My thanks to Patrick Michaels for bringing my attention to the following paragraphs taken from Dwight Eisenhower’s Farewell Address. Like most people, I was aware of his warning about the “military-industrial complex,” long-since realized. But these paragraphs carry a different warning, one also realized:
“Akin to, and largely responsible for the sweeping changes in our industrial-military posture, has been the technological revolution during recent decades.
In this revolution, research has become central; it also becomes more formalized, complex, and costly. A steadily increasing share is conducted for, by, or at the direction of, the Federal government.
Today, the solitary inventor, tinkering in his shop, has been over shadowed by task forces of scientists in laboratories and testing fields. In the same fashion, the free university, historically the fountainhead of free ideas and scientific discovery, has experienced a revolution in the conduct of research. Partly because of the huge costs involved, a government contract becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity. For every old blackboard there are now hundreds of new electronic computers.
The prospect of domination of the nation’s scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present and is gravely to be regarded.
Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite.”
Now that the Green New Deal has reached Congress there is only the money to worry about. Capitalist vs. Capitalist is the only game being played in Washington, D.C., regardless of the title of the legislation being debated. It’s where the spending is authorized. It’s where appropriations are decided. Who’s ox gets gored, and who’s pockets are stuffed with cash. Nothing new, nothing unusual. But, as always, those decisions impact real lives.
We are now down to two choices, both bad. Sorry, folks, that’s all you’re ever going to get. More than two would confuse people into thinking that any thinking might be required. I hope some might find some useful information in Lance’s article.
A fellow named John in the post below linked us to a blog, Mike Norman Economics, that linked to a Bloomberg piece on “MMT,” or Modern Monetary Theory. Economics has never been my thing, but I did at one time follow Australian economist Steve Keen, who wrote the book Debunking Economics, which I enjoyed. I loved seeing the dreary science torn apart, as even without expertise I noticed that economists are usually wrong about all things, all the time. As JFK is said to have said, when his economic advisers screwed up he had to take the fall while they merely moved on to new advice. Since presidents are just actors, that is BS, but still a nice quote.
There is something going on in France that the U.S. MSM is working hard to avoid. This obsessive denial always makes me that much more curious. What could the problem be? May I humbly suggest a brief “look under the hood” for yourself. The worst that could happen is the chance one might gain some supplemental context. Reading Ollie Richardson’s piece this morning before coffee gave me a little better understanding of what is happening in cities all across France. Fascinating, I think. I hope others will have a similar experience. Enjoy.
I mentioned this show in the comments in another thread, saying that after I watched it I felt another project was in the works. However, I leave it all to others. It involves genealogy, twins, and a very unlikely story about how Carol Burnett made her way to stardom. I will give you the exact time at which the interesting events in this show occur so that you don’t have to sit through it or go searching.
Some years ago I read a small weekly newspaper in Billings, Montana called the “Outpost.” It is since gone, its proprietor, David Crisp, retired. He turns up now and again here and there, an accomplished writer.
The reason I bring this up was because he one time praised another reporter (perhaps on passing) by saying that even as he knew him very well, he did not know his political beliefs. In American parlance, this is probably reduced to whether he was Democrat or Republican. Crisp was saying that the greatest attribute of a serious news reporter is objectivity.
It should not fall to me to be the one to point this out. I have neither the “infallible artistic eye” nor “mad skillz” with Photoshopping and Face-chopping®. But I have heard nary a whisper on the topic in the forums I frequent, so here goes nothing.