Ron Amundson’s Political Blog

I’m becoming more and more impressed with Congressman Tim Walz all the time. I really liked what he had to say about the FISA bill HR 6304.

“When Richard Nixon said that “when the President does it, that means it’s not illegal,” many Americans were horrified that any President would consider himself above the law. This legislation is even worse, because it essentially says ‘if the President tells you do so something, it’s not illegal,’ even if it violates the plain letter of the law. The process set out in this bill to rubberstamp the actions of the Bush Administration is contradictory to the rule of law in this country.

Sadly though, I am way less than impressed with Barack Obama’s stance on the FISA bill. Granted, this is a tough one.. if he would have rallyed the troops in opposition, its likely McCain and crew would use such to indicate a soft spot on defense. Yet, because he chose to not do so, it really comes across he is soft on the constitution…. and that is very very discouraging. Sure, he will try to rally the senate to remove the immunity provisions, but likely that is just a token thing at this point…. he could have made a difference, yet no doubt except for political expediency and politics as usual, he did nothing.

Sure, Obama will come up and put up a fight against immunity, but short of a fillibuster, its unlikely to do a whole lot of good… the ship has sailed, and with it a part of our constitution. Otoh, it may well be he still has some cards to play, and that is my hope.

Yet, the same cards dealt to Barack also came to Tim Walz…. and he made a choice, the right choice, the one to uphold his oath of office, even though it likely will not be all that popular. Ie, many folks are not versed in constitutional matters… and some I perceive would rather sell out the constitution if it meant they would be safer, or at least have an illusion of safety.

This is perhaps best illustrated in an example Karoli presented about a fellow who exudes so much fear its scary in and of itself. Some comments from her blog.

The FISA and torture issues have been framed to prey upon people’s fears, and it’s worked fabulously. Until these issues can be reframed in a way that exposes and resolves those fears, pushing back isn’t an option if one wants to have a political career that actually succeeds and gets them elected.

Opposing this ‘compromise’ is too nuanced a position to take in a country where people decide who to vote for based upon whether they’d have a drink with them, or gender, or race, or whatever other superficial excuse is made for their surrender to the dark place where fears grow.

And that is what I think is cool about Congressman Walz…. he does not run, nor settle for political expediency, nor business as usual. Its a risk he is taking, yet it is also a risk he must take to uphold his office, irrespective of the consequences. Thats a whole lot of courage he has to take such a stand, and I applaud him for it. I also know, should this come back on him during election time, he won’t back down, and likely any mud thrown, is going to come back at the thrower in a huge way, if not from Tim, by a bunch of us supporters who will not stand for those who throw the constitution under the bus for expediencies sake.

For reference, we also have a few other Minnesota folks to be proud of.

Nay MN-1 Walz, Timothy [D]
Nay MN-4 McCollum, Betty [D]
Nay MN-5 Ellison, Keith [D]
Nay MN-8 Oberstar, James [D]

McCain Sees Need for More Nuclear Power – WSJ.com
The key words….. “developing domestic capability to manufacture key parts.”

I think in many ways, Nuclear energy could have played a substantial role in energy policy…. but alas, its time has come and gone. In part, due to the regulatory and litigious climate today, the publics view of nuclear disasters,  but on a very practical basis…. I seriously doubt we could manufacture them anymore for a number of reasons…. its not that we lack the technology, certainly manufacturing tech is light years ahead of where it was in 1960, but there are huge problems.

First, every engineer or designer from that era is either at the point of retirement, or long ago did so. Prints only tell a small story when it comes to manufacturing, no matter how well documented they are. It is indeed, the craftsmanship that resides in the assembler, the maintenance tech, the  engineering techs, and the engineers that make the difference, not so much as what is on paper (which of course is what we are led to believe today with all our super cool and whippy high tech tools)

Second, any and all prints from that era, are likely to be in archive status, if indeed they are still around at all. Fragile blueprints, the smell of ammonia, and massive rows of drafting tables have long since fell by the wayside. Even cad systems have a finite lift, and it is indeed likely much of the documentation is either missing, or incorrect, thus leading to a multitude of rabbit trails should a call be made to tool up and crank out parts.

Perhaps most critical is the mindset…. I’ve brought back to life more than a few legacy products over the years, in addition to maintaining some pretty archaic products as well… (yep, I’ve worked off of prints from the 40′s) The mindset of production in the 60′s up to the mid 80′s was totally different. I don’t know how many times I’d send something out for a quote, only to have it come back as we can’t build that, its impossible…. and my response was… no its not impossible, as your company built a bunch of these for us in the past, ie, in 1973, and my records show, the acceptance rate was very high, and there are even file notes saying how impressed the guys were with the quality.

Todays emphasis on lean manufacturing by the least common denominator skill wise, combined with huge reductions in overhead don’t allow for designs with low yields, or processes which require a high degree of supervision, typically by an old grey beard craftsman. Thus, its easy for vendors to no bid, rather than to take risks on huge scrap rates and failures in order to provide a limit quantity of product which meats spec. Then add in huge increases in labor costs since then, and its understandable why things are the way they are today. Yet, if one needs a specific part, understanding a vendors issues doesn’t cut it.

To rebuild the nuclear manufacturing base will require a huge change in mindset, throughout a vendors operation. I would not rule it out as being impossible, but todays climate makes it unlikely, and if possible, the costs would be out of this world.

Imho, a better solution is a focus on technological solutions aligned with what we have, and what we can project into the future, rather than trying to relive the era of 30-50 years ago. Minnesota is primed and ready for such new challenges, the issue is whether the social political climate will embrace  such, or try to revert and live in the past.