At Issue

Virgin Galactic space travel advances in testing; biobutanol, other biofuels envisioned for mothership, spacecraft

By Jim Lane, Biofuels Digest

The Virgin Galactic system utilizes a mothership and an air-launched spacecraft, both of which are designed to utilize biofuels in the future.

In New Mexico, construction will commence next month on the $198 million Spaceport America, a vertical launching pad and runway facility in Truth or Consequences that will be home to the Virgin Galactic spacecraft offering commercial space tourism flights for $200,000.

Sir Richard Branson’s Virgin Fuels is developing biofuels that can be used to power both the mothership Eve that will launch the spacecraft from the stratosphere, while the SpaceShipTwo spacecraft will itself be designed to run on biobutanol. Branson is an investor in Gevo, a development-stage company making butanol from cellulosic feedstocks.

The Virgin Galactic team recently completed successful test flights for the mothership flying on conventional kerosene, but the spacecraft  system has not yet received FAA commercial flight certification though Virgin has received 300 reservations from scientists James Lovelock and Stephen Hawking, among others. Each flight is aimed to reach 109 km in altitude, just past the 100 km “Karman line” that the FAI marks as the barrier between Earth’s lower atmosphere and space.

Branson confirmed that the carbon cost of each flight would be less than a round-trip flight between London and New York on a conventional aircraft. Meanwhile, the spacecraft system, while undergoing tests next year, will carry NOAA instruments designed to measure carbon dioxide, methane and other greenhouse gas concentrations in the upper atmosphere.

Ethanol & Rocketry

Ethanol gel has been proposed as a rocket fuel for hybrid engines that use a liquid oxidizer and a solid fuel.

Ethanol was the fuel for the V-2 missile developed by Werner Von Braun in the Second World War, as well the Redstone rocket that carried Alan Shepard and Gus Grissom, the first two American astronauts.

NASA & Biofuels

Officials at NASA have proposed an algae-based solution for the production of biofuels in closed plastic bags that would be filled with sewage that the algae would utilize as a feedstock, and produce algal oil.

NASA said that the proposal addressed a major limitation of closed bioreactor systems on land, which is water-storage and temperature control in addition to land acquisition. The semi-permeable membranes “allow fresh water to flow out into the ocean, while retaining the algae and nutrients,” using a technology that NASA is testing for use in long-duration space flight.

“The algae will feed on the nutrients in the sewage, growing rich, fatty cells. Through osmosis, the bag will absorb carbon dioxide from the air, and release oxygen and fresh water. The temperature will be controlled by the heat capacity of the ocean, and the ocean’s waves will keep the system mixed and active,” said NASA researcher Jonathan Trent.

Biodiesel, Rocketry & Mars Exploration

Researchers at Flometrics have reported the possibility of growing oilseed crops on Mars for rocket fuel, after a test of B100 biodiesel in a Rocketdyne LR-101 engine showed comparable burn characteristic to RP-1 kerosene.

The test was carried out in a General Dynamics/Convair Atlas missile based on a six-second burn, and B100 developed an 820 lb thrust compared to 840 for RP-1.

Following the test, Flometrics said it would proceed with a B100 powered rocket launch.

For more information visit www.biofuelsdigest.com.

Key takeaways for design community

by Jeff Reinke, Editorial Director, PD&D

So while the Product Design & Development Stock Index did see growth for the second straight week, the cumulative gains during this stretch have been about six points – not exactly the most stimulating of news. So the real question is, what are the key takeaways for the design community when analyzing this flat economic indicator?

With that in mind, here are my thoughts on things to consider when looking for insight from Wall Street performance:

1. Know when to walk away, know when to run. While Kenny Rogers may not know the first thing about designing airplanes or weapon systems, he was dead on when describing a couple of the market segments we track. The aerospace sector has been on a roller coaster for most of the last six months. This seems to stem from government funding that has been more selective and a number of private sector orders that have either been cancelled or scaled back.

For the industrial and medical sectors, there has been more negative than positive news from Wall Street. The industrial situation is obvious, due to production cuts and the resulting decrease in spending. On the medical side, it seems hospital purchasing of larger equipment was already in place, so those types of product offerings have not felt the impact. However, the mixture of unemployment-related insurance issues, fewer elective procedures being performed and others being more selective about the frequency of their visits to the doctor has led the medical sector to feel an economic pinch. The good news is that as the cyclical nature of the economy turns, so will these sectors.

2. Flat is still better than down. While unemployment levels are high and manufacturing output continues to lag, it seems most of the bleeding has been stopped and many are optimistic that we can stay below that magical 9 percent unemployment benchmark. This helps ensure a consistent spending level.

3. Living on the edges. The trick for everyone is balancing responsible spending on new product development without foolishly overspending. Remember, while Columbus was on the outlook for sailing off the end of the world, it didn’t keep him from trying to improve a current approach.

4. A win is a win. Okay, so the automotive and consumer electronics indexes were both up less than $2 from a week ago, but it’s still incremental improvement and offers guidance on the steady growth both sectors have experienced over the last two months.

5. The right stuff. Regardless of all the leading economic indicators that you want to look at, a capitalist economy still comes down to people needing stuff. Eventually this stuff breaks, wears out or is consumed. Then we normal folks look to you in the design community to make newer, better, faster, brighter, safer, less flammable, easier to use, harder to break, can’t live without it stuff to replace the former … right now, please. Currently, more of this is sitting on warehouse shelves than anyone would like, but eventually these supplies will run it and then we’ll need somebody to design, make, deliver and service the stuff we want and/or need.

Just as Columbus and those who followed him soon realized – while things may appear flat from where you’re standing, moving forward helps one realize that almost everything flow in nice, round circle. Some just take longer to navigate.

With talks of an electric economy, some vehicles may lose their characteristic noise

By Meaghan Ziemba, Associate Editor, PD&D

This past Memorial Day weekend, while trying to overcome strep and watching the neighbor kids tear up everything in their path, I was able to enjoy smoky mastique steak and BBQ ribs along with sunny weather and the sarcastic humor of House on my laptop.

However, my most enjoyable memory – aside from my daughter riding her bike down the street without training wheels – was the roaring sounds of the Harley Davidson bikers cruising the streets – an announcement that warm weather has finally arrived in Wisconsin.

Ever since my brother bought his Fat Boy a few years ago, and the few rides I’ve been on with friends, I’ve not only become a huge fanatic of the historic bikes, but I’ve come to love the comradery that surrounds them and I’m determined to become part of the culture someday (yes, my bike will be white with pink flames).

While enjoying the powerful rumbling of the engines, I started to think about the rising gas prices, the sustainable energy movement that’s beginning to become more popular, and discussions of an electric vs. a hydrogen economy; and I became curious about what the future will hold for loud motorcycles, such as Harleys and Choppers?

My favorite thing about Harley is the thunderous purring of the engines. It’s an entity in itself and creates such a powerful emotion that makes riding one more intense, but with the transition to electric power, vehicles will lack the noise that combustible engines produce. Will this change the popularity among the husky two-wheelers? Will this change the entire riding experience?

I’ve seen pictures of “futuristic” bikes and read articles on electric and hybrid designs, but I guess my tomboyish country-girl alter ego keeps me addicted to loud noises, the smell of diesel and fascinated with the grotesque designs.

I love monster trucks and NASCAR and can’t imagine watching such events without the loud revving of the motors. It would actually be dull – like eating a buffalo wing without the hot sauce.

I’m all in favor of sustaining energy and producing alternative fuels that are less harmful to our island world, but riding a quiet motorcycle would just be as dull as eating a sauceless wing. I guess I’m contradicting myself when I support the move for greener energy yet still put money away so I can finally buy a Harley and attend the occasional truck show.

Between the two options – and I’ve been made aware of costs, advantages and disadvantages of both – I still stand by hydrogen because I think it could help preserve the wonderful sounds that loud bikes and cars produce. If I need to pay the extra money for my engine revving obsession, then I guess I’ll have to cut back on some of my other pleasurable favorites – and hot sauce is harder to give up than you’d think.

Memorial Day weekend, The 4^th of July and summer weather won’t be the same without that motorbike’s purring engines, so here’s hoping we can find a way to maintain the noise while sustaining energy.

I’m daydreaming about my backyard and a juicy steak on the grill

By Johnny Quickparts

This long Memorial Day weekend marks the unofficial kickoff to the summer, and I don’t know about you, but I am very ready for the warm weather. 

You see, I am a bit of a GrillMaster, so the summer weather means one word to me….cookouts!  Barbecuing meat on my grill gives me a sense of satisfaction that can only be matched by few other activities. The smell of searing pork, beef, chicken or even burgers and hot dogs puts me in a trance. Even now just thinking of the aroma gets me daydreaming about my backyard and a juicy steak on the grill.

There is a dark side to the grilling world, though; a long-standing debate about which grilling method is better - gas or charcoal. And to me, the real question that this comes down to is taste and flavor. 

One fact of it all is that gas grilling is the easier, more convenient, and more cost effective way to grill. The grill itself may be more expensive, but the cost of propane is far less expensive than charcoal, making the per-use operating cost lower. Another benefit of gas grilling is the speed of preparation. Simply turn the gas lever, light the pilot and WHAM, you are ready to put the food on. It doesn’t get much better than that when your stomach is growling and your mouth is watering for a nice piece of meat.

Let’s not ring the bell yet though! Charcoal has some qualities that are quite appealing. The charcoals themselves are the real superstars when it comes to grilling quality meat. The flavor that you get from the burning of the coals and the smoke produced gives your meal that special something that you don’t get from gas. They even make wood infused charcoal briquettes for that extra smoky and flavorful taste. For me, this matters more for steaks than burgers. Also, the start-up cost for a charcoal beauty is far less than a snazzy gas grill. Another big win for the charcoal grill is the heat range that can be achieved. Higher temperatures can be sustained for longer periods of time (more cost effectively at least).

In true engineer style, I choose the best of both worlds when it comes to my grilling tool. I use the Big Green Egg®, a bona fide engineering marvel. The Big Green Egg is a ceramic cooker that is literally a smoker, a grill, and an oven all wrapped in one ugly green egg shape. The ceramic material used is my favorite feature, which also gives it all of the advantages over other grills. 

My favorite features of the ceramic material are:

• The walls retain heat and control the temperature with no hot spots.
• It withstands temperature extremes from below 0o to 1,800°F.
• No matter how hot the grill is inside, the outside is cool to the touch.
• The durable material withstands any temperature or weather variations.

A new and really cool technology that has hit the home grilling scene is infrared cooking.  Previously only used in commercial kitchens, an expired patent has now brought high-tech cooking to gas grilling. This radiant heat generates temperatures that are much higher than gas grills could achieve previously, and the heat is reached much more quickly than its charcoal counterparts. This innovative way of grilling may just end the gas v. charcoal debate altogether…only time will tell.

Whatever your weapon of choice for grilling, enjoy this Memorial weekend and until next time, design with the world in mind. Johnny out!

Johnny Quickparts has earned a B.S. in Mechanical Engineering and graduated with summa cum laude honors. While in college, Johnny was a member of Pi Tau Sigma and Tau Beta Pi. After he graduated college, Johnny’s first engineering job was with Boeing working on the Space Station Freedom. Seeking more of a challenge, Johnny left Boeing and went to work for Acme Design Corporation, where he is currently employed. At Acme, Johnny was part of the team that created Rosie, the Jetson’s robot maid and Batman & Robin’s utility belts. 

By Jeff Reinke

It’s rare that I’ll offer my condolences to the politically tunnel-visioned, but I feel obligated to do so for Dianne Feinstein, a democratic senator from California. Senator Feinstein, who authored the original Cash for Clunkers bill, has seen her solution for controlling auto emissions transition into another plot to help those who simply refused to help themselves.

For those unfamiliar with the legislation, Feinstein’s original bill offered vouchers in the $4,500 range for vehicle owners who traded in their current vehicle for a more fuel efficient model. Although discussions were still in place, the types of vehicles being targeted for the trade-in were older models that could effectively be scrapped and removed from the roadways, while those considered for the purchasing incentive were primarily of the hybrid variety.

The current legislative “compromise” offers vehicle owners purchasing incentives of up to $3,500 for upgrading to vehicles that improve fuel usage by as little as two miles-per-gallon, or up to $4,500 for improvements of just five MPG. There is no stipulation on the type of vehicle being traded in or purchased, except that the new vehicle carries a higher fuel efficiency rating.

Feinstein has voiced concerns about these compromises, citing the fact that less efficient vehicles like SUVs would qualify for the voucher without having any type of positive environmental impact. She was also able to put down her Greenpeace-shaded glasses in understanding that the bill is essentially another way to help the struggling automotive marketplace by stimulating wider-spread sales efforts.

In my opinion, both versions of this bill shoot the economy in the foot, but at least Senator Feinstein’s plan wasn’t presented under the veil of corporate welfare for GM, Ford and Chrysler. The Obama administration says they feel such a program could generate sales of up to one million new vehicles.

The ironic thing here is that when people think of fuel economy, I doubt that bow-tie or blue oval logos flash into their subconscious. Such an incentive could actually be another nail in the coffin for the “Big 3”, but from a design perspective there is the potential for added funding to flow through the pipeline in developing components and systems that lead to greater fuel efficiency. In this respect I can see some benefit, but the powers that be have missed the primary impact of such a bill.

In my opinion, the right compromise comes from the Automotive Service Association (www.asashop.org). ASA represents a significant percentage of automotive repairers around the country, and has lobbied for a repair alternative to be part of any Cash for Clunkers initiative. Essentially, this would allow older vehicles that still have some life in them to be tuned up and made more efficient through a variety of maintenance services. These services could be subsidized by Cash for Clunkers funding.

This would appear to be a win-win, with negative environmental impacts subdued through the option of either vehicle repair or replacement. Federal funds would be funneled through both the larger OEMs, as well as the small business owners that purchase varying parts, supplies and consumables, and employ a fair number of middle class workers. The automotive repair marketplace is estimated to include about 1.5 million technicians, service managers and support personnel.

This would provide varying options and support of multiple automotive outlets. But it looks like the Obama administration is focused on the “bigger” automotive picture, especially when you examine the situation from the perspective of these small business owners.

Billions of dollars were funneled to the Detroit OEMs. Funds that originated from tax dollars collected from small businesses like the 300,000 automotive repair facilities found throughout the U.S. To show their gratitude the government is now trying to take away repair opportunities from these businesses to further assist those same financially irresponsible tax dollar sponges. Remember, new vehicles are being covered by increasingly longer warranties that are obviously honored only at affiliated dealerships. So although there is an interwoven relationship between independent repairers and vehicle makers, this small business owner just helped fund the revival of his largest competitor and effectively limited his own revenue opportunities.

To me, Cash for Clunkers is ridiculous. The main beneficiaries will not be the struggling automakers because if a buyer is focused on fuel efficiency it’s the Toyotas and Hondas of the marketplace that will benefit. This will trickle down to their suppliers and growing manufacturing presence in the southeastern U.S., but what about the burgeoning unemployment levels that will be experienced in the repair sector? What about those small-to-mid sized companies supplying these shops with tools, equipment and supplies?

Furthermore, what’s really troubling is that this is just a microcosm of the damage current economic programs could have on our small businesses, and the vitally important role they play in our marketplace and society. Small to medium-sized companies are the bedrock of the American Dream, and the foundation on which our economy is founded. It’s the ability to try and compete against the big boys and do things one’s own way that gives us a clearer, more positive viewpoint of tomorrow and the days that follow. Even in today’s more global economic structure, new entities drive competitive forces that benefit all involved.

The spirit of fair competition built our economy and the drive to innovate will bring it back. Although the rewards of a capitalist approach can be great, the journey is difficult, requiring the right amount of risk-taking and an abundance of hard work and dedication. Those who take this journey don’t need the government stimulating unfair competitive practices in adding to their challenges.

Our leaders have assessed the value of our automotive manufacturers at well into the tens of billions of dollars. It makes you wonder what the price tag should be for those who are footing the bill.

Did I do it? I was hoping to match the overly dramatic copy “Charge your iPod, kill a polar bear?” from the Wisconsin State Journal (WSJ) this weekend.

The short article shed light on society’s gadget-crazed consumption and I have to admit, while I read the piece, my phone was plugged into the same jack as two laptops and a blackberry – praise to the inventor of the surge protector.

According to an energy watchdog, gizmos are firing up power grids and our usage is skyrocketing at an exponential rate. Granted, it’s just a watchdog group and not a piece of legislation, so I realize that we’re not going to all hop on the energy efficiency bandwagon and throw the issue above cost controls and improving time-to-market, but what is it going to take to make the switch?

A new report from the International Energy Agency (IEA) estimates that electronic gadgets will triple their energy consumption by 2030 to 1,700 terawatt hours. According to WSJ, that’s the equivalent of the total combined home consumption of the United States and Japan, just so we can light up our nights with LEDs and televisions that are mounted above the fireplace.

Comparatively, my gadget energy consumption is below average – according to the IEA, it’s around 15 percent of your total household electric consumption. I don’t really have anything to back that up other than my electric bill, but guys can be lumped into two general categories.

Some gentleman are obsessed with the latest phones, MP3 players, LCDs, etc. – I’m the other kind. I didn’t like James Bond as a kid; my brothers and I were more prone to playing Indiana Jones. I didn’t want to talk into my watch (and have it talk back); I wanted to swing from the hay loft in the barn with a whip (although we never landed that one successfully). 

I have a dinosaur of a phone, which I can upgrade for free at anytime, but why should I? The one I have now works perfectly. I receive all of my calls, texts and photos. The alarm clock on it wakes me up every morning, the snooze function makes me late every morning and, the best feature of them all, the red button turns the phone off every time I hold it for longer than three seconds. It’s the most pleasing little vibration, a reminder that I’m not only turning off the phone, but I’m also no longer able to be poked or prodded from the world outside of the living room.

As long as those functions all remain in order, I see no reason to necessitate a touch screen or never-ending list of apps. I had games on a former phone; Fall Down was my addiction. Basically, you had to punch in the number before it reached the bottom of the screen and the further you advanced, the speedier and more conniving the numbers became. It was Atari simple and yet it was the reason some people thought that I was ill when I had to use the public facilities.

In order to support our burgeoning need to require a utility belt, the world would have to build an estimated 200 new nuclear power plants just to shoot enough juice into the system. Oh yeah, and according to the IEA, the global electric bill would be around $200 billion a year – right now it’s at $80 billion.

To think that anyone is going to cede their gadgets is a pretty cockamamie proposition, so here’s to hoping we can design them to run on as little as possible. Who knows? With energy harvesting and an ongoing interest in solar and alternative energy, maybe we’ll transform into some utopian gizmo haven in which gadgets run on body heat. 

Key to promoting innovative products? Show up!

By Meaghan Ziemba, Associate Editor, PD&D

I appeared at my first show for PD&D at the RAPID Conference, in Schaumburg, IL last week.

While I was amazed at the booth size and exhibitors of the show, I was surprised to learn that attendance was down 40 percent and RAPID was one of the smaller shows in the industry. Although the attendance was low compared to last year’s, some exhibitors were satisfied with the turnout and felt their products were well promoted – due to the quality of the lead.

Some representatives expressed their disappointment in the lack of promotion to a wider range of consumers. Most companies at the show knew of one another and have networked with each other in previous situations, but the overall show seemed to lack a variety of promotional chances – some members felt the organizers of the conference could have brought in a broader audience.

We all are aware of the economic situation, and can understand why certain companies may skip out on certain shows and gatherings, however I think these promotional opportunities are key to sparking economic recovery.

One booth in particular that my colleague and I visited was the GPI booth. GPI, a service bureau, was showcasing their latest products and services, and they discussed how difficult it was getting its name out to the public.

They also discussed the importance of certain editorial content that helped them introduce their latest products to consumers, and although RAPID did not have the predicted turnout forecasted, it did provide a great networking opportunity for those who participated.

Some individuals seem to have this “What’s the use?” attitude.

Why attend something when business is slow and production is down? Why put the time and effort into something when other companies are cutting back? RAPID proved that while certain establishments that invest in their merchandise may be taking risks, those risks can turn into huge gains. Those who missed the event missed the chance of expanding their knowledge base.

All industries are feeling the effects of the recession, but they can’t be resolved with a wait and see attitude. Events like RAPID can help by getting new ideas and innovative products out in the open. If these events are ignored and start losing participants, then everyone loses.  

“Statistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is suggestive, but what they conceal is vital.”

by Luke Simpson, Associate Editor, IMPO

  I like statistics that back up what I already know. The ones that let you say, “See, I told you we were in a recession,” or “Only 12 year-old kids are on MySpace.”

Last week the Bureau of Labor Statistics released figures showing changes in productivity and labor costs during the first quarter of 2009. The numbers indicate that productivity — output per hour worked — goes up a little bit when you lay off a few people, and then drops dramatically when you lay off a lot of people: 

• Business sector – hours worked down 8.8 percent, productivity increased 1.1 percent.
• Nonfarm business sector – hours worked down 9 percent, productivity increased by 0.8 percent.
• Nondurable manufacturing sector – hours worked down 13 percent, productivity decreased by 0.1 percent.
• Durable manufacturing sector – hours worked down 23.4 percent, productivity down 10 percent.

That sounds about right: As smaller-scale layoffs take effect, people are forced to take on extra work, or simply work harder because they are scared they will be singled out for a permanent holiday. Or in other cases, long-standing inefficiencies are inadvertently addressed through the layoffs.

I recently ran into an ex-colleague who had survived a 12 percent reduction in his company’s workforce. “We lost a lot of good people, but we also cut the fat and as a company and we’re better for it,” he commented. I was part of that 12 percent reduction, and I couldn’t help but agree with him — the inefficiencies and overstaffing at that particular company were obvious.

Now before anyone accuses me of writing a piece on the positives of layoffs, let me get back on track.

The part of these statistics that seemed totally counterintuitive was the change in hourly compensation during the same period. In this time of economic turmoil, the Bureau of Labor Statistics was reporting a 15.7 percent increase in hourly compensation during the first quarter of 2009. I took this to mean that people were getting big pay rises, something that is obviously not happening in the real world.

It would be nice to think that companies are compensating employees for the extra work left by retrenched ex-colleagues, but how is that possible when many companies have applied wage freezes, cut hours and reduced benefits?

As it turns out, there is a perfectly good explanation for this erroneous statistic, but it took me a while to find it. After contacting two analysts, two manufacturing industry experts and one economist, I was still no closer to an answer. So I decided to go straight to the source.

Jane at the Bureau of Labor Statistics cheerfully greeted me with a serving of technical mumbo-jumbo about the accuracy of their report — something about a possible lag in the updating of benchmarks and sources of compensation data coming from outside agencies. Jane was going to get a copy of the report and her colleague who was looking into the discrepancies — and she would be right back …

She didn’t come back.

I immediately got suspicious, sensing a cover-up in the Major Sector Productivity group of the U.S. Department of Labor. Was this my chance for a Pulitzer? Was Jane my Deep Throat? Would I have to fly to D.C. and meet her in a shady parking lot to get my answers?

Not really.

I finally managed to speak with one of the fine young economists at the bureau, Shawn Sprague, who dug down into the statistics and gave me the answer I was looking for. The reality was that compensation in the durable manufacturing sector dropped 11.4 percent in the first three months of 2009. This follows from decreases of 3.7 and 5.8 percent in the final two quarters of 2008.

Nondurable manufacturing compensation dropped 5.5 percent for the same period, a slight improvement on the 5.6 percent drop at the end of 2008.

I won’t bore you by trying to explain the statistical definitions that resulted in me misinterpreting the report — but suffice to say that these numbers are meaningless without an understanding of how they are derived and how they apply to a particular industry.

After speaking with Pat McGibbon at the Association for Manufacturing Technology, it turns out that this drop in compensation doesn’t necessarily indicate that workers are getting pay cuts.

“In manufacturing, people don’t do 40 hour weeks — they do 50 or 60 hour weeks. When output drops, the first thing to go is overtime, which is usually paid at time-and-a-half. We’ve seen compensation drops in the 11 to 15 percent range before.”

At the end of the day, “Statistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is suggestive, but what they conceal is vital.”

- Aaron Levenstein

Companies should invest in their own innovation-driven programs

By Jeff Reinke, Editorial Director, PD&D

President Obama recently announced at the National Academy of  Sciences’ annual meeting that he planned to allocate three percent of the gross domestic product to research and development. This represents the largest commitment to scientific research in U.S. history, and in more real-world terms represents a better than $400 billion investment.

Now, whether or not this is a wise financial decision, I don’t know. Unlike our “leaders” in D.C. my check book isn’t allowed to function with the negative sign in front of it. However, such a pledge does offer a couple of unique points that I feel go in favor of the Obama administration.

First, he actually made good on a campaign promise. Granted, pledging to spend billions of taxpayer dollars has never been a problem for any politician, but allocating said funds towards initiatives that will benefit both capitalistic and social causes is unique. Those who would usually scream in self-serving defiance of corporate welfare from such an initiative are hamstrung because this funding will also help educational institutions and venture capitalist-dependent start-ups work towards better addressing health and energy concerns through new and innovative products, designs and approaches.

Additionally, the heart-hardened right-wingers that I’m prone to associate with are left without our trusty battle cry of how the liberals are raising taxes to fund more social causes. This type of initiative will help corporate America continue in the quest to pull our sagging economy through these tougher times with better, more innovative offerings that can help on a number of societal and economic fronts. Additionally, one would hope that job creation and increased spending would be a natural side effect of funding such new endeavors.

Secondly, this marks a government investment that flies in the face of previous bailouts targeted at banks and automakers that have a weak, at best, track record when it comes to innovative thinking and financial responsibility. I guess my hope is that these types of funds will be reserved for those with new ideas on how to improve energy efficiency or push developments in the electronics, communication, transportation and medical fields in helping the U.S. to be at the center of developing and manufacturing the greatest products in the world, instead of simply being its primary consumer.

Granted, it’s difficult to say right now whether this type of historical investment will pan out down the road, but I feel a little better about this use of my tax dollars, as opposed to easing the unaccountable into bankruptcy. In this rare instance I find myself hoping that more companies will actually follow the example set by the Obama administration and look to invest in their own internal innovation-driven programs. Who knows, your current project may even be able to benefit from some of these new funding initiatives.

At the risk of continuing to preach to the choir, beat my drum, mount my soapbox, or whatever other cliché you prefer, these types of investments are what will bring this country back. My feeling is that if the greased wheels of our bureaucracy can understand that, although it remains to be seen if they will actually bring these “pledges” to fruition, just imagine how much better and more effective such an initiative could run if implemented by those who will actually be doing the work.

Recent protests mirror French storming of the Bastille

by Meaghan Ziemba, Associate Editor, PD&D

A recent article about steel workers attacking the ArcelorMittal’s Luxembourg headquarters brought flashbacks of my ninth grade history course on the French Revolution.

In 1789, French commoners gathered around the Paris jail, Bastille, calling for its surrender. As negotiations failed, the citizens stormed the prison, freeing the captives and ending their protest with the decapitations of the governor and prison guards. 

While the shareholders of ArcelorMittal were able to keep their heads, the event of steel workers throwing cobblestones and smoke bombs at the headquarters, not only demonstrates how history repeats itself, but how trying economic times force “commoners” to take action into their own hands.

PD&D blogged on the French fad of “Boss-Napping,” where workers would kidnap their boss and hold them until negotiations on layoffs and pay-cuts were reached. Apparently, the fad didn’t have the expected affect, so the locals decided to dip into history and grabbed their torches and pitch forks.

The reasons for the delinquent protesting: “The company won’t give firm details on when shuttered plants would restart.”

Times are hard, and tempers are beginning to boil. With the reduction in product development and distribution, businesses have no other options but to make cut-backs.

While these cut-backs may drastically change lives, individuals need to understand that tearing off roofs won’t change the economic situation. Business owners don’t have definite answers because they’re dealing in a time of unpredictable marketing and spending.

Layoffs are going to continue as long as production rates continue to fall; and as frustrating as it is, not knowing when things will improve, it doesn’t help to boss-nap your superior or to burn down your office. Solutions need to be found and put into actions, and it’s hard to produce results if people are running around head hunting?