From the Barack Obama campaign web site:

“Your own story and the American story are not separate — they are shared. And they will both be enriched if we stand up together, and answer a new call to service to meet the challenges of our new century … I won't just ask for your vote as a candidate; I will ask for your service and your active citizenship when I am president of the United States. This will not be a call issued in one speech or program; this will be a cause of my presidency.” (emphasis added)

It sounds to me like he's serious. And it sounds like a warning we should heed. Guess who plans to decide what cause is served. Do visions of arm-band wearing youths come to mind? Probably not, unless you're at least my age.

The web site outlines Obama's plan for "universal voluntary public service." Now there's an interesting juxtaposition of words. This public service he envisions is going to be both voluntary and universal. I suppose he plans to use our "voluntary" income tax system as a model. Signing up for public service will be "voluntary" but if you don't volunteer he will come get you.

Thinking about millions of youths and old farts out doing Obama's bidding frightens me. What he has in mind is an army of community organizers. His army will be trained to indoctrinate and intimidate. Its purpose will be to convince all that it serves to support the great leader. (If Obama is elected how long do you think his team will wait before the two-term limit on presidents is publicly questioned? I suspect that it has already come up internally.)

A very pertinent issue at this point in time is how Obama plans to pay for his legions of volunteers. The scope of the program he is talking about will cost billions of dollars that we don't have. Will he raise taxes to pay for it? If so, it will all have to come from 5% of taxpayers because he assures us that 95% will get tax cuts. It's more likely that he will come up with a "universal voluntary support fund," to which the "wealthy" are expected to voluntarily contribute. That way it doesn't count as a tax.

It's interesting to note that Obama's college service program proposes that students receive a $4,000 tax credit for 100 hours of public service each year. That's $40 per hour. Most of these students will be disappointed to learn that they won't get that pay rate in their first professional job after graduation.

---

I recently became involved in a discussion on another blog about the negative effects of the use of oil as an energy source. A reader left this comment:

In my eyes oil is a cancer that has only grown larger and larger over the years. If we do not do something soon to treat the cancer, then it will devour us completely.

I suggested that our need for oil is more like an addiction to drugs, alcohol or tobacco than a cancer. Not many people feel that they need or want a cancer. It is common for people to consume narcotics until it kills them. And it is reasonable to assume that we might eventually work ourselves into a serious dilemma from our addiction to oil.

But after further thought I considered the possibility that the reader was thinking in terms of the much discussed undesirable environmental effects from the use of oil. That we humans and our machines are simply the host for the oil-cancer much like our body cells serve as hosts for cancer, and that the aim of the oil-cancer is to destroy the environment and us with it.

The problem here though is that it doesn't matter as much what the source of energy is, but how much of it we use -- or more accurately, the amount of motion or activity in the world. That is, the only real way to reduce the net impact of energy use on the environment is to slow the world down. I'm not advocating that we do that; I'm just saying that it may be the only way to reduce the negative effects of activity.

In physics there is a law called the conservation of energy. It states that energy may neither be created nor destroyed. And that the sum of all the energies in a system is a constant. What this means is that the "consumption" of energy just converts the energy into a different form; it doesn't use up the energy. But, in a real-world system a lot of the "consumed" energy is wasted in the form of friction, heat and emissions. That is, it is not captured but it is still out there.

I'm not a physicist but I think this law can be applied to the debate about clean versus dirty energy sources. I suspect that the net impact on the environment is about the same for a given unit of work done no matter the source of the energy.

Take nuclear powered versus coal powered electricity generation. Energy is consumed and the environment is affected in mining coal and transporting it to the power plant. Energy is consumed and the environment is affected in mining, shipping and enriching uranium. Emissions from coal-fired power plants affect the environment. Handling and storage of radioactive waste from nuclear-powered plants affects the environment. I suspect that the net effects are about the same.

Take wood versus oil as a direct heat source. The production of wood hugely benefits the environment, but the harvesting and transportation of the wood produces negative effects. The production and transportation of heating oil produces negative effects. Both produce undesirable emissions when they are consumed. I suspect that the net effects are about the same.

Take solar panels as a source of electricity. The impact on the environment appears to be about zero, until you account for the manufacture and transportation of the panels. Think about the magnitude of an operation to keep all the homes and businesses in the world supplied with enough solar panels to supply their total power needs. And what about the batteries and their disposal issues?

I think we had better just accept oil as one of our major sources of energy for at least the next couple of decades while we figure out a way to harness all the friction, heat and emissions from current and future sources of energy. But then we'll probably learn that the harnessing has its own costs and negative effects.

Update: New wood powered electricity generating plants are being proposed in Massachusetts and elsewhere. Wood is the leading renewable energy source in the US.

---

In one of her columns Kathleen Parker quotes a dopey Appalachian writer named Ron Rash on what he thinks Barack Obama should tell the people of Appalachia:

"I know that for well over a century, the only time people come to Appalachia is when they want something. They want your coal, your timber and they want your vote. They take what they want and they leave and they don't come back until they want some more. I'm not going to do that."

What Rash fails to mention is that they leave their money before they depart. If I lived in a remote, resource-rich region that's exactly what I would want people to do -- come with their money, take what they need and get the hell out of town until they need more. Apparently Rash wants people to come with their money and take nothing in return. He especially wants a socialist like Obama to come back often bearing abundant gifts from the taxpayers.

The only time anyone goes anywhere is when they want something. And they usually don't stay after they get it. Even on charitable missions people are seeking gratification from helping others in need.

I hardly think that Rash or Parker are spokespersons for Appalachia. Most of the people who live there do so because they enjoy the lifestyle. For them it doesn't include hordes of Obama's public service volunteers telling them what they should do and think.

---

In her latest column Susan Estrich gets all worked up about John McCain's campaign tactics. McCain is finally pointing out some bad things about Barack Obama and Susan doesn't like it.

Our retirement plans and college savings accounts are shrinking, and McCain is shrinking right with them. He’s not just on the verge of getting clobbered in the election. He’s on the verge of becoming an object of utter ridicule.

Let's see now Susan. First, it looks like you want to be near the front of the line in dishing out the ridicule. Second, do you really expect us to believe that you would prefer that McCain play nice (according to your rules) and stay in the running? Third, do you really expect us to believe that you're not actually afraid that his being an ol' meany might work for him?

What’s worse is the content of the negative ads. They aren’t about policy and issues.

For a political operative like Estrich, "policy and issues" are what only the opposition should be constrained to talk about. Anyway "policy and issues" cover a lot of ground, especially issues. Estrich is apparently insisting that Obama hanging out with militant revolutionaries is not an issue. I beg to differ and apparently so does McCain.

I'm about fed up with all the policy and issues crap. I don't decide whom to vote for based on what they say they will do. I decide based on what they've already done up until this point. I vote on the record not on promises. A real debate for me would have the two candidates facing one another and taking turns revealing everything they know about the other. Forget policy and issues.

They’re screaming bloody murder that Barack Obama left a phone message two years ago for a guy (William Ayers) who engaged in radical activity when Barack Obama was 8 years old and living in Indonesia.

Obama supporters harp constantly about the 8-year-old thing. What is the relevance of that? Would Obama pardon a murderer and free him from prison just because the murder occurred when Obama was 8 years old. Anyway, Ayers is still a radical revolutionary; he just seems to have stopped throwing bombs.

Ayers, who is a neighbor of Obama’s, even had some kind of meet-and-greet for him 13 years ago, when Obama was running for state Senate, making him one of about a million people who’ve opened their homes and their checkbooks to the guy.

One in a million huh? Let's put that in perspective. Say that Obama spent only 15 minutes at each of these in-home meet-and-greets. Then it would have taken more than 28 years of 24/7 meeting and greeting. Obama is now 46 so he would have had to start when he was 18 years old. Hey, that's only 10 years after Ayers bombed the US Capitol.

U.S. Senator John McCain tried to use his influence to help a crook named Charlie Keating, one of the worst of the saving and loan robbers, a man who ripped off everyone in sight, including American taxpayers. That’s OK. Forgive and forget.

Susan, how can we forget if you keep reminding us? Now you're being negative just like McCain. Don't give me that tit-for-tat stuff; you should be above that. Anyway, you conveniently failed to mention that McCain was exonerated in the Keating Five mess by a Senate investigation.

---

In his closing remarks at last night's debate Barack Obama said, "We need fundamental change in this country, and that's what I'd like to bring." Merriam-Webster defines "fundamental" as "of or relating to essential structure, function, or facts" and says that "radical" is a synonym. The related definition of "radical" is "of or relating to the origin." A usage example is "fundamental change," exactly what Obama wants to bring.

So, if we take Obama at his word, it's clear that he intends to radically change the basic structure and function of our government. He can't do that without amending the Constitution or appointing judges that will ignore the Constitution. The former is too hard and slow, so look for him to concentrate on the latter.

I'm afraid that with a cooperating Congress Obama can achieve at least some of the fundamental change that he wants. Look for more hate speech and hate crime laws. Look for the reinstatement of the Fairness Doctrine. Look for new interpretations of the First and Second Amendments. Look for suppression of criticism of the federal government. Look for the federal takeover of public education and attacks on private schools and home-schooling. Look for a lot of retraining (indoctrination) centers around the country for those past public school age. Look for a lot of things that I can't even imagine.

Look for "community organizers" in every precinct in the country and look for them all to be proponents of the Obamanation.

---

The whole "Joe the Plumber" case epitomizes the looney left (which includes the Obama campaign). They attack any person or institution that sheds some much needed light on Obama's real agenda. A plumber in Ohio, who said his name is Joe, asked Obama essentially this: If I become a small-businessman making over $250,000 a year, are you going to take more of my income and give it to other people? Part of Obama's response was that spreading the wealth around is good for everybody. McCain, of course, jumped on Obama's socialist comment big-time and it got a lot of play in the media.

The looney left's response? Joe is not a plumber (because he doesn't have a license). Joe only makes $40,000 per year so he would actually be helped by Obama (never mind all those who do make over $250,000). Joe is behind on paying his state taxes (he owes about $1200). Joe was a plant by the McCain campaign (not substantiated; if so, so what?). Joe is only his middle name (I'm not kidding; someone felt this needed to be pointed out).

They seem to be saying that Joe is unqualified to ask such a question so Obama's unguarded response should not count. Apparently it's okay for debate moderators to ask hypothetical questions, but not the average Joe.

Joe the Plumber is not running for president. Barack Obama is. So the spotlight should be on Obama, not on Joe the Plumber. In the context in which it was made Obama's comment that spreading the wealth around is good for everybody clearly reveals his socialist bent. While spreading the wealth around is a desirable result of capitalism, it is not guaranteed on an individual basis; it is linked to the extent of an individual's contribution. Capitalism provides equality of opportunity; socialism provides equality of outcome (everyone ends up poor).

Obama wants to take money from the wealthy and give it to the poor. If that sounds admirable to you, you're a socialist.

---

From Roger Cohen's column in The New York Times about the government's attempts to fix the financial meltdown:

But as the state intervenes, in what Ed Yardeni, an investment analyst, called “a giant global game of Whac-A-Mole,” the moles keep popping out of new black holes in our financial system.

“We’ve tried rubber mallets, now we’re using bazookas, but we’re flying blind,” Yardeni told me.

Another testimonial to the fact that the economy is too complex for the government to manage. Each step the government takes precipitates dozens of additional steps it must take, but it doesn't know the direction in which it should move. Lack of information leaves trial-and-error as the only mode of operation open to the government.

Economists have known and have been saying this for over a century, but neither of the two candidates for President get it. I just heard McCain talking about how his government will fix the economy and get it back on track. Obama counters each McCain fix with about three of his own. McCain wants to fix what he sees is wrong with the economy while Obama wants to take charge of its day-to-day operation. Neither will succeed. In fact, both will aggravate the problems.

My opinion is that Obama will do more damage than McCain. Isn't it pathetic that in choosing a President we have to resort to picking the one that will inflict the least amount of damage on the country?

---