Open Question: How Would You grade this?

How would you grade this essay I wrote on nuclear power? With growing numbers of people in the United States purchasing computers, televisions, appliances, and many other electricity-gobbling devices, the demand for electric power has been surging. Between 1991 and 2000, Americans' electricity usage jumped more than 30 percent. Meanwhile, power plants became extremely difficult and expensive to build, requiring exhaustive and time-consuming scientific studies to determine how the plant would affect the surrounding environment. As a result, relatively few new plants were constructed. In the summer of 2000, residents of California experienced a severe electricity shortage caused by a complex combination of factors, including a shortage of power-generating capability, skyrocketing prices for the natural gas used to fuel power plants, and exploding demand for electricity. By March 2001, the shortage became so serious that the state's largest utility companies called for rolling blackouts--controlled, successive power outages in designated areas--to avoid even more widespread power outages. Although investigators learned in May 2002 that the crisis was caused in large part by questionable, and perhaps illegal, business practices by the Enron Corporation, an energy company in Houston, it still pointed up weaknesses in the power-generation system in the United States. The crisis in California exposed the need for greater power-production capabilities throughout the country, forcing energy officials to begin an urgent effort to increase generating capacity. As they sought solutions to the problem, many energy experts said it was time to reconsider nuclear energy as an alternative to fossil fuels (oil, coal, and natural gas). One of the big advantages of nuclear power plants is that they do not generate greenhouse gases--gases, such as carbon dioxide, that slow the radiation of heat away from the Earth, thereby raising the planet's surface temperature, and possibly contributing to global warming. Power plants that burn fossil fuels produce such gases in abundance, and they also contribute to air pollution. Although nuclear energy has its drawbacks, including the production of radioactive waste and the potential for dangerous accidents, it has been a part of the U.S. energy mix since the late 1950's. In 2002, more than 100 nuclear reactors generated about 20 percent of the nation's energy, second only to coal-fired plants. Plants that burn coal or other fossil fuels produce about 70 percent of U.S. electricity. Of the remaining 10 percent, nearly all is produced by hydroelectric power, electricity generated at dams. Various other energy sources, including windmills, solar-energy, geothermal energy (Earth's internal heat), and waste-burning collectively generate about 1 percent. In May 2001, U.S. President George W. Bush unveiled his national energy policy, which called for an expanded role for nuclear energy. One of the reasons for the reviving interest in nuclear energy is that it is a very cost-effective way to generate electricity. Nuclear reactions release millions of times more energy than the chemical reactions involved in the burning of fossil fuels. For example, a piece of uranium fuel weighing just 0.04 ounce (1 gram) can release as much energy as the burning of about 2.3 metric tons (2.5 tons) of coal. Moreover, the cost of nuclear power is relatively stable while the prices of fossil fuels are always in flux. To make nuclear energy an even more attractive source of energy, nuclear engineers have been working to develop simpler, safer nuclear power plants that are easier to maintain than the plants operating in 2002. The two most common types of reactors are boiling-water reactors and pressurized-water reactors. These reactors are often called "light-water reactors" to distinguish them from reactors that use heavy water (deuterium oxide, a special type of water in which the hydrogen nuclei contain a neutron as well as a proton) as the coolant. In a boiling-water reactor, the water surrounding the reactor core boils, creating steam directly in the reactor vessel. This slightly radioactive steam is sent through pipes to a turbine, which turns electric generators, creating electricity. The steam coming out of the turbine then cools and condenses into liquid water, which is returned to the reactor vessel to be used again. In a pressurized-water reactor, which is the most common type of nuclear reactor, the water is under extremely high pressure, about 160 kilograms per square centimeter (2,000 pounds per square inch). That pressure enables the water to be heated to about 325 degrees C (620 degrees F), well above its normal boiling temperature of 100 degrees C (212 degrees F). The pressurized and slightly radioactive water from the reactor goes to a steam generator that contains a large number of small tubes through which the hot, pressurized water flows. Water from a separate system flow more

Resolved Question: A fundie creationist made an absurd assertion about Creation "Scientists". What do educated people think.?

What do educated people with functioning brains think about the below fundie claim: All the important inventions were based on science that was founded by CREATIONISTS. For a list of accomplishments by creationists, see here: Carl Linn (Carolus Linnaeus) - discovered there were no halfway animal species; all fit into distinct categories. William Paley - argument by design. Heinrich von Helmholz - the law of conservation of energy (FLOT) R.J.E. Clausius - the law of entropy (SLOT) Gregor Mendel - genetics. His experiments showed that there was a genetic barrier that prevented one species from transmuting into another. Louis Pasteur - disproved the theory of spontaneous generation - life cannot arise from nonliving material. August Friedrich Leopold Weismann - disproved Lamarckism (mouse tail experiment) Louis Agassiz - glacial geology; ichthyology. Charles Babbage - actuarial tables; calculating machine; computer science Sir Francis Bacon - scientific method Robert Boyle - chemistry, gas dynamics Sir David Brewster - optical minerology; kaleidoscope Georges Cuvier - comparative anatomy; vertebrate paleontology Sir Humphrey Davy - thermokinetics Jean Henri Fabre - entomology of living insects Michael Faraday - electric generator; electromagnetics; field theory Sir John A. Fleming - electronics, thermic valve Joseph Henry - electric motor, galvanometer Sir William Herschel - galactic astronomy, double stars James Joule - reversible thermodynamics Lord William Kelvin - absolute temperature scale, energetics, thermodynamics, transatlantic cable Johannes Kepler - celestial mechanics; ephemeris tables, physical astronomy Carolus Linnaeus - classification system; systematic biology Joseph Lister - antiseptic surgery Matthew Maury - hydrography; oceanography James C. Maxwell - electrical dynamics; statistical dynamics Gregor Mendel - genetics Samuel Morse - telegraph Sir Isaac Newton - calculus; dynamics; law of gravity; reflecting telescopes Blaise Pascal - hydrostatics; barometer Louis Pasteur - bateriology; biogenesis law; pasteurization; vaccination; immunization Sir William Ramsey - inert gases; isotropic chemistry John Ray - natural history; classification of plants and animals John Rayleigh - dimensional analysis; model analysis Bernard Riemann - non-Euclidean geometry Sir James Simpson - chloroform; gynecology Sir George Stokes - fluid mechanics Rudolph Virchow - pathologyBy the way, I did ask this in a science section, but there are so few people there. I know we have quite a few very intelligent scientists here.LOL!!! If all these scientists were not alive 200 years ago than how in the hell could they be used to disprove evolution? Only a moron would make such an asinine leap. more

Resolved Question: Why UN lose & is still losing the war on global warming?

Sequel 5. UN's announcement in 2005 to prepare for natural disasters was an indirect admission of defeat. A FAULT that was never censured. Instead, disaster prevention & adaptation were applied but are signs of frustration & withdrawals from norms and nature. Let it be known that Kyoto Protocol gave world a FALSE SCIENCE while the inconvenient truth & IPCC's studies spoke falsely of nature, thereby disorienting & misleading the people, a whole fabric of deception. They broke scientific laws of nature (which are the cycles of organic matter, carbon, nitrogen and water) and were able to impose their will on the people which rules were favorable to themselves but detrimental to the majority. This is not a life which God made for man. GHG reduction was not directly and is not ultimately the right remedy to solve global warming but rather replenishment of O2 since we are experiencing a temporary shortage or loss of O2. With this principal as one of the objectives, people will put their minds to work in conceptualizing O2 regeneration that will: 1. Repair earth's ozone layer to shield earth from severe solar radiation; 2. Strengthen all organisms' immune system & resistance to fight foreign (viral) bodies against possible epidemic (or pandemic); 3. Reduce pollution by neutralizing CH3, CO and other acid compounds of nitrogen & sulfur; 4. Calm down weather & normalize climate; 5. Help water (vapor) to travel to Arctic & Antarctic in rebuilding glaciers; 6. and, many more. The Philippine technology has the capability of doing all of these that can defeat Kyoto Protocol and disprove the inconvenient truth and IPCC's studies. Current world programs do not legitimately & scientifically conform to environmental norms but contain warming and sustain earth's sickness & abnormality. Like, in the case of composting (for fertilizer) & biomass (for electric generation), these alternative deviants unknowingly produce CO2, same as coal (made from plants) though different in carbon grade. Plant forest could not gain ground for, if unshielded of O2, these are stunted, dehydrated or burned (spontaneous combustion & extreme solar radiation, not arson). Killing transportation & industries (without neutralizing GHG thru O2 abundance) retrogresses people & world economy which, in turn, creates poverty & crime. Without correcting the ecological solid waste management, specifically sanitary landfills and biodegradable, these destroy hectareage of lands either by poisoning & multiplication of bacterium, virus, parasite, etc, respectively. These are some examples of wrong directions that made UN fail. Just this reason alone, the population of microbes in 8 grams of wastes is 8 billion (reproducing 1 billion every 10 minutes & generating 1 billion of CO2 gas per day) which is equivalent 8 billion human population in the world and hence, if untreated, epidemic will not be terminated but will be expanded to pandemic. UN & world's porgrams are ambiguities that caused havoc on earth and hence, considered as crimes against the laws of nature (which God gave man) and crimes against humanity. Tomorrow, God's Punishment. more

Voting Question: Natural Gas, what are the benefits of this generation source?

Im failing science and I dont know what is the answer to this question. PLEASE HELP ME! more

Resolved Question: Can you help me come up with a title for this paper I wrote?

The earth is in danger of catastrophic events. Our current wastefulness is killing our wildlife, atmosphere, and water. We are responsible for this current environmental crisis. God chose the human race to care for the earth, but we have neglected and abused this responsibility. Although there are many problems facing the planet, we can narrow them down to three main ones. They are: water pollution, over hunting and over fishing a species to extinction, and global warming. The first item on the list, water pollution, consists of oil spills, litter, and harmful chemicals. Oil spills occur when a ship has a leak and spills oil into the river, ocean, lake, etc. Litter is the dumping of garbage into rivers, lakes, oceans, etc. Lastly, chemicals are usually dumped into rivers by industrial factories located on or near a riverbed. All three of the water pollution problems can be solved by people being more careful, but unfortunately many people don’t care about the earth or future generations. Oil spills could mainly be prevented if ship captains were a little bit more aware of their surroundings and avoided big objects. Litter might be resolved if people were more educated on the issues and knew what kind of deadly consequences arise every time they throw a piece of litter on the ground. To solve the problem of chemicals being dumped, local governments need to strictly regulate and enforce laws against it. The over hunting of fish is a problem, because fishermen need to continually fish to make money, but without regulation, entire fish populations could be wiped out in a matter of years. More countries need to protect fish by putting them on an endangered species lists, therefore making it illegal to catch endangered fish. Of the three issues, global warming is the most controversial. Although most scientists agree that global warming is a legitimate threat, there are some scientists who believe it is entirely natural and will go away in a few years. The scientists who believe that it is a threat, point towards green house gases that are poured from cars and factories every day. They believe that the gasses clog the atmosphere and trap in sunlight, that in turn, heats the planet. To help the planet from this problem, people could buy more fuel efficient light bulbs, cars, and appliances. Worldwide, governments and energy companies should begin to convert their power sources to solar power and wind energy. Car companies should also begin to design electric cars that don’t pollute the air. These are just a few steps people can make to save the planet; if we don’t, life on the planet could cease to exist. more

Resolved Question: US wind power generation increases as fossil fuels decrease - a sign of times to come?

The wind energy industry installed over 2,800 megawatts (MW) of new generating capacity in the first quarter of 2009 - double what it installed in the first quarter of 2008. http://climateprogress.org/2009/04/28/us-wind-power-industry-2800-mw-in-q/#more-6153 Meanwhile the drop in coal-fired generation was the largest absolute fuel-specific decline from December 2007 to December 2008 as it fell by 5,198 thousand MWh, or 3%…. Natural gas-fired generation was down by 4.4% and was second only to coal-fired generation in its contribution to the national drop in net generation, as it was down by 2,907 thousand MWh from the December 2007 total….Net generation from wind sources was 67.2% higher than it had been in December 2007. On top of that, as the auto industry continues to close plants, wind energy companies are building facilities and bringing jobs to Michigan. http://climateprogress.org/2009/04/10/wind-turbine-plant-near-detroit-to-hire-250-wind-powe/ Is this increase in renewable energy production and decrease in fossil fuel use a sign of things to come in the USA? more

Resolved Question: If it's really about CO2 and not imposing a "back to nature" lifestyle, then do you support nuclear power?

Nuclear power is used safely to power the majority of electricity generation in both France and the UK. Nuclear emits zero CO2. We have nuclear power plants in the US as well. And not a single person has died from the use of nuclear power in the US. Wind, solar, geothermal are great. Hydro is great - and already used, nearly to capacity. In short, "renewable" sources are great and some of them are underutilized, but using them to capacity wouldn't replace coal and natural gas. But we could replace coal and natural gas with nuclear, over time. So if it's really about CO2, then there's no rational reason to oppose increased use of nuclear power. But if it's about forcing a "lower consumption lifestyle" on people who lead lifestyles different from yours, then I can see how you might still oppose nuclear. So, into which category do you fall - - - concerned about CO2 or seeking to impose your lifestyle on everyone else?thor, it's expensive and we're behind the curve in large part because of needless restrictions put in place by people like YOU. A misinformed public believes that Chernobyl could happen here - it can't. Their reactor used poor technology and their monitoring system sucked. The UK and France safely use nuclear power to produce over half their electricity. more

Resolved Question: Were Americans victimized by mind control attacks and counter attacks during the cold war?

--- The cold war It was a war between proxy agents and spy agencies who practiced and preached mind control and propaganda It went on for decades --- until the US declared itself the winner with the collapse of the Soviet Empire which controlled massive tracks of land throughout Europe for generations The Family Jewels MK Ultra project artichoke project bluebird and others have been released to the public and from CIA documents we read about an agency who broke laws and was obsessed with mind control techniques We only have access to some declassified documents but one of their stated goals was to cause people to commit suicide -as that was counter to the natural will of the human to survive Vietnam was the last war where media could show the death the blood the guts and the raw killing along side the coffins and some of the impacts of poison gas They still use chemical weapons gas white phosphorous burns on impact but UN rules say it can be used as a way to light the battle field so long as it is not dropped on people I am sure they always do that --- now especially when no camera will ever be allowed to show the battle field like that again --- What other means of victimization could the US itself have inflicted on itself and others in order to control the public both here and abroad Because --- cold wars --- pschological wars --- spy agency wars -- Are wars for the hearts and minds of the people -- What they believe to be true motivates their behavior - You can therefore manipulate a people by changing their truths ---- What unintended consequences could have resulted from such a war on a civilian population ? more

Resolved Question: Why does Iran a country with one of the world's largest gas reserves need nuclear energy?

Natural gas is used by the rest of the world for electric generation and is very clean and safe. It makes no sense for Iran to claim the need for nuclear energy. The only reason they must be experimenting with atomic energy is for the purpose of making a bomb. more

Voting Question: Information on Natural Gas Generation of Power?

Hello everyone, My classmates and I were assigned a project on Characteristics of Electrical Energy and I got stuck with Natural Gas. I was wondering if you guys could help me with my project. Here are the questions that are asked: 1. A description of the form of energy you are researching 2. How does it work? 3. What are the benefits? what are the hazards? Cosider these from a social and enviromental point of view. 4. How economical is it? Consider the costs and benefits. 5. How efficent is it? 6. Where is it used? 7. Refrences and cotact sources for more information. more

Resolved Question: Can you answer these Earth Science Questions?

3. Plants use sunlight to convert carbon dioxide and water into organic molecules A) used by living organisms for chemical energy. B) that are reflected into space by Earth's atmosphere. C) that protect us from ultraviolet rays. D) similar to ones produced by volcanoes. 4. Global warming is caused by _______ and increases the ________. A) too much of the Sun's energy reaching the Earth through the thinning ozone layer; temperature of the planet. B) too many greenhouse gases in the troposphere; amount of heat energy retained near Earth's surface. C) depleting the ozone layer; temperature of the planet. D) the amount of energy reflected by the Earth's surface; greenhouse gases in the troposphere. 5. Continuing to use coal as the principle fuel source for generating electricity is A) due to the low cost of transporting coal to generating plants. B) because of the long-term financial investment in coal-burning generating plants. C) that generating plants also produce heat that helps warm the air over communities. D) that they are the least disruptive to natural habitat 6. ____ is stored in molecules because they are composed of atoms that have different ways of moving inside the molecules. A) Kinetic energy B) Potential energy C) Heat energy D) Nuclear energy 7. Nuclear energy is a renewable energy source. A) True B) False 8. Fossil fuels produce carbon dioxide when they undergo combustion reactions. A) True B) False 9. Ocean waters near the equator develop currents that carry warm water to areas of the Earth that do not receive as much energy from the Sun, by A) convection circulating the upper layers of the ocean. B) conduction of heat from the land to the ocean. C) radiation circulating the upper layers of the ocean. D) thermohaline currents 10. The principle concern in locating geothermal electical generation plants is A) adequate water supply. B) heat pollution affecting local air temperature. C) that they require a volcanic hot spot. D) the long transmission lines required. more

Resolved Question: Between coal and natural gas which emits more CO2?

Both coal and natural gas are fuels for power generation. Which is greener? more

Resolved Question: If France can, why can't we?

According to the available data, France currently generates 70% + of its electricity using nuclear power. Yet here in the United States we haven't broken ground for a new nuclear generating station in decades. We're still using coal, oil and natural gas to generate electricity. I can hear all the referneces to Chernobyl and Three Mile Island (TMI). Comparing the Russian reactors at Chernobyl to a then-current U.S. reactor is akin to comparing a skate board to a Ferrari. Our nuclear generating stations are immensely superior in every way to what the Russians built. As regards TMI, "Hanoi" Jane Fonda used it to promote her fantasy movie "The China Syndrome". To the best of my knowledge there were no deaths as a result of the release at TMI and only minor injuries. The entire event at TMI was blown way out of proportion. The environmental zealots are constantly attacking using coal, oil and natural gas and the mere mention of nuclear power causes them to hyperventilate and become hysterical. Their mantra is "Solar power! Wind power! Clean energy! Renewable energy!" While I've no argument with using clean energy sources I do doubt the feasibility of their supposed "solutions". Solar power is great - when the sun is shining. Wind power is wonderful - when the wind is blowing and if you don't mind killing migratory birds. But what happens with solar power during a period of overcast skies or heavy snow? What if a wind farm has to be shut down due to icing or high winds? Electricity is not easily stored for future use. Sure, we have batteries but they have their own set of problems. Batteries have to be manufactured and this requires energy, not to mention the environmental impact. Once their service life has expired batteries must be disposed of. Done improperly the result is environmental damage. Wet-cell batteries, like the one in your car, produce harmful fumes and can, under the right conditions, explode. Just think about having your basement full of lead acid batteries to store the electricity from your solar cells or wind turbine - knowing that the fumes being emitted are dangerous and the batteries could explode. Of course you could just do without electricity from dusk to dawn but I doubt we'll see too many opting for that hardship. So, in my opinion, we really have little choice except nuclear power generation. Oh, I can hear the howls of the environmentalists now as they babble about "How do we get rid of the spent fuel rods? They will be dangerous for hundreds or even thousands of years." Obviously France has figured out what to do with their spent fuel rods. Perhaps we should ak them. I believe that we have the technology to safely store spend fuel rods from nuclear generating stations. Lets look back in time to 1962 when JFK challenged the country to land a man on the moon and return him safely to earth. Engineering and design back then was done with a slide rule and a pencil. (The average 1996 car had more computing power under its hood than was available to the engineers and designers of the Apollo Project). Just look at bridges and highways built in the 1950's and '60's - and still in use today. I simply refuse to believe that with our technological advances the safe storage of spent fuel rods is beyond our abilities. As someone who has seen the ravages of strip mining and mountaintop removal I've no love for coal-fired generating stations. I'd rather see oil used to produce fuel for vehicles. Natural gas should be used for cooking and home heating. I spent 3 1/2 years working in the pipe support group at a nuclear generating station construction site back in the '80's. Unfortunately, the owner simply ran out of money and the project was abandoned. During construction, the plan was to close 3 dirty coal-fired plants once the nuke went on line. Just think of what that would have done to improve air quality. I saw first-hand the numerous safety measures designed into the plant as well as the near-unbelievable redundancy. One feed water pump (used to supply cooling water to the reactor) was capable of being used to cool both reactors - and each reactor had a primary and reserve feed water pump. That is redundancy. I believe we need a renewed dedication to nuclear power. more

Resolved Question: Could someone explain this political cartoon?

http://multimedia.thestar.com/images/23/9a/b3d801fb4f18a3f0b4870d949b73.jpeg I'm trying to figure out what it means. I know that it is about the new Ontarian law for green energy. I read an article (http://www.thestar.com/comment/article/594444) and it says that wind needs natural gas fired generation for support or something, and that they won't be used or something?........ So, is the cartoon trying to say that either way, Ontario is still going to be using nuclear energy instead of renewable energy? more

Resolved Question: Is it time to throw the greens under the bus?

Ask any family with children or grandchildren what they want for the future and the almost certain answer you get is "We want the kids to have it better than we do." If you press for further information, "better" turns out to mean economically better off and better educated, or (in many second and third world countries) free to be part of the political solutions (as opposed to being peasants and thus ignored). Afaik, this human desire is both universal and overwhelming -- adults will undergo serious hardships and severe risks to make this possible for their children. [Boat people from Haiti and Cuba demonstrate the level of risks adults will take for this goal.] ** Yesterday [March 2nd], a squib in the Investor's Business Daily pointed out that the 40% efficient solar cell technology demonstrated in Dec. '07 requires iridium to manufacture. 2008 world demand for iridium was about 10% of the entire known world supply, without any going for solar energy. It follows that the 40% efficient solar cell is a technology that can't supply world energy needs. Solar cells are thus reliant on the old 25% efficient technology -- which isn't near enough to make solar energy competitive with fossil fuels. [The shortfall is about 25% of output -- meaning that a 25% subsidy would be theoretically required AFTER the technology is scaled up several million times to produce significant output.] So the solar energy effort needs tens to hundreds of billions in research money and is, thus, in the same situation as fusion power -- huge research spending required for what may continue to be zero economically useful output. The ideal situation that the green movement is aiming at is local production of locally consumed energy. This requires that the energy density of production [output per square foot of land area] be several times the energy density of consumption. {You can't use all the land area for energy production because you need some of it for other uses such as food production and normal development uses.] This will be easiest where the density of energy consumption is lowest -- which is single family residential housing. In other words, it will be possible for the middle class long before it is possible for lower income people [who live in apartments and condos with higher density of energy consumption]. And that will happen before such efforts are practical for even higher energy density uses like offices, retail space, and industrial firms. Since it isn't practical now and likely won't be for decades [you can't command technology to come up with wholly new inventions -- if we could, fusion power would be real already and there would be nothing to discuss here], the need for energy supplied to high density users makes it imperative that power transmission and distribution systems exist and be expanded. [population is expanding, as well as energy consumption per person -- these are both part of the "good life" that families say is the overriding goal for their children.] "Conservation" amounts to saying that your children won't have the chance to be better off than you are now. This is so because the rate of improvement in energy efficiency is both small [3% per year historical average in America] and not subject to huge improvements for long periods [the same problem with commanding inventions to be made occurs -- breakthrough science can't be commanded, only searched for]. {Aside: expandable "green" energy sources in America amount to 1/2 of 1 percent of total energy used. That's one part in 200. Quadrupling "green" energy output won't even keep up with growth in total demand, which runs three to four percent per year due to the combination of higher population (the next generation of adults has already been born, so the barn door here can't be closed) and higher energy usage per person [higher energy usage is a prime driver of better life styles -- your computers and cell phones and iPod use energy]. This brings us back to producing more energy with either fossil fuels -- which requires more drilling and mining somewhere in the world [either here or in foreign nations], or else clearing the roadblocks and building more nuclear power plants. 35 new nuclear power plants by 2030 ... essentially Republican John McCain's campaign platform ... would be only enough to stabilize the amounts of energy produced via fossil fuels in the US and not enough to actually reduce energy from burning coal, gasoline, and natural gas at all (no matter where they are mined or drilled). Thus, the stark policy choice is: forcing our children and grandchildren to be worse off than we are ["conservation" and lowering output and incomes per family], or throwing the greens under the political bus and building a lot more nuclear power plants [together with more transmission lines and recycling spent nuclear fuel], or burning ever more fossil fuels from ever more mines and drilling.The current policy is akin to betting the family farm on a technological miracle invention that, after 50 years of spending tens of billions, fusion power hasn't been able to produce. Would you prefer to bet your children's future on a miracle that likely won't happen, or would you prefer to throw the greens under the political bus and build, mine, drill anyway?? more

Resolved Question: What price is your children's future worth?

Ask any family with children or grandchildren what they want for the future and the almost certain answer you get is "We want the kids to have it better than we do." If you press for further information, "better" turns out to mean economically better off and better educated, or (in many second and third world countries) free to be part of the political solutions (as opposed to being peasants and thus ignored). Afaik, this human desire is both universal and overwhelming -- adults will undergo serious hardships and severe risks to make this possible for their children. [Boat people from Haiti and Cuba demonstrate the level of risks adults will take for this goal.] ** Yesterday [March 2nd], a squib in the Investor's Business Daily pointed out that the 40% efficient solar cell technology demonstrated in Dec. '07 requires iridium to manufacture. 2008 world demand for iridium was about 10% of the entire known world supply, without any going for solar energy. It follows that the 40% efficient solar cell is a technology that can't supply world energy needs. Solar cells are thus reliant on the old 25% efficient technology -- which isn't near enough to make solar energy competitive with fossil fuels. [The shortfall is about 25% of output -- meaning that a 25% subsidy would be theoretically required AFTER the technology is scaled up several million times to produce significant output.] So the solar energy effort needs tens to hundreds of billions in research money and is, thus, in the same situation as fusion power -- huge research spending required for what may continue to be zero economically useful output. The ideal situation that the green movement is aiming at is local production of locally consumed energy. This requires that the energy density of production [output per square foot of land area] be several times the energy density of consumption. {You can't use all the land area for energy production because you need some of it for other uses such as food production and normal development uses.] This will be easiest where the density of energy consumption is lowest -- which is single family residential housing. In other words, it will be possible for the middle class long before it is possible for lower income people [who live in apartments and condos with higher density of energy consumption]. And that will happen before such efforts are practical for even higher energy density uses like offices, retail space, and industrial firms. Since it isn't practical now and likely won't be for decades [you can't command technology to come up with wholly new inventions -- if we could, fusion power would be real already and there would be nothing to discuss here], the need for energy supplied to high density users makes it imperative that power transmission and distribution systems exist and be expanded. [population is expanding, as well as energy consumption per person -- these are both part of the "good life" that families say is the overriding goal for their children.] "Conservation" amounts to saying that your children won't have the chance to be better off than you are now. This is so because the rate of improvement in energy efficiency is both small [3% per year historical average in America] and not subject to huge improvements for long periods [the same problem with commanding inventions to be made occurs -- breakthrough science can't be commanded, only searched for]. {Aside: expandable "green" energy sources in America amount to 1/2 of 1 percent of total energy used. That's one part in 200. Quadrupling "green" energy output won't even keep up with growth in total demand, which runs three to four percent per year due to the combination of higher population (the next generation of adults has already been born, so the barn door here can't be closed) and higher energy usage per person [higher energy usage is a prime driver of better life styles -- your computers and cell phones and iPod use energy]. This brings us back to producing more energy with either fossil fuels -- which requires more drilling and mining somewhere in the world [either here or in foreign nations], or else clearing the roadblocks and building more nuclear power plants. 35 new nuclear power plants by 2030 ... essentially Republican John McCain's campaign platform ... would be only enough to stabilize the amounts of energy produced via fossil fuels in the US and not enough to actually reduce energy from burning coal, gasoline, and natural gas at all (no matter where they are mined or drilled). Thus, the stark policy choice is: forcing our children and grandchildren to be worse off than we are ["conservation" and lowering output and incomes per family], or throwing the greens under the political bus and building a lot more nuclear power plants [together with more transmission lines and recycling spent nuclear fuel], or burning ever more fossil fuels from ever more mines and drilling. The currentThe current policy is akin to betting the family farm on a technological miracle invention that, after 50 years of spending tens of billions, fusion power hasn't been able to produce. Would you prefer to bet your children's future on a miracle that likely won't happen, or would you prefer to throw the greens under the political bus and build, mine, drill anyway?? more

Resolved Question: Why is it that between friday and sunday this appointment has changed twice?

On whose recommendation are the appointments made and what was wrong with the original replacement? There has been a lot of activity in the past few days in the insurance sector. Is it prudent to make this appointment at this time to this person? Considering this man's trade union expertise and experience at the electricity board he seems better qualified to hold a different post. http://www.colombopage.com/archive_09/February22161212RA.html He is by all indicators in the wrong department.Perhaps the vacancy should remain so until the proper candidate is vetted for the post. http://www.sundaytimes.lk/080601/FinancialTimes/ft326.html Mr Kariyawasam said alternative energy solutions such as solar, wave, wind, mini hydro, biomass and tidal are extremely costly. The investment cost for 1 MW of installed capacity of solar power is US$10 million. Wave power costs US$4 million per 1 MW, biomass US$3 million, wind US$3 million, mini hydro US$1.5 million and tidal US$4 million. In comparison, diesel and natural gas in internal combustion engines cost US$0.9 million per 1 MW while central generation using fossil fuel costs US$1 million per MW. I am well aware that the interchangeable Minister Murkherjee is in Colombo this week as I am well aware of the Sampath project which remains unapproved, I am also well aware of Namaste as I am well aware that Murkhejee is not Prime Minister. I understand the world view is skewed at 4'6" but small mindedness and short perception do not have to operate in conjunction with dimunitive stature. I am also well aware of the recruitment of ex-cons into the US alternative energy sector as it was on the news today, Mr. Murkherjee- the US was so looking forward to having its young, non-criminal proponents of alternative energy working on these federally mandated projects, much more so than building mafias.It is also wise for an external minister of one country to stay out of the internal affairs of its neighbor especially when there are verfiable links of cross border terrorism that span 30 years. In Sri Lanka we have experienced the devolution of "former terrorists" to mafia elements that still carry on terrorist acts. To that end Mr. Murkherjee I pose the question - What is your involvement with Namaste and was your participation and/or "expertise" requested? For your "expertise",per your designation, in Sri Lanka's internal affairs, foreign policy and national security are not requisite or a pre-requisite to our sovreignity. Senator McCain, please have a conversation with Vice-president Biden regarding this matter. I had also asked him to pass along information regarding certain Arizona residents that were at 8/27 to your attention.http://cosmos.bcst.yahoo.com/up/player/popup/?rn=3906861&cl=12160614&ch=4226713&src=news more

Resolved Question: Help with Biology. D:?

Hi, I've got some questions for biology homework. Could you tell me the answers. I would be grateful if you explained why but it is not needed, this homework is due in tomorrow and im desperate. (Got a half term school day for triple science takers.) (: They are multiple choice 1. As the human population of a city increases a) air pollution increases b) carbon dioxide in the air decreases c) oxygen in the air increases d) use of transport decreases 2. For sustainable development to work, there needs to be planning at a) local and regional levels b) regional and global levels c) local and global levels d) local, regional and global levels 3. Which of these organisms reproduce in a way which forms clones? a) bacteria b) birds c) fish d) mammals 4. Natural selection can affect a species by causing a) evolution only b) extinction only c) evolution or extinction d) neither evolution nor extinction 5. Greenhouse gases cause global warming because they a) absorb higher frequency infra-red radiation from the Sun and allow the transmission of lower frequency infra-red radiation from the Earth b) absorb higher frequency infra-red radiation from the Sun and absorb lower frequency infra-red radiation from the Earth c) allow the transmission of higher frequency infra-red radiation from the Sun and allow the transmission of lower frequency infra-red radiation from the Earth d) allow the transmission of higher frequency infra-red radiation from the Sun and absorb lower frequency infra-red radiation from the Earth 6. Here are some statements about the effect of global warming. The melting of the ice caps will contribute more to raising sea level than will the expansion of the oceans due to increasing temperatures. Climate change will involve all regions of the Earth becoming warmer. The correct statements are a) 1 only b) 2 only c) 1 and 2 d) neither 7. The main difference between Darwin and Lamark's theories of evolution is that a) Darwin's theory did not depend on variation but the survival of the fittest while Lamark's theory depended on variation and the inheritance of acquired characteristics b) Darwin's theory did not depend on variation but the inheritance of acquired characteristics while Lamark's theory depended on variation and the survival of the fittest c) Darwin's theory depended on variation and the inheritance of acquired characteristics while Lamark's theory did not depend on variation and the survival of the fittest d) Darwin's theory depended on variation and the survival of the fittest while Lamark's theory did not depend on variation but the inheritance of acquired characteristics 8. Bacteria that have been genetically modified can be used to produce human insulin. Which of these is not a stage in this process? a) isolation of the donor gene from bacteria using enzymes b) insertion of the donor gene into a plasmid c) introduction of the plasmid into a bacterium d) cloning the modified bacterium 9. Bacteria capable of producing human insulin are produced by genetic modification. The list gives stages in the process. 1. bacteria are cloned 2. the donor gene is inserted into a plasmid 3. the plasmid is introduced into a bacterium 4. the donor gene is isolated using enzymes What is the correct order of the stages? a) 1, 4, 2, 3 b) 2, 3, 1, 4 c) 3, 1, 4, 2 d) 4, 2, 3, 1 10. Here are three statements about natural selection. 1. Animals have the potential to produce large numbers of offspring 2. Many offspring die before they mature and breed 3. Skills developed by surviving offspring can be inherited by the next generation Which statements are correct? a) 1 and 2 only b) 1 and 3 only c) 2 and 3 only d) 1, 2 and 3 more

Resolved Question: Evolution the false theory?

The popular mechanisms for explaining micro-evolution are "mutation" and "natural selection". Mutations are "mistakes" introduced into the genetic material used for reproduction, which can occur for example as a result of exposure to radiation. Naturally occurring mutations are very rare, and it is acknowledged that of those that do occur, almost all have a negative effect (in fact, some creationists argue there is not a single known case of a truly positive mutation, one having no negative side-effects). The occasional positive mutation, giving some benefit to the organism, provides the "new material" for natural selection to operate on. Natural selection is based on the observation that there is variation among individuals in a population. Natural selection states that those individuals which posses some advantage in the environment (such as being a faster runner) are more likely to leave more offspring, thereby increasing the probability of passing the advantage on to future generations. Natural selection is what "retains" the occasional positive mutation and causes the population to "advance" is some way. Creationists note that this mechanism can only "select" among already existing traits - it cannot create something new. Abiogenesis refers to first life - the production of living organisms from inanimate matter. I’m going to attack these one at a time… 1. Mutations – If transmutations are the base of the theory then where are the metamorphic transitional stages of life to support their existence? If they were present there would not only be archeological evidence (as this mutation process took hundreds of thousands of years) but there would be more evidence of the mutation then of the final metamorphic stage because they would be at a weaker stage. 2. Natural selection – If the refining of DNA was to occur then we would become stronger and more intelligent all the time. The fact is that mental and physical disabilities still occur with increase in certain environmental conditions. DNA is very ordered and over 500 volumes long. All things have perfect order and are governed by a perfect law or they would cease to exist. For example: in the atmosphere had 5% more oxygen we would be burning up, 5% less we couldn’t breathe. 3. Abiogenesis - Let’s look at this from a chemical engineers perspective the most basic protein has 20 amino acids… For this to randomly occur in a math equation is 20 to the 100th power… after 10 to the 50th power it becomes a physical impossibility… It’s the equivalent of life forming is a can of soup. There are 250 amino acids! The Law of biogenesis says that life only comes from life 4. The logical - Lets outline 3 basic needs for all living organisms… 1. Food/Water 2. Shelter – Or the organism is area specific, it cannot leave its environment or it will die 3. Reproduction If evolution occurs out of a need for preservation (i.e. the faster runner wins the race), all things were present at the beginning of time for an organism to sustain life (as they would have to be) then why did evolution occur? For and organism to survive both food/water and a reproduction method would have to be present from the beginning of time (if not the species would die immediately). If they were present then there would be no need to seek out food/water or a mate and there would be no need to explore. If there was no need to explore then there would not be any need to evolution! If an environmental change occurs then A. Rapid change - the animal dies Or B. Slow change - the animal adapts. If a very slow environmental change occurs then acclimatization would occurs not evolutionary adaptation! I wear a coat in the winter or I hide in a cave and only leave when necessary or I migrate. I don’t however grow more hair, or stand in the cold hoping that my body will change. Why are monkeys covered in hair long and live in the humid hot jungle and not in the tundra, why?... (There is no food or shelter because most animals are area specific!) Why do trees loose their leaves in the winter time... Why do birds migrate... Why do bears hibernate? If the ocean/land could no longer sustain life then a large population of the species would die off till the land/ocean could sustain the numbers… There’s a large population rabbits and few wolfs the wolf begin to grow in population because of the large population of rabbits. As the rabbit population declines so does the wolf population. It’s a symbiotic relationship if it were not then neither would exist very long. This is elementary biology. In order for the environment to sustain a species it must be both predator and prey! The simple fact is that most life consumes some form of dead or decaying life even plants use once living material from the dirt as substance. If the life form consumes a specific gas or type of food then the bacterium becomes area specific and cannot leave its environment! The final question is tThe final question is this… What did this bacterium eat? Them self’s? Light (making them area specific and we would all eat light)?asmidsk: if that were true they would be area specific and would be unable to leave thee food source.... and the population would have a direct correlation to the food source when it dwindled then the bacteria would as well.Ivan A: the Torah or the Old Testament was written years before Christ was borne and it foretold of his death in detail- Isaiah 42:13-43:12 more

Voting Question: Is there any unselfish reason to have a child now? Food stocks mushroomed after 1900 with oil-powered tractors?

, electric implements, rail transport (coal, then diesel), refrigeration (electric) etc. Before these cataclysmic shifts, fewer than 1,500,000,000 ppl could even EAT! Through the chapter of their existence, mass-quantities of cheap food (made possible by cheap oil) tricked 5 generations (now totaling nearly 7 Billion) into assuming that food is no problem. We'll never have too little. To a reasonable extent, only: - I know farms. - I know farming. - I know fuel. Marine Corps officers (typically very conservative) delivered a lecture in the late eighties to the members of my squadron detailing how the cost of protecting those crucial shipping lanes (that bring foreign oil to the U.S.) is no lower than $5 per *Gallon!* and often more than $15 per GALLON. Our secretive government has, for years, paid this anti-free-market cost by spending in deficit. Fact is this: Once the oil is most certainly not cheap, food-availability is shot. Call it a distant memory. Inevitably, then, that newly acquired 5.5 billion will be eating 2 X 4's. Which means they'll have nothing to eat. That they'll most likely starve. We Conservatives had a chance to show where we really shine - thinking independently and finding solutions to problems, demanding free-markets, ending subsidies (including this $15/gallon of gas military assistance), preserving the wisdom of our ancestors (Henry Ford hated gasoline and insisted on ethanol, which his cars burned so efficiently as to make modern cars look bad), giving it the "old College Try". Enter Al "I am God and my love of self is justified" Gore and his "I can't view my Tooth" mocumentary. He vilified all who were not mindless supporters of his party. I dare say he even went on an anti-hunger strike - eating caviar and donuts non-stop until the entire world became clintonites. Suffice it to say that, after that TP-toss, few conservatives could stomach the idea of doing good if it meant disintegrating the reasons behind having Gore committed. .So, then, back to the question. With no one really to blame, how can one justify adding natural, real humans into the mix at a time when very genuine concerns for availability of affordable food are looming? ... more

Resolved Question: Managing disasters -the role of students?

Managing disasters -the role of students? Choose any man made or natural disaster which your area may be vulnerable to e.g gas leaks, building collapse, rail' or road accidents, laboratory accidents, health hazards due to toxic waste disposal, earthquakes, Floods, volcanic eruptions etc. 1. Prepare a survey schedule detailing the different areas that are posing threats due to the various natural and man made disasters in and around your school for example factory/slum/ dump yard located nearby. 2. Collect the data and prepare a report. 3. Develop posters and skits for awareness generation in your school. 4. Make a plan to deal with anyone of the disasters likely to affect your school more

Resolved Question: Is it about time that we end "renewable" energy subsidies?

We taxpayers have dumped $Billions into wind, solar...etc. and have gotten no return. Shouldn't we allow the Free Market determine what forms of energy we use? From the Wall Street Journal: "Congress seems ready to spend billions on a new "Manhattan Project" for green energy, or at least the political class really, really likes talking about one. But maybe we should look at what our energy subsidy dollars are buying now. Some clarity comes from the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA), an independent federal agency that tried to quantify government spending on energy production in 2007. The agency reports that the total taxpayer bill was $16.6 billion in direct subsidies, tax breaks, loan guarantees and the like. That's double in real dollars from eight years earlier, as you'd expect given all the money Congress is throwing at "renewables." Even more subsidies are set to pass this year. An even better way to tell the story is by how much taxpayer money is dispensed per unit of energy, so the costs are standardized. For electricity generation, the EIA concludes that solar energy is subsidized to the tune of $24.34 per megawatt hour, wind $23.37 and "clean coal" $29.81. By contrast, normal coal receives 44 cents, natural gas a mere quarter, hydroelectric about 67 cents and nuclear power $1.59. The wind and solar lobbies are currently moaning that they don't get their fair share of the subsidy pie. They also argue that subsidies per unit of energy are always higher at an early stage of development, before innovation makes large-scale production possible. But wind and solar have been on the subsidy take for years, and they still account for less than 1% of total net electricity generation. Would it make any difference if the federal subsidy for wind were $50 per megawatt hour, or even $100? Almost certainly not without a technological breakthrough. By contrast, nuclear power provides 20% of U.S. base electricity production, yet it is subsidized about 15 times less than wind. We prefer an energy policy that lets markets determine which energy source dominates. But if you believe in subsidies, then nuclear power gets a lot more power for the buck than other "alternatives." The same study also looked at federal subsidies for non-electrical energy production, such as for fuel. It found that ethanol and biofuels receive $5.72 per British thermal unit of energy produced. That compares to $2.82 for solar and $1.35 for refined coal, but only three cents per BTU for natural gas and other petroleum liquids. All of this shows that there is a reason fossil fuels continue to dominate American energy production: They are extremely cost-effective. That's a reality to keep in mind the next time you hear a politician talk about creating millions of "green jobs." Those jobs won't come cheap, and you'll be paying for them." http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121055427930584069.html?mod=opinion_main_review_ more

Resolved Question: What do you think of this article?

I can't even remember when I copied it.. but here it goes BG considering exporting natural gas from Gaza to Egypt Published: Tuesday, 5 June, 2007, 06:50 AM Doha Time CAIRO: BG Group is considering exporting natural gas from Gaza to Egypt rather than Israel, a company official said on Sunday. “Gaza Marine’s discussions with the Israelis are progressing, but bringing the gas to Egypt is an option this time,” Ian Hewitt, president of BG Egypt, told Dow Jones Newswires in an interview. UK, Reading-based BG controls the rights to the natural gas fields discovered off the coast of the Gaza Strip in 1999 and 2000. BG held talks with Egyptian government about a year ago to export Palestinian gas through a future Gaza offshore pipeline to the Egyptian port of Al Arish. The gas could then be exported from Egypt to Europe or the US as liquefied natural gas, or LNG. BG, the UK’s third-largest oil and gas company, has also resumed talks with Israel after the Israeli Cabinet reversed a decision on April 30 to prohibit purchases of natural gas from the Palestinian Authority, opening the way for a possible deal. Israel previously had been involved in negotiations with BG and the Palestinians about buying gas, but concerns that the money could end up funding militants have been a major roadblock, according to Israeli media reports. BG owns 90% of the Gaza Marine licence and Palestinian-owned Consolidated Contractors International Co owns 10%. The Palestinian Authority has an option to take a stake in the field once its development is sanctioned. “When we did the survey to see where the pipeline would go through we looked into both routes to Israel and Egypt and they were both economically the same,” Hewitt said. Still, Hamas Minister of Economy Ziad al-Zaza told Dow Jones Newswires last week that the Palestinian government wouldn’t approve any deal to export BG’s natural gas from Gaza to Israel, despite the Palestinian president’s office welcoming talks for such a contract. Bringing the gas to Egypt could supply around 1tn cu ft of gas to BG’s planned third train at its Idku project. BG holds a major stake in the Egyptian LNG project located at Idku at the Mediterranean Sea, which has two trains producing 7.2mn tonnes a year of LNG for export. “A third train at Idku would probably materialise by 2011 or 2012,” Hewitt said. A third train with the same size and capacity as the first two would require 4tn cu ft of gas. Still, should the Gaza gas not come to Egypt, other sources of gas are available to supply gas to the third train, according to Hewitt. “There are a number of third-party suppliers that are interested in exporting their gas via Idku and we have had a number of discussions about doing that,” Hewitt said. Hewitt declined to disclose the names of the suppliers. BG plans to invest $1bn in Egypt this year to meet growing demand for the fuel. “In the latter half of this year, we should sanction another billion dollars of investments to increase the supply to the domestic market,” Hewitt said. “That’s what the country needs.” A further $2bn would be committed for the following two years, he said. Egypt, the most populous Arab state and Africa’s second-largest gas producer behind Algeria, saw gas consumption increase by a fifth since 2001 because of faster economic growth, according to BP estimates. BG plans to produce more gas from two offshore fields operated with two partners. Edison of Italy has a 20% stake in the Rosetta field, and Petroliam Nasional of Malaysia has a 50% interest in the West Delta Deep Marine. The two will bear with BG the cost of the wells, subsea pipelines, communication systems and onshore processing plants needed for the project. BG aims to add 500bn cu ft to 700bn cu ft of gas reserves earmarked for Egypt's domestic market, Hewitt said. The company currently produces 2.5bn cu ft of gas a day from Egypt, accounting for over 40% of the nation’s total output. BG has exported $1bn worth of the fuel a year since 2005, accounting for 10% of the nation's total exports and 1.5% of its gross domestic product, according to company figures. Egypt plans to double annual gas exports in five years to 35mn cu m and add 45% to proven reserves, now estimated at 67tn cu ft, with the help of foreign companies including BG, BP and Eni. It has a policy of allocating one-third of its gas reserves to consumption, another third to exports and saving the rest for the use of future generations. – Dow Jones Newswires, Bloomberg more

Resolved Question: I asked this question last night, but no one was online. Tell me what you think?

These trite, tattered, ponchos and scarfs say p*ss and five bucks about me. I cut my own lawn with silver nail clippers Supported by short, grody fingers That have been blistered pressing wire hangers downtown, Nebraska and f*cked real bad scraping pie crust drippings from the bottom of my landlord's gas oven. I sweep the porch before heading off, Tulsa Welding School, place's like a feild day scent, latex caricature. Ovens claming, Tight wound metal devices, like the guts of a clock, tick-tockin'. and studio girls and boys, gather because of collected pompous attitudes, to share slick, icy gestures lip-lockin' without me. I snort ashes from the thighs of virgins, And chew the human adrenaline gland. Clearwater is a perfume luxury, Fish rot while they're still swimming. Mexico City I bought buckets of cheap jewelry On my visit, to dig for buried treasure, But I didn't like the weather. Now I'm back and wearing leather, Waiting for my umbrella. The first days are spent comptemplating what I know I know. A fraction is a division problem. Mile long one step equations force children over jungle gym tops. A man owns the river I went down to draw, "Tresspassing," the sign complained, Holding me back with a silver chain. I keep on walking. Instead of water, mud and garbage sunk on the bottom of natural crater When the silver thawed, swampy pickle trees with thin trunks drooped like tired d*cks, Exhausted sucking moisture from the soft mother bricks. Over the gloss and sticky dirt carnival, hurricane disaster, Plastic bag habitat, Silver man tricks CLEAR WATER IS A PURFUME LUXARY, FISH ROT WHILE THEY'RE STILL SWIMMING. I sat to draw what I saw, and it all turned out quite charming. I seek pleasure. I seek the nerves under your skin. I am old hero, older then wacko pervert superf*cking man. I am wh*re who seeks experience. Excitement. Curiosity. The only conscious thing in our world is to love and be loved. Seek the hollow thrill. Say how you really, really feel. I am sister of the gods and gods own daughter slaughter. Will you be my daddy? Will you be my girlfriend? The single family who branches out from Rome, to Australia, to Brazil, and Puro, to Africa and Nebraska. Desire is a heat rash, but no illusion. Teeter forever on those golden scales, then sing me into eternity. I wanna be you lover. I wanna be your man. Day old Joey with gray hair, premature baby cries heart into salt canal. Secluded movie stars don't get paid for sagging breasts. Cashier boy's Calvin fixed scent lingers deep after hours, take a shower, pick some flowers, stolen change. We're all here now and everything's okay. We're all coming over now, and we won't be leaving right away. I fall into a pit. Pit of sh*t and sh*t. Inside of it. I skip like so many school kids, think of when time stops, electricity. I am inside a cartoon and I can't feel a pinch but I like it like that, like it like that, like it like that. These trite, tattern ponchos and scarves say p*ss and five bucks about me. I grow the fur of an animal under my arms and cut my own lawn with silver nail clippers, supported by, short, grody fingers, blistered pressing wire hangers, scraping pie crust drippings. Place is like a field day scent, latex caricature. Ovens and clamming steel machines like the guts of a clock, tick tockin', rock n' roll, tick tockin', my generation, beating. Can you feel? Stink. more

Resolved Question: Tell me what you think?

These trite, tattered, ponchos and scarfs say p*ss and five bucks about me. I cut my own lawn with silver nail clippers Supported by short, grody fingers That have been blistered pressing wire hangers downtown, Nebraska and f*cked real bad scraping pie crust drippings from the bottom of my landlord's gas oven. I sweep the porch before heading off, Tulsa Welding School, place's like a feild day scent, latex caricature. Ovens claming, Tight wound metal devices, like the guts of a clock, tick-tockin'. and studio girls and boys, gather because of collected pompous attitudes, to share slick, icy gestures lip-lockin' without me. I snort ashes from the thighs of virgins, And chew the human adrenaline gland. Clearwater is a perfume luxury, Fish rot while they're still swimming. Mexico City I bought buckets of cheap jewelry On my visit, to dig for buried treasure, But I didn't like the weather. Now I'm back and wearing leather, Waiting for my umbrella. The first days are spent comptemplating what I know I know. A fraction is a division problem. Mile long one step equations force children over jungle gym tops. A man owns the river I went down to draw, "Tresspassing," the sign complained, Holding me back with a silver chain. I keep on walking. Instead of water, mud and garbage sunk on the bottom of natural crater When the silver thawed, swampy pickle trees with thin trunks drooped like tired d*cks, Exhausted sucking moisture from the soft mother bricks. Over the gloss and sticky dirt carnival, hurricane disaster, Plastic bag habitat, Silver man tricks CLEAR WATER IS A PURFUME LUXARY, FISH ROT WHILE THEY'RE STILL SWIMMING. I sat to draw what I saw, and it all turned out quite charming. I seek pleasure. I seek the nerves under your skin. I am old hero, older then wacko pervert superf*cking man. I am wh*re who seeks experience. Excitement. Curiosity. The only conscious thing in our world is to love and be loved. Seek the hollow thrill. Say how you really, really feel. I am sister of the gods and gods own daughter slaughter. Will you be my daddy? Will you be my girlfriend? The single family who branches out from Rome, to Australia, to Brazil, and Puro, to Africa and Nebraska. Desire is a heat rash, but no illusion. Teeter forever on those golden scales, then sing me into eternity. I wanna be you lover. I wanna be your man. Day old Joey with gray hair, premature baby cries heart into salt canal. Secluded movie stars don't get paid for sagging breasts. Cashier boy's Calvin fixed scent lingers deep after hours, take a shower, pick some flowers, stolen change. We're all here now and everything's okay. We're all coming over now, and we won't be leaving right away. I fall into a pit. Pit of sh*t and sh*t. Inside of it. I skip like so many school kids, think of when time stops, electricity. I am inside a cartoon and I can't feel a pinch but I like it like that, like it like that, like it like that. These trite, tattern ponchos and scarves say p*ss and five bucks about me. I grow the fur of an animal under my arms and cut my own lawn with silver nail clippers, supported by, short, grody fingers, blistered pressing wire hangers, scraping pie crust drippings. Place is like a field day scent, latex caricature. Ovens and clamming steel machines like the guts of a clock, tick tockin', rock n' roll, tick tockin', my generation, beating. Can you feel? Stink. more

Resolved Question: Can you help...us all out.......we are in a pinch....?

Dear Friend, No one voted on Election Day to hand over Utah's Redrock wilderness to oil companies. But the Bush Administration cynically chose that very day to advance an outrageous plan that will sell off leases for some 160,000 acres of spectacular Utah canyonlands to oil and gas speculators. While America was voting for Barack Obama and his vision of a clean energy future, Bush and Cheney's underlings were conspiring to plunder one of the crown jewels of our natural heritage for their fossil fuel cronies. Please register your own opposition right now: http://www.nrdconline.org/ct/Wp4p8g413PJm/ The auction of Redrock country will take place on December 19. At stake are world-renowned vistas near Canyonlands and Arches National Parks, as well as near Dinosaur National Monument. The highest bidders will earn the right to turn vast tracts of pristine wilderness into industrial wastelands. It's bad enough that Bush officials went behind the backs of the American people with this disastrous scheme. But what's worse, they didn't even tell their own National Park Service until after the fact. In my mind, this theft of our heritage goes beyond the cynical -- it's criminal. What will be left to give to our children and their children if we allow this administration, in a parting shot, to destroy our legacy of public lands for short-term gain? I hope you're as angry as I am about this blatant land grab, because we've got to stop it -- and we have to act fast. The NRDC Action Fund is mobilizing more than one million Americans in an outpouring of protest over the coming days. Send your own message of opposition immediately: http://www.nrdconline.org/ct/Wp4p8g413PJm/ Tell the Bush Administration that you will not allow it to destroy one of the most beautiful places on Earth. We'll automatically send copies of your message to your two senators, your representative and to the Obama transition team, which has signaled their opposition to this disastrous attack on our Redrock heritage. The Bush Administration is racing to complete the auction of our lands before Inauguration Day, which will make sales difficult to reverse. We must fend off this land grab now -- before the oil and gas companies can lay claim to the spoils. Those spoils include stretches of Desolation Canyon, which has been proposed for national park status. Bush's own Interior Department describes the canyon as "a place where a visitor can experience true solitude -- where the forces of nature continue to shape the colorful, rugged landscape." The very idea of oil and gas operations invading these remote sanctuaries -- which have remained untouched for millennia -- is deeply upsetting. Once the dirty deed is done, our wilderness can never be restored. That's why I'm asking you to help us sound the alarm and organize now. Tell the Bush Administration to cancel the Redrock auction: http://www.nrdconline.org/ct/Wp4p8g413PJm/ Remind them that we the people are the rightful owners of this majestic wilderness and that we won't stand for its destruction. And thank you for joining with me and the NRDC Action Fund to save these beautiful wildlands for all future generations. Sincerely, Robert Redford NRDC Action Fund more

Resolved Question: Why is Bush selling nuclear technology to a middle eastern country whose main trade partner is Iran?

Unfortunately it is true. It's unlikely FOX would run this story, but it is a fact. United Arab Emurates...Capitol, Dubai. Their main trade is with Iran. Same country we tried to outsource port security to. They have enough oil and natural gas to last many generations, why do they want this technology?? more

Resolved Question: my teacher asked us a homework question whic was" Where do we get most of our energy?" these are the choices?

Hydroelectric Solar Wind Farms Natural Gas Coal Generation Nuclear he also asked for the percentages of all of them. i just need the percentages of them and which one(s) we get most of our energy from. please help me it's due tomorrow (November 18) more

Resolved Question: What you didn't know about nuclear energy?

Nuclear energy is talked about as though it was the worst form of electrical generation. Well, here's was you didn't know about nuclear energy: 20 grams of uranium contains the same amount of energy as the following: - 400 kilograms of coal - 270 litres of oil - 300 cubic metres of natural gas plus... - it uses a fraction of the land area that wind power uses - it uses a fraction of the land area that solar power uses I guess nuclear power doesn't look too bad now, does it? more

Resolved Question: Why don't 'Man-did-it' Global Warming advocates discuss the HIGH cost of renewables?

It seems to me when looking at the taxpayer subsidy per unit of energy (subsidy per MillionKWH), that Solar and Wind are 'out of this world' in terms of cost to the taxpayer.... Especially considering that the claim of 'Man-did-it' Global Warming is unproven. Just imagine what we as Taxpayers are going to have to pony up if the Warmers have their way and cover the land with Wind turbines and solar panels!! If they are so great, then why can't the private sector manage them without their sinful taxpayer subsidies??!! We can't afford another ethanol scam!! Alternative Measures of Subsidy and Support FY 2007 Net Generation per energy unit (billion kilowatthours) Subsidy and Support Per unit of Production (dollars/megawatthours) Energy Type/ Taxpayer Subsidy per MillionKWH Coal 0.44 Natural Gas and Petroleum Liquids 0.25 Nuclear 1.59 Hydroelectric 0.67 Solar 24.34 Wind 23.37 Source: U.S. Department of Energy  more

Resolved Question: Shouldn't people, especially those who are about to retire read this?

THIS WILL CHANGE YOUR RETIREMENT For those among you who have more money than you will ever need, save your time and delete this email. For the rest of us who are still working with mortgages, children and grandchildren or retired living on a pension and or Social Security perhaps you will take a couple of minutes to read the proposed changes in the American tax system. Sharing this email with others can make a difference on November 4, 2008; for our citizens and our country. INTERESTING DATA JUST RECEIVED ON TAXES This is something you should be aware of so you don't get blind-sided. This is really going to catch a lot of families off guard. It should make you worry. Proposed changes in taxes after 2008 General election: CAPITAL GAINS TAX MCCAIN 0% on home sales up to $500,000 per home (couples) McCain does not propose any change in existing home sales income tax. OBAMA 28% on profit from ALL home sales How does this affect you? If you sell your home and make a profit, you will pay 28% of your gain on taxes. If you are heading toward retirement and would like to down-size your home or move into a retirement community, 28% of the money you make from your home will go to taxes. This proposal will adversely affect the elderly who are counting on the income from their homes as part of their retirement income. DIVIDEND TAX MCCAIN 15% (no change) OBAMA 39.6% How will this affect you? If you have any money invested in stock market, IRA, mutual funds, college funds, life insurance, retirement accounts, or anything that pays or reinvests dividends, you will now be paying nearly 40% of the money earned on taxes if Obama become president. The experts predict that higher tax rates on dividends and capital gains would crash the stock market yet do absolutely nothing to cut the deficit. INCOME TAX MCCAIN (no changes) 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 OBAMA (Reversion to pre-Bush tax cuts) 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 Under Obama your taxes will more than double! How does this affect you? No explanation needed. This is pretty straight forward. INHERITANCE TAX MCCAIN 0% (No change, Bush repealed this tax) OBAMA Restore the inheritance tax - 50% How does this affect you? Many families have lost businesses, farms and ranches, and homes that have been in their families for generations because they could not afford the inheritance tax. Those willing their assets to loved ones will not only lose them to these taxes. NEW TAXES BEING PROPOSED BY OBAMA * New government taxes proposed on homes that are more than 2400 square feet * New gasoline taxes (as if gas weren't high enough already) * New taxes on natural resources consumption (heating gas, water, electricity) * New taxes on retirement accounts and last but not least.... * New taxes to pay for socialized medicine so we can receive the same level of medical care as other third-world countries!!!  more

Voting Question: Could you check the grammar in my essay?

>>Global warming has been in the spotlight of the media ever since Al Gore's documentary An Inconvenient Truth was released in 2006. Most people agree that global warming is a real problem, but are not exactly sure on how to solve it. Global warming can be solved by making small changes in your daily life, utilizing alternative energies, and by implementing new environmentally conscious policies. These changes must be made by the entire population for them to be effective. If we cannot make these changes the future of our planet will remain in jeopardy. In my opinion the previously listed solutions, if put into practice, can solve the global warming crisis. >>One of the biggest impacts a single person can make on global warming is by changing small aspects of their life. Since global warming is caused by greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, we need to do all we can to reduce our emissions of carbon dioxide. There are several minor changes that can be made to effectively cut down on the amount of carbon dioxide being released into the atmosphere. For example, one could replace five regular light bulbs with compact fluorescent light bulbs. Replacing five heavily used seventy-five watt incandescent bulbs with five twenty-five watt compact fluorescent bulbs can save about five-hundred pounds of carbon dioxide each year per bulb. Another simple way to cut carbon dioxide emissions is to keep your car tires properly inflated. Consumer Reports' testing has shown that fuel consumption can be increased about one percent by a tire that is under-inflated just two pounds per square inch. Properly inflated tires can improve gas mileage by about three percent and can save two-hundred sixty-four pounds. There are several other easy ways to decrease the amount of carbon dioxide emissions such as reducing your driving speed, putting your computer to sleep, and carpooling. My research shows that global warming can be effectively reduced by making small changes in your daily life that cut carbon dioxide production ("Global Warming Solutions"). >>In the United States eighty-two percent of the total greenhouse gas emissions in 2006 were from the combustion of petroleum, coal, and natural gas. "The path of future climate change will depend on what courses of action are taken by society--in particular the emission of greenhouse gases from the burning of fossil fuels" ("Global Warming"). So, it is clear that utilizing alternative energy resources is an effective way to reverse global warming. Solar, wind, hydroelectric, and biomass are alternative sources of energy that could be used to replace petroleum, coal, and natural gas. In 2006 only fifteen percent of the United States fuel consumption was non-fossil, renewable fuels. The other eighty-five percent of fuel consumption was from fossil, nonrenewable fuels. The resulting carbon dioxide emissions that year, which were about 3,700 million metric tons, were caused solely by the combustion fossil fuels. Non-fossil, renewable fuels emitted no carbon dioxide, therefore they did not contribute to global warming as fossil fuels do ("Greenhouse Gases"). The numbers show that alternative energy sources are a much more clean and environmentally friendly way to power the country. If we integrate alternative energy resources into our lives we will see a dramatic decline in the amount of carbon dioxide emissions, which would help to correct global warming. >>The most important step in solving global warming may be the environmentally conscious policies that the government implements. "Despite much activity, the U.S. Congress is currently contemplating no policies sufficient to address the rapidly growing global warming crisis" ("Executive Summary"). The bills that are currently in discussion call for an eighty percent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by 2050. The bills also aim to keep the atmospheric carbon dioxide levels from increasing no more than four-hundred fifty parts per million. However, in 1990 the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change stated in their First Scientific Assessment that "In order to stabilize concentrations at present day concentrations (353 parts per million), an immediate reduction in global anthropogenic emissions by sixty to eighty percent would be necessary." Therefore, the policy should be to reduce greenhouse gas emissions eighty percent below 1990 levels by 2025. This would reduce greenhouse gases an entire generation before the strongest bills presently under deliberation by the United States congress. Also, the policy should begin in 2010. There are no technological obstacles preventing the immediate planning and launching of the transition. The research shows that if this policy is implemented in 2010 global warming will be reduced. >>As previously stated global warming has been a widely discussed topic since 2006. Everyone seems to be trying to think of a way to solve it. In order to preserve our planet we thank you! more

Resolved Question: Wanna know how Obama & McCain's tax plans work?

It's pretty clear, Obama talks about helping the working class people, but the truth is something else. Read below. Proposed changes in taxes after 2008 General election: CAPITAL GAINS TAX MCCAIN 0% on home sales up to $500,000 per home (couples) McCain does not propose any change in existing home sales income tax. OBAMA 28% on profit from ALL home sales How does this affect you? If you sell your home and make a profit, you will pay 28% of your gain on taxes. If you are heading toward retirement and would like to down-size your home or move into a retirement community, 28% of the money you make from your home will go to taxes. This proposal will adversely affect the elderly who are counting on the income from their homes as part of their retirement income. DIVIDEND TAX MCCAIN 15% (no change) OBAMA 39.6 % How will this affect you? If you have any money invested in stock market, mutual funds, college funds, life insurance, retirement accounts, or anything that pays or reinvests dividends, you will now be paying nearly 40% of the money earned on taxes if Obama become president. The experts predict that higher tax rates on dividends and capital gains would crash the stock market yet do absolutely nothing to cut the deficit. INCOME TAX MCCAIN (no changes) 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 OBAMA (Reversion to pre-Bush tax cuts) 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 Under Obama your taxes will more than double! How does this affect you? No explanation needed. This is pretty straight forward. INHERITANCE TAX MCCAIN 0% (No change, Bush repealed this tax) OBAMA Restore the inheritance tax How does this affect you? Many families have lost businesses, farms and ranches, and homes that have been in their families for generations because they could not afford the inheritance tax. Those willing their assets to loved ones will not only lose them to these taxes. NEW TAXES BEING PROPOSED BY OBAMA * New government taxes proposed on homes that are more than 2400 square feet * New gasoline taxes (as if gas weren't high enough already) * New taxes on natural resources consumption (heating gas, water, electricity) * New taxes on retirement accounts and last but not least.... * New taxes to pay for socialized medicine so we can receive the same level of medical care as other third-world countries!!!  more

Resolved Question: Hey a REAL question, California Prop 10, yes or no?

prop 10 is the alternative fuels and renewable energy prop not to be confused with prop 7 renewable energy generation i'm for 7 but can't make up my mind on 10 it says $5billion in bonds and costs $10billion over the next 30 years that's a lot of money and a long time i was reading the info on it and it sounds all good but there are some bad things costs a lot natural gas has an edge - giving Boone Pickens more money an alternative fuel prop but not a great alternative fuel prop plus you'll be funding companies to make hybrid and alternative fuel cars (something they'll probably should do on their own) i can't see if the good out weighs the bad... what do you think? you can read more on it http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Proposition_10_(2008) http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/California_Proposition_10_(2008) more

Resolved Question: Why does the Pickens plan propose replacing a peak power source with a baseload power source?

Pickens' plan would divert natural gas usage from power generation to vehicle fuel, reducing reliance on oil. Cars could run on natural gas. Yes. That makes sense. Pickens' plan would increase wind power generation. Wind is an underutilized generating source. That makes sense. But wind is a baseload power source and is not reliable enough to use for peak power. Natural gas plants can be turned off and on more easily than other plants, and natural gas is expensive, thus it is used primarily for peak power - power generation during high-demand times, when you need a reliable source. Thus, you can't replace gas with wind, even though they're both power generating sources, because they meet different market segments. Yes we should build more wind capacity for baseload generation, but doing that won't enable us to divert natural gas from peak power generation to use as a vehicle fuel. More wind power would enable us to increase exports of coal, which is great, though the green-types don't want to hear that. But it doesn't solve the issue of dependence on foreign oil - other than a de facto coal-for-oil program. Why don't more people see this? Know-it-all, the cost to store wind-generated power would make it much more expensive, which kind of defeats the purpose - - at that rate why not just use nuclear?Blackcat - wind can be use for power generation only if it is windy. more

Resolved Question: Obama says he will cut the Bush Tax cuts for the poor, have you really thought how bad that is?

2008 PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE COMPARISON TALKING POINTS ISSUE JOHN McCAIN BARAK OBAMA Favors new drilling offshore US Yes No, but might consider Will appoint judges who interpret the law not make it Yes No Served in the US Armed Forces Yes No Amount of time served in the US Senate 22 YEARS 143 DAYS Will institute a socialized national health care plan No Yes Supports abortion throughout the pregnancy No Yes Would seek to pull troops out of Iraq immediately No Yes Supports gun ownership rights Yes No Proposed programs will mean a huge tax increase No Yes Voted against making English the official language No Yes Voted to give Social Security benefits to illegal aliens No Yes CAPITAL GAINS TAX MCCAIN 0% on home sales up to $500,000 per home (couples). McCain does not propose any change in existing home sales income tax. OBAMA 28% on profit from ALL home sales. (How does this affect you? If you sell your home and make a profit, you will pay 28% of your gain on taxes. If you are heading toward retirement and would like to down-size your home or move into a retirement community, 28% of the money you make from your home will go to taxes. This proposal will adversely affect the elderly who are counting on the income from their homes as part of their retirement income.) DIVIDEND TAX MCCAIN 15% (no change) OBAMA 39.6% (How will this affect you? If you have any money invested in stock market, IRA, mutual funds, college funds, life insurance, retirement accounts, or anything that pays or reinvests dividends, you will now be paying=2 0nearly 40% of the money earned on taxes if Obama becomes president. The experts predict that 'Higher tax rates on dividends and capital gains would crash the stock market, yet do absolutely nothing to cut the deficit.') INCOME TAX MCCAIN (no changes) 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 OBAMA (reversion to pre-Bush tax cuts) 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 INHERITANCE TAX MCCAIN - 0% (No change, Bush repealed this tax) OBAMA Restore the inheritance tax - Many families have lost businesses, farms, ranches, and homes that have been in their families for generations because they could not afford the inheritance tax. Those willing their assets to loved ones will only lose them to these taxes. NEW TAXES PROPOSED BY OBAMA New government taxes proposed on homes that are more than 2400 square feet. New gasoline taxes. New taxes on natural resources consumption (heating gas, water, electricity) New taxes on retirement accounts. New taxes to pay for socialized medicine. You can verify the above at the following web sites: http://money.cnn.com/news/specials/election/2008/index.html http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/issues/issues.taxes.html http://elections.foxnews.com/?s=proposed+taxes http://bulletin.aarp.org/yourworld/politics/articles/mccain_obama_offer_different_visions_on_taxes.html http://blog.washingtonpost.com/fact-checker/candidates/barack_obama/ http://blog.washingtonpost.com/fact-checker/candidates/john_mccain/ you are in denial that the sources listed show Obama really did read this stuff off the telepromter? wow 1st step--admit you have an addiction 2nd st..Tax cut to 95% of the people changed to 95% of the working people and now it has CHANGED to those that do community service, military or work, at the speed you countered the truth you didnt check the sources that Obama read from the telepromter--Obama cant beleive what he has been reading,the truth is before your eyes and you deny it, you people are sad, I hope Obama does win so you can see what por is, I worked for a living so I can watch you grovel like beggers and fight for a crumb of bread--I havent been turned in yet for the truth,,,, the Obamaidiots must be in shock and awe from what Obama read from the telepromterthe reason you dont see reference to middle class is because middle class is a Socialist term--actually is middle/peasant class when it was originally defined by Karl Marx there was a greater number of trained professional before the Clinton era but they got wiped out by taxes more

Resolved Question: Interning after high school?(gap year before Harvard)?

Interning after high school?(gap year before Harvard)? I'm currently in Grade 10. I'm researching on my plan to enter Harvard or Yale. Some people said internship. I agree as well, I think it's a good idea for me to take an internship. and I am thinking of a gap year.... while I'm on a gap year I think I can do the intern my problem is I don't know if the company owned by one of our family's connection(a Yale graduate,former Energy Minster) will accept me as an intern.....if I'm just a high school graduate... the company I'm talking about is an Energy company which deals with oil/natural gas/ power generation and alternative energy...... that's pretty big for a high school graduate.... do you think it's possible for me to have an intern job with that company? I can't ask them because it's too early and very funny-looking if I do at this age. I'm Canadian Oh Ranto! I mean internship so that my application would look good with a recommendation from one of their graduates( the Energy minister who runs the company, who happens to know us well) more

Resolved Question: How come Obama is lying about raising taxes?

Obama wants to restore the inheritance tax Many families lost businesses, farms, ranches, and homes that have been in their families for generations because they could not afford the inheritance tax. Those willing their assets to loved ones will lose them to these taxes. DIVIDEND TAX - currently 15% McCain will not raise it Obama will RAISE it to 39.6% How will this affect you? If you have money invested in stock market, IRA, mutual funds, college funds, life insurance, retirement accounts, or anything that pays or reinvests dividends, you will be paying nearly 40% of the money earned on taxes if Obama becomes president. The experts predict that 'Higher tax rates on dividends and capital gains would crash the stock market, yet do absolutely nothing to cut the deficit.' CAPITAL GAINS TAX McCain - NO increases or changes Obama - INCREASE to 28% on profit from ALL home sales. How does this affect you? If you sell your home and make a profit, you will pay 28% of your gain on taxes. If you are heading toward retirement and would like to down-size your home or move into a retirement community,28% of the money you make from your home sale will go to taxes. This proposal will adversely affect the elderly who are counting on income from their homes as part of their retirement income. New government taxes proposed on homes more than 2,400 square feet. New gasoline taxes (as if gas weren't high enough already) New taxes on natural resources consumption (heating gas, water, electricity) New taxes on retirement accounts, and last but not least.... New taxes to pay for socialized medicine so we can receive the same level of medical care as other third-world countries!!! PLUS by allowing the Bush income tax cuts to expire, the taxes will go back to the higher rates under Clinton, doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure this out, and see through the marxist agenda of Obama. All of the above info is available to you on Obama's own website by the way  more

Resolved Question: Why do Fundamentalists hate the human race?

Do creationists ever stop to consider that their anti-science beliefs are detrimental to mankind? "But an understanding of evolution doesn't lead to anything that could benefit mankind!" The Creationist will say. That would be like saying, after mankind discovered electricity, "We shouldn't study electricity, it won't lead to anything." But electricity did lead to things, it led to computers, refrigeration, better medical equipment, better home heating. IT SAVED BILLIONS OF LIVES; people who would have died from starvation, or lack of heat, or one of a million other things. When a Creationist actually takes the time to study evolution and biology (biology being a study which would collapse if Evolution were false, but of course it is not) then they would realize that within the not to distant future, an understanding of evolution will lead to the eradication of disease, and it will allow us to grow new hearts, and limbs, and organs, for the suffering and downtrodden through a complete understanding of DNA. One day we will be able to write DNA, like a programmer writes computer code; but not if we don't understand how DNA evolved, and continues to evolve to this day. Those two examples are just givens, they WILL happen, once we completely master evolutionary study, and with it all of biology. Who knows what else we will accomplish for mankind. like I said, who knew that electricity, that blue, fleeting, painful substance, would one day lead to defibrillators and artificial hearts. Let me give you an example of how evolutionary study will eradicate disease. To eradicate AIDS it will require an understanding of how the virus mutates; the virus mutates a full 1% of its DNA every year. Of course, mutate is just another word for darwinian evolution. There is no difference between the two. Viruses mutate according to natural selection. Not only will it require an understanding of how AIDS evolves, but also how it evolved. We can reverse engineer the virus using markers in its DNA. Viruses leave DNA markers every generation, like the rings on a tree. We can follow these markers back millions, if not billions of years, to figure out when it evolved its most potent characteristics. But of course, if we believe that the Earth is only 6,000 years old, then what good would it be to reverse engineer a virus back a billion years to when it was harmless? What else could we do with a complete understanding of DNA? We could program drug addiction out of the human race. We could literally make it so that drugs do not give people a buzz, and therefore drug addiction becomes a thing of the past. What sickens me most of all, is that when science does find these cures, the creationist will be the first in line to benefit. Count on it. Just like how they benefit now from our understanding of a round, rather than flat earth. Just like they benefit from the latest neuroscience that examines the human mind as a physical entity, rather than an intangible soul. Just like how they benefit from oil that was discovered with an experts knowledge of the location of ancient bogs and lake beds a billion years into the past. I wonder if every time a creationists fills his or her car she takes the time to acknoledge that the gas was found only because an expert out there studied what the earth looked like, not 6,000, but 1 billion years ago, and earlier. I could go on with my thoughts on creationists, but believe me, it would not pass the Yahoo decency test.Chris: Thank you for your post. That is all fine, but you people really need to understand that scientists study evolution, and biology, and "old Earth theory" because they want to SAVE LIVES here on this planet, in this life! Not in the next one.♥allecat♥ †EWTN†: There might be a higher power at work; I doubt it, but I can not say for certain. What I do know however, is that evolution is a FACT. And the Earth is most certainly older than 6,000 years. more

Voting Question: Obama vs. McCain? Based on details, who would you vote for?

Sen. Barack Obama ECONOMY: Provide a Tax Cut for Working Families: Obama and Biden will restore fairness to the tax code and provide 150 million workers the tax relief they need. Obama and Biden will create a new "Making Work Pay" tax credit of up to $500 per person, or $1,000 per working family. The "Making Work Pay" tax credit will completely eliminate income taxes for 10 million Americans. ENERGY CRISIS: Provide short-term relief to American families facing pain at the pump Help create five million new jobs by strategically investing $150 billion over the next ten years to catalyze private efforts to build a clean energy future. Within 10 years save more oil than we currently import from the Middle East and Venezuela combined. Put 1 million Plug-In Hybrid cars -- cars that can get up to 150 miles per gallon -- on the road by 2015, cars that we will work to make sure are built here in America. Ensure 10 percent of our electricity comes from renewable sources by 2012, and 25 percent by 2025. Implement an economy-wide cap-and-trade program to reduce greenhouse gas emissions 80 percent by 2050. Sen. John McCain ECONOMY: No taxpayer money should bail out real estate speculators or financial market participants who failed to perform due diligence in assessing credit risks. Any assistance for borrowers should be focused solely on homeowners and any government assistance to the banking system should be based solely on preventing systemic risk. ENERGY CRISIS: John McCain Believes In Promoting And Expanding The Use Of Our Domestic Supplies Of Natural Gas. When people are hurting, and struggling to afford gasoline, food, and other necessities, common sense requires that we draw upon America's own vast reserves of oil and natural gas. Within the United States we have tremendous reserves of natural gas. The Outer Continental Shelf alone contains 77 trillion cubic feet of recoverable natural gas. It is time that we capitalize on these significant resources and build the infrastructure needed to transport this important component of electricity generation and transportation fuel around the country. - Boy oh boy was that a lot to read, but I wanted to see who you would vote for based on the information presented here. Not based on what you heard on the news, not what your family is voting for or your spouse, not for the amount of celebrities backing them up. What do you think? Based on this here, who will you vote for? Thank you, those of you who actually took the time to read this. You are by far an intellectual - "Seek first to understand, then to be understood," right? Sources: (all information was copied from their websites.) Barack Obama: http://www.barackobama.com John McCain: http://www.johnmccain.com more

Resolved Question: What do you think of the natural gas transportation part of the Pickens Plan?

An interesting analysis can be read here http://climateprogress.org/2008/09/26/pickens-natural-gas-plan-makes-no-sense-and-will-never-happen/ The Pickens Plan suggests that we use wind turbines to replace natural gas power plants, and use the natural gas to fuel compressed natural gas (CNG) vehicles instead. The conclusion of the analysis linked above is that an electric car charged by natural gas power plants (using existing lithium ion battery technology) is roughly twice as efficient as a CNG car powered directly by the natural gas. On top of that, you can't really replace natural gas power plants with wind turbines, because wind is intermittent. You need some degree of power generation to back them up, and often it's natural gas turbines. So basically if we move toward an electric transportation infrastructure, we can power more than twice as many cars with natural gas as if we moved toward a CNG transportation infrastructure. So what's the point of the natural gas transportation part of the Pickens Plan?karen - I have to disagree with several of your points. There is one natural gas passenger car on the market (Honda Civic), but there are several EVs on the market and many more coming very soon, including highway-speed long-range. Infrastructure is similar for natural gas and electric, except you need special equipment to fill a car with natural gas.I found an extremely informative article on the subject here: http://gas2.org/2008/05/05/the-cleanest-cars-on-earth-honda-civic-gx-and-other-natural-gas-vehicles-ngvs/ more

Resolved Question: can someone summarize this arcticle?

K i am not trying to give an excuse but my dad just pasted away from pacriatic cancer and my teacher wants this summary in so if someone can summarize this article to the best of there abiiltiesi really appreciate it Long known for its coal-burning power plants and oil refineries, New Jersey is about to take a major step toward clean energy with offshore wind turbines that would generate enough electricity to power half of the houses in North Jersey. A pilot project to install dozens of turbines off the coast is scheduled to be approved next week and will act as a cornerstone in Governor Corzine’s push for renewable energy. Five companies have submitted proposals for a $19 million Board of Public Utilities grant that state officials say will boost the project. Plans range from 74 towering wind turbines a few miles off the coast of Atlantic City to 225 smaller ones off Seaside Park. The 350 megawatts generated in this first wave will not make a huge dent in the amount of coal, natural gas or nuclear energy used to generate the almost 20,000 megawatts needed in New Jersey. But advocates hope this wind farm will lead to more. “We need a new way to generate power, and offshore wind is essential to our future energy demands,” said Jeanne Fox, the BPU president. The decision, expected on Oct. 3, could make New Jersey the first state to have an offshore wind farm, although Delaware officials approved a plan this summer. Land-based wind turbines have been providing electricity everywhere from Atlantic City to West Texas in recent years. But even though the wind is strongest at sea, offshore wind farms have never been built in the U.S., largely because of the enormous construction costs, environmental concerns, and community objections that a 250-foot turbine would mar picturesque seaside views. That is changing after the success of offshore wind farms in Europe that have shown minimal environmental impact. Some are built far enough off the coast that they are barely seen. 1,000 megawatts Corzine wants more than just a pilot program. The proposed state Energy Master Plan calls for 1,000 megawatts to be generated by offshore wind. That may be increased to 3,000 when the plan is adopted this fall. Environmentalists have long supported wind power, but they do have concerns. Some believe the construction will disrupt life on the ocean floor. There is fear that the 100- to 150-foot blades will chop up birds. Another concern is how much this will eventually affect a consumer’s electric bill. Constructing offshore turbines is expensive. One applicant, Garden State Offshore Energy, said it would cost about $1.1 billion to build its planned 96 turbines 16 to 21 miles off the coast of Atlantic City. In the long run, however, it may be less expensive than fossil fuels since wind is free and there is no need for expensive air filtering equipment like those required at coal plants. “Whether wind will be more costly than other forms, we don’t know,” said Stefanie Brand, director of the state Division of Rate Counsel, which advocates on behalf of consumers. “Constructing a new generation of power sources is expensive. We want them to be as economical as they can be.” Electricity from the turbines will flow from underwater cables to power stations onshore, where it will enter the power grid. If the turbines are built off Atlantic City, much of the power generated will be drawn into South Jersey. But more turbines would mean wind energy would eventually make it to North Jersey. Onshore wind farms located in sparsely populated areas in the U.S. have had trouble getting their power into the grid; that is not a problem in densely populated New Jersey. Regulators and the applicants believe the BPU’s $19 million grant will fast track the project with permits needed from the state Department of Environmental Protection and the federal Minerals Management Service, which would lease portions of the ocean floor to builders. “It’s very much a head start,” Fox said. “The permitting agencies should be more sensitive about moving this forward.” Several plans are similar, but each applicant says they are the best for different reasons. * Garden State Offshore Energy, a partnership of PSEG and Winergy Power LLC, said their technology allows them to build wind turbines farther offshore than their competitors. They also tout a plan to use wind turbines to store compressed air in tanks that could be used to generate electricity when there is no wind. * Bluewater Wind, a Hoboken company, said its selection this summer to build Delaware’s first wind farm would allow it to develop in New Jersey at a lower cost. * Fishermen’s Energy of New Jersey, a consortium of fishing companies in Cape May, said it would be the best steward of the oceans since its members know the Jersey coast better than anyone. * Environmental Technologies of New York said its smaller vertical axis turbines will  more

Resolved Question: Why do obama supporters get so mean when someone shows them the FACTS about their candidate?

I already know this question will be reported, just as my other recent FACTUAL question were, but isn't ANYONE interested in FACTS, ISSUES & where the candidates stand? 1: Favors new drilling offshore in the US - McCain: Yes Obama: No 2. Will appoint judges who interpret the law & NOT make it - McCain: Yes Obama: No 3: Served in the U.S. Armed Forces - McCain: Yes Obama: No 4. Amount of time served in the U.S. Senate - McCain: 22 YEARS Obama: 173 DAYS 5. Will institute a socialized National Health Care Plan - McCain: No Obama: Yes 6. Supports abortion throughout the pregnancy - McCain: No Obama: Yes 7. Would pull troops out of Iraq immediately - McCain: No Obama: Yes (bringing the terrorists to us) 8. Supports gun ownership rights - McCain: Yes Obama: No 9. Supports Homosexual marriage - McCain: No Obama: Yes 10. Proposed programs that will mean HUGE tax increases - McCain: No Obama: Yes 11. Voted AGAINST making English the official language in the U.S. - McCain: No Obama: Yes 12. Voted to give Social Security benefits to ILLEGALS - McCain: No Obama: Yes What about taxes? Do you know where they both stand? Capital Gains Tax - McCain: 0% on home sales up to $500,000 per home (couples). McCain does NOT propose any changes in existing home sales income tax. Obama: 28% on profit from ALL home sales. In other words, if you sell your home & make a profit. you WILL pay 28% of your gain in taxes. If you are heading to retirement & want to down-size your home or move into a retirement community, 28% of the money you make from selling your home WILL go to taxes. This WILL adversely affect the elderly who are counting on the income from their homes as part of their retirement income. Dividend Tax - McCain: 15% (NO change) Obama: 39.6% In other words, if you have ANY money invested in the stock markets, IRA, Mutual Funds, College Funds, Life Insurance, Retirement Accounts or ANYTHING that pays or reinvests dividends, "YOU" WILL now be paying nearly 40% of the money earned on taxes IF obama becomes president. Experts predict that "Higher tax rates on dividends & capital gains WILL crash the stock markets & will do NOTHING to cut the deficit." Income Tax - McCain: (no changes) single making 30K - tax $4500 Single making 50K - tax $12,500 Single making 75K - tax $18,750 Married making 60K - tax $9000 Married making 75K - tax $18,750 Married making 125K - tax $31,250 Obama: (reversion to pre-Bush tax cuts) Single making 30K - tax $8400 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 Under obama, taxes will almost double Inheritance Tax - McCain: 0% (no change - Bush repealed this tax) Obama: Restore the inheritance tax Many families have lost businesses, farms, ranches & homes that have been in their familes for generations because they could NOT afford to pay the inheritance tax. Those willing their assets to their loved ones will ONLY lose them to these taxes. New Taxes Proposed - McCain: 0 Obama: New government taxes proposed on homes that are more than 2400 square feet. New gasoline taxes, New taxes on natural resources consumption (heating gas, water, electricity), New taxes on retirement accounts & last but not least, New taxes to pay for "socialized medicine" so we can receive the same level of medical care as other third world countries!!! NOTHING IS FREE, SOMEONE ALWAYS HAS TO PAY!!! All of this can be verified by these........ www.money.cnn.com/news/specials/election/2008/index.html www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/issues/issues.taxes.html www.elections.foxnews.com/?s=proposed+taxes www.bulletin.aarp.org/youworld/politics/articles/mccain_obama_offer_different_visions.com http://blog.washingtonpost.com/fact-checker/candidates/barack_obama http://blog.washingtonpost.com/fact-checker/candidates/john_mccain So, I want to know why obama supporters get so angry when they are shown FACTS? Audrey: Like what? Did you look the information up?Barb: Then prove me wrong. Many of the facts that I have found come from the "left" media CNN. Are you telling me THEY don't have their facts right? If so, then why are they left?jim,twa: That is such a pathetic & typical Democratic comment you just proved my point. McCain is NOT stalling, he IS doing his JOB. This is the SECOND time in recent weeks that McCain has put the U.S. first. The first time was when Hurricane Ike was coming in. But all obama thinks of is himself. Then of course he wouldn't want to do anything that would bring into the for front his involvment in being in the number 2 spot feeding at the trough of Fannie & Freddie would he? Just ANOTHER FACT I thought I would share!!What Democrats need to remember is that CONGRESS makes the laws & the President can ONLY do with what he is given. The Democratic Congress is NOT doing anything so as to make the Republicans look incompetent since it is an election year, when in FACT it is the DEMOCRAT led Congress that is NOT doing their job because THEY are incompetent.Your Horns Are Showing: You have GOT to be kidding!! The right is paranoid? The Democrats have leaped off the edge. They are sending hate mail to a Maine news anchor saying she is trying to look like Governor Palin & sending subliminal messages to viewers to get them to vote Republican! That is beyond paranoid, that is just plain INSANE!!!B Star: NOBODY is talking about race but YOU. As for New Orleans, look at YOUR governor & mayor. THEY left those people there by NOT doing their job & NOT using the funds provided SEVERAL times to fix & reinforce the levies. Hurricane Katrina was an act of God, NOT the Federal Government.I'm not upset in the least. There is ALWAYS things about people that we don't like, I am not different, but I have yet to find ANYONE who supports obama who can tell me why & what has he done in his 173 days to qualify him for the presidency. I don't want regurgitated campaign garbage either. I want "REAL" reasons & "REAL" experience & "REAL" qualifications.Annalies: are you serious? Higher taxes will NOT get more people health care. Who do you think will be paying for this universal health care? When businesses are taxed & MORE people are unemployed, who will they tax to pay for it then? You cannot simply raise taxes on people to get more money, because sooner or later, the people will have NO money, NO house, NO job, NO food, NO NOTHING!! Then what? Universal health care will no longer be there because there will be NOBODY left to tax to pay for it!uneyk: Do you honestly believe what you wrote? "WITH THE PEOPLE"? What does that mean? He was a "Community Organizer". what is that? Did he organize monday night bingo, community bake sales & rummage sales? WHAT is a community organizer? There are scarecrows in Kansas who know as much about foreign affairs, government & this country than obama does. What country have you ever been in where they have changed their official language to suit ANYONE but the people who make up that country? If I move to France, I should speak french, because THAT is their OFFICIAL language. If I move to Norway, I should speak Norwegian, because THAT is their OFFICIAL language. NO country should lose their OWN identity or language to make immigrants happy or make it easier for illegals. ENGLISH IS the "OFFICIAL" language of the United States & it ALWAYS should be & WILL be.Whiteside: NOW fifeldity matters to you? NOW? Did it bother you when Clinton did it? or how about Edwards or the multitude of other Democrats. Did it bother you THEN?? I'm sure it didn't, you were all just as blind, deaf & dumb to all of that as you are about facts concerning Obama. Every person who registers as a Democrat should receive one of those little statues of the three monkeys..."HEAR NO EVIL" "SEE NO EVIL" "SPEAK NO EVIL" because that is how you all are when it comes your candidates.ooopppsss! that should have read - fidelity more

Resolved Question: Obama or McCain Who to vote?

This is interesting...... 2008 PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE COMPARISON TALKING POINTS ISSUE JOHN McCAIN BARAK OBAMA Favors new drilling offshore US Yes No Will appoint judges who interpret the law not make it Yes No Served in the US Armed Forces Yes No Amount of time served in the US Senate 22 YEARS 173 DAYS Will institute a socialized national health care plan No Yes Supports abortion throughout the pregnancy No Yes Would pull troops out of Iraq immediately No Yes Supports gun ownership rights Yes No Supports homosexual marriage No Yes Proposed programs will mean a huge tax increase No Yes Voted against making English the official language No Yes Voted to give Social Security benefits to illegals No Yes CAPITAL GAINS TAX MCCAIN 0% on home sales up to $500,000 per home (couples). McCain does not propose any change in existing home sales income tax. OBAMA 28% on profit from ALL home sales. (How does this affect you? If you sell your home and make a profit, you will pay 28% of your gain on taxes. If you are heading toward retirement and would like to down-size your home or move into a retirement community, 28% of the money you make from your home will go to taxes. This proposal will adversely affect the elderly who are counting on the income from their homes as part of their retirement income.) DIVIDEND TAX MCCAIN 15% (no change) OBAMA 39.6% - (How will this affect you? If you have any money invested in stock market, IRA, mutual funds, college funds, life insurance, retirement accounts, or anything that pays or reinvests dividends, you will now be paying nearly 40% of the money earned on taxes if Obama becomes president. The experts predict that 'Higher tax rates on dividends and capital gains would crash the stock market, yet do absolutely nothing to cut the deficit.') INCOME TAX MCCAIN (no changes) 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 OBAMA (reversion to pre-Bush tax cuts) 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 Under Obama, your taxes could almost double! INHERITANCE TAX MCCAIN - 0% (No change, Bush repealed this tax) OBAMA Restore the inheritance tax Many families have lost businesses, farms, ranches, and homes that have been in their families for generations because they could not afford the inheritance tax. Those willing their assets to loved ones will only lose them to these taxes. NEW TAXES PROPOSED BY OBAMA New government taxes proposed on homes that are more than 2400 square feet. New gasoline taxes (as if gas weren't high enough already) New taxes on natural resources consumption (heating gas, water, electricity) New taxes on retirement accounts, and last but not least....New taxes to pay for socialized medicine so we can receive the same level of medical care as other third-world countries!!! You can verify the above at the following web sites: http://money.cnn.com/news/specials/election/2008/index.html http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/issues/issues.taxes.html http://elections.foxnews.com/?s=proposed+taxes http://bulletin.aarp.org/yourworld/politics/articles/mccain_obama_offer_different_visions_on_taxes.html http://blog.washingtonpost.com/fact-checker/candidates/barack_obama/ http://blog.washingtonpost.com/fact-checker/candidates/john_mccain/  more

Resolved Question: Do you really think that Palin is all that great?

I live in Anchorage, AK and I can tell you from personal experience that she isn't all that great. She hasn't done much and campaigned on two "bridges" to nowhere. She is not the same person we elected as our Gov. and she really hasn't done much for our native community's some that done even have running water. So whats the big deal? The Natural gas pipeline she totes about is still years away and the 14% of oil the lower 48 gets from us is more expensive the the middle easts oil. Oh, and that other 86% goes over seas. Maverick? No! Hottest Gov.? Probably. And that is a compliment to all my later generation people. She does not have an 80% approval rating...ok maybe in Wasilla? But right now up here she couldn't win re-election if she was up for it! That 80% is like 15 months oldJust cause your have half native doesnt mean you know what its like to have to pay $9/gallon of gas...my son is half white so does that make him an expert on european culture? more

Resolved Question: 1-When US politicians and captains of industry refer to "foreign oil", do they mean oil imported from Canada?

2 - When US politicians and captains of industry refer to "American natural gas", do they mean natural gas imported from Canada? 3 - If a Canadian government decided at the end of current contracts, to keep the oil and gas in the ground for future generations of Canadians and to-heck-with balance-of-trade, would the US invade and execute a regime-change? more

Resolved Question: Have you seen the tax comparisons of McCain vs. Obama?

If you have another one you would like to share, by all means, do it.... This is something you should be aware of so you don't get blind-sided. This is really going to catch a lot of families off guard. It should make you worry. Proposed changes in taxes after 2008 General election: CAPITAL GAINS TAX MCCAIN 0% on home sales up to $500,000 per home (couples) McCain does not propose any change in existing home sales income tax. OBAMA 28% on profit from ALL home sales How does this affect you? If you sell your home and make a profit, you will pay 28% of your gain on taxes. If you are heading toward retirement and would like to down-size your home or move into a retirement community, 28% of the money you make from your home will go to taxes. This proposal will adversely affect the elderly who are counting on the income from their homes as part of their retirement income. DIVIDEND TAX MCCAIN 15% (no change) OBAMA 39.6% How will this affect you? If you have any money invested in stock market, IRA, mutual funds, college funds, life insurance, retirement accounts, or anything that pays or reinvests dividends, you will now be paying nearly 40% of the money earned on taxes if Obama become president. The experts predict that 'higher" tax rates on dividends and capital gains would crash the stock market yet do absolutely nothing to cut the deficit. INCOME TAX MCCAIN (no changes) 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 OBAMA (reversion to pre-Bush tax cuts) Single making 30K - tax $8,400 &nbs p;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 Under Obama your taxes will more than double! How does this affect you? No explanation needed. This is pretty straight forward. INHERITANCE TAX MCCAIN 0% (No change, Bush repealed this tax) OBAMA Restore the inheritance tax How does this affect you? Many families have lost businesses, farms and ranches, and homes that have been in their families for generations because they could not afford the inheritance tax. Those willing their assets to loved ones will not only lose them to these taxes. NEW TAXES BEING PROPOSED BY OBAMA * New government taxes proposed on homes that are more than 2400 square feet * New gasoline taxes (as if gas weren't high enough already) * New taxes on natural resources consumption (heating, gas, water, electricity) * New taxes on retirement accounts and last but not least.... * New taxes to pay for socialized medicine so we can receive the same level of medical care as other third world countries.I HAVE A FEW MORE TO ADD... Nice work, (REALLY nice work) but I've got a few more to add 1.) Barack Obama proposes no federal income tax on retirees making under $40,000 a year. 2.) John McCain proposes a $5,000 tax credit for families who buy their own health insurance and (via medical savings accounts) making all remaining medical expenses tax deductible. 3.) John McCain plans to end the AMT 4.) John McCain plans to Cut The Corporate Tax Rate From 35 To 25 Percent. 5.) John McCain plans to Allow First-Year Deduction, Or “Expensing”, Of Equipment And Technology Investments 6.) John McCain plans to grant a tax credit to businesses Equal To 10 Percent Of Wages Spent On R&D 7.) John McCain Plans to end the ethanol subsidy and the sugar cane subsidy an use the money to create a $3 billion/year voucher program for low-income families. (this one has nothing to do with taxes. I just like to mentioning it) If you don't believe me, do your homework!U can check my facts, here :) http://forums.hannity.com/showthread.php?t=606311 more

Resolved Question: Obams tax policy and other policys NOT MADE UP!!!?

MCCAIN (no changes) 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 OBAMA (reversion to pre-Bush tax cuts) 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 Under Obama, your taxes could almost double! INHERITANCE TAX MCCAIN - 0% (No change, Bush repealed this tax) OBAMA Restore the inheritance tax Many families have lost businesses, farms, ranches, and homes that have been in their families for generations because they could not afford the inheritance tax. Those willing their assets to loved ones will only lose them to these taxes. NEW TAXES PROPOSED BY OBAMA New government taxes proposed on homes that are more than 2400 square feet. New gasoline taxes (as if gas weren't high enough already) New taxes on natural resources consumption (heating gas, water, electricity) New taxes on retirement accounts, and last but not least....New taxes to pay for socialized medicine so we can receive the same level of medical care as other third-world countries!!! These are not made up: Verify the information on these websites! http://money. cnn. com/news/specials/election/2008/index. html http://www. cnn. com /ELECTION/2008/issues/issues.taxes.MCCAIN 0% on home sales up to $500,000 per home (couples). McCain does not propose any change in existing home sales income tax. OBAMA 28% on profit from ALL home sales. (How does this affect you? If you sell your home and make a profit, you will pay 28% of your gain on taxes. If you are heading toward retirement and would like to down-size your home or move into a retirement community, 28% of the money you make from your home will go to taxes. This proposal will adversely affect the elderly who are counting on the income from their homes as part of their retirement income. ) DIVIDEND TAX MCCAIN 15% (no change) OBAMA 39.6% - (How will this affect you? If you have any money invested in stock market, IRA, mutual funds, college funds, life insurance, retirement accounts, or anything that pays or reinvests dividends, you will now be paying nearly 40% of the money earned on taxes if Obama becomes president.AND HE HELPS THE MIDDLE MAN HOW!!!!!! THOSE TAX PERCENTAGES OUR INSANE http://elections. foxnews. com/?s=proposed+taxes http://bulletin. aarp. org/yourworld/politics/articles/mccain_obama_offer_different_visions_on_taxes. html http://blog. washingtonpost. com/fact-checker/candidates/barack_o bama/ http://blog. washingtonpost. com/fact-checker/candidates/john_mccain/ more

Resolved Question: Which candidate do you support? The following is the Candidate comparison. Take these questions seriously.?

2008 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION JOHN McCain BARAK OBAMA The questions below are listed in McCain's and Obama web sites and other sites that was approved by both. The list of questions will have a yes or no or another anwer particilar to that question. Both candidates answered the question and they are listed. To keep it simple the first answer is McCain's the second answer is Obama. Then ask yourself the same questions and if their answer is how you would answer then vote for that candidate. Please know the issues and not because they are cute, black, good speaker, or because your momma and daddy like them or even your best friend… Get a group of people over tonight. Ask these questions to each one…then grade their answer too. Don't listen exclusively to Fox or CNN or people with the loudest voice. Know the candidate you are supporting... here is how!. Take a sheet of paper and write down ( or copy and paste) the following questions. If you don’t know what the question means ASK SOMEONE or if the question does not affect you, (it may in the future)… then ask yourself who would it affect – then go ask them that question? Then vote the candidate. Favors new drilling offshore US Yes No Will appoint judges who interpret the law not make it Yes No Served in the US Armed Forces Yes No Amount of time served in the US Senate 22 YEARS 173 DAYS Will institute a socialized national health care plan No Yes Supports abortion throughout the pregnancy No Yes Would pull troops out of Iraq immediately No Yes Supports gun ownership rights Yes No Supports homosexual marriage No Yes Proposed programs will mean a huge tax increase No Yes Voted against making English the official language No Yes Voted to give Social Security benefits to illegal’s No Yes CAPITAL GAINS TAX MCCAIN 0% on home sales up to $500,000 per home (couples). McCain does not propose any change in existing home sales income tax. OBAMA 28% on profit from ALL home sales. (How does this affect you? If you sell your home and make a profit, you will pay 28% of your gain on taxes. If you are heading toward retirement and would like to down-size your home or move into a retirement community, 28% of the money you make from your home will go to taxes. This proposal will adversely affect the elderly who are counting on the income from their homes as part of their retirement income.) DIVIDEND TAX MCCAIN 15% (no change) OBAMA 39.6% - (How will this affect you? If you have any money invested in stock market, IRA, mutual funds, college funds, life insurance, retirement accounts, or anything that pays or reinvests dividends, you will now be paying nearly 40% of the money earned on taxes if Obama becomes president. The experts predict that 'Higher tax rates on dividends and capital gains would crash the stock market, yet do absolutely nothing to cut the deficit.') INCOME TAX MCCAIN (no changes) 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 OBAMA (reversion to pre-Bush tax cuts) 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 Under Obama, your taxes could almost double! INHERITANCE TAX MCCAIN - 0% (No change, Bush repealed this tax) OBAMA Restore the inheritance tax Many families have lost businesses, farms, ranches, and homes that have been in their families for generations because they could not afford the inheritance tax. Those willing their assets to loved ones will only lose them to these taxes. NEW TAXES PROPOSED BY OBAMA New government taxes proposed on homes that are more than 2400 square feet. New gasoline taxes (as if gas weren't high enough already) New taxes on natural resources consumption (heating gas, water, electricity) New taxes on retirement accounts, and last but not least....New taxes to pay for socialized medicine so we can receive the same level of medical care as other third-world countries!!! You can verify the above at the following web sites: http://money.cnn.com/news/specials/election/2008/index.html http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/issues/issues.taxes.html http://elections.foxnews.com/?s=proposed+taxes http://bulletin.aarp.org/yourworld/politics/articles/mccain_obama_offer_different_visions_on_taxes.html http://blog.washingtonpost.com/fact-checker/candidates/barack_obama/ http://blog.washingtonpost.com/fact-checker/candidates/john_mccain/ I am not bias as anyone suspects. If you think I am then read the canidates web site... they answered it. And yes I am for one of the above candidates, but that is for you to choose. But if you don't care and vote only because someone said they like a candidate then USE YOUR BRIAN!... DON'T LET SOMEONE ELSE THINK FOR YOU!.. EVEN IF YOU DON'T LIKE THE ABOVE QUESTIONS, MAKE UP YOUR OWN QUESTIONS AND GO TO THE RESPECTIVE WEB SITES AND SEE WHAT YOUR CANDIDATE SAYS ON THAT SUBJECT. THEN VOTE FOR THE PERSON YOU...;. Y O U. .. DON'T GET MAD AT THE MESSENGER... I'm just repeating what was said by both candidates.Sorry I lost my BRAIN... ;) more

Resolved Question: Urgent! Which candidate do you support?

2008 PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE COMPARISON ISSUE JOHN McCAIN BARAK OBAMA The first answer is McCain the second answer is Obama. Please support the canidate you answer more yes to than no. Thanks Just don't listen to Fox or CNN or people with the loudest voice. Know the canidate... here is how!. Favors new drilling offshore US Yes No Will appoint judges who interpret the law not make it Yes No Served in the US Armed Forces Yes No Amount of time served in the US Senate 22 YEARS 173 DAYS Will institute a socialized national health care plan No Yes Supports abortion throughout the pregnancy No Yes Would pull troops out of Iraq immediately No Yes Supports gun ownership rights Yes No Supports homosexual marriage No Yes Proposed programs will mean a huge tax increase No Yes Voted against making English the official language No Yes Voted to give Social Security benefits to illegals No Yes CAPITAL GAINS TAX MCCAIN 0% on home sales up to $500,000 per home (couples). McCain does not propose any change in existing home sales income tax. OBAMA 28% on profit from ALL home sales. (How does this affect you? If you sell your home and make a profit, you will pay 28% of your gain on taxes. If you are heading toward retirement and would like to down-size your home or move into a retirement community, 28% of the money you make from your home will go to taxes. This proposal will adversely affect the elderly who are counting on the income from their homes as part of their retirement income.) DIVIDEND TAX MCCAIN 15% (no change) OBAMA 39.6% - (How will this affect you? If you have any money invested in stock market, IRA, mutual funds, college funds, life insurance, retirement accounts, or anything that pays or reinvests dividends, you will now be paying nearly 40% of the money earned on taxes if Obama becomes president. The experts predict that 'Higher tax rates on dividends and capital gains would crash the stock market, yet do absolutely nothing to cut the deficit.') INCOME TAX MCCAIN (no changes) 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 OBAMA (reversion to pre-Bush tax cuts) 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 Under Obama, your taxes could almost double! INHERITANCE TAX MCCAIN - 0% (No change, Bush repealed this tax) OBAMA Restore the inheritance tax Many families have lost businesses, farms, ranches, and homes that have been in their families for generations because they could not afford the inheritance tax. Those willing their assets to loved ones will only lose them to these taxes. NEW TAXES PROPOSED BY OBAMA New government taxes proposed on homes that are more than 2400 square feet. New gasoline taxes (as if gas weren't high enough already) New taxes on natural resources consumption (heating gas, water, electricity) New taxes on retirement accounts, and last but not least....New taxes to pay for socialized medicine so we can receive the same level of medical care as other third-world countries!!! You can verify the above at the following web sites: http://money.cnn.com/news/specials/elect... http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/issues/... http://elections.foxnews.com/?s=proposed... http://bulletin.aarp.org/yourworld/polit... http://blog.washingtonpost.com/fact-chec... http://blog.washingtonpost.com/fact-chec...  more

Wind Power Home
Wind Power Products
Home Made Wind Power
Project Generation
Wind Power Business
Wind Power Cost
Future Of Wind Power
Wind Mw
Residential Solar Wind Power
Wind Power Turbines
Investing In Wind Power
Electrical Power Generation

Privacy Policy