Déjà vu all over again

Let’s get one thing clear. The Tea Party has nothing to offer. It wants power only.

Ample evidence of this can be found in a current Tea Party video that can be found on Alternet at http://www.alternet.org/tea-party-and-right/slick-paranoid-tea-party-video-aims-violent-insurrection. There you will find a none too subtle solicitation to overthrow the United States government.

Some of you may recall Senator Joseph McCarthy’s witch hunt of the 1950’s in which he accused the government of harboring communists. One consequence of this Right Wing movement was the loyalty oath that every government worker, federal, state and local, was required to sign as a condition of employment. Thus in the 1950’s, Republican Right Wingers demanded that government employees swear that they did not advocate the overthrow of the government, which this Tea Party now advocates. The video argues  that the government has stolen the citizen’s freedom by making them dependent upon government through social services such as Social Security and Medicare and that violent revolution is needed to recover it. The video implies that the “stealing” began with the acceptance of government benefits.

The real story, of course, is that we began to lose the Constitutional guarantees of freedom in consequence of the wars launched in the Middle East by a G. W. Bush Far Right Republican administration. Why Democrats have tolerated the Obama administration’s continuance of and enhancements to this democracy-destroying process is a matter of deep concern to those who actually do care about freedom.

This form of deception demonstrates that the Republicans, as now constituted, have nothing to offer the American people but lies and deceptions. This pernicious vacuity of public purpose and benefit and the lust for power it betrays, should find a large and continuous response from those who care about humanity’s future, especially progressives who demand the addressing of real human problems.

The emptiness of the Tea Party’s agenda is not only destructive by the distraction it engenders, but is a genuine threat to democracy and human freedom. Where there is power, especially in a country the size of the United States, this kind of functional vacuity can easily breed a raw lust for power, all too frequently playing out as necessary to protect the country from those who protest the power grab. As I have previously mentioned, such a coup d'etat was in the works against FDR until it was revealed.

In the midst of the Great Recession in which large numbers of people are losing their jobs and their homes, the Tea Party makes a major issue of a loss of freedom. This is analogous to the Nazis in Germany who in the midst of the Great Depression, far worse in Germany than in the United States, tapped into German bigotry by blaming the Jews for that depression. When people are desperate, a scapegoat for their suffering can usually be found and used for political purposes by the unscrupulous. In Germany it was the Jews, in today’s America it is the government.

Why the government? It’s because government is the only institution that can prevent corporate takeover of this country. Ever since Ronald Reagan, government has been portrayed as the enemy of the people by the Republican Party. They have now gone so far as to advocate its overthrow, which the Republican Joe McCarthy accused the communists of plotting.

Lest anyone take the Republicans seriously in their concern for freedom, notice how quickly and thoroughly they began to destroy freedom with the advent of the Near East invasions. In short order we had the Republican-appointed majority of the Supreme Court nullifying our vote by appointing the President, the Patriot Act, and the creation of the Department of Homeland Security in order to funnel military equipment and training into local police departments. The fact that the Democratic Party under Obama has continued and enhanced many of these anti-democratic acts draws attention to the fact that it is in much the same employ of the rich as the Republicans have traditionally been.

Underneath all of the turmoil this country has gone through in last decade is a massive exercise in fear, which has seen everything from color-coded threats from terrorists to the loss of homes and jobs. Pervasive fear is the playground of tyrants and tyranny is what we will get unless we, as a nation, get a grip and face up to the gross deceptions, ranging from unjustified wars to the connivance of the  wealthy and the denial of ecological destruction. There are few greater political contrasts than the fear mongering of G. W. Bush and the fear challenging of Franklin Delano Roosevelt. May we find an FDR for our time.

Bob Newhard 

An Explanation for Passivity

Why, when we had such a massive outpouring for Barack Obama in 2008, have we been unable to eliminate the G. W. Bush practices and policies that were, in large measure, responsible for that outpouring. Why, in short, has the left, except for some sporadic Occupy protests been so passive?

Both Rachel Maddow and Glenn Greenwald place a good deal of the blame on the authoritarian government created by over ten years of the War on Terror. Both point out that war, by its nature, transfers an enormous increase in power to the President as Commander in Chief. To G. W. Bush this meant an uncontested preemptive war on Afghanistan and Iraq. Under Barack Obama it has meant the loss of civil liberties under the Patriot Act and the 2012 Defense Authorization Act, which effectively extinguished the right to due process for any American the President chose to imprison on his order alone and for an unspecified period of time. This is not to mention the continuance of torture and rendition for torture in flat contravention of the Geneva Convention to which the United States is a signatory. In this regard, the Constitution specifies that treaties have the force of law in this country.

While I agree with Maddow and Greenwald that a prolonged period of war has produced a very authoritarian government, I suspect there is more to the passivity of the left in these circumstances than a substantial increase in authoritarianism.

Suppose one wanted to destroy the effectiveness of the left, thereby leaving the country in the hands of corporate America and their legislative henchmen to convert government functions into for-profit free enterprise substitutes. One way to do that would be to trap the left between two of its core values, thereby neutralizing any significant resistance. The Republicans may have done just that by trapping Progressives between their core values of anti-racism and government social programs, notably Social Security and Medicare. The first African American President, fulfilling the dreams of long-oppressed blacks and the aspirations of the political left, sets about destroying Social Security and Medicare, destroying our civil liberties, refusing to prosecute those financiers who caused the Great Recession because it would be bad for the economy, assassination including an American citizen, and torturing people in flat contravention of the Geneva Convention to which this country is a signatory. All of these and more would have generated massive and continuous protests, including calls for impeachment had any other President tried it. However, the left, as a whole has remained placid lest they contribute to the attacks on Obama in addition to those launched by Republicans. Where the left should have forced Obama to fight or lose its support, it has done next to nothing. Only in the last few weeks has a band of Progressive legislators publicly called out Obama on civil liberties issues.

Barack Obama exploded onto the national political scene. A little-known Illinois State Senator was given the keynote address at the 2004 Democratic National Convention. His oratorical abilities made him an instant political comer. A few years later he ran against the powerful and well-funded Hillary Clinton campaign.  Her vast name recognition and familiarity to the public as a President’s wife and a well-regarded New York senator made her formidable. Yet Obama managed to find the resources to effectively compete and eventually defeat Clinton. I suggest that sort of thing does not happen in the hard-bitten higher reaches of American national politics without the involvement of major political players extracting the services of a president in return for their support. In short, the sharp turn to the Right after his election reflects an inordinate attachment to money. Not only that of major donors like J. P. Morgan, but his early political rise was founded on his ability as a political fund raiser. It was disconcerting to see Obama’s campaign, like  that of billionaire Mitt Romney, focus on the plight of the middle class, not on that of the poor, who would suffer most from his attacks on Social Security and Medicare. My suspicion is that he does not want to be identified with the poor. Why the disdain for the poor? They were a primary focus for the FDR administration. In my judgment Barack Obama sees himself, after his presidency, among the corporate elite, much as Bill Clinton has done.

I find all of this very disappointing in terms of what could have been.

As with our first Black Supreme Court Justice Thurgood Marshal, I had hopes that Obama would demonstrate the same depth of understanding of the full implications of what remains this country’s greatest dilemma, racism. It poisons us and, because of our power and influence, it poisons a world that so badly needs to overcome its corrupting and lethal divisions. With all he had going for him, he had a better chance than any recent predecessor to change the political demeanor of this country and perhaps the world, given his paternal tie to the victimized African continent. He provided a combination of intelligence, natural leadership ability and biological background to do much to bring this world together. Think, for a moment, what a well-disposed Black leader of the “last remaining superpower” could have meant for world peace--an improved understanding between the ex-colonizers and the aggrieved colonized. Reading Franz Fanon’s Wretched of the Earth gives something of the dimension Obama could have brought to the world stage. What we got was the continued killing and economic greed that has for so long poisoned the human dimension of this planet. With every drone killing of an innocent adult or child, hatred for this country mounts. Obama could have given the United States the opportunity to relate to, rather than dominate, the rest of the world. Abused aspirations are hard to disregard.

Bob Newhard 

Here We Go Again: Technological Paradigm Shift with no Planning for Social Consequences

Humans have yet to find a way to live in harmony with their technology. Their heads create what the rest of their being often finds disruptive, dangerous and destructive. Picture the Industrial Revolution accompanied by a Hogarth-depicted London slum.

We know from bitter experience what disastrous impacts technological innovation can have on social structures and human well-being, yet despite repeated episodes we do little or nothing to prepare ourselves and our societies for what we can see coming down the road. This, in my judgment, is one of the more massive failures of so-called advanced societies.

We now have sitting at our collective doorstep yet another technology that may have the power to dramatically change our means of production and the personal and social structures that depend on that structure. This technology is referred to as 3D Printing or Additive Manufacturing and is promising enough to have been mentioned in President Obama’s State of the Union address. In essence, it is a simple production process of depositing successive layers of material on top of each other, as dictated by a computer model, to produce three dimensional objects. The layers can be of varying thickness, down to the micron level, and be made of a variety of plastics and metal.  

This process can create items from pharmaceuticals, to clothing, to fully functioning hypoid gear sets that are created in a single process with no assembly required. The following website will amaze you with objects made by this essentially simple process of layering. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3xaj9jx7648.

Because the object is created from a software program production can take place anywhere, even the home. Additionally, production costs are so low that it can be profitable to produce only one item and it can be specific to that individual’s need. There is no need for mass production, warehousing, inventory, and shipping for these products. When all the advantages are added up, especially those affecting labor costs, we are looking at a technology that has the potential to eliminate a very large number of jobs.

Manufacturers call this process, whether using plastic or metal, additive manufacturing to distinguish it from conventional manufacturing, which removes material, e.g. grinding, cutting, milling, etc. to create the manufactured object. One of the great efficiencies of additive manufacturing is that what are multiple-piece assembled products in conventional manufacturing can be a single process with no assembly using additive manufacturing. Up to this point additive manufacturing has been used mainly for quick and inexpensive prototyping of products in their development process. It is beginning to find a role in production itself.

This process as used by individuals to create 3D objects, e.g. plastic jewelry, miniature statuary, etc., using printers costing as little as $139, is generally referred to as 3D printing. Some people are concerned that this could become a major source of junk as producing trinkets becomes as easy as printing paper.

This technology has the potential to deliver products to the consumer, tailored to the individual’s need or desire without the need for mass production, warehousing and distribution. Basically electrons move rather than things. There would be a decreasing need for factories, assembly lines, shipping, warehousing and other materials handling services.

The scope of the potential impacts of this technology can be glimpsed in the following list that can be found on the website of the Atlantic Council.

• Assembly lines and supply chains could be reduced or eliminated for many products. AM can produce the final product—or large pieces of a final product— in one process.
• Designs, not products, would move around the world as digital files are printed anywhere with any printer to meet design parameters.  A “STL” design file can be sent via the Internet and printed in 3D.
• Products could be printed on demand without the need for inventories.
• A given manufacturing facility would be capable of printing a huge range of products without retooling—and each printing could be customized without additional cost. 
• Production and distribution of material products could become de-globalized as production is brought closer to the consumer.
• Manufacturing could be pulled away from “manufacturing platforms” like China back to the countries where the products are consumed, reducing global economic imbalances as export countries’ surpluses are reduced and importing countries’ reliance on imports shrink. 
• The carbon footprint of manufacturing and transport as well as overall energy use in manufacturing could be reduced substantially and thus global “resource productivity” greatly enhanced and carbon emissions reduced.
• Reduced need for labor in manufacturing could be politically destabilizing in some economies while others, especially aging societies, might benefit from the ability to produce more goods with fewer people while reducing reliance on imports.

The United States, the current leader in AM technology, could experience a renaissance in innovation, design, IP exports, and manufacturing, enhancing its relative economic strength and geopolitical influence.

As you can see the potential impact on society is enormous, ranging from massive unemployment to a radical reduction in the human interaction and commonality of the workplace as well as the benefits of massive pollution and waste reduction. What I did not see after a fairly extensive investigation, was any thought or planning for the personal and social impacts of this revolutionary technology.

It appears that this technology will impact society and individuals with the same lack of planning and preparedness as our capitalist system has displayed in the recent past.

The United States used to have the Office of Technology Assessment (OTA) to advise Congress on developing technologies as well as existing technological issues. This agency existed from 1972 to 1995. It found disfavor with Ronald Reagan and was terminated by defunding in Newt Gingrich’s infamous Contract With America. Everybody agrees that technology is a, if not the, major influence on societal concerns. That this country has no agency like, say, the Center for Disease Control and Prevention is a fabulous failure of governmental responsibility. In the halls of government we need the greatest cognizance of technological development and its impacts we can get. This agency should also have the mission to inform the public on what technology does and how it will condition their lives. A counterweight to the hype to which the public is so often subjected in these matters is badly needed. To get a feel for what could be done, the publications of the OTA may be found at http://www.princeton.edu/~ota/. From what I have read of them, I think they could have been somewhat more informative both in detail and in the implications for the public. But at least the effort was being made and should have been retained and improved. Gingrich declared the agency a waste when he eliminated it. I don’t know whether this was a reflection of Republican anti-intellectualism or that the business powers that be did not want the Congress and the public to have objective assessments. Its reports should clearly indicate the potential impacts, especially the social impacts, of a significant new technology and recommend the level of oversight necessary to mitigate any significant adverse impacts. We live in an era of increasing rates of change. It is irresponsible not to assess, monitor and, where necessary, influence the rate and direction of change. The Obama administration should be encouraged to reestablish the agency to keep itself, Congress and the public aware of our technological environment as we are made aware (or should be) of our economic environment.

Aside from all the above 3D printing issues, Rachel Maddow reports as I write this piece that 3D Printing is being used to produce “receivers”, which are the only part of a an assault rifle that carries the weapon’s serial number and hence destroys the identity and control of the weapon. Another lesson in understanding that technology can, and often does, cut more than one way.

Bob Newhard