Author: Captain Obvious

No, this is not some kind of geometric progression you had to recognize as part of your college entrance exams.  These are all key numbers in the energy industry.

Do you know why these numbers are important?  You probably only recognize the last two as the DOE recommended thermostat temperature settings for heating and cooling setpoints.  Do you remember when those recommendations were made and why they were deemed important?  Do you know how much one degree Fahrenheit change in your setting makes in your heating and cooling energy use and costs?

Of course most people don’t.  Believe it or not, that first degree change saves or costs about 7-9% of your monthly energy use.  So, those of you holding 75 F for cooling in your home are using about 25% more energy for those 3 extra degrees of comfort … and costing energy and carbon along the way in almost every case.  Yet, you don’t hear politicians asking you to do this.

You should be asking why … so let’s go on to the first number in the title of this blog. 

Yes, that was the speed limit Jimmy Carter imposed on our superhighways to reduce our fuel consumption as part of his response to the second Arab oil embargo in 1978.  The sweeping legislation emerged because of the crisis was deemed “the moral equivalent of war.”  The Department of Energy was formed and a host of key energy legislation imposed to get us off foreign oil.  Lowering the speed limit had other positive consequences including lowering the number and severity of our highway accidents.

I remember those lines at the gas stations and there was palpable fear in all our hearts.  Everyone seemed on board to do their part individually because we knew, or at least believed, that the result was good for all.

So, if we are so concerned about the future of our planet, why have guidelines like this gone away?  We now have many highways with speed limits of 70 upon which we seem to average 80.  Our analysis of homes indicates the average air-conditioned home holds 74. 

Do we care that we are gobbling energy with these behaviors?  Or, have we shifted the responsibility to our providers in the hope that we no longer have to be inconvenienced or sacrifice anything in the bargain?  Perhaps you remember when President Obama recommended we all check our car tire pressure because most tires were not properly inflated and the rolling resistance does decrease fuel efficiency as a result.  There was almost instant rebellion at the suggestion we should all do our part in this logical way.

It strikes me as odd and inconsistent that we Americans say we want to limit climate change and yet are not interested in personal accountabilities.  We want others to work the magic, in the same way we won’t reduce our calorie intake or stop eating the wrong foods.  We are outsourcing our responsibilities rather than changing bad behaviors. 

The consequence for driving on today’s highways is tragic.  I am terrified of driving on the highways in Atlanta and have taught my daughters and son to always watch their rearview mirrors to scan for idiots who will slalom both right and left lanes going over 90 mph.  One of our friends was killed by someone doing that.

Yes, it is nice to “make good time” on our long trips, but I have to say that driving my EV has taught me the relative efficiency of speed vs available battery miles.  The screen monitors provide constant feedback so I can make the tradeoff of speed and arrival time and alerts me if I am not going to make the next charge station.

I remember gasoline cars that did the same thing, so we have the technology.  Apparently, we are no longer interested in personal accountability for our driving characteristics.  But perhaps that is also about to change as insurance companies tap into the onboard computers to evaluate our driving behaviors.

I can already hear the arguments against this as an invasion of privacy.  Let’s see how the market players manage this new world of information availability.  Do they emphasize you can get lower insurance rates by being recognized as a safe driver?  Or, given we live in a democracy, does the plurality of bad drivers kill this idea because they know their prices are going to go up?

Wouldn’t it be ironic that free markets and risk transparency run against energy and societal stewardship?  Haven’t we learned anything from the energy price spikes in the electricity markets years ago?  … oh … if you didn’t know … the problem was that there was no incentive for homeowners and businesses to reduce their consumption during those hot summer afternoons. 

The only thing we seem to learn from history is that we don’t learn anything from history.

As I have been studying the miraculous rescue of 95% of the Jews in Denmark during WWII I have been struck by how united the Danish people were. Otherwise, how could they respond so quickly to the news that their fellow citizen Jews were about to be rounded up and carted off to a death camp? Please review the prior blogs to see those details.

The situation as always was and is complex. Sure, there were Nazi sympathizers, but the vast majority of Danes were simply offended and united in the defense of ALL Danes as fellow citizens. An attack on one was an attack on all. How did they get there?

Well, it wasn’t just one thing that forged that nation into unity, but there were several component threads of thought and belief that when wound together created that unique fabric. Yes, the nation was largely united under one religious belief construct (Lutheran) and yes the nation was relatively small with several agricultural cooperatives that bound the citizens together into a work/benefit cycle.

But, perhaps more importantly, there were no festering schisms that tore at this fabric. Using our modern characteristics, the Danish people were not polarized as we are today.

Interestingly, that beautiful model for society 80 years ago has eroded, in part because of the diversity of thoughts and people there today. The largest disruption now are refugees who do not know nor care about the hundreds of years of history that forged Denmark. So, perhaps Denmark is no longer the place we should look for answers to our woes here?

No, I think it is the situation to study because two centuries of formative thought and actions are at the root of why Denmark behaved so admirably. They didn’t have the tensions we feel all day long. Yes, they had the natural tension between conservative and progressive thought, and they argued every bit as much as we do. But, when the going got tough, the Danes got going. They admitted their mistakes and moved on trying not to repeat them, unlike our politicians who seem more interested in attacking the character of anyone who tries to do the same. For a very small nation (4 million people at the time) they had a lot of very smart people trying to work through their problems, which were many.

What are our schisms that tear us apart? You know the answers here. Danes are taxed at the highest rates compared to any other nation and yet they are the among the happiest of people on the planet … even with the recent refugee tensions. It is no simple task to understand why this is. I just read a scholarly graduate study level book on this phenomenon and the inner workings of the Danish economy are truly complex. But, what seems obvious is that they are working on the continual adjustments needed.

We, on the other hand, seem to think attacking each other is going to get us there.

After learning so much about how Hitler came to power and used propaganda to convince people it was OK to execute Jews, I was curious why professing Christians weren’t standing up for human rights.  Even if you accept the idea that some genetic formula for a super race might be desirable, mass killing still seems objectionable.

Historians would describe Hitler’s tactic as gaslighting.  You keep pushing a message until it overcomes rational arguments against it, eventually wearing people down in what is essentially a form of brainwashing.  While this may be a good historical summary of what he did, I frankly still didn’t understand it.

The term has reappeared in our news coverage to describe the messaging on both sides of the political spectrum.  News media are feverishly trying to control the talking points of our political parties and those in power.  So, I decided to devote this blog to understanding the term a bit better and on a deeper level.

According to Wikipedia, the origin of the term is the 1938 British thriller play Gas Light by Patrick Hamilton, which became the 1940 British film, Gaslight. The film was then remade in 1944 in America – also as Gaslight – and it is this film which has since become the primary reference point for the term.

The movie is set among London’s elite during the Victorian era, and portrays a seemingly genteel husband using lies and manipulation to isolate his heiress wife and persuade her that she is mentally unwell so that he can steal from her.  The term “gaslighting” itself is neither in the screenplay nor mentioned in either the films or the play in any context. In the story, the husband secretly dims and brightens the indoor gas-powered lighting but insists his wife is imagining it, making her think she is going insane.

Well, there you go.  Now I see why the term was used to describe Hitlers relentless media blitz on antisemitism.  Now I see why the term is being used in recent political positioning on the readiness of individuals to assume command of our country.

Our media is not reporting news, it is pushing their talking points and driving us to think we are insane.  I can now see how our perceptions of just about everything are being manipulated even though most of us believe differently.  We are being brainwashed to accept party lines.

Sadly, I can now see that this has also been prevalent even from the pulpit of our churches and certainly is still alive in the Muslim hate speech declaring “death to Israel.”  Evidence of this brainwashing is everywhere including some recent public displays of the wish that the assassination attempt was successful.  Can you believe that?

I don’t hear dialogue about our nation’s underlying problems.  We seem stuck in a rut of trying to pass rules rather than educate people about benefits and disbenefits.  Ban internal combustion engines, ban natural gas stoves, and in fact ban natural gas in new home construction.  Scare people that we are in an existential threat with climate change.  Terrorize everyone that hurricanes are now worse than ever and that life as we know it is about to end.  Ban abortions, guns, and whites from high level positions in leadership.

Perhaps the recent emphasis on “toning down” the rhetoric will take hold.  I would like to believe that.  Maybe we can now begin to learn to hear each other rather than always stay in the echo chambers of our lives.  The Old and New Testaments declare we are to love our neighbor and to turn the other cheek.  We are commanded to forgive … over and over again, without conditions like reciprocity.

Can we do this?  I believe we can, but only if we strive for it now and continually.  Denmark did not get to the place they were when then rescued the Jews overnight.  It took decades for everyone there in leadership positions to emphasize all citizens had rights and responsibilities.  An attack on any citizen was an attack on all.   Amen to that.

The coverage of the recent assassination by the major news media in the US shows the level of gaslighting now: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OGBSc5YLTxw  To follow the British film analogy: don’t believe what you saw … it wasn’t an assassin.  Remember the scene from the Wizard of Oz when Toto pulls back the curtain exposing the fraud?  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YWyCCJ6B2WE

A thoughtful summary of where we may be going was given by Tucker Carlson’s after Trump’s acceptance speech:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uHcpTtYeU2w

Gaslighting must go.  Turn it off.  We can all see behind the curtain now.

I am really concerned that our media have lost their sense of national security and pride in America.  Otherwise, why would a lead article in the Wall Street Journal feature an article like this:  https://www.wsj.com/politics/national-security/hypersonic-missiles-america-military-behind-936a3128?st=xo5xh0p9ezxqfl7&reflink=desktopwebshare_permalink

I was trained to neither confirm nor deny anything people said to me about our nuclear submarine program.  I worked on the solution to the loss of the Thresher submarine accident and solved it, developed a bulletproof flow diagram that gave navy operators a roadmap should it happen again, and defended it before Navy leadership.

I was taught that the “need to know” was the first hurdle to even talk to fellow employees at Knolls Atomic Power Laboratory, many of whom had higher level security levels than I did.  The adage was “loose lips sink ships” and I lived by it then and still do today.  So, don’t ask me any questions about subs or the Thresher.

What good thing is going to happen when people read this WSJ article?  I can imagine some terrible things as you can.  I have always thought of strength as a deterrent to war.  It sure seems that advertising weaknesses is the opposite.

Plus, I have always considered the WSJ above this kind of reporting.  What good thing do they think is going to happen with their readership?  Or, are they looking to our enemies for subscriptions to their publications as a result?

It sure seems like irresponsible reporting to me.

You all have heard me tell the story of the Catholic priest and rabbi who accidentally sat at lunch during a large ecumenical conference. At one point in their conversation, the priest asked the rabbi about the Jewish dietary laws, and then asked specifically whether he had ever eaten a ham and cheese sandwich … which violates two laws: eating pork and eating meat with dairy at the same meal. The rabbi kind of cowered a bit but nodded that he had.

Feeling a bit justified to return the question he asked the priest about the celibacy requirements of priesthood and then specifically whether he had broken that. As the priest cowered in embarrassment the rabbi tried to soften the mood by saying: “well it sure beats a ham and cheese sandwich!”

A recent Wall Street Journal provides one more reason to avoid pork but does so by shifting the meaning that most of us know in politics. Here is the link: https://www.wsj.com/articles/chuck-schumer-artificial-intelligence-subsidies-todd-young-mike-rounds-china-d2768c8f?st=6qpk02vots2r79v&reflink=desktopwebshare_permalink

Here is the definition of that kind of pork from Wikipedia:
Pork barrel, or simply pork, is a metaphor for the appropriation of government spending for localized projects secured solely or primarily to direct spending to a representative’s district. Typically, “pork” involves national funding for government programs whose economic or service benefits are concentrated in a particular area but whose costs are spread among all taxpayers. Public works projects, certain national defense spending projects, and agricultural subsidies are the most commonly cited examples.

This kind of pork should be shunned by all of us. It is wasteful, deceitful, and irresponsible. Yet, we all know it is happening. Every time we hear of some noble cause and a politician asking for money to pay for it, sceptics immediately search for and find huge amounts of pork behind the veneer of good intents.

We also know how it got there … whenever someone comes up with a great program idea, their opponents use this to pad it with pork in exchange for their votes.

Seems all of us paying for their sinful ways should be banning pork … right? Nope. We are all so lazy we fail to search for it and then we shrug our shoulders and admit it kind of tastes good. That reminds me of our church’s event called Pastor’s Pancakes where our Sunday School class served pancakes and bacon to over 600 that morning.

As we were winding down together after the event and having cleaned everything up, a class member who knew I was Jewish asked me whether serving bacon to everyone had made me uncomfortable. I thought for a second and responded: “Not half as much as not charging for it!”