For What It's Worth

Last night, before going to see the midnight showing of Indiana Jones, I went to Barnes and Noble and decided to pick up some new books in hopes of stimulating my reading efforts. (read: I payed too much for books that were impulse buys.) The purchased comprised The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich, T. E. Lawrence's Seven Pillars of Wisdom, and a Winston Churchill biography. I seem to be going through a phase of interest in history.

Speaking of history, we're in a time of changing history. I read today that the price of oil has hit $135 per barrel. This translates to a gasoline price in Blacksburg of $3.89 per gallon. I hear that prices in the rest of the country are higher, which is not surprising, since this is a mountain town. Most people in the country are freaking out, surely buying nylon stockings and Eggo waffles for the coming apocalypse. Those who are seeking election are making sure that you know their detailed plans for lowering the cost of filling up your tank once they take office.

Actually, this is just our cheap living catching up with us. It would have been nice if it didn't catch up so quickly - quadrupling in cost over the past five years - but it's actually still relatively cheap. Back in 1922, a gallon of gas cost $3.11 per gallon, if you adjust the value of the dollar back then to match that of today's dollar. But compare the cost of gas to the cost of petrol. Europeans (at least those in the UK) are paying $5.79 per gallon. Honestly, we're paying exactly what gasoline is worth, finally. We may even still be underpaying.
 The bottom line is, high gas prices are here to stay. I foresee one of two possibilities to deal with it...

For about two years, I've held the belief that the infrastructure in this country is totally fucked. Highway motorists consume 83% of all energy used for transportation in the U.S. (Source). Meanwhile, Europeans - who enjoy a better infrastructure with (a) more public transportation in general, (b) an effective train system, and (c) a friendly and forgiving attitude toward bicycling - use an average of only 17% of the gasoline that we use per capita (Source).

Therefore, the first possibility of dealing with high gas prices is to invest heavily in a reinvention of the nation's infrastructure. Similar to what Eisenhower did with the Interstate Highway System, only not assuming an infinite gas supply and not partially motivated by fear of the Reds. I'm moving to Pennsylvania in less than two weeks, and it's absurd that the only feasible way to so do is to drive. Why the hell were we so quick to abandon our railway system the moment the automobile came along?

The second and more likely scenario is the development of an electric car. Tesla is already making them, albeit at $100,000 a pop. Given the efficiency of gasoline engines and the cost of electricity, I'm guessing that charging up an electric car would cost a quarter of the equivalent gasoline requirement. That was a number I got one night as I was messing around with different figures. I wish I had written it down, come to think of it. But why is this the more likely scenario? It supports the good old capitalist drive for success via the introduction of a new invention. Revamping the nation's infrastructure would cost a fortune, and it would be virtually impossible for anyone to convince our leaders that it would be worth it.

Anyway, that's enough complaining and prophecy for one night. Time to study the story of Churchill, hero to future statesmen and drunks alike. (That reminds me - the "statesmen" bit, not the "drunks" bit - best wishes for Senator Kennedy and his newly revealed ailment. I hope he can pull through.)

Imagine That

I typically don't usually take the time to form many opinions that are relevant to hot debate topics. They usually take a significant amount of time to research in order to defend properly. The best example would be the pro-life vs. pro-choice debate. I could lean one way or another (for the record, I lean pro-choice) but I could not do the debate any real justice, as about 95% of my reason to take a position is based on intuition alone. There are other people who know more about human pregnancy, so let them fight it out. But the one issue that gets on my nerves more than anything else is the clash between evolution and intelligent design/creationism.

If you're unfamiliar with the two positions, let me attempt to summarize them for you. Evolution is the theory, held by people who can examine evidence and think for themselves, that the current population of world organisms developed as a result of a long series of genetic mutations among various species, resulting in the flourishing of organisms possessing the traits most suitable for survival in their given environment. Creationism is the belief that a supernatural God, who only favors white fundamentalist Christians, created the world and all of its species, and in a mere six days according to available research publications. Upon realizing that the scientific community was very likely to deem this theory "complete and utter horseshit," proponents of this theory altered it to be called "intelligent design," which only removes the word "creation," simply states that nature is too complex to have come about as a result of anything less than the guidance of the supernatural. (In short, nature is supernatural. Yeah, chew on that statement.)

One of the most famous supporters of the intelligent design non-scientific theory is Ben Stein, the man we can all thank (read: blame) for the career of Jimmy Kimmel. You have probably heard of his movie, Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed. It's one of the worst crimes against humanity, as its poster image features Stein in an Angus Young schoolboy outfit.

I mention this movie a month after its release date because of recent lawsuit news that I just discovered here. Yoko and the Lennons are suing the makers of the film over their use of a clip from John Lennon's "Imagine." The film apparently criticizes the content of the song as being anti-religious. There's a whole bunch of "fair use" vs. licensing semantics that are yet to be ironed out by the judge. I have a number of points to bring up:

1. You never criticize John Lennon. He was a genius and everything he ever touched was golden (except for Yoko Ono).

2. This is the same man who sang the entire song "I Am The Walrus" a few years prior to the performance in question. So there's a certain threshold of seriousness that we're going to allow here.

3. What's wrong with a piece of art being anti-religious? It's a song, not a manifesto.

4. Seeing how far you religious zealots (fundamentalist Christians, Ben Stein, Tom Cruise) are willing to go to defend religion and/or inject it into the parts of our society that are necessarily secular only makes me further appreciate the fantasy of a world without religion.

In the end, I ask myself what John Lennon would say if he were here to comment. My favorite image is that Lennon, in his trademark wise-man idiom, states that his message to everyone involved with this case - even right down to little old me writing this blog entry - is the same:

"You're missing the point."

Money Laundering

"A federal appeals court ruled Tuesday that the U.S. Treasury Department is violating the law by failing to design and issue currency that is readily distinguishable to blind and visually impaired people." This information came to me today by way of CNN, which is probably the best source of news I can get that originates from this country. (If anyone knows of a better one, let me know.) I’m subscribed, however, to the BBC Global News Podcast, so at least I get some sense of what the rest of the world deems is important. Their coverage of the China earthquake and the Burmese Typhoon (yeah, remember that?) has been unparalleled. I like following the upcoming election and all, but there’s just so much Obama and McCain I can take when there are actual things happening around the world that it wouldn’t hurt to know about - like the deaths of thousands of people.

Anyway, this news about our money is no surprise to me. I remember when I was in Northern Ireland a few years ago, every bank note was different. Well, first off, every bank printed their own version of the Pound Stirling, and every singly one of those printed in Northern Ireland were not accepted in England. It’s a real bitch if you suddenly think that taking a vacation to England would be a good idea and all you have are the Northern Ireland notes. It’s like trying to bring Fleer or Topps cards to an Upper Deck table. It just doesn’t work.

But the key thing about the Pound was that every different denomination was a slightly different shape and size. I noticed this one day and asked our group’s leader, Neil, what the deal was. He simply said, "That’s so that blind people can tell the difference. We’re actually considerate over here."

So ever since then, I’ve always held the view that the U.S. Treasury department really is screwing blind people on a regular basis. I mean, Ray Charles had to be paid in singles, for crying out loud. Instead of actually designing our notes to be distinguishable by something other than sight alone, The treasury instead devoting every last ounce of effort toward making the notes impossible to counterfeit. Their latest effort has redesigned the five-dollar bill, and with great success. If you look on the back of the latest incarnation of the five (shown below), there’s a giant, purple, flamboyant-as-hell "5" in the corner. No counterfeiter on earth is secure enough in his or her sexuality to put that on their fake money. Fun fact - the denomination of the bill is also the age of the person who thought up that dumb-ass idea.



Fortunately, though, this bill should be short-lived after it has finally been discovered that the blind are being shafted by John Q. Henry Paulson. I'd like to finally see us adopt the European system of money printing - a different color and a different size for every note. But before that takes place, we're going to have to eliminate the existing regime of bills, especially the fives. I'd recommend we all buy some Upper Deck cards. I'll trade you my extra Alex Rodriguez for your Carlos Delgado.