The title of this diary may appear to be too good to be true.  However, I just recieved a press release from Nanosolar, a start up solar manufacturer which produces "solar laminates" - a new type of solar power cell that are printed on a sheet as opposed to growing silicon crystals as in semicondoctor plants.  Nanosolar have announced that they now have a facility with the yearly production capacity of 1 gigawatt.

Policy Policy Policy Policy Policy Policy Policy Policy Policy Policy Policy Policy Policy Policy Policy Policy Policy Policy Policy Policy Policy Policy Policy Policy Policy Policy Policy Policy Policy Policy Policy Policy Policy Policy Policy Policy Policy Policy Policy Policy Policy Policy Policy Policy Policy Policy Policy Policy Policy Policy Policy Policy Policy Policy Policy Policy Policy Policy Policy Policy Policy Policy Policy Policy Policy Policy Policy Policy Policy Policy Policy Policy Policy Policy Policy Policy Policy Policy Policy Policy Policy Policy   (follow me on the flip side for more...)

The title is total supposition but follow me through the argument and I think you will agree with the conclusion that Iraq is on a knife edge that hinges on the outcome of the US election.  Consider first the players – you’ve got the Kurds in the north who are generally tolerant of our presence but would prefer we were gone so the can finish with kicking the Arabs and Persians off their oil territory in the north.  You’ve got the Sunni’s in the middle who’ve been fighting us tooth and nail for five years and who’s only marginal benefit from our presence is preventing the Shia from taking over completely.
Then you’ve got the Shiite government which is essentially the Iranian-backed Badr Brigades, which we support and who would, in their hearts like us gone, but get a lot of checks and security from us.  Finally you’ve got the other Shiite group,  Muqtada al-Sadr’s Mahdi army.  It is this last group that will rule Iraq when we leave.  It is only a matter of time, time which they are bidding until the right moment.

Um...I know there are more important things going on but I've never seen anything that quite captures the weirdness of what's been going on for the last 6 years or so then this segment where Jon Stewart interviews Lynn Cheneyabout her book "Blue Skies, No Fences".

I hate, hate, hate spending time arguing with the hydra-headed climate deniers movement because, let's face it, they're a stupid, ignorant bunch and it's no fun to argue with people so out of their depth with the facts.  But, heavy sigh here we go again...There is a new "documentary" out called "The Great Global Warming Swindle" which I'm sure any of you trying to make a difference on this issue will come into contact with in terms of arguments, etc. aimed at discrediting you.  But, forewarned is forearmed as the saying goes and it's always good to prepare for a debate.  I'd like to think that with all the information we have at our fingertips it's more like they're bringing a knife to a gun fight.  

Poor bastards are gonna get shot is all I'm sayin'...

The opening arguments of the most important Supreme Court Case in our life times began yesterday to determine whether the EPA should be regulating greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act...and that means it’s time for a rant.  

It is no secret that we are ruled by idiots.  People so breath-takingly obtuse that you wonder whether anyone would notice if you replaced their brains with a box of hair.  Consider if you will, the fact that right now as you read this, the climate system of the planet that you live on is destabilizing.
But never fear! In the great pile of humid concrete that we call Washington D.C. the Great and Powerful Men (and one woman) of the Supreme Court are debating your fate in Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency!!  It’s a replay of Galileo v. THE POPE, with the plaintiffs’ lawyer playing Galileo and Scalia et al playing Simplico.  [Don’t they always?]

This diary is in response to the recent thread on Sen. John Edwards recent post.  Within one post the whole thread got taken over by an incredibly stupid insider argument that totally ruined the discussion for the rest of community.  I don't have all the answers but below I posit some suggestions as to some rules or at least some guidelines for behavior that may at least limit this type of behavior, which I would term "brawling".
[Update: This is not a diary about banning people.  It is about creating new venues and norms to deal with "brawling" or "threadjacking" without censoring...]

<snark> After only just winning a majority of seats in Congress Nancy Pelosi has already made her first big mistake - Leading.  By deciding that as the future Speaker of the House it might be a good idea to support a candidate for Majority Leader of her own choosing she has  shown that Democrats are divided and that she's a vindictive b***h.  To find out more about how Democrats lose by making leadership decisions follow me on the flip...

Now that the Disney Corporation has declared war on us, it's time to declare war on the Disney Corp.  Here's how...

As global warming changes the landscape it has been expected that the increases in floods, droughts, and storm intensity would lead to the inevitable increase in refugees fleeing devasted areas.  It was expected that the most vulnerable populations would be those in low lying South Pacific Islands or Bangladesh, where millions live at sea level.  However, the U.S. has been found, in a recent report by the Earth Insititue, to have the most "climate refugees".  The total displaced population count, as of July 2006, is 375,000 residents because of destruction from Katrina.  Of these 375,000, it is estimated that at least 250,000 of them have established homes elsewhere and will not return.

Now that you've seen "An Inconvenient Truth" what are we gonna do about it?  There has been a lot of talk about global warming on this site but I haven't seen enough discussion of exactly what policies the Democratic Party should endorse, with the exception
"Gov. Schweitzer's posts.  Therefore, this is an open letter to the community to fill the gap from the net-roots and perhaps put together some semi-official talking points for Dem pols.  I've outlined 5 basic policies below and the reasons they are needed.  However, I think we need to start by outlining in stark and realistic terms what the nature of the climate change challenge is.  We need to state categorically that the necessary step to address climate change is to eliminate fossil fuel based energy sources.  That is the only way we can achieve some clarity as to what policies need to be adopted. [More on the flip.]

From Salon

While Feingold's position on Iraq comes far closer to reflecting the sentiments of the Democratic Party's activist base, the senator will be battling the perception that he cannot win the 2008 general election. This is not of some inside-the-Beltway cabal, but the kind of comments you hear repeatedly from Democrats in places like New Hampshire. As state Sen. Martha Fuller Clark, an unsuccessful 2002 congressional candidate, put it, "I'm really interested in Mark Warner. He's a compelling candidate." Then she uttered a small sigh. "I wish the country was ready for Russ Feingold."

So...how are those guys out in the boonies "pickin' their noses" on local Democratic campaigns doin'?  Well, it appears, according to the NJ Star Ledger, that their success has no modern historical context, at least in one Penn. district...

IN PENNSYLVANIA, AN OMINOUS SIGN FOR THE GOP

Chester ranks as one of the most invulnerable Republican counties in the Keystone State, historically perhaps the most invulnerable. . . . The Democratic nomination in most instances was a kamikaze mission; only the parting sake wine toast was missing.  But Tuesday in a special election to fill the vacant state Senate seat covering Chester and a part of neighboring Montgomery County, a Democrat, Andrew Dinniman, routed Carole Aichele, the Republican favorite who had been dubbed by local GOP leaders "a slam-dunk candidate."

Kudos to the LA Times for pickng this up...
This article details all of the ways that the administration has been putting liability limitations into regulatory rules, often in an unconstitutional manner that breaches congressional authority.

In a letter to President Bush on Thursday, Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-Ill.) said, "It appears that there may have been an administration-wide directive for agencies ... to limit corporate liability through the rule-making process and without the consent of Congress."

More on the flip:

In Dec. of 2004 a study by Naomi Oreskes came out in the Journal Science cataloging all the peer-reviewed scientific papers (928)over the past ten years on climate change (a.k.a. Global Warming)to see if there was any major disagreement in the climatological community about the
UN IPCC's Concensus position on climate change. Here's what the Naomi Oreskes study found:

The 928 papers were divided into six categories: explicit endorsement of the consensus position, evaluation of impacts, mitigation proposals, methods, paleoclimate analysis, and rejection of the consensus position. Of all the papers, 75% fell into the first three categories, either explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus view; 25% dealt with methods or paleoclimate, taking no position on current anthropogenic climate change. Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position.

0%. None. Zip. NADDA. The skeptics have scientifically been proven to have nothing - no case.  So what does our President do in face of this overwhelming evidence? [more on the flip]

What the hell is this?  Appearently it's what passes for a "good story" and a "balanced" headline at the Associated Press.  You know you're in for it when a story starts like this:

GOP's 'Anger' Strategy Has Dems Defensive

By BETH FOUHY, Associated Press Writer

Wed Feb 8, 5:08 PM ET

NEW YORK - The Republican national chairman created a furor this week when he suggested Sen.     Hillary Rodham Clinton is too "angry" to win the White House in 2008. And to hear Republicans tell it, Clinton is just one of many Democrats with an anger management problem.

Gore's recent speech, which has gotten so much attention on this site, included an alarming point that has not been commented on yet here: Our lead experts on climate change are being targeted in a McCarthy/Hoover style muzzle operation.

From Gore's Speech:

Well, it's official.  According to the World Meteorological Organization 2005 was the second warmest year on record.  it may tbe that in the long run, what Bush is most known for is failing to lift a finger in the face of the unfolding tragedy that is global warming.
From the Environmental New Service: