That Was Then, This is Now

You can't make stuff like this up.

McCain Criticized Wasilla Earmarks in 2001 - CNN - 10 Sep 08

"Republican presidential candidate John McCain criticized two of his future running mate's hometown projects in broadsides in 2001 against congressional 'pork-barrel' spending, records from the Arizona senator's office show."

"In a 2001 statement opposing a transportation spending bill McCain singled out for criticism about $3 million worth of those projects. McCain's list of 'objectionable' spending included a $2.5 million road project for the town that then had a population of 5,500, as well as a $450,000 appropriation for an agricultural processing plant there."

"Palin not only sought money from Alaska's congressional delegation, but she hired the former chief of staff to veteran Alaska Sen. Ted Stevens -- now under indictment in a wide-ranging corruption probe -- for help. The result was that Wasilla won $600,000 for a new bus facility, $1.75 million to upgrade its dispatch center and $2.4 million to improve water and sewer facilities.

'We did well,' Palin scrawled in the margins of a City Council memo on federal funds from 1999."

( More Alaska pork fun behind the cut ... )

The post-convention surge along with the Palin phenomena has changed the Pollster.com electoral college numbers a bit. From 260 leaning Obama it has shifted to 243. 270 wins the whole taco. If they can hold Ohio (20) and Michigan (17), where they have thin leads, Obama will still win. Colorado (9), New Hampshire (4) and Montana (3) are all still slightly for Obama. Looks like Obama has weathered the initial post-convention storm on the electoral college level. McCain has moved ahead in the popular vote.

That Was Then, This is Now

You can't make stuff like this up.

McCain Criticized Wasilla Earmarks in 2001 - CNN - 10 Sep 08

"Republican presidential candidate John McCain criticized two of his future running mate's hometown projects in broadsides in 2001 against congressional 'pork-barrel' spending, records from the Arizona senator's office show."

"In a 2001 statement opposing a transportation spending bill McCain singled out for criticism about $3 million worth of those projects. McCain's list of 'objectionable' spending included a $2.5 million road project for the town that then had a population of 5,500, as well as a $450,000 appropriation for an agricultural processing plant there."

"Palin not only sought money from Alaska's congressional delegation, but she hired the former chief of staff to veteran Alaska Sen. Ted Stevens -- now under indictment in a wide-ranging corruption probe -- for help. The result was that Wasilla won $600,000 for a new bus facility, $1.75 million to upgrade its dispatch center and $2.4 million to improve water and sewer facilities.

'We did well,' Palin scrawled in the margins of a City Council memo on federal funds from 1999."

( More Alaska pork fun behind the cut ... )

The post-convention surge along with the Palin phenomena has changed the Pollster.com electoral college numbers a bit. From 260 leaning Obama it has shifted to 243. 270 wins the whole taco. If they can hold Ohio (20) and Michigan (17), where they have thin leads, Obama will still win. Colorado (9), New Hampshire (4) and Montana (3) are all still slightly for Obama. Looks like Obama has weathered the initial post-convention storm on the electoral college level. McCain has moved ahead in the popular vote.

Windows XP SP3 Updates

I have three computers with Windows XP of various flavors on them. My new main desktop (XP Pro) and two laptops. The last couple of days I've rolled the dice and installed the SP3 update on all of them. So far so good. I guess it hasn't gone all that well for other folks. Let's be careful out there! :)

Windows XP SP3 Updates

I have three computers with Windows XP of various flavors on them. My new main desktop (XP Pro) and two laptops. The last couple of days I've rolled the dice and installed the SP3 update on all of them. So far so good. I guess it hasn't gone all that well for other folks. Let's be careful out there! :)

Nuclear Threat to Fuel-Poor, Not Wind

This just in. Of course you suspected as much, right? Sir David "Nuclear" King goes Palinesque with his assertions again.

Nuclear is the Real Threat to the Fuel-Poor, Not Wind Energy - Guardian (UK) - 10 Sep 08

"'Wind power could put another half million people into fuel poverty' – shock, horror! That was how BBC Radio 4 promoted last week's The Investigation into the future of wind power in the UK. Who can blame them? It got me listening. But do their figures stack up?"

". . . according to the programme, this would add £400 [700 USD] per year to the average family electricity bill. This is scary, but is it true?

Only if you make two completely false assumptions.

First, that the entire cost is loaded onto domestic consumers, even though they only use 36% of the UK's electricity production.

Second, that they pay the entire capital cost in their bills every year for 10 years.

But this is not how large energy projects are financed. Just as most people buy their homes on a mortgage, which they pay off over 20 or more years, so power companies borrow the money, and pass on the cost of servicing their loans."

"Perhaps his real problem with bringing 35% wind into our electricity supply is that it leaves little space for new nuclear power – that much wind would more than close the anticipated energy gap caused by the impending closure of our 23 nuclear stations over coming decades: their total contribution is just 80bn units a year, compared to the 133bn units we would be getting from wind."

"But for anyone worried about cost to both electricity consumers and taxpayers, nuclear power is the truly scary option. The cost of decommissioning our existing nuclear power stations has already escalated to £83bn and seems certain to keep on climbing towards £100bn – roughly the cost of our whole wind power programme."

Nuclear Threat to Fuel-Poor, Not Wind

This just in. Of course you suspected as much, right? Sir David "Nuclear" King goes Palinesque with his assertions again.

Nuclear is the Real Threat to the Fuel-Poor, Not Wind Energy - Guardian (UK) - 10 Sep 08

"'Wind power could put another half million people into fuel poverty' – shock, horror! That was how BBC Radio 4 promoted last week's The Investigation into the future of wind power in the UK. Who can blame them? It got me listening. But do their figures stack up?"

". . . according to the programme, this would add £400 [700 USD] per year to the average family electricity bill. This is scary, but is it true?

Only if you make two completely false assumptions.

First, that the entire cost is loaded onto domestic consumers, even though they only use 36% of the UK's electricity production.

Second, that they pay the entire capital cost in their bills every year for 10 years.

But this is not how large energy projects are financed. Just as most people buy their homes on a mortgage, which they pay off over 20 or more years, so power companies borrow the money, and pass on the cost of servicing their loans."

"Perhaps his real problem with bringing 35% wind into our electricity supply is that it leaves little space for new nuclear power – that much wind would more than close the anticipated energy gap caused by the impending closure of our 23 nuclear stations over coming decades: their total contribution is just 80bn units a year, compared to the 133bn units we would be getting from wind."

"But for anyone worried about cost to both electricity consumers and taxpayers, nuclear power is the truly scary option. The cost of decommissioning our existing nuclear power stations has already escalated to £83bn and seems certain to keep on climbing towards £100bn – roughly the cost of our whole wind power programme."

Romm on Nukes, McCain-Palin on Energy

Digging through some file on my laptop pulled up this interesting, at least to me, report on new nuclear by Joseph Romm energy pro and ClimateProgress.org blogger.

The Self-Limiting Future of Nuclear Power [pdf]

Here's today's leading blurb from ClimateProgress.org . . .

"In a campaign notable for its lies by the Arizona Senator (see “In HIS big speech, McCain’s 10 energy lies top Palin’s 4 energy lies“) and for lies by and about his VP choice (see “Slick Sarah, the make-believe maverick“) we have the mother of all lies. McCain is asked by a reporter about Palin’s national security credentials, and he (eventually) answers:

She knows more about energy than probably anyone else in the United States of America.

This time it’s personal. I mean seriously. Palin hardly knows anything at all about energy (see “Pork queen Palin is an earmark expert, NOT energy expert“). Heck, she knows very little even about oil if it doesn’t come from Alaska (see “Most revealing Palin energy whopper: Iran could cut off a fifth of the world’s energy supplies“)."

Romm on Nukes, McCain-Palin on Energy

Digging through some file on my laptop pulled up this interesting, at least to me, report on new nuclear by Joseph Romm energy pro and ClimateProgress.org blogger.

The Self-Limiting Future of Nuclear Power [pdf]

Here's today's leading blurb from ClimateProgress.org . . .

"In a campaign notable for its lies by the Arizona Senator (see “In HIS big speech, McCain’s 10 energy lies top Palin’s 4 energy lies“) and for lies by and about his VP choice (see “Slick Sarah, the make-believe maverick“) we have the mother of all lies. McCain is asked by a reporter about Palin’s national security credentials, and he (eventually) answers:

She knows more about energy than probably anyone else in the United States of America.

This time it’s personal. I mean seriously. Palin hardly knows anything at all about energy (see “Pork queen Palin is an earmark expert, NOT energy expert“). Heck, she knows very little even about oil if it doesn’t come from Alaska (see “Most revealing Palin energy whopper: Iran could cut off a fifth of the world’s energy supplies“)."