Nukular Power...

As of late, mostly since the Democrats returned to power in Congress, there has been an increasing level of awareness and talk about climate change, global warming, foreign oil dependence, energy security, etc. Most of those categories arrive due to a single factor: oil. It has long been obvious that a nation relying on its majority of a resource to come from outside its borders is a sure sign of a loss of sovereignty. We are not a strong, independent state if what fuels our existence is not within our control. The producers of our crude could, at any time, arbitrarily raise the price per barrel and give our economy the equivalent of heartburn and remind us that our stability is at the whim of others.

This is one of the few things I agreed with President Bush on from his State of the Union. (Ha! You thought I'd never mention it again, but I did!) It was merely a part of a list when he was speaking of alternative methods of producing energy. But still, it was there. And here it is, the ability to reduce our dependence on foreign fuels, give our country a safe standard of electrical production, and even reduce our carbon emissions: nuclear energy.

The word nuclear has an unfortunate stigma attached to it. Yes, there are nuclear weapons, though only used twice, but there are other weapons, as I am sure you are all well aware, and all have been used to far greater extents. We, like the old nuclear powers of the world, are experts in not only making these terrible weapons, but experts in avoiding their use. And let's face it, the only two remotely dangerous disasters with nuclear power facilities can't possibly happen in modern plants. I won't argue with Springfield's nuclear power plant whose safety inspector is Homer Simpson, either, because damnit, it's a funny scenario.


So why am I aiming for nuclear power to save the United States? Because, first of all, it works. It's clean and safe. Don't believe me? Just ask Japan and France. They have been at it for decades, due to their own homelands' lack of resources. In fact, even the US does a fine job of using it, though we still are not as efficient with it as we could and should be. We only use nuclear power for about twenty percent of our electrical production. I still believe we could learn quite a bit from the French and the Japanese, simply because they have poured far more energy and resources into developing nuclear power efficiency and safety.

Now the political reasons for switching to using at the very least half nuclear electricity production? We are in the top ten of uranium mining countries in the world. That in itself lends to a great deal of economic security. We aren't spending tons of money just moving the fuel from awfully unstable places in the world and leaving pipelines open for intrusion. It's here; we have it. But what I think is even better is this: The number one producer of uranium in the world is... Canada! I love it. Canada is not Saudi Arabia, hell it is not even Russia. It is, by the greatest margins possible, the safest country in the world from which we can buy the remainder of the fuel we need. I think it is durned skippy to be investing even more money into our biggest trading partner, making them richer, and having them buy more stuff from us. I really do not know how to expand further on this idea; I think it stands well on its own.

Now, here's my last trick to getting us weaned off foreign oil and standing on our own again: coal liquefication. Now, it is an old idea, turning hard coal into a liquid fuel, but it has been worked on for nearly a century, and with a few more pushes in the right direction (such as the price of crude exploding again), this could be an economical alternative, and again, produced in our own backyard. We are the second most productive miner of coal in the world (first is China, by a lot). So why not just make gasoline out of it, using our home-grown coal or nuclear energy, and take care of ourselves?

Now I just need a train system in the US that rivals the EU, and I'll be a happy little pup~

Mmm... Daily Dish...

Much of my downtime here at work, of which there seems to be less and less, I do my best to keep myself informed of the happenings in the world. I actively watch the BBC, listen to NPR podcasts, have finally repaired my links to use the Economist online (thanks, Dad!) and have been delving a bit when I can into what is strangely called the blogosphere. I suppose it's a better term than 'bloggernet' or 'blogmania' or other concoctions. However, I do think that blogs, and how they are handled by the majority of heavier users, is nice. I think it's an amazing resource for writers, artists, and thinkers to share more directly with a wide audience, and makes an easy pathway to written debates.

As I have mentioned before, the internet's promise does come with a price. If you check anywhere with a message board or blog reply system, you'll very readily find the knee-jerk, foolish, and grammatically-lacking reply. I got a clean view of it when reading a review of Roxio's Toast 8, and the responses to the review were empty to the point of being vacuous. Responders would rarely add in their two cents to the review, but would instead tear into one another's poor responses. It was almost painful to look at, because my train of thought always goes to questioning the quality of humanity and why bother continuing to work at being upstanding and thoughtful.

I sure do get sidetracked easily. The point of my writing this blog is to point out a blog Ben had recommended to me a while back. I've taken to reading Andrew Sullivan's Daily Dish regularly throughout the day. Not only is he a great writer and reading him will link you out to many other wonderful things in the world, but he does epitomize the thoughtful courtesy in a blogger that I am writing about. It's amazing what happens when someone touting themself to be a proper conservative. I start agreeing with a great deal of the ideas they put forth.

An awesome thing that happened while in Mr Sullivan's corner of the blogosphere has been a debate between he and another writer, Sam Harris. Sullivan has a strong Christian faith, and Harris is a vocal Atheist, and somehow, somewhere, they wound up in a debate, Is Religion 'Built Upon Lies'? All the content aside, it's a grand thing to see two people, who obviously enjoy one anothers' writing, have two different views and manage to politely tear into the other man's arguments without coming to a terrible standstill. My father and I have long talked (debated, yelled, whatever) about the idea of proper discourse between people of different values and ideas. My dad and I do our best to keep in touch with how the 'other side' reasons, 'the other side' being just whomever happens to have a contrasting opinion. It is grand work by Messrs Harris and Sullivan, and I hope to find more of it in the future.

Oh, and as a final note, I would like to mention how much I love my Apple computer (specifically PowerBook) and the Dashboard with Widgets that exists in OS X. I cannot count how many times I have hit F12 and typed directly into the dictionary. Aside from all the other nifty things I use, that dictonary access has sped up my writing and research, and I especially like the etymology that is included with most definitions. It definitely (ha!) lends itself to more accurate usage.


Toodles~

Where Have All The Flowers Gone...

Too long since my last post, yes, I know. My life leaves little room for freedom of thought, and even less room for freedom to write. I think the trick may be to write in much smaller pieces than trying for a fully formed thought and conclusion. Especially since I rarely come to any sort of a conclusion, rather I find myself left with a whole different set of questions leading me back to the beginning. Quite like Socrates, no? Of course not.


There has been in the news lately Viacom suing Google over its content being placed on YouTube. There is a small addendum that is needed to that basic titular line, however. 'Content being placed on YouTube' should have the words 'by users' tacked to the end. It is not YouTube nor its parent Google that is downloading television shows from its TiVo and putting them online for a profit. The common folk are the users, people completely separate from the workings of Google.

A large portion of the debate will return to the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) of 1998. This act was designed to secure the copyrights of media in digital formats, but still protecting distribution and search companies from being considered infringing on copyrighted material. It is nearly a coin flip on which side of the DMCA a court ruling may land.

My own thoughts on digital copyrights are a little tough to nail down, but generally fall in favor of freeing digital media from copyright. In fact, I do believe that anything digital is unable to be copyrighted. Any material in a digital format may be copied essentially infinite times without damaging or decreasing the quality. The best analogy I have heard is that of fire. If I have a candle, it does not take away from my light for another to come up with his candle and use my flame.

As a regular computer user and even somewhat qualified technician, I know that the digital world cannot be contained. It is positively amazing what it means for humanity. Even when someone or some group gets shut down, there are immediately people available to fill the void, whether it is a legal activity or not. All information can be cracked, and thanks to the constantly growing internet, can be shared beyond measure. We are only beginning to see the revolution that is happening to the world, and the only thing that compares to this transition is Gutenberg's printing press (and also creation of copyright itself).

From another perspective, I am also a musician, and at a stretch, an artist. And you know what? I have absolutely no problem with the free sharing of music and art. The world is better for having it out among the people. Besides, a recording or an image holds no candle to hearing music performed live, to seeing sculpture in a gallery, to going to a movie theater. I play music because the challenge is in the process, and the art in the performance. I think that the digital revolution will do a better job separating the manufactured art from the true artists. Also, God willing, it will challenge people to make movies worth actually paying ten bucks to see, rather than the vast majority being worthy only of a bootleg copy a week after the premiere.

Now of course there are the pitfalls that follow the promise of the revolution. With the infinite ability to copy and share, there will always be that portion of the population who will copycat and try to take credit, and now also an even greater percentage of innocent misinformation, such as giving one person credit for the work of another. But I think that anyone who does any bit of follow-up work or just uses a little skepticism when seeing information will be just fine when it comes to the garbage that is and will always be floating around.

The part that might be the hardest to handle the revolution would be the art of writing. But, so far as I can tell, it is actually seeing something of a boon rather than faltering. I think that people of the blogging community are setting wonderful precedent on linking to one another's work and so many other outside sources. Actually, it beats the snot out of having additional text inserted in your work as a standard essay would. Rather, in blogs, it is merely a word that is a different color that may send the reader to a location being cited. Also, regarding writing, I don't see Amazon or Barnes & Noble suffering at the feet of change. Of course, it is sadly at the expense of small, independent bookstores. But I digress.

At the end, I see the sharing of arts in such a ready way as a wonderful change. It will, of course, mean the death of the recording industry for music, but then again, the recording industry has been pretty well strangling music to death, so it's a good comeuppance. Besides, I have always thought that music was an art, not an industry~

Politics Dictating Faith...

When reading my dear friend Ben's blog, I was sad to see news of his Church shrinking in membership. All while growing up, the people I had known from that congregation have always been above-par nice, good-natured, and thoughtful. Being raised in Turlock gave me higher than average exposure to varieties of religious denominations, and the Presbyterian Church to which he belongs always seemed more tolerant and inclusive than most. I remember seeing concerts and playing on their grounds without a feeling of being pressured or unwelcome in any way, which is amazing to feel when one is a lone atheist boy. If there is a way for me to eventually repay that kindness, I hope to do so.

That, however, is not what strikes me to write here. In reading the article he linked to from the Christian Post, something struck me as not quite right. It described some of the governing politics tying the various Churches together. But this appears as an attempt to govern something that is utterly ungovernable.

When it comes to faith, there is something intrinsically personal about it. While there may be elements of it that are enriched by communing with those who share one's faith, it is still, at the core, how just one person perceives the world. It is the mind's bridge to the soul. There is nothing and no one that can touch or change that relationship. Religous groups and other people may help by presenting their ideas and interpretations of just what exactly will best get one across that bridge, but it may only be traversed by the one person possessing it.

The associations and alliances of Churches, however, should not be construed as a poor idea. It is a grand one and generally a genuine pact of aid. When combining economic support systems, groups that fall on unfortunate times have a much deeper well of resources with which to recover (*cough*Universal Health Care*cough*). This is another citing of that wonderful part of human nature to help one another and be stronger as a group than each can be individually.

The line is crossed when it is an outside act to change how one's faith should operate and what it should be associated with. Leaving one sect and joining another, deciding that the differences among the old and new members is of no importance or tolerable to forget cannot actually work, can it? A dictate cannot come from some ranking person in a hierarchy nor from a simple majority stating that everyone shall now belong to and believe something different. Or does human belief and faith actually operate like that?

I was raised with a multitude of options and thought of them as many different paths to Heaven. It was all a matter of personal choice, personal faith, and it was different for each person. I don't know. I have so far wound up with an understanding of life and soul of my own, along with a rather severe cynicism of the idea of organizing religion at all. So if there are any who read this can add their two cents on governing belief. I will admit my own lack of insight on most religious ideas, as I have always been an ouside observer squinting in the distance occasionally.

Part II, Medicine...

This is my first true rebuttal to President Bush's 2007 State of the Union address. I plan to write in a sort of sequential order based on the topics that appeared in his speech. One of the first things he brought up was entitlements, state funded health care and retirement. Bush gave lots of figures in his proposal giving increased tax benefits and federal funding to cover lower-income homes and those without insurance through work.

I, however, do not believe this is enough. These tax breaks are nice for individuals, but do nothing to help businesses cope with the massive portion of expenses they cover in order to give insurance to their full-time employees. With the drastic increases in the costs of health insurance over the past decade, fewer small businesses can afford to cover their employees, so the burden has shifted to them. But for that to work out, those employees would have to be paid more in order to cover it, and so they go without coverage. Federally increasing the minimum wage will not cure this problem in any way, and has its own set of unfortunate consequences, which I will go into another time.

What, then, to do?

It is time for America to step up to the plate and accept the truth that health care is not a business, it is a societal need. We have the wealth and the capacity to provide medical care to each and every citizen. If business and government alike wish to keep everyone working, they should be completely in favor of not subsidizing the health insurance business and their administrations, and just giving untaxed money much more directly to the use of medicine.

My solution is for the United States to create a basic Universal Health Care service, and completely nationalize our current health care and insurance industry. I greatly applaud Massachusetts for being the forerunner of universal health coverage, and am behind California following suit. Let them be the testing grounds to set the stage for when it can be implemented across the entire nation.

This, I am sure, is overly idyllic. But, as hundreds of years of use now has shown, capitalism has its dehumanizing aspects, and this is one of those aspects. The idea that human health is a matter of profit for a company, rather than given its due consideration and dignity, is unfortunate. Ask almost anyone who is actually in the health care industry, and you'll find countless scores of women and men devoted to improving the lives of others. The thought of making sure they make a few bucks when someone needs antibiotics for a minor infection does not even enter their minds.

I also think that, what it boils down to, is whether or not we are actually in this societal experiment together. We're all here now, and we're all neighbors. When one person is in need, others surely will step in to help. All people everywhere believe in this basic principle in one way or another, because it's a factor of living as societies.

The biggest lynchpin to the whole scenario involves caring for those who no longer contribute to society, namely the elderly. This is where social security lines up with health care in terms of being in dire need of contributers vastly outnumbering consumers. To this, I say the retirement age absolutely must be increased. People live longer, and are far more able in their later years than they used to be. Also, a great many retired people would probably have wanted to work several more years before being ousted. The original retirement age of 55 was set in place when the average person did not live to that point, and those who lived beyond did not for very long. To this, I say the retirement age should be 75 or 80. This would change the ratio of those working against those drawing pensions a great deal.

There is far more to say, and many more details to work out in these ideas. And it is entirely possible my thoughts are completely flawed and could never work. Either way, I plan to keep pondering it and working out the numbers. Still, my common sense tells me that if we eliminate the business administration end of health care, and eliminate the idea of private insurance at all, medical treatments might just become cheaper.

What is in a Name...

I think anyone who legally names their child 'Precious' dooms that child to a life of mediocrity.

Cool...

Be Cool
Only a jazz musician can explain the world in such a way and so well.

Great Speeches...

This is intended to be the first in a short series of remarks to President Bush's 2007 State of the Union address. Political speeches tend to arouse a bit of passion in me, both negatively and positively. It has always been something of a dream of mine to be an orator. I would love to write essays and speeches, and deliver them in such a way as rouse and feed off the energy of my audience. To become a speaker who could incite a riot if I so chose, but instead would rally people to be better or to defend themselves and each other.

Winston Churchill has always been an idol of mine. A far-seeing man of great ability as a writer and as a leader of a nation, listening to his speeches still bristles my hair and stokes the fire in my chest. I have a lapel pin of his silhouette, hat on and cigar in mouth. I have only worn it once so far. It is a good luck symbol for when I need to speak publicly. Visions enter into my mind when thinking of speaking like Churchill. I see myself, as I see him, wearing a trench coat, walking through a wind storm, holding a hat to keep it from flying away. Head down, a long swift stride, walking across a street to a house of governance. Moving through the forces against human action, to this venue, to tell the world the terrible things it does not wish to hear. Telling them the worst has yet to come, but still reinforcing everyone's will to stand firm, because they can and shall emerge from hell. (This is also how I feel when I listen to the 2nd movement of Beethoven's Fourth Piano Concerto.)

So many speeches also bother me, not because of the speaker, but because of the writing itself. It all too often feels like trite wording, using basic techniques, to pull at emotions. Great moments in time require great thought and great writing to wield them. One cannot use Nickelback when Beethoven is needed. The people cannot suffice on cake when bread is needed. And the world cannot be understood via Hollywood when the word of God is needed.

Here is President Bush's address to the nation following the September 11th attacks. To me, the whole speech feels too simple-minded and lacking actual feeling and contemplation. "These acts of mass murder were intended to frighten our nation into chaos and retreat. But they have failed; our country is strong." It almost seems caveman-ish. They hurt us. They bad. We strong. We good. This is not a critique on the speaker, as this is just the transcript, so I am thinking only in terms of the writing.

I'm sure it is a good enough speech for the people whose information comes solely from television and for people who have never once paid attention to a single day in history class. But for those of us who fully grasp the gravity of events but lack the abilities to use words worthy of them, we need those great speakers of the world to give a voice to the common minds of men.


Abraham Lincoln, Second Inaugural Address, 4 March 1865:
"With malice toward none, with charity for all, with firmness in the right as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we are in, to bind up the nation's wounds, to care for him who shall have borne the battle and for his widow and his orphan, to do all which may achieve and cherish a just and lasting peace among ourselves and with all nations."

Woodrow Wilson, War Message before Congress, 2 April 1917:
Even in a request to declare war against Germany, "We have no quarrel with the German people. We have no feeling towards them but one of sympathy and friendship. It was not upon their impulse that their Government acted in entering this war. It was not with their previous knowledge or approval. It was a war determined upon as wars used to be determined upon in the old, unhappy days when peoples were nowhere consulted by their rulers and wars were provoked and waged in the interest of dynasties or of little groups of ambitious men who were accustomed to use their fellow men as pawns and tools."

Winston Churchill, Speech before Commons (Excerpts), 4 June 1940:
"I have, myself, full confidence that if all do their duty, if nothing is neglected, and if the best arrangements are made, as they are being made, we shall prove ourselves once again able to defend our Island home, to ride out the storm of war, and to outlive the menace of tyranny, if necessary for years, if necessary alone." This whole speech is positively amazing, I highly recommend downloading it and listening to it with no other distractions, as one would have been glued to their radio, their only source of information.

Franklin D Roosevelt, Pearl Harbor Address, 8 December 1941:
"But always will our whole nation remember the character of the onslaught against us. No matter how long it may take us to overcome this premeditated invasion, the American people in their righteous might will win through to absolute victory. I believe that I interpret the will of the Congress and of the people when I assert that we will not only defend ourselves to the uttermost, but will make it very certain that this form of treachery shall never again endanger us."

Dwight D Eisenhower, Farewell Address, 17 January 1961:
"We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together."

It almost seems as though the greatest speakers disappeared with the end of the World Wars. But such is not the case at all. I was even hoping to stake the blame on President Reagan and his 'folksy' style of speaking, but he still did not dull the language, and went through what I consider a great gesture and spoke some in the tongue of the land he was in. Still, credit has to be given to the greatest English speaker since the Wars...

Dr Martin Luther King, Beyond Vietnam, 4 April 1967:
"So we have been repeatedly faced with the cruel irony of watching Negro and white boys on TV screens as they kill and die together for a nation that has been unable to seat them together in the same schools. So we watch them in brutal solidarity burning the huts of a poor village, but we realize that they would never live on the same block in Detroit. I could not be silent in the face of such cruel manipulation of the poor."

Ronald Reagan, Remarks at the Brandenburg Gate, 12 June 1987:
"Our gathering today is being broadcast throughout Western Europe and North America. I understand that it is being seen and heard as well in the East. To those listening throughout Eastern Europe, a special word: Although I cannot be with you, I address my remarks to you just as surely as to those standing here before me. For I join you, as I join your fellow countrymen in the West, in this firm, this unalterable belief: Es gibt nur ein Berlin. [There is only one Berlin.]"

Mikhail Gorbachev, Speech to the United Nations, 7 December 1988:
"We have arrived at a frontier at which controlled spontaneity leads to a dead end. The world community must learn to shape and direct the process in such a way as to preserve civilization, to make it safe for all and more pleasant for normal life."


At almost regular intervals in the affairs of mankind, great trials will need to be faced. Brilliant minds and deft wisdom will be needed, and thoughtful words to go with them. I'm sure I don't have what it takes, but I do believe that I would be up for challenge were it placed before me. Either way, whomever is writing speeches for those currently in seats of power is severely lacking.


"This will be another moment of time where we, representing mankind, will not succumb to fear. We will weep, and we will mourn, and we will save all we can. And through our sorrow and rage, we will remain stalwart and united.

"Our allies, so many of whom were former enemies, stand with us as friends. They will support us and defend us as we have and forever shall do for them. When you attack a brother, you have the family to reckon with. So it is with the blessings of our allies that we invoke Article V of the NATO charter.

"Together, American Citizens and all other free peoples of the world hereby declare: The perpetrators of this attack shall be found and brought before the light of justice in the World's Court. The reasons behind this desperate act of inhumanity will be revealed. And we shall lift the burden of those horrible manifestations and spare all others from the tragedy which has befallen us."

-Part of what would have been said had I been a mere seventeen years older in 2001.