As usual… the “green” movement has some serious explaining to do:

California regulators have apparently discovered it ain’t easy being green…

• “ethanol yields about 30% less energy per gallon of gasoline, so miles per gallon in internal combustion engines drop significantly.”
• It generates less than two units of energy for every unit of energy used to produce it.
• It takes about 1,700 gallons of water to produce one gallon of ethanol. Each acre of corn requires about 130 pounds of nitrogen and 55 pounds of phosphorous.
• Increased acreage means increased agricultural runoff, which is creating aquatic “dead zones” in our rivers, bays and coastal areas.
• It releases nitrous oxide as well as CO2, which is said to trap heat at a rate 300 times more than an equivalent amount of CO2.

Next time you hear an environmentalist lecturing you on how YOU need to adopt some new “green” solution… think beyond step one.

IBDeditorials.com: Will California Shuck Corn Ethanol?.

I found this to be fascinating and quite funny:

“The question whether things really exist outside of us and as we see them is absolutely meaningless. … The question is almost as absurd as wondering whether blue is really blue, objectively blue”

-Georg Christoph Lichtenberg

Khalid Sheikh Mohammed

I thought this was an interesting article discussing the recently-released interrogation memos by the Obama administration.  I personally think it was a mistake to release ANY of the memos; broadcasting to our enemies the limits of our interrogation tactics has no value other than as a political weapon Obama is indiscriminately using against the previous administration.  Unfortunately (but not surprisingly), Obama is only releasing the side of the story he wants us to hear… and is withholding from us just how successful these interrogation tactics were in protecting American lives:

In releasing highly classified documents on the CIA interrogation program last week, President Obama declared that the techniques used to question captured terrorists “did not make us safer.” This is patently false.

Consider the Justice Department memo of May 30, 2005. It notes that “the CIA believes ‘the intelligence acquired from these interrogations has been a key reason why al Qaeda has failed to launch a spectacular attack in the West since 11 September 2001.’ …

The memo continues: “Before the CIA used enhanced techniques . . . KSM resisted giving any answers to questions about future attacks, simply noting, ‘Soon you will find out.’ ” Once the techniques were applied, “interrogations have led to specific, actionable intelligence, as well as a general increase in the amount of intelligence regarding al Qaeda and its affiliates.”

Specifically, interrogation with enhanced techniques “led to the discovery of a KSM plot, the ‘Second Wave,’ ‘to use East Asian operatives to crash a hijacked airliner into’ a building in Los Angeles.” KSM later acknowledged before a military commission at Guantanamo Bay that the target was the Library Tower, the tallest building on the West Coast…

The memo notes that “[i]interrogations of [Abu] Zubaydah — again, once enhanced techniques were employed — furnished detailed information regarding al Qaeda’s ‘organizational structure, key operatives, and modus operandi’ and identified KSM as the mastermind of the September 11 attacks.”…

But just as the memo begins to describe previously undisclosed details of what enhanced interrogations achieved, the page is almost entirely blacked out. The Obama administration released pages of unreacted classified information on the techniques used to question captured terrorist leaders but pulled out its black marker when it came to the details of what those interrogations achieved.

Yet there is more information confirming the program’s effectiveness. The Office of Legal Counsel memo states “we discuss only a small fraction of the important intelligence CIA interrogators have obtained from KSM” and notes that “intelligence derived from CIA detainees has resulted in more than 6,000 intelligence reports and, in 2004, accounted for approximately half of the [Counterterrorism Center's] reporting on al Qaeda.” The memos refer to other classified documents — including an “Effectiveness Memo” and an “IG Report,” which explain how “the use of enhanced techniques in the interrogations of KSM, Zubaydah and others . . . has yielded critical information.“

And I love this closing thought:

Why didn’t Obama officials release this information…? Because they know that if the public could see the details of the techniques side by side with evidence that the program saved American lives, the vast majority would support continuing it.

I occasionally read a blog one of my old law professors contributes to and, I must say, from time to time, articles posted on this site leave me quite well, incredulous.  The fact that they actually believe what they are writing is, at times, depressing — at best.  Let’s explore one of these recent posts… shall we?

Here is Mr. Chambers starting us off:

Why are congressional Republicans refusing en masse to support President Obama’s stimulus package?

Oh, I don’t know… maybe because it’s 7 TRILLION DOLLARS OF SPENDING composed primarily of democrat pet projects–financed on credit we don’t have, creating obligations we can’t afford.  And most of it won’t be spent until well into 2 years after we are scheduled to come out of the recession…  do those sound like reasonable reasons to be against something??

Are they sticking to their guns for conscientious reasons? Or are they just playing politics?

Ya, they are all sick twisted freaks those Republicans.  All they know is dirty politics… and he Jews are probably pulling strings in the background.  Sure, Democrats sometimes (errr… often) try to oust Republicans with baseless ethics violations and grand juries… but the POLITICS is MOSTLY on the Republican side.

If they latter they should keep in mind that 74% of the American public believe that President Obama is trying to compromise with the Republicans while only 39% of Americans believe congressional Republicans are trying to compromise with the President.

But, what’s so important about the public’s perception of  a willingness to compromise?  Isn’t a more important statistic the percentage of the American people who SUPPORT THE STIMULUS PACKAGE???!! Last I checked the public support was only at 37 percent.  It seems to me we should pass legislation based on what the American people support… regardless of who controls Congress. They are, after all, our representatives to Washington.

Some Republicans seem to think that compromise requires equality between two sides to a political dispute.

WHO?  name names.  It is easy to destroy the straw men you create… harder to back up your assertions with proof.

If two individuals both want an apple pie, a compromise requires splitting the pie in two equal halves. According to this view of compromise, both the Republicans and Democrats should each have an equal share of the stimulus pie.

But shouldn’t we all share in something so important as “Economic Stimulus”?  We are ALL Americans, are we not?!  Shouldn’t we all benefit equally as a result of the stimulus package?  Or should Democrat constituents benefit more?

After subtracting those issues upon which there is agreement, each Party should get an equal share of the remainder. In ordinary circumstances, such a conception of compromise might be plausible, but certainly not in politics. If this conception applied to political compromises, why have elections at all.

To determine what the percentage share of the remainder?  I’m not following you at all here.

If the will of the electorate was to give the Democrats control of Congress and the Presidency, then the lion’s share of the compromise should go to the Democrats.

(thinking to myself: In your dream world, buddy)  But seriously, that’s not true at all… we have a democracy that protects minority interests… not a democracy where the party “in control of congress” gets to run rough-shod over the entire population… a system where the majority party has a RIGHT to some arbitrary percentage of compromise.  In fact, we have a political system designed to allow minorities to stop the majority in power, not enable a large percentage of their agenda.  I’m having a hard time taking you seriously with this nonsense.

“Compromise” in a republican democracy means that the electoral winner should take the loser’s suggestions into account and implement some suggestions while rejecting others.

Wow, it’s funny how all the terms get re-defined when Democrats are in power… If I remember correctly, “compromise” meant something entirely different when Democrats were in the minority…  “patriotism” meant something completely different too.

During the Bush administration, Democrats were virtually shut out of policy making.

Except for the Education Bill, all the votes on Iraq they got, the Prescription Drug Bill, and many others the president included them as he tried over and over as part of “the new tone”.  Are you really justifying DEMOCRAT actions based on BUSH administration policies… because I thought he was the worst president ever….

Now, President Obama has met with all the congressional Republicans and he’s dropped some elements of the Democratic Congress’s version of the stimulus package the Republicans found unacceptable. But that’s not enough for congressional Republicans. Why?

Because they aren’t STUPID.  Because they’re not going to VOTE for a piece of legislation their collective conscience abhors and their constituents don’t support.

But this begs the point… You really expected them to???? REALLY? How dumb do you think they are?  I suppose you think they should just bend over and take whatever Obama decides to give them?

They seem to believe that should get an equal share of the pie. But that, in effect, would, betray the verdict in the last election.

What verdict are you talking about exactly?  The verdict to give tax cuts to 95% of the electorate like Obama promised?  The verdict to increase government transparency like Obama promised?  The verdict to get out of Iraq by the end of 2009?  The verdict not to increases taxes for anyone making under 250K?  (all of which have been broken, by the way)

Funny, the verdict I (and the American people) remember from the last election had NOTHING to do with unconscionable government debt, skyrocketing inflation, and liberal interest projects, or a far-left agenda (Obama ran as a moderate)…  It had nothing to do with massive infrastructure spending, nothing to do with a 7.7 trillion dollar deficit over the next 10 years.  It had much more to do with TAX CUTS for 95% of the people… and the world loving us again.  What verdict are you talking about, Mr. Chambers?

The Democrats won and are bound by that victory to favor their own programs, especially when up against intransigent Republicans. So what do Republicans want? The obduracy are hurting the possibility of planting the seeds of an economic recovery. They care more about politics than they do about the nation.  Congressional Republicans seem oblivious to the fact that their indifference to the plight of the American public can backfire on their political scheming.

Funny you should say this… especially since Republicans just recently gained ground on the generic ballot.

What is entirely apparent from reading your post, Mr. Chambers, is that you and your audience want nothing more than re-enforcement of a worldview where Republicans crumble at the slightest political pressure, where Republicans speak softly and dutifully write checks for whatever Democrats want to spend money on.  I am astonished you actually believe this stuff… and that your conception of washington politics is still stuck in a 1970’s paradigm — where de-facto Democrat control is the unquestioned norm.  Believe it or not, reasonable people can differ on the stimulus bill… and your assumptions with regard to the ulterior motives of Republicans speaks more about your ideaological prejudices than it does about the motives themselves.

You, Mr. Chambers, have ALREADY sunk to the level of calling your political opponents UNPATRIOTIC (after all, isn’t “caring more about politcs than the nation” the very definition of unpatriotic?) for opposing a policy that has proven economically irresponsible in Japan, the UK, Denmark, Iceland, and many more countries that have followed the Keynesian model.  I think that is quite enough for now .

Thanks for letting us know exactly what kind of liberal you are, Mr. Chambers.

link: Essentially Contested America » Scheming Republicans.

Hey All!

Just wanted to throw out some screencaps of my latest project… which is essentially my own FLICKR.  I am using jQuery to edit titles and comments inline (almost identical to Flickr’s ajax implementation)… and have also added a lightbox effect for preview and slideshow capability.  Additionally, I wanted to give the interface more of a “lightroom/aperture” feel to it… because I hate the white, boring Flickr interface.  Everything is, of course, database driven… and I may just add a full-fledged backend soon and release this into the wild for all you photography nuts out there.

Feel free to add suggestions/comments and feature requests if you want.

I don’t even know how I stumbled across this article but it is quite, illuminating, shall we say, regarding the state of denial regarding the Iranian Nuclear threat.  Take a recent article by M.J. Rosenberg in Talking Points Memo Cafe.  Here’s what he had to say:

Check out this interview Netanyahu gave the Atlantic’s Jeff Goldberg today. Netanyahu says flatout that either the Obama administration deals with Iran’s nuclear development or Israel will have no choice but to act unilaterally (i.e, with bombs).

Pretty incredible. An Israeli attack on Iran would jeopadize [sic] a myriad of American interests in the region, starting with 130,000 US troops but Netanyahu talks as if he can call the shots without any regard for our interests. The fact is that, in the eyes of Iran (and the world), there is essentially no difference between an Israeli attack and one by us. Israel is viewed as our client…

President Obama needs to get on the phone and let Netanyahu know that Israel can take no action vis a vis Iran without full consultation with Washington. Obama is pursuing diplomacy which means, whether it lkes [sic] it or not, that Israel is too. And that, quite simply, means that Israel cannot act unilaterally as if it is a free agent. It isn’t. Like the Britain, Germany, Canada, or France, it cannot take unilateral actions that would endanger Americans.

Now, what is M.J. Rosenburg really saying?  Well, I would argue that his primary concern with the Iranian nuclear issue is not the inherent danger posed by Ahmadineijad, nor it it the lives of the Israeli people, nor is it the concern about unchecked poliferation or the future of the greater middle east.  On the contrary, his biggest concern is some vague, amorphous concept “American Interests”– a concept he thinks is IMPROVED by allowing Iran to continue nuclear development.  Forgetting for a moment that were Iran to actually USE a nuke would, American (and WORLD) interests would be irreperably harmed, what is concerning here is that his entire theory rests on the assumption that Ahmadineijad won’t use nukes!  One can justify almost any foreign policy so long as one adopts, a priori, certain favorable assumptions.

I fear this is nothing more than a resurgence of the worst aspects of the ‘realpolitic’ school of American political thought.  Unlike the realists of the last century, however, these modern thinkers are willing to tolerate what amounts to a russian roulette by even the most extreem regimes, regardless of the risks involved.

We will see how the Iranian threat plays out;  I for one am not optimistic anything good will come from a Nuclear Iran… on the contrary, I fear serious consequences will result.  Let us hope I am wrong.

President Obama held a much ballyhooed town hall in Strasbourg, France, on Friday, touted by the White House as an outreach to Europeans on the second leg of the president’s “listening” tour.

But the first person he called on was an American — and the third, too. By the end of the hourlong session, not a single French citizen got to ask the U.S. president a question.

In all, Obama took just five questions from the thousands of people packed into a sports arena after delivering a lengthy speech read from a teleprompter. And the query topics were on the light side; one asked about the expected acquisition of a family dog, another about whether “you regret to have run for presidency.”

via Washington Times – CURL: In France, Obama takes no questions from French.

I’m not going to provide too much commentary here; I’m sure you all are perfectly capable of deducting the various ironies, good points, and other pieces of worthwhile information yourselves (but I’ll help out a bit with some visual styles):

As we learned in the 1970s, the devil of arms control often lies in the technical arcana of warheads and delivery systems, so we’ll await the text before pronouncing judgment. But the devil of arms control also lies in the overall concept, with its implicit assumption that the weapons themselves are inherently more dangerous than the intentions of those who develop and deploy them.

What Mr. Obama wants to kill specifically is the Reliable Replacement Warhead, which the Bush Administration supported over Congressional opposition, and which Mr. Obama now opposes despite the support of Defense Secretary Robert Gates and the military. Admiral Mike Mullen, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told us this week that “we do need a new warhead.” When we asked about Mr. Obama’s views on the warhead, the Admiral said, “You would have to ask him.”

The irony is that Mr. Obama’s opposition is making substantial reductions in the total U.S. arsenal that much riskier. In the absence of actual testing, which hasn’t happened in the U.S. since 1992, the only real hedge against potentially defective weapons is a larger arsenal. Naturally, arms-control theologians are instead urging the Senate to ratify the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty and ban the production of weapons grade uranium and plutonium.

The thinking here is that somehow the American example will get Russia, as well as North Korea, Pakistan and perhaps Iran, to reject nuclear weapons. In fact, a U.S. nuclear arsenal that is diminished in both quantity and quality would be an incentive for these countries to increase their nuclear inventories, since the door would suddenly be opened to reach strategic parity with the last superpower. Mr. Medvedev, for one, recently announced Russia would pursue “large-scale rearmament” of its army and navy, including nuclear arsenals.

France also plans to deploy new sea-based nuclear missiles next year, even as it reduces the overall size of its arsenal. The French understand that a credible nuclear deterrent requires modern and reliable weapons. The Obama Administration should understand that the best security for both the U.S. and the allies that rely on our nuclear umbrella lies in an unchallengeable arsenal, and not an invitation to the world’s Mahmoud Ahmadinejads to compete on equal terms.

Let’s just say that for the first time ever on this blog, I am on record as wanting to be LIKE France — a country with a little more common sense than Obama seems to be exercising at the moment.  I mean, wasn’t Bush’s biggest criticism during the war being too ideologically driven and not listening enough to his military advisors?  Bush bent over backwards to find common ground with Russian leadership only to have that generosity used against him to further Russian power politics.

Bottom line: we shouldn’t sacrafice ‘deterrence’ — and all its various benefits– for the sake of political popularity or Russian opinion.

via Barack Obama Seeks to Sign an Arms Control Agreement With Russia’s Dmitri Medvedev.

Daniel Hannan

my apologies if you have already seen this… but it has a certain ubiquitous quality to it. It deserves repeating in any case.