Friday, September 30, 2011

CATAPULTS AND DRONES

It's disconcerting, to say the least, to hear media talking heads discussing the finer points of whether "assassination" by remote control drones is morally ok. For one thing, it hardly qualifies as anything other than taking out the enemy by whatever means work best. Al Qaeda declared war. It's an "unconventional" war, but who follow the rules for a conventional war? As long as they haven't surrendered, you have to annhiliate them. So far as I know, no one is talking surrender, bellying up to a table and signing papers.
If changing technology (remote control drones) do the job, and you save your own, then it's just smarter warfare. Catapults were superceded by cannons one day a long time ago. I wonder if anyone dwelt on moral aspects of that transition.
I'm not a war person, but humanity will continue to try to solve problems ( and make massive mischief for personal gain) by this means until The Great Awakening. That might be when all the independent parties around the world that do good decide to band together in a force powerful enough to overcome the Titans. Maybe that's in our future.

Saturday, September 24, 2011

AMERICA FOR SALE

The September article, “How We Got Here and Where We Are Headed” broad-brushed the politico-economic history of the nation since the 1930’s and identified options for rescuing the nation from an inevitable downward trend if we stick with a consumption based economy.
An article in the September issue of LeMonde diplomatique (www.Lemonddiplomatique.com),authored by Robert W.McChesney and John Nichols, provides devastating insight into the unprecedented tilt toward ownership of the government that has resulted from unlimited funding of candidates, as well as complicity of corporate media. The title and first four paragraphs of the article follow:

US democracy sold out - No media checks on election ad campaigns
Le Monde diplomatique (France) - Thursday, September 1, 2011
Author: Robert W McChesney and John Nichols
Karl Rove used media appearances at the close of the 2010 midterm campaign to dismiss President Obama’s complaints that Republican consultants, led by the former White House political czar, were distorting Senate and House races with hundreds of millions of dollars from multinational corporations and billionaire conservatives. “Obama looks weirdly disconnected - and slightly obsessive - when he talks so much about the Chamber of Commerce, Ed Gillespie and me,” Rove mused. “The president has already wasted one-quarter of the campaign’s final four weeks on this sideshow.”

The “sideshow” was the most important story of the most expensive midterm election in American history: the radical transformation of politics by a money-and-media election complex that now defines more than any candidate or party - and is as much of a threat to democracy as the military-industrial complex. This is not the next chapter in the old money and politics debate. This is the redefinition of politics by new and equally important factors - the freeing of corporations to spend any amount on electioneering and the collapse of substantive print and broadcast reporting on campaigns. In combination they have created a “new normal”, in which consultants dealing in dollars unprecedented in American history use “independent” expenditures to tip the balance of elections in favour of their clients. Unchecked by even rudimentary campaign finance regulation, unchallenged by a journalism sufficient to identify and expose abuses of the electoral process, and abetted by commercial broadcasters who this year pocketed $3bn in political ad revenues, the complex was a nearly unbeatable force in 2010.

Of 53 competitive House districts where Rove and his compatriots backed Republicans with “independent” expenditures that exceeded those made on behalf of Democrats - often by more than $1m per district, according to Public Citizen - the Republicans won 51. Roughly three-quarters of all GOP House gains came in districts where independent expenditures by groups like the Chamber of Commerce and Rove’s American Crossroads gave Republican candidates, some of them virtual unknowns, the advantage. The money is powerful but that power is supercharged because of the decay, and disappearance, of independent journalism at the state and regional levels, where elections are decided.

Campaign narratives used to be created by reporters who pulled together the multiple threads of an election season to give voters perspective. Now that narrative is driven by millions of commercials, most negative. The narrative comes from broadcast and cable TV stations, as it has for some time, but it is now produced and paid for by economic elites that seek to define not just the results of an election but the scope and character of government. To neglect the complex or to imagine that progressive forces can compete within it will make the 2012 election look like 2010 on steroids. Determined and dramatic responses are the only options if we hope to maintain anything more than the remnants of a functioning democracy.

(I can forward entire article to anyone interested - hujsaked@aol.com )

Thursday, September 22, 2011

FAMOUS QUOTES

What do Grover Norquist and Karl Marx have in common?

Karl Marx - 1875
"Freedom consists of converting the state from an organ superimposed upon society into one completely subordinate to it."

Grover Norquist- 2000's
"I don't want to abolish the government. I simply want to reduce it in size to where I can drag it into the bathroom and drown it in the bathtub."

Monday, September 19, 2011

CONVERSATION (Flash Fiction)

We sat side by side on canvas covered recliners on the front porch. It was late afternoon. The sun had already dropped behind the pines, beyond the ancient apple orchard, no longer bearing fruit. Another hour before the first high pitched call of the Whip-poor-will.
Shaster sat to my left, looking desirable in her blue shorts and size thirty-eight white satin halter, one shoe off, the other hanging on a toe. Her attention was locked into Laura Bedside’s latest blockbuster novel, “A Fly in Her Ointment.” I was left to my own peripatetic thoughts.
Ointment........ Oinkment. I wonder if that’s what they call pig balm?
I was in a mood for conversation.
“Did you know that pigs won’t eat orange peels?
“hmmmmm?
“No really, it’s true. You can feed them a ton of garbage and they always toss the orange peels aside.
“Well, I’ll just put that away in my vast store of important facts.”
Shaster kept on reading. I wanted conversation. I poured a glass of ice water and handed it to her.
“Did you know that every glass of water you drink contains 8000 molecules of everyone who ever died?
“Yecch!" Shaster sipped and put the glass down.
“It’s true. Well, you have to assume uniform distribution, which probably doesn’t happen. We’re mostly water, you know. Maybe only four thousand molecules.”
“Until this minute I was thirsty.”
Shaster looked like she could have drunk the whole glass of icewater. She didn’t look up from her book. Her hair was up.....cooler that way. There were tiny beads of perspiration on her forehead.
This wasn’t going well. I can usually get her attention.
“There’s something else. It’s important.”
“In this weather, nothing is important.” It was the hottest day of the summer.
“The world is going to explode.”
“Oh great. Where will we go?”
“Really, it’s going to blow into a gazillion pieces. Never be the same again.”
“Is this for real?” Shaster finally lifted her eyes from Laura Bedside’s pages.
“It’s only a theory at present...... well, to tell you the truth, it’s only my theory.”
“Oh. Then I can relax. You don’t exactly have a popular following with your theories.”
“Here’s how it goes..... You’re aware, of course, that Earth has a molten iron core. The reality is that it isn’t pure iron. There are heavier components, radioactive...... thorium, uranium. The theory goes that over millions of years these heavier molecules will migrate to the very center. One day, when everything is there in sufficient concentration and under the existing temperatures and pressures at the very center, Kablooey! Everything flies apart.
“I can see you have everything figured out.” Should we start packing?”
I stood up and stretched.
The first Whip-poor-will’s shrill cry brought a faint, distant response.
“Would you like a martini?”
Shaster looked up at me. “Thought you’d never ask.”

Edward Hujsak

More flash fiction:

www.Alongstoryshort.net

Saturday, September 17, 2011

MISSION FIRST, THEN HEAVY LIFT

On September 14 Charles Bolden, NASA Administrator, announced NASA plans to build a heavy lift space launch vehicle. The proposed design had been discussed at length with members of Congress. Geo-political pressures led to configuring the rocket largely out of space shuttle parts, which amounts to single-sourcing the project, ignoring the high costs that occurred in that system. Funding for the project is projected at $2B per year until first flight in 2017. Most troubling about this initiative is that it does not have a mission. Current NASA thoughts for this rocket include such ventures as a manned asteroid mission, return to the moon and journey to Mars. For over forty years, the United States has never had more than two or three astronauts on extended orbital stay. Unless something changes, it is clear that will continue for decades into the future. This has to change if the pace of human exploration and exploitation of space opportunities is to grow meaningfully.

The following op-ed appears in the September 19 issue of Space News.

MISSION FIRST, THEN HEAVY LIFT
by Edward Hujsak

Any rational follower of aerospace activities can’t help but be baffled at current discussions between NASA and members of Congress, centered on design and subsequent funding of a heavy lift launch vehicle - an inversion of accepted, normal practice and unlikely to lead anywhere. As a “make work” program, the initiative is borderline irresponsible. There is no defined mission for a heavy lift launch vehicle, as yet, much less an approved, funded mission. Therefore, even if a heavy lift program were to be started, it would be an easy target for cancellation during budget negotiations since there is no mission for it. The idea that “We will build it and they will come,” is risky at best, especially when billions of dollars are involved.
Normal practice is to begin with a proposed mission. Every member of the Congressional Space Committees knows this. The President should have known this when in his April 15, 2010 speech to aerospace workers in Florida, he called for development of an advanced heavy lift rocket. A mission concept can come from anywhere, from the President, from Agency heads or their staffs and even from a low echelon engineer/visionary who metaphorically flutters his butterfly wings with an idea, eventually to become a storm half a world away.
With the identification, description, and approval of a mission, the next step is to provide fund ing for requirements definition, preliminary designs and planning. This is the point at which the
proposed launch system emerges, whether existing or a new design, and where the first credible projections of incremental and total cost are revealed. If the mission requires a heavy lifter, com- petition, not Congressional direction, will determine how the rocket will be built.
In a new, ambitious mission that could call for heavy lift capability, serious consideration should be given to avoid what has historically characterized manned space ventures as “Been there, done that.” The term describes lunar exploration, Skylab, Space Shuttle, and looming ahead, because its replication is unlikely, the ISS. In the latter case there is opportunity to do something that has legs far into the future.
Although the life of the ISS is variously projected ten and twenty years into the future, the truth is that the system has turned vulnerable. The original system was an active symbiosis between Shuttle and spacecraft. Half of that duality has been retired, leaving the station in the awkward situation of dependency on Russian launch vehicles for personnel and supplies transfer. Recent loss of a resupply flight clearly illustrates the fragility of the remaining system.
United States space planners need to move sensibly and soberly to ensure that ISS and manned operations in Earth orbit do not again end up a “been there done that” phenomenon. The end of ISS could mean another 20 or 30 year hiatus before manned operations are resumed.
Coincidentally, the only sensible mission on the horizon that can both justify development of a heavy lifter and set the stage for more ambitious exploration missions than are now possible, is to extend and grow manned presence in near space in a seamless transition to an already tested, more flexible and more economical system than ISS.
NASA pointed the way in the Post-Apollo years when in 1973 the Skylab orbital workshop was launched. Even though damaged in flight, the station was host to three different pairs of astro- nauts for 28 days, 59 days, and 84 days successively. Though there was a strong contingent within NASA to continue with the program, NASA elected instead to undertake development of the Space Shuttle with a companion “Spacelab” shrunken to fit inside the cargo bay. Spacelab was built and in the years between 1983 and 1993 seven dedicated missions (two were German) were flown. Total time in orbit - 59 days. In contrast, Skylab was manned for 171 days. Eventually, Spacelab morphed into the modules on the United States section of the ISS. Current US space presence is not much different from Skylab, which was designed for 3 astronauts. Even now, it is not much of a stretch to “unshrink” Spacelab and resurface the original Skylab concept.
By now it should be evident that it is going to be slow going if the United States is unable to field more than two or three astronauts, one mission at a time. This can be changed.
Skylab pointed the way to the possibility of turnkey space stations that can serve various
requirements, including scientific research, industrial research, manufacturing and processing, military missions, and even safe, robust tourist destinations.
In concept, turnkey stations would consist of a standard bus that provides services, with inter-
face capability to a variety of applications modules. The approach would enable offering launch and orbital services to nations around the world that otherwise would never have any hope of launching one hundred ton payloads for their own research purposes. The system, were it to be put into place, would have the following main benefits:
*Seamless transition from expiring ISS into more modern, flexible systems via turnkey stations. *A huge new business base, populating low Earth orbit with multiple, productive workstations. *Uniform, safe global control over large objects going into space as well as large-mass reentry safety.
*Availability of heavy lift, which will open the gates to a variety of ambitious missions - Lunar Base, Mars exploration, Asteroid landing Deep Space exploration, Space Power prototype, per- haps even the first interstellar probe.
In this ambitious, but readily achievable manned space scenario a new mantra will become obvious for future space undertakings: Because we can.

Wednesday, September 14, 2011

ENGINEERS IN POLITICS

It did not come as good news from my Alma Mater that the University is building a new business school. There is already a sufficient number of business schools, and also there are too many very smart youngsters, armed with software and computers not available just a few years ago, who view the business school as the launching platform into a world of big bucks, where money is churned around the clock, produces nothing of value, places economies at risk, and where the system is always ripe for invention of a new financial instrument that makes a few very wealthy and leaves the rest without shirts.
I would rather see the University, and other Universities as well, institute programs that encourage engineers to enter public service in elected offices at mid-career for a half dozen years. The programs would educate them on how one would prepare to seamlessly accomplish a transition so that entry would be no great burden and provide overviews on how things get done, once in office. Growing populations, dwindling resources and climate change all signal a call for application of systems engineering to help provide solutions that ensure quality of life on this planet. Legislative bodies, particularly the US Congress, need engineers to help set things straight. This means practicing engineers, not whoever happens to hold an engineering degree. There are presently only six degreed engineers in Congress, none of whom has any particular credentials in the field. Representative Joe Barton from Texas, for example, who holds a degree in industrial engineering from Texas A&M, had brief, inconsequential employment before moving into politics. As a skeptic of climate change and infamously apologizing to BP after the Gulf oil spill, he hardly fills the bill. It is sad that scientific testimony before congressional committees has little prospect of being absorbed by the conferees, much less stir subsequent reflection and action on the information proffered.
The growing complexity of a world with a population exceeding 6 billion people cries out for engineering to take part in government; people who understand cause and effect; people who understand short term and long term consequences of legislation; people who understand statistical analyses, recognize which are important and what they point to; and indeed people who keep up with the scientific community and can coach those in government who come endowed with little more than connect-the dots mentality; and lastly, people who realize that consumption based economies must ultimately come to an end, replaced by sustainable behavior as way of life.

Monday, September 12, 2011

THE CASE FOR BALLISTIC ARC TRANSPORTATION

This revised article was originally published in October of 1988 in "Space Flight," a monthly publication of the British Interplanetary Society, It contained predictions and ideas that still hold true. At that time the Department of Defense had undertaken development of the Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle (EELV). Contracts were awarded to Boeing and Lockheed-Martin for development of the Delta IV and Atlas V, with versions of each for launching a range of payload weights. Goals of more reliable systems, simplified operations and a cost savings of 25% were published, To a large extent these goals were achieved, so the user community benefits. Whether there are cost savings is subject to question. There are indications that costs have escalated.
The several startups mentioned - Kistler, Kelley Aerospace, Beal Aerospace Technologies, Pioneer Rocketplane, Rotary Rocket and others have ceased operations, some going into bankruptcy. One company, not in business at the time, Space Exploration Technologies (SpaceX), under the leadership of Elon Musk has successfully produced rocket engines and launched its Falcon 9 model with two flights at this writing. This company offers flights at half or less than the cost of launching Atlas V or Delta IV. Although this is cause for optimism in this expensive business, in the aggregate, the cost of launching U.S. payloads will not be affected materially. There are not that many payloads and there exists a surplus of launch capability internationally. Payloads allocated to the more economical vehicle will increase the cost of Atlas V and Delta IV due to lowered production within the same cost structure. But no sane agency would make the mistake of placing all its launches with a single low cost producer.
So how does one achieve low launch costs across the board? And by that I mean really low. A 50,000 pound shipment by aircraft half-way around the world, passenger or freight, can be had for less than a half million dollars and still make a profit. Contrast that with 50,000 lbs to Earth orbit via space shuttle at nearly a billion dollars. The energy cost difference is trivial.
The solution lies in introducing a new terrestrial transport paradigm, which is transcontinental travel on ballistic arcs. Truth to tell, Earth is designed for ballistic travel. Why endure the rigors of flight for eighteen or more hours with engines running all the way when the same can be achieved in an hour with engines running for only a few minutes?
How to do this can be separated into two approaches that have undergone considerable study. The first method seeks high performance and runway takeoff and landing ability by taking on most of its oxygen during flight through the atmosphere and liquefying it for rocket propulsion after the craft has ascended above the atmosphere. An early study titled Aerospaceplane simply liquefied air, accepting the performance penalty that resulted from high nitrogen content. That study lost direction when Grumman's Alexander Kardovsky introduced an alternative approach employing supersonic ramjets (scramjets) and shortly after, funding, which amounted to about $5 million, was cut off.
The history of the next investigation, the National Aero Space Plane, or NASP provides an interesting window into how an ambitious program can get started, how it progresses, and in many cases how the results end up on the shelf with little or no hardware produced. A secret project called Copper Canyon was initiated in 1982 at the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA). At about the same time the British Government was funding Alan Bond's HOTOL concept, a single - stage-to-orbit (SSTO) air breathing launch vehicle. HOTOL funding was terminated in 1987. Subsequently Bond, in his company Reaction Engines Ltd. undertook new ideas on how to build an air-breathing engine. His Sabre engine is purported to yield higher performance than HOTOL. Bond's company presently promotes the SKYLON space launch vehicle, powered by the Sabre engine as a concept for a vehicle with orbital lift capability. It is designed for lifting freight and passengers to orbit, but could conceivably also fly intercontinental on ballistic arcs without the thermal problems encountered by hypersonic scramjet craft.
The U.S. program ran until 1985 under a contract awarded to Rockwell International. Other companies contributed to the study, which had the objective of reaching orbit with a single stage, applying air-breathing technology. The work was terminated early in 1986 when, in his State of the Union message, President Reagan called for development of "a new Orient Express that could, by the end of the decade, take off from Dulles Airport, accelerate to 25 times the speed of sound, attaining low Earth orbit or fly to Tokyo in two hours." This is the first time that something close to intercontinental ballistic travel was considered. The program was called NASP and was funded by both NASA and the Department of Defense. Though initially headed by Rockwell International, Rockwell and the other companies involved, including McDonnell- Douglas and General Dynamics eventually banded together to jointly tackle the formidable technical problems. General Dynamics and Marquadt worked on schemes for liquefying air and enriching it for rocket propulsion, needed to take the craft into orbit. The work continued until 1993 when the program was terminated due to budget and technical concerns.
In the ensuing years investigations concentrated on scramjet technology, first in a NASA program with the X-43A, a kayak sized craft designed to reach Mach 10. Three were built and tested. All were intended for just one flight. X-43 A was followed by an Air Force program called the X-51, aiming to demonstrate scramjet performance up to Mach 6. Five were built. The most recent flight was June 15, 2011, which ended prematurely.
In an integrated system like NASP it is difficult to distinguish what is engine and what is aircraft. The configuration is driven in a large part by the dual need to provide the lift requirements for the vehicle and air entry into the inlets over a broad range of speeds, altitudes and temperatures. In the end, such flight vehicles are little more than flying heat exchangers. In this age, when leaks in air conditioning systems in automobiles are not uncommon, the technology required for success may be hard come by.
But hypersonic travel via scramjet is not ballistic arc travel. Ballistic arc travel involves coasting over most of the flight path, actually entering space for a brief time (Lots of people will be space travellers). Scramjet powered hypersonic aircraft will likely only find military application.

The second method for ballistic transportation is under rocket power alone. Among various concepts that have been studied, the Lockheed-Martin VentureStar SSTO reusable launch vehicle stands out, mainly because of the considerable funding that went into studies - $922 million under contracts with NASA and $357 million spent by the contractor. This was to be a vertically launched craft that lands on a runway. The program initially called for development of a reduced size vehicle, the X-33, which was to operate as a sub-orbital demonstrator. In June of 1966 NASA awarded Lockheed-Martin a contract to develop the X-33, the work to be accomplished in Lockheed's Skunk Works in Palmdale, California. To strive for the light weight needed for an SSTO, research went into development of carbon composite propellant tanks for liquid oxygen and liquid hydrogen containment, which ran into considerable difficulty. Also , the choice of engine, the linear Aerospike, which historically has little more going for it than an attractive geometry, was a regrettable choice for propulsion. After five years of work the program was cancelled due to what were termed technical difficulties. Some research work was conducted in the ensuing years that showed success in constructing carbon composite tanks for both propellants.
Still, VentureStar stands as a concept that can accomplish both transport to orbit and ballistic arc intercontinental travel. The reality is that single-stage-to-orbit with the best available propellants, hydrogen and oxygen, is not feasible with current materials. We will have to wait for molecular scientists to come up with materials of construction several times stronger than what is currently available. Nevertheless, it seems useful to return to the concept, apply more conservative design, and concede that a little boost will be required to make it work.
This suggests a need for what might be called a stub booster, a high thrust, short run rocket that returns to its launch area. The million pound thrust engine that NASA intends to develop could serve for propulsion.
That in turn suggests how VentureStar can function both for orbital applications and international travel. Stub boosters could be located near air terminals at major destinations. It suggests also military applications where it is necessary to transport troops and materials much more rapidly than now possible.
Most importantly, there will be created a transport base that has a usage far beyond what any future orbital activity projects, which will result in dramatic reduction in cost not otherwise achievable.

by Edward Hujsak

www.reactionengines.co.uk

Sunday, September 11, 2011

THE ROSE

Hello beautiful,
Such a surprise,
finding you this morning,
naked in crystal,
surrounded by crimson petals.
You did your part flawlessly,
sharing your ineffable, scented self.
You were really a bundle of tears,
weren't you?
Tell me you wept out of loneliness,
and not for humanity, because
our struggle is beyond your care,
and we've not yet found our way.

(sometimes you come across a scene so incredibly arresting, you can't help but stop and cast a net of words around it)

Friday, September 9, 2011

HIPPO

The HIAPPER pole-to pole survey, code named HIPPO, was a three year program designed to gather atmospheric data over several seasons covering an atmospheric cross-section ranging from sea level through the stratosphere. It comes to a conclusion in the coming weeks. The survey was accomplished in multiple pole-to-pole flights using a Gulfstream aircraft fitted with 24 instruments to study 80 types of gases, solid particles, aerosols and parameters that included wind speed, temperatures and pressures to achieve what amounts to a CAT scan of Earth's atmosphere not previously achievable.
Funded by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAH) and the National Science Foundation (NSF) at $5M, the program is a fine example of efforts that can only be accomplished by the Federal Government, in this instance, as in others, to the consternation of climate change skeptics and ill-informed, anti-science, small government devotees.
For the first time there is available to analysts deep insight into global distribution of carbon dioxide, methane, black carbon and other constituents, to be studied for years at the Scripps Institute of Oceanography, Princeton, the University of Miami, and others.
It will be interesting if the data will shed light on whether stratosphere flights of aircraft contribute significantly to upper atmosphere carbon dioxide presence. Thousands of aircraft flights daily leave behind them flight-length sausages of carbon dioxide and water vapor exhaust that involve massive tonnage and broad area distribution.
In volcanic events huge tonnage of carbon dioxide and other substances often reach the upper atmosphere. But these are sporadic events and over time the substances drop to lower regions. In the case of aircraft, the tonnage is replaced every day. So it can be concluded that over the past sixty or so years, a new component has been introduced that wasn't there before. Whether or not it is significant could be revealed in studies of HIPPO data.

Tuesday, September 6, 2011

Phil (Flash Fiction)

When Phil died, two TV vans and a dozen reporters showed up.
I was furious. "What is it with you ghouls? Why do you suddenly come alive when you hear of a death? Go back to the rocks you crawled out from under. I have nothing to say to you." They drove away. I went back to my grieving.
As legend has it, Phil accompanied an Irish sailor who jumped ship in San Diego and took up residence in the city. Eventually the Irish sailor became mayor of San Diego.
When I bought this place, it was with the condition that I would take care of Phil. "He lives out there," the seller said, pointing to an outbuilding at the far end of the property. He took me to meet Phil. I didn't see any problem at all, taking him into my care. Aging, that was evident, but there seemed to be no reason why we couldn't get along.
Actually, after moving in, I got to like Phil - a lot. I enjoyed spending quiet hours with him, ruminating on all the stupid things I had done in my life and the blind luck that got me where I am.
I introduced Phil to my dear Greek scholar friend, who warmed to him immediately. She called him "Philia."
That evening as we sat glumly around the kitchen table, we hardly ate. "What will we do?" Jon asked.
"Sea Burial," I said. "I've already thought about it. We'll do it tomorrow."
The next day Jon and I lifted Phil onto a chartered tour boat. The whole family got on board as well as my scholar friend and a Scottish piper she brought along. I told the pilot to head for a quiet lagoon where the water is crystal clear and you can see to the bottom.
With Jon on one side and me on the other we gently lowered Phil into the water. My scholar friend motioned for the piper to start playing. There were tears in her eyes.
We all stood at the rail, watching Phil sink gracefully, like an airplane coming in for a landing, until he came to his final resting place.
I felt a tug at my jacket and looked down upon my grandson.
"Grandpa?"
"Yes?"
"Can we get another turtle?"

Flash fiction sites
www.Alongstoryshort.net

www.fictionaut.com

Saturday, September 3, 2011

HUMILITY

It’s excusable, isn’t it
to feel diminished
on learning somewhere

out there

three hundred million
light years distant,
a galaxy exists like ours.

I wonder

if the inhabitants
of an Earth like ours
have solved their problems,

if people

do love one another,

live peacefully.



Dedicated to my dear friend, Jayne Ferrer,
in memory of a pleasant visit at my home
in La Jolla, California, June 12, 2011.

www.yourdailypoem.com

Friday, September 2, 2011

How We Got Here and Where We Are Headed

A retrospective on the US Economy

OH, FOR THE GOOD OLD DAYS

There is zero evidence that profit-based industrial corporations, financial corporations and the existing aristocracy, collectively identifiable as society’s “Titans,” long for anything but the pre-1930’s years when there was no middle class, and all power was in the hands of Titans who truly believed that they both owned and governed the country - who believed that the Federal Government was needed only to act at their behest, and to take care of minimal services like Indian Affairs, the Postal Department, a moderate military (the latter needed in case it was necessary to quell striking workers). It can be argued that the view continues to hold true, as not a single Titan has come forward to publicly disclaim or reject the words of Grover Norquist, wealthy president of a taxpayer advocacy group, who repeatedly states: “I don’t want to abolish the government. I simply want to reduce it in size to where I can drag it into the bathroom and drown it in the bathtub.” In other words, back to a deregulated free-for-all for profit based organizations.

FACE TO FACE WITH REALITY

Regarding profit based corporations and institutions, there are some virtually unassailable truths that call for earnest thought.
First, profit based organizations are non-benevolent. They are soulless creations, and there is no reason for them to be otherwise. If any actions appear to have a benevolent quality, one can be certain that internal evaluations have first determined that these actions will be profit-beneficial. Failure to realize this accrues to the various leverages that corporations use to convince legislators to make favorable decisions. For example, awarding subsidies to oil companies that make huge profits and still pay no taxes.
Second, profit based corporations and institutions are ruthless, and are restrained only by regulations placed upon them that became necessary as a result of unacceptable behavior in a civilized society. History records consistent walk-away attitude when disasters occur. Bophal, ExxonValdez, the Texas oil refinery fire, the BP deep-water oil rig explosion stand out among recent events. More insidious, as recently demonstrated with failed Japanese reactors, hazardous installations will always be pushed beyond reasonable life expectations if still profitable. Corporations engage in rapacious extraction of natural resources from nations that are then left destitute. History also shows corporations are resistant to the extreme to compensating for damages resulting from accidents. With ability to marshal the strengths of teams of the best lawyers, they always come out winning by purposely prolonging dealings with government officials who have lesser skills and are vulnerable to overwhelming opposition.
Still, it is hard to fault them. They are soulless entities, existing for one purpose only - to make a profit.
The need to regulate operations of profit based organizations is self evident, but recent power plays have worked successfully to eviscerate what laws were in place. How did this happen?

A TAKEOVER GONE AWRY

The appearance of a strong populist president after Herbert Hoover- Franklin D. Roosevelt, scared the Titans witless, even to the extent that some among them considered drastic action necessary to remove the newly elected president from the White House.
In 1934 ex-Marine Lt. Col. J. Smedley Butler testified before Congress that JP Morgan and other interests had approached him to lead an armed force to Washington, take over the White House and remove Roosevelt from office. The consequences of such an action are unimaginable. As it happened, news media and politicians acted to both downplay the incident and discredit Col. Butler, thus the investigations literally petered out and nothing further came of it. In retrospect, it seems doubtful that Col. Butler would have risked his reputation to fabricate such a story. In view of what happened in ensuing years, right up to the present time, the story remains credible. Human nature being what it is, it would seem likely that perpetrators would have said to themselves of the heavy-handed venture: “Well, that didn’t work. We’ll have to think of something else.” They certainly would not have given up. A little constructive thinking would surely turn up a more effective approach. It might take time, possibly decades, but a carefully planned strategy would ultimately return the nation to the rule of the Titans. Meantime, a little distraction - World War II - turned up, and everyone’s attention was temporarily diverted toward meeting all the challenges of America’s entry, which ultimately stretched across several continents.

A STROKE OF GENIUS

By the end of the War, President Roosevelt’s policies were firmly emplaced. Two economic policies were placed into operation that cemented a strong middle class into the mix of a population that previously consisted of the industrial and financial Titans and a dollar-an-hour farmer/worker class. First, high tax rates on the wealthy provided a bulwark against a reversion to the pre-1930’s rule of the Titans. No one suffered, though they did not like it. Thoughts of how to get out of this situation among the Titans were omnipresent, though overthrow of the government was ruled out.
Second, the government assumed very strongly a role that it has always played - a redistributor of wealth. With millions of men and women returning home from the military, war production factories shutting down, Europe and Japan in shambles, the Soviet Union posturing as a new potential enemy with its development of nuclear weapons, and the prospect of extremely high unemployment, the challenges were formidable. Decisions that contributed to a robust recovery included the Marshall Plan, a continued maintenance of a strong military and development of advanced weaponry in view of the Soviet threat, the GI Bill for funding college education for returning veterans, funding of research and development on many fronts, and funding of vast infrastructure projects like the national highway system. All contributed to an emerging middle class that had never been in place before. The policy of redistribution of wealth arguably brought about most of the technological improvements that are in place today. A major influence was the military and NASA need for ever smaller electronics, which made possible handheld computers, cell phones, high capacity communications satellites, and many other advancements. But for these drivers and newly opened opportunities, we might still be using black AT&T dial phones for communications and sending telegrams by wire.
There are, of course, constant rumblings that redistribution of wealth amounts to socialism, depending on what definition of socialism suits the critic. Nothing could be further from the truth. Redistribution of wealth is a bold operational strategy for a healthy democracy. It was demonstrated to work admirably well in the years following World War II. Meanwhile, the Titans grumbled, and never lost sight of their objective.
The policy of robust redistribution of wealth continued with Democratic and Republican presidents alike, up to the election of President Ronald Reagan, a likeable romantic, an easy mark for the Titans who still wanted the old ways back. The skids were already greased by a weak preceding administration, with Carter having little success in governing a nation worn down by the Vietnam War and a letdown after the spectacular achievement of placing humans on the moon for the first time. President Carter was probably right in his speech lamenting a national “malaise,” but the fault was largely his. A strong president would never let such a situation like this develop, especially during a period of rapid technological progress.
With President Ronald Reagan in place, the Titans seized their opportunity. Overturning the government was out of the question. Instead, they would buy it. No need to buy all of it. Just enough to turn legislation their way. Moreover, the preferred tactic was to preserve some of the populist legislators so the appearance of a give and take atmosphere could be maintained. The tipoff, however, evident to everyone, was the eventual lockstep response to all legislation by Republicans in the Senate. Nothing else explains their reluctance to think for themselves.
But first things first. The era of high taxes on the wealthy would have to come to an end.

THE SELL OUT BEGINS.

Reagan, entering office derisive of what he called “the welfare state,” and a proclaimed champion of small government, felt endeared to promoters of Supply Side Economics, popularly known as “trickle down” economics. Lower the taxes on the wealthy and the money will be reinvested in the economy and it will grow like corn on a warm summer day. Subjectively, administrators knew this doesn’t happen. The wealthy tend to keep their money, to grow ever more wealthy, and in the process become more powerful.
The policy was viewed with scorn by no less an economist than David Galbraith, who recalled that the tactic was employed before, an underlying cause of the panic of 1896. Galbraith’s response was “If you feed the horse more oats, some will pass through to the road for the sparrows.”
Nevertheless, under forceful promotion by David Stockman, Reagan’s Director of Management and Budget, the Kemp-Roth act was finally passed by Congress as the Economic Recovery Act of 1981. It didn’t work. A good measure of how the economy is doing is the increase in Federal debt as a function of GDP, expressed as percentage gain or decrease. With higher taxes, debt/GDP growth from the Roosevelt/Truman administration through the Carter administration ranged from -24.9% to +.2%. With lowered revenue, debt/GDP increased +20.6 % during the Reagan presidency and another +15% in the George H.W. Bush presidency. It was reversed in Bill Clinton’s administration to -8.% by the end of his two terms, after he had raised taxes. But the buying of the government had gained a foothold. Loosened policies and deregulation saw two events that were harbingers of troubles to come. The Savings and Loan debacle of the 1980’s and early 1990’s involved failure of 747 thrift institutions, which were deregulated by a Congressional act in 1982 and promptly fell into bad financial practices. Resolution cost taxpayers, who ultimately had to bear the cost, over eighty billion dollars. The second event was the stock market crash of October 1987, for which exact an exact cause was never determined, but appeared to be a convergence of events like pending legislation, out of sync trading of stocks and derivatives, changing interest rates, the stock market at a new high, all combining to make the market particularly vulnerable at that moment in time.
The Clinton years appeared to be a time of good growth and prosperity. But people in charge failed to realize, or act on what they must have seen occurring. Alan Greenspan, heading the Federal Reserve, engraved in history forever his comment regarding the “irrational exuberance” of the housing market. He knew what was occurring but did nothing. Greenspan gave high approval to the derivatives market and hedge funds, which produce nothing, but contributed enormously to the near economic collapse at the end of the George W. Bush administration in 2008. It was not that people in charge could say, “We didn’t know.” They knew, and did nothing.

FROM COVERT TO OVERT

The main events reflecting a government takeover began in the final years of the twentieth century. All pretense began to disappear, and bolder acts surfaced. One of the first was the lobbying of Wendy Gramm, head of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, wife of Senator Phil Gramm of Texas, by Enron, which was seeking exemption from regulation that prevented its trading in derivatives. After granting the exemption, Wendy Gramm resigned and took a lucrative position on the Enron Board of Directors.
Much more sinister and damaging was the last hour insertion into President Clinton’s final budget in 1999 by Senator Phil Gramm (spouse of Wendy), a 254 page amendment that gutted the Glass-Steagall Act of 1933. This bill, which served the nation well for nearly seventy years, prohibited commercial banks from collaborating with full service brokerage houses, or participating in investment banking services. Senator Gramm did not write the amendment by himself. It was a carefully contrived piece of work by experts, bent on reverting the nation to
the deregulated pre-1930’s days. An incredible stroke of luck occurred with the election of an arguably easily influenced George W. Bush as President to succeed Bill Clinton. Like Reagan, he was an easy mark for supply-side economists, often repeating the mantra: “It’s your money. You know how to spend it better than the government.” With that mindset, and a compliant Congress, President Bush put into place a massive tax cut that was scheduled to run for ten years, which, together with Phil Gramm’s mischief, set the stage for invention of various financial instruments that produce nothing but money for a special few, and began a dramatic reversal of fortune for working classes. One of the worst instruments was the bundling of mortgages into salable securities that were marketed all over the world. A measure of the success of the financial free- for-all was an increase in the number of billionaires in the nation from 234 in the year 2000 to 403 in 2010, while the fortunes of the middle class remained stagnant and even reversed. Percentage growth of debt/GDP was the highest ever at + 27.1%. With lowered revenue, two wars of choice conducted off budget, and the financial system heading toward a self-inflicted train wreck, George W. Bush handed off to President Obama, in the closing months of his administration, a nation in near economic collapse.

THE MAGNIFICENT PROPAGANDA MACHINE

With a Democratic plurality in both the House and the Senate to his benefit as he assumed the Presidency, Barack Obama was able to take certain measures aimed at righting the economic engine, such as the stimulus plan and restoring General Motors from the brink of bankruptcy. But in the face of an intransigent, lock-step Republican caucus in the Senate that could filibuster every move, much of the restoration appeared to be little more than cosmetic. Until the third year in office, little occurred toward restoring the 2.6 million jobs that were lost under the Bush administration. Despite promises made while campaigning, lesser goals were accepted in the interests of compromise with the opposition.
Meantime, an unprecedented effort was underway in the nation, supported by the Titans, to regain possession of the Senate and House of Representatives in the mid- term elections, setting the stage for a wholesale reduction in the role of government as a protector of the people.
The mechanism had its base in the 527 political-action authorization that allowed formation of groups with special interests to pursue political objectives without oversight regarding sponsors or funding.
They had great sounding names: “Freedom Works,” chaired by former Texas representative Dick Armey, tireless fighter for lower taxes - backed by the likes of Met Life, Philip Morris and the Scarfe family; “American Crossroads,” headed by Karl Rove and backed by Texas billionaire Trevor Rees Jones; “Americans for Prosperity,” backed by the Koch brothers and Richard Fink of Koch Industries; “Progress for America” operated by Tony Feather, political director for Bush/Cheney 2000, and backed by the Walton family, inheritors of the Walmart fortune.
The target, common to these and similar pressure groups, was the very large segment of the population that oddly takes pride in claiming to be anti- intellectual, and known to be highly susceptible to simple sloganeering. The mechanism was thousands of gatherings to gull participants with the same story: get the government out of your lives, trim it down, and reduce taxes. Amazingly, they could also be convinced to be supporters of the very wealthy: “If you make it to become very wealthy, more power to you.” “ ‘No’ to inheritance taxes.” “You already had that income taxed.” They were unmindful that taxed income gets taxed again in many ways through sales, excise, gas, auto license, telephone and other fees, and also unmindful that not one in the crowd was ever likely to leave an inheritance that would be taxed.
“I want my freedom back.” Freedom for what? Contaminated foods? Unsafe aircraft? Closed libraries? Marginal schools? Dangerous drugs? Stifled research and development? Purveyors of this nonsense knew it was nonsense, but they also knew that it works. They were setting the stage for an eventual takeover of the government - achieve one party rule.
These events were not spontaneous. They had to be organized. Participants had to be gathered up and transported to the meetings. They cost money, a lot of money, and that is where the supporting Titans came in. They could stay in the background and let the PACs do their work for them.
With the mid-term election of a Republican majority in the House, bent on reducing the size of the government and lowering taxes, the policy devised by Roosevelt/ Truman—redistribution of wealth as an operating strategy—appeared all but dead.
Two other events seriously tilted the course of history to favor the takeover objectives of the Titans. An organization called “Citizens United,” headed by David Bossie, dedicated to “restoring the US Government to citizen control,” a campaigner for withdrawal of the U.S. from the United Nations, filed a suit with the U.S. Supreme Court, the result of which was that the court ruled that corporations could spend whatever they desired in advertising to support a candidate for office so long as they did not contribute to the campaign. This egregious ruling heavily weighted future elections to favor and represent not the people, but soulless corporations.
A second ominous event was the highly publicized legislation in Wisconsin, and also taking place in other states, to bust the unions of employees of the state. Success in this assures destruction of the last tree in the forest. There will be no one left to compete with the numerous Republican political action organizations, including the biggest supporter of all, the US Chamber of commerce. With one party rule, and the legislators bought, the campaign is won. The ruling Titans can free-wheel the nation back to the pre-1930’s.

THE LARGER DILEMMA

Even were the administration able to restructure the tax code to heavily tax the rich, and return to the economy the stimulating benefits of redistribution of wealth, there is low prospect of saving the economy by that means alone. An economy based on growth in consumption is bound to end badly somewhere. At some point it will cease to work. Complicating factors now are a doubling of the population since 1950 and the consequent drain on resources that signal a need for conservation, intelligent husbandry and attention to improving efficiency. They stand as essential elements for future survival at reasonably comfortable levels.

SUSTAINABILITY - THE NEW ECONOMIC PARADIGM

The materialistic, consumption based philosophy that underpins present national economies, if nothing changes, is destined to eventual failure. Moreover, in continuing to pursue this course humanity is abdicating all responsibility for preserving Earth’s resources for future generations. The concern should be across millennia, not the next one hundred years. Without a drastic change, irreparable damage will likely be done before the 21st Century is over. As the world’s largest consumer of goods and resources, and an outward appearance of enviable prosperity, the United States has in effect set the example for other nations. Included are nations with populations of over a billion people, most aspiring to and shaping their economies to emulate what they envy. Proceeding as they are, it is evident that world demand for energy and resources will grow at an ever accelerating rate and far outstrip availability. The energy problem is solvable. Resources, however, are non-renewable. Something different must occur that will both ensure fulfilled lives across humanity, and halt the present race to a dreary and dangerous future. Fortune has targeted the greatest consumer, the United States, to take the lead. Failure to do this will result in opinion by other nations: “You are most at fault and doing little. Why should less prosperous, less fortunate nations take up the burden?” On the other hand, defining and adopting a sustainable way of life has the potential of reenergizing a faltering economy, opening vast new opportunities for advancement along many fronts. Among the major issues is energy production, most of which comes from buried deposits of coal, oil, and natural gas, and mixtures such as tar sands and oil- containing shales. Originally found in abundance, the present scenario has already engendered a frantic hunt for more sources, often in extremely difficult circumstances.
The source of these deposits originated with the sun over eons when conditions were right for prodigious vegetation growth. Remains were sequestered by earth movement, where heat and pressure resulted in deposits of coal, oil and gas.
This legacy from the sun is like the principle in an inheritance, which, if wisely managed, can last indefinitely. On the other hand, if one elects to spend it down, life will become difficult and dreary, if not in danger of extinction. Returning sequestered carbon to the atmosphere as carbon dioxide will have adverse consequences not yet imagined. Meantime, Earth is drenched in more energy everyday than can possibly be utilized, but few provisions have been made for capturing and distributing it. Solar power reaching Earth amounts to about 89,000 terrawatts, whereas world energy consumption is about 15,000 terrawatts. The methods, both terrestrial and space based transmission to Earth are known. The hardware has been invented. Very large scale implementation is possible. Needed are a strategic energy plan, legislation and funding, all of which require a driving conviction on the part of legislators, administrators and the population in general.
“Electric America” will witness virtual disappearance of the internal combustion engine. And it should. Electric motors operate at more than twice the efficiency of gasoline engines. The thermodynamic nature of the internal combustion cycle establishes the limit of engine efficiency at a maximum of around 40%. In other words, sixty cents of every dollar spent to fill a tank is thrown away.
In the sustainable world deposits of fossil fuels will be mostly restricted to source material for the host of manufacturing processes that yield fabrics, plastics, medicines, and possibly even synthetic foods. They will last as long as humanity survives.
Most of the material wealth that passes through human hands, which originates both in natural deposits and natural growth, ends up in dumps and landfills. The value of ‘junk” is of course recognized and is presently manifested in can, paper and plastic collection, recycling of metals and other recovery industries. The vast majority of the mass, however, is buried or burned. In the sustainable society landfills will be replaced by processing industries that recycle everything that arrives, delivering an assortment of material and hardware back to society. Even the last dregs, neutralized, will be used for paving bicycle paths, walking trails, and an assortment of architectural applications.
In a sustainable society, the governing of communities will be subject to new guiding principles that strongly emphasize conservation and efficient operation. Pilot experiments are already underway in small communities. Out of these experiments will be revealed techniques that span water utilization, recycling of materials, energy conservation, sewage processing, as well as environment and living facilities that offer manifold opportunities for healthy, fulfilled lives for all humanity.

CODA

Realistically, adoption of policies that will lead to a sustainable society may not be possible. Humans are the only plundering species. Other species store food, either internally in body fat or externally, for example as honey in beehives, or nuts in tree cavities- but seldom in excess.
With humans, established industries, profit motive, greed, self interest and irresistibility of wielding power may be too strongly entrenched to change, unpersuaded and unpersuadable that a problem exists that merits serious attention. In a perverse way, by its own actions, humanity may be shaping for itself a destiny that mirrors the historical near eradication and /or extinction of other species—passenger pigeons, cod fisheries, buffalo, whales—to name a few, as well as massive environmental shifts that span the Cedars of Lebanon to the Amazon forests, to the Aral Sea, to the leveled coal mountains of West Virginia and many, many more.

This article may be copied and distributed freely, but only in its published form

Thursday, September 1, 2011

Comment- Hybrid Cars

Thus far, no manufacturer of hybrid/electric automobiles has gotten it right. For a while it looked like GM was tracking sensibly with the Volt concept, but they ended up with a technological masterpiece that leaves sensitive drivers wondering whether in the midst of all this traffic, the engine will start automatically the next time. For most drivers there is comfort in knowing you have a steadily running engine under the hood, and indeed hearing something running. All this marvelous technology comes at a price most buyers will balk at, and being beyond most drivers' understanding, the asking price at Cadillac levels seems a certain turnoff when the novelty wears off. But the hype has been flawless.
The right approach to a hybrid/electric design is a four wheel electric drive and a biofuel consuming engine that runs at a constant rpm at its peak efficiency, solely to charge the batteries. In colder climates its rejected heat keeps the batteries warm. The engine could be a Diesel that operates on a variety of fuels. Such a vehicle could easily have an 800 mile range on a tankful of fuel. This car is not high technology. Its simplicity means that it could be moderately priced.
There are of course a number of efforts underway to develop biofuel production capacity, but a significant switch to biofuels is unlikely due to both government pressure to raise mileage on automobiles, which is unlikely to veer from gasoline fueled, and powerful petro-political forces at play that won't go away as long as there are terrestrial oil deposits that are easily processed, and beyond that, oil in tar sands and shale.
At odds with its own intentions, the US Government has banned growing one of the most promising sources of biofuel - hemp. Is it because do-gooders fear people will smoke it (highly unlikely!)? Or is it because petro interests saw it as a threat and used political clout to ban its cultivation?