It seems a lot of the bloggers understand who is responsible for the energy crisis much better than the writer. Unfortunately the Democrats (liberals are controlled by the environmentalist when it comes to energy and many other things. The environmentalists are just a part of the Democratic party. The present liberal Democratic House and Senate have accomplished nothing since they gained a majority. The liberal left has always excelled in propaganda towards the goal of destroying anyone who disagrees with them. Its nothing new but just more vicious with the present congress. They talk about solving the energy crisis but I have yet to see anything they have accomplished other than to worship Al Gore.

The Democrats have nothing near a veto-proof majority, which is what they would need to achieve anything meaningful on energy or the environment with a Republican, especially one as dim-witted as Bush, in the White House. You clearly have a limited understanding of how laws get passed at the federal level.

Liberals at least understand that we are on the verge of a major crisis, while most CONservatives are only concerned with cheap quick-fixes to the problem. You are aware, aren't you, that even if we drill in new locations, eventually we will run out? The CONservative answer to the problem is to put off the inevitable.

While I have your attention, I'd like you to answer the questions I posed earlier in this thread. Seriously, I'd love to hear what a CONservative "thinks."

The short answer, of course, is that it would make sense to a point.

The other thing that gets lost here is that we are accustomed to using much more energy than we really need to. Emphasis on the word NEED. We don't NEED to use half of the electricity and fuels that we do. People lived just fine before central air. People used to live closer to work and they used to ride buses or walk.

The funny thing is, the same market forces that had everyone convinced that building an energy-dependent lifestyle will probably be the same market forces that force us to (at least in some ways) do a bit of reverse-engineering in terms of the choices we make. It's already happening - just ask a car dealer how SUVs are selling these days.

We're definitely in for a transition period of some sort, which probably will involve a whole slew of innovative ideas while we continue to mine conventional resources (while supplies last).

We built sprawling suburbs and exurbs, we can just as easily revitalize (gentrify?) the old inner cities. This is already happening in cities across the country. Basic economics as well as population growth is going to force people into higher-density housing and once that happens, mass transit becomes much more viable.

Meanwhile, lots of cornfields that have recently been plowed under to make room for tracts of McMansions that were largely marketed to people who could barely afford them (see sub-prime mortgages) have been turning into ghost subdivisions. Couple job losses with loan defaults with super-expensive commutes (because in the exurbs you have to drive everywhere) and kiss good-bye to a uniquely American, if perhaps ultimately unfortunate, lifestyle. People are going to simply have to adjust their expectations - the new American Dream will not be a split-level house on half an acre in a suburb - it will become a townhouse or a condo in a neighborhood with access to trasit and local commerce.

I share your disdain for partisan politics, but, unfortunately, the idea that Washington will rise above that just seems like so much wishful thinking.

Actually, I could see Obama asking Powell to be Secretary of State. He might not have to weigh executing the job versus being the good soldier this time.

Rare as they may be, what if the offender is a woman? Clitorectomy?

After castration, what happens to the balls? Does the state give them to the victims as a token of justice served?

Obama pretty much had to say something along those lines or else the McCain camp would have screamed bloody murder and called Obama a child-rapist lover (after reminding us that he's a muslim America-hater). He was probably trying to avoid giving the Republicans a Willie Horton moment.

Since facts seem to have a liberal bias (that is, they don't conform to superstitious bullshit), then what's a good conservative to do, but make up his own set of facts that matches up nicely with his belief system?

I'm almost glad that there are people who are so stupid that they buy this shit. Less competition for the rest of us. We need to keep a segment of the population happy to exist on the lowest rungs of the ladder - they come in handy.

In addition to its conservative fan base, articles like this one attract curious people who want to visit the conservapedia to see just how ridiculous it is. I first got turned on to it a couple of years ago and it was fun for a while to see how these clowns redefine their world. It can be quite fun, sort of like perusing the Urban Dictionary http://www.urbandictionary.com/ .

Now, as other here noted, one of the problems with democracy (!) is that if you have a population of morons, you will have no shortage of morons elected to public office. It's getting to the point where I'm ready to support some sort of weighted vote system (no, I'm not sure exactly how that would work). Some people clearly have a much better understanding of what goes on in this world than others do, but everybody's votes all count the same.

What the hell is that (other than hilarious)? Is that a condition where just your ass is gay?