Most of all, why did the rebel Cylons let D'Anna take control and lead them into a confrontation with their new allies?

The plan originally was to take the humans aboard the Basestar hostage. Natalie had a change of heart before going over to the Galactica (and getting shot). Then Roslin had D'Anna brought straight to her following her "rescue" from the Hub, confirming that the humans really can't be trusted. D'Anna - who the other Cylons had always looked to as a leader (particularly the Sixes and the Twos) - probably made the right call, taking humans hostage and waiting for the final four to come over. She knew Roslin would never let the Cylons learn the way to Earth.

Lee made a different decision though, and it avoided a lot of bloodshed. Good thing too, since Earth turns out to be . . . not worth dying for and not worth protecting. Mary McDonnell deserves an Emmy just for the way she says "Earth" in the final scene of the episode.

It'll be interesting to see how the fleet reacts to this. Hope of finding Earth is perhaps all that's held it together. How long can they continue to survive running thru space? And what about the Cylons? They sacrificed everything they had - their fleet, their cohesion, their immortality - to get to the final five and find Earth. In a way, they're even bigger losers than the humans, who are no worse off than they were before. How are the Cylons going to react to this disaster? D'Anna looked to be the most upset of them all standing on the ruins of Earth.

No, you're wrong. There was something of the sort. The old hybrid, in Razor, said: "Kara Thrace will lead the human race to its end. She is the herald of the apocalypse, the harbinger of death. They must not follow her.

Which Kara has done. She's lead the human race to the dead planet Earth. She was the herald of the apocalypse - the Cylon apocalypse. Their war started not long after she returned.. She was the harbinger of death, too - Cylons now die, permanently. That's why the old hybrid didn't want the humans to follow her.

As European governments continue to raise taxes to make the numbers work, their companies will find it increasingly difficult to compete with the US and Asia.

Why raise taxes? Just raise wages. If you have two guys working for $100,000 each and paying 10% of their income in taxes, and one of them retires, just pay the other guy $200,000 a year and you'll still be raking in the same $20,000 a year in taxes.

It's not like those retirees won't be consuming goods and services, helping to support the remaining workers (supply & demand). In addition, when they do finally kick the bucket they'll be leaving behind inheritance, which can also be taxed. (That's my favorite form of taxation - taxes I don't have to pay 'till I'm dead.)

If you look at what we did with nuclear power in the 70s and 80s, I think it is clear that environmentalists are to blame for the decline of the nuclear power industry in the US.

Only if you're on crack.

Nuclear power declined because nuclear power plants are way too expensive per kw/h generated when compared to either coal or gas-fired plants. It's as simple as that. Far from being "too cheap to meter", nuclear power is too expensive to bother with, at least so long as power generation is left to the private sector.

The French use a lot of nuclear power, but then they don't have much gas or coal, and don't rely on the private sector to generate their electricity. They're socialist, and there's a lot more government involvement in their energy sector - they don't expect it to necessarily turn a big profit, but see it as a crucial part of their national infrastructure that allows other industries - and their citizens - to flourish.

As we run out of gas and coal it might finally make economic sense to deploy nuclear power, but with the cost of wind, solar and geothermal energy all declining, they probably make a lot more sense. Also, the United States is one of the most energy-inefficient industrial nations on the planet. The easiest, cheapest "source" of energy for us to exploit would be conservation, and we could probably boost our energy "production" by upwards of 30% simply by investing in it. Up to a point conservation will have the biggest bang for the buck.

And I'm really getting tired of hearing the same old liberal talking point of we can't drill ourselves out of this.

Reality has a liberal bias. Deal with it.

Conservative idiots have had 30 years of government control now, and in that time they've bankrupted the state and destroyed the country's industrial and financial services sectors. Private debt has reached levels not seen since the last Depression, energy costs have skyrocketed, healtcare costs are out of control, we're hated in much of the world and we're involved in a multi-trillion dollar quagmire in the Middle East. I'm frankly not in the mood for any lectures from rightwing trailer trash dittohead idiots. You clowns need to sit down. shut the fuck up and let the adults drive. It's now perfectly clear the Right has no idea how to govern, and only a tenuous connection with reality. Go back to playing with the contents of your diapers - it's all you're fit for.

Most useful - if frightening - thing I've seen on Salon in ages. The Transportation as a % of Income map for Las Vegas is startling.