Please make calls to restore habeas corpus

Yeah, calling up the fascists and politely asking them to give it back should work.

You got a better (and legal) idea?

Yeah, calling up the fascists and politely asking them to give it back should work.

Rayne:

Your comment, subject to whatever limits they had on downstream water flows, is exactly what concerns me. If water levels were artificially lowered by irrigation, would PacifiCorp not have the excess power to sell into the grid for California’s use, thus encouraging prices upward?

I don’t follow this. As I understand this, the issue was whether they could divert more river flows to agriculture, thus lowerin the level of a downstream lake. Real scientists said that would hurt the fish; the phony scientists who intervened said it wouldn’t. But the effect of the decision was to lower lake levels behind the dam. And upstream, to support the flows into the lake/agriculture, they’d have to increase releases from the dams, which would increase hydro production. If that happened, it would tend to lower prices, because any increased hydro production tends to displace higher-cost gas fired plants in California/Oregon, which then reduces pressure on prices.

Think I recall seeing that PacifiCorp had 3 dams on the Klamath system; where are the dams? Likely that will make the difference depending on where the dams were located. And where were the ranchers/farmers in particular that were to benefit from the reduction — all the way back at the headwaters? or farther downstream below a dam?

I’m still digging into the PacifiCorp timeline to see if there was any chance my theory is viable. What a mess, so much convoluted inter-corporate relations. Keep in mind that this will not look like PacifiCorp made a deliberate choice to increase rates or decrease production; it will look like outside forces backed PacifiCorp into them (I’m looking for commentary about drought conditions affecting energy production).

perris @ 76

I actually don’t think it’s even possible anymore

cheney presides over all impeachments but the presidency

No he doesn’t. …

Should the House impeach, the trial goes to the Senate, and the person who presides over the trial is the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, not Cheney.

I read yesterday the cheif justice only presides when the impeachment is of the presdient, otherwise the vp presides…Ianl but there was law quoted yesterday

I thought it was interesting that the conservative Christion majority thought they know what “bong hits” means. I didn’t have a clue, but then, I’m not a Christian.

My oh so prim and proper Methodist step grandmother’s (now 104 and still going) favorite joke:

Two nuns passing by a window hear the someone telling the priest that they found a condom on the veranda. One nun asks the other “Sister, what’s a veranda?”

Scarecrow @ 128

Rahm is not a serious person. I’m not in favor of creating constitutional confrontations for the mere fun of it. There is enough evidence to impeach 20 time over. That’s what the Constitution says we should do. If they have enough votes to defund the OVP, then let’s do what needs to be done.

gotta agree with scarecrow, again.

why distract the country from the really big issues?

And the other point is, who cares what Cheney or Addington thinks about the legal status of OVP. I heard someone say that we should withhold OVP funding until Cheney decides whether he’s legislative or executive — as though somehow, he gets to choose. Gibberish.

JPL @ 12

I think the students should have had a sign saying No bong hits for Scalia

Actually, it should read bong hits for Scalia. Who knows it might actually uncloud his thinking and help him develop some empathy.

I thought it was interesting that the conservative Christion majority thought they know what “bong hits” means. I didn’t have a clue, but then, I’m not a Christian.

Your comment, subject to whatever limits they had on downstream water flows, is exactly what concerns me. If water levels were artificially lowered by irrigation, would PacifiCorp not have the excess power to sell into the grid for California’s use, thus encouraging prices upward?

I don’t follow this. As I understand this, the issue was whether they could divert more river flows to agriculture, thus lowerin the level of a downstream lake. Real scientists said that would hurt the fish; the phony scientists who intervened said it wouldn’t. But the effect of the decision was to lower lake levels behind the dam. And upstream, to support the flows into the lake/agriculture, they’d have to increase releases from the dams, which would increase hydro production. If that happened, it would tend to lower prices, because any increased hydro production tends to displace higher-cost gas fired plants in California/Oregon, which then reduces pressure on prices.