It is not a matter of whether it is "all about oil"; it is the dependence of the country on imported energy sources. The less dependence we have on the outside for things, the better for us IMHO. Even if the US entered upon this with the best and noblest of intentions, the quest for energy should be looked at as a separate entity.

Sorry if the ability to express ideas is limited by the brevity of posts.

Have I explained sufficiently?

Just clarifying. Otherwise some might return this thread to the usual name calling.;)

Thanks, art

Yes, lots of folks have second rate masters in something...a JD from a first rate school is a tough nut to crack...as is a getting selected as a Pulitzer prize judge...as a conservative.

Since nucs were brought up:

Nuclear power plants are designed to store their waste fuel rods for the life of the plant which is 30+ years. They can store them for many years after that if need be. If we can find a good safe way to store spent fuel rods after this period, there's really no reason not to have more nuclear power plants.

The containment building is built to withstand a 747 direct impact, so terrorism shouldn't be an issue if guarded correctly.

Geez, ok, I cry uncle. I should have been more impressed :D

JD is Doctorate of Jurisprudence, right? I do actually know someone with one of them, but it's not her. Same person represented NZ at the Commonwealth Games AND it is from a US university. This person actually does have a resume I impressed with.

However, that doesn't matter. I should have been easily impressed with Mona Charen's one. (edit) I'm worried that is sounding a little insincere - I mean it, I am impressed).

Although I still want to cling tenaciously to the view that anyone (right or left) who WANTS to be a pundit is inherently untrustworthy (even if? especially if? they succeed).

Fair enough.