Politics and Our Future

Over the past two weeks, we have seen grand showmanship by two political parties, both extolling change. While I have my personal political view (known to most of my acquaintances and friends), that is not the subject of this post. Rather, this post is on the subject of what has not been addressed by either party (or inadequately addressed) that has the most impact on the future of the U.S., its future economic viability, and its standing among world communities. I believe that the following two issues are of critical importance. I present them with factual realities and the inadequacies of both party's position. In reading further, it will become obvious that the issues being discussed and the solutions being proposed by both parties are found lacking in effecting real change. It is also obvious that what is being discussed by the popular press (from the right, center, or left) fails to address root cause issues or to hold the candidates accountable for inadequate solutions. Once again, the fourth estate has failed us.

• The National Debt: Neither party appears prepared to tackle what could arguably be one of the most critical long-term issues facing the U.S. today. The National Debt (not the deficit, which is something entirely different) today stands at around $9.7 trillion and has been growing at a rate of $.5 trillion per year for the last 7 years. During that time, taxes have been reduced. Barack Obama has proposed a PAYGO system to "pay as you go," and has voted in the past to not raise the ceiling on the National Debt. However, he has not stated how he intends to REDUCE that debt. John McCain has proposed to balance the budget 2013, but has not stated when, how, or what he would do to REDUCE the debt. He also has not made a commitment to stand firm on the debt ceiling. While both candidates play to the immediate gratification of reducing taxes now (whether for the rich or middle class is irrelevant), nobody seems to be holding the candidates accountable for the real issue and how to address it sooner rather than later. In the meantime, nine cents of every dollar now goes to pay interest on the National Debt. With the war in Iraq and Afghanistan continuing to be financed with debt, and with increasing support of failing banks also being financed with debt, it is now obvious that the National Debt will top $10 trillion before whoever the winner is takes office. It should be remembered that debt, and the rate of increase in issuing additional debt instruments (whether printing money or IOUs) directly contributes to inflation (oil is not the only cause).

• Energy Reform: Both candidates have extensive platforms that will reform our energy consumption and sources and they are both to be congratulated--as far as they go. Unfortunately, neither go far enough. First, while government should not be in the role of directing private energy development, they are through continuing subsidies to the major oil companies. At the same time, the Congress has failed to pass energy tax credits for alternative energy (with the exception of ethanol production which amounts to an agricultural subsidy that has already destabilized crop prices and will continue to do so). McCain proposes the development of 45 nuclear generation plants by 2030 which means not one watt of electricity will come on line during his administration or his successor's administration. At the same time, his platform is to "Drill baby, drill," as the chant from the Republican National Convention so eloquently phrased it. Yet, if an oil company elected to begin drilling, it would take years to gain approval, more years to equip and drill, and even more years to bring successful wells (not all are) to production. Estimates range from many years to decades. Again, additional oil production from this approach will not be seen in any volume during a McCain administration. Since Obama has also supported this approach (although limited), the same holds true for his administration. Simply put, the most rapid solution would be to decrease subsidies to the oil companies and shift those subsidies to alternative energy solutions--and not just to ethanol production. While it would have a short-term increase cost to energy, it would have a long-term stabilizing effect (and possibly lead to a reduction). Yet neither candidate is willing to make this commitment.

What do you think are the real issues impacting our future? I'd like to know.

Sources:

"The Debt to the Penny and Who Holds It," TreasuryDirect, http://www.treasurydirect.gov/NP/BPDLogin?application=np

"Issues," McCain-Palin Campaign, http://www.johnmccain.com/Informing/Issues/

"Issues," Obama-Biden Campaign, http://www.barackobama.com/issues/

"Obama, McCain on the Issues," by Calvin Woodward, Associated Press, September 8, 2008, http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/W/WHERE_THEY_STAND?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2008-09-08-16-58-15

"Why Lifting the Offshore Oil Ban Won't Help Gas Prices," by Kathy Gill, Kathy's US Politics Blogg, http://uspolitics.about.com/b/2008/07/17/why-lifting-the-offshore-oil-ban-wont-help-gas-prices.htm

Google Chrome

Tomorrow, Google will release their Windows version of "Google Chrome," their entry into the browser market. Google differentiates their browser from others in a number of ways. First, the browser is fully open source (unlike Safari and IE). Second, while Chrome uses tabs like most other browsers, the tab becomes the main component, not a means to simply allow rapid, easy navigation among different Internet sites. That is, the Chrome tab becomes a fully self-contained browser activity, independent of other tabs. As Google notes, a browser crash in Chrome can only impact a specific tab, not the entire browser--tabs are independent processes.

Third, Chrome fully integrates Google Gears. No surprise here, but the degree of integration is more complete. Google gives the example that cloud applications that use Google Gears (for example Reader, Documents, Remember the Milk, and soon to come Gmail) can actually dispense with all browser controls so that the application looks like a local window.

Fourth, Chrome isolates browser activities to a level not seen (and possibly not possible) in other browsers. The result is a browser that resists malware at a much higher level than other browsers. Google has also incorporated features that can significantly reduce not only malware, but sites that spread malware and phishing sites.

Fifth, Chrome manages memory differently and implements a new virtual JavaScript engine making the browser much faster, with better memory conservation.

Chrome is will be an early beta, and the Mac OS X version will be available at a later date. However, it is worth "tasting," and hopefully some of the concepts will find rapid acceptance and incorporation into other browser versions. If nothing else, it provides an insight into how browsers--and the cloud they sit atop--will evolve in the future.

To read more about it, see the Google blog at: http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2008/09/fresh-take-on-browser.html

Also, Google has published a 38-page comic-style presentation on Chrome. You can find it at: http://books.google.com/books?id=8UsqHohwwVYC&printsec=frontcover#PPP1,M1

What Does Spam Say About Us?

I have just finished cleaning up six email addresses that I maintain for business and personal use. This included filing emails I wanted to keep for future reference (since a number of the email addresses are hosted by Google, there is plenty of room to store emails you want to keep). Once that was done, the time came for me to deal with the spam. One of the advantages of many of my email hosts is that they maintain a variety of spam filters. However, since the hosts don't want to be accused of deleting valid email, they typically (in my case each of my email hosts does so) place suspected spam in a separate folder.

This got me to thinking about who sends me spam and what they are trying to sell me. Therefore, I plan to take about a month's worth of spam and do an analysis of the content.

Stay tuned...

Energy - Time for a Real Change

Since I last posted in March, 2008, a lot has changed. The debate in a Bush press conference about whether gas would go to $4.00 a gallon was settled with Bush looking even more out of touch with real Americans than ever. Oil prices blew past $130 a barrel to peak in the high $140s. It has since dropped back somewhat, but still double what it was a year ago. Congress has responded by...doing basically nothing. They have still not passed an extension to incentives for the development and deployment of alternative energy. The President has responded the way he has for most of his life, proposing to drill more holes domestically.

It is a sad state of affairs that our two presumptive presidential candidates don't seem to realize the criticality of our energy dependence. McCain, like Bush wants to maintain the status quo and continue to drill more holes domestically. Obama talks a good game, but spends more time on global warming than he does on alternative energy, an indication that he doesn't realize they are intertwined.

Interestingly, the only sane ones talking this summer is 1) automotive manufacturers; 2) T. Boone Pickens; and 3) Al Gore. First, the major automotive manufacturers seem to understand the criticality of the situation. With Mercedes importing the Smart Car; with Toyota and Honda flooding the market with hybrids and high gas mileage compacts; with Ford making a major conversion from gas-guzzling SUVs to more fuel-efficient small cars and hybrids; and with GM going beyond Ford to develop and electric car and the infrastructure to support it, it seems that the automotive industry gets it. Hopefully it's not too late.

While I tend to disagree with most everything T. Boone Pickens has to say, I now find myself in agreement on his proposal to convert to wind energy. While he stands to make a bundle on the success of this proposal (he somehow always does), his proposal has merit. With the support of the Texas Legislature and the Texas PUC, he now has the power lines to major cities in the pipeline to make it at least a reality in Texas. Hopefully, other deep-pocket investors will follow his lead and pour money into alternative energy even if Congress is too stupid to extend incentives.

Then there is Al Gore's audacious challenge to the presidential candidates to commit the U.S. to weaning itself from oil within 10 years. The candidates haven't responded. I think it is time they did. It is time for the U.S. to put up or shut up. While going to Mars is a nice challenge that will bring returns in technology and health care improvements, a grand challenge to move off oil within 10 years will bring returns in terms of survival and our way of life continuing for our children and grand children. Oil is in short supply. Regardless of the number of wells drilled, the demand will outpace supply. That's the most optimistic view. If there continues to be de-stabilization in the Middle East, it will be even worse. If the Gulf Coast continues to endure storms damaging drilling platforms and off-loading facilities, it will be even worse. If we continue to wage war on a credit card to the tune of $12 billion per month, the Chinese and Indians will be able to pay cash and it will be even worse.

The fact is, it is going to get worse before it gets better. Therefore, we can bite the bullet and make an all-out effort as proposed by Al Gore, thus preventing the massive transfer of U.S. wealth as forecasted by T. Boone Pickens, or we can continue the status quo, forsaking our position in the world and leaving a much poorer legacy to our children. It is going to be painful for the next 10 years. If we don't do this, it could be we don't survive as a nation.

Weigh in whether you agree or disagree. The need is to have the discussion.

Alternative Power Ideas

I was reading a posting by Scott Adams in his Dilbert Blog about harnessing the power when an elevator comes down (see http://dilbertblog.typepad.com/the_dilbert_blog/2008/03/elevator-power.html)and this got me to thinking about a recurring idea of mine: urban wind farms. I live in Plano, Texas. At the present time, there is approximately a 30 MPH wind blowing. This is not unusual for this part of the country. Indeed, it has done the same thing over several days of the past week. We get a lot of wind.

Therefore, if there was some way to economically capture energy from that wind, it would make sense. There are several requirements to have a viable wind farm: 1) you need wind; 2) you need connectivity to the power grid; and 3) you need permit and access to place a wind generator. As stated earlier, we have a lot of wind, so requirement 1 is met. As for the second requirement, a good place to gain connectivity to the grid that is everywhere in an urban area is the standard light pole that dot many streets. As for permitting, the big argument is that the wind generator detracts from the surrounding beauty of the neighborhood. However, since when is a light pole pretty. They are ugly and they are everywhere, so why not make the most of a bad situation and use them for double-duty--light pole and wind generator tower. Since the light pole is tied to the power grid, are typically well-anchored, they would make a great location. A few statistics will demonstrate how attractive this alternative is.

Plano, Texas is a rather spread out city of somewhere around 160,000 people. if we eliminate the residential roads and only concentrate on the main thoroughfares in the city, I would guess that there are 5 running east-west and 10 north-south. From city limit to city limit, I would guess that Plano is 9 miles wide and 7 miles long (main road areas and I want to be on the conservative side). That means there are 45 miles of east-west road and 70 miles of north-south road, for a total of 115 miles of usable road.

Using that number and being conservative using a light pole every 300 feet (conservative because in many places there are two poles on the roadway because it is divided lanes), this would give 2,024 usable light poles. Again being conservative and using a smaller wind generator in the range of 250 Kwh each, this means that putting a wind generator on each pole would pump more than 500 Mwh into the grid!

A good estimate based on some fast research on the Web is that the average home uses 850 Kwh of energy per year. This means that my city-wide wind farm would generate enough electricity to power to power almost 600 homes for a year.

In actuality, there are many more generators that could be installed in a city such as Plano and my guess is that the typical capacity would be more like 500 Kwh. Think of all of the towns across the US in high wind areas (Chicago comes to mind for example, not to mention every city and town in most of the west). I think this idea has merit.