Justin wrote: "The energy mess way back was cause because Davis could not understand the very most basic rule of capitalism, e.g. supply and demand regulating prices and not the government."

I disagree. The problem was caused because supply was manipulated by non-market forces(*). However, Government is not the only entity of imposing price-control, sufficient monopolies or anti-competitive non-market agreements between companies can have the same effect (Japans or Koreas syndicates are excellent examples that go even beyond monopolies). I personally think the monopoly is more dangerous. In government regulation, you see a devastation for private industry. While not good, it can be part of a trade-off for the consumer. In anti-competitive intervention by industry, only a handfull of people profit, while the consumer, by definition suffers.

Even some Ayn Randians submit that one of the few governmental functions should be destruction of monopolies.

In short, the darkness in california was caused- and not by environmental laws, not by government regulation, and certainly not by a fictitious shortage of energy (there was none). It was caused by a set of people (Enron among them) that did not understand the market, and were seeking riches by other means.

In the end, also, attempting to pin the woes of the dysfunctional energy market in the west on a governer is laughable at best. Davis had no power over the energy market. Short of succeeding from the union and sending in the Californi National Gard to nationalize all the powerplants in the region- but I'm sure you wont fault him for not doing that?

Oh, of course you will.. He is, after all, a Democrat!!! Its got to be his fault even if toads rain on N. Carolina!

Davin L.

*: In fact, some hard-core laissez faire captialists hate monopolies worse than gov't intervention, because the effect is even more debilitationg to industry