Energy Change--If they can, we can.

I borrow extensively from an article in the Washington Post Weekly Edition (July 14-20, 2008) by Gal Luft, co-founder of the Set America Free Coalition, a bipartisan alliance of groups promoting U.S. energy independence.

Today we import more than 60% of our oil. At $145 a barrel, we will spend more on oil this year than on defense. And that is saying something. The concept of energy independence was ridiculed by the National Petroleum Council in 2007 as being "unrealistic". It has also been labeled as dangerously delusional by a member of a think tank partially funded by energy interests. A 2006 Council on Foreign Relations task force said it was unachievable in the foreseeable future.Luft urges us to ignore such judgements, reminding us that energy independence does not mean self-sufficiency. Rather he defines it as reducing the role of oil in world politics, turning it form a strategic commodity into merely another thing to sell.

Today, thanks to the original urging of Jimmy Carter, only two per cent of our electricity comes from oil. At least four countries are doing something similar with transportation. First, surprisingly, is Iran. It has lots of crude, but little refining capacity. So their fiery president, Ahmadinejad, not wanting to see his country get caught in a crunch in time of hostility, pushed a campaign to convert gasoline powered vehicles to natural gas. His plan includes a mandate for production of dual-use (gasoline/natural gas), a conversion program for used cars, and a gas station conversion to allow them to offer up gasoline and natural gas. According to the International Association of Natural Gas Vehicles, more than 100 conversion centers are in use. A conversion takes only hours, and the vehicle owners are charged only $50.00. Within five years, the country will be immune to possible international sanctions.

Brazil is already energy independent. According to the Sugar Cane Industry Union, 90 percent of new cars sold in Brazil this year will be flexible fuel types, that cost 100 dollars more to make, but can run on any combination of gasoline and ethanol. Many of those cars will be made by General Motors and Ford. Note that gasoline prices in Brazil have nearly doubled elsewhere since 2005. But in Brazil they have been almost frozen. This year more ethanol will be sold in Brazil than gasoline.

China has chosen methanol as a substitute fuel. This is also known as wood alcohol.China's auto industry has already started producing flex-fuel models that run on methanol. Cars that run on pure methanol get stickers allowing free passage on toll roads.

Israel offers another testament to what leadership, ingenuity and audacity can achieve. Last year it launched an electric car venture designed to turn Israel into an oil-free economy. Drivers will soon be able to replace gas-fueled cars with battery-operated ones, which they will be able to plug in to hundreds of thousands of recharging points to be erected throughout the country. They will also be able to swap them out at exchange points, or charge them at home or work.

None of the solutions in the four countries mentioned are even under consideration in the U.S. Policies such as "drill more" and "drive smaller cars" keep us petroeum dependent. They give us a few more years until we become even more petroleum dependent.

Real energy independence can be achieved only through fuel choice and competition. The latter will not happen when we put 16 million new cars on the road each year that run only on gasoline. When in a hole, stop digging. When we want our money to stop going to the Middle East and stay in the Midwest, then, we will see this change, a radical change, the only real change.

Hunger/Health/Economy

My, it is all linked together. Hunger is inadequate or poor nourishment, often creating health problems. Poor people seem to suffer from hunger more, and have more health problems. Surprised, anyone? Not really. But what shall we do about it? Well, we could control what can be bought with food stamps, limiting products with high salt content and unsaturated fats. We could give tax incentives to companies that make a majority of their products healthy (to be defined)We could make creative cooking classes a requirement of food stamp recipients. We could also make wellness classes a requirement for food stamp recipients. Miss class, fewer food stamps. Success, make them paid mentors for those still learning the art of healthy eating.
Of course, our food producers need education too. The buck is important for the system, but nutritional education is as important as if not more so than general education. Eat well, be healthy, live and prosper. Not a slogan. An order!
We must make healthier food more accessible for school menus. Kids should not eat junk because that's all the school system can afford to buy. They are our future. Again, if parents haven't been educated, we have to break the cycle. Rewards for success, more education when a little is not enough. Not eating smart is a result of environment, parenting, and economics. All can be influenced to do the right thing. So I believe.

Healthcare for the poor

Hey, I can pay for my health insurance, so why should I give damn about the poor? Let them get their own! These sentences reflect a lack of understanding as to why the poor don't have their own insurance. People don't ask to be poor.Our democratic way supports poverty. I mean, someone has to be at the bottom of the ladder. But how low can we go? If you are born into poverty, you will likely feel the impact every day at home, with material limitations, emotional problems, and little or no motivation. You learn from your parents, and if they are around and were raised in the same dire straits, well, what are the expectations? School leaders, law enforcement and political leaders, those who don't live in such circumstances, criticize with ease, but do little to try to break the cycle. So the poor scrounge, scrape, steal, do anything to survive. Is it any wonder?
Who is to blame? The poor themselves? Walk in their shoes before you criticze them. If the cycle is not broken, with the help of those more fortunate.....but wait, it is easier to criticize them than to help them.
And so, they fill the emergency rooms, wait in endless lines for free this and that, and find themselves returning for more care, and more care........
It is so easy to criticize. To ignore. I find it unforgivable. Universal health care will be one giant step towards breaking the cycle. Every human being deserves decent medical care. Those who take political office carry the responsibility to make this country strong, and healthy. Those who ignore this call will not fix the problem. They are the problem.

Healthcare, redux

I don't pretend for a moment to know anything about the intricacies of the healthcare system. So what you see below is just common sense. Mine, of course.
So, how do we effect the conversion of our actual disaster into a universal healthcare system? Okay, first, from the pharmaceutical side. We become the sole customer of all the meds sold in this country. Thus, we can bargain with big pharma about how much is a fair price for medications. Competition goes out, but a fair price is negotiated. Stockholders hang in, because they know they have been sucking the blood out of their countrymen for way too long. There will be an "adjustment", and life will go on.
Then from the doctor side. Again, all billing goes to the government. Again, fair prices are established, and paid. Anyone caught padding loses the right to practice. Medicare, but honestly done. And so on, down the line. Nursing, medical equipment, home care, you name it, the government runs the show, and fairness is injected into the market. Do we need money to undertake this? Yes. Wars ended will help. An economy revived will help. A healthier, working populace will help. Taxes, of course will be major. And of course, bipartisan legislation enabling it all.
Before you tell me it can't be done, pelase look to France, UK, and Canada. They are my best arguments for why it can be done. We can learn from them. When should we start? Now.

Healthcare

The economic prejudice in our country is unique among industrialized nations. If you have money, reasonable health care is afforded you. If you are poor, it's a big maybe. Depends on where you live, and if you know how to "use" the system. How can our government justify this atttitude? It's all about the bucks, and the lobbyists. The only real change is radical change. We must remove the health care system from private holdings, and make it nationalized and universal. Will it tear down our conomy? Throw people out of jobs? Stop research? Nothing of the kind. It will strengthen our people and strengthen our economy. The government will have to conduct buyouts, or convince the shareholders that the move is necessary to improve our nation. Sick people don't work, or don't work well. Neither do sick students study well. A healthy nation is a strong nation. Can we remove the private holdings little by little? Nope. it has to be well planned, but it must happen all at once, to effect meaningful changes. We need only look to the systems in France and the UK to know that it can be done, and it works well. Canada too. Much negative propaganda has been put out about our neighbor to the north, but my contacts say it is all lies, put out by big pharma, and the AMA. Yes, it's scary, folks, but so it the system we have now. Every person in this country deserves top notch care. Nobody should perish for lack of appropriate care or medication.

Basic Position

Our country doesn't work. Radical changes are needed, ones that conflict with the system as we know it. A capitalist environment is fine, but only until people suffer at its hands. Sickness, hunger, a flawed public educational system, misguided energy policy, financial crisis, these are but a few of the things that require radical change. In future posts, I would present my feelings on each, and hope for active and energetic response from readers.