That is devolution, not evolution. I believe in devolution and extinction as agents of change because it is a demonstrable fact.

In evolutionary science there is no such thing as "devolution." It is a non-sensical term because evolution does not have to progress from less to more complex. Anybody with a more than passing knowledge of evolutionary science knows this. Because it's a non-sensical term, I am not really surprised that you believe in it.

So that you can get your tiny brain up to speed, may I recommend the following article in wikipedia. It's simply written so that even you might have a chance at understanding it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biological_devolution

Pay particular attention to the section on evolution misconceptions. You'll feel most at home there.

The main problem with offshore drilling in the US is that it chases the tail of the problem rather than addressing the main cause.

It takes 8-10 years for oil companies to develop oil leases before the first drop of oil actually flows.

Offshore drilling will not produce a large percentage of domestic oil production, let alone significantly address the problem of the US getting most of its oil from foreign suppliers.

Oil companies already have access and leases to large offshore areas in the US that they still haven't developed. For example, of the 90 million acres in the Gulf of Mexico that oil companies have leases to, they have only developed 20 million acres. 70 million acres in the Gulf have not been developed and are not producing any oil, even though they could.

The problem is not one of not enough access to offshore areas; the problem is the lack of resources and strategic thinking to keep up with spiraling demand for oil.

Because of the lead time required to develop and produce oil in new areas, where do you think the oil demand will be in 10 years? When new wells come online in 10 years, the demand will make their contributions insignificant.

This is why a more strategic, systemic approach to the problem is warranted. Because of the lead times involved, and the large shift required in how we think about energy, the free market will not be able to solve this problem on its own unless the government puts incentives in place to encourage alternate forms of competing energy, enacts higher mileage requirements for autos, encourages energy conservation as a way of life, etc.

The current political exploitation of this lack of a strategic energy policy is the equivalent of selling a shot glass of water for $100 to a man dying of thirst. It really doesn't solve the bigger problem; indeed its main purpose is to distract people from the larger issue.

Oil, as a primary energy source, will go away one day. The question is: will we go away with it?

Developing new offshore oil drilling is, for the states that have these assets, a risk/benefit analysis.

Currently states with offshore drilling leases do not share in a significant part of the revenue generated by this oil. They do have increased employment and a mild boost to their local economies supporting offshore drilling.

But significantly, that offshore oil is then sold at global market value, and since it is a miniscule contribution to the global supply, it will not contribute to oil price stability or decline. Unless of course you want to nationalize the oil industry :)

However the offshore drilling states bear a large amount of real and perceived risk. When something goes wrong and you have miles of shoreline covered by oil, massive marine life kills, damaged fisheries, and destroyed tourist industries, the constituents of that state will ask their politicians if it was worth it.

If the answer is not a resounding "yes" then you have a problem. That's what happened in California.

Well Kirk, you show a typical yet disturbing display of binary thinking. For you it's either drill everywhere, or do away with all oil, gas, coal, nuclear, etc. No sir, no middle ground for you. You're happy to see 90% of the population die.

"You're either with us or against us."

Unfortunately this type of binary thinking, this false dichotomy, is one of the main reasons we face the problems we do. Not all problems can be reduced down to "heads or tails." If you don't have a good grasp on the ever changing problem domain, you're not going to come up with anything constructive or useful.

The problem is not so much that oil prices are high now, it's that they will be much higher in the future, and we have no strategy to move us off of oil. And even if we could find all the oil we need for the next 100 years, by burning it we'll release enough carbon in the atmosphere to cook us several times over.

This is the changing problem domain that we are failing to adapt to, and when oil is $400 a barrel, and climate change has displaced large parts of the human population, then maybe you'll get your plagues and riots.

Unfortunately Ms. Soderberg's opinion piece shows the shocking level of degeneration of our newspapers in general, and the LA Times in particular.

Why is it that someone like Ms. Soderberg can write 750 words in a national newspaper lying about the FISA amendment, and not one editor will actually look at the bill and fact check her statements?

It's more of the Joe Klein syndrome: we "have neither the time nor legal background to figure out who's right."

Well then, what possible value are they adding to this discussion? Adding more noise and disinformation to the conversation does every citizen a disservice.