“Who's In Charge?” - Part 1 - The Elite Have No Clothes
Caveat: I'm going to toss barbs at both sides of the political spectrum in this multi-post series, but, honestly, most of it will fall on the Left: that's where more of the obviously guilty are easily spotted. That said, I'd like to point out there are more than enough folks bouncing around on the Right that do EXACTLY the same things. And I'll poke at them early and often to prove it. There's plenty of blame to go around, but assigning (or dodging) blame accomplishes nothing and its not my purpose. These ideas are not unique or original to me: bits and pieces can be found in many articles and commentaries, as well as a novel or two. I do agree with the points raised, whether I like them or not. In spite of appearances, this diatribe isn't about Democrat-vs-Republicans, conservative-vs-liberal, or even or left-vs-right: it's a social commentary. In short: things are a mess, we've done it to ourselves, and fixing it will be painful. People are (finally) starting to realize that some serious changes are needed. The Real Problem has two-prongs: (a) the changes required are/will-be extremely painful, difficult and challenging, and (b) there are way too many folks who don't like the fact the unwashed rabble is rising up at all...
Let's begin with a trip back to the fall of 2008... Over-leveraged investment houses are starting to have financial problems. A real estate bubble - created primarily by politicians on both sides in support of partisan and personal political gains - is starting to unravel and will burst. In a panicked response, the Republican and Democratic parties, the heads of major corporations (mostly financial), and multitudes of editorial pundits from otherwise extreme odds (from the Wall Street Journal to The Nation magazine) jointly decided spending over $700 BILLION of taxpayer monies to buy "toxic assets" was the only alternative to a "systemic collapse" of the entire US economy.
President George W. Bush, his would-be Republican successor John McCain, and the Democratic-party winner in the 2008 election, Barack Obama were *all* in agreement on this point. And, just to keep things rolling - they, their cabinets, and cohorts in Congress, jumped up to implement an unprecedented commitment of around 10 TRILLION dollars (that the Treasury didn't have) which *had* to be spent Right Now to 'stimulate' the economy. The voting public which installed them in office got ZERO explanations about how the the difference between the assets' nominal and real values happened in the first place. They also failed to explain (or even seriously consider) why letting the market itself define these asset's real value and adjust matters into winners and losers would totally collapse the country as a whole. In the face of what has become a monumental financial burden on the next several generations of taxpayers - the public objected loudly, forcefully and immediately - usually by margins of 3 or 4 to 1 against this outrage.
Ignored from the beginning, the taxpayers got their nose rubbed into a stinky pile of Reality and finally realized that NO ONE in EITHER PARTY or would take their objections seriously. Worse, the vast majority of pundits (on all sides) didn't hold the bureaucrats feet to the fire, WHICH IS THEIR JOB. The common folks in the hinterlands were justifiably upset that decisions about THEIR money was being made in bipartisan backroom deals, attended only by self-interested parties who *all* had their hands in the trough. And they hit the ceiling when they confronted the fact that laws affecting the most minute details of day-to-day life were being voted on by people who had not read them - and the politicos thought this method of conducting the country's business was just fine, thank you very much. And please get back to work - we need the tax revenue.
This situation - as much as anything else - lead to the birth of the Tea Party movement. And take a moment to note I'm talking about “taxpayers”, not just “voters”. You see, the taxpayers - the ones footing the bill - also started to recognize they were becoming outnumbered by the masses who existed solely to vote themselves largess from the public pocketbook. And these leeches were becoming ever bolder in their claims upon the productive efforts of others.
While the common folk were still reeling in shock from this hideous revelation, the power brokers suddenly changed their plans from buying toxic assets to buying up equity in banks and major industries - but (again) refused to explain why to the unwashed masses footing the bill. In effect, they were operating as though it was their right to decide ad ho on these and so many other matters, supposing them to be beyond the general public's understanding.
Now, after the rumblings among the citizenry became unavoidably noticeable - just after the 2008 election - most Republican office holders began to argue against TARP, against bailing out the auto industry, and against the several new "stimulus" bills. They suddenly and quite hypocritically had developed an aversion to the summary expansion of government power to benefit clients of government at the expense of ordinary citizens.
Now that they were able to quickly recognize a film-flam shuffle after being kicked in the face a few times, the American people had every reason to believe that many Republican politicians were doing so simply by the logic of partisan opposition. And the self-promoting agitators sweetly did this with the clear and obvious motive of trying to latch onto a ground-swell of public dissatisfaction with the bureaucracy to prop up their own selfish ambitions. You see, the public (slowly) realized the Republicans had been more than happy enough to approve of similar things under Republican administrations. Only the direction was different, not the tactic.
For the first time in decades, taxpayers began to understand that the differences between Bush I - Clinton - Bush II - Obama were matters of degree and direction, not substance. In fact, for the last two years (2009-2010), the entrenched, establishment Republicans only showed a desire to ever-so-slightly modify the (Obama) government's agenda, and were even eager to join hands across the aisle with Democrats to hatch new and grand spending schemes (if only the Democrats would let them join in the fun).
Orrin Hatch aspired to be Ted Kennedy. Lindsey Graham set aside his legitimate questions about climate change simply for the sake of appearing to be on the Right Side of History. Republicans were just as guilty as Democrats in claiming superior insight into highly technical matters, and each side showed a disturbing tendency to treat average Americans as if they were nothing more than spoiled, whining and annoying children who needed to be spanked until they assumed their proper place in the political food chain (e.g., as the food). The vast majority of the Republican party did not rise up against the bureaucracy simply because they already were (or wanted to be) part of the Ruling Master Class. This so-called “upper crust” of the “best-and-brightest” had devolved into an inbred, self-serving and self-promoting bureaucracy in its worst form.
Throughout history, in America - and just like everywhere else - some people have been wealthier and more powerful than others. But only recently did those who drew their money and status from different sources became predictably of the same opinion on any given matter. No longer was "bureaucrat" a dirty word. Ditto "social engineering." The schools and universities that formed yesterday's elite imposed a single orthodoxy about the origins of man, about American history, and about how America should be governed.
The Intellectual Elite had carefully crafted an educational system that exposed people to the exact same ideas and gave them remarkably uniform guidance, as well as tastes and habits. And, worse, it vigorously objected to independent thought in all forms. There can into being a social canon of judgments about good and evil, complete with secular sacred history, sins - e.g., against “minorities” and the “environment”, and saints - e.g., working for “the public good” (while lining their own pockets). They have been taught to always use the Right Words while avoiding the Wrong Words. Regardless of what business or profession they are in, their road up included government channels and government money because, as government has grown, so did their own fame and fortune pushing them up ever higher.
Many began their careers in government and leveraged their way into the private sector. Some, like Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, has never held a non-government job. Whether formally employed in government, out of it, or halfway (i.e., becoming a lobbyist) , this ruling class speaks the language and has the tastes, habits, and tools of bureaucrats. And these elitists recoil in terror at the simple prospect of having to even listen to that majority of otherwise functional Americans who are not oriented to see government as a be-all-end-all.
This country has indeed separated into a class-based society. Not rich and poor. Not the haves and have-not. Instead it is divided into those wish to rise in control of the public arena and those who wish to be left alone and remain private. While most Americans pray to the God "who created and sustains us," the elite prays to ITSELF as "saviors of the planet" and “improver of humanity”. These two distinct groups battle of "whose country" America is, over what way of life will prevail, and - more importantly - who is to defer to whom and about what.
And, just as the only Republican which Democrats will claim to actually admire once said (who was quoting from the Gospel of Mark), "if a house be divided against itself, that house cannot stand."
* * *
Coming next time in the “Who's In Charge?” - Part 2 -
Vox Populi, Vox Dei or “My God, How did we get in this mess?”
Monday, November 1, 2010
Saturday, October 23, 2010
At Least It Only Lasts 24 Hours
Steve,
Of course I can't predict which of my days will wind up better or worse than the others. But one thing I do know is that of the next 365, 364 of them will start out with a built-in advantage. One of them in fact will have to climb harder than all the rest, since it will always begin several hundred yards farther down the hill.
Now I don't mind celebrating other people's birthdays. Those give me the opportunity to rejoice that the calamity of age is ruining the lives of my friends at the same steady pace that it is ruining mine. Which reminds me. When asked about it, maybe one in ten seniors will say they enjoy getting older and wouldn't want to be young again - which is really just their way with dealing with the reality that they have no choice about it. Unless you are a fool, why would'nt you want to be young again? I mean, if you instantly became young again, you would in due course arrive back to where you were before and then get to experience that pleasant old age, which you claim to be so hot, twice.
And by the way, I've always considered the standard bon mot to be rationally impossible. It is like wishing a man emerging from a knife fight, "happy stab wound", or another awaiting sentencing, "happy incarceration". In fact, although we don't know it at the time, each of us can have only one truly happy birthday: that being the one at which the entirety of life lies before us. Each year after that we have less and less of it to consume.
Conditioned as they are by Hallmark and American Greetings, which would make the sinking of the Titanic a national holiday if they could, most people would say that apathy, or even outright depression on one's birthday to be plain humbug. I find this as convincing as the idea that a man should say, "Oh look, my arm has fallen off. How marvelous!". So let us be more reasonable than that. Today is my birthday. I'm dealing with it with fortitude. But don't expect me to be quiet about it...
-Chris
Of course I can't predict which of my days will wind up better or worse than the others. But one thing I do know is that of the next 365, 364 of them will start out with a built-in advantage. One of them in fact will have to climb harder than all the rest, since it will always begin several hundred yards farther down the hill.
Now I don't mind celebrating other people's birthdays. Those give me the opportunity to rejoice that the calamity of age is ruining the lives of my friends at the same steady pace that it is ruining mine. Which reminds me. When asked about it, maybe one in ten seniors will say they enjoy getting older and wouldn't want to be young again - which is really just their way with dealing with the reality that they have no choice about it. Unless you are a fool, why would'nt you want to be young again? I mean, if you instantly became young again, you would in due course arrive back to where you were before and then get to experience that pleasant old age, which you claim to be so hot, twice.
And by the way, I've always considered the standard bon mot to be rationally impossible. It is like wishing a man emerging from a knife fight, "happy stab wound", or another awaiting sentencing, "happy incarceration". In fact, although we don't know it at the time, each of us can have only one truly happy birthday: that being the one at which the entirety of life lies before us. Each year after that we have less and less of it to consume.
Conditioned as they are by Hallmark and American Greetings, which would make the sinking of the Titanic a national holiday if they could, most people would say that apathy, or even outright depression on one's birthday to be plain humbug. I find this as convincing as the idea that a man should say, "Oh look, my arm has fallen off. How marvelous!". So let us be more reasonable than that. Today is my birthday. I'm dealing with it with fortitude. But don't expect me to be quiet about it...
-Chris
Friday, October 22, 2010
I Despair, Part III
Steve,
It's been my experience that most people who habitually refer to themselves as liberals or conservatives are the kind of people who, when presented with a new problem or obstacle, prefer to address it with ideology rather than intelligence. This is not to say that either liberalism or conservatism, in their naked forms, cannot add a useful dimension to intelligence. Surely they can. Or, that a thoughtful, intelligent liberal will always arrive at the same solution which a thoughtful and intelligent conservative will. They don't, or at least, don't often.
In any case, I think you will find that any solution, thoughtfully and intelligently conceived, should be as workable and inoffensive to the liberal as it is to the conservative. Politics however, has become nothing more than the art of not having to admit to this elementary fact. In politics, liberals and conservatives are taught to portray each other as stupid, or heartless, or for that matter against anything which improves the human condition and for anything which corrupts it. What hogwash that is!
We all know that most men and women of the same time and country generally share the same aims and values in their day to day lives. To be sure, some may favor red meat while others are vegetarians. But even then they usually have the aim of a good meal. Most of us want safe neighborhoods, good schools, smooth roads, honest jobs and decent paychecks. Few, if indeed any of us like paying taxes - and just about everyone believes they are taxed too much while the other guy is taxed too little. Finally, except when behind the wheel of a car, most of us are reasonably courteous to one another and disgusted by those who aren't.
With all of these things to unite us, why are we then so confused by the illusion of politics? I mean, if one is convinced that candidate "A" is a scoundrel who burns orphanages and eats babies for lunch, it necessarily follows that any person who votes for candidate "A" is by inference a person who favors burning orphanages or eating babies - either that, or is a blockhead, which is nearly as bad.
Recently I watched a political ad on television where the candidate, a man himself of uncertain dignity, accused his opponent of voting for a bill, the object of which was to furnish Viagra to convicted rapists. You've probably seen it yourself. I then imagined this opponent rising up in the Georgia State Legislature and announcing a bill to address, swiftly and effectively, the problem of erectile dysfunction among known rapists. And what a tumultuous session that must have been! I suppose that as a means of securing the rapist vote, such a gesture would have no equal, but still, strategically unwise.
Now I doubt if this man's opponent is running ads of any greater honesty or credibility.
One day, just once, I'd like to see a political ad whereby a candidate admits to having some faults as well as some strengths, and yet also to the decency of his opponent. In such an ad he or she might even claim their opponent to have some good ideas, but that his (or her's) are a little better and more numerous. I assure you I would leave the funeral of my best friend to go and vote for a person like that - regardless of what their ideas were or experience consisted of. I'd vote for that person if their central motive was to ban alcohol or college football - all the while rejoicing that here, for maybe the first time in American history, was a candidate who prized my intellect over my prejudice.
And thereby we arrive, by way of a meandering road, to my point. Frankly, I can't think of any profession, licit or not, which is as dismissive of intelligence as politics. Even among ditch diggers, one imagines that all things being equal, the smarter ones would be preferred. Yet in politics, intelligence is not only to be avoided, but has become a thing routinely despised.
Most voters accept that a man is perfectly capable of legislating effectively on matters affected by law, history, science, philosophy - even religion - without having any verified knowledge of these arts, so long as he owns a backbone and a good heart. Lately, even this limited standard has been reduced to the point where we only trust leaders with whom we conceive we would enjoy having beers with at the neighborhood bar.
Thus, pity the man running for office who can demonstrate an early and passionate interest in law, history, science, philosophy, religion, or all of them, by producing a record of academic achievement in any of these fields, since none of that matters when confronted by an adversary who understands, by osmosis, "the real world".
Pfah! Isn't the academic record of law, history, science, philosophy and religion nothing more than a patiently accumulated and analyzed account of the "real" world? I mean, what planet, exactly, do professors at universities teach the history of? Mars? Jupiter? And for that matter, even if they do teach the history of Mars and Jupiter in place of Earth's, how can anyone who relies on the local bar or the race track for wisdom be expected to know the difference?
Enjoy...
Chris
It's been my experience that most people who habitually refer to themselves as liberals or conservatives are the kind of people who, when presented with a new problem or obstacle, prefer to address it with ideology rather than intelligence. This is not to say that either liberalism or conservatism, in their naked forms, cannot add a useful dimension to intelligence. Surely they can. Or, that a thoughtful, intelligent liberal will always arrive at the same solution which a thoughtful and intelligent conservative will. They don't, or at least, don't often.
In any case, I think you will find that any solution, thoughtfully and intelligently conceived, should be as workable and inoffensive to the liberal as it is to the conservative. Politics however, has become nothing more than the art of not having to admit to this elementary fact. In politics, liberals and conservatives are taught to portray each other as stupid, or heartless, or for that matter against anything which improves the human condition and for anything which corrupts it. What hogwash that is!
We all know that most men and women of the same time and country generally share the same aims and values in their day to day lives. To be sure, some may favor red meat while others are vegetarians. But even then they usually have the aim of a good meal. Most of us want safe neighborhoods, good schools, smooth roads, honest jobs and decent paychecks. Few, if indeed any of us like paying taxes - and just about everyone believes they are taxed too much while the other guy is taxed too little. Finally, except when behind the wheel of a car, most of us are reasonably courteous to one another and disgusted by those who aren't.
With all of these things to unite us, why are we then so confused by the illusion of politics? I mean, if one is convinced that candidate "A" is a scoundrel who burns orphanages and eats babies for lunch, it necessarily follows that any person who votes for candidate "A" is by inference a person who favors burning orphanages or eating babies - either that, or is a blockhead, which is nearly as bad.
Recently I watched a political ad on television where the candidate, a man himself of uncertain dignity, accused his opponent of voting for a bill, the object of which was to furnish Viagra to convicted rapists. You've probably seen it yourself. I then imagined this opponent rising up in the Georgia State Legislature and announcing a bill to address, swiftly and effectively, the problem of erectile dysfunction among known rapists. And what a tumultuous session that must have been! I suppose that as a means of securing the rapist vote, such a gesture would have no equal, but still, strategically unwise.
Now I doubt if this man's opponent is running ads of any greater honesty or credibility.
One day, just once, I'd like to see a political ad whereby a candidate admits to having some faults as well as some strengths, and yet also to the decency of his opponent. In such an ad he or she might even claim their opponent to have some good ideas, but that his (or her's) are a little better and more numerous. I assure you I would leave the funeral of my best friend to go and vote for a person like that - regardless of what their ideas were or experience consisted of. I'd vote for that person if their central motive was to ban alcohol or college football - all the while rejoicing that here, for maybe the first time in American history, was a candidate who prized my intellect over my prejudice.
And thereby we arrive, by way of a meandering road, to my point. Frankly, I can't think of any profession, licit or not, which is as dismissive of intelligence as politics. Even among ditch diggers, one imagines that all things being equal, the smarter ones would be preferred. Yet in politics, intelligence is not only to be avoided, but has become a thing routinely despised.
Most voters accept that a man is perfectly capable of legislating effectively on matters affected by law, history, science, philosophy - even religion - without having any verified knowledge of these arts, so long as he owns a backbone and a good heart. Lately, even this limited standard has been reduced to the point where we only trust leaders with whom we conceive we would enjoy having beers with at the neighborhood bar.
Thus, pity the man running for office who can demonstrate an early and passionate interest in law, history, science, philosophy, religion, or all of them, by producing a record of academic achievement in any of these fields, since none of that matters when confronted by an adversary who understands, by osmosis, "the real world".
Pfah! Isn't the academic record of law, history, science, philosophy and religion nothing more than a patiently accumulated and analyzed account of the "real" world? I mean, what planet, exactly, do professors at universities teach the history of? Mars? Jupiter? And for that matter, even if they do teach the history of Mars and Jupiter in place of Earth's, how can anyone who relies on the local bar or the race track for wisdom be expected to know the difference?
Enjoy...
Chris
Thursday, October 21, 2010
Clean Energy Investing
Chris,
you said:
"According to denialists, investors like Deutsche Bank - and for that matter, anyone else interested in investing in companies like Solyndra - are just making the science up as they go along. AGW really isn't happening, as the theory goes, and private companies, as well as governments, are more or less betting on a losing horse. Sooner or later AGW will be exposed as the hoax it really is and all that investment in clean energy is going to go right down the tubes."
I must say I 100% disagree with your conclusion. I am also quite disappointed at your use of a wide-scope tar-bush in an attempt to paint 'denialists' into some perceived 'corner' created by AGW enthusiasts. I will respond in detail in a subsequent post. Which leads to your next comment:
"And if a problem doesn't exist, what possible reason could we have for investing in a solution?"
Investing in "Clean, Green Energy" and investing in an unproven and highly suspect AGW 'solution' are 2 entirely different things. And you know it. Don't mix apples and oranges.
With respect to your economic analysis, the structure, functions, control and operations of the economy of China and the US are totally different. The government plays a different role in each. If you are advocating a rejection of the current US economic approach (e.g. based on capitalism principles with many operational variations), in favor of a China-like, government-controlled, centrally-managed style (e.g. based on Socialist and Marxist philosophies), then I think you're barking up the wrong tree about the proper role of government for the U.S. We've got enough issues with government bureaucracy interfering with the 'free-market', without adding the needless burden of central planning. Sure, central planning works very well - but only for the ultimate benefit of those holding the controls.
You can be free or you can be a willing slave. (Let's not banter over definitions here, you know what I mean.) I'd rather be free to fail rather than forced to live in fear of bureaucratic reprisal, and begging for my continued existence according to the whim of those who consider themselves to be my political 'masters'... I thought you did too.
- Steve
you said:
"According to denialists, investors like Deutsche Bank - and for that matter, anyone else interested in investing in companies like Solyndra - are just making the science up as they go along. AGW really isn't happening, as the theory goes, and private companies, as well as governments, are more or less betting on a losing horse. Sooner or later AGW will be exposed as the hoax it really is and all that investment in clean energy is going to go right down the tubes."
I must say I 100% disagree with your conclusion. I am also quite disappointed at your use of a wide-scope tar-bush in an attempt to paint 'denialists' into some perceived 'corner' created by AGW enthusiasts. I will respond in detail in a subsequent post. Which leads to your next comment:
"And if a problem doesn't exist, what possible reason could we have for investing in a solution?"
Investing in "Clean, Green Energy" and investing in an unproven and highly suspect AGW 'solution' are 2 entirely different things. And you know it. Don't mix apples and oranges.
With respect to your economic analysis, the structure, functions, control and operations of the economy of China and the US are totally different. The government plays a different role in each. If you are advocating a rejection of the current US economic approach (e.g. based on capitalism principles with many operational variations), in favor of a China-like, government-controlled, centrally-managed style (e.g. based on Socialist and Marxist philosophies), then I think you're barking up the wrong tree about the proper role of government for the U.S. We've got enough issues with government bureaucracy interfering with the 'free-market', without adding the needless burden of central planning. Sure, central planning works very well - but only for the ultimate benefit of those holding the controls.
You can be free or you can be a willing slave. (Let's not banter over definitions here, you know what I mean.) I'd rather be free to fail rather than forced to live in fear of bureaucratic reprisal, and begging for my continued existence according to the whim of those who consider themselves to be my political 'masters'... I thought you did too.
- Steve
Wednesday, October 20, 2010
Steve,
We're spotlighting an interesting October 10th article from the NYT here, "Silicon Valley’s Solar Innovators Retool to Catch Up to China", which briefly chronicles the progress of emerging solar panel manufacturers in Silicon Valley. From the article:
"...But as the companies finally begin mass production — Solyndra just flipped the switch on a $733 million factory here last month — they are finding that the economics of the industry have already been transformed, by the Chinese. Chinese manufacturers, heavily subsidized by their own government and relying on vast economies of scale, have helped send the price of conventional solar panels plunging and grabbed market share far more quickly than anyone anticipated."
Now by all appearances, due to a burgening domestic demand for clean energy products, Solyndra is probably going to remain viable for the immediate future. But as for the future of the industry in this country as a whole, well, things don't look too good. As far as clean energy is concerned, we've fallen far behind the world's major players - and the gap is widening at a frightening pace. Tellingly, the article goes on to say:
"In the third quarter of 2010, venture capital investment in solar companies plummeted to $144 million from $451 million in the year-ago quarter, according to the Cleantech Group, a San Francisco research firm.
We're spotlighting an interesting October 10th article from the NYT here, "Silicon Valley’s Solar Innovators Retool to Catch Up to China", which briefly chronicles the progress of emerging solar panel manufacturers in Silicon Valley. From the article:
"...But as the companies finally begin mass production — Solyndra just flipped the switch on a $733 million factory here last month — they are finding that the economics of the industry have already been transformed, by the Chinese. Chinese manufacturers, heavily subsidized by their own government and relying on vast economies of scale, have helped send the price of conventional solar panels plunging and grabbed market share far more quickly than anyone anticipated."
Now by all appearances, due to a burgening domestic demand for clean energy products, Solyndra is probably going to remain viable for the immediate future. But as for the future of the industry in this country as a whole, well, things don't look too good. As far as clean energy is concerned, we've fallen far behind the world's major players - and the gap is widening at a frightening pace. Tellingly, the article goes on to say:
"In the third quarter of 2010, venture capital investment in solar companies plummeted to $144 million from $451 million in the year-ago quarter, according to the Cleantech Group, a San Francisco research firm.
The paucity of capital and the sheer size of Chinese solar panel makers have proved particularly problematic for companies like Solyndra and MiaSolé, which make photovoltaic cells using a material called copper indium gallium selenide, or CIGS.
...While Silicon Valley companies were working on the problem, silicon prices fell and Chinese companies like JA Solar, Suntech and Yingli Green Energy rapidly expanded production of conventional solar panels, supported by tens of billions of dollars in inexpensive credit from the Chinese government as well as other subsidies like cheap land.
...Chinese solar panel makers now supply about 40 percent of the California market, the largest in the United States, and the bulk of the European market, according to Bloomberg New Energy Finance, a research and consulting firm."
Now let's stop here for a minute and reconsider the post I put up a few moons back on Deutsche Bank. Elsewhere in the blogosphere, I've seen a few denialist reactions to the article on which that post was based. JoNova's is here. At SPPI, Ross McKitrick actually went to the trouble of composing an entire pamphlet: "Response to Misinformation from Deutsche Bank"!
I wasn't particularly suprised to find the denialist reaction would be so predictable. According to denialists, investors like Deutsche Bank - and for that matter, anyone else interested in investing in companies like Solyndra - are just making the science up as they go along. AGW really isn't happening, as the theory goes, and private companies, as well as governments, are more or less betting on a losing horse. Sooner or later AGW will be exposed as the hoax it really is and all that investment in clean energy is going to go right down the tubes.
In an incredible act of irresponsibility, the current crop of Republican candidates for congress have cynically judged the political winds, decided to deny the findings their own country's scientific establishment, and assert that global warming isn't happening. Nothing to see here folks, move right along...
What this means in real terms is that the U.S. public, as well as companies like Solyndra and investors like Deutsche Bank, are going to have to wait at least a few more years for a U.S. Government capable of developing a coherent, effective energy policy which addresses climate change and encourages the growth of the domestic clean energy industry. None of that is going to happen so long as we're stuck in denial of the very problem itself. And if a problem doesn't exist, what possible reason could we have for investing in a solution?
Now I doubt if the rest of the world is going to sit on their hands and wait for us to smarten up. The Europeans have already put in place a crude, often abused, yet nevertheless functional system of cap and trade - which has created an environment most favorable for advances in clean energy. Spain for instance already supplies over 13% of its energy needs from renewables - whereas that percentage has actually been declining here almost every year over the last 60 years, and now stands at 10% (down from over 20% in 1959). England has just finished building the world's largest off shore windfarm, (turbines courtesy of Vestas, Denmark). Most European nations are aiming at producing a minimum of 20% of their energy from renewables within the next ten years - which (incredibly) would put them where we were 60 years ago. Apparently the Europeans get it.
Over on the other side of the world, China has now become the largest manufacturer on Earth of wind turbines and solar panels. And not only that, but has now become the world's largest renewable energy producer - as well as the first developing country to create a national strategy for addressing climate change. You can read the policy here. And if this strikes you as mere propaganda, do your research. China is not only backing up that policy with action, but regularly exceeding the policy's benchmarks. Meanwhile, back here in America we're still trying to figure out the First Law of Holes.
We should have seen this coming. Yet back in 2001, when we still had the muscle to develop a far-sighted energy policy, what we got instead was shotgun marriage to big oil (and coal) courtesy of Dick Cheney's narrow minded Energy Task Force. It took almost four years and an aggressive legal challenge to get the Administration to release any records of those meetings. How's that for an "open and honest" government? The Bush Administration put together an energy policy with far reaching consequences for virtually every citizen in the U.S., yet refused to tell the public who really authored it. And when we found out, all the major players turned out to be (surprise!) representatives from every single major player in the coal and oil industry - including the ever so patriotic and unselfish Ken Lay... you know, the guy who was indicted and convicted on six counts of securities and wire fraud.
Steve, if there's a silver lining here its tiny and not very encouraging, but its all we here in this country have to go on at this point: Change will come. But it probably won't originate in the forums of public opinion or the halls of Congress. It's going to happen in the board rooms of the Exxon's, the Peabody Coal's and the Duke Energy's. These people aren't stupid. I'd like to think they're motivated by a concern for the health of the planet - but if past history is any indication, I'm not banking on it. However, sooner or later they're going to wake up to the same conclusion that the rest of the world has already recognized, namely, that renewables represent an astonishingly rich souce of future profits. I hope when they do it won't be too late.
-Chris
Monday, October 11, 2010
Sunday, October 10, 2010
From the Kitchens of Chef Christophe: Porky Beef Stew
Steve,
Assemble the following ingredients:
4 carrots
4 stalks of celery
1 medium onion
4 medium potatoes
1.5 lbs of chuck roast
1.5 lbs of pork loin
1/4 cup of sugar
1/4 cup of tapioca
1 can crushed tomatoes
salt and pepper
Cut half the carrots, celery, onion, potatoes, chuck and pork into bite size chunks. Mix them together in the bottom of your crock pot. Pour over this half the sugar and tapioca - salt and pepper to taste, then pour over this half the crushed tomatoes. Then, repeat the process. All this takes about 20 minutes, tops.
Cook on low for 7 hours or high for 3.5 hours, being sure to stir the whole thing up half way through.
Steve, this is far and away the easiest stew to make which you will ever find and it tastes fantastic. You can switch out the vegetables - I've often wanted to add turnips and okra. You can make the whole thing vegetarian if you want - or add more meat. I don't know why but I like the combination of pork and beef - but you can use just one or the other if you like. The most important parts of this however are the sugar, tapioca and crushed tomatoes. The tapioca thickens the stew, the tomatoes give it a pleasant tartness and the sugar, well, you can probably guess what that does.
-Chef Christophe
Assemble the following ingredients:
4 carrots
4 stalks of celery
1 medium onion
4 medium potatoes
1.5 lbs of chuck roast
1.5 lbs of pork loin
1/4 cup of sugar
1/4 cup of tapioca
1 can crushed tomatoes
salt and pepper
Cut half the carrots, celery, onion, potatoes, chuck and pork into bite size chunks. Mix them together in the bottom of your crock pot. Pour over this half the sugar and tapioca - salt and pepper to taste, then pour over this half the crushed tomatoes. Then, repeat the process. All this takes about 20 minutes, tops.
Cook on low for 7 hours or high for 3.5 hours, being sure to stir the whole thing up half way through.
Steve, this is far and away the easiest stew to make which you will ever find and it tastes fantastic. You can switch out the vegetables - I've often wanted to add turnips and okra. You can make the whole thing vegetarian if you want - or add more meat. I don't know why but I like the combination of pork and beef - but you can use just one or the other if you like. The most important parts of this however are the sugar, tapioca and crushed tomatoes. The tapioca thickens the stew, the tomatoes give it a pleasant tartness and the sugar, well, you can probably guess what that does.
-Chef Christophe
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
