Kos Talks Up Schweitzer's Coal Plans

This is long, but worth a read.

To summarize, Schweitzer, the Governor of Montana, has been pretty into the idea of using coal as a possible way of reducing dependence on foreign oil. Basically, with the price of oil so high, it has now become feasible to utilize coal and convert it into diesel or gasoline. In turn, the possible supply coming just from Montana could keep us with enough fuel for 40 years.

Kos added this:

The fuel that comes out of the Fischer-Tropsch method (also used by South Africa during their embargo years) burns cleaner than current fuels, stripping out sulfur, arsenic, and other nasty byproducts. And if Montana alone can deliver 40 years worth of the nation's energy needs, imagine how much more we'd have when you throw Wyoming, Illinois, Ohio, and West Virginia coal into the mix. More than enough fuel to get us inexpensively into the hydrogen economy.

The geopolitical ramifications are also huge -- no need for wars in the Middle East or saber-rattling in Venezuela. The impetus for foolish wars would wane. And cheaper gas (I don't buy $1/gallon, but even twice that would be a boon) would provide huge benefits to the economy.

Not a modest vision for a small state governor.

Compare to Republican governors getting indicted and convicted and investigated all around the country.

This idea will certainly be hotly debated for some time, as the ramifications of burning coal still aren't nearly as clean as people would like. Nonetheless, with oil approaching $70, people are finally getting a little panicky - which should lead to some innovation, or at least some acceptance of other technologies.

Even conservative blogger Andrew Sullivan has lately been a bit displeased with oil price AND has started a bit of a revolt against the SUV. He quotes a pro-Kerry piece from Gregg Easterbrook about shying away from SUVs and towards hybrids, leading to incredible results:

A simple one-third increase in the mileage of new vehicles would have a remarkably beneficial impact on the United States-Persian Gulf relationship, and quickly.
Here's the math. About 17 million new cars and "light trucks" (SUVs, pickups, and minivans) are sold in the United States each year and driven, on average, about 12,000 miles annually. If the fuel efficiency of 17 million vehicles driven 12,000 miles annually rose by one-third, from a real-world 17 MPG to a real-world 23 MPG, that would save about 200 gallons of gasoline annually per vehicle, or about 3.4 billion gallons of gasoline. Since a barrel of petroleum yields 20 gallons of gasoline, about 170 million barrels of oil would be saved.
Perhaps you think, Aha! With U.S. petroleum demand at 20 million barrels daily, this MPG initiative has saved just about one week's worth of oil. Yes--in the first year, the MPG increase would have little effect, in much the same way that, in their first year, few investments yield much return. But remember the miracle of compounding! In the second year, with two model-years' worth of vehicles at the higher MPG, 340 million barrels of oil are saved. The next year, the savings is 510 million barrels, the next year 680 million, and so on. In just the fifth year of this initiative, we would need to purchase about 850 million fewer barrels of petroleum--approximately the amount the United States imports each year from the Persian Gulf states.

It is obvious that change is on the horizon, but how drastic will the change be? I don't expect much from the current administration, especially after admitting that the recently passed Energy Bill would do nothing to lower the price of gas, but there is still great possibilities at the state level. This has been one of the few areas where Arnold has actually been doing a decent job and a number of other states, like Montana, are willing to make changes when DC won't. Thank God for Federalism.

Photos from Iraq

Salon.com has posted a gallery with some very graphic pictures from Iraq. I certainly hope that these are the worst scenes, for it is hard to imagine anything more shocking. Warning these are quite graphic and not for those faint of heart.

Salon Gallery

Here is the least revealing, from the site entrance of injured U.S. soldiers on a cargo plane.



Hat tip to Bagnewsnotes.

Women's Social Rights? Ha, I scoff at them...

James Walcott says it all,

The Shame Game

Posted by James Wolcott

Roger L. Simon, August 16: "Women's rights are the very center of the War on Terror. In fact I would argue Islamofascism at its core is more than anything else an expression of rage against women and that Islam itself is not much better on that score."

[snip]

"Those who think this war is not worth fighting chose to ignore the fate of hundreds of millions of Muslim women. Shame on them."

Reuel Marc Gerecht, discussing the forthcoming Iraqi constitution on Meet the Press, August 21: "Women's social rights are not critical to the evolution of democracy. We hope they're there, I think they will be there, but I think we need to keep this perspective."

So those who think this war isn't worth fighting are shameful because of their craven indifference to women's rights while one of the leading neocon architects of the very war that Simon champions--and not just any architect, but a resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute and the Director of the Middle East Initiative for the Project for the New American Century--isn't that concerned that a new Iraq constitution might roll back and restrict women's freedoms, subjecting them to Islamic law.

His exact words to MTP guest host David Gregory were, "Actually, I'm not terribly worried about this."

Why am I reminded of George's boss Kruger on Seinfeld, who shrugged off every crisis with, "I'm not too worried about it"?

Simon has been conned by his new comrades, which is no excuse for conning his readers, whose gullibility could fill a pelican's pouch. Women's rights aren't at the center of the War on Terror, nowhere near the center. They're a flimsy, detachable rationale that neoconservatives won't hesitate to discard if inconvenient to their goals. If neocons have to choose between women's rights or permanent US military bases in Iraq, it'll be, "Burkas are a small price to pay for democracy. Besides, black is so fashionably slimming!"

And there is a video clip. I still can't believe that he said "Women's social rights are not critical to the evolution of democracy." And he said it in front of a camera and millions of people.

Unbelievable, especially since this has been a key rationale for the invasion after nearly every original excuse has been debunked. Once again, the hard right is trying to downplay what success will mean for us in Iraq, as they come to grips with a difficult reality - one that they never could have predicted. Sadly, their negligence could mean false hopes for many women in Iraq and for those of us who longed for some piece of equality for them.

Malkin vs Malkin

TheTalentShow has an interesting compilation of Michelle Malkin's points of view, pitting her against herself. Here is a little bit,

Now going back to you, Michelle. You recently had some harsh words in response to the rumors that the New York Times was looking into the adoption records of Supreme Court Nominee John Roberts. So you think someone's personal life is off-limits?

I think it's the journalistic equivalent of dumpster-diving, Steve. And I think there's no excuse for it. There's no defense for it and the New York Times should apologize for it.

The name's Greg, but I see your point. On the same subject, I'm going to pass this one to you Michelle. Michelle has taken a pretty firm stand against digging into personal records, but you recently printed Cindy Sheehan's divorce records on your own site. Where do you stand on that?

Like it or not, the dispute between Cindy Sheehan and some of her family members is news.

Thank you Michelle for your very cogent views on the standards of journalism, you are a gem!

Pentagon Announces Sept 11 Concert

Wow.

The Pentagon would hold a massive march and country music concert to mark the fourth anniversary of the September 11 terrorist attacks, US Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said in an announcement tucked into an Iraq war briefing today.

"This year the Department of Defence will initiate an America Supports Your Freedom Walk," Rumsfeld said, adding that the march would remind people of "the sacrifices of this generation and of each previous generation".

The march will start at the Pentagon, where nearly 200 people died on September 11, 2001, and end at the National Mall with a show by country star Clint Black.

Word of the event startled some observers.

"I've never heard of such a thing," said John Pike, who has been a defence analyst in Washington for 25 years and runs GlobalSecurity.org.

The news also reignited debate and anger over linking September 11 with the war in Iraq.

"That piece of it is disturbing since we all know now there was no connection," said Paul Rieckhoff, an Iraq veteran who heads Operation Truth, an anti-administration military booster.

Rieckhoff suggested the event was an ill-conceived publicity stunt.

"I think it's clear that their public opinion polls are in the toilet," he said.

Rumsfeld's march had some relatives of September 11 victims fuming.

"How about telling Mr Rumsfeld to leave the memories of September 11 victims to the families?" said Monica Gabrielle, who lost her husband in the attacks.

Administration supporters insisted Rumsfeld was right to link Iraq and September 11, and hold the rally.

"We are at war," said Representative Pete King, (Republican, New York).

"It's essential that we support our troops."

He also said attacking Iraq was necessary after September 11.

"You do not defeat al-Qaeda until you stabilise the Middle East, and that's not possible as long as Saddam Hussein is in power."

So, in case any of us forget, commemoration of September 11th is a vital step in supporting our troops, despite the fact that Iraq has nothing to do with what happened nearly four years ago. Be patriotic, even if it doesn't make sense.

And I wonder if this money might serve a better use, like actually finding Osama Bin Laden and breaking up terrorist cells...

Michelle Malkin and Bill O'Reilly are Wrong... like usual

From ThinkProgress,

AUDIO: O’Reilly and Malkin Smear Cindy Sheehan

If you don’t like what the mother of a fallen soldier has to say, what do you do? Smear her! Last night on Fox’s O’Reilly Factor, O’Reilly and right-wing columnist Michelle Malkin launched the personal attack on Cindy Sheehan.

First, O’Reilly painted her as a traitor:

I think Mrs. Sheehan bears some responsibility for this [publicity] and also for the responsibility for the other American families who lost sons and daughters in Iraq who feel this kind of behavior borders on treasonous. LISTEN HERE

Malkin took it up a notch by bringing Sheehan’s son, who was killed last year:

I can’t imagine that Casey Sheehan would approve of such behavior. LISTEN HERE

Is smearing grieving mothers how the right-wing supports the troops?

UPDATE: See Crooks and Liars for video of the segment.

Yes Mrs. Malkin, you have a much better idea of Casey's feelings than his own mother. Both you and O'Reilly are completely out of line to smear a military mother, especially since she disagrees with your version of the war's reasoning and is gaining nationwide attention.

She deserves better for what she has gone through.

Roberts on the Death Penalty

This is from Talk Left,

While much attention is paid to Judge John Roberts' position on Roe v. Wade and the right to privacy, there is another critical issue that he needs to be questioned on: his views towards capital punishment.

The Washington Post reports that at his 2003 confirmation hearing for his seat on the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, Sen. Russ Feingold had the following exchange with him:

Feingold asked Roberts whether he was "concerned that poor defendants may not receive adequate legal representation, especially at the trial level of a capital case."

Roberts said he did not know much about the situation, but that "it certainly can't be the case that in all cases they receive adequate representation." He added: "I have long been of the view that whether you're in favor of the death penalty or opposed to it the system would work a lot better to the extent that defendants have adequate representation from the beginning." Roberts said prolonged appeals based on claims of inadequate representation were a major reason "these cases drag out so long."

Then Feingold asked: "Do you think that the current system is fair or do you agree with an ever-increasing number of Americans that it risks executing the innocent?"

Roberts did not answer directly at first, noting that "one thing that is unfair" is that "it's not certain, it's not definite, and there doesn't seem to be any reasonable time limitation." The long delays undermine any deterrent effect the death penalty might have, he said.

Feingold pressed Roberts about "the fact that 100 people have been exonerated, who were already sentenced to death."

Roberts replied that "obviously the first reaction is that the system worked in exonerating them."

Then Feingold asked whether Roberts thought "we've gotten all the ones that are innocent on death row."

When "you're talking about capital punishment, it is the ultimate sanction, and sort of getting it right in most cases isn't good enough. I agree with that," Roberts said.

I think it is unbelieveable that he thinks that the system is working because we are exonerating them. At least he agrees that "getting it right in most cases isn't good enough", but that is doubtful to stop him from advocating a pro-death penalty position once on the bench.