Rowan Wolf's Blog

Is the "Tea Party" Really An Appropriate Name?

2009-11-20T22:39:02Z

First calling themselves "tea baggers" - thanks to lack of cultural knowledge about the sexual nature of that term - increasingly this nation-wide collection of populace is being referred to as the "Tea Party." While it surely intended to stoke the "patriotic" fervor of those who see themselves as part of this movement, this appellation is very inaccurate.

]]> The Boston "Tea Party" was populist activism by the colonists in "America" who were protesting the Tea Act of the British Parliament which imposed a tax on tea. The "rebels" felt that they should not pay a tax that was not passed by their elected officials. Interestingly, the Tea Act was passed by the Parliament to save the East India Tea Company from bankruptcy (Encyclopedia Britannica - Boston tea Party). The East India Company was given a monopoly on all tea exported from Britain to the colonies, as well as imposing a tax on that tea. The refrain of "No taxation without representation" was one of the arguments of the rebelling colonists (Wikipedia - Boston Tea Party)

Regardless of frequently claiming to be "bi-partisan" or "non-partisan," the current Tea Party is highly conservative in the contemporary sense of that word. They are anti-tax (meaning individual taxation and increasing taxes for the wealthy), anti-immigrant, and pro-corporate and privatization. They are largely anti-government, which is the supposedly "Libertarian" strain - which in the current popular rendition is largely "conservative" as well. (See site sampling at end of article).

This is a far cry from the rebel terrorists (and as far as the British were concerned the folks in Boston were terrorists) of the original "Tea Partyers". The Boston Tea Party rebels were acting against British rule in the American colonies, but particularly British taxation. They were acting against monopoly corporatism as represented by the East Indian Tea Company. They were making a first strike for liberating the colonies from Britain.

However, the current "Tea Party" does have close corollaries to another historical party. The party in mind is the "Know Nothings" also known as the American Party which arose roughly 80 years after the revolt of 1773. Both parties were responding to a social environment of slavery (and the conflicts around the institution), and to waves of European immigration. Feagin (1997: 19-20 as quoted in Wolf) characterizes this period as follows:

"In the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, the 'white race' emerged as a constructed social group for the first time in history." ... "Early English invaders and their descendants saw themselves as culturally and physically different from Native and African Americans, the stereotyped 'uncivilized savages.' Moreover, by the early 1800s the importance of Southern cotton plantations for the U.S. economy had brought a growing demand for Native American land and African and African American slaves. Slavery was being abolished in the North, and the number of free black men and women was growing. In this period, the Anglo-Protestant ruling elite developed the ideology of a superior 'white race' as one way of providing racial privileges for poorer European Americans and keeping the latter from joining with black Americans in worker organisations. By the mid-nineteenth century, not only later English "immigrants" but also "immigrants" from Scotland, Ireland, and Germany had come to accept a place in this socially constructed 'white race' whose special racial privileges included the rights of personal liberty, travel and voting." (As quoted in Wolf, 2008)

The Know Nothings were anti-immigrant and anti-Catholic, though they were split North and South on the issue of slavery. As stated in Wolf (2008):

The Know Nothings grew out of a secret society called the Order of the Star Spangled Banner. They were formally known as the American Party. They were anti-immigrant and anti-Catholic and claimed to be champion of the rights of American male Protestant voters. The northern part of the party being anti-slavery and the southern part being pro-slavery (Anbinder, 1992; Billington, 1952). They took political control of many state and city governments from 1855 to 1860. They supported Millard Fillmore in the 1856 Presidential election and he took 21% of the popular vote and eight votes from the electoral college.

The "nativist" Know Nothing/American Party, were vehemently anti-immigrant, mirroring one of the foci of the current "Tea Party." As noted in Wolf:

The American Party platform included the following:
1. Only native-born Americans could hold public office;

2. A 21 year waiting period before foreign-born could vote;

3. Restrict public schooling to Protestants and have the Protestant bible read daily in classrooms. (Anbinder, 1992)

So called "native" Americans, those white descendants of primarily western Europeans who had been born here, saw the "immigrant" influx as a threat in a number of regards. They saw them as racially and culturally different and inferior to themselves. Samuel Busey (1856) wrote a book called "Immigration and its Evils" in which he presented a detailed discussion of the inferiority of the "immigrants." In the following passage he compares the illiterate American born to the illiterate foreigner.

"The ignorant natives who speak our language have been reared under our institutions, and are acquainted with the practical workings of our government; the ignorant foreigner is totally unacquainted with the language; has not enjoyed the advantages of experience and practical observation of the complex machinery of our government, and is consequently far inferior, intellectually, to the uneducated native. He cannot understand the theory of a free government, because he is destitute of the knowledge sufficient to comprehend its objects, purposes and blessings. He cannot acquaint himself with its practical operation and direct and immediate advantages to himself, because he wants the experience and observation, which birth and habits have taught; besides he is totally unacquainted with our language, and has been reared under institutions hostile to personal liberty, to free institutions, and to a Republican government; hence it is that foreigners are so prone to congregate together, to organise themselves into clubs, societies and even communities, occupying entire sections of a county, State, and of a country. These foreign organisations are dangerous to our established institutions; because, wherever they have been in our country, they have repudiated the fundamental principles of our government. (Bussey, 1856: 127-129)."

After WWI, white nativism reared its head again in the context of economic turmoil and rising immigration. The depression of the 1930s intensified nativism - now focused largely against Mexicans. It re-emerged again after WWII with the return of troops, and the displacement of the "substitute" workers who had been women, African Americans and Mexicans who had been encouraged into the country to fill labor demands. The racism that arose obviously focused in its hostility against Japanese Americans , "Asians," Jews, "Mexicans," Germans and Italians.

The point here is that nativism is an old theme, and the current "Tea Party" joins a long line of white "nativism" and so-called conservatism.

It seems disingenuous to call them the "Tea Party," and "Know Nothings" seems more appropriate. Regardless, it joins the long theme of racism and exclusion that is the uglier part of the history of the United States. While even loosely this movement does not represent the majority of Americans, they are currently influencing - even defining - the social and political terrain. Their effectiveness, one might even say their very existence, is due to corporate funding and big monied interests on the right. For example, their birthis out of Fox "News" owned by Rupert Murdock. This has given them - or their corporate inventors and sponsors - a media megaphone. If they are allowed to continue to define the social and political terrain, we are likely to see an extremely difficult and challenging time become very destructive and ugly as well.

Notes
The Know Nothing and American Party sections are quoted in Chapter 6 of The Dialectic of Social Inequality by Rowan Wolf. 2008.

Time Line of the Boston Tea Part. Google.

Sampling of "Tea Party" Sites
Tea Party Patriots

Nationwide Tax Day Tea Party

Tea Party Express

Re-Tea Party (ironically, the "principles" page is "not found")

Desert Conservatives Tea Party Issues Statement

Albuquerque Tea Party

Brentwood tea Party

A True Gift for Veterans - Peace

2009-11-11T19:01:02Z

The U.S. is deeply embedded in the mythology of the heroism of the warrior culture. There is a lot of rhetoric about the courage and sacrifice of the those who have fought (versus those who have served) for our "freedom." Never is that "freedom" defined. However, it is true that many have served - willingly or not - under the belief they our protecting our "freedom" and "our way of life." I will not besmirch those sacrifices, nor will I be silent on the utterly shameful way that both the government and the people of the United States have met the needs of those who have served. We call them "heroes," but as a nation living with heroes is a more difficult task than remembering (once in a while) those who have died.

]]> Many return from their service transformed All too often, they are too uncomfortably transformed to fit into the "civilian" flow of life. For some, it is more comfortable to return to bloody combat and the risk of death, than to return to friends and family, and co-workers, and a clueless populace. The adrenaline, and violence, and death-linked comradery is a real embrace. The invisibility and lack of understanding of "home" is a different kind of death.

For some, there is no return to war zones, and for better or worse they wrestle the demons and some "win" and some "lose." Some rebuild their lives. Some end up on the streets, or in the jails, or numbed by drugs of choice. Many, and certainly their families, cling with all their might to the comfortable myth that "it was all for a grander purpose."

I have heroes who are veterans. I have watched many face the demons of war (and military "actions") that remain with them - often for a life time. One of the sacrifices they made is the tattering of a glamorized entertainment myth of war and fighting in the face of bloody reality and burned indelibly upon their mind's eyes, and upon their hearts. It is a cost beyond bearing, and one that goes virtually unacknowledged by the populace.

Instead, they all too frequently face a betrayal by those societally tasked to know - and support - them. Namely, the Department of Defense, and the various military services, and the Veterans Administration. Conditions such as PTSD and psychological issues are frequently ignored, or those who have served are dissuaded from pursuing services. Then there are those other things that the military does not want to acknowledge, and therefore refuses to provide service - the "atomic" vets, agent orange, depleted uranium, Gulf War Syndrome, the effects of vaccinations, the paltry benefits left to the families of the fallen, the list goes on and on. The realities of serving - or surviving serving.

Once a year (twice if we count Memorial Day) the nation is called on to recognize these heroes - standing and fallen. This sanitized recognition does not mean embracing the reality of the service or the true sacrifices made. This sanitized recognition does not even recognize the human and national costs of that service. Certainly, nothing is said in this war glorifying culture regarding what the best recognition should really be - a commitment to ending war and working for peace. Yes, peace is work - ongoing work. However many veterans DO make this commitment, and for veterans that commitment comes at a higher price than for most who have never served.

So I want to say thank you to the most courageous of veterans who I know - those veterans who struggle for peace. They have fought, and continue to fight, incredible internal battles while waging the most significant of struggles - the struggle for peace. Thank you veterans for this ongoing service to an ungrateful nation. Thanks also to those veterans organizations that struggle untiringly for peace and truth, and support those who have served in this critical struggle.

Please thank a veteran, and thank a Veteran's organization such as those below. Importantly, also commit to fighting for veteran's rights and to creating a world where such sacrifices are never needed again.

Veterans for Peace

Iraq Veterans Against the War

Veterans Against the Iraq War

Winter Soldier

Winter Soldier: Iraq & Afghanistan

Natural Gas - Not All It's Frakked Up To Be

2009-11-01T18:29:05Z

The craze of late has been that natural gas will be a primary solution to the energy problem in the United States. This news has come as supposedly vast natural gas reserves have been found, and the natural gas industry has found that its interests conflict with the coal and oil industries. The environmental community has also been thrown this bone that natural gas is an attractive alternative because of lower CO2 emissions, and is less destructive than the devastation of mountain top mining. This "alternative" falls in the category of "too good to be true," just like the vaporware of Obama's support of "clean coal." Financial Times. In his article "Shale gas numbers may not add up," Dizard writes: (emphasis mine)

From one end of the known world to the other, which is to say from Boston to Washington and some points in between, there is a consensus among the well informed that one part of a national energy plan is in place. Thanks to the discovery and mapping of huge reserves of gas in shale formations, we have an alternative to dirty old coal, and, possibly, imported oil for transport fuel. A 40 per cent increase in the country's gas reserves! You can thank advanced American technology for that. Well, you can thank advanced American something, but along with the technology you can also thank the advanced American ability to extract money from investors. The key element of this national characteristic is the willingness to listen carefully to determine what people with money want to hear, and then tell them that. Again and again.

Money, that thing we are told "makes the world go round." If one wants to extract money, then one must convince folks that the "product" is worth buying. In the world of investing, that "product" is making money - not natural gas, or cars, or grapes. In the case of oil and gas, the risks are higher because the failure rate is higher. There are hypotheses that oil and gas should exist some place, but drilling may end up "a dry hole," or far less resource than was thought. Therefore, to get investors (or government/tax payer) money, one has to engage in overselling the potential. This has become more difficult as oil has stayed below $100 a barrel (though that is unlikely to continue). There is another obstacle. Namely, that the extraction of natural gas (and oil) raises its own problems regardless of how available - or profitable - that might be. The extraction of natural gas (and oil) comes with its own destructive side with toxic chemicals and redirecting and contamination of water supplies. There is some degree of irony that the term used for extraction is "fracking." Fracking is a mining process where water and chemicals are pressure forced into the ground (or well) to both force the natural gas or oil to the surface, as well as to ease its movement through the ground and pumping process. Fracking potentially pollutes water sources as the fracking mixture escapes into ground water, and by the waste sludge that is pumped up. This is also a water intensive process and therefore diverts fresh water supplies from natural, agricultural, and human use. This means, that while vast supplies of natural gas may lie just below our feet, the process of obtaining those resources may cause unacceptable damage to human populations and the environment. Fracking may also cause another problem - earthquakes. Increased levels of quake activity in Cleburne, Texas in the wake of fracking activities raises the level of concern about the practice. Given that the process does break down underground rock and soil, it is not a stretch that it could cause earthquakes. Drilling and extraction companies have largely refused to say what the ingredients of the fracking mixture are by claiming that it is proprietary, and the EPA does not require them to disclose this information because the mixtures are claimed to be "proprietary." However, some energy company executives have also asked for this information. As reported at ProPublica, at least some of the mixture has been determined by the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation. While, the mixture is broken down, the actual chemicals have not been released. In the NY samples, the composition included 90.6% water, .11% acid, .05% controller, .08% subtractant, etc. In other words, the purpose of the chemicals used, but not the chemicals themselves. As noted in the ProPublica article:

At issue is whether hydraulic fracturing, and the chemicals it requires, might be responsible for water contamination incidents in drilling areas across the country. The process, which is currently exempt from federal oversight under the Safe Drinking Water Act, forces millions of gallons of water, mixed with sand and small amounts of chemicals, into the earth to break rock and release gas. Scientists, including some at the Environmental Protection Agency, have said they can't thoroughly investigate the contamination incidents because the names of the chemicals are protected trade secrets.

The expanded exploration and drilling is meeting increasing resistance from East Coast to West. In the news of late, public protest and activism in Pennsylvania has stopped the plans to drill for natural gas in the northern Pennsylvania watershed. Likewise, a "plan to drill of the Colorado plateau" is meeting strong public resistance. The impacts of oil and gas exploration in Wyoming is increasingly becoming publicly known. A new documentary, "Split Estate" is bringing attention to the multiple problems being faced by Wyoming residents. There are water contamination issues resulting in health problems, use and contamination of scarce water supplies, and encroachment on property rights and living conditions. The property rights issue ties to the fact that many people own the surface of their property and not what lies beneath it. This is not a new problem and has been an issue in water poor states such as those in the Southwest for quite some time. However, the issue in Wyoming is that drilling operations are being set up within feet of people's homes as exploration rights are granted to oil and natural gas companies. Below is a clip from the documentary "Split Estate:" Or see at YouTube We are in an age of global warming which is threatening water supplies across the planet. Even those in water rich areas such as the Pacific Northwest look to shrinking supplies and loss of water reservoirs as winter snowpack and glaciers dwindle. Therefore, massive new drilling expeditions across the country pose a significant threat, and that may exceed concerns about oil and gas supplies. Fracking, and perhaps for resources that are more hyped than real? No frakking way! Related Articles of Interest Don't Frack with Our Water!. Polly Howells. In These Times. 10/04/2009. Water Worries Threaten US Push for Natural Gas. Jon Hurdles. Reuters. 10/01/2009. DemocracyNow! 9/03/2009 segment Fracking and the Environment: Natural Gas Drilling, Hydraulic Fracturing and Water Contamination: ]]>

A Two Class World? Get Used To It.

2009-10-26T21:01:28Z

Economists state that "Higher unemployment might become the norm as result of (the) recession." The problem is that this is not simply a "recession," but the collapse of the heavily skewed global economic system. The follies of monopoly capitalism, combined with the funny money financial schemes, have hit the world hard. However, they have hit the United States particularly hard, and may have permanently damaged the economic dominance of the United States.

]]> Even before this collapse/implosion, the United States was in a shaky position. We have an economy recrafted on consumerism and a service economy. Productive capacity has been hamstrung since the 1980s as increasingly manufacturing - even infrastructure and security critical activities - were relocated to "cheaper" places in the world. The question raised early in this movement was "Can a nation that produces nothing survive?" Unfortunately, the United States may soon be able to answer that question in the negative.

The globalization/corporatization movement pushed by Republican neo-conservatives, and Democratic neo-liberals have auctioned the economic and political sovereignty of the United States by chasing the grail of making money out of nothing. Now we are in a situation where the dollar may be replaced as the standard currency and for oil. We may be waving goodbye to the petrodollar, and that is bad news for the country that prints those dollars - the United States.

Hocked to the ears and beyond to Dubai banks, China and Japan, the United States has it's butt blowing in the wind and survives at the pleasure of those creditors. If any of them choose to call the loans, or sell off the their dollar reserves, then what is a now dire situation in the United States may take on the hue of the "good old days."

Therefore, we (and the economists) can well say "the world has changed," and that change means ongoing higher levels of unemployment and underemployment, and falling wages - for most of the population.

Speaking from a different perspective, the Goldman Sachs International Vice President stated at a panel in Britain: People should "tolerate the inequality as a way to achieve greater prosperity for all"... "we should not ... be ashamed of offering compensation in an internationally competitive market which ensures the bank businesses here and employs British people."

One has to wonder if this is the world that those at Goldman Sachs and other profiteering finance firms have always had in mind - extracting the the wealth of the global population and returning to their perceived "natural" order of the royalty and the serfs. Perhaps, Lord Griffiths of Fforestfach sees no real issue with stagnant wages and high unemployment for the masses. After all, it leaves more for the "deserving" at the top. However, it seems unlikely that he can truly believe that extreme inequality somehow creates "prosperity." The pronouncement itself makes absolutely no sense. However, being one of the big winners in the monopoly economy, perhaps he is only concerned about the prosperity of those with extreme wealth.

This two class society where the few get bonuses, compensation, and investment windfalls in the millions of dollars, while the majority of the population (here and globally) scrabble for leftovers, is possible only if we accept the constraints of the current system. It is only inevitable if we accept Lord Griffiths world view that extreme inequality somehow increases prosperity. However, I do not think that the population of the planet will share the inevitability of this skewed world view.

10/19/09. Raum. Associated Press. Higher unemployment might become the norm as result of recession

10/21/09 Quinn & Hall, Times/UK, Goldman Sachs vice-chairman says: 'Learn to tolerate inequality'

Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Decision Points

2009-10-15T14:34:34Z

I have added an addendum at end of this post in response to questions and comments

Obama is meeting with various advisers at length to determine a strategy for Afghanistan. However, this is truly a complex question with far reaching effects. The realities are grim, and seem counter-intuitive to any strategy whatsoever. Unfortunately Obama committed early on to Afghanistan as "the good war." A bad choice in my opinion, but that campaign rhetoric commitment is part of the anchor which now is likely to hold him to certain constraints.

]]> Snapshot History
George Bush invaded Afghanistan to engage in regime change. The justification for the massive assault on Afghanistan was that the Taliban held government would not turn over Osama bin Laden. After running the Taliban out of Kabul, ultimately the oil industry's choice Karzai (former UNOCAL adviser) was installed as the President of Afghanistan. It did not take long for him to be labeled "The Mayor of Kabul."

The Present
After a contested election, Karzai still holds onto power (complete with charges of the corruptness of his government), and he is still the Mayor of Kabul. And despite eight years of U.S. military assault in Afghanistan, the Taliban still control at least 70% of the country. Yes, seventy percent. Further, it is believed that most of al Qaida are now in Pakistan - not Afghanistan, AND the Taliban influence is spreading in Pakistan as well as Afghanistan.

Meanwhile Pakistan, a nuclear armed nation, is facing its own struggles. On one hand there is unrest in the tribal regions, then there is the ongoing undermining of Pakistan's sovereignty via U.S. ground and drone attacks. Pakistan has in many ways shifted from a go-between/ally of the United States to an almost puppet state. However, it is not a happy puppet state. No sovereign nation can allow the continued aggressive military action by a foreign nation within its boundaries without it generating resistance from the populace - be that Pakistan, Afghanistan, or Iraq.

So the negotiations are on to "deal" with the Pakistan "issue," and the attempts to go after al Qaida, bin Laden, insurgents, the Taliban or whatever enemy is on the rotating menu. An added serious imbalance is the relationship between Pakistan and India. Pakistan becomes a multimodal teeter-totter sitting on a crumbling fulcrum.

Pakistan
The U.S. wants to increase its footprint in Pakistan, and neither the Pakistani government, nor the people, are open to that expansion. However, Pakistan needs money in its coffers and the U.S. is waving "aid" (in the amount of $1.5 billion a year) in front of the government's nose; however, it is aid with tight strings attached. The main stipulation being:

The secretary of State must certify to the US Congress annually that Pakistan's security forces are cutting ties to extremist organizations and that a democratically elected government "exercises effective civilian control of the military." Specifically, the State Department must report on civilian oversight of the military budget process, military involvement in civilian affairs, and even the nitty-gritty of how senior military officers are promoted.

This is a significant given the power of the military in Pakistan, and the long term practice of Pakistan's intelligence organization - the ISI - working with militant groups within both Pakistan and Afghanistan, and being the historic go between for the U.S. and the Taliban. The ISI has been a feared power broker in Pakistan, and one that will play a central role in the success of any agreement between the United States, the Pakistani government, and the Pakistani army.

This situation is only exacerbated by the Pashtun push for independence - even if they must seek the aid of the Taliban. If the Pashtun's align with the Taliban, then any effort to track down al Qaida (if that is truly the target) will be devastating for the civilian population and lead to increased militancy against the U.S. - and Pakistan military presence.

Afghanistan
In my opinion, Afghanistan is a lost cause if the Taliban are not intimately involved in stabilization. For all intents and purposes, it is the Taliban who control Afghanistan - not any "elected" government. I am not saying that the people of Afghanistan want the Taliban in power, but thus far eight years of U.S. and international militarism have not made any progress minimizing Taliban power outside of major population centers. Indeed, the current plan seems to pull U.S. forces back into the larger population centers so that they don't slip into Taliban control. At this point, there is a zero sum game in Afghanistan.

As with U.S. intervention using Afghanistan in a proxy war against the Soviet Union, U.S. (and western nations') interest in Afghanistan are not equal to the Afghans determination for their independence. If we had spent the billions we have spent on blowing up Afghanistan on real aid to improve the lives of the people, everyone would be in a much better situation. I strongly suspect, that the power of the Taliban would have eroded, and a much more peaceful region would have been the outcome. No one is hungrier for peace than the people of Afghanistan.

Hidden Casualties
The Afghan refugee situation is largely hidden from the U.S. audience. After the early reporting on refugee camps at the beginning of the invasion, there has been a virtual blackout on refugees in the U.S. media. Refugees International states:

Today more than three million registered refugees remain in exile - 2.1 million in Pakistan and 0.9 million in Iran - and hundreds of thousands more are living abroad to escape economic hardship or targeted violence. Many are now being pressured to return home despite the fact that living conditions are not always secure or humane.

The estimated population of Afghanistan is 28.396 million. An estimated three million are displaced within the region, and certainly a large number are displaced inside Afghanistan, and those who previously fled to Europe are no longer welcome.

Refugees have fled to Italy, France, and the UK. They have survived in places like the Calais "jungle" in France. However, France doesn't want the migrants anymore, and is shutting down Calais. Most of the 1500 people remaining in the crumbling Calais camp are refugees from Afghanistan and Iraq. They have sought asylum, but Europe is getting much stingier in granting it. Despite the economic and personal costs paid by these migrants, Calais will be razed. The asylum seekers will be sent back or sent on.

Other refugees are increasingly seeking haven in Tajikistan, where they struggle to learn Russian and Cyrillic while living in horrible conditions. However, despite the poverty of Tajikistan relative to its neighbors, at least they will accept refugees. So more come hoping to rebuild lives that have been destroyed behind them.

I imagine that should conditions stabilize and improve in Afghanistan, many of the refugees would go home to rebuild their lives. As the displaced within Afghanistan hope for the opportunity to do the same.

Do Afghans Want the Taliban in Power?
From what news reports (largely from the BBC and a few independent journalists) I have seen, people don't relish the idea of the Taliban ruling again. However, the Taliban militias have a great recruiting tool - they can pay. So now the Taliban forces have roughly achieved military strength. One could argue that the Taliban are virtually the only "game" in Afghanistan, which speaks to the woeful failure of the "strategy" of the U.S. (under Bush and Obama) and NATO.

It seems likely that if the Pashtuns in Pakistan are pushing for their own state, that the Pashtuns in Afghanistan will hope for the same. Rather than creating unity, the effects of failed intervention in the interests of Western nations may result in a fracturing of Afghanistan and Pakistan.

Ways Forward
Given the complication and sheer destruction which has left competing powers as virtually independent operators, and people's lives in devastation, it is hard to see what will help - particularly over the short term. It seems that Obama is willing to continue a primarily military (or militaristic) path in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Obama has expanded the Bush administration's practices of covert troop increases in the region using "rotations" and outsourcing to corporate mercenaries to expand military presence. We seem to be in the same situation in Afghanistan as we were in Iraq: "As Afghan military and police stand up, we will stand down." However, our presence in Iraq is not substantively decreasing (especially when one counts "contractors"), and both formal troops and "contractors" are increasing in Afghanistan. Obama has also expanded the use of drones. One could even argue that the $1.5 billion in aid to Pakistan is in effect hiring the Pakistani army as contract forces for U.S. interests. What does "aid" mean in this context?

But the people want peace, to be able to support their families, to have hope for their futures. A "grassroots" experienced U.S. President might apply some of that insight to the turbulence in the region. Assistance in developing internal and external markets in Afghanistan and Pakistan would go a long way towards giving the people options they currently do not have. Assisting community and tribal leaders in building infrastructure and security would go towards balancing the power of the Taliban and whatever al Qaida organization exists in the region.

The poppies of Afghanistan seem to be an endless source of fund raising and international heroin markets. It would seem to be a no-brainer to use those poppies in legitimate ways - namely for the medical market. Why does Tasmania Australia have 40% of the medical opium market? India allows production of medical opium poppies, and they might resist legalization in Afghanistan. Regardless, why can't Afghanistan be a legal supplier of opium for medical uses?

Afghanistan does have natural resources - particularly oil, natural gas and coal - which is part of the reason for ongoing U.S. "interest" in the area. (See also Assessment of Undiscovered Petroleum Resources of Northern Afghanistan, 2006) However, the real energy interests in Afghanistan have been the pipeline to ensure the West's oil supply. It seems that "safeguard" should be profitable for the people of Afghanistan.

Realistically, many of the people of Afghanistan may not want to join the "modern world" on the "modern world's" terms. They have local economies and ways of life that have sustained and enriched them for thousands of years. Stability would go a long way towards allowing local economies to function effectively once again.

What seems very clear is that there is not a military solution to the instability of the region. However, a military presence in that region serves a variety o0f purposes for the United States and the "West." Whose interest will prevail? Those of the people, or those of the the competing powers?

Addendum
Link to a Google map of the Afghanistan region

World Press Review Pipeline Politics: Oil, the Taliban, and the Political Balance of Central Asia

Pipeline map from the article:

Extreme Wealth in Perspective

2009-10-01T22:06:53Z

The Guardian informs us that 314 of Forbes richest 400 people in the US lost $300 billion in the past year. I guess a takeaway might be that everybody has gotten hurt in the economic collapse. We could also say, "Gosh! Look how much money the richest folks have lost." Well, don't start taking donations for these poverty stricken billionaires yet.

]]> According to the article:

1 Bill Gates, $50bn, down $7bn 2 Warren Buffett, $40bn, down $10bn 3 Lawrence Ellison, $27bn, unchanged 4 Christy Walton and family, Wal-Mart, $21.5bn, down $1.7bn 5 Jim Walton, Wal-Mart, $19.6bn, down $3.8bn

So after losses the five richest folks still had a combined wealth of $158.1 billion.

In trying to put such wealth and loss of wealth in perspective, I tried to find a comparison point. I decided to look at the budget of my state of residence - Oregon. The 2009-2011 budget for the state of Oregon is roughly $132 billion - or $66 billion a year. So the state of Oregon could run for about 4.5 YEARS on the losses from those folks. Or looked at somewhat differently, The state of Oregon could run for over 2 years on the wealth of the 5 richest folks alone. All of the schools, the roads, the courts, parks, fisheries, social services and Oregon Health Plan - for 4.5 years on the wealth of FIVE people.

According to Forbes "Fun Billionaire Statistics," the compined net worth of the richest 400 Americans is $1.27 trillion. The per capita of the U.S. in 2008 was $26,964 according to the U.S. Census Bureau Table P-1. Of course that includes those richest 400 people (and their near neighbors).

There is a difference between losing a few billion and what is happening to millions of people in the country. The graphs below appeared in the NY Times

One of the interesting things in the graphs - aside from the fact we have 6 unemplyed people for every job opening - is that for the entire period the number of unemployed exceeded the number of jobs.

An interesting read at Forbes is the 9/30/09 article by Keren Blankfeld "How Billionaires Control Our Lives."

Iran's Nuclear Status - Where Lies the Truth?

2009-09-26T14:46:11Z

Flash fires on Iran's nuclear status and capability are back in the news. From google images of an alleged underground nuclear site to a seemingly endless supply of pundits - the news is Iran. While Iran has admitted the existence of an undeclared nuclear site, their actual nuclear weapons status remains a question mark. This makes Iran's alleged nuclear status is front and center - again. However, other recent news should sound a note of caution about what is real.]]> nuclear threat is "hyped." According to the article:

Mohamed ElBaradei, director-general of the International Atomic Energy Agency, said there was no concrete evidence that Tehran has an ongoing nuclear weapons program. "But somehow, many people are talking about how Iran's nuclear program is the greatest threat to the world. In many ways, I think the threat has been hyped," he told the specialist Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists.

This does not mean that ElBaradei is giving Iran a bye on the issue. He has consistently called for greater transparency from Iran. However, he does not see the imminent threat claims that keep reemerging from Israel, and under Bush, and now under Obama.

Perhaps part of his hesitancy regarding the imminent threat posed by Iran has to do with the documentation the IAEA has been looking at regarding Iran's nuclear status and ambitions. This comes in the form of sheaves of documentation coming from the United States and other "western" nations. The concerns over this documentation were discussed by Gareth Porter writing for the Inter Press Service on September 14, 2009.

According to Porter, and verified by his sources, is that there is possible veracity to Iran's claim that these documents are forgeries. While the IAEA tacitly vouches for the credibility of the documents as they "appear(s) to have been derived from multiple sources over different periods of time, is detailed in content and appears to be generally consistent". However:

Iran has submitted serious evidence that the documents are fraudulent. Iran's permanent representative to the United Nations in Vienna, Ambassador Ali Asghar Soltanieh, told IPS in an interview he had pointed out to a team of IAEA officials in a meeting on the documents in Tehran in spring 2008 that none of the supposedly top secret military documents had any security markings of any kind, and that purported letters from defence ministry officials lacked Iranian government seals. Soltanieh recalled that he had made the same point "many times" in meetings of the Board of Governors since then. "No one ever challenged me," said the ambassador.

The IAEA has responded to this issue by suggesting that perhaps the supplying agencies have removed these types of identifying markers. As noted by Porter, why would an agency remove marking from documents that proved the validity of their origins and nature? Porter gives one specific example of the type of document which Iran claims is fraudulent:

Iran has also provided the IAEA with evidence that the handwritten notes on a May 2003 letter, which supposedly link a private Iranian contractor to the "alleged studies", were forged by an outside agency. The letter was from an engineering firm to the private company Kimia Maadan, which other documents in the collection identify as responsible for part of the alleged covert nuclear weapons programme called the "green salt project".

The letter itself has nothing to do with any "green salt" project, but handwritten notes on the copy of the letter given to the IAEA by an unidentified government referred to individuals who are named in other intelligence documents as participants in the "alleged studies", according to the latest IAEA report.

But the original letter, which Iran has provided to the IAEA, has no handwritten notes on it. Amb. Soltanieh recalled that he showed that original letter to an IAEA team led by the deputy director of IAEA's Safeguards Department, Herman Nackaerts, in Tehran Jan. 22-23, 2008.

He said the IAEA team was able to compare the original document with the copy that they had been given as part of the alleged studies documents and that Nakaerts declared that his team accepted the authenticity of the original they were shown.

I am starting to hear a lot of "You can't believe Iran because they have consistently lied to us." This sounds suspiciously like the methodology used to justify discounting Iraq's claim they did not have "Weapons of Mass Destruction." We were told the "Hussein's a liar, has always lied, he's lying now." Well we know how that turned out.

I don't know what the status is of Iran's nuclear projects - nor their purpose. However, once burned twice cautious as they say. It makes me quite nervous that the corporate media seems to not be any more cautious in jumping on the "Bad Iran" band wagon than they were on the "Bad Iraq" band wagon. Either they are stupid and don't learn from their mistakes, or they have much to gain from unquestionably beating the drums.

Obama's Bottom Line on Healthcare Reform?

2009-09-10T03:51:56Z

People may find the full text and video excerpts of Obama's speech to the full Congress at Huffington Post. I am going to excerpt and discuss what I think are the most critical components.

]]> Obama laid out three goals of his plan for reform:

1. "It will provide more security and stability to those who have health insurance."
2. "It will provide insurance to those who don't."
3. "And it will slow the growth of health care costs for our families, our businesses, and our government."

The first two goals sound good. The final one is worrisome. As Obama noted, we already pay 1.5 times more for healthcare than any other nation. His plan will not reduce those costs.Rather, it will only slow the growth of costs. This is likely a result of the deals made with big pharma and the insurance companies.

He then goes into more detail of achieving those goals.

First, if you are among the hundreds of millions of Americans who already have health insurance through your job, Medicare, Medicaid, or the VA, nothing in this plan will require you or your employer to change the coverage or the doctor you have.

While this likely made some folks heave a sigh of relief, it does not eliminate the issue that has come up with some trial runs of reform plans that those who already have insurance CAN"T change to the "public option." This concern is reinforced in the speech when Obama stated (emphasis added):

But an additional step we can take to keep insurance companies honest is by making a not-for-profit public option available in the insurance exchange. Let me be clear - it would only be an option for those who don't have insurance.

Obama's plan, like several of the Congressional plans, call for the creation of an "insurance exchange." The public option would be one choice within the exchange. However, insurance company participation inclusion in the exchange is voluntary. Namely, that those insurance companies wanting to participate have to abide by certain guidelines. Now this is where things get a bit confusing. Obama identifies his guidelines thusly:

As soon as I sign this bill, it will be against the law for insurance companies to drop your coverage when you get sick or water it down when you need it most. They will no longer be able to place some arbitrary cap on the amount of coverage you can receive in a given year or a lifetime. We will place a limit on how much you can be charged for out-of-pocket expenses, because in the United States of America, no one should go broke because they get sick. And insurance companies will be required to cover, with no extra charge, routine checkups and preventive care, like mammograms and colonoscopies ...

This sounds great, but does it apply to ALL health insurance companies, or only to those who choose to participate in the exchange?

For me, this is the crux of the lack of clarity and the mixed messages. On one hand there is purportedly changes to the existing health insurance system that removes some of the profit-making policies of companies (preexisting conditions, recission, cancellation, premium caps, etc.). On the other hand, these controls only seem to pertain to those companies who participate in the exchange. If at the same time, only those currently without insurance can participate in the exchange, and those with private or company government plans cannot, then what has actually been created - and how can it effectively reduce costs while increasing access and quality? In short, the effectiveness of an exchange and the public option seem artificially hamstrung from the beginning.

Further, what sounded like "lline in the sand" support for a public option may not have been. First, Obama cautioned (again) that the public option was only one possible mechanism. He reiterated this later by saying he had an "open door" policy for ideas - inviting Republican participation in the crafting of reform.

To my progressive friends, I would remind you that for decades, the driving idea behind reform has been to end insurance company abuses and make coverage affordable for those without it. The public option is only a means to that end - and we should remain open to other ideas that accomplish our ultimate goal.

Another requirement is that universal coverage is to be accomplished by mandating everyone (outside of those already in VA, Medicare and Medicaid) to acquire health insurance. While, somehow a need test would be applied to this, people would be required to purchase insurance.

That's why under my plan, individuals will be required to carry basic health insurance - just as most states require you to carry auto insurance. Likewise, businesses will be required to either offer their workers health care, or chip in to help cover the cost of their workers. There will be a hardship waiver for those individuals who still cannot afford coverage, and 95% of all small businesses, because of their size and narrow profit margin, would be exempt from these requirements.

This would appear to be a big win for private insurance companies (as auto insurance is). If only those without insurance are eligible for the public option (which may not exist), and the restrictions on profit mechanisms mentioned above apply only to those companies that choose to participate in the exchange, then folks would be mandated to get coverage that has exactly the same problems of current insurance - for which they might be eligible for some government subsidation. If that scenario plays out, it would be a huge win for the insurance companies.

Obama's speech seemed to be one of certainty and laying down the firm guidelines of his plan for healthcare reform. In reality, it would seem to be much less firm than it sounds. It is my hope that over the next few days the types of issues I have raised here will be clarified by the Obama administration. Further, that the clarification reinforces the clear guidelines before they were erased by seeming inconsistencies and messages of "open for discussion."

Let's talk class warfare shall we?

2009-09-05T19:25:33Z

Let's talk class warfare shall we? Anytime someone raises the issue of the outrageous gap between the very rich and the rest of the population then either a politician or a TV talking head will caution against "class warfare." This is so disingenuous because there is an ongoing class warfare being waged on the population by the very rich - and their very well placed lackeys. The news and reports of late demonstrate the real warfare that is being waged - and who pays the price for it.

]]> We keep hearing that we are recovering, but job losses continue, people losing their homes continues to rise, as does the number of people who are now homeless. So who exactly is recovering? Or what part of the economic sector is recovering? The financial sector (which has been the beneficiary of over $14 trillion between TARP and the Federal Reserve) seems to be doing well.- or at least the top management is. According to Andersen and Pizzigati, ten of the top 20 beneficiaries of the bailout bonanza have reported on bonuses. Adding up the bonuses of the top five managers from each of these firms comes to the tidy sum of $90 million in stock options alone.

Access to healthcare has been in the news a lot lately. Anyone who pays for health insurance is all too well aware premiums continue to rise as do co-pays and deductibles. Most people would acknowledge that we have both an insurance and healthcare access crisis on our hands. So one might think that the industry would be somewhat sensitive to the issue and try to control costs. And they are - by driving them upwards. In 2008, the CEOs of two major insurance corporations (Cigna and UNF) made a combined salary of $20.4 million. Insurance corporations had record profits for 2006, and again for 2007 - and as the economy crashed - remained strong for 2008. In fact, between 2000 and 2007 the top ten insurers saw profits rise by 428%.

Job losses and cutbacks continue to rise. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics August 2009 report, the numbers are grim:

Jobs lost in August: 216,000
Total unemployed: 14.9 million
No. working part-time because hours cut: 9.1 million
Marginally attached to labour force: 2.3 million (up 630,000 from August 2008)
Current unemployment rate: 9.7%
Total unemployment and marginal employment rate: 16.8% (Series LNS13327709 seasonally adjusted).

However, given that grim news, productivity is up. In fact, "Productivity Makes Biggest Leap Since 2003." Productivity grew at an annual rate of 6.6%. So those who are left in the labor force are not only taking up the slack, but actually producing 6.6% more than when their co-workers were with them. Why would any employer want to hire people back when they can get this kind of fear driven productivity out of their remaining employees?

Of course, productivity may be somewhat skewed because workers are getting screwed. A new study was released this week - "Broken Laws, Unprotected Workers - Violations of Employment and Labor Laws in America's Cities". The study looked at labor law violations in three cities (Chicago, LA, and New York), and interviewed 4,387 low wage workers. The commonness of violations was the big surprise of the study. It was common for workers to not get paid, not get paid over time, and be dissuaded from filing for worker's compensation. In fact, only 8% of workers eligible to file for worker's compensation did so. In a summation of the study written up in The Nation , there was this startling information (emphases mine):

... we and our colleagues found severe and widespread violations of employment and labor laws. One in four workers were paid below the minimum wage in a given work week. Fully 76 percent of those who worked overtime were not paid the required time and a half. More than two-thirds did not get the meal breaks they were entitled to. And of those who came in early or stayed late, 70 percent did not get any pay at all for the work they performed outside their regular shift.

As a result, the average worker in our survey lost $51 per week, or more than $2,600 per year for a full-time worker. We estimate that 1.1 million workers across the three cities are robbed of $56.4 million every week because of employment and labour law violations.

$56.4 million a week for workers in three cities! What might the total be across the nation? In the trillions a week? What if we expanded this study beyond the low wage workforce? What if we expanded it to include these super-productive workers who set a productivity records with a 16.7% unemployment rate? We know where that money is going. It is on an express packet to the top of the earnings spectrum. It is in the pockets of the financiers, and it is part of the monopoly money that fueled the collapse - and keeps any real recovery from happening. Further, the architects of the collapse are building new empires - at our expense.

However, those at the top want more than our hard work and willingness to be abused and bilked. Apparently, an economic recovery requires lots of individuals to go into debt. Not surprisingly, people have cut back on their spending. Job insecurity (for those with jobs) is high. For those lucky enough to get unemployment, budgets are tight. In a short article by Kathryn Harris discussing the personal debt situation in the UK she notes:"If everyone pays off their debts and cuts back on spending at the same time it could lead the UK economy into an even darker downturn than the one we are currently in." In other words, the consumer economy is based on debt, and we have structured (as have the Brits) an economy dependent on consumption.

However, unlike the drop in interest rates in the UK, US credit companies and banks have raised (or are raising) the interest rate on personal credit. I know that it ticks me off when a corporation that has received a ton of TARP funds tells me that "economic conditions require we raise interest rates and fees." I read that as "We got $150 million in TARP and 0% interest from the Federal Reserve, and so we need to raise your rate by 8% and charge you an annual fee of $35 to make an increased profit."

So folks are ticked off. There is public pressure to control these out of control profiteers, and THAT is called "class warfare?" However, the everyday abuse, exploitation, and gouging of the people, is what? Just the way things work? No, I think it is well past time to talk about the real class warfare that is waged by those at the top on the rest of the population.

Resources of Note
9/03/09 Conaway, NPR. New Job-Loss Claims Fall, Rise At Same Time. The Big Number Comes Tomorrow.

The double-edged sword of falling debt. Kathryn Hopkins. Guardian. 9/02/09.

Productivity Makes Biggest Leap Since 2003. (Yes, You're Working Harder.). Laura Conaway. NPR. 9/02/09.

There's a Bubble That Still Threatens the Entire American Economy ... and Few Are Talking About It. Sarah Anderson and Sam Pizzigati, AlterNet, 9/02/09.

Is Health Care the Next 'Bonusgate'?. Jennifer Liberto. CNN. 9/02/09.

So You Just Squandered Billions . . . Take Another Whack at It. Steven Pearlstein. Wa. Post. 9/02/09.

Low-Wage Workers Are Often Cheated, Study Says. Steve Greenhouse. NY Times. 9/01/09.

Broken Laws, Unprotected Workers - Violations of Employment and Labor Laws in America's Cities. 9/03/2009.

Working Without Laws. Bernhardt & Theodore, Nation, 9/04/2009.

Why Are We Hunting Wolves?

2009-09-02T15:43:41Z

Robert Milage of Idaho gets the bragging rights for killing the first wolf in Idaho as OUR EPA continues to fight in court to de-list the wolves as an endangered species. Picture from the The Idaho Statesman - 9/02/2009

]]> April 2008), there was a slaughter of wolves in Yellowstone. A coalition of conservation groups filed an injunction to stop the slaughter.

While the groups fight on, the U.S. District Judge in Idaho did not continue the stay on the hunt. The "season" opened yesterday in Idaho, and will open on September 15th in Montana. Idaho sold 10,000 tags to kill 220 wolves, and Montana will allow 75 kills. In both cases, this is roughly one-fifth of the estimated population.

Why in the world are we hunting predators in the twenty-first century? We already have reduced most predator species (including wolves) to a population level which will likely drive them to extinction. In doing so, we have upset a balance so that other species (from rabbits and mice to elk) have population problems which must be controlled by "man."

The decision to remove the wolves from the endangered species list is wrong - scientifically and morally in my opinion. That the EPA continues to fight this in court is maddening. I am outraged. I am heart sick. It was no big surprise when Bush's EPA decided to remove the wolf. After all, he consistently put people in these positions who hated the agencies they were responsible for. However, I erroneously thought the Obama would take a more reasonable approach to the environment - and to the issues of the wolves in particular. Yet another disappointment.

Please Take Action

Despite the open season, conservation groups continue the fight for the wolves - and other species. The Western Watersheds Project remains one of the best resources on the legal battle being fought. You can support the organization at this link. You can also take action through The Defenders of Wildlife writing, donating, and spreading the word. Their lives are in our hands.

Things Falling Off the Table - Economy

2009-08-19T14:57:13Z

In the heat of healthcare reform and the mobilization of radical shock troops, the economy has drifted with little public discussion. When it comes up, it is frequently within the context that "the worst is behind us;" "we're leveling off;" or "recovery is just around the corner." While I wish all of this was true, I am concerned that it is not. While I wish that the Obama administration were being more honest, I believe they are engaging in the same type of spin we became accustomed to under the Bush administration.

]]> The signs seem to indicate that the current economic downturn will continue, and perhaps even intensify over the next couple of years. Part of this has to do with more real estate issues, part with continued job losses, and part with the global economic scenario. For real people, things do not look all that good.

The real estate debacle is not behind us. The chart below from Credit Suisse shows mortgage reset activity remaining high through 2011. Elizabeth Warren, appearing on the August 12, 2009 MSNBC "Morning Joe," warned that another shoe would be dropping as commercial real estate entered a reset period that runs through 2012.

The chart below is an edited version found in an article by Doug Hornig, which is originally from page 47 of the Credit Suisse 2007 report Mortgage Liquidity du Jour: Underestimated No More

The U.S. (and other nations) continue to experience rising unemployment. The upbeat report by the Obama administration stating that the unemployment rate had dropped while the number of new claims increased was based largely on dropping 637,000 people from the labour count. In other words, a statistical change occurred in the number of people actively looking for work. It does not mean they became employed.

All those job losses translated into a 34 % increase in consumer bankruptcies - in July alone. Unemployment (and under-employment) is also fueling ongoing foreclosures. Foreclosures and tight credit drives down housing (and real estate values) putting more people (and businesses) upside down on their loans.

Not surprisingly, the global nature of the economic collapse is reflected in a major hit on global trade. It is down 36% from its peak in July 2008 or about $1.5 trillion.

And so we cycle around and around, sinking a bit lower on each spin. All of the indicators I see do not signal a recovery. However, there are other indicators which could be interpreted with a new meaning: that "recovery" may not mean the same thing any more. If "recovery" means returning to where we were before the current crisis, then the odds seem slim indeed. If "recovery" means returning to the growth path we were on, then the odds seem long beyond calculation. The reasons for this have to do with the physical constraints of the planet. Simply, there would appear to be a limit on the resources and capacity of the planet for continued development, growth, and exploitation.

Below are a series of graphs. The first one is a sample of an exponential growth curve. These curves are characterised by their "J" type formation. The sharpness of the "J" depends upon the rate of growth that the curve is measuring.

Sample of an Exponential Growth Curve

(From: Regents Prep Algebra Lesson

Here is the fossil fuels curve. This represents the dominant form of energy use around the world (and particularly in "developed" nations) at this point in time. Since it is frequently argued that the other human growth curves (population, development, per capita income, etc) are linked to energy availability, then the energy curve is distinctly important in any recovery.

(From: Geothermal Education Office slide 117)

However, fossil fuels are not the only resources that we use. This graph from The New Scientist is instructive (link gives scalable image of graph below).

Of interest is that if global consumption continues at the current rate, the materials indicated have a life expectancy of 58 years (on average). However, if the global rate increase to half of the U.S. current consumption, the expectancy drops to 20 years. Currently the uranium supply is expected to last another 30-40 years, but every nation that has the capability (including the U.S.) wants to dramatically increase the number of nuclear power plants to make up for the loss of fossil fuels (and decrease CO2 emissions). Such an increase would likely halve that 30-40 year estimate.

Certainly one major consideration is the global growth in population. That alone would naturally increase consumption of resources. However, if you add increasing consumption AND population growth, then the impacts increase significantly.

(From: SUSPS)

And of course we have the issue that consistently gets talked about, but not acted on - global warming. Below is a graph of CO2 concentration in the atmosphere. While CO2 is hardly the only contributor to global warming, it is an indicator we ignore at our own peril.

Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide

(From: Planet for Life)

Back to "J" curves.

I would make the proposition that an exponential growth pattern is not sustainable in a closed environment. When we look at fossil fuels, resources, population, CO2 (among a myriad of things we could measure), all are on an exponential curve. This means that any "recovery" will occur in a physical environment of increased demand and (soon) decreased availability. In other words, we cannot return to the previous path and continue on our merry way.

Some of you may be science fiction fans, and have read (or watched) the stories of people mining the junk yards for resources. We could well find ourselves in that situation. In fact, in poorer areas of the world, they are already "mining" our "junk." For example, in China (and elsewhere) electronics - particularly computers - are smelted down for precious metals or stripped for reusable parts. This may become a global (pre)occupation. Reducing consumption - or radically changing what and how we consume - is central to any recovery. So to is firmly addressing the issue of population. The U.S. consistently withdraws global family planning funds because of "religious" considerations. We have to get past this, and put reproductive control in the hands of women. That birth planning and control needs to be in women's hands. Such power increases the voice and status of half the population. It also reduces the number of unintended (or forced) pregnancies.

We need to look real hard at Reduce - Reuse - Recycle, and follow it. There are huge implications of the "three Rs."

Reduce, means consume less. Not good news in a society where consumption is 70% of the economy. However, reducing consumption would be aided by improving the quality and longevity of what is produced (get rid of planned obsolescence). On the other hand, there are those things which really do have a short use expectancy - packaging for example. These things should have an accelerated degradation so they do not persist in the environment, or can be remanufactured to other purposes.

Reduce also has possibilities for the energy scenario. It is estimated that we could globally reduce energy use by 60% by increasing energy efficiency across the board (transportation, electronics, buildings). Such efficiencies can lengthen the time frame to depletion, though not eliminate it.

Reuse means the repurposing of things. The simplest example is using plastic food containers for other storage purposes. However, it would be helpful if they could be used for the same food storage. In other words, instead of everything coming neatly packaged, people could refill their containers from bulk sources. Some stores already have this option for some consumables. Reuse may also be taking items and passing them on, or recycling them for a different purpose (clothing fabric into rugs for example).

Recycling presupposes a use for the recycled material. Right now, there is some recycling that occurs (unevenly across the country and across the world). However, the uses of recycled materials is not what it could be. Right now, the primary use for recycled plastic is outdoor furniture. We only need so many picnic tables in the world. Right now there is a global argument on the use of plastic bags. However, plastic bags are not the only plastic issue. Plastic seems to be the packaging of choice - even for food. It shouldn't be, and it doesn't need to be. It is something that the world can no longer afford to use the way that it does.

We need to look at the future (and the present) very differently. In that examination, we need to reframe the "economy." This may be the hardest for the U.S. to do. We have structured an economic system (and to some extent enforced it globally) where money stands between the individual and virtually everything needed to live (housing, food, power, education, water, medical care ...). This means that folks must get money legally, illegally, or through inheritance, to survive. When that legal path is based on high consumption, then we are chasing our tails through a tunnel of mirages. Profit means getting excess value - from the planet, from the workers, and from consumers. We are at the end of excess, therefore we need to reimagine a different way of living.

So where does that leave us? It leaves us with needing to either change our path - or be forced to change our path. The planet provides certain baseline realities that add dimension to the current economic crisis - and strategies to "get out of it." Simply regaining the status quo is not a solution (or at least not one that will last long). In fact, a return to our previous path will only accelerate the next collapse - for which we will have even less capacity to respond. It is critical that we not be lulled to sleep by soothing rhetoric, and demand real answers - and real leadership - from decision makers.

Why Weren't the Conservatives Screaming Under Bush?

2009-08-10T17:21:00Z

Across the country there is a vocal minority who are loudly protesting certain issues. We have the "birther" folks who think that Obama is not a natural born citizen of the United States. We have the "deathers" (including Sarah Palin) who apparently think the government is going to use health care reform to kill the old and disabled. Then we have the anti-healthcare reformers who have a bucketfull of confusion and fears about socialism, fascism, and losing their "choice" in healthcare. All seem to be being spurred on by corporate backed "astroturf" organizations and by a few unethical media mouths.

]]> Now the citizens showing up screaming at "tea bag" parties, and town halls are clearly angry and afraid. The Republican politicians do little but fuel their concerns that Obama (Democrats) and "government," are taking on outrageous powers, and ruining the Constitution and the country.

I just have one question.

Where were these people and their concerns when George W. Bush and Company were forging the Unitary Executive?

I can tell you where they were. They were cheering BushCo. on. They were shouting "America, love it or leave it." They were calling those that were concerned about the shift of power to the Executive branch, and the deliberate refusal to any oversight of their actions, "terrorists" and "communists" and "conspiracy nuts." Some even loudly proclaimed that all us "kooks" should be locked up in Gitmo or killed.

These were the folks, who despite evidence of being lied into a war, and lied to about covert surveillance of Americans and a policy of torture, said "My country. Right or wrong, my country." Or even argued forcefully for the rightness of the authority Bush was taking, and for the tearing up of Constitutional protections to make us safe.

What has changed from their purported perspective? We are still at war. We are still under threat of terrorism at home and abroad. Al Qaeda is still operating, and new foes have arisen. Iran and North Korea are still defined as active nuclear threats. If these threats were what legitimated the embrace of power by the Bush administration, those conditions still exist.

If there was any consistency to the ideology of the right wing screamers, then they would not be screaming. Or if they are screaming now, they should have been screaming then.

If there was any consistency to the REPUBLICAN party line, then they should have been in outright revolt under George W. Bush. Not only was there not revolt, they were in lock-step supporting every abuse of power and shredding of the Constitution.

To say the least, all of this is disingenuous, but it is more than that. It is posing, fomenting, and manipulation of folks who are willing to be manipulated.

I am sick of the duplicity. I am sick of the lying. I am sick to death of the hatefulness of the fueling of people's fears to make them shock troops for corporate and party interests.

I'm just sick of the whole thing.

I have no idea how one addresses this insanity - for that is what it is. There are those who are the manipulators - the creators of lies and rhetoric - and they are serving their own ends. They know clearly what they are doing and are quite comfortable doing it. If they change, it will be for personal events that touch their lives. Then you have the people who are swayed and fueled by them. They have belief systems that frame their world providing a lens that consistently focuses one way. They will believe the manipulators, but there is no way through evidence or information to get them to reflect on that ideology. Evidence and information which conflicts with the ideology are just lies.

The manipulators have been pumping the rhetoric bellows overtime to fuel some people's fear and anger. They run the risk of pushing more people over the line into physical violence. I seriously doubt they are concerned about this. Why? Because the people's lives do not matter to them. At best, we are abstractions and certainly expendable. So a few folks get maimed or killed, and those actors also end up jailed or dead. All those lives are acceptable losses in the big struggle for power. There are many side benefits to the hate and the chaos. It raises questions among the non-extreme, and it intimidates many into silence. It hamstrings actual discussion and debate thereby strengthening the power of the rhetoric.

The only course of action is to be as honest as possible and to try to offer fact and information. For those who try to be informed, this will work. For those who avoid being informed, whatever they hear the most is what they are likely to believe. Therefore, doing the best we can to keep the mainstream media semi-accurate is perhaps the best we can do.

Perhaps the primary thing it is important to keep in mind is that people are people. Most of those who think that Obama and the Democrats are somehow stealing the country and bent on removing their "choices" are just folks. The manipulators are a different issue all together. However, the manipulators are not the ones protesting - those they see as expendable shock troops are.

Recommended:
No Cure For Stupid Liars. Natasha Chart. OpenLeft. 8/10/09.

Please Cut the Crap - site by Milt Shook.

Why Do We Need Universal Healthcare?

2009-08-06T22:59:29Z

Why do we need universal healthcare? Let me share a personal story.

First, I have health insurance through my employer. They chip in and I chip in, and both my partner and myself are covered by a major HMO. Like all insurance, each year for about the last 10 years, the premium and deductibles have gone up. Sometimes more than 10% in a year. This is pretty typical. However, folks should realize that 10% per year increase means that the cost of health insurance doubles in seven years.

]]> As some of you know, I underwent radiation surgery for a tumor in my brain this June. (For those who have been concerned and sent good wishes and prayers, I am slowly recovering, but the trend is generally positive). My HMO split the procedure with another provider who had the equipment to perform the procedure. Let me share the procedure and then the big shocker.

Prior to the procedure it was required that I have an MRI and a CT scan. The CT scan had to be performed with the head harness installed on my skull. All of these procedures occurred at my HMO's facilities. My family then needed to load me in the car - head frame attached - to drive me to the partner facility where they did the procedure and then removed to head frame. I then got to go home. This was an outpatient, day long, surgery.

Today I received the statement from the partnering facility for the surgery - just the surgery. That bill dropped my jaw. The radiation surgery cost ... $35,501. I have received other bills for the personnel involved and various office visits in preparation for and followup from the surgery. They have totaled in the vicinity of $2500.

My HMO has not informed me of the costs of the MRI and the CT scan. However, I would estimate that the MRI cost about $3000 and the CT scan about $800. I have no idea what the day surgery and head frame installation cost, but let's say a modest $1500.

That brings us to an estimated cost of $43,301.00. $43,301.00 for a DAY surgery. (And I will need to have another MRI this winter as a followup.)

If I had to pay this full bill, I would be filing bankruptcy. If I did not have insurance, I would not have had the tumor addressed. If I had not had insurance, I likely would not have had the tumor diagnosed because I could not have fronted the money for the first diagnostic MRI that was done.

Believe me, I feel incredibly lucky to have decent insurance with my employer. I know that my health would be far different if I did not have it. I feel for the 50 million people in our nation who do not have insurance, and for double that number whose insurance is poor (or craps out on them when they need it most). That should not happen.

We have treated healthcare in this country as a commodity. Something to be bought and sold and whatever cost the market will bear. Those without funds can't get it, those with modest funds can get a varying range of access, and those who are wealthy can get anything they want. Those who qualify may get access through state systems or Medicaid. Those funds (and services) are limited.

Many people in the U.S. feel that the commodity approach to healthcare has failed. The pressure is that the people of the U.S. join the ranks of many other nations where healthcare is a right. We are willing to contribute to that effort. Many are willing to kick the private insurance companies out of their current role as middleman and gatekeeper - charging ever-increasing tolls to access a necessary service.

I had a totally unexpected condition that required treatment. This (or something like it) could happen to anyone. Should people's "choice" be to let the tumor in their brains grow because they can't afford either insurance or healthcare? Should people die because they can't afford healthcare? They do - every day - about 18,000 people a year. All so private insurance companies can see record profits year after year - as they did in both 2007 and 2008.

It is way past time that healthcare was a basic right within this country. The big money interests have had their run and sucked all the blood they are going to get. We need access, and we need to control costs. Healthcare reform should have two goals: 1) everyone gets access to quality care; 2) healthcare is not for profit any longer.

Kudos to Ramona!

2009-08-01T13:36:41Z

CONGRATULATIONS RAMONA!!!

TPM Cafe's own Ramona made the spotlight on last night's Bill Moyers Journal when he read from her TPM post Bill Moyers shines light on the health insurance mess - a Journalistic Best.

I beg everyone who reads this and clicks onto the link to send it on to everyone you know. Send it to your congressmen, your governors, your legislatures, the White House. Get an email chain going--put the link up on yard signs or billboards. Put it on bumper stickers. Stencil it on tee-shirts or tattoo it onto your forehead. Whatever it takes.

This is a television event too important to let die. Please. Keep it alive. Keep it going. It's up to us now.

I was tickled pink that she got such recognition. So I am sending a shout out for her.

Unfortunately, that part of the show does not seem to be on the site videos for last night, but if you can catch a replaying this week of the program, it is at the beginning of Moyers' intro.

Ramona RAWKS!

Updated: Here's the clip and related info. Thanks to OGD and others for pointing to it. Here's the link to the full broadcast.

One blogger at the widely read website Talking Points Memo summed up what many had to say: "I beg everyone who reads this and clicks onto the link to send it on to everyone you know. Send it to your congressmen, your governors, your legislatures, the White House. Get an email chain going--put the link up on yard signs or billboards. Put it on bumper stickers. Stencil it on tee-shirts or tattoo it onto (sic) your forehead. Whatever it takes. This is a television event too important to let die... Keep it going."

Andrea Mitchell Interviews Orin Hatch on Healthcare Reform

2009-07-29T03:10:37Z

On 7/27/09 Andrea Mitchell (MSNBC) interviewed Orin Hatch on healthcare reform. The full interview is available here. It is approximately 9 minutes long.)

I was stunned to hear Hatch saying he supported healthcare for those who "really deserve" it. Mitchell did not ask him who that was (or who the undeserving were). I was immediately transported back to Reagan with his discussions of the "deserving poor." Who DOESN'T "really deserve" healthcare. I can't even believe that the Republicans are going to pull this one out again. The clip below from the interview is approximately 52 seconds. It includes the Hatch quote in context.