Wednesday, May 28, 2008
Thought of the day: Teachers and parental accountability
Just a quick rhetorical question: If parents were held to the same accountability standards as educators, how many parents would pass the equivalent of the DSTP? Maybe teachers don't shoulder as much blame as some of these comments in the newspaper would indicate.
Sunday, May 25, 2008
Sports gambling in Delaware - and the NFL cares because?
Sports gambling is a viable, albeit perhaps short-sighted way of fixing the budget problems befalling our state. More than likely, the revenue generated will far exceed the projections currently given. The thing I find funny is how the NFL has gone out of its way to cry out against it. My thoughts? Give me a break.
First, if you google "nfl scandals", you'll pull up any number of controversies that show that the NFL, as pointed out by Reps. Cathcart and Wagner, is simply being arrogant in their reasoning why they oppose this bill. The NFL's official position is that they are opposed to gambling because it sends the wrong image of its athletes. Just like excessive celebration will cost your team a 15-yard penalty and smoking dope may get you suspended, the image to the sport isn't tarnished by the third-parties who make the games a little more interesting. The only practical reason they are against this proposal is financial. While I agree that the NFL PR department is doing everything right, it also reminds me a bit about the December 2007 quote from Hillary Clinton that she would have the nomination clinched after Super Tuesday.
Do you know how many millions of dollars are made in advertising revenue generated through watching games and playing fantasy football? Granted, the NFL gets a cut of that, or at least attempts to, and that is the only realistic reason why the NFL is opposed to sports gambling become legalized in Delaware. They just want a little piece of the pie.
Here's a solution the NFL could give to Delaware instead of their holier-than-thou attitude against gambling. Why not give Delaware a percentage of the NFL pot? Or request that some of the teams (or the league itself) reincorporate in Delaware? Play a couple of pre-season games at University of Delaware. There are financial incentives the NFL could present to the State in exchange for this bill to go away. I don't see anything but threats of the degradation of society, which doesn't pay the bills, nor alleviate them.
Will Delaware become the West Coast vegas as a result of this bill becoming law? Of course not. We already have Atlantic City and Delaware is never going to compete with that. Nor is this bill about table gambling (although that would logically be the next step in ten years from now when the budget is again facing astronomical crises). This is simply a bill to generate money that people are already ready and willing to gamble. The NFL can counter this simply by running ads on its network that deter it. And make a couple of examples out of athletes who blow their weekly salary on a couple rolls of the roulette wheel in Vegas or stomp on opponent's helmets.
Wait until the NFL figures out how to get a chunk out of fantasy football and then watch some sparks fly.
Regardless of how this immediate debates turns out, it's a lot of conjecture and speculation. Plus, this bill has only gotten through the House, and whether or not it actually gets through remains to be seen. And the current Governor is, in all likelihood, going to let this one ride on the shoulders of the new guy. What will happen next? Delawareans will certainly be following this one closely. I'm going to bet on it getting held up in the Senate for a little while longer.
First, if you google "nfl scandals", you'll pull up any number of controversies that show that the NFL, as pointed out by Reps. Cathcart and Wagner, is simply being arrogant in their reasoning why they oppose this bill. The NFL's official position is that they are opposed to gambling because it sends the wrong image of its athletes. Just like excessive celebration will cost your team a 15-yard penalty and smoking dope may get you suspended, the image to the sport isn't tarnished by the third-parties who make the games a little more interesting. The only practical reason they are against this proposal is financial. While I agree that the NFL PR department is doing everything right, it also reminds me a bit about the December 2007 quote from Hillary Clinton that she would have the nomination clinched after Super Tuesday.
Do you know how many millions of dollars are made in advertising revenue generated through watching games and playing fantasy football? Granted, the NFL gets a cut of that, or at least attempts to, and that is the only realistic reason why the NFL is opposed to sports gambling become legalized in Delaware. They just want a little piece of the pie.
Here's a solution the NFL could give to Delaware instead of their holier-than-thou attitude against gambling. Why not give Delaware a percentage of the NFL pot? Or request that some of the teams (or the league itself) reincorporate in Delaware? Play a couple of pre-season games at University of Delaware. There are financial incentives the NFL could present to the State in exchange for this bill to go away. I don't see anything but threats of the degradation of society, which doesn't pay the bills, nor alleviate them.
Will Delaware become the West Coast vegas as a result of this bill becoming law? Of course not. We already have Atlantic City and Delaware is never going to compete with that. Nor is this bill about table gambling (although that would logically be the next step in ten years from now when the budget is again facing astronomical crises). This is simply a bill to generate money that people are already ready and willing to gamble. The NFL can counter this simply by running ads on its network that deter it. And make a couple of examples out of athletes who blow their weekly salary on a couple rolls of the roulette wheel in Vegas or stomp on opponent's helmets.
Wait until the NFL figures out how to get a chunk out of fantasy football and then watch some sparks fly.
Regardless of how this immediate debates turns out, it's a lot of conjecture and speculation. Plus, this bill has only gotten through the House, and whether or not it actually gets through remains to be seen. And the current Governor is, in all likelihood, going to let this one ride on the shoulders of the new guy. What will happen next? Delawareans will certainly be following this one closely. I'm going to bet on it getting held up in the Senate for a little while longer.
Tags:
Thursday, May 22, 2008
Is there any money to be made in investing in wind power?
I haven't given this wind power much thought other than for its possibility that it could drive down the overall electric bill. Whether or not this current proposal (and all of its related discussion) ever gets some wind in its sails remains to be seen. I would imagine the cost for creating an private on-shore wind farm would probably be cost prohibitive. But in the efforts to save some of the farmland downstate, would it be so bad if (rather than development), a couple public power companies opened up shop?
I'm not familiar enough with the electricity industry or how exactly the industry works to make a decision one way or the other as to whether this idea could work. I see it as a potential growth area for the private sector to jump in and splash around for a bit if it is in fact possible. The fact that nobody really has yet, however, leads me to think the industry is even more regulated than I thought. Given the rising cost of electricity, though, something needs to happen and at least people are talking about methods to drive down the costs.
I would think that it would be in everyone's best interest to require all new developments to implement some sort of centralized electrical service (e.g., solar power cells powering the development or geothermal power) in an effort to defray the costs. There's probably more to this idea as well, and I'll simply have to keep my ears to the ground to see if anybody makes any headway into it.
I'm not familiar enough with the electricity industry or how exactly the industry works to make a decision one way or the other as to whether this idea could work. I see it as a potential growth area for the private sector to jump in and splash around for a bit if it is in fact possible. The fact that nobody really has yet, however, leads me to think the industry is even more regulated than I thought. Given the rising cost of electricity, though, something needs to happen and at least people are talking about methods to drive down the costs.
I would think that it would be in everyone's best interest to require all new developments to implement some sort of centralized electrical service (e.g., solar power cells powering the development or geothermal power) in an effort to defray the costs. There's probably more to this idea as well, and I'll simply have to keep my ears to the ground to see if anybody makes any headway into it.
Monday, May 19, 2008
Some hypothetical Delaware politics
I would be interested to see whether anyone has any thoughts on the scenario that puts the alternate Democratic gubernatorial candidate as the candidate for Sen. Biden's position if he is elevated to VP or Secretary of State. Isn't that win-win for the musical chairs that sometimes define state politics?
I've also been paying some attention to this sports gambling proposal and have to do more research into whether the same negative spins were also voiced against the slots a few years ago. Not surprisingly, the Delaware pundits seem quiet on what the budget shortfall would be right now if we didn't have that particular income stream flowing into the State.
I've also been paying some attention to this sports gambling proposal and have to do more research into whether the same negative spins were also voiced against the slots a few years ago. Not surprisingly, the Delaware pundits seem quiet on what the budget shortfall would be right now if we didn't have that particular income stream flowing into the State.
Tuesday, May 13, 2008
Gas prices continue to soar and some suggestions to save money on gas
With gas now topping $3.66 a gallon around Dover, I'm a little surprised by the gas stations that are punishing people for using their credit cards to pay for gas by upping the price of a gallon by as much as ten cents if you use your card. That, at the very least, is the definition of extortion. Of course, you can always choose to go to Valero or some other station that doesn't attempt so blatant a rip off.
One of my friends who has a Prius has been explaining me the virtues of getting 50 miles per gallon (he said he typically averages about 45 mpg). For $30,000, it's nearly worth the price if you can afford it. If not, he tipped me off to some things he has noticed that anyone with a car can do, which should save a few bucks.
The biggest gas rip off, according to the Prius gas mileage meter is accelerating off the line. This apparently has been tested nationally and common sense should tell you that it works. While I can't give you the percentage of gas it saves, it only makes rational sense that if you hear the engine revving up, it means that gas is burning up just as fast. The solution? A slow acceleration off the stop line should increase fuel efficiency. Rather than going from 0-60 in 5 seconds to hit the next light just as fast, just ease into it. Who cares if you get passed by someone on the other side?
The other solution is simply to drive slower. In a state as small as Delaware, sticking to the 55 mph speed limit along most roads will get you there just as fast as going 65. Here's why going that much faster is just dumb or not worth it. There's a light every two miles! The odds of you hitting one somewhere that will slow you down just as much is 100 percent.
Another way to think about it is to look at the drive from Dover to Wilmington (or Dover to the beach), which is about 70 miles. Let's say your car averages 25 mpg and carries 15 gallons in the tank (giving you 375 miles on a tank). Assuming you hit no lights (which is a big and really unrealistic assumption), going 60 mph will take 70 minutes. If you go 55 mph, the same trip will take 76 minutes. If the average savings of 12 percent in gas mileage by driving slower is correct, those six minutes saved translate to a decrease of about three miles per gallon. Put another way, going 60 mph in our hypothetical car, your gas mileage drops to 22 mpg, and you'll get only 330 miles on that tank. Going 55 will get you approximately 420 miles. So the speeder (who gets there, at best, five minutes faster), will get almost 100 less miles on the same tank of gas.
Now for the trick, and why drivers should act rationally and drive slower: Taking four fillups at $3.50/gallon for our 15 gallon tank, that's $52.50 per fillup. At the average of 25 mpg, four fillups is 1500 miles. But the kicker is when you look at it this way: if you speed (even up to a mere 60 mph), your fuel efficiency is giving you only 330 mpg. This means you are filling up 4.55 times. At $52.50, this means you are going to spend $238.63 per 1500 miles. If you slow down and get that increase in fuel efficiency, you are going to fill up only 3.57 times for the same distance traveled, and spend only $187.50. It might only be a savings of $50, but that adds up over time (and who would refuse $50?). If you drive 15000 miles/year, you are saving about $500. That's almost as much as the economic stimulus package if you had filed jointly and qualified. It translates to even more if you used the actual price of a gallon today ($3.60-3.66) or in a few months ($4+).
Things to think about. Obviously the numbers can be manipulated rather easily, but it is just as easy as driving a bit slower and engaging in a slow acceleration off the line. Perhaps this idiotic drivers who seem to be in a big rush to get to work have money to burn, but in this economy, I would venture to say that most, including myself, don't, and all could certainly use an extra $500, even if it's in unrealized savings.
One of my friends who has a Prius has been explaining me the virtues of getting 50 miles per gallon (he said he typically averages about 45 mpg). For $30,000, it's nearly worth the price if you can afford it. If not, he tipped me off to some things he has noticed that anyone with a car can do, which should save a few bucks.
The biggest gas rip off, according to the Prius gas mileage meter is accelerating off the line. This apparently has been tested nationally and common sense should tell you that it works. While I can't give you the percentage of gas it saves, it only makes rational sense that if you hear the engine revving up, it means that gas is burning up just as fast. The solution? A slow acceleration off the stop line should increase fuel efficiency. Rather than going from 0-60 in 5 seconds to hit the next light just as fast, just ease into it. Who cares if you get passed by someone on the other side?
The other solution is simply to drive slower. In a state as small as Delaware, sticking to the 55 mph speed limit along most roads will get you there just as fast as going 65. Here's why going that much faster is just dumb or not worth it. There's a light every two miles! The odds of you hitting one somewhere that will slow you down just as much is 100 percent.
Another way to think about it is to look at the drive from Dover to Wilmington (or Dover to the beach), which is about 70 miles. Let's say your car averages 25 mpg and carries 15 gallons in the tank (giving you 375 miles on a tank). Assuming you hit no lights (which is a big and really unrealistic assumption), going 60 mph will take 70 minutes. If you go 55 mph, the same trip will take 76 minutes. If the average savings of 12 percent in gas mileage by driving slower is correct, those six minutes saved translate to a decrease of about three miles per gallon. Put another way, going 60 mph in our hypothetical car, your gas mileage drops to 22 mpg, and you'll get only 330 miles on that tank. Going 55 will get you approximately 420 miles. So the speeder (who gets there, at best, five minutes faster), will get almost 100 less miles on the same tank of gas.
Now for the trick, and why drivers should act rationally and drive slower: Taking four fillups at $3.50/gallon for our 15 gallon tank, that's $52.50 per fillup. At the average of 25 mpg, four fillups is 1500 miles. But the kicker is when you look at it this way: if you speed (even up to a mere 60 mph), your fuel efficiency is giving you only 330 mpg. This means you are filling up 4.55 times. At $52.50, this means you are going to spend $238.63 per 1500 miles. If you slow down and get that increase in fuel efficiency, you are going to fill up only 3.57 times for the same distance traveled, and spend only $187.50. It might only be a savings of $50, but that adds up over time (and who would refuse $50?). If you drive 15000 miles/year, you are saving about $500. That's almost as much as the economic stimulus package if you had filed jointly and qualified. It translates to even more if you used the actual price of a gallon today ($3.60-3.66) or in a few months ($4+).
Things to think about. Obviously the numbers can be manipulated rather easily, but it is just as easy as driving a bit slower and engaging in a slow acceleration off the line. Perhaps this idiotic drivers who seem to be in a big rush to get to work have money to burn, but in this economy, I would venture to say that most, including myself, don't, and all could certainly use an extra $500, even if it's in unrealized savings.
Tags:
Thursday, May 8, 2008
Beach traffic
The roads to the Beach (namely Rt. 1) have been constantly worked on for months, tying up weekend beach traffic and taking what should be a relatively short trip and tacking on another 30 minutes. I would expect this nightmare to continue through the summer, but when I was down there yesterday, the roads are almost completely paved and it looks like it may not be such a two-lane nightmare after all. Score one for whoever got that contract done in time (presumably). Hopefully the budget has enough saved up if there was some sort of acceleration bonus.
Tags:
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
