I've got one for you.

You'd be amazed what the mind can come up with while standing dead on a Mississippi Stud game on a Sunday night. But here's a question that had me thinking for a solid six hours.

You've got a limited amount of time and money, you're on the mainland Europe, and you've got to pick no more than five significant battlefields to visit. Where do you go?

Now I kept in mind the limited funds and time and grouped mine kind of close together. In no order of significance, they are:

1) Normandy
2) Agincourt
3) Waterloo
4) Bastogne
5) The Somme

If you'll notice, my battlefields are all geographically fairly close, thus fulfilling the time and hopefully money limitations. With the exception of Agincourt, all are relatively modern battlefields. With the exception of the Somme, all were absolutely critical moments in their respective conflicts. (Haig had no chance of ending or even significantly altering the scope of WW1 at the Somme. The entire campaign was designed to draw German resources away from Verdun, which it did at horrific cost. In all honesty, I picked it because three of the most famous Inklings were there.)

I know Titus has seen several battlefields on the European mainland, around Moscow and St. Petersburg, so his list may be completely different from mine, but it's a start.

After further review...

So after the conversation with Baddboy I looked into what a nuclear power plant costs. The figure I used over the phone for argument's sake, $3oo million, turned out to be way off. According to the Nuclear Energy Information Service (NEIS) out of Illinois, it's between 3 to 5 BILLION. And between seven and fifteen years to construct.

As a side note, I will freely admit that the NEIS site was hostile to nuclear power. But none of the other "friendly" sites dispute the core numbers of the argument. And once again, this argument wasn't about pro nuclear or anti nuclear. It was about a better way of running a company.

So, plugging in the numbers, if a 4'x 8' solar array coupled with a 100kw domestic wind generator is the core requirement for an average home's powering needs, calculating said equipment at $25k installed, 160,000 homes could be fitted with this equipment for the cost of one nuclear power plant.

I have no idea what the staff required to operate the plant is, but I'm guessing it's more than 100. There's all that labor saved. All the costs of keeping a nuclear power plant running and clean and safe, and most important the strategic necessity of not allowing radioactive waste to fall into bad guy's hands for the creation of dirty bombs (Always frame environmental concerns in terms of a clear and present danger to our nation.) are out the window because for the next ten or so years you've got a lease agreement with the home owner for the equipment and the excess power they're generating for free.

160,000 homes. I mean damn.

And that's ONE plant.

Once we get our electricity production weened somewhat off of natural gas, we can set the gas stations up to fill our cars with domestically produced natural gas for $1.25 a gallon and life is awesome!

The energy market and its future?

Jambo and I were talking the other night about the future of energy in the United States and I thought this was something we could all get involved in without the whole political aspect of things although that would play a part.

I thought Jambo had a great plan as far as alternative energy goes. Decentralizing power generation by leasing wind and solar gear to individual homes and businesses instead of just supplying power. They could still supply power as needed when demand was too high for what could be individually generated but that would significantly decrease the amount of energy that needed to be supplied on a regular basis. Any excess energy generated by the individual would be pushed back into the grid for use by others.

I have been looking for a whole home solar setup for my home and it's amazing how few companies here in the all too sunny south are involved in it. I can't find one that deals in large scale insallations here in the coastal areas. I have looked into wind but it seems by all of the maps that we are in one of the least windy areas of the US down here on the Mississippi gulf coast. I have been able to find whole home kits to buy over the internet but I'm not even sure how big of an array I would need or how to even intall it once it got here so I'm kinda stuck. That leads me into my main point. For a country that is finally starting to see the light as far as the need for alternative energy goes there aren't a whole lot of folks getting involved. I find that quite startling since there is money in it for sure and alot of peeps that are willing to pay for the expertise. Every company I have found that deals in these types of operations is out west. I'm beginning to think that we...The Bund should get into installing solar and wind arrays and make a butt load of money and then we can buy a big driveway with a big screen tv and debate to our hearts content without worrying about where our next paycheck is coming from hehe.

"Jesse Goes Nuts Over Obama"

He,he,he ... that was the headline on the NY Post web site. I realize no one in this forum takes the modern day Jesse Jackson seriously, he is a hollow shell demagogue compared to his mentor, MLK. At any rate this was too priceless to pass up. Jackson's about to go on a local Chicago FOX News affiliate to talk about health care and a hot microphone accidentally picks up on a private conversation in which the "Reverend" utters the following: "The way he [Obama] talks down to black folks about faith make me want to cut his nuts out."

Obama has taken to adopting the Bill Cosby attitude towards the black community when it comes to social issues - condemning rap stars, absent fathers, government dependency (this while his policies would enable the latter two exponentially!), and this line of rhetoric is what Jackson was referring to. It would seem Jesse believes that he is the only black politico allowed to talk down to the American people ....

Czarina Titus

Or perhaps you prefer the "T" spelling .... look, I know you consider yourself the Wizard of Moscow within our forum regarding all things Rusky. And hey, I'll give you your kudos for having earned that arrogance. Your advanced credits probably rival mine in number and every bit of them was geared towards being a Sovietologist. Add to that you actually lived there for two years (good Lord, you are probably on some US government list in the back of Baker's closet ... or his predecessor), walked the streets of Moscow herself, and bedded an (undoubtedly taught) Russian babe. I get all that and I have, with few exceptions, regarded your fascination with that country as healthy. But your last post spoke of "threats posed" as if we were still dealing with the USSR. We are not. That "threat" you spoke of is NOT a shooting war, it just isn't, thus Jambo's "and what the hell are you going to do about it" attitude. What we are talking about is a good ol' fashioned CIA phrase - "spheres of influence." Bush and company are everywhere it must seem to Putin's Russia. We are turning two despotic nations in the energy crucial Near East into potential allies. We already have great sway with Turkey, we virtually own NATO's course and direction, NAFTA has made the fortunes of South America and Canada's inseparable from our own and then here we go, making what amounts to military alliances with nation's on Russia's back door step. But that is what we are SUPPOSED TO DO, from an American standpoint. The next ass backwards nation that needs to be invaded or bombed, the next sanction that needs to be imposed, the next G8 leverage we have, is enhanced by these Eastern European states being indebted to us via security. And Iran is not just a cover story as to why we are pursuing these missile agreements. 9 real life reasons were demonstrated yesterday and every one of them was launched from Persian soil. And if nothing else Bush and co respect the inevitability of Russia's return to world class reckoning, thus he is pursuing such a bold course. There is an argument to be made that we should do the opposite, make Russia our #2, to use a Dr. Evil term, but Bush by my best estimation has tried that and had his hand slapped by Putin every time. Their national interests, according to Vlad it would seem, do not jive with America's post 9/11 direction, and it is their right to act accordingly ... as it is ours to make pacts with their neighbors.

Perhaps I read you wrong, text can cause that versus live interaction, but your disbelief at why the rest of us can't see why Russia reads this as a "threat" leads me to believe that you are in fact reading this in Cold War terms which are inherently laden heavy with the threat of a shooting war. Again, this is not the case - sphere's of geopolitical influence is what this is about. And look, I don't blame Russia for being pissed over the missile agreements, I would expect them to be. But what I also expect is for my government - given I believe wholeheartedly in the liberty guarding principles that guide them - to increase the reach of US Marines (and military missiles) world wide. And it would do the Russian Defense Minister good to act a little more maturely - democracies should disagree over policy civilly, not threaten each other with direct military force. Do we threaten them every time they re up an energy or commodities deal with Iran? No ... we seek out their neighbors and hand out some ICBM cover ... he,he. Now THAT is how a mature democracy deals with his unruly friends (or comrades) in liberty.... rather then do the Russian version of "yo mamma."

They should take note.

GO BIG RED!!!!!!!!

Hell ya, the red menace is back. That is some of the greatest news I have heard in a long time. I miss hating the Russians. I'm tired of having to explain to my children why I hate the little bastards so much, now they can see for themselves. If the Russians don't want a missile defense system in the czeck republic I say lets put 20 of them in there. If the Polish want some US armored divisions and a couple of F-22 squadrons in there borders I say HELL YA. If the former Soviet Union hadn't treated them so poorly they wouldn't be coming to NATO, I say vote them all in. Putin says that NATO isn't needed anymore, well he just gave us all the reason in the world to keep it relevent. Putin can go fork himself to death for all I care. Oh ya, and if it is that important to him that we not put a defense system in Europe, tell him to get his shit out of South America.

And thats all I have to say about that

Do you understand the words that are coming out of my mouth

Well Ryan, no offense intended but the fact that they removed material that could have been used in the manufacturing of WMD is not news. I had a post a while back and told you we had proof. I had seen it personally and it wasn't a secret. The problem is that people don't want the truth or proof, they want to lambaste the president. So no matter how much proof there is the pacifists don't want to hear it, the liberals don't want to see it and the Democrats wouldn't admit to knowing the truth even if they did unless it fits into their new neo-socialist model. Did Sadam have WMD, or the capability of manufacturing them? YES Did we have proof? YES Does it matter at this point? NO Whether the war was justified in the beginning is irrelevent now. We are there and like I have said in the past I still don't think it was about WMD or oil or money...It was what every war is eventually about...Geography.