The VW Golf MKV GTI with DSG Review

I want to talk about a new car that is a real piece of work. It seems to combine the impossible. Practicality, Affordability, and Performance. Of the three affordability is probably its weakest link since there are several very practical cars for well under 20k… but not so many hot performance cars. This is the gold standard car of the Euro Hot Hatch. After all, the introduction of the Golf GTI birthed the class. While VW abdicated their throne for a couple of generations, the MKV has reclaimed it with a vengeance. Simple, Purposeful interior, Everything is at the drivers fingertips. Hatchback practicality for hauling people or gear (choose one mind you) and the ability to cruise sipping gas at 30mpg with every airbag possible on a car these days. Tight suspension, Alphabet Breaks and an out of this world power box mated to the emerging standard in performance transmissions gives you some serious giggle inducing performance…. All for ~25k. Not cheap, not expensive. Its peers are the Mazda 3, RSX-S, Civic SI and several other multipurpose front wheel drive rockets. The DSG sets it apart. Some call it boring… I call it technology. Finally I can have a car that is fun to drive and has a clutched transmission that my wife can drive since she doesn't have to work a clutch pedal. I get my crisp high performance shifts and real gear/engine control while she gets boring drive to the grocery store ease.

How fast does this transmission shift? When it guesses right? By the time you register the noise it makes, the next gear is fully engaged and the revs are rapidly climbing to the next bfffft gone click. Even a bad shift where it is guessing wrong is pretty crisp… slow for a good clutch artist, about par for your typical joe schmoe just punching the clock and not trying to click and go. I won't say anything silly like it is more enjoyable than a clutch job… but for performance it is pretty damn hard to question it. I know every one of you that has ever loved a clutch pedal has also had those days/times where you just wish you could throw the damn thing into drive and forget about it for a little while. Of course the feeling passes, and you know you would never give it up for the pain that is a slush box. But the DSG isn't a slush box so most of the fun is there in the paddle shifters. The mental game is all the same… you just have to leave your left foot on the sidelines.

How good is the performance? Well… I drive by the seat of my pants. The seat of my pants going around my favorite twisties in my roaring 89 5 speed Mustang GT says 55-65 is pushing it.. and if its raining the posted caution sign is probably much closer to being right than wrong. Driving the GTI… 75-85 feels right and my stomach does flip flops imagining what I would have to do to get that same sensation I used to have squealing tires in my stang at 65 through a nice curvy section of mountain road. I don't believe It is ever going to give me that same raw feeling. But if I want to experience some sideways Front wheel drive mayhem I have just to click off the traction control program, use my DSG launch program and go for it… for the most part I think I will pass. It is a nice change of pace to throw far more than is legally allowed at a road and have a car that is yawning at me and calling me a pussy for not going at it harder. Going fast in the GTI vrs an older car like my mustang is like comparing the DSG to your typical 5/6 speed row action… it does it so well for you that it does a good job of making it boring. But no so boring I didn't sign on the line to trade in my Mustang.

As for practicality? That one is well established. This is just a dressed up Rabbit/Golf. Hatchback bliss. But here you go. I am 5'10 and a smidgin.. and I am Husky (if you are being nice). The salesman was about 6'2 or so. I had him sit in the front passenger seat and place the seat where he had a good inch between his knees and the glove box while I sat in the back… I had a good inch or two myself from the back of the seat. The back seats have air vents (directed center console and under seat) and cup holders as well as through access to the trunk. Color me surprised. The trunk/boot whatever you want to call it isn't large, But it will haul a load of groceries or enough crap for a couple on a weekend jaunt. For any more you need to fold down the seats or go for the roof rack. I think a roof rack and bag would suit a family of 3 best, and be a tad tight for 4… but forget Fido. If you are there you are looking bigger than this class anyway. Golf clubs require at least one of the seats down. All in all a very capable small car.

As for style? That is in the eye of the beholder. I rather like the 3 door hatch look… and with the factory 17" wheels, clean lines (read no crazy wings and intakes) and subtle trim details, the car stands apart from its less capable chassis mate the Rabbit, but brings a much needed understated air to the class of performance compacts. To the initiated, the GTI stands out… to others it just looks like a compact car. That is good for some and not so good for others. To each their own and all that.

All in all this car is one hell of a ride and the grin is still firmly stuck on my face a week after I drove it home.

Game Changers

You know people talk about game changing technology a lot…. So I find it funny when the real thing comes along to relatively little fan fare. Nobody really paid attention when the I-pod launched. Sure the apple heads were thrilled but at that time mp3 was not a household term and the idea of your computer being the central element to your music collection was pretty well reserved to those of a pretty geeky bent. Today's game changers have had some press sure. But I just am not sure folks really realize the full potential impact of two products that just started to ship.

The first is the new Toshiba Batteries. First story I saw about it was a couple of years ago when it was fresh out of the labs. The past week saw the announcement that they were starting to ship. The quick and dirty? 5000 recharge cycle lithium ion batteries able to be effectively re-charged in 5 minutes. That is 13 years and change at a full charge everyday from a battery technology proven to give 100-200 mile range in electric vehicles. And that is just to the battery maintaining 90% original charge. In other words these babies can last the life of a car through multiple owners and it can be recharged fast enough to be used on extended trips. The only two things missing now are stations with a high capacity recharge capability and some cars that use the technology. 9 gets you one the new flush of plug in hybrid vehicles and even a couple of electric only cars are on the fast track to incorporating these batteries. Charging stations should be relatively easy to install. These batteries can charge and discharge at a high rate. That means a station could house a bank of them that charge off a standard (commercial) outlet and then provide the high capacity needed to fast charge smaller car packs. Stations can charge up overnight during low utility rate periods and as needed during the day… perhaps even off of solar panels though you would need a lot to really make much of a dent in the kind of power storage you are talking about to charge up even a single car with these, much less a line of them. The really nice thing about this? Small installations could be fairly inexpensive to roll out and then they could be very easily expanded as more cars came on line. This really is about as easy an infrastructure change as we could hope for. The hardest transition would be if the cars really take off and the basic power delivery capacity has to be upgraded to deliver more juice to replace gas at the pumps. Make no mistake folks. This battery marks the entrance of practical all electric vehicles. The only real question remaining is will the cost of them make those practical cars luxury items, or an everyman choice? Of course this is not to mention the nice bonus of laptops and cell phones that can be quickly charged from a standard outlet. Are these perfect? No, odds are they will be pricey to start with and the capacity/ energy density is still lower than it ultimately needs to be. But these are a very big deal.

The second game changer to launch is the new nanosolar product. 1$ a watt. Not fiction, not some day. But shipping now and production is bought up for a year and counting. Current Solar panel installation ROI tends to be about 20 years. This cuts that by 75%. Combine it with the above technology with a battery that could have an effective life of better than 10 years and you might manage to improve the ROI time even further. Existing installations tend to use SLA batteries and need to be replaced every 5-8 years…. Granted the added cost of the lithium might more than offset that but if those make it into massive production to support electric vehicles then you will have a high likely hood of mass produced high capacity packs designed to be safe in car wrecks. Think of it this way. You are a housing contractor. If you look at current solar options for grid tie sell back systems your selling point to the owner is that the added cost starts showing ROI after 20 years. With these you get to pitch 5 years… or in other words less time than some car financing options. Again this is truly game changing technology. While I doubt it will usher in an era of universal solar installations, this will do a great deal to shift the decision to 'go solar' into the territory of financially intelligent (if somewhat long sighted) rather than the current 'eco morality feel good' choice it primarily is. IE companies currently install solar for the PR value much more than any potential financial benefit, private installations are often choices of conscious or even made for independence in spite of the added cost. Combine it with tax incentive programs for alternative energy sources and this panel is poised to get solar installations changed from the exception to the expected in new build properties.

Like it or not I think the true 'green' revolution is here. This is the start of the nitty gritty details on how it actually happens. Two imperfect but practical new products which are shipping. Perhaps I am jumping the gun here, but I doubt it. For once the numbers are starting to tilt in the favor of some alternative energy products. Finally, real products instead of marketing pipe dreams and hype. Give these another two years and I doubt anyone will not know about them.

US Research Woes

Ars Technica has an article up summarizing a book released in the national academy press about the current state of US research in physics. To sum up the summation report in a nutshell.... it SUCKS.

Of course just a personal nit... The national academy report costs 50 bucks for a PDF file. Your telling me that cost is justified? They let you read it online for free but charge 50bucks for a PDF download?

Anyway that is neither here nor there. One of the biggest recommendations coming from this report is the re-establishment of the 'blue-sky' research labs of the past. Such as Xerox, Bell-Labs, Westinghouse etc... What is left of these once famous labs is now beholden to the bottom line which is utter anathema to the spirit in which they were founded. Pure research cannot have an eye on the bottom line else you get what we have today... a dreary endless procession of mild improvements on existing PROVEN technologies. The point of pure research is to push back the boundaries of what isn't proven, to find the new, the revolutionary. Yet that is almost always unjustifiable from a 'profit' making ventures standpoint. It takes a real set of brass business cajones to pin your hope on the 'possible' breakthroughs that 'might' come out of a costly pure research endeavor. And that is why these labs are far more about the bottom line now than they were when they changed the world. It has improved those companies bottom line.... and assured them they will be the first on the extinction list when the next revolutionary change occurs. They are the buggy makers at the advent of the car, candle makers in the path of electric light etc etc etc...

It seems they are vague about how to go about re-establishing such strongholds of intellectual freedom. Well I have a suggestion. Not even a greedy one. One Billion dollars a year. One. A drop in the bucket of federal spending. One Billion free and clear. No strings attached. No agenda with it. One Billion a year to establish an institute which has the sole purpose to explore the un-explored. To test the untested. To push back the boundaries of our knowledge. This would be agreed to for something insane like 999 years with provisions for adjusting to inflation etc... The idea would be to slowly build up the foremost power in discovery. The reward would be for it to exist in the US. How might such an enterprise work? Well I have some ideas and I wanted to lay them out so here goes.

First and foremost I would make it a completely open process. The work would be online, and available to all comers so the first budget expenditure would be in making it a common workplace available for all from anywhere in the world. In other words, the founding principle of this process would be to include as many as possible. And I do not mean completed studies would be available. I mean underway projects would be transparent. The results of test runs would happen real time. All raw data would be available. Monetary expenditures would be equally transparent.

Second, while such an endeavor would obviously need its own research facilities, I would arrange for a yearly allotment of lab time at the top available facilities rather than try and re-invent the wheel.

Third, How to handle the money. First, 25% a year would go into trust for the foundation in order to eventually develop it into a self sustaining venture regardless of the success of its research or the fickle support of government. Another 25% would go into a practical branch which spent its time trying to develop practical uses, ventures etc from the research being done. Their goal not to make money so much as to break ground in the market place for the new ideas. In other words to take the theoretical and put it to solid real world use. A major goal would be to test economy of scale on at least one new technology per year. Most ventures would likely not take hold but a few should and before long should add to the self sufficient nature of the venture. Profits would go into trust or evenly dispersed bonus money to the entire enterprise.

One important note. The person in the highest position of authority could not make more than 3 times the person at the lowest rank in the research process.

The other money would go into making research possible. 1/3 in people, 1/3 in facilities and 1/3 in expenses.

Decisions about what was to be researched would be entirely in the research branch. No input from the practical branch. The price the practical branch pays for its existence and free access to what comes out of the labs is no control in the process. the practical branch also gets the legal headaches. The basic idea is not to control use of what is discovered, but to keep it open for use by anyone. Patent license agreements would be allowed but at no greater than 1% of the value of a finished product sold at retail.

The goal behind the trust is two fold. Eventually a large enough trust would form to create a solid income able to sustain the venture even if nothing ever panned out or government funding were withdrawn (most likely inevitable). Thus making it possible for such a foundation to remain true to the founding principle of 'blue-sky' research. One problem with entities like Bell labs is that they were secondary to the goal of making money and thus once the market toughened the free form nature of the labs was an un-affordable luxury (in the short term at least). Thus establishing a foundation that exists to do research has to allow some means for its future financial independence separated from the success of its work. Second, I would hope that such a stash in concert with profits from those lines of research that do pan out would eventually give the foundation the ability to go after really large projects again with freedom from something like the federal budget process.

That would be fantastic for pie in the sky research. Based on the fact most economic success today is based on some sort of blue sky research in the past I think it safe to say that properly done such an organization would eventually become a very powerful entity. Once it spear headed a new advance or two it was allowed to take financial advantage of it would soon find a freedom never before experienced by a research lab. The tough part about setting it up would be providing it budgetary support long enough for it to become self sustaining... and maintaining that support even if it took decades, or even centuries. The check on the eventual power of such an organization would be that it had no secrets. Its very existence would be predicated on the concept that Anyone had access to its discoveries. Not a technical ability to gain access... but access granted by making it as available as possible.

However not all advances come from blue sky research. There is something to be said for delivery real honest to god results in the real world with real applications. Lets set up something for that.

How about a billion a quarter deposited into an interest bearing account ear marked for technological milestones clearly defined. Hard, far reaching technical milestones. Far beyond the value of 1 billion dollars. But put in another billion the next quarter, and the following etc... Build a lottery for technology. The higher the value went the more likely someone would undergo to effort to claim it. No robbing the piggy bank on this one. Cold hard liquid assets with interest accrual and a ridiculous life span before it defaults back to the government like 999 years. What goals might be put forth?

An established lunar dark side observatory.
A Self sustaining Mars Colony.
A round trip expedition to Alpha Centauri.
The discovery of another earth like planet.

More earth bound goals?
10%, 25%, 50%, 75% payouts for an ecologically sustainable alternative to fossil fuels. The percentages representing market share the alternative must achieve.
A graduate AI that passes the Turing Test.
An automated travel vehicle with F-1 crash survivability for its occupants.
A production Scram Jet
A Fusion Reactor

But more important than the goals would be the basic premise of receiving a payout ONLY if you delivered a final result. Do this in concert with a pure 'blue-sky' research capacity and you should cover both the practical and the theoretical. Currently we are mired in a practical doldrum. Nobody wants to risk the new, and the few ventures that attempt to are generally aborted after any setbacks. At least on the government side of things. Look at the long list of aborted next generation vehicle attempts from NASA over the past two decades. On top of that, cost plus contracting has a nasty habit of nurturing parasitic long term ventures designed more to vacuum money out of federal coffers than to return any more than the bare minimum result needed to continue the influx of money.

To some extent this report simply said the US is moribound in the area of new research. We are in other words sitting on our laurels luxuriating in the glow of past successes... and the rest of the world is catching up fast. The head start the US got on the current technological era ushered in after WWII has just about evaporated. Just like the Dream Team finally got trounced in the Olympics, soon too will we be getting technologically trounced. And that has far more ramifications than falling behind in athletics. We are playing the hare... and tortoise is catching up. Only unlike in the parable tale, the tortoise is really another hare, a motivated hungry hare that will not easily give ups its advantage once it manages to pass us if it has not already. Just because we have done so well for so long does not mean we will continue to do so. We must take steps to ensure we remain at the top of scientific advancement. If history teaches us nothings else I think it has shown that those who advance lead and those who do not are over run.

"The Audacity of Hope" or "Mr. Obama Goes to Washington"

So Barak has made it official. The Junior Senator for Illinois who only ran for the Senate as a last grasp at politics is now taking aim at the highest office in the land. And the man is riding a feel good wave that hasn't let up and in most cases has built since his delivery of the Keynote address at the 04 Democratic National Convention for John Kerry.

That last grasp is in his words mind you not mine. You will find out about it in his book "The Audacity of Hope". So what did I think of the book? Well first off the man is humble. He clearly understands how fortuitous his present position is, he appreciates how fragile it is and how it it could all come crashing down in an instant. He has magnetism and it flows from his words. He clearly lays out where he stands on the major issues without unnecessary digs at the opposing view point. He points the finger of blame for many of our current messes at ALL involved not just one side or the other. He pays homage to the history and foundation of the US governmental process in a erudite but not condescending manner. He regrets our departure from true bi partisan conversation and the cheapened/simplified sound byte culture we have allowed to infuse politics.

That is the good, and there is plenty more to like about his book. However, there remains one thing sorely lacking from his heartfelt dialog. Details. Plans. Courses of action. Some marks of what he will do as the man in charge. Granted he is the first to admit these things are not to be found on the pages twixt the covers of his book. To some extent I understand this and if he could honestly say he did not write the book with an eye to the presidency I might understand it even more. But accepting that this book was not written with that possibility in mind takes a great leap of faith I am unwilling to make. And in any case even if it has simply been written from the standpoint of his future as a Senator I think he should have gotten down to brass tacks on at least a few issues. He blasts the simplicity of the current public debate and then coasts through his book with middle ground platitudes and soothing calls for compassion and compromise on divisive issues.

So in the end this book will at least make you feel like you know the man a bit more... but in a way where you are not terribly sure what his leadership would be like. It is very easy to fall into reading what you want into Barak Obama. Personally I still have reserved my judgment of his presidential bid, but on the whole I like what I have seen so far. I look forward to seeing how he progresses.

There was one thing in particular that did catch my attention. His discussion about his faith. Perhaps it is just my well honed sense of cynicism when it comes to political professions of faith... but I really thought that section is the one that rang most fake, the most contrived to me. No body seems to doubt a female or minority can make a serious bid for the presidency... but the unspoken understanding for political candidates in the US is that you cannot win without being a clearly professed Christian. To win as a non-Christian you have to avoid the Christian activists groups voting against you en-mass. No one knows how hard that would be but suffice it to say they think it so hard that no major party candidate for president has not been a declared Christian to date. Considering how agnosticism tends to track with higher education levels and that the presidential talent pool has routinely come from the top educational backgrounds available it is laughable to think there have not been Christians of convenience elected in the past. I can just imagine Obama involved in arguments with his advisor's over how to handle that section. I think it is a serious part of his life. However, by and large people of true faith have little need to clearly state the conditions of the their faith such as is done in "The Audacity of Hope". True or not, heartfelt or not, it seems inserted entirely for the reason of establishing his bona fides as a card(cross?) carrying member of the J.C. crowd (not to mention the well chronicled Civil activism of the African American Church community) while clearly limiting its level of effect on his decision making or questioning nature. The statements seem a cold calculated move and rings hollow compared to most of his other sentiments.

It isn't that I think what he does is wrong. This is a standard play to the Strongly Christian element of the electorate. They are not stupid and realize what is often the reality of the situation. One might call it the most basic (and easiest) political career compromises for US politics. However Obama goes to great lengths in most of the book to not come across as the 'Standard' politician. His history of involvement in the church community in Chicago is MORE than enough to speak for itself and available to counteract any claims against his status as a Christian. In fact the man has more credibility in this department than any candidate in recent memory for me. Yet here he lets his well groomed 'not a standard politician' facade slip with a bog standard passage straight out of a national US politics 101 book. And it is that which bothers me. How much of him is Image? How much of him a solid man of consequence ready to lead this nation in troubled times? Is he a light weight thrust into the limelight by circumstance ridding his popularity wave for all it is worth... perhaps all the way to the white house? Or is he the the right man in the right place at the right time? The times are troubled and the people are looking for someone they think can pull us around. I think a great deal of that is what is driving the buzz surrounding Obama... not to mention the palpable feel in not a few democratic minds that Hillary has some SERIOUS electabillity issues. To date the Obama camp hasn't made any mistakes, but playing it safe and staying non-specific will only get them so far. Sooner or later he is going to have to start showing his substance... his leadership inclinations etc... In short he is going to have to present himself as Presidential in the true sense of the word... not just the helmet headed smooth talking baby kissing political sense, but in that way which each American feels down in their gut. If the electorate can't envision him has president he won't stand a chance and to get there he has got to start defining himself with more than platitudes about having a real political conversation (much as I agree with that sentiment personally).

So to make a long story short... I like him but I wouldn't vote for him yet.

Alberto Gonzales... WTF????

The top Lawyer in the United States does not understand how the Constitution works. He actually stated that the Constitution doesn't grant people the right of Habeas Corpus (The right to Due Process of Law) like that actually meant it was not a right of the people.

I can accept such idiocy from some common Joe Schmoe off the street. In fact many might not know why this is such a farce and make the erroneous counter argument that the Constitution does indeed explicitly grant we the people the right of Habeas Corpus. In point of fact it does not, but let me break it down for you so that you can understand exactly how big an a$$clown Gonzales just showed himself to be when it comes to a fundamental element of his job... understanding the Constitution.

The Constitution does not grant ANYTHING to We The People. The Constitution is written specifically to define the rights and limitations of the Government. You see, the most basic and fundamental assumption of the United States Constitution is that ALL RIGHTS BELONG TO WE THE PEOPLE. The Constitution then goes on to explicitly state what the Government Can, and most importantly, what it CANNOT do. In the case of Habeas Corpus it explicitly states that the ONLY cases under which the Government can suspend the right of Habeas Corpus is when either we are invaded or a state of rebellion exists and then only when it will help maintain public safety. Currently neither is true thus the government has no right to deny Habeas Corpus.

See how that works. By default WE HAVE ALL RIGHTS. The document doesn't gives us the rights, we already have them. The document ONLY defines when and how much the government can intrude upon those rights.

The problem is that over time the 'common sense' understanding of the constitution has come to be it is the granter of our rights and thus is the source of our rights. Nothing could be further from the truth and if our Founding Fathers are aware of such idiocy at the level of the Attorney General of the United States of America they are spinning in their graves.

The Bill of Rights is not a list of our rights. It is the limitation of Government power to intrude on our most basic and fundamental rights. Let me put that another way. The Bill of Rights represents those issues which were deemed so important that it could not be assumed the government would not tramp on them at some point so they EXPLICITLY prohibit the government from intruding upon them. Thus it states things like.

Amendment 1:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Read that again, pay attention in particular to the start "Congress shall make no law". CONGRESS. The constitution is not talking to the people but stating an explicit limit on the power of Government. It allows no exceptions. It doesn’t say in time of war the government can suspend the ability of the people to peaceably assemble. It says NO LAW. If they do try you can say what part of NO don’t you understand. When the government breaks with the constitution it is in effect saying it rules the people and not the other way around. It breaks the pact We the People made that government would be formed under the strictures of the constitution. In fact it nullifies its right to govern us.

If you have never read the constitution before or if you always thought of it as granting We the People our rights PLEASE go read it again in this light. Especially the 10th amendment.


Why does it work this way? Power Corrupts and Absolute power Corrupts absolutely. When people make a compact with a government they make a compact with the devil. Governments allow stability. But they also invite Tyranny. Once the power structure is in place it is hard to challenge and it ALWAYS acts in its interests and not the peoples. Prior to the constitution most governments had been formed around the idea that they granted people their rights. IE the King or other organized power of the land had been imbued with some divine right to give and take away the rights of the people in order to run the country/province etc... The grand experiment of the American Republic was that it turned that notion on its head. We decided that it wasn't the government that doled out the rights but the people who did. Thus instead of the government granting We the People rights it is We the People that dole out and take away the rights of the Government. Thus the idea the government works for us and not the other way around.

Alberto Gonzales…. Go back to school and re-take your Con-Law classes. Jeebus this statement makes anything Quayle ever said look genius by comparison and at least none of his statements could be interpreted as a direct challenge against the fundamental nature of the Constitution.

Presidential Race for '08 update

It has been a while since I have visited the topic of the next presidential election and particularly the status of former first Lady Hillary Clinton and my thoughts on her upcoming bid for the next presidency.

Despite the fact some thought she would not, she has officially declared her candidacy. For any that have read through my blog they know The upcoming presidential election is one I view with a great deal of interest.

The New Al Gore
Hillary in 08



For the most part I stand by my original Thoughts mentioned there though it seems the new runner in the game is Barak Obama. I do not know too much about Barak but I will be looking into him and putting up my detailed thoughts at a later time... but from the standpoint of an interesting election he poses the added dimension of a credible African American candidate as opposed to the 1 dimensional sensationalist characters we have been presented with through the last couple of decades (Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson etc...).

I am not to sure about my thoughts on Gore... He is still insisting he will not make another bid for the presidency and while we are still almost two years away from the election it takes time to gather the resources of a realistic presidential bid. Granted he is in a somewhat unique position in that he is already so well known. Should Gore toss his hat in the ring even at the 11th hour he has enough standing to be a serious contender for the democratic nomination. The only problem is this will be a heavily contested election and it will take some deep pockets to see it through. While waiting late isn’t a bad strategy, waiting to long can mean all the money is gone to someone else. Unless Gore has a serious War Chest already he will need to start gathering resources soon to make a serious bid.

While I think his resurgence in status is going to lead to him being back on the presidential trail, it is not impossible he may let it pass by and decide to play king maker. If he does not run then his endorsement is going to be a key element for ANY democratic candidate but for Hillary it may well be a requirement. Not because of what Gore's backing would give her... but what a lack of backing from Gore would do to her in particular. IE Gore worked with her as Vice president and if he doesn't run AND he doesn’t back her then he is as good as saying... She isn't up to the task. If he runs this is muted because he then is only saying he thinks he can do a better job and it will be up to the people to decide if that is the case or not.

If I had to call the democratic dynamics now I would list them as this.

First, Hillary has the baton and at this point it is her race to lose considering all DECLARED candidates. She must have Gore backing her if he doesn't jump into the race. If he doesn't back her then she better hope he is either not doing so because he is in the race or because he abstains entirely from backing anyone. If he backs someone else he is declaring she can't do the job... and with 8 years in the white house with her he is in a unique position to pass that judgment and people will listen to it, all the more so if he is not in the race (IE his status will not be biasing him). After that it is all in how they handle Bill. However... lemme say this. Betting against the Clinton's when it comes to politickin is like betting against the house in Vegas. The house does lose occasionally, but that isn't the way the odds tilt. Bill will behave, and the issue of his former presidency will be handled as well as it can be. The only question is if it is a fatal flaw or manageable quirk of a Hillary Campaign. Don’t think Hillary will be a Female Bill. She is a different beast entirely. She doesn’t have the glib demeanor and she isn’t nearly as smooth. She is ruthlessly ambitious and knows how to reach her audience just look at her success in New York. In some ways she actually reminds me of Dubbya in that she isn’t afraid to alienate folks in order to strongly reach those she needs. So long as they make the right assumptions about who that is in her Campaign she is the one to beat.

Barak? Well I will get more in depth with him later as I mentioned but at first blush he reminds me an awful lot of John Edwards last time around. He is a nobody who is very good in front of the camera and is in a position to speak strongly yet without substance. He has nothing to lose. In order for him to make it he has to do a Howard Dean without the melt down... that is, keep an incredible surge of popularity going all the way to the end. It has been a while since we have seen a presidential candidate with that kind of magnetism. He could be it, but odds are he is a little to far from left field at this point.

Gore. Whether he wants to run or not Gore is going to figure into this election. He seems poised to play a similar Game to the one Newt Gingrich is playing. IE I don't want it but if We (as in We the People) ask him to then he will. In short Gore knows he can't go up there in a pure politics play. His original campaign was one of politics. He was the incumbent vice president and the political machine pushed him out by default in default way and it didn’t suit him at all. Now he has popularity much more reminiscent of Clinton when he started pulling stunts like playing the sax on late night TV... only unlike Bill, Gore has his popularity building on real serious issues facing the nation. Gore may actually get drafted, and if he heeds the call of the people and continues to play it loose with just the right amount of seriousness then he will be hard to dismiss. Consider it in this light. He currently holds about 10% of democrats in polls and he has repeatedly said he ISN’T interested. That number will take a huge jump the second he tosses his hat in the ring. How much will depend on just how good an entrance he can make.

John Edwards is going to be in the mix as well. Considering he hasn't really come to my attention as anything other than his being Kerry's vice presidential nominee I doubt he is going to do anything different than he did before. IE he will be popular but not near enough to get the nomination. He may once again be a front runner for the vice president slot. Though all in all I think Barak will take that if he doesn't pull off a miracle and actually land the nomination for all the same reasons Edwards wound up on Kerry’s ticket.

Well this has been all Democratic so far. My focus on the Democrats is largely dictated by the fact it is going to be awful hard for the republicans to win. I think the race is for the democratic nomination. Bush is in the toilette ratings wise and if he could run again I just don't see him making it. While I am not on record for it I did think he was likely to win his second election. Mostly because I thought Kerry was a joke. The time was not right for people to want a change in leadership and Bush had him by the Balls with the issue of his change of heart on the War.

However the war play that effectively defeated Kerry in '04 is what has Bush not looking good now, nor the republican power structure in general. The war is a mess and there is no doubt the republicans are holding the bag for the past 4 years. It won't be impossible for a republican to win, but I think it will take a complete splintering of the democratic party, poor campaign by their nominee and a compelling republican candidate. One or two of those I can see happening but not all three.

Of interest to me is what Condi does. She has enough credibility to be a serious candidate. But the last 8 years ultimately are not going to reflect well on her. So in a sense she and anyone else tied strongly to this administration are hamstrung. If she or any of them distance themselves by blasting the administration then the democrats have them in the exact same vise the republicans put Kerry in over the war issue and it will be just as effective. The true power of Condi for the republicans may be as a harbinger of change. IE an African American Woman on the ticket. If she can't get the nomination she probably needs to be the vice president pick of choice for whoever gets it. But hey come on... who doesn't want to see the final presidential debates featuring Hillary vrs Condi?

Giuliani is on a lot of people's lips but he has a MAJOR problem. He is the same old formula, same old presentation etc etc etc. The same old same old has ended in two effective stale mates the past two elections. The Democrats know this, they feel it and they are responding because they lost. The people are tired of the same old same old and currently they are tired of republican leadership. Unless the
Giuliani campaign picks up some serious magic I think he or whoever gets the republican nomination is going to play the role of Mondale in 80. I'll take Giuliani seriously after he (or any generic political image candidate) wins the nomination if he/they put Condi on the ticket as vice president AND successfully manage to distance themselves from the current administration without going anti war. And that will be a neat trick indeed.

Lastly I want to clearly state that while I have made a big deal out of Hillary and Condi, or Sen. Clinton and Dr. Rice if you prefer, being women (and to a lesser Extent Barak). This has nothing to do with their credentials. Being a woman doesn't make them a better or worse candidate. However, election reality is that image plays a HUGE role. The simple fact that they are women, and in Dr. Rice's case a minority, means that a basic fundamental element of presidential image since the inception of the United States of America is going to change. Up until this point we have not seen a major party ticket with anything other than Old White Men. In a perfect world it wouldn't matter if the candidate where a green polka dotted hermaphroditic 35year old so long as they were the best candidate. But to date we do not live in a perfect world. The fact they (or anyone else) are women, or a member of a minority, is in no way shape form or fashion germane to the discussion of their capabilities as leaders. However, in reality it is most certainly germane to the issues of creating a campaign image and how they will be presented. And that has an unfortunate amount to do with who does and does not become president of the United States of America.

The Hydrogen Economy Myth

Oil is running out, We need a new source of energy and HYDROGEN is the way of the future. Sound familiar? Well as the title indicates I rather think that is a myth.

Why? It is first and foremost a myth because we already have MANY new sources of energy and hydrogen isn't one of then. Hydrogen in any use other than a fusion reactor, is not an energy source. It is only used for energy storage. The energy still has to come from somewhere to create the hydrogen. And quite frankly.... as an energy storage mechanism hydrogen sucks.

For starters it has extremely low energy density, and is cryogenic as a liquid. It is just about impossible to store for long periods of time and for similar reasons makes long distance transportation systems problematic.

Now don't get me wrong. It isn't that these problems can't be addressed. They can be. The question to me is... should we bother? There ARE other methods of energy storage and honestly I think we should be pursuing them. Currently the best bet seems to be nano technology based improvements in batteries and capacitors. Capacitors in particular hold a great deal of promise. Why would these be best? Because they hold the highest levels of demonstrated efficiency in storage/retrieval of electrical power. Solar and Nuclear plants provide electrical power. Storing and retrieving electrical power in an electrical form leads to high levels of efficiencies in power transfers that are hard/impossible to realize in conversions processes like using the electricity to generate hydrogen through electrolysis and then turning the hydrogen back into electricity through fuel cells or combustion. The problem till now has been cost, weight, power density and life cycles of such devices. If those elements start falling in practical ranges then THEY are the future. Not hydrogen.

In any case, barring a breakthrough in hydrogen fusion, the idea of a 'hydrogen' based economy is a myth. Even with a working hydrogen fusion plant, Hydrogen will NEVER become the focus of an economy the way in which oil has. For starters there will NEVER be a war over access to hydrogen. At least not on earth. It just is not that kind of resource.