Rusted Sky

I'm not talking about the tile in the bathroom, either. But instead, I'm talking about Obama... and Hillary.

I've been out of contact this weekend - went with the Den up to Chilhowee Gliderport in Tennassee, and I get back to some very strange goings-on.

Obama's left his church, purportedly because of their racist stance. Now, I'm a trifle confused at how he could be an apparently very active member of that church for TWO DECADES and suddenly go "Damn! I didn't realize it was Black Liberation Theology nuttiness! I'm outta here!"

There are rumors that a tape of his wife in full-blown racist-rant-mode is about to surface. I would not be terribly surprised if such a thing did exist - what I've seen of Michelle Obama on TV gives me the impression she's a rather hate-filled person. Oh, I'm sure she's fine with puppies and kittens, but there's a certain, um, coldness about her that I've found unsettling. Could have just been bad editing or staging, but she comes off as much more Hillary-esque than Laura Bush-esque - and not in a nice way, either. She, I could imagine, would have no problem shouting "Out of the way, cracker!" as First Lady if someone got in her way.

It seems strange to me that the path to healing the racial divide would first require getting in office someone who's gone to an overtly racist church, where a racist theology is spoken and taught. Perhaps someone smarter than I can explain how, for example, electing a confirmed and practicing KKK member as President would be a good thing for minorities, Jews and Catholics here in the US...

If someone can manage that, I've no doubt the Obama campaign could use them.

Hillary's been staying in the contest much longer than I would have expected - and done 'better' in places than I thought. How well she's going to do in the general election, I can't say. However - there's a couple of problems that I see.

Firstly, there's been a lot of folks who've registered Democrat because of identity politics. You have a Black and a Woman competing - no matter who wins there's going to be disaffected partisan voters. That's going to hurt the turnout for the Dems. It's also showing that the Democratic Party hasn't set itself up to be the party of all - but it's perhaps not terribly suprising considering how much of the Democratic Party identity has been focused on pandering to specific identity groups.

For the last 8 years, the Democrats have been driving a wedge into their own internal structure. Now it's deep enough to hurt badly - and I don't think it can take much more.

J.

A robot with a gun... a picture of a robot with a gun...

Man threatened with arrest at Heathrow for wearing Transformers T-shirt| News | This is London

An airline passenger claimed that a security guard threatened to arrest him because he was wearing a T-shirt showing a cartoon robot with a gun.

Brad Jayakody, 30, from London, said he was stopped from passing through security at Heathrow's Terminal 5 after his Transformers T-shirt was deemed 'offensive.'

I thought the TSA here in the US was nuts. Looks like once again Europe's ahead of the US!

J.

And so the Democrats end up with possibly an even weaker candidate than John Kerry. Who'd have thought it possible?

There are some that say he's really much more capable and competent than he comes across. Well, the man's great at speeches - but he doesn't have much else to recommend him. I'd feel better about his nomination if I thought he had a clue, and the determination to follow it through despite opposition.

I'm not seeing that. I see a Chicago small-time politican out of his depth, propped up by a willing, compliant media that likes to paint him as the perfect candidate - despite never taking a stand on anything, no record to speak of, and not much in the way of accomplishments - aside from jettisoning political expendable items like his grandmother and his pastor and his church when they become liabilities. This doesn't speak much for his loyalty, determination or judgement...

No, I'm just not feelin' the love, I'm sorry to say.

One bit I saw on the web is below.. So's my reply.

When October comes around and gasoline is $6 gallon, food is rising 10% a month, people are scratching their heads and wondering where they're going to find $8,000 cash to heat their house in January, and Americans are finally figuring out we're in the worst financial crisis in a century, who do you think they will pick to get us out of this mess?

Um - the same party that created it, the Democrats? The ones who've insisted the oil companies somehow magically lower prices, yet won't allow them to actually drill or upgrade infrastructure... but think they can be tapped for a few dozen billion more in 'windfall profit taxes'? The ones who think the laws of supply and demand don't apply to the oil companies? Who don't mind seeing Google make a 25% profit, but have hysterics over the 8-10% from oil companies? Who don't understand the demand for oil from China and India have driven up the world spot market, and that speculators have really jacked up the price trading oil futures? The ones who've blocked wind power? The ones who block nuclear power? Who want to put an extra energy tax on a gallon of gas that'll run about a buck and a half extra? Who want us to switch to electric vehicles, yet don't want more power plants built to supply electricity?

Those people?

Yeah. They'll fix things. Sure they will. If we're lucky, GDP won't drop more than 10, 15%, and unemployment won't get much above 20%. (Great Depression hit about 25% GDP drop and unemployment above 25% respectively.)

But the press coverage of the decline and fall of the US economy will be absolutely glowing about how good everything is and how all the right choices are being made... Because the Democrats will be in control!

The Dems are finished. Oh, the party will coast for a while longer - but they've elected the possibly worst candidate in their long history - even worse than Jimmy Carter. (And Jimmy, in retrospect, looked much more acceptable in '76 than Obama does now.)

November will tell - but I don't see Obama winning. There's just too much about him that's unpalatable.

J.

Solar Cycle 24 Could Be 13 Years Long - Cooler Times Ahead? ｫ Watts Up With That? has some interesting observations. Apparently there's a number of different solar activity cycles - the standard 11 year, a 22, a 53 year cycle, 88, 106, 213, and 429. When the cycles coincide, you get some pretty significant temperature drops.

Solar Cycle 23 should have been about 11 years long. (That time is from trough to trough as far as sunspot numbers go. When the number of sunspots bottoms out and starts going up, the new cycle starts.) Right now, it looks like it might be 13. The longer the solar cycle, the cooler things get.

And there have been some pretty significant temperate drops in May. Here at home, we only turned on our air conditioning at the end of May. My brother reports very heavy snows still on the mountains around Yakima, WA, and recently an icebreaker got stuck trying to show ecotourists the ice was gone.

An icebreaker. Stuck. In ice. That wasn't supposed to be there.

When you get the cycles together - temps drop. So far, it looks like the planet's taken a .774°C drop since January of '07 - the last peak. The temp's had a .195°C drop between April and May.

Looks like some cold times are coming. What do you want to bet the Global Warming shills will be in full cry trying to get us to dismantle the economy?

If it comes down to global cooling versus global warming - I'll take the warming.

There's a lot of factors that play into the global warming/climate change foolishness - but one that seems to be totally ignored is solar input. The Sun isn't a 100 watt heat lamp that's always the same temperature output - it varies. And right now - it's very quiet.

Wonder if I still have my nomex long underwear somewhere?

J.

Spotted a reference to this B-2 crashed because moisture confused sensors - Air Force Times when I was looking at this article about the AF Chief of Staff and Secretary of the AF had 'resigned'.

Now, I didn't see anything in the local papers about the B-2 crash - I didn't see anything about it out at the plant, or on any of the blogs I surf. )Searched back in the on-line archives -

A $1.5 billion aircraft crashes - and it doesn't even make the local papers. Incredible...

And it looks like the Air Force is going to have an interesting time reorganizing...

Well. Wierd times for everyone, I guess...

J.

Be careful who you kick in Congress.

Gateway Pundit: Lieberman Announces "Citizens for McCain"; Targeting Independents and Democrats

It might come back to haunt you. I'd say, rough estimate, that if this really takes root the Dems just lost 10-15% of their voter base.

And THAT they cannot afford.

(I just wonder what took Lieberman so long.)

J.

The Telectroscope

Now THAT is "art".

J.

They must have cut back on the drugs in the water.

U.S. Congressman Dana Rohrabacher : 46th District Of California - Congressman Rohrabacher's Floor Speech on Global Warming

...

Unfortunately, the debate on this case is not closed. So explaining emerging obvious differences between the reality and the theory needs to be addressed by the people who have been advocating global warming. The case is not closed. The gnomes of climate theory now have to come up with explanations for us of why it was predicted that the weather would be this way at this time and it is not. Why is it that basically we've had stable weather, if not a little cooler weather, for the last 8 years?

The first attempt to basically cover their tracks about this noticeable dichotomy in what they predicted and what was happening happened a few years ago, and it went very slowly but very cleverly. The words ``climate change'' have now replaced the words ``global warming.'' Get that? Every time you hear it now, half the time they are going to be using the words ``climate change'' where those very same people were so adamant about ``global warming'' only 4 or 5 years ago. So no matter what happens now, now that they've changed it to ``climate change'' rather than global warming, whatever happens to the weather pattern, whether it's hotter or cooler, it can be presented as further verification of human-caused change. If you just had ``human-caused warming,'' it would have to be at least warming for them to actually have any verification of what they were trying to say. But right now by using ``climate change,'' they can bolster their right to be taken seriously upon recommending policies, even though no matter what direction the climate goes, it is justified by how they are labeling themselves.

I'm sorry, fellows. Do you really think the world is filled with morons? When it comes to bait and switch, used car salesmen are paragons of virtue compared to this global warming crowd. Excuse me. It's not the ``global warming'' crowd now; it's the ``climate change'' crowd. Of course, they don't want any of us to own automobiles; so what the heck. They can act like used car salesmen because there will be more jobs for them as being advocates in the climate change arena.

We just need to ask ourselves, if a salesman gives a strong pitch and claims something that is later found to be wrong, totally wrong, when does one stop trusting that salesman? Then if he starts playing word games, changing the actual words that he's using about the same product rather than just admitting an error, isn't it reasonable to stop trusting him?

Yes, Al Gore and company, we have noticed that you are now saying ``climate change'' rather than ``global warming.'' I know that people tried to slip it in, but we have noticed, and there is something behind this that the American people should take note of. Why has that changed? Well, that's because the world has not been getting warmer in these last 7 years, as they predicted it would be.

So instead of word games, what these advocates need to explain is what is happening in the real world today and why it doesn't match what they said was going to happen based on their ``case closed, man-made global warming is real.'' They must realize that someone is bound to notice that last winter was unusually cold and that chilly weather seems to be the trend. It actually snowed in Denver just less than a month ago, and people have commented on the chilliness of the weather this year.

So now we see a beehive of activity going on. Those federally funded scientists are trying to save some modicum of credibility by adjusting their computers and coming up with some explanations that keep man-made global warming as a theory but explains away the current dichotomy between what they said would happen and what is actually happening. Of course, computer models were used to justify their hysteria and their hysteric warming predictions to begin with. So now the computer's information input is readjusted and we can see all these things coming out of it.

Now that Obamamessiah has been officially anointed, we're going to see if he's got a plan, or whether he's going to do the same old "Tax the oil companies" rhetoric....

J.

Oh, wait - were we talking about a Democratic plan to solve energy shortages? Well, look at just what they want to do...

Power Line: Who's to Blame for High Gas Prices?

Congressman Roy Blunt put together these data to highlight the differences between House Republicans and House Democrats on energy policy:

ANWR Exploration House Republicans: 91% Supported House Democrats: 86% Opposed

Coal-to-Liquid
House Republicans: 97% Supported
House Democrats: 78% Opposed

Oil Shale Exploration
House Republicans: 90% Supported
House Democrats: 86% Opposed

Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) Exploration
House Republicans: 81% Supported
House Democrats: 83% Opposed

Refinery Increased Capacity
House Republicans: 97% Supported
House Democrats: 96% Opposed

SUMMARY

91% of House Republicans have historically voted to increase the production of American-made oil and gas.
86% of House Democrats have historically voted against increasing the production of American-made oil and gas.

J.

Pump more oil, consuming nations plead - World business- msnbc.com

AOMORI, Japan - Leading energy-consuming nations urged oil producers Saturday to boost their output to counter soaring prices threatening the world economy, while they pledged to develop clean energy technologies and improve efficiency.

The five nations — the United States, China, Japan, India and South Korea — differed, however, on how urgently oil subsidies should be phased out, with Washington backing bold movement while India and China warned of political and economic instability.

Cabinet ministers from the five countries, which account for more than half the world's consumption of energy, agreed that the sharp surge in oil prices was a menace to the world economy, and that more petroleum should be produced to meet rising demand.

Care to guess what the Democrats are gonna say?

J.

We keep on kicking them, why should they do business in the US?

Obama says he would impose oil windfall profits tax | Reuters

RALEIGH, North Carolina (Reuters) - Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama said on Monday he would impose a windfall profits tax on U.S. oil companies as he sought political gain from Americans' pain over high gasoline prices.

Launching a two-week focus on the economy after clinching the Democratic presidential nomination, Obama drew a sharp contrast between his economic policies and those of John McCain, his Republican rival in the November election.

"I'll make oil companies like Exxon pay a tax on their windfall profits, and we'll use the money to help families pay for their skyrocketing energy costs and other bills," the Illinois senator said.

I swear, I think the Dems WANT to see this country go down the tubes economically. We're already hurting because of high gas prices - so it makes perfect sense (to Obama - because it sure doesn't to me!) to go ahead and tax the profits of the oil companies - IN ADDITION to the taxes they ALREADY pay! (Which is about twice their profit margin, I believe.)

Of course - this is on top of restricting where they can drill.

Can someone, ANYONE, explain how this is supposed to make sense? Because I'm sure not getting how it all fits together, except as a way to totally FUBAR the economy.

J.

After all, there's no REAL urgency, is there?

The politics of oil shale - Jun. 6, 2008

NEW YORK (Fortune) -- You'd think this would be oil shale's moment.

You'd think with gas prices topping $4 and consumers crying uncle, Congress would be moving fast to spur development of a domestic oil resource so vast - 800 billion barrels of recoverable oil shale in Colorado, Utah and Wyoming alone - it could eventually rival the oil fields of Saudi Arabia.

You'd think politicians would be tripping over themselves to arrange photo-ops with Harold Vinegar (whom I profiled in Fortune last November), the brilliant, Brooklyn-born chief scientist at Royal Dutch Shell whose research cracked the code on how to efficiently and cleanly convert oil shale - a rock-like fossil fuel known to geologists as kerogen - into light crude oil.

You'd think all of this, but you'd be wrong.

Last month, the U.S. Senate's Appropriations Committee voted 15-14 to kill a bill that would have ended a one-year moratorium on enacting rules for oil shale development on federal lands (which is where the best oil shale is located). Most maddening of all - at least to someone like myself not steeped in the wacky ways of Washington - the swing vote on the appropriations committee, U.S. Sen. Mary Landrieu, D-La., voted with the majority even though she actually opposes the moratorium.

"Sen. Salazar asked me to vote no. I did so at his request," Landrieu told The Rocky Mountain News. A Landrieu staffer contacted by Fortune doesn't dispute this, but notes that Landrieu did propose a compromise which Republicans rejected.

Arghh!

She was speaking of U.S. Sen. Ken Salazar, D-Colo., who has emerged as the Senate's leading oil shale opponent. Salazar inserted the aforementioned moratorium into an omnibus spending bill last December, and in May he proposed a new bill that would extend the moratorium another year.

It's getting kind of plain that the folks in Washington don't believe there's any real problem. It IS, after all, an election year, and the only thing you do with problems (real or perceived) in an election year is make nice speeches about how you're going to solve them IF you get elected. Why in heaven's name would you do something to correct the problem?

Yeah, I know - because getting voted into office or staying in office is MUCH more important than anything else. And if it means the economy goes off the rails... well, so what?

J.

It doesn't fit the narrative.

Iraqi Sheik Offers To Take Fight to Bin Laden - June 9, 2008 - The New York Sun

WASHINGTON — The leader of the tribal confederation that has fought to expel Al Qaeda from most of Iraq's Anbar province is offering his men to help gin up a rebellion against Osama bin Laden's organization along the Afghanistan-Pakistan border.

In an interview, Sheik Ahmad al-Rishawi told The New York Sun that in April he prepared a 47-page study on Afghanistan and its tribes for the deputy chief of mission at the American embassy in Kabul, Christopher Dell. When asked if he would send military advisers to Afghanistan to assist American troops fighting there, he said: "I have no problem with this; if they ask me, I will do it."

The success of the Anbari tribal rebellion known as the awakening spurred Multinational Forces Iraq to try to emulate the model throughout Iraq, including with the predominately Shiite tribes in the south of the country. Today, the tribe-based militias formed to protect Anbaris from Al Qaeda are forming a political alliance poised to unseat the confessional Sunni parties currently in parliament in the provincial elections scheduled for the fall and the federal ones scheduled for 2009.

During his nomination hearing for taking over the regional military post known as Central Command, General David Petraeus said one of the first things he would do would be to travel to Pakistan to discuss the current strategy of the government in dealing with Al Qaeda's safe haven in the Pashtun border provinces. A possible strategy for defeating Al Qaeda would be an effort there along the lines of the Anbar awakening to win over the tribes that offer Osama bin Laden's group protection and safe haven.

"Al Qaeda is an ideology," Sheik Ahmad said. "We can defeat them inside Iraq and we can defeat them in any country." The tribal leader arrived in Washington last week. All of his meetings, including an audience with President Bush, have been closed to the public, in part because the Anbari sheiks, while likely to win future electoral contests, are not themselves part of Iraq's elected government.

And that help has to come from us. The EU won't do it. Russia won't. China might, but likely won't - they've got their own problems.

Soon we'll be having an election. If Obama gets in, I forsee a replay of 1975, with our military pulled out and support cut. If McCain gets in, he'll likely continue the job.

Shortly after 9/11, I figured this would be a generational war - not something that would be won or ended in a few years. Now, if we continue our support in an appropriate fashion (which doesn't include redeploying to Kuwait, or bugging out of Iraq, or any other scenario the anti-war crowd would like to see occur) we may see the end of militant, Al Quaeda-like Islam in just a few more years.

Do we have the will to endure? Or will we abandon the prize when it's within reach?

J.

I blame global warming. <

a title="Local News | Snow at Snoqualmie Pass overnight, but warmer weather for Seattle later this week | Seattle Times Newspaper" href="http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2004468514_webweather10m.html">Local News | Snow at Snoqualmie Pass overnight, but warmer weather for Seattle later this week | Seattle Times Newspaper

Over at Science Daily, there's a bit of concern about the lack of sunspots...

The solar flux reading from LouisXIV is down to 61 - it was 64 in January, and scientists were a bit concerned then...

Well, we'll see what happens. I'm thinking it's going to be a bit chilly next winter!

J.

After Republicans blocked a bill that was designed to punish the oil companies, they've apparently decided it's time to push for more drilling, alternative fuels, and increased efficiency.

The Democrats? Eh. It's not a real problem yet, apparently. They're still doing the same-old, same-old. Blame the oil companies, blame the consumers, tax, tax, tax our way into a brighter future for us all.

Uh, yeah. Since Pelosi got in office, gas has gone up over a buck and a half. Let's try something ELSE, shall we?

Take a look at REAL Energy Solutions, and tell me what you think. I realize they're politicians - but they've got at least ONE thing going for them...

They don't think that we can tax our way into prosperity.

(And remember - Democrats NEVER try to solve a problem that can be used to gather votes in an election year. How will taxing the oil companies bring down the price? The answer is - it won't, but it'll get them votes for 'doing something'!)

Hat tip to Gateway Pundit...

Update - I might also point out that the 'tax the oil companies' strategy is predicated on the idea that the money collected can then be used for the GOVERNMENT to come up with alternative energy scams. Schemes. I meant schemes. So - figure gas goes up to $5 a gallon, and there's a promise of eventually some other form of storable energy coming on line.

Eventually... and then people will adjust and forget, and the money will be used for something else.
J.

From the Wall Street Journal...

Anyone wondering why U.S. energy policy is so dysfunctional need only review Congress's recent antics. Members have debated ideas ranging from suing OPEC to the Senate's carbon tax-and-regulation monstrosity, to a windfall profits tax on oil companies, to new punishments for "price gouging" – everything except expanding domestic energy supplies.

Amid $135 oil, it ought to be an easy, bipartisan victory to lift the political restrictions on energy exploration and production. Record-high fuel costs are hitting consumers and business like a huge tax increase. Yet the U.S. remains one of the only countries in the world that chooses as a matter of policy to lock up its natural resources. The Chinese think we're insane and self-destructive, while the Saudis laugh all the way to the bank.

Politicians are the only people in the world who create problems and then campaign against them.

Have you ever wondered why, if both the Democrats and the Republicans are against deficits, we have deficits?

Have you ever wondered why, if all the politicians are against inflation and high taxes, we have inflation and high taxes?

You and I don't propose a federal budget. The President does.

You and I don't have the Constitutional authority to vote on appropriations. The House of Representatives does.

You and I don't write the tax code. Congress does.

You and I don't set fiscal policy. Congress does.

You and I don't control monetary policy. The Federal Reserve Bank does.

One hundred senators, 435 congressmen, one president and nine Supreme Court justices - 545 human beings out of the 300 million - are directly, legally, morally and individually responsible for the domestic problems that plague this country.

Congress, like it or not, has become a defacto autocratic aristocracy. They have little responsibility to their constituents, and face little danger of losing their positions even when they go essentially insane in office (See Cynthia McKinney) or commit crimes that would have you and I in the lockup in short order. The voter will reflexively pull the lever for the incumbent - because most just don't pay any attention.

But the thing that really ticks me off? You would think, after being slapped in the face with $4 gas, that the DEMOCRATS, of all people, would be falling all over themselves to buy votes with a rational solution involving fast-tracking refinery upgrades and additional drilling.

But they aren't.

Admittedly, when you're a Congress-critter, you're essentially insulated from the world. The price of oil matters less to you than where you're going to eat lunch. Why should they be concerned? It's all posturing and attempting to look 'essential' and 'relevant' and 'effective' - which is why you see the garbage that they're trying to pass re energy.

The solution? Write. Call. Tell them what you want. Sure - they'll ignore it, but YOU will remember come election day that the so-and-so in office never replied and didn't do a single effective thing about the issues you're concerned about.

And then you'll vote accordingly.

J.

It isn't popular. It isn't 'pretty'. It isn't quick. It's been mostly ignored.

Infrastructure.

Shopfloor ｻ Blog Archive ｻ Infrastructure in Need

Much of America’s transportation infrastructure is a half-century old; the Interstate Highway System was inaugurated in 1956 (after decades of planning).

But the planning and much of the construction took place before the Great Society, before Medicare, before Medicaid, before welfare, before Food Stamps, before the Conservation Reserve Program, before the Low-Income Heating and Energy Assistance Program, before the Community Development Block Grant Program, before the Manufacturing Extension Partnership, leafy spurge management grants, before HUD, the EPA, the Department of Education, etc., etc., etc….that is, before the explosion of federal spending and programs that now draw dollars that might have been spent on infrastructure.

There'd be hell to pay in Washington.

But something's gotta give. Without infrastructure, we've got nothing to hang our civilization on...

J.

Be back in a while. Play nice! (Or not...)

J.

Took a short vacation - short seems to be the operative word any more - I've got (thanks to longevity in the job) a magnificent total of 3 weeks paid time off each year. 15 days to contemplate the wonders of this nation, to travel here and there and just generally unwind.

However - the plant does a mandatory shutdown between Christmas and New Years, and we need to have 5 days for that or it's unpaid time off. (Yeah, well, that's the breaks.) We can't really plan on trips then - have you ever tried travelling over the Christmas holidays? Say, to Disney World or Key West? There's always the tourist traps of the Gulf Coast - but that's for spring break. (Grin.)

Thank you, but no... so no travel goes on then.

That leaves a week during the school year (like Spring Break this year, when we dragged out the Trailer and went over to Savannah) and a week during the summer.

Which we just took.

And I'm sure, by now, you're probably ticking off the possible destinations. (Um, or not. Bear with me here.) I'm interested in space, and technology, so did we go to Port Canaveral's Jetty Park? Close to the Space Center and Orlando? (Yeah, figure we're dragging the trailer.)

Or did we head over to a previous fun spot, the Gulf Shores Campground?

Oh, I give up. Why keep you in suspense any longer? (Besides - suspense might not be the right word, eh?)

We went to Pigeon Forge. Specifically, we stayed in the Twin Mountains RV Park. And if you're looking for a review of the place, I've got the following to say about it.

As far as cleanliness goes, I'd give it a 9.8 out of 10. They are ON any problem as soon as it's reported - and they've got a very competent on-site maintenance crew. (There was a problem with an overflowing toilet in one of the bath houses - I had the little guy bike down and report it to the office. Before he got back to the trailer, they had two guys zip up in a golf cart with an "Out of Order" sign - and a half hour later the sign was gone, the bath house was open, and it was very clean and dry.)

Layout? Eh. It's an RV park. The road is a trifle narrow, the spaces are narrow also. Maximal use of space. Call it a 6.

Price? Good - considering it's right in the middle of, you might say, Redneck Disney World. (Dollywood is very close by.) (If you take a look at the prices for Disney World's Fort Wilderness Campground, the prices are almost 50% more for a comparable full-hookup (water-electric-sewer) site - plus cable costs extra.) If you don't mind slightly cramped sites (and there's so much to do close by, you'll likely only use the site to sleep) you'll find this an economical, good place to stay.

Plus, they've got wifi. (And you may ask - if that's the case, where the heck have I been?)

There's more to life than the internet. While I'd be satisfied to take off a week and spend it parked in front of the computer - such a thing wouldn't be

a)healthy physically
b)healthy for my marriage
c)healthy for my family

Getting out into the world, seeing reality as it exists and not filtered through the internet and Youtube, spending non-local time with my wife and child... those things are important. And we had a pretty good time this last week.

There's only one thing we did that I think was a complete waste of money - that was the Earthquake, The Ride in Gatlinburg. I like a cheesy attraction as much as the next guy - but THIS cheese was old, stale, and runny as well as being overpriced.

However - Wonderworks was well worth the price, as was Cirque du Chine'. Wonderworks is well established, I think - and is a good way to spend four or five hours. Don't miss the Earthquake Cafe (not to be confused with Earthquake the Ride above) or their Hurricane simulator. (Supposedly a 65 MPH wind - but I'd say no more than 40...)

Cirque du Chine' - was impressive. Strength, agility, timing, talent - you can't go far wrong with a troup like that. (By the way, if you're ever interesting in the workings OF a circus, I understand Gary Jenning's "Spangle", either in the hardback version or the 3-paperback series. His description of a 19th Century circus is incredibly vivid, and his research is solid.) This is a VERY solid set of acts, and I recommend it highly.

That said - you might want to catch it soon. You can kind of tell if a business is going up or down - and this one MIGHT be going up from an undercapitalized start, since the stuff available in the gift shop was pretty sparse and not exactly suited to Western sensibilities, but I think it more likely that it's down downhill, and it'd be a great shame if so.

What other things did we catch? There's the Gatlinburg Sky Lift - which was worth the money. There was also the Tennesee Museum of Aviation - which had a rare sight (at least for me...) - a Mig 17 with the gun package down as it would be for maintenance. The docent said that the CG of the aircraft changed so drastically with an empty gun package that it became almost unflyable...

Also, we hit the SkyScraper and the Slingshot in Pigeon Forge. Those were expensive - but worth it... if you like the idea of a 6-G fling into the air, or being swung on a 120 foot boom. (I think that's where I got the bruises on my shoulders...)

All in all? A very fun week. So - what's been going on that's worth noting in the world?

J,

Looks like the LA Times is starting to realize that reality is a trifle more important than political doctrine. I wouldn't have expected such a thing from them.

Bush never lied to us about Iraq - Los Angeles Times

Yet in spite of all the accusations of White House "manipulation" -- that it pressured intelligence analysts into connecting Hussein and Al Qaeda and concocted evidence about weapons of mass destruction -- administration critics continually demonstrate an inability to distinguish making claims based on flawed intelligence from knowingly propagating falsehoods.

In 2004, the Senate Intelligence Committee unanimously approved a report acknowledging that it "did not find any evidence that administration officials attempted to coerce, influence or pressure analysts to change their judgments." The following year, the bipartisan Robb-Silberman report similarly found "no indication that the intelligence community distorted the evidence regarding Iraq's weapons of mass destruction."

Contrast those conclusions with the Senate Intelligence Committee report issued June 5, the production of which excluded Republican staffers and which only two GOP senators endorsed. In a news release announcing the report, committee Chairman John D. Rockefeller IV got in this familiar shot: "Sadly, the Bush administration led the nation into war under false pretenses."

Yet Rockefeller's highly partisan report does not substantiate its most explosive claims. Rockefeller, for instance, charges that "top administration officials made repeated statements that falsely linked Iraq and Al Qaeda as a single threat and insinuated that Iraq played a role in 9/11." Yet what did his report actually find? That Iraq-Al Qaeda links were "substantiated by intelligence information." The same goes for claims about Hussein's possession of biological and chemical weapons, as well as his alleged operation of a nuclear weapons program.

But I'll take even tiny steps towards them recognizing that reality isn't defined by doctrinal thought - and that an attempt to rewrite what actually occurred makes interpreting current events a fool's game.

J.

Obama changing the Presidential Seal? Come on, man!

Like It Or Not, Welcome to Obama America : FamousDC

More and more - I'm thinking the guy's NOT suited for the job.

Oh, wait - I said 'suit'. What sort of idiotic racist connotations could be read into THAT?

Obama says Republicans will use race to stoke fear - Yahoo! News

I frankly don't give a damn about the man's race. Condoleeza Rice is a heck of a lot darker, and I'd vote for her in a heartbeat. What I DO dislike is his appearing to have such a thin skin, thin resume, and thin agenda that his SKIN COLOR is THE MOST IMPORTANT THING. I don't CARE what color the man is - brown, tan, black, white, pink, fuscia, eggplant, or paisley.

What's important is IDEAS, and on that front, Obama is NOT a winner.

Baldilocks says it better than I ever could.

If your candidate (Obama - as if it weren't clear enough when you read her article... ed) wins, we all lose. Yes, you too. Mark my word.

Anyway - messing with the Great Seal of the US is the capper for me. Like it or not, (and I don't) it's time to start sending money to a political campaign - and it ain't gonna be Green or Libertarian.

J.

That seems to be the Democrat's only solution. Tax it, then (magically) alternatives will appear. From what? From where? Who knows? Who cares? Tax the oil companies!

Supposedly the revenue will go towards government-based alternative energy programs. Well, forgive my skepticism, but I don't believe our government can DO it, unless there's a VERY pressing need - like national survival. (And I don't mean that in a 'cold war' sense - I mean in a very real 'we have to have SOMETHING in XXX days or we are seriously going down the tubes in a way that'll make the Great Depression seem like you lost a buck in the soda machine.)

Instead - what's the option offered by the Democrats?

Raise taxes. Toss it towards government-financed alternatives.

Okay, you know what I think will really happen? The taxes (if Obama gets elected) will be raised. Companies will struggle. Layoffs will ensue, our economy will totter. And the promised energy sources? They won't appear. Oh, there will be 'programs', and money will be thrown at them for a time - but nothing will ever come of it and after a while the money will be thrown at something completely unrelated, but of far more politically expedient importance. Besides - looking at things like the Luxury Tax (which was actually revenue-negative) I have little hope that a political system which sees only ONE possible acceptable course of action (IE tax anyone making money) no matter the situation will actually have any positive effect on the matter.

Well, there's a lot of 'progressives' who might not like it - but it may be time for government to stand back and let the private sector come up with solutions. Do an X-Prize contest, say with a $1 bil award, for an easy, economical way to retrofit our current transportation inventory (from gas-guzzling SUVs down to ancient Ford Fiestas) so you have doulbe or triple the mileage with no emissions impact.

Put out a second $1 bil prize for a turnkey feasible electrical automobile power plant. If you can yank out a standard car engine and put in a total package, including batteries (or ultracapacitor) and a high-torque, moderate RPM motor in the same space - you get the Billion.

But those two things would be awarding capitalistic innovation - therefore we ain't gonna see it from the folks inside the Beltway.

Instead, we'll just tax the folks providing oil. And the folks making cars. And the drivers. I'm sure THAT will make everything just fine!

And in a hundred years, when the US population has crashed down to about 50 million, and our economy is back to a late 1800's agricultural model, and our current technological infrastructure is being mined for the steel, copper and other metals in it, our grandchildren will wonder just how we could have been so damn stupid as to let it all collapse... those who have the leisure, that is. Because at that point, all the easily accessable reserves of oil and coal will be gone. Metals will be both easier and harder to get - purer stuff will be available, but the easily mined ores will be gone. Horses and buggies will come back, blacksmiths will be popular - and electricity won't be generally available. Oh, there will probably be some hydropower plants until parts can't be replaced - but generally? In two hundred years, the world will be probably be lit by wood and candles.

Food will become expensive again. On the good side, the population will be significantly thinner.

We stand at a crossroads. We know where we've come from. There's three choices ahead.

Which one's the right one?

One path - keep using oil. Iraqi oil comes on line in a big way, and the Saudis open the tap. Oil prices drop to $15, $20 a barrel - until next time. Alternative energy programs are abandoned - and when the crunch hits, there's not time to develop them. Economy crashes, a great deal of 'no fun at all' ensues.

Another path - keep using oil - but use MORE oil to bootstrap us up. Get fusion going, get solar economically feasible, get nanotube batteries/ultracapacitor tech up to the point where you could crank your car off an 8 pack of AA batteries, and start it in sub-zero weather with the engine block stone cold and 40-weight oil in the crankcase. Have multiple sources of power available, use oil for petrochemical feedstock and lubes, NOT go-juice for IC buggies.

The third - struggle on with limited oil, hoping like anything we can bootstrap things like the polywell reactor and printed solar cells in quantity to stave off a technological collapse.

If you have the Democrats in charge - I expect #1 - because we're getting close to some major changes. #3 is possible also, with the addition of massive federal regulation designed to make sure any new power sources are 'safe'. Add 20 years to implementation for environmental, health, safety, labor and economic hearing by various concerned groups. And when the collapse hits - they'll blame it on everything EXCEPT the government taking too long.

J.

And I'm not surprised that it's been ignored by the NYTimes.

Power Line: Times reporter's story on "War and Decision" finally sees light of day. . .in a different paper

It's a good read - rather voluminous, yet concise in laying out the reasoning behind a lot of what's happened in the last 7 years. It's not told with any detectable ideological slant, it's just a recounting of what and why.

But it's not surprising the NYTimes ignored it. There's not much there they could use to smear Bush - and a lot of stuff that wouldn't fit the current narrative.

J.

Belmont Club is over on Pajamas media now - with the same good stuff.

Belmont Club ｻ The smile remains is an interesting little note - apparently there is little to no news from Iraq any more because the reality doesn't fit the narrative the MSM's been pushing.

Reconciliation's happening, there's no 'civil war', it's on the verge of becoming a regular country - probably more stable than others in the region.

The worst thing? Iraq's going to be almost off the table in the '08 election. Instead, it'll be the economy. And heaven knows where THAT will be in November...

J.

You ever wonder if our politicians have played games like Civilization IV? Where they have to make the right decisions at the right time, and allocate resources to meet the needs of their population AND progress? (Or even something like Planet Defender?)

I'm thinking that they haven't.

One of the things you've GOT to do in games like that is push research forward. In Planet Defender, for example, you've got to put money into economic growth, robotics (though that one's not of much real utility in most cases), nuclear fusion, 'advanced energy', and the ever-useful 'planetary shield'.

If you do not put money into research on these things, you will lose the game. (Aliens win, everyone dies. Oh, the embarassment.) But after you play a few rounds, and watch your population get killed off, you begin to understand where your priorities should be. Yes, you could build and upgrade lots of bunkers for your population to hide in - but if you don't destroy the ships shooting at the bunkers, you're going to lose the game when your population dies. If you don't boost your economy, you don't have money to research and advance your weaponry. If you don't have enough weapons at the proper time, your population is going to be killed. You have to find a balance, but you have to grow your population so you'll have the money to play the game.

If you look at the global oil situation as a game - we're losing big-time. But that's making the assumption that a 'win' state is where there's enough oil to go around at a price that's affordable, OR enough available so we can bootstrap ourselves up into the next level of energy production. (Figure the levels are roughly defined by how concentrated and useful the power is - you'd start off with wood fires, then eventually build windmills and waterwheels. Coal would be discovered, and with that the Industrial Age begins. Electricity and electric lighting becomes widely available to the population, and about the same time gasoline and the IC engine become popular. Solar power and nuclear energy is then theorized, but sit on a back burner until both techology needed to exploit it and a pressing need for it comes along. Then the hard stuff - cold fusion, antimatter, zero-point energy...)

Each level needs to have exploited the previous one, and have a technological understanding of the science necessesary to advance. For example - it wouldn't have been possible to develop atomic power during WW1 - the technology and scientific knowledge base simply wasn't there, and no amount of money could have created it and gotten it to a point where a nuke could be created prior to 1918. (Or even 1940...) The only reason we developed it at all was for military purposes, and power generation was pretty far down on the list of spinoffs from the effort. For example, Nanosolar wouldn't have been able to develop their ideas without a whole lot of very expensive R&D being done in a whole lot of other fields - but that R&D was VITAL to their efforts.

To put it another way, you need to make the tools to make the tools to make the tools to make the tools... repeat until you have the item you want.

But what if the desired 'win' state by the major players in our little game ISN'T a scenario where there's enough energy for all? If getting a 'win' means gaining autocratic power over a population and deciding who gets how much, as opposed to "there being enough enough for that population, and more besides"?

I'm beginning to wonder, watching the maneuvering in Washington, whether that's what they're trying to grab. I'm not seeing any publicized attempts to SOLVE the problem by government agencies. Instead - what are the proffered solutions?

And what sort of 'win' will it be if those solutions are implemented?

The time we have left to exploit hydrocarbons as an energy source is going to be ending - unless we either ramp up exploration and exploit areas and items that are currently politically off-limits, or do a serious, serious cutback on our usage of the stuff. That's going to blow the economy, which will make developing the alternatives that are becoming visable much, much more difficult - if not impossible.

You have to exploit what you can when you can - or you lose the game. And in this game we're all playing, the stakes are a technological civilization. I don't really think we want to lose - but we won't win by refusing to play the game.

J.

It's the Crazy Years.

FrontPage Magazine

The war against free speech is advancing rapidly: Associated Press reported Thursday that “Muslim countries have won a battle to prevent Islam from being criticised during debates by the UN Human Rights Council.” Council President Doru-Romulus Costea explained that religious issues can be “very complex, very sensitive and very intense…This council is not prepared to discuss religious matters in depth, consequently we should not do it.” Henceforth only religious scholars would be permitted to broach them.

“While Costea’s ban applies to all religions,” AP explained, “it was prompted by Muslim countries complaining about references to Islam.” The ban came after a heated session on Monday, when the representative of the Association for World Education (AWE), in a joint statement with the International Humanist and Ethical Union, denounced female genital mutilation, the penalty of stoning for adultery and child marriage as sanctioned by Islamic law. Egypt, Pakistan and Iran angrily protested, interrupting the AWE speaker, David Littman, with no less than 16 points of order, and succeeding in getting the Council’s proceedings suspended for over half an hour. In the course of this contentious discussion, the representatives from the Islamic countries made numerous revealing statements – statements that are well worth examining as Islamic nations and organizations call with increasing insistence for restrictions on free speech in the West.

Imran Ahmed Siddiqui, the representative from Pakistan, echoed the ever-echoing refrain of all Islamic apologists in the West, when he complained that Littman’s initiative on genital mutilation, stoning and child marriage amounted to an “out-of-context, selective discussion on the Sharia law.” He asked that Littman not be allowed to speak: “I would therefore request the president to exercise his judgment and authority and request the speaker not to touch issues which have already been debarred from discussion in this Council.” The representative from Slovenia then protested mildly against this attempt to silence Littman: “Any NGO representative,” he reminded Siddiqui, “has the right to make a statement within the merits of the agenda item under discussion. We see the statement being made pertaining within the purview of the agenda item and we don’t see grounds for any restricting censorship in that respect.”

The representative from Egypt thereupon responded: “I would humbly and kindly ask my colleague from Slovenia to reconsider.” He warned: “We will not take this lightly….This is not about NGOs and their participation in the Council. This is about the Sharia law.” Pakistan’s Siddiqui added: “I would like to state again that this is not the forum to discuss religious sensitivity.” Why not? Again sounding notes that are increasingly familiar in any discussion of the elements of Islam that jihadists and Sharia supremacists use to justify oppression, Siddiqui explained: “It will amount to spreading hatred against certain members of the Council. I mean, it has happened before also that selective discussions were raised in the Council to demonize a particular group.” He addressed Costea: “So we would again request you to please use your authority to bar any such discussion again, at the Council.”

Guess that really tells you a lot about shari'a, doesn't it?

With this decision, the UN Human Rights Council has shown there is no concern at all within the UNHRC for the rights of humans - instead, the rights of a particular religion trump all others.

Somehow, I don't think this is what they had in mind back when the UN was first chartered...

J.

One of the things our civilization needs desperately is electricity. There's a massive, MASSIVE electrical infrastructure in the US making sure the lights stay on 24/7/365, barring catastrophic storms... and even then, unless all lines into an area are down, the the chances are the lights will stay on anyway. In other countries, things are much the same... until you get to a technological level where the infrastructure for electricity is more valuable than the perceived good of a steady electricial supply, or there's simply not enough money to build the infrastructure needed to get power to the people.

One thing that's apparent, though - in this day and age, more and more power is needed. You don't get it from simply flipping a switch or sticking a plug in a socket. Electricity (at anything above the household level) isn't something that can be stored like hydropower. It's generated as it's needed - and you HAVE to have sufficient generating capacity to meet the need or you get brownouts or blackouts. (See California for an example of need and capacity not even coming close.)

So guess what has been fought tooth and nail by the environuts for the last few decades? Yep - you guessed it - power plants. (Remarkable what you can find on Google when you put in "fighting new power plants", isn't it?)

We haven't been adding capacity worldwide, or here in the US. The reasons are numerous - too expensive, too polluting, too 'long term'. I must confess the 'long term' argument makes no sense whatever to me - if you need power now, you should have started building five years ago. That applies across all spectrums of the energy field. New, additional capacity requires planning for the future. Planning beyond the current election cycle, beyond the next, beyond the next... yet all too often it would seem that the attempt to create new energy capacity gets mired down in political infighting. The other reasons? Oh, they're valid - but we've come a hell of a long way from the pollution sources of the 40's-70's - so ecological reasons aside, the only other real reason is financial. It'll take years, decades even before the plant pays for itself... but most companies looking to build a power plant have the pockets deep enough so that's not a problem. They plan for the long-term, after all.

But when there's not enough electricity - what's the option?

You saw it in California. Decades of letting everyone ELSE build power plants left them woefully unprepared when high demand hit the last few summers. Pleas were issued for reduced usage, there were rolling black and brownouts - and sky-high electricity prices. (And yes, there was a lot of 'let's charge what the market will bear' going on... that didn't help one bit.)

And you'd think that California would fast-track construction of additional capacity so it wouldn't happen again, right?

Um, not so much. Go down to "approved - under construction" - and there's 4 projects that should be on-line in the next year or two - and one approved but not started.

If you go down a bit further, to projects "Approved / Not Under Construction" - you'll see 15 projects, one that's being relocated and 14 on hold.

It's clear they're worried about power - but the process is much more important than actual results. In this case - power generation.

It's a funny thing about a commodity - when it's something essential, people are willing to pay more for it when there are shortages.

You'll hear all sorts of calls for conservation - but don't you actually have to have something to conserve in the first place?

So, after all this meandering, I get to the point.

I think we're about to see a real, realistic breakthrough in solar power generation in the next year or so, that'll really help out during peak summer electrical loading.

First, there's the SunRgi system. I'll admit to being a trifle skeptical of this effort - because it looks like what they're doing (based on the website) is taking a fresnel lens and using it to concentrate light on the solar cell. Apparently they've got a process which produces 37% efficient conversion of light to electricity - which is pretty darn impressive. The drawback is, it would seem like each solar cell gets about a kilowatt of energy poured into it to do this. So they're having to do some SERIOUS cooling on the back end to keep it from melting...

Here's an article from USAToday on it, with the rather amusing line:

"Moving from the lab to the market in two years is typically not what happens," says Stow Walker of Cambridge Energy Research Associates. Yet, he adds, the semiconductor market "moves much more quickly than power technologies."

So - what's not to like about this? Well, I'm sure the environmentalists will find something.

Next up is an article from the EE Times -

NETANYA, Israel — Scientists at the University of Tel Aviv in Israel claim they have found a way to construct efficient photovoltaic cells costing at least a hundred times less than conventional silicon based devices, and with similar or better energy conversion efficiency.

The reactive element in the researchers' patent pending device is genetically engineered proteins using photosynthesis for production of electrical energy.

The scientists applied genetic engineering and nanotechnology for the construction of a hybrid nano -- bio, solid state device. According to the researchers, although using photosynthesis for photovoltaic application is not new, their specific technique is the first to enable the production of useful photosynthesis-based photovoltaic cells.

The Israeli team is set to challenge others who are using photosynthesis for photovoltaic cells, including universities such as Cambridge in the U.K., and Stanford, M.I.T, the U.S. Naval Research Laboratory, and the Universities of Tennessee and Arizona in the U.S, and several others.

The researchers suggest existing silicon based photovoltaic cells offer low average energy conversion efficiency of 12-14 percent, while their system is capable of efficiencies of about 25 percent.

Anyhow, this one's a bit further off - they're looking at "cost effective" production in two to three years.

And I would be remiss if I didn't mention Nanosolar - who's apparently completed work on a 1 gigawatt/year coating facility.

Of course - you'll need something to STORE all that energy in, right?

How about a nanotech Super-Battery, which would seem to be more of an ultra-capacitor than a battery - but it looks like it'd do the job at a fraction of the size and weight of equivalent rechargeables....

Lots of good stuff coming down - it's going to be interesting to see what makes it to market first!

Gimme more power!

J.

Power Line: "Obama Clarifies Position..."

Is that becoming a familiar headline, or what? I hope someone is compiling them all. Today, it was the Supreme Court's gun decision: "Obama clarifies position on D.C. gun ban":

Presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama Thursday sought to clarify his position on a Supreme Court ruling striking down a Washington gun ban. ***
When asked about his reaction, Obama disputed the one outlined earlier by his campaign, ABC News reported.

When a reporter noted in November that the District's handgun law was constitutional, Obama distanced himself from the campaign, the network reported.

"I don't know what my aide said but I've been very consistent, I teach constitutional law," Obama said. "What I said was that I believe Second Amendment as being an individual right and have said that consistently. I also think that individual right is constrained by the rights of the community to maintain issues with public safety. I don't think those two principles are contradictory and in fact what I've been saying consistently is what the Supreme Court essentially said today."

Which is a ludicrous claim, even by Obama's standards. Here's an idea, though: maybe as part of this year's campaign, we could have a debate between Obama and his campaign staff.

J.

US halts solar energy projects over environment fears - Telegraph

The US government is putting a hold on new solar energy projects on public land for two years so it can study the environmental impact of sun-driven plants.

The Bureau of Land Management says the moratorium on solar proposals is needed to determine how a new generation of large-scale projects could affect plants and wildlife on the land it manages.

You know, there's times I could almost think it's a conspiracy to drag us back to the 1400s...

J.

And what are our elected officials doing?

Oh, they're being VERY productive.

They're having hearings where they lambast the oil producers.

They're having hearings where they try to figure out how much more to tax those who produce oil.

They're having hearings trying to figure out how to curb the speculative activity in the oil futures market.

They're....

Oh, why am I trying to fool you? You KNOW they're doing nothing at all about the problem, yet trying like anything to LOOK like they're doing something constructive.

But nothing they're doing is going to put even one more gallon of oil into a market that's getting tighter by the day.

So, I've got a question to ask you, oh perceptive and thoughtful reader...

What would it take to get you to actively avoid doing something when a problem like a lack of oil hits? When we have massive, untapped reservers? When there are clean and safe ways to extract it? When NOT having it available could well mean a recession or possibly a depression due to the impact on the economy of high oil prices?

What would it take for you to block alternative energy, like the US government is doing on solar, and Sen. Salazar did on oil shale? Who would have to pay you, and how much? Or would simple party ideology be sufficient for you to crowbar the country into a funk?

I'm wondering, because it sure seems like someone's going to profit big-time if the country crashes and the folks pushing the hardest for it - IMHO - seem to stand to gain the most. Oh, probably not financially - but then, what real need do they have for money?

Who profits from having the economy slow down, possibly crash? Who profits from consumer uncertainty? Who profits from an insecure electorate?

Who, indeed?

J.