Gore is a fraud, letter by Jim Greaves

So Mr. Gore purchases "offsets"? So what? He's only selling them to himself anyway! As the Chairman of his own company that may or may not actually be doing any research with the "offset contributions" he is PAYING HIMSELF we can only assume he thinks we are stupid!
That's like using local farmland for high density housing, and then buying "transfer of development rights", a process whereby destruction of local ag land is "offset" by preserving land "somewhere else" - land that is already preserved. Net gain? NONE. Net loss? All that land that is covered in concrete.
The Gore-o-philes actually have the gall to expect US to believe that their belief that they are doing something to lower the Gore's "footprint" to zero is actually causing a reversal of the Gore's footprint to zero, when IN FACT, all they have done is shift that footprint onto the REST of us. What a dumbo. What dumbos in this nation actually buy that crap? He deserved to lose in 2000. And it's a shame the Oscar folks can't spot a charlatan or recognize a sham when they see it, considering they spend so much money creating shows extolling those "virtues".
Shame on Al Gore and the morons who promote his sleight of hand as if he were doing something real, or of any value to anyone but himself. He is a fraud.
Jim Greaves

"The person who says it cannot be done should not interrupt
the person doing it." -- Chinese Proverb
http://www.texasrainmaker.com/2007/03/01/another-inconvenient-truth/

Dem's Resolution dishonest, letter by Jim Greaves

The Senate vote to stop a filibuster on "the" resolution to call on Bush to change course in Iraq could not even muster a SIMPLE majority, let alone the super-majority of 60 votes needed to end debate!
In their on-going megalomaniacal rant over the War in Iraq, Democrat leaders keep referring to the election of 2006 as some kind of mandate to end the war. I remind your readers that the corruption of several Congress-people had more to do with the change in party power than any foreign policy of the Bush Administration.
Significantly, only 30 seats out of 435 (or less than SEVEN percent) changed party affiliation last year; the change in the Senate was equally as tiny. If anything, this means @ 93 percent of the voters were, and still are, satisfied with the "status quo", or "the direction in which the nation is heading", another misapplied notion (what subject is wrong?).
If there were a "mandate", the Republicans would have been decapitated in the election, like in 1994 when the Democrat Party lost nearly 30% of its seats. Republicans were not so utterly vanquished in either house of Congress in 2006.
With Congress so evenly divided, there is hardly a majority shift in view! Democrat presidential aspirants can't even decide if they're for taxes or against them!
Seems to me the thin Democrat majority and its allies in the press and among Republicans are dishonest, if not a little mendacious, in their conclusion that the American people wish to abandon Iraq to mob rule. So one might also conclude regarding the comparison of Iraq with Vietnam. It will only be a similar disaster if we allow Hanoi Jane any more air time.
Jim Greaves