I don't know anyone who's happy paying $4/gallon.

no, you're right. My friends and I wish we were paying $6. Aside from the oil company profit inflation aspect of course.

It is easy to buy small plaster models of what you think life is like.

Perhaps you should take another look at the latest gas prices before suggesting that "drill now" isn't an appeal to middle-of-the-road types. I don't know anyone who's happy paying $4/gallon.

You know I clearly remember reading about the impending environmental crisis back in school in one of those Scholastic Reader magazines. Decades ago. It was blatantly obvious but we still ignored it until the problem has grown.

What will drilling solve? It will take years to get the oil out, and even then any effect on the market is dubious at best. Why not pour the same amount of money into alternate, cleaner, energy sources? That way we would still have our Alaskan or Gulf Coast oil in reserve for a really bad time and we'd have broken our addiction on foreign oil permanently.

People need to realize that the current mess is one of our own making and there is very little we can do about it in the short term except to curb use or lower taxes. Drilling may sound like the perfect solution, but it is not.

Giuliani and Thompson had given over their full support to McCain months ago; Paul is still acting like his own man. It's not as if the outcome of this convention was in doubt -- everyone has known it would be McCain's baby since Spring. Paul chose to act like an outsider and assbag, so that's how he's being treated.

Hooray for conformity!

What will drilling solve?

It will add supply, thus driving down the market price for oil. It will ensure that some of the money spent by the country on oil goes to Americans, instead of elsewhere. Isn't that enough?

It will take years to get the oil out, and even then any effect on the market is dubious at best. Why not pour the same amount of money into alternate, cleaner, energy sources?

You mean the alternative energy sources which will also take years to establish, and currently have a dubious effect on the market. Here's a thought: why not do both? Actually, I pretty sure Palin suggested exactly that.

It will add supply, thus driving down the market price for oil. It will ensure that some of the money spent by the country on oil goes to Americans, instead of elsewhere. Isn't that enough?

How much will it actually drive down the price?  There is no way we could keep up with the surge in demand. I'd rather keep the oil in the land as an extra reserve than save a buck thirty five a decade or two in the future.

You mean the alternative energy sources which will also take years to establish, and currently have a dubious effect on the market. Here's a thought: why not do both? Actually, I pretty sure Palin suggested exactly that.

They are not making anymore oil (technically they are, but at an extremely slow rate). Why take it out of the ground and if we can't control our rate of consumption? Why not save it for the rainy days which we know are to come? Resources are dwindling and the feces is likely to hit the fan severely over the next few decades.

Why not save it for the rainy days which we know are to come?

I love it how you're having this discussion with a Conservative.

It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine

How much will it actually drive down the price?

That question depends upon too many unknowns: the general market conditions when pumping begins, the rate at which optimal extraction proceeds, how much oil there actually is, and so on.

Why not save it for the rainy days which we know are to come?

Do you know precisely when those days will arrive? As you've already mentioned, it's going to take years to bring US oil production online. Should we wait until the worst occurs before even starting? (Isn't that the mentality everyone decried as obviously wrong when Hurricane Katrina hit New Orleans?)

That question depends upon too many unknowns: the general market conditions when pumping begins, the rate at which optimal extraction proceeds, how much oil there actually is, and so on.

Given the horribly unstable world right now, the expanding national debt, the unstable dollar, and the exploding demand for oil do you think oil will cost more in the future or less?

Do you know precisely when those days will arrive? As you've already mentioned, it's going to take years to bring US oil production online. Should we wait until the worst occurs before even starting? (Isn't that the mentality everyone decried as obviously wrong when Hurricane Katrina hit New Orleans?)

So we're going to put rigs in the ground and then do nothing with them? Yeah, right.  The second the capability to pump oil exists people will want to empty it all out. Remember when gas prices first spiked? Millions were clamoring to empty the strategic oil reserves to fill their SUVs. You know, the caverns in the southeast that are not to be touched in times of war?

Do you really think this country has the self discipline to hold off on an ineffective, short term waste of resources?

I'd been against more Alaskan oil production for much the same reason for quite a long time, but this sure looks like the rainy day to me.  If we aren't well along on transitioning away from oil by the time new production would start to tail off, our goose is well and truly cooked anyhow.

New Alaskan oil production would do very little to lower oil prices, because that's a global market.  The effect on the dollar and the trade deficit would be small but significant.

Why not pour the same amount of money into alternate, cleaner, energy sources?

Because oil is far more profitable. Unless you mean pouring money that comes from additional government deficit spending, in which case the answer is, "we're broke enough already."

Because oil is far more profitable.  

Really? Put up windmills or solar collection panels for renewable energy. After a onetime cost the energy is nearly free and does not generate pollution. Oil is burned once and gone.

Unless you mean pouring money that comes from additional government deficit spending, in which case the answer is, "we're broke enough already."

Boy George took care of that with his overseas adventure. Frankly it really surprises me that we're spending so much over in Iraq, given that oil is far more profitable than anything else.

When zyx says "oil is far more profitable," he doesn't mean for you and me and future generations, he means for the oil companies.

Yeah, and I imagine there's not a single American with XOM or BP in their 401K either directly or indirectly via mutual funds.

And furthermore, do people actually buy this "windfall profits" tax?  It's not a tax on profits - these are public corporations - it's a tax on their shareholders and the people who buy their products.  The oil companies would be smart to run some ads pointing this out - what percentage of their shares are owned by mutuals funds/401K/IRA investors - how much will the wind-fall profits tax effect future pricing by decreasing R&D and capital expenditures?

"Really? Put up windmills or solar collection panels for renewable energy. After a onetime cost the energy is nearly free and does not generate pollution. Oil is burned once and gone."

You forgot to add in the cost of overhauling the US energy grid and converting a significant portion of the US car fleet to electric or hydrogen.

You forgot to add in the cost of overhauling the US energy grid and converting a significant portion of the US car fleet to electric or hydrogen.

Well, it's like the vice president in potentia say, you have to do something.

It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine

Sure, build wind mills and such, don't just pretend that it's simple free energy that can magically run everything.

The something that really needs to be done is a crash program to build nuclear reactors.  And before anyone trots out the "only 50 years of Uranium" left crap, I'd make them breeder reactors which can recycle their own fuel.

What?  Do wind and solar generate a different kind of electricity?  What is it about our current electrical grid that makes it need to be overhauled, other than the cost of connecting it to the new generation sources?

sierra tango foxtrot uniform

Windmills produce highly dispersed energy - many points of production, each point not very large.  The areas that are capable of producing the largest amount wind energy are not particularly near where the energy will be consumed.  

Compare this to the current energy grid, which is highly optimized for large, single point producers that are located close to demand.

OK, so that doesn't sound like an 'overhaul', so much as connecting the new generation sources to the grid.  

I mean, the argument you seem to be putting forward is "It's going to require some infrastructure to support it, so let's not bother."

sierra tango foxtrot uniform

I am not putting forward any such argument.  I was responding to this statement: "Really? Put up windmills or solar collection panels for renewable energy. After a onetime cost the energy is nearly free and does not generate pollution."

I guess that statement is technically correct, if you roll in the cost of upgrading the grid to support it, but I doubt pO157 had those costs in mind.

I am all for renewable sources of energy, let's just be honest about the costs involved once you start talking about scaling those sources up to a level that they become important to goals like "Energy Independence".

Not even alternative energy proponents claim that solar or wind are as cheap as fossil fuel, so I don't understand what you are going on about.

In 2006, the US DOE projected costs for new power plants as $55.80 per MWh for wind, $53.10 per MWh for coal, and $52.50 per MWh for natural gas.  Natural gas, to the DOE and the electricity companies and a lot of other people with their heads stuck in the sand appeared to be the way to go for electric generation.  The electric companies built more new plants using natural gas than those using any other fuel.  And had they been operating in a free market where they would have had to suffer the consequences of their stupidity instead of being able to pass their losses on to ratepayers, they would have lost their shirts.

Try the energy conversion yourself.  A thousand cubic feet of gas is 300 kilowatt hours, but that's the thermal power.  The new natural gas plants are mostly cheap turbine units with efficiencies near 33%, meant for peaking power usage, so that that TCF of gas will produce only around 100 kilowatt hours.  At the natural gas wellhead price of the latest available month of  $10.82/tcf, that gives an electric fuel cost of 10.82 / .1 Mkwh = $108.20 / MWh.  And that's just for FUEL!  It doesn't even count the capital or operating costs of the turbine or even transportation of the natural gas from the wellhead to the power plant.

Of course, this isn't quite fair.  Windmills are only that cheap in good wind locations which frequently match the electric demand.  The long term contract price is closer to $8 and a baseload gas-fired steam plant gets nearer 50% efficiency.  But it would still have been more expensive than the wind plant, even before considering the now much greater capital and operating costs.  Natural gas isn't even close to competitive to wind anymore in the US.

Perhaps by "fossil fuel" you meant to say "coal".  Coal, we all know, is in plentiful supply, and consequently cannot have large price increases.  While the price of coal has stayed fairly constant if you are willing to go to the Powder River in Wyoming and pick it up yourself, the diesel railway to take it from their to the power plants is operating at capacity and cannot easily or quickly carry more, and even if it could, the coal deposits there won't last nearly so long as people think once you start trying to run the economy of China off of them.

True, it's only the high energy content coals suitable for making coke which have had their prices jump so high, and price rises in typical power plant coal have been more modest, but in building a new power plant which will last over 30 years, unless you want to repeat the mistake utilities made with natural gas, you need to consider not only the present prices but what costs will be in the future.  Are you really that confident that pollution standards won't be tightened?  That you won't be liable for additional costs under current law?  After you add the costs of financing a power plant and financing modern pollution equipment, as the 2006 DOE report said, it doesn't take that much of an increase in coal cost or new environmental lawsuits or delays in permitting or increases in required emissions reductions to push the cost over that of wind power.

Normal power systems suffer unplanned outages all the time, and until you get to around 5% market penetration, the wind power outages are out of phase with these and require no special network or storage systems.  However, as you point out, when you get over this level (and wind power is currently just over 1% of our electric generation, so it may not be that long before we reach it), you start to need energy storage facilities and national transmission system upgrades, and these costs aren't counted in those cost estimates.  We need the transmission system upgrades anyhow.  Trying to move huge amounts of AC power over long distances as we do currently is neither efficient nor stable.  Unless we're willing to start putting large coal plants in cities again, and carry more spare capacity than we have been so that we need less power transportation from neighboring areas, even without alternative power sources we still need a national high voltage DC transmission system.  The 3 large Missouri river lakes alone are so large that if you connected with a huge pumped storage system, it would have the power to supply 10% of us electric needs for 2 1/2 days.  So even when we have larger market penetration storage will be far from insoluble problem.

Global warming ocean rise estimates have dramatically increased recently as a result of observing glacier movement response to warming dramatically greater than previous theories predicted, leading to large increases in reasonable estimates of the costs of increases of the costs of coastal flooding as a result of global warming.  Sea ice loss in the Arctic is happening faster than predicted by the fastest of the current models, providing an albedo feedback increasing global warming estimates.  Yet, even where the are easily calculable, you don't seem to count direct costs due to global warming or pollution-related health care costs or turning large areas of land into wastelands as factoring into which fuel is "cheap".

If we were to discuss using natural gas as a fuel for cars, no doubt you would point to the additional costs of fuel storage and compression or cryogenic liquification, and say, "See, it isn't free," while ignoring that these costs are easily canceled out and more out by the cost difference, since even at recent record price levels natural gas is selling for around $1.50/gallon on a basis of energy equivalence with gasoline.

...had they been operating in a free market where they would have had to suffer the consequences of their stupidity instead of being able to pass their losses on to ratepayers, they would have lost their shirts

Well, no. Their competitors in a free market would have used the same assumptions, i.e., that gas-fired plants were better investments than other types of plants. And despite your apparent willingness to take a short-term increase in the price of natural gas to be indicative of fundamentally flawed, long-term market assumptions, there is no reason to think you are correct.

...in building a new power plant which will last over 30 years, unless you want to repeat the mistake utilities made with natural gas, you need to consider not only the present prices but what costs will be in the future

Such considerations were undertaken by the DOE researchers and were incorporated into their calculations. (See the "Key Assumptions" section of the Coal Market Module in the DOE report you didn't link to.)

Are you really that confident that pollution standards won't be tightened?

Past practice has been that existing facilities were grandfathered in new pollution control laws. Do you have a reason to think that won't happen in the future?

However, as you point out...

Who are you talking to?

We need the transmission system upgrades anyhow

What has that got to do with the fact that wind and solar power are more expensive than fossil fuel power (no, I didn't mean to say "coal") and that investment in oil exploration brings a better return than investment in solar and wind?

Global warming...[blah, blah, blah]...you don't seem to count direct costs due to global warming or pollution-related health care costs or turning large areas of land into wastelands as factoring into which fuel is "cheap"

Of course I don't count those costs -  those are external to the ROI of investing in petroleum exploration.

If we were to discuss using natural gas as a fuel for cars, no doubt you would point to the additional costs...

No, I would point to the example of Seoul, Korea where all the city's taxis were running on natural gas by the late 1980s and all the city's buses by 2006. If, on the other hand, we were discussing the Republican's political agenda, I might point out that natural gas powered cars accelerate like crap and wouldn't be accepted by the Americans gerrymander was talking about who just want cheap gasoline to put into the autos they already own.

Well, no. Their competitors in a free market would have used the same assumptions, i.e., that gas-fired plants were better investments than other types of plants. And despite your apparent willingness to take a short-term increase in the price of natural gas to be indicative of fundamentally flawed, long-term market assumptions, there is no reason to think you are correct.

But the EIA and utility company boards were not the only price estimating mechanism.  There was a natural gas futures market on NYMEX, which could reasonably be said to indicate the best guess of the market as to future prices, but the EIA ignored this and make up their own lower price estimates and utilities based their investment decisions on price estimates even lower than those of the EIA.

Unlike natural gas-fired generation, renewable generation (e.g., from wind, solar, and geothermal
power) is largely immune to fuel price risk. If ratepayers value long-term price stability, then –
contrary to common practice – any comparison of the levelized cost of renewable to gas-fired
generation should be based on a hedged gas price input, rather than an uncertain gas price
forecast. This paper compares natural gas prices that can be locked in through futures, swaps,
and physical supply contracts to contemporaneous long-term forecasts of spot gas prices. We
find that from 2000 – 2003, forward gas prices for terms of 2-10 years have been considerably
higher than most contemporaneous long-term gas price forecasts. This difference is striking, and
implies that comparisons between renewable and gas-fired generation based on these forecasts
over this period have arguably yielded results that are biased in favor of gas-fired generation.

Comparing some of these price estimates to today's reality, shows that they were seriously wrong, not only in terms of short term natural gas costs, but over the long term.  In 2003 EIA price estimates for 2008 were $4/MMBTU.  By 2005, this had risen to $5.  That's the prediction for this price series.  Are you honestly contending that that looks like a $4 or $5 constant price with a short term price spike?  And as I pointed out, the price projections of the utilities were even lower.

Utility plants nowadays are not primarily considered on basis of cost, but on the basis of regulatory approval prospects.  Or to put that in more business-centric terms, since the utility can pass along cost changes, the primary factor effecting their bottom line is regulatory and zoning costs, and the cost of the power generation itself doesn't drive the decision on what to build.

There was a natural gas futures market on NYMEX, which could reasonably be said to indicate the best guess of the market as to future prices...

A six-month market predicts 30-year prices? Please tell me you're playing an elaborate joke.

Are you honestly contending that that looks like a $4 or $5 constant price with a short term price spike?

I am saying that the variability of the dollar is all that matters in this case.

OK, I'm playing an elaborate joke.

All the data and criticisms you have provided thus far are either inconclusive (all the Bolinger memo said was that earlier calculations were "'biased' in favor of gas-fired generation" not that gas generation was definitively more expensive) or applied solely to gas-fired plants (as you noted above, coal electricity is still cheaper than wind or solar). My comment above was about investment in fossil fuel exploration rather than investment in renewable energy. Fossil fuel remains the safer bet for near- to mid-term investment; nothing you have presented changes that fact.

Of course I don't count those costs -  those are external to the ROI of investing in petroleum exploration.

And this, ladies and gentleman is why we're doomed (not by you personally, Ken).  The Fatal Flaw of Capitalism:  Business decisions that begin and end with the profit or loss of a given endeavor while not considering the costs as they are spread out across society.  Does the product make people sick?  Well, maybe...but that's really the domain of health care and doesn't figure into our balance sheet.

It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine

The Fatal Flaw of Capitalism:  Business decisions that begin and end with the profit or loss of a given endeavor while not considering the costs as they are spread out across society

That's not a flaw of capitalism, it's a flaw of government. Proper regulation of the commons is essential, but that is not a function that can be performed by any entity other than a government.

Heh...it's governments fault that business don't act responsibly.

It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine

The businesses are acting responsibly. It's the government's fault that they have not adequately defined responsible behavior through the law.

Care to explain how say tobacco companies are acting responsibly?  Is being responsible defined by doing the right thing, or not doing what the government says is wrong?  Of course, if the oppressive government is too oppressive then we can always hire lobbyists.

It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine

Care to explain how say tobacco companies are acting responsibly?

They sell a legal product to people who have freely chosen to buy that product. Do you have a different explanation of what constitutes responsible behavior by a business?

You are correct...legal product, freely purchased.  However, they have aggressively marketed a dangerous product to both adults and children, experimented with enhanced nicotine (according to some as being as addictive as heroin), and sponsor "I smoke and I vote" clubs.

But, as you say...it's a legal product, freely purchased.  

Play along for a moment, though.

I just discovered a substance called Progenitorivox.  When people use it, it heightens  mood, makes one feel more confident and productive.  And thanks to some clever marketing, it makes you look cool.  Oh yeah, it kills 400,000 people per year...and I know it kills 400,000 per year.  Even with that knowledge I continue my aggressive marketing.  I go to sleep each night comforted in the knowledge that even though my product is deadly, I am only selling what people want.

Is this responsible?  Not just legal...forget legal.  Is it right?

It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine

...it heightens  mood, makes one feel more confident and productive.  And thanks to some clever marketing, it makes you look cool.  Oh yeah, it kills 400,000 people per year...and I know it kills 400,000 per year...Is it right?

Two questions:

1. Are you concealing the deadly nature of your product, or is it common knowledge?
   
2. Did the 400,000 dead people experience the increased productivity, confidence, and coolness while they were still alive?

1. As a new entrepreneur, I am going to follow the standards set by previous marketers of mood enhancing, yet deadly products.

2. It's hard to say.  They're all dead and thus not available for polling purposes.  But we can make the following assumptions:

Productivity - after ingesting my new drug, people were able to produce at a higher level than not...however, this is offset by the amount of time each day where my customers had to activate another substance delivery device.

Confidence - Certainly having a group of like minded users who would gather together to activate their substance delivery devices would give one the sense of confidence one finds when belonging to the group...certainly of a group that we help portray as rebels and mavericks.  Studies are underway to find if this is a true sense of confidence.

Coolness - Among a group of like minded users who also thought brown teeth and the breath of a Camel were cool, yes.  Among those puritanical non-users, especially those who had to deal with the discarded substance delivery devices laying about, they thought that the users were selfish, insufferable wankers.  And horribly uncool.  Also, due to the loss of productivity due to hospital visits, lack of confidence that one would live long enough to retire, the need to carry around oxygen and leaving behind grieving children and grandchildren all contribute to a general uncoolness.

But aside from that, the users were productive, confident, cool, and prematurely dead.

It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine

1. Are you concealing the deadly nature of your product, or is it common knowledge?

I would strenuously deny the danger of my product for many years (even in the growing face of evidence) and such time that I would make a deal with the government to pay out a great deal of money to account for the damage I committed...while at the same time I would continue appealing that decision until such time courts were filled with those judges who were friendly to my lobby...errr, position.

It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine

Is the dangerous nature of your product common knowledge despite your denials?

Not if I can help it.

It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine

You can't help it: either people notice the connection between your product and the deaths or they do not. (Such as in the case of cigarettes: anyone with at least half a brain knew they were unhealthful a long time before warnings were included on the packaging.)

Yesterday I saw a commercial for a device which purportedly would send electronic transmissions through the power wires of your house, causing mice and cockroaches to leave a single floor of your home.  Or a single floor of a large condominium.  In any case, the waves traveling through the wires would be confined to a single floor, but would rid that floor of pest regardless of the size of said floor.

As they say, you can fool some of the people all of the time.

You are correct of course...if someone dies of cigarette induced cancer, so be it.  Really, the only sympathy I have for such folk is reserved for their survivors.

But, I think in my haste to be clever I let my main point slip away.  I'm not calling for an outright ban on tobacco.  When I spoke of corporations doing the 'right thing', I am really thinking on an individual basis, personal ethics...down to the CEOs, marketing executives, etc.  Sure they're making a legal product, but so what?  Even you acknowledge the dangers of smoking.  I try to put myself in their shoes.  Would I be able to manufacture or market a product that has a track record of addiction and death?  I wouldn't...would you?  Obviously, there are plenty of people who don't have a problem with this since the tobacco companies appear to be running at full steam.  

And of course, the tobacco industry is just the easy knockdown of the corporate world.  There are way too many to choose from...the Ford Pinto (BBQ that seats four), Nestle, on and on and on...  The only time the corps show responsibility is when they're finally brought to heel by the law...and even then only after years, and decades of court cases, spin doctoring/public relations, and lobbying.  

It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine

Would I be able to manufacture or market a product that has a track record of addiction and death?  I wouldn't...would you?

When I have a guest in my home it generally seems like good manners to offer them an alcoholic beverage, so, yeah, I guess  have no problem with offering a product that, while objectively unhealthy (even deadly), makes people temporarily content.

Would you offer a drink to someone you knew to be a recovering alcoholic...even if he asked?  Do you present the alcoholic beverages in such a way that encourages people to drink themselves into insensibility and to crave more?  Do you allow or encourage minors to drink in your home?  

It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine

Would you offer a drink to someone you knew to be a recovering alcoholic...even if he asked?

If he said please, sure.

Do you present the alcoholic beverages in such a way that encourages people to drink themselves into insensibility and to crave more?

The whiskey is in tumblers of fine lead crystal. Cosmopolitans in a tall martini glass with a freshly cut wedge of lime on the rim or a curl of lime zest in the bottom, depending on the mood. Ales carefully poured in imperial pint glasses, lagers in pilsner glasses. Soju in ornamental shot glasses as provided by the distiller. Sake from hand-painted earthenware decanters with matching cups. Rum and cokes in highball glasses...uh, do I need to go on?

Do you allow or encourage minors to drink in your home?

Do she gots big breastesses?

Shit...when you put it like that, how can I resist?  

It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine

This sub-thread is making me thirsty. I call Z as the first guest bartender at our first annual convention. Whenever we make that happen.

Pah...it's not the container, it's the contents.  After all, the cup is not valuable as a cup, but as the space it contains.  As long as the glass is clean, I'm good.

It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine

But, what better way to express our insouciant sophistry than to raise our tumblers of fine lead crystal, tall martini glasses, imperial pint glasses, pilsner glasses, ornamental shot glasses, hand-painted earthenware decanters with matching cups and highball glasses, toasting to our common good health and wealth and then smash them all into the fireplace roaring before us?

Illegitimi non carborundum.

Are you crazy? That shit's expensive!

But, isn't that the point?

Illegitimi non carborundum.

high voltage DC transmission system

DC?  I was under the impression that DC has high line losses.  Was that a typo?

No, it's not.  Keep in mind that the named voltage of AC power is the RMS voltage, while it's the maximum voltage which sets the insulation requirements.  For an equivalent maximum voltage and power dissipation, an AC line will transmit less power by a factor of root 2 when the current is in phase with voltage and more when it is not in phase.

The DC power stations are more expensive, since the AC station is a simple transformer, but the cost difference has dropped greatly recently due to the development of modern thyristors, and the AC line cannot be run at all unless the phase of the voltage in the two systems it connects is synchronized.

You are perhaps recalling the experience of Thomas Edison when he attempted to run residential electric service with main distribution line voltages at household voltage levels, while Nikola Tesla and George Westinghouse used transformers to run their distribution lines at higher voltage levels.

I know that Palin said this:

"Pray for our military men and women who are striving to do what is right. Also, for this country, that our leaders, our national leaders, are sending [U.S. soldiers] out on a task that is from God," she exhorted the congregants. "That's what we have to make sure that we're praying for, that there is a plan and that that plan is God's plan."

Now, I'm an atheist, so I am not the guy to consult as to what this means; but I don't read from this an overall vision that Iraq is God's war.  Instead, she is praying for God to guide the war, much as theists are inclined to ask God to do everything for them.  Also, in what I see as an implied slam at Bush, she is praying for God to give us a plan for Iraq.  Wouldn't anti-war theists agree with that prayer?

There might be more; I didn't watch the YouTube videos.

Do you think Obama is qualified?

I think he's marginally qualified.  I certainly wish the Democrats had put up someone who was more qualified.  I've already gone over in detail my feelings on this in the Palin thread, so I'm not going to go into detail again - if you want my full feelings on the subject, just read what I said there.