George W. Bush announces: read my lips, I am going to betray the troops

For the upteenth time George W. Bush has announced his traitorous message to the American people. While talking on the White House South Lawn today (April 24, 2007) George Bush says he will veto funding for the troops in Iraq!

As the Pentagon does not work potential war-making into its annual budget, Congress is forced to pass emergency spending bills during times of crisis. But, the President of the United States of America, the Commander-and-Chief, states that he will veto such funding.

Congress is poised to pass a bill that will give every penny of the funding that initially the President said he wanted. Now, however, it’s not good enough. George Bush (43) has determined he will take a political stand on the issue. Therefore, he has decided to leave the American troops stationed in Iraq hung out to dry.

As true patriots Congress has determined it will give the troops the money. Yet, the conservatives now want to politicize the funding. They have done so in order to try to break the back of the democratically-elected Congress. The next step is to cow the Congress into be no more than a rubber stamp for the President. (why do we have elections at all?)

It is not enough that he has put them in harms way for Weapons of Mass Destruction that turned out not only to be incorrect but lies! And, when somebody called them out on it they committed treason by outing a CIA agent to keep the lies from coming out! Then those who were wounded in their defense of their bad policy were sent back to slums for rehab! (Proving troops to be nothing but pawns protecting the king) Never mind the thousands they allowed to die in New Orleans while they argued over "chain of command!" They were not even pawns they just don't "care about black people." (Mike Meyers cringes.) To make everybody feel better, the Administration has declared “when the Iraqis stand up, we’ll stand down!” Yet, they determined to slip into the news that they have stopped training the Iraqi Army (during the national mourning of the Virginia Tech tragedy.) Just 32 more pawns in their political game!

Now they have decided to cut off funding for the troops. Again and again the conservatives have told us they were patriotic and liberals were treasonous. (You know like Pinochet used to say). Now they are willing to deny troops in the field adequate funding. While it may not be treason to the letter of the law I’m sure anyone who has loved ones over there will see that the conservative movement has decided they no longer love America (if they ever did)!

At the precipice of Hubbert’s Peak

On April 16, 2007 US Energy Information announced that gasoline prices had gone up for the 11th consecutive week. The average cost for a gallon of gasoline was $2.876. This is 71 cents higher than January 29th and 9.3 cents higher than this time last year. Based on this and other indicators over the past few years the era of cheap oil is over. This lack of cheap oil is going to change the world, as you and I know it. Will it make us better or worse off? As with everything else – a little from column A and a little from column B.

In 1956, Marion King Hubbert predicted that the United States’ oil production would peak between 1965 and 1970. It peaked in 1970. This means that since 1970 the United States has produced less and less oil every year. It has led to more and more importation of oil every year, as well. Today the United States is a net importer of oil; over two-thirds of the oil used in the United States is from abroad. Hubbert further estimated that world production would peak in half a century. That would place it in 2006!

The fact of the matter is that it is time to change the way we think about energy, productivity and lifestyle. Hubbert’s peak may not have been reached in 2006, but it is coming and in human terms soon! Once we have reached that point the price of energy can only go up. The short-term effects are outstanding, since the demand for gasoline is, in the near term, inelastic – meaning that people will buy as much or nearly as much gas regardless of cost. We, therefore, must start planning now. This planning is a two-step process. On a micro level, get yourself a more fuel-efficient car or a bicycle or move closer to the subway. On a macro level, we must invest in alternative forms of energy – wind, solar and nuclear. If these steps are not taken it will be dangerous for the United States, civilization and ourselves, individually.

According to Hubbert, the discovery and production of oil move basically along a bell curve. Therefore there are two mirror bell curves – one for discovery and one for production. As the discovered reserves are exploited, the world’s production moves up the second bell curve. The amount of anything is finite. Therefore, at some point the world will reach the halfway point and produce less and less oil.

Now several things have happened since 1956 that would put such an assumption in doubt. The discovery of oil in Alaska and the North Sea were larger than the rate of Hubbert’s increase in discovery. Also, there were the oil shocks of the 1970s which increased price to a point where the laws of supply and demand slowed both demand and thus production. Therefore, the “sky is falling” folks who predicted Hubbert’s peak in 1989 or 1995 or 2000 have been proven wrong. (I know not who predicted it in 1989 but they were well off the mark.)

The recent spike in oil prices can therefore be attributed to not only the war in Iraq and the ensuing instability. But, it can be seen, as Kenneth Deffeyes argues, that there is a lack of excess capacity. This lack could be a symbol that the end is near. He placed the date of Hubbert’s peak at Thanksgiving Day 2005. Joining the courus, Colin J. Campbell and Jean H. Laherrere argued in 1998 that convention oil could reach its peak within ten years. Recent events in Iraq have shown that perhaps we can push back the oil peak even further. The consulting group HIS has said that there could be 100 Gigabarrels more in Iraq than initially thought. With no statitistical experience or real hard data in front of me I am going to place Hubbert’s worldwide peak as December 21, 2012.

Hubbert’s peak is not a theory. There is only so much oil. Geological processes will not allow ancient biomass to be converted at the current speed of demand and production. Those who deny Hubbert’s peak are usually those who deny Global Warming. (If you deny global warming, you probably don’t agree with a single thing I say anyways so you can probably stop reading this – but don’t complain to me when you’re paying $15/gallon to gas up your Ford Explorer.) So the really question is neither whether nor when but rather what are we going to do about it?

First I’ll handle personally. This is just easier. The transaction costs of you and I changing the way we do things are considerably less than changing society. I find there are some simple things to do to lessen our needs for energy.

1. Bike and Walk! The anti-personal responsibility people see the world as binary, either you drive a car or you do not. Anybody who rides a bike or walks to save fuel is a hypocrite because sometimes you ride in cars or drive a car. Fuck them! Obviously if you live in the outer suburbs or if it is the middle of winter (or middle of summer) it is not really reasonable to ride your bike to work. But what about when you are going to the corner store to get a quart of milk? Is it not reasonable to ride or walk then?

Let me give you some numbers: What is the fuel efficiency of your car? The amount of energy required to bike is 653 mpg (0.36L/100km). Walking is equal to 235 (1L/100km). Meanwhile a bus gets 231 mpg per passenger. So if your car were filled with people would it match anything like this? And are you telling me you couldn’t use more exercise?

2. Computers! – This is another easy one. How often do you walk away from your computer and not return to it for hours if not all day. Set those energy settings to turn off the monitor in fifteen minutes.

3. Share – older eras of human development never broke itself down into the nuclear family. They did things on in larger groups. But think about it, do your neighbors watch some of the same TV shows you do? Do you have a coworker who you have to drive by his/her neighborhood to get to work anyways? Why don’t you do these things together? Surely, only one of you driving or only one TV on at a time saves energy.

Perhaps if we all did these three simple things we could save some energy and delay Hubbert’s Peak – plus be more prepared when it came. And, each one of us would save money: Today! To paraphrase Sally Struthers “do you want to have more money? Sure, we all do!”

The macro side is obviously more complicated. Getting the government and society at large to change is hard. We obviously must work on it or the environment and market forces will do it for us.

1. Alternative Energy – Alternative energy will soon not be the alternative. Do we want it to be on our terms or someone else’s? Nuclear and wind power can be built and exploited today! We can continue if not expand hydrogen cell and solar research over the next decades. If we were to remove the ethanol subsidies and tariffs we could get less expensive fuel from Brazil today which could only lead to expanding the sugar ethanol production – less oil.

2. CAFÉ standards! – While the Heritage Foundation or Cato Institute may not like this, make cars be more fuel-efficient. I mean that seems pretty obvious!

3. Build more trains – Americans hate trains. And, trains hate Americans, because outside of the Bos-Wash corridor I do not think I would take a train for transportation. A quick look into the French TGV shows three reasons I it would be good for mass intercity travel.

a. This thing can move – 357 mph (575km/h)
b. Fuel efficiency – 80% full train gets 506 mpg (0.45L/100km) per passenger
c. Train stations are usually downtown – when you get there you do not have to rent a car.


Hubbert’s Peak is coming. The only question is do we want to go down the mountain fast or slow? And, do we want to have a hard or soft landing when we get there?

The Confederate Flag: AFootball Coach and The Tragedy of America

Steve Spurrier, former Heisman Trophy winner and coach of the University of South Carolina Gamecocks, has come out against the Confederate Flag. The Confederate Battle Flag flies on the grounds of the South Carolina state Capitol building in Columbia. Spurrier said that the use of the flag is an embarrassment to the state and his football team. Spurrier is quoted on espn.com as saying, “My opinion is we don't need the Confederate flag at our Capitol."

I give kudos to Steve Spurrier for taking a stand on the issue. It not is something Bear Bryant nor Vince Dooley nor Adolph Rupp ever did. The football or basketball coach at the state’s largest public school has an amazing amount of power and clout in states that have few professional teams. The 2000 House of Representatives race for the 3rd district in Nebraska is case in point. Tom Osborne, the former football coach at the University of Nebraska won the race with 82% of the vote – 82!

Perhaps Spurrier’s announcement will make southern whites think about the use of the flag. To Blacks and non-Southerners the Confederate Battle Flag stands for three things:

1. Slavery – There are compelling arguments for the Civil War to be fought for may things other than slavery. But, the fact of the matter is simple. Slaveholders throughout the 1840s and 1850s resisted technological change in the plantation economy and sought to get slavery expanded to the Northern free states. Victories in the Kansas-Nebraska Act, the compromise of 1850 and the Dred Scott Case all led to slavery becoming protected even in states where it was illegal. When the Republican Party, which was staunchly anti-slavery, took control at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, White Southerners rebelled against the United States.

2. Rebellion – The truth of the matter is that the flag was used in rebellion. The same Southern Whites who tell me I’m unpatriotic because I do not blindly support the imperialist war in Iraq wave their confederate flags in support of the day when instead of accepting the democratically elected government in Washington the South rebelled from the United States. My Southern compatriots you cannot have it both ways.

3. Segregation – In both Georgia and South Carolina the Confederate Battle Flag was invoked during the Civil Rights Era. In 1956 Georgia put the Flag on its state flag; while, in South Carolina the flag was placed above the Capitol building in 1962. These were specifically done to show that the South was standing by George Wallace’s feelings: “Segregation now, segregation tomorrow and segregation for ever!”

In 2000 there was a political firestorm regarding the Confederate Flag and its use on both state flags and above the South Carolina Capitol building. Politicians – who to a man claim that it was not for racist motives – defended the use of the Confederate Flag.

John McCain called the flag over the South Carolina Capitol as not racist but as a symbol of heritage. Yeah, as spelled out above, it is a symbol of heritage of Slavery, Rebellion and Segregation. President George Bush deftly avoided the issue by declaring that it was best left up to the states – like slavery, Jim Crow and segregation were. In Georgia governor Roy Barnes tried to placate the issue by making a new state flag that had the Confederate Battle Flag but wee on the bottom. It was one of those compromises that nobody liked and the flag was changed again without the battle flag but based on the National Flag of the CSA – the Stars and Bars. Finally in Mississippi it was discovered that there was not a law on the books regarding the state flag. So, instead of taking the chance to remove the racist tint from the state, an overwhelming number of voters (2:1) voted to make the flag official!

You may argue that the Confederate Flag is nothing but a symbol of being Southern. . The Sons of Confederate Veterans have tried to face down groups that try to use it for hate – such as the Ku Klux Klan. I accept the argument that you can be proud to be Southern and not racist – many Southern Blacks are proud Southerners and enjoy their regional distinctions. What I do not and cannot accept is that the Battle Flag does not conjure up emotions of White Supremacy.

Saying that the Confederate Flag should be used to celebrate Southernism without racism is preposterous. By that token could not someone fly a Nazi swastika claiming it was only a part of his or her history? Or could a white person in Zimbabwe do the same with the flag of Rhodesia from the Unilateral Declaration of Independence era? It could be merely part of Zimbabwe’s history.

The flag must come down from the state Capitol building. Find a new symbol of Southernism rather than one that celebrates anti-American values of slavery, rebellion and segregation. If you fly the Confederate Battle Flag non-Southern whites, Blacks and people from other countries assume you are racist. Of course, you probably are and maybe should rethink your patriotic pro-American stand on things because you are not part of my America.

North Korea, The US and the Banco Delta

So it looks like the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea is not about to shut down its nuclear facilities. Why? Because the Banco Delta Asia in Macao will not release the $25 million deposited by North Korea into its bank. The reason? The money may have been gained illicitly.

On the surface this seems fair enough. But, there are three main problems with why 23 million should hold up the security of Northern Asia. First how does illicit gain matter in this case? Second, why is a Chinese bank now concerned with illicit money? And thirdly, can’t we find $25 million somewhere else and give it to them?

The Banco Delta is worried the money might have been gained illicitly. First how exactly is money not gained illicitly? It reminds me of Judgment Night when for a reason that escapes me (like the rest of the movie) Dennis Leary is giving some kid money. The kid complains that there is blood on that money. Leary responds, “you ever see money that didn’t?” But even if you accept that there are ways to get $25 million legally and ethically, when would North Korea do it? It’s a Stalinist regime driven on the cult of personality and squeezing the surplus labor from the citizens. Of course it’s ill gotten gain!

This leads us to the second question. Why does the Banco Delta care? China is not the most transparent in banking regulation. Only recently did they agree to follow the Basle II standards – and that only by the end of 2008. And it was neither the Banco Delta nor the Chinese National Government’s decision that it was ill gotten. It was the US Treasury’s. What is the Banco Delta doing listening to them?

Finally is the amount. To you and me $25 million is a lot of money but to the US Government its spare change. Just cover the 25 million and get back from the Banco Delta when PRC pressure makes them.

The United States has really lost all its soft power (the international relations jargon for “juice”), if the Bush Administration can let a major deal with an international pariah fall by the wayside because some small bank in Macau does want to release spare change.