Syndicate This BlogQuicksearchCalendar
|
Wednesday, August 12. 2009The Pentagon Papers: Would They Do It Today?
A new documentary about Daniel Ellsberg will premiere at the Toronto International Film Festival next month. The Most Dangerous Man in America: Daniel Ellsberg and the Pentagon Papers, by Judith Ehrlich and Rick Goldsmith, will be a welcome refresher for those too young to or too unversed in recent history to be familiar with the Pentagon Papers. Daniel Ellsberg is the Rand Corporation military analyst who, appalled by the level of deceit that had driven our involvement in Vietnam since the Truman administration, copied and leaked a top-secret Pentagon study on the war to The New York Times. The story of the Pentagon Papers is not just about the personal sacrifice that conscience can demand, but the more adversarial vision of journalism embraced by The New York Times, The Washington Post, and other media outlets back in the ‘60s.
Would these same institutions do it today? The movie will open in New York on Wednesday, September 16. Saturday, July 4. 2009The Nasty Snobbery of Roberto Suro
Lazarus is also wrong in portraying immigrants as "tired . . . poor . . . wretched refuse . . . the homeless, tempest-tost." Does that describe your ancestors, whoever they were, wherever they came from? (Okay, I am biased because I come from restless people, movers to Latin America from Spain in the 17th and 19th centuries and from Germany in the 20th, and parents who left Ecuador and Puerto Rico for the United States in the 1930s.) Our family legends -- and historical fact -- teach us that immigrants have been the ambitious and the adventurous, the ones battling storms to get to a better place, and they have rarely been the poorest of the poor, if only because it takes money to travel. Roberto Suro, The Washington Post Roberto Suro, in The Washington Post, proposes removing Emma Lazarus' great poem from the Statue of Liberty. His stated motivations include snobbery (Huddled masses? Ewwww! Not my family!) and a rather elaborate rationale based on the bizarre assumption that economics has nothing to do with politics. “Economic imperatives,” he declares “much more than political aspirations, have always driven immigration to the United States.” To answer Mr. Suro’s question about whether Lazarus’ poem describes my own immigrant forebears – I don’t know. It may be that one or two of those overwhelmingly white, Christian ancestors came here because they’d been caught stealing something in England back when America was being used as a penal colony and were shipped over as indentured servants. (Which would make them part of the “wretched refuse”) However, our only family legend about immigration does not involve either tyranny or grinding poverty. Nor does it fit Suro’s model of the “ambitious and adventurous.” One of my great grandfathers was a British sailor from Portsmouth who jumped ship in New York and lived here illegally, waiting tables and saving money before sending for his wife and kids a few years later. Adventurous he may have been, but I’d hesitate to apply the word “ambitious,” given that he seemed content to wait tables for the rest of his life. He is affectionately remembered by his descendents as good-natured, lackadaisical, and quite amoral. If he suffered from “oppression” in England I suspect it was oppression from his irate parents and in-laws wondering when he was going to settle down and get a job that lasted. But that’s only a single example from my family’s experience. My husband’s family, who came from Russia early in the twentieth century, is another matter. They were part of the large Jewish migration to America from Eastern Europe that took place, not coincidentally, at a time of crushing persecution. It was driven by poverty and by political oppression in the form of pogroms and anti-Semitic laws. And the fact that many of those immigrants neither formally applied for political asylum here, nor relied on refugee organizations, does not render their flight any less a flight to freedom and opportunity. The same could be said of the great wave of Irish immigrants fleeing a famine that many felt was exacerbated by British rule, or the Italian immigrants fleeing miserable economic conditions in southern Italy in the late 19th century, or Swedes who fled either the political regime or religious oppression under the state church. Yes, all of these people had to scrape together enough money for the voyage (frequently in steerage, under miserable conditions) but it's semantic cheese-paring to say that because they weren't the "poorest of the poor," Lazarus' use of the word "poor" is somehow incorrect. The fact remains that they were frequently poverty-stricken, desperate, and bereft of options in their own country. They saw America as offering not only economic hope, but a place where they, or at least their children, could vote and have a say in their own destinies. What drives Suro’s nasty essay is nothing more or less than right-wing contempt for the poor who, in Suro’s viewpoint, cannot possibly be “Tired…poor…wretched refuse…tempest tost” and at the same time “ambitious,” “adventurous,” “battling storms to get to a better place.” They can be, Mr. Suro. They were. Our immigrant ancestors included people who were “poor” and “ambitious,” “wretched” and “adventurous,” “tempest-tost” and “battling storms to get to a better place” (I’d be interested in learning what Suro imagines is the difference is between the last two, by the way.) What Mr. Suro dislikes about the poem strikes at the very heart of what has been most radical and wonderful about America. The belief – an anathema to many modern conservatives – that the poor and the “wretched” can have as much potential, as much to offer this country as those who are prosperous and happy. Sunday, May 17. 2009Ya Think?
Yesterday, Crooks and Liars linked to Stephen Lemons’ wonderfully documented expose in the Phoenix New Times of Sheriff Joe Arpaio’s ties to Neo Nazi and other White supremacist organizations. It’s detailed, hard hitting and – almost – uncompromising.
The compromising part includes the following passage: For instance, take Arpaio's now-infamous statement on a November 2007 episode of Lou Dobbs' CNN show that it was an "honor" to be called a KKK member. The clip has long since gone viral, giving ammunition to those who believe Arpaio to be an unrepentant bigot. And those who don’t see this as indication of being an “unrepentant bigot” believe….? A rather weak answer is offered near the end of the piece. Lemons cites a 2005 incident when Arpaio’s deputies “arrested Iraq war veteran Patrick Haab for holding seven Mexicans at gunpoint at a Valley rest stop,” and quotes Arpaio as saying, "Being illegal is not a serious crime. You can't go to jail for being an illegal alien . . . You can only be deported." Ergo, the article concludes (with an almost audible sigh of relief,) Arpaio is an opportunist rather than a bonafide racist, and “As long as Arpaio senses a chance to score TV time, he'll continue to double-down on racially profiling Hispanics, anti-immigrant sweeps, and even photo-ops with National Socialists.” It’s interesting to observe how hard some people will work to convince themselves and the rest of us that influential honest-to-God racists and haters are so rare as to be almost nonexistent. This seems to be related to an obsession with that most common and threadbare of virtues, sincerity. Frequently in articles about people like Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, etc., the question, “but is he/she sincere?” is asked, and since you can invariably find some presumably nonracist/hateful word or deed in even the most hardened bigots’ past – Goebbels, after all, is said to have once written a piece denouncing anti-Semitism, and someone can probably dig up instances of David Duke being nice to a black person – the conclusion is frequently: “No, he/she’s not sincere! She/He’s not really a bigot/hater/borderline fascist. She/He’s an opportunist!” Which is fast becoming a faux-thoughtful middlebrow cliche along with “pornography bores me,” “Al Franken is just like Rush Limbaugh,” and “If we all just ignore violent extremists, they’ll go away.” Friday, January 30. 2009Finessing Blackwater
Blackwater founder Erik Prince stressed that Blackwater had yet to receive any indication from the State Department that it would be ordered to evacuate. Well, this illustrates at least one reason why Iraq has denied Blackwater Worldwide an operating license. Just seeing the head of this gang of gun-toting mercenaries look pointedly over at the American State Department when a sovereign nation has ordered them out is a damned good reason for rescinding their mayhem privileges. Another reason, of course, is that little kerfuffle at Nisoor Square back in 2007, when Blackwater guards opened fire in a crowded intersection, killing seventeen Iraqi civilians. Which, the AP implies, was ever so unjust because it says right there in transcripts of Blackwater radio logs that they were coming under fire from insurgents.: …Blackwater maintains the guards opened fire after coming under attack, an argument supported by transcripts of Blackwater radio logs obtained by the AP. They describe a hectic eight minutes in which the guards repeatedly reported incoming gunfire from insurgents and Iraqi police. Far be it from the Associated Press to mention that there is no evidence, outside of these Blackwater transcripts, that there was any of this “incoming gunfire,” either according to the American military personnel who arrived on the scene just after the shootings or eyewitness reports, or the subsequent investigation by the FBI. The closest thing to possible provocation an FBI report could find was the sight of a white KIA sedan that continued moving after traffic had been stopped for the Blackwater Convoy. The dead bodies recovered from the sedan turned out to be a physician and her son, who according to relatives, were on a family errand. But hey, who needs context? Friday, December 26. 2008News on the "Clean Coal" Front
Officials at the authority initially said that about 1.7 million cubic yards of wet coal ash had spilled when the earthen retaining wall of an ash pond at the Kingston Fossil Plant, about 40 miles west of Knoxville, gave way on Monday. But on Thursday they released the results of an aerial survey that showed the actual amount was 5.4 million cubic yards, or enough to flood more than 3,000 acres one foot deep. Is there any reason that we should believe them? Tuesday, November 11. 2008An unsolicited answer to a lecture on patriotism
This little tidbit crossed my inbox courtesy of my wife's uncle. Since he thought so much of the issues raised to pass them along, I thought I would take the time to address each of the points raised.
The missive in question takes the form of a letter to civilians about how they can best show their support for the military, which seems to be that civilians should perpetrate acts of violence against any person, or persons, who fail to respect the military, the flag, or other tokens, symbols and ideas the writer feels deserve respect. The letter begins as follow: Dear Civilians,Dear Sir or Madam: My loyalty to this nation and my patriotism are based on the actual freedoms and liberties it was founded for, and as such my allegiance (and respect) is to actual liberty, not symbols of liberty (flags, uniforms, anthems, jingoistic ideas of nationalism). I have discovered over the years that many scoundrels wear uniforms, wave flags, and sing anthems, since they know there is a segment of the population that can be counted on to follow the people doing so blindly, without question to what these people are actually DOING (see Stalin, Hitler, Pinochet, Franco, Kim Jung Il. etc). Your directive to physically assault someone for "burning the American flag" shows a lack of understanding of what America is about, and about the concept of liberty. The burning of an American flag is, without question, a political/philosophical/moral statement, and as such, the exact kind of statement the Founding Fathers had in mind when they wrote the First Amendment: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speechThis right, which you later rightly point out people died to attain and protect, is absolute. It protects all forms of speech, even that which we don't agree with. Anything less isn't liberty. You seem to be confusing allowing free speech with condoning what is said. Nothing could be further from the truth. Burning a flag is at best boorish, at worst needless provocation, but it is an expression of an opinion and thus must always be protected by any who value liberty. To support a ban on flag burning is to hold a symbol of liberty as more important than actual liberty. 3. Regardless of the rank they held while they served, pay the highest amount of respect to all Veterans. If you see anyone doing otherwise, quietly pull them aside and explain how these veterans fought for the very freedom they bask in every second. Enlighten them on the many sacrifices these veterans made to make this Nation great. Then hold them down while a disabled veteran kicks their ass.While some folks join the military out of a commendable desire to "serve their country", the truth is many don't. Many join because it is the only way to get a college degree paid for, or to gain skills which will allow them a higher paying job in civilian life. Some join because it is the only job they can get, a few because it is a way to stay out of prison. Very few join with a desire to fight anyone, and certainly all would prefer to avoid that "dying" part, even for liberty. All would prefer to come back with their limbs and faculties intact. That said, when called upon to fight they do serve, and some sacrifice their lives or bodies for that fight. For this, I would certainly step in and educate anyone who shows disrespect for a military veteran. This includes standing up to disrespect shown by my government when it sends soldiers to fight illegal wars, ignores their suffering when they return from the battlefield, or by persecuting them when they try to blow the whistle on criminal activity by well-connected civilian contractors. 4. (GUYS) If you were never in the military, DO NOT pretend that you were. Wearing battle dress uniforms (BDUs) or Jungle Fatigues, telling others that you used to be 'Special Forces,' and collecting GI Joe memorabilia, might have been okay when you were seven years old. Now, it will only make you look stupid and get your ass kicked.While I agree that lying about your military service (or lack thereof) is vile and disrespectful to those who did serve, I am not about to perpetrate violence on persons doing so. I will, however, report them to the police, since it is a violation of the law, and seeing someone prosecuted and imprisoned for fraud is more enjoyable than "kicking their ass". I also do not limit my attention in this matter to just men, since women serve these days as well. 5. Next time you come across an Air Force member, do not ask them, 'Do you fly a jet?' Not everyone in the Air Force is a pilot. Such ignorance deserves an ass-kicking (children are exempt).If I have to kick the ass of every person that asks me a stupid question in life, I will have no time to do anything else. Stupid questions are a fact of life, and becoming violent over them is rather childish. Sarcasm has always worked for me. 6. If you witness someone calling the US Coast Guard 'non-military', inform them of their mistake - and kick their ass.The only people I have ever heard claim that the Coast Guard were "non-military" were Sailors and Marines. Since the Coasties involved proceeded to kick their asses, I stayed out of the dispute. 7. Next time Old Glory (the US flag) prances by during a parade, get on your damn feet and pay homage to her by placing your hand over your heart. Quietly thank the military member or veteran lucky enough to be carrying her - of course, failure to do either of those could earn you a severe ass-kicking.If I ever see the American flag "prance" by, I will have a word with the color guard all right, but not to thank them. Instead we will be having an extensive review of FM 22-5, and the fact that there is no "prance" command in the book. 8. Don't try to discuss politics with a military member or a veteran. We are Americans, and we all bleed the same, regardless of our party affiliation. Our Chain of Command is to include our Commander-In-Chief (CinC). The President (for those who didn't know) is our CinC regardless of political party. We have no inside track on what happens inside those big important buildings where all those representatives meet. All we know is that when those civilian representatives screw up the situation, they call upon the military to go straighten it out. If you keep asking us the same stupid questions repeatedly, you will get your ass kicked!I assume you will have the same opinion on this when President Obama is your CinC, as you do now. As to discussing politics with a military member of veteran, I will certainly do so if solicited, and refrain from such if not solicited. This is a courtesy I extend to civilians, foreign nationals, and even extra-terrestrials should the need arise. 9. "Your Mama wears Combat Boots" never made sense to me - stop saying it! If she did, she would most likely be a vet and therefore could kick your ass!Outside of World War Two era vaudeville routines, I have never heard this insult used. and even then, only as a joke. 10. Bin Laden and the Taliban are not Communists, so stop saying 'Let's go kill those Commies!'Again, I don't know who you are talking to, but they appear to have been frozen back in the 1950's and just revived. 11. 'Flyboy' (Air Force), 'Jarhead' (Marines), 'Grunt' (Army), 'Squid' (Navy), 'Puddle jumpers' (Coast Guard), etc., are terms of endearment we use describing each other. Unless you are a service member or vet, you have not earned the right to use them. Using them could get your ass kicked."Puddle Jumper"? I've been around military people for quite a while and have classmates who are in the Coast Guard and none of them have ever heard the term. Members of that branch refer to themselves as "Coasties" while Navy types have been known to call them "Mud Sailors". As to what you call the various members of the armed forces, context is what is important. If I say, "Send in the Grunts, they are best equipped to sort this situation out." then I doubt any member of the Army is going to get upset. If I say "What do you expect from Grunts? Good manners?" then this would be viewed as an insult, and as such I place myself at risk for an "ass kicking" from charming types such as yourself. If you don't understand context, then I begin to understand your need to constantly resort to physical violence. To you, everything is an insult. 12. Last, but not least, whether or not you become a member of the military, support our troops and their families. Every Thanksgiving and religious holiday that you enjoy with family and friends, please remember that there are literally thousands of soldiers, sailors, marines and airmen far from home wishing they could be with their families. Thank God for our military and the sacrifices they make every day. Without them, our country would get its ass kicked.I am not to sure that God wants to be thanked for an instrument of destruction. And before you get your panties in a twist over that remark, the self-described purpose of the military is to "kill people and break things". Also, you and I probably have a different view of "support our troops". To me, the greatest way I can support members of the military is to do all in my power to see they are never used for ideological reasons, never used illegally, never used in a manner which discredits the United States, never used recklessly without regard to human life (both the soldier's, civilian's AND the enemy's). "Supporting the troops" means means proper training, proper equipment, proper education and proper medical/mental health care before AND after hostilities. It does not mean subcontracting out their essential services to private corporations whose first loyalty is to a profit margin, not our country (Say what you will about Army chow, but Army cooks NEVER served spoiled meat to soldiers, whereas Halliburton DID). "Supporting the troops" means not debasing their reputation by placing them in theater with private mercenaries being paid 50-100 times their salary, while leaving those same troops to bear the anger of the civilian populace when the mercs start shooting up the place for kicks and giggles. It's the Veteran, not the reporter, who has given us the freedom of the press.'And it is the reporter who supports the troops by reporting the truth no, matter how ugly. Who told Americans about the Pentagon's attempt to cover up Agent Orange and all the soldiers it was making sick? Reporters. Who told the Americans about the bad health care and filthy conditions at Walter Reed hospital? Reporters. Who told the Americans about the Army's deliberately exposing soldiers to radiation in the 1950's? Reporters. Who told the Americans about the Pentagon's failure to provide body armor to soldiers in Iraq? Reporters. Who told Americans about attempts to blame Abu Ghraib on soldiers in the field, when the orders to commit torture came from the Oval Office? Reporters. In many parts of the world, reporters have been killed for doing their job, and in the U.S. they have been threatened with arrest and imprisonment for daring to report crimes the government wanted kept secret. Reporters have been in the field with soldiers since the days of the American Revolution, sharing the risks and the hardships. To dismiss the role of a free press in a free society as subservient to the military is to display a woeful ignorance of the role of both institutions in our society. It's the Veteran, not the poet, who has given us the freedom of speech.Hmmm... I guess your disdain of poetry is because you think all poets are hippy-pacifist types who have are afraid to go to war and who hold soldiers in contempt. But let me ask you, where would the military be without poets? When my granny was 91,OK, Shakespeare, it ain't. but poetry it is. And while we are on the subject of poets and the military, who do you think wrote all your patriotic anthems, Marine Hymns, and ballads such as Danny Boy, Coming in on a Wing and a Prayer, Lili Mareleen, and the Battle of New Orleans (to name but a few). It certainly wasn't Joe the Plumber. Don't get snippy with poets, they are some of your best P.R. people. It's the Veteran, not the campus organizer,who gives us the freedom to demonstrate.And it is the campus organizer who tries to keep the government from squandering young lives on the delusions of old men fighting avoidable wars for profit and/or ego. Many soldiers who return to civilian life wind up as campus and community organizers, fighting for their brothers and sisters still at risk. It's the Military who salutes the flag, who serves beneath the flag, and whose coffin is draped by the flag, who allows the protester to burn the flag.Well, as you were advocating "kicking the ass" of anyone who burns the flag, why should this person be happy for a right you are prepared to use violence to deny him. You can't expect people to appreciate someone's sacrifice for a right you personally wish to suppress by force. Also, while war casualties fall heavily on soldiers (hey, that's what they signed up for, remember?), it has also spilled over onto civilians many times, and civilians suffer far more as a result of military actions than soldiers. If you don't believe me, ask the residents of places like Honolulu, Dresden, Paris, Nanking, Baghdad, London, Warsaw, Hiroshima and Nagasaki whether soldiers are the only ones to die in war. Your central point here, again, seems to be the flag. Saluting it, serving under it, and been buried with it. You know, flags are replaceable, people aren't. If it is all the same to you, I would prefer we do less flag saluting, and spend more time talking to the people we share the planet with. People with a fetish for flags speak of "noble sacrifices", "honorable service", "valiant acts", but the truth is, pretty words can't hide an ugly reality. Little girls don't want "noble sacrifices", they want their daddies. Husbands don't give a rat's ass about "honorable services", they simply want their wives to come home, safe and whole. And most mother's would be happy if the only "valiant acts" there sons committed were remembering to send them a card on Mother's Day. No one disagrees that war is sometimes unavoidable. To give one's life selflessly in defense of the defenseless is truly noble. To give one's life for corporate profit and/or political ego is an abomination. Corrupt leaders know this, which is why they always dress up the latter as the former. Doing so keeps the supply of fodder for the war machine steady, and allows these despicable people to use the soldiers they are endangering and the families of the dead to attack the patriotism of any who speak the truth. 13. If you ever see anyone either standing for, or singing the national anthem in Spanish -I'm sure your Latino comrades in arms will be happy about this one. Sorry, but while most of this screed could be excused as ignorance, this last bit is simply racist. In conclusion, I stand a chance of being ridiculed for not "getting the joke", since the mitigating premise offered for this list will be that it was a "joke". Personally, I have never found ignorance funny, and this list demonstrated an unfortunate quantity. The purpose of this list was to belittle and intimidate those who supposedly "oppose" the military, and/or are insufficiently patriotic. It does so by taking superficial snapshots of complex issues, and elevating and venerating the trivial (flags) over the important (life). Real patriotism is not about trite lists appealing to people's baser instincts, it is about sober, careful and deliberate thought; the same kind of thought that the Founding Fathers put into the documents that are the core principles of this nation. These documents talk about the rights and duties of men to each other and to their country. Flags, what language the national anthem is sung in, who gets to wear what uniform, what to call a Marine, the political affiliation of Osama bin-Laden, soldier's discussing politics, and the need to thank God for the military are never mentioned. Tuesday, October 14. 2008Math doesn't lie
Bulls, Bears, Donkeys and Elephants
New York Times Since 1929, Republicans and Democrats have each controlled the presidency for nearly 40 years. So which party has been better for American pocketbooks and capitalism as a whole? Well, here’s an experiment: imagine that during these years you had to invest exclusively under either Democratic or Republican administrations. How would you have fared?I don't know how much more stark the comparison you can ask for. If you want to be rich, vote Democratic. Pass this along to everyone you know who claims Democrats are bad for business.  Click image to see high resolution graphic Friday, August 1. 2008NEWSFLASH!: War is BAD
The N.C. Shakespeare Company is performing "A Thousand Cranes", part of their summer series to introduce plays to children. "A Thousand Cranes" is the story of Sadako, a 12-yr-old Japanese girl diagnosed with leukemia as a result of radiation from the Hiroshima bomb. Legend has it that whoever makes a thousand origami cranes will be granted a wish - Sadako's being that this never happen again. Serious stuff for children, but they seemed able to understand and were thoughtful, albeit a bit shocked that we still had LOTS of these bombs around. WFDD interviewed the cast, who took pains to emphasize they were not trying to make a political statement. I respectfully disagree, in that war is never good for anyone, least of all children. I applaud this beautiful and sensitive production, and urge you to see it, or take a child in this last weekend.
Thursday, July 17. 2008About That New Yorker Cover...
Most of us were, at some point in our education, assigned to read Jonathan Swift's "A Modest Proposal," an essay that mocks mistreatment of the Irish poor by proposing that Irish children be bred for their meat. It works as satire because cannibalism is a powerful taboo in most societies. Blandly proposing it as a solution to poverty is, therefore, a shocking, obviously tongue-in-cheek indictment of the uncaring and inhumane policies towards the poor that were in place at that time.
Of course, if eating children had seriously been proposed as a solution in 18th century Ireland, "A Modest Proposal" would not have been very effective satire. This is why I'm annoyed rather than amused by the latest New Yorker cover depicting Obama as a Muslim and his wife as gun-toting black radical. In a society where the likes of Ann Coulter, Glenn Beck, and Rush Limbaugh were consigned to the fringes of political discourse it might be a nice punchy, obviously over-the-top bit of satire. Unfortunately, that's not the society we live in. On the contrary, people like Ann Coulter, Glenn Beck, and Rush Limbaugh are invited to air their views on nationally broadcast shows and treated as though they are serious political thinkers. They are, in effect, part of the "mainstream." And while there are many complacent liberals and moderates trying very, very hard to pretend otherwise, the images in that cartoon are not taken as fact only on the margins of society. They, too, have been mainstreamed. Ergo, they don't embarrass or outrage either that dumb section of the right wing who believe Michelle Obama is a black radical and Barack Obama a secret Muslim, or that smarter section of the right wing who don't believe it but are delighted that other people do. Let me make it clear that I'm not redfaced with rage, demanding apologies from the cartoonist and threatening to cancel my New Yorker subscription. The smug naivete that cartoon reveals, however, does irritate the Hell out of me. I'm reminded of the dozey moderates who, when confronted with our country's dangerous slide into hateful political rhetoric, declare that "Coulter is just crazy" and "Limbaugh is just an idiot" as if these facts render both Coulter and Limbaugh harmless. Many Americans seem unable to get their heads around the idea that a crazy woman and an idiot could do a tremendous amount of damage given the kind of national coverage enjoyed by both Coulter and Limbaugh. And they also seem unwilling to admit the deep inroads raw hatred and irrationality have already made into the American mainstream, and the effect it is having on our political process. Somehow they missed the Swift Boat veteran attacks on John Kerry. No doubt being annoyed rather than amused at the cartoon qualifies me as one of those stone-faced liberal dogmatists Gary Kamiya has deounced in Salon. I just don't think political satire can be separated from its context. In fact, I don't see how political satire can be separated from its context. Friday, June 13. 2008Why automakers don't want an electric car
Despite the fact that the technology to produce a viable electric car has been around for at least a decade, automakers have dragged their feet and claimed that such a product could not be produced at a price people would pay, and that the car would have too many limitations on range and service options, making it even more undesirable to American drivers.
GM went as far as actually producing a limited run electric car, the EV-1, to further make this point, only to have the car become so wildly popular that they canceled the program and destroyed the cars. "But why?" you ask. "Why would they do that. A car is a car and Detroit is in the business of selling cars, so what's the diff if it is filled up with gasoline or simply plugged in?" Well, that's your first mistaken assumption. Automakers are in the business of making money, not making cars. Cars are a means to make money, and in their view, an electric car will greatly reduce the money they make. 40-50% of an automaker's profits come from the sale of spare parts, specifically the thousands of parts that wear out and must be replaced in your average car. The engine and transmission (including the cooling, lubrication, and charging systems) of an average car represent over half the cost of the car and a third of it's weight. They also represent a cornucopia of parts that wear out, break, or simply must be replaced on a regular basis. Starter motors, timing belts, radiator hoses, belts, spark plugs, fuel injectors, water pumps, generators, batteries, motor mounts, clutches, head gaskets, valve cover gaskets, fuel pumps, thermostats, oxygen sensors, crank sensors, engine speed sensors, and many, many more are sold with 200-300% markups by the manufacturer. With those types of margins, you can see why Detroit likes cars the way they are. Trouble is, electric cars require almost none of these parts. As there is no internal combustion engine, all of the parts related to the engine vanish, as do the associated repair/replacement costs. In an electric car, the transmission is either absent, or greatly simplified. Translation: Fewer repairs for the consumer, less profit for the dealer. Oh, and since there are fewer parts, the car is more reliable and lasts longer, meaning even less money for the car maker. With an electric car, there are no oil changes, no tune ups, no coolant flushing, no muffler repairs, no blown head gaskets requiring replacement at $1200 a pop. Once we understand this dynamic, it is easy to see why Detroit had to be dragged, kicking and screaming, to make an electric car. You also see why the first commercially "viable" electric car was a hybrid, not a pure electric car. Hybrids give Detroit all the profit of a regular gasoline car (they still have an engine and transmission) while taking on the extra complexity of a battery system that must be coordinated with the gasoline system, meaning more parts, more chances for failure, meaning more repair dollars (and they will charge you a 300-500% markup for hybrid parts, because they no longer compete with independent shops for your repair dollar).  The ZENN electric car. 200+ MPG equivalent, 2 passenger car. Not yet ready for all roads, but getting there. The cost of replacing batteries is also an issue, as the battery packs, especially the newer Lithium-Ion chemistries are VERY expensive. Batteries would probably need replacing every 3-5 years depending on use. Another major drawback to an electric car is temperature. Batteries can lose power in cold weather, and degrade in hot weather. Of course, these drawbacks will be addressed in the future. New technologies such as nano-wire batteries and ultracapacitors will address the battery problems, which also solves the A/C-heating issue (denser batteries mean more power), while some of the problems can be addressed by simply building solar panels into the roof. Another false objection to electric cars is that we would simply be substituting one monopoly (oil companies) with another (electric companies). One of the reasons Big Oil is a monopoly is because few people can afford the expense of drilling a well, pumping out the oil, then refining the oil into usable distillates. This is not true of electrical power, since anyone with a few hundred dollars of solar cells can make his own electricity. Internal combustion engines (ICEs) are extremely inefficient systems, losing 80% of the energy produced by a gallon of gasoline to heat and vibration. Electric motors, by comparison, convert 90%+ of the energy supplied into actual motive power, though the actual efficiency of the power plant supplying the energy must also be factored in (about 40% for the U.S.), and the efficiency of the batteries 80-90% when charged and discharged. Electric cars are ultimately good for everyone, consumers and manufacturers, not to mention very good for the environment. Not only is the cost of fuel far cheaper (about 1-2¢ a mile versus the current 15¢ a mile for gasoline), but that car itself is more durable and easier to maintain, thanks to having thousands fewer parts to wear out or break. Simpler cars mean fewer parts to manufacture, transport and store, which means less energy being expended for those activities, which also means less carbon being dumped into the air. Of course, the most efficient solution to the transportation problem is mass transit. A diesel bus hauling 110 passengers is still vastly more efficient over the same distance than any electric car can ever be. 110 passengers hauled 20 miles is 2,200 passenger miles, whereas a single person in a 2-passenger electric car is only 20 passenger miles. Plus, that single bus would take about 50 cars off the road, reducing traffic congestion. Tuesday, April 15. 2008And since it is a day for oil hype...
Survey says oil field holds 3B barrels
The Oklahoman Federal officials estimate an oil field known as the Bakken Formation in North Dakota and Montana has an estimated 3 billion barrels of recoverable oil that hasn't been found.1) These are Federal officials working for the Bush Administration. All pronouncements are considered bald-faced lies until vetted by actual adults. 2) 3 billions barrels of oil will run the U.S. for 150 days. 3) The oil is locked in shale, and will be expensive to extract. It will also take a lot of time to extract the oil, if it does, in fact, exist. Don't count your oil fields before they're drilled
Brazil Oil Field Could Be Huge Find
Associated Press Investors snapped up shares of Britain's BG Group and Spain's Repsol YPF on Tuesday after a top Brazilian energy official said a deep-water area they are helping explore could contain 33 billion barrels of oil.No, it won't lay to rest "peak oil" pronouncements. Peak oil is happening NOW, and even a discovery of this type isn't going to make a dent in the ballooning demand. A couple of things to remember: 1) Petrobras, the Brazilian oil company is warning people that not all the data is in about this oil field. 2) Even if true, the field will take about a decade to get into production. 3) While 33 billion sounds like a lot of oil, it is only 4½ years worth of consumption to the U.S. 4) Brazil's oil tends to be heavier and dirtier, making it more expensive to refine. Wednesday, March 26. 2008Are you better off now than you were 30 years ago?
This is an exercise I undertook to try and quantitatively measure quality of life for folks living on the bottom of the income scale. I have never understood the objection to raising the minimum wage (Well, yes I do. It's called GREED), and all the dire predictions about the what happens when you do. Many numbers are thrown around to justify that things are better today for the poor than in the past. Problem was, I just didn't see it. Things seemed worse. In fact, I am quite middle class, and I can tel you things are not what they were in my past when I was struggling. So, I set out to measure the quality of life or those living on the minimum wage. And since the MW is the floor on which all wages for the lower and middle class are based, it really is a measure of the middle class as well.
Let us look at the MW in 1978 and 2008, and the cost of various goods as a percentage or multiple of the minimum wage, and what such goods would cost today adjusted for inflation, and what so goods do cost today. I chose 1978 as it was in the "dark days" (according to Republicans, of the Carter administration, a man vilified by the right for "destroying" the economy. Since then, we have had Republicans in charge for 20 of the last 30 years, 12 years of Reagan-Bush I, and 8 years of Bush the Lesser. In retrospect, Carter's statements about the environment and the need for new energy sources have proven uncannily accurate. Conservatives may accuse me of picking 1978 in order to make the minimum wage numbers look good. If that were my plan, I would have chosen 1967, since it's $1.60 wage would adjust to over $10 today. So let us ask that question Reagan used to eviscerate Carter: "Are you better off now than in 1978?" Numbers in red mean a loss of purchasing power, or an increase in real price. MW - Minimum Wage Adj - $ Cost of item inflation adjusted to 2007 dollars Chg - % Increase or decrease in 2007 dollars Minimum Wage 1978 - $2.65 2008 - $5.85 1978 minimum wage adjusted to 2007 dollars - $8.60 Change in real minimum wage - 31.97% DECLINE If the minimum wage paid in 1978 had been adjusted for inflation (meaning no real growth in wages), then the MW would be $8.60 today. Since it is only $5.85, we have lost 34% in real terms. Inflation calculation source: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. Personal Savings 1978 personal savings (2006 dollars) - $908.75 billion 2006* personal savings (2006 dollars) - ($91.7 billion) Percentage of Americans Below Poverty Line 1978 - 11.6% 2005* - 13.3% Source: US Census Bureau *Latest numbers available. Gasoline 1978 - $0.65 2008 - $3.25 Adj - $2.11 Chg - 54.02% INCREASE % of MW 1978 - 24.52% % of MW 2008 - 55.55% Sources: U.S. Dept of Energy. Let me recap these numbers to make sure you follow my logic. In 1978 gasoline was 65¢ a gallon. Adjusted for inflation to 2008 dollars, that would be the equivalent of $2.11. Since the average gas price is currently $3.25, the real cost of a gallon of gas has increased $1.05, or 54% above the 1978 cost. In 1978, that gallon of gas equaled 24% of the MW ($2.65). Today, a gallon of gasoline equals 55% of the MW. So, not only does gasoline cost more than it did in real terms, it also consumes of twice the amount of the MW that it did in 1978. This is a nasty double whammy for the consumer. Electricity 1978 - $0.043/KwHr 2008 - $0.106/KwHr Adj - $0.15/KwHr Chg - 29.33% CHEAPER % of MW 1978 - 1.62% % of MW 2008 - 1.77% Although real electricity costs declined, the proportion of the MW increased. Source U.S. Dept. of Energy Natural Gas 1978 - $2.56/1000 cu. ft. 2008 - $13.01/1000 cu. ft. Adj - $8.67 Chg - 50.05% INCREASE % of MW 1978 - 96.60% % of MW 2008 - 150.06% Natural gas is not the bargain it once was. Source U.S. Dept. of Energy Medical Care 1978 - $960/year 2008 - $6,174/year Adj - $3,120/year Chg - 97.88% INCREASE % of annual MW salary 1978 - 17.41% % of annual MW salary 2008 - 50.73% Source: U.S. Census Buereau Home Prices Median Home Price 1978 - $52,100 Median Home Price 2008 - $233,000 Adj - $169,325 Chg - 37.6% INCREASE # of year's salary 1978 - 9.45 years # of year's salary 2008 - 19.14 years Source: U.S. Census Buereau Milk 1978 - $1.70/gal 2008 - $3.80/gal Adj - $5.52 Chg - 31.16% CHEAPER % of MW 1978 - 64.15% % of MW 2008 - 64.95% Source: U.S. Census Buereau, USDA. Butter 1978 - $1.39/lb 2008 - $3.16/lb Adj - $4.51 Chg - 29.93% CHEAPER % of MW 1978 - 52.45% % of MW 2008 - 54.01% Source: U.S. Census Buereau, Wisconsin Farm Bureau Federation. Bread 1978 - $0.36/lb 2008 - $1.62/lb Adj - $1.17 Chg - 38.46% INCREASE % of MW 1978 - 13.58% % of MW 2008 - 27.69% Source: U.S. Census Buereau, American Farm Bureau. Hamburger 1978 - $0.95/lb 2008 - $2.38/lb Adj - $3.08 Chg - 22.75% CHEAPER % of MW 1978 - 35.85% % of MW 2008 - 40.68% Source: U.S. Census Buereau, Bureau of Labor Statistics. Chicken 1978 - $0.62/lb 2008 - $1.16/lb Adj - $2.01 Chg - 42.28% CHEAPER % of MW 1978 - 23.39% % of MW 2008 - 19.85% Source: U.S. Census Buereau, Bureau of Labor Statistics. Sugar 1978 - $0.24/lb 2008 - $0.51/lb Adj - $0.78 Chg - 34.61% CHEAPER % of MW 1978 - 9.05% % of MW 2008 - 8.71% Source: U.S. Census Buereau, Bureau of Labor Statistics. Coffee (instant) 1978 - $9.12/lb 2008 - $10.38/lb Adj - $29.64 Chg - 64.97% CHEAPER % of MW 1978 - 344% % of MW 2008 - 177% Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Bureau of Labor Statistics. Eggs 1978 - $0.81/lb 2008 - $2.17/lb Adj - $2.63 Chg - 17.49% CHEAPER % of MW 1978 - 30.56% % of MW 2008 - 37.09% Source: U.S. Census Buereau, Bureau of Labor Statistics. Hershey Bar 1978 - $0.21/oz 2008 - $0.45/oz Adj - $0.71 Chg - 36.61% CHEAPER % of MW 1978 - 7.92% % of MW 2008 - 7.69% Chocolate bars are a bargain, but not so much for the working poor. Source: Consumer Reports Pepsi/Coke 1978 - $0.15/12 oz. can 2008 - $0.56/12 oz. can Adj - $0.49 Chg - 14.28% INCREASE % of MW 1978 - 5.66% % of MW 2008 - 9.57% Source: Greensboro Record back issues, 1978, 2007 McDonalds Hamburger 1978 - $0.35 2008 - $0.89 Adj - $1.14 Chg - 28.08% CHEAPER % of MW 1978 - 13.21% % of MW 2008 - 15.51% Source: McDonalds office of Consumer Relations What can we learn looking at these numbers? Well, food is cheaper today than in 1978. I think this is attributable to modern "factory" farming practices. While they is good news for consumers on one hand, it is also bad for consumers and family farmers on the other. Hormones and antibiotics taint our food, and after excretion, our water. The practices in the beef, poultry, and pork business result in cruel and inhumane treatment of the animals. Poor safety enforcement leads to occupational injuries and deaths, and the rise of bovine spongifom encephalopathy (Mad Cow Disease) which is immune to all drugs, survives even burning, and kills 100% of those infected. While industrial farming is very efficient, thus allowing for cheaper food, it drives commodity costs down to levels that family farms, not able to afford the expensive tracts of land and massive investments in equipment and people, cannot sustain. Thus, each year, more family farms go out of business. Those that survive can only do so by specializing in one of two crops, rather than the range of crops grown by farmers 100 years ago. As a result, unlike their great grandfathers, todays family farmer cannot feed his family, and must buy food from the grocery store. The damage to the environment inflicted on the air, land and water is an expense not factored into actual food costs, which will one day have to be paid. The cost to other economies in other countries where we have exported our practices in order to drive down costs further also increases the pressure on family farmers, and creates legions of poorly-paid workers living as virtual serfs to American agribusiness. Another point to ponder is that while staples like coffee, chocolate and sugar got much cheaper, the lives of the people growing them (many of them children) is pretty abysmal. Wages in many countries are barely subsistence level, and in some cases, "slavery" would be an applicable term. The other key point to note from these numbers is that the minimum wage is obviously too low, something many states have figured out for already. In just about every aspect of daily living, the proportional cost of of goods and services has increased markedly from 1978, especially gasoline, housing and medical care. Gasoline's portion of the MW more than doubled, as did housing, while medical care expenses almost tripled. And how are the big boys doing while the serfs toil away for $5.85 an hour? Total Compensation Ratio of CEO to Average Worker 1978 - 40 2005 - 367 Source: Historical Trends in Executive Compensation 1936-2003 As the saying goes, you do the math. Tuesday, April 17. 2007A logical and reasonable solution to gun violence in America
Yes, I have a solution to propose.
I can tell you right now that the solution is NOT going to make everyone happy. It isn't perfect, but then there is no such thing as a perfect solution. It is, however, a solution that if you bother to actually think about it is the only solution which will actually make a difference in gun violence while preserving the 2nd Amendment of the Constitution. It is not a solution that will work immediately, but it will work in the long run. Some gun rights folks consider any restriction to their right to own a firearm as unacceptable. They need to grow up. Some anti-gun folk consider any measure that doesn't ban guns outright as unacceptable. They need to grow up. People are dying, and it is past time to fix this problem. Gun owners need to understand that guns ARE the problem, specifically handguns. Anti-gun advocates need to understand that in this day and age of the Imperial Bush Dynasty, the possibility of needing weapons to protect ourself from a tyrannical government is no longer a far-fetched point of view. So, how do we preserve our right to weapons we may need to protect ourself from a government that feels it is no longer bound by the Constitution, a government that feels it has the right to suspend habeas corpus, to illegally torture people in order to extract confessions, and to spy on its citizens with impunity? At the same time, how do we remove guns that are unquestionably responsible for massive amounts of blood shed every day? The problem is, of course, handguns. They need to be banned. Sorry this sentence just caused some people to begin shrieking at their computer, but there you are. When the 2nd Amendment was written, the word "arms" realistically meant rifles and shotguns. Pistols existed, but were mostly used for dueling and personal defense for the rich. Of course, pistols of the day weren't too damn useful for either of those tasks, and they damn sure didn't put any food on the table. I propose that we draft and pass a Sane Firearms Act. The act will ban ALL firearms under thirty inches in length, PERIOD. Only police officers, federal agents and soldiers would be permitted to possess/carry any weapon smaller. The ban would also cover ammunition for such weapons. A one year grace period would go into effect after the law was passed in which people would be able to turn in such weapons without penalty. People turning in such weapons would be entitled to a tax credit equal to the value of the gun. The tax credit would only be provided during the grace period. Weapons discovered or seized after the grace period would receive no credit. Automatic weapons would be banned entirely, but semi-automatic weapons would still be permitted, including assault rifles. After the grace period, anyone found with a banned weapon or ammunition in their possession would be sent to prison for ten years, no parole. In instances where banned firearms or ammunition were found (say, in the attic in grandpa's old footlocker), you would be required to immediately call the police and declare the weapon so it could be surrendered. Now, will this eliminate all gun violence? No, it won't. But it will cut down on it as the sea of handguns dries up. While rifles, shotguns and assault rifles are certainly dangerous and do their share of killing, the vast majority of murders, assaults, suicides, and accidents involving children involve handguns. Handguns are easy to conceal so they are the weapon of choice for robbery and murder. People wandering around with an AK-47 and bandoleers of 7.62mm ammo tend to be noticed. The whole "conceal/carry" issue is resolved once and for all. Want to wander the city armed? Well, sling arms, dude. For those of you foaming at the mouth about a ban on handguns being the first step in a total ban, or being deprived of a means to defend yourself, grow the Hell up! If the Bush administration or some other government tries for a total ban, I will be up there with you on the barricade, armed to the teeth. As to the best means to defend yourself, if you think a handgun is superior to an assault rifle for self-defense, I'll be happy to trade shots with you at 20 paces. You can have a Desert Eagle, I'll take an AR-15. Folks, we can keep going the way we are going, or we can take a sane step toward reining in our gun fetish. We can also save some lives. Ramifications and Realities
Yesterday's bloodbath at Virgina Tech sets the nation up for another round of predictable reactions:
• Calls to ban guns on one side with a call for MORE guns on the other. • Calls to ban "violent" video games. • Calls to ban "violent" movies and TV shows. • Calls for tighter security for public buildings (armed guards, metal detectors, surveillance cameras, random searches etc). • Overreactions at other colleges to imagined threats. • Orgies of wankerism by the TV and radio talking heads. People like Nancy Grace will metaphorically stroke themselves to shuddering orgasms as they wallow in their all-you-can-eat buffet of postmortem predation. • Dozens, if not hundreds, of law suits over what could have been done to stop this from happening. • Demands that the death penalty be added to more crimes. • Demands that various university officials resign. • Conservatives who will blame the victims while nattering on about the treasonous nature of those who demand sane gun laws. Those are the ramifications. Now for the realities: • Six months from now the only people who will care about this event are families of the victims, the survivors, and the officials being sued. The media will forget about the incident until next April 16th when they trot out their cameras for the memorial service, and a 3-5 minute piece called Virgina Tech One Year Later: What Have We Learned? • Many, many people who have survived this event will suffer the mental trauma, which will slowly eat at them for the rest of their lives. Some will get help, most won't. This damage will manifest itself as depression, an inability to hold jobs or maintain relationships. For some, the trauma will lead to drugs, alcohol, and abusive behavior. Eventually, it will cost someone else their life or lives, whether due to suicide, or murder. • We, as a society, have the ability and the resources to greatly reduce this kind of suffering, but we won't. • As tragic as this mass shooting is, the number 33 will simply be a number which some future individual will see as a "record" to be broken. It will broken in this country. It will be broken far sooner than we think. • The "sanctity" of gun ownership will prevent any meaningful reform of gun laws. • Each bullet the medical examiner removes from a dead son, daughter, mother, father, brother, or sister; each bullet the surgeon remove from a broken body, represents a profit to a gun dealer and a gun manufacturer. They will keep on selling these instruments of death with nary a troubling thought to disturb their sleep. People will buy groceries, go on vacations, and send their children to college on these profits. These people should be shunned and spit upon, but they won't be. • Politicians will cash checks from the NRA which will allow them to thwart any attempt to reduce the chance of these types of bloodbaths. They will be quite sanctimonious about taking the money. These people should be shunned and spit upon, but they won't be. • Some jokers will think it funny to call in fake threats to other colleges. Some will be caught, most won't. Those who are caught will not suffer the punishment they deserve, nor anything close. • About every ten days for at least the next two years, the same number of American soldiers will die in Iraq as died at Virginia Tech. 2-3 times that number of Iraqi civilians will die EACH day in Iraq from at least the next decade. • George W. Bush will sleep soundly. |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
