I would've written this...

if I had any real writing skills. This is an amazing article (speech?) by Michael Crichton that solidly hits the nail on the head about the negative influence that politics and public policy are having on science.

It's a long read but well worth it....... Aliens Cause Global Warming

Fiddle, Fiddle, Fiddle

How are US politicians like Nero?? They love to fiddle. It's no surprise that they're considering fiddling with something that will undoubtedly bring the wrath of LUC*.

In an article from thehill.com today, the House Republican leadership is taking jabs at the Democrat majority and calling them out on a promise they made in the 2006 mid-term elections. This promise was that the Dems had a plan to bring down the price of gas. (fiddle fiddle fiddle)

Back in 2006 during the run up to the elections Nancy Pelosi said "Democrats have a commonsense plan to help bring down skyrocketing gas prices by cracking down on price gouging, rolling back the billions of dollars in taxpayer subsidies, tax breaks and royalty relief given to big oil and gas companies, and increasing production of alternative fuels.” (fiddle fiddle fiddle)

Generally I enjoy watching politicians from each party take jabs at eachother. Some of these folks can be pretty funny with their one-liners, sound bites and ridiculous overstatements. It usually means they're too busy playing this game to go about figuring out how to insert more government into our lives. But poking the bear this time may be bad for us all.

Reading Speaker Pelosi's comments sends a chill down my spine. I'm no economist, but I'll attempt to use common sense to break down the segments of their plan.

- Price Gouging: Ok, gouging is bad. But how will they define gouging? Is it simply the gas station owner that doubles the price of gas in a disaster area? How does this apply when the cost of the barrel of oil is going up and gas prices rise accordingly? They couldn't be just trying to appeal to a base instinct that we're all possibly getting screwed by the evil oil companies, could they? fiddle fiddle fiddle

- Tax Breaks/Subsidies/Royalty Relief for Oil Companies: Once again, I'm no economist, but if you take away these things from the oil companies, won't that increase their cost of doing business and then be reflected in the price at the pump? I believe that all of those incentives, given by our very same government years ago, was to help keep the cost of gas unnaturally low. So a long time ago our government fiddled with economic factors and now think that by taking away those they'll be helping? While I wholeheartedly agree that those things should never have been put in place to begin with, to think that taking them away will save me money when I buy gasoline is worse than naive. Do the Dems really think that the oil companies will just dip into profits to make up the difference? fiddle fiddle fiddle

- Alternative Fuels - well, we see whats happening with that grand plan. Now we're running up the price of food. As I wrote in my "Just Chill" post a few days ago, the rush to alternatives fuels has had an effect on the availability and price of food on a global scale. Should we be looking at alternatives to fossil fuels, absolutely, but in the rush to score political points - LUC* wins. fiddle fiddle fiddle

I'd like to make one additional point about those big ol' evil oil companies and their profits. What many don't consider is that gone are the days where these companies were owned by a single person or family who reap the rewards of huge profits. These companies are owned by stockholders and a large chunk of their stock sits in funds managed by pensions, 401(k), and other retirement plans. Basically, these companies are owned by a large number of Americans. It's these people who reap the rewards, whose investment or retirement portfolios grow, and who will be able to retire just a little more comfortably or send their kids to college because they've had big evil oil in their holdings. Damn those evil oil companies for making money in a capitalist society.

It's also these evil corporations that are doing the most research into replacing their cash cow of fossil fuels. If you pay attention to commercials produced by BP, Exxon, et al you'll see they are starting to refer to themselves as energy companies. This is a signal that they see the fossil fuels business as one that will transform into an alternative energy business, whether it's hydrogen, ethanol, or whatever else those really smart folks in the lab can come up with. It's in their best interest to be the ones that come up with the solution.

I recently had a conversation with someone that held the belief that big oil was keeping secret an alternative. Besides being a little too conspiracy bound, it defies some of the basic tenets of capitalism. These companies want to be the first on the block to deliver a better, cheaper product. My belief is, that much like biofuels, it's just not been cost effective yet. When the breakthrough happens where prices/costs are in line with consumer expectations - then you'll see the new energy sources come to the forefront. Are they keeping something secret. Absolutely. But it's not a part of a conspiracy, it's called keeping a trade secret. Should they announce and publish work that is promising so that everyone can do it? No. Not just no. Hell No. They are in business to make money and giving away trade secrets would be bad for their business.

But none of these breakthroughs will come from the folks inside the beltway and no matter how much they practice the violin, it will always just be fiddle fiddle fiddle.

* LUC: Law of Unintended Consequences

Happy Earth Day

Seriously. Happy Earth Day. It used to be called Arbor Day and you'd go out and plant a tree and get all naturey. Earth Day came into vogue in 1970 and has become a day to recognize that governments and evil industrial tycoons are trying to rape the earth for their own gains. All right, that may be a bit of an overstatement.

Interestingly enough though, I came across this interview with Al Gore in the The Sun. Strangely the interview was conducted by the Consumer Affairs Correspondent, which seems to be either an insult to Mr Gore, a sign that his star power is fading, or Consumer Affairs doesn't mean the same thing in the UK as it does here. Based on the fluffiness of the interview though I don't think option 3 is the one. But that's not why the interview was interesting.

First is his acknowledgment that the regular everyday population have much bigger things to worry about. Sure they're concerned about the environment, but they have other concerns that take higher priority like food, shelter, safety, et al. Apparently Uncle Al has run nose first into the wall marked Mazlow's Hierarchy of Needs.

Of course, he throws out more scare tactics (the polar ice caps will be gone in 5 years - then where will you get ice for your scotch???) and blames the US for not taking the lead in destroying economies to potentially save the earth...uh, if we're right.

Next he shucks and jives at questions about his Hollywood jet-setting friends being really bad at the whole carbon footprint thing. Which of course he wouldn't go out on the limb and say they should cut that crap out - they are, after all rich and can he really likes being a Hollywood guy.

In contrast, he sluffs off the only real hard question in the interview. That question is related to the fact that with the credit crises and economic woes that the average person is more interested in saving their own financial butt. To which he says that we should still spend extra money being green because it's a long term investment that will pay off over time.

So it's ok for his hollywood friends to take private jets all over the world, live in big mansions with huge energy needs and a giant carbon footprint - but we peons should sacrifice to save the planet?

He then moves on to the Blame America First mantra with this line:

" The US has failed to live up to the Kyoto Protocol to reduce carbon emissions."

So I went out to Wikipedia and checked out what they had on the Kyoto Protocol. It's interesting. I will paraphrase.......

In July 1997, before it was finalized, the US Senate voted NOT to be a signatory without additional stipulations such as including provisions for developing and already industrialized nations. (In fact, China is not obligated to reduce or maintain any kind of Co2 levels, they just have to report on what they're tossing into the sky. And being such an open society I can't imagine they'd fudge the numbers a bit. China is about to pass the US as the largest carbon emitter in the world.)

So, the US Senate said not to sign it. And Al Gore (then VP) signed it anyway. Mr Gore at the time said the US should not ratify it until such time as those conditions set forth by the Senate were included. From what I've read, those provisions still haven't been met.

The Clinton Administration (of which Al was second in command) never submitted the protocol to the Senate to be ratified. His own administration did nothing with it.

The Bush Administration is of the same opinion as the Clinton Admin and has not (will not) submit to the protocol.

But Big Al has no problem blaming Mr Bush.

In fact, Mr Gore believes that bigger and more government is what is needed to force society to go green. Yes, thats what we need. Because Government has a long history of solving problems successfully.

I'm just happy he didn't win in 2000.

So, Happy Earth Day/Arbor Day. Enjoy the bounty that is Mother Earth and don't let the politicians ruin your fun.

Just chill - a diatribe on Global Warming

Global warming is obviously in the news quite a bit and once again, the Law of Unintended Consequences is responding in force.

It's terribly unfortunate that such an important topic has been ripped out of the hands of scientists and been usurped by politicians. As soon as that happened debate was squashed, common sense went out the window, and even bigger - possibly global - government is being discussed. The UN wants to start taxing the world for CO2 emissions.

Former VP Gore has made it his mission to try and be the leading advocate of the end of world predictions and has only succeeded in further raising the white noise with his doom and gloom slideshow. But that slideshow, and his movie, has been show to be full of errors and assumptions that no scientist would have the stones to claim as pure fact. He is, as a politician, trying to sway the world to his point of view and will discount anything that offers a counterpoint. This is what politicians do. I applaud him for his passion and fervor - but an issue that has such global effects - whether it's the warming itself or the unsustainable costs associated with his solution - really deserve further study by the scientific community without any political interference or sway. Otherwise it's not science and we get shortchanged and coerced into a solutions that may not be right.

I'm not implying that Mr Gore (or any of the Global Warming advocates) is evil - I do believe that he is all worked up because he truly believes in his quest. I do believe that his personal investment in this cause, and his background in politics and how to get things done in that realm, is what drives his overstatements and efforts. And he's been successful in furthering his position.

My position on this is that we should be much better stewards of the earth. Reducing pollution, properly overseeing the reasonable use of our natural resources, and finding alternatives to our use of fossil fuels should be the tasks laid before us. We shouldn't be destroying economies in the chase to solve an issue that is badly misrepresented by the politicians and has no guarantee of success. The fact that reports are now coming out that the global temperature has stabilized since 1997 shows that we just don't know enough. My personal opinion is that 10 years is not enough to prove or disprove anything - and neither is 30 years - nor 100 years. Thirty years ago these same "Climate Change" folks were talking about an upcoming Ice Age - 15 years later it turned to Warming. How can we possibly think we know enough to make such potentially devastating solutions as spelled out by the Mr Gore or the UN IPCC.

In his books and lectures, Bjorn Lomborg talks extensively about man-made global warming but also discusses a less fanatical and rhetorical response. Common sense solutions to solving problems and the expectation that innovation will be the answer is a foundation of his arguments. He's not a global warming denier - he does disagree with the solutions proposed by the politicians. The doom and gloomers always seem to account for increases in population and pollution but leave out other factors such as reduced emissions and other technological innovations that change the equation dramatically. He gave a talk at Google as part of their Authors at Google series. It's worth a viewing.

So how does any/all of this apply to my first law of politics? Well, if you've been paying attention to the news lately you'll see that food prices are increasing and it's being tied to the increased use of food for fuel. The Law of Unintended Consequences knows no mercy……..suddenly, now that ethanol is becoming popular the price of corn goes up, thereby making the production of ethanol no longer cost effective. The old “if gas goes to $3 it’ll make sense” axiom is no longer valid since it assumed corn prices would stay stable……and who wants to base their energy policy on something that is completely out of their control…..a couple of years of drought/floods/etc, which we have NO control over, would cause much greater problems than oil “shortages”…which are really refining shortages. Not to mention, if we’re going to do ethanol we should be doing it with sugar cane. The fermentation process that produces ethanol is all about the natural sugars and, well, sugar cane by its very nature should produce more ethanol per acre than corn would. But once again, relying on the mercy of mother nature to not screw with crop production (and by extension our energy sources) is a really bad idea.

And now the cost of FOOD is going up because the demand for a base product (corn) is rising. The ripple effect (increases in prices for meat and other corn based products) will cause a demand that our government do something about it as the poor can no longer afford to eat the basics. More food stamps. More taxpayer funded subsidies to corn producers/distributors to attempt to drive the price down (a bad idea to set this precedent but a quick fix that’ll score politicians points). They’ll fiddle with the commodities/futures market which will only delay a real solution and make the problem nearly unfixable in the future. Once again, treating a symptom instead of finding a cure. What the government needs to do is review the farm subsidies they already hand out for NOT growing crops and eliminate them. Because of US Agricultural production being greater than the global need for that product, the US Government has been paying farmers to not farm as much as they can…this was their first (and continuing) effort at fiddling with the market so the price of a bushel of something doesn’t get so low that no one can afford to be a farmer. Now we don’t have enough production (because those subsidies are still there) and to properly fix this it’ll take a couple of growing seasons…..but no one wants to wait for that. If I’m a farmer and have the choice of getting guaranteed money to not farm all of my land or I can farm it and hope that nothing bad will happen (drought, insects, etc) and that the price will be right come harvest time…..I’d take the guaranteed money…..thus keeping prices up and we all take it in the shorts at the gas pumps and the grocery stores.

http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/080403/corn_at_6.html?.v=6

It didn’t take long for the UN to start blaming the US……of course, 6 months ago the US was being vilified for not doing enough environmentally………

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/main.jhtml?xml=/money/2008/04/14/ccview114.xml

(Of course, I could get into an entirely new rant on the UN, it's corruption, it's impotence, and it's obvious distaste for the US - but I'll save that for another day and attempt to stay focused.)

I recently heard a statistic (although I don't recall the source so this may be wrong) that the US has somewhere around 1000 years of oil within it's reach. But we can't get to it because of the success the environmentalists are having in the political world. It seems to me that reducing our dependence on foreign oil sources and having the economic boost that the oil industry would bring to OUR SHORES in the form of jobs, oil exports, and reducing the price at the pump would be worth a few thousand acres of land to get to it. Not to mention, using Mr Lomborgs line of thinking, we would be ever improving technology in the meantime to reduce our demand for fossil fuels. I sometimes wonder that if the environmental groups would spend more money on funding research into alternatives fuels, instead of launching yet another lobbying effort, would get us to the new solutions quicker.

So we all just need to chill out a bit - not get hysterical and jump at solutions offered by whomever shouts the loudest, and shouts down those that disagree. There is still much discussion, research, and innovation to be had.

Thanks for reading and have a great day....

This is new for me...

This is my first blog and I make no guarantees or promises about the amount or frequencies of new posts. This is more of place for me to vent and if anyone reads it, then fine, if not...that too is ok.

Most of my topics will be on the subject of our government, politics, politicians, and how all of those need to chill out and reduce their footprint in our lives. The way I see it, the majority of our problems in this country are a result of well intended politicians trying to ease a symptom while never working towards a cure. And the Law of Unintended Consequences eventually catches up to us. If Doctors worked the same way as politicians then they'd prescribe aspirin to relieve the pain of a brain tumor and hope the tumor just goes away since there's no pain.

I believe the governments that preside over our lives - Federal, State, and Local - have been consolidating power over the past 100 years and have grown beyond their ability to manage it. And they shouldn't even be doing that....they've created generations of people that expect the government to bail them out of every bump in the road regardless of who created that bump.

The perfect example is this effort to fiddle with mortgages and bailout folks that made bad decisions in the past few years and now must pay the price. I'm one of those people. I refinanced with a variable rate a few years ago and now am paying the price for having a few years of lower payments. Do I want the government to save me?? No. I'm working on a solution whether it's selling or refinancing to a fixed rate. Is it tough on my finances until that happens....yup. Should our government set a precedent that you can risk everything because there's really no risk...we'll save you? Hell No.

Will it be tough on some families - yes. absolutely. And they have my sympathies. But they also signed a contract to generally buy a house they couldn't afford. And the chickens have come home to roost. Figure out your options. Work with your lender. And do what you need to do. You took a risk and it didn't work out. Don't take money out of my pocket to bail yourself out. You might as well come steal my property to make your next payment.

Once again though, the President and candidates are all calling for government to fiddle with symptoms and not the cause. Lets bail out everyone - throw a bunch of money around that doesn't belong to them - and maybe gain votes for us/our party.

At the same time, the government (which really isn't the government - it's a private institution called the Federal Reserve - more on this in future posts) is printing and releasing cash like there's no tomorrow - further reducing the dollar's buying power and driving up the cost of pretty much everything. For those that may not have considered this - the reason a barrel of oil is continuing to reach new highs is because the dollar is worth less. It has nothing to do with production or availability or refining capacity or demand or anything else. Our dollar is weaker therefore it takes more of them to buy stuff. It's as simple as that.

Once again - the politicians are treating a symptom and not the disease.

I guess I'll stop here for now .....but there's plenty more to come.....