I have always been of the opinion that of all the energy alternatives in our future (http://www.aberantnews.org/?p=172), the most viable and applicable was electric.  From personal transportation to energy independent homes and nationwide commerce, a rapid (relatively) move to an all-electric solution would be the most beneficial alternative of any possibility.

Forget hydrogen, bio fuels and those hybrid solutions that require a massive system of creation/refining, transport, storage and distribution – the electric revolution can be fueled by the sun and rechargeable, removable, replaceable batteries.

The drawbacks, however, with today’s technology are twofold: Electricity generation and battery technology.  Several major hurdles remain:

1. Recharging from utility power grids would require an electricity delivery grid two times the size and three times more efficient that those of today. In an era where local heat waves cause frequent power blackouts and brownouts, you can imagine the impact of 300 million car chargers.
2. Augmentation of our power grid with solar energy, nuclear energy and a host of ‘green energy’ technologies are not only extremely costly but will take decades, if not centuries, to satisfy demand on such a scale.
3. Solar cell technology has a very poor history of efficiency and modern mobile generators require combustible fuels to be effective. So the on-board vehicle power generation alternative is still a ‘work in progress’.
4. Battery life and toxic disposal issues will keep long range applications and recycling costs out of the reach of the average person.  Without a way to keep large powerful batteries at or near peek charge constantly, electric over the road commerce and totally energy independent homes will be difficult to realize.

Two technologies will lead us to total electric residence and transport: Photoelectric solar cell technology; and battery storage technology.  If solar cells can keep batteries at peak charge during daylight hours – rain or shine; and if bio-degradable, recyclable batteries can hold a charge capable of providing peak efficiency for 12 hours… We have the answer to 95% of the technical issues.

Another huge factor has nothing to do with technical hurdles; it has to do with purely economic issues.  The economic impact of the energy status quo is formidable; especially where vehicles are concerned. Millions of jobs, billions of dollars in revenue, taxes and economic benefits are generated from today’s fossil fuel driven energy system. From oil companies, refineries and international oil commerce – to the local gas station and the nation-wide transport and pipeline infrastructure – today’s vehicular energy delivery and consumption network generates or influences nearly 20% of our GNP.  And the products and services it provides impacts 100% of the business that drive our economy.

Needless to say the politics of energy may be a much more formidable deterrent to rapid electric solutions discovery than technology.  But there is the knowledge that fossil fuels, by their very definition, will not last forever.  So the future is clear.  It is inevitable.  Within our lifetime refined fossil fuels will become simply too rare and too expensive to burn in your car – or anywhere else for that matter.

Just as necessity and abundance brought the rise of the oil industry in the 18^th century, scarcity and necessity will be its demise in the 21st – if we don’t stop burning oil.  And oil companies know it.

What many people do not know is that today’s modern crude oil refineries produce nearly 100 different products from petroleum.  Only a handful of these products produce energy.  Many of the needs of the petrochemical and lubricant industries will not be met by alternative fuels.  Saving the world’s supply of petroleum for future generations is almost as important as eliminating our dependence on oil for personal energy needs.

And let’s be realistic.  We will probably NOT see a battery in our lifetime that will power a modern Boeing 757 airliner, move a train cross country or propel a rocket… so the need for combustible fuel research and creating an upscale electric grid will remain.  So when I say we need to build an all-electric solution to our energy needs, I am speaking of personal vehicles, over-the-road commerce and private residences.  Solar cell and battery technology are cornerstones of this transformation.

Here at the crossroads of energy policy in the U.S. we must fund research into localized power generation and battery technology. That means solar cells and batteries.  Let’s all call on our congressional representatives and senators to ‘push the envelope’ on research and development in these two technologies and do it NOW.

JB

More to Read:

http://gas2.org/2009/09/11/algae-based-non-metallic-batteries-could-revolutionize-energy-storage-industry/

http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=solar+cell+advances&hl=en&um=1&ie=UTF-8&oi=scholart

Can someone own you? Can they own your biological parts – such as your genes?

Yes they can. And you might be surprised to learn that the biggest owners of human genetic info are not corporations, but universities.

The ACLU is trying to upend a practice that goes back to 1980 when the U.S. Supreme Court found in favor of an inventor that used human bacteria to engineer a microbe that dissolves oil. The “bacteria” was a genetic “discovery” of an existing organism and the bacterial genes were patented as a component in the microbe invention.

U.S. Patent Law is developed to protect the genesis of invention. In doing so, the law defines the term “invention” to mean invention or discovery [35 U.S.C. 100 Definitions. Para (a) ]. That “or discovery” part is what all prior genetic patents relied upon. So the fact that one discovers a gene – is set apart from actually doing anything with it; like creating an invention. So while it can be argued that the precedence set by the Supreme Court in 1980 was to effectively protect the components of an invention, subsequent patents have not had to pass this test, apparently. And the Court’s ruling did not elaborate on the aspect of invention as a precursor to patenting a genetic discovery.

So what’s wrong with gene patenting anyway? Well, the case in which the ACLU is involved is a prime example. A Utah university and a private drug company jointly hold patents on genes named “BRCA1” and “BRCA2”. These genes have been proven responsible for many cases of hereditary breast and ovarian cancers in women.

By owning the genes, they also own the test for them. So if a woman wants to be tested to see if she has genetic markers for breast or ovarian cancer, she will have to pay the patent holding drug company $3000. Clearly this is not the intent of patent law, especially when federally supported universities are involved.

“It is the policy and objective of the Congress to use the patent system to promote the utilization of inventions arising from federally supported research or development…to ensure that the Government obtains sufficient rights in federally supported inventions to meet the needs of the Government and protect the public against nonuse or unreasonable use of inventions,…” [35 U.S.C. 200 Policy and objective.]

Since “Inventions” is also defined as “discovery”, this policy applies amply to the ACLU “unreasonable use” assertion.

You will be happy to know, however, that the practice of patenting your genetic code is, for all practical purposes, stopped completely. The Human Genome Project (HGP), which has successfully mapped the entire human genome, has made all our genes a matter of “public record”… so patents on solely the ‘discovery’ of a human gene are no longer valid. You can still patent an invention made from them… but not the genes themselves.

But the issue of patenting discovery still has ominous connotation. And while much of our genetic code is now protected from this practice – (and the patents that came before the HGP have a life span of only 20 years so they are expiring quickly) – there is a precedent here that may cause future discovery to be held hostage thorough misused patent law. In the approximately 80 pages of current patent law, the team “discovery” is used only three times. Therefore it should not be a significant effort to amend this law with more precise language that supports the scope of invention – rather than greed.

JB

References and Sources:

ACLU (2009), Article: ACLU sues over patents on breast cancer genes, CNN, Retrieved May 16, 2009, from: http://www.cnn.com/2009/HEALTH/05/12/us.genes.lawsuit/index.html

Burger, Chief Justice. (1980). Diamond, Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks v. Chakrabarty, United States Supreme Court, June 16, 1980, 447 U.S. 303, 206 USPQ 193; Retrieved May 16, 2009, from: http://digital-law-online.info/cases/206PQ193.htm

Human Genome Project (2009). Human Genome Project Information, Oakridge National Laboratory, Retrieved May 16, 2009, from: http://www.ornl.gov/sci/techresources/Human_Genome/home.shtml

Landau, E. (2009). How human genes become patented, CNN, Retrieved May 16, 2009, from: http://www.cnn.com/2009/HEALTH/05/13/genes.patent.myriad/index.html

US Patent and Trademark Office (2009). United States Code Title 35 – Patents, Appendix L Patent Laws, Retrieved May 16, 2009, from: http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/consolidated_laws.pdf

The 1990 Acid Rain Program is a market-based initiative taken by the EPA in an effort to reduce overall atmospheric levels of sulfur dioxide (SO₂) and nitrogen oxides (NO_x), which cause acid rain. The program is an implementation of an emissions trading (cap-and-trade) initiative that targets coal-burning power plants, allowing them to buy and sell emission permits (called “allowances”) according to individual needs and costs. The ARP was the first cap-and-trade program of its kind in the U.S.

The 101^st Congress crafted and passed the ARP legislation during the first two years of the Republican administration of U.S. President George H. W. Bush (with further amendments in 1995 & 2000).

Overall, the Program’s cap-and-trade system has been immensely successful in achieving its goals. Since the 1990s, SO₂ emissions have dropped 40%, and according to the Pacific Research Institute, acid rain levels have dropped 65% since 1976 (when monitoring first began). Furthermore, the EPA estimates that by 2010, the overall costs of complying with the program for businesses and consumers will be $1 billion to $2 billion a year, only one fourth of what was originally predicted.

But CO₂ (Carbon Dioxide) is an entirely different beast. Anytime anything is burned, CO₂ is created. It is a fact of nature and it cannot be ‘reduced’ through technology. Even natural gas, the lowest CO₂ creating fossil fuel, produces over 50% of the CO₂ produced by coal – but it is 4 times more expensive. And as supplies get scarcer, gas will only go higher. As more and more power plants reduce coal consumption, coal gets cheaper. It’s an economic irony that cannot be completely eliminated.

By and large the “clean coal” initiative has met only with disaster. No matter how effective the costly ‘scrubbers’ that sequester CO₂, they cannot eliminate it – they can only ‘capture’ it. And the quantities that they capture are extremely difficult to store as bio-hazard waste products. The need for air-tight CO₂ ‘storage’ is many times that of nuclear waste storage. So while many people, including President Obama, are under the impression that there is a “Clean Coal” alternative, the technology simply does not support the notion. Only the coal lobbyists believe ‘clean coal’ is a reality. No one that understands the science and the technology does, however.

This does not mean that there is not a solution somewhere on the horizon. There is promising research around biomass solutions (like algae masses that eat CO₂ and emit oxygen) and other technologies – but the scalability is not even close yet. More research may be the key – but we are fooling ourselves if we think ‘clean coal’ is just a matter of will, effort and money. It is much more than that.

Once again the government is looking hard and long at a cap-and-trade initiative to attack the CO₂ and other greenhouse emissions. And the Republicans – in true allegiance to the coal industry lobby – are fighting it tooth and nail.

In any event, if we are going to truly find a ‘clean coal’ alternative it will only be when we have the money and the research resources to put to the task. A cap-and-trade initiative for greenhouse gases will provide that stimulus to the industry and the companies that can develop solutions. While its success may not be as dramatic or as quick as the SO₂ and NO_x reductions in the Acid Rain legislation, it will take us in the right direction much faster than any reasonable alternative.

JB

Cappiello, D. (2009). Capitol power plant dims clean energy hopes, Associated Press, Retrieved March 1, 2009, from: http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/C/CONGRESS_POWER_PLANT?SITE=OKOKL&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT

EDF (2007). The Cap and Trade Success Story, Environmental Defense Fund (EDF), Retrieved March 1, 2009, from: http://www.edf.org/page.cfm?tagID=1085

Fehrenbacher, K. (2008). Former Energy Secretaries: Cap and Trade Is Bad for Business, earth2tech.com, Retrieved March 1, 2009, from: http://earth2tech.com/2008/11/12/former-energy-secretaries-cap-and-trade-is-bad-for-business/

Recently president-elect Obama’s transition team sent email to the party faithful asking that they go to their www.change.gov website and postulate on their “Vision” of what American can be. Now, I don’t know if this is just good political theater, or if each and every response will actually be given due consideration. Probably somewhere in between. Nevertheless, I am always up for a challenge so I thought I’d give this a try.

Definition of a “Vision”

So what is a “Vision” anyway? Among the definitions of “Vision” put forth by Princeton University’s web dictionary are:

• A vivid mental image; “he had a vision of his own death“;
• sight: the ability to see; the visual faculty, “His vision is 20/20”;
• the perceptual experience of seeing; “the runners emerged from the trees into his clear vision“; “he had a visual sensation of intense light“;
• imagination: the formation of a mental image of something that is not perceived as real and is not present to the senses; “popular imagination created a world of demons“; “imagination reveals what the world could be“;
• a religious or mystical experience of a supernatural appearance; “he had a vision of the Virgin Mary“.

So a vision can range from fantasy to science to observation and back. Give a writer that much ground and you could end up with almost anything. However, I will try to keep my “visions” in the context of the political – categorized using the Obama team “Agenda”.

• Revitalizing the Economy
• Ending the War in Iraq
• Providing Health Care for All
• Protecting America
• Renewing American Global Leadership

The Economy

It seems as though every major economic FUBAR in the last 200 years was perpetuated by government. Not by government regulation – but government deregulation and meddling in business operations. Recessionary influence comes from debt/deflation reactions. When government influences poor business decisions (push sub-prime ARM mortgages – then follow with higher prime rates) and encourage over speculation (remove regulations on credit default swaps, etc.) they establish the environment of crisis.

It does not stop with Wall Street or financial institutions. Such poor political decisions as allowing corn ethanol subsidies and disallowing zero emission electric vehicle subsidies (Calif – 2000)– shows that government is still engaged in the practice of trying to generate wealth rather than competition. A very bad idea in a free market economy. Government is the biggest factor in ‘un-leveling’ the free economy playing field and it must stop soon. A global free market economy will not stand for long if governments get in the way of the process. Just as with a professional baseball game, the umpires and referees are there to see that the game is played by the rules – but they should not influence the outcome of the contest. Government is here to establish and enforce the rules – from there on out the players of the game need to stand or fall on their own merit. Bailouts only perpetuate the bad play of the contestants.

Economic recovery is embodied in many of the initiatives about which the president elect has opined. Energy solutions, infrastructure repair and improvement, ecology requirements and re-creating jobs are paramount. But when the government becomes the key de facto job producer and employer, there comes a threat to – once again – create an imbalance in the free market opportunities of business.

And lastly, let’s stop the political B.S. about energy. We are not stupid. Corn ethanol is a BAD idea; there is no such thing as Clean Coal; Hydrogen is not a panacea for energy solutions; and even if we had an abundance of energy creation – our national delivery grid is ancient and technically obsolete.  Petroleum will run out in 30 years (or at least it will be too expensive to ‘burn’ as fuel).  Scientists say CO2 will be at dangerous levels within 80 years. Do the math. Spend our national resources where it makes sense.

Actions: Suggested actions to restore a free market vision for America: Repeal the Commodity Futures Modernization Act; phase out Freddie & Fannie completely; flatten out the tax code; allow free enterprise to determine the best next energy solution; get “shovel ready” infrastructure projects underway immediately; stop funding ‘operations’ like corn ethanol production and start funding ‘research and development’ – like better battery technology, lower cost nuclear energy solutions and natural gas storage methods; to name only a few.

War in Iraq – and Elsewhere

While the war in Iraq is thankfully winding down – as it should not have been started in the first place – Afghanistan looms as our next great FUBAR. More troops may not be the answer. More economic and educational aid may prove – pound for pound – more influential than ammunition.

Pushing Al Qaeda and Taliban fighters into Iran and Pakistan has its own set of potentials that may be worse than the disease. It appears that Islamic fundamentalists throughout the region out number democratic moderates. At least they are more prone to action, so it seems that they number more. If only we could mobilize the moderates….

Back in Iraq, our draw-down there is seen as inevitable. But the pressures on the fledgling democracy of Iraqi President Jalal Talabani and Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki are such that – without the powerful military of the U.S. to quell unrest – a power struggle will ensue and Obama may be forced to redeploy combat troops if he is not careful. I’m not sure that a coup or civil war in Iraq can be ignored by the U.S. due to the destabilizing influence of Iran in the region.

This bed was made by Bush – but Obama will have to sleep in it.

Actions: Suggested actions to restore a ‘world peace’ vision for America: Engage in dialog and technology exchange with fundamentalist political groups. Education and knowledge will trump cultural dogma every time – given enough time. Infrastructure, schools and free trade improvements will bolster democratic governance. Use force only where life and liberty are in eminent danger. This goes hand in hand with the Global Leadership role the U.S. needs to reassert. When in Vietnam we Marines often complained about the “do not fire until fired upon” rule of engagement. However, in our own way we were somewhat proud that we where held to a different standard than our foe. It is not a weakness to hold humanity in high regard, even while others do not. Especially when others do not.

National Health Care Reform

I have been on the front “side line” of this for some time. I wanted to be on the front line, but my proposals never gained much momentum. My proposal was to establish a non-profit organization that was funded by government grants as a start-up, and then self funding over time. Investors are not all that excited about non-profit funding and the government seemed disinterested since I did not have any academic sponsorship.

First a little background. My wife is a nurse; her father a retired surgeon; her mother an RN. I have heard all the stories. On the other hand, I am an information technology (IT) professional by trade  (www.jwbennett.info). I’m one of those misguided individuals that think IT can help address any problem.

After hearing all the family war stories of how medical practitioners are forced in ever increasing numbers to abandon insurance networks and controls in favor of cash-services – and looking at the staggering number of people without health insurance, the long lines at emergency rooms, and so on – I had a thought. Let’s do a typical IT “Business Analyst” review of the average heath provider. Where do they spend their money; where do they spend their time; where do they make their money, and lastly, how do we measure success of the product or service offering?

My analysis led me to several conclusions. First, by far the most time and money is spent on record keeping. Patient records, insurance records and regulatory record keeping took 60% of the effort of a heath provider. None of which are particularly beneficial to the financial success of the enterprise. In typical IT Analyst fashion, I deduced that automating – or removing – much of this record keeping burden was essential to lowering cost and improving productivity of health providers.

The problem, of course is HIPPA. Not the Act, per se, but the processing and management of patient records by a 3^rd party is problematic. Answer – do HIPPA one better. Put the patient in charge of the record keeping (with considerable help from a secure internet based application that does the heavy lifting).

Next problem – who owns, controls and administers the internet application and database? An insurance company? The government? Hummm.. Any for-profit enterprise or government entity could have conflicts of interest that would strain the intent of HIPPA. So, the only answer I saw was a Non-Profit corporation that had considerable oversight by the government, the healthcare industry and the insurance companies. The internet program application must have considerable benefit for all – including, and foremost, for the patient. Tall order.

Beyond just electronic record keeping, this “Medical Registry Organization” (MRO) would provide ANSI-type standards for record interchange and security. The patient or his/her designate would determine which records were public, which were private, which were available in emergency, which providers has access to what, and so on.

Actions: Suggested actions to provide a ‘universal healthcare’ vision for America: The answer lies in offloading the recordkeeping burden to the record owner. Until the records burden is addressed costs will not moderate – for the taxpayer or the government. Just as banks used ATM’s to offload teller workloads to the account owners (decreasing cost and increasing productivity & profit dramatically, I might add); health care record management can be also offloaded to the patient. Every insurance or for-profit industry “electronic records” initiative will fail in the end due to competitive and regulatory pressures. An independent non-profit organization or “institute” is the only reasonable answer. Health care reform should also look at the many agencies and departments of government that are charged with health and welfare oversight (some 20 agencies in HHS plus EPA, OSHA, USDA,…) and try to rationalize and/or consolidate data, technology, personnel and facilities into a more robust and functional public health organization.

Protecting America

Homeland security has most of its resources focused on the prevention of terrorism. But the fact is most of the death and destruction the average citizen will face comes not from terrorists, but from nature and human error. Considering the money spent to date on homeland security, we have little to show for it. Katrina showed us what real homeland security should be – but was not. Beyond prevention, security means good threat assessment and effective first response.

As most intelligent travelers will tell you, the security show TSA puts on at the nation’s airports is nothing short of pageantry. It is there to instill a sense of security in the public – nothing else. Actually, the single reason 9/11 could not be repeated today is that airlines are now required to secure the cockpit door. It has little, if anything, to do with the TSA’s elaborate security threat detection methods. I could make a belt out of C4 explosive and walk on any plane in all but 4 or 5 airports in the U.S.. No problem. Any nonmetallic weapon can be taken on board almost any aircraft by almost anyone. And if you think this is news to any would-be terrorist, forget it. They already know. But since they cannot use the aircraft as a weapon any longer (and since the average American passenger is more attentive now days), they will move to softer targets.

By far the most effective anti-terrorism activities have been those we hear only rumors about. Communications monitoring & analysis, elaborate pattern matching, decryption methods and other technologies used by the NSA have done more to spoil would-be threats than all the long TSA lines put together. Add to that the efforts to remove the terrorist network money supply, and I think we could have decommissioned every metal detector in the US and been just fine. Ok, maybe that is a little irrational, but not by much.

Actions: Suggested actions for a “secure” vision for America: The DHS is a great idea, but its focus is upside-down. The TSA is at the top of the heap with regard to funding and influence, when it should be FEMA. Keep up the good work at NSA and CIA. Keep the DOD out of DHS programs. I’ve heard rumors of bills floating around congress to deploy federal troops to “assist” local law enforcement in the event of ”emergency”. Hummm. If the National Guard or state and local police are not properly trained or equipped, then fix it. Leave federal troops out of homeland security contingencies.

Renewing American Global Leadership

Without a doubt we have already made progress in this area. Just by electing president-elect Obama, Americans have reached across the cultural and economic gulf of world opinion. But we cannot rest on that laurel.

When we think of global leadership we think of the Middle East, Russia, Africa, Asia… but we also need to consider Mexico, Latin America and Canada. Of all our international dealings, our dealings with American states and border states should be improved first.

Under the Bush doctrine we have seen a major shift to the left in Latin America and an increase in organized drug crime in Mexico. While I too fear a nuclear Iran, I fear more a destabilized government in Mexico. If push came to shove, the Israelis are more than capable of handling a threat from Iran. Mexico however has many infrastructure, education and economic issues – exacerbated by U.S. immigration policy – that have a greater potential to affect the U.S.. You want to restore the U.S. leadership? Start by addressing the Mexican immigration issue.

Outside the Americas, a global economy – enriched by a global information technology network – is moving at breakneck pace. The welfare of everyone is starting to be influenced by everyone else. This will require – in time – a new look at not only national policy – but global policy and global governance. The U.N. is a political football and pretty much as effective as any organization run my committee. But, it is all we really have right now, so let’s see what we can do over the next four years to give it some balls (excuse the vernacular). Darfur, Guinea, Burma, Zimbabwe, et al – little action to deter genocide and massive rights violations. I think there is a place for an “international police force” but they must have the mandate, the training and the equipment to do the job.

Actions: Suggested actions to restore a “global leadership” vision for America: Start with immigration reforms and boarder state relations. Want to stop the march of leftist ideology in Latin America? Lift the Cuban embargo. Engage in open and frequent dialog with other states. Encourage political dissent and policy arguments. Often, if you get the other party talking enough, they reveal the REAL reason for their conduct. And it is usually power related. Give them ‘perceived power’ and they will be your friend for life. And sanctions rarely work either. Not in Cuba, not in Iran, not in Palestine. They only tend to push our adversaries closer together. Let’s try something different. How about open trade, domestic technology transfer, cultural influence, free and open dialog,… What a novel idea!

Lastly, I believe the U.N. is a fine place to voice opinion and do some political wrestling, but no where near a venue for pursuing global peace or justice. At least give it the mandate to do good independent international intelligence gathering so the true cause and affects of actions can be understood by all.  In my fantasy vision of a new world order I have a list of “what ifs”: What if Interpol became an agency of the U.N.? What if the G10 shared threat assessments with them? What if we established a full volunteer U.N. Police & Peacekeeping force?  What if we sponsored a movement to establish an international language?  A language not spoken by any permanent member of the Security Counsel; like Spanish?  What if, indeed. Too far out maybe?  Mark my words, the day may come when the U.N, yes the U.N., is our last best hope.  Woodrow Wilson’s League of Nations vision was far ahead of its time.  But – with the advent of the internet, international free trade and economic symbiosis among nations – it’s time may have come.  Indeed,  the time to make it work may be moving right past us….

For what it’s worth.

JB

Sources:

Bennett, J. (2008a). BLOG: Replacing rhetoric with truth, Aberant News, Retrieved December 26, 2008, from http://aberantnews.org/?p=51

Bennett, J. (2008b). BLOG: One Doctor’s Painful Decision, Aberant News, Retrieved December 26, 2008, from http://aberantnews.org/?p=49

Bernanke, B. (1983). “Non-Monetary Effects of the Financial Crisis in the Propagation of the Great Depression”. THE AMERICAN ECONOMIC REVIEW (The American Economic Association) 73 (3): 257-276.

CDS. (2008). Definition: Credit Default Swap. Wikipidia, retrieved October 25th, 2008 from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Credit_default_swap

Corn, D. (2008) Article: Foreclosure Phil, Mother Jones Magazine, August 2008, retrieved October 25th, 2008 from: http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/2008/07/foreclosure-phil.html

Flat Tax. (2008). Countries that have flat tax systems; Wikipedia, retrieved October 25th, 2008 from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_tax

Kroft, S. (2008). The bet that blew up wall street, CBS – 60 Minutes, retrieved October 27th, 2008 from:http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/10/26/60minutes/main4546199.shtml

Miron, J. (2008). Commentary: Bankruptcy, not bailout, is the right answer; CNN, retrieved September 29, 2008 from: http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/29/miron.bailout/

Mishkin, F. (1978). “The Household Balance and the Great Depression”. Journal of Economic History 38: 918-37.

Mufson, S. (2007). Article: Oil price rise causes global shift in wealth; The Washington Post, retrieved October 25th, 2008 from: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/09/AR2007110902573_pf.html

NOW. (2006). Transcript: Who killed the electric car?; Public Broadcasting Service (PBS); retrieved October 25th, 2008 from: http://www.pbs.org/now/transcript/223.html

Paul. R. (2008). Article: monetary system is fraudulent; retrieved October 24th, CNN, 2008 from: http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/10/24/ron.paul.economy/

Pickins, T. (2008). America is addicted to foreign oil; T. Boone Pickins; retrieved October 25th, 2008 from: http://www.pickensplan.com/theplan/

U.N. (2008). The United Nations, MSN Encarta Encyclopedia Online, Retrieved December 26, 2008, from: http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761564986/United_Nations.html

Vance, L. (2008); The Flat Tax Is Not Flat, NewAmerican, retrieved October 25th, 2008 from http://thenewamerican.com/economy/commentary-mainmenu-43/442

WordNet (2008). Definition: Vision, Princeton University WordNet, Retrieved December 26, 2008, from: http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=vision

Since early in the 2008 campaign President Elect Obama has recommended a program for America to “rebuild America’s roads and bridges and repair our schools” (change.gov/agenda/economy_agenda/, 2008). Once upon a time he opined that this initiative would provide “over one million new jobs” that can’t be outsourced. The mantra changed as of late to a more palatable “save one million jobs” – but the essence is the same. Many say past “jobs programs” did little for the economy. I beg to differ. Many of what we consider today’s greatest economic assets – such as the interstate highway system – was once considered government folly. From the Panama Canal to the Hoover Dam there have been expensive government projects that have paid dividends to many generations of Americans and businesses alike.

However, road, school and bridge repair may seem more like maintenance than innovation. How can we take a ‘maintenance and repair’ program and make it a true innovative improvement in infrastructure? The answer is the application of new technology.

Roadways & Bridges:

Today’s interstate highway system and the system of state & U.S. roadways that connect them are sorely in need of repair. To that, there is no doubt. But we can today employ better materials in the repairs. Materials that last longer and lower future costs of maintenance (ARTBA, n.d.) are needed throughout the system. We should also install Vehicle to Infrastructure (V2I – Ashley, 2008) communications devices that tell cars of the near future what road conditions are, where hazards exist and the operational aspects of traffic controls.

Three things need to happen first. First, governments (state & federal) must require overall roadway construction standards that improve longevity. I’m not sure what they are today, if any, but it’s my belief that roadways should last at least 25years. Surface repair must last 10 years – or more. I often see repair crews on the same roads year-in and year-out. This is especially true in northern climates where winter freezing, salt and sand damage are frequent.

Second, the government must establish standards for V2I communication. Only a couple dozen are needed to get things started. Like solar powered road signs that can broadcast information like RR Crossings, speed changes and road restrictions. Or stop signs, yield signs and stop lights that broadcast “Stop, Yield or Go” data.

Lastly, the government must work with both commercial and personal vehicle manufactures to require certain types of V2I and V2V (Vehicle to Vehicle) safety systems to be rolled out over time.

We need Bridges that have sensors that can tell inspectors when components are stressed or parts are reaching the end of their peak safe period. We need bridges, that like roadways, have longevity and ease of maintenance built in.

Schools

I believe the days of the huge campus are going to come to a close. Large middle schools and high schools are not providing the education we will need in the high tech communication era of the 21^st century. We need to create localized “School Offices” that use technology to separate classes, curriculums and grades. The teachers move from class to class and subject to subject in a set of virtual classrooms. The student is situated in an environment designed to enhance learning rather than an environment meant to control and concentrate student populations. This type of virtual classroom also helps students from disadvantaged areas get the same educational opportunities as the more affluent counterparts.

Colleges will also, to a lesser extent, decentralize as well. With teaching methods promoted by schools such as The University of Phoenix and Colorado Technical University taking an ever greater share of higher education – especially in business administration and business management curriculums where “laboratory” studies are minimal.

Federally subsidized virtual classrooms could also provide a sort of “Universal Education” foundation for anyone with an internet connection. Subsidizing internet connectivity for urban families and virtual schools is another possible aspect of the “new education” system that could come out this “jobs” agenda.

Conclusion

There are many opportunities for the new administration to improve the nation’s infrastructure while improving safety and empowering a technological renaissance in transportation.

It is also possible to engage the educational system in a new mind-set when it comes to the basics of education (reading, writing, mathematics and history) while actually reducing the burden on cities and states to provide large campuses and administrative staff.

JB

Resources:

ARTBA. (n.d.). Smart Construction: Using Cutting-Edge Technology to Maximize Public Investment in America’s Transportation Network; The American Road & Transportation Builders Association (ARTBA); retrieved November 29, 2008 from: http://www.ntweek.org/publications/ARTBA_Technology.pdf

Ashley, S. (2008). Driving Toward Crashless Cars; Scientific American Magazine; December 2008, Volume 299 No 6. ISSN 0036-8733

Change.gov. (2008). Agenda: The Obama-Biden Plan, retrieved November 29, 2008 from: http://change.gov/agenda/economy_agenda/

CitySense. (2007). Collaborative Research: CRI: Large-Scale Open Sensor Network Testbed Urban Monitoring, Global Environment for Network Innovations (GENI), retrieved November 29, 2008 from: http://www.geni.net/docs/dev_citysense_proposal.pdf

TRB. (2006). Presentation Circular: Integrating Roadway, Traffic, and Crash Data, A Peer Exchange, November 1–2, 2006, Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C.; retrieved November 29, 2008 from: http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/circulars/ec111.pdf

In October of 2008 I opined on several political topics that included political reform and energy policy [http://aberantnews.org/?m=200810]. But the topic of energy was only a surface scratch. The issues facing true policy reform are broad and complex.

There are many types and applications of “Energy”. While the general public and media focus on “Oil” and gasoline prices, the fact is that we need to power industry, homes and buildings, communications, rolling commerce and mass transit – as well as individual transportation.

Each energy solution or application has its draw backs. For instance:

• Solar – Generating power on a cloudy day, storing power at night and maintaining reserves, cost of technology and land required,…
• Wind – Cost to maintain 100 generators that produce the same output as one hydraulic generator; generation in low-wind, maintaining reserves, large areas of land required in wind corridors,…
• Natural Gas – Costly technology (all the ‘easy gas’ has been extracted), depletion rate (non-renewable fossil fuel), many production ‘fracturing’ methods endanger ground water and the environment,…
• Coal – Serious emission issues, no such thing (yet) as Clean Coal, non-renewable fossil fuel, high cost in technology to make coal environmentally viable,…
• Nuclear – Extremely costly technology, major safety and waste disposal issues, time to build and bring online is excessive,…
• Hydrogen – Support & delivery infrastructure costs are immense, resources needed to create, refine and store hydrogen are very high, use in transportation limited with current technology,…
• Biofuels – Food crop depletion, high energy cost (it takes 90% of the energy in a gallon of corn ethanol to create a gallon of corn ethanol),…
• Oil – Increasing depletion rate (non-renewable fossil fuel), largely a non-domestic resource, petrochemical industry requirements go far beyond ‘gasoline’, need to protect strategic reserves, environmental impact of drilling,…

Unfettered competition is best equipped to address these drawbacks and solve the problems. There is no such thing as a ‘perfect’ solution. Today’s hybrid vehicles all use some type of non-renewable fossil fuel. Even the pure electric car owner will have to face issues with battery and toxic fluid disposal sooner or later. Not to mention where all the extra electricity will come from in a power grid that can barely handle today’s demand.

The real challenge for government is how to empower American business to solve specific problems and develop renewable, sustainable technologies without actually subsidizing any given solution. Things such as corn ethanol subsides and energy company tax breaks need to be assessed and discontinued if the are doing more harm than good to our energy future (which most of them are).

Business and competition is best served when government controls the cost of remedies and their source. For instance:

• Tax credits against windfalls for energy industry production of renewable sources as a percent of overall sources.
• Hazardous waste taxes that increment over time to pay for disposal and sequestering waste; and promote reclamation and recycling technology.
• An annual rise in oil tariffs that would make imported oil/fuels 2 to 3 times more expensive than domestic sources in 8-10 years.
• A zero emission vehicle (ZEV) mandate for autos (e.g. 5 years, 50% of autos sold must be ZEV, 100% in 10 years).
• A 50% zero emission mandate for domestic power generation in 8 years; 75% in 15 years, and 100% in 20 years.

Then get out of the way and let Darwinian Economics (natural selection, survival of the fittest, etc.) take over. Just as in nature, the carnage could be significant before equilibrium is found. But the result will be a sustainable future for our country and, indeed, the world.

Rather than spending money on subsidies our government should use taxpayer dollars to hire more EPA agents and implement monitoring technology to insure the health and welfare of the public. Allow American ingenuity to solve our energy problems within the environmental and regulatory guidelines already established for public welfare.

Much like a championship football contest, the referees should not control the outcome of the game, only the way in which it is played. This too should be the role of government in energy policy.

JB

Sources:

Lustgarten, A. (2008). Drill for Natural Gas, Pollute Water?, Scientific American Magazine, retrieved November 18, 2008 from: http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=drill-for-natural-gas-pollute-water

Mufson, S. (2007). Article: Oil price rise causes global shift in wealth; The Washington Post, retrieved October 25th, 2008 from: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/09/AR2007110902573_pf.html

NOW. (2006). Transcript: Who killed the electric car?; Public Broadcasting Service (PBS); retrieved October 25th, 2008 from: http://www.pbs.org/now/transcript/223.html

Pickins, T. (2008). America is addicted to foreign oil; T. Boone Pickins; retrieved October 25th, 2008 from: http://www.pickensplan.com/theplan/

Wood, J. (2008). A Solution for General Motors, Seeking Alpha, retrieved Nov 15th, 2008 from: http://seekingalpha.com/article/106216-a-solution-for-general-motors

A subject I have not broached until now, the controversial Missile Defense Shield (MDS) that the Bush administration ‘sold’ to the East European countries does not pass the smell test. The Russians see it for what it is – a rebuke of their recent push to reestablish themselves as a World Power.

Unfortunately the Bush administration still thinks that the average person on the street does not have a very good world view. Such fear tactics as “Weapons of Mass Destruction” can justify anything, even their obvious political hackery.

The recent flap over a MDS stationed in Poland is a good example of a government that is so lost in its own self-serving rhetoric that it makes very stupid and poorly conceived decisions.

The US has spent $60 billion since 2001on MDS and it has still not impressed even the most conservative hawks that it would be affective. Proposed to intercept missiles from Iran or other “rogue” states, the MDS has several very poorly thought out issues. Here are a few of the reasons why the MDS, as currently developed is not worth the deployment cost:

• As anyone who follows the science of the proposed MDS can attest, the system has faired poorly in tests. As frequently as October 2008 tests conducted on known targets, launched from known locations at known times intercepted short rang missiles only 50% of the time. Additionally, all test intercepts were attempted close to the launch points; on only short range targets; and never after a missile had reached long range ballistic range and speed. This does not bode well for a fixed installation 2,000 miles from the launch point (e.g. Poland).
• Using “Path” tool in Google Earth, the nearest intercept point to an Iranian launch toward NATO or the U.S. is Turkey (NATO partner). The next is Georgia. That would be interesting.  Assuming the systems worked as designed, a deployment in Turkey would protect all of the NATO countries (Poland, Ukraine, Spain, France, Italy & UK – from 1,000 to 2,500 miles). Whereas bases in Poland will only protect Poland, Sweden, Denmark northern portions of the UK and the US northeast (6,100 miles).
• To date all successful tests have been done at sea. And none on an actual warhead to determine if disabling the missile would actually disable the warhead. In other words, Poland (or its neighbor, Ukraine) could be ground zero for any missile they intercept in their airspace.
• No intelligence analysts believe Iran will have accurate long range capability in any case. As with Pakistan, short range targets in the Middle Eastern region is the goal of a deterrent or an offensive capability. Their “balance of power” aspect with regards to the U.S. will be served by threats to our allies.
• The U.S., Israel, and most NATO & Middle East countries agree that a nuclear capability in Iran is “unacceptable” and military options will be exercised in the event even one such weapon is deployed in Iran. They will never achieve the threat that the MDS is purported to counter.
• The more urgent and meaningful threat is that from Pakistan. If that countries government flips to a theocracy such as that in Iran, the stakes are much higher. But once again, they only possess short range capability today, and an Eastern Europe deployment of a MDS – far down range of a launch site – will be hard pressed to protect legacy NATO countries, India or Israel.

To anyone even slightly familiar with the technology, geography and politics here, it is obvious that the MDS deployment, as planned, is political folly and has little to do with effective defense.  And I take exception to anyone using $60billion of our tax dollars for folly.

Poland and the Czech Republic like it because the U.S. is spending much of its Billions in their country. NATO likes it because Eastern Europe does. And Bush likes it because Russia doesn’t.

In reality, the MDS only has value as a bargaining chip with the Russians. The money should be spent on other programs that beef up security of more subversive nuclear delivery systems, such as shipping containers and air freight.

JB

Sources:

Commander, U.S. Third Fleet. (2008). Navy Intercepts Ballistic Missile Target in Fleet Exercise Pacific Blitz, 3^rd Fleet Public Affairs Office, Retrieved November 9, 2008, from: http://www.mda.mil/mdalink/pdf/08news0082.pdf

Gard, R., Reif, K. (2008). Time To Rethink Missile Defense, The Center for Arms Control, Retrieved November 9, 2008, from: http://armscontrolcenter.org/policy/missiledefense/articles/102008_rethink_missile_defense/

Lamb, N. (2008). Article: Russian plan raises foreign policy stakes for Obama, The New Zealand Herald, Retrieved November 9, 2008, from: http://www.nzherald.co.nz/world/news/article.cfm?c_id=2&objectid=10542069

Dr. Ron Paul is an interesting mix of constitutional idealism and uncommon sense. His 2008 campaign for president has enjoyed a huge following on the internet and contributions are outpacing many of the leading candidates. But he is not expected to garner many votes in the primaries. Many believe his positions are not sustainable and realistic in today’s world.

Let’s look at several of his views and the issues surrounding their implementation:

1. Only Republican candidate to have opposed and voted against the Iraq War – but voted for use of force against terrorists in Afghanistan.

Probably his best credential. Shows that while he may be an isolationist, he is not fearful of confrontation and is somewhat a pragmatist. Fight the battles you can win – stay out of the ones you cannot – and recognize the difference. As Commander and Chief this would bring a certain amount of restraint and intellect to our foreign military policy that it has lacked since Colin Powell left.

2. Opposes amnesty and birthright citizenship for illegal aliens.

While this is easy to say, the truth of the matter is, the “native born” citizen has been a mainstay of traditional constitutional language since reconstruction – which Paul courts with relish (13^th Amendment – all free persons born in the republic were by definition citizens of the United States; reinforced by the 14^th amendment addressing pre-civil war slaves, Asians, etc.). One of the reasons Gov Schwarzenegger cannot run for president – and one of the reasons Paul can, is this native born doctrine. Repeal it and you lead down a slippery Orwellian slope to “citizenship by decree” with is a much worse scenario.

Also, I’m not sure lumping together immigration (e.g. the “illegal alien” moniker) from boarder states and immigration from the rest of the world is a smart idea. Mexicans, for example, have more Native American claims than the current majority residents of the contiguous 48. The cultural and social intricacies ARE different with boarder states and ignoring these differences only exacerbates the problem.

3. Advocates ending the federal income tax and reducing government spending by abolishing most federal agencies – including the Federal Reserve, Dept of Education and the IRS.

Couldn’t agree more – in principle. But the issue here is one of shear complexity. The tax code, the U.S. economy and the banking system are so umbilically linked to the everyday welfare of the average citizen that any change will need to be done very slowly and with much diligence. Literally millions of jobs, industries and social systems are woven into this fabric. And the links to a growing global economy are significant.

I too believe that the government can lay down guidelines for educational excellence without the need for an entire department. However, federal funding for tuition assistance & student loans needs to be addressed in a broader framework of educational standards at some high level.

As with all of Paul’s idealistic notions, the fact that a U.S. Congress must share in his convictions for any of this to actually happen is lost on his somewhat naive supporters.

4. Opposes the Patriot Act and War on Drugs.

Again, I support this conviction too. The Patriot Act is an affront to basic liberties that I fought for in the Marine Corps and what many Americans have died for over the centuries. One of Al Qaeda’s greatest victories, in my estimation, was the imposition of the Patriot Act on America. We took one step closer to their idea of totalitarian rule – and they loved it! They effectively shut down many of our “self evident” liberties.

The War on Drugs is as ineffective as it is expensive. I would take this idea further to the ideological left and propose legalizing, taxing and controlling marijuana sales. That would go further to solving the overall illegal drug trade problem than the War on Drugs has.

5. Strongly pro-life, advocates overturning Roe vs. Wade.

Here’s where we have considerable differences. Even the term “Pro Life” implies “Pro Choice” advocates are also “Pro Death”. I sincerely believe that you can be against abortion as a contraceptive measure and still believe in a fundamental right to decide weather or not your body is to be used for reproduction. As one woman’s advocate put it “If men could have babies this would not even be a question.” I tend to agree.

6. Advocates the withdrawal of troops and the closing of military bases worldwide.

Again, sounds good on paper but entire economies and even cites full of people rely on these military-industrial dinosaurs for their livelihood. An irresponsible reactive process could do much more damage to foreign policy than some of the current interventionist strategies that I deplore. A case of the cure being worse than the disease, such actions can be extremely counterproductive if not done with extreme forethought and long term planning.

Bottom Line:

His rhetoric sounds very good to Americans that are sick and tired of heavy handed, misleading and out-of-control government. The Democrats have no real vision beyond gaining the White House. At least Paul offers us a vision of life after politics. However, a return to core constitutional values does not mean we can return to the “New World” isolationist policy of the constitutional era. Globalization of markets, communications and information is a reality that we cannot isolate ourselves from.

To bad Paul’s ideology is fraught with reckless and dangerous consequences. If not done with extreme caution and planning the resulting disaster could make Bush look like a Jimmy Carter knockoff. That’s my biggest problem with Paul – his lack of any credible plans for accomplishing his very complex goals.