Pearls Before Swine (he said intending irony)

Like many Americans I have been following the “debates” with interest. As anyone who reads the Angry Moderate knows I am already coming down on the Obama side of the discussion. But that does not mean I am closing my mind to the logic of each camps arguments. I am annoyed by the rhetoric and at this point will only reiterate the conventional wisdom that those that live in glass houses should not throw stones. But as usual I digress here at the beginning, so back to the argument. The two big debate points on the economy are revenues (taxes) and expenditures or more specifically earmarks (pork). I want to take up that second one in this piece.
I agree with most of the American public that earmarks as a concept are not a great idea. They are tagged on to bills that have nothing to do with the earmark and slip in as if they are skulking through the dark to sneak into your basement and lie in wait. And let’s face it, while the “Bridge to Nowhere” that was not built was a waste of tax payer money, it pales in comparison to the “Road to the Bridge to Nowhere” that WAS built despite having no bridge to feed. On the other hand there are no doubt earmarks that pay dividends well beyond the investment; ones for museums and parks come to mind. But put the debate on the value of this earmark or that aside and take as a given, for the purposes of this discussion, that we are better off without them. I want to take, as I am wont, a simplified and quick look at the US budget for one year. As the most relevant Fiscal Year (FY), 2008 (Oct 1, 2007 to Sep 30, 2008), is also just completed, I will use that budget year to illustrate the relative position of earmarks in our current financial climate. The numbers are rounded off, and no doubt there are some variations but I tried to use numbers that are easy to use for discussion that are still accurate, while being from easy sources to find.
Color By Number
To start with consider the funded US Budget for FY 2008. It amounted to $2.9 trillion ($2,900,000,000,000). It is hard number to get your head around so think of it as about $9,570 for every man, woman and child in the country (based on a population estimate for 2008 of around 303 million). (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_federal_budget,_2008)
Out of that budget earmarks amounted to approximately $16.5 billion ($16,500,000,000). Again, putting it another way, that is about $54.45 per person or just over ½ of 1 percent of each person’s obligation. (http://earmarks.omb.gov/2008_appropriations_home.html)
Now consider that the budget does not include all government expenditures. The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are funded as supplemental above and beyond the budget. I would not be surprised if there are other supplemental appropriations to take into account but I will stick with those for simplicity (and again for ease of finding source material). The 2008 approved or allocated supplemental for Iraq and Afghanistan amounted to about $182.5 billion ($182,500,000,000). That cost comes to about $602.31 per person. (http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/RL33110.pdf)
The total amount of revenue for FY 2008 was $2.66 trillion ($2,660,000,000,000) leaving a budget deficit of $240 billion ($240,000,000,000) or $792 of each of us. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_federal_budget,_2008)
Stay on Target
But don’t forget the budget and therefore the budget deficit do not include those supplementals. So, a little quick math shows that a closer figure for the actual federal deficit for FY 2008 of $422.5 billion ($422,500,000,000) or about $1,394 for each US citizen.
This means the percentage of the total federal expenditures ($3.082 trillion) in FY 2008 taken up by “pork” ($16.5 billion) was almost exactly ½ of 1 percent. It would have reduced the deficit to $406 billion or to $1,340 for each of us.
So if you, like McCain, think that this is a focal point of fiscal responsibility in this election year you are, as the adage goes, “Penny wise and pound foolish.” (And don’t EVEN get me started about the nearly $1 trillion we have already obligated to the financial bailout)

-ARC

The Most Important Election in Our Lifetime (so far)

The race for the White House has been heating up lately. As a consequence emotions have been running high as both sides have been using emotional rhetoric to try and gain an edge. Nothing divided the two camps more than Governor Palin being selected as the Republican Nominee for Vice President. But like all other emotional propaganda that was just so much window dressing, meant to distract from the issues, and both sides are at fault for that. However, along came an even bigger news item which has begun to move the discussion back to real issues. The economy, specifically the “Wall Street Meltdown of 2008” (that’s mine, do you like it?). You would think 5 million average Americans in foreclosure or receivership would have got our attention, but no, it took malfeasance and mismanagement of some of the richest people in our country to make us sit up and notice. But see, even I am giving in to the emotional diatribe. So I thought I would put us through a short exercise to separate the emotion from the analysis. This is going to come in two parts. The first is a look at the five most important economic crises in the US over the last 80 years, and the second is a look at who we are turning to for ideas and guidance to end the latest. Let us see if we can determine some pattern, and a possible way forward.

“Those Who Cannot Remember the Past, Are Condemned to Repeat It” - Santayana

I believe that this election is the MOST important national election in 45 and possibly even 60 years. Given the market crisis, the global security situation, the growing negative consequences of the energy situation and the environment, and given US dominance and World reliance on the PAX Americana since the end of WWII, this may even be the most important election/political succession in the history of the modern (post Westphalia) world.

I do not throw that out as hyperbole. I believe it is a defensible thesis. Consequently we have a moral/ethical obligation to try and understand the history that got us here so we can find our way forward to a more stable, prosperous and safe future.

Consider before we move forward the supposition that in so far as the President, or Congress, affects the economy, it takes 2-3 years for their policies to have an effect, therefore they cannot take credit or blame in that "grace period". I am sure that this is debatable, but I think it is accurate. Clinton did not deserve credit for the economic up tic in 93 and 94; any more that Reagan deserved the blame for the economic malaise of the first couple of years in the 80s. So if we are too look for the root of any positive or negative long term or deeply impactful economic event we need to look at the people and policies in place 3-5 years before the event in question. So let’s start with today and work our way backwards.

The Wall Street Meltdown of 2008
I have been saying privately that we were headed for fiscal catastrophe since at least 2005. I sold my house in February of 2006 in part because I thought it best to get out with some equity. So if my gut was right then, it is more aptly named the crisis of 2005-2008 and we need to look at the period of 2002-2005 to find who was making the decisions that led us here today. Well it’s obvious to everyone that we have a Republican President and have had one since 2001. What is lost in the debate for some reason I cannot fathom is that Congress (both the House and the Senate) were dominated (I use that word because having a slim voting majority as the Democrats have now in the Senate does not constitute control) by the Republicans from 1994 to 2007. So both the legislation (Congress), and the interpretation and implementation that legislation (The White House) was controlled by the Republicans, meaning they must bear the full weight of the Government’s failure. Note I specify Government, because there is plenty more blame to go around, but this is already going to be a long piece.

The 2000/2001 Bursting of the Tech Bubble
Here we see that both sides of the political debate in the US must own up to some responsibility on financial mismanagement. When this mini crisis occurred the White House was long in the hands of the Democrats. However, as noted above the Congress had been in control of the Republicans for 6 years already. So, as Congress passes the legislation that either weakens or strengthens oversight and regulation, the Republican’s carry the largest blame, but the President can and should stand up and fight back if he or she disagrees. Therefore, the Democrats get to take about 25% of the blame on this one in my book. Mitigating factor – two other economic crises, largely out of the control, but not beyond the influence, of the US government contributed to this financial fiasco, those being the market crises in Latin America and Asia over the 4 previous years.

The 1988 Fender Bender
Let’s face it, it was not a crash, 1929 was a crash, 2008 will be remembered as a crash. 1988 was the second worst economic crisis of post agrarian America until this year, but now it is third. At the time the Republicans had held the White House for nearly 8 years. Additionally from 1981 to 1986 the Republicans also held the Senate, splitting control of Congress. So once again the Republicans had the controlling hand, but the blame is split because the Democrat controlled House went along. 60% Republican, 40% Democrat. No mitigating factor I can think of, but the handling of the crisis into the GHW Bush administration set up the economic recovery that Clinton capitalized on in the 90s.

The Mid 70s Recession
Now here is the beginning of the scary stuff. This recession came after 6 years of Republican control of the White House but the Democrats had and would hold control of both houses of Congress from 1954 till the Republican takeover of the Senate in 1981. But I have to withhold a verdict because of mitigating factors. The US had just come out of a long (nearly 10 years) undeclared and expensive war and OPEC manipulated oil prices to cause steep increases in the cost of everything imaginable. I remember Walter Cronkite lamenting gas going over 50 cents a gallon and wondering aloud how that could mean the end of the American way of life “as we know it.” Sound familiar? Replace Vietnam with Iraq, replace OPEC with oil speculators, replace 50 cents with 4 dollars and throw in the subprime debacle and you can see how the next decade could make the 70s smell like a bed of roses. And if you remember the 70s it was no bed of roses.

The Crash of 1929 and the Depression
Consider the symmetry as we review the political situation preceding the 29 market crash. The Republicans had taken the White House in 1921 and held it till 1933. They also controlled Congress, both House and Senate, from 1921 till 1931 (the first National election period after the crash). In this case it is obviously a Republican failure.

One last set of general observations on the history we so quickly and simplistically reviewed above. Today in the US more wealth is concentrated in the hands of the financial top tenth of 1 percent of Americans than since 1928. Additionally, those same people are taxed LESS than at any time since 1932. Think about that, and all it implies.

Those Who Would Save Us

Treasury Secretary
Well here we are September 2008 and Wall Street is a mess, average Americans are scrambling to figure out how they are going to heat their home, if they can keep it, while still putting $4 a gallon gasoline in the car to get to work. Who is going to save us from ourselves (a little sarcasm)? Right now our knight in shining armor is allegedly the current Republican Secretary of the Treasury, Henry Paulson. Secretary Paulson was confirmed into his position in 2006 so he is not the architect in any way of this calamity right? Remember how I said there was plenty of blame to go around, not just in the Government? Well Paulson could be the poster boy for that shared private sector blame. He was with Goldman Sachs since 1974, and held ever increasing positions of responsibility and influence in the firm until becoming CEO in 1998, when the company went public, until leaving for public “service” in 2006. So he is the main decision maker that took that company to the point where it joined the ranks of so many other overextended financial houses. By the way, Mr. Paulson is personally worth at least $700 million dollars and has suggested a federal bailout that would leave Goldman Sachs in private hands but receiving federal money. Let’s not get into his time during the Nixon Administration as assistant to John Erlichman and what that suggests about Paulson’s ethics.

McCain’s Economic Adviser
Ok, so Paulson is a Bush man you say? Let’s look at McCain’s first choice to help him sort out a subject he readily admits is a weakness for him. Who is the mentor of choice? Phil Gramm former Representative and Senator from Texas. Currently Gramm is employed as the Vice Chairman of the Swiss based USB Investment Bank. As of April of this year USB had the dubious distinction of being the European financial firm WORST hit by the subprime collapse in the US. He was also one of the 5 co-authors of the Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000 that created what is now known as the “Enron Loophole”. Two quotes from Mr. Paulson shed some light on his concern for average Americans:

“Most people don't have the luxury of living to be 80 years old, so it's hard for me to feel sorry for them." - (in response to a statement that a Social Security proposal would hurt people over 80)

"I recently told Ed Whitacre (former CEO of AT&T, who retired with a $158 million pay package) he was probably the most exploited worker in American history.”

Obama’s Advisers
Lest you think I only throw punches at the Republicans (true most are aimed that way) let’s look at Obama for a second. First, let’s address the allegation that his adviser is Franklin Raines, former Vice Chairman of Fannie Mae. Both Obama and Raines deny that Raines is an adviser. Though Raines does indicate that they have discussed the economy. So while not a damning indictment of Obama it does indicate he may reach out to some of the same ilk of tainted individuals that are found advising McCain. Finally, Obama’s declared “senior” financial economic advisers are Jason Furman and Austan Goolsbee. Not being an economist myself, I have NO idea who these guys really are. They are relatively young and there is not a lot out there to judge them by. That might be a good thing, as the old crowd got us in this mess. But it might be bad too. I just don’t have enough to judge, and that in itself is a bad thing.

Conclusion
Yep, this was all leading someplace! The bottom line is that the majority of the time the Republicans have been the ones to lead this country, in the last century, into economic chaos. Chaos that has had disproportionate impact on the middle class and working poor, while barely touching the rich. At the same time it has been the ones with their hands deepest in the laissez faire market economy that have shaped and overseen the markets when the markets have let America down the most. So, if this is potentially the most important election in our lives, and if the economy is the most important issue, then I have to take sides. It has to be someone new(er). It has to be someone most unlike those that have put us in this position time and again. It has to be Obama.
-ARC

Georgia On My Mind

In case you've been living in a cave for the past week or so, Russia invaded Georgia. No, not our Georgia. This Georgia is a former Soviet republic. Previously and currently, it's own sovereign nation. A bit of trivia for you. The Georgians were one of the earliest civilizations on the planet that gained wealth and made jewelry out of gold. In fact, they invented wine making, so the next time you are enjoying that glass of burgundy, raise a glass to the nation of Georgia. Especially since we're not quite sure how much longer there will be a Georgia.

Some background. Georgia, in 2003 elected Mikheil Saakashvili president. He was re-elected again last year. This election marked a marked turn toward not only democracy, but also the west. Saakashvili was educated in the west and was outwardly open toward his intentions on trying to join the E.U. and NATO. Incidentally, his election was known as the Rose Revolution, which deposed the semi-despotic rule of former Soviet Foreign Minister Edvard Shevardnadze. A second bit of trivia for you; I was actually on the same flight as Edvard Shevardnaze once, so I can honestly say that we are like brothers.

I digress. With Georgia turning toward the west, following Ukraine's Orange Revolution and turn toward the west with E.U. and NATO aspirations, this did not sit too well with Stalin, I mean Putin. Third bit of trivia, Stalin was born in Gori, Georgia, which the Russians were bombing for the last few days. He was the one that actually divided the Ossetians into North Ossetia, a republic of Russia and South Ossetia, a republic of Georgia. OK, I promise the last bit of trivia. I was reading a timeline of events and it started in the 13th century when Genghis Khan drove the Ossetians over the Caucasian Mountains and divided them. (And we wonder why some people in this country in the south refer to the Civil War as "the recent unpleasantness). Ill deeds in history are never forgotten or forgiven in the Old World or the Middle East.

Russia has apparently been operating as "peacekeepers" since the Rose Revolution and been handing out Russian passports to not only South Ossetia, but also the other break away province of Abkhazia. Russia is all for break away provinces, as long as their not named Chechnya, oh, and not actually in Russia. If you get the sense that I am dripping with irony, you are correct. I just bathed in it. I didn't really mean to turn this into a history lesson, though it is fascinating and I do after all have a degree in International Affairs, with a focus on Russia, so you will have to indulge me.

On August 8th, the Georgian army overplayed its hand by entering South Ossetia and trying to retake its capital by force. The Russian's contend that it was naked aggression by Georgia, attacking civilians and those poor defenseless Russian
"peacekeepers". The only problem with that story is that there are reports that the Russians started shelling Georgia first and that Georgia responded. As I stated, they overplayed their hand. On top of that, some U.S. internet security firms have uncovered the fact that Russian servers started a cyber-attack against Georgia on August 4th. They used their servers to command denial of service attacks against Georgia's parliament website, the president's website, and completely flooded the internet within Georgia to render it unusable. Now if this is too technical, suffice it to say, it shut down the internet which mean no email, no chat, no nothing. You can't work in 2008 without the internet. So Russia can claim that Georgia started this war, but the evidence points to other conclusions. Even if Russia did, it doesn't excuse their actions since that time. Did I mention that Russia just happened to have about 120 tanks sitting on the border waiting for something to happen. How convenient.

So now, France has taken the lead on negotiating a cease fire. They hold the current presidency of the E.U. President Sarkozy has been shuttling between Moscow and Tbilisi and has brokered, on paper a cease fire. The problem is, that while Russia tells the world that it accepts the cease fire agreement, which requires them to pull back to their August 6th positions, they are in reality pressing on further into Georgia. As of right now, it appears from reports that they are not only occupying the aforementioned Gori, but also the port town of Poti. They are cutting off the main east-west highway in the country.

The question remains; what does Russia want? Do they want to re-absorb Georgia, just destabilize it, overthrow the democratically elected government, or what? In my mind, this is about oil. The only pipeline from Kazakhstan to Europe that doesn't run through and controlled by Russia is the one that runs through southern Georgia. This is about the control of energy to Europe. Russia wants all the leverage. It is also about sphere of influence in the former Soviet republics. Russia can't stand western leaning governments on their border. The Baltic states and Ukraine should be peeing in their collective pants right now. They have all been the victim of destabilization efforts from Russia, in the past few years.

Yesterday, the Bush administration potentially upped the ante. He announced that we are fully committed to standing by the democratically elected government of Georgia and that we were immediately going to be sending humanitarian aid to the region. Oh and by the way, we're going to have it personally delivered by our military and we expect the ports, roads, and airports open to receive it. Now, nobody thinks the United States is going to go head to head with Russia militarily. It is not going to happen. But the idea of the Russians blockading our warships from entering Poti would make for some interesting drama.

Some commentators have argued that Russia's actions and interests are the equivalent of our Monroe Doctrine, which for over a hundred years we have used to justify U.S. action in "our" hemisphere. I'm sure Latin America and the Canadians are thrilled. My position is that the Monroe Doctrine is wrong and misguided, therefore Russia's similar actions are equally misguided and wrong. The U.S. has partaken in covert actions to destabilize or outright overthrow (excuse me, I suppose inflict regime change is the current vogue) more governments in the western hemisphere than we can shake a stick at. To what end? Castro retired a sick and old man. Some of our allies in Latin America are beset by drug lords. I just read of how in the 50's we overthrew the democratically elected government in Guatemala because the newly elected president, who himself was very wealthy, had a plan to redistribute land, a lot of which was at the time not being used for farming, in order to prop up crop prices. He was even willing to pitch in his own land into the bargain. United Fruit, an American company that controlled 85% of the farming in Guatemala at the time, complained to the American government, and I suppose, under the pretext of the Monroe Doctrine, sent in the CIA.

The bottom line is bad behavior does not justify bad behavior. Norms evolve. We cannot in the 21st century sanction illegal invasions and ethnic cleansing. No matter who is perpetrating the cause.

Which brings me to a larger point, though, and one that I am not admittedly altogether comfortable with. I think the U.N. is broken. Normally, this is a position taken by Neo-cons and Libertarians that see the U.N. as some step toward World Government, which I don't really buy into. The U.N. is way too ineffective to ever achieve something that lofty. No, my problem is it doesn't really work. With China and Russia as permanent members of the Security Council, you have two countries that while trying to exercise their global muscle. Frankly, the same holds true when we want to do something stupid, like invade Iraq. The U.N. is powerless to prevent anything. I'm not sure what the U.N. is good for except for perhaps, humanitarian purposes, which they can do well, when the Secretary General's family isn't skimming off the top.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not a unilateralist. I do believe, however, that we should be working within a framework of a community of nations with common principles, goals, and aspirations. Right now, the only one I can think of is NATO. We should put our energies and resources into NATO instead of the U.N.. We should also open it up to other countries that share our democratic principles. I must say, I find it a bit ironic, personally, that I have come to this conclusion. In my last year of college, the Soviet Union had disbanded and nobody knew what was going to happen. I was wondering, at the time, if NATO even had a future. The consensus at the time was that NATO would fade into irrelevance. I now could not imagine a more different outcome. I do not envision this organization to be dominated by the United States. I think that by working with countries that share common values, we will be able to come together more frequently.

In the meantime, many, especially on the right, such as Charles Krauthammer, Robert Kagan, and George Will, have called for direct consequences for Russia, should they not back down and honor their cease fire agreement. Some have called for the dissolution of the G-8 and ultimate reconstitution of the G-7 without Russian participation. Another idea is for the U.S. to block Russian entry into the WTO. I believe that while our options are limited, we must take these steps if Russia absorbs Georgia or part of its territory back into Mother Russia or overthrow the democratically elected government of Georgia. (Yes, it makes me nervous when I agree with these folks.) Beyond that, there's not much we can do except make it painful for them. Russia controlling all of the oil and gas pipelines to Europe will give them a huge strategic advantage.

Another reason to fast track alternative sources of energy. It is a case of not only national, but global security.

Snake Oil

I've been reading a book called American Creation: Triumphs & Tragedies At The Founding Of The Republic, by Joseph J. Ellis. You may know him for writing Founding Brothers, for which he won a Pulitzer. I just finished the chapter on the creation of the two-party system. Ironically, the person most responsible for its creation would also condemn the very demon he released from Pandora's Box. I refer of course, to Thomas Jefferson. I won't go into the gory details of how it call came to pass. That will be for another post. But in reading about the creation of the two-party system and watching the current events on the news, I am reminded of this creation's insidious nature.

To my overall point, I want to look at the debate that is going on right now in Washington between the Republicans and the Democrats over the price of oil and what can be done about it. It's boiled down to two positions. The Republicans are pushing for opening up offshore drilling and the Democrats want to release oil from the strategic reserve both in the name of lowering the price of oil.

Apparently, both parties think we are morons. Let me be quite clear on both positions. Neither one would have an impact on oil prices. NONE.

Let's start with offshore drilling. We would not see any impact toward an increase in supply for a decade or more. How does that help? There are already countless land leases in the United States for oil companies to drill, that are going unused. Why is that? Have they explored the land and deemed it dry? I honestly don't know the answer to that question. Discussing this with a friend and colleague today, he suggested that offshore drilling may just be easier for the oil companies. It was a hypothesis on his part, but probably right on target. I would like to know the answer to that underlying question before we give license to open up more areas to drilling.

Now, the idea of releasing oil from the strategic reserve is just as idiotic. First of all, the whole idea of a strategic reserve is preparedness for a national emergency, like a military invasion, or a natural disaster calamity, not price stabilization. The idea that this would be a reasonable alternative to help bring down the price of oil is laughable. Even if we came to a national consensus that releasing oil from the strategic reserve was a good idea (and you will never convince me short of an actual emergency), there isn't enough oil to make a dent in the price of oil.

So while both parties are blustering and billowing at each other, pretending to get something done for the American people, the real problems are being ignored. "What are the real problems?" I'm glad you asked. How about starting with refining capacity. The biggest problem is not lack of supply. The biggest problem is we don't have enough refineries to process the oil. Why don't we have enough refineries? Because there are too many communities that don't want them. They fight them tooth and nail and then they complain about the price at the pump. We haven't even mentioned the fact that some states have different requirements on how gasoline is refined. Having a national policy on refining standards, would also help. There is an example where a lack of national regulation is actually costing the consumer more money, if Exxon has to refine oil for California one way, and another for New Jersey, and another for Florida. Pick the state that has demonstrated the most success with its standard for oil refinement and go with it. How about the low dollar policy that we've had for the last 7+ years? Guess what? The dollar goes down, the price of oil goes up, as does the price of ALL imports. Nobody in Washington is talking about how devalued the dollar has become on international markets.

In the meantime, there is a total lack of leadership on this issue. Where is the president, like Kennedy did with challenging the nation to put a man on the moon in 10 years? Where is Congress? With the demise of the Cold War, have we completely lost all motivation as a nation to accomplish great things?

The reality is we have to have all options on the table. If we need more domestic production, then let's find out why these oil leases are being unused. If we need more refineries, we need to build them. Do we need alternative energy? Absolutely. This isn't just an environmental issue. This is an issue of national security. We will never have enough oil to be self sufficient. So we keep importing oil from nations that hate us. Saudi Arabia, Venezuela, Russia, just to name a few. We are funding nations that work toward subverting us. We need to stand up and challenge ourselves to find sources of alternative energy that can support us in the long run. Again, everything is on the table. Solar, electricity, wind, even nuclear have to be an option. In the meantime, we have to bridge the gap with oil and there are no easy answers to bringing the price down.

The two parties are trying to distract us from reality. Don't buy into it. There is no third party that can balance out the dialog and say, "Hey, wait a minute. None of this makes sense." I once had a co-worker share a salty euphemism from her youth. She said her momma told her, "Don't [pee] on my head and tell me it's raining." That's what the two parties are doing to us on this issue. Thanks Mr. Jefferson.

Detour to Crazytown

The Angry Moderate is furious. In fact, please indulge me whilst I take little detour to Crazytown. What has me so furious? Well, it's probably a story that most people in the U.S. have paid little notice. The story is the tragedy that has unfolded in Zimbabwe culminating in the recent fraudulent run-off elections that resulted in Robert Mugabe being sworn in to office for a sixth term, as President of a country that used to be the breadbasket of Africa and now he has run into the ground to the point where they cannot produce enough food to feed their own people and inflation is so out of control that it costs $6 Billion Zimbabwean dollars for a loaf of bread, if you can find one.

For those of you who have not been following, it's simply too long a story for me to sum up, but here is an excellent recap from the Washington Post from 7/5/08 that describes in greater detail what happened. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/07/04/AR2008070402771.html

The first principle of any government is to protect their own citizens. The purpose of democratic, republican government (emphasis on the little d and little r) is the protection of the minority from the tyranny of the majority. Zimbabwe, and also recently Burma (Myanmar)'s purposeful lack of warning and aiding their people from one of the biggest typhoons in their nations history, serve as stark examples of governments that have blatantly ignored these fundamental principles.

My answer to this is where most of you will probably think I've gone off the rails. If I were president, the first thing I would do is revoke the Executive Order that forbids the CIA or any government agency from actively or covertly participating in the assassination of a foreign leader.

Yes, I am perfectly aware that this was put into place precisely because the United States participated in some assassinations in the past that did more harm than good. Two examples would be, the assassination of Salvador Allende in Chile and the backing of the ruthless dictator Augusto Pinochet and our backing the coup that lead to the installation of the Shah of Iran, whose overthrow by the Iranian Revolution of 1979 we are still paying for.

But I am too disgusted to be swayed. The only answer for Zimbabwe is to assassinate Mugabe and his comrades. He will never relinquish power until he dies and then one of his cronies will assume power. Meanwhile, the African Union stands by and does nothing, mostly because many of its members have the same track record on elections and their own rule. Most disappointing is South Africa's Tabo Mbecki, who is supposed to be mediating, but instead does nothing. It is puzzling how quickly South African forgets the aid of pressure and sanctions from democratic western nations that helped end Apartheid and give Mr. Mbecki the opportunity to even serve as head of state.

Africa claims it can solve its own problems and does not want to be dictated to by the west, but more often they ignore their problems and use anti-colonialist rhetoric to hide behind their inaction. Equally, the U.N.'s effectiveness is strangled by China and Russia who hide behind the concept of self rule to avoid real sanctions. Once again, themselves not wanting to one day be held to account for their own actions toward their respective people. Ironically, China's response to the earthquake in the Sichuan Province was a shining example of how a government should respond when their people need them. They are no democracy, but still upheld the primary basic principle of government. This does not however make up for the anemic response by the international community to stand up to rogue governments who torture and murder their own people. The international framework has failed.

How many lives and dollars would have been saved by simply assassinating Saddam Hussein instead of invading Iraq? Yes, it's a total hypothetical, but still it bears thinking about.

I know there are plenty of reasons not to have a policy of active or covert assassination, but I am in no mood to be rational. Perhaps tomorrow.

What are WE going to DO?

Today's post comes from our regular contributing blogger ARC (A Radical Centrist).

Gasoline is over $4 per gallon and the push for ethanol is driving global food prices higher (no it’s not just the recession). What are we going to do about it?

That is the important point in any problem. What are we going to DO? We can keep talking about “energy independence” and alternative or renewable energy. We can keep hoping the market will fill the need. Or we can DO something.

The US Department of Energy has a great website, though I doubt it is oft visited. On that site you can find information on solar(1) and wind energy and even wind maps(2) indicating the areas best suited for wind farms. Elsewhere you can find maps indicating average solar intensity for use in generating power(3). The market is barely starting to turn to these sources AFTER we have entered a real decline in oil availability(4) and a spiking of prices. But the “market” is not geared for long term thinking. It is a short term system based on filling an existing need and profiting off of it. So this image of going green is more PR than substance. Often the market actor who anticipates a trend or need looses out on market share. Just look at BetaMax, Apple (particularly in the 90s) Computers, or the Tucker automobile. And frankly that is just how the market should be, profit driven. So as long as these alternatives remain more expensive (and more inconvenient for industry) than traditional generation methods they will not go mainstream.

But government is different, government should be solution driven, forward thinking, forcing the market to respond to conditions that improve our standard of living and our society as a whole. Government should protect us, the market should enrich us. Much like scientific and religious views of creation both should be taught in school, just not in the same classroom, these two systems are not necessarily mutually exclusive. In fact they can each benefit from the other. Government enacted safety regulations for automobiles were anticipated in the Tucker (seat belts, safety windshields), but the industry did not adopt them ‘til they were forced to. When they were made to do “the right thing” they still managed to make money.

In what may be a bad example, the auto industry took off on two pillars in the 1950s. First the market drove auto and oil companies to buy up commuter rail systems and shut them down all over the country (more than 5000 miles in Los Angeles alone) in order to force people to use cars(5). Second, and to my point, the Federal government, under first Franklin Roosevelt and, to a greater extent later, Dwight D. Eisenhower, started building the national highway system(6). That highway system promoted the use of cars, and increased interstate commerce. If we had built the highway system based on “market” actors taking the initiative we would be driving around on 2 lane highways and paying tolls for the privilege.

I know highways are a pedestrian example to use here, but it gets straight to the point. Government can and should set the conditions to steer the market to our benefit not just our short term profit. Energy is the biggest problem we face right now, driving up prices, driving up our cost of living, making us more dependent on others. Stop incentivizing the market status quo with oil company tax breaks. Create competition and force them to change their business paradigm.

A solar farm, using existing photo-voltaic cell technology, measuring 100 miles by 100 miles (that is a lot I know, 10,000 square miles) placed in the desert southwest would more than meet the peak electrical demand for the entire United States during daylight hours(7). A farm only 10 miles by 10 miles would meet more than 1% of our demand. It does not sound like a lot, but it would be a BIG start. Expensive, probably, but if the government does it, they don’t need to make profit, they need only charge the national average per kw/h in order to give the market a push, and start getting us off fossil fuels. Any financial return on the investment could be reinvested into sustaining the system and developing newer solutions. If it pays for itself great! If not, it is still cheaper than the alternative of doing nothing.

An average 1 MW wind turbine can provide power day and night, year round (as long as the wind is blowing) for over 200 homes(8). Again, not a lot, but if each subdivision had one, wow, what an impact that could have.

I could go on and on and on. And that is part of the problem. We could TALK about hydro power, thermal energy, even new technology nuclear power, or hydrogen. Then we could TALK some more about bird strikes on wind turbines, the cost of solar cells, how ethanol is driving corn (and indirectly wheat) prices up, the dangers of nuclear power, nuclear waste, or how we are running out of water so making hydrogen is foolish. Meanwhile oil gets scarcer, the climate gets warmer (which will kill a LOT more birds than any wind turbines) the market gurus get richer, and the average American gets poorer.

To paraphrase a once popular and altogether kitschy television show, “We have the technology; we can make it better…” We just need to do something. So what do Senators Obama and McCain propose we do?

ARC

(1) http://www1.eere.energy.gov/solar/
(2) http://www.eere.energy.gov/windandhydro/windpoweringamerica/wind_maps.asp
(3) http://www.americanenergyindependence.com/solarenergy.html
(4) http://www.simmonsco-intl.com/research.aspx?Type=msspeeches
(5) http://www.urban-renaissance.org/urbanren/index.cfm?DSP=content&ContentID=508
(6) http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/programadmin/interstate.cfm
(7) http://www.sandia.gov/news/resources/releases/2004/renew-energy-batt/Stirling.html
(8) http://www.citizensenergy.com/english/pages/28/about-wind-energy

4th of July

Greetings everyone. Sorry, it's been a long time since I've posted, but I have been recuperating from surgery. In honor of Independence Day, here is a special post befitting the occasion, by guest author Thomas Jefferson with assistance by John Adams and Benjamin Franklin. If you prefer, here is a link where it is being read by celebrities.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZxTvS-kyHzs


IN CONGRESS, July 4, 1776.

The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America,

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.--Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.
He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.
He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.
He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.
He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.
He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the Legislative powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.
He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.
He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary powers.
He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.
He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our people, and eat out their substance.
He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.
He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power.
He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:
For Quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:
For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:
For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:
For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:
For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury:
For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences
For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies:
For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:
For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.
He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.
He has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.
He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.
He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.
He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.

In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our Brittish brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which, would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.

We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.

The 56 signatures on the Declaration appear in the positions indicated:

Column 1
Georgia:
Button Gwinnett
Lyman Hall
George Walton

Column 2
North Carolina:
William Hooper
Joseph Hewes
John Penn
South Carolina:
Edward Rutledge
Thomas Heyward, Jr.
Thomas Lynch, Jr.
Arthur Middleton

Column 3
Massachusetts:
John Hancock
Maryland:
Samuel Chase
William Paca
Thomas Stone
Charles Carroll of Carrollton
Virginia:
George Wythe
Richard Henry Lee
Thomas Jefferson
Benjamin Harrison
Thomas Nelson, Jr.
Francis Lightfoot Lee
Carter Braxton

Column 4
Pennsylvania:
Robert Morris
Benjamin Rush
Benjamin Franklin
John Morton
George Clymer
James Smith
George Taylor
James Wilson
George Ross
Delaware:
Caesar Rodney
George Read
Thomas McKean

Column 5
New York:
William Floyd
Philip Livingston
Francis Lewis
Lewis Morris
New Jersey:
Richard Stockton
John Witherspoon
Francis Hopkinson
John Hart
Abraham Clark

Column 6
New Hampshire:
Josiah Bartlett
William Whipple
Massachusetts:
Samuel Adams
John Adams
Robert Treat Paine
Elbridge Gerry
Rhode Island:
Stephen Hopkins
William Ellery
Connecticut:
Roger Sherman
Samuel Huntington
William Williams
Oliver Wolcott
New Hampshire:
Matthew Thornton