Quote of the Day
Slight not what is near though aiming at what is far.
Euripides
Senate and White House Democrats Bash Big Oil (Repeat)
 |
Live Action Shot of US Senate Committee Hearing from Capitol Hill Courtesy of Simply Marvelous |
Best picture I've seen of Chuck Schumer (D-NY) in some time; of course, you can't see him that well from this angle. I seriously doubt that this demonization of the energy industry will go anywhere. The fact is that the state and federal government make more money per gallon of gas than the oil companies do, and oil companies pay higher taxes and tax rates on average than many (if not most) industries. The Demagogues Democrats want to argue for a one-off special interest bill stripping only oil companies of their subsidies (versus, say, the more substantive subsidies of ethanol producers, electrical/hybrid car builders, wind or solar energy vendors, etc.) I definitely want to encourage reduction or eliminations of any and all government subsidies, direct or implicit (e.g., percentage depletion versus cost depletion). But with the market share of domestic oil production near its low across decades and the fact that imports of energy constitute one of the largest components of our trade imbalance, I don't see the logic in reducing the incentives to look for and develop new oilfields, keeping most of oil revenue and jobs in the US.
TSA Pat-Downs of 8-Month-Old Babies?
For the moment, I want to move past the paranoid individuals whom think that terrorists are trying to hide chemical agents in their babies' poop and are afraid of a parent knocking on the cockpit door holding a baby, saying, "Open up! I have a loaded diaper here, and it's pointed right at you!"
I understand the idiocy of government bureaucrats, without a shred of common sense, blindly applying rules out of context with the inane, predictable "rules are rules", "I didn't make the rules", "I'm just doing my job", etc. Yes, the same government that got caught flatfooted by the underwear bomber over Detroit, that narrowly averted a shoe bombing and an abandoned car bombing near Times Square knows exactly how to address public safety--not by risk-based sampling procedures (after all, the number of Buddhist suicide bombers and Christian suicide bombers must be proportionately the same as for Muslim suicide bombers, right?) How dare we examine young Muslim men any differently than 8-month-old babies? After all, the salient issue isn't public safety, but political correctness!
What really annoys me isthe group of sheep those obnoxious folks whom seem to cheer on the empire-building government bureaucrats and have zero tolerance for those of us whom believe individual rights guaranteed by the US Constitution aren't "words, just words"; these so-called Americans are willing to sell out their countrymen's liberty based on some TSA bureaucrat's compelling rationalization, "You have to do it because I said so."
Real expertise and problem-solving don't come from brainstorming sessions of government bureaucrats thinking: "If I was a terrorist, what would I do?" and then promulgating a bunch of rules and regulations, intruding on a person's privacy rights, based on nothing more than speculation. Why the heck are you taking off your shoes and belts and getting patted down when some real terrorist gets on board because a surname is misspelled by some State Department paper-pusher? There is absolutely nothing wrong with a true American pointing out that the Big Government regulator is wearing no clothes and saying there is a limit to government scope creep on our everyday life.
The real decision is not a false choice of all-or-nothing TSA rules and regulations. What we problem solvers do is build on experience, not re-create the wheel, making optimal use of limited resources. For example, Israel is clearly concerned about terrorism and safe air travel. But the Israelis approach things differently than we do. Why are we not building on what works in Israel, or why or why not have TSA rules and regulations been adapted within an Israeli context? The fact of the matter is--the vast majority of what the TSA does doesn't result in additional safety. Eight-month babies flew on jets during the last several decades of the last century and never posed a safety danger. Neither did large families (did you ever wonder why suicide bombers don't bring their families with them?) Nor 80-year-old great grandmothers or most senior citizens. We are spending lots of resources searching people whom are not credible threats and don't fit a profile: why are we wasting money staffing TSA positions based on the need to staff inefficient, ineffectual safety procedures?
For the moment, I want to move past the paranoid individuals whom think that terrorists are trying to hide chemical agents in their babies' poop and are afraid of a parent knocking on the cockpit door holding a baby, saying, "Open up! I have a loaded diaper here, and it's pointed right at you!"
I understand the idiocy of government bureaucrats, without a shred of common sense, blindly applying rules out of context with the inane, predictable "rules are rules", "I didn't make the rules", "I'm just doing my job", etc. Yes, the same government that got caught flatfooted by the underwear bomber over Detroit, that narrowly averted a shoe bombing and an abandoned car bombing near Times Square knows exactly how to address public safety--not by risk-based sampling procedures (after all, the number of Buddhist suicide bombers and Christian suicide bombers must be proportionately the same as for Muslim suicide bombers, right?) How dare we examine young Muslim men any differently than 8-month-old babies? After all, the salient issue isn't public safety, but political correctness!
What really annoys me is
Real expertise and problem-solving don't come from brainstorming sessions of government bureaucrats thinking: "If I was a terrorist, what would I do?" and then promulgating a bunch of rules and regulations, intruding on a person's privacy rights, based on nothing more than speculation. Why the heck are you taking off your shoes and belts and getting patted down when some real terrorist gets on board because a surname is misspelled by some State Department paper-pusher? There is absolutely nothing wrong with a true American pointing out that the Big Government regulator is wearing no clothes and saying there is a limit to government scope creep on our everyday life.
The real decision is not a false choice of all-or-nothing TSA rules and regulations. What we problem solvers do is build on experience, not re-create the wheel, making optimal use of limited resources. For example, Israel is clearly concerned about terrorism and safe air travel. But the Israelis approach things differently than we do. Why are we not building on what works in Israel, or why or why not have TSA rules and regulations been adapted within an Israeli context? The fact of the matter is--the vast majority of what the TSA does doesn't result in additional safety. Eight-month babies flew on jets during the last several decades of the last century and never posed a safety danger. Neither did large families (did you ever wonder why suicide bombers don't bring their families with them?) Nor 80-year-old great grandmothers or most senior citizens. We are spending lots of resources searching people whom are not credible threats and don't fit a profile: why are we wasting money staffing TSA positions based on the need to staff inefficient, ineffectual safety procedures?
HR 1380: Thumbs DOWN, DOWN, DOWN!
NO to 'Crony Capitalist Act For Natural Gas/Vehicle Producers'!
NO MORE TAXPAYER SUBSIDIES!
The New Alternative Transportation to Give Americans Solutions Act of 2011 is like T Boone Pickens' wet dream. (Recall that his highly-promoted 2008 plan was to displace natural gas being used in power plants to run vehicles with utilities driven by power from wind farms (which, of course, he had a huge proposed stake in).) What better "investment", given a $1.65T national debt, than to spend $9B we don't have to provide liquid or compressed natural gas vendors a 50 cent per gallon subsidy and up to $64K towards the purchase of natural gas-powered vehicles? (Oddly enough, libertarian Ron Paul (R-TX) appears on the list of sponsors, no doubt representing an energy state's politics.)
Fukushima Nuclear Incident Update
No new posts on the major blogs I follow. Presumably the reactor pressurized vessels 1 through 3 and spent fuel pools 1 through 4 are replenished with coolant on as-needed basis, temperature and pressure in the RPV's are declining/stable, and contaminated water from the reactor 2 turbine building is in process to the rad waste storage tank.
No new posts on the major blogs I follow. Presumably the reactor pressurized vessels 1 through 3 and spent fuel pools 1 through 4 are replenished with coolant on as-needed basis, temperature and pressure in the RPV's are declining/stable, and contaminated water from the reactor 2 turbine building is in process to the rad waste storage tank.
Political Humor
"The number of millionaires in the U.S. is expected to double by the year 2020. Of course, by then, being a millionaire will just mean you have a full tank of gas." - Jimmy Fallon
[Half of them will be Chinese visitors buying assets on the cheap using Ben Bernanke dollars...]
"Al-Qaida has not yet picked a new leader to run their terrorist organization. Apparently, candidates keep losing interest after asking, “What happened to the last guy?”" - Conan O'Brien
[Keep an eye on explosions in Pakistan: black smoke means no new leader. White smoke means someone drew the short straw. (Inside Catholic joke.)]
Musical Interlude: My Favorite Groups
Chicago, "Feelin' Stronger Everyday". Another superb Cetera song/performance. I strongly suspect none of my writings will be remembered (maybe they'll remember a quote, a video or a Jay Leno joke), but people will remember songs. One of the fascinating thing is how people will relate to songs in unexpected ways. For example, the Turtles recorded "Happy Together"; if you read the lyrics, it's really about unrequited love of a guy trying to convince an aloof girl the picture he has in his mind of them happy together. [I'm sure the Turtles thought, well, maybe listeners don't understand the song, but if it sells a million records, we'll go with the flow.] The Police signature classic "Every Breath You Take" has a slightly creepy, stalking connotation that lead singer Sting has been trying to combat ever since (e.g., "If You Love Somebody, Set Them Free").
In this song, in my interpretation, Peter Cetera is attempting to describe recovery from a painful breakup: their relationship just doesn't work, but each lover truly wants the best for the other, including finding a relationship with the right person. Yet Peter admits when the girlfriend finds her true love, he'll regret their own relationship didn't work.
I'm often fascinated by the comments of people on Youtube whom have an emotional attachment to a song. In the case of this song, it could be a cancer patient trying to hang on to the optimistic title/verse and the upbeat tempo. I was touched by a widower mentioning how his late wife loved him singing this song to her; I don't know the story, but I can easily envision a scenario where someone in pain (say, in the late stages of cancer) is ready to pass on but wants her husband to move on with his life after she dies.
