Opinion: Border Security

Alright, I guess it's time to look at the facts about this one. There has been a barrage of publicity regarding the "Danger from the South" and many media pundits have been pounding their desks calling for a massive effort to control our border with Mexico. That's all fine and good, but let's face it, if we do that we should also secure our border with Canada. None - let me repeat none - of the 9-11 terrorists came into the US through the border with Mexico. If you do not believe me, please visit http://www.factcheck.org/article352.html.

That being said, border security is a good thing. Sadly, the threats facing this country are more skilled at breaching our borders and port security than what we would like to admit. Simply building a fence will not do, and even though many would not admit it, there are tangible economic benefits derived from the mass influx of illegal immigrants. I'm not saying illegal immigration is right, we should have a guest worker program of some sort. I am saying it is hypocritical to criticize something for political gain while at the same time enjoying the monetary benefits of the arrangement.

Here's an experiment I would like our politicians to try, just once. Go to any forum or meeting of farmers, small business owners and hotel industry executives. Tell them that a new law will be put in place that will make it a federal offense to harbor or employ illegal immigrants. Persons found guilty will have their property or other assets seized. Those confiscated assets will be sold to fund border security programs. See what reaction you get, and then decide what you are going to do about this problem.

Frankly, if we are serious about protecting the Nation, what we need is to select more competent individuals tasked with leading and executing our security efforts. The tragedy of 9-11 happened because our intelligence, immigration, police and airport security services failed miserably. Read the 9-11 Commission Report at http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report.pdf. In it you will find a whole list of recommendations on how to avoid these kind of disasters in the future. Sadly, political cronyism is still in full effect, and I do not think our leaders have heeded many of the warnings. Some would like to make this a partisan issue, but there are plenty of carpetbaggers on both sides of the aisle.

Until we have a government truly concerned about accountability - which we have not had for the past 40 years - and as a people we begin demanding it, we will not see an improvement. Start by being an informed citizen, and then vote based on the facts. Expect more from elected officials, they are well-fed and paid and should be looking out for All the People, not just their friends. Let them know that you are concerned, here are some links:

• US President: http://www.whitehouse.gov/president/
  
• US Senate: http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/
  
• US House of Representatives: http://www.house.gov/writerep/

Keep it clean folks, but tell them and me what you think.

Opinion: Our Energy Future

Well, it looks like folks are starting to understand that our dependence on fossil fuels to keep the global economy chugging along is not a long term proposition. I think it's time to begin developing and marketing viable alternatives. I break our current set of technologies and options down into these different classifications:

• Those that can work now or in the short-term (1 - 5 years) and pose less risks from an environmental perspective: Wind, hydro-electric and geo-thermal power generation.
• Those that can work now or in the short-term but pose more risks from an environmental perspective: Nuclear.
• Those that can be made to work in the mid-term (5 - 10 years) with some investment and pose less risks to the environment: Solar energy and bio-fuels (100% renewable sources).
• Those that can be made to work in the mid-term (5 - 10 years) with some investment but pose more risks to the environment: High-density solar.
• Those that can be made to work in the long-term (10 years+) with some investment and pose less risks to the environment: Hydrogen fuel.
  
• Those that can be made to work in the long-term (10 years+) with some investment and but pose more risks to the environment: Perhaps the products of space exploration research, practical on other planets but unsafe in an inhabited biosphere.

Near-term "safe" options need to be exploited now, as the only additional investments are those for the infrastructure. While they may have some impact from an environmental perspective, I believe that wind, hydro-electric and geo-thermal power generation can help us now and should be employed extensively. Power generated from these sources can then be used by other infrastructure components like transportation (trains, inner-city commuter vehicles). This National Renewable Energy Laboratory site: http://www.nrel.gov/wind/index.html offers great information about the state of wind energy.

Nuclear power has some very real problems in terms of containment and the safe disposal of waste, but it cannot be dismissed out-of-hand. More research into areas such as fusion reactors could lead to breakthroughs in this field. Check: http://www.jet.efda.org/pages/content/fusion1.html out for an idea of what is possible.

In the mid-term, we should put more effort into both solar energy and bio-fuels. Solar energy holds great promise, especially in the area of co-generation. While it may never be a primary source of energy, it could be used by households to power many of the appliances in a home that have low consumption while in "sleep-mode". Visit: http://www.solcomhouse.com/solarpower.htm for very good information about solar power.

Bio-fuels can replace fossil-based fuels if enough funding and research is assigned to it. I think that the goal should be fuels that are derived from renewable sources exclusively, and that the infrastructure used to manufacture and distribute them should also use 100% clean and/or renewable power. In this way you can totally take fossil fuels out of the equation. Food for thought can be found at: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html.

Hydrogen has received a lot of attention recently, but costs are still too high to make it a viable solution. It is extremely attractive because the potential sources are vast, and the byproducts of combustion are clean and useful depending on the location. Substantial investment will be required to make it affordable but arguments such as those made in: http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/progress/hydrogen.html show that it holds great promise.

As we continue to explore ways to solve our current energy situation, we will find many ideas that will seem outlandish. If we look at the scientific progress made in the past 200 years, we should be able to recognize that the only limits are those imposed by our own fear and ignorance. If we are serious about continuing on the path of progress, we have no choice but to find better ways to power our forward motion.

Tell me what you think ...