Here is the rhetorical question: Imagine if you will the Blob from the 1950's movie of the same title, and it was sweeping the streets removing only the gas stations, refineries, offices, and production facilities of every oil company that existed in five states.
How much money would the oil industry collectively spend to stop the Blob? How fast would that private action (without any help [or probably permission] from the Government-at-large) be done?
Now, if instead of "blob," we read massive uncontrolled oil gusher; we replace the streets with the Gulf of Mexico; and instead of oil companies we read: every fisherman, much of the tourism, a lot of recreational dollars, and the future health of millions of people-- not to mention the immense and incalculable devastation to our aquatic creatures and ecosystems-- we must wonder.
Is it not in every oil companies interest to assist in solving this problem ASAP so as to be able to have opportunity at future access to public waters?
As for BP: It was different to hear within the first days of this tragedy, that BP will honor all reasonable economic claims. That said, sending claimants out to help with the clean up and containment without proper safety (equipment, training, resources, etc.) is in some ways worse, because then they shall have several claims as a class action: (1) economic, and (2) health.
It seems there will probably be many levels of costs for BP, Halliburton, et. al.: (A) immediate, (B) long-term, (C) Criminal claims, (D) Civil penalties, and (E) future opportunity costs.
I also want to make the statement that this situation is not as advertised or spun, "Obama's Katrina." Bush got a four day notice, and if memory serves did nothing for an additional four or so days. When he did it was to reassure people, as opposed to acknowledge the tragedy. That tin ear populism was what created (along with catch phrases like, "heckuva job Brownie,") the sink hole of political legitimacy for Bush.
Pubs and haters praying for this to suddenly be Obama's Katrina are going with the old 'argumentum ad naseum,' again, but more startling is their admission that in this (and on several other issues like the economy) matter their last leader with a fully stacked Pub Congress flubbed on issue after issue. I think with the foot falling and the Tea Parties it is clear that the Pubs havent gotten out of circular firing squad formation quite yet....
This situation was precipitated by the Bushies, and the only problem I have with Obama (Administration) is that they did not catch the paper tiger collusion between MMS and Big Oil before it came to this.
So, now as far as I am concerned, we the people must ask the oil companies to verify and prove the statements they made in writing to our governmental bodies in order to acquire permits. If they claim this situation happens only once every 30 years, then they must show they have what it takes to either improve techniques and/or possess the technological wherewithal to mitigate even the slightest damage to our public lands and natural resources.
As far as I am concerned, even the fishermen are missing the bigger picture: they should not just ask for a years wages, or another job... What about charging wholesale prices for every pound of shrimp, dolphins, fish, crabs, clams, crawdads, mollusk, etc. that has been "eaten" by this blob; and what about all the future costs for the billions of creatures that have been aborted in this man made catastrophe facilitated by a chain of fools.
Finally, it is hard to write this knowing I am on track to have to fill up at the gas station in about a week. We are all conspirators at some level of this tragedy, but imagine how much this will cost the tax payers total. It is probably a very incalculable number like say $208,972,340,000.00, just to pick one out of the hat. We have dozens of these rigs out there. If we would just spend that $208,972,340,000.00 x 12 to facilitate electric cars, improved clean technology, solar, and wind, then would we not be in this mess when the next one is due in thirty years or less?
Showing posts with label Bush. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Bush. Show all posts
Saturday, May 29, 2010
Thursday, September 24, 2009
The 10% (of GDP) Solution
[UPDATED (09/25/09)]
We approach one year since the Government of George W. Bush came to the rescue of Profiteers on Wall Street to create systemic reward for failure in our market driven economy.
Yesterday, Rachael Maddow interviewed Paul Krugman, and
In minute five he begins describing the remedies for the current situation and I will be discussing the statements he concludes by about minute six, and among the other interesting points he made he mentioned that in order to get out of the Great Depression we had WWII which required government fiscal input of ~40% of GDP.
He went on to state that the current stimulus is only about 2.5% of GDP.
Now I am not going to spend time checking to see how accurate those numbers are this morning, and I dont agree with everything Krugman says. That disclaimer out of the way, I will say hes probably pretty accurate on those facts, and it is clear (as he also went on to say) that the political fortitude for such a stimulus plan is weak at best (mirroring the point in the one minute clip I could find above).
SO lets take those facts as a rule of thumb. Lets say the economy is twice as efficient now as it was sixty or seventy years ago; Let grant that this Severe Recession isnt exactly the same as the Great Depression (lets say for simplicity its half as bad adding the broader networking of International markets, exchanges, and trade); and we would need about ten percent of GDP in stimulus to really soar past our current problems!
Now lets assume the government has screwed the pooch with Paulson-Cheney's rescue, and that Obama's versions are still too early to call. All that, according to Krugman yesterday is about 4% of GDP (including cash for clunkers, et. al.).
[Lets apply about 1.5% of GDP for Infrastructure improvements, as my memory from first post to this update was off by 1.5%, so that means] we have about another 6% of GDP yet to spend: So thats about $858BB we can still spend.
1. Thats about the estimated cost for the full Health Reform Bill without any efficiency savings
2. My top ten wish list (inclusive of increased infrastructure and health care inclusive of efficiency savings)
or
3. A Citizens Stimulus
Here's the idea: Instead of giving more money to the moneyed interests, give to the citizens! Let's say there are about 200,000,000 individual and family tax payers; There is about $850BB to give for completion of stimulus which is about 1/4th as strong as how we escaped the Great Depression; then we have about $4250 Credit Amount per individual.
A. Order of the Allthing. In Icelandic and Nordic cultures there was the All Thing which basically reconciled all debts every year-- including debt forgiveness. So here would be the thing which I prescribe;
i. First, subtract Federal back taxes and penalties forgiven up to the Credit Amount
ii. Then from that remainder, subtract State back taxes and penalties forgiven up to the Total Credit Amount (This money goes to the States!)
iii. Next from that remainder, subtract local (real estate) tax liens and penalties forgiven up to the Total Credit Amount (This goes to the local governments!!)
iv. Finally, assuming anything is left over, any outstanding judgements, child support, or other unpaid levies would be forgiven up to that Total Credit Amount
B. The way TARP should have been applied.
i. Citizen give government the right to examine credit records (they ostensibly have this data just from Fannie-Freddie)
ii. Government confirms real outstanding balances from an official capacity via subpoena powers (thereby any institution being usurious or illegal would be committing fraud at a Federal level)
iii. Citizen has time to dispute final balances
iv. Creditor has right to re-validate claim(s)
v. Citizen may elect to have any remainder from Allthing process (above) to be applied to some or all participating Creditors to discharge debts in a class manner
C. Citizen may simply bypass this class bailout/credit restoration process and collect remainder form Allthing process.
SO think about this practically! Lets say 33% have something left over and want to participate in this settling of debts. Lets imagine who the money is owed to? In its current configuration (post-bailouts and mergers) something like 90% of all consumer debts are carried by 5 major institutions.
IF we imagine that Citibank (for instance) then recovers something to the tune of 10% of its consumer debt, doesnt that serve the same purpose of stimulus? It also relieves the consumer, and technically allows Citibank to make new loans!
FInally, if all those bailout moneys had been so applied the amount being discussed would be closer to $10K per person, and if we added the idea that mortgages could be included as direct or indirect beneficiaries to the class settlements or the use of funds by individuals who elected to bypass the settlement process some of the foreclosure and real estate market issues would have been rounded out.
You may say I am a dreamer, but I hope someday you will join me...!
We approach one year since the Government of George W. Bush came to the rescue of Profiteers on Wall Street to create systemic reward for failure in our market driven economy.
Yesterday, Rachael Maddow interviewed Paul Krugman, and
Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy
In minute five he begins describing the remedies for the current situation and I will be discussing the statements he concludes by about minute six, and among the other interesting points he made he mentioned that in order to get out of the Great Depression we had WWII which required government fiscal input of ~40% of GDP.
He went on to state that the current stimulus is only about 2.5% of GDP.
Now I am not going to spend time checking to see how accurate those numbers are this morning, and I dont agree with everything Krugman says. That disclaimer out of the way, I will say hes probably pretty accurate on those facts, and it is clear (as he also went on to say) that the political fortitude for such a stimulus plan is weak at best (mirroring the point in the one minute clip I could find above).
SO lets take those facts as a rule of thumb. Lets say the economy is twice as efficient now as it was sixty or seventy years ago; Let grant that this Severe Recession isnt exactly the same as the Great Depression (lets say for simplicity its half as bad adding the broader networking of International markets, exchanges, and trade); and we would need about ten percent of GDP in stimulus to really soar past our current problems!
Now lets assume the government has screwed the pooch with Paulson-Cheney's rescue, and that Obama's versions are still too early to call. All that, according to Krugman yesterday is about 4% of GDP (including cash for clunkers, et. al.).
[Lets apply about 1.5% of GDP for Infrastructure improvements, as my memory from first post to this update was off by 1.5%, so that means] we have about another 6% of GDP yet to spend: So thats about $858BB we can still spend.
1. Thats about the estimated cost for the full Health Reform Bill without any efficiency savings
2. My top ten wish list (inclusive of increased infrastructure and health care inclusive of efficiency savings)
or
3. A Citizens Stimulus
Here's the idea: Instead of giving more money to the moneyed interests, give to the citizens! Let's say there are about 200,000,000 individual and family tax payers; There is about $850BB to give for completion of stimulus which is about 1/4th as strong as how we escaped the Great Depression; then we have about $4250 Credit Amount per individual.
A. Order of the Allthing. In Icelandic and Nordic cultures there was the All Thing which basically reconciled all debts every year-- including debt forgiveness. So here would be the thing which I prescribe;
i. First, subtract Federal back taxes and penalties forgiven up to the Credit Amount
ii. Then from that remainder, subtract State back taxes and penalties forgiven up to the Total Credit Amount (This money goes to the States!)
iii. Next from that remainder, subtract local (real estate) tax liens and penalties forgiven up to the Total Credit Amount (This goes to the local governments!!)
iv. Finally, assuming anything is left over, any outstanding judgements, child support, or other unpaid levies would be forgiven up to that Total Credit Amount
B. The way TARP should have been applied.
i. Citizen give government the right to examine credit records (they ostensibly have this data just from Fannie-Freddie)
ii. Government confirms real outstanding balances from an official capacity via subpoena powers (thereby any institution being usurious or illegal would be committing fraud at a Federal level)
iii. Citizen has time to dispute final balances
iv. Creditor has right to re-validate claim(s)
v. Citizen may elect to have any remainder from Allthing process (above) to be applied to some or all participating Creditors to discharge debts in a class manner
C. Citizen may simply bypass this class bailout/credit restoration process and collect remainder form Allthing process.
SO think about this practically! Lets say 33% have something left over and want to participate in this settling of debts. Lets imagine who the money is owed to? In its current configuration (post-bailouts and mergers) something like 90% of all consumer debts are carried by 5 major institutions.
IF we imagine that Citibank (for instance) then recovers something to the tune of 10% of its consumer debt, doesnt that serve the same purpose of stimulus? It also relieves the consumer, and technically allows Citibank to make new loans!
FInally, if all those bailout moneys had been so applied the amount being discussed would be closer to $10K per person, and if we added the idea that mortgages could be included as direct or indirect beneficiaries to the class settlements or the use of funds by individuals who elected to bypass the settlement process some of the foreclosure and real estate market issues would have been rounded out.
You may say I am a dreamer, but I hope someday you will join me...!
Wednesday, December 31, 2008
Why the Republicans are "Communists"
Lets start off by defining communism via copying from Wikipedia;
"Communism is a socioeconomic structure and political ideology that promotes the establishment of an egalitarian, classless, stateless society based on common ownership and control of the means of production and property in general."
That very good sentence is not what I mean by referring to the "W" administration as Communist.
Lets shade things in a little:
When I was growing up you were a Pinko, Commie, or as Wally George would say, "Looney Liberal" if you disagreed with trickle down economics.
Aside from Appeal to the Masses approach of name calling, why would I conclude that the label of Communist, as the many Republicanistas I have known over the many decades, would call someone, group, or argument which believed in any hint of the socialist concept of nationalization of wealth, be an appropriate adjective for the Republicans?
Lets construct the argument from the Republicans and their Administration.
(1) Paulson hands in a three page proposal to solicit $750BB by using an Appeal to Fear.
(2) The congress, after some questioning, submits to this request without examining the construct of mechanisms of oversight, re-regulation, or sufficient scientific or public input by certifying the Appeal to Fear and also using an Appeal to Consequences.
(3) Paulson in turn has "bailed out" only the richest and most influential corporations without any calculation towards restoring the credit markets. In doing this he acting as proxy for the "W" Administration has nationalized more dollar for dollar (adjusted) private wealth than did Lenin in the 1917 Russian Revolution.
The main difference between the almost 90 years and two continents? Lenin nationalized means of production, and Paulson/Bush have nationalized private failures.
As sickening as that statement is alone, it in my opinion gets worse.
(4) Now it also turns out that the execs and other elite do not have to take any pay cut for their failures.
The primary argument from all the trickle downers was that through facilitating the elites, you create more jobs, and thus have a social hierarchy which is a form of meritocracy. Often the arguments from those same trickle downers was that to have a state mechanism which takes care of less fortunate, say war veterans or people with disabilities, would reward failure, incompetence, or lacksadaisy. Can you see where I am going on this one?
The beneficiaries of the decades of pro-corporation, deregulatory, and trickle down thinking has been turned on its head by those very same people who would have argued (in the face of say a $700BB package to allow individuals who earn less than $50K per annum to write down their losses [not pay taxes], be reimbursed for incompetence, and be availed of debts incurred from their poor decisions by the US government) against such a blatant avoidance of capitalist consequences.
Those who would argue that somehow the Clinton years were not in this bag of hammers are dead wrong. Clinton worked with the Knut Gingrich congress to get those lazy welfare mothers back to work, for instance. Only Jimmy Carter tried to oppose the Nixonian economic dismantling of the Great Society and the New Deal-- and he was absolutely punished (for not doing a very good job of trying to swim against the current).
So, was Paulson's appeal true or false? Probably a little of both. Yes, the sky was falling, but not in the way anyone could comprehend-- or at least anyone who truly comprehended this did not say. (On a separate note, how convenient is it of the anti-government Republicans to not only have built the largest American bureaucracy in history, but to have also spared us poor innocent citizens from the awful and complex truth involved in the facts {thus a defacto Nanny State mentality, to boot}?)
So, was Congress reasonable or irrational to take such drastic action? Probably a bit of both. On the one hand to it was fairly unpopular (especially at first blush), but to have gone into lame duck session without action could have been political poison for reelection.
So will the companies chosen to be bailed out be a good or poor move by the collective US Government? Probably a bit of both, again: On the one hand if we are truly getting preferred stock interest, corporate bonds, and other repayment guarantees, then there is a real probability (say 30 ~ 55% chance) that the US government (and hence the taxpayer) will come out ahead in dollar for dollar inflation adjusted numbers at the end of two or three decades. On the other hand it is in my estimation also a fair probability that dollar for dollar we could come out behind.
Effectively the US Government will have to now manage a portfolio. On the other hand, it will control certain of these groups (like Fannie-Freddie). All the while being the regulator for these corporations! This is a Corporatist Socialism model which in large part has been the fantasy of many of the Pro-Business "Libertarians" I have read.
They showed Soylent Green on TV yesterday, and that is taking the overreach and complicit conspiracy between corporation and government to a natural and far reaching (if not simplistic) conclusion.
My recommendations for the new administration:
(a) Re-enforce various merit based pay systems/anti-golden parachute provisions for these loans, or they will become due. The Republicans (and many Dems) are fond these days of talking about mortgages and other legal devices as if these are mutable documents. The basis of law is the immutable nature of such binding agreements in writing and witnessed. If there is going to be any flexibility in interpreting legal agreements lets start with the fact that the intention of the parties was NO GOLDEN PARACHUTES!
(b) Envigorate and expand regulatory mechanisms. Further this by making public oversight commissions to review this triangle between the US Government as Stock/Bond holder, US Government as regulator and enforcer of laws, and as shepherd of tax dollars thus invested. (Think Customer, Regulator, and Broker-- of which US Govt is now all three.)
(c) Create new rules for this new use of tax dollars to further discourage cronyism, quid pro quo, and other unsavory action which could clearly emerge over time from this unholy trinity by creating trust fund and anti-collusion rules for the US Government as Broker.
(d) Create timelines (not in terms of time, rather in terms of event mile markers) which delineate the divestment of these holdings (as Customer).
(e) Enforce the bloody rules that are on the books! And simplify them so that even the company Receptionist could theoretically blow the whistle upon detecting malfeasance or felonious behaviour!!
So now I am going back in time, to 1987, Reagan is President, and I am going to visit Wally George and be on the lame-ass Hot Seat show to say, "We need to infuse business with $700BB in order to allow them to avoid losses, keep their jobs, and 'stimulate the economy.' I believe the government should become three times bigger than it is today. I think it will be good for us to avoid confusing our consumers, I mean citizens, with any real information or data germane to the decision making processes, because politicians know best. And then I believe as regulator, primary stock holder, and investor the US Government shouldn't be burdened by little details like accounting for how those funds are used by the corporations we deign to be worthy of state investments!"
Commie!
"Communism is a socioeconomic structure and political ideology that promotes the establishment of an egalitarian, classless, stateless society based on common ownership and control of the means of production and property in general."
That very good sentence is not what I mean by referring to the "W" administration as Communist.
Lets shade things in a little:
When I was growing up you were a Pinko, Commie, or as Wally George would say, "Looney Liberal" if you disagreed with trickle down economics.
Aside from Appeal to the Masses approach of name calling, why would I conclude that the label of Communist, as the many Republicanistas I have known over the many decades, would call someone, group, or argument which believed in any hint of the socialist concept of nationalization of wealth, be an appropriate adjective for the Republicans?
Lets construct the argument from the Republicans and their Administration.
(1) Paulson hands in a three page proposal to solicit $750BB by using an Appeal to Fear.
(2) The congress, after some questioning, submits to this request without examining the construct of mechanisms of oversight, re-regulation, or sufficient scientific or public input by certifying the Appeal to Fear and also using an Appeal to Consequences.
(3) Paulson in turn has "bailed out" only the richest and most influential corporations without any calculation towards restoring the credit markets. In doing this he acting as proxy for the "W" Administration has nationalized more dollar for dollar (adjusted) private wealth than did Lenin in the 1917 Russian Revolution.
The main difference between the almost 90 years and two continents? Lenin nationalized means of production, and Paulson/Bush have nationalized private failures.
As sickening as that statement is alone, it in my opinion gets worse.
(4) Now it also turns out that the execs and other elite do not have to take any pay cut for their failures.
The primary argument from all the trickle downers was that through facilitating the elites, you create more jobs, and thus have a social hierarchy which is a form of meritocracy. Often the arguments from those same trickle downers was that to have a state mechanism which takes care of less fortunate, say war veterans or people with disabilities, would reward failure, incompetence, or lacksadaisy. Can you see where I am going on this one?
The beneficiaries of the decades of pro-corporation, deregulatory, and trickle down thinking has been turned on its head by those very same people who would have argued (in the face of say a $700BB package to allow individuals who earn less than $50K per annum to write down their losses [not pay taxes], be reimbursed for incompetence, and be availed of debts incurred from their poor decisions by the US government) against such a blatant avoidance of capitalist consequences.
Those who would argue that somehow the Clinton years were not in this bag of hammers are dead wrong. Clinton worked with the Knut Gingrich congress to get those lazy welfare mothers back to work, for instance. Only Jimmy Carter tried to oppose the Nixonian economic dismantling of the Great Society and the New Deal-- and he was absolutely punished (for not doing a very good job of trying to swim against the current).
So, was Paulson's appeal true or false? Probably a little of both. Yes, the sky was falling, but not in the way anyone could comprehend-- or at least anyone who truly comprehended this did not say. (On a separate note, how convenient is it of the anti-government Republicans to not only have built the largest American bureaucracy in history, but to have also spared us poor innocent citizens from the awful and complex truth involved in the facts {thus a defacto Nanny State mentality, to boot}?)
So, was Congress reasonable or irrational to take such drastic action? Probably a bit of both. On the one hand to it was fairly unpopular (especially at first blush), but to have gone into lame duck session without action could have been political poison for reelection.
So will the companies chosen to be bailed out be a good or poor move by the collective US Government? Probably a bit of both, again: On the one hand if we are truly getting preferred stock interest, corporate bonds, and other repayment guarantees, then there is a real probability (say 30 ~ 55% chance) that the US government (and hence the taxpayer) will come out ahead in dollar for dollar inflation adjusted numbers at the end of two or three decades. On the other hand it is in my estimation also a fair probability that dollar for dollar we could come out behind.
Effectively the US Government will have to now manage a portfolio. On the other hand, it will control certain of these groups (like Fannie-Freddie). All the while being the regulator for these corporations! This is a Corporatist Socialism model which in large part has been the fantasy of many of the Pro-Business "Libertarians" I have read.
They showed Soylent Green on TV yesterday, and that is taking the overreach and complicit conspiracy between corporation and government to a natural and far reaching (if not simplistic) conclusion.
My recommendations for the new administration:
(a) Re-enforce various merit based pay systems/anti-golden parachute provisions for these loans, or they will become due. The Republicans (and many Dems) are fond these days of talking about mortgages and other legal devices as if these are mutable documents. The basis of law is the immutable nature of such binding agreements in writing and witnessed. If there is going to be any flexibility in interpreting legal agreements lets start with the fact that the intention of the parties was NO GOLDEN PARACHUTES!
(b) Envigorate and expand regulatory mechanisms. Further this by making public oversight commissions to review this triangle between the US Government as Stock/Bond holder, US Government as regulator and enforcer of laws, and as shepherd of tax dollars thus invested. (Think Customer, Regulator, and Broker-- of which US Govt is now all three.)
(c) Create new rules for this new use of tax dollars to further discourage cronyism, quid pro quo, and other unsavory action which could clearly emerge over time from this unholy trinity by creating trust fund and anti-collusion rules for the US Government as Broker.
(d) Create timelines (not in terms of time, rather in terms of event mile markers) which delineate the divestment of these holdings (as Customer).
(e) Enforce the bloody rules that are on the books! And simplify them so that even the company Receptionist could theoretically blow the whistle upon detecting malfeasance or felonious behaviour!!
So now I am going back in time, to 1987, Reagan is President, and I am going to visit Wally George and be on the lame-ass Hot Seat show to say, "We need to infuse business with $700BB in order to allow them to avoid losses, keep their jobs, and 'stimulate the economy.' I believe the government should become three times bigger than it is today. I think it will be good for us to avoid confusing our consumers, I mean citizens, with any real information or data germane to the decision making processes, because politicians know best. And then I believe as regulator, primary stock holder, and investor the US Government shouldn't be burdened by little details like accounting for how those funds are used by the corporations we deign to be worthy of state investments!"
Commie!
Monday, June 16, 2008
Eulogy for Bush II and the W Administration– A First Draft
Much shall be made of George “W.” Bush, Junior’s two four-year Administrations, hereafter referred to entirely as “W,” and of course, after January 2009, as we get further away, greater clarity and context shall surely emerge. I propose to advocate a narrative for the latter, context, and that seems to be eluding people in their present discussions and seems to escape the major mass media all together.
Regardless of whether Bush the Second the man at the end of the day is determined “the worst,” or just a poor, President of the USA, the ”W” Policies of anti-science and politicization of science has helped to veil a second Renaissance.
Regardless of most possible negative efforts by any US Administration this Renaissance is inevitable and at worst can only be delayed.
On the first point, W’s stand on the politicization of science is well documented:
http://www.nrdc.org/bushrecord/science/rfk.asp
http://www.commondreams.org/views02/0614-04.htm
http://www.waronscience.com/home.php
http://www.ucsusa.org/scientific_integrity/interference/
There is a second Renaissance more or less already afoot:
In health;
http://www.mc.vanderbilt.edu/reporter/index.html?ID=5568
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/1809322.stm
http://www.news-medical.net/?id=38086
http://www.aist.go.jp/aist_e/latest_research/2008/20080521/20080521.html
http://www.amdsupport.ca/articles/79/1/Bionic-Eyes-Under-Development/Page1.html
http://www.technologyreview.com/Biotech/
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6TD0-4GYH7K2-1&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=83840f0650b4c88b041c53be9d522223
In transportation;
http://www.popularmechanics.com/automotive/new_cars/4261425.html?page=10&series=19
http://www.popularmechanics.com/automotive/new_cars/4217016.html
http://www.autobloggreen.com/2008/03/27/blade-runner-australia-s-first-zero-emissions-car/
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/car/my.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/06/16/hondas-zero-emission-car_n_107307.html
In energy;
http://www.technologyreview.com/Energy/?a=f
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/06/080603102752.htm
http://www.green-energy-news.com/arch/nrgs2008/20080042.html
Continuing the point, the Internet is now some virtual 21st Century version of the ancient Library of Alexandria, and in ancient terms if it were a physical space would probably be considered a Modern Wonder by almost any standard:
If you google “art” there will be over 1.8 billion places to go; “music” will show you over 2.8 billion places; “philosophy” gives you 173 million places to explore; “literature” 328 million; and that is only based on an English language search.
According to http://www.internetworldstats.com/stats.htm over 20% of the world has access to this Virtual Great Library. In ancient terms, that would be the equivalent of 20% of the human population in ~100 BC living within walking distance of the Temple of the Muses—and having access regardless of class, nationality, ethnicity, etc.!
We live in a tremendous time where the light of truth is burning as bright as ever, and therefore the obscuring or politicization of science and truth stands little hope of overcoming the time tested saying, “and the truth will set you free.”
With that thought the second point, that no government could totally destroy or retard the progress of this Second Renaissance, which will probably also eventually be considered a progression of human society equivalent to the Enlightenment and Renaissance all rolled into one Great Science Fiction novel, is technically false.
A better statement is that no reasonable government could totally retard or destroy this oncoming progress. Therefore, “W” should be seen as a somewhat reasonable, if not mediocre force, which dragged its collective and metaphorical feet into the 21st century, without absolutely deposing this oncoming progress.
An unreasonable government would, for example resort to fascism to enforce antiquated ways of thinking, and although many believe Bush II should be impeached;
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20060130/holtzman
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5iE21FOVAfMfEbAE5LDwiYm8fGh4QD916SHJ01
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Movement_to_impeach_George_W._Bush
Any Argumentum ad Nazium about the “W” Administration, or Argumentum ad Hitlerum about Bush II himself, is vastly out of proportion with whatever wrongs or possible crimes his administration or he has allegedly perpetrated, and to which subsequent proceedings shall create the clarity to more accurately discover and prove. This is not a defense of W, rather a contextual boundary line that would recognize only an exceedingly fascist and a VERY UNREASONABLE government, or more aptly coalition of governments, could possibly delay, or attempt to stop, the oncoming cultural, social and intellectual Renaissance.
It is dubious to imagine that no matter how unreasonable or fascist a coalition of governments would be that it could actually stop the oncoming tidal wave of human endeavors that compose this Second Renaissance. As the expression goes, “That horse has left the barn.”
The W Administration stance on most issues, and in particular science, will be seen in the context of the last throws of an effort to resist the upcoming series of scientific, intellectual, and, probably most relevant to the seemingly convoluted motives of the W Administration, SOCIAL changes, and once these changes and the facts surrounding their genesis and synthesis become factual grounds for the historical context of this Administration, Bush II will be relegated to the dustbin filed under: the last vestiges of the Twentieth Century and some of its antique fallacies of thought.
Regardless of whether Bush the Second the man at the end of the day is determined “the worst,” or just a poor, President of the USA, the ”W” Policies of anti-science and politicization of science has helped to veil a second Renaissance.
Regardless of most possible negative efforts by any US Administration this Renaissance is inevitable and at worst can only be delayed.
On the first point, W’s stand on the politicization of science is well documented:
http://www.nrdc.org/bushrecord/science/rfk.asp
http://www.commondreams.org/views02/0614-04.htm
http://www.waronscience.com/home.php
http://www.ucsusa.org/scientific_integrity/interference/
There is a second Renaissance more or less already afoot:
In health;
http://www.mc.vanderbilt.edu/reporter/index.html?ID=5568
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/1809322.stm
http://www.news-medical.net/?id=38086
http://www.aist.go.jp/aist_e/latest_research/2008/20080521/20080521.html
http://www.amdsupport.ca/articles/79/1/Bionic-Eyes-Under-Development/Page1.html
http://www.technologyreview.com/Biotech/
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6TD0-4GYH7K2-1&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=83840f0650b4c88b041c53be9d522223
In transportation;
http://www.popularmechanics.com/automotive/new_cars/4261425.html?page=10&series=19
http://www.popularmechanics.com/automotive/new_cars/4217016.html
http://www.autobloggreen.com/2008/03/27/blade-runner-australia-s-first-zero-emissions-car/
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/car/my.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/06/16/hondas-zero-emission-car_n_107307.html
In energy;
http://www.technologyreview.com/Energy/?a=f
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/06/080603102752.htm
http://www.green-energy-news.com/arch/nrgs2008/20080042.html
Continuing the point, the Internet is now some virtual 21st Century version of the ancient Library of Alexandria, and in ancient terms if it were a physical space would probably be considered a Modern Wonder by almost any standard:
If you google “art” there will be over 1.8 billion places to go; “music” will show you over 2.8 billion places; “philosophy” gives you 173 million places to explore; “literature” 328 million; and that is only based on an English language search.
According to http://www.internetworldstats.com/stats.htm over 20% of the world has access to this Virtual Great Library. In ancient terms, that would be the equivalent of 20% of the human population in ~100 BC living within walking distance of the Temple of the Muses—and having access regardless of class, nationality, ethnicity, etc.!
We live in a tremendous time where the light of truth is burning as bright as ever, and therefore the obscuring or politicization of science and truth stands little hope of overcoming the time tested saying, “and the truth will set you free.”
With that thought the second point, that no government could totally destroy or retard the progress of this Second Renaissance, which will probably also eventually be considered a progression of human society equivalent to the Enlightenment and Renaissance all rolled into one Great Science Fiction novel, is technically false.
A better statement is that no reasonable government could totally retard or destroy this oncoming progress. Therefore, “W” should be seen as a somewhat reasonable, if not mediocre force, which dragged its collective and metaphorical feet into the 21st century, without absolutely deposing this oncoming progress.
An unreasonable government would, for example resort to fascism to enforce antiquated ways of thinking, and although many believe Bush II should be impeached;
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20060130/holtzman
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5iE21FOVAfMfEbAE5LDwiYm8fGh4QD916SHJ01
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Movement_to_impeach_George_W._Bush
Any Argumentum ad Nazium about the “W” Administration, or Argumentum ad Hitlerum about Bush II himself, is vastly out of proportion with whatever wrongs or possible crimes his administration or he has allegedly perpetrated, and to which subsequent proceedings shall create the clarity to more accurately discover and prove. This is not a defense of W, rather a contextual boundary line that would recognize only an exceedingly fascist and a VERY UNREASONABLE government, or more aptly coalition of governments, could possibly delay, or attempt to stop, the oncoming cultural, social and intellectual Renaissance.
It is dubious to imagine that no matter how unreasonable or fascist a coalition of governments would be that it could actually stop the oncoming tidal wave of human endeavors that compose this Second Renaissance. As the expression goes, “That horse has left the barn.”
The W Administration stance on most issues, and in particular science, will be seen in the context of the last throws of an effort to resist the upcoming series of scientific, intellectual, and, probably most relevant to the seemingly convoluted motives of the W Administration, SOCIAL changes, and once these changes and the facts surrounding their genesis and synthesis become factual grounds for the historical context of this Administration, Bush II will be relegated to the dustbin filed under: the last vestiges of the Twentieth Century and some of its antique fallacies of thought.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)