Sarah Palin: Policy on the Stump.

Apparently Palin loyalists within the McCain campaign have finally gotten to whoever has been calling the shots. The past week-and-a-half saw the VP candidate deliver her very first policy proposals on the stump. On Oct. 24th she spoke about her ticket's support for children with special needs. This should have been one of her easiest missions to date, as not even the harshest of critics could summon enough vitriol to attack the extension of aid to disabled kids. But nonetheless she managed to screw up the pitch. While she was able to appear especially compassionate and forthright in her new-found dedication to the less fortunate, those who paid close attention found an empty core at the center of her expansive speech.

Just what exactly have McCain and Palin offered on this issue? Specifically, they have pledged to fully fund the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act*. They are "exempting " programs to assist those with disabilities from their proposed across-the-board federal spending freeze (no details here), and they want to provide school vouchers. That last suggestion is simply a repeat of their plan to dissemble public education, and would offer only marginal (at best) benefits for parents of special needs children. So there's not much meat on that plate. One could be forgiven for being underwhelmed by the ticket's commitment, simply on the basis of what they are promising. But her chronic bungling of the issue belies her fundamental lack of interest in it.

How would Palin suggest funding IDEA? Well, she believes that the money can come from what the administration would save by cutting "unnecessary" earmarks. Here the Alaskan Governor actually got specific- she would target "projects having little or nothing to do with the public good -- things like fruit fly research in Paris, France" (that's a direct quote from her speech). While some might admire such frugality, scientists couldn't keep themselves from identifying Palin's deep ignorance. That "useless" research with fruit flies has led to valuable discoveries that have boosted autism research. One might answer that Palin only knows about Down's Syndrome babies... if one didn't hear her talking about her 13-year old nephew with autism in this very same speech.

Instead of reining Ms. Palin back in after that notable gaffe, her handlers pressed to have her deliver another policy speech on the trail. This time she was in Toledo, Ohio talking about the McCain/Palin energy plan. Naturally the Alaskan native (and wife of a longstanding employee of BP) framed the situation by talking about reliance on "foreign oil". She pointed out (in an odd moment of rationality) the dangers of depending on fuel supplies from the Middle East. She even identified the increased risks of providing obvious targets like oil industry infrastructure to terrorists. So what did she offer as a solution to this "national security" concern? "Drill, Baby, Drill!" Rely on Alaskan oil instead!**

Surely any new oil rigs built in the Last Frontier will be immune from terrorist attacks. They've got "Real American" hunters there (as well as a vibrant secessionist movement). I guess in Palin's mind it doesn't matter that the reserves there are not nearly sufficient to make a substantial dent in our reliance on overseas oil. Luckily, the Pork Queen's got an answer for that as well- build lots and lots of nuclear plants... because those facilities are uniquely safe from sabotage, and present a "clean" energy with no risks to Americans. And unlike on the subject of disabilities, this "Hockey Mom" is an expert on energy. As John McCain said, Sarah Palin "knows more about energy than probably anyone else in the United States of America" (link).

* However, a Palin aide has admitted that a McCain/Palin administration would ask for only $45 billion over 5 years for IDEA, which would be $30 billion short of the amount necessary for full funding. Furthermore, support for the program is back-loaded, with only $3 billion put aside for the first year.

**This particular message was met with a distinct lack of enthusiasm, since Toledo's civic leaders are banking on the future of solar technology to revive the city's struggling economy.

Robert Baer on NPR's Fresh Air, Part 3.

Note: Please read Parts 1 and 2 of this series before proceeding.

What would happen if, as John McCain and Sarah Palin have both advocated, Iran's nuclear facilities were bombed? Ex-CIA agent Robert Baer offers an unequivocal answer to that question- the Iranians would light the Persian Gulf and Saudi oil facilities on fire. Baer knows many of the old school Revolutionary Guard Iranian generals by name. He has learned about their collective temperament and understands their willingness to employ devastating tactics in order to protect their nation's territorial integrity. As Baer points out, these sober-minded men believe that the Persian Gulf has that name for a reason. Its rim consists of a population that is over 90% Sh'ite, and it will be defended at all costs.

If Israel launches air attacks (with or without American support) the Iranian government will almost certainly respond by shooting Silkworm missiles at every tanker in the Gulf, thus disrupting the international oil markets, causing an international Great Depression that will make the Wall Street crisis look like "a walk in the park", and setting off the first round of World War III. What sane politician would offer unconditional support for such a move? We do not have the financial resources, nor the will necessary to carry out such a massive operation for 30+ years. It shouldn't even be considered a realistic option. Yet we still hear the McCain/Palin ticket continually insist that they aren't willing to sit down with Iranian leaders, and that we can't "second-guess" the policies of our ally Israel.

The fact is that our current situation reflects the waning of the American Superpower. For better or for worse, the world recognizes that there is a fundamental shift occurring. The US dollar is flagging, and legislative efforts to avoid a complete economic collapse have not gone unnoticed by the rest of the globe. Yet our national politicians seem committed to a purported "War on Terror" that is steadily draining our resolve and treasure. Our adventures in Afghanistan and Iraq are becoming increasingly unpopular and untenable. Meanwhile Osama Bin Laden hasn't been heard from or seen in years. Robert Baer believes that he is dead, and suggests that the majority of his CIA colleagues agree with him.

Baer points out that fighting a war against an opponent whose leadership has been neutralized does not make any sense. Furthermore (like a growing proportion of the American citizenry) he is frustrated that there is no specific ultimate objective that would define victory in this amorphous conflict. The only final conclusion that seems consistent with reality is that we need a significant change in our longterm strategy. There is a growing awareness that the United States must dedicate itself to energy independence. We will not be able to afford this imperative if we continue to trick ourselves into believing that we can "democratize" the Middle East. Our goal must be to demilitarize that region.

I agree with Robert Baer's final conclusion. In order to preserve some relevance on the international stage, we must initiate a nationwide "Manhattan Project" to accelerate the development of sustainable alternative energy. In the meantime we may need to ensure that a steady supply of oil flows from the Middle East. No matter what McCain and Palin believe, this cannot be accomplished with a diplomacy relying on bombs and threat. We must sit down with the true power players, regardless of how we feel about them. That is the only way to avert the catastrophic path that the Bush Administration has placed us on. There is much more at stake here than Wall Street, federal taxation, corporate subsidies, and partial-birth abortions.

Hopes and Fears in the Presidential Race.

One of the things that I've found particularly fascinating during this presidential race has been hearing about the reasons different people support their respective favorites. While a few individuals have been motivated by the defense of a particular ideology, many find themselves choosing between the lesser of two evils (and these aren't necessarily mutually exclusive motivations). Many of the arguments that I have heard formulated over the last couple of weeks are framed in terms of fears. As is typical in cases of divisive elections (like the vast majority of national races nowadays), there are a lot of poorly reasoned accusations being bandied about. Only occasionally do they seem to have some grounding in reality.

I'd like to think that I could make my decision primarily on hopes, rather than fears. In my case I can truly say that I am ultimately voting FOR someone, rather than AGAINST his opponent. But that line has certainly been blurred for me recently. There was a time not long ago when (though I supported Obama) I believed that a McCain presidency would not be disastrous for the nation. He seemed to genuinely want to reach across the aisle and consider ideas on their merits. Perhaps his gradual shift back to the most conservative wing of his party over the last few years should have been a tip-off. Still I can admit that I was honestly shocked when he announced Sarah Palin as his running mate.

I have mentioned a lot of negatives regarding the Governor of Alaska in this blog. However I think it's important to keep a sound foundation in the real-world when it comes to my doubts about a McCain/Palin ticket. As much as Palin represents an extreme version of social conservatism, as long as McCain is able to fulfill the duties of the office (should he win, of course) I don't think this will be much of an issue. I don't believe that Palin wil be able to get the nation to agree to outlaw abortion in cases where a woman has been impregnated as the result of rape or incest. I don't think the citizenry will look favorably on her urges to ban books. And I don't think she'll be able to fully integrate creationism into our science curriculum at a national level.

On the other hand, I think it's unlikely that the Obama/Biden ticket will likely enact comprehensive health care reform that substantially increases our national debt. I don't believe he will boost corporate taxes by any meaningful degree. And I'm certain he won't seek to outlaw personal property rights (as some wingnuts suggest). My expectations regarding his (or McCain's) presidency are naturally contained by the limits of the office. The Chief Executive serves as Commander-in-Chief, and sets the tone for the country's foreign and domestic policy. I want a president who approaches relations with other nations with an intellectual and overtly diplomatic approach. I want him to consider war only as a LAST Resort. I want nuanced and considered strategies that enhance our international standing.

The biggest national issue facing the United States is energy independence. It has extraordinary ramifications for national security, the future of our economic success, and our relations with the rest of the world. We MUST somehow develop alternative sources of energy. Aside from the issue of global climate change, it is in our best interest. We cannot bear another presidential administration that is beholden to the military-industrial complex and the oil industry. Compare the records and stated positions of the two tickets. McCain has not supported tax credits for companies developing solar/wind power, and Obama has. Look up their voting records. The GOP platform is "Drill, Baby, Drill" and Palin practices "Alaskanomics". That's enough reason right there to support Obama/Biden.

Bush, Smoke and Mirrors.

George Bush has just announced his plan to address greenhouse gases, a major contributor to global warming. He pledges that by 2025 the increase of greenhouse gas emissions in the United States will come to a halt. Does this mean that the president has now fully embraced the imminent threat of climate change? No, he's actually relaxing earlier plans to accelerate the process of CO2 reductions. He has certainly spent a lot of time denying that there is a problem that the federal government can play a role in combating. Many of his public statements in the past have attempted to minimize the effect that human beings are having on the environment. In 2004 James R. Mahoney, director of the administration's climate change science program, stated that the largest influence on changing climate conditions was "water vapor". Conservative AM talk radio pundits have parroted the inanities, going so far as to target trees as the main culprit.

The Bush administration's recalcitrance on this issue is nothing new. It was during the three months of his very first term in office that Christy Todd Whitman (Dubya's EPA director at the time) announced that the United States had no intention of honoring the Kyoto Protocol. This took a few of Bush's supporters by surprise, as he had made a campaign promise that he would make sure to seek some sort of carbon dioxide limits. Still his economic adviser Lawrence Lindsay said that it was a very simple choice for the American people- "We have a major energy crisis ... We have a choice in this country of having the lights on or, at least in the short run, having more carbon dioxide.'' Apparently the Bush administration has never considered alternative (non-polluting) energies as a real possibility.

Whenever Bush or his cronies are confronted by the suggestion that we pursue cleaner energy, they respond that such a move will hurt our economy and American workers. They assert that the necessary infrastructure does not exist to make a substantive transformation. This is no doubt true... the only investments the federal government has been willing to make have been for oil pipelines and refineries. No surprise here- the Bush administration is jam-packed with men and women who have made their personal fortunes from the oil industry. That is patently obvious from their foreign policy agenda. Any true assessment of the costs of maintaining the current fossil fuel paradigm must include the resources the US has invested in controlling Middle Eastern affairs.

Another big obstacle to American participation in the Kyoto Protocol is the contention that none of the world's industrialized powers are on board with it. Why should the United States put itself at a competitive disadvantage? Indeed developing nations are expected to decrease their emissions less than first world nations. China and India are often cited as being the monsters within this subgroup. Chinese dependence on coal is the greatest threat to the well-being of future generations of human life. There is no doubt that the United States should build incentives into its relationships with these nations, and levy economic penalties against them until they adopt cleaner energy technologies. The only interests being served by 'free trade' with China are the global corporations that import/export large quantities of Chinese-made products (cue the Walmart jingle now). The American worker certainly doesn't profit from the current trade deficit.

An honest approach to the reduction of greenhouse gases does indeed require a substantial national commitment. If there was no benefit to curbing pollution (besides the potential health of the human race and its quality of life), then perhaps I could understand the resistance of the Bush administration and its 'free-market' libertarian allies. But that's not the case at all. Opening up new avenues of alternative energies will ultimately position the United States to regain its place as one of the economic giants of the world. We could become leaders in the emerging global industry of green technologies. The job growth and profit potential in this arena will help to offset the losses we would suffer in transforming our infrastructure. I understand that this is a huge project requiring the initial investment of large sums of wealth- and I think the project is absolutely necessary for our future.

A Question of Priorities.

It's easy to believe that if you always hang out with "like-minded" people, then you'll never have anything to argue about. There was a time when I thought everyone had basically the same core values, and I always wondered what type of folks represented the political opposition. It was hard for me to fathom that others couldn't see the basic logic in my positions. Wasn't it absolutely clear what the nation needed? How could there be so many voters that chose George W. Bush in 2000? I was absolutely convinced that his support base was a sham. I couldn't see how there were more than a handful of citizens that agreed with his rhetoric. In retrospect it's difficult to reconcile those naive assumptions with the state of the country today. Obviously there are plenty that listen to Rush Limbaugh and his ilk, and take their word as the gospel truth. It's not simply satire.

Despite those realizations, I have re-discovered how idealistic I still am. I had until very recently the mistaken impression that most liberals and progressives were basically the same in their opinions. The fact of the matter is that this is not at all true. Individuals arrive at personal conclusions regarding society along a diverse range of paths. Just because someone's ultimate preferences are aligned with yours does not mean that you think alike. There are some that allow their emotions, intuition, and concepts (like "compassion" and "humanity") to guide their vision. Others come to their worldview by honest attempts at rational and "objective" logic. While there may be a lot of overlap of intentions and end results, the core divergence of personal viewpoints can often be obscured. This suspicion of mine was reinforced the other night in a conversation with a friend.

We were discussing the field of 2008 presidential candidates, and we began to debate priorities. It was through the various assessments of the candidates that we discovered what each other really valued as most important. Her big concern for this race is healthcare. Above and beyond any other issue, she believes that "universal healthcare" needs to be implemented. Now... I want to be absolutely clear that I agree that the current system needs to be examined and re-roganized. It's a core value for me as well. I certainly can't find any reason why we shouldn't make the good health of all Americans a fundamental right. I'm willing to contribute more taxes toward this end. But this would never be the single issue that makes or breaks my support for a presidential nominee. As far as I'm concerned we have much greater challenges to confront first.

To me the overriding concerns for the coming century include the condition of the biosystem (i.e. global climate change, deforestation, decreasing biodiversity, etc.) and the need to address the current energy paradigm. I believe that every single social problem will be ameliorated (to some extent) by finding solutions to these problems. Whether or not you buy the arguments evoked by the concept of "solar carrying capacity", I think it's impossible not to concede the negative impact humanity has had on the earth. I am not arguing that we shouldn't try to improve the way we manage and distribute energy and food. But I am saying that unless we address the fundamental causes of the current situation... we are doomed.

Quite aside from grassroots efforts to change things on a localized level, we have relied on fossil fuels to sustain larger than healthy-sized human populations in areas of the world that simply cannot sustain them. This capability is coming to an end. I'm not predicting when we will run out of these resources- but rather insisting that it is inevitably going to happen. To my mind it is simple negligence that prevents us from doing something about it right now. How can one prioritize concern about the health of individual populations over the health of the environment that all life relies on? That makes absolutely no sense to me. Until we figure out how to decrease the damage caused by our own over-development- all else is merely distraction. I'd love to see a strategy that incorporates "humanity" and "compassion" in order to minimize human suffering. But one way or another we are going to have to live through the consequences of what we have already wrought. Whether or not we can all afford Viagra is beside the point.

"Who Killed the Electric Car?" (2006?)

If you are a regular reader of this blog, you have surely noticed the amount of time I have given over to considering New Vrindaban and my visit there this past Monday. No doubt the extra amount of free time summer affords me has been a factor contributing to this mini-obsession. Sometimes I have to pull back and consider how alien this material is to almost everyone I know. I've given a lot of thought to what N.V. means, both as a center of spirituality and as a planned community. Perhaps in the near future I'll invest some time and build a structure to organize my ideas and personal responses, and write a post on those subjects. In the meantime, I keep going back to the conversations I had with Tapahpunja.

During the relatively short time we spent around the table talking, T. mentioned a number of obscure documentaries and books that he believes are worth investing time in tracking down. Of course each recommendation he made was followed by a spate of talk concerning the particular subject or theme of the work in question. The tangential nature of such a discussion meant that a lot that was said about specific items faded with the twists and turns of conversational flow. However the name and premise of one film lingered in my memory.

T. told us about an annual convention attended by the hundreds of public television stations across the nation. The purpose of this gathering is for representatives of these local affiliates to get a look at the shows available for purchase in the coming year. Apparently a documentary was screened recently that was entitled Who Killed the Electric Car? (2006). Apparently there were well over 100 public TV stations interested in airing this program. But when it later came time to receive the material, the stations were informed that the documentary wouldn't be made available. As T. explains the story, this was the decision of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. T. says that he was told that the reason the film was withdrawn from distribution was because the Chevron Company offered a million dollar donation to the CPB, with the implied understanding that the meddlesome documentary would not be shown on Public Television.

Who Killed the Electric Car? examined the development and subsequent marketing of General Motors' EV1- an electric car made available for lease in Southern California in 1990. Apparently a group of celebrities drove the car, and the film includes interviews and testimonial from people like Mel Gibson, Tom Hanks and Ed Begley, Jr., regarding their experiences with driving the EV1. Despite the overall satisfactory response of drivers, GM decided to recall the vehicles and subsequently destroy them. Citing inconveniences like its limited range (amount of miles the battery will supply before recharging), GM executives reasoned that there would be little commercial demand for the EV1. Apparently the filmmakers disagreed, and presented evidence of a coordinated and lasting campaign of suppression of electrical car technology resulting from pressure from auto manufacturers, the oil industry, and (since 2000) the Bush administration. They also included a reasoned criticism of the Bush-"sponsored" hydrogen fuel cell technology.

I have to emphasize that I have yet to see the film, and therefore can't offer a substantiated opinion of its veracity. I also can't confirm T.'s comments about the CPB's suppression of the film, or the business about Chevron's donation. But I can say that I've heard and read a lot of negative press about Kenneth Tomlinson, who Bush appointed as CPB chief. The man resigned from the post in November, 2005 when it became public knowledge that he was using his position (and Public Television) to advance a "conservative agenda". I don't know the timeline for the events T. relates, but I definitely wouldn't put it past the CPB (with or without Tomlinson) to take marching orders from the oil industry. I have learned that Bill Moyers featured a segment about Who Killed the Electric Car? on NOW shortly before he was forced out of Public Television by the conservative czars of the CPB- but who knows if these events were related?

It also seems a strange coincidence that Chevron owns (until 2014) the patent on the battery technology (NiMH battery pack) that could have been used to maximize the utility of the EV1.

Who Killed the Electric Car? did indeed receive a limited theatrical release in 2006, and is now available on DVD. I guess this is one for the wishlist.

Cars and Taxes.

I know that one of the the things I have gone on about on this blog is the relationship between Americans and their cars. I can't think of any other accessory that makes people act more selfish than the automobile. Let some slight and weak individual get behind the wheel, and soon he/she is acting like they are the"alpha male" of his/her tribe. Somehow the 1000 lbs+ of metal and plastic armor surrounding them makes folks pretty bold. Things they would never consider doing when approaching a stranger on a back alley night-time street become standard operating procedure. I know you've seen examples of what I'm talking about. Soccer moms flip you the bird. Little men in suits tail your bumper. Wizened elders act like they own the road. Pull up next to one of these drivers and try to confront them through their open window, and you get a sense of their perceived invulnerability. It's a lot of big, big talk.

Considering the way advertising portrays car ownership, I guess it's easy to understand why so many are afflicted with preposterous ideas. Cars are one of the most obvious conveyances of status in this society. Americans revel in their ability to purchase the biggest, most expensive automobiles- regardless of the effects their decisions have on the environment, politics, the economy, or their fellow human beings. People justify their consumer choice with platitudes of their own self-importance. They will point out that they have worked to realize their dream of owning a Hummer. They believe that others will admire them for owning a Lexus SUV. They are keeping up with the Joneses. Their convertible sports car will get them laid in their middle age. Their Porsches and BMWs will help them "close the deal". Or otherwise they are merely enjoying their God-given "freedoms".

Take a look at how self-satisfied and smug your fellow drivers are, as they chat on their cellphones and blindly cut you off in traffic. Or just bring up the topic in conversation. It seems that a lot of folks don't even need to be in their cars to think and act completely irrationally when it comes to their vehicular "rights". Americans lose all sense of logic and fairness when it comes to their automobiles. A recently proposed bill in the PA state legislature and the resulting "discussion" on AM talk radio clearly illustrate the perceptions of many of our fellow citizens. Under a GOP plan, tolls would be places on PA interstates 78, 79, 80, 81, and 95. The rationale behind this legislation is that it is needed for bridge and road repair. It's an alternative to leasing the PA turnpike or increasing the state fuel tax. The tolls would be administered by the Turnpike Commission.

What are the responses to these tolls? They are predictably almost universally negative. Put aside for a moment the irony of Republican party politicians advocating that drivers pay for the services they use, while they bitch about high taxes on gasoline out of the other side of their mouths. These are the exact same guys that would like to see the entire interstate system privatized- as if that would increase the accountability of the people that maintain the roads... as if making it a for-profit venture is going to reduce the ultimate costs for drivers. Most people simply don't want to pay for a road system out of their own pockets. If they pay at the pump- then the government is gouging them, and the oil companies can blame our leaders for the high prices. When you bring up the prospect of tolls, you hear a lot of crying about how the politicians are corrupt and inefficiently spending what tax monies they do collect. They say that PennDot shouldn't require anymore money whatsoever. No matter what the government does to remedy the condition of our roads, they will always be charged with corruption and waste.

Simultaneously, the same people that bitch about the flaws in the government's operation and maintenance of the interstates will whine whenever there is talk of an increase in the funding of public transportation. Why should suburbanites and exurbanites have to pay for city folk to get around? Never mind that the lives of those outside the cities are subsidized by federal and state tax dollars that urbanites pay out of their wages. The factors that have allowed people to escape and ignore the social problems in the city are cheap oil and the public subsidization of interstate roads. People bitch about the (actually very small) percentage of their tax dollars that is earmarked for social programs to help the lower classes. Yet no one ever talks about the fact that our federal government artificially depresses the price of gasoline in this country with an aggressive and costly foreign policy. It's a vicious cycle that keeps our economy wholly dependent on the rapidly failing oil paradigm.

Somehow this reality never gets talked about on AM radio, or among "free market" conservatives. And while cities can be transformed to meet the changing variables of time, suburban/exurban development and its accompanying "car-culture" are not only unsustainable- but also so artificial and wasteful that they can't ever be transformed into something useful. The strip malls and the sprawl model of development are only possible with the state and federal government subsidization. The only source of such funding is taxes. Period. Now shut up and pay.