Friday, September 20, 2013
Net Neutrality
Net neutrality, on the surface, seems like a no-brainer. In essence, the idea of net neutrality is that no company's or web site's data should receive priority over any others based solely on content. The idea is to prevent tier 1 ISP's from throttling data or charging a premium to competing services based solely on content. The issue is...how is this to be achieved? I am generally not in favor of government regulation, as over regulation is typically the death knell of any business. But can the free market, in this case, be relied on to police itself? Generally, in a competitive marketplace, businesses will take whatever advantages they can to grab a larger market share and regulation is not needed to ensure these businesses play fair. The story is slightly different with ISP's however, as there are a limited number and choices are often dictated by geography. This places tier 1 providers in a position to be able to set prices by whatever criteria is supported in a particular market, leading to less consumer choice. However, for the government to step in and regulate these providers is seen by many, myself included, as a power grab. The following video gives more detail on issues surrounding net neutrality.
Monday, September 16, 2013
Gun Control....Come On People, Let's Think About This A Minute
I tend to be an idealistic, hopeless romantic at heart. The fact that guns exist at all kinda sucks. Pretty much all they're good for is killing things. Unless you like target practice, which I happen to. The problem with gun control laws, ANY gun control laws, is this....they only serve to remove guns from the hands of people who have no desire to use them for anything illegal. Crooks are crooks. They couldn't give a flying fornication about gun control laws. Gang bangers are not going to refer to the laws in their municipality before their drive by. A nutcase is not going to make sure that the magazine in his weapon does not exceed the capacity allowed by law before opening fire at an elementary school.
Law abiding citizens have a right to defend themselves against those who wish to take their lives or property and something like an obligation to protect the innocent or those unable to protect themselves. Its a sad state of affairs that it has come down to this, but the fact of the matter is that there are people out there who will shoot a person without a second thought if it will gain them the $20 they have in their wallet. And now, those who wish NOT to have their life taken for a pittance find themselves having to defend themselves also from a government that is supposed to ensure that those types of things don't happen. There are many in our government and some in the public that seem to have forgotten that America's is a government by the people and for the people, not people by the government and for the government.
The second amendment states "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." The operative portion of this amendment is "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." At the time the Constitution was written, America had no standing Army. Defense of American interests at that time lay with volunteers, which were comprised of every able bodied man and boy. It was not imagined then that a full time standing Army would be required, however it was recognized that not only might people need to be called upon to defend the country from foreign invaders, they would also require means to defend themselves from domestic threats and were all too familiar with the effects of an oppressive government. They understood that every tyranny began in part with the removal of weapons from the hands of law abiding citizens. They also understood that they could do next to nothing to prevent weapons from falling into the hands of criminals. The only way to prevent both an oppressive government and allow people the freedom to defend themselves is to allow responsible citizens the right to bear arms.
I do understand the argument in favor of gun control....it has to start somewhere. But the answer is not to take guns from responsible citizens, leaving them defenseless against both criminals and their government and increasing black market demand for weapons. In fact, it's quite the opposite...it has been proven that cities with liberal gun laws have lower violent crime rates than those with heavily restrictive regulations. The answer seems to me, then, to make sure more responsible people have access to guns and that criminals are well aware they have them. And while I have no particular issue with those who choose not to own or carry guns on moral or religious grounds, and actually commend them for their choice, it is not their place to take any action that would infringe on others' rights to defend themselves, practice perfectly legal recreational activities, or even simply to own guns because they can.
Law abiding citizens have a right to defend themselves against those who wish to take their lives or property and something like an obligation to protect the innocent or those unable to protect themselves. Its a sad state of affairs that it has come down to this, but the fact of the matter is that there are people out there who will shoot a person without a second thought if it will gain them the $20 they have in their wallet. And now, those who wish NOT to have their life taken for a pittance find themselves having to defend themselves also from a government that is supposed to ensure that those types of things don't happen. There are many in our government and some in the public that seem to have forgotten that America's is a government by the people and for the people, not people by the government and for the government.
The second amendment states "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." The operative portion of this amendment is "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." At the time the Constitution was written, America had no standing Army. Defense of American interests at that time lay with volunteers, which were comprised of every able bodied man and boy. It was not imagined then that a full time standing Army would be required, however it was recognized that not only might people need to be called upon to defend the country from foreign invaders, they would also require means to defend themselves from domestic threats and were all too familiar with the effects of an oppressive government. They understood that every tyranny began in part with the removal of weapons from the hands of law abiding citizens. They also understood that they could do next to nothing to prevent weapons from falling into the hands of criminals. The only way to prevent both an oppressive government and allow people the freedom to defend themselves is to allow responsible citizens the right to bear arms.
I do understand the argument in favor of gun control....it has to start somewhere. But the answer is not to take guns from responsible citizens, leaving them defenseless against both criminals and their government and increasing black market demand for weapons. In fact, it's quite the opposite...it has been proven that cities with liberal gun laws have lower violent crime rates than those with heavily restrictive regulations. The answer seems to me, then, to make sure more responsible people have access to guns and that criminals are well aware they have them. And while I have no particular issue with those who choose not to own or carry guns on moral or religious grounds, and actually commend them for their choice, it is not their place to take any action that would infringe on others' rights to defend themselves, practice perfectly legal recreational activities, or even simply to own guns because they can.
Wednesday, September 4, 2013
How American Environmentalists Help Cause Wars In The Mideast
Whoa...hold on...wait a minute, you say...environmentalists here in the States are mostly peace loving tree huggers who would no sooner swat a fly than start a war. How is it they could possibly be responsible for starting a conflict anywhere? Unintended consequences, that's how. You see, environmentalists here in the States, while sipping lattes, texting on their iPhones, and driving their hybrid cars with their knees don't want nary a drop of oil spilled anywhere near their backyard. Or their neighbors backyard. Or anywhere on US soil that isn't already being drilled. They obviously haven't seen the mines the heavy metals for the batteries in their hybrid cars come from, or considered the acid rain caused by sulphur dioxide emissions generated in the production of said hybrid vehicles. They also fail to take into account that the batteries in their hybrids will most likely need replacement at some point during the life of the vehicle, doubling the environmental impact of production of the batteries for that vehicle. Anyhow, I've gone a little off course.
How is it, you wonder, that environmentalists start wars? The fact of the matter is, no matter how many hybrids there are on the street, the US still needs oil. A LOT of it. The United States, in 2012, consumed somewhere on the order of 6.7 BILLION barrels of oil. Of that total, approximately 3.9 billion barrels were imported, with 1.6 billion barrels coming from OPEC countries. And that's just what the United States imports. Worldwide, OPEC member countries export approximately 12.2 billion barrels of oil annually.
Of the twelve current OPEC members, six are Middle Eastern countries....and Libya, which is actually in North Africa but whose politics and culture are intertwined with Israel, Egypt, and the rest of the Mid East. Iran is one of the six Mid East OPEC members, but since we don't import oil from them, their figures are not included in US imports, just in worldwide exports. Their politics, however, figure heavily in the region, and they rank fourth in OPEC exports.
And this has exactly what to do with the price of tea in China? Well, for starters, that means political stability in the region is of paramount importance to the global oil supply. Anything that threatens stability in the region, internal or external, threatens not only our oil supplies but supplies for the rest of the world. That means that any action the US takes in the region is not only in the interest of the United States but in the world's interest. It behooves everyone to ensure tranquility in the region because like it or not, until an alternative is found, the Spice must flow (that's a "Dune" reference, in case you don't know). Unfortunately, the United States seems to be the only country with the balls to stand up and do anything about it, since folks over there have a tendency to behead anyone who disagrees with them.
For those protesters out there, the Iraq war was, in part, a war for oil....just not really for the US. Of the approximately 3.2 million barrels per day produced there, a mere 321,000 per day come our way. So the end result of the war over there, for all the hooting and hollering, helped to secure the rest of the world about 2.9 million barrels of oil a day, removed a crackpot dictator who gassed his own people, and secured the US basically squat in the way of oil.
In understanding why it is so important at this time for the US to help maintain stability in the Mideast region and the role of the environmental movement in keeping the United States involved, it is important to first understand the process by which crude oil is produced and refined, and the various definitions of reserves. According to the United States Energy Information Administration, US proved crude oil reserves stood at 29 billion barrels as of December 31, 2011, not counting the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. There is a difference, though, between proved reserves and technically recoverable resources. Oilindependents.org has more information on these differences, but in a nutshell, proved reserves count only those reserves with a 90% probability of economically viable recovery or existing extraction operations, while technically recoverable covers all the rest to varying degrees. Depending on the source, technically recoverable oil reserves in the United States stands somewhere between 218 billion to 1.4 trillion barrels. Even at the low end of the spectrum, at a 50% recovery rate, that's enough of the gooey black crap to supply our crude oil needs for 12-15 years at the current rate of consumption...plenty of time to supply our fuel needs until moving to a transition fuel like natural gas, then perhaps to an altogether different alternative such as hydrogen fuel cells. Natural gas conversions for automobiles are relatively inexpensive at about $800-$1200 for parts, it burns about 80% cleaner than gas or diesel and much of the infrastructure is already in place...there are propane cylinder exchanges set up at nearly every gas station in this area...a natural gas cylinder exchange would be just as simple, and much of the natural gas produced in the United States is burned off as a waste byproduct of existing drilling operations.
Thing is though, to get at those reserves, we gotta drill. Or frack. Or horizontal bore. Or whatfrackingever. We have to get to it. I'm not exactly sure what logic in environmentalists' minds makes it perfectly ok to drill in the sands of the Saudi Arabian desert but not Utah. These same people claim to be motivated by global climate concerns, yet appear to be under the mistaken impression that Utah or ANWAR does not exist on the same globe as Saudi Arabia or Kuwait. That the Gulf of Mexico is somehow in a dimension separate from the Persian Gulf. Oil extraction technology has grown by leaps and bounds in the last 20 years or so, and has become much safer and environmentally responsible despite the couple of recently sensationalized accidents. And the fact of the matter is...alternative energy sources are closer than most people realize. Development of these sources, given historical advances, should be seen in the next 20-30 years, and the use of cleaner transition fuels such as natural gas and biodiesel combinations(cooking oil) would contribute to reducing our need to drill even further. These conversions are something that can be done with relative ease right now...not in 10 or 15 years.
Yet we still need additional crude oil to meet demand in the meantime. The United States imports approximately 60% of the crude oil it consumes, with over 1/3 of that from the Mideast. More than that, much of the world is dependent on Mideast oil and therefore dependent on their regional stability. As I mentioned before, the United States seems to be, for all the accusations of American imperialism, the only country with the testicular fortitude to go in and bash heads so the rest of the world can drive their Fiats and Saabs. The environmental movement in the States, well intentioned on its face, is the main factor of resistance to US oil independence, necessitating our interference in Mideast politics. I'm fairly certain they don't see it that way; I can well understand their concerns as well. Everyone has been struck by images of oil covered pelicans and sea otters and I want to see this no more than anyone. Yet something must be done. All that remains is to do it.
How is it, you wonder, that environmentalists start wars? The fact of the matter is, no matter how many hybrids there are on the street, the US still needs oil. A LOT of it. The United States, in 2012, consumed somewhere on the order of 6.7 BILLION barrels of oil. Of that total, approximately 3.9 billion barrels were imported, with 1.6 billion barrels coming from OPEC countries. And that's just what the United States imports. Worldwide, OPEC member countries export approximately 12.2 billion barrels of oil annually.
Of the twelve current OPEC members, six are Middle Eastern countries....and Libya, which is actually in North Africa but whose politics and culture are intertwined with Israel, Egypt, and the rest of the Mid East. Iran is one of the six Mid East OPEC members, but since we don't import oil from them, their figures are not included in US imports, just in worldwide exports. Their politics, however, figure heavily in the region, and they rank fourth in OPEC exports.
And this has exactly what to do with the price of tea in China? Well, for starters, that means political stability in the region is of paramount importance to the global oil supply. Anything that threatens stability in the region, internal or external, threatens not only our oil supplies but supplies for the rest of the world. That means that any action the US takes in the region is not only in the interest of the United States but in the world's interest. It behooves everyone to ensure tranquility in the region because like it or not, until an alternative is found, the Spice must flow (that's a "Dune" reference, in case you don't know). Unfortunately, the United States seems to be the only country with the balls to stand up and do anything about it, since folks over there have a tendency to behead anyone who disagrees with them.
For those protesters out there, the Iraq war was, in part, a war for oil....just not really for the US. Of the approximately 3.2 million barrels per day produced there, a mere 321,000 per day come our way. So the end result of the war over there, for all the hooting and hollering, helped to secure the rest of the world about 2.9 million barrels of oil a day, removed a crackpot dictator who gassed his own people, and secured the US basically squat in the way of oil.
In understanding why it is so important at this time for the US to help maintain stability in the Mideast region and the role of the environmental movement in keeping the United States involved, it is important to first understand the process by which crude oil is produced and refined, and the various definitions of reserves. According to the United States Energy Information Administration, US proved crude oil reserves stood at 29 billion barrels as of December 31, 2011, not counting the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. There is a difference, though, between proved reserves and technically recoverable resources. Oilindependents.org has more information on these differences, but in a nutshell, proved reserves count only those reserves with a 90% probability of economically viable recovery or existing extraction operations, while technically recoverable covers all the rest to varying degrees. Depending on the source, technically recoverable oil reserves in the United States stands somewhere between 218 billion to 1.4 trillion barrels. Even at the low end of the spectrum, at a 50% recovery rate, that's enough of the gooey black crap to supply our crude oil needs for 12-15 years at the current rate of consumption...plenty of time to supply our fuel needs until moving to a transition fuel like natural gas, then perhaps to an altogether different alternative such as hydrogen fuel cells. Natural gas conversions for automobiles are relatively inexpensive at about $800-$1200 for parts, it burns about 80% cleaner than gas or diesel and much of the infrastructure is already in place...there are propane cylinder exchanges set up at nearly every gas station in this area...a natural gas cylinder exchange would be just as simple, and much of the natural gas produced in the United States is burned off as a waste byproduct of existing drilling operations.
Thing is though, to get at those reserves, we gotta drill. Or frack. Or horizontal bore. Or whatfrackingever. We have to get to it. I'm not exactly sure what logic in environmentalists' minds makes it perfectly ok to drill in the sands of the Saudi Arabian desert but not Utah. These same people claim to be motivated by global climate concerns, yet appear to be under the mistaken impression that Utah or ANWAR does not exist on the same globe as Saudi Arabia or Kuwait. That the Gulf of Mexico is somehow in a dimension separate from the Persian Gulf. Oil extraction technology has grown by leaps and bounds in the last 20 years or so, and has become much safer and environmentally responsible despite the couple of recently sensationalized accidents. And the fact of the matter is...alternative energy sources are closer than most people realize. Development of these sources, given historical advances, should be seen in the next 20-30 years, and the use of cleaner transition fuels such as natural gas and biodiesel combinations(cooking oil) would contribute to reducing our need to drill even further. These conversions are something that can be done with relative ease right now...not in 10 or 15 years.
Yet we still need additional crude oil to meet demand in the meantime. The United States imports approximately 60% of the crude oil it consumes, with over 1/3 of that from the Mideast. More than that, much of the world is dependent on Mideast oil and therefore dependent on their regional stability. As I mentioned before, the United States seems to be, for all the accusations of American imperialism, the only country with the testicular fortitude to go in and bash heads so the rest of the world can drive their Fiats and Saabs. The environmental movement in the States, well intentioned on its face, is the main factor of resistance to US oil independence, necessitating our interference in Mideast politics. I'm fairly certain they don't see it that way; I can well understand their concerns as well. Everyone has been struck by images of oil covered pelicans and sea otters and I want to see this no more than anyone. Yet something must be done. All that remains is to do it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)