In his latest article, David Kay Johnson reports that 2 separate studies showed that "Retail electricity prices have risen much more in states that adopted competitive pricing than in those that have retained traditional rates set by the government."

The price spread grew from 1.09 cents per kilowatt-hour to 3.09 cents, her analysis showed. It also showed that in 2006 alone industrial customers paid $7.2 billion more for electricity in market states than if they had paid the average prices in regulated states.

This is the problem with ultra-market ideologues. They misunderstand the inherent power-relationships in society. Competition might make a better product, but it does not solve or even understand social stresses and situations at all. In fact, as the studies prove over a period of 16 years, competition can exascerbate social relations and make system integration and investment difficult because the priorities of profits and portfolios will overrule the long-term goals of society.

The neigh-sayers and true-believers will talk about gradual improvements or try to tie the higher prices to the overall energy situation, but again they miss the point. Energy is such an important commodity, that we shouldn't outsource energy production and distribution to private for-profit entities whose goals are to make money and accumulate customers. The funds are funnelled out of the communities who rely on them for their electricity, and thus don't get re- invested in the community. The capital-intensive nature of the energy business makes it a natural monopoly. There is no real competition possible because there will always be a small number of very large firms who have to collude or coordinate to avoid ruinous price wars.

The mantra of de-regulation was really just another way to allow other large corporations to get a piece of the action, and that's why the prices in deregulated states are 37% more than in the regulated states.

Gerald Ford in his recent book.

[REAGAN was] a superficial, disengaged, intellectually lazy showman who didn't do his homework and clung to a naive, unrealistic and essentially dangerous world view."

[Reagan was] "probably the least well-informed on the details of running the government of any president I knew."

Reagan allowed appointments up and down the federal bureaucracy who were incompetant, inferior, and corrupt. Fortunately there were occasional exceptions, but that was due to George Schultz and Vice President George Herbert Walker Bush. Reagan read speeches and had no idea what was going on in his administration. That's why Iran Contra happened.

From the ABC News Washington Post poll since 1980.

Percentage of Americans who Prefer a New Direction

• After Bush 75%
• After Reagan 55%
• After Clinton 47%

But they still drag him out like a funky, rotten old teddy bear they've had since they were 3 years old. Cause they are still 3 years old.

From Floyd Norris at the New York Times.

Over the last 12 months, the government’s current numbers indicate that the private sector added an average of 115,000 jobs a month. But 80 percent of those jobs came from the statistical adjustments....

Most of those jobs — 103,000 of them, before seasonal adjustment — were added by the statisticians, not reported by employers. (It should be noted that, before seasonal adjustment, there were 201,000 jobs added, so this is just more than half.)

Why add jobs? It is an effort to include jobs created by new companies not surveyed, less an estimate for jobs lost at companies that went out of business and therefore did not respond to the survey.

It is also worth noting that the govertment’s other survey, of households, has not found those jobs. Over the last 12 months, it has found about 50,000 new jobs a month. In October, it found employment declined by 250,000 jobs.

What statisticians do is assume the ratio of employees to employees added are the same, with perhaps some economic sector adjustments. It's a messy estimate, given that the original data is flawed, but in times of normal economic activity, a 5% margin of error is possible. When economic conditions change or when the economy is in transition, the ratios are impossible to ascertain with certainty.

When Bush says the Congress is wasting their time and talks about the dangers of Hitler, he should know. His family made their millions funding the rise of Hitler. They loved Fascism and military dictatorship, and kept up their business relations into World War Two until in 1943 Prescott Bush got busted under the Trading with the Enemy Act. Roosevelt made a deal however, and got Bush to use his contacts to infiltrate spies and obtain information.

These people understand Hitler very well, they created him.

But in truth, anything on Fox news is contrived.

From Today's New York Times [ SOURCE]

The authorities in Southern California believe they have gotten to the bottom of one of several arson investigations stemming from last week’s wildfires. A boy who was interviewed about the Buckweed fire, which burned nearly 60 square miles and destroyed 21 homes in Los Angeles County, “admitted to playing with matches and accidentally starting the fire,” the county sheriff said in a statement.

Now wildfires don't have to be started by anyone. They occur naturally when the humidity in the air goes below a certain threshold. California has had many, many incendiary fire disasters in the last 50 years. They occur in regular intervals because of the dry, arid climate.

So let's get this straight, A boy "admits to playing with matches" and then gets sent home. Then later on, the article quotes "The Voice of San Diego" :

Though they work on assumption that there is a non-criminal cause to the fire, sometimes investigators can’t find any probable cause for a wildfire. That’s where arson comes in. If an investigator reaches a conclusion of “negative corpus,” meaning they have eliminated all other possibilities, they will initiate a criminal investigation for arson.

So they interviewed a boy who says he played with matches, and that's all the proof sufficient to publish a news story. According to the crack reporting job, "it was not clear" that he would face charges.

Remember when Fox News anchors (I think Neil Cavuto) stated equivocally that Al- Quaeda set the California fires.

In most businesses, you get fired for violating the public trust and for purposely spreading rumors and false information.

Holy shit. Do you realize that the Russians have been negotiating deals with Iran, the Caspian Sea nations, and China over the various natural gas and oil deposits all over the region? The entire middle east and world politics have re-aligned thanks to the despots in the White House. Europe is gradually pulling away from us. Mexico and Canada are very weary, and starting to assert their independence quite frequently.

The government has been taken over by brigandeers backed by billionaires, and these people are crazy. They appoint people in the State Department, the Justice Department, and the Defense Department who believe the Republic can only be saved by creating an emperor and a new American Empire. Look up "PNAC" on google.

Russia has a deal with Iran to develop Nuclear Reactors for Energy but they are afraid to deliver the rods of nuclear fuel pellets because they are afraid the US will bomb it and release all of that nuclear radiation into the atmosphere. The cover story in the newspapers is about financial arrangements, but that's not the real reason. [ SOURCE:I heard this from cynk Ueger on the Young Turks Tuesday, 30 October 2007 -- who has contact with Turkish and Russian natives and also various US military professionals.]

Depleted Uranium (abbreviated as DU) is radioactive. The "Depleted" does not mean the radiation has been removed. The "Depleted" just means that one of the isotopes of Uranium has been removed. What's left is still radioactive. "DU" is used to harded the head of bombs to give them extra-penetration. Millions and millions of grains of dust is created from each shell (Avogadro's number = 6.02 times 10 to the 23 power is greater than a billion by the way.) The dust gets blown for miles and miles around. Plus, because it's radiation, you only need to ingest about 100 grains to get radiation sickness. YOu know what Gulf- War syndrome is. YOu know why the numbers of birth defects in Iraq began to appear after the first Gulf War. A lot of pretentious propagandistas have been allowed to publish otherwise, but let's get real. It makes me sick to hear the apologist deniers attempt to exculpate themselves from complicity in the radioactive toxification of the entire region.

Don't believe me. Consult the World Health Organization on Depleted Uranium.

God damn most Americans are so ignorant of what our corrupt government has become, especially the rabid blind red meat eaters; but really the Television dumbs everything down into over-simplication and nonsense. Not everyone gets a good history teacher either.

"Tricks and treachery are the practice of fools that don't have brains enough to be honest"

Here is a story from the Washington Post ON THE FRONT PAGE dated 2006 July 5th about Ocean Acidity. Or click here for a google search list of plenty other prominent stories in news sources like BBC, CNN, The LA Times, The Seattle Post- Intelligencer, and The Harvard Magazine. There are even plenty of recent postings over the last month on this topic.

So where is the gat damn media-gopolis on this issue? Those over-paid corporate lackeys are more worried about Hillary Clinton's cleavage, or whether a hand- full of baseball players took a supplement 3 years ago that wasn't illegal and was not against baseball rules at the time. Oh wait, the San Francisco Chronicle did do a story about 3 victims of a violent crime 25 years ago.

Here's synopsis of Ocean Acidity provided by reputable scientists. [SOURCE] You will want to click the link because the post has plenty of diagrams and pictures that help explain the phenomenom.

Ocean Acidification, the Other Threat of Rising CO2 Emissions

By Crystal Davis on Tuesday, October 2, 2007.

Fossil fuel combustion and industrial processes release over six billion metric tons of carbon into the atmosphere each year. The consequences of these greenhouse gas emissions are often discussed in terms of rising global temperatures, but global warming is not the only threat from increased atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide (CO2). Ocean acidification, which occurs when CO2 in the atmosphere reacts with water to create carbonic acid, has already increased ocean acidity by 30 percent (Doney, 2006). Although the chemistry of this effect is well understood and not much debated, the full consequences of ocean acidification for marine ecosystems and human well-being are only beginning to be revealed.

Oceans and the Global Carbon Cycle

The ocean plays a critical role in the global carbon cycle: the amount of carbon stored in the ocean is roughly 50 times greater than that in the atmosphere (see Figure 2). At the surface, the ocean interacts constantly with the atmosphere to absorb and release carbon dioxide. Once absorbed, a carbon atom will remain in the ocean for hundreds of years, circulating from the ocean's surface to its depths and back to the surface again. A small amount of this absorbed carbon will descend to the ocean floor in the form of dead marine organisms, where it is then trapped within deep ocean sediments. Overall, the ocean acts as a carbon sink, with a net intake of approximately two billion metric tons of carbon per year, equivalent to one-third of annual anthropogenic emissions (Royal Society, 2005).

CO2 Emissions and Ocean Acidification

With the rise of atmospheric CO2 concentrations from the pre-industrial level of 280 parts per million to 379 parts per million in 2005 (IPCC, 2007), the amount of carbon in the ocean has increased substantially and rapidly. Global data collected over several decades indicate that the oceans have absorbed at least half of the anthropogenic CO2 emissions that have occurred since 1750 (Sabine et. al., 2004). This carbon dioxide has combined with water to form carbonic acid, which, like all acids, releases hydrogen ions (H+) into solution, making ocean surface water 30 percent more acidic on average. Depending on the extent of future CO2 emissions and other factors, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (2007) predicts that ocean acidity could increase by 150 percent by 2100 (see Figure 3).

Understanding the pH Scale

The pH scale, ranging from zero to 14, is used by scientists to measure the acidity or alkalinity (a.k.a. basicity) of a solution, which is determined by the concentration of hydrogen ions, where more H+ indicates greater acidity. Solutions with a value of seven are considered neutral (such as pure water), with lower values being more acidic and higher values being more alkaline. The pH of pristine seawater ranges between 8 and 8.3, indicating that the ocean is naturally somewhat alkaline, although deeper and colder water tends to be more acidic. Due to the nature of the pH scale, a 30 percent increase in ocean acidity corresponds to a decrease of only 0.1 pH units.

Potential Impacts on Marine Organisms

A 150 percent increase in ocean acidity would be undetectable to the average human, but certain marine organisms including mollusks, crustaceans, reef- forming corals and some species of algae and phytoplankton are particularly vulnerable to small changes in pH. These species, known as "marine calcifiers," all create skeletons or shells out of calcium carbonate. The essential building block for this process is the carbonate ion, but when combined with hydrogen ions released by carbonic acid, it is rendered useless for shell-building organisms. The concentration of carbonate ions is expected to decline by half during this century due to increased atmospheric carbon dioxide levels (Orr et. al., 2005).

Marine calcifiers face a second challenge: their calcium carbonate shells dissolve in environments that are too acidic. In fact, some deep, cold ocean waters are naturally too acidic for marine calcifiers to survive, meaning that these organisms only exist above a certain depth known as the "saturation horizon." With ocean acidification, the saturation horizon is expected to shift closer to the surface by 50 to 200 meters relative to its position during the 1800s (Doney, 2006). The Southern and Arctic oceans, which are colder and therefore naturally more acidic, may become entirely inhospitable for organisms with shells made from aragonite--one of the weaker mineral forms of calcium carbonate--by the end of this century (EUR-OCEANS, 2007).

Potential impacts on harvested species like fishes and squids are more uncertain. One area of concern is acidosis, or the build-up of carbonic acid in body fluids, which can disrupt growth, respiration and reproduction. An indirect but perhaps more certain consequence is that many species will suffer from the loss of marine calcifiers, which provide essential food and habitat (including coral reefs) for countless ocean dwellers.

Uncertainties Highlight Need for Additional Research

Scientists are still unclear about the full consequences of ocean acidification. Several lab studies that have investigated the effects of increased acidity on marine calcifiers have found concerning results, but theories regarding impacts at the ecosystem level remain speculative. Effects on human well-being, both through lost fisheries and recreational potential, are also unknown.

Despite our lack of knowledge, the trend of ocean acidification is undeniably concerning, especially considering the devastating consequences that acid rain had on freshwater ecosystems during the 20th century. Furthermore, the ocean is currently undergoing other potentially dangerous changes, including warming, sea level rise, pollution and overfishing. The rapid pace at which these changes are occurring, and the fact that they are happening simultaneously, threatens to disrupt the ocean's well-balanced physical, chemical and biological processes faster than they can adapt.

Once the ocean's pH has been lowered, it will take thousands of years to reverse. Thus, reducing carbon dioxide emissions will be critical to minimizing future ocean acidification. Even if emissions are reduced, however, the ocean will inevitably continue to undergo significant human-induced changes throughout this century. To prepare for these changes, we will need scientific research to enhance our knowledge of complex ocean processes and ecosystem interactions. Furthermore, ocean resource and fisheries managers, with the support of improved scientific understanding, must be alert to early warning signs of ecosystem decline and take precautionary measures to protect vulnerable species.

Now I wonder ... is the reason the Television and print news media don't bang on this truth due to the need to allow morons on air to continually harp about the need to have "both sides of the issue of global warming."

And what exactly is on the opposite side of the truth?