About Me

Name: Rich
Biography
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

Where are the conservative editorial writers at the Sarasota Herald-Tribune?

Posted by Rich on Sunday, February 03, 2008 3:58:25 PM
Does the Sarasota Herald-Tribune have on staff, or as a regular guest columnist, a conservative? The answer is of course - nein,nicht, no, and negative!

There is hope. The New York Times hired Bill Kristol. Maybe the Herald-Tribune will hire me? Write them and see what they say.

They do have a bevy of liberals and they trotted them out this week. We have John Hamner and Waldo Proffitt to tow the Democratic Party line.

John writes the editorial "Uneasiness across the nation". Waldo writes "Crist wins an unofficial victory".

John begins by pandering to the MoveOn.org, Code Pink and Daily Kos crowd by stating, "I am not, as I think I have said before, a great fan of El Presidente, the Bush with ears who is scheduled to occupy the White House for just under another year." The Bush with ears? Come on John just say you hate the _ _ _ and be done with it.

John then goes on to raise the gender and race cards. He says, "But we can at least look forward to the Democrats' upcoming primaries -- the Republicans seeming to have found unity at the starting gate. A contest for the nomination between a white woman and a minority man will give a whole lot of prejudices a chance to rumble."

So is John finally admitting that the Democratic Party has prejudices? Are Democrats both racist and Hillaryphobic?

John thinks so and even thinks us Republicans and Independents are too. He says, "I would hazard a guess that whichever wins the nomination will have won all that he or she is going to win. The nation has not yet reached that level of acceptance, I fear."

Thanks John for thinking we Americans won't judge Clinton and Obama on their character but rather we will reject them because of their race or gender. John you have just become a card carrying member of the "loony left".

But wait we have Waldo's editorial.

First Waldo did not give this blog credit for posting the possibility of a McCain/Crist ticket before he did. We wrote about this in our January 31st column "McCain-Crist Presidential Ticket in 2008".

Waldo describes how Rudy Giuliani and John Edwards dropped out of the race. Any bias in his statements?

About Rudy, Waldo writes, "Florida proved that Giuliani was not a viable candidate with or without independents, while McCain did very well, thank you, with registered Republicans. Giuliani got the message and withdrew as a candidate, throwing his support to McCain, and leaving only three men to compete for the rest of the campaign."

Waldo on Edwards, "On the Democratic side, John Edwards,, a likable and viable candidate, had two opponents of historic proportions -- the first woman and the first black ever to have a serious chance for the presidency."

Notice the bias? Last names for Republicans, first and last name for Edward with a link to stories about Edwards. Giuliani "not a viable candidate", Edwards "a likable and viable candidate".

Edwards had two opponents of "historic" proportions? Historic proportions? America's mayor of New York city on 9/11 is not a historic figure?

Both John and Waldo play the race and gender cards in their columns. Are there any cards left in their deck?

Finally, Waldo chastises Florida's taxpayers for passing overwhelmingly Amendment 1. Saying, "I think Floridians made a mistake we will regret in a few years." "We", did Waldo vote Yes on Amendment 1 too?

It is time for the Herald-Tribune to rename its editorial page after the Daily Kos. How about we call it the "Daily Sarasota Herald-Tribune" or D-SHT for short.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Development by consensus? Charrette?

Posted by Rich on Sunday, February 03, 2008 10:24:58 AM
The City of Sarasota and our local paper the Herald-Tribune are suddenly pushing a process called charrette. Concerning the Herald-Tribune editorial, "Conversation is the starter; concerted action is the desired goal", we agree that action is louder (and cheaper) than words.

However, the editorial speaks favorably about an effort by a local developer, the city government and a local neighborhood to hold a "charrette".

According the Wikipedia, charrette refers to any collaborative session in which a group of designers drafts a solution to a design problem. It has come to mean for the anti-growth cabal and NIMBYs (not in my backyard groups), a way to delay growth, make development more complex and make consensus the determining factor for the use of private property not the owner.

All of this flies in the face of markets determining what is built, where and when. It is an affront to capitalism, where the developer evaluates the market, makes an investment (a bet if you will) and builds something that will benefit him (profit), the community (business or housing to meet consumers needs), the economy (create jobs and wealth) and government (broaden the tax base).

We have a situation in Sarasota, Florida where local businessman Ron Burks purchased a 9+ acre property and made a series of development proposals to the City of Sarasota. But he's been unable to proceed because of opposition from nearby neighborhoods, city planners and a sufficient number of city commissioners.

There is nothing new about this three way conversation anytime something is built in Sarasota, Florida or anywhere else in the United States. Actually, this conversation is really a two against one argument with the property owner typically on one side and city planners and neighborhood associations on the other.

Suddenly comes along the idea of let's hold a - charrette. Let's all come together, hold hands and via consensus decide what the design of this development will be.

This takes property rights away from the owner, the decision making process away from the city commission and the needs of the community at large out of the equation.

Planning for growth has become more and more onerous at the local level. More regulations, more permitting, more public hearings, more reviews by city planners, more input by "interested" groups or individuals, more lawyers, more architects, more public relations specialists and of course more time. This all leads to higher costs, slower response to market trends and higher prices for consumers. Time is after all money.

Now we add to this onerous process the "charrette".

There are two definitions for the French word charrette. They both mean cart. One is the cart that carried student architects to class frantically working on their designs at the last minute. The second is the cart that carried the condemned to the guillotine.

Last minute frantic attempts to pull together a design and heading to one's death. Neither are good ideas for local development or city planning. We elected city commissioners to make decisions. Action is needed, not more words.

What do you think?
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Middle Class America much better off under President Bush

Posted by Rich on Sunday, February 03, 2008 8:35:23 AM
Thanks to Don O'Nesky from Sarasota, Florida for pointing out this fascinating information.

The tables below show how much federal income taxes Americans paid at the end of the Clinton Administration and currently under the Bush Administration. The numbers are striking. The middle class is paying much less under President Bush across the board.

You will hear many Democrats running for President and in Congress say that the middle class is worse off under President Bush than they were under President Clinton. That is simply a lie.

The numbers may be verified by going to TaxFoundation.org.

Taxes under Clinton 1999

Single making 30K - tax $8,400
Single making 50K - tax $14,000
Single making 75K - tax $23,250
Married making 60K - tax $16,800
Married making 75K - tax $21,000
Married making 125K - tax $38,750

Taxes under Bush 2008

Single making 30K - tax $4,500
Single making 50K - tax $12,500
Single making 75K - tax $18,750
Married making 60K- tax $9,000
Married making 75K - tax $18,750
Married making 125K - tax $31,250

Across the board we are all better off under Republicans.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Vote Yes on Florida's Amendment 2 - Marriage Protection Act

Posted by Rich on Saturday, February 02, 2008 9:34:38 AM
You are probably wondering what is Florida's Amendment 2.

There is an AP article in the Sarasota Herald-Tribune titled Gay marriage ban gets on ballots. The article, in the typical AP liberal slant on issues, has less than ten words on the Amendment 2 ballot initiative and spends the remainder of the article lamenting the anti-growth ballot initiative by Hometown Democracy failing to get enough signatures.

Since the Herald-Tribune and the AP will not tell you about Amendment 2, we will.

This is the Text of Florida Marriage Protection Amendment:
“Inasmuch as marriage is the legal union of only one man and one woman as husband and wife, no other legal union that is treated as marriage or the substantial equivalent thereof shall be valid or recognized.”

On February 1st the State Division of Elections Director called John Stemberger, State Chairman of the Florida4Marriage.org campaign and informed him that the Marriage Protection Amendment was officially certified for the November 4, 2008 ballot with a total of 649,346 petitions certified. 611,009 are needed by law.

Stemberger said, "We are grateful to God first, and to our supporters second, for this amazing victory. What our people did was simply remarkable. They collected 92,000 petitions in about 13 days. That is about 7,000 petitions per day. No paid petition collectors could ever match the force of this effort. This is real proof for grassroots momentum for marriage as the union of one man and one woman in Florida."

So the people of Florida have put Amendment 2 on the November 4, 2008 ballot for all of us to consider and vote on. That is the American way. Let the people decide.

We have come out strongly in favor of Amendment 2.

Let us present ten principles on why defining marriage as between a man and a woman is critical to the health of our society and strength of our nation as outlined by the Witherspoon Institute:

1. Marriage is a personal union, intended for the whole of life, of husband and wife.

2. Marriage is a profound human good, elevating and perfecting our social and sexual nature.

3. Ordinarily, both men and women who marry are better off as a result.

4. Marriage protects and promotes the well-being of children.

5. Marriage sustains civil society and promotes the common good.

6. Marriage is a wealth-creating institution, increasing human and social capital.

7. When marriage weakens, the equality gap widens, as children suffer from the disadvantages of growing up in homes without committed mothers and fathers.

8. A functioning marriage culture serves to protect political liberty and foster limited government.

9. The laws that govern marriage matter significantly.

10. "Civil marriage" and "religious marriage" cannot be rigidly or completely divorced from one another.

For a full explanation of each of these principles read, "Marriage and the Public Good: Ten Principles".

It is our fundamental belief that strong societies and strong nations are built upon the foundation of strong traditional families. Voting Yes on Amendment 2 will protect Florida's traditional families.

What do you think?
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (3) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

The fear mongering Sarasota Herald-Tribune

Posted by Rich on Saturday, February 02, 2008 9:31:16 AM
Watch out! Global warming causes more hurricanes, the ocean's are expanding, the sea is rising and we are all going to die!

The editorial board of the Sarasota Herald-Tribune are masters at fear mongering using cherry picked data and studies. They are clearly in the Al Gore global warming camp. In their editorial Hurricane debate heats up they want us (read government) to "err on the side of global warming".

They describe two studies that present different theories on what affects the intensity of hurricanes. Mark Saunders and Adam Lea of University College London say it is sea warming. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's (NOAA) lab at the University of Miami says it is wind shear.

Guess what - they are both right!

According to WeatherQuestions.com - "Hurricanes are intense low pressure areas that form over warm ocean waters in the summer and early fall. Their source of energy is water vapor which is evaporated from the ocean surface. Water vapor is the "fuel" for the hurricanes because it releases the "latent heat of condensation" when it condenses to form clouds and rain, warming the surrounding air. (This heat energy was absorbed by the water vapor when it was evaporated from the warm ocean surface, cooling the ocean in the process.)

Usually, the heat released in this way in tropical thunderstorms is carried away by wind shear, which blows the top off the thunderstorms. But when there is little wind shear, this heat can build up, causing low pressure to form. The low pressure causes wind to begin to spiral inward toward the center of the low. These winds help to evaporate even more water vapor from the ocean, spiraling inward toward the center, feeding more showers and thunderstorms, and warming the upper atmosphere still more."

You will note in this description that water vapor is the fuel of hurricanes. Well guess what water vaporizing produces 95% of all green house gasses. CO2 is less than 1% of all green house gasses and the burning of fossel fuels produces less than 3% of all CO2 - 97% of all CO2 is produced naturally. For example, according to the UN IPCC cows cause more CO2 than man.

The Herald-Tribune editorial board needs to get its facts straight and stop the fear mongering. For millions of years we have had the natural cycles of weather events that have created hurricanes, some stronger and some weaker. We will for millions of years to come.

There is nothing we can do or should do that will impact global warming in any way because it occurs naturally primarily from solar activity and ocean currents.

For a rational theory about global warming based upon increases and decreases in our sun's solar activity please visit the Space and Science Research Center web site and read their scientific study based upon recent NASA data.

Bottom line - the Herald-Tribune has no answer or solution for global warming because it is naturally occurring. Therefore they can only frighten you.

Our solution - chill out, go to the beach, have a glass of wine and relax with your family.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Waldo Proffitt and his harmful solution for helping children

Posted by Rich on Friday, February 01, 2008 7:16:27 PM
Waldo Proffitt, our favorite liberal, is using children to push his political agenda. Is there no shame.

Waldo in his editorial, "Deliver the children's message", warns politicians that playing with Medicare and Social Security is political suicide because, "where they [seniors] make up slightly less than a third of the population, and where they vote in numbers making it politically dangerous to displease them."

He goes on to say that, "We do not want to see Social Security privatized or see Medicare put at risk by increasing the role of private insurers."

So Waldo wants to help children but takes Medicare and Social Security off the table. But Waldo Social Security and Medicare eat up huge amounts of our budget.

According to the Heritage Foundation, "Social Security and Medicare have promised $37 trillion more in benefits to senior and disabled workers than the programs will be able to pay, according to a new report. The 2006 annual report of the trustees of the Social Security and Medicare trust funds concludes that both programs will require progressively larger transfers from general revenues to maintain the projected levels of spending."

"Medicare and Social Security will require growing amounts of federal income tax revenue. Today, 6.9 percent of federal income taxes go towards the two programs. Dr. Thomas Saving of Texas A & M University, a public trustee of the Medicare and Social Security trust funds, estimates that, in 2020, 26.6 percent of all federal income taxes will go to paying for Medicare and Social Security. By 2030, that number will increase to 49.7 percent."

But Waldo says, "There is another age group to which we should give first priority, to whose well being we should pay constant attention, and in whose behalf public resources should be allocated in amounts not just adequate but generous. Nobody in this age group votes, for they are all children."

So which is it? Give money to seniors or the children? You can't have it both ways - or can you? For liberals you can, just raise taxes!

We have a better solution. We need to fix Social Security by privatizing it. Read our column, "How to fix Social Security".

In this column we show that today’s Social Security not only fails to provide workers with any way to build a fam­ily nest egg, but also actually discourages sav­ings by absorbing a large proportion of earnings that moderate-income and low-income workers could otherwise use to save for retirement or other purposes.

This hurts families, especially poor families, and their children.

Also, younger and lower-income workers receive relatively little in benefits for their Social Secu­rity taxes because they will have to pay substan­tially higher taxes than older workers do. A 25-year-old male living in a low-income section of New York City would receive a –4.46 percent rate of return on his Social Security taxes.

These younger and lower income workers have the most children.

Finally, under the current inflexible Social Security system, all workers receive a monthly payment that starts when they retire and ends when they die or when their spouses or dependents die. This one-size-fits-all approach especially hurts the one-fifth of white males and the one-third of African–American males who die between the ages of 50 and 70. These workers face the prospect of paying a life­time of Social Security taxes in return for little or no retirement benefits.

This leaves no legacy for families and their children.

The way to help our children is to fix Medicare and Social Security now.

The best long term solution to help our children is to build strong traditional families with a mother and father in the home and one of them working a full time job. If just these two dynamics are in place it will reduce by 75% those children living in poverty.

That is how you help children - privatize Social Security, turn Medicare over to the private sector, build strong traditional families and provide jobs.

Waldo's solution of throwing more money at children, when we will have less money to play with because of the out of control Medicare and Social Security programs, is both wrongheaded and dangerous.

Waldo's final statement is, "don't forget to put in a few good words for the children." Lip service does not help the children, action does.

What do you think?
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Eliminate Florida's Onerous Property Tax

Posted by Rich on Friday, February 01, 2008 7:09:53 PM
Well, Amendment 1 passed in Florida by an overwhelming majority.

As the Sarasota Herald-Tribune said in its editorial The great government divide, "In Sarasota County, where voters have approved two local property-tax increases and a sales tax extension in the past two years, nearly 68 percent of the voters supported the constitutional amendment. In Manatee County, 62 percent of voters endorsed the amendment; in Charlotte, approval approached 78 percent."

The taxpayers have spoken loudly. Lower taxes!

Smaller more focused local government is good. We taxpayers can no longer afford local government that grows faster than our ability to pay for it. You and I make decisions each and every day on what we can afford to buy, so can government.

The editorial board reminds us, "When the economy hummed along and real estate values rose -- generating record tax revenues in the process -- opposition to property taxes only simmered...But an economic downturn, especially in real estate, and political opportunism in Tallahassee turned the simmer into a boil."

Where are the no-growthers now? Hiding behind a bush? What will the new anti-growth members of the Venice City Council do now that voters have spoken?

Local governments, if they really want to increase tax revenues, must promote and sustain a healthy local economy - they must support growth. They must support growth by cutting impact fees, reducing government regulations, increase density, and support elimination of the onerous property tax system.

Finally, as we said before we had three bites at the apple to fix our broken property tax system. We took our first big bite by passing Amendment 1. Now there are two more:

1.) Next have the Florida Taxation and Budget Reform Commission put on the ballot in November constitutional amendments that eliminate or reduce the negative impacts of property taxes and shift the tax burden to a broader fairer sales tax. The McKay proposal is a good first step.

2.) Finally, at the upcoming 2008 session of the Florida legislature finish the work on fixing property taxes by protecting non-homesteaders or better yet eliminate property taxes all together.

Now is the time to contact the Florida Taxation and Budget Reform Commission and tell them to end the onerous property tax and implement an expanded sales tax to support local government. This will put our local and state governments in sync on taxes, put the tax burden on the more equitable sales taxes and force government to think about keeping our economy strong and growing.

Please contact the Commission members today and tell them you fully support fixing our broken property tax system by eliminating it. Go to this website to e-mail all of the Commission members.

The issue is not just getting local and state government in sync - it is getting local and state government in sync with us taxpayers.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

McCain/Crist Presidential Ticket in 2008?

Posted by Rich on Friday, February 01, 2008 7:05:51 PM
This is our first foray into political discourse. We have been hearing from several of our sources that the Republican Presidential ticket could be Senator John McCain and Florida Governor Charlie Crist.

Eric Ernst has a insightful column, "Governor has finger on pulse of public". Eric states, "He's good at gauging the collective mood and capitalizing on it...More recently he withheld his endorsement of any Republican presidential candidates until the John McCain bandwagon started rolling. Then Crist jumped aboard. Now he's entwined with McCain's front-running campaign."

We have heard that there is a very close relationship between Senator McCain and Governor Crist. If Governor Crist, knowing the pulse of the Republican party, picked right in endorsing Senator McCain and he eventually gets the nomination, then Crist gets the credit because it all started with the boost from the victory in Florida.

Political favors are political favors. As we predicted Florida's primary was critical to both parties but especially to the Republicans because it was winner take all of the 56 delegates. Our primary caused Rudy to drop out and endorse McCain, put Governor Romney on the defensive and Senator John McCain in the lead.

That is significant. Our Republican legislature deserves tremendous credit for putting Florida in a commanding position in selecting the next President of the United States.

What do you think?
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Transparency

Posted by Rich on Friday, February 01, 2008 6:39:31 PM
The Herald-Tribune appears to want "transparency" in political donations made to local politicians in their editorial Lessons in campaign trickery.

They target of course - developers. Actually, developers who gave to Republicans. Surprise, surprise.

Interestingly all the information about the transfer of funds from one PAC to another are all available to the public and properly recorded. Otherwise how would the Herald-Tribune know about them? Even the editorial board states, "All of this is legal, but it shouldn't be."

There it is. They want to change the campaign financing laws for "corporations". That is the issue, not transparency.

What they really are concerned about is, "PACs will still be able to exceed the caps on donations, and corporations can still avoid the restrictions by routing their contributions through PACs."

They hate corporate PACs. But they don't mention using union dues to contribute to PACS or PACs run by unions, liberal issue group PACs, folks like George Soros, MoveOn.org, etc.

What the Herald-Tribune does not tell you is that in one of his most significant and effective efforts to reshape the American political landscape, George Soros was the prime mover in the creation of the so-called “Shadow Democratic Party,” or “Shadow Party,” in 2003.

This term refers to a nationwide network of unions, activist groups, and think tanks engaged in campaigning for Democrats. The network’s modus operandi includes such activities as fundraising, get-out-the-vote drives, political advertising, opposition research, and media manipulation. The Shadow Party was conceived and organized principally by George Soros, Hillary Clinton and Harold Ickes—all identified with the Democratic Party’s left wing. Other key players included several members of the Bill Clinton White House.

If you really want to know the connection between money and political votes and who gave money to whom in Sarasota County go to these two sites and they will give you a list of political contributors and help you follow the money.

MAPLight.org - Money and Politics, illuminating the connection. This one lists specific Congressional legislation and ties in who donated to those that voted yes or no on the bill.

CampaignMoney.com - With this web site just type in your zip code and see where the money goes. You can look at political contributors by city, county and state. You can search the 2008 election or go back to previous elections.

We agree that after Congress passed McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform legislation the door was left wide open for PACs and 527s. We believe that McCain-Feingold harmed political free speech and the ability of individuals to support their political party. We believe it should be recinded.

Until then we have transparency. We don't need more restrictions on individuals and organizations to suppress their free political speech.

You now learned a lesson in the Herald-Tribune's "trickery" on this issue.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Herald-Tribune out of sync with Democratic Party on clean coal

Posted by Rich on Friday, February 01, 2008 6:33:14 PM
The Sarasota Herald-Tribune needs to check its press releases from the Democratic National Committee on clean coal technology. They are out of sync with the Democratic talking points.

In their editorial today, Rising price of clean coal they say, "It doesn't make sense to rely on "new" methods [clean coal] that are as detrimental as the old."

But wait, just this week Wednesday President Bush's Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman sent America's clean coal program back to square one when he tossed out the FutureGen low emissions coal gasification plant that the Bush administration has supported for the past five years.

What's this a Republican President killing a clean coal project? But wait it gets better.

According to Environment News Service, "The announcement raised howls of protest from the Illinois congressional delegation. Half the delegation declared in a letter to President George W. Bush Wednesday that they "have lost confidence in Secretary Bodman."

"We are writing today to urge you to keep FutureGen on track, so that this project can begin construction and become a reality," wrote the Illinois elected officials, including Senators Dick Durbin and Barack Obama, both Democrats, and Democratic Representatives Jerry Costello, Danny Davis, Rahm Emanuel, Phil Hare, and Jan Schakowsky, and Republicans Tim Johnson, Ray LaHood, and Peter Roskam.

This is a Mastercard moment, priceless. The liberal Herald-Tribune out of sync with Barack Obama, Dick Durbin, and Rahm Emanuel.

But seriously, Governor Charlie (coal killer) Crist has already signed into law the death blow to building any coal fired plant in Florida with his Executive Order 07-126, titled “Leadership by Example: Immediate Actions to Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Florida State Government”; Executive Order 07-127, “Immediate Actions to Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions within Florida”; and Executive Order 07-128, “Florida Governor’s Action Team on Energy and Climate Change.”

Since signing these Executive Orders, the FPSC reached a decision to not approve two, 980-MW, coal-fired plants proposed by Florida Power and Light in Glades County. In July, a group of community-owned, power entities (Florida Municipal Power Agency (FMPA), JEA, Reedy Creek Improvement District, and the City of Tallahassee) suspended permitting activities for the Taylor Energy Center, an 800-MW, coal-fired power plant proposed to be built in Taylor County, Florida.

In August [2007], the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) denied the site certification for Seminole Electric Cooperatives planned addition of a 750 MW, coal-fired unit at existing Seminole Generating Station in Florida.

In October Tampa Electric, the principal subsidiary of TECO Energy, announced that it will cancel plans to construct a coal plant in Florida. In July, the utility filed an application with the Florida Public Service Commission (FPSC) to demonstrate the need to construct the proposed 632-MW Polk Unit 6, a coal-fired power plant.

With the cancellation by Tampa Electric, roughly 4,150 MW of coal-fired generation planned to be operational in Florida before 2014 - i.e., over the next six years - will need to be replaced.

So Florida now has a 4,150 MW deficit in electrical power. And what is the Sarasota Herald-Tribune's solution, "In the quest for energy independence and a solution to global warming, conservation and the pursuit of alternative sources are the most promising avenues."

Read about human caused global warming here.

Conservation and alternative sources will never make up the 4,150 MW deficit we now have or meet future demands.

The Herald-Tribune's alternative sources are wind, solar and bio-mass. Bio-mass means burning stuff - more CO2. Wind and solar are unreliable - when the wind stops blowing and clouds appear or night falls - no energy.

The solution - nuclear power. Let's see if the Herald-Tribune and Dr. Meg Lowman discuss this in an op-ed or editorial.

We are waiting.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive
« Previous12345678Next »