The question was what is the most important problem. The answer is global warming. Solutions are difficult, but impossible as long as there are >217 Republicans in the House or >39 Republicans in the Senate.
They would, of course, disagree with you, and in fact would have their own list about how it’s really the other party at fault. Still irrelevant. Let’s say that everything you and Bob have said is absolutely true and it’s all the Republicans fault. Then what? How does that change the equation? The Republicans are still going to have seats in the House and Senate, and that’s not going to change any time soon if ever. So, what’s the plan (again)? Wait until you have short window where you dominate then cram as much down their throat as you can and, what? Hope they never get back into power to block or reverse whatever it is you did or try and water it down or get in it’s way?
So, it’s the most important thing, but you can’t do anything about it until you can dominate the House and Senate (with Dems who are also all on board)? Ok, got it. Good luck with that.
Boston is a great example of this here is a study that was presented to the state legislature about the effects of government regulation on housing prices. It found that the median house price in the Boston area was increased by 55%. If government regulations in that area were removed the median house would cost $154,000 less. That is a huge amount of money to the average person.
Boston is not even the biggest offender. California is much worse. The median price for a home in San Francisco is one million dollars.
It is not just money. High house prices drive people to the suburbs which makes for longer commutes and less public transit use.
Both mechanisms by which the plutocracy maintains its hegemony.
Yep, and has to be pointed out, again as me and many others pointed before, the Republicans of today who are in power are the weakest link indeed.
To that I would add a right wing and mainstream corporate media that while it looks like it is informing the public, many surveys point to the mainstream media as also being a part of the problem by not informing the people properly or not talking much about the issue (it seems that only recently the situation is beginning to change as the corporate world is learning that this issue will affect their bottom line if this is not taken care of), the reason for that is a very old one * and one reason why this issue interest me is not only for the science part, but the social one as social studies and history was my original training for; suffice to say that this issue also gives us evidence of why it is silly to claim that the mainstream media is liberal.
- J.David Stern was the owner of the New York Post. In a conversation, George Seldes mentioned that Stern was a liberal, and that liberalism was not being reflected at all in the obvious conservative slant that the news from the Spanish civil war were getting. Stern replied:
“What do you want me to do, take a quixotic stand, print the truth about everything including bad medicine, impure food and crooked stock market offerings, and lose all my advertising contracts and go out of business- or make compromises with all the evil elements and continue to publish the best liberal newspaper possible under these compromising circumstances?”
- George Seldes 1936
Then as now corporate media does know who is paying them to fiddle… while Rome burns.
I don’t recall OP specifying that a resolution was a requirement for posting in this thread.
But FWIW, there is no one person or thing that can force a solution. It requires a shift in attitudes such that people start valuing education over belief, fact over ideology, and inclusion over exclusion. There is a deep-seated strain of virulent anti-intellectualism in American society, and exploiting that tendency is what keeps these people in power.
This is really appealing to me as the best answer. Today’s officials concentrate on satisfying interest groups, rather than the messier and more difficult job of governing.
First, I was going to go along with ignorance and self interest/greed/hypocrisy/intolerance. But those are likely simply near universal aspects of human nature. Always have been. That is one reason we have a representative governments. The more our elected officials are bought and isolated from competition, the less they need be concerned with actually making difficult decisions and addressing any of the other problems listed in this thread.
Drought, global warming - huge issues, sure. But whatever COULD be done about them, WON’T be done if it is not in the politicians’ self interest. And, worst case scenario, people move from the SW and away from the coasts, and economies adapt to reflect climate/agriculture changes. Plenty of high dry land with access to fresh water here in the Midwest…
Income inequality, infrastructure, services - those will only be addressed if we have a responsive officials aimed at actually governing.
I do think Americans have a mindboggling sense of entitlement. As a whole, they are fat and lazy, and expect goods and services that could never be scaled worldwide (if even nationwide). But, if never forced to make hard choices, why shouldn’t they expect everything at no cost? I would hope that responsible elected officials could play some role in encouraging Americans to clearly see their society as it is. Heck, if we want a rich minority with a huge laboring class, that’s fine. Just call it what it is. Or, if we want to improve the lot of those less fortunate, don’t pretend it can be accomplished without SOMEONE giving up SOMETHING. The whole idea that we can just keep going along as we always have, and achieve some huge results from modest tweaking is either dishonest or ignorant.
Well sure, but we were just giving specifics.
More specifically, the problem is Republicans in government
This is one of the “big myths” of history…that space and or military research gave rise to the solid state device (transistor). NO! The research that gave rise to the transistor was wholly funded by a private entity…Bell Telephone Labs. in fact, at the same time, the US AirForce was funding its own completely wrongheaded approach toward miniaturization …“Project Tinkertoy” (miniature vacuum tubes)!
Partisan politics is the main problem, not government.
I totally agree. It pisses me off, too, when left-wing Democrats fight nuclear power and GMO, two important scientific advancements that would greatly benefit mankind of we could get rid of the unscientific fear.
I know you think you’re being clever here, but:
[ul]
[li]Democrats are hardly a monolith when it comes to nuclear and GMO[/li][li]Resistance on either of these issues has much less to do with ‘unscientific’ fear, and much more to do with fear and disagreement about acceptable risk. And, [/li][li]Much like concern about global warming, those who are anti GMO (and anti nuclear) are once-bitten-twice-shy about mass-scale global technological and ecosystem changes and our ability to predict possible problems before it’s too late to avert adverse change.[/li][/ul]
The fears over both are pretty unscientific, and the main party that’s blocked nuclear in the US has been the Democrats (well, some liberals and left winger groups associated with the Dems I suppose), not the Republicans. Also, it’s one of those ironies that Dems support all sorts of initiatives concerning global warming but haven’t come out strongly for nuclear, which would make a huge difference in the US wrt GhG we emit. The GMO thing I would agree is more something that spans both parties and is just anti-science idiocy, though our Europeans brethren and sistren are certainly guilty of this in spades.
We had this discussion before, what it was found was that the fear is bipartisan or of the NIMBY kind.
And lately it was the Republicans the ones that are willing to toss out nuclear power when the democrats offer it as part of bills to support the control of fossil fuel emissions.
And Republicans are hardly monolithic when it comes to AGW and evolution. However, in general conservatives are against AGW and evolution while liberals are against nuclear power and GMO.
We’ll have to agree to disagree. Opposition to GMO, especially, is fear of science, aka “frankenfood”. Golden Rice is the poster child and the (mostly) left-wing groups that oppose it are letting people die.
Why aren’t those same people bitten by the CO2 problems? I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: my major frustration with AGW is that conservatives deny there’s a problem and liberals deny that NP is a solution. Both positions are idiocy.
Name one conservative group that is as anti-nuclear power as Greenpeace or the Sierra Club. Name one major conservative politician who has done as much damage to nuclear power than Obama when he shut down Yucca Mountain.