In The Big Hard World

Conditions: Sunny, even Warm.


Don't Fight The Power.

Like it or not, this planet faces a looming energy crisis. The oil upon which our whole modern society works is gradually running out. And given the nature of man, I think it's safe to predict that as it becomes more scarce, nations will fall into conflict over what's left, ensuring that only the biggest and best-armed will run on the last of the oil. So in terms of finding alternate energy sources, we can't really start soon enough. President Bush is currently attending an APEC meeting in Sydney this week, and said something I actually agreed with. I hate it when that happens.

U.S. President George W. Bush says nuclear power is a key to tackling climate change, along with new energy technologies
[...]

"If you truly care about greenhouse gases, then you'll support nuclear power," Bush told a news conference with Howard on Wednesday. "After all, nuclear power enables you to generate electricity without any greenhouse gases."

The man has a point. Nuclear power stations, modern ones, not the old model but the new, inherently safe model, are the future of power generation on the level that our civilization will need. Not oil, not coal, and certainly not wind farms or solar energy, which simply can't produce enough power for our needs. This is the ultimate choice, and resisting it just because it's scary or because it's traditional to do so is just being unreasonably stubborn. Also,

During a bilateral meeting on Wednesday, Howard and Bush agreed to a "joint nuclear energy action plan" involving cooperation on civil nuclear energy, including research and development, and technical training.

Howard also said Australia would join the U.S.-sponsored Global Nuclear Energy Partnership, under which member countries agree to supply fuel for nuclear power plants.

Australia has 40 percent of the world's known reserves of uranium and exports uranium to 36 countries.

- Reuters.com

So, the more things change...


Death-From-Above Airlines Carry Stowaways.

In a move that's sure to make everyone wince, a B-52 bomber was accidentally loaded with six nuclear armed missiles before flying from one side of the country to the other last week.

The US Air Force has relieved the munition squadron commander at Minot Air Base in North Dakota of his duties, and launched an intensive investigation into the August 30 incident, a Pentagon spokesman said.

"At no time was there a threat to public safety," said Lieutenant Colonel Ed Thomas.

"It is important to note that munitions were safe, secure and under military control at all times."

The Pentagon would not provide specifics, citing secrecy rules, but an expert said the incident was unprecedented, and pointed to a disturbing lapse in the air force's command and control system.

"It seems so fantastic that so many points, checks can dysfunction," he said Hans Kristensen, an expert on US nuclear forces.
[...]

The nuclear weapons expert said the air force keeps a computerized command and control system that traces any movement of a nuclear weapon so that they have a complete picture of where they are at any given time.

He said there would be checks and detailed procedures at various points from the time they are moved out of bunkers until they are loaded onto planes, and flown away.

"That's perhaps what is most worrisome about this particular incident -- that apparently an individual who had command authority about moving these weapons around decided to do so," he said.

"It's a command and control issue and it's one that calls into question the system, because if one individual can do that who knows what can happen," he said.

- Google News.com

And with that I return to my hobby, digging a bunker in the back yard.


Iraq War Again. Some More.

I know it's all old now, but it bears remembering. Sidney Blumenthal, a respected journalist, has done yet more digging into how the CIA and the White House got America into a war based on a series of complete lies. So if you feel like getting your bile up again, read on.

On Sept. 18, 2002, CIA director George Tenet briefed President Bush in the Oval Office on top-secret intelligence that Saddam Hussein did not have weapons of mass destruction, according to two former senior CIA officers. Bush dismissed as worthless this information from the Iraqi foreign minister, a member of Saddam's inner circle, although it turned out to be accurate in every detail. Tenet never brought it up again.
[...]

On April 23, 2006, CBS's "60 Minutes" interviewed Tyler Drumheller, the former CIA chief of clandestine operations for Europe, who disclosed that the agency had received documentary intelligence from Naji Sabri, Saddam's foreign minister, that Saddam did not have WMD. "We continued to validate him the whole way through," said Drumheller. "The policy was set. The war in Iraq was coming, and they were looking for intelligence to fit into the policy, to justify the policy."

Now two former senior CIA officers have confirmed Drumheller's account to me and provided the background to the story of how the information that might have stopped the invasion of Iraq was twisted in order to justify it. They described what Tenet said to Bush about the lack of WMD, and how Bush responded, and noted that Tenet never shared Sabri's intelligence with then Secretary of State Colin Powell

Instead, said the former officials, the information was distorted in a report written to fit the preconception that Saddam did have WMD programs. That false and restructured report was passed to Richard Dearlove, chief of the British Secret Intelligence Service (MI6), who briefed Prime Minister Tony Blair on it as validation of the cause for war.

- Salon.com

I feel the need to punch something.


Republican Actors .

Fred Thompson, a well-recognized character actor, has now stepped into the race for the 08 Presidency. And he's probably one of the front runners irregardless of his policies, simply by being a charismatic man. In fact, this seems to be the main tell that shows the differences between Republicans and Democrats: what type of leader each puts forth. It's telling that the Republicans have supported actors a lot more often than Democrats have. Arnold Schwarzenegger, a staunch republican, was voted governor of California, and Reagan of course became a fondly-remembered two term president.

It seems to me that Democrats put forward leaders, people who are charismatic, who are better than they are and have strong ideas for the country and ways to implement them. Republicans don't think that way. Republicans, all Republicans, are the ones with the ideas, each one knows what should be done, and are happy to do it themselves. So Republicans put forward candidates who are good mouthpieces for policies that they themselves think up. To a Republican, the government is an annoyance that interferes with things that capitalism and industry, in time, will take care of. To a Republican, a government should just be directing the armed forces and taking care of the roads. Anything else is for capitalistic industry, representatives of which reside in the white house, 'advising' the president every day. Instead, Democrats want someone to handle everything, someone who'll know everything that's going on, and how to fix the bad stuff, so that they can stay dumb and happy, safe in the knowledge that it's someone else's problem. That's why Democrats nominate leaders, and Republicans nominate mouthpieces. And actors make great mouthpieces.





Yeah But Can It Display Subtitles?



For generations, television has been restricted to two dimensions. And so it's been up to our measly imaginations, and A.D.D-addled directors, to try and involve us into a movie to the point where the 2D barrier is breached. Well, we can all finally relax, because researchers at the USC Institute for Creative Technologies (Go... er, Pythags?!) have used a 360-degree spinning mirror, mounted on an angle inside a clear box, to generate very realistic free-floating 3 dimensional holograms. Mmmm, Technical.

I must say, this looks very exciting. EnGadget.com has more details.



What Killed The Dinosaurs? Billiards.

Ever since people started digging enormous skeletons out of the ground, they have wondered what happened that caused these creatures to die off. After all, dinosaurs ruled this planet for 165 million years (current human rein: 150,000 or so, depending on religion), so in any official universal guide book that might exist, the dominant life form listed for our little rock is probably still 'Monster'. Actually, that's still accurate. Anyway, the latest theory for the demise has been revised yet again.

A collision 160 million years ago of two asteroids orbiting between Mars and Jupiter sent many big rock chunks hurtling toward Earth, including the one that zapped the dinosaurs, scientists said on Wednesday.

Their research offered an explanation for the cause of one of the most momentous events in the history of life on Earth -- 10-km-wide meteorite striking Mexico's Yucatan peninsula 65 million years ago.

That catastrophe eliminated the dinosaurs, which had flourished for about 165 million years, and many other life forms, and paved the way for mammals to dominate the Earth and the eventual rise of humankind, many scientists believe.

And how do they know?

U.S. and Czech researchers used computer simulations to calculate that there was a 90 percent probability that the collision of two asteroids -- one about 170 km wide and one about 60 km wide -- was the event that precipitated the Earthly disaster.

The collision occurred in the asteroid belt, a collection of big and small rocks orbiting the sun about 180 million km from Earth, the researchers report in this week's issue of the journal Nature.

- Reuters.com

So as a human, I have to thank simple random chance for knocking off the dominant form of life so that I might have a chance to sit in a chair and eat a Kit-Kat. Ha-ha.


What We're Listening To.

I think it's for a movie or something, but Eddie Vedder's version of Hard Sun hit's all the right notes...

Car Update.

Rust! The bane of every owner of a classic car, has struck again at my ride. It's not too serious, just a few sections in the floor, and I have an appointment Monday morning to get it taken out by a very cool restoration garage over the road. Cards and thoughts will be appreciated. No flowers, please.


Film Review: Ratatouille.

The amazing thing is that Pixar never fails to disappoint. You go into the theater *expecting* a Pixar movie to deliver, expecting it to be something special, and it still punches you right in the heart. After doing this so many times, via so many films, it cannot be down to luck anymore. This must be the result of so much careful, detailed work by so many brilliantly talented people, all focussed on telling a great story.

Ratatouille is about creativity from unusual places. Talent that is restricted and impeded, but should and will burst forth anyway, for everyone to see. The details involve cooking, but the metaphor is an obvious one for film making. And while they may stray a little to close to the line by having an embittered "food" critic grow a new heart, in the end it's so gently cathartic one really doesn't mind at all.

The classic Disney formula is still well in place, hero loses family, hero follows dream, hero suffers setback, regains family and wins the battle. The difference is simply in how well every single part of the film works. Every part of every frame, every movement, every gesture, every voice is obviously sweated over, and the result is a brilliantly cohesive whole. The characters are great, the story is fun, and the ending is very satisfying. Another triumph. Four Michelin stars out of Five.



Peace out.