Join the Discussion

Reply
Report this post

As an engineer and researcher, but not in the field of energy resources, it is painfully obvious to me that virtually none of the politicians--starting with the two senators running for President and going down--and most certainly none of the commentators have even the vaguest understanding of what it takes to supply this nation with the energy it consumes. The matter before us requires a technical solution, whether fossil fuel or alternative sources, and has enormous, if not incalculable economic ramifications. But none of the public voices or politicians seem to have more than the slightest grasp of the fundamental issues. This is going nowhere good.

Reply
Report this post

Re: Masako; Sir, I agree with what you say about Mr. Carter. All it shows is the impossibility of changing the government by changing the head of government. The whole organization is rotten from the top down. Do you believe that Mr. Obama as a millionaire with think as a working man? Do you think after all the years of law school that he will be able to see through the law to what is the Just goal of government? To be elected one must first be corrupted. This country needs constitutional change, and to hold office everyone must swear an oath to defend the constitution. Now; it does not matter that from the start, that people have gained office and set about the destruction of the letter and the meaning of the document because if a person had honor, they would not take power that is the people's, even if the constitution allows it. We are stuck in a place and time in this country, a paradigm, if you prefer, that is dreamlike to some, and nightmare to others, and is immoral in every sense of the word, right across the board.... Carter was right to tell people the truth. But when people cannot afford the truth they will buy a lie. Reagan with his head full of nonsense, ideology, and dementia was the best this country could hope for. We will face the truth when we can no longer avoid it. The only problem is that the truth is already terrible for some, and bad for most, and the far right is hanging on for dear life to their rights and their communities and to their rose colored tint of reality. And they are a people given to hope and faith, are uneducated, or blind to education, and they are manipulated by their fears. Mrs. Saunders and her kind play upon the fears of the conservatives and upon their hate; fear's own twin, and they keep this country divided enough so nothing can improve unless something else gets worse. This country does not work any better for the rich than it does for the poor. It does not work any better for the religious than it does for the secular. It does not work any better for the conservative than for the liberal. If we are a nation we are one people, and it is foolish to talk of winners and losers in a land of one people. We stand together, or fall together, and we win or we lose together.... America just does not work. It is eating its seed corn, and feasting on its children. It is not investing in itself or in its communities, or infrastructure, or education. It is consuming more than it produces because it has no choice. The government has to borrow because it is not working, and cannot demand taxes from the class it does serve. The people have to borrow because they have no fair wages. There is nothing about the government or the economy that is working, and it will take more than a change of manikins at the top to bring about the change we need. Nothing about our situation will get better until it gets worse, and perhaps, far worse. Until the conservatives are given some reason to change, they will not. In fact, as it stands, they would have us all slaves under a tyrant tomorrow if the tyrant carried a cross. We have to stop thinking in terms of fixing the system, and disenthrall ourselves from it. We can do better. Write me a constitution, and burn the old one. Thanks, and best wishes.... Sweeney

Reply
Report this post

Re: davd w pennington Sir; the problem you are talking about is endemic to government, and it is the inability to govern. And the left right shoving match you are a part of here is a part of the problem, but the main problem is lack of democracy. The government was designed with only one intentionally democratic body; the House of Representatives. Now, after many attempts, all sanctioned by the Supreme Court, the House has limited its number for its own ease. Easy government clearly does not equal the ease of the people. But; as a result, each representative now represents close to three hundred thousand where once, each only represented thirty thousand. Democracy has suffered, but so has consensus. On both right and left the representatives find the are pushed further and further to the extremes of their ideology by pressure groups which have not been elected to any office. I can't cry for the representatives. The house has made this problem for itself in many ways. But I do cry for the people because what we need is consensus, and we need leaders who can trouble about finding it. Instead of swing districts electing reps on the power of 55% of the vote, Double their number and send each with 95% behind them, which is the power to govern, and not to rule. The job of every government is to be to the people like the head of a person, thinking, and doing what is right and beneficial. Some times government needs education, and some times it needs to educate the people. It must also consider the future, and when it cannot see beyond the next election, and when it cannot ever retire from fund raising, there is little time for thought, for government, or teaching the people what is good, and what is necessary. The Iroquois confederacy considered every question brought before it for effects on the following seven generations, but they also demanded consensus. We do not think of our future for seven minutes, becaue we have not had to. And you don't have to think of the future so long as you can gerrymander safe districts. Now; Government cannot always be running in fear of slander from pressure groups. But pressure groups show clearly that great numbers do not feel government is working for them, solving their problems, or addressing their issues. The medicine needed by our government is not less people in government, but more representatives, and less advisors, less ad men, and less lobbyists. I feel this is our right. But it is also right for the government. The ideal would be everyone of us having consent on every law, statute, and tax. If the best we can expect is representative government we should free them all by sending more of them. If we increase their number, we lower their price, and if we can lower their price enough each will reach a point where their virtue is more valuable to them than the price they can get for it. And, If we send them to represent a small district, they will have to be accountable for every vote. What do you think.... Sweeney

Reply
Report this post

Sweeney: You make a number of good points. I'm not sure I agree with you that increasing the size of the House would help us, but you certainly do have a point regarding the number of people each member of Congress represents. I suspect gerrymandering is one of our bigger problems. (I've often thought I'd like to be given the power to re-draw the districts in Illinois, which I would do strictly on the basis of population, without regard to ethnic demographics or party representation.) The real key, I believe, is the incredible focus that the members of Congress have on getting re-elected, which takes their attention away from the primary reason they're in Washington: to do the NATION'S business. I'm not Jewish, but I need to borrow an expression, "Oy vey!" <> One point on which we are in complete agreement is that of the flow of information. As you put it, sometimes the MC needs to be educated, sometimes the public needs to be educated. That is the best way to achieve consensus. <> And now we've got the "Gang of 10" Senators who have this awful compromise bill. It contains $84 billion in tax credits and outright subsidies. Do you realize that a company with $10 billion in annual sales may employ 38,000 people, and operate numerous manufacturing facilities all over the globe, with a distribution and marketing infrastructure? And on top of that, it will collect taxes and show a profit. Not only that, it will probably invest 7% of that profit, which could be as much as $70 million, in R&D to ensure the continuation and expansion of the product line--and it will be enough. The only way to absorb $84 billion is to waste most of it. <> All the best.

Reply
Report this post

Re: davd w pennington: "Technical" solutions are a nice thought, but we won't be doing anything to guarantee our survival or quality of life on this planet until we come to grips with the facts that we ARE on a planet and there is a finite amount of surface area on it and atmosphere around it. ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ I keep a couple of aquariums, and I have discovered over the years that the ratio of animal mass to water mass in the tank has an upper limit past which bad things start to happen to those critters who comprise the numerator. I can push the ratio up a little by using more efficient filtration, but there is a point of diminishing returns as far as applying "technical" solutions to overcrowding goes. ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ That's all a tech-talk way of saying "It's the babies, stupid. We've got to stop making them." By the way, if you really want to know about oil, check out the link below. Too bad Bill Moyers isn't running for president. http://www.truthout.org/video/bill-moyers-it-was-oil-all-along

Reply
Report this post

Re: davd w pennington: "Technical" solutions are a nice thought, but we won't be doing anything to guarantee our survival or quality of life on this planet until we come to grips with the facts that we ARE on a planet and there is a finite amount of surface area on it and atmosphere around it. ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ I keep a couple of aquariums, and I have discovered over the years that the ratio of animal mass to water mass in the tank has an upper limit past which bad things start to happen to those critters who comprise the numerator. I can push the ratio up a little by using more efficient filtration, but there is a point of diminishing returns as far as applying "technical" solutions to overcrowding goes. ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ That's all a tech-talk way of saying "It's the babies, stupid. We've got to stop making them." By the way, if you really want to know about oil, check out the link below. Too bad Bill Moyers isn't running for president. http://www.truthout.org/video/bill-moyers-it-was-oil-all-along

Reply
Report this post

Masako: I posted a response to your comments, but it didn't make it up. If I see another from you, I'll try to re-construct it.

Reply
Report this post

You know; Ma'am if you want to talk about oillly, I have a suggestion. Grab every one of those voices, you know the ones I mean, of those people on the commericals telling about Mr. Mccain, or Mr. Obama. If you can't catch the sound, then grab the throat that made, it and twist. There is enough oil in those ads to save the nation. I'd love to cut out the tonsils of those salimey voiced assassins, and make them all discourse upon the Bible. Maybe that would cure them of sabataging the political process for chump change. What do you think.... Sweeney

Reply
Report this post

Where is the surprise here? That is the problem with a divided society, party polititics, and trench warfare. No one dares to stick their head up for fear of it being shot off; and no one dares to keep their head down too long for fear of missing something important. So you get this mindless blathering from both ends looking for the middle. Do you know what is missing here? It is vote buying, which makes a lot more sense than a ton of garbage advertizing. Why make promises you will not and cannot keep to hold your base and gain the middle? Just give everyone a hundred bucks and tell them if you get elected there will be more. Caesar had it good. The Roman citizen still had his political power even when robbed of his economic power. It was not thought unseemly to make outrageous monetary promises so long as you kept them. But eventually, with the empire complete, and the emperor secure, the political power of the Roman Citizen went the way of his economic power. Instead of being bought, he became a worthless consideration. Oh, and look! It is happening to us. Most of us have no economic power. We are at the mercy of our government, our parties, our churches, and our employers. Let Mr. Obama make his wild promises that gain him no more votes than he loses. When the day is done I will not vote for him. I am a lost vote. We still have some slight political power. How long will it be, when as so many debtors, that we will all lose political power with our economic power? It is only because our political power counts for so little that it has lasted so long. Thanks..... Sweeney

Reply
Report this post

So, Ms. Spine-Free: How about freeing the Tibetans? Where's the principled denunciation of the selling of the Olympics to China? It's all about the bucks, isn't it? ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ Yes, yes, why in the world would we want to screw all of that up over some dirty air and a little systemic repression of anyone anywhere who would tarnish the glittering image of Mao's legacy? Let's just do a little wink and nod, make a toast to games that will reveal the most pollution-resistant lung tissue (maybe that should be a new Olympic category) and kick back with a Tsingtao beer to watch the gladiators gasp it out. ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ I'm sure you have made sport many times over Jimmy Carter's "liberalism," but at least he had the balls to call a spade a spade and take the U.S. out of the Moscow Olympics. He put his personal reputation on the line in a way you phony conservatives would never dare emulate, even as you've been willing to bet the farm (and whatever lives were available to do the deed as long as they weren't yours) on fantasy war in Iraq. He finished his marathon, even though he almost killed himself doing it. ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ That happened in a bygone era. How appropriate that Alexander Solzhenitzyn picked this time to make his exit.