On Obama and experience: I said this already!

"Experience doesn't predict presidential success."

Hmmm...sounds familiar, I think. Although the campaign doesn't want to bring this up, Lincoln had a lot of similarities to Barack in terms of experiences.

To summarize, there have been lots of really bad presidents who were in politics for decades, and lots of really good presidents who weren't.

A few more words on solar and wind (and nuclear)

*UPDATE: I just saw this item regarding a breakthrough in solar storage using splitting water and fuel cells*

Round two!

I've double-indented his words and single-indented mine:

1. The problem with solar power is this thing called "night."

2. The problem with wind power is this thing called "no wind blowing today."

The problem with your two statements is this thing called "reading comprehension"...

I already pointed out, all by myself, that:

The particular barriers applying to solar and wind are storage and efficiency, and there are good solutions out there for both involving either: 1) compressed air storage of energy, or 2) pumping water uphill.

That is to say that there are already obvious and easy solutions to the issues of storage -- given that there is much more energy available than we need to harness, all we have to do is store it when there's extra and transmit it when it's needed.

I anticipate being hit with a straw man argument about being a global warmer denier, but I am not one of those people.

I don't do logical fallacies...at least not on purpose.

What I will say is that most of these apocalyptic scenarios are overblown, and that change in energy technology will come more rapidly and more unexpectedly than you realize.

Perhaps they are, and perhaps it will. Here is a good argument to consider.

But to embrace Gore's stupidity will only hamper the solution to the problem by killing our economy.

First, environmentalism is not a cult of personality. It reminds me of how creationists use the term "Darwinism" instead of evolution because it makes it an ideology (-ism) and makes it all about Darwin at the same time. Second, there are lots of really smart people out there who have looked at this and realize that spending $700B a year on foreign oil is killing our economy and that by taxing oil and giving tax incentives to move to renewables, we'll be relying on markets to use the now-cheaper energy sources (subsidized) and innovate. Also, the infrastructure, once built, is massively cheaper than oil. It's the initial investment that's expensive.

Free market innovation is the way to go not tyrannical dictates and embracing dubious technologies.

I don't see anyone saying that Uncle Sam should run factories to produce solar panels or windmills. We do argue that Uncle Sam ought to adjust tax rates on carbon-based fuels and offer tax incentives on non-carbon sources. It's about taxation and monetary policy. As of right now, Exxon has no incentive to invest in alternatives, so they invest a dismal 1% of their profits in alternative energy. (source)

I think we have the technology now to end most fossil fuel consumption, and it is called nuclear energy.

I'm actually in agreement with you that nuclear is a necessary part of the energy package that solves both the climate change and the foreign oil problems we currently face. MIT did a great study a while back. However, the issue of long-term storage of high-level waste has never been satisfactorily dealt with, although there are some promises in recycling the waste material using technology developed by a professor I worked with at UF (details).

Unfortunately, environmentalists have hamstrung this industry with their stupidity. But cheap electricity would be a boon to electric cars and mass transit. I think nuclear power would provide this if the regulatory hurdles could be eliminated.

On a general note, Charlie, I think we can have a productive and fruitful dialog, but it would be nice if you would refrain from disparaging all environmentalists as "stupid"...and as I said, I'm in agreement with you that nuclear power should be pushed more as a transition. In the long term, one downside is that Uranium is just like fossil fuels -- a finite resource.

In the short term, we have good reserves of Uranium, as do our friends, Australia and Canada. It has the potential to be cheaper than even coal, and already provides around 20% of US electricity. Both Barack and McCain promise to work to include nucelar in their energy proposals, although Barack doesn't support giving subsidies to them as McCain does. (more)

I'm all for clean water and clean air, but I'm not going to deify the planet or damn capitalism along the way.

I don't understand why it's socialistic to strategically place the long-term good of our economy and national security above short-term interests...?

The modern environmental movement bears little relation to the conservation movements of the past but are simply the last refuge of Marxists who saw a new way to castigate the free market by turning from Red to Green.

Do you have any evidence that there is a conspiracy amongst Communists in the USA to move us to solar and wind and other renewables?

On a sidenote, I think the Tesla Roadster is a great car, and I love that company. I think the future belongs to capitalist innovators like those behind Tesla.

The future belongs to capitalists, that's for sure.

PS: Republicans blocked a solar and wind tax credit for the fourth time this summer. They set a record for the number of filibusters during the first year of a two-year session. To repeat: they've filibustered more in one year than any Congress before filibustered in two.

This dialog was more respectful on his part, I think.

A few words on solar and wind

There's a particularly nasty person in our Godless Columbia group. I say this not because of what he thinks, but because of his arrogance and his obvious Randroid leanings. He thinks he's John Galt, I guess.

In a recent thread on our message board, he said Gore was an idiot and yada, yada, yada...I had to respond:

Carbon-based fuels are finite and contribute to climate change. These are two facts that no amount of spin or sarcasm can change. Thus, it doesn't really matter whether or not alternatives are expensive, since we have no choice but to adapt; it isn't a question of if, but how quickly it can be done.

There is no way that wind and solar will ever generate the energy an industrial/information society needs to function. This is the pipe dream of pantheistic environmentalists. Even Al Gore can't power his own life without resorting to fossil fuels and appeasing guilt with carbon offsets.

From Scientific American:
A Solar Grand Plan

A massive switch from coal, oil, natural gas and nuclear power plants to solar power plants could supply 69 percent of the U.S.’s electricity and 35 percent of its total energy by 2050.
...
The energy in sunlight striking the earth for 40 minutes is equivalent to global energy consumption for a year. The U.S. is lucky to be endowed with a vast resource; at least 250,000 square miles of land in the Southwest alone are suitable for constructing solar power plants, and that land receives more than 4,500 quadrillion British thermal units (Btu) of solar radiation a year. Converting only 2.5 percent of that radiation into electricity would match the nation’s total energy consumption in 2006.

This analysis completely ignores wind, geothermal and other alternatives like hydropower -- tidal and additional waterfall-based generators.

It also limits the cost to $400B total...when analysts are being realistic by pointing out that we're spending $700B a year on foreign oil, and to redirect a large piece of that will be necessary each and every year from here on out until we have the infrastructure in place.

From a study conducted at Stanford University:
Evaluation of global wind power

Global wind power potential for the year 2000 was estimated to be ~72 TW (or ~54,000 Mtoe). As such, sufficient wind exists to supply all the world's energy needs (i.e., 6995-10177 Mtoe), although many practical barriers need to be overcome to realize this potential.

Thus, approximately five times the amount of world demand for energy exists in the form of wind alone.

The particular barriers applying to solar and wind are storage and efficiency, and there are good solutions out there for both involving either: 1) compressed air storage of energy, or 2) pumping water uphill. To believe that we have the intellectual ability to go to the moon and build the Large Hadron Collider, but can't use wind farms and solar farms all over the country to eventually replace carbon-based sources is a bit credulous.

Basically, it isn't a question of if, but how quickly it can be done.

Environmentalism is a new religion with sacred spaces, a dogma, an object of veneration, an apocalyptic doomsday, and even a system of guilt and indulgences.

Environmentalism far pre-dates Gore, which I seriously hope you know, so who/what is the object of veneration? The earth? Since it is our sustaining force, I would say that may be justified...

Environmentalism is the recognition that our resources are finite, as well as rapidly changing; that our impact on those resources is both long-lasting and growing rapidly as the global population explodes and economies expand. From this, it is logical to conclude that our technology and innovation must adapt to these facts...however costly or inconvenient they may be.

This guy is busy calling another member of GC a coward for not being more open (angry?) about atheism at work, so he'll probably take a little while to respond.

Copeland continues to stonewall Congress

The investigation of Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA) into the tax-free practices of some religious organizations turned up a few rocks, and some especially slimy creatures are scurrying away from the harsh sunlight:

Already a well-known figure, Copeland has come under greater scrutiny in recent months. He is one target of a Senate Finance Committee investigation into allegations of questionable spending and lax financial accountability at six large televangelist organizations that preach health-and-wealth theology.

All have denied wrongdoing, but Copeland has fought back the hardest, refusing to answer most questions from the inquiry's architect, Republican Sen. Charles Grassley of Iowa.
...
Swicegood said the church's independent compensation committee approves all payments to board members.

Marilyn Phelan, a Texas Tech University law professor and author on nonprofit law, said the practice could pose problems. Both the IRS and Texas state law prohibit benefits beyond reasonable compensation for insiders, including board members, she said. If violations are found, nonprofits can lose their tax-exempt status and board members can face penalty taxes.

As the Senate Finance Committee considers its next step, Copeland is not backing down. His ministry is portraying the inquiry as an attack on religious liberty.

At the same time, it is moving forward with a big fund-raising project: soliciting donations for new television equipment so Copeland can be broadcast in high-definition.

I'd love to see this crook thrown in jail, but it's enough to hope for all the money he's misused to be taxed. From their supposed needs for private jets to their staying in $5,000 a night resorts during "evangelistic trips" and driving Bentleys that they write off as "work-related vehicles"...it all just makes me sick. Paula and Randy White have probably cooperated more than anyone else, but with their ongoing divorce and financial issues, it's understandable that they can't take any more heat.

13 things you should know about McCain's 3rd attack ad

Check out Bill Bradley's deconstruction of McCain's baseless latest, 3rd straight, attack on Obama.

Also, I have posted the new Obama ad pushing back against McCain's lies below:

Support HR 5843 to federally decriminalize pot

Barney Frank has introduced, with 7 co-sponsors, a bill in the House to reform marijuana criminalization. Basically, the bill would decriminalize possession of under 100 grams, or a not-for-profit transfer of up to one ounce of medical marijuana. Note that this is only a federal law, but it is a major step in the right direction.

This is a real chance to save billions of dollars of wasted government money prosecuting teenagers and college kids, as well as relieving the state of thousands of people imprisoned on probation violations or similar charges. Every day, child molesters and murderers are paroled due to lack of space, in order to make room for Jane and John Doe potheads...

Although Obama supports medical marijuana, he appears to have backed off earlier promises to work to decriminalize marijuana, probably because of the flak he took from admitting to have experimented in high school during the primary.

McCain still wants those damned kids off his lawn smoking that reefer.

HR 5843

The Good and the Bad-Fugly

This new video of McCain is good. Damn good.

Digg It!

Ben Smith explains why the GOP's attempt to smear Barack with a mock facebook app is lame. Check out the reviews written on it there, especially the one I just wrote entitled, "McDumb as Bush"...

Media Matters fights back against McCain mendacity

Recently, McCain complained (smirk) about favorable media coverage for Obama, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary, including a recent report from The Center for Media and Public Affairs at George Mason University showing that news coverage has been tougher on Obama. Today, Media Matters fights back with fact:

YouTube link

Thoughts on the web's effects on our minds

Being a teacher, I somewhat agree that the internet is making us stupid. I saw this most clearly in trying to get my students to absorb information on climate change and make an argument for or against specific premises in the debate using a PowerPoint-style presentation. Some of them excelled, others just wanted to cull text from websites, copy and paste them to slides, and read it all off the wall to the bored audience. They had no sense of how to analyze the information, distill it into points, and support or refute those points using evidence and logic.

On the other hand, I don't know how I feel about the generalization that reading on the web in some way detracts from the cognitive skills acquired from reading text in print. I do both, and while I know that my attention span has shrunk, the content on the web is so much more distilled and comprehensive if you look on the right sites. For example, I read Al Gore's The Assault on Reason, which really went into detail in the first few chapters arguing that TV has fundamentally changed our "gut level" reaction to politics, but all of that could've been summarized just as easily in a blog post with links to scientific studies that support the ideas.

I think the web is great for counter-acting the very problem Gore decried because we have to process things cognitively in reading them online, rather than just reacting to a visual image, in reading politics blogs. This is good, although we now filter our news sources to our liking, and so supposedly drive partisan wedges ever deeper in our political divide, in addition to increasing our ignorance of viewpoints that we selectively exclude. The reason this is good despite the costs is that most people simply weren't armed with factual support and logical arguments to justify their political preferences. Partisanship may have increased, but at least most political partisans are well-educated (or misinformed) in their strong opinions, rather than going on the basis of what I heard my grandmother say about candidates: "I like the look of him."

Long story short, heavy web users know how to go to reliable sites for valid information, go through and distill long sections of prose into key points, and learn how to analyze writing and presentation for any viewpoint bias. I think that reading books is fantastic, and ought never end, but the power of the footnote is impotent compared with the power of the hyperlink to propel you to reference information. How many times, when you're reading a book, do you remember some trivia apropos to the topic and wish you had that at your fingertips? That's part of the sexiness of moving away from dead tree versions of information.

Hate crime at UU church

First, no sense can be made of hatred like that displayed at the church shooting in Knoxville, but the apparent logic of this Jim Adkisson is so particularly twisted it needs to be highlighted:

"It appears that what brought him to this horrible event was his lack of being able to obtain a job, his frustration over that, and his stated hatred for the liberal movement," Knoxville Police Chief Sterling Owen IV told reporters on Monday.

Authorities also discovered a letter from the state government telling Adkisson he was having his food stamps reduced or eliminated, police said.

"He did express that frustration, that the liberal movement was getting more jobs," Owen said. "And he felt like he was being kept out of the loop because of his age."

As I wrote recently, welfare reform occurred under huge conservative pressure that began during the Reagan years and culminated in welfare reform passed during the GOP-takeover Congress under Clinton.

Blaming liberals for the loss of social benefits is fucktarded.

On a quasi-related note, Bushonomics predict a record federal deficit this year: $490B, in part due to the stimulus package passed by the Democratic Congress.