blphnx

Seems no one has an actual explanation for why what seems to be perfectly normal to not have one. Do you think being more dominant with one side for a long period while growing can have anything to do with it? Yes or no, please include some idea why you think so, could be important (conerns an 18 mo old in size 5 from right club foot and 6-7 on left foot, would be nice knowing whether or not something could actually stunt or stimulate growth, some kind of science behind it). Thanks.

Al Gore Montecito home - Is 8 mil enough to buy a 'beach front' estate/villa in CA or is this a rumor?

Just looking to confirm this... and maybe to get a more accurate idea where this home is, my research only got me as far as you see below...

Reason for the question... I've been hearing pundits on the radio and blogs and other stories circulating the past few days that Al Gore allegedly purchased a huge home on a beach just recently.

Reason I'm asking if this could just be a rumor, does it make sense why would "Mr. Global Warming" would be buying a mansion 'on a beach' of all places, considering his stance against Global Warming and his warming about alleged expected rising sea levels?

Not going to even try and defend him on his decision if that is true... but just trying to makes sense of this new buzz going around... I feel my question is a legitimate one because if you looked into real estate in the area [1] the L.A. Times reported he bought a home, 8 mil actually is below average for a 'mansion' first of all, let alone "1.5 acre beach front" property... so what's the story here??

I can completely understand the criticism against him (beach property, preaching rising oceans, etc... would be very hypocritical if true wouldn't it?), certainly not good PR for the Al Gore Co... but again, the reason I find this hard to even believe... is because from my research, 8 million does not even come close to affording you beach front property in Montecito, CA... look at this image for a realistic property in that price range in this area...[1]

Also, exactly 'where' is important... because the Montecito 'region' includes elevation as high as 3,000 feet (google Montecito Peak)... the entire region has a mountain range behind it, so saying a home has "ocean view" isn't saying much... (very deceptive depending on who is telling the tale) [2]

And so, I ask again, is it not fair to conclude that he must NOT have 'beach front' property... but rather, he just moved out of his 7 million dollar downtown San Francisco high-rise condo, to a 7 million dollar house near Santa Barbara instead, that evidently is 'elevated' enough that it has an 'ocean view'... and likely, his view looks something like this... [3] (see this actual 'ocean view' seen from Mount Calvary Road, Montecito, California... consider the difference between what can be perceived as 'ocean view' to that of 'beach front property')????

What is the truth here, did he buy a house on the beach, which would make him an idiot and a hypocrite, or did he buy a house which likely is elevated and has an ocean view (from a 'safe' distance... ocean rising-wise)??

So anyone with thoughts on this so to help me clear up what is the deal... it would be nice if someone knew actually what Al Gore bought and where... like I said though, I doubt these rumors a mansion with "beach front" property is accurate (or if it is even possible, for that price) but I'm at the mercy of the media and bloggers still until someone offers some real facts...

My personal feeling... If his house IS literally on the beach like so many people are feeding us, including folks on Y/A and blog sites, social media sites, etc... keep spreading... then Al Gore DESERVES any criticism he gets for it... otherwise, it is a useless, inaccurate rumor that should away (but probably never will, will it?)

[1] Montecito, CA property values example

http://cocomidel.files.wordpress.com/2008/06/monte...

[2] View of Montecito/Santa Barbara, CA as seen from the ocean

http://homepage.mac.com/cjbowdish/SailSBAug2008/pi...

[3] Example view of ocean ("ocean view") from Montecito property

http://www.2399mountcalvaryroad.com/images/01.jpg

Dealers depend on regular business, especially in this down period. If it is true now, Obama will sign the bill, but not until August 1, so then wouldn't people naturally 'hold off' on trading their cars in for anything, even people who otherwise were in the market already to buy a new car?

My point is, it seems the sensibile thing here to do, if they know this is for certain happening... because they announced that fact, they may as well sign the dang bill and not disrupt commerce with struggling dealers anymore than necessary if my theory is correct there.

Is this a legitimate assessment? I wonder how much sales are going to drop for the rest of the summer now? I'm just thinking, with given the current situation, and with that news, they must have thought of that, so why would they not sign it sooner (or have held off longer from convincing everyone it would be signed)?

Or who knows, maybe they didn't think about any of that, but probably should.

Do people who make a big deal out of Earth Day, are they out of touch with reality, are they good people, bad people, enlightened, or ignorant?

Is Earth Day just propaganda for the green movement? Is that good or bad? Is it dumb for there to be a day we show appreciation to our planet? Would we be better off without Earth Day? What good comes from having Earth Day?

Why do some people care so much about April 22, and others think it is completley ridiculous?

Anyone with an opinion of Earth Day, your thoughts please, just wanting to get an idea of any conflicting views or agreement on this. I understand that Global Warming category in Y-Answers is teaming with people who must think Earth Day is a joke... I would like to know why, and who in here thinks it is good for anything, thanks. Looking for different 'contrasting' opinions on this (or would have otherwise posted in Green Living or Holiday-Earth Day).

For anyone who cares... Happy Earth Day 2009...

Best Answer will be based on either what generates the most thumbs, whether up or down, but as long as there are more up then down... or I may decide to let this go to vote. I'm not basing best answer on your opinion of Earth Day, whether positive, neutral, or negative. Just so long your answer is interesting (and perhaps controversial, lol), you should have a shot at it.

Is Earth Day just a bunch of hype from tree hugging Liberals, or is it really up to everyone to be more responsible about keeping the earth the way it has been, and not some big barren pile of garbage and deserts like Mad Max... if that would ever happen.

I'm curious what those who say God is responsible for everything that happens (in God's hands, fate, God's will, etc...), if that means it is okay to pollute, because nothing will ever happen unless it is what God wants/intended, etc?

Why do we even have Earth Day, many people think it is a crock. The earth will take care of itself (whether that has to do with God or not right?).

Man can't affect the biology of the planet, climate, etc... Or maybe we can.

So I'm just curious, are you religious, and what is your take on Earth Day... thanks

I'm amazed to see that evidently there is not a word for this. At least not in the English language, that describes all of these 'things'. Things being obviously too broad a term. This specific 'group of things' deserves a name.

They all are used in a game involving physical activity, and are in every case, the single critical 'scoring' component of a specific sporting game, involving usually two sides, and consist of 2 or more 'players', a field, goals, etc.

What is this thing?

If your suggestion is clever enough, perhaps I'll use it:)

There are people who make this bold claim, but never show real evidence of it.

To do that, you would first have to prove that the global mean temperature of the planet is dropping steadily over a number of years (unlike global warming which does the opposite). And you would have to prove every major institution that studies climate wrong.

You're living in the US or somewhere where it is the middle of winter and there is high elevation, you've gotten a lot of snow perhaps... so that must mean global warming has gone away... the temperature of the oceans clearly must have cooled and CO2 levels have declined, and the glaciers all all coming back...

Really?

How can you come to that conclusion? Because someone politically motivated told you on their talk radio show? Or because it snowed where you are?

How can you or someone else take the position that global warming has ended, despited there still being NO major scientific organization in the WORLD that agrees??

"No remaining scientific body of national or international standing is known to reject the basic findings of human influence on recent climate."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on...

Despite recent cooling in America and in the Alps, etc... According to NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center as well as NASA, GLOBAL temps are still on the rise.

The average global land temperature last March was the warmest on record and ocean surface temperatures were the 13th warmest. Combining the land and the ocean temperatures, the 'overall' 'global' temperature ranked the SECOND WARMEST for the month of March. Global temperature averages have been recorded since 1880.

http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2008/20080417_...

The year 2007 tied for SECOND WARMEST in the period of instrumental data, behind the record warmth of 2005, in the Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) analysis. 2007 tied 1998, which had leapt a remarkable 0.2°C above the prior record with the help of the El Nino of the century.

http://mises.org/Community/blogs/tokyotom/archive/...

Is it me, or is it a fact that 95% of the people out there that deny Global Warming, let alone AGW, are very much right-winged politically? Why is that? Do they know they are lying or are they being duped from choosing to only listen to other right-wingers on the subject? If they know better, why are they trying so hard to convince everyone else that Global Warming is a bunch of Al Gore hooey? Do they not realize that the less we do to prepare for the future with regard to this very real changing climate, the worse it will be for us and even more difficult and more EXPENSIVE it will be to deal with it later? Seriously, what is the deal here?

Thanks

I was listening to Right Wing Pundit Radio Talk show Host Lars Larson in my car just now.

Why do people like this able to speak about what they don't understand as if they do?

He was going off on a new Associated Press story, and quoted some different parts, like this one...

"Since Clinton's inauguration, summer Arctic sea ice has lost the equivalent of Alaska, California and Texas."

And to that he said "Oh what bunk that is, this is what I'm talking about, you see how they work, they twist things like this, because of course the Arctic loses as much as Alaska, California, and Texas ...in the summer, but it all comes back in the winter... you see"

And then he goes on saying a few other things, making fun of Al Gore trying to talk like him, referring to him as 'Spotted Owl' for some reason, and then he mentions another story, where they mention something about CO2 pollution... and he goes off again... "You see what I mean... CO2 is not a pollutant folks (precedes to exhale heavily in the mic)... that's CO2 folks, not a pollutant... (precedes to make pop sounds with his mouth)... "you know what that was, that was a paint ball gun (as if to reinforce his point)."

Look LARS LARSON (and any of his listeners that fall for his rhetoric)...

First of all, what they mean by the Arctic losing SUMMER ice, is not being compared to Winter Ice (which is HUGE, much more than what we are talking about with the land area of California, Alaska and Texas.)... what they are referring to is Summer ice now, vs. summer ice in 1992. Summer ice now vs. then, now Summer ice, vs winter ice.

I wish so badly I could have been able to correct him on that so he would shut up about it... but he kept going.

The other thing, CO2 not being a pollutant... That' isn't true, anything that is not natural, that we put there, that has undesirable effects, is a pollutant. And CO2 was even classified as such up until Bush himself got caught making the mistake saying it wasn't a pollutant.. and he was proven wrong, but then soon after, went as far as to change the Clean Air Act definitions. But that still doesn't make him, or Lars Larson right.

The simple reason it is a pollutant, is because the EXTRA CO2 that we put in the air from burning fossil fuels (not from exhaling) didn't exist in our present ecology before we put it there, it came from millions of years ago and was locked away for millions of years in the form of rock, gas and oil... which we drill or mine, and the we BURN which creates... CO2... A LOT of CO2. That is why it is called a pollutant.

Aren't these people supposed to be smart, and somewhat responsible for what they talk about, know what they are talking about, etc.?

When are these people going to finally learn? These lies that keep going back around again and again, being spread by the media, never ends, even when something is explained, guys like Sean Hannity, Glen Beck, and Lars Larson go right back to their old habits again.

Below is the story Lars was referring to...

AP Sunday, December 14, 2008

Obama left with little time to curb global warming

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5...

Below, two related stories if in case you're interested...

Obama announces energy and environment team

AP Monday, December 15, 2008

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081215/ap_on_go_pr_wh...

Obama promises leadership on climate change

AP Tuesday, November 18, 2008

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081215/ap_on_go_pr_wh...

Listen to what's happening... we have people telling us to "Hurry up and buy gold" or "better watch out for your investments if you have more than 100K" or "forget 401K and social security"... and so on... then at the same time, you see everyone in a panic and running from the stock market and the world stock markets follow suit and it just gets worse amd worse....

Today we see this headline (I'll include a couple of excerpts)...

Dow finishes below 10,000 for first time since '04

...The market's paper loss at the day's lows came to $1.1 trillion, as measured by the Dow Jones Wilshire 5000 Composite Index, which tracks 5,000 U.S.-based companies' stocks. That compares with a loss of about $1.5 trillion last week; that was the worst weekly return since the week after trading resumed following the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks...

...The market "is displaying one of its worst traits with a herd mentality, and investors have an appetite for feeding on fear," said Anthony Sabino, a professor of law and business at St. John's University...

But he cautioned it was still not a nightmare scenario...

"Most certainly, this is not the Great Depression of the 1930s, but (is like) the savings and loan crisis of the 1980s -- and we bailed them out," he said. "Once people catch their breath, they'll see this is the proper analogy and this will breathe life back into banking institutions."

http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/081006/wall_street.html

Well then... wouldn't it seem logical that if we stopped panicking, we would be fine? Stop telling people to jump ship, and maybe people will realize, they don't need to, which would be a good thing.

Our economy can bounce back if we keep it together.

Lets not tip the boat shall we.

Thanks.

Forbes "worst financial crisis since 1933"

Most of you are familiar with Global Warming, whether you agree or disagree with the science but most everyone can agree that reducing our dependency on fossil fuels is only going to become more and more important.

Now take into account what is going on recently with the economy...

These things being said in the last 24 hours by the top economic analysts..

"Once in century kind of phenomenon!"

"This is the financial storm of the century!"

"Congress must recapitalize FDIC immediately!"

"1 trillion at risk, FDIC can only cover $50 billion!"

"Wall Street is now at the mercy of Washington."

"America should be very worried!"

Note... not just this latest stock crash but take also into consideration...

U.S. NATIONAL DEBT CLOCK. The Outstanding Public Debt as of September 16, 2008 at 09:33:35 AM GMT

$9,691,574,311,578.56

Our debt is accumulating at 1.3 Million Dollars a minute!

You've got to see this...

National Debt Graph (2007 Budget data)

http://zfacts.com/p/318.html

National Debt Clock (Real Time)

http://zfacts.com/p/461.html

>>>> So again I ask, which is the most important issue(s) and WHAT ADMINISTRATION WILL LIKELY BE BEST SUITED TO DEAL WITH IT after 2009?

Do you think the Bush Administration has done a good or poor job on these issues in the last 8 years?

Can you believe the headlines in the last 24 hours??

All this btw has been happening since yesterday when the stock market dropped over a staggering 500 points and the ripple effect being felt around the world.

Economists are ALL warning us this is a huge problem, it may be hard to get loans for cars, houses, etc. The state of the economy could get exponentially worse. People are being encouraged (not by economists, but by fear) to withdraw from the banks and sell their stocks, etc.

"Once in century kind of phenomenon!"

"This is the financial storm of the century!"

"Congress must recapitalize FDIC immediately!"

"1 trillion at risk, FDIC can only cover $50 billion!"

"Wall Street is now at the mercy of Washington."

So would you agree or disagree that the economy is the MOST IMPORTANT issue in our country NOW?

PLEASE ANSWER THAT QUESTION, AND THEN WHO IS LIKELY TO BRING THE BEST ADMINISTRATION TO WASHINGTON?

On the trail... latest from our future leadership...

McCain: Fundamentals of Economy Remain Strong

On the campaign trail, Senator John McCain said that the fundamentals of the economy remain strong.

Sen. John McCain: “You know that there’s been tremendous turmoil in our financial markets and Wall Street. And it is—people are frightened by these events. Our economy, I think, still, the fundamentals of our economy are strong, but these are very, very difficult time. And I promise you we will never put America in this position again. We will clean up Wall street. We will reform government. And this is a failure.”

Senator Barack Obama accused McCain of subscribing to the same economic philosophy as President Bush.

Sen. Barack Obama: “For eight years, we’ve had policies that have shredded consumer protections, that have loosened oversight and regulation and encouraged out-sized bonuses to CEO’s while ignoring middle-class Americans. The result is the most serious financial crisis since the Great Depression. And I certainly don’t fault Senator John McCain for these problems, but I do fault the economic philosophy he subscribes to, because it’s the same philosophy we’ve had for the last eight years.”

I posted two other questions on this in 'Current Events', includes a lot of good information and responses, one last night and earlier today...

Is American in trouble? Are bank deposits for once at risk?

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=Api3D...

CRASH? Do you agree with Forbes? That the United States facing perhaps the worst financial crisis since 1933?

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=200809...

Forbes magazine said the United States is now facing perhaps the worst financial crisis since the banking panic that former President Franklin Roosevelt faced in 1933.

To help grease the financial plumbing Monday, the Federal Reserve pumped a total of $70 billion ($50 billion and then another regularly scheduled $20 billion were injected in temporary reserves) into the nation's financial system through open market operations to help ease credit stresses.

Lehman Brothers, the country's fourth-largest investment bank, filed for bankruptcy protection. A weakened Merrill Lynch, deciding it couldn't go it alone anymore, found help in the arms of Bank of America. Now, the insurance giant American International Group (AIG) is dangerously wobbling. Against this backdrop, Wall Street on Monday plunged 500 points, the most since the September 2001 terror attacks.

"Fed pumps $70B into nation's financial system"

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080916/ap_on_bi_ge/fe...

"Wall Street is now at the mercy of Washington."

"Facing reporters at the White House on Monday, Wall-Street-titan-turned-Treasury-Secretary Henry Paulson deflected questions about whom to finger for the meltdown, saying simply: “I’m playing the hand that was dealt to me.” So is Wall Street, and it’s folding."

"No matter who’s elected, the next administration might have a much easier job of watching over the investment banking industry simply because it will be so tiny."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/20080916/pl_polit...

On the trail... latest from our future leadership...

McCain: Fundamentals of Economy Remain Strong

On the campaign trail, Senator John McCain said that the fundamentals of the economy remain strong.

Sen. John McCain: “You know that there’s been tremendous turmoil in our financial markets and Wall Street. And it is—people are frightened by these events. Our economy, I think, still, the fundamentals of our economy are strong, but these are very, very difficult time. And I promise you we will never put America in this position again. We will clean up Wall street. We will reform government. And this is a failure.”

Senator Barack Obama accused McCain of subscribing to the same economic philosophy as President Bush.

Sen. Barack Obama: “For eight years, we’ve had policies that have shredded consumer protections, that have loosened oversight and regulation and encouraged out-sized bonuses to CEO’s while ignoring middle-class Americans. The result is the most serious financial crisis since the Great Depression. And I certainly don’t fault Senator John McCain for these problems, but I do fault the economic philosophy he subscribes to, because it’s the same philosophy we’ve had for the last eight years.”

All this has been happening since yesterday when the stock market dropped over 500 points and the ripple effect being felt around the world. Economists are all warning us this is a huge problem, it may be hard to get loans for cars, houses, etc. The state of the economy could get exponentially worse. People are being encouraged to withdraw from the banks and sell their stocks, etc.

I wrote about this last night (per FDIC not being able to deal with the trillion dollars potentiall at risk, etc.), and got some very interesting answers, please refer to that too for some keen insight and additional information...

Is American in trouble? Are bank deposits for once at risk?

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=Api3D...

What I want to know is... Are we really in this deep of trouble, What the economists are saying.???..

"Once in century kind of phenomenon!"

"This is the financial storm of the century!"

"Congress must recapitalize FDIC immediately!"

"1 trillion at risk, FDIC can only cover $50 billion!", etc...

Someone please explain what is going on and what is going to happen, or your opinions on this please.

Can you believe this?

What does this mean?

"Once in century kind of phenomenon!" "This is the financial storm of the century!"

"Congress must recapitalize FDIC immediately!"

"1 trillion at risk, FDIC can only cover $50 billion!"

That''s just some of the headlines that can be said about our present situation.

Check this out from NASDAQ (coincidently, not part of this topic, but I realized when watching this clip that I walked right past the window in the background of this video just a few days ago).

What are your thoughts on this, should we be worried?

http://finance.yahoo.com/tech-ticker/article/56994...

Please note, when I first saw this news release, it literally showed it had been up for one minute. Something I wanted to use, simply vanished.

I wanted to use a couple of excerpts but first I tried to rate it, and then had to log in, which took me to a different page, etc. I then got back to the report and rated it, then proceeded to extract the excerpts, this was the first part of it, I'll skip through it a bit (please stay with me on this a moment longer)...

"By David Morgan

4 minutes ago"

"WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President George W. Bush secretly approved orders in July allowing U.S. special forces to carry out ground assaults inside Pakistan without approval from the Pakistan government, the New York Times reported on Thursday."

*** that part is followed by a build up about Pakistan disapproval and US growing distrust for their military)...

"The newspaper said the orders also reflected a belief some U.S. operations had been compromised once Pakistanis were advised of the details."

*** Then here, WAS a comment about how the US would agree to tell them about (some particular) grounds operations, but that "We will not ask for their permission"...

again... note, that whole bit was left out for some reason. Anyway, in response to the secret raids and this statement to Pakistan's military, which again, has for some reason since been removed from the source article, but in any case, these things led to the following response from Pakistan, and what I feel is a threatening statement to our forces over there (my question again will follow this last part)...

"Army chief General Ashfaq Kayani Kayani said in a statement on Wednesday: "The sovereignty and territorial integrity of the country will be defended at all cost and no external force is allowed to conduct operations ... inside Pakistan.""

*** Does anyone agree or disagree, that this is either a threatening statement, a problem, a declaration or warning of some sort??? At the same time, are we bullying Pakistan deservably and/or does the justify their statements? Yes or No (please elaborate) and if at all possible, what you think this could all soon mean possibly? Your thoughts on this bombshell please...

Thanks,

Story as it reads now...

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080911/ts_nm/afghan_u...

PS - Bonus... what could that particular grounds operations have been? I'll remember the term if I see it.

I'm just a little surprised that Palin and McCain made so many wild accusations at the convention, which often brought great applause, and were completely untrue.

Even some of their supporters made things up, this one certainly among the more outrageous claims...

Speaking on behalf of Sarah Palin...

FORMER ARKANSAS GOV. MIKE HUCKABEE: Palin "got more votes running for mayor of Wasilla, Alaska than Joe Biden got running for president of the United States."

THE FACTS: A whopper. Palin got 616 votes in the 1996 mayor's election, and got 909 in her 1999 re-election race, for a total of 1,525. Biden dropped out of the race after the Iowa caucuses, but he still got 76,165 votes in 23 states and the District of Columbia where he was on the ballot during the 2008 presidential primaries.

Your opinions please. Please answer both parts of the question.

Evidence of the exaggerated truths (or lies, however you wish to interpet it) from last night's convention...

Attacks, praise stretch truth at GOP convention (source AP)

http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&ie...

It was suggested that I repost* this in Politics.

When House Speaker Nancy Pelosi was addressing the convention Monday, drawing a contrast between Obama and Republican Sen. John McCain of Arizona, Fox News Channel's Bill O'Reilly was in a booth far above the delegates interviewing a pollster. O'Reilly waved in the direction of Pelosi on stage with a dismissive hand.

"Now we have Nancy Pelosi bloviating, and I say that in an affectionate way, behind us," O'Reilly said. "It doesn't seem like the crowd is on the edge of their seats."

Fox's viewers weren't allowed to judge for themselves. Same thing for CNN at the time, where Wolf Blitzer was holding court as Pelosi talked. Among the cable news networks, only MSNBC gave Pelosi's speech any real attention.

Three hours later, as CNN analysts were wrapping up the night, several talked about the absence of "red meat" attacks on the Republicans. But Democratic activist Hillary Rosen noted that Pelosi was doing some of that — only CNN wasn't really listening.

Katie Couric and Jeff Greenfield were talking on CBS when Craig Robinson was onstage talking about his sister, Michelle Obama. During a Jimmy Carter tribute, Fox aired clips of demonstrators outside the convention hall. Missouri Sen. Claire McCaskill got little airtime.

"How can you cover a convention when you're talking while the main speakers are speaking?" asked PBS anchor Jim Lehrer, whose network lingered more on the speakers.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080826/ap_on_el_pr/cv...

PS - DNC coverage on Comedy Central in 10 minutes... why not? Can't be any worse than watching FoxNews or CNN on this thing, at least it will be more entertaining no?

*previously posted here... http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=200808...

Considering how important the race this year has been, how many hundreds of thousands of hours of press it has received, and how America is literally divided on what to do about the next Presidential Race and this year, American feeling more than ever how important it is to choose wisely, and how much we've been hearing about the DNC and GOP conventions. That people who are tuning in aren't getting to hear the main speakers, instead, just being force to hear side news and commentators opinions, than later being told, the night was uninformative and weak.

1) Why is this important event we've been waiting all year for being filtered so much?

2) Since it is, how can the broad spectrum of Americans be expected to really learn what the two parties are saying and make a better decision who is better of the TWO?

3) Does anyone believe the same will happen with the next convention?

Before answering, please consider today's AP article on this (thanks)...

excerpt...

...When House Speaker Nancy Pelosi was addressing the convention Monday, drawing a contrast between Obama and Republican Sen. John McCain of Arizona, Fox News Channel's Bill O'Reilly was in a booth far above the delegates interviewing a pollster. O'Reilly waved in the direction of Pelosi on stage with a dismissive hand.

"Now we have Nancy Pelosi bloviating, and I say that in an affectionate way, behind us," O'Reilly said. "It doesn't seem like the crowd is on the edge of their seats."

Fox's viewers weren't allowed to judge for themselves. Same thing for CNN at the time, where Wolf Blitzer was holding court as Pelosi talked. Among the cable news networks, only MSNBC gave Pelosi's speech any real attention.

Three hours later, as CNN analysts were wrapping up the night, several talked about the absence of "red meat" attacks on the Republicans. But Democratic activist Hillary Rosen noted that Pelosi was doing some of that — only CNN wasn't really listening...

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080826/ap_on_el_pr/cv...

I would like to know how much work has been done so far, and if the phase out, which should occur as a result of troop and police replacements, is gaining any momentum, and therefore, how long it will be before enough are replaced that we've completed our withdrawal?

Or does our military want to stick around because of concerns with Iran, etc. which could be impeding the process?

What should any country’s right be when it comes to developing nuclear energy given the lethal waste byproduct and hazards? It can always be argued that a country with the capability of supplying nuclear energy, could or may research, build and/or use nuclear weapons.

First, is there any real evidence other than that, why Iran shouldn’t have it? And next, should anyone?

It seems understandable why they are looking at nuclear as a solution, but in all this, I find it quite interesting that Iran is also the second largest OPEC oil producer and also sit on the second largest global gas reserves, that being another story in itself.

So in any case, is Nuclear really the solution, for anyone? Everyone needs energy, even Americans are lobbying hard again for nuclear energy... but with regard to Iran, it feels like a “do what I say, not as I do” kind of thing. Again, maybe nuclear is just not a good idea at all for this reason.

Excerpt of the article inspiring this question...