Freedom: Nothing Left to Lose

July 1, 2008 – 8:55 am

Freedom: Nothing Left to Lose

Anyone who has read this blog for very long knows I’m a real Chicken Little when it comes to the economy. Beginning with George Bush’s 2002 reckless and excessive tax cuts I’ve worried out-loud — and getting louder by the month — that this trickle-down Pied Piper was leading us and the world off a fiscal cliff.

Well, the cliff is now before us and, frankly, it’s too late to do a damn thing about it but sit back and watch the ugly show that’s about to play itself out. (Memo to Dick Cheney: Hey, Dick, seems deficits DO matter after all — you numskull.)

It’s been a lonely six year vigil for us naysayers out here. But suddenly our little group of worry-beaders is getting crowded.

Fortis Bank predicts US Financial market meltdown within weeks
(Fortis is a large bank and insurer in the Netherlands and Belgium.)

28th of June, 9:10
BRUSSELS/AMSTERDAM - Fortis expects a complete collapse of the US financial markets within a few days to weeks. That explains, according to Fortis, the series of interventions of last Thursday to retrieve € 8 billion.

“We have been saved just in time. The situation in the US is much worse than we thought”, says Fortis chairman Maurice Lippens. Fortis expects bankruptcies amongst 6000 American banks which have a small coverage currently. But also Citigroup, General Motors, there is starting a complete meltdown in the US”

And,

Royal Bank of Scotland Warns of Global Crash
Financial Times of London

The Royal Bank of Scotland has advised clients to brace for a full-fledged crash in global stock and credit markets over the next three months as inflation paralyses the major central banks.

“A very nasty period is soon to be upon us - be prepared,” said Bob Janjuah, the bank’s credit strategist.

A report by the bank’s research team warns that the S&P 500 index of Wall Street equities is likely to fall by more than 300 points to around 1050 by September as “all the chickens come home to roost” from the excesses of the global boom, with contagion spreading across Europe and emerging markets.

“The Fed is in panic mode. The massive credibility chasms down which the Fed and maybe even the ECB will plummet when they fail to hike rates in the face of higher inflation will combine to give us a big sell-off in risky assets,” he said.”

And,

Barclays: “US central bank accused of unleashing an inflation shock that will rock financial markets.

Ambrose Evans-Pritchard
Business Editor, Financial Times

“Barclays Capital has advised clients to batten down the hatches for a worldwide financial storm, warning that the US Federal Reserve has allowed the inflation genie out of the bottle and let its credibility fall “below zero”.

“We’re in a nasty environment,” said Tim Bond, the bank’s chief equity strategist. “There is an inflation shock underway. This is going to be very negative for financial assets. We are going into tortoise mood and are retreating into our shell. Investors will do well if they can preserve their wealth.”

“This is the first test for central banks in 30 years and they have fluffed it. They have zero credibility, and the Fed is negative if that’s possible. It has lost all credibility,” said Mr Bond.

The bank said the full damage from the global banking crisis would take another year to unfold.

Meanwhile those who decided it was a good idea to run everything that runs on oil, continue to believe that the answer to our current problems is to simply drill for more oil. And, as they have been every inch of the ways — they are wrong about that.. dead wrong:

Simmons says market forces driving crude to $600

Press/Journal/ UK. 1 July 2008: The chairman of energy investment-banking firm Simmons and Company International has predicted that oil prices could double or more within a few years.

Matt Simmons said that in his view oil was “dirt cheap at $140 a barrel”, and with supplies having peaked and demand growing prices were bound to go higher.

He said: “It is not beyond the pale of imagination to see oil at $300, $400, $500 or even $600 a barrel within a relatively short time, much less than 20 years. It is not speculators who are driving oil prices. It’s simply about supply and demand.”

So, what’s it all mean to you and I? I have no idea. This is uncharted territory. Over the next five years we may see what happened to communism in 90s happen to capitalism. If so it will be the fault of those who allowed the gap between rich and working poor expand into a yawning chasm. On one side live the once upwardly mobile middle class, now mired in debt and crushed by inflation.

On the far side live a smaller group — the super-wealthy — who benefited from the shift in taxation and other preferential fiscal and policy changes. These folks, in living in their McMansions, don’t care about the housing crisis plaguing the millions on the other side.

Nor do they give a fig about deteriorating commercial air travel, as they have their, separate and unequal, jet fleets.

This rich minority also has the best medical care their money can buy, while those on the other side are left to meager graces of charitable medical organizations — if they’re lucky.

What we are witnessing develop is one of those historic social divides we used to read about in history classes. You know, the kind of “let-em eat cake” thinking that lead to the French Revolution and a couple of centuries later, the Bolshevik revolution in Russia.

And what about the collapse of Communism nearly 20-years ago? Why would the collapse of a non-capitalist system have any relevance to what we are seeing unraveling here today? Because both systems, begun as egalitarian breakthroughs, devolved into two classes, separated by wealth and privilege.

Right wingers like to give Ronald Reagan credit for destroying Soviet communism. But that fat was in the fire already. By the time Reagan came to office those living on the Soviet side of that wall increasingly chaffed at their declining conditions as the elite lived well. As hard-working Soviet citizens stood daily in long lines for food, the elite had their own well-stocked grocery stores. As citizens used run-down public transport, the elite whizzed by in limousines. As two generations of families crowded into cramped apartments, the elite spent their holidays at their country dachas.

The worse things got for the Russian people, the better they got for the well-connected party elite and those they did business with.  But most of all ordinary Russians were deeply offended and outraged by a clearly bifurcated legal system that allowed the well-connected to skirt — or entirely avoid — the law, while the same legal system fell like a sledgehammer on ordinary Russians.

By the late 1980s the Russian people, and those occupied by Russia, had had it right up the here with the system. So much had been taken from them and given to the communist elites that they no longer had anything left to lose. So, Reagan or no Reagan, the Soviet Union’s days were numbered. The truth is that the Soviet Union’s undoing was its own doing. All Reagan did was grease those skids and hasten the inevitable.

Ironically historians will record that it was another Republican who greased the skids under capitalism as we’ve known it. Like Moscow elites before him, George W. Bush and the neo-con ideologues he installed in high office, pursued policies that enriched themselves and the already rich who supported them. They lavished upon them over-generous tax cuts, government contracts and by gutting the regulatory machinery that had at least tried to keep the destructive appetites of these hyper-capitalists in check.

And unchecked those capitalists did what such bears do in the woods –and they did it all over working Americans. Home ownership has become a nightmare for millions. Easy consumer credit became indentured servitude. Automakers were allowed by Washington to sell cars and trucks with embarrassingly bad gas millage because they were more profitable. Those cars and trucks are now just another lodestone around the necks of struggling ordinary Americans. (Were they dumb to buy them in the first place? Yes. But dumb is why laws regulating self-destructive human behavior are necessary. After all, if everyone obeyed the speed limit there would be no need for highway cops.)

The neo-cons saw regulation by government as an evil. So they let private for-profit health care companies decide which American citizens can get medical insurance and which cannot. Predictably those who need health coverage the most have become the ones who can’t get it –some 50 million, and counting. (Gee, who would-a thunk it?)

The neo-cons saw recognition of global warming, not as a threat to the human species, but a threat to corporate bottom lines. So they let companies use the air as a cheap garbage disposal system for gaseous industrial waste. Of course you will never find one of these polluting power plants or factories anywhere near upper-class communities. Instead poor communities get to host them instead.

So far they’ve gotten away with it. But all that’s kept most Americans on board with all this nonsense has been the promise that, if they worked hard and obeyed the rules they too could achieve a significant piece of the action. But that promise became transparently hollow as, over the past decade, middle class jobs moved offshore in search of cheaper people.

Today, like the Soviet people two decades ago, Americans are becoming increasingly fed up. With each passing month now average Americans take stock and notice they have less and less to lose. Most have not yet reached the point where they have nothing to lose. But, if what we see developing comes to pass that could change and change fast. As average Americans come to realize they have less to lose and little hope for a reverse of fortune, it will become increasingly perilous for those living comfortably on the far side of the wealth chasm. After all, they have plenty  to lose.

We “Deserve” What?

June 25, 2008 – 8:47 am

Hey, did you hear? We Americans “deserve” something. Apparently we “deserve relief from high gas and oil prices.

At least that’s what a person would figure if they read, listen or watch the news. The papers and airwaves are filled with politicians, in both parties, huffing and puffing and promising Americans they are going to find out who’s behind high gas prices and make them stop doing whatever it is they are doing.

Just who those perps might be depends on the politician who is organizing the posse. Right wingers blame environmentalists for blocking drilling in Alaska and offshore. Left wingers blame the oil companies. And both sides flail at OPEC and shadowy “speculators” on Wall Street.

And we buy it — or at least we buy whichever straw-men that fit our own political bias and get us, personally, off the hook.

Talk about a case of national denial! Poor babies. All those evil people picking on us innocent Americans. Jeeze, all we’ve been doing is what Americans have been doing since the end of World War II — living it up bingeing on finite world resources we figured we had first dibs on anyway.

What a pack of whiners we are. (And if any of what follows applies to you, and you’re offended, good.)

Relief? You demand relief, do you? Well:

- Does that little lady, whose head only barely clears the steering wheel of her Ford Expedition, “deserve” relief from high gas prices? Does she? She claims she bought the damn thing because it makes her and the two 60-pound kids “feel safe.” What a crock. It doesn’t make her feel safe, it makes her feel powerful — a rush staring down on those who surrounding her on the road. So SUV gals don’t deserve relief. They deserve a swift, unceremonious kick in the ass.

- How about hubby? You know the type, Mr. Macho who lives in well-paved suburbia, but who just had buy a giant 4-wheel drive pick-em-up truck, even thought the biggest thing he carries every week is a  25-bag of dog food. Does Mr. Macho “deserve” relief? I don’t think so. They not only have to have a giant engine, but weigh these behemoths down even more with flood lights and chrome. Then they have drive a hundred miles just to find some rutted dirt road where they can get the essential ingredient — macho-mud — on their truck. What these guys deserve is just what they’re getting right now… a vehicle that sucks $4.50 gas even when parked.

(Note: And there’s a special parking place in hell for those who not only bought a giant 4-wheel drive SUV, but figured it had to be a Cadillac Escalade — the perfect blend of style and stupidity.)

And what about all those baby boomers who just had to buy a 4000-square foot home now that the kids are  gone. Do they “deserve” lower heating and cooling bills?  After all, keeping that hot tub piping hot 24 by 365 can really run up the old utility bill.

Then there’s those of us with the shopping skills of 8-year olds. We seem unable to separate product from packaging. We fall for all the shopping aisle glitz of purely cosmetic plastic (oil-based) product packages. Was it the New Math that somehow put the notion into our heads that a fancy 24-oz plastic package that actually only contains 16-ounces of product actually contains more than that?  Do such Pavlovian shoppers really “deserve” lower supermarket prices — our a dope slap to the back of the head?

Do those who turn their noses up at locally grown/produced products, in favor of the same stuff that had to be shipped, flown and driven from halfway round the earth, “deserve” lower prices?

You get the point. The average American consumes 25-gallons of petroleum/petroleum based products per day — times 300 million Americans .All this mindless, selfish, thoughtless, self-indulgent wasteful behavior is a part — a big part — of why energy prices have spiked and will spike higher.  And none of the BS being shoved at us by politicians, the media and industry is going to change that. Because there is no “relief” from the kind of stupidity I just describe.  In fact, unlike oil, stupidity is apparently in endless supply — in Washington, on Wall Street and on your street and mine.

But hey, it’s not our fault that all of a sudden oil has jumped from $21 a barrel eight years ago to $135 a barrel today, and rising. And it also apparently has nothing to do with whatever it was Dick Cheney and those oil executives (he still refuses to identify) decided back in 2001.

It’s not us. It’s those damn “speculators.” They’re terrible people– capitalists, I hear. They’re the kind of folks who study and track market-based trends with exotic names like “supply” and “demand.” Then they put their money where their mouths are, betting prices will rise or fall in the future. These days their computer models scream two facts: that we Americans will stubbornly cling to our wasteful ways, and that, this time around, 2 billion folks in China and India are doing their very best emulate our bad example.

Then there’s those nasty old oil companies. Bastards! They treat us like we’re a bunch of crack addicts  — which of course is precisely what we’ve willingly and enthusiastically become. Big Oil took a page from Big Tobacco’s marketing playbook; get them hooked with cheap product, then jack up the price.  Now that we’re hooked on oil, and their customer base is growing overseas as well, Big Oil jacked up the price of our daily fix. How dare they! We deserve lower prices so we don’t have to take the cure. Right?

What about our leaders? Well, they agree –you and I are blameless. Instead we are victims of a vast-something-wing conspiracy, of some sort or another. And right at the top of the list of victims are our leaders themselves. Just ask any member of congress or the administration if they share any of the blame. No way Jose!  In fact, they see themselves as the ultimate victims of our latest energy crisis. Since we voters can’t get our hands on Big Oil executives or those slippery “speculators,” we turn our wrath on our elected officials.

And when we yell at them they panic and make shit up to shut us up.

First they reassure us that we do indeed “deserve” relief from high energy prices and, by golly their on it. They each have their party’s talking points and all kinds of reassuring — nonsensical — “solutions.”

They’re going to bust open those offshore reserves that the tree-huggers have kept off limits to drilling.
If only they could get their hands on more offshore leases and drill there we’d be in clover again. If that idea appeals to you and makes you want to hang onto that Ford Suburban you might want to check the facts:

* Fact: 44 million acres of ocean are already leased for oil drilling without adding more areas.
* Fact: some 10,000 drilling permits have already been issued, but are just being sat on by the oil companies that hold them.
* Fact: the former Naval Oil Reserve in Alaska is open for drilling, has been drilled, but the wells are capped.

It seems that oil companies are the real speculators. As long as future oil prices are projected to be higher than current prices they have no incentive to sell cheap now when they can sell dear later by just keeping these reserves off the market.

What will oil companies do with new offshore leases if granted? Duh.

And, should they begin the offshore drilling today, it would still take between 7 and ten years before  the first drop of that oil hit a refinery.

Another “solution” being pushed is to expand the number of nuclear plants. They’re gonna start plopping down new nuclear power plants like Jack In The Box franchises. Just don’t ask where they’re going to store all that new radioactive waste, because they haven’t a clue.

Last week, Sen. John McCain dangled a $300-million carrot for anyone out there who can build a better battery. (That’s $100-million less than we are spending every day on the war in Iraq, which McCain supports.)

Imagine if, five years ago, we’d spent the half the nearly $1 trillion we’ve wasted in Iraq on a Manhattan Project to develop clean, renewable energy. We’d not only already have that better battery but untold other oil-free energy spinoffs as well.  That in turn would have actually lowered the price of gas and oil as oil producing countries scrambled to maintain market share.

But, of course we didn’t. Instead McCain –and way too many Democrats — decided to secure America’s oil future by making Iraq safe for Exxon and Shell. Instead all we did was make Iraq safe for Iran.

Anyway, that’s how I feel. If you’re driving an SUV (Suddenly Unwanted Vehicle) you deserve exactly what you’re getting — a royal screwing at the pump.

Then there’s those extraordinary morons who will surely fall for Chrysler and Jeep’s new marketing gimmick  — $2.99 a gallon gas for three years/36,000 miles — if you buy one of their gas guzzlers trucks or 4-wheelers. To them I say, go ahead, Gomer, buy one. No seriously, buy one. Just promise to give me a call in three years when that deal runs out. I want to watch you try to unload that albatross when gas is $7-a gallon. The skinning you’ll have to take to sell or trade that beast in will more than wipe out whatever “saved” on gas.

As we approach the November elections many of you may have an opportunity to quiz the candidates on their views about all this. If any of them claims we “deserve” lower-priced oil and gas you can bet that candidate is not the candidate “of change.” In such cases a hearty round of mocking and derisive hissing and booing is entirely appropriate. It’s precisely what they deserve.

In the meantime I will find my solace at the gas pump. As I fill up our little red 2000 VW I enjoy watching the SUVers around me turn ashen with each click of the gas pump. Screw em. They deserve it.

When is doing the right thing — the wrong thing?

June 11, 2008 – 9:21 am

I’m having a bipolar moment. Suddenly there’s two “me’s” and they’re at each other’s throat in my head.

The “me” that wants to see the guilty punished rejoiced yesterday when it learned that Democrats, Rep. Dennis Kucinich and Rep. Robert Wexler, had introduced articles of impeachment against George W. Bush.  (PDF of Kucinich’s artles of impeachment)

For seven long years I’ve watched with heart-sinking amazement as this administration violated the US Constitution, common law, international law, treaties and even the rights of its own citizens — and got away with it. Not a day has gone by over those years I did not wonder, often out loud, why congress or the judiciary didn’t step up to the plate and put a stop to it.

But no one did. Even when Democrats retook the House and Senate, the first thing they did was declare — almost pridefully — that “impeachment was off the table.” It was like a fire chief announcing that “response to house fires is off the table,” or a district attorney declaring that “rape prosecutions are off the table.”

Congress — a Democratic congress nonetheless  — abdicated its central “balance of powers,” authority to the executive branch. By so doing congress actually aided and abetted the administration in what historians will likely consider nothing short of an an executive branch coup d’état.

That would have been bad enough if congress had relinquished it’s policing powers to a benevolent dictator. But they granted those extraordinary powers to a gang of intellectual, political and imperialistic thugs.  History will not be kind to most of those who served in congress during these days of infamy. Congress failed us, failed the nation, failed our founders and failed themselves. And the price we and the rest of the world has paid for that has yet to be fully accounted, as the cost in lives, treasure and credibility mount by the hour.

Yesterday’s impeachment news, therefore, was the first glimmer of righteous courage I’ve seen in seven years out of that bunch. The “me” who knows that O.J. Simpson is guilty of a double homicide, is the “me” that sat up straight yesterday and felt a surge of pride and anticipation that finally the lawbreakers in the White House might indeed see their day in the dock.

That’s when the other “me” grabbed the first “me” by the throat shouting, “What the hell are you trying to do you moron, lose the November election in the name of a few revenge jollies?”

The other “me” continued.

“This is the last goddamn thing we need right now. Remember how angry most sane Americans were when the Republicans impeached Bill Clinton? They saw it as a petty political game that tied up congress and the nation’s business for months, wasted tens of millions of dollars and, in the end failed to remove Clinton from office.  Is that how you want voters to feel about Democrats next November?”

But, the first “me’ retorted, “These guys committed certifiable crimes. If we let them leave office scott free we will have set a precedent that will hang, like a Sword of Damocles, over the constitution and nation from that day forth. Is that what you want?”

And so the argument went on back and forth, back and forth, and continues as I write these words. Both sides have entirely defensible positions. If we let the Bushies walk free on January 20, 2009 the world will have to conclude that America is not after all “a land of laws, not men.” Men would have trumped the law. And we’re not talking about just a narcissistic, washed up athlete getting away with murder, but the most powerful men and women on earth — America’s top leadership.

Then again, if impeachment gains traction it would consume all the media oxygen for the entire summer and fall. It would also upstaging both party conventions and the presidential campaign that follows. Then what? How would voters feel about Democrats if their impeachment efforts tie congress and the nation in knots for the last six months of the administration, while the war lurches on and the economy enters free-fall?

What if voters take out their anger about all that on Democrats, by voting for McCain and returning more Republicans to the House and Senate? That would sure trump the momentary satisfaction impeachment provided. Impeachment would have failed. That precedent I was worried about would still be set, and we’d have at least four more years of the same.

So here I find myself, stuck between doing the right thing and doing the smart thing. But writing all this down seems to have clarified things a bit. I’m now leaning toward doing the smart thing…. though I’m not happy about it.

I guess the bottom line is this;  congress had the chance to do the right thing years ago, but didn’t. Impeachment should have been on the table the very moment it was learned that the administration lied to justify launching an unprovoked war in Iraq. Or, if not then, then when it was learned that the administration had been illegally spying on its own citizens, or when it was learned it had authorized torture, kidnappings, secret prisons.

That’s when impeachment would have mattered. That’s when action by congress could have made a difference. That’s when congress could have reclaimed its constitutional authority and legitimacy and washed away at least some of the stain.

But they didn’t, and having failed to do so, must forever share the blame for this administration’s misdeeds.

Yes, I know that there are a handful in congress who objected, voted against and tried to put a stop to the administration’s misdeeds and unconstitutional power grab. But “congress” is a body, not a person. And as a body congress failed the nation and the world. There’s no getting around it.

So if impeachment proceedings is what congress wants, then those proceedings would be dishonest and incomplete unless they included a full examination of, not just the things this administration did wrong, but how the administration got away with it, right under the nose of congress — a criminal/political co-dependency.

Of course there is no chance whatsoever that Kucinich and Wexler are going to spark a full-blown impeachment. House Speaker, Nancy Pelosi” continues to maintain that it’s remains “off the table,” and finally she may be right about that.

Nevertheless I am glad Kucinich filed those articles of impeachment, and that congress had to vote on them. Because now George W. Bush’s entry in history will include the fact that articles of impeachment were filed against him.

So what about all that “letting them get away scott free, precedent setting stuff?

Well, all that’s true too. If these guys are allowed to walk free next January, then left un-bothered for the rest of their lives, that would indeed set a devastatingly damaging and dangerous precedent.

Which is why my lust for justice must turn, not to impeachment, but to prosecution — civil and criminal prosecution — Qui Tam suits by private citizens, charges and law suits filed state courts, federal courts and war crimes prosecution at the World Court.

Letting Bush, Cheney, Rice, Rumsfeld and others walk care-free is not an option. The stakes are simply too high, not just for America, but the world. Because there can never be sanctuary for war criminals, especially in the United States of America.

The New Vagina Dialog

June 5, 2008 – 9:09 am

What’s should be more worrisome; who Obama will choose for his VP or who McCain will choose for his Number 2?

No contest. It’s who McCain picks. And if I were an Obama advisor I would wake up screaming each night in terror that McCain picks his current economic advisor, Carly Fiorina.

Such a bold move would pose the single most significant threat to Obama’s hopes. In fact, it’s such a no-brainer that I’d be surprised if McCain/Florina is not already baked into the cake.

Here’s why I think so:

1) Millions of Hillary women will still be licking their primary campaign wounds come November. Those hurt feelings will not pass away easily or gracefully. (Dare I use the old — “Hell hath no fury like women scorned?” Ah, belay that …)  Putting Fiorina on the ticket would help McCain mine a rich vein of feminist anger pervading the Democratic camp.

2) It would be a move Obama would find difficult to counter. Sure he could pick a woman too — but what woman? It looks increasingly unlikely it would be Hillary … for a lot of reasons, not the least of which is that Bill refuses to release the financial records necessary to adequately vet the couple.

Obama could pick another woman. But picking a woman as his running mate who is NOT Hillary Clinton would be rubbing salt into a still open wound. All those women out there who worked their hearts out for Hillary would react to Obama picking another woman as the final outrage. Scorn them once, shame on — well — someone. But scorn them twice and you’re toast.

3) That leaves Obama the second of two hard options — pick a man as VP. That might do less harm than choosing “that other woman,” but would also reinforce what Hillary women feel they’ve faced their entire lives — being elbowed aside at the finish line by boy’s club bullies.

So either way Obama goes, gender-wise, will do little heal the wounds among Hillary’s Helga brigades.

4) McCain, by his own admission, is no financial wizard. Adding Fiorina to his ticket would blunt that big problem. She’s best known as the former head of Hewlett-Packard where she served as CEO and chairman of the board. Fiorina was touted as the most powerful woman in business by Forbes magazine.

Sure she was fired by HP’s board in 2005 due to shareholder dissatisfaction with they company’s performance. But in the Fortune 500 world there’s an old saying, “After you move to the top, the next move is out.” Getting canned and walking away with a double or triple million severance package is a badge of honor in that world, not a sign of failure. (I think if something like that happened you, you’d agree that you walked away a winner. I know I would. All I ever got for being fired was a measly unemployment check.)

So, adding Fiorina to the ticket would let McCain claim the GOP now had the strongest team to handle whatever the future threw at the nation, be it on the national security front or to tackle America’s mounting fiscal crisis.

5) Finally Fiorina would be a huge generational and gender asset for another reason. While she’s not exactly a spring chicken, she’s a quarter century younger than McCain, (but then, who isn’t.)

McCain would be a crusty 80-years old at the end a second term. It’s almost unthinkable an 80-year old could survive an office that puts that much stress on it’s occupant. Voters know that too, which is why the McCain camp has already dropping hints that he only wants to be a one-term President.

Putting Fiorina on the ticket would not only calm fears among many voters that McCain is too old to be a two-termer. It would also infer to women still fuming over Hillary’s defeat, that there’s still a chance for a woman to reach the Oval Office, if only they wait four years. And that woman would Carly Fiorina, who would almost certainly face down Hillary Clinton’s second run in a rousing madam y madam slap-down come 2012.

McCain has already been making cooing noises to Hillary’s women. He knows they’re mad as hell and ripe for the picking. Even more important, McCain needs them — every one of them he can attract, even if only because they want to exact vengence on the Obama camp. McCain needs those white women as a counterbalance to the virtually unanimous African American vote that will go for Obama. Because, if you think white, middle aged women feel slighted, imagine how the black community feels about all that.

McCain has about as much chance of bagging a significant portion of the African-American vote as George W. Bush would if he were able to run again. So the millions of seething Hillary gals out there are McCain’s only hope. And, from the emails I get from those very women, its not a misplaced hope.

So, expect it. I’m not predicting that picking Fiorina — or some other clearly qualified woman — as his running mate, will turn the tide and sweep McCain to victory. It will help, but it may not help enough to counter the sense that McCain is too old, been around too long, is not hitting on all cylinders and is — in short the real-world embodiment of the well-meaning but bumbling cartoon character, Mr. McGoo.

Hillary’s “No Signal Available” Speech

June 4, 2008 – 8:32 am

Last night I understood, first hand, what Michelle Obama meant a few months ago when she said that, for the first time in a long time she was proud of her country. Last night, for the first time in years I was unconditionally proud of my country.

This morning the world woke up to learn that one of America’s two parties had nominated a person of color — a little black, a little white, a little brown a little like the world itself.

For the first time in a dozen years I didn’t have to blush that the world awaking to learn that my President had been caught in the Oval Office with his trousers around his knees, or that my President had authorized torture, or that my president had launched an illegal imperialist war against a country thousands away that was, while annoying as hell, no real threat to the US.

It was a very nice, though albeit unfamiliar, feeling. I want more that. A lot more. It was like someone had just applied a soothing ointment to a long festering wound.

Then a fly plopped into my ointment.

As I watched Hillary Clinton begin her speech last night I wondered why she had chosen such an unlikely place, a university basement, three floors underground. It was the kind of public venue I’d expect Dick Cheney to select.

Then it became clear. Way down there, under all that concrete and soil, cell phones could not pick up a signal, Blackberries could not receive email down there and there were no TV monitors. All of which meant that the crowd of Hillary supporters, who had assembled hours earlier, did not know and could not learn that Barack Obama had already won the Democratic Party’s nomination.  And that Hillary had not.

That information blackout insured a lively, rather than subdued, reception for Hillary’s speech. It wasn’t that I was surprised that the Clintons were, as usual, calculating right down to the smallest detail. I was surprised instead that, even after losing, they were still at it.

That can mean only one thing; that the Clintons are wired that way. They could no more change their conniving, calculating, triangulating ways than a couple of brown bears could learn do their business in a toilet rather than in the woods.

Hillary refused to concede the obvious last night, or to congratulate Obama for his win. Because Bill and Hillary don’t see concessions as the honorable or human thing, but rather as just another political asset to leverage, a payoff to barter, sell or use as a negotiating tool.

To Hillary, only suckers are magnanimous.

Then this morning I learned that Clintonite, Lanny Davis, launched a  website petition for women who want to demand that Obama chose Hillary as his vice president. Never mind that Lanny Davis is a guy, his web site is called “Women For Fair Politics,” (www.womenforfairpolitics.com.)

He wants women to flock to his web site and sign the petition demanding that Obama pick Hillary for his VP. He can call it a online petition drive, but what it really is an attempt to engineer the world’s first cyber-shotgun political wedding. Davis claims that Hillary has nothing to do with the petition drive, but if you believe that….

I don’t know who Obama will eventually chose for his veep, but it must not be Hillary Clinton… for all the reasons I listed earlier HERE.

I have my favorite. Senator Jim Webb D-Virginia. Webb, more so than any other so far named, fits the vision Obama has expressed through out this campaign. Webb is bi-partisan, having been a Republican, and having served as Navy Secretary in the Reagan administration,. But Webb saw the damage Bush/Cheney Neocons were causing and switched to become a Democrat, ran for the senate and won.

Like Obama, Webb is new to the US Senate. Traditionalists will claim two freshmen Senators on the same ticket would be a mistake. On the contrary. Americans are sick of same-old, same-old. If we wanted that Hillary Clinton would be the Democratic nominee this morning, rather than Obama.

Neither Obama or Webb have been in Washington long enough to be thoroughly corrupted by the place.  They’re staff’s don’t maintain long lists of favors owed for back room  deals cut years ago.

Both Obama and Webb speak our language, rather than DC-speak. That means both men often say things so clearly true and in such an unvarnished way that it startles us. We’re not used that. Instead, years of Orwellian DC-speak has caused most of us to automatically tune out when ever a politician starts pontificating and boviating. The sing-song sloganism, the same old buzz words, the same old sentimental ticklers… we’ve heard it all.. and don’t want to hear it again.

Jim Webb also knows all that’s needed to know about things military. As a decorated combat Marine and former Navy Secretary, he’s been there, done that.

Webb won my admiration when, just after being elected Senator President Bush came up to him at a White House reception and tried to make small talk. As usual, Bush, clueless as ever, chose the wrong subject. Webb’s son, also a Marine, had just been deployed to Iraq. Bush asked, “How’s your boy doing?”

Webb’s response was along the lines of,  “None of your business, Mr. President. That’s between me and my son.” and walked off.

Rude? Hell no. How else would a real person, a real father, a real patriot, respond to such a question uttered by the very man who started the illegal war to which he then sent son, where he could be maimed or killed? Webb responded exactly the way I would have, and the way millions of ordinary Americans would have as well, if they’d had the same opportunity.

That’s what I’m talking about. Speaking truth to power. And speaking truth to us, even when we don’t want to hear it, even when telling the truth can be politically dangerous.

Obama congratulated Hillary Clinton last night. Hillary did not return the favor. Instead she locked her supporters into a deep bunker of ignorance, just so she could harvest the last drips of personal glory out of her moribund campaign.

Remember that in the days and weeks ahead as the Clintons angle for the VP slot. As Chris Matthews noted this morning, the Clintons are treating the vice presidency as if it’s the silver metal in a race, that should automatically go to the second-place candidate. It is not second prize. It is not a consolation prize.

Obama was right when, at the beginning of this campaign he said that the time had come to close the book on the Bush’s and Clinton’s. It’s long past time we moved on from all that. It’s time to turn the page of history.

Amen.

Can You Dig It? Should We Dig It?

June 3, 2008 – 2:12 pm

The fight is on. No, not the primary election. I mean, yeah, that’s on too, finally. But I’m referring to a different battle, the battle for the world’s energy future. And it’s going to get dirty.

In fact, it already has. You might have noticed the new ads from big oil and big coal. Even the ever-so-ecologically proper PBS is running ads for the National Mining Association, “NMA.” Commercial networks are suddenly full of gauzy ads produced by and for big oil companies touting their love for the natural world — which they then ask us to allow them to “explore” for more oil. They promise to extract these new deposit in the most harmless and attractive ways, if we only allow to do so.

The goal of big oil is to get at those pockets of oil, such as offshore Florida and offshore California and, of course, the Alaska wildlife refuge. They have always wanted at those deposits, but now that the price of oil has skyrocketed they are foaming at the wallet to get drilling in now restricted places.

Finally there’s the once moribund nuclear power industry. Since Three Mile Island and Chernobyl companies that designed and built nuclear power plants have been in near cryogenic suspension. Global warming has thawed those firms out and they are scrambling to get laws passed that would allow them to quickly get approval for new power plants.

So what’s a power consuming citizen to think amidst these powerful and well-financed PR barrages designed to influence legislation? Certainly we need sources of energy. The oil companies say there’s more to be had, if for no other purpose to ease the the period of transition off oil. The coal companies claim we have something like 300-years of the black rock right here at home, if only we allowed to dig it out and sell it to power producers to burn.

Finally the nuclear power industry claims they learned their lessons about safety and have used the years since Chernobyl to design new, safer and even cleaner nuclear plants.

I’m open to all three discussions — skeptical, but open. The only problem with these discussions is that the three special interest groups pushing their agendas are engaging us in an incomplete conversation. Before anyone takes their claims seriously each needs to address the issues very they assiduously  avoid in their lobbying and their TV and glossy magazine ads.

Here’s my rules. Before I even consider continuing these conversations with these energy titans, they need to answer some questions.

Let’s start with the oil and gas folks. You know, the ones who got us into this mess to begin with.

Questions for Oil Companies:

You want to drill for MORE oil? Okay. First answer a few questions left unanswered in your ads:

Explain just how bringing more oil online gets us off the stuff.

What’s your point? Are you arguing that there’s really no need to get off oil? Because if that’s your argument I have some peak oil statistics to show you. Only a fool would argue that oil is not a finite resource.

In fact your own accountants knew that fifty years ago when you convinced Congress to grant the oil industry the mother of all tax breaks.  YOU called it the “oil depletion allowance.” The premise behind this tax break was, you argued that any investment your companies made in oil exploration and recovery became a wasting asset almost immediately since you were “depleting” the oil under your drilling platforms with each barrel pumped. In effect, you argued, by pumping oil out of the ground you were in effect pumping your way to — what? — financial ruin, bankruptcy? Whatever you said, it worked. You got your depletion allowance.

That little gem of a tax break saved you guys hundreds of millions, maybe billions, of dollars in taxes over the ensuing decades.

So, was the premise on which you lobbied for that tax break a lie? Is there, even after decades of pumping still “plenty of untapped oil” underground? Are you saying that, in fact, you have not depleted the world’s oil supply and that there’s still plenty of the stuff waiting to be had? If so, we taxpayers would like you to return all those “depletion allowances.” (Circle one)

Yes / No / Don’t Ask-Don’t Tell

But back to the original question — how would finding and producing more oil get America off the stuff? Past experience teaches that, even after a oil supply crisis, consumers will go right back to their wasteful ways once the crisis passes. That’s precisely what happened in the 1970s when America was rocked by an Arab oil embargo. Detroit nearly went bully up since all they made then were big gas guzzling cars and trucks. The Japanese saw it coming and had small, gas thrifty small cars ready to go. And we bought those Japanese cars, until that crisis passed, heralding in the age of the SUV.

So, wouldn’t logic dictate that the best thing that could happen this time is that we don’t let you guys drill anywhere you want? Because tight supply and sky high gas prices are exactly the kind of “market-based” change capitalism preaches? Right?

Yes / No / Don’t Ask-Don’t Tell

And, should guys succeed, drill and find more oil, driving prices back down for a while — (and you know it would only be for a while, since those new oil deposits are relatively small and would soon “deplete” as well,) wouldn’t that sabotage just emerging alternative energy technologies, like wind and solar? Or is that exactly the point?
Yes / No / Don’t Ask-Don’t Tell

Questions for Coal Mining Companies

You say, “Can we dig it?” To which I ask’ “But should we allow you to dig it?”

“Come on guys, let us dig it up.” That’s what you’re asking in your TV ads, without actually coming right out and saying it. But that’s what it’s all about, more digging in more places, including now protected lands.

Okay, I’m listening. I heard your question, but I’m not hearing answers to the logical questions that pop into my head when I see those pastoral images of verdun, park-like images you show of reconditioned  mined out strip-mines. The subtext in your ads is that exploiting all that coal under America is, at the end of the day, pain free. In fact, to listen to your ads, one could think that the best thing that could happen to a neighborhood is to have a coal mining company move in and get rid of those unsightly hills and let you replace them with some grass and trees.

Which you will do, by the way, only because laws passed by Congress require you to clean up after yourselves — which you didn’t do before you had to.  Before that you just moved in, started digging and moved on when a coal seam was played out leaving behind a landscape only crack-addicted gofers from hell could appreciate.

But never mind that. The law now requires you to clean up after yourselves, so you decided to necessity in to a virtue in your ads. It’s disingenuous while being true. Perfect.

Before we let you guys dig wherever the spirit moves you, can you answer these questions first:

How would increased coal production affect climate change? You guys fought every single attempt over decades to make you clean up your smoke stack emissions. Every time a law was proposed designed to clean up emissions from coal-fired electric power plants, you guys went ballistic. You claimed the price of electricity would skyrocket. You claimed that the technology was not ready and/or would not work. You claimed that rate payers and taxpayers would be the real victims of such proposals.

You even claimed such laws weren’t necessary. Like the tobacco industry before you,  you guys spent millions of dollars paying phony “scientists” to issue phony reports claiming that the whole greenhouse gas issue was a mirage and/or not your fault. You spent tens of millions of dollars over the decades paying off politicians to defeat measures to clean up your emissions. (Remember the acid rain fight? The forests do.)

So, what are you going to do about all that? Your ads are designed to change your image. We understand. Who wouldn’t want to change an image like the one you’re industry earned over the decades. But have you changed your ways — like really?  That we’re not so sure of.

Before we accept your claims that you are ready to become part of the solution to global warming, like an drunk entering rehab, you first have to admit you have a problem, or in this case that you have been a huge part of the problem itself. Are you ready to do that? Publicly, in those same ads?

Yes / No / Don’t Ask-Don’t Tell

Before we let you expand the coal supply to America’s power plants what’s you plan for carbon sequestration? And, assuming you have one, is it a real plan with real confirmable science behind it?

Yes / No / Don’t Ask-Don’t Tell

And if we let you dig more coal in more places, how would that help America’s transition to clean, renewable sources of power, like wind and solar? Wouldn’t cheap coal knock those emerging technologies back to the days when they could not compete economically with cheap coal? Or is that precisely the goal?

Yes / No / Don’t Ask-Don’t Tell

Finally what about the impacts of mining on the areas mined? While the law requires you guys plant grass to cover the scar left by surface mining, some might long for the now-gone mountains. I mean it’s one thing for a lumber company to cut trees, they grow back. But once a mountain is gone, it’s gone for good.

And underground mining comes with it’s own impacts that, while of out of sight are not out of mind for we dwellers. Just ask the residents of rural Pennsylvania.

“To determine whether public facilities were impacted by underground mining during this period, DEP surveyed municipalities, water and sewer authorities and the Department of Transportation. There were, for example, about 285 miles of roads undermined in the study area …  Of the 188 organizations surveyed, 10 reported damage during the five-year study period. These reports mostly concerned damage to roads.” (Full)

So, what about all that? Are you claiming in your Thoreau-like ads that you have plans to mitigate the physical impacts to the local environment from your mining activities? Or are you simply going to continue just barely toeing the the line, denying there’s any problems and not paying the true costs left behind from each ton of coal you pull out of the ground?

Yes / No / Don’t Ask-Don’t Tell

Okay, onto our eager — and hungry — nuclear power industry.

Hi there sparky. Long time no see. Where you been?

Oh yeah, I remember. A couple of hundred square miles of Russia still glow in the dark. Bummer.

But, thanks to the energy crunch, nuclear is back. They’re out of hiding and have dusted off their old, “cheap, clean and safe  energy” slogan. Only now it’s not so cheap and we know it’s not safe and it’s only clean if you don’t consider radiation as “dirty.”

I’m not one of those tree-hugger types whose blood drains from my head at the very mention of nuclear energy. I understand that there are risks involved in any technology. And if someone tried to introduce the gasoline-powered vehicle today regulators would react something like this:

“Let me get this straight. You fill this thing up with 15 gallons of explosive fluid, that you carry around under the backseat, that feeds an internal combustion engine less than five feet from the tank filled with explosive liquid. Get out of here!”

My point being that some dangers are manageable, but only if they are managed, not ignored. When it comes to nuclear power we are still being asked to shine on some real whoppers. Not the least among these dangers is what the hell to do with all the nuclear waste these things spin off over their lifetimes.

Even as the revitalized nuclear power industry queues up for permits to build new plants, it still has no solution on the near horizon for the growing (and glowing) mounting mountain of deadly radioactive waste the industry has produced over the past 60 years. All that stuff — every pound of it — is stacked up in barrels at nuclear sites around the nation waiting for someone to figure out what to do with it — for the next 10,000 years — and then some.

In the United States today, over 161 million people already reside within 75 miles of “temporarily stored” nuclear waste. Sleep well tonight.

Then there’s the whole Yucca Mountain business — which is in reality little more than an government/industry head-fake of mountainous proportions. If Yucca never stores and ounce of nuclear waste, it’s already served its purpose. As long as government and the nuclear industry could claim that “someday” all that radioactive waste will be buried deep in that Nevada mountain, the longer they could avoid providing any real solution. Anyone out there who really believes all the nation’s hot nuclear waste will someday be trucked across America to Nevada and tucked away deep in Yucca Mt. has fallen for the most expensive impractical joke in US history.

So, before we let you guys start building a whole new generation of nuclear facilities around the country, we need to see your plans for dealing FIRST with all the existing waste and then your plans for all the waste your new plants will spin off over their projected lifetimes.

Do you have such plans?

Yes / No / Don’t Ask-Don’t Tell

One more thing on cleaning up after one’s self. What’s your plan for safely decommissioning aging nuclear reactors? And who do you intend to stick with those bills? Will the cost of such clean ups be factored into the cost of the energy nuclear those new plants produce?

I only ask because I keep reading stories like this one:

Oakridge to Take Billions and 15 Years to Clean
“(Knoxville 6/2/2008) Building it only took 18 months, but now officials say it could take around 15 years to clean up and tear down the uranium enrichment factory in Oak Ridge. … The Knoxville area facility was built six decades ago during the cold war’s race for the first atomic bomb…Officials are working to get rid of the site, but an official with the Department of Energy says structural issues and contamination have delayed the project .. The government has spent about $1.6 billion on it at this point. So far, about half of the more than 500 buildings on the site have been removed or cleaned. (Full)

And that’s just one nuclear facility. It can take longer and cost almost as much to decommission one of these nuclear plants and clean up the area as it did to build it begin with. If the industry gets what it’s own companies say they want over the next 25-years they will be adding another 1300 nuclear plants to the existing list of aging plants. No, I’m not kidding.

“.. the Bush administration’s proposed energy policy unveiled on May 17…recommends the construction of more than 1,300 new power plants and a national nuclear waste repository, licensing new nuclear reactors and speeding the re-licensing of existing nuclear plants…Currently, 103 nuclear reactors operate in 31 states, Jacob said. Nuclear energy accounts for 20 percent of all U.S. electricity generation and more than 40 percent of power generation in 10 states. (Full Story)

It was only recently that we learned that the cost of gasoline had been held artificially low by refusing to recognize and account for the invisible impacts burning oil has had on society, national defense and the environment. They were still there, we just chose to ignore them. But they were not about to ignore us, and now they’ve injected themselves into the equation. We are just now experiencing the real price of gas, and we hate it. Too bad we didn’t learn to hate it a long time ago.

Neither Big Oil or Big Coal can hold a candle to nuclear for hidden costs. What’s the nuclear industry going to do about those hidden expenses? Ignore them — as you do now? Or are you ready to agree that the costs of decommissioning and clean up are a significant part of the cost of every kilowatt produced by nuclear power plants, and therefore must be included in the cost of construction, operation and the price of nuclear fuel itself?

Yes / No / Don’t Ask-Don’t Tell

Finally, about your claims that new nuclear plant designs are much safer than the old ones. First, duh! We saw what could happen with those old designs, so you damn well better have safer designs or we could just end this conversation right here.

Leaving the other safety issues of storage and clean up aside for moment, let’s concentrate on the operations your nuclear plants.  How do we know they’re safer? (After all, you assured us Three Mile Island was safe, and it wasn’t. That left us with some nagging “trust issues.”)

If an oil refinery blows up it might kill a few refinery workers and stink up the neighborhood for a day or two. But if one of your nuclear plants goes up — or melts down — it could kill thousands immediately and tens of thousands over time.

So, being able to confirm your safety claims is more than just a casual curiosity. And your word is not going to cut it this time. This time we need more — a lot more. We need to see your engineering designs and have them evaluated by independent engineers, nuclear scientists and medical professionals. We need to see your  blueprints, your operational manuals, your security systems, your emergency response and evacuation plans and the resources you and plant operators will commit — under law and under contract — to those various tasks.

Do you have such plans, and will you submit them for independent evaluation?

Yes / No / Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell

It’s all up for grabs folks. Big oil wants to cash in on the their dwindling asset, and those desires grow with the price of oil. Big coal wants to figure out how to fill the gap left when oil can no longer feed demand. Big coal wants it all, they want to heat your home, run your electrical devices, even liquify the stuff so you can burn it in your SUV.

Its the biggest gold rush since — well, the gold rush. And there’s a very real risk that in that rush emerging clean, renewable energy technologies will get trampled — and if that happens you can bet it won’t be by accident, but by design. Key to that design is for those industry to convince the public and congress to give them the greenlight light to drill and dig where they’ve never been allowed to do so before. Their solution is another shoot of the hair of the dog that bit us. More oil, more coal. More of the same.

So this would be a good time to let your member of congress know that you want these questions answered and honestly and under oath before they pass any legislation either expanding oil drilling, coal mining or nuclear plant construction.

Oh, and tell them to pass the legislation mandating carbon caps, even though the President vows to veto it. (Bush will go down in history as probably the only president with the distinction of making the wrong choice on every major issue during his presidency, from war, to peace, to global warming. he’s been wrong on each and all.The fact that Bush opposes this legislation is simply further proof that it’s the right legislation.)

Congress will, of course, come under blistering attack from the oil and gas industries. Dire warnings will rain down upon them. That propaganda campaign is already in full swing:

US coal lobbyists unveil nightmarish vision of life after cap-and-trade law
Tuesday, 3 June 2008: US businesses have spent tens of millions of dollars trying to kill a proposed law that would introduce European-style “cap-and-trade” rules on carbon emissions – even before the bill hit the floor of the Senate for discussion yesterday. (Full Story)

Hmmm. Is there a anti-tobacco lawyer in the house?  I think we have some fresh, well-heeled defendants for you to chew on.

Can We Even Handle the Truth?

May 30, 2008 – 10:17 am

First, let’s take a short accounting:

Consumer confidence has just plummeted to a nearly 30-year low. The war in Iraq has become a tar-baby entanglement. Global warming appears to be working up a real head of steam. The world also seems to be running low on it’s fuel of choice. Food prices have suddenly surged. Foreclosing on homes and credit counseling have become the nation’s only growth industries. The ice caps are melting faster with each passing day. Fishing fleets return home with smaller and smaller catches. Grain, once so plentiful it was often stored in piles on the ground, is suddenly in short supply driving feed and food prices through the roof. The fertilizers  and chemicals needed to maintain high grain production are in short supply and prices are at record levels. Diesel, the fuel that moves nearly everything that needs moving, is now over $5 a gallon and going higher each day. Somethings gone wacky with the weather too. Living in America’s Midwest, has become like living in a Cuisinart.

When you add up all the different “disturbances in the Force,” it leaves one wondering why those running for president aren’t sounding a lot more alarmed.  After all, come next January 21st one of them is going to have it all dumped in their lap.

In fairness, the candidates do touch on many of these issues in their stump speeches. They talk about global warming, home foreclosures and the price of gas. And they each offer the hope that, if elected, they can and will do something about all this. But do they mean it … really? It’s a truism that “talk is cheap” and no talk is cheaper than the politic variety. (i.e. “I’m a uniter, not a divider,” and “America needs to adopt a humble foreign policy.” GW Bush circa 2000.) These guys and gals will say anything to get elected. After that it’s always been back to business as usual.

And, even a more frightening possibility, do they even “get it?” I have no idea if any of the candidates actually understands how serious things are, or how much worse they are becoming with each passing day. And, even if they did, or do, understand, would they tell us the truth? Would any of them risk being the skunk at a garden party?

So far the answer to that question is “no,” I don’t think any of them would risk that, even if they understood the true depth and breath of the problems ahead.

That’s as much our fault as it is theirs. We don’t react well to bad news and we are not kind to the bearers of such. So candidates tell us what we want to hear. When they do address problems they shave the sharp edges off them, then assure us that the problem, while real, is “manageable”and that the only reason it has not been managed is because the other candidate or party has failed to manage it.

Sometimes that’s true. This is not one of those times. This is no run-of-the-mill “problem.” This is a cancer that has been allowed, by both parties, to metastasize. This patient doesn’t need a trip to the doctor, it needs to be put into intensive care, and fast.

Here’s the truth, none of the candidates dares utter because so few want to hear it:

We — (and that would be the global “we,”) — are about to come face to face with the most jarring social, financial and ecological crisis in eight centuries. Nothing like what’s bearing down on us has been happened since the plague swept Europe in the mid-1300’s, wiping out one in three souls and nearly thrusting Europe 300-years back to the dark ages.

Yes, it’s that serious and it’s that threatening.

Yet you have not, and will not, hear any of the candidates sounding anything like the sense of urgency such dire circumstances require. Tipping points will soon will be reached. After that we’ll all be on for the ride of our lives –  literally.

Here’s a related truth we can’t handle:  We’re been living in a fool’s paradise. That’s what you get when virtually no consideration is given to the sustainability of the systems that underpin, fuel, feed, house  and finance everything that matters in our daily lives.

Instead we embrace the quick, the easy, the cheapest, the short-term fixes. That’s because short-term fixes can quickly address immediate problems, despite the often obvious finite nature of the resources required and/or the negative impacts such quick fixes almost always produce as byproducts.

Well, short-term solutions are just that. And we are now discovering that the meter has run out on a whole lot of short term fixes all at once. It’s been a great, but careless, ride, and now the wheels are falling off.

Get used to high food costs, water shortages
Climate report offers a dire look at next 50 years in U.S.

Seattle, Washington: Shocked by rising food prices? Get used to it — and be ready for water shortages, too, says a sweeping new scientific report rounding up likely effects of climate change on the United States’ land, water and farms over the next half-century…. Some effects already can be felt, says the report released Tuesday, which synthesizes results of more than 1,000 individual studies.

And it’s not just humans’ food that’s at risk, said witnesses at a congressional field hearing in Seattle on Tuesday. An intense and sudden acidification of the Pacific resulting from climate change presages a possible breakdown in the marine food web, experts said at the hearing, headed by Sen. Maria Cantwell, D-Wash.

“This is not a problem of tomorrow but a problem for today,” said Rep. Jay Inslee, D-Wash., noting that nearly 10 percent of protein in the human diet is from the oceans. “It just scares the heck out of me.”

And well it should scare the heck out of him. It should also scare the heck out of anyone who thinks he or she should become President of the United States. And it should scare the heck out of all the rest of us as well.  Because, when this one hits the fan, no one will be left untouched — not even the wealthy. This happens maybe once every thousand years or so, when all of mankind finds itself in the same sinking boat. If it goes down, we all go down together.

Still, by listening to the candidates, you’d never know mankind teeters on the edge of such biblical-quality  disaster.

“Maybe the candidates just don’t want to panic us,” you say.

Maybe. But I doubt that’s it. Instead I suspect they really don’t get how serious it really is.

Which is why I say, bring on the panic.. please. And soon.

There are times when a cool head and calm talk are just what the doctor ordered. For example, when financial turmoil strikes financial markets the last thing those trying to fix things need is to panic the public and cause a run on banks. But this is different. This time panic is exactly what’s needed to break through all the denial, wishful thinking, inertia, special interest spin and political cowardliness, Public panic is precisely what it’s going to take to shake things loose and get those who need to get off the dime to do just that — and fast — and furiously — and and with white knuckles on the controls — as if their lives — and yours — depended on it.

Forget oil, the new global crisis is food

Donald Coxe warns credit crunch and soaring oil prices will pale in comparison to looming catastrophe…A new crisis is emerging, a global food catastrophe that will reach further and be more crippling than anything the world has ever seen. The credit crunch and the reverberations of soaring oil prices around the world will pale in comparison to what is about to transpire, Donald Coxe, global portfolio strategist at BMO Financial Group said at the Empire Club’s 14th annual investment outlook in Toronto on Thursday…”It’s not a matter of if, but when,” he warned investors. “It’s going to hit this year hard.” (Financial Post)

But yet there’s still no sense of panic. Instead candidates spar over unimportant nonsense, such as which of their religion peddlers is crazier, or how long they should be allowed to keep campaigning.  They offer counter-productive summer gas tax breaks so SUV and RV drivers can burn more gallons for less.

And, of course, the candidates are also sparing over the war, whether it’s smart to withdraw the troops from Iraq in 16 months or 16 years. Both miss the point at hand. Here’s the sane position: End it now! Just end it — immediately. Not because “we’re winning” or because “we’re losing,” or because it’s  immoral, illegal or both. End it because it’s no longer matters. It’s no longer important enough to waste precious time and limited resources upon.

Because it’s all hands on deck time. Everyone and everything is needed to fight a common enemy that has the ability to kill, not thousands, or tens of thousands, or millions of us, but billions of us. (A 33% die off, of the kind that hit Europe in the 1340s, would kill upwards of 2 billion. And if you think those deaths will be restricted to the usual suspect regions, think again. Think SARS, think Bird Flu, think social decay and disorder.)

Which is why wars, including this one, can wait until both we and our enemies are no longer each threatened with mass extinction. It comes down to just that… the core, fundamental priority of our lifetime — if we and our progeny are to continue having one.

Oh sure, McCain and Obama talk about how we have to begin “addressing global warming.” The only trouble with that approach is that the days when we could simply “address global warming” are long gone. Those days were way back in the 1980’s and that train left the station, and it left the station empty.

If everyone fully understood just how serious the threats bearing down on us are, they would panic and demand that every candidate for any public office in the land have an attack plan in hand and pledge that implementing that plan will Job 1 on day 1.  That they convince voters that understand that this is our generations Normandy — but on a global scale.

I will leave all this hand wringing there. If  you think I’ve  gone all Chicken Little on you — here’s some reading for you.

WHITE HOUSE ISSUES CLIMATER REPORT 4 YEARS LATE
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5g6O97RBP7Jq-1ji5FmxDo95o__NgD90VFKUO3

OIL AT $300 MEANS TOTAL ECONOMIC SHUTDOWN
“If we see oil at $300 per barrel, we will be looking out over the smoldering ruins of the world’s economy.”
http://www.princeton.edu/hubbert/current-events.html

OIL HEADED STRAIGHT FOR $200 A BARREL
http://money.cnn.com/2008/05/28/markets/oil_prices/index.htm?postversion=2008052815

THE FACTS AND THE RESEARCH: WHY DOES OIL COST OVER $120 A BARREL?
http://europe.theoildrum.com/node/4007

CLIMATE REPORT OFFERS DIRE FORECAST FOR FOOD PRICES AND WATER SHORTAGES
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/364800_climate28.html

VANDANA SHIVA: WHY WE FACE A FOOD AND WATER CRISIS
http://www.alternet.org/environment/85433/

THE WORLD’S FISHING INDUSTRY IS IN PERIL
http://www.oananews.org/news.open.php?open=1&nid=415771

Trivia question: What would happen if all the 6.6 billion people on earth attained a moderate western style standard of living?

Non-trivial answer: The resources required to maintain such a worldwide modern standard of living would require somewhere between 4 and 6 entire planet earths.

Trivia question: How many gallons of fresh water does it take to grow one ton of wheat?

Non-trivial answer: It takes 900 gallons of fresh water to produce 1-ton of wheat

Voodoo Economics Redux

May 23, 2008 – 1:34 pm

By Stephen P. Pizzo

You really didn’t have to be a Rhodes Scholar or an economist to see all this economic trouble coming. All you had to do is possess an accurate memory.

When George W. Bush’s economic policies began to emerge early in his administration, I was pretty sure where we headed, because we’d been there before. It’s the great “trickle down/supply side” slight of hand. Ronald Reagan was the first to proffer this piece of fiscal fantasy, leaving his successor, George H. Bush, with literally no choice but to break his “watch my lips, no new taxes,” promise - which in turn cost him reelection.  Bush One raised taxes, not because he wanted to, but because he had to. Reagan’s policies had rendered the US Treasury a smoking hole, along with the a once vibrant S&L industry.

So, once it was clear that Bush Two had consumed the supply-side Kool-Aid, I submitted the piece that follows to the San Francisco Chronicle. That was a long time, and $4 trillion in additional federal debt ago.

Voodoo Economics, Son of Gingrich, Grandson of Reagan

(Originally published on Sunday, December 15, 2002 in the San Francisco Chronicle)

When Republicans regained control of both houses of Congress in November, they won more than bragging rights. They also realized their best opportunity yet to enact the twin sacraments of conservative economics: tax cuts and deregulation. With Democrats out of power and a new White House economic team now in place, GOP conservatives hope they can finally achieve their vision of a low-tax, lightly regulated economy.

Twice in the past two decades, supply-siders have tried to prove that a booming economy can be created by deep tax cuts — resulting in more tax revenue — buttressed by ending mettlesome federal oversight and bureaucratic regulations.

Unfortunately, the Republicans’ attempts to do this have left taxpayers saddled with hundreds of billions of dollars of debt, fomented waves of corporate corruption and may end up costing pension funds and small investors trillions of dollars.

Nevertheless, no sooner had this fall’s election results been announced than House and Senate Republicans were proposing additional tax cuts and lining up to whack away once again at the federal regulatory apparatus.

Maybe the third time will be the charm. We better hope so, because current government obligations already exceed projected tax revenues by over $20 trillion dollars. (Yes, trillion.)

Cutting taxes and reducing regulation have been central tenets of Republican orthodoxy even before Ronald Reagan took them prime time.

Lowering taxes is supposed to result in more investment, growth and jobs — (”A rising tide raises all boats,” as that famous tax-cutting non-Republican John F. Kennedy put it.) And deregulation frees companies from expensive rules leaving more money for shareholders, expansion and — jobs. Ruled by Adam Smith’s “invisible hand,” businesses are persuaded to do the right thing because it’s in their own enlightened self-interest.

Liberal Democrats dismiss all this as a sop to corporate contributors and a tax giveaway to the wealthy. Even President Bush’s own father dissed supply- side theory as “voodoo economics.” Bush Senior was right.

The first test of these theories came in the 1980s. In his eight years in office, Reagan slashed taxes by over $750 billion. He also began deregulating the financial services sector by signing thrift deregulation into law. The measure lifted historically tight oversight of the nation’s savings and loan associations, cutting them loose to prosper by investing their federally insured deposits in whatever they thought could turn a buck. It was the most ambitious piece of deregulation of the financial sector since the Great Depression.

Reagan thought deregulating savings and loans would spur home construction and create jobs. It didn’t. And his tax cuts failed to produce more high- paying jobs or higher tax revenues, which dropped off a cliff while defense spending soared.

Bipartisan pork kept domestic spending climbing as well. It was Vietnam-era “guns and butter” economics all over again. To cover the fall in tax revenues, Reagan whipped out the National Platinum Card. By 1987, the United States was the world’s largest debtor nation.

Warning: Political conditions today mirror the Reagan era. Reagan’s popularity among voters convinced Democrats it was in their best short-term interest to support his proposed tax cuts.

Back in 1988, I sat through countless hours of congressional hearings in which members of Congress — most of whom voted for thrift deregulation and/or interfered with later attempts by regulators to rein in the industry — pounded the lectern demanding to know: “Where were the accountants? How could this have happened right under the noses of auditors from prestigious accounting firms like — Arthur Andersen?”

The answer was clear: Outside accounting firms were thoroughly compromised. Instead of reporting trouble at the thrifts they audited, they helped cook their books, hide bad loans and inflate the value of assets. They even shredded documents to hide their culpability. Sound familiar?

In 1989, thrifts were reregulated, to the public’s benefit. But it was a different story for accountants. There were calls to regulate them, too, but the industry greased key House and Senate members with generous campaign contributions. Even after aiding and abetting the looting of hundreds of S&Ls, accountants were allowed to continue to self-regulate.

Congress’ failure to place the accounting industry under SEC oversight in 1989 would cost taxpayers, workers, pension funds and small investors dearly over the next decade.

Record Reagan-era deficits and the savings-and-loan debacle did little to dampen conservative enthusiasm for lower taxes or deregulation.

In 1994, a new breed of fiscal conservatives swept into office. House Speaker Newt Gingrich, a Georgia Republican, ruled under the “Contract With America” — a fresh call for lower taxes and “smaller government.” The congressional class of ‘94 was to taxes and deregulation what the Taliban were to Islam — uncompromising fundamentalists.

President Bill Clinton responded by slipping into his “triangulation” mode and declaring, to the delight of conservatives, that “the era of big government is dead over.”

The remark provided a green light for the deregulators.

Under Gingrich’s leadership, House conservatives mounted repeated assaults on the federal regulatory apparatus. Because the SEC regulated public companies, it was second in line only to the Environmental Protection Agency for congressional ire. In 2001, Louisiana Republican Rep. Billy Tauzin used his chairmanship of the powerful House Commerce Committee to block then-SEC head Arthur Levitt’s frantic effort to pass a rule requiring big accounting firms to separate their auditing from their increasingly lucrative consulting businesses.

Tauzin (who was among the largest recipients of accounting industry contributions) lambasted Levitt when he testified before the Commerce Committee and later threatened to cut the SEC’s budget if Levitt did not drop the matter.

Levitt backed off — and the time bomb ticked on.

The regulatory vacuum was filled by lawyers. Public interest and investor groups, unable to get the attention of federal agencies such as the EPA or SEC,

turned to the courts. Judges and juries began ruling for plaintiffs, slamming companies with fines into the hundreds of millions of dollars.

House conservatives were furious. Unable to intimidate an independent judiciary, Congress simply changed the law. In 1995, they passed the “Private Securities Litigation Reform Act,” making it much harder for private attorneys to get a class-action case accepted by the courts and reducing the level of liability faced by corporate insiders, their accountants and law firms.

It would be six years before the first corporate domino would fall, but Congress had put in place yet another cog in the wheels of the corporate crisis to come.

In 2001, when George W. Bush took office, his first push was for a $1.6 trillion tax cut over 10 years. Democrats fell in line after trimming the cuts to a still-hefty $1.3 trillion. And despite growing concern over the uncertain future of Social Security and Medicare, the Bush tax cuts became law.

It was 1984 all over again.

The jury is still out on the Bush tax cuts, but signs are not good. As with Reagan’s tax cuts, less money is flowing into the federal treasury, new revenues have not materialized and defense spending has soared. In less than two years, the $5.6 trillion tax surplus forecast by the Congressional Budget Office in 2000 has vanished. The national Platinum Card is back in use.

On the deregulatory front, those 1994 Contract With America chickens came home to roost with a vengeance beginning in December 2001 with Enron’s collapse. Enron was followed in short order by dozens of other marquee U.S. companies.

Once again, loosened federal oversight — rather than sparking innovation, investment and growth — enabled an orgy of self-dealing, insider abuse and other skullduggery.

Earlier this year, I once again found myself listening to congressional testimony. There on C-Span was Rep. Tauzin, again holding hearings, this time on the Enron collapse. More than a decade ago, Arthur Levitt told him it would happen. Here was Tauzin, pounding the lectern as he interrogated representatives from Arthur Andersen. “Where were your auditors? How could this happen?”

The answer Congress got in 2002 was the same as in 1989. Even some of the “perps” were the same. (Arthur Andersen had worked for Charles Keating’s Lincoln Savings.)

One might think such a dismal batting average would sober up even the most rabid fiscal jihadist. On the contrary — even though a recent New York Times/CBS News poll shows that two-thirds of the country thinks the money from the now-vanished federal surplus should have been used to help save Medicare and Social Security, not subsidize a trillion-dollar tax cut — conservatives see their historic mid-term victory last month as a mandate to finish the job.

What about the expensive failures of the past? Conservatives say the only reason things went badly was that liberals gummed up the works, first by snookering George H.W. Bush into breaking his no-new-taxes pledge (he raised them in 1990), and then by aiding and abetting Clinton during his eight-year reign.

Diehard conservatives don’t give up. This time, they say, they’ll get it right.

Stephen Pizzo is a Sebastopol-based freelance writer and political analyst. He is the co-author, with Mary Fricker and Paul Muolo, of “Inside Job: The Looting of America’s Savings and Loans.”

Imagine This

May 23, 2008 – 9:30 am

We’ve arrived at one of those moments when we’d be wise to just hit the “pause” button, stop, sit in a quiet place and imagine something that could happen, actually happening.

(After all, had more people done just that before we invaded Iraq, a whole lot people would still be alive and the nation would be a trillion bucks richer right now. But we didn’t, and here we are.)

Now we have another chance to image something before it happens.

This time that “something” is Vice President Hillary R. Clinton.

Having failed to bag the number one spot on the ticket, Hillary and Bill and their surrogates are now furiously working the back channels trying to get a lock on the second spot.

So, what if Obama is successfully hounded into tapping Hillary Clinton as his No. 2? What would life be like for President Obama — and the rest of us — over the next four years?

Let’s stop, look both ways and imagine this:

Scene: VP Hillary Clinton and husband Bill Clinton move into the Veep residence, the Naval Observatory.  The couple will be there for the next four years — Hillary working 16-hour days, leaving Bill home alone. As Veep Hillary will also spend a lot of time on the road, leaving Bill home alone for days on end.  I’m not suggesting he would do anything improper, I’m just asking you imagine Bill, home, alone for days at time.

Sure he’s been pretty much home alone since this political couple left the White House in 2001. But he’s been a private citizen free to indulge in the kind of things private citizens are free to indulge in. As the husband of the Vice President of the United States of America Bill will be back in the fishbowl. The last time he was in that fishbowl he hooked up with a sucker fish and… well, we all know the rest of that story.

“Authentic treachery is found when we abandon ourselves, becoming deaf to the whispers of our spirits and blind to the powerful potential therein”  ( Joaquin Mariel Espinosa)

Scene: VP Hillary Clinton will spend much of her time in the Veep’s office a stone’s throw form the White House in the (dark and stuffy and, frankly depressing) old Executive Office Building. Out her office window she’ll have a nice view of the front door leading to the Oval Office. From her vantage she would have to watch a daily procession of dignitaries and other national and international movers and shakers ushered through that door by the Marine Corp doormen for an audience with President Barack Obama.

And there she’d sit, as President Obama makes decisions he will likely only share with her after he’s made them. And once made VP Hillary Clinton would be expected to publicly embrace and promote President Obama’s policies — as though they were her own — only they won’t be. And, should those policies prove beneficial to the nation, Obama would get the credit, not Hillary. How do you imagine that will go down? With everything we now know about Hillary and Bill Clinton, imagine that for moment. (It will only take a moment.)

“There is no act of treachery or meanness of which a political party is not capable; for in politics there is no honor.” ( Benjamin Disraeli )

Scene: It’s evening. Bill and Hillary are gathered for a late dinner at the Veep’s residence with long-time allies, like James Carville, Lanny Davis, Terry McAuliffe, and other familiar suspects. The topic of discussion: how to position Hillary for the next election, should Obama’s approval ratings sink during his first term. This would require the risky but unavoidable tactic of leaking stories hinting that Hillary had opposed Obama policies that later became unpopular — stories she would, of course, refuse to comment on or would indicate are not “entirely accurate.”

“Destiny is a good thing to accept when it’s going your way. When it isn’t, don’t call it destiny; call it injustice, treachery, or simple bad luck.”   (Joseph Heller)

Scene: Same place, same time of day, different meeting to hash out a different problem. This time the group discusses what Hillary can do to “shine on her own,” outside the shadow of President Obama. The goal would be to identify positions and policies Hillary could use to attract the media attention , independent of Obama. Meetings she could hold with news-makers, world leaders, hints of policies she’d like to address outside the Obama administration’s stated policy goals. All designed to portray Hillary Clinton as a hands-on Veep and  get her on the nightly news, even if that means upstaging Obama.

Such tactics would leave Obama with a helluva dilemma. Should he simply allow his Veep to freelance, or should he grab Hillary by the nape of the neck and drag her off to the executive woodshed?

If he allows Hillary to freelancing the resulting news coverage would weaken the Obama presidency. After all, if he can’t face down his own Veep, how can he face down America’s enemies? That would be the question sweeping the news if he let’s just lets Hillary be Hillary.

On the other hand if he does rein Hillary — and you gotta know the media would find out about it — then the real “fun”would begin. Bill would be furious. (Red-face furious) He would start talking to reporters “on background.” Bill would again allege that Obama had won by “running a sexist campaign” and was now continuing that practice by “muzzling the first female Vice President of the United States of America.”

Even if Obama laid down the law, telling Hillary she had to toe the administration line henceforth,  what do you think would really happen? Imagine Hillary R. Clinton spending the next four years as an obedient junior partner, while Obama harvests all the attention.

Try to imagine that. Oh hell, go ahead, just try. I dare you.

“The zeal which begins with hypocrisy must conclude in treachery; at first it deceives, at last it betrays”  ( Francis Bacon)

Hillary and Bill dismiss such concerns and criticism as further proof that Hillary Clinton has been a victim of sexism. Never mind that she beat the pants off a guy to win her Senate seat, or that she has been the first woman to come within a hair’s breath of the presidency itself.  Hillary’s victories are only confirmation she is worthy as the he and she assume she is. Only when she loses does sexism become the prime suspect. If she had become President, would she whine that world leaders and members of Congress who oppose her policies are sexist too? The “Great Sexists-wing Conspiracy?”

I don’t like Hillary Clinton, okay. But it’s not because she’s a woman. It’s because she’s Hillary Clinton — the very same Hillary Clinton I came know over the past 16 action-packed years.

So there you have it. As you hear the talking heads twirling in the seats over the possibility of a Obama/Clinton ticket, stop, look both ways, and try to imagine what that would mean as a daily, four-year, reality.

Then let’s think again. Because age and treachery really can overwhelm youth and skill.

Deconstructing Bush’s Speech to Arab Nations

May 19, 2008 – 11:08 am

From: White House Web Site. Transcript.

President Bush Attends World Economic Forum
Sharm el Sheikh International Congress Center

(Entries in Red represent the real subtext.)

THE PRESIDENT: I know these are trying times, but the future is in your hands –-

Because, as you may know, I will be hauled out of the Oval Office next January.

America is a much younger nation, but we’ve made our mark by advancing ideals as old as the pyramids. Those ideals of liberty and justice …

Which my administration has pruned way back and/or openly violated in recent years.

This hopeful movement made its way to places where dictators once reigned and peaceful democracies seemed unimaginable: places like Chile…

Of course we did have to assassinate Chile’s democratically elected President and turn the nation over to a brutal military dictator first…

And people of faith (in those countries)are finding the blessing of worshiping God in peace.

Of course only those who accept Jesus Christ as their personal savior, as I have, will be going to heaven.

(The Middle East) is home to energetic people, a powerful spirit of enterprise, and tremendous resources.
It is capable of a very bright future — a future in which the Middle East is a place of innovation..

I mean, look at how the insurgents in Iraq innovated new ways to blow up our armored vehicles with just a piece of devilishly shaped copper plate.

In recent years, we’ve seen hopeful beginnings toward this vision. Turkey, a nation with a majority Muslim population, is a prosperous modern democracy.

Of course the European Union doesn’t see it that way, and is still refusing Turkey EU membership because they ain’t buyin’ any of this Muslim-nations-as-functioning-modern-democracy BS.

Afghanistan under the leadership of President Karzai is overcoming the Taliban and building a free society.

It’s the world’s smallest democracy, encompassing the immediate area around Karzai secured by Blackwater mercenaries.

Iraq under the leadership of Prime Minister Maliki is establishing a multi-ethnic democracy.

Ditto

We have seen the stirrings of reform from Morocco and Algeria ….

Refugees speak of atrocities in ignored Morocco conflict
AP — Sunday, May 18, 2008: “There is no future under the Polisario. There is no freedom of movement. There is no freedom of speech,” Said Abderahman said in an interview. He is one of the refugees whose trip to the US was sponsored by the lobbying group, Moroccan American Center for Policy. “If you dare to talk they take you and put you in jail, and they bring you to a public place and they accuse you of being a thief, in front of society,” he said, speaking through a translator provided by Morocco’s UN mission in New York. (Full)

America appreciates the challenges facing the Middle East. Yet the light of liberty is beginning to shine.

Oh, not that light.. that’s just the light from a phosphorous grenade.

In order for economic progress to result in permanent prosperity and an Egypt that reaches its full potential, however, economic reform must be accompanied by political reform. And I continue to hope that Egypt can lead the region in political reform.

Of course, if Egypt actually did what I just suggested, the country would be under the rule of the Muslim Brotherhood in no time at all, the same way Hamas won power in Gaza following their first free and open elections.

Your greatest asset in this quest is the entrepreneurial spirit of your people. Your economies will be more vibrant when citizens who dream of starting their own companies can do so quickly, without high regulatory and registration costs.

We did just that in the US by cutting regulatory oversight of banks, hedge funds and Wall Street bond traders and might have triggered the first worldwide financial collapse in nearly a century.

Your economies will be more dynamic when property rights are protected and risk-taking is encouraged — not punished — by law.

We’ve also pre-tested this concept by refusing to punish CEO’s of companies that ran wild after we neutered their regulators. Hell, look at the guy who used to run the biggest US lender, Countrywide Funding. He not only ruined his own company, screwed millions of shareholders and left tens of thousands of their own customers on the street in front of foreclosed homes, but he got to take home over a $100 million in going away money too boot.

And your economies will have greater long-term prosperity when taxes are low and all your citizens know that their innovation and hard work will be rewarded.

Of course, while a handful of opportunists will do quite well thanks to tax breaks, your governments will be broke and unable to maintain the very national infrastructure that made those riches possible. Oh, and your poor and disadvantaged… you won’t have any money to help them either. But then again, they usually don’t vote. And those that do vote are easily confused into voting against their own interests by propaganda blitzes financed by the few that benefited from those tax breaks and regulatory passes.

One of the most powerful drivers of economic growth is free trade.

Just look at China. It’s grown a lot thanks to free trade with the US. Of course that growth came at the cost of millions of US manufacturing jobs, and India grew by gutting America’s white- collar cubicles. Now Americans most make ends meet by giving each other haircuts, serving them food, frequenting American Indian casinos and replying to Nigerian emails offering them great riches.

So nations in this region would benefit greatly from breaking down barriers to trade with each other.

Imagine the joy when the ladies of the Middle East can purchase berka’s made in China and their husbands can finally afford that AK-47 assault rifle, made in Syria by non-union labor serving time for supporting opposition parties.

America will continue working to open up trade at every level. In recent years, the United States has completed free trade agreements with Jordan, Oman, Morocco, and Bahrain. ]

Unfortunately, with the exception of Bahrain, those countries don’t have a damn thing we want to buy. I mean, we have plenty of sand already, their ladies fashions are way too un-revealing, they don’t produce anything fun to drink and those hookah pipes are a recipe for viral pandemic. But hey, who knows, maybe someone will discover oil or gas in one of them someday.

As we seek to open new markets abroad, America will keep our markets open at home.

Under New Management – after January 21, 2009

There are voices in my country that urge America to adopt measures that would isolate us from the global economy. I firmly reject these calls for protectionism. We will continue to welcome foreign investment and trade.

Yeah, hopefully lots of foreign investment. “Buddies, can you spare a dime for a former super-power currently a bit down on its luck?”

Taking your place as a center of progress and achievement requires investing in your people…The key to realizing this goal is an educated workforce.This starts early on, with primary schools that teach basic skills, such as reading and math, rather than indoctrinating children with ideologies of hatred.

WASHINGTON, D.C. - Despite a widely held belief that U.S. students do well in mathematics in grade school but decline precipitously in high school, a new study comparing the math skills of students in industrialized nations finds that U.S. students in 4th and 8th grade perform consistently below most of their peers around the world and continue that trend into high school. (Full)

An educated workforce also requires good high schools and universities, where students are exposed to a variety of ideas, learn to think for themselves, and develop the capacity to innovate. People of the Middle East can count on the United States to be a strong partner in improving your educational systems.

Ben Allen, a law student at UC Berkeley and a UC student regent, agreed that universities have to find new methods to make money. But the state should also not forget its higher-education mission. “Our grandparents created a system in California of high-quality, low-cost, accessible public higher education years ago, and it seems like ever since then there has been a relentless downward spiral in investment,” Allen said. (Full)

It is also in America’s interest to continue welcoming aspiring young adults from this region for higher education to the United States. There were understandable concerns about student visas after 9/11. My administration has worked hard to improve the visa process. And I’m pleased to report that we are issuing a growing numbers of student visas to young people from the Middle East.

Of course there’s a risk that occasionally an Arab exchange student might end up serving their freshman year being debriefed at a secret location. The good news they will emerge with the cleanest sinus cavities in the history of higher education.

Building powerful economies also requires expanding the role of women in society. This is a matter of morality and of basic math. No nation that cuts off half its population from opportunities will be as productive or prosperous as it could be.

Unless of course you’re cutting women off from access to full, unrestricted reproductive education and services. Control over their own reproductive functions is best left in the hands of the state.

In Afghanistan, girls who were once denied even a basic education are now going to school, and a whole generation of Afghans will grow up with the intellectual tools to lead their nation toward prosperity.

If they don’t get blown up by Islamic maniacs — of which there is no shortage in Afghanistan.

In Iraq and Kuwait, women are joining political parties and running campaigns and serving in public office. In some Gulf States, women entrepreneurs are making a living and a name for themselves in the business world.

Islamists gain in Kuwait vote — No woman elected

Agence France Presse KUWAIT CITY: The Sunni Islamists made a strong showing in Kuwait’s legislative election and minority Shias gained one more seat, but women failed again to enter parliament, according to results released on Sunday. (Full)

Free societies give people access to information they need to make informed and responsible decisions.

Unless of course you’re Dick Cheney and someone wants to know exactly who he met with in 2001 to develop the nation’s energy policies that have since made oil companies stinking rich and left Americans stuck with $4 a gallon gasoline and sky high home heating bills. Keeping that information secret keeps them from making informed decisions that might not be kind to those in power.

And free societies give citizens the rule of law, which exposes corruption and builds confidence in the future.

Unless the corruption being exposed is about someone belonging to the party in power. That’s when you use the other tools of democracy, like claiming executive privilege. And if that doesn’t work, then destroy the evidence of corruption. We did that recently when congress demanded to see White House emails that described our outing of CIA agent Valarie Plame. We just hit the “delete” button. Problem gone. Corruption? What corruption? (See, you guys really don’t need to be afraid of democracy. It can be made to work for you — if you work with it — just a bit.)

Freedom is also the basis for a democratic system of government, which is the only fair and just ordering of society and the only way to guarantee the God-given rights of all people.

Some people mistakenly believe the US Constitution is what gave them their rights, but they’re wrong. God gave it to them — in particular our God, not yours. That’s why we have freedom and your people don’t. Your God is a real loser when it comes to the whole human rights thing. And of course there’s that whole, gonna-burn-in-hell thing that goes right along with picking the wrong deity.

There are skeptics about democracy in this part of the world, I understand that. But as more people in the Middle East gain firsthand experience from freedom, many of the arguments against democracy are being discredited.

Like the people of Iraq. They’ve never had it better. They just have to carry multiple false identity cards, one showing they are Sunni, one showing they are Shiite and one showing they are Kurdish. In the new Iraqi democracy the trick is knowing which ID to pull out at checkpoints. Guess correctly and you get to live to vote another day. Guess wrong and you get put on a permanent absentee voter roll.

For example, some say that democracy is a Western value that America seeks to impose on unwilling citizens. This is a condescending form of moral relativism.

Just because we bombed and invaded a nation that did not directly threaten us and then occupied it. Those who see it that way are appeasers at heart. If they were in charge Saddam would still be killing his own people rather than the current situation where in Iraq citizens get to kill other Iraqi citizens and to ethnically cleanse entire neighborhoods and towns. That’s the kind of citizen empowerment I’m talking about.

In Iraq, 12 million people waved ink-stained fingers to celebrate the first democratic election in decades.

Then they waved their AK47s in the air and democratically-sparked fun has been non-stop ever since. (Story)

And in a recent survey of the Muslim world, there was overwhelming support for one of the central tenets of democracy, freedom of speech: 99 percent in Lebanon, 94 percent here in Egypt, and 92 percent in Iran.

Which is why everything is going so swimmingly in those countries.

“Hezbollah terrorists recently overthrew the pro-democracy government of Lebanon. Sadly, the international community essentially stood back and let this happen. Everyone knows that Hezbollah operates as a proxy of Iran. A similar scenario occurred in the summer of 2007, when the mullahs in Tehran engineered the overthrow of the Gaza Strip through Hamas. The world was silent then too! ” (Story)

There are people who claim that democracy is incompatible with Islam. But the truth is that democracies, by definition, make a place for people of religious belief.

Even if your religion teaches it’s kids things that are just plain crazy…like creationism and hatred for those who believe in different crazy stuff. And especially if they teach hatred for those who don’t believe in spiritualism at all.

America is one of the most — is one of the world’s leading democracies, and we’re also one of the most religious nations in the world. More than three-quarters of our citizens believe in a higher power.

And 34% of them also believe in UFOs. (Story)

In our democracy, we would never punish a person for owning a Koran.

Unless we find it in their carry on luggage at an airport.

Some say any state that holds an election is a democracy. But true democracy requires vigorous political parties allowed to engage in free and lively debate.

Like the Swiftboat Veterans for Truth and the group that accused John McCain back in 2004 of having had an illegitimate black love child. Free and lively debate also means the freedom to lie like rug and get away with it by hiding behind the First Amendment.

True democracy requires the establishment of civic institutions that ensure an election’s legitimacy and hold leaders accountable.

Like we did in Florida in 2000 and in Ohio in 2004. Civic institution are malleable as hell once you’ve jettisoned all that civics class idealism.

And true democracy requires competitive elections in which opposition candidates are allowed to campaign without fear or intimidation.

Intimidation is not necessary. What you do instead is suppress the vote among those groups in your democracy likely to vote for your opponents. Simple as pie. (Story)

America is deeply concerned about the plight of political prisoners in this region…

Except for those who we suspect have terrorist tendencies, thoughts, financial connections or just look suspicious or have said things we don’t like. In those cases we have places to put them so out of sight and so out of mind that no one will even know we have them. You see, the whole “political prisoners” rap is simply a PR problem. What political prisoners?” we respond when someone accuses the US of holding people without trail or recourse. “Who are they? Where are they? See you can’t even name one.” (Heh, heh, heh. I gotta be fair. That was Dick’s idea.)

The time has come for nations across the Middle East to abandon these practices, and treat their people with dignity and the respect they deserve.


Except when it comes to “enhanced interrogation techniques.” Because anyone getting some of that was just asking for it dressing/thinking/acting that way.

I call on all nations to release their prisoners of conscience…

Except the ones we’re holding. (Story)

The vision I have outlined today is shared by many in this region –

Well, okay, not many. Mostly those sitting on a lot of oil — particularly the Saudis — who want to sell their black gold to the west so they can afford to install Olympic size swimming pools on board their private 747 jetliners. They share my vision because they need our protection. They are terrified that Islamic militants, should they prevail, would lop their phony royal heads off, discover they stashes of booze and porn and turn their palaces into mosques.

<