Fan in Chicago

I have not heard the speaches but will comment on your points. I do agree that oil is a commodity in the international marketplace. The advantage we get by discovering our own sources of oil is that we become less dependent on other nations, some hostile, for our oil and gas needs. Also, directionally, it reduces a 'war and chaos' premium, if you will, in the price of oil. Another pipeline being blown up in Nigeria will surely have an upward effect on the price of oil. On to the topic of electricity and developing sources to supply an enhanced grid - it will all come down to economics & politics. Nuclear - Can we get more nuclear plants approved at a fast enough place ? Will the communities support nuclear plants in their backyard ? Solar - Can price of wafers be brought down to generate the amount of electricity we are talking about ? Also this needs serious real estate (as do algae farms) in locations where there is plentiful sunshine. Wind - Cannot be a base-load source as it is dependent on the availability & force of the blowing wind. Also is pretty expensive and economically infeasible without subsidies. With the higher price of natural gas, perhaps wind farms become more attractive but again, they are supplemental to the base load source. Finally, serious NIMBY issues exist. Geo-thermal: Technology needs a lot of development and siting of such plants will be critical. No matter what the electricity source, the efficiency of transporting electricity from the plants to the end user has to be increased. The attractiveness of fuel cells was that they could generate power at source greatly reducing the grid losses. Finally, batteries need to be advanced to increase miles per charge and also drop in price to make the entire value chain competitive with hydrocarbon based power generation.

He is holding the wood, his brother swings an axe, misses and all Josh gets is six stitches ?

I am with you pBills. Blue, I agree to disagree with you on this issue. I did not see the satire and humor, you did. No more arguments or defense from my side.

How likely is someone to be flipping through the channels and happening to see some satire that doesn't work but the viewer finds offensive. Compare that to the likelihood of a casual passer-by catching a glimpse of the mag cover. Fault ? Not everybody who does not appreciate the cartoon or takes it out of context is at fault. In fact, I don't even think it is the fault of the cartoonist - the only one I blame for the negative press and publicity this is getting are the editors of the magazine themselves. IMHO, they knew exactly how this situation would unravel and resorted to it anyway to get some free publicity. Finally, Blue, this is the point I originally made - if you and others have to explain it to people from so many different angles, the cartoon missed its point. I can agree that it was intended for the people, such as you, who can take it in context and appreciate its intelligence. But then, it does not belong on the cover. The New Yorker has resorted to attention grabbing tricks better suited for the National Enquirer.

The difference between South Park and this cover is this - the viewers/fans of South Park see the satire in the context of their knowledge of the show's genre. The cover of New Yorker is seen by casual people. As someone else suggested, if the cartoon was inside the mag along with the article, this would be a non-issue. Again, I can appreciate satire most of the time but I see neither humor nor satire in the picture. He put all the pieces in there but (to me) failed to depict it in a way that implies a mocking of those that accuse the Obamas of what they are not. BTW, I did not find that Horsey cartoon funny either.

If the cartoonist's depiction has to be explained by & to so many people, the artist has failed in his attempt at satire.

So that avatar is you after the magic ?

Is that her in the avatar ? B word ...

I only run to the grocery store occasionally and it shocks me to see the price of bread, milk, butter compared to a year or two back. Now my wife is out of town for some time and I went for a full grocery shopping. When I saw the overall prices, I can see why my wife had been complaining about the monthly budget not being adequate. Color commentary - We also now are just beginning to appreciate why portions are small and wastage is less in other countries where food uses up a significantly higher percent of a family's disposable income. This page has a link to a spreadsheet of world data: http://www.ers.usda.gov/Data/InternationalFoodDemand/ Of the 9.8% we spend on food, 5.7% is 'at home' and 4.1% is away from home.

I am glad Kelly stayed retired.

I really wish he would stay retired or just go away. This soap opera is irritating and more so because I am sure this story isn't over yet.

Rest assured when he gets out, he would have discovered the Almighty, regretted his actions, be a changed man and itching to do good in this world.

If the pic on that license is yours, fitted shirts ain't going to do much for ya. * Yeah I know that license is probably from Superbad.

Welcome to the board (as poster). And, I suggest you put your name in the hat to replace Jauron.

Can I take that to the bank ?

You think this thread is a pointer to a tough crowd ? Just wait till you start weighing in on Bills related topics ... I am kidding. Welcome to the board. Be balanced in your posting and you will soon be part of the community.

Blueprint for screwing up your life continues ... http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/news?slug=ap-v...p&type=lgns

What happens when you open the door after you had your smoke ? Are they relying on the car fabric & clothes to absorb the smoke as you exhale ? Or do they have an issue with exposure to a lit up cig ?

I think there are two issues here. First of all, talking on a cell phone engages ones attention and takes attention away from the task of driving. The same can be said for an active discussion with a passenger. The least you can hope for is that a driver pays attention to his driving. Crappy driver or otherwise, I think talking on the cell phone makes one worse than he/she is already. It is immaterial whether it is hands-free or not. The second hand is mainly required if one is driving a stick shift which 90+% in this country do not. The second issue is whether there should be a law against it. And I personally think there should not be. Implementing a law against driving while talking implicitly assumes that there is enough information to prove that the attention diversion from talking on a cell is more than due to other causes such as talking to your passenger or eating a sandwich. Hence, I oppose a law.

That part would be true with or without the aforementioned quote.

Wait till he has a break out year and then see him sulk for a big raise.

I fell into your trap.

There are summer and winter blends of gasoline which are mandated in most parts of the US. Initially the regulation was for high smog areas but was adopted by several states. Technically, the reid vapor pressure (RVP) of the gasoline is mandated to be lower in summer than in winter by changing the way gasoline is blended at the refinery. What this means is that in summer the gasoline is less prone to evaporating thus reducing the ozone depleting compounds in the air. Formulations typically flip back and forth on May 1 and Oct 1. My unscientific data (I track mileage per fill-up) shows that winter formulation gives a slightly higher mpg than the summer one with similar ambient temperatures. A side note is that I also believe the ethanol blends give lower mpg.

Okay. I will see Hancock on July 4th which is Independence Day which is also a movie starring Will Smith who is the star of Hancock. Shed any light on your tunnel of darkness ?

Thanx. You understood my play on words.