Wednesday, September 30, 2020

I'm Baaack!

Hard to believe that I wrote my first post back in 2009, on January 20th to be precise. Not in response to President Obama's inauguration speech, but most certainly because of it. He made me want to find my voice, to exercise my First Amendment right to free speech.

I'm rather fond of the sound of my own voice and I can only wonder why I haven't taken to the soapbox more often. So this is me, renewing my interest in doing more than spitting into the wind on Twitter.

Looking back at the drafts I started, I find that something like ten or so are still relevant today. I will be going back through them, updating them and posting them. I can't promise them first, but if you see a flurry of activity, you'll know why.

As I said back then, I hope, dear reader that you find what I have to say of interest. Whether I rant and rail, wax eloquent, search for humor or am just plain quixotic, I will try not to digress too far. So thank you - for joining me here; for reading what I have to say; and for adding your two cents worth.

I promise to continue spitting into the Twitterverse.

Saturday, February 9, 2019

AOC's Green New Deal

Hmm. It seems that the following post was deleted from Internet Archive as well as everywhere else. Luckily enough, I copied it before it disappeared.

The link at Internet Archive was https://web.archive.org/web/20190207191119/ocasio-cortez.house.gov/media/blog-posts/green-new-deal-faq
Update: don't know how or why, but original Internet Archive link I had was missing a character; the link above has been fixed and works as of this update.

As I said, neither is valid anymore. Oh, well, for your edification the following is as I copied it from Internet Archive before it disappeared.

News Alert

116th United States Congress Convenes

Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez

Representing the 14th District of New York


Green New Deal FAQ

February 5, 2019 | Blog Post

What is the Green New Deal?

The Green New Deal is a 10-year plan to create a greenhouse gas neutral society that creates unprecedented levels of prosperity and wealth for all while ensuring economic and environmental justice and security.

The Green New Deal achieves this through a World War 2 scale mobilization that focuses the robust and creative economic engine of the United States on reversing climate change by fully rebuilding our crumbling infrastructure, restoring our natural ecosystems, dramatically expanding renewable power generation, overhauling our entire transportation system, upgrading all our buildings, jumpstarting US clean manufacturing, transforming US agriculture, and putting our nation's people to work doing what they do best: making the impossible possible.

Any large-scale transformation of society can create the risk of some people slipping through the cracks. That’s why the Green New Deal also calls for an upgrade to the basic economic securities enjoyed by all people in the US to ensure everybody benefits from the newly created wealth. It guarantees to everyone:
  • A job with family-sustaining wages, family and medical leave, vacations, and retirement security
  • High-quality education, including higher education and trade schools
  • High-quality health care
  • Clean air and water
  • Healthy food
  • Safe, affordable, adequate housing
  • An economic environment free of monopolies
  •  Economic security to all who are unable or unwilling to work
The frontline communities that are already facing the ravages of climate change and pollution and working-class communities reliant on fossil fuel industries must be prioritized in any transformation of our society to a renewable energy economy. That’s why the Green New Deal lays out a comprehensive plan that ensures training, investment, and the economic and environmental benefits of the transition prioritize these communities that are most at risk.

In short, the Green New Deal fully tackles the existential threat posed by climate change by presenting a comprehensive, 10-year plan that is as big as the problem it hopes to solve while creating a new era of shared prosperity.

What is the purpose of the Green New Deal resolution?

The goal of the resolution is to define the scope, scale, and purpose of the Green New Deal. It is intended to define what is necessary for any legislation that aims to be “Green New Deal” legislation. The resolution puts forward 5 goals to be accomplished through a 10-year plan that involves 14 transformative industrial and infrastructure projects and 15 supporting principles for social and economic justice and security necessary to accomplish the Green New Deal.

Why is such a large-scale mobilization necessary right now?

A recent IPCC report declared that global temperatures must be kept below 1.5 degrees Celsius above preindustrial levels to avoid the most severe impacts of a changing climate. This calls for global reductions of greenhouse gas emissions of 40 to 60 percent by 2030. The U.S. contributes 20% of global emissions. To hit these global targets, the US must not only get to a greenhouse gas emissions neutral society by 2030, but it must also lead this change abroad to avert climate catastrophe.

Is getting to a greenhouse gas emissions neutral society in 10 years possible?

It is possible if we have the political will to do it.  When JFK called for us to get to the moon by the end of the decade, people said it was impossible.  When FDR called on America to build 185,000 planes to fight World War 2 at a time when America was producing 3,000 planes a year, the world laughed.  We ended up building 300,000 planes and winning the war. We built a highway system to connect this continent, split the atom, and created the Great Society. The American people are capable of doing great things when our nation comes together to tackle big challenges.

Is there any support for the Green New Deal?

92 percent of Democrats and 64 percent of Republicans support the Green New Deal according to latest polls. Over 300 local and state politicians have called for a federal Green New Deal. The previous resolution to create a select committee for a Green New Deal had 45 endorsers in the House, and this new Resolution is launching with the co-sponsorship of 60 members of the House and 9 Senators including many major Presidential candidates.

Why do we need a sweeping Green New Deal investment program led by the government? Why can’t we just rely on regulations, taxes, and incentives such as a carbon tax or a ban on fossil fuels?

  • The level of investment required to make the Green New Deal successful is massive. Even if every billionaire and company came together and were willing to pour all their resources into this investment, the aggregate value of investments would not be sufficient.  That’s why we must utilize World War II era and New Deal-style financing which commits to long-term benefits instead of short-term quarterly returns.
  • The speed of investment required must be as swift as possible. Even if all the billionaires and companies in the world could make the investments required, they would not be able to pull together a coordinated response in the narrow window of time required to jump-start major new projects and major new economic sectors. Additionally, private companies do not make massive investments in risky projects that will only earn a moderate return -- even if they are necessary to save the planet. The government, however, has the time horizon to be able to patiently make investments in exploration of new tech and R&D, without necessarily having a commercial outcome or application in mind at the time the investment is made. Major examples of government investments in “new” tech that subsequently spurred a boom in the private sector include DARPA-projects, the creation of the internet - and, perhaps most recently, the government’s investment in Tesla.
  • We don’t need to just stop doing the destructive things we are doing (like using fossil fuels for energy needs); we also need to start doing new things (like overhauling whole industries or retrofitting all buildings to be energy efficient). Starting to do new things requires upfront investment. In the same way that a company trying to change how it does business may need to make big upfront capital investments today in order to reap future benefits (e.g., building a new factory to increase production or buying new hardware and software to totally modernize its IT system), a country that is trying to change how its economy works will need to make big investments today to jump-start and develop new projects and sectors to power the new economy.
  • Merely incentivizing the private sector doesn’t work - e.g. the tax incentives and subsidies given to wind and solar projects have been a valuable spur to growth in the US renewables industry but, even with such investment-promotion subsidies, the present level of such projects is simply inadequate to transition to a fully greenhouse gas neutral economy as quickly as needed.
  • This resolution sets out a non-exhaustive list of several major projects that need to be completed fast. These projects include upgrading virtually every home and building for energy efficiency, building 100% greenhouse gas neutral power generation systems, removing greenhouse gases from industry and agriculture, and more. These projects will all require substantive investment.
  • We’re not saying that there isn’t a role for private sector investments; we’re just saying that the level of investment required will need every actor to pitch in and that the government is best placed to be the prime driver of the investment program. Given the magnitude of the current challenge, the tools of regulation and taxation, used in isolation, will not be enough to quickly and smoothly accomplish the transformation we need to see.

How will you pay for the Green New Deal?

The Green New Deal is a massive investment program, not an expenditure. The question isn’t how will we pay for it, but what is the cost of inaction, and what will we do with our new shared prosperity created by the investments in the Green New Deal.

We will finance the investments for the Green New Deal the same way we paid for the original New Deal, World War II, the bank bailouts, tax cuts for the rich, and decades of war – with public money appropriated by Congress. Further, government can take an equity stake in Green New Deal projects so the public gets a return on its investment. We already know that investments in infrastructure create huge returns on investment. The interstate highway system returned more than $6 in economic productivity for every $1 it cost. Similarly, investments in upgrading and transforming industry are a chance to grow the wealth of our nation dramatically.

For a more detailed view on paying for the investments in a Green New Deal, check out these articles:

Will this hurt communities that rely on fossil fuels jobs?

The Green New Deal will prioritize creating high-quality, family wage-supporting union jobs in communities that rely on fossil fuel industries. It will ensure that all communities have a better alternative for high-wage work before they transition away from fossil fuel indsutry based work.

Is this an environmental plan? Why do you have things like universal health care and other social safety net measures in here?

The Green New Deal is a plan to make a full-scale transition of our economy that puts jobs and justice first. This plan will require a strong social safety net so that every U.S. person can make this transition comfortably and nobody falls through the cracks in the process. If we want to be able to mobilize our economy fully, we can't afford to have employees stuck in their current jobs because they are afraid to lose health care or workers unable to participate because they can't afford the education and training programs. We also need to be sure that workers currently employed in fossil fuel industries have higher-wage and better jobs available to them to be able to make this transition, and a federal jobs guarantee ensures that no worker is left behind. We believe that the economic securities and programs for justice and equity laid out in this Green New Deal resolution are a bare minimum of what we need to do to successfully execute the Green New Deal.

Why does the Green New Deal call for net-zero emissions in 10 years instead of zero emissions? Is this saying we won’t transition off fossil fuels? Does the Green New Deal ban all fossil fuels?

The Green New Deal is a 10-year plan to jumpstart the complete transition of our society away from fossil fuels to renewable energy sources and to achieve zero greenhouse gas emissions and pollution. The resolution outlines the plan to virtually eliminate greenhouse gas emissions and pollution from every sector of the economy through a World War 2 scale mobilization of our society to create the renewable energy infrastructure and clean industries as fast as possible.

The Green New Deal sets a goal to get to net-zero, rather than zero emissions, at the end of this 10-year plan because we aren’t sure that we will be able to fully get rid of, for example, emissions from cows or air travel before then. However, we do believe we can ramp up renewable manufacturing and power production, retrofit every building in America, build the smart grid, overhaul transportation and agriculture, restore our ecosystem, and more to get to net-zero emissions.

The Green New Deal also calls for any infrastructure measures before Congress to address climate change and additionally calls for an end to the transfer of pollution overseas.  This provision goes farther than just calling for a ban on new fossil fuel infrastructure. Instead, it tackles all greenhouse gas emitting and pollution emitting sources in our economy and global trade. However, the more important driver to phasing out fossil fuel usage in the Green New Deal is the large-scale mobilization that will make new fossil fuel infrastructure or industries untenable.  The Green New Deal is a 10-year plan to reorient our entire economy to be pollution and greenhouse gas emissions free while ensuring every person in the U.S. benefits from this enormous transformation of our society.  This means creating a plan to develop the supply of clean energy, industries, infrastructure, transportation, and more for workers and frontline communities in conjunction with transitioning off fossil fuels. Only banning fossil fuels won’t build the new economy to replace it. The Green New Deal is a plan to build that new economy and spells out how to do it technically.

What comes next?

Representative Ocasio-Cortez is planning to immediately begin work on Green New Deal legislation to fully flesh out the projects involved in the Green New Deal. She also plans to work with members of Congress to incorporate existing legislation into the comprehensive plan for a Green New Deal.

Saturday, July 21, 2018

An Enemy of We The People

There was a time - back in the early 80s - when I abandoned the MSM. The new kid, CNN, proved themselves over and over to be more reliable when it came to reporting facts. For close to a decade my news came from CNN. Then they too changed directions. When FOX News was launched in 1996, I tuned in hoping for that missing ingredient - factually based reporting - and found it. They have floundered occasionally, but FOX is still the best choice today.

So I contest your assertion that Trump has, in any way, worked to "destroy one of the very pillars on which our democracy was founded." That is all on the press itself. Yes, "Freedom of the press is enshrined in the First Amendment to our Constitution because the Founding Fathers knew a democracy cannot exist without it." But keeping the respect of the people, which the press has to earn with EVERY story it produces, is wholly the responsibility of the press itself.

If the press finds itself being attacked - by whomever - it should only have to hold up the story over which it is being attacked in it's defense. If a single word of spin is required, the story itself is inadequate and questionable. As soon as that is the rule rather than the exception, the press has made itself "an enemy of the people" because lies and half truths do not serve We The People.

The quotes above are from "Reagan aide: Condemn Trump's 'enemy of the people' rhetoric"

Thursday, July 19, 2018

An open letter to social media hosts

It is becoming standard practice to remove statements that are considered "fake news". Perhaps it is time to consider an alternative.

Instead of removing controversial statements, I propose social media hosts (Facebook, Google, etc.) label them as incomplete or inaccurate or outright false (a great big watermark?) and provide a link or links to factual information that refutes the statement.

(I cannot see how this would work on Twitter.)

This would be beneficial in several ways. First, nobody's free speech is hindered. Second, it would publicly identify the statement as questionable and link to factual information resolving the controversy. Third, there would be no ascribing motives to the social media host for censorship because all they have done is provide a link. If the host makes a mistake, it is there for the world to see.

Another benefit would be the inability of others to link to the statement as a final thought. This will, ideally, prevent it from being used to further spread the statement because any reference back to it would also provide immediate access to a link or links to facts countering it.

Directing the reader to factual information would allow the social media host doing the review to show that they are not being biased. Facts are facts.

The individual or group disseminating the "fake news" is effectively shamed publicly every time someone sees the post - in much the same fashion sex offenders are by being registered.

Everyone wins except for the purveyors of "fake news" IMHO.

Friday, June 15, 2012

Breaking up is hard to do


I find it both amusing and interesting that the accepted premise is that Greece will pull out of the euro first.  Frankly, I can't imagine they'll be the ones to bail on the only real source of financing they currently have.  No, I expect they'll do the honorable Greek (okay, Spartan) thing and leave on their shields.  In other words, only once they realize there will be no more bail outs coming their way.  Then again, maybe it will be with a German boot up their ass.

There is an article in the online BBC News Magazine titled 'Five ways the eurozone could break up.'  Apparently, a Lord Wolfson says "..there is a serious need for a solution to any euro break-up" and is offering a monetary prize to the economist who comes up with the best plan (is that an oxymoron?).  Personally, I'm going with the current number three: All return to national currencies.

Of course, this brings us back to the question of who will leave the eurozone first.  My best guess?  Germany.  I mean, really, who wants to pay for their neighbor's debts forever.  More importantly, how on earth could Chancellor Merkel justify it to her constituencies?

"Yes, my people, we are now supporting Frenchmen who are retiring two years earlier - at 60.  You, however, shall work until 78, or until you drop.  It is your duty to both your country and the rest of the eurozone!"

Riiiight.  I can see that going over really well, kind of like asking Texas to support the land of fruits and nuts as they go bust.

The alternative is even more amusing: Germany negotiating its way to the top.  In other words, conquering Europe economically.  Somehow, I just can't see the other eurozone members acquiescing.

Sunday, October 23, 2011

Looking for America

Years ago I had the opportunity to spend the day in New York City. I was young and, to be blunt, had absolutely no desire to waste my time gawking at a bunch of high-rise buildings. (The group I was with wasn't exactly planning on visiting the Museum of Natural History.) Still don't. (Though I am interested in seeing the aforementioned museum.)

Earlier this month I had the opportunity to spend a couple days sightseeing in our nation's capitol and didn't. When asked (with a certain amount of incredulity) why, I came up with the lame excuse of traffic (which was awful but not insurmountable). The truth is, I had no desire to be part of the spectacle.

Yes, I would thoroughly enjoy standing in front of the Lincoln Memorial reflecting on the magnitude of that man's life on mine and then strolling down the mall towards the Washington Monument. I can imagine my awe at standing before the actual documents that are the foundation of our great nation (the blood, sweat and lives that went into them are, on the other hand, unimaginable).

To me these are actions that require time and solitude. I have no interest in being rushed or crowded. My image of the perfect way to see these sights is devoid of other people.

Yet, it is We The People who make all these sights worth seeing. America is nothing without her people.

I drove almost 1900 miles to get to where I was near Washington - not to sightsee, but to work. Still, the trip itself was a reminder (just in case I had forgotten) of who Americans are and what America is because of them.

No, I have no intention of boring you with my perceptions and opinions on the matter. In truth, they are irrelevant. What I do want to impress upon you, however, is that you need to look - actually see - the people around you. Each individual is a part of what we call America. Together, We are The People.

Bother yourself to learn the name of your waiter or waitress, if only for the few minutes you are seated in their section. Smile at everyone - not just with your mouth, but with your eyes and tone of voice. Use the magic words 'please' and 'thank you'.

Remember a couple little details about each person whose life intersects your own on a daily basis. They will remember you.

John, the cashier at the grocery store, is a veteran who wears vet related pins on his apron. Have you ever asked him about them?

Participate in the lives around you. Find your America.

Sunday, August 21, 2011

Proof that limiting collective-bargaining rights for workers’ unions IS the right approach.

Bloomberg.com's editors seem to think that the recent "give backs" by unions in Conneticut and New York prove that Wisconsin and Ohio were wrong to take the steps that they took. I believe they have it exactly backwards.

Bloomberg's Editors say "On the part of organized labor, the deals showed a welcome recognition of the depth of voter concern over budgets and, perhaps, a new appreciation that it is going to take shared sacrifice to get the U.S. out of this economic mess." The truth is, that perspective is nothing but spin.

The only reason organized labor gave an inch is because of the "wins" in Wisconsin and Ohio. Yes, it is a "welcome recognition of the depth of voter concern over budgets" but the "new appreciation" is that voters are paying attention to exactly what their elected representatives are doing at the barganing table. The results of the negotiations in Conneticut and New York would never have been what they were had Wisconsin and Ohio gone the other way.

In the long run, Wisconsin and Ohio will be better off for having done away with collective bargaining. On the other hand, you can bet your bottom dollar that the moment the unions and their 'bought' government representatives who sit across from them at the bargaining table believe the electorate is no longer paying attention they will reinstate whatever the unions "gave up."

Mobile Blogging

The whole point of this blog was/is to speak out and I have to admit I have been less than voluble. I could blame it on the fact that I don't carry my laptop around with me, but...

So now I'm trying mobile blogging. Ugh! I touch type and the keyboard on my new (relatively speaking) iPhone 3GS just isn't set up for that. Nonetheless... Will be using this post to test various apps so don't be surprised if it looks weird!

Using BlogSpace app. Hmmm... Tried saving to my GS but that didn't work; good thing I also saved a draft online!
  • doesn't save to my GS reliably

  • can't see any of my drafts

Wednesday, June 29, 2011

Cut, Cap and Balance

The Pledge
I pledge to urge my Senators and Member of the House of Representatives to oppose any debt limit increase unless all three of the following conditions have been met:
  1. Cut - Substantial cuts in spending that will reduce the deficit next year and thereafter.
  2. Cap - Enforceable spending caps that will put federal spending on a path to a balanced budget.
  3. Balance - Congressional passage of a Balanced Budget Amendment to the U.S. Constitution -- but only if it includes both a spending limitation and a super-majority for raising taxes, in addition to balancing revenues and expenses.
Well, it sounds good.

Unfortunately, it is not an acceptable basis for negotiating the raising of the debt ceiling.  I mean, just imagine going to Visa or MasterCard and telling them you wanted them to raise your credit limit and that you would "cut, cap and balance" your budget in return.  I'm not sure which would hurt more; the deafening sound of them slamming their phone down or the peals of laughter you heard just before that happened.

How about we eliminate the deficit?  What happened to zero-based budgeting?  No, I do not mean zero-sum budgeting.  Zero-sum is how we-the-people deal with an increase in our expenses when we don't have a commensurate increase in our income.  I'm talking about zero-based budgeting for every aspect of government.  I'm talking about our elected representatives actually doing some work and making the hard choices on a regular basis.  No more 'budget' votes that only reference the amount of the increase.  No more calling an increase less than projected a budget 'cut'.

Tuesday, June 28, 2011

The Deficit Is Worse Than We Think

Once again I must credit the following to someone much smarter than myself. Therefore, I would like to acknowledge the author, Lawrence Lindsey, and The Wall Street Journal where the column was originally published. All I did was cut and paste.

The Deficit Is Worse Than We Think

Normal interest rates would raise debt-service costs by $4.9 trillion over 10 years, dwarfing the savings from any currently contemplated budget deal.

By LAWRENCE B. LINDSEY
Washington is struggling to make a deal that will couple an increase in the debt ceiling with a long-term reduction in spending. There is no reason for the players to make their task seem even more Herculean than it already is. But we should be prepared for upward revisions in official deficit projections in the years ahead—even if a deal is struck. There are at least three major reasons for concern.

First, a normalization of interest rates would upend any budgetary deal if and when one should occur. At present, the average cost of Treasury borrowing is 2.5%. The average over the last two decades was 5.7%. Should we ramp up to the higher number, annual interest expenses would be roughly $420 billion higher in 2014 and $700 billion higher in 2020.

The 10-year rise in interest expense would be $4.9 trillion higher under "normalized" rates than under the current cost of borrowing. Compare that to the $2 trillion estimate of what the current talks about long-term deficit reduction may produce, and it becomes obvious that the gains from the current deficit-reduction efforts could be wiped out by normalization in the bond market.

To some extent this is a controllable risk. The Federal Reserve could act aggressively by purchasing even more bonds, or targeting rates further out on the yield curve, to slow any rise in the cost of Treasury borrowing. Of course, this carries its own set of risks, not the least among them an adverse reaction by our lenders. Suffice it to say, though, that given all that is at stake, Fed interest-rate policy will increasingly have to factor in the effects of any rate hike on the fiscal position of the Treasury.

The second reason for concern is that official growth forecasts are much higher than what the academic consensus believes we should expect after a financial crisis. That consensus holds that economies tend to return to trend growth of about 2.5%, without ever recapturing what was lost in the downturn.

But the president's budget of February 2011 projects economic growth of 4% in 2012, 4.5% in 2013, and 4.2% in 2014. That budget also estimates that the 10-year budget cost of missing the growth estimate by just one point for one year is $750 billion. So, if we just grow at trend those three years, we will miss the president's forecast by a cumulative 5.2 percentage points and—using the numbers provided in his budget—incur additional debt of $4 trillion. That is the equivalent of all of the 10-year savings in Congressman Paul Ryan's budget, passed by the House in April, or in the Bowles-Simpson budget plan.

Third, it is increasingly clear that the long-run cost estimates of ObamaCare were well short of the mark because of the incentive that employers will have under that plan to end private coverage and put employees on the public system. Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius has already issued 1,400 waivers from the act's regulations for employers as large as McDonald's to stop them from dumping their employees' coverage.

But a recent McKinsey survey, for example, found that 30% of employers with plans will likely take advantage of the system, with half of the more knowledgeable ones planning to do so. If this survey proves correct, the extra bill for taxpayers would be roughly $74 billion in 2014 rising to $85 billion in 2019, thanks to the subsidies provided to individuals and families purchasing coverage in the government's insurance exchanges.

Underestimating the long-term budget situation is an old game in Washington. But never have the numbers been this large.

There is no way to raise taxes enough to cover these problems. The tax-the-rich proposals of the Obama administration raise about $700 billion, less than a fifth of the budgetary consequences of the excess economic growth projected in their forecast. The whole $700 billion collected over 10 years would not even cover the difference in interest costs in any one year at the end of the decade between current rates and the average cost of Treasury borrowing over the last 20 years.

Only serious long-term spending reduction in the entitlement area can begin to address the nation's deficit and debt problems. It should no longer be credible for our elected officials to hide the need for entitlement reforms behind rosy economic and budgetary assumptions. And while we should all hope for a deal that cuts spending and raises the debt ceiling to avoid a possible default, bondholders should be under no illusions.

Under current government policies and economic projections, they should be far more concerned about a return of their principal in 10 years than about any short-term delay in a coupon payment in August.

Mr. Lindsey, a former Federal Reserve governor and assistant to President George W. Bush for economic policy, is president and CEO of the Lindsey Group.

Monday, June 27, 2011

No more Mr. Nice Guy...

".. this is war!"  (Mark Levin on his radio broadcast, Monday, June 27, 2001)

Mark is right.  To hell with all the 'play nice' rhetoric.  We - the conservative voters - need to pull the stops out and crush the opposition.  That pretty much covers the definition of war.

There are enough conservative Representatives in the House to keep the debt ceiling where it is.  It is time to play hardball - no compromises.  I live on a specific amount of income with which I am 'forced' to pay off my debts (mortgage, credit cards, car payment) first .. even before I get to go shopping for groceries.  It is time for the federal government to learn the meaning of the word budget.

from Econterms:  budget:  A budget is a description of a financial plan. It is a list of estimates of revenues to and expenditures by an agent for a stated period of time. Normally a budget describes a period in the future not the past.

Since we cannot pass a balanced budget amendment in time, the option of 'cutting up the credit card' will have to do.  It is time the government lived within its means.

Wednesday, February 9, 2011

The (sad) truth is…

Budgets do not come from the White House, they come from Congress.  The party that has controlled Congress since January 2007 is the Democrat Party.  That means they controlled the budget process for FY 2008 and FY 2009, as well as FY 2010 and FY 2011.  In that first year they had to contend with George Bush who, somewhat belatedly, got tough on spending increases and which caused them to compromise on spending.  However, for FY 2009 Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid bypassed George Bush entirely by passing continuing resolutions to keep government running until Barack Obama could take office.  Once that had happened they passed a massive omnibus spending bill to complete the FY 2009 budgets.  Where was Barack Obama during this time?  Why he was a member of that very Congress, the one that passed all of these spending bills and, as President, he signed the massive omnibus bill to complete FY 2009.  Let's remember what the deficits looked like for the past 10 years:

ATT20970If the Democrats inherited any deficit, it was the FY 2007 deficit, the last of the Republican budgets.  That deficit was the lowest in five years, and the fourth straight decline in deficit spending.  After that, Democrats in Congress took control of spending, and that includes (then Senator) Barack Obama, who voted for those budgets.  If Obama inherited anything in the way of a deficit, he inherited it from himself.  In a nutshell, what Obama is saying is “I inherited a deficit that I voted for and then, since becoming President, I voted to expand that deficit four-fold.”
ATT20969

Wednesday, June 16, 2010

One perspective on the Deepwater Horizon

I want to start off by acknowledging The Oil Drum and TOD reader dougr who wrote the following ‘comment’ which I have taken whole and posted below.  I have made no changes to dougr’s original text other than to connect a couple links and replace a linefeed or two with carriage returns.

While I am not an engineer and am not in any way associated with the oil industry (other than as a consumer), I come from a family of engineers (some of whom are directly associated with the oil industry) and I have worked with engineers for enough of my professional life to recognize dougr‘s comment as concise, intelligent and very well thought out.

Basically, it scares the hell out of me.  I am reposting it because it is important.

dougr on June 13, 2010 - 3:17am
Editors' note for first-time visitors: What follows is a comment from a The Oil Drum reader. To read what The Oil Drum staff members are saying about the Deepwater Horizon Spill, please visit the front page. (Were the US government and BP more forthcoming with information and details, the situation would not be giving rise to so much speculation about what is actually going on in the Gulf. This should be run more like Mission Control at NASA than an exclusive country club function--it is a public matter--transparency, now!)

OK let's get real about the GOM oil flow. There doesn't really seem to be much info on TOD that furthers more complete understanding of what's really happening in the GOM.

As you have probably seen and maybe feel yourselves, there are several things that do not appear to make sense regarding the actions of attack against the well. Don't feel bad, there is much that doesn't make sense even to professionals unless you take into account some important variables that we are not being told about. There seems to me to be a reluctance to face what cannot be termed anything less than grim circumstances in my opinion. There certainly is a reluctance to inform us regular people and all we have really gotten is a few dots here and there...

First of all...set aside all your thoughts of plugging the well and stopping it from blowing out oil using any method from the top down. Plugs, big valves to just shut it off, pinching the pipe closed, installing a new bop or lmrp, shooting any epoxy in it, top kills with mud etc etc etc....forget that, it won't be happening..it's done and over. In fact actually opening up the well at the subsea source and allowing it to gush more is not only exactly what has happened, it was probably necessary, or so they think anyway.

So you have to ask WHY? Why make it worse?...there really can only be one answer and that answer does not bode well for all of us. It's really an inescapable conclusion at this point, unless you want to believe that every Oil and Gas professional involved suddenly just forgot everything they know or woke up one morning and drank a few big cups of stupid and got assigned to directing the response to this catastrophe. Nothing makes sense unless you take this into account, but after you do...you will see the "sense" behind what has happened and what is happening. That conclusion is this:

The well bore structure is compromised "Down hole".

That is something which is a "Worst nightmare" conclusion to reach. While many have been saying this for some time as with any complex disaster of this proportion many have "said" a lot of things with no real sound reasons or evidence for jumping to such conclusions, well this time it appears that they may have jumped into the right place...

TOP KILL - FAILS:
This was probably our best and only chance to kill this well from the top down. This "kill mud" is a tried and true method of killing wells and usually has a very good chance of success. The depth of this well presented some logistical challenges, but it really should not of presented any functional obstructions. The pumping capacity was there and it would have worked, should have worked, but it didn't.

It didn't work, but it did create evidence of what is really happening. First of all the method used in this particular top kill made no sense, did not follow the standard operating procedure used to kill many other wells and in fact for the most part was completely contrary to the procedure which would have given it any real chance of working.

When a well is "Killed" using this method heavy drill fluid "Mud" is pumped at high volume and pressure into a leaking well. The leaks are "behind" the point of access where the mud is fired in, in this case the "choke and Kill lines" which are at the very bottom of the BOP (Blow Out Preventer) The heavy fluid gathers in the "behind" portion of the leaking well assembly, while some will leak out, it very quickly overtakes the flow of oil and only the heavier mud will leak out. Once that "solid" flow of mud is established at the leak "behind" the well, the mud pumps increase pressure and begin to overtake the pressure of the oil deposit. The mud is established in a solid column that is driven downward by the now stronger pumps. The heavy mud will create a solid column that is so heavy that the oil deposit can no longer push it up, shut off the pumps...the well is killed...it can no longer flow.

Usually this will happen fairly quickly, in fact for it to work at all...it must happen quickly. There is no "trickle some mud in" because that is not how a top kill works. The flowing oil will just flush out the trickle and a solid column will never be established. Yet what we were told was "It will take days to know whether it worked"...."Top kill might take 48 hours to complete"...the only way it could take days is if BP intended to do some "test fires" to test integrity of the entire system. The actual "kill" can only take hours by nature because it must happen fairly rapidly. It also increases strain on the "behind" portion and in this instance we all know that what remained was fragile at best.

Early that afternoon we saw a massive flow burst out of the riser "plume" area. This was the first test fire of high pressure mud injection. Later on same day we saw a greatly increased flow out of the kink leaks, this was mostly mud at that time as the kill mud is tanish color due to the high amount of Barite which is added to it to weight it and Barite is a white powder.

We later learned the pumping was shut down at midnight, we weren't told about that until almost 16 hours later, but by then...I'm sure BP had learned the worst. The mud they were pumping in was not only leaking out the "behind" leaks...it was leaking out of someplace forward...and since they were not even near being able to pump mud into the deposit itself, because the well would be dead long before...and the oil was still coming up, there could only be one conclusion...the wells casings were ruptured and it was leaking "down hole"

They tried the "Junk shot"...the "bridging materials" which also failed and likely made things worse in regards to the ruptured well casings.

"Despite successfully pumping a total of over 30,000 barrels of heavy mud, in three attempts at rates of up to 80 barrels a minute, and deploying a wide range of different bridging materials, the operation did not overcome the flow from the well."
http://www.bp.com/genericarticle.do?categoryId=2012968&contentId=7062487

80 Barrels per minute is over 200,000 gallons per hour, over 115,000 barrels per day...did we seen an increase over and above what was already leaking out of 115k bpd?....we did not...it would have been a massive increase in order of multiples and this did not happen.

"The whole purpose is to get the kill mud down,” said Wells. “We'll have 50,000 barrels of mud on hand to kill this well. It's far more than necessary, but we always like to have backup."

Try finding THAT quote around...it's been scrubbed...here's a cached copy of a quote...
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:WDj-HORTmIoJ:www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/business/deepwaterhorizon/7006870.html+%E2%809CThe+whole+purpose+is+to+get+the+kill+mud+down,%E2%80%9D+said+Wells.+%E2%80%9CWe'll+have+50,000+barrels+of+mud+on+hand+to+kill+this+well.+It's+far+more+than+necessary,+but+we+always+like+to+have+backup.%E2%80%9D&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

"The "top kill" effort, launched Wednesday afternoon by industry and government engineers, had pumped enough drilling fluid to block oil and gas spewing from the well, Allen said. The pressure from the well was very low, he said, but persisting."

"Allen said one ship that was pumping fluid into the well had run out of the fluid, or "mud," and that a second ship was on the way. He said he was encouraged by the progress."
http://www.houmatoday.com/article/20100527/ARTICLES/100529348

Later we found out that Allen had no idea what was really going on and had been "Unavailable all day"
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2010/05/27/interview_with_coas...

So what we had was BP running out of 50,000 barrels of mud in a very short period of time. An amount far and above what they deemed necessary to kill the well. Shutting down pumping 16 hours before telling anyone, including the president. We were never really given a clear reason why "Top Kill" failed, just that it couldn't overcome the well.

There is only one article anywhere that says anything else about it at this time of writing...and it's a relatively obscure article from the wall street journal "online" citing an unnamed source.

"WASHINGTON—BP PLC has concluded that its "top-kill" attempt last week to seal its broken well in the Gulf of Mexico may have failed due to a malfunctioning disk inside the well about 1,000 feet below the ocean floor.

The disk, part of the subsea safety infrastructure, may have ruptured during the surge of oil and gas up the well on April 20 that led to the explosion aboard the Deepwater Horizon rig, BP officials said. The rig sank two days later, triggering a leak that has since become the worst in U.S. history.

The broken disk may have prevented the heavy drilling mud injected into the well last week from getting far enough down the well to overcome the pressure from the escaping oil and gas, people familiar with BP's findings said. They said much of the drilling mud may also have escaped from the well into the rock formation outside the wellbore.

As a result, BP wasn't able to get sufficient pressure to keep the oil and gas at bay. If they had been able to build up sufficient pressure, the company had hoped to pump in cement and seal off the well. The effort was deemed a failure on Saturday.

BP started the top-kill effort Wednesday afternoon, shooting heavy drilling fluids into the broken valve known as a blowout preventer. The mud was driven by a 30,000 horsepower pump installed on a ship at the surface. But it was clear from the start that a lot of the "kill mud" was leaking out instead of going down into the well."
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405274870487560457528013357716426...

There are some inconsistencies with this article.

There are no "Disks" or "Subsea safety structure" 1,000 feet below the sea floor, all that is there is well bore. There is nothing that can allow the mud or oil to "escape" into the rock formation outside the well bore except the well, because it is the only thing there.

All the actions and few tid bits of information all lead to one inescapable conclusion. The well pipes below the sea floor are broken and leaking. Now you have some real data of how BP's actions are evidence of that, as well as some murky statement from "BP officials" confirming the same.

I took some time to go into a bit of detail concerning the failure of Top Kill because this was a significant event. To those of us outside the real inside loop, yet still fairly knowledgeable, it was a major confirmation of what many feared. That the system below the sea floor has serious failures of varying magnitude in the complicated chain, and it is breaking down and it will continue to.

What does this mean?

It means they will never cap the gusher after the wellhead. They cannot...the more they try and restrict the oil gushing out the bop?...the more it will transfer to the leaks below. Just like a leaky garden hose with a nozzle on it. When you open up the nozzle?...it doesn't leak so bad, you close the nozzle?...it leaks real bad, same dynamics. It is why they sawed the riser off...or tried to anyway...but they clipped it off, to relieve pressure on the leaks "down hole". I'm sure there was a bit of panic time after they crimp/pinched off the large riser pipe and the Diamond wire saw got stuck and failed...because that crimp diverted pressure and flow to the rupture down below.

Contrary to what most of us would think as logical to stop the oil mess, actually opening up the gushing well and making it gush more became direction BP took after confirming that there was a leak. In fact if you note their actions, that should become clear. They have shifted from stopping or restricting the gusher to opening it up and catching it. This only makes sense if they want to relieve pressure at the leak hidden down below the seabed.....and that sort of leak is one of the most dangerous and potentially damaging kind of leak there could be. It is also inaccessible which compounds our problems. There is no way to stop that leak from above, all they can do is relieve the pressure on it and the only way to do that right now is to open up the nozzle above and gush more oil into the gulf and hopefully catch it, which they have done, they just neglected to tell us why, gee thanks.

A down hole leak is dangerous and damaging for several reasons.

There will be erosion throughout the entire beat up, beat on and beat down remainder of the "system" including that inaccessible leak. The same erosion I spoke about in the first post is still present and has never stopped, cannot be stopped, is impossible to stop and will always be present in and acting on anything that is left which has crude oil "Product" rushing through it. There are abrasives still present, swirling flow will create hot spots of wear and this erosion is relentless and will always be present until eventually it wears away enough material to break it's way out. It will slowly eat the bop away especially at the now pinched off riser head and it will flow more and more. Perhaps BP can outrun or keep up with that out flow with various suckage methods for a period of time, but eventually the well will win that race, just how long that race will be?...no one really knows....However now?...there are other problems that a down hole leak will and must produce that will compound this already bad situation.

This down hole leak will undermine the foundation of the seabed in and around the well area. It also weakens the only thing holding up the massive Blow Out Preventer's immense bulk of 450 tons. In fact?...we are beginning to the results of the well's total integrity beginning to fail due to the undermining being caused by the leaking well bore.

The first layer of the sea floor in the gulf is mostly lose material of sand and silt. It doesn't hold up anything and isn't meant to, what holds the entire subsea system of the Bop in place is the well itself. The very large steel connectors of the initial well head "spud" stabbed in to the sea floor. The Bop literally sits on top of the pipe and never touches the sea bed, it wouldn't do anything in way of support if it did. After several tens of feet the seabed does begin to support the well connection laterally (side to side) you couldn't put a 450 ton piece of machinery on top of a 100' tall pipe "in the air" and subject it to the side loads caused by the ocean currents and expect it not to bend over...unless that pipe was very much larger than the machine itself, which you all can see it is not. The well's piping in comparison is actually very much smaller than the Blow Out Preventer and strong as it may be, it relies on some support from the seabed to function and not literally fall over...and it is now showing signs of doing just that....falling over.

If you have been watching the live feed cams you may have noticed that some of the ROVs are using an inclinometer...and inclinometer is an instrument that measures "Incline" or tilt. The BOP is not supposed to be tilting...and after the riser clip off operation it has begun to...

This is not the only problem that occurs due to erosion of the outer area of the well casings. The way a well casing assembly functions it that it is an assembly of different sized "tubes" that decrease in size as they go down. These tubes have a connection to each other that is not unlike a click or snap together locking action. After a certain length is assembled they are cemented around the ouside to the earth that the more rough drill hole is bored through in the well making process. A very well put together and simply explained process of "How to drill a deep water oil well" is available here:
http://www.treesfullofmoney.com/?p=1610

The well bore casings rely on the support that is created by the cementing phase of well construction. Just like if you have many hands holding a pipe up you could put some weight on the top and the many hands could hold the pipe and the weight on top easily...but if there were no hands gripping and holding the pipe?...all the weight must be held up by the pipe alone. The series of connections between the sections of casings are not designed to hold up the immense weight of the BOP without all the "hands" that the cementing provides and they will eventually buckle and fail when stressed beyond their design limits.

These are clear and present dangers to the battered subsea safety structure (bop and lmrp) which is the only loose cork on this well we have left. The immediate (first 1,000 feet) of well structure that remains is now also undoubtedly compromised. However.....as bad as that is?...it is far from the only possible problems with this very problematic well. There were ongoing troubles with the entire process during the drilling of this well. There were also many comprises made by BP IMO which may have resulted in an overall weakened structure of the entire well system all the way to the bottom plug which is over 12,000 feet deep. Problems with the cementing procedure which was done by Haliburton and was deemed as “was against our best practices.” by a Haliburton employee on April 1st weeks before the well blew out. There is much more and I won't go into detail right now concerning the lower end of the well and the troubles encountered during the whole creation of this well and earlier "Well control" situations that were revieled in various internal BP e-mails. I will add several links to those documents and quotes from them below and for now, address the issues concerning the upper portion of the well and the region of the sea floor.

What is likely to happen now?

Well...none of what is likely to happen is good, in fact...it's about as bad as it gets. I am convinced the erosion and compromising of the entire system is accelerating and attacking more key structural areas of the well, the blow out preventer and surrounding strata holding it all up and together. This is evidenced by the tilt of the blow out preventer and the erosion which has exposed the well head connection. What eventually will happen is that the blow out preventer will literally tip over if they do not run supports to it as the currents push on it. I suspect they will run those supports as cables tied to anchors very soon, if they don't, they are inviting disaster that much sooner.

Eventually even that will be futile as the well casings cannot support the weight of the massive system above with out the cement bond to the earth and that bond is being eroded away. When enough is eroded away the casings will buckle and the BOP will collapse the well. If and when you begin to see oil and gas coming up around the well area from under the BOP? or the area around the well head connection and casing sinking more and more rapidly? ...it won't be too long after that the entire system fails. BP must be aware of this, they are mapping the sea floor sonically and that is not a mere exercise. Our Gov't must be well aware too, they just are not telling us.

All of these things lead to only one place, a fully wide open well bore directly to the oil deposit...after that, it goes into the realm of "the worst things you can think of" The well may come completely apart as the inner liners fail. There is still a very long drill string in the well, that could literally come flying out...as I said...all the worst things you can think of are a possibility, but the very least damaging outcome as bad as it is, is that we are stuck with a wide open gusher blowing out 150,000 barrels a day of raw oil or more. There isn't any "cap dome" or any other suck fixer device on earth that exists or could be built that will stop it from gushing out and doing more and more damage to the gulf. While at the same time also doing more damage to the well, making the chance of halting it with a kill from the bottom up less and less likely to work, which as it stands now?....is the only real chance we have left to stop it all.

It's a race now...a race to drill the relief wells and take our last chance at killing this monster before the whole weakened, wore out, blown out, leaking and failing system gives up it's last gasp in a horrific crescendo.

We are not even 2 months into it, barely half way by even optimistic estimates. The damage done by the leaked oil now is virtually immeasurable already and it will not get better, it can only get worse. No matter how much they can collect, there will still be thousands and thousands of gallons leaking out every minute, every hour of every day. We have 2 months left before the relief wells are even near in position and set up to take a kill shot and that is being optimistic as I said.

Over the next 2 months the mechanical situation also cannot improve, it can only get worse, getting better is an impossibility. While they may make some gains on collecting the leaked oil, the structural situation cannot heal itself. It will continue to erode and flow out more oil and eventually the inevitable collapse which cannot be stopped will happen. It is only a simple matter of who can "get there first"...us or the well.

We can only hope the race against that eventuality is one we can win, but my assessment I am sad to say is that we will not.

The system will collapse or fail substantially before we reach the finish line ahead of the well and the worst is yet to come.

Sorry to bring you that news, I know it is grim, but that is the way I see it....I sincerely hope I am wrong.

We need to prepare for the possibility of this blow out sending more oil into the gulf per week then what we already have now, because that is what a collapse of the system will cause. All the collection efforts that have captured oil will be erased in short order. The magnitude of this disaster will increase exponentially by the time we can do anything to halt it and our odds of actually even being able to halt it will go down.

The magnitude and impact of this disaster will eclipse anything we have known in our life times if the worst or even near worst happens...

We are seeing the puny forces of man vs the awesome forces of nature.
We are going to need some luck and a lot of effort to win...
and if nature decides we ought to lose, we will....

Reference materials:

On April 1, a job log written by a Halliburton employee, Marvin Volek, warns that BP’s use of cement “was against our best practices.”

An April 18 internal Halliburton memorandum indicates that Halliburton again warned BP about its practices, this time saying that a “severe” gas flow problem would occur if the casings were not centered more carefully.

Around that same time, a BP document shows, company officials chose a type of casing with a greater risk of collapsing.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/06/us/06rig.html?pagewanted=1&sq=at_issue...

Mark Hafle, the BP drilling engineer who wrote plans for well casings and cement seals on the Deepwater Horizon's well, testified that the well had lost thousands of barrels of mud at the bottom. But he said models run onshore showed alterations to the cement program would resolve the issues, and when asked if a cement failure allowed the well to "flow" gas and oil, he wouldn't capitulate.

Hafle said he made several changes to casing designs in the last few days before the well blew, including the addition of the two casing liners that weren't part of the original well design because of problems where the earthen sides of the well were "ballooning." He also worked with Halliburton engineers to design a plan for sealing the well casings with cement.
http://www.nola.com/news/gulf-oil-spill/index.ssf/2010/05/hearings_bp_ce...

graphic of fail
http://media.nola.com/news_impact/other/oil-cause-050710.pdf
Casing joint
http://www.glossary.oilfield.slb.com/files/OGL00001.gif
Casing
http://www.glossary.oilfield.slb.com/files/OGL00003.gif

Kill may take until Christmas
http://preview.bloomberg.com/news/2010-06-02/bp-gulf-of-mexico-oil-leak-...

BP Used Riskier Method to Seal Well Before Blast
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/27/us/27rig.html

BP memo test results
http://energycommerce.house.gov/Press_111/20100512/Internal.BP.Email.Reg...

Investigation results

The information from BP identifies several new warning signs of problems. According to BP there were three flow indicators from the well before the explosion.
http://energycommerce.house.gov/documents/20100525/Memo.BP.Internal.Inve...

BP, what we know
http://energycommerce.house.gov/documents/20100512/BP-What.We.Know.pdf

What could have happened:

  1. Before or during the cement job, an influx of hydrocarbon enters the wellbore.
  2. Influx is circulated during cement job to wellhead and BOP.
  3. 9-7/8” casing hanger packoff set and positively tested to 6500 psi.
  4. After 16.5 hours waiting on cement, a negative test performed on wellbore below BOP. (~ 1400 psi differential pressure on 9-7/8” casing hanger packoff and ~ 2350 psi on double valve float collar)
  5. Packoff leaks allowing hydrocarbon to enter wellbore below BOP. 1400 psi shut in pressure observed on drill pipe (no flow or pressure observed on kill line)
  6. Hydrocarbon below BOP is unknowingly circulated to surface while finishing displacing the riser.
  7. As hydrocarbon rises to surface, gas break out of solution further reduces hydrostatic pressure in well. Well begin to flow, BOPs and Emergency Disconnect System (EDS) activated but failed.
  8. Packoff continues to leak allowing further influx from bottom.

Confidential
http://energycommerce.house.gov/documents/20100512/BP-What.Could.Have.Ha...

T/A daily log 4-20
http://energycommerce.house.gov/documents/20100512/TRO-Daily.Drilling.Re...

Cement plug 12,150 ft SCMT logging tool
SCMT (Slim Cement Mapping Tool)
Schlumberger Partial CBL done.
http://energycommerce.house.gov/documents/20100530/BP-HZN-CEC018441.pdf

Schlum CBL tools
http://www.slb.com/~/media/Files/production/product_sheets/well_integrit...

Major concerns, well control, bop test.
http://energycommerce.house.gov/documents/20100530/BP-HZN-CEC018375.pdf

Energy & commerce links to docs.
http://energycommerce.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&view=articl...

well head on sea floor
http://nca-group.com/bilder//Trolla/A.%20GVI%20of%20Trolla%20prior%20to%20WHP002%20(2).jpg

Well head on deck of ship
http://nca-group.com/bilder//Trolla/DSC_0189.JPG

BP's youtube propoganda page, a lot of rarely seen vids here....FWIW
http://www.youtube.com/user/DeepwaterHorizonJIC
http://www.godlikeproductions.com/forum1/message1097505/pg1

I used to cover the energy business (oil, gas and alternative) here in Texas, and the few experts in the oil field -- including geologists, chemists, etc. -- able or willing to even speak of this BP event told me early on that it is likely the entire reserve will bleed out. Unfortunately none of them could say with any certainty just how much oil is in the reserve in question because, for one thing, the oil industry and secrecy have always been synonymous. According to BP data from about five years ago, there are four separate reservoirs containing a total of 2.5 billion barrels (barrels not gallons). One of the reservoirs has 1.5 billion barrels. I saw an earlier post here quoting an Anadarko Petroleum report which set the total amount at 2.3 billion barrels. One New York Times article put it at 2 billion barrels.

If the BP data correctly or honestly identified four separate reservoirs then a bleed-out might gush less than 2 to 2.5 billion barrels unless the walls -- as it were -- fracture or partially collapse. I am hearing the same dark rumors which suggest fracturing and a complete bleed-out are already underway. Rumors also suggest a massive collapse of the Gulf floor itself is in the making. They are just rumors but it is time for geologists or related experts to end their deafening silence and speak to these possibilities.

All oilmen lie about everything. The stories one hears about the extent to which they will protect themselves are all understatements. BP employees are already taking The Fifth before grand juries, and attorneys are laying a path for company executives to make a run for it.

Wednesday, April 21, 2010

the Independent Conservative Republicans of Texas

Quite frankly, I want you to know that I believe this to be a good move.

I am one of the Republicans who felt ignored and mistreated by the local Republican organization and later went on to work and vote for Ross Perot in 1992.  I have considered myself both an independent and a conservative ever since.  The birth of the Tea Party movement just proves to me that there are many thousands of voters out there who, like me, have come to believe our elected representatives no longer bother to listen to or represent the folks who elected them.

I commend you for your initiative.  I must say, however, I have heard many elected representatives say one thing and do another.  I will be watching.  I expect the same is true of many other Texas voters.  Good luck and Godspeed.

The above is the comment I left on the Independent Conservative Republicans of Texas website.  Apparently, a majority of the Texas State legislators – the Republican / conservative ones – decided to declare which side of their bread the butter is on.

Our Contract with Texas

We give our word to stand for conservative principles
and to put people before party.
We give our word to be fiscally accountable,
limit the size of government,
and fight for free market principles.
We give our word to protect our borders
and to support a strong military.
We give our word to protect life, support strong family values,
and uphold the Judeo-Christian beliefs our nation was founded upon.
We give our word to defend the Constitution
and protect the sovereign rights of Texas.

I see this as a good thing.  I want my legislators to know that I am watching and doing more than just voting for the “party lineup.”

Thursday, March 25, 2010

a violent response?

While violence is never funny, I have to say that I am bemused by the media’s overhyped coverage of the ‘violent’ response to the passage in the House of H.R. 3490, the Patient  Protection and Affordable Care Act.

As a quick example, the Huffington Post apparently believes it is okay to portray Sunday's protesters as racist.  As we well know, the best way to diminish a group is to tar it with the actions of an individual.  However, while Representative Cleaver said someone spit on him (as far as I know, nobody actually filmed this and Rep. Cleaver himself was unable to identify the offender to the police) and both Representative Lewis and Senator Frank were offended by slurs shouted at them not a single act of physical violence occurred and there were no arrests.

Now, if it had been the left protesting capitalism…

Pittsburgh, September 24th, 2009 .. “A police report said at least 19 shops and banks, including many fast food restaurants, bagel shops and diners near the university, had their glass windows or doors smashed in.

Sixty-six people were arrested following the clashes on Thursday -- 24 during the disturbances in the afternoon and 42 overnight, police said.”

In fact, that was the results of the first day of protest and involved approximately 1000 protesters.  Contrast that with the “Tea Party” protesters outside the Capitol Building.  What was that saying?  Sticks and stones…

As I understand it, there was even less violence on Sunday than there was after the 2004 ALCS Red Sox win.  Go figure.

Monday, March 22, 2010

Altruism, the most noble of intentions

Have you ever watched someone who is reading a really good book? I mean really observed them. Perhaps you were in a library when you heard someone exclaim and looked up (obviously your book wasn’t as good as it could have been) to see a reader, oblivious to anyone else in the room, with an intense expression on their face. Maybe you sat down in an airport gate area and noticed a reader who didn’t look up when the flight was called for the second or third time. Whatever the case may have been, I know the next thing you did was try to see the title of their book. With any luck, you found a good book to read.

I know I’ve been that reader, lost in the story, literally woven into the fabric the author has crafted. Really good books are like that, sucking you in until it is almost irritating to return to the real world around you. Isaac Asimov’s Foundation series comes to mind, as do Anne McCaffery’s The Dragonriders of Pern series and Tom Clancy’s Jack Ryan stories. I can remember befriending the local bookstore proprietor so that I could be on the list of people for whom he reserved one of his limited copies of upcoming releases. The good old days of the corner bookstore. But I digress…

Over the past several years I have found myself reading less entertaining books such as Mark Levin’s Liberty and Tyranny, Niall Ferguson’s The Ascent of Money and Peter Schiff’s Crash Proof. However, I remain the reader who runs down to Barnes and Noble and picks up a book that has been turned into a movie so I can read it as the author intended before seeing a script writer’s perversion of the story. That is sort of how I discovered Terry Goodkind’s The Sword of Truth series.

In looking for something to watch on TV, I stumbled upon ABC’s Legend of the Seeker. I missed season one, but went back and caught up online after the first couple installments of season two. Then I saw an interview with the author, Terry Goodkind, and made it a point to pick up the first book in the series (Wizard’s First Rule). I was hooked. The next trip to the bookstore involved picking up book two and ordering books three through six. I just finished book six, Faith of the Fallen, and it is so relevant to today’s politics that I found myself reading paragraph sized excerpts of it to my wife and having to explain the back-story in the the process. She smiled indulgently through the whole exercise, bless her heart.

I understand that Goodkind describes himself as an objectivist and I will not pretend to know diddly about objectivism (perhaps that shall be my next path of inquiry). What struck me about the storyline in Faith of the Fallen was the socially destructive force of altruism. Goodkind seems to have taken the proverb ‘Hell is full of good intentions or desires’ and, quite literally, played it out in his story.

Now I find myself looking at the Obama administration's use of altruism to destroy the very fabric of the United States of America and constructing parallels to Goodkind's storyline in Faith of the Fallen. What scares me is that The Order was successful for hundreds of years and I see no reason why today's 'altruists' should fail in their efforts.

Monday, March 15, 2010

the 2010 Census

It is that time once again, but unlike Christmas and your birthday, the Census only comes around every 10 years.  Our Constitution requires “The actual Enumeration shall be made within three Years after the first Meeting of the Congress of the United States, and within every subsequent Term of ten Years, in such Manner as they shall by Law direct.”  As you can see, Article I, Section 2 is quite specific:  “the actual enumeration”.  That is a count.

With that knowledge, I have done my duty and answered question 1.  I even answered question 2 so as to be specific.  I then attached a copy of Article 1, Section 2 and the following statement:

“By providing the above enumeration I have fulfilled my duty as a citizen of the United States of America under Article I, Section 2 of our Constitution.

The other information requested is superfluous to the task.”

I urge you all to do your duty as a citizen and reply to questions 1 and 2 of the Census.  I also urge you to give the government no other information as it is unnecessary and beyond the mandate of our Constitution.

Thursday, February 25, 2010

the Healthcare Summit

I find it both amusing and disconcerting to hear the President "moderating" the "discussion" since he has a vested interest in the outcome - passage of the 'compromise' bill.

The Democrats are obviously starting from the position that their bill is a starting position when, in fact, the only reason they are sitting at that particular table is because the 'compromise' bill is unacceptable to the American public. Period. End of story.

The Republicans are, yes, sitting there with props (such as the 2400 page 'compromise' bill) but they are, at least, addressing the individual issues. They are trying to keep the Overton window from being dragged left to encompass the Democrat's 'compromise' bill.

All that aside, I am not hearing a discussion that addresses the issues. Some of the most salient points are being ignored.

First, we need to know what insurance is, so let me see if I can define it:
  • Insurance is an economic device utilized by individuals and organizations to protect themselves against the risk of realizing unforeseen and extraordinary financial losses.

  • By purchasing an insurance policy from an insurance company, an individual or organization can transfer the financial risk of a potentially devastating loss to another party, the insurer.

  • Essentially, insurance allows individuals and organizations to pay a scheduled and affordable fee - a premium - to an insurance company today, and, in turn, the insurance company makes a promise to protect that individual or organization financially if they suffer from a specified unforeseen and devastating economic loss in the future.
It is important to understand insurance is an economic device and not a right or a social entitlement. It is a business and can only function as a business. Medicare is not insurance. Medicare and Medicaid are social entitlements. They are bankrupt and are in the process of bankrupting the country at various levels. If Medicare and Medicaid were private businesses they would have long since failed and gone away.

Once you accept the difference(s), you have to accept the reality that health insurance is completely separate from Medicare and Medicaid. By lumping them together in a single bill (whether it is all three of them or just health insurance and Medicare) you are socializing health insurance - making it into an entitlement and removing it as an economic device. Health insurance will no longer be a business, it becomes a government controlled social program.

As it stands, the 'compromise' bill is cover for the Democrats and their desire to:
  • remove health insurance from the business environment and converting it to a social program;
  • use the premise of healthcare reform as cover to alter (I did not say reform) Medicare and Medicaid.

Tuesday, February 23, 2010

Toyota in the hot seat

I've been watching the House Energy and Commerce Committee hearings and I'm afraid Toyota is in more than the hot seat.

Before I excoriate Toyota, let me say that I have owned a Toyota vehicle for personal use since 1983. I don't lease, I buy .. in fact, I buy and hold. I have had my current vehicle for almost 12 years and have absolutely no regrets. That said, Toyota blew it - BIG TIME!

My background is computers and programming control systems. Suffice it to say I've been working with computers since the late '70s and I programmed control systems for 13 years. Based on the testimonies I heard this morning, Toyota has had a problem with their Electronic Control System (ECS) for years.

We used to call them AFEs (another f'ing engineer); kids who just graduated from college and knew everything there is to know about their (brand new) profession. They were tasked with the unenviable job of writing code for or designing systems that they truly didn't understand. This isn't really a problem in and of itself in, say, an accounting system, but when you are interfacing with the real world... oh boy.

Think of airplanes. For years, when 'fly by wire' first arrived on the scene, experienced pilots bemoaned not having "control" of the new planes. There were no "real" control systems; everything went through a computer. If you wanted to bank right, you turned the yoke to the right, the computer control system received the signal and then the computer sent the proper commands to the related physical systems to accomplish the turn. The yoke wasn't physically attached to anything but the computer. If the computer failed the whole thing would be nothing but a flying stone. That is why there are backup systems (3 in the Shuttles as I recall).

There are (probably) no backup systems in (Toyota) cars. I don't know this for sure since I am not into cars, but it makes sense since cars are a consumer item and the idea is to cut production costs so as to maximize profit. No, I am not saying that is a bad thing, that is just the way it works.

Anyway, my bet is that some AFE somewhere back up the line (if I understood the testimony I heard this morning, somewhere back as far as 2000) wrote at least part of the code that is currently used in the ECS. Because of it's age this code was and has been considered 'mature' and 'functional.' Oops. It probably has an intermittent bug. Happens all the time.

Since reverse engineering is costly and problematic, nobody ever bothered to test and verify the old code. Worse, since it was considered 'functional,' nobody ever rewrote it. (At least not until recently- ergo the 'flashing' of the ECS.)

Now, I know none of this for sure; I am speculating. It is, however, an 'educated' guess based on years of experience crafting, writing and troubleshooting control systems. If it was me, and I was working for Toyota and hearing about these problems for the first time it would come down to this:
1. Can I reliably reproduce the problem mechanically?
2. What is the common denominator between the various vehicles?
In the final analysis Toyota made a series of assumptions and you know what that means.

Sunday, February 21, 2010

CPAC Keynote speech

If you haven't watched this then you should. If you have watched this then you need to watch it again. It speaks for itself.

http://www.ustream.tv/recorded/4881432