As it turns out, a significant majority of Americans, about two-thirds, have liberal values. It depends, of course, on what specific issues you’re talking about, but this figure is an amalgam of our views on abortion rights, the death penalty, environmental stewardship, universal healthcare, treatment of asylum seekers, LGBTQ rights, etc.
I had an interesting talk with a woman yesterday on the subject of sustainability, in particular, should we be anticipating a good or a bad end to all this?
The woman suggested that maybe it doesn’t “end,” which, of course, would be a good thing.
The problem is that we either do or do not achieve sustainability. If we don’t, we are, by definition, heading for a disaster, or a set of disasters, whether they come by means of loss of land mass, famine, a vast epidemic, shortages of potable water, etc.
Obviously.
But good luck with that. Once moneyed interests get a hold of something of value, it’s hard to get it back.
This is why taxing the rich, while it’s imperative to achieving a sustainable society, is going to require a monumental effort. These people own our lawmaking processes, and they’re most certainly not going to simply hand over billions of dollars.
Something about the picture here looks amiss, though it may be hard to put your finger on.
Here’s the problem: the microscopically small amount of power that comes from small wind.
Let’s say that the turbines shown here are 10′ X 6′ apiece (a reasonable guess I think). In terms of “swept area,” that’s the equivalent of a rotating blade with a radius of 4.4 feet.
The average solar installation is 4KW. If you want 4KW from that turbine, you need the wind to be blowing, on average, 32 mph. That’s what’s called a “near gale.”
I don’t know about you, but I don’t have that blowing across my roof. Part of the problem, of course, is that wind velocities in this range tear off your shingles and distributes them around your neighborhood.
I have to admit that it really is funny to hear some uneducated racist boob stumble all over himself when asked to define the word “woke.”
The larger issue here, however, is anything but funny. We’re at a tragic point where a huge swath of the American population resents those of us who have an honest concern for the needs and feelings of those around us.
Ancient Greek historian Plutarch warned us all about the dangers of a huge gap between rich and poor.
He doesn’t explain the exact mechanism by which this destroys republics, but it’s easy to see how a disenfranchised population becomes apathetic about education and other civic affairs, possibly even national defense.
All that’s left are a few ultra-rich people who, they themselves, become torpid with all their wealth. The nation soon loses its vigor, and slides into global irrelevance.
In the case of the present-day U.S., the situation is even worse, as we find ourselves in the midst of environmental collapse. What happens when the common American is so stressed that he loses interest in the future, and the rich believe, perhaps correctly, that they can withstand all threats against them in terms of droughts, storms, loss of land mass, etc.?
If I honestly thought that making a donation would help rid our nation of the ignorance and hate that is flourishing in Texas, I’d write a big check.
There is nothing incorrect about the graphic here, and there is no doubt that, for young people who may not be academically inclined, the career path on the right makes sense.
Having said that, the most obvious rebuttal here is that the long-term earnings of college graduates far outweigh those who skipped college and entered the work force at 17 years of age. Think of the doctors and lawyers. Think of all the people in the corporate world, who would have been laughed out of their first interviews if they showed up speaking substandard English.
Yes, there are exceptions to this: Dominos Pizza zillionaire Tom Monahan, a high school drop-out, and the tiny slice of athletes, e.g., basketball players, most of them are close to seven feet tall, or the one-in-a-million football quarterback.
But what seems most obviously wrong here is that the comparison fails to point to the ancillary benefits of higher education, e.g., on average, a better appreciation of reading, more travel, deeper discussions with others, and the pure joy associated with learning.
I believe the assertion made here is correct.
The world has an enduring appreciation for entertainment, but, I believe, a transient one for fascism.
