Earth to William...

Voting on Laws

2010-10-17T18:22:00.000-07:00

In the state where I live currently (Washington) we have a process whereby citizens can directly offer up legislation to be voted on by the population at large. A number of signatures are required to get said measures on the ballot, and my limited understanding of the process seems to indicate that it isn't just a walk in the park - so we only see a handful of such 'initiatives' up for voting each election. Some in the past, and even this season, are ones I supported - requiring 2/3rd majorities of our legislature in order to pass new taxes, for example. However, there are a few which I just voted on today which were so convoluted that I'm not sure what will happen if they are passed into law.

Of these, a couple in particular were complicated enough that there were parts I agreed with and others which I very much did not. For example, two - yes, two similar initiatives are up at the same time - were focused on reforming the way our state handles 'hard liquor'. I like that they both wanted to do away with having the State Liquor Board directly warehouse and sell such drinks, which seems like something the government has no business being involved in. However, they then both also would have gotten rid of various laws about the sales of liquor which seemed pretty complex. Some, like those affecting where sales could happen, didn't really bother me - but then others removed taxes, and some seemed to open up changes which would allow bigger beer companies to come in and push out smaller, local breweries.

I'm not into drinking, so that doesn't hit me directly like some of my friends and co-workers, but I do like small and local companies over national conglomerates in a lot of other areas. This dichotomy makes me wish there were actually several smaller initiatives for each of these topics, so I could split my votes up based on how I think / feel. The more I think about it, I bet this problem extends far beyond just the initiative process: most laws these days are long and complex affairs, and likely even the best are saddled with clauses and add-ons which bring unwanted things. Kind of the opposite of 'throwing the baby out with the bathwater'; maybe one could say 'letting in the fleas with the dog'. I suppose those in power probably don't want changes made, but I would *love* to be able to restrict each law to a small amount of text or some other way of limiting scope to specific issues, rather than having to enact huge bundles of rules just to get one good law in place.

Burning the Qur'an

2010-09-08T23:54:00.000-07:00

There is currently a bit of a controversy about a church in Florida that is going to hold "International Burn a Qur'an Day" on the ninth anniversary of the attack on the World Trade Center - this coming Saturday, 9/11/10. A lot of folks are calling for the church to cancel their event, which they describe as a protest against radical Islam, so I wanted to weigh in with both my opinion and what I think is the more interesting story behind this controversy.

To start off, let me say that this sounds like a very un-Christian thing to do. The Bible tells us to "Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you" (Matthew 5:44), and this does not sound like a good way to show love. However, with that said, they certainly have the right, under US law, to burn any book they want. Folks have burned the Bible in protests in the past, and while I don't like it they have the right to do so.

Most folks, at least here in the US, seem to agree that technically these folks have a right to do what they are doing. The argument I have heard voiced a lot is that it is in poor taste, with which I agree, and that it is going to put our troops overseas in danger of attack from Muslims who are angry over the burning of their holy book.

I agree that it is likely that if this goes forward some attacks will be carried out against Americans, both military and civilians, who are residing in Muslim countries... but that is *not* because these people are burning some books. It is because many Muslims, particularly the more radical among them, see murder as a fitting reaction to someone burning copies of a book that is important to them - even though it isn't their own property or even happening in their region, and the folks they will likely target are no more responsible for the burning than I am responsible for folks who have burned Bibles or crosses here in the US.

That is what I see as the principle problem here: the over-reaction of many Islamic people the world over. Do they have the right to voice their opinion, and protest against the Qur'an burning? Yes - and many are already doing so! In fact, many are burning US flags. That is their right, just as these folks have the right to burn some books. However, if they go a step further and start hurting or killing folks then it isn't the book-burning that has gone wrong, it is the folks doing the killing!

Why should we have to tell someone here in the US that they shouldn't do something which they have a legal right to do because someone else might react in an illegal, immoral, and murderous way? That sounds to me like cowering before terrorism. Do I think those supposed Christians in Florida should burn Qur'ans? No - again, it isn't a very Christ-like thing to do. However, I think they have the right to do as they want under the law and I will not hold them responsible in the least for any reactions by overzealous Muslims. If Muslims want the world to see that their religion is peaceful, as many of them claim, then they need to call on their own adherents to react in a non-violent manner to the Qur'an burning. I guess we'll see on Saturday, and in the days following, what the true nature of Islam is...

Five Steps to Fixing American Politics

2010-05-17T15:07:00.000-07:00

In no particular order:

- Single Term Limits - If a politician has no hope of being re-elected then hopefully his attention will go toward fulfilling the needs / desires of those who elected him, rather than pandering to lobbyists or getting distracted by the next election. I could see going to a setup where politicians could return after a certain number of years off, or perhaps where they could work up through positions but never run for the same one again (representative -> senator -> governor, for example, but never able to have more than one term in each category).

- Instant Run-off Elections - Moving to a system where we could have multiple candidates without it being a detriment to any given group of people, and where recounts could be eliminated, would be a great improvement. Check out this website for more info.

- Transparent Voting - I know it is taboo to suggest this in the US, but I think all voting should be made public. This would allow independent verification of results, rather than needing to trust whoever is in power and in charge of the election process. Imagine each of us being able to visit a website and see that they did indeed record our votes correctly, rather than just assuming that there were no 'hanging chads' or not-quite-filled bubbles that got miscounted.

- Limited Number of Laws - Institute a limit to how many laws can be on the books, and require that for any new law passed after that number is reached an old one must be removed. Done properly this would help ensure that the lists of laws don't get out of hand, and would force clean-up of out-dated laws that otherwise just sit on the books.

- Legally Require a Balanced Budget - Make it a requirement that each year's budget cannot exceed the income of the previous year, in order to help avoid budget overruns and debt. Using a past year as the budget limit helps avoid over-estimation of the current year's expected intake. There could also be provision for exceeding the budget in time of war, but only contingent on an actual declaration of war (not simply a presidential action or other use of military forces).

I'm sure there are other good ideas out there too, and many of the best (including some on this list) would require a major overhaul of our existing laws and such. Given how far into the red we are going, though - both monetarily and socially - I think that is overdue. Revolution 2.0 anyone?

My Ideas for a Better Tax System

2009-06-05T14:52:00.000-07:00

Can any tax system really be good? I'm not sure, but I know one could be made that is better than the current complex arrangement of sales, income, property, business, death, and just about every other imaginable form of tax.

What I would propose is an extremely simple set of two types of tax: sales tax and import tax (or tariffs). Everything else would be gone. This would, I'm sure, be insufficient to cover the needs of current US government spending - but alongside these I would put a requirement not that the government simply balance their budget, which leaves open the option to increase taxes, but that they actually must curb spending in order to fit within the projected income. Many government programs would have to be cut, I'm sure, but then I think that the government has its hands in too many pies already. That is another topic for another day, though, so I will try to limit myself to the subject at hand.

The reason I think a sales tax is 'fair' is that it hits everyone - not just the rich, nor just the poor. The rich would pay a substantial amount more over time, which I think makes sense, and as you will see would even pay at a 'higher rate' - not because it is forced upon them, but because of their natural choices.

There are two important things to point out about the sales tax I propose which are different from current implementations that I am aware of, or which at least take existing ideas a step further. One is to have different levels of taxation depending on the item being bought and its price. Essential items - raw foods, for example - would go untaxed (as they often do now); luxury items would be heavily taxed. I propose a range something like the following:

- Essential Items: 0% tax rate (basic foods, maybe a few other categories)
- Commonly Needed Items: 25% tax rate (simple clothes, rent of apartments or buildings under a certain value or value density [$/sq foot])
- Commonly Wanted Items: 50% tax rate (more expensive clothes, rent on more expensive things, computers, certain types of cars, basic entertainment services, gasoline, property purchases under a certain value)
- Luxury Items: 100% tax rate (more expensive property purchases, luxury entertainment services, airline travel, more expensive cars, junk foods)
- Completely Un-needed Items: 200% tax rate (alcohol, tobacco, porn, maybe soda - basically items that have no or little intrinsic value, and/or which are associated with problems in society that could be avoided by the lessened use of such products)

The kicker is that these would be nation-wide (I realize that violates current states-rights, but this is just a theoretical proposition for now), and so whenever a price for an item was displayed it would be required to include the appropriate tax. The tax percent could also be shown, but the main number would have to be the total that the customer would be paying.

Because this would be the major form of tax providing government funding, it would have to be split across the federal, state, and local governments. I propose the following breakdown:
25% of the taxes go to the federal government, 25% to the state, 25% to the county, and 25% to the city. If the item is purchased outside of a city/town, the numbers revert to 33.3% across the board. If the item is ordered from one place and shipped to another, the state/county/city amounts are split between the two locales. If the purchase is made in a retail location, the full amount is calculated based on that location.

The secondary tax form, which for convenience sake I'll call tariffs, would be in place less to generate revenue for the government and more to allow for US-based businesses to thrive and compete on an even footing with those from other countries. It would be variable, at the government's discretion, and would be intended to level the playing field between companies here in the US which might have higher overhead costs (because of paying reasonable wages, etc) than those from outside trying to import. The idea would not be to force the purchase of US products, or to price imports out of reach, but simply to make products compete on other merits like quality, features, etc. I know this runs against the current free-trade ideas out there, but in the long run they are not healthy for the US economy (in my opinion). I would expect other countries to adopt similar tariffs, and as long as they were used to make local competition better rather than to prevent importing I think that would be a good idea. Of course, we can't really trust the government to act in the 'right' way... but then what else is new?

This was a rather hurried overview of my ideas, but I'm curious to hear what others out there think.

Funny?

2008-10-31T00:09:00.001-07:00

http://www.oaoa.com/articles/guy_22374___article.html/homeless_money.html
From Rose's hometown newspaper. Interesting, check it out.

Guest Blog

2008-10-22T11:45:00.001-07:00

I have a special feature to post today - a "guest blog", if you will, that my wife wrote. She normally blogs on her MySpace account, and sometimes on our family blog, but after reading what she wrote today I think it is exactly the sort of thing I like to have on Earth to William.

The first part won't make much sense if you haven't read what she posted last night, but the meat of it does not need any background info. Without further ado, here is Rose's "the negative blind people and the muffinless":

"I got up at 3:30am to feed Gus this morning and thought, wow, it smells great in here, like cinnamon and pumpkin.

Then in the dark I realized I sat next to the dog. He was emitting muffin smell still .

I am getting tired of hearing people on TV complain about voters who haven't decided who they are going to vote for. I keep hearing "If you haven't decided after 20 months blah blah blah" "How hard can it be one is black, one is white, one is old one is young, one wants socialized medicine, one wants to pay your mortgage"(I swear those are real quotes from at least 2 different tv shows). We haven't been undecided because we are less intelligent. We are not slow. We even aren't indecisive necessarily. Have you stopped to consider we don't want either candidate. One TV host even went so far as to say "If you haven't decided by now, you shouldn't show up".

Look, I know that we are the people they are aiming the ads at now. Yes I think it's annoying too. I would love to hear any candidate say anything positive. Besides Obama and McCain ads that dominate the screen, I am so sick of the Gregoire/Rossi campaigns and smear ads, and even worse are the Darcy Burner Dave Richert smear campaigns. Since when is anyone qualified because they can say negative things about someone else.

All I am saying is that I am unhappy with all choices I have been presented with, and I am still trying to figure out how I don't have to settle, especially since we are stuck with this stupid 2 party system. A vote for any independent, consitution, green, libertarian or any other smaller party is a vote thrown away, and I wish more people would vote in that direction so that they weren't wasted, because there are people out there that aren't offering the same old same old.

Indecision is not ignorance my friends. It is the opposite. It is quite thoughtful. It is the pause to consider how I can do my part and truly make a difference in the world. Even how to rebel against the negativity that has swallowed the airwaves recently. I am not easily and blindly led to trust someone, especially when the stakes are so high, not just for our economy and security in these weird time, but because I have to consider the world I want my son to live in. He can't speak, so I must for him. And quite frankly I don't see anybody I trust his future with.

Please don't send me messages telling me who I should vote for and why. Please don't bombard me with information about how I am crazy or irresponsible.

This is what I have decided. There is no good decision. Which is depressing when you don't have any muffins either. "

It amazes me how much we still don't know

2008-09-30T23:35:00.001-07:00

Scientists these days seem to take so many things for granted - the big bang theory, Darwinian evolution, and even more mundane things - but it always amazes and amuses me when theories crop up that offer alternative reasons for some of the phenomena we observe and try to rationalize through complex theories (like those mentioned already). Here is one such example I ran into today while reading through the news: the Earth may exist inside a cosmic bubble, of sorts.

It isn't so much a bubble that they describe, just that some of the things we currently interpret as the universe expanding may actually be the result of Earth being in a relatively low-density section of space. Apparently this bucks traditional astronomical reasoning, which requires that things follow the Copernican principle. By suggesting that the Earth is in a unique region of space they seem to think that we are stepping beyond what we can demonstrate or presuppose - but I would also point out the opposite: by assuming that the Earth is in an average or 'normal' part of the universe, we are presupposing that such a norm exists. I don't think that with our limited knowledge of cosmology we can really be safe in that assumption; it is very possible that every part of the expanses out there is different and unique!

This is certainly a fun topic to discuss, and I look forward to more things that turn the scientific status-quo on its head. In the end, though, such things don't really matter all that much. As much as I like science and exploration, I sometimes do think that we should deal with some of the problems we have here on Earth before unleashing humanity on a poor, unsuspecting universe ;)

A New Declaration

2008-09-29T13:02:00.001-07:00

Its been over two hundred years - I wonder if it is time for a new Declaration of Independence:

'When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and failures, showing ever a lack of commitment to these principles, leads a people to the edge of financial and social ruin, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. — Such has been the patient sufferance of these States; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present and recent Legislatures and Presidencies is a history of repeated taxations, budgetary deficits, and trade imbalances, all having as a direct result the near-bankruptcy of the peoples of these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

They have raised Federal taxes on Citizens of these States consistently and through numerous channels.

They have allowed the Nation's debt to rise nine-fold in the past forty years.

They have generally not provided for a sound, balanced budget in their stewardship of the people's money each year - further contributing to the aforementioned debt.

When private businesses have faltered they have often seen fit to bail these out, resulting in further debts and preventing the natural laws of economics to run their due course.

They have sent money to the aid of foreign regimes and peoples, when there are needs among our own just as dire.

They have spent precious resources and funds on pet projects and endeavors of social and other natures which the Government has no need to busy itself with.

They have grown bureaucracies beyond measure which interfere with all manner of Rights of the Citizens, and which furthermore waste away our Monies.

They have begun and continue to force upon us a plan of 'social security', which is rapidly failing and will only compound the other Crises already mentioned.

In every stage of these Failings we have been beset by False Promises, Misinformation, and Blatant Lies from those we elect to represent us. These men and women seem more motivated by Greed and lust for Power than the needs and desires of the Citizens, which should be their wont. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity to begin anew with a government more suited to the needs of the States and their People.

We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of this Country, solemnly publish and declare, that these current Officials, Representatives, Judges, and Administrators shall be removed from office post-haste, and that all manner of Laws and Decrees they have foisted upon us shall be removed and a new Form of Goverance be put in place - that the greatest Good and best Interest of the People may be put forward. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor.'

I'm not actually sure that I think the premises of the original Declaration of Independence are valid - I may dedicate another post to that discussion, though, as I think it deserves its own place. This 'new' declaration is intended to get folks thinking about the situation our government is in, and is in no way to be construed as an actual suggestion that such actions be taken. For reference, the text of the original document on which this is based can be found here.

The Fall of America

2008-09-17T16:55:00.001-07:00

I just had a moment of clarity, and figured it would be a good thing to blog about. Please be aware that what follows may be offensive to many, and is certain to be controversial, but I think it holds at least some element of truth.

The American economy is in a dangerous position, with the falling stock market and the general instability among many large banks and lenders. I was lamenting this earlier today, and discussing with coworkers what the root of the problem is and what could be done about it. I'm not an economist, though, so I'm sure most of what I said would be laughed at by anyone with actual experience in that field.

When that was over, though, I reflected on the state of our country and how attached I am to the idea that it needs to keep running. Of course, my job and my family's livelihood depend on our economy not falling apart - I have a horse in the race, so to speak. Still, it seemed like I was overly attached to the sort of life I am leading and that I was not seeing the situation from a balanced viewpoint.

As I pondered this more and more, and a few other conversations at work played out, I began to realize that there are things our country has done and is doing which probably - in God's eyes - would merit all sorts of judgment. Some of you might assume I am speaking of the current war in Iraq, but you'd be wrong. I am referring to the disintegration of the family, the rampant abuse of various drugs and other addictive materials, the wholesale slaughter of unborn babies, and a whole host of other evils that we either endorse or overlook. We still do some things right, like supporting Israel, but I think anymore that our sins as a nation far outweigh our good.

Furthermore in the past, a king or emperor could be pointed to as the origin of policies that led a nation one way or another - but today in our culture we all bear the burden of electing leaders who make those policies. It isn't a single person, then, who will reap the rewards of those actions: it is the whole of our society!

Perhaps, then, some of the trials we face as a country are not unfair. Perhaps we are being judged for our crimes. Maybe, just maybe, a lot more of the horrors we see and hear about every day are our 'just deserts'.

On the subject of Origins

2008-09-14T15:24:00.000-07:00

One constantly reads and hears these days about the "creationism versus evolution" debate. Almost everyone has an opinion one way or the other on this, and most (on both sides) are so steadfast and unwavering in their beliefs that the "debate" usually devolves into more of a name-calling fest. I'd like to outline my thoughts on this subject, and see what you folks out there think.

First off, let me say that I believe God created the universe and everything in it. A lot of people might stop reading right there, writing me off in their minds as a lunatic or simpleton - but I think if you continue reading you will see that I am not. I am a Christian, so I cannot accept that God had no involvement in the world that we see around us; neither can I believe that God simply does not exist.

Many folks who espouse the modern theory of evolution would come down on the opposite side: they would say that they cannot believe in a God, and therefore "creationism" is impossible. Either way, it is not the evidence at hand that sways people one way or the other - it is the world view we start with that leads us to look at the world and interpret the things we see in a way that fits with our fundamental beliefs.

In fact, to truly understand where I fall on this one must take a step back and look at the terms that are bandied about so loosely:

Creationism - Many think that this is a purely Regis view that takes no science or evidence into account. To me, though, it is not so much a statement of how God created the world as it is simply a believe that it was created and did not simply come from nowhere. This topic is a worthy philosophical discussion, but science can in no way touch on it: if one posits, for a moment, the existence of a supreme being (as most who believe in Him think God is) and that He created the universe, there is no way that science can either prove or disprove that. We can see evidence for - or potentially against - it, but in the end one could point out that this Being could entirely hide His presence and yet still exist. As such, this is indeed a matter of faith.

Evolution - Usually when someone uses this term they refer to Darwin's theories on the origin of species, and the various other thinking that has come as a result of that. I would like to point out, though, that there are two clear types of evolution: micro and macro. Micro evolution deals purely with variation in a species, and can clearly be seen over time. Certain colorations of animals might tend to outlive others, or animals with longer or shorter physical attributes might fare better than others. All of that is due to environmental situations, and only results in cosmetic changes over time. Macro evolution, on the other hand, is the idea that one species can change into something very different given enough time. This, so far as I know, has never been observed - even in the fossil record; if someone out there has evidence to the contrary I would dearly like them to provide it. It is my opinion that micro evolution is fact, and that because it works so well people were drawn to the idea that over time-spans far beyond what we can readily observe macro evolution might be possible. I would hold that as far worse pseudo-science than anything that "creationists" have come up with, since it in no way adheres to the scientific method!

There is one other term that I would like to mention, and which when it comes up is often equated with creationism: Intelligent Design. This is the more scientific approach to the creation side of the origins debate; rather than going purely on faith, this pursuit looks for evidence of a Creator in various scientific fields. Having read somewhat on this relatively new approach, though not nearly as much as I would like to, I think it has a lot of merit. When the topic of what should be taught in schools comes up, I think that if you are going to teach at all on the origin of man (and I don't necessarily think this even belongs in modern curriculum's - but that is another topic entirely) then both Intelligent Design and Darwinian evolution should be represented. Each should be shown equally, both the good and the bad, and it should be left at that.

Now that this post has gone a bit off of the direction I had planned, let me pull it back on course. As I said near the beginning, I believe that God created the universe. I think that He did it in six literal days, as is described in the first chapter of Genesis, since if it had been done differently I think He would have told us. I am, however, open to the possibility that God chose to use a longer period of time - and perhaps even other methods than simply making things out of thin air. I don't see any evidence of that, though, either in Scripture or in the world. In the end, the key thing to me is that He is the Creator, and as such the final authority on how we should live our lives. The fact that He made me, and the whole of the universe that existed before me, lets me know that there is a reason for all of this; moreover, through His words to us in scripture (the Bible) we can know what that reason is!

Without that, we would simply exist for no reason. There would be no justification for morality, right and wrong, and might would simply 'make right' as the old saying goes. I don't think I could live in a world like that, and if most people thought on it long enough I doubt they could either. Because of the way evolution it taught, though, and because people are more and more divorcing themselves from God, that is the way many people think - and look at the horrors it has led to in our society! I digress, though, and have dragged this on too long for one day. Please, though, if you have read this far why not leave a comment? :)

On the subject of Politics

2008-09-09T14:59:00.001-07:00

As many of you know - and the rest are about to find out - I am very conservative when it comes to politics. My views are actually a little tricky to pin down: when it comes to real-life government and sociology I am far to the right of center, but ideologically I am more open. As an example, I think the government of the US needs to keep itself out of business as much as possible because our capitalist economic system depends on competition, as well as on companies that do poorly failing rather than being propped up. The same goes, in my opinion, for individuals in our current society. However, if I were able to set up my ideal form of government it would be communal (not communist - there is a difference): everyone would share all things equally, and there would be no classes, money, or possessions.

The problem is that no large group could maintain such utopian society, so it is out of the question for the US or any other existing country. I will be posting more thoughts on my ideal society in the future, since my wife is tired of hearing me ramble on about it, and I'll come up with a unique title structure so that you can easily spot such writings in my blog. When I'm not specifically on that subject, though, you can expect me to have very "right-wing", conservative viewpoints on almost all aspects of government. Please note, though, that it does not mean I automatically support every Republican candidate: in fact, I am usually further right than anyone who will actually get elected in this day and age :) If you read things here that you disagree with, though, please reply with your own opinions - after all, intelligent discourse is the foundation of a democratic republic!

On the subject of Blogging

2008-09-08T23:38:00.000-07:00

So I've now got three blogs going (check my profile if you aren't familiar with all of them), but I'm running into one problem: no one seems to read them! Or more precisely, no one posts comments on them. I can definitely understand that not everyone who reads a given blog entry will have worthwhile things to say, and even many of those who do won't take the time to leave feedback - but seriously, folks, how am I supposed to know if anyone is reading these things if I don't get any comments?

This blog has (so far) absolutely no comments, and both of my others are averaging less that one comment per posting. I'm going to keep writing, but I'll post more often if I know people are actually getting something out of it - even if it is just a laugh. It will be really sad if I have to start responding to my own ideas, and holding conversations with myself, but I will if it comes down to that! ;)

On the subject of Energy

2008-09-06T17:38:00.000-07:00

So a big topic these days is the "energy crisis", by which people usually mean that we have increasing prices and demand on energy - especially portable forms of energy like gasoline. It is also closely tied to concerns about global warming and carbon footprints, which shows that folks are worried that the energy we do use is having negative side-effects on the environment. To further confuse this, we are heavily dependant on foreign sources for some types of energy (gasoline, again, being the main culprit). This is a complicated issue, to be sure, but I wanted to provide some thoughts on what I think could be done to help.

To me this can be separated into three sections to make it easier to deal with:

1) Reducing the need for gasoline. We can do this by moving all consumer vehicles to either rechargeable hybrid or full electric, and this is step the government could take through mandates and requirements for cars being sold here in the US. If we can keep gasoline and derivatives of it for use in ships and the trucking industry that would be excellent, and perhaps eventually those could also be converted.

Some people are interested in going to alternate portable energy forms, like natural gas or hydrogen, but to me the costs of researching and implementing these technologies - not to mention the changes that would be needed at fueling stations across the country - would be far too high.

2) Reduce our dependence on foreign sources for oil, especially those in the volatile Middle East. This can be done via further domestic exploration and exploitation of sources, including those in coastal US waters and Alaska. This can't replace all of our current needs, but every little bit helps. Furthermore, if we use the ideas from #1 above we can reduce our consumption while also moving more to our own sources of oil - and perfect combination!

3) Produce more "clean" and renewable power. We already make great use of hydroelectric energy, especially here in the Pacific Northwest, but we should also take as much advantage of solar, wind, and geothermal power as possible. All of those are limited in terms of where they can be used effectively, so wherever they are not appropriate we should fill in with nuclear power (gasp!). I know this makes some folks freak out, but it really is one of the safest and most cost-effective methods of producing electricity. As we move more toward electric power in cars, additional power will be needed here - and I am all for moving away from more polluting energy sources like coal and oil.

That three-pronged attack on our energy crisis would be very effective, I think, and while it would take a decade or two to fully implement that doesn't mean we shouldn't do it. If anything, it means we need to move forward sooner rather than later!

Welcome, people of Earth!

2008-09-04T15:55:00.000-07:00

This blog, my third, is going to contain a wide range of postings on a variety of topics. In general they will be ramblings or rants on what's wrong with the world, how it could be fixed, and my political, philosophical, religious, and societal ideals. There will probably be a few continuing themes mixed in, and I'll try to separate those with titles and labels that will let you know what to expect.

I love feedback and discussions, so please don't hesitate to comment, criticize, or disagree with me!