the air

Source: alexandralee

These days the environment is a growing concern among Americans. As the average national gas price soars past the $4.20 mark, the average American is starting to reevaluate vacations, commutes, car purchases, groceries, and much more. Former Vice President Al Gore has committed himself to pursuing issues concerning the environment and encouraging everyone to do their part to assist the environment. However, both political parties have stayed relatively neutral when it comes to environmental concerns. Neither Barack Obama nor Hillary Clinton have outlined a detailed plan that either eases the rising oil prices or reduces/eliminates American dependence on foreign oil. So what exactly are we to do?

I read an article today that outlines how expensive gas price (namely $8 a gallon) can be good for the American economy. The author outlines eight specific reasons that support his main idea:

1. RIP for the internal-combustion engine
2. Economic stimulus
3. Wither the Middle East’s clout
4. Deflating oil potentates
5. Mass-transit development
6. An antidote to sprawl
7. Restoration of financial discipline
8. Easing global tensions

Surprisingly, the author does a great job of procuring valid consequences if the gas price increases to nearly ten bucks. However, my issue with this article is the fact that the author assumes that most people, including myself, would simply live near urban centers and let go of our suburban upbringings.

I enjoy the city of Chicago and I know it has more activities year round than my own suburban community. However, if I had a family, I would most definitely live in a suburban setting because it would allow my family to live somewhat quietly, live in a nice single-family home, and near other kids in a good neighborhood. I don’t have to worry about pimps and gangs invading my streets. As a single adult, I would live in the city of Chicago in a heartbeat. However, as a family man, I would live in a suburban community with no doubts in my mind.

The author also talks about how the high prices would reduce our dependency on Middle-Eastern oil and spur innovation in alternative and renewable energy sources. In case anyone forgot, the past eight years have seen the emphasis in U.S. policy shift from domestic to foreign issues. Moreover, my personal opinion is that the war in Iraq was a screen for growing Republican interest in securing oil fields for American companies. To this day, not one Republican or Democrat has shown interest in pursuing alternative energy. In order to reduce our dependency on foreign oil, we must have a strong alternative.

Most people talk about hybrid vehicles or ethanol, yet they do not even consider completely eliminating oil. Hybrid vehicles STILL require oil and ethanol production requires substantial amount of oil. Why not consider alternative technologies which do not require as much oil such as wind power, hydrogen fuel cells, nuclear power, etc.?

Then again, we come back to the argument that public transportation is not well developed. The reason is because most people drive everywhere. Innovation needs to start prior to its use, not after. If companies and local governments started to innovate public transportation, we would see increased usage of those facilities once gas prices started to rise. Public transportation needs to be convenient for as many people as possible, otherwise, no one will use it.

My argument has always been that if gas prices rise to an absurd level, consumers will undoubtedly change their habits. However, the American dream has always included tokens such as cars, homes, and a comfortable lifestyle. That is our culture and I don’t think that will change. Maybe in the far future, it may. But for now, our culture is going to be one that is filled with cars and people driving them. Alternative fuel needs to be researched and implemented NOW so that all of us can then reduce our dependency on foreign oil.

Article source: Market Watch

No Comments »

How many of you are truly satisfied with your mobile wireless carrier? I’ve been with Cingular (now AT&T) for the past two years and although I don’t have any issues, I feel as if I’m not getting the most out of my wireless carrier. In fact, I spend almost $110 per month for services that would cost much lower if I were in Europe or Asia. Finally, a company in the US is stepping up to the plate and doing something beneficial for the consumer.

Google vs. AT&T, Verizon & the FCC

Coming soon is a bid for the 700 MHz being held by the FCC. This spectrum was previously used to deliver analog TV signals, but they have since been switched over to digital signals. Google’s CEO, Eric Schmidt, sent an open letter to the FCC outlining Google’s plan for the spectrum and their commitment to the bid by offering at least $4.6 billion. So what does Google’s plan entail?

1. Open applications: Consumers should be able to download and utilize any software applications, content, or services they desire
2. Open devices: Consumers should be able to utilize a handheld communications device with whatever wireless network they prefer
3. Open services: Third parties (resellers) should be able to acquire wireless services from a 700 MHz licensee on a wholesale basis, based on reasonably nondiscriminatory commercial terms
4. Open networks: Third parties (like internet service providers) should be able to interconnect at any technically feasible point in a 700 MHz licensee’s wireless network

And That Means What?

To put in plain English, Google wants you to be able to access any website or call anyone using any service or device you want. They don’t want to restrict the consumer in making any choices. For example, T-mobile is not allowed to have their customers use the GSM 850 MHz band in certain markets because AT&T is the exclusive owner of that frequency. Hence, it is possible that certain T-Mobile customers may not be able to enjoy service where GSM 1900 does not exist. Google’s plan would change all that and allow any service provider to operate within the 700 MHz frequency.

Google’s plan is designed with the consumer in mind. Google already offers many of their services free of cost because they are able to rake in billions through online advertising. If Google wins, they will add another source of revenue and enjoy even more money. It’s about time a company stood up for consumers and won. It’s time we let the FCC know that we want more choices and more freedom than what we have right now.

Source: TechCrunch

No Comments »

HAPPY FOURTH OF JULY!

I want to wish every American a happy and safe independence day. 231 years ago, on this day we proudly declared the colonies independent of the tyrannic rule of the British Empire. Today is the day that our founding fathers stood firm and signed a piece of paper that defined our lives and continues to guide us through life. God Bless America!

Today is the day that United States of America triumphed over tyranny and oppression.

No Comments »

As summer continues to move forward, I have no choice but to read interesting news about how the American justice system “fails” or “succeeds.” It seems that everyone has an opinion and when the moment or outcome suits them, the justice system is quite reasonable. Alternatively, the justice system is a failure if the results are not in their favor. However, my thoughts today do not circle around the validity of the justice system but instead focuses on my interpretation of a the punishing values handed down by judges.

In McHenry, IL, a 16 year old girl was denied bail because of the severity of her actions. She was charged with distributing hate flyers that went against the gay community. The judge’s reasoning was that she has a repetitive pattern of mischievous behavior. The article goes on to illustrate how other, more violent, suspects were granted bail for violent crimes that included rape and murder. So this is where my dilemma starts.

My personal political views are quite liberal. I don’t believe in religious views running a country that plays hosts to a multitude of religions. In fact, I despise any politician that invokes God as an excuse or reason to think or make decisions. Hence, in a way, I do not have any sympathy for this girl for using hate language against gays. However, at the same time, she is entitled to her own opinion as it is protected under freedom of speech. I think it is safe for me to say that she should be punished for passing out hate propaganda on school property but not for expressing her personal views. Regardless of what the article claims, the important solution that should be investigated is whether or not “propaganda” should be allowed on school properties. In my view, a school is a safe haven for ideas to be shared in a peaceful manner. That does not mean that hate viewpoints should be expressed, but rather discussed in a professional forum. However, it appears that the girl might be being punished a bit too harshly. In this case, I would have to go and claim that the judge is not being fair and is trying to make an example out of her for no good reason and I strongly believe that she will not learn her lesson in such a harsh manner.

No Comments »

Last week, Democratic hopeful Barack Obama delivered a powerful speech in Detroit in front of many US automakers’ executives, chiding them about their lack of investments into fuel efficient technologies and churning out gas guzzling SUV’s. Keith Naughton, over at MSNBC, felt that the tough talk by Obama backfired. From one perspective, I agree with Keith, however, from my own liberal point of view, I completely disagree with him. In addition, I feel that GM, Ford, and Chrysler are not the only ones to blame. In fact, I think the real culprit is the consumer.

The consumers, including myself, have purchased SUV’s and driven up profits for many manufacturers. What I don’t understand is that everyone now is talking about the environment and pushing hybrids when we could have done this just 10 years ago. At that time, fuel prices were low and we were all interested in buying large cars with big engines. Now look at those same people. They talk about saving the Earth, yet they still drive their SUV’s or their $50,000+ Mercedes that just loves fuel. The fact of the matter is that the consumer is the one to really blame. I think this talk about saving Earth is just a fad because energy prices have risen in the past few years. I’m willing to bet that if energy prices were the same as they were 10 years ago or even cheaper, energy conservation movements across this country would be much lower.

Barack Obama had a point when he blamed GM, Ford, and Chrysler for not investing heavily in fuel efficient technology. However, his mistake lies in that statement alone. GM has spent billions developing new technologies that make conventional gasoline obsolete. However, GM has not made any move towards making any of these technologies financially viable for consumers. I think the problem is not that Detroit has failed to keep up with Toyota or Honda. In fact, the problem is that the American manufacturers have not tried to make efficient technologies cheaper nor have they introduced them into production vehicles. So in a way, Obama should have blamed everyone since we are all at fault.

Source: MSNBC

No Comments »