If You're In The Northwest...

My husband and I just got back from the coolest belated-birthday celebration excursion. Our friend took us to the Rice NW Museum of Rocks and Minerals, in Hillsboro Oregon, and I'll tell ya, we had no idea we had such a gem in our own back yard. (I know, sorry about the pun. Sometimes they just crystallize.) The non-profit museum was started by an Oregon couple, Helen and Richard Rice, who shared a lifelong passion for unearthing the beautiful treasures that now line the walls and cases of the over 7,000 square foot home that they built to house their growing collection. One of the friendly guides at the museum spent quite a lot of time with us, opening our eyes to some of the beauties, oddities and uses of the minerals displayed in one of the two museum buildings. She told us that the Rices weren't just collectors, storing up the wonders that other people had discovered, but that they themselves had found many of the specimens that they had gathered over the years.

This collection, already impressive, has been expanded since the Rice's deaths in 1997. The brochure I picked up said the museum has become nationally recognized, and "is the finest rock and mineral museum in the Pacific Northwest, and one of the best in the nation." It went on to describe the museum's crystal hoard as "one of the world's finest collections of crystals from worldwide locations." There are meteorites, fossils (including really fascinating dinosaur eggs and a baby psittacosaurus), a fluorescent minerals room (they look all plain and boring, until black light is shone on them in a darkened room; then they're magic), and the most amazing display of petrified wood. Really, the petrified wood was remarkable. The collection belongs to Dennis and Mary Murphy, and has over 450 specimens. I never knew wood could turn so many colors.

In the museum's mineral and crystal sections we saw such a varied array of colors, shapes and sizes, that I couldn't begin to describe it all. There was a 3,000 lb. thunderegg, with a quartz interior, as well as minerals and crystals that looked like (I am not fooling here) frozen broccoli, AstroTurf, rabbit fur, melted crayons, cauliflower, a mass of stuck together bars of soap, abstract modern art, and butter cookies with butterscotch sprinkles. We learned some interesting facts about the minerals, too. We learned that some of the brighter colored minerals, like azurite, are ground up for eyeshadow. The giant mass that looks like bars of soap all stuck together is barite, and it is used to make magazine pages glossy, among other things, and also is the source of the mineral barium, which is used in some x-ray procedures. We kept asking ourselves who comes up with these ideas? I mean who thinks of grinding up a rock and putting it in paint, or antacids, or barium enemas?

Because the staff was friendly and helpful, we also were treated to some fascinating stories. One lovely tale involved an Italian lady of a previous century who ground up arsenic into face powder, to help women murder their husbands. The European custom of kissing people on both cheeks came in handy for the murderesses-to-be. That arsenic would get on their husband's lips, accumulate in the body, where over time it would make them sicker and sicker. The symptoms resembled cholera, so this scheme went unnoticed for quite some time. Over six hundred men died before the arsenic-laced makeup was discovered to be the culprit. This, in my opinion, gives new meaning to the common phrase, "putting on a face."

We spent three hours oohing and aahing, and listening and learning. We could have spent more. We will definitely be going back. Here's where I'll throw the museum a little more free advertising. My husband wants us to take a faceting class they offer that we got to sit in on for a few minutes, where they teach people how to shape a gemstone--it's a great deal; just $110 for twenty hours of instruction, equipment and materials provided, and you get to keep your finished work!!

Nuclear, Or Not? You Decide

Hey, there's an interesting bit of debate about nuclear energy at Popular Mechanics, between Dr. Patrick Moore, one of the co- founders of Greenpeace, and Anna Aurilio, the Legislative Director of the US Public Interest Research Group. I've known for a while, but was surprised at the time I learned, that the co-founder of Greenpeace has actually come around to being a nuclear energy advocate. He takes the pro-nuclear position in this discussion, while Ms. Aurilio takes the con. The debate points between them are interesting, covering cost, waste, safety, alternatives and the prevention of spent fuel finding its way into nuclear weapons. Dr. Moore even very briefly addresses water shortage issues which could be eased with nuclear technology.

I recognize that it was the intent of the editors of Popular Mechanics to present a fair opportunity for both sides to give their arguments, and it was not their aim to declare a winner in this debate. I'm sure they weren't setting out to support the concept of nuclear power. However, I think they could have, had they so chosen, using the same elements the article already contains. PM could have framed this into a pro-nuclear point-counterpoint, by placing Ms. Aurilio's portion of the debate at the beginning. Dr. Moore answers many of her objections in his portion of the article, especially as regards safety, which both of them address. Neither of them go into their arguments in great depth, but he holds his ground better than she does, in my "non-scientistic" opinion.

Dr. Moore makes the argument that nuclear energy should be developed in tandem to other alternative fuels. I agree. We ought to be exploiting every option that we can possibly implement feasibly and safely. I think some of Ms. Aurilio's points are weakened by putting nuclear energy in competition with other environmentally-friendly energy options, such as wind and solar. She seems to want to replace existing nuclear power, which, according to Dr. Moore produces 20 percent of our nation's electricity, with what she thinks are greener alternative choices, rather than replacing the greenhouse-gas-producing, terrorist- supporting fossil fuel options with solar, wind, and nuclear. Not to mention all the other energy options we can possibly explore that don't involve sending money to terrorist supporting states, and adding to potential greenhouse gas issues. The co-founder of Greenpeace thinks of nuclear energy as clean and safe, for Pete's sake. The more relevant comparison to be made at this point is nuclear versus oil and coal, since these are the predominant sources of power in the U.S. today. On the safety front, Ms. Aurilio is also less than persuasive. She limits her discussion of security and accident prevention to current safeguards, i.e. those safeguards which were put into nuclear facilities currently operating in America, but built over thirty years ago. Nuclear technology has come a long way since Three Mile Island. I'm with Dr. Moore.

Hat tip: Instapundit

We Can Rebuild Her

It's been raining here today, off and on, so any hope we had of making progress in ridding our back yard of the last of the excavation dirt pile was in vain. The pile o' dirt remains. Instead we've been hanging cabinets in the Disneyland-in-the-making-for-people-who-like-power-tools that is our new garage. They are cabinets, I might add, that we got for free when somebody started a kitchen remodel project. The "for free" part is especially gratifying. This building project was by no means cheap. The cabinets weren't cheap either, but somebody bore the cost for them that wasn't us. A happy thing in Meowville.

So anyway, my husband is off rescuing my stranded mother (car trouble), and I turned to my favorite down-time activity. If you don't know what that is, this is clearly your first time visiting my particular bit of Internet real estate. I'm catching up on a little reading. Almost any kind of reading material would do, except for communist propaganda, or the kind of magazines that used to come with brown wrappers over them, but today what caught my eye is a bit of tech talk.

Having recently had both my arms very actively engaged in holding cabinets overhead while my Kedley attached them to the wall, it struck me personally when I came across an article which talked about the first woman to receive a bionic arm. I couldn't help thinking about all the ways in life that we (most of us anyway) depend on the fact we have two working appendages, with all the appropriate moving parts. The Washington Post article, by David Brown, tells the story of Claudia Mitchell, who lost her left arm at the shoulder, in a motorcycle accident, and says that the first time she "peeled a banana one-handed, she cried." Obviously, the situation really is personal to her, and not just a mental "wow, arms are really important" moment. Her whole life was transformed with that accident, and how could that ever be made better?

What's amazing is that, while she's not growing a new arm, or anything, to replace the one she lost (science hasn't progressed that far, although when they do get there, I'm sure it will involve carbon nano-tubes), she has been given a reasonably-functioning replacement to the limb she came with at birth. When I said earlier that her new arm was bionic, I meant it. This isn't just a prosthetic part with no real function. Doctors actually moved nerve clusters to different muscles than they were originally connected to, making this new arm respond to Mitchell's thoughts.

Apparently, even when an arm is lost at the shoulder, higher up toward the brain the nerves still exist which transmit messages from the brain to our limbs. Those nerves can be adapted to trigger impulses to other muscles than the ones they originally controlled, so Mitchells' "hand and arm" nerves were attached to chest muscle, which twitches when she thinks about moving her hand, or elbow, or whatnot. That muscular motion is sensed by electrodes that let a computer in the bionic arm know which motors to activate to move in response to Mitchell's thoughts. By this method, she can grab things with her "hand" and move the arm at will. Right now, there are three motors in her arm. They're working on one that will have six, and allow her to reach overhead for things that she can't get to currently, which could be very useful if she ever needs to put up overhead cabinets. Wouldn't that be absolutely amazing?

According to Brown, the part of the chest muscle that has been wired to the hand nerve cluster actually feels as if it were her hand:

The person also ends up with a patch of skin about the width of a baseball that, when stroked, warmed or pricked, feels like a hand rather than part of the chest.

What's really cool about this is that eventually the signals will go both ways. Not only will Mitchell's mind send signals to the hand, but the hand will send signals to the brain as well. Sensors in the hand will transmit to the brain, through those nerve impulses that are now routed through the chest muscle, allowing her arm to send messages that "...will be perceived as sensation." Astounding, isn't it? The Bionic Woman is a reality. Brown says Mitchell is the first woman, and only the fourth person ever, to receive this kind of arm--the thought-controlled variety.

There are lots of things still being worked out, but the implications are mind-blowing. As this technology improves, accident victims and soldiers will be increasingly able to face future life with hope that whatever injured them won't be a permanently life-altering event. Who knows where this will lead? Scientists are constantly pushing the boundaries, and finding new wells of genius from which to draw. I find myself wondering if the day will come when bionic limbs will have such functionality and appearance that no one else even knows that the person playing tennis with them lost an arm, or a leg. Amazing, astounding, and mind-blowing. I'm running out of superlatives.

Hat tip: Futurismic

AI--Signs Of Intelligence

From whence comes this sudden clarity of vision? Amnesty International has declared Hezbollah guilty of war crimes during its recent war with Israel. I'm not sure how many other organizations have dared to pronounce any guilt on Hezbollah's head, but this is the first I've heard of to do it with any volume behind its words. AI has yet to issue its report on Israels part in the conflict, but this does give me more hope that they might see the difficulty facing Israel with an opponent who hid among civilians, fired from their midst, and, according to Jules Crittenden, the Boston Herald City Editor, even sometimes wore Israeli uniforms in battle.

Maybe AI will recognize other challenges facing Israel, like the fact that Hezbollah was acting as proxy for Iran and Syria, and that despite international cries for "proportionality" Israel had to damage a lot of Lebanese infrastructure to try to prevent resupply from the puppet-masters. Maybe AI will recognize the difference between a terrorist organization attacking unprovoked, and a country defending itself when attacked, and attempting to do so in a way that would prevent the enemy from showing such aggression again. Maybe AI will see through some of the staged death scenes, the rusted-out ambulance claimed as a recent Israeli target, and the Hezbollah fighters numbered among the civilian dead, when they examine Israel's behavior throughout this war. Maybe. I'm not really counting on it, but then again, you never know. They surprised me this time. They might surprise me again.

Hat tip: Instapundit

Helping The Weather Man

I love snow. I always have. I can sit for hours and watch it fall. Even when it's dark, I'll sit at the window, and sigh happily to see it float down in the gleaming circle of illumination coming from the streetlamp across the road. I have a very romantic view of snow. Snow is magical, and makes everything beautiful. On the practical end of things, snow is just frozen water coming from ice crystals in the clouds high above. A little warmer, and that snow becomes rain (something which happens often in Portland.) A bit of interference from warm air sneaking its way between upper and lower masses of cold air, and we get freezing rain, which is close to an annual event here in the Rose City, much to my annoyance. It's just not nearly as fun to watch rain freeze as it is to watch snow fall. The other almost annual event here is getting teased by forecasts, telling me there is a seventy percent chance that I'll get to bask in the warm and fuzzy glow that only snow brings, only to have the prediction be wrong. Again. Rain instead. I never believe them anymore. If they tell me it's going to snow, I assume there's a sixty-five percent chance they're wrong. Sixty-five, seventy.

In any case, whether I complain or not, whether it lands as rain or snow, or some other form of precipitation, moisture that comes down here, starts up there, as ice crystals high above us. Did you know, though, that lightning also comes from that ice in the sky? Well it does. A NASA report that I got today, written by Dr. Tony Phillips, confirms that an electrical charge is built up when different sized ice crystals in clouds rub together. Enough of that electrical charge makes lighting. By NASA's account, lighting heats the air in its path to three times the surface temperature of the sun. So much heat coming from ice is a bit of a mental leap, but according to Dr. Phillips, the science works. It just takes an awful lot of ice to produce the effect.

The awful lot of ice part is where this information gets useful. Counting lightning flashes, as it turns out, is an accurate predictor of how much ice is in clouds. After a three year study, by the National Space Science and Technology Center in Huntsville, Alabama, using radar equipment that measures the amount of ice in clouds, and an optical detector to count lighting flashes, scientist Walter Petersen and his colleagues have determined a definite correlation between the amount of ice a cloud contains, and the amount of lightning it produces. The correlation held firm over land, sea, and coast. This information is going to help weather reports become more accurate--maybe even in Portland:

Now that the correlation between ice and lightning is so well established, it can be put to good use. Petersen explains:

"Computer programs we write to predict weather and climate need to know how much ice is in clouds. The problem is, ice is hard to track. We can't station a radar over every thundercloud to measure its ice content. To improve our computer forecasts, we need to know where the ice is."

Lightning can help. "Because there's such a strong correlation between lightning and ice, we can get a good idea of how much ice is 'up there' by counting lightning flashes."

According to Petersen, the optical detectors, called LIS (lightning imaging sensor), are inexpensive, and can be located on Earth, or in orbit, so, now that the correlation is clearly understood, the models on which they base weather forecasts could start giving a more accurate view of whatever weather is headed toward your area. If they place lots of LIS devices all around the globe, they can start counting all those lightning flashes. More lighting flashes mean more ice. More ice means more potential precipitation. It's not a stretch to connect that how much ice is in the clouds affects how much precipitation we get down here. Little ice means little chance of rain, snow, sleet, etc. Lots of ice could mean lots of rain, snow, sleet. I'm saying could mean, because even if the ice is there, it's not a guarantee that it's coming down in any given location. They'll have to figure out some other method to predict exactly where the clouds will release their burden. I actually think they ought to skip that step in weather science, and just go straight to a weather control device. That way maybe Portland could get some snow for a change, instead of freezing rain.

This new information and technology could be changing the accuracy of weather predictions in the not too distant future. I predict it will. I forecast a seventy percent chance of increased accuracy. Sixty-five, seventy. Somewhere in there. Unless the wind shifts, or the ocean currents change path, or a butterfly starts beating its wings somewhere over China. Yeah, I think the new info will help. Fifty-five, sixty percent chance. Maybe.

The Walls Are Watching You--Or They Could Be Soon

Another Minority Report moment, brought to you by Futurismic. Here's what Armchair Anarchist has to say to us today, as he references an article at NewScientist.com, by Tom Simonite:

As if you weren't sick of (or completely immune to) targeted advertising on the internet, the next place it could crop up is on the walls. A UK university is testing a prototype ad screen in a corridor - the screen identifies passers-by via the Bluetooth signals from their mobile devices, and then software agents hold a bidding war in microseconds to decide who gets to display their content. The system will be able to differentiate between different people to ensure no-one sees the same ad twice. I think we just found another good reason to keep the Bluetooth on your phone switched off when you're not using it.

Okay, this is getting kind of creepy. I really love that we're seeing so many technological advances these days, but buildings figuring out who I am by my cell phone or PDA, and pummeling me with ads aimed just at me, is not something that I want to be a part of our brave new world. I suppose it's unavoidable. Advertising Happens. However, this new "wave of the future" is one that I already find irritating, and we haven't even gotten there yet. Apparently, individuals can leave the Bluetooth function off, which would be option number one in my world, if turning it on meant Tide commercials would follow me wherever I go, or worse yet, Pepto Bimol. (Have you ever seen anything more humiliating than the ad campaign with the Pepto Bismol "dance"? A new low in American culture.)

The article suggests that in the future, people will be able to choose to activate the function anonymously, so that the building only recognizes the device, not them. This then would send the ads through, but lets the system know that the device has triggered certain ads before, thus decreasing the chances of repeats. This is the option to use if you like commercials, need variety, but don't mind random content. The other option will be to immerse yourself completely into the Minority Report way of life. You would be able identify yourself, and your profile would let the system know what things interest you, so that everything that comes your way is personally focused--advertising tailored just for you, provided by the highest bidder. This is the option for the marginally insane. Okay, maybe that's hyperbolically harsh, but boy, I'm about as far as I can be from understanding why anyone would intentionally call down the advertising hordes onto their own heads. I really don't have the slightest clue what would make anybody volunteer as an advertising receptacle. It'll be interesting to see how well this kind of thing flies, how many people make themselves available to the ad-osphere. Am I in the majority, or does the rest of the world really long for a Minority Report reality?

Big Government: It's Not Just For Liberals Anymore

I've just spent a considerable amount of time reading a very, very, very, very (I think that's enough veries) long piece at TCS Daily, by Ryan Sager. Why is it so long? It's the entire first chapter of Sager's new book, The Elephant in the Room: Evangelicals, Libertarians, and the Battle to Control the Republican Party. The first chapter is a fascinating look at the tenuous marriage between social conservatives/traditionalists and small government conservatives/libertarians in the Republican party, how and when that marriage came to be, and what is making the union a difficult one now that the Republican party is moving in a "big government conservatism" direction. I find this topic particularly interesting, because my own politics are something of a marriage between traditionalism and libertarianism. Frequently, I find the two extremely complimentary, personal responsibility and freedom, hand in hand. At other times, as played out politically, I see the two impulses are at war, personal responsibility turned to a strict set of rules imposed on society at large, and freedom turned to unbridled license, defying moral standards of any kind. Sager points out that each can be useful in checking the other's more extreme tendencies.

In their less extreme forms, both these impulses are pretty strongly rooted in the idea of limited government. It has been the traditional, small government, social conservative's belief that the less intrusive the government, the less likely that government was to tell them they couldn't pray in school or teach creationism as an alternative to evolution, and that less activist and meddlesome federal courts weren't as likely to mandate legalized abortion, or other perceived social ills. The libertarian's belief was similar, but with different social aims, centering around complete personal liberty, such as decriminalizing drug use, legalized gay marriage, etc. It's an uneasy union in terms of the ultimate aims, but the commonly desired method of achieving them has often seemed to make the two congruous. Both have wanted limited government interference, and also shared similar goals in terms of strong property rights, free trade, fiscal accountability, and limited government spending. It hasn't been a perfect marriage, but like many marriages, the two have gotten along well enough when they have focused on what they have in common.

Sager analyses what is happening as the Republican party heads in more of a "compassionate conservatism" direction, i.e. big government, unafraid to spend tax-payer money to curry voter favor, and set on using its recently acquired power to move forward with a conservative social agenda. Sager questions whether the small government conservative can remain married to the Republican party if the party continues to move in the direction of wielding the big government hammer to build a socially conservative government. Indeed, one must also ask the question of social conservatives. If big, intrusive government is a negative thing when the opposing party is in power, does it cease to be a negative when the power rests in your own hands for a while? Is the small government stand based on principle, or has it merely been viewed as the way to keep progressives from the redistribution of wealth, over-regulation, and restriction of free enterprise that both social conservatives and libertarians oppose? If the concept of small government is abandoned when it is no longer necessary to hold back the progressive agenda, what happens when the reins of power are transferred back into the hands of Democrats? Does it then regain its place of value?

Not all conservatives are hypocrites. Sager spends some time on the varied pockets of Republican discontent, both libertarian and traditionalist, who really do believe in small government, and are frustrated to see their party heading off in the big government direction. It's not just the libertarians objecting; many traditionalists, too, are concerned with the party veering off into the land of big. So, the question to be addressed is, can the marriage last, can enough traditionalists and libertarians come together to refocus on what they have in common? Sager isn't writing off the possibility. Reading the article, should give you the background history, which is useful in itself, but it's going to take reading the book to see if Sager's path toward reconciliation is a feasible one. Just what I needed, one more book on my "things to read" list.

The Many Uses Of Spider Legs

Hey arachnophobes, there's finally a use for spiders besides just killing off other irritating pestoids!! Well, maybe I should rephrase that. There's finally a use for spider legs. Wait, one more rephrasing. There's finally a use for the design of spider legs. The way the spider's legs work, basically using a hydraulic system, that bends a joint by filling one part of it with fluid, rather than pulling with a muscle, is inspiring scientists with possible ways to adapt the system for human uses, such as lightweight, non-mechanical joints for miniature grippers to be used in space, or special fabric that can help people's posture. Clear? No? Well follow the link to an article by Lisa Zyga, at PHYSORG.com. There's a nifty illustration to show you how a spider's leg joints work, as well as further explanation of the possible applications. I know, this probably doesn't make you any more "spider happy," and the mere mention of spiders in even now making some of you a little wiggy, but does it give you any joy to know that the dreaded spider has its useful side? Realistically, nothing I say is going to make you hate spiders any less, is it? Frankly, I knew that, so re-wiring arachnophobes wasn't really my goal, but I hope that maybe you will find the look at the wonderful world of spider legs, and their many useful functions, educational. So go to the article and learn something, to make this foray into the icky and unpleasant worth it.

Update: Oops, I just discovered that I left off the link to the article. Silly me. Here it is.

Hat tip: Sci Tech Daily

Some 9/11 Encouragement

Kenneth Silber, at TCS Daily, has a common sense, and optimistic piece on why we (we being the good guys, the non-terrorists) are likely to win the War on Terror, or more precisely, why the terrorists are likely to lose. Today, of all days, it's a good thing to be reminded that, no matter how right it is to remember the lost on the 5th anniversary of 9/11, the story doesn't end there, nor does the future hold our imminent demise. Silber looks at the Cold War, and how many of communism's opponents feared they were losing the battle, even as they were fighting on the side of freedom. Obviously, they were wrong. Communism did not ultimately prevail. Silber, learning from this example, applies it to the trend he observes today, that of pessimism regarding the struggle against our terrorist foes. He sums up some reasons why the enemy is far from invincible, and points out some of their weaknesses, which, though often overlooked, make them unlikely to be victorious in their quest for world domination.

One of those weaknesses is one that a reader and I have discussed briefly in the comments of a previous post. I think it is a crucial part of winning this war over time:

Oil revenue is the terrorists' lifeline. The wealth that subsidizes Islamic terrorism and totalitarianism is overwhelmingly derived from the Persian Gulf region's petroleum exports; such exports are the mainstay of Iran's economy and of private "charities" that have funneled money to terrorist groups throughout the region. Efforts to diversify world energy supplies, driven by an array of economic, environmental and geopolitical factors, can be expected to erode the dominance of the region's oil over the next several decades. The development of alternative fuels and technologies, and of new petroleum sources such as the multibillion-barrel field recently discovered in the Gulf of Mexico, pose an enormous strategic threat to our enemies in the War on Terror.

This is such a critical observation. All of the environmental and political pressures caused by our use of fossil fuels as our main energy source are leading to dramatic developments, and ultimately will lead to the end of our dependence on oil. So much effort and money is going toward the search for viable alternatives, and this search is producing such promising results, that real changes are on the horizon, and the horizon grows ever closer. When those alternatives are readily available, and oil wanes as a necessary component to the national economies of secular democracies the world over, the Middle East will lose much of its revenue, as well as much of its influence on the democratic world and its policies. Take Iran as an example. What civilized nation, or group of nations, would let that demented and tyrannical government dictate terms, expand its influence, or develop nuclear weapons, if Iran has nothing the other nations need? If Iran didn't sit on one sixth of the world's known oil reserves, what power would that nation have now, and how much tolerance would there be for its funding of Hezbollah, from other governments that weren't equally demented? I think the answer to that question is pretty close to zilch. Mutiply that effect by the whole region, and the dynamics of Middle East policy change significantly.

Silber is absolutely right that the ongoing development of alternative sources of energy is one of the primary reasons that Islamic fascism will ultimately go the way of the Soviet Empire. There are other reasons, as well, so read his article for a bit of 9/11 encouragement.

The Path to 9/11

Ked and I watched the first couple of hours of ABC's The Path to 9/11 last night, the much-debated docudrama about the 8 1/2 years leading up to the day we all remember so well. Ked had to go to sleep at 10pm, so we recorded the rest of the film to watch later. As far as we got into it, it didn't seem nearly as controversial as the brouhaha surrounding the airing made it sound. I know some were very worried that the movie set out to make the Clinton administration look bad for not preventing the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, or the loss of Flight 93. My husband and I really didn't see any such intent in the movie. Maybe the really accusatory stuff comes farther into the program, but two hours in it seemed to simply tell the story. They put a disclaimer in LARGE TYPE, making it clear that they weren't telling every detail, but a summary of events. Here's exactly what it said:

DUE TO SUBJECT MATTER, VIEWER DISCRETION IS ADVISED.

THE FOLLOWING MOVIE IS A DRAMATIZATION THAT IS DRAWN FROM A VARIETY OF SOURCES INCLUDING THE 9/11 COMMISSION REPORT AND OTHER PUBLISHED MATERIALS, AND FROM PERSONAL INTERVIEWS. THE MOVIE IS NOT A DOCUMENTARY.

FOR DRAMATIC AND NARRATIVE PURPOSES, THE MOVIE CONTAINS FICTIONALIZED SCENES, COMPOSITE AND REPRESENTATIVE CHARACTERS AND DIALOGUE, AS WELL AS TIME COMPRESSION.

It seems pretty clear to me that they were saying, "We think this is a true account, in spirit, but don't believe every word was spoken, or every scene played out the way we depict it." By the way, the quotation marks I used just now were not intended to imply that I was quoting the producers at Disney literally, merely that that's what I thought was the tone of their disclaimer. The producers also put it a quote from the 9/11 Commission report. It read:

The 9/11 Commission is an independant, bipartisan commission created by Congress in late 2002.

"Our aim has not been to assign individual blame. Our aim has been to provide the fullest possible account of the events surrounding 9/11 and to identify lessons learned."

"In an event of this scale, touching so many issues and organizations, we are conscious of our limits."-9/11 Commission

One thing my husband and I both noticed was that while we didn't see, thus far, people in our government being made to look bad through the film, what we did notice were the people being made to look good--those people being the Muslims in the film who risked their lives, and the lives of their families to warn the American government of the dangers posed by terrorists, including the growing threat of Osama bin Laden. It was noble and brave and self-sacrificing.

We'll have to watch the rest to see how the people in power fare, whether the film is too harsh in casting blame. However, we all know that hindsight is 20/20. In the long run, it really doesn't matter who's to blame, as long as their actions weren't criminal. What's done is done. From what we saw in the movie, much of the problem in stopping the terrorists, and their attacks that led up to 9/11, was the layers of bureaucracy that had to be dug through to get anything done. In any bureaucracy, there are going to be oversights, and mistakes made, and even a certain amount of incompetence. As far as I know, incompetence is not a crime, although it should make us want to consider carefully who we elect into office in future. We also should trim that bureaucracy where we can. As far as the specific people who were in power, and their culpability, who knows whether anyone else, before 9/11, would have taken the threat any more seriously, or handled it better if they did. What does matter, and I hope the thing the movie is trying to get at, is that we learn from what has happened, that we don't underestimate the intelligence, or fervor, or capabilities of the fanatics who want to see us all dead, or converted to their belief system. What I drew from the first night of Path was a deep impression of how seriously we ought to be addressing the threat, and, again, as far as we watched it, it seemed fitting to commemorate the fifth anniversary of 9/11 with such a focused remembrance of how we got there.

A Beating Heart, Or A Reasonable Facsimile

I have been wanting to post about this ever since I first read about it four days ago at Futurismic. I'm finally getting a rest after several days of being hard at it in the back yard. What was once the equivalent of a mountain range of dirt, from our recent excavation, is now merely a rather noticeable hill. You think I'm exaggerating, but at one point the range was about five feet high, eight to ten feet deep, and about forty feet in total length. See--mountain range. We have been building raised beds to tuck the soil in, a twelve by twenty raised patio, and disbursing the rest to level out the yard. Boy howdy, am I tired, but happy to have been very productive. Now I'm feeling like I deserve a good long stretch in the merry, merry land of blogs (mine and all the others I've been missing for days.) All's right in my little world.

So what wonderful and amazing thing I have been waiting to get to for the last four days? Red Herring has news of an extra-cool medical breakthrough:

The first self-contained implanted artificial heart received U.S. government approval for patients who are all out of options and would otherwise die.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration said Tuesday that Massachusetts-based Abiomed garnered the green light for their device that aims to prolong the life of those with advanced heart failure who are not eligible for a heart transplant and are unlikely to live more than a month without intervention.

Now someone whose heart is completely shot, but who can't get a regular transplant, for whatever reason (most likely that a donor heart simply isn't available, I would imagine), can opt for the artificial one. Well, let's say the folks with good insurance can opt for the artificial one. At $250,000 a pop, the price-tag is not for the faint of heart. (Sorry, I couldn't resist.) Since the artificial heart is implanted, the flesh and blood organ that's on the fritz is actually removed from the patient. The mechanical heart is a two pound monster, with a battery that's tucked into the abdomen. The charging process involves a power transfer coil and the patient's skin. Don't ask me how. That part isn't really intuitive, for the non-medically or mechanically trained (or maybe just me), and the article doesn't go into detail.

There are a few other limitations to the technology, besides price, which I'm sure will improve with time. One issue is size. The substitute heart, as I said, weighs in at two whole pounds right now, and is too large to fit into the chest cavity of most women. According to Red Herring, "Abiomed said it is developing a replacement heart that is 30 percent smaller, but has yet to start clinical trials." I would expect that the trend toward smallness that is the hallmark of technology (think cell phones and Ipods), would have the same effect on the artificial heart. Once the thing has been around for a while, and undergone the inevitable technological shrinkage, it'll probably make the Grinch's tiny ticker look oversized.

Another limitation that should get better with time is battery life. Right now, the internal battery can buy the patient about an hour away from a plug-in, enough time to wander around the hospital lobby for a bit of people watching. If you cart around an external back-up, the heart'll go two hours. Admittedly, that doesn't sound like much, but from what I've been reading about nanofiber batteries, pretty soon they'll probably be able to implant a battery the size of a postage stamp that will run the heart for the next decade. Two, if the patient doesn't take up jogging.

The Red Herring article looks at the medical results to date for patients fitted with this mechanical pumper. Right now the count of the patients who have actually opted for the artificial heart over the failing real one stands at 14. Most have gained a few months of life that they would not otherwise have known. One patient lived another 17 months, which is substantial when you consider what a breakthrough this is. One of the artificial heart recipients was even able to be discharged and go home.

I know that this doesn't necessarily sound all that exciting. We'd love to see every patient all better, and able to live out a full, healthy life. Most of these patients bought themselves a few more months of dreary walls and hospital food. However, they also helped in the progress of medicine, and those people who follow after them, who someday receive the smaller, refined, long-battery-life versions of this technology will be truly blessed because the first patients were willing to take the chance that what they went through would be worth it. Even for those who only gain a few months, that time could be so important. 17 months could be everything to that father who wants to be there for his daughter's wedding, or the mom who has a little more wisdom to pass to her children before she passes on herself. That's the benefit to patients in the short term. Over time, as the technology improves, the outcomes for patients are going to get better and better. This is a wonderful breakthrough.

And The Meme Goes On

Kedley and I are still in manual labor mode. I'll post something of more substance when I get the chance. In the meantime, the partial release of a Senate Intelligence Committee report is making headlines with its claims that there was no Saddam connection to al Qaeda prior to the Iraq war. It is the ongoing "Bush lied" meme, being given another go-round by the media, this time using the Intelligence Committee report as its authority. Thomas Joscelyn, at The Weekly Standard, however, says the "new Senate report on Iraq and al Qaeda ignores everything which gets in the way of its conclusions." He cites other evidence and sources, and makes a pretty good case that the Committee didn't really do the job of fact-finding it claimed to do, and gave credence to sources it should have taken with a truckload of salt, or at the very least questioned more closely.

I've never bought the "Bush lied" mantra. I heard too many of his speeches in their entirety to believe that any one reason was the driving force behind our deposing of Saddam. Bush never claimed that Saddam was connected to 9/11, nor that Saddam and al Qaeda were working hand in hand, merely that there had been some contact between Saddam's regime and bin Laden's organization. There is no question that the two had some goals in common. However, neither WMD, or a Saddam link to al Qaeda were the exclusive reason for taking us to war. There were many, no matter whether some choose to forget that for political reasons, including the fact Saddam had defied the conditions of the cease-fire at the end of the first Gulf war for over a decade.

Another thing which contradicts the premise that the President took us to war under false pretenses is the number of Senators who supported the war in the first place, who did so on the same evidence used by Bush, but now find it politically inconvenient to stand on their decision. Too many of the war's current opponents switched sides when it became unpopular with their constituents. They are now trying to justify this switch by claiming their original information was faulty. Joscelyn casts doubt on their claims. As I said, I've never believed that Bush pulled a fast one on everybody just so he could get oil, or revenge, or whatever else his motives supposedly were. None of those motivations make sense to me, so maybe Joscelyn's preaching to the choir here, but read the Weekly Standard article anyway. It should at least confirm that there's more to the debate than what's in the report from the Senate Committee. The Saddam, al Qaeda link question is only one part of the "why we went to war" equation, but with every piece it's important that we get it right, and it's important that we consider all the evidence. Joscelyn doesn't think the Committee did.

Personal note: Here I was intending to just pop up the link and a short paragraph to tell y'all what it was about. This whole blogging thing takes on a life of its own. I just can't seem to stop myself from letting those darned opinions loose, even when I have other pressing work to do. Okay, this time I really am heading out to work. I'm going now. This is me going. I've almost torn myself away. Come on Kat, a little self-control!! Bye.

Gas Price Conspiracy

Those evil oil barons are conspiring to lower prices. I don't know how they're managing it, but it's evil I tell you. Pure evil. Actually, I do know how they're doing it. The end of summer, among other things, means less demand. Less demand means lower prices; just like more demand means higher prices. The law of supply and demand in action, as Pejman Yousefzadeh points out at TCS Daily. You can bet another major hurricane would bump 'em up again, but, if that happens, will the weather and reduced supply get the blame? No. Then it will be wicked price gougers who are forcing us to pay through the nose. In the meantime, I don't see many headlines declaring in big, bold letters how beneficent they're being at Chevron and ARCO as the prices come down. One nice side effect of the price tumble--less money lining the pockets of tyrannical regimes with oil reserves. Still, I wish those oil companies would stop being evil. There's just something un-American about lowering prices when supply warrants it. Evil. Pure Evil.

Challenging Path

I don't have the time this morning to do justice to the whole Path to 9/11 brouhaha that has Democratic Senators sending letters to Disney requesting them to pull the docudrama set to air on ABC this Sunday and Monday nights. Democrats are up in arms because, apparently, the mini-series doesn't paint the Clinton administration in a particularly favorable light regarding the way they dealt with the terrorist threat. With the November election looming large, in which they hope to regain power in Congress, it's pretty obvious why they don't want anything airing that might cast doubt on Democratic terrorist-fighting capabilities.

I must refrain from telling all the details, and my many and varied opinions on the subject, but boy do I have them. However, to really delve into it at this point would keep the dirt mountain in my back yard from shrinking, and it really needs to shrink before Portland starts the annual rain ritual that keeps our corner of the world so green. A mud mountain is definitely worse than a dirt mountain. Anyway, since this morning sees me somewhat booked, but I think this topic is one that deserves a little notice, I will send you to Scrappleface. Not only does Scott Ott bring you the very finest in political satire, but also, if you follow the links he has peppered throughout his short burst of wit, you will get something pretty close to the whole story of what is stirring up this particular tempest, as well as where it's headed--i.e. who's caving to Democratic pressure and changing things to suit them. Hint: Disney-owned ABC, and Scholastic (a publishing company for children's educational material.) Enjoy, and tell me your many and varied opinions, if you feel like it. I can live vicariously.

Update: Hugh Hewitt has seen the film, thinks it's an important and powerful piece of work, and has an interesting take on the controversy. Some have compared this Path situation to the one where CBS pulled a movie about the Reagans in November of 2003. The movie, apparently, did not portray the Reagans in a favorable light. Among other things, Hewitt looks at whether the comparison holds water. One thing I would point out about the Reagan comparison is that a lot of the same people who were crying "censorship" when CBS voluntarily yanked the movie in 2003 are calling for the mini-series to be axed. A little consistency would help their case, or at least lessen the impression of partisanship. (via Michelle Malkin)

I Can't Find The Patient, Doctor; I know She's Gotta Be In There Somewhere

Egyptian blogger Big Pharaoh has an example of Western "sensitivity to Muslims" run amok (in the doing things not to offend them sense, not the being allergic to them sense.) A couple of British hospitals are offering a burka-style gown for their patients who really want to preserve their modesty. BP says, "No Freakin Way!', and comments that they don't even have this kind of hospital gown in Egypt. He thinks Britain is going way too far, and not doing Muslims any favors. Check it out. He's got a picture of the gown. It actually looks really comfortable......okay, not even close.

When Satire Gets Angry

Here's how to take a simple little compliment (for a politician no less), and turn it into a rant against Harvard, Boston, The State Department's visa standards, and the U.N., and do it all in only five short paragraphs. Sarah K went on a tear at IMAO. It was impressive. IMAO is one of my favorite places for satire. They do know how to take things to their ridiculous extremes (occasionally they take them a little farther than makes me comfortable), but sometimes it's really hard to take things any farther than they already go in real life. Sometimes reality is too far gone to parody or satirize. I don't know if this counts as satire, but I sure sympathize with the sentiments.

Live Long And Prosper

There's an excellent piece at TCS Daily, by Donald J. Boudreaux, who is Chair of the Economics Department at George Mason University. He gives us a clear look at the growing prosperity in the Western World, and how good we've had it ever since the industrial revolution. Lest we think that those of us who don't inhabit the upper tax brackets here in the States are not prosperous, because we compare ourselves to the Joneses (or the Rockefellers), he gives us a rundown of all the ways even poorer Americans out-rich our predecessors. I think most of us know we have it better than many of our contemporaries in poorer countries as well. Even people I know who struggle to pay the bills each month still have a place to live, a telephone, TV, DVD player, microwave, etc., so clearly, compared to eras when even the very rich didn't have indoor plumbing, we're doing pretty well.

Boudreaux comments that many think that the key to our well-heeled lives lies in technology. I find we definitely tend to measure our prosperity in terms of technology, as with the list above, so I guess I do tend to link the two. He says this is an error, and that what makes us, and others around the world, prosper beyond anything history has ever known is the impetus of free markets, which enable those technological advances. He draws from the example of modern-day countries in which people still use wooden carts to take goods to market, live in dirt huts, and die young, from causes ranging from Malaria to starvation, despite the fact that the technology exists which could change these situations. What the people lack in the countries where these conditions exist is economic freedom. Boudreaux's article isn't too long, nor is it in confusing economist-speak, but it does having some interesting facts and figures. Have a look.

Look, The Moon Is Full

I got the latest space-related tidbits from SpaceWeather.com this morning. It seems the Pluto lovers of the world are still up in arms that their favorite planet has been demoted to "dwarf" status. Some people just refuse to accept the new level of planet snobbery in the solar system, and the debate rages on. If you are among those still reeling from the notion that our neighborhood only has eight planets, Space Weather has a petition, with a place for comments, where you can add your two cents. Three even, if you're so inclined.

Another astronomical item of note is our very own satellite. Tonight's a full Moon, and it will be bigger and brighter than any other full Moon of 2006. Here's what Space Weather had to say about the why and wherefore:

What makes it big? Answer: The Moon's lopsided orbit. One side of the Moon's orbit is 50,000 km closer to Earth than the other side. The two sides are called, respectively, perigee, from Greek, meaning "close to Earth," and apogee, meaning "far from Earth." Tonight's Moon is at perigee.

In further action, eastern Europe, Asia, Africa and Australia will get the chance to see a partial lunar eclipse this evening, and there's some exciting sunspot activity for people who have the right telescope and filters to stare at our ball of fire in the sky. There's a nifty little animation of the lunar show if you follow the link at Space Weather. There's also a chart with recent near miss asteroid information, if you like to think of impending doom scenarios.

Well, I think that catches us up on Space Weather info. I'm out to work on our giant mountain of dirt in the back yard. I'll be in again when I need a rest, and I'll see what's going on in the world. I'll let you know if I find anything interesting.

The Perils Of Property Rights

Matt Labash, at The Weekly Standard has an eminent domain tale that reads like the Perils of Pauline, the silent film serial which had its theater debut in 1914. Wikipedia says:

The very popular silent Perils of Pauline was a cliffhanger serial shown in weekly installments featuring Pearl White as the title character, a perpetual damsel in distress. She was menaced by assorted villains, including pirates and Native Americans. At the end of each installment she was generally placed in a situation that looked sure to result in her imminent death. The start of the next episode showed how she was rescued or otherwise escaped the danger, only to face fresh peril again.

In an article titled "This Land Is Whose Land?," Labash tells the story of the Halpers, and their fight to keep the farm that had been owned by their family since 1922. It's a long, involved story, with cliffhangers and villains galore, and I'm sorry to tell you up front, does not have a happy ending, unless you like the idea of the town of Piscataway, New Jersey taking the operating family farm under pretext of saving it from developers.

Now, I have to say, that even if the Halpers were planning to sell to developers, it was their land, and I think they should have the right to dispose of it as they see fit, as long as they weren't breaking any laws. Let the city deny permits to the people who plan to put up condos, or strip malls, if it wants to, and can do it legally, but to take the Halpers' land on the chance they might sell seems disingenuous at best. If the family did decide to sell, why couldn't the city bid on it like other interested buyers? That would assure fair market value for the sale. However, that wasn't how the town went about the business (of course, it never is how towns do these things), and the pretext they used doesn't really hold up to scrutiny.

Labash clarifies some of the problems with the town's position. One of the primary problems with the city's claimed desire to save the property from imminent development is that the family had already refused numerous lucrative offers from developers, because they wanted to keep farming their land, and keep farming it they did, right up until they were evicted. Another is that the city had no objection to the numerous other farms sold and developed in the area, just the Halpers'. Yet another difficulty, less to do with the town's motives than its methods, is that the town, as towns are wont to do, offered substantially less than the property's value, giving the Halpers no incentive to cooperate with its scheme to "rescue" the land.

The case went through the court system with many a Perils of Paulinesque twist and turn, including, by Labash's account, some of the famed government corruption for which New Jersey has gained notoriety, even to the point of not-so-veiled death threats. The situation cannot be laid entirely at the door of New Jersey corruption, however, since the battle for property rights took a devastating blow with the much-lamented Kelo decision of 2005, in which the Supreme Court voted 5-4 that eminent domain extended beyond the traditionally accepted standard.

The Court ruled that a community could not only take property (supposedly properly compensated) for such things as schools and roads, as was previously considered acceptable, but that a town could force the transfer of privately held land from one owner to another private owner, if the community would benefit economically from the sale--a much broader interpretation of the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment. In other words, if a town will get more tax revenues from having a shopping mall where your house is, it can force you to sell to a private developer. Of course, you need not fear that individuals might be acting out of personal greed. I'm sure bribery and hidden private investments never muddy the political waters. All city councils act in absolute purity. (Okay, sarcastic moment over.) Summing up--the ruling pretty much leaves the limits to government's ability to manipulate property rights in tatters.

The whole legal wrangle with Piscataway and the Halpers started well before the Kelo decision; it's been in the courts for years, but Kelo gives the town much more firm footing from which to make its grab. So, Piscataway has the power to claim eminent domain, and purporting to fear that the Halpers will one day sell their property, the town confiscates it, for far less than the property is worth. The Halpers rack up massive legal bills, and still lose the farm that's been in their family for over eighty years. The town can now do whatever it wants with the land, including sell it to the same developers that they fretted would buy it in the first place. According to Labash, all of the locals he talked to think this outcome is likely. The Halpers, meanwhile, are literally homeless.

The Halpers' story is just one of many Perils being played out across the country. Kelo has made a mess of property rights. Personally, I don't think this decision can stand for the long haul. Interesting thing about it, the decision actually managed to bridge the gap between right and left in American politics. When the decision came down, there was an outcry from the full spectrum of political positions. Many legal scholars think it's bad law, and hopefully the issue will be returning to a Supreme Court that's seen what a mess its decision has wrought (certainly not what the Framers of the Constitution intended), or at least to a Supreme Court that no longer has all five of the same Justices who made the decision confirming that Piscataway had the right to take the Halpers' farm. Haven't some of those Justices earned a nice long retirement? I think many homeowners would happily pay their taxes, knowing that they were helping the people who brought you Kelo not to be on the bench.

Soccer

Hey, here's one for you combination political junkies and soccer fans. (You know who you are.) Ilya Shapiro, at TCS Daily, looks at an Israeli soccer club that's providing mentoring for kids of all stripes in Israel: "Jews, Arabs, Bedouins, and Druze." Shapiro says the non-profit project combines mentoring, tutoring, soccer training, and interaction with professional athletes:

The goal is to leverage the club's professional achievements and youthful love of sport to transform the lives of the underprivileged and promote understanding among different ethnic, religious, and socio-economic groups. Sports are thus a means of developing healthy young citizens, able and motivated to become contributing members of society.

From having watched the World Cup for the first time this year, and seeing how engaged the world at large is in soccer, I think this is a great idea, and from Shapiro's account, it's being very effective at helping underprivileged youth overcome their disadvantages (16,000 of them--girls too.) Go Team!!

Truce

I know I've been a bit out of the loop the last few days, what with the Fair and all, but just because I let my reading slip is no reason for major events to occur in my absence. I can't believe I missed this--Pakistan has ceded territory to the Taliban? There is now an "Islamic Emirate of Waziristan," recognized in a Taliban/Pakistani truce? Bill Roggio, writing at The Fourth Rail, describes the results of the agreement:

The Pakistani government has ceded a region the size of New Jersey, with a population of about 800,000 to the Taliban and al-Qaeda. The establishment of the Islamic Emirate of Waziristan is not the end of the Taliban's expansion, however. An intelligence source indicates similar negotiations between the Taliban and the Pakistani government are being held in the agencies of Khyber, Tank, Dera Ishmal Khan and Bajaur. The jihadi dreams of al-Qaeda's safe havens in western Pakistan have become a reality. And the gains made by the Coalition in Afghanistan have now officially been wiped away with the peace agreement in the newly established Islamic Emirate of Waziristan.

Read Roggio's post for more details, including the terms of the truce, which don't seem to favor Pakistan, and, some sources indicate, include a safe haven for Osama bin Laden. I'd love to put a positive spin on this one, but I may need some help getting there. Any suggestions? I'm looking for the U.S. reaction to the news, and will report back if I come up with anything. You do the same, okay?

Hat tip: Instapundit

Update III: I moved this update up, because it answers a pertinent question from the previous paragraph. According to Forbes.com, posted today, Pakistan has denied that the truce will provide bin Laden with safe haven:

"Pakistan is committed to its policy on the war on terror, and Osama caught anywhere in Pakistan would be brought to justice," the country's top army spokesman, Gen. Shaukat Sultan, told The Associated Press.

Of course, the key phrase here is "caught anywhere in Pakistan." The catching part has been a problem.

Update: According to this report, from Jonathan S. Landay at McClatchy Newspapers, the truce went ahead with U.S. approval, although Landay, like Roggio, says that what the truce did was free up Taliban fighters in Pakistan to go join the battle against U.S., NATO, and Afghan forces in Afghanistan, now that the militants are not busy fighting the Pakistani army. Despite how this looks, though, I have to believe that if the U.S. encouraged the truce, there has to be more information that we don't know. Why would the U.S. back something so totally against its interests?

Update II: This report, from Yahoo!News India, sees the agreement as a good thing, and says that the truce carries a Taliban agreement that local tribesmen will stay put and stop fighting--and not head into Afghanistan:

No local tribesman would be allowed to enter Afghanistan to attack US-led coalition forces stationed in Afghanistan under the agreement signed on Saturday by pro-Taliban militants with the Pakistan government to ensure 'permanent peace' in the volatile northwestern tribal region near the Afghan border, The News International reported from Miramshah in Waziristan, quoting intelligence officials.

Under the agreement, which is likely to be unveiled by the government next week, militant will halt all attacks on government officials and security forces, and the army 'will not carry out operations against them,' said an area intelligence official on condition of anonymity, the newspaper reported.

'This is a good development because the Taliban have promised to stay away from militancy,' said the official. 'The Taliban have also agreed to distance themselves from foreign militants' hiding in the area, he added.

I note that it's local tribesmen that are prohibited from crossing the border, but with the number of foreign Taliban fighters in Pakistan, which I understand to be quite high, I'm not sure that this restriction is very meaningful, and I'm very sure that this portion of the truce will be hard to enforce anyway. Militant Islam does have a habit of talking out of both sides of its mouth.

A Nano-Factory In Every Home

Sioux Lady, who knows my affection for all things nano, left a comment sending me to this fun and fascinating animation, about future advances in nanotechnology, in which a household appliance builds products, molecule by molecule. The animation showed the general workings of how your own personal "nano-factory" could build you a laptop, or other desirable worldly goods, right there in the comfort of your own home. Need a new dress for this evening's outing? How about a skillet to replace the one that keeps burning dinner? Heck, how about dinner itself? (The video didn't mention these items; I just like to take an idea and run with it.) It did mention the laptop, however, so we're talking here about pretty sophisticated product manufacture, and I assume one would have to plug in some sort of design schematic from which the mini nano-factory would work. It would start at the molecular level, and using a nano-conveyor belt system, would assembly-line the structures up to larger and larger combinations, until finally assembling the whole, with (I'm quoting the video, here) no waste products other than warm air, and water.

Now, I am an optimist, and can see potential for global transformation in something as mundane as a slipper, if you give me a good reason, but I have to admit, this goes into my "highly probably too good to be true" file. Something for practically nothing, with no bad side effects? Dream, dream, dream. On the other hand, there are so many impossible things in the world: space shuttles, television, the human body, heck, carrots, that I can't categorically dismiss this as impossible, and boy, wouldn't it be a world changer if it ever came to be? Can you imagine shipping a few thousand--or a few hundred thousand, since ultimately they could manufacture themselves-- of these babies to poverty-stricken locations around the globe? Once we got past the inevitable confiscation by corrupt and tyrannical regimes, overcome entirely by the machines' self-manufactured ubiquity, there would be no going back. Governments would no longer be able to imprison their people in poverty and ignorance. World transformation would ensue. Okay, I let the optimist out of the box, and now there's no holding her back. Anyway, despite her over-abundant enthusiasm, it is still fun to speculate. Check out the video; let it manufacture a few speculations of your own.

Peekaboo Moons

The new space photos are up!! The new space photos are up!! MSNBC put out its photos from the month of August. As usual, just click on "see the slide show." There's a true color view of a Martian landscape, a close encounter of two galaxies, the remains of an exploded star, the Witch Head and Orion Nebulas, a spacewalk, and other cool and interesting pics. I think my favorite is the one they titled Peekaboo moons--one of Saturn's moons eclipsed by another, all cut through the middle by Saturn's rings. Fun, fun, fun.

The Growth Of Peace

Ronald Bailey, at Opinion Journal, has a really interesting piece on a man who won the Nobel Peace Prize in 1970 for, are you ready for this?--improvements in wheat. Honest. Norman Borlaug is an agricultural innovator, who helped forestall the massive starvation once predicted for billions of the world's teaming masses. The Nobel Committee decided that not starving was as good an incentive toward peace as any that year, and growing more productive grain helped with the whole not starving thing. Mind you, Borlaug improved grain production a lot. I can see the Committee's point. A full belly does tend to make people a little more satisfied with their lot in life. At 92, Borlaug is still working to improve world food supplies. He's also on board with one of my favorite topics of exploration, biotech. He's for more research, and less regulation, just what we like here at the Meow.

Hat tip: Instapundit

A Day At The Fair

This morning I'm going to do something I rarely do. I'm going to write a purely personal blog post. If you're not interested in the goings-on in the week of a middle-aged city gal, now is the time to bail. As of this moment, I have nothing political, cultural, or scientific to pass along (although I'm very sure that won't last.) I've been too busy to get in my reading quota for the last few days. Boy, have I been busy. We've had family come to town for hiking trips and dinners out. That was the fun part of busy. The rest gets a bit more tedious. Those of you who have been following the church painting project will send some sympathy our way when you read that my husband and I spent another thrilling couple of days in the bucket of the lift, painting away for hours on end. Sunday, we started after the morning service, and painted till it was too dark to see anymore. Too dark to see happens around 8:30 this time of year in Portland. That's a long time up in the bucket. (We got almost all the trim finished, which is good, because the rented lift gets returned today.) There's been other stuff filling up our time, as well, but I think you've probably had enough Kat's schedule details by now. I know I have.

Yesterday, of course was Labor day, which is a day we traditionally labor. We often use the day off to work on some project or other, however, this year we broke with tradition, in order to fulfill another annual tradition--one of the very few traditions my husband and I have, actually. We went to the Oregon State Fair. The Oregon Fair is huge. There are displays and competitions for just about everything imaginable, except maybe space-walking and deep-sea diving. We try to go every year, although not usually on Labor day, which is the last day of the fair, and tends to be crowded. However, we ran out of time this year, and we had to mesh our schedule together with the schedule of the friends who went with us. We often go alone, but this year we invited some friends who have kids. Seeing everything with kids just adds a whole different dimension to the fun.

This year, because we were with the small fry, we eschewed some of the standard lures that Fair time usually holds for those of us who live in Meowville. We went with things that would please the kids, and this shifted our focus a bit. Some things, though, are universally pleasing. We always see the animals, of course, and this year was no different. However, since it was the last day, many of the critters had headed off to greener pastures already. They had won their ribbons and gone home. Even so, there were still a few stragglers hanging around waiting to be adored, so the kids got to pet llamas and goats, and a really big emu. Goats are so very adorable and friendly. Long-haired, short-haired, pygmy, you name it, they're cute and cuddly in a smelly, barnyard sort of way. A few of my favorite goats were still around. I don't know what they are called but they have these giant pink udders that make them look as though they are straddling a tailless pig. You just can't beat a pig-straddling goat for sheer entertainment value. There were a few giant pigs suckling truly adorable piglets, too. What city kid could want more? The children were amply amused.

The rest of the day passed with great enjoyment. We all baked under the hot sun, sweat literally rolling down our backs, while darling little dogs stood on one paw, and jumped over obstacles. A magician amazed us by re-materializing a shredded playing card and squirting the perspiring crowd with the occasional shower. The crowd was grateful, I think. The kids got to glide down a giant slide and fly in a rocket ship. The two men and small boy in our little party got to climb all over large farm equipment. They climbed over large farm equipment several times during the course of the day. No one could have been happier. Except my husband. He would have been happier if I had actually gone along with him BUYING one of those beautiful pieces of machinery. It was the only disappointment to the day. He is not going to fill up my new shop with a track hoe. It's just not going to happen. We diverted him with the other thing that is dear to every man's heart--food. We all ate terribly healthy fair food, like corn-dogs, caramel corn, and chocolate-dipped cheesecake. And Shave Ice. Every day at the fair needs Shave Ice.

The highlight of the Fair this year for me was definitely the demolition derby. First, it was indoors, and therefor cool. By this point we were all grateful for cool. That wasn't what made the demolition derby the highlight of the day, though. I had forgotten how fun they were. I remember my Dad taking us often, when I was small, to the stock car races. It was a long, loud ordeal for me, although I was happy to go, since it got us out of whatever yard-work needed doing at home. I suffered my way through the diversion, sometimes bored, but glad to be on a family outing. Sometimes, though, at the end of the day, there was the all-too-brief explosion of fun that came from ten or so cars all ramming each other into oblivion. It was glorious. Now, I never was a violent child, but there was just something so exciting about the crunch of metal and the plumes of smoke as beat-up old junkers tried to be the last car standing. Yesterday, we each picked "our car" for the heats. I chose the worst car both times. My husband, on the other hand, chose both the winners. He actually had reasons for his choices, like how sturdy the model was. I just thought mine looked cool. I think his method works better than mine.

It was funny, watching the derby as an adult was every bit as fun, but it did have its grown up, socially conscious moments, like when one of our friends leaned over and mentioned how these cars were all in good running order, and most would be perfectly satisfactory family cars in third world countries. People would be grateful to have such a treasure. Here, we take our wealth so for granted that we demolish them for ten minutes entertainment. Then we award a trophy and a prize. The prize in this case was seventy-five dollars. Seventy-five dollars to destroy a not-quite-perfectly-good, but running, car. The losers get nothing but a heap of shredded metal. How sad. The pang of conscience was short lived, however. Even with that brief flash of social consciousness to mar the moment, it was still a ball.

So we amused ourselves throughout the hot, late-summer day, and Ked and I fully plan to go back again next year. We didn't see horses strutting, pulling stagecoaches, or jumping rail fences this year. We didn't see the photography exhibits, nor the flower displays. We didn't see the giant vegetables, nor the 4H fashion show, no glass blowing, or juggling. There's so much to do when the fair rolls around again. Every year is different, and that's what brings us back, over and over. We enjoyed seeing it this year through the eyes of our friends, and especially their children. The look on a small boy's face as he's making his rocket ship soar higher into the air is, all by itself, worth the long drive, and parking in outer Mongolia, the crowds, the ridiculous prices for bad-for-you food, and the sore feet. By the end of the day, we were all footsore and content, just as such days are meant to end. The only thing missing was the giant blow-up orange octopus that no one ever knows what to do with when they get it home. Oh well, there's always next year.

Be Careful What You Say

Wow, Mark Steyn of the Chicago Sun-Times has some difficult and profound words for the West, and Western media. Most of you probably know that a few weeks ago, two FOX News Channel journalists were captured in Gaza, and held prisoner for two weeks. The ransom demand was the release of all Muslim prisoners in the U.S., which, needless to say, didn't happen. What did happen was that the two journalists publicly (as in, they were videotaped for later broadcast) converted to Islam, garnering their own release.

Many journalists and pundits hailed the conversion as a common-sense move by the journalists to free themselves--just a practical step, or even a clever sham, that anyone would take to ensure their own safety. Steyn's perspective is different, and he examines what the effect on the Islamist mind is when the message we in the West send continually conveys weakness:

It doesn't matter how "understandable" Centanni and Wiig's actions are to us, what the target audience understands is quite different: that there is nothing we're willing to die for. And, to the Islamist mind, a society with nothing to die for is already dead.

Read the rest, if you have the time. It's an important reminder that what we intend to say, and what others hear, are not always the same thing--and that what we do is part of what we say. Not all Muslims are looking for the West to fall, but those who are waging this jihad are looking to exploit any weakness. Their message is consistent: Convert, or die. We need to make sure that our words and actions are sending a consistent message, too, and that the message isn't, "We surrender."

Hat tip: Instapundit

The International Double Standard

I am continually frustrated by the international double standard that judges Israel more harshly than pretty much anybody else. This double standard rears its ugly head among national governments, world bodies such as the United Nations, as well as Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs), which are supposedly looking for human rights violations from whatever quarter they arise, but don't quite manage to see the ones against Israel as easily as violations by Israel. For some reason, it's easier to establish war crimes and human rights violations if Israel is the perpetrator than if they are committed by any other nation or group. Joshua Muravchik, at The Weekly Standard, examines this same inconsistency in the case of one such NGO, Human Rights Watch. The evidence of bias that Muravchik draws out is damning, in my opinion. He discusses how that bias leads Human Rights Watch into conflict with its own reason for being, as (from the HRW website) an organization "dedicated to protecting the human rights of people around the world." If HRW is dedicated to protecting human rights, the question that then begs an answer is whether Israel has the basic human right of self-defense.

Muravchik examines HRW's response to the recent war between Israel and Hezbollah/Lebanon. According to Muravchik, Human Rights Watch determined that Israel was in the wrong in the conflict, by reason of having targeted civilians. He points out that, while it's true that civilians did die in Israeli attacks on Hezbollah, which locates its operations in civilian areas, HRW has little basis for this accusation that it was intentional on the part of the Israelis, especially since Israel dropped fliers to warn civilians of impending attacks. The Israeli Defense Force sacrificed tactical advantage to give Lebanese civilians the chance to leave targeted areas before bombing began, clearly indicating they did not desire to kill innocents, but that was HRW's conclusion all the same:

The decision by Human Rights Watch to treat Israel as the main culprit in this war also entailed a studied refusal to make basic moral and legal distinctions. The group did not differentiate between Hezbollah's action in initiating the conflict and Israel's reaction in self-defense, nor between Hezbollah's openly announced and quite deliberate targeting of civilians and Israel's alleged indiscriminate firing that caused civilian casualties despite Israel's appeals to Lebanese civilians to evacuate areas it intended to bombard.

Most remarkably, Human Rights Watch did not take note of the contrasting goals of the combatants. Hezbollah's declared aim, in the words of its "spiritual" leader, Sheikh Fadlallah, is to "obliterate" Israel, while Israel's goal boiled down to not being obliterated. Human Rights Watch justifies this self-imposed moral blindness on the grounds that its touchstone is law, not morality. But why, then, was it deafeningly silent on the overriding legal issue that the conflict presented--namely, genocide?

Muravchik then goes on to discuss the international legal standards for what constitutes genocide, and what the responsibilities for signatories to the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide are. By the conditions of this Convention, every country with their John Hancock on that treaty should be defending Israel, or any other nation, or people, for that matter, when they are threatened with genocide. Now, I realise that Hezbollah is not really in the position, at this point, where they can achieve the goal of "obliterating" Israel as they desire. However, I don't think there's a clause in the Convention that excuses signatories from the duty they signed up for, if the group planning the elimination of another is not really capable of carrying out the threat--yet. I add the word yet, because, as most of us know, the nuclear capabilities that Iran is pursuing "for peaceful purposes" could very likely find Hezbollah accessing bigger "toys" than that organization has previously been able to acquire, and then it would be an entirely different situation.

Muravchik clarifies Hezbollah's position:

And if such casuistic arguments needed further refutation, there is the eloquent testimony of Hezbollah's anti-personnel missiles fired at Israeli civilians. As Hezbollah's Sheikh Fadlallah puts it: "There are no innocent Jews in Palestine." Nor is that all. Hezbollah's strongman, Hassan Nasrallah, has affirmed that Hezbollah's target is not only the Jews of Palestine. "If they [the Jews] all gather in Israel, it will save us the trouble of going after them worldwide," he declared in 2002, according to a report in Lebanon's Daily Star, the accuracy of which is not disputed.

He continues:

As it happened, nearly half of the civilians slaughtered by Hezbollah's missiles in the recent conflagration were not Jews, but Israeli Arabs. This prompted Nasrallah to issue a personal appeal to Arabs to evacuate Haifa so that only Jews would be killed. In sum, from whichever angle you examine it, whether to obliterate Israel or to kill Jews, Hezbollah is an operation whose purpose is genocide. For this reason, disarming Hezbollah should not fall to Israel alone. It is the legal obligation of every one of the 137 state parties to the Genocide Convention.

None of this, however, drew the attention of Human Rights Watch or diverted it from its main mission of attacking Israel. It is a mission that predates the recent crisis.

What follows in Muravchik's article is a very long look at the history of Human Rights Watch as an organization, and an examination of how it developed its particular slant on the world. It's worth your time, although it's quite lengthy and I will not try to summarize it here. From my perspective, it's fascinating to see where such biases as the pervading world opinion against Israel come from. There are a lot of different sources of prejudice in the world, but I find it especially interesting to see how a group whose entire focus is human rights and fairness comes to conclusions that seem so contrary to its general outlook.

I really don't want to cast aspersions on everything that Human Rights Watch does. The general work they have taken upon themselves is important. We do need watchdogs in this troubled world, but we need watchdogs that see clearly and bark at every threat, not just some of them. Usually, I try my darnedest to be fair-minded and not make assumptions about people's motives, but I have to admit that this is a situation that really frosts me. I see Israel condemned regularly, for acts of self-preservation, while those who attack her, Hezbollah in this specific case, are given as close to a pass as can be given, without ignoring altogether the thousands of missiles they have shot indiscriminately into Israel, for the clearly stated purpose that they want Israel to be no more, destroyed, eliminated. I grant you that it is perfectly reasonable to question whether all of Israel's actions are justifiable. By all means evaluate the legitimacy of her targets within the context of self-defense. I'm not suggesting the Israel be given a pass more than anyone else, but please at least distinguish between self-defense and attempted genocide--for both Israel and Hezbollah. Hezbollah has an openly declared policy of genocide against Jews and Israelis. Israel dropped leaflets before bombing runs in Lebanon to warn civilians to get out of harm's way. The two are not morally equivalent.

Nanotubes And The Inkjet Printer

My abiding love for carbon nanotubes only deepens with time. Every new advance impresses me more with the unlimited capacity that these tiny building blocks seem to have to turn our world into a science fiction adventure. I would like to live in a science fiction adventure--one of the nice ones, like Star Trek TNG, or Stargate SG 1, but without the built-in bad guys. My life has enough problems without adding in Romulans, Borg, or evil alien symbiotes. Cloaking devices, food replicators, and transporters, on the other hand, could be awfully useful. Anyway, I've got another nanotech breakthrough to report, so let's get to it.

One question I'm sure we've all got nagging at us regularly is, "What would take nanotech one step closer to ubiquity?" Answer: An easier method of fabricating nanotech devices, of course! Science Daily has a report from Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, which says that a group of scientists at Rensselaer (with campuses in Troy N.Y., as well as Hartford, Conn.), along with other researchers working in Finland, have come up with a new way to make nanotube electronic devices. How, you ask? (I'm so glad you did ask, otherwise this post would have to be a lot shorter. Very anticlimactic.) They suspended carbon nanotubes in a water solution, filled an ink cartridge with them, plugged it into a commercial inkjet printer, and viola--instant nano printing press. The nanotubes are printed on the paper, just like ink, except they are such excellent electrical conductors, that the result is basically printed nanocircuits.

So, what does this mean in real life terms? The article at Science Daily quotes "...Robert Vajtai, a researcher with the Rensselaer Nanotechnology Center at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute":

"Printed carbon nanotube structures could be useful in many ways," Vajtai said. "Some potential applications based on their electrical conductivity include flexible electronics for displays, antennas, and batteries that can be integrated into paper or cloth." Printing electronics on cloth could allow people to actually "wear" the battery for their laptop computer or the entire electronic system for their cell phone, according to Vajtai.

That sci fi enough for you? But wait, there's more. How would you like a newspaper that you keep from day to day? Now, you're not going to keep it because you really like that article from May of 2002, but because every day the words change, thanks to the conductive nano-ink. Same paper, new articles. (Don't ask me how it works; it's all part of the nanotech miracle.) Cool, huh? Of course, they better come out with something a little sturdier than standard newsprint, don't you think? (It also wouldn't hurt if they could get the journalism part a little more up to snuff, if you ask me.) Needless to say, we would all miss the other functions that newspapers serve. Birdcages will still need lining. Fish will still need wrapping, and moving might never be as easy again without something on hand that's convenient for wrapping breakables. However, I'm sure the moving part will stop being a problem once they invent that transporter. We'll eliminate the need to wrap things at all. We'll just beam them to their new location.

There are myriad advantages to this inkjet method of producing conductive surfaces:

The approach is simple, versatile, and inexpensive, which makes it superior to other methods for producing conductive surfaces, according to Vajtai. "A great advantage of our process is that the printed patterns do not require curing, which is known to be a limiting factor for conventional conductive ink applications," he said. "And since our ink is a simple water-based dispersion of nanotubes, it is environmentally friendly and easy to handle and store."

According to the article, while it's already cheap, this method will be getting cheaper as carbon nanotubes become more widely used, and thus more widely manufactured. As the article states, this nano-ink is environmentally friendly, which is always a plus with electronics, and not easy to come by, as our recent forays into Greenpeace rankings for electronics manufacturers demonstrated. Another thing that should keep the cost down is that most of the components used in printing with the nano-ink are standard off-the-shelf items: printer, cartridges, and even the paper and plastic used as the printing surface. The only specialty item are the water-soluble nanotubes. The scientists at Rensselaer made their own, but it looks like future entrepreneurs will be able to skip this step. You know how it works in free markets. Where there's a demand, there's usually a supply.

So, if you're going to be wearing your cell phone, or laptop battery as a piece of clothing, you'll want to have multiple fashion options, right? Not everyone looks good in basic black. Well, right now the fashion-friendly scientists at Rensselaer are working on chemical modifications so that their nano-ink can come in a variety of colors. Isn't that thoughtful of them? Colored nano-ink could have so many uses. Pretty soon, I'm sure I'll be writing in the Meow about some new trend in nano-art--a field not yet invented to my knowledge, but sure to be coming to a future near you. It will produce wonders of incredible usefulness and functionality, combined with a rare beauty, all because scientists found a way to make nano-ink in lots of pretty colors. What that nano-art will be I can't even imagine right now. I can't, but you can bet someone else will.

The whole flexible electronics idea makes me wonder if someday we'll be able to roll up the TV, and the laptop, and tuck them in our luggage when we're heading out on vacation, say to a remote cabin in the mountains. We won't have to worry about a power supply way out in the wilderness. We'll be wearing it.

Hat tip: Futurismic

The Hummer: Environmental Champion?

I wrote earlier this week about the "green" score of various electronics manufacturers, from an article which I read at the Greenpeace website. I acknowledged at the time that I was surprised by the results of the Greenpeace rankings. I expected Apple to be more environmentally responsible, and Dell less so. I put my error down to an unreasonable preconception, with no real basis in evidence, or even common sense. It was just my own mental slant. Well, a reader left a comment at that post which has led me to another surprising article, and contradicted another preconception that, before this, I would have told you was based very solidly in the world of evidence, common sense and rationality, and that I was completely unbiased in that assessment. I had a hard time believing what I read.

Would you believe, on it's face, that a gas-guzzling Hummer would consume less energy over the course of its life than a gas/electric hybrid Toyota Prius? I didn't think so. The Hummer is huge. The Hummer is heavy. The Hummer gets something like three gallons to the mile, right? (Well, maybe that last is a bit hyperbolic.) The Prius, on the other hand, is small. It is lightweight. It will drive cross country and back again several times before you have to refill the thimble-sized gas tank. (Slight hyperbole here, but in my own defense, I didn't say which country. Perhaps it was Monaco.) Any reasonable person would conclude that the Prius has the Hummer beat in a big way for energy consumption and its resultant pollution.

Not so, according to Shikha Dalmia at Reason.org. She compares the two vehicles in total energy consumption, cradle to grave you might say, drawing on a two year study by auto analyst and President of CNW Marketing Research, Art Spinella, which examined what he calls "Dust to Dust" data, including, among other things, the energy it takes to design and produce them, the energy they require to operate, and the energy it takes to dispose of them. Dalmia says how "fancy" a car is really affects its total energy cost. In this case fancy doesn't seem to mean how many cup holders it has. She points out several factors that gain the Hummer ground in the head to head competition with the Prius.

One such factor is vehicle life. The Hummer is designed to last three times longer than the Prius. That's three times less vehicle production, thus less energy (and pollution) used in manufacture, materials, and disposal. Sophistication plays a role. The Hummer's engine is much simpler than its hybrid competitor, as it doesn't combine gas and electric systems. Not being as complex, "it takes much less time and energy to manufacture." Materials also shift the balance toward the Hummer. Made of steel, which costs less and is easier to make than the specialty light-weight materials that compose the Prius, its production is not nearly as complex and costly. The same materials also give the Hummer the advantage in disposal. This manufacture and disposal all requires energy, and creates pollution, thus driving up the true cost of both vehicles, but less so with the Hummer, thereby giving it the real energy edge.

Dalmia says this comparison doesn't just hold up with the Prius, but with other small hybrids as well:

For instance, the dust-to-dust energy cost of the bunny-sized Honda Civic hybrid is $3.238 per mile. This is quite a bit more than the $1.949 per mile that the elephantine Hummer costs. The energy cots of SUVs such as the Tahoe, Escalade, and Navigator are similarly far less than the Civic hybrid.

All of the factors I've listed above affect the total energy consumption of the vehicles, but Dalmia lists one final factor as having the most impact:

But the biggest reason why a Hummer's energy use is so low is that it shares many components with other vehicles and therefore its design and development energy costs are spread across many cars.

It is not possible to do this with a specialty product like hybrid. All in all, Spinella insists, the energy costs of disposing a Hummer are 60 percent less than an average hybrid's and its design and development costs are 80 percent less.

This is where I believe hybrid buyers who have purchased their vehicles because they want to save energy and do something for the environment can take heart. Dalmia's article, and Spinella's study, examine environmental and energy costs as they stand now, but I couldn't help but draw some different conclusions from the one's that Dalmia determined. She proposes "...a catchy slogan for the next Save the Earth campaign: Have you hugged a Hummer today?" However, the thing that struck me as I read the piece (besides the obvious shock that a Hummer could in any way be better for the environment than a Prius) was that some of these costs were based on the economies of scale principle.

Part of what makes the hybrids cost more, economically and environmentally, than their exclusively gas-driven counterparts is that they are, in fact, still specialty items. Part of the Hummer's advantage comes from the fact it uses long-employed systems, technologies, and materials. Hybrids don't benefit from the economy that comes from sharing many components with other vehicles at this point, because there aren't that many vehicles yet which work on the same principles. They will be better able to spread the energy costs for design and development out across many cars when there are more cars in this category. As light-weight alloys become more common, they will be able to take advantage of refined production techniques, and larger-scale manufacture to bring the total cost for them to a more competitive level. Also, as these materials become more common, human ingenuity should figure out better ways to dispose of and recycle them, thus reducing that cost as well.

It sounds to me, too, like hybrids could use some of those new-fangled nanotube-based ultracapacitors we were talking about a couple of weeks ago here at the Meow. Taking some of the chemical processes out of the battery energy storage for hybrid vehicles might help shift the balance again a little more toward the hybrid's favor. Since this study took into account the total environmental and energy cost, including disposal, not having environmentally damaging chemical batteries on the "we have to get rid of this now" list when the car finally kicks the bucket (seat) would help. Working on car longevity would be in the best interests of hybrid auto makers as well, at least if their motives for producing hybrids in the first place really are centered around environmental responsibility. One assumes, however, that some of these improvements will happen as the industry matures. One hopes, anyway.

Dalmia's article goes more in depth into exactly how the environmental and energy costs are calculated. I drew my own conclusions from her report, as I'm sure will you. I came away surprised, but not despairing for the hybrid industry. My husband and have two vehicles, an SUV and a smaller economy car, and neither of them are hybrids. They both do the job we need them to do, and I can't say I feel guilty about either of them. Although, if they come up with an affordable hybrid SUV that can tow our travel trailer, I will be happy to consider one in the future, contributing to that economy of scale thing that I already mentioned. All in all, I'd say SUV drivers and hybrid drivers both can come away from this study feeling relatively self-satisfied. SUV drivers can say that their car is better for the environment than the Prius and its hybrid companions. Hybrid drivers can say they are on the forefront of change, and paying the costs now for future benefit. Both can be happy with their choice on some level, which is convenient, since most people are going to do what they want to anyway--at least if my husband and I are any example.

p.s. Thanks Danny.