Are we in a recession? or Why definitions matter!
July 31, 2008
In the United States, recessions are defined as two consecutive quarters of negative GDP growth. During my lifetime (at least the part I can recall) there have been two recessions in the United States (81-82, 90-91). Between November 2001 and November 2002 we had two quarters of alternating decline and weak growth and despite the fact that we never had two consecutive quarters of negative GDP growth the NBER classifies it as a recession as well, huh? Whether or not we are in a recession shouldn’t be a subjective measure, instead it is a very well defined term - two quarter of consequitve negative GDP growth, period.
Over the last year I have heard the television news repeat over and over that we are in a recession. Almost all members of Congress suggest we are in a recession. Anyone who dares to suggest we may NOT be in a recession is quickly called an idiot and dismissed. To be clear, I am not arguing that we are not in the midst of the perfect storm as it relates to our economy (oil prices, food prices, inflation, falling housing prices, mortgage meltdown, tanking dollar and so on). I am suggesting that we either a) invent a new term for our current situation or b) agree on a new defition of the word recession.
The recession proponents were dealt a severe blow this morning when the Commerce Department reported that GDP increased at an annual rate of 1.9% in the last quarter (April-to-June). This was an improvement over the first quarter of the year that came in at .9% growth. Nope, we are NOT in a recession according to the definition of the word.
Option One: Perhaps we should conduct large scale national polls each quarter asking Americans if they ‘FEEL’ we are in a recession. We could also have a group of super-delegates (i.e. celebrities, economist and politicians) whose votes would could 10,000x of a normal American (i.e. much like the Democratic Primary). The ‘FEELINGS’ of the nation+super delegates would determine the issue and we could put the whole ‘are we in a recession?’ question to rest. Option Two: Or, on the other hand, we could simply agree the economy sucks and only call it a recession once we have had two consecutive quarters of negative growth. Option Three: Keep up the maddening debate we have been having for the last year. What is your vote (let me know if you are a super-delegate so I can multiply your vote)?
Why can’t we find a leader like this. . .
July 30, 2008
The choice between Obama and McCain makes me sick. Too bad we can’t find someone like this to run our country once again:
One good reason to vote against Obama
June 26, 2008
The Supreme court narrowly (5-4) upheld our right to bear arms in a ruling today. As Ben Winograd explained so eloquently, “It doesn’t take a mathematician to recognize the narrow margin in this case. Replace any one of the five justices in the majority with a more liberal appointment - many of whom will be waiting in line if Barack Obama wins the presidency - and the outcome would have flipped. Americans would have lost the individual right to keep and bear arms. For some, this may be a welcome change, but for many of us, it’s the sort of thought that makes the hairs on the back of our necks stand up. Of course, there’s now precedent going forward, which helps. But this litigation is, as discussed above, only the beginning. Thus, the close margin and ideological division of this decision will likely serve as a reminder that, like it or not, whoever occupies the White House for the next four or eight years will, through his appointments, directly impact Second Amendment rights for perhaps the next century. This will no doubt have at least some effect as Americans cast their ballots in November.”
Voting for McCain makes my skin crawl. We (conservatives), held our breath and voted for Bush and instead of supporting conservative values, he increased the size of government, increased federal bureaucracy and with the help of Congress managed to increase our deficit more than Roosevlet and Reagan did (and they were fighting the Nazis and the Soviets). I just can’t do it again. Of course I had no idea how narrow the margin had become in the Supreme Court - five to four to support a right clearly enunciated in the Constitution? The court has no problem upholding the ’separation of church and state concept’, despite the fact that it isn’t in the Constitution. Ben Winograd explains, “In reading Justice Scalia’s opinion, there is an overwhelming theme that to interpret the Second Amendment as not protecting an individual right would gut the amendment of meaning and defy logic. It is, after all, the Second Amendment, not the two hundredth. This is not an obscure line buried among thousands of pages of text. It is inconceivable that the framers would have given it the priority they did, placing it ahead of so many other critical rights, if they only meant it to apply to militias as the dissenting justices suggest.”
I think the Constitution is important and we need to figure out a way to seat a court that believes in it as much as the founders did. Obama has unequivolcaly indicated he does not support the second amendment and his likely court appointments won’t either. I sure wish I had someone I could vote for, instead of someone to vote against…
Help me draft the Hulk for the Marine Corps
June 25, 2008
UPDATE: I talked to the guys at Marvel and they have agreed to donate TWO Incredible Hulk statues to ship to our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan (depending on where the Marines/Army wants them). Ask and ye shall receive… Thanks for all your notes and calls. Definitely touch base with Chris if you want to make a direct contribution to his organization Heroes 4 Heroes. Thanks!!!
Yesterday I mentioned that I was able to purchase (via auction) one of the HUGE Incredible Hulk statues you may have seen in major movie theaters. Chris McCoskey commented,
“I have been trying to get one of these for my charity (www.heroes4heroes.org) for months! I can’t believe you won. If your wife hates it and you want to donate to a good cause we would be happen to take it…then auction it for money to ship our packets to soldiers serving in harms way :-)”
I responded that I might be able to get a second one (they cost around $3100) and that I would be willing to ‘donate’ a third of the cost if we could find two other people willing to contribute. I asked Chris to tell me more about his organization and he responded via email,
Heroes4Heroes is an organization I started that sends portable entertainment media to our troops stationed overseas. For the most part we have been sending comic books and DVD’s, but we have sent books and video games too. This year we have shipped over 2,000 packets and we plan on doing another big shipment soon. We put on a live art show every year as our main fundraiser. Check out the website www.heroes4heroes.org for some of the great pictures from soldiers who have gotten our packets, see Gen. Petraeus’s executive staff delivering our packets and even read a letter Gen. Petraeus sent us. I would love your help with the Hulk statue.
Chris is a good guy so I contacted the PR rep I worked with at Marvel to get the original statue and have asked him if he could get Marvel to contribute of the statues (only 200 were made). In the meantime I was hoping I could find a couple of you with deep pockets to agree to go in on simply buying on outright (for the $3100 price). I am in for $1000 so all I need is two of you to contribute the same. What do you say? Will you help me draft the Hulk for service?
Not that it matters, but. . .
June 21, 2008
McCain is making me cringe. Not satisified with simply losing, he is working hard to commit political suicide, read more here.
Opening up drilling in US WILL reduce gasoline costs. . .
June 21, 2008
Bill O’Reilly and Obama both contend that opening up drilling WON’T reduce the cost of gasoline now. I disagree. Ironically, both O’Reilly and Obama suggest that ’speculators’ are driving the cost of oil up. If you believe that this is true (and I do) by simply SAYING you are going to increase the amount of oil on the market you will cut the legs out form underneath the speculators (i.e. before the oil hits the market). If we can get the future ’scarcity’ out of the price of gasoline we will lower the price between .25-.50 per gallon right now.
Iran: “screw you, we want the bomb!”
June 20, 2008
President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad announced Iran won the most recent nuclear standoff with the West, suggesting that the West backed down and Iran won. Rejecting an offer from Britain, China, France, Germany, Russia and the US Ahmadinejad said, “In the nuclear issue, the bullying powers have used up all their capabilities but could not break the will of the Iranian nation.” Iran suggests, “Iran will never submit to such an illegal act [suspension of their nuclear program].”
Programming Note: I am only writing about politicis on Fridays. So if you don’t like my political posts, tune out on Friday. Of course I may break my promise…
Obama breaks first major promise. . .
June 20, 2008
Our prayers may have been answered yesterday. Obama, who had previously promised to utilize public funds for his presidential campaign, has changed his mind and decided not to be covered by the rules and regulations that govern publicly financed campaigns. Obama will be the first presidential candidate since Nixon to forgo the limits and rules that accompany public campaign funding reform.
Obama now suggests, “the public financing of presidential elections as it exists today is broken, and we face opponents who’ve become masters at gaming this broken system.” Obama would have us believe that the system broke sometime in March, the last time he publicly promised to use public funds and be bound by the rules and regulations their use entails.
Why is this good news? The good news for Americans is that our next president is looking a lot more like a run-of-the-mill politician. He doesn’t necessarily believe all of the things he is saying. He likely won’t follow the energy policy that he has promoted on the campaign trail (clean coal), and will instead take more money from Excelon to support development of more nuclear power plants. So just as Bill Clinton wasn’t as bad as we feared, I suspect Obama won’t be the crazy left-wing liberal he claims to be. Just a middle of the road sell-out like McCain and the rest of the lot in Washington. Do I sound too bitter?
Programming Note: I am only writing about politicis on Fridays. So if you don’t like my political posts, tune out on Friday. Of course I may break my promise…
Texas Startup Blog is one of the top Clean Coal Blogs!
June 20, 2008
According to Kevin Grandia of the Coal is Dirty blog, the Texas Startup Blog is the No. 27th best blog critical of clean coal! I think I have mentioned clean coal two or three times so this statistic worries me. Am I really one of only 75 bloggers talking about this clean coal madness? Wow, I really am in the wilderness by myself. I am not really ‘against’ clean coal, instead I think it is a horrible technology to base an energy policy on. Obama’s laser focus on clean coal as the answer to our energy needs is simply crazy.
Programming Note: I am only writing about politicis on Fridays. So if you don’t like my political posts, tune out on Friday. Of course I may break my promise…
Marriage in America? What is it?
June 13, 2008
Pardon my various political posts, but on Fridays I like to take a break from the startup world and turn my attention to politics. Earlier today I wrote about Global Warming and now I want to talk about marriage.
At the end of the day I don’t really care who lives together and what they do as long as they aren’t hurting anyone or breaking the law. The latest dust-up in California over gay marriage is all the talk of the political airwaves, but I say ‘who cares, let homosexuals get married.’ But I believe that once we expand the definition beyond the traditional ‘man+woman’ definition, we need to accept that some marriages include ‘man+woman+woman+woman’. Polygamy has been practiced around the world for thousands of years and is far more accepted than homosexual marriage.
Opponents of homosexual marriage have suggested that such marriages that cannot result in procreation and as a result the state should not sanction them. I agree that the state has a clear interest in the procreation of additional taxpayers. Historically, the state has offered incentives to men and women to marry to meet the states goal. Of course some people would marry and fail to have children and the state’s objective wouldn’t be met, despite the incentive being provided. I simply think the incentives need to be changed. The state should creative incentives for having children in two parent (or more) households. The marital status of the parents should not be a factor.
In my opinion we should stop opposing non-traditional marriage, instead we should simply accept that they are a reality and sanction all types of marriage between consenting adults.
Global Warming? Fact or Fiction? Does it matter anymore?
June 13, 2008
I would argue that it doesn’t really matter whether or not CO2 emissions are warming our planet. Many former global warming proponents, in the face of 10 year cooling cycle, have changed their tune suggesting CO2 emissions are creating global climate change. But, again, I don’t think it matters. My point is that the stuff that creates CO2 (oil, natural gas and coal) is getting more and more expensive and it might make sense to take drastic and immediate action to replace as much fossil fuel demand as possible by building non-CO2 emitting power generation technology that is fully capable of creating massive amounts of energy today (no further study needed). No, I am not talking about magic; I am talking about nuclear energy.
I feel like a guy alone in the wilderness, the answer is so obvious, we need a Roosevelt-style program of massive public works creation of nuclear power plants. The mere statement of intent would drive gas prices down at least a quarter. Of course, if we wanted to get real crazy we could allow drilling in Colorado, Alaska and in the continental shelf. Anyway, Obama isn’t interested in nuclear energy, he wants to burn more coal (he calls it clean coal, I don’t care if you call it ‘magic coal’ it still generates 40% of the CO2 emissions we generate as a country).
Of course, I don’t like the science or the politics behind Global Warming any more than John Coleman does, but I think spending ANY more time arguing about it stupid. I think we can all FINALLY agree that reducing our dependence on fossil fuels is an imperative. I will let John Coleman continue to argue about Global Warming (I happen to agree with him, but don’t see the upside in winning the argument):
Global Warming and the Price of a Gallon of Gas
You may want to give credit where credit is due to Al Gore and his global warming campaign the next time you fill your car with gasoline, because there is a direct connection between Global Warming and four dollar a gallon gas. It is shocking, but true, to learn that the entire Global Warming frenzy is based on the environmentalist’s attack on fossil fuels, particularly gasoline. All this big time science, international meetings, thick research papers, dire threats for the future; all of it, comes down to their claim that the carbon dioxide in the exhaust from your car and in the smoke stacks from our power plants is destroying the climate of planet Earth. What an amazing fraud; what a scam.
The future of our civilization lies in the balance. That’s the battle cry of the High Priest of Global Warming Al Gore and his fellow, agenda driven disciples as they predict a calamitous outcome from anthropogenic global warming. According to Mr. Gore the polar ice caps will collapse and melt and sea levels will rise 20 feet inundating the coastal cities making 100 million of us refugees. Vice President Gore tells us numerous Pacific islands will be totally submerged and uninhabitable. He tells us global warming will disrupt the circulation of the ocean waters, dramatically changing climates, throwing the world food supply into chaos. He tells us global warming will turn hurricanes into super storms, produce droughts, wipe out the polar bears and result in bleaching of coral reefs. He tells us tropical diseases will spread to mid latitudes and heat waves will kill tens of thousands. He preaches to us that we must change our lives and eliminate fossil fuels or face the dire consequences. The future of our civilization is in the balance.
With a preacher’s zeal, Mr. Gore sets out to strike terror into us and our children and make us feel we are all complicit in the potential demise of the planet.
Here is my rebuttal. There is no significant man made global warming. There has not been any in the past, there is none now and there is no reason to fear any in the future. The climate of Earth is changing. It has always changed. But mankind’s activities have not overwhelmed or significantly modified the natural forces. Through all history, Earth has shifted between two basic climate regimes: ice ages and what paleoclimatologists call “Interglacial periods”. For the past 10 thousand years the Earth has been in an interglacial period. That might well be called nature’s global warming because what happens during an interglacial period is the Earth warms up, the glaciers melt and life flourishes. Clearly from our point of view, an interglacial period is greatly preferred to the deadly rigors of an ice age. Mr. Gore and his crowd would have us believe that the activities of man have overwhelmed nature during this interglacial period and are producing an unprecedented, out of control warming.
Well, it is simply not happening. Worldwide there was a significant natural warming trend in the 1980’s and 1990’s as a Solar cycle peaked with lots of sunspots and solar flares. That ended in 1998 and now the Sun has gone quiet with fewer and fewer Sun spots, and the global temperatures have gone into decline. Earth has cooled for almost ten straight years. So, I ask Al Gore, where’s the global warming?
The cooling trend is so strong that recently the head of the United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change had to acknowledge it. He speculated that nature has temporarily overwhelmed mankind’s warming and it may be ten years or so before the warming returns. Oh, really. We are supposed to be in a panic about man-made global warming and the whole thing takes a ten year break because of the lack of Sun spots. If this weren’t so serious, it would be laughable.
Now allow me to talk a little about the science behind the global warming frenzy. I have dug through thousands of pages of research papers, including the voluminous documents published by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. I have worked my way through complicated math and complex theories. Here’s the bottom line: the entire global warming scientific case is based on the increase in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere from the use of fossil fuels. They don’t have any other issue. Carbon Dioxide, that’s it.
Hello Al Gore; Hello UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
Your science is flawed; your hypothesis is wrong; your data is manipulated. And, may I add, your scare tactics are deplorable. The Earth does not have a fever. Carbon dioxide does not cause significant global warming. The focus on atmospheric carbon dioxide grew out a study by Roger Revelle who was an esteemed scientist at the Scripps Oceanographic Institute. He took his research with him when he moved to Harvard and allowed his students to help him process the data for his paper. One of those students was Al Gore. That is where Gore got caught up in this global warming frenzy. Revelle’s paper linked the increases in carbon dioxide, CO2, in the atmosphere with warming. It labeled CO2 as a greenhouse gas.
Charles Keeling, another researcher at the Scripps Oceanographic Institute, set up a system to make continuous CO2 measurements. His graph of these increases has now become known as the Keeling Curve. When Charles Keeling died in 2005, his son David, also at Scripps, took over the measurements. Here is what the Keeling curve shows: an increase in CO2 from 315 parts per million in 1958 to 385 parts per million today, an increase of 70 parts per million or about 20 percent.
All the computer models, all of the other findings, all of the other angles of study, all come back to and are based on CO2 as a significant greenhouse gas. It is not.
Here is the deal about CO2, carbon dioxide. It is a natural component of our atmosphere.It has been there since time began. It is absorbed and emitted by the oceans. It is used by every living plant to trigger photosynthesis. Nothing would be green without it. And we humans; we create it. Every time we breathe out, we emit carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. It is not a pollutant. It is not smog. It is a naturally occurring invisible gas.
Let me illustrate. I estimate that this square in front of my face contains 100,000 molecules of atmosphere. Of those 100,000 only 38 are CO2; 38 out of a hundred thousand. That makes it a trace component. Let me ask a key question: how can this tiny trace upset the entire balance of the climate of Earth? It can’t. That’s all there is to it; it can’t.
The UN IPCC has attracted billions of dollars for the research to try to make the case that CO2 is the culprit of run-away, man-made global warming. The scientists have come up with very complex creative theories and done elaborate calculations and run computer models they say prove those theories. They present us with a concept they call radiative forcing. The research organizations and scientists who are making a career out of this theory, keep cranking out the research papers. Then the IPCC puts on big conferences at exotic places, such as the recent conference in Bali. The scientists endorse each other’s papers, they are summarized and voted on, and viola, we are told global warming is going to kill us all unless we stop burning fossil fuels.
May I stop here for a few historical notes? First, the internal combustion engine and gasoline were awful polluters when they were first invented. And, both gasoline and automobile engines continued to leave a layer of smog behind right up through the 1960’s. Then science and engineering came to the environmental rescue. Better exhaust and ignition systems, catalytic converters, fuel injectors, better engineering throughout the engine and reformulated gasoline have all contributed to a huge reduction in the exhaust emissions from today’s cars. Their goal then was to only exhaust carbon dioxide and water vapor, two gases widely accepted as natural and totally harmless. Anyone old enough to remember the pall of smog that used to hang over all our cities knows how much improvement there has been. So the environmentalists, in their battle against fossil fuels and automobiles had a very good point forty years ago, but now they have to focus almost entirely on the once harmless carbon dioxide. And, that is the rub. Carbon dioxide is not an environmental problem; they just want you now to think it is.
Numerous independent research projects have been done about the greenhouse impact from increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide. These studies have proven to my total satisfaction that CO2 is not creating a major greenhouse effect and is not causing an increase in temperatures. By the way, before his death, Roger Revelle coauthored a paper cautioning that CO2 and its greenhouse effect did not warrant extreme countermeasures.
So now it has come down to an intense campaign, orchestrated by environmentalists claiming that the burning of fossil fuels dooms the planet to run-away global warming. Ladies and Gentlemen, that is a myth.
So how has the entire global warming frenzy with all its predictions of dire consequences, become so widely believed, accepted and regarded as a real threat to planet Earth? That is the most amazing part of the story.
To start with global warming has the backing of the United Nations, a major world force. Second, it has the backing of a former Vice President and very popular political figure. Third it has the endorsement of Hollywood, and that’s enough for millions. And, fourth, the environmentalists love global warming. It is their tool to combat fossil fuels. So with the environmentalists, the UN, Gore and Hollywood touting Global Warming and predictions of doom and gloom, the media has scrambled with excitement to climb aboard. After all the media loves a crisis. From YK2 to killer bees the media just loves to tell us our lives are threatened. And the media is biased toward liberal, so it’s pre-programmed to support Al Gore and UN. CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN, MSNBC, The New York Times, The LA Times, The Washington Post, the Associated Press and here in San Diego The Union Tribune are all constantly promoting the global warming crisis.
So who is going to go against all of that power? Not the politicians. So now the President of the United States, just about every Governor, most Senators and most Congress people, both of the major current candidates for President, most other elected officials on all levels of government are all riding the Al Gore Global Warming express.
I suspect you haven’t heard it because the mass media did not report it, but I am not alone on the no man-made warming side of this issue. On May 20th, a list of the names of over thirty-one thousand scientists who refute global warming was released. Thirty-one thousand of which 9,000 are Ph.ds. Think about that. Thirty-one thousand. That dwarfs the supposed 2,500 scientists on the UN panel. In the past year, five hundred of scientists have issued public statements challenging global warming. A few more join the chorus every week. There are about 100 defectors from the UN IPCC. There was an International Conference of Climate Change Skeptics in New York in March of this year. One hundred of us gave presentations. Attendance was limited to six hundred people. Every seat was taken. There are a half dozen excellent internet sites that debunk global warming. And, thank goodness for KUSI and Michael McKinnon, its owner. He allows me to post my comments on global warming on the website KUSI.com. Following the publicity of my position form Fox News, Glen Beck on CNN, Rush Limbaugh and a host of other interviews, thousands of people come to the website and read my comments. I get hundreds of supportive emails from them. No I am not alone and the debate is not over.
In my remarks in New York I speculated that perhaps we should sue Al Gore for fraud because of his carbon credits trading scheme. That remark has caused a stir in the fringe media and on the internet. The concept is that if the media won’t give us a hearing and the other side will not debate us, perhaps we could use a Court of law to present our papers and our research and if the Judge is unbiased and understands science, we win. The media couldn’t ignore that. That idea has become the basis for legal research by notable attorneys and discussion among global warming debunkers, but it’s a long way from the Court room.
I am very serious about this issue. I think stamping out the global warming scam is vital to saving our wonderful way of life. The battle against fossil fuels has controlled policy in this country for decades. It was the environmentalist’s prime force in blocking any drilling for oil in this country and the blocking the building of any new refineries, as well. So now the shortage they created has sent gasoline prices soaring. And, it has lead to the folly of ethanol, which is also partly behind the fuel price increases; that and our restricted oil policy. The ethanol folly is also creating a food crisis throughput the world – it is behind the food price rises for all the grains, for cereals, bread, everything that relies on corn or soy or wheat, including animals that are fed corn, most processed foods that use corn oil or soybean oil or corn syrup. Food shortages or high costs have led to food riots in some third world countries and made the cost of eating out or at home budget busting for many.
So now the global warming myth actually has lead to the chaos we are now enduring with energy and food prices. We pay for it every time we fill our gas tanks. Not only is it running up gasoline prices, it has changed government policy impacting our taxes, our utility bills and the entire focus of government funding. And, now the Congress is considering a cap and trade carbon credits policy. We the citizens will pay for that, too. It all ends up in our taxes and the price of goods and services.
So the Global warming frenzy is, indeed, threatening our civilization. Not because global warming is real; it is not. But because of the all the horrible side effects of the global warming scam.
I love this civilization. I want to do my part to protect it. If Al Gore and his global warming scare dictates the future policy of our governments, the current economic downturn could indeed become a recession, drift into a depression and our modern civilization could fall into an abyss. And it would largely be a direct result of the global warming frenzy.
My mission, in what is left of a long and exciting lifetime, is to stamp out this Global Warming silliness and let all of us get on with enjoying our lives and loving our planet, Earth.
What to do about lack of investment in exploration? refining?
June 9, 2008
The Democrats are frustrated the oil companies are generating ‘too much’ profit. Obama says that ‘once’ he is elected he would impose a windfall profits tax on US oil companies. I don’t think taxes are the answer, but I am willing to support a ‘windfall’ profits tax on one condition: oil companies should be able to avoid this ‘windfall’ tax by reinvesting the profits that are considered ‘too much’ in one of the following areas:
- Oil or natural gas exploration within the United States.
- Refining capacity within the United States.
Whatever amount Obama feels is too much, simply give the oil companies the ability to reinvest it to avoid the tax. BP CEO, Tony Hayward, is suggesting that the industry as a whole hasn’t invested enough in production capacity. The past 25 years of LOW prices have caused producers to pull back investment. Don’t worry, though, $150 oil will get a lot of people back in the game. I don’t mind a little incentive. So go for it Obama, stick it to them, but give them a way to make it right - a way to generate more profits in the years to come.
Energy Policy in General
Brad and I have been talking about our energy policy and looking at the energy policies of both McCain and Obama. McCain’s policy is irrelevant because he doesn’t have a chance in hell of getting elected so I will focus on Obama. So how does Obama seek to resolve our energy crisis? His answer is ‘clean coal’. I think the marketing guy that invented the term ‘death tax’ came up with the phrase ‘clean coal’. What is clean about coal? NOTHING! Dirty or clean, generating electricity for our cities with coal generates 40% of the U.S.’ CO2 emissions and if we are to believe Gore, we need to reduce CO2 soon or we are done for. Clean coal is 35% more expensive than standard coal and won’t be ready for broad adoption for ten years (after his term in office is complete). Obama needs to drop the whole ‘clean coal’ thing because:
- We currently burn 20 pounds of coal per person in the US and 24,000 people die each year from coal-fired plants in the US.
- Burning coal emits mercury and is causing learning disabilities, attention deficit disorder, problems with coordination, lowered IQ and even mental retardation.
- Burning coal contributes 40% of all US CO2 emissions. Coal emits 1.7 times as much carbon per unit of energy than natural gas or oil.
- Buring coal requires up-to 260 million gallons of water each day.
- The DoE has spent millions on ‘clean coal’ research and is asking for $648MM for ‘clean coal’ for 2009.
The Merritt Muse Energy Proposal
I have a long history of putting my plans in writing. The energy debate seems like a perfect place to spend a little time. Brad and I have a proposal that I believe has some merit and makes some sense. It took us about 10 minutes to draft it, but I think it resolves a number of our problems including:
- Reliance on foreign oil.
- Excessively high energy prices.
- Unnecessary pollution and CO2 emissions.
Here is our first draft:
- Promote the development of a nationwide nuclear energy program on the scale of France and China. Pass legislation that will make it difficult or impossible for lawyers to delay efforts to build safe and effective nuclear energy facility throughout the country. Nationalize program if necessary, but do what it takes to replace 25%+ of coal fired plants with clean energy by 2020.
- Promote low impact exploration of wilderness areas and near-shore oil and natural gas reserves.
- Promote the development of oil refining capacity. Pass legislation that will make it difficult for lawyers to delay the construction of refineries. Use tax breaks or other incentives to promote this development. Increase our current refining capacity 25% by 2020.
- Eliminate all ethanol subsidies and abandon ethanol as an alternative to oil. Pound for pound ethanol produces more CO2 and its use has the negative downside of increasing food prices and availability. Ethanol sucks.
- Get the EPA out of the car business. Let auto makers decide what cars should be built, let the government focus promoting the creation of clean and inexpensive energy such as nuclear production.
- Stop federal funding clean coal as it is only delaying adoption of clean energy options like nuclear energy, wind energy, hydro-energy and so on. Clean coal is better than dirty coal, but we ALREADY have a cleaner alternative that is less expensive and produces almost no CO2 emissions.
Look for our formal proposal in the next few days as we talk to our advisors and hear from the various lobbyist that should be posting comments (i.e. ADM).
Wintly Phipps contrasted with Jeremiah Wright
June 5, 2008
I linked to Wintly Phipps history of Amazing Grace earlier today and it got me thinking. Watch Wintly Phipps’ message and then take a minute to watch Jeremiah Wright. Who is more effective? Phipps message of love and unity or Wright’s message of hate and separation? Phipps creates a dialog that can bring people of all colors together, while Wright’s message can only create division. There is no hope with Wright’s message, Phipps message is one of hope, a hope that in God all things are possible. I don’t want to be led by someone who has spent their entire adult life hearing a drum beat of hate each Sunday, do you?
Iran going sue us for defamation?
June 5, 2008
According to the AP Iran is threating to sue countries that it said have damaged its reputation. Um, you might want to get rid of this guy first:
Isn’t he the guy who a) insists the holocaust didn’t happen and b) that he will destroy Israel? I don’t think you can sue anyone when you employ a guy who seems crazier than that guy in North Korea.
McCain Clinton 2008: The only way the GOP can win
June 4, 2008
I have tried to find a way to support everyone’s favorite candidate, Barak Obama, but I just can’t stomach voting for him. I assume it isn’t important why, but once I finally accepted this fact I starting to think about how McCain could beat Obama. Anyway I slice it McCain can’t win. The way I figure it McCain would be a better Democrat than he is a Republican and that got me thinking. What if McCain asked Hillary to join his ticket as VP? Could she refuse a bipartisan offer like that (especially when she thought about the chances of filling an unexpired term)? I suspect she would take one look at an actuarial table and accept on the spot.
With Hillary on the ticket I think McCain would be unstoppable. He could focus on whatever left-leaning programs he was interested in, while Hillary quietly waited for her chance. If by some chance Hillary had to take over for McCain we would only stuck with her for a year or two and frankly she is far more conservative than Obama.
As a member of the GOP without a viable candidate this is the only solution I can see to ensure that Obama loses. McCain doesn’t support my values anyway, so adding a democrat to the ticket couldn’t hurt a bit. Who knows, maybe together they will be able to do something great for our country. I worry about even one term with Obama in the White House. Remember his tax plan? Here are the details as reported by the WSJ:
39.6 percent personal income tax,
52.2 percent combined income and payroll tax
28 percent capital-gains tax,
39.6 percent dividends tax,
and a 55 percent estate tax.
If Obama gets his way I WILL change my behavior. My businesses WILL change their behavior. I am afraid that his tax policy will not only cost me more money on its face (something I could get over), but that it will severely impact the macro economy. Lawrence Kudlow explains,
A President Obama would steer us in the social-market direction of Western Europe, which has produced only stagnant economies down through the years. It would be quite an irony. While newly emerging nations in Eastern Europe and Asia are lowering the tax penalties on capital — and reaping the economic rewards — Obama would raise them.
So give McCain a call or send him an email. Tell him to pick Clinton as his running mate if you don’t want to see capital gains go to 28%…
Search
-
Startup Jobs
-
Recent Network Posts
-
Interview with Matt Dunbar of the Upstate Carolina Angel Network
From South Carolina Startup Blog -
Calling all NC Start-Ups!
From North Carolina Startup Blog -
Drew Curtis, Fark and a curry recipe database Part 1
From Kentucky Startup Blog -
Can you hand me the business section?
From North Carolina Startup Blog -
New Economy Survey
From Kentucky Startup Blog -
Interview with Evan Tishuk of OrangeCoat
From South Carolina Startup Blog -
Young Entrepreneurs of Lexington
From Kentucky Startup Blog -
Welcome to the Washington Startup Blog
From Washington Startup Blog -
Welcome to the Alabama Startup Blog
From Alabama Startup Blog -
RouteSmith acquired by Runzheimer International
From Colorado Startups
-
Interview with Matt Dunbar of the Upstate Carolina Angel Network
Advertisement
