Tipping Point

Over the past few months I have been pondering why we (by we, I mean Americans) are willfully participating in tax evasion by a whole segment of our economy. It has been on my mind since we have been pounded on with the idea that the "rich" are not paying their fair share. It got me wondering if the "rich" are not paying their fair share, then who else isn't paying theirs either. I think you will be surprised that I am NOT taking about the illegal aliens getting paid in cash for their labor. I am talking about the concept of tipping the wait staff at your favorite restaurants. Don't get me wrong - I tip generously due to Kristy's experience as a waitress. I am also not saying that the people bringing me my food and drinks don't earn their money. I am just curious why we let a significant amount of their earnings go without paying the taxes that every other (legal) worker pays.

According to the U.S. Department of Labor, federal regulations require wait staff, servers, and bartenders to receive at least $2.13 per hour. If the tips received don't meet the minimum wage for other employers, then the employer must make up the difference. The restaurant owner relies on two things to report the actual earnings of the wait staff: (1) credit card receipts and (2) wait staff honesty for cash patrons. I am going to present an argument that a waiter could fairly easily dodge taxes on about $10,000 of income each year while at the same time reducing the taxes owed by the restaurant owner (by the wait staff's income being unreported). I am going to walk through this scenario even though I have never been a member of the wait staff. If I am wildly wrong on some of assumptions, please point them out so that I can learn something.

Here are the assumptions that I am using for a typical family or date style restaurant (e.g., Chili's, Appleby's, Outback, Olive Garden, etc.):

• 5 Hours/Shift
• 4 Shifts/Week
• 50 Weeks/Year
• 10 Tables/Hour [I realize this is probably HIGH]
• $40 Total Bill/Table [I realize this is probably LOW]
• 25% of Tables will pay the tip in cash

Using these assumptions, if a waiter only under reports cash tips, then that income is the equivalent of a $10,000 tip goes unreported each year. On a $40 bill, the difference between a 10% tip and 20% tip is $4. Multiply each of the assumptions by the $4 (5 x 4 x 50 x 10 x 0.25 x $4 = $10,000). Now, I realize that some tip less than 20% (or less 10%), but over a year, it is not unreasonable to me that a waiter could average a 15% cash tip rate. Even at just a 15% rate, that would be $5,000 of unreported income.

Now, let's look at the tax consequences of the lower value ($5,000) for the unreported income. For the waitress, this represents an avoidance of about $1,100 in taxes. How is that possible? Assume a 15% federal income tax rate, 6.2% Social Security tax, and 1.45% Medicare tax. Now, multiply those taxes by the $5,000, you get $1132.50 (this doesn't include state or local income tax avoidance).  The restaurant owner would be required to pay 7.65% (6.2% Social Security + 1.45% Medicare) of that $5,000 which is $382.50 [this doesn't include state or federal unemployment insurance taxes]. This is a total of about $1,500 in taxes that we have allowed to slip through the cracks or have simply ignored.

I want to be clear. I think you should pay the minimum amount of taxes that you are LEGALLY supposed to pay. I have no issue with using tax deductions, tax credits, and tax-free investments to reduce the amount of taxes that you pay. You would be an idiot to pay more if you don't have to do so. However, I am completely opposed to ILLEGALLY hiding income for the purposes of not paying taxes on it.

I have also been thinking about how I would change the restaurant business to fix this. Here is are the items that I would change if I ever ran a restaurant:

• Wait staff would be paid an hourly wage commensurate with their work.
• Training rates and fully trained staff rates would be different.
• Good wait staff would make more than the average rate.
• Poor wait staff would make less than the average rate or be let go.
• No tips!
• Acceptance of a tip would be grounds for dismissal.
• Price on the menu would be all inclusive (that is, tip and sales tax would be included). A $9.95 burger on today's menu would cost $13.50. Here's how that breaks down:
• $10 to cover food costs, overhead, and back of house wages.
• $2.25 to cover the additional cost of including waiter tips and additional payroll taxes in the bill.
• $1.25 to cover sales tax.
• We already pay this, but it is hidden by including taxes and tip when the bill comes.
• Menu and signage would include a statement like, "Please do not tip the wait staff. They are paid appropriately to serve you with a good attitude and respect."
• This would make me, as the owner, responsible for the wait staff doing its job - not my customers.
• This also takes away the necessity of the patron to evaluate whether or not it should be a 15%, 18%, or 25% tip. They could simply enjoy the service and meal KNOWING what the cost was before the check arrived.

In today's business climate, my restaurant would probably fail - as most restaruants do. However, I keep hoping someone will start a restaurant along these lines in Fayetteville (We went to one in Colorado Springs during a JOWOG meeting once - I loved it.), so that I could put my money where my ideas are.

Does It Matter?

Four years ago, I spent election night in a fit of depression. I had been forced to vote for McCain/Palin because I believed (and still do) that Barack Obama was a statist. He believes that it is the government's role and responsibility to make things "fair" for everyone. The idea of fairness is a funny concept. Thomas Sowell, one of the great thinkers of our era, has written extensively on the concept of fairness and what it really means. I believe exactly as Andrew Klaven writes about the concept:

Free people can treat each other justly, but they can't make life fair. To get rid of the unfairness among individuals, you have to exercise power over them. The more fairness you want, the more power you need. Thus, all dreams of fairness become dreams of tyranny in the end.

I have said all of that to say this. The outcome of the election does not matter in the lives of people who do not put their hope in government or Presidents. If we are honest with ourselves, a whole truckload of money was spent to bring back the status quo. These things are true on January 1 regardless of the winner.

• EVERY worker (notice I did not say every American) will have their taxes goes up by 2%.
• The payroll (FICA) tax rises from 4.2% to 6.2%.
• There is no thought by either party to prevent this.
• If you make $50,000/year, your take home pay WILL BE reduced by $1,000 (~$85/month).
• EVERY taxpayer (notice I did not say every American) will have their rates return to the pre-Bush tax cut rates.
• In terms of dollars, the higher earners did receive larger dollar amounts in cuts. I never argued otherwise. However, the overall percentage of total tax bill paid by high earners INCREASED - stick that in your pipe and smoke it (but only in Washington and Colorado).
• In terms of effect, the lower brackets will be impacted in a more significant way - particularly because Bush brought in a 10% bracket (going away) and also removed many families from the income tax rolls by raising personal exceptions and increasing the child tax credit.
• I don't think there is the will to roll this back. There has been no movement on this in 4 years AND the players (Obama, Boehner, and Reid) will be the same.
• We still have a $16 trillion debt and a $1 trillion+ budget deficit. We have not passed a budget in the Senate in over 3 years.
• The current Administration is responsible for 1/3 of the debt during a relative time of peace.
• This is a significant problem and the can is getting too big to kick down the road.
• While I did not support the sequester (and still don't), I will not get bunched up if it happens. The pain is spread evenly.
• Mandatory cuts may be the only way to get cuts. However, I don't think that cutting across the board (without looking at the individual program) is a good idea. I say that, but I know that every government program has waste, so maybe across the board cuts may begin to pare some of that back.

A few final thoughts and then I will leave you to your celebration or mourning. First, I feel really sorry for those that voted for Obama in the hopes that he will bring something to your life that is missing. You are likely to disappointed 4 years from now. Don't depend on Obama or anyone to do something to change your situation - do something for yourself. Second, we will now see what would have happened to our economy without Ronald Reagan 32 years ago. I am absolutely certain that we will find out that he wasn't just the beneficiary of fluctuations in natural economic cycles. Third, after the loss of a son, the struggles with keeping Sophie healthy, and Kristy's ongoing health issues, I have more important things to worry about than money or freedom. My hope is in a risen Christ - NOT men and political parties. I have not been guaranteed an easy life or freedom from struggles, but I have been promised things that men cannot take away. Finally, although he was not my choice, I will be praying regularly for President Obama - for wisdom, humility, and his ultimate salvation. It is my prayer that he finds a true redemption rather than his concept of collective redemption.

Now, let's move on to more important things like the Texas A&M game against Alabama, and the second season in Texas - football recruiting.

Nuclear Posture Report Review - Post #9

This post is the final post in a series that I have written about the NPR report issued by the Obama administration. I can almost hear the cheering out there and being finished with this series makes me happy too. You can download the report here. This post will deal with the "Looking Ahead: Toward a World Without Nuclear Weapons" chapter of the NPR. The last "standard disclaimer":  I am employed by Sandia National Laboratories. The views written here are not the official position of SNL and should not be viewed that way. They are my views as a private citizen.

 For the most part, this chapter reiterates much of what was written earlier in the report.  However, in the last bullet of page 47, I read "... and eventually eliminate all nuclear weapons worldwide." As I came to the end of the document, I was forced to admit that some of the short range plans outlined in the NPR were reasonable.  This long range goal is laudable but entirely unreasonable.  A world without nuclear weapons is a world in which we no longer have knowledge of how nuclear physics works.  The physics greats that proved that nuclear energy and weapons were possible (Fermi, Oppenheimer, Bohr, Szilard, Wigner, and many others) knew that this genie could NEVER be put back into the bottle.  In fact, most of them knew this shortly after fission was discovered in 1938 by Hahn and Strassman.

Thus, the Obama administration is either advocating for a new Dark Ages or Utopia.  Both of these states are unrealistic. The Dark Ages approach is suicidal for the U.S. The Utopian view is a dream that only the immature indulge with "hopes" for "change." 

As I conclude this series of posts, I want to recommend a few books that confront the issue of the existence of nuclear weapons with clarity and realistic assessments:

• "The Making of the Atomic Bomb" by Richard Rhodes
• "Dark Sun: The Making of the Hydrogen Bomb" by Richard Rhodes
• "Arsenals of Folly:  The Making of the Nuclear Arms Race" by Richard Rhodes
• "The Twilight of the Bombs:  Recent Challenges, New Dangers, and Prospects for a World Without Nuclear Weapons" by Richard Rhodes

I don't always agree with Rhodes' conclusions about the necessity of the nuclear weapon stockpile, but he writes compelling history of this topic that will probably always be part of the lives of U.S. citizens.

Nuclear Posture Report Review - Post #8

This post is part of a series that I continue to write about the NPR report issued by the Obama administration. You can download the report here. This post will deal with both the "Strengthening Regional Deterrence and Reassuring U.S. Allies and Partners" and "Sustaining a Safe, Secure, and Effective Nuclear Arsenal" chapters of the NPR. Standard disclaimer:  I am employed by Sandia National Laboratories. The views written here are not the official position of SNL and should not be viewed that way. They are my views as a private citizen.

The "Strengthening Regional..." chapter (pages 31-36) did not cause me much difficulty or tension as I read it.  I did get "worried" in this chapter when the administration claims that, "we will work closely with our allies."  I have seen too much arrogance (?), contempt (?), or something else from Obama toward our traditional allies like the United Kingdom and Israel to believe that there is much behind the words.

The "Sustaining a Safe..." chapter (pages 37-44) is essentially a three decade look ahead put out by the administration.  In this look ahead, the NPR realizes that every stockpile weapon will require some degree of technical attention.  Until a few months ago when the administration released the number of weapons in our stockpile, the specific number and type of warheads were classified (Secret Restricted Data - Sigma  5).  The administration did not release the type of warheads, so I will assume that the information is still classified.  The "transparency" with respect to classified information really chaps me.  I am not claiming that the President didn't have the authority to release the information (both the President and Vice President have this power), but I do not believe that it is smart to start revealing this type of data.

Continuing with the chapter, on page 39, the administration details a plan that we will not produce any new warheads.  Instead, we will continue our practice of Life Extension Programs (LEP).  In addition, the administration has declared that we will have no new designs of nuclear components, no new missions for nuclear weapons, and no new capabilities in the nuclear stockpile. I don't like the outlook here, but this is consistent with maintaining the stockpile for defensive purposes only. One positive that comes out of this section is that all options (the refurbishment of current weapons, the reuse of nuclear components for different warheads, and the replacement of nuclear components for different warheards) are on the table for future LEPs. However, a strong preference for refurbishment and/or reuse was voiced in this NPR.

There is a section starting on page 40 called "Critical Infrastructure and Human Capital."  The irony of this section is that you need highly educated, trained, and experience personnel to maintain the nuclear stockpile while these needed scientists/engineers are not going to be interested in the fact that the NNSA has declared that we will do nothing new.  You don't spend most of your life training for an R&D job, and then decide you are going to work as a "caretaker" for someone else's project.  The goal of no new design work and maintaining capabilities work against each other.  On a very personal note, pages 40-41 are basically a job security outline for me.

Nuclear Posture Report Review - Post #7

This post is part of a series that I continue to write about the NPR report issued by the Obama administration. You can download the report here. This post will deal with the "Maintaining Strategic Deterrence and Stability at Reduced Nuclear Force Levels" chapter of the NPR. Once again, before I continue commenting on the NPR, I need to add a disclaimer. I am employed by Sandia National Laboratories. The views written here are not the official position of SNL and should not be viewed that way. They are my views as a private citizen.

This chapter seems to be about leaving a legacy for President Obama.  The administration is outlining its plan for a START treaty that will limit the nuclear arsenals of the U.S. and Russia.  Amazingly, China is omitted from these treaty discussions.  Getting into the details on the planned New START reduction, there is a statement on page 22 that I simply do not understand, "Single-warhead ICBMs contribute to stability ..."  This statement is followed up with the "DeMIRVed" ICBM force.  Someone in the State Department believes that de-MIRVing reduces the incentive to strike first.  This is a silly statement because the U.S. has maintained for as long as I have been alive that our ICBM capabilities are strictly a deterrent capability.

This chapter continues to support the idea of a nuclear triad which a positive.  In addition, I found a lot of positives in seeking to be able to move treaty allowed weapons and delivery platforms as long as the flexibility to move them back to the original platform is maintained.  The current alert posture for our nuclear forces is maintained (page 25) and I see this as a step forward.

On page 25, we find that we will maintain our policy of "Open Ocean Targeting" of our strategic weapons.  I think that this policy is a meaningless exercise, but it does maintain the appearance of good faith in strategic deterrence.  Also on page 25, we find that we will seek to "Maximize the decision time for the President."  This is really silly because the President has the sole authority for the release of a nuclear weapon, so he can take all the time he needs.

Moving to non-strategic weapons (pages 27-28), I am encouraged by the decision to do a full scope life extension program (LEP) for the B-61, but I think the retirement of the sea-launched cruise missile (TLAM-N) is a bad decision.  This decision assumes that bombers with B-61 or air-launched cruise missiles (ALCM-N) overlap the TLAM-N capability.

On page 30, I find a lot in the goals of the Stockpile Stewardship Program that is good.  However, it will require significant $$$$ to actually perform the tasks and complete the goals. In reality, the true method of reducing the number of non-deployed weapons is TESTING.  Resumption of testing is NOT going to happen until the Directors at the NNSA national laboratories (Los Alamos, Sandia, and Lawrence Livermore) will not sign the annual assurance letter to the President.  In my opinion, this action is well into the future.

Nuclear Posture Report Review - Post #6

This post is part of a series that I continue to write about the NPR report issued by the Obama administration. You can download the report here. This post will deal with the "Reducing the Role of U.S. Nuclear Weapons" chapter of the NPR. Once again, before I continue commenting on the NPR, I need to add a disclaimer. I am employed by Sandia National Laboratories. The views written here are not the official position of SNL and should not be viewed that way. They are my views as a private citizen.

I have mentioned it before but this chapter is the one in which the Obama administration details that the U.S. will not use nuclear weapons against any nation that is in compliance with the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT).  This stance is taken even if we are attacked by Chemical and/or Biological Weapons (CBW).   Here is a re-publish of my original take on this:

• ...the U.S. gave up its chemical and biological weapons by treaty a long time ago, so we can't retaliate "tit for tat" with this type of weapon. The research that we do in this area is limited to the development of protective suits for our soldiers and the development of agents to deactivate or decontaminate the chem-bio agents.  In the past, we have used the unknown and ambiguous nature of our response to these types of attacks against us as a deterrent. We are now proclaiming that, as long as you are in compliance with the non-proliferation treaty, we will not retaliate with nuclear weapons even if you choose to attack us with biological or chemical weapons of mass destruction. I can't believe that I am the only one that thinks this is completely asinine and stupid.
• Our soldiers went into Kuwait to expel Iraqi forces during the Gulf War wearing chem-bio protection because every one in the world KNEW that Saddam Hussein had those weapons.  Was he hesitant to use them because he was a great humanitarian?  We know that the answer to that is "NO!" because he attacked the Kurds in northern Iraq (his own people) with them in 1988. I think that he did not want his Presidential palace illuminated with a W80 warhead mounted on the front end of a Tomahawk cruise missile.  If he had chosen to use these WMDs, he knew that was one of our possible responses. With this new NPR, he would not have had those fears.

As I went through this, I realized I have discussed this chapter in depth (basically in posts #1 and #2).  To conclude my thoughts on this chapter, it seems that the entire section is devoted to demonstrating how "nice" the U.S. wants to be.  This does nothing except project weakness around the world.  It also makes increasingly cheaper and deadlier biological weapons MORE likely. Countries will be very sure that they are in compliance with all aspects of the NPT when they decide to use Chem-Bio Weapons against the U.S.

Nuclear Posture Report Review - Post #5

This post is part of a series that I continue to write about the NPR report issued by the Obama administration. You can download the report here. This post will deal with the "Preventing Nuclear Proliferation and Nuclear Terrorism" chapter of the NPR. Once again, before I continue commenting on the NPR, I need to add a disclaimer. I am employed by Sandia National Laboratories. The views written here are not the official position of SNL and should not be viewed that way. They are my views as a private citizen.

As I continued to read through this document, I found that I am getting more increasingly frustrated at the tone of the Obama administration.  Am I the only person that thinks that this administration uses the phrase, "For the first time" more than is reasonable?  As you finish the 1st paragraph of the chapter (page 9), you will see the claim that we have placed non-proliferation and preventing nuclear terrorism at the top of our list of things to do "for the first time."  While the priority may not have appeared explicitly in the previous NPRs, it is ridiculous to say that we have not placed the highest priority on securing loose nukes and nuclear materials since the fall of the Soviet Union.  We have even worked with the Russian Federation to do just that since the early 1990's.

On page 10, there is the statement that we are "identifying and prosecuting its [international terror] networks and establishing international standards and best practices."  I circled the sentence and wrote one word, "HA!"  This section gave me a chuckle because the Obama administration still believes that fighting terrorism is a law enforcement activity.  This is one of the flaws that the 9/11 Commission noted in its final report.  The terrorists are at war with us and some still think that it is a matter of identifying and prosecuting crime.

On page 11 (second bullet), we find that the U.S. hosted a "Nuclear Security Summit" in April 2010.  That is typical of the Obama administration:

• Get together
• Talk for a day or two
• Declare agreement
• Praise the work done.

If you remember, Israel refused to attend because of the implications of the pre-determined outcome.  There was a lot of positive press coverage over this nothing Summit, but the "agreement" reached will have no lasting impact on international non-proliferation activities.

One of the most disturbing aspects of this chapter is found on page 12 (second bullet), where the NPR declares that we will strengthen our nuclear forensics efforts.  In some circles, this activity is referred to as attribution.  This is a give-up statement that declares "What we are going to do is going to fail, but we will be able to identify those responsible for nuking us."  That scares the hell out of me.

The 3rd bullet on page 12 is ironic to me.  It states that we will hold fully accountable any ... that helps nuclear activities against the U.S. However, we state previously in the NPR, that have taken nuclear weapons off the table for those that are in compliance with the Non-Proliferation Treaty.  It seems to me that a country could aid terrorists in attacking us with nuclear and/or radiological weapons while maintaining compliance with the NPT.

On page 13 (first bullet), we find that the Obama administration is going to pursue another failed Clinton administration policy, the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty (CTBT).  In addition, the administration is going to try to negotiate a Fissile Material Cutoff Treaty (FMCT).  The details of these two treaties are not fleshed out enough right now to outline my specific objections.  However, with the track record we have of Obama so far, I doubt that U.S. interests will be protected by this administration in the negotiations of these treaties.

The final comment that I have deals with the final bullet in this chapter.  The progress toward a "world free of nuclear weapons" mentioned there is incredibly NAIVE unless we are talking about developing technology that can and will be used even if the U.S. maintains a nuclear stockpile.

Just a few more of these posts left...

Nuclear Posture Review Report - Post #4

This post is part of a series that I continue to write about the NPR report issued by the Obama administration. You can download the report here. Once again, before I continue commenting on the NPR, I need to add a disclaimer. I am employed by Sandia National Laboratories. The views written here are not the official position of SNL and should not be viewed that way. They are my views as a private citizen.

In the first 3 posts, we dealt with the Executive Summary (Post #1 and Post #2) and the Introduction (Post #3). I am going to dissect the "The Changed - and Changing - Nuclear Security Environment" chapter during this post.  I found that I was actually able to read a couple of pages (page 3-4) without too much consternation. This situation quickly deteriorated as I read about the United States relationship with China.

On page 5 (2nd paragraph), I was sickened by the fact that, "The United States welcomes a strong, prosperous, and successful China that plays a greater global role in supporting international rules, norms, and institutions."  This, in and of itself, is a mockery of what I know about the PRC with respect to human rights, monetary policy, etc. However, the Obama administration CANNOT resist this welcome.  It is ironic that in the very next paragraph (3rd paragraph) the administration notes that the very same China lacks transparency with regard to its nuclear arsenal.  It also notes a lack of transparency with respect to its pace and scope of the modernization of its arsenal "as well as the strategy and doctrine guiding them."  This administration, like many others (including the GWB administration), does not recognize the threat of a strong, prosperous China.  It seems that the billion+ people economic market is the driving influence of too many of the policy makers.  These wonks should spend more time worrying about their responsibilities to the 300+ million Americans on this end of their policies.

Moving on to the "Adapting to a Changed Security Environment" section, I see that once again the modification of the United States nuclear weapons policies and force posture "have not gone far or fast enough."  The next sentence is, "As the President has said, we have to 'put an end to Cold War thinking.'"  My notes on this section are particularly biting. Here is the transcription from my notes, "THANK GOD we have the 'The ONE' here to show us the way." For those that don't know me that well, that is definitely sarcasm.

As the report continues to bullet list the changes to the U.S. nuclear posture, I made a note on the last bullet on page 5 that reads in full:

• "The United States has reduced our reliance on nuclear weapons as Cold War nuclear rivalries have eased and as our conventional military forces and missile defense capabilities have strengthened, but we have sent mixed signals about the importance we place on nuclear weapons in our national security strategy."

I noted that we have sent mixed signals in the past because previous administrations have recognized that "ambiguity about U.S. nuclear weapons policy is a good thing. It prevents our enemies/potential enemies from feeling too comfortable about how we will respond to acts of overt and covert aggression." However, the NPR seems to imply that this ambiguity is not what we want and then moves forward to remove that ambiguity.  As I find later in my reading, this is a particularly bad outcome.

In the "Implications for U.S. Nuclear Weapons Policies and Force Structure" section, I have one word for the first bullet on page 7 -- RIDICULOUS.  The way in which we choose to use nuclear weapons in foreign policy and/or force projection and the number that we have, will have absolutely no impact on countries in compliance with the nuclear nonproliferation treaty and will have even less impact on regimes in Iran and North Korea OR with terrorist groups intent on obtaining a weapon.

My final note in this chapter of the NPR is related to the last bullet on page 7.  The note reads, "Thus far (in my reading of the document) I think that this NPR does exactly the opposite of this statement."  This bullet is where the administration claims that implementing the policies in the NPR will reduce the likelihood of nuclear weapon use. After several months from the release of this document, I still feel the same way about this bullet.

The next post in this series will address the "Preventing Nuclear Proliferation and Nuclear Terrorism" chapter of the NPR. Hopefully, the final 4-5 posts in the series won't have the long time gap between publication.

Nuclear Posture Review Report - Post #3

I am finally ready to write a little bit more on the NPR report issued by the Obama administration. You can download the report here. This post will deal with the "Introduction" chapter of the NPR. Again, before I continue commenting on the NPR, I need to add a disclaimer. I am employed by Sandia National Laboratories. The views written here are not the official position of SNL and should not be viewed that way. They are my views as a private citizen.

As I read the introduction (page 1), I was struck that NNSA national laboratories (Sandia, Los Alamos, and Lawrence Livermore) were left out of the discussion. If true, it seems that a lot of brain power was left out.  However, since reading the NPR, I have heard statements from NNSA lab directors affirming that the labs were consulted as the DoD and the administration moved forward on the document.  I am not sure that they were heard or understood, but they were "consulted".

Continuing on to page 2, I can't help but notice that the 2010 NPR is trying to tie the hands of future Presidents and Congresses.  Some of the policies that are outlined in the document would be difficult, if not impossible, to reverse.  In any case, there are five key objectives of the U.S. nuclear weapons policy and posture listed on this page.  I will quote the objectives and then give you my stream-of-consciousness response as written in my notes on the document.

Objective #1: "Preventing nuclear proliferation and nuclear terrorism."

• I agree that at this time in history this should be have the highest priority.  

Objective #2: "Reducing the role of U.S. nuclear weapons in U.S. national security strategy."

• I disagree with this for a host of reasons.  Foremost, even if we were going to do this, why are we telling the world about it.

Objective #3: "Maintaining regional deterrence and stability at lower nuclear force levels."

• Probably can be done at the tactical level.  It is also possible at the strategic level, but both depend ENTIRELY on implementation.

Objective #4: "Strengthening regional deterrence and reassuring U.S. allies and partners."

• We must do this, but I don't think many of our "friends" believe us right now (e.g., England and Israel).

Objective #5: "Sustaining a safe, secure, and effective nuclear arsenal."

• I agree with this, but the success of this (again!!) depends ENTIRELY on implementation.

Taken our of context, each of these objectives seems entirely reasonable even though I may disagree with the reasoning.  The problem is that we cannot take them out of the context in which we are allowing Iran and North Korea (and possibly others) to pursue nuclear ambitions, committing the fortunes of our grandchildren to keep government union members employed, and blaming the previous President for every thing that goes wrong 2 years after he left office.

Basically, each objective has a chapter dedicated to it, so I will leave my stream of consciousness critiques and address the details of the policies in future posts. So, that's it for the Introduction.  I must say that I was disappointed but not surprised by this document.  Hopefully, in the next few weeks, I will outline (in coherent fashion) why this document concerns me a great deal.

Nuclear Posture Review Report - Post #2

As I mentioned a week or so ago, I reviewed the NPR report issued by the Obama administration. You can download the report here.  I finally finished the entire 72-page document.  This post will deal with the second half of the executive summary. Again, before I continue commenting on the NPR, I need to add a disclaimer.  I am employed by Sandia National Laboratories. The views written here are not the official position of SNL and should not be viewed that way. They are my views as a private citizen.

I stopped the previous post at the section entitled "Strengthening Regional Deterrence and Reassuring U.S. Allies and Partners" in the Executive Summary.  Believe it or not, I went almost a page and a half before finding a major issue that I don't really agree with or understand.  On page xiii, we have this item in the list of things that are concluded that the U.S. will do:

• "Retire the nuclear-equipped sea-launched cruise missile (TLAM-N)."

Although the air-launch cruise missile is not removed from the current stockpile by the NPR, this particular item causes me some heartburn.  It removes an element of our capability to project force.  Here is what I mean.  Imagine that Iran knows that we are no longer be able to station nuclear equipped surface ships or submarines just off their coast or in the Strait of Hormuz. This means our stealthy attack submarines or very visible surface ships do not present as big a deterrent to their nuclear (or other) ambitions. To attack them tactically (I don't think strategic systems make sense in this discussion), we would be forced to fly bombers halfway across the world (risking the crew and aircraft) rather than having the force ready and able on their doorstep.

Now, it could very well be that I don't understand the complete context in which this decision is being made.  However, I don't see how this particular decision does what the title of the section implies. It does not strengthen regional deterrence and it doesn't reassure our allies and partners.  In my view, it weakens both of these things. The very next bullet in the section declares that "no changes ... will be made without close consultations with our allies and partners."  I am not sure that our allies and partners will believe that based on the decision in the previous bullet.  I know that I wouldn't.

As I continued on to the "Sustaining a Safe, Secure, and Effective Nuclear Arsenal" section, I question the decision not to develop new designs (page xiv, bullet 2). I will address this in a future post. To be completely fair, the final two bullets on page xiv seem reasonable.  These items do move the ball forward in assuring that we have a safe and reliable stockpile.  On a personal note, those items provide some job security for me.

The first full sentence of page xv restates something that my colleagues and I have said many times:

• "As the United States reduces the numbers of nuclear weapons, the reliability of the remaining weapons in the stockpile -- and the quality of the facilities needed to sustain it -- become more important." 

Basically, each one becomes more valuable and it is more important that we and our adversaries know that they will function if that nightmare need arises. This section of the Executive Summary seems to be more in line with the traditional outlook for our stockpile stewardship program. I found little to quibble with in the section overall excepting (of course) the no new design policy.

My only note on the concluding section of the Executive Summary ("Looking Ahead:  Toward a World Without Nuclear Weapons") is that the outlook presented is incredibly naive.  I will spend some time defining my view of this in the post relating to that chapter of the NPR. The second half of the Executive Summary did not reek havoc with my emotional state (and blood pressure) like the first half did.  However, I still believe that the worldview that produced the document leads to dangerous unintended consequences.

Nuclear Posture Review Report - Post #1

A couple of days ago the Obama administration released the 2010 Nuclear Posture Review (NPR) Report.  In the past (the last two were 1994 and 2001), this sort of report had an unclassified portion released to the public with a classified appendix for those who had a need to know.  All indications with this NPR point to the fact that the entire NPR is likely contained in this unclassified 72-page document that you can download here.  At this time, I have read through the Table of Contents and the first 11 pages of the "Executive Summary."

Before I start commenting on what I believe is thoroughly misguided and naive NPR, I need to add a disclaimer.  I am employed by Sandia National Laboratories. The views written here are not the official position of SNL and should not be viewed that way. They are my views as a private citizen. Now, on with the show...

It is not often that I get choked up while reading the Table of Contents, but this NPR is a real page-turner.  The last chapter of the report is entitled, "Looking Ahead:  Toward a World Without Nuclear Weapons." This stopped me for a bit because, while this is a noble goal, it is an incredibly naive.  It is also dangerous to think the that the United States will be able to bring this about through the nuclear posture that is outlined and detailed later in the document. By the way, I was fine with the rest of the Table of Contents, so you can't say that I disagree with Obama on EVERYTHING in this document.

I don't start having real problems with the document until page viii (page 14 in the pdf).  Here are some excerpts that I would like to discuss further:

• "... the role of U.S.nuclear weapons in deterring non-nuclear attacks – conventional, biological, or chemical – has declined significantly. The United States will continue to reduce the role of nuclear weapons in deterring non-nuclear attacks."
• "To that end, the United States is now prepared to strengthen its long-standing “negative security assurance” by declaring that the United States will not use or threaten to use nuclear weapons against non-nuclear weapons states that are party to the NPT and in compliance with their nuclear non-proliferation obligations."
• "This revised assurance is intended to underscore the security benefits of adhering to and fully complying with the NPT and persuade non-nuclear weapon states party to the Treaty to work with the United States and other interested parties to adopt effective measures to strengthen the non-proliferation regime."

In case you don't understand the context, the U.S. gave up its chemical and biological weapons by treaty a long time ago, so we can't retaliate "tit for tat" with this type of weapon. The research that we do in this area is limited to the development of protective suits for our soldiers and the development of agents to deactivate or decontaminate the chem-bio agents.  In the past, we have used the unknown and ambiguous nature of our response to these types of attacks against us as a deterrent. We are now proclaiming that, as long as you are in compliance with the non-proliferation treaty, we will not retaliate with nuclear weapons even if you choose to attack us with biological or chemical weapons of mass destruction. I can't believe that I am the only one that thinks this is completely asinine and stupid.

Our soldiers went into Kuwait to expel Iraqi forces during the Gulf War wearing chem-bio protection because every one in the world KNEW that Saddam Hussein had those weapons.  Was he hesitant to use them because he was a great humanitarian?  We know that the answer to that is "NO!" because he attacked the Kurds in northern Iraq (his own people) with them in 1988. I think that he did not want his Presidential palace illuminated with a W80 warhead mounted on the front end of a Tomahawk cruise missile.  If had chosen to use these WMDs, he knew that was one of our possible responses. With this new NPR, he would not have had those fears.

My next piece of heartburn with the NPR shows up on page ix (page 15 of the pdf).  If you search for the second bullet on the page, we will find:

• "The United States would only consider the use of nuclear weapons in extreme circumstances to defend the vital interests of the United States or its allies and partners." (emphasis added)

I know there are those of you who wonder why I would have trouble with this statement. Well, it is not the statement. It is that I simply don't trust that Obama and his administration have the same vital interests as the rest of the American people (e.g., the Health Care legislation) or our allies (e.g., snubs of the Brits and the Israelis over the last 15 months).

Now, my final bone of contention in the first 11 pages of the Executive Summary is found on page xi (page 17 in pdf):

• "First, any future nuclear reductions must continue to strengthen deterrence of potential regional adversaries, strategic stability vis-à-vis Russia and China, and assurance of our allies and partners. This will require an updated assessment of deterrence requirements; further improvements in U.S., allied, and partner non-nuclear capabilities; focused reductions in strategic and nonstrategic weapons; and close consultations with allies and partners."

This is the classic mathematical mistake of addition by subtraction.  While it is quite clear that less regulation (subtraction in the number of rules and laws) can add to the quality of life of citizens, I don't think the principal of disarmament (subtraction in war fighting capability) in the face of growing and unknown threats in any way adds to the security of this country. I am willing to listen to counter-arguments, but it is going to be had to convince me that carrying a big stick wasn't the most important part of Teddy Roosevelt's philosophy. Instead, we are going to shout loudly that we want to be nice, and we will show you this by laying down our stick. I wonder how often that works in someplace other than La La Land.

At this point during my reading, I had reached a section heading and my blood pressure was spiking.  So, I put down the document and tried to relax a bit.  As I slog my way through this document, I think that I will post opinions on a chapter by chapter basis.  The next post will handle the rest of the Executive Summary. I have hopes that the document is better than the summary, but that is probably just more of that same "Hope and Change" that really isn't working all that well right now.

So, Preventive Medicine Saves Money?

I have been carrying an article with me around the country over the last year or so.  It was written in February 2008 in the New England Journal of Medicine. The "Perspective" asks the question, "Does preventative care save money?"  The writers conclude that most of the political rhetoric about the possible dollars that could be saved by prevention is "overreaching."

The authors make it clear that vaccinations, smoking cessation, low cost screening for a disease (when a cost effective treatment for the disease exists), and avoiding misuse of alcohol DO save money. However, they also point out that expensive high-tech treatments for some diseases might be a more cost effective use of medical care.  I think that the most interesting statement in the article is the following:

• "Although some preventive measures do save money, the vast majority reviewed in the health economics literature do not. Careful analysis of the costs and benefits of specific interventions, rather than broad generalizations, is critical."  (emphasis added)

I am pretty sure that this finding is counter-intuitive to most of our feelings on the subject.  Somehow, we believe that knowing we have a disease before the effects start to mess with our systems is better for us in the long run (both in terms of health and economics) while the medical research demonstrates that this is not true.  In any case, I thought I would toss this question out for discussion:

• "Is an ounce of prevention REALLY worth a pound of cure?"

Let me know your opinion.

Whether we like it or not, our future medical care providers (whether private doctors, HMOs, or the federal government) will be looking at some of the issues raised in this short article.  In fact, the "quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs)" discussed in the article are essentially the means by which all socialized medical systems ration care.  I really don't like to think that my health care decisions will be made by someone looking up the QALYs of a particular treatment before deciding to allocate the funds for it.  I like the ability to make that decision myself.  In any case, how much freedom do you think we will have when our heart, lungs, knees, and backs become line items in the federal budget?

Quite frankly, I think a lot of sickness could be prevented if we just stopped talking about a takeover of our health care system by the government.  I know that my blood pressure would be lower if we did.

Why Not Nuclear?

Several times (more than 3) in the last couple of months I have been asked either "why don't we have more nuclear power?" or "should we have more nuclear because the waste issue has not been solved?" or both.  While the exact phrasing of the questions is slightly different in each of the cases, I can't help but think that the entire nuclear power industry in the U.S. has failed to communicate on a host of issues.  Several years back, Cable and I both decided that the American Nuclear Society (ANS) was a failure as an organization because of this communication problem and stopped paying dues.  When it became clear that ANS didn't miss our $150/year, we had to figure out a way to change things from within the system.

I think the following issues are the ones that ANS has failed to provide leadership in communicating to the general public.  I must admit that it does a good job communicating to engineers and physicists (and that is probably the problem).

• Nuclear reactor safety
• Cost of new nuclear reactors
• Nuclear waste

Nuclear Reactor Safety
I believe the first thing that most members of the general public think about when they hear the word nuclear is either "Three Mile Island (TMI)" or "Chernobyl."  The two accidents, while wildly different in actual impact, are viewed through a prism that reflects only fear.  While ANS can't do much about the Chernobyl (other than to point out the design flaws of the RMBK-1000 -- such as a positive reactivity void coefficient), ANS needs to emphasize that the design would NEVER have been licensed to operate in the U.S. On the other hand, TMI was the worst case scenario for a reactor licensed to operate in the U.S.  The result of the accident was billions of dollars in damage to both the reactor and the nuclear industry, but there were no fatalities and minimal radiation exposure to the general public.

The U.S. nuclear industry learned a ton from TMI including how to operate plants better and to share information among "competitors" in the nuclear business.  Some of this was led by Dr. Ron Knief (a co-worker of mine in Tech Area V at Sandia National Laboratories) who was part of the team that analyzed the events leading up to and following the reactor accident. Some of the experiments that attempted to better understand what happens when nuclear fuel melts and fission products are released were performed 300 yards from where I sit when I am in Albuquerque (in the same reactor that I perform experiments).  We KNOW how safe our current reactors are, but some of the "communicators" have decided to sell the next generation of reactors on improved safety or "inherent" safety.  This concept makes it sound like the 100+ reactors (generating ~20% of our electricity) are unsafe.

The entire nuclear industry (led by the Institute of Nuclear Power Operations [INPO]) has bought into the concept of continual improvement. I think that this is a good thing because we have shown steady and amazing improvement in occupational radiation exposure, refueling outage times, and overall operating efficiency in the last 25 years. This record of improvement should be put forward as justification for the opportunity to a have "Nuclear Renaissance." We shouldn't say, "We didn't do so well when we designed them the first or second time, but THIS time, we will do better." While it is true that the new generation (GEN3+ for you nukes out there) of reactors does have more inherent and designed safety features, those features are not the driving concepts behind the designs.

Cost of New Nuclear Reactors
Estimates of the cost to build a new reactor range from $5-10 BILLION and a time frame of about 7 years. WHY?  Well, I think that the industry has decided that the economy of scale works for it when it build large (1000+ MWe) plants rather than smaller units. I am uncertain whether the economics have shown that the cost curve to build the larger plants provides a cost break for the "extra" MW that you are designing into the process.  While the baseload plant idea probably is justified by each individual utility that makes this decision, the lack of a national energy policy has left orphaned the idea that smaller, modular (factory-built rather than custom built) plants could be made economical.

One of my colleagues has envisioned a reactor concept that is known as the Multi-Module Reactor (MMR) that significantly reduces the capital cost for new reactor power. He has met significant resistance from the nuclear power proponents at the DOE and SNL because it doesn't meet the general consensus idea of what nuclear should be.  It doesn't need a "containment" building or other significant capital investment.  His idea is to use the "swimming pool" concept of the TRIGA reactor design (natural convection cooling and significant negative reactivity temperature coefficient) to meet the safety emphasis and to reduce the capital cost.  Basically, he changes the fuel and reactor design enough to produce electrical power from these well-known and studied reactors that were designed for teaching and training.

In order to have a nuclear renaissance, new nuclear plants must compete economically instead of being an option to stave off global warming or climate change. Nuclear engineers need to be honest brokers in communicating the cost/benefit equation of nuclear power and environmental concerns. If we resort to climate change as the justification for increasing the proportion of nuclear electricity, then that can ONLY lead to mistrust of nukes as the whole house of cards surrounding the theory of anthropogenic global warming is in the process of collapse.

Nuclear Wastes
The main objection that I often hear is that we shouldn't build more reactors until we have solved the nuclear waste disposal issue. To most of my nuclear engineering colleagues, this is simply a political question.  In the U.S., we have defaulted to a once-through fuel.  This is very different from the approach of France, Russia, England, Japan, etc. where they have decided to re-process or recycle their reactor fuel. No utility or consortium of utilities has stepped forward to recycle the fuel in the U.S. since Jimmy Carter made the foolish executive order to prohibit the process in the U.S.  Even though Ronald Reagan rescinded the EO on fuel reprocessing, the risk to capital is so great in the political arena that no one has come forward to pay for such a recycling facility.

A once-through fuel cycle requires a large repository to store spent fuel for time spans longer than recorded history.  Recycling removes the long-lived radioactive material and burns it in reactors making the needed storage time on the order of hundreds of years (rather than hundreds of thousands).  In addition, some of the isotopes in the spent fuel are valuable, but we can't get to them because of the lack of reprocessing capability.

I also find the reasoning that we should not reprocess so we can prevent a "plutonium economy" very underwhelming. The very act of saying no when everyone else is saying yes removes us from the decision/policy making processes in a plutonium economy that DOES exist. From the other nuclear nations point of view, we have no economic stake in the outcome, so they feel justified in ignoring our input.

Conclusions
As a nuclear engineer, I feel a certain sadness that we have not done a better job in communicating our industry.  ANS and other nuclear advocacy groups need to focus on both the science and the communication of the science.  Enlisting non-geeks to let us know how to better talk with non-geeks is probably a good idea.  I am not suggesting that PR provides the answer to our problems, but I do feel like it would crack the door open on at least 2 of the issues I discussed.  The economics of nuclear power have to be put in realistic terms, and perhaps some non-conventional thinking such as the MMR could turn the economics quickly in our favor.

Inflation? What's Inflation?

I often wondered about the best way to define or describe inflation and have never found a way to present it in a way that satisfies my understanding. Statements like "Too many dollars chasing too few goods" or "an increase in the price of a basket of goods and services that is representative of the economy as a whole" have never had any real meaning to me. That is why when I heard Neal Boortz explain it a few weeks ago, it finally clicked for me. This is how he explained it:

• Imagine that you are at an auction buying items from all over the world. You have a certain amount of money, someone else has half that amount, and someone else has three times your amount. The auction is going along, and the people bidding on things have some idea of what they are willing to pay for the items being sold. Now, let's say that someone calls timeout on the bidding and brings in a few stacks of hundred dollar bills. He sets them on the table and walks away saying, "Have at it, boys!" After the orderly scramble to get your share of the piles of money is over, the auction resumes. Now, think about what will happen to the bidding after everyone has more dollars to bid. The prices "sure as hell" aren't going down.

Now, our government has decided to put 10,000,000,000 hundred dollar bills (that's $1,000,000,000,000 for the Tceh graduates out there) into the U.S./world economy. Does anybody want to take a guess about what is going to happen to the price of EVERYTHING in the next couple of years? My bet is that we will look back on the Carter years with fondness after this stagflation hits us in the face.

Here's some free advice (I am sure it's worth what you paid for it): If you have credit card debt, pay it off. If you have adjustable rate loans tied to the FED rate, find a way to get out of it to something fixed. Basically, get out of debt as fast as you can. Interest rates are going to skyrocket once this inflation train starts rolling. With that cheerful thought, have a good evening.

TOTUS Has A Brand New Blog

Ok. I can't help but laugh (Hey! it is either that or cry) about the fact that our current President is completely at a loss for words without the aid of a teleprompter. Apparently, POTUS doesn't even register the words he is saying. It's either that or he was hammered from the St. Patrick's Day party. I am hoping it is the former.

As the White House St. Patrick's Day party was winding down, President Obama, in a speech to those in attendance,





PAUSE





He can't even talk to those handpicked people at the White House without the teleprompter....





THINK ABOUT THAT FOR A SECOND





END PAUSE





thanked President Obama for inviting everyone over.



Here is a link to the story. That's funny! I don't care who you are (Sorry, Larry). So, yesterday I found out that the Teleprompter of the United States (TOTUS) has his own blog. Here is the link for this piece of brilliance. That was a million dollar (or more) idea right there. I truly wish I had thought of it. Enjoy and let me know if you think this is as funny and sad as I do.

Millenials To Meet Real Life?

About 2 months ago, I read this Wall Street Journal editorial on "millenials" or kids born between 1980 and 2001. As I look at what is going on today in our political climate (see this previous post or google/youtube "Henrietta Hughes" or "Julio Osegueda"), I think this editorial sheds light on how we might have gotten there. The first paragraph of the main article is VERY telling:

• "When Gretchen Neels, a Boston-based consultant, was coaching a group of college students for job interviews, she asked them how they believe employers view them. She gave them a clue, telling them that the word she was looking for begins with the letter 'e.' One young man shouted out, 'excellent.' Other students chimed in with 'enthusiastic' and 'energetic.' Not even close. The correct answer, she said, is 'entitled.' 'Huh?' the students responded, surprised and even hurt to think that managers are offended by their highfalutin opinions of themselves."

These students believed that someone who was meeting them for the first time had as high of opinion of them as their parents. To me, the real issue is that these young people entering the workplace expected (think they were entitled, maybe?) to have their jobs shaped to fit into a convenient box in their lives.

I think that the school of hard knocks is in store now that we are facing the worst economic conditions since the recession of the early 1980's (Don't be fooled by the "since the Great Depression" talk. We have seen this cycle in my lifetime.). I have a feeling that employers may use these lean times to rid their workplaces of the millenials who don't complete assignments because the manager or co-workers "didn't remind me." Here is a true recipe for disaster:

• "Millennials also want things spelled out clearly. Many flounder without precise guidelines but thrive in structured situations that provide clearly defined rules and the order that they crave. Managers will need to give step-by-step directions for handling everything from projects to voice-mail messages to client meetings. It may seem obvious that employees should show up on time, limit lunchtime to an hour and turn off cellphones during meetings. But those basics aren't necessarily apparent to many millennials."

Until these basics become apparent, I predict that many will be living in their basements with their parents. As the article points out, the managers of these unmanageables are the results of the managers' own style of parenting. These indulgent parents are dealing with those indulged children in the workplace.

Ahh, the irony of baby boomers paying the piper for some of the problems they have caused. I guess there are good things that come out of hard economic times.

Is This Real?

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:

Based on this logic, I can forget about sending my mortgage payments in the future, AND the gas station is going to just let the pumps run wild for anyone who shows up. WOW! What a country!

I have just two questions about this:

1. Does the mortgage thing happen now that the election is over or do we have to wait until after the inauguration?
2. Is this deal for all Americans or just the ones that voted for Obama?

I will have to call Chase Home Finance tomorrow to get answers to these very important questions, but I am still not sure how you prove that you voted for him. Anyone want to place bets about whether or not Chase will take my call seriously?

------------

On a serious note, I am glad that I live in Arkansas tonight rather than Kentucky, Indiana, South Carolina, Utah, West Virginia, Alaska , or Massachusetts. These are the seven states that still ban alcohol sales in some form on election day. I think there may be a need to stop by Crossover Liquor (in Fayetteville) to pick up some Maker's Mark before the night is over. I am just glad the election is behind us, and maybe a drink or eight will make it seem like a happier outcome.

Congrats to the Obama supporters. It is a historic night for this country, and the moment will be remembered for a long time. If I were you, I wouldn't count on him fulfilling many of those campaign promises. As for me, the only campaign promises he made that I actually believed are the tax hikes.

• BTW, increasing taxes and practicing trade isolation are the worst possible things that you can do in a slow down or recession (just ask Herbert Hoover), but that seems to be Obama's economic plan.

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.

Stand Up for Chuck

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):

• "I am also told that, uh, uh, Chuck Graham, state senator, is here. Stand up, Chuck, let 'em see you... Oh, God love you. What am I talking about? I tell you what, you're making everybody else stand up, though, pal. I tell you what, stand up for Chuck."

You think I am making this up, right? So, here it is on YouTube:



I am pretty sure that Biden is confused about who is President. It is either that or he believes that John Kerry went ahead and made sure people that people like Chuck would walk again. Now, you are asking yourself, "Self, what the HELL is Russ talking about now?"

I am glad you asked that question. Here is a quote from John Edwards in Iowa back in 2004:

• "If we do the work that we can do in this country, the work that we will do when John Kerry is president, people like Christopher Reeve are going to walk, get up out of that wheelchair and walk again."

For those of you who aren't aware, John Kerry decided after losing in 2004 not to allow people like Chuck and Christopher to walk again. Perhaps "the One" will find it in his heart to do it. Of course, Obama can only get to this is AFTER he is elected president, stopped the rise of the oceans, and started the healing of our planet.



You have to prioritize these things. Anyone else thinking, "God/Messiah Complex"? Man, I love the Presidential season. You get great comedy. AND, it's free!

Go Ahead, Make Her Day

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.

Do You Believe in "The Fever"?

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.:

• Use more electricity each month than 20 average American families.
• I would look for some ways to downscale.
  
• Fly in a private jet to attend climate change "summits" in Bali.
  
• Teleconferences are much more carbon friendly to the earth.
  
• Drive around in those fever causing SUVs.
• The Secret Service would have to really justify it for me.
  

On the other hand, I genuinely respect someone like Ed Begley Jr. (although I don't agree with most of the things he believes). Some time back, he was convinced that American lifestyles were harming the planet. So, instead of making a slide show and throwing an Oscar party, he made a LOT of changes. He started recycling everything, installed solar panels and wind generators, modified his exercise bike to charge his solar batteries, and much more. Most people can't afford to do what he has done, but he has put his money where his belief is. More people should do that. I don't know that I would want to hang out at a cocktail party with Ed because I am afraid of the conversation that would ensue when I threw away my napkin, but he does "practice what he preaches."

So, until I see the former VP living the life of Ed Begley Jr., I will think he is a snake oil salesman and/or a sociopath that doesn't care about how his actions affect the rest of the globe. I believe those are the only options left to me.