Tim Farage's Blog

In Memoriam: The Navy SEALs

2011-08-09T00:19:00.001-05:00

I had just started reading Richard Marcinko's newest book in his Rogue Warrior fictional series about the Navy SEALs when the news broke that a helicopter with about 30 SEALs and some others was shot down, and all were killed.

Marcinko was the founder of SEAL Team 6, and his first book, Rogue Warrior, was a non-fiction one about its founding. He, along with the rest of us, must be extremely sad about the recent loss of so many Navy SEALs.

Before the fictional part of his latest book, there was a page that had The Navy SEAL Prayer. I thought it was an appropriate time to display the prayer here.

The Navy SEAL Prayer

Dear Father in Heaven,

If I may respectfully say so sometimes you are a strange God.

Though you love all mankind, it seems you have a special predilections too.

You seem to love those men who can stand up alone who face impossible odds. Who challenge every bully and every tyrant- Those men who know the heat and loneliness of a Calvary.

Possibly you cherish men of this stamp because you recognize the mark of your only Son in them.

Since this unique group of men known as the SEALs know Calvary and suffering, teach them now the mystery of the resurrection- that they are indestructible, they they will live forever because of their deep faith in you.

And when they do come to heaven, may I respectfully warn you, Dear Father, they also know how to celebrate.

So please be ready for them when they insert under your pearly gates.

Bless them, their devoted families, and their country on this glorious occasion. We ask this through the merits of your Son, Christ Jesus the Lord.

Amen

****************************

I like that the prayer had, "they also know how to celebrate." Recall Christ's words, "Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends." This is exactly what these sailors did, and I believe they will be rewarded greatly for it.

So go ahead, my dear SEALs, and celebrate away - you deserve it. And when you are ready, walk with Christ and continue on your journey toward God.

____________________________________

Tim Farage is a Senior Lecturer in the Computer Science Department at The University of Texas at Dallas. You are welcome to comment upon this blog entry and/or to contact him at tfarage@hotmail.com.

_______________________________________

Now that Bin Laden is dead, where do we go from here?

2011-05-02T15:26:00.002-05:00

I wish to start by congratulating the efforts of President Obama, our military and our intelligence services on finally bringing Osama to justice. It has taken 10 years, but we did what we said we would do. Now there can be some rest and closure to the thousands of Americans who lost loved ones on that day. And we have also sent a strong message to those who wish to harm us: don't do it or you'll pay to the last farthing.

And now how should we handle our military?

1) We should always have the best military in the world, so that no country would think that they could prevail against us. The U.S. Navy still dominates the oceans, and can defend the U.S. from attacks from just about anywhere in the world.

2) We have more than 350,000 troops deployed abroad in over 100 foreign bases. Given that the only significant threat is that of Islamo-terrorism, there seems to be no reason for this. We only need our intelligence agencies, and our special forces to find and eliminate threats to the United States. Bring the rest of our troops home and close our foreign bases. This includes troops in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, North Korea, Japan, Germany, and hundreds of other locations.

3) We should discontinue our policy of foreign intervention - by trying to use our military to make other countries into democracies. We are not the policemen of the world, and the fate of other countries is up to them.

4) Stopping this policemen role would likely result in less hostility toward us, and would allow us to bring our troops home to protect our own borders and ports, and saving tons of money in the process.

5) Similarly, we should phase out continual foreign aid. The only time we should give money to other countries is when a natural disaster occurs, such as the earthquake in Japan, or the tsunami in Indonesia which killed over 200,000 people.

6) We would save U.S. lives, taxpayer's money, and be better prepared to deal with attacks against us, and would give no reason for others to think that we are interfering with their countries.

Now is that time for the United States to go back to its proper military role: that of protecting the United States.

Government Based Upon Natural Law: (Part XV) Voting-System Reform

2011-02-21T23:53:00.005-06:00

Why do we need voting-system reform when our current system seems to be working fine?

The biggest problem with the current implementation of our voting system is that it virtually guarantees that the two current major political parties will continue to dominate, winning most of the elected positions in government. And it should be apparent to all that the predominant interest of both parties is either to get into power or to stay in power. For instance, neither party has balance the federal budget (with rare exceptions) because they fear losing the votes of the particular constituencies that may lose money. We need people in government who will do what is best for our country, without worrying about their re-election chances.

What are some solutions to this, related to the voting system?

1) The first solution offers a way to lessen the impact that the two major political parties have by making it easier for third-party and/or independent candidates to get elected. The current system is designed so that either a Republican or Democrat gets elected. The solution offered here is to change our voting system to what is usually called an "Instant-Run-Off" voting system.

A traditional run-off election occurs when it is required that the winner get at least 50% of the vote. If more than two people are running, it is possible that no one gets over 50%. If so, the candidate with the least number of votes is eliminated, and a new vote takes place. This process continues until one of the candidates gets over 50% of the votes cast.

An instant-run-off voting system gives the same results as a traditional run-off election, except that each voter need vote only once in both the instant-run-off voting system, as well as the traditional system. In the instant-run-off system, the voter indicates his/her preferences by numbering the names of the candidates from 1 to N, where N is the number of candidates. It's very easy for the voter to do; and with electronic voting, it would be even easier, with the voting machine asking for the voter's number-1 choice, and then asking for their number-2 choice, etc. When the votes are first counted, only the number-1 choice on each ballot is counted. (Thus, this is not a weighted system). If no number-1 candidate gets more than 50% of the vote, the candidate with the fewest number-1 votes is eliminated. Then, on only those ballots that have chosen this candidate as their number-1 choice, their number-2 choice is now used for the second balloting. This continues until someone gets over 50% of the votes.

It can be shown that this voting procedure reflects voters' desires better than the usual plurality voting that just picks the candidate that gets the most votes, because a candidate may get elected without a majority of the votes cast. A number of cities in the U.S. use this system, as well as some other countries. (For more details see the Wikipedia entry on the Instant-Run-Off voting system).

Instant-run-off voting allows voters to actually vote for the candidates they prefer, and not feel compelled to vote for who they think might win. Currently, when voting, if you'd prefer a particular candidate you think won't win, you may vote for a candidate that you think can win so that you're not "wasting" your vote. With an instant-run-off system, you can vote the way you desire, and if your candidate gets eliminated, your next-highest candidate replaces the eliminated one, so your vote would not be wasted. Thus, voters could truly vote their conscience without worrying that their vote would be meaningless.

Another advantage to this system is that it allows us to get a better idea as to who the voters truly wish to elect, because the results for each round will be made public.

Something that we have in place now that fits well with the instant-run-off voting system is that most jurisdictions allow a person to get on a ballot if he or she receives a certain number of signatures from voters in their jurisdiction. Then, in such a system, all such candidates who qualify would be put on the ballot. The voter then ranks each candidate, and that's all the voter needs to do.

2) Another important proposal that complements the instant-run-off system is a simple-but-important modification to the current system: for the government to stop putting a candidate's political-party affiliation on ballots. There is nothing in the Constitution about political parties, so there is no prohibition against this idea. Not putting a candidate's party next to his/her name would require more knowledge on a voter's part – and that is a very good thing.

Implementing these quite reasonable and eminently fair actions would go a long way toward reducing the power of the two major current political parties, thus improving the chances that government reforms that could actually benefit the people could come about.

I'd be very happy if both of those voting reforms were made, because both of these reforms would lead to a better democracy.

////////////////////////////////////////////

The last voting reform being suggested here is somewhat more controversial, but it's hard for me to find good reasons not to do it, and easy to find a number of good reasons to do it. So here it is.

3) This reform would require that before a citizen has the right to vote, he or she must pass a fairly simple test on the Constitution. Let's say the voting age is 18 years. A person could begin attempting to pass the test starting at, say, age 14. There would be no limit as to how many times a person could take the test. The test would only have to be passed once.

This reform would have a grandfather clause that would allow citizens who are currently allowed to vote to continue to be able to vote without having to take the test. Also, citizens under the age of around 16 would not have to pass the test in order to vote when they are 18.

The test itself would consist of true/false and multiple-choice questions and be similar in structure and difficulty to a driver's-license written exam.

For example, one question might be: "True or False: One of the powers granted to Congress by the Constitution is 'To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian tribes'." The answer to this is true, and indicates the type of question that would be appropriate for the test.

Because it would deal only with the Constitution (as amended, of course), none of the questions could be considered to be partisan or biased toward a certain political point of view.

The advantages to this are numerous. For one, schools would all start teaching children more about the Constitution, so that their students could pass the test. This in itself is enough to warrant this voting reform.

Also, since voters would now be more familiar with the Constitution, they would more likely complain to their representatives if a piece of legislation is proposed that does not seem to be authorized by the Constitution.

And lastly, only those citizens who take voting seriously would likely take the test.

Would this test require an amendment to the Constitution? I've just read the relevant portions of it, and the Constitution only prohibits the government from denying the right to vote based upon race, color, or sex. Since a test about the Constitution would do none of these things, it would seem to me to be Constitutional. (The Supreme Court might well disagree with this assessment, but I don't see how their disagreement could be rationally justified).

Conclusion

These voting reforms would improve our democracy and likely result in better-elected officials. Therefore, they would be an important part of the comprehensive government reforms needed to make our country better.

______________________________________

Tim Farage is a Senior Lecturer in the Computer Science Department at The University of Texas at Dallas. You are welcome to comment upon this blog entry and/or to contact him at tfarage@hotmail.com.

______________________________________

Women in Combat

2011-02-11T21:08:00.005-06:00

Introduction

Recently, the Military Leadership Diversity Commission, established by Congress a few years ago, has said that women should be allowed to serve fully in combat. "It is time to create a level playing field for all qualified service members," the commission said. They went on to say, "Minorities and women still lag behind white men in terms of the number of military leadership positions.

"Defense Secretary Robert Gates said that he expected women to be let into special operation forces eventually. A Pentagon spokeswoman said that the department would review the recommendations when the report is delivered.

Opponents have said that most women lack the necessary strength and stamina needed for battle. They have also said that it could harm unit cohesion, and that Americans won't tolerate large numbers of women coming home in body bags.

Some facts about women in combat

1) It is certainly true that most women don't have the strength and stamina that men have. And in almost all military physical-fitness tests, the requirements for women are lower than those of men. So if women were allowed into combat units, the men would know they weren't as physically capable as their fellow males.

2) Men and women think and react differently, because their brains are wired differently. In The Male Brain by Dr. Louann Brizendine, she says that men's brains are wired so that they become protective of their mates, and this generalizes to other women, as well. Thus, in a combat situation a man might unconsciously or consciously be more concerned with protecting the women in his unit than with the mission. Related to this is that because a young woman could be pregnant, a man may again be more protective of a woman in their unit, and thus be distracted from the overall well-being of the unit.

3) Because of the factors mentioned above, unit cohesion would almost certainly be affected. We don't want men to be worried about protecting the women in their unit at the expense of accomplishing their mission.

4) Men are distracted by attractive women at via the most primitive parts of the male brain. This distraction could prove to be a disaster in some situations.

5) Both women and men get pay more attention to an angry man than they do to an angry woman. Thus, in a command and control situation, an angry male commander is more likely to be obeyed than an angry female commander. This could negatively affect the unity of the group, which could weaken the accomplishment of it.

6) Women who are pregnant can harm their fetuses when firing in a gun range or in combat. Children have been born with burst ear drums because their mothers shot guns while pregnant. It could be mandated that pregnant women be removed from combat or combat training if pregnant, but, of course, women are usually pregnant for a certain amount of time before they know that they are. If women were allowed into combat, almost certainly, some of the children they bear will suffer developmental deficits of one sort or another because of it.

Furthermore, a young woman who is injured in combat may well injure their child-bearing organs — or experience post-combat distress syndrome, either of which could negatively affect their capacity to be a good mother.

7) It used to be that women who became pregnant were discharged from the military. Now, they are not only not discharged, but they receive medical benefits, receive full pay, and even are given uniforms to conform to their pregnancy. And they get child care once their child is born. This is a waste of tax payers' dollars, since at some point in their pregnancy, they are not longer able to be productive members of the military. And if women are allowed into combat, a pregnant woman would have to be removed from their unit immediately.

Women stationed on ships and even those who are in small, close-nit units have a very high pregnancy rate. A Time Magazine article stated that about 13% of the women in the military are pregnant. Nearly 40% of females in certain Army units are pregnant, according to a report from the Air Command and Staff College. Aside from the dangers to their fetuses mentioned above, if a woman gives birth and stays in the military, mother-child bonding and certainly father-child bonding can be adversely affected. This would certainly lower the chances that the child be breast fed for the optimal amount of time. Is this good for our country?

8) If women were allowed into combat, it would not be long before they would be required to register for the draft, and therefore get involuntarily drafted into the military during a war-time situation. They could be assigned to a combat unit. You might think that the law could allow women to opt out of the draft or being in a combat unit, but the individuals who want women in combat would make sure that such "discrimination" does not occur. How many fathers out there would encourage their daughters to join the military if they could be put into combat? I wouldn't.

The most important consideration

My most important concern is this - that women should be treated as men - is culturally degrading. It is the duty, responsibility and honor of men to protect women (and children). It is built into our brains, and cannot be removed. To place a woman - who may at any time be pregnant, into a combat situation - goes against the very being of most men. My suspicion is that any civilization that does this cannot last long. Only a woman can bring a new soul into the world -- the most important single thing that anyone can do.

For those who think that such thinking is sexist, their definition of "sexist" must be much different than mine. To me a sexist is a person who believes that their sex is inherently superior to the opposite sex. My view is that God made all of us as His children and that both sexes are equally important. Of course, men and women are different in many ways, otherwise there wouldn't be men and women. Acknowledging and studying these differences is just one aspect of searching for the truth. If I said, "Men are very, very bad at having children," would this be considered a sexist statement? Clearly not, since the truth cannot be sexist.

The differences between men and women are expressed in many ways, such as with the yin/yang concept, positive and negative, male and female. And such concepts express not only that there are differences, but that both are equally needed, if differently. God has created the male/female duality for a purpose, and we would be wise to not attempt to ignore or eliminate it.

___________________________________

Tim Farage is a Senior Lecturer in the Computer Science Department at The University of Texas at Dallas. You are welcome to comment upon this blog entry and/or to contact him at tfarage@hotmail.com.

___________________________________

A Political Platform Based Upon Natural Law: (Part XIV) Health Care - The 10% Solution

2010-11-28T03:21:00.006-06:00

What is the current state of health care in the U.S.?

Currently our government is subsidizing health care in many ways, such as with the programs of Medicare and Medicaid, and the health-care law passed in 2010. There are a number of unworkable things about the way the government is handling health care. One is that these programs are underfunded by over $40 trillion. Yes, that's trillion. Even so, not everyone is covered. And we spend about 16% of our Gross Domestic Product (GDP) on health care, higher than almost all other countries in the world.

Most people receive health-insurance subsidies from their employer, which creates its own sets of problems. For instance, if a person quits their job or is fired, they must soon find their own health insurance, and if they have any pre-existing health conditions, this insurance would be prohibitively expensive.

The only reason employers got involved with providing health insurance for its employees was that during World War II, the government made it a tax write off, as an encouragement to employers. It no longer makes sense to have employers involved with health insurance, since the vast majority of people do not work their whole lifetime for one employer, as was often the case in the past.

On the other hand, most Americans are happy with the quality of health care that they receive. Therefore, we want to maintain at least the same quality, while providing health care to all, and at an affordable price to the taxpayers.

What is the best role for government with respect to health care?

Eventually (probably many decades from now) we will be prosperous enough so that almost all people would be able to provide their own health care. The few remaining individuals who cannot do so could easily be provided for through charity. At that point the government would have no role, except for the important role of having laws that protect consumers from fraud, etc. While it may be ideal for most of us to be prosperous enough to provide our own health care, it is something that will have to come about only when prosperity for most ensues.

Therefore, for the foreseeable future, I think that health care, like education, should be subsidized for all Americans. And Americans should be able to choose their own doctors, chiropractors, naturopaths, etc., that they believe best meets their needs.

So what should the role of government in health care be?

My proposal would:

1) Provide health care for all Americans.
2) Do so affordably.
3) Remove the pre-existing condition problem.
4) Be fully funded, so that we don't pass on more debt to our children.

The essence of the proposal is to provide a Health-Care Account (HCA) for each American adult. About half of this amount would be used to purchase a high-deductible health insurance policy, and the other half would be used as cash to pay for medical services until the deductible is met, and in most years, it won't.

Specifically, the government would take 10% of GDP, and provide an equal amount of this to every adult (age 18 or older) on a monthly basis. With a GDP in 2010 of about $14 trillion, this comes out to about $600 per month per adult. Each adult would spend $350 per month of this $600(in 2010 dollars) on a high-deductible health insurance policy, and would have $250 x 12 = $3,000 per year to spend as cash (by using their medical debit card) for their medical needs before the deductible kicks in. This high deductible greatly helps to keep the premium down. Also, the health-insurance companies that wish to be involved in this would also have to provide insurance for any children the adult may have.

Note that these amounts do not change if a couple gets married. So a family would get $700 per month for premiums on a health insurance policy or policies, and $6,000 per year cash to spend on medical care before the policy is needed.

This would provide excellent coverage for all, and would save money at the same time, since we would be spending 10% of GDP on health care instead of 16%. And it would still keep the advantages of a free-market in health care, because patients could choose their own doctors, hospitals, etc. This is what would make it better than the "single-payer" plans that most developed countries have, because they dictate the cost of doctor's visits, as well as the costs of various procedures.

What would health-insurance companies need to do to qualify to be part of this program?

Participating insurance companies would have to agree to accept the amounts given above and would have to agree to accept a person, regardless of any pre-existing conditions. They would also have to agree to insure any children of the covered adult. As is true now, they would also have to be fiscally sound.

Also, once a person has met the deductible, their insurance company would have to agree cover 100% of covered medical costs. There would be no co-payments.

Would health insurance companies want to participate in this program?

Yes. Keep in mind that these payments start at age 18. Usually, people up to the age of 40 or 50 would not meet their deductible, but the health-insurance companies would be getting premiums during this time. People who are older or are frequently ill would be using the insurance most years, and so essentially insurance companies would be making money on most young or healthy people, and losing money on older or less healthy people. The difference should provide a reasonable profit for an insurance company, so that many would want to be a participant in this program. This cushion of starting to get premiums at age 18 should also provide enough money to be able to handle the costs of pre-existing conditions. The specifics as to what is covered and what isn't would need to be worked out so as to insure that insurance companies would want to participate.

FAQs

Since this would be a new government program, would it require a tax increase?

All things being equal, it would require a tax increase. But the cost to individuals would decrease. This is because they would no longer be paying their part of the health insurance provided by their employer. Also, companies would be saving money because they would no longer be providing health insurance, and they would no longer have to have large human resource departments to deal with this. Thus, they could afford to give raises to their employees.

Would eye care and dental care be covered?

Yes.

Would all medical conditions and procedures be covered, and would coverage be unlimited?

No. Just as now, certain conditions are not covered by Medicare, certain conditions would not be covered by this plan. For example, a heart transplant would likely not be covered. Similarly, cosmetic surgery would not be covered, although one could use the cash portion to pay for it (but this amount would not be considered part of the deductible portion with respect to health insurance policy). However, if a person has accumulated cash in their account, they would be able to use this for such procedures.

Probably a lifetime maximum of around $2 - $4 million would be in place. It's important to get good coverage for all, so some limitations must apply for this to occur.

Would this program replace all other government health-care programs?

Yes, and that is one way the government will save money on health-care programs. No programs such as Medicare and Medicaid would be needed. Taxpayers would also save money because they would no longer have to pay for county hospitals because everyone would be covered. The only possible exception I see is that veterans who are injured in the line of duty would not have the limitations mentioned above.

Studies have shown that people who take care of themselves physically spend less on health care. Would there be incentives in place to encourage this?

The government would not directly apply such incentives, but insurance companies would be allowed to. For instance, an insurance company could say, "If you keep your weight in the ideal range for your age and sex, and if you keep yourself reasonably fit, and if you get regular physical, eye care and dental checkups, we'll refund a portion of your monthly payment, and you can use that money anyway you wish."

This would be a valuable incentive to keep ourselves physically healthy. And of course there would be the additional benefit that healthier individuals are happier and more productive.

Are you sure it would be a good idea to sever the relationship between employment and health care?

Very much so. Economist Albert Brenner has said this about health care in his blog at http://www.theassetallocationadvisor.com/: “ Industry and commerce are not well-served by a labor force unwilling to change jobs for fear of losing health-insurance benefits. I have seen little discussion of this issue in connection with health care reform, but health insurance benefits are a major reason for individuals to accept employment and to continue their employment even if they are not satisfied, challenged, or motivated by their job. The current system thereby promotes an inefficient utilization of labor by restricting labor mobility. This inefficiency reduces productivity, profits, and economic growth and output. Since labor costs are by far the single largest resource cost in the production of goods and services, a reform that promises to make labor utilization more efficient promises to improve productivity and to increase economic output.”

Would health-insurance co-operatives be allowed to participate?

Yes, as long as they meet the same regulatory standards that for-profit health-insurance companies must meet.

A note to the reader: health insurance co-operatives are owned by those who purchase health-insurance policies through them. Any profits made can be returned to the policy owners, or can be used to reduce premiums. Thus, they may wish to provide additional incentives for its members to be physically fit.

What could a person do with money that accumulates in their HCA?

They could do a number of things. For instance, if someone else needed money for something that wasn't covered, they would be able to transfer their money to another's account. As mentioned above, they could use excess HCA money for non-covered expenses for themselves. And they could stipulate in their will that any excess money be given to another person(s). This money could be used in any way the recipient wished.

Could a person use their own money to get additional benefits by increasing their health-insurance premiums?

Certainly. This must be the case in a free country.

Can the well-off do something to lessen the cost of this program?

Yes. There would be an easy way for someone to opt out of this program, and those that are well-to-do would be encouraged to do so.

Would this program be constitutional?

Although the Supreme Court would likely rule it to be, I don't think it would be constitutional. There is nothing in the Constitution about the government providing health-care subsidies. Therefore, I would want a Constitutional Amendment passed to allow for this program. The amendment would specify that only 10% of GDP could be used for the subsidy, and that sufficient taxes should be levied so that no debt would arise as a result of it.

As an aside, are there other subsidies that you’d like the government to provide?

Yes. Until our civilization advances enough, I believe that government should subsidize both education and health care for all. I've given my plan to subsidize education for all in my post on Education and Government.

Additionally, I’ve previously described a Natural-Resource Dividend. This is an amount of money that would be given each month to every American adult, to compensate for others’ use of our common natural resources. It would probably be around $500 per adult per month.

Thus, a family would be getting $1000 per month from the Natural-Resource Dividend, plus government-subsidized health care and education. These should provide a reasonable economic base for families, and would also allow most mothers of young children to not have to work for money.

Note also a very important point: every American would be given the same amount of money for each of these subsidies. This will save money by reducing the bureaucracy involved, and will satisfy the “general welfare” clause of the Constitution as well as the 14th Amendment, which are both meant to have laws that apply equally to all citizens.

Conclusion

Having a health-care subsidy that a) provides good health care to all Americans without going into debt; b) that saves money as well; c) that encourages us to take care of our physical health; and d) that still allows individuals free choices as to how to obtain their health care, is a plan that we should adopt as soon as possible. And it is a plan that almost everyone would support.

______________________________________

Tim Farage is a Senior Lecturer in the Computer Science Department at The University of Texas at Dallas. You are welcome to comment upon this blog entry and/or to contact him at tfarage@hotmail.com.

_________________________________________________

My Top Seven Wishes for what Congress can do for our Country

2010-11-01T15:13:00.002-05:00

Introduction

I tend not to think of politics in terms of political parties, because most politicians that are Republicans or Democrats have as their main priority getting elected or getting re-elected. They do this by voting for legislation that they know is bad for the country, but good for keeping them and their party in office. How else do you explain a budget deficit of $13.6 trillion, or over $40 trillion in unfunded liabilities, or having military bases that even the military doesn't want?

So what should Congress do that would put the country before their own interests? Here is my Top Seven List of what Congress should do to improve our country and keep it as the best country in the world. How did I come up with number seven? I could come up with 100, but that would be overwhelming. But these seven are the most important. Besides, I like the number seven.

1) Pass a balanced-budget amendment

Year after year of budget deficits tells us that Congress cannot balance a budget. The $13.6 trillion national debt mentioned above comes out to over $120,000 of national debt per family. Did you know that you had that debt on top of whatever personal debts you have?

It's time for a balanced-budget amendment that requires Congress to pass only balanced budgets. The amendment should have an exception that allows for Congress to vote to deficit spend for a given year if 2/3rds of both houses vote to do so. This is needed in times of war, or a large natural disaster.

2) Real health care reform

Medicare, Medicaid, and 2,500 page health care plan that just passed are underfunded by over $40 trillion. And they don't provide health care for everyone, they don't remove the pre-existing condition problem that everyone hates, and they still tie much of health care with employment. Yet we spend about 16% of our Gross Domestic Product (GDP) on health care.

Here's a simple solution that provides health care to all Americans, would be completely funded, would eliminate the pre-existing condition problem, and would de-couple health care with employment. The solution is for the federal government to take 10% of GDP, about $1.5 trillion, and put an equal amount of this into a Medical Care Account (MCA) for each American adult. This would be about $600 per month per adult. About half of this would be used to buy a high-deductible health insurance policy, and the other half to pay for medical expenses incurred before the deductible kicks in (and in most years, it wouldn't).

Insurance companies that grant policies under this plan must agree to cover any children the adult might have.

This plan would also replace all other health care subsidies.

I'll go into more detail in a future post, but that's the essence of it. Everyone would be covered, everyone could still choose whatever doctor or hospital they wished, and we'd save money all at the same time.

3) Bring our troops home

It's hard to believe but we have more than 350,000 troops deployed overseas in over 150 countries. I want the US to always have the best military in the world, yet I see no reason to have troops deployed overseas unless we are at war. Iraq didn't attack us, and Afghanistan didn't attack us. Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda did. So the only troops we should have overseas right now would be those who go after bin Laden and those members of Al Qaeda who are planning to attack us. And most of this can be done with our Special Forces and our intelligence apparatus, which have been especially effective since 9/11 in thwarting attacks against us by Al Qaeda.

If we did this, we'd need fewer troops, we'd have less hostility directed at us, and we could use some of the troops brought home to protect our borders and ports. I think we would actually have fewer attacks directed against us without troops stationed overseas.

And the US Navy still dominates the oceans, and can defend the US from attacks from just about anywhere in the world.

4) Transform Social Security into a sustainable retirement plan

Social Security was started by FDR in 1935 and the tax rate was 2%. It was meant to be a supplement to one's retirement income. Now the Social Security tax rate is 12.4%, and it is still only a supplement to one's income. And it's underfunded. Anyone saving 12.4% of their income should be able to retire on that alone. Instead, to retire gracefully, we need to have another retirement plan and save 10% in that. This is an incredible waste.

Transition to a system in which individuals are required to save 15% for their retirement. No more underfunding. And if I told you that most people would be millionaires when they retired, you wouldn't believe me, but it's true. The transition might take decades, but the sooner we start, the better off we'll be.

Every month each of us would have more money to spend because we wouldn't have to put money into both Social Security and another retirement plan.

5) Replace the income tax with a Natural Resource and Pollution tax

We currently waste between $200 - $600 billion per year just because there's an income tax. This is money spent on tax attorneys, tax accountants, tax software, etc., just to pay income taxes. Furthermore, there is no rational basis for a tax on income. If a person earns X amount of money, then that money is theirs and no one else's.

On the other hand the natural resources of a country weren't created by anyone, so they can only be considered to belong to all of us. The best way to handle the natural resources is to allow individuals or companies who own them to pay a monthly tax on those resources that are not used up (mostly land) or to pay a one-time tax on resources that are used up, such as oil, gas, and minerals.

This would eliminate the IRS and all the problems created by having an income tax, and replace it with a tax that would have many beneficial side effects, such as encouraging conservation in order to minimize taxes.

6) Start building nuclear reactors now

We need inexpensive, reliable energy to be prosperous. Inexpensive energy is one of the single most important items that help the poor get out of poverty, because inexpensive energy reduces the cost of everything. Currently, there is only one source of non-polluting, reliable energy that can provide a steady base load of energy for our country. And that is energy generated from nuclear power. President Obama is providing loan guarantees to investors who provide money to build nuclear reactors. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has already approved two very good and very safe nuclear reactor designs. Congress just needs to remove any other remaining barriers to building them now.

In a decade or so, we'll have better battery-powered cars, and these can be charged with electricity generated by nuclear-powered plants. We'll then have most of of our energy be clean and safe. They also give off no CO2, and will make us independent of foreign oil.

If you're worried about radiation from them, don't be. In over 50 years, there has not been even a single death due to radiation in the United States as a result of commercial nuclear power plants.

7) Allowing all parents to choose their children's school

This is really a state issue, but it's so important that I'm including it here.

Currently, if you are well-to-do, you can send your child to whatever school you wish, if that school is willing to enroll your child. If you are not well off, you must send your child to the local public school, or possibly a public charter school. We've been trying for decades to improve public education, and everyone knows how that has gone. If you don't know, go see the documentary, Waiting for Superman.

The documentary shows the plight of the poor and how desperate they are to get into good schools. The writer suggests having more charter schools, which is fine. But the only sustainable answer is to have school choice for all parents, rich or poor. There is no doubt that it will eventually happen, so why not start doing it now? If we are going to subsidize education, then allow the parents the freedom to decide how their children are to be educated.

It's simple to do. Each state should take whatever it now spends on K-12 education. (In Texas it's about $9,000 per student per year). Then put this amount into an Educational Benefit Account for each child. The child's parents can then use this money to send their child to whatever public, private or parochial school that they feel will best suit their child. And they can change schools whenever they wish.

School's will crop up all over the place. Some will be bad and some will be good. But the bad ones will eventually go out of business, since parents will stop sending their children there. And that's what will lead to educational improvement in our country.

Conclusion

If Congress would do the above items, our country would once again be leading the way to making a better world for all.

______________________________________

Tim Farage is a Senior Lecturer in the Computer Science Department at The University of Texas at Dallas. You are welcome to comment upon this blog entry and/or to contact him at tfarage@hotmail.com.
______________________________________

Cuba has Finally Read 'Atlas Shrugged'

2010-10-04T00:54:00.002-05:00

What does that mean?

It means that Cuba, one of the few remaining Communist countries, has finally begun to allow free enterprise.

What was the economic situation in Cuba?

Their economy has been about ready to collapse. Many workers in Cuba barely show up and they do little productive work when they do. In government offices in Havana, coffee and cigarette breaks last for hours. It's not that they are lazy, it's that they get paid about $20 per month, and have no motivation to work hard.

What specifically have they done to more toward freer markets?

Cuba has recently allowed beauticians and barbers to work for themselves. Drivers can operate their own taxis. Even some farmers have been allowed to own their own land. Of course, these are the people who are making a reasonable living. Also, Cuba just let go of 500,000 government workers, 10% of its government workforce.

Is this really a free market economy?

Certainly not, but it is a step closer. That seems to be the way it starts in all previously Communist countries.

What Communist countries are still remaining?

Mainly North Korea, although there are many countries that have such corrupt governments that they cannot be considered to have free markets.

What's so good about this?

For details about why free enterprise is the best system, see my blog entry about Economic Policy. The bottom line is that we are meant to be free. Therefore, governments whose main purpose is to protect each individual's freedom is the only sustainable form of government. After all, who has the right or authority to dictate how an adult should lead their life (as long as it is done in peace)?

Does this relate to the documentary, Waiting for Superman?

The documentary shows the plight of the poor and how desperate they are to get into good schools. The writer suggests having more charter schools, which is fine. But again, the only sustainable answer is to have school choice for all parents, rich or poor. There is no doubt that it will eventually happen, so why not start doing it now? If we are going to subsidize education, then allow the parents the freedom to decide how there children are educated.

Conclusion

In any area, the more free choices a person has for any product or service, the more those products and services tend to improve. Free enterprise, freedom or religion, freedom of education, free speech - all of these are natural rights, and should be protected by any good government. Hopefully, Cuba is taking its first steps in this direction.

______________________________________

Tim Farage is a Senior Lecturer in the Computer Science Department at The University of Texas at Dallas. You are welcome to comment upon this blog entry and/or to contact him at tfarage@hotmail.com.
______________________________________

A Political Platform Based upon Natural Law: (Part XIII) Economic Policy

2010-09-12T11:54:00.002-05:00

What economic system should the United States have?

Really, the answer is none. The Constitution does not directly specify a particular economic system, although, as I’ll show below, it implies that the government cannot interfere with economic transactions. Two common terms are used to describe economies in which people are free to engage in whatever economic transactions they choose: “free enterprise” and “free-market economics”.

It is common to refer to our economy as a “free-market system”, even though it is not a system, because it is not defined or controlled by anyone, nor by the government. It’s just another aspect of freedom. That said, I won’t quibble with those words, and I’ll even use them.

Having free-market economies essentially means that the means of production are privately owned, and that buyers and sellers of goods and services can freely interact, as long as the interaction is voluntary and informed i.e. not coerced or fraudulent.

What about the term “capitalism”?

That term is frequently used, but I don’t particularly like it because a) it is not as descriptive as the ones given above, and b) Karl Marx used the term “capitalism” pejoratively. And since Marx came up with Communism, the worst of all economic systems, why use his terminology? But most people do use the word to mean free-market economics; I just wish they wouldn’t.

Why “free-market economics” and not just “free markets”?

Free markets should refer not only to free markets in the trade of goods and services (free-market economics), but also free markets of religion, speech, the press, friendship, etc. In order for us to be personally responsible, freedom is essential, otherwise someone or some group or the government will force us to do their bidding. Even God does not do this.

It is useful to think of free markets in this manner, because then it is easier to understand why the Constitution does not specify an economic system. Because our country is founded on the principle that its people should be free, the Constitution does not limit freedom, i.e. it does not limit free markets of any type. Thus, people in the U.S. are free to choose their belief system, are free to choose their friends, are free to speak and write about whatever they wish, are free to educate their children as they see fit (as long as they have the money to choose their own school). So free-market economics is just another aspect of freedom.

So are we free to murder or defraud someone out of their money?

Of course not. As always, when I use “free markets” or “freedom”, I always mean the freedom to live in peace. A person is not free to violate the freedoms of another. Thus, laws with respect to murder, stealing, rape, slavery, fraud, coercion, etc., are appropriate because someone who violates these laws violates another’s freedom. Similarly, reasonable laws with respect to protecting health and safety are also appropriate. Also reasonable environmental laws are appropriate, because if someone harms the environment, this could result in harm to others.

Is free enterprise the best economic system?

In the United States, thankfully, free enterprise is the only system that is allowed, because not allowing it would violate our freedom to live our lives as we see fit. It just refers to the fact that people are free to trade goods and services (including money) with whomever they want.

This also means that the Amish, for instance, are free to form a community, and to determine the rules for that community. If they wish to share equally among all goods produced, that is there right. But is also the right of an individual to leave the community if they don’t wish to be there any longer. So free enterprise implies the right to form a group that is socialistic or even Communistic. But no laws can force someone to do such.

(Just to be absolutely clear, laws that protect our freedoms – those that protect our life, liberty and property – are fine. For example, a health insurance company that fails to pay a covered claim is guilty of fraud, a form of theft. This is, and should be illegal. Also, laws that require a health insurance company to have the financial wherewithal to pay its claims are also good laws, since they protect individuals from paying for health insurance and then not getting the benefits they paid for. This also is a form of theft).

Another way to look at free-market economics is to compare it to free-market religion. The Constitution prohibits government from dictating one’s religion or any other beliefs. This is the only way for a good government to function. After all, why should the government (or anyone else) tell you what to believe or how to practice your religion? Similarly, why should the government (or anyone else) tell you whom to do business with, what business to do, or how to do it? If you and a hair salon agree that you will get a haircut for $12 or $500, that is no one else’s concern.

So, yes, free enterprise is the best economic system, because it is the only one that is in harmony with our right to be free. Really, that should be the end of the discussion. But it would be nice to know how free-market economics compares to other systems.

And how does free enterprise compare to other economic systems?

As is always the case, freedom in any area gives the best results overall. To be sure people make bad economic decisions, as they do in all areas of life. Yet, when government tries to protect us from ourselves by dictating what system to use, it always ends up being worse.

Many have said that free-markets economies are not perfect, and this is certainly true. This results from the fact that people are not perfect; thus, no system will be perfect. That said, free enterprise with a moral people results in the best economic system.

Even with people as imperfect as we are now, free-market economics is the best economic system. Here is the proof.

The people of the Soviet Union were no different than those in other countries, yet its economic system, Communism, created poverty for all but a few, who essentially took their money from those that worked for it.

Even more telling is that in the process of attempting to force communism on the world, Korea was split into North and South Korea, and Germany into East and West Germany. In 2009 the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) of communist North Korea was estimated to be about $1,800 per person, whereas the GDP of South Korea was estimated to be about $15,000 per person. The suffering of the people of North Korea continues to this day, all as a result of the (now defunct) Soviet Union.

Similarly, the GDP of communist East Germany was estimated to be about $21,000 per person when it merged with West Germany in 1990, whereas the GDP of West Germany at that time was estimated to be about $45,000 per person. (These amounts are both given in 2008 dollars).

These figures all show that free markets, are much better for its citizens than Communism/Socialism.

What is it about free enterprise that results in the most prosperity for the most people?

Free enterprise gives people the ability to choose which person or company they wish to buy their goods and services from. This results in a competition among sellers in order to gain buyers. And the only way to gain buyers in the long run is to provide better goods or services. Thus, free economic markets give rise to an ever increasing standard of living for those who are fortunate enough to live in a country that protects them. Even countries that have close to free economic markets, and don’t even have democracy, such as China, have seen their standard of living dramatically increase.

It is truly sad that the word “competition” has negative connotations in the minds of many Americans. Being free means being able to do as one pleases as long as such is done in peace. And this freedom results in competition, because anyone is free to start a business and sell their goods or services to whomever wishes to buy them. Competition ought to be regarded as something that makes life better for all those who are willing to work for the goods and services they receive.

Another example shows how important competition is. For most mammals, it is either the strongest males who can choose their mates, or it is the females who choose the fittest males to mate with. This competition among animals results in a hardier species. If nature uses competition to make it better, should we not consider it as something to be imitated?

Even among humans, young men and women compete for mates all over the world. What man or woman does not wish to have the best mate possible?

Of course, people often choose poorly when choosing mates, and they often choose poorly when buying goods and services. Nevertheless, free markets correct these problems better than any other system.

Good government protects our right to life and liberty and our right to our peacefully obtained possessions. When this happens, prosperity ensues.

What is in the Constitution that relates to economics?

Our Constitution implicitly assumes a free-market system. Mainly, this results from the fact that the Constitution limits the powers of the federal government to what is enumerated there. And nowhere does it give the federal government the power to control economic activity.

Also, Article I, section 10, clause 1 of the Constitution provides that “No State shall … pass any Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts.” In the early years of the nation, the Supreme Court's interpretations of this clause constrained state action, especially actions seeking to redistribute wealth.

And the “takings clause” required that when property was taken by the government, it can only be taken for “public use” and that just compensation be paid to the owner.

What are some examples of bad laws that restrict our economic freedoms?

There are many federal and State laws that restrict economic freedoms. They should have been ruled to be unconstitutional.

Some examples of these bad laws are laws that restrict competition in order to protect those who are already in a particular business. There are laws in many States that restrict who may sell funeral caskets, and some specify funeral casket requirements. Such laws do protect the health and safety of others; they protect the profits of the funeral homes who currently sell these caskets.

There are laws requiring a cosmetology license to braid hair. There are laws to require florists to get a license. There are laws to prevent new taxi companies from starting (even if the drivers have passed a taxi driver exam). In many states, even an individual who has passed the taxi driver exam, and who has a taxi that meets the State’s safety requirements, must still get a license to do business.

All of these laws were originally made by businesses lobbying for laws that limit competition. Some of these laws are finally being declared unconstitutional as the result of a number of fine charitable organizations, such as the Institute for Justice.

Conclusion

Give us (economic) liberty or give us a dead economy.

**************************************************

FAQs

1) What about the natural resources of a country? Can individuals or companies do as they wish with them?

The natural resources of a country need to be dealt with in a special way, since they do not initially belong to anyone, because they were created by Nature. Such natural resources include land, minerals, oil, etc. Thus, they should be considered to be the property of all. The government may sell them or rent or lease them to private individuals or businesses, as it deems best. This means that the people as a whole are compensated for the private use of such resources. For land, a monthly land-use fee would be appropriate. For extractable resources such as oil, a reasonable tax per barrel of oil extracted would be fair.

Laws such as land-use laws, deed restrictions, and environmental laws can all be appropriate.

For more details about the best way to handle a country’s natural resources, see my blog entry devoted to this topic.

2) Should the government be the developers and extractors of our natural resources?

Government doing this would not violate economic freedom because it owns the natural resources. But history has shown that private business extracts natural resources more efficiently and more cheaply than does government.

For instance, Pemex, the oil company owned and run by the Mexican government, is a disaster. Mexico has a huge amount of oil, yet the company is in debt in excess of $42 billion in 2010. This has resulted in a lack of investments in adding adequate refining capacity. While exporting crude oil, Mexico imports expensive gasoline. Because of this, Mexico’s current president, President Calderon, made clear at the beginning of his presidency that he would try his best to open up the oil sector to private investment.

So, a good government should sell or lease its natural resources to private individuals or companies, regulate how they are used, and then tax them, so that all may benefit.

3) What about the collapse of the housing market? Didn’t greedy businesses give out mortgages that should not have been given in order to profit from them?

It’s certainly true that greed and unethical business practices occurred. But guess what was at the root of the problem? I’m sure you’re shocked to hear that it is the government. First, organizations started and controlled by the government, such as Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and the Federal Housing Administration (FHA), provided mortgage insurance to the private mortgage companies who gave individuals’ mortgages. This alone was a mistake because there are and have been private mortgage insurance companies. So this is an example of the government interfering in the economy for no good reason.

But here’s the kicker: the federal government wanted to do some more social engineering. They wanted “the poor” and others who wouldn’t qualify for a mortgage in a free market, to be able to buy a home. So they passed laws telling the above government-controlled companies to give mortgage insurance for mortgages that no sane mortgage company would grant. And who pays when these mortgages go bad? Yes, you guessed correctly. You do.

Here is a specific example. A person could (at least before the housing market collapse) get an FHA insured mortgage by putting only 3% down! And even that could be a gift. And as time went by, the ratio of the cost of the mortgage to the income of the buyer was allowed to go up, sometimes over 40% of income. Finally, some of these mortgages required little documentation of income, or good credit. This was great for the mortgage companies who were profiting from all the mortgages they were providing. And laws made it so that they had to underwrite such bad mortgages if they wanted government-backed mortgage insurance. So of course the mortgage companies gave out loans to people they knew were bad risks – they had to.

This is yet another example of how government involvement in business is frequently disastrous. After, they don’t need to make a profit. They just need to get votes.

If you had extra money to invest, and you wanted to provide mortgages to people, how much of a down payment would you require so that you felt you made a good investment? I would require at least 10%, and would give a lower interest rate for 20% down. Furthermore, I’d make sure that the home buyer had enough income to pay the mortgage, and had good enough credit to prove that they would pay the mortgage. This is common sense to all, except for those who want the vote of those who couldn’t get a mortgage in a free market.

Did you hear the government blame itself for the collapse?

4) How should the government deal with man-made pollution?

By definition, man-made pollution consists of harmful substances. They are either released into the atmosphere, or enter the land or oceans. Since they are harmful, they should be dealt with by legislation. Laws should either restrict the amount of pollution, or tax it, or both. Click here for more information devoted to this topic.

5) We currently subsidize, among other things, schools and health care. Do you think we should stop doing this?

No, but we should subsidize them differently than we do now. Essentially, they should be subsidized in such a manner as to allow the recipients to have as much choice as possible, so that the benefits of free markets will manifest. I've already written about the best way to subsidize education. A future blog post will deal with a cost-effect way in which to provide health care for all.

______________________________________

Tim Farage is a Senior Lecturer in the Computer Science Department at The University of Texas at Dallas. You are welcome to comment upon this blog entry and/or to contact him at tfarage@hotmail.com.

______________________________________

Global Warming Alarmists Struck Down but They Won't Admit It

2010-07-31T01:11:00.001-05:00

So what happened that struck down the global warming alarmists?

Much more than I can give here. But since I wrote my last blog entry on why the war on global warming is a war on the poor, new information has come to light that. Just today (07/30/2010) a report from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) came out about the best evidence so far about global warming. It drew on research from 48 countries. The article came from Bloomberg News, and was entitled, Report: Warming is unmistakable. It starts with the usual alarmism about global warming. It’s not until the end of the article that we get the actual facts. After all, why let the facts get in the way?

I’ve written previously that the best evidence shows that the Earth is heating at the rate of about 3 degrees Fahrenheit (F) per century. And I’ve also said that it is possible that this may have a net positive value for humanity.

So what does the NOAA conclude from its most recent data? The Earth warmed about 1 degree F over the last 50 years. For those of you that are mathematically challenged that comes out to 2 degrees per century. Are you scared yet?

What about the prediction made by the global warming alarmists?

Not unexpectedly, the article did not mention the United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) final report, and its predictions using various climate models? It also didn’t mention Al Gore’s predictions that he gave in his documentary, An Inconvenient Truth.

No, neither of these were mentioned, nor were any other previous predictions. I can only presume that the reason for this is that more people will realize that it is a waste of money to try to mitigate this level of global warming, especially if the mitigation method has to do with reducing our “carbon footprint.”

So let look at the United Nation’s IPCC final report and cut to the chase. One part of the report gives the various estimates of how much the temperature will increase by 2100. The estimates vary from 2 to 11 degrees F.

First, I’ll bet that you didn’t realize how much variability there was in the IPCC report. This variability wasn’t written about much, because most people would think, what kind of ridiculous prediction is that? Maybe they will soon predict that the Sun will come up in 2100. Actually, I have to give the authors of the final report credit for being honest about how little they knew about how much the temperature might change over the next century.

And let’s be honest here. The current evidence is that the Earth will warm 2 degrees F by 2100, and that is precisely the low end of the IPCC’s estimate. Kudos to them. However, their best estimate was 5 to 6 degrees F, so the Kudos are minimal. (Just to let you know the IPCC predicted that sea level would rise by 7 to 23 inches by 2100. If it ends up being at the low end, it would be about the same as the estimated rise during the 20th century of about a foot).

The estimate for the 20th century was that the temperature rose about 1 to 1.5 degrees F. Did anyone notice?

But what is the Earth does start warming faster than it has been over the last few decades?

This is certainly possible. It’s even possible (but less likely) that the Earth will cool. Notice that I haven’t predicted what the global temperature would be by 2100, I just extrapolated from current data. Frankly, I have no idea what the global temperature will be in 2100, and neither do you, or Al Gore, or anyone else.

But if the Earth does starting warming at rate of more than 3 degrees per century, it would probably be wise to attempt to mitigate this. Not by attempting to cut our carbon dioxide emissions, which my last blog pointed out will have no discernable effect. Rather there are cost-effective geo-engineering solutions that research is currently being done on. For more information on these see my blog post about global warming.

And if you want good solutions that will improve our environment, make us less dependent on foreign oil, and save us money, check out my post on Rational Environmentalism.

So why are there so many in the media and so many groups that are worried that we are “destroying the Earth?”

It’s hard to know exactly. Part of the reason, I believe is that people like to believe strongly in something, and believing that you are helping to save the Earth is quite motivating.

With respect to the media, it is natural for them to print the bad news, or at least try to make news sound bad, even when it isn’t. Such news sells better than a story about Girl Scout cookies.

But I also think that some people have an almost unconscious guilt that they are trying to assuage. They might feel guilty about the U.S. being so prosperous compared to most other countries, and that our prosperous ways are harming the Earth.

How can this be countered?

It can be countered by developing what might be called a “prosperity consciousness”. Let’s all look around objectively and see that the most prosperous nations have the highest standards of living, less pollution, less poverty, more choices, are better educated, and live longer and healthier lives than nations that are not as prosperous. And when some disaster occurs, they can deal with it much better than less prosperous countries.

We should want all good people of this world to be prosperous, and there are plenty of resources available on our planet to be able to do this. This is the attitude that I'd like us all to adopt.
______________________________________

Tim Farage is a Senior Lecturer in the Computer Science Department at The University of Texas at Dallas. You are welcome to comment upon this blog entry and/or to contact him at tfarage@hotmail.com.

______________________________________

Why the “War on Global Warming” is a “War on the Poor”

2010-07-27T01:58:00.003-05:00

Haven’t you written about global warming before?

Yes. Click here for a link to that post, which contains more details than are given here, and would be a good background for this post.

The reason for this new post is that Congress is currently considering what is called a “cap-and-trade” tax. This is a form of a carbon tax that taxes industries that emit CO2. The purpose of this post is to show that any such tax will make everything more expensive, and yet do nothing to prevent global warming. So the poor will be harmed, and it will be for nothing.

Why will such a tax make everything more expensive?

Whenever we burn oil, natural gas, or coal to obtain energy, CO2 is given off. So any sort of carbon tax would increase the cost of energy since we obtain most of our energy from these sources. We frequently think of energy in terms of gasoline and electricity, and the price of those will certainly increase. But keep in mind that the chair you’re sitting on took energy to make. So the price of everything will increase with such a tax.

Won’t a cap-and-trade/carbon tax cause us switch to more “sustainable” forms of energy such as solar or wind?

Probably so. But these forms of energy supply only a small fraction of our energy needs, and they are still expensive. As solar and wind and other forms of energy become inexpensive, we will naturally start generating energy from them. But it will take decades before they become a significant source of energy. Until then, why create poverty?

But if a form of carbon tax will reduce our CO2 emissions, won’t that reduce global warming, and benefit all?

No, if the United States decreases its CO2 emissions, it will have no significant effect on global warming. There are many reasons for this. First, a few years ago, China became the leading emitter of CO2, and the amount they are giving off is growing substantially, whereas we are not substantially increasing our CO2. Likewise, India, other Asian countries, Africa and South America are all increasing their CO2. So even if we were to decrease our CO2 emissions by say 30%, this would have little effect on global CO2 concentration.

Even worse, projections from the last 30 years indicate that global temperatures would rise about 3 degrees Fahrenheit (F) by 2100, which may actually have a net benefit to humanity. The reason for this is that plants absorb CO2 during photosynthesis, and give off the oxygen that animals (and humans!) breathe. Atmospheric CO2 has gone from about 315 parts-per-million (ppm) in 1958 to 385 ppm in 2008. (This is about 38 molecules of CO2 per 100,000 molecules of air). Many greenhouse owners prefer to use 1000 ppm in their greenhouses because their plants grow better with that concentration of CO2. This indicates that increasing CO2 in our atmosphere will increase plant and tree growth, thus making food more plentiful and affordable.

And even though you’ve heard otherwise, the truth is that we still don’t know how much global warming manmade CO2 emissions are causing. You’ve certainly heard the almost hysterical pleas from Al Gore and others who consider manmade CO2 emissions an apocalypse waiting to happen. But what has happened?

Trends indicate a 3 degree F increase over the next century and a 1 to 2 foot rise in sea level. Does this sound apocalyptic to you? Have you noticed that dearth of articles in the last few years about how much global warming is occurring? The reason is that for a decade or so, there has been no global warming. How many articles have you seen about that? Have you noticed that instead of the term “global warming”, alarmists are using the term, “climate change.” This is safer for them since they can still talk about climate change when no global warming is happening. It’s also safe because the climate is always changing. But don’t be fooled. When you hear “climate change” that is almost always a euphemism for “manmade global warming.” Scientists and journalists who have done this ought to be ashamed, for they are hiding the truth.

Are there other reasons for not having a CO2 cap-and-trade tax?

Taxing CO2 will cost us money that we could be using for something valuable. There are “clean coal” initiatives that involve burning coal for electricity (of which the U.S. has hundreds of years’ worth), but that give off much less pollution. This sounds reasonable, except that these initiatives always involve removing the CO2 given off, which is expensive to do. If we eliminated the CO2 requirement, because it has no value, we could redefine “clean coal” as burning coal for energy and giving off very little pollution, such as sulfur dioxide, lead and mercury. This would be of benefit to us since these substances have been shown to be harmful.

Furthermore, the only current cost-effective way we have of generating pollution-free energy is with nuclear power. Streamlining the process for approving and building more nuclear power plants would have tremendous value. As well doing more research into more efficient and less expensive nuclear power plants would be of value. We have over a million years worth of nuclear fuel, mainly uranium and thorium. It would also make us less dependent on foreign oil, once we have good battery-powered cars.

What’s one more good reason for not having a CO2 cap-and-trade tax?

Because it will create poverty, it will do the opposite of what is intended: to make humanity better off. If global warming occurs to a harmful extent, then, just as when other disasters happen, the most prosperous countries will fare much better than the poorest countries. The lesson of the 2010 disastrous earthquake in Haiti was that it wasn’t the earthquake that killed hundreds of thousands of innocent people, it was poverty. Haiti did not have buildings or roads or the various types of infrastructure able to handle a 7.0 magnitude earthquake. In 1989, San Francisco had an almost identical earthquake, and around 60 people were killed. Prosperity matters a great deal, when it comes to dealing with any kind of disaster.

Prosperous countries will be in the best position to deal with whatever negative effects there might be due to global warming. Not only will these countries suffer less if significant global warming occurs, they will suffer less if any disaster occurs. In addition, prosperous countries rarely go to war with each other. It is easier just to trade with each other than to go to war.

I’ve heard from more than one good-hearted person that the Earth would be better off with fewer people, and that they don’t want the rest of the world to have the amenities that we have in the U.S. because it would “destroy the Earth.” This is truly a terrible attitude. Good people should want all other good people on Earth to be prosperous and to have access to the same products that we enjoy. If we do it right, there are plenty of natural resources to provide for all of us, and in a sustainable manner.

In a previous post I gave an environmental policy for the United States that will reduce pollution and CO2 emissions by at least 80% by 2050. And the surprising news about this is that it will create prosperity at the same time. This is about the most anyone could ask for, and it can be done without any form of carbon tax.

There are cost-effective ways to reduce global warming if we need be. (Click on the link at the start of this post to find out about them). But having a carbon tax is not one of them.

Conclusion

A cap-and-trade tax or any form of carbon tax will not benefit the environment, and will create poverty. Congress should reject any such taxes. Rather, it should endorse environmental policies that reduce pollution, reduce dependence on foreign oil, and create prosperity.
______________________________________

Tim Farage is a Senior Lecturer in the Computer Science Department at The University of Texas at Dallas. You are welcome to comment upon this blog entry and/or to contact him at tfarage@hotmail.com.
______________________________________

Separation of Education and State

2010-05-02T17:17:00.031-05:00

Don’t you mean, “Separation of Church and State?”

No, although they are related more closely than one might think. Here’s a quotation from the First Amendment of the Constitution with respect to religion: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” This amendment prohibited Congress from creating a national religion, such as “The Church of the United States.” It also prohibited Congress from passing laws restricting the free exercise of religion.

Was this done because the Founding Fathers didn’t feel that religion was important?

Actually, it was just the opposite. The Founding Fathers felt that our country could not survive without strong religious and moral principles. But they felt that such personal beliefs about one’s faith should be up to the individual, and not dictated by the government. Additionally, they wanted to avoid infighting caused by differences in people’s beliefs, which would only be exacerbated by having laws related to religion.

Religion was too important to the Founding Fathers to have government involved in it.

How does this view relate to education?

The Founding Fathers felt that religion was essential to education. After all, how could one get a good education without a religious basis? Since all things flow from our Creator, so should all aspects of our lives.

What did the Founding Fathers actually say about religion and its role in education?

Sit back for a moment and enjoy the following quotations, some of which may surprise you.

In 1787, the year the Constitution was approved by Congress, they also passed the Northwest Ordinance. In it they outlawed slavery in the Northwest Territory, enumerated some basic human rights and also said:

“Article 3: Religion, morality, and knowledge, being necessary to good government and the happiness of mankind, schools and the means of education shall forever be encouraged.”

George Washington said in his Farwell Address:

“Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports…. And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail to the exclusion or religious principle.”

In order to exclude the dissensions of individual denominations so as to make the teaching of religion a unifying cultural adhesive rather than a divisive apparatus, Thomas Jefferson wrote a bill for the “Establishing of Elementary Schools” in Virginia in which he wanted to emphasize that the only religious tenets that could be taught in public schools were those that were universally accepted by all faiths:

“No religious reading, instruction or exercise, shall be prescribed or practiced inconsistent with the tenets of any religious sect or denomination.”

Jefferson later proposed that the University of Virginia extend its facilities to the various denominations so that each student could worship and study in the church of his choice. He wrote:

“Can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed, by eliminating religious instruction, their only firm basis – a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are of the gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with his wrath?”

Benjamin Franklin wrote to the President of Yale University:

“Here is my creed. I believe in one God, the Creator of the universe. That he governs it by his Providence. That he ought to be worshipped. That the most acceptable service we render to him is in doing good to his other children. That the soul of man is immortal, and will be treated with justice in another life respecting its conduct in this. These I take to be the fundamental points in all sound religion.”

These basic beliefs were shared by almost all of the Founding Fathers, and they sometimes referred to them as the “religion of America.” Samuel Adams said that “the religion of America is the religion of all mankind.” Thus they could be taught in schools without be offensive.

John Adams called these beliefs the general principles on which the American civilization had been founded.

Jefferson called these basic beliefs the principles “in which God has united us all.” With respect to the University of Virginia, he suggested that the responsibility for teaching:

"The proofs of the being of God, the creator, preserver, and supreme ruler of the universe, the author of all the relation of morality, and of the laws and obligations these infer, will be within the province of the professor of ethics.”

Doesn’t this contradict the idea of “Separation of Church and State?”

Not at all. The clauses of the Constitution given above were meant only to prohibit the federal government from passing laws interfering with religion. And the federal government has no authority with respect to education. The Founders expected that the States would deal with education and that schools would teach the basic religious principles given above.

So why don’t we teach these principles in our public schools today?

That’s a long story and has mainly to do with a number of Supreme Court decisions that restricted what public schools could teach with respect to religion.

Furthermore, even though Franklin’s general religious principles would be accepted by most Americans today, they would not be accepted by all. So between the decisions of the Supreme Court and the beliefs of the current U.S. population, it doesn’t appear that such religious principles will be taught again in public schools.

And to make my position clear, even though I agree with Franklin’s religious principles, I don’t want to force them (or any other belief system) on those who don’t agree with them. So it is no longer proper to teach such in public schools.

So what’s the problem? After all, parents can teach their children about religion, and so can churches.

It’s true that parents and churches can teach their children religion. The problem is that most children spend a great deal of time in school. And if their school doesn’t incorporate religion, children are put into an artificial position of keeping education separate from religion. This, frankly, is ridiculous. We are here as children of God to grow toward God, to love one another, and to help make the world a better place. These are the basic premises of most Americans and yet not a word of this can be taught in our public schools. This leads to a complete disconnect between our true, spiritual selves, and what we are being taught in schools. Without God, what is even the purpose of education?

So what should we do about this?

Because public schools are no longer a place where spiritual principles can or should be taught, and because it is not possible to separate spirituality from education, there is only one realistic answer.

And that answer is to separate out two different functions of government: that of subsidizing education and that of running schools. When we say "public education" we usually mean both, but this does not have to be so. Indeed, it should not be so.

Let government subsidize education by giving parents vouchers to send their child to the school of their choice. Then, if a school taught spiritual principles, there would be no reason for anyone to complain, because parents could send their child to a school that teaches whatever belief system they wish. Thus, there would be true freedom in education.

Furthermore, it would help to stop the artificial disconnect between our spiritual natures, and our other natures. Our bodies, minds and souls are meant to work together in our effort to grow toward God, and this cannot be done when we must forcibly keep spirituality out of schools. This has even spilled over into science, where it is frowned upon to even consider that God or his helpers might have been involved with the world. We have gotten to the point where Einstein’s idea that studying science was his attempt to understand the mind of God would today be considered prosaic, if not unscientific.

Yes, it is time now to separate government from education so that all parents (not just those who are well-off) may once again have their children taught as they deem best. For it is the parents who are ultimately responsible for their children’s moral, spiritual, and intellectual growth.

For detailed information about how school choice would work, click here for my blog post on this.

___________________________________

Tim Farage is a Senior Lecturer in the Computer Science Department at The University of Texas at Dallas. You are welcome to comment upon this blog entry and/or to contact him at tfarage@hotmail.com.
_____________________________________

A Political Platform Based Upon Natural Law: (Part XII) Education and Government

2010-04-02T00:56:00.005-05:00

What is this post not about?

Because this is a part of my political-platform series, my purpose here is not to discuss my ideas about the best way to educate children and adults. Posts about that will be given separately, and will not be part of my political platform. My purpose here is to show what the relationship between government and education should be.

So what should the role for government in education be?

My long-term preference is that government not be involved at all in education (except for its usual role in protecting each person's life, liberty and property). One of my core beliefs is that parents are responsible for their children. Therefore, a child's education should be determined by his or her parents. Most parents would choose a school that they believe would be best suited to their child. Some would choose home schooling using the various resources that are available to them.

Not having the government involved in education may sound extreme to you, and you might be thinking, "Education is too important for the government not to be involved." But consider that the opposite may be true – that education is too important for the government to be involved. After all, our nation's Founders saw fit to incorporate the First Amendment into the U.S. Constitution. And it prohibits government from dictating one's religious beliefs, which may be the most important choice that a person has. It also prohibits government from inhibiting free speech and freedom of the press. One could easily imagine that the First Amendment could include a clause stating that, "The government shall make no law prohibiting the free exercise of education as determined by the child's parents." In other words, along with freedom of religion and freedom of speech and many other freedoms, there should be the freedom to educate one's children as the parents see fit.

At the same time, I do believe that there should be a law requiring that parents must educate their children, without specifying how this should be done. A child without an education is severely handicapped.

Why not leave it at that, just as religion is left to each person's discretion?

There is one major difference between freedom of religion or speech on one hand, and freedom of education on the other: education costs money. And I'd hate to see a child not get an education because his or her parents don't have the money to provide one.

And what is the best way to provide that money, if parents are in need of it?

I believe that the best way to pay for education is by individuals voluntarily tithing (meaning donating 10% of their income) to an educational pool of money. This money would be evening divided among the children of the country, or, to be more precise, each child's portion of this money would be under the control of the child's parents. The child's parents would then use this money to decide how best to educate their child.

This would ensure that all parents have the financial means of providing their children with an excellent education.

And yet you do want the government to be involved in education?

Yes, for the foreseeable future I do. This is because it is not reasonable to assume that all or even most people would voluntarily tithe to such an educational fund. So I believe that government should provide this money in place of a voluntary tithe. As our nation matures, and becomes more prosperous, a day may come when a voluntary tithe would be sufficient.

So what exactly would you have government do with respect to education?

It would be easier to define the role of government in education if the definition of the term "public education" was made explicit. It actually has two distinct meanings, and it's important to distinguish between them.

The first meaning is that the education of our children is subsidized by the government.

The second meaning is that the government runs public schools. This means that it decides what to teach, what books to use, etc. Thus "government-subsidized education" and "government-run education" are distinct functions and should be treated as such, even though the term "public education" confusingly refers to both of these functions.

To keep the education of a child under their parents' control as much as possible, I'd try to emulate the tithing plan given above, but the money would be given as a government subsidy. Most government money for education comes from the States, and I would keep it that way; but to make it easier to describe how I would subsidize education, I'll use federal government figures, which are easier to come by.

The federal Gross Domestic Product (GDP) is a measure of the value of all the goods and services that the U.S. produces in a year. So it's essentially a measure of national income. For 2009, the GDP was roughly $14 trillion, that is to say $14,000 billion. I'd like to see 10% of this spent on education, which would be $1.4 trillion per year (and then adjusted each year based upon the GDP). It's not easy to come up with exact figures, but there are about 70 million children ages 0 to 17 in the United States. Dividing $1.4 trillion by 70 million comes out to $20,000 per child per year. This may sound like a lot, and it is. Most States spend closer to half this amount. So I'd probably start by giving parents $10,000 per year, and then increasing it as government budgets allow until we get to $20,000 per child. (Budgets would have to remain balanced as we increase the amount of the subsidy per child).

Did you say children from ages 0 to 17?

Yes! The ages from 0 to 3 are the most important in a child's life, and these subsidies would allow many more mothers to be involved full-time with their child's education at this crucial time. And the ages from 4 to 6 are the second most important.

How would the parents be given this money?

Parents would be given this money in the form of a voucher that could be used to educate their child as they see fit. To start, it would likely be more acceptable if the parents were limited to accredited public, private, or parochial schools, at least after age 5. Each month, parents would transfer one month's worth of these voucher credits to the school they chose. If they were unhappy with the school, they could transfer their child to another school. Some of this money could be used for transportation to and from a school, so that transportation costs would not be a financial issue.

Would the government have any other role in education?

Yes. Each school that accepts vouchers should be required to post statistics (in writing and on the Internet) such as standardized test scores, drop-out rates, etc., so that parents have as much information as possible about the school. The government should oversee giving standardized tests to students to ensure that test results are accurate.

To be fair, comparing students at one school to another should not just depend on test results. Obviously, students who come from well-educated families do better, on average, than those who don't. And smarter kids do better than ones who aren't as smart. One way to take such factors into account is for the standardized tests to include a short portion that measures a student's IQ. This IQ score would not be given to anyone. It would only be used to compare students between schools. For instance, a school's report might include the statement, "Fourth Grade students with IQs from 90 to 100, who were at this school for at least two years, had an average math score of 57 on the given standardized test." This would better allow parents to compare scores across schools.

Would there be any other important role for government in education?

Yes. Even though comparisons between schools would be given by the government (and other entities) online, this may not be enough for some parents. Therefore, there should be government advisors available to assist parents in picking a school for their child. Of course, non-government advisors would also be available.

Why not just keep the system as it is now?

Right now, parents who are well off can live in a neighborhood that has good public schools, or they can send their child to the private or parochial school of their choice. So they already have school choice. The plan I've outlined here give children of parents who are not as well off the same educational choices as well-off parents.

Will this program improve education?

We know from history that all products and services get better, on average, when people have a free choice as to which products and services to choose from. Monopolies tend not to improve as much. For instance, every communist country, in which the government runs all businesses, has been poor.

For poor people and much of the middle class, financial constraints virtually force them into putting their child in the local public school, whether or not they desire to do so. Now they would have a choice, and schools that are not good will not get enough money to survive. Likewise, these pressures will force schools to get rid of bad teachers and to better compensate good ones.

Furthermore, in areas where school choice is provided to poor parents, studies have shown that the public schools also improve. This is because they are trying to retain as many students as they can, or to win back former students.

What other advantages are there to this system?

All parents' values differ, and since they are responsible for their child's education, it should be up to them to pick a school that is in alignment with their values. This is impossible without school choice.

There is much discord created by having the various boards of education deciding which books a school will use, and how the children in the school will be taught. Additionally, more discord is created with respect to things like school prayer, sex education, religious and secular displays, and more. And the courts have been involved in a number of such decisions, even to the point where a court defined what "science" was. If parents choose their child's school, these problems mostly disappear. Just as it is impossible for government (or any group) to come up with the best religion, it is also impossible for the government (or any group) to come up with the best way to educate a child. Children differ in many ways, and allowing all parents school choice honors those differences.

Any other advantages you care to mention?

Now that you ask, there are some very important ones, only some of which I'll mention here. As alluded to above, it is impossible for a public school today to cater most of its parents' desires for their children. After all, the purpose of life is to grow toward God. A public school by law cannot teach anything about this (nor would it be possible to do so, given the various beliefs of the parents).

Probably the most important teachings of Christ are that a) we are to love God and love others (even our enemies), b) treat others as we would like to be treated, c) to use our talents to help make the world a better place, and d) that we reap what we sow. All of education should be incorporate these principles.

For instance, in discussing how to create a good corporation, it should be taught that a good corporation must create a product or service that is of value toward our growth toward God. It should also be taught that its employees are to be treated as children of God, and rewarded according to their contributions to the company. In the long run, these are the only companies that will succeed.

What is something ridiculous that we barely think about these days with respect to the education of our children?

Many schools require their students to read "Grapes of Wrath", "Catcher in the Rye", "The Scarlet Letter" and many others. So let me ask you this: what book is at the top of the best seller list, year after year? It is "The Holy Bible." It's the only book has sold over 1 billion copies. Estimates vary from 2.5 billion to over 6 billion copies sold. Is it not ridiculous that most children are not required to read it in school, or even worse, that they are forbidden to be taught about it? Again, it is not the fault of public schools since they must cater to all religions or no religion at all. There is not a realistic or reasonable way to teach the Bible in public schools. But it is not problem to do so in a private school. So parents can choose a school that teaches the Bible if they wish. And if parents who don't want their children to read it can pick a school that doesn't teach the Bible.

What can be more American than this? And what can be less American than not allowing this?

What else would you like to see?

I'd certainly like parents who home school their children to be able to use this money as well. Studies about home-schooled children have shown them to be better in many ways compared to children educated in public schools. I do not mean this to be disrespectful of public schools because it is not really a fair comparison. Parents who home-school their children also tend to be more educated than parents who don't, on average. But my point is that home-schooling can provide children with an excellent education.

Parents who choose this option should also be required to have their children take the standardized tests along with all other children, so that parents who are not educating their children well at home can be dealt with.

Will this system guarantee that all children get a good education?

No. Some parents will misuse this money, and will find ways to direct it to non-educational purposes, or will choose a poor school. But this always occurs in any system, even a system that maximizes freedom.

Some people buy bad cars. But in a free market, cars and everything else will tend to get better. And I would expect educational innovation to soar after a few years of school choice.

As an aside, are there other subsidies that you'd like the government to provide?

Yes. Until our civilization advances enough, I believe that government should subsidize health care. My plan for this will be given in a future political-platform post.

Additionally, I've previously described a Natural Resource Dividend. This is an amount of money that would be given each month to every American adult, to compensate for others' use of our common natural resources. For more details, see my post on the Natural Resource Tax.

The educational subsidy and the health-care subsidy would be the only subsidies that I would have the government provide. These, in addition to the Natural Resource Dividend, (which is technically not a subsidy, but acts like one) are the only ones I would have government provide. These would be sufficient to ensure that all have a reasonable and equal economic base.

Note also a very important point: every American would be given the same amount of money for each of these subsidies. This will save money by reducing the bureaucracy involved, and will satisfy the "general welfare" clause of the Constitution as well as the 14^th Amendment, which are both meant to have laws apply equally to all citizens. (This would not stop the government from encouraging those who are well off to voluntarily refuse these subsidies in order to reduce the tax load).

Finally, even though this is not related to government, in addition to the above, I believe that all should tithe to an organization(s) that they believe are doing God's work – meaning organizations that they are helping to improve humanity.

Conclusion

In any area, the more free choices a person has for any product or service, the more those products and services tend to improve. Compare any product or service from 50 to 100 years ago, and you'll see that this is so.

Opening up education so that all parents have a choice as to how to educate their children, not just the well-off parents, is bound to improve educational innovation and practices, so that all children benefit. And then our world will benefit as well.

______________________________________

Tim Farage is a Senior Lecturer in the Computer Science Department at The University of Texas at Dallas. You are welcome to comment upon this blog entry and/or to contact him at tfarage@hotmail.com.
______________________________________

A Political Platform Based upon Natural Law: (Part XI) Global Warming

2010-03-26T00:31:00.011-05:00

What is global warming, anyway?

It is the warming of the lower atmosphere over the entire Earth, averaged over a long period – at least a few decades. The Earth always warms in some areas and cools in others, even when no global warming or cooling is occurring. Thus it is important to realize that to say that global warming is occurring, it must be a warming of the entire Earth.

What are the causes of global warming or global cooling?

There are many factors that can cause the Earth to warm or cool, and it has done so throughout its history. From the amount of radiation given off by the Sun (which can vary) to volcanoes, to cloud cover, to eccentricities in Earth's rotation and orbit, many factors contribute to the Earth's temperature.

There are gasses called greenhouse gasses because they keep some of the Sun's energy from leaving the Earth. These can cause global warming. The main greenhouse gas is water vapor (the invisible water in the Earth's atmosphere). It has been estimated that without water vapor and clouds in our atmosphere, the Earth's temperature would be 60 to 80 degrees Fahrenheit cooler than it is now. (All temperatures given here are in degrees Fahrenheit). Carbon dioxide, methane, and some other gasses also cause global warming. The greenhouse gas that humans emit that has the most significant effect on global warming is carbon dioxide.

What is anthropogenic (man-made) global warming (AGW)?

This refers to the amount of global warming that is the result of human activities. Since the later part of the 20^th century, humans have burned fossil fuels for energy, and this has increased steadily. It is now especially increasing due to the emergence of developing countries, and developing countries are expected to contribute most of the future increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide. For instance, since 2006, China has been the main contributor of CO2, and China is building about one coal-burning plant per week!Aside from the burning of fossil fuels for energy, the cutting down of trees in the Amazon has been cited as a major reason for increased CO2 in the atmosphere, because all green plants and trees take in CO2 to "breathe." They convert CO2, water and sunlight into carbohydrates and oxygen, a process we know as photosynthesis. Animals then eat these plants because they can digest carbohydrates, and along with the oxygen they breathe, produce energy for their bodies, and then breathing out carbon dioxide. This is the oxygen cycle that we read about in school.

Another major contribution humans make to additional CO2 in the atmosphere is the result of out-of-control coal fires. Not infrequently, when we attempt to mine coal, it catches fire. Developing countries frequently do not have the ability to put them out, and coal fires are very hard to put out. It has been estimated that in China alone, coal fires give off about the same amount of CO2 as the U.S. does from our burning of fossil fuels.

What evidence do we have the humans are a cause of at least some global warming?

At the rate we are adding CO2 to the atmosphere, it is expected that the CO2 concentration will double from 325 parts-per-million (ppm) to 650 ppm by around 2060, mostly as a result of human burning of fossil fuels. Because CO2 is a greenhouse gas, this gives us reason to suspect that humans are contributing to global warming.

How much global warming has occurred until now?

During the 20^th century, it's estimated that the Earth's average temperature increased 1 to 1.5 degrees, and that sea level rose about a foot.Satellite measurements of temperature for the 30 year period from 1979 to 2009 show that the Earth warmed about an average of 1 degree over that period. See the graph below for actual yearly measurements.

How much global warming and sea-level rise does the evidence suggest will occur during the 21^st century?

Extrapolating upon the warming trends given above, the Earth would warm from 2 to 4 degrees during the 21^st century. A number of climatologists think that an increase of 3 degrees in global temperature will have a net positive effect on humanity, although there will be some negative effects in some areas. So if current trends continue, global warming is not likely to cause significant harm. For instance, if the Earth were to warm an average of 3 degrees, the U.S. Midwest, and Canada would have a longer growing seasons, as would Russia. This would contribute to the world food supply. Sea level is rising at a rate that would indicate a 1 to 2 foot increase during the 21^st century. This is also not likely to cause significant harm.

If this is true, why is there so much concern over global warming?

As is well known, the media tends to fixate upon news that exaggerates the negative, and tend to report on stories that are alarmist, and ignore stories that are not. So, the scientific studies that show that global warming may not be a disaster tend to be underreported. Have you noticed that the term, "climate change", has replaced "global warming" in many articles? Part of the reason for this is that the Earth has not warmed for 15 years or so. This is not to say that global warming will not occur – I believe that the evidence shows that it is occurring, just not at a rate that is cause for alarm.

What do climate models predict about global warming?

Climatologists have come up with many climate models in an attempt to predict how much global warming will occur. Most of these models predict temperatures will increase anywhere from 2 to 11 degrees during the 21^st century, according to the United Nations' International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) final report. This is an enormous range of uncertainty, but such uncertainty is called for since these climate models have not been verified. Also, climate is a non-linear system, and is determined by many factors; climatologists are not certain how these factors interact. It may be that, like weather, we may be unable to predict climate decades into the future. (Due to the mathematically chaotic factors that produce our weather, it is impossible to predict it more than 10 or so days in advance. And that's not going to change with faster computers or more knowledge, because of the nature of scientifically chaotic systems. This may be the case with climate as well).

Could the Earth actually warm near the top end of the predictions?

Yes, it is possible. First, we know little about how to predict climate. Second, we know from past evidence that climate can change quickly, so an increase of 9 to 11 degrees over the next century cannot be ruled out.

What is the best way to mitigate the negative effects on humans if significant global warming does occur?

Cost-effective ways to reduce or even stop global warming will be given below. But it is very important to understand that if global warming occurs to a significant extent, then, just as when other disasters happen, the most prosperous countries fare much better than the poorest countries.

The lesson of the 2010 disastrous earthquake in Haiti was that it wasn't the earthquake that killed hundreds of thousands of innocent people, it was poverty. Haiti did not have buildings or roads or the various types of infrastructure able to handle a 7.0 magnitude earthquake. In 1989, San Francisco had an almost identical earthquake, and around 60 people were killed.

Prosperity matters a great deal, when it comes to dealing with any kind of disaster.Prosperous countries will be in the best position to deal with whatever negative effects there might be due to global warming. Not only will these countries suffer less if significant global warming occurs, they will suffer less if any disaster occurs. In addition, prosperous countries rarely go to war with each other. It is easier just to trade with each other than to go to war.

What are the best ways to make a country prosperous? The answer to that is beyond the scope of this monograph, but I've given a number of answers in my Political Platform Based Upon Natural Law series. The one-sentence answer is that the most prosperous countries are those that are closest to being free-market, constitutional democracies.

So what are some cost-effective ways that will stop any significant global warming this century?

There are a number of inexpensive solutions to global warming that will work even if warming is not man-made. I'll give two of the more promising ones. For more solutions or more details about the solutions I'll give below, get Steward Brand's Whole Earth Discipline. He is the author of The Whole Earth Catalog, one of the seminal environmental books of the 20^th century.

The first choice of most climatologists involves employing stratospheric sulfates. The reason this is the first choice is that it is already known to work. In 1991, in the Philippines, Mount Pinatubo erupted, sending millions of tons of sulfur dioxide twenty miles up into the stratosphere. This soon created tiny sulfate droplets that absorbed and reflected sunlight. The next year, the entire planet cooled by about 1 degree!

After a 1998 presentation by Lowell Wood at a climate conference about this, climate modeler Ken Caldeira created some models to determine if a stratospheric-sulfate scheme would work, and the models suggested that it could work very well. His models indicated that if we would inject 10 gallons of sulfates per second into the stratosphere, we would be protected from global warming for the entire century. This is a relatively small amount since we are putting 100 million tons of sulfur dioxide per year into the atmosphere right now, and should have little or no negative side effects. And if we find after a while that it's not needed, we can stop and within a few years, things will be back to normal.

And what is the cost of this scheme? Estimates are around $30 billion dollars per year – almost an insignificant amount. By comparison, the U.S. federal government's budget was about $3.5 trillion in 2009, which is the same as 3,500 billion dollars, in a single year.

How can we be sure that the model's predictions are correct? We could inject a small amount of sulfur into the stratosphere in the Arctic, where warming is occurring now. Then we could measure the impact. If it works, we can ramp up the experiment until we're convinced that it is a viable solution.

One other solution to near-term global warming involves the idea of having a fleet of oceangoing cloud machines. There would be an estimated 1,500 unmanned ships that would spray sea-water droplets up into the clouds at a rate of 500 gallons per minute. This increase in cloud volume would be enough to reflect sufficient sunlight away from the Earth to offset a doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere. The cost to build the ships: around $3 billion dollars. And the amount of the spray could be easily adjusted to accommodate however much warming is actually occurring.

The above geo-engineering solutions don't reduce global warming gasses, even though they will reduce or stop global warming. What are some cost-effective ways that will stop global warming in the long run?

In my previous post I gave an environmental policy for the United States that will reduce pollution and CO2 emissions by at least 80% by 2050. And the surprising news about this is that it will create prosperity at the same time. This is about the most anyone could ask for, and it can be done without any form of carbon tax.

The bad news is that the U.S. is unlikely to adopt these policies quickly enough, even though the policies are quite practical. (The main part of the policy is to build a nuclear power plant whenever we need more energy. Nuclear power plants are very safe, and they give off no pollution or any CO2. But many people are still afraid of nuclear power even though not a single American has died as a result of radiation from a commercial nuclear power plant, even though they have been operating for over 50 years).The other bad news is that for developing countries, their CO2 emissions will increase rapidly, as is occurring now.

The better news is that nuclear power is growing very quickly world-wide. There are about 30 countries that are currently using nuclear power, and over 50 are planning on using it. Because of modern reactor design and the prevalence of uranium and thorium, as well as the development of cost-effective solar energy, it is likely that by the end of the century, very little pollution or human-caused CO2 will be given off.

The upshot of this is that by the next century there will be little or no greenhouse gasses given off.

What we should we not do to stop global warming?

As mentioned above, human-caused global warming is mostly due to our giving off CO2 as a result of burning fossil fuels and cutting down trees in the Amazon. And it is not feasible politically or practically to cut back on CO2 emissions enough to significantly affect any man-made global warming that may occur.

Unfortunately, the general public is not aware of this, nor are most of our politicians. Thus, there is a push within the United States to have some form of carbon tax, such as the so-called "cap and trade" policy. This policy in the U.S. would set a maximum amount of CO2 that the U.S. could give off, with each industry given a certain number of "chits" representing a given number of tons of CO2. Various industries could then trade them amongst each other. The net result would be extra taxes on all of us that will do nothing but create more poverty. There is also a push to have international treaties that limit carbon emissions, which will also do nothing but create more poverty. And creating poverty will just exacerbate any negative effects of global warming.

So any form of carbon tax is an inadequate solution to global warming, and will do more harm than good.

Conclusion

The current evidence shows the Earth will warm about 3 degrees this century. If that turns out to be the case, it will likely be a net benefit to humanity. If we then follow the environmental policies that I've given in a previous post, humans will be contributing very little to whatever global warming may occur next century, and we will prosper at the same time.

And if global warming occurs at a rate that would lead to more than a 3 degree increase this century, there are a number of very inexpensive ways to deal with it, as I've given above. Therefore, with good policies, global warming should not be a significant problem. And with these same good policies, the people of the world will benefit greatly.
______________________________________

Tim Farage is a Senior Lecturer in the Computer Science Department at The University of Texas at Dallas. You are welcome to comment upon this blog entry and/or to contact him at
______________________________________

A Political Platform based upon Natural Law: (Part X) Environmental Policy

2010-03-14T16:28:00.007-05:00

A Clean Environment and a Prosperous Country

In my last two posts, my main points were that countries that are prosperous have the cleanest environments. And that being a prosperous country is closely related to having abundant, clean, inexpensive energy. The only way to currently have such energy is through nuclear power. My last post dealt with nuclear power in detail, so I won’t repeat it here.

The wonderful thing now is that because of technological advances, we can have all of the following AND save money:

1)   Inexpensive energy, both as electricity and for transportation.

2)   Lower prices for almost everything else (because inexpensive energy means the prices of almost everything will go down, and thus will increase our prosperity).

3)   Reduced pollution and carbon dioxide emissions.

4)   Energy conservation.

5)   Be less dependent on or even independent of foreign oil.

How can we accomplish this?

A Clean and Safe Environmental Policy that will also make us more Prosperous

Here's an outline for an environmental policy that will accomplish the above goals:

1) Whenever we need more energy plants, we would build nuclear ones. Any older coal plants that are near the end of their usefulness would also get replaced by nuclear ones. Nuclear plants give off no pollution and no carbon dioxide. Doing this would also make it unnecessary to have a carbon tax, sometimes called "cap-and-trade". These taxes would create poverty, not prosperity.

2) In about 10-or-so years, we'll likely have cost-effective electric cars which can be charged at home with electricity generated from a nuclear plant. Once these cars predominate, we'll have almost no pollution. (An important ramification of this is that because the U.S. demand for oil will go down dramatically, the cost of oil will decline, making gasoline cheaper for developing countries, thus accelerating their movement toward prosperity).

3) Also in about 10 years, solar panels on roof tops will be cost-effective (without subsidies). At some point our entire roof tops and possibly roads will be able to collect solar energy, probably using nanotechnology.

4) Again, in about 10 years, conservation advances, such as Argon windows which are 95% efficient, excellent insulation for homes, geo-thermal heat and air-conditioning systems, hot-water heaters that are insulated so that they lose little heat, and appliances that use much less energy than they do now, will allow us to build "net zero" homes. This means that the amount of energy they generate is about the same as the amount of energy they consume. Such a home would typically have no energy bill to pay. And the extra cost to build in these conservation measures would be more than offset by not having to pay for energy.

These are the major components of the environmental plan. For those of you who like a bit more detail, read on.

5) Here's another technological advancement that will likely be cost-effective in about 10 years: self-driving cars. Currently in the United States over 35,000 people per year are killed in car accidents and many more are injured by them. Advanced self-driving cars will virtually eliminate this, especially once most cars on the road are self-driving. Such cars have sensors all the way around them, and can sense light, use radar, and sense infra-red light, which humans can't see. They don't get drunk, and don't lose their concentration. They can communicate with each other almost instantaneously. For instance, if a car senses that a child has just hidden behind a tree close to the street, the car can immediately communicate this to the other cars around it, so they can slow down, or move away from where the child might run to.

Self-driving cars can travel safely with about 3 times the road density that is safe for humans, because of their millisecond reaction times. So current roads would be able to handle at least 3 times as much traffic as they do now. Not having to build new roads would save money, time, and pollution.

How about this? Taxi companies would be able to charge much less that they do now, because there would be no driver. So most of us could avoid owning a car, and just use taxis. One could come, pick you up, drop you off at work, and go on to the next person who needs it. Furthermore, if you will be the only one in the car, it will send a car designed to fit one person comfortably, thus reducing your cost, which will depend on the number of miles driven as well as the weight of the vehicle.

You'll have no car insurance payments, no car repairs, no car payments, no parking problems, no filling it up with gas, etc. And they will have cars that can transport those with various handicaps, as well as those too young or too old to drive.

Eat, drink, and be merry while you get to your destination.

6) We could offer to build, run, supply fuel for, and dispose of the waste from nuclear reactors in developing countries. They would still pay us, but it would be cheaper than any other alternative they have, and would stop deforestation caused by people burning wood for fuel. And with inexpensive, non-polluting energy, these countries can achieve prosperity much more quickly than they would otherwise, thus benefiting from all the advantages that prosperity confers.

One very nice side effect: prosperous countries rarely go to war with each other. Rather, they trade with one another, which again will increase prosperity.

7) Trucks, airplanes, boats and other large vehicles would still need a fossil-fuel-based energy source for a few decades, but as time goes on, the amount of fossil-fuel energy would be a very small fraction of what we use now, and we'd have enough to provide our own, and not depend on the oil cartels.

While not certain, one possibility that could replace fossil fuels entirely is that such large vehicles could use fuel cells based on hydrogen, which could be obtained by the electrolysis of water using the energy from a nuclear reactor.

8) With advances in robotics, robots could be used to go through landfills, junk yards, etc., and recover materials we were not previously able to do inexpensively. Keep in mind that aside from fossil fuels that we've already used, our other natural resources are still here. By recycling them, we'll never run out.

9) With respect to global warming, the policies given here will reduce global warming gasses by more than any treaty or international conference has suggested so far. Other solutions to problems that significant global warming could cause will be given in a future post.

Conclusion

By following the "no regrets" environmental policies given above, we could reach a goal that not long ago would have been unthinkable – at least an 80% reduction in pollution (and CO2) by around 2050, AND we'll be more prosperous while we're at it. The Earth's Population is expected to top out at around 9 billion people. If we do this right, there will be enough energy and other resources for everyone on Earth to be prosperous. It could and should to be a great century!

______________________________________

Tim Farage is a Senior Lecturer in the Computer Science Department at The University of Texas at Dallas. You are welcome to comment upon this blog entry and/or to contact him at tfarage@hotmail.com.

______________________________________

A Political Platform based upon Natural Law: (Part IX) Nuclear Power to the People

2010-02-22T01:00:00.003-06:00

I Have a Dream

I have a dream that we will someday have an energy source that is inexpensive, safe, non-polluting, and virtually infinite. There will be more than enough of such energy for all the people of the world.

Guess what? I can wake up now because my dream is a reality. And it is a reality because of nuclear power. How so? Keep reading.

A Clean Environment and a Prosperous Country

In my last post, my main point was that countries that are prosperous have the cleanest environments. And that being a prosperous country is closely related to having inexpensive energy. (Having a good government that protects the life, liberty and property of its citizens is also essential, but that’s another story). Prosperous countries can afford pollution controls. They can afford to do research into more efficient ways of obtaining and providing energy, and they can afford to conserve natural resources.

The wonderful thing now is that because of technological advances, we can have all of the following AND save money:

1) Inexpensive energy, both as electricity and for transportation.

2) Lower prices for almost everything else (because inexpensive energy means the prices of almost everything will go down, and thus will increase our prosperity).

3) Reduced pollution and carbon dioxide emissions.

4) Energy conservation.

5) Be less dependent or even independent on foreign oil.

How can we accomplish this? First, let’s get a historical perspective on energy.

Historical perspective on Energy

From the beginning of recorded history until the end of the 19th century, life for the vast majority of humans was a miserable affair. Here’s what you could expect if you had lived back then: half of your children would die before they made it out of childhood; for those that did make it out of childhood, you’d most likely die before seeing their children; your bathrooms were bedpans and bug-infested outhouses; you rarely bathed; you were illiterate and innumerate; your drinking water was frequently dirty; you were either too hot or too cold or too sick or too hungry. You had no antibiotics, no phone, no air conditioning, no car, and no indoor plumbing. If you wanted to travel further than someplace that was within walking distance, you took a horse, if you could afford one, and a woman with children rarely traveled at all.

On the other hand, today in the developed world, you feel deprived if you don’t have a broadband Internet connection, or, heaven forbid, a cell phone. Avoiding horse manure while traveling is not a problem for you. You don’t personally know anyone in America who is starving, but you know plenty of people who eat more on Thanksgiving Day than George Washington ate in a year. (Present company excluded). The only adult you know who doesn’t own or share a car is Ralph Nader. When you buy a house, your biggest consideration is whether the guest bedroom has its own full bathroom.

What technology lays at the foundation of the prosperity that has afforded us all of the advantages of modern life?

The single most important technological component in the prosperous maintenance of human life is inexpensive, abundant energy.

Inexpensive energy lays at the foundation as to why the average life span in the US has gone from 36 years to 76 years in less than 100 years. It affords us clean water and modern sanitation; homes, hospitals and other buildings that protect us from the vagaries of the weather; indoor lighting, modern medicine and more – all of those things that electricity has helped to provide. Inexpensive energy has also resulted in roads and transportation that even a Ben Franklin would have found inconceivable – just try taking your kids to the library in the winter with just horses.

Current situation

At the time of writing, the price of oil has been hovering at around $70 per barrel, and the price of natural gas has increased three-fold in the last 5 years. The United States is dependent on other countries to meet our energy needs. We currently spend over $300 billion for imported gas and oil. And because we are dependent on foreign oil and gas, we have involved ourselves, militarily and otherwise, in the affairs of nations that control those sources of energy. Arguably, if we had been energy independent, we may well have not gotten into a war with Iraq.

Expensive energy also contributes to poverty. Many people around the world still burn wood for their major source of energy. This is inefficient, and causes a lot of pollution. Also, reducing the number of trees on our planted reduces the ability to absorb carbon dioxide.

Expensive energy also contributes indirectly to pollution. For instance, the cement factories in Texas produce a significant amount of pollutants, including mercury, lead, and sulfur dioxide. Inexpensive energy would make it more affordable for cement factories (and other industries) to invest in technologies that would reduce their emissions.

Finally, expensive energy adds to the production costs of almost everything we make. This not only lowers our standard of living, but it makes our products less competitive than foreign goods. For instance, the recent steep rise in construction costs has been attributed to higher energy prices.

There are a number of well-intentioned people who believe that higher energy costs will benefit us in the long run, since it would “force” us to become more energy efficient, and find more sustainable ways of generating electricity, as well as lessening our dependence on foreign oil. These people are wrong. Higher energy prices will just create more poverty. Neither Bill Gates nor Ross Perot nor Al Gore would be inconvenienced by high energy prices, but you and I would be, and the poor even more so.

What about Solar Energy?

Solar energy will be a good, inexpensive source of energy – eventually. It has a few difficult hurdles to overcome. First, solar energy is not concentrated; a square foot of earth receives only a very small amount of energy. Therefore, to become a major source of energy, huge areas will need to capture it. Second, it is not constant. There is less solar energy when clouds are out and no solar energy at all at night. We need a constant base load of energy, and solar energy cannot provide that now or in the near future. Related to this, if a number of volcanoes went off at the same time, much of the Earth might not see the Sun for months or years. If we were completely dependent on solar energy, this would be a disaster. So no matter how inexpensive and wide spread solar energy becomes, it should not be our only source of energy.

In addition, solar energy, except in a few isolated cases, is still expensive. If we were forced to increase it now, it would create poverty, but we want to do the opposite. The best thing we can do with respect to solar energy is to continue doing research on the best ways to use it, and to give solar a chance to grow and develop into an important and inexpensive, non-polluting energy source.

Why Nuclear Energy is the solution

Nuclear energy is the only current way in which we can provide a constant base load of safe, inexpensive, non-polluting energy. The reasons for these are detailed below.

What is Nuclear Energy, anyway?

Nuclear energy obtained by the fissioning (breaking up) of heavy atomic nuclei, such as uranium and thorium, as a result of a neutron hitting such a nucleus. This fissioning releases very large amounts of energy that can be harnessed by heating water to turn it into steam that turns turbines to create electricity. Each nucleus that fissions gives off neutrons that can then strike another nucleus, so that the process continues.

How safe is Nuclear Energy?

It’s hard to get much safer. Not a single American has died as a result of radiation from a commercial nuclear reactor. Literally, zero Americans have died in over 50 years of commercial nuclear power use.

France gets over 75% of its energy from nuclear power, has the cleanest air in Europe, has the cheapest energy in Europe, exports $8 billion worth of energy to Germany and England, and has shut down its last coal plant in 2004, all because they started using nuclear energy in the 1970s. And it takes them only about 3 years to build a new plant.

To be efficient, they basically use the same plant design for a long time so that they know the plant will be safe, and how to build it inexpensively. They do research into new generation plants, and when they find one they like, they approve it and go with that in the future.

It costs France about 3 to 4 cents to generate a KWH of energy. (I’m paying 11.3 cents per KWH now). No one in France has been killed from nuclear power radiation in over 50 years of use.

What happened to the United States? We got scared. We saw the fictional movie, “The China Syndrome”, about a nuclear accident that almost happened; a partial meltdown did happen at Three Mile Island, but no one was killed or injured; and then we heard about the Chernobyl disaster. This really scared many of us, even though Chernobyl was built by and run by Communists, who hardly ever did anything right. (They did turn out some good ballet dancers). But those scientists who knew the most, and especially nuclear engineers, knew how great nuclear power could be.

Current power plant designs eliminate the possibility of a melt-down, and no design can result in a nuclear explosion. And nuclear plants are designed so that even if a jet were to crash into one, the nuclear fuel would still be contained.

How much energy can we get from Nuclear Power?

Right now nuclear power in the U.S. accounts for about 20% of our electricity and 70% of the power from pollution-free sources.

Kirk Sorenson from NASA said, “Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactors gives many options for inherently-safe, proliferation resistant, economic nuclear power that can last for thousands if not millions of years.

“This technology offers real-options for solving long-term issues surrounding spent nuclear fuel.” This is because such reactors can get rid of spent nuclear fuel by extracting energy from it.

How efficient is Nuclear Power?

A single pound of highly-enriched uranium used to power a nuclear submarine is equal to about a million gallons of gasoline.

The nuclear waste created per person-lifetime could fit in the size of a Coke can, and then can be controlled (by storing it), whereas a coal plant produces 130,000 pounds of waste products in addition to 77 tons of CO2 per person-lifetime.

On a large plant scale, a 1 billion watt (giga-watt or GW) coal plant burns 3,000,000 tons of coal a year, but an equivalent nuclear power plant uses only 20 tons of uranium per year.

What about the waste products?

The radioactive waste products from a nuclear plant can be safely dealt with in a number of ways.

Currently, the United States stores its wastes underground in casings that prevent any leakage at the nuclear reactor site. A jet crashing into such a storage facility would not affect the casings. Furthermore, even completely exposed casings that have been hit by trucks, trains and jets (in experiments!) have not been compromised.

Canada's plan is to safely store the wastes for 175 years (but can be retrieved before then if desired). During that 175 years, the overall radioactivity of the used fuel drops to one-billionth of the level from when it removed from the reactor. At that time, the future Canadians can deal with it in some manner that we cannot currently foresee.

President Obama is expected to adopt a similar plan, now that Nevada has rejected Yucca Mountain as a waste repository.

There’s an excellent book called, Whole Earth Discipline, by Stewart Brand. He was also the author of The Whole Earth Catalog, written in 1969, which is one of the most famous books in the world. Steve Jobs compared The Whole Earth Catalog to the Internet search engine Google in his 2005 Stanford University commencement speech. Brand is an ecologist and futurist and says he sees everything in terms of a solvable design problem.

Steward Brand said that he had been against nuclear power because of passing on nuclear wastes to future generations. Then in 2002 he went to Yucca Mountain and talked to a group called "Long Now". They told Brand that is was folly to think about having to store the waste for 10,000 years or more since we have no idea what technical advancements will occur. They said we should put it in a safe place and in 50 to 100 years, "we will be taking it out and using it as a valuable energy resource." This is because spent nuclear fuel still has 95% of its energy. We just need to find ways to extract the energy from it in an inexpensive way. (As we’ll see later, with thorium plants coming, it may not take even that long before we can extract energy from current wastes, and leave only short lived wastes that can easily be dealt with).

Surprisingly, nuclear energy has done more to eliminate existing nuclear weapons from the world than any other activity. There’s a joint U.S. – Russian program to convert warheads into fuel, called, “Megatons to Megawatts.” As a result of this, about 10% of the electricity that Americans use comes from Russian missiles and bombs. What an amazing development!

What’s coming up in the near future with Nuclear Power?

Our current nuclear reactors all use uranium as a fuel. The modern ones (called Generation III reactors) are very, very good.

Many people, such as NASA’s James Hansen, are very excited about the up-and-coming Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactors. Here's what he has to say about them. They have:

- a practically unlimited supply of fuel (there's more thorium than either lead or tin in the Earth's crust)

- lower construction and operating costs

- super-high fuel efficiency

- greatly reduced waste

- much shorter radioactive life in the waste (a few hundred years)

- create a high temperature that can be used to produce hydrogen from water, or even cheaply desalinate water

- can burn existing nuclear waste (and generate energy from them), and well as burn existing weapons grade uranium and plutonium that we have as a result of the various nuclear weapons reduction treaties

There is even a plan to have a thorium reactor that is buried deep underground, and will generate electricity for 50 years with no maintenance! After that it can just left in the ground in its robust casing that can easily store the small amount or remaining waste until it is no longer radioactive. These would be very inexpensive and safe, and can be used close to wherever they are needed. These would be especially useful in developing countries that do not have an extensive power grid network.

What’s happening now in the United States with respect to Nuclear Power?

Not long ago, NASA's James Hansen, who is very concerned about global warming, wrote an open letter to President Obama. In it he said that how bad coal is and asked for, "urgent R&D on 4th-generation nuclear power with international cooperation. The danger is that the minority of vehement anti-nuclear 'environmentalists' (his quotes) could cause the development of advanced safe nuclear power to be slowed such that utilities are forced to continue coal-burning in order to keep the lights on."

Hansen’s letter may be one reason that President Obama’s proposed budget included increased research on nuclear energy as well as loan guarantees for utilities that build a nuclear power plant.

President Obama just announced (February, 2010) loan guarantees to build the first U.S. nuclear power plants in three decades. There are 13 applications at the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Committee (NRC) for new plants. The earliest they could be approved would be late 2011 to 2012, but it's a start. President Obama is strongly pushing for the United States to generate much of its electricity from nuclear power, and he should be loudly applauded for it.

The feds will allow up to a three-year period for hearings, addressing any concerns, etc. This will minimize delays once the NRC has approved the site (which the state must also approve) and the reactor design, which the NRC has already done. For example, Westinghouse's AP1000 reactor has already been approved, and a number of other reactors are in the process of receiving approval. In the past, lawsuits from certain environmental groups have prevented the construction of nuclear power plants, but the hearing process mentioned above will presumably stop these groups from doing this. Fortunately, many environmental groups whe were previously against nuclear power are now for it.

At least three thorium-related bills are making their way through the Capitol, including the Senate’s Thorium Energy Independence and Security Act, cosponsored by Orrin Hatch of Utah and Harry Reid of Nevada, which would provide $250 million for research at the Department of Energy. “I don’t know of anything more beneficial to the country, as far as environmentally sound power, than nuclear energy powered by thorium,” Hatch says.”

Intellectual Ventures, LLC, which is partially backed by Bill Gates, has a team of 30 scientists and engineers working on concepts for better thorium nuclear reactors, among many other things.

There are about 50 countries that have, or are planning to build nuclear power plants. The number of countries as well as the number of proposed plants is increasing as people become aware of the advantages of generating inexpensive, safe, virtually infinite, non-polluting nuclear energy. And the United States is now, once again, ready to jump back onto the nuclear-energy bandwagon.

Every new large energy plant we build should be nuclear. We can then avoid a “carbon tax” that will just cause poverty.

If you’re interested in some of the technical details about the Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactor, there's a video called, "What Fusion Wanted to Be", presented at one of the Google Tech Talks.

What else can the U.S. do with nuclear power to help developing countries?

We could build and help to run nuclear power plants as well as provide the fuel for them, and dispose of any wastes produced. (They would pay us to do this so U.S. taxpayers would not be paying for other’s energy). Then developing countries would also have inexpensive, non-polluting energy, which would assist them in becoming prosperous.

The lesson of Haiti was that it wasn't the earthquake that killed hundreds of thousands of innocent people, it was poverty. If we implement the suggestions I've given above, we will do more to increase prosperity and decrease pollution than any carbon tax or any treaty will do. And it doesn’t take an Einstein to figure out that prosperous countries rarely, if ever, go to war with each other.

Conclusion

Nuclear power to the people!

Next up

I’ll present a comprehensive environmental policy that will greatly reduce pollution, conserve energy and other natural resources, and save money as well. I have not seen any other policy that will reduce the likelihood of global warming causing harm than the one I’ll present.

Because it will save money, it will be a “no regrets” environmental policy. There will be no regrets because even if global warming does not cause significant problems, we’ll still save money, have less pollution and create more prosperity.

As Mister Spock would say: “Carbon free and prosper.”

______________________________________

Tim Farage is a Senior Lecturer in the Computer Science Department at The University of Texas at Dallas. You are welcome to comment upon this blog entry and/or to contact him at tfarage@hotmail.com.

______________________________________

Why Liberals Should be Liberal

2010-02-12T18:49:00.003-06:00

What is Liberalism, anyway?

We can’t have an edifying discussion about liberals and liberalism without defining these terms, otherwise confusion could result. So I’ve looked up a couple of terms from a number of sources, and here are some definitions that I’ll use:

Liberalism (from the Latin liberalis, "of freedom") is the belief in the importance of individual liberty.

Classical liberalism refers to a political philosophy that is committed to liberalism: to the ideas of limited government and liberty of individuals including freedom of religion, speech, press, and assembly, and free markets.

Liberal refers to a person who believes in liberalism.

These definitions fit well together. Liberalism is a belief, and classical liberalism is a political philosophy that reflects this belief. A liberal is a person who believes in liberalism, and would seemingly embrace classical liberalism as a political philosophy. But some people who consider themselves to be liberals do not embrace the political philosophy of classical liberalism. The purpose of this post is to convince them to do so.

Just to be up front about it, using these definitions I am a liberal. And my political philosophy is that of classical liberalism. Today, the term libertarianism is more often used than classical liberalism.

Also, it is very important to note that individual liberty does not mean that a person can do anything he or she wants to do. Rather it means that a person can think what he wants, and can do what he wants as long as this action does not infringe on the individual liberty of others. Usually, this means that actions that cause another person harm are not part of the concept of liberty. To put it another way, liberty implies that actions that affect others be voluntary and informed. So murder, rape, theft, and assault are not voluntary, and so violate liberty. Similarly, fraud, patent violations, and incomplete disclosure of relevant issues are a form of theft, and thus also violate liberty. On the other hand, playing football in the NFL may well cause harm, but players are playing the game voluntarily, so this would not violate liberty.

So what’s the problem?

The problem is that many people in America, who call themselves liberal, are, in many ways, not liberal. That is to say, they do not seem to foster individual liberty.

To give some examples, let’s first consider public education. There are two components to public education and it is important to distinguish between them. One component is that government subsidizes education. The other component is the government decides how students are to be educated. These are quite different, but frequently this difference is not made explicit.

Most of us agree that the government should subsidize education.

On the other hand, it seems to me that anyone who calls themselves a liberal would allow this government-subsidy of education to be controlled by the parents of the child getting the education. They are responsible for their children, and should be free to choose whatever school they wish for their child using this subsidy. It would be a substantial violation of liberty for a government to only subsidize the schools that it runs, for then it can teach whatever it feels is best, even if some of what is taught violates the beliefs of the parents.

One can argue that if parents don’t like their public school, they can send their child to a private school. But this is only possible if the parents have enough money to do so. In practice, this means that the well-off get to choose their child’s school, but the not-so-well-off don’t. And since we all pay for schools, all parents should be free to choose how their children get educated.

This is not the place discuss the details as to how this would be implemented, but one thing I would do would be to take all of the education money a state has collected (in Texas this is around $9,000 per student) and give parents an educational voucher worth this amount for each school-aged child they have. They can use this voucher to send their child to any accredited public, private or parochial school of their choice. The freedom to educate one’s child as parents see fit ought to be the foundation of liberalism.

//////////////////////////

Another example has to do with government spending. Virtually everyone wants government, and everyone wants government to pass laws that protect individual liberty – the right of individuals to lead their lives as they wish, as long as they allow others to do the same. At the same time, most of us do not want government to pass laws controlling what we think, we our religion should be, where we work, etc. This can be summarized by saying that we wish a limited government that protects our right to be free. And our Constitution (which includes all of the amendments to it) does this by enumerating the powers of Congress and the President.

Unfortunately, the part of the Constitution that limits what Congress can do has received scant attention for decades now. From Social Security to Medicare to laws that prohibit the use of certain drugs, the Constitution does not give Congress the right to implement these. For instance, Social Security was passed in 1935 during FDR’s administration as part of a package we call the “New Deal.” In 1937, the Supreme Court struck down many of the provisions of this package as being unconstitutional, because no authority was given to Congress to pass such laws. FDR threatened to pack the court with more Justices that he would pick, and eventually the Court ruled, in a 5-4 decision, that the New Deal package was constitutional. If the gentle reader is in doubt about whether these items are permissible according the Constitution, I invite him to read the enumerated powers and see if any of these are there.

This started a trend, which has been increasingly exacerbated over the decades, such that Congress essentially ignores the enumerated powers clause. For instance, you are probably aware that the Constitution was amended to prohibit the sale and use of alcohol, commonly called prohibition. Amending the Constitution was the right thing to do since Congress had no constitutional authority to prohibit the use of alcohol. It was a terrible amendment, and was repealed, of course, but at least they didn’t ignore the Constitution. Since then, Congress has passed many laws prohibiting the use of many substances. Do you remember when the Constitution was amended to allow them to do so? Neither do I.

So what are some of the results of these extra-constitutional incursions? For one, it is estimated that Social Security and Medicare are underfunded by around 50 to 70 trillion dollars! This means that the money we are currently paying for them, the FICA taxes, are not enough to cover the promised benefits by this amount. Worse, these entitlement programs, along with the interest on the national debt are expected to consume the entire federal budget within a few decades unless some drastic steps are taken. This would leave no money for the things like defense or anything else that are actually authorized by the Constitution.

Just the interest on the national debt in fiscal year 2009 was about $3,500 per family. In 2010 it is expected to be over $4,000 per family, and will keep growing each year for the foreseeable future.

What does this have to do with liberalism? To be a liberal means to believe in freedom. And you can’t be free without money. With the astounding growth of the federal government, more and more of the money we earn is being taken, and more and more is used just to pay for entitlement programs and interest on the national debt. This means that each year we are less and less free to live as we wish. The solution? Amend the Constitution to require Congress to balance the budget, and to limit its spending to, say, 20% of Gross Domestic Product. It would take time to get to do this, but once we do, we’d start being more prosperous, and thus freer than we have been for a long time.

//////////////////////

A final example of what it would mean to be a liberal has to do with the United States becoming the world’s policemen. We have over 360,000 troops stationed in over 150 countries. I can’t even name 150 countries, but go to one of them and you’ll find American troops. What does this have to do with liberalism? It is not our duty or right to police the world. It creates enmity toward us, and likely doubles the cost of our military. We could bring our troops home, reduce their number, protect our ports and borders, train them in disaster management and emergency medical care, and give them a raise. The result is a more protected country, less enmity from others, and less defense expenditures. We would still have the best military in the world by far, and would likely be safer than we are, since many of our enemies don’t like us in their countries. At a far lesser cost, we could just do intelligence gathering overseas in order to attempt to root out those who intend to harm us. Less cost and a safer country means more freedom for us.

/////////////////////

Those are just a few examples of what we liberals should want. One could fill a 100 gigabyte hard drive with other examples, but mine is only 80 gigabyes.

“Power to the people” is what a true liberal wants. “Power to the government” is what the communists want. And we know where that leads.

______________________________________

Tim Farage is a Senior Lecturer in the Computer Science Department at The University of Texas at Dallas. You are welcome to comment upon this blog entry and/or to contact him at tfarage@hotmail.com.

______________________________________

An Electrifying Teacher

2010-01-26T13:27:00.003-06:00

The front page of the Dallas Morning News has a very nice article about a physics teacher, Christopher Bruhn, from Dallas' School of Science and Engineering. He won the AP Teacher Award, a $30,000 prize for excellence in teaching AP courses.

I love the way this guy teaches. For instance, when teaching about electricity, he asks students to come up and receive an electrical shock from a Van de Graaff generator. He tells them, "This will not kill you. Come to think of it, I have not killed a student yet."

Last year, 24 of his students took the AP Physics exam. He told them that if they all passed they could shave his head with the school's letters on it. And they did all pass it, and the shaving can be seen on YouTube.

This teacher exemplifies what I have believed for many years now; that the joy of learning is one of the most important components of teaching and learning. If I were to evaluate teachers, evaluating whether or not the teacher contributed to the students joy of learning would be near the top of the list.

It is as simple as this: students who enjoy learning will learn more, retain more of what they learned, and are more likely to continue their education than students who don’t.

Every subject, every topic can be taught in such a manner that at least most of the students enjoy it. It may not be easy to do, but that is what the best teachers do.

So let us applaud them, and, when training new teachers, emphasize that their students’ joy of learning should be of paramount importance. You'll be hard pressed to find a student who doesn't agree.

______________________________________

Tim Farage is a Senior Lecturer in the Computer Science Department at The University of Texas at Dallas. You are welcome to comment upon this blog entry and/or to contact him at tfarage@hotmail.com.

______________________________________

Bravo! The Supreme Court Overturns McCain-Feingold Campaign Funding Laws

2010-01-22T00:31:00.004-06:00

Background

Congress passed the “Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002” commonly known as the McCain-Feingold Act. In part, it prohibited national political parties from raising or spending funds that violate federal spending limits, even for state and local races or issue discussion.

It also prohibited broadcast ads that name a federal candidate within 30 days of a primary or caucus or 60 days of a general election, and prohibited any such ad paid for by a corporation, including non-profit corporations.

And Now…

On January 20, 2010, in a 5-4 decision, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down large portions of the McCain-Feingold campaign finance law, especially those aspects of the law that imposed restrictions on corporate spending on political issues. Essentially the Supreme Court said that, “the Government may not suppress political speech on the basis of the speaker’s corporate identity.”

Justice Kennedy, writing for the majority, wrote, "Because speech is an essential mechanism of democracy—it is the means to hold officials accountable to the people—political speech must prevail against laws that would suppress it by design or inadvertence."

He also wrote that, “If the First Amendment has any force, it prohibits Congress from fining or jailing citizens, or associations of citizens, for simply engaging in political speech.”

So What?

This decision means that the United States has taken a small step back to actually obeying the Constitution. The First Amendment of the Constitution protects free-speech rights, and the McCain-Feingold law blatantly violated it. It shocked me at the time that it even passed Congress and that President Bush “reluctantly” signed it into law. After all, the President and everyone in Congress take an oath to uphold the Constitution.

But Didn’t the Law Prevent all those Evil Corporations from Influencing Elections?

That was certainly the intention, and I presume McCain and Feingold and Bush and the members of Congress who voted for it were sincere in their beliefs. Sincere or not, their oath prohibits them from violating the Constitution.

Corporations consist of individuals and those individuals separately or together have free-speech rights that are constitutionally protected. And that should be the end of the argument.

There are a few Subtleties Here

Setting aside the constitutional arguments for a moment, let’s look at the thinking behind such a law. There are two parts to this thinking. The first is that Congress can violate peaceful free speech for the good of the people. How kind of them. They violate our freedoms to protect us, but the main purpose of government is to protect our freedoms. Anyone see a contradiction here?

The second subtlety is a hidden assumption that we citizens are to be treated as children, and thus prevented from being exposed to what corporations have to say about candidates or issues. This is called paternalism. Do you want Congress to be your Daddy? And this is from politicians who are legally allowed to listen to thousands of lobbyists. So politicians can be lobbied but we unenlightened citizens cannot.

The Bottom Line

Adults are responsible for their own lives and decisions, and it is not up to Congress to protect us from what others have to say. Our politicians are not God, and it is time that they stopped treating us as their children.

The only sad part of this is that there were four Justices who wanted to uphold this law. Maybe they were reading a different Constitution than the one I carry around.

Tim Farage is a Senior Lecturer in the Computer Science Department at The University of Texas at Dallas. You are welcome to comment upon this blog entry and/or to contact him at tfarage@hotmail.com.

A Political Platform based upon Natural Law: (Part VIII) Rational Environmentalism

2010-01-11T12:28:00.012-06:00

What is Rational Environmentalism?

Everyone wants clean air and water. Who wants pollution? The reality is that there will always be pollution, man-made or not. Humans certainly pollute, but so do volcanoes and animals.

There are two aspects to rational environmentalism that distinguish it from the usual brand of environmentalism. The first is that when we make decisions with regard to the environment, rational environmentalism takes into account all of the costs of that decision. For example, when we banned DDT, the eventual result was that millions of poor people, mainly in Africa, died – and are still dying at the rate of about one million people per year, due to malaria. DDT was especially effective at killing mosquitoes (which carry malaria) and so banning DDT ended up resulting in millions and millions of deaths. A rational environmentalist would ask, "Was it worth it?" (In case you're not sure, the answer is no.)

The second aspect is that the purpose of having a clean environment is for the benefit of people and other living things of the Earth. It is not for the Earth itself. The Earth is a tremendous gift from our Creator and His Helpers. It has all of the natural resources that we need to sustain life and even create prosperity for all, if we use those resources wisely. We need not be concerned that we can somehow harm the Earth. It is not a living thing and so feels no pain. It doesn’t care if a giant asteroid hits it, and it doesn’t care of the Sun goes nova and destroys it. The Earth was made for us, not vice-versa. Therefore, the welfare of the people of the Earth is the top priority of rational environmentalists.

Rational Environmental Policies

Because the Earth was made for us by our Creator and His Helpers, we are to be good stewards of it and all that the Earth offers us. (A future article will deal with how special the Earth and our Universe are, in that they appear to be designed for life, and even designed for us to prosper). Consequently, we wish to minimize the waste of natural resources; minimize energy waste; use more renewable energy sources; and reduce pollution. To this effect, I propose a cost-effective plan that would likely have the United States obtain 90% of its energy from renewable sources within 40 years. As a result of this, the quantity of pollutants given off should be also be reduced by 90% within 40 years. Furthermore, during this period, the amount of energy used per person should decrease by at least two-thirds.

Not only will this plan be cost-effective, it will be better than cost-effective – it will save us money, all without any government subsidies, which just add to the huge national debt that we already have.

The Secret to Improving our Environmental and Saving Money at the Same Time

Here is the one-word reason as to why we can save money and improve our environment: Prosperity.

This may seem counterintuitive, but it is the most prosperous countries that have least amount of pollution. And this is because they can afford pollution controls on cars, industrial production, etc. Thus, one of the most important parts of an environmental policy is to have a good government that protects freedoms, especially economic freedom so that its citizens can prosper and therefore afford environmental controls. If you doubt this, go to Moscow, Mexico City, Beijing, or any large city that has not had in place a free-market Constitutional democracy for very long, and then take a deep breath.

(If you are thinking that we give off a lot of carbon dioxide, you’re right. But carbon dioxide is not a pollutant – it is life. As you know, plants breathe in CO2 and breathe out oxygen. Without carbon dioxide, we’d all be dead shortly. Yes, I know the EPA has defined CO2 as a pollutant, but that is so they can regulate it. Even they must know that it is not a pollutant, I would hope. And yes, it is a minor greenhouse gas, but the major greenhouse gas is water vapor. Even the EPA would not deign to classify water as a pollutant. I'll deal with CO2 and global warming will be dealt with in a future post.)

I cannot think of one prosperous country that does not have a free-market Constitutional democracy. No socialist/communist country has ever been prosperous. (By “socialist/communist”, I’m referring to countries in which the governments own the means of production and produce the goods of the country. I am not referring to countries that have private markets but have higher taxes than the U.S., some of which are quite prosperous). Have you ever bought a product made by the government of any country? Have you ever bought a car made by the government of China, or a phone made by India, or a computer made by Mexico? Even people living in those countries don’t want to buy products made by their governments. They’d rather have a Toyota.

So it is essential that in our efforts to improve our environment that we also increase our prosperity, and set an example so that other countries can see how prosperity is invaluable to improving their environment.

The Single Most Important Product in Having a Prosperous Country

If you had to pick one product that results in prosperity it would be this: inexpensive energy. Inexpensive electricity and gasoline makes life easier for the middle class and poor, both directly, by having low electricity bills and gasoline costs, and indirectly, in that almost every product has energy costs associated with it. So lower energy costs result in lower costs for just about everything, and increase the prosperity of all.

There are a number of well-intentioned people who believe that higher energy costs will benefit us in the long run, since it would “force” us to become more energy efficient, and find more sustainable ways of generating electricity, as well as lessening our dependence on foreign oil. These people are wrong. Higher energy prices will just create more poverty. Neither Bill Gates nor Ross Perot nor Al Gore is inconvenienced by high energy prices, but you and I are, and the poor are even worse off.

An Environmental Policy that would lead to Prosperity not Poverty

Ever hear the expression that you can’t have your cake and eat it, too? Well, with respect to the environment, we can now. We can have less pollution, conserve natural resources, have inexpensive energy, and save money, mainly because of advances in technology .

That is to say, we can have all of the following at the same time:

1) Inexpensive energy, both as electricity and gasoline.
2) Lower prices for almost everything else (because inexpensive energy means the prices of almost everything will go down, and thus will increase the prosperity of almost all of us.)
3) Reduce pollution.
4) Conserve of energy.
5) Be less dependent on foreign oil.

Yes, we can have all these and save money! And, if it makes you happy, we can even dramatically lower our carbon dioxide output much more than would be required by the various treaties. How? You'll have to wait for my next post to find out.

Spoiler alert: the next post centers around the most rational way to accomplish the above five goals. And the most important component of the plan involves two of the most exciting words in the English language: Nuclear power. Yes, dear reader, nuclear power is a great way to go. And if you are a bit trepidatious about it, fear not, because after you read this next post your motto will be: "Nuclear power to the people!"

______________________________________

Tim Farage is a Senior Lecturer in the Computer Science Department at The University of Texas at Dallas. You are welcome to comment upon this blog entry and/or to contact him at tfarage@hotmail.com.

_____________________________________

Do You Need Math to get into Heaven?

2010-01-03T02:41:00.016-06:00

Clearly, nothing is more important than math. The cartoon above is all the proof of this statement that is needed.

(In case you can't read the caption, St. Peter is asking the potential Heaven candidate, "Now the last thing you have to do to get into Heaven is to answer this question: Two trains left Chicago traveling 40 mph in opposite directions and ...").

So, yes, a reasonable knowledge of mathematics is needed to get into Heaven. So as a courtesy to my beloved readers, I have decided to show you how to do such math, so that you will not have to go to “that other place” just because you forgot your Algebra II.

NOTE: don’t stop reading now! This article is written for math-phobics, and anyone else who has not used Algebra since the last century.

So let’s get to it. Here’s the math problem we’re going to solve. Even I didn’t like these kinds of problems when I first studied Algebra. This should encourage you to continue reading.

“Boston and New York City are about 200 miles apart. A train leaves Boston for New York at a speed of 40 mph. Another train leaves New York for Boston at a speed of 60 mph. How long will it take for them to meet?”

(If they are on the same track, they’ll do a bit more than “meet”, but we are a peaceful people, so let’s leave it at that.)

Of course, you can whip out your calculator and keep guessing until you get the answer. Actually, mathematicians and scientists do a lot of guessing, so there is nothing wrong with this. But here we want to use Algebra, because it is such a nice word. In case you didn’t know, Algebra comes from an Arabic word meaning Unknown.

So where to start on this problem? I’d draw a simple picture, just to postpone actually having to solve the problem.

-------> 40 mph 60 mph <-------

Boston o-----------------------------------------------------o New York

200 miles

Leonardo da Vinci could not have drawn a better picture.

There is one big secret to solving algebraic equations: let a variable (usually a letter of the alphabet) represent the unknown value you are trying to find. In this case, it is the time it takes for them to meet. Let’s write this down.

Let T = the time it takes for the two trains to meet.

And another realization is that the time each train travels before they meet is the same, so we only need this one variable for time.

One other piece of knowledge needed is one you all know, D = RT, which stands for Distance = Rate x Time. Yes, you know this and use it all the time. If I said a car was traveling at 50 mph for 3 hours, and asked how far it went, you’d multiply these numbers (the rate or speed of the car and the time it traveled) to get 150 miles.

Here’s the most fun part, and the hardest as well. Both trains travel at different rates, so we need to apply this equation for each train. So:

Let DB = the distance the train from Boston travels before it meets the New York Train.

Let DN = the distance the train from New York travels before it meets the Boston Train.

Applying the D = RT formula to both trains, we get:

DB = 40T (Note that since T is the same for both trains, we don’t need to indicate its origination point.) And we get:

DN = 60T

Now what? We'll if you look back at the problem, you'll notice that we didn't use one of hte facts given there, namely that the distance from Boston to New York is 200 miles. Writing this algebraically:

DB + DN = 200

Now we replace each of these distances with the right hand side of the two equations above:

40T + 60T = 200

Alright, you’ll have to remember a little Algebra to simplify this equation. Since I’m hungry, I’ll use a food analogy. If you had 40 apples and 60 apples, you’d have 100 apples. (If you hungry now and need to go eat, please do so but come back. And don't forget your New Year's resolution to lose weight this year.)

Therefore, 40T + 60T = 100T. So we put this on the left side of the above equation to get:

100T = 200

My more intelligent readers will immediately realize that T = 2 hours, and there you have it!

Of course, we must check our work. We would never think about not checking our work!

If the train leaving Boston traveled for 2 hours at 40 mph, it would travel 80 miles. If the train leaving New York traveled for 2 hours at 60 mph, it would travel for 120 miles. Since 80 miles + 120 miles = 200 miles, which is the distance between the cities, our answer checks.

So now, gentle reader, there are no math obstacles for you getting into Heaven. St. Peter will be quite proud of you.

By the way, here’s one last equation for you:

Math = Heaven

Trust me on this.

______________________________________

Tim Farage is a Senior Lecturer in the Computer Science Department at The University of Texas at Dallas. You are welcome to comment upon this blog entry and/or to contact him at tfarage@hotmail.com.

______________________________________

A Political Platform based upon Natural Law: (Part VII) Retirement and Social Security

2009-12-15T23:06:00.003-06:00

This is part VII of a series that deals with a Political Platform based upon Natural Law.

Retirement Planning

In a system based upon personal responsibility, individuals are responsible for their own retirement funds. It would be wise to invest at least 10% of one’s income into a retirement plan. I would recommend that children be taught in school the importance of saving for retirement from their very first paycheck. If a person is an employee of a company, the default could be that 10% of their paycheck be deposited into whatever retirement account they have chosen.

As a transition, we might require individuals to invest this money. This would be better than investing in the current Social Security system, but would still slightly violate the premise of personal responsibility.

(As an aside, another 5% or so should be used to purchase life insurance, once one has children, and to purchase disability insurance as well.)

This 10% of one’s income would be invested in one of a number of government-approved investment companies. Such companies would have to meet certain strict standards, as determined by the government. These funds would be held in a segregated account in the individual’s name, so that such savings are immune from the solvency of an employer or even the investment company. This is similar to many retirement plans many States use for State employees.

Also, these investment companies would be approved to operate nationally, so that a person could change employers or become self-employed, and nothing need change regarding his investments.

To get an idea of how much money a person could have at retirement, let’s assume that the person works for 40 years, and has a starting salary of $36,000. Let’s also assume that the person only gets a raise equal to the rate of inflation, so that they are essentially making $36,000 in today’s dollars for their entire working life. This is a rather conservative assumption, since the median income of men who worked full time in the U.S. in 2007 was about $45,000. For women who worked full time, it was $35,000. The final assumption is that the entire amount is invested in a stock-index fund that mirrors that entire stock market. Over any 30-year period since the modern stock market began in 1920, the stock market averaged a gain of at least 10% annually.

Whipping out my financial calculator, and investing $300 monthly (10% of the $3,000 monthly salary) for 40 years, earning 10% per year, gives almost $2 million in today’s dollars. (The actual amount would be the value of $2 million of today’s dollars 40 years into the future, a much larger figure.)

Once you retire, you can safely take out 5% of this $2 million each year without reducing the principle, so this would give an income of $100,000 per year for the rest of your life! And you would never have to worry about running out of money. When you die, the $2 million could be willed to one’s spouse, children, charity, etc. (For the money willed to children, it would be wise to limit the amount given to them, so as to not inhibit their desire to work and take responsibility for their lives.)

Imagine how much better this is than the current Social Security system, which takes over 12% of your income, and gives you about $25,000 per year for life at retirement. This is what happens when you let the government take charge of your life.

Even better, we would no longer need to save additional money for retirement as we do now. For instance, I work at the University of Texas at Dallas. I pay 12.5% of my income (between me and my employer) into Social Security and Medicare. In addition, I am required to pay 15.5% into my retirement plan. Under the plan I gave above, it would only cost 15% of one’s income (which includes life and disability insurance as well as retirement). That means I’d have an immediate additional 13% of income to spend. Would you like a 13% raise?

The History and Future of Social Security

Social Security is a poorly planned system that is not economically sound. The current Social Security tax rate is 12.4% and this money is used to pay current retirees; thus none of the Social Security taxes paid by an individual are actually invested for that individual. Because of this and because of the aging population that is occurring all over the world, Social Security (and Medicare) benefits are becoming an increasingly large inhibitor of economic growth, and are taking up a larger and larger share of federal spending. In 2009, it has been estimated that Social Security and Medicare are underfunded by around $50 trillion. This means that if the benefits remain the same, and the FICA (Social Security and Medicare) tax rate remains the same, an additional $50 trillion would still be needed. Any company that had such a retirement program would rightly be prosecuted.

To show how badly out-of-balance these programs have become, between 1966 and 2006, Medicare and Social Security grew from 16% of the federal budget to 40%. (Defense spending declined from 43% to 20% of the budget during that period.) By 2050, spending on Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid is estimated to take up the entire federal budget, if the budget were to remain the same proportion of GDP (Gross Domestic Product) as it is today. (This does not even include the interest on the federal debt, which is increasing even more rapidly; it is projected to be three times the entire GDP by 2050.) Obviously something will have to be done, and it will not be pretty.

Most people are not aware that when Roosevelt and Congress started Social Security, the FICA tax rate was only 2%, and even then only those who earned over the median income paid into it. Also, it was only intended to supplement one’s retirement. Now, virtually everyone who works pays into Social Security and Medicare at a rate of about 15% of income, and it still is only intended to supplement to one’s retirement. This is truly pitiful and unbecoming of a great country.

Conclusion

We need to immediately implement a retirement program as described above. At the same time, we need to phase out the fiscally irresponsible and damaging Social Security and Medicare programs as they are now. But this needs to be done without harming those retired or near retirement. This will be expensive to do, but will only get more expensive the longer we wait. It is likely that the best way to make the transition is to require individuals to put 15% of their income into their own retirement/disability program, and yet still pay FICA taxes until almost everyone has their own well-funded retirement program. This will take decades, but it took us decades to get to where we are now. As usual, the piper must always be paid.

Part VIII will deal with the Environment. A future entry will deal with our out-of-control health care costs.

______________________________________

Tim Farage is a Senior Lecturer in the Computer Science Department at The University of Texas at Dallas. You are welcome to comment upon this blog entry and/or to contact him at tfarage@hotmail.com.

______________________________________

Did you know that President Obama is Black?

2009-12-08T23:18:00.004-06:00

On Sundays in the Dallas Morning News, there is a section called, “Sounding Off”, that has brief comments by those who live in the Dallas area about a particular topic. The topic is chosen by one of the Dallas Morning News editors, and those of us that are contributors to the Sounding Off section get an email from the editor whenever he is interested in getting our opinions about a given topic.

Today, I got an email requesting two or three sentences about the topic, “What is the great untold story about your community in 2009 and how would it surprise people?”

I actually didn’t quite answer that exact question, but here is what I did submit:

“One great story in 2009 is how easy it has been for us to accept a Black president. I, and many people I know, disagree with many of President Obama’s policies, but his race hasn’t ever come up in my discussions with others. We are getting closer to Rev. Martin Luther King’s vision of judging a person for who they are rather than by the color of their skin.”

This is pretty cool actually. Obviously, there are still bigots out there, but there have to be fewer now than there were, say, 30 years ago. When Kennedy ran for president in 1960, many people thought he couldn’t get elected because he was Catholic.

I would like for us to take this one step further. When discussing policies that affect us, let’s not bring up any labels that serve to divide us. For instance, for a particular policy, does it really matter if the person who is giving their opinion is a conservative or a liberal, a leftist or a rightist, or a Republican or a Democrat?

It’s not that those things don’t matter, but they have nothing to do with whether their thinking about a particular policy is something that you may or may not agree with. In other words, it is best to judge someone’s policy ideas based upon your principles and not about irrelevancies such as the person’s skin color or political affiliation. This is much less divisive, and tends to keep a discussion based upon the merit of the ideas presented.

For instance, consider these policy positions that I have:

1) I think that the private use of drugs by adults ought not to be illegal. (I’m not advocating that people take drugs, I’m just advocating that they not be illegal).

2) I think abortion is almost always bad, but don’t think it should be illegal.

3) I think that we should have the strongest military in the world.

4) I think that we should bring our troops home from all foreign countries.

5) I think having nuclear weapons has been a tremendous deterrent to war, and it would foolish to get rid of all of them.

6) I think that the evidence shows that the Earth is warming slightly but that we have little evidence as to how much humanity is contributing to it. Furthermore, limiting carbon dioxide emissions will have a negligible effect on however much global warming is occurring. (If the Earth does start warming to an unacceptable extent, there are much cheaper and more effective ways of dealing with it).

7) I think that one of best ways to increase the prosperity of Americans and eventually the world is to build lots of nuclear power plants. We would shortly have clean, safe and inexpensive energy, and would have time to properly develop other sources of energy, such as solar power.

I didn’t bring these ideas up here to convince anyone about them, but rather to show how some of them would be considered conservative, some liberal, etc. It doesn’t matter to me what labels a person gives them, and I don’t consider any such labels when thinking about my positions. I only consider my principles. Isn’t that a good thing?

______________________________________

Tim Farage is a Senior Lecturer in the Computer Science Department at The University of Texas at Dallas. You are welcome to comment upon this blog entry and/or to contact him at tfarage@hotmail.com.
______________________________________

Government Job Creation and My Bad Math Skills

2009-12-03T19:55:00.003-06:00

Someone tell me if I’m doing the math wrong.

In the 12/3/2009 business section of the Dallas Morning News, there’s an article about a White House summit to create jobs. The good news is that, according to the article, President Obama “returned last week from Asia vowing a renewed emphasis on the role of free trade in job creation.” He’s doing this in a number of ways, including attempting to get better free-trade pacts with Asian countries. And there are other things he wants to do to increase our exports, all of which are good. The article also claims that nearly one-fourth of the manufacturing jobs in Texas depend on exports, so clearly this would be helpful to Texas.

This all makes me happy.

How has the government been doing so far in creating jobs? The article says that unemployment is at 10.2%, “despite the $787 billion stimulus package. The White House argues that the stimulus has created or saved about 1 million jobs, but more must be done. “

Here’s where I need your math help. When I divided $787 billion by $1 million in my head (where is my calculator when I need one?), I get $787,000 spent in stimulus funds per job created or saved.

Obviously, my math skills are diminishing, along with those of the climatologists who can’t understand why their climate models aren’t making correct predictions. Maybe it’s a world-wide phenomenon caused by too much of that extremely-toxic carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.

In the unlikely event that my math is correct, how many jobs do you think that you could create with $787,000? I’ll bet it’s more than one.

No, I’m sure my math is wrong. I just wish I knew where.

Sincerely,

Your Math-Impaired Blogger

______________________________________

Tim Farage is a Senior Lecturer in the Computer Science Department at The University of Texas at Dallas. You are welcome to comment upon this blog entry and/or to contact him at tfarage@hotmail.com.

______________________________________

A Political Platform based upon Natural Law: (Part VI) Foreign Relations, Foreign Trade, and Foreign Aid

2009-11-28T01:26:00.009-06:00

This is part VI of a series that deals with a Political Platform based upon Natural Law.

"I saw that you could not separate the idea of commerce from the idea of war and peace. You could not have serious war anywhere in the world and expect ecommerce to go on as before. And I saw that wars were often caused by economic rivalry. I thereupon came to believe that if we could increase commercial exchanges among nations over lowered trade and tariff barriers and remove international obstacles to trade, we would go a long way toward eliminating war itself."

Cordell Hull, former Secretary of State, in his memoirs after observing two world wars

Foreign Relations

We should have cordial relations with all countries who act peacefully. No peaceful country ought to be afraid that the United States will ever attempt to conquer it or forcibly take away its natural resources.

To countries or groups that have ill intentions toward us, our firm message should be: It would be a grave mistake to attack us, because you will end up suffering more than we will. “Speak softly and carry a big stick” was not bad advice from Teddy Roosevelt.

We ought not to preach to other countries about how they should behave, or what their economic or political systems should be. This has frequently led to them resenting us, rather than appreciating our good intentions. The World Bank and the International Monetary Fund attempt to do this, and we should have nothing to do with them.

Rather, we should be humble and set a good example for other countries to follow. What this means politically is that our government should protect our right to be free to live our lives as we deem best, as long as we don’t interfere with the right of others to do the same. What this means individually is that each of us ought to love our Creator and love others, by treating others as children of our Creator, and by using our talents to help make the world a better place.

As mentioned in a previous part, we should not have our military stationed in any other countries, unless we are at war. This has created enmity and dependency, as well costing taxpayers a great deal of money. It may help to create temporary stability in a given region, but is this truly our business?

Foreign Trade

Allow free trade with all nations. Free trade, not aid, is the best way to help other nations to become more prosperous.

Benjamin Franklin said, “No nation was ever ruined by trade.”

George Washington, the Father of our nation said, “The great rule of conduct for us in regard to foreign nations is in extending our commercial relations, and to have with them as little political connection as possible.”

And Jefferson said, “Peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations but entangling alliances with none.”

It would be well to heed these three of the most influential men in the history of our country.

Furthermore, free trade with foreign nations possibly offers one of the best solutions to avoiding war. We went to war with Japan over 60 years ago. Within a few decades, we were buying a great deal of goods from Japan, who then became dependent on trade with us. Do you think that they would consider going to war with us now, even if they thought they could win?

Similarly, China’s economy is closely tied to ours, and they are very desirous of us having a robust economy, so that theirs can thrive. Thus, the more trade we have with other countries, the more we reduce the risk of war with them, and the more prosperous they and we become. It is truly a win-win scenario.

Also, there is no reason to not have trade with Cuba. Cuba has not threatened the United States since the Cuban Missile Crisis in the 1960s. We may not like some of their domestic policies, but that is none of our business. Cubans and Americans would benefit from trade between our nations.

Trade protectionism does not have a history of working well for our country. For instance, in 1930, the year after the stock-market crash, the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act imposed an effective tax rate of 60% on more than 3,200 products and materials imported into the U.S., quadrupling previous tariff rates. Although the tariff act was passed after the stock-market crash of 1929, many economic historians consider the political discussion leading up to the passing of the act as a factor in causing the crash and/or the recession that began in late 1929, and its eventual passage as a factor in deepening the Great Depression. Unemployment was at 7.8% in 1930 when the Smoot-Hawley tariff was passed, but it jumped to 16.3% in 1931, 24.9% in 1932, and 25.1% in 1933.

Another important point is that when people of good will trade with each other, they naturally get to know each other. And they frequently find out that these “foreigners” usually have the same values that we do. For instance, they also want the best for their families and for their country. So free trade has the side effect of producing friendships that might not normally be made.

However, free trade cannot occur if countries subsidize their industries. For instance, the U.S. subsidizes farming (often run by large corporations and often at the behest of a strong Farm Lobby), which makes it harder for poor nations to export food to us, leaving them and us poorer. It has been proven that there is always a net benefit when we are allowed to buy and trade with those who make the best product for the best price, wherever they happen to be in the world. And the best way to make this happen is to allow individuals and companies to buy or trade with whomever they wish. This is not a guarantee, but there is no better way to achieve prosperity for all humans. Beside, freedom is the American way.

Congress can and should restrict the trade of goods or services that could harm national security, such as the sale of weaponry to countries that are hostile to us. Also, any imported goods would have to meet the same health and safety standards as domestically made items. For instance, any cars we import must meet the same standards as domestically made cars. Inspections of such goods, which should be made by our government, should be paid for by the company who is selling them. Otherwise, Congress should not restrict trade with other countries.

Developing countries are welcome to ask foreign companies, such as those in the U.S. and elsewhere, to start companies in their country. This may benefit the developing country by attracting the talent and resources needed in order to grow economically. Of course, this would always be up to the home country.

Foreign Aid

The U.S. ought not to subsidize other nations, or provide continuous foreign aid to any nation. However, the U.S. may provide temporary humanitarian aid to a nation or nations due to natural disasters or other such events.

Continual foreign aid contributes to corruption and to dependency. It also can create enmity toward our country in that other countries may wonder why their country is not getting any of our money. And, not infrequently, this money is used to purchase weapons, and buy power, rather than help the people for whom it is intended.

It may also prolong conflicts, as I believe it has done in the Middle East.

This is not meant to be a restriction on individuals or organizations, who may give time and money to whomever they wish (again with the restriction that no goods or services may be provided to individuals, groups, or countries that could harm our national security.)

Part VII will deal with Retirement and Social Security.

______________________________________

Tim Farage is a Senior Lecturer in the Computer Science Department at The University of Texas at Dallas. You are welcome to comment upon this blog entry and/or to contact him at tfarage@hotmail.com.
______________________________________

Are you Thankful for your Bathroom?

2009-11-25T23:20:00.014-06:00

For this 2009 Thanksgiving, I thought I'd remind us to give thanks for things we don't usually remember to give thanks for.

Things for which we Should Express our Gratitude

Last night I went to the bathroom to take a shower. You won't believe this, but our shower has hot and cold running water, and the amount of water coming through the showerhead can be adjusted! How great is that? Less than a century ago, most people in the United States could not claim this. Most would have to go to back to an outhouse, not a bathroom. And once-a-week baths, shared by all family members were the norm.

Anyone want to go back a hundred years again and lose half the children that are born to a woman before that child is five?

Anyone want to go back to using horses as our main mode of transportation? Don't forget to clean up the manure, and shoo away the flies it attracts, and to close your nose while doing it.

Anyone want to go back before there was heat and air conditioning, sanitation, toilets, vaccines, or modern medicine?

Anyone want to give up their cell phones, computers, jets, GPS, and other technological marvels that make our lives so much simpler to communicate with anyone, anywhere almost for free?

Anyone want to go back before the 1990's when the World Wide Web came to prominence, bringing mankind's knowledge to anyone who had an Internet connection?

Every year, scientists are finding out how special our Universe is, and how special our Earth is – if a few things had been off by just a little life would not even exist. For instance, if the strength of gravity were off just a little, our Universe would not be fit for life. The Universe and Earth are more beautiful than anyone even 50 years ago could have imagined. Anyone want to take a chance and jump to another planet in another Universe at random? You go first.

Anyone want to go back and live during a world war? Due to our technology, our presidents, and our military, we have not been in a world war for over 60 years.

Anyone in the United States want to go back to a time before there was freedom of thought, freedom of press, freedom of religion, freedom of trade, or freedom of association?

Anyone want to go back before the days of the Hubble Telescope and the awe-inspiring images it has sent to us?

Anyone want to go back to before people of all skin colors, and religious backgrounds could get the jobs they were qualified for, could get to sit in the same restaurants, and could get elected to be the President of the United States?

Expressing our Gratitude Every Day

It hard for all of us to remember to be thankful for the many gifts bestowed up on us by our Creator and His Creation, and by the inventions of His children. Here is prayer I learned from a friend, now deceased, that I try to say every day:

"Dear God, thank you for the love, beauty, health, peace and prosperity manifesting in my life. Please guide me in the furtherance of Your work."

And after my evening prayers, I try to remember to say the following:

"I send out love, peace, and goodwill to all of God's children."

A Side Benefit of being Grateful

The more we express gratitude for all that we have, the better we feel about ourselves and the healthier we are, physically, emotionally and spiritually.

And our “attitude of gratitude” is contagious. Others around us respond to it. Imagine a world in which we all express gratitude daily. Our world would be transformed overnight. How thankful would we be for that!

____________________________________

Tim Farage is a Senior Lecturer in the Computer Science Department at The University of Texas at Dallas. You are welcome to comment upon this blog entry and/or to contact him at tfarage@hotmail.com.
______________________________________