Guantanamo Bay Closed... Now What?

Two days after Barack Obama's inauguration, he signed an executive order closing the terror detention facility at  Guantanamo Bay, effective within twelve months.  Many, including Democrats and foreign government officials, applauded the decision.  But when asked question- where will the 250 or so detainees currently being held go once the detention facility closes?- the same people who cheered the closing offered no answer.

Some Republicans, rather tongue-in-cheekly (at least I hope so), suggested that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, a vocal critic of GITMO, reopen Alcatraz in her home state and prep it for the detainees.  This partisan bickering does not solve any problems, but the Republicans did raise the question none of the Democrats wanted raised in public.

Speaker Pelosi shrugged off the Republicans' suggestion, but neither the speaker, nor any other Democrat offer up any alternatives.  And why would they?  In a show of NIMBY (Not In My Back Yard) literally on a national scale, not a single one of the 535 members of Congress offered up their states or congressional districts, not even those with active prisons.  And why would they?

Any city or state that opens its facilities to these detainees will make themselves a potential future target.  And let's not forget that, while there may be some innocent detainees, others, while maybe not directly guilty in the execution of a terror attack, may be complicit in either the planning or execution of past and/or future terror attacks.  And the thing sought after by many of the guilty, is the martyr's death, not only for the rewards they believe they will receive in heaven, but also because of the outrage, the indignation, the hate for America that their 'sacrifice' would, with any luck, raise in others in their fraternity.

Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the alleged mastermind of the 9/11 attacks, and four of his co-defendants tried to enter a guilty plea on December 8, 2008- why? Are we o believe they had a change of conscience, and now wish to atone for their sins?  Please.  If you believe that, then I've got a bridge in Brooklyn for sale.  Cheap.  Make me an offer.

No, the defendants entered their guilty plea after the election of the new U.S. President, but before the inauguration.  Since the new President-Elect had already telegraphed his intentions, they schemed and entered their plea, not because they believed they were guilty, but because they were hoping to be put to death by the evil United States Government.  Why?  To try to foment outrage with other Al-Quaeda members, in the hopes of spurring them into action, to get cracking on the next wave of terrorist attacks against our country and countrymen.  

And let's face it- prison isn't exactly a safe place to be- "accidents" happen, what with all of the gangs in prison, and guards, being only human, may not actively participate in harming the detainees, but they may not do absolutely everything in their power to prevent it.

  

Remember Jeffrey Dahmer?  Inmates have their own scale of wrong, and their own punishments.  I have no doubt that a remorseless schemer like Khalid Sheikh Mohammed could (and would) say the wrong thing to the wrong people, and get himself shanked.  Even in a Supermax security prison, like Colorado's Florence Federal Supermax Penitentiary.  For the record, there was a riot at the facility as recently as April 2008, where 200 out of the approximately 500 inmates got out of control.  Its not a matter of if it will happen again, its when.  Don't think so?  Toss 200 foreign terror suspects into the mix, and you might as well throw gasoline onto a smoldering fire and expect it to not burst into flames.  Hell, if Vegas were to put an over/under on how long it'd take, I'd be tempted to put some money on it.

So, Mr. President, if we actually want to keep these detainees alive, and none of your fellow politicians is volunteering to house these detainees for fear of turning their cities and/or states into targets for potential future terrorist attacks, where are you going to ship these 250 or so detainees?

[crickets]

Well, Mr. President, perhaps you should've thought about that before you announced GITMO's closing as publicly as you did, eh?  Oh, I forgot, getting your hands dirty with little things like details isn't your thing.  You are more about the abstracts- 'hope' and 'change'- and the grand gestures.  You don't have time for little things like 'details'.

New Nuclear Power Plants- Just Say No

The last nuclear power plant built in the United States was completed in 1977, over 30 years ago.  In light of some of our recent energy challenges, there have been renewed calls for the permitting and construction of new nuclear reactors.

I like inexpensive power as much as anybody else, but I think the sheer length of the long term planning required for nuclear energy should disqualify it from future consideration.  We should instead look into true renewable, clean, nonpolluting sources of energy.  Things that are not going to cause more issues for future generations than they solve for us today. 

We as a society use a lot of power, and our usage is increasing every day.  That demand will only skyrocket if and when the environmentalists get their wish of so-called 'plug-in hybrids' and pure electric vehicles.  The environmentalists love them because they supposedly are 'zero emission vehicles'; truth be told, there are no tailpipe emissions, but that does not mean that there are no emissions... of course, I guess for the more passive environmentalists out there, if you don't see it, then there are none, right?  Wrong.

And commissioning new nuclear reactors is not the way to power this new armchair activism, this lashing out at oil companies and auto manufacturers under the pretense of environmentalism.  The long-term negative effects far outweigh the short-term gains. 

Since we started splitting the atom for power in the 1950s, radioactive waste has been building up with nowhere to go.  Generally, nuclear fuel will last three to four years in an average nuclear reactor (although the nuclear fuel in military vessels is designed to last much longer, up to 30 years by some estimates).  

At this point, the amount of spent nuclear fuel in the United States alone would fill a football stadium ten feet deep.  That's 576,000 cubic feet of highly radioactive waste (56,000 metric tons).  At current levels, without commissioning any new nuclear power plants, that number is projected to grow to 1,224,000 cubic feet by 2035 (119,000 metric tons).  What about that storage facility in Yucca Mountain, you say?  Well, current regulations will only allow a maximum of 720,000 cubic feet of radioactive waste to be stored at the Yucca Mountain facility (70,000 metric tons).  You've got to love long-term government planning.

To put those numbers in perspective, the average home in the United States, at 2,300 square feet, would be around 18,800 cubic feet.  The amount of spent nuclear fuel in temporary storage today would fill about 30 houses full of spent nuclear fuel, waste that will remain deadly for eons.

And the worst problem with this is that this waste will be radioactive for up to BILLIONS of years.  Sure, there are some radioisotopes with half lives measured in days.  Others, like Cesium 137 and Strontium 90, although being considered some of the most dangerous radioisotope byproducts of nuclear fission, have a relatively manageable half life of 30 years.  Some radioisotopes, though, have significantly longer half-lives, measuring not in the hundreds or thousands of years, but in the millions and billions of years.  

Take Uranium, for example.  Not all Uranium is used up during its operating cycle.  Some isotopes of uranium have half-lives ranging from 700 million to 4.5 BILLION years...  To put that into perspective, 700 million years ago, the only life on earth was multicellular life- simple animals wouldn't be around for another 100 million years.  And modern geologists and geophysicists estimate the earth's age at 4.54 billion years old.

It is simply not worth mortgaging a future so far out that we can hardly imagine it.  As I've said before, if we're going to spend money, let's at least spend it wisely.  That means development of solar, wind, and hydro power.  Just say no to new nuclear power plants and junk science like 'clean coal'; technologies whose downsides far outweigh the immediate short-term gain.

If we instead commit the resources to true clean renewable technologies today, the investment would allow economies of scale to kick in, a renewed focus on R&D would increase their efficiency and reliability (if Moore's Law were to come into play, renewable energy could follow a similar reduction in cost to computers over the last two decades) , and best of all, we would no longer be in the unenviable position of choosing the lesser of two evils- fossil fuel versus nuclear- for our energy production.   

The Truth About 'Clean Coal' and 'Carbon Sequestration'

Yesterday's post touched on something, and I want to revisit that and go into a little more depth, so please allow me this small indulgence today to talk about some of the junk science being tossed around these days by your representative government.

One of the line items of the The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 was $2.4 billion for carbon-capture demonstration projects, also known as 'Carbon Sequestration'. To paraphrase the late great George Carlin, the more syllables, the less bad it sounds. So let me put it another way- Carbon Sequestration is nothing more than the 21st-century version of a dump, except instead of dumping trash under a mound of dirt, we're dumping tons of CO2, delaying the inevitable as a problem for future generations to deal with.

'Carbon Sequestration' sounds so neat and clean and technical; in reality, all it is is pumping all of the bad CO2 into a spent oil well and capping it. So it never really went anywhere, its just being stored... until the day something ruptures, that is. So how is this really solving the problem? The ugly truth your government doesn't want you to know- its not.

And why do they need to spend $2.4 billion on what is basically a proof-of-concept, when our neighbors to the north are already using this technology, at EnCana's Weyburn and Midale fields? Oh, yeah, I forgot- somebody somewhere made a generous campaign donation in exchange for the no doubt lucrative contract (as a side note, EnCana is actually lobbying the Canadian government for credits for carbon dioxide they import from the U.S. and store at their sites!)...

So what, you ask, does this have to do with 'clean coal', one of the cornerstones of Obama's new energy policy ( http://my.barackobama.com/page/content/newenergy )? Nothing, really, save for the fact that they are both vaporware- they don't exist except on paper somewhere.
Now you can argue semantics with me, but basically, 'clean coal' is no different from the coal we burn today. The difference is all in how the emissions are treated. Sure, the industry may talk about different ways to prep the coal before its burned to reduce sulfur and particulates, but the end result is that the same coal is being used, and at the end of the process, it is burned releasing carbon dioxide. The 'clean' part comes in when they sequester the carbon dioxide, preventing it from entering (or stalling its release into) the environment until peak CO2 emissions subside hundreds of years from now.

Sure. Let's create the mess, then leave it for our children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children to worry about how to clean up the mess we chose to literally sweep under the rug. Sounds like excellent future planning to me.

This is not sound policy, and this is not something that should be even considered as a stepping stone to energy independence. Nuclear isn't the answer either, but I'll save that for another day.

Obama, on his website, talks about Clean Coal, among other things, creating "Millions of New Green Collar Jobs"... how many jobs, really, does every new coal-fired power plant create? The answer- in 1997, the average 300 MW coal-fired power plant had 53 employees. Just how many new power plants are you planning to build there, chief?

Why is renewable energy getting 'only' $8 billion? What, did they not contribute enough in the 2008 election?

When I relocated to Arizona, I decided to drive. Crossing from New Mexico into Arizona, I was in the middle of nowhere- no exits, no gas stations, no hotels, nothing. Then I saw a sign selling land for $200.00 an acre. I didn't think much of it at the time, because it was literally in the middle of nowhere, but lately, I've been thinking more and more about that...

How many photovoltaic panels can you squeeze into an acre of land, in the middle of nowhere, far away from anyone who would scream and yell "Not in my back yard!"?

And even with the current efficiency of around 20%, since Arizona averages 330 days of sun per year, how much power would that one acre of land generate?

And how many jobs would that create, from the highly skilled labor actually building the panels to the construction workers installing them to the utilities running the lines to hook the site up to the grid?

Wind Turbines are a subject for another thread, but there again, true renewable energy, and the things are so massive, its cost prohibitive to build them overseas and ship them here, so there are more skilled jobs that would have to go to Americans- not only the fabrication, but also the installation and the maintenance.

These are the things we should be investing in. With unemployment at a 50-year high, there are literally millions of Americans that need a job. They don't need welfare, they don't need unemployment, they don't need a handout- they need a job.

Its already a foregone conclusion that Obama is going to get his $825 billion package; if you are going to spend money we don't have, could you at least spend it wisely? Use the funding for true 'green' projects, not nostra like so-called clean coal and carbon capture/sequestration, and use the job training initiatives already in the bill to train people for these new careers.

Either that, or break out the fiddle and do your best impression of Nero, watching while this great country our Founding Fathers built burn and crumble to the ground.

There is no try. There is only do.

The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009- Not 'For The People' After All...

"We won the election. We wrote the bill."

-House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, January, 2008, regarding the House of Representatives version of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009.

"Never let a serious crisis go to waste. What I mean by that is it's an opportunity to do things you couldn't do before."

-White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel, November, 2008.

You hear that whirring noise sounding something like a high-speed drill coming out of Washington? That's Washington firing up the printing presses, getting ready to print up as much money as they can as fast as they can under the pretext of 'Economic Stimulus'. They'll print up so much money so fast, your cash won't be worth the paper its printed on.

In truth, Pelosi, Emanuel, et al can only claim about 12 CENTS out of every dollar in the roughly $825 BILLION 'Economic Stimulus Package' would actually go to create jobs and stimulate the economy- anything more, and their noses would grow so fast it would make Pinocchio blush.

What's in the 647-page bill anyway? Some of the highlights:

$40 billion for arguably worthwhile priorities like broadband and electrical grid development, airports, and clean water projects.

$30 billion for fixing bridges and other highway projects- less than 5% of the total cost. This is what President Obama calls "dramatic investments to revive our flagging economy."? This after the bridge collapse in Minneapolis in 2007, after which a report was released in 2007 showing 75,621 bridges were also given the same 'structurally deficient' label as the I-35W bridge, and promises were made to get the infrastructure improved. Well, if they were to concentrate on the bridges and nothing but the bridges, that would amount to about $396,715.00 per bridge... what will that really get you? And that does not even cover any new projects, expansion, nothing. I don't know about you, but I think I'm going to start just avoiding bridges altogether.

$20 billion for business tax cuts.

$2.4 billion for carbon-capture 'demonstration projects' (huh?), a.k.a. carbon sequestration, a.k.a. junk science that does not do anything to change behavior or reduce our use of fossil fuels.

$2 Billion in child-care subsidies.

Amtrak gets $1 Billion; I mean, hey, who cares if they haven't turned a profit in 40 years?

And additional $650 million for even more digital TV conversion coupons.

$50 Million for the National Endowment for the Arts.

By the Wall Street Journal's estimates, only about $90 billion of the total- just over ten percent- could be considered something that would contribute to growth.

And the best part- the President's new budget director, Peter Orszag, told Congress a year ago that the public works projects can't start quickly enough to provide a timely stimulus to the economy.

What else is in here?

$83 billion for the earned income credit for people who don't pay income tax.

$81 billion for Medicaid.

$66 billion or education- with verbiage to prevent the funds from being used to provide financial assistance to students to attend private schools... yeah, because we wouldn't want any of that money going to non-union employees, now would we?

$36 billion for expanded unemployment benefits.

$20 billion for food stamps.

$8 Billion for renewable energy funding... I guess its a start, but considering its less than half of the money we sent overseas for oil in December 2008 alone, it seems kind of an empty gesture to me.

$7 Billion to modernize Federal buildings and facilities.

$6 billion to mass transit. Considering how entrenched unions are in mass transit, and how much the Democratic Party courts the unions, does this smell like buying votes to anybody else?

$600 million for the Federal Government to buy new cars.

Where is the job creation in all of this?

And come next budget year, how much of this is going to be figured into the baseline? Or do you actually believe that Congress will actually cut spending on all of these programs next year?

The Speaker said it best- "We [The Democratic Party] won the election. We wrote the bill." Who cares what you want or need, or even what's best for the American people as a whole; the Democratic Party has to look out for number one- the Party itself. Change indeed. Meet the new boss, same as the old boss. The Party and the special interests get everything they want the way they want, and who's left holding the bill? Look in the mirror.

http://online.wsj.com/wsjgate?subURI=%2Farticle%2FSB123310466514522309-email.html&nonsubURI=%2Farticle_email%2FSB123310466514522309-lMyQjAxMDI5MzIzODEyMDg0Wj.html

'American Idol' Is Back... I Can Hardly Contain My Excitement...

Another season of "American Idol" is upon us... My apologies to any of you fans out there, but I've never gotten into this show, nor have I tried.  The premise has always seemed tenuous at best.  It seems to me that all ‘Idol’ does is play into some peoples’ sense of entitlement for the entertainment of the general public, and entices them with a shortcut to fame and fortune, bypassing things like hard work and perseverance; skills that anyone else prior to ‘Idol’ had to have in spades.

A friend of mine was fond of saying, “Sex is a lot like becoming a rock star, is not something you can shortcut from "novice" to "expert", and if you try, well, the results are typically less than earth-shattering.”

It may be a stretch to say that 'American Idol' is a microcosm of all that is wrong with America... but not a big one.  Its not a talent show- its a popularity contest.  Its not a SINGING contest, its a VOTING contest. And more people vote weekly in 'American Idol' than vote in elections- how sad is that?

Great, you can sing- you can cover songs from all different genres.  Congratulations- you are the best karaoke singer in the country.  I hear there's a Holiday Inn in Nebraska looking for a lounge act.  Now, some ‘winners’ like Kelly Clarkson and Carrie Underwood have broken out and had some success, but what have Ruben Studdard, Fantasia Barrino, Taylor Hicks, Jordin Sparks, or David Cook done since winning?  Hell, Taylor Hicks was dropped from the contract he won- how sad is that?

Arguably the biggest success out of that show was Oscar winner Jennifer Hudson, who didn't even win!  She came in 7th!  Sure, American Idol, may have raised her profile, but it was hard work and determination that got her where she is today.

I’m not a fan of Kelly Clarkson- I’d put her average at best, owing a lot of her success to the fact that she was the first season’s winner- nobody knew what to expect n ‘Idol’s first season, so it was new and interesting; a novelty.  Carrie Underwood is the only ‘Idol’ winner I’d consider an unqualified success, having won 29 awards since winning Season 4 in 2005.  Even with a three-year advantage on Carrie, Kelly has only been able to bring home 18 awards.

I passively rooted for Sanjaya in 2007, but not because I thought he had any talent; rather, because Simon Cowell told ‘Extra’ that had Sanjaya won, he would not have returned as a judge to the show, even though he was contractually obligated to do so.  If only he could’ve pulled off a victory, I may not be writing this today.  Alas, he was voted off, so we’ll have ‘Idol’ to look forward to for the foreseeable future.  Yay.

More so than the questionable contribution to music, though, the thing that really disturbs me about this show is that not only is this excuse for prime time ‘entertainment’ (and I use that word very loosely) still on, but that it often takes up as much as four hours out of prime time during the week.  If this keeps up, they could have their very own 'American Idol' channel- "All Idol, All The Time"...

Seriously, the fact that they stretch it into multiple days of the week in lieu of actual programming is unacceptable.  Its worse than when 'Who Wants To Be A Millionaire?' was on 2-3 nights a week... and at least ‘Millionaire’ was arguably educational.

Unfortunately, ‘Idol’ is a cash cow for Fox, so as much as I’d like it to disappear, I don't expect it to go anywhere anytime soon.

'American Idol' has held the top spot for the most expensive commercial time for the last couple of years- Fox has been getting well over $600,000.00 for every 30-second spot on the show- and that's not counting the lucrative in-show placements and endorsements (you really think that Coke cup just happens to be in damn near every shot of the judges’ table, and that the logo just happens to face the camera?).

And because of the success of 'Idol', and the general dumbing-down of America, a host of other shows in the same vein will undoubtedly continue to pop up like weeds- if you thought there was nothing past 'American Inventor', 'The Next American Band', 'America's Next Top Model', et al, just wait for the permutations that can't be far behind:

'America's Next Sports Hero'- Mark Cuban will sign the winner to one of his teams for a one-year contract.

'America's Next Soap Star'- win a one-year role on Daytime TV.

'American Poet' (for the PBS crowd)- in between the contestants will be pleas for donations.  The winner will have their poetry published in a special book... "which you can get FREE with a 12/20 pledge- $20.00 a month for twelve months... won't you help public broadcasting?..."

'Anchorman'- For all of those struggling to get a leg up in journalism, the winner gets a one-year contract as an anchor in a major market (couldn't be any worse than some out there).  Runners-up end up as field correspondents in hot spots like Dubuque, Iowa and Branson, Missouri.

Don’t think so?  Just wait until the next writer’s strike.

"We Just Have A Difference Here, And I'm President"

"We Just Have A Difference Here, And I'm President"
-President Barack Obama to Rep. Eric Cantor (R- Virginia) Friday, January 23rd, three days after his inauguration, in his first meeting with the leaders of both parties in congress.

Well so much for 'bipartisanshp' and 'reaching across the aisle'.

Obama's Chief of Staff, Rahm Emanuel, said that Mr. Obama was being lighthearted and that lawmakers of both parties had laughed.

Oh, well, okay, then, I guess that makes it okay.

Sarcasm aside, as the maxim states, "In every joke there is a little bit of truth"; that Mr. Obama would even verbalize this notion, I think, speaks more about how he intends to work with the Legislative branch now that he is President than any of his campaign rhetoric of 'change'. I guess what he meant was that YOU are going to change; since I'm the President, its my way or the highway. Thanks for clarifying that at the outset of your administration.

At the same meeting, the President also stated, "You're correct, there's a philosophical difference, but I won, so we're going to prevail on that."

Oh, boy... "I won"...? If Mr. Obama wasn't trying to be arrogant, then it must just come naturally to him.

And what discussion predicated this exchange? Mr. Obama is unwilling to cede any ground in some of the points of his $825 billion Economic Stimulus Package that he is trying to push through Congress before they recess on February 13th. Specifically, the "Making Work Pay" tax credit, which the President wants to extend to workers who earn too little to pay income taxes.

So, wait, let me get this straight- you want to give tax credits to workers who don't even pay income tax in the first place? Seriously? This makes sense to you?

Three days down, 1,457 or so to go...

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/24/us/politics/24stimulus.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=%22We%20just%20have%20a%20difference%20here,%20and%20I'm%20president%22&st=cse

Excuse me, but do you have change for a $35,000.00 bill...?

That's one big number, huh, kids? That's ten TRILLION dollars, which is the sum total, as of January 27, 2009 at 1:59:33 AM GMT of the U.S. national debt.

Assuming a U.S. population of 305,534,200, that equates to $34,794.70 for every man, woman, and child in America.

Do you have change for a $35,000.00 bill?

How about if I just give you $35,000.00, and we call it even, and you can count me out from here on out? Sounds fair to me.

And this astonishing total does not include the $840 Billion Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP)- passed against the wishes of the majority of U.S. citizens, but that's a topic for another time- nor does it include President Obama's Economic Stimulus package, which he is trying to push through Congress before they recess for President's Day on February 13th. Since the plan is not yet finalized, the total cost cannot yet be known, but estimates so far put the sum total at an additional $825 Billion, $550 Billion of which is additional spending. Together, those two amounts would easily push the total well over $11 TRILLION dollars.

The National Debt Clock in Times Square, which has been keeping the running total since 1989, maxed out in September 2008. The dollar sign ($) was removed to make room for a '1' when the debt increased from $9 Trillion to $10 Trillion. Did anyone take this as a sign that maybe we should reevaluate where decades of mismanagement has gotten us? No, we just need a new clock. Don't worry, its already in the works, and the new clock is expected to be finished in September 2009. The new clock will have room to count up to ONE QUADRILLION DOLLARS of debt. That's a one followed by FIFTEEN zeros, kids.

This has got to stop. Is it any wonder the American savings rate is the lowest since the depression, and that our debt ratios are at record high levels? Given the stellar example set by our government, its no wonder.

And the best part- since we don't have this money just lying around somewhere, and, thanks to leaders like Franklin Delano Roosevelt, we're no longer on the Gold Standard, so when the Government needs more money, they just fire up the printing presses. You can't do that, no. That's counterfeiting. But if you're the Federal Government, nobody thinks twice about it. Not until the inflation tax kicks in.

In 1950, the average cost of a new car was $1,510.00, and a new house would set you back a whopping $8,450.00.

In 1975, those average costs had risen to $4,250.00 and $42,600.00 respectively.

In 2005 (the most current year that I could find statistics for auto prices), those had skyrocketed to $27,958.00 and $297,000.00. That's inflation, folks. My last car cost me more than my parents' first home.

The more money the Federal Government prints, the less a dollar will buy. The larger the disparity between the Federal Government's income and their debts and obligations, the more the deficit grows. Now you or I would probably be looked at derisively and told to live within our means. Sure, we may take out loans but at some point, we would exhaust all of our avenues and would no longer be able to secure credit. But our representative government (and I use the term loosely) has no such limitations, and they see nothing wrong with firing up the printing presses and just churning out more money.

We need to put a stop to this now, before we put each and every one of our children and grandchildren in the position of being $3,272,956.00 in debt at birth, saddled with 60-year mortgages and 12-year auto loans just to pay for the average house and car.

See the debt clock at: http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/

iPhone App of the Week

If you're like me (you know who you are), then you've got gas receipts scribbled with the reading of the odometer or the trip odometer- perhaps both.  Maybe you even do the math and scribble your miles per gallon on that receipt.  Well, have I got the app for you.  

Well, not me, but the developers over at jamcode.  They have this nice little app saddled with the unfortunate name 'GasBag'- a name that almost made me overlook it- almost.  And I'm glad I didn't.

This little app is easy to use and intuitive.  At startup, it automatically takes you to a Google map showing the gas stations in the vicinity, as well as the price for a gallon of regular at those stations.  With one click, you can choose the station and record the purchase by selecting 'Buy gas here'.  You enter the total cost, number of gallons pumped, and the odometer reading, and you're done.

Want to know your fuel efficiency, average cost per gallon, or your fuel cost per mile?  This ingenious little app figures it all out for you, and you can look at those numbers averaged over a week, a month, a year, or all time.  You can even email a backup list to yourself!

And the best part of all- this great app is free!

One downfall is that the app is dependent on other users to update the pricing, so pricing isn't always as up to date as it could be, but that's hardly anything the developers have any control over.

Kudos, jamcode.  Good idea, good execution, great app.

Why I Have Little Sympathy For Those 'Caught' In The U.S. Housing Crisis, Part 2

Around a year ago, I wrote about a piece that I had seen on ABC, and a CNN article I had read (here's the original posting: http://www.logicpress.com/2008/02/why-i-have-little-sympathy-for-those_8003.html ). Unfortunately, it seems that too many of the wrong people still have their hands out. Like this guy: http://www.linkedin.com/pub/9/56b/890 . Scott Mintz, a Chiropractor and amateur real estate speculator featured on CNBC last week under the title 'Housing's Poster Boy'- http://www.cnbc.com/id/28776913 . Scott, don't quit your day job.

The piece is written to tug at your heartstrings, like we should feel sorry for someone who had the cash flow to go out and buy four houses (including his primary residence) and a four-plex. He is now complaining that he needs a bailout. Why? Because he's up to his eyeballs in debt. I'm not buying it.

Whatsa matter, Doc? Didn't anybody tell you that when someone extends you credit that they are going to want you to pay it back at some point? What, did you think you could simply keep refinancing to continue to take out the equity ad infinitum? If you continue to rob the coffers, the treasury will eventually dry up (unless you are the Federal Government, in which case, you can just start printing more, but that's another conversation).

So you can't pay your bills, and now you want the Federal Government to bail you out. Why? You wanted to make more money than you could with your day job, so you decided to invest in Real Estate, since you and pretty much everyone else in America has heard that real estate is a relatively low-risk investment. Sure, its not as volatile as the stock market, or going to Vegas and, as Wesley Snipes put it, "Always bet on black.", but 'low risk' does not mean 'no risk'. Someone as educated as you- a doctor with your own practice and years of experience- should know that. You took a risk, in this case the risk did not pay off, not in the short term. If you had invested in the stock market, then you might be facing a margin call. I'll be blunt- just like the Hamadanians and Rudy Diaz, who I wrote about last year, you should have known better. Did you consult with a financial planner, a money manager, or even an accountant before you set this plan into motion? I'm guessing the answer is no.

We as a country, by and large, no longer 'save for a rainy day'. Some would argue that it costs more to live in this day and age, and that a dollar just does not go as far as it once did. To the former, I say that there are people who do it. I myself do not save as much as I like to, but that is due to choices I made, so I have no one to blame but myself, and I do not try to plead my case to the Government, ABC, CNBC, or anyone else looking for something for nothing. To the latter, I would agree with that to an extent- one of the reasons behind that, though, is the same thing I alluded to above. Inflation is caused when the Federal Government keeps printing more and more money, effectively devaluing our currency. But again, that's a conversation for another time.

Mr. Mintz is hoping- pleading- to have all of his mortgages modified, to lower his principal to reflect the current value. Should this happen? Absolutely not. If the converse had happened, had the values gone up, would he be willing to let the mortgage modify to reflect the higher value? Of course not, so stop looking for a handout, for money for nothing. There is no such thing as a free lunch, there is no such thing as money for nothing. The fact that even the Mintzes, Hamadanians, and Rudy Diazes of this world are looking for a handout speaks volumes about the sense of entitlement that is ruining this country... but that, once again, is a topic for another time.

I've been purchasing stock for the past few years, and as it stands right now, the value of my portfolio is down just shy of 90%. I know I'm not alone; and while some may not have lost as much, some have lost even more. If Mr. Mintz deserves to have his mortgages modified to reflect the value of his investments today, then don't we deserve to have the same? Sure, when I bought this stock, is was a $30.00 stock, but now its only a $4.00 stock, so can I have my $26.00 back, and start from $4.00? No? Well, then you've answered your own question, sir.

Sell one or more of your investments and take the loss as a writeoff. Or get renters who will pay their rent. But don't come looking for a handout from the Federal Government- we're not a communist nation- well, not yet, at least.

Besides, the re-default rate after six months for people who have had their mortgages modified is 56%, so I think we may want to figure out a new approach to fixing this mess- a mess that the Mintzes, Hamadanians, Diazes, and their ilk- the amateur real estate speculators out there looking to make a quick buck- no doubt had a hand in getting us into in the first place.