The biggest problem facing the world is the lack of a clean and inexpensive new energy source to replace fossil fuels. The solutions being talked about, like solar and wind, will not solve the world's exploding appetite for more energy. There is an incredible amount of evidence that new energy technologies and inventions are being suppressed, such as by threatening inventors or buying and shelving the invention by the threatened industries. Yet, there is no discussion of this topic, here or almost anywhere else in the liberal blogosphere. My question is why not? For Daily Kos, is this a banned topic, like 9/11 conspiracy theory? If it is not technically a banned topic, is it just a socially unacceptable topic because Kossaks imagine such topics will reflect poorly on the entire Daily Kos community?

There are things that I would like to have covered here, and I would even write diaries on myself, but I would first like to know if such efforts will be acceptable and/or grounds for being banned here. Any thoughts?

Could the bubble in the energy futures market be ready to pop? I doubt it. But a little extra oversight can't hurt. The Wall Street Journal is reporting that ICE Futures Europe, the unregulated electronic futures exchange that speculators have been using to bet on and profit from crude oil price increases, has agreed to regulatory oversight.

The U.S. commodity futures regulator Tuesday said ICE Futures Europe has agreed to make permanent position and accountability limits for some of its U.S.-traded crude contracts, subjecting itself to the same regulatory oversight as its New York based counterpart.

Following intense scrutiny and censure by Congress over skyrocketing oil prices, the U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission also said it would require daily large trader reports, and similar position and accountability limits from other foreign exchanges.

More after the jump...

As the Democratic primary season grinds on, and it looks like neither candidate will get 2025 delegates, the question arises: Why should the winner have to achieve this number? The winner of the primary has to get more than 50% of the delegates. 2,025 delegates are normally needed, but normally there are 4,048 total delegates available.

I was shocked to open up the Philadelphia Inquirer today, March 9, 2008, and find two leading stories still saying that Hillary Clinton won the Texas primary. The first article is on the front page above the fold and the second article is the lead article above the fold in the Comments section, which is the Inquirer's Sunday Opinion section.

10. Shag his hot neocon wife in the Oval office

9. Give Libby the Presidential Medal of Freedom

8. Put Halliburton in charge of Homeland Security

7. Watch home movies of Abu Graub interrogations

6. Build a moat around the White House

5. Write a signing statement on the Constitution

4. Call Joe Wilson and tell him to go F@#K himself

3. High tea with Ann Coulter

2. Go preemptive on Iran, and number one...

1. Snuf out Lil'Bush and declare a dictatorship

(Sung to the tune of Mary had a little lamb)

Bush Boy had a little war,
the fleec-ing was ram-pant.
And everywhere that Bush Boy spent,
more death was also sent.

(Note: This probably should be a comment somewhere versus a diary, but what the hell, its Friday - and Bush is such an Ass. Besides, I figure this will stimulate some creative juices amongst my fellow Kossaks.)

Paul Krugman does a great job in his NYT op-ed today to point out that contrary to the fictional scene presented in PT911, Clinton did not have a chance to capture Bin Laden, but that Bush did. And instead of taking action as a real leader would have, Bush and the Pentagon choose not to provide the Special Forces to surround and capture Bin Laden.

...there never was a clear shot at Osama before 9/11, let alone one rejected by Clinton officials. But there was a clear shot in December 2001, when Al Qaeda's leader was trapped in the caves of Tora Bora. He made his escape because the Pentagon refused to use American ground troops to cut him off.

On Real Time with Bill Maher last night, they covered the topic of whether 9/11 could have been a conspiracy. Bill mentioned that 36% of Americans now believe that 9/11 either was or could have included a conspiracy. However, the topic wasn't really covered seriously. Someone mentioned that the Neocons/Bush/Cheney aren't smart enough to pull off 9/11. The audience cheered very loudy. And then they changed the subject.

And this depressed the shit out of me. I yelled at the TV, "That's what they want you to think!" But, let me propose something. Was it incompetence that allowed the Neocons to sell the entire country an aggressive war with Iraq, while we knew al Qaeda and Bin Laden were in Afghanistan? The Neocons may be evil, but they are damn successful when they want to be. So, if anyone believes that Neocons are incompetent idiots, they do so at their own peril.

More...

ABCs total fabrication of the supposed path to 9/11, not to mention ending this story without the part where Bush let Bin Laden get away at Tora Bora, has forced me to stop watching any football games on either ABC or ESPN. And as angry as I am at ABC, I also have to say thank you for giving me the ability to shake off this terrible addiction to football.

Just in the next few days I will free up both Saturday night and Monday night. Before this fiasco, I would definitely have watched the college game on Saturday night since both teams are in the Top 10 - and pissed away a perfectly good evening. And of course I would have watched the Monday Night Football Game, which is an ESPN game.

I will still watch my hometeam, the Eagles, on the local Fox station and also watch the NBC Sunday night game. But  ABC's bullshit has given me a newfound sense of perspective which will keep my football watching to a healthy level (in my opinion) and to that I have to say, Thanks ABC for being such a horse's ass.

Does Bush STILL use a wireless earpiece to get speeches fed to him? If Friday's press conference is any indication, it would appear to be the case. But it ain't working too good. Bush made a totally illogical statement when answering a question about the recent ruling against his domestic wiretapping program. He sounded like he lost his place while reading aloud, but he wasn't reading, he was just talking.

Bush said, "I made my position clear about this war on terror. I ah, and by the way, the enemy made their postion clear yet again when they, when wh wh, when nuh (sigh) when we're able to (exhale) stop them."

"They made their position clear when we're able to stop them?" Huh? How do you lose your place or forget what you are saying in the middle of your sentence? You don't, unless it is not really your sentence, but is someone elses's that is being fed to you.

More below...

Lets cut the crap and call a spade a spade. First, when Libby received "permission" to share parts of the NIE with Miller in July of 2003, this was not an official declassification. Everyone is saying it was legal because the President can and did declassify this intelligence. But, if he keeps it a secret that he has declassified something, then it is NOT declassified. Only Bush, Cheney and Libby (and then Miller) knew of this secret declassification of parts of the NIE. No matter how you spin it, if only one little team knows the new "status", then it is bullshit to say it is officially declassified.

In addition... (see below)

Oh my freaking God. I was just watching NBCs Access Hollywood and they quoted Charlie Sheen, yes the actor, who said that on 9/11, as he and friends watched each of the twin towers come down that, "This looks just like a controlled demolition". This is fucking awesome. It was definitely Sheen talking in this quote. His voice is quite distinctive. I wasn't paying attention before this piece, so I am not really sure how they lead into it. But who cares. They actually quoted him saying that the WTC's collapse looked like a controlled demolition. Bush is really fucked if network TV is bringing stuff like this out of nowhere. And I am so damn proud of Charlie, I am going to watch Two and a Half Men all the time now. Sheen rocks!!!

Re: "Focus on midterm elections instead", Chris Satullo, March 19, 2006. As the head of the Editorial Board at the Inquirer, Mr. Satullo's op-ed was surprisingly biased. His analysis of Democrats, liberals and left-leaning bloggers was condescending, full of overgeneralizations and misleading in its exaggerations.

If Chris really had his thumb on the pulse of liberal blogs, he would know that the focus of late was not on impeachment, but on censure. And he would know that these bloggers focus on more than one thing at a time. Also, I am surprised that Mr. Satullo lumps all Democrats together. How could this party all be talking about the singular topic of impeachment and also be the party that can't stay on message? Continued below...

Paul Krugman has an Op-Ed today on how some prominent conservatives have finally seen the light about Bush/Cheney, and how these same conservatives have conveniently forgotten being so nasty to Bush critics in the past. Overall, I agree with Krugman. However, I think we all have blind spots, even if they are nothing like that of the Republicans. In other words, we sometimes miss the truth, regardless of the facts, because we are not emotionally ready to accept something. To show you what I mean, try this brief quiz. It involves 9/11, a topic we are all experts on.

1. When the WTC towers collapsed, what did the seismic graph look like, how large was the "boom" that was recorded and when in the timeline was the peak recorded?

More below...

Now it all makes sense that Bush would be such an advocate for the United Arab Emirates. They share similar business ethics, as highlighted in this article from the New York Post

The country's notoriously lax banking laws, poor control over its legendary gold brokers and low taxes have made money-laundering a $30 billion-a-year business in the UAE.

These guys could give Abramoff and Cheney a run for their money...

...UAE, a country long considered the arms-smuggling and money-laundering capital of the Middle East. U.S. officials say it has an improving -- but still shady -- record in the war on terrorism.

In the interview on Fox News with Britt Hume, Cheney made it seem like he only had one beer at lunch before the shooting of his hunting companion. The words that Cheney used were that he had "a beer at lunch." However, Dick did not say he had ONLY a beer at lunch or just one beer at lunch. So, Dick would not be lying even if he drank a whole twelve pack, because it would still be true that he had "a beer at lunch".

Has Cheney specifically said he had only one beer? And not that I am untrusting, but even if Cheney said it was just one beer, how many ounces did "ah beer" consist of? I have the sneeky feeling that Cheney hasn't really told us squat.

As soon as Abramoff was indicted, the Bush administration said in a very public way that they were worried about pictures of Bush with Abramoff. It seemed logical that the White House would be worried. But it seemed weird that this secretive White House was so open about their concerns. However, it makes perfect sense, and I can't believe we fell for it once again. In a strange, Rovian way, this public worrying legitimizes the White House's efforts to keep any pictures under wraps. Since they aren't hiding their efforts, it must be acceptable behavior.

More below...

The thought of impeaching Bush scares many people because Cheney would then be President. Talk about a bad solution. But what if the domestic spying activities could take down both Bush and Cheney together? Now, that sounds sweeeeet!

As has been pointed out in other places, Cheney was involved in illegal warrantless spying of US citizens even before 9/11. First he worked with the NSA to provide him the names of some US citizens that were swept up in NSA's normal and crappy survelliance. Getting the names was bad in of itself. BUT what was definitely illegal was that once Cheney had these names, he instructed the NSA to continue spying on some of these individuals. Regardless of whether the inital survelliance was legal, when you continue warrantless spying on US citizens, there is no question about it being illegal.

More below the fold.