That is right. We need you to make some changes, give us a little more power (you lose a little freedom) but hey, we’ll keep you safe. Maybe I’ll tap your phone, maybe I’ll read your mail, I don’t know we’ll mix it up a little! Anyone think that this line of thought is ridiculous?

To be honest, I don’t care if the Government is going to tap my phone or read my mail (electronic or otherwise). I know that to keep the country safe, somethings have to be done. What I don’t like is how it is done - and I think that one can find this will be the case regardless of whether a Republican or Democrat is in office. Instead of taking the appropriate steps to obtaining the legal rights to tap ones phone or to read mail or whatever else is going on, the government simply just does it.

This sort of practice of course goes right against one of the very core values of America: Nobody is above the law. Well the new logic appears to be nobody is against the law except for the government.

But what happens next really scares me (beware, I am going to make a jump). Congress begins voluntarily give power; the balance of power is now disrupted.

What got me thinking about this is this new ‘Real ID’. It is a new set of laws mandating that states begin producing ID’s that follow a set of National guidelines. Like this will hinder terrorists.

If you don’t have one of these new ‘Real ID’s’ (by 2009 of course), you can be stopped from boarding a plane or you can be stopped from getting a job. Ridiculous? Too much.

The real ironic part is that the Social Security Administration wields this power through ‘United States Code Title 42 Section 666′. Talk about evil.

Posted under Legal, Politics by Will Gries on Friday, March 30th 2007; 8:24 pm

Comments (0)

Many claim that on July 8, 1947, aliens landed in Roswell, New Mexico.

Skeptics simply say that the government silence on this issue is because the object that crashed was a new military bomber, while proponents say that government is covering up the alien landing because aliens have landed and they are trying to prevent an outbreak of terror.

However, you may NOT know that in the month of March 1948, exactly nine months after that historic day, President George W. Bush was born.

I personally think that this revelation is groundbreaking; far more so than having the first women president or the first African American President. Heck, this is the first time that we have had a president that isn’t a human being!

Posted under Comic Relief by Will Gries on Tuesday, March 27th 2007; 4:38 pm

Comments (2)

After a discovery this morning, you can now contact me on my site e-mail: wmgries@common-sense.no-ip.org. I hope I can get some feedback on this site from anyone who reads!

On a side note, spam will not be tolerated and the e-mail address will be blocked upon receiving of spam mail. Thanks!

Please take time to tell me what you think!

Posted under Site Announcements by Will Gries on Tuesday, March 27th 2007; 3:15 pm

Comments (0)

Global Warming is always portrayed in a negative manner; ocean level rising, stronger hurricanes, stronger storms in general however could moderate climate change actually be a good thing?

• Slightly warmer temperatures would increase crop yield. Crops could be harvested over a longer period of time perhaps increasing the yields. More crops can always be a good thing - perhaps we can feed the world or maybe we will waste some of our crop on ethanol?
• Slightly warmer temperatures would lower energy costs during the winter months. If the temperature is warmer during the winter months, then I won’t need to spend as much to heat my home (and workplace, and car).
• Slightly warmer temperatures would give small health benefits. I wouldn’t need worry getting frostbite or hypothermia if the temperatures were warmer.

Of course, we shouldn’t let this get out of hand. If temperatures were to increase substantially: then sea levels would rise, species would struggle to stay alive, storms would get more powerful, quality of life would decrease. All I am trying to point out is that we shouldn’t break our back to cut carbon emissions when many creditable scientists predict only moderate temperature increase.

Posted under Climate Change, Global Warming, Politics by Will Gries on Sunday, March 25th 2007; 5:10 pm

Comments (3)

Scientists, politicians, even common people think of solutions to the growing energy crisis that we have everyday here in America. I actually wonder why: the answer is so simple that it almost makes me laugh:

Conservation, Nuclear Power, and Increased Renewable Energy Use.

• Conservation - It seems harder than it actually is. Turn off lights and appliances when you leave the room. DON’T warm up your car for 10 minutes before you leave for work/school. Turn off A/C during the summer when it is not super hot out (below 80 or so). Turn the heat down in your house during the winter and use a propane fireplace (or wood fireplace) to heat instead.

It may not seem like such a big deal to do the things above, and it mean even seem like doing such little things won’t help the overall problem. However, if everyone in American did the above things when possible - then it would be a lot less of an emergency to find alternate fuel sources. It would also cost a lot less to use energy (supply/demand)

• Nuclear Power - We can all agree that Nuclear Power isn’t exactly the cleanest solution to our problems… after all we are wanting a clean source of energy to power ourselves in the future. However, Nuclear Energy isn’t as ‘dirty’ as people imagine. All the bi-products are formed into glass tubes and buried under Government owned law in Nevada (and other places). Nuclear waste should be the least of our worries when dealing with Nuclear Power.

Nuclear Power plants are also extremely safe. One might worry of a nuclear breakdown - however since incidents at the Three-Mile Island plant and Chernobyl, Nuclear Power Plant protocol has become much stricter. Of course security is always going to be a consideration, a Nuclear Power Plant might become a significant target for terrorists, however if security is high at these reactors, it shouldn’t be a problem.

It should be noted that no new Nuclear Plants have been constructed since 1979 (in America) and all [functional] reactors can still be used. However in China and other developing countries, Nuclear Power has become a great energy source.

• Increased Renewable Energy - The most difficult to achieve on the list; renewable energy can and will be obtainable as the demand (because of ever higher energy prices) increases (and of course the supply of renewable energy will need to increase). Of course, it is hoped by the time the masses come to Renewable energy, that the technologies will have evolved to be cheaper and more efficient than their present day counterparts.

It should be noted that if I were to install Solar Panels on my house, any electricity that I do not consume is pumped back into the grid and the Power companies will actually send me a check reimbursing me for helping out. Just a positive to the panels that many people don’t consider (they actually pay for themselves with cash left over for the user).

Posted under Energy, Global Warming, News, Other, Politics by Will Gries on Monday, March 12th 2007; 7:19 pm

Comments (0)

It occurred to me the other day that just because a Government is big, doesn’t mean that it is bad.  Certainly one can spend a lot of money and be fiscally responsible at the same time.  It is a simple matter of not spending more than you take in and putting away money for the future.

Many Republicans (although a shrinking number) would make you believe that more programs is a bad thing.  Of course, if America wants more programs, more spending - it will come at a price:  Taxes will have to be raised.  However, I would rather see Taxes Raised and the Government be more responsible with my money then have taxes remain the same and the government spend it on things that they can’t afford.

Ironically, the Bush Administration actually made (makes) the problem worse because they’ve added more benefits to existing social programs such as Medicare.  America already can’t afford Medicare - why should we make it more expensive?

Personally, I would opt for a smaller government.  Whenever an institution gets big - it tends to have corruption problems and I think that should be avoided.  I would like to see many of these social programs slashed; Americans already spend roughly around 44% of their income on various taxes (Federal, State, Local).  I would like to see taxes down to 22% or less.

But failing that, I would like to see the Government balance their budget and not spend more than they are bringing in.  Thousands of people do it everyday, why can’t the government as well?

Posted under Cultural Battles, Politics by Will Gries on Monday, March 12th 2007; 6:44 pm

Comments (0)

Is there really a reason why so many senators voted against the purposed official language bill. I’m not sure I’m even know of anyone that thinks English shouldn’t be our official language.

If you think it shouldn’t be - Please give me a reason why. I’m dying to know.

Posted under Cultural Battles, Language Wars by Will Gries on Monday, March 12th 2007; 6:43 pm

Comments (2)

I’ve been pretty busy these last couple of days and today is no exception.  I might not get around to write all of this week and I certainly won’t be writing for most of next week.  Don’t worry - I’ll get back into a semi-normal routine on the 26th.

Posted under Site Announcements by Will Gries on Monday, March 12th 2007; 6:37 pm

Comments (0)

Already, the 2008 election has picked up on the Ethanol Issue. Corn farmers love it; it raises the price of corn (supply/demand theory in action). Candidates on both sides of the aisle promise to increase funding towards ethanol studies and production. It makes Americans feel good about driving everywhere; we think that because we are using a more natural product that is made right here in America we are saving the planet and sticking to the big oil companies/energy imports.

Ethanol has some major downfalls that you won’t hear politicians talking about.

Ethanol isn’t fuel efficient. To manufacture it, you must use more energy than ethanol actually can produce. In other words, ethanol (when used as a fuel source) may provide for x amount of BTU’s (British Thermal Units, the measure of energy content) but to actually make the corn into ethanol, one must expend 2x amount of BTU’s. (Please note this isn’t the scientific amount of energy it takes to make the change, it doesn’t require 2 times the amount of energy ethanol provides to make the ethanol).

Foreign imports actually must increase to make ethanol. Although the corn used to make ethanol will come from American farmers, to actually change the corn into ethanol America will need to increase the importation of Natural Gas. So the claim that Ethanol will help America become energy independent doesn’t exactly hold up. Or Coal, a fuel American has plenty of, can be used, but that of course takes (beyond a doubt) away the claim Ethonal is good for the environment.

America doesn’t have enough corn to supply a large Ethanol market. Scientific American puts it best, “… even if 100% of the U.S. corn supply was distilled into ethanol it would supply on a small fraction of the fuel consumed by the nation’s vehicles.” Nobody can really claim that using 100% of the corn crop to make ethanol is a good trade; corn is a major product for Americans and we use corn as an important export.

Most cars and gas stations in America aren’t even equipped to handle Ethanol. Almost all of the ethanol current produced is only used as an additive to gasoline. “Traditional” engines can’t handle more than 10% ethanol; the “distilled liquor” gradually breaks down the engines. Only the “flexible fuel” cars can actually handle high content Ethanol, E85, which is 85% Ethanol, 15% gasoline. However, even if you own a car with an engine capable of taking high content Ethanol, your local gas stations may not even carry the E85 mix!

Ethanol is worth less than traditional Gasoline. A barrel of your Standard Unleaded Gasoline contains about 119,000 BTU’s however a barrel of Ethanol contains 80,000 BTU’s. Obviously this means that upon combustion, you get less bang for your buck. Scientific American suggests that “you will run dry about 33% sooner [than if you used gasoline].” Since only a fraction of the corn production will be used to make ethanol, prices would actually be higher than gasoline per gallon - and cause even more of a problem since you would have to refill a third sooner than previously.

Ethanol cannot be shipped in pipelines like gasoline, it must be trucked to every location. Water naturally occurs in pipelines, but the oil and gasoline won’t mix with the water. Ethanol however will, effectively ruining it. So to transport ethanol to the locations it is needed, trucks (using diesel, ironically a better fuel source, but not free) would have to “truck it”.

Ethanol doesn’t even reduce Greenhouse Gases! Scientists now say that Ethanol doesn’t even reduce Greenhouse gases as much as politicians claim. In fact, in some cases, Ethanol even is worse for the environment than Gasoline!

The article that I read in Scientific American does go in to more detail about other, more obscure problems with Ethanol. I won’t bore you anymore with the problems however. The last part of the article elaborates on a different type of Ethanol made using stalks and grasses; the waste products of farms. Some of the problems above still apply, however this “Cellulose Ethanol” may provide for some makeshift, transition fuel in the future. Ethanol isn’t the key to the new energy source, but it seems Americans and our elected officials haven’t seen this, yet.

Article Citation:

Wald, Matthew L. “Is Ethanol for the Long Haul?” Scientific American Jan. 2007: 42-49.

Posted under Energy, Global Warming, Politics by Will Gries on Sunday, March 4th 2007; 6:50 pm

Comments (4)

I added a randomized quote from my favorite quotes at the bottom of every page.  Be sure to check out those quotes when browsing this site.

Thanks!

Posted under Site Announcements by Will Gries on Sunday, March 4th 2007; 3:17 pm

Comments (0)