Bits About Bitcoin

I love this idea. I actually had a similar idea myself years ago, in concept only of course. When we think about all of our clumsy processes from internal combustion engines to flush toilets you wonder why something like Bitcoin hasn’t come along much sooner. But of course, we humans must be emotionally as well as physically ready for such change.

But about Bitcoin. Why allow a commercial institution like a bank to charge processing fees and exchange rates to use one’s own money? Why shouldn’t money be individualized like any other property we own? Why shouldn’t a currency gain value like a commodity from its desirability rather than from individual investment efforts?

But I’m getting ahead of myself.  A bit about Bitcoin. Bitcoin came along in 2009 from encryption written in code that allowed a virtual coin to be traced back to its origins. Everyone on the network has the means to account for every coin in an open ledger and each individual’s right to the coin in his/her wallet is recognized. Every participant in the network has a virtual wallet which is their key to access the Bitcoin.

In one sense this concept has been going on for years in the form of credit cards where no actual money changes hands but we assign the right to that money to another party by signing the card, and the bank verifies our claim that we have sufficient funds for the transaction (fees to the bank and credit card company). But with Bitcoin, a central bank is not needed because everyone on the network can see what’s in your wallet. And a Bitcoin does not depend upon account numbers and other data that can be stolen. The Bitcoin is an entity unto itself and once exchanged, that’s that.

With a growing dependence upon on-line marketing, Bitcoin, and similar currencies such as Litecoin and Peercoin, offer a simple solution for making purchases anywhere in the country and all around the world. I have long felt that currency is too clumsy and complex. Now, thanks to a bit of computer code, a simpler solution is at hand.

But will people buy into Bitcoin? Certainly not the financial institutions that make a living from fees for exchange and investment. Conceptually Bitcoin doesn’t offer such opportunities to these institutions. The currency will have to grow from grassroots efforts; of the people and for the people.

     

"Water, Water Everywhere, Yet..."

I spent an evening recently with a neighbor who works for one of the local oil companies, one that works the oil platforms off the Goleta coast. As one who tends to vilify the oil companies for their use and potential abuse of enormous quantities of water in a drought stricken area, I was a bit nervous when our conversation began. But it took an interesting turn.

My neighbor’s truck glistens in his driveway. He washes his truck almost daily at the plant where he guides the inflow of oil through enormous pipes from the offshore wells. To wash his truck, he uses a special mineral free water that leaves absolutely no residue on the paint surfaces when it dries. Where does he get this water? They make it at the plant where he works. From what? From sea water.

Whoa, there. Aren’t we talking about desalination? The means for obtaining fresh water from sea water that the Central Coast of California so desperately needs? In fact, yes.

The city of Santa Barbara built a desalination plant. It was completed in the early 1990’s in a knee-jerk reaction to drought conditions at that time. But once nature replenished the water supply, the plant was left to go idle. To restore it would require $20 million and then the cost per acre-foot to filter the water would be $1500. When - if - it rains, water from Lake Cachuma Reservoir will be much cheaper. If.

A desalination plant requires a large amount of energy to run it. That is costly. But just down the road in Goleta, the oil company where my neighbor works has lot’s of energy. So much gas rolls in along with the oil through those pipes that they have to burn it off. That’s a lot of energy.

And they have their own desalination plant. Oil companies need large sources of water just a badly as farmers do. They need it for water flooding into reservoir formations to maintain pressure and to force oil out of the production wells. Some use sea water. But they have found that the high sulfate in sea water can combine over time with barium and strontium in original reservoirs to diminish output of the wells. Brine bacteria that feeds on sulfate can produce hydrogen sulfite and sour a well. Consequently, the oil companies have need of sulfur filtration systems.

But the oil and gas sector also have substantial wastewater treatment needs for the water issuing from the wells along with the oil and gas. As a well ages, the volume of this water increases and the need for water treatment increases as well. Finally, the oil companies have found that low salinity water actually increases oil recovery. The industry has begun to invest in low salinity membrane technology. But the costs are high.

You see where I’m going with this. There is enormous potential for partnering with oil companies in the production of desalinated potable water. Investing in the oil companies to invest in treating wastewater and desalinate sea water makes sense. The oil companies get to work closely with the communities that regulate them, gain financial support for their water treatment efforts, and build a potentially lucrative avenue for diversification. The cities gain the costly energy to power the desalination plants, a new water source for less, and assume a position more conducive toward encouraging the oil companies to transition to cleaner energy sources and means. It is a partnership in the best interests of everyone - and the planet.

Sources: Camillia Lanham; “Searching for Water”, The Sun 3/6/14.
“Changing Needs in Off Shore Oil Production”; Waterworld.com

English Grammar and the Second Amendment

While browsing through an article discussing the collective versus the individual translations of the Second Amendment, I was struck by the curious capitalization used in the example provided: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."I wondered if this was how it was actually written. I did some research.

I found that the amendment had been proposed in two forms to two different bodies. The version ratified by the states and authenticated by Secretary of State Thomas Jefferson reads:

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

The version passed by Congress is the form that I had seen:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Next I rechecked my understanding of the rules of capitalization. Here are two of the (many) rules:

"Capitalize federal or state when used as part of an official agency name or in government documents where these terms represent an official name. If they are being used as general terms, you may use lowercase letters."

"Proper nouns (the names of specific people, places, organizations, and sometimes things), eg: Golden Gate Bridge, Tony Blair."

It is clear that the meaning of each form of the Second Amendment is changed by the comma and the capitalization. In the first, capitalized “State” specifies one state, the United States and capitalized ‘Arms’ specifies one particular set of arms, those utilized by the United States. The comma in the first edition maintains the reference to the official armed forces of the United States.

The second, non-capitalized no comma version has an entirely different meaning and refers to the individual people and states when speaking of the right to bear arms.

Which form, then, is the "official" form? The constitution provides rules for passing an amendment. In effect, it must be ratified by both of the above mentioned official bodies, by Congress and by three quarters of the states. Therefore, as the same amendment was not ratified by both official bodies, the Second Amendment should be considered null.

But for those who do not accept this position, and choose to regard the Second Amendment as valid, note that the official hand written copy in the National Archives is the version passed by Congress, complete with capitalizations and comma after Militia. For those who choose to translate the Amendment literally, it must be read to specify one State (the United States), one Militia, and the Arms of that body.

(also see Arthur Leiber; New York Times: Constitution Confusion)

Don't Ignore The Elephant

I’m writing to talk about the enormous elephant in the room - but I must speak softly for fear someone will shoot it.

The elephant, of course, is gun control. No one sees the elephant - or at least most pretend they don’t see the elephant - despite the growing episodes of mass shootings.

In 2013 there were 365 mass shootings, one per day. Don’t believe it? Look it up.  But no one is talking about it.

Political fear has hushed mouths in Congress and in the White House, despite President Obama’s rhetoric in his 2013 State of the Union Speech. His 2014 speech contained just two sentences on the subject. Admittedly, those sentences were strong ones, stating an intention to bypass Congress to enact legislation. But will it happen? Or will fear for the electoral future of the Democratic party prevent it?

But we can’t sit and point fingers at the President about this issue. Nor is it us against the NRA. Despite its leadership, the NRA is made up of good people; our neighbors and friends. They own guns, respect the guns, and are horrified at these shootings, just like the rest of us. But their leadership has convinced them that ANY restriction to firearms, any limit to those who should own them or when they may use them, any common sense approach will ultimately lead to the government taking away their guns. As long as fear reigns, nothing will be done.

The NRA leadership responses - increased training in gun handling,  more armed guards in schools, the creation of a national database of the mentally ill, and eliminating violent games, movies and other media - will not prevent these tragedies. If a person is intent upon causing grievous harm with a gun in a public place, there is no way to stop this person, so long as that person is armed. Like computer viruses, clever defenses only lead to even more clever attacks.

My point is this. The American people need to stop pretending we don’t see the elephant. We need to talk about it, to toss out ideas, to suggest solutions, to keep the dialogue going. This is real. Our children are threatened in their schools, families are threatened at the mall, people are threatened anywhere they congregate.

The elephant will not wander away on its own.