Who Will Tell the People? By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN Traveling the country these past five months while writing a book, I’ve had my own opportunity to take the pulse, far from the campaign crowds. My own totally unscientific polling has left me feeling that if there is one overwhelming hunger in our country today it’s this: People want to do nation-building. They really do. But they want to do nation-building in America. They are not only tired of nation-building in Iraq and in Afghanistan, with so little to show for it. They sense something deeper — that we’re just not that strong anymore. We’re borrowing money to shore up our banks from city-states called Dubai and Singapore. Our generals regularly tell us that Iran is subverting our efforts in Iraq, but they do nothing about it because we have no leverage — as long as our forces are pinned down in Baghdad and our economy is pinned to Middle East oil. Our president’s latest energy initiative was to go to Saudi Arabia and beg King Abdullah to give us a little relief on gasoline prices. I guess there was some justice in that. When you, the president, after 9/11, tell the country to go shopping instead of buckling down to break our addiction to oil, it ends with you, the president, shopping the world for discount gasoline. We are not as powerful as we used to be because over the past three decades, the Asian values of our parents’ generation — work hard, study, save, invest, live within your means — have given way to subprime values: “You can have the American dream — a house — with no money down and no payments for two years.” That’s why Donald Rumsfeld’s infamous defense of why he did not originally send more troops to Iraq is the mantra of our times: “You go to war with the army you have.” Hey, you march into the future with the country you have — not the one that you need, not the one you want, not the best you could have. A few weeks ago, my wife and I flew from New York’s Kennedy Airport to Singapore. In J.F.K.’s waiting lounge we could barely find a place to sit. Eighteen hours later, we landed at Singapore’s ultramodern airport, with free Internet portals and children’s play zones throughout. We felt, as we have before, like we had just flown from the Flintstones to the Jetsons. If all Americans could compare Berlin’s luxurious central train station today with the grimy, decrepit Penn Station in New York City, they would swear we were the ones who lost World War II. How could this be? We are a great power. How could we be borrowing money from Singapore? Maybe it’s because Singapore is investing billions of dollars, from its own savings, into infrastructure and scientific research to attract the world’s best talent — including Americans. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/04/o...40ccd86e5a2549&ex=1210219200&pagewanted=print Are we in trouble or what!!!
You are in trouble, because A) Thomas Friedman still has a job after misleading millions about Iraq. and B) because you still pretend to be the world leader. I personally prefer singapore to Australia's airport, But the difference is due to Singapore being a tourist industry, along with a transit hub. So it has to look good.
I agree we should be investing money in the USA. Why we don't is beyond me. Especially in education, science and research.
I have been telling this msg here in posts for several years. (US made "suburban infrastructure", not what it needed for the expensive energy era, etc. Is now beyond means to avoid deep depression, etc.) One aspect of my msg is still not getting thru but it is decades too late now to correct -I tried 40 years ago in the civil rights movement. My book, Dark Visitor was my last effort. See more at web page under my name, if it still functions. Fundamental problem of the modern US is: Loss of the EDUCATED BRAINS the US needs in this modern world* - look at Japan, world's second largest economy, -they have no resources except this most important one. The US throws away about 3/4 of it potential in this most important area because the brains happen to be in black bodies or have been born into families too poor to buy a home where the better schools are. GET US EDUCATION NATIONALLY FUNDED, not by the local community. But for the general msg (from someone other than me) On 13 May see: http://www.moneyandmarkets.com/Event/WCAECOM/ Note I have not read / watched it yet. It is free video to be shown given 13May on net at 2PM ET. It is no doubt some guy trying to sell you something or you Email address - Yes you need to register at: http://events.moneyandmarkets.com/Default32.aspx First (I did) but it does seem to be free, so I have added it to my schedule of events. Title of show is: "The Great Dollar Panic of 2007-2008: Urgent Self-Defense and Massive Profit Opportunities" For someone else telling you how stupid the alcohol from corn program GWB pushed (to keep US dependent upon his Saudi friends and supporter) see now: http://www.thecuttingedgenews.com/index.php?article=473 Here is small part of that:" "... In plain words,” Pimentel explained, “it takes 1.29 gallons of petroleum or petroleum equivalents to produce one gallon of ethanol.” {Billy T insert: and that gallon has only 70% of the energy content!} The conclusion that ethanol drank more petroleum than it saved subjected the two researchers to a vilification campaign by ethanol industry lobbyists, according to Pimentel. “Our first such report was reviewed by 26 top scientists who advised the Secretary of Energy,” he said, “and they unanimously approved it. But two members of Congress from ethanol-producing states had us investigated—our very honesty was investigated,” said Pimentel. Patzek and Pimentel say they welcomed the investigations, which they say only sustained their findings. “But now I would like another investigation,” Patzek insisted, “a thorough investigation of this entire affair.” When asked about the Pimentel and Patzek studies, a National Ethanol Vehicle Coalition spokesperson stated that such studies were “discredited,” adding, “Only uneducated people would write such a thing, or believe such a thing.” A second official from the organization stated, “I concur. Such people are uneducated.” Patzek denied he was uneducated, citing his coauthorship of 177 scientific papers, and at least five books. His resume includes degrees in chemical engineering and engineering physics, as well as a prior stint with Shell Development where he worked on “enhanced oil recovery methods and evaluated the future of U.S. energy supply from tar sands, heavy oil, and coal.” He added, “I have taken more courses in thermodynamics than almost anyone at Berkeley.” Patzek, who has published his findings widely, says he will not back down and has more scientific peer-reviewed journal articles on the topic coming out. However, said Patzek, he must now must keep future articles a secret until after publication to avoid pressure on academic editors by ethanol interests. Pimentel also denied he was uneducated, explaining he was an Oxford University graduate and author of 600 scientific papers and twenty-five books. The problem is the ethanol people have a lot of money,”{Billy T insert: and Saudi Arabia's agent is the current president.} says Pimentel, adding staunchly, “This is not about energy or science. What is driving ethanol is politics and big money. You can quote me!” A senior alternative fuels expert from a leading company within the automotive industry that has abstained from the ethanol bandwagon concurred. “Ethanol {from corn} is just a scam,” the source said, “and I hope you have the courage to say so publicly!” Criticizing corn carries a price. Even a March 1997 study by the Government Accountability Office (GAO) documenting the adverse energy tax effects of ethanol was viciously attacked by corn interests. After the study, Sen. Charles Grassley of Iowa in a long letter written June 6, 1997 demanded an official explanation and a self-investigation by the GAO of itself. Throwing down the gauntlet, Grassley demanded answers to a series of fiery, accusatory questions. ... ---------------- *Great economic foolishness - US pays more to put people in Jail for a year than cost of Harvard's tuition for them (and they stay in jail for more than 4 years)!
Thank God here in AU we have a lot of natural energy and resources. Moving here from the US was the best move I ever made.
Michael, now if only they would stop selling OUR gas back to us at import prices we would be much better off
because unfortunatly we (as a sociaty) cant stop it unless we were to force the goverment to regulate the industry. YAY (sarcasium) for the free market and all that
To Michael & Asguard: Here in Brazil the government owns more than 50% of PetroBras. They have been selling us gas below the global price for years but for the first time in three years, Government controlled PetroBras just announced that the prices are going up 10% - surprised me as not normal for any price rise BEFORE elections less than a year away, but as a share holder in PertoBras it was getting ridicules to have the same prices as three years ago. Not completely true as the Brazilian oil is heavy, not easy to turn into gasoline. It is less valuable and mainly sold to pay for the lighter stuff Brazil imports. That means that even though Brazil is energy self sufficient in oil, a net exporter in fact of oil energy it was basically neutral in the oil economics. The difference in cost from the imported oil price could be sustained with some selling it below cost in the domestic market, but no longer - the import price is just too high above the price of the exported heavy crude now for the government (and share holders like me) to "eat." I am actually very happy that gas will be more expense - I also own shares in the alcohol industry of Brazil - they will finally get a better price for the alcohol. I wish we had the free market prices you two are complaining about. Perhaps AU can send some PR people to Brazil to explain how they force market prices on the population and yet hold elections. Surely your well-educated, well-informed voters cannot be easier to fool than those in Brazil Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! But then again, they did elect Howard, who from this distant vantage point seemed nearly as bad as GWB. PS perhaps you should have startred a thead like one I did years ago, but your's would be called: "How DUMB can AU Voters Be?" Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
basically the goverment doesnt own the gas thats how they get away with it. Its owned by listed companies like santos who then sell it to other companies like origion who then distribute it for retale use. This is exactly the same as the reason we pay high food prices, because if the domestic price is below what they can get internationally minus the transport costs they sell it overseas rather than here. The only way to stop this would be for the goverment to enact legislation which REQUIRED santos to sell a percentage to the australian retailers at a lower cost which is unlikly to happen as santos is also an australian listed company and those share holders vote too Edit to add howard wasnt QUITE as bad as bush (at least domestically) because he never put his ultimate goal of abolishing medicare into fuition and because he stood up to the US in surport of the PBS. Of course this was self interest rather than his personal beliefs because if he HAD abolished either of these he would have lost office at the first election (not to mention the senate wouldnt have passed that legislation)
