document.write(' | ');document.write("pete");document.write("
VA
7/26/2005 | ");document.write(' | ');document.write(" What has happened to the partisan no-talent Bush-haters in Hollywood is identical to what has happened to the Democrats over the past few decades. As Charles Krauthammer brilliantly points out, 'Spent of new ideas, they have but one remaining idea to hang on to the status quo at all costs. This is true across the board. On Social Security, which is facing an impending demographic and fiscal crisis, they have put absolutely nothing on the table. On presidential appointments -- first, judges and now ambassador to the United Nations -- they resort to the classic weapon of southern obstructionism the filibuster. And on foreign policy, they have nothing to say on the war on terrorism, the war in Iraq or the burgeoning Arab Spring (except the refrain 'Guantanamo'). A quarter-century ago, Daniel Patrick Moynihan noted how it was the Republicans who had become a party of ideas, while the Democrats' philosophical foundation was 'deeply eroded.' But even Moynihan would be surprised by the bankruptcy in the Democrats' current intellectual account.'");document.write(' |
|
');document.write(' | ');document.write("Randall");document.write("
TX
7/26/2005 | ");document.write(' | ');document.write("David Your energy story 7-23-05 stated that Hydro Projects were not in view to aid in the coming energy crisis. I refer you to NEWSWEEKS February 22, 1965 Wherein the Ralph M. Parsons ten year engineering study states that the diversion of water from the Alaskan Rainforest down the Rocky Mountain Trench would generate electric Power that would yield 100 million kilowatts of electricty, equivalent to 75 Hoover Dams . The 36 trillion gallons of water moved southward would irrigate 40,000,000 acres of land in 17 westerns states, seven Canadian Provences and three Mexican states. It would create 4,000,000 jobs and resolve numerous social problems. ");document.write(' |
|
');document.write(' | ');document.write("Donald");document.write("
CA
7/26/2005 | ");document.write(' | ');document.write("I live in Los Angeles and I am very disappointed that KCET has stopped broadcasting this program. I ask KCET to reconsider its decision to stop broadcasting this program.");document.write(' |
|
');document.write(' | ');document.write("");document.write("
St
7/26/2005 | ");document.write(' | ');document.write("I look forward every week to the Journal Editorial report on KQED San Francisco Sundays at 2p.m. Sadly, KQED deletes your program at least once a month for reruns etc. At least I can read your program here, but I miss the witty exchanges. Thank you for your informative, lively discussions even if I only see you irregularly! ");document.write(' |
|
');document.write(' | ');document.write("Mark");document.write("
NC
7/26/2005 | ");document.write(' | ');document.write("Stephen Moore's comments on renewable energy were really beyond the pale. He stated that wind and solar never produced a single kilowatt of electricity. Wha?! The current generating capacity of wind power in the country is around 6.7 billion megawatts and these turbines produced about 16 billion kilowatt hours of electricity in 2004. That's more than a kilowatt, by the way. Furthermore, if a homeowner were to invest in say, electric solar panels or a solar hot water heater because he wants to save money or is simply concerned about the environment, is this not a perfect example of that old chestnut of conservative thought, personal responsibility? For Mr. Moore to simply dismiss such renewables with a wave of his hand while spitting out the word 'idiotic' is childish and disrespectful to those who have worked hard to bring these technologies to this point. Yes, we will be reliant on fossil fuels for a long time. Yes, nuclear power may be a more important source for our electricity in the future. I can concede that. Can Mr. Moore concede that there may be a place for renewables? Apparently not. I also loved his comment about the amount of oil in Alaska and our offshore areas as being 'incalculable.' I'm not going to the effort of tracking down the geologic studies but the simple fact is that the amount of oil in these areas is quite calculable. I think Mr. Moore's comment was to imply that the oil that the bad environmentalists won't let us get at is 'boundless' and that the price of oil will fall significantly if only we can get into these places. This notion has been shot down many times but here we are bringing it up again, with no dissenting opinion. Just do me one favor, please Mr. Moore says there is a good indication oil prices will come down in 2006 because of new sources. Why don't you follow up on this in 2006, hmm? ");document.write(' |
|
');document.write(' |
|  |
');