Imagine what the development of a car that ran on compressed air would mean to the price of oil. Consider the effect it would have on global warming. Think of what it would do to the U.S. trade deficit. Get your mind around how it would rearrange global power relationships away from places like the Middle East, Russia and Venezuela. Sound too good to be true? Maybe not.
I got a heads up recently from reader John Redden about a technological development, amazing not for its cutting-edge complexity but for its mundane simplicity. Instead of using an explosion to drive a piston, you could do it with a puff of compressed air. You can read about it here: http://www.popularmechanics.com/automotive/new_cars/4217016.html
http://www.popularmechanics.com/automotive/new_cars/4251491.html?series=19
A company in Luxembourg, MDI, has licensed Tata Motors of India to produce its CityCat model there. It is expected to retail for about $12,700, will have a top speed of 68 miles per hour and a range of 125 miles. It should cost about $2 to fill its tanks with 340 liters of air at 4350 psi. This model won't sell in the USA-it's actually glued together. But another may.
Zero Pollution Motors has secured the license from MDI for US production of a modified version, and could get under way in late 2009 or early 2010. Popular Mechanics describes it as, "a $17,800 75-hp equivalent, six seat modified version of MDI's CityCat that, thanks to an even more radical engine (apparently with a small bit of gas-powered assistance), is said to travel as far as 1000 miles at up to 96 mph" on about 8 gallons of gas.
No doubt we'll have to wait and see whether these innovations are overhyped or actually practical. But the bottom line is that with gas prices accelerating there is a tremendous incentive, including prospects for mega-profits, for the inventor or company that can solve these engineering problems. There is already the $10 million Progressive Insurance Automotive X-Prize for developing the first car that can get 100 mpg, but that pales in comparison to the billions in sales such a vehicle would generate.
John feels confident that human inventiveness, spurred on by the profit motive, will find the solutions we need. I tend to think he's right.
Sunday, August 31, 2008
Friday, August 29, 2008
Sarah Palin: What McCain Is Thinking
Sarah who? What on earth was John McCain thinking? Is the elevation of the little-known Alaska governor a shrewd move or a big mistake? Actually, it's a little of both. And as always with a surprise, there's an element of, well, surprise. We won't really know until she's been out there awhile and we see how she does. Until then, here's a window into McCain's thinking, with the positives first.
McCain's immediate reason for choosing a big surprise as a running mate was to steal some buzz from Barack Obama. Practically everyone but Republican partisans has been raving about his magnificent acceptance speech in Denver last night before an audience of more than 38 million-even larger than the Opening Cermony in Beijing or the final of American Idol. The Palin (pronounced PAY-lin) announcement was such a stunner that it's captured a lot of the limelight. Obama had already gotten a convention "bump" in the early Gallup tracking poll to an 8-point lead, and this should do something to head off further Obama gains. In that sense, it was a good move.
A second purpose was to soldify the conservative base. Palin is conservative, as in VERY conservative on social issues. She believes abortion should be illegal, even in cases of rape, incest or to protect the life of the mother. She was pregnant with a Down's Syndrome baby and delivered the child. She is a Lifetime NRA member, an evangelical Christian and a self-described hunter and "hockey mom" of five. The Christian Coalition has already sent out a glowing endorsement. So, most of the people who were going to vote Republican anyway will have one more reason to do so. This is even though as governor she vetoed a measure that would have denied benefits to gay domestic partners. As a minor side benefit, that has made the Log Cabin Republicans, the largest gay group in the GOP, also very happy with the pick.
Another McCain purpose was to reinforce his "maverick" and "reformer" reputations. Palin spared no criticism of the corrupt Alaskan Republican power structure. She not only brought up the irregularities of former Governor and Senator Frank Murkowski, but also called to task another fellow Republican, Senator Ted Stevens, who is currently under indictment. In this year when postpartisanism is being thrown around a lot, that kind of independence will play well. Unfortunately, she herself is being investigated for allegedly using her influence as governor to get her former brother-in-law fired for vindictive reasons. One can only hope for the ticket's sake that the McCain people thoroughly vetted these charges and believe she will be quickly vindicated. If she isn't it would be a disaster.
Now we venture into the realm of the more dubious. Without doubt one of McCain's concerns on his 72nd birthday was to unveil a running mate much younger than himself. At 44, Palin certainly fills that bill. But her youth comes at a heavy potential cost. She is so green she does much to undermine McCain's claims of advantage on foreign policy and as commander in chief. She has been mayor of a town of 6,000, governor for less than two years of a state with a population no larger than a middling city and possesses no foreign policy resume. At all. When asked her views on Iraq, she answered that she hadn't thought about it much! It could have been an advantage that one of her sons is about to be deployed there, but then so is one of Joe Biden's.
Sarah Palin is clearly unready to direct the foreign policy and military strategy of the United States, especially at a time of war, and she would be serving under a president with some health problems who will soon be in his mid seventies. This not only takes much of McCain's "experience" argument away but also calls his judgment into serious question. The Obama campaign will make hay on this. I feel this part of McCain's reasoning is one big-time mistake, not only politically but also concerning the best interests of the country.
We come now to McCain's biggest reason for choosing Palin, the fact that she is a woman. This may have been his greatest miscalculation of all. As the Democratic Convention drew near the McCain campaign did everything it could to try to stoke resentment among Hillary Clinton's supporters. Then came her strong speech and husband Bill's, endorsing Obama. Any lingering disaffection appeared to evaporate as Sen. Clinton herself took the floor and moved Obama's nomination by acclamation. McCain was obviously still going after these women with today's announcement. In her remarks Governor Palin even made direct appeals to Hillary supporters, referring to her by name and cribbing her "glass ceilings" line.
But will Hillary Clinton Democratic women switch to a Republican conservative who is anti-choice? That seems hard to imagine. CNN commentator David Gergen reported on the air that the network's site was being inundated with an overwhelmingly negative influx of e-mails from women who considered the blatant play for their support by a woman who shares virtually none of Hillary's viewpoints "insulting." Time will tell, but this does not look good for McCain.
Finally, more than anything else McCain's decision revealed his gambler's nature and his assessment that his campaign is in trouble. He felt he needed a game changer to shake up the race. This is anything but a safe pick. It is very high risk, both for the election and for the country if he wins. He decided the experience mantra couldn't win in a change year and that the maverick appellation wasn't getting sufficient traction. He has now definitely underscored his maverick credentials. We'll see whether the American voter gives him points for being bold or punishes him for recklessness. I expect it to be more of the latter.
McCain's immediate reason for choosing a big surprise as a running mate was to steal some buzz from Barack Obama. Practically everyone but Republican partisans has been raving about his magnificent acceptance speech in Denver last night before an audience of more than 38 million-even larger than the Opening Cermony in Beijing or the final of American Idol. The Palin (pronounced PAY-lin) announcement was such a stunner that it's captured a lot of the limelight. Obama had already gotten a convention "bump" in the early Gallup tracking poll to an 8-point lead, and this should do something to head off further Obama gains. In that sense, it was a good move.
A second purpose was to soldify the conservative base. Palin is conservative, as in VERY conservative on social issues. She believes abortion should be illegal, even in cases of rape, incest or to protect the life of the mother. She was pregnant with a Down's Syndrome baby and delivered the child. She is a Lifetime NRA member, an evangelical Christian and a self-described hunter and "hockey mom" of five. The Christian Coalition has already sent out a glowing endorsement. So, most of the people who were going to vote Republican anyway will have one more reason to do so. This is even though as governor she vetoed a measure that would have denied benefits to gay domestic partners. As a minor side benefit, that has made the Log Cabin Republicans, the largest gay group in the GOP, also very happy with the pick.
Another McCain purpose was to reinforce his "maverick" and "reformer" reputations. Palin spared no criticism of the corrupt Alaskan Republican power structure. She not only brought up the irregularities of former Governor and Senator Frank Murkowski, but also called to task another fellow Republican, Senator Ted Stevens, who is currently under indictment. In this year when postpartisanism is being thrown around a lot, that kind of independence will play well. Unfortunately, she herself is being investigated for allegedly using her influence as governor to get her former brother-in-law fired for vindictive reasons. One can only hope for the ticket's sake that the McCain people thoroughly vetted these charges and believe she will be quickly vindicated. If she isn't it would be a disaster.
Now we venture into the realm of the more dubious. Without doubt one of McCain's concerns on his 72nd birthday was to unveil a running mate much younger than himself. At 44, Palin certainly fills that bill. But her youth comes at a heavy potential cost. She is so green she does much to undermine McCain's claims of advantage on foreign policy and as commander in chief. She has been mayor of a town of 6,000, governor for less than two years of a state with a population no larger than a middling city and possesses no foreign policy resume. At all. When asked her views on Iraq, she answered that she hadn't thought about it much! It could have been an advantage that one of her sons is about to be deployed there, but then so is one of Joe Biden's.
Sarah Palin is clearly unready to direct the foreign policy and military strategy of the United States, especially at a time of war, and she would be serving under a president with some health problems who will soon be in his mid seventies. This not only takes much of McCain's "experience" argument away but also calls his judgment into serious question. The Obama campaign will make hay on this. I feel this part of McCain's reasoning is one big-time mistake, not only politically but also concerning the best interests of the country.
We come now to McCain's biggest reason for choosing Palin, the fact that she is a woman. This may have been his greatest miscalculation of all. As the Democratic Convention drew near the McCain campaign did everything it could to try to stoke resentment among Hillary Clinton's supporters. Then came her strong speech and husband Bill's, endorsing Obama. Any lingering disaffection appeared to evaporate as Sen. Clinton herself took the floor and moved Obama's nomination by acclamation. McCain was obviously still going after these women with today's announcement. In her remarks Governor Palin even made direct appeals to Hillary supporters, referring to her by name and cribbing her "glass ceilings" line.
But will Hillary Clinton Democratic women switch to a Republican conservative who is anti-choice? That seems hard to imagine. CNN commentator David Gergen reported on the air that the network's site was being inundated with an overwhelmingly negative influx of e-mails from women who considered the blatant play for their support by a woman who shares virtually none of Hillary's viewpoints "insulting." Time will tell, but this does not look good for McCain.
Finally, more than anything else McCain's decision revealed his gambler's nature and his assessment that his campaign is in trouble. He felt he needed a game changer to shake up the race. This is anything but a safe pick. It is very high risk, both for the election and for the country if he wins. He decided the experience mantra couldn't win in a change year and that the maverick appellation wasn't getting sufficient traction. He has now definitely underscored his maverick credentials. We'll see whether the American voter gives him points for being bold or punishes him for recklessness. I expect it to be more of the latter.
Thursday, August 28, 2008
Obama's Acceptance Speech: Readers' Forum
Tonight Barack Obama accepted the nomination of the Democratic Party on the convention's closing night in a speech before 75,000 people at Denver's Invesco Field. He had many things to accomplish. He needed to introduce himself to the large number of Americans who are just now starting to pay attention to the election. He needed to appear presidential: tough but compassionate, idealistic yet practical. He needed to inspire the spirit with his vision and rhetorical gifts while at the same time reassuring the nation that his 29 specific policy solutions would help to cure its ills. Finally, he needed to tie John McCain to the unpopular policies of the current president and make a persuasive case that Senator McCain cannot be counted on to deliver the change both campaigns agree the country needs.
So what do you think? I'd like to invite you to post your evaluation of how well Obama did. Style, substance, tone, issues--whatever struck your fancy, let's have a look at what you thought. I'm looking forward to your impressions.
Steve
So what do you think? I'd like to invite you to post your evaluation of how well Obama did. Style, substance, tone, issues--whatever struck your fancy, let's have a look at what you thought. I'm looking forward to your impressions.
Steve
Wednesday, August 27, 2008
Mile High Expectations
The Democrats have done a good job of lowering expectations at their convention up to now. That's an old political game that makes "OK" seem good and "good" seem excellent by comparison. Rumors and low rumblings of disaffection were rife as festivities got under way.
Would Hillary endorse Obama strongly enough to move her partisans, or would she damn him with faint praise? Would Bill be on the same page with his wife or would he seem petulant and resentful at the man who upset her expected run to the nomination? Would Joe Biden be able to curb his tendency toward long-windedness? Could he hold the delegates' interest? Would he attack McCain? Could he do so effectively? That doubt was sown about all these questions gave their affirmative answers greater impact than would otherwise have been the case.
But there is one speaker whose expectations cannot be lowered. When Barack Obama takes the stage at Invesco Field before 75,000 rapturous supporters the expectations will likely be greater than for any convention acceptance speech ever given. Everyone is aware of his ability to move an audience. That his opponents spend so much effort ridiculing it is testament to its power. He will be expected to blow the gates open, carry everyone away, transport them to another dimension and create utter frenzy. Anything less will be deemed failure.
Expectations will be high indeed. If they are met, the moment may well be chronicled in the future as the night when a new force and a new movement became irresistible. If not, it could enter folklore as its own new catch phrase, as the fizzle heard 'round the world. Obama will stand face to face with the American people and with his shot at destiny. Never again in this campaign will he have half an hour of uninterrupted time to lay it all on the line before an audience as large as he will have Thursday night. Counting television, it could be 100 million people.
And he will have to not only meet impossibly high expectations but exceed them to pull it off. It doesn't get any better than this. This ought to be fun to watch.
Would Hillary endorse Obama strongly enough to move her partisans, or would she damn him with faint praise? Would Bill be on the same page with his wife or would he seem petulant and resentful at the man who upset her expected run to the nomination? Would Joe Biden be able to curb his tendency toward long-windedness? Could he hold the delegates' interest? Would he attack McCain? Could he do so effectively? That doubt was sown about all these questions gave their affirmative answers greater impact than would otherwise have been the case.
But there is one speaker whose expectations cannot be lowered. When Barack Obama takes the stage at Invesco Field before 75,000 rapturous supporters the expectations will likely be greater than for any convention acceptance speech ever given. Everyone is aware of his ability to move an audience. That his opponents spend so much effort ridiculing it is testament to its power. He will be expected to blow the gates open, carry everyone away, transport them to another dimension and create utter frenzy. Anything less will be deemed failure.
Expectations will be high indeed. If they are met, the moment may well be chronicled in the future as the night when a new force and a new movement became irresistible. If not, it could enter folklore as its own new catch phrase, as the fizzle heard 'round the world. Obama will stand face to face with the American people and with his shot at destiny. Never again in this campaign will he have half an hour of uninterrupted time to lay it all on the line before an audience as large as he will have Thursday night. Counting television, it could be 100 million people.
And he will have to not only meet impossibly high expectations but exceed them to pull it off. It doesn't get any better than this. This ought to be fun to watch.
Tuesday, August 26, 2008
Hillary Unites Convention
Hillary Clinton stepped up to the podium at the Democratic Convention tonight with a singular mission: to unify a party bruised by the long, tough, close primary battle. After she finished, it was difficult to imagine how she could possibly have done a better job making the case for her supporters to get behind Barack Obama. Her speech was not just a home run, it may have been a grand slam.
Clinton set the tone early. When she announced right off the bat she was a "proud supporter of Barack Obama," her husband the ex-president leaped to his feet and applauded from the gallery. She continued, "It is time to take back our country. And whether you voted for me or Barack the time is now to unite as a single party for a single purpose. Barack Obama must be our president."
Hillary went on to ask, "Were you in it just for me? Or were you in it for all the people in this country who feel invisible?" She went through a litany of issues, from health care to crony corporatism to ending the war, drawing a parallel between her causes and Obama's, casting John McCain as a continuation of George W. Bush and anathema to everything Hillary herself and anyone who supported her believes in.
The New York Senator's remarks had a decidedly feminist cast. She didn't give an inch on her qualifications and made frequent references to glass ceilings, Harriet Tubman and the women's rights pioneers of the past-all code for reaching out to women. She then connected her candidacy to Obama's through the issues they share, coming close to handing him the Clinton mantle by declaring, "We Democrats know how to do this. As I recall we did this before under President Clinton!" She then implored the arena and the national audience, "We need to elect Barack Obama for many reasons-this is no time to sit on the sidelines!"
The address was peppered with enough memorable lines and digs at McCain to get a rise out of the Democratic partisans. One example was, "No way, no how, no McCain. Barack Obama is my candidate." Another was, "It makes perfect sense that George Bush and John McCain will be together next week in the Twin Cities, because these days it's awfully hard to tell them apart."
Watching a speech like this, expansive yet with a personal subtext, full of content yet not wonkish, I was once again reminded what a formidable political personage Hillary Clinton is. Her ringing tones and successive points stood in sharp contrast to the parade of other Democratic notables who, though governors, senators and other people of substance, generally paled by comparison. Most of them served up yawners. She was riveting.
After tonight's performance I would imagine that Hillary's female followers who are persuadable will come over. A survey before the vote had Clinton primary voters at 70% for Obama, 20% for McCain and 10% undecided. These numbers should move further Obama's way. While Clinton mentioned a good many lunch bucket issues, the effect on her male working class supporters from this speech will probably be less than on women. I'd expect Obama to gain some, but we won't see a wholesale shift just from this. Joe Biden will be called upon to pry that open tomorrow but it will truly be up to Obama himself to close the deal on Thursday.
As for Hillary Clinton, after this she has set herself up in good shape. Tonight's performance did Barack Obama a lot of good and improved his chances for winning the election. After this, if he loses, she cannot be blamed, and she will have a reservoir of goodwill from the Obama faithful to start with should she have ambitions for 2012. If he wins, her convention performance and the hard campaigning she has been doing and will continue to do on his behalf will enhance her status in the party even more. Even 2016 is not too late for her. That year Hillary Clinton will be three years younger than John McCain is now.
Clinton set the tone early. When she announced right off the bat she was a "proud supporter of Barack Obama," her husband the ex-president leaped to his feet and applauded from the gallery. She continued, "It is time to take back our country. And whether you voted for me or Barack the time is now to unite as a single party for a single purpose. Barack Obama must be our president."
Hillary went on to ask, "Were you in it just for me? Or were you in it for all the people in this country who feel invisible?" She went through a litany of issues, from health care to crony corporatism to ending the war, drawing a parallel between her causes and Obama's, casting John McCain as a continuation of George W. Bush and anathema to everything Hillary herself and anyone who supported her believes in.
The New York Senator's remarks had a decidedly feminist cast. She didn't give an inch on her qualifications and made frequent references to glass ceilings, Harriet Tubman and the women's rights pioneers of the past-all code for reaching out to women. She then connected her candidacy to Obama's through the issues they share, coming close to handing him the Clinton mantle by declaring, "We Democrats know how to do this. As I recall we did this before under President Clinton!" She then implored the arena and the national audience, "We need to elect Barack Obama for many reasons-this is no time to sit on the sidelines!"
The address was peppered with enough memorable lines and digs at McCain to get a rise out of the Democratic partisans. One example was, "No way, no how, no McCain. Barack Obama is my candidate." Another was, "It makes perfect sense that George Bush and John McCain will be together next week in the Twin Cities, because these days it's awfully hard to tell them apart."
Watching a speech like this, expansive yet with a personal subtext, full of content yet not wonkish, I was once again reminded what a formidable political personage Hillary Clinton is. Her ringing tones and successive points stood in sharp contrast to the parade of other Democratic notables who, though governors, senators and other people of substance, generally paled by comparison. Most of them served up yawners. She was riveting.
After tonight's performance I would imagine that Hillary's female followers who are persuadable will come over. A survey before the vote had Clinton primary voters at 70% for Obama, 20% for McCain and 10% undecided. These numbers should move further Obama's way. While Clinton mentioned a good many lunch bucket issues, the effect on her male working class supporters from this speech will probably be less than on women. I'd expect Obama to gain some, but we won't see a wholesale shift just from this. Joe Biden will be called upon to pry that open tomorrow but it will truly be up to Obama himself to close the deal on Thursday.
As for Hillary Clinton, after this she has set herself up in good shape. Tonight's performance did Barack Obama a lot of good and improved his chances for winning the election. After this, if he loses, she cannot be blamed, and she will have a reservoir of goodwill from the Obama faithful to start with should she have ambitions for 2012. If he wins, her convention performance and the hard campaigning she has been doing and will continue to do on his behalf will enhance her status in the party even more. Even 2016 is not too late for her. That year Hillary Clinton will be three years younger than John McCain is now.
Sunday, August 24, 2008
Repeating the Nightmare
I got an email today from a friend who wrote she was becoming "disillusioned" with Barack Obama because he has shifted to more moderate positions on some of the issues. She is thinking of voting for Ralph Nader. Here is my response to her.
Dear Friend,
Sorry to hear that. Obama has to win the election. He has to appeal to a majority to do that. The majority isn't as liberal as you are.
If you want to vote for Nader go ahead. Some Progressive people in 2000 thought Al Gore was too conservative for them. So instead they voted for a guy with zero chance. They voted for Nader.
If they had voted for Gore he would be president today. But no, he wasn't perfect enough for them, even though he wound up winning the Nobel Peace Prize. If Gore had been elected there would have been no Iraq War. The USA would be leading the world on climate change and alternative energy. There would be no Patriot Act, secret prisons, torture of suspects, throwing away of the Fourth Amendment. We would probably be on our way to health care for all.
But no. Instead of voting for Gore, they took their votes away from him and voted for Nader. By not voting Democratic they made sure George W. Bush would win. I hope they're happy with themselves. They helped bring about a needless war, tens of thousands of deaths, the diminution of Constitutional rights, another 4 trillion dollars in national debt, two more right wing authoritarians on the Supreme Court, the formation of an American mercenary army, eight more years of inaction on the climate crisis as sea levels rise and species die......the list goes on and on and on.
So, you vote for whomever you want. I know what I'll be doing. I'll be enthusiastically supporting Barack Obama and casting my ballot for him. The alternative to Obama is not Ralph Nader, it's John McCain. If enough people do what you're thinking of doing that's what we will get. Are you up for a new war in Iran? Maybe one with Russia? Vote against Barack Obama and that's what you'll be supporting.
Steve
Dear Friend,
Sorry to hear that. Obama has to win the election. He has to appeal to a majority to do that. The majority isn't as liberal as you are.
If you want to vote for Nader go ahead. Some Progressive people in 2000 thought Al Gore was too conservative for them. So instead they voted for a guy with zero chance. They voted for Nader.
If they had voted for Gore he would be president today. But no, he wasn't perfect enough for them, even though he wound up winning the Nobel Peace Prize. If Gore had been elected there would have been no Iraq War. The USA would be leading the world on climate change and alternative energy. There would be no Patriot Act, secret prisons, torture of suspects, throwing away of the Fourth Amendment. We would probably be on our way to health care for all.
But no. Instead of voting for Gore, they took their votes away from him and voted for Nader. By not voting Democratic they made sure George W. Bush would win. I hope they're happy with themselves. They helped bring about a needless war, tens of thousands of deaths, the diminution of Constitutional rights, another 4 trillion dollars in national debt, two more right wing authoritarians on the Supreme Court, the formation of an American mercenary army, eight more years of inaction on the climate crisis as sea levels rise and species die......the list goes on and on and on.
So, you vote for whomever you want. I know what I'll be doing. I'll be enthusiastically supporting Barack Obama and casting my ballot for him. The alternative to Obama is not Ralph Nader, it's John McCain. If enough people do what you're thinking of doing that's what we will get. Are you up for a new war in Iran? Maybe one with Russia? Vote against Barack Obama and that's what you'll be supporting.
Steve
Saturday, August 23, 2008
Six Republican Myths
The Republican Party has won 7 of the last 10 presidential elections due to a consistent message which has crafted a winning reputation in the public mind. But that message is more mythology than reality, slick packaging with shoddy merchandise inside. Here are six of the most prominent of these myths.
Myth #1: Republicans are for small government. This is demonstrably false. The federal government grew substantially under Reagan, the elder Bush and the current Bush. Republicans are for smaller government only when it pertains to things they don't like. For instance they have time and again fought to cut Social Security, health care, public schools, environmental and worker protection, veterans benefits, and programs in general that help everyday people. They consistently expand government for things they do like. This includes such things as prisons, the military, corporate welfare, immigration enforcement, private schooling, religious organizations, spying on citizens and attempts to control people's sexual behavior and choices.
Myth #2: Republicans are prudent fiscal managers. The record shows precisely the opposite. Republican Administrations have been the most fiscally irresponsible in American history. The deficit Reagan inherited from Carter's last year was $59 billion. He increased it to $200 billion. The first Bush increased it to $300 billion. After the Democrat Clinton achieved a $230 billion surplus, the second Bush turned that back around to $480 billion in red ink. This happens because Republicans do not feel they need to collect taxes to pay for all the expensive initiatvies they undertake. Instead, they borrow. Over 70% of the entire $10 trillion in national debt amassed since the inception of the country was compiled in just the last three Republican administrations.
Myth #3: Republicans are better on national security. After Iraq, this contention would be laughable were it not for the thousands killed uselessly in an unnecessary war. The national security of the United States was not furthered when only a half- hearted effort was mounted to eliminate the enemies who attacked us on 9-11. The national security of the United States was not furthered when America broke its longstanding tradition, initiated a war and exhausted its army fighting against a nation that posed no threat. Ignoring sound military advice, the Republican president and his congressional majorities then persisted in following a failing strategy for four years before finally changing. The 9-11 Commission's recommendations on terrorism were not followed or funded until Democrats took control of Congress in 2007.
Nor was the nation's security enhanced by denigrating allies and treating them with contempt, thus losing their support. Arousing the world against us through unilateralism does not make us safer. Resorting to posturing and saber-rattling rather than opening negotiations with rival states only ensures their continued enmity. Engaging in torture against suspected enemies does little but multiply those enemies and increase their determination against us. Hiring a horde of private contractors at 7 times the pay of our soldiers damages morale, wastes our defense dollars and leaves our actual armed forces less prepared. Refusing to encourage alternative energy to break our dependence on some of the most odious, unstable, and in some cases, even hostile nations is another way Republican policies have made us less secure. In a host of ways, the basic defense posture of this party makes us less safe, not more.
Myth #4: Republicans are better for business. Republicans have proven better only for big business, whose profits are up 85%, and for millionaires and billionaires, whose ranks have quadrupled. For small business and the rest of the economy, their policies have been failing since 1980. The typical standard of living has not improved in over 30 years other than the 1990s during a Democratic Administration. The stock market gained 8,000 points that decade, but has been flat for the past eight years. The wealthiest 5% of Americans have the greatest proportion of the national wealth since the verge of the Great Depression, when figures were first kept.
Myth 5: Republicans believe in free enterprise. Basing policy on handing out no-bid, unaccountable, cost-plus contracts to favored corporations is not free enterprise. Devising energy, water, highway and commercial policy based on secret meetings with industry representatives, and allowing lobbyists to write preferential regulatory and tax legislation in exchange for hiring party staffers and making campaign contributions is hardly free enterprise. These practices are instead among the defining characteristics of fascism.
Myth #6: Republicans stand for freedom. Not lately, they don't. By suspending habeas corpus, the basis of legal freedoms in Western Civilization for 800 years, refusing to testify before congress, initiating unwarranted surveillance of citizens in violation of the Fourth Amendment and the FISA law, similarly violating the ban on torture and turning suspects over to nations to torture for us, refusing to provide documents for congressional investigations and stifling scientific reports that disagree with their preconceived ideologies, the current Republican Administration and its loyal supporters in congress have shown the greatest contempt for the real freedoms enshrined in the Constitution. This short list is but the tip of the iceberg, as anyone who has kept informed well knows.
If you can be spied on without probable cause, arrested without charges, held without trial and tortured until you confess, how free are you? The fact that such practices exist in the United States of America and are tolerated for one day throws into stark relief the tenuous nature of liberties and the ease with which a government that appeals to fear can take them away.
Myth #1: Republicans are for small government. This is demonstrably false. The federal government grew substantially under Reagan, the elder Bush and the current Bush. Republicans are for smaller government only when it pertains to things they don't like. For instance they have time and again fought to cut Social Security, health care, public schools, environmental and worker protection, veterans benefits, and programs in general that help everyday people. They consistently expand government for things they do like. This includes such things as prisons, the military, corporate welfare, immigration enforcement, private schooling, religious organizations, spying on citizens and attempts to control people's sexual behavior and choices.
Myth #2: Republicans are prudent fiscal managers. The record shows precisely the opposite. Republican Administrations have been the most fiscally irresponsible in American history. The deficit Reagan inherited from Carter's last year was $59 billion. He increased it to $200 billion. The first Bush increased it to $300 billion. After the Democrat Clinton achieved a $230 billion surplus, the second Bush turned that back around to $480 billion in red ink. This happens because Republicans do not feel they need to collect taxes to pay for all the expensive initiatvies they undertake. Instead, they borrow. Over 70% of the entire $10 trillion in national debt amassed since the inception of the country was compiled in just the last three Republican administrations.
Myth #3: Republicans are better on national security. After Iraq, this contention would be laughable were it not for the thousands killed uselessly in an unnecessary war. The national security of the United States was not furthered when only a half- hearted effort was mounted to eliminate the enemies who attacked us on 9-11. The national security of the United States was not furthered when America broke its longstanding tradition, initiated a war and exhausted its army fighting against a nation that posed no threat. Ignoring sound military advice, the Republican president and his congressional majorities then persisted in following a failing strategy for four years before finally changing. The 9-11 Commission's recommendations on terrorism were not followed or funded until Democrats took control of Congress in 2007.
Nor was the nation's security enhanced by denigrating allies and treating them with contempt, thus losing their support. Arousing the world against us through unilateralism does not make us safer. Resorting to posturing and saber-rattling rather than opening negotiations with rival states only ensures their continued enmity. Engaging in torture against suspected enemies does little but multiply those enemies and increase their determination against us. Hiring a horde of private contractors at 7 times the pay of our soldiers damages morale, wastes our defense dollars and leaves our actual armed forces less prepared. Refusing to encourage alternative energy to break our dependence on some of the most odious, unstable, and in some cases, even hostile nations is another way Republican policies have made us less secure. In a host of ways, the basic defense posture of this party makes us less safe, not more.
Myth #4: Republicans are better for business. Republicans have proven better only for big business, whose profits are up 85%, and for millionaires and billionaires, whose ranks have quadrupled. For small business and the rest of the economy, their policies have been failing since 1980. The typical standard of living has not improved in over 30 years other than the 1990s during a Democratic Administration. The stock market gained 8,000 points that decade, but has been flat for the past eight years. The wealthiest 5% of Americans have the greatest proportion of the national wealth since the verge of the Great Depression, when figures were first kept.
Myth 5: Republicans believe in free enterprise. Basing policy on handing out no-bid, unaccountable, cost-plus contracts to favored corporations is not free enterprise. Devising energy, water, highway and commercial policy based on secret meetings with industry representatives, and allowing lobbyists to write preferential regulatory and tax legislation in exchange for hiring party staffers and making campaign contributions is hardly free enterprise. These practices are instead among the defining characteristics of fascism.
Myth #6: Republicans stand for freedom. Not lately, they don't. By suspending habeas corpus, the basis of legal freedoms in Western Civilization for 800 years, refusing to testify before congress, initiating unwarranted surveillance of citizens in violation of the Fourth Amendment and the FISA law, similarly violating the ban on torture and turning suspects over to nations to torture for us, refusing to provide documents for congressional investigations and stifling scientific reports that disagree with their preconceived ideologies, the current Republican Administration and its loyal supporters in congress have shown the greatest contempt for the real freedoms enshrined in the Constitution. This short list is but the tip of the iceberg, as anyone who has kept informed well knows.
If you can be spied on without probable cause, arrested without charges, held without trial and tortured until you confess, how free are you? The fact that such practices exist in the United States of America and are tolerated for one day throws into stark relief the tenuous nature of liberties and the ease with which a government that appeals to fear can take them away.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)