Dear Congressman Roskam:
As a follow up to my email sent earlier regarding Energy Independence I thought I would forward this to you...
FYI... we should JUMP on THIS... NOW... can you pass this along to someone you know on the Energy Committee... Let's do it in 5 years, not 10. What can you do personally to accelerate development and deployment of 'home-grown' green technological solutions for the Energy crisis?
http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2008/oxygen-0731.html" In a revolutionary leap that could transform solar power from a marginal, boutique alternative into a mainstream energy source, MIT researchers have overcome a major barrier to large-scale solar power: storing energy for use when the sun doesn't shine.
Until now, solar power has been a daytime-only energy source, because storing extra solar energy for later use is prohibitively expensive and grossly inefficient. With today's announcement, MIT researchers have hit upon a simple, inexpensive, highly efficient process for storing solar energy.
Requiring nothing but abundant, non-toxic natural materials, this discovery could unlock the most potent, carbon-free energy source of all: the sun. "This is the nirvana of what we've been talking about for years," said MIT's Daniel Nocera, the Henry Dreyfus Professor of Energy at MIT and senior author of a paper describing the work in the July 31 issue of Science. "Solar power has always been a limited, far-off solution. Now we can seriously think about solar power as unlimited and soon."
I agree we should be pursuing almost every option but if we could develop this in 10 years INSTEAD OF drilling offshore for carbon/oil energy we might not even need by then, wouldn't solutions like this be a better option? The energy companies need to diversify and get behind new technologies faster. We can make this work together.
Thursday, August 14, 2008
Solar energy discovery
My letter today to Obama, Durbin :
Dear ________:
FYI... we should JUMP on THIS... NOW... can you pass this along to someone you know on the Energy Committee... Let's do it in 5 years, not 10. What can you do personally to accelerate development and deployment of 'home-grown' technological solutions for the Energy crisis?
http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2008/oxygen-0731.html" In a revolutionary leap that could transform solar power from a marginal, boutique alternative into a mainstream energy source, MIT researchers have overcome a major barrier to large-scale solar power: storing energy for use when the sun doesn't shine.
Until now, solar power has been a daytime-only energy source, because storing extra solar energy for later use is prohibitively expensive and grossly inefficient. With today's announcement, MIT researchers have hit upon a simple, inexpensive, highly efficient process for storing solar energy.
Requiring nothing but abundant, non-toxic natural materials, this discovery could unlock the most potent, carbon-free energy source of all: the sun. "This is the nirvana of what we've been talking about for years," said MIT's Daniel Nocera, the Henry Dreyfus Professor of Energy at MIT and senior author of a paper describing the work in the July 31 issue of Science. "Solar power has always been a limited, far-off solution. Now we can seriously think about solar power as unlimited and soon."
Dear ________:
FYI... we should JUMP on THIS... NOW... can you pass this along to someone you know on the Energy Committee... Let's do it in 5 years, not 10. What can you do personally to accelerate development and deployment of 'home-grown' technological solutions for the Energy crisis?
http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2008/oxygen-0731.html" In a revolutionary leap that could transform solar power from a marginal, boutique alternative into a mainstream energy source, MIT researchers have overcome a major barrier to large-scale solar power: storing energy for use when the sun doesn't shine.
Until now, solar power has been a daytime-only energy source, because storing extra solar energy for later use is prohibitively expensive and grossly inefficient. With today's announcement, MIT researchers have hit upon a simple, inexpensive, highly efficient process for storing solar energy.
Requiring nothing but abundant, non-toxic natural materials, this discovery could unlock the most potent, carbon-free energy source of all: the sun. "This is the nirvana of what we've been talking about for years," said MIT's Daniel Nocera, the Henry Dreyfus Professor of Energy at MIT and senior author of a paper describing the work in the July 31 issue of Science. "Solar power has always been a limited, far-off solution. Now we can seriously think about solar power as unlimited and soon."
Wednesday, August 13, 2008
Political conflict of interest
This smells really fishy... not so much "straight-talk" here:
Sen. John McCain's top foreign policy adviser prepped his boss for an April 17 phone call with the president of Georgia and then helped the presumptive Republican presidential nominee prepare a strong statement of support for the fledgling republic.
The day of the call, a lobbying firm partly owned by the adviser, Randy Scheunemann, signed a $200,000 contract to continue providing strategic advice to the Georgian government in Washington.
....
"It's these sorts of appearances of a conflict of interest that are a natural consequence of having a campaign run by lobbyists, staffed by lobbyists and being ensconced in a lobbyist culture for over a quarter of a century,"
Not that I'm not getting completely jaded, but sometimes I'm still surprised. Is EVERYONE in DC corrupt and completely without a moral compass?? Especially when they are running for President.
Sen. John McCain's top foreign policy adviser prepped his boss for an April 17 phone call with the president of Georgia and then helped the presumptive Republican presidential nominee prepare a strong statement of support for the fledgling republic.
The day of the call, a lobbying firm partly owned by the adviser, Randy Scheunemann, signed a $200,000 contract to continue providing strategic advice to the Georgian government in Washington.
....
"It's these sorts of appearances of a conflict of interest that are a natural consequence of having a campaign run by lobbyists, staffed by lobbyists and being ensconced in a lobbyist culture for over a quarter of a century,"
Not that I'm not getting completely jaded, but sometimes I'm still surprised. Is EVERYONE in DC corrupt and completely without a moral compass?? Especially when they are running for President.
Tuesday, August 12, 2008
Obamacons -save these arguments
I've decided to start keeping track here of the Obamacon phenomenon and track links/ posts that I think will be helpful in future talking points with my Republican neighbors ( and sister/ brother-in-law) who are probably sitting on the fence right up until Nov 4th.
Andrew links to Warren Coates:
" As public sentiment swings back to the left what the public wants (domestically), I think, are largely free but better regulated markets and a better social safety net (health care and pensions). Those like me who think that too much regulation stifles beneficial market innovation and worry about the work incentive stiffing effects of excessive or poorly designed safety nets need to take note of these sentiments. The freedom for me to lead my life largely as I choose and to enjoy the fruits of my labor depends heavily on the willingness of my neighbors (fellow citizens and residents) to accept those rules of the game. Our society functions as it does because of a broad social consensus on the rules of public behavior. This consensus rests in part on each player’s confidence that if he fails there is a safety net that makes it worth his taking the risk of playing. We need to compromise what we consider first best for society (and Republicans and Democrats tend to differ on what this is) to the extent needed to preserve that broad consensus.
Republicans tend to emphasize opportunity and self reliance and keeping government small (it is hardly that), short shifting attention to effective safety nets and efficient government. This is coming back to bite us.
President George W Bush seems to have forgotten that once elected he governs for the whole country, not just those who voted for him. Presidents are elected, presumably, because the majority of voters supported the policies they advocated during the campaign. But once elected it is incumbent on the President to make those compromises with his preferred policies needed to gain broad public support. Instead Karl Rove and company set about turning the government into an adjunct of the Republican Party. Bush’s shoddy governance put inexperienced political hacks in positions needing professionals. The illegal hiring practices of Monica Goodling under Attorney General Gonzales, himself a disgrace to the office, “by letting politics influence the hiring of career prosecutors and immigration judges at the Justice Department,...”[7] is but one of many examples of the over politicization of the executive branch of government that is polarizing our country.
In addition, small government Republicans like me often fail to give enough attention to the public’s interest in good government. Small government still needs to be efficient and responsive to the public’s needs in the areas we have assigned to it. President Bush’s impulse to reorganize (e.g., the intelligence agencies, and what is now known by the un-American name of “Homeland Security) rather than improve accountability and transparency have made the government less efficient and no smaller. "
Andrew links to Warren Coates:
" As public sentiment swings back to the left what the public wants (domestically), I think, are largely free but better regulated markets and a better social safety net (health care and pensions). Those like me who think that too much regulation stifles beneficial market innovation and worry about the work incentive stiffing effects of excessive or poorly designed safety nets need to take note of these sentiments. The freedom for me to lead my life largely as I choose and to enjoy the fruits of my labor depends heavily on the willingness of my neighbors (fellow citizens and residents) to accept those rules of the game. Our society functions as it does because of a broad social consensus on the rules of public behavior. This consensus rests in part on each player’s confidence that if he fails there is a safety net that makes it worth his taking the risk of playing. We need to compromise what we consider first best for society (and Republicans and Democrats tend to differ on what this is) to the extent needed to preserve that broad consensus.
Republicans tend to emphasize opportunity and self reliance and keeping government small (it is hardly that), short shifting attention to effective safety nets and efficient government. This is coming back to bite us.
President George W Bush seems to have forgotten that once elected he governs for the whole country, not just those who voted for him. Presidents are elected, presumably, because the majority of voters supported the policies they advocated during the campaign. But once elected it is incumbent on the President to make those compromises with his preferred policies needed to gain broad public support. Instead Karl Rove and company set about turning the government into an adjunct of the Republican Party. Bush’s shoddy governance put inexperienced political hacks in positions needing professionals. The illegal hiring practices of Monica Goodling under Attorney General Gonzales, himself a disgrace to the office, “by letting politics influence the hiring of career prosecutors and immigration judges at the Justice Department,...”[7] is but one of many examples of the over politicization of the executive branch of government that is polarizing our country.
In addition, small government Republicans like me often fail to give enough attention to the public’s interest in good government. Small government still needs to be efficient and responsive to the public’s needs in the areas we have assigned to it. President Bush’s impulse to reorganize (e.g., the intelligence agencies, and what is now known by the un-American name of “Homeland Security) rather than improve accountability and transparency have made the government less efficient and no smaller. "
Obama reply
Senator Obama's reply to an email I sent regarding news last week about keeping the Guantanamo prisoners in small boxes/cells for extended lengths of time.
Dear L__:
Dear L__:
Thank you for contacting me regarding this Administration's use of inhumane interrogation practices. I appreciate knowing of your concerns.
This issue has been the subject of heated legal debate for quite some time now. The United States is a nation born out of a struggle against tyranny, and our Constitution asserts that the rule of law applies to all men and women, and all branches and agencies of government. Time and again, America has triumphed because of the sharp contrast we draw to tyranny. In those battles, our allegiance to our values and the rule of law has been our greatest weapon.
Today, we are engaged in a new kind of battle. And the debate in which we have been engaged since September 11, 2001, is how we are going to respond to the shadowy, stateless, terrorist enemies of the 21st century. Tragically, the Bush Administration has too often chosen to respond to this enemy by abandoning our greatest weapon, by ignoring the values and laws that it deems inconvenient. Violating international treaties we ratified and U.S. laws that protect us, the Bush Administration has used excessive secrecy, indefinite detention, warrantless wiretapping, and "enhanced interrogation techniques" like simulated drowning that qualify as torture under any reasonable reading of the law. For a nation with a history marked by the torture of hundreds of American soldiers in Vietnamese prisons, it is troubling to think that any lawmaker views the practice of torture as effective or justified.
When the Senate conducted debate on the Department of Defense Appropriations Act for FY 2006, Senator John McCain (R-AZ), who endured years of torture as a POW during the Vietnam War, offered an amendment to the bill that requires all military interrogations to abide by the U.S. Army Field Manual’s standards for humane treatment and prohibits “cruel, inhuman or degrading" treatment of any prisoner detained by the U.S. You may be interested to know that the Army Field Manual 34-52, Chapter 1, explicitly states:
The use of force, mental torture, threats, insults, or exposure to unpleasant and inhumane treatment of any kind is prohibited by law and is neither authorized nor condoned by the U.S. Government. Experience indicates that the use of force is not necessary to gain the cooperation of sources for interrogation . . . as it yields unreliable results, may damage subsequent collection efforts, and can induce the source to say whatever he thinks the interrogator wants to hear. . . . it also may place U.S. and allied personnel in enemy hands at greater risk.
We know that torture does not work. We know that torture violates our laws. And we know that when we detain suspects without trial or ship them off in the dead of night to countries where we know they’ll be tortured, we compromise our own security and weaken our ability to press for human rights and the rule of law in despotic regimes. On this issue, former Secretary of State Colin Powell concluded: “Torture is torture is torture. It is unacceptable. It is not the way you treat human beings.”
I was proud to vote for Senator McCain’s amendment, which passed by a vote of 90-9 with clear support from both political parties. I am also a proud co-sponsor of a bipartisan bill to restore habeas corpus rights, the Habeas Corpus Restoration Act of 2007 (S. 185). In light of the CIA’s confirmation that videotapes depicting brutal interrogation techniques were destroyed, I was heartened that the House and Senate passed the FY 2008 Intelligence Authorization bill and included a requirement that subjects CIA interrogators to the same guidelines included in the Army Field Manual. However, the President vetoed this legislation on March 8, and unfortunately the House failed to gather enough votes for a two-thirds majority to override the veto.
As you may know, on June 12, 2008, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the habeas rights of the remaining detainees at the U.S. military base in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. This recent decision is an important step toward reestablishing our credibility as a nation committed to the rule of law, and rejecting a false choice between fighting terrorism and respecting habeas corpus. I commend the Court's decision, and will continue to advocate for oversight and inquiry into the Administration's detainee policy to ensure that the very values we are fighting to defend are protected and upheld.
L__, thank you again for writing. I hope you will stay in touch.
Sincerely,
Barack Obama
United States Senator
Wednesday, August 6, 2008
Anthrax & rush to war
2 posts to remember this week how messed up the 2 investigations into the Anthrax killer and "Rush to War". I want to save these links to look back on, hopefully one day when we have the full story. It all seems so 'keystone kops' to me. Why does it seem like they want to frame people instead of just finding the truth about what really happened. Aargh.
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/08/05/anthrax/index.html
Glenn Greenwald
" One glaring and important exception to the dynamic of uncritical media recitation is this morning's New York Times article by Scott Shane and Nicholas Wade, which evinces very strong skepticism over the FBI's case thus far and discloses facts that create more grounds for skepticism. Given everything that has happened over the last seven years -- not just with the anthrax attacks but with countless episodes of Government deceit and corruption -- it's astonishing (and more than a little disturbing) how many people are willing, even eager, to assume that the Government's accusations against Ivins are accurate even without seeing a shred of evidence to support those claims. "
http://www.salon.com/books/review/2008/08/06/suskind/
"Forging the missing case for war
In further chronicles of Bush government deceit, author Ron Suskind drops a bombshell: The White House ordered the CIA to fake a letter linking Saddam Hussein to al-Qaida."
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/08/05/anthrax/index.html
Glenn Greenwald
" One glaring and important exception to the dynamic of uncritical media recitation is this morning's New York Times article by Scott Shane and Nicholas Wade, which evinces very strong skepticism over the FBI's case thus far and discloses facts that create more grounds for skepticism. Given everything that has happened over the last seven years -- not just with the anthrax attacks but with countless episodes of Government deceit and corruption -- it's astonishing (and more than a little disturbing) how many people are willing, even eager, to assume that the Government's accusations against Ivins are accurate even without seeing a shred of evidence to support those claims. "
http://www.salon.com/books/review/2008/08/06/suskind/
"Forging the missing case for war
In further chronicles of Bush government deceit, author Ron Suskind drops a bombshell: The White House ordered the CIA to fake a letter linking Saddam Hussein to al-Qaida."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)