QandO

Iran: Death for "on-line crimes"

feedback@qando.net (McQ) — Tue, 08 Jul 2008 14:42:02 GMT

Meanwhile, in that benevolent theocracy (*cough* dictatorship *cough*) known as Iran, bloggers and other on-line denizens now take their lives in their hands should they run afoul of the regime’s new rules:

A new law has been passed by the Iranian parliament extending use of the death penalty to online crimes. Previously, only people charged with insulting Islam or drug trafficking had been sentenced to death.

In accordance with the new law, bloggers and website editors can be sentenced to death for crimes such as promoting corruption, prostitution and apostasy, the International Freedom of Expression Exchange (IFEX) reported.

And what is it that has gotten bloggers in trouble previously?

Blogging about subjects such as minority rights and freedom of speech and religion has already carried a risk. In 2005, blogger Mojtaba Saminejad was tried before a local court in Teheran charged with insulting the prophets, which carries the death penalty. He was eventually acquitted. Last year, two Kurdish bloggers were sentenced to death on charges of subversive activities against national security, spying and separatist propaganda.

No telling what calling Ahmadinejad a stumpy little crack-pot would bring. Of course, I can say that without fear - something apologists for Iran will always forget to mention when they defend the indefensible.

As an aside, I wonder what the Canadian Human Rights council might have to say about all of this? For that matter, I wonder what the UN Human Rights Council will say?

Voting with their feet!?

feedback@qando.net (McQ) — Tue, 08 Jul 2008 14:29:36 GMT

OK, here’s the strange one for the day:

Swedish police said they have found a human foot inside a shoe, which washed up on a beach near one of the country’s most popular tourist resorts.

Ah,ah ... not yet. There’s more:

In Canada, several running shoes containing human feet have been found on island shorelines along the Strait of Georgia. Canadian authorities say they haven’t reached any conclusions about the origin of the feet.

Let the conjecture begin!

Thou Shalt Serve!

feedback@qando.net (McQ) — Tue, 08 Jul 2008 07:20:29 GMT

Does this bother anyone else?

In his speech on national service Wednesday at the University of Colorado, Obama promised that as president he would "set a goal for all American middle and high school students to perform 50 hours of service a year, and for all college students to perform 100 hours of service a year."

He would see that these goals are met by, among other things, attaching strings to federal education dollars. If you don’t make the kids report for duty, he’s essentially telling schools and college kids, you’ll lose money you can’t afford to lose. In short, he’ll make service compulsory by merely compelling schools to make it compulsory.

Milton Friedman was instrumental in 1969 in convincing Congress that compulsory service in the Armed Forces was akin to slavery. Gen. William Westmoreland, then Chief of Staff of the Army, objected to the concept of a volunteer military saying he didn’t want to command an army of mercenaries. Friedman asked:

“General, would you rather command an army of slaves?”

General Westmoreland retorted, “I don’t like to hear our draftee soldiers referred to as slaves.”

Friedman shot back, “I don’t like to hear our patriotic volunteers referred to as mercenaries. If they are mercenaries, then I, sir, am a mercenary professor, and you, sir, are a mercenary general; we are served by mercenary physicians, we use a mercenary lawyer, and we get our meat from a mercenary butcher.”

It is one thing to encourage service. It is quite another to make it "compulsory". When it becomes compulsory, it is no longer service, it is a form of servitude. No matter how benign, when participation is mandated and rewards are withheld if requirements of the mandate aren’t fulfilled, it becomes a form of tyranny.

Jonah Goldberg won’t go as far as calling the idea slavery but he does address the central point of the rather bad idea:

No, national service isn’t slavery. But it contributes to a slave mentality, at odds with American tradition. It assumes that work not done for the government isn’t really for the "common good."

Well, it may not be slavery in the strictest sense of the word, but it isn’t "national service" either. It is compulsory service and that has no place in American society.

But, as Goldberg points out, it does indeed play to the assumption held by many that government is the only institution that can provide "service" that is "worthwhile" and for the "common good".

D8 to the G8 - drop the biofuel mandates

feedback@qando.net (McQ) — Tue, 08 Jul 2008 06:44:32 GMT

While the G8 is meeting and discussing the world’s problems, the D8 is also meeting and having its say.

The D8 is comprised of Bangladesh, Egypt, Indonesia, Iran, Malaysia, Nigeria, Pakistan and Turkey. And what are they saying?

Well for one thing, drop the biofuel mandates:

Abdullah Badawi, the Malaysian prime minister, said the use of arable land for biofuels “should be stopped because such action will deepen the global food scarcity and further drive up food prices”.

“We must not allow the zeal for energy security to come into direct conflict with the basic need for food production.”

As for fossil fuels? Well, the basic message from the D8 is let’s not get carried away:

Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono, the Indonesian president, blamed “some developed countries” for exacerbating the food crisis by allowing biofuel development on arable land.

“The idea is to reduce greenhouse gases and to wean themselves away from dependence on fossil fuels,” he said in his speech. “It is not a good idea: it has only worsened the global food crisis.”

Said another way, let’s put together a reasonable short-term plan to weather the present energy crisis and increase supply (i.e. drill for more oil) instead of diverting food crops for fuel. Then we can look for a long-term solution to global energy demands while we satisfy the short term need without causing the poorest among us to suffer higher food prices.

Where have we heard that before?

Nancy Pelosi’s energy policy

feedback@qando.net (McQ) — Tue, 08 Jul 2008 06:03:26 GMT

I sometimes wonder (in fact I often wonder) about the real mental acuity of the Speaker of the House. She does not impress me as the brightest bulb in the pack:

The speaker blames what she labels the Bush-Cheney big oil agenda, using graphics to point out gasoline prices have more than doubled in the Bush administration.

"This is a scam of the greatest magnitude," says Speaker Pelosi.

You have to remember that when Ms. Pelosi and the gang were running for reelection in 2006 they promised that if the people would give them a majority, they’d take care of gas prices. Standing in front of a gas station with posted prices in the $3 range, she and the others implied it was as simple as that. They had a "common sense plan", remember?

Now, with gas prices over the $4 mark, about all the Democrats seem capable of doing is attempting to blame Bush. And don’t even talk about increasing domestic production:

"You know full well if you could drill in the Arctic Refuge it would save two cents 20 years from now," says Speaker Pelosi.

Ah, goal-post shifting (or just the usual hyperbole, you decide) - now it’s "20 years" instead of 10. Of course, unsaid is the point that drilling elsewhere coupled with ANWR would yield much more than "two cents" on down the road, wouldn’t it?

As for Pelosi’s "common sense plan", well, it appears to be a two pronged attack. The first part of her solution then is:

"Mr. President, do not fill the strategic petroleum reserve with oil at record highs. Instead, take out the oil that we brought at a lower price to bring down the price of oil, to reduce the price at the pump," says Speaker Pelosi.

Right. Instead of drilling, Ms. Pelosi would instead like to see us without a SPR in a time in which we import 60% of our oil and are subject to interruption or cut-off at any time. Brilliant.

And what would pushing this oil onto the market do for the price of gas - not that much. Maybe a few cents per gallon.

But I mentioned a two-pronged attack by the speaker, didn’t I? Well here’s the second:

Building on last month’s bipartisan legislation passed overwhelmingly by the House requiring the Commodities Futures Trading Commission to use its emergency powers to curb excessive speculation distorting the energy markets, the House Agriculture Committee this week will hold three days of hearings on oil market speculation. The goal is to present the House with strong legislation this month to bring transparency to the markets and to end speculators’ ability to artificially inflate the price at the pump.

The House Ag Committee is holding three days of hearings on oil speculation? Brilliant! I’m sure the folks at the London futures market (and other foreign venues) are shivering in their boots. And, of course, I’m sure the faux problem of "speculators" will somehow be laid at Bush’s feet as well.

So there you have Nancy Pelosi’s solution to our gas price woes. Don’t drill in ANWR (or anywhere else), deplete the Strategic Petroleum Reserve (a brilliant national security strategy) and go after speculators with Ag Committee hearings.

Wooo Hooo - we’ll be down to $2.50 a gallon in no time.

If Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid aren’t the greatest arguments against seniority as the primary qualification for a leadership position, I don’t know who would be.

The Polar Bears are Dying!

feedback@qando.net (McQ) — Mon, 07 Jul 2008 12:13:33 GMT

Or the sky is falling, whichever you prefer.

Always nice to have a little empirical evidence, though, to play with when the other side starts warbling their screechy one-note song.

Arctic ice cover and volume in 1980 when we began to measure the ice cover there and today:

Notice the volume for each year (very small print at the botton - 10.9 million sq. km each year). Also remember we have Mt. Vesuvius type volcanic activity under the arctic ice as well.

And at the other end of the globe, the Antarctic ice cover?

Note the volumes again of both the ice concentration (up 35% since 1980) and ice extent (21% larger than 1980).

Just keep that all in mind when Chicken Little begins to warm up (no pun intended) about the arctic ice cap again.

(Via Global Warming Hoax)

Defining racism down

feedback@qando.net (McQ) — Mon, 07 Jul 2008 11:51:15 GMT

The UK just continues to depress me with some of the liberty killing nonsense its bureaucracy keeps cranking out.

The latest:

The National Children’s Bureau, which receives £12 million a year, mainly from Government funded organisations, has issued guidance to play leaders and nursery teachers advising them to be alert for racist incidents among youngsters in their care.

This could include a child of as young as three who says "yuk" in response to being served unfamiliar foreign food.

The guidance by the NCB is designed to draw attention to potentially-racist attitudes in youngsters from a young age.

Now a 3 year old saying "yuk" to something unfamiliar on his or her plate is potentially a "racist incident" if the food happens to be ’foreign food’?

The purpose of all of this?

Warning that failing to pick children up on their racist attitudes could instil prejudice, the NCB adds that if children "reveal negative attitudes, the lack of censure may indicate to the child that there is nothing unacceptable about such attitudes".

Good grief. That’s just chilling. Attitudes will be "adjusted" by the state, you have no choice but to comply.

All you good little proles study the 366 page guide called "Young Children and Racial Justice" carefully, and remember, "nurseries are encouraged to report as many incidents as possible to their local council."

Brave new world.

(HT: Van Helsing, Right Wing News)

More Good News From Iraq

feedback@qando.net (McQ) — Mon, 07 Jul 2008 11:09:27 GMT

Prime Minister al Maliki:

"Today, we are looking at the necessity of terminating the foreign presence on Iraqi lands and restoring full sovereignty," Maliki told Arab ambassadors in blunt remarks during an official visit to Abu Dhabi, capital of the United Arab Emirates.

"One of the two basic topics is either to have a memorandum of understanding for the departure of forces or a memorandum of understanding to set a timetable for the presence of the forces, so that we know (their presence) will end in a specific time."

I have no problem with either and I say, the sooner the better.

AQI is all but finished, the Sunnis are invested in making the government work and al Sadr, from his front-line position in Iran, has much less influence than he formerly had due to Maliki’s crackdown on Shi’ite militias. The ISF is very close to being a completely viable and self-supporting force, we just turned over Anbar province to the Iraqis (Anbar!)and it is indeed time to begin talking about withdrawal.

Reuters, of course, wants to make an issue of al Maliki’s mention of a "timetable":

The Bush administration has always opposed such a move, saying it would give militant groups an advantage.

Uh, hello! It makes sense to oppose such talk when you have a viable enemy who is willing to go to ground to wait you out and then strike after you’ve left.

Reuters may want to review what I just said about how viable what is left of AQI and the Mahdi army are in that regard.

2 years ago, timetables for withdrawal were a bad idea because there were viable enemies still operating in Iraq.

Today? Not so much. Today we’re talking about withdrawal timetables in the wake of victory. Then we were talking about timetables in the face of possible defeat. If you can’t get you head around the difference, then I’d suggest you haven’t much worthwhile to add to any discussion of the matter.

Fun with Charts - Education

feedback@qando.net (McQ) — Mon, 07 Jul 2008 10:35:29 GMT

Ever try to have that talk with your kids about why education is important and will pay actual dividends later in life.

I’ve found that pictures usually do better than words. A couple from the Fundmastery blog:

If they won’t pay attention to those, face it - you’re screwed.

A "good" shooting

feedback@qando.net (McQ) — Mon, 07 Jul 2008 10:14:24 GMT

The scenario:

According to Plantation police, two armed men barged into the Subway at 1949 Pine Island Road shortly after 11 p.m. Wednesday, demanding money from the employee behind the counter. When they tried to force John Lovell into the bathroom, he pulled out a gun and shot both men, police said.

Donicio Arrindell, 22, was shot in the head and later died at the hospital. Fredrick Gadson, 21, was shot in the chest and ran from the Subway, but police found him in hiding in some bushes on the property of a nearby BankAtlantic.

The complaint:

The family of one of the men who was shot by a retired United States Marine while they attempted to rob a Subway sandwich shop said the customer shouldn’t have pulled the trigger.

[...]

"He should not have taken the law in his hands," said Rosa Jones, Gadson’s grandmother.

Discussion:

Now, while I understand Ms. Jones desire to have her grandson among the living, this particular case addresses the fallacy of believing self-defense is "taking the law into your hands".

When you are threatened with deadly force the proper defense is to use the same level of force, if necessary, to protect yourself.

That has absolutely nothing to do with "the law" or who should be abiding by it. Obviously Ms. Jones grandson had no use for the law as demonstrated by his actions and he certainly wasn’t abiding by it. But she insists that Mr. Lovell’s job was to do so.

I don’t think so.

If Mr. Lovell had a job at all, it was to defend his own life from what he considered an imminent threat. It’s that "inalienable right" we’ve talked about so often. He, and everyone, enjoys - by right - that sphere of moral authority which empowers him to act without anyone’s permission to protect his own life.

Ms. Jone’s grandson threatened Mr. Lovell’s life with a deadly weapon, whether he pulled the trigger or not. Her grandson had no problem waving around a gun and threatening the workers and customers in the shop with possible death if they didn’t comply with his orders (and offering no assurance they’d live even if they did comply with his orders). Mr. Lovell obviously took the threats seriously and met the threat to his life with the only means available to him at the time. He pulled his handgun, for which he had a legal concealed carry permit, and ended the threat by shooting both of the gunmen.

As Ms. Jones is going to find out, both the law and the vast majority of citizens are going to come down on the side of Mr. Lovell. In fact, she’s going to find that most people are going to praise Mr. Lovell - and that includes me. I’m sorry she lost her grandson, but quite frankly, I’m quite pleased Mr. Lovell is still with us. Given a choice between the two, I’ll take Mr. Lovell every time.

The Senate

feedback@qando.net (McQ) — Mon, 07 Jul 2008 07:17:24 GMT

The House is lost to Republicans and the numbers there are predicted to be worse after the November election.

The Senate has been the Republican’s only bastion of power in this Congress, albeit as a minority party. But in the Senate, being the minority is a very powerful position to hold, if the majority held by the other party is a slim one. That, of course, is the case now, with Democrats holding a 51-49 majority in a body that requires 60 votes to get just about anything done.

But how are the races shaping up for November?

As it turns out, Republicans are defending almost twice as many seats as Democrats (23R/12D) and it isn’t looking particularly good for the Republicans.

In June of last year, the Cook Report, well respected in political circles, considered only one Republican seat to be in jeopardy. Now it is of the opinion that 7 Republican seats are in play.

Of course, last June, Trent Lott (R-MS) hadn’t retired. Nor had Senator’s John Warner (R-VA), Pete V. Domenici (R-NM) or Wayne Allard (R-CO) announced their intention to retire.

That has put all 4 of those seats in contention (as it is always easier to win as an incumbent than when vying for an open seat).

As for the Dems, only one seat is being seriously contested and that’s the Louisiana Senate seat of Mary Landrieu.

Other contested races are in AK, MN and OR. ME has Collins who is outpolling her Democratic rival, not that it necessarily means much to the Republican balance of power in the Senate.

The point to be made, of course, was echoed in a letter Obama wrote to Democrats urging them to give to the Senate campaign effort:

"Big changes don’t happen without big Senate majorities."

The possibility of such a majority is beginning to loom.

Why globalization ameliorates income inequality

feedback@qando.net (McQ) — Mon, 07 Jul 2008 06:29:18 GMT

Christian Broda addresses the conventional wisdom which says globalization has increased US income inequality and declares the thesis to be dead wrong.

In fact, he declares in his title that China and Wal-Mart are actually champions of equality and that, in fact globalization helps ameliorate income inequality instead of exacerbating it.

How rich you are depends on two things: how much money you have and how much the goods you buy cost. If your income doubles but the prices of the goods you consume also double, then you are no better off. Unfortunately, the conventional wisdom on US inequality is based on official measures that only look at the first half, the income differential. National statistics ignore the fact that inflation affects people in different income groups unevenly because the rich and poor consume different baskets of goods.

Those baskets of goods include the higher cost (and higher percentage) of services consumed by the rich which aren’t affected by trade vs. the consumption of goods, by the poor, whose cost are held down by trade.

Poor families in America spend a larger share of their income on goods whose prices are directly affected by trade – like clothing and food – relative to wealthier families. By contrast, the higher your income, the more you spend on services, which are less subject to competition from abroad. Since 1994 the price of goods in the U.S. has risen much less than the price of services – and, yes, this includes the recent surge in food prices. Paradoxically, focusing only in the last few quarters of high relative food prices misses the fact that the main trend we have observed for decades is exactly the opposite.

So, per Broda, globalization has had a positive effect for lower income buyers:

Inflation differentials between the rich and poor dramatically change our view of the evolution of inequality in America. Inflation of the richest 10 percent of American households has been 6 percentage points higher than that of the poorest 10 percent over the period 1994 – 2005. This means that real inequality in America, if you measure it correctly, has been roughly unchanged.

Two of the major players in this scenario which sees the poor actually benefiting from globalization? Wal-Mart and China:

This trend can partly be explained by China. In U.S. stores, prices of consumer goods have fallen the most in sectors where Chinese presence has increased the most. Take canned seafood or cotton shirts, for instance. Exports of China to the rest of the world in these categories have increased dramatically over this decade. Inflation in these sectors has been negative over the last decade, while in other sectors with no Chinese presence inflation has been over 20 percent. Moreover, as China produces goods of relatively low quality, sectors with strong Chinese presence are disproportionately consumed by the poor.

The expansion of superstores – like Wal-Mart and Target – has also played an important role in accounting for the inflation differentials between rich and poor. Superstores sell the same products as traditional shops at much lower prices. Today the poor do roughly twice as much of their buying of non-durable goods in these stores than the rich. So poor consumers have been the biggest beneficiaries of Wal-Mart coming to town.

Of course, for populist political candidates, this isn’t something they want to hear. Globalization is "bad". Wal-Mart kills the local mom-and-pop stores which don’t have the buying power or global connections Wal-Mart has. And besides, they’re non-union. And don’t get them started on China.

In reality this is a situation created by demand. And that demand comes from the poorer among us consistently shopping in stores like Wal-Mart because of the purchasing power increase doing so gives their dollar. Because of having that choice, the inflation differentials found in the different shopping baskets purchased by rich and poor are maintained, keeping income "inequality" at a much lower level than "conventional wisdom" likes to admit.

But, don’t count on hearing that on the campaign trail.

Diplomacy 101

feedback@qando.net (McQ) — Mon, 07 Jul 2008 05:56:13 GMT

A little case study in why it is very often easy to criticize if one ignores the bigger picture and refuses to understand that in the world of diplomacy, everything is connected (and remembered). This doesn’t mean I agree with the goal in this particular case, but this is instructive.

President Bush said Sunday he does not feel the need to boycott the opening ceremonies of the Beijing Olympics to state his opposition to China’s human rights record. Skipping the event would be an "affront" to the Chinese people, he said.

There a many who would say, "hey, it’s about time we began doing exactly that to some of the countries out there who have human rights records like China’s."

However, in the world of diplomacy, that’s not really as useful a stance as some might like it to be. Many of the people who are hollering about skipping the game’s opening ceremony are probably the same people who want to see this happen:

At the summit, presidents and prime ministers hope for a deal that would set targets for reducing the pollution that causes global warming. But few analysts expect major headway or concessions from Bush. He insists on holding China and India, fast-growing economies and among the world’s biggest polluters, to the same emission-reduction standards as older, developed economies.

Bush said that he hopes to get China and India to agree to a long-term goal to cut emissions.

Anyone - although a deal is unlikely, which scenario sets the table for talks about emission reductions in China, no matter how improbable, and which scenario ensures no talks at all on the subject?

You may not like it, but that’s how diplomacy is conducted in the real world. Pretending these things can be done in isolation is simply naive as well as being self-defeating. We dis China at the Olympics, China tells us to pack sand in emissions reductions talks, or anything else we want to negotiate with that country.

Like I say, I don’t buy into the whole CO2 emissions theory of global warming, but this is a convenient example of the sometimes unfortunate concessions necessary if one wants to achieve other more important goals through diplomacy.

Podcast for 06 Jul 08

feedback@qando.net (Dale Franks) — Sun, 06 Jul 2008 17:49:42 GMT

In this podcast, Bruce McQuain and Dale Franks discuss the energy situation, along with the status of things in Iraq.

Unfortunately, my computer froze, so we lost the first 5 minutes or so of the podcast. If you want to hear the full podcast, in a rather low-res version, it’s available at our BlogTalkRadio page.

The direct link to the podcast is here.

The intro and outro music is Vena Cava by 50 Foot Wave, and is available for free download here.

As a reminder, if you are an iTunes user, don’t forget to subscribe to the QandO podcast, Observations, through iTunes. For those of you who don’t have iTunes, you can subscribe at Podcast Alley. And, of course, for you newsreader subscriber types, our podcast RSS Feed is here. For podcasts from 2005 and 2006, they can be access through the RSS Archive Feed.

BlogTalk Radio: 8pm (EST)

feedback@qando.net (McQ) — Sun, 06 Jul 2008 16:53:58 GMT

Call in number: (718) 664-9614

Yes, friends, it is a call-in show, so do call in.

Subjects: A little about Iraq, a little about Obama’s move to the center, a little about Clark’s remarks and why they’re such a dumb strategy.

AQI’s last stand

feedback@qando.net (McQ) — Sun, 06 Jul 2008 11:37:09 GMT

Seems as though AQI may be breathing its last as a viable fighting force in Iraq:

American and Iraqi forces are driving Al-Qaeda in Iraq out of its last redoubt in the north of the country in the culmination of one of the most spectacular victories of the war on terror.

After being forced from its strongholds in the west and centre of Iraq in the past two years, Al-Qaeda’s dwindling band of fighters has made a defiant “last stand” in the northern city of Mosul.

A huge operation to crush the 1,200 fighters who remained from a terrorist force once estimated at more than 12,000 began on May 10.

Operation Lion’s Roar has been underway since May 10th (not that you’d know it if you depended on the media to keep you up to speed on how it’s going now in Iraq). The result has been AQI’s last stand.

The number of foreign fighters coming over the border from Syria to bolster Al-Qaeda’s numbers is thought to have declined to as few as 20 a month, compared with 120 a month at its peak.

Brigadier General Abdullah Abdul, a senior Iraqi commander, said: “We’ve limited their movements with check-points. They are doing small attacks and trying big ones, but they’re mostly not succeeding.”

Major-General Mark Hertling, American commander in the north, said: “I think we’re at the irreversible point.”

That, for a change, is a pretty definitive pronouncement if you ask me.

For the "no progress" crowd, I’m sure this stings.

Oh, and just a note in passing, the last of Saddam’s yellowcake uranium, 550 metric tons, has been safely removed from Iraq - you know, the stuff he supposedly didn’t have and had no interest in acquiring?

"Ich bin ein lightweight"?

feedback@qando.net (McQ) — Sat, 05 Jul 2008 14:19:11 GMT

What in the world, other than glittering generalities and hopey changitude, will Barack Obama have to offer anyone in a speech in front of the Brandenburg Gate for heaven sake?

Barack Obama’s planned European tour might make a major whistlestop in front of the Brandenburg Gate in Berlin. The candidate’s schedule isn’t set, but a Berlin appearance before the end of July looks likely.

Plans for a visit by Barack Obama, the presumed Democratic candidate for President of the United States, have moved forward — slowly — in Berlin, where he may give a speech before the Brandenburg Gate this summer.

This is all about spectacle, not substance. This is show biz. And his handlers think they know where the audience he needs can be found.

Foley v. Mansker: Settled

feedback@qando.net (Dale Franks) — Sat, 05 Jul 2008 13:35:57 GMT

The case of former San Diego Charger Steve Foley against the city of Coronado and officer Aaron Mansker is over. This week, the trial abruptly ended, and a sealed settlement was announced.

Except, not so fast on that whole "sealed" thing. California law makes sealing a settlement between a public entity and another party extremely difficult, if not impossible. So, yesterday, the city backed off on the demand to seal the settlement, and the terms will probably be announced Monday, once the city council approves it.

That’s when the taxpayers of Coronado will find out how much money Aaron Mansker cost them.

Apparently, residents of the city feel that Foley is entitled to whatever he gets.

Coronado residents interviewed yesterday about the settlement said they want to know how their tax dollars are being spent. Last month, Coronado approved a general-fund budget of $36.7 million for fiscal 2008-09, which began Tuesday. The city has general-fund reserves of $38.9 million.

If insurance doesn’t cover the entire settlement, the city could have to pay out of the general fund or reserves.

“I’d like to know what (the settlement) is, because we’re probably going to have to pay for it,” said Ted Braaten, 86, an 18-year resident of Coronado.

Braaten said he would prefer that “police just patrol Coronado and not get involved in other cases like that.”

Others said Foley deserved the settlement and that Mansker, who remains employed with the Coronado Police Department, had overstepped his authority.

“I feel that Foley has the right to every dime he gets,” said John Bonnett, 34, a 30-year Coronado resident.

Officer Mansker is still employed as a Coronado police officer.

Biofuels, oil reserves and our future

feedback@qando.net (McQ) — Sat, 05 Jul 2008 07:57:23 GMT

Yeah, I know I bang this drum incessantly, but this is important stuff. We have a short time-frame in which to act in order to head off, or at least soften, the impact of future energy demand in this country. It is both an economic and national security necessity.

And it seems that everything to date which has been tried is exacerbating the problem, instead of helping it:

Biofuels have forced global food prices up by 75% - far more than previously estimated - according to a confidential World Bank report obtained by the Guardian.

The damning unpublished assessment is based on the most detailed analysis of the crisis so far, carried out by an internationally-respected economist at global financial body.

The figure emphatically contradicts the US government’s claims that plant-derived fuels contribute less than 3% to food-price rises. It will add to pressure on governments in Washington and across Europe, which have turned to plant-derived fuels to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases and reduce their dependence on imported oil.

The Guardian goes on to claim this report was withheld in order to keep from embarrassing George Bush - how original.

The fact remains, George Bush isn’t pushing governments in Europe to turn food into biofuels. Nor is George Bush the author of the mandates now in effect for ethanol (although he signed the bill with those mandates).

Meanwhile, in Madrid, a little noticed announcement:

The Arctic holds 100 billion barrels of oil in unexplored fields, a government geologist with the U.S. Geological Survey said Monday at an international oil industry gathering in Spain.

"The Arctic is almost completely unexplored," said Donald Gautier at the World Petroleum Congress in Madrid. "There are 100 billion barrels of oil to be found in the Arctic."

Gautier said that throughout the world "our best guess is still that there is a 50-50 chance that there is an excess of 500 billion barrels of conventional recoverable oil in undisclosed fields as of now."

And on June 27th, Mr. Ray Leonard, a well known oil expert, reinterated his 2001 prediction to a group to whom he was speaking:

“By 2010, the production of the fuel that has driven the world’s economy will start to rapidly decline. This will conflict with the steadily increasing demand for oil. The collision of these two trends will lead to shortages and increased prices, providing a strong incentive to shift to alternative fuel resources...Due to unequal distribution through the world of oil and gas supply and consumption, [the upcoming] transition will result in significant shifts in global power and wealth.”

Of course nothing has been done in the interim to soften that prediction. I read somewhere that the average American consumes/uses 25 barrels of oil a year as a part of their lifestyle. People in India and China average 1 to 2 barrels. That latter number is changing dramatically, as we all know. By 2010 it isn’t going to be lower. Consequently, as Leonard suggests, prices will be much higher as production peaks, flattens and possibly declines.

Which country’s style of living is likely to be the most heavily impacted? The one that averages 25 barrels per citizen or the ones averageing 1 to 2 barrels a year?

Leonard predicts the oil industry, as it is now structured, will hit a 90 million barrel a day "wall" at the end of the decade.

Some of his reasons:

It’s not the size of the tank but the size of the tap.” World peak oil describes the level of world oil production. The level of production is not dependent on the level of reserves in much of the world, only on the portion which operates under free market conditions, which is becoming a smaller and smaller portion of the world market.

[...]

OPEC: The limitation on production from the Arabian Gulf is mostly due to politics, lack of motivation, investment level, and type of crude, not shortages of reserves. A rapid increase in production is not physically possible at this time. However, an additional five million barrels/day of production is possible within a decade. (In his further responses, Leonard seemed to indicate that 5 million additional barrels was more “technically possible” than likely.)

[...]

FSU [Former Soviet Union] production increased from 7.5 million b/day in 1999 to 13 million b/day last year, providing 60% of world oil production growth during that period. Russian reserves were sufficient to continue growing Russian production (alone) to 14 million b/day by 2010 (117 billion barrels from the author’s study vs. 79.8 billion from BP); however, politics and tax regimes initiated during 2003 have halted growth. Russia has simply decided that they will control production growth at 10 million b/day; they may well both be able to and decide to produce close to that level for a decade.

[...]

In Rest of World (excluding tar sands), the decline rate in existing fields is estimated at 7%/year. With the exception of Brazil (ultradeep water), major producing countries are at or past peak. Rapid declines in recent years from the North Sea, Mexico and USA have been temporarily halted by additions from the deepwater Gulf of Mexico. Overall ROW production peaked in 2003; an intensive effort is needed to minimize decline rates. New production from ultradeep development has masked decline of ROW, but within the next decade, this welcome new addition will pass and the subsequent decline will accelerate.

As Leonard points out, the world is really divided into three groups of producers - OPEC (which controls 73% of the reserves and produces 43% of the world’s oil), FSU [Former Soviet Union] (which controls 13.1% of the reserves and produces 16% of the world’s oil) and The Rest of the World (which controls 13.7% of the reserves and produces 41% of the world’s oil). His point about "The Rest of the World" (above) is critical to understanding how precarious our energy situation is.

The sentence in bold is a statment of policy which must not only be understood, but aggressively implemented if we’re to survive hitting the predicted production "wall" in the near future.

Yet, as Leonard notes, we’re hardly in a position to do so:

In the USA, the intensive drilling needed is unlikely to receive environmental permits on the scale needed to have significant impact on domestic production. Probably maximum US production from unconventional oil would be less than 1 million b/day.

And, as it stands right now, I’d say he’s pretty much right and we’re pretty much screwed. I’ll say again, I’d love to see viable alternatives which could be brought on-line to replace fossil fuel, but it simply isn’t there and won’t be for some time. So what’s the alternative? One we’ve eschewed for 3 decades. And that head-in-the-sand policy is now going to bite us hard in a few years. We’re only seeing the beginning of that trend with $4+ gas.

Had we been pursuing the exploitation of fossil fuel all these decades, we wouldn’t be faced with such a stark future.

Unconventional oil production: in-place resources of bitumen, tar sands and oil shale are roughly 10 trillion barrels or equivalent. However, having the oil in place is very different from getting the oil out in the near term. Compared to an average recovery factor of 35% for conventional, the recovery of the unconventional resources averages 10% or less. The costs—monetary, manpower and environmental—to develop these resources are considerably higher. The three largest resources are at least in the western hemisphere: USA, Canada and USA.

As for those politicians who want to lay all of this off to oil company greed, speculators and waste, the International Energy Agency says nonsense:

The IEA said that annual non-Opec growth would slow to 0.5 per cent between 2008 and 2013, against demand growth of 1.6 per cent per year. The mismatch means the world economy would be more reliant on Opec, the oil cartel, and oil prices are likely to remain at record levels, analysts said.

“Structural demand growth in developing countries and ongoing supply constraints continue to paint a tight market picture over the medium-term,” the IEA said in its Medium-Term Oil Market Report, released on Tuesday in Madrid.

“Poor supply-side performance since 2004, in the face of strong demand pressures from developing countries, has forced oil prices up sharply to curb demand,” the watchdog added.

Even poorer energy policy by the government of the US exacerbated the impact of the poor "supply-side performance" well before 2004.

We have some very important decisions to make and we need to make them soon. Politicians who claim coal and oil "make us sick" need to find themselves faced with a new employment opportunities. Unless our energy policy is changed and changed quickly, we’re going to be facing some radical changes in our lifestyle. And whoever is President at the time (and whichever party controls Congress at the time) is going to pay heavily at the ballot box, unless they’ve begun the necessary implementation of a sane energy policy for the US which will save, or at least soften, the impact of Leonard’s predictions.

"Unity" is more than a town in New Hampshire

feedback@qando.net (McQ) — Sat, 05 Jul 2008 07:01:38 GMT

As Barack Obama is finding out, if polls are any indication:

One week after Sen. Hillary Clinton made a public show of unity with Sen. Barack Obama, a new survey suggests supporters of the New York senator are increasingly less likely to follow her lead.

A growing number of Clinton supporters polled say they may stay home in November instead of casting their ballot for Obama, an indication the party has yet to coalesce around the Illinois senator four weeks after the most prolonged and at times divisive primary race in modern American history came to a close.

According to a CNN/Opinion Research Corp. poll released Friday, the number of Clinton supporters who plan to defect to Republican Sen. John McCain’s camp is down from one month ago, but — in what could be an ominous sign for Obama as he seeks to unify the party — the number of them who say they plan to vote for Obama is also down, and a growing number say they may not vote at all.

Reading through the comment sections on a number of lefty blog I ran across quite a few commenters who claim they’ll not be voting for Obama for various reasons. Kos even put out a post saying he wasn’t going to reward "bad behavior" (i.e., Obama’s move to the right) with a donation. And the latest thing which has put them off is the seeming softening of his stance on late term abortions.

Whether or not those commenters actually hold to what they’re saying remains to be seen, of course, but at the moment they don’t seem to be quite as happy with their "new" politician as they once were.

Anyway, the latest numbers:

In a CNN/Opinion Research Corp. survey completed in early June before the New York senator ended her White House bid, 60 percent of Clinton backers polled said they planned on voting for Obama. In the latest poll, that number has dropped to 54 percent.

In early June, 22 percent of Clinton supporters polled said they would not vote at all if Obama were the party’s nominee, now close to a third say they will stay home.

In another sign the wounds of the heated primary race have yet to heal, 43 percent of registered Democrats polled still say they would prefer Clinton to be the party’s presidential nominee.

That number is significantly higher than it was in early June, when 35 percent of Democrats polled said they preferred Clinton to lead the party’s presidential ticket.

You’d think that those numbers would begin to come down at this stage, instead of going up. It would seem the disappointment of a Clinton loss has been exacerbated by Obama’s rather clumsy move toward the center. Clinton supporters reluctant to vote for Obama may be using that move to the right as further justification for not voting for Obama (as if Clinton wouldn’t have tried the same maneuver).

While it is way too early to give this poll much credence, it is, still, a potential problem for an Obama candidacy. If a third of the Clinton supporters do indeed stay home and a decent number of them cross over and vote for McCain, it could spell real trouble for Obama. As he’s finding out, unity doesn’t become a reality just because you announce that to be the case in a town called Unity.

Terror

feedback@qando.net (Bryan Pick) — Fri, 04 Jul 2008 14:03:53 GMT

In a discussion of torture, Radley Balko on terrorism:

“Terrorism” by definition is an effort to use a few attacks to induce unwarranted and irrational fear across an entire population. The aim is get the terrorist’s target to alter its policies, waste its resources, and change its way of life in an irrational response to an enemy without the resources for a more traditional war.

Surprisingly, it’s not just the anti-war crowd that has been using this definition with some regularity since 9/11 and especially since the Coalition went to war in Iraq; even some who agree with our war aims have agreed with this idea of the terrorists’ aims. But it’s natural that anti-war individuals would accept that definition more often, since it’s complementary with the opinions that (a) the threat of terrorism has been overinflated, so (b) the response is bound to be irrational. It seems like cold calculation on the part of the terrorists to perform spectacular attacks with the intent of drawing an expensive overreaction, and this throws a particularly bad light on those who are perceived to be cynically exploiting the natural fear of violence to push a pro-war agenda, which of course would play right into the hands of the terrorists. (As an aside, I would argue that we should not confuse achieving our aims with preventing the enemy from achieving his. Sometimes the enemy achieves a tactical goal to his strategic detriment.)

I won’t argue against the proposition that al Qaeda wanted to draw the United States into an expensive and bloody war. I won’t argue that the responses to terrorism, both by individuals and by all levels of government in the US, have all been rational and warranted. They haven’t, and what’s more, that fact shouldn’t surprise anyone. And I agree wholeheartedly that al Qaeda intended to alter US (and Spanish, and British, etc.) government policies; they have repeatedly stated as much.

But is Balko giving us a good working definition of terrorism? I think not. In some places, it’s sloppy; in other places, it’s simply wrong.

When — not if — fear of terrorism becomes rational and warranted, will it still be terrorism to perform the next attack? I would submit that it is. Terror is the goal, whether rational or irrational.
Does terrorism require “a few” attacks? History shows that it does not, although that does amplify the signal. Tim McVeigh was a terrorist after one spectacular attack. And I would suggest that the credible threat of violence can substitute for an actual attack.
Is terrorism defined by attempts to change government policy? I would submit that it is not; al Qaeda, in addition to its attempts to change state policies, has also used terror as an instrument of its own governance, to change personal behavior and to destroy Western values. Other, more established states have instituted programs of terror against their own people — terror as policy, rather than as an attempt to change policy.
Is terrorism defined by attempts to get its target to waste resources? I would say not. The Madrid train bombings were not designed to draw Spain further into the war, but to dissuade them from continuing their support of the war. The same goes for the London tube train bombings. Many of the responses to terrorism thus far have been wasteful, and because it is strategically convenient in the current context it was part of the intent of al Qaeda, but this fact does not define terrorism. Does anyone doubt that if al Qaeda had the capability to inflict another attack on the United States, more spectacular than 9/11, whether or not it caused us to waste more resources, they would do it?
Is it necessary that terrorism be carried out by the more poorly-funded party to a conflict? To agree would be to argue that states do not make use of terror, or that it isn’t terrorism if the victim has fewer resources than the attacker. Though the overwhelming economic and conventional military dominance of the United States (and its allies) has contributed to the rise of modern, international terrorism — by funneling would-be violent challengers into unconventional violence and particularly against noncombatants, whose security is vital to the legitimacy of our states — that is a circumstance and not a necessarily defining aspect of terrorism. The better-funded can engage in terrorism too.
Is terrorism defined by attempts to get the target to change their way of life? This hits closest to the mark.

Back in ~~April~~ March, I recommended the book Terror and Consent: The Wars for the Twenty-First Century by Philip Bobbitt. Bobbitt is all about the intersection of law and strategy, and he has a more compelling definition of terrorism than any other I’ve seen:

Terrorism is the pursuit of political goals through the use of violence against noncombatants in order to dissuade them from doing what they have a lawful right to do [Emphasis his]. This definition puts the goals of terrorism back into the picture by linking strategic means (attacks on civilians) with legal ends (the deterrence of lawful action). (p. 352)

I would add the credible threat of violence rather than just the use of violence, but I think Bobbitt’s definition has much greater clarity and thereby much greater practical value than Balko’s. Using Bobbitt’s proposed definition, if Balko and I basically agree on rights, my terrorist will not be his freedom fighter, so to speak. And while Bobbitt’s definition must be understood as extremely broad — I don’t doubt for a minute that Balko would apply this definition to certain American institutions — it is nonetheless useful. Over the course of 546 pages and almost 100 pages of notes, Bobbitt explains in great detail why this understanding of terrorism will be crucial to the legitimacy of our states, our institutions, and our way of life (so to speak). He explains why the concept of a “war against terror” is a perfectly legitimate one.

There’s a lot more implied by “lawful right” than I can do justice to here, but suffice it to say,

In the case of al Qaeda, the goal of the terror network is the destruction of Western values in any area where these can have an impact on Muslims. Rendering persons too frightened to act lawfully on their basic values is both a means and an end, for such a situation of terror, of terrified people in a terrified society too fearful to freely choose their actions (and thus manifest their values) is an end roughly equivalent to the total destruction of Western values. (p. 357)

There’s a strong flavor of negative rights, of creating a civic peace with political freedom, in Bobbitt’s argument.

And I should point out that far from being an enthusiastic apologist for the Bush administration and its prosecution of the war thus far, Bobbitt takes plenty of opportunities to rake the Bush administration over the coals — on everything from Iraq to Katrina to, yes, torture — but he’s able to do so without falling victim to conveniently complementary ideas of just what it is we’re facing.

1,215 in Baghdad ...

feedback@qando.net (McQ) — Fri, 04 Jul 2008 12:31:31 GMT

Re-enlist in the US military on the 4th of July:

Awesome.

Fittingly, they took that oath in one of Saddam’s former palaces festooned with a huge American flag.

Happy Independence Day

feedback@qando.net (McQ) — Fri, 04 Jul 2008 06:53:52 GMT

For all its warts and carbuncles, I’d still not want to live anywhere else.

That’s because there’s still a will, in this great nation, to do what is right.

And while we may disagree on what that is and how to go about it, that freedom to dissent, to argue, to rant and rave is more precious that you can imagine. Never do I go to bed at night concerned there will be a knock on my door and I’ll be taken away for something I’ve said or written.

I spent my youth in other countries as my father, a career Army officer, did his job. I saw first-hand what poverty really looks like. I got to see what the suppression of freedoms we take for granted entailed. I learned at an early age to appreciate what we have here and how important it is to work toward keeping us free. And certainly, I have my concerns and take the opportunity on this blog to voice them. But again, the simple act of doing that without fear is a blessing beyond reach for many in this world.

There’s an innate spirit that still lives in most Americans (and needs to be constantly nurtured) that says we can and will overcome all obstacles in our path and do it while we continue to live free. There are those among us who cynically denigrate any appeals to patriotism and would have us believe that being patriotic is more like a disease than a matter of pride in one’s country and its accomplishments. But the proof of their ignorance on the subject is found in the irony of their freedom to say such things without fear.

I find that most people who can’t muster pride in where they live and what it stands for have no pride in much of anything. I feel sorry for them.

That said, I’ve never felt patriotism meant "my country right or wrong". Instead it meant trying to shorten that phrase to "my country - right" and working very hard to make that happen.

We’re independent today because a group of patriots pledged their "lives, fortunes and sacred honor" toward achieving a goal. It is and was a very noble goal. Today’s patriot needs to remember those original goals and ideals of our independence and renew the effort to keep them in the forefront of the political discussion. We are free today because of those ideals and goals, and we should never forget that.

Have a very happy 4th.

Obama and the "Iraq crawl"

feedback@qando.net (McQ) — Thu, 03 Jul 2008 14:40:26 GMT

Barack Obama in Fargo, ND today:

“I’ve always said that the pace of withdrawal would be dictated by the safety and security of our troops and the need to maintain stability. That assessment has not changed,” he said. “And when I go to Iraq and have a chance to talk to some of the commanders on the ground, I’m sure I’ll have more information and will continue to refine my policies.”

Actually, what he’s always said is this:

Obama will immediately begin to remove our troops from Iraq. He will remove one to two combat brigades each month, and have all of our combat brigades out of Iraq within 16 months. Obama will make it clear that we will not build any permanent bases in Iraq. He will keep some troops in Iraq to protect our embassy and diplomats; if al Qaeda attempts to build a base within Iraq, he will keep troops in Iraq or elsewhere in the region to carry out targeted strikes on al Qaeda.

And that plan was made without consulting a single commander on the ground.

What we have here is the beginning of the "Iraq crawl".

That’s where Obama denies having said what he has said and when confronted with his own words, such as those from his website, describes them as "inartful" and pretends they were just to put pressure on the Iraqi government (and they succeeded!).

Oh, and don’t forget, this is on his website as of this very moment:

The Surge: The goal of the surge was to create space for Iraq’s political leaders to reach an agreement to end Iraq’s civil war. At great cost, our troops have helped reduce violence in some areas of Iraq, but even those reductions do not get us below the unsustainable levels of violence of mid-2006. Moreover, Iraq’s political leaders have made no progress in resolving the political differences at the heart of their civil war.

Violence is down to 2004 levels, no one is talking about a "civil war", the Sunnis have rejoined the Iraqi government, 15 of 18 benchmarks are satisfactory and everyone but the lefty "defeatist" dead-enders have admitted the surge has worked.

Who is out of touch here?

Time to do something now

feedback@qando.net (McQ) — Thu, 03 Jul 2008 13:02:50 GMT

Warren Meyer of the always outstanding Coyote Blog does a little figuring and charting and comes up with this:

It is always nice to get a little perspective on a problem, because it is human nature to think what you are suffering is always the worst that has been suffered.

I remember the high gas prices of the ’80s very well. Of course then, there was some slack in the system as we were only a few years into our self-imposed drilling moratorium and supply was still plentiful, even if OPEC was playing with the spigot a bit.

There is no slack in the system now, but still, as a percentage of our disposable income, we have a way to go to match Jimmy Carter era gas prices. However, if we don’t start doing something now, we’ll be there soon enough (10 years?) with no relief in sight.

Che finally does some good

feedback@qando.net (McQ) — Thu, 03 Jul 2008 06:51:28 GMT

A tip of the hat to the Columbian army and the successful ruse they used to free 15 hostages, to include a former Columbian presidential candidate and 3 Americans from the terrorist group FARC.

Apparently the army members posed as aid workers and offered to fly the hostages to a meeting with a rebel leader.

Defense Minister Juan Manuel Santos told reporters earlier in the day that the rescue mission had been made possible by "a special intelligence" operation that had penetrated the highest reaches of the FARC, including the group’s seven-man directorate and one of the rings of specialized rebel units entrusted with guarding hostages. Santos said that ring, commanded by a rebel known by the alias Cesar, was tricked into believing that the FARC’s leader had called for the hostages to be brought to him.

Yesterday, two white helicopters arrived in a jungle clearing where the hostages were being held. The men in the helicopters looked like guerrillas, Betancourt later said, describing details of the rescue at the military airport.

"Absolutely surreal," she said, noting that some of the men who got off the helicopter wore T-shirts emblazoned with the iconic image of the Argentine revolutionary Ernesto "Che" Guevara. "I thought this was the FARC," she said.

Their hands bound, the hostages were forced aboard the helicopters, wondering where they would be taken next in their long ordeal. But once aboard, Betancourt said, Cesar and another guerrilla were overpowered and the crewmen announced that the passengers were now free. "The chief of the operation said: ’We’re the national army. You’re free,’ " she said. "The helicopter almost fell from the sky because we were jumping up and down, yelling, crying, hugging one another. We couldn’t believe it."

Heh ... Loved the "Che" T-shirt touch.

"This was an operation without precedent that will pass into history for its audacity and effectiveness," Santos said. "Fifteen hostages were rescued without firing a single shot."

Tremendous. And well done.

Seems to me, with all the recent desertions and defections, FARC may be in deep trouble. A fact, I’m sure, that will sorely irritate Hugo Chavez. And given the recent actions and capabilities of the Columbian army, I’d also suggest it isn’t an entity with which his route-step military would want to tangle.

Energy Alternatives: Wind Power

feedback@qando.net (McQ) — Thu, 03 Jul 2008 06:36:32 GMT

As research continues into this particular favored alternative to fossil fuels, the British are learning windpower is less reliable, more costly and produces more CO2 than previously thought.

The government is attempting to build a 25 gigawatt wind farm by 2020. But researchers have found wind variability to be a big problem:

One of the most frequent criticisms levelled at wind power is variability. That is, when the wind drops (or blows too hard) the windmills stop spinning and you get no power. To begin with, Oswald simulates the output rises and falls that might result from a lot of windfarms distributed around the UK by using Met Office archived data from different points up and down the land. Many wind advocates have argued that with enough windfarms, widely enough distributed, you would get more reliable power output as some windmills would always have wind.

Oswald’s analysis says this isn’t true, with calm conditions across pretty much all the UK being fairly regular events.

Analysis from 1996 to 2005 shows similar results: large, rapid, and frequent changes of power output being common occurrences ... any national power system has to manage under the worst case conditions likely to occur ... These are not extreme cases, whose frequency is so low as to render the events negligible. Rather, these are representative ...
If the government succeeds in building its mighty 25 gigawatts of wind base by 2020, according to Oswald’s Met Office data-based model its output will dip to pretty much nothing fairly routinely.

In fact, they’ve found 3 day events with no wind at all to be fairly common, and occasionally 5 day events with 10 day becalming, while rare, certainly something which happens.

It’s hard to power a grid when your generating mechanism is sitting idle. So that means that you have to have a backup.

That backup is gas turbine technology.

In his view, all this means that - certainly in a 2020 timeframe - the only feasible backup for the planned 25-gig wind base will be good old gas turbines. These would have to be built even if pumped storage existed, to deal with long-duration calms; and the expense of a triplefold wind, gas and pumped storage solution would be ridiculous. At present, gas turbine installations provide much of the grid’s ability to deal with demand changes through the day.

The trouble is, according to Oswald, that human demand variance is predictable and smooth compared to wind output variance. Coping with the sudden ups and downs of wind is going to mean a lot more gas turbines - ones which will be thrashed especially hard as wind output surges up and down, and which will be fired up for less of the time.

So the result will be a hybrid system that is probably not the most efficient and certainly a producer of CO2.

Even though the hardware will be cheap and tough, it will break often under such treatment; meaning increased maintenance costs and a need for even more backup plants to cover busted backup plants. Thus, the scheme overall will be more expensive than the current gas sector. And since people won’t want to thrash expensive, efficient combined-cycle kit like this, less fuel-efficient gear will be used - emitting more carbon than people now assume.

And that brings us to the bottom-line of present "windfarm" technology:

In essence, wind plans aren’t actually wind plans, according to Oswald. They’re gas plans with windfarms used to reduce the amount of gas actually burned in the plants. But he thinks the assumptions now made on costs and emissions reductions to be anticipated are unduly optimistic.

And, of course, such estimates always are.

Obviously wind has some future in the "alternative" or "renewable" energy field. But it certainly isn’t a panacea and it has some rather large technological hurdles to overcome before it is a large contributor to the energy demands around the world.

Iraq: Even the German press has noticed

feedback@qando.net (McQ) — Thu, 03 Jul 2008 06:02:35 GMT

From Spiegel online:

There is an unexpected air of normalcy prevailing in Baghdad these days, with consumption flourishing and confidence in the government growing. The progress is astonishing, but can it last?

Of course the obligatory last line is to be expected. They can’t quite see themselves going "all in" just yet. But they can no longer ignore the progress.

The EU "right" of health care - this should be fun to watch

feedback@qando.net (McQ) — Wed, 02 Jul 2008 14:37:27 GMT

Bogged down with a failing health care system with huge waiting times, Brits are sure they’ve been saved by a new EU directive:

Patients will be able to escape NHS queues by demanding treatment anywhere in the European Union without the prior approval of a doctor, under proposals to guarantee health rights unveiled today in Brussels.

The NHS would then be duty bound to refund the British cost of the procedure under the new rules for cross-border healthcare.

Today’s proposed EU directive will give patients in all 27 member states the same rights to treatment on the NHS as British patients. It also guarantees that the full cost of treatment abroad will be refunded when an NHS professional has agreed that it is necessary for the patient to go overseas.

We here in the US call this "the Canadian Plan".

The happy, cheery Health Commissioner said:

“Patients will be able to receive treatment in any member state, which will be reimbursed at home up to the level of the same or similar treatment in their health system,” said Androula Vassiliou, the Health Commissioner.

“They will not need prior authorisation. However, if unpredictable cross-border healthcare becomes a problem, the system could put into place a system of prior authorisation to safeguard the system.”

What "system" is being talked about here? Given this directive, the "system" is the "EU system" in its entirety. However, what Vassiliou seems to be saying is they reserve the right to reject (through requiring prior authorization) patients should they deem the other country’s "system" to be in jeopardy. And that seems to be a bit of a contradiction doesn’t it?

But that doesn’t stop the happy talk, does it?

She added: “Patients from any country will enjoy equal treatment with the nationals of the country in which they are being treated and cannot be discriminated against.”

This means that in countries with long waiting lists, patients from abroad will have to join the queue.

She added: “It will allow excessive demand from one country to be met by excessive capacity in another country. This is the essence of the co-operation.”

It also means having to pay private providers as well.

You wait until eastern European patients start flooding western European medical facilities. Or Brits head into France and Germany while the UK’s NHS pulls a US Medicare trick and refuses to reimburse French and German medical institutions at the rate they require.

My guess is a system of "authorization" will be in place so fast it will make your head swim ("I’m sorry, we don’t take NHS patients").

And since, in Europe, health care is a "right" now, how about this?

Dr Terry John, chairman of the British Medical Association’s International Committee, said: “We believe patients are entitled to safe, high-quality healthcare. Usually they want to be treated as close to home as possible, but it is understandable why some people want to seek treatment abroad.

“However, these proposals must not be allowed to erode the fundamental values of universality, accessibility and equality that should underlie healthcare. Patient mobility must not just be for the wealthy and educated.

Yes friends, if you want to escape those queues in the UK you have to pay your own travel and accommodation costs.

So, as I’m sure we’ll see argued, this ruling is mostly for the rich! And yes, you’re right - you can see it coming a mile off - travel and accommodation costs for medical care will soon be a "right" as well.

One of the commenters to the article says:

What an excellent idea! I live in Germany and only wish that my family back in the UK could experience the great healthcare that is available here.

Diana Taylor, Augsburg, Germany

Oh, not to worry Ms. Taylor - they and half of Britain will most likely be on your doorstep "experiencing" it before you know what hit you.

Ah, the law of unintended consequences is licking its chops on this one.

Reid and the Dems have no plan for future energy needs

feedback@qando.net (McQ) — Wed, 02 Jul 2008 07:48:58 GMT

Investor’s Business Daily brings us the latest from probably the worst Majority Leader the Senate has seen in a very long time:

The Dr. No of the drill-nothing Congress tried to deflect the issue of rising gas prices Monday by telling Fox Business News that there are costs we should worry about besides those stemming from Democratic inaction. Our guilt is supposed to replace our anger. "Coal makes us sick," Reid said, "oil makes us sick, it’s global warming, it’s ruining our country, it’s ruining our world, we’ve got to stop using fossil fuel . . . ."

In this case, he’s partially right - we all know that in a perfect world, we’d be using something else - an alternative. But this isn’t a perfect world and our energy needs aren’t going to stand still as we try to develop alternatives. So we have to deal with and use what is available now and exploit it.

The problem is, "Dr. No" isn’t just against petroleum and coal, but he’s also against the use of very clean nuclear energy.

Instead Reid is invested in using "vapor ware" and convinced that our problem is we haven’t thrown enough money at it. And, of course, once we do, everything will by hunky dory.

Even if we tripled our current output from wind, solar and geothermal, they’d produce just 2.2% of our current energy needs.

But even if we had the technology and it could fulfill the need, Reid forgets about the movement he and others have supported over the years:

The irony here is that it’s environmentalists and Democrats who often stand in the way of alternative energy. Reid needs to talk to Ted Kennedy and John Kerry about their opposition to a wind farm off Cape Cod because it might spoil their view.

A 500-megawatt, 20,000-acre wind farm scheduled for Valley County, Mont., was stopped by environmentalists who complained that 400-foot turbines would disturb a nearby wilderness area.

The Sunrise Powerlink solar-energy project in Southern California is being fought because of a 150-mile, $1.5 billion high-voltage line connecting desert-based solar panels with the urban customers of San Diego Gas & Electric.

Not only have nuclear power plants, drilling and petroleum refineries been stopped by the environmental movement, so-called clean energy projects have been stopped in their tracks as well - aided and abetted by the likes off Harry Reid. He has no solutions, only road-blocks. And the candidate he supports is no better:

Agreeing with Reid is his party’s presidential nominee, Sen. Barack Obama. In a primary debate in Nevada, Obama pledged: "I will end the notion of Yucca Mountain because it has not been based on the sort of sound science that can assure the people of Nevada that they’re going to be safe."

If you’re concerned with the future of our energy supply, you need to consider the fact that the present Congressional leadership hasn’t a clue nor a desire to do what is necessary to ensure our energy supply in the near future. Couple that with an Obama presidency and we’re looking at a lack of foresight that will economically effect us for decades to come.

This is a critical aspect of the coming election and people need to really dig into the plans on each side and make this a major issue for the voter. They need to demand specifics which will ensure the energy supply, even if that means coal and petroleum short-term with nuclear coming on-line and then the integration of alternative sources as they become technologically available and viable.