Seymour Hersh says there is a war going on inside the Pentagon over whether or not to go to war with Iran. As always, an interesting read.
Canada is finally spending more on her military.
An Israeli airstrike has damaged the office of the Palestinian Prime Minister. I am sticking with yesterday's post (see below) as to my thoughts on this situation.
Some skepticism on the Washington Post op-ed page about the efficacy of biofuels as a solution to our gasoline supply problems. The numbers seem right. We need to increase fuel efficiency dramatically, and go all out to find a replacement for fossil fuels in general.
James Glassman takes a look at faith and tolerance in the 21st Century.
Go to RealClearPolitics for a number of different opinions on the recent Supreme Court decision concerning the Guantanamo detainees. I have long maintained that we should have declared war on al Qaeda, which would have changed the legal dynamics of what the Administration could and could not do in the conduct of the war but, since we did not, we should have followed a policy of trial or release. It is a risk to release some of these terrorists, but why can we not let them go and put them under surveillance? Is it because the CIA is so incompetent it wouldn't be able to pull it off? I think that may be the real answer.
posted by Dan Pierce @ 11:39 AM
1 comments
1 Comments:
As your blog is linked by the Washington Post, it was easy to find you.
I got here from the biofuels article page in washingtonpost.com. I found the article fascinating and informative, as well as sufficiently "bias-free" to be considerably more than credible. The author's conclusions dovetail nicely with what I have read and heard for more than 20 years -- that there is really no technically inexpensive alternative to oil ready for widespread use in the forseeable future, or even perhaps in the far-distant.
I have followed with considerable interest the debates about global warming. If former Vice-president Gore is correct, we have about ten years before we hit the "tipping point" of inevitability with respect to runaway warming due to fossil fuel use. Well, at the present rate of progress in the development of alternatives, the tipping point has come and gone. There appears to be no way we can develop alternatives to carbon-emission fuels, overcoming the technical limitations (as described in the WaPo article with regard to ethanol) and dealing with the political realities of coalitions that seek to advance different competing technologies (for example, ethanol vs methanol fuel) or oppose such technologies (for example, see Anne Applebaum's relatively recent WaPo column on the brouhaha over wind power, not to mention the titanic inevitable clash over nuclear energy), within the allegedly critical timeframe.
Given this state of affairs, I feel quite pleased that I am a global warming skeptic!
Post a Comment
<< Home