President Bush's Final State Of The Union Address Will Be Remembered

Dee over at Conservatism with Heart has a post covering President Bush's Final State of the Union Address last night.

I agree with Dee that when history looks back at President George W Bush it will look back fondly.

President Bush's legacy will be written some twenty years or so from now and will include that he was one of the few American Presidents that felt freedom really was worth fighting for, and put his money where his mouth was, so to speak.

They will remember that he freed 50 million souls from brutal dictators, stood up for the rights of women, when the women's movement was not to be found, and last but not least got the Democrats to admit for the first time that tax cuts stimulate and grow the economy.

Check out Dee's post at Conservatism With Heart: I Adore President George W. Bush!:

"Others have said they would personally be happy to pay higher taxes. I welcome their enthusiasm, and I am pleased to report that the IRS accepts both checks and money orders."

"We must do the difficult work today, so that years from now people will look back and say that this generation rose to the moment, prevailed in a tough fight, and left behind a more hopeful region and a safer America."--President George W. Bush, January 28, 2008

Bush came out shining and strong last night with his last State of the Union Address! I was so proud of him. I have to say that I have never felt so strongly about what a wonderful president he has been. IMHO, no matter who wins the Republican nomination or who wins the presidency this fall, it will be a lesser man that takes office next year.

Sphere: Related Content

How Are The Lefties Going To Cover This One Up

The Gateway Pundit, is reporting that the popularity of our current course in Iraq has undergone a massive change over the last few months. 40 percent of Americans now believe that the Surge is Working, another 21 percent either are sure or don't want to admit reality and yet another 12% believe the surge is making things worse, clearly they are either are smok'n Obama's stuff or they are rooting for al-Qaeda, which is more likely than not.

Check out his post in Gateway Pundit: Ruh-Roh! Surging Iraq Poll Numbers May Spell Doom for Cut & Run Party:

Melanie Morgan at World Net Daily reported on this poll:

It's a huge, stunning shift in the polls that is undoubtedly going to shake up the 2008 elections.
From down 21 percent to now up by 6 percent the new polls (just released) show the swing in momentum, one that has been remarkable by the media's silence on the matter. The tectonic swing in public opinion is taking place under radar and no one is talking about it...

But month after month of progress by U.S. and Coalition troops have managed to pierce through the lies of the liberal mainstream media, and the American people are learning the truth: Our troops are winning in Iraq.

While the September 2007 CBS/New York Times poll showed that more Americans thought 'the surge' was making 'no impact' (51 percent) than thought the surge was making things 'better' (30 percent), the outlook today is much more promising.

Check out the comment Anonymous left...

Do you guys have any idea about the difference between "the surge is making things better" and "we should stay in Iraq forever?"

Actually, the last year has disproven one of the favorite right-wing talking points, that Americans don't want to leave Iraq, they just don't want to "lose." The MSM's "surge is working" mantra has convinced more Americans that the surge has made Iraq better (in fact, it made Iraq worse and the lowered violence came in September 2007, for other reasons), but there has been no shift in the polls on the question of whether we should start a phased withdrawal. Most Americans understand that we cannot "win" in Iraq and that it is in America's interests to set a timetable for withdrawal, regardless of whether or not the surge is "working."

Also, it's hilarious that Barnes's article a) Quotes Bush as saying that things were OK in Iraq in 2005 and early 2006 (of course, Iraq was in hell in 2005-6, and the Samarra bombing merely made it harder to deny what was already true). No wonder Bush thinks that the reduction of violence to hellish 2005 levels means that the surge is working; b) Admits as an aside that political reconciliation "hasn't amounted to much," which means that Barnes admits that the surge has failed (since Bush announced it as a way of creating political reconciliation).

But hey, at least you can be happy that the MSM buried the fact that the recent de-Ba'athification legislation will actually make political reconciliation harder. The MSM will continue pushing the storyline that the surge is great and we ought to stay forever, and normal people won't care - because unlike Bush, who cares more about his legacy than about America, normal people care more about doing what's right for America and getting the hell out of Iraq.

They believe things aren't getting better in Iraq, or that the real causes of problems in are not Iraq is al-Qaeda and Iran, but the U.S. military.

If the leftists really believe that the American Public wants to "Snatch Defeat From The Jaws Of Victory" in Iraq then they are sadly mistaken.

I for one would love to make that the defining issue in this fall's campaign. I doubt that the Dem's leadership will be that stupid.

For the latest numbers on just what is happening in Iraq check out Redstate - Meanwhile, back in Iraq:

It has the numbers and graphs detailing the continuing decrease in Civilian Causalities, increases in Electrical Generation, which are now above prewar levels, increases in Oil Output, now above prewar averages and nearing a record 2.5 million barrels per day, and last but not least, Oil Revenue is now triple what it was before the war, that is right Oil Revenue is triple what it was before the war.

Sphere: Related Content

China Preparing For Cyber War, Watch Out Taiwan

China Preparing For Cyber War, Watch Out Taiwan

I'm not sure why the e-News media has pretty well ignored the news that Russia plans a policy of preemptive nuclear strikes, but now all of a sudden are threatened by the Chinese hacker probes of the U.S and other western countries power grids. They care about power grids but not about nuclear strikes or Chinese hacker probes of our Defense Department computers. Some how I think the concern while warranted is a bit misplaced.

One further point, Chinese are also planning to deploy submarine base anti-satellite missiles so that they can take out our satellite based military functions, and they are worried about power grids.

Here is a sampling of what is being said.

THE ASTUTE BLOGGERS - UPDATED CIA says Hackers caused Power Outages (A Lesson in Comparative Values)

UPDATED CIA says Hackers caused Power Outages (A Lesson in Comparative Values)

To say that this is disturbing is an understatement; it doesn't exactly lead to a high degree of confidence that America can protect its infrastructure from a coordinated attack; and don't think that the Russians, Chinese, North Koreans, Syrians, Iranians are not cognizant of that fact.

I am with Purple Avenger on this one:

Anyone who allows any physical connection between critical grid controls and the internet is a moron. Let's just say that is beyond ordinary stupid and well into the realm of criminally negligent stupid.

People need to get over this idiotic notion of hooking the internet to every fucking thing on the planet. Not only is it unwise for critical infrastructure, anyone with the slightest bit of technical savvy knows it is unwise. The internet is about as trustworthy as a crackhead jonsing for a rock. Would you hand your car keys to a crackhead loitering outside a fancy restaurant and expect it to be there when you came back?

Protecting our infrastructure it is quite simply a Homeland Security "must-have"--if America cannot pony up the capital needed to protect its own ELECTRIC GRID from foreign interference, then it damn sure has no business whatsoever investing in a bottomless pit Government-run Socialized medicine boondoggle.

Yet here we are; a 50/50 nation--a house divided over the rational vs. the insane. And therein lies the enormously critical difference in values between the Left and Right. Socialists want more and more power over every aspect of your lives, and the only way for them to achieve this is to get more of your income and regulate more of your rights to do and say as you please. It touts what is good for the "collective" but that implies above all a "God complex" State empowered to make all decisions about right vs. wrong for you and yours.

The Left's single-minded purpose is and always has been to make every single human being in the US (legal or illegal) completely and utterly addicted and dependent on Government. Its method of doing this is to create "Entitlement" programs to serve humanity's every "need" (like the need to not have a moment of reflective silence in your schools... or the perceived need of some interest groups to not have their tender sensibilities and feelings hurt...)

Socialism will not only destroy America's economy, growth and jobs, it will leave so little money for doing what must be done to protect us and our aliies in today's hostile world, that we will be as defenseless as we were during the deepest "malaise" of the Carter years.

On the other hand are the Conservatives; "movement Conservatives" in fact are the closest thing remaining in the US to the "Classical Liberalism" of its founders. These are people who love this place, and who understand and believe in the vision of the brilliant Renaissance men who crafted the most revolutionary and enlightened document in the history of the world: the United States Constitution. This Constitution--this noble experiment by enlightened men-- changed the world, forever. Because of America the planet as a whole is more wealthy and prosperous that it has ever been.

Movement Conservatives understand and recognize the profound sacrifice that countless men and women have given for that grand vision. And they can't even begin to comprehend the mentality of those who want to do away with all that in the name of some false utopian notion of "equality of result".

When new soldiers are sworn in to our Armed Forces, they take virtually the same oath as the President: not to preserve, protect and defent the Government of the United States--but to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States.

And therein lies the difference between the two major forces competing for our votes today: the Left wants to chunk the Constitution in favor of Big Government, power over every aspect of your lives. The Left believes it has the "right" to as much of your income and your property as they want--and that non productive citizens in our society have the right to vote themselves more of your income.

The Left also believes in the right of unelected, unaccountable to anyone judges-for-life to decide on a "whim" that the Constitution does not really mean what is actually written down, but rather some derivation germane to the elites' mood of the moment, or whatever the Georgetown cocktail set thinks is "enlightened". This is not only not Constitutional, the Constitution was written in order to prevent this very thing. Anyone who thinks otherwise needs to read The Federalist Papers. Hell, I think that book should be required reading for any graduate of our schools, and for citizenship for those not born here. Because that book not only explains what the Constitution contains, it explains why it is so important that it is written that way.

But the Socialists care not a whit about the vision of the founders nor the Constitution which is the social contract between our government and the governed. The elites (even Democrat friends of mine...) scoff at this document and comment on how the founders lived two hundred years ago--what do they know, etc... In this, they show their ignorance of all of the carnage and tyranny of all human history, and also of the very basic tenets underlying the reason the United States came into being in the first place.

And so these slaves to our sick popular culture would not lift a finger as our Constitution gradually becomes diminished, until it no longer is even worth the paper it is written on--all in the name of their God-given right for these "enlightened" fools to determine how the rest of us are supposed to live, what we are supposed to say and not say, and what we can and cannot listen to on the radio or television.

And in the process these Kool-Aid drinkers would ruin our economy, destroy the best medical care system on Earth, and sentence a great majority of our citizens to the mediocrity of the "lowest common denominator"--the bare necessities of life. They gladly will steal your money in the name of "equality" of result, never mind that some people are more talented and driven than others; they would steal your money in the name of "saving" a planet that is not dying; they would dilute American patriotism to the point that being an American citizen is no better or worse than being a Luddite anywhere else on Earth. That is, those citizens left who did not suffer the misfortune of being vaporized in an Islamic mushroom cloud, die of radiation poisoning or a bioweapon, or else were assimilated into the one misogynistic religion on Earth whose core philosophy (at least to the great majority of its fundamentalists) is: submit to Allah or die. Because these same Leftists are pretending that there is no Islamic threat out there, and their incredible denial of this truth is going to someday cost hundreds of thousands of lives.

Meanwhile the Marxism and Collectivism now en vogue with the leadership of the Democrat Party has never led to a thriving economy...anywhere. In attempting to impose upon free peoples a system that runs completely contrary to human nature, Marxists have murdered over 200 million people in less than 100 years. They have always used cheap emotion, envy, class warfare, identity politics, and tyranny to impose their will. And yet we see their candidates today, still using the same morally bankrupt tactics.

And on the other side of the divide is...well look around. The so-called "poor" in the US have it better than 9/10 of the undeveloped world. People literally risk their lives to get here--even illegally if necessary--because this is where the opportunity is. Why?? Contrast this with the Berlin Wall, which was built to keep the people of Eastern Europe IN. Why do you think that the Socialists felt compelled to build that wall? And why do we today have this enormous immigration problem (speaking strictly from a "desirability" angle)?

Is there any question?? The answer is: it is because of what the Constitution of the United States gave us: Freedom. Opportunity. The chance for anyone to make it big, and for most to make it better here than they could anywhere else. The chance to try something, fail, then try something else. And to say what we want without fear of arrest or censorship.

The reason for the incredible American success story is because its government was founded on the principles of leaving its people alone to pursue what they want to pursue and to enjoy the fruits of their labor. Its citizens were allowed to use its labor to purchase property which cannot be taken from them. That is what freedom is. And it is fundamentally incompatible with Socialism.

The United States of America is the greatest force for human good that has ever existed on this third rock from the Sun. This is a fact for one reason and one reason only: the document that was the culmination of some of the most brilliant thinkers who ever walked the Earth, the Constitution of the United States. That the Constitution has lasted this long is why we are so prosperous, so powerful, and so desirable to oppressed people everywhere.

We have seen the economics of an Islamic world that is still mired in 9th century fundamentalism. We have seen the results of economies where half of the workforce (women) are only utilized as veiled baby machines. Now religious zealots in that part of the world threaten us all, because they are working tirelessly to acquire weapons which could kill millions in one flash. They want the weapons because the zealots running the show in some of these places (Iran, Syria) believe that dying for Islam is the desired goal. That is what the Koran says! They not only desire to sacrifice themselves for Allah, but they also believe that the more "infidels" these zealots can take out with them, the greater their heavenly reward.

Right next door to these destitute economies, stands Israel, which has adopted the enlightened Western capitalist model. It is like the hope diamond sitting next to a cesspool (but for oil Saudi Arabia would be as destitute as Zimbabwe...). And Israel is the envy and bane of every anti-Semitic young man who is ready for that "ticket to heaven".

With all of these truths so clear to me, it is astounding that we live in virtually a 50/50 country, where we are so easily divided along the lines of emotion vs. rationality, "progressive" vs. actual Progress, race and gender-based special interest politics vs. a color/gender-blind society based on merit, creativity, and ambition. It is astounding that any educated person with a conscience, a sense of history, and an understanding of the most rudimentary elements of economics, could possibly vote for Democrats and Leftist candidates, who have been promising utopia for almost 100 years now, and who have yet to deliver on their false promises.

It was Republicans who provided the majorities needed to get Civil Rights legislation finally enacted here in the '60s. It was a Republican President who preserved the Constitution and freed the slaves. It was a Republican who stood up to the Socialists in the Soviet Union and freed all of Eastern Europe from tyranny.

Meanwhile it was a Democrat who imposed the ponzi scheme known as Social Security. It was Democrats who have bankrupted this country with Medicare and many ill-advised welfare programs that served only to give people an incentive to remain idle and lazy. It is Democrats who want to act like no one out there will bother us if we just "play nice", despite at least 10,000 years of bloody World history to the contrary.

This is how I see the great divide in this great country. It is getting worse, not better, and it will continue to deteriorate until we have a Reaganesque Conservative majority in this country which will fight to preserve the vision and promise which have made the United States so successful, so wealthy, so generous, and the envy of the rest of the planet.

We can preserve the vision of those brave men who stood up to England in the 1700's, but if we don't start now--if we squander this opportunity now--what once was the "Last Best Hope on Earth" will become a only a distant memory.

Are we going to allow this to happen?

Speaking only for myself: over my dead body.

Gizmodo - Outage: Hackers Are Going After Power Grids:

According to Tom Donahue, a CIA official, hackers have recently infiltrated various power grids outside the US, and in at least one instance, caused a power outage in multiple cities. We don't know much else: the when, where, how and who were all left for guessing only. But we know that the attacks were done remotely (through the internet) and that current Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition (SCADA) systems (that, as we understand it, represent many of the world's infrastructural networks, software and databases) are sadly out of date.

At the hacking convention DefCon, security firm Tipping Point gave a presentation outlining various SCADA vulnerabilities, and others in the know are claiming that these vulnerabilities are leading to major electronic extortion of utility companies, to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars.

Meanwhile, the CIA is questioning whether or not SCADA is the vulnerability in question.

I'm just hoping that said hackers live next door to me, and that therefore my power is safe and sound. [forbes]

PrairiePundit - Hackers attacking foreign electric utilities:

Hackers attacking foreign electric utilities

Washington Post:

In a rare public warning to the power and utility industry, a CIA analyst this week said cyber attackers have hacked into the computer systems of utility companies outside the United States and made demands, in at least one case causing a power outage that affected multiple cities.

"We do not know who executed these attacks or why, but all involved intrusions through the Internet," Tom Donahue, the CIA's top cybersecurity analyst, said Wednesday at a trade conference in New Orleans.

Donahue's comments were "designed to highlight to the audience the challenges posed by potential cyber intrusions," CIA spokesman George Little said. The audience was made up of 300 U.S. and international security officials from the government and from electric, water, oil and gas companies, including BP, Chevron and the Southern Co.

"We suspect, but cannot confirm, that some of the attackers had the benefit of inside knowledge," Donahue said. He did not specify where or when the attacks took place, their duration or the amount of money demanded. Little said the agency would not comment further.

...

Over the past year to 18 months, there has been "a huge increase in focused attacks on our national infrastructure networks, . . . and they have been coming from outside the United States," said Ralph Logan, principal of the Logan Group, a cybersecurity firm.

It is difficult to track the sources of such attacks, because they are usually made by people who have disguised themselves by worming into three or four other computer networks, Logan said. He said he thinks the attacks were launched from computers belonging to foreign governments or militaries, not terrorist groups.

Over the past 10 years, electric utilities, pipelines, railroads and oil companies have used remotely controlled and monitored valves, switches and other mechanisms. This has resulted in substantial savings in man power and other costs.

But to do that, the companies have installed wireless Internet connections to link the devices to central offices.

...

My speculation is that it is the Chinese who are responsible. This would be consistent with their strategy of making the US and its allies blind by taking out satellites and attacking the electrical grid could also make the command and control of our forces more difficult. Novels about terrorist attacks sometimes suggest such attacks on infrastructure to make it more difficult to respond to an attack, but most terrorist are not that sophisticated. The Chinese definitely are.

They are and I'm sure that they are preparing for something big, watch out Taiwan.

Sphere: Related Content

Bill Gertz Reports China Deploying Anti-Satellite Submarine launched missle system

Bill Gertz is reporting in his column in the Washington Times that:

Pentagon officials are increasingly worried that China's military is advancing its clandestine anti-satellite (ASAT) weapons program by building a submarine-launched direct-ascent missile system.

New information indicates the secret ASAT program, which Chinese leaders refused to discuss in recent meetings with visiting U.S. military leaders, will involve a space-capable ASAT warhead for the new JL-2 submarine-launched ballistic missile. The new missile is being readied for China's new ballistic missile submarine, called the Jin-class, or Type 094. The ASAT submarine will provide the ultimate in stealth weapons and could cripple U.S. satellites.

The reports about submarine ASAT basing followed comments by Gen. James E. Cartwright, the former U.S. Strategic Command commander and current vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, who told Congress last year the U.S. military is prepared to use conventional missile strikes on land-based Chinese ASAT launchers if Beijing began shooting down U.S. satellites.

China successfully tested a direct-ascent ASAT missile from a mobile ground-based launcher a year ago, sending thousands of pieces of debris from a destroyed weather satellite into low Earth orbit and threatening U.S. satellites and others.

The new information bolsters theoretical writings by Chinese military officials, which were disclosed in a report to Congress last year by Michael Pillsbury, a former Reagan administration defense official and specialist on China.

Mr. Pillsbury stated in his report, "An Assessment of China's Anti-Satellite and Space Warfare Programs," that China's sea-based and submarine-based ASAT were mentioned in 2004 by Liu Huanyu of the Dalian Naval Academy.

"Nuclear submarines are not only well concealed but can sail for a long period of time," Mr. Liu said. "By deploying just a few anti-satellite nuclear submarines in the ocean, one can seriously threaten the entire military space system of the enemy."

Since we are the only power that uses satellites for military purposes, you can only assume that this weapons system is directly aimed at creating a way to blind our military forces from the concealment that only a submarine based attack can afford.

Taiwan had better watch out I think the Chinese are making plans.

For more check out PrairiePundit: China building sub launched anti satellite missile

Sphere: Related Content

Cold War Returns? USA Today says, Russia leaves door open for pre-emptive nukes

I wonder why this hasn't made a bigger splash? After 20 years or so of not having to worry that someone will make a stupid mistake, either here or in Russia and melt us all in milliseconds in a nuclear firestorm.

Now, if this news account is accurate, those old cold war fears are beginning to return, not a pleasant thought.

Russia leaves door open for pre-emptive nukes - USATODAY.com:

Russia's military chief of staff said Saturday that Moscow could use nuclear weapons in preventive strikes in case of a major threat, the latest aggressive remarks from increasingly assertive Russian authorities.

"We have no plans to attack anyone, but we consider it necessary for all our partners in the world community to clearly understand ... that to defend the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Russia and its allies, military forces will be used, including preventively, including with the use of nuclear weapons," Gen. Yuri Baluyevsky said.

The comments from the hawkish Baluyevsky did not appear to mark a policy shift for Russia, whose leaders have stressed the need to maintain a powerful nuclear deterrent and reserved the right to carry out preventive strikes to counter existential threats. But in most of their public remarks about preventive strikes, President Vladimir Putin and other officials have not specifically mentioned the use of nuclear weapons.

Baluyevsky made his remarks at a time of increasingly strained relations between Moscow and the West, which are at odds over a range of issues. They are embroiled in persistent disputes over U.S. plans for missile defense facilities in former Soviet satellite states that have joined NATO, as well as alliance members' refusal to ratify an updated European conventional arms treaty.

Like most saber-rattling by Putin and other Russian officials, the chief of staff's remarks appeared aimed at least in part at the United States, which Moscow accuses of endangering global security through aggressive actions such as the invasion of Iraq.

Sphere: Related Content

Coskata/GM Backing Process To Produce Ethanol For $1 A Gallon

The EcoGeek is reporting that GM and Coskata are readying a waste gasification/ethanol demonstration production plant at a GM manufacturing plant. The waste gasification plant will highlight GM and Coskata efforts to develop a process that will be able to produce ethanol at far lower costs that oil based gasoline production using a highly variable source of raw materials and contributing to a zero landfill waste production facility.

Coskata process does not use genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in this process, and because these bacteria are anaerobic, if accidentally they were released into the atmosphere, they would quickly die off because of the atmosphere's oxygen content. Coskata's research has been to identify suitable natural strains of bacteria that work well in their process and then selectively breed them to produce "thoroughbred" strains.

One of the grips the Green movement has against ethanol is that it normally takes 3 to 4 gallons of water to produce 1 gallon of ethanol. Coskata's process uses less than 1 gallon of water to produce 1 gallon of ethanol using 50% less energy and it doesn't need to use corn or any other food crops to do it with.

If this one holds up, I'll trade in my gas burners for ethanol burners tomorrow.

For more on the process check out EcoGeek article EcoGeek - Technology for the Environment:

The Coskata process that GM is promoting can use a wide range of different feedstocks to produce ethanol. Materials ranging from agricultural waste to purpose grown crops that can be raised on marginal lands (switchgrass being the most widely known example of this) to waste materials such as old tires and even municipal waste streams can all be used as the raw materials that can be turned into ethanol with very little to zero landfill waste.

The Coskata process is fundamentally a biological reaction that takes place inside a specialized reactor (which is simply a vessel to contain the microbes and keep them in an environment where they are happy to live and produce ethanol). Anaerobic bacteria are fed carbon monoxide and hydrogen (known as syngas), which are produced by gasification, which can be done a number of different ways, depending on the feedstock material.

The reactor for this process is a sealed plastic tube filled with millions of filaments on which the bacteria live. Having bacteria living on the filaments provides an enormous amount of surface area for them to live on in a very concentrated volume. The syngas is passed through the reactor, and bacteria feed on the carbon monoxide and hydrogen and produce ethanol.

Other methods for ethanol production typically use enzymatic reaction to break down materials which are then fermented and turned into alcohols by microorganisms. Coskata's process uses gasification to directly convert raw materials into syngas (which is mostly carbon monoxide and hydrogen gas). This makes Coskata's process more efficient than vat-type bio-processes, and leads to less waste produced.

The process of plasma gasification which we wrote about last year is another one of the potential front-end methods that could be used, particularly in conjunction with more variable sources of raw materials such as municipal or factory waste streams. (In fact, this is one area GM and Coskata have talked about working together; expect to see a waste gasification/ethanol production plant at a GM manufacturing plant in the near future as a pilot demonstration of the process working with a highly variable source of raw materials and contributing to a zero landfill waste production facility.)

Coskata has taken pains to note that they are NOT using genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in this process, and that the microbes they are using are not pathogenic. In fact, because these bacteria are anaerobic, if there was a breakdown and they were released into the atmosphere, they would quickly die off, just as we would if we wandered into a roomful of carbon monoxide. One part of Coskata's research has been to identify suitable strains of bacteria that work well in their process and then selectively breed them to produce "thoroughbred" strains that work better.

Coskata's process is also significantly less taxing on water resources. While other current methods of ethanol production take 3 to 4 gallons of water for each gallon of fuel produced, the Coskata process needs less than a gallon of water per gallon of fuel.

Sphere: Related Content

Hillary and MSM rewite history again, claim credit for Iraq Surge Success

As usual Hillary and the Democrats are depending on the short memories of the American Electorate and their dependence on the MSM.

They are depending on the American people forgetting what really happened last year, and depending that they will believe what their allies in the news media report as the facts.

The MSM will never tell the actual story, Hillary and the Dems would have retreated from Iraq, leaving it for Al-Qaeda and Iran to divide up the remnants of our attempt at democracy.

If it was up to the Democrats, Iraq's 25 million people would have continued to live under the same fear and terror as they did under Saddam and not under hope and freedom under a freely elected government.

Shame on the Democrats and shame on the MSM for not doing a daily series on what is happening right now in Iraq post surge, as they did when the abu ghraib story broke.

For more on the latest historical rewrite take a look at Gateway Pundit - It Has Begun, Hillary Takes Credit For Surge She Opposed!!:

Judith Apter Kliinghoffer at the History News Network posted this amazing attempt by Hillary Clinton to take credit for the success in Iraq even though she opposed the Bush Surge that brought about this success:

MR. RUSSERT: If General Petraeus says, "Senator, in September you called the surge the suspension of belief. It has worked, and you know it's worked"--let me finish--"you can see on the ground. I'm saying to you, Senator, or president-elect Clinton, don't destroy Iraq. It's working, the surge is working. Keep troops there just a few more months to get this reconciliation complete."

SEN. CLINTON: ...The point of the surge was to quickly move the Iraqi government and Iraqi people. That is only now beginning to happen, and I believe in large measure because the Iraqi government, they watch us, they listen to us. I know very well that they follow everything that I say. And my commitment to begin withdrawing our troops in January of 2009 is a big factor, as it is with Senator Obama, Senator Edwards, those of us on the Democratic side. It is a big factor in pushing the Iraqi government to finally do what they should have been doing all along.

Amazing!She voted to surrender Iraq with the rest of the Democrats and now she wants to take credit for its success!

Truly, amazing!

Sphere: Related Content

Democrats Need to Rewrite Their Iraq Position Again

The Democrats need to start rewriting their Iraq position again, because the political progress that they have claimed was missing after the Surged has started to happen.

The Iraqi parliament unanimously adopted a bill outlining the reinstatement of thousands of former Baathist government employees, the bill is one of the key benchmarks sought by Congress as a indication they were indeed moving toward Democracy. General David Petraeus stated that after the surge too hold then and only then would the Iraqi Government follow and the Democrats for weeks have said that the Surge was a failure because little political progress had been achieved even after violence has dropped dramatically.

Here is what the web thinks of the news -

FOXNews.com - Iraqi Lawmakers Pass Key Benchmark De-Baathification Law:

BAGHDAD — Iraq's parliament adopted legislation Saturday on the reinstatement of thousands of former supporters of Saddam Hussein's Baath party to government jobs, a key benchmark sought by the United States as a step toward easing sectarian tensions.

The bill, approved by a unanimous show of hands on each of its 30 clauses, is the first piece of major U.S.-backed legislation approved by the 275-seat parliament. Other benchmarks languish, including legislation to divide the country's vast oil wealth, constitutional amendments demanded by minority Sunni Arabs and a bill spelling out rules for local elections.

The bill approved Saturday, titled the Accountability and Justice law, seeks to relax restrictions on the rights of members of the now-dissolved Baath party to fill government posts.

It is also designed to reinstate thousands of Baathists dismissed from government jobs after the 2003 U.S. invasion — a decision that deepened sectarian tensions between Iraq's majority Shiites and the once-dominant Sunni Arabs, who believed the firings targeted their community.

The strict implementation of so-called de-Baathification rules also meant that many senior bureaucrats who knew how to run ministries, university departments and state companies ended up unemployed in a country where 35 years of Baath party rule and extensive government involvement in the economy had left tens of thousands of party members in key positions.

That, coupled with the disbanding of the Iraqi army, threw tens of thousands of people out of work at a critical time in Iraq's history and fueled the burgeoning Sunni insurgency.

Traveling with President Bush in Manama, Bahrain, White House press secretary Dana Perino said the legislation, coupled with a pension measure approved by the parliament, "is important especially not just for the Iraqis but it shows the American people that our troops and Americans that are there working hard to help them get this to the point, are doing the job, they are fulfilling their mission. It also shows the region that they should have some confidence in what is happening in Iraq."

The Bush administration initially promoted de-Baathification but later claimed that Iraqi authorities went beyond even what the Americans had contemplated to keep Saddam's supporters out of important jobs.

With the Sunni insurgency raging and political leaders making little progress in reconciling Iraq's Shiite, Sunni Arab and Kurdish communities, the Americans switched positions and urged the dismantling of de-Baathification laws.

Later, enacting and implementing legislation reinstating the fired Baath supporters became one of 18 so-called benchmark issues the U.S. sought as measures for progress in national reconciliation.

The legislation can become law only when approved by Iraq's presidential council. The council, comprised of Iraq's president and two vice presidents, is expected to ratify the measure.

The draft law approved Saturday is not a blanket approval for all former Baathists to take government jobs.

The law will allow low-ranking Baathists not involved in past crimes against Iraqis to go back to their jobs. High-ranking Baathists will be sent to compulsory retirement and those involved in crimes will stand trial, though their families will still have the right to pension.

The Baathists who were members in Saddam's security agencies must retire — except for members of Fidayeen Saddam, a feared militia formed by Saddam's eldest son, Oday. They will be entitled to nothing.

Inside parliament, when the Kurdish lawmakers raised their hands in favor of the article that the members of Saddam's security bodies should be sent to compulsory retirement, the Sunni Arab parliament speaker, Mahmoud al-Mashhadani, told the Kurds: "Now you raise your hands in favor of sending Saddam's security men to retirement, while earlier you reinstated the Kurds who collaborated with or worked for Saddam to government jobs in Kurdistan."

Al-Mashhadani spoke of "donkeys," a term used by Kurds to describe the Kurdish people who used to collaborate with Saddam. They were pardoned by Kurdistan officials after 2003 war.

"Are your donkeys better than our donkeys?" al-Mashhadani asked, referring to Kurds who used to work for Saddam's security operations.

ABC News was a bit more reserved in their reporting of the new Pro-Baath Party Law which doesn't surprise me much.

ABC News: Iraqi Lawmakers Pass Pro-Baath Party Law:

Iraq's parliament adopted legislation Saturday on the reinstatement of former Baath party supporters to government jobs, a benchmark sought by the United States as a key step toward national reconciliation.

The voting was carried out by a show of hands on each of the law's 30 clauses. The bill, officially called the "Accountability and Justice" law, seeks to relax restrictions on the right of members of Saddam Hussein's now-dissolved Baath party to fill government posts. It is also designed to reinstate thousands of Baathists in government jobs from which they had been dismissed because of their ties to the party.

The dismissal of thousands of Baath Party supporters from these jobs had deepened sectarian tensions between Iraq's majority Shiites and the once-dominant Sunni Arabs.

PrairiePundit - Iraq vote bad news for Democrats:

The Fidayeen Saddam were mostly foreigners who probably became part of al Qaeda in Iraq's core group. They were thugs who abused the ordinary Iraqis by cutting off their tongues and throwing them off buildings in order to intimidate and cow the population into letting Saddam stay in power.

This law is one of the "bench marks" the Democrats claim is important to reconciliation. In fact the reconciliation has been happening without the benchmark legislation, but it does give the Democrats one less arrow in their shrinking quiver.

Sphere: Related Content

Catholic Saints Were Psychotic Per "View" Host Joy Behar

The liberal spokesmodels on The View are now attacking the Catholic Church and Christians in general.

This could be an opening salvo of a demonization job by MSM and Democrats on all Christians prior to this years election.

One thing the majority of leading Republican candidates, both presidential and congressional share is a strong Christian faith.

And what better way to strike out at Republicans than to strike at something they all share, their Christian faith.

Make Christian saints psychotics and you place the fear of that all strong Christians are a little psychotic as well, including our Republican candidates.

If we see more of these Anti-Christian attacks by the MSM we'll know that the game plan for the 2008 election.

Check out what the Gateway Pundit has to say about their attack in Gateway Pundit: "View" Host Joy Behar Says Catholic Saints Were Psychotic:

Those liberal gals at The View were back at it today this time bashing the Catholic Church.
After commenting on how "King George the First put stupid Dan Quayle on the ticket", View host Joy Behar later explained that the saints of the Catholic Church were pshychotic.

Sphere: Related Content

Carbon Offseters May Not Be All They Say, FTC Investigating

Carbon Offseters May Not Be All They Say, FTC Investigating

Who didn't see this one coming, the FTC is checking into reports of companies selling carbon offsets to polluting but green friendly companies and individuals. By selling a carbon offset these companies are promising to do something environmentally friendly, like planting trees, to make up for the sins of the polluting company or individuals.

Problem is the trees or other environmentally friendly acts are never performed.

For more see, Tech Policy Summit blog: FTC Scrutinizes Green Marketing:

The Federal Trade Commission (FTC), which is in the process of updating its guidelines for environmental marketers, hosted a workshop yesterday to look into some of the claims surrounding carbon offsets and renewable energy certificates (RECs).

As efforts to "go green" become more mainstream, individuals and companies concerned about climate change are increasingly looking for ways to reduce their impact on the environment. For some, that means trying to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by becoming carbon neutral.

We've written about tools designed to help consumers calculate the amount of carbon dioxide emissions produced by their daily activities. The next step for many, who find it impractical or undesirable to change their habits, is to purchase carbon offsets or renewable energy certificates to mitigate their impact. For example, instead of cancelling your flight plans, you might purchase an offset that promises that a new tree will be planted on your behalf.

For the rest of this post, please visit the Tech Policy Central site.

Sphere: Related Content

The Next Iranian Boat Should Be Met With 50cal Fire

Most informed people have already seen the video that the Navy released documenting the harassment a couple of days of go of three American warships traveling through the Strait of Hormuz. I have to say that I believe this is a precursor to an actual attack.

They were probing to see how we would react, and perhaps an attempt to get the U.S. government to set less stringent orders so that the next time they will actually be able to strike our vessels.

I hope that the Navy takes a different tact, now that Iran has been warned not to do this again, any incursion within 50 cal machine gun range will be met with 50 cal machine gun fire. Not doing so, needlessly endangers our ships and their crews, the Cole wasn't that long ago.

For those haven't seen it, here it is, ABC News - U.S. Releases Dramatic Iran Boat Video:

The U.S. Navy released dramatic video and audio of this weekend's stand-off with Iran. The video shows Iranian speedboats swarming around three American warships going through the strategically vital Strait of Hormuz.

At the chilling culmination of the tape, a voice can be heard over the radio, apparently from the Iranians, saying, "I am coming at you. You will explode after a few minutes."

On the tape, the crew of the destroyer USS Hopper can be heard repeatedly warning the Iranian boats to identify themselves and move away.

"I am engaged in transit passage in accordance with international law," a sailor on the bridge of the USS Hopper says. "I intend no harm."

As the Iranian boats get closer, the USS Hopper sounds its horns.

"You are approaching coalition warships," the USS Hopper's crew warns. "You are straying into danger and may be subject to defensive measures. ... Request you alter course immediately to remain clear."

It is at that point that a heavily accented voice can be heard over the radio, apparently coming from the Iranians.

"I am coming to you," the voice says. "You will explode after a few minutes."

An American voice can be then heard repeating the words, incredulously, "You will explode in a few minutes."

The video shows the Iranian speedboats getting so close they are inside the wake of the American warships. Senior defense officials told ABC News the USS Hopper's gunners were within seconds of firing on the Iranians' boats when they suddenly backed off.

At the White House today, President Bush was asked about the incident.

"We viewed it as a provocative act. It is a dangerous situation. And they should not have done it, pure and simple," the president said. "And my message today, to the Iranians, is they shouldn't have done what they did."

The Iranian Foreign Ministry, however, called the incident "ordinary" and denied using threatening language

Sphere: Related Content

JTEC May Bring 60% Efficiency to Solar Power

It's amazing what $100 dollar a barrel oil costs can bring out in American Ingenuity.

This from Popular Mechanics, it appears that Lonnie Johnson, the inventor of the Super Soaker hasn't been resting on his toy royalties, no in fact the former NASA scientist has been working with the help of money from the National Science Foundation to shake up the future of Solar Energy in the United States.

While his work has primarily focused on better Li Ion battery systems, he now is working on a prototype of his JTEC (Johnson Thermoelectric Energy Conversion) System. Similar to a Fuel Cell in that it has no moving parts, rather it consists of two MEA (membrane-electrode assemblies) stacks, one hot, one cold. Energy is produced by hydrogen moving between the two stacks, in response to the stacks temperature differential and the larger the temperature differential between the stacks the higher the efficiency.

Johnson hopes a high temperature version of the JTEC will double the efficiency of today's best solar systems which now reach 30%. How soon we don't know, but he hopes to have a low temperature version of the JTEC working later this year.

For more information take a look at Popular Mechanics - Super Soaker Inventor Cuts Solar Power Costs - Johnson Thermoelectric Energy Conversion System - Heat Engine:

Here’s how it works: One MEA stack is coupled to a high- temperature heat source (such as solar heat concentrated by mirrors), and the other to a low-temperature heat sink (ambient air). The low-temperature stack acts as the compressor stage while the high-temperature stack functions as the power stage. Once the cycle is started by the electrical jolt, the resulting pressure differential produces voltage across each of the MEA stacks. The higher voltage at the high-temperature stack forces the low-temperature stack to pump hydrogen from low pressure to high pressure, maintaining the pressure differential. Meanwhile hydrogen passing through the high-temperature stack generates power.

“It’s like a conventional heat engine,” explains Paul Werbos, program director at the National Science Foundation, which has provided funding for JTEC. “It still uses temperature differences to create pressure gradients. Only instead of using those pressure gradients to move an axle or wheel, he’s using them to force ions through a membrane. It’s a totally new way of generating electricity from heat.”

The bigger the temperature differential, the higher the efficiency. With the help of Heshmat Aglan, a professor of mechanical engineering at Alabama’s Tuskegee University, Johnson hopes to have a low-temperature prototype (200-degree centigrade) completed within a year’s time. The pair is experimenting with high-temperature membranes made of a novel ceramic material of micron-scale thickness. Johnson envisions a first-generation system capable of handling temperatures up to 600 degrees. (Currently, solar concentration using parabolic mirrors tops 800 degrees centigrade.) Based on the theoretical Carnot thermodynamic cycle, at 600 degrees efficiency rates approach 60 percent, twice those of today’s solar Stirling engines.

This engine, Johnson says, can operate on tiny scales, or generate megawatts of power. If it proves feasible, drastically reducing the cost of solar power would only be a start. JTEC could potentially harvest waste heat from internal combustion engines and combustion turbines, perhaps even the human body. And no moving parts means no friction and fewer mechanical failures.

Or check out Johnson's JTEC website.

Sphere: Related Content

McCain Wrongly Blasted For Supporting Removal Of Saddam

The Lefty Bloggers are having a good time picking apart John McCain's appearance on yesterday's "Meet The Press" unjustly. What they are picking on are the Senator's comments that the Iraq war was justified regardless of whether WMD was present.

How soon they forget, Americans fought and died in the first gulf war. Iraq lost that war and signed a peace treaty, and then for 10 years ignored that peace treaty, and dishonored those who fought and died as well as repeated United Nation's resolutions. Saddam paid the families of terrorist bombers in order to encourage more Palestinian terrorists to kill Israelites, raped and killed Iraqi Shiites and Kurds at will.

Saddam was bad, bad for us, bad for our friends, bad for our enemies, bad for his own people and even the left themselves said that Bush 41 failed the country for not taking out Saddam during the Gulf War.

What kind of Americans are these that believe that people, any people are better off under a terrible dictator that to be free. Could it be that the real problem the left has with this is that it happened under an Republican administration, when in fact their deity, Bill Clinton, had the power and justification to take down Saddam, but not the guts to correct.

Thank God, FDR wasn't that kind of Democrat or American.

Check out the tripe, The Raw Story | McCain: I would have started Iraq war regardless of WMD:

According to presidential candidate John McCain, only the handling of the Iraq war was a mistake -- not the war itself.

"It's not American presence that bothers the American people, it's American causalities," said McCain in an interview with Tim Russert on NBC's "Meet The Press" on Sunday.

The validity of this conjecture is questionable, as fifty-nine percent of Americans say the U.S. should “stick to a withdrawal timetable." But McCain said in a recent New Hampshire debate -- and reasserted as much on Sunday -- that as long as Americans aren't dying, he sees nothing wrong with US troops staying as many as 100 years in Iraq.

"What I believe we can achieve is a reduction in casualties to the point where the Iraqis are doing the fighting and dying [and] we're supporting them," McCain said.

He said it would be "hard to say" how many U.S. troops would need to stay in Iraq, but assured that they would be "out of harm's way."

When Russert asked him if, like Bush, McCain would have supported the Iraq war even if no weapons of mass destruction were believed present in Iraq, McCain seemed to dismiss the question as irrelevant.

"If frogs had wings ... we can talk about lots of hypotheticals," he said. "The point is if we had done it right, you and I wouldn't even be discussing it now."

Sphere: Related Content

Al Qaeda is making the same mistake in Pakistan as they did in Iraq

PrairiePundit: Al Qaeda's response to the "peace" process:

AP/MSNBC:

Suspected Islamic militants fatally shot eight tribal leaders involved in efforts to broker a cease-fire between security forces and insurgents in northwestern Pakistan, authorities said Monday.

The men were killed in separate attacks late Sunday and early Monday in South Waziristan, a mountainous region close to Afghanistan where al-Qaida and Taliban militants are known to operate, according to a security official and a military statement.

Gunmen killed three of the men at a market in Wana, the region's main town, while the other five were shot to death in attacks at their homes in a town north of Wana, the official said. He did not give his name because he was not authorized to speak to the media.

...

A cease fire is not on al Qaeda's agenda. A wise counterinsurgency strategy should be able to take advantage of this kind of conduct. Al Qaeda is making the same mistake it made in Anbar. Hopefully Pakistan will take advantage of the US offer of help in fighting this insurgency.

Merv has got a point here, Al Qaeda is pursuing the same strategy in Pakistan that has lost them their former strong position in Iraq. The U.S. needs to formulate similar strategy to our Iraq strategy, and implement it in Pakistan. If we can win over the people as we did in Iraq, they will tip us off to where Al Qaeda leadership is hiding. And if they do that, we will be able to end our problems with Al Qaeda once and for all.

Sphere: Related Content

Have We Grown As Too Civilized?

Is There Such A Thing As Too Civilized, I definitely think there is a limit.

Mike Treder in his post in his blog The Death of Murder, he sites the significant long-term reduction in violent crime in our largest cities. In New York it has dropped to its lowest level since 1963, when the city began keeping "reliable records."

On a more global perspective he sights,

Global violence has fallen steadily since the middle of the twentieth century. According to the Human Security Brief 2006, the number of battle deaths in interstate wars has declined from more than 65,000 per year in the 1950s to less than 2,000 per year in this decade. In Western Europe and the Americas, the second half of the century saw a steep decline in the number of wars, military coups, and deadly ethnic riots.

And I have wondered why it is that 3000 deaths in Iraq are held to be as great in terms of loss as the entire death toll of our earlier wars. Millions were killed in world wars, civil wars, and ethnic cleansing efforts in our not so distant past, but we are debating the value of just a few thousand deaths.

I really could be that Mike is on to something here, maybe there is a movement to nonviolence in the civilized world. But not to though a blanket on their party, I think it is important to remember that not all the world is civilized. In fact those that aren't civilized, have sworn to wipe out those who are at any and all costs.

I prefer to adopt Mike's policy of hope for the best but prepare for the worst, in response to the growing trends both in the civilized and uncivilized world.

Take a look at what Mike has to say in Responsible Nanotechnology: The Death of Murder:

We work hard at CRN to maintain a balance in presenting both the risks and the potential benefits of advanced nanotechnology. Similarly, we try to steer a middle path between optimistic and pessimistic views about the future. That's not always easy, especially when you spend as much time as we do trying to understand the range of bad outcomes that could occur, and how to avoid them.

But amidst the dire predictions of danger from runaway climate change, a nanotech arms race, severe economic upheaval, and so on, it's always nice to find some bright spots.

One trend that should give us hope is the significant long-term reduction in violent crime in our largest cities. For example, in New York, where I live, the murder rate has dropped to its lowest level since 1963, when the city began keeping "reliable records."

Given the fact that the further back in history you go, the more violent and lawless human society has been, you could make a strong argument that New York City's murder rate is now at its lowest rate ever.

The decline is so striking, and apparently inexorable, that it allows headlines like this one:

The Killing of Murder
As the homicide rate continues to drop, the impossible beckons: What would it take to go all the way to zero?

The previously unthinkable "death of murder" (admittedly, an idealistic exaggeration, but still) merges well with an equally remarkable, statistically observable, longer-term historical trend away from violence and toward peace:

Global violence has fallen steadily since the middle of the twentieth century. According to the Human Security Brief 2006, the number of battle deaths in interstate wars has declined from more than 65,000 per year in the 1950s to less than 2,000 per year in this decade. In Western Europe and the Americas, the second half of the century saw a steep decline in the number of wars, military coups, and deadly ethnic riots.

Does all this mean, then, that CRN's concerns about nano-weaponry and the increasing "democratization of violence" are unnecessary? Or should we continue to be wary?

Sphere: Related Content

Get Ready For Higher Energy Prices, Left Cancel Energy Plans

I certainly hope that some of the alternative energy strategies I have presented here come to fruition. Because with the current resistance that the left is putting up to new refineries and power plants we are going to be up a creek. With every canceled refinery and power plant the supplies of existing power grow tighter and tighter. And as we have noticed over the past couple of years the costs of the available supplies go up and up.

So far the increased costs have been offset by increased productivity and they haven't taken a toll on the economy, but that cannot continue forever. There is a point where businesses with turn down addition projects because the energy costs are just to high.

The United States has not built a refinery or nuclear power plant of any consequence for the last 30 years, and now I read that even Coal Fired power plants are being rejected because of their "Carbon Footprint", I am starting to believe that the left won't be happy until we have to adopt dirty 3rd world practices of making our own charcoal from firewood in order to heat our homes.

But hey if the 3rd world does it is has to be carbon neutral right after all they bear not responsibility for our current "Global Warming" predicament, if it really does exist.

For more on the lefts most recent efforts to up energy costs read Houston Chronicle - New laws leave oil refiners uncertain:

Oil refiners may reconsider plans for some refinery expansion projects in 2008 in response to new energy legislation that could reduce gasoline use in coming years, industry groups and refiners say.

While expansion projects already under way won't be affected, those in the early planning stages could be delayed or canceled, they said — continuing a pullback that began last year amid rising costs for refinery additions and uncertainty over future gasoline demand.

Within 10 years, U.S. refiners could be producing less gasoline than they are today as a result of the new energy legislation, which calls for stricter auto gas mileage standards and more ethanol output, said the National Petrochemical and Refiners Association, a trade group in Washington.

If that's the case, "it doesn't really make sense for refiners to spend billions of dollars expanding to meet a demand that's not going to be there," said Bill Day, spokesman for San Antonio-based Valero Energy Corp., the nation's largest refiner.

But industry critics say refiners are using new energy policies as an excuse to keep refining capacity tight and their profits high. They claim refinery additions will still be needed to feed growth in gasoline and demand, as well as bridge a shortage in refining capacity today that is being filled by gasoline imports.

"Even as the legislation is implemented, we will have a shortfall of refining capacity for the entire lifetime of those specific energy goals," said Mark Cooper, director of research at the Consumer Federation of America in Washington.

While a new U.S. refinery hasn't been built in three decades, U.S. refiners have been expanding facilities in recent years to keep pace with fuel demands and to take advantage of one of the most profitable periods in the industry's history.

Early last year, refiners were so confident their winning streak would continue that they told the Energy Department they planned to add 1.6 million barrels per day of new refining capacity, an increase of about 10 percent and enough to produce an additional 37 million gallons of gasoline every day.

...

Sphere: Related Content

Congress Bans Incandescents, CAFE to 35mpg, $1 Watt Solar and 10X Batteries, One Remarkable Month

December 2007 was a remarkable month, here are just three events that happened last month that have the potential to change the way all of us live our day to day lives.

Take a look at Congress’s latest Energy bill, H.R. 6: Renewable Fuels, Consumer Protection, and Energy Efficiency Act of 2007, passed on December 19, it increased the Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards to 35 miles per gallon by the year 2020. So in the coming years our cars will have to get a lot more efficient, just as they did the last time such an increase in these standards was approved.

Cars will be getting much lighter and smaller in order to meet the new requirements. So chances are by 2020 SUV’s will become extinct on dealer showrooms. Cars will be much different than they are today, in just 12 short years.

In addition, the bill also will drastically effect how we light our homes by banning the incandescent light bulb by 2014. First anyone looking to buy a 100-watt incandescent bulb after 2012 will be out of luck and by 2014 even 40-watt bulbs will become history. Congress hasn’t passed anything so invasive to our everyday lives since they decided in 2005 to relegate our current TVs to history by next year, 2009.

How will we light our homes? Proponents believe that we will have a couple of choices, first the fluorescent alternatives that we are all familiar with will become more and more common place, and another choice, LED bulbs, currently common in new flashlights will be made into replacements for incandescent bulbs. They are doing this, because both fluorescent and LED replacements are much more energy efficient than current incandescent versions. While they will cost more to buy, proponents say the alternatives will make up the cost difference in the energy they save, and how long the bulbs last.

Enough of the bad news, there were also a couple of very important scientific advances that will likely affect our lives in a positive direction last month.

A company backed by Google, called NanoSolar announced at the beginning of the month that for the first time Solar Energy can be produced cheaper per watt than by using the current favorite, Coal. At just $1 per watt, it is now possible to spread solar collectors across our roofs and generate enough electricity to power our homes and autos. Imagine a day when you don’t have to write checks to the gas, electric and oil companies and all of our energy needs are fulfilled by solar collectors measuring roughly 25 by 40 feet spread across our roofs.

According to figures from the Solar Industry, at the 8% efficiency (far less than the industry average of 15%) claimed by NanoSolar you will need about 1000 square feet of collectors to collect the 10Kilowatts per hour needed to power an average household both day and night. The NanoSolar collectors should cost less than half of other solar systems, and last 25 years.

Sounds too good to be true, what’s the catch? The catch is that you need to have a way of storing some of those 10 Kilowatts for use when the sun doesn’t shine. On cloudy days and at night our solar collectors sit idle and energy has to come from somewhere else. There has to be a way to store enough power to handle all our needs, both day and night, and here is where current solar technology gets really expensive. With today’s batteries, storing the power a typical household would need, would cost $130,000. No wonder there aren’t solar collectors on everyone’s roofs.

Finally, the missing piece to the solar puzzle might have been announced on December 19, by Stanford Researchers, they claim that through the use of “Silicon NanoWires”, current Lithium Ion batteries can be made to hold up to 10 times as much power as today’s batteries. If these claims hold up and they can be produced at similar costs to today’s batteries, then suddenly solar power becomes cost effective for nearly every home in America, electric cars will become common place and Congress’s latest Energy bill will be irrelevant.

Time will tell, it always does.

Sphere: Related Content