Sweetwater Stories

I met these guys in Houston!  It really is a great story, a small town saved from extinction by harnessing the wind that blows freely overhead.  New jobs, new infrastructure, and best of all, an atmosphere of excitement and new life.  If they can do it in west Texas, why not elsewhere?


Now, I am not going to say the Pickens Plan is perfect, and there are some political issues that are being overlooked, in my opinion, but at least T. Boone is doing something about it.  He has come up with a plan and he is pushing to make a difference, instead of just sitting on his butt and complaining about the state of affairs.

My main contentions:

• Yes, reliance on foreign oil is bad.  Both in the amount of money we are sending overseas and the fact that most of the world's oil is controlled by countries that we don't get along with.  Being independent and self-sufficient is what this country was founded on, and losing the ability to support yourself and your citizens is what ultimately brought about the fall of Rome.  So, do we need to curb our appetite for oil?  Yes.  Does more of the oil we do consume need to come from our resources that we can control?  Yes.  Do we also need to launch a recipe of alternate sources of energy to reduce our reliance on and use of oil?  Yes.  So, I think wind and natural gas are great answers, but so are solar and nuclear. So... should we use our oil resources?  Yeah, I think so, but that's not the real answer.
• Yes, harvesting natural gas is a big deal and a big part of it.  But then we need cars that run on natural gas.  We know they exist, but just not here in this country.  Whether it is because there are lobbyists and corporations that are keeping gas-based cars on the road (see also: Who Killed the Electric Car? lest we forget...) or because GM and Ford don't think there is enough of a market or what... we need to replace gasoline and diesel cars with natural gas cars. 
• CNG needs to be widely available.  Just like there are tons of gasoline stations everywhere (far more than we actually need), there needs to be an abundant and convenient source for CNG to make these cars practical.
• CNG cars isn't the whole answer.  If we are generating clean electricity with wind and solar and nuclear (I know Pickens doesn't care as much about the environmental side as he does about the energy independence side), then that energy needs to be utilized in our vehicles, our primary source of energy consumption.  This clean electricity needs to not only go into the grid and into our houses, but into our cars via plug-in electric and hybrid vehicles.  The technology is there, it just needs to be rolled out and made practical and accessible to the public.
• Boone.  Look.  You can't keep your hands in all the same pockets you have in the past if you want this plan of yours to work.  You may be a Republican/conservative politically, but in order to get something like this to work, you have to lobby both sides of the aisle.  Really, you need to get the support of the Democrats even more than you need the support of the Republicans.  You support McCain and the Right, but they have historically opposed all the things you have in your plan.  Their solution to the energy crisis is to drill off-shore.  Sure, that might be part of the solution, but a minor answer to a major problem.  If your plan is so progressive and different, and you say that this issue should not be a partisan one, then stop being partisan.  Support both sides of the aisle, especially individuals that align with your views and are trying to make a difference.

Progressive enlightened individuals or brain-washed followers?

So, is the environmentalist / green energy / tree hugger movement really about being more educated and knowledgeable about the world and everything in it? Or is it just the illusion of being educated and in the know? Do these people really care about what they stand for (and petition and protest against) or are they just followers, trying to find something to agree with and belong to?

Penn and Teller put this to the test with one of the oldest tricks in the book:


So, do "green people" know what they are standing for, or are they just falling for anything? Is it a stance against something they believe is wrong, or are they just part of something that is "cool" or "sexy" and makes them feel better and smarter and more culturally evolved than those gas-guzzling meat heads? Is it to feel like you are making a difference with the added perk of feeling at home at summer music festivals and being able to say things like, "Dude, you have no idea..." "If you really knew, it would change your whole perspective..." and "Well, good for you. I guess ignorance is bliss, right?"

Tainted Ratings

Opening Ceremonies Pull Record US Audience

Yeahhh..... but:

Dancer Seriously Injured in Opening Ceremony Practice, China Keeps it Quiet

Ceremony Mastermind Regrets Injuries, Arrogantly Challenges Brits

Fake Fireworks and Coverage Make Ceremonies, China, and NBC Less Impressive

Chinese Patriotic Anthem Lip-synced, Fake Girl Picked for Looks

So the question is now, have the Chinese found their Ministry of Truth accomplice in NBC? Seems like there is a lot of covering up and a lot of mis-truths being broadcast.... In my eyes, the games continue to be tainted.

The Way I See It #76

The side of my non-fat caramel kick-in-the-butt this morning reads:

The irony of commitment is that it's deeply liberating - in work, in play, in love.

The act frees you from the tyranny of your internal critic, from the fear that likes to dress itself up and parade around as rational hesitation.

To commit is to remove your head as the barrier to your life.

-- Anne Morriss 

Well said, Anne. As scary as the "C" word is, there is some comfort in the idea of it. The concept of commitment and decisiveness. The lack of fluidity and unpredictable change, the degradation of chaos. My only caveat would be that there is nothing wrong with commitment, in my opinion. The fear and avoidance associated with that concept (typically with men mostly) I propose is not due to an unwillingness or lack of interest in committing, but rather a desire for assurance in committing to the right thing (or person).  Maybe instead of being accused of being indecisive, we should relish the title of overly-decisive.  Weighing the factors, the pros and cons, scrutinizing and analyzing, but ultimately wanting to make sure you have come to the right answer or solution, and then (and only then?) dive in head-first.

I think Morriss' observation is full of truth if you are confident that this venture or this relationship is worth committing too.  And the journey that takes you to that realization is unpredictable and requires participation on both ends.  Perhaps culture and relationships are not frozen by fear of commitment, but rather fear of committing incorrectly.

more Beijing developments...

Outspoken Olympic gold medalist kept out of China.
Because clearly, anyone who is "outspoken" about anything, other than singing the praises of the Chinese state, needs to be silenced and will not be welcome. It is yet another example of the Chinese government clamping down control on the dissemination of information. I hope these games expose these issues, if for nothing else, to make us grateful for the freedoms we do have and be willing to fight to defend them (from our enemies, but more likely from our own government).

---

Beijing a great choice in disguise?
This interesting article takes a different look at the Olympic debate, saying that the fact that we know so little about China and their people and government, coupled with the fact that our interest in the Games largely hinges on needing "bad guys" to defeat, makes China the perfect choice to hose these games. According to the author, it is just the shot in the arm the Olympics needed to get people to watch.

---

President Bush's clarification of his stance on China and the Olympics and his reasons for attending. Ole W gets a little fired up answering this one...

Big Brother Mao

As the Beijing Olympics rapidly approach, I personally can't help but have an uneasy feeling about this whole thing. Unlike any other Olympics I can remember, something about Beijing just doesn't seem right to me. I can't put my finger on just one thing that is causing me to feel this way, because there have been so many incidents and issues. I can't list them all here, but the serious controversy surrounding the international running of the torch, protests and police crackdowns. Mostly because of outrage over Darfur, Tibet, Taiwan, and the oppressive and restrictive human rights abuses and religious persecution inside China itself. Then there is the Chinese government's censorship of the internet and surveillance of the streets. Numerous groups in America have called on President Bush to boycott the opening ceremonies (which he decided to attend), which Steven Spielberg decided not to be a part of. It just seems like a laundry list of one controversy after another surrounding China and these games.

Then I read this article in the New York Times today, which I suppose is intended to make people feel more secure about the safety of the games? Or is it intended to have the opposite effect and make people feel the games are unsafe and it's inevitable that a terrorist attack will occur? Either way, after reading most of the article outlining all the terrorist groups that are pissed off and potentially will attempt an attack, and the Chinese military response (are you sure these games are about athletic competition and not flexing military and political muscle?), I found a couple interesting sentences buried at the bottom of the second page.

The Chinese government has also been installing tens of thousands of surveillance cameras on lamp poles and in Internet cafes and bars.

Critics of the measure say the cameras can be used not only to track potential terrorists, but also anyone who opposes the nation’s one-party rule. Western companies like I.B.M., General Electric, Honeywell and United Technologies have been shipping their latest computer tools to automatically analyze video images from thousands of cameras and alert computer operators to patterns that might indicate a threat.

---

...From 2001, when Beijing was awarded the Olympics, China spent as much as $6.5 billion on security in the Beijing area alone. The bulk of the spending is for extensive video monitoring systems that will stay in place after the Games.

---

Largely separate from the Olympics, China is moving to install video monitoring systems in its 600 largest cities, and some are already far along.

Dr. Mulvenon said the sales from foreign companies raised the risk that Western equipment would be used to spy on Chinese dissidents after the Olympics.

“The longer-term implications are less positive,” he said. “Whereas the legacy of previous Olympics was sports stadiums, the legacy of the Beijing Olympics will be a high-tech police state.”

Doesn't this raise concern? Shouldn't there be more opposition and more outcry on behalf of the Chinese people, the athletes, and all the spectators? And why is the International Olympic Committee not coming under more serious scrutiny?? What's even worse is the fact that our Western companies are supporting and sponsoring this. As we all know Visa and Coca-Cola have been huge sponsors of running the torch and the games themselves. And then to hear that our technology companies are providing the means for a government to spy on its people? It seems wrong. No one around the world apparently has the balls or backbone to stand up to the Chinese. There have been a couple boycotts and protests here and there, but the big names don't raise a finger.

In my opinion, they are one of the primary culprits here. They need to be held responsible for selecting a city and country, which in my opinion, is not ready or suited to host the Olympic games. And then the IOC caved in and wouldn't take a stand against the government control and censorship.

I really hope the games go well, but I can't help but be worried and also disappointed that more wasn't done to restrict or oppose the things the Chinese government has done and stands for. But even if something does happen, I am sure the Thought Police will make sure no negative press about The Party ever reaches the international community and that all egregious acts by Big Brother Mao will be swept under the rug by the Ministry of Truth. So are we Winston or O'Brien?