If I remember correctly, the pipeline itself is a waste of taxpayer money. It's been a while and my memory isn't great, but I believe that there were 2 options for transporting Natural Gas from Alaska to the lower 48.

One option was to build a pipeline to the southern coast of Alaska to move natural gas to a terminal, where it could then be loaded unto Ships.

A second, much cheaper option was to build a shorter pipeline that connected with an existing pipeline than ran through Canada. This second option, which was rejected, cost much less and would have allowed the natural gas from Alaska flow directly into the lower 48 states, removing the need for large tanker ships.

As I understand it, the Canadian option was rejected because it provided far less benefit to Alaska.

This pipeline is very similar to the "Bridge to no where". It's a boondoggle and benefits Alaska and the companies that own the tanker ships (oil companies) at the expense of the rest of the country.

Todd Palin, Anti-American Secessionist and Spouse of Sarah Palin

Todd Palin, Anti-American Secessionist and Spouse of Sarah Palin

Todd Palin, Anti-American Secessionist and Spouse of Sarah Palin

Todd Palin, Anti-American Secessionist and Spouse of Sarah Palin

Todd Palin, Anti-American Secessionist and Spouse of Sarah Palin

Those rallies are more like revival meetings than they are political rallies. To the bible-thumpers, Palin represents salvation. She's like one of those TV preachers without the message.

Let her run in 2012 and in 2016 for that matter. It's one thing for this act to play for a few months, but let's see how she does in the starring role of a presidential campaign. Let's see how she does under a microscope for 2 years. Let's see how she does when her Republican Primary opponents pull some of the Rove-like tactics. Let's see how she answers allegations about her husband and the AIP.

She will get the same supporters that backed Romney and Hucklebee and the bible thumpers that backed Bush. But unlike Bush, she doesn't have the political connections that comes with being the son of a President.

What will all of the old time republicans do if the Palinites rule the Republican party. What will George Will and all the other classic republicans do when the Republican Party begins to dominated by the religous right? It's one thing to use the religious right to forward a ring wing agenda, but what will these people do when their party is overwhelmed by religous nutcases?

The scary aspect of the bible thumpers is that they donate to causes. They supported the minitries of Jerry Falwell, PTL, Pat Robertson, all of the mega-churches.

I admit, it's been a while since I spent much time in a church and I don't pal around much with those that have been born again. But I was raised down the street from the 2nd largest Southern Baptist church in America and have spent many a summer day in vacation bible schools of several denominations. So I consider myself a bit of an expert on the religious right. I don't recall sarcasm being high on the list of popular Christian traits. I don't recall many sermons about being snarly or even downright lying.

When did snarliness and sarcasm become the stuff of Christian rock stardom?

And people in this country wonder how religious fanatics rise to power in the middle east.

Bunch of sheep. They would jump off a cliff if their pastor told them it's what Jesus wanted them to do. They are just a sliver away from the radical jihadist in the Middle East. The only difference is the jihadist get it over with quick while these people are committing a slow suicide.

It's a mistake to judge someone solely by what they say - it's what they do that's important. Using derogatory terms for the various racial and ethic groups doesn't necessarily make a person a racist. It makes them crass and rude, but not necessarily a racist. Just like using a derogatory term for a women doesn't make a person misogynistic and using a derogatory term for an overwieght person doesn't mean they hate fat people. I'm not saying it OK to use these terms, but being crass, rude, and/or vulgar is not the same as being a racist or a sexist.

Are people really trying to make the case that the aggressive interrogation tactics used by the US on terrorist suspects is on the same level as those committed by "Chuckie" Taylor? Are you people kidding me? I agree that aggressive tactics used by the US cross a line but I also think that there are several more lines to go before it reaches Chuckie Taylor.

The article mentions waterboarding by the US and fails to mention any tactics employed by Mr. Taylor except to say it goes beyond torture. I would think Mr. Taylor engaged in tactics such as gang rape and chopping off of limbs on a mass scale, to mention just a few.

Get a grip.

You can't see that there is an ocean of difference between waterboarding and chopping the limbs off people? You people can't see the difference between waterboarding and mass rape? Christ, I'm not saying the waterboarding is OK. I dead against it. And no one will be more glad to see the end of Cheney and Bush. But when people suggest that those 2 are in the same league as Chuckie Taylor, they lose all credibility. In fact, it diminshes the severity of the crimes committed by Taylor.

Granted, the policies of Bush and Cheney regarding treatment of prisoners are reprehensible, but there is a special place in Hell for the likes of Chuckie Taylor.