A week of so ago USA Today mentioned that, "Iraq began committing money to U.S. foreign military sales in December 2006 and by last May had $3 billion in an account dedicated to the program.

About $1.6 billion worth of contracts have already been delivered and another $1 billion is under contract, Benkert said. The remaining money hasn't been spent yet.

The United States also continues to support Iraq's security forces with U.S. tax dollars. The Pentagon budgeted $3 billion this fiscal year to equip and train Iraq's security forces."

Math wasn't my major but that seems like 6 billion of arms we will supply to that oh so stable government of Iraq. Gosh any chance of blow back on this one? (How many IED's were made from parts brokered by Rummy for the Reagan administration as a gift to Saddam? How many millions did Ronnie provide to the future Taliban in Afghanistan in the 80's?)

Invade a country for no good reason causing the death of a few hundred thousand people, then tell them they have to create their own democracy while privatizing the war and the "peace" for the profit of your good buddies, look to Iran; rinse and repeat.

And here's even more depressing news; more good citizens believe we should talk with Iran than believe in Evolution.

Why is that depressing? Answer after you contemplate the graphic below from a recent Gallup Poll.

With McBush beating the drums for attacking Iran this poll can only be taken as extremley bad news for Republicans (lord knows McBush's economic policies, and I use that term loosely, will be enough of a disaster for him.)

What can change the picture?

A serious strike on Iran before the Presidential elections, thats what. Its the Hail Mary for Mc Bush and GWB is just the lad to authorize it. (That's seriously bad news for ALL OF US!)

A snip from GWB commanding the troops, from Michael Abramowitz at the Post via Talking Points Memo:

During a videoconference with his national security team and generals, Sanchez writes, Bush launched into what he described as a "confused" pep talk:

"Kick ass!" he quotes the president as saying. "If somebody tries to stop the march to democracy, we will seek them out and kill them! We must be tougher than hell! This Vietnam stuff, this is not even close. It is a mind-set. We can't send that message. It's an excuse to prepare us for withdrawal."

"There is a series of moments and this is one of them. Our will is being tested, but we are resolute. We have a better way. Stay strong! Stay the course! Kill them! Be confident! Prevail! We are going to wipe them out! We are not blinking!"

Damn I miss Ike! 

Hell I even miss Goldwater! Even his granddaughter still has some common sense.

“‘I don’t know if [Barry Goldwater] would recognize the Republican Party today,’ Alison Goldwater Ross, a registered Democrat and granddaughter of the 1964 GOP presidential candidate, told The Huffington Post. ‘I’m sure if we were to raise his ashes from the Colorado River… he would be going, ‘What? This is not my vision. This is not my party.’”

(Please forgive the partial duplicate post below. Lycos has fallen and it can't get up. Their new webon interface is pretty spiffy for us HTML laymen put it seems to be missing a way to delete a broken post.)

A week of so ago USA Today mentioned that, "Iraq began committing money to U.S. foreign military sales in December 2006 and by last May had $3 billion in an account dedicated to the program.

About $1.6 billion worth of contracts have already been delivered and another $1 billion is under contract, Benkert said. The remaining money hasn't been spent yet.

The United States also continues to support Iraq's security forces with U.S. tax dollars. The Pentagon budgeted $3 billion this fiscal year to equip and train Iraq's security forces."

Math wasn't my major but that seems like 6 billion of arms we will supply to that oh so stable government of Iraq. Gosh any chance of blow back onthis one? (How many IED's were made from parts brokered by Rummy for the Reagan administration as a gift to Saddam? How many millions did Ronnie provideto the future Taliban in Afghanistan in the 80's?)

And heres even more depressing news; more good citizens believe we should talk with Iran than believe in Evolution.

Why is that depressing? Answer after you contemplate the graphic below from a recent Gallup Poll.

P-man,over at Emergent Ink, is a good friend and I have enjoyed arguing with him for many years now; he's a strong thinker. He is also what I would call a Peak Oil Pessimist (although I am sure he would consider himself a realist, not a pessimist.) He has read and linked to my previous post on Kurzweil and solar energy, and I thank him for that. And he has posted a rejoinder to Kurzweil and solar that is well worth a read.

However I have a few bones to pick;

#1         P-man seems a bit too skeptical of Ray's prophecies.

That is to say my rating of the estimated prophet is a bit higher than P's.

 #2        (and somewhat more salient)  P-man is convinced that, even if the  growth rate Kurzweil predicts in solar pannel technology is believable, there won't be enough energy around to build those panels. (I think we can agree that we will be able to build those panels without using much if any petrolium products in the basic materials except of course  the energy to produce those materials.)

The problem with P's energy argument is this. What if, instead of being able to provide all our energy with solar, we can only provide 1%. And what if we dedicate 5% of that new energy to making more solar panels? Even if we only compound it monthly it will take a bit les than 32 months to reach the 100% solar -supplied goal. Lets say half of that new energy is used in scaling up manufacturing, we are still looking at a 5 year project. If Kurzweil is anywhere near correct in his projections we just need to start 5 or 10 years before oil runs out; still quite possible in my opinion!

Spinning off from my first entry at Da Stinct, I took a quick look at Ray Kurzweil and his thoughts on solar; an interesting cat no doubt.

 Well, we know he makes a damned fine electric piano, and as a futurist his predictions have been far better than most; nailing down the fall of the Soviet Union long before is was a glimmer in Ronnie's eye,predicting the explossion of the Internet was a pretty good call too.

 I suppose then Kurzweil is worth listening to.

  Here's Kurzweil on solar; "Here's what I mean: Today we produce 14 trillion (about 1013) watts of power, 78 percent of which comes from fossil fuels. We have, however, plenty of energy in our midst. About 1017 watts of sunlight fall on the earth, or roughly 10,000 times more energy than we regularly consume. Solar panels today do a poor job of capturing this energy because they are inefficient, expensive, heavy, and difficult to integrate with building materials. Today production of solar power costs on average $8 per watt, much more than other energy sources.

The economics of solar power are poised to change dramatically, however, as a new generation of solar panels made with nanomaterials comes of age. Developed by a series of venture-backed companies eagerly jockeying to disrupt that $1.9 trillion worldwide oil industry, these innovative panels are projected to drop in price within a few years. And whether or not any of the known businesses now developing them are successful, once we have full-scale molecular nanotechnology-based manufacturing, we'll be off to the races.

 At this point, energy will become an information technology dominated by massively parallel, computation-controlled molecular manufacturing processes. In 20 years, I believe solar panels will be as inexpensive as a penny per square meter. We will be able to place them on buildings and vehicles, build solar energy farms, and incorporate them into clothing for powering mobile devices. Converting 0.0003 percent of all sunlight hitting the earth, which will be feasible at that time, will let us meet 100 percent of our energy needs two decades from now. In yet another welcome change, we will be able to store the energy in nanoengineered fuel cells that will be tiny and widely distributed, a great improvement over the centralized, dangerous energy storage facilities we rely on today, such as liquid natural gas tanks."

 Speaking of worth listening to, I do think that we should be together, don't you?

If you want to see a bit more on Kurzweil's Law, check out this site with a brief and interesting explanation that includes "Spock's Chessboard"!

 For more on the "Singularity" drop in in to Wikipedia one more time.

Or watch Kurzweil speak (3 part episode) at YouTube.

I still think the law of unintended consequences will reamin in effect. If it only leads to Giant Gorrilas Clutching Volkswagen Beatles, I'll breathe a sigh of relief!

Well since I'm wearing my old (pre-google) Blogger T-shirt I thought perhaps it was time to un-kick the habit.

 Got any blog hits for me P-man? (check out his blog...good stuff!)

 Speaking of hits I haven't seen people chewing gum this hard in nearly 40 years!

I'm not sure what this is going to turn into,  but I promise not to talk about Peak Oil too often.

 Heard some interesting quotes from Kurzweil today, might have to go look em up...... something to the effect that in 20 years solar panels will produce and store ALL the world's energy needs.

 As I tend to be a bit twisted that got me to thinking about what would happen should that come to pass. I mean really, thats a lot of energy..... energy that is already being used here on ole planet Blue. What happens to the Earth if we re-purpose all that solar energy; take it from whatever its current use is (and thus make some kind of perhaps significant change what, our climate, the ground temperature, the thermal currents...who knows) and instead burn it up in our cars and homes? 

 Somehow I think the law of unintended consequences will reamin in effect!