Hypocrisy much? So it's bad that someone discriminated against a hajib wearing 'brown person', but you're OK with discriminating against conservatives and the elderly? If you're going to enter a fit of nerd-rage over discrimination, you might want to excise yourself of bigotry first.

That's a lot more palatable than the big huge H.G. Wellsian turbines with thier giant Bird Kill blades.

That $2,500 is not an annual thing you get every year just for owning a Prius. It is a one-time rebate for purchasing a new EV. Furthermore, you only get that rebate if you are a resident of the state of California. Believe it or not - not everyone is living in California. :) In fact, if the demographics are…

How does that work? You'd end up taxing every citizen "X" dollars to buy a windmill, but that windmill only generates 5 KwH, so it would only be helping one or two citizens. You'd need to buy a windmill for every household - at which point you're taxing them as much as if they just bought it themselves. Economics…

Indeed - it's a pretty piece of work - but how much does it cost? That's really the issue that matters the most. There are beautiful pieces of art out there, but I don't have $30,000 lying around to buy them no matter how much they might cut my power bill. :)

I don't think Republicans complain about 'windmills' as much as they complain about the rather illogical practice of forcibly replacing a cheaper, better energy source with a more expensive one.

This. The average single-family seperate dwelling's power bill is $110 a month. It not a convincing argument to tell people that they should take out a $20,000 loan so they can 'save' $110 a month. Not to mention that you'd need to buy converters, inverters, and batteries. I think we all like the IDEA of wind…

I support an "all of the above" approach. Solar? Sure. Wind? Sure. Thorium/nuclear? Why not? Coal & fossil? Absolutely. Hydro, Thermal, whatever. I say open the floodgates and let's go after them all. I see no reason to artificially limit the market to one thing or another. Use them all.

Weeeeell... It is a bit more complicated than that. The price of oil does indeed effect overall economies because it drives the costs of manufacturing, wholesale, and retail. Manufacturing uses tons of petroleum products, which drives up wholesale costs, which drive up retail costs. Oil is not the "only" driver of…

The problem is that "poor people loans" was political justification used to sell the whole mess, so that's what most people hear about and/or remember the most prominently. The people wanting to repeal G/S were saying stuff like, "How could you possibly 'redline' these poor people away from a chance at the American…

I'm actually writing a book about that... :)

Because there are environmental lobbyists and other activist groups that want to end oil NOW NOW NOW. They push laws and buy politicians, and otherwise try to rig the system in order to make fossil fuels as difficult as possible to use because they are philosophically and 'morally' opposed to oil & coal. It is…

While it is a bit of an exaggeration to say government 'forced' bank to lend money, it is very much true that the government created a system where it was almost a necessity to do so. It was the tail end of the Clinton years when a couple big financial houses (AIG primarily) lobbied with politicians from both sides…

I think you're deliberately and grossly exaggerating the supposed offenses of Fox News, while minimizing or ignoring the offenses of CNN, et al. I've watched them all, and I have no axe to grind against any of them. But I've seen clear, unequivocal bias in all of them. All I can do is shrug and as you to honestly…

I see no effectual difference in John Moody telling employees to conservatively frame thier product and other news agencies being so left-wing that they automatically present every story with a liberal slant as a default. They're both businesses with information as thier product.

Well - in the end - what's the difference? I'm not particularly fussed about HOW a news organization became a biased hotbed of ideological slant. What concerns me is when they ARE slanted, and refuse to admit it.

As far as the LA Time article goes, it is an opinion piece selectively referencing a CMPA study. Since (by very definition) that means you accept the CMPA as a source, then here is the study that definitively analyzes the 2008 election and NOT just the tiny slice that liberals like James Rainey cherry-picked...

The research disproves unsupported opinions that CNN, MSNBC, et al are "unbiased" compared to Fox News...

No - there really isn't. Not on "Man Made" (AGW) global warming. There is no consensus on that. Not even close. The problem is that the Warmies are rolling up thier very much unproved AGW theory into the larger, more established research of global climate temperature increases. No one disputes the small warming…

You know - I've never really quite understood all the Fox News hate out there. Fox slants to the right, no question. But pretty much all the other news outlets slant to the left. Is it really so awful to have one channel in the mix that doesn't tilt liberal?