 |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
Comments from listeners:
Back to The Real Agenda main page
In response to How do we fix education? (Robert Reich & David Frum, November 1) We've been asking the wrong question for years. How do we make education a priority to parents? The answer is not easy. Private and public schools that are successful are a result of parents making education a priority. How can any one teacher counter the influence of a child's role models (parents, friends etc) who could care less if the child goes to school on a regular basis, let alone does homework? — Terry Gabet, Ohio
In "How do we fix education" both guests argue that the best way to fix education is to make it competitive. While they each have their own solution, the fact remains that education is stuck in a bureaucratic rut. It's often said that our education system is outdated, but few ponder what makes it outdated. Outdated implies that it worked when it was originally created. However, when we go back and analyze the foundations of the current education system we find rampant segregation and minimal inclusion. As more people entered the system, equality became paramount. Layers of bureaucracy hide money pits, accountability is completely absent, and workers (teachers) only have to perform well enough to stay under the radar, not to mention they are often reprimanded when trying new curriculum. Moreover, the upper class is the only group of citizens that can afford a better system. — John Witjenburg, Fort Lauderdale, Fla.
In response to
Biofuel reporters better step on it (Sam Eaton, October 23) As a recent Colorado transplant I'd also be interested in learning how water comes into the picture. A couple big corn producing counties like Yuma County have been draining the Oglalla Aquifer to grow corn. As you know, corn is really a tropical grass and needs about twice the rainfall the area gets (they get less than 15 inches a year). And with the fast population expansion on the Front Range — state population growth is fast with 4 million people in 1996; 5 million in 2007; projected 6 million by 2018 — their will be more and more pressure on what water resources exist. Another issue ethanol faces is that of enough supply meeting demand. Already 13% of the US corn crop is used to make enough ethanol to replace about 1% of the oil the U.S. uses, and we analysts are already talking about the effect ethanol is having on corn prices. Another issue ethanol in general faces is transportation, since it can't be sent down gas pipelines. So either ethanol-only pipelines need to be constructed or, as it is now, it's very inefficiently produced at the many small ethanol plants and shipped by trucks to refineries to be blended with gasoline. — Allen Graetz, Denver
There are many serious questions about the ultimate benefits of ethanol. These concerns are described clearly and in detail in Michael Pollen's book The Omniovre's Dilemma. In particular, based on the information in that book, growing corn uses as much petroleum (in tractors and pesticides) as is saved by using ethanol. In addition, growing corn creates significant downstream pollution due to pesticide use. Furthermore, the reason that farmers are poor and getting poorer is largely due to the form of government subsidies that they receive. Farmers receive subsidies based on how much corn they grow, so they need to grow more corn to get more subsidies. In turn, growing more corn depresses the prices, resulting in less income for each bushel of corn produced. Because the farmers are getting less for their corn, they need to grow more corn, not only because they are getting less for the corn they grow, but also to get more subsidies. This all results in a vicious cycle of depressed corn prices causing more and more production of corn, resulting in more depressed prices. It also results in a huge glut of corn in the United States — making corn syrup and other corn products (like feed) extremely cheap. So the ultimate benefactors (and not surprisingly, the proponents) of this policy are the huge multinational corporations that use corn (the feed lots, soft drink and dessert companies, etc.). The farmers who grow the corn lose and so do consumers and our environment. In addition, because of the push to produce corn, farms are no longer diversified, and thus are much more vulnerable to financial problems if their corn crop fails. It also puts our country at risk since we no longer have many farms that grow a variety of produce (the extent of the recent e-coli poisonings are a good example). — Jennifer Yoxall, Durham, Conn.
The comment by the Budget car rental staff that ethanol cars are too complex for the average daily renter has no merit. In the last four monthes I have rented a Volvo V50 Flexi- fuel (E-85) and a Volvo S50 Flexi-Fuel from Hertz in Sweden. These cars are on the road, and in regular daily rental service along with the Ford Focus (also E-85). In fact, the SAAB 9-5 (E-85) is a top seller in Sweden as it has an additional 30 horsepower over the gasoline version. — Kyle White, Alberta, Canada
NOTE: Marketplace reporters have reported on ethanol and other biofuels from a number of
different angles. You can find these stories in the Sustainability Desk archives:
In response to Can
we end our oil addiction? (Robert Reich & David Frum, October 25) Yes, the United States' National Security is tied to oil and oil policy. At this time, our government's oil policy supports more of the same failed processes that keep money where it is at… in the oil company's margin. I am startled that David Frum dismissed the most potent alternate energy available to the country: E85. Please do a piece on the GM Brazil E85 project. Brazil transitioned Ethanol consumption from 4% to 80% in 3 years. There have been significant technological gains in E85 production processes. The newer methods are cleaner for the planet and metropolitan health through reduced smog. The E85 option brings jobs, money and control inside US borders. Please watch Vinod Khosla's presentation on Biofuels: Think Outside the Barrel. There are too many lives inside the US and many, many more lives outside the US at stake to allow our country to continue supporting oil company profits. — Brian White, Algonquin, Ill.
I was pleased to see that Robert Reich had done his homework. If David Frum is going to debate Robert's points, I would have appreciated if he understood the impediments that renewables, particularly wind energy have faced. David they are not technological! They are financing and subsidies. Congress just extended Coal subsidies 18 more years. Wind - 1 year. Uncertain subsidies spook investors. Let's cut straight to the wallet. Is wind competitive with other energy sources? YES! Statistics from the government's 2005 and 2006 report show this. — Kevin Gardiner, Minn.
I find it very convenient that David Frum left out that the oil market is skewed by the permanent production tax credits provided to oil and gas. The tax credits that level the playing field for the "innovative technologies" of next generation fuels have to be renewed ever year or two. More often that not, those tax incentives often get bottled up in bills that are being filibustered or delayed by friends of big oil. — Pamela Linn, Clear Lake Shores, Tex.
In response to Scraping by on minimum wage (Mitchell Hartman, October 19) One piece you neglected in the minimum wage story is labor's, specifically the AFL- CIO's, support of the national minimum wage movement and the six ballots this election season. Although union members aren't going to be directly affected by minimum wage increases, they are hard at work making sure ballots are signed and referenda are passed. Union members are educated about what is fair and are holding the line for America's middle class. AFL-CIO and ACORN are launching a new video blog project on Monday, Oct 23 at Seven Days at Minimum Wage and YouTube to allow low wage workers to speak for themselves about how hard it is to get by in America on $5.15 an hour. — Sarah Massey, Washington DC
In response to Putting dollars behind those green ambitions (Sarah Gardner, October 12) Last summer we had solar panels put on the roof of our house, and we've seen a significant savings in our PG&E bill on a monthly basis. If current trends remain the same, the system will pay for itself within seven years (not to mention the increase in value of the home). We are hopeful the State's plan will encourage others to do the same. We have about 300 days of sun in California; we should mandate that public buildings and new construction include solar -- it is sustainable and it is a great way to put power back on the grid. A rogue nation may be able to control the flow of oil; but they cannot take control of the sun. Maybe the rest of the sun states should consider this?? — Jill Jay, San Mateo Ca.
In response to A
model for universal health care? (Helen Palmer, October 12) In Kai's introduction he stated that "the federal government hasn't tried to do anything about (the number of uninsured) in more than a decade." In fact, in 1997 the Federal Government pledged $26 billion over 10 years to finance health insurance for children under State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP). Over 6 million children now have health insurance under this program. Secondly, you reported on "Madeline Rhenish, a 56-year-old who worked on community development projects till she got sick and lost her job and her health insurance." You did not explain why Ms. Rhenish did not enroll in COBRA continuation coverage, which would have enabled her to continue her health insurance. Or why HIPAA continuation coverage was not available as is required by Federal law. Your report on the Massachusetts health plan failed to point out that NO market for individual health insurance currently exists in the state. Unlike most other states, especially large western states like California, residents of Massachusetts are currently unable to purchase individual policies. The government provided health plan is not crowding out the private market because that market does not exist. — Bruce Jugan, Los Angeles
General comments . . . Another aspect of the legislative branch to consider: with all the focus on Senator Foley's behavior, no one from either side, Democrat or Republican, has even mentioned whether or not the Senator's pension would be revoked in response to his inappropriate and possibly illegal behavior. Why should the taxpayers be stuck supporting a sexual predator for the rest of his life when most of us are struggling to pay everyday expenses? -- Eva Lynch, Tuscaloosa, Ala.
Americans do not engage in serious public debate over the fundamental problems with our system of government. Take term limits, for example. The framers of the Constitution believed that frequent elections were necessary to assure those who served would not become entrenched in government. Serving in the U.S. Congress or in the state legislatures was never anticipated to become a full-time occupation. Another fundamental issue is whether the structure of the United States Senate still has virtue under a truly federal system of government. Also, our system of law continues to protect a high degree of entrenched privilege. There are numerous other fundamental questions left unresolved going back to the debates at the Constitutional Convention. The sad cumulative result is that our elected representatives have little incentive to serve the common interest, to serve as statesmen motivated by the highest principles. This was predicted even by Tocqueville as he observed our "democracy" in action during the early 19th century. -- Edward J. Dodson, Cherry Hill, N.J.
Just today (Oct. 3) the stock market closed at a record high. The other news story was the NLRB ruled against the nurses in the Kentucky River case. Wall Street is doing great, Main Street is struggling to get by. -- Robert Underwood, Seattle
In the case of this story on Congress the fact is that since Reagan, Republicans have used bogus economic ideologies and appeals of fascist patriotism to grab more power and transfer wealth to the wealthy to the detriment of most Americans; they are undermining the post WWII socio-economic progress of American society. They have perverted the thoughts of Adam Smith and Charles Darwin out of their uncompromising focus on self-interest at any price. How can any decent person compromise with them and their agenda? Let's not forget that in 2001 and 2004 Bush attained the presidency by subverting democracy. Democrats either don't care or have forgotten what liberalism means and have failed to mount a positive ideological case instead of simply reacting to Republicans; perhaps they are exceedingly dull and unable to think it through. -- Tom Shillock, Portland, Ore.
Why did we stop talking about term limits for Congress a few years ago? Is it the fault of Congress that the masses refuse to participate, learn, and act to make the political systems work? Maybe. Maybe if politicians acted like grown-ups, maybe if they showed the populous that they really want to fix problems in a way that helps people more than hurts people, maybe then the disillusioned masses would come around and participate — or heck, even pay attention. Your story says perhaps voters aren't doing their job, and you are absolutely right. But when your choices range from dumb and dumber, moral-er and holier than thou, and the biggest crook on the block, what are voters supposed to do? You can vote straight party ticket, which I happen to think should be illegal. If you don't know what candidates you are voting for, you shouldn't vote for them; it undermines the system to offer straight tickets by breeding complacency, and to use your word, tribalism. I still think term limits are the thing we need: 2 terms on and 1 term off, or something like that. It makes room for more people to get in, more ideas to develop and be considered, and a third of Congress can concentrate on doing their jobs instead of getting more money to keep their jobs. There has to be some kind of accountability, and it is going to require the work of everyone and that includes the media. -- Angela Livingston, Houston
Comments have been edited for length. |
