Aside from moral and economic arguments, the main problem with this approach is that the "government-driven" approach to energy has already been tried. Synfuels was supposed to be the "Manhattan Project" of alternatives to oil. Any number of attempts have been made to "encourage" use of electrical and other alternative vehicles by use of tax incentives and even penalties. Most of this, admittedly, has been at the state level, but it didn't work there either. Massive tax benefits have been tried for wind power and other alternative energy things, at least here in California. The main result was schemes to take advantage of the benefits, whether or not they actually were useful.

Mass transit in America is hugely tax-subsidized, and has been for decades. Often highway money is steered to such projects instead of used to build and repair highways. Guess what: People still want cars, and often cars big enough for a family.

People only started buying small cars in large numbers when gas got expensive. Nobody had to force them to do this. Mileage standards made the government feel like they had gotten in front of the parade, but I suspect efficient cars would have started coming off American lines anyway.

People will start putting solar panels on their houses when it's cheaper than the natural gas and main electric feed. Same with other alternatives.

People often give me grief when I use the phrase, "The market always works." This is sometimes interpreted as meaning, "the market will always do wonderful things, and nobody will ever suffer because of it." Of course, this is not true.

It means the same thing as "gravity always works." Whether you get to fly a plane or end up a grease spot at the foot of a cliff depends on how you deal with it, or if you decide the existence of such a force is only a matter of opinion.

***

I challenge anyone to tell me what would be changed right now if we had another 100,000 troops in Iraq. Would there be fewer attacks? Fewer roadside bombs? Fewer RPGs? Less resentment about the occupation? Could 200,000 troops overrun Fallujah better than 100,000? 10,000? Hell, if they were given a free hand, 500 Marines could wipe Fallujah off the map in two days. But that isn't the main issue, is it? We aren't trying to destroy Iraq, but reshape it.

The main reason Iraq is a difficult row to hoe is that we are not allowed to actually defeat anyone. Whether the current policy of walking softly and never using the big stick is a good idea or not has a lot of pros and cons that can be argued. But the issue is NOT how many troops we have over there. Never has been.

A case can be made for enlarging the military force so that specific troops would not have to carry the heavy load and additional overseas time that some are carrying. But adding bodies to Iraq is no solution, and wouldn't have been a year ago either.

***

There are many things higher on my priority list than whether or not the European socialists think we are swell guys. I don't see them boycotting American products, or turning down our help in security issues. In fact, they're squealing like pigs that we're pulling our occupying troops out. I doubt that this is a top election issue for anyone.

***

I'll believe Bush's space program when it's funded and rolling, although I applaud his sentiment. I still remember Agnew. Sadly for most of us here, I'm afraid space funding isn't a top issue for a lot of people either, and it's pretty damn hard to complain about government waste and at the same time declare that the space station is a great idea.

I have high hopes for the private sector, and I think they're going to surprise us in the next ten years, assuming they aren't regulated out of existence. If you talk to almost anyone in the private space industry, the top problem is whether or not the government will allow them to operate.