We simply don't yet know how to efficiently harness the sun and the wind and whatever else might provide energy in the future.

Sure we do, if the price of oil is high enough. "Efficient" has very different meanings if oil is $5/b on the one hand or $100/b on the other. And if you add to the price a quantity to account for the costs of warming the earth, then solar is even more attractive.

.....must include looking and drilling in and around the US.

Even if there is not much oil? Why? Profit for the oil companies?

But this does not mean that there is not a substantial group of conservatives and liberals who can reasonably consider the evidence on any particular issue and maybe even agree on some of them.

Sounds good. But you will need an agreement as to what the evidence is. I think I would not be able to agree with your version of the "evidence". Watching FOX and listening to Rush, well, does some of your evidence come from those sources, or that just for fun?

Only real proof is what the oil companies experts say about whether there is oil or not. Fact is US is going to have to drill for more oil or find an alternate fuel, and an alternate fuel isn't looking real good at the present time, so let's try drilling and who gives a crap about the caribou.

I do.

The estimate of the amount of oil under the north slope has a good degree of reliability. It is not a lot. It is not going to solve our problems, but it could be profitable.

(Hence, our communication sucks.)

I was suggesting that Salon readers who did not understand this article (there was at least one commenter in this category) should look up some terms and read some intro material. I did not suggest that everyone do this, but I do think that everyone should make an effort to learn about the important issues. No text books, this stuff is not that hard!

Spin is spin, no matter how you look at it.

Rush and Corsi are not spinmeisters; they are liars. There is an important difference: communicating the truth requires some cooperation on the part of the listener, but lying can be successful if you play on the prejudices of your audience.

wrote:

A lack of restraint would be outright genocide. Cambodian killing fields. Holocausts. Massacring millions.

I think you missed the point entirely. Our military is maxed out fighting the kind of wars that the administration believes to further the interest of the US empire. To claim it is showing restraint because it is not "massacring millions" is vile. Using every weapon in our disposal to "kill, kill, kill" does not further those interests, in their belief, and so your scale of restraint is useless as an indicator of goodness. I do not think that anyone in the WH has lost any sleep over a half million dead Iraqis; that is the calibration point that sets the scale.

wrote:

A real empire stays within workable boundaries, extracting wealth from its colonies to enrich its homeland. We seem to have more of a talent at globe-spanning willful destruction, squandering our homeland's bounty overseas: less Caesar Augustus or Trajan, more drunk sailor on leave.

I have believed for some time that real "classical" empires are no longer possible. But some folks still try; if the US is an empire "wannabe", so be it. With our multitude of military bases, huge military budget, and aggressive actions, we are what passes for an empire in this age. It is perhaps fitting as the Star Wars enterprise dies out, its cartoonish non-classical definition of empire bears some resemblance to what the US has become.

Seriously, what is the purpose of of White House reporters, if not to distribute propaganda? The jobs involves no actual journalism, and the public would be better served if there were none. In the rare case of a presidential news conference, the troops could come rushing in. Standard White House press releases should go on the web only, where everyone has an equal chance to locate the lies and misinformation.

Your sense of humor is much better than mine. I find Fox News is very disturbing . Someone a page back (MikeNY?) expressed something similar about entertainment value. But it is more than that. It is propaganda. It serves the interests of those who own the media, as well as making a profit. Sometimes the desire to fill a niche and make a better profit brings in a liberal, but that is unusual.

By most counts I've seen Americans really hate negative campaigning...

Then how come it works so well? Did you think the GG and Kitt analogy through? It makes no sense.

Lately, I've been thinking there's another kind of dog whistle out there, that you just can't hear unless you're ignorant.

Similar thoughts have crossed my mind, and it is getting hard to reject them. And you said it better than I could. (But be careful, someone from the other side of the pond will tell you that you should have used "which", not "that".)

As the CNN morons kept saying "this is a wasted evening", I said " dems, do not upstage the main event." They did not, and it was better than anyone could have hoped for. This was the result of careful thinking, long preparation, and a wonderful creativity. Michelle, IMO not the greatest natural orator, nonetheless delivered the greatest speech. Really well done!

The country has two coasts, a middle, and a western part.

... what could Ronnie do other than take credit? Sure, we had to find new enemies, but there was nothing anyone could about that.

..who McCain's foreign advisors are? I do not think he is capable of making the decisions himself. We have just had about eight years of a president who was not in charge; the precedent is established for the Repubs. Who is running the operation?