What do you hope for in 2009?

A simple question. Some are making resolutions to lose weight, or quit smoking. Some hope for world peace, a less polluted planet, or just a few less guns on the streets. Some pray for fame, other wish to have their work recognized. And in these troubled times more than a few just want to be able to make ends meet for one more year for their family, friends, and themselves.

All are good things, and I hope each one comes true. But for myself I would like to see honesty.

Right now the nation is preparing to peaceful switch power from President Bush to President-elect Obama. IT will be the first time a Black man has ever held so high an office in this nation. Some fear that, as if the national sport will become basketball or fried chicken will replace hamburgers - and I have heard such drivel. Some believe that this will end all forms of racism left in the nation, as if the declared movies and television shows of 2009 will magically be infused with African Americans, Hispanics, Asians and other cultures at the stroke of midnight.

Neither is going to happen. Both are dreams based in a dishonest expectation of America. And that's why I hope for honesty.

I would love to hear the hypocrits in Hollywood admit that they are one of the last bastions of discrimination. In front of and behind the camera. Because there is no other reason for the abysmal diversity in that industry, even though they love to present stories of diversity and change via their medium.

I would love to hear the extreme left and right tell us that they are promoting some laws and issues just because they want to piss-off the other side. Why else would they not compromise and enact legislation that benefits more people than their bickering and inaction prevents being helped.

I would love to hear racists or whatever race publicly discuss their rationale for their hate. Not with anger or threats but actual debate, so all of us can see the folly in every conclusion. And at least then we all would know what we are actually dealing with.

I would love to have various industries explain why products created today, with superior technology, cannot endure half as long as decades older products made with inferior products still in use.

I would love to hear the radicals that believe in global warming, or global freezing, sit back and admit that there is nothing to prove what they believe, even though it can't hurt us to improve the planet. I would enjoy hearing them state the fact that the Earth changes over time, whether we like it or not, in ways we cannot predict any better than an earthquake and that adapting to the changes is smarter than trying to stop them.

It's all about honesty. Because there is honesty in what I have said, but not what we read and hear everyday. Because some need to be right, even when they are partially wrong. Because some have just a bit more greed than is good for anyone. Because some want power at all costs. And because many people fear any type of change at all.

If 2009 can be a year of honesty, real truth, it will be a year of great changes. Not all of those changes will be pleasant, comfortable, or good for everyone. In fact I would expect everyone to be upset with various aspects of knowing, or acknowledging, the truth. But once that discomfort is over, once the change is past imagine what the world could be like.

Some things will still be unfair, some things will still be harder than they need to be. Some wrongs will go unpunished and everyone won't have everything they want or need. But most things will be better. Closer to equitable. Just that much more balanced. Just that much more improved.

Life is never without struggle. Living is a daily challenge that we all lose at some point. But if we could be just that much more honest, it would be one less thing to have to strive against. One less hurdle to muster strength for. One more thing we all could pat ourselves on the back for having achieved.

Am I asking for too much? Probably is the honest answer. We are all very ingrained with the lifestyles we lead right now. To be honest would be akin to being brutal at this point. There is just too much vested in the continuation of what is happening right now.

So Hollywood will remain biased, politics will continue to be ineffective. Business will take advantage, and the planets resources will dwindle. Things will slowly, at least part of the time, get worse. And we will all get a little deeper into the vortex.

But I can still imagine it different, and as long as some of us can do that we have the potential to change.

Labels: 2009, American politics, global warming, Hollywood, New Year's resolution, race relations

A friend of mine recently asked me what was a good tech stock to purchase. As the discussion went forward I realized 2 things. One that they had no idea what a tech stock was, and second that tech stocks today encompass more companies than say 20 years ago.

The average person will think of a tech stock as just a computer company. And that is accurate. But it is limited. Right now computers include companies like car companies, oil drillers, wind energy, cell phones, even washers and dryers. So what might be a more accurate view of technology stocks?

The most accurate answer would be that it’s new innovations on technology. It’s not just computers, but how they are used, or how new things are crated and used.

Look at clean and renewable energy companies. There is the development of high density, long charge, rechargeable batteries. Solar energy has new developments in solar cells, and better transfer of electricity. Biomass turns garbage into a fuel source. Not to exclude the potentials still to be learned about oil shale, or ethanol derived from wood and grass.

That’s just one source, and it’s popular. Considering the numerous people that believe in ‘global warming’ (which I do not) and those that wish to clean up the earth, this is a sector that will not be going away. In fact we can be sure that more funding will be funneled into this arena no matter who wins the Presidential election.

[But if Democrats win it can be a real big area. Considering that Speaker Nancy Pelosi is making money from her investments in Clean Energy Fuels Corp., T Boone Pickens' company, you can count on the sector gaining a lot.]

But that is just one area.

Water purification, needed on a global and consumer level, is another concept. Cars are advancing technology as the hybrid cars are now being developed and improved. Pure electric cars are receiving a lot of research money as well. And what about service stations to fix and fuel these cars.

Or what about the engineering and construction companies that build the various plants and components needed. Or the ones that might be building newer, safer, nuclear and coal energy plants.

My point is this. The concept of technology stocks is not limited to just the latest version of modem, or processing chip that a computer maker comes out with. In fact computers need not be involved, or the primary component, of a technology company.

The big thing to keep in mind when buying any technology stock is the following

• Is the technology needed en masse


• Will funding come from private or government sources


• Is the technology building upon an existing product or service, or is it a new innovation that has to develop a market


• Does the technology have applications in other industries beyond the one it was made for


• Is the technology user friendly

Based on those answers you can weed out many different ideas and get a bit closer to what you believe is a good investment for you. Of course other factors are always important to keep in mind. Like the economy, competition, potential profitability, political environment, retail or institutional end use, executive management, size, and proof of concept.

Obviously I like some of the new technology in the energy sector. It covers several of my criteria. But that does not mean this is the only option out there. Do your homework and you may have a pleasant reward over time.

Remember that investing in technology stocks is like any other investment. Proper planning, time and management are critical to a positive return. Looking for a homerun usually winds up in taking on more risk than you really want and often does not provide a reward.

Labels: ethanol, global warming, hybrid cars, oil shale, renewable energy, Solar energy, tech stock

Let’s assume that the price of gasoline has been rising every year for the past 6 years. Let’s say that you live in a major metropolitan city. Let’s say that the number of obese people in your nation has grown almost as much as the waistlines. What do you do?

In America you blame the other political party, offer a tax break or threaten to tax the oil companies (depending on your party affiliation), mandate an alternative fuel source that drives up the price of food and that 98% of the population can’t use, and then sit back as unprecedented numbers of people go out and buy scooters or motorcycles. In America its drive or die you know.

But if you happen to be in England, well then it’s another story completely.

In a nation where gas gulping Hummers never took hold the obvious choice was to ride a bicycle. And that is something they have been doing in droves.

Since 2000 there has been an increase of 90% in the number of cyclists hitting the roads. In fact the government there has just created a ~$250 million incentive package for 12 cities, including Bristol, to become modern cycling cities. Not that does not match up much against the ~$10 billion spent on transportation in London alone (of which approx $110 million will be going to cycling) but it’s an impressive number.

Considering the huge numbers of eco-fanatical people in America concerned about green house gases and global warming, the food police demanding that every meal be an organic mix of veggies and nuts, and the ping pong battle over drilling for domestic oil anywhere I have to admit I’m shocked that not even San Francisco has made similar moves if not to lead the world with cycling.

Cycling is not just the sport of France, or an event in the Olympics. It’s a real solution to rising oil prices, obesity, and global health. No matter how the politicians spin the polispeak the fact is that there is something that can be done, and England is doing it.

Labels: alternative fuel, Bristol, cycling, England, France, global health, global warming, London, obesity, oil prices, Olympics, Polispeak, San Francisco, tax break

So here are some of the thoughts I’ve had about the first part of Senator McCain’s interview with Bill O’Reilly on the O’Reilly Factor. I plan to provide the full set of videos as soon as I can have them downloaded. Currently I’m having an issue with the sound mixer. Please be patient.



To start with it’s obvious that Senator McCain has a far superior level of experience when it comes to the military and military actions. Neither Democratic candidate has served a single day in defense of this nation or ever in the military during peace time. That lack of understanding may be fine for a President during peace times, but whether you like it or not we are currently engaged in 2 military actions – thus experience matters. Ultra-liberals may enjoy the concept of peace, from cozy houses without fear of death from anything, but that freedom is only possible by the cost soldiers pay every day since the creation of America.

The conversation goes on to discuss taxes. Now as I have previously posted - $31,850 is the new definition of rich - both Democratic candidates have voted to increase the taxes of everyone making $31,850 and up. A far cry from their claims of only the rich being taxed don’t you think. Senator McCain voted against that increase.

But consider something else. If you own any stocks, mutual funds, or bonds the Democratic candidates want to increase the tax you pay if your investment makes money. So all that money you are trying to save for retirement – kiss a good part of it away if the Democrats have their way. That money will go to Government programs to decipher why April 2008 was the coldest on record, but Global Warming is creating a hot house in the world.

But don’t forget that all these taxes are coming out of pockets that have to pay more money for food because the glut of ethanol production is using up corn that would otherwise go for food. And gasoline costs more because of OPEC, and the fact that we are pushing for more ethanol plants instead of oil refineries. Don’t even mention nuclear power to the eco-ultra-liberals. Their fear of hurting an owl or some such supersedes the fact that without an alternative source of energy millions will eventually die.

Moving on to Senator Obama’s preference to speak with nations that are dedicated to the eradication of America. Senator Obama wants to speak with North Korea, Iran and other nations that hate our existence. Why? What can you offer or discuss with a country that has spent 50 years on one thought only, finishing the war they had with us (that’s North Korea for the younger readers). They have gone nearly bankrupt and many are starving as they divert all funds and food to their military.

How about Iran. A nation that would kill millions solely because of their religion. Do you believe that leaders with such intolerance would be any friendlier to a nation of multiple religions they disagree with, and lifestyles they abhor? They are extremists, given, but how do you compromise with someone that believes that God wants them to obliterate the existence of those that do not believe and act exactly as they do?

I need only say one thing about the media driven Rev. Wright issue, which I thing Senator McCain nailed.

“This campaign is not going to be about, in all due respect about, Rev. Wright or Mr. Ayers. It’s going to be about vision; it’s going to be about a plan of action for the American people that are hurting right now.”

As for the government running healthcare, I stand by Senator McCain. Name one agency that the Government runs that is fiscally sound. Name one Agency that is not mired in red tape and inefficiency. Name one that provides all the services it is supposed to do, and in a timely manner. I know of none. And the Democratic candidates want to create another of these agencies because they believe that YOU are not smart enough to be given money and chose the healthcare program you think is best for you and your family. How kind of them.

But there is also the media to consider with Senator John McCain. Where were the months long outrage and media investigations of his connection to Pastor John Heagy. Aren’t that pastors comments against gays and Catholics unacceptable? But if Senator McCain’s refutation of his unsolicited remarks, and endorsement, are enough to keep the media off his back – shouldn’t Senator Obama’s be the same?

But the media is far from even-handed, or focused on the issues. The New York Times has made that very clear as their attack on Senator McCain was backed by nothing. It was a blatant attempt to discredit a Presidential candidate whose political views they don’t agree with. Another reason I say that you need to check the candidate’s positions as the media wants to decide that choice for you and get a President that may not be in your best interest.

It should be noted though that Senator McCain has weathered this and other smears throughout his career. At no time has he fallen back and whined about it. He has refuted the positions and waited as other media groups proved these smears false. This is highly unlike at least one Democratic Presidential candidate that runs behind their gender anytime they are questioned strongly or find their campaign in a weak position.

Lastly, I know of no one that questions the honor and dedication of Senator McCain. Anyone that would call him a traitor, in the face of direct first-person comments contrary by fellow Prisoners of War, is simply a fool. There are few in the nation that have given so much to this nation, and to besmirch that is to be ungrateful and deceptive in the most cruel and vile way. There is no reason unsubstantiated smears should be allowed for any candidate, regardless of political party, because such claims against Senator McCain are no better than calling Senator Obama a fanatical Muslim or attacking his race.

Well that’s what I got out of the first part of Senator McCain’s interview. I admit that I agree with many of his opinions. The issue of immigration is not one of them obviously. But that will be discussed in a later video on the issue.

Labels: Bill O'Reilly, ethanol, global warming, Iran, Presidential election race 2008, Republican Party, Rev. Wright, Senator John McCain, tax policy, universal healthcare

In looking at the question of ethanol, there is a bit of interesting data. There is intense passion on both sides of the issue. Both sides have strong reasons for and against the issue. And there are more than a few conjecture reasons out there as well. But what is the real final answer?

Well in just a cursory review you will find that ethanol is the production of fuel from plants. Essentially it’s a moonshine that is not consumable by humans. Looking just a bit deeper you will find that it’s also possible to make ethanol fuel from wood, cheese whey, and other parts of plants besides the most common source which is corn kernels.

Also, there is the fact that all ethanol is not used independent of gasoline but in combination with it. Ethanol is used as a blend with gasoline in ratios that vary from roughly 20% to 85% (denoted as E20 – E85). The reason for this will be explained below.

Each of the positives and negatives contain a bit of the opposing side when you honestly review ethanol.

There is the fact that ethanol use reduces ‘greenhouse’ gases, notably CO2 emissions. This is a positive of course, especially if you believe in global warming (which in itself is a questionable issue). But with the lower CO2 you can also receive higher nitrogen based emissions, depending the blend with gasoline used.

There is also an argument out there that states that ethanol creates more CO2 than it cuts. This is due to several factors. The first is that producing more corn (the main fuel source used currently) creates more problems for the environment via pesticides and diesel fuel. Another is that the creation of ethanol itself takes energy and that energy releases greenhouse gases. A recent study from University of California at Berkeley states that overall ethanol cuts CO2 by 13%. And a separate report possibly links ethanol to the ‘dead zone’ (an area that cannot support life) that is in the Gulf of Mexico, and is growing.

Another fact is that ethanol, regardless of blend or if used 100%, is less fuel efficient than gasoline. It takes more ethanol to go as far as with gasoline. Estimates range but roughly ethanol is 2/3 as effective as gasoline. Thus more needs to be used. Whether more use of ethanol blends gives off the same equivalent of greenhouse gases or not is not readily deciphered. It does have a direct effect on cost.

Cost comparisons have several components. The first is for corn. Higher ethanol consumption increases, as is currently happening, the price for corn. Second is the fact that ethanol costs more than regular gasoline. The actual cost varies on where you are in the U.S. but is invariably higher. Even if you were to be in the Mid-West, where ethanol blends are cheaper than gasoline, the cost per mile is higher.

“If you fill-up the Impala’s 17-gallon tank at a station in the Midwest, you’ll save $5.10 by using E85. So far, so good. However, you can’t drive as far on E85 and will have to refuel sooner than if you had purchased conventional gasoline. In fact, your cost per mile is higher using E85: 9.7 cents/mile vs. 8.4 cents/mile for regular gas.”

Costs on the West and East Coast are dramatically higher (far in excess of 200% more). But the actual effect on an annual basis equates to roughly a range of $200 - $600 more in fuel costs. For some that is not too expensive, for others it’s way too much to be feasible.

Another issue is the fact that ethanol is virtually unavailable anywhere outside of 2 states in the nation. Outside of Illinois and Minnesota there are almost no stations offering ethanol to the public. In 4 of the most populous states across the nation (New York, Texas, California, and Florida) there are only 2 stations selling ethanol to the public combined. Thus ethanol use is currently infeasible.

A positive that is not disputed is that ethanol is a reproducible fuel. Supplies can be replaced in less than a year. In addition, research is being made to use other sources of plants and waste material which can improve quality and amounts available.

But a negative that is not discussed is the tax credit that goes with ethanol.

“Ethanol is subsidized with a 51-cent federal tax credit. Increased consumption of blended gasoline leads to higher taxpayer funding for the ethanol industry.”

So is ethanol a good or bad thing?

It depends on your view. Currently the reality is that ethanol is ineffective on a national level, regardless of benefits or detractions. It’s just not available to a wide portion of the nation. But the future is a big unknown. Improved technology, new fuel sources, improved car engines, and environmental impacts of additional emissions all need to be evaluated. Widespread availability is also critical in the ultimate outcome, as are alternative fuels.

Looking forward there is one thing that we can be sure of. Ethanol, like all alternative fuels, must be taken seriously if we are to change our usage as a nation. We will never know the full positive, and negative, effects until we evaluate all the options before us.

One day oil will be gone. That is a fact. An alternative is needed. Giving our children a cleaner and greener world is a benefit that we can do. Whether or not global warming exists, that is something that we can provide them that will benefit their lives and I see no reason why we shouldn’t.

Labels: alternative fuels, CO2 emissions, corn kernels, ethanol, federal tax credit, gasoline, global warming, greenhouse gases, reproducible fuel, University of California

So I’m sitting back and I start to wonder. I wonder about a lot of things when I have a free moment. I like to look at the logic of things and follow them to their logical most probable outcome. Perhaps it could (and has) be called mental masturbation. Tell me what you think of my musings.

I think about global warming. I wonder what was the temperature of the world in 1492, or 500, or 1776, or even 1865. There is no answer, though there are several guesses by very intelligent people that refuse to say “I don’t know.” I wonder how many people were alive in the world at those times. I’m quite sure there were less than what is in the world today. Half a billion? 2 billion? Who knows. But if the number is set at say 1 billion in 1492, just to have a fixed number, I wonder how much more CO2 has been created by human beings breathing and living as we grew to the estimated 6+ billion today.

I wonder how much CO2 will magically disappear if every source of fossil fuels were ended today. How might food get transported around the world, or homes heated, or lights for the darkness without the fuel? I question if CO2 levels will continue to rise when the world hits 7 billion people breathing and living.

I ponder the fact that if weather is cyclic for the planet, nothing we do will change the weather. I ponder how much of an effect the moon is having on weather patterns as it continues to slowly escape the orbit of the earth.

I have to consider whether or not the removal of every soldier in Iraq will stabilize that nation. I have to believe that anyone that can make a strategy to play any video game, from Resident Evil to The Sims, should be able to understand that if there is an absolute date set for the retreat of our troops, any enemies to our nation would just wait till that day to take serious action in that power vacuum. I consider the thought that if we retreat every child, brother, sister, mother, father and other person that has lost someone in this war will be an easy recruit for anyone blaming their loss and any other ills in Iraq on the retreating U.S. troops. I consider the reaction of every anti-American nation on the day the last solider leaves and Al Quida and other groups claim they forced America to run away from them; similar in the way Hamas has claimed they beat Israel in their recent conflict. I come to a conclusion that while the soldiers sent home will be safe from fighting a war away from home, this will only be temporary as some group or nation takes the retreat as a sign of cowardice and weakness and attacks the nation. I conclude that a citizen will be a larger target when traveling away from home as fear of reaction is lessened, and the thought of long-term action is minimized. I am lead to believe that this was the reason, at least in part, why the Twin Towers were attacked in the first place. Because the nation lacked the resolve to finish a fight.

I have to stop and consider that there is no direct connection between the 9/11 attack and the start of the war in Iraq. I understand that that point is moot though, as we are fighting in Iraq. It may not have been the war we should have fought, but it is the war we are fighting. And it will be a fight that will influence future terrorist attacks here at home and abroad in the future. Arguments about the start of the war are useless in resolving the war itself. Seems obvious.

Continued in part 2...

Labels: Afghanistan War, global warming, Iraq War, Twin Towers

Continued from Part 2...

Now is there more carbon dioxide in the air than 3 centuries ago, yes. Have temperatures gone up in recent decades? Yes. Are the 2 connected? Maybe, maybe not. We don’t know enough to be able to tell. Too many things are involved factors. The moon has been steadily moving away from the Earth, changing tides and weather patterns. The number of lifeforms on the planet has increased and changed the pattern of congregation, increasing localized temperatures and gaseous concentrations. Erosion and construction have changed the face of the planet, changing wind patterns and waterflows. Beyond these things there is the fact that the cycles of the Earth are unknown to us. You may have noticed that there has been no mention of the change of the magnetic polarity of the planet. This is believed to have changed several times over several thousand years and possibly connected to several ice ages. Yes there have been several ice ages. Oh, did I leave out tectonic shifting of the continents?

The point is that there is no factual knowledge, but lots of hype. Reducing carbon emissions can’t hurt, but to scream how this will end the world in a decade or 2 is irresponsible at the best. Five years from now we may find that the weather is not changing, or that it was due to sunspots. That’s how science works.

To say that this is the biggest threat to the planet is merely political hype. I’m tired of hearing about it. Plant some more trees and shrubs and get over it. Let’s focus on the serious problems nuclear weapons and biological irresponsibility. Osama bin Laden or the next wacko with a purpose can cause the immediate death of millions or more. Worry about that. Maybe an asteroid.

This is what I think, what do you think?

Labels: biological weapons, carbon emission, global warming, nuclear weapons

Continued from Part 1...

The scarier thought is that there will be an accident that creates a plague to make the Black Death (bubonic plague) look like having sniffles. The odds of this are massively increasing each day if you ask me. If you wonder how, it’s simple. Cloning and genetically modified foods and animals.

We don’t understand the basic DNA strand. We have no idea what everything does, or how they are connected. Yet we are actively changing aspects of these chains to create effects we think we want. Scientists may feel very strongly about how correct they are, but they felt just as strong about the world being flat or eggs being bad for you. Science is never written in stone, and we constantly find out that things we absolutely knew a year ago are completely wrong. In the meantime there is an immense volume of things we don’t even know enough to guess about.

Think of it as Russian Roulette, with genes instead of bullets. Nature has spent millions of years to create the right genetic structure, without short term or long-term negative effects. In the last 20 years humans have decided we know better and are messing with what nature has in place. We don’t know what the floor of the ocean looks like, we don’t know when oil in the ground will be used up, we can’t even tell what the weather will be locally with any guarantee. Yet genetically manipulated plants and animals are ok for consumption because our governments say so. (That’s the same governments that can’t balance a budget and regularly mismanage everything they touch – like the post office) So if you think about it, some uber-scientist trying to make a better cow or wheat have a very reasonable chance of making a disease completely without knowledge as a by-product or accident.

But none of these are the #1 issue facing us.

Nope the worst thing facing man today is global warming, or also called global climate change. This is just political garbage. This part of the show had a nice comment by Al Gore, and clips from his movie. They even took a couple of shots at Fox News reporters for questioning if global warming exists. That’s political, not science.

The fact is we have no idea what is going on with the environment. None. Beyond about 1-200 years ago we have no records of the weather. There were none to be had. What was the weather in 1542? No idea is known as fact. General guesses are made based on what was written and what we can understand in the ground, but that’s only a guess. 50,000 years ago? Forget it. Pure guesses based on what we can find. It may be presented as fact but we have no better idea than what killed the dinosaurs. Matter of fact we have better ideas of how many types of dinosaurs existed than the weather.

Continued in Part 3...

Labels: Al Gore, bubonic plague, genetic manipulation, global warming