Tom Friedman on the need to invest in infrastructure and revitalize the U.S. 6

Comments View as Threaded

1. 

   Wild Walks Posted 10:21 am
   09 May 2008

   Loving the 'stache and living in the pastTom Friedman's observations reflect a pervasive U.S. world view that as the victor in WW2 they should still be benefiting from the spoils.  The fact that Jon Rynn finds Friedman's observations a "good nugget" reinforces the point - the U.S. is living in the past and still has not faced the fact that post WW2 affluence has come and gone.  The constant repetition from the media and politicians that America is the "greatest" or "freest" has masked the truth for so long that even now, when confronted with the truth Friedman says "How can this be? We are a great power".  The answer to "How can this be?" is "How can you still be asking the question?".  World War Two? You still think that is relevant?

   Permalink

2. 

   Jon Rynn Posted 12:49 pm
   09 May 2008

   Wild walks --The point in the U.S. here is to try to educate the population that there is a big world out there, and other peoples have come up with some very nice solutions to various human problems, such as transportation.  Americans tend not to know very much about the world outside of the U.S. -- thus the  lack of universal health insurance, for instance, does not seem strange but the natural order of things.  And so does virtually destroying Penn Station.
   Yes, we keep hearing how the U.S. is the "greatest" country, when usually the people who say that haven't seen much of the other countries, and besides, why does it matter?  Consider it "number one-itis" (something I just coined, probably unfortunately), that is, once a country has been number one, the maintenance of that idea becomes very important to the inhabitants.  
   The U.S. was able to win WWII with the help of the USSR because the U.S. was the major manufacturing power of the 20th century.  Rebuilding rail would be a great way to solve the problem of transportation and rebuild manufacturing at the same time.

   Permalink

3. 

   caniscandida Posted 3:38 pm
   09 May 2008

   public vs. private wealthFriedman has used that Flintstones/Jetsons witticism before.  It should be remembered that Americans have historically tended to be tolerant of inferior designs for public projects, while demanding more comfortable private residences.  In those countries with Jetsonish airports, probably the citizens have generally been content to live in residences that are both smaller and older than what Americans prefer.
   Also, much infrastructure in the US, certainly here in the East, was already built and operating in the early 20th century, so it is no wonder that it looks tired.  Much of that old construction is magnificent, such as the New Jersey entrance to the Lincoln Tunnel, and the great arched bridges carrying roads and train tracks between Morningside Heights and Washington Heights.  Still, it is old, and looks it.
   Pennsylvania Station is a different problem entirely.  It must have looked shabby and crappy when it was brand new.  And the demolition of the grand and glorious neo-classical masterpiece which was the old Pennsylvania Station is surely the worst architectural disaster, in terms of aesthetics, that this city ever suffered, far worse than the loss of the undistinguished Twin Towers of the WTC on 9/11, which were remarkable only on account of their visual presence.  The construction of the Cross Bronx Expressway comes second.
   For that matter, the Twin Towers were constructed not long after the new Pennsylvania Station, and displayed a similar over-emphasis on economy.  And apparently it was because of economy-related design flaws that the fires from the impacted jets were able to bring them down, and that escape from above the impact level was either very difficult (in the south tower) or impossible (in the north tower, where the father of my goddaughter died).
   I do not know if the 9/11 Commission had anything to say about this, but I strongly doubt that the Al-Qaida masterminds expected that the fiery impacts were going to bring down the towers as they did.  Presumably they intended the same sort of thing that they planned for the two DC targets: lots of death and destruction around the location of the impacts, and perhaps even the total destruction of the towers above the impact levels, but not the total crumbling of the buildings down to their foundations.
   
   Chickens deserve our true friendship! So do fish! So do other sentient beings! Let us learn to be kind.

   Permalink

4. 

   amazingdrx Posted 1:53 am
   10 May 2008

   Low slumping temp steelI guess they saved a few cents per pound on the steel Canis.  The addition of another metal raises the temperature at which the steel loses it's strength or "slumps".
   Are all high elevation buildings built with this alloy, known about for 100 years?  This is elementary fire protection.  Really beside the point of what causes a fire.
   then the fire would have been put out in the Twin towers and most of the lives could have been saved.  But that cheaper steel gave in to the heat and caused the chain reaction collapse, floor after floor.  No conspiracy.  Just a short term bottomline decision.
   Maybe a plaque with that purchase order should be prominently placed at ground zero?  It might be a good reminder for those purchasing materials to rebuild the towers.
   
   http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog

   Permalink

5. 

   Jon Rynn Posted 2:12 am
   10 May 2008

   Towers and stationscc -- If memory serves, in that videotape in which bin Laden is bragging to his sheikh friend, he says he thought the tops would come off, but that the whole thing wouldn't collapse.
   Also, amazin', if memory serves, the problem -- one among many -- was that the impact of the jets shook off the sprayed-on asbestos -- or was it some other fire retardant? -- and so the fires were able to weaken , in particular, the hinges that held the floors to the outside columns.  The skin of the twin towers actually held, which was part of the design (it was designed to withstand the impact of a 707, I believe).  Once the hinges weakened, the pancaking happened.
   To the extent that greed had something to do with it, the floor space was maximized by having the skin hold the towers together, instead of building in the Empire State building style, with lots of steel girders -- the Empire State building was once hit by a plane accidentally and hardly noticed.
   The one good thing that came from the destruction of the original, beautiful Penn Station was that the landmarks movement was born as a result.  For a while I worked for a fellow who helped organize the preservation of Carnegie Hall, when they were about the tear that down, and the reaction to Penn Station's destruction helped save Carnegie Hall, among others.

   Permalink

6. 

   Delay And Deny Posted 7:14 am
   10 May 2008

   Singapore...let freedom ring (Yeah, Right)
   
   Singapore is a virtual dictatorship.
   Look, there are still plenty of people in this country that would rather "the trains didn't run on time" if it means sacrificing our freedoms to a faceless bureaucracy.
   Of course, that doesn't bother the "Global Warmers" -- they are trying to scare us into submission with false science so that they can impose their taxes and their will on the American People.
   They are defeated!
   http://en.epochtimes.com/news/5-5-3/28402.html
   It is very difficult for people who have never lived in Singapore to imagine and understand the nature of its dictatorship and autocracy. On the surface, it looks like Singapore has a democratic system and that people are granted the right to chose and vote. However, in actuality, it is a country with complete dictatorship and autocracy.
   
   
   
   Texeme.Construct(Participant)

   Permalink