Big Country

If you ever have had the chance to see Bela Fleck and the Flecktones live in concert, you will understand what I am writing. If you have not, you have missed a truly great performer and a great band. Fleck and the band are almost a law unto themselves in terms of where they fall on the musical spectrum. Jazz, country, rock and darn near any other category of music thrown into a a big, old pot and turned into a delicious stew that will fill you up yet leave you wanting more. Live, the band is tremendous, a real show, Bela Fleck, despite being the "headliner" retires from the stage when his band members play solo pieces. If you get a chance, it is well worth going to a show when these guys are anywhere near where you live.

My wife and I saw them last year in an outdoor venue. This was their entrance song to the show. The stage was empty and then the banjo started. Bela Fleck and the band then came on stage one by one, playing the whole while. A great start to a great show.

Bela Fleck and the Flecktones, Big Country.

The Problems With A Lot Of The Glib Answers

Longtime readers know that I have a background in the electric power industry. I have pointed out the problems with the pie in the sky, money from nothing reasoning that a lot of people use to promote wind power. (Then had major media outlets that are not exactly noted for their conservative views vindicate what I had written not long after I started this blog).

Now Donald Sensing has taken a hard, number crunching look at the myths surrounding ethanol. The results are not pretty for that particular boondoggle.

Transporting E85 will require diesel fuel and lots of it. That aside, replacing 109 ounces of gasoline per gallon with ethanol results in less usable energy than 128 ounces of of plain gasoline. Because of the inherent system costs of growing and transporting ethanol, simply comparing the fuel economy of flexible-fuel vehicles using ethanol with that of plain gasoline vehicles yields an incomplete, hence incorrect, answer of whether E85 is more efficient than plain gas. But it's still informative to compare the energy and economy of a gallon of gas with a gallon of E85 once they are in the consumer's fuel tank. Wikipedia reports,

E85 has an octane rating of 105, which is higher than typical commercial gasoline mixtures (octane ratings of 85 to 98); however, it does not burn as efficiently in traditionally-manufactured internal-combustion engines. Additionally, E85 contains less energy per volume as compared to gasoline. Although E85 contains only 72% of the energy on a gallon-for-gallon basis compared to gasoline, experimenters have seen slightly better fuel mileage than the 28% this difference in energy content implies. For example, recent tests by the National Renewable Energy Lab on fleet vehicles owned by the state of Ohio showed about a 25% reduction in mpg [1] (see table on pg 5) comparing E85 operation to reformulated gasoline in the same flexible fuel vehicle. Results compared against a gasoline-only vehicle were essentially the same, about a 25% reduction in volumetric fuel economy with E85.]]

Car and Driver magazine reports,

We did a comparison test of two fuels, regular gasoline (87 octane) and E85 (100 to 105 octane). Our test vehicle was a flex-fuel 2007 Chevrolet Tahoe 4WD LT powered by a 5.3-liter V-8 hooked to a four-speed automatic transmission.

Their result?

[T]he fuel economy on E85 was diminished more than 30 percent in two of the three tests, about what we expected. The EPA’s numbers suggest that fuel economy worsens by 28 percent on E85 compared with regular gas. On any Tahoe equipped with a 5.3-liter V-8, the E85 flex-fuel feature is a no-cost option, but running E85 reduces the driving range from roughly 390 miles a tank to about 290.

So why are automakers jumping feet first into producing E85-burning vehicles? Because for meeting federal CAFE standards, ' the government counts only the 15-percent gasoline content of E85."

"But," one may well respond, "the real measure for fuel efficiency as far as the consumer is concerned is not miles per gallon achieved, but the cost per mile driven." So, even if ethanol fuel does result in fewer miles per gallon, are those miles less costly each than those driven using only gasoline?

He has a lot more over there and I would urge people interested in the energy debates howling right now to take a good, hard look at what he says. One of the big problems with trying to explain some of these things to true believers is that they start from the middle, so to speak. The proponents of ethanol completely neglect the energy required to produce the corn (or whatever crop is used) in the first place. There is also a complete silence on what effect the loss of all the corn as food will do to the world's hungry.

The same with wind power. There is never an accounting for the energy required to produce the equipment used to produce the energy. A lot of these supposed savings these various "solutions" will produce are illusory. Can they be of some use? Certainly. Are they a silver bullet? Well, let's put it this way. They just made an all solar house. Most people won't think the $500,000 price tag is a good, cost efficient solution. (Even reduced to $100,000, the costs exceed the GDP of the US to make a total conversion of every house in the US).

Go over and read all of what the good reverend wrote.

UPDATE: Here's another thing to consider. The US Department of Agriculture's Economic Research Service has a lot of data on crops grown in the US and on consumption of those crops. Here's what they say about corn:

Corn is the most widely produced feed grain in the United States, accounting for more than 90 percent of total value and production of feed grains. Around 80 million acres of land are planted to corn, with the majority of the crop grown in the Heartland region. Most of the crop is used as the main energy ingredient in livestock feed. Corn is also processed into a multitude of food and industrial products including starch, sweeteners, corn oil, beverage and industrial alcohol, and fuel ethanol. The United States is a major player in the world corn trade market, with approximately 20 percent of the corn crop exported to other countries. ERS analyzes events in the domestic and global corn markets that influence supply, demand, trade, and prices.

Some projections put around 50% of the US crop going to ethanol production. Who is going to starve? How much more will your food cost? How much more will meat cost because feed prices rise dramatically? Wheels within wheels, folks. There are a lot of things not being considered at all by the advocates of single solutions to complex issues.

Bad Bambi Hits The Slopes

The Animal Uprising™ has long used deer as suicide troops against cars and trucks. They lie in wait then jump out in front of the moving vehicles in hopes of making the driver crash. It works pretty well as a tactic, too. But the deer have now decided to cut out the middle man, so to speak. They are now going directly for the humans. Skiers to be precise.

CARRABASSETT VALLEY, Maine - Dr. Ray Stone had no warning before he was knocked off his feet last month while skiing down the Haulback Trail at Sugarloaf/USA. "My first thought was, 'What hit me?…a (snow) boarder? drunk skier? linebacker?'" Stone wrote in a letter to The Irregular, a weekly newspaper in Kingfield.

It was none of the above. A whitetail deer attempting to cross the trail crossed paths with Stone as he was making a turn.

"I just never saw this deer coming," Stone said Friday. "I was going pretty quick down the top half of Haulback, arcing from left to right and all of the sudden I just got knocked right off my feet and I was falling."

The deer also went down.

"Its legs were just pumping away really fast, they never stopped moving," said Stone, a family practice doctor who lives in New Gloucester and works at Central Maine Medical Center in Lewiston.

The collision was witnessed by skiers riding in a chairlift, said longtime Maine skier and ski writer Dan Cassidy, whose story about the incident eventually prompted Stone to write in that he was the skier who hit the deer.

Cassidy, who has been skiing in Maine for 45 years, said he had never before heard of a deer-skier collision.

We now know the next front in the war of the animals. They are coming for the skiers. Moguls with razor-sharp antlers. From now on, stay in the lodge. Its much, much safer. Worse yet, the good doctor's wife, when told of the accident, imediately asked if the deer was ok.

Who's side is she on, anyway?

Well, We Know That Isn’t True

The Associated Press is at it again:

Republicans block Senate debate on Iraq

WASHINGTON - Republicans blocked a full-fledged Senate debate over Iraq on Monday, but Democrats vowed they still would find a way to force President Bush to change course in a war that has claimed the lives of more than 3,000 U.S. troops.

"We must heed the results of the November elections and the wishes of the American people," said Majority Leader Harry Reid.

Reid, D-Nev., spoke moments before a vote that sidetracked a nonbinding measure expressing disagreement with Bush's plan to deploy an additional 21,500 troops to Iraq.

The vote was 49-47, or 11 short of the 60 needed to go ahead with debate, and left the fate of the measure uncertain.

The fact of the matter is that the vote did not sidetrack debate or anything else. It was a cloture vote. Debate can continue until the next election. What won't happen is a vote on the the non-binding resolution. Reid is spinning it, but it was his refusal to allow alternate measures to be considered that forced the vote. I'll have to see the actual vote report, but it looks like the Republicans held firm just about across the board on this one. Good for them.

And Harry, the election results did not give you a mandate to lose a war. Keep that one up at your own risk.

UPDATE: I know this is a bit arcane for some folks, so here is an explanation of what, exactly, cloture is. In effect, what happened today is the opposite of cutting off debate. By failing the cloture vote, debate (properly, a filibuster (or extension) of the debate) can't be cut off and the measure brought to an actual vote.  

UPDATE: Ed Morrisey also sees the vote for what it was, as opposed to the spin. He also has a great quote from Joe Lieberman:

For the Senate to take up a symbolic vote of no confidence on the eve of a decisive battle is unprecedented, but it is not inconsequential. It is an act which, I fear, will discourage our troops, hearten our enemies, and showcase our disunity. And that is why I will vote against cloture.

If you believe that General Petraeus and his new strategy have a reasonable chance of success in Iraq, then you should resolve to support him and his troops through the difficult days ahead. On the other hand, if you believe that this new strategy is flawed or that our cause is hopeless in Iraq, then you should vote to stop it. Vote to cut off funds. Vote for a binding timeline for American withdrawal. If that is where your convictions lie, then have the courage of your convictions to accept the consequences of your convictions. That would be a resolution.

The non-binding measure before us, by contrast, is an accumulation of ambiguities and inconsistencies. It is at once for the war but also against the war. It pledges its support to the troops in the field but also washes its hands of what they are doing. It approves more troops for Anbar but not for Baghdad.

We cannot have it both ways. We cannot vote full confidence in General Petraeus, but no confidence in his strategy. We cannot say that the troops have our full support, but disavow their mission on the eve of battle. This is what happens when you try to wage war by committee. That is why the Constitution gave that authority to the President as Commander in Chief. (Emphasis added - not that it should have been needed.)

Odd thing. I have come to respect Joe Lieberman in recent years after thoroughly disliking him in the 2000 election. My son, who was a McCain fan in 2000 now detests him. Funny how that works. The Republicans did the right thing by blocking the vote - not the debate, the vote.

UPDATE: McQ at QandO also takes exception to the media distortions of this vote. Debate was not cut off and can continue as long as the politicians want. The vote was to invoke cloture and cut debate off to bring the bad political theater to a vote. He's got a nice example of Reid-speak where he expalins the exact opposite as he did about this vote when he was in the minority.

One Step Closer

Rudy Giuliani moved one step closer to a "formal" run at the 2008 Republican nomination for president. This puts him on the same level, paperwork-wise, as McCain and Romney.

When Giuliani first filed papers in November to create an exploratory committee, he made sure to note that he was not full swing into the race. The provision that he was "testing the waters" allowed him to move forward without any commitment to seek a top spot on the ticket or the need to identify donors.

The step Monday puts Giuliani on the same level legally as Arizona Sen. John McCain and former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, both who have filed statements of candidacy and are running near Giuliani at the top of opinion polls on Republican preferences for the nominee.

In the most recent FOX News poll, 34 percent of registered voters surveyed said they would vote for Giuliani in the 2008 GOP primary compared to 22 percent for McCain and 3 percent for Romney. Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich won 15 percent of that vote. With 65 percent, Giuliani also was at the top of the list of candidates who voters said they would be at least somewhat comfortable with as president.

Giuliani's cautious and noncommittal attitude has caused some critics to question whether he would abandon his bid even before formally entering the race. Fighting back in recent weeks, Giuliani has started to sound and act like a strong contender, traveling to the early primary states of New Hampshire and South Carolina, and arguing that his vision for the future and performance in the past would make him a formidable GOP nominee.

I had a chance to talk with my son yesterday. He likes Giuliani a lot for 2008. But both the Republicans and Democrats will have a grueling campaign season ahead of them. And lord, it does go on forever these days, doesn't it?

Turner To Pay $2 Million

Well, that was one damned expensive guerrilla marketing campaign. Turner Broadcasting Systems has agreed to pay the City of Boston (and some other entities) $2 million and to formally apologize to settle the bill for the havoc they caused last week. They manage to dodge any civil or criminal proceedings by doing so. Probably the smartest thing they could have done. They would have been bled white by bad publicity if they'd gone into court battle after court battle.

BOSTON - Turner Broadcasting Systems and a marketing company have agreed to pay $2 million compensation and apologize for their advertising campaign that caused a widespread terrorism scare, the attorney general said Monday.

The agreement with several state and local agencies resolves any potential civil or criminal claims against Turner and Interference Inc., said Attorney General Martha Coakley.

Authorities feared bombs had been planted when they found more than three dozen blinking electronic signs with a boxy cartoon character giving an obscene hand gesture Wednesday in Boston, Cambridge and Somerville.

The signs, part of a publicity campaign for Cartoon Network's "Aqua Teen Hunger Force," also appeared in nine other big U.S. cities in recent weeks, but created little interest.

But in Boston, bomb squads responded to reports of the devices in a subway station, on bridges and elsewhere.

As part of the settlement, $1 million will be used to reimburse the agencies and $1 million will be used to fund homeland security and other programs. Turner Broadcasting, a division of Time Warner Inc., and Interference Inc. also will issue a public statement accepting full responsibility and apologizing for the incident.

They are actually wiring the money to Boston today, so that is some really quick work on the part of the company's lawyers. As I said, I think they're smart to do this.

Seattle Paper Covers Watada Court

The Seattle Post-Intelligencer actually has a pretty straightforward report on the court martial of Ehren Watada. The reporters, Mike Barbar and Kery Murakami do a pretty well even handed report. There are protests and counter protests planned and giant puppet heads will be in attendance.

Operation Support Our Troops expects to counter Watada supporters with rallies from 10 a.m. to 2 p.m. today on Exit 122 off Interstate 5. The bridge, festooned with yellow ribbons and red, white and blue streamers, is named "Freedom Bridge" for the group's longtime rallies supporting the military and the troops.

Watada's supporters say they also support troops, but do so by wanting them out of Iraq. They expect to gather in force for a peaceful demonstration today at Exit 119, where they have held peace vigils in the past.

Sunday, both sides rallied to the cause.

"Look. Look at all the people waving and honking," said Jordan Haines, a retired Air Force veteran who was on the overpass at Exit 122, waving back at motorists with his hand and flag.

Sentiment there was nearly unanimous that Watada had chosen to join the military knowing he might be called on to go to war and that, as the Army contends, he was betraying his fellow soldiers by refusing to fight.

"How does the guy who took his place (in Iraq) feel?" Haines asked. "We don't hear from them because they're over there."

Operation Support Our Troops website is here (the P-I story has a bum link).

UPDATE: Others: Gateway Pundit, The Moderate Voice (Polimom writing, cross post at her blog).

Nightfall In Britain

Official British government advice on what to do when an old woman is being beaten to a pulp by a young thug on the street: Jumping up and down to distract the criminal might just do the trick.

I really wish I was making that up. But I'm not.

Mr Vine goes on with his vivid picture of life on the mean streets of Britain: the aggressive-looking young man is hitting the elderly woman, and the police still haven't turned up. What do you do then?

Mr McNulty is now reversing away at full speed from the Government's advice to take action rather than moan. What should you do about the woman being beaten up by the thug? "The same, the same, you must always." What? Wait for the authorities? In desperation, the minister advocates what most of us, in fact, do end up doing under such horrifying circumstances: you must "get back to the police". That is, ring them up again and again, reporting the worsening agony you are witnessing only to be told that they (a) haven't got a car in the area, (b) don't have the manpower to deal with small incidents, (c) will get there as soon as they can (which turns out to be anything from an hour to a day later).

But the minister does have some ideas about what you might helpfully do while the poor woman is being beaten senseless and you are waiting that interminable length of time for the police to show up to do their sympathetic but hugely ineffectual counselling. You can "try some distractive [sic] activities". Such as? Mr Vine offers, presumably not without a hint of sarcasm, "jump up and down", and Mr McNulty replies in the best Blairite demotic style: "I would say you know sometimes that that may well work." And while you are jumping up and down, and repeatedly ringing the police from the position where you have retreated, a safe distance from the thug who is ruining the quality of life in your community, you may wish to contemplate what an absurd mess we are in. When a society is helplessly bullied by its own juveniles, it can only be because that society has chosen to abdicate its responsibilities. It has been the rightful business of grown-ups to control and instruct the young for as long as human beings have lived in organised communities.

I have a few British folks who read this blog and occasionally we correspond by email. Lord, I really feel sorry for you folks. You're in real trouble over there.

Giant Achievements

Iran's president, Mad Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has promised announcements of Iran's newest giant achievements in the next few days. This is on top of the big news that they have an herbal remedy for AIDS.

"Giant achievements" by Iran will be unveiled by its president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, in the coming days, the Iranian Fars news agency reported on Saturday.

The Iranian news agency said an upcoming dramatic announcement on Iran's nuclear "rights" would be made on February 11. The report was accompanied by a series of announcements heralding alleged Iranian technological and medical breakthroughs, including an "AIDS cure."
 
Ahmadinejad's "administration is going to publicize the country's remarkable progresses and achievements within the coming days," the Fars news agency said.

"The Iranian president also reiterated that February 11 is the day when the Iranian nation's inalienable right to access and use nuclear technology will be established," the agency added.  

"The Iranian nation will celebrate stabilization and establishment of its nuclear rights during the Ten-Day Dawn, (sic)" Ahmadinejad was quoted as saying. The "ten-day dawn" in early February marks the date of the Islamic revolution in Iran in 1979.

We here at Blue Crab Boulevard did try to get interviews with some of the people cured by Iran's new super-whamadyne herbal supplement. Unfortunately, they'd all been buried by the time we asked about it. But we did manage to get a picture of their latest giant achievement!

One, Two, Three, Red Light!

An Ohio woman is challenging the use of red-light cameras in a case that may well force the removal of the systems. The suit could even lead to the state and municipalities having to refund all the money they have collected from the systems. 

In November 2005, Mendenhall got a ticket from a red-light camera. It stated she was going 39 mph in a 25 mph zone on Copley Road in Akron. Mendenhall is married to Warner Mendenhall, an attorney known for fighting government. "He said, 'Well, you're going to have to pay the ticket or I'm going to have to sue somebody.' I said, 'Well, I guess you're going to have to sue somebody,'" she said. And he did, Pohman reported.

Warner Mendenhall is now representing his wife in the case before the Ohio Supreme Court, challenging all red-light cameras in the state of Ohio. "It is big brother absolutely," Mendenhall said. The Mendenhall case challenges all red-light-cameras on constitutional grounds. He claimed the cameras and the tickets deny due process.

In the suit, Warner and his wife contend the cities have turned a criminal violation in to a civil matter with a sole purpose of making money. "Cities cannot just take what are crimes and make them civil offenses. People cannot afford these fines. The fine my wife faced was $150," Mendenhall said. In discovery, Mendenhall revealed thousands of mistakes, Pohlman reported.

I've never been fond of the idea of these camera systems. There have been too many reports of foul-ups, mistakes or overly avaricious behavior on the part of the governments that have been using them. If they win the suit, it could well have national implications as well.

Keep An Eye On The Science

The Opinion Journal today looks behind the media reporting of global warming bullet points at the actual scientific report that will be produced by the IPCC. It turns out that the dramatic hysteria may not be supported by the scientific report. That's important.

 More pertinent is the underlying scientific report. And according to people who have seen that draft, it contains startling revisions of previous U.N. predictions. For example, the Center for Science and Public Policy has just released an illuminating analysis written by Lord Christopher Monckton, a one-time adviser to Margaret Thatcher who has become a voice of sanity on global warming.

Take rising sea levels. In its 2001 report, the U.N.'s best high-end estimate of the rise in sea levels by 2100 was three feet. Lord Monckton notes that the upcoming report's high-end best estimate is 17 inches, or half the previous prediction. Similarly, the new report shows that the 2001 assessment had overestimated the human influence on climate change since the Industrial Revolution by at least one-third.

Such reversals (and there are more) are remarkable, given that the IPCC's previous reports, in 1990, 1995 and 2001, have been steadily more urgent in their scientific claims and political tone. It's worth noting that many of the policymakers who tinker with the IPCC reports work for governments that have promoted climate fears as a way of justifying carbon-restriction policies. More skeptical scientists are routinely vetoed from contributing to the panel's work. The Pasteur Institute's Paul Reiter, a malaria expert who thinks global warming would have little impact on the spread of that disease, is one example.

U.N. scientists have relied heavily on computer models to predict future climate change, and these crystal balls are notoriously inaccurate. According to the models, for instance, global temperatures were supposed to have risen in recent years. Yet according to the U.S. National Climate Data Center, the world in 2006 was only 0.03 degrees Celsius warmer than it was in 2001–in the range of measurement error and thus not statistically significant.

The models also predicted that sea levels would rise much faster than they actually have. The models didn't predict the significant cooling the oceans have undergone since 2003–which is the opposite of what you'd expect with global warming. Cooler oceans have also put a damper on claims that global warming is the cause of more frequent or intense hurricanes. The models also failed to predict falling concentrations of methane in the atmosphere, another surprise.

Please read the whole thing. It will begin to make you wonder what exactly is going on at the moment. Because the science does not actually appear to back up the dire policy changes that are being screeched for. Step back from the political posturing and keep an eye on the science. 

A Bit Inconvenient

George Will rounds up a number of really, really inconvenient truths about the latest global warming frenzy. Or more precisely, inconvenient truths about the political posturing going on over the frenzy.

We do not know how much we must change our economic activity to produce a particular reduction of warming. And we do not know whether warming is necessarily dangerous. Over the millennia, the planet has warmed and cooled for reasons that are unclear but clearly were unrelated to SUVs. Was life better when ice a mile thick covered Chicago? Was it worse when Greenland was so warm that Vikings farmed there? Are we sure the climate at this particular moment is exactly right, and that it must be preserved, no matter the cost?

…….

In 1997, when the Kyoto Protocol's essential provisions were known, a "sense of the Senate" resolution declared opposition to any agreement that would do what the protocol aims to do. The Senate warned against any agreement that would require significant reductions of greenhouse-gas emissions in the United States and other developed nations without mandating "specific scheduled commitments" on the part of the 129 "developing" countries, which include China, India, Brazil and South Korea—the second, fourth, 10th and 11th largest economies. Nothing Americans can do to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions will make a significant impact on the global climate while every 10 days China fires up a coal-fueled generating plant big enough to power San Diego. China will construct 2,200 new coal plants by 2030.

Go read the whole thing; it should generate some discomfort for certain double-talking politicians and their apologists. (Oh, I know it really won't. They're completely shameless.) It should also make you think about why this whole thing is being pushed so hard. And who is really going to be the benefit from all the proposed changes. And who will be hurt. Ethanol plants are being built all over the landscape and as much as half of the corn crop will be fed into those factories. How many people in the world are going to go hungry - or starve - because of this? Do the elitists pushing this even care? China and India are polluting more and more every day; is anybody even looking at that? All the rhetoric appears to be aimed at the United States.