Those who are critics of this administration's attempts to revive the economy may have a point. Creating jobs that merely put money in the pockets of people who will, make that must, spend it, is short sighted even if it works.
"Make no little plans, they have no magic to stir men’s blood!", said Daniel Burnham, Chicago architect (1864-1912). Nothing has changed since those words were spoken. We still need grand dreams to unite us, to motivate us, and to inspire us. But what do we get? "Leaders" who are deathly afraid to lead.
This is not just a failure that is pervasive in government; it is also a failure in the business community. Large businesses do not venture far from what is making money today. Where is their nerve? Where is their imagination? Would we have MRI technology if we waited for GE to invent it? I don’t think so. Would we have the personal computer if we waited for IBM to invent it? These companies did not have imagination nor did they have the entrepreneurial spirit. They may have seen the future coming down the pike, and either ignored it because they thought it wouldn’t work, or they waited until the development is well under way, so they could steal it.
Phil Farnsworth invented the all electronic television that was later stolen by Sarnoff at RCA. Dr. Raymond Damadian, primary inventor of the MRI, fought years to win a patent infringement suit. against GE, Mitsubishi, and others. It was the little guys with big dreams that advanced science.
State and federal governing bodies have shown themselves to be inept at governing in the past several decades. The Republicans are retrograde (they were against women suffrage, civil rights, labor unions right to organize, Medicare, and, ... well, you get it). The Democrats on the other hand have been gutless, and therefore no better. The Dems are just as manipulated as the retrograde party by the corporate interests that fund them, but they talk a better game. So hooray for the Democrats; they sound better.
When the Republicans announce that they will filibuster legislation the Democrats run for the hills. The rest of us wonder why. Many of us had to confront a bully along the way to growing up. One day you turn around and do battle. You take your lumps, or maybe you kick his butt. In either case the bully is likely to seek out a new victim, after all, you just became too much work. The Republicans are bullies too, but no one will confront them.
Do we need a national system of electrical grids to collect and distribute power from all sources to all destinations? Do we need a high speed, national ground transportation system to efficiently move people and freight? Do we need to reform public pensions? Do we need to address shortfalls in Medicare and Social Security? Do we need to ferret out waste and fraud wherever it exists so that we can be a highly completive nation? Do we need to reign in our military so that we don’t war ourselves out of existence? The answers to all of those questions are a resounding yes! The list goes on, but this will do for starters. I think most people are tired of the talk that we hear reported from elected officials in Albany and Washington. Most of what politicians are saying when they speak are well rehearsed bumper sticker type slogans, and they insult our intelligence when they give us those stock, "poll tested" responses.
If ever there was a time when a third party could make a showing, it is now. We may be going there.
Monday, August 9, 2010
Thursday, July 22, 2010
Oil is Passé
Oil is the best liquid fuel that is available. It has far more heat value per gallon than propane, and ethanol. As far as ethanol is concerned you would need all of the arable land in the country and you would still not be able to meet the demand for liquid fuel and in the end you would have an inferior product that is also corrosive and creates problems in systems.
Our principal uses of oil are transportation, heating, and power generation. Natural gas is much less polluting than oil and can be easily used in stationary applications. Such as space heating and power generation. With a concerted effort we could convert 100% of those needs to natural gas.
In addition to using natural gas, power generation can employ a variety of generating methods including solar photovoltaics, wind power, river flow generation, conventional hydro, and yes, nuclear. In the development stages are electrical generation systems that will create even newer means. It is feasible with known technology we could eliminate oil for electrical generation.
However the same cannot be said about transportation uses of oil. Other than a relatively small number of electric and hybrid powered vehicles, cars, trucks, diesel locomotives, and airplanes need liquid portable fuel. You can make the argument that trucks and cars can use natural gas, but that too would require an enormous infrastructure.
Electric vehicles and trains are the only way to reduce or eliminate oil for surface transportation. The sources of electric generation are myriad and none of them would use oil big part of that transportation will no doubt be Maglev. More on that later.
Feel free to comment.
Ernie Fazio
Our principal uses of oil are transportation, heating, and power generation. Natural gas is much less polluting than oil and can be easily used in stationary applications. Such as space heating and power generation. With a concerted effort we could convert 100% of those needs to natural gas.
In addition to using natural gas, power generation can employ a variety of generating methods including solar photovoltaics, wind power, river flow generation, conventional hydro, and yes, nuclear. In the development stages are electrical generation systems that will create even newer means. It is feasible with known technology we could eliminate oil for electrical generation.
However the same cannot be said about transportation uses of oil. Other than a relatively small number of electric and hybrid powered vehicles, cars, trucks, diesel locomotives, and airplanes need liquid portable fuel. You can make the argument that trucks and cars can use natural gas, but that too would require an enormous infrastructure.
Electric vehicles and trains are the only way to reduce or eliminate oil for surface transportation. The sources of electric generation are myriad and none of them would use oil big part of that transportation will no doubt be Maglev. More on that later.
Feel free to comment.
Ernie Fazio
Tuesday, July 6, 2010
Rethinking Our Military
America spends more on its military than the next ten military budgets combined. More money than the France, England, Germany, Japan, Israel, Russia, China, and several others combined. Why is that? And for all of that spending, the vast majority of Americans are not employed by the military.
There is also a curious funding scheme for our military. The Navy has the same budget as the Air Force and the Army. The funds are wracked up more or less evenly between the different fighting units. Does this funding square with reality? Do each of these entities need the same resources all of the time? No, but that is the deal that was cut after WWII and that is how it has remained.
We believe an overwhelming military keeps us safe, but does it? Did it stop 9-11 from occurring? Will it stop other attempts at destroying our citizens and our infrastructure? I doubt it. We are devising better methods of detecting threats on the homeland, but those defensive instruments are not tanks, ships and planes. If we are able to thwart another attack it won’t be because we have that kind of fire power. Prevention will be the product of good intelligence. We have to remember the weapon of choice in the case of 9-11 was a box cutter. You don’t need a military to stop that; you need to know what is going on.
Other than the pitifully naïve, no one thinks we do not need a military, but that force should be small by design. Having a robust military, according to some people prevents war. Actually the opposite is true. If you are trained as a military officer, you tend to want to test your metal.
Here is another point to ponder. Nothing saps the life out of a country than the enormous expense of the military. Military product research throws off some beneficial technology that can be used in civilian life, but so does space research, or energy research, or medical research, or any basic research for that matter, but all of those research areas create useful tools for civilian use as the primary product. Military products are designed to destroy and not much more.
We spent over a trillion dollars on an idiotic war in Iraq. We suffered more than 4,000 dead soldiers and 35,000 more wounded, some of whom bear mental scars that may never heal. It is a travesty. At the same time the rest of the world applies its resources to developing new systems and products (even some that were invented in the US).
We could have used that money to rehabilitate and modernize our entire national rail system. The result would have been a more efficient country moving people and goods and adding substantially to our national wealth. Shame on our leaders for taking us down this road! Shame on us for not throwing these bastards out of office!
Ernie Fazio
There is also a curious funding scheme for our military. The Navy has the same budget as the Air Force and the Army. The funds are wracked up more or less evenly between the different fighting units. Does this funding square with reality? Do each of these entities need the same resources all of the time? No, but that is the deal that was cut after WWII and that is how it has remained.
We believe an overwhelming military keeps us safe, but does it? Did it stop 9-11 from occurring? Will it stop other attempts at destroying our citizens and our infrastructure? I doubt it. We are devising better methods of detecting threats on the homeland, but those defensive instruments are not tanks, ships and planes. If we are able to thwart another attack it won’t be because we have that kind of fire power. Prevention will be the product of good intelligence. We have to remember the weapon of choice in the case of 9-11 was a box cutter. You don’t need a military to stop that; you need to know what is going on.
Other than the pitifully naïve, no one thinks we do not need a military, but that force should be small by design. Having a robust military, according to some people prevents war. Actually the opposite is true. If you are trained as a military officer, you tend to want to test your metal.
Here is another point to ponder. Nothing saps the life out of a country than the enormous expense of the military. Military product research throws off some beneficial technology that can be used in civilian life, but so does space research, or energy research, or medical research, or any basic research for that matter, but all of those research areas create useful tools for civilian use as the primary product. Military products are designed to destroy and not much more.
We spent over a trillion dollars on an idiotic war in Iraq. We suffered more than 4,000 dead soldiers and 35,000 more wounded, some of whom bear mental scars that may never heal. It is a travesty. At the same time the rest of the world applies its resources to developing new systems and products (even some that were invented in the US).
We could have used that money to rehabilitate and modernize our entire national rail system. The result would have been a more efficient country moving people and goods and adding substantially to our national wealth. Shame on our leaders for taking us down this road! Shame on us for not throwing these bastards out of office!
Ernie Fazio
Values
“And this government of the people by the people, for the people will not perish from this earth” -- Abraham Lincoln
About $36 billion was proposed and rejected by the congress for extending unemployment insurance. The reason it was rejected is because it adds to the deficit. That's a good argument, at least on the surface, but there is another factor at work here. "Unemployment insurance leads to continued unemployment." In other words, bad behavior is created by the legislation. I wonder if the same applies to bailing out the financial institutions, maybe. We did bail out the banks and that bill came close to being a $trillion
Should we have done that bail-out? Probably, and we should also bail-out the individuals too. At least unemployment insurance goes almost 100% back into the economy. The same cannot be said for bank bail-outs. Have we become "government of the corporations, by the corporations, for the corporations"? Somehow that does not have the same inspiring effect as the original phrasing.
Ernie Fazio
About $36 billion was proposed and rejected by the congress for extending unemployment insurance. The reason it was rejected is because it adds to the deficit. That's a good argument, at least on the surface, but there is another factor at work here. "Unemployment insurance leads to continued unemployment." In other words, bad behavior is created by the legislation. I wonder if the same applies to bailing out the financial institutions, maybe. We did bail out the banks and that bill came close to being a $trillion
Should we have done that bail-out? Probably, and we should also bail-out the individuals too. At least unemployment insurance goes almost 100% back into the economy. The same cannot be said for bank bail-outs. Have we become "government of the corporations, by the corporations, for the corporations"? Somehow that does not have the same inspiring effect as the original phrasing.
Ernie Fazio
Maglev - A Vision of Future Transportation - printed in Newsday, December 4, 2009
Two hundred seventy miles per hour was the reading on the digital speed indicator as we swiftly moved from Shanghais to the airport. We were riding the Maglev in China. The Maglev is a transportation system that travels on a dedicated guideway and is supported by a magnetic field and moves without mechanical friction. The result is a very quiet, efficient, and fast mode of transportation.
The Chinese Maglev was the product of an effort that was made on Long Island by Drs. Gordon Danby and James Powell while they were working at Brookhaven National Laboratories. The Germans built this Maglev train, employing the inventors as consultants.
There is a version of the technology that has been built in Japan as well, also inspired by the inventions of Danby and Powell. It is remarkably successful. The Japanese version has carried many thousands of passengers and has recorded its highest speed of 361 MPH. Japan is now building a 300 mile link connecting Tokyo and Osaka. They plan on being able to move 100,000 passengers per day at 300 MPH.
Senator Patrick Moynihan passed a bill in the Senate in the early 90’s that provided $750 million for the testing and building of the first Maglev in America. But corresponding legislation was killed in the House of Representatives because of the pressure created by various interests including, airlines, truckers and auto manufacturers.
Creating a working American Maglev is a matter of national pride. It is also a matter of not letting an economic opportunity slip through our fingers. If we do not manufacture enough of the world’s important technology, we will be beholding to those countries that do. In the process we lose the high skilled, high paid jobs that the American worker has proved that he or she can do. We can’t afford to lose that segment of our society. We need to create those jobs again.
America has an extensive rail network. That network and right-of-ways are an incredible resource. We can move freight on that network using Maglev, and we can do it inexpensively. In fact we can move entire tractor-trailers in aerodynamic envelopes across the country at 300 MPH and save $3,000 worth of fuel and tolls. The trip will take less than a day and deliver a refreshed driver on the other end. The trip will be half the cost to the trucker , and profitable to the Maglev owners.
This is a more advanced Maglev system than the first generation system now operating in Japan and China. The cost of making this new system is a fraction of the cost of those versions. The Chinese Maglev floats on a magnetic cushion that has very critical clearances (about ½ inch). The process of building that system is costly and time consuming.
Danby and Powell have never stopped improving their Maglev design. Their second generation superconducting Maglev system allows the vehicle to float 4 ½” to 6” above a guideway. That system can be built in a factory and shipped by truck to a construction site, and be quickly erected using ordinary cranes. The higher clearances allow the vehicle to operate in ice storms, and snowstorms. Another innovation that Danby and Powell have solved is the compatibility with existing rail tracks. The modification is low in cost and allows conventional trains to operate alternately.
This project will take as long as Eisenhower’s Interstate Highway System. There will be jobs created on a long-term basis. We project Maglev manufacturing, and guideway fabrication will extend thirty years out, and all of that investment can be privately funded because it will be profitable. Presently the inventors and the Town of Riverhead have government grant in process to prove the new technology an a three mile track at Calverton
Ernest M. Fazio, Director of Communications- Maglev 2000 and Chairman of Long Island Metro Business Action (formerly Long Island MidSuffolk Business Action)
The Chinese Maglev was the product of an effort that was made on Long Island by Drs. Gordon Danby and James Powell while they were working at Brookhaven National Laboratories. The Germans built this Maglev train, employing the inventors as consultants.
There is a version of the technology that has been built in Japan as well, also inspired by the inventions of Danby and Powell. It is remarkably successful. The Japanese version has carried many thousands of passengers and has recorded its highest speed of 361 MPH. Japan is now building a 300 mile link connecting Tokyo and Osaka. They plan on being able to move 100,000 passengers per day at 300 MPH.
Senator Patrick Moynihan passed a bill in the Senate in the early 90’s that provided $750 million for the testing and building of the first Maglev in America. But corresponding legislation was killed in the House of Representatives because of the pressure created by various interests including, airlines, truckers and auto manufacturers.
Creating a working American Maglev is a matter of national pride. It is also a matter of not letting an economic opportunity slip through our fingers. If we do not manufacture enough of the world’s important technology, we will be beholding to those countries that do. In the process we lose the high skilled, high paid jobs that the American worker has proved that he or she can do. We can’t afford to lose that segment of our society. We need to create those jobs again.
America has an extensive rail network. That network and right-of-ways are an incredible resource. We can move freight on that network using Maglev, and we can do it inexpensively. In fact we can move entire tractor-trailers in aerodynamic envelopes across the country at 300 MPH and save $3,000 worth of fuel and tolls. The trip will take less than a day and deliver a refreshed driver on the other end. The trip will be half the cost to the trucker , and profitable to the Maglev owners.
This is a more advanced Maglev system than the first generation system now operating in Japan and China. The cost of making this new system is a fraction of the cost of those versions. The Chinese Maglev floats on a magnetic cushion that has very critical clearances (about ½ inch). The process of building that system is costly and time consuming.
Danby and Powell have never stopped improving their Maglev design. Their second generation superconducting Maglev system allows the vehicle to float 4 ½” to 6” above a guideway. That system can be built in a factory and shipped by truck to a construction site, and be quickly erected using ordinary cranes. The higher clearances allow the vehicle to operate in ice storms, and snowstorms. Another innovation that Danby and Powell have solved is the compatibility with existing rail tracks. The modification is low in cost and allows conventional trains to operate alternately.
This project will take as long as Eisenhower’s Interstate Highway System. There will be jobs created on a long-term basis. We project Maglev manufacturing, and guideway fabrication will extend thirty years out, and all of that investment can be privately funded because it will be profitable. Presently the inventors and the Town of Riverhead have government grant in process to prove the new technology an a three mile track at Calverton
Ernest M. Fazio, Director of Communications- Maglev 2000 and Chairman of Long Island Metro Business Action (formerly Long Island MidSuffolk Business Action)
Thursday, July 1, 2010
The Country That Almost Wasn't
There is the notion that the July 4th holiday is one that was born out of an outcome that was predestined. The progression to nationhood was "in the stars" as it were. Not at all, the people of the days when this nation was forming were as confused and divided as we are today. The Loyalists were the conservatives of their day. They were British and that is where their loyalties would continue. So attached to the status quo were they, that some of them sailed to England to escape the carnage they knew would ensue. They were convinced that the British would prevail and life in the colonies would become infinitely worse. I don't blame the Loyalists for feeling the way they did. We damn near lost that war. But for a little luck, and the French at our side, we probably would have.
Despite the heavy handed governing of the British, life in the colonies was not unbearable. The real tyranny was toward the business class who were restricted from manufacturing anything substantial, Wood, cotton and other resources could be grown and harvested, but the raw materials had to be sent back to England where finished products could be made and then sold in England and the colonies around the world, including America. This arrangement insured that a certain level of wealth could happen here, but the real wealth was to be in the hands of the influential people in England.
For all that we laud the great sentiments of freedom expressed in the documents that spelled out our new nation's vision and purpose, the underlying impetus was economics. Economics are as important as personal freedoms, and personal freedoms are all but impossible without an economic system that addresses the needs of the people.
A great framework was needed to enlist the support of all the people, but even the lofty words of the Declaration of Independence, and later the Constitution, fell short of perfection. After all, the institution of slavery remained intact, but it worked anyway.
When the war was over and the Constitution was agreed upon, Benjamin Franklin said "We have given you a country, if you can keep it." We have kept it, but the struggle was long and it continues, and will continue. It never has been a straight-line progression to a better country. And yet, we are a better country. We will continue on that path as long as we look inside ourselves and constantly rediscover what made us great.
In the words taken from an Arlo Guthrie song "Hello America, how are ya?"
Happy Birthday America!
Ernie Fazio
Despite the heavy handed governing of the British, life in the colonies was not unbearable. The real tyranny was toward the business class who were restricted from manufacturing anything substantial, Wood, cotton and other resources could be grown and harvested, but the raw materials had to be sent back to England where finished products could be made and then sold in England and the colonies around the world, including America. This arrangement insured that a certain level of wealth could happen here, but the real wealth was to be in the hands of the influential people in England.
For all that we laud the great sentiments of freedom expressed in the documents that spelled out our new nation's vision and purpose, the underlying impetus was economics. Economics are as important as personal freedoms, and personal freedoms are all but impossible without an economic system that addresses the needs of the people.
A great framework was needed to enlist the support of all the people, but even the lofty words of the Declaration of Independence, and later the Constitution, fell short of perfection. After all, the institution of slavery remained intact, but it worked anyway.
When the war was over and the Constitution was agreed upon, Benjamin Franklin said "We have given you a country, if you can keep it." We have kept it, but the struggle was long and it continues, and will continue. It never has been a straight-line progression to a better country. And yet, we are a better country. We will continue on that path as long as we look inside ourselves and constantly rediscover what made us great.
In the words taken from an Arlo Guthrie song "Hello America, how are ya?"
Happy Birthday America!
Ernie Fazio
Tuesday, June 29, 2010
Term Limits or No Term Limits? That is the question.
The benefits and liabilities of term limits should be weighed. Let me have an argument with myself and you can decide the merits of the case.
If we limit an elected official we run the risk of term limiting a devoted public servant and replacing him with a less able office holder, or worse, a crook.
If we reject the notion of term limits, the power of incumbency will allow a slug, who may be a good campaigner stay long after he has any new ideas.
With term limits we would remove from office a Ted Kennedy, a Michael Bloomberg, a Mario Coumo, a Bob Dole, or an Orin Hatch. Well, depending on your politics, you may say, "Yeah so, who cares?" If that is your stand, let me hasten to add, each of these people were competent and trustworthy. You can take issue with that point too. I don't care it's my opinion. In addition there is institutional memory that is lost when term limits are enforced.
But . . .
A Term limit has the benefit of introducing more people into the democratic process. The more opportunities there are, the more people will feel they have a chance of getting into that realm. We will almost certainly see more talent and ideas. When you create a constant need for elected talent you get it.
And . . .
Term limits will mute the power of lobbyists. Lobbyists are useful because they represent the needs of specific groups. But if they have the opportunity to build long relationships with an elected official they can distort the perspective of that official, particularly if they are supplying campaign funds.
And What if;
A person that is term limited out of office aspires to another office? I say why not. If he left his last office as a shinning star he should be able to run for another office. This would not in any way corrupt the term limit principle. In fact this progression would be desirable. The candidate would have experience and be in a fresh arena. He or she would still have to compete without the benefit of incumbency. The other corrupting force is campaign funds. Campaigns should be relatively short and publicly financed
S-o-o-o, maybe the winning combination would be to have term limits and publicly financed campaigns. Hmmmm What do you think?
If we limit an elected official we run the risk of term limiting a devoted public servant and replacing him with a less able office holder, or worse, a crook.
If we reject the notion of term limits, the power of incumbency will allow a slug, who may be a good campaigner stay long after he has any new ideas.
With term limits we would remove from office a Ted Kennedy, a Michael Bloomberg, a Mario Coumo, a Bob Dole, or an Orin Hatch. Well, depending on your politics, you may say, "Yeah so, who cares?" If that is your stand, let me hasten to add, each of these people were competent and trustworthy. You can take issue with that point too. I don't care it's my opinion. In addition there is institutional memory that is lost when term limits are enforced.
But . . .
A Term limit has the benefit of introducing more people into the democratic process. The more opportunities there are, the more people will feel they have a chance of getting into that realm. We will almost certainly see more talent and ideas. When you create a constant need for elected talent you get it.
And . . .
Term limits will mute the power of lobbyists. Lobbyists are useful because they represent the needs of specific groups. But if they have the opportunity to build long relationships with an elected official they can distort the perspective of that official, particularly if they are supplying campaign funds.
And What if;
A person that is term limited out of office aspires to another office? I say why not. If he left his last office as a shinning star he should be able to run for another office. This would not in any way corrupt the term limit principle. In fact this progression would be desirable. The candidate would have experience and be in a fresh arena. He or she would still have to compete without the benefit of incumbency. The other corrupting force is campaign funds. Campaigns should be relatively short and publicly financed
S-o-o-o, maybe the winning combination would be to have term limits and publicly financed campaigns. Hmmmm What do you think?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)