The Democratic Message?

As "mid-term" elections approach for our lame-duck president, polls imply the democrats have fertile ground to make head-way into regaining a majority in the house and the senate perhaps. This perhaps explains why the republicans have largely abandoned their "party leader" president for their own survival.

It is a curious place to be, to have an expectation for a tail wind and progress. Ought opportunity to be MAXIMIZED by strategic "facts" and half-truths intended to pander to people's desires?

Of course my answer is no, but I admit were I a politician, I'd really like to "be positive" and make people think things can be turned around with the right leadership (me!)

I admit I'm a pessimist in terms of how things are done, and probably overly so. Still, I don't see how to "spin" our choices into anything other than a heroic "tighten our belts" and "stiff upper lip" response to the grave dangers to "life as we know it."

On the good side, if we admit the down-side, we can prepare and minimize, while if we deny the down-side, it'll just get delayed and hit harder later.

Here's what I see as "unavoidable" events best "managed" rather than avoided to the last moment:
1) The value of U.S. currency must plummet dramatically to end the trade deficits. (i.e. something like 50% value)
2) The cost of energy in this country must increase dramatically even from current highs. (i.e. something like 100% increase.)
3) The U.S. military must downsize dramatically even as possible uses will increase further in the near future. (Again another 50% downsize)

The world economy as we know it is overly dependent upon an unsustainable U.S. Debt. The crazy thing is we benefit from a world that is propping up our debt, while we have control to screw them over via a currency drop. It WILL happen, if by nothing else than a period of high inflation which WILL happen sooner or later. You can feel sorry for these foolish investors, but still more honest to deal with it sooner than later.

Cheap energy runs the economy and it remains to be seen what prices are "still cheap" and which are deal breaker to "life as we know it." What is amazing to me is that people dare complain about energy prices without considering the lack of alternatives. A lack of alternatives to me is PROOF that energy is underprices and must go up.

The last one is the one I can least see. WHEN will the U.S. citizens DEMAND a reduction of military spending? How many social programs will we cut? How much debt will we give to our children before we say "Enough"?

The "fear-mongers" are winning wholesale, and they'd still be winning if it wasn't for the little rises in energy prices over the last 2-3 years. The republicans have won the day in demonstrating that it is not only POSSIBLE but desirable to increase government debt to cover any military cost they want.

In the olden days of Empire, one Empire would invest huge sums of money in military conquest because they knew victory would allow large scale pillaging of the loser in slaves and wealth. It is amazing in a democrazy (oops, Freudian slip?) that War is even possible. Perhaps that explains why Bush must resort to selective facts to sell their cases. Even a "just" war can be opposed against short term self-interest. War now is apparently sellable because all the costs are hidden in unimaginable budget deficits and a "volunteer army".

Anyway, somehow I imagine something must oppose our military expansion. If you believe the republican "starve the beast", I suppose the military could rebel internally, if expectations exceeeded their resources. Generals might just say "No, we can't do it with available resources."

It is a frustrating reality to WANT justice and to imagine the U.S. military might even hold some value in world peace and justice, but to know we can't do it all. When faced by a "wild west town", how do you BEGIN to clean things up with limited resources?

I don't know anything about the comparisons of Iraq and Viet Nam. I'll accept we spent more in 2006 dollars in VN than Iraq, and certainly more soldiers there. I just think of English and the U.S. Revolutionary war - England lost because they had better uses for their resources than to defend the empire. If I lived in Iraq today, I'd want to leave, home and memory and all. If civil war is avoided, I'd be surprised, and I'd say better to negociate a divided ruled country that can be locally defended than a false unity that probably can be no better than Saddam's fear-domination approach to defend. There's just too much oil weath and too much incentive for violence to take. Maybe I'm wrong, but I guess I pick making defendable walls over fighting for everything.

Oops, back to my title, the "Democratic message"?

I admit I don't know. The WHOLE problem lies that we have a system that DEMANDS change, and all changes HURT SOMEONE, so PLANNED change that hurts someone will have to offer BRIBES to those harmed to a degree that the AGREED solutions don't solve the real problems.

You've got the "socialists" on one side who would use "wealth distribution" - empowering the majority against the wealth concentrations of today - basically revolutionaries! You've got the "Libertarians" on the other side who want to minimize the government, apparently assuming that "bribery" is a sufficient method of negociation to run an economy upon.

I don't know what the "middle" message is. I'd offer President Carter's moral approach and powerdown to sustainability. I'm definitely more on the "wealth distribution" side, taxing people who can afford the taxes and building infrastruture that will allow people to live without as much energy in the future. Maybe "incentives" alone might encourage change, but I don't see anything fast enough. Well, that puts me back in with the revolutionaries - impatience is a great source of evil.

You might say I'm with the libertarians as well, at least in wanting to reduce our dependence upon the federal government. I'd support empowering states and cities to do their own programs to prepare for a tighter future.

In my message, I think of the Hobbit, Gandalf coming to the battle of 3 armies after the death of Smog the Dragon, Men, Elves, and Dwarves, and a warning of a new enemy approaching:
"Dread has come upon you all! An army of goblins with claim to the treasure comes from the north. Behold! They ride on wolves!"

I can see the 4th army, and I don't know if they are goblins and ride on wolves, but their appearance may be as dramatic - the crushing expectations of 6.5 billion people in a world of declining energy resources.

I'm scared, and everyone ought to be scared. Whether we choose to find our common interests or go-it-alone, we shall see.

Okay, my message:
"Our great nation of 230 years will not survive another 23 years unless we dramatically change course. The world is changing fast and everything we've learned to dependent upon is now in doubt. There is going to be losers in the near future, and the government is not going to be able to protect us from risk. It is up to every individual to look at his expectations and cut them in half, and in half again. Then get serious and once more. If we all do this, we might find a world we like in 23 years. If not, our children may someday curse our lack of vision and prudence.

Whatever GREATER purpose this government can hold, it can be no greater than the willingness of the people to lead first. Those with wealth now have a greater responsibility to see what that wealth is worth to them and what purposes it might hold to make a future world that will support needs. Those without wealth now may contine hoping for handouts now, but must realize that things may not be the same, and if you don't do everything you can to find your own support systems, you and your children will be faced with even harder choices in the future.

The democratic party will support those who are ready to take a hard look at what makes our lives possible and willing to sacrifice for a more secure future we can't yet see.

If you want to live in a world of spin and imprudent choices in your names, vote for the others. If you want the truth, and want a future that may be a little more poor in wealth, power and ambition, but maybe greater in security, consider voting for me."

Well, I don't even think I'd vote for myself!

The power of Prayer?

I forgot which step for the 12 steps of recovery is to pray that your problems go away?

Is this serious?

http://www.upi.com/NewsTrack/view.php?StoryID=20060426-114223-5447r
In a release, the Pray Live group said many people are "overlooking the power of prayer when it comes to resolving this energy crisis."
Apart from sending a message to God, the rally had a message for humanity, said Wenda Royster, the group's founder.
"It is our hope that seeing and hearing some of the nation's most powerful preachers gathered around a gas station and the United States capital as a backdrop, will remind everyone who is really in charge of our world -- God," Royster said.

Maybe I can offer a "counter-prayer" to Satan to keep prices high?

Always remember, "Satan loves money, God loves the cheap stuff."

Compassionate socialists?

Give 'em credit for bold solutions:
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2006/apr2006/gas-a26.shtml
The Socialist Equality Party advances a policy that places social needs before profit interests. We call for an immediate capping of gas prices for individual consumers and small to medium-sized businesses at $1.50 per gallon.

Individual consumers and small businesses are GOOD, large businesses are BAD. Profits for oil companies are VERY BAD.

Okay, so we want a two tier pricing mode. Let me pretend I am a gas station owner. I can choose to sell my gas, that costs me say $1.40/gallon for $1.50/gallon OR I am apparently allowed to charge EVIL BIG business ANY price. How about $5/gallon? I bett they'll pay. Hmmmm.. who should I sell my gas to?

Oh, but the socialist probably will say "No, you are lawfully required to sell as much gasoline to individuals as they want to buy and if there happens to be any left over at the end of the week, perhaps you can see some to Wal-Mart.

Oh, I can't even begin to offer a logical debate against this senselessness. Capping prices CAUSES shortages, and shortages CAUSE higher prices. If prices can't be legally raised, black markets are created to those who WILL pay.

The only logical solution I've heard to subsidy is to reduce the payroll tax in exchange for a higher gasoline tax. This "revenue-neutral" policy would reduce the living expenses to poor people who drive below average distances. It is a LONG term policy that encourages citizens to reduce their dependence upon driving long distances for their livelihood. If applied gradually say 10 years ago, we'd now have $5/gallon gasoline and 10 year head start on restructuring our lives and our technology to reduce our energy demand.

Since we DIDN'T start then, it doesn't mean it's too late, and the same logic apply. Raising fuel prices is necessary for conservation and making alternative fuels cost effective without subsidy.

The only hole in my argument is if you believe that the oil companies are not only just "sitting on oil", but "hiding centuries of it" for more profit now, perhaps I'll change my position. But even then, the "conspiracy", if there is one, is only the delusion that there are no acceptable alternatives. I won't fault the oil companies for profits in themselves, but I would fault them if they "bought up alternative technology" merely to reduce the competition. We don't know if the "monopoly power" of oil is due to its uniqueness or if we've just not tried hard enough to find alternatives, but if there are alternatives, certainly oil companies would prefer to keep "moderate" prices to avoid competition. Until just a few years ago OPEC was saying $30/bbl was a good price, and now they're thinking $50/bbl is good - ONLY because the economy seems to handle the higher prices.

Can the socialists understand this? Higher prices are our FRIENDS, like "sin taxes". I don't want high oil profits, but if that's what it takes to promote change, then I'm all for it. Taxes would be more predictable, but I'm sure the "market" will settle on a new balance price for oil in the coming years, like building a camp fire - keep throwing wood on until oxygen deficiency starts making it smoke, and then stop.

I believe there can be no "fair" market prices for "extractive resources" that deplete. If I FIND a gold nugget, is its VALUE worth the time it took me to pick it up and put it in my pocket, or is its value based on what its useful for? Just because OPEC can extract oil at $1.50/bbl doesn't mean that's what its worth. What will it be worth in 100 years?

I don't think I'm always right or anything. Arguing against socialists is usually an easy debate, easy because I use the same arguments the republicans and libertarians use on me when I argue for the "common good".

I've nothing against the socialists, except imagine they ought to be building communes if they want to change the world. I AGREE with the socialists - the system is against the little people. I believe in solidarity and cooperation to common goals. I see the GOAL ought to be to reduce the dependence of the people on "the system". The good thing is that we still have a world where those on the bottom CAN get ahead by cooperation.

A "good socialist" would promote principles that reduce our dependence upon fossil fuels. Trying to fight and blame "profitteers" seems pointless and a waste of energy.

The biofuel economy?

Let's say you're a farmer. Let's say you are SICK and TIRED of being dependent upon ever increasing fuel costs. SO you decide to produce all your own fuel.

Well, energy independent farmers seems like a nice option if they could do it.

The main issue is of course not simply whether a farm might be "energy independent" but whether a farm can ALSO have some crops left over in excess of providing for it's own needs. Subsistent farming won't make it since there will always be things it is more cost effective to buy.

So what sorts of energy can a farm produce?
(1) Ethanol from corn? (with coproducts)
(2) Ethanol from cellulous material?!
(3) Biodiesel from soybeans (with coproducts)
(4) Wind power from turbines.
(5) Solar electricity from PV cells..
(6) Solar heat for water heating.

What energy does it need?
(1) Engine fuel to run tractors, machinery.
(2) Electricity for pumping water for irrigation
(3) Nitrogen fertilizer production.
(4) Energy for ethanol production

I'm sure the issue will arise between purchasing external fuel at a cost $X, or investing $Y start up costs plus $Z proportional costs to produce energy locally. And on top of that, there's also going to be interest payments on debt borrowed for the start up costs.

In the end you'll likely see "local production" costs exceed external purchase costs, since purchased costs are based on unsustainable source of cheap fossil fuels. So if you're a farmer over your head in debt, do you get further in debt for the luxury of paying more for your energy? How can farm debt ever be repaid if you can't compete with other farmers who follow the cheap and easy path?

Current "market values" of farm products may not even pay for the costs of sustainably producing them. That is perhaps your self-sustaining farm might end up spending $50,000 on debt interest and repayment, and your entire crop might only be worth $30,000 at market values. According to economy theory your farm is "inefficient" and deserves to fail.

I expect our whole economy is full of such examples, and you can't blame the farmers for taking the "bottom line" decisions against renewable energy.

Of course if the oil market finally fails us, someday we're going to have to pay the real costs. I can see "fossil fuels" as a one time resource that invested wisely might promote a lower energy future. At least in regards to paying down debt, it seems an acceptable trade off. Life is about incremental improvements, and given a long term perspective times of prosperity can be considered times for investing in the future, in ways that will promise more security to manage the weaker years.

It's true for all of us - how much do we invest now when we have abundance to cover the weaker years?

I remember reading that men's brains are more lateralized, and this allows both more geniuses as well as more mentally deficit men. Women's brains apparently have more "redundancy" which is important in a dangerous world, and they can recover better from head injury and live longer as well.

It seems like modern society's focus on specialization is like that. We build a house of cards, each level built on the last, higher and higher, ever increasing our ability to exploit the resources around us. This "male" perspective leads to short term power and wealth, but fails to plan for the long term demands upon us.

Redundancy protects long term survival at the cost of short term wealth and efficiency. Another way to see redundancy is cooperation. It means sharing costs to keep a healthy system that can sustain "illness" and failure of components.

I imagine the future, if we are wise will be about new cooperatives between producers and consumers that benefit both - guaranteeing stable markets for producers, even at somewhat higher short tern costs to consumers. Globals will call this "protectionism", and perhaps it is when implemented purely from the top-down, but if it is implemented by cooperative decision, how can it be bad?

Actual forms are not yet clear, but the direction seems unavoidable. Sooner or later the big systems will fail us, and we'd better hope cooperation and redundancy can take up the slack.

Economist Keeps Tabs On Government’s “Creative” Statistical Reports

A scary article:
http://www.weedenco.com/welling/Downloads/2006/0804welling022106.pdf

I'm terminally pissed about the insane U.S. federal debt, how it is falsely under reported by excluding borrowing from SS, but this article goes much further considering all the future liabilities which we'll never be able to pay.

And more than that the article goes into all the manipulations of "economic indicators" which make the economy, employment, inflation, all look better than they are, apparently to inspire confidence, both confidence in the government (and elected officials) and in taking on new debt and risks they might not make under a harsher analysis of the economy.

I can't guess what's real, or the future, except to say I can't imagine any result other that economic failure (or maybe the PC term is "correction"?) We're all playing with imaginary wealth, like a board game, and we keep adding more money under "Free parking", to keep the money flowing long past what should have been bankrupsy.

It would see the system would fail sooner or later even with out hitting geological limits like "Peak oil" or peak extraction of any resource.

I still don't know what might be best. The smart "investors" get out when the bull is done running, but even if we know the bubble has ended and we had some resources, what do you invest in? Besides paying down debt, I don't know.

Very scary stuff. I guess I like being scared, still hoping for wisdom from it!

What are the issues?

Nothing much to say, but just wondering what ARE the issues in this election year?

(1) Record federal deficits and debt?
(2) Record revolving consumer debt?
(3) Record trade deficits and weakening dollar?
(4) Near record high oil and gasoline prices?
(5) Contined violence and threat of civil war in Iraq?
(6) Risks towards inflation?
(7) Illegal immigration?
(8) Terrorism?
(9) Nuclear weapons in Iran?
(10) Global warming?

Well, seems like my top concerns are that our economy is on the brink of disaster without the readiness to handle them.

If this was a "ballgame" against the terrorists, I'd be putting my money on the terrorists. They're right on track to knocking out the global economy between our military spending and debt and dependence upon vast amounts of imported energy to keep our economy running.

It is curious that the economy has any traction at all. I don't understand why more people are not scared for the future.

Mob mentality can grow the economy into an overshoot bubble of untenable debt as well as crash the economic by selling panics.

The Minnesota republicans are playing politics on a one-time 10% property tax refund just in time for the fall elections. How kind of them!

And more amazing it seems like we're on track to supporting 2 and maybe even 3 sports stadiums this year! I can be lured as well as anyone by prettier stadiums than the 25 year old metrodome, but it is still amazing to me that there's any money available at all for such deals, however funded.

Well I'll keep hoping for $4/gallon gas by summer, and we're on track!

Death penalty for Zacarias Moussaoui?

I've not heard any decisions yet, but can't imagine any sentence other than the death penalty. It's a clear case - a confessed conspirator to a terrorist attack killing 3000 people?!

It's just curious to me to imagine the pro/con arguments on the death penalty, you know the old "Deterrent" versus "Justice" versus "Revenge" arguments...

Of course it seems clear that Moussaoui is prepared to die. Certainty he WOULD HAVE DIED had he successfully been one of the hijackers himself. There's no issue of "Deterrent", and neither is "Revenge" particularly satisfying against someone who WANTS to die. Making him live imprisoned for life - that would clearly be a greater punishment. Justice says nothing clearly beween death versus life imprisonment.

So basically we come down to "pain relief" - let's end his life and "move on". It should be a cheap execution since he's confessed - perhaps can be done in a few weeks from sentencing? He's ready. We're ready. What else is there?

Sure "Revenge" could offer torture and the security guards could try to torture him in other ways, like saying all his family will be killed by paid assassins or whatever fun things people say for revenge. Perhaps it'd hurt him, but I'd imagine he considered such questions long before agreeing to participate.

I'm sort of reminded of the idiotic myth of a Saumurai's pride, cornering the assassin who killed his lord, and gets spit in the face and gets angry and then stops and walks away rather than kill in passion. He represented cool justice, not revenge. Of course the story suggests anyone can spit at a Samurai to make him angry so he can't kill you. Well, not a game you'd want to play on a dare, but good knowledge as a last resort.

It's fun to imagine what I'd do with Moussaoui, with my supposed "progressiveness"? I suppose I can pretend to be a cool justice minded samurai as well.

I suppose the first thing is that "warriors" show respect to other warriors. So you do NOT slay him and drag his dead body behind a chariot in front of his family. That just causes trouble. Warriors deserve honorable deaths. I suppose we might give him an airplane in the middle of a desert with just enough fuel to take off and ram into a nice mountain range to his death. Well, just thinking that an "airplane" was his weapon, so we'd let him kill himself. He could fly a really cheap plane.

Some people get angry at the suggestion that the terrorists were cowardly for killing civilians, but if you allow me to be cool-headed, I sort of admire people who are willing to give up their own lives for a cause. I don't admire "causes", merely the bravery at going beyond self-interest. Equally, however futile, I accept a "world trade tower" as a clear military target since much of our interaction in the world occurs through economic power. Of course the Pentagon as well as the White House would be valid targets for a group declaring war on our country.

Most of all I'm against the death penalty for it being "inflicted upon" a person against their will. I don't have a problem with people being killed necessarily, but I'd prefer it as a negociated position. Seriously, I don't like to have to feel sorry for people, and if you kill him as a victim, then he invokes my pity, and by contrast the government becomes the tormentor, and the government is ME!

So I'd basically give Moussaoui a choice how he wants to die. I'm not even sure if I particularly want to even give him the "choice" of life in prison - what's he point? Although I'd probably have to offer mercy if that's really what he wanted.

The other side, I'd probably feel obligated to allow him a public statement on his choice of death mechanisms, and anything else he can offer.

That's a funny issue - whether murders (or conspirators) deserve a soapbox to preach their mind-viruses. That's probably my biggest uncertainty Letting him have an honorable death is one thing, but empowering his speech is another completely. I lean towards the belief that words can't hurt us. Perhaps he'll convert a million followers if he gets a high enough perch to offer his vision of death to america.

He might find "God's voice" like Moses and proclaim his demands boldly, and the consequences if we fail to submit to the will of Allah. Those consequences will surely talk of our suffering, first born being killed, all that.

And you know how the Christian Fundamentalists like to preach abouts AIDS being a punishment for sins, every Hurricane and every natural dissaster of any form against America - the symbol of Islamic repression - will be praised in the name of Allah the vengeful, or whatever. He would be in a position to tell a great story - well in this case perhaps just in time for some serious economic blows to the world economy - all started by 20 brave men who were willing to die for Allah.

Giving a voice may or may not affect the future, but do we want to take the risk? Hitler had power in his voice to sow hatred. It's a tough issue for me. I like things "out in the open", but when dealing with suffering and jealousy and hatred, there's much room for evil to grow.

So giving my "fear" of "causing" future violence by giving a voice to a confessed conspirator, I'd have to more seriously consider the atmosphere of repression that is encouraging the terrorism.

It's insane to give any voice to madmen who live through their hate. There's surely a million other better voices from Islam to get attention. It's insane to offer any reward at all. I claim the death penalty is not a deterrent for people willing to die, but heck - to be given a choice of my death AND a public stage to present my mad ideas, that would seem an encouragement to future recruits - you win even if you are caught!

I'm progressive enough to see that there's more good things we can do than we do, but I'm also pessimistic that simple charity, or at least top-down charity can really do much to improve the world. I have little hope for the future well-being for the masses of the middle east to make it through the next 100 years.

In short I would see what more I can do for the world, but I'd rather direct effort towards "cleaning up my own house" first which would mean ending our borrowing, reducing our dependence upon depleting resources, and invest in solutions.

I just have a hard time holding hatred against a group of people that I pity. I pity their backwardness, looking towards religious dogma for answers, I pity their dependence upon oil wealth for their economy, the corruption and exponentially growing problems. I see no happy ending in middle east oil, even as I know they'll control the vast proportion of oil production in 50 years. Power and wealth can not help but corrupt and I have no hope.

I still can not defend even the invasion of Afghanistan, much less Iraq. I mean I can't defend an offense alone as a solution to anything for our own corruption. We're no safer now than we were in 2001 - we just owe more money to others, and have a possibly intractable responsibility towards the people of Iraq.

In short, I can see no solution to any problem, not even a successful execution, without changing our goals, without admitting we are ALL on a suicide course unless we pick a new goal and start working at it!