How We Solve the US Energy Riddle

What is our energy future?

Lately, conservatives have been arguing that we need to focus on extracting our fossil fuel energy in the US so that we can become energy independent. The problem with that is: even if we become 100% energy independent, if that energy independence is based on fossil fuels, other countries will continue to have influence on what we would pay for gasoline, coal and natural gas. This is because in a global marketplace, US companies will sell their product to US consumers for as long as it is economically feasible to do so. Once people in other countries increase their demand (and price) for fossil fuels, US companies will be glad to sell their products to them instead... until we can out-bid them and keep the supply here.

Also, I believe that at some point it may be cost-effective for countries like China to refine oil to export to the US. When countries without air quality standards or labor regulations can cheaply refine oil into gasoline and find a way to transport it inexpensively enough, I can imagine that we will be buying our refined fuel from those countries. This may sound preposterous but consider that we already send tons of flour to China for them to mix with melamine and mercury and send back to us in the form of cookies and crackers for us to consume.

Green energy, on the other hand, cannot be exported. Energy from windmills and solar will bring jobs that can't be outsourced. These are the industries of the future. This is where our long-term energy solutions will come from. We can't ignore it. We must embrace it. We should not be afraid of new technology. Of course, in light of our current economic crisis, it may be risky to gamble on somebody inventing ways to make green energy solutions viable in the near term. Green energy has a lot to prove still, despite the fact that it promises some amazing things. Fossil fuels however have a current, real, intrinsic value.

So here is what I propose: we aggressively harvest some of our fossil fuel energy over the next several years. If done correctly, fossil fuel energy could be a good source of jobs and we do need jobs desperately. It is true that fossil fuel projects won't create many jobs on their own. The XL pipeline project, for instance, is only expected to produce an estimated 20,000 job years (yeah, job years, not jobs--that's 20,000 jobs for one year; or 10,000 jobs for two years; or one thousand jobs for 20 years--it's not exactly going to turn our country around). We can create more jobs by over-regulating the fossil fuel energy industries. Most of the disasters that have occurred in the in the past few decades could have been avoided or greatly mitigated if crews and containment equipment were on the ready as oil companies promised they would be. If we actually make fossil fuel mining companies follow through on their legal and contractual obligations this time, there will be more workers to respond to a disaster, meaning more jobs filled, and fewer and far less severe catastrophes. The additional government regulatory jobs would improve oversight of  the operations of the industry. Yes, it is more bureaucracy but it also creates more jobs and reduces environmental impact. It is also likely to save lives (kind of important) and stimulate the economy. We stop funding terrorists and get cheaper fuel prices in the short term.

Anyone uncomfortable with trading more bureaucratic government jobs for more domestic energy production should consider the practice of oil pipeline "pigging" and its record of failure. Now imagine that a pipeline is proposed to run near your child's school or through your favorite hunting area. Government oversight is needed to ensure that safety regulations are closely followed and disasters affecting our citizens and environment are minimized.

Here's the other catch, profits from the new fossil fuel bounty would have to be taxed a bit to offset the environmental damage by funding research into green energy options for the long-term. Drastically reducing domestic fuel prices would only cause more consumption. If we accellerate our production of domestic fossil fuels, we need to devote much of the cost savings to move the whole country forward and not to just be a boon to energy companies. A little tax on the fossil fuel energy income and a little increase on the gasoline tax would be required. Then the whole country can benefit from capital that can be invested in green energy (our long-term solution).

The faster we can get green energy solutions paying off for us, the better. We need to compete with China for manufacturing those products since they are what will be in demand in the future. That may mean subsidies for green energy companies. Perhaps, more Solyndras. But as much as people like to make Solyndra out to be a big deal, the best information out there says that it was not a scandal. It was an unfortunate waste of money but in the bigger picture, most of the investments we've made in new technologies have paid off far more than enough to offset the few that failed. A little more of this will be in our long-term economic interests. In the short term, we suck the fossil fuel energy from this country like a demon sucking the last drops of blood form the skull of its victim and hope that we have the intelligence and dedication to ensure that it is done safely and responsibly.

It is a little complicated and not 100% to the satisfaction of the two ideologies that exist in this country. But I believe that it is a wise, responsible and sensible compromise to accomplish the goals of both sides; giving us all lower fuel prices, greater national security (which requires less military spending), improved environmental protection, more jobs and improved economic growth.

That's how we fix the energy problem. Now, can we go fix the CORRUPTION in Washington?

~R. Charan Pagan
information systems technologist, musician, writer, filmmaker
Los Angeles, CA 90017
http://www.reclaimingourbirthright.blogspot.com/

Bill O'Reilly Finally Gets it Right (sort of)

Get your free stuff here!

Following President Obama's reelection, Bill O'Reilly seemed baffled by the voters' rejection of the Republican establishment candidate. Flummoxed by Americans' preference for the guy who couldn't fix the economy over the guy who helped to destroy the economy, O'Reilly offered his assessment of the phenomena declaring that people voted for Obama because they want free stuff and Obama is the candidate most likely to give it to them.

This was the first time I can recall that O'Reilly actually got something right (sort of). As someone who voted for Obama in this election, I will enumerate some of the things I want from the government and believe that Obama is more likely to provide that Romney would have been:

1. When I pay for health insurance, I want to actually receive treatment, not just be a donor to the wealth of insurance companies and doctors (as was previously the case).
2. I want the people who are appointed to regulatory agencies to have the public interest in mind, rather than to merely be former executives from the industry. [Obama gets a failing grade in this category but I believe that Romney would be much worse.]
3. I want the people who head government agencies such as FEMA to be competent and proactive.
4. I want my political voice and influence to have no more and no less weight than every other American, rather than being drown out by billions of dollars worth of political advertisements sponsored by a few special interest groups.
5. I want our country to go to war as a last resort, and in the event of war, I would like the war to be conducted intelligently.
6. I want a country that gives everyone opportunities to succeed rather than being rigged to offer excessive advantages to those who already have.

Forgive me for being selfish but I voted for the guy who is most likely to give me the things I want. I wonder what the people who donated millions of dollars to the Romney campaign want. Somehow, I think their objectives are counter to mine. Bless democracy!

~R. Charan Pagan
information systems technologist, musician, writer, filmmaker
Los Angeles, CA 90017
http://www.reclaimingourbirthright.blogspot.com/

How do You Say 'F- You!' to the Tea Party?

Tea Party Citizens vs. the Republican Establishment

How do you say "F- you!" to the Tea Party? Nominate a man for president that has made millions of dollars from bailouts from the federal government, is wishy-washy on abortion issues and agrees with 90% of Obama's foreign policy.

Then have him pick a VP that voted for all the bailouts, voted for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan (yet voted against providing benefits for veterans returning from the wars) and voted for every wasteful Bush era spending program (including the transportation bill with the infamous "Bridge to Nowhere").

That ought to do it!

When the policies and politics of both of the political parties are so incredibly divorced from the ideology of their constituencies, the country is NOT functioning properly.

~R. Charan Pagan
information systems technologist, musician, writer, filmmaker
Los Angeles, CA 90017
http://www.reclaimingourbirthright.blogspot.com/

Mitt Romney's Investors

The Wealthy Few or the Welfare of the Nation?

Mitt Romney got himself into trouble a few weeks ago when a secretly recorded video of him was leaked to the press. In this video, Romney made his infamous "47%" comments as well as a bunch of other erroneous, insulting and insensitive comments about the citizens he intends to lead. Without a doubt, these comments were intended for a narrow group of his supporters and something that the Romney campaign wished would never have seen the light of day. But Romney has made other comments that I found to be far more revealing about him and those comments got little to no scrutiny by the press. The comments and their tone were perhaps less overt than the remarks revealed in the clandestine video and were therefore less worthy of attention from the sensationalist journalism pieces produced by our dysfunctional news media. So let's look at some of Romney's words and see if they reveal what his true positions are...

To me, the most damning statement Romney has made in his entire political career came in 2008 as he was running for the Republican nomination. All the Republicans were trying to make light of the economic downturn and looming financial collapse so as not to cast doubt on the efficacy of the Republicans' handling of the economy during the Bush years. George Bush famously stated: "I don't think we are headed to a recession...", while John McCain claimed that "The fundamentals of our economy are strong." Mitt Romney added that "People need to realize that this is a great time to buy." [Romney's quote went largely unnoticed so it is extremely difficult to find references to it. The web page linked to (above) is the only one I could find after about an hour of searching. Although it is not a "reliable source" it does prove that I didn't just imagine the quote, and the author of the article seems to have the same opinion I do.]

A great time to buy? Was Romney really suggesting that people who had lost their jobs and were finding it difficult to pay their mortgage go out and sink the rest of their money in the stock market? Or maybe he was suggesting that they use the remainder of their credit card balances to get into the stock market game? I presume not. He was really saying: "Rich people are in a great position to become richer still. So what's the problem?" To me, it was a pretty clear declaration of his domestic economic policy: to help rich people make more money. And if the poor and middle class can somehow find a way to be rich, then he'll help them too.

Granted, it is a lot of assumption to lay upon a single off-the-cuff statement made by Romney. But it did prick up my ears, so to speak. I've since been reading articles about the man, and although there are stories about Romney's generosity and humanitarian endeavors, they seem far fewer than the atrocities that he committed while at Bain Capital. Those stories support my initial assessment of the man.

Romney always made money for his investors, even when businesses they acquired failed, all of the workers were fired and their pensions they paid into were cancelled. Even in tragic cases such as those, Romney's investors turned handsome profits of hundreds of millions of dollars. So, in his role at Bain, the investors did very well but everyone else did horribly bad.

Now that Romney is running for president, one must ask him/herself an important question: who are Romney's investors? Those are the people that will do well in a Romney presidency. Will Romney consider himself to be the agent of the American people? Or will he consider people like Sheldon Adelson, who pledged to contribute $100 million to get him elected, and the Koch brothers to be among his primary investors? Once you determine whom his primary investors are, you have to wonder what their goals are. Will they recommend that Romney invest in schools, roads, bridges and programs that will benefit all citizens? Or with they suggest that Romney pay more attention to issues that really matter to them? Continued tax breaks, tilting the free market system to eliminate their competition, reducing regulations to allow business to increase profits by polluting the air and water?

If you did not give $100 million to the Romney campaign, then you are probably not going to be given the same attention as those that did. The issues you care about will likely languish while the very wealthy become wealthier still. Banks may go back to over-leveraging themselves at a ratio of 40 : 1, risking the greater economy. Then they'll take their profits offshore so they don't have to pay taxes to the US government that has given them much of their wealth since 2008. Yes, after the bailouts, your tax dollars went to make those banks wealthier through the Fed's "discount window". And we're still bailing out the banks through quantitative easing measures. And Romney himself has profited greatly from government bailouts.

As I see it, this election is really about which person will, as President, will best serve the entire country rather than cater to special interests. I hope that some of the information in this article will help to fill in the gaps of information that will help people to make a more-informed decision.

~R. Charan Pagan
information systems technologist, musician, writer, filmmaker
Los Angeles, CA 90017
http://www.reclaimingourbirthright.blogspot.com/

The Political Woes of a Superficial Society

Do we all realize that we are about to, again, go and vote for the person who hired the best PR firm to manage their campaign? You know, your candidate wasn't standing up on a stage in Iowa with his sleeves rolled up because he was hot or because he felt the look suited his fashion sense. He did it because his image consultant thought the look would go over better with blue collar workers and might boost him a couple of points higher in the polls.

I'm not just talking about our presidential candidates here. It can be said all of them at the federal level, as far as I can tell.

We don't vote for real people, we vote for avatars. What happens when a real person attempts to enter an important race? We're told that they're untrustworthy, dangerous and suspicious. They're outspent in the PR department and they're never given any serious attention. I think candidates like Ross Perot, Ron Paul and Ralph Nader would govern the country in a way that would better appeal to the vast majority of the country but those currently in power tell us not to do what's in our best interest. They assure us that their brand of untrustworthy-ness, dangerous-ness and suspicious-ness is better for us.

The media is partly to blame for this but so are we all. We somehow became a country that wanted to choose our president based on the whom we would most like to have a beer with. Personally, I don't want to know all the fuzzy details about a candidate. I may want to know how their childhood and school life may have affected their world view but I don't care in what region they went to school or what their first grade teacher's name was. That person is there to do a job, and my job--OUR JOB--is to make sure that they do it well. That means we need to look past all the superficial crap and view the issues, the facts and the data honestly and objectively. Somehow I feel that most of the country must be failing at this task.

Some people believe that Obama is a Muslim with no evidence of it and others don't believe that a Mormon is capable or qualified to run the country.

Can't we examine their records with a bit more scrutiny and more lucid analysis? They won't do it in most of the news media. Most of the news organizations are doing fine just the way things are. They make billions off the political ads the ratings spikes amid the hysteria of an impending election. This is a responsibility that we must take on ourselves.

Several years ago I got an e-mail from someone essentially praising the Republican Party for having the more attractive women. Photographed were Michele Bachman, Ann Coulter and Michelle Malkin (I think) opposing Hillary Clinton, Janet Reno and Madeline Albright (as best I can recall). A similar youtube video seems to also have been created. Only in the world of politics could any of those women be considered attractive but I found the e-mail amusing because in my experience it has rarely been the case that the more attractive people I've known were the most intelligent or most well-informed.

But MSNBC seems to have gotten the same e-mail. Because, fast-forward to present day and you can turn on the news station and see some remarkably hot women all feisty and snarky and espousing progressive and liberal ideals. I don't know their names but there are a few. From what I have seen, the Republicans have not kept up in the hotness department. But does it really matter? Are we again going to be swayed by the ideals of the person or group of people who produce the most physically attractive television personalities and candidates and hire the best image consultants for them?

Of course attractive people can have good ideas too. I'm not saying they can't. But it is pretty clear that those with handsome physical attributes often get the most attention. You can point to the hideous Rush Limbaugh and Bill O'Reilly, etc. but remember, they're rich. And money is a great equalizer in our society.

This is something that we can't fix with legislation or even with education, really. We each have to look past the images that are presented to us and form our opinions with just the facts. But you won't get those from the TV news. It's going to take a bit more effort to dig them up.

We've all heard the saying that we "reap what we sow." Take a look at what we've been sowing and take a look at what we've been reaping. Is it perhaps time to make a change?

~R. Charan Pagan
information systems technologist, musician, writer, filmmaker
Los Angeles, CA 90017
http://www.reclaimingourbirthright.blogspot.com/

Mitt is Militarily Challenged

It's time for an updated military strategy.

Let me get this straight: we have drone aircraft that we build for a few thousand dollars that can fly 50,000 feet in the air using solar power which costs nothing, target an enemy and obliterate them with a hail of gunfire and Mitt Romney wants to spend billions of dollars to build a bunch of metal boats to float around in the ocean, burn up diesel fuel, kill a bunch of fish and provide fun target objects for our future enemy drones? Yeah, why don't we go back to using muskets, because, by-golly that's how we did it in the good old days! This is frightening, people. How is it that this candidate has not been laughed out of contention for any military policy position? I hope this is all an elaborate practical joke!

~R. Charan Pagan
information systems technologist, musician, writer, filmmaker
Los Angeles, CA 90017
http://www.reclaimingourbirthright.blogspot.com/

More Socialism, Please!

Underachievers? ...Like the banks? If you are a casual follower of politics, you probably have heard that President Obama is a socialist. As a political junkie, this just didn't seem at all accurate to me. Of course, it is not accurate. It is what is called hyperbole--a claim based on some fact that is blown way out of proportion and used to sway voters that don’t follow every step of every political “player”. For instance, you may have heard that President Obama “socialized” the federal student loan program. I had heard this years ago and I decided to research the issue. What I found is that Obama stopped paying banks to give loans to students and instead restructured the program so that the government would give student loans directly, cutting out banks as the middlemen. Of course, the banking industry didn't like that. Apparently the Republican party didn't either, hence, it was labeled a "socialist" program. But can’t such a change only save the country money? How can it not cost less to make loans to students directly rather than have to pay the salaries and bonuses of bankers in exchange for them servicing the loans? A wikipedia.org article states: "By directly lending to students, the government is projected to save taxpayers $68 billion dollars over the next several years." You would think that would make Republicans, and all Americans happy. The only concern I have been able to uncover from critics of the change is that the banks were “assuming risk” that the US government will now have to assume. OK, that is a valid argument.  But does that make the new program socialism? I believe that any thinking person would have a difficult time accepting that assessment. Furthermore, if there was so much “risk” why would the banks be willing to service the loans? I have a hard time believing that they did it out of the goodness of their hearts, but rather believe they did it because it was lucrative for them to do it. So then, how could it not be more economical to cut them out of the equation? Most people in the country feel that higher education is important for Americans to achieve the American dream and for the country to continue to prosper. That being the case, politicians will always pretend to care about and promote programs that keep student aid available. When interest rates are high, students are not able to pay the interest fees. To keep higher education affordable, the federal government used to pay banks the difference between the high interest rate and a modest rate that students can actually afford to pay. This was an issue during the 2004 presidential election. Interest rates had fallen dramatically yet the federal government was still paying banks the high interest rate. It was a great deal for the banks. Not so much for the US taxpayer and was no benefit at all to students. So if people want to call common sense, cost-saving measures “socialism”, then maybe we should reexamine our fear of socialism. Or at least re-calibrate our BS sensors to recognize political hyperbole. If Republicans have a better plan for student loans, then show us the plan. Explain why it is better. Resorting to such ridiculous rhetoric indicates a weak political position, poor judgment and dishonest manipulation of facts, voters and the system. When politics reaches this low point, the country is in serious trouble. ~R. Charan Pagan information systems technologist, musician, writer, filmmaker Los Angeles, CA 90017 http://www.reclaimingourbirthright.blogspot.com/