Re: Why so little renewable energy 30 years after the sweater speach?
- Original Message - From: "Dan Minettte" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "'Killer Bs Discussion'" Sent: Saturday, September 01, 2007 11:05 AM Subject: Why so little renewable energy 30 years after the sweater speach? > > I think I have the answer...the US is the only country/region in the > developed world with an abundance of food and wood producing land. > Canada? I think too that you have to stress (as we have over the years) that as long as energy prices remain low (and even as high as they currently are, they are still low) there is little impetus to investigate much less deploy alternative energy sources. I foresee some movement toward decentralization of energy generation, but it will be very slow and not too likely to amount to even a quarter of total generation in the best case scenarios. One quarter is a very optimistic (read that as unrealistic) projection. xponent Since Fire Maru rob ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Barack Obama
- Original Message - From: "Dan Minettte" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "'Killer Bs Discussion'" Sent: Friday, August 31, 2007 11:55 PM Subject: RE: Barack Obama >> > >> >> The three closely placed shots to the forehead from about 10 yards >> is >> very suspicious. (This, I've heard is from the coroner report) >> The "official" story that has changed at least 4 times makes it >> even >> more suspicious. > > I googled and quickly found this site: > > http://themiddleground.blogspot.com/2007/07/pat-tillman-death-and-conspiracy > -part.html Geez Dan, that is a godawful site to be citing from. It is quite obviously one of those cherry-picking-partisan websites devoted to putting some opposing spin on an issue. And it blatantly attempts to mislead, frex the conflation of 10 feet with 10 yards. > > If you look later in this analysis, you will see strong criticism of > the > military's handling of the truth afterwards. That appears to be almost universal. I'm sure your googling shows that the same as mine does. >So, it does seem to be a > middle ground analysis. Not on this planet. Those guys are right wingers to the core. Here is a better cite for your argument: http://www.reference.com/browse/wiki/Pat_Tillman On April 24, 2007 Spc. Bryan O'Neal, the last soldier to see Pat Tillman alive, testified before the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee that he was warned by superiors not to divulge information that a fellow soldier killed Tillman, especially to the Tillman family. Later, Pat Tillman's brother Kevin Tillman, who was also in the convoy travelling behind his brother at the time of the 2004 incident in Afghanistan but did not witness it, testified that the military tried to spin his brother's death to deflect attention from emerging failings in the Afghan war. Later in the hearing Jessica Lynch testified about misinformation and hype relating to the battlefield and how the military lied about her capture and injuries as they had lied about Tillman's death reality, to create a palatable myth for public consumption. She also met with the Tillman family and compared her incident in Iraq to Pat Tillman's in Afghanistan, saying, "Our stories are similar". But i note that this cite also supports what I have said. The "Official" stories have not been truthful and that has increased suspicions. > > >> >> I have not heard the claim that Tillman's death was sanctioned from >> higher-ups. But I do believe that some sort of cover-up is a fact. >> There were too many "official" stories spread over too long a >> period >> to be explained simply by bureaucratic fubars. > > I think there is well established. I think that, initially, there > was > supposition by folks who wanted a hero, and that, once wrong, their > instinct > was to protect their ass. Well, that is pretty much what I see and what I'm saying. But I am going further and saying that the cover-up is *causing* the conspiracy theories. > > >> The whole story very well could be a dead fish of the friendly fire >> species, but it stinks like assassination. > > Why? Which is more realistic, that everyone involved would go along > with > the murder of one of their own, or that real time mistakes caused a > friendly > fire incident. An attempt to create another Jessica Lynch from an > NFL hero > has a lot of verisimilitude. Murder and cover up from his > compatriots in > the Rangers, privates, fellow NCOs up through the highest ranks of > the > military is another thing. I think this point requires some clarification. In this case when one speaks of murder, one has to assume that the speaker could be thinking of any range of events from an accidental homicide to premeditated murder. I'm not particularly attracted to the premeditated murder theories, though I do believe they are basically consistant with the facts of the matter. I do find compelling the idea that the other unit screwed the pooch so completely that Tillman was killed, and further I believe that simply being removed from The Rangers (as members of the other unit were) is an insufficient reaction to the killing of a fellow soldier. (My reading of events leads me to believe that these guys screwed up so fully and completely that they should be held criminally liable.) > > For example, Spc. Bryan O'Neal, who testified in a Congressional > hearing > that > > > > I wanted right off the bat to let the family know what had happened, > especially Kevin, because I worked with him in a platoon and I knew > that he > and the family all needed to know what had happened," O'Neal > testified. "I > was quite appalled that when I was actually able to speak with > Kevin, I was > ordered not to tell him." I've seen this sourced in several places. > > Asked who gave him the order, O'Neal replied that it came from his > battalion > commander, then-Lt. Col. Jeff Bailey. > > "He basically just said ... 'Do not let Kevin know, that
Monster, dog or chupacabra?
Monster or dog? 'Goatsucker' tale debated Hunter wants DNA test for remains that may explain chupacabra legend CUERO, Texas - Phylis Canion lived in Africa for four years. She's been a hunter all her life and has the mounted heads of a zebra and other exotic animals in her house to prove it. But the roadkill she found last month outside her ranch was a new one even for her, worth putting in a freezer hidden from curious onlookers: Canion believes she may have the head of the mythical, bloodsucking chupacabra. Article & pictures http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20539085/wid/11915829?GT1=10357 ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: US hegemony in the Mideast...
>> I'm not really sure what you think we should have done. >> Just buy oil from these countries but not have any contact? > of course not, but i think a better foreign policy would be to support > leaders who use the oil revenues for peaceful purposes. the US did not > found the baath party, but we should support more moderate arabs. OK, that sounds reasonable. It also sounds like the bulk of the US foreign policy with regards to working with Arabs and Persians. Let's look at a list of Mid-East oil producers...their 2000 production capacity and our policy towards them: Saudi Arabia 9.48 For Iran 3.77 Against Iraq 2.58 Against UAE2.57 For Kuwait 2.20 For Oman 0.97 For Qatar 0.87 For Syria 0.55 Against Yemen 0.44 Mixed The ones we are against do not have a track record of using their oil revenues peacefully. The ones we are for generally do. > the fact that it is ALREADY IS a war between shi'ite and sunni is why > we should never have invaded, or remain... The war between Iraq and Iran was the only war between a Shiite and a Sunni run country that I can remember from 1900 on. Hussein was secular, and wasn't interested in theological disputes. He saw the fall of the Shah as an opportunity to grab disputed territory (and a bit extra). Also, the fact that the Ayatollah Khomeini called for the Shiites in Iraq to overthrow Hussein, as well as Shiite minorities to do the same in Kuwait, probably had some influence on him. This war went on for eight years, and at one point it looked as though Iran was gaining a major advantage...with a good chance of Basra falling. At that point, by many reports, the US supplied Iraq military intelligence that was very helpful in repelling the Iranian attack. This is the famous "alliance with Hussein" that folks talk about. This is what is considered proof that he was our ally. However, the actions in the war, and the timing of the intervention (which was late in the war) indicated that our objective was more modest. After all, the ideal time to get Hussein to attack the Ayatollah for us was early on...when he was on the offensive. The best explanation for this rather limited involvement was that we really didn't want an Iranian victory. The Khomeini explicitly stated that he was interested in broad Islamic Republic founded on what we now call radical Islam. If Iraq fell, no other Arab state was even close to matching Iran in capacity.especially after it had the resources and Shiites of Iraq at its disposal. So, we follow the policy of "hands off" and Iran wins the war with Iraq. Then what? Do we use the US military to defend Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, the UAE, etc.? Or do we continue with a hands-off approach? Given the arguments against Gulf War I, staying out of disputes be Mid-East dictatorships seems pretty logical. Why lose American lives defending one dictator against another? An Islamic Republic, which controlled over 20 million barrels/day of oil would have a big hammer in dealing with the Western world. It would be in a very strong position to blackmail Europeand I think it would not find it hard to buy the arms needed to become a strong power. Given the fact that Iraq was only about a year away from an A-bomb when Gulf war I started (according to the findings of the inspectors after the war), I see this as an extremely dangerous scenarioone that would be far worse than what we faced today. Now, we have a repeat of that potential. Unless internal politics in Iran changes, Iran will have a nuclear weapon in 3-7 years. If we withdraw our military from the mid-East, and declare a hands off policy, there are some very dicey scenarios possible. It is highly probable that, if we pull out quickly, there will be much more extensive ethnic cleansing in Iraq, with the Sunni population confined to NW Iraq. The Iranians will step into the power vacuum...having enormous influence who governs Iraq...somewhere between having a puppet government and being a kingmaker for the government. I'd rate the chances of genocide as better than even in this scenario. It would be hard for the Sunni governments to not intervene at this point...with money and weapons. AQ is a natural for spearheading the Sunni defense. Now, what I am listing above is, probably, the least worse evil...I favor a timetable for withdraw...not a immediate pullout. In this scenario, I hope we can successfully push for a non-genocidal ethnic cleansing of the Sunnis into the NW of Iraq...but I don't think we can be assured of this. Maybe we will still have enough influence to keep the murder rate to under 50kI hope so. Then, as I said, Iran will have a lot of influence in Iraq. And, then, we have a question for US policy. Do well tell all the governments in the region that the US will respond to Iranian incursion into Sunni countries
Weird search engine searches...
Doing some domain name keyword research, occasionally I run across some REALLY strange searches. A keyword search that led to a Batman related keyword, turned up the search: "batman homosexual interpretations". That term was searched for 266 times last month. That deserves some sort of witty and smartass comment, but I've got nothing. Gary ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Why so little renewable energy 30 years after the sweater speach?
In responding to Doug's comment on me being full of it on energy, I mentioned my experience with technological innovation as a counter. Later I thought of another way of looking at it. The question is, if developing practical renewable energy is just a matter of standing up to Big Oil etc., why hasn't _any_ country or region made more than token progress during this time? Let's first look at major economies in three groups: the US, Japan, and the EU. Given that the US has, by far, the largest domestic fossil fuel industry (Japan has all but zero), one could see the influence of this industry on policy. But, why would Europe and Japan eschew practical innovation when it so much in their national interest: including their national corporate interest. I'll look at this two ways. First, I'll look at imported energy as a percentage of the total; then I'll look at the percentage of renewable energy in the total energy package. The latest dates may differ, but I'll try to compare apples to apples when possible. The percentage of energy from outside sources is: US 20% EU 50% Japan 82% (The US and EU numbers are for 2005, the latest I could get for Japan was 2002, but the % was trending up from 2001...so that shouldn't be much of an overestimation). My point is that industries in both Europe and Japan have tremendous incentives to develop new energy technology...because the money for energy is flowing out of the country. We see, especially with Japan, no shyness in developing industry to compete with...heck overwhelm in the case of autos, US industries. Given the inherent vulnerability of Japan to a cut of foreign energy supplies (it was important enough to cause Japan to attack the US at Pearl Harbor), one would be hard pressed to see how the government/industry alliance in Japan would eschew development of practical domestic sources of energy. Now, lets look at the use of renewable energy. US (2004) Hydro 2.7% Geothermal 0.3% Biomass 3.2% Solar 0.1% Wind0.1% Total: 6.4% EU (2004) http://dataservice.eea.europa.eu/atlas/viewdata/viewpub.asp?id=2628 Hydro: 1.5% Biomass:4.1% Geothermal: 0.3% Wind: 0.3% Solar 0.04% Total: 6.2% Japan (2004) http://www.cslforum.org/japan.htm Hydro: 5% All Other Renewables: 1.2% Total: 6.2% The use of renewable energy (at least in '04) was remarkably constant across the board. The only standout is that Japan's renewables are 80% hydro. The other thing worth investigating is biomass. What is it, what's the trend in its use? Unfortunately, I had to patch together different sources to get the EU and the Japanese data, so it will be very hard to get that sort of detail from these countries. For the US, on the other hand, a wealth of information exists. In 2004, the overwhelming majority of biomass use was wood and wood byproducts for industry. Ethanol raised the use of biomass in the US recently, so I'd expect the renewable % of the US to creep up a percentage point or two. But, with half the corn crop going to ethanol now, there isn't room for a factor of 5 expansion of this program without a breakthrough in the basic sciencenot just the technology. So, the upshot is, by all accounts, the US will be leading the use of renewable energy resources this year. The question I'd like to ask is, if it is just big oil that lobbies to stop available alternatives, why is the country that has, by far, the biggest oil industry leading in alternative fuel usesand the country that imports almost all of it's energy has the lowest non-hydro use of renewable energy? I think I have the answer...the US is the only country/region in the developed world with an abundance of food and wood producing land. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
