Think of this as Volume 14, Number 48 of A-Clue.com, the online newsletter I've written since 1997. Enjoy.
It may be the hardest test of a political leader or of a people.
How do you get people to believe in abundance? How do you believe in it, when the evidence you see around you screams scarcity?
This feeling of hopelessness has been at the heart of all America's past political crises.
- Can America remain one country or will it become like Europe, a collection of warring states?
- Can America grow when monopolists control essential prices and manipulate the markets to their benefit?
- Can American democracy survive this Great Depression which seems to prove it doesn't work?
- Can America keep growing in the face of social divisions tearing it apart?
- Can America keep growing in a world dominated by the price of oil and other energy resources?
These questions were all based on an assumption of scarcity. They narrowed what we could see to horrors in front of us. War. Money. Depression. Division.
You know the response. Can we? Yes, we can.
How did we get out of it in the past? Leadership was part of it. Great Presidents are made when the problems seem insurmountable. And what they all do is put us on a sustainable path of abundance. They call us to see that abundance remains in our future, that our best days lie before us.
President Obama has mastered the rhetorical aspects of this task. No one can question his writing ability or his speaking ability. But he became so wrapped up in the immediate problems he faced upon taking office, on the legislative slog needed to get the ambulance out of the ditch, that he has failed to provide the vision we need.
Obama has yet to create a real growth agenda, a vision of abundance, a path forward.
That vision is an economics based on energy derived from devices that harvest what is around us — the Sun, the air, the ground, the tides. The alternative is an economics of resources that are ever more-difficult to obtain, always more expensive, a world where our economic destiny is made elsewhere, and where it seems the world is boiling away.
As was mainly true 40 years ago, the big stories of our time are happening almost out of sight. There were no headlines in October, 1969, when the first message was sent over the ARPANET. "Talked to SRI host to host" was, like "Watson, come here" something that was only obvious in retrospect.
One job of Smartplanet, the site I've been working on since June 2009, is to highlight events like this. So here's a story, a good one, describing a new method for spraying solar arrays onto any surface, at room temperature.
Wow. Did you see this on CNN? Was it the big headline on The New York Times site that day? Of course it wasn't. And it won't be, until 30 years from now your children read a history piece which, like the link above on ARPANET, identify the specific place, time and surround of the breakthrough that changed everything.
The co-founders of The Breakthrough Institute are right. Making a political stink over global warming was bad strategy. Instead we need to focus on innovation. We need to see the opportunities rather than the problems.
Unfortunately no reporter and no think tank can shine the bright light we need. Only the President of the United States can shine that light. And it can't be a one-off. It has to be done consistently, message discipline delivered not just from the Oval Office but in every Administration communication.
Once Americans start believing in abundance again, everything changes. This has always been true. A generation ago that meant integrated circuits and content. A generation before that it meant consumer manufacturing. Before that it was great utilities, and before that manufacturing itself.
Political leaders harness such changes by changing the subject. Lincoln talked about avoiding war and healing its wounds. Teddy Roosevelt talked loudly about talking softly and carrying a big stick. FDR told us we had nothing to fear but fear itself. Even Nixon celebrated Elvis and the Apollo astronauts.
What people saw at that time, what the cynics wrote about, were the problems on the ground. Great leaders convinced us we should focus on the road ahead, and once we started doing that the crisis became manageable.
There is a future of abundance coming your way, and the way of your children. The great problems of their time will not be what you think they are — global warming and energy shortages. They will be imagination and labor shortages. By harnessing the technological power of the last generation, we can create a new world of cheap energy, good food, and rising labor prices.
But first we have to believe in it. Someone must point it out. Someone must lift our heads toward the sky, and toward a better tomorrow.
So you say:
“By harnessing the technological power”
we get
– cheap energy
– good food
– and rising labor prices.
Can you be specific? This looks like wishful thinking.
Of course, after repaying the Obama debts there will not be much left to invest in research anymore.
By the way, our Spender In Chief designated $170 million from the ‘stimulus’ theft to be spent on porno-scanning technology and 12-year-old-children grope-fests. Obama’s Halo only shines in Danaland…
So you say:
“By harnessing the technological power”
we get
– cheap energy
– good food
– and rising labor prices.
Can you be specific? This looks like wishful thinking.
Of course, after repaying the Obama debts there will not be much left to invest in research anymore.
By the way, our Spender In Chief designated $170 million from the ‘stimulus’ theft to be spent on porno-scanning technology and 12-year-old-children grope-fests. Obama’s Halo only shines in Danaland…
Your assumption of evil on the part of the President and his supporters only hurts your own cause.
It can cause those who disagree with you on politics to hate as you do. Projecting that hatred back on those who disagree with you (like me) is also childish. You don’t know me, we’ve never met.
Were you to speak to me as you write to me I would be greatly tempted to punch your face. Why then do it in print? Cowardice?
Change your rhetoric, or others will conclude you’re not just anti-Democrat, but anti-democratic and, therefore, an enemy of America.
Your assumption of evil on the part of the President and his supporters only hurts your own cause.
It can cause those who disagree with you on politics to hate as you do. Projecting that hatred back on those who disagree with you (like me) is also childish. You don’t know me, we’ve never met.
Were you to speak to me as you write to me I would be greatly tempted to punch your face. Why then do it in print? Cowardice?
Change your rhetoric, or others will conclude you’re not just anti-Democrat, but anti-democratic and, therefore, an enemy of America.
Ah, the person accusing me of hate whereas there’s nothing like that in my post wants to punch me in the face for speaking truth. How Liberal!
Just answer the question. Here it is again:
So you say:
“By harnessing the technological power”
we get
– cheap energy
– good food
– and rising labor prices.
Can you be specific? This looks like
wishful thinking.
And if you think it’s ‘cowardice’ to ask this reasonable question, then please consider that you have a public blog, you publicly posted your statements, and you invite comments on your blogs. And you call that cowardice? Come on. Just answer the question.
(and no ‘racist!’ ‘racist!’ RAAAAAACIIIIIIIST!’ screaming please).
Ah, the person accusing me of hate whereas there’s nothing like that in my post wants to punch me in the face for speaking truth. How Liberal!
Just answer the question. Here it is again:
So you say:
“By harnessing the technological power”
we get
– cheap energy
– good food
– and rising labor prices.
Can you be specific? This looks like
wishful thinking.
And if you think it’s ‘cowardice’ to ask this reasonable question, then please consider that you have a public blog, you publicly posted your statements, and you invite comments on your blogs. And you call that cowardice? Come on. Just answer the question.
(and no ‘racist!’ ‘racist!’ RAAAAAACIIIIIIIST!’ screaming please).
I knew you would respond to being called out by projecting your own hate on others.
That’s the way it is when you have nothing to say. Instead of responding to ideas, you attack anyone who disagrees, personally,in hopes your beautiful mind will not be disturbed.
This is sad. It’s also the sign of someone living in the past. I prefer the future.
I knew you would respond to being called out by projecting your own hate on others.
That’s the way it is when you have nothing to say. Instead of responding to ideas, you attack anyone who disagrees, personally,in hopes your beautiful mind will not be disturbed.
This is sad. It’s also the sign of someone living in the past. I prefer the future.
There we go again. I ask a question – then get accused of hate, get accused of being a coward, and get threatened with physical violence. I repeat my question and get more accusations that I hate.
Now. Try to clear your head, and try to see that I was responding to your ideas by asking a question about your ideas. But here is the real problem Dana: you don’t like my question. And then, in a typical liberal knee-jerk go the hate / racist / evil route. The big question that remains is: where is Bush in all this? I mean, seriously, you blame him for everything but it’s been kind of quiet on that front lately.
You’re still free to answer my question: Where is the substantiation for your assertion that we get
– cheap energy
– good food
– and rising labor prices
“by harnessing technological power”.
There we go again. I ask a question – then get accused of hate, get accused of being a coward, and get threatened with physical violence. I repeat my question and get more accusations that I hate.
Now. Try to clear your head, and try to see that I was responding to your ideas by asking a question about your ideas. But here is the real problem Dana: you don’t like my question. And then, in a typical liberal knee-jerk go the hate / racist / evil route. The big question that remains is: where is Bush in all this? I mean, seriously, you blame him for everything but it’s been kind of quiet on that front lately.
You’re still free to answer my question: Where is the substantiation for your assertion that we get
– cheap energy
– good food
– and rising labor prices
“by harnessing technological power”.
And here’s our muslim president telling what he really stands for: the weakening of America to appease his muslim breathren:
————————————————————–
The following is a narrative taken from a 2008 Sunday morning televised “Meet The Press’. The author (Dale Lindsborg) is employed by none other than the very liberal Washington Post!!
From Sunday’s 07 Sept. 2008 11:48:04 EST, Televised “Meet the Press” THE THEN Senator Obama was asked about his stance on the American Flag.
General Bill Ginn’ USAF (ret.) asked Obama to explain WHY he doesn’t follow protocol when the National Anthem is played.
The General stated to Obama that according to the United States Code, Title 36, Chapter 10, Sec. 171…During rendition of the national anthem, when the flag is displayed, all present (except those in uniform) are expected to stand at attention facing the flag with the right hand over the heart. Or, at the very least, “Stand and Face It.”
NOW GET THIS !! – – – – –
‘Senator’ Obama replied:
“As I’ve said about the flag pin, I don’t want to be perceived as taking sides.” “There are a lot of people in the world to whom the American flag is a symbol of oppression..” “The anthem itself conveys a war-like message. You know, the bombs bursting in air and all that sort of thing.”
(ARE YOU READY FOR THIS???)
Obama continued: “The National Anthem should be ‘swapped’ for something less parochial and less bellicose. I like the song ‘I’d Like To Teach the World To Sing.’ If that were our anthem, then, I might salute it. In my opinion, we should consider reinventing our National Anthem as well as ‘redesign’ our Flag to better offer our enemies hope and love.
It’s my intention, if elected, to disarm America to the level of acceptance to our Middle East Brethren. If we, as a Nation of waring people, conduct ourselves like the nations of Islam, where peace prevails – – – perhaps a state or period of mutual accord could exist between our governments .”
When I become President, I will seek a pact of agreement to end hostilities between those who have been at war or in a state of enmity, and a freedom from disquieting oppressive thoughts. We as a Nation, have placed upon the nations of Islam, an unfair injustice which is WHY my wife disrespects the Flag and she and I have attended several flag burning ceremonies in the past.”
“Of course now, I have found myself about to become the President of the United States and I have put my hatred aside. I will use my power to bring CHANGE to this Nation, and offer the people a new path.. My wife and I look forward to becoming our Country’s First black Family. Indeed, CHANGE is about to overwhelm the United States of America ”
—————————
There you go Dana. That’s your hero. You elected a muslim who hates America.
And here’s our muslim president telling what he really stands for: the weakening of America to appease his muslim breathren:
————————————————————–
The following is a narrative taken from a 2008 Sunday morning televised “Meet The Press’. The author (Dale Lindsborg) is employed by none other than the very liberal Washington Post!!
From Sunday’s 07 Sept. 2008 11:48:04 EST, Televised “Meet the Press” THE THEN Senator Obama was asked about his stance on the American Flag.
General Bill Ginn’ USAF (ret.) asked Obama to explain WHY he doesn’t follow protocol when the National Anthem is played.
The General stated to Obama that according to the United States Code, Title 36, Chapter 10, Sec. 171…During rendition of the national anthem, when the flag is displayed, all present (except those in uniform) are expected to stand at attention facing the flag with the right hand over the heart. Or, at the very least, “Stand and Face It.”
NOW GET THIS !! – – – – –
‘Senator’ Obama replied:
“As I’ve said about the flag pin, I don’t want to be perceived as taking sides.” “There are a lot of people in the world to whom the American flag is a symbol of oppression..” “The anthem itself conveys a war-like message. You know, the bombs bursting in air and all that sort of thing.”
(ARE YOU READY FOR THIS???)
Obama continued: “The National Anthem should be ‘swapped’ for something less parochial and less bellicose. I like the song ‘I’d Like To Teach the World To Sing.’ If that were our anthem, then, I might salute it. In my opinion, we should consider reinventing our National Anthem as well as ‘redesign’ our Flag to better offer our enemies hope and love.
It’s my intention, if elected, to disarm America to the level of acceptance to our Middle East Brethren. If we, as a Nation of waring people, conduct ourselves like the nations of Islam, where peace prevails – – – perhaps a state or period of mutual accord could exist between our governments .”
When I become President, I will seek a pact of agreement to end hostilities between those who have been at war or in a state of enmity, and a freedom from disquieting oppressive thoughts. We as a Nation, have placed upon the nations of Islam, an unfair injustice which is WHY my wife disrespects the Flag and she and I have attended several flag burning ceremonies in the past.”
“Of course now, I have found myself about to become the President of the United States and I have put my hatred aside. I will use my power to bring CHANGE to this Nation, and offer the people a new path.. My wife and I look forward to becoming our Country’s First black Family. Indeed, CHANGE is about to overwhelm the United States of America ”
—————————
There you go Dana. That’s your hero. You elected a muslim who hates America.
What kind of name is “Peng”?
What kind of name is “Peng”?
Glad we got that straightened out, Peng. You claim a personal animus toward President Barack Hussein Obama.
I suspect you would find it easy to do the same with any liberal figure. Al Gore, Howard Dean, Hillary Clinton. Somehow it would all be that they have personal flaws proving they hate America.
That’s an old conservative cottage industry. Don’t attack the message.Go after the messenger. I’ve had people do it against me, too. Go after me, personally, rather than discuss what I was saying at the time. (And liberals sometimes do this too. They just dump on one another when they see one doing it.)
It’s a silly game, and while you ought to ask who’s getting you to play it, and what’s their agenda, I don’t have the time or patience to educate you.
Just so I know where you’re coming from, I can now ignore you.
Glad we got that straightened out, Peng. You claim a personal animus toward President Barack Hussein Obama.
I suspect you would find it easy to do the same with any liberal figure. Al Gore, Howard Dean, Hillary Clinton. Somehow it would all be that they have personal flaws proving they hate America.
That’s an old conservative cottage industry. Don’t attack the message.Go after the messenger. I’ve had people do it against me, too. Go after me, personally, rather than discuss what I was saying at the time. (And liberals sometimes do this too. They just dump on one another when they see one doing it.)
It’s a silly game, and while you ought to ask who’s getting you to play it, and what’s their agenda, I don’t have the time or patience to educate you.
Just so I know where you’re coming from, I can now ignore you.
I dunno, but he sure puts lots of faith in e-mail chain letters!
I dunno, but he sure puts lots of faith in e-mail chain letters!
I like this.
Problem is, Obama seems more like your standard Clintonian concilator Steering A Middle Course between already-defined extremes. I supported him mainly because I thought he was the Dem with the best chance of winning who wasn’t part of a potential dynasty, and I think he’s done an OK job under the circumstances, but I’m already hearing the rumblings about him going into what’s been called “School Uniform Mode” while a wave of Hooverite austerity rules the world economy. I don’t know if that’ll be very helpful. I suspect he’s counting on the GOP House making themselves look like fools over the next two years and winning re-election simply because the GOP doesn’t have anyone who can beat him, but I’d like to see more than that.
I like this.
Problem is, Obama seems more like your standard Clintonian concilator Steering A Middle Course between already-defined extremes. I supported him mainly because I thought he was the Dem with the best chance of winning who wasn’t part of a potential dynasty, and I think he’s done an OK job under the circumstances, but I’m already hearing the rumblings about him going into what’s been called “School Uniform Mode” while a wave of Hooverite austerity rules the world economy. I don’t know if that’ll be very helpful. I suspect he’s counting on the GOP House making themselves look like fools over the next two years and winning re-election simply because the GOP doesn’t have anyone who can beat him, but I’d like to see more than that.
Actually Peng is a Chinese name. Anything wrong with that?
And again Dana doesn’t answer the question (but still blaming that I don’t address the issue of his blog).
And again we have Dana accusing me of ‘hate’ where that’s not in my post.
And we have Dana accusing me of hating America, where that’s not in my post.
And we have Dana accusing me of being undemocratic, where that’s not in my post.
And making accusations about Gore, Clinton. Weird Dana, where is that in my posts?
Silly.
I think this conclusively proved that you are an angry man, who can’t deal with dissenting opinions, Dana. Deep down in you is such a hatred towards anything that is not utterly liberal that you become blind for facts, and refuse to discuss matters with people who have other opionions. Really, it’s kind of silly – you act like a child screaming ‘racist’ / ‘evil’ the moment someone doesn’t agree with you fully. You simply don’t come across as a grown up man. Grow a spine man.
Here, try again:
Just answer the question that I asked earlier:
Where is the substantiation for your assertion that we get
– cheap energy
– good food
– and rising labor prices
“by harnessing technological power”.
Actually Peng is a Chinese name. Anything wrong with that?
And again Dana doesn’t answer the question (but still blaming that I don’t address the issue of his blog).
And again we have Dana accusing me of ‘hate’ where that’s not in my post.
And we have Dana accusing me of hating America, where that’s not in my post.
And we have Dana accusing me of being undemocratic, where that’s not in my post.
And making accusations about Gore, Clinton. Weird Dana, where is that in my posts?
Silly.
I think this conclusively proved that you are an angry man, who can’t deal with dissenting opinions, Dana. Deep down in you is such a hatred towards anything that is not utterly liberal that you become blind for facts, and refuse to discuss matters with people who have other opionions. Really, it’s kind of silly – you act like a child screaming ‘racist’ / ‘evil’ the moment someone doesn’t agree with you fully. You simply don’t come across as a grown up man. Grow a spine man.
Here, try again:
Just answer the question that I asked earlier:
Where is the substantiation for your assertion that we get
– cheap energy
– good food
– and rising labor prices
“by harnessing technological power”.