Working on small, fixable problems

Looks like we are in for a cold winter (0.00 / 0)

http://www.farmersalmanac.com/...

Carbon caps would be a hard sell...without a reasonable, rational, reliable, and sustainable cost effective alternatives that perform in bad weather and in the black of night. Geo-thermal and nuclear are the only choices that come to mind meeting some of these criteria.  

Dr. Syun Akasofuh, International Arctic Research Center At The University of Alaska Fairbanks, has thoughts that touch some of this:    http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpr...

---

by: Craig Moore @ Wed Sep 02, 2009 at 22:33:58 PM UTC

Well, we know that the Manhatten project and the Apollo missions didn't work because they were too ambitious,.. (0.00 / 0)

and Medicare, the Marshall plan, Social Security, as well as the GI bill tried to do it all at once and failed because they were too big... [/sarcasm]

If we had decided that stringing together a bunch of small corporate friendly initiatives into these very large and successful initiatives was the way to go, I think that it would be obvious now that a lack of vision crippled needed action.

While it is true that the journey of 10 thousand miles begins with the first step, unless the first step is also seen in the context of a 10 thousand mile journey, one won't get too far.

Corporatism is what screwed health care reform. The lack of vision to include the big ideas into the mix, such as single payer, doomed the efforts to corporate friendly only ideas and severely limited the pool of creativity.

This will also be the fate of energy and labor bills. All human friendly ideas are off the table now.

---

by: Steve W. @ Thu Sep 03, 2009 at 12:42:40 PM UTC

Actually, you underscore my argument... (0.00 / 0)

Both the Apollo mission and the Manhattan Project were addressing "small, fixable" problems!

Apollo = let's go to the moon!
Manhattan = let's build the A-bomb!

Both were small components of the Cold War concentrating on discernible goals that were achievable with the science at hand.

Ditto with the rest of your examples.

---

by: Jay Stevens @ Thu Sep 03, 2009 at 14:22:13 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Spin won't win, Jay. The A bomb wasn't built during the cold war, and Appollo (0.00 / 0)

wasn't a small component of the cold war.

But keep pushing the "Dem's think small and act smaller" meme. I think it's destined to stick.  

---

by: Steve W. @ Thu Sep 03, 2009 at 14:55:34 PM UTC

??? (0.00 / 0)

Er, a-bomb was built and set off with Stalin in mind. Apollo mission had everything to do with the Cold War. (They, er, called it a "race," remember?)

I blame your school system...

---

by: Jay Stevens @ Thu Sep 03, 2009 at 15:17:30 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Dems can blame public schools. that's next, obviously on your list of "liberal" ideas. (0.00 / 0)

http://nuclearweaponarchive.or...

I guess the people in the Manhatten Project were able to predict the outcome of WWII and the political chessboard back in 1942. At least according to your thesis.

I mean before the battle of Stalingrad and all, they were already planning to fight the Soviets for 50 years of cold war  and needing and A bomb for MAD. Yes, very visionary [/sarcasm off.]

Sorry Jay, you can say it, but please, who else says that the Manhattan Project was started during "the cold war."

Please provide some links to back up your rather odd ideas. Thanks.

---

by: Steve W. @ Thu Sep 03, 2009 at 15:56:07 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

*sighs* (0.00 / 0)

Why is it that the folks with the unorthodox views always demand links, but never offer up their own?

Fine.

The decision to not inform Stalin of the Manhattan project is generally seen as the genesis of the Cold War. See here, the first link that pops up when you type "manhattan project cold war" into Google.

Second, the decision to drop the bomb is generally thought to have been highly influenced by the Soviet entry into the war against Japan. Link here, from the same site.

Or you could read, "Stalin and the Bomb," by David Holloway.

Now show me the links that prove the Manhattan project had nothing to do with the Soviet Union and the beginning of the Cold War, please.

---

by: Jay Stevens @ Thu Sep 03, 2009 at 16:35:54 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

still... (0.00 / 0)

...it's quite annoying you find all this an exercise to nit-pick, insult, and degrade.

Hey, if you think we should pursue grand projects with no specific milestones and vague means using sweeping threats of planetary annihilation as motive, that's cool. Make a reasoned argument. Show me how it's worked in the past. I'd love to see a working strategy for that kind of change.

---

by: Jay Stevens @ Thu Sep 03, 2009 at 16:39:17 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Oops! You did post a link! (0.00 / 0)

...tho' it did say the rise of Stalinism in the late 30s was a contributing factor to starting the project. So you may still want to find another link...

---

by: Jay Stevens @ Thu Sep 03, 2009 at 16:44:10 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Beyond the emotional rhetoric (0.00 / 0)

it is crucial to assess Time, Resources, and the Quantity and Quality of people working together to effect change. It's even more crucial to arrange sequence of effort and prioritization of steps. Finally, it is absolutely crucial to separate symbolism from progress.  Too much symbolism, not enough demonstrable tangible results... and poof!

With our national debt and deficits reaching astronomical heights, people are demanding tangible results in lieu of accepting expensive symbolism rapped in political speak.

---

by: Craig Moore @ Thu Sep 03, 2009 at 15:19:47 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Astronomical highs? (0.00 / 0)

Hardly. Debt as a percent of GDP is not, and will not set any astronomical records. That's just a bunch of hyperbole, Craig.

And as to deficits, well, you've got to pay for those Bush's tax cuts and wars sooner or later. Looks like it is sooner. But really, deficits are needed to close the output gap. Without them, we'd still be tumbling into depression, and job loss would still be 600,000+/month.

There's nothing astronomical about either our debt or our deficits, when compared to GDP, instead of just looking at big numbers with lots of zeros that appear really scary, out of context.

Here's another number: $70 billion. Seems real big. But when you compare it to $2500 billion, it doesn't. What are these numbers? The first is the amount of money per year the final health insurance reform bill most likely will cost (cuz that's how the senate does things--how much should they spend, then figure out what you're going to get for it--just like the stim). The second is total health care spending per year in the U. S.

2.8% That's how much the insurance reform bill's percent of total health care spending per year will be at first. Pretty insignificant. A baby step in health care reform.

To bring this back around to Jay's point, I'd ask, is spending 2.8% of total health care spending to achieve the small fixable problems of health insurance worthwhile? I'd argue that minor insurance reform that we're going to get isn't worth the political capital expended. Nor will it be worth Obama's alienation of the progressive and left base that powered his campaign and victory.

But the middle class and independents, republicans and teabaggers will all enjoy a little bit better insurance product that will save them a little bit of money (maybe). Goody for them. For the rest of the uninsured? Not so good. That dropping of total spending on insurance reform from $1,000b to $700b represents the shift from a near-universal reform to one that will only cover maybe 20% of the uninsured.

Of course, Baucus will taut an individual mandate to create the illusion of universality (after all if you dictate that all must be indiviually covered--except hardship cases, then you've achieved universality... right?), but that will be tossed out the window, as there is no way that subsidies are going to be able to cover the spread on affordability, or the mandate will force people onto cheap, worthless policies that do nothing to address real health care needs.

True universality and affordability is going to be lost with the push to drive the bill's total cost down to $700b. Better would be a bill, for the same cost, to expand Medicaid and Medicare to cover all the uninsured. Now that would be a progressive approach. Let's get the uninsured covered first, then move on to fix other problems.

Insurance reform without true universality and a way to pay for it? I'd say it's a failure, and not worth the baby step.

Tackling insurance reform before providing true universal coverage? The wrong approach. Bass-ackwards. If our national priorities have descended to saving the middle class a little money as being of more importance than providing coverage for those without, then nothing has "changed." It's all an illusion--a shell game.  

---

by: JC @ Thu Sep 03, 2009 at 16:46:02 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

That's a dodge JC (0.00 / 0)

The numbers are astronomical, and people are demanding accountable results.

People tend to look at this through the lens of their own lives.  There is NO plan to arrest the deficit and debt growth, the only plans are about spending more than what we have.  AND it gets worse when discretionary spending becomes mandatory and the overall growth continues unabated.  See:  http://politicalmath.wordpress...

So, the only way to keep you vs. GDP comparison in the game is if GDP accelerates faster than the spending and debt growth and close our eyes to a day of reckoning. Which of Obama's initiatives have demonstrable, tangible outcomes that address this concern?

---

by: Craig Moore @ Thu Sep 03, 2009 at 17:23:40 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

And that is always what (0.00 / 0)

the gov has relied on: GDP accelerating faster than spending and debt growth. And that is what is happening here.

It's not a dodge to say that the important markers here are amounts relative to GDP, because the size of the economy has been on an incessant march for a long time. Conservatives are just looking at the size of the number and taking it out of context when they don't compare it to GDP.

I happen to think that Krugman's explanations are much more plausible about deficit and debt than the alarmists.

Initiatives? Health care reform for one. Health care reform done right would result in less spending, and budgetary savings over the long run. A single payer plan saves everybody money, lowers the deficit, and reduces debt, not to mention all of the other positives for consumers.

---

by: JC @ Thu Sep 03, 2009 at 19:17:44 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

JC, you have missed my point (0.00 / 0)

It's not about what the govt relies upon to "market" it's "spend our way to prosperity" nonsense.  After the mortgage collapse, people no longer TRUST the govt. PEOPLE are demanding tangible, demonstrable results in lieu of accepting expensive symbolism rapped in political speak.  Happy talk and "trust me" spiel are not selling at this time. Krugman closes his eyes to the growing pie slice of Mandatory Spending.  

We are at a crossroads where the way forward is not marked by a campaign dependent upon chants, slogans, smiles, homage to a personality cult, and intuitively unsustainable debt and deficit growth comparisons.  

---

by: Craig Moore @ Thu Sep 03, 2009 at 21:11:46 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

The pie slice of mandatory spending (0.00 / 0)

is only growing because things like Bush's tax cuts and his war were unfunded deficit spending.

So because the republicans and conservatives didn't see fit to impose fiscal order during their reign, that when the dems finally get a chance, it is time to start making demands?

And as to a "campaign dependent upon chants, slogans, smiles, homage to a personality cult" you are referring to the followers of Rush, Hannity and Palin (oops, there's that Sarah reference again),... right?

And as to "intuitively unsustainable debt and deficit growth comparisons" I think that comparisons of debt and deficit as percent of GDP is a whole lot more intellectually honest than inflammatory remarks like "astronomical."

Bush's tax cuts cost 1.35 trillion dollars of debt. His war in Iraq has cost around a trillion. Add it up, and you have 2.35 trillion of the current appx. 11.7 trillion total debt, or 20%

I'm not missing your point, I'm just not buying it. Once again republicans and conservatives run up huge unfunded tax cuts, debt, deficit spending, and corporate give aways, and then they ask the dems to clean it up.

First Clinton, then Obama. If there's one thing I've learned about republican administrations and conservatives is that they speak out of both sides of their mouths. They only care about debt and deficits when dems are in office. I'm not hearing anything different from you.

---

by: JC @ Thu Sep 03, 2009 at 21:52:26 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

JC, that is warped reasoning (0.00 / 0)

My comment regarding how people view the situation is not party dependent on how we got here or party dependent on salvation.  As I said, people view it from the lens of their own lives.  We are where we are... up to our a-holes in alligators in the middle of a swamp.  Expensive political symbolism and blame game fingering pointing will not suffice as acceptable demonstrations of tangible action and leadership. The "Yeah but, but...Bush, Palin et al." responses are flacid at best.

---

by: Craig Moore @ Thu Sep 03, 2009 at 22:15:56 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Did this post have anything to do with health care reform? (0.00 / 0)

"To bring this back around to Jay's point..."

To be fair, I'm sure folks could read into this post and see it that way, I guess. And it certainly explains why Congress critturs would support a stripped-down bill over something ambitious...

But for me, I think, say, the public option is a prime example of a solution to a "fixable problem," and certainly something of a rallying point for most progressives...

The point here isn't to plan on compromise ahead of time; it's figuring out a way to work with human psychology to make real change...

---

by: Jay Stevens @ Thu Sep 03, 2009 at 17:44:43 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Jay, I think you should take some Spiral Dynamics courses. (0.00 / 0)

US History may not be your forte, maybe some cosmic debris would better suit your blues, greens and oranges.

Failing that, I would suggest http://www.naomiklein.org/shoc...

reading Naomi Klien's "The Shock Doctrine."

Perhaps it would put both the energy and the health care issues and "solutions" into some perspective for you within the context of the question of how change comes about.

---

by: Steve W. @ Thu Sep 03, 2009 at 18:04:04 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I guess I assumed that a post about incrementalism (0.00 / 0)

implied that it was about health insurance reform. I know you didn't say it directly, but when I think about incrementalism, and how Obama and Congress are trying to solve some big problems, my mind goes to the issue before us.

You want to work with human psychology? You gotta start manipulating people like republicans do and have. The ends justify the means, and all that rot. Democrats are just too concerned about being nice and accommodating and sensible. That doesn't work in politics at the moment.

Obama needs to step up and be cutthroat--fight for the things he campaigned on. Because if his progressive wing seems him roll over, well then there's no hope in '10 and '12. We'll have a wonderful prez and republican congress in '13, ya betcha.

---

by: JC @ Thu Sep 03, 2009 at 19:24:06 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

The Republicans aren't achieving anything... (0.00 / 0)

...

---

by: Jay Stevens @ Thu Sep 03, 2009 at 22:58:16 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Bush achieved (0.00 / 0)

2 wars and massive tax cuts. A bailout bill that was a giveaway to the likes of AIG. yada yada. I guess republicans gauge achievement on different standards than we do.

---

by: JC @ Thu Sep 03, 2009 at 23:01:09 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Really????? (0.00 / 0)

JC:  "Democrats are just too concerned about being nice and accommodating and sensible."

http://www.venturacountystar.c...

============
After the argument, Rice returned to where his own group was standing. A man from Moveon.org's area then walked over to the opponents and verbally confronted Rice, allegedly calling him names and acting aggressively, Bonfiglio said.

Rice later told investigators he felt threatened by the man and punched him in the nose, Bonfiglio said. The punch set off a fist fight between the two men, during which the tip of Rice's left pinky finger was bitten off, Bonfiglio said.

Rice drove himself to Los Robles Hospital and Medical Center in Thousand Oaks. Another man found the bitten-off portion of the finger and brought it to Rice at the hospital, Bonfiglio said.

Doctors were not able to re-attach Rice's finger.
========================

Mr. Rice is 65 years old.  

---

by: Craig Moore @ Thu Sep 03, 2009 at 23:13:11 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

democrat politicians (0.00 / 0)

And you'll find violent people all over the place. Using an exception to disprove the rule is not worthy of debate Craig.  

---

by: JC @ Thu Sep 03, 2009 at 23:33:35 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

But the article doesn't say it's a priciple factor. In fact (0.00 / 0)

it doesn't even characterize it as a contributing factor. Only you do. Which I find interesting since the cold war didn't start until 1945, according to your link.

You think we undertook the Manhattan project because of Stalins purges?

That's not what the fact show Jay. If that's your reading of the facts, then it's your education that should be called into question. From your link.
http://www.cfo.doe.gov/me70/ma...

from my link

The deterioration was more general than that though. Political and social repression, instability, and military violence were rising throughout Europe - Italy, Spain, Central Europe; and Stalinism was reaching a fevered pitch in the Great Purges (1936-38).

The rush of ominous events is too thick to enumerate in a brief overview but some principal ones are:
# September 1935: Nuremburg Laws begin severe persecution of Jews
# March 1936: Occupation of the German Rhineland
# July 1937: Japan invades China
# November 1937: The Axis Alliance is created by a pact between Germany, Japan, and Italy
# March 1938: the Anschluss (occupation of Austria by Germany)
# September 1938: German occupation of the Sudetenland in Czechoslavakia

The Manhattan Project Began before the cold war, clearly. From your link and from my link we see this fact.

The Manhatten Proct was started while we were at war with the Axis.

it was war with the Axis, according to YOUR link, that served as the principle driver and the lynch pin for the Manhattan Project.

Americans had been in touch with the MAUD Committee since fall 1940, but it was the July 1941 MAUD report that helped the American bomb effort turn the corner.  (Internal British discussions of the MAUD Report also probably first alerted Soviet intelligence to the atomic bomb program.)  The MAUD Report was influential because it contained plans for producing a bomb drawn up by a distinguished group of scientists with high credibility in the United States, not only with Bush and  James Conant but with President Roosevelt.  The MAUD report dismissed plutonium production, thermal diffusion, the electromagnetic method, and the centrifuge and called for gaseous diffusion of uranium-235 on a massive scale.  The British believed that uranium research could lead to the production of a bomb in time to effect the outcome of the war.  While the MAUD report provided encouragement to Americans advocating a more extensive uranium research program, it also served as a sobering reminder that fission had been discovered in Nazi Germany almost three years earlier and that since spring 1940 a large part of the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute in Berlin had been set aside for uranium research.  

Vannevar Bush and James Conant, Berkeley, March 29, 1940.Bush and Conant (right) immediately went to work.  After strengthening the S-1 (Uranium) Committee, particularly with the addition of Enrico Fermi as head of theoretical studies and Harold C. Urey as head of isotope separation and heavy water research (heavy water was highly regarded as a moderator for piles (reactors)), Bush asked yet another reconstituted National Academy of Sciences committee to evaluate the uranium program.  This time he gave Arthur Compton specific instructions to address technical questions of critical mass and destructive capability, partially to verify the MAUD results.

With the MAUD Report and its influence on developments in the United States, the prospects for a wartime atomic bomb had brightened considerably.  

(From your link)

See, none of the cold war stuff happens until after the Manhattan project is successful.

I think you should go back, read what you said and read what I said, then I think you should admit your error, apologize for insulting my education, and I think you shouldn't ask people for their thoughts in the future, because when their thoughts aren't the same as your thoughts, you can't handle it.

Just my observation.

---

by: Steve W. @ Thu Sep 03, 2009 at 17:51:09 PM UTC