My own thinking suggests that we are even closer to the "tipping point" wherein end-to-end recycling may offer resources at costs equivalent to raw material production and transportation costs. Some proof is discovered in the "numbers" of some researchers who see the percentages of recycling of many valuable ores and minerals as indicative of calculations made by producers that recycling materials offer equivalent or even lower costs than buying and transporting raw materials from origin sources like existing mines.
Demand exceeds amounts currently produced from recycling.
To be successful, however, it must truly be a production recycling process wherein all of the material is recycled to it's "highest value reuse." Therefore recycling plastic into road materials is not a highest value reuse, but plastics into plastics may be.
Research beyond what is available today is required to process a diversified stream of raw materials, organic and inorganic, into a finished series of highest value materials for reuse in the manufacturing of everything from foodstuffs to materials for furniture, toys and building materials.
This new "alchemy" of recycling will slow, not eliminate, the process or sourcing, mining, processing and transporting materials, because populations and standards of living are constantly growing, even accelerating in much of the world.Fortunately (unfortunately) most of the world's easily discovered and processed raw materials, including energy sources, are in play.
However, 80% plus of the earth's mineral, and energy, resources remain yet to be discovered.They are high(er) cost sources to be sure, but their cost is a component of what drives the tipping point calculations of recycling from end-to-end.
Eventually, earth's population will (hopefully)stabilize; living standards will be mostly "balanced," and recycling will generate most of the materials needed for all of the production of goods and services.
Wednesday, December 26, 2007
Monday, October 29, 2007
Senate Dream education bill death well-deserved
Senate Dream education bill death well- deserved
"Dream" death well deserved Cynthia Tucker's Column (Editoial page Editor Atlanta Journal Constitution)"Young immigrants' dreams die in Senate" was long on idealistic rhetoric and short on understanding that Americans are not willing to do virtually anything to reward illegal immigrants, or their children.
Illegal means illegal, and wishing for a back door to give status is not fair and will not be accepted by Americans. That's why the Senate voted against it. That's why this and many other proposals looking to get "a nose under the tent' for illegals just won't stand.
You can offer many justified comments about the American body politic that highlight apathy, unfocused values, even laziness, but on this issue Americans see the basic unfairness of allowing illegals a reward which they feel millions of other legal immigrants have earned by following the rules.
And, since when are we willing to paint a character portrait of illegals that makes them better than legal Americans of the same stature and standing? Finding examples of outstanding students who are illegals is just as easy as finding examples of U.S. citizens who are legal, and who deserve the opportunity to be credibly educated, maybe using funds that Ms. Tucker would use otherwise.
Did Ms. Tucker calculate the cost of educating the illegal Mr. Marcos through high school? (About $$85,000) What would those funds have paid for helping legal citizens?
The educational cost of all illegal immigrant children K-12 runs about 60 Billion dollars a year- that's Billions with a big "B" folks! That's a lot of educational improvement for U.S. citizens!
Like $20,000 a year college tuition for each of 3,000,000 legal citizens. Or 2,000,000 college tuitions, AND after school programs for 4,000,000 K-6 poor children.
And, lastly, character assassination ("craven White House, elected leaders quake and cower,") of those who want social and educational benefits reserved for citizens and legal immigrants is unworthy of Ms. Tucker and her sponsors and more, deserve condemnation and a retraction by Ms. Tucker. Those who disagree with Ms. Tucker are still operating under the assumption that America's greatest freedom, that of Free Speech, is still intact.
Or, would Ms. Tucker change that little law also?
"Dream" death well deserved Cynthia Tucker's Column (Editoial page Editor Atlanta Journal Constitution)"Young immigrants' dreams die in Senate" was long on idealistic rhetoric and short on understanding that Americans are not willing to do virtually anything to reward illegal immigrants, or their children.
Illegal means illegal, and wishing for a back door to give status is not fair and will not be accepted by Americans. That's why the Senate voted against it. That's why this and many other proposals looking to get "a nose under the tent' for illegals just won't stand.
You can offer many justified comments about the American body politic that highlight apathy, unfocused values, even laziness, but on this issue Americans see the basic unfairness of allowing illegals a reward which they feel millions of other legal immigrants have earned by following the rules.
And, since when are we willing to paint a character portrait of illegals that makes them better than legal Americans of the same stature and standing? Finding examples of outstanding students who are illegals is just as easy as finding examples of U.S. citizens who are legal, and who deserve the opportunity to be credibly educated, maybe using funds that Ms. Tucker would use otherwise.
Did Ms. Tucker calculate the cost of educating the illegal Mr. Marcos through high school? (About $$85,000) What would those funds have paid for helping legal citizens?
The educational cost of all illegal immigrant children K-12 runs about 60 Billion dollars a year- that's Billions with a big "B" folks! That's a lot of educational improvement for U.S. citizens!
Like $20,000 a year college tuition for each of 3,000,000 legal citizens. Or 2,000,000 college tuitions, AND after school programs for 4,000,000 K-6 poor children.
And, lastly, character assassination ("craven White House, elected leaders quake and cower,") of those who want social and educational benefits reserved for citizens and legal immigrants is unworthy of Ms. Tucker and her sponsors and more, deserve condemnation and a retraction by Ms. Tucker. Those who disagree with Ms. Tucker are still operating under the assumption that America's greatest freedom, that of Free Speech, is still intact.
Or, would Ms. Tucker change that little law also?
Wednesday, October 10, 2007
Thompson prescription "bad medicine" for Social Security
Fred Thompson's debate performance may illuminate his views, but the light wasn't flattering. Initially, I like ex-Senator Thompson; his personality, his viewpoint, hopefully his integrity.
In particular, however, his ideas on dealing with the Social Security "problem" may give pause to seniors.
His solution? Rein in benefits, which he feels will so overburden the system so as to cause an earlier blowup than had been thought. His way? Index the benefit's annual increases to inflation, rather than wages, which is OK by me, so long as his inflation index is the "senior index," meaning the disproportionate amount seniors spend for health care and medicines, the fastest growing component of their "living index."
To just consider overall inflation, but not the senior index type of inflation is to ignore the rapidly rising components of health care for seniors, retirees and the disabled, which is 4-5 times the overall rate of inflation. Standard inflation? 2-3 %. Health care inflation? 8-10%
In effect, health care inflation reduces seniors, retirees and the disabled purchasing power and their standard of living, given the disparity of the benefits annual adjustments and health care costs. Thompson's solution would make it worse.
Maybe a solution in the opposite direction would sell better to those avid-voting seniors. Offer to index Social Security benefits with a new "Seniors Living Index" which would take into account the horrendous and unjustified, ever growing, health care inflation, which averages 4-5 times or more the standard index of inflation. While that might drive the system to the insolvent stage sooner, it might also overcome the health industry's demonstrated ability to lobby, obfusate, and avoid the kind of scrutiny that might mitigate their ever-increasing ability to charge more and more... for less and less.
Someone once said, "Democracy is the worst system of government...except for all the others."
The American Health system is the very worst, except for all the other choices.
That doesn't mean we can't do better.
In particular, however, his ideas on dealing with the Social Security "problem" may give pause to seniors.
His solution? Rein in benefits, which he feels will so overburden the system so as to cause an earlier blowup than had been thought. His way? Index the benefit's annual increases to inflation, rather than wages, which is OK by me, so long as his inflation index is the "senior index," meaning the disproportionate amount seniors spend for health care and medicines, the fastest growing component of their "living index."
To just consider overall inflation, but not the senior index type of inflation is to ignore the rapidly rising components of health care for seniors, retirees and the disabled, which is 4-5 times the overall rate of inflation. Standard inflation? 2-3 %. Health care inflation? 8-10%
In effect, health care inflation reduces seniors, retirees and the disabled purchasing power and their standard of living, given the disparity of the benefits annual adjustments and health care costs. Thompson's solution would make it worse.
Maybe a solution in the opposite direction would sell better to those avid-voting seniors. Offer to index Social Security benefits with a new "Seniors Living Index" which would take into account the horrendous and unjustified, ever growing, health care inflation, which averages 4-5 times or more the standard index of inflation. While that might drive the system to the insolvent stage sooner, it might also overcome the health industry's demonstrated ability to lobby, obfusate, and avoid the kind of scrutiny that might mitigate their ever-increasing ability to charge more and more... for less and less.
Someone once said, "Democracy is the worst system of government...except for all the others."
The American Health system is the very worst, except for all the other choices.
That doesn't mean we can't do better.
Sunday, September 30, 2007
Blame the parents and community leaders!
Comment to authro Marilyn vos Savant of Parade magazine
I respect your intellect and your thinking ability. However intelligence is of little value when moral and philosophical judgments get in the way. While it may be true that standardized tests have problems, the problems are minor in relation to the test's value; that is they measure the relative performance against some established standards of performance, enabling evaluation by college admission boards, and others.
You might consider that you, as a spokesperson for the intelligentsia, have a real obligation to offer solutions instead of opinions.
Perhaps the limitations of short comments in the publication prevented you from offering more.
One could even go further and offer that you, of all people, have an obligation to use your considerable intellectual resources to offer the solutions that logic dictates, even if they are philosophically and socially unpopular.
In the case of standardized tests, your failure to state the obvious, that cultural and parental failure is responsible for the desire to somehow provide other ways for under performing students to get a chance at a societal "A."
The inclination of commentators and pundits like you to offer "pity me" commentary in the absence of postulating real solutions just extends the time it takes to realize that solutions require real societal "tough love." Ignoring or excusing circumstance only prolongs a lack of recognition of assigning responsibility.
A Maryland college president, Freeman Hrabowski III, a black educator of some repute and accomplishment, recently noted "We have to admit to ourselves that large numbers of parents are not as involved... as they need to be." His comments were part of a Baltimore Sun article on September 23 called "a hard look at the achievement gap."
My feeling also is that the failure to achieve can be laid directly at the feet of parents, and further at community and religious leaders. Educators can only work with the materials (the students) they receive; if children are unmotivated and unprepared because of a lifetime of neglect, and misplaced values, it is way too late in the process for educators to be expected to correct parental and societal failure.
Blaming the objectivity of testing is a poor substitute for demanding a solution of parental involvement and perhaps consequences for those who do not provide parental motivation.
If I have somehow misinterpreted your comment, or unwittingly extrapolated from your comment, I apologize.
But, my opinions haven't changed.
I respect your intellect and your thinking ability. However intelligence is of little value when moral and philosophical judgments get in the way. While it may be true that standardized tests have problems, the problems are minor in relation to the test's value; that is they measure the relative performance against some established standards of performance, enabling evaluation by college admission boards, and others.
You might consider that you, as a spokesperson for the intelligentsia, have a real obligation to offer solutions instead of opinions.
Perhaps the limitations of short comments in the publication prevented you from offering more.
One could even go further and offer that you, of all people, have an obligation to use your considerable intellectual resources to offer the solutions that logic dictates, even if they are philosophically and socially unpopular.
In the case of standardized tests, your failure to state the obvious, that cultural and parental failure is responsible for the desire to somehow provide other ways for under performing students to get a chance at a societal "A."
The inclination of commentators and pundits like you to offer "pity me" commentary in the absence of postulating real solutions just extends the time it takes to realize that solutions require real societal "tough love." Ignoring or excusing circumstance only prolongs a lack of recognition of assigning responsibility.
A Maryland college president, Freeman Hrabowski III, a black educator of some repute and accomplishment, recently noted "We have to admit to ourselves that large numbers of parents are not as involved... as they need to be." His comments were part of a Baltimore Sun article on September 23 called "a hard look at the achievement gap."
My feeling also is that the failure to achieve can be laid directly at the feet of parents, and further at community and religious leaders. Educators can only work with the materials (the students) they receive; if children are unmotivated and unprepared because of a lifetime of neglect, and misplaced values, it is way too late in the process for educators to be expected to correct parental and societal failure.
Blaming the objectivity of testing is a poor substitute for demanding a solution of parental involvement and perhaps consequences for those who do not provide parental motivation.
If I have somehow misinterpreted your comment, or unwittingly extrapolated from your comment, I apologize.
But, my opinions haven't changed.
Monday, September 10, 2007
My gun, my safety.
U.S. Constitution - Bill of Rights
Amendment II
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
The U.S. Constitution, as quoted above, is the watchword of individual freedom in the United States. We currently worry, and rightly so, about all the firearms used in robberies, and other criminal acts.
But, do we wonder at what would really happen if our duty to keep and use firearms should be abridged in the many ways some well-meaning legislators have sought?
For instance, no army general, no officeholder, would possibly think, even today, of attempting a coup, or otherwise usurping the government. Why? Because the millions of households that do have firearms, from hunting rifles to pistols and shotguns, would be an impossible force to overcome, even if hundreds of thousands of U.S. soldiers could be convinced to shoot at their neighbors, and I don't think they could be so convinced.
The Founders envisioned a free society in which citizens having arms could be enlisted in a militia to defend the country and themselves as necessary. The Founders were considering at the time the certain possibility of attack from outsiders, and saw a future where they wanted to make it impossible for an errant government, even our own, to take over the country. If every citizen was armed and ready to fight, there was not much chance of any army being able to conquer ours. And we were the very best guerrilla fighters in the world at that time! Some might offer that we are no less a frontier country today, because the criminals have guns, and many of us don't. We should change the equation.
So besides contemporary worries about the criminal element, we really need to take our responsibility as Citizens seriously.
In that vein, I think every high school graduate should be required to take and pass a course in handling firearms. Upon passing and at graduation, part of the graduation would be a firearm license, allowing that person to obtain a hand gun and other arms as allowed, mainly being hunting and sport firearms, and shotguns and pistols for personal protection.
Yes, there would be jerks who did bad things, but no more than today. The upside is that many of the criminals who have firearms today would find less willing victims; potential victims who could and would shoot back, rapidly reducing the criminal population. Yes, there would be mistakes, yes there would be unintended deaths. But overall, there would be a rapid decrease in the criminal element. I cynically note the substantial cost savings in housing the prison population, although much of that is drug-based. ( More on drugs later).
So, let's take our Constitutional responsibilities as Citizens more seriously. Every household should have at least one person licensed to carry firearms for personal protection, and all those over eighteen should be trained in their safe use.
For those worried about our Privacy Rights, this might help; no government would attempt a coup if they were facing over 200 million armed resisters! For those worried about all those criminals with guns, how many armed robbers would be left after a year or so?
Answer: Not many.
Amendment II
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
The U.S. Constitution, as quoted above, is the watchword of individual freedom in the United States. We currently worry, and rightly so, about all the firearms used in robberies, and other criminal acts.
But, do we wonder at what would really happen if our duty to keep and use firearms should be abridged in the many ways some well-meaning legislators have sought?
For instance, no army general, no officeholder, would possibly think, even today, of attempting a coup, or otherwise usurping the government. Why? Because the millions of households that do have firearms, from hunting rifles to pistols and shotguns, would be an impossible force to overcome, even if hundreds of thousands of U.S. soldiers could be convinced to shoot at their neighbors, and I don't think they could be so convinced.
The Founders envisioned a free society in which citizens having arms could be enlisted in a militia to defend the country and themselves as necessary. The Founders were considering at the time the certain possibility of attack from outsiders, and saw a future where they wanted to make it impossible for an errant government, even our own, to take over the country. If every citizen was armed and ready to fight, there was not much chance of any army being able to conquer ours. And we were the very best guerrilla fighters in the world at that time! Some might offer that we are no less a frontier country today, because the criminals have guns, and many of us don't. We should change the equation.
So besides contemporary worries about the criminal element, we really need to take our responsibility as Citizens seriously.
In that vein, I think every high school graduate should be required to take and pass a course in handling firearms. Upon passing and at graduation, part of the graduation would be a firearm license, allowing that person to obtain a hand gun and other arms as allowed, mainly being hunting and sport firearms, and shotguns and pistols for personal protection.
Yes, there would be jerks who did bad things, but no more than today. The upside is that many of the criminals who have firearms today would find less willing victims; potential victims who could and would shoot back, rapidly reducing the criminal population. Yes, there would be mistakes, yes there would be unintended deaths. But overall, there would be a rapid decrease in the criminal element. I cynically note the substantial cost savings in housing the prison population, although much of that is drug-based. ( More on drugs later).
So, let's take our Constitutional responsibilities as Citizens more seriously. Every household should have at least one person licensed to carry firearms for personal protection, and all those over eighteen should be trained in their safe use.
For those worried about our Privacy Rights, this might help; no government would attempt a coup if they were facing over 200 million armed resisters! For those worried about all those criminals with guns, how many armed robbers would be left after a year or so?
Answer: Not many.
Saturday, September 8, 2007
May I have another, please sir?
No, this isn't David Copperfield or Tale of Two Cities.
This is the 2008 race.
And, my "another" refers to choices.
Isn't there a dark horse out there to rescue America from the mediocrity of the current crop. Or, can we combine some of the issues into one candidate? Like Tancredo on immigration reform, Guilianni on law enforcement, Romney on management, McCain on foreign policy?
More importantly, does anyone have a vision of how to correct the difference, the chasm, the abyss, between what America is today and what the Founding Fathers envisioned?
What happened to individual responsibility? To respecting yourself though individual accomplishment at whatever personal sacrifice?
What happened to community socialization and enforcement of cultural norms?
What happened to parental values and parenting of adherence to respect for your fellow citizens, respect for property rights?
What happened to community, and national, leaders who care more about doing what's right, that getting elected? Did they ever exist, other than in idealistic dreams? Did "Mr. Smith" ever go to Washington?
This is the 2008 race.
And, my "another" refers to choices.
Isn't there a dark horse out there to rescue America from the mediocrity of the current crop. Or, can we combine some of the issues into one candidate? Like Tancredo on immigration reform, Guilianni on law enforcement, Romney on management, McCain on foreign policy?
More importantly, does anyone have a vision of how to correct the difference, the chasm, the abyss, between what America is today and what the Founding Fathers envisioned?
What happened to individual responsibility? To respecting yourself though individual accomplishment at whatever personal sacrifice?
What happened to community socialization and enforcement of cultural norms?
What happened to parental values and parenting of adherence to respect for your fellow citizens, respect for property rights?
What happened to community, and national, leaders who care more about doing what's right, that getting elected? Did they ever exist, other than in idealistic dreams? Did "Mr. Smith" ever go to Washington?
Wednesday, September 5, 2007
I want solutions, not feelings.
I was raised in a lower middle class family, went to public schools, drafted into the military, graduated from night school college in Maryland, undertook a business career. Worked in sales, investments and investment banking, retail, mail order, business and marketing consulting, and publishing.
Now registered as an Independent, voted every opportunity all my life. Believe in Democracy and capitalism, in free markets and individual opportunity. Want to see my children and grandchildren earn a better life in a world where individual freedom and privacy is respected, where government is limited to "defense for the common good," and domestic and foreign policy is strictly oriented to preserving and improving a society driven by respect for the individual, with consciousness of the value of each, and rewards in proportion to effort.
There are capitalistic solutions for most societal problems; we have to be tough enough to accept them.
Dropouts in a free society are a result of the failure of parenting and culture to expect more, not less; of failure to provide more in the way of personal commitment, not less.
It is not our society and culture's responsibility to take care of people; it IS our responsibility to provide opportunity for them to care for themselves. Nonetheless, there are those who, through no fault of their own, become wards of society. Besides preventing the failures that allowed these unfortunates to become the responsibility of all of us, it is the job of society from a capitalistic perspective to support the charitable organizations which take the responsibility of caring for these wards of society. What does that mean?
More about the role of taxes and charity in the future, and how culture needs to replace government in dealing with societal problems.
Evolution in the Darwinian sense must be allowed to work, otherwise we are all diminished by the stress of constantly lowered standards of behavior, of conduct, of performance.
The society and government envisioned by our Founders is in danger.
It can and must be saved.
Now registered as an Independent, voted every opportunity all my life. Believe in Democracy and capitalism, in free markets and individual opportunity. Want to see my children and grandchildren earn a better life in a world where individual freedom and privacy is respected, where government is limited to "defense for the common good," and domestic and foreign policy is strictly oriented to preserving and improving a society driven by respect for the individual, with consciousness of the value of each, and rewards in proportion to effort.
There are capitalistic solutions for most societal problems; we have to be tough enough to accept them.
Dropouts in a free society are a result of the failure of parenting and culture to expect more, not less; of failure to provide more in the way of personal commitment, not less.
It is not our society and culture's responsibility to take care of people; it IS our responsibility to provide opportunity for them to care for themselves. Nonetheless, there are those who, through no fault of their own, become wards of society. Besides preventing the failures that allowed these unfortunates to become the responsibility of all of us, it is the job of society from a capitalistic perspective to support the charitable organizations which take the responsibility of caring for these wards of society. What does that mean?
More about the role of taxes and charity in the future, and how culture needs to replace government in dealing with societal problems.
Evolution in the Darwinian sense must be allowed to work, otherwise we are all diminished by the stress of constantly lowered standards of behavior, of conduct, of performance.
The society and government envisioned by our Founders is in danger.
It can and must be saved.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)