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.
27 March 2006
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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)