You have no idea how many times I've heard: That's the way the government is. There's nothing we can do about it. Maybe the democrats will win next time. Blah blah blah blah.
People, you don't get it. You are the government. What you want is what Uncle will give us. If we ask for a befuddled wish list like a little kid on Christmas, Uncle's policies and laws and campaign rhetoric is going to be just as befuddled.
How many rednecks, and I want a show of hands on this, have wanted to kick some Islamic terrorist ass for years? Do I hear a chorus of HoAhhs back there? You bet. Every testosterone toting one of us wanted to kick dirt in the face of those nasty little buggers for the cowardly attacks they've made on Americans for the last thirty odd years.
So now we have Iraq. Doesn't matter that the money trail points at a completely different reason for the war. We asked for it and we got it.
Everybody is sick of paying more taxes. So we ask for a tax break. We ask for cuts in government spending. We ask for social assistance. We ask for a strong defense against the bad guys of the world. We want to love our neighbors. We want our jobs.... ad infinitum.
So legislative and executive branch officials formulate policies, pass laws, execute executive orders to please the greatest number of people, or at least the loudest. Or the richest... What ever will ensure success at the next election. See, they really don't care what laws or policies are passed and implemented. They only want to be elected. That's where we get our power.
We the people. We speak out in a single chorus to our legislatures. We want honesty. We want fiscal responsibility. We want government support of our economy, of our educational goals, of our old age and infirmity.
We want the politicians to know we require a leader,who when questioned, and asked for true honest answers, will stop his SUV get out in the dirt risking their lives just like our sons and daughters in Iraq, and answer the real question with a real answer. Courage is a rare commodity, especially in our latest crop of leaders.
Speak up, write your congressman, or woman, or undetermined, and let them know that the echo out there is a nation of people asking for the same things. We the people are tired of politics as usual, tired of corporations buying power, tired of sound bite elections. Tell them that the people demand serious answers to the problems we are facing. Jobs and the loss of real earning power. Energy policy. (There's a subject for a couple more blogs. ) Health and elder care. Education and motivation of our children.
People it's time to speak up...
Sunday, August 28, 2005
Thursday, August 25, 2005
Pravda means Truth
My daughter recently found out her new job opportunity in a new city was a scam run by con men. She discovered this quickly and extricated herself from the situation with the grace and forthrightness I expect of her.
We should be as smart as her when it comes to the morass the politicians of both parties have dragged us into. Can we believe them when they tell us what we want to hear? No. They have to address the solutions to the problems in front of all of us with a reasoned, rational and comprehensible plan.
This plan needs to be evaluated by the masses. It has to meet the common sense test. Is it too good to be true? Like every other deal if the plan gives you everything you want and doesn't cost you anything then it probably is a con.
We should be as smart as her when it comes to the morass the politicians of both parties have dragged us into. Can we believe them when they tell us what we want to hear? No. They have to address the solutions to the problems in front of all of us with a reasoned, rational and comprehensible plan.
This plan needs to be evaluated by the masses. It has to meet the common sense test. Is it too good to be true? Like every other deal if the plan gives you everything you want and doesn't cost you anything then it probably is a con.
Sunday, August 21, 2005
Standards of Living
Economics is fundamental to the new manifesto and is fundamental to politics. But the way most people understand economics is in how it affects them. This is the standard of living.
On my computer I keep a wallpaper of the "World at night" (http://visibleearth.nasa.gov/view_rec.php?vev1id=5826 -) showing the lights of the inhabited world. This is illustrative of the standard of living experienced by most of the people in the world. America, Europe and Japan are the most densely lit countries. South Korea stands out as an island, because North Korea is nearly in complete darkness. A look at the more densely populated areas of the globe show less light at night then we do.
The deduction I make from this illustration is that we use more energy than the rest of the world on a per capita basis. Energy defines our standard of living. Take the worst place to live in the United States (a gentlemen of my acquaintance suggested East St. Louis but I'm sure there are other places in the US that are filled with hopeless people and crime and drugs.) and offer to transport people from Sudan or Ethiopia to live there and they would find their standard of living improved beyond their wildest dreams. Unfortunately their personal safety wouldn't necessarily improve.
The point is that standard of living is relative. What we consider abject poverty in this country is considered upper middle class elsewhere.
So what is our responsibility in this?
Well, any improvements in the world standard of living have come as a result of our own economic development. When our economy stagnates the world trembles. Given enough time the world won't care and we can become a third world country, but that isn't the way I want to see our country go.
We need to understand that every good job created through American inventiveness will move overseas eventually. That's one of our top exports. We've shipped clothing, cars and computers away and more things are going. As a nation, as a people we need to recognize this and pull together for the next big thing. Personally, I think space is the place we need to go. We need to dominate the technology of spaceflight and define the economics of space.
I also think we need to define the economics of renewable energy. Between sosphisticated technology and an inexpensive way to feed the energy jones we would have a great deal to offer the world economy and still develop a higher standard of living for our poorest people.
So along with honest politicians, responsible citizenry and a tame government, our standard of living is dependent on the economic marvels we create.
Tanstaafl.
On my computer I keep a wallpaper of the "World at night" (http://visibleearth.nasa.gov/view_rec.php?
The deduction I make from this illustration is that we use more energy than the rest of the world on a per capita basis. Energy defines our standard of living. Take the worst place to live in the United States (a gentlemen of my acquaintance suggested East St. Louis but I'm sure there are other places in the US that are filled with hopeless people and crime and drugs.) and offer to transport people from Sudan or Ethiopia to live there and they would find their standard of living improved beyond their wildest dreams. Unfortunately their personal safety wouldn't necessarily improve.
The point is that standard of living is relative. What we consider abject poverty in this country is considered upper middle class elsewhere.
So what is our responsibility in this?
Well, any improvements in the world standard of living have come as a result of our own economic development. When our economy stagnates the world trembles. Given enough time the world won't care and we can become a third world country, but that isn't the way I want to see our country go.
We need to understand that every good job created through American inventiveness will move overseas eventually. That's one of our top exports. We've shipped clothing, cars and computers away and more things are going. As a nation, as a people we need to recognize this and pull together for the next big thing. Personally, I think space is the place we need to go. We need to dominate the technology of spaceflight and define the economics of space.
I also think we need to define the economics of renewable energy. Between sosphisticated technology and an inexpensive way to feed the energy jones we would have a great deal to offer the world economy and still develop a higher standard of living for our poorest people.
So along with honest politicians, responsible citizenry and a tame government, our standard of living is dependent on the economic marvels we create.
Tanstaafl.
Monday, August 15, 2005
Good Morning Vietnam ... oops I mean Iraq
Well here we go again. In a war of attrition with no clear goals, trying to force democracy down unwilling throats.
OK that might be a bit extreme, but where is it in the best interest of the US for us to force the Iraqis to have a constitution? The democratic process is supposed to be inclusive not dictatorial. If we pressure them to meet OUR timetable then we've created a puppet state without legitimacy in the Muslim world. Period. And solved nothing.
Instead, let the Iraqi government, duly elected in the face of threats of violence as they were, do their job and answer to their bosses. And our government needs to do the same.
While I haven't been writing much lately, I've been talking to a lot of people. While the President lost my confidence early in this process a lot of good people believed we truly have a leader who is doing the "right thing". They're changing their minds.
I fully and unconditionally support the efforts of our troops to control the situation in Iraq. They follow their orders, they walk into harms way every day and try to get the job done. But they aren't sure what the job is anymore. They have kids jeering them from the streets, bombs going off, people targeting them for random shootings. It sounds like Detroit.
Gray bearded thirty , forty and fifty something conservatives, ex military and current (in some cases) are universally condemning this war. There is no plan, there never was a plan.
There were hopes.
There were good wishes and nice thoughts.
But a plan? Plans are based in reality and this whole war was fantasy. I've often been warned about living out fantasies, (like when I thought I could breath under water like a fish after I had the measles) (I couldn't) as they often don't play out as expected. This hasn't .
One suggestion to help the situation and disentangle the United States from this morass is to clarify our goals. In our national mind we didn't invade and destabilize Iraq to make it a profit center for American companies. The rest of the world isn't so sure. Now that there is an Iraqi government I suggest we terminate Haliburton's contract (T for C in contracting parlance) and allow the Arab world to handle it's own contracting. The Saudi's might even be of some assistance since they hire people to do their work all the time.
Terminating Halliburton and any other American based contracting firm working in Iraq would go a long ways to supporting our contention that America didn't invade for gain. And getting the other Muslim countries economically involved in the conflict may well improve our chances of extricating ourselves successfully from Iraq.
This time maybe not from the embassy roof.
OK that might be a bit extreme, but where is it in the best interest of the US for us to force the Iraqis to have a constitution? The democratic process is supposed to be inclusive not dictatorial. If we pressure them to meet OUR timetable then we've created a puppet state without legitimacy in the Muslim world. Period. And solved nothing.
Instead, let the Iraqi government, duly elected in the face of threats of violence as they were, do their job and answer to their bosses. And our government needs to do the same.
While I haven't been writing much lately, I've been talking to a lot of people. While the President lost my confidence early in this process a lot of good people believed we truly have a leader who is doing the "right thing". They're changing their minds.
I fully and unconditionally support the efforts of our troops to control the situation in Iraq. They follow their orders, they walk into harms way every day and try to get the job done. But they aren't sure what the job is anymore. They have kids jeering them from the streets, bombs going off, people targeting them for random shootings. It sounds like Detroit.
Gray bearded thirty , forty and fifty something conservatives, ex military and current (in some cases) are universally condemning this war. There is no plan, there never was a plan.
There were hopes.
There were good wishes and nice thoughts.
But a plan? Plans are based in reality and this whole war was fantasy. I've often been warned about living out fantasies, (like when I thought I could breath under water like a fish after I had the measles) (I couldn't) as they often don't play out as expected. This hasn't .
One suggestion to help the situation and disentangle the United States from this morass is to clarify our goals. In our national mind we didn't invade and destabilize Iraq to make it a profit center for American companies. The rest of the world isn't so sure. Now that there is an Iraqi government I suggest we terminate Haliburton's contract (T for C in contracting parlance) and allow the Arab world to handle it's own contracting. The Saudi's might even be of some assistance since they hire people to do their work all the time.
Terminating Halliburton and any other American based contracting firm working in Iraq would go a long ways to supporting our contention that America didn't invade for gain. And getting the other Muslim countries economically involved in the conflict may well improve our chances of extricating ourselves successfully from Iraq.
This time maybe not from the embassy roof.
Saturday, August 06, 2005
Energy Policy
Rational economics is fundamental to the New Manifesto. A rational energy policy has to be part of the economic theories we espouse.
A national energy business news letter recently described the "Hydrogen Economy" as less efficient then fossil fuels because hydrogen isn't found free in nature. They claim coal is 50% efficient and oil 30-40% efficient while hydrogen fuel cells only release 34% of the energy consumed in separating the hydrogen from water molecules.
This analysis lacks a certain accuracy.
Fossil fuels are stored energy. Solar Energy from eons past produced green plant material containing carbon, oxygen and hydrogen bonds. Time, heat and pressure turned this material into oil. If you count up all the energy expended in making oil and coal, these fuels would be considered 1 or 2 % efficient. So inefficient it wouldn't and isn't feasible to make them from scratch.
On the other hand: If 1 watt of energy creates 1/2 watt of stored energy in hydrogen and this 1/2 watt of stored energy releases .34 (34% of the energy it took to make it) watts of usable energy then the efficiency of hydrogen (calculated in the same way as oil or gas, that is the amount of recoverable energy over the amount of stored energy -- not the amount of energy required to make the fuel-- makes hydrogen 68% efficient. If you like numbers games, that's not bad.
Now if you're using conventional electrical sources powered by fossil fuels to store energy in hydrogen then you're nuts. This wastes the recoverable energy from the fossil fuels. But if you use off peak power from windmills and hydrogenerators (which is wasted power because the electrical grid can only use what is demanded, it can't store it ) then the energy is effectively free. Every watt recovered in hydrogen can be used at a later time. Off the grid.
In fact, hydrogen can be made off the grid by low tech wind farms, solar generators, and hydro plants. Without the need to satisfy the stringent regulatory requirements of the national grid system hydrogen production facilities for hydrogen can be focused on the efficient capture of released hydrogen, containerizing and using less than ideal power. For instance regulated 60 Hertz 120 volt power is not an absolute requirement for making hydrogen. Even an unregulated DC generator when connected to a pair of electrodes will produce H2 in some quantity.
The New Manifesto needs to point out the specious arguments of the vested interests. When big money is threatened by a new technology it lies cheats and steals to denigrate its upstart competitor.
Witness the beginning of our national grid system, without the development of this distribution grid the world as we know it wouldn't exist today. Nikola Tesla was the inventor of the three phase distribution system, generators and transformers we use to get power around the country. He sold his patents to General Electric and supervised the construction of the first hydroelectric power station at Niagara Falls.
Thomas Edison was the competition. He owned coal gas and DC (direct current) generating facilities as well as several patents on DC generators and electrical distribution of DC. His company was the Status Quo. He went so far as to claim all AC (alternating current) was good for was to kill people. So he invented "Old Sparky" the electric chair, which turns out to be one of the most inefficient execution methods ever devised.
Politicians take heed.
Speak the truth.
Hear the truth.
Live the truth.
Anything else defies the special relationship between the elected and the proletariat.
A national energy business news letter recently described the "Hydrogen Economy" as less efficient then fossil fuels because hydrogen isn't found free in nature. They claim coal is 50% efficient and oil 30-40% efficient while hydrogen fuel cells only release 34% of the energy consumed in separating the hydrogen from water molecules.
This analysis lacks a certain accuracy.
Fossil fuels are stored energy. Solar Energy from eons past produced green plant material containing carbon, oxygen and hydrogen bonds. Time, heat and pressure turned this material into oil. If you count up all the energy expended in making oil and coal, these fuels would be considered 1 or 2 % efficient. So inefficient it wouldn't and isn't feasible to make them from scratch.
On the other hand: If 1 watt of energy creates 1/2 watt of stored energy in hydrogen and this 1/2 watt of stored energy releases .34 (34% of the energy it took to make it) watts of usable energy then the efficiency of hydrogen (calculated in the same way as oil or gas, that is the amount of recoverable energy over the amount of stored energy -- not the amount of energy required to make the fuel-- makes hydrogen 68% efficient. If you like numbers games, that's not bad.
Now if you're using conventional electrical sources powered by fossil fuels to store energy in hydrogen then you're nuts. This wastes the recoverable energy from the fossil fuels. But if you use off peak power from windmills and hydrogenerators (which is wasted power because the electrical grid can only use what is demanded, it can't store it ) then the energy is effectively free. Every watt recovered in hydrogen can be used at a later time. Off the grid.
In fact, hydrogen can be made off the grid by low tech wind farms, solar generators, and hydro plants. Without the need to satisfy the stringent regulatory requirements of the national grid system hydrogen production facilities for hydrogen can be focused on the efficient capture of released hydrogen, containerizing and using less than ideal power. For instance regulated 60 Hertz 120 volt power is not an absolute requirement for making hydrogen. Even an unregulated DC generator when connected to a pair of electrodes will produce H2 in some quantity.
The New Manifesto needs to point out the specious arguments of the vested interests. When big money is threatened by a new technology it lies cheats and steals to denigrate its upstart competitor.
Witness the beginning of our national grid system, without the development of this distribution grid the world as we know it wouldn't exist today. Nikola Tesla was the inventor of the three phase distribution system, generators and transformers we use to get power around the country. He sold his patents to General Electric and supervised the construction of the first hydroelectric power station at Niagara Falls.
Thomas Edison was the competition. He owned coal gas and DC (direct current) generating facilities as well as several patents on DC generators and electrical distribution of DC. His company was the Status Quo. He went so far as to claim all AC (alternating current) was good for was to kill people. So he invented "Old Sparky" the electric chair, which turns out to be one of the most inefficient execution methods ever devised.
Politicians take heed.
Speak the truth.
Hear the truth.
Live the truth.
Anything else defies the special relationship between the elected and the proletariat.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)