During the last legislative session, legislators in both parties stopped the clock at 11:59 on April 15th so they could pass last minute legislation. A number of bills were finished in the early hours of April 16th. One of them was the 2008-2009 road bill which specified how money should be appropriated for the building and maintenance of roads.

Beshear vetoed the bill on April 26th. 11 days after the session ended and claimed he could do whatever he wanted with the money set aside for roads. By law Beshear is required to veto within 10 days of the session or by April 25th.

Senate Majority Leader Williams, didn't like the games Beshear was playing with the road fund and went to court to see if the veto could be overridden because it was issued 11 days after the session.

Rather that ruling in favor of either party, the judge decided that H.B. 79 was invalid because it was passed after the midnight deadline on the 15th. In the ruling, Franklin Circuit Judge Phillip Shepherd wrote the following.

It makes no difference whether the House and Senate adjourned sine di on April 15, or alternatively, whether the legislature simply ceased to exist by virtue of Section 42 of the Constitution, which requires that the regular session of the General Assembly shall not "continue beyond sixty legislative days nor shall it extend beyond April 15." Either way, the General Assembly had no power to act after midnight on April 15, 2008.

What this means is that since H.B. 79 was passed after midnight on the 15th it is invalid because either the legislature no longer existed at the time or it no longer had powers to make laws. If this ruling stands, it means that any of the laws passed after midnight are null and void.

I don't know how many bills that effects this year, but the more important question is what happens to bills that passed in previous years? This "stopping of the clock" is a practice the general assembly has practiced for some time now. Does that mean any legislation that was enacted during those times are null and void as well? What about legislation that might have amended those invalid pieces of legislation? What happens to people that may have been negatively effected by those bills? Will they be able to seek redress?

For example, let's say the legislature passed a tax increase  or fee increase illegally 3 years ago. Would those effected by the tax or fee increase be able to get their money back? Could they sue the government to get a rebate? Questions like this one could potentially be the tip of the ice berg of possibilities. Judge Shepperd's decision could lead to some very unexpected and crazy implications. I am sure it is a ruling that neither Gov Beshear nor Sen Williams expected nor wanted.

Even with the possible side effects, the ruling was a good one. If for no other reason that to stop future legislative session from playing games with the clock. They need to get their act together and not procrastinate til the last possible minute to try and pass a bunch of legislation.

I know Beshear's approval rating is down. I know he is struggling to develop a coherent plan for Kentucky. I know he is worried about getting getting votes again in three years.

But isn't pardoning murders and rapists going a bit too far in attempting to boost the number of Democratic voters?

Fancy Farm is a small town in western Kentucky. It is the home of St. Jarome's Catholic church and the site of the state's most famous picnic. Way back in the summer of 1880, the members of the parish posted the following note in the Mayfield Monitor.

“There will be a barn dance, picnic and ‘gander pulling’ at Fancy Farm next Thursday. Those that have never seen the latter should turn out on this occasion. It will be interesting.”

It was held "down by the creek" where the trees gave shade for their summer picnic. The men played games while the women gathered to gossip about the latest news.

As the years wore on, it became an important event for the families and relatives of those who lived in this small settlement. In 1912, it moved from its original location to the parish's school to provide shelter in case of bad weather. It has remained there til this day.

Whenever you have a large gathering of people, the politicians are soon to follow. Back in the early days of the picnic, Kentucky's primaries were held in August. Since Fancy Farm was heavily Democrat it became a last chance for candidates trying to win the primary.

Eventually, Kentucky moved their primary back to May and Fancy Farm transformed from being a last chance effort to THE kickoff event for the fall campaign.

What makes Fancy Farm such a special event is that it is a throw back to the days where politicians would climb up on the back of a flatbed truck and deliver speeches to the cheers and jeers of the crowd. In this environment politicians lived and died based almost entirely upon their oratory skills.

The times have changed some since the early days. Both sides of the political spectrum are represented and partisan crowds show up to support their candidates and provide opposition to the other side. But the candidates still have to deliver good speeches to fire up their side and avoid ridicule from the other side.

It definitely tests the mettle of the candidates choosing to speak there.

This year promised to be an amazing year for the picnic. At first there was whispers that both Obama and McCain might show up for the event. I think it would have been refreshing to see these candidates who go from one photo op to another having to face a real crowd. But it was for that same reason, I knew that neither would attend the picnic.

Why face a potentially hostile crowd that could cause a national scene? At the end of the day there is little upside for either candidate to appear. Although it puts to a lie Obama's 57 state rhetoric, he doesn't need to come to Kentucky and neither does McCain. Kentucky is not a battle ground state. It isn't even close.

While I admit it would be fascinating if either candidate showed up, I am with Mark Herbet in feeling relief that neither candidate is going to be there. Why? Because it is a small community that can only be reached by taking a two lane road from the highway. If either candidate was going to be there, the crowd would be huge which would mean gosh awful traffic.

My concern for the traffic can mean only one thing. Yup, I am planning on going back to Fancy Farm. How can I pass up on missing McConnell's appearance. He is always the star of the show and especially so in years when he is running for re-election. As of now, I am planning on live blogging the event like I did last year. Hopefully I learned some lessons from attempting it last year.

I say planning because word on the streets today is that < href="http://www.beloblog.com/WHAS_Blogs/PoliticalBlogger/2008/07/bunning-mcconnell-might-miss-f.html">McConnell and Bunning may not be attending the festivities.

U.S. Sen. Jim Bunning says Senate business could keep him from attending this weekend's Fancy Farm picnic in western Kentucky. Bunning says he and U.S. Sen. Mitch McConnell may be in Washington this weekend voting on an energy bill.

If that is the case, I am not sure I want to sit in 95 degree heat for a McConnell-less event. I have already reserved space at Kentucky Lake this weekend so I will be down in the area, but if McConnell isn't there I might just skip this year and spend time on the lake.

If McConnell does show up, then I'll definitely be there. For those who have never been, I highly recommend a trip. The BBQ is outstanding and this year's election should be a prime spectacle. If you go, I'll be the one sitting in a chair typing away on my bluetooth keyboard for my Palm Treo. Hopefully I'll see you there!

The chance for Republicans to pick up a Democratic senate seat this year opened up when Scorsone decided not to seek reelection. In his place, the Democrats appointed ultra-liberal house member Kathy Stein to be the Democratic nominee.

Considering how far to the left Stein leans, I thought Republicans might have a shot at the seat if they could find a good candidate to run against her. At the time I heard that Stein would probably be the nominee, I wondered if the party could find a legitimate candidate to oppose her.

It appears they may have done just that. They have selected Chuck Ellinger to represent the Republican party. Ellinger is a two term Lexington councilman who has deep roots in the Lexington area.

Two questions remain about Ellinger. Can he raise enough money to be competitive? Can he put together an organization to implement a good ground game?

While I am sure both candidates have decent name recognition in the district, Ellinger's needs to be higher. Especially since registration in the district heavily favors the Democrats. It takes financial resources as well as a strong team to increase name recognition. He will also need enough financial support to be able to inform the voters about Stein's liberal voting record.

I'll be watching the financial reports to see if he is raising the type of money he will need to run an aggressive campaign. If he can do it, the GOP has a chance to steal a seat from the Democrats this fall.

Beshear made a formal announcement today that he would stay out of the race for house leadership.

FRANKFORT -- Gov. Steve Beshear stressed Tuesday that he will not be involved in state legislative leadership races.

"There are a lot of conversations going on now that seem to be involved in the leadership races one way or the other," Beshear said. "As governor I'm going to stay as far away from those leadership races as I can because I don't have a role in those."

Many people will look at his strategy and deem it to be reasonable. If there is going to be a bloody fight for house leadership, why should he be involved in it? It will only make his hands dirty and could split the party.

I have a somewhat different take. His statement that he does not have a role in determining the speaker is utter hogwash. He is the head of the Democratic party in the state. The next speaker will be a Democrat. He has every right to go in and campaign for the strongest candidate. Someone who will work with him to craft legislation. Someone who will help him to push his agenda through the legislature. Someone who can help create his vision for Kentucky. It is something a leader does.

But then again he isn't really a leader. His decision to say out only highlights his weakness as a governor. He isn't trying trying to avoid get his hands dirty. He fears becoming involved because he may pick the losing side. He is afraid that he is too weak to make a difference. He is afraid that such a loss would destroy what little credibility he has left.

Fear is a powerful force that keeps people from action. Fear is keeping Beshear from acting in this instance. It probably kept him from acting during the legislative session. Unless he can come to terms with his fear, he will find that his first term is his only term.

While Beshear has been traveling around the state looking for a vision, it looks like Comrade Richards may be looking at a fight to maintain his position as speaker of the house.

If recent rhetoric is any indication, a leadership battle indeed is brewing between House Speaker Jody Richards and the man who helped install him in that post nearly 14 years ago.

State Rep. Greg Stumbo, the Prestonsburg Democrat who returned to the House this spring after a four-year stint as attorney general, has gradually ramped up his pointed criticism of the House leadership and, specifically, Richards.

“I think the membership feels that the session was pretty much a disaster. And the truth is, when your company goes bad or something happens, the guy in charge gets the blame. Rightly or wrongly, I hear more people complain about Speaker Richards than any of the other members of leadership,” Stumbo said.

The problem for Richards is huge. Beshear's lack of leadership left a huge power vacuum in the Democratic party. Instead of stepping up and filling that void during the legislative session, Richards got caught up in the minutia of legislation and the petty politics that always sneak into the session.

I am sure that Stumbo sees this as a golden opportunity. He can turn Beshear disastrous leadership on its head and blame Richards for not helping Beshear enough during the session. This strategy has two effects. It wins friends with Beshear by placing the blame somewhere else. Since the session was a bomb, It also creates a wedge issue which can be used in his campaign against Richards. Stumbo sees this not only as an opportunity to seize power in the house, but it would allow him to step in and fill the leadership vacuum in the Democratic party. He will become in effect the "shadow governor".

At this point, the only way Stumbo doesn't run for the speakership is if his support in the house collapses. I imagine he already has substantial support otherwise he wouldn't be making noise now. I think Stumbo's quest for power will be too great a temptation for him not to run in which will likely be a very close race.

Ironically, Richards ran last year for governor because he believed he could provide leadership to the commonwealth. He had a chance to provide that leadership during this session and be the de facto governor. Instead he failed to seize upon the opportunity. Now he may pay for his mistake by losing his position in the house leadership.

The first step in our series was to commit to a healthy lifestyle. An attitude that I am going to do this come hell or high water. The second step on the journey is to consider how we plan on measuring our results. We need good metrics to track our bodies progress as we start living healthy.

The preferred measuring tool for most people is the scale. I understand the popularity of it. It seems a reasonable measure and it is easy to use. Unfortunately, weight is it isn't the best indicator of health. Why? The best way to illustrate the problem is to use an example.

Picture in your mind Joe Six Pack. He is 6'1"" and weighs 250 pounds and leads a sedentary life style. What do you think he looks like? I am guessing you are picturing a guy who is clearly over weight will a beer belly. Now picture in your mind Ray Lewis, the Pro Bowl Linebacker for the Baltimore Ravens. I am guessing you are picturing a guy who is ripped and is waiting to remove your head from your shoulders. He too is 6'1" and weighs 250 pounds. They weigh the exact same. Yet who do you think is healthier?

OK, so weight can be a bit misleading. What would be a better method? Measuring a person's body fat percentage. Body fat percentage is your fat weight divided by your total weight. Joe Six Pack from earlier is probably over 30% body fat. Raw Lewis on the other hand has around 7% body fat. It is now obvious which person is in better shape.

How do I measure body fat and what should my body fat percentage be?

Measuring body fat is generally not as easy as stepping on a scale, but there are several ways to do it. The best way to do it is to use hydrostatic or underwater weighing. It is accurate but tends to be expensive and not something you can do every few weeks.

Another good method is to use skinfold calipers. They are an inexpensive tool for measuring body fat. It makes spot measurements in various places on the body and from those measurements determines a body percentage result.

Another method that is easier to use and doesn't require any special equipment is the US Navy Circumference Method. It is a simple tool developed by the military to accurately determine body fat percentage in adults. It appears to be as accurate as the skin fold test and easier to do. I also prefer it because it is easier to make consistent measurements with a tape measurer than calipers.

All that is necessary to determine body fat percent is a your height, weight, neck and waist measurements. Women need an additional hip measurement. The results are plugged into a formula and out spits the results.

For men the formula is

%Fat=495/(1.0324-0.19077(log(waist-neck))+0.15456(log(height)))-450

For women the formula is

%Fat=495/(1.29579-0.35004(log(waist+hip-neck))+0.22100(log(height)))-450

If you don't want to calculate the results by hand, a number of sites provide calculators for the equations.

Now that we know how to calculate it, where does our body fat need to be? For men and women ideal body percentages are different. Below is a chart describing ranges of body fat.

Looking at the chart we can see that Joe Six Pack from our earlier example is clearly obese while Ray Lewis is a top athlete. A result which more accurately reflects our initial images of these two people. In my opinion to live a healthy life style you need to be in the fitness range. Ideally you probably want to be in the athlete range, but it isn't necessary to lead a healthy life. When I began my journey to health I was around 25% body fat. Currently I am just over 15% and consider myself healthy. Even so my goal is to get down around 10%.

Another problem with just using weight to determine health is the daily fluctuations that occur. People who track weight seem to do it on a day to day basis. The up and down nature of weight leads to disappointment and frustration. People despair and give up rather than continue. A nice side effect to measuring body fat percent is it is something that doesn't make sense to do daily. It is something you do every two weeks or even once a month.

There is no room for daily frustration. If you follow the rest of the steps in this plan you will get results between measurements which makes it easier to continue until a healthy lifestyle becomes a habit.

Section 1: Bill Title

The Act has been dubbed the Drill Responsibly in Leased Lands – or DRILL - Act of 2008. However, nothing in its following sections will increase domestic energy production beyond what is already scheduled.

Section 2. Lease Sales in the National Petroleum Reserve – Alaska

This section requires that lease sales be conducted once a year. This is something that is currently allowed, but not done because NPR-A’s Indiana-sized area has no infrastructure. In addition, a history of dilatory lawsuits has made it an area of limited interest to energy producers. This section also seeks to expedite permits in the NPR-A, a positive step. However, it does nothing to tackle the biggest problem with developing new energy: dilatory protests and lawsuits. Any genuine effort must involve putting a stop to the legal blocking and tackling of groups opposed to American energy production. Incidentally, Congress should address this issue nationwide.

Section 3: Pipeline Construction in the National Petroleum Reserve – Alaska

Pipelines in NPRA have been held up by appeals, protests and lawsuits, not energy producers.

Section 4: Alaska Natural Gas Pipeline Project Facilitation

This section authorizes the president to exercise authority he already has to facilitate something he is already facilitating. In short, this section achieves nothing.

Section 5: Project Labor Agreements

A last minute bonus prize for organized labor, but creates no new energy whatsoever.

Section 6: Ban on Export of Alaskan Oil

A nice talking point, but the United States does not export any Alaskan oil, and has not since 2000. California exports more petroleum products than Alaska.

Section 7: Issuance of New Leases

This section was crafted using synonyms to restate existing laws, including:

• The Mineral Leasing Act (for onshore production), which stipulates that an oil company must have a producing well within 10 years or surrender the leases. Source: 30 U.S.C. 226(e)
• The Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act: (for offshore production), which stipulates that an oil company must produce energy between 5 to 10 years (in the government’s discretion) or surrender the lease. Source: 43 U.S.C. 1337(b)
• Penalties in U.S. Code: The federal government can cancel a lease if a producer fails to live up to the terms of the lease, the law or federal regulations. Source: 30 USC 188(a) and (b) and 43 CFR 3108.3 (a) and (b).

Section 8: Fair Return on Production of Federal Oil and Gas Resources

This section restates current law and practice. In fact, the government increased royalties on outer continental shelf leases by 50% last year, making it more expensive to produce energy in America.

Yarmuth! and his Democratic friends in Congress don't want to see an increase in energy production. They want to see the end of capitalism and the rise of eco-socialism. So they wave their hand in the air and make it look like they are doing something when in reality they don't want to do anything. If anything, they would like to see an increase in the gas tax.

Now, lawmakers quietly are talking about raising fuel taxes by a dime from the current 18.4 cents a gallon on gasoline and 24.3 cents on diesel fuel.

I can guarantee that Yarmuth! will be on board for that tax increase as well. It is what Democrats like best: "new sources of revenue" for government. It is the Democratic mentality which makes McConnell's latest television ad effective against Lunsford.

The Courier-Journal and Herald Leader editorial boards dubbed the ad "misleading" which probably means it hit awfully close to home. It turns out that the "automatic adjustments" Lunsford bragged about as a good way to "increase revenue" have cost the tax payers millions of dollars regardless of how the Courier and Herald Leader try to spin it. The ad is effective because it hits at the source of the problem. Democrats like Lunsford and Yarmuth! care more about raising revenue resources rather than the average citizen's or economy's needs.

Of course Lunsford responded to the ad by coming up with his own "energy plan" that can be best described as Democratic Lite.

Open up Strategic Reserve
Gas tax holiday paid for with profits tax on oil companies
Develop oil shale
Develop coal to liquids
Fully close "Enron Loophole"
More consumer protections against gas price gouging
Require drilling on already leased lands
Incentives for R and D of alternative renewable energy sources

Let's go down his list. The Dem's want to open up the strategic oil reserve. While I am glad to see they understand high cost of gas is a supply issue, this isn't the answer. Opening up the strategic reserve won't solve the supply problem because it will have to be replaced at some point in the near future.

I love the gas tax holiday paid for by profits from "Big Oil". This was the "Hillary Plan". So we are shifting the tax burden from consumers to the companies who provide gas. Won't the providers just raise prices to cover the extra taxes? How does this help gas prices exactly?

I am glad to see that Lunsford supports oil shale and coal to liquid plans. These are ideas Republicans like McConnell has wanted for some time now.

Closing the "Enron Loophole" and consumer protections against gas price gouging while sounding noble will do nothing to increase our supply or reduce the price of gas. Requiring companies to drill on already leased lands as noted earlier has been the law for some time. I don't know why we would need another law to say the same thing. Incentives for R and D for alternative renewable energy sources is another Republican idea embraced by Lunsford.

So when we look at his plan it is some quasi mixture between a bad Democratic plan and a reasonable Republican plan. Why would we want some sort of Democrat Lite pan to help solve our energy problems?

My favorite part of Lunsford's attacks on McConnell is his attempt to tie McConnell to "Big Oil". The only problem is people don't look at Big Oil as the problem. They understand by a wide margin that the problem is supply which is why they have overwhelmingly come out in favor of increased drilling. The problem that Lunsford and the rest of the Democrats face is the fact that they can't do anything about the issue. Their hands are tied and all they can do is create smoke and mirrors while do nothing about the problem.

In the meantime, McConnell is doing all he can to help consumers by increasing our supply of domestic oil.

Senate Republicans have threatened to block nearly all other bills pending before the August recess if Democrats refuse to vote with them on expanding offshore drilling.

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) said bills that do not pertain to energy can wait until after the August recess, with gas prices now surpassing $4 per gallon. McConnell and top Republicans indicated Wednesday they would oppose any procedural votes to take up other legislation, which require 60 votes to succeed.

“We think there is nothing more important that we can do right now than to deal with the Number One issue of the country,” McConnell said. “This is the biggest issue since terrorism right after 9/11. People are pounding on their desks, saying, Why don’t these people get together and do something about this problem?”

McConnell's leadership in the senate has forced the Democrats to deal with an issue they hope would just go away. Why would we want to replace a senator who is actually working to help us reach energy independence with a guy who's only accomplishment in energy is to create an ever increasing gas tax?

One of the most frustrating aspects of the left's call for radical environmentalism is that they have won a majority of people over to their argument. Granted it has taken a lot of indoctrination to get there, but they have been able to make people believe that our way of life is destroying the environment and catastrophe is right around the corner.

Man made global warming is a perfect example. Ask just about anyone on the street and they will tell you that yeah global warming exists. The only problem is the earth is beginning to cool and not warm. The whole concept of man made global warming is a myth, yet many take it as the gospel.

From my perspective trying to argue rationally with an issue that has become so emotionally driven is like swimming upstream. What makes it so frustrating is I know what the consequences of dismantling capitalism in favor of eco-friendly socialism will be. Higher prices and stunted development are the inevitable consequences of strangling our own energy policies in favor of fringe leftism.

Today we are paying the price for our neglect with $4 a gallon gas prices. As Michael Barone points out in his column, the tide may be finally turning against the left on this issue.

Sometimes public opinion doesn't flow smoothly; it shifts sharply when a tipping point is reached. Case in point: gas prices. $3 a gallon gas didn't change anybody's mind about energy issues. $4 a gallon gas did. Evidently, the experience of paying more than $50 for a tankful gets people thinking we should stop worrying so much about global warming and the environmental dangers of oil wells on the outer continental shelf and in Alaska. Drill now! Nuke the caribou!

Now the gas has hit $4 a gallon the cry for drilling is loud from the general public. It just took a solid hit to the pocket book to get people to wake up to the truth of the matter. Some times you have to touch the hot stove to learn your lesson. One thing this episode does is reaffirms my faith in the people of this country. Whether it is higher taxes or stupid policies, people will only tolerate so much pain before a backlash occurs to bring us back to a more reasonable path.

Louisville's "Mayor For Life's" time has past. He has been at the post too long and no longer brings anything new to the job. In the mean time, his administration has begun to get sloppy with arrogance. And it has cost the city $350,000 in federal money.

The $350,000 in affordable-housing grant money the federal government has taken back from Louisville over the past four years could have been used to get more homeless and mentally ill people off the streets and into apartments. Advertisement

The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development has reclaimed portions of 10 grants because not all the money was spent by the city, according to documents obtained through a Freedom of Information Act request.

Once the grants expired, HUD took back the unused money and spent it elsewhere.

How hard is it to lose federal money? How much incompetence is necessary to get HUD to come and take its money back? I would feel bad for the residents of Louisville if they didn't keep re-electing the man in charge of this ineptitude.

I have come to believe that Beshear's rudderless leadership stems from the fact that he has no vision for Kentucky. How can he lead when he doesn't know where he is going? He got the job because he thought it would be cool, and now is at a loss for what to do. That is the reason he is on this town hall tour.

And Beshear, who was making his third stop on his statewide town hall tour, said he's considering many of the ideas — which were big and small in ambition and scope.

“So far, we're just listening and taking notes and learning what people are concerned about,” he told reporters after an hour-and-a-half meeting with nearly 200 people at George Rogers Clark High School.

“We're going to sit back and start evaluating that as we do more of these to see if there are items that ought to be priorities in this state that I don't already think ought to be priorities,” he added.

He is desperately crossing the state hoping that someone will help him come up with some sort of plan. Until someone does, it looks like he is going to cling to legalized gambling. Unfortunately for him, no one wants it.

Beshear's other suggestion for raising more state revenue received a chillier reception: allowing casinos.

I think it is sad that we have a governor who has no idea what he wants to do as governor other than "being governor". The worst part is all of us have to wait three more years before we can find someone who can actually lead this great commonwealth.

I always thought the idea of building a random Arena in downtown Louisville was a bad use of public funds. We are going to spend millions and millions on an arena that will occasionally be used. Well it looks like the "investment" is going to cost a lot more money than originally estimated. As much as 10% more!

The announcement follows Monday's move by Moody's Investors Service to consider downgrading its opinion of the financial strength of the arena's bond insurer, Bermuda-based Assured Guaranty.

Such a move could add more than $60 million to the project's total debt cost, which is about $600 million, Host said.

And this is before construction has even begun. Can someone remind me why this was such a great idea in the first place?

The movement by President Bush and Republicans in congress to begin drilling for more oil has begun to ease pressures on the future markets. The price of oil has dropped $20 a barrel since the news has released. While drilling of the coast could find a wealth of new oil deposits that will continue driving prices down, we need to be thinking to the future and find energy independence.

I believe independence can be found through the processing of oil shale. Why? Because we have a whole bunch of it. The Bureau of Land Management released that we have 800,000,000,000 barrels or recoverable oil from oil shale. Let's put that in perspective. We currently use 20,730,000 barrels a day which comes to 7,566,450,000 barrels of oil a year.

At our current production levels that comes to 106 years of available oil just from shale oil. Even if our oil usage continued to grow by two percent a year, it would still give us more than 57 years worth of oil. If you add in the oil found off the outer continental shelf, we would have no problem supporting ourselves well into the future. That is more than enough time for technology to advance to the point where we can find a marketable form of alternative energy.

The problem is the technology for processing of oil shale is still a few years away. If we press forward and develop the technology, I believe we can be energy independent within 10 years. We just need the will to act.

By now many of you know about Gov Beshear's town hall meeting in Pikeville last week.

Gov. Steve Beshear took three plane loads full of officials with him to Pike County at a cost of more than $7,000 Thursday for the first stop in his six-week statewide tour of town hall meetings.

That came just days after Beshear suggested ways state workers could conserve on fuel when commuting.

The responses to the story are so obvious. The first is a charge of hypocrisy. Do what I say and not what I do. The second is why did he take everyone?

But Republican Party Chairman Steve Robertson questioned why the state paid for so many cabinet officials to attend if they weren’t part of the official program.

Robertson said the taxpayers appear to be footing a $7,000 bill for one stop in what appears to be a public image-building tour.

While the story is amusing, I think it provides some insight into the problems with this administration. Let's look at Beshear's response to the incident.

"I happen to think it's important to listen to what the people of this commonwealth think," he said in Lexington Monday at the Kentucky Association of Conservation Districts convention. "So when I'm going around the state for the next two months, I'm going to take the cabinet secretaries with me regardless of whether the Herald-Leader likes it or not."

Beshear opened himself up to such obvious ridicule so his cabinet members could listen to the people? That is silly and makes little sense to me. The members of his cabinet have only been in the job for six months. They shouldn't exactly be out of touch with the world around them. I am sure the people in the town hall meetings had no idea who any of the secretaries were nor did they care. I know I wouldn't care. The people of Pikeville showed up to speak to the governor.

The governor should be able to listen to the peoples concerns and incorporate them into his vision for tomorrow. Once he does, he should be able to provide direction for his cabinet officials to implement his agenda.

All of which brings me back to my original question. Why did he make this trip with his entire entourage knowing full well that he would be open to such ridicule? Part of it is because he thought he could slip it by like previous administrations. I think the bigger reason is he doesn't have a vision for Kentucky. He is hoping that his cabinet will help him to provide an agenda for his term. He doesn't know what to do himself.

The pieces are beginning to fall into place for me. Beshear was elected based on the platitude that we can do anything if we have casinos. He had no idea or vision to what that "anything" actually was. He ran for governor so he could have the prestige and not to actually move Kentucky forward.

This is why he surrounded himself with the old cronies in the first place and why he took them with him on these town hall meetings. He has no idea what he is doing and is hoping his "friends" will help him make something up. It also explains his failure to lead during the last legislative session. He didn't know where to lead.

Beshear is adrift and has no idea where he is going. Without a vision he can't lead this state forward. I doubt he has the leadership skills to develop a vision and instruct his secretaries to implement his plan for tomorrow. Instead he seeks some form of consensus as to what to do next. As Margaret Thatcher said, "consensus is the death of leadership".

Northup has begun closing the gap on Yarmuth! in the election closing the gap to 10 points with over three months to go. I am not surprised by the movement. Northup was a popular congressman who only lost because of the tidal wave that swept Republicans out of power two years ago. She was going to do better once people realized she was running again.

The other issue that is helping her is the high gas prices. The do nothing Democrats in Congress have done zilch to help the energy problems this country faces and Yarmuth! is getting swept up in the growing anger over the price of gas.

While the current polling shows the race at 10 points, it also has 18% of the voters who claim they might change their mind. Once the undecideds are added in to the mix over 20% of the voters could swing for one candidate or the other. That tells me the race while leaning towards Yarmuth! is still up for grab.

The one surprise I did find in the latest numbers is how well Northup is doing among black voters. She is currently garnering 16% of the black vote. While that doesn't sound like much, It is a big percentage for a Republican. If she can hold that margin, I believe she has a realistic chance of winning this race.

It will be interesting to see if the polling continues to move her way over the next couple of months.

Last week I talked about how raising money in a campaign separates the wheat from the chaff. It turns out I am not the only one who thinks that way. Leading political analyst for Roll Call magazine, Stuart Rothenberg, has a similar take and it doesn't bode well for Boswell.

It's no longer the time for mere scenarios or fundraising polling memos. Now is the time for serious candidates to show they have the fundraising energy and prowess to run top-shelf campaigns.

The latest round of fundraising numbers shows that some Congressional hopefuls have established themselves as credible candidates, while others need to find an explanation for their weak totals.

The weakest showings? How about three of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee's "emerging races," all of which might be migrating to a new DCCC submerging races category?

Kentucky 2nd district hopeful David Boswell was promoted by some Democrats as a strong contender for retiring Rep. Ron Lewis' (R) open seat. Yes, said Democrats about the Owensboro-Bowling Green district, it's conservative, but the Democratic state Senator is a good fit for it.

Well, Boswell's June 30 cash-on-hand total of $45,000 should end that talk. Republican nominee Brett Guthrie's $661,000 in the bank means that, barring a total turnaround of finances, this race is over.

At the time that fund raising numbers came out last week, I thought that Boswell's poor showing would make it unlikely for him to win. I felt that Guthrie's money advantage should allow him to easily pull away from Boswell. It turns out that Rothenberger feels the same way.

My biggest accomplishment this year has been to get into the best shape of my life. In the process, I have learned a ton of stuff about fitness, training, and eating. What I want to do is distill this information into a simple five step plan that anyone can follow to lose weight and get in the best shape of their lives.

Being healthy is a simple process. It just isn't easy to do in the real world. Why? Because time is always pressing. There never seems to be enough time in the day. We are so consumed doing stuff that health always seems to take a back seat.

What I contend is that no matter how busy you feel, their is always time for a healthy lifestyle. How many times have you heard someone complain about not having time to be healthy, but they can tell you all about their favorite television show. There is time, you just have to make it.

The first step to being healthy is to commit. Health must be one of your top priorities. Here is tip that might help the process. When you plan your week, you should start by setting time aside to shop, to cook, and to work out. If you schedule time for these activities first, I think you will be surprised with how much blank space will be left on your calendar. For those who are super busy this may take some creativity but it can be done.

The second obstacle is you social life. You go out and eat. You go out and drink. You want to be social. It is hard to eat healthy while being social. The key is choosing smart foods and stopping after 1 drink. But as you get results it will become easier and easier to say no.

I am not going to lie. Living a healthy life is not easy. It takes planning. It takes time. It takes discipline. It takes dedication. There is no 15 minute plan or universal pill you can take to be healthy. But if you make the commitment and stick with it for three months it will work. You will be surprised with all of the energy you have. You will feel better about yourself. You will become more productive. You life will be transformed for the better.

I can give you the knowledge you need to reach this state. What I can't give you is the desire and motivation to obtain it. So take a moment and visualize how you want to look. Think about how it would make you feel. Embrace that vision and commit to living a healthy lifestyle so you achieve that goal. If you don't take the first step, it will be impossible to succeed.

The man made global warming theory continues to unravel. The latest convert is Australian David Evans. He was the scientist who wrote the carbon accounting model for measuring Australia's compliance to the Kyoto Protocol.

When I started that job in 1999 the evidence that carbon emissions caused global warming seemed pretty good: CO2 is a greenhouse gas, the old ice core data, no other suspects.

The evidence was not conclusive, but why wait until we were certain when it appeared we needed to act quickly? Soon government and the scientific community were working together and lots of science research jobs were created. We scientists had political support, the ear of government, big budgets, and we felt fairly important and useful (well, I did anyway). It was great. We were working to save the planet.

But since 1999 new evidence has seriously weakened the case that carbon emissions are the main cause of global warming, and by 2007 the evidence was pretty conclusive that carbon played only a minor role and was not the main cause of the recent global warming. As Lord Keynes famously said, "When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?"

David points to three reasons he has changed his mind on the topic.

1. There is no greenhouse signature. If global warming were occurring there would be a hot spot about 10km up in the atmosphere over the tropics. We have been measuring the temperature there for decades and have not found a hot spot. Since there is no hot spot greenhouse gasses can't be the cause of global warming.
2. The current warming trend ended in 2001 and the last year saw an drop of about one degree Fahrenheit.
3. New ice cores show that temperature increases preceded rises in atmospheric carbon during the last six warming cycles over the last 500,000 years. Which is cause and which is effect?

Hate to bust your bubble global warming environmentalists, but the facts are starting to get in the way of your dogma. I guess you are going to have to find a new reason why we need to implement socialism and destroy capitalism. It was a nice try, but sometimes the truth just gets in the way.

Yesterday, I talked about the importance of fund raising in a campaign. It is not just about the money. It is about organization. Its about the candidates ability to show he not only has support but can work hard to put together a winning team.

Lunsford raised a whopping $600,000 last quarter. Jennifer Duff from Cook Political Report called the paltry financial report "not impressive". No, the tally was not impressive at all. Some of the congressional candidates raised almost as much money as he did.

Personally, I don't think Lunsford has the desire to do the things necessary to win an election. I don't think he ever has been. I think running for office is just a rich playboy indulgence of his. Kind of like buying a yacht and spending a few months sailing around the Caribbean.

We don't need any more Kennedy's in the US Senate.

I have long been an opponent to the idea that man made CO2 emissions was causing global warming. The planet changes not over years or decades or even centuries. It changes in the scale of thousands of years.

The earth has gone through periods of much warmer and much colder weather than today. The trends of even 50 years don't mean much to me or prove global warming. Like every natural cycle, they can last a long long time. I fully expect the planet to begin cooling again as we leave a time of heavy solar activity. It turns out we may have already turned the corner. The planet has been cooling since 2001. In fact a pronounced downward trend has occurred capped by last years greatest drop in temperatures since we have kept records.

I am not the only one who doubts global warming. Now the American Physical Society is reconsidering its position on global warming.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC, 2007) concluded that anthropogenic CO2 emissions probably caused more than half of the “global warming” of the past 50 years and would cause further rapid warming. However, global mean surface temperature has not risen since 1998 and may have fallen since late 2001. The present analysis suggests that the failure of the IPCC’s models to predict this and many other climatic phenomena arises from defects in its evaluation of the three factors whose product is climate sensitivity:

1. Radiative forcing ΔF;
2. The no-feedbacks climate sensitivity parameter κ; and
3. The feedback multiplier ƒ.

Some reasons why the IPCC’s estimates may be excessive and unsafe are explained. More importantly, the conclusion is that, perhaps, there is no “climate crisis”, and that currently-fashionable efforts by governments to reduce anthropogenic CO2 emissions are pointless, may be ill-conceived, and could even be harmful.

The article is a good read for those interested in math. It does an excellent job covering the mathematics behind the models and why they fail. Since the article is so techinical, I will attempt to articulate the reason for the model's failure.

The problem with all "computer models" is the fact that they can not accurately predict chaotic systems. If it were possible then we would be able to predict the daily weather with 100% accuracy.

The IPCC started by creating an already flawed computer model to reflect the changes in the temperatures from CO2 emissions. When they did they created a feedback loop caused from CO2 emissions. The problem occurs when doing iterative analysis on feedback loops. They can quickly amplify the results significantly.

The result of these models was spiraling out of control temperatures. Allowing the modelers to claim catastrophic predictions for the future. The only problem is the feedback value they used for CO2 can not be sustained mathematically. In other words, the model they used was crap. If the models they used were accurate the earth would not be undergoing the current cooling phase.

As temperatures continue to cool over the next decade, we will once again learn a big lesson in the hubris of man and the amazing durability of our planet.

Scorsone makes it official. He is leaving the state senate to run for a position as Fayette circuit judge. A race I hope he loses however unlikely that is of happening. The Democrats have selected uber liberal, Kathy Stein, to replace him in the senate.

This is a chance for the Republicans in Lexington to step up their game and pick a good challenger that might actually have a chance of winning the senate seat. I doubt they have a chance in hell of picking up the house seat, but the senate seat covers a good size area and could be winnable with the right candidate.

Beshear released his energy policy today and it was surprisingly good. I have probably been one of the sharpest critics of this administration, but when he gets something right I want to congratulate him on it.

His plan proposes the following:

• More mountain top removal for coal mining. A practice that has made it possible to repopulate elk in Kentucky
• Look at nuclear energy. This is an excellent and clean source for future energy needs of the state.
• Reduce carbon emissions from electricity generation. Nothing wrong with that as long as the regulations aren't draconian
• Generate biodiesel from algae production and other non-food biomass. I don't have a problem with this since it isn't raping our crops. I am dubious about the sustainability of it in the free market.
• More fully use wind, solar and other renewable energy resources. The reason he didn't get an A is his insistence on using "renewable" energy resources. These are a joke. Solar power has never proven to be useful for energy needs on any scale. Wind power is the bigger joke. Since wind doesn't blow 100% of the time, it can't be used to completely power a grid. It has to be backed up by traditional energy sources at 90% of the power wind uses. The benefits from wind are minimal and the eye sore factor is high.

Overall it is a good plan. I hope he actually moves forward on these initiatives.

Fund raising is a huge part of politics. People may hate that fact, but I don't see it that way. I see it as a way to determine organizational strength. A well run campaign can and should be able to raise enough money to be competitive in any race. If someone can't raise money, one has to ask why? Are they in a race that no one believes they will win? Are they unable to put together a team capable of raising money? Do they not have local support? Are they lazy?

Otherwise there is a reason a candidate for congress is unable to raise money. Mostly it is they are lazy or don't have the organizational skills to put together a competitive campaign. For that reason, I see raising money as a way to weed out candidates who shouldn't be holding office.

Now, let's take a look at all of the congressional races and see where things stand in each of the races. In the first congressional District Heather Ryan has raised nearly $8,000 this year. That is one eight of what Whitfield has raised in the last two months. She has $3,000 cash on hand while Whitfield has just over a million. This race is over. She is not only outclassed by Whitfield she is on the fringe of the political scale. This race will not be close.

The second district is interesting. The latest polls show the race as tight, but the money race isn't. Guthrie raised 3 times Boswell in the last two months. He has $670,000 cash on hand versus Boswell's $42,000. These numbers tell me that Guthrie is not only better organized, but working harder for the seat. While the polls have the race close now, I imagine Guthrie's marked advantages will allow him to pull away from Boswell.

The other interesting race is the third district. The rematch between Yarmuth! and Northup. Surprisingly, Northup was able to out raise Yarmuth! by nearly $200,000 in the last quarter. At this point Yarmuth! only has $200,000 more cash on hand. That is incredible since he is an incumbent in the majority party in Congress. He should have a much larger money lead on her.

I think it speaks to the organizational skills of Northup and her personal abilities as much as it talks about Yarmuth!'s lack of organization. The race currently has Yarmuth! enjoying a 10 point lead. The question is will it hold? This race will hinge on three things.

First, the no drill Democrats will be in a world of hurt if gas prices continue to hover around $4 on election day. This is an issue that has the potential to resuscitate Republicans who have been on life support this cycle.

Secondly, how well will McCain do in Jefferson County. If he hangs close or beats Obama in Jefferson county, Northup will have an excellent chance of winning.

Lastly, how much good will has Northup built up with the black community. She made inroads into the black community when she was a representative and earned the endorsement of a number of west end religious leaders. Can she win nine to ten percent of the black vote that will turn out for Obama?

Maybe the wind is too strong against Northup this time. But Yarmuth!'s ability to consistently represent San Francisco values will eventually catch up with him when the election winds turn.

The fourth district has Geoff Davis up against Michael Kelley. Davis has $800,000 cash on hand to Michael's $12,000. While Michael might not be on the fringe of politics, he has almost zero organization. I suspect this race will play out like the first and Davis will win as easily.

The fifth district hasn't been competitive in a long long time. This time is not different. Hal Rogers has almost a million cash on hand. He won't need any of it.

The sixth district should be an interesting district. Currently, Chandler has over a million cash on hand while we have no idea how much his challenger has. I doubt this will be a competitive race, but it should be. Republicans need to get their act together and find a good candidate. Every year Chandler keeps tilting to the left. Like Yarmuth!, his votes will eventually catch up with him.

Our term of indentured servitude for government ends today. Now we can spend the rest of the year working for ourselves.

Oil shale is a sedimentary rock which contains a significant amount of solid organic material. This substance is known as Kerogen. What does this have to do with our energy problem? Well it turns out that is possible to convert Kerogen into oil shale which is similar to crude oil. In short it can be used as a replacement for crude oil.

That is interesting and all, but how can that help us reach energy independence? Because the USA has an enormous reserve of oil shale. How big is it? Let's compare it to the known crude oil reserves in the world.

As you can see, our shale reserves dwarf the total oil reserves of the world's current crude oil leaders. It seems we could within 10 years reach energy independence if we only tapped our own natural resources!

If it is so great why hasn't it been used already? Because it is more expensive to process. Research has shown that initial cost of shale oil will be around $70 to $95 a barrel with costs declining once operations are in place to $30 to $50 a barrel.

So shale oil is only feasible when a barrel of oil is in the $70 - $90 a barrel range. Hmmm, crude oil is currently priced at $140 a barrel. Even when the oil bubble bursts oil prices will only fall into the $80 a barrel range, the cost of shale will roughly be the same cost as crude. And over time it will assuredly be cheaper. I think it is time America started investing in shale oil now. It can provide the U.S. with 100% of it's oil needs for some time into the future. Such an announcement would put pressure on the current oil market forcing down prices now. Plus it would buy us the time we need to find and develop alternative energy sources that are economically feasible and not oil dependent.

Lunsford makes me laugh. Here was his quote regarding McConnell's ability to raise $15 million dollars.

Democratic Senate candidate Bruce Lunsford says Sen. Mitch McConnell's $15 million campaign war chest is obscene. Lunsford says if he had to raise $15 million to get reelected to the Senate in Kentucky, he'd quit and go search for another job.

He complains that would never work as hard as McConnell to keep his job, but yet he would spend how many millions of his own money to get the job in the first place? He has already put $1 million of his own money into the campaign and if previous campaigns are any indicator he will probably drop another $10 million on the campaign.

And when you add the unknown millions that will be spent by outside interest groups to see McConnell defeated, it is no wonder McConnell has had to raise so much money for his campaign.

The amusing thing about it all is that Lunsford is going around trying to sell himself as a "man of the people" while he spends millions to buy an election. He is a much a man of the people as I am a multi-millionaire.

I have long thought that judges should be selected and not elected. It is nearly impossible for the electorate to determine which judicial candidates are the best or at least qualified for the office they are running. Instead we are left with what is a popularity contest which generally goes to the better funded candidates.

We see another example of this year in Louisville's district judge race. Metro councilman Jim King is trying to buy his daughter the title judge. Katie King at the age of 29 is not qualified to be a judge. She barely meets the minimum requirements and has spent a measly three years as an assistant attorney in Irv Maze's office. It wouldn't surprise me if she got the initial job because of King's influence.

Regardless, it looks like Ms. King has been caught up in a bit of lovers spat that included a 911 call.

An assistant county attorney who is running for district judge in Jefferson County was the subject of a March "911" call from a former boyfriend who said she was trying to break into his house.

The recording shows that the ex-boyfriend of Katie King called MetroSafe Communications on March 14 and said King was "yelling through the door" and "acting like an idiot."

Louisville Metro Police responded to the home of John Otter in the 300 block of Sprite Road, but King had left before they arrived, according to dispatch calls.

The story would be inconsequential if these events happened 20 years ago. Instead they happened this year. While I am sure the 911 call was not serious, it demonstrates the immaturity that happens between 20 somethings. I understand these types of events are learning events for young people. I just don't want someone this green and inexperienced with life sitting as a judge.

All of which returns to my original argument. Judges should be appointed by elected officials. We can hold the officials accountable for the quality of their selections. That would at least eliminate the crap shoot element of judicial elections. While we might not get the best of judges in the world, we would probably avoid the dregs who sometimes get elected.

I received a scathing rebuke in the comments from andy42302 for my commentary on the politics of gas. Since I like reasoned debate, I wanted to go through his thoughts and provide a response to his arguments in hopes of continuing the discussion.

The price of gas is a gift to Big Oil. From your own admission, drilling will do nothing to help the current crises. Oil companies have enjoyed record profits throughout the Bush/Cheney Regime but they have not drilled in the 68 million acres that they have available in the USA.

First off, the price of gas is not a "gift" to big oil. Oil companies enjoy record profits because there has been an increase in demand for the product. If you sell 1,000,000 gallons of gas at 5 cents a gallon you make $5,000 dollars. If it cost $3,000 to create a million gallons then a profit of $2,000 is made. Now if you sell 2,000,000 barrels at 5 cents a gallon you make $10,000. If the cost remains the same then the profit is going to be $4,000.

If you keep selling more product you are going to continue making record profits. Because oil companies sell more product they make more profit. The high gas prices will actually hurt the oil companies because the demand will fall and they will sell less product. In addition it spurs research into alternate energy sources which could make their product obsolete.

I also did say drilling now would do nothing about current high prices of oil. Mainly because today's high prices have been caused by a bubble in the commodities market. The collapse of the sub-prime mortgage caused people to pull their money out of the lending markets. The money had to go some where. The weakness of the dollar caused much of it to end up in commodities like oil. The influx of cash has caused a bubble to form. The market has been distorted and it is not driven by demand.

Since the current bubble is not demand driven increasing the supply won't effect the current price. Having thought about it some more, I am beginning to think that a dramatic effort by the U.S. to increase production of oil may hasten the burst the oil bubble.

The argument that oil companies haven't drilled on the 68 million acres is bit of a canard. I imagine they would drill there if they had actually found oil on those properties. Drilling for oil is expensive and would be stupid to drill without spending time to make sure oil is there.

Regulations haven't prevented them from updating and/or building new refineries. It has been their decision not to invest. Now they want the heart of the watermelon and they want it now. Voters are scared, angry, and broke. When people get this way, they're easily tricked into buying in to such nonsense, grasping for hope and wanting to believe that this sugar pill will ease their pain. Even John McCain has admitted it would only create a psychological effect at best, just like his gas holiday nonsense.

It is true that oil companies have not built new refineries, but they have expanded the capacities of existing refineries. Otherwise they wouldn't have been able to keep up with growing demand. But do you blame them for not building additional refineries? According to Democrats and the environmental groups we shouldn't be using any oil. Would you build additional facilities with so many political groups hostile to your business? I would hedge my bets as well and just stick to expanding current facilities.

I do agree with you on one point. McCain's gas holiday is a bit of a scam. Why only help tax payers for a short period of time? If he had been for a permanent repeal the plan would actually have merit.

If you look at ANWR for example, the concept of opening it up to ease prices simply doesn't compute. The figures vary but it's reasonable to say that oil can be extracted in about 10 years and will pump about 1 million barrels a day for about 15 yrs. Assuming that oil comes to the USA and isn't sold to China, that would ease out imports from about 67% to about 65%. This could bring the price of gas at the pumps down about a nickel at best IN TEN YEARS. After that oil is depleted, we're right back where we are today.

But it will ease prices. That is the point of increasing supply. If we add the oil capacity off the shores of our country into the mix we can begin to increase the supply in this country. That is what is important for meeting future energy demands. If we do nothing now, the situation will only get worse down the road. Part of our current problem has been the Democrats refusal to expand our capacities over the last 10-20 years. If we had started drilling in ANWR 10 years ago and off our shore 10 years ago the current world supply would be much higher now and would have been less vulnerable to market distortions. We wouldn't have the current bubble. That is why I want to drill now. To keep this from happening in the future.

There's an argument that this extra oil would ease the burden of world demand and that would lower prices. Why would EXXON et al want to deliver less profits to their stock holders than they did last year? That doesn't make sense.

Probably because they don't make profits off of crude oil. They make their profits off the stuff that is made from the crude. They would rather not have to spend excessive amounts of money on the raw materials. If they keep their costs down they can keep the prices of their products low. The lower the cost of their products the more they will sell. The more they sell the more profits they make. And that is why they want the extra oil. Because it will make their stock holders richer.

McConnell has raised an unbelievable $3 million dollars in the last three months bringing his total amount raised to just over $15 million for the election. He has $9 million cash on hand for the final four months of the campaign. While the money will assure that he gets his message out in the fall, it will open him up to baseless attacks about being beholden to special interests.

Allison Haley, press secretary for Lunsford's campaign, said in a statement, "It must be easy to rake in special interest cash when you've been doing their bidding for 24 years in the Senate.

While this attack sounds good, it doesn't hold up to much scrutiny. I have always felt this argument was a bit of a canard. McConnell has always been a defender of second amendment rights. The NRA is a "special interest" group. If members of the NRA were to give him money is it to buy his vote or to ensure that someone is elected who shares a similar ideology? Most organizations give money because they want to elect people who sympathize with them on the issues of the day.

I am not naive enough to believe that there aren't people who give money to try to buy influence. But I imagine it is a small percentage of the $15 million dollars he has raised.

The ironic thing is that much of this supposed "special interest" money is going to be used to battle all of the national liberal special interests groups who are planning on dumping millions of dollars in advertising into Kentucky in an attempt to unseat McConnell.

While McConnell has been raising record amounts of money, Lunsford has begun dumping his personal wealth into his campaign. He wrote his campaign a million dollar check just days after the Supreme Court shot down the millionaires amendment of the McCain-Feingold legislation.

What does this say about each candidate? To begin with, fund raising is really a test of organization skill. To be able to raise the kind of campaign money that McConnell has been able to raise, he must have one heck of a well oiled machine in place. You have to have a tremendous team in place to raise that type of cash. Lunsford on the other hand has begun pumping money into his campaign. How good is his organization if he is struggling to raise money and is already forced to put in his own money?

The other aspect of raising money is the investment people are making in your success. If I give $20 to a candidate, I am probably going to go out of my way to promote the candidate to friends and family. Why? Because I am vested in the candidate's success. By raising $15 million dollars, McConnell has a lot of advocates around the state. Lunsford on the other hand is trying to buy the election with his personal fortune. In doing so his most loyal soldiers are the mercenaries he brings in to run the race.

This is all nice, but how does it effect the results in November? It plays two roles in deciding the election. First off, the money pays for the advertising each candidate needs to deliver his message to the public. Secondly and just as importantly, the organizational skills and loyalty created by raising money lends itself to superior GOTV efforts. Which of these two teams do you think will be the most effective getting out the vote in November?

Many people consider capitalism as a force for exploiting and destroying the environment. The purpose of capitalism is to take resource X and turn it into something more valuable that it was previously. Those who see capitalism as evil, only look to natural resources like oil and coal to show how markets destroy the environment. Sometimes the opposite can occur. Capitalism can actually help the environment.

One resource that is frequently changed into new shapes is metal. The current sources for metal have had difficulty keeping up with the demand from growing economies. Scrap metal is being recycled to help with the supply shortage, . The demand for recycled materials is beginning to accelerate. With increased demand comes increased prices. Scrap metal has now reached a price where it is worth collecting. At least that has become the case in Eastern Kentucky. In the process it has done much to clean up their problems with litter.

Skyrocketing costs of scrap metal have created a silver — or should we say steel — lining to economic and environmental woes. Collecting scrap not only brings in extra money, but also encourages citizens to clean up unsightly refuse.

The effects are magnified in Eastern Kentucky, a region with a chronic problem of improper disposal —or no disposal at all —of junk cars and appliances. Now, the prospect of getting fast cash is motivating a mass clean-up of litter, traditionally the work of prison inmates and environmentalists.

”In our lifetime, scrap may not be as high again as it is now,“ said Gerald Hines, Pulaski County's solid waste coordinator.

Hines said his county is ”50 percent cleaner“ in recent months.

”I remember a time when we were out every day cleaning up dumps and picking up appliances,“ he said. ”Now we don't see that kind of illegal dump activity—even if they were there, if somebody is going by, they'll clean it up themselves. High prices are valuable in more ways than one.“

In this instance, capitalistic markets are a boon to those who wish Eastern Kentucky to be a more environmentally friendly place.