Approaching Eclipse Totality - atop a rimrock on Little Scaly Mountain in NC (near the Georgia border) - unfortunately with clouds between us and the Moon/Sun - but still an awesome experience.
Tuesday, August 22, 2017
Sunday, August 20, 2017
Should You Trust Climate Science? Maybe the Eclipse Is a Clue
In an article in the NY Times with this title, Justin Gills points out:
Thanks to the work of scientists, people will know exactly what time to expect the eclipse (see Mattox's previous post). In less entertaining but more important ways, we respond to scientific predictions all the time, even though we have no independent capacity to verify the calculations. We tend to trust scientists.
For years now, atmospheric scientists have been handing us a set of predictions about the likely consequences of our emissions of industrial gases. These forecasts are critically important, because this group of experts sees grave risks to our civilization. And yet, when it comes to reacting to the warnings of climate science, we have done little.
Indeed! Wake up folks. Climate change is a real threat, and we must take action very soon.
Chasing the Great American Eclipse in North Carolina
Chasing the Great American Eclipse in
North Carolina
John
R. Mattox, University of North Carolina System Professor
The Great American
Eclipse will encompass America on August
21, 2017, featuring at least a partial eclipse for the entire United States –
where the Moon temporarily covers at least a fraction of the Sun’s bright
photosphere.
Within
a ~70 mile wide “path of total eclipse”, a total eclipse of the Sun can be
observed for up to 2 minutes and 40 seconds on 8/21/17, when the Moon covers
all of the Sun’s bright photosphere, creating a unique and dramatic viewing opportunity
– see this description of the
splendor of totality.
The
disk of totality comes ashore in Oregon at 10:16 am pdt, travels in a
southeasterly direction across the entire USA at an average of 1700 MPH, a
supersonic velocity, going offshore 93 minutes later in South Carolina at 2:49
pm edt, touching a dozen states along the way: Oregon, Idaho, Wyoming,
Nebraska, Kansas, Missouri, Illinois, Kentucky, Tennessee, Georgia, North
Carolina, and South Carolina. Although a total eclipse is safe to observe with
your naked eyes, you need eye protection to observe up until the moment that
totality begins, and you need eye protection (e.g., eclipse shades) to observe
after the moment that totality ends. If you are not in the path of total eclipse,
you need continuous eye protection to observe. During
THE PARTIAL STAGES OF THE ECLIPSE (when the bright photosphere of the sun is
partially visible) YOU MUST HAVE PROPER EYE PROTECTION to avoid permanent EYE
Injury.
Suggestions
for Eclipse Chasers
There are millions of
us out here, chasing the Great American Eclipse. So it is a good idea to be
strategic about where you go! Here is an interactive map showing the path of total eclipse and
providing eclipse details for any location you click on (the time given there is UT – subtract 4 hours for
EDT). And here is a very useful article: Predicting eclipse visitation with population
statistics: https://www.greatamericaneclipse.com/statistics/, that can help you to get a handle on potential problems with traffic
congestion.
The potential total eclipse observing site that I was
recommending until I came across this analysis was the Santee Indian Mound. It
is just west of I-95 at the north end of the Lake Marion (exit 102). There is probably
public access to the top of this ancient ceremonial Indian Mound - I was last
there 5 years ago. It is nearly at the center of the band of totality. However, the article referenced above
indicates that where I-95 crosses the totality-band, is the nearest Totality
viewing site for 74.6 million Americans. I expect it may still be a great place
to be for viewing Totality, but I suggest you plan to arrive not later than
midnight, 8/20/17, and have food and water for 24 hours.
Here is the prediction from the resource provided
above for the Indian Mound:
Lat.: 33.5331° N
Long.: 80.4287° W |
Duration of Totality: 2m35.1s
Magnitude: 1.015 Obscuration: 100.00% |
Event
|
Date
|
Time (UT)
|
Alt
|
Azi
|
Start of partial eclipse
(C1) :
|
2017/08/21
|
17:15:00.0
|
68.2°
|
173.6°
|
Start of total eclipse
(C2) :
|
2017/08/21
|
18:43:43.5
|
61.8°
|
224.4°
|
Maximum eclipse :
|
2017/08/21
|
18:45:01.2
|
61.6°
|
224.9°
|
End of total eclipse
(C3) :
|
2017/08/21
|
18:46:18.6
|
61.4°
|
225.5°
|
End of partial eclipse
(C4) :
|
2017/08/21
|
20:08:00.3
|
46.9°
|
249.6°
|
I’m going to
be in the Mountains near Highland, NC. I’m not going to give details here, but I
will provide the prediction from the
resource provided above:
Lat.: 35.03° N
Long.: 83.2571° W |
Duration of Totality: 2m35.9s
Magnitude: 1.013 Obscuration: 100.00% |
Event
|
Date
|
Time (UT)
|
Alt
|
Azi
|
Start of partial eclipse
(C1) :
|
2017/08/21
|
17:07:09.1
|
65.9°
|
162.4°
|
Start of total eclipse
(C2) :
|
2017/08/21
|
18:35:51.4
|
63.1°
|
214.0°
|
Maximum eclipse :
|
2017/08/21
|
18:37:09.5
|
63.0°
|
214.6°
|
End of total eclipse
(C3) :
|
2017/08/21
|
18:38:27.3
|
62.8°
|
215.2°
|
End of partial eclipse
(C4) :
|
2017/08/21
|
20:01:23.0
|
49.8°
|
243.9°
|
a public viewing of partial eclipse will occur from 2:15 – 3:15
pm, on 8/21/17 in the large open space adjacent to the Planetarium (North of
the Lyons Science Building). Maximum partial eclipse (95%) will
occur at 2:45. Eclipse glasses will be provided to the extent that supply
allows. In addition, three solar safe telescopes will be used to observe
the Sun during the eclipse. For more information about this event, contact the
FSU Planetarium Manager, Joe Kabbes.
Good luck!
John Mattox
Monday, October 8, 2012
Energy and the Future of Humanity
On 10/5/12, I spoke on Energy and the Future of Humanity at the Recylique in Durham, NC. A link to the slides I presented there is given on my Energy Web Page: http://astro.uncfsu.edu/
My conclusion is that atmospheric carbon must be our primary concern in setting energy policy. I find that continued exponential growth in humanity's combustion of fossil fuels is likely to be catastrophic! Perhaps we need to set to work on envisioning a radical redesign of the American lifestyle.
What do you think?
My conclusion is that atmospheric carbon must be our primary concern in setting energy policy. I find that continued exponential growth in humanity's combustion of fossil fuels is likely to be catastrophic! Perhaps we need to set to work on envisioning a radical redesign of the American lifestyle.
What do you think?
Thursday, June 28, 2012
Don't let the vested interest of Exxon Mobil divert us from a shift to carbon free energy
On 6/27/12, Rex Tillerson, Exxon Mobil’s CEO, gave a talk at the Council on Foreign Relations on North American Energy Security. Here are links to video and a transcript of his talk.
It is an optimistic assessment - buoyed by the growing production of gas and oil by hydrofracking in North America, as well as a new Exxon Mobil process for Canadian Tar Sand production that uses less energy. He proclaims that energy security (but not energy independence) is within our grasp.
I think the flaw in his proclamation is that it embodies only short term thinking. It enables "business as usual" for another decade or two, but will leave us facing a catastrophic situation as demand for conventional oil and gas continues to increase as we stumble into it's depletion while the atmospheric CO2 concentration (and consequently the Earth's temperature) continues to rise.
In this speech, Tillerson acknowledged that the rising CO2 concentration is causing an increase in temperatures at the surface of the Earth (a very welcome change from Exxon's past massive funding of climate change denial, reflecting the position of Tillerson's predecessor, Lee Raymond). He goes on to say that current models are not completely accurate (which is true), and then concludes without justification that the effects of climate change will be manageable (apparently assuming, falsely, that the climate models can only err on the side of over-predicting the effects of a CO2 increase). Credible climate scientists, e.g., James Hansen, believe that unless drastic reductions in CO2 emission occur very soon, we face the possibility of climate catastrophe as we cross tipping points related to the melting of sea and glacier ice, and release of marine methane hydrates.
I suggest that a cautious response to this prospect is in the public interest, and thus, we need to shift to carbon free energy sources as fast as practical. We can thus avert climate catastrophe; while saving substantial amounts of conventional gas and petroleum for manufacturing by our descendents for the myriad millennia to come. We also need to rise to the challenge of using energy much more appropriately and efficiently, while sharing its appropriate use with all citizens of the world. Let's not let the vested interest of Exxon Mobil divert us from these necessities! We must end fossil fuel subsidies, and take other measures to foster the development of carbon free energy.
It is an optimistic assessment - buoyed by the growing production of gas and oil by hydrofracking in North America, as well as a new Exxon Mobil process for Canadian Tar Sand production that uses less energy. He proclaims that energy security (but not energy independence) is within our grasp.
I think the flaw in his proclamation is that it embodies only short term thinking. It enables "business as usual" for another decade or two, but will leave us facing a catastrophic situation as demand for conventional oil and gas continues to increase as we stumble into it's depletion while the atmospheric CO2 concentration (and consequently the Earth's temperature) continues to rise.
In this speech, Tillerson acknowledged that the rising CO2 concentration is causing an increase in temperatures at the surface of the Earth (a very welcome change from Exxon's past massive funding of climate change denial, reflecting the position of Tillerson's predecessor, Lee Raymond). He goes on to say that current models are not completely accurate (which is true), and then concludes without justification that the effects of climate change will be manageable (apparently assuming, falsely, that the climate models can only err on the side of over-predicting the effects of a CO2 increase). Credible climate scientists, e.g., James Hansen, believe that unless drastic reductions in CO2 emission occur very soon, we face the possibility of climate catastrophe as we cross tipping points related to the melting of sea and glacier ice, and release of marine methane hydrates.
I suggest that a cautious response to this prospect is in the public interest, and thus, we need to shift to carbon free energy sources as fast as practical. We can thus avert climate catastrophe; while saving substantial amounts of conventional gas and petroleum for manufacturing by our descendents for the myriad millennia to come. We also need to rise to the challenge of using energy much more appropriately and efficiently, while sharing its appropriate use with all citizens of the world. Let's not let the vested interest of Exxon Mobil divert us from these necessities! We must end fossil fuel subsidies, and take other measures to foster the development of carbon free energy.
Monday, December 12, 2011
What to do with humanure?
Lets face it, humans are mammals, and human excrement is
very similar to that of other mammals. Lets begin by calling it humanure.
What to do with humanure? We used to simply leave it where it came out – as most other mammals do. Because of our
propensity for living close together, and the knowledge gained from science that humanure can transmit
disease, a sanitation regime has developed. At least where it can be afforded - approximately 30% of humanity still leaves their their feces lying on open ground.
However, the sanitation regime of the industrialized world is problematic in terms of its environmental impact. What follows is a description of what we currently do in America (or what is done on your behalf after you push the flush button), and how we might substantially improve upon it.
First we use a large amount of potable drinking
water (approximately 100 times the volume of the feces) to flush it out of our
toilets and into our sanitary sewers. There it is further diluted with
household gray water. And then we often mix in industrial waste (often adding toxic heavy metals, e.g., mercury, adding real injury to
what so far could be described as merely environmental insult).
This witch's brew goes to the regional Waste Water Treatment Plant (WWTP),
often requiring considerable utilization of energy in pumping. There solids are
settled out, and suspended organic matter digested by bacteria to the extent
necessary for most of it to also settle out. The remaining liquid is treated
with chlorine to render it sterile, and then released into our waterways, still
bearing substantial organic matter, heavy metals from industrial waste,
and copious quantities of non- metabolized pharmaceutical agents and their biologically
active metabolites! Approximately 60% of the anti-depressants and their metabolites
pass straight through current WWTPs. If your drinking water comes from
waterways with upstream WWTP discharge (and most does), and you are taking anti-depressants,
your doctor may soon be able to reduce your prescribed dosage because of what is already
in your drinking water! If you don’t want to take anti-depressants … too bad - unless you are willing to pay for distilled water (or water treated by reverse osmosis), an option not available to fish and other
wild life.
And what do we do with the WWTP sludge (or biosolids) that
settle out. We dump most of it on agricultural fields. A green solution you
might think? Wrong, it also carries with it heavy metals from industrial waste,
contaminating not only the produce grown there but also the soil. There is also
concern about pathogens in the sludge. Regulation prohibits direct human consumption of produce thus grown. In the 1990s, hundreds of dairy cows that ate grass produced from sewage sludge from Augusta, GA died of thallium poisoning.
In summary, our so called civilized treatment of humanure is
a process that consumes large amounts of drinking water, uses substantial
amounts of electrical energy, pollutes surface waters with WWTP effluent, and contaminates
soil (with heavy metal laden biosolids).
In addition, we are wasting potentially valuable bi-products!
If manure digestion happens in an anaerobic environment, it yields methane-rich
biogas which can be used as fuel for producing electric power and/or heat. Also
the resulting biosolids (if they were free of contaminants) would be valuable
fertilizer for agriculture.
For these reasons, reform is strongly indicated. I’d like to
be involved in the development of a green humanure paradigm that is congruent with
American sensibilities. The crucial question is “to what extent can the
technology evolve to reach congruence versus the extent to which American sensibilities
can or should evolve toward congruence?” An essential first step is to treat residential waste water separately from that of industry. Also, I expect that village scale (or possibly neighborhood) treatment will be more efficient and effective.
An approach of interest for me is the anaerobic digestion of waste
materials for the production of bio-methane for cooking and other domestic uses.
Such a digester could be feed with controlled combinations of agricultural animal manure, humanure,
kitchen waste. and agricultural plant wastes.
Small scale biogas plants are widely used in China. It would
be appropriate to study the Chinese models (there are several, for different
climates), and design a system appropriate for local climate and social
values.
It would be crucial to develop a process so that the residue
left after anaerobic digestion can be used for agriculture locally
without substantial health risk, and in compliance with county and state health codes, possibly through Pasteurization followed by aerobic composting.
Separation of humanure from gray water eases the difficulty
of treating both. Gray water could be
treated with a biological system that includes
both microbes and plants, possibly yielding effluent water of sufficient
quality to be safely used in agriculture, at least for fuel or fiber crops, and
possibly also for closed fruits that grow above ground, e.g., blue berries and
apples. The system would ideally be passive in that it would be designed to
operate without any pumping of water during treatment.
Findings should be publicized with the hope that such systems will find broad future acceptance in American culture. This technology
could provide a major step toward sustainability for the world, as it
eliminates the harmful aspects of "modern" sanitation practice mentioned above, and hopefully creates a cost effective sanitation regime that can more rapidly be adopted in developing regions.The proposed technology could also allow us to eliminate our current practices in rural parts of America where septic systems inject effluent water bearing heavy metals and other poisons into the soil where it often finds its way into the ground water.
When Robots Do all the Work, Who Will They Be Working For?
Timothy Travis gave a talk on Sunday, 12/11/11, at the Unitarian Universalist Congregation of Fayetteville entitled, When Robots Do all the Work, Who Will They Be Working For? A very lively discussion followed.
I agree with one objection that was raised during this discussion, robots will not be doing all of the work in the foreseeable future. Notwithstanding, this is a apt topic for discussion. Technology will continue to displace human labor while simultaneously enabling processes that will create tremendous new value. What should be done with this value (i.e., wealth) when far less labor is required?
The consensus of the discussion on Sunday is that democratic socialism is in order. It was pointed out that socialism has a bad reputation in America. I think this is primarily because it has been conflated with Soviet style totalitarianism.
American democratic socialism should be a DEMOCRACY, where the direction of the state is determined by the will of the people. And the private sector should not be abolished; au contraire, it should be encouraged. Valuable innovation can be expected to continue to occur there.
I think it is important to acknowledge that many aspects of the current organization of American life are indeed provided by all for all, consistent with the essence of socialism. I suggest that many of these should remain public, and that we should make deliberate choices going forward as to what aspects of our lives should be within the public sector, see specific suggestions below.
Can public sector enterprise be managed much more effectively than it currently is? Sure!
Can innovation and excellence happen in the public sector? Indeed!
How did humans get to the Moon? It was a public sector effort!
For excellence in the public sector to be a reality, we need to cultivate an ethos of excellence and entrepreneurship in public servants. Why not? Greed is not the only motivation that humans can respond to! Look at this recent research on altruism and empathy in rats. Do you really think that humans aren't also sometimes motivated by altruism and empathy? I think that we could expect much better behavior from individuals if we encourage them to act out of altruism rather than greed!
I. Some activities under state control that should remain under state control
A. The military
Would anyone advocate for allowing the use of armed force to be a laissez faire situation (À la Mexican drug cartels)? Hopefully enough said!
B. Transportation infrastructure
Should air traffic control be abandoned? Probably not!
Would many support the privatization of all of the nation's highways? I expect not.
To support the construction and maintenance of roads, I suggest that society should tax private vehicular travel according to the miles driven per month multiplied by the impact of each vehicle on the roads. I suggest below the abolition of gasoline taxes which now partially support roads.
C. Public Education
Public education. I think that it should continue to be public, and continue to be free - and should also be free at public colleges and universities through the baccalaureate level.
II. Some venues where publictization should be considered
A new word is introduced here (for a new era) - definition - publictize: to convert a formerly private activity into a public enterprise. Note the contrast with the existing word publicize; e.g., we need some our best minds to publicize publictization.
A. Fossil fuel extraction
It should be acknowledged that the private sector was vital to the development of the fossil fuel industries. But continued profligate combustion of fossil fuels now threatens the very existence of civilization (through carbon dioxide emission and consequent global climate change). Thus we should consider the publictization of the extraction of fossil fuels. Public management is appropriate for this new era where we must use fossil fuels very carefully to mitigate carbon emissions and to prolong fossil fuel availability. I think that we should stop burning them for energy as soon as possible. In addition to mitigation of carbon, this will provide for their prolonged future use for other critical applications (e.g., manufacturing of drugs, lubricants, plastics). This should be done in a manner that generates public revenue - so that the price can appropriately moderate demand. Also, this would allow the gasoline tax to be abolished.
Why should we allow the oil companies to continue to make hundreds of billions of dollars of profit each year from peak oil? Petroleum should now be viewed as a public resource while the external costs of its production and combustion should be viewed as the public liabilities that they actually are.
This public fossil fuel revenue would be subject to democratic control. I suggest public initiatives (see B&C below) which would require substantial public revenue.
The private sector should be encouraged to develop new sources of energy. The stable price for fossil fuel energy that would result from its publictization would lower the risk for the private investments required to develop alternative and/or sustainable energy.
B. Health care
Public sector health care works well in many places, e.g., England, and Canada.
I think that basic health care should be available to all US citizens free of charge. Thought must be given to developing a process to specify what is "basic health care" and what is "elective" (to be paid for personally or with private insurance). And these specifications will need to change with time. I suggest that cosmetic surgery should always be elective, and that heart transplants should also be elective (at least for the time being). American health care professionals could focus their abundant talent on the development of effective and cost-effective medical procedures and on the promotion of wellness. Perhaps the provision of American medical procedures at cost to large numbers of medical tourists from around the world would become a major source of future international good will and national pride. This initiative would allow medicare and medicaid and the taxes that support them to be eliminated.
C. Public stipend
I suggest that every citizen of the USA should receive a public stipend from the moment of birth to the moment of death. This is analogous to the Alaska Permanent fund (which payed each individual $1174 in 2011). This would allow Social Security and the pay roll tax that supports it to be phased out.
I think that this stipend should be sufficient to support the basic needs of the individual (approximately $1000 per month in today's economy). Desperation would thus no longer need to be a motivation for crime in America!
Some individuals may thus choose to live a life of simple leisure. Why shouldn't they? Leisure seems to be basically what nature designed mammals for!
Others may choose to live simple, but expansive lives - perhaps making tremendous contributions to the arts or in public service.
Many will work for additional income or participate as entrepreneurs in various enterprises. No problem! They should not be discouraged! And their public stipend should continue - although I would suggest that their additional income should be taxed. The 2011 1st quarter profit of the 5 largest oil companies was 31 billion dollars - substantially less than the ~$1 trillion per quarter needed to fund this proposed stipend at the proposed level.
What do you think? Please let me know if you have concerns!
John Mattox, 12/12/11
I agree with one objection that was raised during this discussion, robots will not be doing all of the work in the foreseeable future. Notwithstanding, this is a apt topic for discussion. Technology will continue to displace human labor while simultaneously enabling processes that will create tremendous new value. What should be done with this value (i.e., wealth) when far less labor is required?
The consensus of the discussion on Sunday is that democratic socialism is in order. It was pointed out that socialism has a bad reputation in America. I think this is primarily because it has been conflated with Soviet style totalitarianism.
American democratic socialism should be a DEMOCRACY, where the direction of the state is determined by the will of the people. And the private sector should not be abolished; au contraire, it should be encouraged. Valuable innovation can be expected to continue to occur there.
I think it is important to acknowledge that many aspects of the current organization of American life are indeed provided by all for all, consistent with the essence of socialism. I suggest that many of these should remain public, and that we should make deliberate choices going forward as to what aspects of our lives should be within the public sector, see specific suggestions below.
Can public sector enterprise be managed much more effectively than it currently is? Sure!
Can innovation and excellence happen in the public sector? Indeed!
How did humans get to the Moon? It was a public sector effort!
For excellence in the public sector to be a reality, we need to cultivate an ethos of excellence and entrepreneurship in public servants. Why not? Greed is not the only motivation that humans can respond to! Look at this recent research on altruism and empathy in rats. Do you really think that humans aren't also sometimes motivated by altruism and empathy? I think that we could expect much better behavior from individuals if we encourage them to act out of altruism rather than greed!
I. Some activities under state control that should remain under state control
A. The military
Would anyone advocate for allowing the use of armed force to be a laissez faire situation (À la Mexican drug cartels)? Hopefully enough said!
B. Transportation infrastructure
Should air traffic control be abandoned? Probably not!
Would many support the privatization of all of the nation's highways? I expect not.
To support the construction and maintenance of roads, I suggest that society should tax private vehicular travel according to the miles driven per month multiplied by the impact of each vehicle on the roads. I suggest below the abolition of gasoline taxes which now partially support roads.
C. Public Education
Public education. I think that it should continue to be public, and continue to be free - and should also be free at public colleges and universities through the baccalaureate level.
II. Some venues where publictization should be considered
A new word is introduced here (for a new era) - definition - publictize: to convert a formerly private activity into a public enterprise. Note the contrast with the existing word publicize; e.g., we need some our best minds to publicize publictization.
A. Fossil fuel extraction
It should be acknowledged that the private sector was vital to the development of the fossil fuel industries. But continued profligate combustion of fossil fuels now threatens the very existence of civilization (through carbon dioxide emission and consequent global climate change). Thus we should consider the publictization of the extraction of fossil fuels. Public management is appropriate for this new era where we must use fossil fuels very carefully to mitigate carbon emissions and to prolong fossil fuel availability. I think that we should stop burning them for energy as soon as possible. In addition to mitigation of carbon, this will provide for their prolonged future use for other critical applications (e.g., manufacturing of drugs, lubricants, plastics). This should be done in a manner that generates public revenue - so that the price can appropriately moderate demand. Also, this would allow the gasoline tax to be abolished.
Why should we allow the oil companies to continue to make hundreds of billions of dollars of profit each year from peak oil? Petroleum should now be viewed as a public resource while the external costs of its production and combustion should be viewed as the public liabilities that they actually are.
This public fossil fuel revenue would be subject to democratic control. I suggest public initiatives (see B&C below) which would require substantial public revenue.
The private sector should be encouraged to develop new sources of energy. The stable price for fossil fuel energy that would result from its publictization would lower the risk for the private investments required to develop alternative and/or sustainable energy.
B. Health care
Public sector health care works well in many places, e.g., England, and Canada.
I think that basic health care should be available to all US citizens free of charge. Thought must be given to developing a process to specify what is "basic health care" and what is "elective" (to be paid for personally or with private insurance). And these specifications will need to change with time. I suggest that cosmetic surgery should always be elective, and that heart transplants should also be elective (at least for the time being). American health care professionals could focus their abundant talent on the development of effective and cost-effective medical procedures and on the promotion of wellness. Perhaps the provision of American medical procedures at cost to large numbers of medical tourists from around the world would become a major source of future international good will and national pride. This initiative would allow medicare and medicaid and the taxes that support them to be eliminated.
C. Public stipend
I suggest that every citizen of the USA should receive a public stipend from the moment of birth to the moment of death. This is analogous to the Alaska Permanent fund (which payed each individual $1174 in 2011). This would allow Social Security and the pay roll tax that supports it to be phased out.
I think that this stipend should be sufficient to support the basic needs of the individual (approximately $1000 per month in today's economy). Desperation would thus no longer need to be a motivation for crime in America!
Some individuals may thus choose to live a life of simple leisure. Why shouldn't they? Leisure seems to be basically what nature designed mammals for!
Others may choose to live simple, but expansive lives - perhaps making tremendous contributions to the arts or in public service.
Many will work for additional income or participate as entrepreneurs in various enterprises. No problem! They should not be discouraged! And their public stipend should continue - although I would suggest that their additional income should be taxed. The 2011 1st quarter profit of the 5 largest oil companies was 31 billion dollars - substantially less than the ~$1 trillion per quarter needed to fund this proposed stipend at the proposed level.
What do you think? Please let me know if you have concerns!
John Mattox, 12/12/11
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)