RE: Today's Editorial
The Administration treats the decision making process in Iraq as though it is a raucous PTA meeting where parents can't agree on whether to have a bake sale or a car wash to fund the school dance. Your editorial board continues to write as though -- under what I think is clearly an illusion -- anyone in Washington is capable of governing or administering anything more complex than a high school dance. Actually, I think they would bollocks that up as well, since students might find a place to make out under the bleachers.
This Administration lied about WMD, doctored up intelligence, had no strategy to secure a hostile nation inhabited by people about whom they knew nothing (after all, who doesn't want SUVs and McDonalds?), and yet people act like there is some hope that something rational, organized, or sensible has a chance of happening in Iraq. Sending more troops to Iraq is like allowing people to bring 1 liter worth of 3.4 oz liquid containers: totally expensive to implement, while accomplishing nothing to protect anyone. Meanwhile, the American taxpayer is footing what will eventually be a 1 to 2 trillion dollar tab.
I am beside myself with outrage, and staggered that the American people are so indifferent, and that there is conversation of something other than impeachment by the new Congress. President Clinton was impeached for a bit of childish indiscretion. President Bush is responsible for the deaths of tens or hundreds of thousands of Iraqis because he lied (and/or because Dick Cheney and his friends knew they would profit beyond their wildest dreams from the inevitable cash grab that private contracting in Iraq has proven to be), and yet no one is seriously considering trying to remove this threat to world peace from office. I am ashamed of my country, and I am furious that a small minority of greedy, ignorant bigots are potentially ruining the world for generations to come. See you in New Orleans, assholes.
21 December 2006
16 December 2006
Education
The reason our education system is broken is that Americans get what they want, always, and what they want is partially hydrogenated corn syrup, with a 1,584 hours of television a year and a 6 MPG SUV. They don't seem to want a strong public education system. Despite years of trying, I don't think our elected leaders will be able to change this. In fact, as is witnessed by the current government's treatment of the taxpayer as an infinite piggy bank for themselves and their friends, it is distinctly in their interest to keep the public fat and dumb, or certainly to avoid taking any active steps to remedy the situation. The taxpayer and the voter have no one but themselves to blame for our decline. If we had spent $400 billion dollars researching renewable energy instead of giving it to Haliburton and the Carlyle group, it would be a very different century. It seems that the problem for 21st century America and its competitive prospects in the global marketplace extends beyond our educational system.
Conversely, creativity is not something you can teach, and innovative solutions are not something you can learn. Chinese culture is not going to change over night, Maoist decree or not. Neither will Americans change over night. If we wanted decent public schools, we would demand them. Instead, we are complacent as politicians spend our money on this abominable war with no end, while the worst president in our nation's history still sits in office despite his numerous lies and his illegal seizure of powers, while people who should be tried for war crimes are heralded as great citizens. Our country is going the way of Rome, and the only way to save it is if its citizens find a reason to care before it's too late.
Americans will always be creative. There is a constant influx of immigrants seeking refuge from oppression, like the German and Jewish scientists who invented the atomic bomb. Our unfair legal system that favors the rich and refuses to acknowledge the twin legacies of genocide (towards native Americans) and slavery creates a climate of oppression the breeds the creativity found in the great African-American and Jewish cultural artifacts of the 20th century: Jazz, Hollywood Cinema, rock n' roll, and hip-hop. Frankly, I don't think lack of creativity is the problem. The problem is the complacency of the majority of the down-trodden classes, and the blinding self-serving behavior of the elites.
How can we create a public education system that creates citizens who wish to contribute to the world, to take care of one another and the earth they inhabit, to demand accountability from elected officials? If elected officials take it as their obligation to remedy the situation, it is very obvious what must be done: mandatory civil service. Many countries require their young men and women to serve their country, whether in the military or in some other way. Mandatory civil service can build a strong civic culture where citizens are engaged with the issues that affect their country, where citizens are aware of the diversity of their fellow countrymen, and where citizens understand the value of self-sacrifice. I think that if citizens were required to serve, and some of them served in the military, our leaders would have to think long and hard before launching a war of choice.
Conversely, creativity is not something you can teach, and innovative solutions are not something you can learn. Chinese culture is not going to change over night, Maoist decree or not. Neither will Americans change over night. If we wanted decent public schools, we would demand them. Instead, we are complacent as politicians spend our money on this abominable war with no end, while the worst president in our nation's history still sits in office despite his numerous lies and his illegal seizure of powers, while people who should be tried for war crimes are heralded as great citizens. Our country is going the way of Rome, and the only way to save it is if its citizens find a reason to care before it's too late.
Americans will always be creative. There is a constant influx of immigrants seeking refuge from oppression, like the German and Jewish scientists who invented the atomic bomb. Our unfair legal system that favors the rich and refuses to acknowledge the twin legacies of genocide (towards native Americans) and slavery creates a climate of oppression the breeds the creativity found in the great African-American and Jewish cultural artifacts of the 20th century: Jazz, Hollywood Cinema, rock n' roll, and hip-hop. Frankly, I don't think lack of creativity is the problem. The problem is the complacency of the majority of the down-trodden classes, and the blinding self-serving behavior of the elites.
How can we create a public education system that creates citizens who wish to contribute to the world, to take care of one another and the earth they inhabit, to demand accountability from elected officials? If elected officials take it as their obligation to remedy the situation, it is very obvious what must be done: mandatory civil service. Many countries require their young men and women to serve their country, whether in the military or in some other way. Mandatory civil service can build a strong civic culture where citizens are engaged with the issues that affect their country, where citizens are aware of the diversity of their fellow countrymen, and where citizens understand the value of self-sacrifice. I think that if citizens were required to serve, and some of them served in the military, our leaders would have to think long and hard before launching a war of choice.
16 November 2006
Why it's ok to make fun of rednecks
Mr. Brooks--
Re: today's column
Disclaimer: I am a straight, male, Jewish, upper-middle-class technology professional. There is nothing I would love more than a comedian with the courage to skewer the double tall skinny soy mocha latte-drinking class here in Seattle. I personally find the laughs never stop when I insult the rigid, dogmatic, anti-fun, anti-semitic, uptight denizens of Seattle. In fact, it is their small world view and lack of exposure to people outside their social class that makes them so ripe for satire -- just like rednecks!
Most "rubes" have never met a fat, man-hating, bull-dyke and wouldn't know one if it smacked them in the face. My jokes are only funny to that tinier elite of people who have lived on more than once coast, or even more than one country. On the other hand, the American Redneck is a universal icon that is easy for people around the world to discern, because he has been represented (as you noted) so worshipfully for so long in American culture -- since Jefferson's agrarian vision.
The other thing I think you might have missed is that redneck humor usually is a thin veneer over racist, bigoted, or sexist beliefs. An example: "You're a fag! Hahahahaha." It's just not very funny. Most conservatives (yourself obviously not included) just need to say "liberal" and their audience knows that this word is code for black, jewish, gay, etc. One of the reasons I have such a distaste for Republicans is their unwillingness to just come out and say it: they don't like blacks, jews, or gays, and they think the world would be better if we knew our station. Behind closed doors, people like George Allen never have trouble using the "n" word. The man almost had a heart attack when he found out he might be Jewish. The selection of Trent Lott as minority whip shows that the party has no shame whatsoever about its just below the surface bigotry.
People who have been oppressed for centuries (or in our case, millenia) frankly have a right to come a little unhinged when we finally get our chance to let people know what we think and how we feel without getting killed for it. The fact that you are down with the Republicans makes me wonder about you, since behind you're back they're still going to call you a n****r loving Jew.
Re: today's column
Disclaimer: I am a straight, male, Jewish, upper-middle-class technology professional. There is nothing I would love more than a comedian with the courage to skewer the double tall skinny soy mocha latte-drinking class here in Seattle. I personally find the laughs never stop when I insult the rigid, dogmatic, anti-fun, anti-semitic, uptight denizens of Seattle. In fact, it is their small world view and lack of exposure to people outside their social class that makes them so ripe for satire -- just like rednecks!
Most "rubes" have never met a fat, man-hating, bull-dyke and wouldn't know one if it smacked them in the face. My jokes are only funny to that tinier elite of people who have lived on more than once coast, or even more than one country. On the other hand, the American Redneck is a universal icon that is easy for people around the world to discern, because he has been represented (as you noted) so worshipfully for so long in American culture -- since Jefferson's agrarian vision.
The other thing I think you might have missed is that redneck humor usually is a thin veneer over racist, bigoted, or sexist beliefs. An example: "You're a fag! Hahahahaha." It's just not very funny. Most conservatives (yourself obviously not included) just need to say "liberal" and their audience knows that this word is code for black, jewish, gay, etc. One of the reasons I have such a distaste for Republicans is their unwillingness to just come out and say it: they don't like blacks, jews, or gays, and they think the world would be better if we knew our station. Behind closed doors, people like George Allen never have trouble using the "n" word. The man almost had a heart attack when he found out he might be Jewish. The selection of Trent Lott as minority whip shows that the party has no shame whatsoever about its just below the surface bigotry.
People who have been oppressed for centuries (or in our case, millenia) frankly have a right to come a little unhinged when we finally get our chance to let people know what we think and how we feel without getting killed for it. The fact that you are down with the Republicans makes me wonder about you, since behind you're back they're still going to call you a n****r loving Jew.
maybe if they were paying for it...
http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/1117/p01s01-usfp.html
'When I come to Washington, I feel despair [here]," Abizaid told the Senate panel. "When I'm in Iraq with my commanders, when I talk to our soldiers, when I talk to the Iraqi leadership, they are not despairing," General Abizaid insisted.'
Yes, try spending $250 billion with nothing to show for it after 4 years but civil war. Taxpayers, i.e. voters, are pissed at much money we've flushed down the toilet. All good investment strategies include an exit plan. I'd say we've hit that point. I don't know when these people are going to figure out that Arab culture and democracy are not ready for each other.
'When I come to Washington, I feel despair [here]," Abizaid told the Senate panel. "When I'm in Iraq with my commanders, when I talk to our soldiers, when I talk to the Iraqi leadership, they are not despairing," General Abizaid insisted.'
Yes, try spending $250 billion with nothing to show for it after 4 years but civil war. Taxpayers, i.e. voters, are pissed at much money we've flushed down the toilet. All good investment strategies include an exit plan. I'd say we've hit that point. I don't know when these people are going to figure out that Arab culture and democracy are not ready for each other.
22 August 2006
23 July 2006
gun man 023
blow blow! like a dungeon dragon. niggas be seein purple hearts and orange clovers, it's all over.
09 July 2006
decked
last night, as a part of my on-going effort to make it happen in the VFZ (Seattle), I went out to the local alibi room to hear Mr. Supreme play his careful selection of funk on 45. I had a great time and danced and did my thing, digging vibe. Later on in the night, two generic jock types come up to me. One of them goes, "You were hitting on my girl." Next thing you know I'm on the floor! What the fuck? Dude decked me! First of all I was super choked that I didn't have more Shaolin reaction time. Second, after dude decked me he RAN OUT OF THE PLACE. By the time my friends and I figured out that I'd been decked, they had run the hell out of there and were nowhere to be found! First he sucker punches me, then runs away. I had no chance to fight the guy. It was so seriously weird. The thing is, I was so not hitting on any girls in any remote way. These guys were not even there with any girls. A drunk girl had talked to me at the start of the night, and I tried not to be rude. A crew of Japanese "black music lovers" were there and one of them danced with me for a minute... but these guys just didn't like me.
A few weeks ago I went out in Seattle and got chased out of the bar b/c my friend had been joking around with some skinhead's girlfriend. This is not a friendly town! I will keep trying. I did have fun dj'ing at the paragon in queen anne on friday night...
A few weeks ago I went out in Seattle and got chased out of the bar b/c my friend had been joking around with some skinhead's girlfriend. This is not a friendly town! I will keep trying. I did have fun dj'ing at the paragon in queen anne on friday night...
30 June 2006
thoughts on american's eating
If you’ve ever hung out with Thai people in Thailand, you’ll notice 2 things about them: they’re rail thin and they eat — as in SNACK — constantly, all day every day. My theory is that Americans view food as a chore — waiters ask “are you still working on that?” as though food consumption were yet another task to be project managed in an overly compulsive network of obligations that Americans call their existence. It’s also something that causes cancer, makes you fat, etc. But I don’t see a lot of commentors pointing out the obvious, something that is shared by thin cultures as disparate as Thai, Japanese, and French: these people love their food and relish eating it with good friends. The empty, corn-syrup calories of the average American diet closely mirror the empty calories of too many American lives spent grueling away to pay off McMansion mortgages and SUV car loans instead of relaxing and enjoying life.
http://warner.blogs.nytimes.com/?p=25
http://warner.blogs.nytimes.com/?p=25
20 June 2006
...is not prison
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/18/weekinreview/18shane.html
It's obvious what to do with the illegal incarcerants in gitmo: send them to Riker's. Then they can see first-hand what a real American prison looks like, and how the real criminal justice system of the world's leading democracy really works. Oh, but wait, that would ruin Bush's plan to distract us from the disgusting state of bigotry, rape, violence, drugs, gangs, and overall depravity that exists in our nation's prisons. In fact, all the state-sanctioned torture and abuse at Gitmo and Abu Gharib is a wonderful smoke screen: those "prisons" represent the true state of depravity, as compared to the allegedly supreme and just penal system we have in our civil courts. What a farce, what a sham. If we didn't need to buy oil from the leading funding source of terrorists, Saudi Arabia and its citizens, then we could release them all and let Allah sort it out.
It's obvious what to do with the illegal incarcerants in gitmo: send them to Riker's. Then they can see first-hand what a real American prison looks like, and how the real criminal justice system of the world's leading democracy really works. Oh, but wait, that would ruin Bush's plan to distract us from the disgusting state of bigotry, rape, violence, drugs, gangs, and overall depravity that exists in our nation's prisons. In fact, all the state-sanctioned torture and abuse at Gitmo and Abu Gharib is a wonderful smoke screen: those "prisons" represent the true state of depravity, as compared to the allegedly supreme and just penal system we have in our civil courts. What a farce, what a sham. If we didn't need to buy oil from the leading funding source of terrorists, Saudi Arabia and its citizens, then we could release them all and let Allah sort it out.
don't lose faith
i'm writing something personal, in contrast to the usual depraved, extended moan about my homeland that passes for a post by me. i just got back from riding some local neighborhood bmx jumps. i feel so incredibly good from the combination of adrenaline and endorphins. i had a vision of maintaining faith, of calm, and of serenity. i remembered not to lose faith. and dear lord i remembered that i must excercise way more often. i had the most fabulous weekend in a long time, i felt like i was a sub-plot on entourage -- so coming back to the VFC would make anyone a little dour after that. pay the dues and do your thing til the next door opens my friend. it's all good in the hood. i came to the gun fight emtpy handed and walked away.
15 June 2006
oink oink oink, piggies at the trough
re: http://select.nytimes.com/2006/06/15/opinion/15brooks.html
Mr. Brooks--
1. If you combined the two parties you just described together, THAT would be my party. All I want is an effective government that does its job.
2. The problem is that our government has become a piggy bank that is manipulated by an plutocracy for its own benefit, rather than a represenation of the people's will. It doesn't take much effort to find countless examples on both sides of the present aisle -- the guy in New Orleans with cash in the freezer (so gangster!) or Rep. Hastert, who just pocketed $1.5 million via his role in federal highway funding (read more here).
Guys like you and me -- white, educated, smarter than the filthy rich because we have to work for our money -- make up a minority of this country. Politics is going more and more towards Ann Coulter and further and further away from sensible discourse regarding issues.
Ultimately the American electorate is to blame for our present sorry political landscape. It is our job as citizens to vote the bastards out of office. Oh, wait, that brings me to the next point: your vote may not count if you live in a city and are a minority.
While you advocate for the political party landscape I dream of, Republican lawyers and activists are intimidating voters, skewing voting districts, circumventing the rule of law, arbitrarily putting people in jail, spying on Americans, and generally acting like a military junta. They are destroying everything America means to me: hard work, fairness, freedom, and opportunity.
Bush exemplifies everything people hate about the rich: he's never worked hard, he's never known fairness (the odds are always stacked so that he always walks away, no harm done), he's never struggled for an opportunity, and he has no idea what it feels like to lose your freedom -- especially for being in the wrong place at the wrong time. Why do those who resemble him the least vote for his party?
I mention all this because the faith of the American people in their political system is far, far lower than it ever has been. The President has committed far more impeachable offenses than Nixon ever did, but more people vote for American Idol than for the President. Citizens should be utilizing every tool available to rebel against this tyranny we are living under. But the Republicans have so effectively quashed dissent that people are afraid.
New political parties might matter to you and me, but if your vote doesn't really count and all your elected officials do is feed at the trough of federal pork... why bother?
Mr. Brooks--
1. If you combined the two parties you just described together, THAT would be my party. All I want is an effective government that does its job.
2. The problem is that our government has become a piggy bank that is manipulated by an plutocracy for its own benefit, rather than a represenation of the people's will. It doesn't take much effort to find countless examples on both sides of the present aisle -- the guy in New Orleans with cash in the freezer (so gangster!) or Rep. Hastert, who just pocketed $1.5 million via his role in federal highway funding (read more here).
Guys like you and me -- white, educated, smarter than the filthy rich because we have to work for our money -- make up a minority of this country. Politics is going more and more towards Ann Coulter and further and further away from sensible discourse regarding issues.
Ultimately the American electorate is to blame for our present sorry political landscape. It is our job as citizens to vote the bastards out of office. Oh, wait, that brings me to the next point: your vote may not count if you live in a city and are a minority.
While you advocate for the political party landscape I dream of, Republican lawyers and activists are intimidating voters, skewing voting districts, circumventing the rule of law, arbitrarily putting people in jail, spying on Americans, and generally acting like a military junta. They are destroying everything America means to me: hard work, fairness, freedom, and opportunity.
Bush exemplifies everything people hate about the rich: he's never worked hard, he's never known fairness (the odds are always stacked so that he always walks away, no harm done), he's never struggled for an opportunity, and he has no idea what it feels like to lose your freedom -- especially for being in the wrong place at the wrong time. Why do those who resemble him the least vote for his party?
I mention all this because the faith of the American people in their political system is far, far lower than it ever has been. The President has committed far more impeachable offenses than Nixon ever did, but more people vote for American Idol than for the President. Citizens should be utilizing every tool available to rebel against this tyranny we are living under. But the Republicans have so effectively quashed dissent that people are afraid.
New political parties might matter to you and me, but if your vote doesn't really count and all your elected officials do is feed at the trough of federal pork... why bother?
07 June 2006
Canada, where the rule of law still governs the land
To the Editor--
Why is it that Canada has been able to make a significant number of arrests in a terrorist case without spying on their citizens and otherwise breaking the law? Why is it that the Canadian Prime Minister was able to make a joke about plans to take his life? Why is it that Canadian Parliament buildings remain open to the public after plans were discovered to destroy them? Canadians recognize that changing their way of life or veering away from the rule of law represents the ultimate victory for terrorism.
It seems that the Canadian government still views its role as one largely concerned with governance, rather than using an unfortunate situation to make a naked grab for power. Canadian law enforcement seems to view its job as upholding and enforcing the law of the land, rather than doing the bidding of a power mad Administration with no regard for the rule of law. As if the plight of this Administration was not embarassing enough, the Canadians have shown just how unncessary all of the draconian measures of the White House are. The Canadians are clearly aware that to do so would be to concede the ultimate victory to terrorists: the loss of our way of life and the freedom so many have died to protect. Shame on you again, shame on all of them: President Bush, VP Cheney, Alberto Gonzales. These three names are far more dangerous to America than any terrorist.
Why is it that Canada has been able to make a significant number of arrests in a terrorist case without spying on their citizens and otherwise breaking the law? Why is it that the Canadian Prime Minister was able to make a joke about plans to take his life? Why is it that Canadian Parliament buildings remain open to the public after plans were discovered to destroy them? Canadians recognize that changing their way of life or veering away from the rule of law represents the ultimate victory for terrorism.
It seems that the Canadian government still views its role as one largely concerned with governance, rather than using an unfortunate situation to make a naked grab for power. Canadian law enforcement seems to view its job as upholding and enforcing the law of the land, rather than doing the bidding of a power mad Administration with no regard for the rule of law. As if the plight of this Administration was not embarassing enough, the Canadians have shown just how unncessary all of the draconian measures of the White House are. The Canadians are clearly aware that to do so would be to concede the ultimate victory to terrorists: the loss of our way of life and the freedom so many have died to protect. Shame on you again, shame on all of them: President Bush, VP Cheney, Alberto Gonzales. These three names are far more dangerous to America than any terrorist.
29 May 2006
24 May 2006
Using waste products to produce ethanol
Came across another great energy site, Green Car Congress. Found this great article explaining how and why you can produce ethanol from biomass waste. The city of Seattle (and SF for that matter) already offer a "yard waste" pick up service, which could provide the raw material for this process. It's sort of disheartening that all the technology for "Back to the Future" style energy (remember the biomass device on the DeLorean?) exists, right here, right now, and Americans are complaining about gas prices instead of mounting an all out assault, demanding non-fossil fuel energy now.
23 May 2006
it's not all a shitburger sandwich
this weekend was really beautiful. hung out with friends in the woods and shared some really good times. it's good to have friends, really good.
01 May 2006
But you heard it here first
Like, oh my god, the Times finally writes about cellulosic ethanol!!! Hooray. Amazing. I have to say, I feel stoked that I called it. Read it. The Times' editorial today:
The political scramble to find quick answers to rising oil prices has produced one useful result, which is to get people talking about substitute fuels that could make us less vulnerable to market forces, less dependent on volatile Persian Gulf oil producers and less culpable on global warming.
That, in turn, has focused attention on the fuel that seems to have the best chance of replacing gasoline — ethanol. President Bush mentioned ethanol in his State of the Union address. Entrepreneurs like Bill Gates have begun investing in it. And every blue-ribbon commission studying energy has embraced ethanol as a fuel of the future. One leading environmental group, the Natural Resources Defense Council, predicts that ethanol, combined with other strategies, could replace all of the gasoline Americans would otherwise use by mid-century.
Until recently, the only ethanol anyone had heard about was corn-based ethanol, a regional curiosity that accounts for about 3 percent of the nation's fuel and suffers from its association with the agribusiness lobby and with presidential candidates hustling support in the Iowa primaries. What the experts are talking about now, however, is cellulosic ethanol, derived from a range of crops, native grasses like switchgrass and even the waste components of farming and forestry — in short, anything rich in cellulose. A Canadian company called Iogen, a leader in the field, makes its ethanol from wheat straw.
Like corn ethanol, cellulosic ethanol can be used in automobiles, so it is appealing as an answer to oil dependency. And both forms of ethanol are inherently superior to gasoline in terms of reducing global warming emissions, since the carbon dioxide they absorb while growing helps offset the carbon dioxide they produce when burned in a car's engine. Cellulosic ethanol is in fact much more useful than corn ethanol on this score, because it requires far less energy to produce and thus emits fewer greenhouse gases.
In theory, hydrogen, which Mr. Bush keeps touting, could achieve the same purposes. But hydrogen cars are unaffordable, and a system for producing and delivering hydrogen is at least a generation away. An ethanol infrastructure is already in place, thanks largely to our experience with corn ethanol. Detroit makes cars that are capable of running on a blend of 85 percent ethanol and 15 percent gasoline, and pumps can be quickly constructed. In time, all vehicles can be "flex fuel," capable of running on either fuel.
And with oil at $70 a barrel, the price is right, too. Corn ethanol, which once required a subsidy, became competitive when oil hit $40 a barrel. Once the technology matures, cellulosic ethanol should be competitive at even lower oil prices.
Daunting problems remain before cellulosic ethanol is available on a broad scale. The technology must be improved, farmers persuaded to cultivate cellulose-rich crops, commercial plants built. Getting all this up and running will require both private and public capital and sustained leadership. Iogen estimates that its first commercial plant, which it wants to build in Idaho, will cost $300 million. Mr. Bush has asked for only $150 million for research, development and production combined.
Ethanol will not by itself end our oil dependency or global warming. We also need far more efficient cars and more efficient transportation systems as part of a larger smart-growth strategy. But given enough financial support and political will, it could be a huge first step toward ending America's oil addiction.
The political scramble to find quick answers to rising oil prices has produced one useful result, which is to get people talking about substitute fuels that could make us less vulnerable to market forces, less dependent on volatile Persian Gulf oil producers and less culpable on global warming.
That, in turn, has focused attention on the fuel that seems to have the best chance of replacing gasoline — ethanol. President Bush mentioned ethanol in his State of the Union address. Entrepreneurs like Bill Gates have begun investing in it. And every blue-ribbon commission studying energy has embraced ethanol as a fuel of the future. One leading environmental group, the Natural Resources Defense Council, predicts that ethanol, combined with other strategies, could replace all of the gasoline Americans would otherwise use by mid-century.
Until recently, the only ethanol anyone had heard about was corn-based ethanol, a regional curiosity that accounts for about 3 percent of the nation's fuel and suffers from its association with the agribusiness lobby and with presidential candidates hustling support in the Iowa primaries. What the experts are talking about now, however, is cellulosic ethanol, derived from a range of crops, native grasses like switchgrass and even the waste components of farming and forestry — in short, anything rich in cellulose. A Canadian company called Iogen, a leader in the field, makes its ethanol from wheat straw.
Like corn ethanol, cellulosic ethanol can be used in automobiles, so it is appealing as an answer to oil dependency. And both forms of ethanol are inherently superior to gasoline in terms of reducing global warming emissions, since the carbon dioxide they absorb while growing helps offset the carbon dioxide they produce when burned in a car's engine. Cellulosic ethanol is in fact much more useful than corn ethanol on this score, because it requires far less energy to produce and thus emits fewer greenhouse gases.
In theory, hydrogen, which Mr. Bush keeps touting, could achieve the same purposes. But hydrogen cars are unaffordable, and a system for producing and delivering hydrogen is at least a generation away. An ethanol infrastructure is already in place, thanks largely to our experience with corn ethanol. Detroit makes cars that are capable of running on a blend of 85 percent ethanol and 15 percent gasoline, and pumps can be quickly constructed. In time, all vehicles can be "flex fuel," capable of running on either fuel.
And with oil at $70 a barrel, the price is right, too. Corn ethanol, which once required a subsidy, became competitive when oil hit $40 a barrel. Once the technology matures, cellulosic ethanol should be competitive at even lower oil prices.
Daunting problems remain before cellulosic ethanol is available on a broad scale. The technology must be improved, farmers persuaded to cultivate cellulose-rich crops, commercial plants built. Getting all this up and running will require both private and public capital and sustained leadership. Iogen estimates that its first commercial plant, which it wants to build in Idaho, will cost $300 million. Mr. Bush has asked for only $150 million for research, development and production combined.
Ethanol will not by itself end our oil dependency or global warming. We also need far more efficient cars and more efficient transportation systems as part of a larger smart-growth strategy. But given enough financial support and political will, it could be a huge first step toward ending America's oil addiction.
25 April 2006
Chutzpah without the Laughs
Today President Bush was roused from his slumbering slouch to Babylon with the news that Americans are really mad about the price of gasoline for their vehicles. On the same day, the New York Times reported on the Army Corps of Engineers and KBR's astounding failure to build critical oil pipelines from the Iraqi oil fields to the shipyards. It is important to point out that the reason the pipelines had to be re-built is that the Air Force bombed a bridge, and the Army randomly decided not to re-build it. Meanwhile, terrorism is coming home to roost in Egypt, where over 30 people were killed in a bombing attack.
If I were a cynical neo-con, my plan for Iraq would be rebuild the oil pipelines, give all contracts exclusively to US companies, and lock down the US' own private dedicated oil colony for good. Depending on who you ask, Iraq has the second largest or the largest untapped reserves in the world. That could have helped the right wing machine stay in power. As I've pointed out before, this Administration is incompetent to carry out any task which it seeks to undertake. They can't even carry out their own sinister plans to capture a private oil bank. They can't get their own cronies in KBR to do their bidding. As far as I can tell, they can't seem to do anything except make absurd pronouncements about sexual activity and anything that might be scientifically verifiable.
After 9/11, American elected officials ranging from Congress to the White House had an unprecedented mandate to launch a war on terrorism. To those of us who identified petro-dictatorships as the single largest source of terrorist support (Iran, Saudi Arabia, UAE, etc.) 10 years ago, it is mind boggling, just earth-shatteringly stupid that the opporutnity to remove the stick from the petro-dictator's hand was not taken. Again, as I've pointed out before, if we had spent 500 billion on alternative energy, we could safely cut off all relations with the entirety of OPEC and then some.
Mr. Bush's utterly useless and pathetic offering, withholding government deposits to the strategic oil reserve is, just, well it's hard to find more ways to say stupid and pathetic. I think Sen. Barbara Mikulski said it best: "You said Iraqi oil would pay for the war. Ain't seen no money. Ain't seen no oil."
Chutzpah is the Jewish art of having one's cake and eating it. Mr. Bush has chutzpah in spades -- but not really. It's that awful WASP derivative of chutzpah known as hubris. All the pain and none of the laughs. Even though people are rioting for the wrong reason (gas prices), hopefully the American people will figure out that it is time to THROW THE BUMS OUT!
If I were a cynical neo-con, my plan for Iraq would be rebuild the oil pipelines, give all contracts exclusively to US companies, and lock down the US' own private dedicated oil colony for good. Depending on who you ask, Iraq has the second largest or the largest untapped reserves in the world. That could have helped the right wing machine stay in power. As I've pointed out before, this Administration is incompetent to carry out any task which it seeks to undertake. They can't even carry out their own sinister plans to capture a private oil bank. They can't get their own cronies in KBR to do their bidding. As far as I can tell, they can't seem to do anything except make absurd pronouncements about sexual activity and anything that might be scientifically verifiable.
After 9/11, American elected officials ranging from Congress to the White House had an unprecedented mandate to launch a war on terrorism. To those of us who identified petro-dictatorships as the single largest source of terrorist support (Iran, Saudi Arabia, UAE, etc.) 10 years ago, it is mind boggling, just earth-shatteringly stupid that the opporutnity to remove the stick from the petro-dictator's hand was not taken. Again, as I've pointed out before, if we had spent 500 billion on alternative energy, we could safely cut off all relations with the entirety of OPEC and then some.
Mr. Bush's utterly useless and pathetic offering, withholding government deposits to the strategic oil reserve is, just, well it's hard to find more ways to say stupid and pathetic. I think Sen. Barbara Mikulski said it best: "You said Iraqi oil would pay for the war. Ain't seen no money. Ain't seen no oil."
Chutzpah is the Jewish art of having one's cake and eating it. Mr. Bush has chutzpah in spades -- but not really. It's that awful WASP derivative of chutzpah known as hubris. All the pain and none of the laughs. Even though people are rioting for the wrong reason (gas prices), hopefully the American people will figure out that it is time to THROW THE BUMS OUT!
09 April 2006
northwest mist
Me and Keebs went whale watching this weekend. No orcas were out, but we saw 3 gray whales (along with a sea lion, many dall's porpoises, eagles, seals, etc.). I recommend this experience, though kayaking is the way to go to get the proper rugged outdoor wildlife experience.
06 April 2006
Nathan Writes back and I discover the difference between Conservatives and everyone else
Stephen,
Thanks for your comments and thoughts. The NYT article and editorial are independent of Tom DeLay, since the NYT employs the same method of criticism (“critics say”) in many of their articles. It is the NYT’s claim of unbiased reporting that irks me. As Bill Bennett pointed out on CNN, the media’s reporting of the “bad news” (the killings in Iraq, the sectarian violence, the kidnappings) is not a problem per se. After all, newspapers report on crimes, not peaceful citizenry. The problem arises when people form their opinions—and politicians, their votes—based on what the media portrays: invariably bad news with not-quite-objective reporting.
The partisan divide in this country seems to be the widest and most extreme we’ve seen in recent history. So, I think it’s important to distinguish conservatives from Republicans. Last October, NR’s cover story tagline was “Sometimes it’s only when you’ve run aground that you realize you needed a rudder.” That was referring to the GOP. I think the Republican Party should be the party of the future, but they have become complacent, counting on the Democrats inability to win elections for their survival. This is not a strategy.
Do I have an axe to grind? I don’t feel like a martyr, and I don’t care what the NYT thinks or says of me. I do care about the person that picks up the NYT and reads Paul Krugman’s faulty assertions, and then walks away with an opinion formed by what they read. In my view that’s the real danger, and why I think it’s almost more important to write about the media than, say, spout my personal opinions about how to run a country, hoping some politician will adopt my ideas. In any event, I hope this gives you an idea of where I personally stand, and also helps you figure out where you stand, too.
Regards,
Nathan Goulding
I didn't send this reply to him, I wrote him something much shorter, but I thought you might be interested in it.
Nathan--
Thanks for your thoughtful reply. I sincerely appreciate it. I think that while there may be a large partisan divide, I can tell from your comments that you share my concern about the direction of our country as well. My hope is that if people across the political spectrum can agree to dialog, that will form the critical basis for moving our country forward. Ideally this forward movement will be based on the good ideas that are available from all sides.
I guess from my point of view, it doesn't matter how educated you are or which columnists you read. I think our country is going in the wrong direction because citizens let it. As our country continues to grow, and as the light of our empire fades, we are faced with the most difficult challenge since WWII. The world is changing in a big way, and in a way that threatens the American way of life -- how it threatens us is open to interpretation. You say terrorists, I say oil, but they're just different sides of the same eventuality. I think that most voters are not critically engaged with the issues, and as a result, pork barrel politics continues to hold sway over elected officials. Their mandate is to bring home the bacon, which they consistently do, while the empire sails off into the sunset, like all great empires before it.
At the end of the day, I think most people reading Paul Krugman take it for what it is: a thought provoking inquiry. I suppose some people must take it as gospel or fact, but for most Times readers, it's just entertainment. Ultimately I think citizens need to take personal responsibility for the state of their republic. I don't care if people read Paul Krugman or a National Review columnist, ultimately citizens and tax payers are to blame for how screwed we are, not the news. This is our country and we have both the power and responsibility to do something about it.
I think you could probably help me out here, but my impression of the major difference between the Conservatives and the Liberals really isn't one of differing governing philosophies. I think the real difference is this: Conservatives have a fairly clearly defined set of values and make governing decisions based on these beliefs. Liberals, while prone to a kind of bleeding-heart-ism, don't have a coherent set of values or beliefs. This seems to drive Conservatives up a wall. Liberal governing decisions are made largely based on numbers and analysis rather than principle.
Take some examples. Immigration. For Liberals, while there is the appeal of being nice, the fact is, we recognize that it's simply more practical and cheaper to let Mexicans in. It's also good PR. For Conservatives, there seems to be a very powerful idea that a rule was broken and therefore punishment must ensue. I think both arguments have logic and merit, but I do tend to lean towards pragmatism rather than principle. Besides, the Jews weren't allowed in America at one time (National Origins Act of 1924), and we know how that story ended. For that reason, I think anyone who wants to come to the US should be given a berth. I know it's apples and oranges, but the point for me is that Conservatives care about the principal of the thing, and Liberals care about a practical solution that will be easy and economically beneficial to everyone.
Another example would be suburbs and exurbs. Conservatives feel that people have the (literally) God-given right to live as they please. This is a very strong current in Conservative thought. Liberals feel that the cost that one's life imposes on the group as a whole ought to be a consideration. Again, you have a very solid moral edifice versus an idea whose concern is slanted more towards practicality. Health insurance follows the same lines. Conservatives feel that a man ought to provide for himself; Liberals recognize that it is simply cheaper if everyone has insurance, regardless of moral imperative. It is also nice that starving rural children in trailers and inner city youth will get immunizations, and there are certainly those that are motivated by what to them is a moral imperative. But I think the real drive for Liberals is the cost savings. If everyone is insured, then the insured are no longer paying for the uninsured in their premiums. It's about strategically injecting money in the right places, rather than an overriding moral principle. My complaint with Conservatives is that they don't seem to like spreadsheets or science. If you boil down the numbers, our current insurance system costs taxpayers (through entitlement programs like Medicare) literally billions more dollars than it should or would under a more regulated system.
Anyway, I know you and I aren't going to agree on that sort of thing, apologies for even going there. I hope it illustrates what I think might be a useful point: that the concerns of the different groups are along totally different axes, and that's why dialog is so difficult. I know that I phrased some of my arguments in a way that shows what I think is right, but I hope that it illustrated the idea that Conservatives are worried about moral values and Liberals are concerned about morally neutral topics [based on facts derived from studies, numbers, science, and analysis].
I guess when I look even higher up, I think Liberals are mostly concerned with money. What distresses me about Republicans -- and I understand that many Conservatives are disappointed with the GOP too -- is that they seem to wield the whole moral value argument club to shield tax payers from the unbelievable financial gain they have wrought from their government connections. That's what really gets my goat. You and I can argue about policy, news media, etc., but at the end of the day, the entire Federal Government is laughing all the way to the bank as their shares of stock go ballistic through federal subsidies to companies they own shares in, from pharmaceuticals, oil & energy, to mega-agriculture.
I work for a company that succeeds on the merits, not on our connections to federal policy makers. We don't get any handouts like no-bid contracts or money not to grow crops. We live and die by our own revenue.
Thanks for your comments and thoughts. The NYT article and editorial are independent of Tom DeLay, since the NYT employs the same method of criticism (“critics say”) in many of their articles. It is the NYT’s claim of unbiased reporting that irks me. As Bill Bennett pointed out on CNN, the media’s reporting of the “bad news” (the killings in Iraq, the sectarian violence, the kidnappings) is not a problem per se. After all, newspapers report on crimes, not peaceful citizenry. The problem arises when people form their opinions—and politicians, their votes—based on what the media portrays: invariably bad news with not-quite-objective reporting.
The partisan divide in this country seems to be the widest and most extreme we’ve seen in recent history. So, I think it’s important to distinguish conservatives from Republicans. Last October, NR’s cover story tagline was “Sometimes it’s only when you’ve run aground that you realize you needed a rudder.” That was referring to the GOP. I think the Republican Party should be the party of the future, but they have become complacent, counting on the Democrats inability to win elections for their survival. This is not a strategy.
Do I have an axe to grind? I don’t feel like a martyr, and I don’t care what the NYT thinks or says of me. I do care about the person that picks up the NYT and reads Paul Krugman’s faulty assertions, and then walks away with an opinion formed by what they read. In my view that’s the real danger, and why I think it’s almost more important to write about the media than, say, spout my personal opinions about how to run a country, hoping some politician will adopt my ideas. In any event, I hope this gives you an idea of where I personally stand, and also helps you figure out where you stand, too.
Regards,
Nathan Goulding
I didn't send this reply to him, I wrote him something much shorter, but I thought you might be interested in it.
Nathan--
Thanks for your thoughtful reply. I sincerely appreciate it. I think that while there may be a large partisan divide, I can tell from your comments that you share my concern about the direction of our country as well. My hope is that if people across the political spectrum can agree to dialog, that will form the critical basis for moving our country forward. Ideally this forward movement will be based on the good ideas that are available from all sides.
I guess from my point of view, it doesn't matter how educated you are or which columnists you read. I think our country is going in the wrong direction because citizens let it. As our country continues to grow, and as the light of our empire fades, we are faced with the most difficult challenge since WWII. The world is changing in a big way, and in a way that threatens the American way of life -- how it threatens us is open to interpretation. You say terrorists, I say oil, but they're just different sides of the same eventuality. I think that most voters are not critically engaged with the issues, and as a result, pork barrel politics continues to hold sway over elected officials. Their mandate is to bring home the bacon, which they consistently do, while the empire sails off into the sunset, like all great empires before it.
At the end of the day, I think most people reading Paul Krugman take it for what it is: a thought provoking inquiry. I suppose some people must take it as gospel or fact, but for most Times readers, it's just entertainment. Ultimately I think citizens need to take personal responsibility for the state of their republic. I don't care if people read Paul Krugman or a National Review columnist, ultimately citizens and tax payers are to blame for how screwed we are, not the news. This is our country and we have both the power and responsibility to do something about it.
I think you could probably help me out here, but my impression of the major difference between the Conservatives and the Liberals really isn't one of differing governing philosophies. I think the real difference is this: Conservatives have a fairly clearly defined set of values and make governing decisions based on these beliefs. Liberals, while prone to a kind of bleeding-heart-ism, don't have a coherent set of values or beliefs. This seems to drive Conservatives up a wall. Liberal governing decisions are made largely based on numbers and analysis rather than principle.
Take some examples. Immigration. For Liberals, while there is the appeal of being nice, the fact is, we recognize that it's simply more practical and cheaper to let Mexicans in. It's also good PR. For Conservatives, there seems to be a very powerful idea that a rule was broken and therefore punishment must ensue. I think both arguments have logic and merit, but I do tend to lean towards pragmatism rather than principle. Besides, the Jews weren't allowed in America at one time (National Origins Act of 1924), and we know how that story ended. For that reason, I think anyone who wants to come to the US should be given a berth. I know it's apples and oranges, but the point for me is that Conservatives care about the principal of the thing, and Liberals care about a practical solution that will be easy and economically beneficial to everyone.
Another example would be suburbs and exurbs. Conservatives feel that people have the (literally) God-given right to live as they please. This is a very strong current in Conservative thought. Liberals feel that the cost that one's life imposes on the group as a whole ought to be a consideration. Again, you have a very solid moral edifice versus an idea whose concern is slanted more towards practicality. Health insurance follows the same lines. Conservatives feel that a man ought to provide for himself; Liberals recognize that it is simply cheaper if everyone has insurance, regardless of moral imperative. It is also nice that starving rural children in trailers and inner city youth will get immunizations, and there are certainly those that are motivated by what to them is a moral imperative. But I think the real drive for Liberals is the cost savings. If everyone is insured, then the insured are no longer paying for the uninsured in their premiums. It's about strategically injecting money in the right places, rather than an overriding moral principle. My complaint with Conservatives is that they don't seem to like spreadsheets or science. If you boil down the numbers, our current insurance system costs taxpayers (through entitlement programs like Medicare) literally billions more dollars than it should or would under a more regulated system.
Anyway, I know you and I aren't going to agree on that sort of thing, apologies for even going there. I hope it illustrates what I think might be a useful point: that the concerns of the different groups are along totally different axes, and that's why dialog is so difficult. I know that I phrased some of my arguments in a way that shows what I think is right, but I hope that it illustrated the idea that Conservatives are worried about moral values and Liberals are concerned about morally neutral topics [based on facts derived from studies, numbers, science, and analysis].
I guess when I look even higher up, I think Liberals are mostly concerned with money. What distresses me about Republicans -- and I understand that many Conservatives are disappointed with the GOP too -- is that they seem to wield the whole moral value argument club to shield tax payers from the unbelievable financial gain they have wrought from their government connections. That's what really gets my goat. You and I can argue about policy, news media, etc., but at the end of the day, the entire Federal Government is laughing all the way to the bank as their shares of stock go ballistic through federal subsidies to companies they own shares in, from pharmaceuticals, oil & energy, to mega-agriculture.
I work for a company that succeeds on the merits, not on our connections to federal policy makers. We don't get any handouts like no-bid contracts or money not to grow crops. We live and die by our own revenue.
05 April 2006
A letter to the National Review
I read this little blog entry on the National Review website and it got me thinking about why the "right" wing crowd is so obsessed with media coverage and representation. I guess it just occured to me that these people obviously spend a lot of time watching TV! Or something like that. Anyway, here's the letter I wrote, it's got some zingers in it. And yes, I really did send it to the guy. I'm genuinely perplexed.
Dear Mr. Goulding:
Hi. I was just wondering what you have elucidated for me in your blog comment that the unnamed critics in the New York Times are the reporters themselves. Putting aside the possible validity or invalidity of your argument for a moment, I'm genuinely curious as to what this proves. Is it that Mr. DeLay had no critics? Or does it prove that DeLay has been unfairly represented in the nation's leading newspaper? Is the idea that DeLay's downfall is either entirely or largely attributiable to "unfair" media coverage? Do you think that DeLay's policies were beneficial to the country, and if so, his ethical lapses ought to be overlooked?
I ask because the current animosity between the "right" and "left" is payalysing our country. I'm a Jewish, University-educated software engineer -- definitely not a Republican! But I don't like any of the political parties, they all seem more consumed with marketing than with governing our country, as is evidenced by our massive budget imbalances, the botched job in Iraq, the failure to deal effectively with a natural disaster in New Orleans, an economy that only benefits the nose-bleed section of the tax bracket, businesses that are going bankrupt because they can't pay their health insurance premiums for their pensioners (GM), etc. The Republican's failure to deal with their inefficacy and the Democrat's laughable inability to seize the opportunity to govern depresses me.
So I ask you those questions because I get the feeling that many on the right side of the spectrum feel like they have an axe to grind, that somehow they are represented unfavorably to the public. This concern with representation seems to me to be the least of our worries in deeply troubling times. Maybe that's another difference. Maybe you don't think we live in troubling times. Maybe I am just worried over what you think is a mole hill. Help me understand why this sort of thing is important to you. I want more than anything for their to be dialog between people who don't agree so we can coerce our representatives to go back to the job of governing and get off the permanent campaign trail.
Dear Mr. Goulding:
Hi. I was just wondering what you have elucidated for me in your blog comment that the unnamed critics in the New York Times are the reporters themselves. Putting aside the possible validity or invalidity of your argument for a moment, I'm genuinely curious as to what this proves. Is it that Mr. DeLay had no critics? Or does it prove that DeLay has been unfairly represented in the nation's leading newspaper? Is the idea that DeLay's downfall is either entirely or largely attributiable to "unfair" media coverage? Do you think that DeLay's policies were beneficial to the country, and if so, his ethical lapses ought to be overlooked?
I ask because the current animosity between the "right" and "left" is payalysing our country. I'm a Jewish, University-educated software engineer -- definitely not a Republican! But I don't like any of the political parties, they all seem more consumed with marketing than with governing our country, as is evidenced by our massive budget imbalances, the botched job in Iraq, the failure to deal effectively with a natural disaster in New Orleans, an economy that only benefits the nose-bleed section of the tax bracket, businesses that are going bankrupt because they can't pay their health insurance premiums for their pensioners (GM), etc. The Republican's failure to deal with their inefficacy and the Democrat's laughable inability to seize the opportunity to govern depresses me.
So I ask you those questions because I get the feeling that many on the right side of the spectrum feel like they have an axe to grind, that somehow they are represented unfavorably to the public. This concern with representation seems to me to be the least of our worries in deeply troubling times. Maybe that's another difference. Maybe you don't think we live in troubling times. Maybe I am just worried over what you think is a mole hill. Help me understand why this sort of thing is important to you. I want more than anything for their to be dialog between people who don't agree so we can coerce our representatives to go back to the job of governing and get off the permanent campaign trail.
03 April 2006
Riding the Shuksan Arm
This is the gnarliest, scariest back country riding I've done. I was also acting as the guy who picks the line down, and without my riding buddy to discuss with, I felt the weight. You have to really study the terrain on the way up, but you really just don't know what lies beneath you on the way down, making for a scary trip. Not to mention the constant avalanche threat. Don't try this at home kids.
27 March 2006
hoh rain forest
last weekend keebs and i went on an amazing journey to the olympic national park. we went to dungeoness spit and hurricaine ridge on day 1, and we hiked the hoh river trail on day 2. we saw roosevelt elk grazing on our way out, and capped it with a hike out to these amazing rocks on rialto beach.
26 March 2006
A Letter to David Brooks
I enjoy beating up on David Brooks, columnist for the New York Times. He's an easy whipping boy as a right wing apologist. Except he's well-read and well-educated and it's hard to fathom how any educated person can go along with the fundamentalist jingoism of today's Republicans. Well, apparently he asked himself the same question and has been questioning the party lately. Here's a letter I wrote in response to his latest column.
I read your columns to keep up with the conservative world, as is my duty as someone who claims to be well-informed. Lately your columns have broken from their former lock-step with the right wing, which is good. I think you've picked up on what's wrong with the current state of the right wing. It has become rigid, intolerant, small-minded, mean-spirited, and generally out of touch with traditional Christian and Conservative values of compassion and common sense economics, like balanced budgets.
In your column this Sunday, I underlined two things. First was your comment on Lincoln's governing style, where you noted that "he brought men of wildly different opinions and interests into his cabinet". One of the most obvious failures of the W regime is the lack of diversity -- of opinion, background, or belief. The monolith culture of the White House and Republicans in general has led to a political culture of incompetence. It is my belief that as the older, white, rural peoples of America increasingly feel that there time has come, and as such, they are becoming more reactionary and rigid, and the Republican party has catered to their xenophobic, racist, misogynistic fears. Effective leaders have always understood the necessity of compromise and inclusion, and that effective governance always takes precedence over being right.
The second thing was "within the framework of the Constitution". The current Republican party seems to feel that the correct way to deal with the law is to ignore it or re-write it as it sees fit. The United States is a country ruled by law, not by men, and the Republicans seem to have forgotten this most cherished aspect of American Democracy. They have capitalized on people's xenophobic fears and ignorance to turn our country into an international laughing stock that is ruled by a theocratic puppet who takes orders from his VP and cabinet. Respect for the law is viewed as something for sissies.
There is incredible irony of a country trying to export democracy and the rule of law while at home we can see all the signs of a whithering democracy and the erosion of the rule of law: non-competitive Congressional elections with gerrymandered election districts that violate a variety of Constitutional amendments; a president who lost the popular election; a dynastic, wealthy-beyond-dreams, ruling family where a state governor (Jeb Bush) was able to effectively decide a Presidential election for his brother (with a little help from the Supreme Court); the self-same ruling family has business ties with Saudi Arabia, where 15 of the 9/11 hijackers came from, that go back 3 decades, who we continue to support despite being engaged in a "war on terror"; a Republican-controlled legislature that re-writes the law to suit the President's whims, as is the case with the domestic spying fiasco (it's not about spying on al Qaeda, it's about following the law of the land when you do); an executive branch that seeks to apply the law selectively to themselves (as with the Patriot act and the anti-torture legislation); a black-box approach to governing, where the Attorney General, the VP, and the President all say, "trust us, we're not breaking the law (that badly)."
We need to bring back the good old days of Reagan, when the Republicans were able to offer a healthy mix of favors to their wealthy base, favors to the conservative heartland (in the form of some token racist punishment for welfare recipients or something along those lines), and a policy largely dedicated to a balanced budget and an effective, well managed military. While the Republican party has long pursued and supported mad-man visions since American victory in WWII, from Hoover's FBI to Senator McCarthy to Nixon to Charlie Wilson's Afghanistan adventure, the forces of common sense and the collective good usually stepped in and the legal process was used to clean up the mess. This was usually due to some sense of accountability on the part of elected officials not just to base voters, but to the American people as a whole. The fact that the Republicans no longer feel any obligation to anyone but the 30% or so that support them says to me that a tyrannical minority has seized power and opposed their will on the majority of the country that does not support them. It is pertinent to note that the 70 (or 60% or however you measure the majority of people that don't approve of W or the Republicans) have failed to raise any meaningful or effective opposition. Voters and citizens must be held accountable to some extent for the failure of democracy here at home, because democracy requires citizen participation in voting for things other than America's next teen idol.
Your last comment about disagreeing with the notion that "democracy is good for many cultures, but not for Arabs," probably scares me the most. Democracy is an uniquely Western concept that has been a part of our cultural fabric in one way or another since the classical times of the Greeks and Romans. Actually, most of our ideals are shaped by these cultures. It seems obvious to me that Arab culture, which stretches back into the desert for thousands of years, with a long-standing tradition of violence, blood feuds, and dictatorship, is just not suited for Democracy. What so many middle aged white men can't seem to understand is that they way the see the world, they way they learned, and the way they were brought up, is simply one way amongst many. I know you're a smart and well educated guy, but sometimes I wonder if you have ever spent more than a week at a time away from America and realized that never in a million years will you begin to fathom what makes these people tick.
Imagine if we'd poured all the money we've poured into Iraq into alternative energy research. We would be running all of our fossil fuel burning devices off of whatever back-to-the-future-like device $500 billion worth of research would come up with. And we could happily watch from afar as the Arabs self-destruct in a wave of fundamentalist fury -- or, God forbid, as they rise to the occasion and figure out how to integrate modernity into their culture. But instead, the US has succumbed to the exact same fundamentalist fury, as a large swath of the white, rural, population feels everything it holds sacred is being swept under the carpet. As your colleague Thomas L. Friedman has pointed out, we are living in a new global landscape where it is increasingly hard to hold on to old customs and beliefs in a brave new world of international competitiveness.
Ultimately, if rural ("red state") America fails to adopt to the changing demands of world markets, they will be wiped off the face of the earth, so it's understandable why they are so mad -- they can fail the axe swinging in the breeze. What's sad is how they fail to see that the people they vote for are more responsible than anyone for guaranteeing the elimination of their way of life. Imagine if the Republicans had poured billions of dollars into developing cellulosic ethanol, which would have created tens of thousands of farming jobs in the heartland, instead of protecting their friends in the oil business and mega-agricorps with undying faith and loyalty.
Just as Lincoln pressed harder in his civil war efforts, we must push much harder in the war on terror. We do this by severing all ties to the oil producing nations and stop funding terrorism with our SUVs. This is the "brutal" sacrifice Americans must make to maintain our way of life, before our country becomes a one-party dictatorship, like China, where dissent is outlawed and dissidents are locked up for their beliefs. The clue phone is ringing. Will conservative white men be able to answer it? Or will their on-going belief that the way of the middle class American white man is the way of life for the entire world destroy them, and us along with them? Full-disclosure: I'm an upper middle class over educated Jewish white man who makes a living writing computer software. I'm in the minority at my work place -- most of my colleagues are Indian or Chinese.
I read your columns to keep up with the conservative world, as is my duty as someone who claims to be well-informed. Lately your columns have broken from their former lock-step with the right wing, which is good. I think you've picked up on what's wrong with the current state of the right wing. It has become rigid, intolerant, small-minded, mean-spirited, and generally out of touch with traditional Christian and Conservative values of compassion and common sense economics, like balanced budgets.
In your column this Sunday, I underlined two things. First was your comment on Lincoln's governing style, where you noted that "he brought men of wildly different opinions and interests into his cabinet". One of the most obvious failures of the W regime is the lack of diversity -- of opinion, background, or belief. The monolith culture of the White House and Republicans in general has led to a political culture of incompetence. It is my belief that as the older, white, rural peoples of America increasingly feel that there time has come, and as such, they are becoming more reactionary and rigid, and the Republican party has catered to their xenophobic, racist, misogynistic fears. Effective leaders have always understood the necessity of compromise and inclusion, and that effective governance always takes precedence over being right.
The second thing was "within the framework of the Constitution". The current Republican party seems to feel that the correct way to deal with the law is to ignore it or re-write it as it sees fit. The United States is a country ruled by law, not by men, and the Republicans seem to have forgotten this most cherished aspect of American Democracy. They have capitalized on people's xenophobic fears and ignorance to turn our country into an international laughing stock that is ruled by a theocratic puppet who takes orders from his VP and cabinet. Respect for the law is viewed as something for sissies.
There is incredible irony of a country trying to export democracy and the rule of law while at home we can see all the signs of a whithering democracy and the erosion of the rule of law: non-competitive Congressional elections with gerrymandered election districts that violate a variety of Constitutional amendments; a president who lost the popular election; a dynastic, wealthy-beyond-dreams, ruling family where a state governor (Jeb Bush) was able to effectively decide a Presidential election for his brother (with a little help from the Supreme Court); the self-same ruling family has business ties with Saudi Arabia, where 15 of the 9/11 hijackers came from, that go back 3 decades, who we continue to support despite being engaged in a "war on terror"; a Republican-controlled legislature that re-writes the law to suit the President's whims, as is the case with the domestic spying fiasco (it's not about spying on al Qaeda, it's about following the law of the land when you do); an executive branch that seeks to apply the law selectively to themselves (as with the Patriot act and the anti-torture legislation); a black-box approach to governing, where the Attorney General, the VP, and the President all say, "trust us, we're not breaking the law (that badly)."
We need to bring back the good old days of Reagan, when the Republicans were able to offer a healthy mix of favors to their wealthy base, favors to the conservative heartland (in the form of some token racist punishment for welfare recipients or something along those lines), and a policy largely dedicated to a balanced budget and an effective, well managed military. While the Republican party has long pursued and supported mad-man visions since American victory in WWII, from Hoover's FBI to Senator McCarthy to Nixon to Charlie Wilson's Afghanistan adventure, the forces of common sense and the collective good usually stepped in and the legal process was used to clean up the mess. This was usually due to some sense of accountability on the part of elected officials not just to base voters, but to the American people as a whole. The fact that the Republicans no longer feel any obligation to anyone but the 30% or so that support them says to me that a tyrannical minority has seized power and opposed their will on the majority of the country that does not support them. It is pertinent to note that the 70 (or 60% or however you measure the majority of people that don't approve of W or the Republicans) have failed to raise any meaningful or effective opposition. Voters and citizens must be held accountable to some extent for the failure of democracy here at home, because democracy requires citizen participation in voting for things other than America's next teen idol.
Your last comment about disagreeing with the notion that "democracy is good for many cultures, but not for Arabs," probably scares me the most. Democracy is an uniquely Western concept that has been a part of our cultural fabric in one way or another since the classical times of the Greeks and Romans. Actually, most of our ideals are shaped by these cultures. It seems obvious to me that Arab culture, which stretches back into the desert for thousands of years, with a long-standing tradition of violence, blood feuds, and dictatorship, is just not suited for Democracy. What so many middle aged white men can't seem to understand is that they way the see the world, they way they learned, and the way they were brought up, is simply one way amongst many. I know you're a smart and well educated guy, but sometimes I wonder if you have ever spent more than a week at a time away from America and realized that never in a million years will you begin to fathom what makes these people tick.
Imagine if we'd poured all the money we've poured into Iraq into alternative energy research. We would be running all of our fossil fuel burning devices off of whatever back-to-the-future-like device $500 billion worth of research would come up with. And we could happily watch from afar as the Arabs self-destruct in a wave of fundamentalist fury -- or, God forbid, as they rise to the occasion and figure out how to integrate modernity into their culture. But instead, the US has succumbed to the exact same fundamentalist fury, as a large swath of the white, rural, population feels everything it holds sacred is being swept under the carpet. As your colleague Thomas L. Friedman has pointed out, we are living in a new global landscape where it is increasingly hard to hold on to old customs and beliefs in a brave new world of international competitiveness.
Ultimately, if rural ("red state") America fails to adopt to the changing demands of world markets, they will be wiped off the face of the earth, so it's understandable why they are so mad -- they can fail the axe swinging in the breeze. What's sad is how they fail to see that the people they vote for are more responsible than anyone for guaranteeing the elimination of their way of life. Imagine if the Republicans had poured billions of dollars into developing cellulosic ethanol, which would have created tens of thousands of farming jobs in the heartland, instead of protecting their friends in the oil business and mega-agricorps with undying faith and loyalty.
Just as Lincoln pressed harder in his civil war efforts, we must push much harder in the war on terror. We do this by severing all ties to the oil producing nations and stop funding terrorism with our SUVs. This is the "brutal" sacrifice Americans must make to maintain our way of life, before our country becomes a one-party dictatorship, like China, where dissent is outlawed and dissidents are locked up for their beliefs. The clue phone is ringing. Will conservative white men be able to answer it? Or will their on-going belief that the way of the middle class American white man is the way of life for the entire world destroy them, and us along with them? Full-disclosure: I'm an upper middle class over educated Jewish white man who makes a living writing computer software. I'm in the minority at my work place -- most of my colleagues are Indian or Chinese.
23 March 2006
Sen. Richard Lugar (R-IN) calls energy "the albatross of U.S. national security"
Drop what you're doing and read this now. Then read this.
There are some Senators who are not asleep at the wheel! Obama and Lugar have sponsored S. 2435 and S. 2446, calling for Federal alternative energy requirements and subsidies for cellulosic ethanol like I've been ranting about!!! Check out Lugar's speech at the Brookings Institute on the topic.
Write a letter to your Senator today expressing your support of this bi-partisan legislation.
My favorite quotes:
“For all of our military might and economic dominance, the Achilles’ heel of the most powerful country on Earth is still the oil we cannot live without,” said Obama. “I could give you all plenty of reasons why it's a good idea for this country to move away from an oil-based economy, but all we really need to know about the danger of our oil addiction comes directly from words spoken by Osama bin Laden: ‘Focus your operations on oil, especially in Iraq and the Gulf area, since this will cause them to die off [on their own].’”
Senator Lugar:
“Our policies should be targeted to replace hydrocarbons with carbohydrates. Obviously this is not a short-term proposition, but we can off-set a significant portion of demand for oil by giving American consumers a real choice of automotive fuel. We must end oil's near monopoly on the transportation sector, which accounts for 60 percent of American oil consumption.”
“It is time for the oil companies to make E85 available to the consumer. If these companies do not take advantage of the incentives Congress has provided, I would be in favor of legislation mandating that they install E85 pumps in appropriate markets.”
Senator Obama:
US automakers have frequently blamed their inability to invest in new technology on having to pay retiree health costs that foreign competitors do not have. GM alone is expected to pay $4 billion this year just to provide retiree healthcare benefits. In fact, healthcare costs represent $1,500 of the price of every GM car that's made, which is more than what they pay for the steel. The company's recent deal with the UAW to reduce retiree benefits helps, but by no means solves its financial difficulties.
The precariousness of an oil economy, crushing healthcare costs, and the failure to design for the future are killing our auto industry. And so we have a choice. We can sit by and watch it crumble. Or we can do something to save jobs and boost our economy."
Here's the letter I wrote to Obama:
Dear Senator Obama--
I just sent a lengthy letter to your colleague Senator Lugar. Your recent collaboration on S. 2435 and 2446 is the most exciting news I have read since Michael Jackson was acquitted.
The Democratic party is adrift. We have no message, no leadership, no clear platform. And now you have laid a stake in the ground with this absolutely visionary legislation. The Democratic party can present itself as the real party of national security by seizing this issue. While understanding the connection between oil and terrorism is more nuanced than NASCAR racing, I am quite sure that the party can find a way to convey the message simply and elegantly. Republicans are in the pocket of big oil, enslaving us to hostile regimes. Alternative energy means regaining our leverage against the petro-dictatorships of Iran and Saudi Arabia (and Nigeria, etc.).
The fact that we pretend that the Saudis are our friends when 15 of the 9/11 hijackers were Saudi nationals is an insult to the victims of the tragedy, an insult to our intelligence, and clear evidence that our need for oil, and our need to spend more than the entire world on a military whose sole job in this decade seems to be to make the world safe for petro-dictators, has overwhelmed common sense.
If we spent the money we've spent in Iraq on alternative energy research, American innovation would once again be a beacon to the world. We would have fostered an entire new industry or industries, revitalized the American heartland with new cellulosic farming efforts, and more or less revolutionized how the world thinks about energy. Instead, we've unleashed a civil war and played right into Osama bin Laden's hands, as you have recently pointed out.
Why have Democrats failed to seize this opportunity for leadership? Why is our presumed presidential candidate totally afraid to talk about the facts on the ground? Senator Obama, it is up to you to save our party, and this legislation shows that you are dedicated to the real business of governing the world's greatest nation, rather than more spineless, meaningless posturing to attract the lowest common denominator.
America is supposedly at war, and yet we are not asking the American people to make any sacrifices, or produce new weapons in this war in any meaningful way. It is time to wrest the alternative fuel debate away from the environmentalist vs. big oil arena in which it is being fought. Your courage and leadership is a massive, bold step towards moving this debate where it belongs: as a war time, national security issue. Cellulosic ethanol must be thought of as a weapon in our war on terror. It is a weapon because it gives us freedom, and that freedom gives us leverage against hostile dictatorships like Iran.
There are some Senators who are not asleep at the wheel! Obama and Lugar have sponsored S. 2435 and S. 2446, calling for Federal alternative energy requirements and subsidies for cellulosic ethanol like I've been ranting about!!! Check out Lugar's speech at the Brookings Institute on the topic.
Write a letter to your Senator today expressing your support of this bi-partisan legislation.
My favorite quotes:
“For all of our military might and economic dominance, the Achilles’ heel of the most powerful country on Earth is still the oil we cannot live without,” said Obama. “I could give you all plenty of reasons why it's a good idea for this country to move away from an oil-based economy, but all we really need to know about the danger of our oil addiction comes directly from words spoken by Osama bin Laden: ‘Focus your operations on oil, especially in Iraq and the Gulf area, since this will cause them to die off [on their own].’”
Senator Lugar:
“Our policies should be targeted to replace hydrocarbons with carbohydrates. Obviously this is not a short-term proposition, but we can off-set a significant portion of demand for oil by giving American consumers a real choice of automotive fuel. We must end oil's near monopoly on the transportation sector, which accounts for 60 percent of American oil consumption.”
“It is time for the oil companies to make E85 available to the consumer. If these companies do not take advantage of the incentives Congress has provided, I would be in favor of legislation mandating that they install E85 pumps in appropriate markets.”
Senator Obama:
US automakers have frequently blamed their inability to invest in new technology on having to pay retiree health costs that foreign competitors do not have. GM alone is expected to pay $4 billion this year just to provide retiree healthcare benefits. In fact, healthcare costs represent $1,500 of the price of every GM car that's made, which is more than what they pay for the steel. The company's recent deal with the UAW to reduce retiree benefits helps, but by no means solves its financial difficulties.
The precariousness of an oil economy, crushing healthcare costs, and the failure to design for the future are killing our auto industry. And so we have a choice. We can sit by and watch it crumble. Or we can do something to save jobs and boost our economy."
Here's the letter I wrote to Obama:
Dear Senator Obama--
I just sent a lengthy letter to your colleague Senator Lugar. Your recent collaboration on S. 2435 and 2446 is the most exciting news I have read since Michael Jackson was acquitted.
The Democratic party is adrift. We have no message, no leadership, no clear platform. And now you have laid a stake in the ground with this absolutely visionary legislation. The Democratic party can present itself as the real party of national security by seizing this issue. While understanding the connection between oil and terrorism is more nuanced than NASCAR racing, I am quite sure that the party can find a way to convey the message simply and elegantly. Republicans are in the pocket of big oil, enslaving us to hostile regimes. Alternative energy means regaining our leverage against the petro-dictatorships of Iran and Saudi Arabia (and Nigeria, etc.).
The fact that we pretend that the Saudis are our friends when 15 of the 9/11 hijackers were Saudi nationals is an insult to the victims of the tragedy, an insult to our intelligence, and clear evidence that our need for oil, and our need to spend more than the entire world on a military whose sole job in this decade seems to be to make the world safe for petro-dictators, has overwhelmed common sense.
If we spent the money we've spent in Iraq on alternative energy research, American innovation would once again be a beacon to the world. We would have fostered an entire new industry or industries, revitalized the American heartland with new cellulosic farming efforts, and more or less revolutionized how the world thinks about energy. Instead, we've unleashed a civil war and played right into Osama bin Laden's hands, as you have recently pointed out.
Why have Democrats failed to seize this opportunity for leadership? Why is our presumed presidential candidate totally afraid to talk about the facts on the ground? Senator Obama, it is up to you to save our party, and this legislation shows that you are dedicated to the real business of governing the world's greatest nation, rather than more spineless, meaningless posturing to attract the lowest common denominator.
America is supposedly at war, and yet we are not asking the American people to make any sacrifices, or produce new weapons in this war in any meaningful way. It is time to wrest the alternative fuel debate away from the environmentalist vs. big oil arena in which it is being fought. Your courage and leadership is a massive, bold step towards moving this debate where it belongs: as a war time, national security issue. Cellulosic ethanol must be thought of as a weapon in our war on terror. It is a weapon because it gives us freedom, and that freedom gives us leverage against hostile dictatorships like Iran.
22 March 2006
The Five Years Ago Game
http://ghettobitchsummer.blogspot.com/2006/03/five-years-ago-game.html
Where did you live?
I had just gotten back to my loft in Williamsburg, Brooklyn around this time 5 years ago. I had taken the winter off to snowboard at Mt. Baker for the entire season. I came back to a client who stiffed me $15,000 and a stock portfolio that had gone from $30,0000 to $0, all in about 4 months.
Who did you love?
Myself, my beautiful selfish.
Where did you work?
Work? What's that? A few months later I started working at a DJ specialty record store.
What were you listening to?
A lot more house and techno than I do now. But I was also discovering old Chicago disco, Roy Ayers, the roots of it all.
What was your state of mind?
Stoned and depraved, looking for sluts and free drugs.
Where did you imagine being now?
Headlining a mega club in Ibiza doing lines off of girls tits.
What is the biggest lesson you have learned since then?
Growing up isn't so bad.
Where did you live?
I had just gotten back to my loft in Williamsburg, Brooklyn around this time 5 years ago. I had taken the winter off to snowboard at Mt. Baker for the entire season. I came back to a client who stiffed me $15,000 and a stock portfolio that had gone from $30,0000 to $0, all in about 4 months.
Who did you love?
Myself, my beautiful selfish.
Where did you work?
Work? What's that? A few months later I started working at a DJ specialty record store.
What were you listening to?
A lot more house and techno than I do now. But I was also discovering old Chicago disco, Roy Ayers, the roots of it all.
What was your state of mind?
Stoned and depraved, looking for sluts and free drugs.
Where did you imagine being now?
Headlining a mega club in Ibiza doing lines off of girls tits.
What is the biggest lesson you have learned since then?
Growing up isn't so bad.
War Demands Sacrifice
I've been struggling to articulate what I see as a major divide between Bush supporters and Iraq War supporters and the detractors of both. Many of those in the former camp see America as a benevolent force of righteous liberation. I think this varies from a sort of fuzzy "hero's of World War 2" patriotism -- outdated but touching -- to a far more disturbing kind of continuation of manifest destiny. I think there are those out there who see America as the Christian God's chosen land, and that it is America's job to spread "freedom" and "democracy", which to these folks means the freedom to worship Jesus.
These beliefs are such a given for these folks: that America can do no wrong, that our leaders know what they are doing, that following the president is patriotism, that we are the Lord's chosen people, etc.; that to contemplate otherwise is to shatter their entire belief system. To those of us who don't share these beliefs, they appear to be the obvious hallmarks of a rigid, brittle, fundamentalist orthodoxy that makes us no different from Iran or Saudi Arabia. Reactionary Christian fundamentalists and blind patriots appear to us to be completely missing out on the obvious: that the Constitution of the United States was supposed to be the strongest bulwark against religious tyranny -- or any tyranny of any kind for that matter. Instead we now have one party rule, a ruling family dating back to the rise of the Prescott/Bush financial-military dynasty in the 50's, and a crumbling economy and the loss of respect in the world to show for it.
But my purpose today is to pose a question to the proud patriots. I think of our involvement in WWII as the last time that our military was really needed. It was a war that we had no choice but to fight. Thanks to the sacrifices of our entire nation across the board, from manufacturers to the men who served in the armed forces -- and they sacrificed more lives than any American conflict before then -- America more or less saved the world. So, my question is, why are we not asking our citizenry to make any sacrifices? The war on terror really amounts to a war against those who fund terrorism, or provide training and safe harbor for terrorists -- primarily Saudi Arabia and Iran. The most effective way to choke the terrorists is to cut off their funding and safe harbor. The former is really easy to do: stop buying oil from states that support, directly or indirectly, terrorism.
This would require a huge national sacrifice but WE ARE AT WAR! Our soldiers are dying in Iraq, making the ultimate sacrifice, while the fat lazy American citizenry sits at home eating processed cheese products, losing the remote control in their folds of fat while they sit on the couch, engrossed in fantasies of ever larger petroleum burning products.
GM, Ford, and their parts suppliers are all on the verge of self-destructing. WWII is what made America the super power it is today, largely by shoring up our manufacturing industries. Now we have a chance to save them. Just as the Federal government more or less ordered all industries to produce products needed for the war effort. Check this out:
See this site for more details. Why not convert Ford, GM, Delphi, et al, to producing E-85 conversion kits for all vehicles? And why not force mega-agricorps to convert their corn operations to celluloid ethanol production? In other words, if we convert a vast majority of our transportation devices to burn something other than oil, than we can stop sending money to the states that sponsor terrorism and let them self-destruct on their own. We should be demanding real and dramatic sacrifices of ourselves and of industry.
It's amazing to me how timid the Democrats are in the lack of policy alternatives. Everyone is so afraid to take a stand, and in the meantime the country is crumbling apart. My hope is that one day we'll wake up, and gas will be $6 a gallon, everyone will freak out for 5 years, and we'll convert to some other fuel supply. Alternative energy IS NATIONAL SECURITY. Protecting our freedom means radically reducing our dependency on the regimes that seek to destroy us.
The Saudis have been throwing billions at the fundamentalist mullahs to blind the mullahs to the sickening depravity and corruption that is the House of Saud. With the loss of the US military's protection, the House of Saud would fall to an army of the lunatic fringe, taking Saudi oil fields off line for quite some time. The country would self-destruct, and all the crazies could happily blow themselves up to bits trying to get into the Mecca. And we wouldn't have to care because we wouldn't need them any more. We need to be as disengaged as possible from states that are being torn apart by the tension between modernity and fundamentalist reactionaries. It is the job of the people to rise above their religious oppressors -- or not. Sovereign nations have a right to self-determination. And what the neo-cons and their brethren don't understand is that these desert people have been ruled by an iron fist for centuries. You can't just show up and say, here, vote. And if we didn't need their oil, we wouldn't have to care.
These beliefs are such a given for these folks: that America can do no wrong, that our leaders know what they are doing, that following the president is patriotism, that we are the Lord's chosen people, etc.; that to contemplate otherwise is to shatter their entire belief system. To those of us who don't share these beliefs, they appear to be the obvious hallmarks of a rigid, brittle, fundamentalist orthodoxy that makes us no different from Iran or Saudi Arabia. Reactionary Christian fundamentalists and blind patriots appear to us to be completely missing out on the obvious: that the Constitution of the United States was supposed to be the strongest bulwark against religious tyranny -- or any tyranny of any kind for that matter. Instead we now have one party rule, a ruling family dating back to the rise of the Prescott/Bush financial-military dynasty in the 50's, and a crumbling economy and the loss of respect in the world to show for it.
But my purpose today is to pose a question to the proud patriots. I think of our involvement in WWII as the last time that our military was really needed. It was a war that we had no choice but to fight. Thanks to the sacrifices of our entire nation across the board, from manufacturers to the men who served in the armed forces -- and they sacrificed more lives than any American conflict before then -- America more or less saved the world. So, my question is, why are we not asking our citizenry to make any sacrifices? The war on terror really amounts to a war against those who fund terrorism, or provide training and safe harbor for terrorists -- primarily Saudi Arabia and Iran. The most effective way to choke the terrorists is to cut off their funding and safe harbor. The former is really easy to do: stop buying oil from states that support, directly or indirectly, terrorism.
This would require a huge national sacrifice but WE ARE AT WAR! Our soldiers are dying in Iraq, making the ultimate sacrifice, while the fat lazy American citizenry sits at home eating processed cheese products, losing the remote control in their folds of fat while they sit on the couch, engrossed in fantasies of ever larger petroleum burning products.
GM, Ford, and their parts suppliers are all on the verge of self-destructing. WWII is what made America the super power it is today, largely by shoring up our manufacturing industries. Now we have a chance to save them. Just as the Federal government more or less ordered all industries to produce products needed for the war effort. Check this out:
As war spread throughout Europe and Asia between 1939 and 1941, nowhere was the federal government's leadership more important than in the realm of "preparedness" -- the national project to ready for war by enlarging the military, strengthening certain allies such as Great Britain, and above all converting America's industrial base to produce armaments and other war materiel rather than civilian goods. "Conversion" was the key issue in American economic life in 1940-1942.
See this site for more details. Why not convert Ford, GM, Delphi, et al, to producing E-85 conversion kits for all vehicles? And why not force mega-agricorps to convert their corn operations to celluloid ethanol production? In other words, if we convert a vast majority of our transportation devices to burn something other than oil, than we can stop sending money to the states that sponsor terrorism and let them self-destruct on their own. We should be demanding real and dramatic sacrifices of ourselves and of industry.
It's amazing to me how timid the Democrats are in the lack of policy alternatives. Everyone is so afraid to take a stand, and in the meantime the country is crumbling apart. My hope is that one day we'll wake up, and gas will be $6 a gallon, everyone will freak out for 5 years, and we'll convert to some other fuel supply. Alternative energy IS NATIONAL SECURITY. Protecting our freedom means radically reducing our dependency on the regimes that seek to destroy us.
The Saudis have been throwing billions at the fundamentalist mullahs to blind the mullahs to the sickening depravity and corruption that is the House of Saud. With the loss of the US military's protection, the House of Saud would fall to an army of the lunatic fringe, taking Saudi oil fields off line for quite some time. The country would self-destruct, and all the crazies could happily blow themselves up to bits trying to get into the Mecca. And we wouldn't have to care because we wouldn't need them any more. We need to be as disengaged as possible from states that are being torn apart by the tension between modernity and fundamentalist reactionaries. It is the job of the people to rise above their religious oppressors -- or not. Sovereign nations have a right to self-determination. And what the neo-cons and their brethren don't understand is that these desert people have been ruled by an iron fist for centuries. You can't just show up and say, here, vote. And if we didn't need their oil, we wouldn't have to care.
16 March 2006
Tax and Spend vs. Don't Tax and Spend More
How is it that the Dems have the label "tax and spend" and the GOP has the label "strong on defense"? When in fact, the white House has made Iran stronger and bolder than ever. Failing to bring Iraq's oil production back online to pre-war levels, let alone to capacity, has strengthened Iran beyond their wildest dreams -- because India, China, and the USSR need Iran's oil. Furthermore, they've unleashed a civil war in Iraq. Further more, they've taken "don't tax and spend" to new levels. Meanwhile, under Clinton, we had a balanced budget and pay as you go budgeting process in place. It continues to baffle me, this world where black is white.
I mention this as the Senate votes to raise the US Debt limit to $9 trillion while they cut taxes for the rich. This Frankenstien Congress is marching with the president in lock step to our doom, while the Dems pathetically posture with the Dubai ports deal, a truly shameful move. You know when the GOP is saying, "why didn't we think of that?" you're really stooping to new lows.
In addition, the right has launched a war on women, especially poor women, with their mysogeny masking itself as religious fanticism -- barring access to contraceptives and abortion, as Kansas and many other states are either doing or trying to, as a part of the Medicare programs. So the middle class and wealthy can do what they want, as they can afford to cross state lines if they have to, while poor women are stuck. Has anyone read Freakonomics, which suggests that one of the major reasons for decreased crime in the 90's was Roe v. Wade -- i.e. fewer unwanted babies.
I mention this as the Senate votes to raise the US Debt limit to $9 trillion while they cut taxes for the rich. This Frankenstien Congress is marching with the president in lock step to our doom, while the Dems pathetically posture with the Dubai ports deal, a truly shameful move. You know when the GOP is saying, "why didn't we think of that?" you're really stooping to new lows.
In addition, the right has launched a war on women, especially poor women, with their mysogeny masking itself as religious fanticism -- barring access to contraceptives and abortion, as Kansas and many other states are either doing or trying to, as a part of the Medicare programs. So the middle class and wealthy can do what they want, as they can afford to cross state lines if they have to, while poor women are stuck. Has anyone read Freakonomics, which suggests that one of the major reasons for decreased crime in the 90's was Roe v. Wade -- i.e. fewer unwanted babies.
14 March 2006
Ethanol News
Found this great site, Ethanol Producer Magazine, online. From there found:
Chevron Hawaii opened their first gasohol station today. Hawaii is the first state to require gasohol for all fuel. It was an attempt to rekindle the Hawaiian sugar industry, which has since gone kaput. Read more here.
Ethanol plant construction business is described as a "dot com-like atmosphere". Read more here.
"A report published by the California Research Bureau (CRB), at the request of state Sen. Richard Alarcon, estimates that California could produce as much as 1.5 billion gallons of ethanol if green wastes are utilized as a feedstock." Green waste is composted plant and wood material. Read more.
The real cost of gasoline, measured in dollars per gallon. Lots of people cringe at the word government subsidy, but as I've pointed out before, the US taxpayer is subsidizing cheap oil for the entire world through our gigantic military organ. I got some nice solid numbers from the Washington Times (one of the nation's most conservative toe-the-line newspapers):
Btw, in case the above needed any more conservative credentials, check out these quotes on the NDCF home page:
So this intensely right wing organization is telling us that a gallon of gas should be $5.28 to reflect it's true cost. These are the kind of truth telling conservatives we need, not the Kool Aid drinkers in the White House.
'If reflected at the pump, the “hidden costs” of oil would raise the price of gallon of gasoline to over $5.28.' -- http://www.iags.org/n1030034.htm
So the next time someone says, "gasoline is cheap and doesn't require subsidies," you've got some hard facts to point them to indicating otherwise.
Chevron Hawaii opened their first gasohol station today. Hawaii is the first state to require gasohol for all fuel. It was an attempt to rekindle the Hawaiian sugar industry, which has since gone kaput. Read more here.
Ethanol plant construction business is described as a "dot com-like atmosphere". Read more here.
"A report published by the California Research Bureau (CRB), at the request of state Sen. Richard Alarcon, estimates that California could produce as much as 1.5 billion gallons of ethanol if green wastes are utilized as a feedstock." Green waste is composted plant and wood material. Read more.
The real cost of gasoline, measured in dollars per gallon. Lots of people cringe at the word government subsidy, but as I've pointed out before, the US taxpayer is subsidizing cheap oil for the entire world through our gigantic military organ. I got some nice solid numbers from the Washington Times (one of the nation's most conservative toe-the-line newspapers):
For the past year, the National Defense Council Foundation has been engaged in a detailed analysis of the "hidden" cost of imported oil. The analysis looked at three elements: military expenditures specifically tied to defending Persian Gulf oil, the cost of lost employment and investment resulting from the diversion of financial resources and the cost of the periodic "oil shocks" the nation has experienced.
When these three elements are combined, they total $304.9 billion annually, nearly six times what we are spending in Iraq.
Btw, in case the above needed any more conservative credentials, check out these quotes on the NDCF home page:
"You are a warrior for freedom, I appreciate your relentless drive to work for the betterment of all mankind"
Then-Governor George W. Bush
"The efforts of NDCF have been invaluable in offering hope and promise where there was only despair. The inspirational programs untertaken by the NDCF...will help the cause of freedom. Your work is in the highest tradition of this great nation."
Former President Reagan
So this intensely right wing organization is telling us that a gallon of gas should be $5.28 to reflect it's true cost. These are the kind of truth telling conservatives we need, not the Kool Aid drinkers in the White House.
'If reflected at the pump, the “hidden costs” of oil would raise the price of gallon of gasoline to over $5.28.' -- http://www.iags.org/n1030034.htm
So the next time someone says, "gasoline is cheap and doesn't require subsidies," you've got some hard facts to point them to indicating otherwise.
Disrespecting Soldiers
I'm reading this world war 2 book. There was a time, not long ago, when armies marched into countries and set-up shop. A little over 60 years ago, Hitler was determined to build the finest army on Earth.
Now, in the US, we have the most powerful and skilled fighting force in the world. If any country ever actually tried to build an empire by violent conquest (I'm leaving however you interpret recent US actions out of the mix here), the US Military machine will wipe you off the face of the earth in days, or weeks at most. We have this incredible fighting force, full of brilliant tacticians and terrifying levels of firepower. And this fighting force is in the hands of the worst boss on the face of the Earth.
It is a testament to the discipline and professional attitude of our military that they have not staged a coup against the complete imbicile who has the chutzpah to send them to their undignified death. The reward our soldiers get for the service is reduced healthcare benefits from the VA system, as well as the knowledge that the legacy we leave behind will be a brutal civil war between ancient warring tribes who hate each other at least as much as they hated the US when we were illegally occupying their land.
Sometimes I look at the right wing Republican media outlets and books to get a sense of what makes this strange species go. And I realized that they still think of America as the savior of Europe, as the merciful God of countries among men who broke up what had become a deadly brawl between European powers that had been killing each with increasing brutality for centuries. They still have their G.I. Joe dolls. They think that those of us who have viewed America's numerous wars of dubious purpose (basically all of them since the day after VJ day) are not patriotic. America is a great power that can only do good. Basically, when get right down to it, the fundamentalist fervor and a proud decleration that reality has nothing to do with your world view reminds me of Nazis. Hitler was obviously one of the sickest human beings to have ever lived, but he was a brilliant and effective leader. Whereas the Republicans are just plain dumb. They have the fervor but none of the skills to actually govern in any manner whatsoever.
Maybe the Rebublicans are less like the Nazis and more like the 3 stooges, falling over each other, endlessly tripping over one's untied shoes and getting a spanking. How in the hell are the Republicans the "party of national security" anyway? They have fucked up every single war they've ever tried to wage, accomplishing nothing and leaving behind death and misery in their wake, all because of some repressed homosexual senator's need to live out their Steve McQueen perverted fantasies (I'm thinking of Charlie Wilson in Afghanistan). These hillbilly redneck morons who cry in their beer over the poor suffering Iraqis need to put their dicks back in the sheep they've been fucking since they were 12 and leave those of us who want to live after the next 3 years of endless catastrophe alone already.
Now, in the US, we have the most powerful and skilled fighting force in the world. If any country ever actually tried to build an empire by violent conquest (I'm leaving however you interpret recent US actions out of the mix here), the US Military machine will wipe you off the face of the earth in days, or weeks at most. We have this incredible fighting force, full of brilliant tacticians and terrifying levels of firepower. And this fighting force is in the hands of the worst boss on the face of the Earth.
It is a testament to the discipline and professional attitude of our military that they have not staged a coup against the complete imbicile who has the chutzpah to send them to their undignified death. The reward our soldiers get for the service is reduced healthcare benefits from the VA system, as well as the knowledge that the legacy we leave behind will be a brutal civil war between ancient warring tribes who hate each other at least as much as they hated the US when we were illegally occupying their land.
Sometimes I look at the right wing Republican media outlets and books to get a sense of what makes this strange species go. And I realized that they still think of America as the savior of Europe, as the merciful God of countries among men who broke up what had become a deadly brawl between European powers that had been killing each with increasing brutality for centuries. They still have their G.I. Joe dolls. They think that those of us who have viewed America's numerous wars of dubious purpose (basically all of them since the day after VJ day) are not patriotic. America is a great power that can only do good. Basically, when get right down to it, the fundamentalist fervor and a proud decleration that reality has nothing to do with your world view reminds me of Nazis. Hitler was obviously one of the sickest human beings to have ever lived, but he was a brilliant and effective leader. Whereas the Republicans are just plain dumb. They have the fervor but none of the skills to actually govern in any manner whatsoever.
Maybe the Rebublicans are less like the Nazis and more like the 3 stooges, falling over each other, endlessly tripping over one's untied shoes and getting a spanking. How in the hell are the Republicans the "party of national security" anyway? They have fucked up every single war they've ever tried to wage, accomplishing nothing and leaving behind death and misery in their wake, all because of some repressed homosexual senator's need to live out their Steve McQueen perverted fantasies (I'm thinking of Charlie Wilson in Afghanistan). These hillbilly redneck morons who cry in their beer over the poor suffering Iraqis need to put their dicks back in the sheep they've been fucking since they were 12 and leave those of us who want to live after the next 3 years of endless catastrophe alone already.
10 March 2006
Cellulose Ethanol
It's been a long time since I posted, since I'm sick of being a negative hater. Now, for something completely different. I've been doing a lot of research on cellulose derived ethanol. I've learned a lot.
Current Situation
There are lots of well-known problems with our current oil consumption. The 2 biggies in my mind are:
Why Ethanol?
In the past I have been guilty (as have many others) of seeking a utopian comprehensive solution to the above problems. But gasohol -- fuel that is part gasoline, part ethanol -- represents an incremental step in the right direction with a variety of dramatic impacts that can be achieved right now.
What's wrong with corn Ethanol?
Currently, there are approximately 5 million "flex-fuel" cars and trucks on the road today that run on E-85, which is 85% ethanol and 15% gasoline. The problem is that you can only get E-85 in the mid-west corn belt. While the program has good intentions, there is speculation that the only reason the vehicles are out there is that the manufacturers get a fuel economy credit. By producing the flex-fuel vehicles, they get a gas guzzler break and are allowed to manufacture more guzzlers without penalty. Further more, the corn-derived ethanol owes its existence to Federal Farm subsidies.
The output/input ratio for corn-derived ethanol is only about 1.2. When you factor in the incredible damage industrial agriculture practices do to the soil and the water (industrial fertilizer drains into the Mississippi and Missouri Rivers, the soil loses all its value over time, etc), you have something that is not economically feasible for the long-haul.
Further more, how the heck do you deal with the vast majority of automobiles that can't run on biomass out of the box? Biodiesel is great -- if you're willing to brew it up at home and have a TDI or a Benz that will run on it.
Why Gasohol?
Friends, I bring you gasahol. It's a 90/10 blend of gasoline and ethanol. Many states already require gasohol during the winter months, when issues with ozone are minimized. "Gasohol has higher octane, or antiknock, properties than gasoline and burns more slowly, coolly, and completely, resulting in reduced emissions of some pollutants, but it also vaporizes more readily, potentially aggravating ozone pollution in warm weather." (http://www.bartleby.com/65/ga/gasohol).
Many states (like Washington) have legislation on the books to require gasohol year-round -- if issues like ozone depletion, and "will it run on every car" get sorted. I don't have an answer about the ozone claim, but I'm sure it is not an unsolvable problem. Now for the good news.
Enter switchgrass...
The input/output ratio for switchgrass-derived ethanol is 4:1. Switchgrass can be farmed sustainably. This article from 1991 explains the utopian promise of switchgrass in detail. It can be refined using bioorganisms to produce sugar and then ethanol. In other words, you could have fully organic fuel in your car, just like organic milk or vegetables! The life cycle of sawgrass to fuel and back involves a net carbon dioxide reduction, as well as the reduced emissions benefits of ethanol. Further more, you can take ruined, eroding farmland, and it's cheaper to replant it with sawgrass than the eventual cost of letting it sit. So if you're tired of Red states sucking down all your tax dollars for inefficient subsidies, here's a way they can create an economic powerhouse that creates jobs, weens us from foreign oil incrementally while creating the infrastructure for nationwide E85, and is good for the environment. (The government of Canada has estimated that if 35% of Canadian vehicles ran off of cellulose-derived gasohol, the net effect would be like removing 400,000 vehicles off the road annually.)
The Brasil Story
It's also worth pointing out that the Brazilian government mandated the use of ethanol to reduce dependency on foreign oil. The current process they use gets energy in:out ratios of 1:8, and Brasil's scientists think they can get it up to 1:10 soon.
Brasil's advantages:
They already grew a lot of sugar
The government, including the military, imposed this system on the population in a rather undemorcratic and non-market-driven factor. See the NYT article for more details.
Links to peep:
- Current Energy Situation
- Why Ethanol?
- Why Gasohol?
- Why Cellulose-derived Ethanol?
Current Situation
There are lots of well-known problems with our current oil consumption. The 2 biggies in my mind are:
- Greenhouse gas emissions (GHGs) aka environmental impact of burning fossil fuels
- Dependence on unstable petro-regimes provides funding for terrorism
Why Ethanol?
In the past I have been guilty (as have many others) of seeking a utopian comprehensive solution to the above problems. But gasohol -- fuel that is part gasoline, part ethanol -- represents an incremental step in the right direction with a variety of dramatic impacts that can be achieved right now.
What's wrong with corn Ethanol?
Currently, there are approximately 5 million "flex-fuel" cars and trucks on the road today that run on E-85, which is 85% ethanol and 15% gasoline. The problem is that you can only get E-85 in the mid-west corn belt. While the program has good intentions, there is speculation that the only reason the vehicles are out there is that the manufacturers get a fuel economy credit. By producing the flex-fuel vehicles, they get a gas guzzler break and are allowed to manufacture more guzzlers without penalty. Further more, the corn-derived ethanol owes its existence to Federal Farm subsidies.
The output/input ratio for corn-derived ethanol is only about 1.2. When you factor in the incredible damage industrial agriculture practices do to the soil and the water (industrial fertilizer drains into the Mississippi and Missouri Rivers, the soil loses all its value over time, etc), you have something that is not economically feasible for the long-haul.
Further more, how the heck do you deal with the vast majority of automobiles that can't run on biomass out of the box? Biodiesel is great -- if you're willing to brew it up at home and have a TDI or a Benz that will run on it.
Why Gasohol?
Friends, I bring you gasahol. It's a 90/10 blend of gasoline and ethanol. Many states already require gasohol during the winter months, when issues with ozone are minimized. "Gasohol has higher octane, or antiknock, properties than gasoline and burns more slowly, coolly, and completely, resulting in reduced emissions of some pollutants, but it also vaporizes more readily, potentially aggravating ozone pollution in warm weather." (http://www.bartleby.com/65/ga/gasohol).
Many states (like Washington) have legislation on the books to require gasohol year-round -- if issues like ozone depletion, and "will it run on every car" get sorted. I don't have an answer about the ozone claim, but I'm sure it is not an unsolvable problem. Now for the good news.
Enter switchgrass...
The input/output ratio for switchgrass-derived ethanol is 4:1. Switchgrass can be farmed sustainably. This article from 1991 explains the utopian promise of switchgrass in detail. It can be refined using bioorganisms to produce sugar and then ethanol. In other words, you could have fully organic fuel in your car, just like organic milk or vegetables! The life cycle of sawgrass to fuel and back involves a net carbon dioxide reduction, as well as the reduced emissions benefits of ethanol. Further more, you can take ruined, eroding farmland, and it's cheaper to replant it with sawgrass than the eventual cost of letting it sit. So if you're tired of Red states sucking down all your tax dollars for inefficient subsidies, here's a way they can create an economic powerhouse that creates jobs, weens us from foreign oil incrementally while creating the infrastructure for nationwide E85, and is good for the environment. (The government of Canada has estimated that if 35% of Canadian vehicles ran off of cellulose-derived gasohol, the net effect would be like removing 400,000 vehicles off the road annually.)
The Brasil Story
It's also worth pointing out that the Brazilian government mandated the use of ethanol to reduce dependency on foreign oil. The current process they use gets energy in:out ratios of 1:8, and Brasil's scientists think they can get it up to 1:10 soon.
Brasil's advantages:
They already grew a lot of sugar
The government, including the military, imposed this system on the population in a rather undemorcratic and non-market-driven factor. See the NYT article for more details.
Links to peep:
- Ethanol Distillation
- Iogen Corporation
- Ethanol resources on the Web: Journey to Forever
- RFA - Renewable Fuels Association
- Ethanol from Cellulose
- EERE: Biomass Program Home Page
- ORNL Review: Biological Ways of Producing Ethanol
- Oklahoma Researchers Test Switchgrass for Biofuel Production
- Switchgrass
- Switchgrass:a living solar battery for the praires
- NRDC: Reducing America's Energy Dependence
- BIO | Industrial & Environmental | Biofuels and Cellulosic Ethanol
22 February 2006
still finding fresh at red
Just got back from an epic trip riding Red Mountain in Rossland, BC, and snowmobiling in Revelstoke, BC. Check the vibe.
09 February 2006
Thomas Friedman, again
Response to article Thomas Friedman. He says it so well: Why is it OK to lower taxes to 'encourage spending' and why is it OK to subsidize oil companies? Cheney says we don't need to "inflict pain" but isn't our war in Iraq pretty painful? Isn't the billions of oil profits that go to Saudi Arabia that pays for terrorist activity "pain"? (Note: I copy and pasted most of the article below.)
Full disclosure: I bought a Toyota Tacoma pick up truck that gets 20 mpg on a good day. I can afford the gas. If it came in an ethanol variation I would jump on it. If bio-diesel was reliable at freezing temperatures, I'd jump on it. For me, it's not about the money -- I WANT TO PAY for something other than gas, but there's nothing out there that meets my needs. Something that can go down logging roads, haul kayaks, snowmobiles, etc., but that isn't a 20' land barge that gets 8 mpg... that's a Tacoma. But what incentive is there for Toyota to make an ethanol Tacoma? What incentive is there to make it a bio-diesel, or whatever? None. Because most Americans can still afford $2.50/gallon to get to work everyday and play on the weekends.
Why should the Federal government raise gas taxes by 2-3 dollars? Because you are paying that tax anyway by paying over 500 billion for our military every year. Where do you want your tax dollars going? To the military so we can make the world safe for oil? Notice how the Europeans and Japanese spend a tiny fraction of what we spend on defense. In fact, the US spends as much as THE REST OF THE WORLD COMBINED on defense. That's right. Our defense budget is as large as the defense budget of every other country on Earth. Of course you can look at it over time since the cold war, as a percentage of GDP, etc., but that's not the point is. The point is that the US has the largest, most powerful Military in the world. Therefore US taxpayers are paying to make the world safe for oil -- and dangerous for you and me. We spend billions of dollars to indirectly protect the very regimes whose citizens (and in some cases, governments) seek to destroy us.
So why not reduce our dependency on oil. Perform, as a SECURITY measure, a forcing function (hey, this president gets to do whatever he wants anyway, why not use his powers for good instead of evil) on oil. Raise gas taxes by 2, 3, or 4 dollars. Plow the profits into incremental improvements in our energy dependencies. The easiest thing would be biofuels, especially things like ethanol. Check out this report produced by UT-El Paso about their Chevy Silverado conversion project. I'd get my truck converted but there's nowhere to get E85 outside the cornbelt. With just a little nudge from a fat gas tax, we could get this country off of oil in no time.
And I've got to make this very important point: I don't care about suburbia, or public transit, or any of that crap. America outside of New York City has been designed for use by single-occupant cars. It sucks but it's the way it is. We've got to fight one battle at a time. If you look at it dollar for dollar and life for life, the number one thing we can do to make America better is to stop sending money to the middle east, period. We get some bonus environmental action. But my goal is to be effective. Left wing environmentalists are often members of the liberal elite like myself, and we only know how to preach to the choir. But if you can convince Red State America that by converting their Ford Mega 6000 SUX 4mpg SUV to ethanol, they are saving American lives and making life much harder for terrorists; if you can convince them that 1/5th of every dollar they spend on gas goes straight to Saudi Arabia, where it promptly goes straight to Osama bin Laden and his friends -- THEN you're getting somewhere. Even better, if you can tell him (and I mean HIM intentionally) that by buying ethanol or whatever bio-fuel that you're buying America and you're supporting American farmers and all that baseball-apple pie shit, well, you've scored another point.
begin Friedman article:
"I think — the president and I believe very deeply that, obviously, the government has got a role to play here in terms of supporting research into new technologies and encouraging the development of new methods of generating energy. ... But we also are big believers in the market, and that we need to be careful about having government come in, for example, and tell people how to live their lives. ... This notion that we have to 'impose pain,' some kind of government mandate, I think we would resist. The marketplace does work out there."
What is he talking about? The global oil market is anything but free. It's controlled by the world's largest cartel — OPEC — which sets output, and thereby prices, according to the needs of some of the worst regimes in the world. By doing nothing, we are letting their needs determine the price and their treasuries reap all the profits.
Also, why does Mr. Cheney have no problem influencing the market by lowering taxes to get consumers to spend, but he rejects raising gasoline taxes to get consumers to save energy — a fundamental national interest.
Don't take it from me. Gregory Mankiw of Harvard, who recently retired as chairman of President Bush's Council of Economic Advisers, wrote in The Wall Street Journal on Jan. 3 about his New Year's resolutions: "Everyone hates taxes, but the government needs to fund its operations, and some taxes can actually do some good in the process. I will tell the American people that a higher tax on gasoline is better at encouraging conservation than are heavy-handed [mileage standards]. It would not only encourage people to buy more fuel-efficient cars, but it would encourage them to drive less."
Mr. Cheney, we are told, is a "tough guy." Really? Well, how tough is this: We have a small gasoline tax, but Europe and Japan tax their gasoline by $2 and $3 a gallon, or more. They use those taxes to build schools, highways and national health care for their citizens. But they spend very little on defense compared with us.
So who protects their oil supplies from the Middle East? U.S. taxpayers. We spend nearly $600 billion a year on defense, a large chunk in the Persian Gulf. But how do we pay for that without a gas tax? Income taxes and Social Security. Yes, we tax our incomes and raid our children's Social Security fund so Europeans and Japanese can comfortably import their oil from the gulf, impose big gas taxes on it at their pumps and then use that income for their own domestic needs. And because they have high gas taxes, they also beat Detroit at making more fuel-efficient cars. Now how tough is that?
Finally, if Mr. Cheney believes so much in markets, why did the 2005 energy act contain about $2 billion in tax breaks for oil companies? Why does his administration permit a 54-cents-a-gallon tax on imported ethanol — fuel made from sugar or corn — so Brazilian sugar exports won't compete with American sugar? Yes, we tax imported ethanol from Brazil, but we don't tax imported oil from Saudi Arabia, Venezuela or Russia.
"Everyone says we need a new Marshall Plan," said Michael Mandelbaum, a foreign policy expert and the author of "The Case for Goliath." "We have a Marshall Plan. It's our energy policy. It's a Marshall plan for terrorists and dictators."
How tough is it, Mr. Cheney, to will the ends — an end to America's oil addiction — but not will the means: a gasoline tax? It's not very tough, it's not very smart, and it's going to end badly for us.
Full disclosure: I bought a Toyota Tacoma pick up truck that gets 20 mpg on a good day. I can afford the gas. If it came in an ethanol variation I would jump on it. If bio-diesel was reliable at freezing temperatures, I'd jump on it. For me, it's not about the money -- I WANT TO PAY for something other than gas, but there's nothing out there that meets my needs. Something that can go down logging roads, haul kayaks, snowmobiles, etc., but that isn't a 20' land barge that gets 8 mpg... that's a Tacoma. But what incentive is there for Toyota to make an ethanol Tacoma? What incentive is there to make it a bio-diesel, or whatever? None. Because most Americans can still afford $2.50/gallon to get to work everyday and play on the weekends.
Why should the Federal government raise gas taxes by 2-3 dollars? Because you are paying that tax anyway by paying over 500 billion for our military every year. Where do you want your tax dollars going? To the military so we can make the world safe for oil? Notice how the Europeans and Japanese spend a tiny fraction of what we spend on defense. In fact, the US spends as much as THE REST OF THE WORLD COMBINED on defense. That's right. Our defense budget is as large as the defense budget of every other country on Earth. Of course you can look at it over time since the cold war, as a percentage of GDP, etc., but that's not the point is. The point is that the US has the largest, most powerful Military in the world. Therefore US taxpayers are paying to make the world safe for oil -- and dangerous for you and me. We spend billions of dollars to indirectly protect the very regimes whose citizens (and in some cases, governments) seek to destroy us.
So why not reduce our dependency on oil. Perform, as a SECURITY measure, a forcing function (hey, this president gets to do whatever he wants anyway, why not use his powers for good instead of evil) on oil. Raise gas taxes by 2, 3, or 4 dollars. Plow the profits into incremental improvements in our energy dependencies. The easiest thing would be biofuels, especially things like ethanol. Check out this report produced by UT-El Paso about their Chevy Silverado conversion project. I'd get my truck converted but there's nowhere to get E85 outside the cornbelt. With just a little nudge from a fat gas tax, we could get this country off of oil in no time.
And I've got to make this very important point: I don't care about suburbia, or public transit, or any of that crap. America outside of New York City has been designed for use by single-occupant cars. It sucks but it's the way it is. We've got to fight one battle at a time. If you look at it dollar for dollar and life for life, the number one thing we can do to make America better is to stop sending money to the middle east, period. We get some bonus environmental action. But my goal is to be effective. Left wing environmentalists are often members of the liberal elite like myself, and we only know how to preach to the choir. But if you can convince Red State America that by converting their Ford Mega 6000 SUX 4mpg SUV to ethanol, they are saving American lives and making life much harder for terrorists; if you can convince them that 1/5th of every dollar they spend on gas goes straight to Saudi Arabia, where it promptly goes straight to Osama bin Laden and his friends -- THEN you're getting somewhere. Even better, if you can tell him (and I mean HIM intentionally) that by buying ethanol or whatever bio-fuel that you're buying America and you're supporting American farmers and all that baseball-apple pie shit, well, you've scored another point.
begin Friedman article:
"I think — the president and I believe very deeply that, obviously, the government has got a role to play here in terms of supporting research into new technologies and encouraging the development of new methods of generating energy. ... But we also are big believers in the market, and that we need to be careful about having government come in, for example, and tell people how to live their lives. ... This notion that we have to 'impose pain,' some kind of government mandate, I think we would resist. The marketplace does work out there."
What is he talking about? The global oil market is anything but free. It's controlled by the world's largest cartel — OPEC — which sets output, and thereby prices, according to the needs of some of the worst regimes in the world. By doing nothing, we are letting their needs determine the price and their treasuries reap all the profits.
Also, why does Mr. Cheney have no problem influencing the market by lowering taxes to get consumers to spend, but he rejects raising gasoline taxes to get consumers to save energy — a fundamental national interest.
Don't take it from me. Gregory Mankiw of Harvard, who recently retired as chairman of President Bush's Council of Economic Advisers, wrote in The Wall Street Journal on Jan. 3 about his New Year's resolutions: "Everyone hates taxes, but the government needs to fund its operations, and some taxes can actually do some good in the process. I will tell the American people that a higher tax on gasoline is better at encouraging conservation than are heavy-handed [mileage standards]. It would not only encourage people to buy more fuel-efficient cars, but it would encourage them to drive less."
Mr. Cheney, we are told, is a "tough guy." Really? Well, how tough is this: We have a small gasoline tax, but Europe and Japan tax their gasoline by $2 and $3 a gallon, or more. They use those taxes to build schools, highways and national health care for their citizens. But they spend very little on defense compared with us.
So who protects their oil supplies from the Middle East? U.S. taxpayers. We spend nearly $600 billion a year on defense, a large chunk in the Persian Gulf. But how do we pay for that without a gas tax? Income taxes and Social Security. Yes, we tax our incomes and raid our children's Social Security fund so Europeans and Japanese can comfortably import their oil from the gulf, impose big gas taxes on it at their pumps and then use that income for their own domestic needs. And because they have high gas taxes, they also beat Detroit at making more fuel-efficient cars. Now how tough is that?
Finally, if Mr. Cheney believes so much in markets, why did the 2005 energy act contain about $2 billion in tax breaks for oil companies? Why does his administration permit a 54-cents-a-gallon tax on imported ethanol — fuel made from sugar or corn — so Brazilian sugar exports won't compete with American sugar? Yes, we tax imported ethanol from Brazil, but we don't tax imported oil from Saudi Arabia, Venezuela or Russia.
"Everyone says we need a new Marshall Plan," said Michael Mandelbaum, a foreign policy expert and the author of "The Case for Goliath." "We have a Marshall Plan. It's our energy policy. It's a Marshall plan for terrorists and dictators."
How tough is it, Mr. Cheney, to will the ends — an end to America's oil addiction — but not will the means: a gasoline tax? It's not very tough, it's not very smart, and it's going to end badly for us.
04 February 2006
The 2 Biggest Threats to America (aside from King Bush II)
1. Spiraling health care costs
2. Oil, period.
Current expenses of the US:
War on Iraq: $1 trillion
Future Combat Sytems: $1 trillion
Imagine if we spent $1 trillion on fixing health care and $1 trillion on reducing oil consumption by 75%....
For all 3 of you who read this, you know one of my obsessions is my loathing for Future Combat Systems, a massive pork barrel project that has yet to produce anything other than a black hole for US taxpayer dollars to be sucked into. As I noted previously, FCS provide billions for such a diverse range of Congressional districts that no one wants to shut it down. The 25% or so members of Congress who are riding the gravy train are undoubtedly employing the mutual back scratching technique, and with so many people involved, it's gained a momentum all its own, despite repeated warnings from GAO that the program is more likely to fail than not, given the failure of the program directors to follow best practices. Bottom line: over the course of the next 10 years we're flushing about $1 trillion in change down the toilet on Donny Rumsfelds toy train yard fantasy. Give his track record of total and complete abject failure, it's amazing he still has a job. The fact that we're still spending money on his pipe dream fantasies is distressing to say the least.
2. Oil. We all know about this. Buying oil from the middle east allows dictatorships and corrupt regimes to stay in power from Iran to Saudi Arabia. We're going to spend another $1 trillion on our failed efforts in Afghanistan and Iraq to get our own oil supply. In the meantime we're pumping less oil in Iraq now than we were pre-war. Pathetic.
Now, supposing we did something totally different:
1. Spend $1 trillion dollars on nationalized health care instead of fighting in Iraq
2. Spend $1 trillion dollars to reduce oil consumption by 75% instead of building Rummy's toy train collection
What would you do?
1. DARPA invented TCP/IP, the protocol that makes the Internet go round, over 30 years ago. It's held up pretty well over time. Government is capable of producing excellent results when it wants to. I'm confident that given a trillion dollars, some smart fellows could come up with a "health care internet" that created a unified simple medical record data interchange format. It's got to be possible to create a universal interchange data format. If you want Medicaid money or whatever, you'd have to use it, essentially creating a forcing function for a country wide standard for data interchange. For everything from medical records to billing information. You could reduce the 33% of money spent on health care that goes to filing insurance claims and use that money to insure everyone. Imagine the benefit to American business. Imagine the growth and pork available to Congressional districts everywhere. Everyone ones.
2. Oil. I don't want to get into one of those "ethanol costs more energy than you get" arguments. I don't know the answers. But I know if you threw $1 trillion at it, you could come up with a cost effective way so calories in is smaller than calories out. Whether it's some kind of bio-fuel or something more pie in the sky like hydro cells, get us off oil, now. Then, if we want to blow up Iran, we can do that. If we want to tell the Saudis that they can pay for their own goddamn army and go fuck themselves in the meantime, we can. I am so sick and tired of the world kow-towing to these repressive dictatorships, and the assholes like Donald Rumsfeld that think they will ever be democratic societies. These are ancient cultures that only believe in honor and revenge. They have no concept of respect or fealty (Afghanistan, anyone?). I don't give a rat's ass about them. As far as I'm concerned, the middle east can go fuck itself in its entirety, and the sooner they go back to killing each other instead of us, the better. The sooner we stop buying oil from them, the sooner we can leave them alone to rot in hell. This includes Israel too. As soon as we stop caring about what happens in the Middle East, the less we need a "bulwark" against the Islamic states. Israel is a bad-ass country and they can fend for themselves. We need to let them free to do what they need to do and stop thinking of them as a potential landing strip for an invasion we don't have the backbone to ever launch.
Controversy baby... I'm going redneck out here in Washington State!
2. Oil, period.
Current expenses of the US:
War on Iraq: $1 trillion
Future Combat Sytems: $1 trillion
Imagine if we spent $1 trillion on fixing health care and $1 trillion on reducing oil consumption by 75%....
For all 3 of you who read this, you know one of my obsessions is my loathing for Future Combat Systems, a massive pork barrel project that has yet to produce anything other than a black hole for US taxpayer dollars to be sucked into. As I noted previously, FCS provide billions for such a diverse range of Congressional districts that no one wants to shut it down. The 25% or so members of Congress who are riding the gravy train are undoubtedly employing the mutual back scratching technique, and with so many people involved, it's gained a momentum all its own, despite repeated warnings from GAO that the program is more likely to fail than not, given the failure of the program directors to follow best practices. Bottom line: over the course of the next 10 years we're flushing about $1 trillion in change down the toilet on Donny Rumsfelds toy train yard fantasy. Give his track record of total and complete abject failure, it's amazing he still has a job. The fact that we're still spending money on his pipe dream fantasies is distressing to say the least.
2. Oil. We all know about this. Buying oil from the middle east allows dictatorships and corrupt regimes to stay in power from Iran to Saudi Arabia. We're going to spend another $1 trillion on our failed efforts in Afghanistan and Iraq to get our own oil supply. In the meantime we're pumping less oil in Iraq now than we were pre-war. Pathetic.
Now, supposing we did something totally different:
1. Spend $1 trillion dollars on nationalized health care instead of fighting in Iraq
2. Spend $1 trillion dollars to reduce oil consumption by 75% instead of building Rummy's toy train collection
What would you do?
1. DARPA invented TCP/IP, the protocol that makes the Internet go round, over 30 years ago. It's held up pretty well over time. Government is capable of producing excellent results when it wants to. I'm confident that given a trillion dollars, some smart fellows could come up with a "health care internet" that created a unified simple medical record data interchange format. It's got to be possible to create a universal interchange data format. If you want Medicaid money or whatever, you'd have to use it, essentially creating a forcing function for a country wide standard for data interchange. For everything from medical records to billing information. You could reduce the 33% of money spent on health care that goes to filing insurance claims and use that money to insure everyone. Imagine the benefit to American business. Imagine the growth and pork available to Congressional districts everywhere. Everyone ones.
2. Oil. I don't want to get into one of those "ethanol costs more energy than you get" arguments. I don't know the answers. But I know if you threw $1 trillion at it, you could come up with a cost effective way so calories in is smaller than calories out. Whether it's some kind of bio-fuel or something more pie in the sky like hydro cells, get us off oil, now. Then, if we want to blow up Iran, we can do that. If we want to tell the Saudis that they can pay for their own goddamn army and go fuck themselves in the meantime, we can. I am so sick and tired of the world kow-towing to these repressive dictatorships, and the assholes like Donald Rumsfeld that think they will ever be democratic societies. These are ancient cultures that only believe in honor and revenge. They have no concept of respect or fealty (Afghanistan, anyone?). I don't give a rat's ass about them. As far as I'm concerned, the middle east can go fuck itself in its entirety, and the sooner they go back to killing each other instead of us, the better. The sooner we stop buying oil from them, the sooner we can leave them alone to rot in hell. This includes Israel too. As soon as we stop caring about what happens in the Middle East, the less we need a "bulwark" against the Islamic states. Israel is a bad-ass country and they can fend for themselves. We need to let them free to do what they need to do and stop thinking of them as a potential landing strip for an invasion we don't have the backbone to ever launch.
Controversy baby... I'm going redneck out here in Washington State!
02 February 2006
Congress cuts entirlement spending... but keeps entitling friends
Here's the numbers showing Federal Tax dollar contributions compared to Federal money ditributed back to the states. My favorite: The difference, per capita, between what Red States get, on average, and what Blue states contribute, on average is $17,415 per capita. Put another way, Blue States lost $8,916 per capita while Red stages gained $8,499 per capita. So those of us who foot the bill for King George II must be complete idiots. How can we be the ones paying when we're the ones getting screwed? I think the Blue states should all secede, possibly joining Canada. See the Tax Foundation website for the source for these numbers.
Other interesting points:
- 25 out of 31 total red states get more Federal tax $ than they contribute
- 13 out of 18 blue states give more Federal tax $ than they receive
- The Top 12 Federal tax contributing states are blue
- The Top 8 Recipients of Federal tax money are Red
- Blue states, not including MD and VA (where much of the Federal Gov't. is located), paid $1.4 trillion more than they got back
- Red states received $800 billion more than they paid
Also in the meantime, check the picture to see how you're hard-earned tax dollars are being spent in Iraq. Robert J. Stein Jr. was happily using $100 bills from the Coalition Provisional Authority to wipe his bottom -- he was working for the defense contractor S&K Technologies, a St. Ignatius, Mont., company that had won Army contracts to provide administrative support in Iraq. See the NYT for full story.
So, as you can see, when Congress isn't busy spending $1 trillion on the war in Iraq (ok, fine, that's the projected total cost -- some bright folks at Columbia B-School published this report and came up with this number), or a $1 trillion on future combat systems, they're giving it away as cold hard cash to convicted felons (Mr. Stein had a felony fraud conviction on his record which S&K failed to notice). So when it gets to be tax time, I get very Charlton Heston... is it time for armed insurrection or what?
Btw, I should probably just give up. The reason this crap happens is pork, plain and simple. Here's an interesting set of facts about FCS:
"The FCS industry base spans 159 congressional districts over 35 states, with 363 companies on board, according to materials released by the program’s industry team.The bulk of the work is done in California, where companies account for approximately 1,000 of the 7,000 high-tech jobs provided nationwide by the program. Those 7,000 jobs provide about $3 billion in salaries each year, said Muilenburg."
Quote source
29 January 2006
An email to Ted Koppel
All around us in America, we are surrounded by examples of low expectations not being met by young people, whether it's academic achievement or television programming. Today's networks are engaged in a race to the bottom with reality TV and news programs that insult the intelligence of most 12 year olds.
Have any of the networks noticed that something happened on cable television, outside the news segment, that suggested that people are interested in watching truly challenging, engaging programming? I'm thinking of shows like 6 Feet Under. Then there's shows like Desperate Housewives and Battlestar Galactica, which combine a pulpy soap opera format with a wink and a nod to slip in some truly thought provoking programming into America's living rooms. Ok maybe "truly thought provoking" is an exaggeration, but it's not utter mind rot either.
News programming is on people's televisions because it is what is on at dinner time. I don't think that many people really watch it. And the main reason is that it is neither entertaining, nor interesting. Fox news is entertaining. The New York Times is interesting. It's hard to both, as it is hard to be all things to all people. But I suggest that the networks could try something no one has ever done on network news before: challenge their audiences and engage them with interesting thoughts and ideas. I think they'd be surprised how many people rose to the occasion. Otherwise it's only a matter of time until we have naked anchor people and circus clowns reading the news.
Those of us who have had the good fortune to live in other country’s, even our next door neighbor Canada, have also had the chance to watch news, state-sponsored and otherwise, that is far more hard-hitting and remains truly investigative. The CBC's "Fifth Estate" has produced thoroughly investigated, highly revealing stories. I would love to hear Karl Rove's spun-up response to the episode they did detailing Bush II's long business history with the Saudis.
One does begin to wonder how much responsibility the news media has for today's sorry state of affairs at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. One wonders if the media tried to pursue the actual facts and substance of issues, rather than regurgitate "objectively" what Karl Rove said the night before, perhaps there would be a louder response to the state of tyranny we find ourselves in. Admittedly, the news media makes a product and sells it and I am not naive enough to think otherwise, but I truly believe you can make a compelling, exciting product that is also beneficial to viewers -- broccoli can be made to taste good. Imagine the sensation that you could generate with a top news story of "Bush policy seems to break the law, again!"
Good night, and good luck.
Have any of the networks noticed that something happened on cable television, outside the news segment, that suggested that people are interested in watching truly challenging, engaging programming? I'm thinking of shows like 6 Feet Under. Then there's shows like Desperate Housewives and Battlestar Galactica, which combine a pulpy soap opera format with a wink and a nod to slip in some truly thought provoking programming into America's living rooms. Ok maybe "truly thought provoking" is an exaggeration, but it's not utter mind rot either.
News programming is on people's televisions because it is what is on at dinner time. I don't think that many people really watch it. And the main reason is that it is neither entertaining, nor interesting. Fox news is entertaining. The New York Times is interesting. It's hard to both, as it is hard to be all things to all people. But I suggest that the networks could try something no one has ever done on network news before: challenge their audiences and engage them with interesting thoughts and ideas. I think they'd be surprised how many people rose to the occasion. Otherwise it's only a matter of time until we have naked anchor people and circus clowns reading the news.
Those of us who have had the good fortune to live in other country’s, even our next door neighbor Canada, have also had the chance to watch news, state-sponsored and otherwise, that is far more hard-hitting and remains truly investigative. The CBC's "Fifth Estate" has produced thoroughly investigated, highly revealing stories. I would love to hear Karl Rove's spun-up response to the episode they did detailing Bush II's long business history with the Saudis.
One does begin to wonder how much responsibility the news media has for today's sorry state of affairs at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. One wonders if the media tried to pursue the actual facts and substance of issues, rather than regurgitate "objectively" what Karl Rove said the night before, perhaps there would be a louder response to the state of tyranny we find ourselves in. Admittedly, the news media makes a product and sells it and I am not naive enough to think otherwise, but I truly believe you can make a compelling, exciting product that is also beneficial to viewers -- broccoli can be made to taste good. Imagine the sensation that you could generate with a top news story of "Bush policy seems to break the law, again!"
Good night, and good luck.
25 January 2006
"It's Very Carefully Done"
That's what General Mike Hayden has to say about the NSA's pre-emtpive, warrantless domestic spying initiative. I wonder if they're using the same careful procedures that the US military has used to re-build Iraq? Tho re-build New Orleans? To rebuild Iraq's oil pipelines? Why does the White House or the NSA think they have any credibility, when they have been so incompetent, they can't even get Haliburton to pump oil in Iraq? These people are so useless they can't even steal money given to them! It's as though the rule of law has left the building in America. Our spying operations in the Middle East have been totally incompetent and useless. We don't know where Osama is. We don't know where Khalid Sheikh Mohammed is (or we pretend not to). These are the same people that said Saddam had WMD and was in cahoots with al-qaeda. These are the same people who were offered the 20 names of the future hijackers by the "black prince" of Qatar and said, "naw, not tonight." These are the people who kept tabs on Saddam by calling up the Kuwaiti border guard and asking what they could see through their binoculars. This useless, incompetent, mean-spirited administration is concerned with only one thing: permanent power and money. I'm sure they'll have a nice time talking to Hitler in hell. Can I get a "fuck you"? Can I get a "fuck you"? FUCK YOU!
24 January 2006
23 January 2006
make love like a pair of black wizards
| from reading my posts you can tell i'm no zen master. but i've had an interest in buddhism for quite some time, as it seems to offer practical steps towards a more peaceful and fulfilling life. i'm a little more than half-way through "buddhism plan and simple" and it's helping me keep one thing on my mind at a time. i've always been prone to existentialist thought, and i find this book helps me clear the clutter. it's not that hard for me to accept many of the ideas, but it gives me another way of looking that isn't quite so nihilistic. it's also helped me let go of judging and evaluating what i'm doing or thinking. i can always return to just seeing what is happening. |
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)