Open Thread for Night Owls & Early Birds

Over at the Oil Drum, a blog that has been gaining a much-deserved increase in attention, Heading Out writes:

^{Asking one of the less comfortable questions about our energy future...}

The evidence seems to be pointing to an overall increase in the global decline rate for existing wells. What this means is that, if world production is around 86 million barrels a day, then to replace existing declines next year, an additional new production of 4.47 mbd [million barrels a day] at 5.2% decline, instead of the 3.87 mbd required at 4.5% decline, will be needed just to stabilize supply at a fixed level. If the rate is accelerating this difference of 600,000 bd will increase and drop the top line of the curves such as those that Khebab and others have so carefully assembled.

This increased decline rate is already being reported, and thus the potential peak in 2010 that the graph shows is already at risk and we may struggle to get much above the numbers that we are at today. Bear in mind that decline rates are cumulative over the years, and that outyear production must be that much greater to sustain supply, relative to today’s production.

At present there is still considerable complacency about how the oil supply situation will play out. There is an implication that this is just a difficult period to get through, and that, in a relatively short time the situation will get better. Sadly I would suggest that even our current thinking here is largely overly optimistic, and that instead it is going to be much more difficult, faster than we expect. But also, in light of peoples’ expectations about oil really being there at a reasonable price, the greater the dangers of civil unrest, as it occurs without proper public education as to the reason that "there is no more" signs start to spring up at gas stations.

The Overnight News Digest is posted, and includes an item on the direct cost of operations in Iraq, now at $535,635,000,000.

Open Thread and Diary Rescue

Tonight's Rescue Rangers are dadanation, Got A Grip, joyful, Louisiana 1976, Painty Kat, and shayera, with Unitary Moonbat shuffling the scrolls.

July 10 is a day rife with folly and long-lingering aftereffects – previous todays have seen the ascension of Millard Fillmore to the presidency (1850); the beginning of the Scopes Monkey Trial (1925); and the start of the Battle of Britain (1940).

• 8ackgr0und N015e shows us BushCo demonstrating what "Supporting the Troops" doesn't look like in Woman fired for honoring the wishes of dead soldiers' families. (Got a Grip)
• JohnnyRook's well-sourced Censoring science: a few not-so-random quotes details the lengths the White House continues to go to muzzle truthful testimony and statements regarding global climate change. (dadanation)
• LiberalLucy tells Kossacks how The Auto Industry Nightmare is personally affecting her family. (shayera)
• Tortmaster points out how insane it is when John McCain's Response to Iran Missile Tests Is to Protect Poland! (joyful)
• Tasini explains how our present economic woes could be our future retirement disaster in Into The Abyss: Millions Face Old-Age With No Savings. (Got a Grip)
• jgoodman asks how modern farmers can weather the challenges of advocation to organics and environmentalism to protect our lands can survive economically in The Hard Way. (PaintyKat)
• In Women for. . . (UPDATED), Muzikal203 delivers a fairly exhaustive "compare and contrast" between the two candidates for POTUS and their past legislative efforts on behalf of women. (dadanation)
• In Yours Truly goes to Iran, part one: "Tourist" isn't a dirty word, YoursTruly begins a series whose future installments will be eagerly awaited. (Louisiana 1976)
• Chris in West Seattle explains that even though we may be disappointed by recent actions on the part of our party leaders, we must still work hard to elect a Democratic president in Ten Reasons Why. (Got a Grip)
• dengre joined other Native Americans who walked to Washington, DC in 1978 and joins commenters who the ways in which their lives were changed in 30 years ago, I walked to DC and changed my life.... (PaintyKat)
• dancewater's Hiroshima Survivor spoke in Asheville is haunting. (dadanation)
• In Jeepers F*cking Creepers!, Frankenoid gives us some hilarious tips as to how we can increase our gas mileage that are oh, so true based on how many drive these days. (Louisiana 1976)

Enjoy, and please promote your favorites in this open thread.

Obama's FISA sellout: bad law, bad politics

There's no doubt that Barack Obama reversed his earlier position on FISA "reform" legislation when he voted for that scandalous bill. It's equally clear I think (despite Ed Kilgore) that the sellout was a political calculation, a tactical retreat, rather than a rethinking of the rule of law or the meaning of the Fourth Amendment. As kos has remarked, it was a tactical blunder. His FISA reversal was a major leap forward in the Obama campaign's rush this summer to undermine his image as a principled leader with the courage of his own convictions. It's a sickening spectacle of self-inflicted damage.

His apologists tend to argue that it was a clever or even a "necessary" tactic to vote against his own position in order to blunt Republican attacks. The reverse is true. Obama has simply fueled the flip-flopper attacks while tossing away ammunition he could have used on McCain.

Many have noted that McCain didn't even have the courage to show up for the FISA vote. Very few seem to recognize that McCain has taken so many positions on FISA and warrantless surveillance that he couldn't cast a vote without calling attention to his flip flops. So how the hell was he going to be able benefit from making the FISA bill an issue?

Should the United States grant law enforcement agencies greater discretion to read mail and email, tap phones, and conduct random searches to prevent future terrorist attacks?

Seems pretty clear; he thought in 2004 that the Fourth Amendment means what it says, even when the specter of terrorist attacks is invoked. After the warrantless surveillance became public, McCain was critical of it on legal grounds - until he became the Republican frontrunner, that is. For example, McCain told Matt Lauer that "it is up to a court of law to find out if someone broke the law here and where punishment should be handed out." CNET's Declan McCullagh documents McCain's positions from 2005 to 2007, including this statement he issued to CNET last November:

Every effort in this struggle and other efforts must be done according to American principles and the rule of law. When companies provide private records of Americans to the government without proper legal subpoena, warrants, or other legal orders, their heart may be in the right place, but their actions undermine our respect for the law.

I am also a strong supporter of protecting the privacy of Americans. The issues raised by S.2248, and the events and actions by all parties that preceded it, reach to the core of our principles. They merit careful and deliberate consideration, fact-finding, and exploration of options. That process should be allowed to proceed before drawing conclusions that may prove to be premature.

If retroactive immunity passes, it should be done with explicit statements that this is not a blessing, there should be oversight hearings to understand what happened, and Congress should include provisions that ensure that Americans' private records will not be dealt with like that again.

In December 2007 McCain responded in a similar vein to questions from Charlie Savage, saying that the president has no inherent powers to conduct national security surveillance without warrants. McCain all but stated that George Bush had broken the law in doing so.

But this year, McCain and his campaign were all over the map. In February he voted for retroactive immunity for telecoms that helped Bush break the law. On May 21 one of his campaign surrogates said McCain opposes immunity until Senate hearings are held.

"There would need to be hearings to find out what actually happened and what harms actually occurred," [McCain campaign lawyer Chuck] Fish said, adding that immunity would need to be coupled with clear rules to make sure private records would be protected in future.

Two days later the flip flops began to turn into a blur. The McCain campaign reversed itself again and declared that McCain favors unconditional retroactive immunity. Then at NRO on May 29 McCain advisor Doug Holtz-Eakin tried to vilify the WaPo report on Fish's statements.

On the very same day however McCain told a town hall questioner in Wisconsin that "what we really need to do, to address this issue, is have hearings, have discussions."

On June 2 Holt-Eakin again tried to reassure right-wingers at NRO that McCain did not question the president's right to violate the law in the name of national security.

We do not know what lies ahead in our nation’s fight against radical Islamic extremists, but John McCain will do everything he can to protect Americans from such threats, including asking the telecoms for appropriate assistance to collect intelligence against foreign threats to the United States as authorized by Article II of the Constitution.

The McCain flip flops and nuances became so confusing that Charlie Savage tried to sort them out for NYT readers. On the same day, McCain spokesman Tucker Bounds tried to explain away the flip flops, arguing that Bush did actually follow the law because courts "have recognized the president's constitutional authority to conduct warrantless surveillance for foreign intelligence purposes."

Confused? In early June the Obama campaign thought you should be.

Greg Craig, an Obama campaign adviser, said [on June 4] that anyone reading Mr. McCain’s answers to The Globe and the more recent statement would be "totally confused" about "what Senator McCain thinks about what the Constitution means and what President Bush did."

"American voters deserve to know which side of this flip-flop he’s on today, and what he would do as president," Mr. Craig said in a phone interview.

Obama knew perfectly well that McCain was vulnerable on the issue of warrantless surveillance and FISA reform. Then Obama turned around and threw the advantage away while damaging his own reputation. There's nothing clever or necessary about such self-defeating tactics. This is one of those fiascos where the candidate needs to pay attention to what his critical supporters are telling him.

Shocking News:  Gay People Don't Lose Wars

Who knew?

Congress should repeal the "don't ask, don't tell" law because the presence of gays in the military is unlikely to undermine the ability to fight and win, according to a new study released by a California-based research center.

Of course since the study was based in California (where San Francisco is located), and given that certain panel members did endorse two Democrats in the past 12 years, the results must be taken with a grain of salt. Because after all, retired Lt. Col. Robert McGinnis, who by the way was one of the Pentagon analysts who helped sell the war in Iraq, does say that having gay people "in a close combat environment...results in a lack of trust." And when it comes to a complete lack of trust, what better source is there than Lt. Col. McGinnis?

One final note: to those who think that this study is some sort of vindication for the disgust you've felt over the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy, please, take a step back and realize that our first concern must be our nation's security

Subscribe with an RSS reader Older News Archive Add news to your web site