In case you wanted to read the actual articles, here are links to the items we discussed yesterday when I filled in on WSPD:
FAA and the arrogance/hubris of a federal government that thinks it can do whatever it wants and interfere in everything:
FAA clears Santa's sleigh
We're apparently too stupid to understand how calories and fat grams work, so researchers are wondering if we'll 'make better choices' if the nutrition labels say how much exercise it would take to burn off the calories of an item.
Emails of New York City officials that reveal how their 'Pouring on the Pounds' advertising campaign against soda drinks was designed to scare people into not drinking soda, regardless of the fact that there was no scientific basis for their claims. This also demonstrates how a government that is charged with regulating false advertising won't be able to police itself.
On snorting Smarties candies:
Educators worried by rise of students who snort crushed candy
CBS correspondent Nancy Cordes thinks it a bad thing when elected officials actually KEEP the promises they made during their campaign for office:
CBS's Cordes Blames Tea Party for No 'Remarkable Pieces of Legislation'
And for caller Jack, who stated that solar was as competitive an energy source as coal and claimed, incorrectly, that I was pushing coal power over solar (I'm an 'all of the above' supporter when it comes to tapping our own natural resources for fuel and energy needs), here is an article that documents the cost per kilowatt hour of the various sources of energy.
Comparing energy Costs of Nuclear, Coal, Gas, Wind and Solar
It is interesting to note that, for solar, they couldn't include all the costs because some are still unknown and even without those additional costs solar is in the $.20-.25/kWh range while coal is in the $.02-.04/kWh range.
That, Jack, is NOT competitive!