there's no profit there! The war dragging on for years? Their defense contractor buddies are making out like bandits. Price of oil going up? Who are you paying it to?
The disgusting cowards who support these traitors are the ones giving aid and comfort to the enemy.

Surfer wrote on Jun 21, 2008 9:24 AM:Oh my[-] wrote on Jun 21, 2008 9:04 AM:
Dude or Dudette. Those bloggers fascinated by your gender were looking for a good time. That is how those with conservitis court. See ya!

yadda yadda wrote on Jun 21, 2008 9:26 AM:Ron[-] wrote on Jun 21, 2008 9:11 AM: Yes there are good socialists. I have yet to meet a good fascist. So, all you socialists out there keep on being good.

Alf wrote on Jun 21, 2008 9:43 AM:Although I am curoius, "Oh my" at 9:04AM, I don't think you will reveal your gender anytime soon, but I could be wrong. Anyway, your posts are thoughtful and that's what I enjoy. Regards, Alf.

DD Wiz wrote on Jun 21, 2008 9:47 AM:The post from "Ron" (9:11am) confirms his usual difficulty with standard math. Let's see, he counts one, two .. three letters against Sunrise PowerStink? Actually, "Ron," there were four.
"Ron," who claims to be an energy profiteer off of non-renewable FINITE FILTHY FOSSIL FUELS, goes all gaga over the idea of SDG&E profits. He says anyone who opposes it is anti-capitalist.
No, "Ron," it is not capitalism when SDG&E gets government-protected monopolies, government-coerced mandated customers, and special access to environmentally-sensitive public lands that no one else would ever be able to get. It is the government coercing people to become SGD&E's customers.
When the government -- we the people through our public institutions -- are the ones enabling these operations and providing the special breaks, we do indeed have a right to make some demands in how our public funds and resources will be applied.
And we do have a right to say NO to usurping pristine environmentally-sensitive habitat so greedy profiteers can install miles of unnecessary fire hazards, when locally-produced on-site solar would be far more efficient.
Oh, but decentralizing the control of power production and distribution is exactly what the merchants of filth are most afraid of, isn't it!

Alf wrote on Jun 21, 2008 9:55 AM:Well, "Apollo" at 9:22AM, well said. As Benjamin Franklin said "They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security". Those who thrive on war must maintain a constant state of fear. Have you noticed how the dire predictions of what will happen if we leave, "cut and run" as they call it, Iraq are the same ones who seem to have a vested interest in remaining in a constant war somewhere? Regards, Alf.

Chris wrote on Jun 21, 2008 9:59 AM:The letter by Edward Karlson is just more hate and bigotry wich is all too common among the Amreican people. First of all these so-called terrorist need their day in court in order to see weather or not they are guilty of anythig. These military tribunals are nothing more than a kangaroo court. Igorance, hatered, bigotry, and stupidity are expressed in that letter and is all too common among the American people and is why I have no respect for this country because the people are the pits.

Ron wrote on Jun 21, 2008 10:00 AM:I'm telling ya folks, they just keep getting kookier. LOL.... I'm telling ya, their cracking up out there.
My example today: Harold Weber.

In this incoherent rambling today, we need to sift two very relevant points.
It's the old tired liberal trick of:
Out of one side of my mouth I'll say "X", then.... without missing a beat, Out of the otherside of my mouth I'll say "Y".

Harold says: "We are brainwashed by the commercial media into thinking that taxes are a form of poison..."
That's side "X".

Now, here's the "Y" side:
I support repealing the Bush administration tax cuts for the rich..."

Now, I could be wrong, Harold maybe wealthy... but I doubt it.
Sure Harold, we believe you, taxes are not poison, until they are pointed at you and your wallet.

Chuck wrote on Jun 21, 2008 10:04 AM:The self-serving stock pickers on CNBC thought Callaway would be a great buy after Rocco Mediates show against Tiger at the US Open. I guess they forgot to consider that Michelson whined his way to a hunred or 2 over par with wedges and drivers that obviously dont work for him

Ron wrote on Jun 21, 2008 10:12 AM:Yes, David Klistoff. You read those headlines correctly. Actually, they are "action-lines", taken off the Democrat talking points issued daily, of course.
The action-line, as it always is, is "Republican's bad, Democrats good."
Just keep that in mind when you sift through your paper, or newscast.
See how I got that "is, is" in there? Just like Ole Bill.

In a nutshell wrote on Jun 21, 2008 10:26 AM:To sum up Edward Karlson's letter: "I have absolute, 100% trust in Dick Cheney and George Bush" Are those people who are detained "terrorists"? They must be: Cheney and Bush say they are (even though many have been released). Are people like them the most dangerous threat the US has ever known? Must be: Cheney and Bush (and McCain) say so. Are we in a death war against global terrorism? Must be: Cheney and Bush say so. Are those who disagree with Bush and Cheney literally "traitors"? Karlson is sure of it! This kind of worship and trust is exactly what Cheney and Bush count on, the surrender of our core citizenship to the needs of the Executive.

Fallbrook ggMom wrote on Jun 21, 2008 10:27 AM:I saw the interview of the skateboarder who was hit by an SUV, driven by a 16 year old in company with two other kids. The interview was (partially)entitled "...near-death experience..."

I am deeply sorry for all the faimilies involved. Certainly the kids in the car were absolutely wrong in their choice of the "it'll never happen to me" idea all young people have, but the victim himself seemed to feel he was blameless in that he was "...just skateboarding down the street..." when it happened.

In my mind, having come close to hitting a skateboarder "just going down the street" myself, several times, it seems to me part of the accident is on the victim's shoulders. Kids take terrible chances, assuming they have the right-of-way and "license" to the
the streets. I'm wondering if perhaps we need a really good place for skateboarders and their justifiable wish for places to practice their expertise. Perhaps that would help keep the off the streets and sidewalks, placing themselves and others in jeopardy.

Hey, kids, it DOES happen to young people, too! All too often. THINK with those good brains you have!

Question wrote on Jun 21, 2008 10:32 AM:Hey, I have a question. If, God forbid, there were a terrorist-type attack on us, let's say a 911 kind of thing, before November, which party do you predict would be helped and hurt by it? I can really imagine it both ways, and maybe it would turn out to be a kind of "tie". My gut feeling is that it would be great for McCain, who would say that more than ever, we need a military C-i-C, even though the attack would be evidence that the Bush approach is a failure. What do you all think?

Chuck wrote on Jun 21, 2008 10:32 AM:The news is reporting that the U.S. energy chief says insufficient oil production drives price. Now that the liberals have taken a stand against production and nuclear in this country, depite the public demanding a solution to the gas, energy and commodity price crisis, they'll be lucky to carry and more states than Dukakis did against Reagan. It's clear liberals care nothing about American jobs and choking inflation by burying their heads in the sand about oil, and they will pay big in November, as voters say to themselves: "Hussein Obama or my job?"

Ron wrote on Jun 21, 2008 10:40 AM:David Klistoff's point is very well taken. As much as my dear enviro friends would like to believe they will win this current energy battle, they will lose, and they know they will lose. Hence, the hysteria on the left. Shouting loud fella's, ain't gonna cut it this time.

As David so correctly reported,
The U.S. Minerals Management Service estimates that 86 billion barrels of oil and 420 trillion cubic feet of natural gas can be found along the U.S. outer continental shelf, the area affected by the ban.

The Democrat's veto, the Governor says No... We now know who is preventing us from pursuing energy independence to ween us off terrorist oil, and help our own economy, while at the same time providing additional jobs for regular Americans.

Especially when milk, cereal, eggs, meat, and other groceries are getting more expensive. As much as a Mother may be in love with the idea of saving polar bears, feeding her children comes first.

This is really not that difficult to understand. We have available supplies we could get, if we were allowed to get them. We say Yes, they say NO.

Ron wrote on Jun 21, 2008 10:52 AM:The number is 80%, "Dedrick" @
1:58 AM: 80% less. Less power, less fuel, less everything. That's what the goal is, 80% cuts. And do you know what's really hilarious about this?
We never signed Kyoto, and through free market choices, the reductions we have achieved are more than those who signed the darn thing. To add insult to injury, the Euro's have installed a carbon assets trading scheme, which is simply a way to raise additional revenues to the government. And as I understand it, soon to be "traded", bought & sold by hedge funds like a stock. Like I said yesterday, those who "get in" on the front end, like Al Gore. Will reap the benefits. Even though this all may be idiotic, it does protend to have real market effects, and frankly, all good capitalists, like Gore, will soon be "gettin in" very, very soon. As with most investors, we are not partial, we are not driven by ideology. We are not behind a cause. All we really care about is providing the economics of a growing economy.
If our leadership wants to get into junk bonds, why should we fight it?
Get on board, get in while the "gett'n is good", and reap the benefits. Even if you think global warming is a big tub of lard, as I do.

Oh Chuck wrote on Jun 21, 2008 10:58 AM:Your comment about oil is a preview of the mantras we can look forward to. But the fact that we now know that it is the oil companies themselves who've decided not to drill on land they already lease changes the situation, I'd say. Let's all, left and right, work out a way that they can drill on some of that land (if it's true that the left has prevented them from doing this) rather than give away even more land for them to not drill on, shall we? Would you rather have a solution or a slogan to use against the Democrats? Oh, sorry I asked.

Ron wrote on Jun 21, 2008 10:59 AM:Ah.. come on, Phil Epstein. You know you can't wait until the Obamaman is our President. Ready to cuddle & appease these dictatorships. All anti-Semites need love too. Can't ya just "feel the love?"

sdraoul wrote on Jun 21, 2008 11:16 AM:Would DD be kind enough to comment on Obama's rejection of cvampaign finance reform that he hastrumpeted since he became a candidate? Thank you DD, we await with baited breath a long convoluted rationale why Obama has thrown campaign finance reform under the bsu liek he did his mentor and pastor, Jeremiah Wright, his best friend Father Pfleger, his church, his grandmother and now public campaign money.

Did Obama make his statement about public campaign money without "preconditions?"

esteban wrote on Jun 21, 2008 11:20 AM:Prediction: Obama + Prez= mushroom cloud over US cities.

esteban wrote on Jun 21, 2008 11:21 AM:What was wrong with the long comment I tried to post NCT???? Crews' must be blog moderator today.

Oh Ron wrote on Jun 21, 2008 11:30 AM:Is this the best you can do to promote McCain? Assert that Obama is pro-terror, anti-semitic, nothing but a kumbaya-singer? Probably a communist, Stalinist, or Marxist as well. Please: can you give us some of his policy statements that support your claim that he is anti-semitic? That he wants to cuddle and appease dictators? (Now as I recall, I think I DID see a picture of Bush holding hands with the leaders of Saudi Arabia, an Islamic dicatorship. Is hand-holding a form of cuddling? Do the Saudis love the Jews? For that matter do members of Yale's Skull and Bones fraternity love Jews?)

Thats Not Right wrote on Jun 21, 2008 11:36 AM:You can't help but laugh, I think "Oh" is Mary Tyler Moore from the old Dick Van D#@& tv show. OH Rob!! **** CENSER ALERT **** Do you believe a post box came up when I tried to submit and said and I quoit, "Your name and/or comment contains inappropriate words, such as "D#@&". Please edit your message and then resubmit". Haven't we gone a little toooo far with our political correctness? Van D#@& is his real name. Talk about killing the punch line.

Ron wrote on Jun 21, 2008 11:37 AM:Now, it's really getting ridiculous.
But I am heartened to see that my good buddy is finally coming around to the idea of decentralizing control by monopolies. Perhaps another time we could discuss the public school system and their monopoly?
But, Wizzer @9:47 AM, are you seriously trying to argue that this current system, this... how do you put it?
This... "SDG&E.. government-protected monopoly, government-coerced mandated customers...",
has not been the result a of near 40 year reign by liberal Democrats in Sacramento?
Oh, we could talk governors too, but the hard fact is that Sacramento has been run by liberal Democrats all these years.
And it has been the liberal Democrats who have allowed this to happen, they created the monopoly.
I just find it so fascinating that now, just now.. your upset with the system put in place by your liberal buddies?
We did try to deregulate, decentralize.. but as I recall, it was YOUR side who fought it. You demanded even MORE oversight, just as you are now demanding oversight of "greedy fossil fuel" companies. Let me quote for you Maxine Waters: "If you don't drop the price, we will socialize you." Or something like that.
It would seem to me, that this coming election you should consider voting Republican in Sacramento. Decentralizing is a core principal with conservatives. You want to talk diversity, we believe in economic diversity.
But this appears to be the luxury of being a Liberal. No core principals.
I think it was John Kerry who best expressed this: "I voted for the $87 billion, before I voted against it."
Truly, it is good to know that sound economic principals never go out of style. Thanks Wiz, I'm glad to know your finally beginning to see the light on this.

hardtack wrote on Jun 21, 2008 11:47 AM:“Not reporting news is an agenda too” – David Klistoff

Mr. Klistoff makes a good point. But, in defense of the NCT (and other local newspapers and journals) a case could be make that their selection of articles is based more on business sense than political bias. Clearly, the NCT’s “agenda” is to sell papers.

Every violent crime, horrific accident and natural disaster is reported – it appeals to a broad range of emotions – it sells papers. News about a vote against any government “benefit” has more emotional impact with the general public than a vote against Big Oil. The editor knows that the masses haven’t quite connected the dots between that House vote and the price they are paying to fill up their gas tank.

We need to remember that the agenda of the NCT is not to educate. It sells its paper by giving the public what it wants – and it does that by pandering conventional “wisdom,” not public enlightenment.

So now we know wrote on Jun 21, 2008 11:56 AM:It's official: every candidate will flip flop when it's in his/her best interest. This didn't start with Kerry, of course, but no one in the race lately isn't guilty of it, Obama less than the others, but guilty nonetheless. I would suggest that raoul and the others not bring up flip flopping, however, unless they want to bring out the long list of things McCain has flip flopped on. Worst you can say of Obama so far: he's done a little of what McCain (and Hillary) have done a whole, whole lot. You want to go there? Let's start with an easy one: banning torture. LOL

Reardon wrote on Jun 21, 2008 11:56 AM:This mantra from the left that “Big Oil” has millions of undrilled upon oil lkeases is technically correct, but factually absurd.

I OWN LAND ON WHICH OILD COMPANIES HAVE LEASES! I inherited that Everglades swampland decades ago from my Grandmother. It does not have oil. It never had oil. It never will have oil.

I get $1.86 per year per acre. It was initially leased because there WAS an oil find in a nearby County – decades ago – and the oil companies went and leased oil rights from hundreds of square miles “just in case.”

I have a friend who owns property in Long Beach – and we know there are oil wells in Long Beach. She gets, as I recall, $12 a year for the mineral rights to that land – for the same reason I do. Without illegal slant drilling, her land has about the same actual value to Big Oil that my land does.

Big Oil buys mineral rights as insurance against competitors. They pay nothing – it costs them more to cut and mail the check than I get each year.

Environmentalists simply have no clue – they have a religion, and that religion is the religion of “NO.”

They are Luddites.

Chuck wrote on Jun 21, 2008 11:58 AM:>>>If, God forbid, there were a terrorist-type attack on us, let's say a 911 kind of thing, before November, which party do you predict would be helped >>>> Here's the difference. If it would benefit liberals and liberals herd about the attack, they would let it happen. If it would benefit liberals (or conservatives)and consevatives heard about an attack, they'd kill every terrorist involved. It merely points out whats important to the 2 parties.

Thats Not Right wrote on Jun 21, 2008 12:02 PM:I know it's Quote not Quoit, Great! Now I'll get Obamacan, esteban and a swarm of other Spelling Bees after me. Oh My!

DD Wiz wrote on Jun 21, 2008 12:04 PM:The published letter from David Klistoff, with the predictable responses by "Chuck" (10:32am) and "Ron" (10:40am) strikes out on three pitches.
Of course, the desperate conservatives would love to blame gas prices on liberals, but the fact is that insufficient drilling is not what caused the price increases.
First, even if that were true, new drilling leases in sensitive areas such as ANWR (Arctic National Wildlife Refuge) and off our beautiful California shores, would not be necessary, since the oil companies are already "sitting on" millions of acres of available drilling land they could be using.
Second, I have already identified the real causes, resulting from Bush economic failures (which enriched their Big Oil and defense contractor cronies -- hmmm).
Third, the solution is not more drilling. It is alternative energy, plentifully available NOW. But the Big Oil bullies are terrified of you learning this truth and giving up your addiction to THEM.
And that's it. Three strikes and you are out, David, "Chuck" and "Ron."

DD Wiz wrote on Jun 21, 2008 12:28 PM:The post from "sdraoul" (11:16am) surprisingly solicits more posting from me (I think this must be some kind of a first), regarding Obama's rejection of public funding.
Actually, "sdraoul," one thing at a time. I don't really feel the need to re-invent the wheel after "OBAMACAN's" excellent responses over the last two days. Since you didn't respond to "OBAMACAN's" points, I'm not sure why I would expect you to respond to mine.

I will, instead, respond to the post from "Ron" (11:37am) which shows he can't tell the difference between public, non-profit agencies such as public schools, and channeling public money to for-profit private corporations in sweetheart deals. Oh, yeah, he claims to be a defense contractor. No wonder he is so blind about corporations feeding at the public trough.
As for his comment about John Kerry (why is it they're always fighting the last campaign?), it shows his usual dirty tricks: quoting out of context.
As I have explained many times (so "Ron" either has a short attention span or is being disingenuous), the statement was to show that he supported war funding by voting for it in the initial Senate vote, but then the Republicans added an anti-labor "poison pill" in the conference committee to reconcile with the House version. In other words, he voted for a clean bill, but after Republicans tinkered with it, it was no longer acceptable. Hmmm. I wonder why "Ron" didn't want you to know this.

Reardon wrote on Jun 21, 2008 12:37 PM:DD: You are pushing on a string!

Please stop your War on the Poor, if for no other reason than "energy independence."

Even if we can't get there during my lifetime, we would already be nearer if Clinton had not vetoed drilling more than 10 years ago, and we are on the "Critical Path" of this issue -- every day we delay is one more day until relief, if not actual independence.

Look, I know that you are a "dead ender" on this subject, but your FFFF does nothing to get one more erg of energy to an energy-starved nation.

You are urging a strict diet and purging to an anorexic. Bad advice that will lead to still more starvation, or possible national death – in either case you will not find it comfortable to continue to stand between an aroused public and their energy demands!

Oh Reardon wrote on Jun 21, 2008 12:44 PM:Great job on your 11:56 post. This adds some interesting information to the discussion of oil, just as the revelation of the undrilled acres did. Does anyone have a sense of how much, of all this leased and undrilled land, is barren of oil and "just in case"? That'd be interesting. I still tend to agree with DD, though. When I hear people suddenly screaming "Drill!!", it's almost like they think that this is a magical, and very speedy, "solution". It's neither. It will take years to find and drill. DD is right: by then we should instead be well on our way to non-oil alternatives. The more we prioritize the present, the longer we will be stuck in it. Nevertheless, good job, Reardon for adding this important information to the discussion.

But Oh Reardon wrote on Jun 21, 2008 12:46 PM:Too bad you couldn't resist a follow up to DD at 12:37. For someone to intimate that the USA's use of oil (of anything!) is 'anorexic' is astounding. Obese? Yes. Binge Eating Disorder? Yes. Anorexic? LOL

To Sam Fabela wrote on Jun 21, 2008 12:48 PM:Very good letter. Isn't it true that people do belittle anything or anyone that questions their belief system. I appreciate his letter and the work of the Southern Poverty Law Center. If it were not for them the family of Ethiopian immigrant named Mulugeta Seraw would not have been given justice for his death. We all know who was held responsible for his death don't we?

Alf wrote on Jun 21, 2008 12:48 PM:Well, "Thats Not Right" at 11:36AM, there is a person, Marijo Van D#@&, who submits letters periodically and has them published with her name spelled correctly, yet no one can refer to her name in full without it being kicked back for the reason you described. It is absolute and utter foolishness not to be able to refer to or use the name of a person submitting a letter or a known entertainer. Foolishness. Regards, Alf.

Alf wrote on Jun 21, 2008 1:04 PM:Well ,"Question" at 10:32AM, to most sane people an attack now SHOULD mean the same thing it meant on 9/11, GWB FAILED to do his job, asleep at the wheel. I would vote no differently, in other words - NOT McGWB! The difference is that there is now such a stupid waste of billions of dollars, millions of hours wasted at stupid airport security checkpoints, thousands of American Troops lives wasted, all the while the same people who assist illegal aliens to cross our borders could be smuggling in terrorists as well. While our security is tied up at airports, our borders leak like a sieve. While OBL is in Pakistan or Afghanistan, our American Troops are, primarily, in Iraq, where OBL is not. GWB's "War on Terror" and GWB himself do not seem interested in getting the leader of the group that perpetrated 9/11 upon us. Why is that? Regards, Alf.

DD Wiz wrote on Jun 21, 2008 1:06 PM:The post from "Reardon" (11:56am) reverts yet again to his diversion by changing the subject.
I twice provided the link to the Senate web page. Here is another ".GOV" link, and you can follow it to yet others that make the same point. It is not talking about dead or dormant leased lands such as "Reardon's" alleged Florida swampland.
They discuss specific lease acreages and estimated oil volumes. For example, it cites 23.5 million acres at the National Petroleum Reserve in Alaska, adjacent to the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR). Unlike "Reardon's" swamp gas, this has an estimated 9.3 BILLION barrels of RECOVERABLE OIL -- twice as much as ANWR. Why should we open up new areas when we're not even using the ones we've got?
http://energy.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=PressReleases.Detail&PressRelease_id=f737e0bd-45fa-43c5-9aac-af873d9fcc0e&Month=5&Year=2008&Party=0
And why is almost no one in the "mainstream" corporate-owned "liberal" news media (notable exception, New York Times) covering this?
"Reardon" labels all environmentalists as "Luddites." Should we label conservatives who misstate and misdirect a different L-word, such as, "Liars"?

So wrote on Jun 21, 2008 1:27 PM:Why did Obama feel a need to toss out the race card again today? I think most of us, even if you are blind, already know from his past acknowledgements that he is part black, Not that it matters to most. I guess he sees the need to remind us every few weeks, Like Clinton had to remind us every few that she is a woman. No, This is not a Republican sponsored "Big Mc Attack", Just asking.

Floyd wrote on Jun 21, 2008 1:35 PM:If you don't know that there is something educational in each paper, you need to read it a bit closer.

Floyd wrote on Jun 21, 2008 1:37 PM:No, there is no ozone in smog. Smog is "smoke" and "fog" commingled. Ozone is neither of those two.

Thats Not Right wrote on Jun 21, 2008 1:41 PM:Thank You Alf 12:48, Agreed, But with the type of Politically correct logic the NCT computer program has, and (if) all things being equal, Why/How did his first name get through? Who decides what is slang and what it proper?

Oh DD wrote on Jun 21, 2008 1:51 PM:Excellent post at 1:06, continuing and deepening this "Let's drill!" dicussion. As has become a well-known phenomenon on these pages, you are in the lead in your data and the conclusions we should draw from it. I have NEVER heard anyone here screaming at the oil companies to drill the National Petroleum Reserve. But, Oh!, how they scream that the oil companies should be given the ANWR. I'd guess most of us have never heard of the former reserves. Must be that famous "liberal media", eh? Clearly, it will take a major media campaign to educate this nation of addicts to become truly suspicious of its "pusher". We gripe about big oil, but not enough to really matter to their employees, our government. Great job, Whizzer. One thing is perfectly clear to me now. The oil companies have enough land. All new energy investment monies, loopholes, grants, adn the rest must go to renewable energy. Period.

Reardon wrote on Jun 21, 2008 1:52 PM:Ya’ gotta love them what want to live YOUR life!

I vividly recall that great Democrat from South Carolina “Fritz” Hollings, saying in his Southern drawl, “there too much consuming going on out there.”

And who can forget jimmy carter’s sweaters in the White House. (I can’t, but I want to!)

Yep! That is the Democrat way – they want control .

Obama put it equally as clearly, “"We can't drive our SUVs and eat as much as we want and keep our homes on 72 degrees at all times… and then just expect that other countries are going to say OK,"

Aside from the question of who cares what Ghana thinks of our consumption, the limitations we place on ourselves in this nation should not be transferred to a limitation we place on others. (I only mentioned Ghana because I got a 3 a.m. call from a “lawyer” from Ghana this morning, who probably wanted to share his $100 million windfall with me.)

There is this great liberal bumper sticker I have seen on old junkers on Kauai: “Live simply, that others may simply live.” That sticker reminds me far too much of the “Eat your peas. Remember the starving people in China.)

Placing limitations on a people with soaring ambitions degrades progress. But, that is the design.

To so wrote on Jun 21, 2008 2:14 PM:to the poster at 1:27 PM... Obama did not just "toss out the race card" as you say. He did point out that republicans can, and are going to use his african heritage against him. If you need proof of this, read any of Chucks racist posts on the NCT, like the one above, where he feels it necessary to remind us of Obama's middle name. Chucks apparent excuse: he wants to remind us that he has an African name.

To Dedrick wrote on Jun 21, 2008 2:16 PM:Spot on, I have been voicing the same numbers for years, But no one wants to hear it. It's just way to easy to get a political agenda passed if you can put the cause on something else. The numbers don't add up, not even close. And man and his factories and autos are insignificant in the cause of "Global warming". It's all about cycles my new friend. Period.

Reardon wrote on Jun 21, 2008 2:50 PM:DD: I did not intentionally mislead you, it was just shorthand (otherwise there would have been ‘too much information – but since you referenced a federal website as if to denigrate my information, I’ll reveal the “rest of the story because it is now germane to your post) – I don’t t"echnically" own the land in the Everglades. My Grandmother did, but many years ago the Federal Government seized the land for ecological reasons. There has been a continuing effort to “restore” the Everglades.

What I continue to own (technically, my son because I quit-claimed it to him years ago) is the mineral rights. He own the oil and all minerals under that portion of federal land.

As I said, it was TMI.

Big Oil paid us when we actually held title to the land, and even though the federal government now owns the land, we still get $1.86 per acre from Big Oil to have the right to drill if they think there is oil. (THERE IS NO OIL!)

I have no idea how much other land there may be that is technically federal land, like ours, where the original family still owns the mineral rights but I strongly suspect there is a batch of it. I would not put too much confidence in the amount of "federal land which is under Big Oil lease contract." Believe me, if there was the high potential for oil at $135 a barrel the oil companies would happily drill there than in 7,000 feet of water for the same oil!

As i recall, Jack Well #2 came in several months ago at that 7,000 feet of water, and under another 20,000 feet of rock. Do you think Big Oil intentionally spends the most per barrel of oil?

My mineral rights will never make anyone any money., except the accountant who sends out the annual checks.

Federal land sells mineral rights as well to Big Oil, Big Coal, Big (fill in the blank). Those companies buy the 'rights" for peanuts, as much to keep them out of the hands of competitors -- and not necessarily because they know there is product there. There is always the hope that the world will someday need some other mineral located there. Like uranium, which people owned mineral rights for decades before they ever knew there was a desire for it -- or even what it was.

(That is worth $1.86 per acre per year.)

DD Wiz wrote on Jun 21, 2008 3:14 PM:The post from "Reardon" (2:50pm) still misses the point.
I referred to specific Senate reports and discussions and he answered with something completely off the subject.
I had twice given a ".gov" link to what I was referring to, and using Google and constraining to only ".gov" sites you can find a lot more. So there is no reason for him to go off on that unrelated tangent.
More important, the whole discussion misses my bigger point, that the answer to overdependence (addiction) to inadequate supply of oil is not more drilling, but utilizing the long-neglected clean alternative technologies that are available now.
Want a solution to the high price of oil? When everyone drives an electric car powered by sunshine, the price of oil won't matter to anyone!

Surfer wrote on Jun 21, 2008 3:30 PM:Thats Not Right[-] wrote on Jun 21, 2008 1:41 PM: I believe the great decider for this blog is esteban. See ya!

Reardon wrote on Jun 21, 2008 3:31 PM:DD: When everyone has angel wings we won't need electricity at all, not even from solar.

While you are dreaming, go for broke! Meanwhile the poor can eat cake, right?

Wonder how it DOES work wrote on Jun 21, 2008 3:40 PM:Reardon assumes that if big oil could go after the oil in the land it already has (that part of it with oil below it, like the Alaskan refuge), they certainly would, oil prices being what they are. I don't know about that. We know that big oil has been making world record profits lately with things just as they are. So perhaps they are waiting for a better deal. For example, what if our "desperation" for oil led the American people, led by the Bush/McCain cartel, to vote to give big oil freebies. More land to drill. Incentives or subsidies to help them get us out of this "crisis". Welfare, in other words. They're sitting pretty. Continue to rake in record profits without additional expense. Continue to have zillions of barrels of oil sitting under land they already control, "just in case". And sit and wait for us to toss money at them, begging them to save us by drilling on MORE giveaway land. Ron's investing in oil is the way to go, if greed is your thing and a conscience isn't. Ahhh, war and oil, how can an American go wrong with those kinds of investments?

Oh Reardon wrote on Jun 21, 2008 3:45 PM:There you go again, pretending that tossing new land to big oil is a quick solution. Yes, Reardon. We'll give them the right to ANWR and the poor will have their cheap gas...in 30 years...maybe. Meanwhile, it's the liberal war on the poor. What if the government really threw a huge bundle into investing in and stimulating alternate sources of energy, including rebates for people to trade in their cars for hybrids, etc. OH NO! That would be social engineering! As if incentives to big oil, keeping us in our Hummers, were not social engineering. Oh, Reardon, you're funny. You post things that are provocative, but as soon as you're called