Ok. I am sure that you have noticed some of the substitutes for real conversation enhancers that that have started to be accepted as valid over the last couple of years. They have really started to get on my nerves because they really just deflect questions or provide convenient excuses. That is how I have started to use them. Here are a few of my favorite (or least favorite).
UPDATE on 2008 Weblog Awards:
Guys, the nominations for the 2008 Weblog awards are complete for the "Best Parenting" category. Kristy ended up with a "Score" of 30. In that category, that puts her at #4 out of 79 nominees. Over the next week or so, the finalists in each category will be notified, and the voting will begin on December 8. I will let you know if Kristy is a finalist so that you can vote for her.
--------------
As many of you know, I am in Minnesota this week. Kristy is being examined by the doctors at the Mayo Clinic. This facility is world class and occupies the greater part of downtown Rochester. I have been impressed by how nice these people are. It is quite obvious to me that Mayo spends money on getting the best people and doesn't worry about having the newest possible examination tables (see below). That tells me that they care more about patient care than image. We are very hopeful that these docs can find out what has been plaguing her for the better part of a year.
Another thing that I should mention is that many people feel that Fibromyalgia is a crap diagnosis or made-up syndrome. Before this week, I will admit that I was one of them. After spending over 2 hours here with the experts at Mayo, I was sure that was going to be the diagnosis because no one can seem to find out what the deal is with her. The woman calmly explained that, while she has some elements that fall into the syndrome, Kristy doesn't fit with fibromyalgia. That impressed me. I think that the diagnosis is probably misapplied in a lot of places, but here in Minnesota, I think that they have it right.
--------------
I watched #2 Texas TCEH get massacred by Oklahoma tonight. While I am always happy when the Red Raiders get embarrassed, I just wish that the Sooners were not involved.
--------------
I guess that is enough random stuff for one post.
Ok! I know you like my blog, but I know who the best writer in the family is. The nominations for the Weblog Awards have started, and I think she writes the best parenting blog on the web. Sophie provides the material, and Kristy makes it hilarious.
I have started the nomination process, but you can nominate her as well. Here is the link for the nomination. Scroll down a little to find "Best Parenting Blog" and either 2nd my nomination or add your own. If you login via one of the supported authentication services (Typekey, WordPress, OpenID, Yahoo, AIM, etc.), your nomination will appear instantly. I don't have one of those accounts, so you probably won't see my nomination for about a day.
Well, I am traveling this week for work. What that really means is that I sit in front of the TV a lot after 11-12 hours of work (usually watching the World Series of Poker on ESPN). I know that makes me a little weird. As some of my friends know, I got interested in poker a couple of years because I think it is an interesting mathematical problem.
For me, it is not as interesting when you see all the cards. It is quite simple to calculate the odds of winning when you know the cards (as on ESPN). The interesting problem for me was figuring the best hands to play against whatever number of players that are dealt a hand. Being an engineer and computer programmer, it wasn't enough for me to guess which hands should or shouldn't be played against 8 others players. I spent a great deal of time writing a Monte Carlo program that would:
Well, I feel like I am going to throw up. I had this same feeling back in 1992 as the whole Hendrix College campus celebrated Bill Clinton's victory around me. It is good that the outcome is known early enough to get a good night's sleep. I do find some hope though:
In any case, I am installing an intrusion detector on my wallet that wails "I told you so!" over and over when taxes are increased and praying that the next four years won't be as bad as I think they are going to be.
I have spent the better part of a month not blogging. Mainly, I have boycotted writing because the global warming goofballs are realizing that people don't want to hear about how bad they are treating the earth when they are constantly hearing about how far in the toilet the economy has gone. Also, I almost had a coronary the last time I looked at the 401k balance [NOTE TO SELF: Don't go to www.401k.com again for a while].
However, I have been thinking about why we are having a "crisis" on Wall Street. In my mind, it boils down to one thing: The government started messing with the free market. I think this conclusion is legitimate when I ponder the following:
Finally, we are asked to believe that the same clowns that created the mess that we witnessed over the last few weeks will be able to fix the problem. So, I asked myself if I could say anything coherent about this mess. AND, the answer came back, "Not even close."
I truly can't wait for the election to be over. I am pretty much resigned to the fact that my taxes will go WAY up because the Dims will control the White House and both houses of Congress. I guess it's about fairness. Hopefully, they will be dumb enough to actually try to implement some of their proposals. If they do, I am pretty sure that we will get another 1994-style mid-term election.
In any case, I should probably do all my blogging between now and inauguration day. After that, I am not sure that we won't have a "Fairness Doctrine" for talk radio and a "Hate Speech Code" for the blogosphere.
Can anyone tell that I am a little bit depressed about the state of our nation?
As I mentioned in my 101 Things About Me (see #22), I have pretty random thoughts sometimes. Today, for some reason, my mind drifted to organ donation of all things. Don't ask why. Sometimes, it is better to just accept it. There was probably an organ donation PSA on the radio that I subconsciously absorbed. Anyway, we constantly hear about the lack of donors for organs and I got started wondering about how to change that.
My simple answer to this equation of lack of donors is to provide some sort of financial incentive. As with a lot of things, the simple answer brings in philosophical support or objection. That's why I thought about writing this post. The money involved will not directly impact the person donating the organs, but the donor's family could benefit from donation. In fact, the one group of people that suffer the most in this "transaction" are the only ones that DON'T get compensated for the donation. The hospital and surgeon get paid well for performing the operation. The organ bank gets paid for "procuring" the organ. The recipient gets a new organ and (possibly) a greatly extended lifespan. If people knew that their loved ones would benefit from organ donation, then it would be more likely for them to end up checking the organ donation. What do you guys think about this?
--------------------------------------
On a different but related note, blood banks in this country are constantly telling us that the blood supplies are at critically low levels. I think the reason for this is a lack of incentive to donate (other than goodwill). In New Mexico, we had a "scandal" where the salaries of the executives of the blood donation organization (NOT the Red Cross) were published and were well in excess of 6 figures (before the decimal point). This caused quite a stir because all the profits from the operation were the result of blood products derived from donors who received ZERO compensation. In addition, a person who had donated gallons (literally) of blood over the years was charged something like $600 for a unit of blood (the $ figure is likely off, but you get the point) by this same blood donation organization.
As many of you know, I have donated plasma MANY times over the years, and I have the scars to prove it. Those trips to Westgate Biologicals weren't really donations because I never did it for free. However, I can't actually make myself donate during blood drives. The incentive isn't there. I guess I am not much of the "hero" type. What are your thoughts on this one?
--------------------------------------
FULL DISCLOSURE: I am an organ donor. "Not that there's anything wrong with that."
I warned you. This one is truly random.
Well, if nothing else, the political season usually provides me with a few laughs. This is pretty sad because most of the time politicians are just arguing about the different proposals for re-distributing my income to someone who didn't earn it. This week did provide me with good chuckle when the Democratic VP candidate Joe Biden spoke in Missouri. At a fairly large rally in Columbia, he decided to recognize State Senator Chuck Graham (in a wheelchair):
Ok, I just love this picture of the next Vice President of the United States. There is just something about a nice looking woman with a fully automatic weapon.
The funny thing is that questions have surfaced about whether or not Sarah Palin is tough enough to face down foreign leaders. Clearly, they haven't seen her shoot.
The Fighting Texas Aggies just lost to the Red Wolves of Arkansas State University. The final score was 18-14. The Ags missed 2 field goals and failed to punch it in with 2nd and goal from the 1. Don't bother calling because I am not answering the phone.
I blame myself. Sophie is not wearing her Aggie Cheerleader uniform. I figured we were playing ASU and the Ags wouldn't need the big guns. I don't think I will make that mistake again. Soph has tried to comfort me the only way a 4 year-old knows how. She gave me a big hug. I did feel better and the game didn't seem important anymore.
I will be ok in a little while. Probably not tonight, but definitely by tomorrow morning. If this had happened 10 years ago, I would have been in a funk for a week. I guess that is called "perspective". I just hope this whole season doesn't need a lot of this kind of perspective.
By the way, I wouldn't call Chip or Cable after this particular game. They haven't figured out this perspective thing yet. I hope your teams fared better this weekend.
Well, it has been over 8 months since the last college game. The wait for real football (not spring games, recruiting, or NFL exhibition games) is over. I am very excited about it. College football is my favorite sport these days (once this was major league baseball). Sadly, the two teams that I am interested in watching are playing "directional" schools, so they will not be on television.
I gave you my reasons for hating soccer last week, so this week I will give you my reasons for loving college football.
Debates -- The system of determining a champion in college football's highest classification is so screwed up that it actually encourages debates about "Mythical National Champions". For example, invite an Alabama and Arkansas fan to your next party and ask them who won the 1964 National Championship. I bet they have different answers. Arkansas's argument is so legitimate that the AP changed their rules after that season.
Teams You Love To Hate -- To about half of the population of college football fans, the Fighting Irish are a symbol of all that is wrong with our country (entitlement, elitist, etc.) while the other half believes that Notre Dame is the best team on the planet. My list of teams that I want to see lose every Saturday includes Notre Dame, Ohio State, Michigan, Miami, Oklahoma and Texas. I would likely throw a big party if all were to lose on the same day.
Irrational Fans -- These are the guys that lurk on message boards for the faintest hint that a 17-year old from Timbuktu who runs a 4.3 40-yard dash has included their school in his final three. It is kind of sad that their weekends can be ruined because the whims of a teenager didn't include attending their favorite school. These irrational fans include my dad who begins EVERY season with the expectation that the Razorbacks will lose at most 2 games because, "The Hogs are good, but you know how stout the SEC is. You KNOW that they would win any other conference."
Rivalries -- Michigan/OSU, USC/Notre Dame, Texas/Texas A&M (the BEST ONE!), etc. Sure, I know the Yankees and Red Sox don't like each other, but you will see the players that play for both teams during their career. The same goes for the Bears and Packers. In college football, they play 3 hours for 365 days of bragging rights that can't be escaped until the next clash with that rival. You will find strange and humiliating wagers associated with these games.
So, if you are wondering my plans for weekends over the next few months, I will be trying to find someway to watch football on Saturdays. If fate is kind to me, the Aggies will be on TV. If not, I will be re-living the last two Fridays after Thanksgiving. I have bragging rights until that day. That's when they go up for grabs in the Lonestar Showdown.
--------
**Cross Posted at the Arkansas 7-on-7 Football.-------------
Well, my soccer post generated more than just a comment. In my email, I had a note from my buddy Cable who was mentioned in the post. He has put even more thought into his hatred of the foul Un-American game that is soccer. I asked him if I could put the email into my blog. He has agreed.
So, what should you know about Cable? He is a nuclear engineer working as a researcher at Texas A&M. He will finish his Ph.D. soon, right Cable? He has two kids and a very patient wife. I imagine living with him is almost as difficult as living with me. Basically, I believe that the only thing that has ever caused us to disagree is an R. C. Slocum/Jackie Sherrill debate that has gone on for at least 10 years now. He has finally (reluctantly) admitted that the dismissal of R. C. as the Aggies head coach was a mistake.
Without further ado, here is Cable's top ten list. It even finishes with a David Letterman twist.
-------------
*Post by Guest Blogger Cable Kurwitz
Hey Russ,
Nice article. You should read this Guardian editorial. However, there is growing evidence that it is a weak link [between soccer and communism/socialism].
I continue to stand by my soccer = socialism theory and feel Jack Kemp said it best when he stated, "a distinction should be made that football is democratic capitalism, whereas soccer is a European socialist sport." I do not agree with Franklin Foer who stated in his book, “[soccer] represents a direct threat to American culture and tradition.” I felt his conclusions were more anti-American than anti-soccer. I dislike the global game of soccer because of its simplicity, constantly running clock, and the idea that you could essentially never take risks and tie every match. I dislike the European terms, the lack of grading, and/or the failure to develop a method of accurately grading players performance. Most of all, I dislike the continued desire by those socialists within our borders to be more like the world and embrace soccer. As Europe slouches back toward socialism and a communist wave pours over South America, I realize that doing the opposite of what world thinks is the better course of action. So, with this in mind, here is my top 10 list of arguments against soccer:
Over the years, people have noticed that I have distinct dislike for the game of soccer. When people first asked about the hostility toward futbol, I would usually say something like, "It is boring." The dislike was actually a gut feeling that went beyond the fact that the game is boring. I just didn't know how to say, "I have a visceral hatred for the game that I can't quite define."
Years later, my buddy (Cable) brought forth the theory that the popularity of soccer in Latin America was well correlated with the spread of communism in the same region. So, for lack of a better explanation, this became my answer when I was asked about the growing hostility toward the game. I know that correlation is not the same as causation, but I wanted to avoid being associated with anything that might be communistic.
After pondering the question for some time, I think I have finally hit on the real answer. First, I believe that three things separate humans from animals: (1) a soul; (2) the ability to reason; and (3) opposable thumbs. While I don't want to call soccer players and fans soulless (even though it is possible), I think that the game of soccer insults at least two of these three differences. In other words, it draws us closer to animals rather than further from them.
Here is how soccer works against reason. The basis of the human intellect and reason is our brain. A very hard skull protects it from injury. Parents are now putting helmets on kids for all manner of activities. In sports that have the possibility of head injury, they put on helmets. The athletes getting prepared for football, baseball, cycling, hockey, and NASCAR stop to put on a helmet to protect their brain. Think about that. The redneck climbing into a race car puts on a helmet while youth soccer coaches encourage kids to go home and practice hitting the soccer ball with their heads. This is contrary to every human instinct of protecting the brain. The only other sport that comes close to this is the brutality of professional boxing.
Soccer violates another of the differences between humans and animals when it requires the players to ignore their hands. Other sports (basketball, tennis, curling, even poker) pay homage to the fact that we have opposable thumbs and can pick up and control tools with our hands. In soccer, you can be kicked out of the game for exercising the instinct to use your hands.
So, there you have it. That's why I hate soccer.
AND, I didn't even get into the non-competitive attitude of youth soccer and how that will damage American competitiveness in the world economy. Before you say it, that doesn't make me a kook.
-------------
Here is a very good article about the some of the problems facing the nuclear renaissance that I wrote about earlier.
Ok. Thanks to all commentators (Josh, Kristy, Annie, and Lora Lee) for encouraging me to continue writing for a while longer. A day doing hands-on "approach to critical experiments" with highly enriched uranium (HEU) in the famed Superblock facility at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory has given me some inspiration to find something to write about. For those that don't know (no offense, but I am pretty sure that is almost anyone that is not a nuclear geek or anti-nuclear protester), Superblock is LLNL's plutonium research facility. Here are some pictures from previous classes (if you look closely, you can see the cute little PU [plutonium] skunk on the lab coats). They have been taking pictures during the class, so eventually my class will make onto that site.
So, it took me about 10 minutes of web surfing to find something that really ticked me off. To me, it also proved that government science is not what it once was. On August 4th, Anthony Watts posted a story about a negative trend in the carbon dioxide level as measured at the Mauna Loa observatory for the first time since the measurements began. On August 5th, Anthony decided to check the data again. Amazingly, the data has CHANGED less than 24 hours after his post. Anthony has a very nice blink comparator of the changes to the data that occurred.
What's the big deal? Well, for one thing, the increasing trend in the level of atmospheric carbon dioxide is one of the driving forces behind "Cap and Trade" legislation for energy producers and huge carbon taxes on individuals. If the trend was started to go negative despite increased energy production in such places as China and India, it would conclusively show that humanity has little effect on the already trace amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.
In any case, I couldn't find a statement of the NOAA website that either explained why the data had been changed (or even that it had changed). There is a disclaimer on the site that says it is "subject to change." We are talking about a measurement with an instrument. If my data from experiments (like those today) were "subject to change," no one would ever have confidence in me as a nuclear scientist and my ethics would be called into question (especially if all my changes favored my hypotheses). It is truly astonishing the amount of change that is tolerated in the name of climate science.
Anthony was a little more industrious (you can see how if you read his post) and got an answer that satisfied him. A commentator on Watt's Up With That summarized my entire problem with this adjustment:
I don't know if it is the summertime doldrums or something else, but lately when I start to think about something to write about, I hit a brick wall. Nothing seems to charge me up enough to put the fingers on the keyboard and churn out a post. So, I am beginning to wonder if I will keep going with this project that started as basically a dare (see the last paragraph) from Annie. When you really think about it, that is kind of a silly reason for writing a blog.
In any case, I am struggling with whether to continue to search for things to write about or to discontinue writing MPU until I get re-motivated by something. The struggle is not because I have a large audience. (An average of 50 or so people drop by on a daily basis. That's not very many.) It stems from the fact that if I stop writing on a regular basis, it is likely that I will never get back to it.
SOOOO, that's where I am. I will keep my eyes open for something to get me revved up, but it may be a couple of weeks. I suggest that if you want to know when I put something new up, use the "Subscribe" button below my "Favorite Sites". If you have never used a feed reader, the Google reader is pretty awesome. Let me know in the comments if you need an invitation for a Google account.
Ok. I have a question. Why do things break at the most inconvenient times? Here are some examples from the last month or so:
Early this week, I experienced another "poke the monkey" episode (see the comment section). This time, my loyal commenter, Josh, sent me a Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS) article that links global warming with increased incidence of kidney stones (here is press coverage that attempts to explain the journal article). In a previous post (Wanted: Fact Checker), I talked about the seeming lack of rigor in the peer review process at PNAS. I don't think peer review was the problem in this case, but the article does have some serious issues.
The first serious issue that I have with the journal article is well covered at Steve McIntyre's Climate Audit website. Here is the kernal of importance from Steve's site:
I saw this article about 4 weeks ago, so I apologize if you have seen this already. Since I first read this article, I have been too busy doing other things (like this) to write about it. It is also a little bit perkier than the stuff I normally write about. The article appeared in the Times Online and discusses the fact that some researchers in Silicon Valley have engineered bacteria that excrete substances very similar to petroleum.
Apparently, a company called LS9 has been asking a very intriguing question. They have been asking, "If you removed all constraints, what would the ideal biofuel be?" Interestingly enough, they came up with petroleum as the answer to that question. So, some genetic engineers, biochemists, synthetic biologists, metabolic engineers, bioinformatic specialists, and chemical engineers got together with venture capitalists to make petroleum derived from biological organisms. The initial results seem to suggest that they have done it, but we will find out for sure over the next couple of years.
This is the silver lining to $4/gallon gasoline and $140/barrel oil. High energy costs leads bright and daring people to come up with innovative ideas like this. The initial projections based on pilot production is that with optimum feedstock (like sugar cane), the company projects that it can break even if the price for the end product (bio-petroleum) is approximately $50/barrel. The equations are more difficult when the initial feedstock is something less the optimal, but there is a tremendous amount cheap (or waste) biomass available.
As you might expect, there are questions about the scale up to commercial production. Others (like Walt) might wonder when the greedy oil companies are going to get together and buy the patents and company to make this apparent solution disappear like they did with the water car and the spaceship from Roswell. The basic question I have for the LS9 people is whether the bacteria can be modified to efficiently use cellulose based materials as the feedstock.
In any case, I think the answer to the question of what will replace petroleum in the future is ...(drumroll please) ... PETROLEUM. I guess we will need that 12 step program for oil addiction recovery just a little bit longer. WHOOP!
****
As a side note, I have added to my list of 101 Things About Me.
OK. These days I am struggling through the day to get my work done with a nagging ailment (see Item 7, Number 3 here). So, finding new material for posts on subjects that I am used to writing about has becoming very secondary when I get a free moment. Luckily, I have friends like Cable and Brett (guest blogger extraordinaire) to, as Kristy says, "Poke the monkey."
A couple of days ago, I arrived at work to an email from Brett asking me what I thought about this article. If you don't feel like going through the effort of clicking the link, here is the summary. The international physics community (along with many governments) has gotten together to build the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) on the border between France and Switzerland. Some people including physicist and lawyer (that's a real combination) Walter E. Wagner have filed a lawsuit in Hawaii (somehow this group thinks that the state of Hawaii has jurisdiction over an international accelerator located in Europe). The lawsuit seeks to prevent the facility start up because there is "a significant risk that ... operation of the Collider may have unintended consequences which could ultimately result in the destruction of our planet (emphasis added)." I quote the lawsuit because I couldn't make this stuff up if I wanted to do so.
This would be extremely funny if it was the first time Wagner and his group tried to stop an accelerator from starting up. The Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider (RHIC) at Brookhaven National Laboratory faced an essentially identical lawsuit back in the late 1990's. RHIC overcame that legal challenge and has been operating (or destroying the world depending on your perspective, I guess) since mid-2000.
Perhaps physicists bring this on themselves by being somewhat flippant in the face of grave questions or before world changing experiments. For example, Richard Rhodes (The Making of the Atomic Bomb) tells us that to lighten the mood shortly before the first ever test of a nuclear weapon (Trinity test at White Sands Missile Range), Enrico Fermi offered to take bets from other physicists on whether or not the fission implosion weapon would ignite the atmosphere. He also allowed the side bet as to whether this ignition would just destroy New Mexico or the whole world. None of the physicists really believed that this would happen (a few weeks before Edward Teller had done the calculations anyway), but the soldiers were not so sure of the outcome after listening to the wagers being proferred.
Anyway, my first reaction to these claims of world destruction by physicists is to chuckle whether the prediction is made by giants like Enrico Fermi and Edward Teller or by Lilliputians like Walter Wagner, James Hansen, or Gavin Schmidt. That's what the giants would want while the others will never understand why I am laughing at them.
------
By the way, gout is a real b&*^%. Avoid it like the plague if at all possible. I have had trouble walking the last few days because of the pain in my foot.
I received an email recently from one of my grad school buddies (who shall remain nameless) asking the following question:
A common question that arises when people find out that I am a nuclear engineer is, "Do you think that nuclear power will make a comeback in the U.S. after such a long time since the last nuclear plant was built?" I suppose this question comes up because the "new" energy policy that brought us the silly idea of ethanol as part of the solution to our energy problems also included the idea that next few nuclear power plants (the next generation) built should receive a LARGE subsidy from the Department of Energy. While I disagree with the idea of subsidies (whether energy, agricultural, or cultural), I am beginning to wonder if the renaissance in the nuclear industry discussed in Nuclear News is real.
Why do I think there might be a real change in the energy portfolio in the U.S.? Well, I can think of two really good reasons:
Not too long ago, former Vice President Al Gore won an Oscar and shared a Nobel Peace Prize for telling the world that the earth has "a fever" and humans are the cause of it. As a commenter on one of the blogs I frequent pointed out, Irena Sendlar (nominated for the same Peace Prize) rescued 2,500 Jewish children out of the Warsaw ghetto during World War II, but lost out to Al Gore who made a slide show. It is just a little bit ridiculous.
In any case, Gore told us that the fever was caused by things like driving big SUVs, using lots of electricity, and flying around the world on private and commercial jets. My question to you is, does Al Gore really believe this junk that he spews on a regular basis? And if he does, what kind of sociopath does that make him?
I am asking that question in all seriousness. On June 17, the Tennessee Center for Policy Research released the latest energy use numbers for Al Gore's family home in Nashville. The numbers show that the family home used 213,210 kilowatt-hours of electricity last year (~10% increase from the previous year). This means that, in an average month, his house uses about 19 times more electricity than the average American home. AND, this is after the Gores spent thousands of dollars in energy efficiency upgrades. (By the way, if you live in an average American home, you use about 11,000 kilowatt-hours in an entire year.)
I don't know about you, but if I really believe something to be true, my actions tend to follow that belief. Sooo, if I were responsible for convincing millions of people that they should feel guilty (and pay huge carbon taxes as penance) for causing the earth's meltdown, I would make changes in my life that reflect that. Here are just a few things I would not do if I BELIEVED the global warming B.S.:
Lately, nothing that I have read or heard has lifted my bad science barometer ("It's pronounced thermometer" for you Seinfeld fans) enough to generate the emotions needed for a post. However, I have been thinking about gas prices quite a bit. I know everyone has complained about the high price of gasoline. Although I hate the fact that it takes $50 to fill my Honda Accord, you are not going to see the standard complaints here.
My thoughts have been focused on this question: Do we really need an alternative to gasoline? This may seem like an odd thought when you see signs like this:
So, why do we still use gasoline? If any of the alternatives (ethanol, methanol, bio-diesel, waste vegetable oil, fuel cells, electricity, compressed natural gas, water, or whatever) were cheaper, then we would have no problem making the transition. As a matter of principal, I think that Americans would DEMAND that the cheaper transportation alternative make it to the market NOW. That tells me that the gasoline that costs us $4, $5, or $10 per gallon is still the cheapest means of travel that we can find.
Am I a masochist that wants to pay $10/gallon for gasoline? No, but I understand the reality of what happens when we decide as a country (that should be read "Democrat Controlled Legislature") not to drill for oil in our territories that we know contain the lifeblood of industrialized economies. Why should Americans expect to have cheap energy when we continue to elect representatives that stand in the way of that very thing? Before you go too far down the path of seeing me as a pure Republican backer, you should know I feel the same way about John McCain, Olympia Snowe, and Susan Collins (all Republican Senators).
So, you guys tell me. At what price do you change your lifestyle? When do you DEMAND something different?
As for me, until I see a change in what we drive and a different type of fuel going into it, I will continue to believe that gasoline is our CHEAPEST option.
--------------------
Update: I think Vaclav Klaus (President of the Czech Republic) has been reading my posts.
I have struggled to find a good topic since returning to North America. Thankfully, the legal system in the U.S. is always screwed up enough to provide me with something to write about. In this case, I have an order (from June 3, 2008) from U.S. District Judge James Nowlin (Western District of Texas-Austin Division) in a case between Wal-Mart and a Texas woman (Ruth Waggoner).
I don't know what the dispute is about, but apparently the attorneys are squabbling over where the Wal-Mart corporate representatives will be deposed. Miss Waggoner's attorneys want the deposition to take place in San Antonio while the Wal-Mart lawyers want the deposition to happen in Bentonville. Judge Nowlin seems to be a little ticked that the attorneys can't even decide on where to do this kind of thing and are wasting his time with deciding something like this.
Anyway, he declares that he is sympathetic to both parties for the same reason: The football rivalry between the Arkansas Razorbacks and Texas Longhorns. He takes two really big swipes at the Razorbacks, then he declares that the Longhorns and USC Trojans played the game of the 21st century when the Longhorns won the BCS Championship for the 2005 season.
At first, I thought it was pretty funny. Then, I decided that it must be one of those "internets" kind of deals that you always find in email forwards. Well, I would have been stuck in limbo over it had the Wall Street Journal Legal Blog not declared it to be real.
So, there you have it. A judge with a pretty good sense of humor seems to have plenty of time to follow his favorite college football team. He's also got the judicial appointment for life going for him, "Which is nice." By the way, the deposition is ordered to place in Texarkana (500 State Line Drive) with each party staying on their respective side of the border.
To anyone who is still dropping by this site let me say, "HOWDY!" I haven't posted for over a week because I just got back from spending that time in the Netherlands with little to no internet connection. I presented a paper on improved control rod reactivity curves for the Annular Core Research Reactor at the 13th International Symposium on Reactor Dosimetry. The Netherlands was beautiful, and I saw lots (and lots) of wind turbines. They are pretty impressive close up.
I just wanted to post something to let everyone know that the blog had not died. So, I ran across this on the "Watts Up With That" blog:
Greenhouse Calculator
What is it? Well, I am hoping that you will follow the link and calculate the age at which you should die to insure that you don't use "more than your fair share" of the earth's resources and report it back to me in the comments. My magic number is 2.5 years. What this means is that 32 years ago my mother should have put a pillow over my head and killed me in my sleep (anything else would have made her cruel, right?).
The website is targeted at educating 9-13 year olds on their destructive future lifestyles. I am guessing someone with a very low carbon footprint does not have broadband internet access, but that is JUST a guess. Anyway, please chime in with how much past your fair share of living you have gone (mine number is +32). If you don't want to give a differential that might reveal your age, just let me know your age of "responsible" death, whether you have passed it yet, and your thoughts on this type of indoctrination. Uh, I mean, education. I REALLY do hope that this carbon footprint website doesn't lead to increased suicide rates because of ridiculous guilt trips in young, impressionable websurfers out there who ride to school in their parents Hummers, live in Al Gore type of houses, and have big allowances.
Also, even if you have to change your answers, make sure you get to see the greenhouse pig explode. I am pretty sure that it was meant as a real horror show.
There is a country song by Dierks Bentley that goes something like "Well, I know what I was feeling, But What was I thinking?" What brought this song to mind? I was reading this article about "Australia's best known expert on global warming" and found out that he thinks that the global warming situation is much worse now than it was just 3 years ago.
As I read his proposed solution to our "problem," I forgot all about the fact that the global temperature has stayed the same (perhaps even cooled) since 1998, so how could it be much worse? Right? I just kept saying to myself as I read further, "Dude, what are you thinking?" In any case, I am going to tell you what he is feeling.
Tim Flannery has proposed that the world should start polluting like crazy. Well, that is a little bit of a paraphrase, but he really does want to use jets traveling across the globe to disperse sulfur into the upper atmosphere. The sulfur would reflect sunlight back into space before it makes it to the surface. Of course, the sulfur will change the color of the sky. And, for those of you who have paid attention over the years, sulfur emissions in the form of sulfur dioxide from various industrial enterprises, including electricity generation from coal, are one of the main ingredients in acid rain. In the U.S., we have even reduced the amount of sulfur that we allow in diesel fuels to limit this sulfur dioxide pollution (and increase the cost of the fuel).
You might think that Flannery has at least modeled the effect of dumping large amounts of sulfur into the upper atmosphere or thought about what burning "extra" sulfur in jet fuel might do to the engines. You would be wrong. Here is a quote, "The consequences of doing that are unknown." However, he is one those "Don't just stand there, do something!" (even if it is wrong or dumb) kind of guys.
Anyway, I promised to tell you what this global warming "expert" is feeling. Dr. Flannery is now beginning to realize that the scientific basis for the cause that he has dedicated much of his professional life is crumbling like a house of cards. He is feeling desperate to justify his existence as a climate scientist and the money he has spent on climate research over the years. So, he feels that he needs to emphasize the urgency of our dire situation.
Well, it's either that or he is just a plain old fashioned kook. I'll leave that for you to decide, but I will tell you that I have made up my mind about Dr. Flannery.
Over the last 15 years, I have taken the time to read lots of "science" related news stories, opinions, and blogs. Recently, I ran across this peculiar tidbit. In addition to increased (and decreased) El Ninos, increased floods (and droughts), and increased heat waves (and cold spells and blizzards), the phenomenon of Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW; or is it climate change now?) will lead to the "barbarisation" of societies. Believe it or not, Mohan Munasinghe, vice president of the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), made this claim in a recent speech given to Cambridge University.
Munasinghe believes that problems like poverty, damage to the environment, polarization of societies, and terrorism will increase due to climate change, and he claims that these things are already starting to happen. He doesn't explain how, but all of these things will somehow get worse because the temperature of the planet increases by a degree or two. (By the way, I am still looking for the explanation of global mean temperature.) We have cultures that live from the Arctic to the Equator (and everywhere in between), yet somehow all of these ailments come from a very gradual increase in temperature that occurs over the span of a century. In fact, these changes are imperceptible without satellites and a large number of ground stations distributed around the globe (and there are PROBLEMS with the ground station network).
In any case, I went to my Webster's Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary to get the definition of barbarian: "Of or relating to a land, culture, or people alien, usually believed to be inferior, to one's own." I guess when you come from a country like Sri Lanka (criticized by Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, the United States Department of State, and the European Union for human rights violations) as Munasinghe does, then technological advancements in the developed world that help to deliver food and life saving medicines to the world's poor can seem alien. However, I am still struggling with that inferior part. Maybe the inferiority comes into the equation because the Western world is typically NOT considered one of the worst perpetrators of "enforced disappearances" or plain ol' political killings.
This is the part that really gets me about these IPCC folks. The science upon which much of the argument for human causes of global warming (the infamous "hockey stick" figure in Al Gore's movie) has been utterly and completely discredited by McIntyre and McKitrick among others. Now, instead of just admitting that they were wrong, they continue to make these ridiculous claims of catastrophes that might happen if we don't do something right now. Someone needs to let these clowns know that it is time to put down the shovel because the hole that they are digging is already pretty deep.
I just wish that someone with some real political power (I am pretty sure that my "8" faithful subscribers/readers and I don't count on this score) would stand up and tell people that the AGW emperor has no clothes. Until then, I will definitely continue to keep my hands on my wallet whenever I am in the same general vicinity as these IPCC hacks.
After that very well written detour into America's pastime (THANKS, Brett!), I figured it was about time to go back to why I began writing this blog in the first place. So, I started thinking back on my post about things that really get me cranked up and decided to take a step back and elaborate further on why I don't now (and never will) consider myself an environmentalist. At some point, I might be happy with the label of steward or conservationist, but never the "E-word."
First, over the years, many commentators (George Reisman and Rush Limbaugh among others) have noted that the environmental movement is the current residence of many former communist leaders (e.g., Mikhail Gorbachev) and current socialists (e.g., Al Gore). Reisman takes it a step farther and states that the environmental movement also contains recycled elements of Nazism. While the second part of Reisman's assertions are tough for me to accept, the tendency for state control and central planning by an elite committee of scientists (social or otherwise) makes the claim of recycled communism easier to believe. I am very much a free market capitalist (Adam Smith is a hero of mine), so why on earth would I want to associate with a bunch of communists and socialists sporting different titles.
Next, those in the environmental movement that we are being told are "moderates" stress the importance of the emissions trading schemes and reductions in carbon dioxide emissions. These guys want to reduce U.S. carbon dioxide to some large percentage less than 1990 levels (Kyoto numbers). That particular scheme was rejected something like 97-0 by the Senate. I would assume that nothing would make these people happier than reducing the U.S. economy to Third World levels. People like that are generally not very much fun at parties because they are always telling you why we should feel guilty for our American lifestyle.
Finally, among the environmentalists, there are those that believe that “if all humanity disappeared the rest of life would benefit enormously . . . If the ants were all to disappear, the results would be close to catastrophic.”* There are others (like Les Knight) who have founded organizations whose purpose is the extinction of humanity (Voluntary Human Extinction Movement). These guys don't sound like ordinary college students out there recycling or riding their bikes instead of driving to me. They sound like extremists fanatics that want at least a 90% reduction in the world's population. Again, these are not people that I want playing against me in fantasy football or on my team in a bowling league.
So, if you're curious, I am not an environmentalist because of who my associates would be if I accepted that label. You can call me anything in the book (I have probably been called it before on the football field), but please don't call me the E-word.
-----------
*Edward O. Wilson
(WARNING: For non-baseball fans, here’s where it gets a little boring.)
The rest of the 6th inning, as well as the 7th, 8th, and 9th innings, were a blurry whirlwind. Russell, Dad, and I continued to obviously state that we sure could use a few more homeruns. Russell, using all 7 years of his Ph.D. education had deduced that if we could only get a couple of runs an inning, we would be back in this game. (Hats off to the new math!) The Razorback batters left the bases loaded twice and two runners on once. We had left more men “on” than Lindsey Lohan and Tara Reed after a night of clubbing. The South Carolina bullpen pitchers were up and down more than Ron Jeremy’s you-know-what during the making of an adult film. And, after the Hogs shutdown the South Carolina hitters in the 8th and 9th, we came up to bat with one more chance down 11-8.
To tell the truth, I never saw the ball go over the fence—that’s right, the game winning grand slam landed in the South Carolina bullpen, clearing the wall by a yard stick. I never saw the stunned, jaw-dropped expression on my father’s and Russell’s face. Like Elvis, I had “left the building.” I sprinted up the stairs from our 2nd row seats and out into the street screaming like someone on fire. I jumped up and down, throwing my fist into the air like I had just won the powerball lottery. I ran back into the stadium, down the steps back into Section 99 to see that my father and Russell were still leaping in excitement. I hugged my dad—I tackled Russell. Unbelievable . . . magical . . . miraculous. The best ending to a sporting event I had ever witnessed in my 33 years.
I had forgotten how exciting fireworks were to a small child—as adults, we get calloused to things after we have seen them dozens, even hundreds of times. But, during the 15-minute pyrotechnics display, I focused more on the face of a smiling child as the “bombs bursted in air.” My father had offered to hold Sophie during the show, and locked his 71 year old arthritic arms around her as she “oooohed” and “ahhhed” and announced "that's my favorite one!" hundreds of times. I don’t know who was smiling more—Sophie or Dad?
When the grand slam won the game for the Hogs, a 33-year old acted like he was 3, and celebrated the proverbial game-winning fireworks. But, what really made the day perfect was watching my dad and Sophie watch the real fireworks. It’s the little things that end up being really important—like a balk call in the 5th inning. Sophie will forget about this day in a few years. Probably sooner, as other exciting moments vie for position in her little memory.This post is a little different because I am going to take you guys with me as a wander around a problem that has been festering in the edges of my mind for quite some time. (For those not lulled into a coma, there's a reward at the end of this lengthy meander.) I am hoping for insights (in the form of comments) that might help clear the fog. Here is the list of related questions that has me bogged down in some cloudy thinking:
