Brownian Motion

Allen, This is simply not true. Here is a good overview of Carter's thinking on energy-- http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0503-22.htm And here is a sentence that fairly leaps out of the page-- " And Ronald Reagan's first official acts of office included removing Jimmy Carter's solar panels from the roof of the White House, and reversing most of Carter's conservation and alternative energy policies." And here are the White House solar panels today--they're in Maine, you can go visit them. http://www.unity.edu/envresources/sustainability/carter.aspx

Texas?

The New York Times Printer Friendly Format Sponsored By April 28, 2008 Amid High Oil Prices, Danger Signs in Production By JAD MOUAWAD As oil prices soared to record levels in recent years, basic economics suggested that consumption would fall and supply would rise as producers opened the taps to pump more. But as prices flirt with $120 a barrel, many energy specialists are becoming worried that neither seems to be happening. Higher prices have done little to attract new production or to suppress global demand, and the resulting mismatch has sent oil prices spiraling upward. “According to normal economic theory, and the history of oil, rising prices have two major effects,” said Fatih Birol, the chief economist at the International Energy Agency, which advises industrialized countries. “They reduce demand and they induce oil supplies. Not this time.” A key reason that supply is not rising to meet demand is that producers outside of the OPEC cartel — countries like Russia, Mexico and Norway — have been showing troubling signs of sluggishness. Unlike the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries, whose explicit goal is to regulate supply to keep prices up, the other countries are the free traders of the international market, with every incentive to produce flat-out at a time of high prices. But for a variety of reasons, like sharply higher drilling costs and nationalistic policies that restrict foreign investments, these countries are finding it difficult, if not impossible, to increase output. They seem stuck at about 50 million barrels of oil a day, or 60 percent of the world’s oil supplies, with few prospects for growth. Countries that are not members of OPEC have been the main source of production growth in the last three decades, as new fields were discovered in Alaska, the North Sea or West Africa. After the collapse of the Soviet Union, new opportunities emerged in Russia and the Caspian Sea. Analysts at Barclays Capital said last week that non-OPEC supplies were “seemingly dead in the water.” Goldman Sachs raised similar concerns last month, saying that growth in non-OPEC supplies “can no longer be taken for granted.” At the same time, oil consumption keeps expanding at a faster clip than production. Demand is forecast to increase this year by 1.2 million barrels a day, to 87.2 million barrels a day. In the United States, the world’s most oil-thirsty nation, consumption has actually fallen a bit because of the economic slowdown. But that drop is being offset by growth in other countries. World consumption is projected to rise 35 percent, to around 115 million barrels a day, in the next two decades. Most of the growth will come from China, India and oil-producing countries in the Middle East, where retail fuel prices are subsidized, encouraging wasteful consumption. “What is disturbing here is that things seem to get worse, not better,” an analyst at Goldman Sachs, David Greely, said. “These high prices are not attracting meaningful new supplies.” Oil rose 23 cents Monday to $118.75 on the New York Mercantile Exchange. Longer-term oil futures, dated for 2013, now trade at $108 a barrel, a strong indication that investors see little cause for prices to drop in the next five years — partly because of low expectations about production growth. The outlook for oil supplies “signals a period of unprecedented scarcity,” an analyst at CIBC World Markets, Jeff Rubin, said last week. Oil prices might reach more than $200 by 2012, he said, a level that would probably mean $7-a-gallon gasoline in the United States. Some regions are simply running out of reserves. Norway’s production has slumped by 25 percent since its peak in 2001. In Britain, oil production has plummeted 43 percent in eight years. The North Sea is now considered a dying oil basin. Alaska’s giant field at Prudhoe Bay has declined 65 percent since its peak 20 years ago. In many other places, the problems are not located below ground, as energy executives like to put it, but above ground. Higher petroleum taxes and more costly licensing agreements, scarce manpower and swelling costs, as well as political wrangling and violence, are making it much harder to raise production. “It’s a crunch,” said J. Robinson West, chairman of PFC Energy, an energy consulting firm in Washington. “The world is not running out of oil, but rather it’s running out of oil production capacity.” Recently, the case that has attracted the most attention is Mexico, the second-biggest exporter to the United States, which seems increasingly helpless to stem the collapse of its largest oil field, Cantarell. Last week, the country’s state-owned oil company, Pemex, said that production had fallen 300,000 barrels a day so far this year to 2.9 million barrels a day, a stunning drop from its peak production of 3.4 million in 2004. A combination of falling production and rising domestic consumption could wipe out Mexico’s exports within five years, including the 1.5 million barrels it sends to the United States each day. Another country, Russia, is also clouding analysts’ forecasts. The country is not exactly running out of places to look for oil — a huge chunk of Eastern Siberia remains unexplored — and Russia has been the biggest contributor to the growth in energy supplies in the last decade. But earlier this month, Russian energy officials warned that the days of stunning growth that followed the demise of the Soviet Union were over, as the country would focus on stabilizing its output. Russia today produces about 10 million barrels of oil a day, up from a low point of 6 million barrels in 1996. About 75 percent of the world’s oil reserves are in OPEC countries, where governments voluntarily restrict their output to push up prices. As countries like Russia slow output, analysts say OPEC will have to pick up the slack. The oil cartel currently accounts for 40 percent of the world’s oil exports. Further clouding the picture, Saudi Arabia, the world’s top oil exporter, signaled last week that it might have trouble increasing its production. Saudi Arabia, the de facto leader of OPEC, signaled it would freeze any further expansion after next year. That dims the long-range outlook for OPEC supplies, though in the near term, Saudi Arabia is expected to loom larger in the market as it completes a $50 billion plan to increase its capacity to 12.5 million barrels a day. Yet that leaves it well short of the 15 million barrels that most experts expected the kingdom to produce in the long run. The cartel’s 13 members say they plan to spend $150 billion to expand capacity by 5 million barrels a day by 2012, according to estimates by OPEC. But that falls short of most projections, which say OPEC will need to pump 60 million barrels a day by 2030, up from around 36 million barrels a day today, to meet the expected growth in demand. Reaching that level is going to be impossible unless the violence and tensions in both Iran and Iraq are resolved, analysts said. Because of sanctions for the last 30 years, both countries have been producing much less than their huge oil reserves would permit. Not everyone has a pessimistic outlook. The Energy Department forecasts sustained growth in non-OPEC supplies this year and next. A study by the National Petroleum Council, an industry group that provides advice to the secretary of energy, outlined a variety of possibilities for oil expansion, and concluded that the world still had plenty of petroleum resources that could be tapped. In fact, high prices have sparked a global dash for oil. Companies are trawling deep oceans or seeking to drill in the Arctic Ocean. In some cases, the hunt has been successful. Brazil, for example, has struck large offshore discoveries that could turn the country into one of the world’s top 10 producers in the coming decade. Yet it takes years to bring such remote fields into production, and the market needs oil now. To make up the shortfall, the world is increasingly turning to fuels made from unconventional sources, like biofuels or heavy oil. Canadian tar sands, for example, have attracted large investments, and biofuels have accounted for much of the growth in fuel supplies in the last two years. The International Energy Agency estimates that current investments will be insufficient to replace declining oil production, let alone increase overall output. The energy agency said it would take $5.4 trillion by 2030 to increase global output, a level of investment that is unlikely to be met. It said a crisis “involving an abrupt run-up in prices” could not be ruled out before 2015.

Especially Sahl, who tackled adult issues with real satirical bite. Another thing missing from the list is standup teams--I'm thinking of the Smothers Brothers, who were superb, and Mike Nichols and Elaine May, whose improvisatory brilliance landed them a gig on Broadway way back in 1960.

Curlew, with erstwhile Organissimo member Maren on bass.

pm sent on Charlie Haden and Pat Metheny Beyond The Missouri sky 6.00 Giants of Traditional Jazz 7.00 Ernie Wilkins Presents Top Brass Sealed. 6.00

Mine arrived yesterday. Thanks John!

Pony and Trap Gypsy's Kiss Joddrell Bank (A bit scatological, but that's what came into my head) Wells Fargo Coen Brothers Smith Brothers

Sid Caesar Sidney Poitier Sidney Crosby Bing Crosby Al Rinker Barry Harris

After having reached old farthood, I suppose I shouldn't be surprised at how blithely we poison ourselves. But I am. Surprise keeps me young.

The New York Times Printer Friendly Format Sponsored By April 22, 2008 Well A Hard Plastic Is Raising Hard Questions By TARA PARKER-POPE Are toxic plastics lurking in your kitchen? It’s a question many families are asking after reports last week that a chemical used to make baby bottles, water bottles and food containers is facing increasing scrutiny by health officials in Canada and the United States. The substance is bisphenol-a, or BPA, widely used in the making of the hard, clear and nearly unbreakable plastic called polycarbonate. Studies and tests show that trace amounts of BPA are leaching from polycarbonate containers into foods and liquids. While most of the focus is on products for children, including clear plastic bottles and canned infant formula, the chemical is also used in food-storage containers, some clear plastic pitchers used for filtered water, refillable water bottles and the lining of soft-drink and food cans. While there is debate about how much of a health worry BPA really is, retailers including Wal-Mart have said they are withdrawing baby products made with it. Nalgene, the maker of a popular sports bottle, and the baby-products maker Playtex have announced they will stop using it. Here are answers to some common questions about BPA. What is the evidence that BPA is harmful? It all comes from animal studies. Rat pups exposed to BPA, through injection or food, showed changes in mammary and prostate tissue, suggesting a potential cancer risk. In some tests of female mice, exposure appeared to accelerate puberty. A draft report from the National Toxicology Program, part of the Department of Health and Human Services, notes that there is no direct evidence that human exposure to BPA harms reproduction or infant development. “I don’t think there’s anything in this brief that should lead to alarm,” said Dr. Michael D. Shelby, director of the Center for the Evaluation of Risks to Human Reproduction, who oversaw the report. “It means we’ve got a limited amount of evidence from some studies that were done in laboratory animals.” The main concern is the possible risk to infants and pregnant women, although Canada has begun a study to monitor BPA exposure among about 5,000 people to assess any danger to adults. How much BPA are we exposed to? BPA migrates into food from polycarbonate plastic bottles or the epoxy resin coatings that line canned food. The typical adult ingests an estimated 1 microgram of BPA for every kilogram (2.2 pounds) of body weight. Babies who use polycarbonate bottles and formula from cans get more, an estimated 10 micrograms per kilogram of body weight. A microgram represents a trace amount. Consider this: a single M&M is about a gram. If you cut it into 100,000 slices, one slice would equal about 10 micrograms. The 2003-4 National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention found detectable levels of BPA in 93 percent of urine samples collected from more than 2,500 adults and children over 6. How do I know if the plastic containers in my home contain BPA? Any product made of hard, clear plastic is probably made from polycarbonate unless the manufacturer specifically states that it’s BPA-free. One way to check is to look for the triangle stamp on or near the bottom: polycarbonate plastics should have the numeral 7 in the triangle, sometimes with the letters PC. Unfortunately, 7 is a catchall “other” category for a variety of plastics. In my own kitchen, I found just one product with a 7 — plastic fruit cups my daughter takes to school. But the plastic is soft and pliable, so it is probably not made with BPA. I also found refillable water bottles without a stamp. Because they are hard, shatterproof and clear, it’s reasonable to assume they are made from polycarbonate. What about canned food and drinks? While much of the focus is on plastic bottles, most human exposure occurs through the lining of canned foods. Canned beverages appear to contain less of the chemical than canned foods like soup, pasta, fruits and vegetables, which are often processed at high temperatures. Virtually every canned product, even those labeled organic, has a liner with BPA. One brand, Eden Organic Baked Beans, says it uses a BPA-free can. How do I lower my exposure? Switch to frozen or fresh vegetables. Use glass, porcelain and stainless-steel containers, particularly for hot foods and liquids. If you don’t want to use a glass baby bottle, several companies, including the popular brand Born Free, now sell BPA-free baby bottles and sippy cups. For formula-fed babies, you can switch to powdered formula rather than liquid. Although many plastic products claim to be microwave safe, some scientists warn against putting any plastic in the microwave. “There is such a wide variety now, from disposable containers to actual Tupperware,” says Dr. Anila Jacob, a senior scientist for the Environmental Working Group, a Washington-based advocacy group. “I don’t know of anyone who has done definitive testing of all these different types of plastic containers to see what is leaching into food.”

Peter Abelard Heloise Dear Abby

Email sent on: Alden ,Howard/George Van Epps – 13 Strings (Concord) $6 Casa Loma Orchestra – Casa Loma Orchestra (Jazz Archives) $3 Hines ,Earl/Roy Eldridge – At the Village Vanguard (Xanadu) 1965 $6 Brown R./Alexander/Ellis – Overseas Special (Concord) $6

The Punch Brothers CD is a nice one and worth a listen, even if you don't especially enjoy progressive bluegrass.

The New York Times April 18, 2008 When the Ex Blogs, the Dirtiest Laundry Is Aired By LESLIE KAUFMAN This week, the potential of the Internet to expose and disgrace when marriages fall apart came into stark relief as Tricia Walsh Smith, who is being divorced by Philip Smith, a theater executive, put a video on YouTube announcing that they never had sex, and yet she found him hoarding Viagra, pornography and condoms. Not surprisingly, Mr. Smith’s lawyer, David Aronson, called the video “appalling” and said: “Mr. Smith is a very private person. This is obviously embarrassing.” But in an era when more than one in 10 adult Internet users in the United States have blogs, according to the Pew Internet and American Life Project, many people are using the Web to tell their side of a marital saga. Despite the legal end of a marriage, the confessions can stretch toward eternity in a steady stream of enraged or despondent postings. In separation, of course, one person’s truth can be another’s lie. Often the postings are furtive. But even when the ex-spouse is well aware that he or she is starring in a blog and sues to stop it, recent rulings in New York and Vermont have showed the courts reluctant to intervene. For the blogger, the writing can be therapeutic. Until the morning her husband, David Sals, told her he “was done” with their marriage, Jennifer Neal had portrayed him so lovingly on her blog that he was called DearSweetDave. By the afternoon of that October day last year, Ms. Neal had shared what she portrayed as his perfidy with the 55,000 regular readers she says visit NakedJencom. Soon after, readers came to know him by a far less flattering name, and as the guy whose insensitivity made Jen so sick that she was throwing up every day and so poor that she lost her house in Santa Cruz, Calif. And when a despairing Jen discovered in February that her ex-husband had put his information up on Match.com, an Internet dating service, she linked to it from her blog, giving her readers a chance to share their thoughts. Mr. Sals protested, but Ms. Neal held firm: “If he wants to tell his side of the story, he should get his own blog.” Mr. Sals said that he had stopped reading her blog but that his family still sometimes looked at it and got upset. “I’ve never tried to make her stop, but I’ve definitely had to adjust to giving up my privacy,” he said. It is impossible to say just how many people are blogging about divorce, but the percentage of Internet users with personal blogs has quadrupled in five years, according to Pew. Mary Madden, a senior researcher with the Pew Project who specializes in online relationships, said that in emotionally charged times, some people go to the Web. “It is a blank slate to unload all the frustrations and emotions of a personal crisis,” Ms. Madden said. There will certainly be consequences down the line of all this sharing. “The long-term impact of the persistent information on line has not been fully felt,” Ms. Madden said. “People tend to think that they are blogging for a small group of friends or that they are anonymous,” she said. But that is not really the case, she said, because “all it takes is one friend posting a link to your blog to out you.” Laurie, a Manhattan mother, started podcasting DivorcingDaze.com during her divorce in 2006. Each week Laurie and a divorced friend have a glass of wine and tape their discussions of the day’s topics — spas, their boyfriends, Eliot Spitzer — and then post to the web. Laurie never told her ex-husband she was doing the programs because they were meant as advice to others and not as retribution, she said. She does not use her last name or her ex-husband’s in her talks and asked that both names be withheld for this article. Still, Laurie maintains no pretense of impartiality. The 10,000 monthly listeners she says download DivorcingDaze episodes have heard Laurie say that she discovered her ex-husband was having an affair with his boss from e-mail on his BlackBerry, and that he had told their older daughter he wasn’t cheating because the marriage, in his mind, was already over “I am 100 percent aware that if he told his version of the marriage, it would be completely different,” Laurie said. So different in fact, that when her husband did find out about the podcasts last year, he sued her. He argued that they included statements that were “obnoxious, derogatory or offensive” and that they violated the terms of the divorce settlement that she not “harass” or “malign” him. In a decision only weeks ago, however, a justice of the Supreme Court of the State of New York said his complaints were not grounds for blocking the podcast. While Laurie’s statements may be “ill-advised and do not promote co-parenting,” the court wrote, they were covered by the First Amendment. Obviously, divorce lawyers are taking note. Deborah Lans of Cohen Lans, a Manhattan law firm with a thriving matrimonial practice, said, “The last thing you want to see is angry people making uncontrolled statements.” Ms. Lans said her divorce agreements included a confidentiality provision that forbade either party to publish even fictionalized accounts of the marriage, but not every lawyer insists on that. The judge in Laurie’s case explicitly noted that her agreement did not have such a provision. Earlier this year, a court in Vermont did tell William Krasnansky to take down his lightly disguised account of his divorce, in which he described his ex-wife in an unflattering light and blamed her for forcing him to sell their home at “a ruinous loss.” Mr. Krasnanksy’s ex-wife had complained that it was “defamatory.” But weeks later, after a firestorm of criticism, the court reversed itself and gave him the right to continue to publish. For some ex-spouses, revenge is not the point. Writing about divorce can be good for readership. “The bloggers who are doing the best are those who are injecting their personal lives,” said Penelope Trunk, the author of the Brazen Careerist blog, who has written frequently in the past year about the collapse of her 15-year marriage. Ms. Trunk wrote about going to what she thought was a first session with a new marriage counselor chosen by her husband only to discover it was a divorce lawyer’s office. That was one of her most popular posts. More painfully, she has written about the problems of a son who has Asperger’s syndrome and said that both she and her husband believed the challenges of raising him helped cause their divorce. But this kind of brutal honesty is not a good idea for children, especially since most harbor feelings of guilt about their parents’ divorce anyway, said Irene Goldenberg, a professor emeritus of psychiatry at the University of California, Los Angeles. “It is not good for children to get personal information in that way,” Dr. Goldenberg said. “And people have to consider doing things in the heat of the moment. The way they feel now will not be how they feel in two years, and there is no way it can be retrieved.” Ms. Trunk disagrees. “It is a generational issue,” she said. “We think it will be a big deal, but it won’t be to them. By the time they are old enough to read it, they will have spent their entire life online. It will be like, ‘Oh yeah, I expected that.’ ”

Joe Albany Edward Rochester Eddie Anderson

The year Thomas Pynchon won the National Book Award, 1974, his editor couldn't lure him to the award ceremony, so instead he hired Irwin Corey to address the gathered men and women of letters. The Professor percolated along at a highly abstract level, and no one was any the wiser for years and years.

Kai Winding Kai Bird Kay Starr

Winston Davis Ezra Moseley Patrick Patterson William Carlos Williams Che Guevara Howard Dean

Boz David Copperfield James Randi

It's times like this that I really miss Ed Sullivan...

Bob Bailey Bonus Baby Bogie & Baby

Michael Heseltine (even more dandruff) No, Heseltine didn't have dandruff. Dr Lonnie Smith Dr Jakyll Jackie McLean Jack Sprat Jack Frost Jack Shit