© 2008, The Institute for Applied Common Sense
Since we started this blog in April of 2008, numerous readers have asked us about the blogging experience, and how they might start their own blogs. It took us almost two years to actually do so, and we regret not having done so earlier.
A blog opens up a whole new world to you, and allows interaction with folks all over the world, about all sorts of subjects. The blogosphere is truly a global virtual community.
(For those interested, a major blogging convention is scheduled for Greensboro, NC on Thursday and Friday, October 16 and 17, 2008 (http://convergesouth.com.) On Saturday, October 18, 2008 BlogHer (http://www.blogher.com), a community for women who blog, visits the city as part of its traveling tour.)
We’re going to provide you with an opportunity to post an article or articles on our blog, as Guest Authors, consistent with the goals and principles of the Institute for Applied Common Sense.
There is no need to repeat our philosophy here; it appears stated in the right column of the blog. However, before getting to the Guest Author opportunity, we thought that we should share with you a profile of our readership.
There are many widgets and tracking devices which can be installed on a blog, to provide information about the visiting traffic. We are particularly enthralled with http://www.sitemeter.com . Even their free service provides valuable information, as will be reflected below.
The vast majority of the readers of this blog appear to be non-bloggers. We frequently receive direct e-mails containing comments as opposed to comments on the blog. Roughly 15-20% of the readers are located in countries outside of the United States. We have regular readers from Australia, Finland, France, the Palestinian Territories in Gaza, Germany, Iceland, India, Israel, Jordan, New Zealand, Norway, Singapore, South Africa, Sweden, Thailand, Vietnam, and the United Kingdom.
Thus far, we can not recall any readers from China. Far more newcomers (individuals not associated with any of the members of the “It’s Your Turn™” Team) read our blog than friends of the “It’s Your Turn™” Team. The newcomers also have a tendency to read more articles and to stay on the blog reading them longer.
It appears that most of our foreign readers live in smaller cities, and we have noticed that they spend more time reading more articles than any other group.
We employ the “next blog” button feature of the Navigation Bar at the top of our blog to “blog surf” and visit other blogs. The vast majority of the other blogs which we visit are based in Southeast Asia, the South Pacific, and Brazil. We are actually surprised at the large number of Brazilian blogs.
Most blogs are uniquely personal. A large number display photos taken by the blogger, chronicle the lives and experiences of children or newlyweds, or display the artistic work of artists of every imaginable variety. We tend to randomly surf to other blogs and when we find one of interest, we stop and comment.
Although we are sure that there are many blogs dealing with political or societal issues, we rarely run across them. (That may be explained by the fact that we use Google’s free blogging platform, http://www.blooger.com, and those interested in professional blogging tend to buy other software for blogging.)
We joined a number of Google Groups (or discussion groups), most with some type of political theme. The bulk of our traffic is referred to us through Google Groups, following our leaving comments on the group discussion boards. We stumble through blogs written in French, Portuguese, and Spanish, and leave comments using a combination of English and our broken language in question. Most interestingly, it is the Brazilians who most frequently respond.
The readers who consider the articles, or the ideas expressed in them, to be radical or dangerous are generally Americans. We never sense any reluctance to go to another place intellectually on the part of our foreign visitors.
We have no real sense of the age demographic of our readers. We suspect that we have far more women readers than men, based on the comments.
In the U.S., our readers have a tendency to be from the West Coast, Southwest, and the Eastern Seaboard. Mid-Western readers hail from Illinois, Michigan, Minnesota, and Wisconsin. In the South, we get visitors from Florida, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Virginia; there are virtually no readers from Alabama, Louisiana, Mississippi, or Tennessee. There are also very few readers from the Rocky Mountain States and the Plains States.
Our blog informs readers that the “It’s Your Turn™"Team will soon embark on a nationwide tour of college campuses to engage students in a conversation about personal responsibility and making difficult decisions. In response thereto, we have received numerous comments which generally might fall into two categories: (a) those which inquire as to where we were when they were in college; and (b) to inform them when the tour is scheduled to be in their vicinity.
The blog has evolved over time. It morphed from simply posing rhetorical questions in admittedly lengthy essays. It went through a period when we suggested theoretical constructs which might be utilized to analyze certain situations. Our original goal, which remains today, was to simply get people to think and avoid rushing to judgments and decisions.
One of our favorite stories revolves around Senator Barry Goldwater, the ultimate conservative. Just prior to his death, he was asked to identify one thing he appreciated as a senior citizen, which he did not appreciate in his youth. He replied that in his youth, he thought there were only two sides to every issue. In hindsight, he understood that there were at least three.
Our view is that there are at least 27 different ways to view everything. Not all of them are good, productive, or positive at any given particular time, and their importance definitely changes depending on the context or circumstances. However, we should be aware of them.
Another goal of this blog has always been to encourage people to “dig deeper” in trying to understand the underlying causes of problems, instead of being distracted by the superficial, and typically emotional, symptoms.
If at times you’ve been confused about the purpose and focus of this blog, you are pretty perceptive. We essentially conducted a virtual focus group during the first few months of the blog’s existence. We’re still experimenting with different approaches.
Amazingly, we have not received one, single, nasty, off the chart, emotional rant, and for that we modestly take some credit. It was not our intention to get folks worked up, but rather to get them to say, “Hmm, let me think about that.” The most frequent comment which we received was, “I hadn’t thought or looked at it that way.” We view getting folks to pause during the thought process as a good thing.
We mentioned earlier that we are inviting our readers to serve as Guest Authors. We have a few guidelines to ensure that we maintain the spirit of the blog. We’re interested in civilized, respectful discourse, between participants with open minds. We believe that reasonable people can differ about how to approach a problem. Please observe the following guidelines:
1. Please limit your article to 750 words maximum;
2. Discuss any issue in the news or societal issue that you desire;
3. Avoid just criticizing or taking a side, and instead think in terms of suggesting a solution to the issue, or at a minimum offer some reasoned alternatives;
4. Try to be as objective as possible and set aside your personal biases;
5. Pose rhetorical questions to challenge the reader to consider various options, and innovative ways to analyze the issue;
6. Avoid the use of invective and judgmental statements, which might prompt emotional responses;
7. Avoid taking sides, or the positions of the liberals, conservatives, Republicans, Democrats, etc. Your piece should cause all sides to ponder; and
8. Be sure to “dig deeper” to reach the underlying causes.
Send your articles to RDGreene27401@gmail.com with an urgent flag. As long as they are generated in good faith and generally within our guidelines, they will be published “as is,” without further editing. Be sure to tell your friends and contacts to read your articles once they are published. This should be fun.
© 2008, The Institute for Applied Common Sense
Wednesday, August 6, 2008
Post No. 33: Are You Curious About What's Been Going on with the Iraqi Oil?
Article of Interest of Interest from the August 6, 2008 Edition of the New York Times
August 6, 2008
As Iraq Surplus Rises, Little Goes Into Rebuilding
By JAMES GLANZ and CAMPBELL ROBERTSON
Soaring oil prices will leave the Iraqi government with a cumulative budget surplus of as much as $79 billion by year’s end, according to an American federal oversight agency. But Iraq has spent only a minute fraction of that on reconstruction costs, which are now largely borne by the United States.
The unspent windfall, which covers surpluses from oil sales since 2005, appears likely to reinforce growing debate about the approximately $48 billion in American taxpayer money devoted to rebuilding Iraq since the American-led invasion.
In one comparison, the United States has spent $23.2 billion in the critical areas of security, oil, electricity and water since the 2003 invasion, the report said. But from 2005 through April 2008, Iraq has spent just $3.9 billion on similar services.
Over all, the report from the Government Accountability Office estimates, Iraqi oil revenue from 2005 through the end of this year will amount to at least $156 billion. And in an odd financial twist, a large amount of the surplus money is sitting in an American bank in New York — nearly $10 billion at the end of 2007, with more expected this year, when the accountability office estimates a skyrocketing surplus.
The report was requested by two senior senators, Carl Levin, Democrat of Michigan, and John W. Warner, Republican of Virginia, and on Tuesday they were quick to express strong dissatisfaction over the contrast between American spending on reconstruction and the weak record of spending by Iraq itself.
“The Iraqi government now has tens of billions of dollars at its disposal to fund large-scale reconstruction projects,” Mr. Levin, who is chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, said in a joint statement with Mr. Warner. “It is inexcusable for U.S. taxpayers to continue to foot the bill for projects the Iraqis are fully capable of funding themselves. We should not be paying for Iraqi projects, while Iraqi oil revenues continue to pile up in the bank.”
From the beginning of the conflict, American officials assured taxpayers and the world that Iraq would use oil money to pay for reconstruction. But that has not happened. Several senior Iraqi officials were either traveling on Tuesday or declined to comment, saying they were not familiar with the report.
Sinan al-Shabibi, governor of the Central Bank of Iraq, which the report said was holding $5.7 billion of the surplus at the end of 2007, said that while he could not speak for the government, problems with spending money often had to do with continuing security problems and a shortage of expertise in Iraqi ministries.
“Yes, there are problems, but that does not mean those problems are going to continue,” Mr. Shabibi said. “In all developing countries you put objectives, and sometimes you don’t reach them.”
“But,” he said, referring to the government, “they are determined to spend this money on development. They see it as a priority.”
Senators Levin and Warner pointed out that in 2007, for example, Iraq actually spent only 28 percent of its $12 billion reconstruction budget, according to the accountability office. But even that number could overstate the success rate in most of Iraq, because $2 billion of the spending took place in the relatively peaceful confines of the northern Kurdish region.
And in another troubling sign, the report said that from 2005 to 2007, Iraq devoted only 1 percent of the operating expenses in its budget to maintaining reconstruction projects that had been built with either American or Iraqi money. That finding raised fresh questions over whether the huge investment in some of those projects would have any long-term impact.
Like so many statistical measures from Iraq, the ones in the new report are likely to be used to support opposite positions on how much the United States should continue spending and how long it should stay in the country, said Ryan Alexander, president of Taxpayers for Common Sense in Washington.
The figures could be used to argue that because the Iraqi ministries still do not have the capacity to spend their own money, further assistance from the United States is called for, Ms. Alexander said. Or the huge oil revenues could be seen as proof that Iraq has the resources to solve its own problems if it would only use the money.
But one finding that is sure to raise questions all around is the enormous pileup of cash in the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, as well as several Iraqi banks, Ms. Alexander said. The money in New York is a legacy of a system set up to handle Iraqi oil revenues when the country had no capacity to do so on its own.
The purpose of the money was to rebuild Iraq, not draw interest in a bank, Ms. Alexander said. “I don’t know what function that serves right now. In my mind it raises another set of questions which is, ‘Who’s minding the store?’ ” she said.
“There may have been people who said this is going to be harder than you think, this is going to take a long time, but nobody said what we should do is collect a lot of money and let it sit there,” Ms. Alexander said.
The deposit at the Federal Reserve Bank is so large that the United States has been obliged to make $435.6 million in interest payments to Iraq through the end of last year, according to the new report.
The overall estimates of Iraqi surpluses will come down somewhat if the Iraqi Parliament passes stalled legislation that includes a $22 billion supplemental budget for 2008. As of Tuesday, that bill had not been passed, since it is mired in wider negotiations over provincial elections.
Some of the Iraqi spending figures cited in the report were also a matter of dispute in the past, with the Iraqi government and American officials in Baghdad claiming that Iraq had consistently spent more money than the accountability office had given it credit for.
But the office said evidence for higher spending was based mainly on so-called special reports prepared by the Iraqi Finance Ministry — reports that use vague budgetary terms and unclear source material and contain columns and rows that do not add up properly.
Joseph A. Christoff, director of the international affairs and trade team at the accountability office, said it was fair to say that a shortage of qualified officials in Iraq had diminished the capacity of central ministries to write contracts and carry out rebuilding.
But he said it was also true that with so much American assistance available, the Iraqi government may not have felt much urgency to increase that capacity and spend its own money.
“I think some people would contend that because we have continued to make a sizable investment, there hasn’t been a proper incentive until now for the Iraqi government to make its own investment,” Mr. Christoff said.
Reached late on Tuesday in Baghdad, the Iraqi planning minister, Ali Baban, defended his country’s commitment to spending Iraqi money on reconstruction, saying that the government was pushing as hard as it could to complete projects.
“I admit that there is some delay in spending the money on the projects in the provinces and in the ministries,” Mr. Baban said. “We have problems in this issue because there are lots of obstacles we face, because of the situation that we’re going through. We’re trying to deal with that, we’re trying to improve things, but you know the situation in Iraq.”
James Glanz reported from New York, and Campbell Robertson from Baghdad.
August 6, 2008
As Iraq Surplus Rises, Little Goes Into Rebuilding
By JAMES GLANZ and CAMPBELL ROBERTSON
Soaring oil prices will leave the Iraqi government with a cumulative budget surplus of as much as $79 billion by year’s end, according to an American federal oversight agency. But Iraq has spent only a minute fraction of that on reconstruction costs, which are now largely borne by the United States.
The unspent windfall, which covers surpluses from oil sales since 2005, appears likely to reinforce growing debate about the approximately $48 billion in American taxpayer money devoted to rebuilding Iraq since the American-led invasion.
In one comparison, the United States has spent $23.2 billion in the critical areas of security, oil, electricity and water since the 2003 invasion, the report said. But from 2005 through April 2008, Iraq has spent just $3.9 billion on similar services.
Over all, the report from the Government Accountability Office estimates, Iraqi oil revenue from 2005 through the end of this year will amount to at least $156 billion. And in an odd financial twist, a large amount of the surplus money is sitting in an American bank in New York — nearly $10 billion at the end of 2007, with more expected this year, when the accountability office estimates a skyrocketing surplus.
The report was requested by two senior senators, Carl Levin, Democrat of Michigan, and John W. Warner, Republican of Virginia, and on Tuesday they were quick to express strong dissatisfaction over the contrast between American spending on reconstruction and the weak record of spending by Iraq itself.
“The Iraqi government now has tens of billions of dollars at its disposal to fund large-scale reconstruction projects,” Mr. Levin, who is chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, said in a joint statement with Mr. Warner. “It is inexcusable for U.S. taxpayers to continue to foot the bill for projects the Iraqis are fully capable of funding themselves. We should not be paying for Iraqi projects, while Iraqi oil revenues continue to pile up in the bank.”
From the beginning of the conflict, American officials assured taxpayers and the world that Iraq would use oil money to pay for reconstruction. But that has not happened. Several senior Iraqi officials were either traveling on Tuesday or declined to comment, saying they were not familiar with the report.
Sinan al-Shabibi, governor of the Central Bank of Iraq, which the report said was holding $5.7 billion of the surplus at the end of 2007, said that while he could not speak for the government, problems with spending money often had to do with continuing security problems and a shortage of expertise in Iraqi ministries.
“Yes, there are problems, but that does not mean those problems are going to continue,” Mr. Shabibi said. “In all developing countries you put objectives, and sometimes you don’t reach them.”
“But,” he said, referring to the government, “they are determined to spend this money on development. They see it as a priority.”
Senators Levin and Warner pointed out that in 2007, for example, Iraq actually spent only 28 percent of its $12 billion reconstruction budget, according to the accountability office. But even that number could overstate the success rate in most of Iraq, because $2 billion of the spending took place in the relatively peaceful confines of the northern Kurdish region.
And in another troubling sign, the report said that from 2005 to 2007, Iraq devoted only 1 percent of the operating expenses in its budget to maintaining reconstruction projects that had been built with either American or Iraqi money. That finding raised fresh questions over whether the huge investment in some of those projects would have any long-term impact.
Like so many statistical measures from Iraq, the ones in the new report are likely to be used to support opposite positions on how much the United States should continue spending and how long it should stay in the country, said Ryan Alexander, president of Taxpayers for Common Sense in Washington.
The figures could be used to argue that because the Iraqi ministries still do not have the capacity to spend their own money, further assistance from the United States is called for, Ms. Alexander said. Or the huge oil revenues could be seen as proof that Iraq has the resources to solve its own problems if it would only use the money.
But one finding that is sure to raise questions all around is the enormous pileup of cash in the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, as well as several Iraqi banks, Ms. Alexander said. The money in New York is a legacy of a system set up to handle Iraqi oil revenues when the country had no capacity to do so on its own.
The purpose of the money was to rebuild Iraq, not draw interest in a bank, Ms. Alexander said. “I don’t know what function that serves right now. In my mind it raises another set of questions which is, ‘Who’s minding the store?’ ” she said.
“There may have been people who said this is going to be harder than you think, this is going to take a long time, but nobody said what we should do is collect a lot of money and let it sit there,” Ms. Alexander said.
The deposit at the Federal Reserve Bank is so large that the United States has been obliged to make $435.6 million in interest payments to Iraq through the end of last year, according to the new report.
The overall estimates of Iraqi surpluses will come down somewhat if the Iraqi Parliament passes stalled legislation that includes a $22 billion supplemental budget for 2008. As of Tuesday, that bill had not been passed, since it is mired in wider negotiations over provincial elections.
Some of the Iraqi spending figures cited in the report were also a matter of dispute in the past, with the Iraqi government and American officials in Baghdad claiming that Iraq had consistently spent more money than the accountability office had given it credit for.
But the office said evidence for higher spending was based mainly on so-called special reports prepared by the Iraqi Finance Ministry — reports that use vague budgetary terms and unclear source material and contain columns and rows that do not add up properly.
Joseph A. Christoff, director of the international affairs and trade team at the accountability office, said it was fair to say that a shortage of qualified officials in Iraq had diminished the capacity of central ministries to write contracts and carry out rebuilding.
But he said it was also true that with so much American assistance available, the Iraqi government may not have felt much urgency to increase that capacity and spend its own money.
“I think some people would contend that because we have continued to make a sizable investment, there hasn’t been a proper incentive until now for the Iraqi government to make its own investment,” Mr. Christoff said.
Reached late on Tuesday in Baghdad, the Iraqi planning minister, Ali Baban, defended his country’s commitment to spending Iraqi money on reconstruction, saying that the government was pushing as hard as it could to complete projects.
“I admit that there is some delay in spending the money on the projects in the provinces and in the ministries,” Mr. Baban said. “We have problems in this issue because there are lots of obstacles we face, because of the situation that we’re going through. We’re trying to deal with that, we’re trying to improve things, but you know the situation in Iraq.”
James Glanz reported from New York, and Campbell Robertson from Baghdad.
Tuesday, August 5, 2008
Post No. 32: Politics and Other Such Nonsense
(Responsive Comment by Guest Author The Laughingman to Post No. 30, “The Dangers Associated with Being ‘Peculiar’”)
© 2008, The Institute for Applied Common Sense
[In “Peculiar,” The Logistician submits that our fear of the unknown, or that which we consider to be “peculiar,” may be hard wired to promote survival in a complex world. He also suggests that as humans, we should be able to think and reason beyond our primal fears. He further employs us to do this as we approach the upcoming presidential election, and ignore the static.]
Peculiar?
Seems we have hit a tipping point in American Politics.
Both of our presumptive candidates are roundly detested by significant minorities within their own parties.
Both campaigns have been taken over by the Political Pros...presumably to protect their money bases...while the likes of Tom Delay do their penance wandering in the wilderness.
The money people are back in charge...so Obama is linked to Paris and Brittany, and McCain is linked to Bush.
Ostensibly, all of this paid for "crap" is deemed necessary by the money boys who are scared to death they will wind up Mr. Abramoff's [(http://www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Abramoff)] new neighbors, should the other side win.
Jesse Jackson has similar, and significant, concerns.
So...every Sunday morning, we are treated to the posers that be, on both sides of the aisle, who drag their candidates back into the muck that we call Presidential Politics.
So, characters whose goals are subject to varying interpretations, like Carl Rove, are now advising John McCain; and the Clinton machine seems to have an unwelcome, and useless (except for the Clintons) impact on the Obama campaign message.
With all due respect to the people who have effectively run this country’s economic and social strategy for as long as this humble ad weasel can remember, why not let the boys simply debate the issues?
Why not let them do it for free, on national TV?
Why not let Obama be Obama?
Why not let McCain be McCain be McCain?
Would the country really suffer from a few delayed episodes of "Can You Survive a Japanese Game Show?"
Like it or not, Senator Obama has the hard core Democrat vote in his pocket.
Like it or not, Senator McCain has a similar lock on the Republicans, and the evangelical right wing.
They have no where else to go, other than to sit home...which might not be that bad an outcome. The current economy surely suggests so.
As a practicing ad weasel, I can assure you most of the money they have spent so far on paid media has been directed at their secured bases...and is indistinguishable from what Saturday Night Live is running as pure parody.
Again, I am but an humble ad weasel, but the first of these two, to break this time honored tradition of taking all the money guys out of the public pitch, will be the guy able to deliver at least some of what the money guys are trying to buy.
Of course, I could be wrong...but the people who are buying what I sell suggest not....
© 2008, The Institute for Applied Common Sense
© 2008, The Institute for Applied Common Sense
[In “Peculiar,” The Logistician submits that our fear of the unknown, or that which we consider to be “peculiar,” may be hard wired to promote survival in a complex world. He also suggests that as humans, we should be able to think and reason beyond our primal fears. He further employs us to do this as we approach the upcoming presidential election, and ignore the static.]
Peculiar?
Seems we have hit a tipping point in American Politics.
Both of our presumptive candidates are roundly detested by significant minorities within their own parties.
Both campaigns have been taken over by the Political Pros...presumably to protect their money bases...while the likes of Tom Delay do their penance wandering in the wilderness.
The money people are back in charge...so Obama is linked to Paris and Brittany, and McCain is linked to Bush.
Ostensibly, all of this paid for "crap" is deemed necessary by the money boys who are scared to death they will wind up Mr. Abramoff's [(http://www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Abramoff)] new neighbors, should the other side win.
Jesse Jackson has similar, and significant, concerns.
So...every Sunday morning, we are treated to the posers that be, on both sides of the aisle, who drag their candidates back into the muck that we call Presidential Politics.
So, characters whose goals are subject to varying interpretations, like Carl Rove, are now advising John McCain; and the Clinton machine seems to have an unwelcome, and useless (except for the Clintons) impact on the Obama campaign message.
With all due respect to the people who have effectively run this country’s economic and social strategy for as long as this humble ad weasel can remember, why not let the boys simply debate the issues?
Why not let them do it for free, on national TV?
Why not let Obama be Obama?
Why not let McCain be McCain be McCain?
Would the country really suffer from a few delayed episodes of "Can You Survive a Japanese Game Show?"
Like it or not, Senator Obama has the hard core Democrat vote in his pocket.
Like it or not, Senator McCain has a similar lock on the Republicans, and the evangelical right wing.
They have no where else to go, other than to sit home...which might not be that bad an outcome. The current economy surely suggests so.
As a practicing ad weasel, I can assure you most of the money they have spent so far on paid media has been directed at their secured bases...and is indistinguishable from what Saturday Night Live is running as pure parody.
Again, I am but an humble ad weasel, but the first of these two, to break this time honored tradition of taking all the money guys out of the public pitch, will be the guy able to deliver at least some of what the money guys are trying to buy.
Of course, I could be wrong...but the people who are buying what I sell suggest not....
© 2008, The Institute for Applied Common Sense
Monday, August 4, 2008
Post No. 31: We're Smart Enough to Think Ourselves Out of this Energy Bag
Responsive Comment by Guest Author The Laughingman to Posts Nos. 28 and 29 Regarding U.S. Energy Issues
© 2008, The Institute for Applied Common Sense
Excellent pieces!
The debate we are engaged in now is slowly bringing us to the awareness that the problem is not oil or water; it is the cost of energy...and food is energy too. Diverting water and organic resources from food to machine fuel production will prove counter productive...particularly when the BTUs put out by the new fuel produced amount to less than the BTUs put in to generate the new fuel.
Ethanol or C-2-H-5-OH (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethanol) remains a fine and wonderful thing. For the first 100 years of life in this republic, it was the only way you could pack acres of corn into a reasonably transportable form, and the only currency we had on our moneyless frontiers. Currency needs to be reasonably transportable, and must hold its value over time. Booze does both nicely.
But the only way to use it to "save" energy is to park the truck, put your heels up, and open a jug.
Electricity is a fine and dandy thing too, but we haven't figured out how to transport it efficiently, let alone store it. The electricity producers are looking at the batteries in electric vehicles as another source of cheap electrons. While these wondermobiles are plugged into the grid, supposedly "charging" themselves, Con-Ed is already planning to use the energy stored in their batteries to get the utility over "peak demand" humps without having to buy expensive electrons on the spot market to meet above average demand. This is a fine deal for Con-Ed stock holders. The utilities sell electric car owners ten volts overnight, and buy back the remaining eight, after transportation and storage losses, in the afternoon.
The car hasn't moved an inch, but utility costs have been reduced by better than 20%...all collected from a now stationary consumer's pocket.
The problem is that people will not give up random access transportation to save somebody else money. That's not green; that's stupid.
So, this dog will not hunt.
To your question of "What's next?" I submit the concept of elimination of waste.
70% of the energy we develop by burning fuel in an internal combustion engine currently goes out the tail pipe or radiator...unused. 50% of what we do use gets pissed away as heat through the brakes. Anybody see any opportunities for improved efficiency? (By the way, at the turn of the 19th Century, when kerosene was king, gasoline was a waste byproduct, which the producers burned to dispose of it [http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761570078/Kerosene.html].)
Electricity is about the same.
Alcohol is worse.
The answer is "Education."
Always was.
Always will be.
Thanks for the most excellent kick in the cranium...
© 2008, The Institute for Applied Common Sense
© 2008, The Institute for Applied Common Sense
Excellent pieces!
The debate we are engaged in now is slowly bringing us to the awareness that the problem is not oil or water; it is the cost of energy...and food is energy too. Diverting water and organic resources from food to machine fuel production will prove counter productive...particularly when the BTUs put out by the new fuel produced amount to less than the BTUs put in to generate the new fuel.
Ethanol or C-2-H-5-OH (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethanol) remains a fine and wonderful thing. For the first 100 years of life in this republic, it was the only way you could pack acres of corn into a reasonably transportable form, and the only currency we had on our moneyless frontiers. Currency needs to be reasonably transportable, and must hold its value over time. Booze does both nicely.
But the only way to use it to "save" energy is to park the truck, put your heels up, and open a jug.
Electricity is a fine and dandy thing too, but we haven't figured out how to transport it efficiently, let alone store it. The electricity producers are looking at the batteries in electric vehicles as another source of cheap electrons. While these wondermobiles are plugged into the grid, supposedly "charging" themselves, Con-Ed is already planning to use the energy stored in their batteries to get the utility over "peak demand" humps without having to buy expensive electrons on the spot market to meet above average demand. This is a fine deal for Con-Ed stock holders. The utilities sell electric car owners ten volts overnight, and buy back the remaining eight, after transportation and storage losses, in the afternoon.
The car hasn't moved an inch, but utility costs have been reduced by better than 20%...all collected from a now stationary consumer's pocket.
The problem is that people will not give up random access transportation to save somebody else money. That's not green; that's stupid.
So, this dog will not hunt.
To your question of "What's next?" I submit the concept of elimination of waste.
70% of the energy we develop by burning fuel in an internal combustion engine currently goes out the tail pipe or radiator...unused. 50% of what we do use gets pissed away as heat through the brakes. Anybody see any opportunities for improved efficiency? (By the way, at the turn of the 19th Century, when kerosene was king, gasoline was a waste byproduct, which the producers burned to dispose of it [http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761570078/Kerosene.html].)
Electricity is about the same.
Alcohol is worse.
The answer is "Education."
Always was.
Always will be.
Thanks for the most excellent kick in the cranium...
© 2008, The Institute for Applied Common Sense
Sunday, August 3, 2008
Post No. 29b: Are You Aware of Solar Ovens?
In Post Nos. 28 and 29, we discussed various energy issues which the United States now faces, including our dependence on foreign oil. This blog is nothing, if not exploratory, curiosity driven, and dedicated to the proposition that we could all benefit from learning something new multiple times throughout each day. Well, we came across something of which we were not previously aware - solar ovens. Check out the dishes that a fellow blogger concocts using such an appliance at http://suddenlysolar.blogspot.com/. Human ingenuity, resulting in technological advances, can respond to many of our societal issues, if we apply ourselves.
Saturday, August 2, 2008
Post No. 30: The Dangers Associated with Being “Peculiar”
© 2008, The Institute for Applied Common Sense
Several years ago, I attended a conference sponsored by a professional association at a high end resort in Florida. An incredible buffet dinner was scheduled for one evening, to which everyone was looking forward.
I arrived just as the food was being taken away.
Upon my arrival, everyone inquired as to why I was so late. When I informed them that I felt compelled to watch two episodes of the Andy Griffith Show, they all howled with laughter.
Their laughter grew even louder when I mentioned that, in my opinion, one could learn more about life from that show than perhaps any other show on television. (Interestingly, my Father tells me that it was also the favorite show of my Mother, who passed away at a relatively early age.)
I saw an episode of the show yesterday, which reminded me of the manner in which this simple show, about life in small town America, has provoked many a thought throughout my lifetime.
It was the story of Ed Sawyer, a clean-cut, well-groomed stranger who arrives in Mayberry. Throughout the episode, Ed is always dressed in a conservative business suit, articulate, respectful, polite, and there is nothing visually alarming about him. In fact, he could be the poster boy for virtually any All-American organization or movement.
The first scene in the episode unfolds as Ed enters Floyd’s barbershop, where Barney Fife is in the chair getting a shave. Several other citizens, including Andy, are also present.
Ed engages them all in a pleasant, upbeat conversation, calls them each by name, and exhibits a degree of familiarity which causes the shop’s occupants to become uncomfortable. As he leaves the shop, all heads turn to follow him down the street, and they all exit to watch his next move. Almost immediately, there is a suggestion by Barney that Andy commence an investigation of this suspicious and “peculiar” stranger.
As Ed proceeds down the sidewalk, he encounters a double baby stroller parked in front of a store, where the mother is looking through the shop window. Ed greets the two twins, their mother, and then poses questions which suggest that he can distinguish between the two boys at this early stage in their development. The suspicions grow.
Ed next proceeds to the local rooming house, and when offered one room, he declines because of an incident which had occurred in the room, arguably about which few would have known. Although he has never stayed at the rooming house, he then proceeds to request a specific room, by number, which although green in color, has a cheerier décor.
At this point, Barney is beside himself, and inquires whether Ed speaks German. Fortunately, Andy, the voice of reason, intervenes and initiates a conversation more normally associated with welcoming a visitor to one’s town. At the same time, Andy poses a number of questions in an effort to get to know this fellow better, since he is also experiencing some degree of discomfort, although unarticulated.
Later that afternoon, Ed approaches Andy and seeks his advice and assistance. It appears that the local gas station is up for sale, and Ed is considering buying it. Andy suggests that perhaps Ed might be moving a tad too quickly, and that he should take the time to get to know the townspeople a little better.
He further suggests that the town’s citizens might regard Ed’s sudden emergence on the scene as “peculiar,” without some “warming up.” (By the way, I learned the word “peculiar” from this show, which was used with some frequency on episodes airing in the 1960’s.)
Ed then segues into how much in love he is with Lucy Matthews, who he has never seen. However, he is familiar with all of her physical attributes, and he inquires of Andy as to why she does not answer his calls and knocks on her door. Lucy soon walks in to lodge a complaint, to which Ed responds that she is just as pretty as he suspected. It is at this point that Andy feels, as the town’s sheriff, he must get to the bottom of this behavior, since it threatens to disturb the town’s peace.
Ed admits that his behavior might strike some as odd, but provides a very plausible, if not immediately obvious, explanation. Ed explains that Joe Larson, a long-time resident of Mayberry, was an Army buddy. While serving together, Joe received the local Mayberry newspaper, and Ed found himself reading the paper on a daily basis.
As time moved on, he began to feel that he “knew” the citizens about whom the articles were written. He further explains that over time, he began to envy Joe, because Joe was from Mayberry, a place that Ed admired, and Ed was from, well, “Nowhere.”
Ed further explains that over time, he began to wish that Mayberry was his hometown, and he eventually convinced himself that it was. When he saw the ad in the paper that the service station was up for sale, he regarded it as an opportunity to fulfill a dream.
After Ed leaves the courthouse / jail, Barney rushes in and proclaims that Ed has finally “overplayed his hand.” When Andy inquires as to what Barney is referring, Barney states that Ed has been hanging around Lucy Matthews’ house and actually crossed the line by ringing her bell.
Andy suggests that insufficient grounds exist to justify an arrest, to which Barney replies that he pulled in three 12 year olds the preceding Halloween for ringing doorbells unnecessarily.
He further exclaims that Ed doesn’t even have the excuse of being out for trick or treat. Deputy Fife then inquires as to whether Ed speaks Spanish.
Of course, Ed’s efforts to integrate himself into the community go terribly wrong. That’s even after Andy makes everyone feel pretty small and provincial after facetiously suggesting that they all were justified in their prejudicial attitudes toward this stranger, just because he was an unknown, peculiar, and somewhat different.
Ed realizes that this really isn’t the place for him, and leaves. And the town lost a potentially energizing and illuminating individual.
This 40 plus year old episode of the Andy Griffith Show made me think of several things this weekend. First, the power of the visual media came to mind, along with its potential to expand the minds of its viewers, particularly young viewers, as well as its power to narrow.
Second, it reminded me of the 30 year period when I lived in Southern California, and I interacted with all sorts of people of different races from different parts of the world. Virtually everyone was a stranger. Upon returning to North Carolina, despite the fact that North Carolina is the number one state in terms of percentage increase of Hispanics, I noticed the lack of interaction between whites and blacks on the one hand, and Hispanics on the other. Asians operate many mom and pop businesses in the black parts of town, but the social interaction ends there.
At several public meetings in my hometown, I have mentioned that despite what one may think of our immigration policies, many immigrants are here, and we need to engage them and integrate them into our society, with the goal of deriving the best that we can from their involvement. Each time I have broached the subject, many citizens in the room have lowered their heads and looked at the floor without responding.
In recent months, I have tried something different. Every time I have encountered Hispanics, I have taken the initiative to walk up to them and start a conversation. Each time, without fail, they have been pleasant folks and almost ecstatic that someone outside of their group took the risk to engage them. It has always been a rewarding experience, although guarded it may have started.
Third, this episode also struck a chord when I learned of Senator’s Obama’s reference earlier this week to the efforts of his opponents to label him as different, and thus necessarily something that we should fear.
Our fear of the unknown, caution, and prejudice, even that racially based, appear to be hard wired to ensure survival and ease of negotiation in a complex world. But we also have a bigger brain which should enable us to think and reason beyond our biggest primal fears.
Some criticism has been leveled against the Andy Griffith Show over the years because of its conspicuous absence of blacks in a show based in a southern city. However, Andy Griffith himself sure made up for that during the airing of his Matlock series.
Be that as it may, my hat is off to the Andy Griffith Show, and particularly its writers, particularly considering the era in which the show was first viewed. Perhaps more of you will have the opportunity to view the Ed Sawyer episode before the upcoming presidential election.
© 2008, The Institute for Applied Common Sense
Several years ago, I attended a conference sponsored by a professional association at a high end resort in Florida. An incredible buffet dinner was scheduled for one evening, to which everyone was looking forward.
I arrived just as the food was being taken away.
Upon my arrival, everyone inquired as to why I was so late. When I informed them that I felt compelled to watch two episodes of the Andy Griffith Show, they all howled with laughter.
Their laughter grew even louder when I mentioned that, in my opinion, one could learn more about life from that show than perhaps any other show on television. (Interestingly, my Father tells me that it was also the favorite show of my Mother, who passed away at a relatively early age.)
I saw an episode of the show yesterday, which reminded me of the manner in which this simple show, about life in small town America, has provoked many a thought throughout my lifetime.
It was the story of Ed Sawyer, a clean-cut, well-groomed stranger who arrives in Mayberry. Throughout the episode, Ed is always dressed in a conservative business suit, articulate, respectful, polite, and there is nothing visually alarming about him. In fact, he could be the poster boy for virtually any All-American organization or movement.
The first scene in the episode unfolds as Ed enters Floyd’s barbershop, where Barney Fife is in the chair getting a shave. Several other citizens, including Andy, are also present.
Ed engages them all in a pleasant, upbeat conversation, calls them each by name, and exhibits a degree of familiarity which causes the shop’s occupants to become uncomfortable. As he leaves the shop, all heads turn to follow him down the street, and they all exit to watch his next move. Almost immediately, there is a suggestion by Barney that Andy commence an investigation of this suspicious and “peculiar” stranger.
As Ed proceeds down the sidewalk, he encounters a double baby stroller parked in front of a store, where the mother is looking through the shop window. Ed greets the two twins, their mother, and then poses questions which suggest that he can distinguish between the two boys at this early stage in their development. The suspicions grow.
Ed next proceeds to the local rooming house, and when offered one room, he declines because of an incident which had occurred in the room, arguably about which few would have known. Although he has never stayed at the rooming house, he then proceeds to request a specific room, by number, which although green in color, has a cheerier décor.
At this point, Barney is beside himself, and inquires whether Ed speaks German. Fortunately, Andy, the voice of reason, intervenes and initiates a conversation more normally associated with welcoming a visitor to one’s town. At the same time, Andy poses a number of questions in an effort to get to know this fellow better, since he is also experiencing some degree of discomfort, although unarticulated.
Later that afternoon, Ed approaches Andy and seeks his advice and assistance. It appears that the local gas station is up for sale, and Ed is considering buying it. Andy suggests that perhaps Ed might be moving a tad too quickly, and that he should take the time to get to know the townspeople a little better.
He further suggests that the town’s citizens might regard Ed’s sudden emergence on the scene as “peculiar,” without some “warming up.” (By the way, I learned the word “peculiar” from this show, which was used with some frequency on episodes airing in the 1960’s.)
Ed then segues into how much in love he is with Lucy Matthews, who he has never seen. However, he is familiar with all of her physical attributes, and he inquires of Andy as to why she does not answer his calls and knocks on her door. Lucy soon walks in to lodge a complaint, to which Ed responds that she is just as pretty as he suspected. It is at this point that Andy feels, as the town’s sheriff, he must get to the bottom of this behavior, since it threatens to disturb the town’s peace.
Ed admits that his behavior might strike some as odd, but provides a very plausible, if not immediately obvious, explanation. Ed explains that Joe Larson, a long-time resident of Mayberry, was an Army buddy. While serving together, Joe received the local Mayberry newspaper, and Ed found himself reading the paper on a daily basis.
As time moved on, he began to feel that he “knew” the citizens about whom the articles were written. He further explains that over time, he began to envy Joe, because Joe was from Mayberry, a place that Ed admired, and Ed was from, well, “Nowhere.”
Ed further explains that over time, he began to wish that Mayberry was his hometown, and he eventually convinced himself that it was. When he saw the ad in the paper that the service station was up for sale, he regarded it as an opportunity to fulfill a dream.
After Ed leaves the courthouse / jail, Barney rushes in and proclaims that Ed has finally “overplayed his hand.” When Andy inquires as to what Barney is referring, Barney states that Ed has been hanging around Lucy Matthews’ house and actually crossed the line by ringing her bell.
Andy suggests that insufficient grounds exist to justify an arrest, to which Barney replies that he pulled in three 12 year olds the preceding Halloween for ringing doorbells unnecessarily.
He further exclaims that Ed doesn’t even have the excuse of being out for trick or treat. Deputy Fife then inquires as to whether Ed speaks Spanish.
Of course, Ed’s efforts to integrate himself into the community go terribly wrong. That’s even after Andy makes everyone feel pretty small and provincial after facetiously suggesting that they all were justified in their prejudicial attitudes toward this stranger, just because he was an unknown, peculiar, and somewhat different.
Ed realizes that this really isn’t the place for him, and leaves. And the town lost a potentially energizing and illuminating individual.
This 40 plus year old episode of the Andy Griffith Show made me think of several things this weekend. First, the power of the visual media came to mind, along with its potential to expand the minds of its viewers, particularly young viewers, as well as its power to narrow.
Second, it reminded me of the 30 year period when I lived in Southern California, and I interacted with all sorts of people of different races from different parts of the world. Virtually everyone was a stranger. Upon returning to North Carolina, despite the fact that North Carolina is the number one state in terms of percentage increase of Hispanics, I noticed the lack of interaction between whites and blacks on the one hand, and Hispanics on the other. Asians operate many mom and pop businesses in the black parts of town, but the social interaction ends there.
At several public meetings in my hometown, I have mentioned that despite what one may think of our immigration policies, many immigrants are here, and we need to engage them and integrate them into our society, with the goal of deriving the best that we can from their involvement. Each time I have broached the subject, many citizens in the room have lowered their heads and looked at the floor without responding.
In recent months, I have tried something different. Every time I have encountered Hispanics, I have taken the initiative to walk up to them and start a conversation. Each time, without fail, they have been pleasant folks and almost ecstatic that someone outside of their group took the risk to engage them. It has always been a rewarding experience, although guarded it may have started.
Third, this episode also struck a chord when I learned of Senator’s Obama’s reference earlier this week to the efforts of his opponents to label him as different, and thus necessarily something that we should fear.
Our fear of the unknown, caution, and prejudice, even that racially based, appear to be hard wired to ensure survival and ease of negotiation in a complex world. But we also have a bigger brain which should enable us to think and reason beyond our biggest primal fears.
Some criticism has been leveled against the Andy Griffith Show over the years because of its conspicuous absence of blacks in a show based in a southern city. However, Andy Griffith himself sure made up for that during the airing of his Matlock series.
Be that as it may, my hat is off to the Andy Griffith Show, and particularly its writers, particularly considering the era in which the show was first viewed. Perhaps more of you will have the opportunity to view the Ed Sawyer episode before the upcoming presidential election.
© 2008, The Institute for Applied Common Sense
Wednesday, July 30, 2008
Post 29a: Article of Interest from the New York Times Concerning Our Department of Justice
In the Tuesday, July 29, 2008 electronic edition of the New York Times appears an article written by Eric Lichtblau entitled, “Report Faults Aides in Hiring at Justice Department." The article reads, in pertinent part, as follows:
“Senior aides to former Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales broke Civil Service laws by using politics to guide their hiring decisions, picking less-qualified applicants for important nonpolitical positions, slowing the hiring process at critical times and damaging the department’s credibility, an internal report concluded on Monday.”
The remainder of the article may be viewed at the following link: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/29/washington/29justice.html?th&emc=th. We ordinarily do not highlight or draw attention to articles critical of one political party in an effort to avoid being viewed as partisan, and consistent with our philosophy that both parties are responsible for the current state of affairs in our nation, and that both need to improve. However, there is one line in this article which we thought deserved specific examination and consideration.
We should take some comfort in the fact that the investigation was conducted, and the report generated, by the Justice Department’s Inspector General and its Internal Ethics Office. Furthermore, to his credit, the current Attorney General, Michael B. Mukasey, who replaced Mr. Gonzales, said in a statement released following the disclosure of the report, that he was “of course disturbed by the findings that improper political considerations were used in hiring decisions relating to some career employees.” He also stated that he would take steps to ensure that such conduct did not occur again.
However, what caught our attention was the response of a White House spokesman, Tony Fratto, who said of Monday’s report, “There really is not a lot new here.” Sad but true, Mr. Fratto. Sad but true.
“Senior aides to former Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales broke Civil Service laws by using politics to guide their hiring decisions, picking less-qualified applicants for important nonpolitical positions, slowing the hiring process at critical times and damaging the department’s credibility, an internal report concluded on Monday.”
The remainder of the article may be viewed at the following link: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/29/washington/29justice.html?th&emc=th. We ordinarily do not highlight or draw attention to articles critical of one political party in an effort to avoid being viewed as partisan, and consistent with our philosophy that both parties are responsible for the current state of affairs in our nation, and that both need to improve. However, there is one line in this article which we thought deserved specific examination and consideration.
We should take some comfort in the fact that the investigation was conducted, and the report generated, by the Justice Department’s Inspector General and its Internal Ethics Office. Furthermore, to his credit, the current Attorney General, Michael B. Mukasey, who replaced Mr. Gonzales, said in a statement released following the disclosure of the report, that he was “of course disturbed by the findings that improper political considerations were used in hiring decisions relating to some career employees.” He also stated that he would take steps to ensure that such conduct did not occur again.
However, what caught our attention was the response of a White House spokesman, Tony Fratto, who said of Monday’s report, “There really is not a lot new here.” Sad but true, Mr. Fratto. Sad but true.
Tuesday, July 29, 2008
Post No. 29: The Problems Associated with Having Your Cake and Eating It Too
© 2008, The Institute for Applied Common Sense
America is an interesting country. We should often be perplexed about the various positions in which we find ourselves. This concept called “freedom,” which we must keep in mind is a relatively new concept, has its complications. Consider the following.
Why should a populace which willingly and voluntarily eats poor quality fast, fatty, salty, and cholesterol laden food, smokes, drinks alcohol, refrains from exercise, and engages in other questionable behavior, have an expectation that it is entitled to affordable health care coverage when poor health flows from such behavior? How can the citizens, of a country that permits them to pursue virtually any educational or vocational pursuit of their choice, complain when they are unable to find a job of their liking or one that permits them to adequately support their family? How can citizens of a country purchase inexpensive products made by American companies in third world countries, and then turn around and complain about the exporting of American jobs and technology?
Who is really at fault in connection with our housing mortgage crisis, the lenders for making bad loans to customers with an inability to pay, or the homeowners, for entering into transactions which were beyond their financial means? Just this past Sunday, a psychiatrist connected with UCLA’s Student Health Services, discussed on C-Span2 Book TV, the frustrations experienced by career professional women who thought that science had advanced to the point of suspending the biological clock, only to later discover that there are complications associated with having children late in life. (http://www.booktv.org/program.aspx?ProgramId=8574&SectionName=&PlayMedia=No.)
Last week, in Post No. 28 of this blog, we touched on predictions by some that a water crisis is in the making, and suggested that America start planning ahead of time, contrary to the manner in which it approached energy. However, we did not pose the fundamental question: How did a country, with all of our great academic and corporate institutions, manage to find itself dependent on others for energy? We submit that what we have in this country is a responsibility crisis. We always want our cake and to eat it too. Both parties, and both sides of the aisle, are responsible, and yet you will never hear them acknowledge it. Taking responsibility for one’s condition is a common sense first step toward addressing one’s problems.
Two sound bites uttered this past weekend made us stop and think about our current condition. One was made by Barack Obama, during his interview on NBC’s Meet the Press on Sunday morning. He spoke of the inability of our politicians to make hard decisions. (Are they so focused on getting re-elected that they lack the ability to do so?) The other was uttered by T. Boone Pickens, to the effect that, “People will follow if we have leadership [emphasis added].” Pickens testified before a Senate committee on homeland security issues related to energy dependence. (http://inside.c-spanarchives.org:8080/cspan/cspan.csp?command=dprogram&record=566076979.)
In our opinion, probably the most difficult situation in which this nation has ever found itself, and which defies common sense, is our dependence on foreign oil. Pickens, a geologist by training, has committed 58 million dollars to telling America his plan for making America energy independent. You may have seen or heard his commercials on the media outlets over the past two weeks. He believes that the American public does not fully understand this confusing area. He further believes that we want to know what is going on, in some comprehensible manner, and he wants to elevate the discussion before the presidential election.
Pickens was previously the founder and owner of Mesa Petroleum. He is now the head of B.P. Capital Management. In his opinion (and the purpose of this blog is not to support his position), the increase in the price of a barrel of oil is not due to corporate price gouging or the involvement of speculators, but rather the factor that recent production levels have remained relatively constant, while the demand has increased dramatically. (We suspect that most of you economic experts have some empirical evidence to challenge his position.) Be that as it may, he argues that the oil leaders in the Middle East are absolutely dumbfounded by U. S. energy policy. They can not understand why the U.S. has done virtually nothing to improve its situation, and yet blames the oil producing nations for the current price increases. Did we have any clues, any clues at all, in our recent history, that we should try to become energy independent?
Pickens’ company operates the largest wind farm in America. It provides the power equivalent to two and one-half nuclear plants, and it has created 15,000 jobs. The farm is located in a wind corridor in the mid-west section of the United States. Interestingly, according to Pickens, Germany is the largest user of wind generated power, and it has poor wind conditions. Overall, he claims that the United States has excellent conditions, not to mention the coastal areas which can be utilized. (Many of you may be aware that there has been an ongoing battle near Cape Cod / Martha’s Vineyard in connection with a proposed off-shore wind farm. Some have suggested that wealthy residents in the area have placed their interests above those of the public. Actually, the issue is far more complicated than that. However, it should have been resolved by now. Time’s a wasting. [http://www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cape_Wind].)
Pickens made a number of interesting points before the Committee. He indicated that 38% of our oil is imported from the Middle East and Africa, from countries which are unstable. He noted that we can replace that 38% with natural gas already here in the United States. Natural gas costs 40% of crude oil. Will our supply last indefinitely? No, according to Pickens, but it will give us time to develop some alternatives. In fact, according to Pickens, if we had started using natural gas 20 years ago, our resources would be substantially depleted by now; however, we would not be dependent on others for that segment of our energy needs.
Pickens made some other interesting points. He noted that there is no one silver bullet that will solve all of our energy issues, but rather we need to use all available technologies and resources to become independent. Pickens believes that wind and solar power are the cheapest sources at this time, but that we need to consider off-shore drilling, and drilling near the Artic Circle. He also mentioned the need for government mandates to encourage industry participation in this independence effort. Pickens himself drives a Honda GX natural gas vehicle (http://automobiles.honda.com/shop/?modelname=civic+gx&ef_id=1097:3:s_f566d7a6f1f03f560e37a47917ba4e55_444155100_honda%20natural%20gas%20vehicle:gu-rNtB6B3YAAG6U7sUAAAAR:20080729045957). No American automobile manufacturer makes such a vehicle, at least not in the United States. General Motors makes them, but according to Pickens, only in South America.
Keep in mind that Pickens’ testimony was before a committee dealing with homeland security. He considers our dependence on foreign oil to be dangerous. Every time one of the senators posed a partisan question, or made a suggestion that he supported one side of the aisle or the other, he responded that his concern is about what is in the best interests of America, and American jobs. When asked specifically about whether he was in agreement with Al Gore regarding alternative sources of energy, he simply said that Al Gore’s issue is global warming. Pickens regards that as a secondary issue which can be addressed later. He considers our energy dependence on unstable countries to be the primary issue, which needs to be addressed now. According to Pickens, “There is only one enemy, foreign oil, and that’s my fight.”
All of this is quite complicated stuff to this simpleton, and I suspect that most of you feel that you already know what we need to do. However, are we going to continue to argue about all of the competing considerations, and drag out all of the litigation and bureaucratic haggling, while our energy situation further deteriorates? Even if you disagree with all of Pickens’ suggestions, and think that they are self-serving, hopefully you agree with his statement that, “People will follow if we have leadership [emphasis added].” Some one or some body needs to exercise responsible leadership. America can not afford to keep traveling down this path. We can’t have our cake and eat it too, indefinitely.
© 2008, The Institute for Applied Common Sense
America is an interesting country. We should often be perplexed about the various positions in which we find ourselves. This concept called “freedom,” which we must keep in mind is a relatively new concept, has its complications. Consider the following.
Why should a populace which willingly and voluntarily eats poor quality fast, fatty, salty, and cholesterol laden food, smokes, drinks alcohol, refrains from exercise, and engages in other questionable behavior, have an expectation that it is entitled to affordable health care coverage when poor health flows from such behavior? How can the citizens, of a country that permits them to pursue virtually any educational or vocational pursuit of their choice, complain when they are unable to find a job of their liking or one that permits them to adequately support their family? How can citizens of a country purchase inexpensive products made by American companies in third world countries, and then turn around and complain about the exporting of American jobs and technology?
Who is really at fault in connection with our housing mortgage crisis, the lenders for making bad loans to customers with an inability to pay, or the homeowners, for entering into transactions which were beyond their financial means? Just this past Sunday, a psychiatrist connected with UCLA’s Student Health Services, discussed on C-Span2 Book TV, the frustrations experienced by career professional women who thought that science had advanced to the point of suspending the biological clock, only to later discover that there are complications associated with having children late in life. (http://www.booktv.org/program.aspx?ProgramId=8574&SectionName=&PlayMedia=No.)
Last week, in Post No. 28 of this blog, we touched on predictions by some that a water crisis is in the making, and suggested that America start planning ahead of time, contrary to the manner in which it approached energy. However, we did not pose the fundamental question: How did a country, with all of our great academic and corporate institutions, manage to find itself dependent on others for energy? We submit that what we have in this country is a responsibility crisis. We always want our cake and to eat it too. Both parties, and both sides of the aisle, are responsible, and yet you will never hear them acknowledge it. Taking responsibility for one’s condition is a common sense first step toward addressing one’s problems.
Two sound bites uttered this past weekend made us stop and think about our current condition. One was made by Barack Obama, during his interview on NBC’s Meet the Press on Sunday morning. He spoke of the inability of our politicians to make hard decisions. (Are they so focused on getting re-elected that they lack the ability to do so?) The other was uttered by T. Boone Pickens, to the effect that, “People will follow if we have leadership [emphasis added].” Pickens testified before a Senate committee on homeland security issues related to energy dependence. (http://inside.c-spanarchives.org:8080/cspan/cspan.csp?command=dprogram&record=566076979.)
In our opinion, probably the most difficult situation in which this nation has ever found itself, and which defies common sense, is our dependence on foreign oil. Pickens, a geologist by training, has committed 58 million dollars to telling America his plan for making America energy independent. You may have seen or heard his commercials on the media outlets over the past two weeks. He believes that the American public does not fully understand this confusing area. He further believes that we want to know what is going on, in some comprehensible manner, and he wants to elevate the discussion before the presidential election.
Pickens was previously the founder and owner of Mesa Petroleum. He is now the head of B.P. Capital Management. In his opinion (and the purpose of this blog is not to support his position), the increase in the price of a barrel of oil is not due to corporate price gouging or the involvement of speculators, but rather the factor that recent production levels have remained relatively constant, while the demand has increased dramatically. (We suspect that most of you economic experts have some empirical evidence to challenge his position.) Be that as it may, he argues that the oil leaders in the Middle East are absolutely dumbfounded by U. S. energy policy. They can not understand why the U.S. has done virtually nothing to improve its situation, and yet blames the oil producing nations for the current price increases. Did we have any clues, any clues at all, in our recent history, that we should try to become energy independent?
Pickens’ company operates the largest wind farm in America. It provides the power equivalent to two and one-half nuclear plants, and it has created 15,000 jobs. The farm is located in a wind corridor in the mid-west section of the United States. Interestingly, according to Pickens, Germany is the largest user of wind generated power, and it has poor wind conditions. Overall, he claims that the United States has excellent conditions, not to mention the coastal areas which can be utilized. (Many of you may be aware that there has been an ongoing battle near Cape Cod / Martha’s Vineyard in connection with a proposed off-shore wind farm. Some have suggested that wealthy residents in the area have placed their interests above those of the public. Actually, the issue is far more complicated than that. However, it should have been resolved by now. Time’s a wasting. [http://www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cape_Wind].)
Pickens made a number of interesting points before the Committee. He indicated that 38% of our oil is imported from the Middle East and Africa, from countries which are unstable. He noted that we can replace that 38% with natural gas already here in the United States. Natural gas costs 40% of crude oil. Will our supply last indefinitely? No, according to Pickens, but it will give us time to develop some alternatives. In fact, according to Pickens, if we had started using natural gas 20 years ago, our resources would be substantially depleted by now; however, we would not be dependent on others for that segment of our energy needs.
Pickens made some other interesting points. He noted that there is no one silver bullet that will solve all of our energy issues, but rather we need to use all available technologies and resources to become independent. Pickens believes that wind and solar power are the cheapest sources at this time, but that we need to consider off-shore drilling, and drilling near the Artic Circle. He also mentioned the need for government mandates to encourage industry participation in this independence effort. Pickens himself drives a Honda GX natural gas vehicle (http://automobiles.honda.com/shop/?modelname=civic+gx&ef_id=1097:3:s_f566d7a6f1f03f560e37a47917ba4e55_444155100_honda%20natural%20gas%20vehicle:gu-rNtB6B3YAAG6U7sUAAAAR:20080729045957). No American automobile manufacturer makes such a vehicle, at least not in the United States. General Motors makes them, but according to Pickens, only in South America.
Keep in mind that Pickens’ testimony was before a committee dealing with homeland security. He considers our dependence on foreign oil to be dangerous. Every time one of the senators posed a partisan question, or made a suggestion that he supported one side of the aisle or the other, he responded that his concern is about what is in the best interests of America, and American jobs. When asked specifically about whether he was in agreement with Al Gore regarding alternative sources of energy, he simply said that Al Gore’s issue is global warming. Pickens regards that as a secondary issue which can be addressed later. He considers our energy dependence on unstable countries to be the primary issue, which needs to be addressed now. According to Pickens, “There is only one enemy, foreign oil, and that’s my fight.”
All of this is quite complicated stuff to this simpleton, and I suspect that most of you feel that you already know what we need to do. However, are we going to continue to argue about all of the competing considerations, and drag out all of the litigation and bureaucratic haggling, while our energy situation further deteriorates? Even if you disagree with all of Pickens’ suggestions, and think that they are self-serving, hopefully you agree with his statement that, “People will follow if we have leadership [emphasis added].” Some one or some body needs to exercise responsible leadership. America can not afford to keep traveling down this path. We can’t have our cake and eat it too, indefinitely.
© 2008, The Institute for Applied Common Sense
Thursday, July 24, 2008
Post No. 28: After We Resolve the Oil Issue, Will Water Be the Next Crisis to “Affect” America?
© 2008, The Institute for Applied Common Sense
Remember the year in which you read this article. One of the goals of this blog is to stimulate and provoke thought. However, another goal is to encourage our readers to view issues from different perspectives, particularly perspectives which take in consideration issues larger than our personal and local issues. In other words, we encourage “big picture” and long-term analysis. We believe that it is only through this type of analysis that we will be able to “dig deeper” and determine the underlying reasons for current societal problems, and avoid inefficiently employing our time addressing the superficial symptoms.
In the Monday, July 21, 2008 electronic edition of the New York Times, there appears an article written by Andrew Martin entitled “Mideast Facing Choice between Crops and Water.” (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/21/business/worldbusiness/21arabfood.html?th&emc=th.) The following excerpt is taken from that article:
“CAIRO – Global food shortages have placed the Middle East and North Africa in a quandary, as they are forced to choose between growing more crops to feed an expanding population or preserving their already scant supply of water. For decades nations in this region have drained aquifers, sucked the salt from seawater and diverted the mighty Nile to make deserts bloom. But those projects were so costly and used so much water that it remained far more practical to import food than to produce it. Today, some countries import 90 percent or more of their staples. Now, the worldwide food crisis is making many countries in this politically volatile region rethink that math.”
When one views history from a perspective of thousands of years, one recognizes the importance of agriculture (or food production) on the wealth and expansion of a society. If the efforts of everyone in a society are primarily involved in hunting and gathering for food purposes, the day is consumed with the pursuit of food, and very little else is accomplished. It is only when technological advances permit the generation, by a few, of food, for the many, that those not engaged in agriculture can devote their time and energy in the pursuit of other goals. It is a factor that we have witnessed repeatedly throughout history.
Another major factor is the availability of water, not only for drinking and irrigation purposes, but also for water transport and navigation purposes. One of the things that has plagued the development of Africa throughout history, with a few notable exceptions, has been the scarcity of water and the lack of navigable bodies of water. While most of us here in the United States are concerned about gasoline and heating fuel, we should also stop to consider the drinking and agricultural water problem, since we are now in a global economy.
This writer first became aware of this issue in 2003, when viewing an article in Smithsonian Magazine, which, by the way, is this writer’s favorite magazine “of all time.” (http://www.smithsonianmag.com/.) How many of you were aware of this developing water issue, prior to reading about it here? Is it more significant than the development of nuclear arms or terrorism? Is oil a more significant issue? Have you seen anything in the media in recent years alerting us to this issue? Is there a possibility that the media outlets in the United States have not focused much attention on this issue because of a perception that it is not particularly relevant to U. S. citizens? It is apparently enough of an issue that former U.S.S.R. President Mikhail Gorbachev has been devoting virtually all of his time in recent years to this issue.
Mr. Gorbachev is a member of the Board of Directors of Green Cross International (http://gci.ch/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=9&Itemid=9). In 2003, he was the President of the organization. In a March 20, 2003 article in BBC News, (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/2867583.stm), author Ben Sutherland wrote, in pertinent part, the following:
“Former USSR president Mikhail Gorbachev has told the Third World Water Forum in Kyoto that a failure to reverse the global water crisis could lead to “real conflicts” in the future. Mr. Gorbachev, who is now president of the International Green Cross, said that there were likely to be severe problems as the demands on water increased together with the planet’s population. It is estimated that by 2025, two thirds of the world’s people will be living in areas of acute water stress. ‘If current trends continue, we could be faced with a very grave situation,’ Mr. Gorbachev warned. It is feared conflicts could arise where rivers and river basins cross state borders. If a country near a river’s source begins using more water, this lowers the amount that reaches countries further downstream. For example, there is currently concern about what effect a proposed scheme in India to divert the Ganges to currently dry areas might have on the water supply downstream in Bangladesh.”
In Henry Hobhouse’s Forces of Change – An Unorthodox View of History (http://books.google.com/books?id=7Bd61vvaI7MC&printsec=frontcover&dq=%22forces+of+change%22&ei=ZZY9SPyPE6SMygTPiLXzAg&sig=CVGKHVm_gASmSdzXCT_N8csMPLE), he submits that modern history has been shaped, not so much by human conduct, but rather natural forces consisting of disease, population growth, and food supply. Hobhouse argues that they form a triangle which balances itself. As one changes or alters the dimension on one side of the triangle, there must be commensurate change in one or both of the other two sides. To address these natural forces also requires a different type of thinking, more collaborative in nature.
Once again, we ask you to remember the year in which you read this article. The food supply issue is big; this water issue is perhaps bigger. Let’s hope that we approach the impending water issue better than the manner in which we have dealt with the oil issue. Remember – we are now part of a global community, whether we consider it to be a good thing or a bad thing. Can you envision a scenario where water is more precious than oil?
By the way, the last time that we checked, those countries with the most cutting edge desalinization technology were in the Middle East.
© 2008, The Institute for Applied Common Sense
Remember the year in which you read this article. One of the goals of this blog is to stimulate and provoke thought. However, another goal is to encourage our readers to view issues from different perspectives, particularly perspectives which take in consideration issues larger than our personal and local issues. In other words, we encourage “big picture” and long-term analysis. We believe that it is only through this type of analysis that we will be able to “dig deeper” and determine the underlying reasons for current societal problems, and avoid inefficiently employing our time addressing the superficial symptoms.
In the Monday, July 21, 2008 electronic edition of the New York Times, there appears an article written by Andrew Martin entitled “Mideast Facing Choice between Crops and Water.” (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/21/business/worldbusiness/21arabfood.html?th&emc=th.) The following excerpt is taken from that article:
“CAIRO – Global food shortages have placed the Middle East and North Africa in a quandary, as they are forced to choose between growing more crops to feed an expanding population or preserving their already scant supply of water. For decades nations in this region have drained aquifers, sucked the salt from seawater and diverted the mighty Nile to make deserts bloom. But those projects were so costly and used so much water that it remained far more practical to import food than to produce it. Today, some countries import 90 percent or more of their staples. Now, the worldwide food crisis is making many countries in this politically volatile region rethink that math.”
When one views history from a perspective of thousands of years, one recognizes the importance of agriculture (or food production) on the wealth and expansion of a society. If the efforts of everyone in a society are primarily involved in hunting and gathering for food purposes, the day is consumed with the pursuit of food, and very little else is accomplished. It is only when technological advances permit the generation, by a few, of food, for the many, that those not engaged in agriculture can devote their time and energy in the pursuit of other goals. It is a factor that we have witnessed repeatedly throughout history.
Another major factor is the availability of water, not only for drinking and irrigation purposes, but also for water transport and navigation purposes. One of the things that has plagued the development of Africa throughout history, with a few notable exceptions, has been the scarcity of water and the lack of navigable bodies of water. While most of us here in the United States are concerned about gasoline and heating fuel, we should also stop to consider the drinking and agricultural water problem, since we are now in a global economy.
This writer first became aware of this issue in 2003, when viewing an article in Smithsonian Magazine, which, by the way, is this writer’s favorite magazine “of all time.” (http://www.smithsonianmag.com/.) How many of you were aware of this developing water issue, prior to reading about it here? Is it more significant than the development of nuclear arms or terrorism? Is oil a more significant issue? Have you seen anything in the media in recent years alerting us to this issue? Is there a possibility that the media outlets in the United States have not focused much attention on this issue because of a perception that it is not particularly relevant to U. S. citizens? It is apparently enough of an issue that former U.S.S.R. President Mikhail Gorbachev has been devoting virtually all of his time in recent years to this issue.
Mr. Gorbachev is a member of the Board of Directors of Green Cross International (http://gci.ch/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=9&Itemid=9). In 2003, he was the President of the organization. In a March 20, 2003 article in BBC News, (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/2867583.stm), author Ben Sutherland wrote, in pertinent part, the following:
“Former USSR president Mikhail Gorbachev has told the Third World Water Forum in Kyoto that a failure to reverse the global water crisis could lead to “real conflicts” in the future. Mr. Gorbachev, who is now president of the International Green Cross, said that there were likely to be severe problems as the demands on water increased together with the planet’s population. It is estimated that by 2025, two thirds of the world’s people will be living in areas of acute water stress. ‘If current trends continue, we could be faced with a very grave situation,’ Mr. Gorbachev warned. It is feared conflicts could arise where rivers and river basins cross state borders. If a country near a river’s source begins using more water, this lowers the amount that reaches countries further downstream. For example, there is currently concern about what effect a proposed scheme in India to divert the Ganges to currently dry areas might have on the water supply downstream in Bangladesh.”
In Henry Hobhouse’s Forces of Change – An Unorthodox View of History (http://books.google.com/books?id=7Bd61vvaI7MC&printsec=frontcover&dq=%22forces+of+change%22&ei=ZZY9SPyPE6SMygTPiLXzAg&sig=CVGKHVm_gASmSdzXCT_N8csMPLE), he submits that modern history has been shaped, not so much by human conduct, but rather natural forces consisting of disease, population growth, and food supply. Hobhouse argues that they form a triangle which balances itself. As one changes or alters the dimension on one side of the triangle, there must be commensurate change in one or both of the other two sides. To address these natural forces also requires a different type of thinking, more collaborative in nature.
Once again, we ask you to remember the year in which you read this article. The food supply issue is big; this water issue is perhaps bigger. Let’s hope that we approach the impending water issue better than the manner in which we have dealt with the oil issue. Remember – we are now part of a global community, whether we consider it to be a good thing or a bad thing. Can you envision a scenario where water is more precious than oil?
By the way, the last time that we checked, those countries with the most cutting edge desalinization technology were in the Middle East.
© 2008, The Institute for Applied Common Sense
Thursday, July 17, 2008
Post 27c: And You Thought That YOU Were Concerned About Things Here in the States
We spend far too much time on this blog discussing serious subjects, without an accompanying balance of humour. (Clue.) We are not sure of the source of this piece, and to fend off the lawyers, we acknowledge that we did not generate this piece, and it appears that it is in the public domain for copyright purposes. However, we thought that it might generate a smile on an otherwise drab day.
Message from the Queen of England
To the citizens of the United States of America from Her Sovereign Majesty Queen Elizabeth II:
To the citizens of the United States of America from Her Sovereign Majesty Queen Elizabeth II:
In light of your failure in recent years to nominate competent candidates for President of the USA and thus to govern yourselves, we hereby give notice of the revocation of your independence, effective immediately.
Her Sovereign Majesty Queen Elizabeth II will resume monarchical duties over all states, commonwealths, and territories (except Kansas, which she does not fancy).
Your new Prime Minister, Gordon Brown, will appoint a Governor for America without the need for further elections.
Congress and the Senate will be disbanded.
A questionnaire may be circulated next year to determine whether any of you noticed.
To aid in the transition to a British Crown Dependency, the following rules are introduced with immediate effect:
(You should look up 'revocation' in the Oxford English Dictionary.)
1. Then look up aluminum, and check the pronunciation guide. You will be amazed at just how incorrectly you have been pronouncing it.
----------------------
2. The letter 'U' will be reinstated in words such as 'colour', 'favour', 'labour' and 'neighbour.' Likewise, you will learn to spell 'doughnut' without skipping half the letters, and the suffix '-ize' will be replaced by the suffix '-ise'. Generally, you will be expected to raise your vocabulary to acceptable levels. (Look up 'vocabulary').
-----------------------
3. Using the same twenty-seven words interspersed with filler noises such as 'like' and 'you know' is an unacceptable and inefficient form of communication. There is no such thing as US English. We will let M*crosoft know on your behalf. The M*crosoft spell-checker will be adjusted to take into account the reinstated letter 'u' and the elimination of -ize.
-------------------
4. July 4th will no longer be celebrated as a holiday.
-----------------
5. You will learn to resolve personal issues without using guns, lawyers, or therapists. The fact that you need so many lawyers and therapists shows that you're not quite ready to be independent. Guns should only be used for shooting grouse. If you can't sort things out without suing someone or speaking to a therapist then you're not ready to shoot grouse.
----------------------
6. Therefore, you will no longer be allowed to own or carry anything more dangerous than a vegetable peeler. Although a permit will be required if you wish to carry a vegetable peeler in public.
----------------------
7. All intersections will be replaced with roundabouts, and you will start driving on the left side with immediate effect. At the same time, you will go metric with immediate effect and without the benefit of conversion tables. Both roundabouts and metrication will help you understand the British sense of humour.
--------------------
8. The Former USA will adopt UK prices on petrol (which you have been calling gasoline) of roughly $10/US gallon. Get used to it.
-------------------
9. You will learn to make real chips. Those things you call French fries are not real chips, and those things you insist on calling potato chips are properly called crisps. Real chips are thick cut, fried in animal fat, and dressed not with catsup but with vinegar.
-------------------
10. The cold tasteless stuff you insist on calling beer is not actually beer at all. Henceforth, only proper British Bitter will be referred to as beer, and European brews of known and accepted provenance will be referred to as Lager. South African beer is also acceptable as they are pound for pound the greatest sporting Nation on earth and it can only be due to the beer. They are also part of British Commonwealth - see what it did for them. American brands will be referred to as Near-Frozen Gnat's Urine, so that all can be sold without risk of further confusion.
---------------------
11. Hollywood will be required occasionally to cast English actors as good guys. Hollywood will also be required to cast English actors to play English characters. Watching Andie MacDowell attempt English dialogue in Four Weddings and a Funeral was an experience akin to having one's ears removed with a cheese grater.
---------------------
12. You will cease playing American football. There is only one kind of proper football; you call it soccer. Those of you brave enough will, in time, be allowed to play rugby (which has some similarities to American football, but does not involve stopping for a rest every twenty seconds or wearing full Kevlar body Armour like a bunch of nancies). Don't try Rugby - the South Africans and Kiwis will thrash you, like they regularly thrash us.
---------------------
13. Further, you will stop playing baseball. It is not reasonable to host an event called the World Series for a game which is not played outside of America. Since only 2.1% of you are aware there is a world beyond your borders, your error is understandable. You will learn cricket, and we will let you face the South Africans first to take the sting out of their deliveries.
--------------------
14. You must tell us who killed JFK. It's been driving us mad.
-----------------
15. An internal revenue agent (i.e. tax collector) from Her Majesty's Government will be with you shortly to ensure the acquisition of all monies due (backdated to 1776).
---------------
16. Daily Tea Time begins promptly at 4 pm with proper cups, with saucers, and never mugs, with high quality biscuits (cookies) and cakes; plus strawberries (with cream) when in season.
God Save the Queen!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)