So, today I covered this symposium held over at the Federal Reserve Bank on nuclear energy as a viable alternative to the fossil fuels in the near future.

zzz...

(anybody still with me?)

All these stodgy braniac economists and, um, me. Which made for some high comedy. The guy giving the presentation was some big-to-do at some big-to-do economic consulting firm, and he did this big-to-do study in conjunction with University of Chicago blah blah blah...

$45 to get in the door unless you're press, in which case you get in free and enjoy the catered lunch. It's the little things, people. The little things...

Anyhow, what he had to say about the future of nuclear power was actually pretty cool once you translated it from Geek.

But before the presentation started, this friendly nerdy young "energy-pundit" sat down next to me at my table; we exchanged pleasantries and he started to wax poetic about *Energy,* with a capital "E," in the large macro-economic context of things - how it drives the world, etc.

Having absolutely jack to contribute, I basically nodded and listened, and he seemed happy to have an audience.

He went on to make the point that energy - and the lack thereof - can be the principle driving force behind warfare.

Now he's got my attention. Sort of. I can smell the roasted chicken behind me and it's driving me nuts. Goddamn, when are they gonna serve food? I came here for the free meal, dammit!

He talks about WWII. The Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor in direct response to our oil embargo, which we imposed after they invaded China, our motives there being energy-related. Hitler went after the oil-rich southern fields in Russia and made the mistake of fighting the war on two fronts blah blah blah, you get the point. The guy goes on.

I couldn't resist. I had to ask, and, with my best non-partisan poker face, I brought his own point to its logical conclusion.

"Is it safe to say the latest war in Iraq was in some part oil-driven?"

Suddenly, all this grand talk about energy driving warfare subsided. I swear, you could almost see it melt off his face - it was priceless: "No, oil really wasn't a principle factor there." Then the guy basically transformed into a taped recording of Donald Rumsfeld from a year-and-a-half ago. Sheesh.

I think I did a pretty good job of hiding my amusement.

Later while we're in line for the roasted chicken (finally, dammit), he randomly tells me this story of how Anne Richards attacked Dubya during that Texas gubenatorial race and ran ads accusing him of losing all this money in his oil companies, when the reality was that all oil companies were losing money at that time due to write-downs, depreciation, etc.

I said, "Isn't that something," and refrained from asking him his thoughts on our current federal deficit.

I swear, they really need to start paying us to go out and cover these things, not vice-versa.

While I'm sort of on the subject, this CNN headline just cracked me up:

Poll: Nation split on Bush as a uniter or divider

Doesn't that inherently answer the question, right there?

Really?



***********************



In other developments it's still frickin freezing in here, Mr. Bigglesworth. I know you're sick of my bitching, but goddamn - if I have to suffer then I'm talking you all down with me. Put on your scarves and let's go.