Al Gore's Energy Plan

There they go again--mixing apples and oranges. You can't pour electricity into a gasoline tank. T. Boone Pickens and Al Gore and many others are confusing electricity consumption with gasoline consumption. They just don't get it; there is a difference and solving one doesn't necessarily solve the other. There is an other danger to the world besides global warming and damage to the environment and it is the sudden impact on us when oil becomes scarce and we can no longer sustain a technological society world wide. The environment and oil scarcity are two different issues, oil scarcity being more immediate and dangerous a problem, as well as being "easier" to remedy.
Some of the solutions to one also help solve problems in the other, but putting up wind turbines doesn't find more oil. It may reduce the constructing of more coal electric generating plants, which helps to reduce carbon production. Reducing carbon emissions however does little in finding more oil. People need to pay attention to whats being proposed.
Drilling exploratory wells are just that, exploratory. Drilling for oil does not necessarily mean that oil will be found, or that lots of oil will be found, or that the oil found will be "sweet".
Much has been made of Brazil's discovery of 1 billion barrels of oil. At today's prices thats a lot of money for whoever produces it but when you realize that the U.S. uses up over 7 billion barrels of oil a year and that it is someone else's find then reality sinks in. It doesn't do us much good.
Solving the energy problem is just a matter of technology and economics, relatively straight forward; but when mixed with human emotion and prejudice almost impossible to solve.
The solutions now being presented are almost entirely due to prejudice, and worthless.
If electricity generation is part of the mix, toward reducing our oil consumption, then electric cars and other vehicles would have to be also part of the solution; and so far they are not being mentioned as part of the solution package. What is being put forth as a solution to our energy crises illustrates not only prejudice, but also gross ignorance. Not knowing that a person cannot substitute electricity for oil is gross ignorance and even stupidity. What is more amazing is that the media, in all its professed wisdom on many issues, has not pointed out the discrepancy.

Guns versus No Guns

The U.S. ruled finally that the U.S. Constitution's 2nd Amendment applies to individuals as well as militias--what a Surprise! It has been man's right to have and bear arms ever since man realized what a stick or a rock could do. The way the 2nd Amendment was written clearly states two things; that we can form militias and have the right to possess and bear arms. Our ancestors found that their government was too tyrannical and took up arms, their own arms in many cases, to throw off the yoke of tyranny. The Constitution was written so as to clearly delineate what the government could do and could not do regarding controlling people's freedom. The 2nd Amendment gives the people the means to fight and change a possible future tyrannical government that would use methods and means to arbitrarily control, abuse, and restrict law abiding citizens. An individual has the right to possess arms at least as strong as the governments and as strong as others who may unlawfully accost them in their homes or engaged in normal activities.
Many citizens are fearful of anyone possessing guns and even what amounts to a phobia of guns themselves. Logic and reason are not going to change their minds for this fear, or other strong emotional motivators, are going to trump any and all arguments that anyone can present for gun possession, no matter how logical or reasonable these arguments may be. The anti-gun advocate's fear is visceral and deep. In some it is a form of religion. The very fact that logic and reason has little effect on many people is a good example of why their reasoning is wrong for they expect that wishful thinking is a strong weapon against criminals. The think that wishful thinking is enough of a weapon to stave off harm, that the police are enough of a force to protect them. Criminals do not attempt to prey on the strong, they prey on those they consider weak. A lawful citizen with a gun is not weak. An armed citizenry is the best counter to crime, for even if some opt not to carry or possess guns the uncertainty factor will be a deterrent to many potential criminals. The disarming of a populace is a wide open invitation for criminals to arm themselves or operate in gangs against average citizens. The argument will go on forever, or at least as long as a "civilized" society exists.