August 27, 2004

Quick Hits
Posted by Jon Henke

* I am not above appeals to my ego--"in the same way that the sea is not above the clouds"--so this is getting TrueBlueGal some attention....

... QandO (I swear, I'm gonna cheerlead for these fellas)...
And this is getting her blogrolled....

Cheerleading.bmp

Completely aside from the clever flattery, she's got some good posts, too. Check this one out, in particular.

__________________________

* Via Dean Esmay, here's some potentially good energy news...


Meanwhile, the biomass-to-oil project is continuing apace.
In May, Renewable Environmental Solutions (RES) said its first commercial plant is selling oil -- equivalent to crude oil No. 4 -- produced from agricultural waste products. The plant currently produces 100 to 200 barrels of oil per day using byproducts from an adjacent turkey processing facility.
[...]
At peak capacity, estimated to occur by the end of this year, the first plant will produce 500 barrels of oil per day, as well as natural gas, liquid and solid fertilizer and solid carbon.
Are these the solutions to our energy problems? Who knows? I remember some scientists a couple decades ago swearing up and down that they had created cold fusion in a jar. Whatever happened to those guys, anyway?

Regardless, it's exactly something like this that I believe will render our current environmental and economic energy-related fears an anachronism of another age. With the advancing pace of technology, I fully expect we'll see some serious progress within a couple decades, and implementation within a decade or two after that.

With these advances in technology, the Kyoto Treaty will eventually look a bit like a fellow trying to sell horse carriages right about the time the Model T was being produced.

_____________________________

* Ah, Bob Herbert. Today, he asks "where is the shame", and asks President Bush--who is not allowed to coordinate with 527 groups--to "call off his dogs".

Naturally, he doesn't seem to have any problem with criticizing National Guard service...but then, the National Guard seems to be a "free fire zone" these days. At least he doesn't repeat the myth that Bush leapt ahead "of 500 other applicants who were on a waiting list" as he has done before.

Most obviously, though, Herbert is just missing the point when he calls this "trash[ing] their service for political gain". Let's get this very clear. Right or wrong, the questions surrounding Kerry right now are about his STORY, not his service.

______________________________

* Priceless. Just priceless.

_____________________________

* Recently added "Winning Argument" to our blogroll. It's an interesting liberal blog, with each post addressing a particular issue with a "why you're right/why they're wrong" pattern. They seem to encourage reasonable, factual debate. I like that in a blog.

Needless to say, though, I disagree with their conclusions, especially in posts like this, where they pass on the misleading story that "Bush proposed rolling back increases for imminent-danger pay". In fact, the proposal was simply an attempt to restructure the pay, with no attempt to reduce the overall level of pay received by the soldiers.

Seems like a good place for reasonable debate, though.


UPDATE: And since I mentioned reasonable debate, it's worth taking on this point at Winning Argument.

Bush should stop using the Olympics in political advertisements.
[...]
The ads are inaccurate. The advertisement implies that Iraq was able send athletes to the Summer Olympics because the United States invaded Iraq. The ads say "today, because the world acted with courage and moral clarity...[Iraqi] athletes are competing in the Olympic Games." But Iraq was represented in the 2000 Sydney Games.
While it is true that Iraq has been in previous Olympic games, it is absolutely inaccurate to say that the ads say "today, because the world acted with courage and moral clarity...[Iraqi] athletes are competing in the Olympic Games."

That line came from a radio address Bush gave ~2 weeks ago, and their ellipses left out the phrase "those nations are free"...which seems an important component of the statement.

The actual phrase use in the ad: "this Olympics there will be two more free nations". That's a far cry from claiming the nations are only competing because of the wars.

On the legal issue, I'm unpersuaded by their argument, but only because I haven't heard the opposing argument. However, I do agree with WA that the ad should be pulled on general principle.

______________________________

* The NYTimes writes...

President Bush said on Thursday that he did not believe Senator John Kerry lied about his war record, but he declined to condemn the television commercial paid for by a veterans group alleging that Mr. Kerry came by his war medals dishonestly.
Some Democrats are complaining that Bush "still won't condemn Swift Boat Vets". You know what? When the Republican Party, and a bevy of major GOP figures goes to a "Unfit for Command" book-signing, and call the book "fair", "very powerful, much more powerful than I thought it would be" - when Ed Gillespie makes an allegation comparable to the allegation that Bush went to war in Afghanistan for an oil pipeline - then, and only then, can the Democrats bitch about Bush not telling a couple hundred Vietnam Veterans that they're all liars.

But they won't wait.

TrackBack

Comments

The biomass fuel thing is not a scam, but is an environmental catastrophe waiting to happen if ever used in a wide-spread way. Remember, it would mean growing plants for fuel. Which means turning wildland into agricultural land.

Posted by: Rusty Shackleford at August 27, 2004 08:21 AM

I'm not sure why that would be the case. Current plans involve using waste-products, rather than land-filling them. It wouldn't need to wholly replace ground-extracted oil to make a difference. Any increase in supply will keep the price down.

The real issue for that form of energy is cost-per-unit. The marginal costs are very high at this point, so they have to stay around long enough--and sell enough in the meantime--to recoup their startup costs, and eventually lower the cost of production.

Posted by: Jon Henke at August 27, 2004 08:42 AM