DISQUS

Sorry, but these schemes sound suspiciously like the "financially engineered instruments" that brought our economy to its knees, enriched the already rich, and screwed the taxpayer.

Can anyone point to one example where a cap-and-trade program has resulted in any decrease in CO2 emissions anywhere? China, who reportedly brings one new coal plant on a week, can't even keep its milk supply for babies safe. So how can anyone claim this is a "globally significant step" if countries like China, India and the other developing countries don't sign on.

It seems to me that the advocates for these incomprehensible schemes are having a tough time explaining just how they would work to the benefit on the poor New Mexico tax payers without stumbling over words. Doesn't our government (we taxpayers) still pay farmers NOT to grow certain crops in the middle of a global food shortage? THAT doesn't make sense, so why should a cap-and-trade program make any sense either.

While I would agree that too much power has shifted into the Executive Branch, one has to remember that Congress allowed that to happen.

Watching Congress "act" (as in a TV show) occasionally on C-SPAN, I'm not so sure that Congress could be at all effective in dealing with fast moving events as are happening in the real world of the 21st century.

One thing I do know is that the current state of political/ideological screaming at each other will solve nothing. Maybe the country does have to melt down before it can be rebuilt.

Not to worry - AIG probably insured the deal .... oh wait!

Well let's see .....

No nukes
No coal or any other fossil fuel for that matter
No transmission lines in my back yard
No current way to store wind/solar energy in massive amounts
No dilithium crystals yet

... guess we just need to dry up and blow away

Don't you know that the best way to tell when a politician is lying is when they move their lips? Its a little harder to tell with a lawyer, though.

Don't you know that the best way to tell when a politician is lying is when they move their lips? Its a little harder to tell with a lawyer, though.

Good, balanced story. I'm of the view that there is no "silver bullet" looming on the near horizon and that both conventional as well as alternative energy sources will be needed, along with conservation.

There is one area I'd like to see more reporting on, and that's what to do about storing massive amounts of energy that could come from sources which, by the nature of the technology used, cannot produce a constant stream of energy. In other words, where is the science that could feed stored energy to grid when the sun doesn't shine or the wind stops blowing?

I went to a lecture last week on the subject ( http://www.lanl.gov/science/fellows/lectures.shtml ) and was convinced that we need to solve this problem, but I was left with the impression that it is decades away.

Good, balanced story. I'm of the view that there is no "silver bullet" looming on the near horizon and that both conventional as well as alternative energy sources will be needed, along with conservation.

There is one area I'd like to see more reporting on, and that's what to do about storing massive amounts of energy that could come from sources which, by the nature of the technology used, cannot produce a constant stream of energy. In other words, where is the science that could feed stored energy to grid when the sun doesn't shine or the wind stops blowing?

I went to a lecture last week on the subject ( http://www.lanl.gov/science/fellows/lectures.shtml ) and was convinced that we need to solve this problem, but I was left with the impression that it is decades away.

Matthew,

I was at NATC Patuxent River MD during the Cuban Missile Crisis. As a civilian avionics engineer, I was "locked down" on the base, helping to support the avionics on the P3 which was being deployed around the clock from an active VP squadron whose mission it was to do reconnaissance on the soviet freighters and also to hunt for the soviet subs we knew were out there in the Atlantic. It was a scary time. No "blue painted" practice armaments for this mission.

Because of my personal experience, I did a lot of reading about the "13 days" from many sources over the years. A couple of thinks came to light: we should be thankful we didn't invade as the Russians had something over 100 "tactical" nukes in addition to the IRBMs they were setting into operation. Our (ahem) intelligence services didn't even know about these until just a few years ago. Point is we were closer to Armageddon at that time then ever before or since.

Historians argue that Khrushchev, having met JFK in Vienna a year earlier, came away with the impression that he was a weak and glib man, and would be no match for him (Khrushchev). Detailed accounts of that fateful Vienna meeting described that JFK came with no notes, no talking points, no agenda; he just wanted to talk. Its claimed that he remarked to one of his aides (a translator I think) that he "felt sorry for America for electing such a weak man). To be fair, JFK was under very severe pain at that meeting and had to get pain killing shots for his back.

In the end, JFK made the right decision for the world - but it was very close. The most critical point was on October 27, 1962 when Khrushchev, through his ambassador, hinted at a deal involving us pulling out some Jupiter missiles from Turkey which were threatening the USSR in turn for pulling out of Cuba. Many historians think the real reason for Khrushchev's "blink" was that Castro was urging him to "give him the keys to the missiles" and he (Castro) would let them fly. Here is an interesting site for those who want to pursue the historical account http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/nsa/cuba_mis_cri/

One must also recognize that during this time those same ad visors, notably Robert McNamara, convinced JFK that he should build up the war in Vietnam. Which he did, followed by President Johnson who, it is said, realized it was wrong when the military asked for another 250,000 troops on top of the 500,000 that were already there (talk about a surge!). Oh, and for you youngsters, it was President Nixon, yes the "I am not a crook!" Republican that brought Vietnam to an end - after more than 58,000 killed http://members.aol.com/usregistry/allwars.htm

The point of all this boring history is that no one can predict what will happen, nor how a leader will react to the event based on what he thinks he knows (intelligence is usually always flawed).

Sen. Obama appears to be a very intelligent, principled man - as does John McCain. But to suggest that McCain would act like Bush during the next crises, and that Obama would be another JFK is just plain hyperbole. No one can possibly know.

If you support Obama, let him run on his own merits. But listen carefully to what he is saying - - while conceding that the surge is now "working better than anyone imagined" (and I believe that no one really "knew" that violence in Iraq would go down down so fast - not Bush, not even Petraeus) -- Obama says he wants to get them out of Iraq (a good thing) and send them to Afghanistan (a good thing???)

In any event, I agree with those who argue that this is the most important presidential election of modern times. Your vote is precious - make them work for it!

Matthew,

I was at NATC Patuxent River MD during the Cuban Missile Crisis. As a civilian avionics engineer, I was "locked down" on the base, helping to support the avionics on the P3 which was being deployed around the clock from an active VP squadron whose mission it was to do reconnaissance on the soviet freighters and also to hunt for the soviet subs we knew were out there in the Atlantic. It was a scary time. No "blue painted" practice armaments for this mission.

Because of my personal experience, I did a lot of reading about the "13 days" from many sources over the years. A couple of thinks came to light: we should be thankful we didn't invade as the Russians had something over 100 "tactical" nukes in addition to the IRBMs they were setting into operation. Our (ahem) intelligence services didn't even know about these until just a few years ago. Point is we were closer to Armageddon at that time then ever before or since.

Historians argue that Khrushchev, having met JFK in Vienna a year earlier, came away with the impression that he was a weak and glib man, and would be no match for him (Khrushchev). Detailed accounts of that fateful Vienna meeting described that JFK came with no notes, no talking points, no agenda; he just wanted to talk. Its claimed that he remarked to one of his aides (a translator I think) that he "felt sorry for America for electing such a weak man). To be fair, JFK was under very severe pain at that meeting and had to get pain killing shots for his back.

In the end, JFK made the right decision for the world - but it was very close. The most critical point was on October 27, 1962 when Khrushchev, through his ambassador, hinted at a deal involving us pulling out some Jupiter missiles from Turkey which were threatening the USSR in turn for pulling out of Cuba. Many historians think the real reason for Khrushchev's "blink" was that Castro was urging him to "give him the keys to the missiles" and he (Castro) would let them fly. Here is an interesting site for those who want to pursue the historical account http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/nsa/cuba_mis_cri/

One must also recognize that during this time those same ad visors, notably Robert McNamara, convinced JFK that he should build up the war in Vietnam. Which he did, followed by President Johnson who, it is said, realized it was wrong when the military asked for another 250,000 troops on top of the 500,000 that were already there (talk about a surge!). Oh, and for you youngsters, it was President Nixon, yes the "I am not a crook!" Republican that brought Vietnam to an end - after more than 58,000 killed http://members.aol.com/usregistry/allwars.htm

The point of all this boring history is that no one can predict what will happen, nor how a leader will react to the event based on what he thinks he knows (intelligence is usually always flawed).

Sen. Obama appears to be a very intelligent, principled man - as does John McCain. But to suggest that McCain would act like Bush during the next crises, and that Obama would be another JFK is just plain hyperbole. No one can possibly know.

If you support Obama, let him run on his own merits. But listen carefully to what he is saying - - while conceding that the surge is now "working better than anyone imagined" (and I believe that no one really "knew" that violence in Iraq would go down down so fast - not Bush, not even Petraeus) -- Obama says he wants to get them out of Iraq (a good thing) and send them to Afghanistan (a good thing???)

In any event, I agree with those who argue that this is the most important presidential election of modern times. Your vote is precious - make them work for it!

I hope this goes somewhere! I'm afraid that politicians have been drinking at the campaign financing well so long that they just take the ordinary people that vote them into office for granted. The so-called Payday and Title loan industry has been discussed forever and yet the legislature still does nothing meaningful to curb these predators.

Enough!!

I hope this goes somewhere! I'm afraid that politicians have been drinking at the campaign financing well so long that they just take the ordinary people that vote them into office for granted. The so-called Payday and Title loan industry has been discussed forever and yet the legislature still does nothing meaningful to curb these predators.

Enough!!

With Google, its getting really difficult for you drive-by shooters to snap-fire a claim like this. Look it up. Both parties have managed to bring so-called "Pork" projects into the state.

Fairness feels good - - you ought to try it.

With Google, its getting really difficult for you drive-by shooters to snap-fire a claim like this. Look it up. Both parties have managed to bring so-called "Pork" projects into the state.

Fairness feels good - - you ought to try it.

Could it be that the crowd at the RNC merely reflects the the fact that over 90% of blacks are Democrats? I believe that the vast majority of blacks supported Kerry as well, not to mention the "first black President, Bill Clinton" Obama's nomination is a significant historical event and even more reason for blacks to support the Dems. So why should it be odd that Dingmann didn't see a sea of black faces in St. Paul?

The real question to me is why bright young black professionals don't try to change things from the inside of the RNC and bring some balance to these warring parties instead continuing to overwhelmingly support one side. All that will do is create more anger and embitterment.

If I vote for Obama and he wins, it won't be because he "looks like me". So should I not vote for him?

Could it be that the crowd at the RNC merely reflects the the fact that over 90% of blacks are Democrats? I believe that the vast majority of blacks supported Kerry as well, not to mention the "first black President, Bill Clinton" Obama's nomination is a significant historical event and even more reason for blacks to support the Dems. So why should it be odd that Dingmann didn't see a sea of black faces in St. Paul?

The real question to me is why bright young black professionals don't try to change things from the inside of the RNC and bring some balance to these warring parties instead continuing to overwhelmingly support one side. All that will do is create more anger and embitterment.

If I vote for Obama and he wins, it won't be because he "looks like me". So should I not vote for him?

i also understand, besides helping Democrat Harry Teague, Alford also also helped the Governor during his presidential run during another fundraiser. So why is there excitement over just this White appearance? Is it just more bias in the media?

i also understand, besides helping Democrat Harry Teague, Alford also also helped the Governor during his presidential run during another fundraiser. So why is there excitement over just this White appearance? Is it just more bias in the media?

To put gas prices in perspective, I Googled current prices in London to see what the Brits are up against. Currently, they are paying 112.9 pence per liter which works out to $8.33 per gallon, more than twice the rate we pay!

This is a global issue and the best scientific and political minds need to work on it. Screaming at each other won't cut it.

If you construct a matrix of potential energy sources and the special interest groups who, for their own purposes, vehemently oppose development, it would be a dismal piece of paper. Everyone seems to be opposed to everything. Even if we could pave over Arizona and western New Mexico with enough solar farms to power the US and free up oil and gas for transportation, we'd have groups screaming about "no transmission lines through MY back yard". Even wind turbines "kill birds, are unsightly, and made noise that upsets wildlife".

The only way out will be when politicians stop listening (and taking money from) to the vocal special interests and do what is right for the country. Maybe that will start to happen when we start paying $8.00 a gallon for gas too.

To put gas prices in perspective, I Googled current prices in London to see what the Brits are up against. Currently, they are paying 112.9 pence per liter which works out to $8.33 per gallon, more than twice the rate we pay!

This is a global issue and the best scientific and political minds need to work on it. Screaming at each other won't cut it.

If you construct a matrix of potential energy sources and the special interest groups who, for their own purposes, vehemently oppose development, it would be a dismal piece of paper. Everyone seems to be opposed to everything. Even if we could pave over Arizona and western New Mexico with enough solar farms to power the US and free up oil and gas for transportation, we'd have groups screaming about "no transmission lines through MY back yard". Even wind turbines "kill birds, are unsightly, and made noise that upsets wildlife".

The only way out will be when politicians stop listening (and taking money from) to the vocal special interests and do what is right for the country. Maybe that will start to happen when we start paying $8.00 a gallon for gas too.

The United States is already the leading global investor in alternative energy research. China is not only the world's biggest polluter, it has actually reduced the level of its investment in alternative energy, choosing instead to build coal generation plants at an accelerating rate, while its burgeoning middle class wants cars, better housing and better food. India is on the same trajectory.

It is becoming quite clear that there is no "silver bullet" which will alleviate energy needs. Besides oil, natural gas, wind, solar, nuclear, and renewable sources will all be necessary.

So while "blaming Bush" for all the world's problems (he did cause the cyclone to hit Myanmar, didn't he?), might make you feel smug, it won't resolve anything.

In the meantime, if you know where I can get 15 gallons of "alternative energy" for my 12 year old Isuzu, post ut here, would you?

The United States is already the leading global investor in alternative energy research. China is not only the world's biggest polluter, it has actually reduced the level of its investment in alternative energy, choosing instead to build coal generation plants at an accelerating rate, while its burgeoning middle class wants cars, better housing and better food. India is on the same trajectory.

It is becoming quite clear that there is no "silver bullet" which will alleviate energy needs. Besides oil, natural gas, wind, solar, nuclear, and renewable sources will all be necessary.

So while "blaming Bush" for all the world's problems (he did cause the cyclone to hit Myanmar, didn't he?), might make you feel smug, it won't resolve anything.

In the meantime, if you know where I can get 15 gallons of "alternative energy" for my 12 year old Isuzu, post ut here, would you?