Goin' Green

“I wish people would stop hyping up Green Technology. It’s too expensive for anyone to afford!” This is often the complaint I hear against Green Technology, mostly against electric cars.

I often think, “Yup. That’s precisely why the automobile failed. It was too expensive to own and there wasn’t enough places in the country to get gasoline for it. That is why we still use horses for transportation.”

It’s called innovation. Things aren’t always the best at first. We need time to continue to develop and improve a technology so it will work better and become cheaper. I remember finding a newspaper used for padding in a box at work. It was from the week I was born (April 25, 1988). Reagan was President, the Soviet Union existed, and some ship hit an Iranian naval mine. In the paper, microwaves cost around $300, the cheapest going for $150. That would be about $540 and $270 respectively today. I can find 35 different microwaves for under $100 on Wal-Mart’s website, the lowest for $55. Yes, there are some going for ~$500, but those are ultra high-end microwaves. 

The point is, prices have gone down as making them has become cheaper through competition and mass production of parts. You can look at anything else and see how products have become better and cheaper. Televisions, Computers, Cell Phones, Game Systems, you name it. Over the last 50, 20, or even 10 years, these products have seen groundbreaking improvements and falling prices. Yes, there are shortcomings to the electric car. But we need to keep innovating and improve what we have. Electric Cars and organic food/clothing prices will come down over the next few years as we continue to make more and make them more efficiently.

(Forgot to mention, there should be no excuse for a lack of places to charge an electric car. We have thousands of gas stations all over the country that can be easily refitted for electric cars. Think about it, there were no gas stations in 1900. The earliest gas stations were General Stores that made their own fuel from waste products and sold it.)

This Ambulance held President McKinley after he was shot in 1901. It was electric.

But why is it that the most pro-free market people scoff at green technology and write it off? (Oil, Natural Gas, and Coal companies receive billions in subsidies every year and yet subsidies for green technology distorts the free market.) In high school when I would advocate electric cars, solar and wind power, fuel efficiency standards, and pollution controls I was told to “hug a f*cking tree” and that “it was too hard”. Is this what our country has come to? “Too hard”? Since when was something not worth doing because it was too hard? Let me ask Kennedy:

 Thank You, JFK.

There is another side to the automobile’s story of progress. The Model T got 25 mpg. The modern automobile gets 17.2 mpg. If you only look back 40 years, we have progressed from 11.3 mpg. Now to be honest, the lowest fuel efficiency of a Model T could be 13 mpg.

During the 1970s when we had a shortage of fuel, we started to impose fuel efficiency standards so we can use less fuel. We instituted some more in the last decade. Of course here is the Conservative viewpoint:

It changes nothing with regard to the statistical record that government fuel efficiency standards have, since their imposition in 1975 and subsequent escalations, increased the safety hazards of the American automobile fleet:  “...the National Research Council concluded in 2002 that 1,300 to 2,600 additional crash deaths occurred in 1993 because of vehicle weight reductions to comply with federal standards...”

For complex reasons, including safety and comfort and necessity, Americans have, by and large, an almost instinctual dependence on larger vehicles, despite decades of government pressure to make other choices.

Of course, the government is to blame. They force us to do something sensible; therefore it is an infringement on our rights. It is our right to drive cars that use fuel we don’t have and pollute the air we breathe. Oh, and read this again:

…2,600 additional crash deaths occurred in 1993 because of vehicle weight reductions to comply with federal standards...

This is something the writer of the article failed to mention. Instead of developing better engines to increase fuel efficiency, the auto companies willingly made cars less safe to meet the requirements and save money. The auto companies willingly made their cars less safe! That is not the government’s fault, it’s the auto company’s! Also, GM spent lots of their money trying to personally discredit Ralph Nader and his accurate claims about their unsafe cars and paid almost $300,000 in a settlement for invasion of privacy. It was that or spend their money on improving their cars. It made sense to them.

Oh, and I love this,

There is no natural shortage of fossil fuel; there is a shortage of fossil fuel production.

Uh, yes there is a natural shortage of fossil fuel. The more scientific based studies have stated we have about 40 years of oil left, 65 years of natural gas, and 100 years of coal. Now there is some disagreement about just exactly how much oil is in the ground, but we do know for a fact that it is LIMITED! We do need to develop technology that does not rely on oil, gas, or coal before it is too late.

What about Nuclear Power?

A liberal President and a liberal Congress obviously have no intention of allowing any reasonable increase in [oil] production, nor of allowing the reasonable expansion of nuclear power, the fastest, safest, most efficient, most reliable source of  usable energy that is currently feasible on a real-world large scale.

First, what happens when we try to increase our production of oil haphazardly in areas that we have never been before without decent regulations? (the article was written in 2009)

And Second, how safe is Nuclear Power?

 I'll let you search for "physical deformities" on your own

To be honest, The Washington Post had an article about small mini reactors and the idea fits into my theme of progression; smaller, cheaper, and more efficient. I guess these plants are powered on depleted Uranium that can be used to power a reactor for 60 years (although the article never mentioned what would happen if there was a meltdown…).

My point is this; if you truly believe in a capitalist free market society, then you shouldn’t bash green technology and prevent it from progressing. We are going to need it.

 Couldn't find a place for this but I thought it was funny!

SOTU. No, it isn't Japanese...

It’s that time of the year again. The President of the United States must give his annual address to Congress on the current state of the union. It’s called, the State of the Union.

I really hate it.

“But Josh!!! You love history and Presidents!!!!! I thought you of all people would like the SOTU!!!!!!!!!”

I mostly hate the inane applause after every other sentence. Most of the time, the applause is partisan. That may change as Democrats and Republicans decided to sit together and pretend to like each other for a night. The speech is probably only 20 minutes long, but 40 minutes are just applause.

Also, I hate the rebuttal SOTU address by the opposing party. What is the point? Why don’t we let the media put the speech under the magnifying lens and see what was correct or incorrect? Why have some partisan ramblings after what should be a non-partisan event?

It’s hyped up and then we forget about it for a year. Bluh.

It’s not the size that matters but how you use it.

One thing about healthcare that bothers me (and trust me there is a lot about this “debate” that I can and will write about) is the complaint over the bill’s length. According to 2009 articles, the bill is about 1018 pages long, but I’ve heard recently that it has become 2000+ pages long. Somehow, simply stating this fact is an argument against the bill.

According to the Huffington Post in March of 2010 (I reluctantly use this because of its open Liberal bias), the bill contains 234,812 “substantive” words, or words that actually pertain to legislation and not the table of contents and such. By comparison, Harry Potter And The Order Of The Phoenix has 257,000 substantive words. That’s right; the young adult book has more words than a piece of legislation. Also, keep in mind that bills are double-spaced and include other devices that create large amounts of white space (margins).

I feel bad for not knowing who said it and when (as you could believe that I'm just making it up) but I swear I remembered hearing someone on NPR asking "Why can't this bill be 15 pages long?". You can't reform the healthcare system in 15 pages. My undergraduate senior thesis was 30 pages long and I could have gone on longer.

 I never want to talk about this guy again...

Shouldn’t bills be long? They have to do a lot. You can’t just write “Dropping people due to pre-existing conditions is illegal”. You have to define “pre-existing condition” or else companies can call them something different and exploit a loop hole. You have to define “tax evasion” or people will claim they committed “tax avoision”. NO. You attempted to not pay taxes through various means. You can call it “Cat-Tit Bingo” and it would still be illegal.

Slate does give a few other examples of why bills are becoming longer.

I guess the basic “argument” against long bills is that you can hide a lot in there and nobody has the time to read it to find it. Although, I’m sure those parts would be discovered by certain legislators who do care about writing our laws.

I haven't read it yet but it's gotta be a good deal! It's so big!

Point is, this length argument is pointless. What is in there is more important than how long it takes to say it.

The People have a right to know, Darn it!

You know what bugs me? People who see no hypocrisy between supporting WikiLeaks and internet privacy. WikiLeaks is a website that publishes secret papers under the guise of internet freedom. However, its real goal is to embarrass the United States. Recently, the website has come under fire by the media for publishing US Diplomatic cables that were somehow obtained by a Private in the US Army who was pretending to download Lady Gaga onto his zip/thumb/flash drive. Basically, the people who support the founder Julian Assange are Anti-American Europeans and the perverts at 4chan and “Anonymous”, who have launched cyber attacks against PayPal and other credit card companies for their refusal to allow payments to WikiLeaks. (“Anonymous”/4chan also heroically cyber harassed a group of bullies for their treatment against a young girl. No, wait, they harassed the girl being bullied. Go to #6)

He looks like Bill Maher and is from the same place as the Powerpuff Girls

But what bugs me is this; these same dipsh*ts that claim WikiLeaks has a right to publish these private diplomatic cables are the same ones who cry afoul when companies have access to private information from Facebook that you put willingly on the site. How would they like it if I broke into every supporter’s computer and published all their emails and instant messages? They would be p*ssed, but “Freedom of the Internets!!! The people have a right to know what private citizens say to each other!!!” Seriously, why don’t diplomats have a right to privacy? Why don’t companies have a right to information that you provided willingly to create personalized advertisements? You know on Google, when you search something and ads related to your search pop up on the right? That’s all companies want to do!

I understand the purpose of whistleblowers and leakers. When the Pentagon Papers were released, they were showing the people how we were being lied to about the war in Vietnam and forced the government to come clean. But there is a need to keep some things a secret. I do hate it when the government covers something up as a “National Secret” just to cover up their own stupidity (See Presidency of George W. Bush). Or claims they want transparency in government but then don't want to disclose their donors in the last election.

But diplomacy is like Poker or any freakin’ card game, you can’t show cards. You do need to maintain secrets and such to gain the upper hand. It does me no good to know what the ambassador to India thinks of the Prime Ministers haircut.

So what is it Internet? Privacy or Freedom? You can’t have it both ways. You can’t claim all information should be public but claim all information shouldn’t be public. It’s like diversity and equality; you can’t stress how different we are and then say we are all equal.

Overreaction or Justifiable Rage?

Am I just overreacting or was a comment made by the DJ on that stupid country music station a little offensive/stupid/uncalled for/rude/impolite/inconsiderate?

Keith Urban and Nicole Kidman just welcomed a new daughter to their family, Faith Margaret Kidman Urban. Kidman did not give birth to their daughter; the baby was outsourced to a surrogate mother. I do not know if Kidman has any medical problems and is unable to conceive/deliver a child (she did have an ectopic pregnancy earlier on). She is 43 and childrearing at that age is becoming harder. However, the comments made by the DJ shows that she might not have a hard time conceiving (or his general ignorance on the matter).

Here is the gist of what he said,

“Wasn’t it nice to have that opportunity [to have another woman deliver your child]? Now she doesn’t have to worry about the weight gain or stretch marks or etc.”

Should I be offended?

Let me reword it for you,

“Isn’t it nice that celebrities can take advantage of people by having them deliver their child so they don’t have to worry about all that giving birth has to offer? Thank God Nicole Kidman’s body will remain the way it is without being damaged by that pesky business of becoming a mother!”

He does know what a surrogate is and that she will have to deal with the aftermath of giving birth, right? Well thank God it wasn’t Nicole Kidman!!!

I’m genuinely appalled by what this man said. The thought that a celebrities life is worth more than a non-celebrity just irks me.

Just on a side note; if Nicole Kidman has trouble conceiving or giving birth, then I have no problem with a surrogate. But if she just didn’t want to go through with it again and just wanted to use her celebrity status to get what she wants by using someone, then that too is appalling (but I really don’t believe this too much).

 [SPOILER] You could just pretend to be a surrogate and pass that responsibility off to someone else...

On another side note; how the f#ck is “Just on a side note; if Nicole Kidman has trouble conceiving or giving birth, then I have no problem with a surrogate” grammatically incorrect? She has problems conceiving, I have no problem.

Here are Microsoft Word’s corrections:

“Just on a side note; if Nicole Kidman has trouble conceiving or giving birth, then I has no problem with a surrogate.”

Or

“Just on side notes; if Nicole Kidman has trouble conceiving or giving birth, then I have no problem with a surrogate.”

Un-f*cking believable II

 (I may need to clarify something. I do not believe that Sarah Palin actually referred to the cross hairs as surveying marks. Supposedly a conservative pundit made the remark and Palin's aides seemed to take that explanation as a way to out of the mess.)

Sarah, do you really need me as your speechwriter or PR consultant?

Recently, Palin released a video on Youtube (that I can’t find), breaking her silence on the shooting that occurred last Saturday. As you may be aware, some of the liberal nut jobs online started blaming her and conservative hate-filled rhetoric for the shooting. They’ve claimed that the vitriolic language encouraged the unbalanced Jared Lee Loughner to shoot Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords, killing six (one happened to be a nine-year-old girl born on September 11^th) and wounding 14 others. The Congresswoman’s condition is improving daily.

As I’ve mentioned, most sane people know that this man was deranged and that conservative language had nothing to do with the shooting. It was a tragedy. However, Sarah Palin thought this would be a great time to go on the offensive and attack the liberal media and act like she was the real victim. Yes, the attacks on her are unfair, but this is not what the country wants to hear. Why couldn’t she say what I wrote? On the same day, President Obama gave a speech at a memorial service for the victims and received high praise for it, even from Glenn Beck.

I frankly don’t believe the crap that ‘blood libel’ is anti-Semitic. I believe the term has evolved past the whole “Jews use the blood of children for their rituals” thing. The fact that she would use such strong language to describe these unfounded attacks at this time is a little tasteless.

What bothers me is that some conservative pundits don’t want to keep the logical high ground. They can make the reasonable argument that the man was crazy, but always end by saying “liberals are worse! Here are examples X, Y, and Z!” I thought your point was to not politicize this tragedy, and then you politicize it.

One reason the “mean rhetoric” debate is being brought up is because Gabrielle Giffords herself complained about it. That map with crosshairs? She herself thought it was in bad taste and could lead to trouble. The map wasn’t just picked at random by liberals to point the finger; it was a problem a year ago.

The other reason is this; the tragedy showed us how human we really are. Giffords faced a really tough and bitter re-election in 2010 in which a lot of vile language was thrown around. Then we remembered she was a human when she was shot, not some horrible anti-American monster. We need to get off this “they are the enemy” belief and handle the issues in a civil manner and work together. Never wish for someone to be dead, because it could happen.

I have another issue to bring up, but it would be hypocritical of me to do so. I will wait at another time to bring it up.

Old games don't die, they just fade away...

When I play computer games, I go through phases. Sometimes I will only play one game for a month every chance I get and then lose interest and find another game. Usually I find all the flaws and then I get bored.

Recently, I’ve been playing Railroad Tycoon II, a game that I’ve had since ~1999. Basically, you create a Railroad empire and make money. And boy, have I found the flaws.

How the hell do you acquire personal wealth? You are given a salary by some of the most tightwad board of investors ever. Based on your performance of the last year (mostly your corporate profits), they will raise, lower, or keep your salary the same. Mostly, they just cut your salary. If profits are down by $100K from $2 Million to $1.9 Million, they cut your pay by $5K. Raise profits by $2 Million? You get a $1K pay raise. Goody, I now make what I make in real life (not that much). HOWEVER, my opponents are swimming in cash within five years. Their cash stockpile is $500K. Mine? $15K. Profits are about the same for my company and their companies. What the hell?

Did I say within five years? I meant one year.

And do you know what they do with their oodles of cash? Buy enough stock to control my company! Every time I try to merge with a sickly, failing company (yet the owner has millions of dollars and makes more than me a year), they vote against it. Also, they own 98% of their own company but I can never manage to own more than 30% of mine. My company can issue stock, which lowers the price and frees up shares to buy, which I try to do (there are no small private investors as the computer opponents buy up all the stock so that five men control 75% of my company). However, due to my pitifully small salary, I can only buy a few shares with my cash and the computers buy up the rest. I wind up owning less of my company than before.

The only way to ever convince your competitors to sell their stock on your company is to screw yourself. Stop all trains, declare bankruptcy, go into huge debt, and watch the stock fall in price. When it hits a dollar per share, they sell like crazy. You can now buy up the stock for cheap and end up owning 85% of the company. However, you only have a year to turn a profit before your creditors liquidate the company and you are kicked out of the game. When you allow the trains to run again, they actually cause you to lose money (as the value of the cargo decreases to nothing as time goes on) and the cost of running them and not making a profit on delivery puts you further in the hole. You can use a cheat to give your company $100 Million and think of it as a ‘government bailout’ (but the government at this time in history was relying on millionaires to bail the government out. One of which, J.P. Morgan did twice, you can actually play as in the game) but I tried not to cheat. So the whole method of intentionally bankrupting you company doesn’t work.

These aren’t even the really hard rules either, just the average rules. You don’t want to play on hard. The easy rules don’t allow you to buy stock in anyone else’s company, but that’s boring.

It is nice knowing that this there is also no government in the game to stop you from doing things that were illegal and are highly illegal today.

The less annoying thing about this game is the lack of economic diversity. Cities produce and demand things. What they produce depends on what buildings they have (steel plants, textile mills, car factories). Cities demand food, ‘goods’, and any raw materials needed for their economic buildings (iron and coal for steel plants, cotton or wool for textile mills, steel and tires for automobile factories). Cities always demand and produce mail and passengers. There are about a handful of buildings in the game and they mostly just make food or ‘goods’. It makes no sense to ship food and ‘goods’ to one city just to ship back food and ‘goods’.

Also, it’s not even profitable to ship raw materials to the factories. For example, the Textile mills need cotton (or wool). Cotton is produced on farms outside of a city. You could build a station next to a group of farms and ship cotton to the city, but the returning train is carrying no goods to the cotton supplying station region. Therefore you make no money on the returning train (unless the city just so happens to produce fertilizer, the only thing a cotton farm ever demands). I know this sounds confusing, but it really isn’t. You ship cotton to the city and bring nothing back.

So that’s Railroad Tycoon II. Since 1998, there have been two sequels, Railroad Tycoon III and Sid Meier’s Raildroads! (Sid Meier, creator of the Civilization series, created the original RR Tycoon game but not the second or third ones). I would like to try these games someday.