finknottle

If you are considering going down that route, give your choice of religion some thought. 4 out of 5 children prefer the Flying Spaghetti Monster over the mainstream fuddyduddy's.

And how is this vindication? Why does this astonish you? The Iraqi's wanted us out all along! If Sadr had said at the height of the violence (and of his influence) that they agreed with Obama and wanted an immediate withdrawl of US troops, would that also have been a vindication of His wisdom?

I think you mean statute. It sounds like the uplifting story of how Senator Obama makes a bill.

I don't think it's a big deal since it surely must have been a slip of the tongue. I'm more intrigued by the non-reaction of the hosts. Not even a modest head-jerk to suggest that they were in fact listening. Bizarre...

... check out the Nationals. First they get DC to pony up $611 million for a new stadium. Ok, that's par for the course. They have not paid rent, and currently owe a few million dollars - the city comptrollers are getting antsy. The Nats are arguing that the team offices were not finished until a few weeks into the season, and that hundreds of 'punch list' items (such as spitoons in the luxury boxes) were incomplete. The team is demanding $100,000 a day in damages, dating to March 1 - that's $13.5 million now, double their annual rent. I'm sure there's more than meets the eye here for the team and the politicians to be airing their dirty laundry so early in the relationship, but geeez!!!

By coincidence, those crazy liberal oil-hating business-eschewing Texans yesterday approved a $4.9 billion dollar plan to link wind-generated electricity in the west into the population center infrastructure. Texas leads the country in wind generation at 2.400 megawatts - that's equivalent to 2-3 nuclear power plants. The initiative will increase Texas' transmission capacity to 18,000 megawatts, almost twice what the US currently produces. Clearly they are betting on a massive expansion. Darn that pied piper Al Gore for hoodwinking da' boys!

And you base this on what? You don't have to be a believer to realize that this posting is fishy - the link opens with The American Physical Society, an organization representing nearly 50,000 physicists, has reversed its stance on climate change and is now proclaiming that many of its members disbelieve in human-induced global warming. A claim which, it turns out, is flatly untrue according to the APS. The article cites two things: a technical paper, and an editorial inviting papers on the topic. If you glance at them, you'll see neither suggests that there is a groundswell of support among physicists one way or another. So is your assessment about the rank and file's views so much hot air? Or did I miss something in the link?

From the APS website: APS Climate Change Statement APS Position Remains Unchanged The American Physical Society reaffirms the following position on climate change, adopted by its governing body, the APS Council, on November 18, 2007: "Emissions of greenhouse gases from human activities are changing the atmosphere in ways that affect the Earth's climate." An article at odds with this statement recently appeared in an online newsletter of the APS Forum on Physics and Society, one of 39 units of APS. The header of this newsletter carries the statement that "Opinions expressed are those of the authors alone and do not necessarily reflect the views of the APS or of the Forum." This newsletter is not a journal of the APS and it is not peer reviewed.

Doesn't matter to me one bit whether man's contribution is overstated or not. If global temperature rises a few degrees, the circulation patterns shift, and the world economy is devestated. It still remains that there are a ton of data points showing (geologically) fast changes occuring everywhere. If Central America and Mexico dry up and we are not to blame, it's not going to make 200 million refugees south of the border turn around and go home.

I thought this news broke a few days ago and was shot down by the Iranians?

You must be one of those frustrated AMD partisans to cast such aspersions on Grove. I thought he did a fine job at Intel.

That's why I'd like to leave the whole climate change debate out of it, and simply look at the idea from the perspective of whether having a uniform 'plug and play' energy infrastructure would give us a competative economic advantage. What originally caught my eye about Grove's piece was that the argument had nothing to do environmental concerns: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...8071102549.html

Well, Gore's (and Grove's et al) point is that you need a national Manhattan Project-style effort to make it happen - I think that's why 30 yearsv is the target. Otherwise it would be a no-brainer (and we'd be tooting around in our electric cars today). On a related point, I happened to read in the paper today that we spend 7 billion dollars annually on ethanol subsidies. It's a bit apples and oranges, but consider if you spent that money instead on a rebate program for homeowners to install solar panel roofs and tie into the grid. I *think* that runs about 20k, and power usage typically drops to the connection fees (~10/mo). Within 10 years we would have most homes in the country electricity neutral... and could have all the corn we wanted!

Yes, but a pipeline blowing up in Nigeria increases *everybody's* prices whether they buy there or not. The US get's very little oil from the middle east today, maybe 20% (we are balanced among 5 sources - Canada, Saudia Arabia, Mexico, Venezuela, and Nigeria). It is far less than it was in the 70's. And yet, ensuring that the oil flows smoothly there remains of paramount concern. Let's face it - if the Middle East blows up and the price of oil skyrockets, do you really think Exxon et al is under any obligation to sell Alaskan oil to the US at below-market prices rather than to the highest bidder? As long as they are paying the USG for the lease they are free to sell it wherever they want and at whatever price they can get. And frankly, that's the way it should be.

This is hostile ground for Gore, but what do people think of his recent speech? Specifically, the following idea: forget about the issue of Climate Change. I recently read an interesting editorial by Andrew Grove (of Intel fame). He makes the point (which I agree with) that energy independence misses the reality of the market place. If we drill more, it goes on the global market to the highest bidder, making us no more independent than before. The real objective should be energy transformation. Completely electrify the nation, including the transportation sector. Oil and gas are unique because they require their own delivery and infrastructure. This is both inefficient and locks us into that resource. The electricity infrastructure can have any number of sources feeding it - nuclear, hydro, solar - and the mix can change as the market and politics dictate. Gores plan calls for heavy investment in linking up all the power grids, making them more efficient, and extending them to transportation - the last part is of course the big problem. But once you take that medicine (estimated at 2-3 trillion over 30 years), you have a much more flexible system which I think would be economically transformative and serve us well for the century ahead. I have always had nothing but ridicule for electric cars in the past, but I've become sold on the idea of focusing on a core power grid to provide an analogous national economic advantage that early electrification and telephony did. Thoughts?

Not that there are many Clinton supporters here, but I'd be interested in your take on the following: I am sick to death of the conventional spin given for why some Clinton voters are still supporting McCain instead of Obama, despite his recent tacking to the center. The media narrative goes 1. Half are mad at the perceived sexism in the campaign, and 2. the other half are poorly-educated racists. I see instead the following: Clinton is somebody who, to a fault, shows up with a 50-point plan for every issue. Obama talks loftily and avoids concrete details. If you like the first kind of candidate, as Clinton supporters presumably do, why *wouldn't* you hate the second kind? IMO, Obama reminds me of the kind of student who smiles and smoothly avoids the question of why he isn't prepared for class and doesn't have his homework ready, and when he does turn it in late it looks suspiciously like he cribbed off of everybody else. So might it be more of a matter of style than the media suggests? Consider the much-discussed working class poor who never glombed on to Obama. Could it be that they are tired of politicians coming into distressed regions promising economic recovery and failing to deliver? It's been going on for 25 years now. It strikes me that they might be strongly receptive to politicians who offer very specific plans - good or bad - than ones who promise results but don't give a sense of having mapped everything out. Thoughts?

It pays to hedge against being wrong, particularly when being right basically get's you nothing.

No doubt they will call you a cracker, a term from Middle English believed to originally refer to entertaining conversationalists.

Pascals wager maybe?

What I'm really saying when I ridicule gold-bugs is that it is worthless in a doomsday scenario, which is the prospect most of those guys slobber over. Unless you have a loyal private army, somebody is just going to come by and take it from you. It's fine as a hedge for a significant economic downturn.

I understand it traces back at least to Old Norse in Sweden, circa 1300, related to hneggr meaning stingy. There is an interesting wikipedia entry on other niggardly controversies: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Niggardly

Only when they are shaped like a gun. Otherwise they will be worthless. If the currency goes so does the rule of law.

Re China: It emitted 14% more C02 than the US in 2007, is building an astounding two coal plants per week, and 16 of the 20 dirtiest cities in the world are there. http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=...a1-34940b9edeca

About a decade ago a white DC aid had to resign for describing the funding appropriations as 'niggardly.' http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/local.../district27.htm

Depends what you are counting. I believe China surpassed the US in C02 emissions about a year ago. And I'm pretty sure China burns far more coal - I *think* they are the worlds largest producer and consumer at the moment. Their industry is much dirtier. The air quality in many of the cities is worse than it's ever been here... It's not at all unusual to see motorcyclers wearing fume masks.