http://blogcritics.org/ A sinister cabal of superior bloggers on music, books, film, popular culture, politics, and technology - updated continuously. en Copyright 2005-2007 by the authors Mon, 11 Aug 2003 16:50:52 EDT http://backend.userland.com/rss Blogcritics.org custom software http://blogcritics.org/ Phillip WinnSunday, August 26, 2007, marks the switch of all Blogcritics.org article feeds from full-content to short-content. This is the result of several converging factors, and is unfortunately a permanent decision (as permanent as any decision can be on the web, that is). We are aware of all of the reasons that this is a Bad Idea, and we are aware that some of you will be quite upset about having to click on something to read the free content, and we're sorry. Unfortunately, despite great effort, full-content feeds are not currently economically viable. Two other factors are involved: full-content feeds have resulted in an unprecedented level of content theft, with BC content appearing on many websites, usually spam sites, without attribution or permission. This duplicate content causes a cascading set of problems, not the least of which is that search engines generally aren't favorable to duplicate content, and don't always guess correctly. Finally, our RSS advertising partner is strongly in favor of short-content feeds. We hope that you'll continue to subscribe to BC via RSS, and when an article grabs your eye, it's only a click away, still free on the BC website. Thank you for your understanding. Administration0@blogcritics.org Sun, 26 Aug 2007 12:00:00 EDT http://blogcritics.org/archives/2003/08/11/165052.php Marla CaldwellI used to think it was a combination of age, experience, wisdom, and maturity that defined the differences between adults and children. I was wrong. Or, half wrong. Apparently it is simply age and a lack of innocence that makes adults no longer children.We've known for months now, since before the invasion of Iraq, that war with North Korea was possibly on our horizon, though Bush pooh-poohed the possibility and said our issues with Kim Jong Il would be resolved diplomatically. Surprise, surprise. Bush may have lied. This is nothing new for the American public, not after the last few years we've experienced, but the problem is that this time the war could go nuclear. The good news is, Daddy's looking out for you. Really. Trust him on this. Just close your eyes and everything will turn out all right. Don't worry, baby.The key point is that the base infrastructure available in the region and the accessibility of North Korea from the sea should make it possible to generate around 4,000 sorties a day compared to the 800 a day that were so effective in Iraq. When one contemplates that the vast majority of these sorties would use precision munitions, and that surveillance aircraft would permit immediate targeting of artillery pieces and ballistic missile launch sites, we believe the use of air power in such a war would be swifter and more devastating than it was in Iraq. North Korea's geriatric air defenses--both fighter aircraft and missiles--would not last long. As the Iraqis understood when facing our air power, if you fly, you die. [...] The South Korean Army is well equipped to handle a counteroffensive into North Korea with help from perhaps two additional U.S. Army divisions, together with the above-mentioned Marine Expeditionary Force and dominant air power. We judge that the U.S. and South Korea could defeat North Korea decisively in 30 to 60 days with such a strategy. Importantly, there is "no doubt on the outcome" as the chairman of the JCS, Gen. Meyers, said at his reconfirmation hearing on July 26 to the Senate.We are not eager to see force used on the Korean peninsula. It is better to resolve this crisis without war. However, unless China succeeds in ending North Korea's nuclear weapons development--and we believe this will require a change in regime--Americans will be left with the threat to our existence described by Secretary Perry when he recently said that the North Korean nuclear program "poses an imminent danger of nuclear weapons being detonated in American cities."Western press is acting indignant over a namecalling incident between US and Korean parties: Talks between U.S. and North Korean officials are expected to be held in Beijing soon, but nobody is predicting an imminent diplomatic agreement, especially after North Korea denounced a U.S. negotiator as a "bloodsucker" and "human scum."North Korea should issue a retraction. Apparently the misunderstanding was caused by difficulties in translation of the statement to English. What North Korea should have called Bolton was, "Imperialist chickenhawk ass who waves red flag at nuclear bull." North Korea will participate in multilateral talks on the crisis, but will not have dialogue with Bolton. Below is the statement as issued.North Korea launched the attack after the official, John Bolton, slammed North Korean leader Kim Jong Il last week as a "tyrannical dictator" who made life a "hellish nightmare" for his people."We're not going to dignify North Korean comments about our undersecretary of state," said State Department deputy spokesman Philip Reeker. "I think the undersecretary's speech speaks for itself. it was a speech that reflected, I think, some obvious truths, and let's just leave it at that." North Korea condemned Bolton, considered a Bush administration hawk, for hurling "malignant abuses" at its leader and warned his remarks cast doubt on whether Washington "truly" wants to negotiate with Pyongyang. "Such human scum and bloodsucker is not entitled to take part in the talks in view of either the importance of the talks aimed to decide on peace and stability in northeast Asia or human dignity," a North Korean foreign ministry spokesman said in a statement carried by the official Korean Central News Agency.Bolton really is a charming fellow, though, calling for acts of terrorism when they would be convenient for him: In a 1994 panel discussion sponsored by the World Federalist Association, he said that "there's no such thing as the United Nations," and stated ''if the UN Secretary building in New York lost 10 stories, it wouldn't make a bit of difference.''No worries, though. The propaganda machine is already gearing up to sell this one as another humanitarian mission, and you'll be able to make some money gambling on it after all. Politics7513@blogcritics.org Mon, 11 Aug 2003 16:50:52 EDT http://blogcritics.org/archives/2003/05/08/140006.php Marla CaldwellEveryone seems to be busy discussing thermal depolymerization these days. Is it junk science, or the promise of a future where we need not rely on imported energy fuels or even fossil fuels at all? The debate gets hot and heavy at times, and veers into biochemical debates difficult for a layperson to follow. Yet, the evidence in support of thermal depolymerization seems to be encouraging. It's not a new technology, just one that was not efficient enough to be practical before. In fact, to this layperson, it seems that thermal depolymerization, or "thermochemical conversion of biomass", is essentially the same geological process used by the earth for millions of years to do exactly the same thing, except with TDP it is run by humans at a much faster rate of conversion.Up until recently, TDP was impractical because of high processing costs, low yield, impurity of yield, high energy input requirements, or other problems, depending on the particular methods and equipment used. The excitement now is because Appel claims to have developed an efficient TDP process that is self-fueling and has a high-quality, high-volume yield, according to feedstock.This report ("Thermochemical Conversion Of Swine Manure To Produce Fuel And Reduce Waste", by Zhang, Riskowski, and Funk), while lacking in grace and in want of an editor, has a fairly lay-accessible description of the process as undertaken by the authors, as well as information regarding the need for such a process and the results of other experiments.Appell and colleagues (1980) focused on converting organic wastes to oil in batch and continuous mode. The results show that bovine (dairy) manure was not readily to be converted to oil at 250°C or lower, but with the treatment of CO and steam at 380°C and 40 MPa (6,000 psi) resulted in high conversions of dairy manure to oil. The conversion rate was 99% and the oil yield was 47%. [...] Another important finding in Appell's research is the function of water in the thermal conversion process as a solvent and a reactant. This is even more important in the conversion of livestock manure slurry where a large quantity of water exists and dewatering is infeasible costly. Taking advantage of water content in raw manure will greatly value the conversion process, not only producing energy but also lightening the wastewater intense from livestock farm. [...] Through thermochemical conversion technology, the conversion rate of organic matter in the raw manure can be as high as 90% or more (Appell et al., 1980; White and Taiganides, 1971). The solids and the wastewater are separated and COD in the wastewater is greatly reduced. The successful TCC processor shall be an on-site unit that directly processes fresh manure from the barn. Thus, much less storage is required. TCC processor will be compact and much less space occupying than those of biological treatment processes such as lagoons and digesters do. Another benefit of such a short period of manure storage time is the odor reduction - less storage time means less odor emission. As a successful TCC unit for a large confinement hog farm, the energy needed for running the processor is most likely self-sustainable, i.e., the liquid fuel produced from the TCC processor could be used as the energy input for the processor needs. With the major portion of the organic solids removed from the swine manure, the post-processes waste is most possibly suitable for municipal treatment with a simple pre-treatment. The solid residues are greatly minimized and convenient for disposal.[Lots of useful info for clarification on this issue presented through embedded links.] Politics5140@blogcritics.org Thu, 8 May 2003 14:00:06 EDT http://blogcritics.org/archives/2003/05/01/194458.php Marla CaldwellA news item from yesterday's MSNBC once again brings up the possibility of a 9/11-related conspiracy to hide information from the American people. The first public accusation of a conspiracy came just two weeks after the attacks from then-Representative Cynthia McKinney (D-GA), an act that contributed considerably to her loss in her re-election bid in 2002. Others have made similar accusations since then, often to public ridicule and disbelief. Now major media outlets are giving these accusers some vindication.The Secrets of September 11 The White House is battling to keep a report on the terror attacks secret. Does the 2004 election have anything to do with it?April 30 -- Even as White House political aides plot a 2004 campaign plan designed to capitalize on the emotions and issues raised by the September 11 terror attacks, administration officials are waging a behind-the-scenes battle to restrict public disclosure of key events relating to the attacks. ...The report was completed last December; only a bare-bones list of "findings" with virtually no details was made public. But nearly six months later, a "working group" of Bush administration intelligence officials assigned to review the document has taken a hard line against further public disclosure. By refusing to declassify many of its most significant conclusions, the administration has essentially thwarted congressional plans to release the report by the end of this month, congressional and administration sources tell NEWSWEEK. In some cases, these sources say, the administration has even sought to "reclassify" some material that was already discussed in public testimony -- a move one Senate staffer described as "ludicrous." The administration's stand has infuriated the two members of Congress who oversaw the report -- Democratic Sen. Bob Graham and Republican Rep. Porter Goss. The two are now preparing a letter of complaint to Vice President Dick Cheney.Graham is "increasingly frustrated" by the administration's "unwillingness to release what he regards as important information the public should have about 9-11," a spokesman said. In Graham's view, the Bush administration isn't protecting legitimate issues of national security but information that could be a political "embarrassment," the aide said. ...House Intelligence Committee Chairman Goss, a staunch Republican (and former CIA officer) who in the past has consistently defended the administration's handling of 9-11 issues and is considered especially close to Cheney. "I find this process horrendously frustrating," Goss said in an interview. He was particularly piqued that the administration was refusing to declassify material that top intelligence officials had already testified about. "Senior intelligence officials said things in public hearings that they [administration officials] don't want us to put in the report," said Goss. "That's not something I can rationally accept without further public explanation."McKinney's accusation on September 25, 2001 seems to have better foundation in fact than most Americans were willing to admit at the time.Surely, before we grant more powers and massive resources to our law enforcement, military and intelligence communities we should be examining why they didn't detect the threat of these and other attacks. Especially, since we're being told the attacks last week were sophisticated, involved many people over a considerable period of time and maybe even involved assistance from a foreign government. We knew, or should have known, that Bin Laden was capable of attacking our major cities. Just 7 months ago during the trial of suspects charged with the embassy bombings in Africa federal prosecutors detailed the Bin Laden network in open court. Details of Bin Laden's business and financial history, his international terror network, as well as, his hatred for America were all systematically dissected by federal prosecutors. Given these revelations it was clear, or should have been clear, that our nation and its citizens were in grave danger from Bin Laden and his supporters.Some of the conspiracy theories with the least public support suggest that the administration more than knew about the attacks ahead of time, they were involved in the actual perpetration of one or more of the plane crashes on 9/11. There are assertions that there was more than one plane involved in the crash at the Pentagon. There are assertions that the alleged telephone calls from Flight 77 were impossible.The only thing that seems to be crystal clear about 9/11 is that we, the public, do not have all the information necessary to come to a reasonable conclusion. The best way to end the conjecture is to open up all the files for public scrutiny. Politics5010@blogcritics.org Thu, 1 May 2003 19:44:58 EDT http://blogcritics.org/archives/2003/05/01/143100.php Marla CaldwellSenator and Democratic hopeful John Kerry penned his own note for ABC's Notepad today. Since I don't have an 'in' with ABC News, I'll have to settle for responding here.Good morning Note-readers. And thank you to ABC for sponsoring our upcoming debate in Columbia and for letting me write you this Note.Over the next eight weeks, I will be laying out a vision for how America can make the most of the boundless opportunity ahead of us.Why not make American [sic] stronger by reawakening our ideals of duty exciting a generation of young people to serve America?First, they're going to have to feel that they have better odds of serving most of their tour in peacetime and ending it in one piece, at least as long as the emphasis stays on recruiting those who have been or want to be college students. Second, better fix those big holes in the veterans benefits buckets. Their pensions and health care seem to be running out the bottom.Why not have a health care system where accessible, affordable health care for all is a right and not just a privilege?If we can do that without ending up like our neighbors to the north, we'd probably all be delighted. We want American kids to get their shots and poor people to have their inflamed appendixes removed and the elderly to be able to get their prescriptions filled. But we also want to be able to see a doctor in a reasonable time frame, not to jump through giant hoops to get reasonable treatment, and to have access through supplemental or private pay systems to "unreasonable" health care demands, like gold teeth with pictures engraved on them, breast augmentation surgery, gender reassignment surgery, or a pair of prescription contact lens that are a funny color or look like they have vertical pupils. Why? Because we're Americans, and it's these quirky things that a lot of us look at as representing the freedoms of everyday life.Why not have a plan to protect our national security by achieving energy independence?Hey, what a great idea. Can we do it without drilling in Alaska, even "temporarily"? Can we look into thermal depolymerization, and see if it is a feasible option? If it is, can we create municipal enticements to get that ball rolling? If not, can we just stop playing around with the automotive industry and get serious?Why not make American [sic] stronger by making sure every child in America is given a strong start in life?Step number one to achieving that, if you're serious: create curriculum guidelines, material support from Education, and real finiancial support to encourage and enable school districts nationwide to do away with outdated Health or Wellness classes. They should be replaced with Life Skills classes, probably at the 6th, 8th, and 10th grade levels, that prepare students to function successfully as adults. This means providing the hygiene and disease prevention information (encouraging abstinence is fine, but we want them to know what condoms are and what they do) that they already get in Health classes, but it also means teaching the kids CPR and first aid, checkbook balancing and responsible use of credit, job application and resume basics, household budgeting skills, and basic parenting skills. They should know how to avoid being parents, and what to do when and if they become parents. They should be able to pay their bills and avoid ruining their personal credit.If we want a good start for the next generation, the best way to prepare for it is to create prepared parents. Sending children to school at 2 or 3 years of age isn't the answer. Providing them with parents who know what to do when they are sick or crying or ready to learn the alphabet is.I believe we need a vision to make American [sic] safer, stronger and more secure.George W. Bush is taking our country backwards. But running for President is about more than pointing out that we're going in the wrong direction. It is about laying out the new direction in which you will lead.Absolutely. And Americans will be thrilled if we get to see a primary and an election that are about positives and plans rather than negatives and name calling. A good resume is a fine foundation, but we're more interested in what you, as candidates, will do than in what you have done.Our nation needs to reach down deep into the reserves of determination and daring that have always made us great.--Senator John KerryThank you, Senator Kerry, and may the best candidate win. Politics5005@blogcritics.org Thu, 1 May 2003 14:31:00 EDT