"MajorOz" wrote in message
...

As an old Jeb, I, more than most, understand the value of liberal
arts. But to conflate that with psych/soch is to illustrate ignorance
of curricula. Every street corner post-sec school in the US has a
feel good Oprah program. The GI bill I propose leaves it out because
it already exists in great number.

gee, I have contact(via contributions and the like) with several 'post-sec'
schools of decent repute. A true, well rounded University Education is not a
feel-good program, and serves it's students and the nation just fine. I read
the inference YOU wrote.

Did you read the whole section? "...when we come out the end...".
Also, the presence of these trained professionals, by itself,
contributes to the climate that creates those specific jobs.

It has never worked that way in the past, and I can cite tons of examples
for you. Why would you assume it would happen now. This nation's basic
science infrastructure has been allowed to deteriorate for a couple
decades-plus. We have to almost force a return to basic scientific research.
Technological(business) development flows from the findings of basic
research. We, as a nation, lost sight of that fact.


While admitting I haven't made an exhaustive study of that portion of
the proposal(s), my limited information and impression is that it
leans more toward the PC types and does little to address the
fundamental problems of the feel-good aspects of "clean" energy --
selenium production, efficiency losses, land use, etc.
When all the smoke clears, both in the skulls and out, we will be
forced to understand that, if any semblance of life-as-we-know-it is
to be maintained, nuclear is the only way it can be done. To think
otherwise may be sweet and gentle, but childish.

or, just a level of farsighted thinking you haven't gotten your head around.
Nuclear fission technology, on a level needed to feed the US grid, is a
potential ecological disaster. Fusion research is a fine idea, but
everything I've ever read indicates potential shortcomings that need serious
work.

Side note: For our own narrow interests, imagine that all the
drinking water in the US was produced as a BYPRODUCT of nuclear power,
and that no dams were needed to produce electricity -- far in the
future, yes, but the obvious end result. It would seem there would be
more and better trout fishing available.

A fine goal, which we can both agree upon. On the other hand, trout fishing
is something I am not going to obsess on, if I have to ignore the ongoing
survival of my nation to do it. Side note, back at ya: With all that water,
you could consider moving it back and forth across the nation, in giant
pipes. I know a guy with a plan for thatg.

Finally, I think that your point of view reflects an attitude of "I'm
doing
OK, so where's the problem?"

Unfortunate that you, again draw an erroneous conclusion.

It says:snipped

Please, if you have time, illustrate to me how this last might have
any semblance of truth.

OK, Oz, and I will try to oversimplify, so forgive me. If the economic
spirals down badly enough, and the nation as a whole doesn't pitch in to
avert the disaster, you might well be looking at:
1. A banking system essentially available for buyout by
foreign entities with the cash to do so.
2. A debt to China that cannot be repaid
3. A nation in social upheaval to the point of revolution
4. No functioning commerce nationwide, due to nonexistant commercial credit.

this set of circumstances, whether you, or Louie, or Bill or Beancounter
wish to acknowledge it, COULD happen.....
if we let it happen. And, it is a scenario that could happen beyond our
ability to restrain the process if we wait on it too long. And that set of
circumstances makes for a damned unpleasant life here, no matter how fat
one's wallet or good one's credit rating is. Bleak? Hell, yes, and I do
think we, as a nation can avoid it. But, there certainly are both economic
models and smaller scale real-life examples of just that sort of scenario
unfolding. I hope we aren't doomed by our own stubborness and
shortsightedness.
Tom