Oops, did I say "conservation"? What a novel idea.

Let's start with what we know to be wasteful practices. How boring, but let's do it anyway.

By far our heaviest use of oil is for transportation. Have we really tried to build more fuel efficient cars, trucks, and SUVs? Not really because the national average MPG performance of these vehicles has not risen appreciably over the past two decades. As a matter of fact, given the popularity of SUVs and fashion pickup trucks our gas usage per capita has risen.

Now this is because we Americans feel that we have a right to be wasteful. And we waste plenty.

So here's a simple idea that just might work: Stop wasting finite resources (like oil, for instance). Here's another simple idea: Let's seriously develop mass transportation via high-speed rail. It will be expensive but we have spent billions on an unecessary war so let's put that money to work for our benefit instead.

As soon as everyone realizes that expensive gas is here to stay, we'll see the beginnings of real conservation.

Drilling for more oil seems to be the first choice of Republicans and conservatives. This is because the Republican Party is owned by the energy industry. And most politicians are afraid to tell the truth about the need to conserve. Leadership in this area is lacking.

Isn't language to that effect part of the S.C. ruling?

Nothing will prevent enacting and enforcing local laws and ordinances against the unsafe or illegal use of firearms.

This ruling does not allow people to carry loaded firearms on their person, or in their vehicles unless permitted by local laws.

There are so many guns available now that nothing the S.C. does will make a difference anyway. People that want guns already have them.

The S.C. ruling does not say that you have a right to carry a loaded weapon in public, in the workplace, or in a school.

Relax.

As long as the unborn is kept alive via the umbilical cord it should be obvious that it is a part of the mother, and not under the jurisdiction of religious fanatics.

Go figure.

Isn't religion just a theory? Belief must be based on faith, as there is no hard evidence to support the existence of a god.

Let's see. Billions of humans burning fossil fuels, burning trash, burning forests, pouring chemicals into the oceans, lacing the earth with toxic fertilizers, overfishing the oceans, polluting sources of fresh water, building upon and paving over good land and whatever else we do to our world in the quest for riches.

Will all of this have an effect on the Earth? Will it pollute the air?

Can we, at least, agree on one thing? Can we agree that to continue this activity will have terrible consequences that may not be undone?

Because, if we can't agree to save this planet we are handing our children an uncertain future.

John Wesley reported on Albert Einstein's "Theory of Religion".

Perhaps Albert would disagree with you?

It seems to me that a former POW is no more qualified for a political office than a person that has never been a POW.

I've served in the US Army and that experience does not qualify me for anything except a respect for what modern weaponry can do and a profound belief that (unlike Bush, Cheney, McCain and others voting to invade Iraq) military action should be the last resort.

Having served under a typical military command structure, I can find no similarity between that and a democracy. By its very nature, military command must be undemocratic in order to be effective. And, since we have a democratic form of government, militay service is not a qualification to be president.

The entire argument around military experience and POW incarceration should not be taking place. It is a distraction from the real issues dealing with a world in which terrorism is the new battlefield and we have proven ourselves to be totally unprepared for conflict in that arena.

I will respect the candidate espousing the greatest understanding of the nature of the threats against America and how to deal with those threats.

Why are "smart cars" usually dorky looking? Imagine if they would build something with a little sex appeal that gets great mileage.

Oh, and if they would price them so that it doesn't take 350 years of gas savings to justify the premium price.

On the other hand, you can park it on your front porch.

Did he volunteer to fight in a war that was caused by a very suspicious "need" to prevent South Vietnam from being taken over by communists?

South Vietnam had no geographic strategic value so it was suspected that the need for military intervention was based upon American commercial interests in the area.

Without any military threat to the USA a reason had to be fabricated to get us involved. This was done via the Gulf of Tonkin Incident, and the rest is history and 55,000 dead Americans.

McCain's personal behavior as a POW was certainly exemplary. But for what?

It should be pretty obvious by now that objective or complete reporting is not easy to find in the TV broadcast media any more.

I listen to NPR and surf the web. Snopes.com is a valuable resource for checking the veracity of news reports.

TV for the most part is a huge wasteland.

Turn it off.

After reading your response to evanchris I began reading your other posts.

They are brilliant !

If we play this right, we'll be rich!

As near as I can tell, Obama has not adopted any of the racist or black separatist views as preached in his church.

McCain, on the other hand, appears not to have learned from our experience in Vietnam.

Please check your statement against the facts on that matter presented in Snopes.com.

The reported impending North Vietnamese surrender is false.