Abigail Adams: I am merely rummaging through selected internet articles, books and columns and certain historical documents (a number of well-chosen quotations, the Constitution, The Federalist Papers, economic masterpieces- Friedman’s Capitalism and Freedom, etc.) in an effort to prove to the stubborn, who may be somewhat inclined to heed warnings laid out before them to convince them that the more conscionable act is to vote the interests of posterity, which will provide their descendents a more fair shake in the future. 'Tis true, I would rather not continue the attempt to pluck ripe fruit from a tree that has no possibility of growing any, or whose best growing seasons never were all that commendable. (Remember- I cut down an apple tree this spring- this metaphor is far more real than those who have not read parts 16, 17 and 27 might suppose.) While it is unclear whether the historical Abigail Adams actually spoke the above words, (maybe they were just in the script)- it is usually assumed that she spoke these, albeit about fifty years after Daniel Defoe wrote them: “All men would be tyrants if they could.” These words are never more meaningful and pertinent as when a national election is less than two weeks away.
Are we there yet?: Have you decided to actually dig the foundation of independence or sow the crop of entrenched politicians for yet another election cycle? Perhaps this line of thinking will at some point appeal to those otherwise inclined to vote for an Independent until they consider that vote would hand the election to a republican. Our kids may ask us continually if we have reached the intended destination that was a long way off when the journey started. Unfortunately, we cannot show impatient little ones the progress until we have reached the destination. Their station, and often their contentment, is assured when the trip has been completed. I hope that the adults, in regards to the genuine and acknowledged existence of a formidable extended party, wait until the destination has been reached before asking the question which heads this paragraph. Surely we cannot show progress in obviating the plans of the major parties who will control the future’s of our children even more than they have controlled our present, until we buckle up for the bumpy ride of voting “hell no to the status quo.” It makes little sense to have those who won’t condescend to dip their toe in the pool of truth tell those who are swimming in it that the water is too cold. It must make sense to the illogical to cast a ballot for essentially the same candidate they cast their vote against. Sure, welcome the wolf into the den of thieves, for that is what you do when you mitigate against true change, by stubbornly and insecurely proclaiming that if you will not second my choice of candidates, thou shalt not speak. Continue to justify the continually displayed present political antics so that no common breed of candidate will much respect you. “An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last.” - Winston Churchill
The best candidate: People will contend that we are to choose among the best of the legitimate candidates. Considering the two candidates presented before us who have so exhausted us with what they will do once they occupy the office of the president of the United States, never minding how, I am afraid that the best candidate is not among those of which I am not forced to choose. Yeah, even I had to read that sentence again to see if it made any sense, and I wrote it. There is no law respecting the manner in which one is obliged to vote for either of the two candidates who won their respective primaries/marathons- an election season that has been going for nearly all of my 25-month-old’s life. Since there is little chance of better types of candidates prevailing at election time because of the money which propels, and the media which excuses, the candidates of both major parties, the better act is voting for the only real change we are likely to realize, the complete disavowel of the system and those who too eagerly make their way in it. If, in this world, a 43-year-old Japanese woman can divorce her online husband in a virtual game world and that can make her so angry that she can later kill his digital persona, I can practice and preach that measured steps can be taken to overhaul the way in which we think about our vote and mock those who are loosely tied to fetters they have a mind and the power to untie. (For more on the “Angry Online Divorcee ‘Kills’ Virtual Ex-Hubby” see the Associated Press article written by Mai Yamaguchi.
god suit: I concluded last time with a joke about the Babylonians suing god. Last week I found an article about a Nebraska legislator who sued god for a reason that I do not completely understand. The case was dismissed by a county district judge on the grounds that the “plaintiff must have access to the defendant for a lawsuit to move forward.” My assertion, that god could have been sued by people’s made to speak a different language by the all powerful, is looking quite a bit more substantial, and in keeping with just one of the overused words of the election season- more “fundamental.” For the particulars of the god case, see “Suit Against God Tossed over Lack of Address.” Associated Press, October 15, 2008. Huh, I address god all the time. I say- ‘god can’t you see to it that when hypocrites pray to you for guidance, you subliminally direct them to cast a vote which is more in line with their conscience, should such a psychological entity still remain after years of whoring it out to the devil they feel they know. For this is a more meaningful vote on behalf of the future of this nation as a whole?’
quod licet lovi non licet bovi: or- “what is permitted to Jupiter is not permitted to an ox.” For example- If an “important” person, say a political candidate, lies about how aggressively they will pursue resolutions to the nightmares their own party caused, we should forgive them, but we cannot lie about taking our kids to McDonalds for dinner because of our promise to reward their good behavior. We should continue to vote for those we cannot hold accountable separately while we are at a loss as to how to hold them accountable collectively. Rather, we speak the language all politicians love- the babble of indefatigable self-righteousness. God can make the Babylonians speak different languages for their intent to build a tower to the sky that did not have a prayer of reaching god’s heaven, (excepting that during a time where heaven may formerly have been a lot closer to earth), but we cannot punish our “representatives” for allowing the divisiveness between peoples to continue and grow in volume- volume in the auditory sense and in terms of sheer numbers. The population of the United States will be, according to the U.S. Census Bureau, more than 440 million by 2050, from its already not so comfortable 305 million.
Cap and Trade v. Carbon Taxation
I promised to get to the Cap v. Tax debate as it concerns fossil fuel emissions in a footnote in part 30. You thought, and/or hoped I had forgotten.
Cap vs. Tax: In a May 3, 2008 article “Cap vs. Tax Debate” (http://nyses.org/Main/CapVSTaxDebate) Wyldon King Fishman writes that the “cutting of emission of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases is not just necessary, but it is also relatively affordable.” Fishman explains the scientific background:
“Carbon is present in all fossil fuels because fossil fuel comes from massive pockets in the earth formed when huge ferns and animals like dinosaurs were swallowed up in one of earth’s many cataclysmic times. After we burn fossil fuel one of the gasses given off is carbon dioxide, CO2. CO2 . . . hangs in the lower atmosphere since it’s quite light weight and it remains there. Some heat in the air use[d] to escape our planet’s atmosphere but now it cannot because CO2 re-radiates heat back. It doesn’t heat the earth, it traps heat. It doesn’t kill polar bears, its cumulative effect kills polar bears.”
“We know exactly how much CO2 remains after coal, oil or natural gas is burned. Coal emits 80% more than natural gas and 30% more than oil. Therefore, the dirty coal plants are most effected and they will pay the most in a cap and trade system. Each year the cap for coal would become harder and harder to meet. Natural gas plants get off relatively easy. Natural gas would have more credits to sell and coal would have none . . . Coal has a big team of lobbyists.”
“. . . a carbon tax would be levied on the producers of coal, oil and natural gas upstream either at the point of mining here in the US or as they are imported.”
As Fishman explains: A carbon cap and trade system would be more difficult to implement than it has been for other projects and countries due to the high volume of companies and entities in the U.S. “Insurmountable problems come with expansion and monitoring accountability scams . . . Even if it has an identifying fingerprint [like a smell, taste or can be dimly seen being evacuated from a building] it’s a massive undertaking to monitor zillions of sites emitting carbon.” That may be so, but implementing such a system and the subsequent need for qualified carbon emissions monitor specialists would do wonders for the unemployment rate- should the unemployed not find being a border patrol agent to their liking (this was mentioned in parts 22-27, who knows which part for sure). Surely, there is a “lack of transparency and the easy ability to have fraudulent outcomes” as Fishman writes, and the idea of creating a “new bureaucracy or the [reliance] upon self-reporting” would be an economical and environmental risk, but one we should take. We waste billions on dead ends all the time, that do not have the possible pay off a Cap and Trade system may provide. Keep in mind, this system, would in the long run be cheaper for the taxpayer and better for the environment.
Carbon Tax Center: An alternative to Cap and Trade is presented by the Carbon Tax Center. CTC thinks that a carbon tax approach is better than a carbon cap-and-trade system for many reasons, among them are these:
“1. Carbon taxes will lend predictability to energy prices, whereas cap-and-trade systems will aggravate the price volatility that historically has discouraged investments in less carbon-intensive electricity generation, carbon-reducing energy efficiency and carbon-replacing renewable energy.”
“2. Carbon taxes can be implemented much sooner than complex cap-and-trade systems . . . we do not have the luxury of waiting while the myriad details of a cap-and-trade system are resolved through lengthy negotiations.” While this may be true to an extent, we are already wasting time by not having already begun these negotiations. Also, I read it takes $9 billion for one oil refinery to be built in the U.S. In this economy, after all is said and done, it isn’t certain that any refineries will be built by the estimated 2015 completion date. The government is nothing if not patient- excusing the cap-and-trade system due to a long start-up period is hardly a major impediment and is quite akin to a parent telling a neighbor how smart their child is, excepting when it comes to a derelict child understanding why they were punished for some transgression they were brilliant enough to transact.
More justification: The other reasons for implementing a carbon tax system according to the Carbon Tax Center- 3) carbon taxes are transparent and easily understandable to the public; 4) the carbon tax system would be easier to implement, more difficult for the special interests to manipulate and more difficult for them to undermine the public confidence in it; 5) “carbon taxes address emissions of carbon from every [business] sector,” not just the electricity industry from which 60% of U.S. CO2 emissions are derived; and 6) “Carbon tax revenues can be returned to the public through progressive tax-shifting, while the costs of cap-and-trade systems are likely to become a hidden tax as dollars flow to market participants.”
More carbon emission proposed resolutions: Whatever! We could debate the merits of Cap and Trade vs. Carbon Taxation for a few millennia and probably as long as it will take to see dinosaurs again roming the earth and not pacify everyone, just decide on something, even if it only marginally appears to be better than another possibility. My proposal would be to state the obvious. We have 50 states. Try both solutions in a number of pilot states, selecting some of the more heavy fossil fuel burning states to participate in the cap-and-trade method and some in the carbon tax system. Select twenty states in total, ten to follow each format. Of those, select 3 heavy fossil fuel burning states, 3 that are quantified, known average fossil fuel burning states and 4 that do not pollute the air as much as most of the others. After 2-4 years, get a sense, from a genuine attempt of each style of which is the preferred method. After the merits of one has soundly proven to have bettered the other option, expand the program across the country, mandating its organizing principles, clearly communicating its goals, adequately devising checks and measures to ensure proper implementation and establishing punishments for violating the adopted and preferred method, you would be presumably be saving taxpayer's money, would no longer be beholden to foreign countries in this area and would be treating the environment the way your children would like it to be treated. Yes, I could have gone on for about five more pages, quoting from dismissive authoritarian experts, morally bankrupt politicians and the like, after having investigated and quoted from dozens of other sources, but why? There may very well be an additional set of potential resolutions, now or down the road, that make much more sense than the two leading the pack at this time, but we have to start somewhere.
Just more: For more on this sub-sub-topic please read the Carbon Tax Center’s article on “Pricing Carbon Efficiently and Equitably” at http://www.carbontax.org/issues/carbon-taxes-vs-cap-and-trade/.
Just more II: This article which I included a link to in part 31, is also worthy of note- http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2008/1/30/17554/0835, courtesy of Grist, Environmental News & Commentary, written by Alan Durning on January 31, 2008 discusses the merits of a cap-and-dividend system that would benefit your Joe the plumber types. It’s “not going to end poverty or reverse the widening income gaps that plague our continent” which is the preeminent reason for this whole 38 part blog epic, but some form of fossil fuel burning accountability is a very substantial step in the right direction.
Just more III: No one has an easy answer to this problem, but this type of taunting, from a respondent to the story I just referenced above is not going to get us any closer to a solution. Some anonymous punk writes: “you will let the earth burn while you devise the perfect system never close to being implemented . . . prove me wrong: show me your votes . . . show me the votes in the Congress that you have . . . tell me the districts that you will win to get the necessary margin of victory . . . you cannot do it.” That seems about as productive as a boa constrictor taking medication for a heart condition that masks symptoms of a digestive disorder that are most apparent immediately after a rat has been consumed.
Just more IV: More food for thought on this topic- “Beware of Cap and Trade Climate Bills” Ben Lieberman, December 6, 2007, The Heritage Foundation. In this article Lieberman writes of a regressive tax, lost jobs, and an inadequate environmental gain stemming from the passage of S. 2191 (America’s Climate Security Act of 2007). Seeking Alpha’s (a website) Jim Kingsdale posted a column on “Why Exxon Still Denies Peak Oil” on May 2, 2008 and it touched off a then 10 page community of experts tirade that is probably still going on. The comments made by the peak oil intelligentsia are more educational, frightening, logical and irritating than the posted column itself. One guy, who probably waited in line outside Target to buy Star Trek, The Next Generation, season 1 on DVD wrote these words- “Growing evidence (Lost City hydrothermal vent etc.) indicates that hydrocarbons are being constantly generated abiogenetically in the Earth’s mantle and crust. Furthermore, Transocean continues to drill deepbelow the mythological biogenic “oil window” claimed by cultists . . . and other Peak Oil propagandists.” Sir, do you get out of your basement much? What color is the sun in your world, which will soon be blotted out by your overconfident assertions? This guy is more annoying than the contractor my company hired to perform automated tests using an application that it might be supposed he whittled from the unused brain cells he had planned on using to demonstrate how much of a jackass he could be at his last job. Great, you kept some in reserve. I heard Stacey Keibler sells her panties on ebay and gives the proceeds to charity . . . there is no joke or fancy connection I wish to make here; I just thought I would mention that.
Global warming/climate change: Call the effects of burning fossil fuels and emitting greenhouse gases which circulate amid our environment what you will, the scientific phenomenon of environmental warming is becoming increasingly difficult to explain away as some climate aberrations, when you stop looking at average temperatures and the like. Read the article- “It’s a Poor Time to Exploit Oil Shale” Minneapolis Star Tribune, October 12, 2008, Opinion Exchange section, page 4. The writer explains the reason why we shouldn't use oil shale and writes that “The term ‘oil shale’ refers to a class of sedimentary rocks containing high concentrations of kerogen, a geological ancestor of oil, which can be transformed into petroleum by heating it to extremely high temperatures before processing." The writer then explains that “the extraction of oil from shale requires a tremendous amount of energy, energy that would be produced from fossil-fuel-burning power plants that contribute to global warming.” The writer of the column tells firsthand of seeing “two major ice shelves of Ellesmere Island” in the Arctic regions of our own continent. He maintains that “Fifty percent of the summer sea ice on the Arctic Ocean was lost.” I think he would know. He isn’t some scientist pontificating in a lab in southern California, or some senator voting down sensible alternative energy resolutions in congress. His name is Will Steger- perhaps you’ve heard of him.
Al Gore and green energy: This article appeared in the Opinion Exchange section (OP 11) of the Minneapolis Star Tribune, July 30, 2008, under the heading “Green Energy Means Jobs, Here at Home” and was written by David Foster. This article outlined the number of green jobs, perhaps as many as 252,000 for Minnesotans alone, that would be made available for “welders, sheet-metal workers, machinists and truck drivers” (hopefully after that prevailing wage business gets worked out- see part 33) if we put “global-warming solutions to work.” But instead we should resolve to do nothing and complain about an oil company like ConocoPhillips which “reported a 51 percent increase in revenues” as we continue to avoid taxing them even more. A very intelligent group of people, among them someone I am related to by marriage, have indicated that there is largely nothing to be done to stem the tide of businesses that can hide their profits in foreign markets as they continue to rake it in. If those companies are selling to a hundred million American consumers in the United States, for we use quite a bit of gas I've been told, there is most definitely a way to regulate their actions in the private market. (A massive picture of Al Gore appears above the article which attends to his pet environmental concerns without referring to his environmental hypocrisy- i.e. that he flies in a jet and owns a large home which both needlessly injure the environment; I am not getting into that here.)
Appendicitis: We continue to vote far too many politicians into office that ought to remind us of an appendix, if not in form (such that they resemble a worm in shape), then most certainly in function. I am referring to the vermiform appendix and not to the type of appendix which is often comprised of sometimes useful statistical or bibliographic material which appears at the end of a book. Sometimes we are missing something by not having, or not reading, that supplemental material. And if I were referring to that type of appendix, I could state that politicians are too often delinquent in withholding the when, how, and why of the what's they propose- information that would most properly be delivered to us in the twilight of their crude or fanciful speeches. The politician, like the appendix (of the vermiform variety), may be something that we could stand to remove without our suffering by its absence- addition by subtraction at its best. According to dictionary.com, “the appendix has no known function in present day humans” just like the present day politician. It may formerly have played a role “in the digestive system in humans of earlier times.” The fact that most of us still have our appendix and a decent, sensible number of us are having difficulty digesting what “our” candidates say, and how they will be able to do what they say, makes this a perfect analogy. (Note: what we would do without politicians I have mentioned before- we vote using the referendum approach, which is the truest form of direct democracy available, which is one reason that this countries policy makers wouldn't stand for it. The big issues of the day may still be divisively debated and a certain number of politicians would still be needed to transact the business of the locality, state and country, but the voter would not be as subjected to the inherent flaws that comfortable representatives seedily enjoy. We would decide upon which issues are those that would come up for a referendum vote well in advance so that all voters could research the issue about as much as they do now- which, would equate in gallons, to the amount of pig milk the average citizen has consumed in their lifetime. Those issues need hardly be repeated as I have spent months identifying and investigating them.)
Do something: The two words which head this short paragraph are directly applicable to the closing two, non-parenthesied, sentences of the previous paragraph . . . see, about the appendix and the fact that it serves no useful purpose. I would advocate less bickering and more results and once Obama finds himself in the white house with a majority of democrats in the house and senate, you better damn well get some things done for the middle class, or we'll vote your sorry behinds out two years from now. “There are risks and costs to a program of action. But they are far less than the long range risks and costs of comfortable inaction.” - John F. Kennedy. Anyone need a list of issues upon which both parties have failed to act definitively? . . . national debt, social security, welfare, Iraq, getting Bin Laden, health care, education, immigration, taxation, free-market and restraint of trade, etc.
Cap vs. Tax: In a May 3, 2008 article “Cap vs. Tax Debate” (http://nyses.org/Main/CapVSTaxDebate) Wyldon King Fishman writes that the “cutting of emission of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases is not just necessary, but it is also relatively affordable.” Fishman explains the scientific background:
“Carbon is present in all fossil fuels because fossil fuel comes from massive pockets in the earth formed when huge ferns and animals like dinosaurs were swallowed up in one of earth’s many cataclysmic times. After we burn fossil fuel one of the gasses given off is carbon dioxide, CO2. CO2 . . . hangs in the lower atmosphere since it’s quite light weight and it remains there. Some heat in the air use[d] to escape our planet’s atmosphere but now it cannot because CO2 re-radiates heat back. It doesn’t heat the earth, it traps heat. It doesn’t kill polar bears, its cumulative effect kills polar bears.”
“We know exactly how much CO2 remains after coal, oil or natural gas is burned. Coal emits 80% more than natural gas and 30% more than oil. Therefore, the dirty coal plants are most effected and they will pay the most in a cap and trade system. Each year the cap for coal would become harder and harder to meet. Natural gas plants get off relatively easy. Natural gas would have more credits to sell and coal would have none . . . Coal has a big team of lobbyists.”
“. . . a carbon tax would be levied on the producers of coal, oil and natural gas upstream either at the point of mining here in the US or as they are imported.”
As Fishman explains: A carbon cap and trade system would be more difficult to implement than it has been for other projects and countries due to the high volume of companies and entities in the U.S. “Insurmountable problems come with expansion and monitoring accountability scams . . . Even if it has an identifying fingerprint [like a smell, taste or can be dimly seen being evacuated from a building] it’s a massive undertaking to monitor zillions of sites emitting carbon.” That may be so, but implementing such a system and the subsequent need for qualified carbon emissions monitor specialists would do wonders for the unemployment rate- should the unemployed not find being a border patrol agent to their liking (this was mentioned in parts 22-27, who knows which part for sure). Surely, there is a “lack of transparency and the easy ability to have fraudulent outcomes” as Fishman writes, and the idea of creating a “new bureaucracy or the [reliance] upon self-reporting” would be an economical and environmental risk, but one we should take. We waste billions on dead ends all the time, that do not have the possible pay off a Cap and Trade system may provide. Keep in mind, this system, would in the long run be cheaper for the taxpayer and better for the environment.
Carbon Tax Center: An alternative to Cap and Trade is presented by the Carbon Tax Center. CTC thinks that a carbon tax approach is better than a carbon cap-and-trade system for many reasons, among them are these:
“1. Carbon taxes will lend predictability to energy prices, whereas cap-and-trade systems will aggravate the price volatility that historically has discouraged investments in less carbon-intensive electricity generation, carbon-reducing energy efficiency and carbon-replacing renewable energy.”
“2. Carbon taxes can be implemented much sooner than complex cap-and-trade systems . . . we do not have the luxury of waiting while the myriad details of a cap-and-trade system are resolved through lengthy negotiations.” While this may be true to an extent, we are already wasting time by not having already begun these negotiations. Also, I read it takes $9 billion for one oil refinery to be built in the U.S. In this economy, after all is said and done, it isn’t certain that any refineries will be built by the estimated 2015 completion date. The government is nothing if not patient- excusing the cap-and-trade system due to a long start-up period is hardly a major impediment and is quite akin to a parent telling a neighbor how smart their child is, excepting when it comes to a derelict child understanding why they were punished for some transgression they were brilliant enough to transact.
More justification: The other reasons for implementing a carbon tax system according to the Carbon Tax Center- 3) carbon taxes are transparent and easily understandable to the public; 4) the carbon tax system would be easier to implement, more difficult for the special interests to manipulate and more difficult for them to undermine the public confidence in it; 5) “carbon taxes address emissions of carbon from every [business] sector,” not just the electricity industry from which 60% of U.S. CO2 emissions are derived; and 6) “Carbon tax revenues can be returned to the public through progressive tax-shifting, while the costs of cap-and-trade systems are likely to become a hidden tax as dollars flow to market participants.”
More carbon emission proposed resolutions: Whatever! We could debate the merits of Cap and Trade vs. Carbon Taxation for a few millennia and probably as long as it will take to see dinosaurs again roming the earth and not pacify everyone, just decide on something, even if it only marginally appears to be better than another possibility. My proposal would be to state the obvious. We have 50 states. Try both solutions in a number of pilot states, selecting some of the more heavy fossil fuel burning states to participate in the cap-and-trade method and some in the carbon tax system. Select twenty states in total, ten to follow each format. Of those, select 3 heavy fossil fuel burning states, 3 that are quantified, known average fossil fuel burning states and 4 that do not pollute the air as much as most of the others. After 2-4 years, get a sense, from a genuine attempt of each style of which is the preferred method. After the merits of one has soundly proven to have bettered the other option, expand the program across the country, mandating its organizing principles, clearly communicating its goals, adequately devising checks and measures to ensure proper implementation and establishing punishments for violating the adopted and preferred method, you would be presumably be saving taxpayer's money, would no longer be beholden to foreign countries in this area and would be treating the environment the way your children would like it to be treated. Yes, I could have gone on for about five more pages, quoting from dismissive authoritarian experts, morally bankrupt politicians and the like, after having investigated and quoted from dozens of other sources, but why? There may very well be an additional set of potential resolutions, now or down the road, that make much more sense than the two leading the pack at this time, but we have to start somewhere.
Just more: For more on this sub-sub-topic please read the Carbon Tax Center’s article on “Pricing Carbon Efficiently and Equitably” at http://www.carbontax.org/issues/carbon-taxes-vs-cap-and-trade/.
Just more II: This article which I included a link to in part 31, is also worthy of note- http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2008/1/30/17554/0835, courtesy of Grist, Environmental News & Commentary, written by Alan Durning on January 31, 2008 discusses the merits of a cap-and-dividend system that would benefit your Joe the plumber types. It’s “not going to end poverty or reverse the widening income gaps that plague our continent” which is the preeminent reason for this whole 38 part blog epic, but some form of fossil fuel burning accountability is a very substantial step in the right direction.
Just more III: No one has an easy answer to this problem, but this type of taunting, from a respondent to the story I just referenced above is not going to get us any closer to a solution. Some anonymous punk writes: “you will let the earth burn while you devise the perfect system never close to being implemented . . . prove me wrong: show me your votes . . . show me the votes in the Congress that you have . . . tell me the districts that you will win to get the necessary margin of victory . . . you cannot do it.” That seems about as productive as a boa constrictor taking medication for a heart condition that masks symptoms of a digestive disorder that are most apparent immediately after a rat has been consumed.
Just more IV: More food for thought on this topic- “Beware of Cap and Trade Climate Bills” Ben Lieberman, December 6, 2007, The Heritage Foundation. In this article Lieberman writes of a regressive tax, lost jobs, and an inadequate environmental gain stemming from the passage of S. 2191 (America’s Climate Security Act of 2007). Seeking Alpha’s (a website) Jim Kingsdale posted a column on “Why Exxon Still Denies Peak Oil” on May 2, 2008 and it touched off a then 10 page community of experts tirade that is probably still going on. The comments made by the peak oil intelligentsia are more educational, frightening, logical and irritating than the posted column itself. One guy, who probably waited in line outside Target to buy Star Trek, The Next Generation, season 1 on DVD wrote these words- “Growing evidence (Lost City hydrothermal vent etc.) indicates that hydrocarbons are being constantly generated abiogenetically in the Earth’s mantle and crust. Furthermore, Transocean continues to drill deepbelow the mythological biogenic “oil window” claimed by cultists . . . and other Peak Oil propagandists.” Sir, do you get out of your basement much? What color is the sun in your world, which will soon be blotted out by your overconfident assertions? This guy is more annoying than the contractor my company hired to perform automated tests using an application that it might be supposed he whittled from the unused brain cells he had planned on using to demonstrate how much of a jackass he could be at his last job. Great, you kept some in reserve. I heard Stacey Keibler sells her panties on ebay and gives the proceeds to charity . . . there is no joke or fancy connection I wish to make here; I just thought I would mention that.
Global warming/climate change: Call the effects of burning fossil fuels and emitting greenhouse gases which circulate amid our environment what you will, the scientific phenomenon of environmental warming is becoming increasingly difficult to explain away as some climate aberrations, when you stop looking at average temperatures and the like. Read the article- “It’s a Poor Time to Exploit Oil Shale” Minneapolis Star Tribune, October 12, 2008, Opinion Exchange section, page 4. The writer explains the reason why we shouldn't use oil shale and writes that “The term ‘oil shale’ refers to a class of sedimentary rocks containing high concentrations of kerogen, a geological ancestor of oil, which can be transformed into petroleum by heating it to extremely high temperatures before processing." The writer then explains that “the extraction of oil from shale requires a tremendous amount of energy, energy that would be produced from fossil-fuel-burning power plants that contribute to global warming.” The writer of the column tells firsthand of seeing “two major ice shelves of Ellesmere Island” in the Arctic regions of our own continent. He maintains that “Fifty percent of the summer sea ice on the Arctic Ocean was lost.” I think he would know. He isn’t some scientist pontificating in a lab in southern California, or some senator voting down sensible alternative energy resolutions in congress. His name is Will Steger- perhaps you’ve heard of him.
Al Gore and green energy: This article appeared in the Opinion Exchange section (OP 11) of the Minneapolis Star Tribune, July 30, 2008, under the heading “Green Energy Means Jobs, Here at Home” and was written by David Foster. This article outlined the number of green jobs, perhaps as many as 252,000 for Minnesotans alone, that would be made available for “welders, sheet-metal workers, machinists and truck drivers” (hopefully after that prevailing wage business gets worked out- see part 33) if we put “global-warming solutions to work.” But instead we should resolve to do nothing and complain about an oil company like ConocoPhillips which “reported a 51 percent increase in revenues” as we continue to avoid taxing them even more. A very intelligent group of people, among them someone I am related to by marriage, have indicated that there is largely nothing to be done to stem the tide of businesses that can hide their profits in foreign markets as they continue to rake it in. If those companies are selling to a hundred million American consumers in the United States, for we use quite a bit of gas I've been told, there is most definitely a way to regulate their actions in the private market. (A massive picture of Al Gore appears above the article which attends to his pet environmental concerns without referring to his environmental hypocrisy- i.e. that he flies in a jet and owns a large home which both needlessly injure the environment; I am not getting into that here.)
Appendicitis: We continue to vote far too many politicians into office that ought to remind us of an appendix, if not in form (such that they resemble a worm in shape), then most certainly in function. I am referring to the vermiform appendix and not to the type of appendix which is often comprised of sometimes useful statistical or bibliographic material which appears at the end of a book. Sometimes we are missing something by not having, or not reading, that supplemental material. And if I were referring to that type of appendix, I could state that politicians are too often delinquent in withholding the when, how, and why of the what's they propose- information that would most properly be delivered to us in the twilight of their crude or fanciful speeches. The politician, like the appendix (of the vermiform variety), may be something that we could stand to remove without our suffering by its absence- addition by subtraction at its best. According to dictionary.com, “the appendix has no known function in present day humans” just like the present day politician. It may formerly have played a role “in the digestive system in humans of earlier times.” The fact that most of us still have our appendix and a decent, sensible number of us are having difficulty digesting what “our” candidates say, and how they will be able to do what they say, makes this a perfect analogy. (Note: what we would do without politicians I have mentioned before- we vote using the referendum approach, which is the truest form of direct democracy available, which is one reason that this countries policy makers wouldn't stand for it. The big issues of the day may still be divisively debated and a certain number of politicians would still be needed to transact the business of the locality, state and country, but the voter would not be as subjected to the inherent flaws that comfortable representatives seedily enjoy. We would decide upon which issues are those that would come up for a referendum vote well in advance so that all voters could research the issue about as much as they do now- which, would equate in gallons, to the amount of pig milk the average citizen has consumed in their lifetime. Those issues need hardly be repeated as I have spent months identifying and investigating them.)
Do something: The two words which head this short paragraph are directly applicable to the closing two, non-parenthesied, sentences of the previous paragraph . . . see, about the appendix and the fact that it serves no useful purpose. I would advocate less bickering and more results and once Obama finds himself in the white house with a majority of democrats in the house and senate, you better damn well get some things done for the middle class, or we'll vote your sorry behinds out two years from now. “There are risks and costs to a program of action. But they are far less than the long range risks and costs of comfortable inaction.” - John F. Kennedy. Anyone need a list of issues upon which both parties have failed to act definitively? . . . national debt, social security, welfare, Iraq, getting Bin Laden, health care, education, immigration, taxation, free-market and restraint of trade, etc.
Economy and Infrastructure
1) The source: “Economic Woes Lead to Retail Entrenchment”; Associated Press, March 10, 2008.
Quotes: “ . . . consumers who are closing their wallets amid rising gasoline prices and a housing slump are forcing specialty retailers to pare back their brands . . . ‘This is economic Darwinism’ said a real estate specialist.’ . . . Unless the economy dramatically improves . . . retail bankruptcies this year could reach the highest level since the 1991 recession.”
Comments: After reading this particular story, I initially considered that there were far too many malls and stores and we could use a downsizing of middle class spending on things the average taxpayer could not afford- overpriced jeans, Sharper Image gadgets that were unneeded, video gaming systems we thought we needed to have, and so on. But then I thought, people work in these stores and people own them and isn’t one thing that can get an economy turned around, a healthy retail market? Isn't that why the government gave us the economic stimulus checks this summer? This story isn’t so much alarming as it is noteworthy, at least for now. Industry people have said that vacancy rates for retail space, due to business costs and bankruptcies, in cities such as Kansas City, Mo. and San Antonio could hit 17-20 % at some point in 2008. Besides, anyone who sticks an adjective in front of the word Darwinism is some kind of a sociology scholar, with a Masters in B.S., a scholastic Darwinist you might say. There is social and economic Darwinism, so what about kitchen faucet Darwinism, backhoe Darwinism, school project Darwinism and ostentation Darwinism. John Adams would be forever connected to that last type.
2) The source: “Tough Choices for States During Budget Crisis”; Associated Press, July 31, 2008.
Quotes: California “is laying off as many as 22,000 state employees. New York’s governor is raising the possibility of selling—or . . . leasing—the Brooklyn Bridge. Nevada is burning through its rainy-day fund like a gambler on a losing streak. And Maryland is pinning its hopes on slot machines . . . The startlingly rapid drop-off in tax revenue is forcing many states to make some hard decisions: Raise taxes? Cut programs and jobs? Dip into reserves? Borrow money? Lease or sell state assets?"
Comments: State governments wouldn’t think of raising citizen taxes when we’re already going to be on the hook for bailing out corporate lending giants, can they? Naah. This couldn’t possibly affect the middle class detrimentally. And no homeowner should lose a territorial dispute with a bunny over the land which resides beneath his deck. I have far too many details that would cause you to think that I was almost as capable of dealing with Bugs as John Adams was with tolerating the likes of Alexander Hamilton, and there is at least as much intrigue.
I aim to strong-arm that rabbit away from the unused portion of land beneath my deck. I am the perfect mix of brain and brawn; unfortunately, both parts are equal without either part being substantial.
3) The source: “Report Says 1 in 4 U.S. Bridges Needs Repairs”; Associated Press, July 28, 2008.
Quotes: A “report cited Federal Highway Administration statistics that 152,000 out of the nation’s 600,000 bridges are either structurally deficient or functionally obsolete.” It is estimated that “at least $140 billion is needed to make major repairs or upgrades to one of every four U.S. bridges.”
Comments: That $140 billion price tag will easily go up to $150 billion for that amount of work, stretched out over a dozen years just to pay for the prevailing wage increases (see part 33). Oh yeah, and we have $162 billion going to the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq that have been taking quite a bit of the money we could spend revitalizing our own infrastructure, not to mention how much we have wasted on welfare fraud and oversight.
4) The source: “The Band Aids are Running Out”; Minneapolis Star Tribune editorial, A4 of the Opinion Exchange section, September 23, 2007.
Quotes: Twin Cities commuters wasted 30 gallons of fuel in 2007 during peak-time travel (i.e. during rush hour); those people wasted an average of 43 hours per person due to congestion. “The last major transportation package proposed in the [Minnesota] Legislature—by a bipartisan team of lawmakers—would have cost the average driver $250 per year. Congestion costs that same driver $790 in lost time and wasted fuel.”
Comments: There are all kinds of facts, figures, percentages and dollar amounts for the statistics enthusiast. We are spending more time driving in traffic on bridges that aren't all that safe, to make less money at jobs that pay us less, when adjusted for inflation. Given how productive some experts say we are, that is the type of logic for which only Obama could get us to cheer. Again, if productivity is up, then middle class Americans should be paid more.
5) The source: “An Electrifying Thought for Ford’s St. Paul Plant”; David Morris, Minneapolis Star Tribune, Opinion Exchange section- OP1 and OP2, November 25, 2007.
Quotes and comments: A Ford plant that was going to close remained open, invested in making a viable electrically-powered Ford Ranger and has preceded GM in releasing a “plug-in-vehicle” of its own. Now that is productivity. See, another positive article. You must be thinking, this guy cannot possibly be as petulent as John Adams.
6) The source: My 401k statement.
Quotes: "Holy shit!"
Comments: From the end of June 2008 to the second week in October, I lost almost $12,000 from my retirement account. For those people who continue to advise to leave the amount you are devoting to the purchase of stocks at lower prices ensuring that "when" the market turns around, you will make an incredible profit- just be quit now. The stock market has made fewer actual turns than someone who hasn’t gotten off the highway in seven years, since about 2001 for instance. Only a dead possum that’s been run over 359 times on an infrequently traveled county road can show this much patience. And just like the possum, the advice to be patient- STINKS! If I’ve bought seven years worth of stock, devoting 8-13% of my paycheck, at what are considered bargain prices, perhaps that is enough?
6) The source: “If Economy Goes South is Minnesota Prepared?” Lori Studevant, Minneapolis Star Tribune, Opinion Exchange section, December 2, 2007. (See no. 2 directly above if you feel this one is too provincial.)
Quotes: Various experienced people doled out the following opinions- 1) “ ‘The problem for local governments is that the property tax burden is back to where it was in 2001.’ ” 2) “State tax receipts come primarily from two big sources, a progressive income tax that no longer keeps pace with soaring incomes at the top and a sales tax that’s collected primarily on the purchase of durable goods, not services, food or clothing. ‘The [baby] boomers aren’t buying those things anymore.’ ” This was formerly a major source of sales tax money. 3) “ . . . make sure income tax is progressive enough. We’ve had so much increase in inequality in this decade. We have to make sure the income tax is adjusted so that it climbs up the (income) ladder.”
Comments: The second comment speaks to numbers 1 and 2 directly above under the Economy and Infrastructure heading. If people don’t have the money to buy things because of the cost of living increases not matching inflation, then if you raise their taxes in addition to that, who will be able to afford an over-priced sports utility vehicle, IPod docking station or mass quantities of blood meal that could be used to force the stubborn friggin’ bunny from beneath one's deck? Apparently I am not the only one who has identified the noticeably growing gap between the rich and middle class. I most agree with Obama in this area- on taxation. He has, if I am understanding him correctly, proposed to increase taxes on those that make over $250,000 a year (the richest 5%). And I only agree with him after such time as it has been determined that all federal, state and local budget money can be accounted for and spent in a justifiable manner- justifiable in accordance with the desires of a panel of diligent, objective philosopher kings of my choosing.
7) The source: “Changing the Current”; Steven Mufson, Washington Post, April 22, 2008.
Quotes: “California is one of 25 states that have adopted laws that require electric utilities to use more renewable resources . . . Although Congress failed to set a nationwide standard for utilities’ use of renewable resources as part of its energy bill last year, bills passed by state legislatures are steering utilities away from power plants that generate greenhouse gases. Wind power accounted for 30 percent of all new U.S. generating capacity last year, according to the American Wind Energy Association.”
Comments: See, I can deliver good news. Unfortunately, even should congress set a standard on the reduction of fossil fuel and greenhouse gas emissions, with the U.S. population expected to add well over 100 million residents in the next 40 years, it won’t be enough. If you request and demand that utilities, car manufacturers and big oil companies, among others, use 20-40% fewer environmentally toxic substances in order to transact business or power an automobile, the sheer volume of people expected to inhabit the country the next four decades will drastically minimize many measures used to alleviate environmental strains.
8) The source: “Capitalism and Freedom”; Milton Friedman, The University of Chicago Press, 1982, 202 pages.
Quotes: This book has as its major topic, economic matters of all types. No sensible man could incredulously walk away from half of the truths Friedman explains, and no reasonable man could pretend to agree with some of the half-truths. If I were to begin to quote from this book on this subtopic, I would not know when to stop from the standpoint of quoting him to support my argument as well as to refute his.
Comments: There is just as much to support as to deny. I realized I haven’t been as redundant as formerly, so I thought I would take the occasion to remind the reader of one of my infrequently used talents. If you have not read this book- what are you waiting for? I have already either referenced or quoted him in parts 6, 8-11, 19, 28, 31-33, 35 and 36. There are still quotable passages in his book that I have not either denounced or appreciated, but at this point it is time for a first-hand, diligent read of your own. Besides, I have yet to comment much on the free-market, free-trade aspect of economics and will probably bring up Friedman at that point.
Fait accomplis- Economy: That may be all I have, until I refer to economic issues while addressing taxation.
PS. Yeah, I was just kidding, I haven’t even displayed what I don’t know about the free market or what others I don't know, do know about the free market. See part 40, which I will not get to until after the election.
Election
E.J. Dionne Jr.: The overly liberal columnist writing for the Washington Post prior to the third presidential debate penned these words- not especially profound, true, interesting- not even necessary really: “. . . it’s unfair for political bystanders to attack Obama and McCain for offering few specifics as to how they’d fix an ailing economy.” The major point of Dionne’s article is that things are moving so fast in the economic solutions game that we need to just calm down long enough to let things play out before offering up hair-brained ideas on how to fix what might not be all that broken a month from now. Thing is, his opening two paragraphs really speak none of the sense he exhibits in the rest of his column. Dionne’s words, those which nurture the idea of patience amid potentially short-term market volatility, which is reasonable, and the idea that voters should curtail their enthusiasms when it comes to what they should expect from candidates in terms of issue resolution concepts, which is nonsensical, pale in comparison with these words- “Singular indeed that the people should be writhing under oppression and injury, and yet not one among them to be found, to raise the voice of complaint.” It is probable that Abraham Lincoln was referring to slaves but I expect that at least one of them at least murmured in protest against how roughly they were treated, and it goes without saying, had far more right to complain than I have, for the levels of injustice are far from comparable.
The Supermen must dress in the dark: The number and types of issues the president can resolve while in office, even those running for the office exaggerate. We are not electing a Superman who will cure all of our ills. On a smaller scale, it is difficult to believe that a U.S. senator or state congressmen would be able to solve all of our problems. It is clear, and maybe even fundamental, that the higher the politicians go up the food chain of political Darwinism (thought you would like that one), the more clueless they become to the needs of all types of people. Most candidates act as if they have attired themselves in the costume of a superhero. Remember, for some reason, all of the inhabitants of Metropolis but one, Lois Lane, had no idea about Superman’s identity and I think even she was clueless until she slept with him more than once. Superman is the only major superhero ever created and chronicled that, to my knowledge, has never been depicted with some type of mask. We, as voters, should be wiser than the denizens of a fictional city who were so easily duped; we know who these politicians are and are somehow blinded by their selfless ability to provide a public service? As much as the citizens of Metropolis could not figure out the identity of the man of steel, neither can the average voter conclude that the Bizarro Superman/politician is he who has least failed them in sound bite form. These candidate-Supermen must dress in the dark because their promises and those which they deliver upon do not often seem to match.
Allies- money, money, money, money: We cannot look to the media as an ally; a colleague reminded me that no moderator asked one question about the issue of immigration. Granted, the economy is a more important issue at this time, especially considering that immigrants are in no hurry to attempt to find work in our country in this economy. Similarly, the issue of campaign finance reform and how much each of the two candidates have spent this election was never addressed so far as I can remember. Nothing is said about where McCain and Obama are getting their money. Do a couple of Google searches on McCain and Obama “total campaign expenditures” and you will receive all kinds of results revealing how much each of them spent in September 2008 and some other suspect pieces of information about fictitious campaign donors, how much each has received from oil companies, big business, etc. The running total can be found at http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/campaign-finance-tracker.htm, which reveals that to date, McCain has collected more than $230 million and Obama more than $454 million. There are graphs showing how much both candidates have received by state, amount (i.e. number and size of individual contributions), by month (dating back to January 2007), and sector (i.e. health, finance and insurance, defense, energy, communications, construction, etc.) There are two sector categories that seem strange to me. There is an “other” category that is the second highest on the list, in terms of received campaign finance donations. The highest total, for both McCain and Obama is to be found in the category marked as “unknown.” Now, I ask, considering the country is on the hook for the economic bailout, should we really be trusting our vote to two parties that have raised well over $1 billion.*
Obama’s millions: With all that said, Obama has purchased 30 minutes of air time within a week of election day- http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27107689. Well, that’s something to look forward to. Obama has so much money to spend, it is like “Brewster’s Millions” all over again . . . and I don’t mean Punky Brewster. Monty Brewster, played by Richard Pryor in the 1985 film, must spend $30 million in 30 days, as a condition in his dead uncle’s will, in order to collect $300 million. Not that farfetched really, because wasn’t it Obama’s uncle who liberated the Jews from Auschwitz, or some collection of campaign finance donors that promised if he spent $300 million on the campaign to get elected, he could further screw up the country after he was president, by continuing to run up the national debt and over-extending the federal budget? Sounds just like the plot to the movie I mentioned above. In the movie, Brewster could not have any assets after spending that $30 million; I wonder at the number of assets the average middle class American will have during the Obama presidency.** I was left with a choice- make an elaborate comparison to the amount of money Obama has wasted on this election or hint that his problem of having too much money is akin to a “Man Accused of Tucking 6 Lobsters into His Pants.” (Associated Press, October 12, 2008.) Yeah, I took the high road. Insert a Miranda rights joke here and a mock quote from the arresting officer- “Sir, are those large marine crustaceans in your pocket or are you just happy to see me." The high road indeed.
Junk mail: Last week was junk mail week. THat is all I have- nothing clever to say on that. Everyone has read about one candidate being the proven choice and another being compared to a fox guarding a hen house. Jeez. Many of the flyers address how so and so voted on particular bills. A radio show sidekick mentioned that some candidates can get labeled as against energy independence because they keep voting against bills which have energy measures attached to them. When in fact, had the energy proposal appeared by itself it likely would have passed, that is, if it had not been repeatedly attached to any of a variety of economically debilitating bills which also would have allowed for taxpayer-funded stadiums, discriminated against slugs with seasonal affective disorder by prohibiting them from sliming a city's sidewalks or allowed politicians to become lobbyists while still in office.
Our support: Consider for a moment that when we head to the polls on November 4th, 2008, we are the defenders of what is good and right, jurors in the cause of our descendants. Shouldn’t it be our soul’s aim to demand a more practicable solution to the problems in the government that are so widely acknowledged by the middle class that they do not need to be repeated? When we vote, we sit in judgement of the candidates before us, who I have deemed to be in some cases deliberately corrupt, unwittingly negligent or otherwise unqualified. It is left to us to put one of them in power or to cast a negative vote for none of the above. Shouldn’t we take heart in the freedom to be able to do what is best and to cast a vote on behalf of political skepticism, which maintains that there is a certain level of guilt, and a substantial level at that, among those who represent us for reasons I have spent about 18 months chronicling? As children, we would stop eating Brussels sprouts if they never tasted good to us, or be weary of our grandmother’s potato salad if it last tasted good to us when we were twelve- so why not resolve to do something more meaningful than to swear off foods that are grievously displeasing- namely discontinuing the de facto support of a two party system that is not working? We are under no obligation to spare one party’s feelings over the other, even should that cook/politician come to our door and ask for our vote/inquire as to whether we liked the dish they decided to serve us- never minding that they perhaps had done a terrible job serving us for two, four, six, or thirty years.
Step one- Hamilton: Alexander Hamilton was one of John Adam’s contemporaries- the two seem to have had much in common, though liking each other was not one of them. It appears, if the representation of Adams’ character in the HBO miniseries is to be believed as historically accurate, that Adams was not the most well-liked politician or ever a father of the year candidate. Alexander Hamilton, who as we know, was killed in 1804 in a duel with the sitting vice president- Aaron Burr, wrote in the 65th Federalist Paper, about the requesting that the same man not be held accountable by the same type of trial nor the same judges for his offenses. He was concerned that juries would be too much inclined to follow the lead of prominent and otherwise capable judges, and base their collective decision on his findings rather than on theirs. Hamilton writes: “Who would be willing to stake his life and his estate upon the verdict of a jury, acting under the auspices of Judges, who had predetermined his guilt?"
Step two- voter judgment: I take another step in pondering this quotation, as we have by and large only determined our collective candidates are guilty after consulting the distributed facts and our own consciences. I consider that a jury member is a voter and the matter to be judged is the relative fitness of any candidate for elected office. This candidate may be a seasoned veteran or a wily newcomer; his record is cloaked in subterfuge or has been wholly inadequate; this man or woman may be vindictive and negative or pretend to offer us good things that we desire (and here people may discontinue pretending that the only two candidates I have in mind are those running to fill the seat in the oval office). These people running for office are good at deflecting blame, and of speaking in half-truths, who accentuate only the portion of their record that smells like roses, while dismissing that which looks like a moose with a staph infection that has been hit by a semi- who was all for term limits until it is their term in office which is to be limited- in short a set of hypocrites we wouldn’t have our worst enemy befriend. I turn Mr. Hamilton’s quote inside out and ask- are we to trust the judgement of a set of candidates- senators, legislators, councilmen, presidents-to-be, who have predetermined their own innocence and continually subject our needs to their political impotence?
I would rather keep no renter's insurance and room with a narcoleptic red panda that likes to smoke in bed than vote for any candidate from the two major parties.
______________________________________________________________
* I don’t know how accurate that amount is. I had found that back in parts 19-21 (concerning campaign finance), but specifically in part 19, that of the original 15 candidates who began running for president at some point in 2007 had amassed war chests that combined for almost $466 million, and that was in early February of 2008.
** Another amusing side note. In the movie, part of the story centers around Brewster deciding to run for mayor of the city of New York and “throws most of his money at a protest campaign urging a vote for "None of the Above." (courtesy of Wikipedia). If only I had $30 million to spare, I could be among those in life who have imitated art.
No comments:
Post a Comment