Saturday, November 1, 2008
A tipping point?
The next three days may determine whether the American dream can survive. Will our children live in a world where the future looks brighter than the present? Or will the empire fall into barbarism. Looks like the Republican party is halfway there already.
Sunday, July 20, 2008
Finally
Someone has thrown the gauntlet and challenged Americans to take the lead again. Will we fall into the darkness of a failed empire? Or will we accept the challenge to use our real resources, our brains, and energy, and will to create a new society based on renewable energy. The oil giants and their puppets in Washington DC are trying to wring every last drop of obscene profit from American greed and laziness. Will we continue to fund their party? Or will we accept Al Gore's remarkable challenge and move forward despite the hindrance from our so-called government? I believe we can do it. The science tells us that the possibility is real. The need is real. Some will say it can't be done. They used to say that man would never fly.
Saturday, May 17, 2008
Who needs oil?
So Saudi Arabia has kindly consented to increase oil production by 300,000 barrels of oil per day! Doesn't it stick in your craw that our country has to crawl to a brutal repressive regime and beg them to please give us more oil?
It seems to be incredibly hard for people to realize that oil is a limited resource. It's like the little kid who always sees daddy getting money from the bank. The kid doesn't realize that somehow that money has to get into the bank, and that it won't just keep coming out forever.
It's way past time to work very hard and seriously on safe alternate energy sources such as solar, wind, and geothermal. Solar energy already powers nearly every living creature on this planet. Biology 111 teaches every freshman that the sun provides the energy that plants convert into chemical energy which provides power for plants and animals alike. A blade of grass can do it. Why can't we? A world run on renewable energy would have to rely on a hodgepodge of sources. People who live in geothermal areas, would be set up to use geothermal energy. Iceland is ahead of us on this one. People who live in windy areas would depend on windmills. And everyone could use solar systems to some extent.
Would it be a disadvantage to rely on multiple systems to create useful energy? Only for the big corporations who have a stranglehold on us now. The corporations who are posting record profits year after year (Bush administration years) and who are quite happy with the current energy crisis. For the rest of us, we would be much better off if we were more independent of the big power grids. As it is now, any infrastructure failure, or damaging storm, cripples us and leaves us without resources for basic survival in many cases.
The thing is, it will have to be done. We will run out of oil. We will adapt to new sources or most of us will die. Could that be Mr. Bush's plan? Invade Iran and start world war 3 so people will die and the oil will last longer? Interesting hypothesis. So far the evidence doesn't rule it out.
Let's just take our money and resources and put them into alternate energy research and development. Who needs their stinking oil anyway?
It seems to be incredibly hard for people to realize that oil is a limited resource. It's like the little kid who always sees daddy getting money from the bank. The kid doesn't realize that somehow that money has to get into the bank, and that it won't just keep coming out forever.
It's way past time to work very hard and seriously on safe alternate energy sources such as solar, wind, and geothermal. Solar energy already powers nearly every living creature on this planet. Biology 111 teaches every freshman that the sun provides the energy that plants convert into chemical energy which provides power for plants and animals alike. A blade of grass can do it. Why can't we? A world run on renewable energy would have to rely on a hodgepodge of sources. People who live in geothermal areas, would be set up to use geothermal energy. Iceland is ahead of us on this one. People who live in windy areas would depend on windmills. And everyone could use solar systems to some extent.
Would it be a disadvantage to rely on multiple systems to create useful energy? Only for the big corporations who have a stranglehold on us now. The corporations who are posting record profits year after year (Bush administration years) and who are quite happy with the current energy crisis. For the rest of us, we would be much better off if we were more independent of the big power grids. As it is now, any infrastructure failure, or damaging storm, cripples us and leaves us without resources for basic survival in many cases.
The thing is, it will have to be done. We will run out of oil. We will adapt to new sources or most of us will die. Could that be Mr. Bush's plan? Invade Iran and start world war 3 so people will die and the oil will last longer? Interesting hypothesis. So far the evidence doesn't rule it out.
Let's just take our money and resources and put them into alternate energy research and development. Who needs their stinking oil anyway?
Saturday, March 22, 2008
The second amendment: Read It!
"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the People to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."
This is one sentence. The authors could have put these ideas into two sentences but they wanted these two ideas to be joined. The first clause is a modifying clause. That means it significantly impacts the meaning of the sentence. So, yes; we do have the right to keep and bear arms, but they have to be regulated! Doesn't it make sense that guns should be at least as well regulated as automobiles? So guns must be registered, and people must be vetted and trained in the proper use to protect themselves and the free state.
Look at Switzerland as the prototype. All adult males participate in military service, all own weapons, and weapons are registered and tightly controlled.
The constitution does guarantee the rights of citizens to own and bear arms. It doesn't promise that any damn fool can do anything he wants with them.
This is one sentence. The authors could have put these ideas into two sentences but they wanted these two ideas to be joined. The first clause is a modifying clause. That means it significantly impacts the meaning of the sentence. So, yes; we do have the right to keep and bear arms, but they have to be regulated! Doesn't it make sense that guns should be at least as well regulated as automobiles? So guns must be registered, and people must be vetted and trained in the proper use to protect themselves and the free state.
Look at Switzerland as the prototype. All adult males participate in military service, all own weapons, and weapons are registered and tightly controlled.
The constitution does guarantee the rights of citizens to own and bear arms. It doesn't promise that any damn fool can do anything he wants with them.
Saturday, December 1, 2007
What a Racket!
War is a racket! A few rich people manipulate the rest of us and make bloody fortunes in the doing.
That sentiment was first expressed by one of the most respected and beloved Marine commanders, who was twice awarded the Medal of Honor. As he expressed it
" Out of war nations acquire additional territory, if they are victorious. They just take it. This newly acquired territory promptly is exploited by the few – the selfsame few who wrung dollars out of blood in the war. The general public shoulders the bill."
Major General Smedley Butler was approached by a group of "business men" who didn't like the social policies that President Roosevelt initiated. They planned to take over the government, with General Butler's help.
Thank God Butler was a true hero, and a true patriot. He reported the plot to congress where, because of the wealth and influence of the traitors (including Prescott Bush, grandfather of you-know-who), nothing was done.
Don't believe it? look it up.
Then tell me why this isn't on the curriculum for every high school civics class.
That sentiment was first expressed by one of the most respected and beloved Marine commanders, who was twice awarded the Medal of Honor. As he expressed it
" Out of war nations acquire additional territory, if they are victorious. They just take it. This newly acquired territory promptly is exploited by the few – the selfsame few who wrung dollars out of blood in the war. The general public shoulders the bill."
Major General Smedley Butler was approached by a group of "business men" who didn't like the social policies that President Roosevelt initiated. They planned to take over the government, with General Butler's help.
Thank God Butler was a true hero, and a true patriot. He reported the plot to congress where, because of the wealth and influence of the traitors (including Prescott Bush, grandfather of you-know-who), nothing was done.
Don't believe it? look it up.
Then tell me why this isn't on the curriculum for every high school civics class.
Sunday, November 25, 2007
Show us the money!
How much is the Iraq war costing us? According to one estimate published in 2006 by the National Priorities Project, the war costs about 255 million dollars a day. Today the total cost as calculated by the NPP, is 471 billion dollars.
Estimates of total long-term costs range from 1.2 to 3.5 trillion dollars.
Imagine instead of shipping all those soldiers and equipment and supplies and everything involved in starting the war over there, imagine instead if we had just decided to burn the money up till now. We could have people burning hundred dollar bills on the mall in Washington D.C. We could have had 4 hundred and seventy one billion people ( approximately the entire adult population of the planet) each burn a hundred dollar bill. Or say, if we don’t want that many people in D.C. ( not enough toilets for them all probably) we could have just one thousand people burning hundred dollar bills. Each person would only have to burn 4 million 7 hundred and 10 thousand, hundred dollar bills. If it takes 2 minutes to burn each bill, that would take only about 18 years to get rid of all that money.
So all those people would be alive still, all our soldiers, and all the half million Iraqis who have died as a result of the war. All those soldier, the hundred thousand or so who have lost limbs, eyes, brains, they would be living a normal life today. All the millions of gallons of gas burned in the millions of miles traveled by humvees and strikers and helicopters and all the thousands of trucks transporting all the fuel and supplies, all that gas would be available for us here in the U.S. Our army, wouldn’t be broken, demoralized, and about out of fresh soldiers. Our National Guard would be home, with their equipment to defend the homeland and help in emergencies.
We would be so far ahead of where we are now, and our thousand volunteers could still be merrily burning hundred dollar bills until 2021!
How about Saddam Hussein, though, isn’t it worth it to be rid of him? Well, who knows, maybe his own people might have gotten rid of him by now. Maybe he would have died of a heart attack or stroke. Maybe he would have been struck by lightning. Maybe the Iranians would have taken him on. Maybe he would have kept Iran too busy to work on nuclear research. Maybe the religious extremists, the Shiite crazies and the Sunni fundamentalists wouldn’t be beating up and murdering each other and everyone else in the way.
One thing we can say for sure. We have spent an ungodly amount of money and haven’t received one positive result from it.
Estimates of total long-term costs range from 1.2 to 3.5 trillion dollars.
Imagine instead of shipping all those soldiers and equipment and supplies and everything involved in starting the war over there, imagine instead if we had just decided to burn the money up till now. We could have people burning hundred dollar bills on the mall in Washington D.C. We could have had 4 hundred and seventy one billion people ( approximately the entire adult population of the planet) each burn a hundred dollar bill. Or say, if we don’t want that many people in D.C. ( not enough toilets for them all probably) we could have just one thousand people burning hundred dollar bills. Each person would only have to burn 4 million 7 hundred and 10 thousand, hundred dollar bills. If it takes 2 minutes to burn each bill, that would take only about 18 years to get rid of all that money.
So all those people would be alive still, all our soldiers, and all the half million Iraqis who have died as a result of the war. All those soldier, the hundred thousand or so who have lost limbs, eyes, brains, they would be living a normal life today. All the millions of gallons of gas burned in the millions of miles traveled by humvees and strikers and helicopters and all the thousands of trucks transporting all the fuel and supplies, all that gas would be available for us here in the U.S. Our army, wouldn’t be broken, demoralized, and about out of fresh soldiers. Our National Guard would be home, with their equipment to defend the homeland and help in emergencies.
We would be so far ahead of where we are now, and our thousand volunteers could still be merrily burning hundred dollar bills until 2021!
How about Saddam Hussein, though, isn’t it worth it to be rid of him? Well, who knows, maybe his own people might have gotten rid of him by now. Maybe he would have died of a heart attack or stroke. Maybe he would have been struck by lightning. Maybe the Iranians would have taken him on. Maybe he would have kept Iran too busy to work on nuclear research. Maybe the religious extremists, the Shiite crazies and the Sunni fundamentalists wouldn’t be beating up and murdering each other and everyone else in the way.
One thing we can say for sure. We have spent an ungodly amount of money and haven’t received one positive result from it.
Tuesday, November 20, 2007
Let's over-extend some more!
Michael O’Hanlon and Frederick Kagan, who were among the early members of the neocon conspiracy to start a “pre-emptive” war with Iraq, are at it again. (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/18/opinion/18kagan.html?_r=1&oref=slogin)
Now they are talking about getting the U.S. military mired down in Pakistan. ARE THEY COMPLETELY INSANE? What is it about an overextended, quagmire, public relations disaster, humanitarian crisis, destabilizing, financially ruinous, total bloody mess, that they want to repeat?
These people are like little boys with toy soldiers that they just have throw into battle. Do any of them have the capacity to understand the flesh and bloody reality of war, the deaths and unending hatreds that are spawned by arrogant clean-handed, soft-skinned “think-tankers” such as themselves?
Don’t they understand that empires always come crashing down, and the more they over-reach, the sooner they fall? Did they ever hear of Rome which was destroyed when the barbarians invaded the capitol while the legions were occupied on the borders? Or WWI, when the Austro-Hungarian empire , the Russian empire, and the Ottoman empire, were destroyed because of the hubris of their leaders and the total inability to foresee the dreadful consequences of their actions?
Why is their vision always myopically focused on violent solutions? Is it limited thought capacity or simply testosterone poisoning?
Let’s try thinking outside the box. For example, say we put the trillion dollars we spent on the war into developing alternate sustainable energy sources, along with education about conservation. Then we share the knowledge with everyone in the world. No one would have the excuse of needing nuclear technology, and we might have enough credibility as a nation dedicated to justice and peace to form a genuine coalition to keep crazy dictators under control.
Let’s take our lessons from the truly brilliant leaders. Elizabeth Tudor inherited a throne that was on shaky ground, politically and economically. She was beset with threats external and internal, from the religious extremists both Catholic and Protestant. England was caught in the vise between France, Scotland, and Spain. It was a divided, traumatized country. How did Elizabeth, a weak, feeble woman bring her country to the pinnacle of its glory days, the days of Shakespeare, and Raleigh? She abhorred war, detested extremism, and valued diplomacy. She used the tools at hand, diplomacy, trade, and brains.
America has given the world so much with our creative, hard working thinkers, from Thomas Jefferson (“I abhor war and view it as the greatest scourge of mankind”), and Thomas Edison, to the scientific thinkers who put humans on the moon, invented the internet, and decoded the human genome. There has to be a way we can deal with our problems, and the world’s problems, that doesn’t involve bombs, bullets, and blood. All it will take is intelligence, creativity, and will. Tragically, these are characteristics our current policy-makers lack.
Now they are talking about getting the U.S. military mired down in Pakistan. ARE THEY COMPLETELY INSANE? What is it about an overextended, quagmire, public relations disaster, humanitarian crisis, destabilizing, financially ruinous, total bloody mess, that they want to repeat?
These people are like little boys with toy soldiers that they just have throw into battle. Do any of them have the capacity to understand the flesh and bloody reality of war, the deaths and unending hatreds that are spawned by arrogant clean-handed, soft-skinned “think-tankers” such as themselves?
Don’t they understand that empires always come crashing down, and the more they over-reach, the sooner they fall? Did they ever hear of Rome which was destroyed when the barbarians invaded the capitol while the legions were occupied on the borders? Or WWI, when the Austro-Hungarian empire , the Russian empire, and the Ottoman empire, were destroyed because of the hubris of their leaders and the total inability to foresee the dreadful consequences of their actions?
Why is their vision always myopically focused on violent solutions? Is it limited thought capacity or simply testosterone poisoning?
Let’s try thinking outside the box. For example, say we put the trillion dollars we spent on the war into developing alternate sustainable energy sources, along with education about conservation. Then we share the knowledge with everyone in the world. No one would have the excuse of needing nuclear technology, and we might have enough credibility as a nation dedicated to justice and peace to form a genuine coalition to keep crazy dictators under control.
Let’s take our lessons from the truly brilliant leaders. Elizabeth Tudor inherited a throne that was on shaky ground, politically and economically. She was beset with threats external and internal, from the religious extremists both Catholic and Protestant. England was caught in the vise between France, Scotland, and Spain. It was a divided, traumatized country. How did Elizabeth, a weak, feeble woman bring her country to the pinnacle of its glory days, the days of Shakespeare, and Raleigh? She abhorred war, detested extremism, and valued diplomacy. She used the tools at hand, diplomacy, trade, and brains.
America has given the world so much with our creative, hard working thinkers, from Thomas Jefferson (“I abhor war and view it as the greatest scourge of mankind”), and Thomas Edison, to the scientific thinkers who put humans on the moon, invented the internet, and decoded the human genome. There has to be a way we can deal with our problems, and the world’s problems, that doesn’t involve bombs, bullets, and blood. All it will take is intelligence, creativity, and will. Tragically, these are characteristics our current policy-makers lack.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)