But what do you even know about the situation in the Middle East? Here’s a pair of stories that didn’t get much play, although their implications are incredibly severe. First, here’s what started it:

Israel will not allow Iran to attain nuclear capability and if time begins to run out, Jerusalem will not hesitate to take whatever means necessary to prevent Iran from achieving its nuclear goals, the government has recently decided in a special discussion.

According to the Israeli daily Ma’ariv, whether the United States and Western countries succeed in thwarting the Islamic Republic’s nuclear ambitions diplomatically, through sanctions, or whether a US strike on Iran is eventually decided upon, Jerusalem has begun preparing for a separate, independent military strike…

Now the response from Iran:

A senior Iranian military commander has warned that any US or Israeli attack on the Islamic republic would start a new world war, the state news agency IRNA reported on Saturday…

“The unrestrained greed of the US leadership and global Zionism… is gradually leading the world to the edge of a precipice,” Jazayeri said, citing the unrest in Afghanistan, Iraq, Sudan and Georgia.

“It is evident that if such a challenge occurs, the fake and artificial regimes will be eliminated before anything,” he said, without naming any countries.

Iran does not recognise Israel, which is often described by officials in Tehran as a “fake regime.”…

Iranian officials have repeatedly said they have no intention of freezing enrichment and that the country is currently operating about 4,000 uranium enrichment centrifuges and installing several thousand more.

So Israel basically threatens Iran with war if they don’t back off their centrifuges, and Iran’s response is to not only not back down, but to ramp up the amount of centrifuges. Think gas is expensive now? Wait until the region is sporting some impressive mushroom clouds.

Now for some partisan opinion…

A war between Israel and Iran means a war between the US and Iran. Now remember — Iran is surrounded by Iraq on the west and Afghanistan — or a “hard place” (get it?) — on the east. This gives Iran literally no chance of winning this potential war save threatening a “scorched earth” policy (which only becomes severe if Iran develops nuclear capabilities).

If it’s executed properly with Israeli/US troops attacking the west and US/British troops attacking from the east, Iran will go down in a few days with minimal friendly losses; and from what I hear — which is frequently not the whole story — the people of Iran are good and domestic terrorism in Iran is non-exisistent, so the rebuilding process shouldn’t take too long. (Although that’s what we said about Iraq, too.)

My point is if war breaks out in the Middle East we have the potential to squash it almost immediately if we have proper war funding and authorization. I believe under a President John McCain this would be the case.

But what of a President Barack Obama? Would he make us fight this fight with our hands tied behind our back? Surely he must offer Israel at least some help, being that Israel is (arguably) our top military ally. But would he be willing to offer them our full help, and use both Iraq and Afghanistan as launching pads for strikes?

Either way, I think Israel is going to act whether we want them to or not; so at some point a choice by the US must be made.

Why don’t you tell me what you think?

First, I’m ready to make my official prediction: John McCain will win the 2008 Presidential Election. So there. Now, on to the titular topic.

Let’s think: Why did Barack Obama choose Joe Biden? (1) It’s a safe pick, (2) He really needed an old white guy, and (3) He’s a straight-talker and won’t be afraid to play the “attack-dog” role…

… which explains why Palin is such a good pick. (1) She’s a safe pick (strictly pro-life, pro-gun, economically conservative), (2) She’s a fresh face that could easily woo disgruntled women voters away from Obama, and (3) She neutralizes Biden’s attack role.

How so? Because as a male politician, you can’t lay it on too thick against a female opponent. It’s not fair — sorry guys — but it’s the truth. Look at Rick Lazio against Hillary during the 2000 New York Senate race. He got nasty during a debate and it totally ruined his campaign. Take note, Mr. Biden.

Oh, it also restores some of the “maverick” image to McCain, who was assumed to have gone with the “safe” Tim Pawlenty or Mitt Romney; and that takes some of the “change” momentum out of Obama’s sails.

I stumbled across this interview in parts, so I figured I’d put it all together to make it easy for you. (And no, that’s not altruism.) Enjoy.

1/5:

2/5:

3/5:

4/5:

5/5:

… but he also got a $400,000 severance package, so that’s pretty sweet. FOX News tells us:

An Iowa community college president resigned less than a week after a photo was published appearing to show him pouring beer into a young woman’s mouth.

The school’s board of trustees on Thursday unanimously approved Robert Paxton’s resignation. It also approved a severance package that officials said was valued at about $400,000…

The photo, which was published Saturday in The Des Moines Register, shows Paxton with a group of young people on a boat. He is holding a small keg above a young woman’s head. The Register said the photo was taken over the Fourth of July weekend at Lake Okoboji and sent to the paper unsolicited.

A message left at Paxton’s office wasn’t immediately returned Thursday. He previously defended the photograph, saying the keg shown was broken and wasn’t dispensing beer…

Haha, “the keg was broken.” Even if it was broken, that would mean he wasn’t pouring beer into a young girl’s mouth, merely trying his damndest to pour beer into a young girl’s mouth. And I guess that makes the photo explainable? Hmm.

Forget all of this though, my biggest question is, What did this guy tell his wife he was doing at the time? “Oh yeah honey, I’ll be home late today, big board meeting to go to.” Oops. I would have liked to be at the dinner table when the wife brought this story up.

I have proof. First, this:

Summer box office sets new record

[This summer,] almost everything worked for the studios.

The school’s-out movie season concludes this weekend, and domestic ticket sales so far total $3.9 billion, up a little more than 1% from last year’s record summer, according to Media by Numbers…

Don’t you dare speak of that naughty R-word “recession.” How can you have a bad economy and at the same time break record-numbers in the entertainment business? If gas prices were really hurting families and “middle-class” Americans, they wouldn’t be piling into their SUVs to see The Dark Knight for the 4th time.

Oh, what’s that? You want substative proof that the economy is strong? Ok, check this out:

Gross domestic product, or GDP, grew at a 3.3 percent annual rate in the April-June quarter, its fastest pace in nearly a year, the Commerce Department reported Thursday. The revised reading was much better than the government’s initial estimate of a 1.9 percent pace and exceeded economists’ expectations for a 2.7 percent growth rate.

Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke has warned the economy will be weak through the rest of 2008. Economists believe growth will slow in the July-September quarter to a pace of around 1.5 percent, and will turn even weaker in the fourth quarter.

3.3% eh? Not too bad for a country waging 2 wars and fighting record gas prices at the same time. So don’t believe the politicians telling you that the whole country is going to fall apart soon — it won’t. At least not until Social Security and Medicare blow up in our face.

Also, let’s look at Bernanke’s estimate: a third quarter growth of 1.5%. Well, the government predicted 1.9% last quarter and ended up with 3.3%, so a 1.5% estimate should give us around 3% growth. I’ll take that.

Ayn Rand must be tossing and turning in her grave after hearing about this. Read, from FOX News:

A Connecticut youth baseball team with a phenomenal 9-year-old pitcher has been disqualified because its team is too good.

The team, Will Power Fitness, has an 8-0 record thanks in large part to pitcher Jericho Scott, the New Haven Register reports. His pitching is so fast and accurate, the Liga Juvenil De Baseball De New Haven asked the team’s coach, Wilfred Vidro, to replace him so he wouldn’t frighten other players.

“The spirit of the league was community, family, well-being, nurturing,” Peter Noble, the league’s attorney, told the Register. “It’s an extended family and it’s been disrupted.”…

The Scotts said the league - which is not affiliated with the Little League - wanted Jericho to play for a stronger team. The parents and the coach claim the reason is because that team is sponsored by a local barbershop where the league’s president currently cuts hair, the paper reported.

“If you keep these kids on the field you keep them off the streets,” Leroy Scott told the paper. “I’d rather have him [Jericho] in the midst of this controversy on the field than dealing drugs on a street corner.”

Most telling part about this? The quote from the league’s attorney, which talks about “community,” “nurturing,” and an “extended family.” My question is, Why is this pitcher not part of the family? How can the league claim to be “nurturing” if it’s so willing to exclude one particular member?

Notice how the league wants Jericho to “play for a stronger team.” That’s nice — the old “we know what’s good for you more so than you know” routine. Sounds like the same attitude of the people that want to take more of my tax money. (Of course I was going to tie politics into this post.)

Lastly, what’s up with Leroy’s quote? (Leroy is the father, I believe.) He talks about his son dealing drugs on a street corner. A 9 year-old? Really? Why does this guy have drugs on his mind? Wait to be a negative person, Leroy.

Oh, that Barack Obama: His skin color is making it so difficult for him to woo traditional, white America voters, right? Wrong.

I’ve always subscribed to the theory that Obama’s skin color will bring him more votes than it will lose. And why? Because America is not a racist country — not anymore. Deal with it, victimizers.

The Soviet Union Russia invades Georgia, threatens to nuke Poland if they sign the missile defense shield treaty with us (Poland signed the deal anyway), and now this? From FT.com:

The Bush administration is set to put a high-profile nuclear deal with Russia on hold, according to US diplomats.

Officials expect Condoleezza Rice, US secretary of state, to recommend that George W. Bush, president, recall the civil nuclear co-operation agreement from Congress in the wake of Russia’s conflict with Georgia…

Moscow has put great store in the civil nuclear co-operation deal, which would permit the potentially lucrative transfer of fuels and materials between the two countries. The US had earlier argued the agreement was needed to set up an international nuclear fuel bank in Russia.

The idea of such a facility, intended to dissuade countries from developing highly sensitive nuclear technologies, has won broad international support.

OK, it’s not that big of a deal, but still — US-Russia tensions aren’t looking good lately. Is this going to effect the 2008 election? Mmm…. not so much, because voters care much more about the economy than about what’s going on with Russia.

But the informed voter recognizes that McCain’s tough stance towards Russia — similar to Reagan’s treatment of the “Evil Empire” — was what worked in crumbling the Red Regime in the 80’s/early 90’s. What’s Obama’s foreign policy with Russia? I’m not sure; but I think it involves a lot of “talking,” followed up by “tough talks” with potential sanctions such as “not talking anymore,” or “talking less,” or “we’re not going to talk to you until you apologize.”

On a side-note: I promise you, intelligent reader, that I will not use the word “Veepstakes” at any point in this post. You’re welcome.

So let’s get down to business.

For Barack Obama: He needs the whitest, plainest, most white-breadish, most boring male pick possible. That rules out Hillary, Sibelius, and others, leaving Tim Kaine, Evan Bayh, and Joe Biden.

But it won’t be Biden — Obama’s already getting Delaware no matter what, and Biden’s experience will make Obama seem hesistant about his own. So scratch that one.

And it won’t be Tim Kaine, because he looks too much like Gumby.

But seriously, Tim Kaine can’t be the guy because he has almost less experience than Obama. If you can imagine that.

So who are we left with? Oh, yeah: Evan Bayh. He’ll be the one.

For John McCain: He needs a real conservative, although he did sound pretty good — and by “good” I mean “conservative” — at the Saddleback debate. But the bad news for McCain is that there is no real conservative out there waiting to be picked. Just Mitt Romney, a guy that outspent his Presidential opponents about 10:1 and only won one state (Michigan, where his dad was governor). Not exactly a guy with a base.

So I don’t know, I guess I’ll go with Romney, but I’m thinking it might be a wildcard. Maybe someone that’s really going to excite and unite the country; someone that has a history of fighting for America against foreign combatants, and is firmly behind the concept of American dominance. That someone — is Michael Phelps.

McCain/Phelps ‘08!

As Hurricane Fay batters the Florida coastline, one can only find global warming to blame for such a catastrophic natural event.

Actually, in Florida, it’s referred to as “August.”

No, seriously, read this:

The first half of 2008 was the coolest for at least five years, the World Meteorological Organisation (WMO) said on Wednesday.

The whole year will almost certainly be cooler than recent years, although temperatures remain above the historical average…

Global temperatures vary annually according to natural cycles. For example, they are driven by shifting ocean currents, and dips do not undermine the case that man-made greenhouse gas emissions are causing long-term global warming, climate scientists say.

So even though the temperature of the planet isn’t actually increasing, it doesn’t rule out the case that the temperature of the planet will increase because of man? Interesting.

Whatever, I say. I frequently ride my bike instead of driving my car, so I’m off the hook; but only because I enjoy riding my bike, not because I’m trying to save the planet.

And you know what? There’s nothing necessarily wrong with that, as long as MSNBC is up-front about their political bias.

But anyway, here’s my proof:

MSNBC talk show host Keith Olbermann is getting a new running mate, Rachel Maddow, who will follow Olbermann’s “Countdown” with her own prime-time hour starting next month.

“The Rachel Maddow Show,” billed as “a smart look at politics, pop culture and all the day’s top stories,” will originate weeknights at 9 p.m. EDT…

Olbermann’s program has particularly proved a breakout success. With his liberal slant and sharply anti-Bush-administration stance, Olbermann has emerged in the eyes of many viewers as the left-wing response to Fox, which is dominated by conservative hosts including Bill O’Reilly and Sean Hannity.

Maddow seems to represent a comfortable ideological fit with Olbermann, whose show airs at 8 p.m. EDT. Since being named an MSNBC political analyst last January, Maddow has subbed for Olbermann and has frequently contributed to his show.

She will also continue her radio show on Air America, a liberal-focused network where she has been heard since it signed on in 2004.

Like I said, even though I’m not a left-wing guy I have no problem with MSNBC running left-wing content. But this should let the cat out of the bag on MSNBC’s bias. I mean, from 8-10 PM — prime time — you have 2 openly-liberal hosts. Compare that to the “arch-conversative” FOX News, who has a questionably-conservative and openly-independent host Bill O’Reilly at 8 PM, followed by a program featuring one openly right-wing guy, Sean Hannity, and one openly left-wing guy, Alan Colmes, each of which gets equal airtime.

You know what I think would be the most entertaining scenario? “Hannity and Maddow”.

That would be one wild show.

That’s right. After a long, stupid, boring summer of classwork and internshipmanship (?), the fall semester is at-hand, which means the return of my blog and radio show. Check back often, and tune in to 90.3 WESS-FM every Thursday at 6 PM!

So honestly I’m not a real huge fan of my radio show, because I’ve been told (by station management) that I’m not allowed to use my show to “offer my opinions,” and that I have a duty to “always present both sides.” I think this makes my show incredibly boring, and it’s a pain to do as well, as I’m always hesitant to speak my mind about any topic. Not what I had in mind.

The solution (from station management): get a liberal co-host! So if you, or anyone you know — that is currently an ESU grad or undergrad student — has a huge interest in politics and would like to be a radio host… contact me! Please!

Well, I felt like writing something the other day… so I wrote. Here’s my recently submitted editorial to my local newspaper (it hasn’t been published yet):

Hooray for Big Oil!

Raise your hand if you’re excited about rising gas prices. I sure am!

Wait-why aren’t you raising your hand? Don’t you want exorbitant prices to force the private sector into finally producing alternative energy solutions? Besides that, don’t you want American companies, like ExxonMobil, to make money hand-over-fist for their shareholders?

Hey, why do you look so confused? Don’t tell me you think-like Hillary, Barack, and our own Paul Kanjorski-that we should steal “windfall” profits from the oil companies and redistribute them to the “common good.” You may not like ExxonMobil CEO Rex Tillerson’s returns, but what about their 2.5 million individual shareholders, or the millions more dependent on ExxonMobil through mutual funds? Are they not part of the “common good”?

Here’s the shocker: Oil companies don’t make an unreasonable amount of money. In 2007, ExxonMobil recorded revenues of $404 billion with net income at $40 billion, putting their profit margin near a reasonable 10%. (Do the math: ExxonMobil spends about $1 billion per day in operating costs.) The same year, Apple-a company most liberals won’t dare speak ill of-recorded revenues of $24 billion with net income near $3.5 billion. That’s a profit margin of about 15%. In other words, in 2007, Apple pocketed about 50% more per dollar of sales than ExxonMobil. Get out your lantern and pitchfork!

But I guess iPods aren’t quite as “evil” as oil-that’s for you to decide. My only point is that rising gas prices aren’t due to “corporate greed” on the part of “big oil”; and if we make the mistake of scapegoating oil companies by taxing their success, the situation is only going to get worse.

How much worse? How about $10 per gallon with no alternatives in sight? Let’s avoid that.

Well, it’s summertime, which means everyone from my school is down at the Jersey Shore showing off their shape-up haircuts, over-sized sunglasses, and fake-tanned bodies.

So being that they’re not around to listen to my radio show, there will be no more radio shows. At least not this summer.

And no more website updates, either. I’d rather spend the additional free time reading books.

But next September I’ll be back in full swing, hopefully with a liberal co-host so I’ll be allowed to say my real opinions — because, as of now, I’m under explicit instructions not to offer my opinions. That would be against “station policy.”

I’m redesigning my radio station’s website over the summer. You can find it online at esu.edu/wess. When the site looks decent — the redesign is complete. (Because it looks pretty bad at the time of this writing.)

So that’s all. By the way, if you, or someone you know, is interested in being a liberal co-host for my radio show, please contact me.

I’ve got crazy amount of work to do for last week of class, so there’ll be no radio show next Monday, and no web updates until next week. Sorry!

There’s an interesting study out of England — and by “interesting” I mean “loaded, probably biased, and generally worthless” — that claims vegetarians are smarter than their meat-eating brethren. Here’s vegtaste.com with the story:

Intelligent Kids More Likely To Switch Over To Vegetarianism Later In Life

An interesting British study on the eating habits of the kids reveals that intelligent children are more likely to adopt vegetarianism later in life.

Those who were vegetarians by 30 were five IQ points more on average at the age of 10, according to the study published in British Medical Journal.

The researchers at Southampton University found it isn’t clear why vegetarians are more intelligent as compared to their non-vegetarians counterparts - but admit the fruit and veggie-rich vegetarian diet could somehow boost brain power.

First of all, let me rephrase the article’s title to something that the author wishes they could have used: “Vegetarians are Smarter; Now We Have Proof.”

Man, I wish I could have been included in that study, because I would have thrown it way off. Here’s why:

Number one, I love meat — and poultry, and other animal-produced products, like eggs, cheese, etc. I eat about 6 meals a day, and just about every meal has some sort of animal product — something called “protein” — in it. I like steak, a lot. I like it rare, so when I cut it the blood spills out all over my plate. Mmmmmmm.

Number two, I’m a member of Mensa — a high IQ society — and while I won’t list my IQ, let’s just say that it doesn’t agree with the results of the study. I’m sorry if that sounds egocentric or rude, but it is what it is.

Besides the purported “correlation” with increased IQ, I think there’s another common factor vegetarians share: bitterness; because every vegetarian I know seems to be bitter about something. (Usually the fact that most restaurants don’t offer a multitude of vegetarian options, because it wouldn’t be economically smart to do so. But vegetarians don’t get that. Oh, I was a waiter for a while, too, so I had to deal with these people all the time.)

Last night Rev. Jeremiah Wright delivered a speech at an NAACP (colored people?) dinner, and FOX News (surprise, surprise) showed the whole thing live. I watched it — well, at least most of it.

And, you know, the guy had some interesting points: I thought his analysis of European music vs. African music was just that — interesting — and it supported his thesis of “different not deficient” very well.

I didn’t feel the same way about his remarks on linguistics, though, as he compared whites from accent-laden Boston to rappers that make up nonsense words and say them in a resolutely disrespectful manner.

But what was Rev. Wright’s overall message? He claimed “different not deficient,” and that his words were “descriptive” not “divisive.” But one would have to conclude, if they were watching him speak with no prior knowledge of him, that he is an advocate for a segregated society.

Everything he said was, “blacks are different, blacks are different: we learn differently, we have different interests, and we’re going to change things.” Change things: to what?

The man is not happy that blacks were forced to compete with whites in school: he blames black deficiencies in education on a “right-brain method of learning,” as opposed to the “left-brain” whites. OK, maybe so; but what about the Asians, the Hispanics, and the Indians who score on a relatively same level — or better — as whites? Is the entire world “left-brained” except for the Africans?

Perhaps instead of bitching about whatever side of the brain they use, other ethnicities realized that they need to buckle down and do whatever it takes to succeed in American society? Just a thought.

But instead of uniting people — as Obama claims to be able to do, as well — Wright prattles on about differences and incompatibilities with people of different skin color, and essentially suggests that we stop treating each other as equal, and go back to treating each other as “separate but equal.”

And they say Republicans want to turn back the clock — pshaw!

(Watch the entire speech here.)

You know, after seeing him on O’Reilly and Hannity and Colmes, I was just starting to like Al Sharpton.

But there’s a chance his newest fiasco could wind up getting innocent people — maybe even NYPD officers — killed, for the sake of his brand of vigilante justice.

Here’s what I’m talking about, from AP:

Hundreds of angry people marched through Harlem on Saturday after the Rev. Al Sharpton promised to “close this city down” to protest the acquittals of three police detectives in the 50-shot barrage that killed a groom on his wedding day and wounded two friends. . . .

The rally at Sharpton’s office was followed by a 20-block march down Malcolm X Boulevard and then across 125th Street, Harlem’s main business thoroughfare, where some bystanders yelled out “Kill the police!” . . .

Sharpton urged people to return for a meeting this coming week “to plan the day that we will close this city down” with the kind of “massive civil disobedience” once led by Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. . . .

Sharpton didn’t say exactly how they would protest the acquittals of the officers who fired the 50 shots. He said Bell’s supporters could demonstrate all over the city, from Wall Street to the home of Justice Arthur Cooperman, who on Friday acquitted the three detectives after a nonjury trial.

You know, I hate to say this — and please don’t extract anything from the following statement that’s not relevant to the Sean Bell case — but it’s a good thing that most of the officers acquitted were black — only because that makes it impossible for Sharpton to turn this into a race issue, and drag us back fifty years. (Although it didn’t stop some protesters from shouting “KKK!” (here) How is black-on-black violence related to the KKK? Beats me.)

Can you imagine if it was a group of white cops that killed Sean Bell? Regardless of the outcome of the trial, Sharpton would be having people burn cars all over the city.

(Alternatively — imagine if it was a white guy that was gunned down by the police. Would Al be fighting for his “justice”? I think not.)

But, as it is, a judge listened to both sides of the story and found the three officers not guilty. If that sounds outrageous to you, then you probably haven’t heard both sides of the story: you probably only heard the “50 shots” thing. (And you probably shouldn’t think you have a better understanding of the case than the judge.)

The whole ordeal is terrible, and of course Sean Bell didn’t deserve to die, but punishing police officers for doing their job isn’t going to make anything better. I’m sure these men are terribly guilted as it is.

And I understand that Bell’s family is emotional, and they feel betrayed, but further violence or “massive civil disobedience” is only going to make the situation worse.

Where’s Mayor Giuliani when we need him?

Speaking of which, Mayor Bloomberg released a pretty good statement after the verdict (here), but he needs to release another statement strongly condemning the Rev. Sharpton’s proposed actions.

Case in point, from the Idaho Statesman:

Greenpeace founder Patrick Moore says there is no proof global warming is caused by humans, but it is likely enough that the world should turn to nuclear power - a concept tied closely to the underground nuclear testing his former environmental group formed to oppose.

The chemistry of the atmosphere is changing, and there is a high-enough risk that “true believers” like Al Gore are right that world economies need to wean themselves off fossil fuels to reduce greenhouse gases, he said. . . .

The only viable solution is to build hundreds of nuclear power plants over the next century, Moore told the Boise Metro Chamber of Commerce on Wednesday. There isn’t enough potential for wind, solar, hydroelectric, and geothermal or other renewable energy sources, he said. . . .

He represents the Clean Air and Safe Energy Coalition, a nuclear energy-backed group promoting reactors for electric energy generation. He began his career as a leader of Greenpeace fighting nuclear testing and working to save whales.

In recent years, he has taken on causes unpopular with his former group, like old-growth logging, keeping polyvinyl chlorides and now nuclear energy.

He says his change of heart comes from his background in science and a different approach to sustainability.

His critics, like Andrea Shipley, executive director of the Snake River Alliance, say he has simply sold out.

“The only reason Patrick Moore is backing something as unsafe and risky as nuclear power is he is being paid by the nuclear industry to do so,” Shipley said.

Haven’t you noticed this is the typical defense from environmentalists? If you oppose what we say: someone is paying you off — whether it’s Big Oil, or Big Nuclear, or Big Whatever.

Now honestly I don’t know too much about Patrick Moore, so perhaps he was never a “radical” environmentalist. But it is nice to hear a former leader of Greenpeace come out in favor of nuclear energy. The man didn’t sell out — he wised up.

But my favorite quote of the story: “There isn’t enough potential for wind, solar, hydroelectric, and geothermal or other renewable energy sources.” Ha! See, guys like me always knew this: alternative sources have been around for a while, yet they cease to catch on. What’s the hold-up? Bring in the wind turbines and solar panels, let’s go!

Is there really hope for solar panels? Is it possible that the energy in the visible light spectrum exuded from the sun just isn’t powerful enough to run my whole house? For two-thirds of the year it can’t even burn my skin — how’s it going to cook my eggs? But I digress.

I may say some harsh things — some may call me a “flat-Earther” — but seriously, I’m all for alternative energy sources. Our dependency on oil isn’t good for anyone (except the oil companies).

As far as nuclear reactors are concerned, if the French can do it — we can do it.

Drilling in ANWR, construction of nuclear plants, further drilling in the Gulf of Mexico combined with the construction of new refineries — that’s how we’ll sure up our economy; that’s how we’ll find the time to research the technology needed to implement methods using alternative energy.