"In the end that's all there is... all the good luck and all the bad luck you've had."
I can't believe this piece actually had meaning for me - just not inspiration.
Thursday, March 31, 2011
Change We Can't Believe In!
I truly think that no one who was running for President in 2008 would be better than Obama. But that doesn't mean that I believe Obama has been the President he represented himself to be or been the leader he could have been. I truly knew that nothing significant would change, but he raised my hopes and those hopes are dashed. The biggest problem I have with this is that the field in 2012 is going to be worse than the field in 2008. My big fear is that Obama has been such a disappointment to so many that someone worse could beat him. That was my fear in 2000 and I was right. That is my fear in 2012 and I pray I'm wrong.
Why am I disappointed - let me count the ways. Are they all his fault - no. That's really why I don't blame him, I'm just disappointed in him and in the situation. We can start with the financial meltdown and the failure to end the too big to fail - just postponing for now the reckoning that will surely come. Then there is the budget fight - or lack thereof. Obama and the Democrats have ceded the battlefield to the GOP. They are just, at best playing not to lose too much more ground. The slash and burn of the GOP will damage the economy further and the agonies of this recession will just go on and on for many people. Obama bailed on the foreclosure and housing crisis. He again ceded the battleground to the GOP. They want to punish the people who were caught up in the crisis, many of which may have acted foolishly but almost none of which were responsible for the mess. Banks had no business making many of the bad mortgages in the first place, but we have allowed all the furor to be directed towards the irresponsible buyers. And the truth is that most of the irresponsible buyers lost their homes in the early days of the crisis. The foreclosure crisis has gone way beyond this to all those folks who lost their homes because of the financial crisis and the banks irresponsibility. But we don't seem to feel the need to make them pay for their mistakes like we were happy to do with the irresponsible borrowers. Our failure to address this crisis has hurt the entire economy, not just the people who are losing their homes. Eventually, this particular problem should go away, but it along with so many other policies of this GOP economy will live afterward. Our economy will never be as vibrant as it was or might be. Unfettered capitalism is like evolution - it rewards only the fittest with real survival. Unless it is tempered by mercy and compassion,, i.e. regulated, the people who can't compete at the top of the heap will just be left to wallow in the afterbirth. I don't think most people want this kind of system, but the people on the top seem to think it is their manifest destiny and do want it. The money is directed at ensuring this system survives no matter the evidence that it doesn't work for most people, no matter how hard they might work at it.
I'm disappointed at the little things as well as the big. DADT was passed in December. It's now almost April and not only is it not implemented, I read today they are still discharging people under the old policy. How stupid is that. For the eighth president, Obama has made a speech about our dependence on foreign oil and how we must stop it. But its just another speech in line with so many others. Foreign oil isn't really the problem, it is carbon based fuel. Oil is fungible and whether we drill it here or there we will still pay a very high price for it in the years to come, in both dollars and climate change. But there will be no action, just more talk. Clean energy could actually help both the economy and the climate, but the GOP doesn't want anything to do with it because it might give credit to Obama, and it would require some compromise on their ideological bedrock that all government is bad and all taxes are worse. Obama's speech didn't mark any new ground and it certainly wasn't a real call to action. It's like he's given up on the issue and just pays lip service like so many of his predecessors. Then there's transparency. We are a more secret society than we were under Bush and Cheney and it seems to only get worse. It's clear that Obama was also only paying lip service to the idea that the people need to know what is going on if they are to exercise any good judgement about the issues. He has opted for father knows best when it comes to national security. We haven't broken from our surveillance society in any way. We mistreat our dissidents, even though how we do it may no longer rise to torture, its mistreatment nevertheless. Obama has given up on doing anything to improve the economy - he seems to have accepted that the GOP has won and is just negotiating the terms of surrender. I know he doesn't believe the economics of this approach, but apparently, he believes the politics of it. No more - I'd rather be a one term good President than a mediocre two termer. He seems to have opted to try and figure out how to alienate the fewest people in order to win the 2d term rather than actually standing for something. No walking the picket line to protect union rights, no instead, just stay silent and hope your base survives to make its contribution to your campaign. The only reason the base will support him is the alternatives will be so bad. But that is what he is counting on to win that 2d term. Leadership is what I thought we were getting when I voted, but instead what I got was mediator in chief. And he gives away the store before he even begins the mediation sessions. He moves half way to the other side before the first meeting, so that the opposition ends up winning the bulk of their claims.
Finally, I'm disappointed in the foreign policy stuff. We are still in Iraq and Afghanistan. There is little mention of getting out of Iraq - I do hope we are still planning on the end of the year, but no one's mentioned it in a long time so I'm not sure that is will actually happen. I fear there will be a change in mission so we can stay there in some other way. We are already waffling on even 2014 as a timetable for Afghanistan. Even though we are no closer to a solution in that country and the situation will be just as iffy in 3 more years as it was 3 years ago. We cannot prevent a medieval country from reverting to a medieval country when we leave, with all of its intended terrible consequences. Women will still be abused and denied rights, people will still be killed by guns and bombs, schools will still not be built or will be destroyed by those nihilists who want nothing but for people to do what they want them to do. And now we also have the rest of the middle east rising up, wanting to be free, but likely ending up in chaos that we can't control and they can't control. Suffering and misery will abound. I wish I could be more optimistic. I almost was when Mubarak left power, but I see that the regime didn't leave power, so even in Egypt where the possibilities exist, it will be a long and painful process before anything good comes from the Arab spring. And a lot of suffering will happen in the meantime in all those countries, where hopes were raised, before they are dashed. And then we have subsaharan Africa - a melting pot of mess for which I have no hope. This is where diplomacy is tried the hardest and shows how weak and ineffectual it really is. But it also shows that its probably no worse than in those other countries where we intervene with military aid. Neither work, both result in untold misery, so again there just doesn't seem to be a solution when men want to kill each other in the name of winning. Charlie Sheen must be proud. I really can't blame Obama on this foreign stuff either. I don't think anyone could do better, but I just really wish we could.
I would be an isolationist if I could. But that would only impact the world, not the country. I'm hung up on what's wrong at home as well. However, if I could only block out word of the rest of the world. I can't stand feeling helpless, but I need to accept the fact that we are helpless. I really need to stop listening and reading and being aware. It won't help anyone else, but it would make my life better. Again, so selfish, but then again, the sky is falling....
Why am I disappointed - let me count the ways. Are they all his fault - no. That's really why I don't blame him, I'm just disappointed in him and in the situation. We can start with the financial meltdown and the failure to end the too big to fail - just postponing for now the reckoning that will surely come. Then there is the budget fight - or lack thereof. Obama and the Democrats have ceded the battlefield to the GOP. They are just, at best playing not to lose too much more ground. The slash and burn of the GOP will damage the economy further and the agonies of this recession will just go on and on for many people. Obama bailed on the foreclosure and housing crisis. He again ceded the battleground to the GOP. They want to punish the people who were caught up in the crisis, many of which may have acted foolishly but almost none of which were responsible for the mess. Banks had no business making many of the bad mortgages in the first place, but we have allowed all the furor to be directed towards the irresponsible buyers. And the truth is that most of the irresponsible buyers lost their homes in the early days of the crisis. The foreclosure crisis has gone way beyond this to all those folks who lost their homes because of the financial crisis and the banks irresponsibility. But we don't seem to feel the need to make them pay for their mistakes like we were happy to do with the irresponsible borrowers. Our failure to address this crisis has hurt the entire economy, not just the people who are losing their homes. Eventually, this particular problem should go away, but it along with so many other policies of this GOP economy will live afterward. Our economy will never be as vibrant as it was or might be. Unfettered capitalism is like evolution - it rewards only the fittest with real survival. Unless it is tempered by mercy and compassion,, i.e. regulated, the people who can't compete at the top of the heap will just be left to wallow in the afterbirth. I don't think most people want this kind of system, but the people on the top seem to think it is their manifest destiny and do want it. The money is directed at ensuring this system survives no matter the evidence that it doesn't work for most people, no matter how hard they might work at it.
I'm disappointed at the little things as well as the big. DADT was passed in December. It's now almost April and not only is it not implemented, I read today they are still discharging people under the old policy. How stupid is that. For the eighth president, Obama has made a speech about our dependence on foreign oil and how we must stop it. But its just another speech in line with so many others. Foreign oil isn't really the problem, it is carbon based fuel. Oil is fungible and whether we drill it here or there we will still pay a very high price for it in the years to come, in both dollars and climate change. But there will be no action, just more talk. Clean energy could actually help both the economy and the climate, but the GOP doesn't want anything to do with it because it might give credit to Obama, and it would require some compromise on their ideological bedrock that all government is bad and all taxes are worse. Obama's speech didn't mark any new ground and it certainly wasn't a real call to action. It's like he's given up on the issue and just pays lip service like so many of his predecessors. Then there's transparency. We are a more secret society than we were under Bush and Cheney and it seems to only get worse. It's clear that Obama was also only paying lip service to the idea that the people need to know what is going on if they are to exercise any good judgement about the issues. He has opted for father knows best when it comes to national security. We haven't broken from our surveillance society in any way. We mistreat our dissidents, even though how we do it may no longer rise to torture, its mistreatment nevertheless. Obama has given up on doing anything to improve the economy - he seems to have accepted that the GOP has won and is just negotiating the terms of surrender. I know he doesn't believe the economics of this approach, but apparently, he believes the politics of it. No more - I'd rather be a one term good President than a mediocre two termer. He seems to have opted to try and figure out how to alienate the fewest people in order to win the 2d term rather than actually standing for something. No walking the picket line to protect union rights, no instead, just stay silent and hope your base survives to make its contribution to your campaign. The only reason the base will support him is the alternatives will be so bad. But that is what he is counting on to win that 2d term. Leadership is what I thought we were getting when I voted, but instead what I got was mediator in chief. And he gives away the store before he even begins the mediation sessions. He moves half way to the other side before the first meeting, so that the opposition ends up winning the bulk of their claims.
Finally, I'm disappointed in the foreign policy stuff. We are still in Iraq and Afghanistan. There is little mention of getting out of Iraq - I do hope we are still planning on the end of the year, but no one's mentioned it in a long time so I'm not sure that is will actually happen. I fear there will be a change in mission so we can stay there in some other way. We are already waffling on even 2014 as a timetable for Afghanistan. Even though we are no closer to a solution in that country and the situation will be just as iffy in 3 more years as it was 3 years ago. We cannot prevent a medieval country from reverting to a medieval country when we leave, with all of its intended terrible consequences. Women will still be abused and denied rights, people will still be killed by guns and bombs, schools will still not be built or will be destroyed by those nihilists who want nothing but for people to do what they want them to do. And now we also have the rest of the middle east rising up, wanting to be free, but likely ending up in chaos that we can't control and they can't control. Suffering and misery will abound. I wish I could be more optimistic. I almost was when Mubarak left power, but I see that the regime didn't leave power, so even in Egypt where the possibilities exist, it will be a long and painful process before anything good comes from the Arab spring. And a lot of suffering will happen in the meantime in all those countries, where hopes were raised, before they are dashed. And then we have subsaharan Africa - a melting pot of mess for which I have no hope. This is where diplomacy is tried the hardest and shows how weak and ineffectual it really is. But it also shows that its probably no worse than in those other countries where we intervene with military aid. Neither work, both result in untold misery, so again there just doesn't seem to be a solution when men want to kill each other in the name of winning. Charlie Sheen must be proud. I really can't blame Obama on this foreign stuff either. I don't think anyone could do better, but I just really wish we could.
I would be an isolationist if I could. But that would only impact the world, not the country. I'm hung up on what's wrong at home as well. However, if I could only block out word of the rest of the world. I can't stand feeling helpless, but I need to accept the fact that we are helpless. I really need to stop listening and reading and being aware. It won't help anyone else, but it would make my life better. Again, so selfish, but then again, the sky is falling....
The Sky is Falling!
I'm overwhelmed by the bad news in the world. It just keeps coming and none of the problems have realistic fixes. Just look at them all: Japan, Libya, Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, Wisconsin, the declining middle class, the intransigent unemployment levels, foreclosures and falling home values, a political system which has ceased to function and is only in it for re-election. Although I wonder why anyone would want to be re-elected into this mess. Last night it was a program called Journey to Planet Earth on PBS. It outlined the likely effect of climate change on world civilization. It laid out the need for immediate and major change, but that just isn't going to happen, either here because of the swath of climate deniers in politics or elsewhere, in the developing world, because they don't believe they should have to change because they didn't create the problem. The final segment just seemed so inadequate to the task - "we all have to get involved and push the change". The program ignores the fact that all these influential folks have had so little impact on the issue so how likely is it that individuals, largely unable to move the agenda on so many issues will have any effect. My only protection from this is that I'll be dead before the worst is likely to hit. It will be someone else's problem to try and reverse or clean up the mess. Or its really bad, it's Mad Max time, but I won't be here.
This attitude seems selfish to me, but it's all I have most of the time. There are just too many issues, too many problems, and too few leaders and solutions. We are as a group pretty selfish so what likelihood is there that people will step up to the plate and sacrifice to save the planet when they won't even agree to pay a few % in taxes to resolve some of these budget issues in this country alone. I read that the 4 HUNDRED richest people in the country have more than the bottom 150 MILLION. If just those 400 would decide to fix things instead of just figuring out how to keep their BILLIONS, wouldn't change happen. Those 400 could really make a difference. Yes, they are moving towards philanthropy, led by Buffet and Gates, but changing the political systems is what is really needed. And that would threaten their uniqueness so philanthropy from a few will have to do.
The more immediate problems of war and conflict are also intractable. There are just too many megalomaniacs with guns, most of which were sold to them by the democracies many weapons manufacturers to expect any respite. I was torn by Libya. The people just seemed to want out from under the regime that has ruled their lives with an iron fist. It seemed everyone wanted out, except Gaddafi and a small circle of his regime. But now we see that he has a substantial following. Maybe he couldn't win an election, but with guns, he has enough to hold on. People keep talking about a negotiated solution, but he seems to have made it clear that he isn't going anywhere. Given his tenuous grasp on reality that he doesn't like, I believe him. He will take down the entire country with him rather than be toppled. So now we are faced with intervening even more, arming the opposition or just sitting back and letting the country fall apart. This would be bad enough if it were just Libya. But there are a dozens similarly situated countries on the edge of either imploding or exploding. We can't help them all, and in fact, it appears that we really can't help any. Arming the rebels won't really make it better anytime soon, it will just enmesh the west in yet another Muslim country, which will drive others outside that country into the arms of the extremists who just believe we want to be there. Instead of being caught between a rock and hard place, often of our own making. We tried to keep a lid on this chaos by supporting dictators whom we thought could control their population, but we only made it worse and damaged our own principles in the making. Now, when we try to support these apparent democratic movements, they welcome our help but they aren't too keen on it and if they succeed, I don't see a lot of gratitude emanating, not that I blame them.
We aren't responsible for all the bad in the world, but we have enough blame that we feel dirty. The alternative to aiding these countries is to do nothing and stand by and watch the massacres take place. That doesn't sit well with most of us when it is happening, because I think most of us care about inhumanity to people. But we can't intervene everywhere so we pick some battles and then we impose all these conditions on ourselves. Then these battles don't turn out the way we expect or more likely hope, and we find ourselves in another war in the middle east. IT SUCKS! Here we sit hoping that Gaddafi leaves. Somehow, its so much easier to ignore the plight of people stuck in these terrible situations when the news doesn't bother to cover it nightly. When the news brings the calls and pictures from people who sound a lot like us, being brutalized by terrible regimes who seem to love power so much they will do anything to keep it. But Libya has been under the thumb of this madman for 40 years and we didn't do anything before - we even provided him money and arms with which to do it, once he paid some blood money for Lockerbie. Why do we care now. But then again, a lot of people don't care now and dread our further involvement.
Yes, the sky is falling, and there is nothing most of us can do about it. I only wish I could ignore it like so many do. Would the world be worse off for my lack of concern? Is it better off because of it? The answer is no. The only one who suffers because of my attention is me. I wish I could turn it off.
This attitude seems selfish to me, but it's all I have most of the time. There are just too many issues, too many problems, and too few leaders and solutions. We are as a group pretty selfish so what likelihood is there that people will step up to the plate and sacrifice to save the planet when they won't even agree to pay a few % in taxes to resolve some of these budget issues in this country alone. I read that the 4 HUNDRED richest people in the country have more than the bottom 150 MILLION. If just those 400 would decide to fix things instead of just figuring out how to keep their BILLIONS, wouldn't change happen. Those 400 could really make a difference. Yes, they are moving towards philanthropy, led by Buffet and Gates, but changing the political systems is what is really needed. And that would threaten their uniqueness so philanthropy from a few will have to do.
The more immediate problems of war and conflict are also intractable. There are just too many megalomaniacs with guns, most of which were sold to them by the democracies many weapons manufacturers to expect any respite. I was torn by Libya. The people just seemed to want out from under the regime that has ruled their lives with an iron fist. It seemed everyone wanted out, except Gaddafi and a small circle of his regime. But now we see that he has a substantial following. Maybe he couldn't win an election, but with guns, he has enough to hold on. People keep talking about a negotiated solution, but he seems to have made it clear that he isn't going anywhere. Given his tenuous grasp on reality that he doesn't like, I believe him. He will take down the entire country with him rather than be toppled. So now we are faced with intervening even more, arming the opposition or just sitting back and letting the country fall apart. This would be bad enough if it were just Libya. But there are a dozens similarly situated countries on the edge of either imploding or exploding. We can't help them all, and in fact, it appears that we really can't help any. Arming the rebels won't really make it better anytime soon, it will just enmesh the west in yet another Muslim country, which will drive others outside that country into the arms of the extremists who just believe we want to be there. Instead of being caught between a rock and hard place, often of our own making. We tried to keep a lid on this chaos by supporting dictators whom we thought could control their population, but we only made it worse and damaged our own principles in the making. Now, when we try to support these apparent democratic movements, they welcome our help but they aren't too keen on it and if they succeed, I don't see a lot of gratitude emanating, not that I blame them.
We aren't responsible for all the bad in the world, but we have enough blame that we feel dirty. The alternative to aiding these countries is to do nothing and stand by and watch the massacres take place. That doesn't sit well with most of us when it is happening, because I think most of us care about inhumanity to people. But we can't intervene everywhere so we pick some battles and then we impose all these conditions on ourselves. Then these battles don't turn out the way we expect or more likely hope, and we find ourselves in another war in the middle east. IT SUCKS! Here we sit hoping that Gaddafi leaves. Somehow, its so much easier to ignore the plight of people stuck in these terrible situations when the news doesn't bother to cover it nightly. When the news brings the calls and pictures from people who sound a lot like us, being brutalized by terrible regimes who seem to love power so much they will do anything to keep it. But Libya has been under the thumb of this madman for 40 years and we didn't do anything before - we even provided him money and arms with which to do it, once he paid some blood money for Lockerbie. Why do we care now. But then again, a lot of people don't care now and dread our further involvement.
Yes, the sky is falling, and there is nothing most of us can do about it. I only wish I could ignore it like so many do. Would the world be worse off for my lack of concern? Is it better off because of it? The answer is no. The only one who suffers because of my attention is me. I wish I could turn it off.
Tuesday, March 15, 2011
Nuclear Power - Is The Risk Worth It?
I listened to the NBC science correspondent who seemed to be making the case for nuclear power. He said no power generation is without risk and that on the whole, nuclear is and has been quite safe. Only one major accident has occurred in the 50 years of the technology's existence. While all this is true, I believe he fails to make the case, when comparing this power source to coal production which kills workers, gas production which through explosions kills workers and consumers and damages homes and industries, and oil production, which spills regularly and the last major spill did major damage to the gulf coast and its workers and wildlife. It is true that no power source is without risk. It is true that these other power sources have killed many more people than nuclear. However, despite this, I believe the risk associated with nuclear power is just unacceptable.
The risk of a major accident is one of those very low probability events - events which may only happen once a generation or more, or in the case of Japan, once in its recorded history. However, the consequences of such an event last for many decades, for many generations, if not centuries. People are affected immediately and in the long term and the environment of the area is rendered unfit for a long time and the whole world is impacted negatively to some extent. This is not an accident that is just over. Twenty five years after Chernobyl the immediate area around the plant is uninhabitable, the area surrounding that has an significantly elevated cancer risk to the inhabitants, and as we learn more about genetics, it is likely that the event will have effects on children yet to be conceived. The area impacted by the accident is much less desirable as a place to live and work than before. Is this a risk that we really believe is acceptable? No matter how many redundancies are built into a plant, eventually they will fail and, as in the Japanese experience, it is likely that those failures will cascade into catastrophe. Is this something we are willing to risk once every thirty years? Isn't it hubris to believe that we can operate these plants throughout the world perfectly, forever? Nothing man has ever invented has worked perfectly indefinitely. These events do not end with the deaths of the people who are killed in the accident like coal miners. They continue for years and they spread danger far beyond the immediate impact zone. They also spread anxiety and uncertainty far beyond the immediate fallout. Japan was dealing with over 300,000 people who are homeless as a result of the earthquake and tsunami, but now they are also dealing with another 200,000 people who have homes that in the danger zone from the power plant. This compounds by almost 100% the supply logistics in providing food, water and shelter to people in need. Is this really the price we are willing to pay for boiled water?
The impact of accidents are only the beginning of the trail of hazards from nuclear power. These begin with uranium mining, then processing where dozens to hundreds are killed or die each year, likely as many as coal miners. Then once the fuel rods are spent, the issue of nuclear waste becomes huge. We have no technological fix for nuclear waste. We have almost no other fix. Transportation of the waste is a continuing issue anywhere it is proposed. So much is stored on-site. We store it and hope that it remains quiescent. But now, in Japan, the on-site waste rods are being exposed and are creating resulting crises in addition to the reactor problems. Hopefully, this crisis will be resolved with a minimum of additional death and injury. But even if it is, I question whether the risk from such a long lasting environmental and human impact is really the fuel of the future. We moved into very deep water to drill for oil without knowing how we would contain an accident and then an accident occurred. It was clear that they could have prevented the accident but did not and they also did not have the capability to respond once the accident occurred. It was a terrible environmental and human tragedy, but it will mostly be resolved in a few years. Eventually, a really bad nuclear accident will occur in a nuclear plant or with the waste, that accident will have been preventable but not prevented. The response will be less than optimum because we are human. The after effects will last for generations. Is it really worth it just because it doesn't happen often. Is it really worth it to expand the use of this fuel as a major source of power despite the forever consequences of an accident and the waste?
The risk of a major accident is one of those very low probability events - events which may only happen once a generation or more, or in the case of Japan, once in its recorded history. However, the consequences of such an event last for many decades, for many generations, if not centuries. People are affected immediately and in the long term and the environment of the area is rendered unfit for a long time and the whole world is impacted negatively to some extent. This is not an accident that is just over. Twenty five years after Chernobyl the immediate area around the plant is uninhabitable, the area surrounding that has an significantly elevated cancer risk to the inhabitants, and as we learn more about genetics, it is likely that the event will have effects on children yet to be conceived. The area impacted by the accident is much less desirable as a place to live and work than before. Is this a risk that we really believe is acceptable? No matter how many redundancies are built into a plant, eventually they will fail and, as in the Japanese experience, it is likely that those failures will cascade into catastrophe. Is this something we are willing to risk once every thirty years? Isn't it hubris to believe that we can operate these plants throughout the world perfectly, forever? Nothing man has ever invented has worked perfectly indefinitely. These events do not end with the deaths of the people who are killed in the accident like coal miners. They continue for years and they spread danger far beyond the immediate impact zone. They also spread anxiety and uncertainty far beyond the immediate fallout. Japan was dealing with over 300,000 people who are homeless as a result of the earthquake and tsunami, but now they are also dealing with another 200,000 people who have homes that in the danger zone from the power plant. This compounds by almost 100% the supply logistics in providing food, water and shelter to people in need. Is this really the price we are willing to pay for boiled water?
The impact of accidents are only the beginning of the trail of hazards from nuclear power. These begin with uranium mining, then processing where dozens to hundreds are killed or die each year, likely as many as coal miners. Then once the fuel rods are spent, the issue of nuclear waste becomes huge. We have no technological fix for nuclear waste. We have almost no other fix. Transportation of the waste is a continuing issue anywhere it is proposed. So much is stored on-site. We store it and hope that it remains quiescent. But now, in Japan, the on-site waste rods are being exposed and are creating resulting crises in addition to the reactor problems. Hopefully, this crisis will be resolved with a minimum of additional death and injury. But even if it is, I question whether the risk from such a long lasting environmental and human impact is really the fuel of the future. We moved into very deep water to drill for oil without knowing how we would contain an accident and then an accident occurred. It was clear that they could have prevented the accident but did not and they also did not have the capability to respond once the accident occurred. It was a terrible environmental and human tragedy, but it will mostly be resolved in a few years. Eventually, a really bad nuclear accident will occur in a nuclear plant or with the waste, that accident will have been preventable but not prevented. The response will be less than optimum because we are human. The after effects will last for generations. Is it really worth it just because it doesn't happen often. Is it really worth it to expand the use of this fuel as a major source of power despite the forever consequences of an accident and the waste?
Friday, March 04, 2011
Damned if we do...
Does everyone have memory loss with regard to war? If you listen to the pundits you will hear the drumbeat for war in Libya, most without acknowledging that this is what they are advocating. There are two sides doing the pushing. One is the neocon side who seem never to have met a dictator they didn't want to remove by force, especially a dictator in the Muslim world. The other side are the humanitarian groups who, in this case, see our hard power as something we can exercise for good, not acknowledging that if something goes wrong, they will be among the first to blame the US for mistaken civilian casualties and, if a democratic Libya doesn't rise from the ashes of this conflict, then the US will also be blamed for the disintegration of the state or the rise of strong men who impose their will on the people. We cannot win in this battle, but both sides seem intent on our entering into another misadventure in the Muslim world, even as it is said that we do not understand that world and we do not exercise our power well.
I doubt that anyone in government wants to see what is happening in Libya go from bad to worse. There are reasons both pro and con for intervention. However, given our track record and given the Muslim world's reaction to that track record, I don't really see a success in the offing. We saved Bosnia and Kosovo after terrible civil conflict, but no power in the Muslim world publicly approved of that effort. Instead, they have allowed the meme that we want to destroy the Muslim world to permeate much of the so-called Muslim street. Yes, our adventures in Iraq in this decade have done nothing to aid the US cause, but remember, we did get deeply involved in this effort originally to "save" Kuwait, a Muslim nation, from Saddam. That seems to have been completely sent down the rabbit hole. It was also done with the support and encouragement of the Saudi's. But they continue to allow their clerics to push an incredibly anti-western messages to their people and many of the terrorists threatening the western world come from there, including most of those who flew planes into the trade center, the pentagon and those in Yemen who have launched smalled but still deadly attacks in the US.
While advocating for US withdrawal from these countries, many have called on the US to stop using hard power to bring about regime change and democracy. Those same people are now beating the drums for war in Libya. And, as the Defense Secretary pointed out, make no mistake, even setting up a no-fly zone is war. Further, it is war without a clear end game. What happens when the no-fly zone doesn't work? What happens if Gaddafi hangs on for months or years? What happens, if as it appears in today's paper, he starts holding refugees as hostages, not letting them flee the war zone? What happens when we accidentally drop a bomb on civilians while taking out air defenses. What happens if we have another "Blackhawk Down" scenario? And yet, all these questions aren't even discussed, but the President is pictured as dithering for taking time to line up allies and even people who are willing to sit on the fence. Yes, people are dying in Libya at the hands of a disgusting, amoral, tyrant. But they are dying in other parts of the world, like the Ivory Coast, Sudan, and Somalia everyday in the same way so why is Libya the ONE place where we should use hard power to save lives?
The same people who say that we cannot be the policemen for the world are saying we should be setting up a no-fly zone, without acknowledging that this is where policing starts. As someone said in beginning the Iraq adventure, if you break it, you own it. No one seems to remember that when they are cavalierly suggesting we intervene militarily. No one even wants the President to take the time to consider the options, all the options, very carefully before we become involved in the fourth war in 20 years in a Muslim country. [And we won't even count Bosnia, Kosovo, Somalia in the tally].
I do not envy the President. I do not have any good options for him or us. I would note that Egypt has one of the largest militaries in the Arab world, trained and equipped by the US. Yet, they appear to be unwilling to use their hard power to aid their brothers in Libya. They can't even put out a strong resolution in the Arab League that actually kicks Gaddafi's Libya out of the League. [hedging their bets?] They also aren't calling for a western no-fly zone. The Saudis have an expensive and well-equipped army and air force, yet they have no appetite for helping their fellow Arab brothers. No power in the middle east seems interested in aiding their Libyan brothers. Yes, some of this is because they don't want a democratic Libya because it will only encourage their people to ask for greater freedom. But still, where is all that solidarity among the Muslim brotherhood to protect the vulnerable people of Libya who are being gunned down in the streets by their own leader? No, they'd rather the west fix this, so they can't be blamed if it doesn't turn out well. And I'm sure there will be no shortage of blame for the US, whichever way this turns out for Libya.
I do hope the Libyan people prevail against this monster. I support all the soft power we can muster. Why aren't we in Chad, Mali and Niger trying to stem the mercenaries at the source rather than killing them once they arrive? What about the alleged Algerian, Italian and other non-black African mercenaries? What is being done to ensure they aren't heading for Libya? I know that soft power is slow and often ineffective, but I believe that we should try it first, at least until there is no other way. And even then, we need to drag the rest of the world along with us before we go forth and enter yet another war in a Muslim country. We also need to be very clear with the American people that when we start using military means to achieve this objective, it may get very ugly and many people may still die. And pundits, and Senators, and reporters need to shut up about what we should or should not do until they are ready to pick up a gun and help.
I doubt that anyone in government wants to see what is happening in Libya go from bad to worse. There are reasons both pro and con for intervention. However, given our track record and given the Muslim world's reaction to that track record, I don't really see a success in the offing. We saved Bosnia and Kosovo after terrible civil conflict, but no power in the Muslim world publicly approved of that effort. Instead, they have allowed the meme that we want to destroy the Muslim world to permeate much of the so-called Muslim street. Yes, our adventures in Iraq in this decade have done nothing to aid the US cause, but remember, we did get deeply involved in this effort originally to "save" Kuwait, a Muslim nation, from Saddam. That seems to have been completely sent down the rabbit hole. It was also done with the support and encouragement of the Saudi's. But they continue to allow their clerics to push an incredibly anti-western messages to their people and many of the terrorists threatening the western world come from there, including most of those who flew planes into the trade center, the pentagon and those in Yemen who have launched smalled but still deadly attacks in the US.
While advocating for US withdrawal from these countries, many have called on the US to stop using hard power to bring about regime change and democracy. Those same people are now beating the drums for war in Libya. And, as the Defense Secretary pointed out, make no mistake, even setting up a no-fly zone is war. Further, it is war without a clear end game. What happens when the no-fly zone doesn't work? What happens if Gaddafi hangs on for months or years? What happens, if as it appears in today's paper, he starts holding refugees as hostages, not letting them flee the war zone? What happens when we accidentally drop a bomb on civilians while taking out air defenses. What happens if we have another "Blackhawk Down" scenario? And yet, all these questions aren't even discussed, but the President is pictured as dithering for taking time to line up allies and even people who are willing to sit on the fence. Yes, people are dying in Libya at the hands of a disgusting, amoral, tyrant. But they are dying in other parts of the world, like the Ivory Coast, Sudan, and Somalia everyday in the same way so why is Libya the ONE place where we should use hard power to save lives?
The same people who say that we cannot be the policemen for the world are saying we should be setting up a no-fly zone, without acknowledging that this is where policing starts. As someone said in beginning the Iraq adventure, if you break it, you own it. No one seems to remember that when they are cavalierly suggesting we intervene militarily. No one even wants the President to take the time to consider the options, all the options, very carefully before we become involved in the fourth war in 20 years in a Muslim country. [And we won't even count Bosnia, Kosovo, Somalia in the tally].
I do not envy the President. I do not have any good options for him or us. I would note that Egypt has one of the largest militaries in the Arab world, trained and equipped by the US. Yet, they appear to be unwilling to use their hard power to aid their brothers in Libya. They can't even put out a strong resolution in the Arab League that actually kicks Gaddafi's Libya out of the League. [hedging their bets?] They also aren't calling for a western no-fly zone. The Saudis have an expensive and well-equipped army and air force, yet they have no appetite for helping their fellow Arab brothers. No power in the middle east seems interested in aiding their Libyan brothers. Yes, some of this is because they don't want a democratic Libya because it will only encourage their people to ask for greater freedom. But still, where is all that solidarity among the Muslim brotherhood to protect the vulnerable people of Libya who are being gunned down in the streets by their own leader? No, they'd rather the west fix this, so they can't be blamed if it doesn't turn out well. And I'm sure there will be no shortage of blame for the US, whichever way this turns out for Libya.
I do hope the Libyan people prevail against this monster. I support all the soft power we can muster. Why aren't we in Chad, Mali and Niger trying to stem the mercenaries at the source rather than killing them once they arrive? What about the alleged Algerian, Italian and other non-black African mercenaries? What is being done to ensure they aren't heading for Libya? I know that soft power is slow and often ineffective, but I believe that we should try it first, at least until there is no other way. And even then, we need to drag the rest of the world along with us before we go forth and enter yet another war in a Muslim country. We also need to be very clear with the American people that when we start using military means to achieve this objective, it may get very ugly and many people may still die. And pundits, and Senators, and reporters need to shut up about what we should or should not do until they are ready to pick up a gun and help.
Friday, February 25, 2011
Response to NYT Editorial Stopping Gaddafi
Our hostage excuse is gone with the departure of the ferry, but the US dithers. Using doctored intelligence, we invaded another country, killing over a hundred thousand people to change a regime that no one asked us to. That regime is now attacking its own pro-democracy non-sectarian demonstrators. We haven't even sent humanitarian aid to the Libyan borders. Why aren't we doing more. We don't even seem to be preparing to do more - where is the American navy in the Med. Why isn't it on standby? In Libya, we have a mass democratic movement to get rid of a dictator who has murdered hundreds of Americans and many others and fomented war and strife throughout Africa. "This is our moment, this is our time." Help the people of Libya get rid of this insane despot. They will do the heavy lifting, all they need is a little help. For once, can we be true to our principles instead of our perceived "strategic interests." The Libyan people are begging for us to Take a Chance on Us. We might be pleasantly surprised at the results.
Thursday, February 24, 2011
Murder in Libya - The World Just Looks On
I'm terribly upset by the impotence of the international community, merely words, no action. But then I'm reminded that when I look back in only my adult lifetime the number of really major massacres that the international community condemned but did nothing because they were done "internally". Just think about it: Pol Pot, Mao's Cultural Revolution, Rawanda, Darfur, Congo, Sebrenica, Prague Spring, Iran Green. Just look at the actual uprisings against repression that we just ring our hands about and look the other way, or in come cases secretly cheer like the Kurds and Shiites in Iraq, the Hungary Uprising in the 50's, Chechnya, Tibet, a variety of African countries. I'm sure all of you can add to the list with so many others I've missed. It's almost serendipitous and very rare when the world does take any real action. And what may be even more telling is that after these massacres are undertaken and condemned, the world goes back to normal relations as soon as the bad press dies down. Civilized world is impotent & complicit in most of these. Gaddafi's sly in that, as an escapee from Libya said, it seemed clear that the government troops were told to avoid hurting too many foreigners, as if to avoid any provocation that might result in real action. They are also seizing memory cards and sim cards from escapees to try to ensure that the killings are not publicized in pictures. Cleaning up of the dead in Tripoli seems another effort to reduce the proof.
What's even worse than looking the other way while the massacres go on, its even worse that there is no price for these governments to pay for giving the middle finger to the international community. Back to business as usual, almost as fast as the trouble fades from the news. I'm sure the pictures of the SoS's hugging the dear leader are uncomfortable today, but this was done after he deliberated murdered American citizens in Lockerbie and Berlin, among the rest and it will be done again as soon as this is past, if Gaddafi succeeds in holding on.
What's even worse than looking the other way while the massacres go on, its even worse that there is no price for these governments to pay for giving the middle finger to the international community. Back to business as usual, almost as fast as the trouble fades from the news. I'm sure the pictures of the SoS's hugging the dear leader are uncomfortable today, but this was done after he deliberated murdered American citizens in Lockerbie and Berlin, among the rest and it will be done again as soon as this is past, if Gaddafi succeeds in holding on.
Wednesday, January 26, 2011
Competition Where Art Thou!
Recently, I received a notice from Quicken that I will no longer be able to use the 2008 version I bought to download records from my financial institutions. I bought the 2008 version because they changed formats which stopped the downloading in the earlier format. I don't want to buy another version. I don't want any of the bells and whistles that I will supposedly get by upgrading. All I want is a place to keep track of my transactions and periodically see how I"m doing. However, without downloading, the current software will become worthless to me. I have tried to identify an alternative that would allow me to do the basics but the pickings are slim. They are even slimmer if you try and find an alternative in Mac. I've tried several demos but they just don't work. Reading the comments along the way, it appears that Quicken identifies any real competitors and then just buys them out before they can threaten their monopoly. They are then free to abuse their users by forcing regular upgrades by taking away features that existed when we paid their fees. This is to just keep the fees flowing, apparently, now every three years, even though they offer nothing extra to entice voluntary upgrading.
This experience with Quicken got me thinking about our entire economy and how monopolies are taking over our lives by buying out the competitors. Companies used to grow and expand by inventing and improving their products, but now they just grow through acquisition. If someone offers something new and exciting, just buy them out, don't compete.
This is true with many of our industries:
* Media through Comcast, Viacom, Disney which now own almost all the network and cable stations, and Verizon and ATT which will soon control the content arriving on your computer, despite the pretent net neutrality rules of the FCC.
* Finance where the big 5 financial institutions which brought us financial armageddon now hold 60% of GDP http://www.tnr.com/article/politics/shooting-banks up significantly since the crisis, as the perpetrators were the chief beneficiaries of the financial failures wrought by the crisis.
* Pharmaceuticals, some of which have combined names longer than their chemical formulas, but still spend less on R&D than advertising.
* Health insurers which control the health care industry through Blue Cross, Humana, United Health and Cigna.
*Agriculture where just a very few food conglomerates like Cargill, Arthur Daniels Midland, and Tyson dominate all aspects of food production from farm to market.
*Energy which has significantly consolidated into a small number of huge companies in oil, coal and natural gas.
These are the big groupings but they are hardly alone.
This monopolization is also true with niche industries, like financial software. Once they get a big enough share, they can force their way on their customers and competitors without worrying about their customers abandoning them. If a truly new and improved product is invented or developed, then just use your considerable assets to buy them out. If your assets aren't enough, then just leverage the buyout through the hedge funds and all. Nothing stands in the way of this monopolization.
In Teddy Roosevelt's time, trust busting became the way to really bring back the free market but now it has almost gone the way of extinct animals. Bigger is better appears to be today's philosophy run amok! We only pay lip service to free enterprise, because monopoly capitalism is anything but the market that Adam Smith envisioned. Yet corporate power seems too great, that there does not appear to be solution.
With these monopolies also come great political clout. Anything that threatens their monopoly which cannot be bought out can be crushed through legal maneuvers, regulations, and legislation. These are delivered by the bought and paid for political class which is dedicated primarily to getting or staying in office. These trends may be unstoppable, but that doesn't make them any the less ominous. This realization has left me disturbed and pessimistic. I'm just not sure how to fight.
This experience with Quicken got me thinking about our entire economy and how monopolies are taking over our lives by buying out the competitors. Companies used to grow and expand by inventing and improving their products, but now they just grow through acquisition. If someone offers something new and exciting, just buy them out, don't compete.
This is true with many of our industries:
* Media through Comcast, Viacom, Disney which now own almost all the network and cable stations, and Verizon and ATT which will soon control the content arriving on your computer, despite the pretent net neutrality rules of the FCC.
* Finance where the big 5 financial institutions which brought us financial armageddon now hold 60% of GDP http://www.tnr.com/article/politics/shooting-banks up significantly since the crisis, as the perpetrators were the chief beneficiaries of the financial failures wrought by the crisis.
* Pharmaceuticals, some of which have combined names longer than their chemical formulas, but still spend less on R&D than advertising.
* Health insurers which control the health care industry through Blue Cross, Humana, United Health and Cigna.
*Agriculture where just a very few food conglomerates like Cargill, Arthur Daniels Midland, and Tyson dominate all aspects of food production from farm to market.
*Energy which has significantly consolidated into a small number of huge companies in oil, coal and natural gas.
These are the big groupings but they are hardly alone.
This monopolization is also true with niche industries, like financial software. Once they get a big enough share, they can force their way on their customers and competitors without worrying about their customers abandoning them. If a truly new and improved product is invented or developed, then just use your considerable assets to buy them out. If your assets aren't enough, then just leverage the buyout through the hedge funds and all. Nothing stands in the way of this monopolization.
In Teddy Roosevelt's time, trust busting became the way to really bring back the free market but now it has almost gone the way of extinct animals. Bigger is better appears to be today's philosophy run amok! We only pay lip service to free enterprise, because monopoly capitalism is anything but the market that Adam Smith envisioned. Yet corporate power seems too great, that there does not appear to be solution.
With these monopolies also come great political clout. Anything that threatens their monopoly which cannot be bought out can be crushed through legal maneuvers, regulations, and legislation. These are delivered by the bought and paid for political class which is dedicated primarily to getting or staying in office. These trends may be unstoppable, but that doesn't make them any the less ominous. This realization has left me disturbed and pessimistic. I'm just not sure how to fight.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)