Sometimes, Ryan...

you're damn-near eloquent. So, rather than stealing your "thunder", I'll make my comments short and to-the-point.

Tim Russert. Sorry to see him pass so young, and he may indeed have been the last "objective" face in the mainstream media's anchor position, but if you want to discuss "old school" front-man positions, let's talk about Kronkite and Reasoner and the like, not Russert.

The American judicial system. The issues here are many and varied, but the blame can't be put solely on the Supreme Courts. Because Roe v Wade is now considered a de facto law in this country is the fault of the individual States and the legislative branch of the Federal Government every bit as much as it is the fault of the court itself. As I, myself, have pointed out in the past, previous Courts have made bad decisions, and those decisions were over-turned by the States and Congress enacting Laws that challenged the decisions, and forcing the issue back into court. In the Roe v Wade case, and Doe v Bolton, it would seem that America itself has resigned to accept the results as LAW, rather than challenge them through new, comprehensive legislation.

In fact, the most telling example of such failure is where Courts like the 9th District have routinely ruled against any and all forms of Judeo-Christian public practice of faith, but constantly support the same efforts from Muslim, pagan, or any other non-Judeo-Christian practice. One cannot legally place a nativity scene within 50 feet of public access (which is why most municipalities in Michigan won't allow front-yard scenes because of sidewalks), but entire towns are forced to hear the Muslim adhan, or "call to prayer", publicly broadcast on municipal loudspeakers. Where is the determined legislative effort to right this wrong? Where is the determined executive campaign to make the public aware of this bias?

Oil.

*sigh*

My resistance in the past to ANWAR drilling was based solely on the propensity of the American government to look for short-term solutions to really big issues, and while I cannot argue that increasing domestic production of oil by as much as 15% would be a good thing for issues like national security and immediate global supply, I still stand firm that any and all increase in production and exploration of domestic supplies be matched by Federal grants and programs with the intention of developing and producing alternative forms of energy... i.e. non-petroleum based energy productions methods. Simply ending all moratoriums on coastal or NWA drilling and exploration does nothing to end the President's call for an end to our national "addiction" to oil.

What I find so amazing is that pundits like the kind we here on the radio are constantly equating ANWAR access as the answer to our troubles at the pump. The cost involved in setting up, drilling out, moving and shipping the crude oil under the ANWAR would pay for 2.7 nuclear power plants capable of replacing as many as 9 traditional coal-fired plants that consume more than 1.5 times the "fossil fuel" than we'd be bringing out of the ground. Nuclear plants do not put gas in our tanks, I know... and the economy right now is far more effected by the cost of gas than it is the cost of electricity. My point is that the issue of ANWAR is now a focus of the far-right as much as it is the far-left... and no rational discussion of the pros and cons is going to result.

The one point that no one ever mentions, however, is the lack of voice that individual States have in the matter. The ANWAR oil is completely located in Alaska, and the Alaskan people are very strongly in favor of drilling it. As are the citizens of FL for the drilling of oil off the Gulf Coast. Where is their voice heard? Who is impacted more than they are by the drilling of these sources? If the vast majority of Alaskans are in favor of drilling, why on earth should some tree-hugging hippies in southern CA or liberal legislators in D.C. have a greater voice than they do?

To watch the price of a barrel of light, sweet crude double in less than 4 years is not the sole effect of President Bush's decision to deregulate the commodity price of crude oil, but it certaily is a large factor. Since the deregulation, the price has never gone below what it was at the deregulation, and the trend has never been anything but UP. This is great for investors and speculators, but bad for producers and consumers. I think the question that "true capitalists" like the ones we hear on the radio so often need to ask themselves is "Which aspect of the system benifits the over-all economy more: speculative investors or oil and gas consumers?"

Your points about the transportation risks versus drilling risks is a very strong one. More on that later.