Search This Blog

Saturday, July 25, 2009

Curbing B-Czar Behavior: an Open Letter to Congress

To Senators Warner and Webb and Congressman Nye:

The bloom is off the rose. The picture is becoming clearer to the average citizen, who is interested in his or her unalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness as envisioned by our founding fathers. This administration's agenda is to "re-make" America in a way that is not congruent with the fundamental principles that underlie the Constitution of the United States, which is the basic contractual agreement between the People of the United States and its appointed representatives.

The appointment -- without any review and consent by the congress-- of 32 "Czars," whose roles, responsibilities, and actions directly impact large segments of the US economy, is unconstitutional and an abrogation by Congress of its fidicuary responsiblity under Article 2, Section 2, Clause 2 of the Constitution. Furthermore, this action -- when viewed in the context of the recent "firings" of the Inspector Generals (IGs) overseeing Americorp and Amtrak, reckless deficit spending, and nomination of a supreme court justice whose writings and racist remarks make it clear she is more interested in social justice than constitutional justice -- clearly demonstrate that the administration's socialist / fascist agenda is being forced on America while bypassing the checks and balances required by the Constitution.

This citizen asks that you oppose this administration's unconstitutional policies and practices. Czars, cap and trade, healthcare "reform,", and expanded deficit spending are nothing more than ruses whose real purpose is to choke capitalism, place more control in the hands of a centralized government, and limit the People's fundamental rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

I oppose the administration's continued usurpation of legislative powers that legitimately are the congress's responsibility. Perhaps, congress's time would be better spent ignoring the president and focusing on representing the people and making the constitutional system we have work.

Wednesday, July 15, 2009

Social Justice in the Supreme Court

On Tuesday (July 14, 2009), the Senate Judiciary Committee met to review the nomination of Sonia Sotomayor as the next Justice to the Supreme Court. The most effective examination of her record was by Lindsey Graham (R-SC), which has been captured on You Tube in four parts: Graham vs. Sotomayor (Part 1); Graham vs. Sotomayor (Part 2); Graham vs. Sotomayor (Part 3); Graham vs. Sotomayor (Part 4) . If you are concerned about the direction of the country and what this nomination could mean to our constitutional form of government, this is a must watch.

If one examines Sotomayor's judicial record, you will find one that most have characterized as left of center, but within mainstream thinking. But, if you look beyond this record to her character and ideology, as documented by her associations, her evaluation by peers, and her speeches over years, you see a different person. My take away is this: she, in many respects, is just like Obama -- a social progressive, rags to riches success story, with a lot of help from affirmative action. However, when you dig deeper, you have to ask the question, based upon her expressed worldview, how will she vote when she is not constrained by established court precedent but is able to decide what is and what is not precedent and has life-time job security? In making your decision, perhaps you should listen to the Chicago WBEZ 2001 interview with Obama on his view of the Constitution and how it has negatively influenced civil rights. Do you think he nominated Sotomayor because she might share these views?

Unfortunately, I believe we are about to find out because there is no way to stop it.

Saturday, July 4, 2009

Resisting the Solar Impulse

If modern politics teaches us anything, it is that one needs to frame political debate around a “poster child” that illustrates the point to be made. In the case of solar energy as a serious alternative to more dense energy sources – such as oil, coal, natural gas, fission, or fusion – the poster child is the Solar Impulse, a sun- powered airplane prototype.

In June, a Swiss team, headed by Bertrand Piccard announced the completion of the $98-million (USD) Solar Impulse airplane (left), which has a wingspan of a Boeing 747, weighs less than a small car, and powers itself through energy gathered by approximately 12,000 solar cells. The airplane has four engines, which develop 40 horsepower (viz., the power of the Wright Brothers’ original aircraft), allowing the craft to takeoff at 22 mph and cruise at a maximum speed of 44 mph. Its payload: two men in cramped quarters and a 400 kg (880 lb) lithium ion battery, which supplies power during periods of no sunlight. The goal: circumnavigation of the world in 2012 over a 25 day period. Oh, I forgot to mention that it cannot be flown in adverse weather: it is too delicate.

While the Solar Impulse is a technological novelty, it truly illustrates the practical limitations of solar energy. All one has to do is compare the Solar Impulse to planes that are conventionally powered and of similar wingspan … like the Boeing 747 to which its designers have compared it. According to the official Boeing website, the 747-200 (2 class-configuration)with a wingspan of 195 ft., 8 inches, carries 452 passengers, 6,190 cubic feet of cargo, with a maximum lift off weight of 833,000 pounds. It flies at Mach 0.84 (555 mph), with a range of 7,900 statute miles. For the math challenged, this performance would allow circumnavigation of the earth, by 452 passengers and 6,190 cubic feet of cargo in approximately 2 days.

So let’s bring this rainbow down to the ground: the sun’s energy – while it may be plentiful and even prove technologically feasible AND economical to accomplish some tasks – cannot provide a practical, continuous source of production grade energy for aviation or most other commercial purposes, which is the mother’s milk of an advanced, technological, competitive society.

To further illustrate my point, in May 2009, Obama promoted the government’s construction of a 140-acre solar array at Nellis Air Force Base, at a cost of $100M USD. The installed capacity is 14 megawatts of power or 30.1 gigawatt-hours of energy per year. Compare this to the three-unit Arizona Public Service Palo Verde nuclear plant built in the late 1970s, built at a cost of $5.6B USD (in 1970s dollars). In 2007, the three Palo Verde units produced 26,782 gigawatt-hours of electricity. Correcting the construction cost of the reactors for inflation, each reactor unit costs approximately $4.35B in 2009 dollars or 41 times the cost of the solar array but produces 297 times more electricity, while occupying far less land. An equivalent Nellis Air Force Base solar array would require approximately 125,000 acres. Considering the nuclear plants have a projected operating lifetime of 50 years versus 30 for the solar array and the fact that nuclear plant design is cheaper by half to build today than it was thirty years ago, the life cycle cost of the solar alternative is about 15 times more expensive than the nuclear one.

According to Access to Energy, (October 2008, Vol. 36, No.3), “[i]f one ten-reactor Palo Verde nuclear plant were built in each of the 50 states, the United States could be a net exporter of $200 billion per year of energy rather than a net importer of $300 billion per year." While some might say this is electric energy and our dependence is principally on oil and therefore an unfair comparison, cheap nuclear electric energy (estimated at 1.6 cents per kilowatt – hour) can be used to directly power vehicles as well as transform carbon-based fuels such as oil shale, tars, coal, and methane calthrates, into fossil fuel. This would require an investment of approximately $2T USD, which would produce jobs, prosperity, and energy independence. Instead, our government is planning to spend $2T in stimulus, TARP, and social program deficit spending and proposes to transition our country to a energy infrastructure that, at best, might support the Gross Domestic Product of a third world country.

My advice to Obama: resist the Solar Impulse and place your bet on proven technology. Unfortunately, in the end , I do not believe the president or many on the left will take my advice. “Political” science always overshadows engineering science.

Remember ...

"You're entitled to your own opinion, but you're not entitled to your own facts," Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan.

"Against public stupidity, the gods themselves are powerless." Schiller.

“Who controls the past controls the future. Who controls the present controls the past.” – George Orwell, 1984

"Statistics are no substitute for judgement," Henry Clay

"The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other peoples' money," Margaret Thatcher