National Gas Prices

I just stumbled across this tool for getting a comparison of gas prices between locations in the US. Hopefully not sounding like a shill, Gas Buddy has the linked "temperature map" so you can gauge how high the prices are in your area. The map is remarkably interactive, and you just might learn something that can save you some money. For instance, Kansas City has one of the lowest price/gallon costs in the nation- indeed, most the of Great Plains is uniformly cheap. In comparison, North Carolina and Georgia come in almost uniformly expensive, nearing the $4.00/gallon mark.

Here's hoping you find this a useful or interesting tool. I know I am. Let's see if I can make that move to KC, start saving some money.

Mid-American Musings, Vol. 1

OK, I've been MIA for quite some time, I know. Been out to Utah, Colorado, Kansas and Missouri since I last posted, killed a computer, bought a computer, was shoveled a heavier workload at the job, and finally got internet reconnected. Excuses excuses. Please accept this meager post, with the aims of stoking the fires and getting back to work. Thanks all.

I had a discussion with a friend last night about... truthfully, I don't remember what, but somehow the topic of whaling came up. He explained to me that he didn't care what happened to whales, because the issue didn't directly impact him, and what has a whale ever done for him anyways? I pointed out that the whaling industry was integral to building several industries and markets in its heyday, be it shipbuilding, foundries, undergarments or perfume, but that's neither here nor there. I was rather surprised at his flippant attitude in dismissing the issue because it wasn't a "direct impact" on his daily life. A direct impact? What is that, exactly?

I'm going to submit that everything impacts you. When our neighbors cannot pay their mortgages, does it not affect you? Does the prospect of abandoned homes, a gutted neighborhood and a hollowed-out community sound appealing? When graduation rates go down, the available pool of labor shrinks, and either the local economy shrinks with it or imports labor from elsewhere. What does this mean for your town? You can't just tighten up a cordon around your life and ignore things because they are not in-your-face issues. Problems, much like opportunities, are never contained in a little sphere, only touching those that deal with them directly. Think of them as gases, following the winds, wafting over everything they come across, leaving a residue or a smell to remember them by, be it poisonous or pleasing.

It's not a big deal for me if you are pro- or anti- something; we're all entitled to our opinions and our conceptions of the world we want to live in. The point of contention for me is taking up an issue based on how heavily it directly impacts you. Naturally, we will feel most passionate about issues that we deal with daily, much as we care much more for our family than the wellbeing of some stranger on the street. This is unavoidable, and if you weren't like this, I'd say you were a little off in the head. But here is the question- does it really not affect you? When you write off some pressing social issue, be it schools, public safety, healthcare, any of the non-sexy causes that are paid lip-service by politicians, are you really insulated from the impacts? What is the standard of 'impact?'

As much as we want to trumpet the ideal of total individuality, that someone else's problems are never our own, we cannot ignore what happens in our circles of family, friends and community. Generally speaking, we know problems when we see them, and know that we want to dispose of them. We need to have a hope for the world, and work towards achieving it, be it through doing our jobs, raising our families, voting, getting involved in the community, or volunteering. My conception of the world is an ideal, I'll be the first to tell you, but it is definitely worth working and fighting for. It's based on the idea that if you do wrong by my friend, my neighbor, my community, you do wrong by me, because we're all in this together. Everything is an impact. It all needs to be addressed.

What does your ideal world look like? Inquiring minds want to know, or to at least raise the question in your heads, for you to chew on. Have at it.

Censorship in America

Project Censored has recently published its list of the top 25 censored stories for 2009 (yeah, I don't know why they say 2009, but whatever...)

You can see the list here: http://www.projectcensored.org/top-stories/category/y-2009/

Bailing Out on the American People

Now, I'm no economic expert, which may become painfully apparent with what I'm about to suggest.

But, I would like somebody to tell me why something like the following wouldn't work better than the current plan by Treasury Secretary Paulson. Essentially, Paulson wants the US Taxpayers to put up something like $700 billion to put into his hands, so that he can use somewhat cryptic means to fix the problem in our financial markets.

He says Congress should make this "clean and quick." That, to me, sounds like he's wanting a rubber stamp put on a plan with very little stipulations, and very little details on how this plan will actually be a wise move for American taxpayers.

So, here's what I'm thinking, and I want you all to tell me why it wouldn't work (or at least have as much a chance of working as a full-on bailout of moronic financial investment banks on Wall St.)

Firstly, though, for a good refresher on what has led up to this crises, see the following article from the Washington Post.

If the American taxpayers are going to be asked to foot a $700 billion dollar bill no matter what, why not target that money to where it is going to do the most good? Why not use a large chunk of that money to pay down the principle on so many of these bad mortgages these investment banks dolled out? Doing this would 1) lower the balance on these mostly worthless 'assets' held by all the investors out there who grabbed up these mortgages, thereby raising their value somewhat; 2) it would greatly LOWER the mortgage payments that American families would be spending each and every month to pay off their homes, putting more money directly into the hands of American taxpayers and providing a stimulus to the economy.

Secondly, LET THESE IRRESPONSIBLE INVESTMENT BANKS FAIL!! Recklessness, irresponsibility, and in some cases, outright fraud should not be tolerated or rewarded by a government taxpayer bail-out. Period.

Now, I understand that making sure people have the ability to borrow money is important. If solvency is not restored then we can see small businesses fail all across the country, which would have a rundown effect throughout every level of this economy. So, what I suggest is that we instead inject all this money into whatever RESPONSIBLE investment banks still exist (if there are any), rather than the ones which have shown their inability to run a solvent institution.

This serves two purposes -- it gets rid of these banks which have ruined confidence in the financial system AND makes sure that money is still available for people who need loans by helping the smaller, more responsible investment firms to pick up the slack left behind by the failing giants of the industry. As an added bonus, people can be confident knowing that only the responsible banks are left, and have more assurances that they would be borrowing and/or investing in assets properly screened.

To me, this makes FAR more sense than what is being proposed by Secretary Paulson. But, maybe I'm just an economic novice and missing something. I just don't see how giving a $700 billion check to the executive branch with no-strings attached is a responsible use of taxpayer money.

Now, start telling me why I'm wrong...

Mid-America in the Saddle(back)

I don't know how many of you had the opportunity to watch the "Faith Forum" hosted by pastor Rick Warren (of "The Purpose Driven Life" fame) at his Saddleback Church in Lake Forest, CA on Saturday, but I hope you did. If not, you can catch it online here, courtesy of CNN.

Warren began the forum by making a point which is too often forgotten during the height of election-year politics: Both candidates are patriots who love their country. This is a point which we here at Mid-America Calling try to make ourselves. It was refreshing to see coverage of an event which was designed to simply inform viewers of the candidates and their positions on issues, rather than a competition in which each candidate is hoping the other slips up, or is looking for opportunities to cry "gotcha!"

So, for two hours (one for each candidate) we got to hear them talk about a range of issues which will all come into play during a Presidential administration of either - leadership, abortion, their view on "evil" and what to do about it, the moral failings of their own lives and that of America, Supreme Court justices, etc.

So, for the sake of conversation, I thought it would be fun to talk about one of these issues here at the ol' blog, and see where it goes.

My topic of choice: Abortion.

The question in the faith forum was having to do with the moment at which an embryo is entitled to human rights... in other words, when does "life" begin? Or when is an embryo a full-fledged human being?

The Obama answer, described by pundits as "nuanced" repeatedly, was actually rather simply put: "It's above my pay grade." He went on to describe how his Presidency would be concerned with how to lower the number of abortions which take place, and talked about his willingness to limit late-term abortions provided there was an exception for the mother's health. His answer seemed rather cautiously accepted by the crowd at the Saddleback Church.

McCain, on the other hand, drew wild applause with his response: that human rights are required "at the moment of conception." He went on to tell the crowd about his long record of being pro-life, and that his Presidency would have "pro-life policies."

Now, here's where it gets dicey... While McCain's answer is a simple one, the practicality of it is not so simple. TIME takes a look at how this view would have far-reaching effects beyond the obvious availability of abortions. What about the period of time between when an egg is fertilized and when it actually implants in the womb and begins growing? As the article points out:

"all kinds of embryo research become questionable, starting with the stem-cell research McCain says he favors. Couples who undergo in vitro fertilization and then choose not to implant all the embryos are surely violating the rights of those that are discarded or frozen. Some forms of contraception, such as IUDs and the morning-after pill, would presumably be illegal if they affect the ability of an egg to implant. Abortion opponents contend that the birth control pill itself, while designed to prevent ovulation so no egg is fertilized in the first place, may also have the effect of blocking implantation of any egg that sneaks through. Suddenly, a whole range of reproductive choices comes into question."


As I think about this issue, I am reminded of Rick Warren's assertion that it is important not to "demonize" those who think differently than ourselves. There seems to be no other issue in America where that is so easy to do as the abortion issue. As, Obama pointed out in his answer, the "pro-choice" standpoint isn't a "pro-abortion" stance, by any means. The goal is to reduce abortions in America -- the debate should be about how to do that.

Clearly, a simplistic answer about how human rights begin "at the moment of conception" sounds terrific for those who identify as "pro-life." But the reality of the situation is that the policies this viewpoint would enact would almost undoubtedly lead to an INCREASE in unwanted pregnancies... which, after all, is the reason we have people seeking abortions to begin with.

Pro-choice and Pro-life proponents need to understand that the age-old debate has not changed the reality on the ground... and it won't, until both sides focus on the common goal of lowering the amount of abortions which take place, and figuring out how to bring that goal about.

To me, having a short answer to a complex problem is not a good thing... The answer to this issue is one which requires far more work and thought than simply saying "life begins at conception, therefore abortions and anything else which hinders the growth of life is illegal."

So, that's my piece! Start calling!

Pick'n a Plan and Stick'n to It

First of all, let me say I'm sorry for the delay in any new content from my fingertips. It's been a pretty busy month for me -- traveling for work training, more work, traveling home to hunt for a house, buying a house (yippee!!), and traveling back to work... and more work.



So, it should come as no surprise that I am still writing about the same topic I was writing about a month ago: Energy.



And why not? Each and every one of us are intimately connected to this problem of energy consumption simply by the way we live our lives. We've all heard over and over by now about how each of us can individually make changes in our lives and influence our overall national consumption... well, while that is certainly true, it should also come as no surprise that some have more they can do than others.



One of those people is a man named T. Boone Pickens (possibly nicknamed T-Bone). T. Boone has some resources, being a billionaire oil man. But, more importantly, he's got a plan (something we here at Mid-America Calling enjoy). It can be found here: http://www.pickensplan.com/



Now, I don't know whether I'm sold on the plan yet or not... but at least he's got one. He's right in saying that we are a country addicted to oil, and we can't drill our way out of that problem. And he's right to be looking for solutions to this multi-faceted problem. He does a good job of pointing out just how this issue radiates throughout the economy, as well.



$700 billion dollars a year is currently being spent on importing foreign oil to meet our demands for fueling our cars and trucks. That's a ton of money going elsewhere. That means it's not being spent on our own infrastructure... it's not being spent on our schools. It isn't being spent on a viable solution to our health-care crisis. You get the idea...



Pickens' plan calls for utilizing the wind of our own great plains. He calls our geographic mid-America the "Saudi Arabia of wind power." And while the cost to expand our wind power production to 25% of our national need is expensive -- something like $1.2 trillion -- it is a one-time price paid up-front, and pales in comparison to the price of continuing to spend $700 billion each year to foreign nations.



Now, obviously adding wind power production doesn't help power our cars... so how exactly does this lower our dependence on foreign oil? Pickens has something else in mind. By increasing wind power, we free up something else for our cars -- natural gas. Natural Gas currently provides 22% of our current electrical power in the U.S. at a much cheaper cost per gallon than we spend on gasoline. The idea is that by replacing our current electrical use of natural gas with wind power, we can use the cleaner burning, cheaper natural gas to fuel our vehicles. Makes sense, right?

T. Bone touts the price of natural gas as being less than a dollar per gallon in much of the country, which would certainly be a welcome change from spending $4.00 at the pump for gasoline. He also touts the difference in emissions from natural gas as opposed to petrol. He's right, yet again, on both counts.

So, what is the hesitation? Well, firstly we have to think about what this does if his plan is put into full-swing. Just off the top of my head I can tell you that the relatively low cost of natural gas won't stay that low for long. Imagine if every corner gas station had natural gas pumps. Demand shoots through the roof and we're no longer able to claim that it's a cheaper alternative to gasoline.

This isn't even taking into account what it would do to other uses of natural gas -- such as heating homes during the winter months. Many Americans are already struggling to pay heating bills in the dead of winter... and having the demand for that natural gas spread out to running our cars and trucks won't do anything to help those folks.

But, perhaps the lowered demand for electricity production will ultimately balance out the rising demand for vehicle fuel. Maybe, maybe not... but it's definitely an issue which his plan doesn't take any steps to address.

But, at least ol' T-bone does recognize that his plan is only a temporary solution to a problem which needs a lot more work. He states that the plan can "buy us time" until we work out better and cheaper ways of powering our everyday lives. And as far as band-aids go, this one looks to be one of the better plans out there.

I recommend checking out the plan, and if you like what you see, sign up on his site! Forget that T-bone has considerable holdings in Natural Gas and stands to make a ton of money off it... Good ideas should be rewarded, and at least he's got a level of foresight to realize that drilling in ANWR isn't going to make a lick's bit of difference. And diverting $700 billion a year from foreign countries to American infrastructure and jobs can't hurt, either.

So, I'm pickin' Pickens' plan... and stickin' to it... for now.

The Free-Fall in Fertility

According to studies and continued observation by local endocrinologists, the men of mid-Missouri are undergoing a crash in sperm levels. The problem started cropping up in the mid-1990s, and was cemented during a 1999 study which compared healthy sperm levels between major metropolitan areas. For use in comparison, Columbia, MO was used to help establish a baseline, assuming that the presence of fewer toxic pollutants would lead to higher, healthier levels.

However, it was not to be. Columbia residents' levels maxed out at 57% of the levels of males in New York City, for example; observe the graph at the right for more detail. Most stunning is that Missouri men came from different backgrounds and lifestyles, were of varied ages and professions, and were both long-term and short-term residents of Columbia.

Researchers participating in the 1999 study reexamined Missouri sperm and subjected it to detailed tests for pesticides and chemicals known to be in use in the region. Three pesticides were found to have statistically significant links with the low sperm counts, with two more possible contributors identified as well. One of these pesticides, diazinon, was banned from residential use in 2004, yet still allowed to be used in agriculture. Whatever the case, a follow-up study was conducted by the Centers for Disease Control, with results expected this summer. We will be following this closely, rest assured, for professional and personal reasons.

As the researchers in the article state, blaming one chemical or one pesticide is likely in error. Much more likely are the complex and subtle interactions between varying doses of several chemicals incipient to the lifestyle in the region, coupled with other environmental and lifestyle factors. It is impossible to predict how cocktails of chemicals administered over a lifetime in low doses will interact within the human body. If you would like to know more on this kind of research, check out the research on chemicals in adults, newborns, and pets.

But let us be clear- this is more than likely not a mid-Missouri problem. Whatever the cause is, it is highly possible that these results could be repeated throughout the mid-America region. If there are demonstrable links between pesticide use and low fertility in males, this is something that demands our immediate attention. We will be awaiting the CDC report, and hope to talk about this more in the future.