Ghetto Pimp Summer

Oppression

2011-11-01T11:23:00.000-07:00

an email i wrote to a friend, and some notes on my ideas.

since i've started a family, i'm all the more convinced that the nuclear family is a unit of discipline. yet my attempts to get away from it resulted in greater misery. i've been turning over this book idea in my mind, "how to be a man in the 21st century", and the idea is that a morally rigorous life is more compelling than a sloppy one. but i don't want to write a book about morals. i want to write a book about how the "post" feminist world is in some ways oppressing and screwing women even more than they were before, and that men have to evolve to create a better world. and some alchemy of buddhist thought and moral rigor, along with the emotional growth of embracing adulthood and accepting the devilishness of the world, are kind of the key ingredients to making the world better (starting at home). i know you must have been thinking similar thoughts. it feels like the world is ready for this book, the world needs this book. should we write it? it needs to be like Justice, by michael j sandal, in that it takes difficult concepts and rigorously but pleasantly presents them to a lay audience.

i'm sending you this email because this thread goes through my head all the time and the project of turning it into an outline for the book is going to be long. i also know that you must have been thinking about some of the same problems, if not in the same way. i'm curious what you think. the rule of the game is that if you want to talk about it, you don't have to write out anything long or particularly well thought out, the goal instead is to just get a dialog going that is longer than 140 characters but short enough that it can be tapped out quickly in the brief 5 minutes of solitude you may get in your day. i'll probably use a blog to capture my mind barfs to somewhere more permanent than email.

Notes on my book, How to be a Man in the 21st century West.

Women have all the responsibility of men, plus they are responsible for child-raising. It's become more acceptable for successful, educated women to opt to be house wives for extended periods, but it is still bullshit. Our world and economy has made it harder than ever for families to succeed, especially families where a reasonable standard of living is sought after.
The family is a productive unit, a node of bio-power to coerce disciplined, productive work units out of the bourgeoise. The bourgeoise is convinced that they enjoy freedom because they are not in jail, despite the fact that their lives are structured in the exact same way as a jail. Jail exists to convince the working people that they are not in one.
Actually raising a family requires more labor than 2 people can provide. Certainly non-North American and probably non-Western families are closer-knit geographically and emotionally and raise children together. Ok ok I'm not saying we all need to live in primitive villages, but the point is that the nuclear family is a post-war invention designed to isolate and discipline and it doesn't work.
I'm tired of conservatives owning the narrative of family and child-raising, which can be summarized as fear and loathing.
I'm equally tired of the liberal bourgeoise narrative of fear and achievement, as it really is just a nicer version of the conservative narrative of fear and punishment.
Men are increasingly immersed in a mindless world of juvenilia as the balance of desirable men and women grows increasingly out of whack.
Taking on lives of moral conduct is viewed as succumbing to "oppression", while those who do embrace some moral life often do so with the express intent of oppressing others
The narrative of hyper-sexualized hedonism compels people to search for ever-higher levels of chemical stimulation, whether from orgasm or pharmaceutical drugs to squash the pain of disappointment and loss.
Moral conduct itself is viewed as old fashioned, the narrative of self-directed lives free from contraints is a fantasy peddled by the baby boomers, and we see how that is working out for them. People need boundaries and constraints and communities to function properly. They also need rituals and release. We've dismantled all these things (or they've hyper-ossified).

Letter to the Editor time again: David Brooks and the Conservative fantasy land

2010-10-12T10:13:00.002-07:00

David Brooks' latest column represent the kind of facile thinking that is fueling voter fantasies about the "growth of government", and seems to suggest that state and federal employees are a new kind of "welfare queen". There are many logical fallacies with his argument. The most obvious is the idea that Democrats just want to "spend, spend, spend," while Republicans want to reduce spending. The last time the GOP was in the majority, they oversaw the largest expansion of Medicare since its inception with the Part D benefit, and they started a $3 trillion (according to Columbia University economists Joseph Stiglitz and Linda Bilmes) war of choice, while cutting taxes and demanding no sacrifice for anyone who wasn't in the military. Meanwhile the last time this country didn't run a deficit, it was under President Clinton, a Democrat.

The real point of contention I have with Brooks' argument is the idea that the path to regaining control over budgets is to cut benefits and pay to employees. The idea that the massive transfer of taxpayer monies to private corporations in the form of agricultural subsidies, oil-company subsidies, and the Part D benefit, never seems to cross Mr. Brooks' mind. This suggests that he believes it is OK for private corporations to receive unlimited taxpayer largesse, but heaven forbid should an everyday middle class wage-earner derive a paycheck by working for it.

As Mr. Brooks alludes to, much of government spending in post-war America went towards things that created the greatest growth in opportunity our country has ever seen, from the GI Bill to the space program. The real problem in the decline of innovative programs is not greedy unions, but a lack of political will and leadership to innovate as one people and one country. Conservatives have used fear and greed to divide our country as never before, pouring gasoline on the fires of time-wasting and irrelevant issues to our nation. In addition they have pushed for deregulation and the promulgation of a value-draining economy based on speculative real estate deals and unregulated derivatives trading.

This translates to lack of cohesive national vision and the decline of government-induced innovation. It is an ideologically-driven assertion with no basis in fact to blame the decline of useful government programs on pensions. It is part of the conservative agenda to siphon ever more taxpayer money into Wall Street, and he alludes to one of the favorite hobby horses of conservatives: privatize the pension plans. Anyone who has had a 401(k) plan and an interest in retiring while still capable of self-ambulating can tell you about the effectiveness of this approach.

In addition, the largest political campaign contributions are coming from shadow organizations funded by the Koch brothers and other dubious private interests, and it is simply not true that unions spend more than any other entity.

I also wanted to point out that the growth of the prison-industrial complex is the direct result of the conservative obsession with punishment and incarceration as opposed to education and rehabilitation. If Mr. Brooks is so concerned about prison pension plans, he might consider the root cause of the growth of prisons is that they are a job creation program in rural areas in California, and that conservative voters enjoy the idea of punishing criminals far more than the idea of educating people before they become criminals in the first place. To his credit, he does point out that California pays more for prisons than for schools, but he seems to fail to connect the dots that conservatives like prisons while normal Americans would probably prefer to pay for schools.

Republicans: Black = White

2009-11-30T13:03:00.002-08:00

Pro-life, Pro-Death Penalty
Pro-life, anti-neo-natal care
Pro-life, anti-healthcare
Pro-life, anti-immigrant
Pro-life, pro-war
Pro-Freedom, Pro Jails
Pro tax cuts, Pro Jails
Pro-Jesus, Pro hate fear loathing stealing lying killing
Pro-tax-cuts, Pro agricultural subsidies for GOP-voting districts
Anti-welfare, Pro-corporate tax subsidies for Big Oil ($100 million for Exxon)
Pro-tax-cuts, Pro $2 trillion dollar optional wars
Pro-free-market, Pro government bailouts
Pro-free-market, pro protectionist tariffs
Pro ideology, anti-results
Decrease taxes, increase spending
The number one goal of any Republican is to siphon as many tax dollars as they can get their hands on into the pockets of themselves and their friends. Their brilliant discursive strategy is to play into the racist and economic fears of the ignorant and uneducated, to govern strictly by ideaology rather than pragmatic need. They've taken a completely incoherant agenda full of paradoxes and logical contradictions and created a simple, easy to digest platform of racist, religious jingoism. In short, they are today's Nazi party without the concentration camps. Any Republican is as good as a "good" German was in 1942. By being Republican, you are consciously and deliberately seeking the destruction of your own country, and you are committed to the prolongment of suffering to the disenfranchised people of the world. In short, you are evil.

Letter to Senator Cantwell about health care

2009-06-23T17:50:00.002-07:00

Listen to the pod cast of the show - an amazing conversation with small business owners in the PNW

Dear Senator Cantwell,

I heard you the other day on KUOW discussing health care reform with Steve Sher. I don't believe your argument that co-ops are the only option. The world is very diferent now from when the prescription drug option was passed.

As I'm sure you know, the American public is overwhelmingly in support of a public option for health care, far more so than Congress seems willing to support with real legislation. Your admission that small businesses simply lack clout was appreciated for its honesty, but was also completely unacceptable. I absolutely need you as my representative to push forward a bolder vision as espoused by your colleague representative McDermott advocated on the program before you.

As I'm sure you also know, without the heavy hand of a large public plan such as the one enjoyed by Congressional representatives such as yourself, cost controls will never be implemented. Without cost control, our problem will never go away.

I know it may appear like an uphill battle from within the beltway (where I was born and raised), but the rest of the country, at least me and all the other small business employees I know, are not going to accept a middle way compromise that does not radically change the costs of health care itself. The problem is not that people don't have insurance; the problem is that health care is so expensive and provides so little value in return for the dollars spent when benchmarked against every other health care outcome metric in the industrialized world.

I laud your position that health care providers need a better value metric that correlates with outcomes rather than paying for services, which we all know thanks to Atul Gawande, incents incredibly bad behavior. However, better metrics need to be directly tied to value and payment, they are not a solution in and of themselves.

It is not acceptable to allow a few die hard right wing blowhards and timid middle-of-the-road representatives to say that we can't do what we all know is both morally just and economically required to create better health care outcomes, cover all citizens, and lower costs, which is a true public health care plan that provides all the benefits and costs of the plan enjoyed by congressional representatives.

Professors are full of it

2009-05-04T20:29:00.002-07:00

RE: End The University As We Know It To The Editor

I know you must have gotten thousands of letters on this topic, but I was intrigued to note the near-universal rejection of Mark C. Taylor’s ideas, which I found quite appealing. It seemed to me that none of the other respondents, not even Dr. Taylor Carman, professor of philosophy, have been equipped with a suitable critical apparatus to recognize the modern university for what it is: a regime of truth that produces technocrats with little to no critical foundations or ability to stir up trouble in the real world.

You can verify my claim by noting how the neo-cons succeeded in bringing our country to its knees, as suggested by the recent wonderful book, “French Theory”; no university would have the likes of a Paul Wolfovitz or a Don Rumsfeld as a tenured professor, so, like the dogs of hell, they were unleashed in the only other institution that would have them: the US government. Dogmatic universities did not want dialog or dissent happening on their campuses. And we all know how that turned out.

All of the rabble rousers at my alma mater certainly never got tenure and found themselves on the street shortly after I graduated; I was just lucky to be at the right place at the right time to actually learn something (McGill ‘98). [Addendum: Rather than protect freedom of speech, tenure leads to unilateral dogmatism, and a highly charged political atmosphere where any deviation from the departmental status quo is not tolerated for long. It stifles innovation and is the wrong reward for talent worth retaining. It creates a mob-boss, union intimidation style environment for what should be the most intellectually diverse, challenging, AND safe places in our world.]

Of course, it is technocratism, with its total lack of depth and narrowness of focus, that has brought about our economic predicament as well. Regardless of their field, students have been taught how to participate in a highly bureaucratic institution that teaches them how to sit for an exam and get a good mark by following the rules.

I am saddened by the lack of dialog or critical discourse found in the unilateral academic rejection of changing the status quo. I also found it interesting how none of the academics offered any real useful alternatives, just vague gestures of, “something else will have to do that would not cause me to lose my chair.” What a lot of timid cowards. Perhaps if they had to read some books outside their specialties, they might recognize their institutions for what they are: either state-run tax-base enhancement vehicles, or privately-held bridges limiting the passage into the privileged hallways of power.

Universities will never change until the demand for their product declines. The ever-increasing middle class obsession with premium college-degree product seems to indicate that there is no sign of demand waning, so I’m not holding my breath. I will just make sure my kids do what I did, and go to school in Canada. If you’re not going to change with the times, you may as well have to actually work hard to get a good mark.

Bonuses For Idiots: Where's mine?

2009-03-16T00:04:00.002-07:00

Dear President Obama,

This letter is to let you know that I will no longer be paying taxes to the US government. In addition, I am also requesting that I receive "bailout" funds of $1 billion USD annually. You see, unlike all of the already-wealthy bankers who are currently reupholstering their yachts with my tax dollars, I actually work for a living. I pay taxes, I pay rent, I pay my bills, I keep my credit cards under control, my car is 7 years old, I don't even have cable. My reward is having the privilege of being able to pay for executives to get bonuses that are worth more money than will pass through my bank accounts for my entire life.

Senator Chris Dodd seemed to have no problem inserting special language into bailout legislation making sure that AIG executives were guaranteed to get their filthy lucre. I don't see any reason why Congress can't legislate what AIG can and can't do, seeing as how the tax-paying citizens of this country own the company. Is the idea that only graduates of Harvard are entitled to limitless free tax dollars to sustain their multi-million dollar mansions?

Taxpayers like me are beyond furious. We know that it's going to take years to clean up this Exxon Valdez spill that is our economy, and that the economic ecosphere will be devesated for longer than we all care to imagine. But I have just lost all tolerance for the endless pilfering, and the spinelessness of this government to shut it down and take control of the situation. Right now is not a time for coddling and worrying about the polls. You've got 4 years to do something and there's no time like the present. Take the kid gloves off, take away all the money from these bastards, and keep them off the field.

Republican Guide for Free Market Economy

2009-03-15T13:51:00.002-07:00

A how-to guide for getting rich quick.

First, let's be clear: free-market means that taxpayer money is free, while money that you actually earn by doing work isn't - and why should you do work if you're a true-blue white American! Working is what negroes should be doing! It's beneath you! Now, on to the guide.

Start a company of your own. The tax code in this country is designed for corporations to never pay taxes. Paying taxes doesn't apply to Republicans! Only assholes and socialist liberal communist gay faggot jews pay taxes! Get a clue.

Be sure to completely cook the books. Ideally, you should hire some gay faggot jews to come up with the best way to come up with insanely complex ways of printing money, creating "value" out of thin air, and other forms of stealing that those dirty jews are so good at. Don't shake their hands though, you might get AIDS.

Spend spend spend! Be sure to acquire every repuslive, tacky, disgusting thing you've ever possibly imagined, from a harem of slave children to a golden toilet that is mounted on your front yard for all to say as you do your business. Let your neighbors watch as you wipe your ass with $100 bills.

Be sure to hire the "best and brightest" to manage your team of jews. Pay them earth-shattering millions, regardless of their performance. Nothing but the holy Lord Jesus himself should get between this money - that you had to find a way to make out of nothing! - and you and your people. Even if Jesus does come down off the cross to remind you that the meek shall inherit the earth, think twice about giving up that money.

Make sure that you relentlessly give away fake vapor money ("credit") to the poor huddled masses to prevent them from noticing that their real wages have actually gone down in the last 25 years since deregulation, since what we did was reregulate the flow of money from us to them! The world is better off when Republicans have money, because we know what to do with it, like spend 2 trillion on a useless war on credit and fly private corporate jets! Oh and who can forget those golden toilets. Actually lately I've been hiring slave children from India to wipe my ass with their hands, after which I throw them out the window.

When it all goes to shit DON'T PANIC! Those same idiot tax payers who you've been stealing money from for years are going to BAIL YOU OUT so you can keep getting the finest Peruvian fishscale, keep your harem flooded with fresh slaves from Russia, shoot machine guns out your back door, and generally act like the living incarnation of Satan that you are. And remember, all the gay commie jews who got you there will go to jail, after which they'll burn in hell! With AIDS! Now THAT'S a FREE MARKET! GOD BLESS THE USA!

IMG_2137.JPG

2007-09-04T18:00:00.001-07:00

IMG_2137.JPG, originally uploaded by fluxoneflickr.

The Haida painting comes to life

Abortion nuts: please go away

2007-06-22T09:27:00.000-07:00

RE: Why Pro Choice is Bad For Democrats

America is the most powerful empire the world has ever known. Yet our political discourse is dominated by religiously-tinged issues that, while important to some, really don't compare to the truly relevant issues of the day. Abortion is an issue that affects women's health, and strikes some people, as noted in this piece, as immoral. It's an issue people care about and its worth discussing. On a local level.

In the meantime, America contributes a 25% share to greenhouse gases with only 5% of the world's population; we have unleashed a pandora's box of horror in the middle east through Dick Cheney's personal enrichment program known as the Iraq war; the current crop of Presidential candidates have no serious solution to either problem. We also have a nuclear North Korea and an Iran hell-bent on joining the club. Thomas Friedman has been reporting on the death of 4 million people in the Congo. Special interests from big oil, big pharma, mega-agriculture, the prison-industrial complex, the defense industry, the gun lobby, etc., all are taking home our hard-earned tax dollars to either produce record profit or stay afloat. And here at home we've got a large swath of the population that casts its vote entirely based on the abortion Kabuki.

The fact that the American people have allowed our political discourse to be shaped by whatever conspiratorial forces, whether its the sickening Machiavellian maneuverings of Karl Rove, the detested 30 second sound bite that passes for campaign discourse, the cowardice of news organizations who present entertainment rather than real news (try watching CBC's "The National" if you live close enough to the border for an entirely different reality) -- it doesn't matter. It is totally depressing, not to mention a great danger to world peace, that the meaningful discussion of significant issues has been drowned out in a sea of local-level issues like abortion, stem-cell research, and Christmas parades. My feeling is that politicians have tacitly allowed this to happen, because in order to campaign, they need to fill their war chest with money from the special interests who all benefit from the smoke screen created by the focus on these types of issues. Al Gore is right in his new book, and if the American people don't wake up, there's going to be very, very serious consequences.

Sakuran

2007-06-07T21:42:00.000-07:00

Just saw Sakuran at the Seattle International Film Festival. AMAZING! See it when you can.

Their Finest Hour

2007-06-07T21:40:00.000-07:00

RE: Defeat's Killing Fields

To The Editor--

The author's of this article make many vague, grandiose statements that I think are a misguided attempt at a Roosevelt- or Kennedy-esque statement of vision and leadership. While I respect the courage in even professing to have an unambiguous vision in this time of wiffle-waffle sieve-like philosophical and ethical moorings, I find the lack of substance or adherence to anything resembling reality in their statement to be both tiresome and dangerous.

Some key points: What is meant by American defeat and victory? Is victory an indefinite occupation of a foreign land, or more South Korean like, an indefinite unliked but tolerated occupation? It is clear that regardless of the consequences, the American people have no stomach for the long-term occupation (10-20 year minimum seems to be the going rate) that creating a more civilized police state would require. Speaking of an Iraqi democracy is pure hubris at this stage in the game as the Iraqi parliament has largely left the building for the summer.

And in their discussion of the Vietnam war, they never address the plain and simple fact was that the reason we lost is the same reason the British lost when the American people decided they no longer wished to be subservient to the crown: we wanted to be free more than they wanted to suppress the rebellion. Victory then in the case of Vietnam or in the case of Iraq means imposing a reality the native people don't want, and "father knows best" doesn't work on the scale of nations -- especially nations whose boundaries were so capriciously drawn up by the British in the wake of WWI.

Such a shallow simplistic attitude is what got us into this mess -- well that and no lack of greed and avarice on the part of Mr. Dick Cheney -- and it certainly isn't going to get us out anytime soon. Who knows what would have happened in Southeast Asia if we hadn't gone in, but what's done is done, and what we've done in Iraq is unpardonable and irreconcilable, and it's time for these dreamers to wake up and realize that the only dignified thing to do is get out of the Empire game of conquest, go home with our tail between our legs, and let them figure it out for themselves.

And if America and her people are truly at war, then we will starve the beasts that foment the armies of destruction: we shall all, as one, in the most Churchillian manner, cease to have anything to do whatsoever with the black gold that finances the whole nefarious operation. We must stop buying oil from Iran and Saudi Arabia immediately. We must lead with bold vision in action, and not just foist our hopes on our volunteer army while the rest of us continue to shop on the web and kill ourselves slowly in an orgy of corn syrup and discount children's clothing from China. Shame on the American people for not having the vision or courage to truly do what is right, which is to give up our Imperial way of life that our Military might makes possible, and that costs so much in economic and human terms.

PTU

2007-06-03T01:12:00.000-07:00

PTU is a totally unique twist on the HK cop movie theme. Get it.

It's a YESKING TING

2007-06-02T00:13:00.000-07:00

It's a Yes King Ting where-ever you are. Anyone looking for the jamming summer mixtape that will not leave your box for the rest of the season... go to this site and download the mix.

David Brooks, ever the self-hating Jew

2007-06-01T00:02:00.001-07:00

My latest letter to my favorite Republican Jew:

Dear Mr. Brooks-

Sometimes you point out interesting scientific discoveries, such as the fact that we are all emotional irrational blobs of impulses that the rational mind pretends to have control over. Moving from there, I can see how you might find Al Gore's attempt at "rational discourse" discomfiting. It is after all an intellectual work that even references some rather well known academic scholarship. It reflects on you somewhat poorly to be so hostile to this sort of thing.

George Bush (well and Jimmy Carter too) has shown us what leadership from the heart looks like: it's not very effective, even if you do want to drink a beer with the guy. The role of our leaders is not to set the feel good agenda that you are so fond of, but to effectively and competently govern our country to insure the welfare of its citizens. This is often best achieved with a cold and calculating manner devoid of the irrational exuberance that brought us the war in Iraq, Terry Schiavo, Abu Gharib, New Orleans, etc.

Your faith in the Santa Claus like figure of the benevolent Republican really scares me, because you are smart enough to know better. I found myself wondering the other day if you had ever lived through an extended period of poverty or suffering. I am often troubled by Jews who are Republicans, it feels like something you only do if you're a self-hating Jew. My grandfather was a Republican who never went to synagogue and was obsessed with being a WASP. My assumption was that you hadn't truly suffered, and that maybe you weren't even Jewish, for all Jews suffer just by being alive, or surely you wouldn't fall for the "can't we all just get along with a nice warm hug" a la Mr. Rogers.

Letter to Patty Murray re: Liquid Coal (Liquid Stupid)

2007-05-30T15:48:00.001-07:00

Dear Senator Murray:

I read in today's New York Times that Liquefied Coal is rapidly gaining support in Congress, roughly in parallel to the amount of lobbying money the coal industry has been handing out in the other Washington.

Surely a bit of hyperbole is called for in this latest blatant money-for-legislation kabuki that is in direct conflict with what this country needs to do to prepare for an energy policy that both limits our dependencies on other countries while paving the way, so to speak, for reduced emissions to reverse the effects of global warming.

Everything I've read about energy policy suggests that there is no silver bullet technology that will magically allow the continuation of limitless suburban sprawl, SUV driving, and other touchstones of a certain vision of a free America. Americans must learn to be more energy efficient above and beyond all other goals in order to be less dependent on foreign oil, and to reduce the damage we are doing to our planet.

That being said, as I'm sure you already know, there are a wide variety of alternative, truly renewable energy technologies. Our state is a progressive state, and our city is a progressive city. I was able to tick a box and kick in $12/month to use wind power! I was out at the Gorge this Memorial Day weekend and I smiled when I saw all the windmills up on the ridge. It was beautiful.

Thomas Friedman has repeatedly pointed out that setting a floor on the price of oil at $40/barrel is one way to spark innovation and investment in alternative energies. Why should only the coal industry benefit from this legislative largess? Indeed, all forms of energy should be catalyzed by this progressive bit of price control. Our state in particular has a number of potential technologies, from my personal favorite, cellulosic ethanol, to wind power.

I write to urge you to vote against any legislation around subsidizing liquid coal -- an obvious pork barrel debacle that goes against science and stifles the free market while promoting the least cost-effective use of my tax dollars and guaranteeing increased pollution, not to mention the destruction to communities that coal mining causes. Most coal communities in Kentucky and West Virgina don't even want the jobs that the industry offers, because they now know first hand the price they will pay -- the complete destruction of their land and way of life. The only beneficiaries will be industry titans, those with the nosebleed seats in that don't even exist anymore in today's Bush-designed tax brackets.

Sincerely

Lawmakers: going where the money is, not the brains

2007-05-30T15:17:00.000-07:00

Liquefied Coal Gains Support as Pork of the Future

As usual and what should come as no surprise, legislators are auctioning off your future to the stupidest, least effecient, and most expensive "alternative" energy technology ever: liquid coal. Made famous by the Germans who used it in WWII when no one would sell them any oil. Likely to double green house gases. The coal industry wants a staggering array of long-term handouts from you and me, while they are busy telling shareholders about the trillions of dollars worth of assets they will be sitting on once taxpayers prop up their half-baked idea. My favorite is that they want the Air Force to be forced to buy 780 million gallons a year for 25 years. Once again proving that Republicans (and Democrats too when the pork is in their backyard) believe that "Free market" means my money is free for them to take. Guaranteed to increase global warming, while doing nothing to encourage conservation: that's America!

PBR's

2007-05-30T13:00:00.001-07:00

PBR's, originally uploaded by Grandma Dynamite.

Canada + America: Better together

$4 Gas, this time to NYTimes

2007-05-24T12:38:00.000-07:00

To the Editor--

High gas prices are a necessity to drive this country forward towards two critical goals for our country's long-term survival: cutting our dependency on petro-dictatorships like Iran, and reducing the negative environmental impact that our inefficient lifestyles have on the planet. To the first point, anything that reduces America's appetite for the stuff that fuels the economies of hostile nations is a positive from a national security stand point. As Thomas Friedman has frequently pointed out, the sooner the economy of countries like Iran are damaged by reduced oil sales, the sooner the mullahs will have to give up their death grip on their government.

Secondly, Eisenhower's interstate highway system has been the chief enabler for the contemporary American penchant for the 6 mpg SUV and the cheaply constructed energy apocalypse that is the McMansion. Anything that creates "free market" pressure to disincentivize the incredible damage that this way of life entails -- from the diesel transport required to bring goods to the outer reaches of minority-free exubrbia, to the single-occupant SUVs I pass everyday on my bike ride to work (yes I am so pious) -- must be seen as a painful but positive step towards a more sustainable way of life.

I think that Americans know that change is coming with regards to our inefficient lifestyles, but they don't want to have to pony up when the time comes to pay for it. The irony of course is that the whole oil industry is massively subsidized world-wide by the American taxpayer, as we foot the bill required to pay for our military to keep the world safe for the free flow of oil from the dictators to us. The true price of gas has been estimated to be anywhere from $5 to $15 a gallon. We should be so lucky that it has been so cheap for so long. Happy biking.

Daily screed to MoveOn

2007-05-22T15:04:00.001-07:00

In response to the hideous email I found from them in my mail box whining about $4/gallon gas:

I was surprised and saddened to see your latest screed berating oil companies for supposedly "gouging" consumers with expensive gas prices. No one held a gun to anyone's head and told people to live a life of conspicuous consumption that included senseless hours of precious life wasted in a single occupant vehicle on a tax payer financed highway that is destroying the earth, one mcmansion at a time. It is ridiculous to blame oil companies for americans being the fat lazy SUV drivers that they are, and while I am no fan of the oil industry, i'm even less of a fan of people who can't take responsibility for the lifestyle choices they make at the expense of the health of the rest of the world, and anything that disincentivizes driving is a positive in my book. Americans need to be pushed to get out of the cars and their alienated suburban way of life. My 3 mile bike ride to work is a part of my self-righteous and ever so pious decision to choose to live in a way that i don't need a car. As the wealthiest nation on earth, we should be more generous and not treat the destruction of the environment as our right, and try to waste time manipulating congress on such a short-sighted vote winning strategy. You have turned into a shameful organization of borg-like zealots. You no longer think for yourselves and are just looking for something to be mad about. And I will look down my nose and piously judge you for it.

How to bring booze into a music festival

2007-05-14T15:01:00.000-07:00

A plan to smuggle in some booze into the venue from a guy in my lab who did it last year, successfully. Here it is: Before leaving, go to a U-brew store and buy some self-sealing bottle caps. When you cross the border, buy a bottle of clear booze (e. g. vodka, white rum). Also buy a flat of small water bottles. Put your booze into the water bottles and screw on the self-sealing caps. Voila! Now you can put your booze in with your water and bring it in to the show without any hassle. The only draw-back is that you have to buy mix or drink warm straight booze...

Online music collaboration

2007-05-14T14:21:00.000-07:00

This is sweet: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=10159619

Dating Advice

2007-05-14T12:45:00.000-07:00

I see some of my friends dating people that aren't up to snuff. While the below conversation was about a girl, it certainly (probably even more often) applies to girls dating guys too. Check it:

me: i want to see you /w a chick kicking YOUR ASS to take it to the next -- in a way that inspires you
me: a girl that you're learning from
me: rather than girls who shit on the couch but are polite about wiping it up
me: get a girl that's already housebroken!

i don't need to be a princess

2007-05-09T11:19:00.001-07:00

i don't need to be a princess, originally uploaded by mr hombre.

ghetto bitch 2005

SITE OF THE DAY

2007-05-08T13:31:00.000-07:00

'NUFF SAID.

Letter to moveon.org

2007-05-08T13:20:00.001-07:00

My concern with moveon.org as of late is that it has come to resemble the Tom DeLay school of politics -- the difference being that I agree with what action you would have people take. None the less, the format of the message, an over simplified "Do what we want you to or else," is no different than the Republican tactics since 1994.

To be more concrete, I think it is important not to just brow-beat Congress into bringing our troops home and mesh that desire with strategies to keep non-Republicans in office (a clearly necessary activity, however ugly), but to go more in-depth, to elevate the conversation. Iraq can be a lightning rod:

1. How did this country get to a point where we have a President who, along with his staff (Rummy, Condi, Cheney, Wolfie, Karl, etc) has repeatedly lied and not been impeached?

1a. I don't buy the "it's the media" argument answer to #1, though I enjoy reading Frank Rich's excoriation of the Washington press corps, whose feckless toadyism is only surpassed by the White House itself for its hubris. The American people are demanding that they get something for their money in Iraq. What can we do to engage the other half of eligible voters who were asleep at the wheel until they started to figure out that this war could go on forever?

2. What concrete steps will we take to de-escalate Iraq? What duty do we have if any to clean up the mess we leave behind? Given that we have no idea what will happen when and if we leave, what steps are being taken so that we can quickly and effectively respond to whatever catastrophes unfold?

2a. When will we start taking homeland security seriously, rather than rely on prayer and good luck that a major catastrophe hasn't been visited on us by our friends in the middle east?

2b. When will we ask the American people to sacrifice (seeing as how we are in a perpetual state of war), something politicians seem terrified of doing these days? Just as our children today are over indulged little brats, so does the elected official treat their constituent. Sacrifice in this case would mean the immediate cessation of all foreign oil purchases, period.

2c. Iraq has acted as a brilliant smokescreen obscuring all the many issues that are leading to our country's rapid fall from grace. When will these topics be discussed?

3. How will the Democratic party avoid becoming a power-obsessed monster more interested in cementing itself into power than governing?

Your emails are becoming more and more shrill and dogmatic and it worries me. While it's clear that the Republicans are the foot soldiers of Satan hmiself, what steps are being taken to avoid their mistakes?

Corn subsidies support terrorism

2007-04-24T12:26:00.000-07:00

Ok not exactly... but they do promote world instability (Mexico, Nigeria), they promote diabetes and obesity in America, and most importantly, as noted below, they funnel your tax dollars and mine (the professional classes who aren't rich enough to dodge paying taxes) into the hands of rural Republican voters (aka the spawn of Satan). Check out this awesome article on the cost of farm subsidies.

Here's a letter I wrote to Sen. Patty Murray on the issue:

Dear Senator Murray:

I am writing to you in regards to this year's farm bill legislation. As I am sure you are well aware, The Washington Post has conducted an in-depth investigation of where farm subsidy dollars are going and how they hurt far more Americans than they help. This weekend, the New York Times magazine ran an article on the implications of the farm subsidies on the American diet and its impact on our neighbor Mexico.

Preserving our rural communities is a big challenge but also represents an amazing opportunity to change the agenda. The current farm bill promotes waste, obesity, graft, and vote-buying -- the redder a county, the more farm money it gets, almost 1:1. The biggest problem as I see it is that the subsidy formula is only based on quantity. The more corn you grow, the more money you get.

This leads to the US government subsidizing soda pop ("liquid corn"), inefficient corn ethanol, and dosing the ground with destructive chemicals, instead of healthy local produce and efficient cellulosic ethanol products using renewable and sustainable farming techniques. Not only that, through subsidies, farmers are able to sell their products for less than what they cost to grow, leading to gross price distortions that have worldwide impact.

Mexicans are going to work on farms, but because of our farm bills, they work here instead of in Mexico. Cotton-growing countries in Africa can't compete with our subsidized corn. Tortillas in Mexico have grown very expensive as corn-ethanol becomes a hot product. Of course I get a chuckle of the "free market" Republicans showing once again that free to them means my tax money is free for the taking to subsidize their constituents.

I understand that things are more complex than they seem, and that there are a lot of politics involved, but your are my favorite senator and representative in this state and I have faith and confidence that you will do the right thing, which is usually the harder thing -- because that's what you usually do.

4/25/2007 Sen. Murray's response:

Dear Mr. Shapero:

Thank you for your letter regarding federal commodity payments to farmers and the 2007 Farm Bill. It was good to hear from you.

As you may know, for over seventy years the federal government has dispensed farm support payments to American farmers. Through the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) Commodity Credit Corporation, certain farmers are eligible to receive financial payments for income support, disaster loss, and a number of conservation activities. Under the 2002 Farm Bill, funding for these payments is authorized through 2007. Reauthorization of these programs, as well as agricultural conservation initiatives, food stamp programs and a wide range of rural development, trade, research, farm credit and energy programs, will be considered during a 2007 Farm Bill.

The majority of these payments are in the form of commodity support, or income support that is dependent on market prices. Of approximately $16 billion dispensed to farmers annually, commodity support accounts for an overwhelming percentage of the funding. In 2002, for example, commodity support made up nearly 75% of all farm payments. This leaves a relatively small percentage of funding for disaster loss and conservation activities, two efforts that are critical to many farmers. Unfortunately, the majority of farmers in the greatest need of federal financial assistance do not benefit from these programs. It is estimated, for example, that 10% of all agricultural producers receive over 70% of commodity support payments. This 70% goes primarily to large farms and agribusinesses in just a handful of states, such as Texas, Nebraska, Iowa, and others located in the nation’s Corn Belt. Of the commodities produced, corn, cotton, soybeans, wheat, peanuts, and rice are those that are most heavily supported. Most American farmers – including most in our state – receive very little, if any, commodity support. In fact, fruit and vegetable farmers receive very little support from USDA.

The system has also had an adverse effect on important conservation and research programs. With USDA’s focus on commodity payments, little is left for conservation efforts that give farmers tools to manage difficult environmental and regulatory challenges. What we have seen is more funding going to a small number of farmers in the Midwest and fewer resources for Washington state farmers. Instead of funding vital research, marketing programs, and conservation efforts that would help our state, USDA continues to focus its resources only on a small percentage of farmers with commodity payments.

Small family farms are a dying breed, and it is important that we do all we can to ensure their survival. I have always been a staunch supporter of efforts to protect the smaller, independent farms that are so vital to our state, helping to secure research funding, federal disaster assistance, and trade adjustment assistance during difficult times. I have also advocated increased funding for important conservation programs that are beneficial to both agricultural producers and our environment. Despite current fiscal constraints, these efforts will continue to be a priority of mine. Please know that as the Senate addresses these issues, I will keep your thoughts in mind.

If you would like to learn more about my work in the Senate, please feel free to sign up for my updates at http://murray.senate.gov. Thank you again for writing, and please keep in touch.

Sincerely,

Patty Murray
United States Senator

P.S. I'd like to invite you to receive Patty Murray's Washington View, my weekly legislative update by e-mail. If you are interested in receiving my update, please sign up here: http://murray.senate.gov/updates.

Let's get reactionary

2007-04-23T19:55:00.000-07:00

Letter to the NYTime, RE: a letter with a lot of chutzpah

I usually reflexively hate any limitation of rites, but I find the backwardness and pure chutzpah of this letter to bring out my right wing reactionary side...

I'm going to go out on a limb and assume that Mr. Wilentz is a convert to Islam and does not come from a traditionally Muslim region or country (he is the President of a convert center). While I agree with the principal thrust of Mr. Wilentz's assertions, one must recognize that the moment you set foot into an airport, you are voluntarily submitting yourself to a different set of rules, some of which on their face seem to violate freedom of speech. For instance, any joking talk of bombs or weapons in an Airport will get you locked to a chair in a back office faster than you can say fascism.

The reality is that when traveling by air, if you are an Imam, you look like you are probably from a traditionally Muslim country -- perhaps a country where one of the 9/11 terrorists came from -- and you voice anti-American sentiment... you're asking for trouble. It takes an awful lot of hubris for Mr. Wilentz to argue that anyone can expect their Constitutional rights to fully apply in the airport. In other words, the Imam's behavior, in context, was provocative.

Substituting rabbis or Baptists is a rhetorical bait-and-switch. Ok, while some radicals out there like to characterize all Jews as Zionist terrorists, we can largely agree that most large scale recent acts of terrorism that have occurred in Western nations were perpetrated by Muslims -- not Jews or Baptists. I for one am a Jew who at best is not a knee-jerk Israel supporter.

There are also many other beliefs and practices of Muslim nations that are not tolerated in America -- we guarantee some freedoms, but not freedom to gang rape a woman who you accuse of immoral behavior; we don't allow women to be caned for not wearing a hijab; we don't allow honor killings; there's a raft of behavior that is not strictly in and of itself a part of Muslim teachings, but it is behavior that many practitioners engage in back home that is not tolerated here, religious or cultural tradition or now. I for one have no sympathy for the chuckleheads who didn't think twice about their actions. If I went to the airport, dressed like a mullah, and started saying "I hate George Bush, I hate America," very loudly, I would be very unhappy if they didn't lock me up.

State's Rights

2007-04-19T13:04:00.000-07:00

The recent Supreme Court decision directly impacts my home state, Washington, where Federal Law regarding "partial birth" abortions now trumps local state law. See today's Seattle PI. I love how state's only have rights for Republicans when it involves capital punishment, gun ownership, flying the dixie flag, or anything else offensive, dubious, mean spirited, or violent. But state's right are out the window for anything that rallys the base. These people are totally irrational hypocrites. How can you be for the death penalty and against abortion? I guess if you look at the fact that both are ways to make minorities suffer it makes some sense.

Refuting the "an armed society is a polite society" nonsense from the gun nuts

2007-04-18T12:44:00.000-07:00

As I predicted, the gun nuts are all saying that if VaTech had not been one of Virginia's few "gun free zones", the tragedy wouldn't have happened.

This argument is based on 2 tremendous fallacies. I intend to ignore my gut and go with some facts on this one.

1. Gun ownership is "Necessary but not sufficient"
Why does the gun lobby think that everyone can be trusted to get proper training on the use of a hand gun for personal defense? Further, why should we believe that everyone will know how to properly care for and maintain their guns safely? It is easier to get a gun than a driver's license in Virgina. Everyday we all see people on the road who very clearly should not have a driver's license. Now, imagine these same geniuses all had conceal-carry permits... Yeah, I thought so. If people handle their concealed weapons anything like their cars -- and currently it's harder to get a driver's license than a gun -- then we would all be shot up dead in the street

2. Criminals will acquire guns illegally anyway, so we all need guns
See 1 above. A gun in the home is 5 times more likely to be used on the residents of the home than a criminal, mostly because people do not correctly store their weapons or maintain them. They do not lock them, clean them, store ammo safely, etc. In addition, the VaTech killer bought his gun legally. No one had any reason to believe he was a criminal.

The gun nuts will try to tell you that ATF gun trace stats are cooked. The anti-gun crowd will tell you that 41% of guns turned up on NYC crime scenes (this number comes from 1993) came from Virgina. Well, that's for the 8% of guns that had traces run on them. So, question, why don't we run more traces? That's the real story -- the gun nuts won't tell you that ATF forbids local law enforcement from running traces themselves and prevents trace data from being shared. It's very hard to come up with any real numbers since the gun nuts have lobbied Congress very effectively to prevent anyone from knowing the real truth.

Mayor Bloomberg of NYC has started two sites, www.protectpolice.org and www.mayorsagainstillegalguns.org to educate the public. The latter organization has set up sting operations in Virgina where under cover officers were able to make "straw" purchases. Read more about it in the local VA paper here. You can also read the official report here.

3. Criminals are rational
This is one of my favorites. The gun nuts argue that mass murderers like Cho are rational sane people. They wake up in the morning and say, "Gee, where is a local gun free zone where I can go massacre 33 people and then blow my brains out? Gosh, maybe my local university is the perfect place for my crime spree!" Perhaps it never occured to the gun nuts that people like Cho are CRAZY and they do not think things through in a rational manner. If someone has a gun and wants to shoot you, they are probably crazy and disturbed enough not to think twice about laws and regulations.

And that kind of gets to the heart of it. These are the same people who support the war in Iraq and think that everyone is just like them. Many of them are very strong law-and-order types and are law abiding citizens themselves. They simply are so narrow minded and naive that they can't imagine that there are people out there in the world who don't respect law and order and who don't think things through like they do. Of course, they think they are rational and sensible in their argument, but they are obviously insane. Why do they really want to own guns so bad?

There's a lot of great information at the Brady Campaign website as well.

4. Right to carry laws deter crime
Again, this would be true in gun nut country, where everyone spent all their time polishing and cleaning their guns on their front porch, waiting, just waiting, for anyone to step on their front porch so they can shoot them. John Lott & David Mustard did a famous study that claimed to show that concealed-carry reduced crimes. Yes, they did -- in rural Florida! Read this rebuttal if you're motivated.

5. Bigotry and gun owners
Most gun owners are white, Republican men who live in the South and West. Do you know why they really want a gun? Because they are scared a black man will do them harm. These people still have pre-Civil war attitudes towards minorities, especially blacks, and view gun ownership as their only protection. These are the people who would wear white hoods in public if they could. They believe in lynching, the death penalty, and the right to life. They are incoherent, they are evil, and they need to be stopped. The same logic that has 1000's of innocent black men on death row getting killed is the same logic that has us in Iraq, and it's the logic of the right wing gun nut. As pointed out in previous posts, most gun nuts also live in counties that receive heavy federal subsidies for farming. They all live off of the fat that really comes from the gun industry. Gun companies give to congress and congress gives back to their constituencies. Follow the money and see for yourself.

Conclusion: The gun industry is dying, as most gun owners are old and dying. The gun companies know that the illegal arms trade is a huge source of their billions of dollars of revenue, and they, like all the other corporate American interests, will pay and pay and pay into the pockets of your elected officials to tap into Americans darkest side for their own profit.

Cellulosic Ethanol in LA

2007-04-17T15:05:00.000-07:00

An interesting article discussing the hopes and pitfalls of cellulosic ethanol right here in the US. Presents the upside of the product, which is largely that once we figure out how to break it down cheaply (the hard part), it can be made out of waste products (the easy part -- they're free).

time to transform

2007-04-17T12:14:00.001-07:00

IMG_1203.jpg, originally uploaded by fluxoneflickr.

about to transform into board mode for my first run in the wendy thompson area.

really earning your turns

2007-04-16T11:27:00.001-07:00

wendy thompson hut 048, originally uploaded by mr hombre.

This weekend I rented a split board (thanks Tree@Prior!!!) and really, really earned my turns making my way into (and up) the mountains by my own power.

Republican Defintion of Free Market

2007-03-13T12:06:00.001-07:00

For Republicans, "free" means tax money that comes from rich liberals with college degrees. Check it out:

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
Blue States lost $8916 per capita
Red States gained $8,499 per capita
Red states take in $17,415 more per capita than blue in Federal tax dollars

See Taxes paid by state, per capita.

Complete data on which states are giving and which states are taken to produce my above summary came from the Tax Foundation. Thanks.

Where the Pork Goes

2007-03-12T13:43:00.000-07:00

My overlay of the two maps is quite interesting . Basically shows that areas with the heaviest agricultural pork vote Republican -- so it's "welfare" when it goes to Democrats, and it's "helping America" when it goest to Republicans.

Map showing $ amount of farm subsidies received by county.

Map showing blue and red by county.

Conclusion: Red counties are enthralled with the welfare money provided to them by blue county voters via the Republican party. Write to your congress person and demand an end to farm subsidies now. Let the free market work. If Brazil can provide sugar-derived ethanol more cheaply than American farmers can provide it from corn, they should suffer the consequences and be incented to grow a crop that is profitable without you and me paying for it.

Dear Senator Grassley: get out of the way

2007-03-03T12:25:00.000-08:00

Dear Senator Grassley--

I was sad to read your comments in today's New York Times about the White House's latest intiative with Brazil. One of the fundamental values of the Republican party used to be that of free-market enterprise. As I'm sure you know, the Washington Post has been reporting on the record growth of farm subsidies, including $1.3 billion to people who don't farm.

Rather than trying to protect the corporate agriculture industry that has destroyed a true American way of life, I urge you to consider looking at non-corn-based ethanol alternatives that can bring back the American family farm. Any kind of cellulosic product, from sugar to switch grass to trees, can be grown quickly and cheaply and without federal subsidies.
The Republican party has become exactly what it was supposed to be against: a machine that siphons tax dollars away from tax payers and towards special interest groups. The only difference between Republicans and Democrats is who they give my tax money to -- because it sure isn't me.

This country is in danger of a financial catastrophe because we'be borrowed ourselves into oblivion to pay for the Medicare Drug benefit, billions in farm subisidies, a failed war in Iraq (instead of the promised war on terror), and tax cuts for the rich etc. Meanwhile most American tax payers do not benefit from any of these policies, and the recent volatility in the stock market highlights how vunerable we really are.

I say all of this because you are in a position to do something about it. Stop protecting your corporate benefactors from free market competition. Stop spending my tax dollars to prop up companies and business practices that can't survive the free market your party is supposed to stand for. Get out of the way of progress please.

What I'm listening to now

2007-03-02T19:27:00.000-08:00

Time flies right? I was listening to DJ Riz on KEXP and he played this incredibly smooth track, "Did I Do Wrong?" by one Clara Hill. Turns out King Britt produced it, duh. Off the chain. Off the chain. So another beatport session was born.

Between the Lines feat. Bajka - Bonobo
You've probably heard Bonobo if you've heard any downtempo beats in the last 5 years or so. This track really stands out with a deep 60's french crime heist orchestra vibe, re-worked into a hard Jay-Dee with jazz hits kind of vibe. Bajka has a perfect 60's but updated "these boots are made for walking" kind of vocal. High quality downtempo shows that there's always a time and place for good funky grooves that go beyond the ordinary. Perfect to get your set started, as the song itself goes from sparse and minimal, building up with a nice tambourine groove that feels like the tempo is going to pick up.

Did I Do Wrong (Original King Britt mix) - Clara Hill
I'm not usually a fan of the Sonar Kollectiv vibe outside of Jazzanova, as it feels like the line between intellectually powered elevator music has been crossed... but this is King Britt we're talking about. Ms. Hill has a fantastic soul voice, and King Britt's smokey sultry minimal groove is just... smoking! I got home from hearing this on the radio (thank you again Riz) and immediately gave Riz props for brightening my night and the airwaves. After days on end of terribly uninspired indie rock, hearing something like this just makes your week. This is the kind of track they would play at the Loft and just let it play the way they do. After 9 minutes you're still sad it's over. Very verbed out drums, pulsing electro 80s beats layered just behind them, some soft pads and Clara Hill's gorgeous voice. It all goes off once the crispy 808 hats come in, SIZZLA!

Restless Times feat. Stefan Leisering (Recloose Mix) - Clara Hill
Well of course I had to find out what else Ms. Hill was up to and I found this mix. One of Recloose's better mixes. Standard weirdness, but the balance of power lies in the funky houseish beat, syncopated sine wave bassline, and weird key hits. Good driving music.

Flickermood - Forss
This sounds like some guy went nuts with a sampler and Serrato and made this crazy cut up downtempo contraption. Walks the fine line between the bad side of Four Tet (i.e. too many noises and messy) and the good side -- beautiful chaos from a world that is right next to the everyday but just outside it.

quote of the day

2007-03-01T14:35:00.000-08:00

A reporter asked Tony Snow yesterday what the attack on the Bagram Air Base that targeted the vice president and killed at least 23 people said about the Taliban’s strength. “I’m not sure it says anything,” he replied.

http://select.nytimes.com/2007/02/28/opinion/28dowd.html

this is how we do

2007-02-28T23:55:00.001-08:00

IMG_0100, originally uploaded by mr hombre.

tearing up lines in revelstoke, aw yeah. back once again from the renegade master.

Brasil's Ethanol Story

2007-01-18T11:30:00.001-08:00

See my earlier blog entry for why I posted this...

April 10, 2006

With Big Boost From Sugar Cane, Brazil Is Satisfying Its Fuel Needs

By LARRY ROHTER

At the dawn of the automobile age, Henry Ford predicted that ''ethyl alcohol is the fuel of the future.'' With petroleum about $65 a barrel, President Bush has now embraced that view, too. But Brazil is already there.

This country expects to become energy self-sufficient this year, meeting its growing demand for fuel by increasing production from petroleum and ethanol. Already the use of ethanol, derived in Brazil from sugar cane, is so widespread that some gas stations have two sets of pumps, marked A for alcohol and G for gas.

In his State of the Union address in January, Mr. Bush backed financing for ''cutting-edge methods of producing ethanol, not just from corn but wood chips and stalks or switch grass'' with the goal of making ethanol competitive in six years.

But Brazil's path has taken 30 years of effort, required several billion dollars in incentives and involved many missteps. While not always easy, it provides clues to the real challenges facing the United States' ambitions.

Brazilian officials and scientists say that, in their country at least, the main barriers to the broader use of ethanol today come from outside. Brazil's ethanol yields nearly eight times as much energy as corn-based options, according to scientific data. Yet heavy import duties on the Brazilian product have limited its entry into the United States and Europe.

Brazilian officials and scientists say sugar cane yields are likely to increase because of recent research.

''Renewable fuel has been a fantastic solution for us,'' Brazil's minister of agriculture, Roberto Rodrigues, said in a recent interview in São Paulo, the capital of São Paulo State, which accounts for 60 percent of sugar production in Brazil. ''And it offers a way out of the fossil fuel trap for others as well.''

Here, where Brazil has cultivated sugar cane since the 16th century, green fields of cane, stalks rippling gently in the tropical breeze, stretch to the horizon, producing a crop that is destined to be consumed not just as candy and soft drinks but also in the tanks of millions of cars.

The use of ethanol in Brazil was greatly accelerated in the last three years with the introduction of ''flex fuel'' engines, designed to run on ethanol, gasoline or any mixture of the two. (The gasoline sold in Brazil contains about 25 percent alcohol, a practice that has accelerated Brazil's shift from imported oil.)

But Brazilian officials and business executives say the ethanol industry would develop even faster if the United States did not levy a tax of 54 cents a gallon on all imports of Brazilian cane-based ethanol.

With demand for ethanol soaring in Brazil, sugar producers recognize that it is unrealistic to think of exports to the United States now. But Brazilian leaders complain that Washington's restrictions have inhibited foreign investment, particularly by Americans.

As a result, ethanol development has been led by Brazilian companies with limited capital. But with oil prices soaring, the four international giants that control much of the world's agribusiness -- Archer Daniels Midland, Bunge and Born, Cargill and Louis Dreyfuss -- have recently begun showing interest.

Brazil says those and other outsiders are welcome. Aware that the United States and other industrialized countries are reluctant to trade their longstanding dependence on oil for a new dependence on renewable fuels, government and industry officials say they are willing to share technology with those interested in following Brazil's example.

''We are not interested in becoming the Saudi Arabia of ethanol,'' said Eduardo Carvalho, director of the National Sugarcane Agro-Industry Union, a producer's group. ''It's not our strategy because it doesn't produce results. As a large producer and user, I need to have other big buyers and sellers in the international market if ethanol is to become a commodity, which is our real goal.''

The ethanol boom in Brazil, which took off at the start of the decade after a long slump, is not the first. The government introduced its original ''Pro-Alcohol'' program in 1975, after the first global energy crisis, and by the mid-1980's, more than three quarters of the 800,000 cars made in Brazil each year could run on cane-based ethanol.

But when sugar prices rose sharply in 1989, mill owners stopped making cane available for processing into alcohol, preferring to profit from the hard currency that premium international markets were paying.

Brazilian motorists were left in the lurch, as were the automakers who had retooled their production lines to make alcohol-powered cars. Ethanol fell into discredit, for economic rather than technical reasons.

Consumers' suspicions remained high through the 1990's and were overcome only in 2003, when automakers, beginning with Volkswagen, introduced the ''flex fuel'' motor in Brazil. Those engines gave consumers the autonomy to buy the cheapest fuel, freeing them from any potential shortages in ethanol's supply. Also, ethanol-only engines can be slower to start when cold, a problem the flex fuel owners can bypass.

''Motorists liked the flex-fuel system from the start because it permits them free choice and puts them in control,'' said Vicente Lourenço, technical director at General Motors do Brasil.

Today, less than three years after the technology was introduced, more than 70 percent of the automobiles sold in Brazil, expected to reach 1.1 million this year, have flex fuel engines, which have entered the market generally without price increases.

''The rate at which this technology has been adopted is remarkable, the fastest I have ever seen in the motor sector, faster even than the airbag, automatic transmission or electric windows,'' said Barry Engle, president of Ford do Brasil. ''From the consumer standpoint, it's wonderful, because you get flexibility and you don't have to pay for it.''

Yet the ethanol boom has also brought the prospect of distortions that may not be as easy to resolve. The expansion of sugar production, for example, has come largely at the expense of pasture land, leading to worries that the grazing of cattle, another booming export product, could be shifted to the Amazon, encouraging greater deforestation.

Industry and government officials say such concerns are unwarranted. Sugar cane's expanding frontier is, they argue, an environmental plus, because it is putting largely abandoned or degraded pasture land back into production. And of course, ethanol burns far cleaner that fossil fuels.

Human rights and worker advocacy groups also complain that the boom has led to more hardships for the peasants who cut sugar cane.

''You used to have to cut 4 tons a day, but now they want 8 or 10, and if you can't make the quota, you'll be fired,'' said Silvio Donizetti Palvequeres, president of the farmworkers union in Ribeirão Preto, an important cane area north of here. ''We have to work a lot harder than we did 10 years ago, and the working conditions continue to be tough.''

Producers say that problem will be eliminated in the next decade by greater mechanization. A much more serious long-term worry, they say, is Brazil's lack of infrastructure, particularly its limited and poorly maintained highways.

Ethanol can be made through the fermentation of many natural substances, but sugar cane offers advantages over others, like corn. For each unit of energy expended to turn cane into ethanol, 8.3 times as much energy is created, compared with a maximum of 1.3 times for corn, according to scientists at the Center for Sugarcane Technology here and other Brazilian research institutes.

''There's no reason why we shouldn't be able to improve that ratio to 10 to 1,'' said Suani Teixeira Coelho, director of the National Center for Biomass at the University of São Paulo. ''It's no miracle. Our energy balance is so favorable not just because we have high yields, but also because we don't use any fossil fuels to process the cane, which is not the case with corn.''

Brazilian producers estimate that they have an edge over gasoline as long as oil prices do not drop below $30 a barrel. But they have already embarked on technical improvements that promise to lift yields and cut costs even more.

In the past, the residue left when cane stalks are compressed to squeeze out juice was discarded. Today, Brazilian sugar mills use that residue to generate the electricity to process cane into ethanol, and use other byproducts to fertilize the fields where cane is planted.

Some mills are now producing so much electricity that they sell their excess to the national grid. In addition, Brazilian scientists, with money from São Paulo State, have mapped the sugar cane genome. That opens the prospect of planting genetically modified sugar, if the government allows, that could be made into ethanol even more efficiently.

''There is so much biological potential yet to be developed, including varieties of cane that are resistant to pesticides and pests and even drought,'' said Tadeu Andrade, director of the Center for Sugarcane Technology. ''We've already had several qualitative leaps without that, and we are convinced there is no ceiling on productivity, at least theoretically.''

What I'm Listening to Now

2007-01-14T13:42:00.000-08:00

You should be able to get these tracks at any mp3 download site. Some are in iTunes, some are on Beatport. The theme of my selection is "something for everybody". I used to be one of those facist deep-house DJs that would only play one kind of music that drove everyone who wasn't high on something to tears of boredom. I quit DJ'ing for years, but recently have been getting back into buying music. With the dawn of pay-for-mp3 downloads, you can get access to the entire world's greatest record stores and pay $1-2 for just incredible tracks, without having to deal with asshole record store clerks. What could be better? These cuts are the kind of cuts you should be able to play for anyone who loves music and they will feel it, spanning genres and styles and adding great songwriting and tight production.

(Artist - Track - Album)

Tita Lima - Catatonica - 11:11
This is some seriously classy Brazilian pop music. Totally classy and clean without feeling anesthetized and non-threatening, this track features a seriously syncopated groove with a hip-hop backbone (that reminds me of Dr. John) that'll have you ready to be chilling in the shade on the beach with a caipirinha in no time. Subtle funky clav lines mesh with funk guitar and Brazilian percussion elements, and seamlessly blend into a more traditional electro-Samba chorus. There's a depth and soulfulness to this track that transcends the Ibiza chill-out lounge vibe that too many projects like this end up with.

Chicken Lips - Eggy's Pause Button (Idjut Boys remix) - You're Playing Dirty
This is part of a series of Chicken Lips tracks that were re-issued in small quantities with exclusive remixes in 2002 or so. Now with the wonder of internet mp3 downloads, every punter can get a piece. I love this amazing age of more accessible good music -- I hope it translates into more informed crowds ready to be taken on deeper journeys. Because it takes a more knowledgeable crowd to appreciate this out space disco dub found on this track. All the Chicken Lips elements are in place, but taken to the outer limits of some hashish fueled bliss out zone -- a brickish 70's dubby disco bassline, way dubbed out and delayed beats, and unidentifiable chick vocals way back in the mix. You could rock this at 4am for a seriously niced up crowd, or you can just pass out to it afterwards.

Circus - I Know You EP
This whole EP is just off the chain funky, and has a little something for everyone's forward-looking tastes. The original mix features Lyrics L, the female MC who blew the lid off of Seiji's "Loose Lips" cut back in '02, along with Bugz' MC Motet. This track is definitely on a similar wavelength as "Loose Lips", but it's a little deeper and layered. There's a more moody tension between dark and light in this track, but what a lot of blah blah blah, it's dancefloor broken beat that will drive any dancer into a frenzy with its pumped beat and killer MC styles. This track is enough to sell the whole thing, but then you also get the Inverse Cinematics remix, which is as funky as the original mix. This is more of a super deep techy house track, with some Dego-ish keys and an absolute rumbler trouser-rattler bassline that doesn't quit. But wait, there's more! You also get "Signs", which is a quality rub up of soulful brokeny beats, with some great vocals from L'enfant Terrible. This track can work in the lounge or on the dancefloor and further highlights the skills of the Circus crew.

Headman - It Rough feat. Tara - It Rough
Headman - On and On feat. Tara - On
Definitely on the same wavelength as the Chicken Lips vibe, but with some very ESG-ish vocals on top, if the girls from ESG had nicer vocals. Dubby deep disco. "It Rough" is the more straightforward track, while "On and On" features the more funky and driving sound that is very "Downtown 81" but updated. Bits of "Eye of the Tiger" guitar way in the back with a dubby disco bassline and vocals that are vaguely reminiscent of what A Certain Ratio would sound like with a chick vocal. Both of them will let you get your '80s on without feeling like a snarling but non-threatening remake of shit old people like me remember dimly from elementary school.

Freaky Flow - Same Thing - Smell the Glove
Freaky Flow - Say It With Me feat. Ylook - Smell the Glove
T Dot's own Freaky Flow has been representing the world-famous T.O. drum 'n bass sound ever since I can remember. Thankfully I didn't know that before checking this out, where I was surprised with some really quality deep tracks that transcend genre with their soul. "Same Thing" is a really innovative track that feels very smart, informed by classic house song writing, a bit of 80's electro in the back of the beat, and it sounds like the producer has also been keeping up with the latest broken beat rythym programming styles. The result is a unique yet very accessible soulful cut for all crowds that you won't feel guilty about. Along those same lines, "Say It With Me" is your classic Mary-style hip-hop beat with sultry R&B vocals. The use of the Headhunter's break that you've heard many times before is done in a new way, the the TO MC stylings give the track a unique feel. As my girlfriend said, "Why is it so hard to find good R&B that isn't corny?" This track kind of answers that question, as hitting that sweet spot between pop hook and cheese can be really tough and not many do it as well as this track does.

Jesse Rose and Rob Mello - Do Ya Wanna - More Than One
Just some classic tech-house dopeness with a sexy vocal, great pulsing square wave bass, and analoguey keys.

Trevor Loveys - Outside In EP
I didn't realize that this guy was one half of "House of 909", but it figures he's been in the game for that long, because this is some of the most well-produced dance music I've ever heard. Incredibly lush production, amazing effects, and beat programming that'll knock your socks off. There's something here for everybody once again. The Sinbad remix of "Sambooka" is just totally off the chain with very 50's funky mamba horns, heavy duty percussion groove, a broken style backbeat, some funk guitar -- the kind of stuff chicks just love because they know it's so funky! Never mind that it's some of the most innovative and fun dance music I've heard in a while -- they don't care! The ring modulator or vocoded or whatever weirdness keyboard bit in the middle of the track is so out and funky and innovative. But on top of that, you get a slew of other great tracks to go with. The original mix of Sambooka is just as good as the remix, but places a lot more emphasis on the percussion, the guitar lick, and the very funky bassline. A trippier and more minimal mix that is for more advanced crowds. Then you also get "Strange But Not", a very funky techy track that has the feel of John Tejada but is more musical. The Max Fresh remix gives it more of a broken beat feel and is the more accessible of the two. Very tasty. You also get a nice little downtempo track, "Nobody" to round out this very strong release.

If assholes could fly...

2006-12-21T14:38:00.000-08:00

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.

Education

2006-12-16T14:00:00.000-08:00

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.

Why it's ok to make fun of rednecks

2006-11-16T15:23:00.000-08:00

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.

maybe if they were paying for it...

2006-11-16T12:55:00.000-08:00

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.

short sands

2006-08-22T23:49:00.000-07:00

short sands 023
Originally uploaded by mr hombre.

surfing the pacific northwest is core baby!

gun man 023

2006-07-23T02:36:00.000-07:00

gun man 023
Originally uploaded by mr hombre.

blow blow! like a dungeon dragon. niggas be seein purple hearts and orange clovers, it's all over.

decked

2006-07-09T17:53:00.000-07:00

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...

thoughts on american's eating

2006-06-30T18:47:00.000-07:00

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

...is not prison

2006-06-20T22:22:00.000-07:00

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.

don't lose faith

2006-06-20T21:00:00.000-07:00

van 037
Originally uploaded by mr hombre.

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.

oink oink oink, piggies at the trough

2006-06-15T13:33:00.000-07:00

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?

Canada, where the rule of law still governs the land

2006-06-07T10:07:00.000-07:00

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.

2006-05-29T23:42:00.000-07:00

Using waste products to produce ethanol

2006-05-24T15:12:00.000-07:00

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.

it's not all a shitburger sandwich

2006-05-23T23:49:00.000-07:00

IMG_0078.JPG
Originally uploaded by mr hombre.

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.

But you heard it here first

2006-05-01T19:30:00.000-07:00

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.

Chutzpah without the Laughs

2006-04-25T13:54:00.000-07:00

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!

humans have worse effect on life than plutonium

2006-04-20T23:31:00.000-07:00

Just to point out to those who haven't noticed what is happening to our planet, a positive example is showing when humans are removed from the equation what good things happen...
In the highly radioactive zone around Chernobyl, wildlife, regardless of the radioactive mutations that have occured in their DNA, are flourishing.
mainly due to the fact there is "no herbicide or pesticide, no industry, no traffic, and marshlands are no longer being drained." The radioactivity has forced us to allow nature to do its thing. Is this what it takes to promote the earths biodiversity?

northwest mist

2006-04-09T22:04:00.000-07:00

northwest mist
Originally uploaded by mr hombre.

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.

Nathan Writes back and I discover the difference between Conservatives and everyone else

2006-04-06T14:11:00.000-07:00

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.

A letter to the National Review

2006-04-05T14:04:00.000-07:00

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.

Riding the Shuksan Arm

2006-04-03T15:17:00.000-07:00

IMG_0015.JPG
Originally uploaded by mr hombre.

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.

hoh rain forest

2006-03-27T21:47:00.000-08:00

017_14.JPG
Originally uploaded by mr hombre.

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.

dropping the crystal backcountry

2006-03-27T17:36:00.000-08:00

IMG_8994
Originally uploaded by mr hombre.

i wish this was a better photo but you get the idea...

A Letter to David Brooks

2006-03-26T12:02:00.000-08:00

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.

Sen. Richard Lugar (R-IN) calls energy "the albatross of U.S. national security"

2006-03-23T12:27:00.000-08:00

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.

The Five Years Ago Game

2006-03-22T11:04:00.000-08:00

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.

War Demands Sacrifice

2006-03-22T10:32:00.000-08:00

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:

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.

Tax and Spend vs. Don't Tax and Spend More

2006-03-16T13:24:00.000-08:00

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.

Ethanol News

2006-03-14T14:40:00.000-08:00

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):

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

2006-03-14T00:14:00.000-08:00

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.

Cellulose Ethanol

2006-03-10T13:03:00.000-08:00

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 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:

still finding fresh at red

2006-02-22T14:17:00.000-08:00

still finding fresh at red
Originally uploaded by mr hombre.

Just got back from an epic trip riding Red Mountain in Rossland, BC, and snowmobiling in Revelstoke, BC. Check the vibe.

Thomas Friedman, again

2006-02-09T12:59:00.000-08:00

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 Â 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 Â OPEC Â 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 Â 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 Â fuel made from sugar or corn Â 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 Â an end to America's oil addiction Â 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.

The 2 Biggest Threats to America (aside from King Bush II)

2006-02-04T13:26:00.000-08:00

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!

Congress cuts entirlement spending... but keeps entitling friends

2006-02-02T14:41:00.000-08:00

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

In the meantime, Congress cut $39 Billion in entitlement programs while keeping tax cuts for the rich...

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

An email to Ted Koppel

2006-01-29T12:47:00.000-08:00

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.

"It's Very Carefully Done"

2006-01-25T18:54:00.000-08:00

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!

Feminism Now

2006-01-24T14:42:00.000-08:00

Check out this amusing thread between me and my dear friends at Ghetto Bitch HQ.

make love like a pair of black wizards

2006-01-23T16:57:00.000-08:00

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.

Democrats: Get a Platform (save time, I made one for you)

2006-01-22T12:54:00.000-08:00

Real Results, now, no spin required

International Leadership

Sensible Economic Policy

Raise the bar in education, and not with tests

Let the States decide on divisive social issues

Real Energy Policy

Healthcare

Protect the Environment

National Security

Make big commitments and deliver. Make people expect more, not less.

Democracy Now Rules

2006-01-19T19:39:00.000-08:00

I love my radical left radio -- especially when it truly presents a balanced, professional newscast. While no right-wingers would be able to sit still during this broadcast, the tone of the program is objective news journalism. Amy Goodman is articulate, intelligent, calm, and even-handed. As often as possible, representatives from all points of views are presented on the program. If Human Rights Watch makes a statement, they broadcast Scott McClellan's response (which is usually so absolutely absurd, no commentary is necessary). Check these links:

http://www.democracynow.org/
http://www.craigmurray.org.uk/index.html
http://www.bushcommission.org/

The IRS is out to get you

2006-01-17T13:43:00.000-08:00

But only if you're poor... Check this now!

http://trac.syr.edu/tracirs/latest/current/

mo' money, mo' problems

2006-01-12T15:45:00.000-08:00

yeah it's all epistolary today... a letter written to an old friend who asked how was i doing.

as for how i'm doing… it's a mixed bag. having money ultimately gives you more choices in life, but one's day-to-day experience of living is no better and no worse than it was when i was broke. it's just a different set of problems, arguably more complex and irritating ones. i think the idea is that when you have money, you are to pay other people to deal w/ your problems (heh, like a shrink! though i was thinking more of lawyers and those people you can hire in nyc to do anything for you). i feel like my life consists entirely of calling 1-800 numbers and filling out forms. i feel passionless -- but when i wasn't working, i was depressed from having no money. it feels like you can't win. i want to live in a thatched hut on an island and get really weird.

actually, kiona and i both share a dream of living on some acreage in costa rica or something like that. that sounds like one of those things you say when you have a desk job that you're never going to actually do.

so aside from the usual existential crisis about the worth of how i'm spending my time, i'm good. i never, ever thought i would be as good a coder as i've become. i've learned so much from this job and i'm so much more effective, precise, and thorough than i've ever been. i'm getting towards mastery. i suspect if i can survive another couple of years doing this, i will master it, and then my work will take up a lot less time and energy, and i can spend my days calling 1-800 numbers and filling out forms, instead of my nights.

i just bought a new PC exclusively for the purpose of playing games. jk has been filling me in on what to play. i'm sure many doctoral thesises are being written about battlefield 2.

i suppose given that the majority of my blood has russian roots, i should give up on being a shiny happy person and just continue to polish my cynical jokes. i'm doing this mentoring program where i work with 9th graders in seattle's worst high schools. it's one of the hardest, most demanding things i've ever done. but it's been interesting -- not so much the kids, i kind of knew what to expect there -- but the other mentors. i do sometimes think david lynch has it right, we need to just get 8,000 people going om around the world more regularly. the lack of experience i see in the other mentors with the nature of being human is shocking, and it's nice to see people put themselves in a context, like mentoring high school kids, that forces them to stare more deeply into the abyss.

she writes back:

mo' money, mo' problems, eh?

there are more than 8000 people OMing right now, so it takes a few more than that, so join them often. I do it a half hour each day but need to up the ante during these troubled times. and plenty of desk jockeys do bugger off to costa rica or the blackberry farm or the himalayas -- only rich people can afford to be poor in the old ways -- so if that's what you want put your energy toward it... anyway I want the acreage too and so do most people in their right minds, so don't just "share the dream" but make the plan.

Where's the American Edict of Nantes?

2006-01-12T15:32:00.000-08:00

I gotta say, I outdid myself on this one. In response to this David Brooks editorial:

To the Editor--

Mr. Brooks takes the current debate over Alito into the context of the great divide of the Democratic party that happened in post-FDR, civil rights-era America. I'm tired of this conversation. The Democratic party of Ted Kennedy has little to no relationship with the concerns of today's young people. I'm taking a bold step and speaking for the many people under 40 that I know who long for the days of Republicans who wanted smaller government and fiscal responsibility, who made the odd tip of the hat to the right wing lunatic fringe to grab some extra votes. I'd take 80's Republicans over 00's (naughties?) Democrats any day -- at least they had a governing policy for me to agree or disagree with.

Most people would characterize my views, much like my idol Foucault's, as ranging from the highly radical to the highly reactionary. Many of my peers share this characteristic. We are university educated white collar professionals, and we feel that reality TV has more substance and depth than today's Washington, D.C. We are totally disenfranchised. We're sick of baby boomers rehashing the struggles of the 60's and passing that off as political debate. We see right through all the song and dance, the dog and pony show. We show our interest in this 2 party system quite plainly: we don't vote. Whether you're talking about the Clinton White House, Bush II (who'll never write this country's much-needed Edict of Nantes), or Reagan, the White House has been driven by pure cash money politics since at least 1980, while all the conversation has covered low-impact wedge issues that make a poor substitute for real policy. I for one am sick of it. I'm sick of baby boomers with their stupid culture wars while the country goes to hell. I'm sick of living in an empire where the legislature consists of ineffective knee-jerk whiners and bellicose imperial servants. Most of all, I'm sick of the never ending self-centeredness of baby boomers who are all yelling at each other in the kitchen, soccer mom vs. liberal elite, while the terrorists set-up base camp in our frontlawn, using all the toys and techniques we gave them and taught them for the last 20 years. Is it going to take 9/11 part 2 for this country to wake up and get real?

Blood-ties vs. Armies

2006-01-06T13:35:00.000-08:00

The Imperative of military organization. I was just sitting at my desk chuckling, thinking about how the work that has taken up the last 2 months of my time has served many purposes for my employer. One of the purposes seems to be to emphasize the need my company has for my department. In large corporate bureaucracies, managers are a lot like samurai seeking to curry favor with the local daimyo, mafia street soldiers looking to rise up the ranks by earning, etc.

I don't blame my boss for doing what he has to do. In fact, I am thankful that he has consistently worked to create work for me and my co-workers to do. Our group has gone from being a glorified operations team that mostly tracks and fixes bugs, to a team that owns services from top to bottom. We own the machines, we monitor them, we fool around with the logs, we get paged at 2am if they break, etc. Soon, our services will, like a tree planting roots, become an integral part of the corporate ecosphere. We will be absorbed, borg-like, having achieved that most crucial of corporate achievements: we will be a dependency.

My boss' managers don't say to him, "how can I help you do you work?" but they say, "what work are you doing for me that gives me something to say to my boss?" What kick-back have you provided that our clan can contribute to the clan boss? The unique and interesting thing about corporate America is that we use military methodology to achieve our aims. Using bio-technology, which Foucault would consider a bio-power, a forming and sculpting, a shaping of the body and mind via repeated, precise motions and thoughts, corporations extract ever-increasing productivity out of their employees. This is fine, I'm not judging it. A corporation's job is to make money, and it means I have a job, and maybe one day I can start my own company and get in on the action.

I never understood why Foucault was so interested in the metaphor of war in his lectures in "Society Must Be Defended". It seemed really abstract. But when I had my little a-ha moment about why I am doing what I'm doing these days at work, it all kind of clicked. I think the bit about war stemmed naturally from his studies in Discipline and Punish, where he first elucidates the spread of the military disciplinary techniques to all western institutions: school, work, hospital, etc.

I have also been thinking about this topic in another light. I was reading this article this morning, and I'm also reading Robert Baer's See No Evil. I've talked about this before, but think about it in this context I've just written about. Westerners have a lot of trouble thinking about organizational entities in terms outside the bounds of a military-like hierarchical structure, for whom existence is in and of itself of value. Let me try to put it another way: it seems to me that westerners view the creation of institutions or groups is an inherent good, and further more, one of their reasons for being is simply to be. Growing in size, acquiring more "power", responsibility, etc. These are why groups form in the western view. That is, they are like armies, seeking to grow in size and power, to be able to conquer other armies.

Presently we are more refined in our militaristic practice. But the culture of bio-power, of using military training techniques to sculpt the minds and bodies of all people, has become transparent -- that is to say, it is everywhere around us, such that it has become invisible. It is like sunlight. I've been thinking about this in the context of Iraq. I think there are plenty of lower-level government agents and officials, like Robert Baer, who would be able to engage in this conversation, correcting my incorrect history, etc. -- but grasping the concept. But all we ever see in the papers is quotes from big Generals who say things like, "Well the Al Qaeda's were utilizing what we call an IED dependent counter-counter insurgent tactical strike operation, designed to weaken our point of presense on the enemy's periphery." They think of it as a tactical organization that exists for the sake of existing, whose goal is to exist as a militaristic concentration of power.

They have never dealt with people who have never been exposed to the bio-power conditioning techniques of the west. They can't conceive of the family, the bloodline, and the neighborhood as the central tenants of a group. Outside the West (Mexico in this case is not the West), it's all about family. Who's your cousin, who did she marry? What neighborhood are you from? It's about the power of the word and the bond. The reason individuals partake in the struggle is that something close to their heart is threatened. Their family, their neighborhood, etc. They don't care about forming an army and conquering. Someone has committed a sin -- like the American heathens have invaded -- and they need to be punished, which usually means getting killed. The whole idea and methodology of terrorism is born out of a community that is not just underequipped, I think they are wholly uninterested in empire-building, at least in the Western sense of it. They are not interested in the Roman style of conquest. I need to formulate this theory more thoroughly.

Products in this article:

The 22nd Amendment

2006-01-05T15:43:00.000-08:00

RE: No More Second-Term Blues

To the Editor--

In light of today's White House, which adheres to the law only when it is so inclined, I view the 22nd amendment as one of the few safeguards against a complete dictatorship in the US. I hardly think it would raise an eyebrow to hear Dick Cheney say, "The President needs to be remain in office indefinitely in the interests of national security and the war on terrorism." (Maybe that's what Bob Ney and Tom DeLay were thinking when they were taking kickbacks from Jack Abromoff too!) I think this is one of the worst ideas I have ever seen in the Op-Ed pages. What we really need is more of a parliamentary-style "vote of no confidence" instead of term limits, so that we could recall our current President right now rather than have to hope that we don't start WWIII before he leaves office.

Better Writers Than Me

2006-01-03T13:02:00.000-08:00

"There is a clear, unambiguous law, and the President did not obey it. That equals illegal, whatever his reasons. The President's assertion -- that he is qualified and entitled to assess the applicability of the law and to ignore it at will -- is the only relevant question."

Read it all here.

the gnar lines

2005-12-30T13:34:00.000-08:00

the gnar lines
Originally uploaded by mr hombre.

Mt. Baker is back, friends. Yes, me and somes bros (dudes you ride with are bros) shredded up some secret hikable lines at the mecca. It was foot-deep. Rocks, drops, trees, and holes. Yes, we shredded the gnar. I broke the LCD screen of my camera riding with it in my breast pocket, but it still takes pix like what you see here. Small price to pay for these turns.

The Hold Steady

2005-12-27T23:02:00.000-08:00

I want to like the first Hold Steady album I'm checking out, "Separation Sunday". All the bands I've ever really loved grew on me -- they weren't always love at first site. The singer reminds me uncannily of the older brother of one of my best friends from high school. The voice of Bob Mould, speaking the words Elvis Costello never wrote, with Soul Asylum and the Replacements filling in as the backing band. With that combo, how can I not want to love them? The talking thing doesn't really work all the time for me, but when it works, it's quite brilliant, as found on "Your Hoodrat Friend". Sample lyric from that great tune: "because it burns being broke and it hurts to be heartbroken but always being both must be a drag."

Unwarranted Complaints?

2005-12-27T19:04:00.000-08:00

RE: unwarranted Complaints. Only former Bush I and Reagan soldiers would have the chutzpah to declare public outrage about domestic spying "the only thing outrageous" about the whole issue.

The major points:
1. The Bush administration has lost its credibility due to the many claims it has made since 9/11 that have proved to be, at best, false, and at worst, nihilistic fabrication by demented idealogues.
2. The Bush Administration (and Mr. Rivkin and Mr. Casey claim) claims it needs to be able to "act on information" instantly, without the need to wait for FISA approval. The problem is that since the Administration has proved so adept at "producing" information without any oversight by seasoned experts (the White House Iraq Group comes to mind), they have lost the faith of the American people that are capable of conducting intelligence gather activity.
3. Intelligence gathering is important, but it is hard and doesn't produce concrete measurable results. Or if it does, it's top secret, which in this Administration usually means money changed hands. There are some really basic things we can do to GUARANTEE an increase in safety and security that all of us can see with our own eyes, like imposing security requirements on chemical manufacturers. I've been ranting on this point for months, and it was highly ironic that right next to Mr. Rivkin and Mr. Casey's article was the NYT editorial saying, "Time For Chemical Plant Security."

Conclusion: arguing about the legality of domestic spying, or the seemingly endless need for more executive power, is to miss the point: the Administration has no integrity, they have a poor track record with regards to intelligence, both in gathering it and using it, and they are neglecting other far more tangible problems that can increase security right now. Therefore, the reason many of us are upset is that we remain convinced that the Bush Administration is more interested in furthering its own need for power to satisfy whatever strange vision they have for the world, than in protecting us from attack. This Administration has repeatedly shown it is more interested in grand, sweeping, ideologically-driven gestures than in pragmatic governance; it has repeatedly shown it contempt for expert analysis, and has consistently acted against the advice of grown-ups. And the American taxpayer is footing the bill while Dick and Rummy's big adventure goes "uh-oh". The apologists need to realize that they don't understand the conversation taking place. Of course, at the end of the day, I think the real conversation boils down to "Fuck you you fucking fuck!"
"No, fuck YOU you fucking FUCK FUCK."

WHIG: " THIS is what Col. Lawrence Wilkerson, then-Secretary of State Colin Powell's wartime chief of staff, was talking about last week when he publicly chastised the ''Cheney-Rumsfeld cabal'' for sowing potential disaster in Iraq, North Korea and Iran. It's this cabal that in 2002 pushed for much of the bogus W.M.D. evidence that ended up in Mr. Powell's now infamous February 2003 presentation to the U.N. It's this cabal whose propaganda was sold by the war's unannounced marketing arm, the White House Iraq Group, or WHIG, in which both Mr. Libby and Mr. Rove served in the second half of 2002. One of WHIG's goals, successfully realized, was to turn up the heat on Congress so it would rush to pass a resolution authorizing war in the politically advantageous month just before the midterm election."

The letter I wrote to the times (which they never publish) went like this:

To the Editor:

I don't think Mr. Rivkin and Mr. Casey understand why people are upset
about recent revelations of the NSA's domestic spying. They say,
"even the administration's sternest critics do not deny the compelling
need to collect intelligence." It's not about whether there's a
compelling need. It's about priorities and a failed track record.

Right now, the Administration is prioritizing spying over taking more
tangible steps -- with a guarantee of results, unlike spying -- to
protect Americans. More tangible things like (as noted in that day's
editorial) protecting chemical plants, ports, public transit, etc. As
for the White House track record, this Administration has a lousy one
when it comes to intelligence. At best, they have proven incompetent
when it comes to procuring and analyzing intelligence effectively. At
worst, the zeal for information led to a doomed war that was poorly
planned and poorly executed.

Based on this track record, I fail to see why we should let the
President have even more leeway when it comes to spying. Without
safeguards to prevent J. Edgar Hoover-style political subterfuge,
domestic spying is a very dangerous and corruptible responsibility --
one that I highly doubt this Administration is capable of maintaining.

This Administration needs adult supervision, and going through a
process with some inclination toward transparency might make it easier
to sell the idea of Democracy to an understandably sceptical crowd.

Unable to Govern at any level

2005-12-26T12:57:00.000-08:00

We've witnessed the incompetence of the Bush Administration in many places, from Iraq to Katrina. By appointing cronies and like-minded idealogues into positions of responsibility, the Bush adminstration has created a government that is unable to govern. The latest example comes from decisions made by the Ashcroft Justive Department in 2002 with regards to the size and function of the Board of Immigration. Natually, a New York Times article inspired this diatribe. Quoted text comes from the article unless otherwise indicated.

The Board of Immigration had a large backlog of cases in 2002, so Mr. Ashcroft "hacked off all the liberals," reducing the number of judges on the board to 11 from 23. The net effect, as pointed out in the article, was a massive increase in the number of immigration appeals, which end up in Federal Circuit court. The implication of the article is that since the Board has become stacked with incompetent conservative non-rubber stampers, far more applicants are being forced to appeal their case to even have it reviewed by a person with any qualification to perform such a review. The Board is no longer performing a useful function, as it is denying more applications and not providing and written documentation to explain its decisions, in the name of "expediting" the process, due to a large backlog. This has effectively eliminated the utility and purpose of the board, which is now bueacratic way-station as opposed to a valuable institution. Decisions are now foisted upon Federal judges who actually are compelled to analyze the cases and write opinions. The Board was not performing and useful function, and yet the Justive Department's immigration review office said, "the surge in federal appeals is not related to the board's increased number of decisions [denials], but the rate of appeal."

Classic meaningless Bush-speak. They are saying the rate of appeals is increasing because it is increasing. I.e., our useless incompetence and poor decision making have nothing to do with it. Nothing that happens in any Bush-league office is ever their fault. Nothing is ever explained. No one is ever taken to task. No one is accountable in this Administration. The only thing that matters is mindlessly following the boss' instructions. The immigration judges decisions were described like this: "The tone, the tenor, the disparagement, and the sarcasm of the I.J. [immigration judge] seem more appropriate to a court television show than a federal court proceeding."

This is what you get when the country is being run by a theocratic oligarchy, where the most important leadership positions are filled by incompetent idealogues like Ashcroft or Gonzales. Later today I think I'll draw a chart showing the differences (there are very, very few) between Bush and Osama.

Item	Bush	Osama
Comes from a privileged background of oil wealth	X	X
Believes they are a messenger of God devliering justice to the infidels	whereby justice = democracy or death	whereby justice = plain old death
Flouts international law and the Geneva conventions	X	X
Believes civilian casualties are acceptable	Do you know how many Iraqi civilians have died in this conflict?	X
Believes you're either with us or against us	X	X

I could go on and on, but the point is that both men are from wealthy backgrounds and believe the ends justifys the means in their psuedo-religious crusade that is really about money and power.

It's about the law

2005-12-25T15:50:00.000-08:00

I don't want to see this country ever go across the bridge. I know the capacity that is there to make tyranny total in America, and we must see to it that this agency [the NSA] and all agencies that possess this technology operate within the law and under proper supervision, so that we never cross over that abyss. That is the abyss from which there is no return."

--Senator Frank Church, 1975

What Bush and his supporters don't seem to understand is that the kerfuffle around domestic spying has nothing to do with its effectiveness. There is no doubt that the NSA is highly qualified to data mine phone and internet communications to look for clues, and that by so doing, they may be able to uncover a terrorist plot. The issue is that it is against the laws of the country to do, as they currently stand. The Administration's rebuttal to this argument, which goes something along the lines of, "yeah but we need to do this," doesn't work. What is the difference between the US and a dictatorship? The rule of law applies here, not the rule of men. Bush, Cheney, Gonzales, all seem to have lost sight that if we do not follow the law, and if our government agencies and executors are not held accountable to the law, then we are a lawless nation, no better than a bunch of nomads in the desert. In other words, the terrorists have already started winning.

I also must point out that this whole exercise is drawing crucial attention away from the far more concrete steps that need to be taken to actually protect this country: securing ports, inspecting containers, securing public transit, etc., all things I've mentioned here before. Why is the White House so enamored of spying than actually doing anything resembling concrete action? The flubbed the invasion of Iraq, they failed miserably in post-Katrina recovery efforts, they can't even get the oil flowing in Iraq. They can't protect our cities and their denizens. But they can cut taxes for the rich, cut Medicaid... This is a party that is useless at the art of governing and administering to the needs of their constituents. They are incompetent idealogues, and it is a travesty that only in the last year has the mainstream public begun to catch on that they've been had.

Letter to Senator Cantwell

2005-12-22T11:51:00.000-08:00

Dear Senator Cantwell--

I'm writing to thank you for taking a bold stand on the recent passage of the Defense appropriations bill. It highlights how broken our Congressional appropriations process is. Your colleague Adam Smith was on KUOW this morning talking about this process, and how appropriations are approved without anyone knowing what is actually being approved.

I invite you to take this opportunity to further your courageous stand against special interests and federal handouts to large corporations. I'd like to know what steps you are considering such that Congress can reclaim control over the budget from the military, the White House, special interests, and large corporations.

Democrats must send a bold, concise, and coherent message to voters that they are acting to protect them from special interests and federal largesse to large corporations. This means keeping our own house tidy as well. I'm sure there is a lot of incentive on your part to lobby for whatever pork Washington state is getting via military projects going to Boeing. But ultimately, funding for failed projects like Future Combat Systems amount to backdoor welfare -- if we are only able to create jobs via porky military projects, it means we need to fix the real problem -- job creation in a competitive market.

Your work on environmental issues shows that not only do you care about the environment, but that you see the business potential of green energy. It is inevitable that the entire country will need to go green if the human race is to avoid extinction. Therefore, we ought to be at the forefront of all the business to be done providing the country with expertise, manufacturing, technology, etc. Maybe I am just advocating for pork that is more beneficial to tax payers, delivering higher value than something so odious as Future Combat Systems.

I can not resist the temptation to mention that it is shameful that FCS is going to cost taxpayers upwards of $1 trillion dollars, while failing to deliver results. Actually, the Pentagon is happy to admit that FCS is a flop, but it somehow keeps getting more funding. Meanwhile, troops in Iraq are still missing adequate armor, vehicles are getting junked from heavy use, recruitment is down, etc.

Please continue to lead the charge. It is embarrassing and somewhat outrageous that Democrats have not been able to wage an effective attack against the endless litany of egregious Republican behavior, from stealing (Abramoff), lying (WMD), spying, bribing, gerrymandering, etc. Please don't pull a Hillary and shoot for the middle of the road. Please tell it like it is.

Thanks
Steve Shapero

The Joggers Rule, and some positive ideas for progression

2005-12-18T22:55:00.000-08:00

First things first, you NEED to get this album now. It's also available on the iTunes Music store as well. It's by the Joggers, I heard them on KEXP. It sounds like members of Q and not U and Rodan decided to get together and make a brilliant album. It has the loose feel and messy sound of the former with just enough of the form and complexity of the latter to keep you hooked. Speaking of hooks, it's got plenty of pop hooks, lurking behind some unexpected corner, keeping me listening. Gotta have hooks.
NYT article of the day: Matt Bai suggest that much as GM's ossification as a 20th century industrial giant mirrors the ossification of the Democratic party. The latter's inability to offer much-needed change to sacred cow programs like social security is in synch with GM's inability to design a car that people want to buy despite the writing on the wall. Both are stuck in the previous century's rigid bueacratic mindset and have not embraced business 2.0 like Wal*Mart has. Like it or hate it, the world has changed. Deal or become irrelevant.
The endless chicanery, lying, and cheating of the Republican party should have the Dems (or please dear God a third party) winning every local election, but I don't think anyone's noticed that the GOP is Business 2.0 and the rest of them aren't. They are results oriented, and responsive to customers. That's why Bill O'Reilly talks about Christmas to show he's Christian, instead of donating all his wealth to the starving children of the world or calling attention to massacres. Thanks to Thomas Friedman for making the point so much more elequently than I have been able to do thus far. While all these assholes are clawing their way to the top of the holier-than-thou heap, they are the least Christian amongst us.
Bob Herbert also outlines a much more polite list of White House sins.

Spying is more fun than working

2005-12-18T13:46:00.000-08:00

Summary: Why is the White House so obsessed with spying on Americans, when the real reason the 9/11 attackers succeeded in slipping through our borders were:

1. Poor communication between different government agencies?
2. The administration consistently ignored warnings by top security advisors of the threat Osama posed
3. The administration wanted to go to war in Iraq, part neo-con fantasy and part oil grab.

Spying is the least of our worries. The present illegal and unconstitutional spying game has yet to produce any tangible results. The US has failed to foil any real terrorist attacks, while the administration relentlessly tells bald-faced lies about their efficacy.

"In the war on terror, we cannot afford to be without this law [Patriot Act] for a single moment," Mr. Bush said forcefully. Yet with the current spy imbroglio, the Administration has once again shown its patent disregard for the law in its search to fulfill its paranoid fantasies. Alberto Gonzales, the infamous torture apologist and current attorney General, claims that the spying and prying provisions of the USA Patriot Act include safeguards -- but what good are they if the Administration feels it is their perogative to ignore the legal process -- which is already a rubber stamp secret court that does nothing but provide a paper trail.

In the meantime, what have we done to secure our ports? Secure our public transit systems? Secure freight train lines (like the 2nd Ave. elevated track that routinely transports chemicals less than a mile from the US Capital building), protect us from chemical attacks, provide adequate support for rapid responders (anyone remember the Katrina fiasco)?

Why is it SO important to be able to spy if there is no concrete action taken to protect us from threats? Of course, the biggest step to protect our country would be to sever ties with repressive terrorist regimes like Saudi Arabia, and to dramatically reduce our dependence on foreign oil from unfriendly nations -- whatever we can't get from Canada or Mexico, we should do without.

Says Bush about the illegal domestic spying program: "our enemies have learned information they should not have, and the unauthorized disclosure of this effort damages our national security and puts our citizens at risk. Revealing classified information is illegal, alerts our enemies and endangers our country." Right. Because they didn't know we were trying to listen in before.

In the meantime, our borders are run by incompetents. My fiancee was held at the border for 2 hours because they thought she was illegally living in America. She produced her lease, a bank statement with her name on it, her address in Vancouver, her Canadian passport. The border guards called me to confirm that she didn't live with me. In the meantime, these people are totally untrained when it comes to anything important. And they are not provided with effective watch lists -- the single most powerful tool that can prevent terrorists from illegally entering the US. The 9/11 commission has been hammering this point home. But Bush wants to spy rather then implement an effective policy to stop terrorism. Spying is more fun, because you might catch Marion Barry smoking crack again, or crackpot left wingers like me will be easier to harass at the next WTO rally.

To summarize again even more succinctly, our country is being run into the ground by the useless pet projects of elected officials, while the barn doors are wide open.

We are living in an America where there's a debate about torture, we operate secret prisons, we abuse and occasionally murder inmates, we hold people in jail without trial, we murder innocents in our above-board legal system, an administration that is "pro life" unless you're on death row (and who cares if you're guilty or not), we have prisoners who don't know what they are accused of, where rampant corruption means doling out government contracts to friends of Bush while the Republicans gut Medicaid and Medicare, while they strangle those programs they offer a prescription drug benefit plan where the price can't be negotiated. This isn't laissez-faire capitalism, it's donnez-moi.

We are living in a dysfunctional America where the Executive branch is incompetent for the task of governing and where the legislative branch is completely in the thrall of lobbyist handouts, soaking in the fat of junkets and pork. Our democracy is in a state of utter shambles. And we have the CHTUZPAH to try to export democracy. It's pathetic. It's absurd. We are the laughing stock of the world. A bunch of fat, ignorant fools who don't believe in evolution, who shoot first and ask questions last... We are ungovernable --

Despite spending more per capita than any other nation on health care, we have a life expectancy that is shorter than Costa Rica's. Our government is unable to solve any problem except how to cram more pork into the budget for bridges to nowhere and future combat weapons -- when our military, were it the case that there were any more conventional wars to be fought (which there are not) -- can squash any country like a grape.

The administration buries its head whenever it is confronted by truth, they don't believe in evolution, they don't believe in global warming, all they believe in is greed and profit, stealing from tax-payers for their personal enrichment. And yet no one has seriously tried to impeach the biggest crooks ever to sit in the White House. These guys make Nixon seem like Mr. fucking Rogers. We are fucked and I am angry about it.

Christmas Photos are up

2005-12-18T13:42:00.000-08:00

IMG_0277.JPG
Originally uploaded by mr hombre.

Go check 'em out. Xmas at the Soho, Vancouver, 2005... featuring the McGill class of '96, still going strong after all these years. How many of us actuall graduated in '96?

Deep Cove

2005-12-18T13:41:00.000-08:00

IMG_0273.JPG
Originally uploaded by mr hombre.

Looks just like Kobol from BSG doesn't it?

Syriana

2005-12-11T22:06:00.000-08:00

This movie's wonderful story line that is not entirely fictional is that the CIA is taking orders from the oil companies to rig Middle East politics in their favor. Learn more at http://www.participate.net/oilchange.

sweet dreams sweet kalaja...

2005-12-11T21:42:00.000-08:00

My close friend kalaja took her own life last monday.
She released herself from this mortal coil.
This has shaken me up more then i expected. As difficult as this is for me, she was suffering greatly with life so I am deeply happy for her that she has finally found peace.
It's been a difficult thing to deal with for me...
kalaja had the sincerest sweetest heart and most beautiful spirit out of anyone i know, that somehow managed to grow out of the darkest life of anyone i know. i guess you can only swim for so long against the water before it drowns you.

I feel blessed to have felt your love so sincere.
sweet dreams sweet kalaja...
rest in everlasting peace

Please if you knew her, please take some time and send some warm thoughts and love to help her on her way.
enjoy some of her music and claymation here