I feel like absolute crap. I only got about 3.5 hours of sleep last night. I normally get 8 or even 9 hours. Last night was my brother's bachelor party. Being the best man, I was in charge of planning it. My brother can be difficult to deal with because, for some reason, he doesn't like to give his opinion on what he'd like to do. About the only thing I could get out of him about what he'd like for his party was a list of people and the fact he'd like to drink a fair number of microbrews. When I asked him his opinion on some specifice things I had in mind, his response was generally "whatever you decide" - not much help there.
I'm definitely not the best choice to plan such an evening, as I have never gone to a bar just to hang out. It's just not something I find enjoyable. I don't drink and I don't like cigarette smoke and loud music. But away, I planned to go to a couple bars in Manchester. The first was a microbrewery, but not very nice. The next place wasn't a brewery, but did have 40+ local microbrews on tap. It was nicer. I was actually having a half way decent time, once it seemed liked everyone else liked the place, and I started to talk to Joe about climbing. Then it was getting late and it became quite apparent that most people, my brother and Steve in particular, had had too much to drink. I had to support my brother as he walked back to the car because he was all over the place. Then he puked all over my car just before we got home. Even after that I wasn't that upset. It was his bachelor party and he seemed to have had a good time.
That was yesterday though. Today, is the day I meant by calling this post crappy day. I just feel like crap. I think the lack of sleep has a lot to do with it. I spent three hours cleaning my car this morning (after about an hour of cleaning last night). Then I ate too much lasagna for lunch, got my hair cut, and came back to Manchester. I decided to go for a run and see if that made me feel any better, but it didn't. I still feel like a fat, ugly, lazy pig. Plus I have tons of homework to do - obviously I don't feel like doing it.
Crap...
Saturday, September 24, 2005
Friday, September 23, 2005
Gas Prices
I filled up my gas tank this morning. It was $2.89/gallon. It was $2.77 yesterday morning. I probably should have filled up then - oh well. I suppose the gas price increase is due to Hurricane Rita, but it hasn't even made landfall yet. I have heard many of the oil refineries have temporarily shut down for the storm, but I find it hard to believe the gas supply has been affected already. No doubt, the price of gas will go over $3/gallon this weekend after the storm hits. Part of me doesn't mind the high gas prices. I drive a Toyota Prius and get about 50 miles/gallon, so I'm not impacted by the price of gas quite as much as some others, but that's not the reason I don't mind the price increase. I don't mind the increase, because it's my hope that the high gas prices will raise the energy issue in our country so that some real progress is made. I think there is real opportunity to make some drastic changes to our energy infrastructure to make it more sustainable. Our country and its economy is incredibly dependent on the oil industry, which is clearly not good. Like any good Wall Street investor would say, we need a diversified portfolio. The US needs to develop alternative energy sources, preferably environmentally friendly and sustainable sources, to create a balanced energy industry. If our energy industry is more diverse, a major disruption of one particular source, such as oil, would have a far smaller impact on the economy. The solution to high gas prices is not to increase the oil supply, it is to increase the availability of alternative energy sources.
Many alternative energy sources, such as solar, are more expensive than oil. If the price of oil continues to climb, they may not be any longer. But even if the price of oil doesn't rise high enough, the US government should step in and help the other energy industries out. One of the main reasons alternative energy sources are more expensive is because they are produced in small quantities. If the demand for these alternative energy sources increased, the price would go down, but the demand won't increase unless the price goes down. This is where the government needs to step in and help lower the price hurdle so the alternative energy industries can take off. The development of alternative energy sources benefits our environment, but also the economy as a whole by removing our dependence on a single energy source.
I am really intrigued by the idea of decentralized energy, especially for more rural areas, rather than massive power plants. It makes sense to me to have a solar panel on the roof of each house, to have each house be it's own sustainable energy source. Of course, a centralized approach does make more sense in densely populated areas. But again, why not have more diversity; a decentralized energy approach for rural areas and a centralized energy approach for cities.
Many alternative energy sources, such as solar, are more expensive than oil. If the price of oil continues to climb, they may not be any longer. But even if the price of oil doesn't rise high enough, the US government should step in and help the other energy industries out. One of the main reasons alternative energy sources are more expensive is because they are produced in small quantities. If the demand for these alternative energy sources increased, the price would go down, but the demand won't increase unless the price goes down. This is where the government needs to step in and help lower the price hurdle so the alternative energy industries can take off. The development of alternative energy sources benefits our environment, but also the economy as a whole by removing our dependence on a single energy source.
I am really intrigued by the idea of decentralized energy, especially for more rural areas, rather than massive power plants. It makes sense to me to have a solar panel on the roof of each house, to have each house be it's own sustainable energy source. Of course, a centralized approach does make more sense in densely populated areas. But again, why not have more diversity; a decentralized energy approach for rural areas and a centralized energy approach for cities.
Thursday, September 22, 2005
62 Billion Dollars !?!
Congress has passed about 62 billion dollars in Katrina relief money. That's as of now. I've heard some people are estimating as much as 200 billion will eventually be allocated for Katrina relief. All this on top of the billions that are being spent on rebuilding Iraq!
Where does all this money come from? From what I hear, nowhere really, they are just borrowing from the American peoples' future. I heard some talk of repealing the republican enacted tax cut. I'm not exactly sure how much that equates to, but I'd imagine its still not enough for the Katrina relief. And such a repeal is rather unlikely in a republican controlled Congress. The financial behavior of the US government really frustrates me. Why aren't they subject to the same common sense rules as everyone else? In my personal finances, if an unexpected expense arises, such as an expensive car repair, the money has to come from somewhere else. I don't keep spending my money the same way I was before the unexpected expense. So why can the government do that? And why don't they save some money for unexpected costs? Most people with a good handle on their finances put away a chunk of money "for a rainy day". Does the US government have a "rainy day fund"? Not that I'm aware of. They can't even balance the budget for a single fiscal year, let alone save something for the future.
And where exactly is this 62 billion dollars going? I understand there is a lot of destruction on the Gulfcoast, but don't those people have hurricane insurance? I would think that would be requirement down there when people apply for a home mortgage. I realize that some lower income people don't own homes and may not even be able to afford renter insurance. But I would think the landlord would have insurance on the building. I know there will be a significant cost in cleaning up the cities and their public infrastruture, but won't most of the cost fall on insurance companies who have to pay claims to all the people and businesses in that area? Where the insurance companies get that kind of money is another question.
I heard someone at work today talking about the hurricane destruction and he said some really interesting things - which isn't unusual as he is very intelligent and he can rightfully say things like "when I got my first patent" and "the first billion dollars I earned the company". Anyway, he was talking about how he owns some property down along the Gulf of Mexico, and how beautiful and wonderful it is. But he said he doesn't have a mansion down there because "you know that every 10 years this storm comes through and makes the cars float down the street." I thought his comment was well said. I don't think many people have that kind of view point. I don't think they buy or build a house along the Gulf coast with the idea in there head that it is quite likely a major hurricane will come through this area in their life time. It is even more likely as global warming continues - but that is a topic for another day.
Where does all this money come from? From what I hear, nowhere really, they are just borrowing from the American peoples' future. I heard some talk of repealing the republican enacted tax cut. I'm not exactly sure how much that equates to, but I'd imagine its still not enough for the Katrina relief. And such a repeal is rather unlikely in a republican controlled Congress. The financial behavior of the US government really frustrates me. Why aren't they subject to the same common sense rules as everyone else? In my personal finances, if an unexpected expense arises, such as an expensive car repair, the money has to come from somewhere else. I don't keep spending my money the same way I was before the unexpected expense. So why can the government do that? And why don't they save some money for unexpected costs? Most people with a good handle on their finances put away a chunk of money "for a rainy day". Does the US government have a "rainy day fund"? Not that I'm aware of. They can't even balance the budget for a single fiscal year, let alone save something for the future.
And where exactly is this 62 billion dollars going? I understand there is a lot of destruction on the Gulfcoast, but don't those people have hurricane insurance? I would think that would be requirement down there when people apply for a home mortgage. I realize that some lower income people don't own homes and may not even be able to afford renter insurance. But I would think the landlord would have insurance on the building. I know there will be a significant cost in cleaning up the cities and their public infrastruture, but won't most of the cost fall on insurance companies who have to pay claims to all the people and businesses in that area? Where the insurance companies get that kind of money is another question.
I heard someone at work today talking about the hurricane destruction and he said some really interesting things - which isn't unusual as he is very intelligent and he can rightfully say things like "when I got my first patent" and "the first billion dollars I earned the company". Anyway, he was talking about how he owns some property down along the Gulf of Mexico, and how beautiful and wonderful it is. But he said he doesn't have a mansion down there because "you know that every 10 years this storm comes through and makes the cars float down the street." I thought his comment was well said. I don't think many people have that kind of view point. I don't think they buy or build a house along the Gulf coast with the idea in there head that it is quite likely a major hurricane will come through this area in their life time. It is even more likely as global warming continues - but that is a topic for another day.
Hurricanes Katrina and Rita
Lately, the stories of Hurricane Katrina, its distruction and the clean-up, have been all over the news. Now, Hurricane Rita is bearing down on the Gulfcoast again, but this time between New Orleans and Galveston, Texas. Katrina virtually destroyed New Orleans and caused gas prices all over the US to rise almost a dollar a gallon. Now, similar destruction is feared (expected) as a result of Rita. This destruction is obviously horrible for the people directly affected by the storms. It has caused me to wonder about the intelligence of building major cities, such as New Orleans, so close to the Gulf coast. Hurricanes are not exactly uncommon in these areas. It has really been a question of when, not if, something like this would happen to New Orleans. National Geographic ran a story about the potential destruction of New Orleans due to a hurricane over a year ago. I haven't read the story, but I heard about it on NPR. Apparently the story was very accurate in predicting the type and magnitude of damage.
I don't know much about the history of New Orleans, but I'd imagine one of the major reasons it is such a large city and so close to the Gulf is because it's a major port. There is probably a lot of traffic to New Orleans from the Gulf, including oil barges from the offshore oil fields. But couldn't a large portion of the city be moved slightly north to a not so hurricane prone area? As Katrina and the Asian Tsumani, have made perfectly clear, nature is very powerful, and there is little we can do to stop its desruction. Not heavily developing the areas prone to destruction is really the only solution.
I don't know much about the history of New Orleans, but I'd imagine one of the major reasons it is such a large city and so close to the Gulf is because it's a major port. There is probably a lot of traffic to New Orleans from the Gulf, including oil barges from the offshore oil fields. But couldn't a large portion of the city be moved slightly north to a not so hurricane prone area? As Katrina and the Asian Tsumani, have made perfectly clear, nature is very powerful, and there is little we can do to stop its desruction. Not heavily developing the areas prone to destruction is really the only solution.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)