Apollo wrote on Jul 20, 2008 7:31 AM:Re: Karl (Yesterday 7/19 - 9:45 p.m.)
In back-to-back statements within the same sentence (not even separated by a comma), Karl admits he doesn't know enough about the "global warming" issue to form an opinion, but nevertheless opines Al Gore to be an "idiot".
Is it possible these two consecutive statements are more closely interconnected than what Karl really intended to reveal? Yeah, that juxtaposiiion works for me just fine.

Ancient History wrote on Jul 20, 2008 7:41 AM:I was not aware that there were computers and the Internet in the year 200, nor was I aware that I live in the year 200. The heading "LETTERS: NCT, July 20, 200" does get 4 out of 5 right; this is the Letters online page, this is the NCT Letters page, this is the month of July and this is the 20th. Batting 800 ain't too bad!

Alf wrote on Jul 20, 2008 7:48 AM:The letter from Deanna Holz expresses my sentiments almost to a tee. I reserve, however, the right to return their dog feces and/or their dog any way I so choose, preferably in the most unpleasant way possible. Regards, Alf.

Greenergy wrote on Jul 20, 2008 7:57 AM:Lowell Dunn's letter makes an excellent effort to balance a variety of energy considerations. He may be correct in terms of political realities in his pessimistic assessment that Democrats' energy strategy focused on solar, wind, geothermal, hydroelectric, hydrogen fuel cell, and other renewable sources may not "be practical for 15 or 20 years," but that is only because of political obstruction from the "can't do" negativists. The technologies are feasible and deployable now, and many of us are proving that.
What we need is not to put our tails between our legs and retreat ("cut and run"?) from the future, but to accept Al Gore's political challenge, similar to the challenge John F. Kennedy made to put a man on the moon and bring him safely home "before the decade is out" at a time when we were behind in the space race and that seemed absurdly impossible. But CAN DO Democrats made it happen.
Moon-landing, Manhattan-style project, whatever metaphor you want to use, it is overly pessimistic to just say these technologies are not practical for another 15 or 20 years. The impracticality is political, not technological.
About the lack of big water projects, I do understand there are some eco-extremists who will oppose almost anything, but they do not speak for most environmentalists. I say, stop the obstruction by those who insist in throwing in unnecessary environmental obstacles, clean up the Poseidon desalination project, and get it done. Yes, we do need to control our population, including immigration, but we also need clean, desalinated water, and we need it sooner than later.

sdraoul wrote on Jul 20, 2008 7:57 AM:When Bill Clinton vetoed drilling in ANWAR 13 years ago, he said he did because we wouldn't get any oil out of there for ten years. Now, 13 years later we don't have ANWAR oil and gas is over $4.00 per gallon.

What, exactly, did Clinton do to head off this crisis since he was elected in 1992? Will someone please tell us.

Ron wrote on Jul 20, 2008 8:31 AM:Seems like everyone is making stuff up as they go along, eh.. Gerald Reaster?
Let me, as I always do make very plain, and ultra clear what this decision did.

If you read the majority decision it actually seperates the linkage between the personally owned weapon and the militia. The case was about a security guard who had to have a gun as a part of his job. The case was about whether he could use the same gun at home, to defend himself, and his family from unlawful acts within his home.
That's the case.

Now, we got all this arm chair quarterbacking going on, saying.. the case really didn't nean that, or this state is excluded, or the Fed law does not supercede the Local jursidiction.
Baloney to all of that. This is a Constitutional issue, and all State Constitutions and local statues must be in harmony with that legal prescedent.

And Gerald Reaster makes an excellent point, one I made several days ago. This Amendment is about protecting the homeland, when all other system's fail, the military, the FBI, the police. Then it is the job of each & every citizen to take up arms to protect the country.
And you can't very well do that if no one is allowed to own guns.
This is the real goal of the anti-guns nuts who have put many of these laws in place. They simply hate this inanimate object so much, usually for very personal reasons, they seek to remove these Constitutionally required items, as I read the Constitution, because of the way they "feel" about them.
That is no way to defend a nation.

The doctor is in wrote on Jul 20, 2008 8:45 AM:Oh, Junious. Mitt Romney is probably going to McCain’s running mate. It was reported that during the primaries that those two weren’t exactly lovey-dovey. Their exchanges in the debates were pretty harsh. Remember George H. W. Bush’s derision of Ronald Reagan (voodoo economics) before he became Reagan’s Vice President?
Mr. Montgomery’s hatred of the Clintons, and now apparently Obama as well, not a disapproval of policies mind you but a visceral hatred, knows no bounds. He should seek professional help immediately. Because the election in November will easily push him over the edge he’s so precariously perched upon.

DD Wiz wrote on Jul 20, 2008 8:47 AM:The published letter from Christopher Welch is fine as far as it goes iin opposing oil drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR). There is no need for this destructive giveaway to the Big Oil Bullies.
What Welch failed to mention is the National Petroleum Reserve in Alaska, adjacent to ANWR. This has already been approved for leasing and has an estimated 9.3 BILLION barrels of RECOVERABLE OIL -- twice as much as ANWR. Why should we open up new areas when the oil companies are not even using the ones they've got?
And why should we allow the oil companies ANY use of federal land leases without a return to the old policy of requiring that all such oil go to domestic consumption first. Our land, our oil. This previous policy was reversed by oilman George H.W. Bush in 1992, as he was leaving the White House, providing a sweetheart deal of enormous corporate welfare to his cronies.

Unity of Dems a farce wrote on Jul 20, 2008 8:49 AM:Junious M weighs in with the wry observation that Obama-Clinton were once competing, and therefore they took shots at each other. Does he not understand our primary system?

Of course he does, he just chooses to forget! When Bush ripped McCain in 2000 in South Carolina that didn't stop McCain from hugging Bush (very embarrassing photo-you'll see it a lot this fall).

That campaign was much, much, worse, but they mended fences. What is interesting is Mr. Montgomery's selective memory; it's no accident, it's pure hypocrisy.

He Said wrote on Jul 20, 2008 9:01 AM:To unity of Dems > I guess it will be the Dem's that show it. I wouldn't if were a Repub.

Paul wrote on Jul 20, 2008 9:09 AM:everyone writing about increasing oil drilling is mising the point. There are plenty of oil leases already in place that are not being used. Big Oil keeps supply low to increase the price/profits. The choke point isn't the supply of oil, it is refining capacity. The oil companies are gaming the system by keeping capacity low.

A barrel of oil big enough to last earth 500 years could descend from the sky tomorrow, and if Big Oil got a hold of it it wouldn't reduce the cost of gas a dime.

Before you disagree with me, do some actual research!

DD Wiz wrote on Jul 20, 2008 9:15 AM:The published letter from Lowell Dunn is both thoughtful and flawed. (I have mentioned several times in the past that I came from a conservative upbringing and still enjoy vigorous debates with conservative relatives; Lowell is one of the more moderate -- love and respect him tremendously, and I do think we both learn from each other in our lively exchanges, but we also have some notable differences.)
I agree with the comments in the post by my friend "Greenergy" (7:57am), that Lowell might be correct about the realistic 15-20 year time frame, but only because of the political obstacles, not technological limitations.
I also agree with "Greenergy" on the need to do whatever it takes to get Poseidon and desalination feasible and ready for implementation.
As for immigration control, I have mentioned before that building fences is not enough (sorry, Lowell). A huge percentage of our illegal population simply flew into the country legally on temporary student, tourist or commercial visas and, when the visas expired, simply didn't go home. Fences won't stop them. And even those who do sneak across the border will find ways around whatever physical barriers are imposed.
As I have said before, the issues regarding immigration are extremely complex, way beyond "what part of illegal don't you understand" from those who speed, use cell phones while driving and fudge on their income tax, and so are the solutions. Other than for the very tiny minority of extremists on the right (who want to exploit cheap labor) and the left (who want to return California and Texas to Mexico), the problems and solutions are more practical than ideological. They need to be proactive, not reactive. We need to address the causes of illegal immigration, WHY people want to leave their homelands and cultures and travel to a place where they are met with hostility, resentment and a foreign culture and language. I have addressed these complex issues on a lengthy website. It can be found by Googling "Immigration & Border Control" and, for those who know my offline name, throwing that in as well. Feedback on the practical aspects of this issue is appreciated, as I am still sorting out all the aspects that need to be considered.

Research is fun wrote on Jul 20, 2008 9:22 AM:Sandee Enriquez quotes from Thomas Jefferson. Fair enough. However, the 1764 quote she refers to is actually Jefferson a decade later quoting someone else in his ‘Commonplace Book’, a certain Cesare Beccaria who in 1764 wrote the book ‘On Crimes and Punishment’ and deserves attribution.
And the complete 1824 quote from Jefferson is, “The constitutions of most of our States assert, that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves, in all cases to which they think themselves competent.”
In all cases to which they think themselves competent. With over 200 years of evidence to go on, I’d say that is yet to be determined.

Karl wrote on Jul 20, 2008 9:23 AM:Apollo
[-] wrote on Jul 20, 2008 7:31 AM:

My opinion about Al Gore has nothing to do with global warming. I'm seriously impressed with your mind reading skills Apollo, you might want to set up a weight guessing booth at the next fair that hits town.

Karl wrote on Jul 20, 2008 9:33 AM:Alf,
I am not a dog owner and very much dislike the dog doo left on my lawn that kills the grass. I did get an education yesterday that I would like to pass along to dog owners. I am dogsitting my MIL's dog while she is recuperating from surgery. Yesterday while on quite a long walk with the pooch I noticed that if I tug at the leash and make her keep walking she didn't do the doo thing.

Karl wrote on Jul 20, 2008 9:47 AM:This Dunn character's letter today pretty much sums up my feelings on the subject. It's going to be a great day. I believe that this is the first time that I have ever agreed with Mr. "Dunn" 100%.

On another subject, I am playing pasture pool today with some of my high school buddies. Has anyone else noticed that their high school friends look a hell of a lot older than they do?

Ron wrote on Jul 20, 2008 9:54 AM:I think Lowell Dunn is firing on all cylinder today. With gasoline prices hitting the lowest incomes hardest, the only option Democrats are giving to these good people is ride the bus. Anyone ride the bus recently? I have, and the Sprinter, and the Coaster.
I ride these things from time to time to stay abreast with our community, and to stay current. In doing so, I talk to people, how far do they walk, what do they do if it rains, what happens if they have a home emergency?
The answers vary, but basically many are simply stuck. They generally have an older car, plus with food prices on the rise, don't make a lot of money so their only option to save money is to ride mass transit. But it is inconvenient, and difficult to make the adjustments around school for their kid's, shopping, taking kid's to soccer or baseball practise. When their kid's get sick at school, they do the best they can. Some have someone standing by to help them, many do not.

And with the rising cost of fossil fuel, all local mass transit is in the very same predicament as most people. Driving too much is cost prohibitive, and so routes are being cut, which adds to the inconvenience I spoken about above.

What we need is a middle of the road policy, one that meets the current needs of our citizens, while transitioning to alternatives as they come on line, and as they are more available. As I have said, when they are as readily available as gasoline at a service station, then we will make the transition. But not until then.

So, to be clear. Under the Democrat plan, no new drilling will send the price of fuel skyhigh, it will continue to hurt those who are already borderline, and doubly hurt those already using mass transit, byt transit companies having to cut or combine routes, thus reducing service.
So, Dem's... you love to talk about "the little guy" and you love to talk about "mass transit", so here's your chance. Help these low income people by drilling for the fuel to move them on the mass transit. Otherwise, fares will again have to go up, and routes/schedules will have to be cut, making it even more difficult for people. But, this is what the Democrats are currently offering, less.

Reardon wrote on Jul 20, 2008 10:15 AM:Paul continues the Democratic Party roll of determining for oil companies where and when they should drill for oil, but without giving us his bona fides for his expertise in geology, or any citations of other expertise.

He should know, with his expertise that American oil companies are not in the top 10 in the world, and it is all national oil companies that outrank our companies.

Chris wrote on Jul 20, 2008 10:22 AM:Hooray for our great military. They just killed nine Afghan police and NATO troops killed another four civilians. This added to the eight civilians and another fourty seven civilians this month. I am just so proud.

Ron wrote on Jul 20, 2008 10:27 AM:As Karl says, we might be having a breakthrough here. I think most of us understand the energy situation we all face, although we come to it for sometimes the same reasons, and sometimes for different reasons.
I agree with "Greenergy" @7:57 AM about
Lowell Dunn's letter. He does make an excellent effort to balance a variety of energy considerations. But then he departs, as is usual to his everyday talking points. If you stay current, as I do, you know this guy is just blowing blue smoke. He says: "Democrats' energy strategy focused on solar, wind, geothermal, hydroelectric, hydrogen fuel cell, and other renewable sources... are feasible and deployable now." Yes, they are, for a price. The current price is way above what your average American can afford. As I have said, to deploy both a solar array & an electric car requires a minimum investment of at least $50,000. You have just placed many outside the affordability of these, because they are not the current energy structure, when.. down the road they become as easily affordable and readily accessable as gasoline, then.. and only then will they be deployed by more people. This tunnel vision displayed by enviro types simply does not work for most Americans.

As to political obstruction, I strongly suggest that you, on the left, bring your brother's on the extreme left into line here. They are the one's preventing many of us from having affordable energy, even from wind, solar, geo, and other renewable sources. I don't know how many articles i read, virtually everyday, about some group stopping us from gaining more power in this country.

My dear friend mention's Al Gore's political challenge, similar to the challenge of John F. Kennedy. That Challenge my friend fails to mention took 8 years to produce. In 8 short years, we will be so far behind the 8-ball, we will spend the next several decades trying to bail ourselves out.

Even the Manhattan project took from 1941-1946 to complete, so again we are looking at 5 years there. Who know's what fossil fuel will cost by then? And with virtually all mass transit running on fossil fuel, I can not understand the reluctance to drilling in the short term. It is cutting off your nose, despite your face.

In the short term, we need to do everything to keep this economy going.
I just finished reading an article about Santa Barbara who is going to allow drilling. It took years to clear the hurdles put in place by enviromentalists, delaying production.
Plains Exploration & Production Co. – known as PXP has achived a deal with Santa Barbara with many consessions. PXP agreed to donate about 200 acres of oceanview property, and an additional 3,700 acres in Santa Barbara’s premier wine-growing region for public parkland. It would withdraw a proposed housing development on that land and pay millions to fund projects that offset carbon dioxide emissions, such as low-emission public buses.
And you wonder why oil costs as much as it does? Who will pay for all this, those who do not live in Santa Barbara will.
But listen to the list of agencies they had to climb over, just to cut the deal.
The State Lands Commission, the California Coastal Commission and the federal Minerals Management Service, part of the Department of the Interior.
Plus the Santa Barbara-based Environmental Defense Center.
And people still have the nerve to say it is not enviromentalists obstructing.
It simply ain't the facts.

Greenergy wrote on Jul 20, 2008 10:30 AM:Ron at 9:54 a.m. misrepresents the liberals' views, either because he does not understand it or because he can't deal with our actual position.
Yes, Ron, we love to talk about the "little guy."
Awhile back, Reardon / A.Rose / "Greener" (not) made the same point that liberals "hate the poor" because we support solar panels and electric cars that they can't afford.
So I made a challenge to Reardon / A.Rose / "Greener" (not) that he join me in supporting massive subsidies to enable the poor to afford these things, and I'll throw in heavily subsidized mass transit to get them off the roads and make traffic move better as well. And I finished off by asking him to join me in supporting these proposals or admit that he is really the one who hates the poor and, funny thing, we haven't heard from him since.
So don't misrepresent our views, Ron. We do want to help make these options available to EVERYONE, and accept Gore's challenge to do it within ten years.
Or, do you hate the poor, too?

Reardon wrote on Jul 20, 2008 10:34 AM:DD and Greenenergy sound almost rational today, which I suspect is a result of the recent full moon.

Actually, it is more likely a recognition that public opinion is running heavily against them (read today's NCTimes editorial), and it is time to politically retreat to PLAN B.

Plan B, as I have analyzed previously, is always, "We are opposed to the radical obstructionists who oppose everything, and we want energy (or water) produced in an environmentally sensitive fashion' But in soto voce they say "NOTHING WILL EVER BE SUFFICIENTKY 'ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE!'"

I would love to proven wrong, but experience tells me...

Ron wrote on Jul 20, 2008 10:39 AM:Listen to Bob Fisher, and you tell me why the Iraqi's are worth anything less, than what we gave the citizens of Kosovo.

QUOTE: "Gen. Clark led NATO forces in the successful 1999 war in Kosovo, which freed countless tens of thousands of civilians from living under a brutally repressive regime."

A Repressive Regime. If it was good enough for us to go to war to save Kosovo from a brutal regime, then why not the Iraqi people?

Karl wrote on Jul 20, 2008 10:50 AM:Greenergy today provides an excellent example of the great divide between the right and the left. In MHO very few people "hate the poor". All this slogan is used for is to advance a political position. Who doesn't hope that the poor among us recieve the help that they need to sustain a good and decent life? I think that the righties on this site are just baiting you Greenergy and you took the bait without hesitation.

By the way, I would gamble that my size 9-1/2 footprint is much less than Al Gore's or "Greener than Gore's".

Karl wrote on Jul 20, 2008 10:52 AM:Ouch, good one at 10:39am Ron.

What to Know wrote on Jul 20, 2008 10:55 AM:Ron[-] wrote on Jul 20, 2008 10:27 AM:
Conservatives had a Republican Congress and a Republican President for at least six years. Did you even try to change the law through legislation? Why did it take President so long to life the executive order?

Answer for Ron wrote on Jul 20, 2008 10:56 AM:In Kosovo it was a currently brutal regime, while in Iraq it was a formerly brutal regime. In Kosovo NATO didn't shock and awe the capital city. In Kosovo we had an accurate sense of why we were there and what we could expect. In Kosovo our President didn't lie to us about the mission by linking it to international terrorism. In Kosovo we didn't initiate the killing of tens or hundreds of thousands of civilians. In Kosovo, our being there did not serve as a recruiting poster for our enemies. In Kosovo, NATO was greeted as liberators. In Kosovo, the world was with us. In Kosovo we didn't pull troops that were engaged with an enemy that had attacked us so they could rebuild.

Reardon wrote on Jul 20, 2008 10:56 AM:Greenenergy wonders why I did not reply to his "heavily subsidized" solar panels, and "heavily subsidized" mass transit, but as you and everyone with half a brain knows, I oppose "heavily subsidized" ANYTHING (including corporate welfare) except a military, a police force and a court systems.

I have a much better idea -- drill everywhere and let the poor take advantage of the lower fuel prices -- then they can have the advantage of CHOICE.

Right now, only the wealthy have CHOICE. Now I must go to work, so I can continue to have the advantage of CHOICE.

Oh Please wrote on Jul 20, 2008 10:57 AM:sdraoul[-] wrote on Jul 20, 2008 7:57 AM:
LOL. I'll tell you. We did not have a crisis at that time. Tell me what the Republican Congress and President did for the six years that they controlled the government.

Ron wrote on Jul 20, 2008 11:00 AM:It is quite obvious my dear friend "Greenergy" @10:30 AM has not been on a bus, or mass transit lately.
Probably because he is well off and can afford these newer technologies.
Did you get my point at 9:54 a.m.?
Are you not concerned about people who once drove a car, but now are placed outside the affordability? And because of that, are not subject to the schedules of mass transit? Thus, putting a huge burden on them, by forcing them to schedule their lives around the transit system? Does this not seem just a little insensitive to you, on your part? I think that's exactly what I'm getting from people like you, a "let them eat cake" point of view. In fact, I should say, because of your particular idealistic persuasion, I believe you think it's good "for them" to ride mass transit.
Because you believe it helps to meet your own enviromental goals. So, in the mean time, forget about their kid's getting sick at school needing to be picked up. Forget about all those grocery bags for a family of 4, let them carry them on the bus, juggling between stops, and transfering to another, not to mention walking home after getting off the bus.
You see, these are NOT your problems, so what do you care? Right?
Your only solution is to subsidize an already highly subsidized service. But, again.. they walk carrying groceries for 4 people, and take the bus with sick child to the doctor.
Man, you are just filled with compassion.
Oh, did I mention? By not drilling, the cost of a bus pass will go up? and more routes will be cut?

Vickie wrote on Jul 20, 2008 11:01 AM:Paul knows what he talking about. Drilling offshore will do nothing to lower gas prices. The EIA, under President Bush, concluded that there will be no significant impact on domestic crude oil or natural gas production or prices for 18 years. Even then, the effect on the price of gas will be pennies.

Not to nitpick but wrote on Jul 20, 2008 11:10 AM:How could someone who self identifies himself as well-read and educated mess up a common phrase? In his 10:27 Ron wrote, “It is cutting off your nose, despite your face.”
The phrase is “Cutting off your nose TO SPITE your face”. I guess that’s what happens when he goes away from cut and paste mode.

Alf wrote on Jul 20, 2008 11:18 AM:Well, "Reardon" at 10:15AM, while Mrs. Alf did not go to UCSB until a few years later, I suggest that anyone so much in favor of off-shore drilling look up the 1969 Santa Barbara Oil Spill.
In the typical minimizing BS language -
"Fred L. Hartley, president of Union Oil Co.: "I don't like to call it a disaster," because there has been no loss of human life.
"I am amazed at the publicity for the loss of a few birds.""
Such tripe eminating from someone whose company just killed seals, dolphins, other fish, plant life as well as birds makes me want to puke, even today.
Oil companies have much land that is leased to them upon which they can drill. Whether they currently have permission to drill is another matter.
To go for off-shore drilling, which poses many physical challenges, instead of or before drilling on "solid land", land that is ALREADY leased to oil companies, is not only irresponsible, reckless and not necessary, it is absolutely insane. There is no way that off-shore drilling is safer or any less of a pollution hazard than drilling on "solid land".
Regards, Alf.

VOR wrote on Jul 20, 2008 11:23 AM:Listen to Ron. Does he ever talk about Republican success? Does he ever tell you the individual how the last 8 years of George Bush and conservatives running our country have improved your life? NO.

All he can talk about is his hatred for ideals that left our country and its economy with a surplus. A country at peace. A country where jobs continued to increase. Where the price of oil and gasoline were stable.

He doesn't brag about success, rather he attacks the unknown. His conservative ideology has destroyed and torn our country apart. We are mired in a war with no end, costing us billions and no success. Iraq wants us out, but Republicans want that oil. We now see the real purpose of the War in Iraq. Bush and his cronies have torn apart and continue to step on our Constitution. Only one other time did our civil rights and political ethics fall this low and thats when we had a different conservative in the White House during Watergate.

Conservatives have brought is lies, corruption, hate, FAILURE, WAR, ethics violations. All this as they stand before us wrapped in the flag, holding the Bible. What hypocrites!

Ron doesn't care one bit about the Iraqi people, he cares about American corporations profiting from their oil and killing Muslums.

Republicans and their conservative ideology have torn my country apart. They are not credible and their (copy and paste) mouthpiece Ron isn't credible either.

Vote Out Republicans in November. Vote for change to the future. Vote so we don't spend another 100 years in Iraq as Granpa McBush has envisioned. Bote change.

Ron wrote on Jul 20, 2008 11:29 AM:It is simply amazing, you know? We have all this Governmental oversight of power companies, which has added to the problem. Take Laura Shear's letter today, again talking about the "evil"
SDG&E Sunrise Powerlink. One thing I've learned about Liberals, they will talk all day long about "if we only had those who really believe in Government, running the Government, then everything would be peachy." Total utopian, but that represents many, many liberals.
With Liberal Democrats being in charge of Sacramento for the last 37 years, you'd think we would have achieved Utopia already, but alas, it still avoids us.

I say all that, to say this. Government requires redundancy with our power structures. We simply can not have long periods of time without power, so Government as deployed by Liberal Democrats requires all power companies to have a redundant power structure. This means, that if one side of the power generation shuts down, they must have a back-up system ready to deploy.
You see this in critical businesses like hospitals, perhaps you have a battery back-up on your computer?
It's smart, and I don't disagree with it.

The problem, it seems to me, is this.
Requiring redundancy means that your "back-up system" had better work.
It's a crisis when the primary system fails, but to then have your back-up fail, is total crisis.
Since California has gone "green", we are witnessing as enviromentalists have prevented very needed and workable back-up's. What could be a better back-up system than a natural gas power plant, or nuclear? We know these power structures work, so why not use them as back-ups? Well, according to the greens, we can't.
Government requires power companies to provide a 90% back up to the primary system. With the greens preventing any new natural gas, or nuclear structures, it is apparent the Sempra/SDG&E is "threading the needle" on this one.
They are going to use Baja as the back-up to alternatives they are deploying elsewhere inside the US. Since California will not allow them to build these needed back-ups here. They are simply adapting to the current political enviroment, while still trying to meet the needed power requirements plus redundancy required by this State government. I will admit, it is cheaper to manufacture power in Baja, because this State has made it so. I really have to praise SDG&E for their innovation, and working around these no new power types.

Alf wrote on Jul 20, 2008 11:30 AM:Well, "Reardon" at 10:34AM, I also saw your comment on the editorial and would like to be on the committee that decides on who (whom?), how many and in which sequence that tar and those feathers are applied. I know the first three that I would put on the list, I think just about everyone knows.
Regards, Alf.

Karl wrote on Jul 20, 2008 11:37 AM:Not to nitpick but
[-] wrote on Jul 20, 2008 11:10 AM:

The proper phrase is "I don't want to nitpic, so I won't".

Rarely do I follow up "I don't want to", then jump in with both feet. That is of course unless my wonderful lover puts her foot down.

The answer is wrote on Jul 20, 2008 11:37 AM:The price of oil dropped more than 10% last week. Was there some new drilling off shore or in Alaska that I wasn't aware of?
Or was it because Bush decided to talk to Iran (appeasement?) instead of threatening to bomb them?
In the context of the oil business the supply part of supply and demand is anticipated supply, not actual supply.
Wars in and around oil producing states tend to slow production. And threatening war makes people think it will slow further. Who knew?
Less war, more oil, it's that simple.

Karl wrote on Jul 20, 2008 11:39 AM:VOR
[-] wrote on Jul 20, 2008 11:23 AM:

Your list of gripes could very well have an equal with using the word "democrat".

Pick a third party candidate and ride that horse to the barn.

Reardon wrote on Jul 20, 2008 11:45 AM:As Mrs. Alf must know, today the hotels in Santa B have patrons wipe their feet of oil -- caused by ocean fissures that naturally seep oil because there is a hihe pool of oil, under pressure.

Actually, with modern technology, drilling would reduce the natural pressure and CLEAN the beaches of Santa B!

Off to work!

Ms M wrote on Jul 20, 2008 11:53 AM:Ron
[-] wrote on Jul 20, 2008 10:39 AM:...A Repressive Regime. If it was good enough for us to go to war to save Kosovo from a brutal regime, then why not the Iraqi people?..um Ron, I don't recall that was the reason we invaded Iraq - seems to me it had something to do with WMD's and Iraq being an imminent threat to us!

Ms M wrote on Jul 20, 2008 11:59 AM:VOR
[-] wrote on Jul 20, 2008 11:23 AM: Wish I'd written that!

Ron wrote on Jul 20, 2008 12:02 PM:You know, "What to Know" @10:55 AM, I think you have just point your finger on what has ticked off many conservatives, like myself, about this President. As you may know, the term "Neo-Con" is a coined phrase of former liberals, turned Republican. Typically hawkish on war, but still believers in Big Government, as are all liberals.
This is why when GWB came to Washington, he did work with Ted Kennedy on drug benefits for Medi-Care, and No Child. George Bush maybe a Republican, but he also believes in Big Government, just like any liberal. And he proved it by expanding our entitlements/welfare state. Oh, they may differ a bit on the details, but big spending, and buster budgets are par for the course. I say this too about Bill Clinton, supposedly a Centrist Democrat, but had the Republicans not taken the House back in 1994, we would have seen the budget in this country explode with Hillary-Care, and other things. In fact, you could say, the Republicans saved Bill from himself. Unfortuately for us, the Republicans soon forgot their mandate with the people who put them there, and began to spend like drunken liberals.

As to why it took him so long to remove the executive order? I do not know.
I know this, they had attempted to produce more oil eariler {Cheney Energy}, but were prevented by many of our own party, for god knows what reason. Total stupidity. And John McCain was a part of that group who prevented them, as were many liberal Republicans who were representing somewhat liberal districts and/or states. At the time, with gas prices being somewhat "mamangable", many didn't think we needed more drilling. Now, they are changing their minds, as are many Democrats, as rightly they should. Continuing to pay $4.50 plus a gallon will not sit well with Americans, be they Republican or Democrat. Americans as a whole, I think, understand that we have many resources available to us, that before we could "get by" without them. Now...
We can't. Getting to work everyday, so I can take care of my family takes presidence over any polar bear. Perhaps you missed my post about "how many actual environmentalists" we really have in this country. We have a small group who are the hard-core types. Then we have other Americans who like the idea of "being green", but they don't want a reduction in their standard of living to schieve it. When the rubber hits the road, as predicated by the extremists, the rest of America bails.
For them, people come before other things. Family first, seals, polar bears, snails.. come second.
And THAT'S the reailty.

Alf wrote on Jul 20, 2008 12:07 PM:Well, "Ron" at 10:27AM, read my 11:18AM post. Then google the 1969 Santa Barbara Oil Spill and actually read about it.
Though there may be many "eco-nuts" out there,
there are still one whole heckuva lot of people who remember that spill and do not want to see anything like it ever again.
Why do oil companies "need" to drill off-shore, with its inherent dangers that are quite real, when there is oil to be drilled and tapped on land?
They do not.
Regards, Alf.

Right on Ms M wrote on Jul 20, 2008 12:11 PM:Good of you to remind us of those mushroom clouds. When Saddam really was at his brutal worst, the US had no problem with him whatsoever. For that matter, when the Taliban were at the peak of their power running Afghanistan, brutalizing women, destroying the Buddhist statues, Bush had not much interest in them, as Clinton hadn't. Spread democracy in the Middle East? Why not start with our allies, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and others? Why don't we oppose the brutal regime of the Saudis? Face it: the US has LOVED brutal repressive regimes when they were on OUR side. We even overthrew democratically elected governments and installed brutally repressive dictators when it suited US business interests. When you look at our policies objectively, there's plenty to be proud of, and plenty to be ashamed of.

Ron wrote on Jul 20, 2008 12:16 PM:It is simply astonishing, the ignorance about the "reasons", pural... we went to war with Iraq. Prime example today? "Ms M" @11:53 AM.
Now, Ms M, I'm posting {cut & pasting} for you, ALL the listed reasons we went to war. Let's see if you can pick out the one I mentioned, ok?


QUOTE:
"The resolution cited many factors to justify the use of military force against Iraq:

1) Iraq's noncompliance with the conditions of the 1991 cease fire, including interference with weapons inspectors.

2) Iraq's alleged weapons of mass destruction, and programs to develop such weapons, posed a "threat to the national security of the United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region."

3) Iraq's "brutal repression of its civilian population."

4) Iraq's "capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against other nations and its own people".

5) Iraq's hostility towards the United States as demonstrated by the alleged 1993 assassination attempt of former President George H. W. Bush, and firing on coalition aircraft enforcing the no-fly zones following the 1991 Gulf War.
Members of al-Qaeda were "known to be in Iraq."

6) Iraq's "continu[ing] to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations," including anti-United States terrorist organizations.

7) The efforts by the Congress and the President to fight terrorists, including the September 11th, 2001 terrorists and those who aided or harbored them.

8) The authorization by the Constitution and the Congress for the President to fight anti-United States terrorism.

9) Citing the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 {as signed by Bill Clinton}, the resolution reiterated that it should be the policy of the United States to remove the Saddam Hussein regime and promote a democratic replacement."

END Quote

Alf wrote on Jul 20, 2008 12:18 PM:Well, "Reardon" at 11:45AM, while you ar eright about the seepage, the question of the 1969 spill exacerbated that seepage and whether tapping the pressure will slow or stop it are excellent questions. One must always remember the "law of unintended consequences". "When up through the ground came a'bubbling crude".
Regards, Alf.

Ms M wrote on Jul 20, 2008 12:19 PM:Ron
[-] wrote on Jul 20, 2008 12:02 PM:You know, "What to Know" @10:55 AM, I think you have just point your finger on what has ticked off many conservatives, like myself, about this President. As you may know, the term "Neo-Con" is a coined phrase of former liberals, turned Republican. Typically hawkish on war, but still believers in Big Government, as are all liberals.... Ron call em what you want neocons, cons, whatever they ARE the republican party, who has been in charge for 7 plus years and who have spent and borrowed us into debt.

Greenergy wrote on Jul 20, 2008 12:22 PM:Karl at 10:50 a.m. shows that he has no interested in objective conversation here.
He complains about my comment regarding "hating the poor," yet I was making a play on Reardon's oft-repeated use of this expression, and I've never seen Karl express any outrage about Reardon.
Oh well, I didn't expect much anyway, but his facade about being the genteel, respectful dissenter is a fraud.

Meanwhile, Reardon at 10:34 a.m. is an unusually agreeable mood. However, he seems to suggest that DDWIZ and I have somehow modified our positions, which I find puzzling as I have looked over both my earlier posts and Wiz's and do not see any statements that do not reflect comments we have made in the past. And at 10:56 p.m. he tries to make us think that massive drilling will lower the price, without his commitment that existing leases will be used first and that all such oil from OUR public lands will be reserved for domestinc, not international, consumption. I am the one (well, DDWIZ too) that wants to give them real CHOICE, including alternative renewable energy, that Reardon would reserve only for the rich.

esteban wrote on Jul 20, 2008 12:30 PM:Mr. Goetcsh...I feel your pain. That is why I am offering to trade living placed with you. Ask me for details later.

esteban wrote on Jul 20, 2008 12:35 PM:Straw writes, "men would marry youths in elaborate ceremonies". That's great. So lets allow child molestors to marry their prey. Ancient tribes also used to have human scrifice ceremonies. But that doesn't mean it's right.

Ms M wrote on Jul 20, 2008 12:35 PM:Ron
[-] wrote on Jul 20, 2008 12:02 PM:...
Unfortuately for us, the Republicans soon forgot their mandate with the people who put them there, and began to spend like drunken liberals...I don't believe you wrote that - I would think that if the cons started with a suplus - the libs could not have been spending drunkenly. Geez - I don't know if this is funny or pathetic.

Ron - I asked you yesterday if we are better off now than we were 8 years ago - still waiting for a simple, honest yes or no answer!

esteban wrote on Jul 20, 2008 12:42 PM:Chris, the thing that would make you most proud is the green "sword and cescent" flying high over DC.

Ron wrote on Jul 20, 2008 12:54 PM:If you haven't read "VOR" @11:23 AM, I suggest that you do, and see why this country is falling apart.

What my dear friend fails to understand about me, is that, I do not look to Washington, nor Sacramento to save me.
In fact, I believe, everday they meet, I lose more of my liberty. I wish they'd stay on vacation.

I do not know about your life, but mine has steadily improved, starting many years ago, despite what these clown do.
Can we not bring back the horse & buggy for our politicians so it takes them months to get to Washington & Sacramento? I think that would cut down on CO2 & carbon output, simply by denying Arnold & Gore from jet-setting.

But, I want to you listen to the whining in this post. The idea that someone way back there, or way up there, would have any ability to help me succeed is so foreign, it shows that this gentlemen/gentlewoman simply has no clue. They obstruct.. they do not empower.

And Sir/Madame, I do not hate "Liberals", I hate their actions, much like I hate the sin & not the sinner. Surely, you can understand this? You can oppose something, with not "hating it." Or maybe you can't?

I wrote about this the otherday, the lamenting of leaving the past, and wanting back "the good ole days." The safety net has become the hammock. If you truly want Hope & Change, my friend. Try a little Capitalism.
Do not limit yourself to a Government who will throw you the crumbs from it's table. As former President Bill Clinton once said: "This is not your Daddy's world, of pensions & gold watch's."
One thing about longing for the good ole days will do for you, it will keep you from changing in the appropiate ways you'll need to, to take advantage of the current economic enviroment. Things do not stand still, and neither should you.

You'll be left behind, and waiting for some bueracrat to solve all your life's problems. It will not happen. The best help, is at the end of your own arm.
If you think Government helps you gain employment, or gain wealth.
Why don't you see them during your interview, or when you place your money in a bank?
You want Hope & Change? Start with yourself. When enough citizens live up to their own god-given potential, then you'll see hope & change, because it began with individuals first.

DD Wiz wrote on Jul 20, 2008 1:09 PM:The post from "Ron" (12:02pm) shows that he still just does not get it -- and since this has been explained many, many times, it is obviously because he just doesn't want to try.
But, ever the hopeful optimist that I am, I'll try to explain this yet again: "Ron" says: "people come before other things. Family first, seals, polar bears, snails.. come second."
The real issue is that we are all on this planet together. What is good for people is also good for other living creatures. We destroy their environment, we destroy our own. Kind of like the canaries in the coal mines -- killing of more fragile fauna indicates problems ahead for humans. "Ron" can never grasp the idea that it is not a zero/sum game; we are all on the same side. Environmentalists do want what is good for PEOPLE, and the vast majority of us recognize that we do not have to choose between being ecofriendly and enjoying the comforts of life, no matter how much the "can't do" negative propagandists protest to the contrary.
And that's the