The one nice thing about complaining about the weather is that you have no control over it.  It is far more annoying to hear incessant whining about something we can change.  And for this reason, this summer’s greatest new annoyance is whining about high gas prices.

I am getting tired of listening to grown men moan about high gas prices while there is something we can do about it.  And I am not even talking about drilling offshore or in ANWR, not to mention the ninety some billion barrels of oil that may reside in the Arctic according to recent news reports.

No, the specific problem that I am addressing is Wisconsin’s minimum markup law on gasoline.  For those of you who live in states that encourage rather than penalize business and the consumer, let me explain.

Currently, the state of Wisconsin requires a 9.18% markup on the wholesale price of every gallon of gasoline.  Because the markup is a percentage basis instead of a fixed amount, the damage increases every time gas prices rise.

According to the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel, this has led gas prices in Wisconsin to be eight cents higher than they normally would if the law were not in place.  So why not simply repeal the law?  After all, this law dates back to the Depression era of 1939.  Couldn’t we just move on and get in step with the times?

Speaking with my state senator today, I was told that most politicians want to avoid the issue because if the law were repealed, many gas station owners would go out of business.  Bankrupting the local businessman is not exactly the best way to get reelected.

I don’t take any special delight in watching businesses fail, but neither do I think that we should make laws to “protect” certain businesses at the expense of every single citizen.  One of the reasons gas prices have risen so high is because of inane policies like the minimum markup law.  And precedent is not a defense.  Error is not transformed into good policy through the progression of time.

This issue is not simply important for those of us in Wisconsin who have to live with higher prices because legislators don’t want to see the market decide what a fair price is.  This policy is indicative of a larger and more troubling school of thought that Government knows best, the individual needs to be controlled, and that freedom only leads to destruction.  So next time you hear someone complain about the price of gas, ask them first if they have supported the simple measures that would actually begin to solve the problem.  Then again, maybe they’re too busy complaining to hear what you have to say.

Sign the Petition!!

Anyway my sister sent this to me in my e-mail and I thought I would pass it along. I have never actually tried this, but it really gives you something to think about.

A friend just told me about something that happened to one of his coworkers. She used her credit/debit card to purchase gas at the pump (like most of us do). She received her receipt like normal. However, when she checked her statement, there were 2 $50 charges added in addition to her purchase. Upon investigation, she found out that because she did not press the 'clear' button on the pump, the employee inside the store was able to use her card to purchase his/her own gas! To keep this from happening, after you get your receipt, you must press the 'CLEAR' button or your information will be stored until the next customer inserts their card. Be sure to tell all your friends/family so that this doesn't happen to them!
 
Well - my car needed gas so I wanted to find out if it was true.  My friend had a gas can that needed filling and I told him just to take the first receipt.  After he got that I told him to fill up the can - without putting the CC back in..............  OMG!!!  It worked!!    He never hits clear - neither have I but I will/he will from now on!!  I checked online with the CC and sure enough - that CC was charged for the $16.25 worth of gas. 

So it goes to show you that it's better to be safe then sorry.

Lady O

The point is that the world is changing and unless we are willing to change with it, things will only get worse. The network marketing industry has good and bad aspects, just like any other industry. It has somehow acquired a bad rap. I take that back, I know why the industry is seen in a bad light. It's because there are a select few people out there who are doing it wrong. The few bad apples are ruining it for the rest of us. There are bad companies that you can become involved with. There are also great companies out there that even the biggest sceptic would be proud to join.

People need more money. No bones about it, we are struggling as a nation. How are they going to get it? I've seen a lot of garage sales and lawn mowing services pop up in my neighborhood. I am just waiting for the lemonade stand, I know it's coming. The fact of the matter is that people don't want to join a network marketing company because it takes an investment. Well, duh. Those garage sales and lawn mowing services take an investment too. There are signs and ads and materials. Give me a break. If I hear, "I don't pay for my jobs." one more time...

When you join the network marketing industry, you are starting your own company, not paying for a job. This is not a typical job. You show me any job where I can set my own hours, have no commute and have the ability to control my income, I'm there. Your income is directly related to how much work you do in network marketing. Think about this. Let's say you just graduated college and are starting your very first job. They are going to pay you $40,000 a year. Wow, that's a lot! Are you really worth that? The answer is no, you're not. They still have to train you on the ins and outs of the company and get you where they want you. If it's a great company they might give you a 3% pay raise each year. In 10 years of working that same job you would be making a little more than $53,000. Are you really worth that after 10 years? The answer is no, again. You are worth more than that! I mean you've only advanced $13,000 over 10 years? Come on, who wants that? Not me.

Network marketing may not be right for you but how do you know that for a fact unless you try it on for size? If you hate it, move on. If you love it, make money. What have you got to lose?

P.S. Go to my MySpace page to subscribe to my "Change Your Stars" Boot Camp. You'll get 14 days, steps if you will, on how you change anything you want to. It's not network marketing specific. If you are trying to get started on drastically changing something in your life, it will help you. You will never have to open your wallet, it's just some real advice from me to you. Check it out: www.myspace.com/futuremillionairesonly

And so ends another week of up and downs.  Major ones include Dow's drama of -200+ this week.  Such a crybaby! =(

Apparently more and more people think oil is going to fall a lot.  Copycats!  I called it 2nd!  (I'm sure there was at least one other person who came up with the same idea as me, maybe a hundred, but I don't know!)

And now for some bad news.  As this is the hardest stage, it's hard to predict where it's all going (Hopefully down.)  I expect it to rise and maybe close next Friday somewhere between $120-$135.  It's a huge gap, but I can't close it anymore! >_<  It sucks!  There's a chance (65%) of a small spike next week.  So get gas this weekend.  It's still hovering around $4/gallon for the nation.  (It fell here to $3.699, $3.149)

By the end of Aug. it's hovering around $3.50-$3.75/gallon ($3., nationwide is what I'm predicting.  Only if all goes well, people don't drive up demand suddenly, and it could get lower.  I just found out China's been hoarding gas and diesel, which it pushing the price.  As it get's closer, I'm going to try and get it with 5cents of what it ends at.

And something that didn't get enough attention!!!!
http://money.cnn.com/2008/07/24/markets/cftc/index.htm

Oil price manipulation!! Ah~!~!  Real Live Conspiracy!

http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com/Investing/Dispatch/080725Markets.aspx

And what do I base this on?  Beats me......I don't know sometimes.  I really don't.

Dennis and I went to Subway for lunch today. Just as we arrived, another co-worker, Marco, arrived from the other direction. As we were waiting in line, the woman behind him pointed out that there was some sort of beetle on his collar. He was having difficulting finding it and she did not want to touch it. Ew! So I plucked it off his shirt.

Hmmm, what am I going to do with this? My plan was to release it outside, but I the Subway people were making my sandwich, and I needed to let them know what I wanted on it. So I dropped the beetle on the front of my shirt. He hung out there until we left the restaurant, and then I snatched him (or her? Let's assume him!) off and carried him in my hand back to the office. I put him down on my guest chair and took a few pictures. This is the best one of the lot:
[caption id="attachment_118" align="alignnone" width="300" caption="beetle"][/caption]

Last night as I was helping David with his science experiment we decided to soak a chunk of quartz in a muriatic acid bath to simulate chemical erosion. Outside. On the deck. I poured some acid in the beaker for him (the rock was already in place) and then got to thinking about the possibility of rain. I suggested that he cover the beaker with some aluminum foil to keep the rain out. Here's what it looked like when I got home from work today:
[caption id="attachment_119" align="alignnone" width="300" caption="Muriatic acid in a beaker covered with foil"][/caption]
Whoduh thunk it? The acid evaporated and burned a hole clean through the foil! luckily, it did not rain.

On the water erosion front, we had great success. Here's a picture of his water-eroded chalk next to an uneroded piece.
[caption id="attachment_120" align="alignnone" width="300" caption="Eroded chalk"][/caption]

I stomped around the property a bit this evening and took a few photos. Here are the best ones:
[caption id="attachment_121" align="alignnone" width="128" caption="Rana sylvatica (Wood Frog)"][/caption][caption id="attachment_122" align="alignnone" width="128" caption="Monotropa unifloar (Indian Pipe)"][/caption][caption id="attachment_123" align="alignnone" width="128" caption="Lotus corniculatus (Birdsfoot Trefoil)"][/caption][caption id="attachment_124" align="alignnone" width="128" caption="Rana clamitans (Green Frog)"][/caption]
Some of them do not peg the suck meter! Yay!

This includes 90 billion barrels of oil, enough to supply the world for three years at current consumption rates, or to supply America for 12, and 1,670 trillion cubic feet (tcf) of gas, which is equal to about a third of the world's known gas reserves.

The significance of the report is that it puts firm figures for the first time on the hydrocarbon riches which the five countries surrounding the Arctic – the US, Russia, Canada, Norway and Denmark (through its dependency, Greenland) – have been eyeing up for several years.

Further on in the article:

The Arctic countries' governments, on the other hand, see it as a massive opportunity, and are already positioning themselves to claim stakes in the seabed of the Arctic Ocean, if – as many climate scientists now believe will happen – it becomes ice-free in summer within a couple of decades.

Just a year ago, to much media fanfare, the Russians planted a flag on the seabed some 2.5 miles beneath the ice at the North Pole, and dispatched a nuclear-powered icebreaker to map a subsea link between the Pole and Siberia, as part of an effort to circumvent a UN convention limiting resource claims beyond 200 miles offshore.

Canada said earlier this month that it plans to counter the Russian overture with "a very strong claim" to Arctic exploration rights.

This week's oil and gas study, carried out by the US Geological Survey, does not raise the national competitive stakes appreciably as it reveals that most of the reserves are lying close to the shore, within the territorial jurisdiction of the countries concerned. Much of the oil is off Alaska; much of the natural gas off the Russian coastline. There appear to be only small reserves under the unclaimed heart of the Arctic.

However, what the report does do is to indicate a very different future for one of the world's last remaining pristine and utterly unspoilt regions. If the oil is there, countries which own it will be very likely to seek to extract it, whatever the environmental cost.

The race is on.  The USGS study is here, press release here.

Not to put too much of a damper on this, but maybe some mathematics is in order.  The Arctic, defined as the entire area above the Arctic Circle (latitude 66.56 N) covers roughly 1/6 of the earth.  That 1/6 of the earth, in an area that until recently has not seen oil and gas development on the scale of most of the lower lattitudes, might contain 1/5 of the undiscovered oil and gas strikes me as only slightly better than average.  Especially if you consider that 1/6 of the earth is in the Antarctic, which is off-limits to oil development and doesn't count in the 1/5 estimate.

Not surprisingly, the report places most of the undiscovered oil off of Alaska (check out the recent lease bids for the Chukchi Sea Sale 193 last spring for an indication - the average bid was $965/acre and the highest bid was $18,496/acre, for land at the bottom of the Arctic Ocean), and most of the undiscovered gas off of Russia (Barents Sea, another leasing hot spot).

Additional news on this issue here.  For a different slant, try Mother Jones.

The international CXT is the largest SUV every made. It was created a few years back for those who felt that a Hummer H2 just wasn't what they wanted to be seen in at soccer practice any more. The CXT, or Commercial Extreme Truck, is based off of a Semi-truck. It is 21 ft long, 9 ft high, and weighs over 14,000 pounds, or twice that of a Hummer H1. It was born in 2004, on the heals of Hummers success, when gas was um cheap, and bigger was better.

Oh how quickly they fall.

Today Chevy released the official numbers of the 2010 Camaro. This car hit the car show scenes in 2006. It was impressive, it was beautiful... it missed the mark by a few years. Or, so I thought. Once gas prices hit $4.00 a gallon I predicted that the sports car market (expecially the entry level one) would be hit nearly as hard as the SUV market. We've already seen what's happened to the SUV market. The future of Hummer is in peril, Toyota is discontinuing the Tundra, and Chrysler isn't going to lease any more cars because of the financial hit it took on the depreciation of leased SUVs. They haven't released what kind of hit that was, but Ford announced that it lost 2.1 BILLION in residual values from large vehicles coming off of lease. But, I digress.

Back to the Camaro. I thought that Chevy messed up about as bad as it typically messes up (ie, not investing in small, RWD car production 5 years ago) when it chose to keep this car as a concept for so long. How many shows and movies do you need to be in before you release a freakin' car? I thought the ship had sailed, the market for these cars is going to stagnate, and all of the years you sat with your shiney concept car would all be in vain.

But, could it actually be that Chevy thought this through more than I thought? Perhaps. the first line of the CNN release for the Camaro really shows how things changed in such a short time: "When unveiling new performance models, car companies usually boast about horsepower, engine size and expected zero-to-60 times.

But when General Motors unveiled the 2010 Chevrolet Camaro Monday afternoon, it was the car's fuel economy numbers that were front and center."

That's right, no longer is it about that 4 second quarter mile, or the 350 hp (thank God) now... it's about fuel economy. The Camaro is no Prius, that's for sure, but it get's Mustang V6 fuel economy ratings with Mustang V8 power... impressive. Of course, the next generation Mustang (also with a 2010 release) is going to have better fuel economy as well, I am sure.

In other Ford "time changing" news, they released today that they are bringing in even more smaller, European cars, and re-vamping their truck lines to build them. Proof that you either need to get with the times and change, or get ready to be run over in the long run.

Best of luck to our American car companies. Their products may suck, but they are a huge part of our economy. I really hope that the changes that they are making will turn them around.

Casey Luskin insists the Discovery Institute is a secular think tank. And he says it with a straight face.

What is it about the spreading of pseudo-science that makes reasonable people cringe and gag? One characteristic is surely the introduction of religious / political thinking into discussions of fact. The natural world simply is. If it upsets our human sensibilities, too freaking bad for us. When a bull shark bites a potential food item (a human leg, perhaps), it is being neither good nor evil; it's simply hungry and inquisitive. It's nothing personal. Thus, describing the natural world is best accomplished through observations of what is, not through contemplation of how things should be. Blaming Darwinism for the Holocaust, communism, capitalism, rock 'n roll music, abortion, racism, moral relativism, and the general decay of Western society is irrelevant to the scientific question of whether or not evolution by natural selection is a valid explanation for observed evolutionary change on planet Earth. What is and what ought to be are two distinct questions.

But throw a rock at the Discovery Institute and you're more likely to hit a lobbyist or a lawyer than an actual scientist. For example, Casey Luskin, an attorney with the DI, blogs to his fellow intelligent designers about the "it's just a theory" argument.

Darwinists love to bash Darwin-skeptics who call evolution "just a theory, not a fact." The truth is that I rarely, if ever, hear people who are closely involved with the ID movement using this line to oppose evolution. The "evolution is just a theory, not a fact" phrase tends to come from the vox populi—intelligent people who studied this issue in their biology class or perhaps have read books like Darwin’s Black Box, Icons of Evolution, or Darwin on Trial, but otherwise don’t follow the issue very closely.

But most creationists do use the argument, endlessly. They also use the "intelligent designer" and "irreducible complexity" arguments. The fact is that intelligent design creationists are a small minority. Polls indicate that most American creationists are of the Old Earth variety. And I think the Discovery Institute knows this full well. Isn't it really all about talking points, ones the DI can easily disseminate, and ones the general public can easily digest and regurgitate, regardless of the scientific facts?

Casey Luskins also lists his scientific qualifications:

Having taken over a dozen courses covering evolutionary biology at both the undergraduate and graduate levels, I’m a scientific skeptic of neo-Darwinism.

Fine, be a skeptic, Luskin. But are you as skeptical about intelligent design? Have you taken a dozen courses covering intelligent design at the undergraduate and graduate level? No, because intelligent design isn't a science, and it can be pretty well summed up in a single 15 minute lecture. ID is a vague conclusion, not an explanation. The only thing propping it up is a propaganda machine. And all the whining in the world about "morals", "culture", and "academic freedom" isn't going to polish the ID turd. The Discovery Institute calls itself the "Center for Science and Culture". But it really should choose one or the other, "science" or "culture", not both. Let "ought" and "is" be distinct; life works so much better when our desires don't cloud our judgment of reality.

Yeahhhhhh, Ok. I used up all my "Super Mama Cleaning Powers" yesterday & I feel yucky today. The kids & I ran errands to Sam's Club (gas is down to $3.89 gal), get some food & eat lunch. I took them to another playground area and talked to a friend for nearly an hour.

I think I'm either or both: sick from my Veggie Pizza slice I ate for lunch or just sick.

I need a nap. The kids are dressed, bedsheets changed & one load of laundry is done. That's enough in my book for today. I'm calling it quits.

Senate panels outline temple stance

The statement said:

1. The six committees are of the opinion that there is no overlapping border in the area adjacent to the temple. The area is completely Thai territory as per the 1904 and 1907 Franco-Thai Treaty to demarcate the border.

2. The government must proceed to nullify the June 18 joint communique with Cambodia on grounds that the document was deemed unconstitutional. Otherwise Cambodian authorities might cite the document to claim sovereignty over the temple and its adjacent 4.6-square-kilometre area should the case be argued in the International Court of Justice.

3. The 1964 ruling by the International Court of Justice addressed only Cambodian sovereignty over the temple and did not touch on border demarcation.

4. Since Cambodia proceeded unilaterally to register the temple as a World Heritage site which did not cover the adjacent area, the six committees deem it unjustified for the formation of a six-nation committee to manage the area.

5. Thai authorities should expedite to evict buildings encroached in the 4.6-square-kilometre area.

Senator Rosana Tositrakul said that after Parliament reconvenes, the six committees will push for the formation of an extraordinary Senate panel on the temple.

She voiced suspicion that certain elements within Unesco might have an ulterior motive on the sovereignty issue relating to the temple.

Thailand has accepted the watershed for border demarcation while Cambodia has used the French-drawn map to claim the temple and its adjacent area, she said.

The listing of the temple by the World Heritage Committee is very suspicious because this has happened as if some elements want to force the Thai-Cambodia borders to be redrawn, she added.

Should the French-drawn map be accepted a basis for demarcation, the entire border would shift to impact on the overlapping offshore area in the Gulf of Thailand, she said. The area is a potential site for natural-gas exploration.

Source: The Nation

Via Michelle and the TN GOP.

Everyone order one! Nancy and Harry can't last long.

Also, great news out of the Senate... The Senate Republicans have started to block all Harry's bills until they allow a vote on offshore drilling.

Keep up the public pressure to drill here.

Pero nosotros no. Nosotros nos quedamos. En esta vida sin sentido. Todos se van, y seguimos aqui. Hasta cuando? Ni idea. Me gustaria saber que hay que hacer para cambiar eso. Cuando voy a poder escribir 'Nosotros nos vamos"?

Si no vamos ni a nuestra propia casa, imaginate lo que es ir a otro país.

Ya estoy harta de esa vida. No aguanto mas.

Yo soy tan idiota que otro día buscaba laburo en el Clarin.

Si habia bastante. Y?

No se, dicen que esta jodido vivir alla. Un quilombo tras otro.

Y acá, que matan gente todos los días. Quilombo político no es nada.

Que se yo. Sigo a espera de un milagro. Por lo que veo seguiré por acá.  Esperando no ser la ultima a cerrar la puerta.

Siento olor a gas. Mejor escaparme ya.

We'd prefer to be with an energy supplier that sourced most or all of its electricity from renewable sources, but the price differential is such that, as energy prices have risen across the board, "green" electricity moved beyond our reach some time ago.

Scottish Hydro was the next best thing, part of a major energy company (Scottish and Southern Energy) but giving us access to electricity sourced mainly from hydro-electric.

But when Scottish Hydro's tariff rose to the extent that we'd go from paying £50 a month to £80—despite using the same amount of electricity—we decided that with further price rises in the pipeline it would be better to go for a tariff that was fixed for as long as possible.

Eon was offering a tariff fixed for 16 months, so we opted for that and officially changed supplier last Friday.

It's now proven to be a timely decision as EDF is the first of the major energy companies to put its prices up again, with gas prices going up by 22 per cent and electricity by 17 per cent.

Other companies are likely to follow suit.

It looks like we moved to a fixed tariff just in time.

Arctic Fuels

Whether it's because someone in congress is being bribed to commit treason by foreign nations, or congress is being held captive by Marxists Environmentalists, or congress worships polar bears and hates tax payers, or all of the above, congress and it's refusal to drill in Alaska and off our coasts is the sole reason you are paying higher gas prices.

Then again, maybe it's that Global Warming hoax. The true purpose of which is to turn you upside down and shake alt the money out of your pockets. A secondary purpose is to reduce the United States to third world status and enhance the position of every other nation besides the US.

Author: Dr. Abdul Ruff Colachal

Military strength and arrogance have empowered the USA to threaten and invade any sovereign nation considered by Washington not falling in line with its line of global agenda. USA hence unleashes threats and deadlines to them to complete an ‘assignment’ with a time frame, followed by punitive preemptive aggression for failure to comply with its dictates. Many countries have ‘comprehended” the US way of thinking, but a few still have opposed the USA agenda under the fictitious garb on “democracy and regime change”. Afghanistan and Iraq have paid heavy prices for their anti-Americanism and now Iran, under virtual siege by the UNSC-5, is the present target of US neo-imperialism.  Iran is on its way to obtain enrichment of uranium, which can be used to fuel atomic weapons and hence the USA opposes Iran.

Unilateralism   

Iran is pursing its legitimate nuclear ambitions at par with other nuclelarized nations. Having failed to use other Arab nations to stop Iran form developing nuclear system that could be a deterrent on Israeli threat to Arab nations, USA, the world’s only super power, has slapped another ultimatum on Iran to decide between confrontation and co-operation in the dispute over its nuclear plans in two weeks. At talks in Switzerland, Geneva on July 18, envoys from the US, EU and UN yet again asked Iran to suspend its uranium enrichment in return for a pledge not to introduce new sanctions. In addition to the EU, Iranian and US envoys, the talks in Geneva's city hall were attended by representatives from Britain, China, France, Germany and Russia. Talks ended with Iran stonewalling Washington and five other world powers on their call to freeze uranium enrichment. The BBC says Iran is interested in the offer but it is unclear whether there are divisions in the leadership or the Iranians are playing for time. “This package is a new opportunity which should not be lost." But doubt was cast over the value of the talks, after a member of the Iranian delegation said there was "no chance" of a freeze on the uranium-enrichment program.    

But the USA says that talks' lack of progress may lead to "further isolation" for Iran. Iran state radio on Sunday quoted President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as saying the talks were "a step ahead." Western diplomats had hoped that Iran would respond to a so-called "freeze-for-freeze" offer, under which a freeze of Iran's uranium enrichment program at its current levels would be matched by a Western pledge not to strengthen sanctions on Tehran. "It was a constructive meeting, but still we didn't get the answer to our questions," EU envoy Javier Solana told reporters. However, the Saturday meeting was the first time US and Iranian officials have held face-to-face talks on the nuclear issue as senior US Under-Secretary William Burns was present at the Geneva talks. Although he made no public comment, Burns had delivered a "clear simple message" that Washington was "serious" about the incentives package but that it would only negotiate with Iran if it upheld its side of the deal. Instead, state department spokesman Sean McCormack issued a strongly-worded statement in Washington threatening the Iranian people to understand that their leaders need to make a choice between co-operation, which would bring “benefits to all”, and confrontation, which can only lead to “further isolation. Tehran's continued activity is seen in the USA as defying UN Security Council demands to halt enrichment.  

It has always been clear that any realistic solution to the Iranian nuclear crisis would involve active US engagement. But there are also plenty of hardliners in the US and Iranian governing circles who are spoiling for a fight. Hoping for a war in Mideast, some do talk dangerously about the merits of a "limited war", others have even more ambitious military designs.

Missile Tests

Israeli military exercises focusing on Iran do anger the Iranians to some extent, though Iran got used to such tactics and maneuvers by the USA-Israel combine.  

Although Iran's latest missile tests have grabbed global headlines, Western observers may have learned little they did not already know about the scope and potential firepower of Tehran's arsenal. The current Iranian Scud missiles have a maximum range of 500km (310 miles); Saddam Hussein also fired Scud-type missiles at Israel during the 1991 Gulf War, causing damage but little loss of life. Shahab-3b: 2,500km.

More than the USA, it is Israel which is puzzled and disturbed by Iranian missile tests. Like the US Neocons, Israeli lobby, the largest of the world, has been pressing Washington to do something about Iran and immediately.  

The tests Iran has conducted successfully include the flight of an apparently new version of Iran's longest-range missile, the Shahab-3, which authorities suggested would be able to strike targets in Israel. This longer range could indicate that the latest missile test involved a modified version of the Shahab-3, which Iran says would have a range of up to 2,500km. This range would be enough to put targets in the Gulf and in Israel within reach, although the longer range version could be sited further from Israeli air bases. These tests have been going on for some time: we saw then in 2003, in 2004 and in 2007.  Analysts suggested that the tests were staged in an effort to reinforce the message that Iran was ready to hit back if Israel or the US - or both - launched any kind of military strike on its nuclear facilities.  Neither the USA nor Israel doubts that.  

Economic Terrorism  

It has become a sheer habit of the USA and UNSC to use economic sanctions to coerce their opponents fall in line. Such sanctions are indeed economic terrorism perpetrated against humanity in general, because ultimate suffers are the common people. Sanctions have been slapped on Iran before and still the UNSC is thinking of doing more of them.

On July 20, US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice accused Iran of not being serious at weekend talks about its disputed nuclear program despite the presence of a senior U.S. diplomat, and warned it may soon face new sanctions, if Tehran does not respond to a package of incentives offered in exchange for halting enrichment of uranium. In her first public comments since the meeting in Switzerland, Rice said all six nations were serious about a two-week deadline Iran now has to agree to freeze suspect activities and start negotiations or be hit with new penalties. Rice slammed Iran's chief nuclear negotiator Saeed Jalili for delivering a "meandering" monologue full of irrelevant "small talk about culture" that appeared to annoy many of the others present at the table in Geneva. ""People are tired of the Iranians and their stalling tactics. It's time for the Iranians to give a serious answer." Rice told reporters aboard her plane as she flew to the United Arab Emirates.

Rice said unless Iran responds positively in the next two weeks, it can expect more sanctions to be imposed by the United States and the European Union as early as late August or September and may then be hit with a fourth sanctions resolution at the U.N.S,C.

However, Iranian state radio on July 19 reported that President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad called the talks a "step ahead" and said country's formal assessment would be issued soon. Iran has avoided the “suspension” issue entirely.

Rising tensions   

Keen to dominate the world with their joint-power, USA and Israel have not given up their nuclear arms and stopped research on nuclear technology and both want Iran to fall in line. And, once again, Iran gave no guarantees it would halt its activities, thus both groups retaining the old status quo of warning and stiffness. Iran says its nuclear facilities are designed to meet its energy needs, denying that it has a weapons program. Iranian negotiator Saeed Jalili said he had put forward many positive ideas and he urged Western powers not turn away from negotiations.  

The US and Iran have had no diplomatic relations since the 1979 Iranian Revolution and the taking of hostages at the US embassy in Tehran. Formal contact between the two countries has been extremely limited, though last year they met at ambassadorial level to discuss security in Iraq. The meeting came after weeks of rising tensions in the Middle East. The Iranians test-fired latest missiles (2000 KM range) last week, and a series of threats and counter-threats between Iran and Israel has been watched nervously in the West. USA expected that Tehran may soon accept the Western proposal to freeze its nuclear program at its current state for several weeks, in return for a deferral of new sanctions. The precise length of such a freeze is still at issue. 

Engagement or isolation: Wrong Signals? 

Western and pro-western media have always harped on anti-Islamic and anti-Iranian rhetoric and used harsh _expression to slam and threaten Iran, provoking Israel and USA to go for punitive war strategies. The weapons manufacturers in these countries want to put in use their latest arms in war situations and showcase the efficacy of their high precision weapons for inviting weapons hungry nations in the east. . While the Solana is delegated to negotiate on the behalf of the five permanent members of the UN Security Council - the US, China, Russia, France, Britain - and Germany, there would always be doubts in Tehran about how much he speaks for the Bush administration.  

Earlier this week, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said he was interested in direct talks with the US. He also said Iran was interested in an idea being floated in Washington - to open a US diplomatic mission in Tehran for the first time since the revolution. In intriguing comments in a television interview, Ahmadinejad said he expected "something may happen soon" in US-Iranian relations. Like Bush, he too did not take the world into confidence by revealing the hidden facts. 

Any realistic solution to the Iranian nuclear crisis would involve active US engagement at diplomatic level. Both sides have made it abundantly clear they want to talk, but neither is very good at listening. In the past Washington and Tehran have been like two star-crossed lovers. Every time one makes an advance, the other turns away.

After the July show of missile preparedness by Iran, now there are growing signs that both Iran and the USA want to do some serious talking about the nuclear crisis. Maybe the missile test was a show of strength before the opening of talks.  

True, it looks like a major shift by the US policy towards Iran by agreeing to send the Under-Secretary of State, William Burns, to Geneva. The Bush administration had previously ruled out joining the nuclear talks until Iran suspended uranium enrichment, so sending an envoy to Geneva is a big turnaround.   

But is there a real effort for reconciliation? Why is this? The US presidential election is in less than four months away and Bush will leave office before the end of January. Time is running out for President George W Bush. By opening the door to Tehran, he could do his successor an enormous favor. It is a political gamble he can take at relatively little cost, whereas the incoming president might find it a step too far or simply be too busy to engage on the issue. Conversely, the prospect of a President Obama might provoke Israel into pre-emptive action. The dangers have been evident in the recent sabre-rattling from both sides in recent weeks.  

A few die-hard Neocons reason as to why the Islamic Republic is suddenly open to compromise. They say that Israel's recent military rehearsal for an attack on Iran was a wake-up call. Just as significant, the fact that Israel is now talking with Syria, Hezbollah and the Palestinians, must also be worrying Tehran. Already Tehran has found that it cannot rely on Russia or China to block sanctions in the UN Security Council. The government might be facing the prospect of really serious isolation. Also, domestic pressure: the government is under pressure, firstly from sanctions. And inflation in food prices here is approaching 50%. In Tehran, there are daily power cuts, water shortages, and huge queues at the petrol stations. Even the ever-resilient Ahmadinejad may be realizing that not all his policies are working entirely.  

Some Mideast specialists in the USA reason, Iran is just trying to talk out the remaining days of the Bush administration, in the hope of an easier ride, if Barack Obama is victorious. It is not just that Obama has promised to open unconditional talks with Tehran. Iranians are also encouraged by the fact that his middle name is Hussein - that of one of the most revered Shia Muslim Imams. And bizarrely, Obama, in Persian, literally means "he - with - us". However, Iran cannot buy such false arguments.

But the fact remains that Obama is not only a practicing Christian, but supports Israel and therefore his poll campaign team has strong pro-Israel lobby. On top of it, he has just reiterated his position on Israel saying that he would be with Israel if elected power.  

Impact 

The war threat posed by the USA and Israel has in fact raised oil prices to some extent. Oil prices rose on 20 July in Asia to near $130 a barrel on concerns that the threat of new sanctions against Iran over its nuclear program may escalate tensions in the oil-rich Gulf region. Prices also rose on concerns that Tropical Storm Dolly may disrupt oil operations in the Gulf of Mexico. In London, September Brent crude rose 78 cents to $130.97 a barrel on the ICE Futures exchange. But there are certainly chances for short-term spikes with issues such as Iran or storms. Iran's arsenal of missiles does cause confusion and tension in the USA and Israel.  

Russia, a strong UNSC veto wielder, is one of the six world powers that last month gave Iran a proposal offering it full negotiations on a range of incentives if it suspends sensitive uranium enrichment operations. President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and his Russian counterpart Dmitry Medvedev held their first telephone talks late on Friday, a day before the talks in Geneva. The presidents of Iran and Russia expressed hope for a diplomatic solution to the nuclear crisis on the eve of key talks aiming to break the deadlock. Ahmadinejad also expressed satisfaction over the current state of ties between Tehran and Moscow, which has substantial economic interests in the Islamic republic. Medvedev reiterated his firm position on resolving the situation surrounding Iran's nuclear program only by political and diplomatic means.

An Observation: Iran should be firm and Cautious 

After the harsh rhetoric and the threats, it is a critical moment for diplomacy. USA has been coercing Iran to halt its legitimate nuclear ambitions at par with other powers that possess nuclear regime. In fact ever since the fall of Afghanistan and Iraq, Iranian nation has been under virtual siege from USA its allies, while following the brutal assassination of Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein, Ahmedinejad’s life has been under serious threat from Washington’s terrorist masters. It is beyond one’s comprehension that Israel can have as many nukes as it desires while USA should support that, and UN endorses also that view with salutations. But, it is amazing that no other Arab nation should have nuclear facility even for ‘peaceful” purposes.  

Recent one-to-one talk between Iran and USA only showcased the intentions of Washington in Mideast under the guises of establishing a “new Mideast”. The direct U.S. talks with Iran in hopes the first-time American presence would encourage Tehran into making concessions did not cut much ice with Tehran. The US offer envisions Iran to stop expanding enrichment. The ultimatum of grace period is intended to create the framework for formal negotiations that, it is hoped, will lead to a permanent halt of enrichment, but USA is sure Iran would not stop its legitimate scientific advancement.  

In the USA Ahmadinejad is compared to Hitler, but not G.W. Bush, who has killed thousands of innocent people in Afghanistan and Iraq and torture Muslims in secret prison wards in Europe and else where, why? Obviously, USA does not tolerate another strong person or nation in the world to eventually challenge US supremacy its illegal occupation, dominance and arrogance. Hence Saddam Hussein is no more. And fate of Osama, considered a serious threat to US interests in Mideast, therefore, is not known, if the phenomenon is real. Obviously, USA objects to two persons doing the same “terrorism’ thing in the world. 

USA and UNSC should there be sincere in their de-nuclearization endeavors and should be able to get rid of double standards and double-speaks. They could specify the nations that could use nuclear facility in every continent and region. In Mideast Israel possesses nuclear arsenals threatening the regional peace with its regular air-strikes in neighboring nations. 

USA should control the Israeli lobby roaming about in the White House and reign in the anti-Islamic media that the Western powers have so religiously promoted. Unless Israel is denuclearized and disarmed, there is no point in coercing Islamic Republic of Iran to do that. Both conventional and nuclear disarmament in one the most crucial issues on earth now, but by disarming Iran and forcing it for give up its nuclear goals, USA and UNSC cannot establish any denuclearized or disarmed world. Even that very though evokes loud laughter in the minds of onlookers in international affairs.   

There is no clear-cut evidence to show USA has indeed changed or at least is changing, but on the contrary, the latest statement of Rice conforms that USA remains as arrogant as ever and there is no real threat for USA to be pragmatic or persuasive in approach. Nothing could be predicted about US intentions, unless it really seeks peace with Islamic nations. Iran would be extremely cautious now about its enemies since USA might go for a quick attack during the Holy Ramadan.

O instituto que aconselha a Comissão Europeia para as questões da Energia propôs ontem um plano ambicioso para abastecer de electricidade toda a Europa com a energia solar captada no deserto do Sara, revelam hoje os jornais "The Guardian" e "El Mundo". A proposta tem o apoio político de Gordon Brown e Nicolas Sarkozy.

"Bastaria captar apenas 0,3 por cento da luz solar que incide sobre os desertos do Sara e Médio Oriente para satisfazer todas as necessidades energéticas da Europa", disse Arnulf Jaeger-Walden, do Instituto para a Energia da Comissão Europeia, no Fórum Euroscience 2008 (ESOF), que decorreu em Barcelona de 18 a 22 de Julho, citado pelo "El Mundo" online.

Os cientistas pedem a criação de uma série de centrais solares gigantes como parte de um plano para partilhar os recursos de energias renováveis da Europa por todo o continente. Essa nova rede energética já tem o apoio político do Presidente francês, Nicolas Sarkozy, e do primeiro-ministro britânico, Gordon Brown. Através desta rede - com cabos de alta voltagem e corrente contínua -, o Reino Unido e a Dinamarca podem exportar energia eólica e importar energia geotérmica produzida na Islândia, por exemplo. A iniciativa responde às críticas de que as renováveis nunca serão economicamente viáveis porque o clima não é suficientemente previsível. Segundo explica o "The Guardian", mesmo que o vento não sopre com força suficiente no Mar do Norte pode soprar algures no resto da Europa.

Explorar o Sol que atinge o Sara pode ser especialmente eficaz porque a luz solar ali é mais intensa. Os painéis fotovoltaicos no Norte de África poderiam gerar até três vezes mais electricidade, comparados com os painéis do Norte da Europa.

A maior fatia dos custos vem do desenvolvimento da rede que ligasse os países do Sul do Mediterrâneo. Estes ainda não têm capacidade para transportar a electricidade que as centrais solares africanas poderiam gerar.

Mas já há trabalho feito. A Argélia pretende exportar seis mil Megawatts de energia solar para a Europa em 2020.

Os cientistas admitem que serão precisos muitos anos e um grande investimento para o Norte de África gerar energia solar suficiente para abastecer a Europa. No entanto, em 2050, aquela região pode produzir cem gigawatts, mais do que a electricidade gerada por todas as fontes no Reino Unido. O custo seria de cerca de 450 mil milhões de euros.

Jaeger-Walden acredita que a construção das centrais solares no Norte de África ajudaria a baixar os custos da energia para os consumidores.

Fonte: Público

Indonesia negeri penuh dengan kemajemukan dengan berbagai kemajuan dan masalah yang ada. Kemungian hanya di Indonesia masyarakat membayar suatu layanan hanya untuk di kecewakan. Masyarakat membayar layanan listrik tapi sering dipadamkan atas dasar tidak tersedianya pasokan bahan baku seperti batu bara/bbm/gas dikarenakan berbagai faktor, padahal negeri ini kaya akan bahan baku tersebut. Masyarakat membayar layanan Air tapi sering kualitas air tidak sesuai standar, seperti keruh, banyak jentik

nyamuk , pasokan air yang tidak merata, debit air yang kurang, hanya mengalir pagi saja, siang saja, atau malam saja. Padahal PD PAM sudah bermitra dengan perusahaan lain untuk menyediakan sarana air bersih. Masyarakat membayar layanan bbm dari Pertamina, tapi sering bbm sangat sulit di dapat apalagi di daerah pedalaman. Masyarakat mengikuti program konversi gas kemudian membeli gas, tetapi gas yang di beli tidak sesuai dengan isi yang dijual. Masyarakat membayar layanan Internet dari speedy [Lihat...: Internet Down

10 Jam…, Ketik C spasi D kirim ke147, Telkom Speedy Wilayah Cakung Down ],

tapi konektivitas tidak dijaga, beberapa kali putus dengan tetapi tidakada penjelasan yang logis apalagi penggantian/kompensasi atas pemutusan tersebut. Layanan telepon pun sama hanya mencakup pada perang harga, bukan pada kualitas dan layanan. Jadi saat ini

dimana peran serta pemerintah dalam melayani masyarakat. Kalaupun ada lapisan masyarakat mana yang dilayani?

Friday night, Jeremy had a bachelor party to go to. It was about an hour away, so he carpooled with some of the guys. I enjoyed my time at home, and around 10:30 I though to myself, Gosh, a Route 44 Sonic water would be great right now. Since I was just going to stay in the car, I figured there was no need to change out of my P.J.s. I grabbed Jeremy's keys, hoped in his truck and off I went. I was a happy little camper until I got home and realized her had taken the house key off of his keychain. We have never hidden a spare key around our house, the people who have a spare where not answering their phones. I called Jeremy to let hime know. And then my phone died.

Long story short, Jeremy finally convinced some of the guys to call it a night and made it back to the house around 2:30ish. Where I was asleep in the front seat of his truck. It sucked.

On a better note, this entire week passed without incident, and I have tomorrow off. Plans for the day, you ask? sleeping. sunbathing (because apparently this was not enough). sleeping a little more.

Oh, and teaching the dogs how to do laundry - they need to earn their keep somehow.