Tuesday, July 10, 2012

LETTER TO THE EDITOR

 In an Op-ed in the July 9 issue of Space News former astronaut Walter Cunningham (Apollo 7) claimed that "realists" are making progress in debunking scientific findings that  Earth's climate is changing as a result of human activity.

UPDATE: The letter was published in the July 16 issue of Space News.



To the Editor, SPACE NEWS


Upon reading Walter Cunningham's article (Space News, July 9, 2012), my observation is that he comes across as a skeptic, not a realist. As a purported realist, it would be helpful to know what kind of realist: naive? direct? representative?  critical? epistemological? objective? hyper-transcendental? Platonic?  scientific? There are so many kinds of realists.  I observe also that a letter to the NASA Administrator from fifty former NASA employees ought not to carry any more weight than fifty letters from farmers, builders or clam diggers, though it seems to be intended to carry extra weight.  So hard to get across is that large scale release of sequestered carbon is a major event, and major events always have major consequences. Were Cunningham on the beach facing a tsunami, he would probably run like hell. A slow tsunami? Well hold on now.  Maybe it's not a real tsunami. As someone who had the extreme privilege of observing this fragile planet from space, it is puzzling  that Walter Cunningham has sided with those who choose to remain both uninformed and unconvinced.

Sincerely,

Ed Hujsak

Monday, July 9, 2012

PROMOTING THE PRESIDENCY

If you have to spend hundreds of millions of dollars to get people to buy your product, it stands to reason that there must be something wrong with the product.     

 
      In an election year the promotion business spikes. In normal times we are subjected to video and audio programs that are fifty percent product promotion, and newspapers, magazines and junk mail that all depend on advertising for income and profit. In election years a special kind of product appears from political parties in the form of candidates for Federal, State and local offices, and promotion is heavy and varied. A candidate fits the description as a product because promotion is handled in much the same way as promotion of a car, a new suit or a trip to Hawaii. Election strategies are centered on packaging, just as commercial items are packaged to attract buyers.

    We should distinguish between two kinds of promotion: one is elevation in position such as moving from professor to department chair, captain to major, engineer to chief engineer, vice president to CEO, head waiter to maitre d’, governor of a state to the presidency. Some promotions, like the first and last examples take place by elections. Others (the large majority) may be the decision of one or two people in upper management.
   
    The second form of promotion is advertising, where publicizing the merits of a product is necessary to capture customers. Needless to say, the production of advertising is both a lucrative and highly competitive business.  Advertising expense depends on the product, but in every case it is an investment on which a positive return is expected or hoped for. In some cases no amount of advertising will rescue a product that somehow got off to a bad start.

    The Apple I-phone is an example of a product on which there was a huge return on minimal, but smart promotion. The public stood in lines to purchase when it came on the market.

`    Solar panels are a good product, but the benefits are long range. Return on investment is not so good, so advertising is cautious. People lean to products where the reward is immediate.

    The ill-conceived Ford Edsel is an example of a product where no amount of promotion would make it a success, as it’s debut was met with public scorn at not living up to prior hype.

    Governor Romney is the Republican party’s product as candidate for the presidency of the United States. In many ways he is considered a marginal product, even at the highest levels of the party. This year’s election will be a test of whether it is true that no amount of money will convince people to buy a marginal product as we witness the spending of hundreds of millions of dollars in advertising to pedal a single item. The simple fact of having to spend so much underscores the obvious: The product doesn’t measure up.

    So. Will the American voter be romanced into voting for the Republicans’ Edsel? Or will  the more prudent side of judgement decide that the GM Chevy, barely broken in, a few paint scratches and a dent or two but operating reliably on all six, is the better bet for the next four years?

This commentary was originally  posted on www.speakwithoutinterruption.com.

Thursday, July 5, 2012

WHILE WE ARE WATCHING

There are occasions when I get fired up.  I don’t do this  often, as what comes with it is willingness to be on the receiving end of invective, brickbats and worse.  Admittedly, this time it was pol-speak  by Governor Romney that set off my fireworks, when in his Fourth of July speech in Wolfboro, NH, he called for return to a nation where the  people are sovereign and the government the servant. The audience cheered wildly and I wondered whether they had any idea what this abysmally conceived statement really means. So far as I know, sovereignty applies only to states and nations. But the opposition has a good sense of the power of psycho-babble and when you combine it with rivers of money you can win elections hands down. You can place unqualified people in legislatures by the hundreds. You can buy their total allegiance.

Insofar as  “government is a servant” is concerned, Governor Romney, as a participant in the corporate world, is as aware as any billionaire or corporation of the horde of lobbyists who are engaged in styling government service to  serve their own interests. They pay them. They can even persuade the government to take the nation into war. Dead soldiers mean little to them. It’s simply part of the cost of doing business, and not even their cost. The Government  already serves the people in myriad ways, and that is as it should be. But Governor Romney has quite different ideas of the government’s role as a servant than he spouts on the campaign trail.

The massive, non-traceable  spending by private individuals and corporations during this election year as a result of the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision leads inevitably to the conclusion that the buying of politicians ensures a future payoff to those same entities. Their money funds  highly developed propaganda machines operated by professionals like Karl Rove and Dick Armey wherein the principals remain out of the limelight but feed uncounted millions into the Political Action Committees that discover and nurture  subvertible candidates and finance them to election.

Of course, this is not new in politics. But the presently employed methods are brilliant, overt and blatant. French philosopher Jean-Jaques Rousseau, born 300 years ago, shaper of national destinies, wrote: “Most social order is a fraud perpetrated by the rich on the poor to preserve their privileges.”

With great wealth comes the irresistible urge to wield power. There is an egocentricity accompanying accumulation of wealth that breeds the notion that the wealthy know better and government should stay out of the way. The United States, with its 400 plus multi-billionaires playing conductor, has found itself fast tracking back to the glory days when the oligarchs owned everything, including the government, and the people, rendered powerless, lived week to week on slim earnings. 

The working man’s opinion about the wealthy, heard many a time, is “more power to them” (be careful what you wish for), “I can take care of myself. Get Government off my back, etc.” Unaware that he is helping them along, to his own disadvantage. An example might help. Much is made of rising productivity by the American worker. In the first quarter of 2012 productivity rose by 5.9 %. Labor costs went down by 4.2 %. Who got a raise? Nobody. Wages remained flatlined and even went downhill a bit. All the benefit of improved productivity was manifested in profit which went to owners and shareholders. What happened to fairness? Why don't workers benefit from improved productivity?

The argument goes that eventually all wealth finds its way into philanthropy and charity. For example the hundred billion dollar inheritance of the four Sam Walton (founder of Walmart) offspring will eventually fund charitable foundations if the example set by the mother, Helen, is followed.

But philanthropy and charity are selective. They are needed, and they are part of the fabric of the grand experiment which is democracy. But there is zero possibility that the complete job could be done in that manner. So anyone who believes that the nation should revert to the time of the oligarchs is badly misinformed. Government is needed for fairness..... Government performed by legislators who are free of obeisance to the wealthy few that sincerely believe that in their hands everything will run better.

Return the nation to where  the people are sovereign and the government is servant.” The opposition  is counting on  pliable, detached voters to put them fully in charge this November. Hundreds of millions of dollars in glitzy advertising,  slogans that sound good but mean nothing, disregard for the truth whenever convenient. Some lies are breathlessly outrageous. Joe Walsh, a Tea Party congressman from Illinois, brays that the sixteen trillion dollar debt corresponds to a million dollars for every American, when it is really $50,000.  In the aggregate, trickery will do the job.

Maybe, just maybe, this is the year to wise up. The year the people finally tell the oligarchs “We’re on to you”....... the year the government is once again “of the people, by the people and for.the people.” Candidly though, there are good reasons to believe it won’t happen.

A previous article, archived here,  “How We Got Here and Where We Are Headed.” Sept. 2, 2011, dwells on the same subject, addressing the return of the oligarchy. A year later, it appears they are right on track.