Sorry for the long read. I'm not a very good writer, and I'm trying to make a point:)
Years ago, after finishing my undergraduate degree in mathematics, I joined a research team at Emory University working with mathematical models of biological systems, particularly bacterial infections in large populations. We demonstrated, through our models, that there is a cost associated with resistance. That is, if you're a bacterium, and you are resistant to antibiotics, there is a cost - you must give up something for that benefit.
So what on earth does this have to do with wind mills? It's a simple analogy actually, but to explain, let's stick with 'bugs' for a moment.
Like all life on earth, bacteria reproduce genetically. Rabbits beget rabbits, bacteria beget bacteria. Every now and then, there's a mistake - genetic instructions are not followed, and a bacterium does not look just like it's father. This is called a mutation. Mutations are rare, but they happen. Mutant bacteria are generally weaker (but sometimes better) in some way than their parent. That is, there is a cost to not following the rules.
Continuing with this theme, let's use my body as an example. Say that I have an ear infection, and there are only two strains of said infection in my left ear - 1 regular strain, the other mutated. They exist in a 9 to 1 ratio respectively. Why that ratio? Because of the cost. The mutated bacteria have traded 'fertility' for resistance. They're resistant to antibiotics (good), but can't get it on (bad). The more popular variety are such because they are efficient. They do well when things are 'normal'.
Okay, now it's time for wind mills. Oil and coal are the most prominent sources of energy because they're efficient. They present the cheapest, easiest way to provide energy on demand in the first part of the 21st century. Solar and wind on the other hand, are not efficient. If they were, capitalists (motivated by profit) would have made them more than 3% of our domestic energy production. In other words, the 'wild type' (the dirty stuff, oil and coal) are such because they work. Solar and wind are not because of their cost. They're is a cost to being green. Get it?
So you've got this guy out there now, T. Boone Pickens. He's on board with Gore and the gang, ringing the bell for wind power now. What he doesn't tell you in his commercials is that he is an entrepreneur, and he's been trying to make money at the wind game for a while now. It ain't workin' out for him, so he needs congress (us) to subsidize his capital venture. We need to get off of foreign oil... to help him make a profit... because wind power can't turn a profit (pun intended) on its own! Are you kidding me?!!!
Again, wind and solar are NOT (popular) because they are NOT (efficient)! They are the inefficient mutants. They need an antibiotic in the name of legislation to beat the wild type, coal and oil. Are we willing to wait for technology to make our energy decisions for us, or will we simply pay more for energy (and drive this economy into the ground) because we must be green?
So Mr. Pickens, Vice President Gore, Mr. Moore: please tell everyone the inconvenient truth - that your plans involve energy costs like we've never seen. You all have different vehicles, but you're headed in the same direction. I for one, am just fine where I am, thank you very much!
P.S. I believe that the need for energy will define this century more than any other issue. It's a constant that can't be avoided, from Lake Victoria to Reston Town Center. So I will be talking more about this issue in the coming months. Particularly, I'll address the third world's need to progress, and how in the world they will do it on dark, windless nights.
Wednesday, January 28, 2009
Tuesday, January 20, 2009
A Report Card for George W Bush
So here we are - the end of 8 years under George W. Bush, the most vilified president to serve this nation in my lifetime. So how’d he do? Here’s my attempt at an objective answer. I’ll use the A through F grading scale on a few defining issues.
The War in Iraq
On the war in Iraq, Bush gets a D. Before explaining why, consider the following quotes:
"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
To whom can we attribute these quotes? Bush 43 and Rumsfeld? Try Nancy Pelosi and Hilary Clinton respectively. Fact of the matter is that almost everyone, including our European allies, thought that going into Iraq was a necessary measure in the war on terror. True, the execution of the plan was woefully inadequate, but let’s not rewrite history – most thought it was the right thing to do.
So when things went to hell in a hand basket, as Commander in Chief, the buck stopped with W. I didn’t give him an F because he brought in General David Petraeus, which lead to the troop surge. Now we have a chance to actually leave Iraq on our own terms. I hope Bush left that infamous "Mission Accomplished" banner in the White House attic :)
The Economy
On the Economy, Bush gets a C. Now before you think I’m nuts, please read the following 2003 New York Times article:
New Agency Proposed to Oversee Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae
By the way, the Bush administration’s recommendation for more oversight was ignored.
The blame for the 2008 economic down turn should be placed squarely on the shoulders of Congress. For Bush’s part, on his late 2008 response to the slowing economy, what part of "economic principles" don’t you understand, President Bush?
Finally, on Bush’s tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans… rich people didn’t stuff their mattresses with the extra cash – they invested it and/or spent it. Their appetite for risk got us out of the 9-11 slump, created jobs, and grew the economy.
National Security
On national security, Bush get’s a B. We were safe at home since 9-11.
He missed an A because I’m not a fan of the Patriot Act. "Live free or die" used to be more than a state motto – it was the way we governed.
Overall Grade
George W Bush’s best moment as president was at a ball park. I’ll never forget it – shortly after 9-11, he threw out the first pitch at Yankee stadium. I was so nervous. We all were. The nation was afraid – afraid of when and how it would happen again. Would they go after our leader? Could they? GW walked out to that pitcher’s mound sans security. His stride was deliberate, his gaze confident. He delivered a strike to thunderous applause. Man, was that a great moment. It was what we needed. It’s amazing how much our collective opinion of him has changed.
I’m going to give him a C overall. I believe his legacy will be the Bush Doctrine. He will be known as the man that responded to 9-11, and led us into a war on terror that will define this century. God bless the decisions that he made while in office. Let them prove sound and appropriate.
The War in Iraq
On the war in Iraq, Bush gets a D. Before explaining why, consider the following quotes:
"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
To whom can we attribute these quotes? Bush 43 and Rumsfeld? Try Nancy Pelosi and Hilary Clinton respectively. Fact of the matter is that almost everyone, including our European allies, thought that going into Iraq was a necessary measure in the war on terror. True, the execution of the plan was woefully inadequate, but let’s not rewrite history – most thought it was the right thing to do.
So when things went to hell in a hand basket, as Commander in Chief, the buck stopped with W. I didn’t give him an F because he brought in General David Petraeus, which lead to the troop surge. Now we have a chance to actually leave Iraq on our own terms. I hope Bush left that infamous "Mission Accomplished" banner in the White House attic :)
The Economy
On the Economy, Bush gets a C. Now before you think I’m nuts, please read the following 2003 New York Times article:
New Agency Proposed to Oversee Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae
By the way, the Bush administration’s recommendation for more oversight was ignored.
The blame for the 2008 economic down turn should be placed squarely on the shoulders of Congress. For Bush’s part, on his late 2008 response to the slowing economy, what part of "economic principles" don’t you understand, President Bush?
Finally, on Bush’s tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans… rich people didn’t stuff their mattresses with the extra cash – they invested it and/or spent it. Their appetite for risk got us out of the 9-11 slump, created jobs, and grew the economy.
National Security
On national security, Bush get’s a B. We were safe at home since 9-11.
He missed an A because I’m not a fan of the Patriot Act. "Live free or die" used to be more than a state motto – it was the way we governed.
Overall Grade
George W Bush’s best moment as president was at a ball park. I’ll never forget it – shortly after 9-11, he threw out the first pitch at Yankee stadium. I was so nervous. We all were. The nation was afraid – afraid of when and how it would happen again. Would they go after our leader? Could they? GW walked out to that pitcher’s mound sans security. His stride was deliberate, his gaze confident. He delivered a strike to thunderous applause. Man, was that a great moment. It was what we needed. It’s amazing how much our collective opinion of him has changed.
I’m going to give him a C overall. I believe his legacy will be the Bush Doctrine. He will be known as the man that responded to 9-11, and led us into a war on terror that will define this century. God bless the decisions that he made while in office. Let them prove sound and appropriate.
Friday, January 9, 2009
Obama to the Economy: "What turns you on?"
What's the best way to boost a stagnant economy? What's the role of the government?
Before the inaugural parade floats are disassembled, President Elect Obama will introduce his economic stimulus package. At its core, the package will seek to create jobs, help those that are hurting the most, and get Americans spending money again. But is his plan really going to accomplish that? Can it? I think not. But before I get into why, allow me to suggest an alternative stimulus plan.
Texas' first district Congressman Louie Gohmert gets it. His idea? Give Americans a federal income tax holiday. Two months with no federal withholdings. No FICA either. Why? To get cash into our pockets, that's why. How ingenious – increase the buying power of real Americans (not the government), and allow us to invest or spend the money as we see fit.
Okay, so back to Obama's plan. "What's wrong with you, Fred?" you ask. "What problem do you have with the government creating jobs?" Simply put, I think the private sector would do a better job than the government. I could write a thousand words on this topic alone, but I’ll leave it there for now.
"And what of $300 billion in tax cuts? Helping those that are hurting the most? Surely you can’t be against tax cuts, Fred!" I’m not against tax cuts, and don't call me Shirley :) Tax cuts are great – they're even better when the money goes back to the people that actually paid the taxes in the first place. If you're in the middle class, the largest portion of those cuts will go to folks that never paid taxes to begin with - the poor. That's not a tax cut. That's redistribution of wealth. I won't use the "S" word, but you get the idea. It reduces the middle class' incentive to produce, and that's never a boost to the economy.
"Helping those that are hurting the most" is simply a talking point. It's not true. The "tax cut" for the poorest Americans is great for the poorest Americans, but they are not hurting the most. The majority of the jobs lost in 2008 were not lower income/minimum wage jobs – they were largely middle management and manufacturing jobs. Add this nugget to the fact that the consumer price index is down! That is, the price of a bag of groceries is a lot lower in January 2009 than it was in the summer of 2008. The poorest Americans are spending less to get by, and getting more help from the government. Those that are really hurting the most (i.e. the unemployed middle class) are getting it twice – they're losing their jobs, and the taxes they should get back in the stimulus plan is going to their new neighbors.
Congressman Louie Gohmert's plan would put cold hard cash into American pockets. That would in turn, stimulate the economy. Allow me to illustrate:
1. Fred pays no federal income tax for two months
2. Fred has more money
3. Fred spends some of his capital at the market
4. Store shelves lose inventory and need to be restocked
5. Stores hire stock boys, widget makers make more widgets, truck drivers drive, all reacting to Fred's trip to the market
How's that for economic stimulus? Sounds too simple, right? Too simple to work? I think not, but you'll NEVER see it happen. If we got a collective glimpse at our gross income, Congress would have a hard time justifying the current level of taxation.
Good luck with the corsage, President Obama. She's allergic to flowers.
Before the inaugural parade floats are disassembled, President Elect Obama will introduce his economic stimulus package. At its core, the package will seek to create jobs, help those that are hurting the most, and get Americans spending money again. But is his plan really going to accomplish that? Can it? I think not. But before I get into why, allow me to suggest an alternative stimulus plan.
Texas' first district Congressman Louie Gohmert gets it. His idea? Give Americans a federal income tax holiday. Two months with no federal withholdings. No FICA either. Why? To get cash into our pockets, that's why. How ingenious – increase the buying power of real Americans (not the government), and allow us to invest or spend the money as we see fit.
Okay, so back to Obama's plan. "What's wrong with you, Fred?" you ask. "What problem do you have with the government creating jobs?" Simply put, I think the private sector would do a better job than the government. I could write a thousand words on this topic alone, but I’ll leave it there for now.
"And what of $300 billion in tax cuts? Helping those that are hurting the most? Surely you can’t be against tax cuts, Fred!" I’m not against tax cuts, and don't call me Shirley :) Tax cuts are great – they're even better when the money goes back to the people that actually paid the taxes in the first place. If you're in the middle class, the largest portion of those cuts will go to folks that never paid taxes to begin with - the poor. That's not a tax cut. That's redistribution of wealth. I won't use the "S" word, but you get the idea. It reduces the middle class' incentive to produce, and that's never a boost to the economy.
"Helping those that are hurting the most" is simply a talking point. It's not true. The "tax cut" for the poorest Americans is great for the poorest Americans, but they are not hurting the most. The majority of the jobs lost in 2008 were not lower income/minimum wage jobs – they were largely middle management and manufacturing jobs. Add this nugget to the fact that the consumer price index is down! That is, the price of a bag of groceries is a lot lower in January 2009 than it was in the summer of 2008. The poorest Americans are spending less to get by, and getting more help from the government. Those that are really hurting the most (i.e. the unemployed middle class) are getting it twice – they're losing their jobs, and the taxes they should get back in the stimulus plan is going to their new neighbors.
Congressman Louie Gohmert's plan would put cold hard cash into American pockets. That would in turn, stimulate the economy. Allow me to illustrate:
1. Fred pays no federal income tax for two months
2. Fred has more money
3. Fred spends some of his capital at the market
4. Store shelves lose inventory and need to be restocked
5. Stores hire stock boys, widget makers make more widgets, truck drivers drive, all reacting to Fred's trip to the market
How's that for economic stimulus? Sounds too simple, right? Too simple to work? I think not, but you'll NEVER see it happen. If we got a collective glimpse at our gross income, Congress would have a hard time justifying the current level of taxation.
Good luck with the corsage, President Obama. She's allergic to flowers.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
