OK, perhaps I've missed something amongst the arguments and debate. But why NOT go green? I hear lots of arguments that are either for or against drilling, but no one seems to have an answer for why we should NOT go green. Kermit said it best, it's not easy being green. Darn right. But WHY?

Here's my logic... tell me where I'm wrong.

We've been stuck on oil for well over 100 years now. It's a fossil fuel and that ultimately means it's a finite resource - in other words, it's going to run out, and likely sooner than later (within 100 years by most solid estimates). We also know that despite any global warming debate that it does put Carbon back in our atmosphere, and a lot of it. Most (note I said most) scientists now agree it's unnatural and likely is causing global warming, mostly in polar regions. It's complete effects are unknown, and it's up for a lot of debate. Regardless, we can all agree it puts Carbon (a known GHG) in our atmosphere at an unnatural rate. We know oil is becoming more and more expensive to both find, drill, and extract from the ground and deep ocean reserves. We also know for a FACT that if we did start off shore drilling and/or drilling in Alaska, it would take a MINIMUM of 5 years and as long as 10 years. Plus, there's plenty of folks on the oil business who say it's the lack of refineries that is the problem. Where do these suddenly pop up from? We build those too? The cost of such an endeavor (drilling, extracting, and refining) would be very costly, and who knows what the world economy will be in 5-10 years, and thus the demand and price of oil. You don't think China will be using more oil in 5-10 years? Are you kidding? Is that in our equation of supply and demand?

Oil also clearly requires our dependence on OTHER nations - and a lot of them are in the middle east. Look, it isn't a secret we're not making tons of friends there at the moment. Everyone seems to agree that we need energy independence, but it also seems a blatant fact we would not have anywhere near the oil needed to be self-sufficient, even if we drilled endlessly around this nation. Our demand is much larger than our supply (even our theoretical supply). There simply isn't enough oil in the ground to support our energy needs TODAY much less 30 years from now. Our energy needs will grow by up to 45% within 30 years; and that may be a conservative guess. We say we can increase our efficiency, but we've had 30 years to do it since the 70's and we didn't. Oil is old news. The United States in the Brer Rabbit and guess what the tar is?

In the middle of oil and true green there is nuclear. But many agree we only have so much space to put spent nuclear fuel (and no one wants it). Who can blame them, it's radioactive for MILLIONS of years. What happens when a big earthquake breaks open one of those underground vaults? Impossible? Worth the risk? We also know for a fact that penny for penny, nuclear is the most expensive energy to make per Watt. Nuclear plants also pose a huge security risk. I live within 40 miles of one, and honestly, it's scary even though I'm well outside the immediate danger zone.

So... with all that in mind. Lets look at true green energy (take your pick of solar, geothermal, wind, tidal, etc). We know for a FACT these sources of energy are INFINITE - or that they will not run out. We know for a FACT they produce NO emissions; so there would be no need to even debate environmental impact (other than a few environmentalist who have issues with the exact methods of each; i.e.; birds killed by wind turbines). We also know that we can start using green energy IMMEDIATELY. We also know green energy would make us truly independent with our energy needs, and that our oil/coal reserves could become a backup only. We'd never have to rely on foreign countries again for energy. If we spent the same money developing and installation green technologies as it would cost to drill and refine the oil we THINK is offshore and in Alaska, there's a good chance we could fuel the bulk of this country. With better technology, maybe ALL of this country. Many wind/solar proponents argue that the sun beat deserts of the southwest and open prairie of Montana and the Dakotas could power the United States TWICE. There's nothing out in these remote areas, and there likely never will be - so there's no sacrifice to real estate. The real issue is transporting that power over long distances. Again, one would assume like any good investment - that through time you discover new ways of doing things and ultimately hone them to a precise skill. In other words, we could likely find a lot more efficient ways to produce green power if and when we start using it more. Let good old capitalism play out in that market for a change, where everyone has a chance - not just big oil companies or foreign governments.

So what am I missing? I don't want any more argument about why oil is better. I want to know why green energy isn't the solution. What's the problem with it and why is it NOT a smarter choice than oil?

This story was written by Jonas Kane, The Villanovan

Even Mitt Romney knew when to hang it up.

The man who would say anything (see "double Guantanamo") realized it was best to say no more. His continued presence, he realized, would do nothing but hinder the transition of opponent John McCain into the Republican presidential nomination.

And now And now Hillary Clinton stands confronted with a similar predicament: How does she face admitting that the campaign to which she has dedicated her past year, the campaign that she was probably told she would easily win, is now merely a faded pipe dream?

Romney, for all the horrors born of his campaign, handled the decision with grace. John Edwards also chose to bow out and let his issues live on - which they have - rather than play the role of kingmaker at the Democratic National Convention.

Clinton cannot win the nomination through pledged delegates - the ones selected by the people - and would need a radical shift in support among unpledged delegates, coinciding with the seating of delegates from the unsanctioned primaries in Michigan and Florida, in order to win. To be blunt, she can only win if the process were to somehow overturn the will of the people.

Certainly supporters and her own feelings will tell her she can go on after her wins in Ohio and Texas. And she has every right to go on if she desires and thinks it best. But her internal drive and persistent campaigning will undeniably cloud her reasoning in this decision, especially following the euphoria of acceptance she experienced in Texas and Ohio last week.

It's hard not to consider the thought process going through her mind. In any other year, Clinton would almost certainly have been the nominee. She had the name recognition, the political machine and an increased Clinton nostalgia to go against the Bush fatigue.

But something happened along the way she hadn't prepared for, something that shattered her cloak of invincibility: a fresh face emerged, offering not only divergence from the current administration but also a step forward from the unproductive squabbling and fear-mongering of the past.

Blindsided, Clinton never offered a compelling rationale for her candidacy - "I'm in to win," she said at the start - and often found herself unable to recognize the immediate concerns of the people. Her continued inability to offer coherent positions on pressing issues such as NAFTA or Iraq has put her out of touch with voters. Her only remaining line of attack has been, well, attack, as seen by her baseless diatribes on who is best equipped to take an early morning phone call to deal with troubles in the world. (Though the answer, of course, is John McCain - older people tend to get up earliest).

Despite the faulty grounding from which her campaign rose, Clinton garnered significant support and has kept the race close enough to argue that she can continue.

But whom would she be helping? Certainly not herself or her husband, both of whose legacies are damaged by the intellectually hollow and malignantly divisive slander they have dished out like candy as a result of her eroding support. Certainly not her party, which stands to be hammered by internal strife should she seek to wrestle away the will of the popular vote.

Instead, Clinton should seek solace in the fact that, while she may not be destined to lead this country, she can continue to lead on the issues she cares about. Edwards, on exiting, ensured that his opponents would make combating poverty a renewed priority in their campaigns. Clinton could do the same. Her signature issue has clearly become health care, and as a senator, she could lead the push to ensure that all Americans, regardless of wealth, receive access to affordable coverage.

Or she could stay in the race, tarnishing her own legacy and damaging the prospects of Barack Obama, the candidate most likely toenact the changes she claims to want.

Behind her blind ambition, she must know which path to choose.

I was reading my local newspaper on Monday afternoon, and one reader has written in to sharply criticize the Nobel committee for awarding Al Gore their prestigious award. He went on to say how GW (Global Warming) was a hoax and liberal propaganda. Having studied climatology in college and been an avid fan of research on it since those days, I felt obligated to respond. My response was printed in 'The State' today:

"It never ceases to amaze me just how blissful ignorance must really be. Christopher Lampman must have been on cloud nine when he wrote his letter about how Al Gore’s recent award has tarnished the Nobel Peace Prize.

At what point will society wake up and realize that our environmental issues are not a political problem, not some left-wing tree-hugging propaganda and not an economic constraint but a very real, very serious world problem?

How daft are we as a society that the pieces can’t be logically put together in our minds?

You extract tons of carbon from the Earth, burn it and expect its presence in the atmosphere to mean nothing?

Regardless of the Earth’s natural cycles of warming and cooling, man has tipped the scales, and eventually we’re going to see how far. The evidence of warming we see today is thanks to the ignorance of two generations ago.

This climate “sham” is about to become very real indeed for future generations. Whatever happened to environmental responsibility and taking care of our only home? As Winston Churchill said, “The price of greatness is responsibility.”

It’s about time we faced that truth. Kudos to Mr. Gore for his efforts.

JOHN DERRICK"

I sincerely hope that we can all move beyond this stage of wearing blinders. It's easy to get caught up in the storm of hype, no doubt. But it's also foolish to ignore the findings of thousands of scientists. While some scientists will always be about fame, glory, and headlines - there are countless others who are very serious and dedicated to their work. To ignore their findings is incredibly ignorant on our part - and eventually, it'll be downright stupid. We take so many things on faith in this world - yet we ignore and dispute the evidence of science until it's so blatantly clear we can no longer deny it. I will never fully understand our species... but, after all, we did once live on a flat planet that was the center of the universe.

I tell you, American politics never ceases to amaze me and it certainly never gets boring. Living my whole life in the south I've had to listen to plenty of groups holler (that means rant and rave down here) about succeeding from the Union. In fact, lots of folks in the fine state I call home (South Carolina) swear we never even rejoined the Union after the Civil War. Being the *gasp* liberal that I am, I've quite frankly never understood this mindset and I find it ridiculous. But...

Apparently crazy exists on both sides of the fence. Now left wingers (those liberals) in Vermont want to succeed to. And the shared cause has brought the two groups together in what must be the strangest marriage of cooperation I've ever seen in my life. Mr. White Supremest... meet Mr. Hippie. I'm sure those meetings aren't uncomfortable or anything. *yikes*

This whole subject seems to be taking the nation by storm too. Some 25 states now have official secession groups. Even my beloved Hawaii and Alaska have several groups fighting for independence, though of all the states they might both have the best argument (Hawaii's kingdom actually was illegal overthrown by the US military, and many Alaska groups never have wanted to be in the US). But money and strategery (Bushism) talks and I doubt the US government's going to let those two go anytime soon.

I think the ultimately point is... we may not always like our government. We may not like our leaders, and we might not like their decisions. But that's why we vote. Granted I'm completely in the crowd of folks who point and shout and say "Only millionaires become president and that's a problem." I, like a lot of you, want to b*tch slap the American public to wake up and elect the BEST leader for this nation (not themselves, not their state, the nation). We are stronger together than alone. This whole concept of live together die alone isn't going to work in America. We're either together as a country, or we aren't. So many people in this country are hung up on the tragedy of 9/11 that they still live there, in fear. Now they want to start WWIII and bomb Iran. Others can only see the Iraq war and have forgotten about the real fight in Afghanistan; they forget pulling out completely won't work, not even in Iraq at this point. We should never forget 9/11, but we must move on to a 9/12 world... where life goes on, and we need to get back what made American great - working together. We've become the United States of Fighting Terrorism, but unfortunately the word terrorism has been warped into a hideous monster. You're either a hawk or a dove and you get labeled a pissed off redneck or a traitor. How'd we come to this? How'd we come to secession groups?

People, listen up. In 13 months you get a choice to change the direction of this country. You can vote anyway you want, for anyone you want - hell, you don't even have to vote for the guy on the ballot. But whatever you do, vote. Stop fighting with your neighbors, stop arguing with your coworkers, and stop emailing and calling your senators (who I think we all agree do little or nothing). Put your efforts into getting every single last person you know to vote - for the country, for what we want for. No far left wing president is going to work any better than a far right one. No liberal senator is going to represent this nation better than a bible-thumper from the right. No, we must find the common ground, the common leader, and join together as one. You want to send someone who represents your individual values, then vote them into the House. But the Senate and the White House need to be bipartisan. This do nothing government train has to stop. We have to make change happen next year.

And then... in another 4 or 8 years, we do it again. But we've ceased to be United. And it doesn't have to be that way!