State of New Jersey Installing $730 M of Solar Energy Statewide

And really, the only thing from the article that is absolutely must read is the last statement of the article made by Upendra J. Chivukula, the chairman of the Telecommunications and Utilities Committee in the State Assembly.

“This type of investment is long term, so you’re not going to see the benefits right away, but if you don’t do it now, you’re never going to become energy independent.”

Straightforward and clean. I am hopeful the numbers have been run and this turns out to be a good investment. I do believe that solar power collectors distributed over vast areas of the urban landscape will create significant energy in the future, I am just not sure whether it will be 90% of the worlds energy needs or 30%. Either way - the future is...I have no idea. :-)

The Democratic President thinks the Government is to Far-Reaching

I know the article that I am using to make this argument happens to be related to marijuana, and our many problems in this country go far beyond recreational drugs, however, the major sentence of the third paragraph means a lot.

“The president believes that federal resources should not be used to circumvent state laws, and as he continues to appoint senior leadership to fill out the ranks of the federal government, he expects them to review their policies with that in mind," White House spokesman Nick Shapiro said.

The president believes that state laws should not be circumvented by the federal government. The president believes state laws should be given more respect by the federal government. Couple this announcement with the previous communication from the president to the EPA, that the EPA should review allowing states to regulate auto emissions on their own and you can see the potential for power to tilt toward the state.

During the last couple of years I have heard Arnold Schwarzenegger give credence to states having more power than the federal government. I saw a few years ago that the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the state of Utah versus the federal government in a medical case.

After the Civil War state's rights significantly decreased. The Federal Reserve was a big hit to individual and state rights when it was created in 1913. The federal government expanded significantly during the Great Depression and has never shrunk back in size. The Civil Rights movements of the 50's-70's expanded the size of the federal government's reach again. At the time, we needed a sound minded central government to cover up regional biases and weaknesses. And today, it is our over sized federal government that is slowing the country down.

Maybe we have gotten to a point where we can pull back some of those federal government controls and allow states to more efficiently take care of themselves. I know I am pulling a lot of hope from a couple of small sentences and actions, but if these actions are a true belief of the president, then maybe we will move in a good direction.

Of course, this is at the same time we are considering a $900 billion "stimulus package." Blech...

Why the Government Can't Be Given Power

The NSA Snooped on Reporters

The issue with the US government having the ability to listen to everything we say electronically is that the US government is made up on people. And people, as we all know, can be a problem. During the government's continual covering of their warrant less wiretapping, it was continually stated that no Americans were being spied on. A lie. And not only is the government spying on you and I, they are now spying on all of the major news outlets.

The Freedom of the Press is one of the thing which has allowed American society to blossom. To be able to bring your leaders to the table and question their actions is right next to the Freedom of Speech. Now, the people in our country whose job it is to discover the illegal activities and bring them to the surface can no longer feel safe in their electronic communications. Of course you can happily argue that reporters have known this for a long time and they have adapted, but this is not something they should have to do.

Who watches the watchers? Well, right now, we need the courageous people who step forward and talk about the questionable acts of the Federal Government. Whistle-blowers need to be supported.

Putin Suggest Caution on Obama

A quick piece of perspective from The Moscow Times: Be Cautious on Obama

Vladimir Putin, a leader who hasn't earned the highest of accolades in Russia, said,

"Obama looks like a sincere and open man and this of course attracts people. It is my deep belief that the most bitter disappointments usually result from excessive expectations. We need to see what happens in practice."

Great expectations are important. Without having expectations of potential greatness the motivation often isn't there to act. Without the possibility of foolish power, wealth, or societal benefit why should you risk so much?

But I see the other part of the quote as being more important, that being - "We need to see what happens in practice." Barack Obama is not coming into a clean slate of a world and building from the ground up with wonderful ideas. Obama is entering a world that is full of entrenched people who don't want to change. And truly, Obama himself, is nothing more than a human being who is flawed and without absolute power. Can Obama do it? We need to see what happens.

Obama to Order Lending Increase

Do we ever learn?

My response to this headline is a bit knee-jerk as I don't know the manner that Obama will "require" increased lending from banks. The rhetoric might be to motivate people or simply to build a facade, but saying what is being said is not good for the economy. The article basically says that in order to qualify for loans, banks will have to increase their lending instead of sitting on the money.

Why did we just go through a large housing bubble? From the economic side there are a lot of reasons but I want to focus on the politics. What were the driving political forces behind the explosion of home prices?

• In the late 1990's Congress mandated that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac lower their lending standards. In baser language that means Congress mandated that those two create a loan class that would be guaranteed to lose money based upon all past experience. Instead of allowing bankers to be bankers, Congress took it in their own hands to become bankers - and we all know the results.
• Cheap and voluminous money. When money is given to banks at a rate so low, and in such quantities that bad investments can be hidden and shifted around in these large pools of cash for years things are bound to happen - things like economic collapses. In order for inflation and prices to stay normal the amount of money in the economy should increase at a rate relatively similar to the creation of value in society. For instance, if there are 1,000 people creating $100 worth of labor output every day then maybe there should be $100,000 more money in the world each day.The money has to represent something, it does not have value in and of itself - it represents value.

Now Obama has communicated that he wishes for banks to alter their lending in order to get more money into the economy. I understand the need to motivate the country, but please let us learn. Money should be loaned when the numbers add up to a profit for the bank. Money should not be loaned because politicians say it should be...

Our trust is in your hands...

Imagine if George W. Bush had the same education in the Constitution as Barrack H. Obama does? Imagine, instead of running businesses, George had been trained in the law in the same manner Obama was while in Congress? imagine, that Bush didn't need people to tell him how to screw the nation over utilizing the overpowering ability of manipulation of words, ignorance of precedence, and the ultra-powerful executive branch?

Barack will know the Constitution and the laws. H. will have a lot of power in his hands that was created by W. We are trusting the man with a lot, just like we trusted that other fellow.

You better work, cus we're coming after you! You better listen, because we are going to speak!

Political Monopoly Power

Capitalism Magazine on brought me a new idea. In an article, "Political Monopoly Power," the author comments on the size of the representatives of the United States House of Representatives.

The House is currently capped at a value of 435 individuals that are distributed to the states based upon their percentage of the overall population. This idea, to base one house (the Representatives) on population and another house (the Senate) on a fixed value (two per state in this case) was called the , "Connecticut Compromise." The founders from the smaller states didn't want to be overrun by the large population centers in the larger states, the masses, if I may. The larger states felt that since they did have a larger portion of the population and they were attempting to build a representative democracy that it was only common sense to allow those individuals to have a greater voice. From this, came the idea of an upper house and a lower house. Good work gentlemen.

One of the nuances of the lower house was in how many representatives there were going to be. Originally, as the above article references on Thirty-Thousand.org, there were approximately 40,000 people per representative. A population of about two to three million during the countries founding years meant we needed to start with around 65 representatives (based on 2,500,000). As the population grew, the number of representatives grew. Why?

The more people that one person controls via their vote the more power that one person has and the more influential and influencible they become. Today the average number of persons per representative is around 700,000 (almost 20 times the original value wanted). One person controls the views of 700,000. In the Senate, a single person represents 3,000,000. The founders went so far as the specifically state the figure of 40,000 as the proper number of representatives because they saw the flaws in the system.

So, should we have 7,500 members of the House of Representatives? Should there be a much larger group of individuals with a much more varied set of values, and experiences and knowledge running our country? Would the House of Representatives be undermined by the Senate due to a relative lack of power on an individual level? The Senate and its 100 seats so high up might begin to carry more influence than it already does. Maybe the size of the Senate needs to be double or quadrupled. Would increasing the size of the Senate put more power in the hands of the President and Vice President?

Or maybe, as the CapMag article states, maybe having more people to influence to get a vote across, maybe having each of those people having less power, maybe allowing people of a different nature into the system would benefit it greatly. I think there is some validity to this thought.

Maybe the Senate should be expanded to 400 and maybe the House of Representative to 3,250. Maybe power concentrated in the hands of so few has hurt us.

Interrogator Redux

To get secrets from a hard-core terrorist, One interrogator spoke softly

I looked closely at the word "interrogate" this evening as I browsed which news articles to comment on and began to wonder where the word comes from. The reason I wondered is that smack dab in the middle of this word is "terror." "In" "terror" "gate."

From the perspective of the word's roots - in Latin interro means, roughly, to question closely, to question while in the presence of, to question while accusing of doing something. In essence, you are questioning with a very particular purpose, not just the random type of small talk that goes on in the world. -gate simply means to set something in motion - so adding gate to the end of a word means it is being done, in the present tense.

The reason this word looked caught my attention was because of the content of the article. The United States has chosen to move away from the Geneva Convention over the past seven years because we believed that we knew answers that no one else knew. We knew that in order to protect ourselves we had to torture people into giving us the answers that we wanted.

The United States has been attacking and being attacked in the Middle East and Mediterranean region since our country was founded. Our CIA has funded and trained various groups that we believe benefited us for many purposes (we put Hussein and bin Ladin in positions of power) since at least the 1950s. Unfortunately, 9/11 was the sowing of what we had reaped.

All of this is a confusing, continual issue that, if we could solve we might not because of the individuals in power who are after financial gain. The United States did approve a plan in the 1960s to create an incident which might incite a public reaction to allow for military actions to occur against a specific target.

And now, after all of these actions in our past we come back to speaking clearly, and slowly to someone who attacked us to learn about them. I can never agree with the fundamentalist ideologies of the world because they are out of touch and reaching for a time that is no longer here. As well, I cannot fully accept and believe in the patterns of economic development that the world has taken because of the costs that we aren't calculating. We really are stealing from future generations in exchange for current ease of living. If we really are capitalists then we would be considering these future generations in our equations because that is in our long term best interests.

Confusing and scary subjects that, today, are real life and need to be paid attention to and dealt with.

Civilized Are We?

Modern Slavery

And from the New York TImes

Sometimes it depresses me to learn things - Pandora taught me to never open some boxes...

"3. Slavery still exists in the US.

Estimates by the US State Department suggest up to 17,500 slaves are brought into the US every year, with 50,000 of those working as prostitutes, farm workers or domestic servants.

According to the CIA, more than 1,000,000 people are enslaved in the US today. Thousands of cases go undetected each year and many are difficult to take to court as it can be difficult to prove force or legal coercion."

The new $100 Laptop

The One Laptop Per Child (OLPC) program is aiming to provide laptop for $100 each to children around the world. The purpose of this project is to get children using computers all over the world. Being able to read any book on the internet, being able to learn any language, getting local weather updates to help manage crops, finding a better market price for your wares or maybe just communicating with friends and families all over the world.

Take a look. Its a beautiful piece of hardware. What it ends up costing, who knows, but itll be worth it for someone somewhere.
--
Anyone can be struck by lightning,
But not everyone can conduct electricity!

Competency & Our United States

I used to think of our current Presidency as Machiavellian, with good long term intentions, but a lack of tact by choice. I was naive. I used to believe that they had a clear, direct, well thought out plan that was kinda evil, but might benefit the world. I was simple. I used to think they could cover themselves. They were wrong.

Now perhaps they will still do something significant. Perhaps they will still make something happen. Iraq, at significant cost, will repair itself. Democracy will root itself. The people are paying with their blood right now. They will ingrain it into themselves. Maybe bull headed constitution is all that can fix the situtation. I hope, for the whole planets sake. Maybe this regime will pull a magic trick out of their hat. Maybe Iran is ready to open its doors to the US in exchange for knowledge from the rest of the world (see China). Maybe the US is ready to suddenly reestablish open communications with Iran. Maybe we have been in Cuba for the last five years negotiating an end to our embargo. There are a lot of possibilities in the world.

I used to trust in their competancy. Now I believe I was fooled.

China - Good Lord

I don't believe we individual citizens of the USA give China the appropriate attention. Recently it executed its former "chief drug regulator" for taking bribes and allowing them to fall into the current international furor related to fake products. The government stated the individual had taken bribes in and allowed "six types of fake medicines" to be approved. The interesting part of the whole issue, to me at least, was the response by China to this issue.

1. They did EXECUTE the person who the blame was placed upon. Now, take this with a grain of salt, in that complicity of an issue like this is far greater than a single individual. There were hundreds, if not thousands, of people in government who probably knew of the issues and that doesn't even count the people who were actually making the fake products. This person was executed as an example.

2. One particular set of words stated was that by 2010 China would have markedly increased its ability to monitor fake products, but that it would take at least five years (2012) for them to make a serious dent and be able to control their manufacturers. The acknowledgment of the issue. The realization of the significance of the issue. And the measured reaction that shows a considerable understanding of the situation. With the MONTHLY surplus of goods traded to the US topping $26 Billion, and the legislative branch of the US fighting for the yuan to be let free to trade in the international monetary markets, China must take action in order to feed it machine.

As a good friend of mine tells me continually, the Chinese history is full of ups and downs and the US is still Number 1. As I tell my friend, do not let that history satiate you adn make you lazy. The Chinese are serious about this world. They are going to be the largest economy in the world. I recently read an article where a comment was made about the inroads that Chinese politicians have made in Asia and the reactions by the peoples there. A particular quote stood out that went something like -

China's Asian partners see the United States as a passing fancy. The US has only been around for about 200 years. China has been here for 3,000 years and they expect China to be here for another 3,000 years.

This is a grand world we live in. Down with the Humans! Long live the Humans!

The Green SocioEconomic Machine Rolls On...

The Power of Green

The changes that will occur in the future always give me a bit of apprehension. I have an aversion to change I guess. Humans in general have been know for their ability to adapt themselves and their environments to make living agreeable. Maybe we need a big roll back...

They argue that the world needs to deploy any seven of these 15 wedges, or sufficient amounts of all 15, to have enough conservation, and enough carbon-free energy, to increase the world economy and still avoid the doubling of CO² in the atmosphere.

Here are seven wedges we could chose from: "Replace 1,400 large coal-fired plants with gas-fired plants; increase the fuel economy of 2 billion cars from 30 to 60 miles per gallon; add twice today's nuclear output to displace coal; drive 2 billion cars on ethanol, using one-sixth of the world's cropland; increase solar power 700-fold to displace coal; cut electricity use in homes, offices and stores by 25 percent; install carbon capture and sequestration capacity at 800 large coal-fired plants."

Iran let the Brit loose, eh?

Just imagine the Iranians caught the Brits for the purpose of letting them go so they could in some way make even the British government not support a war with said Iranians.

Iran might conjure at the broad table that they are in fact an active participating member of the international community and, as seen by our recent activity in the region, always follow our acts with appropriate action in regard to international law. By the way, what happenned to our Iranian brethren in the hands of the American government? How do we negotiate? And when do the Afghanis and Iraqis and all the other folk that are part of the war on terror get trials?

The world is fickle.

Read the article...if I had read it first I would have noticed they said all that I said...

A Chinese Democracy

Though the words sound very common to the ear for someone tired of the banter from American politics...is it as common to hear something similar from the leading of he Communist world? A Chinese democracy would be an interesting concept. Who is to say taking the long, gradual road toward their democracy isn't the correct path. We must remember, this is the first time human society has had a chance at doing the things it does.

The Korea Times - Democracy in China

``Planning and market forces are not the essential difference between socialism and capitalism,’’ he said. ``A planned economy is not the definition of socialism, because there is planning under capitalism; the market economy happens under socialism, too’’

The market, Deng concluded, is simply a tool that can be used by both socialist and capitalist societies. Since then, China has become transformed into a country where the market trumps planning at virtually all levels but still calls itself a socialist society.

Asked at his annual press conference if he meant that ``there will be no democracy in China in the next 100 years,’’ Premier Wen responded, echoing Deng: ``Democracy, legal system, freedom, human rights, equality and fraternity’’ are not peculiar to capitalism. ``Rather, they are the common achievements of human civilization made in the long course of history and the common values pursued by entire mankind.’’

The Intricate Web of Reason: Just one TINY piece

Ode To All That is Good

I read an article somewhere today that was speaking about Iran’s new position of power in the Middle East now that Saddam and the Taliban are no longer players in the arena (at least for the short term with the Taliban holed up in Pakistan). Another opinion I read is that Iran is much less amicable to speaking at round table discussions now that General Bush’s teeth hang been sheathed by the Congress and the seasonal winds of the politician and their job. I see the helicopters are being sot down at a greater rate. I see our numbers re not great enough, nor well versed enough in local civilities and customs to truly apprehend those who are running the show (back when the children of Saddam were being round up I remember one of the brothers making reference to times when he drove by troops in cars looking right at them point blank). I see Saudi Arabia building a fence as well as Israel. I see Palestine stabbing itself over and over. Syria ever intertwined in Lebanon. Beirut is torn again. She will rise again. Her beauty is far deeper than skin. Jordan has been touched by the terror as well. Each of these countries now discuss a nuclear alliance in order to counter the nuclear threat of Iran. An arms race has already begun now that the plans have begun to be drawn (in this world the plans were probably drawn 5 years ago). I bet the United States sells the tech to the Saudis. Fuck ‘em. And the Chinese. Business is good. Why hasn’t the growing threat pushed Egypt to do something more? The squawking country is doing its best to fan the Israelis. So when is the Middle East going to raise a tactile force of all local soldiers from some magical place and lend a supporting hand. Yes, they will be in harms way. That is war. And yes their particular motives may all be different, and some potentially evil, but we cannot let a country like this with such a history in such a place, be destroyed as it is and will be. A surge will simply make them hide better. Hidden away in a culture that we can’t seem to get. Now…the countries in arms possibly might not due to the price of oil being so much a boon to some economies, and unsteadyness breeds good pricing. But the demand from China is now growing madly, with the rest of the world just getting going a little better every year, business should fade away in the name of a true threat. A wild, deadly armed, ultra powerful and widely spread enemy that you have no defense from.

I have slowly become more and more in line with the nuances of the grand negotiating table and how the world really is…versus how it might be. Countries really do attempt to take over others and influence their politics. Vacuums of power cannot exist as there is too much at stake (trillions of dollars, defense to your position and family). One group will always rush in to quell the situation as man without government has not proven himself free. We still need our shackles otherwise we tear down on each other.

Just a rant of sorts I guess…

Why Social Security "disappearing" in 40 years doesn't worry me.

I won't need it. Simple answer - technology. In 1900 the average age was 47.* Today greater than 75 in America. The world changes. By the year 2040 I am thinking that at the age of 71 I will be going strong and I won't tap into my $$ until I am ready to retire around 85 or so. Cus I will still have another 15 years to jack around playing golf after that. At least. Additionally, the quality of the medical help will be of a different sort as we learn to use robots to do the busy work and allow our professionals to really take care of the people and the pressing needs. The quality of life is always improving. We learn to do things better all the time.

I do actually believe in a small central government and strong state governments, as our states are now turning into mini economies all their own (CA would be the WORLDS 6th largest). The variety is what allows for growth and change and mix. The freedom to move among is what keeps it fresh.

*Source: The Mercury, 11 November, 1997, p.26-27