Xenophobia is defined as the "hatred or fear of foreigners or strangers or of their politics or culture". (Wikipedia)
“Only Thing We Have to Fear Is Fear Itself”(Franklin D. Roosevelt 1932)
Why is it that the conservatives of this country seem to become more xenophobic by the day? They seem to have a constant yearning for the America of their youth? What exactly does that mean? Do they wish to return to the days of McCarthyism and its paranoid searches for a communist under every rock? Do they want a return to segregation and its terrible human rights violations? Why do they preach fear of immigrants, different economics philosophies and different cultures and religions? Are they so insecure in their own beliefs that the feel that they must impose those beliefs upon everyone else through legislation? They speak of individual rights but seek to deny those rights to those who do not believe as they do. They preach freedom yet they are trying to repress those freedoms at an alarming rate.
Many states are seeking to remove the collective bargaining rights of public workers. They also seek to weaken or eliminate many long held labor laws and want to overturn years of progress in environmental legislation and policy simply in order to help their corporate campaign donors increase their already grossly inflated profits and executive salaries.
I have no problem with someone accumulating wealth. What I do have is a problem with the questionable practices by which many have made their fortunes. When a hedge fund manager makes billions of dollars per year I have to ask several questions. Does a person really need to make more money than they can ever spend in a lifetime? How much more could the investors have made if the CEO’s salary was more reasonable? How much more could this abundance of cash accomplish if it remained in the economy instead of a bank account? Granted, there a few of these very wealthy who give back to society in amazing ways but I fear that they are in the minority.
With freedom comes great responsibility! The greatest of those responsibilities is to care for those less fortunate. Conservative philosophy says that individuals and not government should provide for the poor and the ill. In an ideal world this would be wonderful but this is far from an ideal world. Given that this is true, only the resources of the people as a whole, through their government, can provide properly for the needs of those in real need. Yes this is a “socialist” concept but in light of the imperfections and flaws of our capitalist and increasingly corporatist system, some forms of social welfare are needed and must be embraced.
The only way progress into the future is to embrace our fears and conquer them. FDR had it right. So many seem to be captive to their fear of change and that they will never allow the progress to come into their own lives let alone their country.
Remember, if you are not progressing, you are regressing. You have nothing to fear.
Thursday, April 28, 2011
Tuesday, April 26, 2011
What Industrial Policy?
There is an expression that I have heard repeated ad infinitum in the business community that says if you do not set a goal you are bound to hit it. If this concept is so central to business success why is it that the government is so reluctant to establish environmental, energy and industrial policies with measurable goals to provide guidance and direction to private industry?
If the lead is left solely to the private sector will the outcome not be a fractured hodgepodge of differing and maybe incompatible standards and philosophies with no clear goals? How do we measure success without goals to guide us?
In the 1960’s President Kennedy set a goal for the nation of sending a man to the moon and returning him safely to earth by the end of that decade. That one goal set in motion a chain of events in technological development that has not been seen since. Without that goal we might not have the computer technology that enables me to write this piece today. Think about it, my little netbook has more computing power and memory than the Apollo spacecraft that went to the moon and back.
Other countries such as India, China, the European Union and to some extent Canada, have policies regarding energy production, transportation and manufacturing that are giving them the lead in environmental goals and projects.
We need national and international projects that push technology to that extent. We need goals and time targets for clean energy development and implementation. We need to set goals for sustainable manufacturing that minimizes effects to our industrial supply chain from natural disasters such as Japan’s recent earthquake. Public transport in urban areas must be better developed to cut pollution and travel costs for citizens.
Politicians in this country usually want private industry to take the lead in these areas but that philosophy has one glaring fault that never seems to be mentioned in public. Private interests will not invest on a large scale if there is not reasonable profit to be made within a date certain period of time. American business interests seldom seem to look much beyond the next year if not the next quarter and governments fail to look past the next election cycle. Both industry and government must coordinate on long term goals that will not be derailed by the fickle winds of party politics. Only long term stable policies can provide the solutions that this country needs to become the true world leader in the technologies of the future.
Governments must provide the policy goals and environments to guide private industry into a better future for all and to establish and maintain world leadership in these endeavors. The private sector lacks the inherent focus and coordination to provide the necessary vision and leadership to establish and meet the greater goals that our country and our world needs.
If the lead is left solely to the private sector will the outcome not be a fractured hodgepodge of differing and maybe incompatible standards and philosophies with no clear goals? How do we measure success without goals to guide us?
In the 1960’s President Kennedy set a goal for the nation of sending a man to the moon and returning him safely to earth by the end of that decade. That one goal set in motion a chain of events in technological development that has not been seen since. Without that goal we might not have the computer technology that enables me to write this piece today. Think about it, my little netbook has more computing power and memory than the Apollo spacecraft that went to the moon and back.
Other countries such as India, China, the European Union and to some extent Canada, have policies regarding energy production, transportation and manufacturing that are giving them the lead in environmental goals and projects.
We need national and international projects that push technology to that extent. We need goals and time targets for clean energy development and implementation. We need to set goals for sustainable manufacturing that minimizes effects to our industrial supply chain from natural disasters such as Japan’s recent earthquake. Public transport in urban areas must be better developed to cut pollution and travel costs for citizens.
Politicians in this country usually want private industry to take the lead in these areas but that philosophy has one glaring fault that never seems to be mentioned in public. Private interests will not invest on a large scale if there is not reasonable profit to be made within a date certain period of time. American business interests seldom seem to look much beyond the next year if not the next quarter and governments fail to look past the next election cycle. Both industry and government must coordinate on long term goals that will not be derailed by the fickle winds of party politics. Only long term stable policies can provide the solutions that this country needs to become the true world leader in the technologies of the future.
Governments must provide the policy goals and environments to guide private industry into a better future for all and to establish and maintain world leadership in these endeavors. The private sector lacks the inherent focus and coordination to provide the necessary vision and leadership to establish and meet the greater goals that our country and our world needs.
Wednesday, April 13, 2011
Thoughts on Clean Energy
The future of energy will have to become “greener” as will the rest of the world’s economy. However, this will not happen overnight. Many people want to see an immediate end to traditional sources of power generation such as coal and many other fossil fuels but that is not a reasonable position to take. Others want “green” energy ideas to slow down or go away. This position is not tenable either.
The coal industry sings the praises of “clean coal” and decries the idea of cap and trade to limit harmful emissions. First, clean coal, as a technology, is still on the drawing board and no plants have been built yet. Second, they maintain that cap and trade will kill jobs in their industry. This too is speculation as they ignore the fact that many new jobs will be created by the new technologies that cap and trade will require to be developed. Clean coal technology may create a few jobs in time but with no time table for implementation of these technologies who knows when these jobs would ever come into being. Cap and trade would impose timetables that the industry does not want. They would rather play with clean coal as a marketing term than be forced to develop and install it for the good of the environment.
Natural gas is a good alternative, although more expensive alternative to coal, however its methods of extraction are environmentally questionable. A new report released today also questions its "clean" status as far as green house gas emissions are concerned. Many countries are converting coal generation to natural gas. Time will tell if it's really cleaner than other carbon based fuels or not.
Nuclear power also has its challenges. Although it emits no greenhouse gases, its waste presents a problem for disposal. American reactors all or nearly all use refined or concentrated uranium as a primary fuel source. Fission of this fuel source results in highly radioactive waste. On the other hand, Canadian reactors use unrefined or raw uranium which produces a much less dangerous waste product. They also can burn the spent fuel that US and other reactors can no longer use. Perhaps we should contract with Canada to dispose of our spent fuels in their reactors? That could help the U.S. with a portion of its waste problem and provide Canada with a possibly cheaper source of nuclear fuel.
Wind and Solar are supplements but neither is reliable in and of itself for base load generation needs. Solar works find if each home has battery storage but it is not practical for grid applications. Wind may work at night when solar won't but it doesn't function in high winds or no wind. If wind and solar electrical generation does have one major advantage it would be found in the security of what is called distributed generation. A city full of small wind turbines and solar PV panels will always produce some power whereas the failure of one large base load generating station presents problems on a huge scale. An attack could take out a power station but not a city full of small solar and wind generators.
How much biological waste does this country produce? How much power could be generated by burning this waste instead of coal? Biofuels will be an answer for the future but they are still in their relative infancy. Corn does not produce enough sugar to make corn ethanol a good long term solution but naturally growing plants such as switchgrass have a high sugar content while needing very little artificial fertilizer like corn does. Being cheaper to grow, higher sugar content and not part of the food crop market like corn makes this a real alternative for ethanol production that is also just beginning to be exploited.
The real problem with developing these alternate and greener sources of energy is that the large energy companies seem resistant to change from what they know. Energy producers are more interested in the short term profits of the next quarter than they are with their long term success and the success of the planet.
The coal industry sings the praises of “clean coal” and decries the idea of cap and trade to limit harmful emissions. First, clean coal, as a technology, is still on the drawing board and no plants have been built yet. Second, they maintain that cap and trade will kill jobs in their industry. This too is speculation as they ignore the fact that many new jobs will be created by the new technologies that cap and trade will require to be developed. Clean coal technology may create a few jobs in time but with no time table for implementation of these technologies who knows when these jobs would ever come into being. Cap and trade would impose timetables that the industry does not want. They would rather play with clean coal as a marketing term than be forced to develop and install it for the good of the environment.
Natural gas is a good alternative, although more expensive alternative to coal, however its methods of extraction are environmentally questionable. A new report released today also questions its "clean" status as far as green house gas emissions are concerned. Many countries are converting coal generation to natural gas. Time will tell if it's really cleaner than other carbon based fuels or not.
Nuclear power also has its challenges. Although it emits no greenhouse gases, its waste presents a problem for disposal. American reactors all or nearly all use refined or concentrated uranium as a primary fuel source. Fission of this fuel source results in highly radioactive waste. On the other hand, Canadian reactors use unrefined or raw uranium which produces a much less dangerous waste product. They also can burn the spent fuel that US and other reactors can no longer use. Perhaps we should contract with Canada to dispose of our spent fuels in their reactors? That could help the U.S. with a portion of its waste problem and provide Canada with a possibly cheaper source of nuclear fuel.
Wind and Solar are supplements but neither is reliable in and of itself for base load generation needs. Solar works find if each home has battery storage but it is not practical for grid applications. Wind may work at night when solar won't but it doesn't function in high winds or no wind. If wind and solar electrical generation does have one major advantage it would be found in the security of what is called distributed generation. A city full of small wind turbines and solar PV panels will always produce some power whereas the failure of one large base load generating station presents problems on a huge scale. An attack could take out a power station but not a city full of small solar and wind generators.
How much biological waste does this country produce? How much power could be generated by burning this waste instead of coal? Biofuels will be an answer for the future but they are still in their relative infancy. Corn does not produce enough sugar to make corn ethanol a good long term solution but naturally growing plants such as switchgrass have a high sugar content while needing very little artificial fertilizer like corn does. Being cheaper to grow, higher sugar content and not part of the food crop market like corn makes this a real alternative for ethanol production that is also just beginning to be exploited.
The real problem with developing these alternate and greener sources of energy is that the large energy companies seem resistant to change from what they know. Energy producers are more interested in the short term profits of the next quarter than they are with their long term success and the success of the planet.
American Exceptionalism
There is a concept within American culture known as exceptionalism. It is a belief that, as a country, the United States has a unique and “ordained” role and place in the world order. If this is true or not I neither know nor care. What I do see is that this philosophy breeds an arrogance that is both unearned and repulsive to other cultures in the world.
This arrogance leads to huge problems in international relations. One of those issues is present in today’s situation in Libya. U.S. politicians do not want any U.S. troops under the command of any other “foreign” military command. In a coalition such as NATO this is an extremely arrogant position to take considering that they want the sovereign forces of other countries to be subject to American command.
This my way or the highway attitude seems to pervade American culture to the core. It’s as if no ideas or products that originate outside of the country are considered to be of any value. Are American cars really better than those from outside of the country? Definitely not! Are American nuclear reactor designs superior to those of other countries? No! Is the American standard of living or quality of life the best in the world? Not even close.
This country needs a reality check.
There is a bumper sticker that says “Are you out of a job yet? Keep buying foreign.” I agree that too much manufacturing has been moved off shore and weakened the American economy but I challenge anyone who reads this to go to your local car dealers and read the content origin labels on the new cars. The so called American brands have less domestic content than many of the “imports.” One of Ford’s best selling models, the Fusion, is built in Mexico and has far less domestic (U.S. or Canadian) content than does the Honda Accord, Civic and many of the Toyotas manufactured and sold in this country.
The reality of the auto origin concept is really one of the cars being union made or not. Even that argument is not completely true. Many of the cars of the “foreign” manufacturer Mazda are union made in the Auto Union plant in Flat Rock, Michigan. If the “American” cars were truly domestic they would not but subject to the current supply chain problems due to the Japanese earthquake and Tsunami.
This is now a global world and there is no place in it for the concept of American exceptionalism. As the largest economy in the world and the strongest military power the United States must use its position in the world with humility and not arrogance. Leadership and ideas from the rest of the world must not be so quickly dismissed by the U.S. The Government and culture of this country must be more willing to listen to and accept the leadership of other governments and peoples to truly become a great power and the “greatest” country in the world.
This arrogance leads to huge problems in international relations. One of those issues is present in today’s situation in Libya. U.S. politicians do not want any U.S. troops under the command of any other “foreign” military command. In a coalition such as NATO this is an extremely arrogant position to take considering that they want the sovereign forces of other countries to be subject to American command.
This my way or the highway attitude seems to pervade American culture to the core. It’s as if no ideas or products that originate outside of the country are considered to be of any value. Are American cars really better than those from outside of the country? Definitely not! Are American nuclear reactor designs superior to those of other countries? No! Is the American standard of living or quality of life the best in the world? Not even close.
This country needs a reality check.
There is a bumper sticker that says “Are you out of a job yet? Keep buying foreign.” I agree that too much manufacturing has been moved off shore and weakened the American economy but I challenge anyone who reads this to go to your local car dealers and read the content origin labels on the new cars. The so called American brands have less domestic content than many of the “imports.” One of Ford’s best selling models, the Fusion, is built in Mexico and has far less domestic (U.S. or Canadian) content than does the Honda Accord, Civic and many of the Toyotas manufactured and sold in this country.
The reality of the auto origin concept is really one of the cars being union made or not. Even that argument is not completely true. Many of the cars of the “foreign” manufacturer Mazda are union made in the Auto Union plant in Flat Rock, Michigan. If the “American” cars were truly domestic they would not but subject to the current supply chain problems due to the Japanese earthquake and Tsunami.
This is now a global world and there is no place in it for the concept of American exceptionalism. As the largest economy in the world and the strongest military power the United States must use its position in the world with humility and not arrogance. Leadership and ideas from the rest of the world must not be so quickly dismissed by the U.S. The Government and culture of this country must be more willing to listen to and accept the leadership of other governments and peoples to truly become a great power and the “greatest” country in the world.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
