Open Thread 2012-03
News & views ...
Posted by b on January 30, 2012 at 18:39 UTC | Permalink
next page »http://www.democraticunderground.com/10179267
Interesting piece on economics.
Posted by: ben | Jan 30 2012 19:25 utc | 2
Climate Change, as some here probably already surmise, is close to the top of my list of major concerns. It doesn’t seem to take much precedent at this bar but I keep hammering away from time to time anyway.
The prime reason, I am convinced, that there is so little concern is the highly effective PR campaign by “The Merchants of Doubt”; i.e., those who are profiting from the public not knowing the facts. Scientists are most often reserved, cautious and conservative in expressing the social and physical implications of their research and findings. This is not true of the Public Relations professionals in expressing the spin, and oftentimes lies that will further their clients agendas.
This idea is exemplified by the recent revelation that of the sixteen op-ed climate authors of the Wall Street Journal, only two have relatively significant climate research backgrounds and that:
“despite seven months of intense effort to recruit physicists to sign a politically motivated petition disputing anthropogenic climate change, a mere, 0.45% of the American Physical Society‘s 47,000 members signed on.”
For any here interested in further education on the climate issue (global warming) I highly recommend a daily check in with Climate Change; The Next Generation The format is somewhat different so click on the Year ->2012 and then the Month ->January, select a title and scroll down until you see the text.
Posted by: juannie | Jan 30 2012 19:33 utc | 3
@jaunnie There's no profit under the present dispensation to clean up after ourselves. One example out of legion: pork factories. The "free" market will never tolerate the break-up and clean up of the mega pork producers.
Posted by: yes_but | Jan 30 2012 19:53 utc | 4
Bits of news from Latin America:
http://en.mercopress.com/2012/01/30/venezuela-convenes-an-alba-summit-to-propose-creating-an-economic-space
http://colombiareports.com/colombia-news/news/21860-don-berna-claims-prove-uribe-govt-conspired-against-supreme-court-judge.html
Posted by: Maracatu | Jan 30 2012 23:19 utc | 5
re Juannie
I think it's a mistake to create a black-white differential between those who believe in human-created climate change, and those who for filthy business-oriented reasons, don't.
The fact is that climate, which I've studied a bit, is an extremely complicated issue, probably beyond modern-day computer modelling.
In climate-modelling at least, there's a serious logical problem. According to the scientific model, you have to imagine a hypothesis and then prove it or not. If the hypothesis has not been thought of, then bad luck.
As I said, climate modelling is extremely complicated. it could be that the climate is heating up, but there is no relation to human activity.
I have no doubt that human activity is fucking up the world, but I doubt that an easy logical solution works.
Posted by: alexno | Jan 30 2012 23:25 utc | 6
'For this is the view of the ruling class: "America is God. God's Will be done."
'What they want is dominion over the world. They intend to have it. In pursuit of this aim, as they believe the necessity arises, they will destroy anyone and anything that stands in their way. To describe their behavior as insane is to miss the much more critical point, and to minimize the far greater danger. They know exactly what they're doing. They're hoping that you do not. To date, far too many people oblige them.'
Arthur Silber, via Chris Floyd, on drones over Iraq and what they mean.
Posted by: bevin | Jan 30 2012 23:50 utc | 7
This is good.http://www.vanityfair.com/style/2012/01/prisoners-of-style-201201 The first as such attempts to wrestle with our ever increasingly stunted and static cultural life. The last paragraph:
American sociopolitical cycles that tend to last, according to historians, about 30 years. So maybe we are coming to the end of this cultural era of the Same Old Same Old. As the baby-boomers who brought about this ice age finally shuffle off, maybe America and the rich world are on the verge of a cascade of the wildly new and insanely great. Or maybe, I worry some days, this is the way that Western civilization declines, not with a bang but with a long, nostalgic whimper.
I for one, believe it's the former explanation.
Posted by: anna missed | Jan 31 2012 2:18 utc | 8
re alexno,
There is no doubt that climate, which I have been intimately involved occupationally researching for the last twelve years (which incidentally, I recognize as being a fallacious argument from authority), is complicated. Literally thousands of meteorological and climate scientists have been researching the issue for decades but the efforts have been more intense over the last decade as the degree of the stakes involved have become apparent and known.
One of the favorite echo chamber talking points of the climate deniers is precisely your argument that climate modeling is “unscientific” and therefore invalid. This argument is absurd. Of course there are unknowns and climate and weather predictions are and in theory (because of their nonlinear or chaotic nature) never exactly correct but their accuracy is a measurable variable and have been improving substantially and steadily over the last decade. What the models are exceptionally excellent at are collecting known parameters and calculating outcomes based on sound scientific and engineering principles. Eg.
We can and have measured the CO2 buildup in the atmosphere,
the long wave radiative forcing from CO2 buildup in the atmosphere (the greenhouse effect),
the global average atmosphere and ocean temperatures,
the incoming and outgoing energy in the form of short wave and long wave radiation,
the partitioning of that energy into sensible heat, latent heat and ground heat flux,
the albedo (reflectance of the sun’s incoming radiation) (which is significantly decreasing in the Arctic with the sever and continuing loss of sea ice creating strong positive feedback),
and we can do the energy balance calculations with inputs from millions of global data points and see and measure quite accurately that:
the atmosphere, oceans, land and cryosphere are warming.
Now this isn’t just on my say so. Those “literally thousands of meteorological and climate scientists” that I referred to above are in 99% agreement. There is no real debate within the established scientific climate community. The only debate exists in the “fair and balanced” reporting community where fly by nights with no climate research credibility are given greater than equal time than those credible peer reviewed and active climate researchers. The point of my post was not to debate climate change (global warming) but to point out just how absurd and biased the climate change denier community is. And how they still get the majority of MSM attention thus distorting the public understanding of the issue.
Oh and to add to this there is now accelerating releases of huge plumes of methane (a greenhouse gas about 20% more effective in blocking outgoing long wave radiation) in the Arctic causing grave concerns within the climate community that we are about to or have already reached the tripping point of no return that could be “driving the fastest climate change trend recorded since about 34 million years ago, representing a critical climate threshold leading into uncharted territory and threatening the biosphere and human civilization”.
Global warming is not trivial. I will probably be departed this life before the effects are catastrophic but my children and grandchildren will be reaping the travesty of our generation’s failure to wake up and act now. Don’t take my word for it but please start to educate yourself beyond the lies and propaganda promulgated by the climate denial charlatans. Start by making a daily visit to Climate Change ( link corrected from my above post)
Posted by: juannie | Jan 31 2012 2:34 utc | 9
This has been being passed around heavily in fox news crowd lately...
In this video entitled "Marxism in America" General Jerry Boykin discusses his background and training in understanding Marxist insurgencies and how current government actions parallel Marxist tactics. Click "Share" above to send to your friends. Find out more about The Oak Initiative at http://www.theoakinitiative.org/
For those who don't know Boykin is part of the Dominionist theology. And so much more since then...
Posted by: Uncle $cam | Jan 31 2012 2:50 utc | 10
test.
Wierd, I've posted, the same post twice, before anna missed and $Uncle's posts but neither has shown up. And I got the message my post had been posted on both. Hope they don't both eventually show up as duplicate posts. Wonder if this one will show up?
Posted by: juannie | Jan 31 2012 3:13 utc | 11
OK. I'm going to try again on my original post.
alexno,
There is no doubt that climate, which I have been intimately involved occupationally researching for the last twelve years (which incidentally, I recognize as being a fallacious argument from authority), is complicated. Literally thousands of meteorological and climate scientists have been researching the issue for decades but the efforts have been more intense over the last decade as the degree of the stakes involved have become apparent and known.
One of the favorite echo chamber talking points of the climate deniers is precisely your argument that climate modeling is “unscientific” and therefore invalid. This argument is absurd. Of course there are unknowns and climate and weather predictions are and in theory (because of their nonlinear or chaotic nature) never exactly correct but their accuracy is a measurable variable and have been improving substantially and steadily over the last decade. What the models are exceptionally excellent at are collecting known parameters and calculating outcomes based on sound scientific and engineering principles. Eg.
We can and have measured the CO2 buildup in the atmosphere,
the long wave radiative forcing from CO2 buildup in the atmosphere (the greenhouse effect),
the global average atmosphere and ocean temperatures,
the incoming and outgoing energy in the form of short wave and long wave radiation,
the partitioning of that energy into sensible heat, latent heat and ground heat flux,
the albedo (reflectance of the sun’s incoming radiation) (which is significantly decreasing in the Arctic with the sever and continuing loss of sea ice creating strong positive feedback),
and we can do the energy balance calculations with inputs from millions of global data points and see and measure quite accurately that:
the atmosphere, oceans, land and cryosphere are warming.
Now this isn’t just on my say so. Those “literally thousands of meteorological and climate scientists” that I referred to above are in 99% agreement. There is no real debate within the established scientific climate community. The only debate exists in the “fair and balanced” reporting community where fly by nights with no climate research credibility are given greater than equal time than those credible peer reviewed and active climate researchers. The point of my post was not to debate climate change (global warming) but to point out just how absurd and biased the climate change denier community is. And how they still get the majority of MSM attention thus distorting the public understanding of the issue.
Oh and to add to this there is now accelerating releases of huge plumes of methane (a greenhouse gas about 20% more effective in blocking outgoing long wave radiation) in the Arctic causing grave concerns within the climate community that we are about to or have already reached the tripping point of no return that could be “driving the fastest climate change trend recorded since about 34 million years ago, representing a critical climate threshold leading into uncharted territory and threatening the biosphere and human civilization”.
Global warming is not trivial. I will probably be departed this life before the effects are catastrophic but my children and grandchildren will be reaping the travesty of our generation’s failure to wake up and act now. Don’t take my word for it but please start to educate yourself beyond the lies and propaganda promulgated by the climate denial charlatans. Start by making a daily visit to Climate Change ( link corrected from my above post)
Posted by: juannie | Jan 31 2012 3:16 utc | 12
Egypt is becoming more interesting by the day ...
Americans placed on no-fly list and cannot leave Egypt seek refuge at US embassy...
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/jan/30/americans-barred-egypt-cairo-embassy
Posted by: Kim Sky | Jan 31 2012 4:20 utc | 14
re: "no-fly list" -- does that mean that the US will send B-2 bombers and blow them to smithereens?
Probably not. I get it confused with "no-fly zone."
APA Conference 2010: Chuck Wexler - Part 1
APA Conference 2010: Chuck Wexler - Part 2
APA Annual Conference 2010 - Striving for Excellence, Influencing Change
AM Day one - 24th November
Reforming Police Accountability Session
Chuck Wexler (Policing Expert, Police Executive Research Forum, USA)
Chuck Wexler and his team are the pushers of The Israelification of American domestic security
Stay for the Q&A as well...
In all likely-hood, he and his ilk would be heads of the Americanized Stasi when that time arrives... Not "if" but when.
Posted by: Uncle $cam | Jan 31 2012 4:57 utc | 16
juannie@ 10
Give it a day's time, I had the same happen yesterday, and I think b went in and manually posted mine today. If not, do try again as I'm interested...
Posted by: Uncle $cam | Jan 31 2012 6:14 utc | 17
Chuck Wexler was appointed as the Executive Director of PERF in 1993. In addition to leading
staff engaged in research, management services and executive development and selection,
Wexler has been directly involved in major projects to more efficiently deliver policing services in Minneapolis, Chicago, Kansas City, Los Angeles, Northern Ireland, Jamaica, London and the
Middle East. He oversaw PERF's analysis of the Washington sniper incidents and co-authored Managing Multijurisdictional Cases: Lessons Learned from the Sniper Investigation. He also co-authored "Good to Great" Policing: Application of Business Management Principles in the Public Sector. Wexler graduated from Boston University, earned a masters degree from Florida State University and a PhD from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT). He has been an instructor at Bowdoin College and MIT.
From the 2012 SMIPBrochure
Senior Management Institute for Police
hxxp://members.policeforum.org/library/ ... re2012.pdf (pdf)
Managing a Multijurisdictional Case:
Identifying the Lessons Learned
from the Sniper Investigation
GERARD R. MURPHY AND CHUCK WEXLER
hxxp://members.policeforum.org/library/ ... 5B1%5D.pdf
Lessons from DC Sniper Case Provide Guidance for
Future Complex Cases
hxxp://members.policeforum.org/library/ ... 5B2%5D.pdf
Like a Duck in a Noose WEXLER?
This WEXLER? : Paramilitary Policing of Occupy Wall Street: Excessive Use of Force amidst the New Military Urbanism
https://www.democracynow.org/2011/11/17 ... all_street
Side note: JUDGE KAREN SMITH (ret.): Yes, well, I don’t know if Mr. Stamper was the one who said this, but I think it was structural.
Posted by: Uncle $cam | Jan 31 2012 6:18 utc | 18
That link above should have been this:
Former Seattle Police Chief Norm Stamper on Paramilitary Policing From WTO to Occupy Wall Street
We host a discussion on policing and the Occupy Wall Street movement with Chuck Wexler, director of the Police Executive Research Forum, which helped organize calls among police chiefs on how to respond to the Occupy protests, and with Norm Stamper, the former police chief of Seattle, who recently wrote an article for The Nation magazine titled "Paramilitary Policing from Seattle to Occupy Wall Street." "Trust me, the police do not want to be put in this position. And cities really need to ask themselves, is there another way to handle this kind of conflict?" Wexler says. Stamper notes, "There are many compassionate, decent, competent police officers who do a terrific job day in and day out. There are others who are, quote, 'bad apples.' What both of them have in common is that they 'occupy,' as it were, a system, a structure that itself is rotten. And I am talking about the paramilitary bureaucracy." We are also joined by Stephen Graham, author of "Cities Under Siege: The New Military Urbanism," and by retired New York Supreme Court Judge Karen Smith, who worked as a legal observer Tuesday morning in New York after the police raided the Occupy Wall Street encampment. "I was there to take down the names of people who were arrested... As I’m standing there, some African-American woman goes up to a police officer and says, 'I need to get in. My daughter's there. I want to know if she’s OK.’ And he said, 'Move on, lady.' And they kept pushing with their sticks, pushing back. And she was crying. And all of a sudden, out of nowhere, he throws her to the ground and starts hitting her in the head," says Smith. "I walk over, and I say, 'Look, cuff her if she's done something, but you don’t need to do that.’ And he said, 'Lady, do you want to get arrested?' And I said, 'Do you see my hat? I'm here as a legal observer.’ He said, 'You want to get arrested?' And he pushed me up against the wall."
Posted by: Uncle $cam | Jan 31 2012 6:26 utc | 19
#12, from the guardian
Other groups that were raided, according to activists, included the German NGO Konrad Adenauer-Stiftung, which supports political dialogue, the Washington-based Freedom House, and the Egyptian Public Budget Observatory.
if you've never checked out the sourcewatch link for freedom house it's worth a chuckle.
Posted by: annie | Jan 31 2012 12:54 utc | 20
On climate change: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/indicators/
It's happening.
On manufacturing Denialsaurs: Dr. Jeff Masters, has done a little detective work. It's from late 2009, but his story starts here:
"In 1954, the tobacco industry realized it had a serious problem. Thirteen scientific studies had been published over the preceding five years linking smoking to lung cancer. With the public growing increasingly alarmed about the health effects of smoking, the tobacco industry had to move quickly to protect profits and stem the tide of increasingly worrisome scientific news. Big Tobacco turned to one the world's five largest public relations firms, Hill and Knowlton, to help out."
And as long as I'm re: addictive drugs...
"The story told to the public by the NIMH and by academic psychiatry is that psychiatric medications have greatly improved the lives of those diagnosed with psychiatric illnesses. Yet, even as our society has embraced the use of psychiatric medications during the past two decades, the number of people receiving government disability due to mental illness has more than tripled, from 1.25 million people to more than 4 million people." Robert Whitaker _Anatomy of an Epidemic_
Mammon still accepts child sacrifices, even if medicated:
"In 1987, there were 16,200 children under eighteen years of age who received an SSI payment because they were disabled by a serious mental illness. Such children comprised only 5.5 percent of the 293,000 children on the disability rolls--mental illness was not, at that time, a leading cause of disability among the country's children. But starting in 1990, the number of mentally ill children began to rise dramatically, and by the end of 2008, there were 561,569 such children on the SSI disability rolls. In the short span of twenty years, the number of disabled mentally ill children rose thirty-five fold. Mental illness is now the leading cause of disability in children..." Robert Whitaker _Anatomy of an Epidemic_
So apparently half a U.S. million children are mentally ill and three million are on prescription drugs like Ritalin and Adderall for "attention-deficit disorder."
U$cam @19: These are the folks who act at the behest of the people referred to by bevin @ 7, the ruling class/globalists, who are hellbent to impose their will around the globe. Using the US military globally, as they use police locally, through economic policies imposed, are coming to a neighborhood near everyone. Hopefully, the push back against their efforts, which seems to be growing globally will win the day.
Note to Juannie.. These avarice ridden morons I often speak of, are the same ones that fund the climate change deniers.
Posted by: ben | Jan 31 2012 14:54 utc | 24
from reading GlennG’s Panetta piece. In his critique of Panetta’s interview with ScottPelley GG says Panetta lies about accused terrorists getting their day in court. That set me to reflecting, and I wonder whether I’d rather they knowingly lie and simply sell propaganda, or whether it isn’t more interesting if they don’t know they are lying.
Do they need to believe the system is fair to sleep at night? Or, do they not give a shit? Is this big ship of state gonna mangle a few dolphins in it’s propeller one way or another, we can’t cry, or lose sleep over some collateral damage? Either is problematic, one is delusional, the other risks laziness over these inevitable losses.
I don’t know, maybe I’m kinda autistic and unaware of it, but I really try to be earnest. I don’t fret petty white lies, though I honestly try to avoid even them. But, is everyone else simply faking it and just gaming the system? I used to have a funny mind screw when I’d try to bring back the 60′s, when somewhat out of my mind, I’d wonder if I was the big stick in the mud keeping the party from becoming an orgy. I thought is was consideration for my modesty that was keeping everyone so restrained. Sometimes I feel like just such a stick in the mud, cleaving to earnestness so.
Posted by: scottindallas | Jan 31 2012 14:56 utc | 25
@scottindallas
We had a blogger here not long ago who indicated that the truth didn't matter so long as the false statement (that Iran had decided to halt oil shipments to Europe) had the desired effect, which is what Panetta is shooting for, I guess.
Juannie, et al on Climate change
Rather than argue our ignorance on the issue of climate change, I DO care about the planet, and don't want to pollute any more than necessary, and would like to mitigate what we can. So, my question for you is, what should we do? The autofleet is getting much more efficient, such that 70% of the problem comes now from industry. Further, about half of all pollution is from our utilities. I'm all for finding the most efficient (cost and pollution, and those overlap frequently) sources of power, and for reducing our usage.
So, really it seems wasting our time on the question of climate change is a waste of time--argue with that tautology. Let's talk about solutions. More natural gas electrical generation, I support. I don't think I'm impressed with the results of wind power, as it seems to be too inconsistent for large public service. For individual homes perhaps a combination of solar and wind make some sense.
In my mind, the most exciting thing sustainable energy are these new programs where firms are aggregating many individual homeowner's green energy credits and leasing the panels out. It seems that if utilities could declare an easement on our rooftops, then perhaps we'd get solar panels on individual's roofs--though the economic benefit would lie with the utility.
Anyway, let's not debate the cause of climate change, let's discuss how to reduce pollution, and improve efficiency. There's no one opposed to those goals.
Posted by: scottindallas | Jan 31 2012 15:12 utc | 27
"Anyway, let's not debate the cause of climate change, let's discuss how to reduce pollution, and improve efficiency. There's no one opposed to those goals."
Don't listen to the whore pundits on the right much, do you? Theres PLENTY of opposition to those goals, couched in all sorts of misleading and deflective argument.
Posted by: PissedOffAmerican | Jan 31 2012 15:19 utc | 28
What should we do? Turn the damn lights off, I say. Too much useless urban lighting so that one can not even see the stars any more, unless one lives in the desert, which I do.
"What should we do? Turn the damn lights off, I say."
Good start, says I. Do what you can within your own sphere of influence, that's all you can do. Help fund causes and people you believe in, and try, in some small measure, to incorporate your beliefs in daily life.
Posted by: ben | Jan 31 2012 15:48 utc | 30
Reading Juan Cole on Syria this morning it's hard not to be struck by his choice of words in describing civil unrest. Cole has picked up the U.S. word framing to be used with an unfriendly government as opposed to that favored for a friendly (usually puppet) government.
Syria: brutal regime, massacres, "another 29 persons killed," rebels (at least they are no longer "protesters"), opposition, western (UN) intervention possible on the side of the resistance
as contrasted with the popular framing of Iraq and Afghanistan: struggling government, insurgents, extremists, terrorists, no casualty counts, bringing stability, counter-insurgency, need more time, etc.
We've heard this before with the aggression against Libya, which Cole strongly supported, and here we go again. So far Cole is sitting on the fence on Syria, except with his vocabulary.
It seems all well and good that the French are acknowledging that the Armenian genocide happened, but by criminalizing public denial of the genocide (see link below), they are infringing on a basic right of people in a democratic society, namely freedom of speech. And any time that you deny people freedom of speech, you are one step closer to the next genocide.
And no doubt that nations with imperial ambitions have a long and predictable history of engaging in genocide. So if really you want to put a stop to genocide, you must first make all imperial invasions and occupations, including America's imperial invasion and occupation of Iraq, a crime that is punishable to the fullest extent of the law. Until then, look to see various religious and ethnic groups, who have become victims of genocide under the brutal hand of the American Empire and all future Empires, put pressure former Empires like France and Germany, who are riddled with guilt for their past acts of genocide, to imprison or severely penalize all those who deny that genocide was committed against them.
Thinking back, Holocaust denial, despite its utter stupidity, should have never been made a crime, as it has opened the doors for other victims of mass atrocities to play the "genocide card" to silence those who expose the ugly truth about any crime or wrongdoing they have committed against those whom they oppress and exploit. The Israelis are using the "genocide card" to silence their critics; the Armenians are likely to use it as well to silence their critics. This alone should tell you that making genocide denial a crime is counterproductive, if not outright destructive, to our ongoing efforts to achieve world peace and global harmony.
http://edition.cnn.com/2012/01/23/world/europe/france-armenia-genocide/index.html
Posted by: Cynthia | Jan 31 2012 15:57 utc | 32
Don, I like the idea of you as an Edward Abbey type crossed with an old gold prospector. Spent a bunch of time in NM and the Chisos Mtns. Love me some desert anarchy.
Posted by: scottindallas | Jan 31 2012 16:17 utc | 33
Sometimes the government doesn't lie, it simply misleads with truth. It is a requirement of government service.
recent Pentagon press release:
News reports over the past days have said the United States wanted to base special operations forces in Turkey. This is not true, Pentagon officials said.The United States has about 2,000 personnel based at Incirlik Air Base, an area shared with Turkish Air Force units. It is the largest U.S. military presence in the country.
Is this is different than what Sibel Edmonds has been reporting at boilingfrogspost?
No, not if there are U.S. Special Forces operating out of Incirlik that are not based there but are there on temporary duty.
juannie, Re: lack of attention to global warming --
Our leaders may be ignoring global warming, but the bean counters at the insurance companies are paying quite a bit of attention. And costs of home insurance will be going up.
NPR reported Monday that home insurance premiums are going up across the board in response to the record number of tornadoes, floods, fires, blizzards and other heavy weather that hit the country in 2011.The piece features insurance executives at major firms such as Allstate and State Farm saying they are raising rates as much as 10%.
This article does say the increases will be in direct response to the huge storm damages from last year, but other reports have stated insurance companies worldwide have been factoring in the likely effects of global warming on their underwriting.
Posted by: jawbone | Jan 31 2012 16:26 utc | 35
Ah, Edward Abbey. There was a man. Desert Solitaire was one of his books, and The Monkeywrench Gang. On Disqus my logo is a wrench falling into gears. Some Abbeyisms:
No man is wise enough to be another man's master. Each man's as good as the next -- if not a damn sight better.I know my own nation best. That's why I despise it the most. And I know and love my own people, too, the swine. I'm a patriot. A dangerous man.
Sentiment without action is the ruin of the soul.
A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government.
The tragedy of modern war is not so much that the young men die but that they die fighting each other--instead of their real enemies back home in the capitals.
What's the difference beteen a whore and a congressman? A congressman makes more money.
The nice thing about the desert is that there's so much of it. I was doing some trail maintenance on the Pacific Crest Trail yesterday at 6,000 feet and we could see all the way east to the Salton Sea and the Chocolate Mountains behind it, a distance of fifty miles.
People say the desert is dead but it's not. There are more varieties of plant and animal life in the desert than anywhere except the rain forests. There's just not a lot of it, and much of the animal life isn't about during the day. We usually have to be content in examining their scat to determine who was about on recent evenings. I heard some coyotes howling this morning. It's eerie. (Definition of desert: less than 10 inches of precipitation annually.)
Whereas jungle plants have plenty of nourishment and compete for space and light, desert plants compete for nourishment. When they get lucky and sip a little water they conserve it. Therefore the small shiny leaves and spines -- they don't want to lose it. The barrel cactus has a skin like an accordion that expands when it gets water, then contracts. The ocotillo leafs out only after a rain, does some photosynthesis, perhaps even blossoms, then drops its little leaves until the next rain.
There must be one or two lessons for humans in there somewhere.
@32
'to play the "genocide card" to silence those who expose the ugly truth about any crime or wrongdoing they have committed'
Yeah, ask US civil rights attorney Peter Erlinder about his experience in Rwanda.
http://allafrica.com/stories/201006030919.html
Posted by: Watson | Jan 31 2012 20:36 utc | 38
I like your attitude scott. And I agree; the question should be and is for me, “What more can we do?”
My first suggestion is educate ourselves as quickly and thoroughly as possible about the climate community’s scientific consensus about climate change and then help to educate our friends and the general public. We, meaning the general public, are almost totally misinformed about the issue. no6ody’s link @ #21, “Denialsarus: Dr. Jeff Masters” is an excellent entre. I think exposing the imposters (deniers) may be the best initial educational approach. They have perfected the tactics the PR industry learned creating doubt about tobacco’s toxicity. And then applied their techniques to denying DDT, acid rain, the ozone hole, and now climate change and CCD (honeybee Colony Collapse Disorder). Two excellent books on the subject are “Climate Cover-Up” brief review by James Hoggan (an honest and ethical PR firm owner who started out his research convinced the climate warming was a hoax but learned and publicized the truth about what he found) and “Merchants of DOUBT” review by Naomi Oreskes. I haven’t read “Doubt is their Product” but thanks to no6body’s link I now have it on order.
I agree that there is a lot that we as individuals and small scale communities can do. Turning off lights certainly is a good start if for no other reason it helps to heighten our awareness of the seriousness of the issue. As far as reducing CO2 emissions it is a pittance. For example, one super container ship in one year spews out more pollutants that: 50 million cars . Heavy industry’s pollution dwarfs whatever my contribution to lowering my carbon footprint could be; as you pointed out. I think a more efficacious approach would be to expose the major polluters and eliminate their ability and profit from their polluting practices and lying about it. Not to decry individual efforts. It’s all important and reduces our hypocrisy factor to be able to call the majors with a clear conscience and a lot of individual actions do add up.
There is however, I believe, an important question that may have to be answered before we can regroup and proceed into our future with a balanced and sustainable approach. Is modern civilization, especially industrial civilization sustainable? Derrick Jensen answers “no and never can be”. I’m not sure I completely buy into that premise but his argument is certainly powerful and compelling. And the evidence we behold of the world we presently inhabit lends credibility to that thesis. I think where Derrick goes with this is into the realm of small self-sustainable communities and I admit that that idea is appealing to me, in fact I have been advocating such with my intellectual and spiritual allies and friends for years, to no avail I must add. If we continue down the path of industrial capitalism is it, I fear, only an accelerating freight train with no brakes and heading for the abyss? I fear we have already reached the point where nothing can prevent the ultimate plunge. My hope/expectation is that enclaves of self-sufficient groups will survive to carry on. The climate factor now becomes a wild card as the direction and momentum seems to be carrying us into uncharted ecological territory. One ray of hope is that our species developed and survived in ecological conditions similar to these predictions over the last five million years. Ecological chaos and uncertainty were the conditions that shaped us into the species we are now.
Review, Humanity’s Descent: the consequence of ecological instability
and
Review, Eco Homo: How the human being emerged from the Cataclysmic history of the earth
Anyway I appreciate your contribution and thought provoking post.
Posted by: Juannie | Jan 31 2012 20:36 utc | 39
Hey b
samo samo as last night. I posted before Watson or annie and it hasn't showed up even though I got the message:
Your comment has been posted. Post another comment [[Posted by: Juannie| January 31, 2012 at 03:36 PM
Yeah, me too annie. I love NM and try to get there every winter. Our daughter was born there in the Mimbres Valley. Don't think we'll make it this year.
Posted by: Juannie | Jan 31 2012 21:09 utc | 41
Speaking of LTG Boykin...
Anti-Muslim general withdraws from West Point prayer breakfast...
Good Riddance, to bad rubbish...!
by the way b,
re: my post @ #40
and last night's post were longer than I usually write. Could or is the length of a post causing this? Should we be splitting longer posts into two successive posts?
It's midnight in your time zone so I won't expect a reply until tomorrow.
Oh, and Guten Morgen to you.
Posted by: juannie | Jan 31 2012 23:12 utc | 44
@10 - Uncle $cam
the sad thing is, he's probably right. but he's busy discrediting himself by chasing ghosts. the islamists haven't so much been attacking us as defending themselves, and it's hardly their fault that they can't "fight fair" with all the latest technology that the US MIC has to offer. and the gays... jeeze, i can never understand why some churches can't just either ignore them or agree to disagree. his ranting on it only makes me believe that it is made such an issue just to provoke people like Boykin to discredit them.
Boykin should ignore the gays and muslims. these are distractions meant to keep people busy, divided, and unaware of the real danger.
Posted by: Proton Soup | Feb 1 2012 6:59 utc | 45
Juannie, I am left wondering what we should do. Again, I'd end ethanol, wind farms, phase out coal plants, go with gas. Keep developing solar, subsidize it, make sure those subsidies get to the people.
Again, cars are incredibly efficient now and are improving mileage rapidly. I support mass transit, bike lanes and in-growth. Organic landscaping should prove a remarkable benefit to cities, and needs to be encouraged in food production too.
What new ideas do you have? You do appreciate that we won't be able to measure our impending doom, as once the data comes in, it will be too late. You, and the advocates for your position tend to dismiss the mitigating factors--one example is that humid water absorbs more energy, and changes the specific heat of the atmosphere. That too would lead to more rain, which also has a cooling effect... Probably why no one's been able to develop an accurate model for the climate. But, regardless, WHAT ARE YOUR IDEAS FOR WHAT WE SHOULD DO? WHAT ARE THE MOST COST EFFECTIVE REFORMS YOU'D PROPOSE? You're wasting precious time in making your case that the sky is falling, WHAT SHOULD WE DO? SIMPLY LISTEN TO YOUR RANT?
Posted by: scottindallas | Feb 1 2012 10:05 utc | 46
Scott,
I posted a reply to your #27 last night referred to in my #40. I'll wait until I see if b recovers it. Then if not I’ll repost in two pieces later today. You may notice my earlier double post because of the same occurrence.
But to sum up, I agree that we should be looking for solutions and like you my efforts are aimed at adjusting my lifestyle to that end. I welcome the discussion.
Later, one way or the other.
Posted by: Juannie | Feb 1 2012 11:54 utc | 47
perhaps you address this in your purgatoried post, but I am troubled by "green" projects that are inefficient or run against truly "green" policies. Ethanol and wind farms are two such examples. Neither is cost effective. I'm not committed to laizzez-faire policies, but we need to be careful to fulfill due diligence when making policy. I am VERY open to effective policy ideas, there just aren't many of them, and the better ones are politically unpopular. Going back to a 55mph speed limit could conserve 25% more gas, if not more, but no one wants to do that.
Posted by: scottindallas | Feb 1 2012 14:16 utc | 48
Scott, my post from last night hasn’t appeared. I’ll try again but here is an interim reply to your last post.
Yes, ethanol is a scam to enrich ADM/Cargill et al. At the expense of forced subsidies from the American tax payer; and with larger carbon footprint than petroleum. Coal? I don’t have any firm ideas yet. It could be ok for centuries if managed with sustainability in mind. I’ve been reading that natural gas/propane is no better than petroleum when all factors are considered. Solar is questionable because of initial resource expenditure but I will eventually put a collector in my yard. Wind farms? I would also like a wind turbine in my yard but I don’t know enough about the overall impact to vote one way or the other on large wind farms. At present I wouldn’t block such a venture in my community. I’ll take wind farms but not nukes. Mass transit, bike lanes, and organic food producing landscapes in cities I embrace.
Whenever we contribute to an exponential growth system we inevitably hasten it’s and our own demise. Our specie’s voracious appetite for dominion over and more stuff to consume is a losing evolutionary tactic. Our flash in the evolutionary history of this planet may be just that, an infinitesimal blip in the continuum of an ongoing and fathomless time scale of cosmic evolution. Maybe Jensen is right on. If we want to continue in this evolutionary game we had better find a less dominionist and more cooperative way of being (my words, not Jensen’s). For my part I’m increasingly adopting a leaner and less exploitive lifestyle. I have no need for more stuff in my life and no need for extravagant consumption. In my youth I participated for all I could get but now I find such an attitude repulsive and irresponsible.
...we won't be able to measure our impending doom, as once the data comes in, it will be too late.
First of all the data is coming in and it all substantiates the warming trend that climate scientists have been predicting. And saying we won’t be able to do anything is like saying that once I see an accident in the making on the highway, there is no corrective action that as the operator of my vehicle I can take to avoid or minimize effects of the accident. However, just as in the automobile case, the longer we take to act the less our chances of mitigating the effects.
...tend to dismiss the mitigating factors--one example is that humid water absorbs more energy, and changes the specific heat of the atmosphere. That too would lead to more rain, which also has a cooling effect... Probably why no one's been able to develop an accurate model for the climate.
I don’t get my information from advocates for my position but from professional career scientists who research climate and publish their findings in peer reviewed in respected journals. Humid air contains more energy which is known as the latent heat of evaporation and that heat is released when water vapor condenses in clouds to produce liquid water. The released heat (energy) is what drives the build up of cumulonimbus (thunder heads). Rain has a cooling effect because it falls from a cooler height in the atmosphere and is thus at a lower temperature than the surface air. This is all extraneous to the facts of the global warming trend. That is based on an energy balance between the radiative input from the sun and the release of energy back to space. The point is that CO2 buildup in the atmosphere alters this balance in favor of retaining more heat in the earth/ocean/atmosphere system. I don’t know where you get the idea that accurate climate and weather models haven’t been developed. It is just not true even considering that accuracy is a relative term. I address this more in my “purgatoried post” which I hope to get released or repost in sections a little later. If you want to reply please wait until it gets released or re-posted.
This disjointed communication is frustrating. To write a reply to one thing only to have to respond to further communications before the first is published fucks with my head.
Posted by: juannie | Feb 1 2012 18:35 utc | 49
I strongly suggest checking out the Leverett's review of Trita Parsi's new book, posted at the Boston Review
http://www.bostonreview.net/BR37.1/flynt_hillary_leverett_trita_parsi_iran.php
Posted by: Cyrus | Feb 1 2012 20:13 utc | 50
OK. It's been almost a full day since I posted and it never showed up so I'll try again. If I don't see it in half an hour I'll try splitting it into two posts. Next post here should be mine.
Posted by: juannie | Feb 1 2012 20:29 utc | 51
I agree scott, the question should be and is for me, “What more can we do?”
My first suggestion is educate ourselves as quickly and thoroughly as possible about the climate community’s scientific consensus about climate change and then help to educate our friends and the general public. We, meaning the general public, are almost totally misinformed about the issue. no6ody’s link @ #21, “Denialsarus: Dr. Jeff Masters” is an excellent entre. I think exposing the imposters (deniers) may be the best initial educational approach. They have perfected the tactics the PR industry learned creating doubt about tobacco’s toxicity. And then applied their techniques to denying DDT, acid rain, the ozone hole, and now climate change and CCD (honeybee Colony Collapse Disorder). Two excellent books on the subject are “Climate Cover-Up” brief review by James Hoggan (an honest and ethical PR firm owner who started out his research convinced the climate warming was a hoax but learned and publicized the truth about what he found) and “Merchants of DOUBT” review by Naomi Oreskes. I haven’t read “Doubt is their Product” but thanks to no6body’s link I now have it on order.
Global warming is global event that will require global cooperation if it is to be ameliorated. Studies have shown that there is reluctance, especially on the political right, to acknowledge global warming as that acknowledgment would force them to start thinking collectively and cooperatively about solutions instead of individually and selfishly. Rather than adopt policies that fly in the face of their cherished ideals, they find ways to not believe and to negate the facts. Any efficacious actions will require this to change and be replaced by collective and global cooperation. I’m not holding my breath.
There is a lot that we as individuals and small scale communities can do. Turning off lights certainly is a good start if for no other reason it helps to heighten our awareness of the seriousness of the issue. As far as reducing CO2 emissions it is a pittance. For example, one super container ship in one year spews out more pollutants that: 50 million cars . Heavy industry’s pollution dwarfs whatever my contribution to lowering my carbon footprint could be; as you pointed out. I think a more efficacious approach would be to expose the major polluters and eliminate their ability and profit from their polluting practices and lying about it. Not to decry individual efforts. It’s all important and reduces our hypocrisy factor to be able to call the majors with a clear conscience and a lot of individual actions do add up.
There is however, I believe, an important question that may have to be answered before we can regroup and proceed into our future with a balanced and sustainable approach. Is modern civilization, especially industrial civilization sustainable? Derrick Jensen answers “no and never can be”. I’m not sure I completely buy into that premise but his argument is certainly powerful and compelling. And the evidence we behold of the world we presently inhabit lends credibility to that thesis. I think where Derrick goes with this is into the realm of small self-sustainable communities and I admit that that idea is appealing to me, in fact I have been advocating such with my intellectual and spiritual allies and friends for years, to no avail I must add. If we continue down the path of industrial capitalism is it, I fear, only an accelerating freight train with no brakes and heading for the abyss? I fear we have already reached the point where nothing can prevent the ultimate plunge. My hope/expectation is that enclaves of self-sufficient groups will survive to carry on. The climate factor now becomes a wild card as the direction and momentum seems to be carrying us into uncharted ecological territory. One ray of hope is that our species developed and survived in ecological conditions similar to these predictions over the last five million years. Ecological chaos and uncertainty were the conditions that shaped us into the species we are now.
Review, Humanity’s Descent: the consequence of ecological instability Review, Eco Homo: How the human being emerged from the Cataclysmic history of the earth
Anyway I appreciate your contribution and thought provoking post.
Posted by: juannie | Feb 1 2012 20:32 utc | 52
Lol what can we do about climate change? Recycle our coke empties, spread shit over the back paddock? Whatever a few individuals do to try n mitigate the effects of mega-corps and their millions of willing drones get up to spewing shit across the planet, can only ever be a spit in the ocean. A spit that is more about assuaging bourgeois guilt than actually fixing the joint up.
Global warming, climate change, the deaths of most of our fellow mammal species are but a few symptoms of a seemingly terminal disease one that I have come to recognise will probably not be cured in my lifetime, if it is ever cured.
We all know this this disease; altho we give it different names according to the particular symptoms we suffer worst.
A polynesian watching his homeland disappear under the sea calls it 'global warming', a chinese kid dying of heavy metal poisoning calls it 'pollution'. In amerika the homeless call it 'corporate capitalism'. In Iraq a one legged, blinded by shrapnel woman, and prolly considers the problem to be 'imperialism'. A black libyan getting the shit kicked out of him by the thugs abetted in Libya's takeover takeover by global warming, polluting, corporate capitalist imperialists, prolly considers the disease to be racism.
It is all of those things and none of them. The nub of the issue was got at on kiwi TV a while ago by the loony libertarian fuck the assholes have put in charge of a long running consumer rights show, on the (soon to be sold to Newsltd, NewsCorp, NewsInc or whatever the fuck this week’s name is) govt TV station.
He described an individual’s private property 'rights' as "The backbone of western democracy". Only I don't think he understands that it is that 'backbone' which must be destroyed if humanity is to have any chance of turning this mess around.
I have no hope of any instant enlightenment, the current generation are too pre-occupied with the baubles of rampant consumerism, but the next generation, the sons and daughters of consumerists are already rejecting the shit their parents revere.
Expect more of that. I amused myself over xmas watching my grandniece drawing on the brand new Ipad her parents had given her for Xmas (she is 4!) with a crayon. Naturally I took alla the blame when my niece & her husband went apeshit about it (I can only imagine the scene afterwards "why did you leave ... with that crazy old uncle of yours?" lol My brother-in-law, aka 'granddad' tried to tear a strip offa me about it but broke down pissing himself with laughter at the whole insane little scenario. we were bad but even the pot dealers n big time musos had more sense than to give their 4 y.o. kids $1000 fragile garbage)
Nevertheless the kid had the right idea and I have no doubt that contempt for consumerist shit will grow in the new generation in direct proportion to the amount of irrational devotion these kids observe their parents giving it. Gen Y is flat out paying irrational tribute to here today gone tomorrow trinkets while everything else from human relationships to Sumatran tigers, is getting destroyed.
That don't mean we can sit on our asses tho. There is going to be violent revolution in a few years once people come to realise that more of the same just gives more of the same. That is; voting out a forked tongued fat bellied gutter snipe just gets you a different fork tongued fat bellied gutter snipe.
Between now and then lots of people have to invest energy and wit into developing a revolution that won't put the same mob under a new name in power, but will continue revolting and thereby ensuring continuous dynamic change, albeit without violence, once change has been effected.
Integral to this 'revolution' must be the death of the concept of individual ownership of everything. Incidentally that includes state entities, which also should not ‘own’ anything but just have the right to use commonly held assets for as long as the locals believe that OK.
Rights of usage that last for as long as the use is beneficial, and those rights are available to all seem to be the smart way to solve this.
There are many complexities which need simple solutions, that is why the issue needs to be considered starting now.
If we wait until the biggest gun has control of the treasury before people decide how to resolve this stuff, it will be too late. The biggest gun will then have another big lever over the rest of us.
PS attn BND censor since this post doesn't mention Iran, nor question germany's economic imperialism, I expect you to let this post thru.
Posted by: debs is dead | Feb 1 2012 23:07 utc | 53
has anyone worked out the hoops required to be jumped thru to get a post put up? It isn't the number of characters, so then I thought it must be something to do with always toeing the factional line of the ever shrinking spd faction within the bnd but that doesn't appear to be it however much the editorials seem to indicate that.
certainly there is no 'captcha' to scroll down to, which another specious claim that has been made in here.
Posted by: debs is dead | Feb 1 2012 23:15 utc | 54
@53 - debs
the only posting problem i've run into consistently here is the "we cannot accept that data" error. one way i've maneuvered around it is to make a copy of my post - usually just a CTRL-C, but you could dump it in a text editor if you're extra proud of it. then click up at the top to get to the home page. click to the thread you were just at. paste your text, but add a carriage return/linefeed - i don't know if there's windows/mac/linux differences in the success of this, but you could add some other extraneous characters if you like. hit post and jump through any captcha hoops. this works like a charm for me.
as for the captcha, if you feel like you should see it but aren't, then maybe you've got something blocked. normally, i'm running no-script and manually turn on scripting functionality to various sites as needed. currently here, i'm running scripts from MoA and yahooapis, but not typepad, and it seems fine. so maybe check and see what any adblocking or scriptblocking browser addins are up to.
Posted by: Proton Soup | Feb 2 2012 0:10 utc | 55
"has anyone worked out the hoops required to be jumped thru to get a post put up?"
Karma.
Posted by: PissedOffAmerican | Feb 2 2012 3:51 utc | 56
Alternative "we cannot accept that data" escape - write post, copy post, delete post, paste post back in and add 1 character even an extra period at the end of post, the hit post button.
Pretty sure this is a time too long (writing a post) thing, as it's happened on other sites as well.
Posted by: anna missed | Feb 2 2012 4:35 utc | 57
A few here have expressed love of the desert, with Don even quoting Edward Abbey (YAY!!!). I thought I'd share some photos with anyone interested.
I once thought I would take up a personal quest to photographically document the wilds of California. Though I never even got close to this goal, I did amass quite a collection. Following is a small sample (mostly those shots worth scanning, or already in digital format) of some of southern and eastern California's beauty. Tie-in with global warming/radiation exposure: some of this stuff may not be here in 20 years, so I'm glad I captured what I did.
Sierra Nevada - 18 galleries, mostly eastern and southern Sierra Nevada
California Desert - 8 galleries, Inyo/White Mountains, Owens Valley, northern Death Valley National Park
San Gabriel - 1 gallery, my home range, and where I learned all about the outdoors
Posted by: Dr. Wellington Yueh | Feb 2 2012 5:45 utc | 58
"we cannot accept that data" ---> F5 (refresh) is enough
Posted by: claudio | Feb 2 2012 13:04 utc | 59
Article 104 of the treaty of Maastricht and art. 123 of the Treaty of Lisbon stipulate that Gvmts. cannot ‘borrow’ (aka print) from their own Central Banks, but must do so ‘in the market’. Which means - at heart - paying interest to private banks, shareholders, financiers, in a global landscape. This arrangement is in the process of bringing Europe, as a geo region, and the EU, as a sketchy union, to its knees.
In France, Pompidou and his finance Minister, Giscard d’Estaing, slipped this thru. (1973. Reagan 0ff the gold standard, 1971 iirc.)
The Euro, and EU banks, are under attack by Anglo-Saxon Casino finance though there are other factors, and other less slanted ways of stating things.
The sally provides a mighty distraction from the bankrupt US + UK (not that others aren’t in a similar position); furnishes much oppos for gain by the speculators - hedge funds, private banks, traders - their rich clients; upholds the dollar as a world or ‘refuge’ currency. Bets are made, manipulations ensure that favorable outcomes are realized.
I guess many struggles are going on underground. Instability favors the smart or powerful - the large sometimes as well- in any case, and competition plus lack of regulation for it to take place no holds barred have reached epic heights. (US: Dodd-Frank has done nothing, banks are bigger than ever, bonuses as well..)
Parasitical finance groupings and the supremely rich want control (see puppets like Obama), and damn it all to hell, they will have their new global aristocracy aka plutocracy.
They have a mixed alliance with corporations, a cavalier attitude to ‘war’, as they have no clear long-term views or even much understanding (not to mention morality) because they act in a landscape where they are middlemen, raking off the top, or dependent on that scheme; yet are in the grip of their own heady illusions. From the rich rentier who weeps tears of loss and incomprehension in front of his sweating banker to the coke heads who buys exotic islands, uses escort girls.
Territories - e.g. communities and countries - have to get rid of these usurpers who control the framework, the underpinnings, the medium of exchange and its ‘rules’, which is not just ‘evil banks’ but Gvmts, pol parties, rating agencies, mega corporations, etc.
That means violent revolution, or ‘re-writing the Constitution(s) and mega rules’ peacefully. In Europe, junking the Lisbon treaty for ex, basically re-taking control of politics, the legislative process and monetary creation and control, e.g. in territories like ‘Greece’...
A terminal hysterical cacophony (blue screen, media, endless scroungers on the take) drowns out the basics. *One* of them is this.. I believe is is more important, right now, than global warming.
The rare public figures who even vaguely allude in speech or writing to these matters or form concrete propositions to move away or forward (edit the Fed, a private bank - quit the Euro - set up a State Bank.. whatever) are the likes of Ron Paul, Marine Le Pen, and now, surprise, F. Hollande. Footnotes not appended.
Posted by: Noirette | Feb 2 2012 15:04 utc | 60
the problem with windfarms is that they only operate 12% of the time on average. A 30 mph wind must be present to drive them. Further, they work least often when demand is highest, extreme heat and cold are calm wind events. This means that other power plants need to available on stand by, or great batteries need to be installed to store the energy.
Solar however tends to work better as extreme hot and cold weather is usually sunny, (fronts blow in with wind/clouds/storms but the High pressure typically rolls in hours later creating the calm after the storm. Solar requires batteries, but especially in the South/Southwest is abundant during our greatest power demand times 3-6 pm in Summer.
Posted by: scottindallas | Feb 2 2012 16:57 utc | 61
Report from an Egyptian Ultra fan on yesterday's soccer riots. He thinks this was planned with support form the police and military.
The Ultra's were part of Tahrir on the side of the revolutionaries: What happened in Port Said as told by @Heemalization English version
The moment the referee whistled to declare the ending of the game, the pitch was attacked in a very bizarre way from two sides; one towards the players to hit them and the other towards the “Ahly” fans in the bleachers. At this very same moment the lights went off and the stadium turned black, at that time there were two CSF security cordons along the “Ahly” bleachers and all of a sudden the cordon was opened for the “Masry” fans to go up the bleachers and attack the “Ahly” fans.They went from the bleachers’ bottom doors that were open and went up very easily in huge numbers; not less than 2000/3000. We were in shock that the police let them do that very easily and that such large numbers are attacking us! Usually it would be swearing, fireworks and rock-throwing; it is what we do in football but that is it!"
'Iran far from posing existential threat'
Ex-Mossad Chief Ephraim Halevy warns strike on Iran could have devastating effect for region. 'Ultra-Orthodox radicalization poses bigger threat than Ahmadinejad,' he says
RE: Alt energy...
One of the best systems (not sure if it's in use yet) is a tidal-float/flywheel system. Tide rises, pulls a float attached to a cable on a pulley, thus spinning a huge flywheel. The flywheel spins a generator. Tide lowers, flywheel keeps spinning for a while on inertia. As long as you have water in the ocean, and the moon orbiting, you have this energy.
Posted by: Dr. Wellington Yueh | Feb 2 2012 21:19 utc | 64
So overall gain from large scale windfarms is questionable? And from solar, potentially advantageous? But for a small scale or homestead with net metering wouldn’t either or both pay off? If so decentralizing is the path to follow. Coincides with my master plan. Locally, largish solar farms would seem advisable.
Incidentally, it’s generally stated in the climate community that 97% of climate scientists agree, not the 99% I quoted. I like to keep my claims factual. And scott, I think you would appreciate this site, FAQ’s about the science of climate change.
Dr.,
Is that Yueh on the summit of Langley and Tuttle Creek? No need to confirm. Great picts. I like em all but love the coyote (my totem).
Posted by: juannie | Feb 2 2012 21:38 utc | 65
@juannie #65: Yes, that's me. Thanks!
Again re: Alt energy...
It is very important to approach this holistically, which means including efficiency gains on the consumer side (by 'consumer' here I mean 'consumer of energy', which would include industry and institutions). Also, changing lifestyle to reduce demand. One of the most entrenched arguments against alt energy goes like: "It will never work! The average American household uses X KW/h, but that would require Y acres of solar panels PER HOUSEHOLD!"
Another (seen above re: wind): "It doesn't generate the necessary power AT PEAK DEMAND TIME!" This argument is also specious. The limitation can be overcome by improving power storage. We don't say "No bread in spring because the grain harvest was back in autumn!" We store grain for later, have done for thousands of years, and across many cultures.
Holistic approach: many generation techs + many efficiency techs + many storage techs.
Of course, the down-side to winning this battle is that it removes a primary limit on population growth. UGH!
Posted by: Dr. Wellington Yueh | Feb 2 2012 23:00 utc | 66
Aloha, b and barflies...! Those Iranian War Drums are beating ever louder...
Barak: Attack Iran ‘before it’s too late’, Panetta: ‘No comment’...
Dr Wellington and Juannie, first off battery storage is expensive and lacks the scale to make mass wind farms viable. Even on the individual level, wind power offers little in the aggregate. 12% operational generation is not worth the investment, the batteries/storage, and the superfluous power generation. Wind power is forecasted and known when it will work, it's so little, the back-up generation such a large percentage that no saving are incurred, and in fact wastes vast sums.
If you're using occasional wind power to drive a water pump to fill a cistern, that's one thing, but as an essential source of regular power, it's worthless.
Juannie, what I want you to recognize that all those words advocating for fear of climate change were just more adding to global warming. The discussion matters not, and in fact pollutes. But, discussing solutions, and their economic viability is the only conversation to have. You're Global Warming/Climate Change argument is simply looking back, when you should be looking forward.
Let's discuss solutions, don't look back.
Posted by: scottindallas | Feb 3 2012 10:39 utc | 68
b, you might look at Susan G. Komen and the percentage of their funds that go to actual women's health, (it's something like 20%) they are one of the worst charities going.
Posted by: scottindallas | Feb 3 2012 10:40 utc | 69
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/289920/wind-energy-noise-pollution-robert-bryce
Haven't read yet, and I hate NRO, but Rob't Bryce is excellent on energy.
Posted by: scottindallas | Feb 3 2012 11:50 utc | 70
How Egypt’s revolution descended into tragedy on night of violence in Port Said
The unassuming Cairo graduate in designer glasses succinctly summed up Egypt’s balance of power. “The two biggest political parties in Egypt are Ahly and Zamalek. It’s bigger than politics,” he said.
By James Montague7:00AM GMT 03 Feb 2012
It was 2007 and Assad had just helped to form Al Ahlawy, a fan group for his beloved Al Ahly, a giant of Egyptian football, who have won the title a record 36 times. Heavily influenced by Italy’s flamboyant, and often violent, Ultra fan groups, Assad decided to start his own. A few hundred met, carrying hastily painted banners and singing freshly composed chants at the Cairo International Stadium.
Their opposition that day were their hated city rivals Zamalek but Assad and his Ahlawy reserved their true hatred for a bigger foe. The Mubarak regime.
Every weekend the ultras of Egyptian football would ignite rivalries between local clubs but, more significantly, would fight the heavy-handed police, the brutal enforcers of Mubarak’s authoritarian rule. Protest graffiti began to appear.
Leaders were arbitrarily arrested and detained. Chants became increasingly more anti-government as the violence increased. “Regime! Be very scared of us, we are coming tonight with intent,” Al Ahlawy would sing. “The supporters of Al Ahly will fire everything up. God almighty will make us victorious. Go, hooligans!”
For ultras like Assad, the crackdown showed that the authorities were scared of the disaffected young people growing out of their country’s football stadiums.
Fuck the SCAF and fuck our government for supporting them.
Also see, Egypt: Going ULTRA is now the norm
During the 18-day revolt last year which toppled the regime, Ultras members decided to hit the streets as individuals yet became a full force. And after singing football chants inside stadiums, they began to belt out political chants which got them large public as well as media attention. Later, they were present at demonstrations, assisting and cheering on other protesters and activists in their ongoing battle against the authorities, protecting them from police and army attacks.
Posted by: Uncle $cam | Feb 3 2012 17:17 utc | 71
It seems to me that the solution to our energy problems must come on the demand side. A 1999 Cornell University study said:
‘Democratically determined population-control practices and sound resource-management policies could have the planet's 2 billion people thriving in harmony with the environment. Lacking these approaches … 12 billon miserable humans will suffer a difficult life on Earth by the year 2100.’
http://www.news.cornell.edu/releases/Sept99/sustainable_life.hrs.html
Posted by: Watson | Feb 3 2012 17:36 utc | 72
Scott,
Wind power is already competitive on a cents/kWh basis. It is because of that wind is built rapidly in many countries around the world. Exxon forecasts that in 2030 windpower will be the cheapest energy source if CO2 is priced into the prices for coal and gas.
Variation in production over a day is handled by the electric system at large, you don't keep back-up for each individual wind plant or nuclear plant (emergency stops happen) and are handled mainly by water (water in the dam is stored energy), gas, pricing and back-ups. Swedish energy company Vattenfall just brought an oil plant online because the whole system is reaching its limits with the combination of very cold weather and nuclear reactors offline.
Over the years wind has - at least in Sweden - about the same variation as water or nuclear.
So the 12% does not really matter.
Dr. Yueh,
tidal for electricity is as far as I know on experimental plant level, but some technical problems remains to be solved for it to be profitable. Promising, but not really here yet.
Posted by: a swedish kind of death | Feb 3 2012 20:42 utc | 73
I'm back at printing my lil' publication... just finished delivering issue two and I thought a few of you might like to catch-up with small town Western Colorado life.
Peace
Judging by the exponential growth of the wind farms here in the Tehachapi area, I find it hard to believe it is not profitable or productive in terms of energy. And the idea, (at least here, that cold spells are "calm wind" spells is ludicrous. You should be here today, with a brisk wind chilling you to the bone.
I recently saw the maps for further wind farm expansion in the area, and find it hard to believe that such growth is riding on an unsuccessful or less than productive industry.
And, by the way, I have a close friendship with one of the wind company's in-house environmentalists, and she swears the "bird of prey problem" is waaaay overblown, that she has seen very few bird deaths. Certainly, the area has a huge and diversive population of owls, falcons, and hawks. As well, there is an eagle population, although sightings are rare, as they tend to range over the Tejon and the Loop ranches. I have seen some of the controlled release condors in the area as well. I have heard of NO eagle, buzzard, or condor deaths due to the wind turbines, and am certain if there were documented cases, my friend would know of them.
If you've ever looked at a productive oil field, compare it to a productive wind farm. If you'd rather look at an oilfield, there's something seriously wrong with you, and I suggest you seek proffessional help. Quick, before its too late, and they commit you.
Posted by: PissedOffAmerican | Feb 3 2012 22:05 utc | 75
here is a poem I've been working on the last few days, and I think it's done. it's part of a long project I started in October of 2010, called Z (sort of playing of Louis Zukofsky's long poem, A; it doesn't have a title.
*
TV is me
and I let it go to bed with my
memory
beneath TV
books lay down papery wings
below my skin
below that
song sings the endless circle with
no beginning
noise above
a mad babble of people boiling over
above that
star cluster
above’s obliteration if you really think
about it
about distance
and sad distractions us lowly terrestrials
believe in...
ET dreaming
my earliest memory of the big screen
in the dark
about distance
we haven’t even begun to know how far
we have fallen
no one can
really understand their dimensions and
intentions
we are
lonely marionettes locked out of love
we are
neither below
nor above nor centered by the heart
from first spark
to final gasp--
lost is an honest map of our brief history
repeat, repeat
Posted by: lizard | Feb 3 2012 23:07 utc | 76
thank you Copeland.
if there's one thing I've come to understand about writing poetry, it's the power of repetition, and like the form implies (visually), this poem pushes and pulls as it moves through a reverberation of sounds and phrases. I give a deep nod to the muses for this one.
Posted by: lizard | Feb 4 2012 4:57 utc | 78
@scottindallas the problem with windfarms is that they only operate 12% of the time on average.
Huh? It seems you don't know much if anything about alternative energies. Reading too much NRO I guess.
The new offshore windfarms we are building here in Germany have full output 3800h per year. That's 153 of 365 days of full output and less output on the rest of them. Total downtime for lack of wind, too much wind or maintenance is in average less than 20 days per year.
b -- "The new offshore windfarms we are building here in Germany have full output 3800h per year. That's 153 of 365 days of full output and less output on the rest of them. Total downtime for lack of wind, too much wind or maintenance is in average less than 20 days per year."
have you got a link for those figures, b? thanks
Posted by: Hu Bris | Feb 4 2012 15:10 utc | 80
I'm taking this blogpost - http://bobcesca.com/blog-archives/2012/02/the-lesser-of-two-evils-why-progressives-lose.html#disqus_thread - as the first salvo (of many to come)in the admonishment rodeo leading up to the 2012 election, corralling back all the disaffected, disillusioned, and Obama weary leftists and random Marxist little doggies that have wondered off the reservation.
Posted by: anna missed | Feb 5 2012 2:54 utc | 82
#76,
yes, as Sun Ray would say "space is the place".
Posted by: anna missed | Feb 5 2012 8:20 utc | 83
http://www.nofreewind.com/2010/01/wind-turbine-out-graphs-part-i.html
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/274388/wind-energy-myth-robert-bryce
http://www.energytribune.com/articles.cfm/8120/T-Boones-Windy-Misadventure-And-the-Global-Backlash-Against-Wind-Energy
Last December, about the same time that Congress was voting to continue the wind subsidies, Texas Comptroller Susan Combs reported that tax breaks for wind projects in the Lone Star State cost nearly $1.6 million per job. And that “green” job bonanza is happening in Texas, America’s biggest natural gas producer.
Posted by: scottindallas | Feb 5 2012 15:15 utc | 85
@scottindallas - those ain't sources.
Those are partisan lobbyist paid by big oil to write what they write. Like that Robert Bryce in the National Review. He works at the Manhattan Institute which gets in money from Koch, Exxon and others. Same with Energy Tribune.
If you have no argument to make but to repeat lobbyist papers, you better leave this blog.
Ireland is a wet miserable backwater, but one of the things we have been investing in is wind power. The Irish and Scottish coastlines are one of the windiest regions in the world. On 6th October we set a new record with wind power peaking at generating 39% of the nations electricity.
Source: http://www.siliconrepublic.com/clean-tech/item/24144-ireland-on-clean-tech-high
Now if only someone would invent a car that runs on rain...
Posted by: Colm O' Toole | Feb 6 2012 3:33 utc | 87
So b, you don't think T. Boone's claim that wind power isn't affordable unless NG is at $6? Those facts and factors are terribly persistent. I have problems with shale oil and fracking. However, there is currently no substitute for gasoline, oil and petro fuels, sorry, but that's the fact. NG cars have very limited ranges. The very idea of tax incentives for Hybrid cars is silly, especially once we do a cost benefit analysis. The fact that the venerable Hummer platform and powertrain carries a smaller environmental footprint than hybrids. Oh, we just need batteries. I'm a holder of SQM, and am excited about lithium ion batteries, however, battery capacity is no small obstacle. But, you dismiss this as you dismiss the fact that the more massive Hummer is less an environmentally costly than a hybrid. (again, I admit that this has much to do with the fact that the platforms are older and re-use is one efficiency)
I've heard Robert Bryce interviewed for hours at a time. Your dismissal of his arguments are the definition of ad hominem arguments. You don't even dare to look at one of his arguments, and they aren't specious. Robert Bryce is more liberal in his concern than your ad hominem points would ever allow. But again, you fail to address a single point.
I also posted to a site that reinforced my statistic that windmills only generate power when winds exceed 30mph, and therefore, work less than 15% of the time. (no comment from you, only ad hominem and refusal to discuss) Don't confuse me with many of your contributors and others, I am earnest and follow facts. Many of your contributors have intimate knowledge of what they write, others are more ideological. Many of the more ideological I know from other sites as well. I agree with most of their views, however, some of them strike me as ideological first, and seeking for factual basis later. Further, many of these may have facts on their side, but ignore mitigating facts. (I think we should be good Boy Scouts in our foreign policy, though, as an old rugby player, I'm not above the occasional black or dirty operation where and when warranted. But, I also know that you can't over play those trick cards, lest you become a target. The way some argue, perhaps in many cases myself, too idealistically and are unfairly strident. Don't fall into this pit yourself.)
I own stock in Exxon, though not enough to shape my views. I believe they are a very well run company, that has an advantageous position in the market being a utility though treated as a free market enterprise. I think I myself raise that question as much as anyone on the internet, so again, my earnestness is affirmed. I find your comment, and your dismissal of me disappointing. I thought more of you. I hold Voltaire as one of my heroes. And, his notion is near religion for me, "I may disagree with what you say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it." You don't agree I suppose.
Now, there's nothing more evil to an earnest man than a sophist. There's nothing more destructive to fair debate and inquiry than sophism. Though, I doubt you can call me this. I don't think it's sophistic to raise the question of cost effectiveness as we address "green power." In Texas, we could have replaced many of our oldest coal plants with new natural gas power plants for what we've spent on wind power. Under my plan, we'd have a surfeit of power, under the "greener" alternative, we face brown outs. So, please, read the links above, look into it a bit more. Perhaps wind works in some locations and not in others. That realization is a vast improvement over your blind support. Though, on the other hand, my skepticism brings that point to the fore. I'm not concerned with being right, but, I want these objections answered.
Posted by: scottindallas | Feb 6 2012 6:45 utc | 88
Colm, but all that energy is of little use since it can't be stored. The baseline generation is what planners must rely on. I will remind you that Ireland is the world capital of financial manipulation, and windmills are funded mostly by gov't grants--see how many taxes the manufacturer of those windmills pays: GE %0. In Texas we gave $8 billion in corporate welfare for our windmills, and we have more than any state in the country. WE HAVE MORE THAN ANY STATE IN THE COUNTRY, AND b WON'T RESEARCH OUR EXPERIENCE!?! It's been a miserable failure here, perhaps it makes sense elsewhere, but as it is, I'm in the philosophically safe and broad position and the ADVOCATES have their own lobbyists and agenda pushing for more grants and gov't support. I don't dismiss gov't investment in viable industry, but I do support cost benefit analyses of those various alternatives.
Posted by: scottindallas | Feb 6 2012 6:52 utc | 89
Finally, want to cut subsidies and special deductions for oil drilling and producers, fine with me.
Posted by: scottindallas | Feb 6 2012 6:52 utc | 90
b: - - "@scottindallas - those ain't sources.
Those are partisan lobbyist paid by big oil to write what they write. Like that Robert Bryce in the National Review. He works at the Manhattan Institute which gets in money from Koch, Exxon and others. Same with Energy Tribune.
If you have no argument to make but to repeat lobbyist papers, you better leave this blog."
which is why, b, I asked you for a source on your earlier claim that:
"The new offshore windfarms we are building here in Germany have full output 3800h per year. That's 153 of 365 days of full output and less output on the rest of them. Total downtime for lack of wind, too much wind or maintenance is in average less than 20 days per year."
because, I may be wrong, but those figures you provided sound rather like Wind-Energy company-supplied figures. and In my experience figures supplied by Wind-Energy Co's are sometimes slightly exaggerated (to put it mildly :)
So, any chance of a source for the figures you quoted regarding the new offshore windfarms which Wind-Energy companies are building in Germany?
thanks
Posted by: Hu Bris | Feb 6 2012 7:21 utc | 91
@ Colm - There's currently a bit of a barney about subsidies going on in the sceptic Isle
for example: http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2011/1101/1224306844626.html
"Electricity users in the Republic, from householders to industries, will pay a total of €35 million extra over the next 12 months to cover the cost of the price supports given to wind farms and other alternative energy generators.
Not only will the Irish concumer be paying out large amounts of cash which it can at present ill-afford, but due to integration of the Irish and British electrical grids, the poor hard-done-by, being-cuurrently-fleeced -to-the-bone, Irish consumer will also be subsidising BRITISH consumers when wind-generated power is exported to Britian
How'd ye like THEM eggs?
"Paul Gorecki, research professor with the Economic and Social Research Institute (ESRI), argues in a recently published report that failures to address a number of questions raised by the system will result in Irish consumers paying “implicit subsidies” to British electricity users if power is exported from here to Britain."
Not only are the Irish foolish enough to sign-up to pay off the losses of German (and other, obviously) private banking corporations, but they now seem to be preparing to subsidise the power consumption of the neighbours, a country with a population approx 18 times their own.
The Irish sure are an obliging lot, no?
Posted by: Hu Bris | Feb 6 2012 7:39 utc | 92
@Hu Bris - which is why, b, I asked you for a source on your earlier claim that...
The 3800 hours full output for offshore windparks is from the German government ministry for the environment and reactor safety. It is out of its book Erneuerbare Energien (pdf in German). The book was published in 2009. The number 3800h of full output (Volllast) is on page 70 of the book (page 72 in the pdf).
Notice that in 2009 the German government was still very much pro-nuclear and had no reason to hype wind energy.
@scottindallas - WE HAVE MORE THAN ANY STATE IN THE COUNTRY, AND b WON'T RESEARCH OUR EXPERIENCE!
Well, my country (Germany) has more windmills (27,200 MW installed) than Texas (10,223 MW installed). So why should I study how Texas screwed up on it, which I don't doubt, when I can see how it works pretty well here?
I am not willing to discuss this further with you. This is my blog and my interest is more in foreign policy. Please go drop your dreck elsewhere.
@ scott,
“What I want YOU to recognize” is that questioning conflict of interests is not an “ad hominem” attack but an imperative for any “earnest” researcher. As a Senior Fellow at The Manhattan Institute which is funded by both ExxonMobile and Koch Industries, Robert Bryce is encumbered with some pretty powerful conflicts of interests.
Additionally, Robert Bryce’s arguments have been addressed and pretty effectively demolished and are more like the definition of ”specious” than questioning conflicts of interests is the definition of an ad hominem attack.
One last thing. Your comment to me in your #68 is more “sophist” than anything b has ever written on this blog in almost eight years. Not discussing climate change and not disclosing the major industrial sources driving climate change and not disclosing those vested interests’ propaganda and lies in trying to deny climate change is in effect supporting their agenda of obfuscation. If we have any chance of reversing or bringing an end to our planet being exploited and despoiled it is paramount to bring an end to those criminal actions of people and institutions that block effective action.
Posted by: juannie | Feb 6 2012 18:47 utc | 95
Thanks, b, for the link to source for your earlier claims - my german is rusty but I'm working my way through the section you mentioned, and also skimming the whole document for other figures to support or falisfy your claim (I don't expect to find much of the latter, to be honest :)
I note however that the figures themselves are not sourced, though it's not presented as a Scientific paper so maybe I'm expecting a little too much.
The document appears to mention that a very small number of windmill were already operating in 2009 so perhaps they have extrapolated from those, the figure you mentioned.
I do have one quibble with the rest of your statement though. You said:
"Notice that in 2009 the German government was still very much pro-nuclear and had no reason to hype wind energy."
This seems to be a highly speculative, and to be honest also likely inaccurate, statement to make given that in year 2000 the Rot-Grün Koalition, led by Schröder, enacted something called the "Renewable Energy Feed-In Act" (EEG in German).
This Act requires electric utilities to buy all renewable energies, such as solar and wind power, from all producers at fixed, some say exorbitant, rates and to feed it into the power grid for a period of 20 years.
This led to a boom as thousands of homeowners, businesses, and investors have installed thousands of megawatts of solar and wind power capacity over the years. On my last trip to Bavaria I was surprised by the amount of small scale solar-installation mounted on the rooves of Houses and Barns dotted all over the Bavarian countryside. Almost any structure with 4 walls seemed to have one of these mounted on it's sloping roof, which would appear to indicate the lucrative nature of such investemnt.
Given the existance of guaranteed high-prices and the guaranteed captive-market available to producers of so-called 'renewable' energy, to claim that the German Gov't in 2009 had little interest in hyping wind-energy, seems to me to be really stretching-to-breaking-point-and-beyond the currently accepted definition of the english phrase "little interest in".
Posted by: Hu Bris | Feb 7 2012 16:11 utc | 96
BILD: “THE CO2 LIES … pure fear-mongering … should we blindly trust the experts?”
Excerpt:
"One of the fathers of Germany’s modern green movement, Professor Dr. Fritz Vahrenholt, a social democrat and green activist, decided to author a climate science skeptical book together with geologist/paleontologist Dr. Sebastian Lüning.Vahrenholt’s skepticism started when he was asked to review an IPCC report on renewable energy. He found hundreds of errors. When he pointed them out, IPCC officials simply brushed them aside. Stunned, he asked himself, “Is this the way they approached the climate assessment reports?”
Now I realise that BILD is in many ways the German equivilant of the UK SUN newspaper or the New York Post, but I also remember seeing BILD front-page hyping the "Global-Warming Threat" many times too in the past,often in a very provocative innaccurate and alarming manner, and heard no Global-warmists complaining about it doing so at the time
Posted by: Hu Bris | Feb 7 2012 16:24 utc | 97
b, you're writing in English, and focus on US policy, so forgive me for dismissing your German base. Hell, does anyone in Germany speak German anymore? If your one report of super German success with windpower is correct, and TX's experience is a disaster, shouldn't we see what the differences are? Again, I'd argue that there are better avenues to direct our limited money into. In TX we'd best serve the environment by replacing the old coal plants with new natural gas. Hell our TX coal is so dirty, we hardly mine it anymore, we get most of our coal from Montana/Wyoming. But, we produce more NG than any state in the union. See, b, we really need to have a more nuanced discussion than chicken little fear mongering. I dare say that I've offered as many programs and practical reforms than anyone else on here. The fear monger camp likes everything "green" the same.
My calling for a CBA gets me called out. But again, I'm in the green business. I have to find the most sustainable and cost effective way to serve my customers according to their needs. I've made some sacrifices and changes, some that saved me money. For instance, I like the benefits of Corn Gluten Meal to fertilize, however, it has more than doubled in price 5 years ago and I have gone to using HouActinite--Houston's sewage sludge. What I use now is greener than the petro fertilizer fed corn gluten mean. There are other benefits to the Corn, but price balanced with "green" sensibility has made an easy choice. So long as we don't make the perfect the enemy of the good.
Posted by: scottindallas | Feb 7 2012 16:53 utc | 98
@Hu bris - Vahrenholt is now on the board of the biggest German energy (coal, gas, nuclear) company.
He has a clear business interest in denying global warming, which he, to my knowledge, never did befor he took that job. Just another corrupt person.
That may be, b, but as I said earlier, the figures you quoted also seem as likely to have come from Energy companies, Wind-Energy companies specifically, as anywhere else.
Absolutely no source is given for the figures, and it looks, from the section I read, that the data may have been based on an extremely small number of recently constructed Windmills and extrapolated. One can only presume that the Wind Companies were the ones to supply those figures - there is no evidence of independent verification of those figure.
Wind Energyy companies would also have a very clear business interest in promoting claims for increasing efficency of Wind-energy, especially given the very clear lucrative profits of this business.
These lucrative profits rest almost entirely on German Gov't legislation which forces electric utilities to buy all renewable energies, from all producers at artificially high fixed rates.
Given the sums involved, and the ease of generating profit from a captive audience at a Gov't mandated artificially high-price, the Wind Energy Companies have EVERY reason to inflate figures for Eneregy Output and deflate figures for downtime.
€v€ry r€a$on in the world.
Posted by: Hu Bris | Feb 7 2012 17:37 utc | 100
The comments to this entry are closed.
U.S. advertisement to attract tourists?
'I'm going to destroy America and dig up Marilyn Monroe': British pair arrested in U.S. on terror charges over Twitter jokes
Posted by: b | Jan 30 2012 19:11 utc | 1