All the talk about bailing out Wall Street and other large firms truly makes me sick. The people who run these companies will just mismanaged their funds again through high risk investments. The real people who need to be bailed out are the home owners who cannot afford their mortgages anymore. The government should be taking over their loans and giving them fixed-rate, affordable loans so the home owners will not lose their homes, the banks will be saved because they are not losing money, and the government will not lose money in the end because the home owners will still be paying off their loans.
This makes perfect sense yet most people do not see this.
Saturday, October 18, 2008
Sunday, September 21, 2008
A Mandate for New Home Building
Various local governments have different housing standards and codes for how homes should be built. It's now time for the U.S. government, or at least state governments, to add to the codes for the betterment of the nation and in a small part help improve the world.
The change that is needed is to mandate that all new homes being built should be able to generate a percentage of the energy they use in a year. The amount of energy should be calculated based on the average consumption for a house in a range of sizes and geographic locations. The percentage of energy that must be produced by the home should be around 25-50% of what is used. I feel this is reasonable, but the percentage would truly need to be determined by a panel of scientists and researchers. In addition to producing energy, each home that is connected to the electrical grid should be built with the capability to sell back the energy they do not use. This eliminates the need for an energy storage system.
To make this transition less painful, I feel that the government should not monitor how much energy is being produced after the home is sold. We do not need "energy police". The benefit to the owners of saving money on their energy costs should be enough incentive to keep using and maintaining their systems (solar, wind, etc...).
There are two ways to make this solution work. A home can produce a large amount of energy, or it can consume a small amount of energy so the required amount to be produced can be small. The heavy use of materials and devices that conserve energy will be extremely beneficial for everyone.
The change that is needed is to mandate that all new homes being built should be able to generate a percentage of the energy they use in a year. The amount of energy should be calculated based on the average consumption for a house in a range of sizes and geographic locations. The percentage of energy that must be produced by the home should be around 25-50% of what is used. I feel this is reasonable, but the percentage would truly need to be determined by a panel of scientists and researchers. In addition to producing energy, each home that is connected to the electrical grid should be built with the capability to sell back the energy they do not use. This eliminates the need for an energy storage system.
To make this transition less painful, I feel that the government should not monitor how much energy is being produced after the home is sold. We do not need "energy police". The benefit to the owners of saving money on their energy costs should be enough incentive to keep using and maintaining their systems (solar, wind, etc...).
There are two ways to make this solution work. A home can produce a large amount of energy, or it can consume a small amount of energy so the required amount to be produced can be small. The heavy use of materials and devices that conserve energy will be extremely beneficial for everyone.
Sunday, August 24, 2008
One Way Out of America's Economic Slump
One of the major reasons for America's economic slump is the rising cost of fuel. The price of crude oil has dropped significantly over the past few weeks (even though gasoline and diesel have not dropped much), however the lower prices will not last. It's time for a major overhaul, and the technologies already exist to do this.
I typically believe in smaller more efficient government, however there are times when this strategy needs to change. Similar to the Tennessee Valley Authority that was established by the U.S. government in 1933, we need a similar government owned company to handle alternative energy production (among other projects that the TVA were involved in). It's time to spend money to create jobs, and launch the U.S. towards a hydrogen fuel based economy. The first steps will be hard, but the long term affects will be tremendous.
The apprehension by the government to do this is apalling. It also appears that whether Obama or McCain win the presenditial election that neither will do enough to make this drastic of a change. The change can be much easier than it sounds.
This change can either be made drastically or gradually. To break out of the economic slump it needs to be made drastically. Gradual change has not been working, and promoting the use of ethanol (while it seemed good at first), has been a contributing reason as to why food costs have increased. People in the government need to step up and move forward. Enough with short term patches and minor solutions because they are getting us no where. We need the change now.
I typically believe in smaller more efficient government, however there are times when this strategy needs to change. Similar to the Tennessee Valley Authority that was established by the U.S. government in 1933, we need a similar government owned company to handle alternative energy production (among other projects that the TVA were involved in). It's time to spend money to create jobs, and launch the U.S. towards a hydrogen fuel based economy. The first steps will be hard, but the long term affects will be tremendous.
The apprehension by the government to do this is apalling. It also appears that whether Obama or McCain win the presenditial election that neither will do enough to make this drastic of a change. The change can be much easier than it sounds.
This change can either be made drastically or gradually. To break out of the economic slump it needs to be made drastically. Gradual change has not been working, and promoting the use of ethanol (while it seemed good at first), has been a contributing reason as to why food costs have increased. People in the government need to step up and move forward. Enough with short term patches and minor solutions because they are getting us no where. We need the change now.
Friday, August 22, 2008
Oil Company Profits in America
There is something seriously wrong with American oil companies making record profits when the cost of fuel is so high. The logic does not make sense. When the cost of crude oil increases doesn't this increase the supply costs for some of these oil companies? Are these companies profiteering at the expense of everyone?
American oil companies have had tax breaks, and it's time to remove these "gifts". They definitely can cover their expenses because they are making record profits, so there is no fear that these companies will pass on the expenses to the consumers. If they do, then the government should look into this further and try to prevent it.
The next smart thing to do with the extra tax revenue is to invest it in alternative energies. More money needs to be put into these types of programs, and in my next post I will explain a basic idea of how to help the United States out of it's economic slump.
American oil companies have had tax breaks, and it's time to remove these "gifts". They definitely can cover their expenses because they are making record profits, so there is no fear that these companies will pass on the expenses to the consumers. If they do, then the government should look into this further and try to prevent it.
The next smart thing to do with the extra tax revenue is to invest it in alternative energies. More money needs to be put into these types of programs, and in my next post I will explain a basic idea of how to help the United States out of it's economic slump.
Thursday, July 24, 2008
Dealing with Abortion
Abortion is a very touchy subject in American society. On both sides of the argument, for and against, people are very staunch in their positions. I'll do my best to present some ideas without insulting anyone. Hopefully, there will be enough people that agree so we can all move on together in peace.
The basis of the argument for the "right" to have an abortion is that the mother should be able to choose what to do with her body. The basis for the argument against abortion is that it is murder. I regret to say that I have been both pro-choice and pro-life at times in my life. Surely, this has happened to other people as well, and it is not easy with this subject.
When I was a young adult, I was pro-choice. This was easy for me because I did not think very deeply about this. The unborn child was a fetus and not an unborn child. My thinking was also swayed by my first serious girlfriend. As I grew older and wiser, I learned more about the whole situation. While watching a show about how the Star Wars movies were made more palatable to young people is that most of the people that died were purposely made to not appear "human". The Stormtroopers were "dehumanized" so it did not appear that real people were dying. A more shocking revelation came when watching a show about the master minds of the Holocaust. They made the Jewish people and other "undesirables" to be sub-human, and therefore they were easier to kill. The Nazis felt like they were killing animals instead of human beings. Sadly, proponents of abortion have done the same thing. They refuse to say they are killing an unborn human child. They would rather call it a fetus or a zygote. It's also always aborting the fetus or terminating the pregnancy. Never terminating the baby. The concept of dehumanization has worked well here.
When I came back to God, I truly knew in my heart that there were much better alternatives than abortion. With personally going through the adoption process, this also made me realize that there are a lot of other couples in the world who desperately want a child, but can't. We also have the opposite problem of people who want to get rid of a child. This situation can be handled simultaneously.
Here is what I propose the government should do:
The basis of the argument for the "right" to have an abortion is that the mother should be able to choose what to do with her body. The basis for the argument against abortion is that it is murder. I regret to say that I have been both pro-choice and pro-life at times in my life. Surely, this has happened to other people as well, and it is not easy with this subject.
When I was a young adult, I was pro-choice. This was easy for me because I did not think very deeply about this. The unborn child was a fetus and not an unborn child. My thinking was also swayed by my first serious girlfriend. As I grew older and wiser, I learned more about the whole situation. While watching a show about how the Star Wars movies were made more palatable to young people is that most of the people that died were purposely made to not appear "human". The Stormtroopers were "dehumanized" so it did not appear that real people were dying. A more shocking revelation came when watching a show about the master minds of the Holocaust. They made the Jewish people and other "undesirables" to be sub-human, and therefore they were easier to kill. The Nazis felt like they were killing animals instead of human beings. Sadly, proponents of abortion have done the same thing. They refuse to say they are killing an unborn human child. They would rather call it a fetus or a zygote. It's also always aborting the fetus or terminating the pregnancy. Never terminating the baby. The concept of dehumanization has worked well here.
When I came back to God, I truly knew in my heart that there were much better alternatives than abortion. With personally going through the adoption process, this also made me realize that there are a lot of other couples in the world who desperately want a child, but can't. We also have the opposite problem of people who want to get rid of a child. This situation can be handled simultaneously.
Here is what I propose the government should do:
- Promote sexual responsibility so people who do not want to have babies are smarter about the consequences. Abortion is being used to clean up "mistakes", when prevention is a much better answer. Of course, accidents will still happen, and nothing can be done about pregnancy caused by rape.
- Increase programs that allow mothers to give up their children during the first week after the child is born. These programs need to be promoted more heavily as well. This will also help save the lives of many children.
- Create a federally funded program that pairs up people who truly do not want a child with people who definitely want children. Cut out a lot of the red-tape and the cost of adoption. Speed up background checks as well.
It is very sad that people do not want their children, but it is even worse when people would rather have the child killed. If you are considering abortion, please consider putting your child up for adoption instead. The guilt of giving up a child versus ending your child's life is a world of difference. A chance at life is better than no chance at life at all.
Sunday, July 20, 2008
Missile Defence System for Europe
On the forum www.uspoliticsonline.com, forum member "Imperator" started a thread about the proposed missile defence system for Europe to protect against a potential Iranian attack, and how the Russian government feels about it. I felt it was worth re-posting my comments here. My response is below:
"This tiny missile defence system is pretty pointless, and for us (the United States) pushing so hard to put it in is ridiculous. We of course know that ten missiles would do nothing against the sheer numbers of a Russian missile attack. If Medvedev does not want this anti-missile system there then we should listen and not try to push to hard on this. The main thing that I think is ridiculous is that we are pushing for this at all. This is for the protection of Europe, and if they want it then they should be pushing for this. I don't want bad blood rising again between Russia and the United States.
On a different note, I see the reason for not putting the radar station in Azerbaijan. It's too close to Iran, and could possibly be taken out with a commando strike. Plus it would be in easy range of cruise missiles that the proposed radar station probably could not pick up.
The other strange thing is that the country that truly needs to worry about Iran is Israel. It's probably 100 times more likely that missiles would get launched against Israel instead of Europe."
Please leave your comments about this situation. Hopefully someone will see some sense and stop causing unnecessary tension.
"This tiny missile defence system is pretty pointless, and for us (the United States) pushing so hard to put it in is ridiculous. We of course know that ten missiles would do nothing against the sheer numbers of a Russian missile attack. If Medvedev does not want this anti-missile system there then we should listen and not try to push to hard on this. The main thing that I think is ridiculous is that we are pushing for this at all. This is for the protection of Europe, and if they want it then they should be pushing for this. I don't want bad blood rising again between Russia and the United States.
On a different note, I see the reason for not putting the radar station in Azerbaijan. It's too close to Iran, and could possibly be taken out with a commando strike. Plus it would be in easy range of cruise missiles that the proposed radar station probably could not pick up.
The other strange thing is that the country that truly needs to worry about Iran is Israel. It's probably 100 times more likely that missiles would get launched against Israel instead of Europe."
Please leave your comments about this situation. Hopefully someone will see some sense and stop causing unnecessary tension.
Friday, July 18, 2008
Teaching the Theory of Evolution
I'm not going to debate the whether or not creationism or evolution is true. We all know that micro-evolution is true because flu viruses mutate, and yet they still are flu viruses. They have not changed species. The true evidence for creationism or evolution is based on belief. When fossils are dated based on the layers of rock they reside in, yet the rocks are dated based on the fossils residing in them, then "yes" evolution is a belief.
The real debate we need to tackle in government is the treatment of all people involved. I am a creationist, and that is my belief. I certainly do not want the evolutionists force feeding me doctrine as fact without me having a choice whether or not I want to hear it. I do not want to think of certain evolutionists as using tactics similar to a particular infamous government that existed in the 1930's to 1940's, but there are similarities. Likewise, in defence of the evolutionists, they really don't want to hear any religious preaching. It goes against their beliefs. We should not force feed them our doctrine.
The solution is to present both points as theory. Whether or not I believe one or the other as fact is my choice and the choice of all people worldwide. Denying people this choice is wrong and dehumanizing.
If you are interested in knowing more about my views on creationism then please go to AnswersInGenesis.org. There are many more articles than the one I have cited.
The real debate we need to tackle in government is the treatment of all people involved. I am a creationist, and that is my belief. I certainly do not want the evolutionists force feeding me doctrine as fact without me having a choice whether or not I want to hear it. I do not want to think of certain evolutionists as using tactics similar to a particular infamous government that existed in the 1930's to 1940's, but there are similarities. Likewise, in defence of the evolutionists, they really don't want to hear any religious preaching. It goes against their beliefs. We should not force feed them our doctrine.
The solution is to present both points as theory. Whether or not I believe one or the other as fact is my choice and the choice of all people worldwide. Denying people this choice is wrong and dehumanizing.
If you are interested in knowing more about my views on creationism then please go to AnswersInGenesis.org. There are many more articles than the one I have cited.
Tuesday, July 15, 2008
Is America's Solution Drilling for more Oil?
On the surface, drilling for more oil seems logical for the mid-term, but it is neither a short-term or long-term solution. I have read that it will take between 5-7 years for the new drilling to have an effect on oil prices. Even if we have more oil, our refineries are pretty close to the limit of max production, and there are no plans to build any new refineries.
Drilling for more oil definitely is not a long-term solution. The politicians should stop wasting time, and push completely towards the use of hydrogen as fuel. The new oil wells will dry up, and then we will be left in this same exact situation again 15 years later. People need to start thinking far enough ahead and not just for the hear and now.
If the government would get behind private investors to push the building of cars that can use hydrogen (either through fuel cells or combusting it), then we will all be better off in the end. As a matter of fact, the government can do this on their own without private investment as well. This is a big enough project that it surely could warrant the cost.
The politicians need to get together and look at this clearly and with eyes to the future.
Drilling for more oil definitely is not a long-term solution. The politicians should stop wasting time, and push completely towards the use of hydrogen as fuel. The new oil wells will dry up, and then we will be left in this same exact situation again 15 years later. People need to start thinking far enough ahead and not just for the hear and now.
If the government would get behind private investors to push the building of cars that can use hydrogen (either through fuel cells or combusting it), then we will all be better off in the end. As a matter of fact, the government can do this on their own without private investment as well. This is a big enough project that it surely could warrant the cost.
The politicians need to get together and look at this clearly and with eyes to the future.
Monday, July 14, 2008
Prayer in American Public Schools
I am a Christian, yet I believe that fighting for a set public prayer time in public schools is a waste of energy and resources. There are much greater battles that need to be fought (e.g. the forced teaching of all evolution as fact without allowing other viewpoints to be heard).
It is the responsibility of the parents to provide their children with the religious education they deem fit. Children can pray whenever they want on their own time, and adding extra time in school does not make sense. The time is unnecessary, and it gives the appearance that Christians are forcing their viewpoints on all others. If we do not want to have other people's doctrine forced on us then we should not force ours on them. The children are not being prevented from praying on their own, and if there are cases (other than the one I state below), then these type of situations should be fought for.
To all the people who are fighting for prayer in school, please spend your energy on changes that will be more effective. Spend this time fighting for free speech where teenagers are being told they can't pray before their high school football games. This is a serious affront and insult to Christians.
Public prayer time in school will not make better behaved Christian children, and it will not change the moral fabric of the United States. Public prayer should always be a personal decision and not mandated by the government. The government should never impose or prohibit a person's right to free speech, and this includes prayer.
It is the responsibility of the parents to provide their children with the religious education they deem fit. Children can pray whenever they want on their own time, and adding extra time in school does not make sense. The time is unnecessary, and it gives the appearance that Christians are forcing their viewpoints on all others. If we do not want to have other people's doctrine forced on us then we should not force ours on them. The children are not being prevented from praying on their own, and if there are cases (other than the one I state below), then these type of situations should be fought for.
To all the people who are fighting for prayer in school, please spend your energy on changes that will be more effective. Spend this time fighting for free speech where teenagers are being told they can't pray before their high school football games. This is a serious affront and insult to Christians.
Public prayer time in school will not make better behaved Christian children, and it will not change the moral fabric of the United States. Public prayer should always be a personal decision and not mandated by the government. The government should never impose or prohibit a person's right to free speech, and this includes prayer.
Sunday, July 13, 2008
Greetings to All!
Have you ever been sick and tired of all the different politicians going around stating that their way is the best? Haven't you ever wished you get the politicians together and smack their heads together so they can truly see each other's point of view?
Sometimes politics makes me sick. If people would just look at all the ideas from a broad point of view, and considered all people involved with kindness and caring, then we would not have so many problems.
Please feel free to add your rants and raves about the different subjects that friends and I will be posting. The more ideas we have flowing the better it will be. Eventually, someone may hear us and policies may start changing.
Sometimes politics makes me sick. If people would just look at all the ideas from a broad point of view, and considered all people involved with kindness and caring, then we would not have so many problems.
Please feel free to add your rants and raves about the different subjects that friends and I will be posting. The more ideas we have flowing the better it will be. Eventually, someone may hear us and policies may start changing.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)