So...

Anyone know any good Grad Schools for public policy? Specifically, in the Venn Diagram overlap where public policy hits Alternative Energy? Suggestions appreciated.

Remember: My Grades weren't that good, and my brain has been muddied after two years of not thinking academically, (and maybe drinking a little,) so we might not be talking "Top O' the Line".

<<>>

I think I found one...
http://www.columbia.edu/cu/mpaenvironment/

Real Green, Real World

I still think that the commune is viable, but after some lengthy conversations with my Father and the honorable Anthony Gonzales, (potentially not his real name) the realization might have to change somewhat.

As everyone has been pointing out, the concept thus far will cost a lot of money. Not even counting the operating costs, you’re looking at a whole bunch of money to build 5 free standing buildings. Plus, the real world applicability of a stand along cabin leaves something to be desired. Turns out, most of us don’t actually live in tiny little cabins off in the middle of nowhere.

While I accept this point, I have been loath to give up my commune in the woods type theory. But then, AG raised a very valid alternative: Wouldn’t it be better, anyway, to see if we can convert a McMansion? Quite a few people live in these large, horribly energy inefficient monstrosities, and you can find one much easier then you can find the perfect piece of land to put up the compound I was envisioning before. Plus, the suburban reality seems more applicable to many then the start from scratch builder commune. And the real kicker: at the end of the day, the house is an asset that other people might actually want. We could even sell the thing!

It’s even more like a greenhouse Real World. We have 5 or 6 people living in this house: A writer, a video man, an internet man, and a techie/builder are our crew of four, plus a few others for the sake of more help. The “others” in this category we imagine would have outside jobs, or be in school or some such, and would be living there and using energy more along the lines of an average person. They wouldn’t be in the house 24/7, and would provide a different level of context for us in comparing to your average consumer.

So, now the plan looks like this: Purchase a house, and live in it for a month or two (or three?) to get an idea of how it was operating. How much power the house used, with what results, etc. After we had a basic control point, we would start installing different energy systems. Say, Solar for a month stretch, then Wind for a month stretch, then Bio-Fuel for a month. We would set up the systems so that they could be the only things powering the house during given periods, so that for a month, we would operate with as much power as each source would provide.

After taking it through the monthly cycle a few times, we could start with the overhauling of the house in different ways, and see how much of a difference things like good insulation, smart windows and intelligent energy use made. Side projects would also be encouraged, so that by year two, one of our commuters might be driving a bio-fueled car, and we might have a greenhouse with some home-grown out back (that’s Tomatoes, for those wondering). However, these side projects should not detract from the overall message of what I hypothesize we will find: that it really doesn’t take that much effort to make your house from a drafty wreck into an energy efficient juggernaut.

The entire project would be recorded on a website, which is sort of the centerpiece of what the public sees. Daily thoughts, information on each product, results and suggestions on how to do it yourself, with many different levels of complexity (E.G: the main page is simple, but the rabbit hole goes as deep as you want to follow it). Utilization of web Video is a must.

The eventual goal is to become the single widest ranging website for everything green energy, while simultaneously making it fun, accessible, and manageable in its scope. The new and improved commune plan actually gets to the goals of the old commune even more directly, because it makes it something that a larger range of people can relate to. Plus, there are more finite goals, because it will be interesting to see if any combo of energy sources plus general work on a house can change it from the poorly constructed and energy inefficient behemoth into something completely self sufficient and possibly even capable of producing net energy gain.

Tragedy

This is a hypocritical posting.

Below, I will accuse people, in a round about way, of using the Tragedy of Virginia Tech to advance their own political agenda, and that they forget about the reality of the fact that it is a tragic event of epic epic proportions.

Then, that is what I will do (not talk about the tragedy, use it as a jumping off block, etc.)

I'll just say this: I know my friends at V-tech are safe, and a day after the fact, I am already completely besieged at my work by thoughts about the results of this event, and the things that come next. So please take that as a starting point.

Now: Working in close connection to the world of news, the fallout and discussion angles from the tragedy at Virginia Tech became clear within hours of learning about the event. My inbox was flooded with people pitching themselves as guest – About gun control, and how students could have protected themselves from this crazy man if they were packin’ heat.

Lets set aside for a moment the objections that I see as obvious to this line of thinking: Namely, that if an entire college the size of Virginia Tech were armed every day around campus, I would imagine that the constant state of “cold war” (everyone being afraid to use a gun, because others have them) would be subject to a series of violent hotspots. I know that in my college experience, I’m really glad that emotional outbursts at a drunken frat party couldn’t have involved hotheads with pistols. And what about the poor fellow who didn’t want a gun? Would he, like china in the 70’s in my cold war analogy, have to pack heat just to stay safe? (Right… I said I was setting that ASIDE)

What I was interested in was how fast this event became the subject of people agendas. The NRA was motivated and on this as a talking point in under six hours. And it wasn’t just one organization. I got six different people who were sitting around waiting for a tragedy to occur so they could pimp the importance of the second amendment, and advocate that every man, woman and child hold on to a weapon.

For me, this necessitates looking at why the 2^nd amendment is in the constitution. I think America breaks down into two types of people: the first amendmenters, who think that words and Ideas have the power to keep us “free” and the second amendmenters, who put their final faith in the power of violence to protect themselves. However, I think that people who really believe in the second amendment (and here I cite some old school Nelson County country mofo’s) dig the right to bear arms for the same reason that our founding fathers put it into the constitution: So that we could protect ourselves if push came to shove and the Government came to our houses in the night with the black masks on to oppress us and take away our rights. (In other words, when the first amendment breaks down, you got the second amendment to kick ass, right?)

Now, the first official statement from the Bush White house went something like this: “The shooting is a terrible tragedy. We pray for the families. We still support American’s right to own guns.” This is, of course, a rough paraphrase.

But here’s my question: Is Bush aware that the reason the 2^nd amendment exists (again, this is in my opinion) is to overthrow corrupt governments like his? Isn’t the whole reason for the Bill of Rights to keep those extra bits of power out of the hands of the Government? And, irony of his statements aside, how does this extend to the rights of students to defend themselves from other students?

I really don’t think that the 2^nd amendment has anything to do with us being able to defend ourselves from criminals. I just don’t think it works that way. In a society where anyone can walk into a store and come back with an assault weapon, or at the very least , something semi automatic, as this kid seams to have had, I don’t think there is any way to protect yourself. The fact of the matter is, even if those kids at Virginia Tech had been armed, the kid still would have gone crazy, and he still would have set out to hurt people. The machismo “I could have shot him first” response is the exact reason that I would never want to attend a college where everyone was armed.

A gun will always be an offensive weapon. It’s the great social equalizer. It means that no matter what happens, this kid would probably be able to kill someone, and he did it the way he did because guns were easy to get, and have somehow become an acceptable way to settle things in certain parts of our culture. It seems like an easy out to me, to say that Guns caused an incident like the tragedy on the Tech campus, but it seems like a MUCH bigger out to say that more guns could have prevented this situation.

I think we are going to keep hearing stories like the professor who thought Cho’s writing was disturbing enough to mention it to others. The lesson, as always, is that humanity could have been applied to a situation if someone had picked up on clues, and a tragedy might have been averted. But, probably not, because this kid might have just been truly crazy (like Timothy McVeigh is truly crazy. Like Osama Bin Laden is truly a sociopath) and he might have found a way to hurt people regardless.

And, lets face it. I have no idea what our founding fathers were thinking. They were some crazy bastards, and they fought duels for honor all the time. But I still think that the goal for the 2^nd amendment was not to protect yourself from some insane outlier. Those things are there so that we would have the same technology as the Government in case they came for us. Why else do you mandate something as legal in a culture in which (back in the day) everyone was armed to the teeth already? It was to protect against someone becoming a King.

Side Note, or "going back to that Aside from before": lets look at what life was like when everyone in America had a gun. There were still lawless places. Significantly more in fact. And the places where everyone has guns here (see: Cities, Inner) people are still getting killed on the regular. Might makes right, and if I know you have a gun, doesn’t that mean I just shoot you before you get a chance to get it out? I don’t think any of you (except maybe the afore mentioned Hard Core Nelson Boys) are ready for a day when the whim of the people willing to use the force behind a gun becomes the rule of law. I just don’t think you cultured sissy punks are ready to actually shoot someone before he shoots you over a traffic incident. I know for a fact that I’m not.

Now, if Bush was serious about the right to bear arms, and he wasn’t worried about the people making a play for his seat of power, he would give everyone a tank. THEN we would be safe.

Note

I also just brought over the old Live Journal from blog 1.

The Airplane Disaster

And its now published under March 1st, 2007 so as not to clog up the works of the current stuff. The thing is freaking long.

One Million little questions

The real question behind the entire commune concept rests with money. Where do you get it? Who gives it to you? How do you guarantee these mysterious backers some sort of product when its all said and done? And, most importantly, how much does it all cost?

Now, I don’t know who reads this. I used to think no one did, but then there was that incident with the ol’ job that convinced me that many people might well be stumbling their way here, so im putting it out there in two parts:

How much does it cost to put up a building? Does anyone have any actual numbers here? (Dad, I’m looking at you. Is there some magical number that a standard contractor asks for a standard square footage on a house? Can you even ballpark it without a floor plan of the different houses? What part of the cost of building is materials, and how much is design and labor?) I don’t even know what sort of assumptions I allowed to make!

Second question, once I have my imaginary number, is: from whom? How does one start going about funding a project like this? Who does one ask? Is it magazines? Government grants? If anyone out there has a clue where THEY would start looking, let me know. I’m looking, but not in the right places yet.

As I think about it now, I keep coming up with huge huge numbers for my operating budget for a few year long process. So, should I A)break it down into segments and try and get people/companies to sign on as they go? Or, B) come out with a large number and keep it in peoples heads the entire time? Crazy amount of hypothetical, really, but I’m open for suggestions on how I should proceed. Adam, want to help me mock up what buildings we would need?

Aqua Teen Hunger Force

Straight up Amazing. I was fortunate enough to go to the world premier (that's right, they called it the WORLD premier) tonight, and it was straight up absurd. My intrepid traveling companion S.D. and I were nearly overwhelmed at the red carpet, complete with a life size costumed Fry, Shake, Meatball, and ?Baby Stewie?? Once inside, we actually had to check our bags, and go through a metal detector to make sure we aren't trying to tape the show and make cash off it. Cell phones were not only turned off, they were taken from us by force. S.D. was attacked by a roving pack of animators. It was a crazy scene,

But its cool: free popcorn, and every person associated with the movie was there. As a lowly press person, I had no special treatment, and they didn't invite me to the after party, but it worked out. I absconded with a piece of memorabilia non the less.

:::SPOILER ALERT:::
(only not really, cause you can't spoil it!)
I loved this movie. It was AMAZING. The writers and animators did a great job, even down to the "please be polite and don't litter in the aisles" opening song. Spectacular. However, I would not recommend the movie to those who have not watched the show. Cause that's all it is. One larger, longer, version of the show. I confess that going in I was concerned, because the traditional show really can't hold a plot line for more then ten minutes, and even then they kill three of the characters per episode. But I needn't have worried. They didn't even try for a feature length storyline! You probably have 15-20 minutes of "plot" all movie long. There are enough flashbacks, false stories, and odd time travels that the whole movie played like a well conceived episode of the TV show.

The movie attempts to explain where our hero's came from: Why IS there a giant shake, fries and a meatball? and what the HELL do all of those opening and closing scene's really mean?
Well, those questions really aren't answered. I really do feel like the movie is a big F-U to the world of movie watchers. In joke after in joke. Stupid punch line after stupid punch line. And, of course, I have never laughed harder.

Adam, your going to freaking love it.

Really amazing stuff out of our Fearless Prez Leader today. After the Supreme court ruled that the EPA has to do their job, the New York Times is reporting that Bush remains un phased:

A day after the Supreme Court ruled that the federal government had the authority to regulate heat-trapping gases, President Bush said he thought that the measures he had taken so far were sufficient.

Why, might you ask? Well, our Fearless Leader is employing the tactics usually reserved for 8 year olds who don’t want to do something. "but Moooooommm, Justin doesn’t have to help set the table! Why do I?" He is taking his cues directly from China, insisting that they be the ones to regulate themselves before he is willing to go along with any sort of emissions standards.

“Whatever we do,” he said, “must be in concert with what happens internationally.” He added, “Unless there is an accord with China, China will produce greenhouse gases that will offset anything we do in a brief period of time.”

Amazing. You know, M. Bush, China also has a pretty terrible human rights record. Why do WE have to stop abusing our people? they still get to, and in the long run, why does it matter that we don’t? Oh, wait. I remember. Because that’s the stupidest, most childish thing that the leader of the free world could possibly say. YOUR the LEADER of the FREE WORLD. Start acting like it, and step up and take a leadership position! Sure, its true that on a global scale, China has the ability to hurt global warming a lot going forward. But you don't think our complaints about their pollution might come from a slightly stronger standpoint if we were not in the bottom half ourselves?

For the love of God, M. Bush. And I understand you love him. This is what a lobbyist from the COAL MINING INDUSTRY had to say in the same New York Times article. This, remember, is the dirtiest form of energy production out there:

“It’s incumbent on everyone to roll their sleeves up, if they haven’t already, to deal seriously with this problem,” said Luke Popovich of the National Mining Association, the trade group for the coal mine operators who will be at the center of the lobbying. “If pain concentrates the mind, there will be more concentration on the issue now.”

Good Show team. Good Show

Some thoughts on a commune, specific and global:

Will the idea of the commune experiment actually be applicable to others as a model? A few people have suggested that the whole difficulty of the Green-izing of America is that the differences in situations make any one example moot. Here is why I don’t think this will be true:

At any given point, I (a relatively motivated, yet occasionally overwhelmed individual with something of an eco-conscience) feel completely lost about what alternative energy sources are useful, how much each one provides under what conditions, etc. I think that a study in one environmental condition can really put all the claims that green energy make into the light of personal experience. This doesn’t mean that anything can be said for sure about other situations and conditions, but it does mean that a final study or book we create can be used as an anchor in an otherwise complicated and unknown world. The claims of people selling solar power or wind power vary dramatically depending on who is doing the talking. What I don’t know, and want to know, is a range: How much work, how much energy results, how does it actually change over the course of the year, etc. Sure, our experiment is not going to answer all these questions, but it can act as a blue print for other people, and give them a range with which to experiment themselves, as well as some troubleshooting help to figure things out along the way.

Its easy to say, but I think any data we can create would be possible to extrapolate to other situations. We should hash out as much as possible the specific conditions that we are dealing with where ever our commune ends up, and you can use that to make a guess for yourself down the road. Our wind chart says X, yours says Y, but they are close together on the overall range. Our solar house was dealing with an average temperature of 42 degrees over the course of the spring, your house deals with 35 degrees, but you know how much energy we used for heat so you can factor in a larger number. There would be a Margin of Error, but not a large enough one to make the whole process not useful.

Now, some links and thinks:

The Supreme Court finally ruled on the EPA, essentially forcing them to do their job. I confess to being a little confused as to how this argument was still going on. I don’t even think the republican party or the oil companies are as far behind the times as the Bush administration. The EPA made the argument that they couldn’t Protect the Environment… because it would interfere with the jurisdiction of the transportation department? Really? What ARE they allowed to do then?

Anyway, this seems like one of those things that needs to happen, if only to remind us how far away we really are from getting to where need to be in terms of government support of alternative energy.

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/business/AP-Scotus-Greenhouse-Gase.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin

And here is some quality pie in the sky type stuff. This is the logical extreme of green energy in the city:
http://nymag.com/news/features/30020/
How sweet is that? Its like a SimCity 2000 building. And its only 2007!