I was dreading this debate. The foreign policy debate. The most useless debate.
Foreign policy is a fluid issue and is nearly pointless in having a whole debate about it. Foreign policy as part of a debate is fine.
The only concrete thing to really argue about is what the incumbent did right and wrong. From there the arguments are from hind-sight which is 20/20. You can also argue what your general stance is about the role of the US and the military and whom we should be friendly with. Unfortunately in the real world this can all turn on a dime based on world events so the debate is useless.
Did you notice how quickly the candidates turned to talking about the economy and education?
I did not finish watching the debate because wow, boring and useless. I did catch a little of CNN analysis when it was over. I thought it appropriate that the clueless Soledad O'Brien was interviewing the clueless undecided voters.
I found it interesting that throughout all of the analysis of arguing who won the debate that in the end most CNN pundits said it didn't really matter; what matters is who wins the election.
Sometimes CNN gets it right.
Monday, October 22, 2012
Saturday, October 20, 2012
Lesser of Two Evils
I'm not voting Obama or Romney. I keep hearing that my "protest" vote is a vote for the other guy. If I am not voting for your candidate of the two front runners you probably think the same thing.
My vote can not be a vote for "the other guy." It does not get counted for them. If both sides feel it is, then it obviously is not. It is a vote for my candidate.
Do you want to see Obama with four more years? Do you want to see Romney as president? The two mainstream candidate supporters will ask you one of these questions to scare you into their candidates camp. They will tell you that these two are the only ones that have a chance to get elected. You need to vote for the candidate that can beat the one you dislike the most. If you do not you are throwing away your vote, or your vote is really for the guy you dislike the most.
You are not throwing away your vote!
Why not? Because you are helping to ensure that whomever wins does not win by a majority.
A majority win is an awful thing to give a candidate. They will use it as a reason to push their will. They will claim that it is a mandate from the people for him to implement his policies. This is dangerous thinking and reasoning.
If you do not like either Obama or Romney, do not vote for them, but still vote!
Do not believe the claim that this is the most important election ever. Do not believe the lies that this is not the time to turn to third party candidates; wait four years to do that. We hear these lies every presidential cycle. If you want a third party candidate, vote third party! It is your vote!
If you vote for the lesser of two evils instead of whom you consider a good candidate, what does that say about you, voting for evil instead of good?
Those of you that are Obama and Romney supporters that use the lesser of two evils argument instead of convincing people your candidate is good, what does that say about you? What good person convinces another to go with evil instead of good?
My vote can not be a vote for "the other guy." It does not get counted for them. If both sides feel it is, then it obviously is not. It is a vote for my candidate.
Do you want to see Obama with four more years? Do you want to see Romney as president? The two mainstream candidate supporters will ask you one of these questions to scare you into their candidates camp. They will tell you that these two are the only ones that have a chance to get elected. You need to vote for the candidate that can beat the one you dislike the most. If you do not you are throwing away your vote, or your vote is really for the guy you dislike the most.
You are not throwing away your vote!
Why not? Because you are helping to ensure that whomever wins does not win by a majority.
A majority win is an awful thing to give a candidate. They will use it as a reason to push their will. They will claim that it is a mandate from the people for him to implement his policies. This is dangerous thinking and reasoning.
If you do not like either Obama or Romney, do not vote for them, but still vote!
Do not believe the claim that this is the most important election ever. Do not believe the lies that this is not the time to turn to third party candidates; wait four years to do that. We hear these lies every presidential cycle. If you want a third party candidate, vote third party! It is your vote!
If you vote for the lesser of two evils instead of whom you consider a good candidate, what does that say about you, voting for evil instead of good?
Those of you that are Obama and Romney supporters that use the lesser of two evils argument instead of convincing people your candidate is good, what does that say about you? What good person convinces another to go with evil instead of good?
Tuesday, October 16, 2012
Solar Energy and Political Math Tricks
There is a new solar panel structure at Monterey County’s Laurel Yard Complex in Salinas, California. The Energy.gov post boasts that it will save the county $222,000 in energy costs in the first five years and at least $18,800 in the sixth year.
What? $222,000 over five years is $44,000 a year. Why the drop to $18,800?
The Monterey CAO Weekly Report for the week of September 10, 2012 gives more information about the project. That $222,000 in savings includes a $27,600 a year rebate for the first five years. That means that $44,000 a year savings is really $16,400 a year. Also, the solar panel structure was a $1 million dollar project funded by the 2009 American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA).
That rebate is part of Energy Incentive Programs in California. It costs $3.1 billion from 2010 through 2012 and was approved by the California Public Utilities Commission. This means tax dollars spent on rebates.
I have not yet found how the real estimated savings of $16,400 will jump to $18,800 in the sixth year. Maybe there is a new rebate that kicks in.
The statement that $222,000 will be saved in the first five years is ludicrous. It is like the missing dollar riddle. The savings statement is a false statement.
Since the ARRA and rebate money comes from the government, the money comes from the consumers and the people through tax dollars. Through the rebate program the people are paying $27,600 a year to save $16,400. The solar plant is now running at a loss of $11,200 a year. If there was no rebate then it would be saving money after 61 years of operation, the amount of time it takes to save $1,000,000 at $16,400 a year.
What? $222,000 over five years is $44,000 a year. Why the drop to $18,800?
The Monterey CAO Weekly Report for the week of September 10, 2012 gives more information about the project. That $222,000 in savings includes a $27,600 a year rebate for the first five years. That means that $44,000 a year savings is really $16,400 a year. Also, the solar panel structure was a $1 million dollar project funded by the 2009 American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA).
That rebate is part of Energy Incentive Programs in California. It costs $3.1 billion from 2010 through 2012 and was approved by the California Public Utilities Commission. This means tax dollars spent on rebates.
I have not yet found how the real estimated savings of $16,400 will jump to $18,800 in the sixth year. Maybe there is a new rebate that kicks in.
The statement that $222,000 will be saved in the first five years is ludicrous. It is like the missing dollar riddle. The savings statement is a false statement.
Since the ARRA and rebate money comes from the government, the money comes from the consumers and the people through tax dollars. Through the rebate program the people are paying $27,600 a year to save $16,400. The solar plant is now running at a loss of $11,200 a year. If there was no rebate then it would be saving money after 61 years of operation, the amount of time it takes to save $1,000,000 at $16,400 a year.
Monday, October 15, 2012
Awesome Anti-Obama-Policy Commercial
I've never heard anyone explain to me how taking money away from rich people helps the poor. People just think it is more fair. Bwah?
Government Money Handling Insanity
Here's a young man, 40 years old. He discovers he's got AIDS. He's got ten more years to live. Then the government comes along and say "we have to take fifteen percent of your income to provide for your old age after 65."That was Milton Friedman commenting about social security and how you are not paying for your retirement but other people's retirement. The following is a wonderful interview with this man.
- Milton Friedman
Sunday, October 14, 2012
Energy Independence : What a Crock
I am sick of this "Energy Independence" that the politicians talks about. One set of people mean as switching to renewable energies : solar and wind. Another set of people mean it as drilling for oil and keeping it for ourselves. Granted, this is an over-simplification.
They can not legislate physics to do what they want!
This means no matter how much legislation you make you can not make renewable energy perform better. Only scientist and research can make it better and only if it is possible. Dump all the money you want into research, it does not mean you will find a way to make it cost effective.
The issue is fuel. By continuing to talk about "energy" we screw up the conversation. Energy needs to be reframed as different concepts.
We are not food independent nor manufacturing independent! Why do we have to be energy independent?
Any leveraging another country might exert against us may drive prices up, but we do have many forms of producing energy. If oil prices worry us, look at what is happening now. So far gas is high and we have a bad economy, but we are still here and we are not rioting like other countries.
We can get through and come up with a way. Chances are at some point private industry may ignore government and just do what must be done. Damn the regulations and step up and provide the country what it needs. More energy, not more laws.
People believe the regulations protect us and keep the environment clean in regards to mining and extracting fuel. The problem is that there are two tipping points in regulations that end up hurting us and cause production to move out of country:
We are hurt in two ways.
The loss of jobs is obvious, but dirty environment? That is what happens. The countries that end up accessing the fuel do not have as stringent environmental policies as the US. This becomes a case of "not in my backyard" solutions that still affect us.
The environment is supposed to be global, so it does not matter where the pollution happens. In the end by us not having a more reasonable set of regulations we let someone else do it in a dirtier method.
Energy independence. What a crock. No one is making sense.
Renewable Energies
If renewable energies were good the companies would not keep going bankrupt! The government has been dumping too much of our money into them. The government has no business doing that!They can not legislate physics to do what they want!
This means no matter how much legislation you make you can not make renewable energy perform better. Only scientist and research can make it better and only if it is possible. Dump all the money you want into research, it does not mean you will find a way to make it cost effective.
More Oil
Yes, it would be nice if we drilled for more oil. It would mean more jobs here. However, it does not necessarily mean the price of oil would drop. The price of oil is pretty much set by the global economy. The US buying power helps us to purchase it at a reasonable price compared to other countries.Energy
This energy independence talk is just ridiculous. Our energy is produced here. There are no wires coming in from another country powering us. We produce the energy ourselves.The issue is fuel. By continuing to talk about "energy" we screw up the conversation. Energy needs to be reframed as different concepts.
- Fuels
- Production Methods
Independence
Are we talking about isolation? The independence talk eludes to the idea we will not buy fuel from the global market. Why?We are not food independent nor manufacturing independent! Why do we have to be energy independent?
Any leveraging another country might exert against us may drive prices up, but we do have many forms of producing energy. If oil prices worry us, look at what is happening now. So far gas is high and we have a bad economy, but we are still here and we are not rioting like other countries.
We can get through and come up with a way. Chances are at some point private industry may ignore government and just do what must be done. Damn the regulations and step up and provide the country what it needs. More energy, not more laws.
Regulations
We can stop talking about energy independence by talking about regulations. Regulations are out of control.People believe the regulations protect us and keep the environment clean in regards to mining and extracting fuel. The problem is that there are two tipping points in regulations that end up hurting us and cause production to move out of country:
- Regulations that deny fuel extraction
- Regulations that make fuel extraction no longer cost effective
We are hurt in two ways.
- Loss of jobs
- Dirty environment
The loss of jobs is obvious, but dirty environment? That is what happens. The countries that end up accessing the fuel do not have as stringent environmental policies as the US. This becomes a case of "not in my backyard" solutions that still affect us.
The environment is supposed to be global, so it does not matter where the pollution happens. In the end by us not having a more reasonable set of regulations we let someone else do it in a dirtier method.
Energy independence. What a crock. No one is making sense.
Saturday, October 13, 2012
Is there an Obama energy war?
The Cato Institute is a wonderful organization and day by day I realize I am more Libertarian than Republican or conservative. Recently Cato has released a couple of podcasts about Obama's energy performance, NOT policies, and the criticism he has received.
The Cato podcasts bring up some interesting points. If you are anti-Obama or strongly against his policies these podcasts might take a bit of your enthusiasm out of your objection to Obama's administration. However, maybe you will take away from these podcasts what I did:
Depending on how wide or narrow we change our views on politics changes the perception of what is happening. Also, we need to remain conscious of the differences are between what a politician says the will do, what they set up as policies, and what actually happens.
Sometimes what actually happens is less important than what they want to do. If some one says over and over they are going to stab you but don't do it does not mean you ignore them. One of those times they will try and you will want to be on your guard!
The Cato podcasts bring up some interesting points. If you are anti-Obama or strongly against his policies these podcasts might take a bit of your enthusiasm out of your objection to Obama's administration. However, maybe you will take away from these podcasts what I did:
- Obama's opponents make a mountain out of a mole hill. Single incidents that they do not like are reframed as Obama's whole policy.
- Cato has looked at how Obama has handled coal and oil seperately. It is a wider view of what has happened across the board in those individual energy fields and whether or not there are differences from his predecessors.
- The Cato podcasts do not address Obama's overall policies. An even wider look would show that what looks like a lack of change in oil and coal policies ignores the tendency to promote wind and solar over coal and oil.
Depending on how wide or narrow we change our views on politics changes the perception of what is happening. Also, we need to remain conscious of the differences are between what a politician says the will do, what they set up as policies, and what actually happens.
Sometimes what actually happens is less important than what they want to do. If some one says over and over they are going to stab you but don't do it does not mean you ignore them. One of those times they will try and you will want to be on your guard!
War on Oil
War on Coal
Friday, October 12, 2012
Tuesday, October 9, 2012
Wisconsin's Gender Preference
If you get mad, just turn the other cheddar.
At least you get better with age.
Is it sexist if I say you are one of those smelly cheeses?
The new sandwich at the deli is a LGBTC.
What did you get removed? What did you have added?
Can you have kids? Or do you have curds?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)