Since early in the 2008 campaign President Elect Obama has recommended a program for America to “rebuild America’s roads and bridges and repair our schools” (change.gov/agenda/economy_agenda/, 2008). Once upon a time he opined that this initiative would provide “over one million new jobs” that can’t be outsourced. The mantra changed as of late to a more palatable “save one million jobs” – but the essence is the same. Many say past “jobs programs” did little for the economy. I beg to differ. Many of what we consider today’s greatest economic assets – such as the interstate highway system – was once considered government folly. From the Panama Canal to the Hoover Dam there have been expensive government projects that have paid dividends to many generations of Americans and businesses alike.

However, road, school and bridge repair may seem more like maintenance than innovation. How can we take a ‘maintenance and repair’ program and make it a true innovative improvement in infrastructure? The answer is the application of new technology.

Roadways & Bridges:

Today’s interstate highway system and the system of state & U.S. roadways that connect them are sorely in need of repair. To that, there is no doubt. But we can today employ better materials in the repairs. Materials that last longer and lower future costs of maintenance (ARTBA, n.d.) are needed throughout the system. We should also install Vehicle to Infrastructure (V2I – Ashley, 2008) communications devices that tell cars of the near future what road conditions are, where hazards exist and the operational aspects of traffic controls.

Three things need to happen first. First, governments (state & federal) must require overall roadway construction standards that improve longevity. I’m not sure what they are today, if any, but it’s my belief that roadways should last at least 25years. Surface repair must last 10 years – or more. I often see repair crews on the same roads year-in and year-out. This is especially true in northern climates where winter freezing, salt and sand damage are frequent.

Second, the government must establish standards for V2I communication. Only a couple dozen are needed to get things started. Like solar powered road signs that can broadcast information like RR Crossings, speed changes and road restrictions. Or stop signs, yield signs and stop lights that broadcast “Stop, Yield or Go” data.

Lastly, the government must work with both commercial and personal vehicle manufactures to require certain types of V2I and V2V (Vehicle to Vehicle) safety systems to be rolled out over time.

We need Bridges that have sensors that can tell inspectors when components are stressed or parts are reaching the end of their peak safe period. We need bridges, that like roadways, have longevity and ease of maintenance built in.

Schools

I believe the days of the huge campus are going to come to a close. Large middle schools and high schools are not providing the education we will need in the high tech communication era of the 21^st century. We need to create localized “School Offices” that use technology to separate classes, curriculums and grades. The teachers move from class to class and subject to subject in a set of virtual classrooms. The student is situated in an environment designed to enhance learning rather than an environment meant to control and concentrate student populations. This type of virtual classroom also helps students from disadvantaged areas get the same educational opportunities as the more affluent counterparts.

Colleges will also, to a lesser extent, decentralize as well. With teaching methods promoted by schools such as The University of Phoenix and Colorado Technical University taking an ever greater share of higher education – especially in business administration and business management curriculums where “laboratory” studies are minimal.

Federally subsidized virtual classrooms could also provide a sort of “Universal Education” foundation for anyone with an internet connection. Subsidizing internet connectivity for urban families and virtual schools is another possible aspect of the “new education” system that could come out this “jobs” agenda.

Conclusion

There are many opportunities for the new administration to improve the nation’s infrastructure while improving safety and empowering a technological renaissance in transportation.

It is also possible to engage the educational system in a new mind-set when it comes to the basics of education (reading, writing, mathematics and history) while actually reducing the burden on cities and states to provide large campuses and administrative staff.

JB

Resources:

ARTBA. (n.d.). Smart Construction: Using Cutting-Edge Technology to Maximize Public Investment in America’s Transportation Network; The American Road & Transportation Builders Association (ARTBA); retrieved November 29, 2008 from: http://www.ntweek.org/publications/ARTBA_Technology.pdf

Ashley, S. (2008). Driving Toward Crashless Cars; Scientific American Magazine; December 2008, Volume 299 No 6. ISSN 0036-8733

Change.gov. (2008). Agenda: The Obama-Biden Plan, retrieved November 29, 2008 from: http://change.gov/agenda/economy_agenda/

CitySense. (2007). Collaborative Research: CRI: Large-Scale Open Sensor Network Testbed Urban Monitoring, Global Environment for Network Innovations (GENI), retrieved November 29, 2008 from: http://www.geni.net/docs/dev_citysense_proposal.pdf

TRB. (2006). Presentation Circular: Integrating Roadway, Traffic, and Crash Data, A Peer Exchange, November 1–2, 2006, Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C.; retrieved November 29, 2008 from: http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/circulars/ec111.pdf

In October of 2008 I opined on several political topics that included political reform and energy policy [http://aberantnews.org/?m=200810]. But the topic of energy was only a surface scratch. The issues facing true policy reform are broad and complex.

There are many types and applications of “Energy”. While the general public and media focus on “Oil” and gasoline prices, the fact is that we need to power industry, homes and buildings, communications, rolling commerce and mass transit – as well as individual transportation.

Each energy solution or application has its draw backs. For instance:

• Solar – Generating power on a cloudy day, storing power at night and maintaining reserves, cost of technology and land required,…
• Wind – Cost to maintain 100 generators that produce the same output as one hydraulic generator; generation in low-wind, maintaining reserves, large areas of land required in wind corridors,…
• Natural Gas – Costly technology (all the ‘easy gas’ has been extracted), depletion rate (non-renewable fossil fuel), many production ‘fracturing’ methods endanger ground water and the environment,…
• Coal – Serious emission issues, no such thing (yet) as Clean Coal, non-renewable fossil fuel, high cost in technology to make coal environmentally viable,…
• Nuclear – Extremely costly technology, major safety and waste disposal issues, time to build and bring online is excessive,…
• Hydrogen – Support & delivery infrastructure costs are immense, resources needed to create, refine and store hydrogen are very high, use in transportation limited with current technology,…
• Biofuels – Food crop depletion, high energy cost (it takes 90% of the energy in a gallon of corn ethanol to create a gallon of corn ethanol),…
• Oil – Increasing depletion rate (non-renewable fossil fuel), largely a non-domestic resource, petrochemical industry requirements go far beyond ‘gasoline’, need to protect strategic reserves, environmental impact of drilling,…

Unfettered competition is best equipped to address these drawbacks and solve the problems. There is no such thing as a ‘perfect’ solution. Today’s hybrid vehicles all use some type of non-renewable fossil fuel. Even the pure electric car owner will have to face issues with battery and toxic fluid disposal sooner or later. Not to mention where all the extra electricity will come from in a power grid that can barely handle today’s demand.

The real challenge for government is how to empower American business to solve specific problems and develop renewable, sustainable technologies without actually subsidizing any given solution. Things such as corn ethanol subsides and energy company tax breaks need to be assessed and discontinued if the are doing more harm than good to our energy future (which most of them are).

Business and competition is best served when government controls the cost of remedies and their source. For instance:

• Tax credits against windfalls for energy industry production of renewable sources as a percent of overall sources.
• Hazardous waste taxes that increment over time to pay for disposal and sequestering waste; and promote reclamation and recycling technology.
• An annual rise in oil tariffs that would make imported oil/fuels 2 to 3 times more expensive than domestic sources in 8-10 years.
• A zero emission vehicle (ZEV) mandate for autos (e.g. 5 years, 50% of autos sold must be ZEV, 100% in 10 years).
• A 50% zero emission mandate for domestic power generation in 8 years; 75% in 15 years, and 100% in 20 years.

Then get out of the way and let Darwinian Economics (natural selection, survival of the fittest, etc.) take over. Just as in nature, the carnage could be significant before equilibrium is found. But the result will be a sustainable future for our country and, indeed, the world.

Rather than spending money on subsidies our government should use taxpayer dollars to hire more EPA agents and implement monitoring technology to insure the health and welfare of the public. Allow American ingenuity to solve our energy problems within the environmental and regulatory guidelines already established for public welfare.

Much like a championship football contest, the referees should not control the outcome of the game, only the way in which it is played. This too should be the role of government in energy policy.

JB

Sources:

Lustgarten, A. (2008). Drill for Natural Gas, Pollute Water?, Scientific American Magazine, retrieved November 18, 2008 from: http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=drill-for-natural-gas-pollute-water

Mufson, S. (2007). Article: Oil price rise causes global shift in wealth; The Washington Post, retrieved October 25th, 2008 from: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/09/AR2007110902573_pf.html

NOW. (2006). Transcript: Who killed the electric car?; Public Broadcasting Service (PBS); retrieved October 25th, 2008 from: http://www.pbs.org/now/transcript/223.html

Pickins, T. (2008). America is addicted to foreign oil; T. Boone Pickins; retrieved October 25th, 2008 from: http://www.pickensplan.com/theplan/

Wood, J. (2008). A Solution for General Motors, Seeking Alpha, retrieved Nov 15th, 2008 from: http://seekingalpha.com/article/106216-a-solution-for-general-motors

A subject I have not broached until now, the controversial Missile Defense Shield (MDS) that the Bush administration ‘sold’ to the East European countries does not pass the smell test. The Russians see it for what it is – a rebuke of their recent push to reestablish themselves as a World Power.

Unfortunately the Bush administration still thinks that the average person on the street does not have a very good world view. Such fear tactics as “Weapons of Mass Destruction” can justify anything, even their obvious political hackery.

The recent flap over a MDS stationed in Poland is a good example of a government that is so lost in its own self-serving rhetoric that it makes very stupid and poorly conceived decisions.

The US has spent $60 billion since 2001on MDS and it has still not impressed even the most conservative hawks that it would be affective. Proposed to intercept missiles from Iran or other “rogue” states, the MDS has several very poorly thought out issues. Here are a few of the reasons why the MDS, as currently developed is not worth the deployment cost:

• As anyone who follows the science of the proposed MDS can attest, the system has faired poorly in tests. As frequently as October 2008 tests conducted on known targets, launched from known locations at known times intercepted short rang missiles only 50% of the time. Additionally, all test intercepts were attempted close to the launch points; on only short range targets; and never after a missile had reached long range ballistic range and speed. This does not bode well for a fixed installation 2,000 miles from the launch point (e.g. Poland).
• Using “Path” tool in Google Earth, the nearest intercept point to an Iranian launch toward NATO or the U.S. is Turkey (NATO partner). The next is Georgia. That would be interesting.  Assuming the systems worked as designed, a deployment in Turkey would protect all of the NATO countries (Poland, Ukraine, Spain, France, Italy & UK – from 1,000 to 2,500 miles). Whereas bases in Poland will only protect Poland, Sweden, Denmark northern portions of the UK and the US northeast (6,100 miles).
• To date all successful tests have been done at sea. And none on an actual warhead to determine if disabling the missile would actually disable the warhead. In other words, Poland (or its neighbor, Ukraine) could be ground zero for any missile they intercept in their airspace.
• No intelligence analysts believe Iran will have accurate long range capability in any case. As with Pakistan, short range targets in the Middle Eastern region is the goal of a deterrent or an offensive capability. Their “balance of power” aspect with regards to the U.S. will be served by threats to our allies.
• The U.S., Israel, and most NATO & Middle East countries agree that a nuclear capability in Iran is “unacceptable” and military options will be exercised in the event even one such weapon is deployed in Iran. They will never achieve the threat that the MDS is purported to counter.
• The more urgent and meaningful threat is that from Pakistan. If that countries government flips to a theocracy such as that in Iran, the stakes are much higher. But once again, they only possess short range capability today, and an Eastern Europe deployment of a MDS – far down range of a launch site – will be hard pressed to protect legacy NATO countries, India or Israel.

To anyone even slightly familiar with the technology, geography and politics here, it is obvious that the MDS deployment, as planned, is political folly and has little to do with effective defense.  And I take exception to anyone using $60billion of our tax dollars for folly.

Poland and the Czech Republic like it because the U.S. is spending much of its Billions in their country. NATO likes it because Eastern Europe does. And Bush likes it because Russia doesn’t.

In reality, the MDS only has value as a bargaining chip with the Russians. The money should be spent on other programs that beef up security of more subversive nuclear delivery systems, such as shipping containers and air freight.

JB

Sources:

Commander, U.S. Third Fleet. (2008). Navy Intercepts Ballistic Missile Target in Fleet Exercise Pacific Blitz, 3^rd Fleet Public Affairs Office, Retrieved November 9, 2008, from: http://www.mda.mil/mdalink/pdf/08news0082.pdf

Gard, R., Reif, K. (2008). Time To Rethink Missile Defense, The Center for Arms Control, Retrieved November 9, 2008, from: http://armscontrolcenter.org/policy/missiledefense/articles/102008_rethink_missile_defense/

Lamb, N. (2008). Article: Russian plan raises foreign policy stakes for Obama, The New Zealand Herald, Retrieved November 9, 2008, from: http://www.nzherald.co.nz/world/news/article.cfm?c_id=2&objectid=10542069

The original anti-establishment, peace sign carrying, “make love not war” generation – and their children – have replaced the Bush Doctrine with the Woodstock Doctrine. A USA Today poll shows that Boomers and their X-gen offspring (ages 30-65) made up 66% of the total vote. Regardless of race, the ideology and progressiveness of the Boomer generation has had considerable impact on the 2008 election.

While Blacks voted overwhelmingly for President Obama, their total contribution was only 13% of total votes cast. Non-Hispanic/non-Asian whites made up nearly 75% of the total electorate. In any analysis of this election one must conclude that Mr. Obama was overwhelmingly supported by the Woodstock generation. His many campaign rallies were reminiscent of another day; His ideology reminiscent of other aspirations; His message of hope reminiscent of a youth we all thought was lost. Yes we can.

Just as we endured repercussions in the 1960s and 1970s for our anti-establishment rhetoric, so will there be repercussions in 2008 and beyond. Only now the stakes are much higher and the opponents to our ideology much more powerful.

The military industrial complex that President Eisenhower foretold has come to pass. Members of today’s congressional and administration staffs have an umbilical connection to some of the most powerful and well funded special interests ever to lobby in Washington. Government polices have steeped abuse upon both power and the rights of the people. We must clean house and sweep away this corruption.

From the energy lobby to military contractors, not one inch of progress will be easy. Threats to the president’s policies and the changes that they engender may come in the form of political subterfuge, character attacks and even physical threats. Many very wealthy people and corporations have a stake in the status quo – not only in the U.S. but around the world.

Obama can not do this alone. We – the people – must follow up his breathtaking vision with our unwavering support. We must watch our Congressional representatives closely. Get involved. Monitor their voting habits, their published opinions and the actions of their staff. Watch their affiliations. Demand frequent feedback on what they are doing and why. No more “elect ‘em and forget ‘em” America. It’s time we take responsibility for managing our representatives.

The President Elect has a lot to do over the next couple months. But so do we. Each of us who rallied around Senator Obama must now come to the aid of President Obama. Without our power and our influence his task may be impossible.

JB

“that this nation,… shall have a new birth of freedom… and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.” Abraham Lincoln