Imperial Hubris

Not the book (which is quite good), but the latest assertion of authority from the shrub administration:

AMERICA has told Britain that it can “kidnap” British citizens if they are wanted for crimes in the United States.

A senior lawyer for the American government has told the Court of Appeal in London that kidnapping foreign citizens is permissible under American law because the US Supreme Court has sanctioned it.

The admission will alarm the British business community after the case of the so-called NatWest Three, bankers who were extradited to America on fraud charges. More than a dozen other British executives, including senior managers at British Airways and BAE Systems, are under investigation by the US authorities and could face criminal charges in America.

Until now it was commonly assumed that US law permitted kidnapping only in the “extraordinary rendition” of terrorist suspects.

The American government has for the first time made it clear in a British court that the law applies to anyone, British or otherwise, suspected of a crime by Washington.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article2982640.ece

Got that? Shrub's law trumps international law and all previous extradition treaties. And they're actually putting it to the test:

The US government’s view emerged during a hearing involving Stanley Tollman, a former director of Chelsea football club and a friend of Baroness Thatcher, and his wife Beatrice.

The Tollmans, who control the Red Carnation hotel group and are resident in London, are wanted in America for bank fraud and tax evasion. They have been fighting extradition through the British courts.

During a hearing last month Lord Justice Moses, one of the Court of Appeal judges, asked Alun Jones QC, representing the US government, about its treatment of Gavin, Tollman’s nephew. Gavin Tollman was the subject of an attempted abduction during a visit to Canada in 2005.

Jones replied that it was acceptable under American law to kidnap people if they were wanted for offences in America. “The United States does have a view about procuring people to its own shores which is not shared,” he said.

Sometimes it seems that shrub is trying to unite the world against us. I mean, last time I looked, the British were one of the few countries that we have good relations with. Pissing them off doesn't strike me as a good move.

How would America respond if another country (oh, say Germany) decided that they are entitled to abduct an American citizen (oh, say Donald Rumsfield) whom they accuse of a crime?

Or is shrub tacitly implying that America now rules the world?

Added: Cernig of The NewsHoggers adds this thought:

But the same administration has vigorously pursued immunity from prosecution for US citizens by other nations for crimes committed while in those nations. Such a double standard, fuelled by a view of American exceptionalism which draws its inspiration from past colonial powers (including, it must be admitted, Britain) gives a clear lie to administration supporters' claims of there being no intention for hegemonic dominance. Only the most blinkered "my country, right or wrong" zealots could argue otherwise.

British law, however, says that kidnapping is a crime with a maximum sentence of life imprisonment. The UK government should make it clear that charges will be brought against any US official authorising kidnapping under a purely American and outdated law - and that even if extradition is refused by the US then those charges will remain
open indefinitely. It should also make it clear that should the accused travel to another nation where the UK has an extradition treaty, Britain will ask for remand of the suspect to a British court for trial. Other nations should follow suit.

We live in a very strange time.

Giuliani

The man has always been a corrupt sleazeball, so none of the latest news surprises me. He's the poster boy of modern republicanism, and I'm thinking that he would be their perfect nominee.

Noam goes home

Archeologists working in Mongolia have recently exhumed a dinosaur skeleton of the like never found before. Because these scientists prefer to listen to recordings of the band Dire Straits while digging, they decided to name this bundle of bones knopflersaurus, after Mark Knopfler of the band Dire Straits.
Now, most of ya'll are oblivious to this but I happen to have a pet dinosaur.(in our archives if ye really give a crap) One day, a dinosaur hopped out of a time travel device- disguised as a dumpster- and nosed its way to my house. It lay mewling and bawling and lost on my doorstep, only because it was attracted to my scent. Folks, I, as well, was once vacuumed into a time travel device that was disguised as a dumpster. I went to 2011,(see archives) but somehow made it back...Anyway, I was an involuntary time traveler, and so was said dinosaur. There is a certain musk one gleans when one time travels, discernable only to those of same affliction.
I named it(soon to be known as a she) Noam. To be sure, Noam was at times quite charming
(and really affectionate..which i won't espouse upon just yet) But her diet- Noam was into devouring books- proved too daunting for this household.
Noam was a good-enough dinosaur. Gorgeous. Lithe. Stupid. Indomitable.
But I never knew exactly what sort of Jurassic hitch-hiker i had on my hands... and now I know that Noam is, in fact, a Knopflersaurus.
Twas a hard decision to make- but i had to send Noam back to her own time. She had simply wreacked too much havoc in our time, and I knew that she was traumatized and alone and longing for her Cenzoic pals...
I stood by the dumpster(looks like one but it's a time travel device) And played "Sultans Of Swing" over and over again until Noam came bounding along like a ten ton beagle.
Noam leapt into the "dumpster" and is, I hope, back in her proper time.
Befriending a six-million year old knopflersaurus don't happen every day.
Damn, I'm gonna miss her.
Farewell, Noam.

Mental Health Treatment

The Clinton HQ hostage situation brings up again the lack of adequate mental health treatment in America:

ROCHESTER, N.H. - Leeland Eisenberg was already in trouble before he walked into one of Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton’s campaign offices.

Three days earlier, his wife had filed for divorce; he was due to appear in court with her for a domestic violence hearing in about half an hour.

Then, the nicely dressed, gray-haired man peeled open his jacket to reveal what looked like dynamite strapped to his chest, authorities said, and things got much worse.

Police say Eisenberg went to the office Friday demanding to talk to Clinton about helping him get mental health care and ended up taking at least five people, including an infant, hostage. Night would fall before the last one walked free and the hostage-taker peacefully surrendered.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22043358/

I guess he'll be getting treatment now, albeit within the criminal justice system.

As I posted in the aftermath of the Virginia Tech shootings, I'm a former mental health counselor. My degree is in community mental health treatment. I worked in the field for about 14 years, before burnout and frustration led me to leave the field. Our mental health system is virtually nonexistent for the people who need it most. If you're poor, the only way you will receive treatment is if you commit a crime and are court ordered into a system that is so overextended that it is unable to provide even minimal care. There is no preventative care unless you're well off enough to pay for it yourself, and the vast majority of people with mental illness aren't.

Another symptom of the sickness that has become the norm in our society.

Strange Budget Priorities

While I think the "Department of Homeland Security" has been a boondoggle full of pork barrel spending that fails to increase security, I never thought shrub would be the one to scuttle it:

WASHINGTON - The Bush administration intends to slash counterterrorism funding for police, firefighters and rescue departments across the country by more than half next year, according to budget documents obtained by The Associated Press.

The Homeland Security Department has given $23 billion to states and local communities to fight terrorism since the Sept. 11 attacks, but the administration is not convinced that the money has been well spent and thinks the nation’s highest-risk cities have largely satisfied their security needs.

The department wanted to provide $3.2 billion to help states and cities protect against terrorist attacks in 2009, but the White House said it would ask Congress for less than half — $1.4 billion, according to a Nov. 26 document.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22046131/

Just try to imagine the reaction if this were a Democratic proposal. I suppose that shrub believes that our occupation of Iraq is providing all the security that we need.

DHS has been riddled with odd spending priorities, but this is weird:

The plan calls outright elimination of programs for port security, transit security, and local emergency management operations in the next budget year. This is President Bush’s last budget, and the new administration would have to live with the funding decisions between Jan. 20 and Sept. 30, 2009.

I'm speechless.

New Toy

We have a new toy in the household. Our household computer network wizard bought a network printer/scanner/copier for us. Given that my printer is a dying antique that only works about 1 of 3 times (I keep waiting for the cartridge to empty, so I could shoot it), this is a big step up. Having access to a scanner will be fun, and may lead to some new posts.
Thank you, thank you, thank you, oh great wizard.

Rain and Roof

I'm very happy that it's raining.

I'm rather unhappy about how much the roof is leaking.

Just sharing. So I'll share this:

Rainy Friday Boobie

It's actually raining today (we'd almost forgotten what rain is), and it may turn to snow over night. Finally.
Update: Not going to snow, as the storm has actually warmed. But we're getting a decent amount of rain.

On "Good" News from Iraq

I haven't posted about Iraq lately because...well...it's complex, depressing, and I've been lazy. The media has been repeating that the violence is "down" which is partly true. Suicide bombings are "down" to an average of 10 a day, from a high of 30 a day. Sectarian killings are fewer and a few neighborhood are almost safe. So we're back to the level of violence of 2005. This is being touted as "progress".

Michael Schwartz has written a great article (that I would highly recommend) titled "Why Bush won't leave Iraq":

Whoa, let's hold those surging horses in check a moment. Violence has lessened in Iraq. That seems to be a fact of the last two months -- and, for the Iraqis, a positive one, obviously. What to make of the "good news" from Iraq is another matter entirely, one made harder to assess by the chorus of self-congratulation from war supporters and Bush administration officials and allies, as well as by the heavy spin being put on events -- and reported in the media, relatively uncritically.

http://www.tomdispatch.com/post/174868

The "returning refugees" story sound good at first, but the actual numbers are dismal:

An exception was Damien Cave of the New York Times, who had a revealing piece on a big story of recent weeks: The return of refugee Baghdadis -- from among the two million or more Iraqis who had fled to Syria and other countries -- to the capital. This has been heavily touted as evidence of surge "success" in restoring security in Baghdad, of a genuine turn-around in the war situation. In fact, according to Cave, the trickle of returnees, which had actually been lessening recently, has been heavily "massaged by politics. Returnees have essentially become a currency of progress."

Those relatively modest returnee numbers turn out to include anyone who crossed the Syrian border heading east, including suspected insurgents and Iraqi employees of the New York Times on their way back from visits to relatives in exile in Syria. According to a UN survey of 110 families returning, "46 percent were leaving [Syria] because they could not afford to stay; 25 percent said they fell victim to a stricter Syrian visa policy; and only 14 percent said they were returning because they had heard about improved security." And that's but one warning sign on the nature of the story under the story.

Remember that there are an estimated 4.5 million displaced Iraqi's, so the current trickle is the proverbial "drop in the bucket".

And the "drop" in violence? Not such a rosy picture, either:

A recent Pew Research Center poll of American reporters who have been working in Iraq finds that "[n]early 90 percent of U.S. journalists in Iraq say much of Baghdad is still too dangerous to visit" and many believe that "coverage has painted too rosy a picture of the conflict." In an on-line chat, the reliable Thomas Ricks of the Washington Post (and author of the bestselling book Fiasco), just back from Baghdad himself, offered his own set of caveats about the situation. He suggested that, in addition to the surge of U.S. troops into the capital's neighborhoods, some combination of other factors may help explain the lessening violence, including the fact that "some Sunni neighborhoods are walled off, and other Sunni areas have been ethnically cleansed. In addition, the Shiite death squads, in addition to killing a lot of
innocents, also killed some of the car bomb guys, I am told." Of the dozens of American officers he interviewed, none were declaring success. "[T]o a man, they were enormously frustrated by what they see as the foot-dragging of the Baghdad government." And he points out that violence in Baghdad "is only back down to the 2005 level -- which to my mind is kind of like moving from the eighth circle of hell to the fifth." In 2005, or early 2006, of course, such levels were considered catastrophic.

Robert Parry of Consortium News points out that, while "good news" dominated front pages here, "the darker side" of "success" has "generally been shoved into brief stories deep inside the newspapers." He adds that "the harsh repression surrounding the ‘surge' has drawn far less U.S. press attention," even as "Iraq steadily has been transformed into a more efficient police state than dictator Saddam Hussein could have ever imagined."

In other words, the sectarian groups have established their seperate enclaves. They don't have as many rivals around to kill.

So the current "plan" is to continue the occupation for 5 more years:

You can tell things can't be going well if your best-case plan is for an armed occupation force to remain in a major Baghdad community for the next five years. It means that the underlying causes of disorder are not being addressed. You can tell things are not going well if five more years are needed to train and activate a local police force, when police training takes about six months. (Consider this an indication that the recruits exhibit loyalties and goals that run contrary to those of the American military.) You can tell things are not going well when communities have to be surrounded by cement walls and checkpoints that naturally disrupt normal life, including work, school, and daily shopping. These are all signs that escalating discontent and protest may require new suppressive actions in the not-so-distant future.

The American military is well aware of this. They keep reminding us that the present decline in violence may be temporary, nothing more than a brief window of opportunity that could be used to resolve some of the "political problems" facing Iraq before the violence can be reinvigorated. The current surge -- even "the five year plan" -- is not designed to solve Iraq's problems, just to hold down the violence while others, in theory, act.

Now comes the real reason for the continuing occupation:

By now, however, most of us realize that there is much more to the American purpose in Iraq than a commitment to an elected government in Baghdad that could peacefully resolve sectarian tensions. The rhetoric of the Bush administration and its chief democratic opponents (most notably Senators Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama) is increasingly laced with references -- to quote Clinton -- to "vital national
security interests" in the Middle East that will require a continuing "military as well as political mission." In Iraq, leading Washington politicians of both parties agree on the necessity of establishing a friendly government that will welcome the presence of a "residual" American military force, oppose Iran's regional aspirations, and prevent the country from becoming "a petri dish for insurgents."

Let's be clear about those "vital national security interests." America's vital interests in the Middle East derive from the region's status as the world's principle source of oil. President Jimmy Carter enunciated exactly this principle back in 1980 when he promulgated the Carter Doctrine, stating that the U.S. was willing to use "any means necessary, including military force," to maintain access to supplies of Middle Eastern oil sufficient to keep the global economy running smoothly. All subsequent presidents have reiterated, amplified, and acted on this principle.

The Bush administration, in applying the Carter Doctrine, was faced with the need to access increasing amounts of Middle Eastern oil in light of constantly escalating world energy consumption. In 2001, Vice-President Dick Cheney's Energy Task Force responded to this challenge by designating Iraq as the linchpin in a general plan to double Middle Eastern oil production in the following years. It was reasonable, task force members decided, to hope for a genuine spurt in production in Iraq, whose oil industry had remained essentially stagnant (or worse) from 1980 to that moment. By ousting the backward-looking regime of Saddam Hussein and transferring the further development, production, and distribution of Iraq's bounteous oil reserves to multinational oil companies, they would assure the introduction of modern methods of production, ample investment capital, and an aggressive urge to increase output. Indeed, after removing Saddam via invasion in 2003, the Bush administration has made repeated (if so far unsuccessful) efforts to implement this plan.

They're not even trying to hide the fact that we're staying for the oil.

However, maintaining the occupation won't be that simple:

The desire for such an endpoint has hardly disappeared. It became increasingly clear, however, that successful implementation of such plans would, at best, take many years, and that the maintenance of a powerful American political and military presence within Iraq was a necessary prerequisite to everything else. Since sustaining such a presence was itself a major problem, however, it also became clear that America's plans depended on dislodging powerful forces entrenched in all levels of Iraqi society -- from public opinion to elected leaders to the insurgency itself.

American ambitions -- far more than sectarian tensions -- constitute the irresolvable core of Iraq's political problems. The overwhelming majority of Iraqis oppose the occupation. They wish the Americans gone and a regime in place in Baghdad that is not an American ally. (This is true whether you are considering the Shiite majority or the Sunni minority.) As for a "residual" American military presence, the Iraqi Parliament recently passed a resolution demanding that the UN mandate for a U.S. occupation be rescinded.

Even the issue of terrorism is controversial. The American propensity to label as "terrorist" all violent opposition to the occupation means that most Iraqis (57% in August 2007), when asked, support terrorism as defined by the occupiers, since majorities in both the Sunni and Shia communities endorse using violent means to expel the Americans.

Remember that we've pumped tons of guns into Iraq, and that we've armed both Sunni and Shia. So we will continue to face an insurgency as long as we remain.

As long as that government is determined to install a friendly, anti-Iranian regime in Baghdad, one that is hostile to "foreigners," including all jihadists, but welcomes an ongoing American military presence as well as multinational development of Iraqi oil, the American armed forces aren't going anywhere, not for a long, long time; and no relative lull in the fighting -- temporary or not -- will change that reality. This is the Catch-22 of Bush administration policy in Iraq. The worse things go, the more our military is needed; the better they go, the more our military is needed.

And shrub will not leave Iraq, regardless of the situation. But shrubs "goals" will never be achieved because they are based on a delusion. The bleeding will continue, because our goals are incompatable with the Iraqi's goals.

It's a tragedy based on empire and hubris of epic proportions, and we'll be facing the blowback for at least a generation.

Gift Idea

Via Father Tyme at BlondSense, here's a very cool, cheap Christmas (or any other time) gift idea:

Tired of spending big bucks for Christmas gifts that your friends only use till the middle of January? Here's a practical gift that says you care...and it's free! Well, except for a
piece of heavy card stock and learning to use scissors, I mean.

While I'm sure some of our friends in the northeast and midwest may scoff at this,
remember FEMA!




















Click on the picture to enlarge then save it to a folder, print, cut and assemble and you're protected.


Oh, and it's kinda cool in the bedroom, also.

Having grown up in San Francisco, I'm always aware of earthquakes. I might make myself one (if I can get my semi-dead antique printer to agree).

Thug Debate

In a fit of masochism, I watched last nights rethug debate. What a waste of time. CNN's choice of pandering questions, a bunch of white guys trying to out pander each other over stupid issues to play to the base, and the obligatory swipes at Hillary. Immigrant bashing was the main topic, but there was time for "God, Guns, and Gays" and "war is swell" rhetoric (except Ron Paul). Every one of the candidates scares me, as did almost all of the people in the YouTube questions. None of these men should ever be allowed to be President. But the one who scares me the most is Mike Huckabee. He's as crazy as the rest, but he has the ability to look and sound sane (at least when compared to Rudy and Mitt and Fred and Duncan and Tom and John and Ron) and sell himself to the fundies.
The real problem is that the Republican media machine will latch onto the eventual nominee, and we'll get months of propaganda about how candidate "X" represents the "real America" and "values". And Huckabee looks like someone they can sell to the public.
Added: And I agree with Gandhisxmas's post below.

Odd Allies

There are times when I get confused by international relations. Our shrub has a unique talent for uniting diverse groups, albeit that he unites them against him:

The diplomatic chess game around Iran's nuclear program includes an unlikely bishop. According to several well-placed Rome sources, Iranian officials are quietly laying the groundwork necessary to turn to Pope Benedict XVI and top Vatican diplomats for mediation if the showdown with the United States should escalate toward a military intervention. The 80-year-old Pope has thus far steered clear of any strong public comments about either Iran's failure to fully comply with U.N. nuclear weapons inspectors or the drumbeat of war coming from some corners in Washington. But Iran, which has had diplomatic relations with the Holy See for 53 years, may be trying to line up Benedict as an ace in the hole for staving off a potential attack in the coming months. "The Vatican seems to be part of their strategy," a senior Western diplomat in Rome said of the Iranian leadership. "They'll have an idea of when the 11th hour is coming. And they know an intervention of the Vatican is the most open and amenable route to Western public opinion. It could buy them time."

http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1687445,00.html

With the timing of the Annapolis conference on low expectations (hey, we'll talk about peace and then do absolutely nothing to promote peace), and the ongoing rhetoric blaming Iran for our disaster in Iraq, strange bedfellows are increasing. Most of the world is trying to prevent the Cheney from attacking Iran, and they just might prevail.

News You Might Have Missed

Sometimes I read something in the news that seems incredibly obvious. This headline caught me:

Bahamas to Ratify Nuclear Test-Ban Treaty, says Acting PM
By Lindsay Thompson, BIS
Nov 26, 2007 - 4:46:30 PM

http://www.thebahamasweekly.com/publish/bis-newsupdates/NASSAU_Bahamas_The_Bahamas_is_set_to_ratify_its_position_as_a_signatory_to_the_Comprehensive_Nuclear_Tes-Ban_Treaty_designed_to_rid_the_world_of_nuclear_weapons_Acting_Prime_Minister_the_Hon_Brent_Symonette_announced_Monday_November_26_2007.shtml

I'm glad that the Bahamas oppose nuclear testing, but...uhm...I would have thought that they would have signed on years ago. It's not like they were going to enter a nuclear weapons race any time soon.

The Bahamas is set to ratify its position as a signatory to the Comprehensive Nuclear Test-Ban
Treaty, designed to rid the world of nuclear weapons, Acting Prime Minister the Hon Brent Symonette announced Monday, November 26, 2007.

He was addressing a regional workshop co-hosted by the Preparatory Commission for the Comprehensive Nuclear Test-Ban Treaty Organisation (CTBTO) and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. It is being held November 26 – 28, at the Wyndham Nassau Resort and Crystal Palace Casino, Cable Beach.

...

The year 2006 marked the 10^th anniversary of the Comprehensive Nuclear Test-Ban Treaty open for signature. Since then, the CTBT has been considered a cornerstone of the non-proliferation of the nuclear weapons regime.

The Treaty has 177 State Signatories, with 140 countries who have ratified. Thirty-four of the 44 States listed in Annex 2 of the Treaty, whose ratification is required for entry into force, have ratified the Treaty.

http://www.thebahamasweekly.com/publish/bis-news-updates/NASSAU_Bahamas_The_Bahamas_is_set_to_ratify_its_position_as_a_signatory_to_the_Comprehensive_Nuclear_Test-Ban_Treaty_designed_to_rid_the_world_of_nuclear_weapons_Acting_Prime_Minister_the_Hon_Brent_Symonette_announced_Monday_November_26_2007.shtml

Last I looked (OK, I've never been there. But I would love to go) the Bahamas had beautiful beaches with lots of tourist resorts. The testing of nuclear weapons would not be a tourist draw, so opposing it should be a "no brainer", so I'm wondering why it's taken over 10 years to sign on.

religious fundamentalism at its best

From the BBC-

British officials are trying to secure the release of a British schoolteacher arrested in Sudan for letting her pupils name a teddy bear Muhammed.
Gillian Gibbons, of Liverpool, may face blasphemy charges for insulting Islam's prophet. A conviction could mean six months in jail, 40 lashes, or a fine.


Okay so none of the above will probably happen, but still... IT'S A FUCKING TEDDY BEAR folks. Gillian has already been in jail for three days now, suspended from her job, and even the school is closed until January.
I don't get it. I just cannot comprehend this overwhelmingly atrocious and pathetic situation.

Please understand, I am not attacking the Islamic faith. If one looks closely enough, ALL religious principle tries to function as a way for us to not to be self-centered assholes. Well, I'm no theologian, but I strive to keep an open mind...
I once had a friend, a very good friend, named Doug. He was rather troubled but he had a heart of gold. One day he died of a heroin overdose. Anyway, Doug had a dog he named Christ.
He never got 40 lashes or anything, but ever-rebellious punk-rock Doug encountered more than a little outrage for naming his black lab as such. For one thing, his parents- fundamentalist Christians- disowned him as their son.
One could argue that vastly intelligent aliens are not amongst us, as they would have already thoroughly sacked us and preserved our planet for a more noble species such as cockroaches. But then again, perhaps folks from outer space, like us, love to be entertained, and are enjoying what a splendid job we are doing at sacking ourselves.

The Bad with the Good

While I'm glad to see racist sleazebag Trent Lott leaving, now I'm hearing that his replacement as Senate Minority Whip will be my junior Senator, Jon Kyl. Ugh. This means that I'll have to hear more of Kyl bloviating in the media, a very ugly prospect. But worse, I'm afraid Kyl will see his job as actually "whipping minorities".

Proof of Something

There are all kinds of stories of deities showing up in food, but this one is the greatest I've seen:

This is not a joke. The Flying Spaghetti Monster has appeared to us in a pumpkin pie. Bless his noodley appendages!The Manefesto is home to many things,

but rarely is it the place of divine revelation. OnThanksgiving night, the Great Divine Deity of Pasta made an appearance in a pumpkin pie baked by no other than my wife, Miranda.

I do not know why we were selected for such a blessing, but we receive it with glad and open hearts.

No, you will not find it on eBay with such commercial sluts as the virgin Mary grilled cheese, or the gay Jesus in a pancake. I will not defame his greatness in this manner.

The photo is not doctored in any way, neither was the (delicious) pie. I will be sending full, hi-res versions to the church for verification. I assume they will sing pirate shanteys to herald its arrival.

To those of you who did not believe before: believe now. His Pastafarian power extends beyond the spaghetti and the ravioli. It inhabits all food in all time and all space. His noodles are of infinite length and omnipotent power.

http://www.gamerevolution.com/manifesto/view.php?id=397

Praise the pastafarian one with pie!

Lott o' Sleaze

Senator Trent Lott plans to resign by end of year, a move that seems to be confusing most of the media reporters. Actually, the reason is very simple: greed.
MSNBC says this ...

While the exactly reason Lott is stepping down before he finishes his term is unknown, the general speculation is that a quick departure immunizes Lott against tougher restrictions in a new lobbying law that takes effect at the end of the year. That law would require Senators to wait two-years before entering the lucrative world of lobbying Congress.

By resigning now, Sen. Lott can go right to lobbying in a year and make a few boatloads of money. Pure sleaze and greed. Oh, I'm sure he'll say something about "family" or some other pretty excuse, but it's really about money. The lobbying reform that takes effect next year makes corruption harder for members of congress, so Lott is racing to sell out under the wire.
Republican values have a price tag. Buy a Senator now while they're on sale.
Update: Just now on NPR, Cokie Roberts (who I almost never agree with) said "he's going to work as a lobbyist" and made it sound like that's a good thing.

No Cats Blogging

There are and will be NO CATS on this blog. Atrocia will enforce this rule.

The Apple Cup

I don't pay much attention to college football...except the Apple cup. I have a degree from the University of Washington, but I also attended Washington State University. So the Apple cup matters.
Maybe it's shallow, but I care about who wins this game.
I went to my local brewery to watch the game. Wrong move. What I wanted was a a beer and a football game. What I got was a mentally ill woman and two drunks in search of a fight. I'm usually surrounded by smart people who discuss politics and literature and art. Not tonight.
So I'm watching the 100th apple cup at home.
Who were those people in my brewery?
(Go Huskies).
So, I'll ask the question: Is there a college football game that you care about?
(update: we lost. I'm over it.)

Black Friday Boobie

I'm being told by my radio that everybody is out shopping today, and that it's also "buy nothing day". I'm not going to be shopping, but I will be buying a beer later.

Bad Timing

My refrigerator died. When I needed it. Damn.
Any of you know how to repair a 'fridge?

Happy Thanksgiving

Thanksgiving has always been one of my favorite holidays. Friends, food, and football-what a great mix.
I'll be spending the day at a potluck with my friends, our annual gathering of "orphans" who aren't spending the day with family. It's an odd, multi-generational, funny group.
My own family is small and scattered, and we haven't spent Thanksgiving together in over a decade. It traces back to when my Father passed away (on the day before Thanksgiving). Dad was a traditionalist, and took great joy in family gatherings. After his passing, the bonds between the rest of the family loosened. My mother has created a whole new life for herself, and is now way too busy to host a holiday gathering. While I get along well enough with both my sisters, we have nothing in common and little desire to spend much time together. Both of my sisters are republican, fundamentalist Christians, yuppie parents who are caught up in the materialistic side of America that I have rejected. We lack any common basis for conversation, and yet love each other too much to argue. So we'll exchange phone calls and wish each other well. It works well enough for us.
I'll take this opportunity to express my gratitude for a multitude of good thing. I'm grateful for all my friends (and I'm truly blessed to have so many of them). I'm thankful for reasonably good health and happiness (the shrub administration hasn't taken that away). I give thanks that my family still shares love in spite of our divisions.
And thanks to you readers and commenter's. You've given me a lot of pleasure in this humble little blog, and I feel like I've gotten to know many of you even though we've never met. Thanks!
Update: in the words of Zymurgian: "Great Googly-Moogly, that was GOOD".

11/22/63

John Fitzgerald Kennedy
May 29, 1917 - November 22, 1963

It's a coincidence of calender that today is a holiday and the anniversary of a tragedy. The assassination of President Kennedy is one of my earliest memories and an event that changed history. We lost a certain amount of national hope and idealism on that day.

Was Kennedy a great president? Hard to say. The Bay of Pigs and Vietnam are certainly black marks. The Apollo program was one of America's greatest achievements. The civil rights battle is still with us today.

But the national spirit lost something when we lost JFK: an inspiration:

We observe today not a victory of party, but a celebration of freedom -- symbolizing an end, as well as a beginning -- signifying renewal, as well as change. For I have sworn before you and Almighty God the same solemn oath our forebears prescribed nearly a century and three-quarters ago.

The world is very different now. For man holds in his mortal hands the power to abolish all forms of human poverty and all forms of human life. And yet the same
revolutionary beliefs for which our forebears fought are still at issue around the globe -- the belief that the rights of man come not from the generosity of the state, but from the hand of God.

We dare not forget today that we are the heirs of that first revolution. Let the word go forth from this time and place, to friend and foe alike, that the torch has been passed to a new generation of Americans -- born in this century, tempered by war, disciplined by a hard and bitter peace, proud of our ancient heritage, and unwilling to witness or permit the slow undoing of those human rights to which this nation has always been committed, and to which we are committed today at home and around the world.

Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, to assure the survival and the success of liberty.

This much we pledge -- and more.

To those old allies whose cultural and spiritual origins we share, we pledge the loyalty of faithful friends. United there is little we cannot do in a host of cooperative ventures. Divided there is little we can do -- for we dare not meet a powerful challenge at odds and split asunder.

To those new states whom we welcome to the ranks of the free, we pledge our word that one form of colonial control shall not have passed away merely to be replaced by a far more iron tyranny. We shall not always expect to find them supporting our view. But we shall always hope to find them strongly supporting their own freedom -- and to remember that, in the past, those who foolishly sought power by riding the back of the tiger ended up inside.

To those people in the huts and villages of half the globe struggling to break the bonds of mass misery, we pledge our best efforts to help them help themselves, for whatever period is required -- not because the Communists may be doing it, not because we seek their votes, but because it is right. If a free society cannot help the many who are poor, it cannot save the few who are rich.

To our sister republics south of our border, we offer a special pledge: to convert our good words into good deeds, in a new alliance for progress, to assist free men and free governments in casting off the chains of poverty. But this peaceful revolution of hope cannot become the prey of hostile powers. Let all our neighbors know that we shall join with them to oppose aggression or subversion anywhere in the Americas. And let every other power know that this hemisphere intends to remain the master of its own house.

To that world assembly of sovereign states, the United Nations, our last best hope in an age where the instruments of war have far outpaced the instruments of peace, we renew our pledge of support -- to prevent it from becoming merely a forum for invective, to strengthen its shield of the new and the weak, and to enlarge the area in which its writ may run.

Finally, to those nations who would make themselves our adversary, we offer not a pledge but a request: that both sides begin anew the quest for peace, before the dark powers of destruction unleashed by science engulf all humanity in planned or
accidental self-destruction.

We dare not tempt them with weakness. For only when our arms are sufficient beyond doubt can we be certain beyond doubt that they will never be employed.

But neither can two great and powerful groups of nations take comfort from our present course -- both sides overburdened by the cost of modern weapons, both rightly alarmed by the steady spread of the deadly atom, yet both racing to alter that uncertain balance of terror that stays the hand of mankind's final war.

So let us begin anew -- remembering on both sides that civility is not a sign of weakness, and sincerity is always subject to proof. Let us never negotiate out of fear, but let us never fear to negotiate.

Let both sides explore what problems unite us instead of belaboring those problems which divide us.

Let both sides, for the first time, formulate serious and precise proposals for the
inspection and control of arms, and bring the absolute power to destroy other nations under the absolute control of all nations.

Let both sides seek to invoke the wonders of science instead of its terrors. Together let us explore the stars, conquer the deserts, eradicate disease, tap the ocean depths, and encourage the arts and commerce.

Let both sides unite to heed, in all corners of the earth, the command of Isaiah -- to "undo the heavy burdens, and [to] let the oppressed go free."

And, if a beachhead of cooperation may push back the jungle of suspicion, let both sides join in creating a new endeavor -- not a new balance of power, but a new world of law -- where the strong are just, and the weak secure, and the peace preserved.

All this will not be finished in the first one hundred days. Nor will it be finished in
the first one thousand days; nor in the life of this Administration; nor even perhaps in our lifetime on this planet. But let us begin.

In your hands, my fellow citizens, more than mine, will rest the final success or failure of our course. Since this country was founded, each generation of Americans has been summoned to give testimony to its national loyalty. The graves of young Americans who answered the call to service surround the globe.

Now the trumpet summons us again -- not as a call to bear arms, though arms we need -- not as a call to battle, though embattled we are -- but a call to bear the
burden of a long twilight struggle, year in and year out, "rejoicing in hope; patient in tribulation," a struggle against the common enemies of man: tyranny, poverty, disease, and war itself.

Can we forge against these enemies a grand and global alliance, North and South, East and West, that can assure a more fruitful life for all mankind? Will you join in that historic effort?

In the long history of the world, only a few generations have been granted the role of defending freedom in its hour of maximum danger. I do not shrink from this responsibility -- I welcome it. I do not believe that any of us would exchange places with any other people or any other generation. The energy, the faith, the devotion which we bring to this endeavor will light our country and all who serve it. And the glow from that fire can truly light the world.

And so, my fellow Americans, ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country.

My fellow citizens of the world, ask not what America will do for you, but what together we can do for the freedom of man.

Finally, whether you are citizens of America or citizens of the world, ask of us here the same high standards of strength and sacrifice which we ask of you. With a good conscience our only sure reward, with history the final judge of our deeds, let us go forth to lead the land we love, asking His blessing and His help, but knowing that here on earth God's work must truly be our own.

John F. Kennedy was the last president who could truly inspire the nation. Every president since has met with a certain level of cynicism. In fact, every candidate since JFK has looked pale and weak in comparison.

Do any of the current candidates for president have the ability to motivate the nation to tackle grand problems like global warming? In my opinion, no. Barack Obama has a certain potential to be inspirational, but hasn't yet shown the ability to fire up the nation. It is a sad state of affairs for our nation that our presidents are no longer a source of inspiration, but rather a source of division and aggravation.

Explaining Las Vegas

A couple of my good friends are going to Las Vegas for the holiday weekend (I was the minister for their wedding) and, as it's their first time, they asked my advice (hey, I'm only 98 miles away, and I've gone there for many a good concert). I'll share it with you all too. First rule of Vegas: don't expect to win. They didn't build all those huge casinos and light shows by losing money. But you can find some bargains. In the process of trying to hoover your wallet, Vegas offers a lot of promotions, especially on food. Take advantage of them. Last time I was there, the hotel I stayed in offered a huge discount on breakfast. Eating on the cheap, I was fueled for the day.
Most casinos will give you free drinks while you gamble. It's a fine plan, but one you can take advantage of. The simple plan: don't lose much, but drink all you can. Play slow, drink fast. I usually stick to blackjack, because I can play the odds to lose slowly, but you can pick your game. Start with a budget that you plan to spend. Do NOT spend more. Instead, make the money last long enough that you get the equivalent value in drinks. Realize that you are paying for the entertainment, but don't be a "sucker". Las Vegas was built on "suckers".

A Statement on Pakistan

I'm wondering if shrub and the cheney aren't jealous of Musharraf in Pakistan. Here's what shrub said:

President Bush yesterday offered his strongest support of embattled Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf, saying the general "hasn't crossed the line" and "truly is somebody who believes in democracy."

Bush spoke nearly three weeks after Musharraf declared emergency rule, sacked members of the Supreme Court and began a roundup of journalists, lawyers and human rights activists. Musharraf's government yesterday released about 3,000 political prisoners, although 2,000 remain in custody, according to the Interior
Ministry.

The comments, delivered in an interview with ABC News anchor Charles Gibson, contrasted with previous administration statements -- including by Bush himself -- expressing grave concern over Musharraf's actions. In his first public comments on the crisis two weeks ago, Bush said his aides bluntly warned Musharraf that his emergency measures "would undermine democracy."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/20/AR2007112002304_pf.html

The paranoid side of me responds: Do you really belive that? Because that is very scary when I look at our upcoming election.

Arresting your Opponents, including Supreme Court Justices, Suspending the Constitution, and Declaring Marshall Law IS NOT
CROSSING THE LINE and are the actions of someone who believes in
Democracy.

Just let that sink in.

Food Safety

As you prepare for your Thanksgiving feast, remember this piece of news (via Ellroon of Rants From The Rookery ):

SAN FRANCISCO, Nov. 19 The U.S. government does not require food importers to submit the results of private lab tests if those results indicate food is contaminated.

One facility in San Francisco that tests about 150 imported food shipments each month finds at least 10 percent of the food contains things like mercury and salmonella, making it unfit for human consumption, USA Today reported Monday.

The newspaper says generally Anresco Labs tells no one about food that fails except for the importer who pays for the test.

Currently there is no regulation requiring labs to send all test results to the Food and Drug Administration though the FDA automatically rejects food that fails lab tests.

The danger is that an unscrupulous importer who gets bad results from one lab could hire another lab to test the food and pass it, the newspaper reports.

Anresco Chairman David Eisenberg says the FDA's failure to require labs to submit all test results forces them to protect importers more than the public.

I'll be shopping later today for my contribution to our Thanksgiving potluck. I haven't even decided what I'm cooking, but I'm only going to use local or domestic ingredients.

How Very Christian

Just in time for Christmas, the inexpensive plastic crucifix, made in Chinese sweatshops:

A labor rights group alleged Tuesday that crucifixes sold in religious gift shops in the U.S. are produced under "horrific" conditions in a Chinese factory with more than 15-hour work days and inadequate food.

"It's a throwback to the worst of the garment sweatshops 10, 20 years ago," said Charles Kernaghan, director of the National Labor Committee.

Kernaghan held a news conference in front of St. Patrick's Cathedral to call attention to conditions at a factory in Dongguan, a southern Chinese city near Hong Kong, where he said crosses sold at the historic church and elsewhere are made.

Spokespeople for St. Patrick's and another New York landmark, the Episcopal Trinity Church at Wall Street, said the churches had removed dozens of crucifixes from their shops while they investigate the claims.

"I don't think they have a clue where these crucifixes were made _ in horrific work
conditions," Kernaghan said.

Kernaghan said the factory's mostly young, female employees work from 8 a.m. to 11:30 p.m. seven days a week and are paid 26 cents an hour with no sick days or vacation. Workers live in filthy dormitories and are fed a watery "slop."

http://www.newsday.com/news/local/wire/newyork/ny-bc-ny--crucifixes-sweats1120nov20,0,575076,print.story

I'm not a religious person, but I have a passing familiarity with the teachings of Jesus. I can't see how he would condone this form of worship.

A Little Speech

It's one of the little things that I hate about our shrub (as opposed to a whole slew of big things). The screening of audiences to only include supporters. Previous presidents have allowed dissenters into their audiences (remember how often Clinton was heckled?), with the only screening being for security purposes. Shrub maintains his bubble:

The problem, in this case, wasn’t with the president’s inoffensive message, but rather with his audience.

You might think that a presidential speech on Thanksgiving would be open to all comers. But no, even when President Bush is talking about something as uncontroversial and inclusive as the essential goodness of our country, he wants his audience prescreened for obsequiousness.

Bush traveled to the historic Berkeley Plantation in southeastern Virginia yesterday for an event carefully calibrated to emphasize his compassionate side. In his remarks, he encouraged “all Americans to show their thanks by giving back.”

But, as usual, he wasn’t talking to all Americans. At least not in person. Admission to the event was tightly controlled by White House and Republican party officials.

Tyler Whitley and Mark Bowes write in the Richmond Times-Dispatch: “President Bush found something to be thankful for yesterday — a friendly, invitation-only Virginia audience. . . . “‘We love you!’ one woman yelled as Bush prepared to deliver a 16-minute Thanksgiving message to a standing-room-only crowd of about 800 people standing at Berkeley under a tent facing the James River.

Yes, it appears Bush can’t even wish Americans a happy Thanksgiving without the comfort of his ever-present Bubble.

http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/13663.html#more-13663

I realize that this is a minor issue compared to all of shrub's crimes, but I find his arrogance infuriating.

An Apology

Sorry about the light posting lately. I owe you all a few good posts soon.

Townsend's Greatest Hits

Fran Townsend is resigning, not that it will change anything. Here's a few of her "better" quotes:

But before she goes, let’s take a moment to consider some of Townsend’s greatest hits. Because, let’s face it, she’s had a few doozies.

Last month, for example, Townsend defended the Bush administration’s “harsh interrogation techniques” during an interview on CNN. She assured Americans that the abuse of detainees stops “if someone becomes cooperative.” (In other words, “We stop torturing when we get what we want out of the suspect.”)

In July, Townsend appeared on NPR to talk about terrorist activities in Iraq. When the host asked if al Qaeda had any capabilities in Iraq before Bush launched his 2003 invasion, Townsend said, “I don’t know — I wasn’t at that briefing.”

Also in July, Townsend told a national television audience that Americans can’t bring shampoo or bottled water on airplanes, but lighters are fine.

Around the same time, Townsend couldn’t explain why the war in Iraq had become a boon for al Qaeda recruitment and fundraising.

And finally, last December, Townsend was on CNN when she delivered one of my favorite lines of all time. CNN White House correspondent Ed Henry noted that, despite Bush’s promises, Osama bin Laden remains a free man. Henry suggested that this should probably be considered a “failure” in the war on terror. Townsend responded, “I’m not sure — it’s a success that hasn’t occurred yet.”

So long, Fran. We hardly knew you.

http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/13651.html#more-13651

Another fine example of the shrub adminstraion's incompetence. I don't expect her replacement will be any better.

Animas Pic

A Saturday river pic, from the Animas. A cataraft going into Smelter rapid.

Renewable Energy Update

The current energy bill has no funding for renewables, as I posted earlier, but thanks to commenter "kwolph" for alerting me to this petition to change that.
http://ga3.org/campaign/blog_energy_alert
I would like to urge you to sign on.

Quotes

"If they can get you to ask the wrong questions, they don't have to worry about the answers"- Thomas Pynchon.
"Those who can make you believe aburdities can make you commit atrocities"- Voltaire
"Give Bush an inch and he thinks he's a ruler"- seen on a bumper sticker.

A Symphony Joke

I'm not very good at jokes, but here's one I enjoyed:
Beethoven's ninth symphony has been played many times. The local orchestra is playing it. The bass section has no part until the end. So the bass players sneak out the back door, to the local pub for a drink. Or two.
They do it every show, coming back for the finale.
At last nights show, the drinks flowed. So one of the bass players tied the last pages of the conductors sheet music together (so he could drink longer).
The bass players got more drunk. They show up at the last second.
Time comes where the conductor finds problems with his score sewn into a pillow.
The woman next to me says " the conductor looks nervous".
Response:
"Of course he's nervous. It's the last of the ninth, the score is tied, and the basses are loaded

Wait a Minute

For reasons that are far beyond my comprehension, the New York Times "opinionator" chose to link here on the Maria Luisa planted question "diamonds or pearls?". Um, thanks. And a big hello to all the new visitors.
But really, why me? This is a tiny, mediocre blog compared to so many others.
But we do have boobies, which might make it worth your time stopping by.

More Manipulation

I guess I wasn't wearing enough tin foil last night. I was bothered by the shallow "diamond or pearls" question. Now the student who asked it, Maria Luisa, explains:

“CNN ran out of time and used me to “close” the debate with the pearls/diamonds question. Seconds later this girl comes up to me and says, “you gave our school a bad reputation.’ Well, I had to explain to her that every question from the audience was pre-planned and censored. That’s what the media does. See, the media chose what they wanted, not what the people or audience really wanted. That’s politics; that’s reality. So, if you want to read about real issues important to America–and the whole world, I suggest you pick up a copy of the Economist or the New York Times or some other independent source. If you want me to explain to you how the media works, I am more than happy to do so. But do not judge me or my integrity based on that question.”

That's so true about how the media works. Remember this as the election cycle unfolds: the media is controlling the message.
We deserve better.

Must Be Friday

Time to show some boobies.

The Media Mess

Watching the debate last night, I was reminded how much I hate the media. Wolf (the woof) Blitzer (blather) did his best Tim Russert impersonation by asking questions designed to provoke fights based on "gotcha" non-issues (i.e. drivers licenses for illegal immigrants) in a blatant attempt to advance the republican agenda. One of the worst examples:

Later, when members of the audience got a chance to ask question, we saw this gem:

SUZANNE MALVEAUX: LaShannon Spencer, please stand up for a moment. What is your question?

LASHANNON SPENCER: We constantly hear health care questions and questions pertaining to the war. But we don’t hear questions pertaining to the Supreme Court justice or education. (Applause.) My question is, if you are elected president, what qualities must the appointee possess?

MS. MALVEAUX: I’d like to get to Senator Dodd, if you would. And in answering that question, also tell us whether or not you would require your nominees to support abortion rights.

Got that? A smart voter asked a smart question. As someone who cares a lot about the Supreme Court, I was genuinely curious to hear the candidates’ responses. But CNN’s Suzanne Malveaux decided the voter’s question wasn’t quite good enough, so she decided to “fix” it, twisting it into a more conventional question about litmus tests.

After Dodd answered the question, Blitzer added insult to injury: “All right, let’s go through the whole panel. I want everybody to weigh in. This is an important question that was raised. I’ll start with Senator Biden. Would you insist that any nominee for the U.S. Supreme Court supported abortion rights for women?”

In other words, according to Blitzer, the “important question that was raised” wasn’t the one from the undecided voter, it was the one from Suzanne Malveaux who changed the important question from the undecided voter.

http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/13613.html#more-13613

The question from the audience was thoughtful: "what qualities..." is a real question that should be answered with substance. By turning the question into one on abortion, Blitzer moved it onto a republican talking point. Don't get me wrong, I think abortion rights are important. But a supreme court nominee should have other "qualities".

A truth: Whoever becomes the Democratic nominee will have to defeat two opponents, the Republican AND the media.

A Very Short Debate Comment

Is this what we're down to? The last debate question was to Mrs. Clinton, and the question was:
"Diamonds or pearls?"
It doesn't matter how you feel about Hillary Clinton, this is just wrong.
Added: Yes, the question came from a woman in the audience, but it was stupid and sexist.
Added update:

Maria Luisa, the UNLV student who asked Hillary Clinton whether she preferred "diamonds or pearls" at last night's debate wrote on her MySpace page this morning that CNN forced her to ask the frilly question instead of a pre-approved query about the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository.

"Every single question asked during the debate by the audience had to be approved by CNN," Luisa writes. "I was asked to submit questions including "lighthearted/fun" questions. I submitted more than five questions on issues important to me. I did a policy memo on Yucca Mountain a year ago and was the finalist for the Truman Scholarship. For sure, I thought I would get to ask the Yucca question that was APPROVED by CNN days in advance."

Your media at work...

a homebrewer's concerns regarding a possible complete collapse of our civilisation

Okay so lets just imagine that it all goes to shit. Everything. No utility grid. No groceries. Supposing we survive- how will we have beer?
Pygalgia says he can carve up a dead critter pretty good. Super! Dead critters will probably be ubiquitous after a stupendous crisis-say,a calamitous sudden plunge back to the bronze age or something -the skills to make 'em dinner will be in demand.
How will we have beer when all the taverns and homebrew supply stores are long gone? Hmmm. Frankly, i find such a scenario terrifying, but maybe i shouldn't... as folks all over the world have always managed to contrive fermented beverages for 10,000 years or so.

I need a grain. Preferably barley. The barley must be sprouted i.e. malted by soaking and rinsing the husks in cool rainwater (assuming it rains) saving half of it for gruel, and half pressed into biscuits and baked at a long low temp (perfect for campfire coals) . Both the sprouted gruel and the half baked biscuits are spooned into a wood or stone lined trough and mixed, as hot rocks are dropped strategically into the mixture.Refer to picture above- this is neolithic style mashing!
Sprouting barley activates the enzyme diatase, which converts the inherent starch compounds to maltose- a basic sugar necessary for fermentation. The reason why half is grueled and half is baked is, the biscuit maneuver facilitates still more enzymatic activity necessary for fermentation, while the barley gruel provides lactic acid which inhibits nasties while somehow attracting Saccharomyces Cerevisiae- the yeast we want.
Now comes the tricky part... How do we get yeast? The homebrew shop, with its neat little vials of beer yeast around the world, is perhaps a smoldering ruin. Seems shaky to me, but the tried and true i.e. 10,000 year old method is simply to toss wild fruit skins into the wort. Grapes, preferably. Maybe i can find some in some canyon. More likely apples.
I have nearly exhausted myself, attempting to research where to find Saccharomyces Cerevisiae in the wild, at this latitude/elevation/eligible flora. 7000 ft desert is not a "fruity" place.
But some folks in Peru, even before the Mayans, had large-scale breweries at 10,000 ft. Apparently, they collected yeast from pepper trees.
We will figure it out, won't we? We always have.

November Weather

It's the middle of November, and we still have t-shirt and sandal weather. That is just weird for our area. I mean, I'm living at 7000ft. up in the mountains. We've been in a drought for years, so I'm not holding out for snow, but it usually is much colder.
But there's no global warming.

Spelunking on Renewable Energy

Once again, the dems are caving, this time on renewable energy:

Last Thursday, Democratic leaders Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid said that they would jettison the renewable energy provisions in both the House and Senate versions of the 2007 energy bill in the interest of passing a bill before the Thanksgiving recess begins on November 17.

Republicans have been holding up action on the bill for months now, refusing to participate in conference committee meetings to reconcile the House and Senate versions. The big sticking points for Republicans have been support for renewable energy and ending billions of dollars in subsidies for oil companies. Democrats would like to use the oil subsidy money to support solar and wind power.

Representatives of the renewable energy industry were dismayed by the Democrats' abandonment. "This is basically Congress delivering an early Christmas present to the American public -- and it's a lump of coal," said Rhone Resch, president of the Solar Energy Industries Association (SEIA). "We are feeling disgusted because this energy bill goes right back to maintaining the status quo."

The renewable energy provisions in the bill come in two forms: a Renewable Electricity Standard that requires utilities to supply 15 percent of their electricity from renewable sources like solar and wind, and tax provisions, including a production tax credit for wind power and a tax credit to encourage investment in solar power equipment.

While the Renewable Electricity Standard would be a new federal program (31 states already have some kind of renewable mandate), the tax incentives for solar and wind would continue programs already in place. Losing these tax breaks would be devastating to the renewable energy industry, said solar lobbyist Scott Sklar of the Stella Group: "It will cause sales and investment to implode."

http://www.alternet.org/environment/67793/

I'm beyond appaled...the amount of money being proposed for renewables is a mere pittance when compared to the oil subsidies, and only a small fraction of what should be invested. The American public supports alternative energy. The future of the planet demands it. So why the hell can't the dems stand up for something as simple as including renewables in an energy bill. Another spineless cave-in.

We deserve better.

And After the Crash?

Strange and interesting talk at the brewery tonight. What do we do in the event of a crash? A disaster? How will our community react?
The folks in the discussion aren't tinfoil extremist types; we're pretty much "workin' for a livin'" who happen to talk politics. But I'm hearing more and more "disaster" scenarios.
Is it a market crash, a plague, or a natural disaster? Doesn't matter. We've learned that Grover Norquist won. The government can no longer swim.
This part of the country is not agriculturally sustainable. We talked about the native population density compared to the current population density. Not a good mix, or why our food isn't local is because local is high mountain desert.
But we are communitarian. We talked about skills (my having spent my younger years on a farm, and knowing how to carve up an animal was highly valued) and who has what tools, and I realized that we'll be OK.

Why Win in '08?

I'm starting to wonder why anyone would want to win the presidency in '08 (I know, rhetorical question). Who would like to inherit the wreckage of the shrub debacle?
The economy is in shambles, the deficit is huge, and the American infrastructure is falling apart after years of neglect. The latest example being the cleanup of the S.F. Bay oil spill, where the response was slower and weaker than a cleanup roughly 20 years ago. What does this portend for a federal response in the event of a major earthquake?
Global warming continues to get worse, but the efforts to address it are pitiful. Energy demand and prices will continue to increase, but the development of alternatives are so weak as to be useless. The technology is there but the development isn't.
The next president will inherit the Iraq quagmire, where "things are getting better" means that the violence is down to the level of 2005, like that was a rosy time. And shrub still has over a year to fuck up the rest of the region (which one will be the next disaster? Place your bets now).
I wish that I thought that one of the candidates looked to be the potential "great president" who could repair the damage and inspire a bright new future. I don't see one.

On Diplomacy with Iran

In an interview done by Maziar Bahari of Newsweek with Sadegh Kharazi, Iran's former ambassador to France and the person reported to have penned the famous 2003 Iran offer to resolve outstanding issues with the United States, Kharazi makes a powerful argument for a positive diplomatic exchange.

Sadegh Kharazi: Because of the disastrous results of American unilateralism in Iraq, they are looking for an international support of their initiatives vis-à-vis Iran. Everyone knows that an American military attack will not only damage Iran but also other countries in the region as well as American interests in the Middle East.

...

We may have the same illusion. In either case it's wrong. Both sides should put aside the smear campaign against each other and populist slogans and adopt more pragmatic policies.

...

In diplomacy everything's possible and nothing is impossible. I think both countries should lay all the issues on the table and discuss their problems. There is no problem that cannot be solved. If both countries recognize each other's rights, then they can collaborate on many issues, including Iraq, Afghanistan and smuggling of narcotics. They can have differences of opinion, but there is no reason for the current hostility. America has its own differences with China, Russia and even Europe, but that doesn't mean that they cannot talk.

...

Even though Iran is ready to defend its interests by any means necessary, the first priority of Iran's supreme leader and the government of Iran is stability of the region. They don't want war and tension. That is why Iran cooperated with the United States to topple the Taliban in Afghanistan and Saddam in Iraq. Under the leadership of Ayatollah Khamenei Iran has normalized its relations with many countries who were our enemies in the past.

...

What our current government is doing is a reaction to years of Americans ignoring Iran's positive gestures. During the presidency of Mr. [Mohammad] Khatami, whenever we wanted to have a rapprochement with the United States they demanded more. We cooperated with them in Afghanistan and we were called a member of the Axis of Evil. On the eve of the invasion of Iraq we sent them a letter with a package of proposals, but they chose to ignore it. Extremism breeds extremism.

http://www.newsweek.com/id/69268

The sad fact that our administration will never engage in such a discussion leaves us so much weaker.

New Hydrogen Technology

I've posted a few things in the past on alternative energy technologies, mostly on the advantages of butanol and cellulosic ethanol over the current ethanol from foodstocks system. But this really got my interest:

Hydrogen as an everyday, environmentally friendly fuel source may be closer than we think, according to Penn State researchers.

"The energy focus is currently on ethanol as a fuel, but economical ethanol from cellulose is 10 years down the road," says Bruce E. Logan, the Kappe professor of environmental engineering. "First you need to break cellulose down to sugars and then bacteria can convert them to ethanol."

Logan and Shaoan Cheng, research associate, suggest a method based on microbial fuel cells to convert cellulose and other biodegradable organic materials directly into hydrogen in today's (Nov. 12) issue of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences online.

The researchers used naturally occurring bacteria in a microbial electrolysis cell with acetic acid – the acid found in vinegar. Acetic acid is also the predominant acid produced by fermentation of glucose or cellulose. The anode was granulated graphite, the cathode was carbon with a platinum catalyst, and they used an off-the-shelf anion exchange membrane. The bacteria consume the acetic acid and release electrons and protons creating up to 0.3 volts. When more than 0.2 volts are added from an outside source, hydrogen gas bubbles up from the liquid.

"This process produces 288 percent more energy in hydrogen than the electrical energy that is added to the process," says Logan.

http://live.psu.edu/story/27233

Using organic processes to generate hydrogen has huge potential, and if the 288% return is accurate then this could be a system to watch. It's certainly research worth investing in.

Veterans Day

Hanging at the brewery, I was repeatedly reminded how many veterans I know. Not a surprise by itself, but an interesting snapshot on America.

In honor of Veterans’ Day, Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-Mass.) and former Sen. Max
Cleland (D-Ga.) wrote a joint-post for Wired’s Danger Room on the thousands of U.S. troops who return home only to find that their jobs (and benefits) are gone. In 1994, Democrats in Congress and the Clinton White House successfully passed a law to protect veterans’ seniority, salary, and benefits when they return home, but today, the Bush administration is lax about forcing private businesses to follow the law.

Today, however, the federal government is failing in this responsibility. It’s not even adequately informing returning service members about their rights, and it’s not protecting them when their rights are violated. A study by the Government Accountability Office this year found that when the Department of Labor decided to refer federal cases for litigation, it took an average of 247 days.

The Government Accountability Office also found serious problems in collecting and reporting data on claims under the law. Four different agencies collect this data. But they collect it in inconsistent formats, making it impossible to understand the problems that veterans face — particularly disabled veterans.

Until the hearing, the public had little knowledge of the problem, because the Pentagon had been classifying the most accurate statistics. Now that we know the extent of the problem, Congress must act to protect the reemployment rights of our forces.

Damn straight. I know a few too many Republicans believe “supporting the troops” means “supporting their mission,” but protecting veterans when they return home seems to be the trickier part for the Bush administration.

I'll start by saying that I'm not a veteran. I'm in the "lucky years". When I came of military age, Vietnam was over and the military was downsizing. I had an athletic scholarship to pay for my next 2 years of college, so I had no reason to go into the military. I didn't need them, and they didn't need me.
But a lot of my friends did.
My Father served during the Korean war, but in a "non-combat" role (I know that it involved intelligence and computers, but Dad took some secrets to his grave).
But then there is my friend "ducky". He was a helicopter pilot in 'nam. Shot down 5 times, 3 purple hearts, bronze star, and also got PTSD as a throw in. Ducky is a genius, a madman, and a totally loyal friend. So when we discuss current issues, I can say almost anything. The issue of VA and treating PTSD came up. He explained how hard that he had to fight to get help. I worked the psych emergency ward during the same years. While PTSD was not my area of expertise, I got psychiatric emergencies that should have been VA treated. That was then.
This is now:

Study: 1 Out of 4 Homeless Are Veterans And we really appreciate their service.

I don't have a answer, but couple this with the number of TBI cases, and this is a new health care crisis.

Nice Job

Our economy is truly in the hands of greedheads with no basis in reality:

Together, former Merrill chief executive E. Stanley O'Neal and former Citigroup chief executive Charles O. Prince have lost more than $20 billion in company money. Yet they left with $360 million in their own pockets.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/09/AR2007110901563.html?hpid=opinionsbox1

As one of the little people who tries to get by on around 20k a year, I have a hard time wrapping my head around these numbers and the belief behind them. What skills do you need to lose billions of dollars? And why are those skills worth millions?