I was in school in the Atomic City, Los Alamos, N.M. in 1951. I guess they knew it would be futile to "Duck and Cover" in a nuke attack! So we weren’t drilled in that exercise. We were constantly reminded that the Soviets were our rivals for world domination and that they might attack us at any moment without warning. We were never allowed to forget that it might happen.
Nuclear power was a really big thing back then. At first we were told that it would make electricity so cheap that they wouldn’t even meter its use. Just send everyone a bill for a nominal service fee to cover administrative costs. And of course there was always the nuclear deterrent! Remember MAD? Mutually Assured Destruction! If you attack us we will destroy you before we are ourselves destroyed.
Three Mile Island melted down and changed the way Americans view nuclear power. Suddenly the word got out that it wasn’t really as safe as we had been led to believe it was. We found out that we had been lied to by both the industry and the Government. We found out that it wasn’t without cost to the people who mined the ore and processed it into fuel rod pellets. Remember Karen Silkwood? She was killed in a car crash on her way to testify at a hearing exposing the dangers to workers in nuclear fuel processing. Some say it was no accident. Americans came to fear the nuclear industry and if the government had continued to support it we would have come to fear the government too. So the nuclear industry lost support and all but died.
Now that we don’t have the Soviet Union to be afraid of anymore and since Americans have learned of the dangers inherent in nuclear power there is no reason for large scale uranium mining and milling. So the nuclear industry has been lobbying heavily for a revival of nuclear power plants. They are saying the same things they told us before, that it is safe and clean and will be cheaper than coal or petroleum fueled power plants. They have convinced Jeff Bingaman, chair of the Senate Energy Committee, to support it. He is from New Mexico and there is a lot of uranium in New Mexico and the state is hurting for money. And President Obama has bought into it too. They are hoping to give many billions of dollars in subsidies to revive the industry. It may not contribute to global warming because it doesn’t emit greenhouse gasses. But it is neither clean nor safe!
Keep the masses afraid and you can control of them. If it isn’t fear of war with a foreign power it is fear of a terrorist attack. Or, knowing that most Americans think global warming is a problem, use that as a means of keeping us feeling that we need the government to protect us. I don't know when it started but I am sure the Government has been doing it for a very long time. Just keep the threat level high! I wish they would act in a way that would make us feel secure instead of constantly worrying. Maybe they think it is the only way to maintain control over us. And now big money is exerting itself spending lots of money to convince us and our lawmakers that they will save us. Nuclear power to the rescue!
Saturday, January 30, 2010
Wednesday, January 27, 2010
The State Of The Union
Tonight President Obama is going to give his State Of The Union speech. I wonder what he will say. He will probably say, more or less, that the union is in a pretty sorry state.
The President may say something about the state of the union being in bad condition because the banks can and do gamble on credit default swaps and derivatives, etc. He may give some lip service to bank regulation to prevent it. He may ask for legislation to make the banks loan money to small business so they can operate and expand creating new jobs.
He may also give lip service to climate change. He may ask for tax breaks and other incentives for business to produce clean energy. He may ask for legislation to limit the emission of greenhouse gasses. But the biggest polluters are the ones with the deepest pockets. They will spend as much as they need to in order to stop any regulation that would cut into their profits.
I doubt that he will say the state of the union is in bad condition because our lawmakers are owned by the corporations. I doubt that he will say that they bribe our elected officials to ignore the needs of the people and legislate on behalf of the corporations instead. And I doubt that he will offer any solution to this problem.
He will probably not tell us that any legislation that goes against the corporations will be overturned by the Supreme Court. He could ask for the only solution that will stand against the Supreme Court. He could ask for a Constitutional amendment to take the money out of politics. But I doubt that he will.
If money isn’t taken out of politics, the state of the union will not improve substantially. Not for the masses! If the corporations are allowed to spend as much as they want to influence politics we will end up like Haiti or Zimbabwe. There will be no middle class. There will only be a few who are filthy rich and the masses will be desperately poor.
The President may say something about the state of the union being in bad condition because the banks can and do gamble on credit default swaps and derivatives, etc. He may give some lip service to bank regulation to prevent it. He may ask for legislation to make the banks loan money to small business so they can operate and expand creating new jobs.
He may also give lip service to climate change. He may ask for tax breaks and other incentives for business to produce clean energy. He may ask for legislation to limit the emission of greenhouse gasses. But the biggest polluters are the ones with the deepest pockets. They will spend as much as they need to in order to stop any regulation that would cut into their profits.
I doubt that he will say the state of the union is in bad condition because our lawmakers are owned by the corporations. I doubt that he will say that they bribe our elected officials to ignore the needs of the people and legislate on behalf of the corporations instead. And I doubt that he will offer any solution to this problem.
He will probably not tell us that any legislation that goes against the corporations will be overturned by the Supreme Court. He could ask for the only solution that will stand against the Supreme Court. He could ask for a Constitutional amendment to take the money out of politics. But I doubt that he will.
If money isn’t taken out of politics, the state of the union will not improve substantially. Not for the masses! If the corporations are allowed to spend as much as they want to influence politics we will end up like Haiti or Zimbabwe. There will be no middle class. There will only be a few who are filthy rich and the masses will be desperately poor.
Tuesday, January 26, 2010
Bank Loans To Small Business
There is a lot of talk about how the banks aren’t loaning money to small business either to start up or to help them with operating expenses enabling them to stay in business. The talking heads say this is because before the melt down the banks would loan money to small businesses that were not well run or for some other reason were not good risks and defaults were high. Now the bankers say they won’t loan to a small business that doesn’t have a good business plan or that has a history of poor management. They say they need to be sure a small business will be able to repay the loan. I wonder why they didn’t do this before the melt down. Maybe it was because they got paid bonuses for making loans instead of on the profit made from a loan when it was repaid.
Since small business is the number one source of new jobs in America it is important to give them the money they need to operate or start up. But the banks are just not loaning money to enough small businesses to stimulate employment and decrease the jobless rate. It is more profitable for the banks to gamble on credit default swaps and other creative financial schemes than it is to make loans and so there really isn’t much incentive for them to make loans to small business.
Over the past twenty years there has been an enormous increase in wealth in America. The problem with this is that the increase hasn’t been distributed evenly. Those at the very top of the income scale, the owners of by far the largest share of the business community, the corporations, have gotten virtually all of the increase. The working class, the line workers and small business owners, are actually worse off now. Their buying power is down from what it was twenty years ago. So there isn’t the profits generated that are needed to pay for the expansion that would create new jobs.
Lack of banking regulation has resulted in this sad state of affairs we find ourselves in. Since the Supreme Court has ruled that the corporations can spend as much as they want to on political campaigns and politicians, there isn’t likely to be any new regulation of the kind necessary to change this. The banks will continue to gamble instead of making loans to small business and the unemployment rate will remain high.
I see no solution to this problem except for the masses of people to demand that our representatives pass an amendment to the Constitution to take money out of politics. As long as the corporations can buy the influence of our lawmakers there isn’t much chance that they will act on behalf of the common citizen instead of the corporations.
Since small business is the number one source of new jobs in America it is important to give them the money they need to operate or start up. But the banks are just not loaning money to enough small businesses to stimulate employment and decrease the jobless rate. It is more profitable for the banks to gamble on credit default swaps and other creative financial schemes than it is to make loans and so there really isn’t much incentive for them to make loans to small business.
Over the past twenty years there has been an enormous increase in wealth in America. The problem with this is that the increase hasn’t been distributed evenly. Those at the very top of the income scale, the owners of by far the largest share of the business community, the corporations, have gotten virtually all of the increase. The working class, the line workers and small business owners, are actually worse off now. Their buying power is down from what it was twenty years ago. So there isn’t the profits generated that are needed to pay for the expansion that would create new jobs.
Lack of banking regulation has resulted in this sad state of affairs we find ourselves in. Since the Supreme Court has ruled that the corporations can spend as much as they want to on political campaigns and politicians, there isn’t likely to be any new regulation of the kind necessary to change this. The banks will continue to gamble instead of making loans to small business and the unemployment rate will remain high.
I see no solution to this problem except for the masses of people to demand that our representatives pass an amendment to the Constitution to take money out of politics. As long as the corporations can buy the influence of our lawmakers there isn’t much chance that they will act on behalf of the common citizen instead of the corporations.
Monday, January 25, 2010
Should Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke Be Reconfirmed?
There is a lot of talk in the news lately about whether Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke should be reconfirmed or not. There seems to be a growing opposition in the Senate to his continued rain as chairman. President Obama does still support him and voice his confidence in Bernanke and his ability to set the economy back in order. I, and many others, don’t share his confidence.
If you were sick and the doctor you had been seeing had led to your illness through practicing bad medicine would you continue seeing that doctor? Not likely! You would choose another doctor who would use another treatment instead of continuing to use the same one that allowed you to become sick. It makes about as much sense to reconfirm Ben Bernanke, who followed policies that led to the economic decline and really hasn’t done very much to get back on track to stability and job producing growth, in the position of Chairman of the Fed.
The banks are doing great now thanks to massive bailouts using taxpayer’s money. But without the working people who pay the taxes those bailouts came from they aren’t likely to be able to sustain their prosperity indefinitely. Home owners will continue to lose their homes to foreclosure because they lost their jobs. Unemployment will remain high and the revenue from taxes on working people will remain low under Chairman Ben Bernanke’s leadership.
Ben Bernanke still exhibits no willingness to adopt policy that would bring about job growth. So someone else who has a better approach to economic regulation should replace him as Chairman of the Fed. But the banking lobby is very strong and Obama and several Senators undoubtedly under their influence and will give their allegiance to the bankers. They will continue to give them what they want instead of replacing Ben Bernanke with someone else who would institute new job producing economic policy.
If you were sick and the doctor you had been seeing had led to your illness through practicing bad medicine would you continue seeing that doctor? Not likely! You would choose another doctor who would use another treatment instead of continuing to use the same one that allowed you to become sick. It makes about as much sense to reconfirm Ben Bernanke, who followed policies that led to the economic decline and really hasn’t done very much to get back on track to stability and job producing growth, in the position of Chairman of the Fed.
The banks are doing great now thanks to massive bailouts using taxpayer’s money. But without the working people who pay the taxes those bailouts came from they aren’t likely to be able to sustain their prosperity indefinitely. Home owners will continue to lose their homes to foreclosure because they lost their jobs. Unemployment will remain high and the revenue from taxes on working people will remain low under Chairman Ben Bernanke’s leadership.
Ben Bernanke still exhibits no willingness to adopt policy that would bring about job growth. So someone else who has a better approach to economic regulation should replace him as Chairman of the Fed. But the banking lobby is very strong and Obama and several Senators undoubtedly under their influence and will give their allegiance to the bankers. They will continue to give them what they want instead of replacing Ben Bernanke with someone else who would institute new job producing economic policy.
Sunday, January 24, 2010
Aid For Haiti
I have to admit that I’m ashamed and disappointed that the government of the U.S. is still not in Haiti in full force 12 days after the quake delivering aid and supplies to the victims of the earthquake. Nearly every other nation that is there got there before we did much more than think about going. While others were delivering aid our government was, supposedly, organizing our forces. And when they did finely start to get to Haiti is was armed forces. People with guns! Like that was needed more urgently than medicine or bandages or food or clean drinking water. Men with guns are more important? What kind of aid is that?
Where was the food and medicine? Where were the tents and blankets? Where was the heavy equipment to move the rubble out of the way so that relief supplies could be gotten to where they were needed? Where was the aid?
Maybe the reason is because it was the government. We all know that they don’t do most things as efficiently as those in the private sector. The government seems to have become too dependent on contractors to do things it once could do itself. Maybe the government should have given a no bid contract to Bechtel or Halliburton.
After the Great San Francisco earthquake President Roosevelt ordered every tent the Army owned in the U.S. to be sent to San Francisco as soon as they could be sent. And the next day a train load of relief supplies left for San Francisco. The government could act efficiently in those days. What ever happened to change that? Could it be that there is too much money in politics? Could it be that the government is owned by the corporations now?
Where was the food and medicine? Where were the tents and blankets? Where was the heavy equipment to move the rubble out of the way so that relief supplies could be gotten to where they were needed? Where was the aid?
Maybe the reason is because it was the government. We all know that they don’t do most things as efficiently as those in the private sector. The government seems to have become too dependent on contractors to do things it once could do itself. Maybe the government should have given a no bid contract to Bechtel or Halliburton.
After the Great San Francisco earthquake President Roosevelt ordered every tent the Army owned in the U.S. to be sent to San Francisco as soon as they could be sent. And the next day a train load of relief supplies left for San Francisco. The government could act efficiently in those days. What ever happened to change that? Could it be that there is too much money in politics? Could it be that the government is owned by the corporations now?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
