Archive for Friday, February 27, 2009

House approves coal-fired power plants by less than veto-proof margin

Sebelius has vowed to veto the bill

February 27, 2009, 10:09 a.m. Updated February 27, 2009, 3:35 p.m.

Advertisement

House passes bill allowing coal plant construction

The Kansas House passes a bill allowing Sunflower Electric Power Corp. to build two coal-fired power plants in western Kansas. Enlarge video

How they voted

On a 79-44 vote, the Kansas House approved House Bill 2014, a measure allowing construction of two 700-megawatt power plants. Here is how the area delegation voted.

For the bill:

  • Anthony Brown, R-Eudora
  • Connie O’Brien, R-Tonganoxie
  • Don Navinsky, D-Easton

Against the bill:

  • Barbara Ballard, D-Lawrence
  • Tony Brown, D-Baldwin City
  • Marti Crow, D-Leavenworth
  • Paul Davis, D-Lawrence
  • Ann Mah, D-Topeka
  • Tom Sloan, R-Lawrence

Absent: Lee Tafanelli, R-Ozawkie

— For the fourth time, the Kansas House has approved a bill that would allow the construction of two 700-megawatt coal-burning power plants in southwest Kansas.

And for the fourth time, supporters of the project don’t appear to have the required two-thirds majority to overturn a veto by Gov. Kathleen Sebelius.

The House on Friday approved what is known as the coal bill 79-44, five votes short of the 84 votes that would be needed to overturn a veto in the 125-member House.

Sebelius who vetoed three similar proposals last year, issued a statement, saying, “The vote today indicates that my veto can be sustained, and I am hopeful that legislative efforts can be focused on the critical budget issues that remain to be solved.”

Sebelius says she opposes the project because it would emit annually 11 million tons of carbon dioxide, a greenhouse gas that scientists say causes climate change.

And she said House Bill 2014 would strip the state of important regulatory powers. So-called “green” provisions had been watered down, she said, to make them “olive brown.”

In a joint statement, House Republican leaders defended the measure, saying it represented a comprehensive energy plan “to ensure that the energy needs of our citizens are met while looking toward the future by providing economic development and a renewable energy infrastructure.”

They said Sebelius’ position was “extremist” and hurting the state’s economy.

On the other side of the rotunda, supporters of the project were busy planning another coal run in the Senate.

Senate President Steve Morris, R-Hugoton, said, “I don’t see how you can avoid $3.6 billion worth of economic development.”

But Democratic leaders said efforts to force the bill through and try to round up enough votes to override a Sebelius veto were a waste of time.

“I don’t think there will ever be 84 votes,” said House Democratic Leader Paul Davis of Lawrence.

Meanwhile, the coal fight was sacrificing proposals to increase renewable energy along with federal stimulus dollars for those initiatives, Davis said.

But supporters of the project may have hinted at another possible strategy that could depend on President Barack Obama.

If Obama selects Sebelius as his secretary of health and human services that would make Lt. Gov. Mark Parkinson the new governor. Some House Democrats, the theory goes, would not be as loyal to Parkinson as they are to Sebelius and would then vote for the coal project.

Asked if the Legislature could override a veto if Sebelius left Kansas, Morris hesitated and then said, “No comment.”

Comments

6 years, 6 months ago

Yeah, as long as Kathleen sticks around (and doesn't run off to join Obama's team, which would be totally understandable, though) she'll bury this travesty in vetoes! The amount of jobs these plants will bring is paltry compared to the harm it would do to the environment. Only a simpleton could believe in "clean coal." The sooner we get this wind energy initiative underway, the better.

labmonkey 6 years, 6 months ago

Keep believing that we can provide power to the grid with wind and unicorn farts.

Poon 6 years, 6 months ago

This is wonderful news. I am thrilled to have another source of job creation in Kansas.

mightyquin 6 years, 6 months ago

I dont know about labmonkeys unicorn, but my unicorn provides plenty of wind power.

gr 6 years, 6 months ago

"Yeah, as long as Kathleen sticks around (and doesn't run off to join Obama's team, which would be totally understandable, though)"

That is a very excellent thought!

Hope the plants can be approved before she royally messes up the whole nation.

grammaddy 6 years, 6 months ago

Stick to your guns, Governor Sebelius.

disgustedagain 6 years, 6 months ago

Thank god. Hope Sebelius stays for now. Wish she'd run for Senate instead of leaving now for DC.

cthulhu_4_president 6 years, 6 months ago

I can understand the kneejerk reaction when people realize that the power will go to Colorado, and that is reason enough for some people to be against the plant, but isn't this just an example of an exported good? Some states can't grow their own lumber, so lumbering companies chop down trees in other states and export it to those states. The same is true for glass, battery acid, and even water! What is so different about this situation? Since when is exporting a product bad?

This seems like it should be a cut-and-dry issue in today's economy. It will create jobs=more $$ for the state. We will have a viable, exportable, product=more $$ for the state.

The fact that this legislation is bogged down in politically correct environmentalism and fear of a calamity that may or may not ever happen is unfortunate, and may keep us from making the best decision for our state.

For what it's worth, I wish they were nuclear plants.

verity 6 years, 6 months ago

Governor Sebelius is doing exactly what we elected and re-elected her to do.

I hope to see her as senator in 2010.

sustainabilitysister 6 years, 6 months ago

Keep on keepin' on Sebelius!!!! Let's create jobs with sustainable energy!

kield 6 years, 6 months ago

I understand that this state needs jobs. Last time I checked we were trying to move away from coal. No matter how clean coal is it is still coal. This state is making great strides with wind enegry. Colleges like Cloud County are pumping out wind enegry techs just as fast as they can. I have heard figures up to several hundred positions open right now for wind enegry. It is a joke that we are even thinking about more coal when we have a economy in the crapper and positions open with no qualified people to fill those positions. If we wait 1-2 years we will have many individuals coming out of school to fill those slots.

labmonkey 6 years, 6 months ago

So turning down dozens of high paying jobs that are paid with out of state money is a bad thing? Go to HHR Kathy.

BrianR 6 years, 6 months ago

labmonkey (Anonymous) says… “Keep believing that we can provide power to the grid with wind and unicorn farts.”

We usually blame the dog.

calvin 6 years, 6 months ago

It is great living in an ass backwards state.

calvin 6 years, 6 months ago

It is great living in an a$$ backwards state.

9070811 6 years, 6 months ago

Oh good Lord. How can ruin God's beautiful, green, fabulous GIFT of a planet?

Thanks, Newfelt. Your trust holds that stretch of land that will become a road. You've got some friends.

Steve Jacob 6 years, 6 months ago

I think CNBC said it best, that this country is building coal plants left and right because looking into the future (2030), we will still be on mostly coal power.

And I would have to think this will help some growth in western Kansas.

9070811 6 years, 6 months ago

For all of you who think that this is a great job solution. A great job solution would be wind and solar energy farms. Not to mention, the employees would be better off.

Why do we choose to make jobs out of a harmful context...when there is a need for better, safer energy-- that will also create tons of jobs...

Bill Griffith 6 years, 6 months ago

It was interesting to see that Tom Sloan voted against the bill and has switched sides since last year. Also, the country is not building coal plants left and right. Over 80 plant permits have been withdrawn or denied the last year. Right now there is no funding for any new coal plants as well. The state of Kansas and also its ten largest cities is about to receive approximately 40 million dollars to do energy efficiency work over the next two years. This will create a tremendous number of new jobs and energy savings for residents. I also hear that Westar may be rolling out some cool new ee programs once they get KCC approval. The timeline on those may be less than 6 months.

JerryStubbs 6 years, 6 months ago

There is a new extraction process that will produce an abundance of natural gas, very possibly making gas even cheaper than coal for electricity production. And of course much cleaner.

Coal will probably continue to rise in price.

bevy 6 years, 6 months ago

We might as well do something with all that wind! Keep up the good work, Gov. Sebelius.

OldEnuf2BYurDad 6 years, 6 months ago

I've got no problem with the coal, but I have a problem with a congress that wastes time on laws that will never see the light of day.

Do something productive!

"unicorn farts"

That made me LOL.

salad 6 years, 6 months ago

If Kansas really wants to be cutting edge, then they'd say, "Hey, we'll build coal plants....coal GASSIFICATION plants! The electricity for Colorado we'll generate with nuclear!" Forget the coal fired powerplants. We'd also look into STEP technology (sulfur to energy plant) to help out with global sulfur glut.

Satirical 6 years, 6 months ago

Thank you Sebelius from protecting Kansans from the horrible effects of two energy producing power-plants…jobs. I mean at times like this, I am glad the governor has the foresight and leadership to realize no one really wants or needs these terrible effects.

Wind farms are a much better alternative, even though there is no infrastructure to support their placement and supply lines to get the power to where it needs to go. And even though the demand for wind turbines exceed the supply, so none are available. And even though the costs of purchasing the wind turbines and building the infrastructure needed would exceed the benefits at this time given the relative cost of coal (even with the externalities).

We can at least tell our children that some scientists believe adding those coal plants would create a minimal impact to our environment, and so we took the moral high ground and decided to starve so people with jobs could enjoy essentially the same environment as they would have if the power plants were built. Thank you governor!

gr 6 years, 6 months ago

Haven't you guys heard? Al-boy is kind of low-keying the idea of man-made global warming. Seems there is MORE ice at the poles than thought.

Regarding exporting things, would you same people be excited if the U.S. did not export anything, or at least import more than we export? I mean, we don't want to be a net exporting nation, do we?

As far as leaving something for our children, maybe you should consider the outrageous $1Trillion+ debt they are going to have to pay for which is in part due to the global warming fantasy and the other part due to government-knows-best-and-can-fix-everything fantasy. How's that for an inheritance.

JSpizias 6 years, 6 months ago

Folks should have paid more attention to the radical policies promised by the big O before the election.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/11/03/obamas-energy-plan-bankupt-coal-power-plants-skyrocketing-electricity-rates/ Soon the chickens will come home to roost. We all saw how successful was the ethanol fad established by the congress, and the huge consequences that followed. If your current gas and electric bills are around $300 per month. Think about how you will cope with bills of $1200 per month a couple of years down the road when the big O's grand plan is fully implemented. Today's Wall Street Journal had a breakdown of the budget "grand plan" just proposed. State and international programs (51.7 billion, 40.9% increase) for expanding state department and doubling foreign aid.

Commerce (13.8 billion, 48.4% increase) for research on climate change and including 4 billion for the US census orchestrated by O.

Energy (26.3 billlion, 0.4% DECREASE). Establish Cap and Trade for carbon dioxide emissions

HUD (47.5 billion, 18.5% increase) promote "affordable" housing, crackdown on mortgage fraud (Is Barney Frank no longer going to advocate "rolling the dice toward subsidized housing" now that we have experienced the consequences?) House Financial Services Committee hearing, Sept. 25, 2003: Rep. Frank: I do think I do not want the same kind of focus on safety and soundness that we have in OCC [Office of the Comptroller of the Currency] and OTS [Office of Thrift Supervision]. I want to roll the dice a little bit more in this situation towards subsidized housing. . . .

bucksnort 6 years, 6 months ago

Give 'em Hell Kathleen, they deserve it!!!

gr 6 years, 6 months ago

"promote “affordable” housing, crackdown on mortgage fraud"

See, if no one owns houses, then there is no mortgage fraud.

I have an idea! How about the government owns all housing. That way, it's affordable housing for everyone. Equal housing, equal cost, equal lookalike houses. Wait, none of this urban sprawl. Let's build high rise apartments in the inner city and everyone just fits into a rat-hole. In fact, we can place the housing next to jobs. To keep people from driving to the suburbs or to another city, they can be assigned a job number to work at their government owned job along with their "housing" hole number.

This will reduce mortgage problems, housing problems, sprawl problems, and energy problems. Global warming was just a farce to implement government "benefits".

It's for your own good. Mother government knows best and always does things best.

(Oh, wait, seems this idea, or parts of it, has already been taken)

Mixolydian 6 years, 6 months ago

St_James (Anonymous) says…

... Only a simpleton could believe in “clean coal.” ...

===========================================

Are you calling our President a simpleton? Obama believes passionately in clean coal. He withered the searing retorts of McCain over the viability of clean coal. Even today on his website you can find his praise for clean coal.

BTW, I went to barackobama dot something to get a link to his clean coal lovin' but when I clicked the link to get the exact page on his site my computer, for the first time ever, froze up and crashed.

Now if that just ain't ironic.

KatWrangler 6 years, 6 months ago

http://www.whitehouse.gov/agenda/energy_and_environment/

He does want clean coal. Not that I agree. But I can see his point of getting us off of FF.

Mixolydian 6 years, 6 months ago

The Coen brothers are too funny. Thanks for the vid link.

KsTwister 6 years, 6 months ago

Your job creation will be contamination control more than anything. Have fun with that.

Bob Hechlor 6 years, 6 months ago

"Burning coal is a leading cause of smog, acid rain, global warming, and air toxics. In an average year, a typical coal plant generates: 3,700,000 tons of carbon dioxide (CO2), the primary human cause of global warming--as much carbon dioxide as cutting down 161 million trees. 10,000 tons of sulfur dioxide (SO2), which causes acid rain that damages forests, lakes, and buildings, and forms small airborne particles that can penetrate deep into lungs." 500 tons of small airborne particles, which can cause chronic bronchitis, aggravated asthma, and premature death, as well as haze obstructing visibility." (From the National Geologic Society) Does this sound like what we as Kansans want to add to the pollution problems? Mining the coal causes destruction to the environment and pollution to the land and water. The coal ash, leftover from burning coal contains nuclear toxins, we recently learned from the ash escaping in Roane County Tennessee and destroying thousands of acres of pristine land.

Bob Hechlor 6 years, 6 months ago

Paul Epstein, associate director of the Center for Health and the Global Environment at Harvard Medical School, in an email interview: "The most coherent explanation is that climate is changing because of burning of fossil fuels and felling forests. The health, environmental, and economic costs of inaction are rapidly becoming unmanageable. Stabilizing the climate will require a clean energy transition that will also benefit public health, improve energy security, and can become the engine of economic growth for this 21st century. "We're seeing changes in asthma, heat wave deaths, and the spread of infectious diseases that are indicative of enormous changes affecting the environment. Climate and disease are stalking humans, wildlife, agriculture, forests, and marine habitat; which are our life support systems."

Bob Hechlor 6 years, 6 months ago

The identification of humans as the main driver of global warming helps us understand how and why our climate is changing, and it clearly defines the problem as one that is within our power to address. Because of past emissions, we cannot avoid some level of warming from the heat-trapping emissions already present in the atmosphere, some of which (such as carbon dioxide and nitrous oxide) last for 100 years or more. However, with aggressive emission reductions as well as flexibility in adapting to those changes we cannot avoid, we have a small window in which to avoid truly dangerous warming and provide future generations with a sustainable world. This will require immediate and sustained action to reduce our heat-trapping emissions through increased energy efficiency, expanding our use of renewable energy, and slowing deforestation (among other solutions). Melanie Fitzpatrick (Earth and Space Sciences and Atmospheric Sciences at the University of Washington and UCS consultant) prepared this summary with input from Brenda Ekwurzel (Union of Concerned Scientists) and reviews by Philip Mote (Climate Impacts Group at the University of Washington and Washington's state climatologist), Richard Gammon (Chemistry, Oceanography, and Atmospheric Sciences at the University of Washington) and Peter Frumhoff (Union of Concerned Scientists). (c)2006 Union of Concerned Scientists References 1. U.S. National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) Goddard Institute for Space Studies. 2006. Global temperature trends: 2005 summation. New York, NY. Online at http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2005.

jonas_opines 6 years, 6 months ago

"Wind farms are a much better alternative, even though there is no infrastructure to support their placement and supply lines to get the power to where it needs to go."

At some point, people said that about coal and oil too, didn't they?

Bob Hechlor 6 years, 6 months ago

cthulhu_4_president

You try to justify the building coal plants by the creation of jobs? We could create jobs by creating meth labs as well. There are good reasons for not doing both. We can't have job creation at any cost. The costs turn out to be grossly unacceptable. Please read some of the posts above. The costs now for nuclear are also too high and no one will loan money for their creation. KU is studying the use of algae and likely it will replace coal and it is very easy to produce and extremely efficient, so lets put our dollars into sustainable energy modes.

West_Sider 6 years, 6 months ago

Would nuclear energy be acceptable to Kathleen? I would love to see us get two more online in our state.

Bob Hechlor 6 years, 6 months ago

West_Sider

Nuclear means mining, a problem, especially the way it is done. Already mentioned above, the cost of building a nuclear power plant is exorbitant. Banks wouldn't lend for it before, now it is highly unlikely. Waste disposal is still an issue. No one wants it. We don't know what to do with the waste that has already been produced. There are several technologies now which are sustainable that can provide all we need. We only need to make the commitment.

Bob Hechlor 6 years, 6 months ago

gr - You need to read up on the costs of pollution. There are costs which are direct and indirect costs of using coal and other fossill fuels. Many of the pollutants are damaging to the brain of children, causing learning and emotional disorders which last a lifetime. How is that something that we want to leave our children. If we use money to build a sustainable form of energy, it will eventually pay for itself and we could not leave anything better than that for our children.

Bill Griffith 6 years, 6 months ago

It is not so much the governor as it is the utilities that have no desire for nuclear power. Westar has said as much publicly to Chairman Carl Holmes while I was sitting in the room. Also, the CEO of KCPL has told me that they have no interest in nuclear power for the forseeable future. Kansas has a minmal load growth and as of now exports some electricity so why would it need 1200 MW of new juice? Nuclear just is not on the table as far as the utilities go. The first place new nukes will show up will probably be in the southeast United States. You have demand growth and the soon regulation of carbon. Since I am piling on nuclear, it is also the most expensive form of new large generation that we have right now.

Bob Hechlor 6 years, 6 months ago

Arumer, We all share the same atmosphere.

a_flock_of_jayhawks 6 years, 6 months ago

labmonkey (Anonymous) says…

"Keep believing that we can provide power to the grid with wind and unicorn farts."

There's new technology in clean, renewable energy sources on the way that most people, including you and our fine legislators, obviously, have not heard of yet. BTW, they will provide more than ample base load. Stay tuned.

The Kansas legislature is a joke and a black eye on this state.

blindrabbit 6 years, 6 months ago

Why are most power plants built along rivers, lakes or other water sources?; because they need large quantities of cooling water to re-condense the steam that operates the turbines.

What is the source of large amounts of cooling water in Holcomb, Kansas ?; the Oglallah aquifer which is also the water source for the vast amount of flat land and center pivot irrigation in Western Kansas as well as muncipal water sources. Ask the people in Hays about decreasing ground water supply!

What has been happening to the water level in the aquifer since large irrigation has supplanted dry-land farming in Western Kansas?; the aquifer is being rapidly depleted and lowered, thus requiring more costly extraction pumping.

Other environmental issues aside, do you see any potential problems associated with placing a large water user (power plant) in an essentially semi-arid agricultural area? It seems to me that the real conflict should be between the local agricultural and busines communities. Might be "cutting of your nose to spite your face".

Time for Nuefeld to see the light; keep up the good work Kathy!

tunahelper 6 years, 6 months ago

blindanddumbrabbit, Hays gets there water out of the Smoky Hill River alluvium, not the Ogallala.

tunahelper 6 years, 6 months ago

what are the lawrence leftists gonna do when they run out of electricity? put a solar panel or windmill on their roof? what a bunch of morons.

We have over 200 years of coal reserves just in Wyoming and Montana, but the dumb leftists won't want us use it.

The largest emitter of carbon dioxide is from volcanoes, not man-made.

what a bunch of losers.

blindrabbit 6 years, 6 months ago

tuna; I did not say Hays gets its water from the Ogallala did I; regardless, the Hays situation is just a symptom of the whole groundwater issue in W.Kan. The rest of my points cannot be refuted; just you being blind to obfuscate the real issues.

Meaningful comment appreciated; enough of the carping.

Bob Hechlor 6 years, 6 months ago

Arumer - We are all breathing CO2 by now.

Bob Hechlor 6 years, 6 months ago

Tuna, time to stop belly aching and living in the past and figure out how to prepare for a better future. I don't care if there is a million years worth of coal. We won't survive long enough to use it, not even a fraction of it. So, quit ignoring science and catch up with the 21 st century.

blindrabbit 6 years, 6 months ago

Well you can tell from the last 5 comments that all of the intelligence has gone from this topic! Eventually the idiots come out to mentally abuse themselves.

Bob Hechlor 6 years, 6 months ago

Sorry flock, meant Lab Monkey - so, Lab, Okay I will.

Bob Hechlor 6 years, 6 months ago

Hardcore, according to polls, around 75 % of the people of Kansas do not want the coal plants. So, I guess the Governor is giving us what we want. She also doesn't ignore science. Looks like it is time for you to catch up now.

average 6 years, 6 months ago

I'd be in favor of nuclear, too, and certainly am for Eastern Kansas coal replacement.

Not a viable option in Sunflower case, though. Water, which both a coal or nuclear plant need, is the biggest factor.

You build a nuclear plant with a 50-year horizon and cost amortization.

Ain't nobody thinking there will be Ogallala water to suck down in 50 years. What there is won't be affordable for industries like power generation.

A coal plant, though, is cheaper to build. They can (and basically do) anticipate that there won't be enough water to run it in 30 years. Much easier to just walk away from a coal plant on the plains of the Great American Desert.

The coal is there. It's going to be burned, unfortunate but true. It's sad, though, that when we have the upper hand (Colorado needs the power and won't build, we don't need the power and don't have to let it be built), the Kansas GOP won't push our advantages. Yeah, the 3 dozen permanent full time jobs are a nice thing. But, pretty small, too. Figure out some way that Colorado consumers pay a little more dearly for siting their unwanted beast in Kansas, and translate that into economic development in Western Kansas and green energy initiatives.

tunahelper 6 years, 6 months ago

rskunk and dumbrabbit: we have coal. there is no other immediate viable energy technology. global warming is the great myth of the 21st century.

we need to build new nuclear power plants and new coal power plants in every state in the next 5 years.

Bob Hechlor 6 years, 6 months ago

Tuna, so lacking in understanding and knowledge and so full of himself.

Bob Hechlor 6 years, 6 months ago

No need for coal or nuclear. We have all the tech we need, just need the will to build it. No need to poison ourselves for energy.

blindrabbit 6 years, 6 months ago

tuna I'm suprised you support "nuclear" in it's correct spelling; in Bush's era it was called. nucular

Bob Hechlor 6 years, 6 months ago

I think this bears repeating: “Burning coal is a leading cause of smog, acid rain, global warming, and air toxics. In an average year, a typical coal plant generates: 3,700,000 tons of carbon dioxide (CO2), the primary human cause of global warming—as much carbon dioxide as cutting down 161 million trees. 10,000 tons of sulfur dioxide (SO2), which causes acid rain that damages forests, lakes, and buildings, and forms small airborne particles that can penetrate deep into lungs.” 500 tons of small airborne particles, which can cause chronic bronchitis, aggravated asthma, and premature death, as well as haze obstructing visibility.” (From the National Geologic Society) Does this sound like what we as Kansans want to add to the pollution problems? Mining the coal causes destruction to the environment and pollution to the land and water. The coal ash, leftover from burning coal contains nuclear toxins, we recently learned from the ash escaping in Roane County Tennessee and destroying thousands of acres of pristine land.

hornhunter 6 years, 6 months ago

rshrink (Anonymous) says…

I think this bears repeating: “Burning coal is a leading cause of smog.

Have you ever been to L.A, no coal plants there but plenty of smog! Just more typical BS.

Bob Hechlor 6 years, 6 months ago

Hornhunter with a display of total lack of logic. You win the prize for monkey brained reactivity today. With your logic, you could say that people who don't smoke one brand of cigarettes, but smoke another, have no chance of getting lung cancer. We will call you mighty monkey from now on.

gr 6 years, 6 months ago

shrink: "I think this bears repeating:"

But the reason the coal plant was denied was not because of pollution. It was because of an individual's personal belief system interfering with her job.

Budgets_Smudgets 6 years, 5 months ago

Isn't it Bozo and Merrill among others that always say there "is no such thing as Clean Coal?" Likewise the Land Institute, the Lawrence based Climate and Energy project, and the Great Plains Alliance.

Then why are the Democrats and Obama cramming the FutureGen project into the stimulus bill when Bush had killed it?

The effots are led by Sen. Byron L. Dorgan, (D-N.D.), Sen. Richard J. Durbin (D-Ill.), and a host of other Illinois supporters including then-Gov. Rod Blagojevich (D). They now count on the support of Obama appointees Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel and Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood.

Funny, isn't it? I guess Western Kansas jobs don't count, but those in Illinois do.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/05/AR2009030502138.html?hpid=topnews&sub=AR

Commenting has been disabled for this item.