I did some calculations a few years back on my blog: http://andrews.blogtownhall.com/2008/07/23/g-d_save_us_from_simple_solutions.thtml I used the total annual energy consumption, the earth average per square meter of solar energy, the then best yield from experimental photovoltaic panels of 20%, and the amount of solar panels needed to yield the yearly consumption of the US would cover California, and that did not account for cleaning, failures, space for infrastructure and so on. I think if we are worried about climate change, covering a large part of the nation with solar panels would change the climate much more than CO2 ever could.

I agree. Were it nothing more than a flat rate on income, and income were defined clearly, it would at least be easy enough to file. I would ideally see the federal government funded by the states as was originally intended (which would make the states more interested in cutting federal spending than seeking fed handouts), but I don't think I will live to even see that proposed, much less enacted.

I love the IRS. In 2009, I lost $900 on stocks. It was so trivial, I ignored claiming it as a loss. Somehow, they noticed all the sales, but none of the purchases, and decided every sale was 100% profit, so they are claiming I owe $30,000 in taxes and $6000 in penalties for $100,000 of unreported income. Do they really think anyone during the market collapse of 2009 was given stocks for free? I know it is a computer generated notice,s o no human reviewed it, but to program computers with such an utterly insane model, not even asking them to match sales against purchases is certainly a great way to get the most taxes possible, but quite unlikely to produce accurate results.

I know. I am so sick of the absurd "political spectrum" which places nazis and fascists on the right, it is one of the biggest lies in modern political science, yet we can't seem to escape it. http://andrews.blogtownhall.com/2009/07/04/the_political_spectrum.thtml

(continuing, thanks to space limits... When did they add those? I haven't commented in a long time, it seems...) I think I am just unhappy as the lot we have this time aren't particularly inspiring. (Nor were they last time.) I am still waiting for a candidate on the right who both has ideas and can present them properly. It seems no one fitting that description wants to run. At least not recently.

To be completely fair, Newt is in some ways just what I am complaining about as well, as a lot of his supporters are selling him on non-issue items as well. That was part of the class of '94, for example. That is as irrelevant as Romney's "executive experience". Who cares if he was governor if he has terrible ideas? I want to hear some real positions, rather than lot of sound bites and irrelevancies. Newt's infidelity? Not relevant, we had a lot of good (and bad) presidents who were not completely faithful It is part of one's character, but hardly the whole story. And, to be honest, I would take a president with a messy personal life and good ideas over a saint with none.

I am not saying Newt is the candidate of principle, but bemoaning the tendency to look for a photogenic nonentity with lukewarm positions on everything so we can pretend we will win office by moderating our views and not giving in to "extremists". Anyone notice the Democrats ran someone pretty far left and won? Maybe it is time to accept some ideas more than an inch from the political center.

I am a bit put off by this whole "his personality is wrong" approach. I know, practically, personality plays a part in politics. But how about his actual positions vs those of Romney? Or do we no longer care about those? After all, Obama made any number of supposedly career ending gaffes, yet the press quieted them down and everyone forgot. So, why are we playing up the shortcomings of our own rather than emphasizing their ideas? Oh, well, I am sure we will get another McCain, which, sadly, is what we deserve until we figure out whether we want to win on principle or try to trot out another supposedly "electable" loser.

Oddly, my friend was the one person I ever heard defend Dan Quayle in the whole "potatoe" thing. He said he had always just assumed Quayle misspelled it to let the kid correct him. He may be wrong in his belief (or maybe not, I never gave the issue much thought as spelling seems far removed from political acumen), but it was amusing that he was the one defender I ever found.

One of my best friends in college was gay and conservative, or, to be more accurate, politically independent, as he differed with conservatives as well as liberals on some issues, and it was amusing to see how many people, finding out he was gay, just assumed they knew what he believed on issue after issue, only to be proven wrong. Then again, I am Jewish and conservative in a very liberal state, so I get to experience the same thing. You would think other Jews would know we have a range of political opinions, but time after time, liberals seem to assume my faith indicates some political affiliation. (Sadly, a handful of conservatives assume the same thing, but at least there it is a definite minority.)