Al Gore’s Nobel Lecture Calls Carbon Tax the “Most Important” Solution to Global Warming.

On Monday in ceremonies in Oslo Norway Al Gore accepted the Nobel Peace Prize for his leadership in raising awareness of global warming. For those who will not read the 2800-word acceptance speech in its entirety, the essence of his speech is that the threat of global warming “is real, rising, imminent, and universal”. And that, “it is the 11th hour”. The penalties for ignoring the challenge of doing something about global warming “are immense and growing, and at some near point would be unsustainable and unrecoverable.”

He says, “We must abandon the conceit that individual, isolated, private actions are the answer.”

He says, “The way ahead is difficult.” He calls on the nations of the world to move rapidly to approve a new treaty to limit greenhouse emissions and calls for a moratorium on the construction of new coal burning facilities.

He says, “Most important of all we need to put a price on carbon – with a CO2 tax that is then rebated back to the people, progressively, according to the laws of each nation, in ways that shift the burden of taxation from employment to pollution. This is by far the most effective and simplest way to accelerate solutions to this crisis”.

Those who are in denial about global warming, those who want to solve the problem of global warming by changing light bulbs, and those who are in denial about the importance of economic principles in resolving this crisis will not be happy. Sometimes the truth is inconvenient.

(To read the speech: Nobel Lecture)

Top Stories

Mortgage 'freeze' buys time for some

Many wait too long for adjustable rate help
By CHAS SISK
Staff Writer
The Tennessean
Published: Thursday, 12/06/07

A mortgage freeze to be unveiled by President Bush today may provide only limited relief to thousands of financially strapped homeowners, and may not be enough to cure the foreclosure crisis, advisers who work with troubled borrowers in Middle Tennessee said.

The Bush administration's plan, which would freeze the interest rates on many adjustable-rate mortgages at their lower introductory levels, excludes many who need help the most, including those in foreclosure and those already behind on adjustable-rate monthly payments, officials from several Nashville-area housing organizations said.

The plan, which has the support of major banks, relies on borrowers and lenders to come together to revise terms of loans before adjustable loans accelerate — sometimes to double-digit rates.

Many first-time Middle Tennessee homebuyers in danger of foreclosure don't realize how bad their situations are until they are too far behind on payments, loan counselors said. "They're trying to figure this out themselves … and when (a solution) doesn't occur, that's when they come forward," said Rosalind Robinson, president and founder of Residential Resources Inc., an east Nashville housing counselor. "For this to work, they're going to need to set aside those emotions."

Delaying higher adjustable-rate payments won't always solve the underlying cause — a propensity of homeowners to buy a home they cannot afford, some advisers said. "The mistake that they made is they were able to buy a $120,000 house, but they fell in love with a $180,000 house," said Rod Williams, director of housing services for Woodbine Community Organization, which offers financial counseling. (To read all: Mortgage 'freeze')

My Commentary
This recent announcement of a mortgage rate freeze is a positive development but will probably help few people. What we know about it at this time is that people must apply for the mortgage rate freeze before their adjustable rate mortgage resets and they must not have been late on any house payments. If they qualify, they may have their introductory rate frozen for up to five years. Unless there is a big advertising campaign most people won't even know of the program until after their mortgage resets and they have trouble making their higher house payment. This program will help only a few people, just as will the recently announced FHA Secure program.

I do not advocate a general bail out of homeowners or mortgage companies. The people who took out bad loans and the mortgage companies that made bad loans should surfer the consequences. Small steps to slow the defaults are all we should be doing. For the people who got in a house with no money down and got a teaser rate, if they lose their home, while it is emotionally devastating, in reality they are not really losing anything since they have no equity in the house. For two years they got to live in a house they could not afford. We should not feel too sorry for them. While we need to try to mitigate the effect of the mortgage crisis, we should not reward bad decisions.

However, we should not just ignore this mortgage default crisis either. It could affect the general economy. Also, even if your home is not at risk, you can be harmed by this foreclosure problem. If three houses are foreclosed on your street, the property values could drop. If the houses set empty and get vandalized, prices can drop more. For some people who were going to downsize when they retired and a lot of their wealth was in their home, they will find they are less wealthy than they thought. Also, if a lot of home prices drop, local government will reap less tax revenue from property taxes. There is a public purpose in slowing the rate of default.

A response to the crisis that would help more than anything is additional funding of housing counseling. People do not know their options, and they do not know how to present their case to the mortgage company. Unfortunately, the people at the mortgage company are often uninformed about their own options. When it is a win/win and the mortgage company can me made to understand this, many times the home can be saved or at least foreclosure avoided. About 90% of the people I counsel avoid foreclosure. To avoid the foreclosure however, someone has to know what is doable and how to propose it.

Another thing that would help mitigate the mortgage default crisis is a rescue lending pool. As part of a comprehensive loan modification or forbearance plan, the pool could loan the homeowner additional funds to bring the payment current or to make a couple house payments. Sometimes if a homeowner can be helped with only a couple house payments they could save the home. The pool should be very limited however, and funded by the lending industry. If structured correctly, this could be a plus for all concerned. Stopping a foreclosure is not only helpful to the homeowner, but the lender as well. Government leadership could establish the mechanism to establish the rescue lending pool and convince the industry that this was in the industry’s best interest. The funding pool should be used sparingly and only when part of a plan that will avoid a foreclosure. We have to accept that some of the defaults should occur, but those that can be saved by a three hour counseling session or an infusion of a small loan should be saved.

Top Stories

Saving the Planet!

"Phasing out the human race will solve every problem on earth, social and environmental." Dave Forman, Founder of Earth First!

"Tell a child on the eighth day that we are not lighting the last candle as a sacrifice for the environment" 'Green Hanukkia' campaign sparks ire December 4, 2007

"I live in North Carolina. I'll probably never eat a tangerine again," Elizabeth Edwards , McClellanville, North Carolina, July 24, 2007

"If you want to save the planet, I want you to start jumping up and down!" Madonna, live from Live Earth. July 7, 2007

"I propose a limitation be put on how many sqares of toilet paper can be used in any one sitting.I think we are an industrious enough people that we can make it work with only one square per restroom visit, except, of course, on those pesky occasions where 2 to 3 could be required." Sheryl Crow, http://www.sherylcrow.com/news.aspx?nid=7786

Top Stories

O Frabjous Day! Nuke Iran? World War III? Oops, Nevermind….

By Don Williams

Add another reason to be grateful in the post-911, post-Thanksgiving world. Turns out our intelligence regarding Iran was wrong and—guess what—Iran has no nuclear weapons program to speak of. Said program was suspended in 2003, according to the latest National Intelligence Estimate. That’s the estimate provided by all the nation’s intelligence agencies combined. (Read about it here in the New York Times.) Yes, it’s scandalous, stupid, inexcusable and… heavenly to learn that the Bush administration would change course and ease up on the saber-rattling. (To Continue: O Frabjous Day!)

My Commentary

Hallelujah! I have been fearful that any day we may wake up to news that the U. S. has bombed Iran. I could hardly believe the report yesterday when the National Intelligence Council announced that Iran had essentially discontinued its nuclear weapons program in 2003. In a recent post on this blog I had expressed my distrust of the Bush Administration but also worried that their is always the possibility that Bush could be right. (See Bush Might be Right)

In this article my liberal brother, the award-winning columnist Don Williams rejoices in this development and speculates on its meaning. While I may express myself in a slightly different tone of voice, I think he is essentially correct is his assessment and I share his relief and joy at this turn of events.

Don speculates on why this development occurred and I find his speculations plausible. I would like to add one more: Maybe the loyal and professional people in the intelligence community who were manipulated into cooking the intelligence books to take us to war in Iraq, refused to let it happen again and decided to cut the President off at the pass by giving an honest assessment before it was too late.

This event does not mean that Iran is still not a renegade country and a potential future nuclear threat, but any rationale for a war with Iran has been removed and the next President can deal with Iran. We can sleep easier tonight.

Top Stories

Study: Immigrants don't raise U.S. crime rate

Eunice Moscoso
Arizona Daily Star

"The misperception that immigrants, especially illegal immigrants, are responsible for higher crime rates is deeply rooted in American public opinion and is sustained by media anecdotes and popular myth," said Ruben G. Rumbaut, a sociology professor at the University of California-Irvine. "This perception is not supported empirically. In fact, it is refuted by the preponderance of scientific evidence."

The incarceration rate of U.S.- born men 18 to 39 years old in 2000 was 3.5 percent — five times higher than the incarceration rate of their immigrant counterparts, the study found.
The report — which analyzed data from the U.S. Census Bureau, police records and other sources — also shows that a large increase in illegal immigrants has not resulted in a rise in crime. Since 1994, violent crime in the United States has declined 34 percent, and property crime has fallen 26 percent. At the same time, the illegal immigrant population has doubled to around 12 million.

The study also details a "paradox of assimilation" in which second- and third-generation immigrants have higher crime rates than those who first come to the United States.
For example, foreign-born Mexican men had an incarceration rate of 0.7 percent in 2000, more than eight times lower than the 5.9 percent rate of U.S.-born males of Mexican descent. To continue: Study..)

Top Stories

Urban Legends

New immigrants may be the best thing that ever happened to American cities, but don't wait for the leading presidential candidates to tell you that.
By Christopher Dickey
Newsweek Web Exclusive
Updated: 4:28 PM ET Nov 28, 2007


The "Safest City" awards published a few days ago by Congressional Quarterly back up this kind of thinking. Among the top 10 with populations over 500,000, four are in Texas: Fort Worth, San Antonio, Austin and the border town of El Paso, which is the second-safest big city in the country. Two are in California: San Jose and San Diego, which, again, is right across the line from Mexico. The safest city of all is Honolulu, with its very diverse population, while New York City ranks fourth. (New York City also looks as if it will have fewer murders this year than at any time since reliable statistics became available, in 1963.) "I would say, if you want to be safe, move to an immigrant city," Robert J. Sampson, chairman of the sociology department at Harvard University, told me on the phone this afternoon. (To continue: Urban Legends)

Top Stories

No Hablo Ingles

Congress in tiff over English-only rules
Republicans prevent EEOC from enforcing rules on language discrimination
The Associated Press

WASHINGTON - A government suit against the Salvation Army has the House and Senate at loggerheads over whether to nullify a law that prohibits employers from firing people who don't speak English on the job.

The fight illustrates the explosiveness of immigration as an issue in the 2008 elections.

Republicans on Capitol Hill are pushing hard to protect employers who require their workers to speak English, but Democratic leaders have blocked the move despite narrow vote tallies in the GOP's favor. (To continue: Congress in Tiff… )

My Commentary:
I have generally been opposed to those efforts that prohibit the use of the Spanish language or mandate “English Only”. Earlier this year there was an effort in Nashville to pass a local ordinance prohibiting Metro government from conducting business in any language but English and declaring Metro government as “English Only”. With the growing Hispanic population, many agencies of government had hired bi-lingual personel in service positions and had a Spanish option on the telephone answering services. Some native English speakers took offence and a bill was introduced in the Metro Council to prohibit the provision of services in any language but English. After much public discussion, a watered-down version of the bill passed the Council but Mayor Purcell vetoed the bill and the council failed to override the veto. (To read about it: Nashville Mayor… )

If I had still been serving in the Metro Council, I would not have supported that bill. I think it was mean-spirited and unnecessary. The bill would have probably hurt tourism and development and it does not project the image I want for the city I call home. During the public debate about this bill, some of the mean-spiritedness was really revealed. On radio talk shows, people complained about every encounter with Spanish-speaking people and complained about signs in Spanish and they even complained about ATM cash machines that give an option of having the ATM give the instructions in a variety of languages. Having traveled independently in several foreign countries, I know how welcoming it can be when signs are in English and you encounter people who can speak English and I am thankful that English is an option on ATM machines around the world. The US has few bi-lingual people compared to the rest of the world. With the increase in globalization and the shrinking world, I think it is a plus for America if there are languages other than English spoken in this country.

The current legislation before Congress is different from the English-only bills like the one that Nashville considered. The legislation before Congress is an Amendment to the EEOC budget that would prohibit the EEOC from prosecuting an employer who requires his employees to speak English. This bill would not prohibit anyone from speaking his or her native tongue, and it would not mandate that anyone speak English. Senator Alexander was prompted to propose this amendment by a lawsuit filed in April by the EEOC against the Salvation Army for allegedly discriminating against two of the Army's employees in a Massachusetts thrift store for requiring them to speak English on the job. The Salvation Army had clearly posted the rule, and the employees were given a year to learn English.

It is important that foreigners who are going to live in American learn the language and assimilate. It is not mean-spirited to encourage them to learn English. It should not be against the law for an employer to require his employees to speak English on the job. With a backlog of 56,000 cases, the EEOC should be doing something other than prosecuting employers who require their workers speak English. I commend Senator Alexander for this common sense proposal. (read more: Alexander...)

Top Stories

Reporting from The War on Christmas

A few days ago, on one of the several chat groups to which I belong, a fellow group member alerted us that one of the major retail outlets was calling their Christmas trees, “Family Trees” this year. Uh-oh, here we go again: The Christmas-time (or is it Holiday-time) culture wars.

I don’t know that there really is a “war on Christmas,” but there does seem to be a move to use the term “Christmas” less often. Whether it is a desire to make people of other cultural or religious traditions feel less excluded or has some other motive, I don’t know. As a public service, I thought I would examine all 17 pounds of the Tennessean Thanksgiving Day newspaper inserts to see which advertisers are Christmas-friendly and which are politically correct. (I really don’t know that there is 17 pounds of inserts, but it is a heck of a lot of newspaper that normally goes in the trash unread.)

Michael’s full-size insert featured almost nothing but Christmas décor and Christmas trees but Michaels was able to avoid the word “Christmas.” The front of their insert featured “Pre-lit trees,” “Donner Pine,” “Madison Fir,” "Frasier Fir,” etc. but no “Christmas Trees.” They had lots of “holiday” items, including “holiday” cards. They did however offer one “Christmas Collection” garland. “Christmas Collection” was the brand name.

On the other hand, Old Time Pottery bragged “We are your low price Christmas Tree Headquarters,” and Old Time Pottery had “Christmas Trees,” “Christmas stockings,” “Christmas mugs,” “Christmas wrap,” “Christmas tins and trays,” “Christmas gift boxes” and "Christmas" everything.

Jo Ann Fabric and Craft stores, a chain I am not familiar with, is also very Christmas-friendly. Their insert had “Christmas Food crafting supplies,” “Christmas gift wrap,” “Christmas Décor,” and “Christmas ornaments.”

Petco, where you can buy your cat a “Holiday ginger bread Cat Scratcher” or a “Kitty Hoots Holiday Stocking for $12.99, used the term “holiday” numerous times and almost made it into the politically correct column but redeemed themselves by offering a “Kitten’s First Christmas Collection.”

Rite Aid offered “holiday Savings,” and “holiday light sets” but they also had “indoor Artificial Christmas Trees” and “Christmas stocking stuffers.” Walgreen’s was very Christmas-friendly and had “Christmas Window Clings” and “50% off select Christmas Ornaments and Garland,” and “Hershey’s Christmas Candy” and their trees were all “Christmas Trees”. CSC Pharmacy seemed to try to avoid the C word and had “Merry Brite lighted Cone Trees,” and “Holiday Decorations” and “Holiday Scented 5.5” Pillar Candles” but they did offer an “Angels of Christmas Ornament.” “Angels of Christmas” appears to be brand name.

Circuit City’s ad had was heavily winter holiday-themed (Christmas-themed?) and mentioned “Santa’s Little Helper,” “the joy of giving” and “spread some holiday cheer” and almost avoided the C word but then they did offer “Christmas DVD’s” for $9.99. “Christmas DVD’s” was not a brand name; that is what Circuit City called them.

Party City had lots of party stuff and had “75% off Boxed Christmas Cards.” Best Buy had “fun holiday gifts” and told us to “have a holiday movie marathon,” but no Christmas at Best Buys.

JC Penny’s advertised a “7.5-Ft pre-lit Wonder Tree”, but did not call it a Christmas tree. They had “gifts that spread holiday cheer,” and featured “holiday Motif Jewelry” but no Christmas at Penny’s. Goody’s advertised “sweaters & knits in a holiday mood” and “the perfect stocking stuffers” but no mention of Christmas. On the other hand, Bed and Bath told us they had “Extended hours now Through Christmas.” Sears had “Christmas Trees.” Macy’s had no Christmas. K-mart had “holiday” trees and told us to “Spruce up your holiday home,” but no Christmas at K-mart.

Sprint had winter holiday-themed (Christmas-themed?) ads with play-on-word advertisements like “Text the Halls,” “Dashing through the songs” and “Hands-free for the holidays” and “Jingle bell rock, faster” but they avoided the C word.

Lowe’s featured a “6-1/2 ft. 400-light clear pre-lit tree” and lots of other “holiday” décor. They did not use the word “Christmas,” while Home Depot told us to “buy any live Christmas tree and receive $30 off any future purchase at The Home Depot.”

I don’t know what to make of this Christmas battle of the culture wars. I am not going to boycott companies that use the term “holiday trees” but I do think Christmas trees ought to be called “Christmas” trees. I won’t get mad at you if you wish me “Happy Holiday” or “Merry Christmas,” but I do sometimes pause before I wish someone else a “Happy holiday” or “Merry Christmas”; use the wrong term and they may take offence. I pity the poor retail clerk who must say one or the other or neither and risk offending someone.

One of my favorite country artists, Billy Joe Shaver, testifies with humor, “If you don’t love Jesus, you can go to hell.” I think a lot of the culture warriors have that attitude and they are not being humerous. Lighten up people.

Merry Christmas (or Happy Holidays).

Top Stories

Going Green? Easy Doesn't Do It

By Michael Maniates

Franklin Roosevelt didn't mobilize the country's energies by listing 10 easy ways to oppose fascism.

The hard facts are these: If we sum up the easy, cost-effective, eco-efficiency measures we should all embrace, the best we get is a slowing of the growth of environmental damage. That's hardly enough: Avoiding the worst risks of climate change, for instance, may require reducing U.S. carbon emissions by 80 percent in the next 30 years while invoking the moral authority such reductions would confer to persuade China, India and other booming nations to embrace similar restraint. Obsessing over recycling and installing a few special light bulbs won't cut it. We need to be looking at fundamental change in our energy, transportation and agricultural systems. (To continue: Going Green? )

Top Stories

Climate Change Disaster Looms; Time for Action is Now!

Scientists are by nature a modest and cautions lot. Gravity is still a theory. The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change last Friday issued their fourth report on climate change and it is probably about as close as scientists come to issuing a panic alert. The report summarizes the three previous reports and issues new dire warnings and for the first time gives a time-frame for taking action. The news is pretty bleak.

The report says that “warming of the Climate system is unequivocal”. It says that there is “a high agreement and much evidence” that with current climate change mitigation policies that global green house gas (GHG) emissions “will continue to grow over the next few decades.” It says that continued GHG at or above the current rate will cause further warming and induce many changes in the global climate. The changes include increase in extremes of hot weather and heat waves, increases in tropical cyclone intensity, decrease water resources in now semi-arid areas, increased extinction of species, flooding of low-lying coastal areas, and increased mortality.

Previous reports from the UNIPCC have given only “highly likely” scenarios; this report was less cautious and gave a range of possible consequences of the coming climate change, including complete melting of the ice caps and rising sea levels of 40 feet. If the event that the events rated less than “highly likely” do occur, we are up the creek without a paddle. The longer we wait to do anything, the more likely the “less likely” become.

The report says that we currently have the technologies we need for mitigation. This is not an issue we cannot do anything about. However, the longer we wait to do something, the harder it will be and the more costly. There will come a time when it is too late to do anything about it. The report suggests a return to 2005 rates of GHG emission by the year 2030. The report list several options for addressing mitigation but prominently mentions a carbon tax as a primary mitigation method. (The report at this point is still considered a “draft” but is expected to be adopted. To see the full text of the 23 page report see: IPCC)

Why is this new report being so downplayed? The New York Times reported it under their “Environment” sections. Our local newspaper carried it on page 5. Newspapers want to sell papers, right? Why was this story not bold banner front page headlines? Why is not each presidential candidate at every campaign stop asked what they will do to combat global warming?

This looming disaster is treated is as if we are all on the Titanic, and after telling us the menu for the evening meal and the entertainment, they mention that, “Oh, by the way, we have hit an ice burg and will probably be at the bottom of the ocean in about six hours. Enjoy your dinner.”
Even the movement environmentalists don’t seem to panic. In fact, they often seem more interested in changing human nature than stopping global warming. Look at the lame policy suggestions: change light bulbs, properly inflate your tires, increase CAFE standards, subsidize ethanol and build wind farms. In the last eight years China has build 603 coal-fired power plants. We must do more than change light bulbs. It is if on the Titanic they announce, “To mitigate the hole knocked in our hull by the iceberg, each guest will be given a bailing pail. Enjoy your dinner.”

This is a crisis. The US needs to set GHG emission targets and mandate a carbon tax sufficient to achieve the target. We then need to show world leadership on this issue and use the tools at our disposal to encourage other nations to do their part. It is an embarrassment that the US is tied with China as the worlds leading producer of green house gases and we are doing nothing serious to curtail our GHG emissions.

We can avert this looming disaster. Destruction of the planet by global warming is not inevitable, but time is running out. It is time to take actions now. Don’t strike up the band. I don’t’ want to hear “Nearer my God to Thee.”

Top Stories

We Should not Subsidize Factory Farms

Nor, Try to Save Family Farms

Congress is again debating a Farm Bill, or as the Wall Street Journal calls it, the No Farmer left Behind Bill. While there is something in it for everyone, the big farmer however, gets the most with two-thirds of the aid going to the wealthiest 10% of farms. With the average full-time farmer having an income of $81,420 last year, don’t think of the Farm bill as help to the depression-era subsistence farmer.

So why do we subsidize farmers?

We, the consumer get cheaper food, right? Well, no, not exactly. The farm price supports are actually designed to keep food prices high. So in addition to the taxes we pay to subsidize farmers, we collectively pay about $12 billion more a year for food than we otherwise would.

Well, we are preserving a way of life? We are keeping the family farm alive? Well, to a certain extend, you could argue that some family farmers benefit from the bill. I think protecting the Family Farm however is the job of Willie Nelson, not the tax payers. (See Farm Aid) Why should this segment of the population get protection from the demands of the market place? Year by year, farm productivity increases; it takes fewer people to produce more food. Why try to keep them on the farm? Why should I pay more taxes so some kid in the country can grow up milking a cow? We don’t preserve the life-style of the buggy whip maker or the Ma and Pa grocery store owner, so why farmers?

Farm aid helps provide a rich variety of farm produce? There is something in the bill for everyone, so there are subsidies for vegetable, fruit and nut growers, but 80% of the money goes to subsidize five commercial crops: corn, cotton, rice, soybeans and wheat. Have you ever noticed that corn syrup is in almost every product you buy? Read your product labels. From dog food to Wheat Thins to peanut butter, many products contain corn syrup. It is hard to find a product without it. Peanut butter does not need corn syrup. With an obesity problem in America, we don’t need to be adding calories to everything we consume, yet we subsidize the production of corn, so there is a surplus of cheap corn syrup.

Well, we produce a lot of surplus food and help feed the hungry of the world? America does provide a lot of commodities to foreign countries. (Food for Peace) However, if would be less costly to directly fund aid agencies and let the agencies purchase the food in the market place. And while we are generous with our surplus food, some of the food aid we provide is sold by aid agencies, which undermines the farmers in the country we are tying to help and keeps the country from becoming self sufficient. (See, As U.S. Food Dollars Buy Less…) Also, by subsidizing American farmers we are putting the farmers of all poor third-world countries at a disadvantage. Our farm policy is protectionism for American agriculture which actually contributes to world poverty.

The farm bill taxes us to make food cost more, to enrich the already rich factory farmer, to keep some family farmers on the farm when the marketplace says they are not needed, to make third world peasant farmers poorer, to produce and abundance of corn syrup we don’t need, and to undermine America’s leadership on Free Trade. So why do we subsidize farmers? It is politics. As Rep. Sanford Bishop, a Georgia Democrat who refers to himself as "the peanut congressman," said recently, "That's what politics is: Who gets what, when and how," (See, Farm Aid Pork) Earlier this year he amended an Iraq appropriations bill to include $74 million for storage of peanuts. He said he would have done it even if peanut growers had not given his most recent reelection campaign $35,750.

Top Stories

Coulda, Woulda, Shoulda

by Thomas Friedman

In the wake of 9/11, some of us pleaded for a “patriot tax” on gasoline of $1 or more a gallon to diminish the transfers of wealth we were making to the very countries who were indirectly financing the ideologies of intolerance that were killing Americans and in order to spur innovation in energy efficiency by U.S. manufacturers.

But no, George Bush and Dick Cheney had a better idea. And the Democrats went along for the ride. (To continue, Coulda, Woulda, Shoulda)

My Comment: Following 9/11 the American people were ready to sacrifice. Bush could have used his political capital after 9/11 to pass an energy tax, instead he squandered a historic opportunity and today we continue to transfer American wealth to Islamic depots and to other autocratic regimes in unstable parts of the world. In addition to the national security logic of reducing dependence on oil, a serious response to global warming requires we reduce our consumption of oil. We had a historic opportunity to break our oil addiction following 9/11. It is not too late. The national security threat and the global warming threat warrant a radically new energy policy. It is a shame we have no one in either party willing to lead. Rod

Top Stories