Numerology Oddity

At five minutes & six seconds after 4am on the 8th of July this year the time and date will be:

04:05:06 07/08/09

This will never happen again in this century.

Barack Obama's Mystifying Monetary Magic Trick

Comments on the video page indicate that the math is wrong. This prompted me to double-check it and in fact, the MATH IS CORRECT!

Here's another way to look at it:

Budget: $3,520,000,000,000 which is represented by 8,800 pennies in the video

$3.52 Trillion / $100 Million = 35,200

8,800 pennies / 0.25 pennies = 35,200

The ratios are identical and thus the math and the video are absolutely correct!

I hope everyone now understands:

1. What incredible trouble America is in financially (from most all politicians).
2. How much further into debt Obama is taking the country.
   

---

To look at it another way, imagine a friend of yours explained that he had let his credit card spending get way out of control and he needed a $10,000 loan from you to make ends meet for a few months. You thought about it for a while and then demanded to know what spending cuts he was prepared to make over the next year to show you that he was truly serious about getting his financial house in order.

If your friend acted in the same way as the Obama Administration, the following chart shows what spending cuts he'd be willing to make over the next year. Five different salaries are provided to account for different wage earners:

If that's all he was prepared to cut,
would you still give him the loan?

Constitutional Legitimacy vs. Democratic Legitimacy

This afternoon I heard a U. of T. Law Professor talking about the decisions the Governor General can possibly make. He kept on repeatedly using the words "Constitutional Legitimacy". I fully understand their meaning but surely there is another type of "legitimacy" that deserves equal, if not more, consideration?

Since I'm an engineer and a numbers guy, let me provide her with some quick notes:

Math Primer for the Governor General

Choice #1: Give control to Le Coalition
Constitutional Legitimacy = 100%
Democratic Legitimacy: 0%

Choice #2: Force another election to be held
Constitutional Legitimacy = 100%
Democratic Legitimacy: 100%


I ask once again: What legitimate objection can anyone provide arguing against Choice #2?

CANADIANS DEMAND AND DESERVE ANOTHER ELECTION

---

Update: Unlike the hate mail I received from one commenter, it looks like I'm not such a big dummy after all! In this article, Ted McWhinney, a constitutional expert, lawyer, and former Liberal MP had some thoughts to share on this subject:

Ted McWhinney, a lawyer, former Liberal MP and constitutional expert, told CTV's Mike Duffy Live that Jean does not need to give Harper an answer right away and should talk with a number of advisers.

He also said Jean needs to weigh public opinion on the matter.

"Public opinion is about 50 per cent of constitutional law," McWhinney said Wednesday. "The common sense element is crucial in these things.

McWhinney said there "is a heavy burden" on the opposition to prove that they can form a stable coalition government.

He said it's important for the opposition to put an agreement down on paper, like they have already done, but said the agreement needs to be signed by the Bloc Quebecois in addition to the Liberals and NDP.

McWhinney called the current agreement as is "unsatisfactory."

The Poor Math Skills of the Left

Le Cabal de Trois has just announced that they plan to spend $30 Billion once they seize power from the democratically elected government. If you think that this money will be spread evenly and spent wisely then you are dreaming! It will be absolutely wasted on corporate welfare and union welfare.

At the same time, the supporters of Le Cabal are adamant that "there's no need for another election". "After all," they add, "it would cost $300 Million."

Our friends on the Left clearly must have failed Grade 8th Math. To help them out, let's illustrate with big bold digits precisely the difference:

• Option #1: Hold an Election - Cost: $300,000,000.00
  
  
• Option #2: Avoid an Election - Cost: $30,000,000,000.00

Option #2 will be ONE HUNDRED times more expensive than Option #1. And if the people of Canada so decide in their favour, then Le Cabal de Trois can still spend the huge amount a few months later.

Joke from a Young Braniac

Q: Why is a math book so sad?

A: Because it has so many problems.

---

Bonus marks if you can identify where I heard this!

Ethanol: The Answer or an Illusion?

With the price of oil now well over $100 per barrel and expected to surpass $150 per barrel by year's end, there's a lot of talk about Ethanol, which is most often made from corn. I've heard lots of comments about it, both pro and con. Generally I've been quite skeptical of it.

In favour of Ethanol are people like Robert Zubrin, who wrote Energy Victory, as well as this compelling letter to Mark Steyn. Zubrin seems like a very bright guy so I decided to investigate what it would actually take to convert the entire United States to using Ethanol.

I found this informative article by technology writer, Andrew Kantor. Out of it I pulled these figures:

• A gallon of ethanol requires 26 pounds of corn.
• An acre of land can yield 9,400 lbs. per year.
• The U.S. would require 261 million gallons of Ethanol per day

Then I did the math:

1 sq mile / 640 acres x 1 acre / 9400 lbs x 26 lbs / gal x 261,000,000 gal / day x 365 days / year = 411,717 square miles per year [of required space to grow corn for Ethanol]

Rounding up, that's 412,000 square miles that would have to be entirely devoted to growing corn to meet America's energy needs. I immediately wondered what portion of the U.S. that would encompass. Focusing in on the central farming states, I found this table and compiled the numbers:

State	Land Area	75% of Area
	(sq. miles)	(sq. miles)
Kansas	81,815	61,361
Nebraska	76,872	57,654
Missouri	68,886	51,664
Oklahoma	68,667	51,500
Iowa	55,869	41,902
Illinois	55,584	41,688
Arkansas	52,068	39,051
Tennessee	41,217	30,913
Kentucky	39,728	29,796
Indiana	35,867	26,900
Total:	576,574	432,430

Why only 75% of each state's area, you ask? It's an arbitrary number but I thought it to be a reasonable one to account for non-farming areas, such as cities, towns, and land otherwise unavailable. In some states the non-arable land may be even less but then one has to question whether the corn growing and ethanol conversion figures quoted by Kantor are absolute maximums? Given a dedicated focus on producing ethanol, I have little doubt that together, scientists, engineers, and farmers could come up with innovative ways to produce more Ethanol with less land.

So, if all of these states were to devote themselves to becoming the New Energy Source for the United States, this is what the country would look like:


Impossible, you say? I think not. In fact, given that there's a never ending demand for mobile energy (read "oil" at this time in our history), what on earth would be wrong with entrepreneurial farmers stepping up to the plate to supply that demand?! In fact, it might be just the thing to pull Americans together to work toward a unified cause that would help them both economically and defensively.

In his article, Kantor points out the side-effects of farming in general, but I firmly believe in the ingenuity of man-kind (especially engineers!) to resolve all problems before him. Where there's a will, there's a way. In fact, I rather like the metaphor of these states, in the center of the country, acting much like the heart in a human body, pushing out the industrial blood that is necessary for the country to survive and prosper.

One thing though: All subsidies to farmers should stop asap. While it's clear that producing ethanol is more expensive than the current cost of conventional oil, as the latter keeps on creeping up in price, eventually they will be on par. A forward thinking energy plan would be something akin to John Kennedy's Man on the Moon goal of the 1960's, giving farmers and communities the help they need over the next decade to make the conversion to producing ethanol. After that they'd be on their own, as the rest of us are.

The years ahead are sure to be interesting ones, but I'm optimistic!