The majority of members that oppose the health care bill can, non-pejoratively, be placed in the "conservative" category. Why is this? The conservative thesis is that the current system is more efficient than that which is proposed to replace it. To shed light on what it means to be called a conservative, the philosopher Michael Oakeshott states that reform opposition occurs, "when there is much to be enjoyed and when that enjoyment is combined with a sense that what is enjoyed is in danger of being lost. It is the combination of enjoyment and fear that stimulates conservatism." Surely, conservatives are enjoying themselves.
As one of the few intellectual conservatives, Edmund Burke, offered very convincing evidence for the utility of conservative views. He wasn't a Tea Partyist by any means, and has said that change is often needed; "A state without the means of some change is without the means of its conservation." However, not all change is welcomed or beneficial. Edmund Burke's Reflections on the Revolution in France is regarded as one of the most enlightened pieces of conservative apologetics ever written. Now the case for health care reform is not synonymous with the French Revolution, but the ideology is sufficiently comparable.
Burke invokes the notion of "latent function", which states that the stability and importance of an institution only becomes apparent after it is dismantled. Maybe the current health care system in the United States is better than a, possibly, failed attempt at reforming it. Maybe not. For this issue, ivory trade is an elegant historical example. To stop elephants from being killed, the ivory trade was banned. This made ivory scarce, but more importantly, expensive. The rewards for poaching subsequently became greater, so more people killed elephants than before the legality of ivory became an issue. I'm not saying that killing elephants and letting people die from lack of hospitalization are one in the same, but there's something to be taken from this analogy.
The fact of the matter is, health care reform is expensive. It could destabilize our already vulnerable economy, but it will also save lives.
This post, coming from one who approaches politics from a liberal perspective, is simply to shed light on the fact that there is a deep history tying socioeconomic reform to conservatism. What is lacking in the current approach, however, is an intellectual overture to the problem of doctrinal reform opposition. Too many analysts are caught up in perfunctory debate, and this is impeding their capacity to conceptualize the opposing philosophies. This is precisely Michael Tomasky's idea of "ideological homogeneity."
In 1957, Samuel Huntington published an article titled Conservatism as an Ideology. In it, he points out that conservatism, by definition, offers no vision of an ideal society; there is no conservative Utopia. Conservatism has no substantive institutional content and is therefor not concerned with content, but with process. Not to seem iconoclastic, but the true opposition of conservatism is not liberalism; it is radicalism. I don't mean militant radicalism, but instead defining it in terms of enthusiasm with innovation and an embrace of rapid change. Disagreeing with an opinion does not imply that you maintain a superior alternative solution, nor does it demand that you hold an individual opinion at all.
As for health reform, my opinion is that of generational partnership, which is to say that we have a fiduciary responsibility to create a state of medical philanthropy; specifically, one that is price independent. Just as in the US participation in world wars 1 and 2, we made tough decisions despite their cost, not because of it.
Sunday, January 31, 2010
Thursday, January 28, 2010
Bernanke could have done nothing and we'd be better off
Today the Senate voted for Ben Bernanke to remain as the Fed boss. The president saw this as a victory, and called Bernanke, "a critical leader in the nation’s recovery from recession." That's interesting. Did he lead our recovery from recession? Let's take a look.
In January 2009, before the announcement of Obama's stimulus package, the Congressional Budget Office released its projections for the US economy in the 10 year future. Within these predictions were the following; the unemployment rate with reach slightly over 9% in the beginning of 2010, and the total deficit will reach $1.2 trillion. Since the stimulus package was created to retard these negative projections, we should now be proud to present true figures that are better than the projections. Right?
Currently the unemployment rate is 9.7%, and the total US deficit has reached $1.41 trillion. Now let's get this straight. Bernanke is apparently leading the recovery from recession, yet the fraudulent stimulus package bailout has lead to pseudo-criminal proceedings, and the economy has actually performed worse than was predicted without a stimulus package? Why is he keeping his job again?
If it's any consolation, at a vote of 70-30, he received the worst approval of any Federal Reserve chairman in US history.
In January 2009, before the announcement of Obama's stimulus package, the Congressional Budget Office released its projections for the US economy in the 10 year future. Within these predictions were the following; the unemployment rate with reach slightly over 9% in the beginning of 2010, and the total deficit will reach $1.2 trillion. Since the stimulus package was created to retard these negative projections, we should now be proud to present true figures that are better than the projections. Right?
Currently the unemployment rate is 9.7%, and the total US deficit has reached $1.41 trillion. Now let's get this straight. Bernanke is apparently leading the recovery from recession, yet the fraudulent stimulus package bailout has lead to pseudo-criminal proceedings, and the economy has actually performed worse than was predicted without a stimulus package? Why is he keeping his job again?
If it's any consolation, at a vote of 70-30, he received the worst approval of any Federal Reserve chairman in US history.
Wednesday, January 27, 2010
State of the Union
Before I vivisect tonight's presidential address, let me start by saying that Obama seems genuinely concerned for the future of the nation and troubled by recent congressional behavior. I think that some of the proposals spoken of this evening, if enacted, could easily improve the quality of living for millions of people.
With that being said, I'd like to start with a direct quote from Obama. "Let's try some common sense." Indeed, let's; for instance, how should the viewers react to the issue of education. As a current applicant to graduate schools, my mouth was watering at the proposals in the middle of the address. Some of these include abolishing taxes on student loans, issuing $10,000 tax credits to families with children in 4 year programs, increasing the value and volume of Pell grants (I have 2 right now), and allowing over one million alumni to limit their yearly loan payments to 10% of their total salaries for a maximum of 20 years after graduation. It would be an understatement to call this a vast improvement to the affordability of higher education.
There is a problem though, the president went on to explain the 3-year freeze that had been widely publicized earlier in the week. Such legislation would cut or freeze budget allocations to domestic programs. The only areas that will be not be frozen are national defense, social security, Medicare, and Medicaid. How are we supposed to expect such great changes in education if educational spending is to be frozen? Say it ain't so.
On a lighter note, Obama sent a challenge to congressional filibusterers on the topic of health care reform stating, "if anyone has a better plan for lowering premiums and bringing down the deficit, let me know." This seems to go hand in hand with the Congressional Budget Office's recently announced projections of the future economic deficit. Additionally, the Center for Economic and Policy Research released a projected budget deficit in the event of passing or denying health care legislation. The consensus seems to be that the republican response to the challenge of health care reform is either misinformed or, more likely, just plain wrong. Health care, in addition to improving the lives of millions of uninsured Americans, would reduce the severity of the current recession. I honestly hope that the republican congressmen can produce the "better plan" that Obama asked for, since the current plan looks pretty convincing.
Now I'd like to address my favorite portion of tonight's speech. The president called for a internet source that would, "publish all earmark requests on a single website, so that we can see where our money is being spent." If this legislation is enacted, without the obvious ability to be destroyed by political nomenclature chaotics, it would save me and other bloggers a huge amount of time digging up the dirt on politicians.
My final comment is the least pragmatic of my current concerns with tonight's announcements. The concern is with Obama's statement with respect to our defense policies; specifically that we should, "do what we can to ensure a better future for our citizens and for the world." I think that any forward thinking American citizens, who take this statement as seriously as I do, would first demand that we remove the United States exemption to UN Security Council article 51. This would hold the US government responsible for pre-emptive military aggression that is deemed illegal to every other participatory member of the United Nations. This will virtually never happen, but everyone needs to be aware of why the international community condemns the current US presence in Iraq.
With that being said, I'd like to start with a direct quote from Obama. "Let's try some common sense." Indeed, let's; for instance, how should the viewers react to the issue of education. As a current applicant to graduate schools, my mouth was watering at the proposals in the middle of the address. Some of these include abolishing taxes on student loans, issuing $10,000 tax credits to families with children in 4 year programs, increasing the value and volume of Pell grants (I have 2 right now), and allowing over one million alumni to limit their yearly loan payments to 10% of their total salaries for a maximum of 20 years after graduation. It would be an understatement to call this a vast improvement to the affordability of higher education.
There is a problem though, the president went on to explain the 3-year freeze that had been widely publicized earlier in the week. Such legislation would cut or freeze budget allocations to domestic programs. The only areas that will be not be frozen are national defense, social security, Medicare, and Medicaid. How are we supposed to expect such great changes in education if educational spending is to be frozen? Say it ain't so.
On a lighter note, Obama sent a challenge to congressional filibusterers on the topic of health care reform stating, "if anyone has a better plan for lowering premiums and bringing down the deficit, let me know." This seems to go hand in hand with the Congressional Budget Office's recently announced projections of the future economic deficit. Additionally, the Center for Economic and Policy Research released a projected budget deficit in the event of passing or denying health care legislation. The consensus seems to be that the republican response to the challenge of health care reform is either misinformed or, more likely, just plain wrong. Health care, in addition to improving the lives of millions of uninsured Americans, would reduce the severity of the current recession. I honestly hope that the republican congressmen can produce the "better plan" that Obama asked for, since the current plan looks pretty convincing.
Now I'd like to address my favorite portion of tonight's speech. The president called for a internet source that would, "publish all earmark requests on a single website, so that we can see where our money is being spent." If this legislation is enacted, without the obvious ability to be destroyed by political nomenclature chaotics, it would save me and other bloggers a huge amount of time digging up the dirt on politicians.
My final comment is the least pragmatic of my current concerns with tonight's announcements. The concern is with Obama's statement with respect to our defense policies; specifically that we should, "do what we can to ensure a better future for our citizens and for the world." I think that any forward thinking American citizens, who take this statement as seriously as I do, would first demand that we remove the United States exemption to UN Security Council article 51. This would hold the US government responsible for pre-emptive military aggression that is deemed illegal to every other participatory member of the United Nations. This will virtually never happen, but everyone needs to be aware of why the international community condemns the current US presence in Iraq.
Monday, January 25, 2010
Disliking Bernanke has nothing to do with liberalism.
Timothy Geithner, in all of his wisdom, gave an interview to POLITICO describing his position on the possible dumping of Fed Head Ben Bernanke. He also saw this as the perfect opportunity to do what he's best at; lying. Here is Geithner's statement with respect to Bernanke's position:
He's done a remarkable job of helping steer this economy out of the great recession. And I think he'll play a very important role in helping in the success of our efforts to try to make sure we are bringing this economy back to durable growth.
If by "great job" you meaning failing to predict, or (more likely) choosing to ignore, an $8 trillion dollar housing bubble that took A DECADE to reach failure, then yes, he's doing a kickass job. The economist Dean Baker accurately illustrates Bernanke's job perfomance in his analogy that, "preventing the collapse of the financial system should probably seen as being comparable to a major league outfielder catching a long fly ball. It's not that easy, but major league outfielders do it." This gave me a good laugh.
Ask yourself, how would neglect/incompetence on this level in virtually any self-respecting company be resolved? It would almost certainly result in immediate termination.
Moving on, Geithner accidentally told the truth (partially) during one portion of the interview when he stated, "I think the markets would view [replacing Bernanke] as a very troubling thing for the economy as a whole." Well, Tim, you're right. Losing Bernanke absolutely could turn out to be a disaster for the markets. The thing you seemed to have left out, but what your job position demands you to recognize, is that the market and the "economy as a whole" are not the same thing! If it were otherwise, why would Glass-Steagall be an issue at all?
The fact of the matter is, no matter how well/poor their private investments perform, financial markets remain the most highly compensated employment sector in the nation. They have, beyond any reasonable doubt, shown taxpayers that their banks are exterior to the economy as a whole and are acting accordingly.
He's done a remarkable job of helping steer this economy out of the great recession. And I think he'll play a very important role in helping in the success of our efforts to try to make sure we are bringing this economy back to durable growth.
If by "great job" you meaning failing to predict, or (more likely) choosing to ignore, an $8 trillion dollar housing bubble that took A DECADE to reach failure, then yes, he's doing a kickass job. The economist Dean Baker accurately illustrates Bernanke's job perfomance in his analogy that, "preventing the collapse of the financial system should probably seen as being comparable to a major league outfielder catching a long fly ball. It's not that easy, but major league outfielders do it." This gave me a good laugh.
Ask yourself, how would neglect/incompetence on this level in virtually any self-respecting company be resolved? It would almost certainly result in immediate termination.
Moving on, Geithner accidentally told the truth (partially) during one portion of the interview when he stated, "I think the markets would view [replacing Bernanke] as a very troubling thing for the economy as a whole." Well, Tim, you're right. Losing Bernanke absolutely could turn out to be a disaster for the markets. The thing you seemed to have left out, but what your job position demands you to recognize, is that the market and the "economy as a whole" are not the same thing! If it were otherwise, why would Glass-Steagall be an issue at all?
The fact of the matter is, no matter how well/poor their private investments perform, financial markets remain the most highly compensated employment sector in the nation. They have, beyond any reasonable doubt, shown taxpayers that their banks are exterior to the economy as a whole and are acting accordingly.
Sunday, January 24, 2010
New Kids on the Block
With all the recent economic whirlwinding, the Obama administration decided to invite some new faces to the party. Timothy Geithner replaced Henry Paulson as the Secretary of the Treasury, while Geithner's previous mentor Lawrence Summers sits as the Director of the White House' National Economic Council. And thus the student becomes the teacher.
If the supposed revival of Glass-Steagall has a chance of seeing the light of day, we are going to need some seriously bright minds behind our economic policies. So are Geithner and Summers the right choices for tackling our fiscal demise? Let's take a look.
Tim Geithner
During the 2006 tax year, the IRS discovered Geithner had failed to pay $35,000 in self-employment taxes for several years, even though he had acknowledged his obligation to do so, and had filed a request for, and received, a payment for half the taxes owed. But there's a cherry on top that's even funnier. As President of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, Geithner annually completed an ethics statement noting any taxes due or unpaid, along with any other obligations.
Not convinced that he can run the US economy yet?
Under Geithner's direct endorsement, AIG received more that $170 billion in bailouts. AIG then provided $165 million in executive bonuses. Upon receiving this information, the Senate voted against legislation passed last March by the House of Representativs that would levy a 90% tax on the executive payments.
But, apparently, Geithner's corporate generosity has limits. In 2009, Geithner conspired alongside Ben Bernanke, Chairman of the United States Federal Reserve, in a successful attempt to block government provision of Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. This resulted in their bankruptcy and is conceded as one of the major factors leading to our current economic state. Christopher Whalen of Institutional Risk Analytics offers his opinion in a statement he gave the NY Times in November 2008:
All of these ‘rescues’ are a disaster for the taxpayer, for the financial markets and also for the Federal Reserve System as an organization. Geithner, in our view, deserves retirement, not promotion.
Lawrence Summers
During the holiday season in 1991, Summers wrote a memo to his fellow World Bank employees. In the memo he encouraged the dumping of toxic waste in third world countries to increase profits.
In possibly the worst infraction of economic policy in our lifetimes, Lawrence Summers assisted in the deregulation of banking investment contracts. He argued that current restrictions on investments made by large financial institution are "overly regulated" and that banks can take it upon themselves to reduce fraud within their companies.
Excuse me? Did I hear that correctly? He thinks bank will regulate themselves? Here is Summers' testimony word-for-word.
Well, remember Geithner's old friend AIG? In an interview with Newsweek, a group of economists put it quite nicely when they stated that, "The lack of regulation that allowed A.I.G. to sell hundreds of billions of dollars in credit default swaps on mortgage-backed securities was a direct result of efforts by the Treasury."
Both Geithner and Summers teamed up in a scandal involving Chris Dodd, the Connecticut senator and Chairman of the Senate Banking Committee. Dodd, who was appointed to his position under the Bush administration and holds an extensive record of economic fraud, spearheaded a legislation in 2008 that would limit the amount of executive bonus payments allowed by financial institutions. Shortly after this announcement became public, Dodd was contacted by both Geithner and Summers and subsequently ammended the legislation to exclude the cap on executive pay. It was then resolved that Dodd, Summers, and Geithner were lobbied by AIG while ammending the pay cap. Dodd received over $220,000 in compensation from AIG employees after the controversy.
Sooooo
In essence, the Obama administration seems to think it's a good idea to head the economic front, which is responsible for re-stabilizing the US financial system, with the same people who brought about its demise in the first place. What. The. Hell. Is. Going. On?
If the supposed revival of Glass-Steagall has a chance of seeing the light of day, we are going to need some seriously bright minds behind our economic policies. So are Geithner and Summers the right choices for tackling our fiscal demise? Let's take a look.
Tim Geithner
During the 2006 tax year, the IRS discovered Geithner had failed to pay $35,000 in self-employment taxes for several years, even though he had acknowledged his obligation to do so, and had filed a request for, and received, a payment for half the taxes owed. But there's a cherry on top that's even funnier. As President of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, Geithner annually completed an ethics statement noting any taxes due or unpaid, along with any other obligations.
Not convinced that he can run the US economy yet?
Under Geithner's direct endorsement, AIG received more that $170 billion in bailouts. AIG then provided $165 million in executive bonuses. Upon receiving this information, the Senate voted against legislation passed last March by the House of Representativs that would levy a 90% tax on the executive payments.
But, apparently, Geithner's corporate generosity has limits. In 2009, Geithner conspired alongside Ben Bernanke, Chairman of the United States Federal Reserve, in a successful attempt to block government provision of Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. This resulted in their bankruptcy and is conceded as one of the major factors leading to our current economic state. Christopher Whalen of Institutional Risk Analytics offers his opinion in a statement he gave the NY Times in November 2008:
All of these ‘rescues’ are a disaster for the taxpayer, for the financial markets and also for the Federal Reserve System as an organization. Geithner, in our view, deserves retirement, not promotion.
Lawrence Summers
During the holiday season in 1991, Summers wrote a memo to his fellow World Bank employees. In the memo he encouraged the dumping of toxic waste in third world countries to increase profits.
In possibly the worst infraction of economic policy in our lifetimes, Lawrence Summers assisted in the deregulation of banking investment contracts. He argued that current restrictions on investments made by large financial institution are "overly regulated" and that banks can take it upon themselves to reduce fraud within their companies.
Excuse me? Did I hear that correctly? He thinks bank will regulate themselves? Here is Summers' testimony word-for-word.
Well, remember Geithner's old friend AIG? In an interview with Newsweek, a group of economists put it quite nicely when they stated that, "The lack of regulation that allowed A.I.G. to sell hundreds of billions of dollars in credit default swaps on mortgage-backed securities was a direct result of efforts by the Treasury."
Both Geithner and Summers teamed up in a scandal involving Chris Dodd, the Connecticut senator and Chairman of the Senate Banking Committee. Dodd, who was appointed to his position under the Bush administration and holds an extensive record of economic fraud, spearheaded a legislation in 2008 that would limit the amount of executive bonus payments allowed by financial institutions. Shortly after this announcement became public, Dodd was contacted by both Geithner and Summers and subsequently ammended the legislation to exclude the cap on executive pay. It was then resolved that Dodd, Summers, and Geithner were lobbied by AIG while ammending the pay cap. Dodd received over $220,000 in compensation from AIG employees after the controversy.
Sooooo
In essence, the Obama administration seems to think it's a good idea to head the economic front, which is responsible for re-stabilizing the US financial system, with the same people who brought about its demise in the first place. What. The. Hell. Is. Going. On?
Pressure to stop corruption leads to...well...more curruption!
Afghanistan's Independent Election Commission announced today that it is going to delay parliamentary elections. The elections, originally scheduled for May 22 have now been pushed to September 18th. A member of the Afghan election committee, Fazil Ahmad Manawi, justifies the set-back by stating, "the additional time would permit the commission to enact new rules and safeguards to prevent the kind of large-scale fraud that tainted the presidential election in August." That's strange, because the Afghan Constitution specifically tasks the Election Commission with holding presidential polls at least a month before the end of the president's term in office on May 22, leading to expectations of an April vote.
I don't think it takes much logical extrapolation to easily detect how this a direct example of political corruption. According to an interview with Radio Free Europe, Mohammad Yunis Qanuni, the speaker of the lower house of parliament, agrees with my assertion. Qanuni stated that the Election Commission had no legal authority to delay the vote and further voiced his prediction in a statement to the Afghan parliament. "I want to formally share my concerns about the holding of elections. If the situation continues as it is today, you will not see elections on August 20."
The Afghan legal expert Nasrullah Stanekzai says, "the only way forward is for both houses of the Afghan parliament to now endorse the election commission's decision. Although it is a wrong decision, they still need to grant legitimacy to the extension of the president's term in office."
So let me get this straight. First the European Union finds that at least 1 million votes (1/3 of all ballots) for the current Afghan president Hamid Karzai were fraudulent, now his administration wants to illegally push back the date of parliamentary elections by 4 months? Now Stanekzai says that we need to respect the decision to grant "legitimacy" to his term. Are you kidding me? What am I missing that would illustrate to me a need for Karzai to not be immediately removed from his position?
To make matters worse, our government APPROVES of the delay. The following is from an article today from BusinessWeek,.
"The U.S. respects the Afghan decision to postpone the parliamentary contests," the U.S. Embassy in Kabul said in a statement provided by Megan Mattson, a State Department spokeswoman.
I don't think it takes much logical extrapolation to easily detect how this a direct example of political corruption. According to an interview with Radio Free Europe, Mohammad Yunis Qanuni, the speaker of the lower house of parliament, agrees with my assertion. Qanuni stated that the Election Commission had no legal authority to delay the vote and further voiced his prediction in a statement to the Afghan parliament. "I want to formally share my concerns about the holding of elections. If the situation continues as it is today, you will not see elections on August 20."
The Afghan legal expert Nasrullah Stanekzai says, "the only way forward is for both houses of the Afghan parliament to now endorse the election commission's decision. Although it is a wrong decision, they still need to grant legitimacy to the extension of the president's term in office."
So let me get this straight. First the European Union finds that at least 1 million votes (1/3 of all ballots) for the current Afghan president Hamid Karzai were fraudulent, now his administration wants to illegally push back the date of parliamentary elections by 4 months? Now Stanekzai says that we need to respect the decision to grant "legitimacy" to his term. Are you kidding me? What am I missing that would illustrate to me a need for Karzai to not be immediately removed from his position?
To make matters worse, our government APPROVES of the delay. The following is from an article today from BusinessWeek,.
"The U.S. respects the Afghan decision to postpone the parliamentary contests," the U.S. Embassy in Kabul said in a statement provided by Megan Mattson, a State Department spokeswoman.
Friday, January 22, 2010
Scott Brown: Smoking Gun in the Murder of the Republican Party
With the recent appointment of Scott Brown, and the current trend of congressional filibustering, it is my consensus that to be a "republican" ceases to hold any meaning. Before you flip out, let me elaborate. The republican population of the senate, now 41 strong, seems to share Michael Tomasky's definition of "ideological homogeneity." This means that you, as an individual voter, have lost your capacity to determine the actions of your republican state senator. At least until the November mid-term elections, should you happen to disagree with even a single republican stance, you have absolutely no power for influencing a rational vote in the Senate.
Think about it. What are the chances of you writing a letter to your republican representative and it actually being taken seriously enough to have his vote reflect the opinions of the people he represents? If the last 8 months of Senate voting history are any indication, there isn't a chance in hell.
You have lost your opinion as a US citizen, and it is my personal belief (and hopefully yours) that this is a perversion of the US Constitution and something needs to be done about it. Now I don't recognize myself as a republican, but I demand that everyone be allowed to do so if they happen to choose that ideological path.
Think about it. What are the chances of you writing a letter to your republican representative and it actually being taken seriously enough to have his vote reflect the opinions of the people he represents? If the last 8 months of Senate voting history are any indication, there isn't a chance in hell.
You have lost your opinion as a US citizen, and it is my personal belief (and hopefully yours) that this is a perversion of the US Constitution and something needs to be done about it. Now I don't recognize myself as a republican, but I demand that everyone be allowed to do so if they happen to choose that ideological path.
Hot Earth, Cold Earth: Dropping Some Science on Global Warming
I had a very interesting, student-led colloquia today about Global Warming in which the presenter addressed yesterday's announcement by NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies. The findings state that 2009 is tied for the second warmest year on record since 1880. Now year-to-year fluctuations are sometimes grounds for dismissal of evidence, but NASA debunks this claim by stating, "January 2000 to December 2009 was the warmest decade on record. Looking back to 1880, when modern scientific instrumentation became available to monitor temperatures precisely, a clear warming trend is present."
Interestingly enough, none of this information debates whether or not Global Warming is a man made trend; it simply doesn't matter. What does matter is that the adverse effects of a continual increase in average global temperatures are undebatable. Now science is often a scary subject for the average activist but, being a physicist, I'm going to give it to you anyway.
The Earth is constantly receiving 342 Watts/cubic meter of solar radiation (light). Only 107 Watts/cubic meter of light escape from Earth's atmosphere, due to an effective "barrier"of greenhouse gasses restricting its escape. The additional 235 Watts/cubic meter are being absorbed and re-emitted constantly within the atmosphere. For anyone who has studied a small amount of physics, conservation of energy demands that this extra energy must reach equilibrium within the system. This energy is released as heat radiation, and necessitates an increase in average global temperature. Again, none of this dwells on the debate as to the source of these greenhouse gasses; they are simply there or they aren't. Well, they're there. If you're having a hard time digesting the data, here's a diagram:
Now what are the possible solutions to a warming planet? The geoengineering groups have a few, very interesting, answers that I personally have never heard before. One school of thought is known as "Carbon Removal Techniques" or CRTs. An example of this would be placing a filter directly over smoke stacks that could remove greenhouse pollutants, without restricting efficiency, and would actually recycle some of the carbon to be facilitated for later use. This seems like a profitable endeavor to me, but why isn't it being employed?
One of the more radical tactics is SRM, or Solar Radiation Management. This includes painting the tops of buildings white to increase their reflectivity, thus allowing more solar radiation to escape. Some progressive scientists even endorse transforming (how?) deserts into reflective surfaces, thus locally cooling that area and reducing the average global temperature.
I think the most interesting of the proposed SRM solutions was to distribute football sized floating white surfaces across the world's oceans to increase the reflectivity of the majority of the Earth's largest surface (water). This would essentially erase any negative environmental outcomes (such as desert wildlife being destroyed from painting their ecosystem white). Now the cost-benefit analysis of such an immense oceanic project is a different story. It essentially will never happen. The speaker estimated that the covered area needed to reverse global temperature increases would be about 13 million square kilometers. Just to put this into perspective, the United States covers about 9 million square kilometers. This equates to distributing 2.5 billion such platforms and would cost an estimated $2,000 trillion. Ouch!
Another proposed solution would be what is known as "albedo modification." Albedo, for those who need an explanation, is a surfaces ability to reflect sunlight; rubber has poor albedo while snow has a large albedo. Cloud albedo modification would entail injecting salt into clouds to increase their droplet size, since a large water droplet obviously reflects more light than a small one. Again, this would increase the light escaping from the atmosphere and thus cool the planet. The Royal Society of London for the Improvement of Natural Knowledge, arguably the most respected scientific institution on the planet, prefers a slightly modified version of this. Known as Stratospheric Aerosol Distribution, this method of tackling temperature increase would involve introducing a relatively small, but extremely long-lived, amount of sulfur aerosol into the stratosphere. Such a solution would reflect the unwanted extra radiation away from the Earth before it could even reach the cloud level. This method seems to be reasonably cost effective, and can be implemented by current technology.
So, in essence, the debate as to what causes global warming is irrelevant. Simply, the Earth is warming, which is bad, and their are feasible solutions. What is a problem is that the US media seems to be hung up on the insignificant.
Interestingly enough, none of this information debates whether or not Global Warming is a man made trend; it simply doesn't matter. What does matter is that the adverse effects of a continual increase in average global temperatures are undebatable. Now science is often a scary subject for the average activist but, being a physicist, I'm going to give it to you anyway.
The Earth is constantly receiving 342 Watts/cubic meter of solar radiation (light). Only 107 Watts/cubic meter of light escape from Earth's atmosphere, due to an effective "barrier"of greenhouse gasses restricting its escape. The additional 235 Watts/cubic meter are being absorbed and re-emitted constantly within the atmosphere. For anyone who has studied a small amount of physics, conservation of energy demands that this extra energy must reach equilibrium within the system. This energy is released as heat radiation, and necessitates an increase in average global temperature. Again, none of this dwells on the debate as to the source of these greenhouse gasses; they are simply there or they aren't. Well, they're there. If you're having a hard time digesting the data, here's a diagram:
Now what are the possible solutions to a warming planet? The geoengineering groups have a few, very interesting, answers that I personally have never heard before. One school of thought is known as "Carbon Removal Techniques" or CRTs. An example of this would be placing a filter directly over smoke stacks that could remove greenhouse pollutants, without restricting efficiency, and would actually recycle some of the carbon to be facilitated for later use. This seems like a profitable endeavor to me, but why isn't it being employed?
One of the more radical tactics is SRM, or Solar Radiation Management. This includes painting the tops of buildings white to increase their reflectivity, thus allowing more solar radiation to escape. Some progressive scientists even endorse transforming (how?) deserts into reflective surfaces, thus locally cooling that area and reducing the average global temperature.
I think the most interesting of the proposed SRM solutions was to distribute football sized floating white surfaces across the world's oceans to increase the reflectivity of the majority of the Earth's largest surface (water). This would essentially erase any negative environmental outcomes (such as desert wildlife being destroyed from painting their ecosystem white). Now the cost-benefit analysis of such an immense oceanic project is a different story. It essentially will never happen. The speaker estimated that the covered area needed to reverse global temperature increases would be about 13 million square kilometers. Just to put this into perspective, the United States covers about 9 million square kilometers. This equates to distributing 2.5 billion such platforms and would cost an estimated $2,000 trillion. Ouch!
Another proposed solution would be what is known as "albedo modification." Albedo, for those who need an explanation, is a surfaces ability to reflect sunlight; rubber has poor albedo while snow has a large albedo. Cloud albedo modification would entail injecting salt into clouds to increase their droplet size, since a large water droplet obviously reflects more light than a small one. Again, this would increase the light escaping from the atmosphere and thus cool the planet. The Royal Society of London for the Improvement of Natural Knowledge, arguably the most respected scientific institution on the planet, prefers a slightly modified version of this. Known as Stratospheric Aerosol Distribution, this method of tackling temperature increase would involve introducing a relatively small, but extremely long-lived, amount of sulfur aerosol into the stratosphere. Such a solution would reflect the unwanted extra radiation away from the Earth before it could even reach the cloud level. This method seems to be reasonably cost effective, and can be implemented by current technology.
So, in essence, the debate as to what causes global warming is irrelevant. Simply, the Earth is warming, which is bad, and their are feasible solutions. What is a problem is that the US media seems to be hung up on the insignificant.
Can same sex corporations get married?
So the Supreme Court finally ruled on the case of corporate campaign spending. Susan Milligan, from the Boston Globe, sums the facts up nicely in saying,
Under the ruling, corporations and unions will not be able to contribute unlimited amounts directly to a candidate, but may spend what they please on behalf of a candidate. The money must be disclosed, the court said.
Ummmmm....why? What is the reasoning behind ruling on such an easily corruptable law? Well the court didn't have a choice, directly because of an archaic and unreasonable ruling that predates the sale of the first automobile.....not a joke. In the groundbreaking 1886 case of Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad corporations were granted "personhood," which became a very effective tool for protecting wealthy shareholders from being responsible for nearly any legal obligations to their employees or, recently, victims. This is the essence of a LLC.
So yesterday the Supreme Court, under the legal precedent that corporations have human and civil rights as all persons do, had to rule that they are granted freedom of speech and are thus protected by the 1st amendment. I think David Kirkpatrick hits the nail on the head with his assertion that, "A lobbyist can now tell any elected official: if you vote wrong, my company, labor union or interest group will spend unlimited sums explicitly advertising against your re-election."
This new mechanism will surely destroy the small amount of chivalry that was still lingering in presidential elections, but the effect it will have on state and local elections will surely redefine the word "corruption". A few million dollars in the 2012 election will be chump change, but put that same financial resource behind your local mayoral candidate and you're in for trouble.
Under the ruling, corporations and unions will not be able to contribute unlimited amounts directly to a candidate, but may spend what they please on behalf of a candidate. The money must be disclosed, the court said.
Ummmmm....why? What is the reasoning behind ruling on such an easily corruptable law? Well the court didn't have a choice, directly because of an archaic and unreasonable ruling that predates the sale of the first automobile.....not a joke. In the groundbreaking 1886 case of Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad corporations were granted "personhood," which became a very effective tool for protecting wealthy shareholders from being responsible for nearly any legal obligations to their employees or, recently, victims. This is the essence of a LLC.
So yesterday the Supreme Court, under the legal precedent that corporations have human and civil rights as all persons do, had to rule that they are granted freedom of speech and are thus protected by the 1st amendment. I think David Kirkpatrick hits the nail on the head with his assertion that, "A lobbyist can now tell any elected official: if you vote wrong, my company, labor union or interest group will spend unlimited sums explicitly advertising against your re-election."
This new mechanism will surely destroy the small amount of chivalry that was still lingering in presidential elections, but the effect it will have on state and local elections will surely redefine the word "corruption". A few million dollars in the 2012 election will be chump change, but put that same financial resource behind your local mayoral candidate and you're in for trouble.
Thursday, January 21, 2010
Haiti
After yesterday's magnitude 5.9 earthquake, which is the first of many possible aftershocks, the European Union is now estimating that 200,000 are dead, along with an injured 250,000 and a newly homeless population of 1.5 million. By Sunday, the Pentagon says, there should be 16,000 US military troops in Haiti. The White House is now considering increasing that number to 20,000 in the weeks to come. But with this immense aid and daunting donation drives, we have to ask the question: why is Haiti too poor to survive on its own?
The history of US-Haitian relations is vast, but I'm going to begin reviewing Haiti's economy with the introduction of the FRAPH. The Front for the Advancement and Progress in Haiti was the paramilitary organization behind a coup started in 1993 and is responsible for the murder of nearly 5,000 Haitian civilians. Arguably its most infamous member, Emmanuel Constant, reaped a regular salary from the CIA and was appointed to power by the US Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA).
In an article from Z-magazine, during the violent upheaval of the Haitian government in the mid 90's, "refugees fleeing to the U.S. from the terror of the US-backed dictatorship were forcefully returned, in gross violation of international humanitarian law." Although one important refugee was given political asylum within the US and, to this day, lives in Queens. That refugee is Emmanuel Constant, the Haitian terrorist discussed in the previous paragraph. Haiti decided to convict Constant in absentia and regularly called for his extradition, but to no avail. Luckily in 2008, he was convicted of several mortgage fraud felonies in New York and was sentenced to 37 years in prison. Wow, what a nice guy.
But none of this directly addresses the question; why is the Haitian economy unable to provide a significant amount of self-reconstruction?
Well after the success of Emmanuel Constant's overthrow, the World Bank announced, "The renovated state must focus on an open economic strategy ... both national and foreign." Aww, that actually sounds legitimate. Well, it wasn't; almost immediately after the World Bank announcement, the Organization of American States declared an oil embargo on the entire nation. Furthermore, the newly democratized Haitian rice farmers had to compete against the subsidized US agriculturalists. Their inability to do so yielded a devastating financial depression of the working class majority. If this seems unbelievable, do a Google search of "NAFTA."
With all this being said, giving financial aid to Haiti is even more important than ever. What isn't important is placing 10,000 US troops in the disaster area and then subsequently waiting a week until clean drinking water was given to the victims. Michael Weisbrot writes:
On Monday, six days after the earthquake in Haiti, the US Southern Command finally began to drop bottled water and food from an air force C-17. US defence secretary Robert Gates had previously rejected such a method because of "security concerns".
In Gates' defense, he's quoted on CNN.com saying:
It seems to me that, without having any structure on the ground in terms of distribution, that an airdrop is simply going to lead to riots as people try and go after that stuff. So without any structure for distribution or to provide security when things become available, then it seems to me that's a formula for contributing to chaos rather than -- rather than preventing it
Seems like a valid point. But is refusal to distribute drinking water really the best solution? Let me offer an alternative solution to stop potential civil disputes over insufficient supplies of water;
DROP MORE WATER
The history of US-Haitian relations is vast, but I'm going to begin reviewing Haiti's economy with the introduction of the FRAPH. The Front for the Advancement and Progress in Haiti was the paramilitary organization behind a coup started in 1993 and is responsible for the murder of nearly 5,000 Haitian civilians. Arguably its most infamous member, Emmanuel Constant, reaped a regular salary from the CIA and was appointed to power by the US Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA).
In an article from Z-magazine, during the violent upheaval of the Haitian government in the mid 90's, "refugees fleeing to the U.S. from the terror of the US-backed dictatorship were forcefully returned, in gross violation of international humanitarian law." Although one important refugee was given political asylum within the US and, to this day, lives in Queens. That refugee is Emmanuel Constant, the Haitian terrorist discussed in the previous paragraph. Haiti decided to convict Constant in absentia and regularly called for his extradition, but to no avail. Luckily in 2008, he was convicted of several mortgage fraud felonies in New York and was sentenced to 37 years in prison. Wow, what a nice guy.
But none of this directly addresses the question; why is the Haitian economy unable to provide a significant amount of self-reconstruction?
Well after the success of Emmanuel Constant's overthrow, the World Bank announced, "The renovated state must focus on an open economic strategy ... both national and foreign." Aww, that actually sounds legitimate. Well, it wasn't; almost immediately after the World Bank announcement, the Organization of American States declared an oil embargo on the entire nation. Furthermore, the newly democratized Haitian rice farmers had to compete against the subsidized US agriculturalists. Their inability to do so yielded a devastating financial depression of the working class majority. If this seems unbelievable, do a Google search of "NAFTA."
With all this being said, giving financial aid to Haiti is even more important than ever. What isn't important is placing 10,000 US troops in the disaster area and then subsequently waiting a week until clean drinking water was given to the victims. Michael Weisbrot writes:
On Monday, six days after the earthquake in Haiti, the US Southern Command finally began to drop bottled water and food from an air force C-17. US defence secretary Robert Gates had previously rejected such a method because of "security concerns".
In Gates' defense, he's quoted on CNN.com saying:
It seems to me that, without having any structure on the ground in terms of distribution, that an airdrop is simply going to lead to riots as people try and go after that stuff. So without any structure for distribution or to provide security when things become available, then it seems to me that's a formula for contributing to chaos rather than -- rather than preventing it
Seems like a valid point. But is refusal to distribute drinking water really the best solution? Let me offer an alternative solution to stop potential civil disputes over insufficient supplies of water;
DROP MORE WATER
False History
So I've obviously filled my last semester with "easy A" classes, but to my surprise a class titled "The Contemporary Enlightenment: Science, Technology, and Human Values" seems to not be as wishy-washy as the title emplies. We're currently talking about how the absence of important national concerns in US media seems to be a recurring theme. Why? Hopefully this class will explain that (one of the assigned books is Chomsky and Herman's Manufacturing Consent).
Well my daily perusing of The Guardian has, not shockingly, lead me to a direct example. One of today's top articles outlines the Alaskan Rep. senator Lisa Murkowski's disapproval of congressional abilities to potentially cap greenhouse emissions in her state. She argues that it will further promote unemployment and is quoted in saying, "[climate regulations are] under the guise of protecting the environment, it's set to unleash a wave of damaging new regulations that will wash over and further submerge our struggling economy."
Well, Lisa, I think that's a pretty steep connection. If you want to widen the divide between the economic classes, take a page out of your boss', Barack Obama's, book (see my previous post for the day.) Complete financial and legal freedom of the wealthiest domestic private industry in world history (a.k.a Wall Street) seems, at least in my perspective, to be a much more effective way of destroying John Q. Taxpayer's 401k. Maybe you didn't learn that when you were a member of Pi Beta Phi sorority. Maybe that's not fair. For a better understanding of your agenda, all we need to do is look at your voting record in the 2006 congressional year.
You voted:
1. Edison Chouest Offshore
2. Constellation Energy
3. Van Ness Feldman
4. Southern Co.
5. Exxon Mobile
Wow, almost unanimously energy corporations. For those of you who aren't aware, Van Ness Feldman is a law firm that specializes in representing energy conglomerates. I guess it isn't a shock that Murkowski's net worth in the year 2008 alone (which is the most recently reported year) went from $655,000 to over $2 million. Just something to think about.
Ok enough about Lisa Murkowski. The thesis of this post is that the NY Times, regarded as one of the nation's most legitimate main stream news sources, decided that this story wasn't important enough to post on their front page. The only mention of Murkowski's speech is in an editorial that can only be reached using the "search" bar at the top of the webpage. Wait a minute, maybe the NY Times had more important topics to discuss today. Fair enough, here is a list of a few of the front page stories on their website for today, 1/21/2010
Seeing is Disbelieving: What it felt like to play against Mark McGuire
Other People's Lives: 'Girl on the Train' is a seductive drama
ArtsBeat: Gym, tan, and the Jersey Shore. Discuss
My favorite is the last one, but hey, that's just me.
Here is a link to the Murkowski article on The Guardian
Well my daily perusing of The Guardian has, not shockingly, lead me to a direct example. One of today's top articles outlines the Alaskan Rep. senator Lisa Murkowski's disapproval of congressional abilities to potentially cap greenhouse emissions in her state. She argues that it will further promote unemployment and is quoted in saying, "[climate regulations are] under the guise of protecting the environment, it's set to unleash a wave of damaging new regulations that will wash over and further submerge our struggling economy."
Well, Lisa, I think that's a pretty steep connection. If you want to widen the divide between the economic classes, take a page out of your boss', Barack Obama's, book (see my previous post for the day.) Complete financial and legal freedom of the wealthiest domestic private industry in world history (a.k.a Wall Street) seems, at least in my perspective, to be a much more effective way of destroying John Q. Taxpayer's 401k. Maybe you didn't learn that when you were a member of Pi Beta Phi sorority. Maybe that's not fair. For a better understanding of your agenda, all we need to do is look at your voting record in the 2006 congressional year.
You voted:
- against S.C. Resolution 83, intended to bolster energy security and lower energy-related environmental impacts
- against an amendment to S. 728 which would make the Army Corps of Engineers more accountable for the environmental and economic impacts of their projects
- for oil drilling in ANWR
- for domestic offshore oil and gas drilling
1. Edison Chouest Offshore
2. Constellation Energy
3. Van Ness Feldman
4. Southern Co.
5. Exxon Mobile
Wow, almost unanimously energy corporations. For those of you who aren't aware, Van Ness Feldman is a law firm that specializes in representing energy conglomerates. I guess it isn't a shock that Murkowski's net worth in the year 2008 alone (which is the most recently reported year) went from $655,000 to over $2 million. Just something to think about.
Ok enough about Lisa Murkowski. The thesis of this post is that the NY Times, regarded as one of the nation's most legitimate main stream news sources, decided that this story wasn't important enough to post on their front page. The only mention of Murkowski's speech is in an editorial that can only be reached using the "search" bar at the top of the webpage. Wait a minute, maybe the NY Times had more important topics to discuss today. Fair enough, here is a list of a few of the front page stories on their website for today, 1/21/2010
Seeing is Disbelieving: What it felt like to play against Mark McGuire
Other People's Lives: 'Girl on the Train' is a seductive drama
ArtsBeat: Gym, tan, and the Jersey Shore. Discuss
My favorite is the last one, but hey, that's just me.
Here is a link to the Murkowski article on The Guardian
In the Beginning...
I'd like to start this freshly made blog with an inspiration from a Noam Chomsky's lecture entitled "Philosophies of Language and Politics." In this piece, prof. Chomsky discusses, along with a variety of other topics, the economics of political agendas and how such policies are manifested in presidential elections.
With this lecture in mind, I read the NY Times front page article entitled "Obama Moves to Limit Reckless Risks of Banks." Link here
Obama's declaration seems to contradict the past year of Wall Street behavior and the apparent precursors to current economic policy in his campaign contribution archives. According to Open Secrets, Goldman Sachs topped the list of contributors (second only to the University of California) with a substantial donation of ~$1,000,000.
It seems less than suprising, given the provided information, that Goldman Sachs was the beneficiary of slightly over $12 billion in bailout allocations. hmmm... This includes further complication with yesterdays newly reported findings that Goldman Sachs executive bonuses are likely to exceed $20 bil, with an average payout of over $600,000 per employee.
I wonder if the previously mentioned White House reaction to "limit reckless risks" will involve stopping the, virtually riskless, pocket stuffing endorsed directly by the Obama administration? That being said, I find it strikingly convenient that none of the US mainstream media(feel free to provide feedback) have yet to connect the dots on the proportionality of campaign contributions to bailout provisions. Hopefully some brave journalist, who has dreams of unemployment, with offer this to the public eye.
With this lecture in mind, I read the NY Times front page article entitled "Obama Moves to Limit Reckless Risks of Banks." Link here
Obama's declaration seems to contradict the past year of Wall Street behavior and the apparent precursors to current economic policy in his campaign contribution archives. According to Open Secrets, Goldman Sachs topped the list of contributors (second only to the University of California) with a substantial donation of ~$1,000,000.
It seems less than suprising, given the provided information, that Goldman Sachs was the beneficiary of slightly over $12 billion in bailout allocations. hmmm... This includes further complication with yesterdays newly reported findings that Goldman Sachs executive bonuses are likely to exceed $20 bil, with an average payout of over $600,000 per employee.
I wonder if the previously mentioned White House reaction to "limit reckless risks" will involve stopping the, virtually riskless, pocket stuffing endorsed directly by the Obama administration? That being said, I find it strikingly convenient that none of the US mainstream media(feel free to provide feedback) have yet to connect the dots on the proportionality of campaign contributions to bailout provisions. Hopefully some brave journalist, who has dreams of unemployment, with offer this to the public eye.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
