It is rare that I remark over the typical opinions printed in the local newspaper, and I note that other bloggers appear to have done so with more frequency. Over the next couple of days, however, I'm going to post three commentaries from local residents that were in the Delaware State News.
Each presents a different vantage point on energy plans and oil drilling. I'm not sure whether I have anything intelligent to add to theses commentaries, but in light of my suggestion that more prominent national figures have been floating ideas into the general public and mainstream media, why not include some suggestions from Delaware into the mix.
The first commentary appeared in the Monday, June 30, 2008 edition of the Delaware State News (page 5) as a letter to the editor. I have attempted to add links where I found them to support the author's points.
Drilling Answer to Gas-Price Woes
Franklin T. Wright, Milford, Delaware
I had thought that national security would be the main fighting ground for the upcoming general election, but it seems that, as hard as this is to believe, I was wrong. The main issue will be oil, or more specifically, what to do about its price. Whatever candidate can get out in front of this issue will likely win the presidency.
Republicans and Democrats have two very distinct solutions. The Republicans have long argued that we need to be more self-sufficient and that we should drill offshore, in the Alaska National Wildlife Refuge and at other locations in the country that have oil and natural gas. This is nothing new.
A New York Times article, dated May 18, 2001, outlines President Bush's plan, stating: "President Bush began an intensive effort today to sell his plan for developing new sources of energy to Congress and the American people, arguing that the country had a future of 'energy abundance if it could break free of the traditional antagonism between energy producers and environmental advocates.'" President Bush also talked about how we could be blackmailed by foreign oil suppliers. Imagine that.
President Bush, of course, lost out to the environmentalists and liberals, and of course, now the liberals say that it is because of Bush's policies that we are in this mess.
We have not built a refinery in this country since 1976. We have not built a nuclear power plant since before 1979. President Clinton had a chance to open ANWR to drilling in 1995, but he vetoed the bill presented to him by the then-Republican controlled Congress.
In this country, enhancing our own energy supply will create more jobs, boost the economy, lower the dependence on foreign oil and, hopefully, lower the gas prices. At $4-plus a gallon, I could care less about preserving the mating habitat of some sort of subspecies of fruit fly that I have never heard of.
I know that we cannot drill our way out of this mess and that once we begin drilling, it is estimated that we will not see the results for 10 years. But think were we would be now if we had started long ago when we knew this was going to happen.
Obama, on the other hand has a different view. He says that the Republican plan is just pandering to the big oil companies. These would be who? The same big oil companies whose executives contributed to Obama's campaign.
In April of 2006, Nancy Pelosi proclaimed: "Democrats have a plan to lower gas prices, taking America in a new direction that works for everyone, not just the few." The Democrats have controlled both the Senate and House since then. What have they done so far to implement this plan?
Rep. Maurice Hinchey, D-NY, a member of the House Appropriations Committee and one of the most ardent opponents of offshore drilling, had this to say Wednesday: "We (the government) should own the refineries. Then we can control how much gets out into the market."
Is this Pelosi's plan? There is a word for that: socialism. This is a very scary proposition. An industry gets too good at making money, adn the government seizes their business. Maybe the dictator Chavez in Venezuela can get away with nationalizing the refineries, but we cannot.
Here is the bottom line. Politicians on both sides of the aisle make money off of the oil companies, both in stock and campaign contributions. To argue that one side or the other has the right to proclaim a moral advantage in this argument is like two fleas arguing over which one owns the dog.
Fortunately, or unfortunately, depending on your point of view, this is how capitalism works. You provide a product that people need and you make a profit. If you make obscene profits, as the oil companies have been doing recently, then, there is definitely something wrong that needs to be fixed.
Are we really at the point that we are so intent on not letting the oil companies make a profit that we continue to hurt ourselves to accomplish our goal? Yes, I know. Drilling for more oil in this country and opening refineries will mean the oil companies will make more money. Next time you fill up, if you can affort to without taking out a loan, ask yourself this:
Are you satisfied with paying out the ying-yang for gas as you try to keep the oil companies from making money off of new refineries, when building the refineries will actually bring the price down? That is like an oxymoron, with the emphasis on "moron."
I guess it comes down to this: Whom do you want making money off our gas, U.S. oil companies, or foreign dictators and monarchs? We cannot snap our fingers and the entire country will magically be driving hybrids that get 200 miles to the gallon with zero emissions. That may be your vision of the future, but we still need gas until we get there from here to there. I say drill, drill and drill some more. Maybe if we do it fast enough, Sheik What's His Name over there in Saudi Arabia will have to settle for a gold-plated Rolls Royce instead of a second diamond-encrusted one.
Monday, July 14, 2008
Thursday, July 10, 2008
God bless you T Boone Pickens
I have seen a lot of commercials for T. Boone Pickens' national campaign for a alternative energy plan, to the point that it's almost as if he is running for president. In either case, I have noticed a flurry of newspaper comments written on this topic in the past few days and will be posting my thoughts about them over the weekend. Many topics to write about as of late, and they are coming!
Sunday, July 6, 2008
The ice cream man that drives around town
I have noticed that with the summer months comes what I thought was something that went out of style years ago, and that is the ice cream truck. Yet, every day, at roughly the same time, I hear the piercing sound of music, which is the jingle jangle of the ice cream man.
I can remember buying ice cream from an ice cream truck when I was younger as well as lemonade from a lemonade stand. I also remember (and I'm not entirely sure how true this is because I have not chased after said ice cream truck) that the ice cream was sort of expensive. For something like an ice cream sandwich, which I could get at school for say 30 cents, the ice cream man charged something like $5. I can't imagine the prices have changed too much, but my thought about this subject is this: With gas approaching a level where people are starting to change driving habits, how much longer can this throwback to a simpler time continue to exist?
Maybe the ice cream man does well on these hot days to justify driving around for what seems like hours on end. I just wonder whether he is actually breaking even or driving himself to bankruptcy.
I can remember buying ice cream from an ice cream truck when I was younger as well as lemonade from a lemonade stand. I also remember (and I'm not entirely sure how true this is because I have not chased after said ice cream truck) that the ice cream was sort of expensive. For something like an ice cream sandwich, which I could get at school for say 30 cents, the ice cream man charged something like $5. I can't imagine the prices have changed too much, but my thought about this subject is this: With gas approaching a level where people are starting to change driving habits, how much longer can this throwback to a simpler time continue to exist?
Maybe the ice cream man does well on these hot days to justify driving around for what seems like hours on end. I just wonder whether he is actually breaking even or driving himself to bankruptcy.
Wednesday, June 25, 2008
Solar panels to power houses in new developments
While I certainly don't intend for this blog to turn into my amateur suggestions on how to save electricity or gas, an article regarding one Washington family's attempt to save on their personal electricity bill demonstrates that even houses bought in this market could be equipped to ease some of the strain on the electric grid.
According to the article, for a cost of approximately $25,000, one family installed a series of solar panels on their property to help reduce the cost of their monthly electric bill. Now, the article makes them out to be sort of psycho when it comes to saving electricity, but their cost savings do indicate that the results would be significant, particularly over a long period of time.
If Delaware were to provide some sort of tax incentives for developers to integrate this sort of technology into new developments, and also similar tax credits for citizens who install this equipment, I think it could help drive down energy costs across the board and would ultimately be received positively. The real advantage to this sort of system implemented on the state level is that it would provide a new technology sector to develop, which would in turn put people to work and incentivize our high school students to think more seriously about careers in engineering.
In the short term, obviously the technology is cost prohibitive. In the long term, however, it may be something to consider. That is, the target market for this sort of solar technology is people buying houses they expect to live in for ten plus years. It would certainly not depreciate the house's value.
I'd be interested in hearing about the success or failures of this sort of system from others who have applied this type of technology to their own homes. If it's worth it, perhaps the government should investigate it a bit to see how good (or bad) the greater potential benefit may be.
According to the article, for a cost of approximately $25,000, one family installed a series of solar panels on their property to help reduce the cost of their monthly electric bill. Now, the article makes them out to be sort of psycho when it comes to saving electricity, but their cost savings do indicate that the results would be significant, particularly over a long period of time.
If Delaware were to provide some sort of tax incentives for developers to integrate this sort of technology into new developments, and also similar tax credits for citizens who install this equipment, I think it could help drive down energy costs across the board and would ultimately be received positively. The real advantage to this sort of system implemented on the state level is that it would provide a new technology sector to develop, which would in turn put people to work and incentivize our high school students to think more seriously about careers in engineering.
In the short term, obviously the technology is cost prohibitive. In the long term, however, it may be something to consider. That is, the target market for this sort of solar technology is people buying houses they expect to live in for ten plus years. It would certainly not depreciate the house's value.
I'd be interested in hearing about the success or failures of this sort of system from others who have applied this type of technology to their own homes. If it's worth it, perhaps the government should investigate it a bit to see how good (or bad) the greater potential benefit may be.
Tags:
Tuesday, June 24, 2008
Gallons per mile versus Miles per gallon
CNN ran an article that NPR had reported on last week. It suggests a way of thinking of gas mileage in longer terms by looking at gallons per mile instead of the more traditional miles per gallon. It's along the same lines of my gas saving suggestions from the other week.
I also saw that the Bluewater Wind Power contract finally seems to be a done deal. While I have yet to see exactly how much 200 megawatts is compared to the total energy grid (preferably as a percentage), at least on its surface it would seem to be a way of saving money. It also gives me some ideas for a greater energy policy the next governor or president can tout, and I'll have to think about that a little more and write about it another time.
I also saw that the Bluewater Wind Power contract finally seems to be a done deal. While I have yet to see exactly how much 200 megawatts is compared to the total energy grid (preferably as a percentage), at least on its surface it would seem to be a way of saving money. It also gives me some ideas for a greater energy policy the next governor or president can tout, and I'll have to think about that a little more and write about it another time.
Tags:
Monday, June 23, 2008
Capital School District comes up with a clever way of balancing the grading scale
I can't find a link to the article online, but the Delaware State News reported today that Capital School District (which I believe encompasses Dover High School and its subsidiary middle and elementary schools) has altered part of their grading policy from a 100 point scale to a 50 point scale. It's actually a pretty ingenious effort to level the playing field in high school academics.
I'm not going to spend to much time focusing on the negatives, and I'm sure there are exceptions for the absence or refusal to turn in assignments, but the gist of the new system is as follows. The grading scale is failing from 50-69, and passing from 70 and above (with a "D" average falling from 70-76, "C"s from 77-84; "B"s from 85-93, and "A"s from 94-100). The thought process is that if a student fails one test and improves over time, the increasing results have a more realistic possibility of having a final average in the "pass" range.
For example, under the old scale, if a student got a 35 on the first test, a 60 on the second, a 68 on the third, a 72 on the fourth, a 74 on the fifth, and a 76 on the last one, and there was no weighted averages for any, the student would have cumulative average of a 64, which would be failing. Under the new system, the score on the first test would automatically become a 50, and the average would be increased to a 67. It's still failing, but it makes it a little easier for the teacher to objectively demonstrate a progressive increase and possibly justify giving a little more weight to the later tests. Certainly if you play around with the numbers a bit, you can show an average that increases from below failing to barely passing.
In the grand scheme, it's not that much of a change from the system already in place and the discretion given to teachers in grading. Nevertheless, the idea that it's "trying to ensure we don't give kids 69 ways to fail and 31 ways to pass" is a novel one that warrants further consideration, perhaps by the rest of the districts in a similar fashion. Certainly credit can be given to the Capital School District board for trying something new.
And if it works well for Delaware schools, maybe other states would give it some consideration as well.
I'm not going to spend to much time focusing on the negatives, and I'm sure there are exceptions for the absence or refusal to turn in assignments, but the gist of the new system is as follows. The grading scale is failing from 50-69, and passing from 70 and above (with a "D" average falling from 70-76, "C"s from 77-84; "B"s from 85-93, and "A"s from 94-100). The thought process is that if a student fails one test and improves over time, the increasing results have a more realistic possibility of having a final average in the "pass" range.
For example, under the old scale, if a student got a 35 on the first test, a 60 on the second, a 68 on the third, a 72 on the fourth, a 74 on the fifth, and a 76 on the last one, and there was no weighted averages for any, the student would have cumulative average of a 64, which would be failing. Under the new system, the score on the first test would automatically become a 50, and the average would be increased to a 67. It's still failing, but it makes it a little easier for the teacher to objectively demonstrate a progressive increase and possibly justify giving a little more weight to the later tests. Certainly if you play around with the numbers a bit, you can show an average that increases from below failing to barely passing.
In the grand scheme, it's not that much of a change from the system already in place and the discretion given to teachers in grading. Nevertheless, the idea that it's "trying to ensure we don't give kids 69 ways to fail and 31 ways to pass" is a novel one that warrants further consideration, perhaps by the rest of the districts in a similar fashion. Certainly credit can be given to the Capital School District board for trying something new.
And if it works well for Delaware schools, maybe other states would give it some consideration as well.
Tags:
Wednesday, June 18, 2008
Another solution to the current budget price: a gas surcharge on speeding tickets
I fully admit that this idea is an adaptation of an article in today's USA today which reports that some cities (Atlanta in particular) are adding a $10-15 gas surcharge for motorists convicted of speeding. I think this is a great idea. You already have to pay court costs, various compensation fund costs, and other costs to the state, what's another $10-15 on top of $150 or so? I'm not sure how much revenue this sort of plan would actually generate, but I think it's a way to basically stick it to those who break the law and are caught.
There are probably other disincentives and options with regard to this idea that can be more fully explored in committee. But as a revenue generator, this sort of plan (if at the very least, can help alleviate some of the state/city budgets paying for troopers to run their car and enforce the law.
There are probably other disincentives and options with regard to this idea that can be more fully explored in committee. But as a revenue generator, this sort of plan (if at the very least, can help alleviate some of the state/city budgets paying for troopers to run their car and enforce the law.
Tags:
Tuesday, June 17, 2008
Power fluctuations during a big storm and how boring life must have been last century
The power in my apartment went out for a while during yesterday's thunderstorm. Without any real source of light (save a small battery powered lantern), it was fortunate that I at least had a cell phone to stay connected to society. In sitting there (and eventually just going to sleep), it made me wonder what life was like pre-internet and pre-tv. I can remember pre-internet pretty well, but pre-tv predates my time. I guess people just read books or played cards or board games. Simpler times I suppose.
During my drive home during the storm, however, it became abundantly clear how poorly painted some of the road lines are, as well as how bad drivers get when it starts to drizzle (or downpour). Why people just don't think to drive at a safe (but consistent) speed is beyond me.
During my drive home during the storm, however, it became abundantly clear how poorly painted some of the road lines are, as well as how bad drivers get when it starts to drizzle (or downpour). Why people just don't think to drive at a safe (but consistent) speed is beyond me.
Monday, June 9, 2008
Gas crosses $4 threshhold
As pointed out by one of the most left-wing cable news programs that I tend not to watch, the price of a gallon of gas in 2001 averaged $1.47/gallon. This morning when I filled up, it was $3.93/gallon. When I drove home, it had jumped ten cents. Well, at least Delaware is consistent with the national average. How unfortunate, and yikes!
One thing it would be interesting to track would be what a price of a gallon of gas was based on the closing price of a barrel of oil the day before. So, when gas spiked to $138/barrel on Friday June 6, the corresponding gas price would have been $3.93/gallon or so. I alluded to the fact a little more than three months ago that it seemed fishy that gas prices had such a quick lock step with the price of a barrel of oil, which would suggest some sort of illegal collusion or price fixing. Perhaps. Perhaps not.
A barrel of oil around that day (Feb. 26, 2008) was approximately $103/barrel. It's hard to tell what the rate of change is based on two random data points, but I think everyone can agree that the price of a gallon of gas isn't going down any time soon. It certainly would come at no surprise that if three months from now, we're paying another dollar more per gallon. The question is how much more is too much more before the working middle class is even more squeezed out from making ends meet.
Here's a thought DART - run more buses to more locations and more often. Or maybe as part of a broader economic stimulus package we should think more seriously about a regional mass transit system running down the middle of the state and along side or in the middle (raised) on parts of 13 and 1. I've suggested as much before; maybe I will have to give that idea some more thought and elaborate to see if it gains any steam.
One thing it would be interesting to track would be what a price of a gallon of gas was based on the closing price of a barrel of oil the day before. So, when gas spiked to $138/barrel on Friday June 6, the corresponding gas price would have been $3.93/gallon or so. I alluded to the fact a little more than three months ago that it seemed fishy that gas prices had such a quick lock step with the price of a barrel of oil, which would suggest some sort of illegal collusion or price fixing. Perhaps. Perhaps not.
A barrel of oil around that day (Feb. 26, 2008) was approximately $103/barrel. It's hard to tell what the rate of change is based on two random data points, but I think everyone can agree that the price of a gallon of gas isn't going down any time soon. It certainly would come at no surprise that if three months from now, we're paying another dollar more per gallon. The question is how much more is too much more before the working middle class is even more squeezed out from making ends meet.
Here's a thought DART - run more buses to more locations and more often. Or maybe as part of a broader economic stimulus package we should think more seriously about a regional mass transit system running down the middle of the state and along side or in the middle (raised) on parts of 13 and 1. I've suggested as much before; maybe I will have to give that idea some more thought and elaborate to see if it gains any steam.
Tags:
Wednesday, June 4, 2008
24 News coverage is skewing the perspective of the country
One of the major problems without any realistic solution at this point in time is the 24-hours news services. Coupled with the internet, the general public has become almost dependent on up-to-the-minute news updates. The problem with this desire for news is that it has eroded the quality of news overall, and is forcing all journalists to (perhaps) let some stories run that would otherwise be shelved for more research. The idea of the "scoop" does not have to wait until the next morning's front page to be unveiled; with the correct connections or with the internet, anybody can shoot from the hip and, in all likelihood, has an audience to listen to.
Setting aside the free speech implications, I'm not implying that this is a bad thing. My concern is that I believe we are coming to a saturation point. Take the Democratic primaries, for example. All day yesterday, if you turned on cable or the internet were headlines and pundits speculating on what would happen next, reacting almost instantaneously to the candidates' remarks/speeches, etc. To point to an example closer to home, look at the Senator Biden remark about Indians and Dunkin' Donuts a few months ago. And this guy is on the short list for Obama's Secretary of State? My point with all of this is that because of 24/7 news coverage and the ability for anybody to put anything on the internet is that anything anybody ever says can now be taken out of context, exploited, overexposed, and thrown under the bus of public opinion.
For better or for worse, that's the state of news affairs nowadays. I think the bigger problem is that you almost have to read through a dozen websites and three news channels just to figure out the opposite ends of the opinion spectrum and then hope you can figure out which grain of truth is more correct.
Can anyone get a fair shake anymore? Probably not. I just hope that in the desire that we all become more informed and more in-touch, we haven't lost sight of what keeps the spirit of public opinion going.
Setting aside the free speech implications, I'm not implying that this is a bad thing. My concern is that I believe we are coming to a saturation point. Take the Democratic primaries, for example. All day yesterday, if you turned on cable or the internet were headlines and pundits speculating on what would happen next, reacting almost instantaneously to the candidates' remarks/speeches, etc. To point to an example closer to home, look at the Senator Biden remark about Indians and Dunkin' Donuts a few months ago. And this guy is on the short list for Obama's Secretary of State? My point with all of this is that because of 24/7 news coverage and the ability for anybody to put anything on the internet is that anything anybody ever says can now be taken out of context, exploited, overexposed, and thrown under the bus of public opinion.
For better or for worse, that's the state of news affairs nowadays. I think the bigger problem is that you almost have to read through a dozen websites and three news channels just to figure out the opposite ends of the opinion spectrum and then hope you can figure out which grain of truth is more correct.
Can anyone get a fair shake anymore? Probably not. I just hope that in the desire that we all become more informed and more in-touch, we haven't lost sight of what keeps the spirit of public opinion going.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
