HARVESTING ALGAE ENERGY for pond-powered biofuels:

The science is simple: Algae need water, sunlight and carbon dioxide to grow. The oil they produce can then be harvested and converted into biodiesel; the algae’s carbohydrate content can be fermented into ethanol. Both are much cleaner-burning fuels than petroleum-based diesel or gas.

The reality is more complex. Trying to grow concentrations of the finicky organism is a bit like trying to balance the water in a fish tank. It’s also expensive. The water needs to be just the right temperature for algae to proliferate, and even then open ponds can become choked with invasive species. Atmospheric levels of CO2 also aren’t high enough to spur exponential growth.

Solix addresses these problems by containing the algae in closed “photobioreactors”—triangular chambers made from sheets of polyethylene plastic (similar to a painter’s dropcloth)—and bubbling supplemental carbon dioxide through the system. Eventually, the source of the CO2 will be exhaust from power plants and other industrial processes, providing the added benefit of capturing a potent greenhouse gas before it reaches the atmosphere.

Read the whole thing.

OXBLOG: Our conference call with McCain. Who knew that “hot lesbians” would come up?

A MORMON CONSPIRACY SO VAST — revealed!

JOURNALISTS ON THE JOB: “Questionable claim unquestioned.”

“WHAT THE HELL HAPPENED to ‘name, rank, and serial number?'”

“International law” is only a tool to bash the United States and its allies. It’s not meant to actually protect people. Except the enemies of civilization. Just ask the folks in Darfur.

OKAY, I’VE NEVER ACTUALLY SEEN BEDTIME FOR BONZO, but David Boaz says it’s better than advertised: “I wonder how many liberal journalists have ever watched Bedtime for Bonzo. It’s actually quite funny to see Reagan as a young liberal college professor trying to prove the ‘nurture’ side of the nature-vs.-nurture and saying that there are no bad kids, just bad environments.”

Maybe I should order it! (Via Jesse Walker).

A.C. KLEINHEIDER: “I grew up in New Jersey and I will tell you right now, there is nothing, and I mean nothing worse than toll roads. There are reasons that people migrate down South from the Yankee north. I am sure no one has ever moved out the North explicitly because of toll roads but they are a symptom of a greater disease.”

When I lived in Connecticut, an anti-toll group noted that the toll revenue barely sufficed to pay for the toll collections. The response: “It produces jobs!” It’s like Bastiat’s “negative railway” without the humor.

BIPARTISAN RECOGNITION OF D.C. GUN-LAW STUPIDITY: Democrat Taylor Marsh writes; “The incident surrounding Senator James Webb not only became a one-liner in Bush’s stand up last night, but it has been illuminating. The D.C. gun laws, one of which was recently overturned by the Court of Appeals after 30 years on the books, sound like the most ridiculous set of laws ever to be enacted. I mean really, you can bring an unloaded gun into the Capitol but you can’t travel through the D.C. streets with that same gun on the way to the Capitol?”

UPDATE: Guns and Poses.

SMEARS AGAINST IRAQ THE MODEL: And this response.

Is there any enemy of America that the left won’t side with? Or any friend that the left won’t oppose? No.

OVER AT OPINIO JURIS, an interesting online symposium on challenges to public international law.

One challenge, it seems to me, is the prevalence of double standards.

UPDATE: Ouch: “If the standards are not consistent, it is simply not a regime of law, is it? It is a fig leaf for something completely different and, inevitably, something far less benign.”

ANOTHER MODEST STEP FORWARD FOR CIVIL RIGHTS: Texas’ governor Rick Perry has signed the “no retreat” law.

PROTECTING THE READERS FROM FACTS THEY DON’T NEED: At the L.A. Times, where readers can always count on that kind of protection!

AL GORE as Clarence Darrow? It’s not an analogy that I would have thought of.

I DON’T THINK THIS PHENOMENON IS CENTERED IN WASHINGTON, THOUGH: Human evolution is accelerating.

PORK WINS, troops lose.

THE GENEVA CONVENIENCE: Seldom has the double standard been so clearly illustrated.

GOOD: “Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-TX) introduced the District of Columbia Personal Protection Act of 2007, a bill to restore Second Amendment rights in Washington, D.C.”

I wonder if Jim Webb will cosponsor.

DIANNE FEINSTEIN blazes a trail for women.

WHEN ANTIBIOTICS DON’T WORK: This sounds promising. Let’s hope it pans out.

UPDATE: Link was bad before. Works now. Sorry!

“LIKE WE NEED YOUR SUPPORT:” An appropriate motto for the National Sarcasm Society.

I actually hear it in the voice of SpongeBob’s “Squidward,” but that’s probably just me.

THE JIM WEBB / PHILLIP THOMPSON GUN ARREST STORY has had the salutary effect of bringing more attention to the District of Columbia’s silly gun laws. The Washington Post headlines its story this way: You Can Bring Gun to Capitol, But Not Through D.C. and observes:

The arrest this week of Phillip Thompson, an aide to Sen. James Webb (D-Va.) who carried a loaded pistol into a Senate office building, brought to light a contradiction between the regulations governing the Capitol grounds and the laws covering District streets.

The Capitol grounds are federal property and not subject to the District’s strict gun laws, which generally prohibit firearms.

Although some people are allowed to bring guns into the Capitol, they cannot legally get them there, said Lt. Jon Shelton, the longtime head of the D.C. police department’s gun unit.

“They can’t helicopter them in,” Shelton said.

Senate Sergeant-at-Arms Terrance W. Gainer said he would advise lawmakers to “abide by D.C. laws” when not on Capitol grounds. He said members of Congress who want guns at the Capitol should ask police to transport the weapons for them.

Jeez. Though it seems to me that this may violate the right-to-travel provisions of the Firearms Owners’ Protection Act of 1986. I’m not an expert here, but I doubt that the D.C. police are, either.

Meanwhile, Timothy Noah, in Slate, parses Webb’s statements and observes:

To one of the reporters present, this sounded as though Webb were saying not only that he carried a gun with him when he was in Virginia, where it’s legal, but also that he carried a gun with him when he was in D.C., where it’s not. (D.C.’s handgun ban was recently struck down by the D.C. Court of Appeals, but it remains in force while the city government seeks a review by the full D.C. Circuit.) The reporter therefore asked, “Do you, senator, feel that you are above Washington, D.C.’s gun law?” Webb replied: “I’m not going to comment in any level in terms of how I provide for my own security.” Webb then reaffirmed his belief in the Second Amendment; said he couldn’t comment on any aspect of Thompson’s case; denied, bafflingly, that he ever gave the weapon to Thompson (Did that mean he gave it to another aide who in turn gave it to Thompson?); and stated, most bafflingly of all, “I have never carried a gun in the Capitol complex.” Was Webb saying he’s carried a gun elsewhere in the District of Columbia? His office won’t answer that question.

Webb’s silence increases the suspicion that he either has broken or continues to break the D.C. law, more or less daring the local authorities to do anything about it. That could be posturing; as Dana Milbank points out in the March 28 Washington Post, nobody ever lost a vote in the state of Virginia by thumbing his nose at gun control. Legally, though, Webb’s evasiveness constitutes probable cause, entitling the next D.C. cop Webb encounters within city limits (but outside the Capitol) to frisk him. That’s probably the last thing D.C.’s new mayor, Adrian Fenty, and his new chief of police, Cathy Lanier, would like to see happen. I therefore recommend that Fenty or Lanier phone Webb and ask the senator straight out whether he intends in the future to obey D.C.’s gun laws. (Figuring out whether Webb has broken these laws in the past is the job of Thompson’s prosecutors.) If Webb answers anything other than “yes,” then Lanier should dispatch a police officer to frisk Webb at the senator’s next public appearance outside the Capitol. If Webb is carrying a handgun, that police officer should arrest him. Sounds absurd, I know. But how can the D.C. government do otherwise while on a daily basis it arrests less-well-dressed young black men for the very same offense?

There’s a solution to these absurdities — adopt a sensible gun law in Washington, D.C. The laws of neighboring Virginia — or, heck, Tennessee — would provide a good model. That would make it easy and legal for law-abiding citizens to carry guns, without having to rely on the political clout of being a U.S. Senator to avoid police harassment. After all, reliance on that sort of clout isn’t very populist.

Webb has said he’s for liberal laws on gun carriage, and, I believe, for national reciprocity laws that would make states recognize one another’s carry permits. So let’s see less talk about legislation on the subject and more action. Then we won’t have to worry about this sort of thing happening again.

On a humorous note, elsewhere in Slate Webb’s comments are parsed differently: “Coincidentally, in the new film Shooter, Ned Beatty plays a U.S. senator who says, ‘I don’t carry a gun,’ and then pulls out a Beretta 92.”

UPDATE: The gunnies weigh in! First, a humorous comment from reader George Lukes:

Ned Beatty’s character spoke the truth. He wasn’t carrying a gun, only a poorly designed gun wannabe, the Beretta 92.

Ouch! There are people who like ’em, but I’d prefer a Sig, a Glock, or a model 1911 .45. Still, it’s a gun, sort of. And reader Michael Seifert writes:

Some observations I have not seen elsewhere.

1. Isn’t part of this story irresponsibility? As a former Boy Scout Marksman, I was drilled on not only the proper shooting of a firearm, but it’s handling, transportation and storage. A loaded handgun has only two places to be. On your person under immediate control, or in a locked case. Some would argue the locked case should never contain a loaded weapon. Carrying a loaded weapon in a shopping bag, backpack or briefcase is, to me, the height of irresponsibility on the part of the owner. Once Jim Webb surrendered his personal control of the weapon, it should have been secured AND unloaded. I would like to hear him explain that!

2. Congress members are free from arrest going to and from legislative business. Combine that with the 2nd amendment and I think the DC police would not be well advised to try to enforce what looks like a shaky law.

But the part that bugs me the most is the lack of gun owner’s responsibility.

That may be a little strong, but this was not good practice. If Webb’s too busy and distracted to take care of his gun — not implausible for a Senator — then he shouldn’t carry one. This is why busy, distracted people who can afford them hire bodyguards. Even if you possess all the skills to defend yourself, if you can’t properly implement them in your daily life you’re better off recognizing that fact. On the other hand anyone — even professional bodyguards, like the one working for Edward Kennedy who got caught with an illegal submachine gun in the Capitol — can suffer a lapse of attention.

As for the immunity claim, I don’t think it works, as the privilege against arrest extends to all cases except treason, felony, and breach of the peace. Illegal guns are a felony in the District; I’m not sure, but I think that illegally carrying a gun may qualify as a breach of the peace. I wouldn’t advise Webb to rely on that, anyway . . . .

And it’s not necessarily bad news for Webb on the political front. As Dave Hardy observes: “I thought Webb showed great potential for becoming the Right Sort of Democrat, and this tends to confirm it.”

ANOTHER UPDATE: Shakey Pete wonders who the gun belongs to.

SLUMS RULED BY MILITIAS: It’s a quagmire! Pull out!

Oh, wait, it’s in Rio de Janeiro. As someone with family in Nigeria, it’s been clear to me that some — not all — of Iraq’s problems are unfortunately typical of third world countries with weak social contracts, and will likely persist regardless of how the war goes. That’s not to say that Baghdad is no worse than, say, Lagos — but in Lagos, armed criminal gangs, kidnappings, murder, etc. are shockingly common and uncontrolled. And in Nigeria’s Delta region there’s basically guerrilla war over oil already. Sadly, Iraq probably already has a better government and military than Nigeria, so that if the insurgency ended tomorrow Baghdad would probably be better than Lagos. Heck, it might be as good as Rio. But it wouldn’t be as good as even a badly-governed, gang-infested, crime-ridden American city like, say, Washington, DC.

Via The Belmont Club, which observes: “One way to recognize a failing state is to examine the extent to which its cities are subdividing into gated communities. “

HOUSE REPUBLICANS FINALLY UNITE AGAINST SPENDING: Well, the Democratic congress has already accomplished something that the Republican Congress couldn’t manage . . . .

JENNIFER RUBIN LOOKS AT PARKER V. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, the case in which the D.C. Circuit struck D.C.’s gun ban. She puts it in the context of a bigger picture:

Peter Ferrara of the ACRU takes a more philosophical and historical view of the potential long-range implications of the case. He remarks that if Parker is upheld by the Supreme Court, it will “be a big shot in the arm for conservatives” and will demonstrate that “we have had an impact on the courts and on changing the judiciary.” He notes that the effort to achieve recognition of an individual right of gun ownership has been an undertaking of more than fifty years of research, scholarship, and support for conservative judges. He explains that what was once considered a “radical” position — recognition of an individual right to gun ownership — has now attracted support even from liberal scholars like Laurence Tribe and has been accepted by a prominent federal appeals court. Ferrara says that conservatives should remember that these jurisprudential efforts are “not short term fights.” As for the impact on 2008, he reminds conservatives that “this is no time to be discouraged” with at least two justices who could be potentially replaced by the next president.

These battles are long-term affairs. When I teach Brown v. Board of Education, I always stress to my students the lengthy run-up to that case, in which Charles Houston, Thurgood Marshall, and other NAACP attorneys laid the ground for the ultimate win. As the gay-rights lawyers learned in Bowers v. Hardwick, trying to rush this process tends not to work.

I’VE WONDERED ABOUT THIS KIND OF THING MYSELF: “Does Iran have a network of sleeper cells inside the United States that could strike us if we bomb their nuclear facilities?”