SW's Energy Gap

Obama to receive proposals for Afghan campaign - washingtonpost.comToday is Veteran's Day. If we truly wish to honor those who have served both willingly and unwillingly we could start by figuring out what, exactly, military force is for and then vowing to use it only where appropriate.

Immediately after the terrorist attacks of 9/11/01 we were continually lectured by mostly Republican politicians about the mistake that it was to treat terrorism as 'a law enforcement problem'. As opposed to the opportunity for endless war that their masters in the defense industries could smell a mile away. If there was a place where our response to 9/11 went wrong it was when we listened to these con men and psychopaths. Terrorism is at heart a law enforcement problem. It has very little to do with military issues. The military is simply the wrong tool to attack this problem. The problem of stateless terrorism.

This is illustrated perfectly by our involvement in Afghanistan. When we were attacked by a stateless terrorist organization that was based in Afghanistan we naturally needed to respond. We needed to respond against the organization that attacked us. But the organization that attacked us was not the odious Taliban of Afghanistan. It was Al Qaida. Mostly ex-patriot Saudis. It was a law enforcement issue, right up until the moment when the Taliban, the nominal government of Afghanistan refused to turn the leadership of Al Qaida over to us. At this point a military response was entirely justified.

But once that government was removed from power, the enemy the problem returned to being Al Qaida no matter how odious we find the Taliban. And it reverted to being a law enforcement issue. Amenable to the techniques of law enforcement. Infiltration. Surrvaillance. Extradition. Extraction.

We need to end the war against the Taliban. No matter how disgusting we find them. There are disgusting regimes throughout the world. Thailand, Burma, The Sudan Somalia. It is an ever expanding list. We don't invade every god damn place where there are governments that abuse their citizens. That is simply not the way the civilized world deals with these issues in the 21st century. Because, for one thing, it doesn't fucking work. And for another we simply can't afford it.

Our enemy here is international terrorism. Not some indigenous nut-job religious form of government in Afghanistan. The United States of America is not threatened by the choice of government that any country makes. We are stronger than that. We are threatened by self inflicted wounds. Endless wars and crashed economies. And yes, international terrorism, which is a law enforcement issue.

The military is a valuable back-up tool for the international law enforcement effort against international terrorism. But it must be used sparingly and only in extreme circumstances. And then you have to get the hell out. Because there is a law of diminishing returns that kicks in very very rapidly once the rubble begins to bounce. To use the military past the point of appropriateness is to abuse the military. Out of political cowardice. Because you are afraid of being called weak. This is a poor reason to kill people. Time to man up and do the right thing. Get the fuck out of Afghanistan. Yesterday.

Key oil figures were distorted by US pressure, says whistleblower | Environment | The Guardian 'In particular they question the prediction in the last World Economic Outlook, believed to be repeated again this year, that oil production can be raised from its current level of 83m barrels a day to 105m barrels. External critics have frequently argued that this cannot be substantiated by firm evidence and say the world has already passed its peak in oil production.

Now the "peak oil" theory is gaining support at the heart of the global energy establishment. "The IEA in 2005 was predicting oil supplies could rise as high as 120m barrels a day by 2030 although it was forced to reduce this gradually to 116m and then 105m last year," said the IEA source, who was unwilling to be identified for fear of reprisals inside the industry. "The 120m figure always was nonsense but even today's number is much higher than can be justified and the IEA knows this.
"Many inside the organisation believe that maintaining oil supplies at even 90m to 95m barrels a day would be impossible but there are fears that panic could spread on the financial markets if the figures were brought down further. And the Americans fear the end of oil supremacy because it would threaten their power over access to oil resources," he added.

A second senior IEA source, who has now left but was also unwilling to give his name, said a key rule at the organisation was that it was "imperative not to anger the Americans" but the fact was that there was not as much oil in the world as had been admitted. "We have [already] entered the 'peak oil' zone. I think that the situation is really bad," he added.'

The IEA are gutless lying sacks of shit who will be cursed through the ages for their utter failure in their mission to warn the world about the real situation regarding oil production capacity. Their methodology has been transparent for decades. They predict based on primitive economic models the level of petroleum required to sustain a particular growth scenario. Then, they work backwards and invent the means to supply the needed resource. It is all about providing a plausible story to underpin the religion of infinite growth. It is utter nonsense, and they know it. This was perhaps a cute exercise thirty years ago when the shit hitting the fan was somewhat academic. Today, it is nothing short of criminal.

Economy Expands in 3rd Quarter, First Time in a Year - NYTimes.comNow we need to figure out a way to reengineer the economy so that this 3.5% is shared equitably between those who financed it and those who produced it. Otherwise, it doesn't mean Jack Shit.

Anxious CEOs criticize inclusion of any public option in healthcare reform bill - TheHill.com'In 2005, the average CEO in the United States earned 262 times the pay of the average worker, the second-highest level of this ratio in the 40 years for which there are data. In 2005, a CEO earned more in one workday (there are 260 in a year) than an average worker earned in 52 weeks.

The 1980s, 1990s, and 2000s have been prosperous times for top U.S. executives, especially relative to other wage earners. This can be seen by examining the increased divergence between CEO pay and an average worker’s pay over time, as shown in Figure A. In 1965, U.S. CEOs in major companies earned 24 times more than an average worker; this ratio grew to 35 in 1978 and to 71 in 1989. The ratio surged in the 1990s and hit 300 at the end of the recovery in 2000. The fall in the stock market reduced CEO stock-related pay (e.g., options) causing CEO pay to moderate to 143 times that of an average worker in 2002. Since then, however, CEO pay has exploded and by 2005 the average CEO was paid $10,982,000 a year, or 262 times that of an average worker ($41,861).'

Everyone is working ever so hard to make sure that the version of health care reform that passes is POPULAR. Otherwise, those who pass it are FUCKED. Politically, and they know it. This is why it is such an agonizing process to watch. They are terrified that they are going to pass something that will prove to be UNPOPULAR and hence doom their careers.

The difficulty is one of timing. The health care program that is popular before passage is not the same health care program that will be popular after passage. If you spend all your time and energy trying to craft a proposal that will offend the least number of vocal constituents you might pass a program that appears to be popular. Or at least not too unpopular.

The problem is that it will fail to accomplish its goals.

And in the long run, failure is never popular. By far the better strategy is to engineer success into the effort. Now is the time to piss people off. Piss them off now, so that the enterprise has a chance to succeed. Otherwise, in pleasing them, you will be assured that it won't work. And then, everyone will end up hating it.

Insist on the public option. No matter who it pisses off. It is the only hope of containing costs. The insurance companies have proven that by their last minute threat to raise rates. They need competition particularly if we are going to have an individual mandate. Do not discard the public option under any circumstances no matter how loudly their whores howl. It is the only thing that will save you from an unpopular failure. Do it out of self interest if nothing else. You need to show a tangible benefit that kicks in almost immediately. Medicare for nearly everyone who wants to buy in. It would be the biggest step forward for this country in the last forty years.

"Balloon boy" Falcon Heene found safe in attic of Fort Collins home - The Denver Post"Never cry wolf...."

We're all living in a Terry Gilliam movie now.

Hullabaloo'The report only shows the rise in premiums and doesn't include the subsidies. But it still means that premiums will be higher than anticipated under reforms --- and much more costly to the government, which is the point of releasing this report, after all. They are playing to the deficit scolds in a last ditch attempt to keep them from getting to 60 votes in the senate and preventing an up or down vote, which they will lose.

There has never been a better argument for the public plan than the one the insurance company just handed the Democrats in congress. They have produced a shoddy, self-serving report as a blatant threat to raise premiums higher than they already plan to raise them. If there has ever been a more obvious case of bad faith than this, I haven't seen it. The only thing that will keep these corporate criminals in line is either price controls or stiff competition and if they can't keep their companies solvent without giving their executives outrageous pay packages, charging ridiculous prices while denying care to sick people, then maybe their financial model just doesn't work.

If these insurance companies can't see the gift horse they've been given with this Rube Goldberg mess that's been created then they are too incompetent to stay in business.

Oh, an by the way, since when does a leading paper run a front page story with blaring headlines featuring a bogus report commissioned by the industry that's featured in the report? Did they discuss this at a bought and paid for "salon" or did they promise to just buy a full page ad next time?'

Equipped with advanced stealth cloaking technology descended on Washington DC today.