Hindsight - Useful Tip for Driving in Reverse
Exactly how many of you would agree that retrospection is an occasionally useful tool isn't important to this little essay. The significant point is that we all use our history to help us deal with the right now and plan for the future. Agreement isn't necessary when the facts are well known and widely published. Today, this establishment of the facts issue is the problem that the Pickens Plan must address.
Since it's inception, PP has attracted a large following and generated a near subculture of varied interest mostly, but not all of which can be related to the original purpose of T. Boone's chartered declarations. In that first series of communications, Boone laid out the observation; that imported oil weakened America and strengthed her enemies. He presented a partial solution; 1) that conversion of the commercial distribution fleet to natural gas would reduce a significant portion of our reliance on foreign petroleum imports and pave the way for the private automotive fleet's conversion; 2) and that wind power technology improvements could contribute significantly to the nation's energy independence while initializing the widespread commercialization of the Greentech Industry.
What has happened since PP got started is a matter of history. Some of it extrodinary and some mundane. Many events have occured in the period of time between the election of Obama and landfall of Hurricane Ike. Going back and looking at the PP's significance with regard to those events would be useful, but I figure that I need to focus on one or two significant issues to retain your interest. I do not propose to argue that these are the most important of the events that have occured in the past few quarters, but that the significance of them on this plan's objectives need to be recognized and debated.
First the Democratic Party nomination of Obama and his subsequent election as the United States President are one and in the same event under the continuance of national politics. The significance of those events is actually the in the hands of a lady named Hillory Clinton. Yes, the before worthy contender, after loyal employee with foreign policy executive responsibilities and duties. I beleive this is a significantly relevant fact to the PP effort because Mrs. Clinton represents a political strategy that was most evident in the nomination process. Her constituency of middle of the road liberals, old line civil rights and feminist interests have been, for all intent and purposes, exiled from the domestic Federal agenda. Given Mrs. Clinton's tenure and prior experiences during her husband's administration this deft move by the Obamians is either a stroke of genius or a signal to the rest of the planet that these constiuencies (which they all have under varying degrees of control) will be in the forefront of America's sriteria for amicable foreign relations. In the latter, this could be a sign of trouble on the horizen for allies and associates.
With respect to the formation of a national energy policy that is the core premise of the Pickens Plan, the nomination and ratification of the reknown physist, Dr. Steven Chu as the Energy Secretary is as significant if not more important fact to consider to our cause. Professor Chu's ability to communicate the significance of an energy policy is world class. His credientials are impecable and his work speaks for itself(1997 Nobel prize). This is the person in the Obama Administration we need to chanpion our cause to. Is he friendly to the PP? I don't know, but I do think that our efforts to coordinate and collaborate with Dr. Chu will be more effective in conjunction with our grassroots efforts to recruit Congresspersons and Govenors. We need a direction to point those local and regional elected officials and the Energy Secretary's office is more practical that any other.
The significance of Clinton & Chu as a combined concept for PP consideration comes from the fungible nature of the subject of energy. As long as we are dependent on foreign imports, we must consider who is controling our foreign policy as key to our present circumstances. That is Mrs. Clinton's baliwick. You can't build a house in a storm so we must pick our battles and determine where we can be successful. Dr. Chu's pedigree and global reputation can lend credence to a domestic program designed to create new markets for products and services that few other nations will be able to afford to export over the next five to ten years. This concurrent proposed strategy is the sum total of an analysis of history to make present determinations and choose future directons based on doing the most we can with the little that we have.
Somehow, the PP has to bring positive publicity to bear on the nation's "new" foreign policy where the commercialization of Greentech is proposed as the vehicle for the emancipation of constiuients that Clinton's minions can righteously claim empathy for. I hope this obviously cynical observation doesn't cloud or prejudice PP's because politics is just plain ugly as a mule. The point is that mule can and must be made to plow. Dr Chu's position is a domestic authority and the department that he heads has a primary task more related to nuclear energy than any other form of renewables. I am suggeting that the new Secretary be put on the spot. The PP'rs need to encourage or goad Dr. Chu to widen his department's scope. The DOE should be pushed to regulate coverage of the new green technologies so as to bring much need federal budgeting to bear on the initialization of the industry. This strategy should be developed to allow the academic resouces currently working for the DOE in direct and indirect (private) capacities to be expanded to address solar, wind, tide and geothermal research through commercialization.
As it stands, the Department of Energy sponsors more basic and applied scientific research than any other US federal agency; most of this is funded through its system of United States Department of Energy National Laboratories which, in turn mostly researches nuclear energy related matters. We need to widen the scope of energy research and include a systematic commecialization component in the Department of Energy to devine domestically appropriate objectives and exportable products and services that can be harnessed so as to augument our foreign policies.
We live in a time of a global crisis of confidence wherein we (Americans) must deal with certain political realities of our international relationships. If we do not want the responsibilities of taking in millions of immigrants,we must work to make immigration to America less meaningful in an economic sense. That isn't a matter of adopting draconian security policies (the Bush Admin approach) but more akin to get back on our game of offering high quality products and superior services, only this time the exports are intended for point of consumption deployment. America can't consume its way out of global depression, we need help on a global scale. We can't afford to dismiss Africa, South Asia and South\Central America any longer. We need to adopt a nation building strategy where when we export the technolgy for factories, we are as free to go to the foreign site (point of the sale) and take a job there as those who have come to our shores have been. This would be real security in a modern world.
Of course this brings up the point, do they want what we have to sell? My answer to the question is a question. They want the oil don't they? I answer in this fashion because if we were to find a way to cancel out the exports, we currently consume, we would only be signing a death warrant for the planet. Continued and accellerate fossil fuel consumption, (no matter where it occurs) isn't the answer to the economic or political ills we face as a nation or a species. What humans all over the planet need is decent housing, clean water, fresh air, and nourishing food. We can do that. This is America, we do that everyday, but we can do it better than we make bombs and bullets which we do very very very well.
In previous blog postings, I have espoused the idea that we need to take the imported oil we consume and strategically do something different with it that could be sold to developing nations to improve the lives of the world least affluent persons. Here's our opportunity. PP starts the ball to rolling, but we can't think in old fashion corporately colonial terms. Our national agencies like the DOE have oddles of validated ideas that need to be commercialized, but can't find funding in the USA due to legacy installations. For example, we can't get unwired becuase we have the most extensive wired network on the planet and the companies that own it can't get adequately compensated by the government for abandoning it. We can bail out the banks with billions by the hundreds, but we can't buy (nationalize) the telephone and\or electric transmission grids. Why not? "Heresy," they say! Soscialistic ignorance of the fact that to take a thing for a price and improve it for sale is pure capitalism at its best.
I'll agree that no single company can take on the expense or the risks of improving the nation's infrastructure, but none of them want to participate in restructuring the system so that it works. Perhaps, the government is broken and broke (bankrupt). Then just tell me, who is running the store? If we can agree to that point we can get on with the work that needs to be done, immediately.
Now that I have pontificated sufficiently to float a derrigble, I will climb down off my soapbox to conclude this little suggestion. Thank you for reading a few ideas about learning from our collective experiences. Please, feel free to comment as I love to stir things up but I depend on the kindness of friends and stranges to get cranked.
M. L. "Mickey" Hayes
Pickens Plan Evangelist
Since it's inception, PP has attracted a large following and generated a near subculture of varied interest mostly, but not all of which can be related to the original purpose of T. Boone's chartered declarations. In that first series of communications, Boone laid out the observation; that imported oil weakened America and strengthed her enemies. He presented a partial solution; 1) that conversion of the commercial distribution fleet to natural gas would reduce a significant portion of our reliance on foreign petroleum imports and pave the way for the private automotive fleet's conversion; 2) and that wind power technology improvements could contribute significantly to the nation's energy independence while initializing the widespread commercialization of the Greentech Industry.
What has happened since PP got started is a matter of history. Some of it extrodinary and some mundane. Many events have occured in the period of time between the election of Obama and landfall of Hurricane Ike. Going back and looking at the PP's significance with regard to those events would be useful, but I figure that I need to focus on one or two significant issues to retain your interest. I do not propose to argue that these are the most important of the events that have occured in the past few quarters, but that the significance of them on this plan's objectives need to be recognized and debated.
First the Democratic Party nomination of Obama and his subsequent election as the United States President are one and in the same event under the continuance of national politics. The significance of those events is actually the in the hands of a lady named Hillory Clinton. Yes, the before worthy contender, after loyal employee with foreign policy executive responsibilities and duties. I beleive this is a significantly relevant fact to the PP effort because Mrs. Clinton represents a political strategy that was most evident in the nomination process. Her constituency of middle of the road liberals, old line civil rights and feminist interests have been, for all intent and purposes, exiled from the domestic Federal agenda. Given Mrs. Clinton's tenure and prior experiences during her husband's administration this deft move by the Obamians is either a stroke of genius or a signal to the rest of the planet that these constiuencies (which they all have under varying degrees of control) will be in the forefront of America's sriteria for amicable foreign relations. In the latter, this could be a sign of trouble on the horizen for allies and associates.
With respect to the formation of a national energy policy that is the core premise of the Pickens Plan, the nomination and ratification of the reknown physist, Dr. Steven Chu as the Energy Secretary is as significant if not more important fact to consider to our cause. Professor Chu's ability to communicate the significance of an energy policy is world class. His credientials are impecable and his work speaks for itself(1997 Nobel prize). This is the person in the Obama Administration we need to chanpion our cause to. Is he friendly to the PP? I don't know, but I do think that our efforts to coordinate and collaborate with Dr. Chu will be more effective in conjunction with our grassroots efforts to recruit Congresspersons and Govenors. We need a direction to point those local and regional elected officials and the Energy Secretary's office is more practical that any other.
The significance of Clinton & Chu as a combined concept for PP consideration comes from the fungible nature of the subject of energy. As long as we are dependent on foreign imports, we must consider who is controling our foreign policy as key to our present circumstances. That is Mrs. Clinton's baliwick. You can't build a house in a storm so we must pick our battles and determine where we can be successful. Dr. Chu's pedigree and global reputation can lend credence to a domestic program designed to create new markets for products and services that few other nations will be able to afford to export over the next five to ten years. This concurrent proposed strategy is the sum total of an analysis of history to make present determinations and choose future directons based on doing the most we can with the little that we have.
Somehow, the PP has to bring positive publicity to bear on the nation's "new" foreign policy where the commercialization of Greentech is proposed as the vehicle for the emancipation of constiuients that Clinton's minions can righteously claim empathy for. I hope this obviously cynical observation doesn't cloud or prejudice PP's because politics is just plain ugly as a mule. The point is that mule can and must be made to plow. Dr Chu's position is a domestic authority and the department that he heads has a primary task more related to nuclear energy than any other form of renewables. I am suggeting that the new Secretary be put on the spot. The PP'rs need to encourage or goad Dr. Chu to widen his department's scope. The DOE should be pushed to regulate coverage of the new green technologies so as to bring much need federal budgeting to bear on the initialization of the industry. This strategy should be developed to allow the academic resouces currently working for the DOE in direct and indirect (private) capacities to be expanded to address solar, wind, tide and geothermal research through commercialization.
As it stands, the Department of Energy sponsors more basic and applied scientific research than any other US federal agency; most of this is funded through its system of United States Department of Energy National Laboratories which, in turn mostly researches nuclear energy related matters. We need to widen the scope of energy research and include a systematic commecialization component in the Department of Energy to devine domestically appropriate objectives and exportable products and services that can be harnessed so as to augument our foreign policies.
We live in a time of a global crisis of confidence wherein we (Americans) must deal with certain political realities of our international relationships. If we do not want the responsibilities of taking in millions of immigrants,we must work to make immigration to America less meaningful in an economic sense. That isn't a matter of adopting draconian security policies (the Bush Admin approach) but more akin to get back on our game of offering high quality products and superior services, only this time the exports are intended for point of consumption deployment. America can't consume its way out of global depression, we need help on a global scale. We can't afford to dismiss Africa, South Asia and South\Central America any longer. We need to adopt a nation building strategy where when we export the technolgy for factories, we are as free to go to the foreign site (point of the sale) and take a job there as those who have come to our shores have been. This would be real security in a modern world.
Of course this brings up the point, do they want what we have to sell? My answer to the question is a question. They want the oil don't they? I answer in this fashion because if we were to find a way to cancel out the exports, we currently consume, we would only be signing a death warrant for the planet. Continued and accellerate fossil fuel consumption, (no matter where it occurs) isn't the answer to the economic or political ills we face as a nation or a species. What humans all over the planet need is decent housing, clean water, fresh air, and nourishing food. We can do that. This is America, we do that everyday, but we can do it better than we make bombs and bullets which we do very very very well.
In previous blog postings, I have espoused the idea that we need to take the imported oil we consume and strategically do something different with it that could be sold to developing nations to improve the lives of the world least affluent persons. Here's our opportunity. PP starts the ball to rolling, but we can't think in old fashion corporately colonial terms. Our national agencies like the DOE have oddles of validated ideas that need to be commercialized, but can't find funding in the USA due to legacy installations. For example, we can't get unwired becuase we have the most extensive wired network on the planet and the companies that own it can't get adequately compensated by the government for abandoning it. We can bail out the banks with billions by the hundreds, but we can't buy (nationalize) the telephone and\or electric transmission grids. Why not? "Heresy," they say! Soscialistic ignorance of the fact that to take a thing for a price and improve it for sale is pure capitalism at its best.
I'll agree that no single company can take on the expense or the risks of improving the nation's infrastructure, but none of them want to participate in restructuring the system so that it works. Perhaps, the government is broken and broke (bankrupt). Then just tell me, who is running the store? If we can agree to that point we can get on with the work that needs to be done, immediately.
Now that I have pontificated sufficiently to float a derrigble, I will climb down off my soapbox to conclude this little suggestion. Thank you for reading a few ideas about learning from our collective experiences. Please, feel free to comment as I love to stir things up but I depend on the kindness of friends and stranges to get cranked.
M. L. "Mickey" Hayes
Pickens Plan Evangelist
Add a Comment
Featured Action
Twitter Feed
© 2009 Created by PickensPlan
Badges | Community Guidelines | Report an Issue | Privacy | Terms of Service
You need to be a member of PickensPlan to add comments!
Join this Ning Network