From Daily Kos
by colinb
Mon Jul 24, 2006 at 10:35:49 PM PDT
Reading Bonddad's diary from earlier today, The 5 Major Flaws of Bush's Economy it struck me that it highlights some very worrying symptoms, but doesn't quite go so far as to quantify the disease.
So later today when I came across this essay from 1996, it hit on some things that seemed all too familiar
The Main Causes of the Great Depression
the main cause for the Great Depression was the combination of the greatly unequal distribution of wealth throughout the 1920's, and the extensive stock market speculation that took place during the latter part that same decade...Money was distributed disparately between the rich and the middle-class, between industry and agriculture within the United States, and between the U.S. and Europe.
The names have changed but the faces remain the same.
* colinb's diary :: ::
*
Replace the 1920's with the Late 1990's and Early 2000's
And add housing speculation to stock market speculation
And replace industry with technology and housing
And replace agriculture with manufacturing
And replace the automotive industry with the housing industry
And replace radio with computers, internet, and telecom
And replace installment credit and margin loans with interest only, home equity, and adjustable rate lending
And replace trade surpluses with trade deficits
And replace Europe with China/Japan
And replace Henry Ford with Bob Toll
And replace Andrew Mellon with Alan Greenspan
And replace Calvin Coolidge with George W Bush
Adjust for current dollars
And what do you get?
1920's:
The Great Depression was the worst economic slump ever in U.S. history, and one which spread to virtually all of the industrialized world. The depression began in late 1929 and lasted for about a decade. Many factors played a role in bringing about the depression; however, the main cause for the Great Depression was the combination of the greatly unequal distribution of wealth throughout the 1920's, and the extensive stock market speculation that took place during the latter part that same decade. The maldistribution of wealth in the 1920's existed on many levels. Money was distributed disparately between the rich and the middle-class, between industry and agriculture within the United States, and between the U.S. and Europe. This imbalance of wealth created an unstable economy. The excessive speculation in the late 1920's kept the stock market artificially high, but eventually lead to large market crashes. These market crashes, combined with the maldistribution of wealth, caused the American economy to capsize.
Late 1990's and Early 2000's:
The Possible Depression could be the worst economic slump ever in U.S. history, and one which could spread to virtually all of the industrialized world. The depression may begin in 2007 and last for about a decade. Many factors have played a role in bringing about the possible depression; however, the main cause for the Possible Depression is the combination of the greatly unequal distribution of wealth throughout the Late 1990's and Early 2000's, and the extensive stock market speculation that took place during the latter part of the 1990's and housing market speculation that took place during the early 2000's. The maldistribution of wealth in the Late 1990's and Early 2000's has existed on many levels. Money has been distributed disparately between the rich and the middle-class, between technology/housing and manufacturing within the United States, and between the U.S. and China/Japan. This imbalance of wealth has created an unstable economy. The excessive speculation in the late 1990's and Early 2000's kept the stock and housing markets artificially high, but eventually lead to large market crashes. These market crashes, combined with the maldistribution of wealth, has caused the American economy to possibly capsize.
1920's:
The "roaring twenties" was an era when our country prospered tremendously. The nation's total realized income rose from $74.3 billion in 1923 to $89 billion in 1929. However, the rewards of the "Coolidge Prosperity" of the 1920's were not shared evenly among all Americans. According to a study done by the Brookings Institute, in 1929 the top 0.1% of Americans had a combined income equal to the bottom 42%. That same top 0.1% of Americans in 1929 controlled 34% of all savings, while 80% of Americans had no savings at all. Automotive industry mogul Henry Ford provides a striking example of the unequal distribution of wealth between the rich and the middle-class. Henry Ford reported a personal income of $14 million in the same year that the average personal income was $750. By present day standards, where the average yearly income in the U.S. is around $18,500, Mr. Ford would be earning over $345 million a year! This maldistribution of income between the rich and the middle class grew throughout the 1920's. While the disposable income per capita rose 9% from 1920 to 1929, those with income within the top 1% enjoyed a stupendous 75% increase in per capita disposable income.
Late 1990's and Early 2000's:
The "dot com and housing boom" has been an era when our country prospered tremendously. The nation's total GDP rose from $7.6 trillion in 1996 to $12.5 trillion in 2005. However, the rewards of the "Clinton/Bush Prosperity" of the Late 1990's and Early 2000's were not shared evenly among all Americans. According to a study done by the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago, in 2001 the top 1% of Americans had a combined net worth equal to the bottom 90%. Home building mogul Bob Toll provides a striking example of the unequal distribution of wealth between the rich and the middle-class. In 2005 Bob Toll earned $34 million in the same year that the per capita income was $34,586 This maldistribution of income between the rich and the middle class grew throughout the late 1990's and Early 2000's. While worker pay grew 32% in the 1990s, executive pay grew a stupendous 500%.
1920's:
A major reason for this large and growing gap between the rich and the working-class people was the increased manufacturing output throughout this period. From 1923-1929 the average output per worker increased 32% in manufacturing. During that same period of time average wages for manufacturing jobs increased only 8%. Thus wages increased at a rate one fourth as fast as productivity increased. As production costs fell quickly, wages rose slowly, and prices remained constant, the bulk benefit of the increased productivity went into corporate profits. In fact, from 1923-1929 corporate profits rose 62% and dividends rose 65%
Late 1990's and Early 2000's:
A major reason for this large and growing gap between the rich and the working-class people was the increased productivity growth throughout this period. From 1996-2004 the average output per worker increased approximately 28%. During that same period median hourly wages increased only approximately 10%. Thus wages increased at a rate one third as fast as productivity increased. As production costs fell quickly, wages rose slowly, and prices remained constant, the bulk benefit of the increased productivity went into corporate profits. In fact, from 1996-2004 corporate profits before tax rose 45% and dividends rose 66%
1920's:
The federal government also contributed to the growing gap between the rich and middle-class. Calvin Coolidge's administration (and the conservative-controlled government) favored business, and as a result the wealthy who invested in these businesses. An example of legislation to this purpose is the Revenue Act of 1926, signed by President Coolidge on February 26, 1926, which reduced federal income and inheritance taxes dramatically. Andrew Mellon, Coolidge's Secretary of the Treasury, was the main force behind these and other tax cuts throughout the 1920's. In effect, he was able to lower federal taxes such that a man with a million-dollar annual income had his federal taxes reduced from $600,000 to $200,000. Even the Supreme Court played a role in expanding the gap between the socioeconomic classes. In the 1923 case Adkins v. Children's Hospital, the Supreme Court ruled minimum-wage legislation unconstitutional.
Late 1990's and Early 2000's:
The federal government also contributed to the growing gap between the rich and middle-class. George Bush's administration (and the conservative-controlled government) favored business, and as a result the wealthy who invested in these businesses. An example of legislation to this purpose is the Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003, signed by President Bush on May 28, 2003, which reduced federal income and investment taxes dramatically. Alan Greenspan, Bush's Fed Chairman, was a leading proponent of Bush's tax cuts. In effect, Bush was able to shift more of the tax burden from the rich to the middle class, decreasing the effective tax rate for the top 1 percent by 19% while decreasing the tax rate for the middle 20% by only 4%. Even the Supreme Court played a role in expanding the gap between the socioeconomic classes. In the 2006 DaimlerChrysler vs Cuno case, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of big businesses being able to extort state and local governments for tax giveaways, furthering the shift of the tax burden away from corporations and to wage earners.
1920's:
Three quarters of the U.S. population would spend essentially all of their yearly incomes to purchase consumer goods such as food, clothes, radios, and cars. These were the poor and middle class: families with incomes around, or usually less than, $2,500 a year. The bottom three quarters of the population had an aggregate income of less than 45% of the combined national income; the top 25% of the population took in more than 55% of the national income. While the wealthy too purchased consumer goods, a family earning $100,000 could not be expected to eat 40 times more than a family that only earned $2,500 a year, or buy 40 cars, 40 radios, or 40 houses.
Late 1990's and Early 2000's:
Three fifths of the U.S. population would spend essentially all of their yearly incomes to purchase needed goods and services such as food, clothes, computers, and cars. These were the poor and middle class: families with incomes around, or usually less than, $21,400 a year. The bottom 3 fifths of the population had an aggregate income of less than 23% of the combined national income; the top 10% of the population took in more than 44% of the national income. While the wealthy too purchased consumer goods, a family earning $256,000 could not be expected to eat 12 times more than a family that only earned $21,400 a year, or buy 12 cars, 12 computers, or 12 houses.
1920's:
Through such a period of imbalance, the U.S. came to rely upon two things in order for the economy to remain on an even keel: credit sales, and luxury spending and investment from the rich.
Late 1990's and Early 2000's:
Through such a period of imbalance, the U.S. came to rely upon two things in order for the economy to remain on an even keel: credit sales, and luxury spending and investment from the rich.
1920's:
One obvious solution to the problem of the vast majority of the population not having enough money to satisfy all their needs was to let those who wanted goods buy products on credit. The concept of buying now and paying later caught on quickly. By the end of the 1920's 60% of cars and 80% of radios were bought on installment credit. Between 1925 and 1929 the total amount of outstanding installment credit more than doubled from $1.38 billion to around $3 billion. Installment credit allowed one to "telescope the future into the present", as the President's Committee on Social Trends noted. This strategy created artificial demand for products which people could not ordinarily afford. It put off the day of reckoning, but it made the downfall worse when it came. By telescoping the future into the present, when "the future" arrived, there was little to buy that hadn't already been bought. In addition, people could not longer use their regular wages to purchase whatever items they didn't have yet, because so much of the wages went to paying back past purchases.
Late 1990's and Early 2000's:
One obvious solution to the problem of the vast majority of the population not having enough money to satisfy all their needs was to let those who wanted goods buy products on credit. The concept of buying now and paying later caught on quickly. By the end of 2005, 26% of all home loans were made with adjustable rate mortgages, and 11% were interest only loans. Between 1998 and 2002 the total amount of outstanding household debt doubled from $16 trillion to $32 trillion. Adjustable rate and interest only mortgages allowed one to purchase more expensive homes for smaller introductory monthly payments. Home equity loans allowed one to borrow on the value of their home to pay for other discretionary goods. This strategy created artificial demand for homes and discretionary goods which people could not ordinarily afford. It put off the day of reckoning, but it will make the downfall worse when it comes. By telescoping the future into the present, when "the future" arrives, there is little to buy that hasn't already been bought. In addition, people can no longer use their regular wages to purchase whatever items they don't have yet, because so much of their wages will be going to servicing their debt.
1920's:
Maldistribution of wealth within our nation was not limited to only socioeconomic classes, but to entire industries. In 1929 a mere 200 corporations controlled approximately half of all corporate wealth. While the automotive industry was thriving in the 1920's, some industries, agriculture in particular, were declining steadily. In 1921, the same year that Ford Motor Company reported record assets of more than $345 million, farm prices plummeted, and the price of food fell nearly 72% due to a huge surplus. While the average per capita income in 1929 was $750 a year for all Americans, the average annual income for someone working in agriculture was only $273. The prosperity of the 1920's was simply not shared among industries evenly. In fact, most of the industries that were prospering in the 1920's were in some way linked to the automotive industry or to the radio industry
Late 1990's and Early 2000's:
Maldistribution of wealth within our nation was not limited to only socioeconomic classes, but to entire industries. While the technology and housing industries were thriving in the Late 1990's and Early 2000's, some industries, manufacturing, in particular, were declining steadily. In the 3rd Quarter of 2005, the same quarter that saw Home Builder Toll Brothers report record quarterly revenues of $1.56 billion, the manufacturing sector saw a net job loss of 51,000 jobs. The prosperity of the Late 1990's and Early 2000's was simply not shared among industries evenly. In fact, most of the industries that were prospering in the Late 1990's and Early 2000's were in some way linked to the technology industry or to the housing industry, which accounted for about 43% of the increase in private sector payrolls from 2001 to 2004.
1920's:
The problem with such heavy concentrations of wealth and such massive dependence upon essentially two industries is similar to the problem with few people having too much wealth. The economy is reliant upon those industries to expand and grow and invest in order to prosper. If those two industries, the automotive and radio industries, were to slow down or stop, so would the entire economy. While the economy did prosper greatly in the 1920's, because this prosperity wasn't balanced between different industries, when those industries that had all the wealth concentrated in them slowed down, the whole economy did. The fundamental problem with the automobile and radio industries was that they could not expand ad infinitum for the simple reason that people could and would buy only so many cars and radios. When the automotive and radio industries went down all their dependents, essentially all of American industry, fell. Because it had been ignored, agriculture, which was still a fairly large segment of the economy, was already in ruin when American industry fell.
Late 1990's and Early 2000's:
The problem with such heavy concentrations of wealth and such massive dependence upon essentially two industries is similar to the problem with few people having too much wealth. The economy is reliant upon those industries to expand and grow and invest in order to prosper. If those two industries, the technology and houing industries, were to slow down or stop, so would the entire economy. While the economy did prosper greatly in the Late 1990's and Early 2000's, because this prosperity wasn't balanced between different industries, when those industries that had all the wealth concentrate in them slow down, the whole economy will. The fundamental problem with the technology and housing industries is that they cannot expand ad infinitum for the simple reason that people can and will buy only so many homes and computers. When the technology and housing industries go down all their dependents, essentially all of American industry, falls. Because it has been ignored, manufacturing which is still a fairly large segment of the economy, is already in ruin when American technology and housing industries fall.
1920's:
A last major instability of the American economy had to do with large-scale international wealth distribution problems. While America was prospering in the 1920's, European nations were struggling to rebuild themselves after the damage of war. During World War I the U.S. government lent its European allies $7 billion, and then another $3.3 billion by 1920. By the Dawes Plan of 1924 the U.S. started lending to Axis Germany. American foreign lending continued in the 1920's climbing to $900 million in 1924, and $1.25 billion in 1927 and 1928. Of these funds, more than 90% were used by the European allies to purchase U.S. goods. The nations the U.S. had lent money to (Britain, Italy, France, Belgium, Russia, Yugoslavia, Estonia, Poland, and others) were in no position to pay off the debts.
Late 1990's and Early 2000's:
A last major instability of the American economy had to do with large-scale international capital distribution problems. While America was consuming in the Late 1990's and Early 2000's, fueled by wealth created by consecutive stock market and housing market booms, Japan and China were busy producing all of the goods needed to meet US demand. To fuel this trade deficit, both Japan and China were forced to buy U.S. dollar demoninated debt in the form of US Treasury bonds. In addition, the U.S. fiscal policy led to staggering budget deficits. The U.S. national debt grew a staggering 60% from 1996 (approximately $5 Trillion) to 2006 (approximately $8 Trillion)
1920's:
The weakness of the international economy certainly contributed to the Great Depression. Europe was reliant upon U.S. loans to buy U.S. goods, and the U.S. needed Europe to buy these goods to prosper. By 1929 10% of American gross national product went into exports. When the foreign countries became no longer able to buy U.S. goods, U.S. exports fell 30% immediately. That $1.5 billion of foreign sales lost between 1929 to 1933 was fully one eighth of all lost American sales in the early years of the depression.
Late 1990's and Early 2000's:
The weakness of the international economy will certainly contribute to the Possible Depression. Japan and China are reliant upon U.S. consumer spending to finance their manufacturing industries, which in turn finances the U.S. national debt. If in 2007, consumer spending shows a considerable decline, Japan and China will see their exports to the U.S. shrink considerably, giving them less cause to purchase U.S. treasuries. If Japan and China scale back their buying of U.S. debt at the same time the U.S. sees an economic slowdown, this will be a double whammy to U.S. debt financing. Interest rates will be forced higher to account for less investment, which will create a higher debt service ratio and further slow domestic U.S. business investment. The U.S, government will become like the U.S. consumer, indentured to their own debt service.
1920's:
Mass speculation went on throughout the late 1920's. In 1929 alone, a record volume of 1,124,800,410 shares were traded on the New York Stock Exchange. From early 1928 to September 1929 the Dow Jones Industrial Average rose from 191 to 381. This sort of profit was irresistible to investors. Company earnings became of little interest; as long as stock prices continued to rise huge profits could be made. One such example is RCA corporation, whose stock price leapt from 85 to 420 during 1928, even though it had not yet paid a single dividend. Even these returns of over 100% were no measure of the possibility for investors of the time. Through the miracle of buying stocks on margin, one could buy stocks without the money to purchase them. Buying stocks on margin functioned much the same way as buying a car on credit. Using the example of RCA, a Mr. John Doe could buy 1 share of the company by putting up $10 of his own, and borrowing $75 from his broker. If he sold the stock at $420 a year later he would have turned his original investment of just $10 into $341.25 ($420 minus the $75 and 5% interest owed to the broker). That makes a return of over 3400%! Investors' craze over the proposition of profits like this drove the market to absurdly high levels. By mid 1929 the total of outstanding brokers' loans was over $7 billion; in the next three months that number would reach $8.5 billion. Interest rates for brokers loans were reaching the sky, going as high as 20% in March 1929. The speculative boom in the stock market was based upon confidence. In the same way, the huge market crashes of 1929 were based on fear.
Late 1990's and Early 2000's:
Mass speculation went on throughout the Early 2000's. In 2005 alone, a record 7 million housing properties were sold. From early 2004 to early 2005, median condo prices rose 16%. This sort of profit was irresistible to investors. Mortgage to Rent relationships became of little interest; as long as housing prices continued to rise huge profits could be made. One such example is Phoenix, AZ, whose median home price rose 43% in one year, even though area income and rental growth remained in the single digits. Even these returns of over 40% were no measure of the possibility for investors of the time. Through the miracle of buying houses pre-construction, one could buy homes without putting any money down and gain equity without ever paying a mortgage payment. Using the example of Phoenix, a Mr. John Doe could put a $5,000 deposit down on a $200,000 house that had yet to be built. If he sold the house at $250,000 a year later after the home was finished, he would have turned his original investment of just $5,000 into $35,000 ($250,000 sales price less $200,000 purchase price less 6% closing costs). That makes a return of over 700%! Investors' craze over the proposition of profits like this drove the market to absurdly high levels. By 2005 the total of outstanding mortgage debt was $9 trillion, on par with the equally staggering federal government national debt. Interest rates are on the rise, with no clear end in sight. The speculative boom in the housing market was based upon confidence. In the same way, the huge market crashes of 2007-2008 will be based on fear.
1920's:
This speculation and the resulting stock market crashes acted as a trigger to the already unstable U.S. economy. Due to the maldistribution of wealth, the economy of the 1920's was one very much dependent upon confidence. The market crashes undermined this confidence. The rich stopped spending on luxury items, and slowed investments. The middle-class and poor stopped buying things with installment credit for fear of loosing their jobs, and not being able to pay the interest. As a result industrial production fell by more than 9% between the market crashes in October and December 1929. As a result jobs were lost, and soon people starting defaulting on their interest payment. Radios and cars bought with installment credit had to be returned. All of the sudden warehouses were piling up with inventory. The thriving industries that had been connected with the automobile and radio industries started falling apart. Without a car people did not need fuel or tires; without a radio people had less need for electricity. On the international scene, the rich had practically stopped lending money to foreign countries. With such tremendous profits to be made in the stock market nobody wanted to make low interest loans. To protect the nation's businesses the U.S. imposed higher trade barriers (Hawley-Smoot Tariff of 1930). Foreigners stopped buying American products. More jobs were lost, more stores were closed, more banks went under, and more factories closed. Unemployment grew to five million in 1930, and up to thirteen million in 1932. The country spiraled quickly into catastrophe. The Great Depression had begun.
Late 1990's and Early 2000's:
This speculation and the resulting stock and housing market crashes may act as a trigger to the already unstable U.S. economy. Due to the maldistribution of wealth, the economy of the Late 1990's and Early 2000's was one very much dependent upon confidence. The market crashes have and may further undermine this confidence. The rich may stop spending on luxury items, and slow investments. The middle-class and poor may stop buying things with home equity loans for fear of losing their jobs, and not being able to pay the interest. As a result industrial production may fall. As a result jobs may be lost, and soon people may start defaulting on their adjustable rate mortgages. Homes bought with adjustable rate mortgages may be foreclosed, discretionary purchases of technology items may grind to a halt. Real estate markets and technology companies may begin piling up with inventory. The thriving industries that had been connected with the technology and housing industries may start falling apart. Without a home to flip people may not need granite countertops or new flooring; without the latest high definition plasma tv, people may have less use for the latest high definition dvd. On the international scene, the currency rich nations may move away from U.S dollars. Foreigners have already stopped buying American products, and we won't be able to get our competitive advantage back if other countries start devaluing their currencies in order to sell excess supplies of products to other Non-U.S markets. More jobs may be lost, more stores may be closed, more banks may go under, and more factories may close. Unemployment may grow. The country may spiral quickly into catastrophe. The Possible Depression may begin.
Bonddad is all gloom and doom? I'd say he has reason to be.
DJHJD
Wednesday, July 26, 2006
Letting it Shine: Anti-Gay Bigotry & Black Churches
Tue Jul 25, 2006 at 01:45:51 PM PDT
I've posted many times about the particular brand of homophobia found in some black churches. So much, in fact, that probably some readers here have grown weary of hearing about it, and at least one has told me that my anger regarding the subject is a sign of "self-hatred." I'd probably say that my anger stems from my own experience of the phenomenon.
I've written about black ministers like Willie Wilson, Alfred Owens, and Eddie Long spewing anti-gay hatred from the pulpit, black ministers in Indiana praying for more discrimination against gay people, another black minister who announced he'd ride with the Klan as long as they opposed marriage equality, and about how another black minister turned his back when Dwan Prince's mother asked for help in the wake of a gay bashing that left her son in a coma and in a wheelchair afterwards. And I've written about how all of the above effect the HIV/AIDS epidemic in black communities.
So, yes, I've beaten that drum a lot. Maybe too much, but as a black gay man it's something affects me -- even as a non-christian -- and thus it's something I can't not talk about.
* TerranceDC's diary :: ::
*
But maybe it's to much coming from me, as I admit my own pain and anger related to the subject are still rather raw. So I was interested to see Andrew Sullivan take up the subject with a post to Billy Porter's column about his own experience with the black church as a gay man.
So here I stand. Speaking up, speaking out, and letting my glorious light shine like it should. I recently sat in the New York City hospital room of my dear friend Kevin Aviance after he was savagely beaten on an East Village street for being gay, and I thought to myself, Where are our leaders? Where are the people with influence who will stand up for me and my gay brethren? I am disappointed with our government. I am disappointed with our nation. But I am the most disappointed with my African-American 'Christian' brothers and sisters who stand proudly on their pulpits and use the Bible to regurgitate the very same hate rhetoric that was inflicted on the black community not so long ago.
I never considered myself an activist in the past. I respect that title too much to take it lightly. But with the recent increase in hate-bias attacks directed toward our community, and the struggle for us to gain the simplest of civil rights, I am filled with a raging sense of activism. Our bodies, our health, and our basic civil liberties are at stake. It is time to let the world know: We will not let you take our God away. We will not be ignored! We will not be denied! And if God is going to send us to a burning hell for being the people that He created us to be--we'll see each and every one of you there.
"Shine! Let it shine! Let it shine! Let it shine!"
Porter, a Broadway performer, wrote his remarks before performing at a Soulforce protest at James Dobson's Focus on the Family headquarters. I admire Porter's stand, though different from my own choices -- for he remained within the faith he was raised in, and has apparently chosen to stay and fight, whereas my own choice was to leave it behind. I also join Porter in his questions.
Where are our leaders? Where are the people with influence who will stand up for me and my gay brethren? In terms of high profile leaders within black churches, I can only think of a few. Jesse Jackson, Michael Eric Dyson, Al Sharpton come to mind, and other ministers who attended the black church summit in Atlanta earlier this year. But not many more than that, though there are probably countless others working anonymously against homophobia in their own churches.
The irony is that many black ministers are joining a movement that has it's roots in decades-old battles against desegregation, without knowing or caring. I've just finished Kingdom Coming: The Rise of Christian Nationalism and I'm two-thirds through The Baptizing of America: The Religious Right's Plans for the Rest of Us, and both books detail how African-Americans who normally lean Democratic on policy issues have joined a movement that Michelle Goldberg calls Christian nationalism in her book and that James Rubin calls Christocratic in his, because it appeals to their religiously-based conservatism on social issues. Both books also go into detail about how this movement rose in part from opposition to the advances of the civil rights movement. (All of which leads to the irony of a black minister declaring he'll "ride with the Klan" so long as they hate gay people as much as he does.)
After quoting Porter, Sullivan sums up merely saying "The battle has only just started." I fear he's right, and I think Porter and others like him are the people best equipped to fight it; to become the leaders whose absence he writes about. In her Advocate column about "Taking Back the Black Gay Movement" Jasmyne Cannick wrote about the need for black gays to start speaking up in our own communities. She's exactly right.
But in assessing Porter's and Cannick's statements, I'm left wondering where exactly I could begin to enter the picture in the work that needs to be done in that arena. As I've written before, much like the person Cannick mentions in her column, I no longer have any real connection to any black community beyond the other black gays & lesbians I keep in touch with online. As a non-christian who isn't likely to ever return to the faith, it looks like a good part of the battle is going to take place in a territory where I no longer speak the language, know the landscape or share belief.
Maybe the best I can do, following Porter's example, is to let "this little light of mine" shine where I am for now. Maybe if some of us are shedding light on the inside while others of are shining our lights on the outside, the darkness in between will be illuminated; maybe even eliminated.
I've posted many times about the particular brand of homophobia found in some black churches. So much, in fact, that probably some readers here have grown weary of hearing about it, and at least one has told me that my anger regarding the subject is a sign of "self-hatred." I'd probably say that my anger stems from my own experience of the phenomenon.
I've written about black ministers like Willie Wilson, Alfred Owens, and Eddie Long spewing anti-gay hatred from the pulpit, black ministers in Indiana praying for more discrimination against gay people, another black minister who announced he'd ride with the Klan as long as they opposed marriage equality, and about how another black minister turned his back when Dwan Prince's mother asked for help in the wake of a gay bashing that left her son in a coma and in a wheelchair afterwards. And I've written about how all of the above effect the HIV/AIDS epidemic in black communities.
So, yes, I've beaten that drum a lot. Maybe too much, but as a black gay man it's something affects me -- even as a non-christian -- and thus it's something I can't not talk about.
* TerranceDC's diary :: ::
*
But maybe it's to much coming from me, as I admit my own pain and anger related to the subject are still rather raw. So I was interested to see Andrew Sullivan take up the subject with a post to Billy Porter's column about his own experience with the black church as a gay man.
So here I stand. Speaking up, speaking out, and letting my glorious light shine like it should. I recently sat in the New York City hospital room of my dear friend Kevin Aviance after he was savagely beaten on an East Village street for being gay, and I thought to myself, Where are our leaders? Where are the people with influence who will stand up for me and my gay brethren? I am disappointed with our government. I am disappointed with our nation. But I am the most disappointed with my African-American 'Christian' brothers and sisters who stand proudly on their pulpits and use the Bible to regurgitate the very same hate rhetoric that was inflicted on the black community not so long ago.
I never considered myself an activist in the past. I respect that title too much to take it lightly. But with the recent increase in hate-bias attacks directed toward our community, and the struggle for us to gain the simplest of civil rights, I am filled with a raging sense of activism. Our bodies, our health, and our basic civil liberties are at stake. It is time to let the world know: We will not let you take our God away. We will not be ignored! We will not be denied! And if God is going to send us to a burning hell for being the people that He created us to be--we'll see each and every one of you there.
"Shine! Let it shine! Let it shine! Let it shine!"
Porter, a Broadway performer, wrote his remarks before performing at a Soulforce protest at James Dobson's Focus on the Family headquarters. I admire Porter's stand, though different from my own choices -- for he remained within the faith he was raised in, and has apparently chosen to stay and fight, whereas my own choice was to leave it behind. I also join Porter in his questions.
Where are our leaders? Where are the people with influence who will stand up for me and my gay brethren? In terms of high profile leaders within black churches, I can only think of a few. Jesse Jackson, Michael Eric Dyson, Al Sharpton come to mind, and other ministers who attended the black church summit in Atlanta earlier this year. But not many more than that, though there are probably countless others working anonymously against homophobia in their own churches.
The irony is that many black ministers are joining a movement that has it's roots in decades-old battles against desegregation, without knowing or caring. I've just finished Kingdom Coming: The Rise of Christian Nationalism and I'm two-thirds through The Baptizing of America: The Religious Right's Plans for the Rest of Us, and both books detail how African-Americans who normally lean Democratic on policy issues have joined a movement that Michelle Goldberg calls Christian nationalism in her book and that James Rubin calls Christocratic in his, because it appeals to their religiously-based conservatism on social issues. Both books also go into detail about how this movement rose in part from opposition to the advances of the civil rights movement. (All of which leads to the irony of a black minister declaring he'll "ride with the Klan" so long as they hate gay people as much as he does.)
After quoting Porter, Sullivan sums up merely saying "The battle has only just started." I fear he's right, and I think Porter and others like him are the people best equipped to fight it; to become the leaders whose absence he writes about. In her Advocate column about "Taking Back the Black Gay Movement" Jasmyne Cannick wrote about the need for black gays to start speaking up in our own communities. She's exactly right.
But in assessing Porter's and Cannick's statements, I'm left wondering where exactly I could begin to enter the picture in the work that needs to be done in that arena. As I've written before, much like the person Cannick mentions in her column, I no longer have any real connection to any black community beyond the other black gays & lesbians I keep in touch with online. As a non-christian who isn't likely to ever return to the faith, it looks like a good part of the battle is going to take place in a territory where I no longer speak the language, know the landscape or share belief.
Maybe the best I can do, following Porter's example, is to let "this little light of mine" shine where I am for now. Maybe if some of us are shedding light on the inside while others of are shining our lights on the outside, the darkness in between will be illuminated; maybe even eliminated.
Energy Independence and Public Transport
From Daily Kos
by BruceMcF
Mon Jul 24, 2006 at 03:19:20 PM PDT
All to often, the idea of Energy Independence has its priorities reversed. Scratch under the surface, and all too often the question lurking is, "How can we get as close as possible to Energy Independence without any real changes in the way we live and move?"
Stop and think about that ... really think about it, with your heart instead of your habits of thought. People - good people - are fighting and dying right now in Iraq in an failing occupation, following a successful invasion ... in pursuit of a continued Energy Dependence policy.
In your heart, do you think that is a fair price to pay? If you do, do not read any further.
* BruceMcF's diary :: ::
*
The Real Question
The real question is, "What changes do we need to make to the way we live and move to accomplish Energy Independence?"
I have already sketched out the dimension of the problem on another site, starting with Real Energy Independence. We rely in imports for about 27% of our total energy needs ... and that is a value that is rising, as our total domestic energy supply has been stable, and our energy use has been rising.
So what does this mean? We either need to:
* make every single thing 37% more efficient (that is, 100/73, so we can do with 73% what we do now with 100%)
* make three quarters of our energy use 56% more efficient
* make half of our energy use 117% more efficient
* make one third of our energy use 555% more efficient
In other words, the narrower the range of things we change, the more radical the change has to be.
Now, we can make some headway on this by increasing our domestic energy supplies. For example, if Germany, with much higher population density, can obtain more than 3% of their electricity supply from wind, it does not seem impossible for the US to obtain 10% or more. Also, as discussed in another site, domestically grown biofuels ... if they are Bone Fide biofuels, and not Hoax Biofuels like corn-starch-ethanol ... can stretch our crude-oil based fuel supply.
But everything gets much, much easier if we make big gains in a big energy using industry. And that is why I have been focusing on Transport.
This diary focuses on public transport, because private transport is where so much of the problem lies.
Where Is The Feedback Loop?
If something seems like it is going headlong in one direction, without anybody deciding that it has to go that way ... the first step to understanding it is to ask, where is the positive feedback loop?
A positive feedback loop means that the consequence of a driving force has its own impact, which amplifies the driving force.
If something that seems like an obvious solution seems to keep getting stalled, never getting off the ground ... the first step to understanding it is to ask, where is the negative feedback loop?
A negative feedback loop means that the consequence of a driving force has its own impact, which undermines the driving force.
A lot of things built on a positive feedback loop seem to just "go on their own", without anybody doing the driving. They are self-amplifying. And a lot of things based on a negative feedback loop seem to just "run out of gas", without anybody standing in their way. They are self-braking.
One benefit of looking for positive and negative feedback loops is to protect us from going overboard in seeing a conspiracy behind every bush (or maybe that is a conspiracy behind every Bush).
To be sure, people do conspire. However, the burden of proof is on the conspiracy theorist, so it is important to rule out non-deliberate explanations anyway, even if only to strengthen the case.
And more importantly, when you find the aspect of the problem that is not a conspiracy, then nobody is doing that particular part of the problem on purpose. Any substantial change will generate opposition. A modest change that helps turns off a positive or negative feedback loop can therefore be a very strategic change to accomplish.
What are the private transport feedback loops
How did we get so dependent on a single form of transport? No human society has been this dependent on any single form of transport other than walking.
Positive feedback loop: Buy a car. Now there is another car on the road. That increases congestion. Too much congestion leads to demand for more expressways. More expressways mean people can settle further away from work. The further you live from work, the more miles you drive each day. The more miles everyone drives, the more congestion there is. The more congestion there is, the more demand there is for more expressways.
Negative feedback loop: Buy a car. Costs include operating costs and overheads. Public transport charges users for operating costs and overheads. You have an incentive to drive whenever feasible. Public transport overheads are spread across fewer fares, so fares are put up and/or services reduced. More users are encouraged to buy a car.
Positive Feedback Loop: Suppose higher income people are more likely to buy cars. Retailers want to attract these people. They offer free parking, which means paid for by all shoppers whether they need a parking space or not. The parking around retail outlets increase the walking distance. This makes people who can afford them more likely to buy a car.
How Do You Decide to Fight A Feedback Loop
The very, very first thing to bring into this self-interest. For people who like to drive, everything that forces people to drive makes everyone's life more miserable. More traffic congestion, more difficulty finding a parking space, and in places with "plenty" of parking, an endless walk to get from the car to the front door.
This is not about denying people the freedom to choose, it about providing them with the freedom to choose.
And, ultimately, We Americans Decide The Price of Our Gas when we decide how much we are going to burn up. The present high price of gas is demand and supply. We don't have substantial supplies to bring onto the market, so all we can do to push the price down is to take demand off the market.
Every single driver in America that does not want to pay $5, $7.50 or $10 per gallon should be cheering for as much to be done as quickly as possible to seduce some other American into using public transport.
Now, take that and add on top the tragedy of the oil being purchased with the blood of our men and women overseas, and it is not hard to want to change the driving forces. But only if we think about it ... with our hearts, as well as with our heads.
How Do You Fight A Feedback Loop
If we decide to fight these feedback loops, some straightforward steps are possible. I'm going to focus on one.
Now, the roadwork loop works in part by diverting funds into roadworks. If we set up our budget system so that funding public transport routes fights with funding roads for cars, then roads will win.
So flip that around. Bring public transport funding along for the ride. In particular, we can borrow to build public transport routes, as long as those routes are used ... because that investment will reduce our Energy Dependence, help reduce gasoline prices, and overall be good for our economy.
So, for every $1 in federal funding going to roads, $0.10 is allocated to the National Public Transport Fund. The money is allocated on a per-capita basis, for every country and each incorporated town or city. Under very simple rules, they can drawn on the fund so long as:
* they are devoting an equal amount from their own resources
* the infrastructure is used by public transport
* the infrastructure is not used by private transport
This harnesses the roadworks positive feedback loop to fight the vicious circle of declining patronage. The key is the per-capita allocation. The infrastructure subsidy is highest per rider in exactly those places where the viscious circle bites the deepest.
It also helps fight the income-segregation loop. There is a reason why dedicated-route systems attract higher-income riders on average than ordinary buses. A regular city bus that shares the road travels at the speed of traffic, when moving. And on top of that, it stops and starts for passengers. So a regular city bus is always slower than traffic. dedicated route system (Bus Rapid Transit, Light Rail, Monorail, Subway, High-Capacity Rail etc.), on the other hand, is not slowed down by traffic.
People on public transport because they cannot afford the alternative have to take whatever is available. People with higher incomes will take public transport if it offers them a benefit over driving. And its a dedicated route system that can offer a quicker trip to some of these people.
But, public transport is not possible where I live because ...
Public transport is impossible because ... these suburbs are not designed for it. This is a common problem.
Over the long term, it is possible to "infill" development, using availability of mass transit to and between key locations are part of the process. These examples from the Sierra Club give an idea of how this "retrofitting" process might work.
However, in the short term, once you have the support for constructing the route, you can start from the congestion, out, and anchor the "outer end" of a dedicated public transport route in a park and ride parking lot. After all, the purpose of this is to pull traffic off the road, so the target riders can get to the parking lot.
And, indeed, once people get used to that, then a short bus ride to connect to the dedicated public transport route allows them to leave the car at home.
A dedicated public transport route is impossible because ... there is no place to put the route.
"We can't go at ground level because the Interstate is in the way, and it costs too much to dig a subway".
I know for a fact that this is never true, because the Aerobus technology allows the route to be suspended, using suspension cable rather than obtrusive monorails. Pylons in this system can be placed as far as 2,000 feet apart. The present commercial applications are in a pair of locations in China, connecting an island city center to the remainder of the city on the coast, and providing a transport corridor for a city at the fork of a river.
For a technology that can be used to bridge rivers, or get from the mainland to a neighbouring island, getting over an intervening Interstate Highway is a piece of cake.
I have to be careful here ... I am not presenting this as a magic one-size-fits-all solution. There are upsides and downsides to subways, heavy and light rail on the ground, monorail, elevated heavy rail, and suspended light rail. What I am saying is, this is proof that a dedicated route can be put through, so the question becomes how many options are there, and which one to put in.
And I'll go even further than that ... which ones to put in. Once you have people on public transport, they are potential riders for other types of mass transport. Provide the interchange stations and make sure that the fares and ticketing work together. For example, the Bilbao Light Rail system, which provides an interconnection to two different heavy rail lines, and gives access to the major tourist attraction in the city, the Guggenheim Museum.
Public transport is impossible because ... nobody will use it.
This is a common view, but it is based on a simple, basic misperception. Most parts of America depend very heavily on cars for a wide range of transport tasks. It is easy to think, "everyone uses cars" and ask the question, "what system can replace that for everybody?"
This is thinking in stereotypes, where "most" turns into "all" and "few" turns into "none". However, what we need to do is to think on the margin. Out there, somewhere in your town, suburb or city, is someone who is the most likely to switch to public transport.
We know they are there, because $3/gallon gas is increasing public transport use!
Will they switch if you make quicker and more convenient services available to them. Of course they will. Does that mean that, automatically, most people will follow along? No, of course not.
With the kind of changes we will be making in the next ten year (assuming we start changing at all), most will still be driving for most purposes. Relatively few will be using public transport for relatively few purposes.
We are making headway as long as that is a smaller majority driving for a a smaller majority of purposes.
Social Engineering Versus Social Development
What is the bottom line? The bottom line is that I have no idea how much progress we will make if we start trying. But trying clearly offers better hope for success.
And what is the present federal policy: by and large, failing to try.
I am not going to sketch out a transportopia for you here. However, if a community with 5% public transport reliance shifts to 10% ... that is progress. That shifts the incentives to developers to cater to that market. That shifts incentives to retailers to cater to that market.
And the impact of those shifting incentives may not be big ... but they are better present than absent.
And there is more than that modest argument. There is also the point that in some places around the country, trying a little harder will spark off a substantial positive feedback loop. A suburban shopping mall is worried that it is losing business to the traditional streetside shopping, and provides a free door to door shuttle bus to the light rail station ... so people who only used the light rail for commuting can now pop by the mall on the way home ... and the property values of residences convenient to the light rail line goes up ... and developers work out a way for higher density housing to attract a middle class family ...
Or maybe another and completely different positive feedback loop.
That's why the policy has to be across the board, nationwide, no matter what some expert says about "what is the efficient investment". Its necessary to push everywhere, because somewhere, and we do not know where, the transport system only needs a little push to get over a hill and start rolling down the other side on its own.
by BruceMcF
Mon Jul 24, 2006 at 03:19:20 PM PDT
All to often, the idea of Energy Independence has its priorities reversed. Scratch under the surface, and all too often the question lurking is, "How can we get as close as possible to Energy Independence without any real changes in the way we live and move?"
Stop and think about that ... really think about it, with your heart instead of your habits of thought. People - good people - are fighting and dying right now in Iraq in an failing occupation, following a successful invasion ... in pursuit of a continued Energy Dependence policy.
In your heart, do you think that is a fair price to pay? If you do, do not read any further.
* BruceMcF's diary :: ::
*
The Real Question
The real question is, "What changes do we need to make to the way we live and move to accomplish Energy Independence?"
I have already sketched out the dimension of the problem on another site, starting with Real Energy Independence. We rely in imports for about 27% of our total energy needs ... and that is a value that is rising, as our total domestic energy supply has been stable, and our energy use has been rising.
So what does this mean? We either need to:
* make every single thing 37% more efficient (that is, 100/73, so we can do with 73% what we do now with 100%)
* make three quarters of our energy use 56% more efficient
* make half of our energy use 117% more efficient
* make one third of our energy use 555% more efficient
In other words, the narrower the range of things we change, the more radical the change has to be.
Now, we can make some headway on this by increasing our domestic energy supplies. For example, if Germany, with much higher population density, can obtain more than 3% of their electricity supply from wind, it does not seem impossible for the US to obtain 10% or more. Also, as discussed in another site, domestically grown biofuels ... if they are Bone Fide biofuels, and not Hoax Biofuels like corn-starch-ethanol ... can stretch our crude-oil based fuel supply.
But everything gets much, much easier if we make big gains in a big energy using industry. And that is why I have been focusing on Transport.
This diary focuses on public transport, because private transport is where so much of the problem lies.
Where Is The Feedback Loop?
If something seems like it is going headlong in one direction, without anybody deciding that it has to go that way ... the first step to understanding it is to ask, where is the positive feedback loop?
A positive feedback loop means that the consequence of a driving force has its own impact, which amplifies the driving force.
If something that seems like an obvious solution seems to keep getting stalled, never getting off the ground ... the first step to understanding it is to ask, where is the negative feedback loop?
A negative feedback loop means that the consequence of a driving force has its own impact, which undermines the driving force.
A lot of things built on a positive feedback loop seem to just "go on their own", without anybody doing the driving. They are self-amplifying. And a lot of things based on a negative feedback loop seem to just "run out of gas", without anybody standing in their way. They are self-braking.
One benefit of looking for positive and negative feedback loops is to protect us from going overboard in seeing a conspiracy behind every bush (or maybe that is a conspiracy behind every Bush).
To be sure, people do conspire. However, the burden of proof is on the conspiracy theorist, so it is important to rule out non-deliberate explanations anyway, even if only to strengthen the case.
And more importantly, when you find the aspect of the problem that is not a conspiracy, then nobody is doing that particular part of the problem on purpose. Any substantial change will generate opposition. A modest change that helps turns off a positive or negative feedback loop can therefore be a very strategic change to accomplish.
What are the private transport feedback loops
How did we get so dependent on a single form of transport? No human society has been this dependent on any single form of transport other than walking.
Positive feedback loop: Buy a car. Now there is another car on the road. That increases congestion. Too much congestion leads to demand for more expressways. More expressways mean people can settle further away from work. The further you live from work, the more miles you drive each day. The more miles everyone drives, the more congestion there is. The more congestion there is, the more demand there is for more expressways.
Negative feedback loop: Buy a car. Costs include operating costs and overheads. Public transport charges users for operating costs and overheads. You have an incentive to drive whenever feasible. Public transport overheads are spread across fewer fares, so fares are put up and/or services reduced. More users are encouraged to buy a car.
Positive Feedback Loop: Suppose higher income people are more likely to buy cars. Retailers want to attract these people. They offer free parking, which means paid for by all shoppers whether they need a parking space or not. The parking around retail outlets increase the walking distance. This makes people who can afford them more likely to buy a car.
How Do You Decide to Fight A Feedback Loop
The very, very first thing to bring into this self-interest. For people who like to drive, everything that forces people to drive makes everyone's life more miserable. More traffic congestion, more difficulty finding a parking space, and in places with "plenty" of parking, an endless walk to get from the car to the front door.
This is not about denying people the freedom to choose, it about providing them with the freedom to choose.
And, ultimately, We Americans Decide The Price of Our Gas when we decide how much we are going to burn up. The present high price of gas is demand and supply. We don't have substantial supplies to bring onto the market, so all we can do to push the price down is to take demand off the market.
Every single driver in America that does not want to pay $5, $7.50 or $10 per gallon should be cheering for as much to be done as quickly as possible to seduce some other American into using public transport.
Now, take that and add on top the tragedy of the oil being purchased with the blood of our men and women overseas, and it is not hard to want to change the driving forces. But only if we think about it ... with our hearts, as well as with our heads.
How Do You Fight A Feedback Loop
If we decide to fight these feedback loops, some straightforward steps are possible. I'm going to focus on one.
Now, the roadwork loop works in part by diverting funds into roadworks. If we set up our budget system so that funding public transport routes fights with funding roads for cars, then roads will win.
So flip that around. Bring public transport funding along for the ride. In particular, we can borrow to build public transport routes, as long as those routes are used ... because that investment will reduce our Energy Dependence, help reduce gasoline prices, and overall be good for our economy.
So, for every $1 in federal funding going to roads, $0.10 is allocated to the National Public Transport Fund. The money is allocated on a per-capita basis, for every country and each incorporated town or city. Under very simple rules, they can drawn on the fund so long as:
* they are devoting an equal amount from their own resources
* the infrastructure is used by public transport
* the infrastructure is not used by private transport
This harnesses the roadworks positive feedback loop to fight the vicious circle of declining patronage. The key is the per-capita allocation. The infrastructure subsidy is highest per rider in exactly those places where the viscious circle bites the deepest.
It also helps fight the income-segregation loop. There is a reason why dedicated-route systems attract higher-income riders on average than ordinary buses. A regular city bus that shares the road travels at the speed of traffic, when moving. And on top of that, it stops and starts for passengers. So a regular city bus is always slower than traffic. dedicated route system (Bus Rapid Transit, Light Rail, Monorail, Subway, High-Capacity Rail etc.), on the other hand, is not slowed down by traffic.
People on public transport because they cannot afford the alternative have to take whatever is available. People with higher incomes will take public transport if it offers them a benefit over driving. And its a dedicated route system that can offer a quicker trip to some of these people.
But, public transport is not possible where I live because ...
Public transport is impossible because ... these suburbs are not designed for it. This is a common problem.
Over the long term, it is possible to "infill" development, using availability of mass transit to and between key locations are part of the process. These examples from the Sierra Club give an idea of how this "retrofitting" process might work.
However, in the short term, once you have the support for constructing the route, you can start from the congestion, out, and anchor the "outer end" of a dedicated public transport route in a park and ride parking lot. After all, the purpose of this is to pull traffic off the road, so the target riders can get to the parking lot.
And, indeed, once people get used to that, then a short bus ride to connect to the dedicated public transport route allows them to leave the car at home.
A dedicated public transport route is impossible because ... there is no place to put the route.
"We can't go at ground level because the Interstate is in the way, and it costs too much to dig a subway".
I know for a fact that this is never true, because the Aerobus technology allows the route to be suspended, using suspension cable rather than obtrusive monorails. Pylons in this system can be placed as far as 2,000 feet apart. The present commercial applications are in a pair of locations in China, connecting an island city center to the remainder of the city on the coast, and providing a transport corridor for a city at the fork of a river.
For a technology that can be used to bridge rivers, or get from the mainland to a neighbouring island, getting over an intervening Interstate Highway is a piece of cake.
I have to be careful here ... I am not presenting this as a magic one-size-fits-all solution. There are upsides and downsides to subways, heavy and light rail on the ground, monorail, elevated heavy rail, and suspended light rail. What I am saying is, this is proof that a dedicated route can be put through, so the question becomes how many options are there, and which one to put in.
And I'll go even further than that ... which ones to put in. Once you have people on public transport, they are potential riders for other types of mass transport. Provide the interchange stations and make sure that the fares and ticketing work together. For example, the Bilbao Light Rail system, which provides an interconnection to two different heavy rail lines, and gives access to the major tourist attraction in the city, the Guggenheim Museum.
Public transport is impossible because ... nobody will use it.
This is a common view, but it is based on a simple, basic misperception. Most parts of America depend very heavily on cars for a wide range of transport tasks. It is easy to think, "everyone uses cars" and ask the question, "what system can replace that for everybody?"
This is thinking in stereotypes, where "most" turns into "all" and "few" turns into "none". However, what we need to do is to think on the margin. Out there, somewhere in your town, suburb or city, is someone who is the most likely to switch to public transport.
We know they are there, because $3/gallon gas is increasing public transport use!
Will they switch if you make quicker and more convenient services available to them. Of course they will. Does that mean that, automatically, most people will follow along? No, of course not.
With the kind of changes we will be making in the next ten year (assuming we start changing at all), most will still be driving for most purposes. Relatively few will be using public transport for relatively few purposes.
We are making headway as long as that is a smaller majority driving for a a smaller majority of purposes.
Social Engineering Versus Social Development
What is the bottom line? The bottom line is that I have no idea how much progress we will make if we start trying. But trying clearly offers better hope for success.
And what is the present federal policy: by and large, failing to try.
I am not going to sketch out a transportopia for you here. However, if a community with 5% public transport reliance shifts to 10% ... that is progress. That shifts the incentives to developers to cater to that market. That shifts incentives to retailers to cater to that market.
And the impact of those shifting incentives may not be big ... but they are better present than absent.
And there is more than that modest argument. There is also the point that in some places around the country, trying a little harder will spark off a substantial positive feedback loop. A suburban shopping mall is worried that it is losing business to the traditional streetside shopping, and provides a free door to door shuttle bus to the light rail station ... so people who only used the light rail for commuting can now pop by the mall on the way home ... and the property values of residences convenient to the light rail line goes up ... and developers work out a way for higher density housing to attract a middle class family ...
Or maybe another and completely different positive feedback loop.
That's why the policy has to be across the board, nationwide, no matter what some expert says about "what is the efficient investment". Its necessary to push everywhere, because somewhere, and we do not know where, the transport system only needs a little push to get over a hill and start rolling down the other side on its own.
The End of Roe v. Wade: The El Salvador Experience
If you like voting Republican because of the "fiscal conservatism," never mind that they tend to run up the biggest deficits - let's also be very clear what you're inherently supporting with your vote - an aggressive and intrusive pro-life position.
This article is from an ECONOMIC newsletter that I receive, one that's SO conservative that sometimes it causes me to gnash my teeth. This is what an educated, thinking conservative believes about the pro-life movement (this is a fair use excerpt, not my work:)
In the latest battle between pro-choicers and pro-lifers, in March of this year, South Dakota passed legislation to ban all abortions, except those that are necessary to save a woman's life.
Of course, state law cannot override the 1973 landmark Roe v. Wade ruling by the Supreme Court that protects the right to an abortion under the Fourth Amendment's right to privacy. So why the new state law?
Simple. If pro-choice groups like Planned Parenthood challenge South Dakota's decision in court, the issue might be taken all the way to the top. Which is exactly what the state's lawmakers hope for. With the help of pro-life Supreme Court judges like Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas--as well as the recently appointed conservatives John Roberts and Samuel Alito--they believe Roe v. Wade may soon be a goner. Which could in turn trigger a landslide of anti-abortion legislation in other states.
According to the Alan Guttmacher Institute, a non-profit corporation for reproductive health research, policy analysis and public education, 18 states currently have laws in place that could be used to restrict abortions.
Illinois, Kentucky and Louisiana have so-called "trigger" laws that would come into effect as soon as Roe v. Wade has been overturned. And in 13 other states--Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Delaware, Massachusetts, Michigan, Mississippi, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Vermont, West Virginia, and Wisconsin--a pre-Roe abortion ban is still on the books. In some cases, like Vermont, the ban was deemed unconstitutional by the state's Supreme Court and so might not be immediately enforceable in the event of a Roe repeal at the federal level.
While we will duck addressing the morality of one side of the underlying arguments or another, we thought a look at the possible consequences of an overturning of Roe v. Wade would be of interest.
And on that front, no place in the world provides a more useful or current model than El Salvador.
In an April 9 article titled "Pro-Life Nation," the New York Times Magazine reported: "In this new movement toward criminalization, El Salvador is in the vanguard. The array of exceptions that tend to exist even in countries where abortion is circumscribed--rape, incest, fetal malformation, life of the mother--don't apply in El Salvador. They were rejected in the late 1990's, in a period after the country's long civil war ended. The country's penal system was revamped and its constitution was amended. Abortion is now absolutely forbidden in every possible circumstance. No exceptions."
What that kind of harsh legislation can lead to is vividly described by NYT journalist Jack Hitt: "El Salvador... has not only a total ban on abortion but also an active law-enforcement apparatus--the police, investigators, medical spies, forensic vagina inspectors and a special division of the prosecutor's office responsible for Crimes Against Minors and Women, a unit charged with capturing, trying and incarcerating an unusual kind of criminal."
Generally, the abortion provider faces 6 to 12 years in prison, the woman herself 2 to 8 years, and anyone who helps her 2 to 5 years. Still, if it is deemed that the fetus was viable, prison time for the woman can be upped to 30-50 years.
Far from preventing abortions altogether, the country's strict laws have driven women to back-alley abortions and do-it-yourself attempts, with varying success.
Since their implementation, teen suicide attempts have mysteriously skyrocketed. "According to a study on attempted suicide and teen pregnancy published last year by academics at the University of El Salvador, some girls who poison their wombs with agricultural pesticide (its efficacy being a Salvadoran urban legend) would rather report the cause of their resulting hospital visit as 'attempted suicide,' which is not as felonious a crime nor as socially unbearable as abortion," states Hitt.
A popular solution among Salvadoran women is the ulcer drug misoprostol that, when inserted in the vagina, can cause contractions and bleeding that will look like a miscarriage to hospital personnel.
Hospital staff is obliged to report suspicious cases to the authorities. Investigators will then come in and start gathering evidence for an abortion, including interviews with family and friends, the woman's medical records, and forensic exams of her vagina and uterus as a "search of the crime scene."
The flipside, says Hitt, are the truly life-threatening complications that can arise, for example in the case of an ectopic pregnancy. In an ectopic pregnancy, the fertilized egg fails to move into the uterus and instead gets stuck in the fallopian tube--a condition that, as the fetus grows, inevitably leads to the rupture of the fallopian tube, killing the fetus and often the mother as well.
But under El Salvador law, physicians are not allowed to terminate a woman's pregnancy until it is certain that the fetus is dead, no matter what the risks for the mother--which has proven to be a precarious tightrope walk for hospital emergency staff.
However oppressive the Salvadoran abortion laws, some U.S. pundits seem to find them appealing. Rev. Thomas J. Euteneuer, head of Virginia-based Human Life International, says "El Salvador is an inspiration," calling it an important victory in the "counterrevolution of conscience." And Rep. Jim DeMint (SC-R), when asked in a 2004 interview with Tim Russert whether he would prosecute the woman in cases of abortion, danced around the issue by suggesting that "Congress should outlaw all abortions first and worry about the fallout later."
Act first, think later: A virtual guarantee for trouble ahead.
[We'd like to hear our readers' opinion on this no doubt emotion-laden matter. Send us your thoughts at feedback@caseyresearch.com.]
This article is from an ECONOMIC newsletter that I receive, one that's SO conservative that sometimes it causes me to gnash my teeth. This is what an educated, thinking conservative believes about the pro-life movement (this is a fair use excerpt, not my work:)
In the latest battle between pro-choicers and pro-lifers, in March of this year, South Dakota passed legislation to ban all abortions, except those that are necessary to save a woman's life.
Of course, state law cannot override the 1973 landmark Roe v. Wade ruling by the Supreme Court that protects the right to an abortion under the Fourth Amendment's right to privacy. So why the new state law?
Simple. If pro-choice groups like Planned Parenthood challenge South Dakota's decision in court, the issue might be taken all the way to the top. Which is exactly what the state's lawmakers hope for. With the help of pro-life Supreme Court judges like Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas--as well as the recently appointed conservatives John Roberts and Samuel Alito--they believe Roe v. Wade may soon be a goner. Which could in turn trigger a landslide of anti-abortion legislation in other states.
According to the Alan Guttmacher Institute, a non-profit corporation for reproductive health research, policy analysis and public education, 18 states currently have laws in place that could be used to restrict abortions.
Illinois, Kentucky and Louisiana have so-called "trigger" laws that would come into effect as soon as Roe v. Wade has been overturned. And in 13 other states--Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Delaware, Massachusetts, Michigan, Mississippi, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Vermont, West Virginia, and Wisconsin--a pre-Roe abortion ban is still on the books. In some cases, like Vermont, the ban was deemed unconstitutional by the state's Supreme Court and so might not be immediately enforceable in the event of a Roe repeal at the federal level.
While we will duck addressing the morality of one side of the underlying arguments or another, we thought a look at the possible consequences of an overturning of Roe v. Wade would be of interest.
And on that front, no place in the world provides a more useful or current model than El Salvador.
In an April 9 article titled "Pro-Life Nation," the New York Times Magazine reported: "In this new movement toward criminalization, El Salvador is in the vanguard. The array of exceptions that tend to exist even in countries where abortion is circumscribed--rape, incest, fetal malformation, life of the mother--don't apply in El Salvador. They were rejected in the late 1990's, in a period after the country's long civil war ended. The country's penal system was revamped and its constitution was amended. Abortion is now absolutely forbidden in every possible circumstance. No exceptions."
What that kind of harsh legislation can lead to is vividly described by NYT journalist Jack Hitt: "El Salvador... has not only a total ban on abortion but also an active law-enforcement apparatus--the police, investigators, medical spies, forensic vagina inspectors and a special division of the prosecutor's office responsible for Crimes Against Minors and Women, a unit charged with capturing, trying and incarcerating an unusual kind of criminal."
Generally, the abortion provider faces 6 to 12 years in prison, the woman herself 2 to 8 years, and anyone who helps her 2 to 5 years. Still, if it is deemed that the fetus was viable, prison time for the woman can be upped to 30-50 years.
Far from preventing abortions altogether, the country's strict laws have driven women to back-alley abortions and do-it-yourself attempts, with varying success.
Since their implementation, teen suicide attempts have mysteriously skyrocketed. "According to a study on attempted suicide and teen pregnancy published last year by academics at the University of El Salvador, some girls who poison their wombs with agricultural pesticide (its efficacy being a Salvadoran urban legend) would rather report the cause of their resulting hospital visit as 'attempted suicide,' which is not as felonious a crime nor as socially unbearable as abortion," states Hitt.
A popular solution among Salvadoran women is the ulcer drug misoprostol that, when inserted in the vagina, can cause contractions and bleeding that will look like a miscarriage to hospital personnel.
Hospital staff is obliged to report suspicious cases to the authorities. Investigators will then come in and start gathering evidence for an abortion, including interviews with family and friends, the woman's medical records, and forensic exams of her vagina and uterus as a "search of the crime scene."
The flipside, says Hitt, are the truly life-threatening complications that can arise, for example in the case of an ectopic pregnancy. In an ectopic pregnancy, the fertilized egg fails to move into the uterus and instead gets stuck in the fallopian tube--a condition that, as the fetus grows, inevitably leads to the rupture of the fallopian tube, killing the fetus and often the mother as well.
But under El Salvador law, physicians are not allowed to terminate a woman's pregnancy until it is certain that the fetus is dead, no matter what the risks for the mother--which has proven to be a precarious tightrope walk for hospital emergency staff.
However oppressive the Salvadoran abortion laws, some U.S. pundits seem to find them appealing. Rev. Thomas J. Euteneuer, head of Virginia-based Human Life International, says "El Salvador is an inspiration," calling it an important victory in the "counterrevolution of conscience." And Rep. Jim DeMint (SC-R), when asked in a 2004 interview with Tim Russert whether he would prosecute the woman in cases of abortion, danced around the issue by suggesting that "Congress should outlaw all abortions first and worry about the fallout later."
Act first, think later: A virtual guarantee for trouble ahead.
[We'd like to hear our readers' opinion on this no doubt emotion-laden matter. Send us your thoughts at feedback@caseyresearch.com.]
Tuesday, July 25, 2006
Tuesday - waiting for the monsoon
Which (the monsoon) seems not to be coming. I've been cleaning these last few minutes; reorganizing the metal desk, going through unpaid bills and indexing them, going through paid bills and filing them, trying to create more space for myself here. it's not all glamour, you know!
For my next trick, a bunch of shredding! Then, I'll have the room to spread these papers out and sort them. My filing stack just keeps getting bigger, and bigger. Maybe tonight.
three hours later
Well, some amazing things have taken place - I laminated the men's health wallet cards that I've been toting around for nearly ten years - FINALLY. Now, I just have to cut them into individual cards and voila!
I've folded, tossed, shredded, cleaned, organized, tallied, paid, written ..
For my next trick, a bunch of shredding! Then, I'll have the room to spread these papers out and sort them. My filing stack just keeps getting bigger, and bigger. Maybe tonight.
three hours later
Well, some amazing things have taken place - I laminated the men's health wallet cards that I've been toting around for nearly ten years - FINALLY. Now, I just have to cut them into individual cards and voila!
I've folded, tossed, shredded, cleaned, organized, tallied, paid, written ..
Monday, July 24, 2006
Monday, Monday ver. 826.01
So, last night, I was fiddling around on the internet ('cause that's what I do.) In my fiddling, I went from big airplanes for sale (because I saw one on a newsgroup) to little airplanes for sale (scale models) to looking for little Hitler airplanes to finding out that Hitler's personal airplane in 1938 was painted EXACTLY the way I dreamed it.
How about that? Isn't that something?
Been working today; filing, receipts, research, loans, paperwork, teleconference, lunch with Chuck, reaming out the HEB pharma manager, picking up the mail, making bank deposits, paying bills, emails, writing a business proposal.. and laundry. I still feel like I was lazy today.
I'm watching "Foul Play" with Chevy Chase and Goldie Hawn. Seeing all of the cars from my teen years is pretty cool. I had forgotten the car chase scene with the Japanese couple who are in the back of the highjacked limo. Fun stuff.
Talked a bunch with Secret Agent Man again today. Was hoping to spend time with him.
I guess it's time to start looking for another place to hang my hat(s.) This place is going to be unavailable in about another six weeks.
How about that? Isn't that something?
Been working today; filing, receipts, research, loans, paperwork, teleconference, lunch with Chuck, reaming out the HEB pharma manager, picking up the mail, making bank deposits, paying bills, emails, writing a business proposal.. and laundry. I still feel like I was lazy today.
I'm watching "Foul Play" with Chevy Chase and Goldie Hawn. Seeing all of the cars from my teen years is pretty cool. I had forgotten the car chase scene with the Japanese couple who are in the back of the highjacked limo. Fun stuff.
Talked a bunch with Secret Agent Man again today. Was hoping to spend time with him.
I guess it's time to start looking for another place to hang my hat(s.) This place is going to be unavailable in about another six weeks.
Sunday, July 23, 2006
Sunday evening signals
So, the last four days have been jam-packed with work, meetings, driving, church, meals, more driving, telephone calls until the battery is dead, more meals, more driving, more church, more driving...
And two naps.
Last night, watched a great movie - now watching another. You can check out what movies I've been watching on my 360 site, or you could ask to be a netflix friend with me.
I'm assiduously avoiding the telephone tonight - i need some decompression time before another packed work week. I need to work on the church's website tonight, though.
And two naps.
Last night, watched a great movie - now watching another. You can check out what movies I've been watching on my 360 site, or you could ask to be a netflix friend with me.
I'm assiduously avoiding the telephone tonight - i need some decompression time before another packed work week. I need to work on the church's website tonight, though.
What Did You Expect, America?
From Daily Kos
by SusanG
Sat Jul 22, 2006 at 03:16:59 PM PDT
Would you hire a babysitter who hates children and thinks they should be eliminated? Or who declares for years in your hearing that children are irritants who should be starved to be small, unseen and mute?
Would you hire cops who think laws are stupid and useless and should be abolished?
Would you hire a conductor for your orchestra who believes music itself an abomination?
Then why would you hire - and you did hire them, America; they are your employees, after all, not your rulers, despite their grandiose pretensions - members of a political party who think government is useless, ineffective, bloated and untrustworthy?
You've hired for your kitchen the chef who spits in your food because he despises preparing meals.
You've hired for your yardwork the gardener who sets out to kill your roses to demonstrate his assertion that they will die in your climate.
You've hired for your office the accountant who's staked his career on proving no accurate books can be kept.
In electing Republicans, America, you put people in charge of institutions they overtly, caustically loathe and proudly proclaim should not exist. Good thinking, USA, and stellar results: Katrina, Iraq, Medicare D, trade and budget deficits, mine disasters and on and on and on and ...
Conservatives have declared officially for decades that they hate public programs and love private business. Why then, do Americans profess shock when these same people run the public credit card up to bunker-busting levels to line the pockets of friendly corporations, leaving taxpayers - current and the as-yet unborn - the bill? It's the dine and ditch mentality writ large, and American citizens are the unfortunate waiters having their lowly pay docked to cover the deadbeat loss - and their future grandchildren's pay docked as well.
We are witnessing an orchestrated, unprecedented transfer of public wealth to private pockets, a national one-party feeding frenzy that's making beggars and beseechers of us all, and yet many Americans stand around muttering in a daze of semi-apathetic befuddlement about gosh darn how did all this come to be and how sure as shit, uh-huh, those Republicans shore were right, government doesn't do a the little guy a damn bit of good, no sirree bob. Better drown it some more. Cut them taxes, privatize something, anything, pronto!
Kee-rist on a pogo stick.
If you put people in charge of running a project they are ideologically committed to proving a failure, it will fail.
Seems pretty straightforward to me. But hey, I'm a Democrat. You know, one of those people who think universal quality public education is a massive good to society, that maintaining our highways and levees and bridges and dams is part of what makes this country great, that paying first-responders and nurses what they're worth helps guarantee our public health and safety, that providing for fellow citizens who fall on hard times is not only the ethical thing to do, but the pragmatic one, ensuring that this country does not incubate a permanently inflamed and disgruntled underclass ready to drop a match on a pool of social gasoline.
Here's a thought - just a thought, mind you, beloved America: Perhaps it's time to return to government the party that has an ideological stake in making it ... you know ... succeed. Maybe, just maybe, it's time to raise our sights a wee bit and elect people who think public service is more than an opportunity for the "Biggest! Fire Sale! Ever!" for their friends and loved ones. Perhaps it's time to insist on greater - if not great - expectations from the employees we decide to hire or fire every two years to carry out our will under the constitution.
As one-party Republican rule has clearly shown, when you expect incompetence, corruption and deceit from your government, you get exactly what you vote for. In spades.
by SusanG
Sat Jul 22, 2006 at 03:16:59 PM PDT
Would you hire a babysitter who hates children and thinks they should be eliminated? Or who declares for years in your hearing that children are irritants who should be starved to be small, unseen and mute?
Would you hire cops who think laws are stupid and useless and should be abolished?
Would you hire a conductor for your orchestra who believes music itself an abomination?
Then why would you hire - and you did hire them, America; they are your employees, after all, not your rulers, despite their grandiose pretensions - members of a political party who think government is useless, ineffective, bloated and untrustworthy?
You've hired for your kitchen the chef who spits in your food because he despises preparing meals.
You've hired for your yardwork the gardener who sets out to kill your roses to demonstrate his assertion that they will die in your climate.
You've hired for your office the accountant who's staked his career on proving no accurate books can be kept.
In electing Republicans, America, you put people in charge of institutions they overtly, caustically loathe and proudly proclaim should not exist. Good thinking, USA, and stellar results: Katrina, Iraq, Medicare D, trade and budget deficits, mine disasters and on and on and on and ...
Conservatives have declared officially for decades that they hate public programs and love private business. Why then, do Americans profess shock when these same people run the public credit card up to bunker-busting levels to line the pockets of friendly corporations, leaving taxpayers - current and the as-yet unborn - the bill? It's the dine and ditch mentality writ large, and American citizens are the unfortunate waiters having their lowly pay docked to cover the deadbeat loss - and their future grandchildren's pay docked as well.
We are witnessing an orchestrated, unprecedented transfer of public wealth to private pockets, a national one-party feeding frenzy that's making beggars and beseechers of us all, and yet many Americans stand around muttering in a daze of semi-apathetic befuddlement about gosh darn how did all this come to be and how sure as shit, uh-huh, those Republicans shore were right, government doesn't do a the little guy a damn bit of good, no sirree bob. Better drown it some more. Cut them taxes, privatize something, anything, pronto!
Kee-rist on a pogo stick.
If you put people in charge of running a project they are ideologically committed to proving a failure, it will fail.
Seems pretty straightforward to me. But hey, I'm a Democrat. You know, one of those people who think universal quality public education is a massive good to society, that maintaining our highways and levees and bridges and dams is part of what makes this country great, that paying first-responders and nurses what they're worth helps guarantee our public health and safety, that providing for fellow citizens who fall on hard times is not only the ethical thing to do, but the pragmatic one, ensuring that this country does not incubate a permanently inflamed and disgruntled underclass ready to drop a match on a pool of social gasoline.
Here's a thought - just a thought, mind you, beloved America: Perhaps it's time to return to government the party that has an ideological stake in making it ... you know ... succeed. Maybe, just maybe, it's time to raise our sights a wee bit and elect people who think public service is more than an opportunity for the "Biggest! Fire Sale! Ever!" for their friends and loved ones. Perhaps it's time to insist on greater - if not great - expectations from the employees we decide to hire or fire every two years to carry out our will under the constitution.
As one-party Republican rule has clearly shown, when you expect incompetence, corruption and deceit from your government, you get exactly what you vote for. In spades.
Friday, July 21, 2006
Matthews, Buchanan Eviscerate Neocons
From Daily Kos
by georgia10
Fri Jul 21, 2006 at 07:04:02 AM PDT
I have a love-hate relationship with Chris Matthews. OK, it's mostly a hate relationship, in that I hate his documented record of being so misleading and so fundamentally wrong on so many issues.
But, I must give credit where credit is due. In those rare occasions where Matthews gets it right, he hits it out of the ballpark.
As Hunter pointed out, Newt Gingrich, Bill O'Reilly, Bill Kristol, Rich Lowry, and Rush Limbaugh are among a disturbing number of conservatives who are calling for an all-out world war.
These conservatives have an insatiable appetite for conflict and a maniacal desire to try all 31 flavors war. They want to use events in the Mideast as an excuse to invade any country whose citizens dare to call God "Allah." But their calls for a wider war are not the result of some warped idea that the sound of rockets pounding in neighborhoods will lull the hate to sleep. Nope. They. Just. Want. War.
I offer for your morning enjoyment a serving of pure, unfiltered truth about the neocons who have been calling for a wider war. From Wednesday's Hardball episode, here is Chris Matthews taking them on:
MATTHEWS: I just wonder, Pat, about just the simple history. We know from looking at the Arab world as we've come to understand it, that there is this division there among the Shia who are on the outs and are becoming to be the ins, of course, in Iraq and certainly already control Iran. Taking on the Sunnis that's a world we are only vaguely understanding. That's a thousand year old war. Do you think we are creating another thousand year war by killing so many Arabs? I've been afraid of this war from day one because I've always felt, based on history, every time you kill somebody, you've got his brother, his mother, his family coming back to get you. We've killed 50,000 Iraqi's in a war that was supposed to be a two-day wonder. When are we going to notice that the neocons don't know what they're talking about. They're not looking at this country's long term interest. They're bound up in regional and global ideology and they have had no experience, I'll say it again, in even a school yard fight. They don't know what physical fighting is all about. They went to school and were intellectuals but they want our government to be their big brother. I don't get it. I don't know why we keep falling for it. And the president, you say, is he free of these guys or not?
And from Pat Buchanan:
Are these people nuts? You've got to ask yourself. I certainly hope the president is not listening to them because I really question whether they've got America's national interest at heart. They're calling for wars against people that never attacked us. I don't care how bad they are. There are wicked people all over this world but you don't go after people unless they come after you.
by georgia10
Fri Jul 21, 2006 at 07:04:02 AM PDT
I have a love-hate relationship with Chris Matthews. OK, it's mostly a hate relationship, in that I hate his documented record of being so misleading and so fundamentally wrong on so many issues.
But, I must give credit where credit is due. In those rare occasions where Matthews gets it right, he hits it out of the ballpark.
As Hunter pointed out, Newt Gingrich, Bill O'Reilly, Bill Kristol, Rich Lowry, and Rush Limbaugh are among a disturbing number of conservatives who are calling for an all-out world war.
These conservatives have an insatiable appetite for conflict and a maniacal desire to try all 31 flavors war. They want to use events in the Mideast as an excuse to invade any country whose citizens dare to call God "Allah." But their calls for a wider war are not the result of some warped idea that the sound of rockets pounding in neighborhoods will lull the hate to sleep. Nope. They. Just. Want. War.
I offer for your morning enjoyment a serving of pure, unfiltered truth about the neocons who have been calling for a wider war. From Wednesday's Hardball episode, here is Chris Matthews taking them on:
MATTHEWS: I just wonder, Pat, about just the simple history. We know from looking at the Arab world as we've come to understand it, that there is this division there among the Shia who are on the outs and are becoming to be the ins, of course, in Iraq and certainly already control Iran. Taking on the Sunnis that's a world we are only vaguely understanding. That's a thousand year old war. Do you think we are creating another thousand year war by killing so many Arabs? I've been afraid of this war from day one because I've always felt, based on history, every time you kill somebody, you've got his brother, his mother, his family coming back to get you. We've killed 50,000 Iraqi's in a war that was supposed to be a two-day wonder. When are we going to notice that the neocons don't know what they're talking about. They're not looking at this country's long term interest. They're bound up in regional and global ideology and they have had no experience, I'll say it again, in even a school yard fight. They don't know what physical fighting is all about. They went to school and were intellectuals but they want our government to be their big brother. I don't get it. I don't know why we keep falling for it. And the president, you say, is he free of these guys or not?
And from Pat Buchanan:
Are these people nuts? You've got to ask yourself. I certainly hope the president is not listening to them because I really question whether they've got America's national interest at heart. They're calling for wars against people that never attacked us. I don't care how bad they are. There are wicked people all over this world but you don't go after people unless they come after you.
Thursday, July 20, 2006
And yet
Another person who knew nothing of my nascent employment today - something I've known about for nearly two months, maybe three, have been talking about (but only to people who interview me for what is happening in my life, instead of expecting a monologue.)
Good lord, though, the office is going to be in Del Lago. It's a gorgeous place, but ..can you imagine? Up the beltway to I-45 and THEN, the drive JUST gets started. Six bucks in tolls a day, and about 100 miles a day in driving. But, it's very exciting.
I learned so much today - why cell phones are called "cell," what GSM stands for, how GSM works, how TDMA works, how GDMA works, how CDMA works (it's really the best system,) and much more. It was a great meeting.
But, I left the house at 6:45 a.m. (as Guy said .. "are the roads even open at that hour?") And got home at 8:00 ON a conference call for NV, which lasted until 9:00. So, I'm out of meds, I'm out of food, didn't have time to pick something up, and have to leave the house tomorrow at 7:45 AFTER printing up a bunch of material, which has to be copied and pasted into a word document, because what I printed off the website last night was unreadable.
I just wanted to hop into the pool. I had this notion of coming home, pouring a jug o'wine into my enormous glass, and nattering with Brambo - who was to be coming home from work at 8:00. HAH! I said "8:00? You mean 10:00." Even my cynical estimate was off by at least two hours.
This office building that we met in today; oof! One walks into the lobby, and it's .. lavish. With a bullet-proof reception area. Continental Airlines has built their disaster recovery center in there - which I caught a glimpse of today. Excellent stuff.
I've run through two phone battery charges today (a two hour conference call will do that for you) and driven just over 100 miles. I was out of bed at 5:30, and will repeat THAT little trick in the morning.
(sigh) Lovely stuff, eh?
Had a phone call from Babs today - but, can't call her back until Monday.
Talked to my Dad today; yurg. What a happy guy. He's going to spend the weekend with his sisters, which should be like the Chinese Water Torture. Let me rephrase that - it should be like the Relentless Chinese Water Torture.
Tom's back in circulation, Chuck's been busy as a bee, and I think I may have some time to myself on Monday after six. SAM hasn't responded to my email from last night, which is par for the course. I think I may be headed off to Korea for a few days (if I play my cards right) and that could be WAY fun, plus give me non-stop OnePass miles.
Who knows? We'll see where this all leads.
I need some sleep. And a shower. Or a shower and some sleep.
Tomorrow's coffee conversation in church is going to be about Peak Oil. That should be fun. I'll whip everyone into a froth and them smooth them out like a big ol' latte.
Good lord, though, the office is going to be in Del Lago. It's a gorgeous place, but ..can you imagine? Up the beltway to I-45 and THEN, the drive JUST gets started. Six bucks in tolls a day, and about 100 miles a day in driving. But, it's very exciting.
I learned so much today - why cell phones are called "cell," what GSM stands for, how GSM works, how TDMA works, how GDMA works, how CDMA works (it's really the best system,) and much more. It was a great meeting.
But, I left the house at 6:45 a.m. (as Guy said .. "are the roads even open at that hour?") And got home at 8:00 ON a conference call for NV, which lasted until 9:00. So, I'm out of meds, I'm out of food, didn't have time to pick something up, and have to leave the house tomorrow at 7:45 AFTER printing up a bunch of material, which has to be copied and pasted into a word document, because what I printed off the website last night was unreadable.
I just wanted to hop into the pool. I had this notion of coming home, pouring a jug o'wine into my enormous glass, and nattering with Brambo - who was to be coming home from work at 8:00. HAH! I said "8:00? You mean 10:00." Even my cynical estimate was off by at least two hours.
This office building that we met in today; oof! One walks into the lobby, and it's .. lavish. With a bullet-proof reception area. Continental Airlines has built their disaster recovery center in there - which I caught a glimpse of today. Excellent stuff.
I've run through two phone battery charges today (a two hour conference call will do that for you) and driven just over 100 miles. I was out of bed at 5:30, and will repeat THAT little trick in the morning.
(sigh) Lovely stuff, eh?
Had a phone call from Babs today - but, can't call her back until Monday.
Talked to my Dad today; yurg. What a happy guy. He's going to spend the weekend with his sisters, which should be like the Chinese Water Torture. Let me rephrase that - it should be like the Relentless Chinese Water Torture.
Tom's back in circulation, Chuck's been busy as a bee, and I think I may have some time to myself on Monday after six. SAM hasn't responded to my email from last night, which is par for the course. I think I may be headed off to Korea for a few days (if I play my cards right) and that could be WAY fun, plus give me non-stop OnePass miles.
Who knows? We'll see where this all leads.
I need some sleep. And a shower. Or a shower and some sleep.
Tomorrow's coffee conversation in church is going to be about Peak Oil. That should be fun. I'll whip everyone into a froth and them smooth them out like a big ol' latte.
Excellent humor about the stem cell veto
From Daily Kos
by Bill in Portland Maine
Thu Jul 20, 2006 at 05:04:56 AM PDT
From the Blastocyst Community Bulletin...
There will be a new blastocyst orientation session at the Federal Building on Market Street at 2pm (use the side door). All blastocysts will receive a Social Security number, $50 cash and a free copy of the Employment Times.
-
The annual Blastocyst pancake supper will be held at the Grange Hall Sunday from 6am `til 11am. Cost is $5 ($3 for embryoblasts 8 days and under). Because of last year's maple syrup disaster, powdered sugar will be substituted.
-
FOR SALE---framed portrait of President Bush signing the Blastocyst Civil Rights Act of 2006. Autographed on back by Sen. Brownback. $10 + s&h. 555-1323.
-
All of us at BCB mourn the passing of associate editor Hank Grindle, 12 days, a long-standing member of the local blastocyst community for 7 days and 3 hours. In lieu of flowers, contributions can be made to the VFW. Our condolences to Gladys, his wife of 10 days and 8 hours.
-
BLASTOCYST ROOMMATE wanted to share 2-bedroom apartment on west end. $575 + utilities. Non-smoker preferred. Pets negotiable. No vacuum cleaners. 555-3421.
-
BLASTAEROBICS! Come move and groove to a hip-hop beat at Marcy's Gym. Great way to make friends while increasing your lifespan by up to 36 hours! You'll have a BLAST! 555-MOVEIT.
-
FOR SALE: Petri dish. 4-inch diameter, like new. Only used by my grandmother on Sunday. $10 or best offer. 555-9845.
-
Feeling small? Join the Dale Carnegie blastocyst support group. Professional moderator helps you speak with confidence and raise self-esteem. Stay afterward for free résumé-building workshop.
by Bill in Portland Maine
Thu Jul 20, 2006 at 05:04:56 AM PDT
From the Blastocyst Community Bulletin...
There will be a new blastocyst orientation session at the Federal Building on Market Street at 2pm (use the side door). All blastocysts will receive a Social Security number, $50 cash and a free copy of the Employment Times.
-
The annual Blastocyst pancake supper will be held at the Grange Hall Sunday from 6am `til 11am. Cost is $5 ($3 for embryoblasts 8 days and under). Because of last year's maple syrup disaster, powdered sugar will be substituted.
-
FOR SALE---framed portrait of President Bush signing the Blastocyst Civil Rights Act of 2006. Autographed on back by Sen. Brownback. $10 + s&h. 555-1323.
-
All of us at BCB mourn the passing of associate editor Hank Grindle, 12 days, a long-standing member of the local blastocyst community for 7 days and 3 hours. In lieu of flowers, contributions can be made to the VFW. Our condolences to Gladys, his wife of 10 days and 8 hours.
-
BLASTOCYST ROOMMATE wanted to share 2-bedroom apartment on west end. $575 + utilities. Non-smoker preferred. Pets negotiable. No vacuum cleaners. 555-3421.
-
BLASTAEROBICS! Come move and groove to a hip-hop beat at Marcy's Gym. Great way to make friends while increasing your lifespan by up to 36 hours! You'll have a BLAST! 555-MOVEIT.
-
FOR SALE: Petri dish. 4-inch diameter, like new. Only used by my grandmother on Sunday. $10 or best offer. 555-9845.
-
Feeling small? Join the Dale Carnegie blastocyst support group. Professional moderator helps you speak with confidence and raise self-esteem. Stay afterward for free résumé-building workshop.
Ah, I'm gonna make you read today
From Daily Kos
This is a synopsis of the peak oil concept and the data/science behind it. It's very well written, and it's not screechy. I hope you take the time to read it and understand this likely very important possibility.
The Coming Oil Crisis
by Land of Lincoln Dem
Tue Jul 18, 2006 at 07:47:17 PM PDT
I know, I know, it's much easier to just ignore this problem. But life in the 21st century is never short on reminders that we exist in a world of ever-increasing energy needs in which our economy's growth and even its most basic vitality is almost directly tied to our access to a few precious commodities. Petroleum is necessary to continue our current lifestyle and yet our ability to obtain it in the quantities we need becomes less and less certain with each passing day. While there are a number of environmental and climate-related issues tied to the use of this fuel, I won't attempt to address those problems here and they must be reserved for another diary. This entry will be limited to the potential availability of petroleum sources in the near future as well as some of the geopolitical problems stemming from this possible shortage in the long run.
So join me on the flip side for a little history, a little analysis and a lot of "wonk" to find out just what kind of mess we're in...
* Land of Lincoln Dem's diary :: ::
*
Normally, I'm content to be a lurker on the site. Occasionally I'll post comments but for the most part I just enjoy having so much information on so many topics all in one place. Its like my very own condensed, Reader's Digest index of all human knowledge. But today I've decided to jump into the pool (don't worry, I won't pee in it) and share some of my knowledge on the global petroleum situation, because I've had the pleasure of reading several books and articles on the subject lately and feel I can contribute something to the community. Jerome a Paris is usually right on the mark with his diaries on oil and while I don't want to step on any toes, I'll give this a shot. (Note: this post ended up being rather epic in length so read ahead at your own risk)
It would not be an overstatement to describe oil as the lifeblood of our economy. In fact, it is almost impossible for the average person to imagine life without it. From the cars, trains and buses we take to work and school to the airplanes and trucks that carry goods from distant markets to our local store shelves it is essential to the post-industrialized lifestyle. It provides 40% of the world's total energy needs and more than 90% of the energy we need for transportation comes from oil. But oil is a finite resource. There is only so much of it in the world and when it runs out there is no way for us to acquire more of it. However, severe complications will arise long before we run the earth dry of oil.
For those unfamiliar, M. King Hubbert was a brilliant geologist working for the Shell Research lab in the 1950's and 1960's. Through his hard work and research he predicted in 1969 that worldwide oil production would peak around the year 2000. He didn't mean by any stretch of the imagination that we would run out of oil by that date. But he showed that production, when graphed, looked basically like a standard bell curve. In essence, he demonstrated that once approximately half the supply of earth's oil had been pumped, production would be at as high a level as it would ever be. Skeptics have noted that you can never truly know how much oil there ever was. And people probably would have long ago dismissed his calculations as the ranting of a pessimistic madman except for the trivial matter that he accurately predicted in 1956 that oil production in the United States would peak in the early 1970's.
Even today most people are unfamiliar with both Hubbert and his predictions even though his work is probably more important to us now that ever before. The question is not if production will one day peak but when. It is a forgone conclusion, even to those optimists who believe that we have decades until the fun stops, that one day the worldwide production of oil will reach a peak output and then begin to uncontrollably decline. Many believe that once we reach the peak it will be far too late to do anything. Without a plan in place to transition from oil to another fuel that will satisfy our transportation energy needs we run the risk of an economic collapse from a lack of foresight.
The misleading perception associated with "Hubbert's Peak" is the image evoked by the gentle downward slope of a bell curve. But the landing connected with a decline will be anything but soft. It is theoretically true that if a peak occurred this year - not entirely out of the question according to so some - a Hubbert-style graph shows that it would take about 15 years for production to drop 10%. But that is assuming worldwide growth and demand remain constant during that period of time. China and India's markets are developing exponentially and their rate of industrialization is pushing demand for oil higher everyday. And that is to say nothing about the growing U.S. population and ever-expanding economy complete with SUVs that rival the size of some houses.
If we were faced today with a peak in oil production there is little chance of limiting consumption in the short-term. We are simply too reliant on oil to give it up cold turkey. The higher prices linked to shrinking supplies would send oil companies scurrying to squeeze as much petroleum as possible from the earth in as short a period as possible. The extensive search for oil would be analogous to what was seen in the United States after domestic production topped out in 1970. A drilling boom would ensue in an attempt to satisfy the unquenchable demand. For a while they might even be successful in supplying what is needed to keep everything humming along. Instead of a peak in production with an anticipated decline there would be a plateau of sorts. This would ease fears and return things (relatively) to normal. The news cycle would end, coverage would shift to the next celebrity couple's baby news and people would be relieved to know that we solved the problem by simply drilling more wells.
There remains, however, the pesky matter of oil still being a finite resource. By changing the production curve we will have merely delayed the inevitable and accelerated the ensuing decline when new drilling begins to taper off and can no longer support current demand (assuming that it could meet that demand in the first place). The plateau will work temporarily but as one geologist put it, "the edge of a plateau looks a lot like a cliff." It is entirely possible that we are currently on such a plateau and we don't even realize it. In a few years we may look in the rear-view mirror and see that we have driven right off the edge without even knowing it, at which time it will be too late to do anything.
So if the experts believe that we are on the verge of reaching our peak for worldwide production capability (or if we have already hit it) what should be made of all the hype surrounding the "proven reserves" of so many nations, most notably those in the Middle East? Part of the problem is that for all its importance in today's world very few are privileged enough to be an insider in the oil industry with access to information regarding the availability of this valued product.
Matthew Simmons is one of those lucky few. He is a Houston-based investment banker who specializes in the energy industry. If there is anyone who has a desire to see things continue down the road of "business as usual" in the oil industry it would be someone who makes a living off having a financial interest in the industry. But Simmons has reached conclusions that all Americans should be afraid of. His fascinating book, Twilight in the Desert, details how little the public and even well informed insiders know about oil production. His work focuses on the secrecy of Saudi Arabia, the world's leading producer of oil, and how this secrecy has led to a flawed feeling of complacency. While he has his critics, Simmons is not some partisan political hack looking to score cheap points.
In 1979, a report released by the United States Senate showed that officials from Aramco - Saudi Arabia's national oil company - estimated their reserves to be in the neighborhood of 110 billion barrels of oil. Reserves are essentially oil fields that have been discovered but not tapped. These figures are difficult to approximate and sometimes on the conservative side so it didn't come as a huge shock when the Saudis revised the number to 150 billion barrels later that year. However, many observers were left scratching their heads when the numbers were further revised to 250 billion barrels of oil in reserve in 1988 even though no significant discoveries had been disclosed during that time. To this day, more than 17 years after those revisions, the official number stands at over 250 billion barrels of oil in "proven" reserves even though, again, no discoveries have been released to support that kind of increase over the 1979 figures. Also, Saudi Arabia has pumped nearly 50 billion barrels of oil out of the ground since 1988 while reserves have remained unchanged. They are unwilling to open any of their fields to independent verification and this lack of transparency is what worries many experts. What could they be hiding? Is there an incentive for them to lie or deceive?
Historically, the only time that reserve estimates are updated is if new discoveries are confirmed or new technology would allow a county or company to squeeze more oil out of existing fields. However, neither of these situations applied to Saudi Arabia or virtually any other oil producer who revised estimates during the 80's. The motivation for these adjustments was purely economic. In 1985 OPEC (Organization of Petroleum Exporting Counties) decreed that the higher one's stated reserves were the more oil you would be allowed to export. So while OPEC members claimed to be correcting for past mistakes they were really seeking higher revenue streams. This accounts for why the six OPEC member nations collectively doubled their "reserves" virtually overnight to more than 600 billion barrels and have kept them there ever since.
Even if we set aside the dire predictions of an imminent production peak and assume that we can continue down the current path indefinitely there are a number of short-term issues that have to be addressed. The principal nuisance is that even though demand will be increasing at least incrementally in the near future it appears production will not be able to meet that need. As mentioned before, nations other than our own have developed a growing addition to oil. If we could just pump and refine more of it we might be fine. But worldwide there is no longer any surplus production capacity. By 1997 Saudi Arabia was the last remaining nation with the luxury of holding back supply and even the great oil king had to admit the inescapable fact that by the Spring of 2003 they were maxed out themselves.
Since that time the price for a barrel of oil has gradually increased from about $28 to the nearly $80 we see today! The slightest hitch in production, or sometimes just the rumor of a potential hitch, can send the price fluctuating wildly. And of course, that's not even taking into account the latest turmoil in the Middle East. According to one observer, "Volatility has become the new market reality." It has become accepted fact that prices will be unstable and we all have to live with it. But many can't afford such a situation. Increasingly we are seeing more and more people falling into "energy poverty" which, in the 21st century, may be the greatest determining factor between the haves and have-nots.
Not everyone is concerned with the present state of affairs and how it may jeopardize our future. There are a growing number of people who feel that free market forces will help correct any shortcomings stemming from the oil industry. They are convinced that the problem is less geological than it is financial. Investment is merely in a lag behind the large growth in demand from the last decade or so.
There is a serious flaw, though, in this thinking. Investment rarely lags this far behind record profits, which the industry has been experiencing for some time. We should be seeing an explosion of capital being infused in an attempt to boost production and refining capability. Instead, we are seeing old oil tankers being retired quicker than the new ones are coming online and only a minimal increase in exploration budgets for the largest oil companies and producer nations.
So why would investment not keep up with demand? Is it possible that investors have access to hard evidence that the rest of public does not? Perhaps, but it is just as likely that they are drawing their conclusions from easily obtainable information and have decided that a peak in production is likely imminent. This would prevent them from securing a reasonable return on their investment, which is not good business sense. While it may be speculation to think investors anticipate a peak, it is an economic reality that investments are indiscriminate. If they thought there was money to be made in the future oil game there would undoubtedly be more investing than we are currently seeing.
There is another problem with the logic of the free market supporters and it has to do with their theoretical solution to the crisis. Alan Greenspan is one of the leaders of this philosophy and his explanation for what will happen in the face of higher oil prices is remarkably simple. He - and many others - argue that government intervention is not only unnecessary but undesirable. The market, through higher prices, will encourage the changes that are needed and we will gradually ease off of oil and onto something more stable and abundant. Government would only get in the way.
Not being an economist, this writer is reluctant to try and find fault in the economic theory proposed by Mr. Greenspan. However, there is a critical error with this basic premise that can get lost in the particulars. This viewpoint only works under the assumption of stable, established price levels. As we have seen recently oil is far too fickle a commodity to play along with this assertion. The past has also shown this to be an unlikely scenario. History tells us that conversions to new energy sources have been somewhat cumbersome. "The leaps from wood to coal and from coal to oil caused economic disruption and political uncertainty," according to Paul Roberts. "And these were fairly slow-motion transitions, occurring over several decades." There is simply no reason to believe that a current disaster could be handled smoothly by capitalism. The market is inherently too static to evolve at the rate in which we would need it to. The only solution is some form of government commitment, and even immediate action may be too late.
There is another variable in this equation that has not been mentioned directly but was alluded to earlier. The wildcard in all of this may be population and its overall rate of growth. In 1979 we reached the peak for per capita oil production, meaning that since then population has been growing faster than we have been able to find and pump oil. India and China were referenced to before as examples of newly industrializing countries that will only increase their oil needs. Within a generation or two their economies may rival or even exceed that of the United States' and it is not implausible to think they would consider using this increased influence to take actions that would be detrimental to our interests.
The bottom line is that soon there will be - or already are - too many people competing for too few resources. For many, oil has become as valuable to survival as water with no discernable end in sight. Our impromptu experiment to determine the earth's carrying capacity will not have a happy ending. Worldwide population control is often an unpleasant and no doubt controversial topic but it pales in comparison to the kind of ugliness Mother Nature would wreak upon us if this unchecked growth were allowed to continue. Famines, suffering and international volatility will only further destabilize the geopolitical balance of the world.
If indeed all of the evidence pointing toward the peak of oil production turns out to be true, what comes next? A worst-case scenario would have supplies falling fast enough to cause chaos and disruption the likes of few alive have ever seen. Panic would ensue as mankind tries to figure out what the new definition of "sustainable" is. Resource and energy wars would break out as the haves make a last ditch attempt to continue their lifestyle at the expense of the have-nots. But, of course, it doesn't have to happen that way. It may end up that oil supplies are adequate enough to delay "Hubbert's Peak" for a decade or more. In that case we have an unprecedented opportunity to reshape our society with the time we have left. The realization that we are on a collision course with fate has begun to sink in but people at all levels of society need to be better informed. Through sustained, determined efforts we may one day break free from the shackles of our hydrocarbon dependence. In order for that to happen, though, we all need to understand the implications of what will occur if we continue life as we know it.
What will the energy economy of the future look like if it does not include oil? The United States currently consumes more than 20 million barrels of oil every day out of a worldwide production of 85 million barrels. More than half of our current appetite is imported and that amount jumps to nearly three-fourths being imported in 20 years if demand grows as expected. Replacing such amounts means either curbing our energy use or finding new sources of energy to exploit.
Neither option is very attractive to most Americans. The reality of the situation will, of course, dictate that a patchwork of energy alternatives will be required to fill the colossal role of oil in our world. And while conservation will not solve any of these problems that have been mentioned it, too, will be necessary in making the transition more bearable.
As we peer over the cliff into the endless abyss of a post-oil world we are sure to be faced with difficult questions. The uncertainty surrounding our cherished way of life will be difficult to contemplate. And it will be even more difficult to give up our lifestyle of excess. But the fact remains that we have been living on borrowed time for far too long and the consequences are stalking us relentlessly. Kenneth E. Boulding once stated:
Anyone who believes that exponential growth can go on forever in a finite world is either a madman or an economist.
We must embrace a sense of conservation with sincerity and shake off the mindset of unconstrained progress. This isn't a battle that can be won with weapons and military might (though many leaders in our government will undoubtedly try). We will only prevail when our society remembers the noble foundations of deferred gratification, sacrifice, and sustained national effort that once drove this great nation.
Here are some of the books and articles that I found the most interesting during my formal and informal research:
Twilight in the Desert by Matthew Simmons
Beyond Oil: The View from Hubbert's Peak by Kenneth Deffeyes
The End of Oil: On the Edge of a Perilous New World by Paul Roberts
National Geographic's article The End of Cheap Oil
This is a synopsis of the peak oil concept and the data/science behind it. It's very well written, and it's not screechy. I hope you take the time to read it and understand this likely very important possibility.
The Coming Oil Crisis
by Land of Lincoln Dem
Tue Jul 18, 2006 at 07:47:17 PM PDT
I know, I know, it's much easier to just ignore this problem. But life in the 21st century is never short on reminders that we exist in a world of ever-increasing energy needs in which our economy's growth and even its most basic vitality is almost directly tied to our access to a few precious commodities. Petroleum is necessary to continue our current lifestyle and yet our ability to obtain it in the quantities we need becomes less and less certain with each passing day. While there are a number of environmental and climate-related issues tied to the use of this fuel, I won't attempt to address those problems here and they must be reserved for another diary. This entry will be limited to the potential availability of petroleum sources in the near future as well as some of the geopolitical problems stemming from this possible shortage in the long run.
So join me on the flip side for a little history, a little analysis and a lot of "wonk" to find out just what kind of mess we're in...
* Land of Lincoln Dem's diary :: ::
*
Normally, I'm content to be a lurker on the site. Occasionally I'll post comments but for the most part I just enjoy having so much information on so many topics all in one place. Its like my very own condensed, Reader's Digest index of all human knowledge. But today I've decided to jump into the pool (don't worry, I won't pee in it) and share some of my knowledge on the global petroleum situation, because I've had the pleasure of reading several books and articles on the subject lately and feel I can contribute something to the community. Jerome a Paris is usually right on the mark with his diaries on oil and while I don't want to step on any toes, I'll give this a shot. (Note: this post ended up being rather epic in length so read ahead at your own risk)
It would not be an overstatement to describe oil as the lifeblood of our economy. In fact, it is almost impossible for the average person to imagine life without it. From the cars, trains and buses we take to work and school to the airplanes and trucks that carry goods from distant markets to our local store shelves it is essential to the post-industrialized lifestyle. It provides 40% of the world's total energy needs and more than 90% of the energy we need for transportation comes from oil. But oil is a finite resource. There is only so much of it in the world and when it runs out there is no way for us to acquire more of it. However, severe complications will arise long before we run the earth dry of oil.
For those unfamiliar, M. King Hubbert was a brilliant geologist working for the Shell Research lab in the 1950's and 1960's. Through his hard work and research he predicted in 1969 that worldwide oil production would peak around the year 2000. He didn't mean by any stretch of the imagination that we would run out of oil by that date. But he showed that production, when graphed, looked basically like a standard bell curve. In essence, he demonstrated that once approximately half the supply of earth's oil had been pumped, production would be at as high a level as it would ever be. Skeptics have noted that you can never truly know how much oil there ever was. And people probably would have long ago dismissed his calculations as the ranting of a pessimistic madman except for the trivial matter that he accurately predicted in 1956 that oil production in the United States would peak in the early 1970's.
Even today most people are unfamiliar with both Hubbert and his predictions even though his work is probably more important to us now that ever before. The question is not if production will one day peak but when. It is a forgone conclusion, even to those optimists who believe that we have decades until the fun stops, that one day the worldwide production of oil will reach a peak output and then begin to uncontrollably decline. Many believe that once we reach the peak it will be far too late to do anything. Without a plan in place to transition from oil to another fuel that will satisfy our transportation energy needs we run the risk of an economic collapse from a lack of foresight.
The misleading perception associated with "Hubbert's Peak" is the image evoked by the gentle downward slope of a bell curve. But the landing connected with a decline will be anything but soft. It is theoretically true that if a peak occurred this year - not entirely out of the question according to so some - a Hubbert-style graph shows that it would take about 15 years for production to drop 10%. But that is assuming worldwide growth and demand remain constant during that period of time. China and India's markets are developing exponentially and their rate of industrialization is pushing demand for oil higher everyday. And that is to say nothing about the growing U.S. population and ever-expanding economy complete with SUVs that rival the size of some houses.
If we were faced today with a peak in oil production there is little chance of limiting consumption in the short-term. We are simply too reliant on oil to give it up cold turkey. The higher prices linked to shrinking supplies would send oil companies scurrying to squeeze as much petroleum as possible from the earth in as short a period as possible. The extensive search for oil would be analogous to what was seen in the United States after domestic production topped out in 1970. A drilling boom would ensue in an attempt to satisfy the unquenchable demand. For a while they might even be successful in supplying what is needed to keep everything humming along. Instead of a peak in production with an anticipated decline there would be a plateau of sorts. This would ease fears and return things (relatively) to normal. The news cycle would end, coverage would shift to the next celebrity couple's baby news and people would be relieved to know that we solved the problem by simply drilling more wells.
There remains, however, the pesky matter of oil still being a finite resource. By changing the production curve we will have merely delayed the inevitable and accelerated the ensuing decline when new drilling begins to taper off and can no longer support current demand (assuming that it could meet that demand in the first place). The plateau will work temporarily but as one geologist put it, "the edge of a plateau looks a lot like a cliff." It is entirely possible that we are currently on such a plateau and we don't even realize it. In a few years we may look in the rear-view mirror and see that we have driven right off the edge without even knowing it, at which time it will be too late to do anything.
So if the experts believe that we are on the verge of reaching our peak for worldwide production capability (or if we have already hit it) what should be made of all the hype surrounding the "proven reserves" of so many nations, most notably those in the Middle East? Part of the problem is that for all its importance in today's world very few are privileged enough to be an insider in the oil industry with access to information regarding the availability of this valued product.
Matthew Simmons is one of those lucky few. He is a Houston-based investment banker who specializes in the energy industry. If there is anyone who has a desire to see things continue down the road of "business as usual" in the oil industry it would be someone who makes a living off having a financial interest in the industry. But Simmons has reached conclusions that all Americans should be afraid of. His fascinating book, Twilight in the Desert, details how little the public and even well informed insiders know about oil production. His work focuses on the secrecy of Saudi Arabia, the world's leading producer of oil, and how this secrecy has led to a flawed feeling of complacency. While he has his critics, Simmons is not some partisan political hack looking to score cheap points.
In 1979, a report released by the United States Senate showed that officials from Aramco - Saudi Arabia's national oil company - estimated their reserves to be in the neighborhood of 110 billion barrels of oil. Reserves are essentially oil fields that have been discovered but not tapped. These figures are difficult to approximate and sometimes on the conservative side so it didn't come as a huge shock when the Saudis revised the number to 150 billion barrels later that year. However, many observers were left scratching their heads when the numbers were further revised to 250 billion barrels of oil in reserve in 1988 even though no significant discoveries had been disclosed during that time. To this day, more than 17 years after those revisions, the official number stands at over 250 billion barrels of oil in "proven" reserves even though, again, no discoveries have been released to support that kind of increase over the 1979 figures. Also, Saudi Arabia has pumped nearly 50 billion barrels of oil out of the ground since 1988 while reserves have remained unchanged. They are unwilling to open any of their fields to independent verification and this lack of transparency is what worries many experts. What could they be hiding? Is there an incentive for them to lie or deceive?
Historically, the only time that reserve estimates are updated is if new discoveries are confirmed or new technology would allow a county or company to squeeze more oil out of existing fields. However, neither of these situations applied to Saudi Arabia or virtually any other oil producer who revised estimates during the 80's. The motivation for these adjustments was purely economic. In 1985 OPEC (Organization of Petroleum Exporting Counties) decreed that the higher one's stated reserves were the more oil you would be allowed to export. So while OPEC members claimed to be correcting for past mistakes they were really seeking higher revenue streams. This accounts for why the six OPEC member nations collectively doubled their "reserves" virtually overnight to more than 600 billion barrels and have kept them there ever since.
Even if we set aside the dire predictions of an imminent production peak and assume that we can continue down the current path indefinitely there are a number of short-term issues that have to be addressed. The principal nuisance is that even though demand will be increasing at least incrementally in the near future it appears production will not be able to meet that need. As mentioned before, nations other than our own have developed a growing addition to oil. If we could just pump and refine more of it we might be fine. But worldwide there is no longer any surplus production capacity. By 1997 Saudi Arabia was the last remaining nation with the luxury of holding back supply and even the great oil king had to admit the inescapable fact that by the Spring of 2003 they were maxed out themselves.
Since that time the price for a barrel of oil has gradually increased from about $28 to the nearly $80 we see today! The slightest hitch in production, or sometimes just the rumor of a potential hitch, can send the price fluctuating wildly. And of course, that's not even taking into account the latest turmoil in the Middle East. According to one observer, "Volatility has become the new market reality." It has become accepted fact that prices will be unstable and we all have to live with it. But many can't afford such a situation. Increasingly we are seeing more and more people falling into "energy poverty" which, in the 21st century, may be the greatest determining factor between the haves and have-nots.
Not everyone is concerned with the present state of affairs and how it may jeopardize our future. There are a growing number of people who feel that free market forces will help correct any shortcomings stemming from the oil industry. They are convinced that the problem is less geological than it is financial. Investment is merely in a lag behind the large growth in demand from the last decade or so.
There is a serious flaw, though, in this thinking. Investment rarely lags this far behind record profits, which the industry has been experiencing for some time. We should be seeing an explosion of capital being infused in an attempt to boost production and refining capability. Instead, we are seeing old oil tankers being retired quicker than the new ones are coming online and only a minimal increase in exploration budgets for the largest oil companies and producer nations.
So why would investment not keep up with demand? Is it possible that investors have access to hard evidence that the rest of public does not? Perhaps, but it is just as likely that they are drawing their conclusions from easily obtainable information and have decided that a peak in production is likely imminent. This would prevent them from securing a reasonable return on their investment, which is not good business sense. While it may be speculation to think investors anticipate a peak, it is an economic reality that investments are indiscriminate. If they thought there was money to be made in the future oil game there would undoubtedly be more investing than we are currently seeing.
There is another problem with the logic of the free market supporters and it has to do with their theoretical solution to the crisis. Alan Greenspan is one of the leaders of this philosophy and his explanation for what will happen in the face of higher oil prices is remarkably simple. He - and many others - argue that government intervention is not only unnecessary but undesirable. The market, through higher prices, will encourage the changes that are needed and we will gradually ease off of oil and onto something more stable and abundant. Government would only get in the way.
Not being an economist, this writer is reluctant to try and find fault in the economic theory proposed by Mr. Greenspan. However, there is a critical error with this basic premise that can get lost in the particulars. This viewpoint only works under the assumption of stable, established price levels. As we have seen recently oil is far too fickle a commodity to play along with this assertion. The past has also shown this to be an unlikely scenario. History tells us that conversions to new energy sources have been somewhat cumbersome. "The leaps from wood to coal and from coal to oil caused economic disruption and political uncertainty," according to Paul Roberts. "And these were fairly slow-motion transitions, occurring over several decades." There is simply no reason to believe that a current disaster could be handled smoothly by capitalism. The market is inherently too static to evolve at the rate in which we would need it to. The only solution is some form of government commitment, and even immediate action may be too late.
There is another variable in this equation that has not been mentioned directly but was alluded to earlier. The wildcard in all of this may be population and its overall rate of growth. In 1979 we reached the peak for per capita oil production, meaning that since then population has been growing faster than we have been able to find and pump oil. India and China were referenced to before as examples of newly industrializing countries that will only increase their oil needs. Within a generation or two their economies may rival or even exceed that of the United States' and it is not implausible to think they would consider using this increased influence to take actions that would be detrimental to our interests.
The bottom line is that soon there will be - or already are - too many people competing for too few resources. For many, oil has become as valuable to survival as water with no discernable end in sight. Our impromptu experiment to determine the earth's carrying capacity will not have a happy ending. Worldwide population control is often an unpleasant and no doubt controversial topic but it pales in comparison to the kind of ugliness Mother Nature would wreak upon us if this unchecked growth were allowed to continue. Famines, suffering and international volatility will only further destabilize the geopolitical balance of the world.
If indeed all of the evidence pointing toward the peak of oil production turns out to be true, what comes next? A worst-case scenario would have supplies falling fast enough to cause chaos and disruption the likes of few alive have ever seen. Panic would ensue as mankind tries to figure out what the new definition of "sustainable" is. Resource and energy wars would break out as the haves make a last ditch attempt to continue their lifestyle at the expense of the have-nots. But, of course, it doesn't have to happen that way. It may end up that oil supplies are adequate enough to delay "Hubbert's Peak" for a decade or more. In that case we have an unprecedented opportunity to reshape our society with the time we have left. The realization that we are on a collision course with fate has begun to sink in but people at all levels of society need to be better informed. Through sustained, determined efforts we may one day break free from the shackles of our hydrocarbon dependence. In order for that to happen, though, we all need to understand the implications of what will occur if we continue life as we know it.
What will the energy economy of the future look like if it does not include oil? The United States currently consumes more than 20 million barrels of oil every day out of a worldwide production of 85 million barrels. More than half of our current appetite is imported and that amount jumps to nearly three-fourths being imported in 20 years if demand grows as expected. Replacing such amounts means either curbing our energy use or finding new sources of energy to exploit.
Neither option is very attractive to most Americans. The reality of the situation will, of course, dictate that a patchwork of energy alternatives will be required to fill the colossal role of oil in our world. And while conservation will not solve any of these problems that have been mentioned it, too, will be necessary in making the transition more bearable.
As we peer over the cliff into the endless abyss of a post-oil world we are sure to be faced with difficult questions. The uncertainty surrounding our cherished way of life will be difficult to contemplate. And it will be even more difficult to give up our lifestyle of excess. But the fact remains that we have been living on borrowed time for far too long and the consequences are stalking us relentlessly. Kenneth E. Boulding once stated:
Anyone who believes that exponential growth can go on forever in a finite world is either a madman or an economist.
We must embrace a sense of conservation with sincerity and shake off the mindset of unconstrained progress. This isn't a battle that can be won with weapons and military might (though many leaders in our government will undoubtedly try). We will only prevail when our society remembers the noble foundations of deferred gratification, sacrifice, and sustained national effort that once drove this great nation.
Here are some of the books and articles that I found the most interesting during my formal and informal research:
Twilight in the Desert by Matthew Simmons
Beyond Oil: The View from Hubbert's Peak by Kenneth Deffeyes
The End of Oil: On the Edge of a Perilous New World by Paul Roberts
National Geographic's article The End of Cheap Oil
Wednesday, July 19, 2006
Tuesday progress
So, I'm thinking that Babs isn't coming back. Haven't heard from her in three days, haven't had a reply to my text message - so, I pretty much figure she's moved on.
Today, just to keep things interesting, I totally reorganized the office supply closet. Threw out a bunch of stuff, piled all of the unused computer stuff high in the bathroom on the counter.
Still have a TON of filing to do. But, I plan to re-organize all of the files, put away a bunch of files that are no longer used into boxes, create new files and a filing system for some clients, and add more organizational oompf.
Secret Agent Man came by today - he was talking to me about my air conditioner, how it was undersized, how it was a cheap brand, how .. it could all be improved .. it was just so butch.
Mikey seems to be upset with me. He's not talking. Interestingly, the realtor is ignoring me too - and the commercial lease deal that I brought him. Time to move on as far as that goes.
Have to be up EARLY tomorrow to drive to the Woodlands. Have to be there before 8:00; which means leaving here before 7:00. I'll be gone almost all day Friday and Saturday as well. Sunday, of course, is always jam packed. So, my next day of availability is Monday.
Today, just to keep things interesting, I totally reorganized the office supply closet. Threw out a bunch of stuff, piled all of the unused computer stuff high in the bathroom on the counter.
Still have a TON of filing to do. But, I plan to re-organize all of the files, put away a bunch of files that are no longer used into boxes, create new files and a filing system for some clients, and add more organizational oompf.
Secret Agent Man came by today - he was talking to me about my air conditioner, how it was undersized, how it was a cheap brand, how .. it could all be improved .. it was just so butch.
Mikey seems to be upset with me. He's not talking. Interestingly, the realtor is ignoring me too - and the commercial lease deal that I brought him. Time to move on as far as that goes.
Have to be up EARLY tomorrow to drive to the Woodlands. Have to be there before 8:00; which means leaving here before 7:00. I'll be gone almost all day Friday and Saturday as well. Sunday, of course, is always jam packed. So, my next day of availability is Monday.
Happy Hump Day that felt like Thursday
So, health insurance. Chuck, being healthy and under 40, gets about a hundred dollars a month. Me, being none of the above, gets $460/month, plus a $2500 deductible, or $8020 per year ASSUMING I have no major health issues. Every year. If I billed forty hours a week (which is radically unlikely) that would be $3.85/hour for health insurance for me.
I usually successfully bill only twenty hours/week, the rest of the time being unrecoverable, so it's more like $8.00/hour for health insurance.
And I thought the VW Phaeton was expensive at $3.00/mile.
I've been thinking about cars. I talked to Jayne last night, and she's expecting me to tell her today what it is that I want. Thus, I've been thinking.
1. When I drove the Lucerne, we barely made it out of the parking lot, and I thought "this is it."
2. When the one I ordered came in, even though it was covered in bird poo and dirt, I had tingles when I saw it
3. When I've been just letting an image of a new car come to me, that's what I see in the garage
4. Buick is giving one away
5. I didn't feel "this is it" when I was driving the 300C
6. The only car that's given me those sorts of feelings has been the Lucerne
So, I really do want a Lucerne CXS with nav and an XM radio. Black, please.
Two really fun things today -
First, in case you missed it, our gummint is CHARGING our citizens who are in Lebanon for their evacuation. They are required to either give over a signed, blank check - or sign a blank promissory note. Once the cost is determined, they'll be notified - as the check hits their bank.
However, to make the situation sillier - check this out. They're expecting the 23,000 US citizens who are NOT being accomodated today to .. wait for a phone call or check the Embassy's website. In a country with no electricity and no phone service, because the Israelis targeted civilian infrastructure.
Just to be clear - THIS IS A COMPLETELY REPUBLICAN ADMINISTRATION. The "liberals" have NOTHING TO DO WITH THIS BEHAVIOR. The "liberals" have NOTHING TO DO WITH ANYTHING. The only party in power is the REPUBLICAN PARTY. The only people making decisions at all are the REPUBLICANS.
Glad you're not in Lebanon?
Just as a teaser - the woman who gave over the 2000 election to Geo. W. - the woman who was his state campaign chairperson, but also responsible for counting the Florida vote - the woman who is running to un-seat one of the few remaining Demos in the world - has advanced to Level Four of the Political Scandal Process (thanks to Justin Rood of TPM Muckraker for that cute distinction)
She's now a TARGET of Federal (Republican) prosecutors for illegal fundraising and taking bribes. As a FRESHMAN Representative from Sarasota.
And all of you who thought I was being unreasonable saying she was a cheat and a liar back in 2000 - what have you to say NOW?
I'm telling you - read the book "What's the Matter with Kansas?" After I posted this morning, I read some more of it, and was just overcome - I have so many friends who are mouthing the very same nonsense - that government is bad, etc., etc. No facts, just generalizations to back it up. Generalizations which were never empirically founded and have been empirically disproved, and yet which persist. Such as the "Welfare Queens in Cadillacs" nonsense that never existed, and "illegal aliens with free healthcare" crap.
Uh - check the beginning of the post. It ain't free. It ain't free ANYWHERE.
If you don't start reading, I'll start posting a synopsis.
I usually successfully bill only twenty hours/week, the rest of the time being unrecoverable, so it's more like $8.00/hour for health insurance.
And I thought the VW Phaeton was expensive at $3.00/mile.
I've been thinking about cars. I talked to Jayne last night, and she's expecting me to tell her today what it is that I want. Thus, I've been thinking.
1. When I drove the Lucerne, we barely made it out of the parking lot, and I thought "this is it."
2. When the one I ordered came in, even though it was covered in bird poo and dirt, I had tingles when I saw it
3. When I've been just letting an image of a new car come to me, that's what I see in the garage
4. Buick is giving one away
5. I didn't feel "this is it" when I was driving the 300C
6. The only car that's given me those sorts of feelings has been the Lucerne
So, I really do want a Lucerne CXS with nav and an XM radio. Black, please.
Two really fun things today -
First, in case you missed it, our gummint is CHARGING our citizens who are in Lebanon for their evacuation. They are required to either give over a signed, blank check - or sign a blank promissory note. Once the cost is determined, they'll be notified - as the check hits their bank.
However, to make the situation sillier - check this out. They're expecting the 23,000 US citizens who are NOT being accomodated today to .. wait for a phone call or check the Embassy's website. In a country with no electricity and no phone service, because the Israelis targeted civilian infrastructure.
Just to be clear - THIS IS A COMPLETELY REPUBLICAN ADMINISTRATION. The "liberals" have NOTHING TO DO WITH THIS BEHAVIOR. The "liberals" have NOTHING TO DO WITH ANYTHING. The only party in power is the REPUBLICAN PARTY. The only people making decisions at all are the REPUBLICANS.
Glad you're not in Lebanon?
Just as a teaser - the woman who gave over the 2000 election to Geo. W. - the woman who was his state campaign chairperson, but also responsible for counting the Florida vote - the woman who is running to un-seat one of the few remaining Demos in the world - has advanced to Level Four of the Political Scandal Process (thanks to Justin Rood of TPM Muckraker for that cute distinction)
She's now a TARGET of Federal (Republican) prosecutors for illegal fundraising and taking bribes. As a FRESHMAN Representative from Sarasota.
And all of you who thought I was being unreasonable saying she was a cheat and a liar back in 2000 - what have you to say NOW?
I'm telling you - read the book "What's the Matter with Kansas?" After I posted this morning, I read some more of it, and was just overcome - I have so many friends who are mouthing the very same nonsense - that government is bad, etc., etc. No facts, just generalizations to back it up. Generalizations which were never empirically founded and have been empirically disproved, and yet which persist. Such as the "Welfare Queens in Cadillacs" nonsense that never existed, and "illegal aliens with free healthcare" crap.
Uh - check the beginning of the post. It ain't free. It ain't free ANYWHERE.
If you don't start reading, I'll start posting a synopsis.
If you've a grain of interest in what's been happening since the 1980s
You should read this book "What's the Matter with Kansas?"
This book details how the right wing "wingnuts" took over the Republican Party, how they're voting and behaving against their own interests, and how much of the last twenty-five years has been nothing but rolling back any regulation on industry, finance and the wealthy - and nothing but that. And, that it took the massive infusion of angry blue-collar and poor people to accomplish this.
It's a great book. Read it. If you believe that the church and state should be kept separate, if you believe that our Constitutional rights were a good thing, if you believe that your boss does not have your best interests at heart - you need to read it.
This book details how the right wing "wingnuts" took over the Republican Party, how they're voting and behaving against their own interests, and how much of the last twenty-five years has been nothing but rolling back any regulation on industry, finance and the wealthy - and nothing but that. And, that it took the massive infusion of angry blue-collar and poor people to accomplish this.
It's a great book. Read it. If you believe that the church and state should be kept separate, if you believe that our Constitutional rights were a good thing, if you believe that your boss does not have your best interests at heart - you need to read it.
There He Goes Again. Lieberman Supports GOP Port-o-rama
From Daily Kos
by mcjoan
Tue Jul 18, 2006 at 09:13:01 PM PDT
Via Sirota, news tonight that House Democrats have found troubling provisions in the Oman Free Trade Agreement scheduled for a vote Thursday.
In an explosive report tonight, top House Democrats discovered provisions in the controversial Oman Free Trade Agreement that would permit foreign ownership of U.S. ports and other key national security assets. . . . As Reuters reports, "Rep. John Murtha, a Pennsylvania Democrat who serves on the House Defense Appropriations subcommittee, said the pact would allow companies such as Dubai Ports World to acquire U.S. port operations by establishing a shell company in Oman." Those provisions might also allow foreign ownership of other key national security assets, considering just after the recent Dubai Ports controversy, that country went ahead with plans to purchase a major U.S. defense contractor.
How does Lieberman fit into this picture?
Last month, lawmakers from both parties in the U.S. Senate joined hands to pass the Oman Free Trade Agreement - which is being pushed aggressively by the Bush administration and its largest corporate donors. Lawmakers ignored major labor, human rights and environmental objections to the pact put forward by more than 400 union, religious and consumer groups. Among those voting for the pact in the Senate were Mike DeWine (R-OH) and Joe Lieberman (D-CT), two Senators facing tough re-election bids who could face renewed criticism in their home states that they have sold out their constituents.
So criticizing the administration's conduct of the Iraq War imperils national security, but allowing foreign ownership of national security assets, including ports, is fine. As long as that's what the Bush administration wants, Lieberman is happy to oblige. Or maybe he's hedging his bets with Republicans back home.
by mcjoan
Tue Jul 18, 2006 at 09:13:01 PM PDT
Via Sirota, news tonight that House Democrats have found troubling provisions in the Oman Free Trade Agreement scheduled for a vote Thursday.
In an explosive report tonight, top House Democrats discovered provisions in the controversial Oman Free Trade Agreement that would permit foreign ownership of U.S. ports and other key national security assets. . . . As Reuters reports, "Rep. John Murtha, a Pennsylvania Democrat who serves on the House Defense Appropriations subcommittee, said the pact would allow companies such as Dubai Ports World to acquire U.S. port operations by establishing a shell company in Oman." Those provisions might also allow foreign ownership of other key national security assets, considering just after the recent Dubai Ports controversy, that country went ahead with plans to purchase a major U.S. defense contractor.
How does Lieberman fit into this picture?
Last month, lawmakers from both parties in the U.S. Senate joined hands to pass the Oman Free Trade Agreement - which is being pushed aggressively by the Bush administration and its largest corporate donors. Lawmakers ignored major labor, human rights and environmental objections to the pact put forward by more than 400 union, religious and consumer groups. Among those voting for the pact in the Senate were Mike DeWine (R-OH) and Joe Lieberman (D-CT), two Senators facing tough re-election bids who could face renewed criticism in their home states that they have sold out their constituents.
So criticizing the administration's conduct of the Iraq War imperils national security, but allowing foreign ownership of national security assets, including ports, is fine. As long as that's what the Bush administration wants, Lieberman is happy to oblige. Or maybe he's hedging his bets with Republicans back home.
Tuesday, July 18, 2006
Tuesday with my Jemima Mammy do-rag on
I've been cleaning all damned morning - I started by trying to open my mail from the last five days, which lead to clearing off the desk, followed by 20 minutes of shredding, which required bagging up the contents of the shredder, which necessitated swamping out the garbage can with bleach water. With other stuff in between. Now, we're about to have a thundershower. I have hours of work to do yet; I was working last night until 10:45. Still have six months' of a client's bank statements to reconcile, CellCast's files to go through and organize, my own filing to get caught up on, bills to pay (which requires money to pay them with,) a mortgage loan to work on, and a contract to review - as in, do I want to do this? Not to mention all the non-timelined, creative projects that are dragging on (Fabulair, SOM writings and on-line presentations, etc.)
Haircut, office supplies, pick up the mail, come back, fill up the water jugs, unload the car, answer email, and still I need to spend several hours doing substantive work.
I need to spend some time making some notes - I'm thinking that I'm going to heave it all into my Yahoo 360 site - books that I think are important, places that I REALLY want to visit, how I want my life to be. Maybe it needs to be in a private journal. Some of it.
I think that's tonight's work effort - a bit of visualization, while Brambo is at work.
Haircut, office supplies, pick up the mail, come back, fill up the water jugs, unload the car, answer email, and still I need to spend several hours doing substantive work.
I need to spend some time making some notes - I'm thinking that I'm going to heave it all into my Yahoo 360 site - books that I think are important, places that I REALLY want to visit, how I want my life to be. Maybe it needs to be in a private journal. Some of it.
I think that's tonight's work effort - a bit of visualization, while Brambo is at work.
Monday, July 17, 2006
Monday, Monday ver. 825.01
So much to write about today - I'll have to do it in steps. First, I'm now a licensed Religious Science Practitioner - I was accepted after my oral panel on Saturday. A five year process, including the basic courses necessary to be able to take practitioner level courses. Maybe six.
This morning, I was intent on cleaning up Ruby (the car.) She's been looking pretty rough, so I went to Wally World, returned some pool chemicals I've not used, bought gas and stopped at the coin-op car wash. Some fifteen minutes and two almost slip and falls later, she was passably clean. I brought her home, cleaned the windows, wiped down the exterior, and cleaned up the interior. She looks a lot better. I may just mount my giant Marvin the Martian sticker on her rear window today.
Last night, I had things I could have been doing, but I was just wiped out. I went to bed at 10:00, and slept until 7:00. Today, I'm feeling like I'm having my weekend, but I have to get cracking and produce some results here shortly. At least, I'm feeling perkier.
This week is going to be mostly wall-to-wall catching up (on behalf of clients, not that I'm all that far behind.) All organizing records and putting it into QuickBooks.
At the church, they got a Lasko floor mount blower that feel like an air conditioner; I found them at Sam's Club for $46. I'm going to run and get one shortly to help with the apparent temperature up here in the office.
Aside from that, just a load of work lined out to complete this week.
The class reunion is looking less and less likely. Saves me a bunch of money, of course, that's a good thing.
Tom's off in New Orleans until Wednesday; he'll be slutting around instead of working on websites .. GOOD FOR HIM! He's such a sweetie.
More later - this is what I can jot down for now.
This morning, I was intent on cleaning up Ruby (the car.) She's been looking pretty rough, so I went to Wally World, returned some pool chemicals I've not used, bought gas and stopped at the coin-op car wash. Some fifteen minutes and two almost slip and falls later, she was passably clean. I brought her home, cleaned the windows, wiped down the exterior, and cleaned up the interior. She looks a lot better. I may just mount my giant Marvin the Martian sticker on her rear window today.
Last night, I had things I could have been doing, but I was just wiped out. I went to bed at 10:00, and slept until 7:00. Today, I'm feeling like I'm having my weekend, but I have to get cracking and produce some results here shortly. At least, I'm feeling perkier.
This week is going to be mostly wall-to-wall catching up (on behalf of clients, not that I'm all that far behind.) All organizing records and putting it into QuickBooks.
At the church, they got a Lasko floor mount blower that feel like an air conditioner; I found them at Sam's Club for $46. I'm going to run and get one shortly to help with the apparent temperature up here in the office.
Aside from that, just a load of work lined out to complete this week.
The class reunion is looking less and less likely. Saves me a bunch of money, of course, that's a good thing.
Tom's off in New Orleans until Wednesday; he'll be slutting around instead of working on websites .. GOOD FOR HIM! He's such a sweetie.
More later - this is what I can jot down for now.
Saturday, July 15, 2006
Okay, so I've been laying off the political diatribe lately
For one thing, it was starting to bore me. For another, I figured that only someone who was dead could miss the level of corruption, lies and manipulation from which we are currently suffering. I don't know of anyone who's in FAVOR of any of these idiots. And, I mean Demos or Repugs.
But, this .. this was shocking. Here we have a quote from today's G8 conference in St. Petersburg, Russia:
From Daily Kos
From CNN, Bush urges the model of "Iraq democracy" on a what-must-be-assumed-to-be-astonished Vladimir Putin:
"I talked about my desire to promote institutional change in parts of the world, like Iraq where there's a free press and free religion, and I told him that a lot of people in our country would hope that Russia would do the same," Bush said.
But what CNN originally failed to point out was Bush's response. Here's the transcript from Think Progress, where you can also see the video of the exchange.
BUSH: I talked about my desire to promote institutional change in parts of the world, like Iraq, where there's a free press and free religion. And I told him that a lot of people in our country would hope that Russia will do the same thing. I fully understand, however, that there will be a Russian-style democracy.
PUTIN: We certainly would not want to have same kind of democracy as they have in Iraq, quite honestly.
BUSH: Just wait.
This from the man who sums up diplomacy with this gem: "Different words mean different things to different people." Someone please keep this man away from unscripted events. World peace might very well depend upon it.
Now, I ask you - if now isn't the time to take our country back, when is?
But, this .. this was shocking. Here we have a quote from today's G8 conference in St. Petersburg, Russia:
From Daily Kos
From CNN, Bush urges the model of "Iraq democracy" on a what-must-be-assumed-to-be-astonished Vladimir Putin:
"I talked about my desire to promote institutional change in parts of the world, like Iraq where there's a free press and free religion, and I told him that a lot of people in our country would hope that Russia would do the same," Bush said.
But what CNN originally failed to point out was Bush's response. Here's the transcript from Think Progress, where you can also see the video of the exchange.
BUSH: I talked about my desire to promote institutional change in parts of the world, like Iraq, where there's a free press and free religion. And I told him that a lot of people in our country would hope that Russia will do the same thing. I fully understand, however, that there will be a Russian-style democracy.
PUTIN: We certainly would not want to have same kind of democracy as they have in Iraq, quite honestly.
BUSH: Just wait.
This from the man who sums up diplomacy with this gem: "Different words mean different things to different people." Someone please keep this man away from unscripted events. World peace might very well depend upon it.
Now, I ask you - if now isn't the time to take our country back, when is?
The real danger to us from the Middle East
This morning, from a cave somewhere in Pakistan, Taliban Minister of Migration, Mohammed Omar, warned the United States that if military action against Iraq continues, Taliban authorities will cut off America's supply of convenience store managers. And if this action does not yield sufficient results, cab drivers will be next, followed by Dell customer service reps.
Friday, July 14, 2006
Fuzzy math
July 13, 2006, 8:12PM
From the Houston Chronicle
Slight decrease in the projected federal budget deficit offers little cause for celebration.
Copyright 2006 Houston Chronicle
SUPPOSE a physician infected 100 patients with malaria and subsequently cured seven of them. The healthy patients might be a testament to the doctor's restorative powers, but the entire exercise would not be edifying or praiseworthy.
A similar logic applies to claims about the wisdom to be seen in federal tax and spending decisions.
The federal budget deficit for fiscal 2005 was $318 billion. The White House projects that the deficit for 2006 will be $296 billion. Given the unrestrained spending that has characterized this Congress, Americans must be grateful the deficit is projected to be no higher. However, $296 billion, the fourth-highest deficit recorded in U.S. history, provides little cause to break open the champagne (or freedom wine, according to taste).
To its credit, the Republican Party's conservative base has begun to express outrage at Washington's irresponsible spending policies. Terrified of losing their base, President Bush and Republican leaders in Congress have seized upon the deficit figures as proof that they represent the party of fiscal responsibility. The lower deficit projection, Bush and House Majority Leader John Boehner say, results from tax cuts enacted in 2001 and 2003.
Voters, aware that the 2007 deficit is due to rise again to $318 billion, can decide how much credence to give that claim when they go to the polls in November. Whatever the case, the reduced budget figure for 2006 deserves to be seen in context.
In 2001, before the terrorist attacks of 9/11, the federal budget was in surplus. After the 2001 tax cuts and economic shock from 9/11, tax revenues declined in 2002-2003. Only in 2006 have tax revenues, adjusted for inflation and population growth, climbed higher than they were in 2000.
The truth is that when the United States' huge economy is healthy, tax revenues rise whether tax rates are raised, lowered or kept the same. Revenues rose when Ronald Reagan won tax cuts, and they rose when Bill Clinton secured tax hikes.
Tax cuts do spur economic activity and can help to lift the economy out of recession. But the administration's own Treasury Department analysis finds that tax cuts account for less than half of 1 percent of the economy's 3 percent-4 percent annual growth.
If tax cuts are spurring an economic boom, why is the federal budget still running a huge deficit after four years of solid economic expansion? The budget ought to be in surplus.
Furthermore, the budget figures do not take into account the hundreds of billions of dollars the nation will spend fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan. Following long custom, the administration has budgeted not a single dollar to pay for future combat operations, even in the middle of a global struggle against determined enemies.
As both Republicans and Democrats acknowledge, this year's $294 billion deficit estimate should be $180 billion higher to reflect the spending of every penny of the annual Social Security surplus the government collects from U.S. workers. That money should be used to buy down the national debt to prepare for the wave of baby boomer retirements, not squandered on bridges to nowhere and other so-called budget earmarks.
Democrats in Congress have their own large spending ambitions, but they have no hand in crafting the budget and are not even given a chance to read appropriations bills before a vote is taken.
In the last five years, federal spending has added $3 trillion to the national debt. Placed against that backdrop, a $12 billion drop in the federal deficit deserves no more than a polite nod of recognition.
From the Houston Chronicle
Slight decrease in the projected federal budget deficit offers little cause for celebration.
Copyright 2006 Houston Chronicle
SUPPOSE a physician infected 100 patients with malaria and subsequently cured seven of them. The healthy patients might be a testament to the doctor's restorative powers, but the entire exercise would not be edifying or praiseworthy.
A similar logic applies to claims about the wisdom to be seen in federal tax and spending decisions.
The federal budget deficit for fiscal 2005 was $318 billion. The White House projects that the deficit for 2006 will be $296 billion. Given the unrestrained spending that has characterized this Congress, Americans must be grateful the deficit is projected to be no higher. However, $296 billion, the fourth-highest deficit recorded in U.S. history, provides little cause to break open the champagne (or freedom wine, according to taste).
To its credit, the Republican Party's conservative base has begun to express outrage at Washington's irresponsible spending policies. Terrified of losing their base, President Bush and Republican leaders in Congress have seized upon the deficit figures as proof that they represent the party of fiscal responsibility. The lower deficit projection, Bush and House Majority Leader John Boehner say, results from tax cuts enacted in 2001 and 2003.
Voters, aware that the 2007 deficit is due to rise again to $318 billion, can decide how much credence to give that claim when they go to the polls in November. Whatever the case, the reduced budget figure for 2006 deserves to be seen in context.
In 2001, before the terrorist attacks of 9/11, the federal budget was in surplus. After the 2001 tax cuts and economic shock from 9/11, tax revenues declined in 2002-2003. Only in 2006 have tax revenues, adjusted for inflation and population growth, climbed higher than they were in 2000.
The truth is that when the United States' huge economy is healthy, tax revenues rise whether tax rates are raised, lowered or kept the same. Revenues rose when Ronald Reagan won tax cuts, and they rose when Bill Clinton secured tax hikes.
Tax cuts do spur economic activity and can help to lift the economy out of recession. But the administration's own Treasury Department analysis finds that tax cuts account for less than half of 1 percent of the economy's 3 percent-4 percent annual growth.
If tax cuts are spurring an economic boom, why is the federal budget still running a huge deficit after four years of solid economic expansion? The budget ought to be in surplus.
Furthermore, the budget figures do not take into account the hundreds of billions of dollars the nation will spend fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan. Following long custom, the administration has budgeted not a single dollar to pay for future combat operations, even in the middle of a global struggle against determined enemies.
As both Republicans and Democrats acknowledge, this year's $294 billion deficit estimate should be $180 billion higher to reflect the spending of every penny of the annual Social Security surplus the government collects from U.S. workers. That money should be used to buy down the national debt to prepare for the wave of baby boomer retirements, not squandered on bridges to nowhere and other so-called budget earmarks.
Democrats in Congress have their own large spending ambitions, but they have no hand in crafting the budget and are not even given a chance to read appropriations bills before a vote is taken.
In the last five years, federal spending has added $3 trillion to the national debt. Placed against that backdrop, a $12 billion drop in the federal deficit deserves no more than a polite nod of recognition.
Thursday, July 13, 2006
The first letter of mine that the Chronicle is likely to publish
On July 12, Bernie Bryl wrote to complain of the noise levels at Intercontinental Airport.
These complaints mystify me; Intercontinental Airport was built in the middle of undeveloped ranch and woodland almost forty years ago. There were no residential areas there, and the North Harris college campus that is mentioned was founded four years after Intercontinental Airport was opened.
Everyone who is complaining of the nuisance that Intercontinental Airport poses made a choice to be there, knowing that the airport was there first. Beginning in 1969, the airport has operated continuously at that location, and any development, residential, commercial or educational, knowingly established themselves underneath an airport's traffic pattern at a time when jet engine noise was many, many times louder than it is now.
These complaints are without merit, and should continue to be ignored by local, state and Federal government officials. Intercontinental Airport is a huge economic engine for our region, just as is the port. Strangling it to accommodate people who chose to be in harm's way makes no sense.
These complaints mystify me; Intercontinental Airport was built in the middle of undeveloped ranch and woodland almost forty years ago. There were no residential areas there, and the North Harris college campus that is mentioned was founded four years after Intercontinental Airport was opened.
Everyone who is complaining of the nuisance that Intercontinental Airport poses made a choice to be there, knowing that the airport was there first. Beginning in 1969, the airport has operated continuously at that location, and any development, residential, commercial or educational, knowingly established themselves underneath an airport's traffic pattern at a time when jet engine noise was many, many times louder than it is now.
These complaints are without merit, and should continue to be ignored by local, state and Federal government officials. Intercontinental Airport is a huge economic engine for our region, just as is the port. Strangling it to accommodate people who chose to be in harm's way makes no sense.
Wednesday, July 12, 2006
Director of Irony
source article
Rahm Emanuel looks to save the nation $100K by doing the "Director of Lessons Learned" job for him:
Mr. Speaker, yesterday the President said we continue to be wise about how we spend the people's money.
"Then why are we paying over $100,000 for a 'White House Director of Lessons Learned'?
"Maybe I can save the taxpayers $100,000 by running through a few of the lessons this White House should have learned by now.
"Lesson 1: When the Army Chief of Staff and the Secretary of State say you are going to war without enough troops, you're going to war without enough troops.
"Lesson 2: When 8.8 billion dollars of reconstruction funding disappears from Iraq, and 2 billion dollars disappears from Katrina relief, it's time to demand a little accountability.
"Lesson 3: When you've 'turned the corner' in Iraq more times than Danica Patrick at the Indy 500, it means you are going in circles.
"Lesson 4: When the national weather service tells you a category 5 hurricane is heading for New Orleans, a category 5 hurricane is heading to New Orleans.
"I would also ask the President why we're paying for two 'Ethics Advisors' and a 'Director of Fact Checking.'
"They must be the only people in Washington who get more vacation time than the President.
"Maybe the White House could consolidate these positions into a Director of Irony."
Rahm Emanuel looks to save the nation $100K by doing the "Director of Lessons Learned" job for him:
Mr. Speaker, yesterday the President said we continue to be wise about how we spend the people's money.
"Then why are we paying over $100,000 for a 'White House Director of Lessons Learned'?
"Maybe I can save the taxpayers $100,000 by running through a few of the lessons this White House should have learned by now.
"Lesson 1: When the Army Chief of Staff and the Secretary of State say you are going to war without enough troops, you're going to war without enough troops.
"Lesson 2: When 8.8 billion dollars of reconstruction funding disappears from Iraq, and 2 billion dollars disappears from Katrina relief, it's time to demand a little accountability.
"Lesson 3: When you've 'turned the corner' in Iraq more times than Danica Patrick at the Indy 500, it means you are going in circles.
"Lesson 4: When the national weather service tells you a category 5 hurricane is heading for New Orleans, a category 5 hurricane is heading to New Orleans.
"I would also ask the President why we're paying for two 'Ethics Advisors' and a 'Director of Fact Checking.'
"They must be the only people in Washington who get more vacation time than the President.
"Maybe the White House could consolidate these positions into a Director of Irony."
Kids (from Maine) say the DARNDEST things...
The American flag stands for the fact that cloth can be very important. [...] You can tell just how important this cloth is because when you compare it to people, it gets much better treatment. Nobody cares if a homeless person touches the ground. A homeless person can lie all over the ground all night long without anyone picking him up, folding him neatly and sheltering him from the rain.
School children have to pledge loyalty to this piece of cloth every morning. No one has to pledge loyalty to justice and equality and human decency. No one has to promise that people will get a fair wage, or enough food to eat, or affordable medicine, or clean water, or air free of harmful chemicals. But we all have to promise to love a rectangle of red, white, and blue cloth.
Betsy Ross would be quite surprised to see how successful her creation has become. But Thomas Jefferson would be disappointed to see how little of the flag's real meaning remains.
Charlotte Aldebron, wrote that in '02 for a competition in her 6th grade English class while attending Cunningham Middle School in Presque Isle, Maine. Four years later, it seems even more relevant. (Hat tip to Nonie3234 for the link)
School children have to pledge loyalty to this piece of cloth every morning. No one has to pledge loyalty to justice and equality and human decency. No one has to promise that people will get a fair wage, or enough food to eat, or affordable medicine, or clean water, or air free of harmful chemicals. But we all have to promise to love a rectangle of red, white, and blue cloth.
Betsy Ross would be quite surprised to see how successful her creation has become. But Thomas Jefferson would be disappointed to see how little of the flag's real meaning remains.
Charlotte Aldebron, wrote that in '02 for a competition in her 6th grade English class while attending Cunningham Middle School in Presque Isle, Maine. Four years later, it seems even more relevant. (Hat tip to Nonie3234 for the link)
Tuesday, July 11, 2006
Oh, yeah - tax cuts are responsible for the decrease
From Talking Points Memo
President Bush is out saying that his tax cuts are responsible for the deficit this year being lower than his economists predicted earlier this year and slightly lower than the actual deficit last year. But is someone going to mention that the tax cuts are the prime reason we have record deficits to begin with? President Bush came into office with surpluses. He ran up the deficits, structural deficits created by his tax cuts. Or have we forgotten that?
Late Update: There's a good editorial making this point in The New Republic a few weeks back. Unfortunately, it's behind their subscription wall. But I'll give you this snippet: "Halving a deficit you inherited would be something to brag about. Halving a deficit you created, not so much. You don't see Bush's former chief domestic policy adviser Claude Allen boasting that he has returned half the merchandise he filched from Target." And as the editors point out, this would be the case if the claim of reducing the deficit were true, which it turns out not to be. Oh well. News editor dorks who got taken in can seek absolution where?
President Bush is out saying that his tax cuts are responsible for the deficit this year being lower than his economists predicted earlier this year and slightly lower than the actual deficit last year. But is someone going to mention that the tax cuts are the prime reason we have record deficits to begin with? President Bush came into office with surpluses. He ran up the deficits, structural deficits created by his tax cuts. Or have we forgotten that?
Late Update: There's a good editorial making this point in The New Republic a few weeks back. Unfortunately, it's behind their subscription wall. But I'll give you this snippet: "Halving a deficit you inherited would be something to brag about. Halving a deficit you created, not so much. You don't see Bush's former chief domestic policy adviser Claude Allen boasting that he has returned half the merchandise he filched from Target." And as the editors point out, this would be the case if the claim of reducing the deficit were true, which it turns out not to be. Oh well. News editor dorks who got taken in can seek absolution where?
Who got raises at the White House?
From Daily Kos
Let's see who the White House values, and who it doesn't...
President Bush's most senior aides -- the ones who hold the coveted title of "assistant to the president" -- recently received a $4,200 cost-of-living bump-up in compensation and now earn a top pay rate of $165,200, according to an internal White House list of staff salaries. The list was compiled by the administration for the year that ended June 30 and is displayed both alphabetically, and by dollar ranking, below. Those at the bottom of the White House staff pay scale -- the folks answering phones and responding to the president's mail, for example -- remain stuck at last year's pay floor of $30,000, according to a year-to-year comparison of White House data obtained by National Journal.
Heh. Those at the bottom didn't even get scraps. A BIG ZERO pay raise.
And who is the decider of those salaries?
White House salaries and job titles are largely controlled at the discretion of the president.
Anyone surprised?
Republicanism in all its glory.
Meanwhile, Think Progress mocks the $106K+ paid to Stuart Baker for being -- this is no joke -- the Director for Lessons Learned. The two ethics advisors ($114.7K and $100.5K) and the Director of Fact Checking ($46.5K) are also clearly doing little to earn their salaries.
Let's see who the White House values, and who it doesn't...
President Bush's most senior aides -- the ones who hold the coveted title of "assistant to the president" -- recently received a $4,200 cost-of-living bump-up in compensation and now earn a top pay rate of $165,200, according to an internal White House list of staff salaries. The list was compiled by the administration for the year that ended June 30 and is displayed both alphabetically, and by dollar ranking, below. Those at the bottom of the White House staff pay scale -- the folks answering phones and responding to the president's mail, for example -- remain stuck at last year's pay floor of $30,000, according to a year-to-year comparison of White House data obtained by National Journal.
Heh. Those at the bottom didn't even get scraps. A BIG ZERO pay raise.
And who is the decider of those salaries?
White House salaries and job titles are largely controlled at the discretion of the president.
Anyone surprised?
Republicanism in all its glory.
Meanwhile, Think Progress mocks the $106K+ paid to Stuart Baker for being -- this is no joke -- the Director for Lessons Learned. The two ethics advisors ($114.7K and $100.5K) and the Director of Fact Checking ($46.5K) are also clearly doing little to earn their salaries.
Bush pleased with massive deficit
From Daily Kos
By kos on deficit
Bush wants high-fives all around for yet another massive budget deficit.
Today, the Office of Management Budget projected a $296 billion federal deficit for fiscal year 2006. Bush held a press conference arguing that this is a vindication of his economic policies.
Actually, it would be the fourth largest deficit of all time. Here's the top five:
1. 2004 (George W. Bush) $413 billion
2. 2003 (George W. Bush) $378 billion
3. 2005 (George W. Bush) $318 billion
4. 2006 (George W. Bush) $296 billion (projected)
5. 1992 (George H. W. Bush) $290 billion
When President Bush came into office, he inherited a surplus of $284 Billion. At that time, the Bush administration predicted a $516 billion surplus for 2006.
I remember when Republicans thought deficits were bad. Now they are celebrating them.
By kos on deficit
Bush wants high-fives all around for yet another massive budget deficit.
Today, the Office of Management Budget projected a $296 billion federal deficit for fiscal year 2006. Bush held a press conference arguing that this is a vindication of his economic policies.
Actually, it would be the fourth largest deficit of all time. Here's the top five:
1. 2004 (George W. Bush) $413 billion
2. 2003 (George W. Bush) $378 billion
3. 2005 (George W. Bush) $318 billion
4. 2006 (George W. Bush) $296 billion (projected)
5. 1992 (George H. W. Bush) $290 billion
When President Bush came into office, he inherited a surplus of $284 Billion. At that time, the Bush administration predicted a $516 billion surplus for 2006.
I remember when Republicans thought deficits were bad. Now they are celebrating them.
Monday, July 10, 2006
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)