Well, what's the Republican solution? After seven years of invading and occupying energy-rich nations, we have gas prices surpassing triple, since Bush took office, and on-course for quadruple before he leaves office. This may be distressing information for some to read, but there's a gold nugget in that mess - we've finally learned the Republican definition of "success" in our Mideast adventure.

But wait, some equal time first. Two years ago, the Bush administration presented a four-point plan for reducing gasoline prices. Let's review, shall we?

- "Making sure consumers and taxpayers are treated" fairly (I have no idea how this was implemented, maybe Republicans on this blog have the answer?)

- "Promoting greater fuel efficiency" (Sorry if this is embarrasing, Repubs, but it took a Democratic Congress to actually bring legislation for this to the table; believe it or not, Bush actually signed it into law. Speak with your members of Congress to discover why they sat on efficiency changes. However, you could start with Prezzie Bush, who it turns out had the power all along to improve auto fuel standards, under existing law. Try this: "Why didn't you?")

- "Boosting our oil and gasoline supplies" (Ho boy, did invading Iraq actually help? According to the Iraq oil ministry, at least 1/3rd of Iraq's oil is stolen by its own citizens, possibly much more. What does this mean? The insurgency is actually being funded by the oil we went to liberate??)

- "Investing aggressively in alternatives to gasoline, so we can eliminate the root cause of high gas prices by diversifying away from oil in the longer term." (Uh... has anyone actually seen those federal dollars? I sure haven't. Which bill did Bush sign that makes this so? According to my friends in the alternative energy biz, the money comes from private industry and VC, where they see wind power and certain types of solar power approaching cost parity with fossil fuels.)

But wait, there's a bonus: Prezzie Bush's signing statement for the fuel standards bill he "approved" in Dec 07, H.R. 6!

Nine paragraphs of assertions claiming that, because *he's* Prezzie, a) he doesn't have to obey the parts of the law that he doesn't agree with, b) that the executive branch has the constitutional "right" to operate in total secrecy, and c) he also claims the right to ignore requests from Congress for information!

Could someone point out the part of our Constitution that allows the President of the United States to disobey the law?

I'm so glad we live in a "democracy," and not a kingdom.

Now, what's the Republican solution to exorbitant fuel prices?

"Now, what's the Republican solution to exorbitant fuel prices?"

I don't know. But it sure isn't a fifteen percent tax on the commodity, is it?

Here's a better start: suspend the federal taxes on gasoline. The government is actually making more money on gas than the gas companies are.

And drop this silly obsession with Ethanol and types of gas none of us can actually use--like E85. AND quit requiring the reformulation of gasoline to some ridiculous regional concoction, which makes it more expensive to refine.

But making gas MORE expensive is hardly the answer to it BEING expensive. Only a politician could believe that it is.

For ignorant asses like PD.........EVERY SINGLE SIGNING STATEMENT the President has given has clarified that the Executive Branch will construe whatever section of that law to protect Executive Branch......and rightly so.

....to ensure protection the Executive Branch from an over reaching Congress.

It's called SEPARATION OF THE POWERS......you now...one of them civics lessons that you use as a punchline but don't understand.

Or shall the President make Executive Orders every day demanding all internal paperwork from every Cogressman?

Personally, I'd rather he veto every bill coming by, tell the Congress why he vetoed it and make them change the law or override the veto.

Oh yes, Sarge, I very much look forward to receiving some schooling, from you to my ignorant ass.

See, when Prezzie Bush took the oath of office, he swore to abide by the laws of this nation. All of them, including the ones he signs. That means he can't ignore them. If he does ignore them, does that make Bush ignorant? =) I always hoped to have something in common with him.

Show us where the President is allowed to ignore, or worse, counter, laws on the books. That's what's going on here. This notion that the separation of powers allows him to ignore the law is ... stupid, immoral and ... ignorant.

According to the analysis of many MSM outlets, Bush's signing statements have directed the executive branch to *undermine* the implementation of over 750 sections of law, both new and amended. Sure is powerful, that there separation of powers.

Presidential signing statements have been in use since James Monroe. The Court has never ruled on their Constitutionality, so there is no reason to believe that they violate anything. And if you READ the signing statement, you will see that he is putting Congress on notice that the disputed provisions appear to him to be unconstitutional, under the provisions of the Constitution he mentions enforcing.

If the only way to get a good law passed is to sign it with stupid parts in it, and the president wants to express his objection to those parts and his intention to fight and challenge the enforcement of them, such statements are the best way to do that.

Speaking of separation of powers, the EXECUTIVE branch has the authority to EXECUTE the laws passed by the legislature. If he chooses not to do so precisely in the way they intended, it is up to them to take the controversy to the Supreme Court. The MSM (as usual) doesn't know what it's talking about.

"What does this mean? The insurgency is actually being funded by the oil we went to liberate?"

We didn't go there to liberate OIL. We went there to liberate PEOPLE.

"(Sorry if this is embarrasing, Repubs, but it took a Democratic Congress to actually bring legislation for this to the table.."

No, that's not embarrassing. Bringing legislation is actually the job of the LEGISLATURE.

Even Markey's self-serving article notices that the Secretary of Transportation's authority extends only to NON-PASSENGER vehicles, without the consent of BOTH houses of Congress. So it makes sense that Bush would be asking Congress to pass the standards we are talking about here.

"has anyone actually seen those federal dollars? I sure haven't. Which bill did Bush sign that makes this so? According to my friends in the alternative energy biz, the money comes from private industry and VC, where they see wind power and certain types of solar power approaching cost parity with fossil fuels.)"

Funny you should ask. The brother of a friend of mine just became a millionaire by inventing some ethanol-using energy saving doohickey that has allowed him to build several plants. So someone's getting rich.

By the way, the only "VC" I know is Viet Cong--so what's your "VC?" I'm sure it's not that.

The signing statement is merely an addendum that clarifies certain circumstances that violate the powers of the Executive Branch....and how the Executive Branch is going to implement/enforce the law in those specific circumstances.

Yes.....there were 750 instances of sections of laws over the past 7 years written by the Congress that would interfere with Executive Branch powers if applied in very certain circumstances as noted in the statements....actually, I think it's up to 1100 now.

Signing statements are not "countering, ignoring, or violating" the law in question. They simply show how the Executive Branch intends to implement the law.....nothing more.

CHEVRON U.S. A. v. NATURAL RES. DEF. COUNCIL established the legal precedence of Executive interpretation in cases where "the Congress has not directly spoken to the precise question at issue" and if the interpretation is "reasonable" and only involves Executive Branch entities.

....and it ain't a "Bush thing"......ALL presidents going back as far as Monroe have employed them...even your ass-buddy Bill. You're just pissed that a Republican is doing it.

Here's what your ass-buddy's legal counsel had to say on the matter.....and he's dead on.'

If the President may properly decline to enforce a law, at least when it unconstitutionally encroaches on his powers, then it arguably follows that he may properly announce to Congress and to the public that he will not enforce a provision of an enactment he is signing. If so, then a signing statement that challenges what the President determines to be an unconstitutional encroachment on his power, or that announces the President's unwillingness to enforce (or willingness to litigate) such a provision, can be a valid and reasonable exercise of Presidential authority

Your ignorant ass has thusly been educated in the matter.....but it won't matter because this isn't about signing statements.....this is about you and your hatred for the current President.

Sorry, but it just ain't so. The GAO found that 30% of the laws enacted by Bush's signature on appropriations bills in 2006, ones that had signing statements, were *not* being executed by the executive branch.

About those other Prezzies, Sarge, here are the actual stats-

Reagan: 276 signing statements, 71 of which (26%) contained provisions questioning the constitutionality

Clinton: 391 statements, 105 of which (27%) raised constitutional concerns or objections.

Bush: 149 signing statements, 127 (85%) of which raised some objection (as of 2006.) From the report: "The significant rise in the proportion of constitutional objections made by the President Bush is compounded by the fact that these statements are typified by multiple objections, resulting in over 700 challenges to distinct provisions of law."

The Supreme Court is the sole arbiter of a law's constitutionality. The President has another choice besides vetoing a bill, he can halt adoption of the law by challenging its constitutionality in court. Both his DOJ and many other presidents' have done this, and various governmental parties as well (including Congress.)

Instead, he's ignoring select provisions of the bills he signed, plus he's directing the executive branch to ignore the laws.

This 'unitary executive' theory is a serious abuse of the constitution. Bush's administration (DOJ included) are plainly saying they're above the law. But he's not, and this should be thoroughly investigated. It's an open threat to the balance of powers - the executive branch doing as it pleases, ignoring the will of The People.

Sadly, this is the responsibility of the Supreme Court, if it ever lands there... the Roberts Court. Some of them are big fans of the unitary executive theory.

What this means in ten years' time: the historic consolidation of greater powers under the President will be law of the land. It will build from there, and it will take at least that long before it's really dealt with. I'm guessing it'll come by way of a third-party challenge to some federal agency's lack of pollution or wildlife law enforcement. Wouldn't be surprised if it were over free trade-related regulation suspensions, e.g. lead-tainted children's toys.

Luckily, however, there's a glimmer of hope, because the Presidents' powers have been tested by the Supremes before. From recent history, very apropos: remember the line-item veto law of 1996? Congress passed, and Clinton enacted, a law giving the President the power to X-out budget provisions -provisions of the law Congress had passed- that he didn't think were kosher. Ultimately declared unconstitutional by the Supremes, finding that the law granted the president powers not found in the constitution.

Clearer now? Remember kids, what happened then was a far more controlled version of what Bush is doing, because 1) it was the law, one Clinton and the Republican Congress passed, and 2) they acted legally until the law's demise in court. Bush is claiming far greater powers than the line-item veto law.

All we're lacking now is a grand jury indictment. Mark my words... it's not coming. I don't expect that the Democratic prezzie will investigate. The temptation to have that power must be great - the power to ignore the law.

Wow.....so very easy to say "Sorry, it ain't so" than to drop your Bush hatred and prove it.

Your numbers are incorrect as old as they are......Bush is now up to over 1100 provisions ....as of Jan 30,2008 he has 157 statements affecting over 1100 provisions....can't even get THAT right.

Hate the man THAT much do you?

He has every friggin' right to choose how to enforce certain provisions of a law that concern Executive Branch priveledgess. HE'S THE FRIGGIN' ENFORCER, dumbass.

I'd rather he be up front with it than not......as Clinton was up front when he did the same friggin' thing. Sure you minded it all when your buddy was doing it...sure it's not about Bush and your hatred towards him.

The Supreme Court is the sole arbiter of a law's constitutionality.

WTF do you not understand about case-law? The Supremes ruling in CHEVRON U.S. A. v. NATURAL RES. DEF. COUNCIL established the legal precedence of Executive interpretation in cases where "the Congress has not directly spoken to the precise question at issue" and if the interpretation is "reasonable" and only involves Executive Branch entities. THEY, the Supremes, gave the President the power through that ruling but ONLY CONCERNING EXECUTIVE BRANCH ENTITIES, just as THEY the Supremes took away the line item veto in another ruling....and rightly so.

You hate Bush THAT much.

Remember kids,

I ain't your kid, asshole.....and you don't have the intellectual standing to be my teacher.

No, it ain't "clearer now".....you can't even remotely compare a line-item veto with a signing statement as they're entirely 2 different animals. I know you WANT to make the comparison, but it's not there. Line item vetoes strike provisions of the law, mainly used for BUDGET LAWS....and is thusly an overstep of Executive powers into Congressional powers. Signing statements leave the law "as is" and explain how the President is going to construe and enforce the law WITH CONCERN FOR THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH DEPARTMENTS ONLY to protect Executive priveledge......with case-law precedence from the ruling in CHEVRON U.S. A. v. NATURAL RES. DEF. COUNCIL.

Man, you're stupid. Your entire non-argument is based in your hatred for the current President civics ignorance and the absolute refusal, based on said hatred....to educate yourself beyond the hatred.

The President has another choice besides vetoing a bill, he can halt adoption of the law by challenging its constitutionality in court.

Just imagining your constant whining about the President wasting taxpayer $$$$$ in bringing 1100 items into court. Yeah....you'd be OK with that....

Law's are "adopted".....here I thought they were "enacted". Silly me...

"This 'unitary executive' theory is a serious abuse of the constitution."

No, it's not. It's a THEORY of Presidential power. Your OPINION is that it is a serious abuse of the Constitution. As you've said, only the Supreme Court can rule on its Constitutionality.

And the line-item veto is not the same as a signing statement. The line-item veto allowed the President to reject parts of a bill while accepting others. Many governors have this power, and it wasn't until Robert Byrd's ox got gored by it that people started thinking it might not pass Constitutional muster.

The signing statement has been used since Monroe. It doesn't negate any part of the law, it only puts the Congress on notice that the President believes some of it may be unconstitutional and that he intends to enforce it only insofar as it IS Constitutional. That is his right as the Executive.

"All we're lacking now is a grand jury indictment."

For what?

Come on now Kerry, haven't you figured out these libs yet?

Who needs a public prosecutor to bring evidence and witnesses to a grand jury?

Go straight for indictment.

Who needs an actual trial?

Go straight for the verdict and jail.

For Republicans, that is.....

Whew - you scared me there a second, Sarge. I asked each of my kids, and none of them would admit to having Tourettes syndrome, so that would partially eliminate the possibility that you are one of my kids. That you can't make a point without lacing it with profanity ... that's definitely also teenager behavior, so the possibility remains, yes.

For the record, I didn't like the Clintons. I do take positions defending them from time to time, but then again, it's a brawl here, ain't it Sarge?

Let's see your cite for Chevron, Mister Constitutional Scholar. Harvard Law's review of Chevron (PDF) yielded this opinion:

Because judicial consideration of signing statements creates serious separation of powers concerns, courts should use the Chevron framework to limit and guide the reach of these policy statements.9 Signing statements have a proper place in the judicial interpretive scheme, but that place is at step two of the Chevron analysis. In other words, in order to give any interpretive weight to a signing statement, a court would first need to find a statutory ambiguity representing an implied congressional delegation to the executive, and then conclude that the executive interpretation contained in the signing statement is reasonable in light of that delegation.

Applying the framework to signing statements will effectively limit their use as evaluative tools. The President’s interpretation of a law in a signing statement may well be a useful guide to understanding a statute, or the President’s interpretation may actually be contrary to congressional intent in passing the statute. The Chevron framework operates to distinguish between these two situations, sanctioning the use of signing statements on the one hand and prohibiting such use on the other.

So, the Chevron case may guide justices to consider executive signing statements, but it's to decide whether the legislators granted that power to deviate from the law.

What Bush has done is to ignore specific provisions of bills. He's plainly ignoring the will of Congress, and it must be challenged.

Lemme know when you're done whining about my language...

So what you're saying is that you have no clue what you're talking about and are going to drag out the same baseless claims about Bush ignoring the law? You can't even comprehend what your own links say about it correctly.

Oooooo....the OPINION of Harvard Law Review......that just so happens to NOT show what you claim. Lemme see.....Harvard Law Review OPINION overrules Supreme Court case-law precedence when......er........when you're done fellating Bill.....as in....never.

How about the actual ruling?

NOPE...you'd rather go for a liberal opinion of the ruling instead of going for the actual primary source that established:

(1) Whether the statute is ambiguous or there is a gap that Congress intended the agency to fill.

(2) If not, whether the agency's interpretation of a statute is reasonable or permissible. If an agency's interpretation is reasonable, then the court will defer to the agency's reading of the statute.

In light of these well-settled principles it is clear that the Court of Appeals misconceived the nature of its role in reviewing the regulations at issue. Once it determined, after its own examination of the legislation, that Congress did not actually have an intent regarding the applicability of the bubble concept to the permit program, the question before it was not whether in its view the concept is "inappropriate" in the general context of a program designed to improve air quality, but whether the Administrator's view that it is appropriate in the context of this particular program is a reasonable one. Based on the examination of the legislation and its history which follows, we agree with the Court of Appeals that Congress did not have a specific intention on the applicability of the bubble concept in these cases, and conclude that the EPA's use of that concept here is a reasonable policy choice for the agency to make

You have no argument other than Bush hatred.

HA.....since I generally read all that is linked to from other people......PD needs to read that crap OPINION again.

It's not from HARVARD LAW REVIEW (as claimed).......it's from MINNESOTA LAW REVIEW.

I'm not a big supporter of welfare, as you all know--so I would like the money to come directly from him and any other green idiot that votes for such ridiculous legislation.

Another good reason to stamp out global warming alarmism. It's going to send us to the poorhouse.

Funny the last time I checked European's weren't poor, and their gas prices are much higher than ours...primarily due to this very mechanism.

But they rather than whining about taxes, actually did what the taxes were meant to do, change habits. The French for example have become pretty much energy independent as far as electricity generation, because they saw the writing on the wall several decades ago that they couldn't keep importing their energy, use they used the one source of energy they had in great abundance...nuclear. And now they sell that energy to the rest of Europe at a profit. But going nuclear isn't the only thing that Europeans have learned to do. They have become some of the some on the greatest energy conserving societies on the planet, and they have cleaner air as a side effect because people have been forced to use energy saving mass transit, rather than wasteful, excess polluting, and congestion fraught cars.

Solar power, wind power, nuclear, and cleaning up fossil fuels with clean technology, won't put us in the poor house, they will set us free ultimately, and it will be easier on the lunges to boot!

"Funny the last time I checked European's weren't poor, and their gas prices are much higher than ours...primarily due to this very mechanism."

I suppose, as the man might say, it depends on what the meaning of "poor" is. We're not going to agree on this. But as far as I'm concerned, by any measure, nearly every European country is worse off than we are. And I don't care what Jane's has to say about it.

"But they rather than whining about taxes, actually did what the taxes were meant to do, change habits. The French for example have become pretty much energy independent as far as electricity generation, because they saw the writing on the wall several decades ago that they couldn't keep importing their energy, use they used the one source of energy they had in great abundance...nuclear."

Ah, monsieur! Surely, you make the jest, no?

On what planet are you standing that you think American environmentalists would for one second allow for the production of nuclear energy in the US? Do you even KNOW what happened to the US nuclear industry? The vast and intellectually vacant array of Naderite nitwits like Ed Asner and Jane Fonda and the Berrigan brothers virtually wiped out the nuclear industry in the mind of the public, though we still get 20% of our energy from it. Good luck moving that number upwards with such a vociferous faction of 911 truthers and other anti-progress hyenas roaming the countryside.

"And now they sell that energy to the rest of Europe at a profit. But going nuclear isn't the only thing that Europeans have learned to do. They have become some of the some on the greatest energy conserving societies on the planet, and they have cleaner air as a side effect because people have been forced to use energy saving mass transit, rather than wasteful, excess polluting, and congestion fraught cars."

Have you seen how small most European countries are? You don't even need a car. You can walk from one end to the other. Doesn't fly in a place like Texas, where things are far away from each other.

"Solar power, wind power, nuclear, and cleaning up fossil fuels with clean technology, won't put us in the poor house, they will set us free ultimately, and it will be easier on the lunges to boot!"

OOoooh! They will "set us free"!? You sound like one of those people who found the face of Jesus in a piece of toaster strudel. Calm down and get realistic. We're doing all those things. But it doesn't mean anthropogenic global warming exists. And it doesn't justify ruining the world food economy to try out a new kind of gasoline.

And go easy on those lunges. You'll be feeling that tomorrow.

Funny....people talk about Europeans not being poor.....what're the unemployment rates over there? Upwards of 25%, depending on the country? All them unemployed Europeans are "rich"?

All that violence in France is/was because they all have high-paying jobs?

France unemployment rate is 8%....Germany is 9%....Poland 12.8%

Seems only the small population countries are doing well in that respect.

I suppose, as the man might say, it depends on what the meaning of "poor" is. We're not going to agree on this. But as far as I'm concerned, by any measure, nearly every European country is worse off than we are. And I don't care what Jane's has to say about it.

So your going to throw out a subject assessment of what poor means, so you don't have to compare anything against hard facts. How nice. Conservatives like subjective opinions and circular reasoning because it makes it so they don't have to answer to realities.

Funny how when they are polled Europeans tend to rate their happiness with life much higher than Americans.

Sarge, Europe does have a problem with discrimination against minorities, which is much of the problem that exists in France and in particular the riots that happened there last year. I am not going to defend them on that one.

Kerry, do you have any concept of how large Germany, Britain, France, Spain, Poland, and Italy are? You seem a bit naive about the world at times, but I find it hard to believe you think people can just walk across France because its so small but they can't walk across Texas.

For you edification here is the size of Texas and how it compares to the European countries above.

Texas = 268,820 sq mi Poland = 120,728 sq mi France = 260,558 sq mi Germany = 137,847 sq mi UK = 94,526 sq mi Spain = 195,364 sq mi Italy = 116,346.5 sq mi

As you will notice, most of the major European countries are half the size of Texas or larger. So much for your little walking theory...

We're doing all those things. But it doesn't mean anthropogenic global warming exists.

Who said anything about global warming. You may deny that all you want. But what you can't deny is acid rain, smog, increasing asthma, polluted rivers and groundwater, highway congestion, and higher oil prices.

"So your going to throw out a subject assessment of what poor means, so you don't have to compare anything against hard facts. How nice. Conservatives like subjective opinions and circular reasoning because it makes it so they don't have to answer to realities."

Blah blah blah. Do you have a point? I do not believe most Americans would rather live in Europe than in America--and neither would most people across the globe. Show me how Europeans aren't "poor." Or, better yet, go find out what "poor" means in America. It means having a house and several tv sets, a phone, electricity, running water....things many people throughout the world would consider "rich" and spend their lives begging for.

"Funny how when they are polled Europeans tend to rate their happiness with life much higher than Americans."

85% of people believe they are above average. Guess what? You can't get an accurate measure of something with a subjective question.

"Sarge, Europe does have a problem with discrimination against minorities, which is much of the problem that exists in France and in particular the riots that happened there last year."

You mean their incredible anti-Semitism? Yeah, that's kind of a sticky problem, isn't it?

"Kerry, do you have any concept of how large Germany, Britain, France, Spain, Poland, and Italy are? You seem a bit naive about the world at times, but I find it hard to believe you think people can just walk across France because its so small but they can't walk across Texas."

You know what hyperbole is? Besides, you just made my point. We have FIFTY states we want to play around in, many of which are bigger than whole European countries. My point is that people don't need cars in Europe because they aren't GOING anywhere. (Try leaving Montana without wheels.)

And you know what? If they love the earth so much, let THEM give up their cars and their technology, sell it all to us and China, and go back to being druids. We'll keep driving, thank you.

"Who said anything about global warming. You may deny that all you want. But what you can't deny is acid rain, smog, increasing asthma, polluted rivers and groundwater, highway congestion, and higher oil prices."

Sorry, perhaps I misunderstood. I thought you objected to cars for gw reasons. Is it just that you don't like cars?

Call me crazy, but my impression is that Americans (who invented them) absolutely LOVE cars. And we have no intention of letting anything as NOT HUMAN as nature stop us from driving them. That's why we build roads through forests and tunnels through mountains. Man's destiny is to SUBDUE the Earth, not kowtow to it.

You know what hyperbole is? Besides, you just made my point. We have FIFTY states we want to play around in, many of which are bigger than whole European countries. My point is that people don't need cars in Europe because they aren't GOING anywhere. (Try leaving Montana without wheels.)

Most Europeans don't go anywhere? Who do you think colonized most of the globe? Europeans have travel in their blood. They don't need "wheels" because they have trains and buses that will take them everywhere they need to go. And the same is true for foreigners that come to visit Europe. I've been there 4 times and not once did I need a car to get to somewhere. And I traveled over an area equivalent to half the US in size.

You mean their incredible anti-Semitism? Yeah, that's kind of a sticky problem, isn't it?

No I don't just think about Jews everytime discrimination comes up. Because Jews aren't the only people on this planet who are discriminated against.

Call me crazy, but my impression is that Americans (who invented them) absolutely LOVE cars. And we have no intention of letting anything as NOT HUMAN as nature stop us from driving them. That's why we build roads through forests and tunnels through mountains. Man's destiny is to SUBDUE the Earth, not kowtow to it.

Kerry, if you kill yourself in the process of subduing the Earth, should you continue to subdue it just for the purpose of subduing it, or should you use your brain. Maybe you like breathing in 2-packs of cigarettes worth of heavy metals, particulates, and tar everyday...which is what the air quality is equivalent to where I grew up...a city in the American west with less than 2-million people in its suburbs. Its not Los Angeles obviously, and its not New York City. Its a regular old town, where they last thing you'd expect would be bad air. And the funny thing is I suspect the air quality in the city would be much better than it is given its size, if the damn place weren't full of so many conservatives, who are more concerned about no regulation and the keeping the status-quo, than keeping their air safe to breath.

Kerry,

And no I am not against cars. I am opposed to the unwise use of them. It doesn't make alot of sense to run rail roads along every stretch of Montana and the American West in particular, but it also doesn't make alot of sense to have everybody and his dog, drive in to central LA and New York every morning, creating a freaking traffic mess that wastes hours of the day and untold amounts of pollution, when most people would be better off parking their cars on the outskirts of the city and taking trains in. In some large cities some people do this, but frankly we should follow the model of London, and restrict vehicle access to city cores to only those that are essential. It makes absolutely no sense to me to create massive traffic bottlenecks that waste everyone's time, and ruin the quality of everyone's health, just so you can have the freedom to joy ride everywhere you damn well please. Yah may call me a fascist if you like. But I prefer to look at realities, and enforce practices that offer the most benefit to the most people.

Just imagine how much money might have been saved on projects like Boston's "Big Dig", if we stayed away from worthless projects that try to ramrod more and more traffic through the center of cities that were never designed to handle modern levels of car traffic.

Kerry,

You'd love the people's of Easter Island. They followed God's commandment to "subdue the earth" to the letter like a bunch of mindless sheep, and ended up destroying their civilization in the process.

We could do the same if we really wanted to, but hopefully we aren't stupid enough to turn "subdue" into the ultimate goal, rather than as a means to an end.

Funny how when they are polled Europeans tend to rate their happiness with life much higher than Americans.

Who cares about the opinion of people in a freakin' poll? There are hard facts out there to go off of without resorting to statistical lies.

Ya know...."when polled" most Americans would rather not pay their mortgages.

acid rain

Acid rain is soooo '80s.

smog

Smog is mostly due to geographical terrain. Yes, it takes cars to generate what BECOMES smog, but the smog itself is because of the nearby mountains. If southern CA didn't have the San Bernadino mountains, it would have the smog.

There ain't been "warming" in a full decade...since 1998...yet CO2 output has increased steadily with the addition of China and India to the major generators. Stuff THAT in a computer model and see that the sunspot activity has lessened since 1998 and so has the natural trend of temperature cycles that goes hand in hand with sunspot activity....and those 3000 diving ocean buoys that were going to prove that the oceans are heating up....say the ocean slightly cooled the last 5 years.

What we're heading for is a general cooling trend, due to sunspot activity diminishing.

Sarge,

Happiness is a subjective thing, it can't be measured by statistics, except in one measure...whether people believe they are happy or not. More Americans believe they are unhappy than Europeans.

And considering they work less on average, have their medical care covered, can count on having pension, etc. I am not surprised.

As for there not having been warming since 1998 what a bunch of BS. I live in a place where there is less permafrost in the ground then there was when I moved here, and exotic bugs destroying entire species of trees that couldn't live here 10-20 years ago because it was to cold. They can grow apples and fruit trees here in places it wasn't possible when first got here. And it didn't stop in 1998...temperatures keep climbing. So get your head out of your ass, and stop listening to those who don't know shit about the science they are trying to argue against.

2007: Tied for Hottest Year on Record So Far http://climateprogress.org/2007/06/14/2007-tied-for-hottest-year-on-record-so-far/

In fact I wouldn't be surprised if Columbia Glacier lost most its mass since it began receding 20 years ago, in the last 10 years. And that my friend is the equivalent of 9 miles x 3 miles x 3,000 feet of ice, a hell of alot of ice. Something on the order of 100,000 supertankers of ice being lost every year. If only we had so much oil coming of Alaska...

"Most Europeans don't go anywhere?"

Not on a daily basis. Not the way we do, especially in the Western states.

"Who do you think colonized most of the globe?"

A lot of DEAD white men? Perhaps you're unfamiliar with a little thing we call the PRESENT TENSE. As in "don't," as opposed to "didn't." For example, if I said "Few Germans ARE Nazis," I would be speaking of NOW, not during the 1930s, when MOST Germans were Nazis.

See how that works? Europeans haven't explored the New World all that much since we drove them out of it.

"Europeans have travel in their blood. They don't need "wheels" because they have trains and buses that will take them everywhere they need to go."

Because they don't have much GROUND to cover. Are you even PAYING ATTENTION?

"And the same is true for foreigners that come to visit Europe. I've been there 4 times and not once did I need a car to get to somewhere. And I traveled over an area equivalent to half the US in size."

Yeah, I could travel the US from end to end and top to bottom on trains if I wanted to, too. It all depends on where you want to go. We also like to go places that trains don't go. You're not going to get a train to take me from my house to Walmart. And I wouldn't want you to. I need the storage space in my car for groceries--I'm not carrying dog food and frozen chicken on the bus or the train.

We need cars. We like space. Try selling Westerners the idea of not having a car. It's fine for people in crowded cities, where everyone is already smashed together. But those of us who live a distance from the madding crowd have cars. And we're not giving them up.

""You mean their incredible anti-Semitism? Yeah, that's kind of a sticky problem, isn't it?""

"No I don't just think about Jews everytime discrimination comes up. Because Jews aren't the only people on this planet who are discriminated against."

Did I say they were? I'm just saying that I wouldn't personally feel comfortable living in Europe, primarily because of the intensity of anti-Semitism there.

""Call me crazy, but my impression is that Americans (who invented them) absolutely LOVE cars. And we have no intention of letting anything as NOT HUMAN as nature stop us from driving them. That's why we build roads through forests and tunnels through mountains. Man's destiny is to SUBDUE the Earth, not kowtow to it."

"Kerry, if you kill yourself in the process of subduing the Earth, should you continue to subdue it just for the purpose of subduing it, or should you use your brain."

We use our God-given talents and wisdom to subdue it.

"Maybe you like breathing in 2-packs of cigarettes worth of heavy metals, particulates, and tar everyday...which is what the air quality is equivalent to where I grew up...a city in the American west with less than 2-million people in its suburbs. Its not Los Angeles obviously, and its not New York City. Its a regular old town, where they last thing you'd expect would be bad air. And the funny thing is I suspect the air quality in the city would be much better than it is given its size, if the damn place weren't full of so many conservatives, who are more concerned about no regulation and the keeping the status-quo, than keeping their air safe to breath."

And yet, you have not died. Apparently, it's safe.

"And no I am not against cars. I am opposed to the unwise use of them."

And YOU are the arbiter of that wisdom, right? That's what's known as elitism. You just can't hide it, can you?

"It doesn't make alot of sense to run rail roads along every stretch of Montana and the American West in particular, but it also doesn't make alot of sense to have everybody and his dog, drive in to central LA and New York every morning, creating a freaking traffic mess that wastes hours of the day and untold amounts of pollution, when most people would be better off parking their cars on the outskirts of the city and taking trains in."

They do this a lot in New York. Some people who work in the City don't even live in the state. If that's what they want to do, more power to them. But not to the GOVERNMENT to MAKE them.

"In some large cities some people do this, but frankly we should follow the model of London, and restrict vehicle access to city cores to only those that are essential."

Again, you are a SOCIALIST ELITIST. Watch:

"It makes absolutely no sense to me to create massive traffic bottlenecks that waste everyone's time, and ruin the quality of everyone's health, just so you can have the freedom to joy ride everywhere you damn well please."

What's that you said? It makes no sense....TO ME. In other words, since YOU think something, you believe the GOVERNMENT should be empowered to see that YOUR vision is imposed on everyone ELSE. That is the DEFINITION of socialist elitism.

"Yah may call me a fascist if you like."

Oh, fascist, socialist--they're all lefties anyway. (Ask Jonah Goldberg.)

"But I prefer to look at realities, and enforce practices that offer the most benefit to the most people."

By FORCE, right? You want to give the government power over EVERY aspect of our lives. You want the same people who can't run their own elections, by their own made-up rules, to control EVERYONE'S choices in health care, education, transportation--even regulate the temperature in other people's homes! Keep your benign caretaker compulsion and let the rest of us AMERICANS alone.

"Just imagine how much money might have been saved on projects like Boston's "Big Dig", if we stayed away from worthless projects that try to ramrod more and more traffic through the center of cities that were never designed to handle modern levels of car traffic."

Just "imagine." Now THERE'S the line of the elitist. "If only....." the world would be what *I* want it to be, if only everyone would bend to my will, if only the state could force everyone to do what I think is best, the world would be perfect!

That's not the dream of America. Americans believe in making their own decisions. The government is there to do what individuals and small collections thereof (communities and states) cannot do for themselves--like build interstate highways and go to war. The rest of it is up to US.

"You'd love the people's of Easter Island. They followed God's commandment to "subdue the earth" to the letter like a bunch of mindless sheep, and ended up destroying their civilization in the process."

What are you talking about? They built a bunch of statues to their useless pagan Gods. What's that got to do with building roads and improving civilization?

"Happiness is a subjective thing, it can't be measured by statistics, except in one measure...whether people believe they are happy or not."

That actually isn't a good measurement. You have to ensure that people mean the same thing by "happy," or your data is useless. Lots of crazy people are happy. Many deeply suicidal people claim to be happy until they kill themselves. You probably think you are happy.

"More Americans believe they are unhappy than Europeans."

So what? Americans demand more of life than most people. There's nothing wrong with that. Besides, if you really believed in "happiness" statistics, you'd be thinking about the fact that Republicans are statistically happier than Democrats, and religious people happier than the non-religious, and married people happier than single people. And you'd go to church, get married, and dump the Democratic party.

"And considering they work less on average, have their medical care covered, can count on having pension, etc. I am not surprised."

That's not "happiness." That's "dependency." It doesn't make Americans happy. It makes socialists happy.

"As for there not having been warming since 1998 what a bunch of BS. I live in a place where there is less permafrost in the ground then there was when I moved here, and exotic bugs destroying entire species of trees that couldn't live here 10-20 years ago because it was to cold. They can grow apples and fruit trees here in places it wasn't possible when first got here. And it didn't stop in 1998...temperatures keep climbing. So get your head out of your ass, and stop listening to those who don't know shit about the science they are trying to argue against."

Ooh, change! How scary! How new!

"2007: Tied for Hottest Year on Record So Far http://climateprogress.org/2007/06/14/2007-tied-for-hottest-year-on-record-so-far/"

And your explanation for THIS year? It snowed in CHINA. Apparently, things are changing faster than you can keep track of.

"In fact I wouldn't be surprised if Columbia Glacier lost most its mass since it began receding 20 years ago, in the last 10 years. And that my friend is the equivalent of 9 miles x 3 miles x 3,000 feet of ice, a hell of alot of ice. Something on the order of 100,000 supertankers of ice being lost every year. If only we had so much oil coming of Alaska..."

So? Here's some news. We can MAKE ice (until the Democrats lose the recipe.)

Happiness is a subjective thing, it can't be measured by statistics, except in one measure...whether people believe they are happy or not. More Americans believe they are unhappy than Europeans.

Being "happy" isn't the same as being "poor"....YOU changed to "happiness" because you listen to statistically lying polls trying to compare 2 different cultures.......when you started talking about "poor".

"Poor" is backed up with hard facts, not polls about happiness levels.

As for the "climate"....once again...the HARD FACTS show you to be listening to the BS. You're bitimng every bite of manipulated BS and loving it. You follow the "oceans are warming" cry....and they'r enot warming at all. 3000 ocean buoys say the waters have cooled over the past 5 years. Satellite data says the atmosphere has cooled over the last 10 years. YUou should oreally go off of raw data rather than listen to those spewing the nonsense for a profit.

Temp trend over the last 5 years

Says the earth cooled at the same time the oceans cooled over the last 5 years.

Just the fact that you think a ONE YEAR tie for the "hottest year on record" is a significant piece of "climate" data show you don't know much about "climate". Hint: what year is it "tied" with.........1934. Guess what happened in 2008 thus far........record low temperatures across the globe.

Just the fact that you think REGIONAL warming is a sign of GLOBAL warming shows how ludicrous you are.

Just the fact that you think the Columbia glacier is a major player in ANYTHING ofr even a h3elluva chunk of ice shows how you will follow such a MINOR chunk of ice and think it's a global trend while ignoring the largest chunk of ice out there that is increasing in mass while your local glaciers recede. Glaciers receding is not a new phenomenon....just as glaciers advancing is not a new thing.

Didja miss that ice shelf collapse this week? It had nothing to do with global warming and everything to do with physical stress at the attachment point and volcanic activity.....temps in Antarctica have only gone up on the peninsula....where the volcanic activity is.....the rest and vast majority of the continent has gone down in temperature and waaaaay up in ice mass. Suppose ice shelves are supposed to never do anything....just keep on growing forever.

here's the temp changes in Antarctica that you will ignore. What's that? You didn't know that the sea ice data for Antarctica is about to set a new record? Already 60% ahead of last year when the sea ice set a record. Nawwww....forget hard facts...you've got regional permafrost and glaciers.

Bet you think polar bears are dying all over too...

"Globally" the Earth has warmed 0.65 degrees since coming out of the Little Ice Age 150 years ago......and "globally", we're haveing one helluva cold year thus far. RUN FOR THE HILLS!!!

Sarge,

Here is a question for you. How does a cooling trend produce the least amount of sea ice on the arctic ocean since monitoring began in the 70's?

If we're having a cooling trend how do explain that the period available to explore oil on the North Slope of Alaska has dropped by a month in the last two decades?

How do explain record rates of ice melt on Greenland (all carefully documented by satellite) if we are having a cooling trend.

I could go on and on and on....but someone with BS shoved in their ears doesn't really care.