Mr. Fox, who has said he seeks an open border, has applied constant pressure on Mr. Bush to get the guest-worker program through Congress. Mr. Bush has pledged that he will do all he can.
Now what possible “pressure” could Fox have?
March 24, 2005
Open Borders
Neal Boortz
Neal Boortz is asked, “Why do you want Terri Schiavo to die?” He answers.
I have wondered the same thing.
Why is it that those of us who believe in an afterlife are so reluctant to leave this one?
Federal Election Commission Rulemaking
Today, the FEC will meet and discuss rules regarding blogs. I’m not optimistic they grasp what they are really doing. Two letters from congressmen to the commissioners don’t provide any more sense of optimism. Platitudes.
I’m not as optimistic as the folks at Democracy Project. I don’t trust the Feds at all when they begin trying to modify existing laws with rulemaking rather than eliminating a bad law and rewriting it correctly. When have they ever done that?
At the bottom of the post at DP is a link to the proposed rule in Word format. Like any good Federal bureaucracy, the FEC proposes to make employers the high sheriffs of their rules. Just as the IRS forces employers to collect taxes for them, the FEC wants to restrict the way blogs are run such that “corporate” computers are watched for blog activity.
These folks, along with politicians, still don’t grasp the concept. They seem to view a blog in the same way as they see political leaflets–paper being copied and distributed by hand. For all the wailing and gnashing of teeth just before the last election about outsourcing, they don’t understand that I could change this blog to bunkermulligan.au and use a hosting service in Australia like some friends do. The boundaries just don’t apply in the same way. My blog is anywhere I want it to be, from any computer with an internet connection.
What Congress needs to do, and what I’ve encouraged my representatives to do, is repeal BCRA and start fresh. But Congress never does the smart thing. No law, once on the books, is ever repealed. That might make some senator who wrote it feel all bad about himself. Instead, they look to amend existing laws, no matter how flawed they are.
This is all bad policy. And we all need to make sure they understand it is also very bad politics. Nothing in this regard will improve until they feel eyes on them watching how they handle this. Politicians are already feeling insulated from repercussions becaused they’ve passed off responsibility to the FEC. We need to be sure they understand we haven’t absolved them from it.
Comments Off on Federal Election Commission Rulemaking
March 23, 2005
Comment Preview
I just upgraded this site from WP1.2 to WP1.5 and couldn’t have done it without Jerry’s help. Thanks, bud!
I also added a feature that some of you may find of interest. It is a comment live preview plug-in. It is now up and running. (You’re welcome, Bogey!)
March 22, 2005
Hydrogen Cars
Dick Morris may understand politics, but he knows nothing about physics.
In what is otherwise a good article on the things Arnold is doing as Governor of California, Morris errs…
Replacing gasoline engines with hydrogen-fuel cells would eliminate two-thirds of America’s need for oil — a demand that we could meet entirely with domestically produced oil.
Well, not exactly.
A typical automobile engine is about 25-35% efficient, which means 25-35% of the energy from fuel is converted to work. That takes into account all the power the engine must generate to push the car through the air, provide power for electricity generation, and drive such things as the air conditioner compressor. The drive train itself is only about 85% efficient. Things that will always be involved in the equation, regardless of power source.
What about these hydrogen cars? Will they reduce automotive emissions? Yes. So Morris is partially correct in that his numbers refer to the amount of energy saved in automobiles. But that hydrogen must come from somewhere. And that will require burning of oil (or coal) somewhere other than in the car’s engine.
Yes, that energy conversion process will probably be far more efficient. Maybe at 65%. But the electricity must then be transported, with attendant losses–perhaps 90% efficient. That electricity is then used to separate hydrogen and oxygen. That is only about 80% efficient. Then the hydrogen must be stored at cold temperatures and/or high pressures, and that costs more energy. And losses. Let’s be generous and say it is 95% efficient.
Then, the recombination of hydrogen and oxygen in a combustion is about 75-80%.
What do all those numbers mean? Well, if we multiply all those efficiencies we get a net efficiency of 33%, and that is being generous.
Running an automobile on hydrogen is about the same as running it on gasoline, and requires just as much fuel (oil) and generates just as many fumes, although the car itself doesn’t.
One other thing people don’t realize is that the hydrogen burning with oxygen also burns with other elements in the atmosphere. After all, air is mostly nitrogen, with some oxygen and a few other gasses–not to mention particulates in the air. Hydrogen is also a prime ingredient for all acids, such as sulphuric and nitric. As in sulfur and nitrogen being combined with hydrogen in water solution.
These are all very rough numbers found in five minutes of searching the internet. I don’t write all this to say we shouldn’t be looking at alternatives. Perhaps those efficiencies can be improved. Perhaps the extraction of hydrogen can be done in other, more efficient ways. And perhaps the storage problems (remember the Hindenburg?) can be resolved. I write all this simply because too many people will take up the cause without understanding the complexities involved.
Dick Morris is but one. And as things now stand, the reduction in oil requirements would be… well, zero.
****UPDATE****
Hud is thinking along similar lines as he talks about the ozone “hole”.