Getting tired of the politics, especially talking about energy independence?

1. The US could pump all the oil it has control over and global demand is such as that would not keep pace with global supplies.  Demand is growing at a rate you could not pump it fast enough to affect the global price.  The notion of if only we would pump more oil, our gas prices would decrease is just plain wrong.

2. There is no home team advantage for having your own oil supply. The prices paid per barrel in Norway and Saudi Arabia are a global price.  The only exception to this is where supplies cannot make it to the market creating a temporary excess local supply.  For example, Tulsa, OK enjoyed a brief cost at the pump advantage because of a temporary glut due to a pipeline issue preventing transportation to the US gulf coast.

3. The government cannot dictate prices. If you are operating in a market and the government attempts to set a price less than the market can support either by direct price fixing or taxation policy, supplies will diminish creating a shortage.  Ask Jimmy Carter about his 'windfall tax' policy and gas lines.  At best, the government can help reduce demand by advocating alternatives. For example, a natural gas powered municipal power plant that charges a car during off peak hours reduce global demand and global dependence.

4. It is true that gas prices were cheaper in 2008. That is because demand slumped world wide. People drove less. People bought less. People used less energy.

5.  Certain policies seemingly intent on reducing the foreign demand for oil actually increase it. For example, considering the US gulf coast is quite capable of growing more efficient sugar cane, corn based ethanol  mandates not only increase the cost of the numerous food supplies that rely on corn, but also increase demand for the oil it is intending to replace in uses such as fertilizer, diesel fuel, and the direct production of ethanol itself.

O'Brother, O'Brien and Obama

A friend of mine made the above graphic. I find it a refreshing less than subtle reference to the warning of a certain Mr. George Orwell made about dangers of soft tyranny of a big government resulting from seemingly small steps towards eventual totalitarianism. Of course I refer to the book 1984. In this book, reductions in 'rations' are referred to increases. "Spin" became the primary exported product. Enemies we war with today are allies tomorrow and again enemies the following year, but in all this never really acknowledging motivation or providing true rationale. Do not question the party was the clear message. Such novels scared the hell of me as high school student with its warning that nothing is for free. Freedom allows for failure or success. It is indifferent.

Unfortunately, where are the options for someone who wants a limited, constitutional based republic that has little if any implied power, but only those expressly provided to it? The Tea Party? The GoP? Unfortunately, these parties miss the mark too. Government intrusion whether socialistic in nature, where everyone suffers equally under stagnation or if that government consists of religiously infused anti science 'social conservative' will suffer intellectual hypocrisy and become equally destructive. In the end, as Mr. Smith found out in the novel, both lead to same place - a 'nanny state' of social tyranny of neighbors reporting on neighbors and citizens losing even the most basic self sufficiency, including such as where to eat, whom to date, what 'words' are acceptable to speak. It is a high price to pay to relegate responsibility from the local and state level to the federal.

It is going to take a while to work this out. Power corrupts and those who have it tend to like to keep it that way.




The Return of Jimmy Carter

It did not work out for the Chinese Navy Long ago. They built a nice modern Navy. They sent it out to sea and burned it only to escape into a self imposed world of protectionism and isolationism. Jimmy Carter tried it too. He did it a little more figuratively. He tried price controls and punitive budgets. He tried windfall profits taxes and budgets that punished a generation. He tried lousy taxation policy which led to double digit inflation. He is a smart man. He meant well. He was an educated man. Yet, he had no basic concept of economics. He had insufficient understanding of supply and demand and equilibrium. Surprising for someone who had a clear understanding of Nuclear physics and peanut farming. The basic concept is if you force the price lower than the market demands, supplies dwindle. Just as if there excess supplies, prices drop. The item, whatever it is, is yesterday's news. It's human nature. Get over it. But it was beyond his grasp. It seems we are at the the there we go again, phase to paraphrase a certain B movie actor, who seemed to grasp certain concepts better than others.

Now, in an effort to pander to steel workers, a 35% wholesale tariff (a tax) is being imposed on tires being imported from China. This supposed to give US tire companies an advantage by encouraging the purchasing of US made steel, produced by US steel workers. Who does this help? Who does this hurt? China will retaliate with their own tariffs on items we wish to sell them, such as food. Plus, we need their products and their money. Generally, poor to middle class people are purchasing Chinese made tires, so it clearly hurts them. Not to mention, by punishing China does anyone actually believe this makes US Steel more competitive than any other place in the global workplace? Global or US based tire companies will simply source from India or other countries with lower labor rates, so the tarriff will not restore or create any jobs on idled plants, perhaps at best - shift them from China. The only option would be reduce the labor rate and the operational costs of doing business within this country. That would be taxes, labor cost, and insurance. Tariffs, protectionism, and isolationism can only lead to bad things. More. The short term advantage of courting union support for election purposes is short sighted and bad for this country. It took China 500 years to recover from such mistakes and they are just now rebuilding that burned down Navy.

Ironically - though President Obama seems to have no issue subsidizing GM, which does direct business with China in terms of manufacturing and parts sourcing. Yet - I keep coming back to NASA and Constellation. He cannot afford that and the American jobs and American contractors associated with the program - or the tires.

Obama's "Hope" For NASA? More Russian Rockets

I am skeptical of expert panels. Ever since I heard of the Warren Commission and the theory of a magical bullet. I do not understand why we go through the pretense of objectivity when the outcome seems to be a foregone conclusion. If these people are experts, why are they not actually directly involved in the effort they are called upon to examine? Maybe they were once were and are simply longing for their glory days? A more cynical view might consider they are just fulfilling a pre-determined need and playing an already cast role.

Consider this tidbit of news from a year ago which I found on a UK source. Our own nation's media does not seem to consider the importance of such programs or their status as newsworthy. Our own media does not grasp that such programs are actually job bills. Consider what was said.

Mr Obama's transition team is demanding spending cuts to the Constellation Project, the successor to the Space Shuttle, which is supposed to create to a permanent manned base on the Moon by 2020 before a mission to Mars.

The president-elect's team is developing plans to scrap the new Ares rocket, designed to blast a new generation of astronauts into space, NASA advisers said.

This decision seems to have been made a year ago, yet announced just last week!

The article goes on to say:

On the campaign trail, Mr Obama first called for cuts and delays to the Constellation programme to fund his education policies but then later pledged to increase NASA's $17-billion budget by $2 billion, a move apparently calculated to win votes in the Florida and Texas primary elections, where NASA has its two main bases.

But that was before the economic meltdown.

An aerospace contractor who advises NASA told The Sunday Telegraph: "Constellation ought to be the kind of thing that would appeal to Obama in restoring American pride but he's been blowing hot and cold.

Before the meltdown? It's not like we did not know this already, as we saw that train coming. This is government spending with tangible benefits. Why is this on the target for a cut, when we can spending literally budget and spend for the stimulus program for unspecified programs which cannot be demonstrated to create or preserve one job? This is shovel ready after all. Do these people believe the only people believed are those at NASA? Is it possible, or even likely this more about control rather than money? So they need more money. So what. It is money with at least a probable return.

How about we hold each and every program to the same standard?

1. Net Jobs created
2. Net college applicants created
3. Net GNP contribution

Obama Administration No Friend of NASA

I just read to confirm after hearing from a friend on that on the 8th, just days ago, a panel of so-called experts decided to recommend to kill Ares I for the Obama Administration. The rocket ship Ares I was to be the part of the Constellation Program to get humankind back into space more safely and less costly than the shuttle it intended to replace. It is the smaller launch component of the program intended to be the safer human rated rocket with the greater safety systems intended only to reach orbit, the moon, but not other places. But without any cargo or luggage. It's larger variant, the Ares V will carry cargo, telescopes, large rovers, other big things, not people. It will be a heavy lift vehicle and although near the size of Saturn V, it would be capable of ferrying much greater payloads. Many of the components are recycled technology from both the shuttle era such as solid rocket technology, which already have established factories and evolved Saturn era engines such as the original Saturn era J2 engine is being redesigned. The new design of the J-2X pumps and other engine components will provide the additional performance. The J-2X engine is being designed to produce 294,000 pounds of thrust. Whereas, the original J-2 produced 230,000 pounds of thrust. Some components are semi-reusable, some are one time use. It is the best of both worlds and is well thought out. These allegedly so-called experts are recommending we use just the Ares V. So, history appears to repeat itself. We'll end up with another shuttle compromise which does too little for too much, built by committee resulting in delay and cost overruns at best. The point is missed. We do not need a human rated rocket to carry heavy cargo, it simply needs to be reliable and not as complicated. This brings the price per pound to launch down considerably. Combining heavy lift requirements and the requirements for human life support makes such a system overly complex and excessively expensive.

Where the hell is Dr. Wernher von Braun? Good ideas come from motivated teams with effective leadership. The Apollo program was 40 years ago and the world, not just the United States is still reaping economic benefits. This would be the stimulus package worth pursuing beyond the obvious technology. If you were to go ask anyone in 1965 what technology would be like between 1967-2010 and what were the drivers of that technology, no one would have suspected it was a little old space race. Perhaps if just he diverted just 1 month of the cost of the maintaining Operation Enduring Occupation, we would not need such expert panels consisting of has beens and never weres.

Just consider what we have learned from the Hubble? Imagine a better Hubble that did not have to fit to constraints of the compromise shuttle? I thought Mr. Obama was about change and vision. Yet another disappointment. We may as well elected Palin*McCain who at least was openly anti-progressive. Mr. McCain belittled the idea of an planetarium projector as a slide projector in one of the presidential debates. He considered that wasteful. At least, that is honest about keeping us in the dark and not evoking any vision for the future.

Rhetoric in the Bully Pulpit and Owed Apologies

After hearing the President speak and the outrage for the unprecedented 'speak out' of the words You Lie! by Rep. Wilson, I have to think, how many times has someone stood there at the podium and abused the English language, twisting words from their common meaning to something sinister?

The President did worse than lie. He misled. He was supposed to be above this type of behavior. Yes, Rep. Wilson was impolite. He was politically incorrect. Maybe he was fed up? But what about the merits of the argument? We cannot build that wall and lock out illegals. We want, we need these workers. No 'citizen' is going to take these jobs, that is supply and demand. So when these people get sick today, where do these people go today and who actually pays? If they wait until it's critical, what is that cost to society? So, at best, it was dishonest. But, we are not going to solve that problem, so why pretend? Why even bring it up? It's a distraction we do not have time for. I personally do not want this country to be in the position where we envy the jobs people are crossing the border in the dark of night which they covet as their best hope for a life. We once coveted such work because of little other opportunities and the only resolution was to join up into a war machine known as World War II. Do we want that again? Besides, I was offended by other insults to my intelligence, which is not respectful of the dignity of the office he has the privilege of serving.

Consider your money. Consider how the government today views taxes. We hear terms like how will we pay for tax cuts? Tax cuts are not paid for per se. Meaning, the government does not distribute income to you, we the people return money back to it. That is simple pandering to class warfare and he should be above that. Most of us, at least for today, work for the private sector and are taxed on productivity to society, subsiding those are less productive to a far larger proportion of the overall budget than any other component. Government spending is paid for through taxes and borrowing. That is it. These twists on words are Orwellian doublespeak. The fact that this does not bother the general population should be alarming. But, to use an old phrase, Politicians and Dictators prefer unarmed peasants. By peasants, I mean under educated on the facts and a democracy cannot exist without an educated population. Presidents and any other politicians should be challenged each and every time they spew such nonsensical rhetoric, whatever forum they abuse. Unarmed, in our case is stripped of our financial security. To steal from the Bard, do not play the [American people] like a violin.

What Drives Health Cares Costs?

The cost of health care is high. Is it too high? Who should pay? Those who play by the rules or those who do not? These are a great questions. Among the debate are questions of chronic visitors to their favorite health care provider vs. the relatively young who seldom seek health care and see it as it is - insurance the individual may or may not elect to acquire. However, health care is different than car insurance. If I keep crashing my vehicle and taking it to the body shop for repairs, I will and should expect my costs and insurance premiums to increase. If I dislike the repair or paint job performed, there are remedies, but limited. By limited, I mean I cannot take my vehicle from repair facility to facility hoping to get something repaired if it cannot be identified as broken or repairable expecting someone else to pay for it. If I abuse the driving privilege, I lose it if society deems me an unacceptable risk.

Naturally, as an incentive to keep my costs down, I [often] avoid getting speeding tickets and I [generally] avoid side swiping the vehicle next to me. I may drive above the posted speed limit, but I am at least am aware of cause and effect. For example, a nice empty highway vs. a busy city street. For those who cannot quick grasp that lesson, they get to pay for the mandatory insurance state required insurance. In reality, younger drives pay more for the privilege to drive, simply because they cost more. On the other hand, with health care - there is little consequence to unchecked behavior. At the moment, there is little consequence to my wallet directly when I seek to go from doctor to doctor, as long as I can find a willing insurance company to pick up the tab, or the state. That is a difference, and until the individual is motivated to treat their physical well being at least as well as their vehicle, health care costs will continue to rise. This all speaks to a message that our President spoke of during the campaign and today. Taking some Personal responsibility. Ben Franklin, with all his foresight, envisioned a system where you paid in periodically so it was there when you needed it, money would be there to cover expenses. In my opinion, if you demand more of any product - you should pay more for it. Of course, the obvious exception is person who hits my car, burns my house down, or causes me to get sick. Well, they need to pay more as they did not keep their end of the civil bargain. Their insurance rate should rise and they should pay a premium. That is only logical.

Who knows, maybe our President will speak up and say he let congress try to figure this out and it did not quite work out as expected. He will advocate something like car insurance SR-22, direct cash for insurance, and exercise incentives. One thing is certain, for all but appearances - you are pretty much stuck with the body you were born with. There will be no cash for clunkers programs.

HealthScare

Just a quick thought. Our President stated that if I want to keep my health care program, I can. How can he guarantee this? How would this be enforced when a public option would be so attractive any corporation or business with employees currently offering such benefits? Does he not realizes these are costs which could be cut which affect the bottom line which could translate into more jobs, or lower production costs, or greater profit? What company management would refuse such an offer? What board of directors would tolerate such blind eye to such opportunities for cost savings? So, why are we being lied to? Or is there another possibility? Failure to do the homework? Perhaps he did...There was a country in Europe who did this type of centralized control as its own social programs spiraled out of control into a centralized mess which dictators love. Not necessarily the ones who create them. This country along with England, Russia had to clean that one up. All this is pretty much evidence our education system fails to teach world history.

Red Alert.

An Empathetic Ear on the Supreme Court?

With the prospect of having a new Supreme Court Justice sitting on the bench next fall enjoying a life time appointment, it occurs to me that many people do not understand the basic tenants of the framework of our government. I sense this by the words often used by our leadership. The word empathy in specific comes to mind. A judge does not need empathy. Social workers need empathy. Judges need only be expert with the law, our constitution, and of course behave rational. This simply means they need to know their role when it comes to the law. This role is to evaluate the case being presented within court against established law. Law established by Congress.

This also means the Court, any court cannot create legislation, nor creatively interpret the law. This leads to horrible consequences such as Separate but Equal case of Plessy v. Ferguson in 1896 only to be finally overturned in 1954 by Brown v. Board of Education, which itself was muddled until congress finally had enough and took action in 1964 with some creative motivation from the Executive branch (LBJ) and more recently, another egregious example - the eight years of the G.W. Bush administration.

So now, our President wants an empathic ear on the Supreme Court. Do we truly want this? I know I do not. I know I do not want someone who swings a like a sheet in a breeze on a clothes line based on the public popular opinion of the day, unless that opinion is expressed by a law passed by any elected official legislative body. What does this mean? I believe it important to remember the purpose of the Court is to be the Court. That is, to check and balance the enforcement of the Executive branch of our government. We cannot have one single branch deciding for itself to do more than it was intended outside the constitutional boundaries without expecting unfortunate consequences. If you want to change the law, there is a mechanism to do this. It is called the Legislative branch. Every so often, we the people have an opportunity, a responsibility to vote and elect our representative government. The men and women in black robes on the Supreme Court? Nope, they are there with only a hearing. Once there, they hold much power - forever. For a lifetime. Five individuals should not be allowed to undermine the legislative process. There are three branches of our federal system, for a reason. Why do we forget this? The last eight years, we lacked the checks and balances built into system of government. I think we deserve those back. That was the change I voted for.

Stem Cell Trial

The tides seem to be turning on the position on stem cell research of the former Bush administration. This is good news for the world, good news for the USA, but bad news for fear mongers and those, if born at another time, would not support the use of antibiotics, believe in germ theory, reject the idea of a flat earth, understand the stuff of air, and would cling to the notion that the sun moves across the surface of the Earth. Yes – it’s true – the FDA under a new administration and bright light, which seems progressive, moving forward - has approved a clinical trial in humans, in the USA. True - it is a little late and we are playing catch up. The critics will say this will create a market for embryos. The critics will say this will destroy life. Well, the critics are arguing from a point of ignorance. I do not mean ignorance as being stupid; I mean not being informed of facts. The critic would be satisfied with flushing a perfectly good embryo down the drain which was not used for in vitro fertilization. A left over if you will. The critic considers this more ethical. Come to think of it, should we add in vitro fertilization to the taboo list of the fear monger?

Mr. Obama have you Driven a Ford Lately?

So will President Obama have a variation on President Ford's line?

My fellow Americans, our long national nightmare is over

Obama’s going to unleash Stem Cell Research?

A friend of mine was concerned that soon to be President Obama was going to undo stem cell research and this would lead to cloning. Cows, Sheep, and then human cloning as he put it. As a Fox news viewer, this was all very scary to him. Plus he said, "Did you not see "The Clone Wars"? He went on - "How would feel if all these identical copies of you are walking around?" “Would you not feel weird knowing that was ‘you’ everywhere”? I found this quite puzzling and replied “They would not actually be me”. Stating that once the egg gets fertilized and moves on to become an embryo - that is when the changes to the cells or mutations start happening and they are no longer identical, and so on. I started to lose him and did not convince him. He started 'I disagree' they are you. He said was concerned that Mr. Obama was going to undo all that Mr. Bush had stifled stem cell because this type of research is playing ‘God’. I could only respond with, “The exact same thing was said about heart transplants and I think it would far better to grow a heart rather than to wait for a heart to be harvested”.

He has identical twins. They are not identical anymore. Things such as cosmic rays, or background radiation, or UV rays, plus all that complex cell division; I had to laugh to myself. An understanding of policy of science built but on religion and fiction?