We Can Freakin' Get This Done!!!

In my previous 2 articles I discussed the challenges that face this country regarding our energy policy. In the first article I attempted to define the severity and the urgency of this problem: We have a few short decades to implement a 20 year solution or we will face catastrophic consequences ( http://spoon-spoonworld.blogspot.com/2010/07/fucked.html ). In this article I site three dates that illustrate the urgency in which we must proceed.

2015 – We will have used up all the easy to access oil. I am not predicting that we will run out of all oil, but that oil will become more expensive to locate and produce.

“By 2015 Easy to access oil will be unable to keep up with demand”. John Heifmeister, former president of Shell Oil

This prediction is 5 YEARS AWAY!!!

2020 – We will need a new energy source equal to half the energy we are currently producing. This prediction is 10 years away.

2054 – The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere will cause a 3° temperature rise. Many experts think this will cause significant changes to our way of life. This is 44 years away. This is significant because once this occurs the effects will be very hard to reverse.

My solution for this crisis could be enacted in 4 phases and I have marked these phases by milestones. These milestones are what I believe we as a country need to do to combat this crisis. I wrote about the first of these milestones in the previous article ( http://spoon-spoonworld.blogspot.com/2010/09/tick-tock.html ). The following is a summary of the 4 phases.

Phase 1 – Change the Economics; Build a power grid

Phase 2 – Massive Research & Development effort; Education; Start building Magnetic Rail

Phase 3 – Build a lot of stuff; Implement penalty phase of tax structure

Phase 4 – Redesign cities

I have structured these articles by setting what our goals should be by year 1, year 5, year 10, and year 20. We should not wait until the specified year to start these things; rather, by the specified year we should have made progress in a given area.

Year 1 – Phase 1

http://spoon-spoonworld.blogspot.com/2010/09/tick-tock.html

Year 5 – Phase 2

Education

By year 5 there needs to be a massive re-education of our workforce. This energy revolution is going to create many new opportunities; however, it is also going to make many current jobs obsolete. A significant part of our workforce will have to be retrained. This is a necessity. To ignore this reality is to invite economic calamity. The current unemployment situation highlights this reality. There are many people who will never again have a job similar to the one they just lost because there are some jobs that ARE NEVER COMING BACK. These people have to be trained to do something else. Part of this can be done by reforming the unemployment system to allow a training component in addition to just giving people money. Employers could also be encouraged to give their employees training. A big part of training for energy jobs (at least at the beginning) is going to have to be done by the government. I suggest using community college infrastructure to offer certification and training in green energy jobs. In this economy we need a mechanism to retrain our work force regularly.

R & D

We also need to conduct massive research & development. The technology available today is sufficient to solve most of our problems, but there will have to be many improvements to technology to help us completely solve this problem. We also need to find more efficient ways to make the things we are currently making. I suggest that the government provide incentives to private industry to conduct most of this R&D. Creating a new government agency to conduct this R&D may be a good long-term goal, but in the short term it may be best to encourage private industry to do this.

Magnetic Rail – Part 1

The primary action that the government must take according to Phase 2 of my plan is to develop (or at the very least incentivize) a magnetic rail system. Many people view this as impossible in the short term and a long-term economic loss. In the context of this pessimism let me discuss some things about magnetic rail.

Magnetic rail (or Maglev or high speed rail) is a technology that uses electro magnets and levitation to propel trains at high speeds. It does not use any fuel, but uses huge amounts of electricity. The fastest of these trains was recently built in China and clocked speeds of 220 mph. Magnetic rail in this phase should have two potential goals.

First, magnetic rail has the potential to replace all the long distance shipping in the United States that is currently done with 18 wheel tractor trailers. If we build a national light speed rail system, companies could ship goods faster and with no fuel costs. Companies have until recently assumed cheap fuel use in their economic projections. We all know that this will not always be the case. A shipping method that does not require fossil fuels would be more stable and in the long term more cost effective for business. If we build a power grid and integrate renewable energy sources correctly then we could get our electricity from the sun and from wind power. If we stopped subsidizing oil as I proposed in the first phase of this plan, the price of gas would be $14 a gallon. Now the choice for business becomes (1) fuel a fleet of tractor trailers with $14 gas, or (2) use my light speed rail system that RUNS ON THE SUN!!!!!!

We also have a chance with a national light speed rail system to replace most domestic air travel with light speed rail. In recent summers we have seen what affect the price of gas has on air travel. There is no reason that you can’t go from New York to Florida in 3 hours by light speed rail. I do not mean that Americans should yet use the train for every day travel in this phase. Nor am I saying that this will be done by year 5. However, by year 5 we need to see the beginnings of an initiative to build this system.

Make no mistake: I am talking about putting most truck drivers out of business. I am also talking about making it harder for an already crippled airline industry. That is why the education programs are so important. People already in these jobs have to be able to get retrained. People who are currently employed in these jobs need to begin to retrain themselves NOW. Not wait 5 years from now until they are unemployed.

Year 10 – Phase 3

The Build Phase

By year 10 we need to be totally committed as a country to massive renewable energy building. I believe that wind and solar power should be the backbone of this new energy strategy. This needs to be a gigantic effort. By year 10 our power grid should be complete and the economic incentives should be in place which should lead to the production of clean energy. The best way to have this stuff built is for it to be built by private investors. It is the government’s job to ensure the marketplace favors the production of clean energy. It will be private industry properly motivated and incentivized to get this stuff built.

By this time we also need to be redesigning the subways and transportation systems in our inner cities. We need better methods for getting large groups of people from place to place. As people have to change jobs quickly and frequently, there are going to have to be ways for people to get around. The public transportation systems of this country are woefully inadequate. IF YOU HAVE TO DRIVE YOUR CAR TO THE TRAIN STATION THEN THAT IS A SUCKY TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM!!! We have to resolve the problem of how you go the last 10 miles once you get to your “destination” by train or public transportation. The “last 10K” scenario is something that city planners have been trying to redesign for years. Several options using current technology have already presented themselves. I believe that a massive R&D effort will lead us to something that will be effective.

Penalty Phase

By year 10 the penalty phase of the conservationist tax structure discussed in Phase 1 will be fully implemented – after 10 years of policy and incentives. Anyone still unprepared will be PAYING THROUGH THE NOSE BY YEAR 10. If you are still driving an SUV, tough. You are getting taxed. If you still want an energy IN-efficient appliance, too bad. You will be taxed. I also propose a tax for driving into a city like that imposed in London. If you are a business and you are still engaging in bad energy production you will have to pay for it. By this time these bad decisions will come directly out of your profit margin. Also, oil and coal will be completely unsubsidized (see article about year 1). That means everyone will be paying the full price of fossil fuels. These policies would have been in place for 10 years. We as a country will either become more energy efficient or we will pay for our energy inefficiency (and then use the money to help those that are energy efficient become more energy efficient).

Phase 4 – Year 20

City Redesign

By year 20 we will have had to have begun redesigning our cities. Urbanization is one of the biggest uses of energy. It is silly to think the population of this country will not increase. It is equally as naïve to think that the way cities are currently constructed will be sustainable in a world where traditional energy sources are less available. Most of this technology will be invented after the massive R&D effort mentioned in Phase 2. Having said that, there are some principles I think we should apply to our city redesign.

Urban Farming

I have to admit that this is a concept that I have known about for a while. I kind of dismissed this idea until my cousin Justin made a very good case for this practice. It kills multiple birds with one stone. There are lots of vacant lots in many inner cities across this country. There are a lot of condemned buildings taking up space. There is unemployment and a need for people in the inner city to find well paying jobs. There is also the problem of feeding a growing population, especially as the percentage of farmers decreases. The main problem that relates to our energy crisis is that cities often have to import food from far away. This requires fossil fuels to ship these foods and more energy for refrigeration the food as it travels. A solution that could potentially solve all of these problems is to turn all the vacant lots and condemned buildings into…FARMLAND!!!

Unemployed people in the inner city could get an honest well-paying job as a farmer. The condemned buildings and drug houses and nasty vacant lots would be replaced by farmland. There would be less food shipped from all over the place to sustain cities. There would be more people growing more food. I won’t even mention the numerous studies that speak to the positive effects of a city with parks and green areas instead of vacant lots. Everybody wins. Before you dismiss this as something that is impossible consider that Detroit is attempting and urban farming initiative in the wake of the economic havoc going on in the car industry.

Additional Development

There is a whole list of things that can be used to actually redesign urban buildings. There is a significant amount of space on the roofs of sky scrapers’ that could be utilized: solar panels and other energy generating devices, hydroponic bays to grow food, and algae make energy. Even if you just paint the roof white it would increase energy efficiency. There will undoubtedly be more solutions produced by a 15 year long Research and Development effort. The point is that we have to think about how we design and redesign cities to support a growing population and consume less energy.

Many people may argue that my proposals are impossible and impractical. They will say the transformation is too drastic and the solution is unworkable. My response to this is to point to an episode in our somewhat recent American History: In 1941 Germany was marching all over Europe. They harnessed the resources of every country they occupied. Every people they took over added to their limitless supply of slave labor. The United States entered WWII in 1941. The economy was in a GREAT depression. Over night the United States completely retooled all of their factories to make tanks and planes instead of cars. They then trained a significant percentage of the female population (many who had never worked in factories) to build wartime armaments. This new American workforce then managed to out produce all of Germany and the Axis Powers. This retooled American workforce build more stuff than all of the countries in Europe COMBINED!!! And they did it over night while everyone said it was impossible.

We can still get out of this? Will there be bumps along the way? YES. Will there be unanticipated consequences? YES. Will it be difficult? ABSOLUTLEY. Will our lifestyles be completely different after this transformation? YES. Will these policies result in a total social, political, and economic upheaval? YES. Is this plan as I have presented it flawed? DEFINATLY. I do not believe that a solution is impossible. What I do believe is that we have ZERO time to fart around. We do not have time to whine about how hard this will be or how unfair the world is. This is the time to get it done. I still believe in our capacity to solve this problem. I still believe that American ingenuity can save us from this. I believe we have the capacity to get this done. I also believe that America can once again lead the world as we endeavor to save this planet.

Tick-Tock

In my last article (http://spoon-spoonworld.blogspot.com/2010/07/fucked.html), I discussed the problem that the United States is facing regarding its energy policy. The biggest challenges that we are facing are a rising energy profile and a limited supply of easy to acquire energy. Add to this the possibility that we are reaching an environmental tipping point that may result in our inability to sustain our civilization. I also indicated the urgency of fixing this problem. I believe the severity of this problem coupled with the importance and difficulty of implementing a solution means that we have to take immediate and drastic actions.

We as a country are living in a world that is undergoing a fundamental change. In the past we were living in a society with lots of energy that was easy to produce. We were also living with the notion that we had unlimited financial resources. Both of these things are fundamentally changing. The solution I am proposing is a fundamental change to our entire way of life. It will not be pretty, but it will be necessary. This deadline is imposed by nature. If it were up to me, I would recommend a smooth, comfortable transition during the next 40 years that would involve education to ensure that everyone understood the nature of what we are doing. I would also be advocating solutions that were feasible in our current political environment. WE DON’T HAVE THAT KIND OF TIME. Nature has given us a hard and fast deadline. We cannot change the nature of the situation so we MUST change the politics. Nature is not conservative or liberal. It does not care if people are inconvenienced. Nature has given us an ultimatum. Fix this problem in 20 years or we as a civilization are doomed.

I equate this situation to a football game. It is 5 minutes left in the fourth quarter of the Super Bowl and we are down by 2 touchdowns. This situation is not impossible to overcome, but we have ZERO time to mess around. In the first quarter getting 4 yards/carry out of the running game would be great. But in the context of the fourth quarter and loosing, it is not an adequate game plan. In the fourth quarter we need to be THROWING THE BALL. Because of the urgency situation I cannot be happy with baby steps. I cannot be happy with an efficient ground game. This is the time for long bombs and huge chunks of yardage. I cannot be happy with politically friendly three yard running plays when the situation is so urgent.

My energy solution is based on a fundamental idea. It is my belief that the fastest way to change behavior is to change the economics of the situation. We do not have time to wait for people to come to the realization that this is important. We don’t have time to slowly transition to our new clean-energy based economy. We don’t have time to gradually move away from the wasteful way of life that we have had for the last 80 years. We as a society have to pay for bad behavior and be rewarded for favorable behavior.

I will present my energy policy in terms of what I would like to see happen within the next year. I will then state what I think our goals should be in year 5, year 10, and year 20.

Year 1

The primary thing we must accomplish right now is to change the economic incentives that will allow our energy policy to be effective. Most of this will have to be done at the legislative level. The major argument that opponents of clean energy put forth is they believe the market forces should determine what energy source we use. They say that the market does not favor investment and use of alternative energy.

I. Remove Oil and Coal Subsidies

I agree that the market should dictate what energy sources we use. The problem is that the government is subsidizing oil production and thereby artificially deflating the price of oil. The government is giving private industry money (in the form of tax credits, investment cost, and free land) to develop oil. This has the effect of making oil appear cheaper for the general population. On the surface this may make sense to some people: The oil companies are doing a service to this country by providing cheap energy so it would be worth while for the government to aid in this effort. Everyone in America in theory will benefit from cheap gasoline. People then go to the alternative energy companies and say that the market says alternative energy isn’t doable. Because our current economic system artificially makes oil cheaper, it then tells alternative energy companies that its solar power is too expensive. If alternative energy were subsidized on the level that oil production is, we wouldn’t be having this discussion. If we really want to let the market dictate energy policy then we have to make people pay the full cost of oil production.

Therefore the first thing the government must do is stop subsidizing oil. I would not do this at one time. I would decrease the oil subsidy by 10% a year for the next 10 years. This sends a price signal to the market and to investors that 10 years from now oil will not be subsidized by the government and will therfore be more expensive. It also says that if you invest in alternative energy now, 10 years from now there is the potential for a huge payoff.

Make no mistake this WILL RAISE GAS PRICES. It has been estimated that unsubsidized gas would result in gas costing between $6.00-$14/gallon. This simple fact will go along way to change the behavior of both the market and the individual. If gas is $6.00, paying an extra $3,000 for a hybrid is more economical. Driving an SUV would be impossible for most Americans. Taking the train to work may be better than paying $6.00 for a gallon of gasoline. If the cost of a plastic grocery bag was 50 cents, there would be a lot more people buying a $1 reusable cloth bag. What would packaging of products look like if companies had to pay the full price for plastic (which is made from petroleum byproducts)? How would it change business if companies with a fleet of 18-wheelers had to pay for $6 gas? To stay competitive, business would have to change. They would first pass the cost onto customers. They would soon realize that in to stay competitive they would have to find cleaner ways to do business, or they would have to HIRE SOMEONE ELSE (more jobs) to help their operation run cleaner. This one policy change would send ripples through our entire economy. The price signal drives incentive toward the production of clean energy. The first step is for us as a society to pay the full price of carbon fuel. As long as this double standard is embedded in our economy, alternative energy economy will never work.

I propose the same type of action regarding the coal industry. We also currently subsidize the production of coal. But we must also pay the full price of coal. Currently 51% of our electricity comes from coal. This will be more drastic for the consumer and the consumer would have much less control. To mitigate this I suggest that the government reward people for the purchase of energy efficient appliances and “incentivize” energy conservation methods. Replacing coal is essential if we are going to have any chance at a clean economy. It does us no good to have bullet trains and plug in cars if we get our electricity from coal. As long as we are burning coal to get our electricity we have no chance of having clean energy. We have to have economic incentive to offset the 90 year head start that the fossil fuel industry has had.

II. Power Grid

I have stated in many other essays I have written that the first thing this country needs to do is build a power grid. Everyone who knows me knows this issue is something I have been yelling about for a decade. This is not some Green Peace techie pipe dream. This is something that we absolutely must have if we want any chance of getting out of this.

When I think of our current power grid I am reminded of a time when I was a kid when my family (Mom, Dad, and Sister) went to Disney World. We drove from New Jersey to Florida in the middle of summer in my grandparent's Buick. The trip took about 2 days. We stayed over night at South of the Border (Dillon South Carolina). The trip was long and hot, but we finally got to Disney World. Now imagine the same trip without taking I-95. Imagine driving from New Jersey to Florida BY ONLY TAKING THE BACK ROADS!!! That long uncomfortable trip becomes impossible. Our current power grid is very similar to that back roads trip to Florida in many respects.

Our current grid is extremely regionalized. It is more like several smaller grids instead of one large one. The problem with this is that it makes it very difficult to get power from one place to another. We need a grid that can get power from where it is being generated to where it is needed. It does us no good to build a solar field in Arizona if all that power generated can’t get to the big cities in California. We can build all the wind power in South Dakota we want, but if we can’t get that power to New York and Chicago then we are not getting the most of our investment. There is also some discussion as to what clean energy source is the best one to use. It may not be clear what energy source will win out. What is certain is that we will need a new power grid no matter what energy source we use.

The current grid is also very inefficient and very unreliable. The performance of the grid is only going to get worse as we consume more energy and the grid itself gets older. The grid could be vastly improved by using the latest computer technology to monitor and react quickly to changes in the system. As it is now, a little bit of rain can cause power loss in large sections of the grid. This grid also has to be able to monitor energy usage especially at non-peak hours. It has to interact with other components of the grid and allow the flow of energy in both directions. We have to be much more efficient with our energy usage and production. The only way to do that is with a new power grid. The potential is for the grid to actually interact with our appliances to help the individual conserve energy. We need to put the right economic incentives in place and give people the information they need to curb their energy habits. There is an additional benefit not related to the energy crisis. We would need people from every sector of our workforce to build this grid. We would need construction workers, tradesmen, metal workers, engineers, computer scientists, city planners and everything else to build this thing.

III. Conservationist Tax Structure

Conservation is the most effective short term policy we have in this energy crisis. In the late 1970s, President Jimmy Carter launched one of the biggest conservation programs on record in response to the oil embargo and resulting gas shortage of the decade. It was one of the most successful campaigns ever launched. If Ronald Reagan had not reversed most of Carter’s policy we may not even be in this mess. We do not have time for people to come to the realization that they must conserve. We need to create incentives for doing the right thing and penalties for doing the wrong thing. We have to change the tax structure to reward good behavior and economically punish bad behavior. Many of these tax incentives have already been proposed. Most of the penalty phase comes in year 10 of my plan, but things like an SUV tax and a tax on bottled water could be implemented right away. The energy conservation measures proposed by this administration are a very good start, but by no means enough.

IV. Higher Standards for Federal, State and Local Governments

It would be too expensive to retrofit every building that is not energy efficient. This may be a long term goal, but in the first 5 years it is not feasible. What I do propose is that every building built by a state or federal government going forward is built with the highest energy efficiency standards. The initial cost would be higher, but it would actually save money in the long term. The other economic impact would be to send a price signal to the market. People who provide green energy services will have customers, and lots of them. Every state and local government will need to hire these small businesses to construct these buildings of the future. Every vehicle bought by state and local governments should have the highest fuel efficiency standards. This doesn’t help fix our current problem, but it stops the bleeding. This is also a standard that can be enacted relatively quickly.

V. Cap and Trade

I am not usually someone who says we must have cap and trade, but if a cap and trade policy is well done it would create a huge pool of money that we could use to pay for many of the other things we so desperately need. It would also make a scenario that would force business to think about the impact they are having on the environment. Cap and trade has gotten a bad reputation because of the lack of success it has had in Europe. If done correctly, it would allow the individual to make money in the long term. At the very least the short term economic strain on the individual could be managed. There are some fundamental things that can be avoided if adopting a cap and trade system since there are many cap and trade models. I am not going to dive into each one of these models now. I don’t think cap and trade is necessary for a successful energy policy (removing subsidies I think is better), but it could be a helpful tool for generating revenue if done correctly.

Cost

The limiting factor in any new program is cost. This will cost A LOT. To quote the movie "Timecop" it will cost “more than a little and less than too much.” The cost of doing nothing would be devastating. I do not believe our society would survive. In the first 5 years of this plan the biggest cost is the power grid. “Popular Science” estimates that we loose billions of dollars worth of productivity a year due to power outages and having to maintain obsolete technology on our current power grid. Dr. Bill Chameides, Dean of Duke’s Nicholas School of the Environment estimates the cost of a new power grid at $65 billion. The stimulus package allocated just $11 billion to start production of a new power grid. The coal and oil industries currently get annual subsidies of $17 billion and $14 billion respectively. My suggested 10% phasing out of subsides would generate $42 billion in 5 years (wish I would have paid attention to that N factorial crap in calculus). That gets us most of the way there. That is only for the power grid, that doesn’t count anything else. A lot of the money we raise will have to pay for the tax incentives that we are going to give for good behavior. Some of that will be offset by the idiots who will continue to do the wrong thing, but that still will not be enough. We are also going to have to pay in the form of tax credits to offset the increased energy cost of the middle class. This is only for the first 5 years. We will have to raise a lot of money some other way. A well-run cap and trade system could generate a huge pool of money. Here are some other suggestions for where we can get the money.

Cost of Iraq and Afghanistan in 2009 - $144 billion

Total Defense Budget 2009 - $560 Billion

Total United States Oil Imports 2007 - $327 billion

2 Bush Tax Cuts – $3.1 Trillion over 10 years

I don’t know where all of the money will come from, but it has to come from somewhere. If we don’t fix our energy problem then NOTHING ELSE MATTERS ANYWAY. Of course, I am not in favor of dismantling our military, but when you look at how much we are spending on defense, $60 billion to save the planet (or at least begin to) doesn’t seem like too much to ask.

My next article will discuss how we go forward in years 5, 10, and 20. I am by no means an energy expert, this is just what makes sense in my mind. I also admit I don't have all the answers. With a situation this complex very few people (if any) do.I encourage everyone to look at the situation objectively and come up with another plan. What we must do is be realistic about the mess we are in. We have a deadline. A 3 yard running play is not a solution. “Drill Baby Drill” is a great bumper sticker, but is a pretty crappy energy policy. THE CLOCK IS TICKING. While we as a country are whining about what can't be done and complaining about how unfair this situation is in TIME IS RUNNING OUT! We can either whine about the situation that is confronting us or we can try to think of a solution. I choose the later.

FUCKED

I must begin this article with an apology to all my readers. In life I never use profanity; I feel that there are better ways for one to express one-self than resorting to baseless language. I reluctantly chose this title because it is the only word that conveys the potential seriousness of the current situation that I am attempting to define. It is also the only word that conveys the sense of urgency that we as a civilization must take in our very immediate future.

I have commented in several other articles that environmental catastrophe is the number one threat to our lives on this planet. And closely related to the environment is how we get energy: What we consume to maintain our lifestyle directly effects our environment. Since America is the biggest consumer of energy (for now) the energy policy that it sets is extremely significant, in fact crucial. I believe that in the very immediate future we will be unable to produce the level of energy needed to sustain our lifestyle. I believe that this scenario will manifest itself in DECADES. Not a century, not a generation, but DECADES. The severity of the problem is heightened because any solution that we devise will take 20 years to implement. If we start trying to solve this problem when these consequences begin to occur, then it is already too late. We have to anticipate this crisis point by 20 years to even have a chance at making this work. So, if we are, for example, 20 years away from crisis, and the solution needs 20 years to implement, then we have to start implementing it RIGHT FREAKIN’ NOW!!!!! Not next election cycle, not after the economy stabilized, not after we get out of Iraq, RIGHT FREAKIN’ NOW!!!! This article is an attempt to define the contributing factors that I believe will lead to this crisis.

Future Energy Profile

The biggest challenge we face is not a matter of sustaining our current energy profile, but what this profile will look like in the very near future. Fifty years ago there were few countries outside of the United States and Europe with a middle class that consumed a significant amount of resources. That picture is changing very very rapidly. Although America still consumes a lot more energy than anyone else (more than the next 3 biggest economies COMBINED) there are several other countries undergoing considerable growth and therefore using much more energy than they have before.

China is experiencing a major industrial revolution. Before the recession, China’s economy was on a pace to double every 14 years. As an economy grows, it uses more and more energy. China is building more and more by the day. However, as mechanized as China is becoming, half of the population is still living by the impoverished standards of the 1900s. So, what happens when those millions of people in villages begin driving cars, using computers, and begin running air conditioners?

India, though not growing as fast as China, is still growing quickly. The number of people moving into the middle class – and therefore consuming more energy – is growing rapidly. The number of people living “like Americans” is rising.

I believe that everyone on some level is engaged in this rat race. Even Developing Nations with traditional agrarian economies are consuming more and more energy. The era when America used nearly all of the energy while the rest of the world stood by and watched it happen has ended. To illustrate my point, consider China again: 1/3 of age eligible drivers in China’s cities have drivers license but no car. They believe that they will own a car in the future; but as of now, they lack the wealth and resources to own one. What happens when those millions of people start consuming resources at the same level that Americans are?

Add to this profile the sheer numbers associated with population growth. What happens when there are another 1 or 2 BILLION people on this planet? Even if these new arrivals consume minimal energy, it is still very significant. What happens when people in underdeveloped areas move to a city to find a better way of life? The migration of people from rural areas to large cities adds to the current energy profile.

The actual numbers are staggering. Luis Giusti (former president of Venezuela State Oil Company) estimates that we as a planet currently use the energy equivalent of 80 million barrels of oil per day. At the rate we are growing, we will be using 120 barrels of oil per day by 2030. THAT IS TWENTY YEARS AWAY. We as a planet have to find a source of NEW energy equal to half the energy we are already producing. Wade Adams (Director of Nano Technology Research, Rice University) believes that we will need 14 terawatts of energy (220 million barrels of oil/day) by 2050. In just 40 years, we will be using twice the amount of energy that we are currently using. Please note that although energy consumption is being measured in barrels of oil, this does not necessarily mean that is how much oil we are using. However you measure it, we are going to need a lot of new energy. We cannot wait 20 years to start to develop a 7 terawatt energy source.

Peak Oil

The United States uses 25% of the world’s oil yet has 2% of the world’s oil reserves. I believe we are running out of oil and that Saudi Arabia and OPEC have been lying to us about how much oil they are producing. Since this argument seems ridiculous to most people I will not even make it today; I will save my peak oil discussion for another time. However, I will say that I believe that as we go forward, the extraction, production, and refining of oil will become harder and more expensive.

All of the oil on this planet has already been made. Oil is not like corn that you can grow every year. It took millions of years and a lot of dead dinosaurs and biomaterial that was heated and compressed by geology. All of the oil we have already used and are ever going to use has ALREADY BEEN CREATED. The challenge now is how do we find what is left and refine it. The fact that we are trying to drill for oil 5 miles under the ocean floor means that we have already used up a lot of the “easy oil” that shoots out of the ground like in the “Beverly Hillbillies.” You may laugh, but just 50 years ago America was the biggest oil producer in the world and there were several places in Texas where oil just shot up in the air. When I see oil companies trying to mine oil from tar SAND, that tells me they have run out of easy to access oil. Why would an oil company waste energy to try to get oil out of tar sand? Because that is the only oil left to discover!!! The former president of Shell Oil made a prediction that by 2015, easy to access oil will be unable to keep up with demand.

There are several people who suggest that if we use the untapped oil resources of the United States, we could get out of this problem. They say there are places like ANWAR in Alaska and the west coast where we could find some oil. I believe that the oil we may find there would be only a drop in the bucket. Consider the recent Gulf spill. If you assume that 100,000 barrels a day (that is the biggest estimate to date) have been spilling into the gulf for 60 days, that is 6 million barrels spilled. According to an estimate made in 2007, the United States uses 21 MILLION BARRELS a day. So, all of that mess in the Gulf, all that disaster in the marshes of Louisiana, all of the dying pelicans and tar-balled beaches is equal to the amount of oil the United States uses in 8 HOURS. We use three times as much oil PER DAY as all the mess that is in the Gulf. That is how much NEW oil we will have to find and produce to support our CURRENT energy profile.

Atmospheric CO2

And now I will address global warming and climate change. I will give opponents of clean energy the benefit of the doubt and pretend that the data on climate change is inconclusive. However, we should consider this: Carbon dioxide stays in the atmosphere between 50 and 200 years, depending on who you listen to. If we stopped using all CO2 right now, we would still have a ton of it in the atmosphere. Living organisms also create CO2, which ends up in the atmosphere.

Most scientists think that a CO2 measurement of 550 parts per million (ppm) in the Earth’s atmosphere will lead to a 3 degree temperature change, and that such a temperature change is fairly significant. Currently, the level of CO2 in the atmosphere is estimated at 440 ppm, and we are adding 2.5 ppm per year. This means that at our current rate of CO2 production, we hit the magic number in 44 years. That is assuming that we maintain our current level of CO2 production. But we all know that if we proceed on the course we are on now, the amount of fossil fuels we are using is going to rise. How fast they rise and by how much is the question. Add to this number the fact that every forest we cut down to make more room for people reduces our ability to remove CO2 from the atmosphere. Every tree we cut down exacerbates the problem because as we all know from 7th grade science, trees use CO2 and produce oxygen.

There are some who think that the 550 ppm = 3 degrees idea that I have quoted is debatable. And, there are also some who do not believe that 3 degrees is significant. There is also a debate as to how much of this CO2 is naturally occurring and how much is do to man using fossil fuels. As I said, I am not going to argue the merits of climate change in this article. But I will say that as the population of the world uses more carbon based fuel, we will be producing more CO2. That CO2 will stay in the atmosphere for years and add to the total amount of CO2 already present in the atmosphere. That part is not debatable.

Possible solutions

Several technologies have been proposed as solutions to our energy crisis. Here are a few of the popular ones. I do not believe that any one of these can replace what we get from fossil fuels.

Natural Gas

NATURAL GAS IS NOT CLEAN. It is less “dirty” than gasoline, but is by no means a clean fuel. The plus side is that this country has an abundance of natural gas that could be extracted relatively cheaply. Although I do not believe natural gas is an adequate energy solution, I do believe (and T Boone Pickens agrees with me) that natural gas could be useful in bridging the gap to whatever we end up transitioning. We also have to ask the question “how much natural gas infrastructure do we want to build for something that is probably a temporary solution?”

Biomass

Most experts think that fuels from biomass could not be scaled up adequately to play a major part in energy production. Sugar-based ethanol is better than corn-based ethanol, but even this has significant challenges. One problem that opponents present is that to grow fuel, we will have to give up the space needed to grow food. This can be overcome somewhat by using switch grass and things that are the unusable parts of food crops themselves. The problem with this is that we have to use a lot of energy to make this clean fuel. Also, biomass is not dense enough to even come close to replacing fossil fuels. The best estimates realistically predict that even with a major scaling up of our biofuel capabilities, it would still be less than 10% of our energy profile.

Hydrogen

I do not believe that hydrogen power on a large scale is feasible in the short term. Ideally, it could be very clean. The problem with hydrogen is a matter of production. What are the ramifications of mass producing and storing hydrogen safely? We would have to create an entire hydrogen production infrastructure just to produce the hydrogen. I don’t think this endeavor is worthless, but we must be realistic about how hydrogen may help us get out of the mess we are in. There will be some rich people in some areas that can drive hydrogen cars, but this is not going to help us in the next 50 years, and definitely not in the next 20 years.

Nuclear

I have always argued that nuclear has gotten a bad rap. Additionally, we have let one accident that happened 30 years ago keep us from using a valuable technology. In the recent political discussion, more and more people have begun to push for nuclear power. But, there are some draw backs.

First, nuclear energy is the most expensive technology. The initial start up cost is enormous. Second, it takes 10 years to build a nuclear plant. David Goodstein of Cal Tech estimates that if we are going to use nuclear to replace fossil fuels, we would need to build 10,000 nuclear plants worldwide. If we did manage to build 10,000 plants in the next 10 years, we would use up all of our uranium in 50 years. Of course this is an extreme example, but when we couple the size of the problem with the cost of nuclear power, we have to be really optimistic if we think nuclear power is the way out of this.

The plus side of nuclear is that once we manage to get a nuclear plant built, the maintenance costs are very do-able. It also produces no carbon. The radio active waste of course is a huge problem, but I do not believe it is unsolvable. There are even some technologies that can make fuel rods out of some of the waste products.

I think that we should be using more nuclear power. I think it has role to play in our energy solution, just not the primary role. I think it can be used to significantly augment our energy production, but it should not be the backbone of our energy strategy.

Wind

This biggest draw back of wind power is that it is not a very dense energy source. The amount of energy we get per unit is not remarkable. The amount of time that wind is not blowing also creates a problem of reliability. Having said this, there are still some advantages to wind power. Wind power is one of the cheapest and fastest to build. The modularity of wind power is also a big advantage. We don’t have to wait 10 years for the whole wind farm to be built. We can start producing energy as soon as you put up the first few turbines. Wind turbines do produce completely clean energy, but there are environmental concerns. Most notably, birds fly into the spinning turbines, but there are experiments with sonar to find a solution to this setback.

Clean Coal

On the surface this may seem like a worth while endeavor. We have a lot of coal. We use a lot of coal. If we could use it cleanly, we could go quite far in solving our energy problems. The problem is how much money are we going to spend trying to get this to work?

We have very limited resources and it seems to me that there are more technologies that are further developed that can help us in the short term. Also, clean coal does not help to clean up the detrimental mining aspect of coal. Blowing a top off of a mountain to get coal is still not helping us in the long term. It may be easier to invest in a new alternative than to try to make a dirty old technology better. I compare clean coal to owning a really old, really beat up car. We can spend money to replace the engine and the transmission and the other components of the car, but eventually it is going to be better and cheaper to just buy a new car (a hybrid car of course).

Solar

I believe solar power can play the biggest part in solving our problems. The photovoltaic cell was invented in 1920!!! The solar panel is not some fringe piece of technology that we are not sure whether it will work, IT FREAKIN WORKS!!!! 20,000 times the amount of solar energy that we need hits this planet every day. Even if solar panels are only 10% efficient, that is still extremely significant. In addition to that, the United States has vast areas of flat land that get a lot of sun. The American southwest is PERFECT for solar power. Not to mention we have a significant part of the African continent that is dessert.

Estimates indicate that we would need an area the size of California to harvest all of the solar energy we would need to meet this country’s energy needs. If we add up all the solar capacity today, it roughly takes up the size of Connecticut. Increasing this capacity is not impossible, but it will require a HUGE undertaking and a huge political and financial commitment. [If I were president of the universe I would just move everyone out of Arizona, make it one big solar panel, and then hook a bunch of wires into it. EXTENSION CORDS AND DUCK TAPE!!!]

The energy produced by solar power is completely clean but realize that anytime you build on a pristine environment there are ecological consequences. I think these factors can be minimized. Of course, like most of the experts, I believe that it is going to take more than just one technology to get out of this mess.

In spite of the grim scenario I have outlined, I still believe we can fix this problem. If we were in this situation 50 years ago, or even 15 years ago, I do not believe we would be technologically advanced enough to handle this. I think the world we live in affords us the ability to fix our problems. The thing that makes me pessimistic is the political will necessary to get this done. I think we are FUCKED because we lack the ability politically to do what is necessary. Maybe it is a failing of American democracy that we can only achieve incremental change. It is a good thing when the radical elements of our government don’t dictate policy, but in this case it may work against us. The solution to this problem maybe too radical to be implemented by our current government.

In my next article, I am going to propose a solution to how I think America can fix its energy problem. I have to warn you that the solution I purpose will not be pretty. This problem is not going to be fixed by NBC putting a green logo on the bottom of the TV screen. It is not going to be fixed by a bunch of people wearing tie-dye on Earth Day. It is going to be a painful solution that will require everyone in our society to make changes. It will require complete social, economic, and political upheaval. All of us will be very inconvenienced. People will loose their jobs. People will go out of businesses. Companies will go bankrupt. The economy will slow down at least in the short term. In the long term, there will be new opportunities created and although our percent of the pie may be smaller, the pie itself will be much, much bigger. Most importantly, we will make a society that can carry us through the 21st century and beyond.

GOD IS A TREE HUGGING COMMUNIST LIBERAL!!!

Many of the things that Conservatives rail against are in direct opposition to Biblical principal. I find it ironic that fiscal Conservatives often tie their political agenda to what they claim to be Christian principals. One of my favorite things to do is study The Bible. In addition to it being a source of faith and comfort, The Bible is also a very complex thing to study. One of the most fun things that I do at my church (besides playing the piano) is teaching Sunday school and Bible study. Whenever I watch the news and see Conservative Christian politicians railing against the environment or the Liberal principles that they say will destroy this country, it makes me wonder if they are reading the same Bible I am reading. I want to say that although this article has a religious work as its source, this is an article about politics. I am not trying to convert anyone, just making a political point.

LIBERAL

And when ye reap the harvest of your land, thou shalt not wholly reap the corners of thy field, neither shalt thou gather the gleanings of thy harvest. And thou shalt not glean thy vineyard, neither shalt thou gather every grape of thy vineyard; thou shalt leave them for the poor and stranger: I am the LORD your God.

Lev 19:9-10 (KJV)

The children of Israel were led out of the slavery from Egypt by Moses. Judeo-Christian tradition then states that Moses went on Mt. Sinai and received the 10 Commandments. Moses also received “The Law.” This contained all the laws and regulations that the nation of Israel was to live by. One of the practices that God instituted was the gleaning of the field. The law states that anything that is left over from the normal harvesting process is to be left and not collected by the farmer. The law also states that when you are harvesting your crops you are not permitted to harvest the corners of your field. It says you are to leave these parts of your field so that poor people and strangers can have something to eat. It seems to me that although God intends that everyone should work, he realizes that there will be times when people face unfortunate circumstances. When that happens, he does not want society to let people starve to death. It seems rather that God makes a way so that everyone in the community can help. When someone’s house burns down, or if someone is widowed, they don’t have to starve to death. In our government we have things like social security for old people. We have unemployment when people loose their job. There was even a debate for a public option for health insurance so if someone lost their job and became sick or injured, they wouldn’t go bankrupt and die. Conservatives condemn these public programs as weakness and something that destroys our American values. I argue that it is strength when a society finds the will to help ease the suffering of others. Although I agree that some of these things can be misused, the idea behind them is important.

When thou buildest a new house, then thou shalt make a battlement for thy roof, that thou bring not blood upon thine house, if any man fall from thence.

Deuteronomy 22:8

Another thing that conservatives rail against are the regulatory agencies of this country. The argument is that business can regulate itself and the government will only get in the way. God, in this system, puts regulations on the specific practice of building houses. He states that when you build a house you have to build a ledge before you build the roof. The reason is if someone working on the roof falls they will fall into the ledge and not plummet to their death. Conservatives have been trying to deregulate everything from the Board of Health to the oil industry to Wall Street. I believe in Capitalism and the free market. I also believe that the government can regulate parts of the private sector without getting in the way. The idea is that we can regulate industry (whose primary interest is to make money) to ensure a reasonable degree of public safety.

TREE HUGGING

If you come across a bird's nest beside the road, either in a tree or on the ground, and the mother is sitting on the young or on the eggs, do not take the mother with the young. You may take the young, but be sure to let the mother go, so that it may go well with you and you may have a long life.

Duet 22:6-7 NIV translation

In this portion of the law, God has outlined a very specific scenario. He states if you find a bird with young or with eggs that you are permitted to eat the young and the eggs, but you are not permitted to eat the mother. Why would God detail such an instance in the law? The Bible does not provide an explanation. I argue that God realizes that by taking the mother and the eggs you will wipe out two generations in attempting to feed yourself. If you leave the eggs the young may not be able to fend for themselves. I believe that this principle is not specific to birds, but can be applied to a host of environmental issues. I believe that it was God’s intention for the nation of Israel to live in harmony with their environment and to not exploit it. I believe that in today’s society our biggest challenge is getting our over-consuming and still growing population to live in a sustainable way. Notice that this passage ends with a note to the person. God is instituting this principle to ensure that the people will have long life. God realizes that the health of the environment is essential to the survival of humans.

COMMUNIST

Neither was there any among them that lacked: for as many as were possessors of lands or houses sold them, and brought the prices of the things that were sold, And laid them down at the apostles' feet, And distribution was made unto every man according as he had need.

Acts:4:34-37

This scripture is from the New Testament. In this passage, the newly formed Christian church has several challenges. It's solution to it's economic situation was for everyone to sell what possessions they had and redistribute the money to who needed it. I am not advocating Communism, nor am I saying that God was in favor of the ruthless quasi-Communist governments that have taken hold in countries all over the world. I am saying that early Christians recognized the power of community and the problems people can solve when they work together. I am also talking more about the economic value of socialism more than the communist governmental structure.

As I stated earlier, the aim of this essay is a political one, not a religious one. One could argue that Moses went into the mountain and made up the whole thing. We can argue that my interpretation is incorrect and I am a fundamentalist wacko. You could argue that these rules were made for a specific time and place and do not apply to us in any way. The intention of this article is not to argue the validity of Christianity, nor is it to state that my interpretation of scripture is the definitive one.

I think mixing government and religion is a very bad thing. I have always argued for the complete separation of church and state almost to the extreme (like taking “In God we trust” off the money, I mean are we a secular nation or aren’t we). I am making the political argument that if politicians want to use Christian values to dismantle social security and regulatory institutions, then I want to examine all of the source material from which they are quoting. If they are quoting the scripture “you don’t work you don’t eat (2Thes 3:10), then I think we should examine all of the evidence in the book they are quoting from. I am not even going to mention Matt 25:40 or Matt 26:11 because they are religious arguments and not political ones. If conservatives are going to use Biblical principle to dictate political philosophy, than I feel it is my right as a tree hugging hippy Christian fundamentalist socialist LIBERAL to disagree.

DISCLAIMER

I also think it is a very dangerous thing to look at scripture without looking at context. I have tried to put context to these scriptures, but would advise everyone to read it for themselves. I am not a know-it-all.

Don't be afraid to leave comments. Argument is not a bad thing.

My Film Fest

One of the things I look forward to most during the early spring is the Philadelphia Film Fest. The film fest shows independent and international films for 2 weeks. I look forward to this festival for several reasons. First and foremost, I LOVE MOVIES. I can generally see 35+ movies in a 2 week period. I like foreign films – I'm interesting in how other countries make movies. The subjects they choose and the artistic choices they make are often different from American film makers. Watching foreign films allows me to gain some insight into a place I have never been. I may never get to go to Chad, Mongolia, or Iran; but, I may get to see an artist’s interpretation of some of the things experienced by people in these countries. Although these are only movies and therefore not factual, they can still be very revealing. It is also fun for me to try to see what non-American audiences look for in movies. Once you get past the subtitles, foreign films made for foreign audiences are often very insightful. As for independent films, I find it interesting and enjoyable to see the choices made by a movie maker with limited resources. When you remove all the crazy effects, things like story, acting, editing, and pace become much more evident. I am not saying that big movies don’t do this well; rather, that when all the money is removed, all you have is your idea and if the idea is bad there is NO WAY for the film to recover. This scenario makes the movie making very transparent. Many of these movies could not get made because of the subject matter or they have been deemed not marketable. “Not marketable” does not mean “not good.” This is a fact that becomes evident at a film festival.

This year, the Philly Film Fest was cancelled. The biggest reason sited was the recession. The city and many of the corporations pulled their support out of the film fest. There were also internal debates between the Film Fest organizers. Since there was no film fest this year, I decided to make my own. There are several movies that I have wanted to see, but just haven’t gotten around to. I decided that for 25 days I would watch a movie a day; however, I only got to watch 22 movies. (If I were to do this again, I would not do it during playoff time since I like sports almost as much as I like movies.)

In this blog entry I am sharing a short review of those 22 movies in the order that I watched them. I am not going to discuss specific plot details, but I am going to discuss the general idea of these movies. If you are the type of person that likes to “GO IN FRESH” be warned.

My Sister's Keeper

This movie is centered on a family with a sick child. The parents’ solution to this was to have another child that was genetically compatible so that organs could be donated to the sick child. I think movies like this are very important because I believe in the very near future this and other genetic scenarios will not be science fiction, but a reality. I believe that as a society we must begin making decisions on these things now. I do not think it is good policy to wait until these things are a reality and then try to catch up legally and culturally. I am also in favor of anything that makes science more mainstream. Science touches every part of our lives. It is not some obscure thing that happens just in a lab. Science is all around us. I wish more of it were in our entertainment too.

Blindness

This is a movie that depicts an epidemic of blindness and the government’s response to it. It illustrates the danger that when people are scared they will let the government do things to their fellow man they would normally not allow. This movie is very well thought out, but is very, very disturbing.

The Big Lebowski

I really didn’t like this movie as much as everyone else did. I thought the story was OK. I though there were some kind of funny catch phrases. Maybe people talked it up too much. I LOVE the John Goodman character. He was totally outrageous in what was for me an OK movie.

Vantage Point

This movie shows a presidential assassination attempt from the point of view of several different people. Conceptually this movie is amazing. It illustrates that fact that the same thing can look very different to different people. It also reminds us that there are very few times in our life when we have all of the facts.

Seven Samurai

This was an amazing movie. It was three hours long and the pace was pretty slow, but I just didn’t mind. This is about a village that is being pillage by gangs so they hire seven samurai to protect them. The characters are well developed. A very simple story, but you are totally engaged for 3 hours. This movie is magical because it should not work. The story is too simple, the pace is too slow, and the length is too long but it JUST DOES NOT MATTER. This is just a FANTASTIC movie.

Raging Bull

This is the story of a boxer in the 1940s and his life. Joe Pesci and Robert DeNiro are great. I have to admit I am extremely negatively biased against this era in America. The attitudes toward women, not to mention the physical abuse, is disquieting. This is still a very good movie.

300

This movie was good, not great for me. I LOVE the way it was shot. I am a big fan of history and historical fiction. I thought the acting was over the top and maybe ruined it for me. This was still a good movie, but not great.

Sophie Scholl

This is a foreign film about Sophie Scholl, a German woman who was executed for publishing and distributing anti-Nazi leaflets during the Second World War. Every time I see movies like this I have to admit I was wrong about something. As a child in high school I always blamed the German people for letting the Holocaust happen. I thought as a child that the German people turned a blind eye to the suffering and injustice done to their neighbors so that their own lives could be better. As I grew up I realized that that perception is not reality. I think a more accurate picture is that there are some people that fully supported Hitler, there were some people who didn’t care either way, there were some people who maybe hated what the Nazi’s were doing, but were afraid to do anything about it. There were also people in Germany who hated what Hitler was doing to their country and gave their lives in an attempt to stop him. The story of Sophie Scholl is one of many examples of courage in a terrible situation. Stories like this reinforce a core belief that I have. It is the responsibility of everyone (not just the people being persecuted) to stand up for injustice ESPECIALLY when it doesn’t directly effect them.

Standing in the Shadows of Motown

This was a documentary about the Funk Brothers. Who are the Funk Brothers? They are the band that played in the background for all of the hits that came out of Motown. Every singer that came out of Motown like Diana Ross, Smokey Robinson, Marvin Gaye, and The Temptations had the Funk Brothers and their arrangers making and playing the American pop classics that we know and love. This is a very informative documentary. Anyone who has ever played in a band or likes Motown should watch this.

Hustle and Flow

This movie is about a pimp who tries to start a career as a rapper. I did like several aspects of this movie. Music performing and production is something that I am into. I also appreciated the struggles of someone trying to break into a music career so late in their lives.

A Streetcar Named Desire

LOVE THIS MOVE. It is dark. It is disturbing. And I loved every second of it. I really want to see the play now. It is excellent story telling. I love Marlon Brando. He is awesome in this movie. I had only ever seen an older Marlon Brando who just mumbles a lot. Stanley Kowalski 1950’s Brando is amazing. I see why women liked him.

The Other Boleyn Girl

I liked this movie a lot. It is about Henry VIII trying to have a son. One of the things that I cannot wrap my head around is how women have been historically devalued. This movie illustrates many aspects of this. It is very well made and completely engaging. There are also good acting performances by all the principles.

Sin City

I liked this movie a lot more than 300. In addition to the way it was shot, I love the story. I love the pace of the movie. I love the story telling.

On the Waterfront

Love this movie. While all of the attention is on the Brando character, I love the priest character in this movie. Karl Malden is quickly becoming one of my favorite actors.

Flow: For the Love of Water

This documentary illustrates the challenges of supplying water to a growing population. It also shows what happens when corporate interests come in conflict with the ability of people to get what they need to survive.

Once

This is a simple story of struggling musicians. A great movie. A great soundtrack.

Citizen Kane

This is the story of a publisher and his life. I like this movie a lot. This movie is rated by some experts as the best movie ever made. I don’t know about that, but I did like it a lot.

Psycho

I am a huge Hitchcock fan. I have seen A LOT of Hitchcock movies. One of my goals is to see all of his movies. Some of them are very hard to find. I have seen a lot his obscure movies, but had never seen this one. Anthony Perkins is creepy-amazing. The subject matter is extremely racy for 1960. A Hitchcock classic, not as good as “Dial M for Murder” or “The Man That Knew to Much,” but still great.

Roman Holiday

I have loved Audrey Hepburn ever since I saw Breakfast at Tiffany’s. I loved her in this movie as well. This is about a princess who runs away from the palace and her responsibilities to have fun. There are times in our lives when we just want to get away for a weekend. I am also a Gregory Peck fan and he is great in this movie as well.

Dr. Strangelove

This movie is amazing. It is a very satirical comedy about the Cold War and the absurdity of mutually assured destruction; a concept that dominated our foreign policy for the greater part of 25 years. This movie was thought provoking and funny at the same time.

Godfather II

This was a very well done movie. It is a parallel telling of 2 generations of the Corleone family. The story telling is very well done. The directing is awesome: The director has to capture New York at the turn of the century, Las Vegas in the 1950s, as well as Havana and Italy. This is a great tale of immigrant struggle, family and community. It almost makes you forget that THEY ARE IN THE MAFIA AND THEY ARE KILLING PEOPLE!!! In addition to the phenomenal direction and storytelling there are some great acting performances.

Gone With the Wind

This is the 3 hour 50 minute American classic about the aristocratic southern way of life and how it is changed during and after the Civil War. It centers on the life and the love life of Scarlett O’Hara. I found absolutely NOTHING romantic about this movie. The role that women play in 1860s America is just nauseating. What people expected of women and what women were suppose to want just numbs my mind. The romanticizing of slavery and the role that individuals were supposed to assume in this orderly society is also hard to come to grips with. This is a wonderful example about how you can dislike the picture being painted but admire the skill of the artist. I really appreciate the movie making that went into this movie. I love Rhett Butler, maybe the coolest scoundrel ever.

As I compiled this list there were several movies that did not fit in my 25 day window. I am going to do this again. I am already formulating a new list of movies that I have not seen yet. If you want to recommend a movie please, post it in the comments. Some of the ideas for this festival were recommendations from people I know. As of now, the Philadelphia Film Fest is scheduled to be back next year. It is regrettable that in this economic recession, things like art, dance, music and literature seem to loose support at a time when they are so badly needed.

TAKE THE SURVEY AND POST COMMENTS!!!

Married to the MOB

Last week the health care reform act was signed into law. This act had been the center of one of the most intense debates in recent times. There were several troubling incidents that occurred before and after the vote. Congressman Emanuel Cleaver was spit on. Several other minorities including congressmen John Lewis found themselves the victims of racial slurs. Senator Barney Frank was verbally abused due to his sexual orientation. After the health care vote, several offices of Democratic legislators were vandalized. Many congressmen, such as Bart Stupak received threatening phone calls. Republican representatives John Boehner and Eric Cantor were very quick to denounce these acts. Although I think they were right to denounce these actions, I think they were too little and may have been too late.

For the better part of the last eight years, I have watched the Republican Party use fear as a political tool. This fear became more pronounced during the 2008 presidential campaign. Sarah Palin used fear of Muslims to try to win votes. She tried to paint her opponent as an outsider. She tried to take the racism that this country was founded on and use it as a political tool to get votes. At the Republican convention, I watched speech after speech of people belittling education and community service. This anger and contempt gave rise to the tea party movement that claims to be a party concerned with the political direction of the country.

I don’t believe that all Republicans are racists. I think there are many legitimate policy debates that we should be having. I do think that many of them have used racism as a tool. My issue is that I have watched the Republican leadership cater to the fringe elements of their party to get votes. Even on the day health care was passed, several congressmen were seen waving a flag that symbolizes revolution to encourage the same crowed of protestors who would later be spitting on congressmen. They were encouraging the very ranks of the people who would perform drastic actions that they would later denounce. The Republican leadership fans the flames of hatred and then when it gets out of hand, they say they are appalled by the actions of the few and claim that they have no responsibility. They can’t try to use hate to get an advantage and then turn around and say they had nothing to do with it when someone gets hurt.

The other sentiment that the Republicans are cultivating is the idea that if they don’t get what they want, it is all of a sudden time to have a revolution. I contend that during the past 200 years of our country’s history we have had lots of disagreements. We didn’t have a revolution or a civil war every time there was a disagreement. What usually happens is once a decision is made we all move forward as Americans. We put aside our differences and do what we can to make it work. Instead of doing that, the Republican Party has decided just the opposite. They have decided that they are going to obstruct and even DISMANTLE the government. This idea may be coming from the fringe, but it is being supported by the main stream elements of the party. The governor of the state of Texas was talking about succeeding from the union. The Republican governor of the second biggest state in our union was entertaining talk of succession in an attempt to gain votes from the right wing fringe of his party.

In 2000, Al Gore lost a very controversial election. Did he stand up and try to secede from the union? He recognized that this thing called America is bigger than any political party. He conceded the race to George Bush in accordance with the Supreme Court decision. I had to watch George Bush wreck this country for the last 8 years and I didn’t want to secede from the union. For eight years I watched Dick Cheney and that group of nuts trash the very principles this country was founded on. I accepted that in a democracy sometimes my team looses an election. That does not mean I want to destroy the country. It means I have to peaceably persuade those around me to vote my way next time. I wish the Republican leadership would show the same respect for our history.

The Democratic Party also has a crazy left wing fringe. There will always be people who go to political extremes. The problem I have with the Republicans is how they are dealing with it. A perfect example took place during the 2008 elections. In the early part of 2008, the left wing fringe said that John McCain was not an American because he was born in Panama. He was born in Panama on a navy base while his father was in the armed forces. When the left wing nuts brought this fact up, Barak Obama, Hilary Clinton, and John Edwards all said “Of course John McCain is an American, this isn’t relevant and we are going to debate the real issues that this county is facing.” The Republican response to Obama’s origins is something very different. The Republican leadership gives ambiguous answers about Obama’s “certificate of live birth” to appease the right wing nuts in their party.

The Republicans cannot have it both ways. If they want to stoke the more radical elements of their party then they have to accept responsibility when things get out of control. All Mitch McConnell has to do is stand up and say “BARAK OBAMA WAS BORN IN AMERICA. I HAVE SEEN HIS BIRTH CERTIFICATE. HE WAS BORN IN HAWAII. The leaders of this major political party could say “We may have political disagreements but Obama is probably not a Kenyan Marxist Communist and the Democrats probably aren’t the Nazis”. The truth is that the Republicans have not said that because they are trying to get votes. We had congressional elections and the people in office are the elected representatives. The majority of people in their states put them there. We have been a country for 200 years because of the rule of law. We are not some developing nation that fights a civil war every time a new king takes power.

My argument is not with the fringes of the Republican Party, such as the tea party movement. We live in a country where people are free to voice their political opinion no matter how weird those views may seem to others. We live in a place where people have the right to assemble and petition the government. Some of my own political ideas are on the fringe (like the Federal Reserve stealing our money, we are running out of oil and Cheney should be investigated for war crimes just to name a few). The ideas that are being voiced in this debate are being supported by the leaders of the party. Sarah Palin was the vice presidential candidate of one of this country’s major political parties. These are not a bunch of crazy fringe nuts. These are the so-called leaders of a political party who have disrupted our civil discourse, encouraged the worst parts of our national consciousness, and then want to have no responsibility for the repercussions of these actions. The Republican establishment cannot not have it both ways. They can either be a political party with a dissenting viewpoint who works within the framework of our system to advance an agenda, or they can be a mob.

In my opinion, the Republican Party has ceased to become a political party and has become a mob. They have tied their political future to the fringes of their movement. They have married themselves to the mob. This will make them increasing more irrelevant and eventually unelectable. They will have to go so far to the right to win their primaries that they will have no chance in a general election because they will loose the middle. They continue to alienate large parts of the country. They have already alienated black people, women, Latin@s, gays and people younger than 20. If the Republican Party wants to save itself then it needs to have constructive ideas. It needs to argue their position effectively. When they lose (and they are in the minority, so it will lose at least until the next elections), they must all put aside our differences and do what is necessary to advance our country. The Republicans are behaving like a kid who is loosing a board game so they just flip the table over. They should instead realize that since they are in a democracy they will have another chance to make their case to the American people. They should think about what they stand for instead of what they don’t.

TAKE THE POLL or leave comments!!!

Pulp OBAMA!!!

“You ain’t got no problem, Jules. I’m on the MUTHA’ FU#$%R. Go back in there and chill them nigg!@#s out and wait for the wolf, which will be comin’ directly.”

That line was from the movie Pulp Fiction and was spoken by the character Marcellus Wallace. In the midst of a stressful situation, a frantic Jules calls his boss Marcellus Wallace and demands that Mr. Wallace take action to get him out of the mess he is in. The calm and cool collected boss with a few choice words reassures him that he is taking steps to fix the problem.

As I watched the political news cycle unfold in recent weeks, I see several comparisons between the situation in the movie and the political scene in Washington, DC.


The Crisis

There are several things that happened this year that have caused some people to perceive a crisis. In the 2008 elections, the Democrats won sweeping majorities. Early in 2009, the Democratic congress passed a stimulus package that despite much opposition. There was a bailout of the Auto Industry that no one liked, but most think had to be done. There was a heated debate regarding healthcare – one of the Democratic Party’s major agenda items. There were 2 governor elections that the Democrats lost. And the final straw seemed to be the election of Scott Brown in Massachusetts after the death of Ted Kennedy. Most Democrats started freakin' the heck out. This was akin to a frantic Jules calling Marsellus Wallace and freaking out. He wanted a solution to his problem, he wanted his boss to appreciate his dilemma, and he wanted assurances that things were going to work out.

To add to this, there were many people in the Democratic Party who have been critical of the administration. Some claimed that Obama was not moving fast enough. Some said he was not delivering the change he promised. Some claimed that he was not doing enough. Some felt that if he didn’t move more to the left that he would alienate the very people that put him in office. It seemed that the change we could believe in was coming apart at the seams.


The Response

A response to all this came at the State of the Union Address. Obama gave what many political experts call one of the best speeches of his political career. He reiterated his agenda with an optimism that had been lost in recent months. He provided a historical context, and reminded viewers that the reasons we are in the pickle we are in now have more to do with the previous administration than the last year. It was political mastery completely putting his opponents on the defensive.

About a week later he did something even more impressive. He went on live television in a room full of his political enemies and had a debate. This was the best setting for the Republicans – he was out numbered and the debate was at a time of their choosing. He then proceeded to make them look like idiots on national television. He deflected their rhetoric with well thought out answers that were completely sensible and completely improvised. He then used the opportunity to debunk much of the political mythology.

The final part of this response was to debate his most controversial legislation on live television. The “Health Care Summit” was a forum in which Democratic and Republican law makers sat down with the president for SIX HOURS on national TV to debate health care reform. Once again, Obama shined, taking maybe the most complex political issue of our time and arguing specific points of such a complex issue.


The Wolf

I think this was Obama’s finest two months in office for several reasons. The first reason is the nature of the response. Obama won by a decisive majority. The Democrats won the Senate and the House in the last election. I believe the Democrats underestimated their position. America made a choice. In 2008, the American people were presented with two different directions to take the country. The majority of people chose Obama and the Democrats. The last few months were the first time I felt the Democrats were governing from this position. It is time for the Democrats to do what they were elected to do. I think they waited a year too long before they started governing. I hope it was not too late.

The two live debates were truly significant. To go on live TV and to debate an issue as complex as health care would be impressive in itself. To handle every single question without batting an eye is amazing. I am trying to picture George Bush going on national TV and debating health care with the level of competence that Obama did. To go into a room filled with your political adversaries and be the smartest person in the room is amazing. I think this will completely change what we expect of a president. In this YouTube and Podcast streaming society that we live in, we are going to expect every president to be able to do this. I think he has raised the bar for everyone that comes after him.

I am going to make a statement that may be pretty crazy when you consider that Obama has been in office for a little more than a year. Obama is the greatest politician of our generation. Whether you agree with Obama’s policies or not. Whether you think he is an American citizen or not. Whether you think he is a communist or not. Whether or not you think he is has been propped up by the American media. Obama is the greatest politician since FDR; maybe the greatest politician in American history. Even if you disagree with his policies (and I disagree with some of them), I hope that you can appreciate what you are witnessing. I am not saying that this is a good thing. Being good at politics is a means and not and end. The ends are to be debated, but the political means by which Obama is proceeding are nothing short of spectacular.

Obama is much like The Wolf (Harvey Keitel) character in Pulp Fiction. He walks into the room completely in control of the situation, completely informed and completely in charge. He instructs all the people in the room to get the job done. He recognizes the urgency of the situation and motivates the major players to take action. He takes on the problems of the situation one by one, but keeps in mind the over all goal. Whether he gets the job done remains to be seen, but the way he deals with the politics is like watching MJ play basketball.


I guess that makes me Marsellus Wallace. The Democrats just need to chill out. Yes Scott Brown is a Senator. Yes the Democrats have lost 2 governorships in the last 2 elections. Every night Glenn Beck finds a new conspiracy theory and Sean Hannity complains about loosing his country. Sarah Palin’s book is selling like hotcakes. The tea party movement is getting louder and angrier. CHILL THE FREAK OUT!!!!!! The Democrats will loose seats, but we will still have a majority. Two years from now unemployment may be under 10%. When that happens, the Republicans will still be the party that voted against the stimulus. They will still be the party of “NO”. The angry hoards will not burn down Washington. Just chill out and wait for The Wolf who will be coming directly!

Imagination

On Sunday the Academy Awards winners will be announced. This is one of the few award shows that I actually watch. I watch the Toni awards because I LOVE musicals and if I am going to pay 80 bucks for show I want to know something about it. I watch the Grammys but I only watch the performances. I don’t watch who actually won. I do watch the Oscars every year. I don’t watch the Red Carpet or Barbara Walters or all that other non-sense. I could care less about who is wearing what. I just like movies and I see a lot of them. This year I saw everything nominated in a major category plus all of the short films that were nominated. The big change in the format was increasing the list of best picture nominees from 5 to 10. I was fortunate enough (or crazy enough) to see all of the nominees. Here is what I thought of the movies nominated for best picture this year. I will also mention what films I think should win in the other categories.

NOTE: I am not going to discuss specific plot details of these movies but I am going to give you my conclusions so read at your own risk. I wouldn’t want to ruin anyone’s element of surprise.


District 9

Lots of people HATED this movie. Honestly I can see why they did. It is a very slow pace especially in the beginning. On the surface in look likes a sci-fi movie with ugly aliens and unflattering scenery. The handheld camera documentary look is also uncomfortable to some people. This movie also does not have any "A" list movie stars. The actors in this film to must American s are unfamiliar at best. Once you get passed all that, this movie was really good. First, the actual movie making was spectacular. It does not get the credit I think it deserves because the technology is so subtle. The effects are so well blended into the movie that you may not even notice them at first. The fact that you just accept what you are seeing as real is the triumph of the visual part of this movie. The story is very interesting. It is suppose to be a parallel of South Africa during the Apartheid government. One of the best things about science fiction is that it can use alien races and sci-fi tech stuff to make you consider the other side of an equation. This movie does that very well. If you are not thinking carefully you could find yourself rooting for the good guys I, I mean the bad guys.


Up

I am a big fan of Pixar. I am big fan of their creativity as well as their technical innovation. I do not think I have seen a bad Pixar movie. “Up” is the story of an old man who takes a trip to South America. It is a typical Disney story where he meets many cute friends and talking dogs along the way. There were 2 aspects of this story that I found very interesting. The first is how this movie deals with the idea of regret. What we want to accomplish when we are kids vs. our adult expectations are very often different. How reconcile those differences is important. It is often difficult but worthwhile to realize what we have actually accomplished vs. what we have not. If one is not careful they can find themselves regretting what they did not do instead of celebrating what they have done. The other theme I found interesting was the perceptions we have as children and how they change as we move into adult hood (I AM ABOUT TO TALK ABOUT A SPECIFIC PART IN THE PLOT OF THIS MOVIE). In this movie the main character’s childhood idle turns out to be the villain of the movie. How the main character looks at the world as a child vs. what he sees as adult turn out to be very different. This also highlights how we perceive people in the media. Sometimes we do not realize that the media image of a person we see is quite different from the reality of who this person actually is. I believe this movie is one of Pixar’s better efforts.


A Serious Man

I ABSOLUTLY HATED THIS MOVIE. Sorry but I just didn’t get it. I like the Cohen brothers but this movie did nothing for me. It is the story of a sub-urban Jewish family in the 1970’s. This family has there own set of weird personalities and its on set of problems. I like the situations that the characters find them selves in but there is just not enough for me. I found the “chapters” and the choices to divide the story telling effort not worth the time I needed to invest in the movie. The prologue of the movie had no tie in or if it did I missed it. At the end of the movie I was left with the feeling “What did I just do for the last two hours?” I can appreciate the moving making skill of this movie but not the actual movie.


The Blind Side

I read this book a few years ago. Michael Lewis is one of my favorite sports authors. I would suggest that every football fan should read "Everybody’s All Americans" by Sally Jenkins and "The Blind Side" by Michael Lewis. The Blind Side is a football strategy book about the evolution of the Left tackle position. More accurately it is about how changes in offensive and defensive strategy have impacted the left tackle making it one of the highest paid positions in sports. The author uses the Michael Oher back-story as a framing for this strategic analysis. The movie itself focuses on the Tuohy family and Michael Oher a homeless kid who is given a chance to excel at football. I was saddened when I think of the potential that we will never have a chance to see developed because I believe there are many gifted people who will never get the opportunity to succeed at something. This movie and this story are an example of what can be accomplished when some people are simply given a chance.


An Education

I liked this movie a lot. I love the acting. I love the pace of this movie. While the story was very, very, creepy I was still completely sucked into it. Having said that, this movie pissed me off more than any other movie this year!!! This movie is about an older man who has an affair with a 16 year old girl. The thing that pissed me off was not this relationship (although it was very very VERY creepy) but the views expressed about women in general specifically the idea of education in the lives of women in 1960s England. The main character in the movie is confronted with the question “Why should I work to go to Oxford if in the end I am just going to be a housewife or teach kindergarten”. The role that women were expected to play in the 1950s-and 60s to me is absolutely revolting. I like to believe that we have come much farther than that. I believe that there is much more work to be done in the feminist arena as long as Women are 50% of the population and 66% of the workforce yet they own ONE PERCENT OF THE WORLD’S ASSETS. As long as that statistic is accurate out entire society is doing us a disservice. Some would argue that there are biological reasons for this reality. I would contend that we will never really know as long as there are economic and education inequalities that are infused in the fabric of our society. I believe that education is essential for any individual to have a chance at upward mobility.


Up In the Air

I really liked this movie. I am not really a George Clooney fan. To me he will always be the goofy stock boy with the long hair on “The Facts of Life”. I was not expecting to like this movie as much as I did. The main character in this movie is a man whose job is to go around the country and fire people. In this movie, when a big firm has to lay off a bunch of people they hire George Clooney to “drop the hammer” on their employees that they are planning to layoff. The subplot of this movie also deals with the characters personal life. It raises questions about the role that our jobs play in our lives and asks the question “How much do we sacrifice for our jobs?” What are the ramifications when we sacrifice our relationships for material possessions? One cannot question the timeliness of this movie. If this movie were made 10 years ago it would not be nearly as effective. It also very possible that that this movie was more effective to me because of what stage I am in my life. I am not sure if I would be as moved by this movie if I saw it 10 years ago or 10 years from now.


Precious

This was by far one of the most disturbing movies I have ever seen. It tells the story of an inner city teen named Precious and the many things that happen in her young life. I do not believe this movie is typical of the inner city. I do believe that this movie highlights the many challenges that people in the inner city face. I believe that the success or failure of a person is ultimately determined by the individual. I do not think it is helpful to blame others for the problems in your life. I do think that we must acknowledge that there are people who are born into circumstances (through no fault of their own) that can effect there life outcomes. I think that we must realize that there are people that are born into circumstances that will make it harder to succeed. There are several barriers that are put up that can block the path of an individual to success. I believe that we as a society must do a better job of realizing these barriers exist and must work to remove the machinery that creates these barriers.


Inglorious Basterds

Quentin Tarantino is one of my favorite story tellers. Reservoir Dogs is one of the best movies ever. The Movie Inglorious Basterds is Quentin Tarantino’s latest film.
This movie was a great blend of suspense, humor, and gratuitous violence. The core of this movie plays on our desire to see wrongs righted and to see a happy ending. This movie takes place in occupied France during the Second World War. It is a great historical juxtaposition of the Native American Apache Resistance and the Nazi Campaign in France. The movie is centered on an American Commando Unit charged with performing paramilitary action and eventually takes part in a plot to assassinate Adolf Hitler. This movie blurs the line between heroes and terrorist while the humor and violence can make you question your own sanity for liking it.


The Hurt Locker

This movie was at the Philadelphia film fest last year. It tells the story of a U.S. Army unit in Iraq charged with diffusing bombs. On the news, we hear statistics of people who died in the Iraqi theater. Many times the small number of casualties may seem acceptable to us until you consider that each one of those people is an individual. Each one of those numbers is a person with a family and a life to put on hold to do a very dangerous job. This movie shows how people cope in a very dangerous situation. It also portrays the human side of these events as well as being a good action movie that will make your heart race in places.


Avatar

I thought this was the best film of the year. This movie could completely change my expectations for science fiction movies. I now want to see every science fiction movie in 3D IMAX. The technological leap in movie making is also pretty remarkable. The fact that 2 Sci-fi movies were nominated for best picture made my little geek heart happy. This movie looks amazing. I think the story is just as impressive as the actual movie making. I love movies that put my position on the wrong side of the movie. When you consider the role that America has had in the destruction of indigenous populations as well as the way we have exploited resources it makes the message of this movie very powerful. I do not believe it is intended as a guilt trip but I think it makes us ask some very important questions about what it means to be American. It makes us ask what level of exploitation is acceptable to support our lifestyle. I am not going to ride a bike to work or get rid of my cell phone but I have to think about the consequences of that choice. Do we have a responsibility as Americans to use some (not all) of the wealth that this country has taken from others to make the world a better place? This move finds a clever way to do this while making you look at 10 foot tall blue people and glow in the dark trees.


In a 2008 Harvard Commencement speech, the author J.K. Rolling defined imagination. She said “It the power that enables us to empathize with humans whose experiences we have never shared.” Perhaps that is the biggest power the movies have. I have never lived under Apartheid. I have never been homeless. I have never been told education is a worthless endeavor because I am female. I have never had to diffuse a bomb while under sniper fire. The ability to make a person think about someone else’s point of view if only for a few hours is a worthwhile endeavor. This is only the first part of the power of movies. There is also the possibility of movies like other art forms can not only allow us to empathize but to prompt us to take action. The informative power of movies when coupled with their entertainment value can be something very special and will probably keep me going to the theater for a very long time.

These are my picks. They are who I think should win. I have gotten more picks “right” than “wrong” only one time in the last three years.

Best Picture – Avatar
Best Actor – Morgan Freeman – Invictus
Best Actress – Carey Mulligan – An Education
Best Supporting Actor – Christopher Plummer – The Last Station
Best Supporting Actress – Anna Kendrick – Up In the Air
Best Director – James Cameron – Avatar
Best Original Screenplay – Inglorious Basterds
Best Adapted Screenplay – Up In the Air

On another note the animated shorts this year were all AMAZING. They are usually released on DVD. I highly recommend trying to find them. I think the best of these is called Logorama.