Tread away, Mac! The more the merrier. It isn't possible to say enough bad things about this stupid bill.

Nice op-ed, Mac, and I certainly agree with the general thrust of the piece, but I'm curious about your statement that arctic ice "is at a 50-year high." What is your source for that?

50 year high? Maybe that was an honest typo? If not, I might have an idea what his source was, but since other bloggers have mentioned that this is a family blog...

Well, so nice post haah! Your mind help me so much! I¡¯m not sure if you mind the thing I¡¯ll do here, Im online seller for the Ed Hardy , and also the pretty UGG Boots were my products, alright, seems I have to make the apologys for my Jordan Shoes , they are the moste hot item on my site, are u interest in them?

On the benefits side, there is another problem as well. Even if the United States were to significantly reduce CO{-2} emissions, it would have little global effect, given that the biggest producers of greenhouse-gas emissions are rapidly developing countries such as China and India that favor economic growth over environmental concerns.

Are we, then, suppose to live by the same standards as every other nation in the world? Many countries allow atrocities against fellow individuals that I hope would never be acceptable in the United States, no matter what sort of economic benefit it might entail. The U.S. ought to be the standard bearer of morality for the world, and just because another nation doesn't follow our lead, immediately, doesn't mean we ought not to pursue the moral course.

It is undeniable that if we reduce CO{-2} emissions, we also suppress today’s energy sources, which in turn suppresses the economy. The idea that we can shift effortlessly from carbon-based fuels to alternative “clean” forms of energy and conservation is a pipedream.

You are right in one regard. The private sector cannot be relied upon to transition from carbon-based fuels to clean energy, that is why the Congress will hopefully help administer this transition over a period of time. The financial Titans of this country will not seek the moral course of environmental care unless sufficiently prodded.

As Roosevelt stated in his Commonwealth Club Address, "The day of the great promoter or the financial Titan, to whom we granted anything if only he would build, or develop, is over. Our task now is not discovery or exploitation of natural resources, or necessarily producing more goods. It is the soberer, less dramatic business of administering resources and plants already in hand... The day of enlightened administration has come."

That sounds like an argument for central planning by Rossevelt? The entire idea of government restraining business or trustbusting is a myth of high school history texts. Big business is the government. Corpratism is what they though about calling fascism. You do realize that environmentalism is funded by the Titans of industry, and you and I are not parts of the mother earth they are keen to preserve? If we went to widespread nuclear power the earth could support even more population, these "green plans" will promote population reduction or sustainablity is the code word I think. The great question though is who is going to decide which people can live or reporduce. You must really trust your congressman.

Here is what my congressman had to say to the local power co op publication: "I joined a bipartisan group of my colleagues in voting for legislation that would at last make a true investment into domestic energy productiona away from dependence on foreign sources of enery... consumers will also see gains in the bill(does he mean savings or higher bills? gains on bills sounds like lisa simpson calling a tax hike a refund adjustment). Some consumers can expect to see an annual savings under this legislation, and a new program will help consumers make their homes more energy efficient. In other words, this bill is putting money back into the pockets of consumers." 18th district, Zach Space. I guess double doors are a must on capitol hill in order for our congressmen to get their noses in the building.

The entire idea of government restraining business or trustbusting is a myth of high school history texts.

Fortunately, I have advanced beyond high school history class, and the text books, and read the history for myself. I think a view of history, from the men and women who made it, would prove the reality of government's interest in business, and the importance of it. FDR's fireside chat on July 24th, 1933 is a clear example of the proper use of government in adminsitering business to secure the common good. The AAA and NIRA, mentioned in the speech, were only two of the programs established to re-adjust the balance of greed and industry on one hand fair business practices and common prosperity on the other.

As for your assertion that Big business is the government, I would say that you have "government" confused with Republican Party. The insatiable greed of financial Titans has been the overarching reason why the American public has abandoned that party.

Well, H. Coly, have you read FDR's Folly? All that "social justice" and "greater good" BS sounds noble and fine until you let the idiots try to bring it about. Another word for "greed" is self-interest, which is what economics (ALL forms of economics, not just capitalism) relies on -- it's the engine that keeps things moving. And yes, sometimes we pay a price for "bubbles" (i.e., herd-mentality buying and selling). Nothing special about it, and it happens in all kinds of human societies.

I would also point out that there are many varieties of "greed," such as the greed for power over other peoples' lives. That's the greedy sickness that prevades the liberal-left in this country, and it's the form of greed that has always led to massive bloodshed over time. I'll take good old-fashion economic greed over that any day.

Why did the titans then back Obama? He did recieve more money from wall street than any other candidate. FDR's family were high level bankers. What does the "working man" have to show for it today? Nothing, because he lives elsewhere. I think the plight of the working man was solved by simply eliminating the American working man.