Obama's Twitter town hall turned out to be a little awkward. As it turns out Obama didn't do the typing. The man who was typing quickly became fatigued because there was no "Uhh" key on the keyboard. Also many of the answers were too long to squeeze into 140 characters. Obama's "Yes or No" answers won't fit within 140 characters.

"He's just answering the questions. He's not typing and tweeting," White House press secretary Jay Carney said of the event announced Thursday. It will be webcast, and focus on jobs and the economy.

By now it should be clear that Obama has no plan which will lead to a growth in hiring; at least for the private sector. Why would he hold a town hall to ask "average Americans" about the economy? Shouldn't the president be leading on this? Shouldn't the administration have a plan already? What happened to Obama's "laser like" focus on jobs back in Dec. of 2009?

"Though the job losses we were experiencing earlier this year have slowed dramatically, we're still not creating enough new jobs each month to make up for the ones we're losing," Obama said last week. "For families and communities across the country, this recession will not end until we completely turn that tide."

The new focus on jobs comes as the first stimulus plan's impact remains unclear. The Obama administration says more than 640,000 jobs have been saved or created by employers who received funds. The Congressional Budget Office this week put the figure at 600,000 to 1.6 million after considering other factors, such as the impact on consumer demand from tax cuts, unemployment insurance extensions and spending by the newly employed. It said unemployment would have been up to 0.9 percentage points higher without the stimulus.

I almost forgot about the jobs that were saved or created. It's quite plausible really, it's no different than calculating how much rain didn't fall in any given area. Is this really supposed to be taken seriously by anyone?

How did the focus shift from "creating jobs" in 2009 to "we need more revenue" in 2011? It would seem to me that those two things go hand in hand.

I will get into a more in-depth compare and contrast about the economy in the near future.

Note: You DO NOT need to register to leave a comment.

I have completed the upgrades to the site and have brought it back online.

Note: You DO NOT need to register to leave a comment.

The site requires some maintenance that I've been putting off due to time constraints. The site should be down some time between Wednesday (the 29th of June) and Tuesday (the 5th of July). I plan to make the changes quickly so the site shouldn't be down for long. So, if you come here and the site doesn't load, you know what's going on.

Note: You DO NOT need to register to leave a comment.

Palin, I believe, is honest in her concern for the United States and wants to help put things back in order.

Recently there has been a ridiculous media blitz trying to find something that Palin has said, or emailed that might be used against her. A few newspapers actually solicited their readers in helping to pour through more than 24,000 emails made by Palin while she was governor of Alaska. The hope was to find something provocative or damaging in the emails.

To believe that Palin would have made inappropriate emails, you would have to believe that she is a fraud and doesn't believe what she says. This, of course, gets into the psychology of the people who want to bring her down.

People have a tendency to project themselves onto others to some extent. Take Obama voters for example. There is a very brilliant article here which explains this behavior to a fine point. Most Obama voters convinced themselves that Obama really stood for the best of whatever they themselves stood for. This projection can also work the other way. The people who were pouring through the Palin emails had to believe that she was dishonest like they are. Why else would they go through the emails expecting to find something? Why else would they put their credibility on the line if they didn't think the odds were in their favor?

By scouring 24,000 emails and coming up with nothing damaging; Sara Palin is now more effective than ever. The search for dirt has in-turn polished Sara Palin's image.

I hope that Palin knows she is most effective from the outside of any campaign. She's an interesting case. Most people I've spoken to agree nearly 100% with what Palin says, but when I ask them if she should run for president they often say, "...I like her, but I don't think she can win". People can sense that she is honest which makes it easier for them to trust her judgement --they know that she actually believes what she says.

I personally think that Sara Palin is most effective as an outside force whose endorsement holds incredible political value. If Palin does run on a presidential ticket, she would have to overcome all of the negative press she received while on the McCain ticket.

Don't get me wrong. If it were a race between Sara Palin and Obama, I would vote for Palin without a second thought.

Tell me what you think...

Note: You DO NOT need to register to leave a comment.

Something that most people don't even consider. "Green" is not always the best way to go. At least not without a little homework.

The buildings commonly referred to as "green" could actually be hazardous to your health, according to a new report.

That's one of many warnings out of a new report from the Institute of Medicine, which tracked the potential impact of climate change on indoor environments.

The report cautions that climate change can negatively and directly affect indoor air quality in several ways. But the scientists behind the study warn that homeowners and businesses could also be making the problem worse by pursuing untested or risky energy-efficiency upgrades.

"Even with the best intentions, indoor environmental quality issues may emerge with interventions that have not been sufficiently well screened for their effects on occupant safety and health," the report said.

There are always unintended consequences when structures are modified.

To save costs and cut down on emissions, building owners typically find ways to seal off potential leaks and conserve energy. But in "weatherizing" the buildings, they also change the indoor environment.

By making buildings more airtight, building owners could increase "indoor-air contaminant concentrations and indoor-air humidity," the report said. By adding insulation, they could trigger moisture problems. By making improvements to older homes, crews could stir up hazardous material ranging from asbestos to harmful caulking -- though that problem is not unique to energy improvements.

Older homes lacking outside air intakes are susceptible to quite a few issues not seen in homes designed to be nearly air-tight. Mold could become a problem because of high humidity levels. In older homes humidity levels change relative to outside air humidity levels; this will happen to a much lesser degree once a home is sealed.

Many of the newer home air conditioning units have variable speed air handlers which allow them to control the relative humidity throughout the house along with the temperature. Older systems are simply cooling systems with no designed ability to control humidity levels.

Large commercial buildings are required by law to have a minimum supply of outside air to make sure that carbon dioxide levels don't get too high and oxygen levels too low. Most houses don't have outside air intakes. Only a few of the newest houses have outside air intakes.

Once an older home is sealed without any outside air intake it is possible for the carbon dioxide levels to increase and oxygen levels to decrease. decreased oxygen levels can create a condition similar to sleep apnea. When your blood oxygen level drops your body only has one way to increase oxygen levels --increase your heart-rate sometimes for long periods. Low blood oxygen can cause an increased risk of cardiovascular disease.

Take steps to improve the efficiency of your home, just consider what effect it might have on you and your family. To make an older house truly efficient is often not a cheap task. There are many products out there which claim to help you on your energy costs, but are so expensive up front; the savings are often a gimmick.

One of the best things people with older homes can do is buy a programmable thermostat to decrease the run time of their air conditioning unit when their not home. Programmable thermostats are relatively cheap now.

If you plan to make any major changes to your home, it's a good idea to call someone and have them advise you on what options are available and truly cost effective. Nobody wants to spend $10,000 to decrease their power bill by $20 a month.

Note: You DO NOT need to register to leave a comment.