She reads like Ann Coulter light. She did forget to include one thing. If the climate worriers believe we are experiencing climat change then they also believe that the normal condition for the climate is to be static. By that I mean that the climate should always be the same and never change. It will rain or snow on the same day every year. it will be hot or cold on the same day every year and every year the temperature will be the same. If we hadn't invented the SUV or electricity or any of the other things that are causing our climate to change imagine what we could do. For starters we would know when to plan our vacations for the next several years.

I realize that the most recent rhetoric is trying to say no public option but we appear to have forgotten how to parse what's said.

Because no bill has the words "public option" in it it doesn't mean that it won't raise it's ugly face later. Maybe not in the original bill but it will be there. Perhaps it will be called by a different name, such as a Co-Op or insurance club or crime reduction or rotten cabbage but it will be there. The power mongers on the left want it too badly to let it go simply because less than seventy five percent of the population don't want it.

It's not the time to sit back on our laurels thinking we have destroyed it because it is harder to kill than dracula.

Most people think that if they want something they have a right to have it. Politicians in search of votes easily agree with them or in some instances place the idea with them. The actual definition of a right is totally bastardized.

If a couple of well known Senators and Congresmen were to start a campaign about the right to a car it would soon be echoed in every lame stream news media outlet. In a short period of time the entire left and some of the right would start saying the same thing and we would be fighting against another government spending spree.

Anti-free traders harp about how we are exploiting foreign workers by paying them such a low wage. If you forget about the amount paid and concentrate on what can be purchased on their local economy they aren't that bad off.

For example, let's say a U.S. factory worker has to work one hour to purchase a meal at a decent neighborhood restaurant. The foreign worker making less in U.S. dollars can get a similar meal for working one hour.

They can also move into a better house, provide better food and clothing for their children, have access to better education for their children.

If the U.S. exploiters weren't there what would these people do? Maybe be "exploited" by some other industrial nation?

After the initial surge of auto sales, which will undoubtedly be included in all government economic reports without an asterisk, what is going to happen to the auto market when the program runs out? Are people going to continue to buy cars at the rate they purchased them last week?

How much will it cost tax payers to keep the two government motors corporations running when sales fall way off and will Ford be able to keep going?

When Governor Jindal wanted to build berms, also known as dikes, there was a lot of foot dragging because of something called an environmental impact study.

Let's see, a barrier dike of sand that can be removed or marshes full of oil.

People have a tendency to mis-use words. A right is something available to everyone without putting a liability or responsibility on someone else but people freely use the word to describe what they want and sometimes need.

Everybody has a right to eat but no body has a right to be fed. You have a right to eat all the food you can buy, grow, barter for or other wise obtain legally. The supposed right to be fed puts a responsibility on someone else to provide for you. Everybody has a need to eat and some of them are uncapable of meeting that need, like a child or someone who through no fault of their own cannot provide for themselves. At that time, as fellow humans, we have a moral obligation to meet their needs and feed...

A couple of years ago I heard a qualified scientist state that through the historical record it was determined that CO2 increases after a rise in temperature, not the other way around. He was the type of scientist who looks at core samples from 50 thousand years of more in the past.

CO2 affects plant growth and they have been able to determine temperature changes as well as changes in atmospheric CO2 levels.

At least thats what I recall him saying.

Nobody has ever been able to answer this question. Do those with higher incomes, who pay most of the taxes, receive more for the money they pay?

Who gets more military protection, the corporate executive or the person living in the housing projects? Who gets more roads and highways? Who gets more from the weather service? I always thought they received the benefits equally.

If you could add the value of the military protection, the value of the roads and highways, the value of the weather service and the combined value of all the government subsidy payments, who pays more and who gets more government benefits?

Financial justice is letting the producers keep more of what they produce and not distributing it to...

When McCain-Feingold was being debated the cry was that all the money in politics "corrupted" the character of the otherwise honest politicians. Anybody else see the stupidity in this?

Actually what the money did was not to change the character of the politicians but to reveal it.

Chris Dodd sent a campaign fund raising letter to all the major financial institutions advising them that he was going to be the new chair of the Senate Banking Committee (hint hint). Lets wait and see how many similar letters from other "honest" politicians go out.