Better we voters "force" energy policy on ourselves vis-a-vis Obama, the socialist, than have shadowy energy magnates decide our fate, as the hard right would have (all in the name of freedom, of course).

Last time I checked, deciding our future with elections, rather than with money, was the polar opposite of using force.  The same way voting with one's dollar is the opposite of "one man one vote" -- you know, good old American *equality*.  The foundation of freedom and individuality.

Voters are free to set energy policy as they see, and the market driven model we've had "forced" on us the last 8 years clearly wasn't what we wanted.  Free markets are just as coercive as centrally-planned economies; the difference is in whether a government is democratic or not, not how capitalist it is.  And capitalism is no friend to democracy, only to elitists and their clingers-on.  Who are shivering in their jackboots at the thought of socialism becoming Americanized.

You can't let me have my moment in the sun, can you? </sarcasm>  ;^)

As for the issue...

For the moment, this decreases some of the tension between states and the federal government. If Obama and Co. leave it at that, then it may be a sort victory for federalists. However, if the CA's standards are implemented at the federal level, then we're back to one-size-fits all (based on the car-company rhetoric, you'd think that they would welcome that!).

but in this case I'm listening to the soundtrack while doing stuff on the computer. Actually I have a plylist oing right now that includes Hedwig, Rocky Horror, and Shock Treatment.  Just been on a musical kick for a bit.

If I recall, you were one of the people calling him "naive" and "dangerous" for saying that back then.

Don't remember this, show me.

At many times during the campaign... starting in August of 2007 and much discussed here at SC.... Obama said that if he had actionable intelligence that he would have no problem at all attacking inside Pakistan.

Bush did what he said too.  Funny that.  But of course none of this changes the fact that Obama is now killing innocent civilians with indiscrimnant weapons fire into populated areas.  I hear that those are war crimes, so he should be tried as a war criminal, right?

And this is less than 1 week into his administration for god's sake.  He must have had plans ahead of time ... oh wait you're right you mentioned them above.  Plans to kill little babies in Pakistan.  Does it matter where the war crimes are committed?

This is despicable.  And you voted for the bum.  A baby killing monster reminiscent of Ghengis Khan.

Quit being disingenuous and intellectually dishonest.

Pot, meet kettle.  You were apparently against the killing of innocent civilians ... until you were for it.  Who's being intellectually dishonest?

You know that this is faux outrage on my part ... meaning that I don't really have a problem with this action.  My position is essentially unchanged.  But YOU.  You have done a complete 180.  You're defending the killing of innocent civilians.  You're defending the suspension of all legal proceedings for those at gitmo.  You're defending holding of people indefinitely without trial or recourse.

You Democrats made it very clear how you felt about these things so now you don't get to change your minds.  Obama is now every bit as bad as Bush ever was.  He could end it all, but he doesn't.  He could realease everyong at Gitmo, but he doesn't.  He could pull all the troops out of Iraq, but he doesn't.

Any soldiers that die in Iraq after he took office are on his hands.  He could have ordered them all to put down their weapons and surrender like the Democrats were pleading for, but he doesn't.  Nope, this is all 100% on him from this point forward.

I should start the Obama death count today.  Here's the first 17.

I think the "by whom" is Mark Zandi . (See the first pdf on that page.)

The "how" is, I suspect, the same way all economic figures that give actual dollar amounts for future events are computed - pure guesswork! :)

 He he.

I should've included it in the original.

Sorry.

www.economy.com/mark-zandi/documents/Economic_Stimulus_House_Plan_012109.pdf

The interesting numbers are on page 9.

I realize that since you didn't hear this on Hannity, that you will disregard the findings.   But Zandi is a very accomplished economist.

 n/t

 :)