By Muriel Sluyter

Greetings, Gentle Reader,

Let’s address several things today, then we’ll get to California.

I am strongly opposed to waiving the liquor ban at the fairgrounds. Our sheriff has said that the La Plata County Sheriff would surely like to have us host the biker rally. That alone should give us pause. It would be foolish to let the bikers have the fairgrounds and enough liquor to give Joey, his helpers, and the rest of us fits.

Another subject: An Iraqi defector has told us that Saddam has two fully operable nuclear bombs. That should make us uneasy.

Our new President has focused on faith-based charities to help in the fight against the social problems of our day, including substance abuse, criminality and their inevitable consequences. Catholic Charities, for instance, has an 86 percent success rate in its struggle to help the down and out turn their lives around and become responsible citizens. No government program comes anywhere near that rate.

The Supreme Court has ruled that government help to these charities is legal, but there has been intense governmental bigotry against faith-based organizations in the recent past, and many charities have given up trying to work with the government. "Separation of church and state" has been the club used to bash them. Many Americans actually believe those words are in our Constitution; they are not.

John Ashcroft is an honorable man, but his opponents’ rhetoric, as they "Bork" him, makes him sound as though he is a threat to the future of the human race. An honest man in a position of authority is a terrifying concept to certain types of politicians.

Now to California’s power crisis: It has the potential to cause a nationwide recession. Costs are rising dramatically in the states being forced to provide electricity to California, which has the sixth biggest economy in the world. Still, her politicians refuse to put the blame where it lies. Why?

Because deregulation is a handy scapegoat, though they didn’t actually deregulate; they just restructured. But they did it in a way that would make their citizens happy, and they were happy, right up until they ran out of power. Now no one is happy, and everyone is worried, and well they should be.

If California were forced to pay the market price for power, it should both give surrounding states a break and teach them a lesson, but they haven’t ‘fessed up to their irresponsibility and changed their dumb laws yet.

While Texas was building 20 power plants, California was building none. While Texas was providing for an increased demand for power, California was doing nothing except increasing its demand.

According to Mike Zenker, a California utility specialist with Cambridge Energy Research Associates, Texas can "bring new capacity on line in about two years...as opposed to six years in California."

Why would the home of the Silicon Valley shoot itself in the foot? Simple. California is also home to vast numbers of environmentalists, and they vote. They don’t like power plants, so California doesn’t build power plants; they just build huge, power-slurping houses and businesses. They think supply and demand means they demand and someone else supplies. They are discussing building power plants across the Mexican border, so they won’t be in California. These guys are slow learners.

And how about their more sensible, non-environmentalist citizens? Some of them vote too, from time to time, if they feel like it.