tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-198559792024-03-23T11:26:17.601-07:00Donkey PathOkay, I'm a member of the reality-based community, but where are we going?Craighttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03604045908619364847noreply@blogger.comBlogger1095125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19855979.post-21066854073231011582015-04-09T21:23:00.000-07:002015-04-09T21:23:19.393-07:00Finding a Serious Approach to Global WarmingI've been reading about global warming since the early 1970s. I started taking it seriously in the late 1970s but I assumed there was still plenty of time. By the late 1980s, I began to realize we needed to take it much more seriously. It is now 2015 and the hour is getting late. I am proud that I voted for President Barack Obama and I am glad that he takes global warming seriously. But he will be in office only two more years and today's Republicans prefer to live in an alternate universe. These are not the pragmatic Republicans of my parents' generation or my grandparents' generation who believed in science and took on the serious problems of their age.<br />
<br />
Now I happen to be a liberal Democrat but I occasionally come across Republicans who take global warming seriously. You can find them in business, in the military, in science and other places, but you won't find them often in today's politics, though some of these rational Republicans I just mentioned were once in politics in a more sane era.<br />
<br />
Today's politics are saturated with money from conservatives in the fossil fuel industries. These conservatives are dangerous and put all of us in danger. The funny thing is, I happen to believe in free enterprise and economic competition. But I also believe in a strong role for government. For me, one of the roles of government is to make sure capitalists play fair and don't try to rig the game to the point of endangering the populations they supposedly serve. Today fossil fuel corporations are endangering every person on Earth. I still believe a balance of government and business is the best way to move forward but we have drifted far from that formula. Now I happen to be sympathetic to environmentalists as well as those who talk about sustainability, but I'm not certain they have the best solutions either, though they are often sources of important ideas and information. I'm a pragmatist and a liberal. I want solutions that mesh with the real world in real time.<br />
<br />
Tonight I read an article published by The Guardian that is close to my own position and that I strongly recommend. It is called: <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/news/2015/apr/08/can-world-economy-survive-without-fossil-fuels">Can the World Survive Without Fossil Fuels</a> by Larry Elliott, the economics editor for The Guardian.Craighttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03604045908619364847noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19855979.post-19287977916564497142015-04-01T14:14:00.000-07:002015-04-01T14:14:05.336-07:00Melting Glaciers: The Reality of Global WarmingThere are many ways to measure global warming. One way to remind yourself that global warming is real is to drive in California on 395 from Mono Lake to Lone Pine. For much of the way, you can look west and see the backside of the Sierras and many of the highest peaks. On the east side of the mountains are the glaciers that have been there for ages, at least until recently. There are still glaciers, but they're considerably smaller than they used to be and large patches of bare rock are now exposed. Many long-time Californians remember what the east side of the Sierras were like in the 1960s.<br />
<br />
Another way to measure global warming is to drive by Mount Shasta from time to time on Interstate 5 on your way to Oregon. The last time I went by, a year ago, in early May, there was barely any snow and the permanent ice is a shadow of what it once was. Mount Shasta used to be called the ghost of the North because of its year long coat of white.<br />
<br />
In today's world, California is one battlefield among many, and global warming is winning. But there are other places where the battles are not only fierce but majestic on a scale that was once hard to imagine. That's one of the problems of global warming. It's hard to conceive. That's something most people don't understand: warming the planet Earth just one degree takes a hellish amount of energy. The sun pours a huge amount of heat into the Earth. Most of that heat is reflected back into space. The growing overcoat of CO2 and other greenhouse gases prevents a large amount of the sun's heat to escape back into space and reflects that heat right back into the ground.<br />
<br />
In North America, the far north is sometimes 30 degrees above normal for days at a time. This is happening even when daylight in winter is very brief. Things are happening that ought not to be ignored. Some of these things are happening faraway and are seen by few people.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/03/31/1373930/-Massive-Glacier-Melt-and-Fresh-Water-are-Pouring-into-the-Gulf-of-Alaska">The Daily Kos</a> has a video that shows a large glacier collapse. The video also shows the power of unchecked global warming.<br />
<br />
President Obama takes global warming seriously but he needs help. Let your representatives and senators know that the debate is over. It's time to take serious action on global warming.<br />
<br />
<br />Craighttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03604045908619364847noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19855979.post-31516013766576633422015-03-19T00:16:00.001-07:002015-03-19T00:19:14.925-07:00Murdoch's "News" Empire Continues Losing CredibilityRupie Murdoch of Fox News and the silly New York Post is trying hard to bring down Hillary's ratings. But Murdoch, the self appointed king of the universe has no credibility left. Too many years of clowns like Sarah Palin and Bill O'Reilly on the air can kind of damage the truthiness of right wing hysteria.<br />
<br />
The problem with Murdoch is that he is among those wealthy Republicans who have put idiots into the Senate and the House. But he neglects to notice that Republican Senators and Representatives actually take his news empire seriously. The consequence? The idiots can't govern.<br />
<br />
As extraordinary as it may sound, Murdoch actually has trouble understanding that if you feed nonsense to your senators and representatives, they won't actually have the skills to know what they're doing beyond the usual campaign and propaganda nonsense. Real news is actually valuable when dealing with the news of the day. For example, if global warming is having a damaging effect on agriculture and there are things that can be done about it so food can continue to be put on America's dinner tables, wouldn't you want your senator and representatives to be informed?<br />
<br />
Ah, but Murdoch is not a farmer, nor even much of a news man.<br />
<br />
<br />Craighttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03604045908619364847noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19855979.post-40237492751704176582015-03-06T00:18:00.001-08:002015-03-06T00:20:42.169-08:00Update on the Arctic — Record Maximum Low?We all know that Republican politicians who are well-funded by very rich right wing conservatives have found it convenient to deny the reality of global warming. That denial is loaded with enormous risk.<br />
<br />
The Arctic ice in 2015 is not exactly robust. The area of the ice is about 2 million square kilometers below what it was in 1979. And in 1979, the Arctic ice was already considerably smaller than what it was in the 19th century. The Arctic is shrinking and this fact is having consequences. One of the consequences appears to be that the jet stream is much more unpredictable and variable than it was even twenty years ago. The other consequence is that the general warming of the world is becoming more evident and the consequences are getting much harder to ignore.<br />
<br />
Now no one knows exactly what the ice is going to do in the next few months. But this is the time of the year when the Arctic reaches its maximum size in area. As of now, the Arctic appears to be reaching its Lowest Maximum since we have been keeping any kind of records. After a long dark winter, this is the time of year when the Arctic reaches its maximum. Most of the time, the Arctic reaches its maximum between now and the end of March. In 2010 and 1999, the maximum ice area occurred in early April but at a much greater area than we are now measuring. See:<br />
<br />
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/<br />
<br />
And:<br />
<br />
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/charctic-interactive-sea-ice-graph/<br />
<br />
Right now, the Arctic is the smallest it's been since we started measuring the MAXIMUM deep winter size in area. The Arctic is a volatile region. It varies from year to year. Of course, it reaches its smallest area in late August or September. And it reaches its maximum area in March or early April. But clearly, the Arctic has been dramatically losing area since 1979. The simple reality is that on short time scales of days and weeks, the area of the Arctic is often difficult to predict. The Spring is particularly unpredictable from year to year until the melting is well underway.<br />
<br />
Nevertheless, given that the weather in the Arctic for the next week will be warmer than usual, and also volatile, it is highly probably the lowest maximum will be reached.<br />
<br />
Of course, this begs a question: Will the record for the lowest minimum area occur this year? We don't know. But multiyear ice seems to be disappearing. More fragmented ice that is almost slush-like is becoming more evident. More ice in the Arctic Sea is impregnated with salt. It is highly probable the next lowest minimum will occur in the next ten years. The Arctic is becoming increasingly unstable and there is no way to reverse what is happening on any kind of reasonable time scale.<br />
<br />
It has been evident for some time that we need to do what we can to avoid things getting even worse.Craighttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03604045908619364847noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19855979.post-29898147097614348672015-02-20T17:05:00.000-08:002015-02-20T17:05:21.710-08:00Bill O'Reillly Thinks He's Better Than Brian WilliamsI didn't watch Brian Williams very much. But NBC News has been better than Fox News though negligent like other news shows when it comes to the news Americans need to hear. At least I could watch Brian Williams without rolling my eyes. But Bill O'Reilly engages in so much fiction in his news stories that he's difficult to watch.<br />
<br />
Obviously Brian Williams should not have fictionalized his war experiences. However, unlike Bill O'Reilly, Williams has actually been in war zones reporting for NBC News.<br />
<br />
Bill O'Reilly wants to pretend he was in the Falkland War in the 1980s, but he was hundreds of miles from the action. For some unfathomable reason, O'Reilly has decided to call watching a political demonstration equivalent to being in war. It's a ridiculous claim by a ridiculous man.<br />
<br />
<br />Craighttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03604045908619364847noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19855979.post-57227611196850862852015-02-19T00:07:00.002-08:002015-02-19T00:07:38.314-08:00The Arctic — Global Warming Is Happening Now<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjmTtFGgkoW1R3OuY9W3a5zDDxXUpoQxezZ6qDPs3D07pptEsjPlc30jJL1Zty-1xGXQdoajAFNySV5VD59ymqp7LYu6P2op6_ia_MYS59elKS9bKJDOiv6LKVf8_pjdP4sCK3rLw/s1600/sfctmpmer_01b.fnl.gif" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjmTtFGgkoW1R3OuY9W3a5zDDxXUpoQxezZ6qDPs3D07pptEsjPlc30jJL1Zty-1xGXQdoajAFNySV5VD59ymqp7LYu6P2op6_ia_MYS59elKS9bKJDOiv6LKVf8_pjdP4sCK3rLw/s1600/sfctmpmer_01b.fnl.gif" height="310" width="400" /></a></div>
<br />
<span style="font-size: x-small;">(The top map shows surface temperatures, such as the cold purple areas in the Arctic and far north. The bottom map show temperature anomalies, such as the above average temperatures in Alaska and the abnormally low temperatures in Eastern Canada.)</span><br />
<br />
<br />
This is the cold, dark part of the year and close to the time when the Arctic ice reaches its maximum size for the next twelve months. By middle to late March, the Arctic will definitely be shrinking as it always does around that time.<br />
<br />
For years now, the Arctic has been shrinking. Records going back over a hundred years makes it clear that the Arctic has been in a long period of declining size, in both area and volume. The <a href="http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/">National Snow & Ice Data Center</a> has been keeping quality satellite records and posts the numbers daily for area, going back to 1979.<br />
<br />
Most people who understand global warming know that it's measured by decades rather by years. There are a number of smaller cycles and year to year variations that mean the measures we see are rarely in a straight line. That is to say, there are variations.<br />
<br />
One way to see the variations is to go to the interactive visual called the "<i>Charctic</i> Interactive Sea Ice Graph." The easy to use graph allows you to see the variations by year since 1979. If you use the chart, and start back in 1979 and go one year at at time, you can see how the melting and the freezing of the Arctic varies year by year. And you can easily see that on average, decade by decade, the Arctic in the late summer is getting smaller and smaller. And you can also notice that year by year, the Arctic in late winter, when it reaches its largest extent, is slowly, on average, reaching a smaller and smaller maximum.<br />
<br />
Right now, in the last few days, the Arctic is very close to the four smallest maximums on record. Only 2014, 2011, 2006 and 2005 have been as small or smaller. No one knows for sure what will happen in the next three weeks. Right now, the Arctic is still growing but losing ground day by day compared to other years. If the trend continues, always a big if, the lowest maximum record will be set.<br />
<br />
In the meantime, the cold air of the Arctic continues to spill out of the Arctic and large patches of warmer than normal surface temperatures are being recorded. The dynamics are not well understood. In the last few years, Alaska and sometimes the Yukon have frequently experienced much higher than normal temperatures in the winter. And eastern Canada and the Eastern United States have been experiencing unusual winter time lows. Somewhat unpredictably, the Arctic at times has patches of higher than normal temperatures that sometime rise as high as 30 degrees Fahrenheit above normal.<br />
<br />
It's not clear yet whether new seasonal patterns in the far north are developing. Probably not. For one thing, Siberia also has cold air that spills out of the Arctic but the cold air spills out in a wider range of locations. Another issue is that the jet stream in the winter is far more erratic and variable than it was ten to twenty years ago. For now, scientists are studying the changes and it will probably take time to understand. But one thing is not changing: the temperatures are rising, more energy is pouring into the systems of the Earth, and many changes are taking place.Craighttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03604045908619364847noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19855979.post-58253791600754894222015-02-17T22:47:00.000-08:002015-02-17T22:47:40.762-08:00The Bob Dylan ConnectionIt took awhile for me to get Bob Dylan. My middle brother discovered him before I did back in the 1960s. He tried to show me what Dylan was about but all I heard the first couple of times was a guy who couldn't sing, though I did sort of liked the songs he wrote. I was hard-of-hearing and the thing I didn't understand for years is that it would take longer than usual for me to "get" a wide range of things. I was lucky. I kept meeting people who gave me second, third and fourth chances to figure out the world. Of course, no one ever really figures it out. In time, in fact, what you figure out is that you have to help keep it going.<br />
<br />
Keeping the music going is one part of what some of us do.<br />
<br />
Three years after my brother introduced me to Bob Dylan's music, an English teacher started off the senior year of high school giving us the words to Dylan all typed out. The words....they made all the difference in the world. And the feeling, which came by way of the music of that voice I finally understood.<br />
<br />
And I spent some time writing my own words.<br />
<br />
A blog called Talking Points Memo found a transcript of Bob Dylan's recent talk. He must have talked close to a half hour, giving a free seminar on his view of music, and his reminder of the last fifty years. Here's the link: http://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/music-alone<br />
<br />
There are times when I think music descends into hype, but it can always be found around somewhere. The music is there. And it's worth looking for.Craighttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03604045908619364847noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19855979.post-90714748053772820762014-12-28T22:09:00.000-08:002014-12-28T22:09:36.573-08:00Czeslaw Milosz and the Case of Brognart Born in 1911, Milosz lived to his early 90s and his life covered the span of the 20th Century. He's a poet and writer who has never been not relevant, but given the direction of many events happening around the world, he remains essential reading in the 21st Century.<br />
<br />
Much of what I like about Milosz, even when I'm not sure I agree with him on some point, is the way he thinks and follows through on specific issues. There's a clarity to his writing I don't often see, though I am at times left with many questions, but there is hunger in those questions, a need for more.<br />
<br />
In his book, <i>To Begin Where I Am</i>, he writes about a young man named Gilbert Brognart, a Frenchman swept up by the events of WWII while vacationing in Poland with a friend at the outbreak of the war. Brognart was eighteen and had just finished technical school and was entering a mining college in the fall.<br />
<br />
I'm not entirely sure why Milosz chose to write about Brognart. But Milosz had been a government official in Poland in the late forties and he either had something to do with Brognart's case or heard about it from others. The problem is that Brognart managed to avoid the German army as it invaded Poland but couldn't find a route of escape back to France. At one point, he crossed the border to Russia, realized that too was a mistake and then decided to try his luck in Lithuania. But, unknown to him, Lithuania had fallen under the control of Soviet Russia.<br />
<br />
When the German Nazis came in 1941 with their own deadly intent, Brognart was pulled deeper into the Soviet system. Despite initially being neutral as far as France was concerned, the Soviets were mindlessly rounding up people and Brognart eventually ended up in indefinite detention and eventually prison. He became one of the millions who were lost in one way or another during the war for no crime or action the Soviets could ever justify. He was simply a random person who wasn't vouched for. But detention camps and prisons in Russia were never good for one's health and Brognart died in prison in 1951.<br />
<br />
Brognart was one of those people who write on the walls of his cell. He said who he was, where he was from, and asked that people carry the message however possible back to France. Eventually, word got through and machinery began to move. But it moved slowly and years passed. From 1939 on, he was trapped by the machinery of war and the mindlessness of a rigid system.<br />
<br />
After Brognart's death, Milosz eventually went to the man's hometown in France. There's a kind of 19th century sensibility to this, the fact that Milosz would go to such trouble. Milosz talks about this aspect of himself in other places. I've seen this aspect, this need to follow a story to its end. I knew a man once named Gilbert King. He was largely 20th Century in his sensibility but his roots were very much in the 19th century (curious that Brognart and King had the same first name; being someone I knew, I'll use the name Gilbert.)<br />
<br />
Born in 1895, Gilbert was the child of an American banker and an American missionary who lived in China. I believe Gilbert was still somewhat religious to the end of his days. But his life took many odd turns, and despite being born to modest wealth, and having made two modest fortunes for himself, he was poor at the end of his life. His adopted children would have gladly helped him out, but in most years he said no to their help, though he visited them more often as he aged. In his early 90s, I lost touch with him and was reluctant to inquire. Gilbert was not a poet like Milosz but he had a similar philosophical temperament and although he was a businessman in China in the first part of his adult life (primarily in Peking — yes, old spelling, to maintain the flavor), he volunteered to travel extensively, sometimes with his wife and sometimes alone to various places in Asia on related banking business. But his interest was talking to Europeans to some degree while he had a greater interest in seeking out local people from Hong Kong to Tokyo and talking about who they were and what they believed. He had a way of returning to old conversations and continuing them, and asking for more explanation of points he had thought about. He also wanted to know how things turned out. And he was a good storyteller (he reminded me a little of Joseph Conrad's Marlowe, though he had the skill to talk to just about anybody with ease. It never took him long to get a person's story.<br />
<br />
His habit of revisiting things included a trip to China in the late 1970s when he was in his early 80s. He was still fluent in Chinese and while visiting places he knew, people were intrigued by this elderly American who seemed to know more than the average tourist. They did double takes when they realized how fluent he was.<br />
<br />
This business of revisiting things is common in Milosz's work. It's a 19th Century sensibility to some extent, when magazines and books had a slower pace. I'm not sure what Milosz's position was on religion, maybe agnostic like myself, but not particularly cynical about it. Revisiting things, looking deeper into an issue, could also be called the peeling back of further layers, something that Samuel Beckett was good at, particularly in his books. One doesn't see much peeling back on TV, the Internet, or in newspapers these days. One is even embarrassed by reporters who seem to give some background and it's largely irrelevant, hardly to the point. What we often get these days, not always just from the right, is propaganda, or sometimes just the drill sergeant screaming in our faces (Fox News engages in both.)<br />
<br />
Peeling back, seeing our flaws, our mistakes is the missing ingredient in American culture in this era, particularly on the right, but no group is exempt. When we jump from abbreviated stories to the even the more ridiculous twitter blurbs — that is, from farce to farce in terms of commentary — what do we learn?<br />
<br />
I still think the United States is the one essential country. Why? Because there is no other. These days, particularly after the fiasco of the George W. years, that concept is challenged. I know that. The right wingers have lost their way and the politicians and operators simply line up for their share of the booty. It's a shame because many people were at one time able to look a little deeper, to stop and reconsider, to recognize their neighbors as not all that different from themselves, to recognize that we often have a similar fate when those who fail us lead us down a mistaken road.Craighttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03604045908619364847noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19855979.post-91118670801002815062014-12-18T00:07:00.000-08:002014-12-28T16:59:29.695-08:00Hey Google: We Need Balanced NewsThe story on Cuba is being covered by just about every news outlet in the United States. But why is it that Fox News and The Wall Street Journal are so often the first in line at the top of the page of Google News? If I want a link to Fox News or the Journal, I'll create my own. Google News needs to stop genuflecting to Murdoch's news empire so much. There are other news outlets and many of them write better stories and more informative stories. Give us more variety on that first look at a international or national story.<br />
<br />
Anyway, Fox News and The Wall Street Journal are vastly overrated (although in the case of The Wall Street Journal, it's been sliding backwards only since its takeover).Craighttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03604045908619364847noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19855979.post-56449370256153908102014-12-03T22:42:00.002-08:002014-12-03T22:42:40.020-08:00Missouri May Tighten Rules on the Use of Deadly ForceWhat gets lost in the news, particularly on the talk shows on the right, is the need to make sure our laws are enforced fairly while ensuring equal protection under the law. No group should receive special privilege, though of course, privilege is sometimes what we see, particularly if someone who is accused of a crime also happens to be rich or receives consideration other groups don't receive.<br />
<br />
But we also don't want to see people be treated more harshly because those who enforce the law lose sight of their official obligations. Rightly or wrongly, nearly everyone has biases. But it is part of our law that our biases cannot become part of our official duties.<br />
<br />
The reality is that the enforcement of laws also require laws and training in the exercise of enforcing the law. I'm glad to see that the Attorney General of Missouri has decided that the laws may need to be tightened in the wake of the killing of Michael Brown (story from <a href="http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/michael-brown-shooting/missouri-attorney-general-wants-tougher-deadly-force-law-n261256">NBC News</a>):<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: proxima_nova_rgregular, 'Helvetica Neue', Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 18px; line-height: 27px;">Missouri's attorney general called Tuesday night for a change in state law to make it tougher for law enforcement officers to justify the use of deadly force, a week and a half after a grand jury declined to indict former Ferguson police Officer Darren Wilson in the shooting death of unarmed teenager Michael Brown.</span></blockquote>
<span style="background-color: white;"><span style="color: #333333; font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;"><span style="line-height: 27px;">I'm glad to see NBC News follow up on the broader Michael Brown story. We have a case in Ferguson of a predominately black community policed by a police department that is predominately white. That in itself is not the problem. The problem is a pattern of policing by centurion, confrontational methods than by the more effective method of community policing. The confrontational attitude presented to protestors on several occasions spoke volumes of the leadership and the general attitude of Furgeson police department. There was also the issue of city officials, the prosecutor's office and other resisting a close investigation of what exactly happened to Michael Brown and why an unarmed young black man was shot 12 times. That nine witnesses said Michael Brown had raised up his hands in surrender raises the question why the witnesses were ignored and what exactly it was that the officer was supposed to have seen or experienced. Transparency was not delivered to the members of the community.</span></span></span><br />
<span style="background-color: white;"><span style="color: #333333; font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;"><span style="line-height: 27px;"><br /></span></span></span>
<span style="background-color: white;"><span style="color: #333333; font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;"><span style="line-height: 27px;">It is also impossible not to think of the example of the French novel </span><u style="line-height: 27px;">Les Miserables</u><span style="line-height: 27px;"> by Victor Hugo. The hero is sent to the galleys for thirty years of hard labor for the crime of stealing a loaf of bread to feed his family. Generations of readers have been moved by the harshness of the sentence given to Jean Valjean and his attempts to redeem himself. We learn that Michael Brown may have stolen a box of cigars. If Brown was guilty, as his detractors claim, no opportunity for redemption was offered him. The last I heard, Americans don't execute people for misdemeanors, let alone execute them without trial.</span></span></span><br />
<span style="background-color: white;"><span style="color: #333333; font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;"><span style="line-height: 27px;"><br /></span></span></span>
<span style="background-color: white;"><span style="color: #333333; font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;"><span style="line-height: 27px;">The officer claimed he felt threatened by Mr. Brown but many questions remain.</span></span></span>Craighttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03604045908619364847noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19855979.post-48600685099863162012014-08-14T16:05:00.001-07:002014-08-14T16:05:29.307-07:00It's Time for Congress to ReengageI'm a Democrat but I'm a strong believer that our country needs two parties. Although I theoretically favor third parties, the truth is that even third parties at the end of the day need to understand how to put together a coalition of votes. It's obvious that Tea Party Republicans are frankly behaving like a third party, though for reasons not well understood, they are dominating the Republican Party. It seems a combination of wealthy right wing Republicans and very conservative commentators like Rush Limbaugh and news organization like Fox News give cover to Tea Republicans.<br />
<br />
It's been apparent for some time that a growing number of rational Republicans recognize that they have a problem and that problem is that Tea Party Republicans cannot govern, largely because of their unwillingness a vast majority of the time to work with Democrats.<br />
<br />
In Politico Magazine, <a href="http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/08/tea-party-grifters-109675_Page2.html#.U-072Et1JSU">Steve LaTourette</a> has an article arguing that the Republican Party needs to get back to governing:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="font-family: proxima-nova, 'Helvetica Neue', Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 16px;">The governing wing of the Republican Party understands that compromise is not the root of all evil in Washington—indeed, it is the essential ingredient in moving forward any set of conservative policies like those that Reagan fought for.</span></blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="font-family: proxima-nova, 'Helvetica Neue', Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 16px;">While the grifters hold a great deal of sway over the Republican Party for now, they are not the majority—not by a long shot. As with any good Ponzi scheme, there are relatively few grifters; the challenge is exposing their scam.</span></blockquote>
<span style="box-sizing: border-box; font-family: proxima-nova, 'Helvetica Neue', Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 16px;"><br style="box-sizing: border-box;" />All politicians argue their position. All politicians in our country take money from campaign donors. But at the end of the day, representatives in Congress need to get down to business and take the job of government seriously. For the past four years, Tea Party Republicans have shown they cannot do that.</span>Craighttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03604045908619364847noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19855979.post-64080043669719654462014-07-19T16:17:00.000-07:002014-07-19T16:17:04.780-07:00How to Win on Progressive CausesMaybe this post should have been called how not to win on progressive causes. I'm always astonished at people who lose sight of what they're trying to accomplish by pursuing side arguments they poorly understand while their style of argument undermines even the side issue.<br />
<br />
Maha at <a href="http://www.mahablog.com/">Mahablog</a> has written extensively and wisely on the subject. Here's <a href="http://www.mahablog.com/2014/07/17/winning-the-war-against-religious-derp/">one of Maha's careful but blunt comments</a> that comes right to the point as about clearly as one can:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: Georgia, Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; line-height: 20px;">Years ago I formulated a basic rule for successful demonstrating that I call the “Bigger Asshole” rule. The job of public protesters is not to change the minds of the powerful people they are opposing, but to gain public sympathy for their cause. Especially in politics, the powerful won’t change until they are compelled to do so by a sufficient critical mass of public opinion saying they must.</span></blockquote>
<span style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: Georgia, Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 20px;"><br /></span>
<span style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: Georgia, Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; line-height: 20px;">Maha elaborates further in the <a href="http://www.mahablog.com/2014/07/17/winning-the-war-against-religious-derp/#comments">comment section of her post</a>:</span><br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="background-color: #f8f8f8; color: #333333; font-family: Georgia, Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; line-height: 20px;">This is the whole point of the Bigger Asshole rule. You are not trying to change the minds of people you directly oppose. You are trying to win everybody else to sympathize with you more than with the people you oppose. Public support and sympathy give you some leverage to actually change things. Not having it means you are whistling in the wind.</span></blockquote>
<span style="background-color: #f8f8f8; color: #333333; font-family: Georgia, Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; line-height: 20px;"><br /></span>
<span style="color: #333333; font-family: Georgia, Times, Times New Roman, serif;"><span style="line-height: 20px;">Years ago, I talked about a related issue concerning what I called <i>persuadables</i>, the small but important percentage of people who are actually willing to listen. But Maha's point is a larger one involving a much larger group. One way to look at it is that when you argue with an opponent, you need to remember who the real audience is: <i>the people who are looking over your shoulder and are listening in</i>. How you conduct yourself is as important as what you say (as an example, you don't put up with bullying, but you work hard to make sure you don't become a bully yourself).</span></span><br />
<span style="background-color: #f8f8f8; color: #333333; font-family: Georgia, Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; line-height: 20px;"><br /></span>
<span style="background-color: #f8f8f8; color: #333333; font-family: Georgia, Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; line-height: 20px;"><br /></span>
<span style="background-color: #f8f8f8; color: #333333; font-family: Georgia, Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; line-height: 20px;"><br /></span>
<span style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: Georgia, Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 20px;"><br /></span>Craighttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03604045908619364847noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19855979.post-24133841854322535582014-07-14T18:11:00.001-07:002014-07-14T18:11:22.066-07:00Reminder from the George W. EraIn 2004, near the end of George W. Bush's first tern, my wife and I were among several dozen people being honored for volunteer work for a government agency that has major environmental responsibilities in the local community. It was more a social occasion, but like a number of other volunteers, we were receiving our ten year pins.<br />
<br />
There had been concern that some staff changes had been made and that one of our favorite people was more or less being kicked upstairs and sideways into a research program that kept him away from environmental issues. Weirdly, his replacement spent twenty minutes "honoring" Ronald Reagan, who had passed away a couple of weeks earlier. This was the year the Bush Administration spent an entire month honoring the former president. I can't recall anything like this in my lifetime. The period of mourning was usually a week or less when a former president died.<br />
<br />
It didn't take long to figure out what was going on. We already knew that the longer than usual "mourning" was being cynically used by Bush to distract from his many problems. It quickly became clear that our new manager was a Bush person and she was thoroughly pleased to be spending twenty minutes talking about Reagan. Many in the audience, including myself, found ourselves looking at one another.<br />
<br />
It was clear the new manager was a political appointee and not someone who had earned her way up through management. To this day, I'm not sure how many people realize many of these low level appointees from the George W. Bush years are still in positions that they might not have earned otherwise. In addition, it is highly probable that some of these appointees were illegal. The early 2000s were a strange era. We are in serious danger of that era returning if voters don't start paying closer attention to the radical right.<br />
<br />
Why do I mention this? Because many politicians and officials on the right are bending and sometimes breaking the law to get their way. Even the Supreme Court, with Scalia apparently leading the way, is coming up with rationales that haven't been seen in almost a century.Craighttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03604045908619364847noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19855979.post-21990940080527296952014-06-23T22:58:00.000-07:002014-06-23T22:58:28.982-07:0046 Countries Are More Than 60% RenewableMomentum for renewable energy is growing. Solar and wind are now competitive with fossil fuels. And the rate of innovation for solar cells, storage systems, more efficient wind turbines and other cost saving measures in alternative energy systems is expected to increase for the next few years, dropping prices even further. Around the world, many countries take global warming seriously. And many countries are discovering that renewable energy has a longterm future while fossil fuels are simply getting harder and more expensive to produce and bring to market.<br />
<br />
On a site called <a href="http://k.lenz.name/LB/?p=6525">Lenz Blog</a> is a list of 46 countries that are now more than 60% renewable. (Thanks to <a href="http://cleantechnica.com/70-80-99-9-100-renewables-study-central/">Cleantechnica</a> for the link).<br />
<br />
It's a shame that the U.S. has so much opposition to alternative energy coming from the fossil fuel industries. Global warming has been seriously on the radar for 25 years. That's 25 years that fossil fuel companies could have spent making the transition to a diverse energy portfolio. Luckily, there's still time to diversify. The sooner fossil fuel companies start diversifying, the easier the transition to alternative energy will be. And the less risk we will pose to our planet from excessive fossil fuel emissions.Craighttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03604045908619364847noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19855979.post-81878134279119477782014-06-21T17:47:00.000-07:002014-12-28T22:25:03.401-08:00Is Cheney Running for President in 2016?My apologies to anyone with a heart condition who reads the title of today's post. Cheney, who was less than honest with the American people in 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003…. and yes, 2014, has never acknowledged the blunders made during the George W. Bush presidency, nor has he acknowledged the many inaccurate statements he made and continues to make.<br />
<br />
Please see: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/06/20/dick-cheney-obama_n_5516405.html?utm_hp_ref=mostpopular.<br />
<br />
Look, I'm not a pacifist but war is not an option that should be treated as lightly as Rumsfeld, Cheney, Karl Rove, Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle, Bill Kristol did in 2003. I can say they treated the war in Iraq with less than due diligence for the simple reason that in March 2002, they stopped trying to get Osama bin Laden. In fact, they simply abandoned any coherent policy in Afghanistan. Their attitude, which I'm admittedly surmising since they never clearly explained themselves, seemed to be: Okay, never mind that the bullets are still flying, and that we didn't catch bin Laden and that Afghanistan is a mess: we won and we're moving on to the next war.<br />
<br />
Once the new war started, what was supposed to happen at that point? We know Rumsfeld had no plan after taking the city of Baghdad, but let's say the Iraqis had miraculously greeted Americans as liberators and miraculously ended the animosity among Iraqi factions and had actually created a democratic government in two months. What was supposed to happen next? Does anyone know? Were we headed to Iran? Syria? Pakistan? Where were we headed next? That's a question that neither Cheney or Rumsfeld have the nerve to answer. Why? Because we would quickly begin to understand how flawed the thinking in the Republican Party has become.<br />
<br />
Smart people learn from their mistakes. Even smart conservatives. Winston Churchill wasn't a conservative purist but he was certainly very fond of colonialism and the manner of the British Empire and all its pomp and ceremony. He made a number of mistakes in during World War I. But he learned from them and was instrumental in holding off the Germans long enough for the Germans to change their target to Russia. He also gave the United States enough time to make an enormous difference in the outcome of the war.<br />
<br />
So, is Cheney running for president in 2013? I hope not. There's absolutely no sign that he has learned anything.Craighttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03604045908619364847noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19855979.post-63428536560544838582014-01-21T17:24:00.000-08:002014-01-21T17:24:59.624-08:00West Virginia Governor Says: It's Your DecisionIn the age of global warming and rising fossil fuel production costs, the paralysis of pragmatism among many right wing Republican politicians is becoming more evident. For Republicans, it's the age of do-nothingism.<br />
<br />
But Democrats also need to make sure their politicians don't go down that road. Democratic Gov. Earl Tomblin says to West Virginians that 'it's your decision' whether to drink the water that was recently contaminated by a chemical spell. I'm sure many Americans have noticed many chemical spills, refinery accidents, oil spells and exploding fertilizer plants have occurred lately across the nation.<br />
<br />
With all due respect, I disagree with the oddly lax attitude of the governor (he sure sounds like a Republican to me). Making sure the water supply is healthy and communities are livable should be a major goal of every state. But making sure the United States has a responsible energy and global warming plan going forward for the coming decades should be the highest priority of our nation. <br />
<br />
It's a fact of life that we now have two critical issues facing us. No one in the world is more impacted by the two critical issues than the United States. We are, first of all, the world's biggest energy user per capita. So the need for new forms of energy is crucial. If we wish to remain economically healthy, we need over the next 10 to 25 years to turn to other forms of energy in a major way.<br />
<br />
We are also one of the largest countries in the world. It would be an illusion to think that global warming will not affect us. We have three large climate change issues and a not so small issue. The not so small issue is in Alaska where the permafrost in the north is melting and homes and communities are literally sinking into the ground.<br />
<br />
A big second issue is that the American West is having repeated bouts of drought, and the computer models expect more of them. Keep in mind that in places like California, the weather tends to be feast and famine. In the years that California gets rain, it gets far more than it wants. This may happen more often in other areas of the country.<br />
<br />
Actually, the Gulf states and the Eastern seaboard at times will also have an increased number of the largest hurricanes, but possibly not more hurricanes in general (the science of our new changing climate isn't always going to be able to read exactly the changes and timing of what will come; but the energy pouring into the Earth's various climates is already having measurable consequences; and one of the major consequences is the way warm water is moving north in the late summer — warm water fuels hurricanes).<br />
<br />
The final issue involves our coastlines. One part of the issue is already here: the rising seas are sending a great deal more water inland when big hurricanes and even thunder storms drive water inland. But the seas will continue rising and over the next few decades we will lose a certain percentage of our coastal lands. No one can precisely predict what will happen and when for a number of reasons; the biggest wild card is when the production of fossil fuels will begin to significantly drop.<br />
<br />
The reality is the age of light sweet crude is over. We can no longer produce the best quality oil cheaply. Cheap oil is gone and is not returning. One call also see growing stresses in the refinery, fossil producing, and chemical sectors. And keep in mind that fossil producers have known about climate change for at least two decades. Most of them made a political choice to ignore the science. The smartest thing many of these companies should have done was take their enormous wealth and diversify. Some did, but most chose not to (curiously, there is still time to diversify but the window is on the edge of closing). <br />
<br />
We have many politicians in the United States, particularly on the Republican side, who are currently in the back pockets of fossil fuel producers. Many of these producers interested in politics have been warned for years. Or rather decades. They have largely chosen not to listen. They refuse the evidence of global warming. And they refuse the evidence of the older issue: that we need new sources of energy. The first call for diversifying into other forms of energy, made purely on economic grounds, came in the 1970s. Here's something many people don't know: many of those calls came from those in the fossil industries, particularly those who had been in the business for 20-40 years.<br />
<br />
In the end, maybe Gov. Tomblin is right, it's your decision. It's the decision of every American. Except the decision involves more than West Virginia. Do we push harder to begin the changes we need (there are exciting changes for cheaper sources of energy happening for those who are observant), or do we let the United States slip into irrelevance? I can virtually guarantee other nations will push for the new forms of energy that are falling rapidly in prices while we let fossil producers fantasize about dreams that have no relevance during the growing crisis we are facing. American genius is still alive. But the ground has shifted. The future no longer lies in fossil fuels that now cost four more times than what they cost just in the early 21st Century.<br />
<br />Craighttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03604045908619364847noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19855979.post-40765892930156932512014-01-17T02:21:00.000-08:002014-01-21T17:26:41.086-08:00Faux Outrage from the Right?<div class="tr_bq">
I think we've all been aware of an incredible amount of anger coming from the far right. Even common sense Republicans who have more in common with Goldwater or Reagan than the Teas have commented on this from time to time, though perhaps using politer language in public. I happen to sympathize with common sense Republicans since sometimes the anger of the Tea Party is specifically directed at them, and is just as irrational as the anger directed at progressives.</div>
<br />
In any case, articles show up from time to time that puzzle me. For example, there have been a lot of articles around oil, natural gas and fracking that are head scratchers. Here's an item from the <a href="http://www.dailycamera.com/louisville-news/ci_24904997/local-company-cites-lafayettes-fracking-ban-reason-expand">Daily Camera in Colorado</a>:<br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Founder and CEO Jonathan Sawyer [of XetaWave] said the Lafayette Community Rights Act, which was passed by voters in November and bans all new oil and gas drilling within city limits, puts a business like his in questionable legal territory<br />
<br />
XetaWave provides radios to oil and gas operators that can relay information about operational aspects at remote sites, such as condensation tank levels or flow rates at the well.<br />
<br />
Because the charter amendment states that it is illegal in Lafayette to "engage in the creation of fossil fuel, nuclear or other non-sustainable energy production and delivery infrastructures," Sawyer said it's not clear to him if a company like XetaWave could be prosecuted even if it doesn't extract energy itself.</blockquote>
<br />
<div style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', Times, serif; font-size: 15px; line-height: 22px; margin-bottom: 11.326px; text-align: left;">
Now maybe Mr. Sawyer was misled or misunderstood, and maybe the writer of the article is just writing the facts as they came to him. In the comments, a city attorney is also mentioned who may also be part of the story. But what I see is something that I see too often that looks like a phony tempest in a teapot that is designed to make those "dangerous left wingers" look like idiots. However, in our country, our communities still have some latitude on organizing their communities how they see fit (and yes, sometimes local politics go the other way). Now as I understand it, the right to drill whether anybody likes it or not is not one I see in the U.S. Constitution. </div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', Times, serif; font-size: 15px; line-height: 22px; margin-bottom: 11.326px; text-align: left;">
Now the law in Lafayette was legally passed and was intended to stop oil drilling within the city limits. That much is clear. </div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', Times, serif; font-size: 15px; line-height: 22px; margin-bottom: 11.326px; text-align: left;">
But a claim seems to have been made (by opponents of the law?) that anything remotely associated with oil drilling whether inside the city or outside is somehow illegal according to the new city ordinance. This of course is ridiculous. The logic of that interpretation might mean that if a candy factory inside the city limits supplied their product to an oil company's vending machines outside the city, they would be in violation of the city ordinance. A broad interpretation by right wingers would be a classic example of right wingers looking for controversy where none exists. I've heard a phrase for it in recent years (since 2010, in fact): "Faux Outrage." Sometimes, because we hear such things so often on Fox News, I've seen it as "Fox Outrage."</div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', Times, serif; font-size: 15px; line-height: 22px; margin-bottom: 11.326px; text-align: left;">
The irony is that many oil companies have full-time lawyers who clean up numerous and serious company violations of the law on the quiet. It would not surprise me if the more conservative oil executives find Faux Outrage a convenient utility in their legal tool box, though of course in this particular case, the motivations of the company may simply be informational. Nevertheless, the question remains: how is it that such a trivial story came to be in the Daily Camera? And why is it that such phony stories of late have so often managed to be printed?</div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', Times, serif; font-size: 15px; line-height: 22px; margin-bottom: 11.326px; text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
Craighttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03604045908619364847noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19855979.post-48648344321881770982014-01-10T16:04:00.000-08:002014-01-21T17:28:00.611-08:00Fossil Fuels Have Served Their PurposeI had an older relative who was involved in building one of the first long distance natural gas pipelines. He finished the pipeline around 1930, long before I was born. Natural gas was much cleaner than coal and was considered an improvement in that era. The truth is that coal, oil and natural gas, in their time, created the modern age. It's a simple historical fact that oil made possible victory for the allies in World War I and World War II. Without oil, the automobile age would not be possible.<br />
<br />
But we now know that fossil fuels are a major source of the carbon dioxide emissions that are responsible for causing global warming. The Arctic is melting. Temperatures are rising (particularly in the oceans). Megastorms are beginning to appear. And we know these things sooner than we might have because coal, oil and natural gas were instrumental in helping create a huge world population increase as well as massive industrialization throughout large areas of the Earth.<br />
<br />
But there's a second story that has been getting little attention: the decline of cheap fossil fuels. The age of cheap light sweet crude is over. It's been over for almost ten years now. We now rely on heavy crude, Fracked oil and gas, and tar sands. Coal, over the last hundred years, has been just getting lower and lower in grade. Only natural gas is holding its own and that's only if the prices stay up, but many regard natural gas as experiencing a production bubble that cannot be sustained.<br />
<br />
The reality is that the costs of fossil fuels are rising. And more and more energy needs to be invested to bring fossil fuels to market, thus defeating some of the important value of fossil fuels. Many of the companies who produce fossil fuels are currently in denial. That's a long story I'll leave to others to explain. Some of the dominant figures in coal and oil, for example, have political agendas that they try to tie to their businesses in ways inconsistent with who we are as a nation and not consistent with our needs. <br />
<br />
The truth is that we've known for a long time that fossil fuels are in trouble. The crucial issue, above all others, is oil. One of the largest producers of oil in the world, the United States, reached maximum production a long time ago, back in 1970. We had a resurgence because of the North Slope but we never again reached maximum production. Because of fracking in places like Texas, North Dakota and elsewhere, oil and natural gas production are once again rising in the United States. We may even surpass the totals from 1970, but it's likely to be short-lived and we are doing it at considerable cost to our future.<br />
<br />
There are two issues. First, global warming cannot be ignored. For anyone who has looked at the science, that ship has sailed. Second, we cannot wait until the last shipload or trainload of fossil fuels to begin the transition to fossil fuels. That second issue is now crucial given the eroding circumstances of fossil fuels.<br />
<br />
Here's a story from <a href="http://cleantechnica.com/2014/01/10/goldman-sachs-sells-stake-coal-terminal/">Cleantech</a> about a coal terminal — a story we are seeing more often in all areas of fossil fuels:<br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<div style="color: #888888; font-family: 'Open Sans',sans-serif; line-height: 18px; margin-bottom: 20px; text-align: left;">
<span style="font-size: small;">The <a href="http://gatewaypacificterminal.com/" style="color: rgb(0, 51, 153) ! important; text-decoration: none;" target="_blank" title="Gateway Pacific Terminal">Gateway Pacific Terminal</a>, near Bellingham, Washington, is poised to become the West Coast’s biggest coal export project — but it will no longer have the backing of New York-based, international banking behemoth Goldman Sachs.</span></div>
<div style="color: #888888; font-family: 'Open Sans',sans-serif; line-height: 18px; margin-bottom: 20px; text-align: left;">
<span style="font-size: small;">On Tuesday, Goldman Sachs sold its stock back to the companies proposing to build the terminal, which would transport 48 million tons of coal from Wyoming to Asia annually.</span></div>
</blockquote>
The banks are starting to see the writing on the wall. Alternative energy is clean and competitive. And because of a host of brilliant scientists and researchers, the prices for alternative energy will continue to improve.Craighttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03604045908619364847noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19855979.post-32432635525201144582013-09-30T18:45:00.002-07:002013-09-30T18:46:51.759-07:00I'm BackMy mom died last year and there was a great deal to do. I think she was meant to live to a hundred like her mother did, but she smoked most of her life and didn't quit until age 64. She died of lung cancer three weeks shy of her 90th birthday. But she lived a full life and she was a life giver in all the ways human beings can be. And fiercely independent.Craighttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03604045908619364847noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19855979.post-46127873321401478712012-01-20T22:03:00.000-08:002012-01-20T22:57:16.320-08:00Republicans Fighting for the Heart of the Republican PartySantorum won the Iowa caucus after all, despite some alleged last minute shenanigans by the Romney supporters. But Romney clearly won New Hampshire, which is basically in his backyard. And, surprise, Newt Gingrich may pull out a squeaker in South Carolina. It's only January, and already there's been three primaries and possibly three different winners. We'll know the results by Saturday night... hopefully. The good news is that Republicans are trying to redefine their party. The bad news is that a lot of Republicans want a candidate who's as far to the right as possible.<br /><br />It's clear the Republican party, after years of blunders and incompetence by George W. Bush, needs to go back to the drawing board. More important, the conservative ideas of the last thirty years simply don't work anymore. To put it bluntly, the Republican party needs to reform itself.<br /><br />Of course, the notion of a Republican reformer is still a bit of an oxymoron. As so often happens in Washington, yesterday's right wing Republican vanguard is today's establishment. As an example, Santorum was a rebel when he was elected Senator from Pennsylvania. After two years, he became an establishment Republican protecting the business as usual interests of wealthy conservative Republicans, bankers and Wall Street high rollers. Hey, it's lucrative being a member of the establishment. And now, Tea Party favorite Eric Cantor is pulling the same stunt: after only one year this time, a Republican rebel has once again discovered the advantages of being part of the Republican establishment. Listen to what he says on <a href="http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/updates/4411">TPMLivewire</a>:<br /><blockquote>At a time when the Republican presidential nomination contest is growing increasingly nebulous, House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-VA) urged his party to “coalesce around a single vision with a nominee.”</blockquote>It's not hard to read the tea leaves in Cantor's words. Instead of supporting an open primary process, he's telling voters to support the establishment candidate—meaning: <span style="font-style: italic;">someone who might be able to get elected</span>. Everybody knows that neither Santorum or Gingrich is electable. Santorum represents a draconian right wing vision and Gingrich's reckless behavior does not make him fit for the oval office.<br /><br />So the tea party big shots, who stopped mentioning the name of George W. Bush in 2008, want to continue Bush's policies by supporting Mitt Romney. Yep. Just what the country needs, two Republican businessmen in a row making decisions in the Oval Office according to what the hot shots on Wall Street want.<br /><br />Hang on to your seats, folks. Until the leaders of the GOP reform the party, it's going to be a wild ride.Craighttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03604045908619364847noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19855979.post-84764741119824744612012-01-19T17:00:00.000-08:002014-01-21T17:40:27.753-08:00A Contrarian Post on the Keystone XL PipelineI'm going to say some things in this post about the Keystone XL Pipeline that are likely to irritate liberals and conservatives. So let me begin with some premises about what's going on in the world.<br />
<br />
1) Global warming is a real threat. Exactly what will happen in the next 100 years is not certain at this time. Maybe global warming won't be so bad. Maybe it will be our worst nightmare. The potential downside, however, is enormous if we do not take steps to control global warming. I'm reminded that we were told by industry experts and hotshot conservatives that nuclear energy poses no significant problems. The accident at Fukushima was supposed to be a once in a thousand year incident. It's rather odd how once in a hundred year events or once in a thousand year events keep happening. The worst case scenarios for global warming are too dangerous not to be taken seriously.<br />
<br />
2) The fossil fuels we're using today are not only more expensive, but they are much dirtier and more prevalent than they were sixty years. Even if global warming were not an issue, it is pretentious to think that pollution from fossil fuels is not an issue. The growing acidification of the oceans is a major issue. The sulfurous clouds hanging over Asia are also an issue. These issues concern everyone, particularly the U.S.<br />
<br />
3) The exploitation of tar sands, despite many measures taken to address environmental concerns, is proof that we're in trouble if we have to turn to such a dirty and expensive fuel. Light sweet crude is in decline and has been for several years.<br />
<br />
4) The oil industry has convinced millions of Americans that global warming is not real, that alternative energy is a job killer and that oil can continue indefinitely to solve our energy needs. All three assertions are lies and are propaganda paid for by the oil industry, with considerable help from the people who control the Republican party.<br />
<br />
5) The hour is late. We have put off the inevitable since the 1970s. Given the lateness of the hour, it will take an enormous amount of investment and work to create an economy based on alternative energy. And it will take time. I have seen very little that puts a number on how long it will take to cut our use of fossil fuels worldwide by 50%. Here I do not have the facts, but my guess is that it will take 15-30 years.<br />
<br />
6. To power the transition, we will need a strong economy. It very likely will take the burning of more fossil fuels to power the transition to that economy. If we abruptly stop burning fossil fuels, the transition probably will not happen. Of course, as the use of alternative energy goes up, the use of fossil fuels can go down, but the consumption of fossil fuels cannot decline too fast.<br />
<br />
7. The use of fossil fuels may possibly drop rapidly due to declining reserves of usable fossil fuels. Though the oil industry is beginning (just barely) to admit that fossil fuels other than coal will soon become much more difficult to bring to market, we again have wasted decades by not turning to alternative fuels sooner.<br />
<br />
8. If by chance, or through incompetence of the far right, the economy of the U.S. collapses, or even if it simply declines, it is likely more fossil fuel will go to power the economy of Asian countries. Countries like India and China show no signs that they will be cutting the use of fossil fuels any time soon. The leadership role, by default, goes to the United States. It's true that Europe can be helpful but the continuing monetary crisis in Europe shows how difficult it can be for the Europeans to lead. Keep in mind, however, that over the last thirty years, Europeans have done a much better job than the U.S. of turning to alternative energy. But they are vulnerable to swings in the oil and natural gas markets. Europe has twice the population of the U.S., and if one does not count Russia, their oil reserves are considerably less.<br />
<br />
<br />
Okay, here it goes.<br />
<br />
I have very mixed feeling about the Keystone XL pipeline. Despite everything, we may need it. Republicans have handled our energy problems with such extraordinary incompetence that they have threatened our future.<br />
<br />
I find it curious that some proponents and critics of the pipeline say the building of the pipeline won't significantly bring down the price of oil. Actually, the pipeline will bring down the price a small amount—not necessarily something to cheer about. It is politically not feasible, but I believe we need to make sure the price doesn't come down too far. Better yet, we need to slowly raise prices to match the real cost of oil, including clean up and CO2 emissions. We need to stop passing on the real cost of fossil fuels to our children and grandchildren. And Republicans need to stop indulging in the fantasy that some scientist will come up with some magic solution—this is ironic given how little Republicans have faith in science and how little they are willing to pay for major buildup in research. Right wingers cannot keep cutting the budget for science while expecting miracles.<br />
<br />
Republicans have been bad-mouthing Detroit for almost four years, but Detroit is actually moving more and more toward efficient cars. What Republicans fail to understand is that Americans need both jobs and more efficient cars and transportation (don't anyone pretend that the pipeline will create a huge number of jobs; they will create some, but that's all). That the current Republican leadership would let Detroit go under says a great deal about the incompetence of Tea Party Republicans and other right wingers.<br />
<br />
It is ridiculous, as some 'experts' have argued, that the building of the pipeline will make us dependent on Canada. Oil from Canada is a far safer bet than depending on keeping the Straits of Hormuz open. Yes, our navy can keep the straits open and probably will have to continue to do so. But having a secure supply of oil should not be discounted. <span style="font-style: italic;">There are</span> going to be energy disruptions in the next twenty years. I despise the tar sands, but we may need those reserves to fuel the transition.<br />
<br />
Now I'm going to really be contradictory. To a large extent, I support the protests against the pipeline. It is disgusting that we are relying on tar sands and talking as if oil is forever and that global warming is of no concern. The protests are a sign that Americans are at last waking up to concerns about our future. The obstructionism and incompetence of Republicans will continue for some time to come until somebody starts rebuilding the party on more pragmatic lines. In the meantime, I would like to see the protests geared more towards actually getting more green energy projects installed. But no one should pretend that we can quickly go without oil.<br />
<br />
In some respects, I find it more urgent to start going after coal. Coal is tar sands in its worst form. If Congress had any sense, no more coal plants would be built. Again, it will take time to transition, but coal plants that go offline should not be replaced. This is where green organizations should be focusing. Not just closing coal plants, but replacing them with green energy. The money is potentially there. If progressives can raise money for political causes, they can raise money to build windmills, solar roofs and other forms of alternative energy.<br />
<br />
<b>UPDATE: </b> Jan. 21, 2014<br />
<br />
It's two years later and much has change. The only thing useful about the tar sands is that it's proof that the fossil industries are dying. The energy return on the tar sands is criminal. Why? A high energy return on fossil fuels generates wealth for society as a whole. A very low energy return, as is the case with tar sands, only helps the very rich.<br />
<br />
The other problem is that fracking is a bubble, nothing more. One can already see major problems in North Dakota. Production will continue to climb, in some months, but the number of months when production actually falls is continuing. North Dakota is simply running into a wall. Every land owner receiving money from the oil companies should look seriously into wind turbines and the necessary power lines to send electricity to out of state markets.<br />
<br />
Secretary of State John Kerry should not approve the pipeline. That pipeline is not in the interest of our future.<br />
<br />
President Obama should be doing as much as he can to get alternative energy moving along as quickly as possible. Prices in alternative energy are falling. As they continue to fall, alternative energy is America's best hope for an energy future and a healthy economy.Craighttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03604045908619364847noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19855979.post-48365684941953959602012-01-08T13:42:00.000-08:002012-01-19T16:13:16.856-08:00The Sociopaths on Wall StreetThe ideal corporation through most of the 20th century was one that pursued profits while being reasonably responsible toward workers, the community, and consumers. Since about the 1960s, corporations have also, at least in theory, been more responsible when coming to the environment.<br /><br />However, since the 1980s—some would argue sooner—there has been a deterioration in corporate ethics in many sectors. Certainly the S & L crisis, the ethical failures of the Exxon Valdez episode and the deaths and lack of financial responsibility associated with the Union Carbide Bhopal disaster—all three occurred in the 1980s—makes it clear that the interpretation of deregulation in that era was far too often synonymous with ethical lapses in the executive suite. From the end of the Reagan era until the end of George W. Bush's time in office, the interpretation has only gotten worse. Actually, in very little time, deregulation went from a need to adjust regulations to make them fairer and more sensible to becoming an outright license to break the law and defraud people in various sectors of society.<br /><br />There have always been lapses among corporation and there has been debate about how much or how little a corporation should do. There have also been corporations, all along, that cut corners in order to gain an advantage over other corporations. A general rule of thumb in business is that competent people can always make money as long as everybody plays by the same rules. Unfortunately, people who are not very honest or competent or both are generally the first to look for short cuts, including favors from politicians.<br /><br />The reality is that both parties are susceptible to influence peddling. Unfortunately, Republicans have pretty much made deregulation, as well as other ethically challenged ideas, pillars of their political philosophy. In addition, if an ethically-challenged business executive makes enormous profits, many Republican politicians, are notoriously slow to recognize that there is a problem (e.g., Kenneth Lay and George W. Bush). The most telling sign is that when a rational and honest Republican prosecutor tries to uphold the law, that prosecutor may find himself without a political future in the Republican party.<br /><br />One of the problems with today's business world is the number of ethically challenged people who are allowed to rise to the executive suite in the first place. In <a href="http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-01-03/did-psychopaths-take-over-wall-street-asylum-commentary-by-william-cohan.html">Bloomberg</a>, William D. Cohan has an article that discusses a theory by Clive R. Boddy about Wall Street psychopaths:<br /><blockquote>Clive R. Boddy, most recently a professor at the Nottingham Business School at Nottingham Trent University, says psychopaths are the 1 percent of [people who] ... "lack a “conscience, have few emotions and display an inability to have any feelings, sympathy or empathy for other people.”<br /><br />(snip)<br /><br />He says [psychopaths] seem "to be unaffected" by the corporate collapses they cause. These psychopaths "present themselves as glibly unbothered by the chaos around them, unconcerned about those who have lost their jobs, savings and investments, and as lacking any regrets about what they have done. They cheerfully lie about their involvement in events, are very convincing in blaming others for what has happened..."</blockquote><br />It worth recalling that John Dean has written a book called "Conservatives without Conscience." Dean was not talking specifically about psychopaths, and certainly not corporate psychopaths, who are basically a class of very smart criminals who are much more sophisticated than ordinary criminals without conscious (who in any case frequently end up in prison). But Dean was very much talking about people who are authoritarian by temperament. I would also add that people like Newt Gingrich and George W. Bush strike me as extraordinarily narcissistic and are clearly among the type of people Dean talks about. For both Bush and Gingrich, life is all about them.<br /><br />But today's Republican party has other other problems as well. What is it about the Republican political class that they look the other way when a Republican politician obviously lies? And why is it that they refuse to set the record straight when others obviously lie about Barack Obama (birthers) or lie about John Kerry (swift boaters)? And why is it that the Republican political class failed to notice the obvious economic disaster we were heading for as Wall Street and the banks were allowed to engage in reckless behavior?<br /><br /><br /><br /><br />Here's the <a href="http://www.springerlink.com/content/9072633443675517/">scholarly link to Boddy's paper</a>.<br /><br />And here's a link that provide a more accessible version to <a href="http://www.slideshare.net/UnitB166ER/the-corporate-psychopaths-theory-of-the-global-financial-crisis-by-clive-r-boddy">Boddy's paper.</a>Craighttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03604045908619364847noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19855979.post-59423317202278579982012-01-04T00:08:00.001-08:002012-01-04T00:24:39.686-08:00The Republican Establishment Is Weighing InIt looks like the Republican establishment—the bankers, the Wall Street people, the billionaires, multinaires and the privileged—are going to nail the nomination down for Romney. Or least try. These are the same guys who backed George W. Bush and supported all his policies. The guys who got us into the worst recession since the 1930s want to get back to business as usual: more jobs to China, even lower taxes for the rich, money for defense toys we don't need, and nickel and diming the middle class for those million dollar bonuses.<br /><br />Already the money is beginning to pour. The establishment finds elections a little more expensive than lobbyists, but from their point of view, buying a few hundred million dollars worth of ads is still a bargain.<br /><br />It almost doesn't matter which Republican gets nominated: they will all pretend that Barack Obama is the one we need to fight against. Here's a reality check: the more Obama tried to compromise, to stabilize the economy, and stabilize the country, the more Republicans revealed how right wing and out of touch they are becoming. We need pragmatists in Washington, not obstructionists, not extremists, and certainly not the type of people who got us into the mess in the first place.Craighttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03604045908619364847noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19855979.post-7280367241260016962011-12-29T17:56:00.000-08:002011-12-29T18:19:31.806-08:00Bizarre Comment By Mitt RomneySome politicians are tone deaf. I came across an item in <a href="http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/updates/3265">Talking Points Memo</a> that Romney made a bizarre comment in Iowa today at a campaign event:<br /><blockquote>...Mitt Romney took on President Obama for saying the economy could be worse, saying: “When the president’s characterization of our economy was, ‘It could be worse,’ it reminded me of Marie Antoinette: ‘Let them eat cake’”...</blockquote><br />Wow. Never mind the awkward phrasing. It was a weird thing for Romney to say, given that he owns the cake.Craighttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03604045908619364847noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19855979.post-67207240899664106542011-12-11T23:24:00.000-08:002011-12-12T01:12:21.534-08:00The Three Words That Define 2012: Jobs, Jobs, JobsAt the end of the day, in most years, Americans are pragmatists. I say most years because it's not always certain that pragmatists win the day. For example, one definition of a pragmatist is that if something doesn't work, you try something else. A classic example in the last thirty years is trickle down economics, which argues that if you give more money to the rich, they'll create more jobs. Reagan tried trickle down economics in the 1980s. No matter what you think of Reagan, trickle down doesn't work. It never has. But, for some reason, Republicans keep trying it. They try trickle down economics this way, that way and every which way—and it still doesn't work.<br /><br />Whoever becomes the Republican nominee is virtually guaranteed to try trickle down economics if elected. Cutting taxes and doing cute favors for the wealthiest Americans is more important to Republican politicians and lobbyists in Washington than creating jobs. That is a fact. One only has to look at their record. No doubt business as usual Republicans will put a good spin on it and tell a good story but it'll be trickle down economics. Trickle down sounds a lot better than what Republican economics really is: protecting the wealthiest Americans at all costs, regardless of how much it hurts our country, our democracy and millions of our fellow Americans.<br /><br />Of course, there have always been four kinds of wealthy people: the kind who really know what they're doing (Jobs, Gates), the kind who inherit wealth (Paris Hilton as well as oil, lumber and tobacco heirs), the kind who are basically crooks in business suits surrounded by lawyers (Michael Milken and Bernie Madoff), or those who sort of stumble into it (Sarah Palin and any number of failed CEOs given golden parachutes of millions of dollars despite a dismal bottom line). Keep in mind that the first kind <span style="font-style: italic;">knows</span> how to make money and doesn't need help creating wealth. And keep in mind that most wealthy people of the other three types usually don't help the economy much.<br /><br />There's also a special fifth category that achieves wealth initially through the other routes mentioned but that guarantee wealth for themselves and their heirs through any number of devices that can only be defined as protecting privilege. They pay a lot of money to state legislatures and Congress to guarantee their wealth, and year after year the payoffs for their "investments" are lucrative. As just one example, one of the most lucrative scams during the Bush years was very low taxes on stock market, real estate and commodities speculations. Sorry, but speculation, to a large extent, is simply a legal way of skimming billions of dollars from tens of millions of Americans without actually producing healthy economic activity. (There is some need for prices to find their level but the massive gyrations of the markets have become a hindrance rather than a help to the economy. Count me in as one of those who think all such transaction should include a very modest tax).<br /><br />Does anyone really doubt that Republicans are dominated by the 1%? Does anyone doubt that the 99% (which include tens of millions of ordinary Democrats, Republicans and independents) has legitimate reasons to be concerned about a power structure in this country that leaves so many people behind? Look, there are many responsible people among the 1%. We all know that. As some commentators point out, we're often talking about the .1% and generally those who abuse our economy to enrich themselves in ways that are unhealthy and unsustainable in the long term.<br /><br />One of the things I personally have disliked over the last twenty years is the idea that many businesses seem to have that I am just a consumer, a human cow to be milked, bled and sometimes skewered. But I'm not a consumer. I'm an American. I'm sure millions of people feel the same way.<br /><br />I know, I know, "consumer" is a word that sometimes has to be used in economics to explain how things work. I accept that on a certain level. But the politicians, aggressive sales people and the bottom line corporate takeover artists make a huge mistake of forgetting that consumers are Americans. People who lose their homes or jobs because of big biz financial shenanigans are usually decent people who have been treated as if they don't exist. Nothing is more disgusting to me than a corporation that buys a company with a good reputation and bleeds every dime out of that corporation and forgets the consumers, employees and the community and then, to add insult to injury, sells a product no longer worthy of the company's reputation. That is not the kind of capitalism that made America great.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-12-01/raise-taxes-on-the-rich-to-reward-job-creators-commentary-by-nick-hanauer.html">Nick Hanauer</a> is technically a member of the 1% and has written an article suggesting that taxes need to be raised to ensure that consumers, the real job creators, have money to spend:<br /><blockquote>Since 1980, the share of the nation’s income for fat cats like me in the top 0.1 percent has increased a shocking 400 percent, while the share for the bottom 50 percent of Americans has declined 33 percent.<br /><br />(snip)<br /><br />[But]...there can never be enough superrich Americans to power a great economy. The annual earnings of people like me are hundreds, if not thousands, of times greater than those of the average American, but we don’t buy hundreds or thousands of times more stuff. My family owns three cars, not 3,000. I buy a few pairs of pants and a few shirts a year, just like most American men.<br /><br />(snip)<br /><br />If the average American family still got the same share of income they earned in 1980, they would have an astounding $13,000 more in their pockets a year. It’s worth pausing to consider what our economy would be like today if middle-class consumers had that additional income to spend.</blockquote><br />Raising taxes on wealthy Americans is only one step that needs to be taken. Much will have to happen to move our country in the right direction. Americans are unlikely to have that extra $13,000 any time soon. Mistakes have been made. Not enough has been spent on scientific research, one of the key activities that has always stimulated our economy. Not enough has been done to fix bridges, streets, hospitals and schools. Too many jobs have been sent overseas.<br /><br />In the end, what Americans need are more jobs, not more budget cuts that <span style="font-style: italic;">do nothing more than</span> <span style="font-style: italic;">cut</span> jobs. For two years, Republicans have been complaining about the economy and for two years they have hardly lifted a finger to create jobs. Not in Washington. And not in state capital after state capital. Already, at the election approaches, Republican politicians, Republican pundits and even Republican think tanks are changing their rhetoric to tell Americans what they want to hear. But keep in mind that to date the only thing Republicans have done is cut jobs and ignore the poor and even the middle class. The recession started in early 2007. Where have the Republicans been? At least Democrats have been trying. They would have accomplished a great deal more if not for Republican obstructionists in Washington and in state capitals.<br /><br />Nick Hanauer is a member of the 1% but not exactly in the sense that has been discussed in recent weeks. The 1% (or .01%) that everybody is talking about are people like Mitt Romney (who's comfortable making $10,000 bets) and Newt Gingrich (who pretends he's not a lobbyist). One was born into the 1% and is making it clearer day by day what his values really are. And the other became wealthy by shilling for the 1% for the last 30 years.<br /><br />At the end of the day, we need to reelect President Obama and put more Democrats in Washington. But we also need two parties in this country. The Republicans in the GOP leadership need to become pragmatic again.Craighttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03604045908619364847noreply@blogger.com0