Not sure why everyone was so surprised. Sherlock homes might say, its elementary my dear Watson... I am surprised, why others had not seen it coming. I was sure either the choice would be African American or Woman all along.
Same reason why Obama has chosen Biden. he has chosen someone who had quality he was criticized for. He must had to find some one with experience, just to show experience on ticket. And today, McCain has chosen a women who is not Washington celebrity, what Obama campaign is criticizing about McCain and he is long time in Washington, who not only could show breath of fresh air in Washington on ticket but also can help pull Hillary support women's Votes. If you think it’s the kind of master stroke from McCain. which proves he is better ready for the Job.
Today I have overheard Democrats criticizing McCain's choice, as she has no experience - ROFL Don't you find it funny. Actually she got more experience than your Presidential candidate, the community organizer, absentee Senator, Obama. In US there is no roll for VP post until President dies or something. so Biden's experience is only useful in event of death of Obama. And Governor Palin's inexperience is only harmful in even of death of McCain. and that is as likely as unlikely Obama's. and in worst case we are still better off with Governor Palin than Sen. Obama experience wise.
Palin, was elected governor in 2006 after defeating incumbent governor Frank Murkowski in the Republican primary and former Democratic governor Tony Knowles in the general election. She was the youngest person, and the first woman, to be elected governor of Alaska. Before becoming governor, Palin served two terms on the Wasilla, Alaska, City Council from 1992 to 1996, and was elected and re-elected mayor of Wasilla for two three-year terms in 1996 and 1999. She also ran unsuccessfully for lieutenant governor of Alaska in 2002. So in my mind she got Executive experience for at least 12 years, 2 years as Governor and 10 as city Mayor. What is Obama's Experience?
Read more here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarah_Palin
Friday, August 29, 2008
My take on Obama's Acceptance Speech
I had seen it last night on TV the whole speech and here is my take:
He is great showman. He had handled it well. That was one extra-ordinary and expensive show he had put together in Mile-High stadium with money he had collected from poor fellows who trusts him. He could have used the money for better cause. A trivial point. The temple stage set at Invesco Field was obviously a knockoff of the Pergamum Altar in the quite wonderful Pergamon Museum in Berlin, put together by Middle East history academicians in the early 20th century. Did Barack Obama have time in his visit to Berlin (when he didn't have time to fly to see the wounded American soldiers in Ramstein) to visit the Pergamon Museum? Just asking. It's something every cultured person should see.
Now about his speech, he was sounded more like broken record, repeating what he was talking on campaign speech. he seems lost and thought he forgot that he was doing acceptance speech and not campaign speech. he did more bush bashing than anything else. Just a reminder, Bush is not running for president. Second most thing he had done is tried to make McCain look bad instead of making him look better. The notion that John McCain is the (90 percent) same as George W. Bush. But that's pretty easy to refute. Temperamentally, on a variety of high-profile issues, McCain has been over many years at odds with Bush. Now that’s how I have perceived his 75% of speech.
Now let us talk his 25% of speech: He had said many things as "I will see X Y Z ..." that reminds me more like "Rajiv Gandhi" X prime minister of India... His favorit words "Hame Dekhana hai"... Just words... Just speeches.
Though the speech was powerful, that I must say. I always say, he is great orator no doubt about that - but he is nothing but empty suit, empty words. he is nothing but opportunistic guy changes his stands as poll dictates.
Now let us see the stands he had changed right in the meeting, right in front of millions of people, he had said McCain's Energy plan of "All of the above" like its his plan. he told he will go for Wind, Cole, Nuclear, Domestic drilling, Bio-fuel. You and I had long talk what was his energy policy and why he thinks, we should not drill here, or why he is not for Nuclear or Coal.... do you remember or forgot all about it... now since he said that its his plan all along.
Another thing he has repeated "Because, in the faces of those young veterans who come back from Iraq and Afghanistan, I see my grandfather, who signed up after Pearl Harbor, marched in Patton's army, and was rewarded by a grateful nation with the chance to go to college on the G.I. Bill." from his speech in 2002.
The senator from Illinois has his own tales to live down as well. For example, during a speech in 2002 Obama gave us a heart-rending story of his grandfather's service in uniform during World War II. "My grandfather signed up for a war the day after Pearl Harbor was bombed, fought in Patton's army," stated Obama. "He saw the dead and dying across the fields of Europe; he heard the stories of fellow troops who first entered Auschwitz and Treblinka. He fought in the name of a larger freedom, part of that arsenal of democracy that triumphed over evil, and he did not fight in vain."
All this would be great if it weren't pure fiction. For starters, the Nazis destroyed the Treblinka death camp in 1943 after shooting the last prisoners, a group of Jewish girls. Then there is the problem of the locations of Treblinka and Auschwitz. Both Nazi death camps were located inside Poland. Thus, no American troops ever entered the camps until years after the war was over. Auschwitz was taken by the Soviet Union after the Nazis evacuated most of the prisoners. The retreating Nazis left those too weak or sick to walk behind. The 322nd Rifle Division of the Red Army liberated them on Jan. 27 1945. So unless Obama's Grandfather was working for Joe Stalin, liberating Europe in a Soviet Army uniform, he was not likely to hear stories about Auschwitz or Treblinka from his fellow soldiers.
Another thing, his change of style. he was pretending more of angree-young man than old thoughtful himself which brings him where he is. so not sure at this point what is real OBAMA.
This seems to be more of an indictment of feckless and vacuous media sloth than a reflection of the character and qualities of the candidates.
He is great showman. He had handled it well. That was one extra-ordinary and expensive show he had put together in Mile-High stadium with money he had collected from poor fellows who trusts him. He could have used the money for better cause. A trivial point. The temple stage set at Invesco Field was obviously a knockoff of the Pergamum Altar in the quite wonderful Pergamon Museum in Berlin, put together by Middle East history academicians in the early 20th century. Did Barack Obama have time in his visit to Berlin (when he didn't have time to fly to see the wounded American soldiers in Ramstein) to visit the Pergamon Museum? Just asking. It's something every cultured person should see.
Now about his speech, he was sounded more like broken record, repeating what he was talking on campaign speech. he seems lost and thought he forgot that he was doing acceptance speech and not campaign speech. he did more bush bashing than anything else. Just a reminder, Bush is not running for president. Second most thing he had done is tried to make McCain look bad instead of making him look better. The notion that John McCain is the (90 percent) same as George W. Bush. But that's pretty easy to refute. Temperamentally, on a variety of high-profile issues, McCain has been over many years at odds with Bush. Now that’s how I have perceived his 75% of speech.
Now let us talk his 25% of speech: He had said many things as "I will see X Y Z ..." that reminds me more like "Rajiv Gandhi" X prime minister of India... His favorit words "Hame Dekhana hai"... Just words... Just speeches.
Though the speech was powerful, that I must say. I always say, he is great orator no doubt about that - but he is nothing but empty suit, empty words. he is nothing but opportunistic guy changes his stands as poll dictates.
Now let us see the stands he had changed right in the meeting, right in front of millions of people, he had said McCain's Energy plan of "All of the above" like its his plan. he told he will go for Wind, Cole, Nuclear, Domestic drilling, Bio-fuel. You and I had long talk what was his energy policy and why he thinks, we should not drill here, or why he is not for Nuclear or Coal.... do you remember or forgot all about it... now since he said that its his plan all along.
Another thing he has repeated "Because, in the faces of those young veterans who come back from Iraq and Afghanistan, I see my grandfather, who signed up after Pearl Harbor, marched in Patton's army, and was rewarded by a grateful nation with the chance to go to college on the G.I. Bill." from his speech in 2002.
The senator from Illinois has his own tales to live down as well. For example, during a speech in 2002 Obama gave us a heart-rending story of his grandfather's service in uniform during World War II. "My grandfather signed up for a war the day after Pearl Harbor was bombed, fought in Patton's army," stated Obama. "He saw the dead and dying across the fields of Europe; he heard the stories of fellow troops who first entered Auschwitz and Treblinka. He fought in the name of a larger freedom, part of that arsenal of democracy that triumphed over evil, and he did not fight in vain."
All this would be great if it weren't pure fiction. For starters, the Nazis destroyed the Treblinka death camp in 1943 after shooting the last prisoners, a group of Jewish girls. Then there is the problem of the locations of Treblinka and Auschwitz. Both Nazi death camps were located inside Poland. Thus, no American troops ever entered the camps until years after the war was over. Auschwitz was taken by the Soviet Union after the Nazis evacuated most of the prisoners. The retreating Nazis left those too weak or sick to walk behind. The 322nd Rifle Division of the Red Army liberated them on Jan. 27 1945. So unless Obama's Grandfather was working for Joe Stalin, liberating Europe in a Soviet Army uniform, he was not likely to hear stories about Auschwitz or Treblinka from his fellow soldiers.
Another thing, his change of style. he was pretending more of angree-young man than old thoughtful himself which brings him where he is. so not sure at this point what is real OBAMA.
This seems to be more of an indictment of feckless and vacuous media sloth than a reflection of the character and qualities of the candidates.
Monday, August 18, 2008
The truth about socialized medicine
How many times we have heard this topic being discussed in this election year?
The one in favor always argue: "Human life is not a commodity in capitalist market. It has a value that only the society attaches to it, So health care is something that should be VERY carefully regulated by the government "
Here is what NY Times says:
ATLANTA — A nationwide study has found that the uninsured and those covered by Medicaid are more likely than those with private insurance to receive a diagnosis of cancer in late stages, often diminishing their chances of survival.
Isn't Medicaid carefully regulated? Than why this Government run insurance is not good? or that it is as good as not insured.
Here are my 2 cent on this topic:
Health Insurance is the product that helps you pay the medical expense in case you need one. it’s the service by choice. if you do not take the service you have to pay yourself. its no different than car insurance. if you don’t take it and you need it you pay for it. not having insurance should not be excuse for not taking medical help. and Health insurance is like any other contract you make. and you get what you pay for. so you should have choice to pick the plan that suits your need.
Here is the deal: One who propose universal health care are trying to fix wrong problem. the real problem is the cost of insurance has gone high and solution to this problem is to find ways to reduce cost of health insurance and not abolish the private health care. Being Indian I know the quality of health care we receive in Government run hospitals and Private Hospitals in India. Here is how the circle goes. Government takeover some field like health care, they will not do good job at it, ultimately people ends up going to Private providers and pay them high anyway.
Solutions to real problem could be add more competition. companies will fight for quality, services and price and ultimately it will benefit the people. and that is exactly what capitalism is all about.
I came across an interesting article while reading "The Week" Aug 22-29, 2008
Source: "The Week" Aug 22-29, 2008
Libby Purves - The Times
Face it: Britain is rationing health care, said Libby Purves. In an ideal world, the National Health Service would offer every patient every treatment invented for every illness or condition. Of course that’s impossible. The truth is we have limited health-care resources, and doctors make decisions every day on how to allocate them. Yet because they do so without any guidelines, the rationing of care is “muddled, irrational, and inconsistent.” Doctors’ groups have pleaded with successive governments to make a list of “core services” that would be available nationally, so that local health authorities could then choose which of the less-vital services—stomach stapling, say, or in vitro fertilization—they wanted to cover. But every government has avoided the topic. Who wants to be “the hardhearted monster who rules that under-50s, breadwinners, and parents of young families get formal priority with new cancer drugs, or that there is an age beyond which heart surgery is not offered?” This reluctance is understandable, but it comes at a price. Right now, certain local health trusts won’t give liver transplants to alcoholics, or knee replacements to obese people, while others will. What kind of treatment you get shouldn’t depend on where you live. “As a nation we really do have to sit down and agree on what is in the core national entitlement and what is not.”
Do you want to decides your health care needs or some one sitting in government decides if you need some health care or worse, if it's in national interest to give you open heart surgery or lever transplant? At least with private insurance, you know what you have contracted for. Choice is yours...
The one in favor always argue: "Human life is not a commodity in capitalist market. It has a value that only the society attaches to it, So health care is something that should be VERY carefully regulated by the government "
Here is what NY Times says:
ATLANTA — A nationwide study has found that the uninsured and those covered by Medicaid are more likely than those with private insurance to receive a diagnosis of cancer in late stages, often diminishing their chances of survival.
Isn't Medicaid carefully regulated? Than why this Government run insurance is not good? or that it is as good as not insured.
Here are my 2 cent on this topic:
Health Insurance is the product that helps you pay the medical expense in case you need one. it’s the service by choice. if you do not take the service you have to pay yourself. its no different than car insurance. if you don’t take it and you need it you pay for it. not having insurance should not be excuse for not taking medical help. and Health insurance is like any other contract you make. and you get what you pay for. so you should have choice to pick the plan that suits your need.
Here is the deal: One who propose universal health care are trying to fix wrong problem. the real problem is the cost of insurance has gone high and solution to this problem is to find ways to reduce cost of health insurance and not abolish the private health care. Being Indian I know the quality of health care we receive in Government run hospitals and Private Hospitals in India. Here is how the circle goes. Government takeover some field like health care, they will not do good job at it, ultimately people ends up going to Private providers and pay them high anyway.
Solutions to real problem could be add more competition. companies will fight for quality, services and price and ultimately it will benefit the people. and that is exactly what capitalism is all about.
I came across an interesting article while reading "The Week" Aug 22-29, 2008
Source: "The Week" Aug 22-29, 2008
Libby Purves - The Times
Face it: Britain is rationing health care, said Libby Purves. In an ideal world, the National Health Service would offer every patient every treatment invented for every illness or condition. Of course that’s impossible. The truth is we have limited health-care resources, and doctors make decisions every day on how to allocate them. Yet because they do so without any guidelines, the rationing of care is “muddled, irrational, and inconsistent.” Doctors’ groups have pleaded with successive governments to make a list of “core services” that would be available nationally, so that local health authorities could then choose which of the less-vital services—stomach stapling, say, or in vitro fertilization—they wanted to cover. But every government has avoided the topic. Who wants to be “the hardhearted monster who rules that under-50s, breadwinners, and parents of young families get formal priority with new cancer drugs, or that there is an age beyond which heart surgery is not offered?” This reluctance is understandable, but it comes at a price. Right now, certain local health trusts won’t give liver transplants to alcoholics, or knee replacements to obese people, while others will. What kind of treatment you get shouldn’t depend on where you live. “As a nation we really do have to sit down and agree on what is in the core national entitlement and what is not.”
Do you want to decides your health care needs or some one sitting in government decides if you need some health care or worse, if it's in national interest to give you open heart surgery or lever transplant? At least with private insurance, you know what you have contracted for. Choice is yours...
Friday, August 15, 2008
Oil Declines Along With the Dollar
What impression you get reading this? May be english is my second language, but it gives me impression that Dollar is going down, tell me what impression you get?
Reality:
This is the headline i got from Todays New York Times:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/16/business/16stox.html?ref=business
Starts like this when you read it:
The rapid rebound of the dollar has led to an across-the-board plunge in commodity prices, with gold falling to a 10-month low and oil extending a decline.
So actually Dollar price is going up... and the dollar rose against the British pound, the Canadian dollar, and the yen. NY times Shame on you misleading people like this.
Reality:
This is the headline i got from Todays New York Times:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/16/business/16stox.html?ref=business
Starts like this when you read it:
The rapid rebound of the dollar has led to an across-the-board plunge in commodity prices, with gold falling to a 10-month low and oil extending a decline.
So actually Dollar price is going up... and the dollar rose against the British pound, the Canadian dollar, and the yen. NY times Shame on you misleading people like this.
11 indicted senators so far in history. Republicans win 9:2
This is the article, some one sent to me in email published on time.com, I have tried to Analyze it
http://www.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,1827969_1827972_1827968,00.html
11 indicted senators so far in the history of US senate. Republicans win 9:2 !!!!!!!!!
The misconception
First you should understand the difference between indictment and Felony. General misconception about indict-ion is that its criminal proceedings, but not very many people actually understands what it is. here is some verbiage from Wikipedia.
Indictment: In the common law legal system, an indictment (IPA: /ɪnˈdaɪtmənt/ (in-DITE-mint)) is a formal accusation of having committed a criminal offense. In those jurisdictions which retain the concept of a felony, the serious criminal offense would be a felony; those jurisdictions which have abolished the concept of a felony often substitute instead the concept of an indictable offence, i.e. an offence which requires an indictment.
Traditionally an indictment was handed up by a grand jury, which returned a "true bill" if it found cause to make the charge, or "no bill" if it did not find cause. Most common law jurisdictions (except for much of the United States) have abolished grand juries.
Facts in Article
In this article out of 11 - only 3 were actually proved guilty and sentenced of some nature with 2:1 republican : Democrat. But neither here or there...let us talk about ratio of indictment vs. guilty its 9:2 22% for Republican while 2:1 or say 50% for Democrat - much lower for republican.
Because anyone can go and register complain against anyone and that's indictment - its like accusation. it doesn't need any proof. What matters are is the authenticity of the complain.
In other words, in my analysis, Democrats keep spending national time and money on making scoop without any base just to make working republicans' life hell. that later after spending considerable humiliation and efforts just to prove themselves not guilty. isn't it, like what Obama supporters complains about people asking Obama to prove he is US born or if he is not Muslim. in some sense Obama is indicted for those charges and now he has to prove he is not.
Why at this time?
The trend... This article just came out, hours after just after Democrat Edward's Affair. I have many times mentioned in discussion with friends, the typical democratic strategy, the democrat trend i say, is to show others are bad too, and even use half truth to highlight how bad the other side is, when question mark comes to one of them
The counter argument
These are big politicians we are talking about, they will use their power / money / and other resources to find out way to prove they are innocent and will get acquitted (Not guilty verdict)
And since you brought this topic
Here are some other fact you all should know: Only Two U.S. Presidents have been impeached, Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton, and both were Democrats. We are talking Presidents now, not mear senators... Both were acquitted at trial later. - Will the counter argument hold true for them too?
http://www.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,1827969_1827972_1827968,00.html
11 indicted senators so far in the history of US senate. Republicans win 9:2 !!!!!!!!!
The misconception
First you should understand the difference between indictment and Felony. General misconception about indict-ion is that its criminal proceedings, but not very many people actually understands what it is. here is some verbiage from Wikipedia.
Indictment: In the common law legal system, an indictment (IPA: /ɪnˈdaɪtmənt/ (in-DITE-mint)) is a formal accusation of having committed a criminal offense. In those jurisdictions which retain the concept of a felony, the serious criminal offense would be a felony; those jurisdictions which have abolished the concept of a felony often substitute instead the concept of an indictable offence, i.e. an offence which requires an indictment.
Traditionally an indictment was handed up by a grand jury, which returned a "true bill" if it found cause to make the charge, or "no bill" if it did not find cause. Most common law jurisdictions (except for much of the United States) have abolished grand juries.
Facts in Article
In this article out of 11 - only 3 were actually proved guilty and sentenced of some nature with 2:1 republican : Democrat. But neither here or there...let us talk about ratio of indictment vs. guilty its 9:2 22% for Republican while 2:1 or say 50% for Democrat - much lower for republican.
Because anyone can go and register complain against anyone and that's indictment - its like accusation. it doesn't need any proof. What matters are is the authenticity of the complain.
In other words, in my analysis, Democrats keep spending national time and money on making scoop without any base just to make working republicans' life hell. that later after spending considerable humiliation and efforts just to prove themselves not guilty. isn't it, like what Obama supporters complains about people asking Obama to prove he is US born or if he is not Muslim. in some sense Obama is indicted for those charges and now he has to prove he is not.
Why at this time?
The trend... This article just came out, hours after just after Democrat Edward's Affair. I have many times mentioned in discussion with friends, the typical democratic strategy, the democrat trend i say, is to show others are bad too, and even use half truth to highlight how bad the other side is, when question mark comes to one of them
The counter argument
These are big politicians we are talking about, they will use their power / money / and other resources to find out way to prove they are innocent and will get acquitted (Not guilty verdict)
And since you brought this topic
Here are some other fact you all should know: Only Two U.S. Presidents have been impeached, Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton, and both were Democrats. We are talking Presidents now, not mear senators... Both were acquitted at trial later. - Will the counter argument hold true for them too?
Tuesday, July 15, 2008
Few creative ideas
Use Electric Cars
my personal, preferred solution would be use nuclear power. I always was thinking if we can reduce the size of Nuclear power generator so that it can fit the car. But this one is not bad either.
Use Nuclear power to generate electricity. and use electricity to run Cars.
Air Cars:
I was browsing internet and found so many material, where people are trying air to use to drive car. its practicle. we all have seen small and big power tools working with Compressed air, didnt we? Its not new technology. i am surprised why we havent have used it in car so far.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_engine
http://www.livescience.com/imageoftheday/siod_041209.html
The Air Car is a six passenger, multi-use commuter vehicle being developed by European firm MDI. It runs entirely on compressed air.
The vehicle may soon be available in the United States, company officials say, and they're promoting it as a viable alternative at a time of rising gas prices.
Designed for use as a family car, mini-delivery van and taxi, the Air Car has an estimated range of 124 to 186 miles (100-300 kilometers) on a charge of compressed air. It has a top speed of 68 mph (110k/hr). Recharging the tank takes about 4 hours.
The Air Car's built-in compressor can be powered by any electricity source. It's builders tout the fact that one need not worry about battery life. The expansion of air drives the engine's pistons.
my personal, preferred solution would be use nuclear power. I always was thinking if we can reduce the size of Nuclear power generator so that it can fit the car. But this one is not bad either.
Use Nuclear power to generate electricity. and use electricity to run Cars.
Air Cars:
I was browsing internet and found so many material, where people are trying air to use to drive car. its practicle. we all have seen small and big power tools working with Compressed air, didnt we? Its not new technology. i am surprised why we havent have used it in car so far.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_engine
http://www.livescience.com/imageoftheday/siod_041209.html
The Air Car is a six passenger, multi-use commuter vehicle being developed by European firm MDI. It runs entirely on compressed air.
The vehicle may soon be available in the United States, company officials say, and they're promoting it as a viable alternative at a time of rising gas prices.
Designed for use as a family car, mini-delivery van and taxi, the Air Car has an estimated range of 124 to 186 miles (100-300 kilometers) on a charge of compressed air. It has a top speed of 68 mph (110k/hr). Recharging the tank takes about 4 hours.
The Air Car's built-in compressor can be powered by any electricity source. It's builders tout the fact that one need not worry about battery life. The expansion of air drives the engine's pistons.
Solution for Energy Crisis
You know what is the biggest problem of being programmer - programmers, always underestimate time it takes to program something. and I have faced that over and over from my own experience.
Same is true for scientists, they are so enthusiastic about new R&D, they forgot the basic fact that its Research and it has very high risk associated for failure, or going over budget in terms of time and money
We all know what are the problems associated with Ethanol, Wind or solar power. And as I have mentioned in my previous post, "it would be a positive development and great for the US economy, it would open up some wonderful strategic opportunities if we chose to exercise them...and the fact remains that oil is not in infinite supply, and that's something we had better begin thinking about."
I see us as being in a transitional period here when it comes to energy, and what's really needed is a solution that gets us from where we are now to the point where new energy technology is both feasible and practical and able to be implemented.
The answer, surprisingly, is not some new techno-whiz miracle. Instead, it involves using proven technology and resources we already have.
During WWII, Adolf Hitler and the German military had a major problem: the British Navy had essentially cut off most of Germany's traditional sources of oil and gasoline, and Germany's military and industry were in danger of running dry. What Hitler did was to put his scientists to work on the idea of synthetic oil...and they came through for Der Fuhrer, using a resource Germany had available in the Ruhr, in the Saar and in Silesia, among other places - coal. The Germans perfected the technology of the gasification of coal and kept the Nazis in the war. And that technology still exists today.
Here in the US, we could be said to be the Saudi Arabia of coal, with an estimated 400-600 years worth of supply. And in fact, the US actually created something called the Synthetic Fuels Corporation back in 1980 to refine and streamline this gasification process after the original OPEC oil embargo, and it made significant progress until around 1986. What happened then is that oil prices tanked and made synthetic oil uneconomical to pursue, because it costs around $50 a barrel to manufacture. When oil was at $16 a barrel, it made no sense to continue to produce our own synthetic fuel. Now, with prices Above $100 per barrel, it does...especially in light of what some of the profits from imported oil sales are being used for, and by whom. The problem Associated is smaller compare to other technologies, how to make Coal Green.
http://www.popsci.com/scitech/article/2007-02/turning-black-coal-green
And it also makes sense to start actually building refineries again, something that hasn't been done in the US for over twenty years. Anyone involved with the energy biz who's actually being honest with you will tell you that the bottleneck that causes shortages and price rises mostly occurs at the refining end of things.
Nor is coal the only arrow in our energy independence quiver.
There are millions of potential barrels of shale oil just sitting in the Rockies in the western United States, another potential bonanza for the US economy using already tried and tested technology. There's also nuclear power, something the Europeans and the Japanese embraced after the Arabs turned off the spigot in the 1970's.
Add this to ramping up our domestic production and some basic conservation measures and and the US could achieve energy independence in a remarkably short space of time.. certainly within one four-year presidential term. That would buy us the time we need, and then some to develop the new energy technologies for the future. Not to mention a slew of high paid US jobs, a boost for our economy, more oil to sell to other countries and strategic leverage in certain areas where we need it.
So....why haven't we done this? Nothing I'm pointing out here is exactly a deep, dark secret.
The answer, I think, lies in what I like to refer to as the Arab Oil Producers Government Pension Augmentation Plan, where Presidential libraries, honorariums, consulting fees, retainers, investments in certain financial instruments and foundations get paid out by certain cash flush oil producing nations.
Another part of the puzzle lies in the fact that government in general loves the status quo, because higher gas prices mean higher tax revenues. In some States / counties, the state and the feds garner about sixty cents plus per gallon in taxes - the higher the price, the more they make. State is charging up to 64 cents per gallon, on top of 18.4 cent federal tax which makes almost 80 + cents a gallon
Tax Source: http://www.gaspricewatch.com/usgastaxes.asp
But the price for continuing this scam is getter larger by the minute, in blood as well as money. The US can indeed achieve energy independence if we want to, and these are the way to get it in a relatively short time. And the sooner we hold our politicians' feet to the fire to make it happen, the better off we'll be.
I don’t care if Obama does it or McCain - but these are my thoughts on it
Same is true for scientists, they are so enthusiastic about new R&D, they forgot the basic fact that its Research and it has very high risk associated for failure, or going over budget in terms of time and money
We all know what are the problems associated with Ethanol, Wind or solar power. And as I have mentioned in my previous post, "it would be a positive development and great for the US economy, it would open up some wonderful strategic opportunities if we chose to exercise them...and the fact remains that oil is not in infinite supply, and that's something we had better begin thinking about."
I see us as being in a transitional period here when it comes to energy, and what's really needed is a solution that gets us from where we are now to the point where new energy technology is both feasible and practical and able to be implemented.
The answer, surprisingly, is not some new techno-whiz miracle. Instead, it involves using proven technology and resources we already have.
During WWII, Adolf Hitler and the German military had a major problem: the British Navy had essentially cut off most of Germany's traditional sources of oil and gasoline, and Germany's military and industry were in danger of running dry. What Hitler did was to put his scientists to work on the idea of synthetic oil...and they came through for Der Fuhrer, using a resource Germany had available in the Ruhr, in the Saar and in Silesia, among other places - coal. The Germans perfected the technology of the gasification of coal and kept the Nazis in the war. And that technology still exists today.
Here in the US, we could be said to be the Saudi Arabia of coal, with an estimated 400-600 years worth of supply. And in fact, the US actually created something called the Synthetic Fuels Corporation back in 1980 to refine and streamline this gasification process after the original OPEC oil embargo, and it made significant progress until around 1986. What happened then is that oil prices tanked and made synthetic oil uneconomical to pursue, because it costs around $50 a barrel to manufacture. When oil was at $16 a barrel, it made no sense to continue to produce our own synthetic fuel. Now, with prices Above $100 per barrel, it does...especially in light of what some of the profits from imported oil sales are being used for, and by whom. The problem Associated is smaller compare to other technologies, how to make Coal Green.
http://www.popsci.com/scitech/article/2007-02/turning-black-coal-green
And it also makes sense to start actually building refineries again, something that hasn't been done in the US for over twenty years. Anyone involved with the energy biz who's actually being honest with you will tell you that the bottleneck that causes shortages and price rises mostly occurs at the refining end of things.
Nor is coal the only arrow in our energy independence quiver.
There are millions of potential barrels of shale oil just sitting in the Rockies in the western United States, another potential bonanza for the US economy using already tried and tested technology. There's also nuclear power, something the Europeans and the Japanese embraced after the Arabs turned off the spigot in the 1970's.
Add this to ramping up our domestic production and some basic conservation measures and and the US could achieve energy independence in a remarkably short space of time.. certainly within one four-year presidential term. That would buy us the time we need, and then some to develop the new energy technologies for the future. Not to mention a slew of high paid US jobs, a boost for our economy, more oil to sell to other countries and strategic leverage in certain areas where we need it.
So....why haven't we done this? Nothing I'm pointing out here is exactly a deep, dark secret.
The answer, I think, lies in what I like to refer to as the Arab Oil Producers Government Pension Augmentation Plan, where Presidential libraries, honorariums, consulting fees, retainers, investments in certain financial instruments and foundations get paid out by certain cash flush oil producing nations.
Another part of the puzzle lies in the fact that government in general loves the status quo, because higher gas prices mean higher tax revenues. In some States / counties, the state and the feds garner about sixty cents plus per gallon in taxes - the higher the price, the more they make. State is charging up to 64 cents per gallon, on top of 18.4 cent federal tax which makes almost 80 + cents a gallon
Tax Source: http://www.gaspricewatch.com/usgastaxes.asp
But the price for continuing this scam is getter larger by the minute, in blood as well as money. The US can indeed achieve energy independence if we want to, and these are the way to get it in a relatively short time. And the sooner we hold our politicians' feet to the fire to make it happen, the better off we'll be.
I don’t care if Obama does it or McCain - but these are my thoughts on it
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
