when do people put large mileage on their cars and need lots of refueling? precisely when the electric grid is overtaxed.

anyway, call me a luddite, but it's not just fossil fuels that's the problem; we've got to get away from the concept that nobody can go anywhere without carrying a couple of tons of scrap metal everywhere, like some kind of giant mutant hermit crab. we've also got to get away from the concept that we need to overgrow the earth like the hyphae of a fungus, eliminating all wildlife that doesn't fit into the cracks between adjacent suburban lawns. in other words, we've got to figure out how to make city living attractive again. after all, it wasn't that long ago that people moved from the country to the city, and the auto was conceived as just making that more possible; the idea that it would then allow people to leave the city was kind of a surprise although we take it for granted.

and of course, the more citified we are, the more likely efficient mass transit becomes.

"But that self-delusion is the core principle of our establishment's foreign policy discussions."

indeed. you can't function effectively, when your model of the world is so badly flawed.

"Obama is ... like George Bush and just as unqualified to lead this country"

so? It's 232 years since we've had a president who wasn't male.

"look at the cost of illegals to u.s. taxpayers. And, if leftist Congress decides to make them legal, 453 Trillion

every year for taxpayers. "

well, i for one am against this plan to give 453 trillion every year to illegals. you can quote me.

Fear of Israel's "secret nuclear arsenal" doesn't seem to have influenced the Arab nations much. At most, it may have kept them from attempting a full tilt head on attempt to completely overrun the country, a la Nasser in 1967, prenuclear arsenal. I don't see that as a terrible thing. So I'm perplexed by people (who are mostly citizens of, as noted by others, the only nation actually to drop a couple of nukes on people and who still brandishes their nuclear capability) who seize on it as though it were some sort of badge of Satanism.

On the other hand, the Arab nations sure seem worried about the prospect of a nuclear Iran.

"A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm"

Did in fact Google it as you said. So, that would be the report that says

"In recent years, Israel invited active U.S. intervention in Israel’s domestic and foreign policy for two reasons: to overcome domestic opposition to "land for peace" concessions the Israeli public could not digest, and to lure Arabs — through money, forgiveness of past sins, and access to U.S. weapons — to negotiate. This strategy, which required funneling American money to repressive and aggressive regimes, was risky, expensive, and very costly for both the U.S. and Israel, and placed the United States in roles is should neither have nor want.

Israel can make a clean break from the past and establish a new vision for the U.S.-Israeli partnership based on self-reliance, maturity and mutuality — not one focused narrowly on territorial disputes. Israel’s new strategy — based on a shared philosophy of peace through strength — reflects continuity with Western values by stressing that Israel is self-reliant, does not need U.S. troops in any capacity to defend it, including on the Golan Heights, and can manage its own affairs. Such self-reliance will grant Israel greater freedom of action and remove a significant lever of pressure used against it in the past. "

From which, you interpret it that they want the US to go to war with Iran for Israel's sake.

Must be my bias, I kind of don't see it.

That's under the section labeled "A New Approach to Peace", btw.

the number of times we read about some 5 year old not being allowed on a plane because he has the same name as somebody who is flagged as a terrorist, should alone make you question the assumption that giving more data to the stupid aggressive folks will somehow 1) not be a problem and 2) in fact make us safe.

Plant evolution is a good place to start in general; their genetics is more fluid than animals, and a new species evolving happens reasonably often, both naturally or by intelligent design (human, though).

For instance, while animals must have two and only two sets of chromosomes (diploid), plants seem to function well, and even be healthier, with four sets of chromosomes (tetraploid); these species obviously came from a diploid parent by some developmental error, but they canot interbreed with that parent (three sets of chromosomes is a no-no even for plants) and that's the definition of a different species. We see such tetraploid plants in nature, and we also create them in the lab; that's where seedless watermelons come from, they're the sterile triploid offspring of an artificially created (but stable) tetraploid species and its diploid parent; like horses crossed with donkeys, you get a sterile offspring which is useful but can't reproduce, which proves that the two parents are different species.

still can't beat "Ice Age"

(hows that for a pompous subject) as far back as we know, that the easy way for a regime to stay in power with a foundering state or empire is to evoke a terrible external threat to divert and unite the public. the fact that this inevitably leads to the internal problems worsening until complete collapse ensues is not their problem, presumably. apres moi, le deluge!

in other words, i wouldn't bet on the public seeing through the republicans' sabre rattling; hasn't been a good bet for the past few thousand years, and we're not really any more enlightened, even though we think we are.

That's why he killed herself.