Maine Owl

Ms. Owl: But wind energy doesn't make the Republicans wet their pants.

She's got that right. This is why it's hard to imagine how a Republican president would be worse than Obama on energy.

Obama Nuclear Plant: President To Announce Loan Guarantee For More Than $8 Billion

With the nuclear industry poised to begin construction of at least a half dozen plants over the next decade, President Barack Obama announced the first loan guarantees Tuesday, casting them as both economically essential and politically attractive. He called nuclear power a key part of comprehensive energy legislation that assigns a cost to the carbon pollution of fossil fuels, giving utility companies more incentive to turn to cleaner nuclear fuel.

"This is only the beginning," Obama said in designating the new federal financial backing for a pair of reactors in Burke County, Ga., to be built by Atlanta-based Southern Co. Obama's budget would triple – to $54.5 billion – loan guarantees available for new nuclear construction.

The federal guarantees, authorized by Congress in 2005, are seen as essential for construction of any new reactor because of the huge expense involved. Critics call the guarantees a form of subsidy and say taxpayers will assume a huge risk, given the industry's record of cost overruns and loan defaults. Reports by Congressional Budget Office and Government Accountability Office have estimated that the risk of default for new nuclear reactors could be as high as 50 percent.

Two gigawatts of wind turbines probably would cost half that, using a guideline of $1.5 million to $2.0 million per megawatt for wind. And the taxpayer would not be responsible for nuclear waste.

Here in Iowa we have a couple of thousand wind turbines now, about the size of a couple of nukes. I'll take wind any day of the week.

Obama is leading a boondoggle. Shame.

We'd call it just "terrorism" if it was done on our soil, wouldn't we?

Under Obama, more targeted killings than captures in counterterrorism efforts
By Karen DeYoung and Joby Warrick | Washington Post
Sunday, February 14, 2010

When a window of opportunity opened to strike the leader of al-Qaeda in East Africa last September, U.S. Special Operations forces prepared several options. They could obliterate his vehicle with an airstrike as he drove through southern Somalia. Or they could fire from helicopters that could land at the scene to confirm the kill. Or they could try to take him alive.

The White House authorized the second option. On the morning of Sept. 14, helicopters flying from a U.S. ship off the Somali coast blew up a car carrying Saleh Ali Nabhan. While several hovered overhead, one set down long enough for troops to scoop up enough of the remains for DNA verification. Moments later, the helicopters were headed back to the ship.

The strike was considered a major success, according to senior administration and military officials ...

Perhaps the worst moment in the State of the Union speech given by President Obama ten days ago was this statement

President Obama: But to create more of these clean energy jobs, we need more production, more efficiency, more incentives. That means building a new generation of safe, clean nuclear power plants in this country. [emphasis added]

What else irritates me about this is an attitude found in many quarters of the physics community that nuclear power is an obvious solution to our energy problems. For example, this just came in the "What's New" email post from from Bob Park:

ALTERNATIVE ENERGY: THE PRESIDENT'S CALL RAISES SERIOUS CONCERNS. Last week in his State of the Union address the president called for increased generation of nuclear power and offshore drilling for oil and gas. Who could argue?

Park's "concerns" actually are important ones, namely that making fuel from food crops will be unsustainable given the size of the human population when surplus turns to shortage.

But to address Park's question--Who could argue?--here is Arjun Makhijani of the Institute for Energy and Environmental Research (IEER). Makhijani explains how Obama has abandoned campaign rhetoric about reducing nuclear power use over time, and how he failed to explain how nuclear power is an economic loser:

Further, while expressing concerns about deficits, the Obama administration is opening the spigot for more loan guarantees for new nuclear power plants because Wall Street won’t finance them. They are just too risky. A single project is often more costly than the entire net worth of many electricity generating companies. They don’t want to bet their companies on nuclear. But they are OK with betting taxpayer dollars. Given that the underlying relationship between energy demand and economic growth is changing (quite apart from the recession), many nuclear projects are likely to be abandoned. Some already have been. This would be "déja vu all over again." Every nuclear power plant ordered after the first energy crisis in 1973 was abandoned, leaving ratepayers and bondholders on the hook. This time it will be the taxpayers.

Nuclear power is a long-term disaster for the environment and it never will build out enough to be our energy savior. It makes no economic sense as it requires boatloads of taxpayer money and crazy levels of protective public policy for the nuclear industry even to exist.

HERE is an audio program from the archives where Dr. Makhijani laid it all out about nuclear power a couple of years ago at the University of Maine. IEER is a leader in showing how wind and solar could be a sufficient energy source for the future--if we make the right decisions now. Unfortunately with Obama in charge, there is no sense we are going to do anything other than repeat the mistakes of the past.

January Thaw

Stormy weather drove me here, drop anchor fast and hole up tight
In solitary harbor fill the cracks and mend the lines
To spend the long cold winter with the decks not rolling under me
My land legs aren't too steady but they'll strengthen given time.

So give me time, don't shine your sun so warm so full of fascination
Give me time, don't tempt me to go rushing off to sea
November snow lies on the ground, are you a January thaw
Come to promise springtime and deceive my fragile heart?

Each one offered sailing fine, I braved the challenge every time
Brisk winds filled my sails, a dazzling sun did warm my bones
But winter follows summer, now I'm needing time to be alone
Sheltered on the land for here it was that I was born

Part of me wants summer now, but part of me still knows
Time one spends in solitude is time one needs to grow
And winter months teach patience, harbor bound until the spring
And when the ice melts in my heart, I'll go once more to sea.

So till then give me time, then shine your sun so full of fascination
Give me time, then tempt me, I may sail with you to sea
But now the snow lies on the ground, please don't be just January thaw
Come to promise springtime and deceive my fragile heart

by Lui Collins
From the album "Baptism of Fire"
© 1980 Molly Gamblin Music/BMI

Lui Collins was one of the first local New England musicians I grew fond of. We'd go see her at the drop of a hat, as she appeared frequently in Maine during the early 1980s, now nearly thirty years hence. January Thaw is pretty close to my favorite of her songs.

This month I've played January Thaw many times. Perhaps I'm hoping for one here in Iowa. Definitely some Downeast longing has set in. The ice and snow have been oppressive as has been the space left when my Sweetie returned to Maine.

Obama: "clean, safe nuclear power"

I think he forgot to mention "too cheap to meter."

And I didn't realize that a vote for Obama was a vote for Republican "drill baby drill." The truth is that offshore drilling is merely a distraction from the massive wind & solar program that is called for but peddled ever so softly by Obama.

It's so damn disheartening. He's not even as progressive as Bush.

I was taken in myself

From Deep Blade Journal, June 10th, 2006:

This is sad beyond belief. After four years of vicious US assault at the Guantánamo Bay camp on living, caged human beings–-subjected to the cruelest, most maniacal, most hideously efficacious methods of psychological torture ever invented–-three of the prisoners have finally succeeded in killing themselves.

This ruination of life and soul gives me a gut-wrenching sickness. My country has committed unconscionable acts against these helpless detainees that no notion of revenge can justify. Every rule designed to protect prisoners of war or criminal defendants has been denied them, or only weakly restored after monumental legal struggles. Most of them were rounded up after their names were sold by bounty hunters, not necessarily on anything resembling a "battlefield." But only a few have had any opportunity to challenge their detention in something other than a military monkey court.

So, it is incredible that a high-ranking US military officer would describe these same helpless detainees who killed themselves as some sort of dangerous enemy attacking him. But that is exactly what the commander of Joint Task Force-Guantánamo did.

Rear Adm. Harry Harris: "They are smart. They are creative. They are committed. They have no regard for human life, neither ours nor their own… I believe this was not an act of desperation, but rather an act of asymmetrical warfare waged against us."

Turns out there is reason to believe that these were not suicides. Evidence has been uncovered by Scott Horton and published in Harpers Magazine that the "asymmetrical warfare" of which Rear Admiral Harris spoke really was a case of murder by torture. Horton appeared on Democracy Now!:


Casting Doubt on US Claims of Suicide, Attorney Scott Horton Reveals 3 Gitmo Prisoners Died After Torture at Secret Site

SCOTT HORTON:[W]e were able to see how [NCIS, the U.S. Naval Criminal Investigative Service] had concluded the suicides occurred. And they state that these three prisoners bound their feet, bound their hands with cloth, stuffed cloth down their throats, in some cases, at least, put masks over their faces to hold the cloth in place, fashioned mannequins of themselves to put in their beds to deceive the guards, put up cloth to obstruct the view of cameras, fashioned a noose which they attached at the top of an eight-foot wire wall, stepped up as their hands and feet are bound and they’re gagging on cloth, stepped up on top of a wash basin, put their head through the noose, tightened it, and jumped off—and moreover, that these prisoners, in non-adjacent cells, did all of these things absolutely simultaneously, in a clockwork-like fashion. So the story is just simply incredible and simply not believable, I should stress.

And then we began looking at autopsy evidence, all sorts of other evidence, which strongly suggested that there was something seriously inappropriate here. We talked with pathologists and so on, who told us they had rarely seen something quite as irregular as what was going on here. And then, ultimately, I was approached by Sergeant Hickman, who gave me his account. And it’s not just Sergeant Hickman, actually; it’s almost his entire unit who was on duty that night and the perimeter guards. Four other soldiers provided aspects of corroboration. There’s not a single element of Sergeant Hickman’s story that is not in fact corroborated by others, based on the their own eyewitness testimony.

And I should say, the things they observed are the things they were required to observe. It was their duty. These were the perimeter guards. They were supposed to keep close count of everything that happened, and particularly who went in and out of the base that evening. And what they tell us is that three prisoners were removed from that cellblock that evening between 7:00 and 8:00 and taken to the secret facility, Camp No.

ANJALI KAMAT: Explain what Camp No is. Why is it called Camp No?

SCOTT HORTON: Well, they call it Camp No because “No, it does not exist” was an answer that they were supposed to give if there were inquiries about it. In their first weeks on the job there in March 2006, they had come across it when they were doing perimeter patrols. In fact, two of the soldiers here were PIs, and they decided sort of to sharpen their skills. They were going to monitor and keep an eye on Camp No, which they did. And they largely believed that this was a facility that was being used by the CIA, or certainly by Intelligence Service agents. They noted un-uniformed government personnel from other government agencies who seemed to be involved with or connected with this facility.

In February 2009 one of these soldiers, Staff Sergeant Joe Hickman, who was on duty June 9th, 2006, had come forward with some very troubling observations he made during that night. But the Justice Department under President Obama was not interested in pursuing the case.

The implication is obvious. Despite the propaganda bath constantly promoting American righteousness, the United States even under Obama may in fact be a deceitful criminal tyranny with no regard for the life and limb of those under its thumb. And it looks like our military officers will tell the the most egregious lies in order to cover that up. So, why is it that they hate us again?

Update: Mytwords at NPR Check (who was not taken in by the reported "suicides" in the first place) has up an outstanding piece on the detainee deaths--and NPR's failure of skepticism and lack of interest in actual reporting on this incident along with torture and detainee murder in general.

Cross posted from Dirigo Blue

I understand the desire of a reporter to cover a story like the earthquake in Haiti, and an editor's desire to send them there, but knowing the severity of the devestation, unless there is some truly compelling local angle, is it really necessary for a Maine based reporter to go? Multiply this hundreds of times - won't how much these "local" reporters get in the way far outweigh what they learn?

It reminds me of when authorities ask folks to stay home during a blizzard - those that venture out often end up creating more work for the road crews.

This scene is at the riverfront park on the northwest side of Estherville, Iowa


Hoar frost on an old bird nest in Estherville

This morning was a reward for enduring the horrendous weather of the last week--the most intense hoar frost I've ever seen covered the entire town.

This is a new advertisement for Duracell featuring my new school and one of its most important programs!! I get the feeling people in Maine who want to promote wind power could learn from this.

There is a story HERE at the Iowa Lakes website.

Estherville, Iowa (+ below the "a" in Sioux Falls) is in ground zero for snow this winter.

Very few parts of the country have deeper snow than right around here. Maine is close! Otherwise, the Great Lakes snow belts are the only other places where it's as deep.

Hello Midwest! Road conditions are very difficult with many closures due to drifting.

"Western Iowa residents are advised to stay home..." is the radio report of the hour. Wind chills are at the -40 level (F or C, take your pick).

This is where The Owl has gone -- Northwestern Iowa. New job, and a very good one in the Saudi Arabia of wind energy. Good Internet has been installed in the new place and I have a little time to post due to the nasty weather outside. I've decided that the blog will remain alive, so don't stop checking. I think Maine some day will benefit from the kind of experiences I am having here. Just a feeling.

I do think this is a great area. Of course I love the prairie landscape, even though Ms. Owl never will give me an inch to make that comment without pointing out how beautiful is Maine. Of course she's right. Prairie is an acquired taste.

I'll get back to political commentary soon enough. We'll see where the blog will go. Meanwhile, just a couple of comments on that story--the underwear bomber. Check these previous posts:

• Central front in the Terror War
• How many wars are there?

Note that those posted before the Christmas Day incident over Detroit. For now, draw your own conclusions. But do listen to the NPR drumbeat over every single one of the last hundreds of top-of-hour newscasts. Those stories blogged in Maine Owl never are mentioned. Obama agrees with Cheney about wanting this to be war, but the "enemy" never is allowed to have form other than un-detailed hateful madness.

Seems the Reuters item I linked to last week about bloody U.S.-involved attacks in the country of Yemen was even just a little bit more serious:

OBAMA ORDERED CRUISE MISSILE STRIKE

Nice way to show how deserving you were of that Nobel, Obama. Of course, cruise missiles have for years been a favored tool of Democrats needing to swing dick.

The U.S. House of Representatives quietly raised the national debt ceiling yesterday. And in Obamatime, war funding no longer is controversial: "The House on Wednesday passed a major bill that provides more than $100 billion for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan...."

Update: No wonder they need a quick $100 billion, Afghanistan Escalation Ramps Up Contractor Presence. Curious how the fiscal responsibility of Republicans and Democrats when it comes to health or environment is no issue here.

Accusation of savagery

Yemen rebels say air raid kills 120, accuse U.S.

Yemeni Shi'ite rebels accused the U.S. Air Force Tuesday of joining attacks against them, and killing at least 120 people in a raid in the north of the poor Arab state.

"The savage crime committed by the U.S. air force shows the real face of the United States," said the northern rebels, who often report attacks by the Yemeni and Saudi fighter planes, on their website. There was no immediate report of U.S. comment on the alleged incident.

Update: Broken link revised. In light of the drumbeat coverage of the Christmas Day NW Airlines underwear bomber, I think it's important to keep in mind the amount of killing the U.S. thinks it is entitled to do in Muslim countries.

Howard Dean comes to his senses.

HOWARD DEAN: You're going to be forced to buy health insurance from a company that‘s going to take, on average, 27 percent of your money so they can pay CEOs $20 million a yearly and so they can return have return on equity in their shareholders. And there's no choice about that. If you don't get that insurance, you're going to get—you‘re going to get a fine.

So, this is—this is a bill that was fundamentally written by staffers who are friendly to the insurance industry. Held up so—and was friendly to the insurance industry by senators who take a lot of money from the insurance industry. And it is not health care reform. I think it's too bad it's just come to this. ...

DEAN: No, absolutely not. You can‘t vote for a bill like this in good conscience. It caused too much money. It isn‘t health care reform. It's not even insurance reform.

Take, for example, this—there‘s a lot of talk about people who have pre-existing conditions can get health insurance. Well, not exactly. The fine print in the Senate says about health care industry—the health care industry gets to charge you three times as much if you‘re older than if you‘re younger. And they get to write the rules. That‘s in the Senate bill.

This bill is no longer reform.

Later in the same Countdown program, Howard Fineman offers this assessment of the worth of promises made during the Obama 2008 political campaign,

O'DONNELL: And, Howard, quickly, it would be a bill filled with things that were not in the Obama campaign, filled with taxes that were not mentioned in the Obama campaign, an individual mandate that President Obama campaigned against and other items.

So, how do you score the Obama campaign promise versus the way this bill looks at this point?

FINEMAN: That's ancient history for all the Democrats now, Lawrence. They want a bill, almost any bill. If it has some of those core provisions in it, they'll gladly take it, if they can get it.

I'll be sure to quote that line to the next Democrat who makes a progressive campaign promise.