CIA follies, Part 2

I forgot to mention the CIA's destruction of any chance of diplomatic or economic pressure against Iran's nuclear program. When CIA said the Iranian's aren't building nukes early this year, the efforts to talk the Iranians out of a nuclear weapons program collapsed, probably for good. CIA bureaucrats managed to torpedo American diplomatic efforts.
I also forgot to mention the CIA's ever so helpful efforts to give credibility to Osama bin Laden's propaganda. Every time bin Laden releases a tape to the media, CIA jumps right out in front and validates the tape as genuine. Instead of allowing the natural doubts about bin Laden's very existance in this world to grow, they tell the world that good old bin Laden must be alive and well. Our enemies, hearing this, think "Well, if the Americans say the tape is genuine, it must be, because the Americans have every reason to declare it fake".

The tax man cometh, via internet

Our Congress critters are planning to tax sales over the Internet. CNET has the story here. I'm against it for two reasons. 1. I don't want to give yet more of my fixed retirement income to the government. 2. The complexities of doing state sales tax are so bad that only the biggies like Amazon will be able to do it. The small sellers, the Ebay sellers, like me, will be driven off the net.

Welcoming the Pope

Watched the Pope arrive at Andrews Air Force Base yesterday. Clearly we Americans are going all out to make the Pope feel welcome. Red carpet, on a roll, with uniformed Air Force men rolling it out. An honor guard, looking sharp despite motley uniforms (inter service rivalry never ends), and well worn M14 rifles. The M14 is nearly as ceremonia a weapon as the halbards the Swiss guard carries. President of the US, plus wife and children meet the Pope at the airport. Small but friendly and enthusiastic crowds. It doesn't get much better than this.
I think it's fitting to honor the Pope, he is a lot more holy than I will ever be.

Defending the CIA by Paul Pillar

Paul Pillar, ex CIA agent and wannabe pundit reviews three books about the CIA in the March issure of Foriegn Affairs. "Legacy of Ashes" by Tim Weiner and "Spying Blind" by Amy Zegart, both critical of CIA are condemned. "Enemies of Intelligence" by Richard Betts is supportive of CIA and Paul has good words for it. Pillar explains that intelligence is a tough business and you can't expect to always get it right, and successes remain secret but failures are broadcast. He criticizes the author's sources, claiming they are too old or take too much from the 9/11 commission report or Pillar considers them biased. I haven't read any of the books mentioned so I cannot really argue about them, but I don't trust Pillar much.
In actual fact, CIA has been a disaster in recent years. They leaked the Glomar Explorer salvage of a Russian submarine to Seymour Hersch at the New York Times. CIA completely failed to predict the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1989. CIA failed to warn of 9/11. CIA furnished the evidence that Colin Powell took to the United Nations justifying invasion of Iraq. CIA failed to have a single agent on the ground inside Iraq. CIA said Saddam's nuclear weapons were " A slamdunk". CIA has spent the last eight years attempting to destabilize the Bush Administration by press leaks. CIA set up the damaging Valerie Plame affair. CIA revealed the extent of NSA wiretapping against Al Quada, revealed that NSA was reading Bin Laden's satellite phone, and revealed that the US Treasury department was using the international banking system to track Al Quada money transfers. CIA continues to operate out of US embassies abroad, making their agents easy to trace.
We ought to shut CIA down and save money. All our intelligence comes from NSA intercepts and recon satellites. CIA furnishes little intelligence, much of it is wrong, and nobody really believes anything coming out of CIA any more, be it right or wrong. After so many wrong calls, who in their right mind would trust CIA intelligence?

Alternate Energy, reduced carbon foot print, Nuclear Power

Was listening to Joe Leibermann explaining a "Alternate Energy Bill" that he is sponsoring. The newsie asked Leibermann if John McCain was ready to support the bill. Surprise. Leibermann said McCain refused to support the bill unless it contained language favoring nuclear energy.
All Right. Way to go. Nuclear has zero carbon footprint, nuclear will keep my lights on after the sun goes down, and it works every day, even if the wind doesn't blow. And it's safe. In fifty years no one has been hurt by nuclear power. Three Mile Island didn't hurt anyone, despite all the press coverage.
Alternate power from sunlight or wind isn't dependable. You don't get any solar power after the sun sets, and you don't get any wind power on a calm day. The electric company has to supply power after dark and on calm days. Building wind and solar plants is a waste of money, 'cause they have to build coal or gas fired plants as well to supply power all the time. That means spending double the money.
I'm glad McCain is willing to ignore mouthy greens and support the only alternative power scheme that will actually generate real power.

McCain cannot be bought . Causes lag in fundraising

Last figures I saw had Obama and Clinton both raising nearly twice as much money as John McCain. Maybe this is a blessing in disguise. A lot of campaign money is given to buy "access". If you have have donated serious money to a man's campaign, he will probably answer his phone when you call. And after listening to your pitch, there is a chance that he will actually get out there and do something for you. Certainly Hillary can be swayed by money. Probably Barack as well.
How about flinty old John McCain? Not very likely. Every knows that McCain is his own man and does his own thing. So why bother to buy access to a man who isn't going to do what you ask?
Is that the reason for the lag in fund raising?

NH working to raise the price of lightbulbs

Concord is mulling over banning incandescent lamps (plain old light bulbs) to save electricity. But why? The compact fluorescent bulb saves enough electricity to pay for itself in 400 hours of burning. That's figured on 10 cent a kilowatt hour electricity and $4 for a new compact fluorescent. Sales of compact fluorescents are strong, clearly people have heard the word and are converting over to the more efficient lamps. No government policy needed, the economics are driving the change over.
Why outlaw the plain old bulbs when the new bulbs are taking over anyhow? There are plenty of bulbs in the world that only light up for brief intervals, and use negligible amounts of electricity. Consider the light inside your refrigerator. It doesn't stay on very long, but let it burn out, and you cannot find the milk, let alone something way in the back. There are a lot of light bulbs like that in out buildings, cellars, attics, and other seldom visited places. If an owner chooses to replace such a bulb with a 75 cent incandescent rather than a $4 compact fluorescent why not? Think of all the decorative fixtures and appliances that require small incandescent lamps. Is it fair to require the owners to to junk these things when the bulb burns out? Will I be able to buy replacement lamps to fit my Christmas light string?
Or is banning incandescent lamps just a way for politicians to make a feel good gesture toward greenness with out spending any state money? Or does it cater to the natural desire to boss people around just for the sake of bossing.