It’s been 6 months, 100 Posts, $7.50 in adsense revenue, and $2.50 in revenue from referrals to writings on Associated Content. I thought it would be a good time to look over this site and reflect on what articles I liked the most.
First I tried to see what was most popular on this site. I don’t have any advanced tools for tracking visitors just adsense reports saying I get 14 to 40 visits a day. So I looked over at Alexa to see what they said about my site. Most of the results weren’t surprising I’m ranked 3,191,381th as far as traffic. I have revenue under $10 million a year, I’m right in the middle as far as load time, ect. But the thing that caught my attention was the keywords people use to find my site. Most people who come to this site through search engines do it when searching for “Ganymede Creationism”.
A quick google search of “Ganymede Creationism” on its own doesn’t pull up Project Savior (it probably will after this article) in the first 15 pages so the people who found me through that must be very determined.
Adding Project Savior to the search for “Ganymede Creationism” pulls up 55 entries, I didn’t think I talked about either subject that much but the bots seem to think so. So I will look at my articles that deal with those subjects.
Ganymede or Space in general.
I first talked about Ganymede in my Space Tourism Series saying it would be a great place to go Skiing or Scuba diving.
I started the Space Tourism Series after looking around to see what blogs were popular. Tourism blogs are very popular but the people who write them do seem to leave their house more than I do. (I hate having to remember to get dressed and people outside complain when I forget.) So I could either write about a great getaway to my kitchen or write about places that only a couple of people, if any, have been to.
I didn’t want my kitchen to become a great tourist hot-spot (at least not until I refinish the hardwood floors) so I wrote about how different objects in the solar system would make great tourism spots.
The entire series is here:
Kuiper Belt
Venus
Mars
Titan
Ganymede
The Moon
I’ve been toying with the idea of writing a children’s book about a 10-year-old girl and her cat going to all these places. I think kids would love to imagine themselves on other worlds and at the same time it would teach them about the solar system in a fun way.
As far as other Space Related posts it’s easy to see that I’m a Space Geek. I grew up during the Space Race and was promised that I would have a chance to go to the Moon if I worked hard enough. I my teen years it was obvious that wasn’t true so I stopped trying.
I hope I can do my small part in building enthusiasm to get people to demand we have a real Space Program again.
Here are my Space Articles:
http://projectsaviorreborn.blogspot.com/search/label/Space
As far as the Creationism part that has drawn people to my site, I’ve talked about Creationism a couple of times:
http://projectsaviorreborn.blogspot.com/search/label/Creationism
Now some people might wonder, what’s the harm in a few nutters pushing an easily discredited idea like Creationism. Basically they are pushing a way to lead the nation into tyranny.
Evolution is an applied science. That means people need to use it to get results. If you can brainwash kids into thinking results can’t be predicted by rules that govern what happens after an action is taken, not only science, but laws and truth become meaningless.
In my book “Project Spare-Rib” the bad guy was going to use Bush’s “War on Science” as a way to set up his authoritarian rule of the US, here is an excerpt from his evil speech:
“Throughout the nation Science will start to be viewed as a cult religion, Universities will be viewed as Elitist Clubs, Teachers will be viewed as union pawns who’s only purpose is to spread liberal heresy. Truth will be a matter of perspective as logic and reasoning become viewed as tools of the Evil Elitists.
“Teaching of the scientific method, evolution, and logical fallacies and even math, except for in select technical schools, will all be banned.
“With that tide of public opinion on our backs, knowledge will become the enemy and logic a menace, we will no longer have to worry about ruling a nation under laws as Knowledge, logic and truth become suspect, then so to are the laws. This nation will be ruled as I see fit, as the Constitution and all Laws will be just quaint relics from a different time that only Activist Judges will care about.
“Everything you and your friends believe in, the endless pursuit of knowledge, the joys of unraveling the secrets of the Universe, the very concept of a Universal Truth will all be outlawed under the New World Order. There will be one, and only one, truth and that is Might makes Right.”
So while it is easy to laugh at the Creationists and their kind as just people who are Arrogant in their Ignorance crying about what they see as a liberal bias of reality, you can never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups.
Moving on from creationism into other parts of Politics, I have commented on current political affairs often, I try only to comment on politics when I can either: 1) make a valuable observation that I haven’t seen someone else make. This is tough because two of the blogs I follow are Wisco’s Griper Blade and Down With Tyranny both of these offer excellent political commentary that I can rarely compete with. 2) If something strikes me as extremely funny.
My favorite in the funny politics category was when I had Sean Penn explain the financial meltdown:
In case you missed the reference, Sean Penn gave a speech denouncing Bush’s invasion of Iraq in it he used the term “Soiled and Blood Soaked Underwear” to describe Bush’s policy three times. The phrase became so famous that Stephen Colbert had a Meta-Free-phor-all with him. Watch it,it is fantastic.
I couldn’t resist applying the metaphor to the financial meltdown.
Also in politics I love pointing to the fact that you don’t have to be crazy to be a Republican politician, but if you happen to be nuttier than a fruitcake it isn’t a detriment. That’s why I like writing about Sen. Bunning of the Great State of Kentucky.
Senator Bunning: Kentucky's other crazy Senator
Obama's a homosexual Darwinist From Outer Space
You have to love that someone who believes “Little Green Doctors” are out to get him is allowed to have a seat in the Senate.
On a more personal note I did the “Getting into Hot Water” Series.
This series had a dual purpose, first as I explained in the post my hot water heater exploded and I don’t have the money to replace it so as a DYI project, I built my own Solar Hot Water heater.
Second, most of America spends the Summer Months heating at least 30 gallons of hot water when at least 320 btu’s per square foot of energy is beating down on their roofs and they then have to use air conditioners to remove that heat.
If I can build a cheap solar water heater out of scrap then it isn’t a huge leap to think that during the summer months May-Sept the US could cut the amount of energy used to heat hot water by 90% if we set our minds to it.
This act alone would drop our energy consumption by at least 10% that’s 2.5% of the world’s energy usage or the same as discovering 2 Saudi Arabia’s.
Any energy policy has to take Solar Powered hot water into consideration, it is the easiest way to save energy and I have shown it can be done without harming kittens.
Writing on Writing
I am a semi-professional writer now, magazines actually pay for my stories. So of course, I have to shamelessly promote that fact.
I’ve written about my fiction writing here:
Double Edge Publishing
Long Term Thinking
Cursed Ship
I’ve been advised that as a semi-professional writer, I should start a semi-professional website to promote that. It is in the works and I will link to it when it is online.
A tip of the hat to the now deceased Thisisby.us.
When the writing site Thisisby.us was up and running, I published 50 articles over there. I still miss it, it meant writing to a crowd and getting critiques. I believe it honed my writing skills, which had gotten a little rusty.
When I started this site up I moved some of my best articles from there over to here.
Superhero Chicks I Would Never Date
6 Things Smokers and Non-Smokers can Agree on
How Much Head Should a Girl Give in a Day
That’s what he said. (Translating Guy-Speak for Chicks)
Dear Hollywood Executive
A Letter to K-Mart
I’m sure there are more but those are the ones that generated the most votes over there.
This post has gotten a little long so I’d like to wrap it up by thanking anyone who has taken the time to read my 5 pages of rambling about the last six months.
I’d especially like to thank all the people that have visited my little site over the past 6 months and read some of my 100 posts. I really can’t express how happy it makes me when I pull up adsense in the morning to see 40 people have stopped by to read my writing.
Hopefully, over the next 6 months I’ll post another 100 or so articles and I can do another best of/ New Year/ Anniversary Post.
And for those of you who came here searching for Ganymede Creationism, leave me a line and let me know why you waded through at least 15 pages of google search to get here and why you were looking for “Ganymede Creationism” in the first place. If I knew what it was, I’d probably write a post about it.
Tuesday, June 30, 2009
Monday, June 29, 2009
Friday, June 26, 2009
Some thoughts from People that don’t think, but are against Healthcare Choice.
Karl Rove:
“The first is it's unnecessary. Advocates say a government-run insurance program is needed to provide competition for private health insurance. But 1,300 companies sell health insurance plans.”
There may be 1,300 companies, but the simple truth is if your employer doesn’t offer health insurance, you can’t get a real plan. I’ve tried as a self-employed person to get Health Insurance and went to several legitimate companies filled out the forms and never heard back from them.
Looking at the other Insurance Companies, I did a simple test I called around to see if doctors, dentists and optometrists took their Insurance. Turned out my only options were Insurance companies that offered policies that no one in the healthcare industry would take.
That is not competition when your choice is only companies that are offering coverage that is worthless.
“Second, a public option will undercut private insurers and pass the tab to taxpayers and health providers just as it does in existing government-run programs.”
We currently pay 6 times per capita what other industrialized countries pay for healthcare and are near the bottom of list as far as effectiveness. So what Karl is saying here is there is no way private industry can compete with the Federal Government especially if the Government has to take all the sick people that the Private Insurance Companies refuse to take. Because obviously there is no room to save money by being more efficient, like only spending 5 times per capita what other nations spend.
Oh, and my heart just goes out to all those private insurance companies that refuse to cover me.
“Third, government-run health insurance would crater the private insurance market, forcing most Americans onto the government plan.”
Yes, The Americans who are self-employed that the private insurance companies won’t cover, the Americans who work at small companies where one employee with an expensive illness makes insurance too expensive for the rest of the workers, The 1.5 million Americans a year who lose their homes because their insurance companies won’t cover their medical bills, the 20,000 people a year that die because their insurance companies deny them life saving treatments.
Yes, those people will be forced onto the government plan because Private Insurance Companies won’t cover them.
“Fourth, the public option is far too expensive”
Compared to what? Compared to the fact that Factories will not open up in America because healthcare costs make it too expensive to operate here in America.
Compared to the loss to the economy that 1.5 million foreclosed homes causes when they drag down the housing market?
Compared to the number of small businesses that are being crushed as healthcare costs overtake profits.
Compared to the loss of spending capital that someone making $30,000 a year loses when they are spending $12,000 on health insurance?
What exactly is it too expensive in comparison to, Karl never does explain.
“Fifth, the public option puts government firmly in the middle of the relationship between patients and their doctors”
Just like how the Government is firmly in the middle of my relationship with my mom, because we send letters through the mail.
Look everyone has had to deal with government red tape, and everyone has had to deal with private industry red tape. The difference is when dealing with the government the person at the bottom will try and help you the best they can then switch you up to the next rung on the ladder. It’s irritating but when dealing with the government you can at least make some headway if you have the patience.
When dealing with a large private institution (like the bank that holds my mortgage), the person on the bottom will tell you what is on their computers screen and if it doesn’t help refuse to let you speak to anyone higher up.
The Government is required to be transparent with their decisions, they aren’t always, but at least they need to go through the motions and if enough people demand that they show the reason for their decision they will eventually.
Private Companies have no such requirement when they get in the middle of your relationship with your doctor.
Karl Rove’s arguments are just stupid, but to really delve into the mouth of idioticy I must turn to someone I can always count on to be a total idiot but at least knows the basic rules of grammar (unlike Ann Coulter), Larry Elder
“What about personal behavior? Obesity leads to serious health problems, including heart disease. One-third of Americans are obese — almost 50 percent more than the British and Australians, over 100 percent more than the Canadians and Germans, about 250 percent more than the French and 1,000 percent more than the Japanese.
“So don't blame the "broken health care system" for lower life expectancies. American health care actually helps us cope with the consequences of unhealthy lifestyles, keeping our ranking from being even lower.”
So are healthcare costs are high because Americans are denied access to preventative care (like nutritionists and real weight-loss doctors) so therefore we shouldn’t blame the system that denies preventative care to Americans for high costs.
You can’t argue with that logic, you can only shake your head and back away slowly, taking care not to make any sudden moves.
The reason that opponents of giving Americans a choice in healthcare sound like idiots is that they are totally in the wrong.
The simple fact is, if an invading Army came in and killed 20,000 Americans, forced 1.5 Million people out of their homes and stole 2.5 Trillion Dollars of America’s wealth, we would demand action. Any Politician who helped them would be found guilty of treason and hanged in a public square. Yet we allow the healthcare industry to do that every year.
“The first is it's unnecessary. Advocates say a government-run insurance program is needed to provide competition for private health insurance. But 1,300 companies sell health insurance plans.”
There may be 1,300 companies, but the simple truth is if your employer doesn’t offer health insurance, you can’t get a real plan. I’ve tried as a self-employed person to get Health Insurance and went to several legitimate companies filled out the forms and never heard back from them.
Looking at the other Insurance Companies, I did a simple test I called around to see if doctors, dentists and optometrists took their Insurance. Turned out my only options were Insurance companies that offered policies that no one in the healthcare industry would take.
That is not competition when your choice is only companies that are offering coverage that is worthless.
“Second, a public option will undercut private insurers and pass the tab to taxpayers and health providers just as it does in existing government-run programs.”
We currently pay 6 times per capita what other industrialized countries pay for healthcare and are near the bottom of list as far as effectiveness. So what Karl is saying here is there is no way private industry can compete with the Federal Government especially if the Government has to take all the sick people that the Private Insurance Companies refuse to take. Because obviously there is no room to save money by being more efficient, like only spending 5 times per capita what other nations spend.
Oh, and my heart just goes out to all those private insurance companies that refuse to cover me.
“Third, government-run health insurance would crater the private insurance market, forcing most Americans onto the government plan.”
Yes, The Americans who are self-employed that the private insurance companies won’t cover, the Americans who work at small companies where one employee with an expensive illness makes insurance too expensive for the rest of the workers, The 1.5 million Americans a year who lose their homes because their insurance companies won’t cover their medical bills, the 20,000 people a year that die because their insurance companies deny them life saving treatments.
Yes, those people will be forced onto the government plan because Private Insurance Companies won’t cover them.
“Fourth, the public option is far too expensive”
Compared to what? Compared to the fact that Factories will not open up in America because healthcare costs make it too expensive to operate here in America.
Compared to the loss to the economy that 1.5 million foreclosed homes causes when they drag down the housing market?
Compared to the number of small businesses that are being crushed as healthcare costs overtake profits.
Compared to the loss of spending capital that someone making $30,000 a year loses when they are spending $12,000 on health insurance?
What exactly is it too expensive in comparison to, Karl never does explain.
“Fifth, the public option puts government firmly in the middle of the relationship between patients and their doctors”
Just like how the Government is firmly in the middle of my relationship with my mom, because we send letters through the mail.
Look everyone has had to deal with government red tape, and everyone has had to deal with private industry red tape. The difference is when dealing with the government the person at the bottom will try and help you the best they can then switch you up to the next rung on the ladder. It’s irritating but when dealing with the government you can at least make some headway if you have the patience.
When dealing with a large private institution (like the bank that holds my mortgage), the person on the bottom will tell you what is on their computers screen and if it doesn’t help refuse to let you speak to anyone higher up.
The Government is required to be transparent with their decisions, they aren’t always, but at least they need to go through the motions and if enough people demand that they show the reason for their decision they will eventually.
Private Companies have no such requirement when they get in the middle of your relationship with your doctor.
Karl Rove’s arguments are just stupid, but to really delve into the mouth of idioticy I must turn to someone I can always count on to be a total idiot but at least knows the basic rules of grammar (unlike Ann Coulter), Larry Elder
“What about personal behavior? Obesity leads to serious health problems, including heart disease. One-third of Americans are obese — almost 50 percent more than the British and Australians, over 100 percent more than the Canadians and Germans, about 250 percent more than the French and 1,000 percent more than the Japanese.
“So don't blame the "broken health care system" for lower life expectancies. American health care actually helps us cope with the consequences of unhealthy lifestyles, keeping our ranking from being even lower.”
So are healthcare costs are high because Americans are denied access to preventative care (like nutritionists and real weight-loss doctors) so therefore we shouldn’t blame the system that denies preventative care to Americans for high costs.
You can’t argue with that logic, you can only shake your head and back away slowly, taking care not to make any sudden moves.
The reason that opponents of giving Americans a choice in healthcare sound like idiots is that they are totally in the wrong.
The simple fact is, if an invading Army came in and killed 20,000 Americans, forced 1.5 Million people out of their homes and stole 2.5 Trillion Dollars of America’s wealth, we would demand action. Any Politician who helped them would be found guilty of treason and hanged in a public square. Yet we allow the healthcare industry to do that every year.
Rodney Dangerfield and Healthcare.
Listening to the healthcare “debate” reminds me of the one scene in “Back to School” where the professor accused Rodney of cheating and the Dean responded “I don’t think you appreciate exactly how big the check he gave us was.”
You can easily imagine that same argument floating around the halls of the Senate.
“80% of Americans want a public choice in their healthcare.” The Progressive Senator says.
“True, but I don’t think you realize exactly how much money the Medical Industry contributes to my campaign.” The Conservative Responds.
“20,000 People are die each year because the Insurance Companies deny them treatment.” The Progressive Senator continues.
“True, but you need to understand that the health Insurance Companies donate quite a bit to my campaign.” The Conservative tries to strengthen his argument.
“In the United States we spend roughly 6 times the amount per person as other industrialized countries, yet we rank near the bottom as far as overall health.” The Progressive Senator tells him.
“Isn’t that great, It gives them plenty of money to support my campaign.” The Conservative Senator states.
“For employers Health Insurance is the fastest growing cost, it rapidly taking overtaking profits.” The Progressive Senator hammers on.
“Well, the Insurance companies have to get money to give to my campaign from somewhere.” The Conservative Senator says condescendingly.
“One and a Half Million people were forced out of their homes last year due to foreclosure because of unaffordable medical costs, greatly contributing to the housing crisis.” The Progressive Senator tells him.
“That’s OK, we can bail out the banks that lost money because of that, after all they still have plenty of money to fund my campaign.” The Conservative Senator responds.
I could go on but it is obvious that those members of the Senate that are against giving people the choice of a public option in their healthcare have just formed a wall built out of the money given to them by the Insurance Companies and will refuse to listen to the will of the people.
There is one thing that these Conservative Senators should take in mind, during the reign of George W. Bush many Progressives became Pro-Gun for some reason. So while they help their buddies divide up the spoils of their robbery of the American Citizens and call it Democracy, they might want to remember the words of Benjamin Franklin:
Democracy is two Wolves and a Lamb voting on what to have for Dinner; Freedom is an Armed Lamb contesting the Vote.
You can easily imagine that same argument floating around the halls of the Senate.
“80% of Americans want a public choice in their healthcare.” The Progressive Senator says.
“True, but I don’t think you realize exactly how much money the Medical Industry contributes to my campaign.” The Conservative Responds.
“20,000 People are die each year because the Insurance Companies deny them treatment.” The Progressive Senator continues.
“True, but you need to understand that the health Insurance Companies donate quite a bit to my campaign.” The Conservative tries to strengthen his argument.
“In the United States we spend roughly 6 times the amount per person as other industrialized countries, yet we rank near the bottom as far as overall health.” The Progressive Senator tells him.
“Isn’t that great, It gives them plenty of money to support my campaign.” The Conservative Senator states.
“For employers Health Insurance is the fastest growing cost, it rapidly taking overtaking profits.” The Progressive Senator hammers on.
“Well, the Insurance companies have to get money to give to my campaign from somewhere.” The Conservative Senator says condescendingly.
“One and a Half Million people were forced out of their homes last year due to foreclosure because of unaffordable medical costs, greatly contributing to the housing crisis.” The Progressive Senator tells him.
“That’s OK, we can bail out the banks that lost money because of that, after all they still have plenty of money to fund my campaign.” The Conservative Senator responds.
I could go on but it is obvious that those members of the Senate that are against giving people the choice of a public option in their healthcare have just formed a wall built out of the money given to them by the Insurance Companies and will refuse to listen to the will of the people.
There is one thing that these Conservative Senators should take in mind, during the reign of George W. Bush many Progressives became Pro-Gun for some reason. So while they help their buddies divide up the spoils of their robbery of the American Citizens and call it Democracy, they might want to remember the words of Benjamin Franklin:
Democracy is two Wolves and a Lamb voting on what to have for Dinner; Freedom is an Armed Lamb contesting the Vote.
Wednesday, June 17, 2009
Famous Historical Tweets (If Historical Figures Had Twitter) Part II
We’ve razed a bold and beautiful city.
WT_Sherman@army.gov
WT_Sherman@army.gov
Tuesday, June 16, 2009
How to save 60% on your Auto Insurance.
Everyone is talking about how much single payer healthcare will cost, but very few people, at least in the mainstream media have mentioned how much it would save the average American.
Believe it or not you probably do have a form of health insurance, it just doesn’t cover you, it covers other people.
This insurance is your auto insurance.
The largest part of a typical auto liability policy is covering someone else’s healthcare costs. The reason is if you lose control of your car and hit someone, it isn’t fair that they should have to pay the medical bills for your mistake.
Naturally (if you aren’t a totally cold-hearted person) you would want to see them made whole and that’s why you have insurance in the first place, that and of course because the state forces you to.
You also have medical insurance for yourself and the passengers in your car, it is filed under PIP, Personal Injury Protection, or just Personal Medical.
PIP is necessary under our current Medical System even if you have regular health insurance because if you get into an accident and need to be taken to the emergency room and the police have to call your insurance company and find out which hospital they will pay for and the ER doctors have to find out what procedures are covered and what ones aren’t, your odds of dieing would shoot up significantly.
To cut through this red tape Auto Insurance Companies have PIP so that the Ambulance ride, the Emergency Room visit and all the things to keep you from dieing immediately are covered. The amount of minimum coverage varies by state.
If single payer healthcare became reality in the US, PIP and Personal Medical would become totally unnecessary, as the Ambulance ride and the Emergency Room visit would be free.
In my case, that would save me $77.23 every six months.
The second place it would save is in the BI, or Bodily Injury, part of my insurance. Under a single payer plan this part of my insurance would be significantly reduced but not completely eliminated.
The Bodily Injury portion of auto insurance covers the other person’s medical bills, pain and suffering, and lost wages.
Even under a single payer system you will have to pay the family the lost wages if you kill someone and you’ll be responsible for someone’s pain and suffering but the biggest part of Bodily Injury is the other person’s medical expenses. You can expect those costs to go down about the same amount as the PIP.
The third place on you insurance bill that you will save is on your uninsured/underinsured Motorist coverage. The uninsured motorist coverage covers your medical bills if someone with no insurance (or a hit and run) injures you. Obviously under a single payer system these bills wouldn’t exist.
After getting rid of all these medical costs from your insurance all that is left is coverage for pain and suffering, lost wages and property damage. So you could be looking at a savings of 60% on you auto insurance.
As well as lowering your Auto Insurance, your employer would save on workers comp, the vast majority of that is for medical bills. If you’re a homeowner your homeowners insurance would go down as most of your liability coverage is for medical bills as well as all of your guest medical coverage.
Taken altogether a single payer healthcare plan will save the vast majority of Americans a great deal on the non-healthcare insurance they are already carrying.
Believe it or not you probably do have a form of health insurance, it just doesn’t cover you, it covers other people.
This insurance is your auto insurance.
The largest part of a typical auto liability policy is covering someone else’s healthcare costs. The reason is if you lose control of your car and hit someone, it isn’t fair that they should have to pay the medical bills for your mistake.
Naturally (if you aren’t a totally cold-hearted person) you would want to see them made whole and that’s why you have insurance in the first place, that and of course because the state forces you to.
You also have medical insurance for yourself and the passengers in your car, it is filed under PIP, Personal Injury Protection, or just Personal Medical.
PIP is necessary under our current Medical System even if you have regular health insurance because if you get into an accident and need to be taken to the emergency room and the police have to call your insurance company and find out which hospital they will pay for and the ER doctors have to find out what procedures are covered and what ones aren’t, your odds of dieing would shoot up significantly.
To cut through this red tape Auto Insurance Companies have PIP so that the Ambulance ride, the Emergency Room visit and all the things to keep you from dieing immediately are covered. The amount of minimum coverage varies by state.
If single payer healthcare became reality in the US, PIP and Personal Medical would become totally unnecessary, as the Ambulance ride and the Emergency Room visit would be free.
In my case, that would save me $77.23 every six months.
The second place it would save is in the BI, or Bodily Injury, part of my insurance. Under a single payer plan this part of my insurance would be significantly reduced but not completely eliminated.
The Bodily Injury portion of auto insurance covers the other person’s medical bills, pain and suffering, and lost wages.
Even under a single payer system you will have to pay the family the lost wages if you kill someone and you’ll be responsible for someone’s pain and suffering but the biggest part of Bodily Injury is the other person’s medical expenses. You can expect those costs to go down about the same amount as the PIP.
The third place on you insurance bill that you will save is on your uninsured/underinsured Motorist coverage. The uninsured motorist coverage covers your medical bills if someone with no insurance (or a hit and run) injures you. Obviously under a single payer system these bills wouldn’t exist.
After getting rid of all these medical costs from your insurance all that is left is coverage for pain and suffering, lost wages and property damage. So you could be looking at a savings of 60% on you auto insurance.
As well as lowering your Auto Insurance, your employer would save on workers comp, the vast majority of that is for medical bills. If you’re a homeowner your homeowners insurance would go down as most of your liability coverage is for medical bills as well as all of your guest medical coverage.
Taken altogether a single payer healthcare plan will save the vast majority of Americans a great deal on the non-healthcare insurance they are already carrying.
Monday, June 15, 2009
Famous Historical tweets. (If historical figures had twitter) Part I
Would it kill my husband to take me out to the theater once in awhile?
M_todd_lincoln@whitehouse.gov
M_todd_lincoln@whitehouse.gov
Thursday, June 11, 2009
Private Industry vs. Government led research
Obama has promised to return science to its rightful place in America, pledging to restore Government funding in Research back to 3% of GDP up from its current 0.6%. Whenever anyone suggests raising the amount of Government money spent on research, someone will always respond that Research and Development is better handled by private industry.
Private industry has shown that it responds to a huge technological challenge much better than the Government, just look at the two different approaches taken during the 70s energy crisis.
When Hubbert showed that American oil production had peaked and the world’s oil demand would outstrip world oil production between 2005 and 2010 countries took two different approaches.
Japan started a government lead consortium that did major research and development into making fuel-efficient cars. They shared this knowledge with the Japanese car companies who then competed to market cars that used this fuel-efficient technology.
In the US, the home to the largest three auto manufactures in the world, Jimmy Carter proposed a similar plan but the big three argued that private industry could handle a crisis better than the Government could and all three companies handled their own R & D.
As history shows, private industry handled the crisis. That’s why the big three American Car manufactures still dominate the world car market and hardly anyone has ever heard of Japanese cars like Toyota, Nissan, and Mazda.
Oh I got that wrong, Toyota and Nissan are the largest and third largest auto manufactures and two out of the big three American auto manufactures are bankrupt.
Private Industry alone cannot handle large technological challenges for a simple reason private industry has to focus on the short term. Virgin Galactic’s SpaceShip Two is a great example of this. It is a neat relatively low cost solution to send people into space.
It is built out of existing materials used in unique ways to achieve a modest goal. Unfortunately its performance is limited by how well carbon fiber can handle extreme heat. Manufactures of Carbon Fiber Resins will of course improve on their product’s ability to handle extreme heat but it is already near its physical limit.
In order for something like SpaceShip Two to go into orbit, the next big leap, it would need to be built out of something as light or lighter than Carbon Fiber. There is already a material like that: Buckypaper. Composed of nano-tubes (carbon molecules formed to circle around forming a tube that is one molecule and as tough as diamonds) in a polymer. Buckypaper is as strong as steel and you could cover a football field with it and it would weigh less than a gram, additionally its heat conductivity is higher than copper.
Unfortunately, Buckypaper is too expensive at the present time to be used in any applications and because of this, it isn’t mass-produced so its costs won’t go down so it won’t be mass-produced.
Industries that could use this product (just about any industry) know if they started using it they would only need to use it for a few years as loss leader (losing money) to drive the costs down. But no large company is going to step forward and be the first one.
The reason is simple, they don’t want to spend all that money to completely revolutionize an industry only to have their competitors start using the product that they spent the money to get on the market.
That’s where the Government comes in. If the US Government started ordering huge amounts of Buckypaper to use in the space program, military, and start making a limited edition Corvette out of it (The fed owns 60% of GM why not get some use out of it) The costs would go down.
As the costs go down SpaceShip Three could use it to go into orbit, Airplane Manufactures would start using it place of Aluminum and finally we could have cars that weighed 100’s of pounds instead of tons, saving billions of barrels of oil every year.
Once the Government put forth the initial money for research and developing a technology through its bleeding edge (the time when it is losing money) private industry could pick it up and run with it and do what it does best make incremental improvements to existing products and use them in unique ways.
As new products are brought to market based on the technology that was developed through Government funded research the Government would start getting its money back in the form of taxes.
There is no shortage of problems that the Government could use this approach to, The race to the Moon, Peak Oil, Climate Change, and the great thing about it is this method has been proved to boost economic activity.
During World War II a huge portion of GDP was poured into research to win the war. Afterwards that research was plowed into civilian consumer products that made their pre-war counterparts look a century old, not just a decade old.
During the Space Race whole new industries started up based off research done to get us to the Moon.
In a 100% peacetime application the example I used above of Japan Inc. from the 70s and 80s brought a defeated little island nation to be an economic powerhouse for decades.
When it comes to the question of the Government funding vs. Private Industry in research, history shows that hands down the Government funding research and then handing it over to Private Industry is the winning approach.
Private industry has shown that it responds to a huge technological challenge much better than the Government, just look at the two different approaches taken during the 70s energy crisis.
When Hubbert showed that American oil production had peaked and the world’s oil demand would outstrip world oil production between 2005 and 2010 countries took two different approaches.
Japan started a government lead consortium that did major research and development into making fuel-efficient cars. They shared this knowledge with the Japanese car companies who then competed to market cars that used this fuel-efficient technology.
In the US, the home to the largest three auto manufactures in the world, Jimmy Carter proposed a similar plan but the big three argued that private industry could handle a crisis better than the Government could and all three companies handled their own R & D.
As history shows, private industry handled the crisis. That’s why the big three American Car manufactures still dominate the world car market and hardly anyone has ever heard of Japanese cars like Toyota, Nissan, and Mazda.
Oh I got that wrong, Toyota and Nissan are the largest and third largest auto manufactures and two out of the big three American auto manufactures are bankrupt.
Private Industry alone cannot handle large technological challenges for a simple reason private industry has to focus on the short term. Virgin Galactic’s SpaceShip Two is a great example of this. It is a neat relatively low cost solution to send people into space.
It is built out of existing materials used in unique ways to achieve a modest goal. Unfortunately its performance is limited by how well carbon fiber can handle extreme heat. Manufactures of Carbon Fiber Resins will of course improve on their product’s ability to handle extreme heat but it is already near its physical limit.
In order for something like SpaceShip Two to go into orbit, the next big leap, it would need to be built out of something as light or lighter than Carbon Fiber. There is already a material like that: Buckypaper. Composed of nano-tubes (carbon molecules formed to circle around forming a tube that is one molecule and as tough as diamonds) in a polymer. Buckypaper is as strong as steel and you could cover a football field with it and it would weigh less than a gram, additionally its heat conductivity is higher than copper.
Unfortunately, Buckypaper is too expensive at the present time to be used in any applications and because of this, it isn’t mass-produced so its costs won’t go down so it won’t be mass-produced.
Industries that could use this product (just about any industry) know if they started using it they would only need to use it for a few years as loss leader (losing money) to drive the costs down. But no large company is going to step forward and be the first one.
The reason is simple, they don’t want to spend all that money to completely revolutionize an industry only to have their competitors start using the product that they spent the money to get on the market.
That’s where the Government comes in. If the US Government started ordering huge amounts of Buckypaper to use in the space program, military, and start making a limited edition Corvette out of it (The fed owns 60% of GM why not get some use out of it) The costs would go down.
As the costs go down SpaceShip Three could use it to go into orbit, Airplane Manufactures would start using it place of Aluminum and finally we could have cars that weighed 100’s of pounds instead of tons, saving billions of barrels of oil every year.
Once the Government put forth the initial money for research and developing a technology through its bleeding edge (the time when it is losing money) private industry could pick it up and run with it and do what it does best make incremental improvements to existing products and use them in unique ways.
As new products are brought to market based on the technology that was developed through Government funded research the Government would start getting its money back in the form of taxes.
There is no shortage of problems that the Government could use this approach to, The race to the Moon, Peak Oil, Climate Change, and the great thing about it is this method has been proved to boost economic activity.
During World War II a huge portion of GDP was poured into research to win the war. Afterwards that research was plowed into civilian consumer products that made their pre-war counterparts look a century old, not just a decade old.
During the Space Race whole new industries started up based off research done to get us to the Moon.
In a 100% peacetime application the example I used above of Japan Inc. from the 70s and 80s brought a defeated little island nation to be an economic powerhouse for decades.
When it comes to the question of the Government funding vs. Private Industry in research, history shows that hands down the Government funding research and then handing it over to Private Industry is the winning approach.
Tuesday, June 9, 2009
A Brighter Tomorrow
Some of my earliest memories are of sitting in front of the TV at my Grandparents house watching the Moon Landings. Even as a five year old seeing those 12 astronauts walking on an alien world filled my young brain with hope for the future.
I thought I would get a chance to walk on the Moon as well, because just like when my mom was growing up Jets were a new technology that only a few people could travel in, but by the time I was growing up they were commonplace. Taking it back further when my Grandmother was growing up Lindbergh’s non-stop solo flight to Europe was a technological feat.
Now my wife and I are thinking of having a kid, I call this Project Scion, and even though I look forward to watching Moon Landings with the kid, this was not supposed to be a generational event.
Looking at the world today with the total economic collapse, the fact that last year demand for oil (the life blood of our industrial civilization) outpaced oil production, the fact that the largest climate shift in human history is looming, and thousands of other signs of doom and despair you might wonder why we have chosen this time to raise a child. The answer is simple for the first time since I was a kid growing up I feel optimistic about the future.
Over the course of my life I have watched science, research and development budgets being slashed. I was a kid when Nixon cut the last three Moon Missions, but the Skylab missions still had me hopeful of the future.
I was old enough to know that the Apollo-Soyuz was the last mission for the indefinite future I lowered my expectations. Even with NASA boasting of how the Shuttle would be all things to all people and would cost only pennies a day to operate it was obvious that it wouldn’t be the spacecraft to return us to the Moon and I’d have to wait for space technology to advance.
While that was happening I did have a glimmer of hope, Jimmy Carter announced that freeing us from our dependence on foreign oil would be the moral equivalent of war. I imagined a brave new world, where we could use our brains to advance as a people and put the vast scientific know how that allowed men to walk on the Moon to solve the problems that plagued mankind and in the pursuit of those goals we would make discoveries that would let us once more go into that final frontier.
Then he was laughed out of office.
I watched as Reagan and Bush slashed not only NASA’s budget but all funding towards Science and Technology even as Steve Jobs and Bill Gates were putting some of the space technology (microchips) to use in the hands of the public.
If it wasn’t bad enough that they slashed Science budgets, the whole tone of the nation started vilifying science and by extension intelligence. Being intelligent in America became a curse.
When Bill was elected I thought things would change, clearly an intelligent person would recognize the importance of inspiring other intelligent people to succeed instead of having to hide, but instead he put on an “aw shucks” routine and played dumb while slashing scientific research in this country to the bare bones.
By the time Bush came through and declared war on science and the “Intellectual elite” it didn’t mean much as even when discoveries were made they wouldn’t be developed. Bucky Tubes and nano-technology have been around for a couple of decades now. If they had been funded so they could develop into mature technologies we could have cars that weighed hundreds of pounds instead of thousands, as well as planes and of course spacecraft.
Seeing policy makers turn public opinion into down right hostility against anyone who could think for themselves made me decide against having a child that, if genetics is any indication, should be a super-genius.
But now it seems that people are looking around and noticing what 30 years of embracing stupid and rejecting science has led to.
No new innovations in science has led to innovations in money making like Default Credit Swaps, and Mortgage Backed Derivatives.
Not inspiring our children to wonder “What if” has meant all our industrial products come from overseas as Japanese and Korean’s wondered “What if we did this to improve a car?”
In times of great crisis there is great opportunity. To overcome the challenges that are in front of us we will need to once again foster an environment where an interest in science is considered something to be praised not scorned. Where critical thinking is seen as the solution to a problem and not “the problem”.
After watching a country’s Science policy go from science and research being a source of strength for our nation to something that should be despised, I wouldn’t have a genius kid while our leaders considered logic a menace and truth the enemy.
We’ve seen what happens when we embrace the stupid; Peak Oil, Financial Ruin, Death and Destruction on a massive scale.
It’s time to put intelligence back to work, and that is why I am hopeful for the future.
It will be a long time before we can forget what embracing stupid does. 60 years if history is any guide. So that gives my kid plenty of time to grow up in a world that values intelligence, honesty and a strong work ethic.
So America I am putting you on notice, I will watch the Moon Landings with my kid but I will not sit by and let the world make it an event to have me watch the Moon Landing with my Grandchild.
You’ve got 60 to 80 years to make sure that a Moon Landing is no more eventful than a plane crossing the Atlantic.
Wednesday, June 3, 2009
A response to Michael Moore from a former Oilman
In his recent post “Goodbye GM” Michael Moore compared the current financial meltdown (the Great Recession, The Great Depression 2.0, or whatever you what to call it) to a war, and he pointed his finger at the bad guys.
“The other front in this war is being waged by the oil companies against you and me. They are committed to fleecing us whenever they can, and they have been reckless stewards of the finite amount of oil that is located under the surface of the earth. They know they are sucking it bone dry. And like the lumber tycoons of the early 20th century who didn't give a damn about future generations as they tore down every forest they could get their hands on, these oil barons are not telling the public what they know to be true -- that there are only a few more decades of useable oil on this planet. And as the end days of oil approach us, get ready for some very desperate people willing to kill and be killed just to get their hands on a gallon can of gasoline.”
As the former Vice-President of an oil company, I can say with authority that the characterization he paints of the oil barons deceiving the public about the amount of oil left on the planet is totally false.
As the oil prices started going through the roof, I responded to critics who were saying that it was all a ploy by oil companies with my article “Why are gas prices so high?” Where I outlined the fact that we as a society have known for over 30 years that we were living on borrowed time as far as having an energy policy that was dependent on oil but instead of addressing the problem we just elected leader like Clinton and Bush who would rather squander away the nations wealth on the useless “War on Drugs” than address the looming crisis of peak oil.
Now Michael, you might say that I am the exception to the rule, the lone whistle-blower in the crowd but I am not.
Matt Simmons of Simmons & Company has been saying for decades that not only are we running out of oil but we have much less than is being reported.
T. Boone Pickens has been running countless ads pushing to reduce oil dependence.
Dave O’Reilly CEO of Chevron said in 2005 “It took us 125 years to use the first trillion barrels of oil. We’ll use the next trillion in 30.“
The heads of oil companies both big and small have been warning the public that demand will outstrip supply but the public has just been putting their fingers in their ears and saying “Na – Na – Na – Na, I can’t hear you.”
So why have oil companies been letting the delusional masses lead them into a policy that we knew was destructive? It was our legal duty.
In order to raise money for an oil project an oilman has to pass the same tests a stockbroker does. You can’t pass those tests without some knowledge of economics, so when you see the investment banks playing games with peoples retirement funds so that long-term growth is sacrificed for short-term gain. It is our fiduciary duty to try to do the best thing we can with our investors money.
If Wall Street is turning its back on long-term growth, we have to offer a course that will maximize short-term gain and that course is to drill like crazy so that we can sell oil when supply out-strips demand like it did last summer our investors can get some quick cash in their pockets to help them survive when Wall Street inevitably crashes.
Michael, it wasn’t that the oil companies were withholding information on peak oil, it was that the message wasn’t getting out to the public. So I ask you: Where were you during this run up to disaster?
Peak oil and the Financial markets sacrificing Long-Term Growth for Short-Term Gain are tough topics for the Mainstream Media to deal with it would need an independent documentary maker with some clout to raise public awareness, but instead of examining the start of the biggest crisis in our lifetimes you were busy examining the role of guns in our society and how roughly 900 people die a year from guns, when I can guarantee you more people will die from having the Investment Banks piss away their life savings than that.
So Michael you can point your finger at me and other oilmen all you want, but remember when you point your finger, your other three fingers are pointing back at you.
Darrell Nelson, former Vice-President of Mountainview Petroleum.
“The other front in this war is being waged by the oil companies against you and me. They are committed to fleecing us whenever they can, and they have been reckless stewards of the finite amount of oil that is located under the surface of the earth. They know they are sucking it bone dry. And like the lumber tycoons of the early 20th century who didn't give a damn about future generations as they tore down every forest they could get their hands on, these oil barons are not telling the public what they know to be true -- that there are only a few more decades of useable oil on this planet. And as the end days of oil approach us, get ready for some very desperate people willing to kill and be killed just to get their hands on a gallon can of gasoline.”
As the former Vice-President of an oil company, I can say with authority that the characterization he paints of the oil barons deceiving the public about the amount of oil left on the planet is totally false.
As the oil prices started going through the roof, I responded to critics who were saying that it was all a ploy by oil companies with my article “Why are gas prices so high?” Where I outlined the fact that we as a society have known for over 30 years that we were living on borrowed time as far as having an energy policy that was dependent on oil but instead of addressing the problem we just elected leader like Clinton and Bush who would rather squander away the nations wealth on the useless “War on Drugs” than address the looming crisis of peak oil.
Now Michael, you might say that I am the exception to the rule, the lone whistle-blower in the crowd but I am not.
Matt Simmons of Simmons & Company has been saying for decades that not only are we running out of oil but we have much less than is being reported.
T. Boone Pickens has been running countless ads pushing to reduce oil dependence.
Dave O’Reilly CEO of Chevron said in 2005 “It took us 125 years to use the first trillion barrels of oil. We’ll use the next trillion in 30.“
The heads of oil companies both big and small have been warning the public that demand will outstrip supply but the public has just been putting their fingers in their ears and saying “Na – Na – Na – Na, I can’t hear you.”
So why have oil companies been letting the delusional masses lead them into a policy that we knew was destructive? It was our legal duty.
In order to raise money for an oil project an oilman has to pass the same tests a stockbroker does. You can’t pass those tests without some knowledge of economics, so when you see the investment banks playing games with peoples retirement funds so that long-term growth is sacrificed for short-term gain. It is our fiduciary duty to try to do the best thing we can with our investors money.
If Wall Street is turning its back on long-term growth, we have to offer a course that will maximize short-term gain and that course is to drill like crazy so that we can sell oil when supply out-strips demand like it did last summer our investors can get some quick cash in their pockets to help them survive when Wall Street inevitably crashes.
Michael, it wasn’t that the oil companies were withholding information on peak oil, it was that the message wasn’t getting out to the public. So I ask you: Where were you during this run up to disaster?
Peak oil and the Financial markets sacrificing Long-Term Growth for Short-Term Gain are tough topics for the Mainstream Media to deal with it would need an independent documentary maker with some clout to raise public awareness, but instead of examining the start of the biggest crisis in our lifetimes you were busy examining the role of guns in our society and how roughly 900 people die a year from guns, when I can guarantee you more people will die from having the Investment Banks piss away their life savings than that.
So Michael you can point your finger at me and other oilmen all you want, but remember when you point your finger, your other three fingers are pointing back at you.
Darrell Nelson, former Vice-President of Mountainview Petroleum.
Why are Oil Prices So High?
This article was originally posted on my old site "Project Savior" in 2005, then reposted on Thisisby.us in 2007. It is still relevant today 4 years later.
Why are oil prices so high? It all has to do with priorities, Sure we could have spent a few billion to develop alternative fuels, but that would cut into the 100's of billions we spend to track and arrest people who have consensual sex.
It would also take Chemists, and you need to decide which is more important allowing someone to go to college who has used pot to unwind, just because they might make our country stronger, or turning a third of our citizens into criminals for reasons that have never been explained.
And after all isn't more important to devote more time and research to come up with a drug that cures the problem of people's legs shaking and their butts falling asleep after only sitting in front of the TV for 6 straight hours. Without this vital research people would actually have to stand up and stretch their legs once in awhile. How can idea of keeping the US from turning into a third world nation compete with that.
Isn't it more important that we spend 100's millions of dollars each year to arrest people for what they watch in the privacy of their own homes, than say: Do research into nuclear reactors that have passive safeguards so they aren't dangerous?
And how can letting our economy be dependent on imports from people who want to kill us, compete with the need to harass people who are using a legal substance that has never been shown to harm anyone but the user.
And which is a better way to have energy available, spending a few billion on mass transit systems that could save 2 million barrels of oil, or spending trillions to invade a country that has never produced more than 3 million barrels of oil?
How can we afford to research more fuel efficient cars, when we need to spend billions on labeling, take to trial, and spending money to track thousands of “Sexual Predators” who’s crime was to bonk some teenager when they were barely out of their teens themselves, all because nearly 30 children are sexual abused, outside the home, every year?
It’s all a matter of choice, we could have spent the last 30 years designing and building a national infrastructure that reduced our dependency on oil, and given us a cleaner safer world. But wasn’t so much better to use our money to cultivate a culture of fear by criminalizing non-criminal behavior so the government can spend trillions on “keeping us safe” from the bogeymen that they created to keep us locked in our homes, afraid to go outside at night, afraid of each other, so they can take away our civil rights one by one.
You can see with urgent problems like these that the government needs to spend it's money on, keeping our nation secure by researching alternatives to oil has to take a back burner.
Why are oil prices so high? It all has to do with priorities, Sure we could have spent a few billion to develop alternative fuels, but that would cut into the 100's of billions we spend to track and arrest people who have consensual sex.
It would also take Chemists, and you need to decide which is more important allowing someone to go to college who has used pot to unwind, just because they might make our country stronger, or turning a third of our citizens into criminals for reasons that have never been explained.
And after all isn't more important to devote more time and research to come up with a drug that cures the problem of people's legs shaking and their butts falling asleep after only sitting in front of the TV for 6 straight hours. Without this vital research people would actually have to stand up and stretch their legs once in awhile. How can idea of keeping the US from turning into a third world nation compete with that.
Isn't it more important that we spend 100's millions of dollars each year to arrest people for what they watch in the privacy of their own homes, than say: Do research into nuclear reactors that have passive safeguards so they aren't dangerous?
And how can letting our economy be dependent on imports from people who want to kill us, compete with the need to harass people who are using a legal substance that has never been shown to harm anyone but the user.
And which is a better way to have energy available, spending a few billion on mass transit systems that could save 2 million barrels of oil, or spending trillions to invade a country that has never produced more than 3 million barrels of oil?
How can we afford to research more fuel efficient cars, when we need to spend billions on labeling, take to trial, and spending money to track thousands of “Sexual Predators” who’s crime was to bonk some teenager when they were barely out of their teens themselves, all because nearly 30 children are sexual abused, outside the home, every year?
It’s all a matter of choice, we could have spent the last 30 years designing and building a national infrastructure that reduced our dependency on oil, and given us a cleaner safer world. But wasn’t so much better to use our money to cultivate a culture of fear by criminalizing non-criminal behavior so the government can spend trillions on “keeping us safe” from the bogeymen that they created to keep us locked in our homes, afraid to go outside at night, afraid of each other, so they can take away our civil rights one by one.
You can see with urgent problems like these that the government needs to spend it's money on, keeping our nation secure by researching alternatives to oil has to take a back burner.
Tuesday, June 2, 2009
Beavis and Butt-Head, the Model for Bush’s DHS.
Last night I watched Beavis and Butt-Head do America. Back in 1996 when it was made the Portrayal of the total incompetence of the ATF was laughable. The idea of the ATF and FBI doing an all out manhunt for Beavis and Butt-Head with the result being little more than giving all of Beavis and Butt-Head’s neighbors “full cavity searches” was so unrealistic it was funny.
Now, 13 years later the actions of the AFT in the film seem like a plausible scenario for the Department of Homeland Security.
Having Robert Stack being the lead agent who thought the only way to get information from people: suspects, witnesses, associates, etc. was to use full cavity searches doesn’t seem so out of place now that we have Cheney making the rounds on the news saying how having CIA agents have sex with teenage boys was the only way to keep the country safe.
Labeling two teenage boys as the most dangerous men in America seems a little less absurd after Homeland Security spent millions to round up a home grown terrorist cell, were during an interview the leader of the cell pointed to head and said, “We aren’t just acting Physically…”. Or how the CIA uncovered a plot to fly an airplane into the Sands Resort in Las Vegas only to find out it was a clip from “Con Air”.
When the Department of Homeland Security is restructured, and it needs to be I hope it uses Tommy Lee Jones’s portrayal of the US Marshals in Fugitive, who used all the powers within the law to find their man as a model rather than Robert Stack’s portrayal of the ATF.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
