"We choose to go to the moon. We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard, because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our energies and skills, because that challenge is one that we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and one which we intend to win, and the others, too." (full text of the speech here)
Why did he set such an audacious goal, and how could he possibly hope to achieve it? There was clearly a political motive. The Soviets had beaten the United States in both the first satellite and the first man into space. The Soviets had clearly taken the world by surprise in their conquest of space, and we were in a game of catch up.
I have a hard time playing the achievement off as purely a political move. Perhaps it's just that the times are so different now, but looking back I have a hard time thinking that Kennedy's plan was just a cold war chess move. I like to think of it in a little more romantic way. I think of it as a leader who pressed the nation to unite behind a goal, and make sacrifices to ensure that the goal is met.
That thought, the unity of our people behind a singular goal, is the reason for this post. I'm not sure if it's our vision less leaders, or the sad lemmings that are the populace that are to blame, but somewhere this country lost the ability to create and execute a vision. I'm speaking about our continued reliance on oil, and the lack of any plan to quench the ever growing obsession for it. It's a problem that is universally recognized, but no one seems to have a good plan for solving. President Bush acknowledged our countries "addiction" to oil, and his suggestion has been to drill for more in Alaska. A suggestion that seems akin to giving heroin to a heroin addict without a treatment plan, but there really haven't been any other suggestions that make any more sense or really take on the problem. Frankly, whether Democrat or Republican, none of our leaders suggestions make much long term sense. So what should we do?
I suggest that the best course is to set a national agenda to free ourselves from our oil addiction. I think our leaders need to stop looking at ways to cover up the problem, and instead provide incentives to solve the problem. I'm not suggesting that government create the solution, but rather that the government create the vision and the incentives. The free market will solve the problem if given the opportunity and the incentive.
So what am I suggesting? It's simple... I suggest that our leaders make the commitment that within 10 years we are completely free of the need for foreign oil. That incentives are created to ensure that every American can replace their petroleum addiction with a more practical more sustainable energy source. And finally... that our leaders are held to account for making that vision into a reality. It's a tough challenge, but one that this country is up to facing. I'd like to think that the descendants of the veterans of WWII, and the children of the scientists who got NASA to the moon might like a challenge of their own. A challenge that perhaps in 50 years or 100 our descendants will look back on and marvel at our ingenuity and tenacity in solving.
- ND
13 comments:
I can't believe I'm saying it, but you are absolutely right (nay, correct.)
In many ways, this was the opportunity of 9/11 that was squandered. A moment when the public's attention on the issue could be viewed in a larger context. It was an opportunity lost.
I hope we see more fiscal and philosopical attention paid to the issue in the near future. For the sake of our wallets and the planet.
Bro. Dave
First, I would not romanticize a politican dead or alive. You'll look like a lobbyist.
Second, I don't think the American people as a whole did much to contribute to getting to the moon.
Third, Kennedy didn't really request a sacrifice of the American people or the large American corporations.
So, while I agree we need to be a green nation, I don't think your analogy holds up. Just sayin.
Alice -
I certainly wasn't trying to romanticize Kennedy in this post. I tend to agree that most politicians don't need a pat on the back for their actions. The are there to serve, and if they do that effectively then that should be reward enough.
I disagree on the contribution of the American people. Obviously, not everyone designed rockets, wrote software or welded steel. Sometimes the contribution is less tangible. If nothing else, the people voted to elect leaders, who long after Kennedy death, continued the vision. It could have died with him, but the people saw it through to completion.
I also disagree that the people didn't make a sacrifice. If you look at the costs of the program, about 150 to 175 million dollars or more in 2008 dollars, there was an economic cost. In the speech Kennedy indicates that the costs will be 50 cents per week for every man, woman and child in the US. Translating into something like $25 per year per capita. Considering that the average annual income was $5000, $25 per head is quite a lot for a single federal program.
And finally... I do think that we need to think more green. Not because Al Gore says we need to, but because it's the right thing to do. I think that if we bring the big picture stuff into the mainstream then people will buy in to the plan. That's what were lacking right now. A serious commitment of the people to have a strategy for change.
That's what I'm asking for...
- ND
Alice:
I couldn't disagree more strongly. A compelling vision was what led to the founding of this nation. And while we all work to better ourselves individually, the investments that we make together, create much of the opportunity provided for individual achievement.
We may think we're rugged individualists living on the frontier, but when we're building a barn, we call the neighbors and have a barn raising.
If Eisenhour hadn't had a vision for infrastructure we'd still be arguing over the interstate highways. Kennedy provided a framework to understand the investments in space.
If W. had had vision, he would have used the 9-11 attacks to articulate a strategy for energy.
Great leaders -- Churchill for example -- inspire collective effort through their words.
Not every politician is a leader. Not every leader is a politician. But on occasion, a visionary of any stripe can outline a path to great achievement. When they do, the better us all.
Just my opinion.
Bro. Dave.
- BD
Exactly my point...
- ND
I'm going to cover more bases. Laser focus and short term goals are great, and necessary. However, I believe this country is in for an even greater challenge that doesn't threaten its survival, but its dominance.
Economic success is what allows such challenges to be legitimate, and plausible. Global challenges to goods, services, etc. are increasing. It will sneak up on many who falsely believe this country's superiority to be a predestined entitlement.
My muse for this subject came from an unlikely source - Bill Joy, one of the co-founders of Sun Microsystems. To paraphrase - innovation drives the economy. Innovation is largely driven by intelligence. To compete with other countries, we need to make more smart people. Just that simple - make more smart people, and everything flows from it - including oil independence.
Education is the key. Better schools, more schools, more higher education. You should be driven to exceed in this arena, but at this time we see other countries taking it more seriously. Get driven quickly - you want the best scientists, the best doctors, the best teachers. Continued success depends upon it. Don't let your position make you complacent. Someone will eat your lunch.
Guy is correct as well.
Although I agree fundementally, we are doing better in higher education and poorer in elementary education. The biggest problem is that formerly, the best educated from other nations came here and stayed. Now, with exponential growth and opportunity in Korea, China, India etc. they don't have to stay her to maximize thier potential. That means we have to grow more talent at home.
Bro. Dave.
Mr. Fawkes makes another insightful connection, and then another complicated problem is exposed.
It's true that smart people can make a huge difference. The more the better... Technology and innovation are driven by people who become educated and apply their talents to create new products and services.
Unfortunately, I recognize two issues that block our success. First is an overblown sense of entitlement on the part of most of our citizenry. Second is a shift in focus from recognition of achievement and hard work, to a focus on feelings.
I'll put together some posts on these topics in the future. They deserve more then a comment in reply to a previous post.
- ND
Last week, I began a response to this post and deleted it because it was too simple a solution to too complex a problem. I was going to suggest that we fix our schools as a step towards energy independence. A large reason for moving away from the urban core is to have access to better public schools. There are other reasons, of course, like safety, affordability, looking for deer to hit (couldn't resist). As we move farther away from cities, we drive more to get to work, entertainment, and shopping. Like I said, it's an oversimplification, but excellent urban schools can help solve our dependence on oil in more than one way: less driving and smarter people creating technological solutions.
Screw the moon. We can't even provide health care to the poor.
Anon.
Who says the poor need health care? Who exempted Homo sapiens from the survival of the fittest?
Not to get too far off of the subject, but I really wasn't trying to solve all of the world’s problems here. Since the topic came up… let's address it honestly with facts and not just passion.
We do feed the poor. In this country, we do it via the food stamp program. This is a significant portion of the "farm bill", and provides a significant entitlement to individuals who most would consider "poor". Here is a link to the program at the USDA's website. As you can see, if you meet the criteria, you can collect a significant benefit toward purchasing your food.
http://www.fns.usda.gov/fsp/applicant_recipients/fs_Res_Ben_Elig.htm
As for individuals outside the United States, we do quite a bit there as well. Last year the US donated about 2 billion dollars worth of food aid primarily through the UN.
I appreciate your social consciousness Anon. but you must keep in mind that our people are actively involved in feeding the poor. We live in the most “giving” nation in the world. We do more then our share, and usually are criticized for not doing enough. Take a look at the countries we try to help, and don’t assume that poverty is somehow driven by our lack of giving, but rather other countries lack of governing.
We can't solve all of the worlds problems. We should take pride in what we do, and not let the media tell us how bad we are for not doing enough. Look at the other "western nations" and their contributions, and then assess them compared to ours.
Just a thought -
- ND
Sorry, the link didn't come through properly. Here it is again.
http://www.fns.usda.gov/fsp/
applicant_recipients/
fs_Res_Ben_Elig.htm
You might have to reassemble it and paste it into a browser...
- ND
Post a Comment