] The Spanish Defense Ministry says it has completed its
] troop withdrawal from Iraq, fulfilling a campaign pledge
] made by Spanish Prime Minister Jose Luis Rodriguez.
]
] At the time of the initial withdrawal announcement, there
] were 1,430 Spanish troops in Iraq, but nearly half of
] them had already left by Friday.

Hey - lets ALL stick our tails between our legs when a suicide bomber strikes. Cave in to their demands and the problems will all go away. This is cowardice of the worst sort - befitting of the french.

There is an old saying "He who appeases the crocodile is eaten last."

LB

[ Actually, if I recall correctly, Zapatero had been campaigning on an anti-war message throughout his candidacy. It's arguable that the bombings in madrid gave the public a shove in his direction, a mere few days before the election... though I think he was probably going to win anyway.

Regardless, Zapatero was almost certainly going to pull these troops out regardless of the tragic bombings. You can criticize his opposition to the war, but I wouldn't base those criticisms on the terrorist acts. -k]

Spain pulls out last Iraq troops

] At current rates of production, there were 40.6 years of
] consumption covered by proven reserves in 2002, the latest
] data available, according to the Wall Street Journal.
]
] The newspaper, citing the BP Statistical Review, said
] that in 1989, there were 44.7 years left of consumption.
]
] "[A shortage] will probably happen in the next 10 to 20
] years," Professor David Goodstein, a physicist at the
] California Institute of Technology, told CNNfn.

hrm...

[ I take it that your 'hrm' means you're skeptical that in 2 years we've gone from an estimate of 40 years down to 20 or even 10. And that in the 13 prior to that, we effectively gained 9. I think it's hard to speak to that, not knowing how any of these analyses were conducted.

Given my leanings, I would feel better trusting cal tech over those others, but the discrepancy *is* large, and demands further investigation.

Clearly BP wasn't accounting for some large fields that were found in the following 13 years. Will we find the same amount in the next 13?

As hijexx implied though, even 40 years isn't *that* long, and we're surely going to reach a point where we've gotten all we can at some point between now and then. Also, those numbers may account for all the oil we have, but the shit's gonna hit the fan some number of years before actual supply runs out, as everyone scrambles to eke out as much cash as they can. So, I'd take 40 and knock off 10 (20?) years for the "this is when costs start skyrocketing and the bad shit really starts" date. That's 2032 (22?). Add a sprinkle of new industrialization and toss with ongoing war in the middle east (as is possible) and i think that number goes down further.

That being said, perhaps the CalTech prof and others like him are taking a page from the Y2K situation. Deliberately overstate the potential problem, long before you have to, and scare people into getting it done *actually* in time.

Either way, as I commented earler, i think the short term answer stays the same... use less energy, work towards *viable* alternate sources.

If we find a cheaper way to get energy *before* the time's up on oil, so much the better. -k]

As prices rise, concerns grow about world oil supplies

[ There's far more in Hijexx's analysis than I hope to address easily, but one point stuck out at me and I thought I'd mention it... you write

"Yes, some of the stuff is the same thing some people of a party would say, like saying "conserve energy!" But is that really a political statement? To me, it sounds like common sense. To me, reducing consumption makes sense as a sound policy. To others though, that believe the market should allow you to consume more if you are willing to pay for it, that's fine too. But it fails to account for the big picture. It's a myopic view. It's a faith that technology will just magically bring in an equally efficient oil substitute at the same rate that the oil becomes infeasible to use and sustain the growth rate we have been accustomed to with oil."

I'll start by agreeing that energy conservation is almost certainly the best short term response we, as a society, can have. Arguing so is political only because it's impossible to separate beliefs from politics, or at least I've always thought so. You vote your beliefs... the politics are inherent in that. Anyway, that's not the key thing i wanted to say.

You mention the market here, and note that most market analyses fail to look much beyond the current environment. This is, I think, interesting, and mostly true. I think it's a given that the markets act as a feedback mechanism on consumption... prices increase as supply decreases. I'll take it as a given that demand won't decrease, and will almost certainly increase, so we need more supply, from alternate sources.

I'm finally at my point which is the question of wether the feedback mechanism offered by the market, coupled with the subtle effects activism on the part of people like yourself, will ultimately exert the necessary pressure to instigate alternate supply in time, or wether the market will delay too long.

I tend to believe the former... that the feedback will occur with time enough, if barely, to acquire alternate sources of supply. It seems you would take the opposite opinion... that it's already probably too late to acquire enough alternate energy supply.

I'm not sure there's an answer, and perhaps it doesn't matter... in the time we have, we should probably agitate for reducing energy consumption and development of viable alternatives to oil, regardless of if we think it'll get done in time. Is there another choice? -k]

RE: As prices rise, concerns grow about world oil supplies

Amusing op-ed piece from the New York Times. It takes the spin (as I read it) that so many anti-war folks have staked their reputation on there being no WMD in Iraq, that they're deliberately downplaying the gallon of Sarin that was detonated a few days ago.

] You never saw such a rush to dismiss this as not news. U.N.
] weapons inspectors whose reputations rest on denial of Saddam's
] W.M.D. pooh-poohed the report.
. . .
] In this rush to misjudgment, we can see an example of the "Four
] Noes" that have become the defeatists' platform.
] The first "no" is no stockpiles of W.M.D., used to justify the
] war, were found. With the qualifier "so far" left out, the
] absence of evidence is taken to be evidence of absence.

Heh.

[ I've seen a lot of that indeed. I'm reserving judgement until i know more.

I won't change my mind that the pre-war intelligence still wasn't as compelling as the administration would have you believe, and even if we find 50 nukes in a warehouse, i don't think that what intelligence we had indicated that. Of course, the point is moot, because if we find 50 nukes, then the war is justified ex post facto, i suppose.

In the meantime, this isn't 50 nukes. It's one artillery round. If a report comes out that this sarin was made last year, then yeah, that's something. If we find a whole bunch more of them, then that's something too, i guess, but I'm not gonna change my mind over one lonely shell.

In total i think this single object probably neither proves nor disproves either side, but it's definitely something to keep watch on. -k]

Sarin? What Sarin?

[ I believe, as Ryan says, that this *will* be the defining issue of our lives. Arguably, people my age (25) will get another 40-60 years, at least, of lifetime. The peak production tipping point is probably, according to what I've been reading today, no more than 15 years off. That means that we'll all be right around 40 when the shit hits the fan. We'll be suburbanites with 1.75 kids and a dog, and a house in the burbs, 20 miles of bumper to bumper traffic away from our jobs. Our kids may be just old enough to say "Hey, thanks for fucking up so bad... you too grams and gramps... good job."

I'm not entirely convinced that's the outcome we're going to see though. The signs point to, at least, an uncomfortable, probably painful few decades, as we adjust our lifestyles to one in which energy is less plentiful. As I read this article, I began to think of the ways in which my lifestlye is inefficient... of the things I could be doing to curb my usage. For one, I could turn my computer off. It runs, now, 24/7 and pulls probably 200-250 watts, which is around 1750 kWh/year, or somewhere around $200 a year, just for one machine (and we have a few, of course). Certainly, there are lots of things we could (and should) all do to limit our energy uses, but in the big picture, people are assholes and won't do that too much until the economic realities force them to. So, solutions then...

From all that i've been reading, historically, and today, the most touted "alternatives" under heavy development these days are probably a minimal help, if any. Hydrogen is still a viable container format, *if* we can get the electricity needed to produce it from a non-fossil source, since, as noted, H2 is a net loser in real energy terms.

I'll start rambling here, but I've come to think that more than likely the next breakthrough in energy production (or savings) will be the work of a materials scientist. I don't see wind, tidal, hydro or geothermal cutting it, for a variety of reasons (though many are environmental, which may get backseated when the knife's to our collective necks). Atomic may work, but more efficient means of acquiring the raw materials will be neccessary if that's gonna happen. Currently, solar power is in the same boat... it's inefficiencies make it expensive ($0.35 - $0.50 / kWh amortized... something in that range I think) and it's production is both energy consumptive and envrionmentally problematic. Still, I think we have a better chance of coming up with cheaper advanced materials for solar cells than we do of overcoming the hurdles in any of the other possibilities. Plus, solar cuts out the middleman, so to speak, which makes it attractive, to me at least. People could be self-sufficient, or we could work out a nice distributed power grid like the hyper-optimists over at Wired are always yammering about. (High temp superconductors could eliminate the 5-10% transmission losses in the grid, or provide non-chemical "battery" technologies... nice stuff, also to be found by a matsci).

I did some napkin calculations and I think I've decided that an overall system of around 33% efficiency (including cell and storage) could support a 2 kWh/day lifestyle, even in not-so-sunny places, with about 200 sq. feet of exposed cells, which seems not unreasonable.

I'm done rambling. Thoughts? Am I retarded? -k]

Observations and the State of Affairs - Peak Oil

] When President Bush mentioned steroids in his State of
] the Union earlier this year, some people wondered why the
] president seemed interested in an unfolding criminal case
] involving a Bay Area drug lab and some of the country's
] best-known athletes.
]
] Now, J. Tony Serra, who's defending San Francisco Giants
] slugger Barry Bonds' personal trainer, says he's figured
] it out.
]
]Serra said the government is rushing to trial and wants to get ]convictions so Bush can use the case to help win re-election.

[ Interesting. Though, I wonder, am I underestimating how much people will care about this issue? Is Bush overestimating it, as I believe, if this is true? I don't see how this can be of much use. As we've seen, it's the economy and iraq that are driving this campaign, though I expect some social policy things, such as gay marriage and abortion policy will make some impact too. This one, i just don't see being a major blowup, but I'm wrong on things sometimes... -k]

law.com - Article

] Like a well-targeted attack-ad in a U.S. election
] campaign, the Abu Ghraib images make a visceral
] connection with an Arab audience, that no amount of
] contextualizing, apologies, reprimands or school-painting
] can reverse. No ad agency could have produced a more
] effective al-Qaeda recruitment tool: Bin Laden's movement
] presents its goal as the redemption of Muslim honor which
] has been "prostituted" before the West by "apostate"
] pro-U.S. regimes. Scenes of graphic humiliation of
] Muslims by American soldiers -- women mocking the
] genitalia of naked men -- will reinforce the appeal
] among the shamed young men of the Arab world of the
] extremists' message that violence against America as the
] path of Muslim redemption.

[ This is being picked up all over the place... always with the obvious connection to sexual decadence and arrogant, big-grin-while-we-destroy-your-culture attitudes which our enemies see in us. And which we've given them, and all the fence sitters, every reason to believe now.

Time doesn't go far enough... the title says "in Iraq", but this has sabotaged the United States EVERYWHERE ON EARTH.

I'll be memeing a WaPo article in a moment... one which i find extremely poignant. -k]

TIME.com: How the Prison Scandal Sabotages the U.S. in Iraq

] I write to strongly protest your decision to instruct
] Sinclair's ABC affiliates to preempt this
] evening's Nightline program. I find deeply offensive
] Sinclair's objection to Nightline's intention
] to broadcast the names and photographs of Americans who
] gave their lives in service to our country in Iraq.
]
] I supported the President's decision to go to war in
] Iraq, and remain a strong supporter of that decision. But
] every American has a responsibility to understand fully
] the terrible costs of war and the extraordinary
] sacrifices it requires of those brave men and women who
] volunteer to defend the rest of us; lest we ever forget
] or grow insensitive to how grave a decision it is for our
] government to order Americans into combat. It is a solemn
] responsibility of elected officials to accept
] responsibility for our decision and its consequences,
] and, with those who disseminate the news, to ensure that
] Americans are fully informed of those consequences.
]
] There is no valid reason for Sinclair to shirk its
] responsibility in what I assume is a very misguided
] attempt to prevent your viewers from completely
] appreciating the extraordinary sacrifices made on their
] behalf by Americans serving in Iraq. War is an awful, but
] sometimes necessary business. Your decision to deny your
] viewers an opportunity to be reminded of war%u2019s
] terrible costs, in all their heartbreaking detail, is a
] gross disservice to the public, and to the men and women
] of the United States Armed Forces. It is, in short, sir,
] unpatriotic. I hope it meets with the public opprobrium
] it most certainly deserves.

[ John McCain proves again that you can garner respect and admiration without pandering. I disagree with damn near all his political stances, but I absolutely respect the honesty and commitment to *public service* with which he approaches his job. I'm glad someone with a little clout is responding to this situation -- my rant earlier, while genuine, isn't likely to go far. -k]

U.S. Senator John McCain -- Letter to Sinclair

] Despite statements to the contrary, quiet preparations
] for the return of the draft have been under way for some
] time. The Selective Service System's Annual Performance
] Plan for Fiscal Year 2004 - despite a ton of
] obfuscatory jargon, acronyms, and bureaucrat-speak -
] can't quite manage to bury all of its bombshells.

] Strategic Objective 1.2 of the 2004 plan commits the
] Selective Service System to being fully operational
] within 75 days of "an authorized return to conscription."
] Strategic Objective 1.3 then commits them to "be
] operationally ready to furnish untrained manpower within
] DOD timelines."

...

] The 2004 plan commits the SSS to report to the president
] on March 31st, 2005, that the system is ready for
] activation with 75 days. If they manage the task, then
] the first lottery could happen as early as June 15th,
] 2005.

May I suggest, to those under 25 that know computers and/or languages, to get the hell out of the US by this time next year?

[ Don't forget "male". Last I checked, girls still don't have to register for selective service. This is definitely a major topic of concern. -k]

AlterNet: The Coming Draft

] To Bush, credibility means that you keep saying today
] what you said yesterday, and that you do today what you
] promised yesterday. "A free Iraq will confirm to a
] watching world that America's word, once given, can be
] relied upon," he argued Tuesday night. When the situation
] is clear and requires pure courage, this steadfastness is
] Bush's most useful trait. But when the situation is
] unclear, Bush's notion of credibility turns out to be
] dangerously unhinged. The only words and deeds that have
] to match are his. No correspondence to reality is
] required. Bush can say today what he said yesterday, and
] do today what he promised yesterday, even if nothing he
] believes about the rest of the world is true.

Fantastic commentary on the seperation of Pres. Bush from reality as noted in his *incredible* press conference yesterday. And yes, I am using incredible by its other meaning-- not credible.

[ interesting... -k]

Trust, Don't Verify - Bush's incredible definition of credibility. By William Saletan