PDA

View Full Version : Making America Stupid



Ordie
09-14-2008, 02:17 AM
Making America Stupid
By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/opinion/editorialsandoped/oped/columnists/thomaslfriedman/index.html?inline=nyt-per)
Imagine for a minute that attending the Republican convention in St. Paul, sitting in a skybox overlooking the convention floor, were observers from Russia, Iran and Venezuela. And imagine for a minute what these observers would have been doing when Rudy Giuliani led the delegates in a chant of “drill, baby, drill!”
I’ll tell you what they would have been doing: the Russian, Iranian and Venezuelan observers would have been up out of their seats, exchanging high-fives and joining in the chant louder than anyone in the hall — “Yes! Yes! Drill, America, drill!” — because an America that is focused first and foremost on drilling for oil is an America more focused on feeding its oil habit than kicking it.
Why would Republicans, the party of business, want to focus our country on breathing life into a 19th-century technology — fossil fuels — rather than giving birth to a 21st-century technology — renewable energy? As I have argued before, it reminds me of someone who, on the eve of the I.T. revolution — on the eve of PCs and the Internet — is pounding the table for America to make more I.B.M. typewriters and carbon paper. “Typewriters, baby, typewriters.”
Of course, we’re going to need oil for many years, but instead of exalting that — with “drill, baby, drill” — why not throw all our energy into innovating a whole new industry of clean power with the mantra “invent, baby, invent?” That is what a party committed to “change” would really be doing. As they say in Texas: “If all you ever do is all you’ve ever done, then all you’ll ever get is all you ever got.”
I dwell on this issue because it is symbolic of the campaign that John McCain has decided to run. It’s a campaign now built on turning everything possible into a cultural wedge issue — including even energy policy, no matter how stupid it makes the voters and no matter how much it might weaken America.
I respected McCain’s willingness to support the troop surge in Iraq, even if it was going to cost him the Republican nomination. Now the same guy, who would not sell his soul to win his party’s nomination, is ready to sell every piece of his soul to win the presidency.
In order to disguise the fact that the core of his campaign is to continue the same Bush policies that have led 80 percent of the country to conclude we’re on the wrong track, McCain has decided to play the culture-war card. Obama may be a bit professorial, but at least he is trying to unite the country to face the real issues rather than divide us over cultural differences.
A Washington Post editorial on Thursday put it well: “On a day when the Congressional Budget Office warned of looming deficits and a grim economic outlook, when the stock market faltered even in the wake of the government’s rescue of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, when President Bush discussed the road ahead in Iraq and Afghanistan, on what did the campaign of Senator John McCain spend its energy? A conference call to denounce Senator Barack Obama for using the phrase ‘lipstick on a pig’ and a new television ad accusing the Democrat of wanting to teach kindergartners about *** before they learn to read.”
Some McCain supporters criticize Obama for not having the steel in his belly to use force in the dangerous world we live in today. Well I know this: In order to use force, you have to have force. In order to exercise leverage, you have to have leverage.
I don’t know how much steel is in Obama’s belly, but I do know that the issues he is focusing on in this campaign — improving education and health care, dealing with the deficit and forging a real energy policy based on building a whole new energy infrastructure — are the only way we can put steel back into America’s spine. McCain, alas, has abandoned those issues for the culture-war strategy.
Who cares how much steel John McCain has in his gut when the steel that today holds up our bridges, railroads, nuclear reactors and other infrastructure is rusting? McCain talks about how he would build dozens of nuclear power plants. Oh, really? They go for $10 billion a pop. Where is the money going to come from? From lowering taxes? From banning abortions? From borrowing more from China? From having Sarah Palin “reform” Washington — as if she has any more clue how to do that than the first 100 names in the D.C. phonebook?
Sorry, but there is no sustainable political/military power without economic power, and talking about one without the other is nonsense. Unless we make America the country most able to innovate, compete and win in the age of globalization, our leverage in the world will continue to slowly erode. Those are the issues this election needs to be about, because that is what the next four years need to be about.
There is no strong leader without a strong country. And posing as one, to use the current vernacular, is nothing more than putting lipstick on a pig.

Source:http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/14/opinion/14friedman.html?_r=1&oref=slogin&ref=opinion&pagewanted=print

WarDancer
09-14-2008, 03:19 AM
Thomas Friedman, 'nuff said.

pekka elo
09-14-2008, 07:05 AM
Thomas Friedman, 'nuff said.

Nice ad hominem.

I think he has a point. New energy tech offers great prospects, which should appeal to the american business thinking.

Firefly26
09-14-2008, 08:11 AM
Nice ad hominem.

I think he has a point. New energy tech offers great prospects, which should appeal to the american business thinking.

While I think going into new energies is needed. I don't think it's reason enough to drop everything we know how to do and go into uncharted territory. More oil only makes sense in the interim because even if we get every american an electric car and make every house solar-powered, there are still tons of other countries that will not be able to achieve that and will have to rely on old fossil fuels. I think as long as we feel this pinch with oil prices, it will spur us to develop new technologies at a less risky rate. We simply don't have the green technologies to cover for our reliance on oil. Oil would also be a good tool to lessen the influence all of these petrol-baron countries have right now. I am all for geting us off oil, but I am also for doing it at a rate that is reasonable. Also, I really think this corn-based ethanol is the wrong way to go seeing what it is doing to the food prices. The forst candidate that mentions cellulosal based ethanol will seem the smarter of the two to me.

shocker1
09-14-2008, 08:49 AM
Here is my take on what the past decade has brought. During the last half of the 90's I was fortunate enough to work for a company that built hybrid electric and electric transit buses. Several different technologies where used and with a varied amount of success. Funding through the FTA was expanding and many companies were springing up building this type of transit system. After 2000 many of these programs were scaled back or cut all together.

There are battery systems now that can fit the needs and technology. Hydrogen fuel cell technology is the future and in my opinion should be the main focus for our tax dollars to get going. The only reason is infrastructure to support such a system. I say that is a cop out because we through grants and loans could have been installing hydrogen stations. Yes it is a dangerous thing so are natural gas, gasoline and bleach. What about a hydrogen generating system in your home that you fuel you car with, heat your water and HVAC system. This hooked to the grid selling power back when usage is low, wow what an idea. Honda has that going on.http://automobiles.honda.com/fcx-clarity/home-energy-station.aspx

I won't even go into the negatives of ethanol. Most know what I will say.

The dollar has been allowed to be beaten to a pulp which caused everything traded in dollars to skyrocket in price. How's trickle down economics now? Everyone denies it at first, then as they buy their $5 milk and $4 gas people start grumbling. A few news articles about it and video. Then everyone goes back to their ignorance. I write my elected Reps, do you? We all should, once a month with our issues, the good ones will not ignore you and the bad ones, well election time will tell. People should engage now and let them know we know what the hell is going on.

We are stupid, we have allowed our government to rape us. Spend our tax dollars for the sole gain of international corporations who have us by the wallet. Look around, life is not improving for Americans as a whole. We worry about abortion, gays, religion and gas. all the while our government is spending trillions on returns of little. Our space program is the canary in the bird cage and many dumb ass American fat slobs do not even know we have robots traveling Mars for several years. Ahh to hell with it. I am preaching to cheese brains and high minded reactionaries who live for the moment.

Kaplanr
09-14-2008, 09:35 AM
While I think going into new energies is needed. I don't think it's reason enough to drop everything we know how to do and go into uncharted territory. More oil only makes sense in the interim because even if we get every american an electric car and make every house solar-powered, there are still tons of other countries that will not be able to achieve that and will have to rely on old fossil fuels. I think as long as we feel this pinch with oil prices, it will spur us to develop new technologies at a less risky rate. We simply don't have the green technologies to cover for our reliance on oil. Oil would also be a good tool to lessen the influence all of these petrol-baron countries have right now. I am all for geting us off oil, but I am also for doing it at a rate that is reasonable. Also, I really think this corn-based ethanol is the wrong way to go seeing what it is doing to the food prices. The forst candidate that mentions cellulosal based ethanol will seem the smarter of the two to me.

You realize we're talking about a fairly negligible quantity of fuel when comopared to US needs and current imports. All we end up doing is maintaining a tax and political structure that continues to promote the status-quo, provides few if any incentives to change energy direction (presidential and candidate ****ouncements to the contrary) and does little to nothing to promote or enhance R&D in alternative energies.

One could take the very libertarian approach and say that government has no business directly or indirectly subsidizing or funding what are essentially market issues. I'd agree, except that the government has been involved since the mod 19th century whether in railroad development or tax codes and land use policies - leases - sales that reward specific insdustries and industry groups. If that's the argument then get the government out of any involvement in R&D, the arts, humanities, etc., and make the tax code insudtry neutral -- and ensure that there is enough money left in private and public (state and local gov't) hands to develop skills and promote R&D.

sinophile
09-14-2008, 12:31 PM
Ordie, have you considered researching an issue before you reprint the ramblings of an ill-informed fool like Friedman?


...McCain talks about how he would build dozens of nuclear power plants. Oh, really? They go for $10 billion a pop. Where is the money going to come from?

The money for new nuclear power plants is ready to be spent. The single biggest obstacle is the nuclear waste issue. Without approval of Yucca Mountain and a coherent nuclear waste policy - there will be no new nuclear power plants. Its not about lack of investment. The energy companies don't need cash handouts.

From http://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL33442.pdf
(http://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL33442.pdf)

Six states — California, Connecticut, Kentucky, New Jersey, West Virginia, and
Wisconsin — have specific laws that link approval for new nuclear power plants to
adequate waste disposal capacity. Kansas forbids cost recovery for “excess” nuclear
power capacity if no “technology or means for disposal of high-level nuclear waste”
is available.51

Just like the last Friedman post a couple days ago on this board - he ignores private sector investment and focuses solely on what he thinks the government should do.

sct1886
09-14-2008, 03:05 PM
The author is either ignorant of history, culture and geography or an emotional and stupid left wing nutjob, or both. All I saw was whining and finger pointing with no solutions, the rant read like an Obama commercial. "Clean power with the mantra “invent, baby, invent?”, HELL YES!! and in the mean time I would like some gasoline to drive my vehicle to work and feed my family. When your boat is leaking in the middle of the lake, do you not balance between rowing and bailing? To not drill in our backyard and send our money overseas to those whom hate us is insanity. Decades of corporate greed and stupidity has brought us here and the restructuring will at best be complex, massive, slow, and painful.

California Joe
09-14-2008, 05:17 PM
You're an idiot. We prop up the Saudi Monarchy that assf*ck us constantly by supporting every know Muslim crazy out there. We let oil companies bone us at will every holiday that might include driving to Grandmas house. Gee, I wonder why my heating oil prices go up in Vermont every winter. Hmmmmmmm.

Newsflash, the technology already exists for the type of vehicles Shocker is talking about but the industry hasn't recieved the massive federal funding that goes for corporate welfare in this country. Don't hate the guy for pointing out inconvenient facts. Maybe you'd be better off believing a complete lie that Obama is in favor of teaching *** education to little kids and that Sarah Palin will serve you mooseburgers on the White House lawn.

name already taken
09-14-2008, 05:29 PM
You're an idiot. We prop up the Saudi Monarchy that assf*ck us constantly by supporting every know Muslim crazy out there. We let oil companies bone us at will every holiday that might include driving to Grandmas house. Gee, I wonder why my heating oil prices go up in Vermont every winter. Hmmmmmmm.

Newsflash, the technology already exists for the type of vehicles Shocker is talking about but the industry hasn't recieved the massive federal funding that goes for corporate welfare in this country. Don't hate the guy for pointing out inconvenient facts. Maybe you'd be better off believing a complete lie that Obama is in favor of teaching *** education to little kids and that Sarah Palin will serve you mooseburgers on the White House lawn.
X2 !

It's time to set the clocks right about the corporate funded propaganda war about energy.

sinophile
09-14-2008, 09:28 PM
You're an idiot. We prop up the Saudi Monarchy that assf*ck us constantly by supporting every know Muslim crazy out there. We let oil companies bone us at will every holiday that might include driving to Grandmas house. Gee, I wonder why my heating oil prices go up in Vermont every winter. Hmmmmmmm.

Newsflash, the technology already exists for the type of vehicles Shocker is talking about but the industry hasn't recieved the massive federal funding that goes for corporate welfare in this country. Don't hate the guy for pointing out inconvenient facts. Maybe you'd be better off believing a complete lie that Obama is in favor of teaching *** education to little kids and that Sarah Palin will serve you mooseburgers on the White House lawn.

http://www.stengazette.org/piesm.gif

A Democratic Congress and state legislatures are responsible for 31% of the increase in your oil bill, and could knock a nice sum off the 13% in refining expense by approving a few additional refineries. Democrat Harry Reid could drop his objection to the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste storage site and nuclear power would take off in the country.

As it happens we get most o our oil from Nigeria, Mexico and Canada... you left them out of your rant.

Obama won't change a thing. Its fantasy thinking to believe otherwise.

Ordie
09-14-2008, 09:38 PM
http://www.stengazette.org/piesm.gif

A Democratic Congress and state legislatures are responsible for 31% of the increase in your oil bill, and could knock a nice sum off the 13% in refining expense by approving a few additional refineries.

Knock off the taxes means knocking off the investment in the nation's transportation infrastructure. That means more potholes, falling bridges, and overcrowded public transit.

Adding refineries are okay as long as it's located in somebody else's backyard.

Kilgor
09-14-2008, 09:40 PM
Dependence on foreign oil is American's No 1 problem.

Hollis
09-14-2008, 10:00 PM
Lets keep the rant in the rant section or the election thread.

Thanks.