Which is why I'm not a Republican, but at least they don't treat a single race like mindless property, exploiting and fooling them every step of the way.

While what u say is something I don't completely disagree with, u make it seem as though we have several political parties from which to choose. It's either republican or democratic. I agree that no group should put all their eggs in one basket but when it comes to a choice between deems and repubs the choice is clear for most blacks... if it's choosing between the lesser of two evils. What is your suggestion since u believe blacks have been bamboozled by the dems.

I need an interpreter for your hyperbole. Mindless property? What do you mean? I am not a Dem but I see that the first African American was nominated by the Democratic party and was elected president. Is that your idea of treating "a race like mindless property?"

The Gulf Oil Spill changed everything.

Deregulating the oil industry lead to that problem.

Getting back to the subject of the thread, governor Palin was happy to share the profits from drilling in one of the most socialist redistributions of wealth legislated by any state.

Maybe she'll do that nationally if elected president...NOT!

More likely we would see more tax deductions to drill ever deeper in domestic waters.

But then we may never know.

One of the best things we can do I this country is to drill for our own oil. NOTHING in the short term helps to wean ourselves off foreign oil as much as finding and drilling our own oil.

Drill, baby! Drill!

That would make sense if we had much oil, but we don't. Less than 2% of the world's reserves. Even if we could drill everything right now it would solve no problems.

If we hadn't had the job killing Bush tax cuts, we could have used that money to put photovoltaic cells on EVERY house in the country....now THAT would have made a difference in oil dependence.

It's good to see you're still believing the BS hook line and sinker.

The best way of developing a coherent and stable policy regarding the nation's energy needs into the 21st and 22nd century is to develop a plan that weighs the costs and benefits of North American conventional and non-conventional oil, strictly American conventional Oil, and foriegn oil. Next take into account external costs and benefits of these different oil sources and weigh them against alternative technologies, including nuclear and natural gas.

To assume that the US can more cheaply secure and provide it's own energy is hilariously inaccurate. The USA doesn't necessarily have a comparative advantage in oil extraction visa-vie Mexico, Canada, Venezuela and the middle east. By increasing more-expensive domestic production you will need to increase subsidy to domestic oil producers and you will drive up the costs of crude in domestic markets. There might be some roll for increased domestic supply but it would need to be weighed against world markets and world prices.

The concept of energy sovereignty in the US is a pipe dream and it won't be realized without the addition of nuclear power and/or a massive increase in energy costs. Increased energy costs mean increased food costs, increased transportation cost etc. It is the most directly linked single sector to inflation.

What im getting at is there is probably a roll for increased domestic supply, but be very careful when you toss about idiocies like "drill baby drill" and "energy sovereignty". You will find the benefits of such policies will accure mainly to a very specific segment of the US (i.e. the oil industry and related service sector) and the costs will be felt by all.

Did you even read that news story? Of course not. If those numbers are even remotely close, it's a huge find for our country.

And photocells aren't going to power our cars and planes. Get real.

You really need to do some mind expansion exercises....say it with me "I am not always right" "I don't know everything" "Just because I think it's so, doesn't mean it is". C'mon say 'em, they'll set you free.

Oil is not the answer....it's the problem on many, many, many levels. C'mon go beneath the pithy Palin line. Look at money leaving the country, harm on the environment, health issues...etc...

Oh, and btw...lots of electricity is generated by oil. Solar on every house would allow for more electric vehicles w/out having to burn fossil fuels to get it. Government money put into battery research could extend the range of the cars making them feasible for all....etc.... Maybe we could even build the batteries and cars here creating more jobs...see it helps on so many levels.

Uh, yes it is! Just what do you think powers our planes, trains, and autos? Wind? Photocells? Solar?



How's that Chevy Volt there doing? Putt putt putt.



And of course, we can do that today, right? Again, wake up to reality. All the technological energy wonders in the world are great, but that doesn't solve the problem of TODAY--we depend on too much foreign oil. Drill on our lands, shores, and anywhere else we have our OWN oil, and we become less dependent on foreign oil. That's so simple to understand.

Oh how behind the times you are my friend...they just started a battery factory in Michigan and that industry is taking off....the cars are there, they just need better batteries...if we eliminated gas for auto transport we'd have all the oil we need for the other.

Don't get stuck in can't, won't, no....see the future, embrace it.

THANK YOU for proving my point and admitting that is the future to which you are referring. Is that available TODAY? Can we power cars TODAY as well as we can with gas/oil? Of course not. All that future technology is good, but we need more of our own oil TODAY.

BTW, there's a reason electric cars are so far a bust. The batteries lack the power to propel the cars as strongly as today's combustible engines do.

Hey CC, The Indiana Dunes National Lakeshore called...they are missing your head from one of their sand dunes! LOL How do you breath when you stick your head so far in the sand? You truly are a wonder. Yup, I wonder how you come up with some of those funny ideas.

I see Count Dracula has taken time from his late night rounds to post his usual drivel, lacking in any concept of reality, of course.

You two naive fools keep dreaming of your 22nd century solutions while Americans here in the 21st century focus on how to deal with our problems of TODAY.

We are, sweetie. Just leave all that heavy thinking to us, 'kay, pumpkin? We know you are all tuckered out from another rough year of teaching. Oh, how will you ever recover in just three short months of vacation? Carry on and remain strong, CC. That bitch-slap of reality won't bother you if you keep your head in the sand.

We need to deal with both. Re: my last post.

Next-best technologies will surpass oil and cease to be next-best when they become more cost effective than oil. This includes transition costs. Arguably we are already at a point where these technologies are approaching cost effectiveness similar to that of oil. The problem is the massive amount of subsidy that the oil industry receives. Were it not for the subsidy, there would still be the transition costs -which are massive- but on the other hand, there is no real market failure in technology of non oil energy alternatives. We don't need regulation or subsidy of alternate technology, we simply need to stop subsidizing oil.

I would also support a carbon tax on the condition that it were completely revenue neutral -ie it was enacted with a directly corresponding cut in income and sales taxes.

Bravo, Dan. You are 10000% correct, sir.

You're both detached from reality, but that's to be expected from liberals.

How can you type with your head in the sand, CC? You truly are a man of wonders. I often wonder on which planet you reside. Someone (Dan) posts something that clearly answers your previous questions, yet you think you can just blow it off with some pithy response. Sorry, no can do. Let's see you come up with something better? Oh, I forgot...thugs like you are only good at bully responses, nothing constructive. Back to the sand dune with your head!

Pithy, succinct, factual. It comes naturally to me.

Unlike your endless bloviating rants of mindless verbosity.

Look in the mirror when you declare that, my friend. Someone makes sense, and all you can do is criticize, without offering anything of substance as a comeback. Again, your posts are nothing more than empty carbs when you do that. If you try to offer something of substance, maybe someone will believe you!

Cripes, you just can't stop babbling, can you? More mindless gibberish.

Again, just look in the mirror. Don't you have a class to teach in the morning? I certainly do not want my tax dollars to pay for a teacher up all night chatting mindlessly on a gay sports website. Offer something of substance, if you can, then get back to me, 'kay pumpkin? Nighty-night.

Talking about the pot calling the kettle black. I don't teach summer school.

BTW, I'm sure your employers would love to know that your spending your work time perusing gay porn sites.

Um, this is a gay SPORTS site, not a gay porn site. I guess I am not as dumb as you, as I would never even consider surfing gay porn on a company computer. My employer apparently has no problem with me posting on this site, however, since I have been for years. Why don't you call them and tell them? Would you like my boss's number? I'll give it to you when you provide yours. You are already out of school? You must be the first district in Illinois to be out already...if you really are a teacher.

What an idiot you are--typical liberal once again denying reality.

This is a gay porn site regardless of what you want to claim it is. Oh, and most school districts were done with school last week or earlier this week. Go crawl back into your coffin, Count. The sun will be up soon.

If you are awake, then you are a vampire too! I could trade empty barbs with you all night, but I am more interested in an intellegent response from you regarding Dan's post. Any chance of that happening? I'd even entertain any intelligent response from you on any subject matter. See, slinging that word around doesn't really work with me...I am who I am. A liberal. You've known it for quite some time now, why still so shocked? As a matter of fact, we have a liberal sitting in the White House right now...imagine that! The way things are going, you will be saying President Obama for another four years. What are YOU doing to prevent that from happening? Anything? Crickets? Also, if you cannot tell the difference between this site and a gay porn site, you must either be blind or a total oaf. I can't decide which it is...

(Original corrected to reflect accuracy.)

If the economy maintains it death spiral under this anti-growth, job-killing president, he'll join Carter in the ash heap of history as two of the worst presidents of our life time. Former President Obama will be the appropriate moniker soon unless some miracle happens.

Sorry, it just isn't happening the way you would like...I always wonder about people like you...so eager to see a sitting president fail. At least my barbs toward GWB had meaning...people died because of his inept tenure. The economy is in the shape it is due to Bush's failure. Even Bush admitted it during the last months of his second term. Just keep pushing those brain-dead ideas...or non-ideas. Keep it up with the fear mongering, scare tactics, and outright lies. Keep watching Faux News. Yeah, Obama will have a very easy time winning re-election with the current disorganization in the Republican party. There isn't much you can do to correct that, CC, even if you think you have the answer. Trust me, you don't.

I'm not eager to see this president or any president fail. I simply stated that if his economy (really, get off the "It's all Bush's fault" bandwagon already) keeps worsening, he's toast.

And if you think the lack of a Republican frontrunner at this moment means Chairman O. will easily be re-elected, then your ignorance of American politics and campaigns is greater than I originally thought.

Well, how about I just color you dumb then, because that is exactly what will happen. The Republicans are more splintered than driftwood at this point. I will grant you the fact that Obama had best get the economy moving, and fast, otherwise, you are correct...he will be little more than toast. Now, as to how that will be accomplished? It would probably take money, and some time, and oh yeah, your tax dollars. (not mine, as I am a liberal, and we don't have to pay...oops, I think I've said too much already...at least you don't know the handshake...LOL) Obama had best do something, or he will even lose the bleeding-heart liberals. We may even have to tear ourselves away from the tree we are hugging and go protest! LOL

Unfortunately, every single economist I have read or heard has said the same thing: there isn't anything Chairman O. can do before the election to turn around the economy. There isn't enough time to do that which needs to be done. He has spent his entire administration thus far making it more difficult for American companies to hire and retain workers. His very mindset is anti-business and anti-consumer. Consequently, he won't do an about face and make the economic climate friendlier to the aforementioned entities. It's just not in his nature.

As far as the Republicans being splintered, again, I point out your ignorance of history and campaigns. Don't think for a minute that some messianic Republican has to be present at this point in time.

Gosh, that's amazing, CC! What planet are these economist pontificating from? Mars? Venus? Faux News Planet? Why don't you ask anyone working at GM or Chrysler how they feel about it and the bailout policies? There are thousands to choose from, I am sure they are all very happy to still have a job. About those loans...GM paid theirs back early, thus allowing the American public a handsome return on their investment. As for the Republican party, you have got to be kidding me. Are you keeping up with current events at all? Have you read a real newspaper lately? Go ahead, put your head back in the sand. I do not wish to prevent you from being in your comfort zone.

It is impossible to discuss the facts with someone who does not grasp reality and lacks knowledge of history and American political campaigns. I'd love to argue about it, but I shall not. After all, who's the bigger fool, the fool himself or the fool who argues with the fool?

Enough said.

Go ahead and take the cop-out. I knew you didn't have any answers anyway. No links, no logic, no substance. If it works for you, Mazel tov. I, however, demand and get more. Try aiming higher...you just might surprise yourself!

I didn't prove your point because any new supposed oil deposits are also not available TODAY. And I know how it is for older people....there was a time a V8 was everyone's dream....we may have to adjust our idea of cars in order to save the planet.

Of course there are companies, i.e. Tesla, that make electric cars with lots of power. So it's not impossible.

Drill baby drill should only be a slogan of the neurosurgeon operating on the brains of those who think fossil fuels are our future.

Well that was certainly entertaining.

CC, I would have been glad to elaborate on the economics of taxation, the economics of environment and on energy policy, if you had challenged any single point that I brought up. Instead you called me a liberal and dismissed all of it out of hand.

We could have also talked about the role of government regulation in industries inclined to imperfect competition (i.e the energy sector, and the insurance sector) and how good government policy can correct the market distortions in these sectors.

I did a double major in econ and history and I genuinely do like these sort of debates. Why just dismiss out of hand what you don't understand?

I understand it quite well, but I don't have the time to be teaching you this stuff.

There was a time when even true conservatives recognized those deficiencies and supported policies to alleviate their effect on wealth distribution. It is not clear when the political sea-change occured that turned reasonable Republicans into hypocrites took place. But compare the words and actions respecting social programs of Richard Nixon when Gerald Ford was his vice president to the hypocrisy of John McCain and Sarah Palin and it is obvious that somewhere between the two couples their party transformed dramatically.

How and why that happened is well worth discussing.

My theory is that the paranoia among the white European population in this country may have increased proportionately to their awareness of their decreasing percentage of the total.

If so, it would require a color-neutral attitude toward economics and social policy.

If Nixon were president today, would his policies differ?

The Republican Party began the big change during the Reagan years when the evangelicals made a concerted effort to get involved in politics.

It's hard to have a logical fact based discussion with someone who believes what they believe and believes they have some divine rationale for their belief....i.e. Bachman, Coburn, Palin, Ensign and many, many others. This major shift to the right also allowed for economic radicals to get involved. To say that Ayn Rand had an empirical economic philosophy is to take a step toward the looney bin. Except now facts no longer matter and fiction can become a national policy. Oh, and the Shruggers are buying up university programs too, trying to legitimize their fiction.

Then they appointed many of their own, including the Chief Justice, to the Supreme Court, and the court's subsequent radical activism then put a stamp of legitimacy on their radical policies.

Of course the Democrats played a large part in this too. Instead of delineating the differences they ran scared and tried to emulate (to some degree) these radicals, essentially shifting political discourse to the extreme right.

This shift of philosophy has left the vast majority of the country in a state of inertia. When they look at their own political views in comparison to those elected, they look radically left. The mainstream of the country is still much more like a Bernie Saunders, or Nancy Pelosi, but the other side has controlled the discourse and made them look "radical". No one, except the extremists, want to be labeled radical, so it's hard for them to really feel represented in the process and that's a big reason for apathy.

That was one of the big hopes with President Obama is that he would be able to move the discourse back to a "true middle" and bring the silent majority back into the process. So far that hasn't happened.

That's an interesting and expansive analysis SeaCraig. Much may have to do with how debate is swayed.

My own political positions are colored by reading media outside the USA political sphere like the Guardian, the BBC online, and - less often - the Economist, which would all be radical left-wing opinion pieces by current USA standards. When I've stumbled on to Al Jazeera during a search I find that enlightening as well.

Even the most liberal USA national publications like the The New York Times, The Washington Post and especially USA Today often inadvertently take positions that are conservative compared to the previously mentioned British ones.

I doubt Sarah Palin's reading list would include any of the above - with the possible exception of USA Today - on a regular basis.

My favorite "thought piece" would probably be the The New York Review of Books - more USA-centric and less esoteric than the London Review of Books - both of which my partner occassionally picks up.

The "thought bubbles" which we all tend to build are even becoming embedded by search engines like Google which literally "jumps" ahead of you while you type: bringing up things you may have no interest in and distracting you from the things in which you do. Lately I've used Lycos to avoid Google's handholding nanny.

I love watching European reports on US issues. They don't carry the polarization with them.

I find The Economist extremely interesting. Before they started saying the Randian economic positions were just bunk they were considered very conservative....but the Repub's are masters at subtle McCarthyism....branding anything that doesn't agree with their position as "leftist" or "liberal" or "socialist".

There was a time when it was good to have different opinions in the room, everyone negotiating. But that doesn't seem to work anymore. There's no room for positions left of center right.

Can you do 2nd year university calculus? Simple question.