In an earlier blog I named a few of my heroes in the cause of rational thinking. One of those is Michael Shermer who writes the Skeptic column every month for Scientific American. His latest in the December 08 issue talks about the penchant for us mere mortals to seek meaningful patterns in the random cacophony of news and events that bombard us every day. This is called patternicity.
As examples Mr. Shermer asks why do people see faces in nature, hear voices in electronic white noise, or images of the Virgin Mary in coffee stains and dirty windows. The answer he effectively argues is that we are programed by evolution to do so because sensing and reacting to patterns is at the very least a competitive advantage and in some cases a survival mechanism.
It is a competitive advantage because it provides for greater efficiency. For example early humanoids that were able to detect and then predict patterns of movement of game would be more efficient hunters. Similarly the ability to recognize patterns in the behavior of predators would clearly lead to a greater probability of survival and thus would be a genetic trait that would be reinforced in subsequent generations.
Mr. Shermer refers to work done by Harvard University biologist Kevin R. Foster and University of Helsinki biologist Hanna Kokko who have put forth the notion that whenever the cost believing a false pattern is real (i.e. a false positive) is less than the cost of not believing a real pattern (i.e. a false negative) natural selection will favor the development of patternicity.
A real life example that we can all identify with is how we react to a sudden change in our environment. Be it a loud noise or a surprise encounter with another person most people would describe their reaction as being startled - or some might say that (or you) gave me a fright. In other words we are programed to react to such situations as potential threats. You can see how the above theory works in this situation. Clearly the risks of reacting to a non-threat situation as if it were real are low, but the risk of not reacting to a real threat situation are very high.
The problem - As Mr. Shermer points out - is that we are not very good at figuring these probabilities so our tendency to see all sorts of weird patterns in non-meaningful data is usually a harmless low-cost artifact of our evolved need to detect and react to non-weird patterns. So keep on looking for UFO's and messages in tea leaves. For the most part it won't hurt anyone, but don't quit your day job.
Wednesday, November 26, 2008
Tuesday, November 18, 2008
The Auto Industry Dilemma
When is a "bailout" not a bailout? When it isn't. The choice of the loaded word "bailout" to describe the recent $700B TARP legislation and now being used in the context of the US auto industry travails is both unfortunate and inaccurate.
First a few facts. As previously explained in this blog we got into this mess because the dems in congress and their activist legal pit bulls cajoled and threatened banks to lend money to people who couldn't afford it to buy houses. Then they compounded the problem by strong arming Frannie and Freddie into guaranteeing those loans so that they could be packaged and sold as high quality investments. This whole house of cards was working fine until the housing bubble popped and folks who had no business being in homes they couldn't afford in the first place were under water and facing higher interest rates as their "teaser" mortgage rates began to reset to market values.
If this weren't bad enough a few "too clever for their own good" insurance industry types created the Credit Default Swap (CDS) product which basically became a naked short vehicle for investors to bet that there would be a higher than normal default rate. This proved to be like throwing gasoline on a fire. The result is history.
So when the media and some in congress referred to the TARP as a Wall Street bailout they were flat out wrong and in some cases purposely disingenuous. The TARP was absolutely necessary to protect Main Street from a complete lock up of the credit markets. Furthermore the way the TARP funds have been used to date is anything but a taxpayer funded bailout of the financial industry. The TARP funds have been used to purchase preferred stock in banks and other financial institutions. These purchases are time bound with respect to when they have to be liquidated and the taxpayers made whole, and in the meantime Joe and Jane taxpayer get to earn a very nice interest rate to boot. Not a bad deal for anyone.
Now to the auto industry discussion. There are people out there that just have it in for Detroit. I am not sure why but just as inexplicable as the left's hatred of Bush there are people who perceive the US auto industry as venal, corrupt and incapable of producing a quality product. I'm not saying the execs in the US industry are angels but let's face it, the real problem with the US auto industry is the legacy of the gold plated union contracts that were cut back in the 50's when the US auto industry was the only game in town. And as far as quality is concerned, I have owned both Ford and GM products for the last 16 years and I would match their quality with any of the foreign competition. The fact is that public perception of the quality of US manufacturers is a decade or more behind the reality. Now this is a legacy that the auto makers have to take ownership of because of all the crap cars they produced in the 70's and 80's. Trust lost is very hard to regain.
The US needs a strong domestically owned auto industry. It's not just jobs but also technology development and manufacturing process improvements. Furthermore once again whatever package is ultimately approved by congress it will not be a "bailout." It will have all kind of hooks to ensure that the taxpayers are repaid (remember we did this once before with Chrysler on Lee Iacoca's watch) and that executive compensation is moderate. My only concern at this point is that in pandering to the enviro-nazi movement the democratic controlled congress may try to dictate products that must be built rather than letting consumers drive that decision.
Bottom line - I am for helping the US auto industry through this trying and temporary situation and I hope you are too.
First a few facts. As previously explained in this blog we got into this mess because the dems in congress and their activist legal pit bulls cajoled and threatened banks to lend money to people who couldn't afford it to buy houses. Then they compounded the problem by strong arming Frannie and Freddie into guaranteeing those loans so that they could be packaged and sold as high quality investments. This whole house of cards was working fine until the housing bubble popped and folks who had no business being in homes they couldn't afford in the first place were under water and facing higher interest rates as their "teaser" mortgage rates began to reset to market values.
If this weren't bad enough a few "too clever for their own good" insurance industry types created the Credit Default Swap (CDS) product which basically became a naked short vehicle for investors to bet that there would be a higher than normal default rate. This proved to be like throwing gasoline on a fire. The result is history.
So when the media and some in congress referred to the TARP as a Wall Street bailout they were flat out wrong and in some cases purposely disingenuous. The TARP was absolutely necessary to protect Main Street from a complete lock up of the credit markets. Furthermore the way the TARP funds have been used to date is anything but a taxpayer funded bailout of the financial industry. The TARP funds have been used to purchase preferred stock in banks and other financial institutions. These purchases are time bound with respect to when they have to be liquidated and the taxpayers made whole, and in the meantime Joe and Jane taxpayer get to earn a very nice interest rate to boot. Not a bad deal for anyone.
Now to the auto industry discussion. There are people out there that just have it in for Detroit. I am not sure why but just as inexplicable as the left's hatred of Bush there are people who perceive the US auto industry as venal, corrupt and incapable of producing a quality product. I'm not saying the execs in the US industry are angels but let's face it, the real problem with the US auto industry is the legacy of the gold plated union contracts that were cut back in the 50's when the US auto industry was the only game in town. And as far as quality is concerned, I have owned both Ford and GM products for the last 16 years and I would match their quality with any of the foreign competition. The fact is that public perception of the quality of US manufacturers is a decade or more behind the reality. Now this is a legacy that the auto makers have to take ownership of because of all the crap cars they produced in the 70's and 80's. Trust lost is very hard to regain.
The US needs a strong domestically owned auto industry. It's not just jobs but also technology development and manufacturing process improvements. Furthermore once again whatever package is ultimately approved by congress it will not be a "bailout." It will have all kind of hooks to ensure that the taxpayers are repaid (remember we did this once before with Chrysler on Lee Iacoca's watch) and that executive compensation is moderate. My only concern at this point is that in pandering to the enviro-nazi movement the democratic controlled congress may try to dictate products that must be built rather than letting consumers drive that decision.
Bottom line - I am for helping the US auto industry through this trying and temporary situation and I hope you are too.
Thursday, November 6, 2008
A Historic Election
Much to my chagrin the American electorate has confounded traditional political expectations. I say that not because Obama is 50% African-American, but because for the very first time ever they have elected a truly blank slate. This result can only be explained as the triumph of mindless hope over objective evidence of any significant executive or legislative ability or experience.
I now must revert to hoping that the trust the American people have placed in President-elect Obama turns out to be justified. Unlike the Bush-hating left who wanted to see Bush and all of his policies fail regardless of their consequences for our troops and our future, I truly hope that Obama succeeds beyond my wildest imagination. I will keep an open mind and should he be able to hold to the center and support substantive and beneficial policies he might even win my vote in 2012. If on the other hand he becomes the tool of the hard core left wing of the Democratic party - exemplified by Ms. Pelosi - then not only will the country be worse off but our current problems will only magnify in severity.
I am somewhat amused, however, at the off noted reaction from the black community and its angst-ridden caucasian sympathizers that now for the first time they can actually tell their children that anything is possible. As if that weren't the case before. What nobody talks about is that the only reason Obama got to this point was that he was raised and nurtured by white grandparents. In other words his color was never an issue. It was his policies, values and ideas. This is something that the black community doesn't want to hear. They would prefer to blame any and all individual failure to move up the social and political ladder on racism - either overt or latent.
The fact is that America has moved beyond race but still is rooted in its core values. A black culture that revels in misogynistic hip-hop, thinks ebonics is equivalent to standard english, and is dismissive of excellence in education will never produce a viable presidential candidate. It took a mixed race gentleman with a solid educational and outstanding communication skills to make the breakthrough. Let's hope that's a lesson learned.
Please feel free to let me know what you think.
I now must revert to hoping that the trust the American people have placed in President-elect Obama turns out to be justified. Unlike the Bush-hating left who wanted to see Bush and all of his policies fail regardless of their consequences for our troops and our future, I truly hope that Obama succeeds beyond my wildest imagination. I will keep an open mind and should he be able to hold to the center and support substantive and beneficial policies he might even win my vote in 2012. If on the other hand he becomes the tool of the hard core left wing of the Democratic party - exemplified by Ms. Pelosi - then not only will the country be worse off but our current problems will only magnify in severity.
I am somewhat amused, however, at the off noted reaction from the black community and its angst-ridden caucasian sympathizers that now for the first time they can actually tell their children that anything is possible. As if that weren't the case before. What nobody talks about is that the only reason Obama got to this point was that he was raised and nurtured by white grandparents. In other words his color was never an issue. It was his policies, values and ideas. This is something that the black community doesn't want to hear. They would prefer to blame any and all individual failure to move up the social and political ladder on racism - either overt or latent.
The fact is that America has moved beyond race but still is rooted in its core values. A black culture that revels in misogynistic hip-hop, thinks ebonics is equivalent to standard english, and is dismissive of excellence in education will never produce a viable presidential candidate. It took a mixed race gentleman with a solid educational and outstanding communication skills to make the breakthrough. Let's hope that's a lesson learned.
Please feel free to let me know what you think.
Wednesday, October 22, 2008
Campaign Observations
As we enter the home stretch of the campaign I would like to share a few thoughts and observations.
I am amazed by the MSM (mainstream media) focus on what they describe as Sarah Palin's inexperience and unfitness for the VP office. By any objective measure as a successful and very popular mayor and state governor (of any size or population), she has demonstrated more executive talent and experience than Obama. I believe that what the MSM really means is that as an outsider to Washington and being relatively unknown to them makes her "inexperienced." Not how I would define it but that's the MSM view of the world.
Along the same lines I was amused and disappointed to hear Colin Powell - a man I greatly respect and honor for his service to our country - would use the selection of Palin as VP as the "reason" he is endorsing Obama. What nonsense. There are a host of policy reasons he could have cited but let's be honest. I think it is obvious that Powell desperately wanted to support Obama because he is black but he couldn't say that, and since he couldn't do so on policy grounds he picked what he believed was an easy target. A straw man endorsement for sure.
Obama remains to me and many others a complete cipher. He has no established record of any accomplishments at all. He talks a good game but hearkening back to another campaign slogan of a generation ago - "Where's the beef?" The most revealing event about his true position on where he would try to lead the country was his comment to the now infamous Joe the plumber. Obama is at his core a socialist and redistributionalist. This is the European model and explains why he is so popular across the pond.
In addition I just saw a chilling video wherein Obama himself details his plans for our nation's defence. What he proposes amounts to unilateral disarmament. Why would any of us trust this guy with the presidency?
As I have said in an earlier blog the real problem with an Obama presidency is that it is clear that both the House and Senate will be controlled by very large democrat majorities. Putting Obama, Reid and Pelosi in series will result in the most left wing troika this country has ever seen. If this happens stand by and watch your wallets.
I am amazed by the MSM (mainstream media) focus on what they describe as Sarah Palin's inexperience and unfitness for the VP office. By any objective measure as a successful and very popular mayor and state governor (of any size or population), she has demonstrated more executive talent and experience than Obama. I believe that what the MSM really means is that as an outsider to Washington and being relatively unknown to them makes her "inexperienced." Not how I would define it but that's the MSM view of the world.
Along the same lines I was amused and disappointed to hear Colin Powell - a man I greatly respect and honor for his service to our country - would use the selection of Palin as VP as the "reason" he is endorsing Obama. What nonsense. There are a host of policy reasons he could have cited but let's be honest. I think it is obvious that Powell desperately wanted to support Obama because he is black but he couldn't say that, and since he couldn't do so on policy grounds he picked what he believed was an easy target. A straw man endorsement for sure.
Obama remains to me and many others a complete cipher. He has no established record of any accomplishments at all. He talks a good game but hearkening back to another campaign slogan of a generation ago - "Where's the beef?" The most revealing event about his true position on where he would try to lead the country was his comment to the now infamous Joe the plumber. Obama is at his core a socialist and redistributionalist. This is the European model and explains why he is so popular across the pond.
In addition I just saw a chilling video wherein Obama himself details his plans for our nation's defence. What he proposes amounts to unilateral disarmament. Why would any of us trust this guy with the presidency?
As I have said in an earlier blog the real problem with an Obama presidency is that it is clear that both the House and Senate will be controlled by very large democrat majorities. Putting Obama, Reid and Pelosi in series will result in the most left wing troika this country has ever seen. If this happens stand by and watch your wallets.
Monday, September 29, 2008
Who Caused the Current Financial Crisis? Not Bush and not Wall Street
What a day! The Dow suffered its worst loss in history. The S&P and Nasdaq also got clobbered big time. How did it come to this? The genesis was in the sub-prime market meltdown and the consequent inability to value these assets on the books of banks and other financial institutions. Note that these securities are not valueless but no one knows how to fairly value them.
Now here's where it gets interesting. One of provisions of Sarbanes-Oxley is that companies are now required to take a conservative approach in valuing any balance sheet assets. Since no one can put a fair value on the securitized mortgage assets, Sarb-Ox requires that they be written down to essentially zero. This is what is causing the failure of banks and other financial companies such as Bear Sterns and Morgan Stanley.
So what happen? The short answer is that up until 2 years ago Frannie and Freddie were prohibited by law from providing security for mortgages issued to unqualified borrowers. In other words there were specific borrower qualification requirements that banks had to follow in order to use the Fannie and Freddie facility. Guess what happened. The congressional Democrats were unhappy that so many low income people could not qualify under these rules so they forced (remember that the Dems have controlled congress for the last two years) Frannie and Freddie to lift their requirements. This gave banks and other lenders a free reign to sign up mortgages with as many people as possible regardless of their ability to pay. Not only that they were allowed to market all sorts of non-conventional products such as interest-only and teaser rate adjustable loans that the GSE's were now allowed (in fact encourgaged) to securitize. In addition liberal activist attorneys sued lenders - e.g. Citibank - if they did not aggressively market this junk even though most bankers realized that this was a very risky move.
Who raised the alarm? The Administration and John McCain were on the forefront in issuing warnings but they went unheeded. Bottom line is that we have the congressional democrats and their leaders to blame for the current crisis and no one else.
You can perhaps understand why I am outraged at the blatant and unabashed hypocrisy of BHO, Pelosi and in particular Barney Frank who orchestrated the situation we now have to fix.
Even more remarkable is that they try to blame it on Bush and "greedy" Wall Street! Unbelievable. This is a very important election issue that can not and must not be swept under the rug.
Now here's where it gets interesting. One of provisions of Sarbanes-Oxley is that companies are now required to take a conservative approach in valuing any balance sheet assets. Since no one can put a fair value on the securitized mortgage assets, Sarb-Ox requires that they be written down to essentially zero. This is what is causing the failure of banks and other financial companies such as Bear Sterns and Morgan Stanley.
So what happen? The short answer is that up until 2 years ago Frannie and Freddie were prohibited by law from providing security for mortgages issued to unqualified borrowers. In other words there were specific borrower qualification requirements that banks had to follow in order to use the Fannie and Freddie facility. Guess what happened. The congressional Democrats were unhappy that so many low income people could not qualify under these rules so they forced (remember that the Dems have controlled congress for the last two years) Frannie and Freddie to lift their requirements. This gave banks and other lenders a free reign to sign up mortgages with as many people as possible regardless of their ability to pay. Not only that they were allowed to market all sorts of non-conventional products such as interest-only and teaser rate adjustable loans that the GSE's were now allowed (in fact encourgaged) to securitize. In addition liberal activist attorneys sued lenders - e.g. Citibank - if they did not aggressively market this junk even though most bankers realized that this was a very risky move.
Who raised the alarm? The Administration and John McCain were on the forefront in issuing warnings but they went unheeded. Bottom line is that we have the congressional democrats and their leaders to blame for the current crisis and no one else.
You can perhaps understand why I am outraged at the blatant and unabashed hypocrisy of BHO, Pelosi and in particular Barney Frank who orchestrated the situation we now have to fix.
Even more remarkable is that they try to blame it on Bush and "greedy" Wall Street! Unbelievable. This is a very important election issue that can not and must not be swept under the rug.
Friday, September 5, 2008
Hilary vs. Sarah in 2012?
In the spirit of equal time I thought it only fair that I submit a few thoughts post RNC. Needless to say Sarah hit a grand slam. Her VP acceptance speech was watched by as many folks as watched BHO's Presidential acceptance speech. On top of that and incredibly the Obama campaign was going after her as if she were the Presidential nominee by dissing her experience as compared to Obama. Message to the Obama campaign - your candidate is running against JSM and not Sarah!
One thing for sure Sarah is much more telegenic than either of the old guys on the Democratic ticket and her running mate. The best description I have seen of Sarah is that she is "Smoking hot in a kinky librarian kind of way." Must be the hairdo and the glasses.
As for JSM's acceptance speech it was about as good as it gets from the old war horse. Unlike Obama, large venues and grand speeches are not his strength. He works much better in smaller town hall groups where the dynamic is one of questions and answers. For this reason I think he will come across the better man in the debates. It is also clear that Obama avoided JSM's calls for a series of town hall meetings prior to the conventions for just this reason.
Dumb things I have heard from the candidates this week. First was Obama talking to an audience in the mid-west about all the people "losing" their pensions. Excuse me!! Who exactly are these people. Pensions - if they are truly that - are protected under federal law and are managed by a trustee. While pensions are being phased out for younger workers in favor of defined contribution plans (e.g. 401k's), I know of no company that has revoked a pension benefit already earned by older workers. This sounds like a phony straw man designed simply to evoke fear.
Second was both BHO and JSM talking about jobs and how they will both "increase" jobs. Excuse me big time again! The notion that government - especially the federal government - creates jobs is patently false and ludicrous. Message to both candidates - the PRIVATE SECTOR creates jobs not the government. So how will BHO's plan to increase taxes on the the most productive part of our economy increase jobs? It won't. It will reduce jobs. At least JSM understands that calculus. Even if his public statements are uncomfortably populist he at least knows the right levers to pull at the federal level to stimulate job growth.
This won't be the last of the silly statements we are likely to hear in the next two months leading up to the election. But let's cut the chase on the real issue confronting voters this November.
Ask yourself do you really want to have the House, the Senate and the White House controlled by Pelosi, Reid and Obama. They would spend four years all trying to get to left of each other with what I believe would be very bad news for America. In an earlier blog I made the statement that the Republic would survive no matter who wins the election and I stand by that statement.
After all we "survived" the Carter administration and the first two years of the Clinton watch which were the last times the Dems had such complete power. We all remember the stagflation and 20+% interest rates of the Carter years. I don't think any of us want to go through that again. And I am always amused that the Dems point to the good times under Clinton without mentioning that the economy didn't start to improve until the Republicans under the leadership of Newt Gingrich wrested control of congress from the Dems in 94.
Let's also not forget that the go go eighties occurred with Reagan in the White House and a Tip O'Neil led Democratic congress.
The message is that America prospers under divided government. Something about checks and balances that our founding fathers understood very well. An alignment of the stars with Obama, Reid and Pelosi in ascendancy would be a very bad omen for the next four years. So my fellow voters, for the sake of our economic and national security please follow my lead to ensure that we have divided government and help elect John and Sarah.
Final thought. Here is my scenario. McCain wins a very close election with Sarah at his side. Obama licks his wounds while the Clintonistas revel and quietly mumble "We told you so," and begin immediately to plan her 2012 campaign. In the meantime McCain does a great job as President, is popular, but decides that at 76 enough is enough, so in 2011 he announces that he will not be candidate for re-election and throws his support behind Sarah.
It will be a Hilary vs. Sarah contest for presidency in 2012. Remember that you read it here first.
One thing for sure Sarah is much more telegenic than either of the old guys on the Democratic ticket and her running mate. The best description I have seen of Sarah is that she is "Smoking hot in a kinky librarian kind of way." Must be the hairdo and the glasses.
As for JSM's acceptance speech it was about as good as it gets from the old war horse. Unlike Obama, large venues and grand speeches are not his strength. He works much better in smaller town hall groups where the dynamic is one of questions and answers. For this reason I think he will come across the better man in the debates. It is also clear that Obama avoided JSM's calls for a series of town hall meetings prior to the conventions for just this reason.
Dumb things I have heard from the candidates this week. First was Obama talking to an audience in the mid-west about all the people "losing" their pensions. Excuse me!! Who exactly are these people. Pensions - if they are truly that - are protected under federal law and are managed by a trustee. While pensions are being phased out for younger workers in favor of defined contribution plans (e.g. 401k's), I know of no company that has revoked a pension benefit already earned by older workers. This sounds like a phony straw man designed simply to evoke fear.
Second was both BHO and JSM talking about jobs and how they will both "increase" jobs. Excuse me big time again! The notion that government - especially the federal government - creates jobs is patently false and ludicrous. Message to both candidates - the PRIVATE SECTOR creates jobs not the government. So how will BHO's plan to increase taxes on the the most productive part of our economy increase jobs? It won't. It will reduce jobs. At least JSM understands that calculus. Even if his public statements are uncomfortably populist he at least knows the right levers to pull at the federal level to stimulate job growth.
This won't be the last of the silly statements we are likely to hear in the next two months leading up to the election. But let's cut the chase on the real issue confronting voters this November.
Ask yourself do you really want to have the House, the Senate and the White House controlled by Pelosi, Reid and Obama. They would spend four years all trying to get to left of each other with what I believe would be very bad news for America. In an earlier blog I made the statement that the Republic would survive no matter who wins the election and I stand by that statement.
After all we "survived" the Carter administration and the first two years of the Clinton watch which were the last times the Dems had such complete power. We all remember the stagflation and 20+% interest rates of the Carter years. I don't think any of us want to go through that again. And I am always amused that the Dems point to the good times under Clinton without mentioning that the economy didn't start to improve until the Republicans under the leadership of Newt Gingrich wrested control of congress from the Dems in 94.
Let's also not forget that the go go eighties occurred with Reagan in the White House and a Tip O'Neil led Democratic congress.
The message is that America prospers under divided government. Something about checks and balances that our founding fathers understood very well. An alignment of the stars with Obama, Reid and Pelosi in ascendancy would be a very bad omen for the next four years. So my fellow voters, for the sake of our economic and national security please follow my lead to ensure that we have divided government and help elect John and Sarah.
Final thought. Here is my scenario. McCain wins a very close election with Sarah at his side. Obama licks his wounds while the Clintonistas revel and quietly mumble "We told you so," and begin immediately to plan her 2012 campaign. In the meantime McCain does a great job as President, is popular, but decides that at 76 enough is enough, so in 2011 he announces that he will not be candidate for re-election and throws his support behind Sarah.
It will be a Hilary vs. Sarah contest for presidency in 2012. Remember that you read it here first.
Friday, August 29, 2008
A Few Random Thoughts Post DNC Convention
Having just watched the spectacle of the Obama coronation in Denver, I have a few questions for the Senator from Illinois about his prescripted "solutions."
How pray tell will the Federal government affect the number and salaries of teachers. The last time I checked secondary education was the responsibility of the states and local communities. My property taxes pay for local schools and the feds have nothing to say about curriculum, new schools, teacher hiring or teacher salaries. His claim that he will increase the number of teachers is a high sounding but empty promise.
Another laugher was his "promise" to eliminate the US dependence on mid-east oil in ten years. Note he was very specific here to use the term mid-east as opposed to foreign oil. As I have noted in earlier blogs the US today is not heavily dependent on mid-east oil. The US imports only about 15% of its total petroleum products from the mid-east (specifically Saudi Arabia and Kuwait). Our imports are mostly from Canada, Venezuela, Nigeria and Mexico.
In other words Obama's objective is easily achievable with only a modest increase in US production (Drill, Drill, Drill) and a shift to more imports from friendly countries with growing reserves like Canada (Alberta oil sands anyone?) and Brazil. The real challenge, and one that he knows he cannot achieve, is to eliminate our dependence on "foreign" oil in the near term. The real irony is achieving his stated objective will be much easier with McCain in the White House and not Obama.
This is just another empty political promise that takes advantage of the ignorance of the American public on the whole energy security issue. I might note that others play the mid-east oil card directly and indirectly to promote their own agendas. Among these scaremongers is T Boone Pickens by talking about the transfer of wealth to unnamed foreign governments. The unstated but implied destination of all this money is the middle east which is not completely true.
On a related note, have you seen the frequent TV ads from a Gore-backed green energy group called We Can Solve It? Once again these folks are disingenuously pushing the notion that high gasoline prices are the result of the way we produce electricity.
Now the fundamental objective of We Can Solve It is to move the country to non-carbon producing sources of electricity. This is fine as far as it goes but one would think if they were really serious, nuclear power would be number one their list of alternatives, but it doesn't even appear on their radar screen. The problem once again is that except for emergency power back-up generators, the US does not produce electricity from petroleum or petroleum distillates. In other words we could convert the entire US energy infrastructure to wind, solar and hydro and this would not affect the US demand for oil used in transportation or the price of a gallon of gasoline one whit. You'd never know that from their ad campaign.
Finally can you believe the incredibly empty boast that BHO made about his willingness to take on JSM anytime about who is ready to be Commander-in-Chief. As I recall, JSM repeatedly challenged the Obama campaign to agree to a series of town hall meeting beginning in June. Not surprisingly Obama demurred. I guess he really isn't ready to debate his fitness to lead after all. In fact I would wager that were it not for the fact that it is now expected that the Presidential candidates will debate prior to the election BHO would run from any face-to-face debate with McCain as fast as possible.
Bottom line is that after listening to all the bloviating at the convention culminating with the master bloviator himself, I have concluded that BHO is the biggest empty suit I have ever seen in politics. Nice suit though.
Just a few thoughts on the DNC as I note the selection of Sarah Palin as John McCain's running mate. Great choice! Start your engines this will be a fun race to Nov 4.
P.S. - Can you believe that the first shot across the bow from the Obama campaign about Sarah Palin is her lack of experience?! What chutzpah! A convincing case could be easily made that her executive experience as a mayor and a governor (and by the way Commander-in-Chief of the Alaska National Guard) makes her eminently more qualified to be President than Obama himself. Unbelievable.
How pray tell will the Federal government affect the number and salaries of teachers. The last time I checked secondary education was the responsibility of the states and local communities. My property taxes pay for local schools and the feds have nothing to say about curriculum, new schools, teacher hiring or teacher salaries. His claim that he will increase the number of teachers is a high sounding but empty promise.
Another laugher was his "promise" to eliminate the US dependence on mid-east oil in ten years. Note he was very specific here to use the term mid-east as opposed to foreign oil. As I have noted in earlier blogs the US today is not heavily dependent on mid-east oil. The US imports only about 15% of its total petroleum products from the mid-east (specifically Saudi Arabia and Kuwait). Our imports are mostly from Canada, Venezuela, Nigeria and Mexico.
In other words Obama's objective is easily achievable with only a modest increase in US production (Drill, Drill, Drill) and a shift to more imports from friendly countries with growing reserves like Canada (Alberta oil sands anyone?) and Brazil. The real challenge, and one that he knows he cannot achieve, is to eliminate our dependence on "foreign" oil in the near term. The real irony is achieving his stated objective will be much easier with McCain in the White House and not Obama.
This is just another empty political promise that takes advantage of the ignorance of the American public on the whole energy security issue. I might note that others play the mid-east oil card directly and indirectly to promote their own agendas. Among these scaremongers is T Boone Pickens by talking about the transfer of wealth to unnamed foreign governments. The unstated but implied destination of all this money is the middle east which is not completely true.
On a related note, have you seen the frequent TV ads from a Gore-backed green energy group called We Can Solve It? Once again these folks are disingenuously pushing the notion that high gasoline prices are the result of the way we produce electricity.
Now the fundamental objective of We Can Solve It is to move the country to non-carbon producing sources of electricity. This is fine as far as it goes but one would think if they were really serious, nuclear power would be number one their list of alternatives, but it doesn't even appear on their radar screen. The problem once again is that except for emergency power back-up generators, the US does not produce electricity from petroleum or petroleum distillates. In other words we could convert the entire US energy infrastructure to wind, solar and hydro and this would not affect the US demand for oil used in transportation or the price of a gallon of gasoline one whit. You'd never know that from their ad campaign.
Finally can you believe the incredibly empty boast that BHO made about his willingness to take on JSM anytime about who is ready to be Commander-in-Chief. As I recall, JSM repeatedly challenged the Obama campaign to agree to a series of town hall meeting beginning in June. Not surprisingly Obama demurred. I guess he really isn't ready to debate his fitness to lead after all. In fact I would wager that were it not for the fact that it is now expected that the Presidential candidates will debate prior to the election BHO would run from any face-to-face debate with McCain as fast as possible.
Bottom line is that after listening to all the bloviating at the convention culminating with the master bloviator himself, I have concluded that BHO is the biggest empty suit I have ever seen in politics. Nice suit though.
Just a few thoughts on the DNC as I note the selection of Sarah Palin as John McCain's running mate. Great choice! Start your engines this will be a fun race to Nov 4.
P.S. - Can you believe that the first shot across the bow from the Obama campaign about Sarah Palin is her lack of experience?! What chutzpah! A convincing case could be easily made that her executive experience as a mayor and a governor (and by the way Commander-in-Chief of the Alaska National Guard) makes her eminently more qualified to be President than Obama himself. Unbelievable.
Sunday, August 17, 2008
The T Boone Travesty
I don't know about you but I am fed up to here already with the T Boone Pickens' TV ads on his "solution" to the oil situation. Let's review a few basic facts from one of my earlier blogs. Except for emergency purposes the US does not produce electricity with petroleum. This point cannot be made strongly enough. T Boone is playing on the ignorance of the general public by implying that converting 20% of our national electric grid to wind will "solve" the oil issue. Nothing could be further from the truth. As I have said before absent putting sails or solar panels on cars and trucks neither wind nor solar will lessen our dependence on oil for transportation.
His end game proposal is to use this 20% of wind driven electricity to replace the 20% of natural gas now being used to fire power plants producing base load and peaking electricity. Putting aside for the moment the real issue of the non-reliability of wind as a 24/7 source of electricity, one has to ask why is T Boone pushing this "solution." This is his dirty little secret. T Boone is not only invested in wind farm technology but the real payoff for him is to use the natural gas now being used for electricity production for transportation. And guess who is heavily invested in the natural gas industry. Why Mr. T Boone his very own self. Long story short T Boone's plan is not about American energy independence. It is about making T Boone even richer than he already is.
So much for the good ole' country boy, I'm only in this for the good of the country theme of his infomercials. He is being disingenuous with the American public and they need to know it.
Now I am in favor of wind and solar energy and believe that they should be use where ever and when ever economically possible, and I am in favor of tax credits and limited government subsidies to encourage R&D in these technologies. The truth of the matter is that we cannot and should not rely on these for our energy future. We also need to develop nuclear, clean coal and all our potential oil resources including the off-shore, ANWAR and oil shale properties as rapidly as possible.
As I have said in an earlier blog, the real solution to American oil independence is a full speed ahead NRA type program to develop clean (i.e sequestered CO2) coal technology and fast tracking the building of more nuclear plants so that we can convert to an all electric powered ground transportation system by 2050. Like T Boone likes to say about his program it is our problem to solve and we can do it!
His end game proposal is to use this 20% of wind driven electricity to replace the 20% of natural gas now being used to fire power plants producing base load and peaking electricity. Putting aside for the moment the real issue of the non-reliability of wind as a 24/7 source of electricity, one has to ask why is T Boone pushing this "solution." This is his dirty little secret. T Boone is not only invested in wind farm technology but the real payoff for him is to use the natural gas now being used for electricity production for transportation. And guess who is heavily invested in the natural gas industry. Why Mr. T Boone his very own self. Long story short T Boone's plan is not about American energy independence. It is about making T Boone even richer than he already is.
So much for the good ole' country boy, I'm only in this for the good of the country theme of his infomercials. He is being disingenuous with the American public and they need to know it.
Now I am in favor of wind and solar energy and believe that they should be use where ever and when ever economically possible, and I am in favor of tax credits and limited government subsidies to encourage R&D in these technologies. The truth of the matter is that we cannot and should not rely on these for our energy future. We also need to develop nuclear, clean coal and all our potential oil resources including the off-shore, ANWAR and oil shale properties as rapidly as possible.
As I have said in an earlier blog, the real solution to American oil independence is a full speed ahead NRA type program to develop clean (i.e sequestered CO2) coal technology and fast tracking the building of more nuclear plants so that we can convert to an all electric powered ground transportation system by 2050. Like T Boone likes to say about his program it is our problem to solve and we can do it!
Monday, August 11, 2008
The Liberal MSM and Maureen Dowd in particular
Where to begin? We all know very well that the MSM is in the pocket of the Democrats if not the most extreme liberal wing of that party (e.g. MSNBC and most especially Chris Matthews). It is a proven fact that most MSM reporters are registered as Democrats so this bias is not a surprise.
What prompts me to take keyboard in hand for today's blog is the outrageous column by Maureen Dowd that ran in the August 11, 2008 edition of the Houston Chronicle. Unbelievably she attempts to excuse the philandering of democrats Edwards, Clinton and Spitzer (echos of Ted Kenndy anyone?) as a mere artifact of their narcissistic super-striver personalities. Where is the outrage from the feminist community?? As evidenced by this op-ed, nowhere is answer. They will not cut off their nose to spite their face.
To be fair to Ms. Dowd she clearly frowns on this behavior, but here's where she went off the tracks. Since she couldn't find any such dirt GWB, she made the unbelievable stretch of moral and personality failing equivalency (at least in her mind) that GWB was just as bad because he turned over his presidency to Cheney. Can you believe it!?
This is all part of the liberal MSM's attempt to portray GWB as puppet (since he clearly isn't bright enough in their view to have an intelligent thought). First it was Carl Rove as GWB's brain. Now that Rove is working for FNN and no longer lurking the halls of the White House to deliver GWB periodic Vulcan mindplants, the MSM is now dredging up the old and clearly discredited notion that the VP is running the county.
What absolute rubbish! What's worse is that it is used as an attempt to diminish and detract from the true moral failings of the Democratic leadership. Note that I am not saying that the Republicans can take the moral high ground on the sex issue. Witness Larry Craig. That being said one can only guess what would have happened had Edwards actually received the nomination or more interestingly what if this had this come out nine months ago. What affect would it have had on the primary season? Could Hilary be preparing her Denver acceptance speach? Things that make you want to go hmmmm.........
What prompts me to take keyboard in hand for today's blog is the outrageous column by Maureen Dowd that ran in the August 11, 2008 edition of the Houston Chronicle. Unbelievably she attempts to excuse the philandering of democrats Edwards, Clinton and Spitzer (echos of Ted Kenndy anyone?) as a mere artifact of their narcissistic super-striver personalities. Where is the outrage from the feminist community?? As evidenced by this op-ed, nowhere is answer. They will not cut off their nose to spite their face.
To be fair to Ms. Dowd she clearly frowns on this behavior, but here's where she went off the tracks. Since she couldn't find any such dirt GWB, she made the unbelievable stretch of moral and personality failing equivalency (at least in her mind) that GWB was just as bad because he turned over his presidency to Cheney. Can you believe it!?
This is all part of the liberal MSM's attempt to portray GWB as puppet (since he clearly isn't bright enough in their view to have an intelligent thought). First it was Carl Rove as GWB's brain. Now that Rove is working for FNN and no longer lurking the halls of the White House to deliver GWB periodic Vulcan mindplants, the MSM is now dredging up the old and clearly discredited notion that the VP is running the county.
What absolute rubbish! What's worse is that it is used as an attempt to diminish and detract from the true moral failings of the Democratic leadership. Note that I am not saying that the Republicans can take the moral high ground on the sex issue. Witness Larry Craig. That being said one can only guess what would have happened had Edwards actually received the nomination or more interestingly what if this had this come out nine months ago. What affect would it have had on the primary season? Could Hilary be preparing her Denver acceptance speach? Things that make you want to go hmmmm.........
Friday, August 1, 2008
Our Do Nothing Congress etc
In the face of overwhelming public approval for lifting the ban on off-shore drilling what does the Democratic leadership in the Congress do but to declare that they can't be bothered with high gasoline prices and will take a six week holiday. Nice. I only wish the rest of us tax paying Americans had that luxury at taxpayers' expense.
I don't care how mad anyone may be at George W over the war in Iraq and the ancillary effects (i.e. abu ghraib, gitmo, FISA, etc.), the fact remains that since taking control of Congress in 2006 the Democrats, under the leadership of Reid and Pelosi, have done zip quat nothing to help the energy crisis which, by the latest polls, is number one issue on the hit parade for the general public.
In any normal election year with such an unpopular President, the off-party challenger should be 20 points ahead and yet BHO is in a dead heat with McCain. Things that make you want to go hmmm.....
It is clear the the enviro-nazis have the Democratic leadership by the "balls". Since Nancy doesn't have any I have to put it in quotation marks. They won't bring the off-shore ban to a vote because they know that a number of moderate democrats in the House will vote in favor in order to get re-elected. In the Senate they are afraid of putting their anointed one - i.e. BHO - on the spot for a vote. Perhaps they shouldn't worry about that too much since he has a very strong record of voting absent.
In any event, recent events, including his embarrassing (for America) speech in Berlin, should convince a majority of Americans that BHO is not ready for prime time. This is not about race, and not about the fact that he doesn't look like previous presidents on our currency ( neither does McCain by the way), but it is all about policy and his policies are the wrong policies for America.
I don't care how mad anyone may be at George W over the war in Iraq and the ancillary effects (i.e. abu ghraib, gitmo, FISA, etc.), the fact remains that since taking control of Congress in 2006 the Democrats, under the leadership of Reid and Pelosi, have done zip quat nothing to help the energy crisis which, by the latest polls, is number one issue on the hit parade for the general public.
In any normal election year with such an unpopular President, the off-party challenger should be 20 points ahead and yet BHO is in a dead heat with McCain. Things that make you want to go hmmm.....
It is clear the the enviro-nazis have the Democratic leadership by the "balls". Since Nancy doesn't have any I have to put it in quotation marks. They won't bring the off-shore ban to a vote because they know that a number of moderate democrats in the House will vote in favor in order to get re-elected. In the Senate they are afraid of putting their anointed one - i.e. BHO - on the spot for a vote. Perhaps they shouldn't worry about that too much since he has a very strong record of voting absent.
In any event, recent events, including his embarrassing (for America) speech in Berlin, should convince a majority of Americans that BHO is not ready for prime time. This is not about race, and not about the fact that he doesn't look like previous presidents on our currency ( neither does McCain by the way), but it is all about policy and his policies are the wrong policies for America.
Monday, July 28, 2008
Bush and Truman
I want to make a prediction. Thirty years from now George W Bush will be treated kindly by historians and may even be viewed as one of our greatest presidents. This will be because of his single minded pursuit of the war on terror and - yes - the Iraq war. I make this prediction with the full knowledge of George W's current 28% approval rating.
In 1952 Harry Truman's approval rating was 22%. The country was tired and stressed out over the Korean war and major economic issues at home particularly with the steel industry and its labor difficulties. Today Truman's legacy is 180 out from the popular view of his administration at the end of his second term. This is so because through the lens of history and time, most historians now see that Truman's recognition of the Communist threat and his steadfast approach to its containment set the stage for the subsequent cold war that we finally won during Reagan's administration. During his presidency Truman was viewed as opinionated, a little arrogant, decisive and not the brightest bulb in the closet. He was respected, however, for his consistency on the issues and unwillingness to compromise his principles just to garner favorable public opinion.
Who does that sound like? You could make the same statement about George W today.
Only time and world events will tell, but I do believe that in the end George W Bush's policies and his decision take out of Saddam Hussein will be vindicated and those who today decry his presidency as the worst ever will be proven dead wrong just as Truman's critics in 1952 have been discredited.
In 1952 Harry Truman's approval rating was 22%. The country was tired and stressed out over the Korean war and major economic issues at home particularly with the steel industry and its labor difficulties. Today Truman's legacy is 180 out from the popular view of his administration at the end of his second term. This is so because through the lens of history and time, most historians now see that Truman's recognition of the Communist threat and his steadfast approach to its containment set the stage for the subsequent cold war that we finally won during Reagan's administration. During his presidency Truman was viewed as opinionated, a little arrogant, decisive and not the brightest bulb in the closet. He was respected, however, for his consistency on the issues and unwillingness to compromise his principles just to garner favorable public opinion.
Who does that sound like? You could make the same statement about George W today.
Only time and world events will tell, but I do believe that in the end George W Bush's policies and his decision take out of Saddam Hussein will be vindicated and those who today decry his presidency as the worst ever will be proven dead wrong just as Truman's critics in 1952 have been discredited.
Friday, July 11, 2008
The Solution to Oil
Since everyone from John McCain and Barak Obama to T Boone Pickens and Newt Gingrich has their solution to the energy security and gas price "crisis," I feel it is only fair to put in my two cents worth. My plan would fundamentally transform the way we produce and consume energy and end our dependence on foreign oil once and for all.
First let's be clear about how we produce and consume energy. Essentially we consume energy in two forms electricity and fossil fuel products (coal, natural gas, gasoline, diesel fuel and heating oil). We produce electricity from coal (50%), natural gas (20%), and nuclear (20%), with all other sources including hydro, geothermal, solar and wind making up the other 10%. The key point here is that at least in the US we do not - repeat do not - produce any significant amount of electricity by burning oil or oil distillates. The only exception being emergency power generators.
So where do we use oil. Aside from home heating oil used primarily in the northeast, almost all our oil consumption is for transportation - cars, trucks, trains, buses, airplanes, ships. The key point here is that the use of solar and wind for electrical production, while good ideas and should be developed where they make economic sense, will NOT help our dependence on oil for the simple reason that we do not use oil for electricity. One more stake in the heart of T Boone's plan to wean us off of oil. As Charles Krauthammer, one of my favorite columnists, has aptly said that the only way wind energy can help reduce our dependence on oil is if we we put sails on cars.
The other key point to understand is that the US reserves of coal make us the Saudi Arabia of coal so it is a resource that we must continue to use.
So my plan is based on three major initiatives all of which are achievable by the middle of this century and if realized will end our dependence on foreign oil once and for all.
First is to invest in developing carbon sequestration technologies that will allow us to take advantage of our enormous coal reserves for the production of electricity. Now I am not a believer in anthropogenic global warming, but it does make sense that we should avoid pumping more CO2 into the air if we can avoid it. Also from a public acceptance perspective in order to take full advantage of coal, clear evidence that we can capture the CO2 will be a practical and political requirement.
Second we need a NRA style program to build more nuclear plants so that the percentage of electricity from nuclear power at least doubles from its current 20% to 40% or more. Sorry but T Boone's idea for a phalanx of wind turbines from Mexico to Canada just won't do the job. If France can generate 75% of its electricity from nuclear then so can we. It is also worthy of note that >45% of the world's supply of uranium comes from Canada, Australia and the USA so we are unlikely to be held hostage by unfriendly countries.
Thirdly we need to shift from the internal combustion engine to an all electric transportation system. This will require new batteries that can drive cars and trucks for at least 400 miles at highway speeds and then be fully recharged in 20-30 minutes. These batteries do not exist today but with the right incentives and R&D there is no question in my mind that they can be developed by 2030. That would give us 20 years to shift the corner gas station infrastructure to recharging stations.
It is true that planes and ships will still be powered by fossil fuels, but converting our ground based transportation system to an all electric fleet will fundamentally change the supply and demand equation.
This is a very simple and effective plan that can be implemented today. All we need is the political will to do so. If we are really concerned with oil prices, energy security and minimizing our carbon footprint this is the only plan that makes sense.
First let's be clear about how we produce and consume energy. Essentially we consume energy in two forms electricity and fossil fuel products (coal, natural gas, gasoline, diesel fuel and heating oil). We produce electricity from coal (50%), natural gas (20%), and nuclear (20%), with all other sources including hydro, geothermal, solar and wind making up the other 10%. The key point here is that at least in the US we do not - repeat do not - produce any significant amount of electricity by burning oil or oil distillates. The only exception being emergency power generators.
So where do we use oil. Aside from home heating oil used primarily in the northeast, almost all our oil consumption is for transportation - cars, trucks, trains, buses, airplanes, ships. The key point here is that the use of solar and wind for electrical production, while good ideas and should be developed where they make economic sense, will NOT help our dependence on oil for the simple reason that we do not use oil for electricity. One more stake in the heart of T Boone's plan to wean us off of oil. As Charles Krauthammer, one of my favorite columnists, has aptly said that the only way wind energy can help reduce our dependence on oil is if we we put sails on cars.
The other key point to understand is that the US reserves of coal make us the Saudi Arabia of coal so it is a resource that we must continue to use.
So my plan is based on three major initiatives all of which are achievable by the middle of this century and if realized will end our dependence on foreign oil once and for all.
First is to invest in developing carbon sequestration technologies that will allow us to take advantage of our enormous coal reserves for the production of electricity. Now I am not a believer in anthropogenic global warming, but it does make sense that we should avoid pumping more CO2 into the air if we can avoid it. Also from a public acceptance perspective in order to take full advantage of coal, clear evidence that we can capture the CO2 will be a practical and political requirement.
Second we need a NRA style program to build more nuclear plants so that the percentage of electricity from nuclear power at least doubles from its current 20% to 40% or more. Sorry but T Boone's idea for a phalanx of wind turbines from Mexico to Canada just won't do the job. If France can generate 75% of its electricity from nuclear then so can we. It is also worthy of note that >45% of the world's supply of uranium comes from Canada, Australia and the USA so we are unlikely to be held hostage by unfriendly countries.
Thirdly we need to shift from the internal combustion engine to an all electric transportation system. This will require new batteries that can drive cars and trucks for at least 400 miles at highway speeds and then be fully recharged in 20-30 minutes. These batteries do not exist today but with the right incentives and R&D there is no question in my mind that they can be developed by 2030. That would give us 20 years to shift the corner gas station infrastructure to recharging stations.
It is true that planes and ships will still be powered by fossil fuels, but converting our ground based transportation system to an all electric fleet will fundamentally change the supply and demand equation.
This is a very simple and effective plan that can be implemented today. All we need is the political will to do so. If we are really concerned with oil prices, energy security and minimizing our carbon footprint this is the only plan that makes sense.
Thursday, July 10, 2008
A Nation of Whiners
I just love all the flap stirred up by former Senator Phil Gramm's comments to the effect that the nation needs to stop whining about the economy. Right on Phil!! In the wake of the controversy over his comments, Gramm backtracked quickly to say he was speaking of the national leadership and not the average American. Since the average American is never quoted in the press, his clarification is accurate since by definition it is the pundits and politicians - i.e. those quoted in the media - that are doing all the whining.
In an earlier blog post (April 8, 2008) I made a similar statement that we as a nation have to stop whining and get on with creative solutions to the issues - economic, cultural and social - that we face. Unfortunately our political leadership in both parties seem unable and frankly unwilling to step up to the task. They would rather take cheap political shots at one another in the interest of control and power and most importantly re-election. Not that they ever do anything useful with power once they have it.
Specifically Gramm was referring to the state of the economy and all the focus of the media on recession, pain at the pump, yada yada yada. The facts are that while growth is slower than in recent years we are still growing and we are not - repeat not - in a recession or even close to one. In addition the media hardly ever reports on the good news such as a robust export led boom and the jobs that is bringing to the US economy.
Sadly this is to be expected since the media has a reflexive aversion to good news of any kind and loves to play up doom and gloom scenarios wherever and whenever possible. The classic example is the "Severe Weather" teams on all the local TV stations. These folks live for hurricanes, tornadoes, floods and any other form of meteorological catastrophe. What we see in the reporting on the economy is the "severe weather" effect. If it's not as bad as we would like let's just say it is and perhaps we can actually make it a self-fulfilling prophecy. Clearly the politicians - particularly those in Washington DC and Democrats in general given their lust for the White House - exacerbate this concern at every opportunity.
Phil Gramm is right. We are a nation of whiners and we need to get over it.
In an earlier blog post (April 8, 2008) I made a similar statement that we as a nation have to stop whining and get on with creative solutions to the issues - economic, cultural and social - that we face. Unfortunately our political leadership in both parties seem unable and frankly unwilling to step up to the task. They would rather take cheap political shots at one another in the interest of control and power and most importantly re-election. Not that they ever do anything useful with power once they have it.
Specifically Gramm was referring to the state of the economy and all the focus of the media on recession, pain at the pump, yada yada yada. The facts are that while growth is slower than in recent years we are still growing and we are not - repeat not - in a recession or even close to one. In addition the media hardly ever reports on the good news such as a robust export led boom and the jobs that is bringing to the US economy.
Sadly this is to be expected since the media has a reflexive aversion to good news of any kind and loves to play up doom and gloom scenarios wherever and whenever possible. The classic example is the "Severe Weather" teams on all the local TV stations. These folks live for hurricanes, tornadoes, floods and any other form of meteorological catastrophe. What we see in the reporting on the economy is the "severe weather" effect. If it's not as bad as we would like let's just say it is and perhaps we can actually make it a self-fulfilling prophecy. Clearly the politicians - particularly those in Washington DC and Democrats in general given their lust for the White House - exacerbate this concern at every opportunity.
Phil Gramm is right. We are a nation of whiners and we need to get over it.
Wednesday, July 2, 2008
Obama vs. McCain
This is going to be a very interesting election. In the left corner you have an unproven albeit eloquent middle aged man of partial African (Kenya) decent. In the right corner you have an aging, not so doctrinaire conservative war hero maverick with impressive foreign policy credentials.
Let's look at Obama. The fact is that although brief his legislative record is one of the most liberal in congress. He talks about reaching out and bridging differences but he has never once led or participated in any meaningful bi-partisan legislation or initiative. He gives a good speech and in this area he is often compared (even by himself) to Ronald Reagan. The key difference is that Reagan's rhetoric was based on a fundamental belief in the goodness of America, its people and its economic system. It was Reagan's positive and uplifting message that inspired and resonated with his listeners and won him the moniker the Great Communicator. When I listen to Obama, his lofty words seem to me to come from a darker place. One that is based on the notion that there are many things wrong in and about America that need to be "changed." This is troubling. I also find it somewhat amusing that now that he has the Democratic nomination in hand, he is running to the center as fast as he can. So much for principled politics - although that may be an oxymoron.
Now for McCain. McCain is a bit of an enigma. He is anything but a traditional conservative which is why many on the far right are suspicious of him. What I like about McCain are the same characteristics that made him the media darling a few years ago. He has some very specific ideas on what is right and what isn't and is not afraid to express them clearly and forcefully. The "Straight Talk Express" was just that. While Obama talks in grand themes and generalities, McCain cuts to the chase with specific proposals. My worry is that like Obama in trying to position himself for the general election he seems to have tempered and hedged his rhetoric and temper in recent months. I prefer the blunt, irascible version better but he is still my choice to lead the country.
I think this will be a very close election. In the end I think McCain will win based on the arithmetic of the electoral college, but Obama just may pull it out and even win the popular vote in a losing cause - ala Al Gore in 2000.
One thing I do know for certain is that no matter who wins the presidential election and no matter which party controls congress, the Republic will survive so I don't lose sleep worrying about it.
Let's look at Obama. The fact is that although brief his legislative record is one of the most liberal in congress. He talks about reaching out and bridging differences but he has never once led or participated in any meaningful bi-partisan legislation or initiative. He gives a good speech and in this area he is often compared (even by himself) to Ronald Reagan. The key difference is that Reagan's rhetoric was based on a fundamental belief in the goodness of America, its people and its economic system. It was Reagan's positive and uplifting message that inspired and resonated with his listeners and won him the moniker the Great Communicator. When I listen to Obama, his lofty words seem to me to come from a darker place. One that is based on the notion that there are many things wrong in and about America that need to be "changed." This is troubling. I also find it somewhat amusing that now that he has the Democratic nomination in hand, he is running to the center as fast as he can. So much for principled politics - although that may be an oxymoron.
Now for McCain. McCain is a bit of an enigma. He is anything but a traditional conservative which is why many on the far right are suspicious of him. What I like about McCain are the same characteristics that made him the media darling a few years ago. He has some very specific ideas on what is right and what isn't and is not afraid to express them clearly and forcefully. The "Straight Talk Express" was just that. While Obama talks in grand themes and generalities, McCain cuts to the chase with specific proposals. My worry is that like Obama in trying to position himself for the general election he seems to have tempered and hedged his rhetoric and temper in recent months. I prefer the blunt, irascible version better but he is still my choice to lead the country.
I think this will be a very close election. In the end I think McCain will win based on the arithmetic of the electoral college, but Obama just may pull it out and even win the popular vote in a losing cause - ala Al Gore in 2000.
One thing I do know for certain is that no matter who wins the presidential election and no matter which party controls congress, the Republic will survive so I don't lose sleep worrying about it.
Saturday, June 7, 2008
America the Ignorant
On the book review program on C-Span today one of the presenters was Rick Shenkman author of "Just How Stupid Are We?" subtitled "Facing the truth about the American voter."
Mr. Shenkman is a historian who comments on the appalling lack of basic knowledge that most Americans have about their country or the world for that matter. He contends that this lack of knowledge allows most voters to be easily manipulated by politicians and their Madison Avenue campaign apparatus. He quotes some astounding statistics regarding how few Americans can name the three branches of government, know that there are 100 senators, and even after five years of war can find Iraq on a map of the world. He also points out that in spite of overwhelming evidence to the contrary and even though it was never stated reason for the Iraq war by the administration, fully 50% of American voters still think Saddam was behind the 9/11 attacks.
Yours truly is not surprised by these findings and recall that it was many years ago that some wag opined that as a politician one can never go wrong underestimating the intelligence of the average voter. Even Jay Leno has picked up on this with great comedic effect with his man on the street interviews.
My own view is that the American people are not stupid. It is clear, however, that most of them are blissfully ignorant and almost intentionally uninformed. One may ask how can this be in an age of media overload, instant communications and 24/7 news channels. I believe the problem is that most people have complete lack of curiosity about anything that doesn't directly affect them personally and immediately.
Building on a point in an earlier post, you see the seeds of this phenomenon in the active resistance to excellence in our public school systems. Unfortunately for most kids today it is cool to be ignorant, and ignorant teens grow into ignorant voters.
Mr. Shenkman is a historian who comments on the appalling lack of basic knowledge that most Americans have about their country or the world for that matter. He contends that this lack of knowledge allows most voters to be easily manipulated by politicians and their Madison Avenue campaign apparatus. He quotes some astounding statistics regarding how few Americans can name the three branches of government, know that there are 100 senators, and even after five years of war can find Iraq on a map of the world. He also points out that in spite of overwhelming evidence to the contrary and even though it was never stated reason for the Iraq war by the administration, fully 50% of American voters still think Saddam was behind the 9/11 attacks.
Yours truly is not surprised by these findings and recall that it was many years ago that some wag opined that as a politician one can never go wrong underestimating the intelligence of the average voter. Even Jay Leno has picked up on this with great comedic effect with his man on the street interviews.
My own view is that the American people are not stupid. It is clear, however, that most of them are blissfully ignorant and almost intentionally uninformed. One may ask how can this be in an age of media overload, instant communications and 24/7 news channels. I believe the problem is that most people have complete lack of curiosity about anything that doesn't directly affect them personally and immediately.
Building on a point in an earlier post, you see the seeds of this phenomenon in the active resistance to excellence in our public school systems. Unfortunately for most kids today it is cool to be ignorant, and ignorant teens grow into ignorant voters.
Wednesday, June 4, 2008
The Inevitability of Global Warming
In my last post I made reference to a recent book titled "Unstoppable Global Warming" by S. Fred Singer and Dennis T. Avery. This book should be required reading for all politicians, educators and journalists. (The good news is it is on the New York Times best sellers list.)
Singer and Avery provide overwhelming, peer-reviewed scientific evidence that:
1. We are at the beginning of a natural 1500 year (plus or minus 500 years) global warming cycle that began about 1850.
2. That the globe was warmer during the days of the Roman empire and during the medieval warming period from 900 -1300 AD than it is today. (Note - long before the industrial revolution and human generated CO2.)
3. To the extent that man-made CO2 emissions may cause a minor (i.e. .005 degree C/per century) increase in average global temperatures this is overwhelmed by the natural solar driven causes of global warming.
4. All of the scary scenarios pushed by the global warming activists including rapidly rising sea levels, extraordinary species extinctions, famines and droughts on an unprecedented scale, more violent weather and climate related human deaths are totally without merit and in fact can be proven to be in contradiction to our experience during previous natural warming periods.
5. Historically global temperatures increase in advance of atmospheric CO2 increases demonstrating that increases in atmospheric CO2 are a result and not a cause of increased global temperatures.
6. The Global Circulation Models and the now fully discredited Mann temperature data (aka the hockey stick graph) used by the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and super scaremonger Al Gore are totally without any scientific merit and in fact were purposely manipulated to fabricate an anthropogenic global warming frenzy.
7. The human race has much more to fear from the next inevitable cooling period than it does from the current natural warming period.
Singer and Avery also suggest that those who promote the human-caused theory are motivated by either by research grants (the university researchers and "scientists") or a way to hijack the environmental movement to promote a leftist (i.e. hate the relative "rich") agenda designed to control and deminish the living standards and restrict individual choices particularly in first world nations like the US and Western Europe.
Unlike the irrefutable data that the authors present on the facts about inevitable (and slow) global warming, motivations are hard to prove and risky to posit. However one can not help but see in the rhetoric and policies put forth by the anthropogenic warming alarmist crowd a ring of high credibility in the authors' ideas.
Finally Singer and Avery persuasively put a stake to the heart of the whole ill conceived and doomed-to-fail Kyoto protocol treaty that thankfully will die a natural death in 2012.
You must read this book!
Singer and Avery provide overwhelming, peer-reviewed scientific evidence that:
1. We are at the beginning of a natural 1500 year (plus or minus 500 years) global warming cycle that began about 1850.
2. That the globe was warmer during the days of the Roman empire and during the medieval warming period from 900 -1300 AD than it is today. (Note - long before the industrial revolution and human generated CO2.)
3. To the extent that man-made CO2 emissions may cause a minor (i.e. .005 degree C/per century) increase in average global temperatures this is overwhelmed by the natural solar driven causes of global warming.
4. All of the scary scenarios pushed by the global warming activists including rapidly rising sea levels, extraordinary species extinctions, famines and droughts on an unprecedented scale, more violent weather and climate related human deaths are totally without merit and in fact can be proven to be in contradiction to our experience during previous natural warming periods.
5. Historically global temperatures increase in advance of atmospheric CO2 increases demonstrating that increases in atmospheric CO2 are a result and not a cause of increased global temperatures.
6. The Global Circulation Models and the now fully discredited Mann temperature data (aka the hockey stick graph) used by the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and super scaremonger Al Gore are totally without any scientific merit and in fact were purposely manipulated to fabricate an anthropogenic global warming frenzy.
7. The human race has much more to fear from the next inevitable cooling period than it does from the current natural warming period.
Singer and Avery also suggest that those who promote the human-caused theory are motivated by either by research grants (the university researchers and "scientists") or a way to hijack the environmental movement to promote a leftist (i.e. hate the relative "rich") agenda designed to control and deminish the living standards and restrict individual choices particularly in first world nations like the US and Western Europe.
Unlike the irrefutable data that the authors present on the facts about inevitable (and slow) global warming, motivations are hard to prove and risky to posit. However one can not help but see in the rhetoric and policies put forth by the anthropogenic warming alarmist crowd a ring of high credibility in the authors' ideas.
Finally Singer and Avery persuasively put a stake to the heart of the whole ill conceived and doomed-to-fail Kyoto protocol treaty that thankfully will die a natural death in 2012.
You must read this book!
Friday, May 23, 2008
The Ethics of Climate Change
This is my second post of the day, but I feel compelled to comment on an article on the above subject that appears in the June 08 edition of Scientific American. As I have said in earlier posts I am a regular reader of SciAm and generally find it a very informative and accurate source of current scientific findings and trends. On the issue of global warming, unfortunately, the editors have drunk the Al Gore Kool-Aid.
The subject article is a case in point. The fundamental flaw with the entire piece is that it is based on the a priori assumption that climate change or global warming is caused by human activity. Ergo humans have an ethical responsibility to do something about it.
The problem is of course that the presumption is most likely not true. In fact contrary to the often stated "fact" of a scientific consensus for anthropogenic global warming, in a recently released survey by the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine 31,072 scientists have signed a letter to the effect that there is no demonstrable linkage between man-made green house gases and global warming. Given that the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (or IPCC) report, which fuels the presumption that human activity is to blame, was prepared by about 600 scientists (who were not, by the way, unanimous in the conclusions of that report), the evidence would support the notion that if there is a consensus it is the opposite of what Al Gore and company would have us believe.
Further there is compelling data in published work by S. Fred Singer and Dennis T. Avery titled "Unstoppable Global Warming" demonstrating that historically global temperatures increase prior to increases in carbon dioxide in the earth's atmosphere. The clear conclusion is that global temperature increases are a cause for the buildup of CO2 not the other way around.
Rather than fret about the impact our lifestyle may have on the legacy we may leave our children, we should instead focus on an international effort to effectively deal with the consequences of inevitable climate change.
The subject article is a case in point. The fundamental flaw with the entire piece is that it is based on the a priori assumption that climate change or global warming is caused by human activity. Ergo humans have an ethical responsibility to do something about it.
The problem is of course that the presumption is most likely not true. In fact contrary to the often stated "fact" of a scientific consensus for anthropogenic global warming, in a recently released survey by the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine 31,072 scientists have signed a letter to the effect that there is no demonstrable linkage between man-made green house gases and global warming. Given that the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (or IPCC) report, which fuels the presumption that human activity is to blame, was prepared by about 600 scientists (who were not, by the way, unanimous in the conclusions of that report), the evidence would support the notion that if there is a consensus it is the opposite of what Al Gore and company would have us believe.
Further there is compelling data in published work by S. Fred Singer and Dennis T. Avery titled "Unstoppable Global Warming" demonstrating that historically global temperatures increase prior to increases in carbon dioxide in the earth's atmosphere. The clear conclusion is that global temperature increases are a cause for the buildup of CO2 not the other way around.
Rather than fret about the impact our lifestyle may have on the legacy we may leave our children, we should instead focus on an international effort to effectively deal with the consequences of inevitable climate change.
Gas Prices and Our Congress
What a despicable display of ignorant bloviating. This is how best to describe the US House of Representatives hearings over gas prices. Rather than deal with real and meaningful actions that the government can take to actually increase supply of both crude oil and gasoline and reduce our dependence on foreign sources, our elected leaders chose to trash the oil executives summarily subpoenaed to a public lashing.
What a joke. The government - in its federal, state and local varieties - has blocked the development of domestic sources offshore, in the Gulf of Mexico and in Alaska and discouraged the building and expansion of new refineries to convert the crude oil into gasoline. As a result supplies are tight and as we all learned in economics 101 when demand outstrips supply prices increase to a point where either demand drops or supplies increase or both.
In an earlier blog I noted that in fact the demand side of this equation is working in the US with the sharply reduced demand for trucks and SUV's vs. the increase in demand for more fuel efficient vehicles. In addition more people are taking public transportation, curtailing vacation plans that require long drives and even looking for jobs closer to home or work-at-home opportunities to save on commuting costs. These are all good things and a natural consequence of market forces.
Rather than beat up the oil execs, our elected officials would better serve the people by developing a comprehensive energy policy that recognizes and encourages the development of all sources of energy (not just wind and solar which will help with home and business electricity supply but will do nothing to move your vehicle) including nuclear power as well as conservation.
We the people deserve better from our elected officials.
What a joke. The government - in its federal, state and local varieties - has blocked the development of domestic sources offshore, in the Gulf of Mexico and in Alaska and discouraged the building and expansion of new refineries to convert the crude oil into gasoline. As a result supplies are tight and as we all learned in economics 101 when demand outstrips supply prices increase to a point where either demand drops or supplies increase or both.
In an earlier blog I noted that in fact the demand side of this equation is working in the US with the sharply reduced demand for trucks and SUV's vs. the increase in demand for more fuel efficient vehicles. In addition more people are taking public transportation, curtailing vacation plans that require long drives and even looking for jobs closer to home or work-at-home opportunities to save on commuting costs. These are all good things and a natural consequence of market forces.
Rather than beat up the oil execs, our elected officials would better serve the people by developing a comprehensive energy policy that recognizes and encourages the development of all sources of energy (not just wind and solar which will help with home and business electricity supply but will do nothing to move your vehicle) including nuclear power as well as conservation.
We the people deserve better from our elected officials.
Saturday, May 3, 2008
Ice and Ocean Levels
OK - I can't stand it anymore. All this is absolute nonsense. In what I call the the "Al Gore effect" there seems to be a commonly held belief that if the Arctic ice melts all our shoreline property will be inundated by a rising ocean level. This is just more example of the junk science that the scientifically ignorant media loves to repeat.
Message to Al (and the media) - ICE IS LESS DENSE THAN WATER. Get it. That's why it floats and why we have ice on our ponds and lakes to skate on in the winter. The fact is that if all of the Arctic ice at the north pole melted our ocean level would actually DECREASE since the volume of water that ice displaces is greater than it would create if it melted.
Most folks understand this from real life. If I have a glass of ice water that is mostly ice, as the ice melts my glass does not overflow. In fact if one were to measure the level in the glass as the ice melts the level drops. Isn't that interesting???
All this anthropogenic global warming hysteria is more scaremongering about the "effects" of climate change as a way to drive politically motivated outcomes related to economic choices that we face as individuals and as a nation.
While it is true that if the Arctic icecap melted polar bears may have to revert to land based scavenging rather than ice floes for their food, this is not the end of of the western world. And by the way the bears themselves seem to do very well at this operating out of land bases in Canada.
It gave me great pleasure to see a documentary today that finally revealed the deep division among "climatologists" about whether the global climate is being set up for a hot house effect (a la Al Gore's inconvenient "untruth") or another mini ice age.
As I have stated in earlier blogs on this site the earth's climate is more a function of its own volcanism, the sun's varying output of total energy, and variations in the earth's eccentric orbit around the sun. My point is that man's influence on the whole outcome is and will be like pissing in the ocean, and I am gratified that even the "experts" are unsure and divided about what this all means.
We need to stop worrying about global warming and start moving forward with sensible solutions (a.k.a nuclear power and an all electric transportation system) to our long term energy needs.
Message to Al (and the media) - ICE IS LESS DENSE THAN WATER. Get it. That's why it floats and why we have ice on our ponds and lakes to skate on in the winter. The fact is that if all of the Arctic ice at the north pole melted our ocean level would actually DECREASE since the volume of water that ice displaces is greater than it would create if it melted.
Most folks understand this from real life. If I have a glass of ice water that is mostly ice, as the ice melts my glass does not overflow. In fact if one were to measure the level in the glass as the ice melts the level drops. Isn't that interesting???
All this anthropogenic global warming hysteria is more scaremongering about the "effects" of climate change as a way to drive politically motivated outcomes related to economic choices that we face as individuals and as a nation.
While it is true that if the Arctic icecap melted polar bears may have to revert to land based scavenging rather than ice floes for their food, this is not the end of of the western world. And by the way the bears themselves seem to do very well at this operating out of land bases in Canada.
It gave me great pleasure to see a documentary today that finally revealed the deep division among "climatologists" about whether the global climate is being set up for a hot house effect (a la Al Gore's inconvenient "untruth") or another mini ice age.
As I have stated in earlier blogs on this site the earth's climate is more a function of its own volcanism, the sun's varying output of total energy, and variations in the earth's eccentric orbit around the sun. My point is that man's influence on the whole outcome is and will be like pissing in the ocean, and I am gratified that even the "experts" are unsure and divided about what this all means.
We need to stop worrying about global warming and start moving forward with sensible solutions (a.k.a nuclear power and an all electric transportation system) to our long term energy needs.
Friday, May 2, 2008
Markets vs. Politicians
As the average price for a gallon of regular gasoline moves into the $3.50+ range, a remarkable chain of events is occurring. The first is lo and behold the demand for gasoline is decreasing thereby proving that in fact demand is price elastic. Isn't it remarkable the way markets work their magic.
The second shift is in the consumer appetite for large/SUV vehicles vs. smaller more fuel efficient and even hybrid cars in spite of their higher initial cost. The auto makers can't seem to produce enough of the latter type and the former are building in dealer inventories. Not to mention that the whole RV industry is being killed by the high price of gas.
What both these trends remind us is that in the US free market system markets do in fact work. They may not respond as quickly as some would like but they do work. They are working to discourage the use of gasoline and to increase the average fuel efficiency of the operating fleet of cars - thereby reducing carbon and other emissions - all without the help of our Washington DC politicians and bureaucrats.
Against this backdrop we have both Clinton and McCain arguing for a suspension in the federal taxes on gasoline. What a terrible way to pander to the electorate. This is exactly the wrong thing to do. On this issue Obama has it right.
The second shift is in the consumer appetite for large/SUV vehicles vs. smaller more fuel efficient and even hybrid cars in spite of their higher initial cost. The auto makers can't seem to produce enough of the latter type and the former are building in dealer inventories. Not to mention that the whole RV industry is being killed by the high price of gas.
What both these trends remind us is that in the US free market system markets do in fact work. They may not respond as quickly as some would like but they do work. They are working to discourage the use of gasoline and to increase the average fuel efficiency of the operating fleet of cars - thereby reducing carbon and other emissions - all without the help of our Washington DC politicians and bureaucrats.
Against this backdrop we have both Clinton and McCain arguing for a suspension in the federal taxes on gasoline. What a terrible way to pander to the electorate. This is exactly the wrong thing to do. On this issue Obama has it right.
Friday, April 18, 2008
Ethanol and the Big Green Lie
Why is it that in spite of overwhelming evidence that ethanol as a motor vehicle fuel is not the solution to either the carbon emission or the energy independence issue do we still hear politicians promoting its use and car makers promoting their flex fuel vehicles. On a life cycle basis the production and use of ethanol for transportation produces more greenhouse gases than oil.
From an energy independence perspective in spite of what we are led to believe in the media about dependence on middle eastern oil, almost all of the imported oil that the US uses comes from Canada, Mexico and (unfortunately) Venezuela. Only a small part comes from the middle east and the rest from Russia and Nigeria.
Plus the use of land and crops for ethanol production rather than food has raised the prices of almost everything in the food chain.
Sorry Iowa corn farmers but this lunacy has to stop!
The best solution to the transportation problem is to transition as rapidly as possible to an all electric powered fleet of vehicles that are recharged by electricity generated by hundreds of new nuclear plants. That is the only logical and practical way to truly address both problems.
From an energy independence perspective in spite of what we are led to believe in the media about dependence on middle eastern oil, almost all of the imported oil that the US uses comes from Canada, Mexico and (unfortunately) Venezuela. Only a small part comes from the middle east and the rest from Russia and Nigeria.
Plus the use of land and crops for ethanol production rather than food has raised the prices of almost everything in the food chain.
Sorry Iowa corn farmers but this lunacy has to stop!
The best solution to the transportation problem is to transition as rapidly as possible to an all electric powered fleet of vehicles that are recharged by electricity generated by hundreds of new nuclear plants. That is the only logical and practical way to truly address both problems.
Monday, April 14, 2008
Reunions and Nuclear Power
The title of this post is an interesting mix of thoughts that requires some explanation.
This past weekend I attended my 40th (count 'em) college reunion. I experienced the usual reaction of being surprised at all the "old" people in attendance. Where did they all come from? Reunions - at least at this lofty number - are always a little bittersweet. It was great reliving and laughing about all the good times we had and marvel that we actually survived our college days relatively unscathed.
On the other hand you know that there are only a few more gatherings of this kind to come. In fact at my alma mater - Duke University - they cut it off at 50. I guess they figure at that point the alums are either too senile or too tired to care.
As to the connection with nuclear power at the aforementioned reunion, I got into a "vigorous" discussion with the wife (whom I knew when she was an undergrad) of one of my fraternity brothers about the benefits of nuclear power as a partial solution to the concern about greenhouse gases. (By the way see my previous post re the global warming debate.) She said she was dead set against nuclear power because of the "unsolved" problem of waste disposal. I pointed out to her that contrary to the anti-nuc propaganda, fully developed technologies for the safe disposal of nuclear waste have been around for over 30 years, and the "unsolved" problem was how to get around the NIMBY syndrome and related political issues that prevent these technologies from being used.
I further noted that the anti-nuc movement has a vested interest in keeping the issue open since doing so perpetuates the myth of an "unsolved" problem which in truth they do not want to be "solved."
As a trained nuclear engineer who spent the better part of 25 years operating, building and servicing nuclear power plants I do speak with some authority on this issue. Nevertheless I was completely unable to persuade my opponent even thought she had no technical background or knowledge about the subject.
Like many who are ignorant of nuclear issues her position was based entirely on an emotional reaction to the scaremongering of the anti-nuc movement and the belief that all we need to do is build thousands of wind turbines from North Dakota to Texas. She seemed to be unfazed by the fact that wind turbines are both eye pollutants and voracious killers of migrating birds, not to mention the enormous costs of the transmission and distribution system that would be needed to move all the wind energy to the areas that need it.
My frustration was that here we had an otherwise very bright person who would rather ignore the facts about a subject she didn't understand in favor of a simple rejection of the idea. It was almost like she made decision to be deliberately brain dead on this issue.
This is why in spite of the recent talk about a nuclear renaissance, I am very pessimistic that any more light water nuclear reactors will ever be built in the United States. Europe, China, Japan, South Korea and others will continue to develop and apply this much needed technology and once again the US will be lagging the world largely due to a combination of a head-in-the-sand approach to the technologies and a lack of political will.
This past weekend I attended my 40th (count 'em) college reunion. I experienced the usual reaction of being surprised at all the "old" people in attendance. Where did they all come from? Reunions - at least at this lofty number - are always a little bittersweet. It was great reliving and laughing about all the good times we had and marvel that we actually survived our college days relatively unscathed.
On the other hand you know that there are only a few more gatherings of this kind to come. In fact at my alma mater - Duke University - they cut it off at 50. I guess they figure at that point the alums are either too senile or too tired to care.
As to the connection with nuclear power at the aforementioned reunion, I got into a "vigorous" discussion with the wife (whom I knew when she was an undergrad) of one of my fraternity brothers about the benefits of nuclear power as a partial solution to the concern about greenhouse gases. (By the way see my previous post re the global warming debate.) She said she was dead set against nuclear power because of the "unsolved" problem of waste disposal. I pointed out to her that contrary to the anti-nuc propaganda, fully developed technologies for the safe disposal of nuclear waste have been around for over 30 years, and the "unsolved" problem was how to get around the NIMBY syndrome and related political issues that prevent these technologies from being used.
I further noted that the anti-nuc movement has a vested interest in keeping the issue open since doing so perpetuates the myth of an "unsolved" problem which in truth they do not want to be "solved."
As a trained nuclear engineer who spent the better part of 25 years operating, building and servicing nuclear power plants I do speak with some authority on this issue. Nevertheless I was completely unable to persuade my opponent even thought she had no technical background or knowledge about the subject.
Like many who are ignorant of nuclear issues her position was based entirely on an emotional reaction to the scaremongering of the anti-nuc movement and the belief that all we need to do is build thousands of wind turbines from North Dakota to Texas. She seemed to be unfazed by the fact that wind turbines are both eye pollutants and voracious killers of migrating birds, not to mention the enormous costs of the transmission and distribution system that would be needed to move all the wind energy to the areas that need it.
My frustration was that here we had an otherwise very bright person who would rather ignore the facts about a subject she didn't understand in favor of a simple rejection of the idea. It was almost like she made decision to be deliberately brain dead on this issue.
This is why in spite of the recent talk about a nuclear renaissance, I am very pessimistic that any more light water nuclear reactors will ever be built in the United States. Europe, China, Japan, South Korea and others will continue to develop and apply this much needed technology and once again the US will be lagging the world largely due to a combination of a head-in-the-sand approach to the technologies and a lack of political will.
Tuesday, April 8, 2008
Politically Schizophrenic
OK you ask. As a scientific humanist what flavor of politics do I support. Well let's see. I am pro-choice and pro stem cell research - typically positions favored by the more liberal set. I am in favor of limited government, low taxes and individual freedom and responsibility - which tend toward the libertarian or republican agendas.
I am more consistent on the abortion issue than either political party. Support of a woman's right to choose is 100% consistent with the libertarian philosophy of individual freedom and personal responsibility. Using similar logic I am in favor of an individual's right to medically supervised euthanasia.
I am in favor of public schools, but feel that in many parts of the country - particularly the inner city - parents have abdicated their responsibility to be involved with their children's education with disastrous effects (e.g. 50% drop out rates). I am also appalled by an apparent culture of mediocrity that seems to actively fight against excellence in our schools. I am concerned that many parents choose to remove their children from public schools just because of the non-biblical science curriculum. These parents are putting their children at a significant disadvantage in competing in the new "flat world" environment.
I am in favor of free trade and open immigration standards for highly skilled persons no matter what their country of origin. On the issue of illegal immigrants already here, I believe those that obey the laws (other than the one they broke to get here in the first place) and pay their taxes should be given the opportunity to "legalize" their status. I am in favor of eliminating the automatic citizenship to anyone born here. That privilege should be allowed only to the children of legal immigrants and US citizens.
I believe we were right to take out Saddam but the post take-out strategy has been very poorly managed.
I believe it is time for everyone to stop whining. The culture of victim hood needs to be flipped on its head. Life, government nor anyone else owes you anything. Get over it and get on with it.
This is just a short list. Will need to expand on this later.
I am more consistent on the abortion issue than either political party. Support of a woman's right to choose is 100% consistent with the libertarian philosophy of individual freedom and personal responsibility. Using similar logic I am in favor of an individual's right to medically supervised euthanasia.
I am in favor of public schools, but feel that in many parts of the country - particularly the inner city - parents have abdicated their responsibility to be involved with their children's education with disastrous effects (e.g. 50% drop out rates). I am also appalled by an apparent culture of mediocrity that seems to actively fight against excellence in our schools. I am concerned that many parents choose to remove their children from public schools just because of the non-biblical science curriculum. These parents are putting their children at a significant disadvantage in competing in the new "flat world" environment.
I am in favor of free trade and open immigration standards for highly skilled persons no matter what their country of origin. On the issue of illegal immigrants already here, I believe those that obey the laws (other than the one they broke to get here in the first place) and pay their taxes should be given the opportunity to "legalize" their status. I am in favor of eliminating the automatic citizenship to anyone born here. That privilege should be allowed only to the children of legal immigrants and US citizens.
I believe we were right to take out Saddam but the post take-out strategy has been very poorly managed.
I believe it is time for everyone to stop whining. The culture of victim hood needs to be flipped on its head. Life, government nor anyone else owes you anything. Get over it and get on with it.
This is just a short list. Will need to expand on this later.
Wednesday, April 2, 2008
Global Warming Debate
I am a subscriber and regular reader of Scientific American. As one might expect from the title their coverage of scientific issues is generally on the mark. Unfortunately on the issue of global warming - or more specifically anthropogenic (i.e. the whole problem is created by humans) global warming - the editors of SA have apparently drunk the Al Gore Kool Aid and have bought the human activity driven hypothesis hook, line and sinker.
My own view is that it is the height of egotism to presume that humans and their activities are so important to a planet whose climate has historically been and is still today driven first by the sun and its variations in energy output and second by the earth itself via its naturally occurring volcanism. The bottom line is that humans just ain't that important.
Whether or not the earth is in a long term warming cycle is still highly debatable. Even if it is my belief is that it is most likely the result of naturally occurring cyclical variations in the sun's output and the Earth's orbit around the sun rather than anything that mankind might contribute.
Remember that the Earth has gone through multiple ice ages and periods with no ice caps at all without the benefit of a single human footprint.
Attached below is a link to an outstanding documentary produced by the CBC that questions the whole global warming hysteria. You won't find this being shown in any theaters near you nor will any of the participating scientists be receiving any academy awards. It's about 45 minutes long but well worth viewing.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3309910462407994295&hl=en
My own view is that it is the height of egotism to presume that humans and their activities are so important to a planet whose climate has historically been and is still today driven first by the sun and its variations in energy output and second by the earth itself via its naturally occurring volcanism. The bottom line is that humans just ain't that important.
Whether or not the earth is in a long term warming cycle is still highly debatable. Even if it is my belief is that it is most likely the result of naturally occurring cyclical variations in the sun's output and the Earth's orbit around the sun rather than anything that mankind might contribute.
Remember that the Earth has gone through multiple ice ages and periods with no ice caps at all without the benefit of a single human footprint.
Attached below is a link to an outstanding documentary produced by the CBC that questions the whole global warming hysteria. You won't find this being shown in any theaters near you nor will any of the participating scientists be receiving any academy awards. It's about 45 minutes long but well worth viewing.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3309910462407994295&hl=en
Monday, March 31, 2008
Heros
As you know from my earlier posts, one of my pet peeves is the lack of critical scientific thinking on the part of the vast majority of those that report in the media. They frequently report on the most sensational claims without comment or criticism and thereby either intentionally or out of ignorance give them credibility.
There are exceptions to this and for the record I would like to mention three people who are valiantly fighting the battle for truth and rational thinking.
The first is Steve Milloy. Steve writes the Junk Science column for Fox news and is always working to expose hypocrisy and inaccuracy in the mainstream science reporting and agenda driven "scientists" that misrepresent facts in support of their political or policy objectives.
Second hats off to John Stossel of ABC News. I love the way he debunks commonly held beliefs by simply reporting the facts and creating the proper context for them to be understood.
My third hero in my quest for truth and justice in science reporting is Michael Shermer who writes the Skeptic column in Scientific American.
I recommend them all and only wish we had many more.
There are exceptions to this and for the record I would like to mention three people who are valiantly fighting the battle for truth and rational thinking.
The first is Steve Milloy. Steve writes the Junk Science column for Fox news and is always working to expose hypocrisy and inaccuracy in the mainstream science reporting and agenda driven "scientists" that misrepresent facts in support of their political or policy objectives.
Second hats off to John Stossel of ABC News. I love the way he debunks commonly held beliefs by simply reporting the facts and creating the proper context for them to be understood.
My third hero in my quest for truth and justice in science reporting is Michael Shermer who writes the Skeptic column in Scientific American.
I recommend them all and only wish we had many more.
Friday, March 28, 2008
About Me Photo
Just a quick note re the photo of yours truly that appears on this page. This was taken in 2005 on the back veranda of a restaurant on Santorini. For those of you that may not know the Greek island of Santorini is really what is left of the rim of a volcanic caldera that was formed after the last major eruption about 3600 years ago. The center of the caldera is still active and two newer smaller islands have been built in the center of the caldera since then. For anyone considering a visit the next major eruption is not expected for another 16,000 years or so.
Psuedo-scientific Scaremongering
Have you heard the latest! Get this. Two guys that live in Hawaii have sued in Federal court to slow down the new Large Hadron Collider (LHC) project pending further review of "safety" concerns that they have. The interesting thing is that the LHC is being built in Europe on the Swiss-French border. Apparently because the LHC's magnets were built by Fermilab in the US, these pseudo-scientific scaremongers are able to get a hearing on their suit in a US court.
The LHC is a major international science project that will allow physicists to expand their knowledge of the first moments of the universe, why some particles have mass and others don't, and perhaps provide supporting or contradictory evidence for the current standard model of elementary particles.
These two clowns in Hawaii are using the same tactic that the anti-nuclear nuts have used for many years in the US of raising red-herring safety concerns to delay projects indefinitely. The Yucca Mountain Nuclear Waste Repository is a classic example.
The sad part is that even though there is absolutely no evidence that these "safety concerns" are legit, our legal system seems unable or unwilling to cut these tactics off at the pass as frivolous and without merit. This seems to be a uniquely US problem. In no other industrialized nation can dopey doomsayers stand in the way of a project like the LHC that will have enormous value to the international scientific community.
The LHC is a major international science project that will allow physicists to expand their knowledge of the first moments of the universe, why some particles have mass and others don't, and perhaps provide supporting or contradictory evidence for the current standard model of elementary particles.
These two clowns in Hawaii are using the same tactic that the anti-nuclear nuts have used for many years in the US of raising red-herring safety concerns to delay projects indefinitely. The Yucca Mountain Nuclear Waste Repository is a classic example.
The sad part is that even though there is absolutely no evidence that these "safety concerns" are legit, our legal system seems unable or unwilling to cut these tactics off at the pass as frivolous and without merit. This seems to be a uniquely US problem. In no other industrialized nation can dopey doomsayers stand in the way of a project like the LHC that will have enormous value to the international scientific community.
Wednesday, March 26, 2008
The "Theory" of Evolution
I am always astounded at the scientific illiteracy of the general print and TV media. A case in point is that whenever one reads or hears about evolution it is always referred to as a theory. The implication being that perhaps there are other explanations - i.e. intelligent design and other creationist claptrap ideas - that may explain the flora and fauna of the Earth. Perhaps this is merely a sop to certain religious groups for whom anything other than a literal interpretation of the Bible is a threat to their faith, (in which case their faith must be pretty weak), but I suspect it has more to do with ignorance rather than any active promotion of alternative views.
Let me be perfectly clear. Evolution is not a theory. It is a scientific fact (facts are by the way the grist of science) well established in the biochemical (read DNA), fossil and anthropological record of the plant and animal species - up to and including homo sapiens - that have existed on this planet.
The reference to a "Theory" comes from a misunderstanding of Darwin's seminal work titled
"On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life." The theory that Darwin postulates is not that evolution occurred, but rather that it occurred as a result of natural selection. The confusion comes from the tendency by those in the media and elsewhere to conflate the theory of how it happened with the fact of evolution.
No serious scientist questions the fact of evolution, but the reference to the "Theory" of Evolution continues to be quoted today.
Let me be perfectly clear. Evolution is not a theory. It is a scientific fact (facts are by the way the grist of science) well established in the biochemical (read DNA), fossil and anthropological record of the plant and animal species - up to and including homo sapiens - that have existed on this planet.
The reference to a "Theory" comes from a misunderstanding of Darwin's seminal work titled
"On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life." The theory that Darwin postulates is not that evolution occurred, but rather that it occurred as a result of natural selection. The confusion comes from the tendency by those in the media and elsewhere to conflate the theory of how it happened with the fact of evolution.
No serious scientist questions the fact of evolution, but the reference to the "Theory" of Evolution continues to be quoted today.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
