"Undermining my electoral viability since 2001."

The Big Picture

Let's think about the big picture.

There have been a bevvy of scandals swirling around the White House for years. The truth is that with the GOP in charge of congress, it's unlikely that anything substantive will happen. With Bush hovering in the mid 30s for approval, and the GOP congress fairing little better, will any Democrats come forward with a "hold them accountable" message? I think in some districts it could work, but it seems unlikely to emerge as a national narrative.

I think it would work. I think this will be a base election, and I think most Democrats and Independents want to see Bush held accountable. I think some republicans do too. "Suponea Power," baby.

I have a few friends in and around DC and plugged in various ways, and everyone seems to think we should take the possibility of a bombing campaign against Iran very seriously. I think this could be pretty unpredictable. The long-term effects would probably be pretty bad, but it's hard to say how the short-term politics would bounce. It might give them a boost.

Think about it. If Bush were to start pulling troops out of Iraq this summer -- which is a good idea, especially if you're going to bomb Iran, which will make Iraq a lot harder to hold -- he'd get a bump. If the White House followed with a full-court fear-press on Iran in the fall, given the way the press is already acting, it might just go over. If this is the calculus, they'll be looking for 2002 redux, maybe with a little October Surprise for Dobson and his legons of exurban evangelicals.

Other big picture stuff... Michael Moore's movie about health care should drop this year. Heath care was big in polling for Democrats, and Energy is up across the board. Iran figures strong in there too.

Bush's Administration is increasingly full of unpopular people. Ditto the GOP congress. Change is unlikely. With DeLay and Abramoff and who knows who else, out and Rove by all accounts occupied saving his own fat ass from Fitzgerald, the machinists are falling down on the job, and the grand coalition is collapsing. Cheney has like a 20% appoval rating. Rumsfeld is going the same way, but Dubya has his back:

I'm the decider, and I decide what is best. And what's best is for Don Rumsfeld to remain as the secretary of defense.

He's the decider only as long as Congress plays along. We don't live in a monarchy, yet.

Read More

Tags: 

Yum

TomCat:

Hollywood actor and Scientologist Tom Cruise is planning to eat Katie Holmes' placenta.

It is the latest in a series of strange revelations by the 43-year-old 'Mission: Impossible' star about the child he is expecting with fiancée Katie Holmes.

Cruise told GQ magazine: "I'm gonna eat the placenta. I thought that would be good. Very nutritious. I'm gonna eat the cord and the placenta right there."

I'm glad that these people are out there, helping us move the goalposts. Frankly, I don't have anything against placenta-eating. More power to ya.

However, in terms of messaging, saying you'll do it "right there" makes it seem a little more cannibalistic than you might want.

UPDATE: Cruise, only kidding. Darn.

Read More

Tags: 

Robot Snake!

The technical term is "ACM-R5 Amphibious Snake-Like Robot," but I call it "more proof that we should fear the inevitable invasion of Japanese-designed Chinese Robot Overlords."

Even better then the dancing robots of yore. We're falling behind the curve all over the place here in the US, it seems.

Read More

It's Time To Get Down With Biomass, Son

Get Your Learn On, Part Deux:

One persistent myth about biomass is that it takes more energy to produce fuels from biomass than the fuels themselves contain. In other words, that it is a net energy loser. In fact, current ethanol production uses corn, one of the most energy-intensive crops, and then uses just the kernels from the corn plant, and not even the entire kernel. Even so, this process yields 50 percent more energy than it takes to make the ethanol, so it is a net gainer.

Nonetheless, we could do much better. By making ethanol from energy crops, we could obtain between four and five times the energy that we put in, and by making electricity we could get perhaps 10 times or more. In the future, to make a truly sustainable biomass energy system, we would have to replace fossil fuels with biomass or other renewable fuels to plant and harvest the crops.

Another important consideration with biomass energy systems is that biomass contains less energy per pound than fossil fuels. This means that raw biomass typically can't be cost-effectively shipped more than about 50 miles before it is converted into fuel or energy. It also means that biomass energy systems are likely to be smaller than their fossil fuel counterparts, because it is hard to gather and process more than this quantity of fuel in one place. This has the advantage that local, rural communities -- and perhaps even individual farms -- will be able to design energy systems that are self-sufficient, sustainable, and perfectly adapted to their own needs.

I dunno about those ethanol numbers. One thing a lot of people forget to calculate is that we use petroleum products when making fertilizers. That's right: we treat our sewage and cesspool our animal waste so that it can re-enter the water supply, and we pump dead organic matter out of the ground in the middle east to make stuff to spread on our crops so they'll grow better.

Yeah, that's fucking market efficiency for ya.

Read More

Tags: