We have a "war on terror" upon which we lavish billions. We have a war on drugs upon which we lavish billions. One would think that the effort to shift the US to an energy independent (non-addictive) position would be granted such standing as well. But it isn't.

Ask what people think is America's pre-eminent success story of the 20th century, and you no doubt are going to hear 'winning WWII'. But there is no similar effort or shared concern now for what amounts to the future of the US. The US is stuck, absolutely jammed tight, between the boulders of profit and societal need, and the larger boulder is profit. 'Green Business' is now a brand, with the goal of profit, of obtaining and controlling market share, not energy independence. At this stage we do not need standards or specifications that ensure corporate profit at the expense of the future of the nation. We need open source, non-proprietary solutions, US-first ideas and products that are implemented at every level, starting at the bottom, and implemented as an iterative long term process.

We have thrown a trillion dollars at war and are throwing another trillion at an economic system that is broken, is breaking the back of the middle class, has not been fixed, and is still in control of those who unapologetically caused what may well be the greatest transfer of wealth from the low and middle classes to the ultra rich in the nationa's history. If we had thrown those trillions at national energy self suffiency we would not have a problem. This situation has certainly come to be due to spineless Dems. But it is the Republicans who have steadfastly opposed the panoply of mutually supporting solutions that are needed. Repubs finally need to get their act together and abandon those who place profit before country.

There's an old country western song about the need to save enough water to prime the pump. If we don't save enough to prime the energy self sufficiency pump, we don't have a future. Period.

Wars are rarely won fighting on two fronts. That is why its use should be limited.

On the other hand, diplomatic advance must occur on every front. We must engage Cuba, Iran, Syria, Russia, Taiwa, North Korea, Pakistan, Venezuela, the OAS in whole and individually, Turkey, Chechnya,everywhere.

Because if we only secure advance in one relationship its changing the shape of other policy will allow voids to develop in the wake of how these developments apply their or our policy with neighbors in a region.

Advance on every front, engagement, enlightenment, economic growth and development, paired with a new degree of conservation and compassion. The humanities should mature into actual policy along the scope of the most ambitious NGO. A large intellectual infrastructure exists that is ready to have the world's economic engine attach to its pinnings and drive forward a deep degree of interaction.

The old model will not sustain things even if we returned it, just on the scale basis of productivity. The main solution to that is increased wages to expand the revenue base and empower greater demand. Allowing workers to scale hours back as companies add people to payroll, pooling benefit plans in the process.

That will recover some of the lost jobs numbers, the other being this increased environmental accountability, paired with labor and political recognition due large swaths of society in the developing world.

We will gain some back and grow new business elsewhere, the consumer model will have its limits but a deeper woven interdependency will emerge and that can sustain long term development and strategic shifts in scale economies.

Check this out...

"...Hoyer: There is no difference between anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism. It endangers all of us. #AIPAC..."

Heard while Philip Weiss is at the 'mein' AIPAC conference...

https://twitter.com/Mondoweiss#/Mondoweiss

Welcome to the US Likud Party... oy - better start learning yiddish. Hoyer's sister's AIPAC directorship must be in trouble.

http://www.philipweiss.org/mondoweiss/