Gulf oil spill
Go all out for alternative energy
Let's review some basic facts. The oil industry admits the United States has about 2 to 3 percent of the world's oil reserves. We use nearly 25 percent of the oil produced. These numbers mean we cannot drill our way out of this problem.
It's time for a "Manhattan Project" or "Apollo Program" type push for renewable energy. We'll always need some oil but we can't continue to poison ourselves with a 19th century form of energy.
Think of all the free power coming down from the sun day after day. If only there was time machine so we could go back and use all of the money and resources wasted on Iraq for something useful.
Mike Nuckols, Bradenton
Weatherize to save
Regarding the current oil spill, it's an accepted fact that a significant amount of energy is lost due to inefficient homes and buildings.
So why don't we, as a nation, conserve instead of explore?
What stops us from spending money one time on weatherizing homes and offices instead of wasting money every month?
Why can't we, as a nation, become self-reliant instead of dependant?
We, collectively, have to wake up and start conserving.
Doug Hicks, Tampa
"Good government" not an oxymoron May 11, Paul Krugman column
Still blaming Bush
Left-wing pundit Paul Krugman is generally recognized as the poster boy for the "Bush Derangement Syndrome" described by Dr. Charles Krauthammer. With this May 11 article, Krugman more than lives up to his reputation.
Krugman sees the BP Deepwater Horizon blowout in the Gulf of Mexico as the fault of George W. Bush, over a year after Bush left office.
Any attempt to place any blame for the spill on the current administration is, of course, "nonsense." After all, there is "little resemblance" to the "shambolic" response to Katrina!
Like everything else in Krugman's universe, the problem was caused by a lack of federal regulation and the "degradation of effective government" … all limited to and exclusively the result of the Bush administration.
Joseph Hill, Panama City
Gulf oil spill
New direction needed
This most recent oil debacle is totally unnecessary. It is a tragic waste of human and animal life as well as causing the destruction of our precious environment. The powerful oil companies and oil lobbyists are a disgrace. Our whole mind-set needs to change. The technology is there and has been for years. We need to look beyond the same old story. This is about money and greed for some already very rich and powerful people.
Powerful companies do not want change. They like it just the way it is. Every once in a while we have a calamity like this one and yet they continue to drill away.
We need to stop now and begin to change our entire infrastructure. Many other countries are getting ahead of us on alternative energy. I mentioned in an article I wrote last year that we already have huge land leases for drilling and that we are sitting on more than 68 million acres of that land.
We need to say no now and forever — if not for us, then for our children and grandchildren
Robert Lonardo, Seminole
In one of the Dirty Harry movies, Clint Eastwood said, "A man's got to know his limitations."
Certainly, BP and the companies it works with, such as Transocean and Halliburton, didn't know their limitations. Yes, we do have the technology to drill for oil 1 mile below the surface of the sea. That's 5,280 feet down. Yes, we can do it. We have the technology to get the oil to flow.
The problem is, very tragically, that we absolutely do not have the technology to make it stop. It would be like being able to get a man out into space, but have no idea how to bring him back.
Ron Roman, Oldsmar
Supreme Court nominee
Experience is lacking
It doesn't surprise me in the least that the editors of the St. Petersburg Times, who fully support a president who previously had no executive experience and little political experience, would fully support his nomination to the Supreme Court a person with no experience as a judge. She hadn't even argued a single case in court before becoming solicitor general last year! What is it with the Times lauding "lack of experience" in our highest leaders?
Based on this, I would like to apply right now to be an editor for the Times. I have no experience, but that obviously doesn't bother the Times!
Tim Robinson, St. Petersburg
Kagan doesn't tip her hand | May 12, David Brooks column
As a political writer, David Brooks is the artfully sneakiest. He doesn't state; he adroitly implies. His take-down of Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan is a beautiful example.
Close reading of his column leaves me with the impression that brightness, self-confidence, high recommendations, broad interests, strategic thinking, prudence, ambition, deftness, friendliness and deliberative carefulness are to be avoided in confirmation of a nominee, but that risk-taking, incautiousness, strong ideology and convictions, and creativity (read activism) are desirable virtues.
In essence, Brooks implies Kagan has more or less cagily hidden her liberal self from critics with intent to deceive. The master should know.
Bud Tritschler, Clearwater
Supreme Court nominee
A missing faith
I would like to point out that if Elena Kagan is confirmed as a member of the U.S. Supreme Court, a new and unprecedented trend will have been completed. In a country that is a primarily Protestant in make-up (according to one source, more than 51 percent), no Protestants will sit on the Supreme Court.
Of the current members of the court (excepting Justice John Paul Stevens who is retiring), six are Catholic and two are Jewish.
I wonder why President Barack Obama could not find a appropriate appointee who is Protestant, so that we could have at least a token Protestant on the court.
I also wonder about the reaction from many vocal groups if a large minority was excluded today from the court the way the majority may soon be excluded.
Colin Povey, Clearwater