Just curious, with liberals so far to the left and conservatives so far to the right, is it possible for a candidate in the middle to get elected? And if so, how in the world would they do it?
I'm not a republican or a democrat and I actually don't like either party although lately the republicans have been a little more scary to me than the democrats. I was thinking about a candidate that I would actually be excited about taking office and it's so far from current reality that it was almost depressing. Anyway, I thought I'd blog to nobody about how I think a candidate could get elected and change the country the way we all need it to be changed.
Campaign - I'd like to see a candidate run a clean campaign. I have a vision of him stopping in the middle of a heated debate and telling the American people that the two candidates running for office are the best two people that America could nominate and that either one of them will make a fine president and that there is no need to fear and no need to argue to the point of dividing the public. Not that it has to be true, it's still politics, but I'd like to see someone extend a hand to the other side not because they like them but because they realize that all the fighting that has been going on lately is a bigger problem than the ones they are trying to solve by fighting. I would listen to a president who explained in detail how he was going to facilitate the repair of the country, not by using government but by allowing free people to provide for themselves. That is how economic problems have been fixed successfully in the past. I want a president that inspires the public to act, not a president that inspires the public to vote for him by telling them how he is going to create programs that fix their problems without them having to lift a finger.
Goal - A president that is a leader and not a problem solver would also be a breath of fresh air. We have some serious cultural issues that should be addressed. The government cannot fix these problems w/ regulation. Someone needs to step up and tell the American people that they are free and to quit being stupid. Explain a few culturally accepted procedures that don't make sense and tell the people how they can fix it. Like home ownership for example, it's considered normal now to buy a house and spend the next 30 years paying it off. Most loans are through the government now so people spend 30 years of their life working to pay the government back. I see a real problem in that. I don't see why people need to live in a house that is pristine before they have earned it and I think a leader should tell people that spending a large chunk of their income on housing for 30 years of their life is greatly reducing their ability to prosper. I think home ownership needs to be the base from which we build a sustainable economy which is what I would like my presidents main goal to be.
Unemployment - In my opinion, organization and access to resources can fix unemployment very quickly. I'd like to see unemployment fixed not by government stimulus but by allowing companies and people access to unused land and other resources which are currently not allowable under law. Law's should not dictate the way people live, the way people live should dictate laws. Land happens to be one of a countries most valuable resources and if used properly can build capital where it does not exist. I think unemployment can be fixed by developing unused land for the people that need it. Think about how many jobs could be created if the government designated 100 square miles of federal land for development and gave it to development companies in exchange for them taking unemployed people off of government aid and putting them to work. The unemployed could build sustainable communities that shed some of the unneeded cultural baggage that we think is mandatory.
Sustainable communities - In my opinion there are a few main aspects to a sustainable community; food, water, shelter, energy, waste removal, maintenance and access to education. I'd like to see all of these handled on the local level. This would impede any entity from obtaining a monopoly on a life sustaining industry which would give security to communities.
Food - Like I said, I'd like to see food produced locally to protect communities from a food industry that is too big and mass produced to give a quality product to everyone. Specifically I'd like to see homes built with the type of garden seen here - http://www.bensoninstitute.org/Publication/Manuals/Walipini.pdf. This would provide communities with an affordable system of quality food production and would ease many of the problems that the agricultural industry is having now.
Water - Communities would need to be built in locations where clean water is available. That doesn't really need much explaining.
Shelter - I'd like to see a change in the way homes are built. Currently a person buys a home with credit and it takes them 30 years to pay it off. This is because they have to finance the floors, walls, plumbing, electric, paint, fixtures, etc. All a home really needs to be is something that keeps you out of the elements. All the extra's are nice but are they worth 30 years of work when they could be paid off in 15? I'd like to see homes built that, on the outside, look like this one - http://www.greenopia.com/BA/news/15615/10-8-2009/The-Most-Beautiful-Earthen-Homes-on-the-Planet. On the inside they would just be a big modifiable room. Basically just a buried concrete shell with pluming and electric coming out of the floor. This would do multiple things. From the outside it would make communities beautiful because they would blend in with nature. Because they are so simple they wouldn't need the massive amount of financing that conventional houses require. Once purchased they would be easily upgradeable, meaning that people could install bedrooms, flooring, cabinetry, etc as they have the cash to pay for it. By installing these with cash as you go along a person would save almost 50% because they didn't finance all the amenities. All of this money saved would be available to spend for usable goods instead of going to the Fanny May and Freddy Mac type companies that have a monopoly on the current system of home financing. I really think that housing like this could fix the huge cultural issue we currently have with the way we purchase our homes.
Energy - Sustainable energy for each local community or possibly each individual home is a must have for a sustainable economy and community. The technology is already out there to get away from coal and the other environmentally damaging ways to produce the energy needed to power our culture. And let's be honest, environmental nuts are annoying. I want to hear someone make an argument, not for saving the environment, but for how cool it would be to live in a city and not have to breathe smog every day and not have to put up with all the other crap we pollute our cities with. Saving the environment is obviously a plus but the benefits of living in a clean environment should be enough to sell it to anyone. Consider the following examples of how sustainable energy can be harnessed.
Wind - http://www.makanipower.com/. I think this is an awesome way to harness cheap sustainable energy. Installing this all over the U.S. would create tons of jobs while saving people money that they can spend in other areas of the hurting economy.
Solar - http://www.ecogeek.org/component/content/article/3287-plant-mimicking-solar-cells-can-self-assemble. I thought this was awesome when I read it. It might not be quite ready to hit the market but the technology is there and if enough people make it a priority this kind of thing can become a reality really soon. http://www.ecogeek.org/component/content/article/3263-plug-in-solar-appliance-brings-cheap-solar-power-t. Another article depicting the possibilities of energy production.
Wave - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TzEk74DIkuk. For areas near the ocean.
Geothermal - http://www.qualibouenergy.com/island-st.lucia.php. I actually don't know much about this but it's out there. Enjoy.
Energy storage - http://www.isentropic.co.uk/index.php?page=storage. A common problem with renewable energy is that it is hard to store once it is created meaning that while the wind's not blowing or the sun's not shining there is no energy unless it can be efficiently stored. This may or may not be a viable means of energy storage but it does provide an example of what's out there. If this doesn't work there are plenty of other ideas as well - http://www.ecogeek.org/component/content/category/27.
Energy is a huge resource! With unemployment as high as it is, why can't a company get financing to employ Americans to start installing these everywhere? That bailout money for the housing industry could have been used for financing these kinds of things instead of saving the broken system we currently have. The good news is that it's still broken and eventually they are going to have to bail it out again or try something new. I would love to have a president explain this and tell Americans to mobilize and start these projects. Stop looking at the government for an answer and just expect the government to stay out of the way and let this happen. I'd vote for someone who said that!
Waste Removal - Reducing the amount of waste produced is one of the best ways to manage waste removal. Communities need to make it convenient to recycle locally. This means homes equipped with composting systems that can be used in gardens. Also, extra taxes on items purchased that produce un-recyclable waste. I'm ordinarily apposed to new taxes but what I think this would do is encourage companies to use recyclable materials and cut down on packaging waste which is a huge source of unneeded garbage. And hopefully when they accomplish this they wont be paying the extra tax anymore anyway but I think they need the financial incentive. This isn't really an area of expertise for me but there are already tons of proven programs that are working all over the country. Consider this as an example, http://www.wastezero.com/Press2.cfm
Maintenance - This isn't as crucial as some of the above mentioned areas so I'd like to share it as just an opinion. If the above mentioned ideas are put in place there will be a huge need for upkeep in the community. I'd like to see jobs like landscaping and maintenance be a priority. In our society we try to make everything so that it doesn't need to be maintained because that costs money. That's why so many houses in my neighborhood have ugly rock yards and so much concrete. It's really unappealing if you ask me. I think we need to change a cultural norm and start to value the way nature looks by integrating it into the way we live our daily lives. This would, however, create the need for someone to keep it up and I don't see why that's a bad thing because it creates a lasting job for someone that might not have one otherwise. I would suggest that communities be encouraged (but not required) to create community management companies that take care of things like local landscape and community maintenance. These jobs could be run by and employ people within the community which would help ease unemployment. Unlike the current system where on a local level some residents manage their own landscaping and maintenance and others don't which leaves the possibility for degradation of the neighborhood. And on a larger level the state employs huge companies with a bidding process to manage community landscape. Under a new restructuring process the costs of landscaping and maintenance could be spread out between more people and money could be kept within the community giving security to people that live there.
Education - Here's a huge issue that doesn't get enough attention. Education in America is not providing citizens with necessary tools to survive as well as tools to improve. As technology has increased people stopped feeling the need to know how to grow food and provide basic sustenance for themselves. This is a real problem. One result of this is a food industry that is now required to mass produce food at such an enormous level that they have begun to cut corners. Just go eat at McDonalds and my point will be proven. Think about what kind of food has become acceptable for consumption. It's disgusting! Watch Food Inc or Supersize Me. That is actually how many Americans live their lives and that is really sad. Education has failed because it didn't produce citizens that were smart enough to realize what was happening and instead just accepted insane solutions out of necessity because they had no other alternative. Obesity is out of control, heart disease and diabetes rates are skyrocketing as well as many other health risks. This is all a result of the unhealthy lifestyles we have come to think of as normal. Education needs to be restructured in order to teach people how to live better.
I would recommend a hybrid form of education where students go to the local school to learn how to live in the community and survive in a sustainable way. Locally they learn how to garden, build homes, purify water, take care of animals, socialize and basically learn how to actually perform physical work and live independent of the government so that they can avoid this - http://www.treehugger.com/files/2009/12/photographer-capture-life-in-garbage-city.php. and this - http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2006/10/03/magazine/08wwln.1.html which is a photo of people waiting in line for government welfare. People wouldn't need to do that if they new how to provide for themselves in a sustainable way and had the freedom to do so. This is what local education should look like and it should not change too much because people should always have the ability to provide for themselves even if they choose not to.
I mentioned a hybrid form of education because I think computers need to be used for learning other subjects such as math, history, English, etc. This could be an online curriculum that is completed at home or students could commute to a school to learn them, the important thing is that they still learn these subjects. (BTW, I've got to throw this in there because of how bad it is. No Child Left Behind is the dumbest educational policy ever! When no child gets left behind no child advances either because there will always be children that get left behind. That is a reality that a policy cannot prevent and when a policy dictates that all available resources be spent to make sure no child gets left behind, that's exactly what happens - No child gets left behind because no child goes anywhere).
Adults also need access to affordable education as well. With technology I don't see why this hasn't happened yet. There is plenty of knowledge out there that nobody in particular owns. I don't see why this can't be organized and shared for free as a way for adults with access to the internet to receive education and get better jobs if they want to. Why does a University of Phoenix education cost an arm and a leg when you own the computer and all most students really need is an organized curriculum and a means of navigating it. UoP doesn't own the knowledge they are providing so why are the economical barriers so high? Adult's access to knowledge needs to be greatly reduced and they need to be provided with ways to show that they have achieved competency within certain fields. Here's an arbitrary example - A school shouldn't look to see if a teacher has a degree in order to hire them, they should look at real examples of work that the teacher has completed in order to judge competency and a teacher should be able to show schools how much time they have invested in their education not just show a piece of paper that has become much too easy to obtain. None of that needs to cost $20,000 or more. If this can be done it will allow adults to better themselves and when they can do that everyone will benefit.
Now, I've explained how I would like a president to fix our country and I've added a lot of detail that I'm sure should be adaptable because I'm not an expert on a lot of the topics I wrote about. However, I think I have at least laid out a rough draft that is plausible and should be considered. The immediate benefits to this are that developing land will create capital that can be used as a resource for creating jobs which will ease unemployment and stimulate the economy. The drawbacks are that homes wouldn't be sold with all the bells and whistles and living in these communities could require a little more work than living in conventional homes. The question is would the benefits of the changes outweigh the drawbacks? Worst case scenario is that the ideas I've laid out are impractical or impossible for the free market to accomplish and we can all go back to fighting with each other about gay marriage, healthcare, war, and all the other stupid issues that keep us from prospering.
I hope you've enjoyed reading my thoughts. Thanks for your time.
No comments:
Post a Comment