One hundred ninety three (193) nations began meeting today in Nagoya, Japan to address the issue of biodiversity. Following up on the 1992 Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) negotiated in Rio de Janeiro at the Earth Summit, the task before the attendees is enormous. The goals outlined in the 1992 Convention have remained largely unmet with continued deforestation and an accelerated loss of species. Biodiversity as an issue is largely ignored by the public and political figures. The United States remains one of the few countries that has failed to ratify the 1992 agreement.
Little attention has been given to this meeting. Hopes that the world had begun to recognize the necessity of action to address major environmental concerns appear to have been premature. Last years climate conference in Copenhagen ended without any agreement and momentum seems lost.
As I satirized in my novel, The Dirt People (2007, Blue Throat Press), governmental inaction is largely the by-product of a lack of political will and corporate manipulation (through both lobbying and propaganda). This "fiddling as Rome burns," lack of effort to deal with our environmental problems is often couched in economic terms. The costs of green energy are amplified, the effects of clean ups are exaggerated and the benefits of sustainability are minimized. Meanwhile, phthalates (see yesterday's post) and other toxic chemicals are ubiquitous in our environment, mining disasters continue to occur, oil platforms continue to explode and that giant mass of plastic goo continues to grow in the Pacific.
The lack of effort on a worldwide level to address our expanding environmental destruction is alarming. As China and other nations continue to develop and consume, attempting to emulate the Western world in its consumption and attendant destruction, the future is imperiled. Concern for the wealth of transnational corporations seems to be more important to politicians than the health of the planet and its citizens.
Why is this not the lead story in the news? Why is the environment not the major issue of every election? Why is it that I expect it to get worse?
Only when the last tree has died, when the last river has been poisoned, and the last fish has been caught, only then will you realize that you can't eat money. -Cree saying
Showing posts with label China. Show all posts
Showing posts with label China. Show all posts
Wednesday, October 20, 2010
Monday, October 11, 2010
Sold to the Highest Bidder
As we approach the mid-term elections an unseen force begins to exert undue influence over our political process. This force, money, is not new to the political process nor is it new to undue influence over said process. However, what is now new is that moneyed interests now have a legal right to attempt to buy the outcome. Legal precedent established in Citizens United vs. Federal Elections Commission case now make it lawful for corporations to put as much money as they desire into elections. Unlike individuals, corporations are able to donate as much as they would like and can even directly air advertising.
The Citizen's United ruling hinges on an even greater misrepresentation from the 1886 ruling in Santa Clara County vs. Southern Pacific Railroad, in which corporations were granted personhood (see link elsewhere on this page for a review of the court case). As is commonly known, the case did not actually rule on that issue, but rather the clerk scribbled it after the fact on the document.
Of course it defies logic that corporations are people, but what defies logic even more is the ruling in Citizen's United that removes limits on political spending by corporations. Logically it would seem to follow that if limits can be placed on individuals who are actual people, then limits could also be imposed on corporations, which as people are legal fictions.
Beyond this egregious idea that corporations are people with the rights of individuals, is the other idea to emerge from the Citizen's United ruling that these groups can give money without identifying the source.
On Sunday, speaking on Face the Nation, presidential advisor David Axelrod stated that foreign corporations are involved in donating money through Republican groups to influence the election. The Democrats apparently are even rolling out an ad campaign around this idea.
"Foul!" cry the Republicans, "you can't prove it." Well obviously not. It is impossible to prove who anonymous donors are. That is completely the point. As long as donors are able to remain anonymous it will be impossible to know who is trying to buy our democracy. What is really strange is that the holier-than-thou Tea Party seems completely silent about this matter. Could it be that they are using this to their advantage? Witness Art Robinson, global warming denier and Oregon congressional candidate. Mysteriously, ads critical of Robinson's opponent have appeared allegedly without his knowledge as to the source of funding.
Back to the issue of foreign money. To think that corporations are giving money and there is no foreign involvement strains credibility as to how corporations are organized. Corporations, those large enough to give money on the scale that influences elections, are rarely single nation entities. Transnational corporations are the norm rather than the exception. Many of these global behemoths have financial resources greater than most nations, yet are treated as if they are individual American citizens. Is there anyone who believes that these entities are above trying to influence an election, or for that matter, all elections?
Without limits on corporate spending and without disclosure laws there is absolutely nothing to prevent foreign entities, corporate or state, from clandestinely providing resources in an attempt to buy a government. Our representatives are already beholden enough to moneyed interests. Without disclosure and limits, the government is up for auction.
Follow the money. Notice who defends this state of affairs that would allow for the unlimited flow of dollars from foreign companies, governments and individuals to influence U.S. elections. Will Exxon, China and Bin Laden decide who we elect next?
The Citizen's United ruling hinges on an even greater misrepresentation from the 1886 ruling in Santa Clara County vs. Southern Pacific Railroad, in which corporations were granted personhood (see link elsewhere on this page for a review of the court case). As is commonly known, the case did not actually rule on that issue, but rather the clerk scribbled it after the fact on the document.
Of course it defies logic that corporations are people, but what defies logic even more is the ruling in Citizen's United that removes limits on political spending by corporations. Logically it would seem to follow that if limits can be placed on individuals who are actual people, then limits could also be imposed on corporations, which as people are legal fictions.
Beyond this egregious idea that corporations are people with the rights of individuals, is the other idea to emerge from the Citizen's United ruling that these groups can give money without identifying the source.
On Sunday, speaking on Face the Nation, presidential advisor David Axelrod stated that foreign corporations are involved in donating money through Republican groups to influence the election. The Democrats apparently are even rolling out an ad campaign around this idea.
"Foul!" cry the Republicans, "you can't prove it." Well obviously not. It is impossible to prove who anonymous donors are. That is completely the point. As long as donors are able to remain anonymous it will be impossible to know who is trying to buy our democracy. What is really strange is that the holier-than-thou Tea Party seems completely silent about this matter. Could it be that they are using this to their advantage? Witness Art Robinson, global warming denier and Oregon congressional candidate. Mysteriously, ads critical of Robinson's opponent have appeared allegedly without his knowledge as to the source of funding.
Back to the issue of foreign money. To think that corporations are giving money and there is no foreign involvement strains credibility as to how corporations are organized. Corporations, those large enough to give money on the scale that influences elections, are rarely single nation entities. Transnational corporations are the norm rather than the exception. Many of these global behemoths have financial resources greater than most nations, yet are treated as if they are individual American citizens. Is there anyone who believes that these entities are above trying to influence an election, or for that matter, all elections?
Without limits on corporate spending and without disclosure laws there is absolutely nothing to prevent foreign entities, corporate or state, from clandestinely providing resources in an attempt to buy a government. Our representatives are already beholden enough to moneyed interests. Without disclosure and limits, the government is up for auction.
Follow the money. Notice who defends this state of affairs that would allow for the unlimited flow of dollars from foreign companies, governments and individuals to influence U.S. elections. Will Exxon, China and Bin Laden decide who we elect next?
Wednesday, July 28, 2010
Dead in the Water
The Gulf Oil Spill is likely to continue its damage for many years. The amount of oil that has leaked will likely never be accurately known thanks to the actions of BP in obscuring the size of the leak to avoid fines. The number of fish and birds killed will never be fully counted. What is for sure is that oil is death to living things.
The Gulf of Mexico already has a huge dead zone where the Mississippi empties into the ocean. Industrial pollution is largely to blame. The BP spill should be put in perspective. The murder of animals and the destruction of the environment is the consequence of modern industrial society. In a larger sense, the BP spill is not unique. There has been oil seeping into the oceans off the coast of Africa for decades, Saudi Arabia had a massive spill a few years ago and there has even been another major spill in the Gulf of Mexico in the past. Not to mention the Exxon Valdez travesty, leaks in China, Russia, Nigeria, etc. Pipeline leaks throughout Africa, Alaska and apparently even Michigan as was learned yesterday. For details of these disasters, just enter the names above and "oil spill" or "oil leak" into a search engine.
We are killing the oceans. To paraphrase a Cree saying: "Only when the last fish has been killed will you learn that you can't eat money." Cheap oil is not worth the price. Turns out, its not so cheap.
The Gulf of Mexico already has a huge dead zone where the Mississippi empties into the ocean. Industrial pollution is largely to blame. The BP spill should be put in perspective. The murder of animals and the destruction of the environment is the consequence of modern industrial society. In a larger sense, the BP spill is not unique. There has been oil seeping into the oceans off the coast of Africa for decades, Saudi Arabia had a massive spill a few years ago and there has even been another major spill in the Gulf of Mexico in the past. Not to mention the Exxon Valdez travesty, leaks in China, Russia, Nigeria, etc. Pipeline leaks throughout Africa, Alaska and apparently even Michigan as was learned yesterday. For details of these disasters, just enter the names above and "oil spill" or "oil leak" into a search engine.
We are killing the oceans. To paraphrase a Cree saying: "Only when the last fish has been killed will you learn that you can't eat money." Cheap oil is not worth the price. Turns out, its not so cheap.
Tuesday, February 2, 2010
One Year In: The State of the Union
Obama, one year in:
-Gitmo is still open.
-The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan continue.
-Health care still hasn't been passed.
-Economy continues to reel.
I should be pissed or at least disappointed. I probably would be if I thought of Obama as some sort of messiah or for that matter did not understand how government works (more on that later). Efforts to portray him as a socialist have led me to see many of those so opposed to him as bordering on ridiculous. His first year has been more subtle and filled with shades of gray than to allow a superficial up or down assessment.
He is a political incrementalist. Not necessarily my style but I see the logic behind such an approach. It is also this approach that has frustrated many of his most ardent (and unrealistic) supports.
Yet to assess his first year one must distinguish between what he has accomplished, what he has attempted to accomplish and what he is likely to accomplish. To be fair in this assessment one must be honest and note that the President of the United States is not a dictator and can only enact legislation so far as the Congress goes along. In essence, as Teddy Roosevelt pointed out, the real power in the presidency lies in the bully pulpit, the ability to force opinion that will then force the hands of politicians.
Also, as preface, it is necessary to point out what seems to be a completely contradictory set of values blisters him for not getting things accomplished while working simultaneously to thwart any effort he makes. Let's look at Guantanamo as an example: It is true that he has not closed the place as he stated. However, if the full effort here is examined, it becomes apparent that the real block to closing Gitmo is not Obama but rather the manipulation of political and public opinion by members of Congress to prevent any actions that might lead to closure. The reality is that the number of prisoners has been drastically reduced and continues to shrink. Obama continues to pursue the closing and I give him credit for that. On the other hand, John McCain advocated closing Gitmo long ago but now opposes it because it scores political points.
The war in Iraq. While there are still troops there, this war is for all purposes winding down. The U.S. never completely leaves anywhere as the hundreds of thousands of troops all over the world attests, but this war is done. If you're going by when the last troops leave, then WWII and the Korean War are still ongoing. If you mean done as in stopping the further waste of resources and an end in sight, we're there.
Afghanistan. This is Obama's biggest mistake. There is absolutely nothing to be gained from pouring any more resources down this rat hole. I think that Obama is motivated by political concerns that seek to refute any calls that he is weak on security. Of course, that is exactly what would have happened if he had done the correct thing and pulled out. Nonetheless, he should have started this debate with the public and the fight with Congress to end this war.
Health care has been a debacle. Obama likely erred by not pushing for a one-payer system if only as a bargaining chip. In trying not to appear too radical he ended up making a tactical error and then got called a socialist anyway. Of course, the real blame for how health care reform has played out must lie with the Democratic leadership. Even when they had 60 votes, Reid was too lame to get anything through. The Democrats in general played a game where they appeared to represent the people while they assured failure for anything that might threaten the insurance industry. The Republicans revealed themselves to be obstructionist who negotiate in bad faith. Ultimately though the blame falls on the Democrats who turn an eighteen vote majority into a minority. If the Republicans want to filibuster, then damn it, let them talk until they drop.
The economy. Unemployment is at 10 percent, probably closer to 17 if you take in the underemployed and those who've given up and no economist expect this to end in the foreseeable future. Forfeitures and foreclosures are up and there is not much promise ahead. On the other hand, the home market is rebounding and job losses will probably level at around zero this month. I liken his task here to catching an anvil: when he first grabbed hold it pulled him down further until he finally gained control.
Obama takes a lot of heat for deficit spending yet most economist caution that this is not the time for deficit reduction. Paul Krugman, Nobel prize winner in economics, has argued that the stimulus should have been larger and the only thing that can rescue the economy is government spending. I know many of you hate to hear that, but a paralyzed economy is in no one's interest.
One thing the Obama administration has done that has gotten surprisingly little attention is the recouping of the bailout money. The approximately $700 billion that Henry Paulson tried to steal from the Treasury for the largest banks has been largely returned. Paulson's accomplice Tim Geithner, may have finally served his purpose in pointing out where the bodies were buried and now appears to be on his way out the door.
Of late, Obama has been striking an increasingly populist tone when it comes to the economy. Proposing all kinds of tax cuts for small businesses and individuals, he also took Wall Street and corporations to task in the State of the Union address. His deficit reduction plan is pure gimmickry but served to make an interesting point as Republicans who had advocated a deficit reduction committee suddenly came out in opposition. He has maneuvered the Republicans into a position that they are blatantly supporting big business and the banking industry over the people.
Obama has also reversed years of declining American influence and reputation around the world. Even those who are opposed to his policies must acknowledge that he has done an enormous amount in changing the view of America in the world.
Obama has also pressed for increases in investments in education and infrastructure developments. These are two areas where it is clear that America has fallen behind and is destined for diminished stature on the world stage unless we quickly address our deficits. How hard the opposition fights these ideas will be a measure of how interested they are in the well being of the country versus how interested they are in playing politics.
Viewing a four-year-term of office as a four-quarter game provides an apt analogy. The expected franchise savior was met with an all out swarming full court defense at the opening whistle. Double and triple-teamed, every dirty play possible, tripping, pulling his shorts, standing on his toes, fouling after the whistle, etc. was used. Whenever he gained momentum, an endless string of timeouts were called and occasionally a fight broke out in the stands. His bench was useless.
Despite all this, the first quarter ended even. The other team has managed to turn the refs against them (polls show Republicans are blamed 2-1 over Obama for the countries woes) and he has started the second quarter strong. When Fox News cut away from his meeting with GOP house members it was clearly because he was dunking in their faces.
No, Obama has not been perfect nor has he solved every problem of the country. Anyone who thought he would was either naive or stupid. There have been pratfalls, primarily over health care, but even that can still pass (providing someone tells Harry Reid that 59 is more than 41). As pointed out herein, foreign relations are much improved, the economy is no longer in free fall, $700 billion given away by the previous administration has been returned to the Treasury, civil liberties are no longer ridiculed by the president, and we no longer expect to be embarassed when the leader of our country make a speech.
Science has been restored to its place in the decision making process. Environmental regulations are being enforced once again. Competence is more important for a job in the administration than political loyalty. The United States is important in the world for more than its military might. New trade alliances have been developed with India, undercutting China's influence. Corporations are no longer expecting free reign.
We are at a crossroads in our history with the country quickly becoming ungovernable due to partisan politics. More than anything else Obama has provided a calm voice that recognizes the complexity of the world. While the right wing likes to portray him as a Bolshevik, he clearly is a centrist interested more in pragmatic politics than ideology. However, it is just this effort to portray him as other than he is that is the source of his renewed popularity. When the man accusing you of a credibility gap is orange from a tanning booth, when the opposition party suddenly votes against its own bills when adopted, when what passes for debate is to question whether the president was born in the country, then it becomes increasingly difficult to look at Republicans as anything but political opportunists putting their own interests ahead of the nation.
In sum, Obama is still getting the feel of the office. Suffering from unrealistic expectations he was bound to have difficulty living up to them. However, to say that he has not accomplished anything is to believe the Fox News narrative of the world.
I guess people would prefer the first year of his predecessor.
-Gitmo is still open.
-The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan continue.
-Health care still hasn't been passed.
-Economy continues to reel.
I should be pissed or at least disappointed. I probably would be if I thought of Obama as some sort of messiah or for that matter did not understand how government works (more on that later). Efforts to portray him as a socialist have led me to see many of those so opposed to him as bordering on ridiculous. His first year has been more subtle and filled with shades of gray than to allow a superficial up or down assessment.
He is a political incrementalist. Not necessarily my style but I see the logic behind such an approach. It is also this approach that has frustrated many of his most ardent (and unrealistic) supports.
Yet to assess his first year one must distinguish between what he has accomplished, what he has attempted to accomplish and what he is likely to accomplish. To be fair in this assessment one must be honest and note that the President of the United States is not a dictator and can only enact legislation so far as the Congress goes along. In essence, as Teddy Roosevelt pointed out, the real power in the presidency lies in the bully pulpit, the ability to force opinion that will then force the hands of politicians.
Also, as preface, it is necessary to point out what seems to be a completely contradictory set of values blisters him for not getting things accomplished while working simultaneously to thwart any effort he makes. Let's look at Guantanamo as an example: It is true that he has not closed the place as he stated. However, if the full effort here is examined, it becomes apparent that the real block to closing Gitmo is not Obama but rather the manipulation of political and public opinion by members of Congress to prevent any actions that might lead to closure. The reality is that the number of prisoners has been drastically reduced and continues to shrink. Obama continues to pursue the closing and I give him credit for that. On the other hand, John McCain advocated closing Gitmo long ago but now opposes it because it scores political points.
The war in Iraq. While there are still troops there, this war is for all purposes winding down. The U.S. never completely leaves anywhere as the hundreds of thousands of troops all over the world attests, but this war is done. If you're going by when the last troops leave, then WWII and the Korean War are still ongoing. If you mean done as in stopping the further waste of resources and an end in sight, we're there.
Afghanistan. This is Obama's biggest mistake. There is absolutely nothing to be gained from pouring any more resources down this rat hole. I think that Obama is motivated by political concerns that seek to refute any calls that he is weak on security. Of course, that is exactly what would have happened if he had done the correct thing and pulled out. Nonetheless, he should have started this debate with the public and the fight with Congress to end this war.
Health care has been a debacle. Obama likely erred by not pushing for a one-payer system if only as a bargaining chip. In trying not to appear too radical he ended up making a tactical error and then got called a socialist anyway. Of course, the real blame for how health care reform has played out must lie with the Democratic leadership. Even when they had 60 votes, Reid was too lame to get anything through. The Democrats in general played a game where they appeared to represent the people while they assured failure for anything that might threaten the insurance industry. The Republicans revealed themselves to be obstructionist who negotiate in bad faith. Ultimately though the blame falls on the Democrats who turn an eighteen vote majority into a minority. If the Republicans want to filibuster, then damn it, let them talk until they drop.
The economy. Unemployment is at 10 percent, probably closer to 17 if you take in the underemployed and those who've given up and no economist expect this to end in the foreseeable future. Forfeitures and foreclosures are up and there is not much promise ahead. On the other hand, the home market is rebounding and job losses will probably level at around zero this month. I liken his task here to catching an anvil: when he first grabbed hold it pulled him down further until he finally gained control.
Obama takes a lot of heat for deficit spending yet most economist caution that this is not the time for deficit reduction. Paul Krugman, Nobel prize winner in economics, has argued that the stimulus should have been larger and the only thing that can rescue the economy is government spending. I know many of you hate to hear that, but a paralyzed economy is in no one's interest.
One thing the Obama administration has done that has gotten surprisingly little attention is the recouping of the bailout money. The approximately $700 billion that Henry Paulson tried to steal from the Treasury for the largest banks has been largely returned. Paulson's accomplice Tim Geithner, may have finally served his purpose in pointing out where the bodies were buried and now appears to be on his way out the door.
Of late, Obama has been striking an increasingly populist tone when it comes to the economy. Proposing all kinds of tax cuts for small businesses and individuals, he also took Wall Street and corporations to task in the State of the Union address. His deficit reduction plan is pure gimmickry but served to make an interesting point as Republicans who had advocated a deficit reduction committee suddenly came out in opposition. He has maneuvered the Republicans into a position that they are blatantly supporting big business and the banking industry over the people.
Obama has also reversed years of declining American influence and reputation around the world. Even those who are opposed to his policies must acknowledge that he has done an enormous amount in changing the view of America in the world.
Obama has also pressed for increases in investments in education and infrastructure developments. These are two areas where it is clear that America has fallen behind and is destined for diminished stature on the world stage unless we quickly address our deficits. How hard the opposition fights these ideas will be a measure of how interested they are in the well being of the country versus how interested they are in playing politics.
Viewing a four-year-term of office as a four-quarter game provides an apt analogy. The expected franchise savior was met with an all out swarming full court defense at the opening whistle. Double and triple-teamed, every dirty play possible, tripping, pulling his shorts, standing on his toes, fouling after the whistle, etc. was used. Whenever he gained momentum, an endless string of timeouts were called and occasionally a fight broke out in the stands. His bench was useless.
Despite all this, the first quarter ended even. The other team has managed to turn the refs against them (polls show Republicans are blamed 2-1 over Obama for the countries woes) and he has started the second quarter strong. When Fox News cut away from his meeting with GOP house members it was clearly because he was dunking in their faces.
No, Obama has not been perfect nor has he solved every problem of the country. Anyone who thought he would was either naive or stupid. There have been pratfalls, primarily over health care, but even that can still pass (providing someone tells Harry Reid that 59 is more than 41). As pointed out herein, foreign relations are much improved, the economy is no longer in free fall, $700 billion given away by the previous administration has been returned to the Treasury, civil liberties are no longer ridiculed by the president, and we no longer expect to be embarassed when the leader of our country make a speech.
Science has been restored to its place in the decision making process. Environmental regulations are being enforced once again. Competence is more important for a job in the administration than political loyalty. The United States is important in the world for more than its military might. New trade alliances have been developed with India, undercutting China's influence. Corporations are no longer expecting free reign.
We are at a crossroads in our history with the country quickly becoming ungovernable due to partisan politics. More than anything else Obama has provided a calm voice that recognizes the complexity of the world. While the right wing likes to portray him as a Bolshevik, he clearly is a centrist interested more in pragmatic politics than ideology. However, it is just this effort to portray him as other than he is that is the source of his renewed popularity. When the man accusing you of a credibility gap is orange from a tanning booth, when the opposition party suddenly votes against its own bills when adopted, when what passes for debate is to question whether the president was born in the country, then it becomes increasingly difficult to look at Republicans as anything but political opportunists putting their own interests ahead of the nation.
In sum, Obama is still getting the feel of the office. Suffering from unrealistic expectations he was bound to have difficulty living up to them. However, to say that he has not accomplished anything is to believe the Fox News narrative of the world.
I guess people would prefer the first year of his predecessor.
Thursday, January 14, 2010
Don't Be Evil
Google took a major step today towards living up to its corporate motto: "Don't be evil." In announcing it will no longer continue to censor Internet content in China, Google has taken an important step for free speech and Internet privacy. Stating that it will adhere to this decision even if it means the company is not allowed to do business in China, the company has surprised the corporate world.
This comes after the company and its g-mail accounts, largely those of Chinese human rights activists, were targeted. The attack apparently has a similarity to the attacks uncovered by Canadian researchers at the University of Toronto. In the Canadian case a surveillance system known as "Ghostnet" was used to hack into government computers and scan documents.
In both the Canadian and Google cases it appears that the attacks originate from within China. The logical conclusion as to responsibility for the cyber-espionage is the Chinese government. Working to suppress dissent, the Chinese continue to make a mockery of human rights. Using cyber-crime as a means to do so should not be tolerated.
As I argued in my previous column, the time has come to boycott China. The Chinese government has demonstrated to the world that it does not respect international law through its continued cyber-crimes. They have also repeatedly demonstrated they do not care for human life through their continued production of toxic toys.
Have we become so economically dependent on China that we will continue to look the other way while they trample human rights and crush dissent? Google is trying to live up to its motto. How about us living up to our beliefs in free speech? Spend and extra dollar and buy a product not made in China - if you can find one.
This comes after the company and its g-mail accounts, largely those of Chinese human rights activists, were targeted. The attack apparently has a similarity to the attacks uncovered by Canadian researchers at the University of Toronto. In the Canadian case a surveillance system known as "Ghostnet" was used to hack into government computers and scan documents.
In both the Canadian and Google cases it appears that the attacks originate from within China. The logical conclusion as to responsibility for the cyber-espionage is the Chinese government. Working to suppress dissent, the Chinese continue to make a mockery of human rights. Using cyber-crime as a means to do so should not be tolerated.
As I argued in my previous column, the time has come to boycott China. The Chinese government has demonstrated to the world that it does not respect international law through its continued cyber-crimes. They have also repeatedly demonstrated they do not care for human life through their continued production of toxic toys.
Have we become so economically dependent on China that we will continue to look the other way while they trample human rights and crush dissent? Google is trying to live up to its motto. How about us living up to our beliefs in free speech? Spend and extra dollar and buy a product not made in China - if you can find one.
Tuesday, January 12, 2010
Boycott China
Damn the effects on the economy. It is clear that we have reached a point that we can no longer risk doing business with China. Their low cost goods are no longer worth it even if they are free.
The Associated Press arranged to have 100 different items tested and found twelve of the items contaminated with cadmium levels above ten percent. According to the Center for Disease Control cadmium is number seven on a list of 275 toxic substances. More shocking is that while cadmium levels are regulated in children's toys they are not in jewelry.
That China would use such a loop hole to pass products into the U.S. is intolerable. Given the number of scandals they have already had with contaminated products form milk to toys to drywall one would think it would be routine to test such products, but that is another matter. What is clear is that the Chinese are more concerned with selling us products than in our health. In fact, maybe we should start to wonder if it is not their goal to sell us contaminated products. Ruining our health and stunting the development of our children would serve their goals well.
Whatever is going on in China that is leading to this repeated poisoning must be acknowledged. The burden must be placed upon them to prove that their products are safe before we accept them into the country. It is easy to dominate the world in sales if you use your toxic waste material as production material while subsidizing your industry and floating your currency.
And we're fighting in Afghanistan?
The Associated Press arranged to have 100 different items tested and found twelve of the items contaminated with cadmium levels above ten percent. According to the Center for Disease Control cadmium is number seven on a list of 275 toxic substances. More shocking is that while cadmium levels are regulated in children's toys they are not in jewelry.
That China would use such a loop hole to pass products into the U.S. is intolerable. Given the number of scandals they have already had with contaminated products form milk to toys to drywall one would think it would be routine to test such products, but that is another matter. What is clear is that the Chinese are more concerned with selling us products than in our health. In fact, maybe we should start to wonder if it is not their goal to sell us contaminated products. Ruining our health and stunting the development of our children would serve their goals well.
Whatever is going on in China that is leading to this repeated poisoning must be acknowledged. The burden must be placed upon them to prove that their products are safe before we accept them into the country. It is easy to dominate the world in sales if you use your toxic waste material as production material while subsidizing your industry and floating your currency.
And we're fighting in Afghanistan?
Thursday, September 24, 2009
One Leap Forward, Two Leaps Back
In a post a couple of days ago I applauded China for taking a stance to address climate change. As was quickly pointed out to me by my friend Doug, China will likely backtrack on its promises.
The point about China is well made. They have paid lip service to human rights and open government but continue to lead the world in executions and censorship. It is also apparent that China is more concerned with maintaining domestic control than international opinion.
Whether for propaganda or genuine effort, China is taking steps that will propel it ahead of the U.S. in producing clean and sustainable energy. The Chinese do this in spite of the fact that they churn out industrial toxins at a chilling rate. What they are trying to do is leapfrog generations of technology and lead the world. The development of clean and sustainable energy would seem to be an obvious avenue for investment and economic development for any nation concerned about its future. Failure to pursue a course to become the world leader in this technology will doom the U.S. to second rate status as a nation.
The Chinese, it is true, operate only for the good of China. They see the necessity of this course. Will we move forward or backward?
The point about China is well made. They have paid lip service to human rights and open government but continue to lead the world in executions and censorship. It is also apparent that China is more concerned with maintaining domestic control than international opinion.
Whether for propaganda or genuine effort, China is taking steps that will propel it ahead of the U.S. in producing clean and sustainable energy. The Chinese do this in spite of the fact that they churn out industrial toxins at a chilling rate. What they are trying to do is leapfrog generations of technology and lead the world. The development of clean and sustainable energy would seem to be an obvious avenue for investment and economic development for any nation concerned about its future. Failure to pursue a course to become the world leader in this technology will doom the U.S. to second rate status as a nation.
The Chinese, it is true, operate only for the good of China. They see the necessity of this course. Will we move forward or backward?
Wednesday, September 23, 2009
The Great Leap Forward
In the last couple of days the Chinese government has signalled its intention to become serious in dealing with the threat of climate change. Vowing to plant forests greater than the size of Norway and increase to 15 percent the amount of its energy generated by renewable sources. China also pledged to "reduce by a notable margin," the growth of its carbon emissions.
It remains to be seen if China will actually follow through on its stated plans. However, just the stated intention to address climate change vaults China ahead of the U.S. in terms of its desire to address this concern. At some level, the output of three nations, the U.S., China and India, are the most important to contributing to this problem. China and India, both developing and with enormous populations, have resisted any efforts to curb their emissions because of the economic strain it will produce. The U.S. has resisted primarily due to political efforts by the right wing.
However, with China pressing ahead and pledging to address this issue, there remains the U.S. and India. Who will be the final drag on the world? Which country will continue to believe that it can operate with impunity and suffer no consequences? China saw the writing on the wall. The U.S. has no excuse.
It remains to be seen if China will actually follow through on its stated plans. However, just the stated intention to address climate change vaults China ahead of the U.S. in terms of its desire to address this concern. At some level, the output of three nations, the U.S., China and India, are the most important to contributing to this problem. China and India, both developing and with enormous populations, have resisted any efforts to curb their emissions because of the economic strain it will produce. The U.S. has resisted primarily due to political efforts by the right wing.
However, with China pressing ahead and pledging to address this issue, there remains the U.S. and India. Who will be the final drag on the world? Which country will continue to believe that it can operate with impunity and suffer no consequences? China saw the writing on the wall. The U.S. has no excuse.
Saturday, August 15, 2009
How To Pay For Health Care
Estimates of the costs of health care reform generally range from about $800 billion to $1 trillion over a ten (10) year period. Even though these estimates can be disputed I will accept them for arguments sake at this point. Given these numbers, the upper costs of providing health care would be around $100 billion.
Looking at the budget of the U.S. government, there is an obvious source of money to pay for health care - the Defense Budget. According to the Department of Defense, the 2009 Federal expenditures for the military is approximately $515.4 billion!
Before the paranoid become apoplectic over the idea of making the nation less safe, let's put the numbers in perspective. According to multiple sources, the United States spends about half of the worlds total defense dollars. The two countries that might reasonably be considered a military threat on any par with the U.S. in the future are Russia and China. While numbers for both countries are a little difficult to nail down, the upper estimates of spending for both are around $70 billion. In other words, the combined military spending of China and Russian would have to be increased three to four times in order to match the U.S.
To look at this another way, if the U.S. cut military spending in half, we would still spend about four times as much as either of the only two countries that are even anywhere close to being a potential threat.
What is the U.S. so afraid of militarily? Did I mention that the nation that spends the second most on military spending is Great Britain, our ally? Again, what or who are we so afraid of? India, with hostile neighbor Pakistan sharing a more than thousand mile border, has the largest army in the world, and spends $17 billion total on its military. Our neighbors, Canada and Mexico, pose no military threat to us and one would have to be insane to contend otherwise.
There really is no justification for the excess in spending by the military except for the fact that the war industry, the military-industrial complex that Eisenhower warned us against at the end of his term, has control of the people who control the purse strings. The United States could easily, without causing any threat to our security, free $100 billion dollars from the defense budget.
All money spent is a matter of priorities. The U.S. could easily fund health care by shifting its priorities from the killing business to health care.
Looking at the budget of the U.S. government, there is an obvious source of money to pay for health care - the Defense Budget. According to the Department of Defense, the 2009 Federal expenditures for the military is approximately $515.4 billion!
Before the paranoid become apoplectic over the idea of making the nation less safe, let's put the numbers in perspective. According to multiple sources, the United States spends about half of the worlds total defense dollars. The two countries that might reasonably be considered a military threat on any par with the U.S. in the future are Russia and China. While numbers for both countries are a little difficult to nail down, the upper estimates of spending for both are around $70 billion. In other words, the combined military spending of China and Russian would have to be increased three to four times in order to match the U.S.
To look at this another way, if the U.S. cut military spending in half, we would still spend about four times as much as either of the only two countries that are even anywhere close to being a potential threat.
What is the U.S. so afraid of militarily? Did I mention that the nation that spends the second most on military spending is Great Britain, our ally? Again, what or who are we so afraid of? India, with hostile neighbor Pakistan sharing a more than thousand mile border, has the largest army in the world, and spends $17 billion total on its military. Our neighbors, Canada and Mexico, pose no military threat to us and one would have to be insane to contend otherwise.
There really is no justification for the excess in spending by the military except for the fact that the war industry, the military-industrial complex that Eisenhower warned us against at the end of his term, has control of the people who control the purse strings. The United States could easily, without causing any threat to our security, free $100 billion dollars from the defense budget.
All money spent is a matter of priorities. The U.S. could easily fund health care by shifting its priorities from the killing business to health care.
Tuesday, July 7, 2009
Will News Coverage Begin Again Tomorrow?
For approximately two weeks since Michael Jackson died there has been a near news blackout. The protests continue in the streets of Iran, a military coup occurred in Honduras, there is ethnic unrest and governmental violence in China, sex scandals involving two different politicians, John Ensign and Mark Sanford, the surprise resignation of Sarah Palin, Minnesota has finally ended its 2008 Senate race, Karl Malden, Billy Mays, Farrah Fawcett and Robert McNamara have died and the economy continues to limp along, but one would hardly know it given media coverage. Throw out the Sarah Palin coverage and it's been pretty much -- All Michael, all the time.
Beyond the fact that his fans adored him, he sold lots of records, lived a freak show and was accused of pedophilia, there is really not much to say. The vultures are feasting on the corpse of roadkill on the highway of fame.
Where is the since of proportion. A pop star has died, but the very direction of the world may be hanging in the balance in Iran. Too bad Michael didn't want to be buried in Tehran, then the media would cover Persia.
The popular press bemoans the fact that it has fallen on hard times. Perhaps if the corporate media were more interested in news that sensationalism it would not be looking for a way to survive. Try to find actual news coverage, even on channels allegedly dedicated to news. All that can be found are bloviating pundits and production gimmicks.
Michael Jackson's death was news for about five minutes. Everything since is just a failure to live up to the responsibility of the press. Bury Michael today and please begin news coverage again of the rest of the world.
Beyond the fact that his fans adored him, he sold lots of records, lived a freak show and was accused of pedophilia, there is really not much to say. The vultures are feasting on the corpse of roadkill on the highway of fame.
Where is the since of proportion. A pop star has died, but the very direction of the world may be hanging in the balance in Iran. Too bad Michael didn't want to be buried in Tehran, then the media would cover Persia.
The popular press bemoans the fact that it has fallen on hard times. Perhaps if the corporate media were more interested in news that sensationalism it would not be looking for a way to survive. Try to find actual news coverage, even on channels allegedly dedicated to news. All that can be found are bloviating pundits and production gimmicks.
Michael Jackson's death was news for about five minutes. Everything since is just a failure to live up to the responsibility of the press. Bury Michael today and please begin news coverage again of the rest of the world.
Thursday, June 4, 2009
Twenty Years Ago Today, Tianamen Was No Place To Play
Twenty years ago on June 4th, the Chinese government ruthlessly crushed the pro-Democracy movement that had drawn to a head in the center of government, Tianamen Square. Today the government has effectively squelched all remembrances of that day with a crack down on dissidents and censorship.
In the twenty years since Tianamen, China has shown unprecedented growth, selling the world large quantities of cheap plastic crap. Poisons seem to be in every product. Thumbing their nose at the world they have hosted an Olympics and financed a credit debacle. All the while they have promised to improve human rights and provide a more open society.
What they have delivered is more repression and censorship. To even discuss the events of Tianamen Square writers have to refer to the date as "May 35th" in an attempt to evade the censors. A whole movement utilizing the phrase "grass-mud-horse" has arisen in another attempt to evade censorship.
Remember June 4th. China is a smoldering ember, ready to burst into the flames of a true revolution. Repression only causes greater dissent. Stop subsidizing the oppression of your fellow man, stop buying Chinese.
In the twenty years since Tianamen, China has shown unprecedented growth, selling the world large quantities of cheap plastic crap. Poisons seem to be in every product. Thumbing their nose at the world they have hosted an Olympics and financed a credit debacle. All the while they have promised to improve human rights and provide a more open society.
What they have delivered is more repression and censorship. To even discuss the events of Tianamen Square writers have to refer to the date as "May 35th" in an attempt to evade the censors. A whole movement utilizing the phrase "grass-mud-horse" has arisen in another attempt to evade censorship.
Remember June 4th. China is a smoldering ember, ready to burst into the flames of a true revolution. Repression only causes greater dissent. Stop subsidizing the oppression of your fellow man, stop buying Chinese.
Friday, May 15, 2009
Gas Selling for Ten Dollars a Gallon
Gas selling for $10 a gallon is what we need. I'm serious. It seems that the only thing that gets us concerned about wasting energy and slowly boiling the planet is when the price of gasoline gets uncomfortably high. When gasoline hit over $4,50 a gallon last summer, talk of a green revolution was everywhere. Despite an administration that was deeply in the pockets of Big Oil and had no interest in environmental concerns, public debate turned towards electric cars, solar, wind and hydro power. Now that gas is about half the price of last summer, there seems to be a lessening of focus on the need to go green. This, despite an administration that is demonstrably more open to alternative energy.
If the only thing that truly gets our attention is high fuel costs, then let them skyrocket. The crisis facing us is too dire to continue to dither. The whole notion that shifting to green energy will cost slightly more is completely off point (and debatable). The issue is not whether we can afford to shift from a petroleum based economy, the issue is that we cannot afford to continue to exist under the yolk of the transnational petrochemical companies.
The growing industrialization of China and India clearly defines the magnitude of the problem. China has surpassed the U.S. as the largest emitter of CO2, and both nations, due to sheer population numbers, are on a path to add exponentially to the problem. The U.S. remains the largest offender, by far, on a per capita basis.
Rather than seeking low prices for petroleum as a means to drive the economy, the exact opposite should occur. There needs to be a floor price, below which the price is not allowed to drop, established for gasoline and other petroleum products. All revenue above costs should immediately be funneled into the development of alternative energy. By establishing a floor price consumption is discouraged and alternatives are encouraged. Yes, this costs more. Pay now or pay much, much more later.
Oil is over! Accept this fact. It is not in our interest that oil be cheap. It is only to our demise. We must immediately begin to wean ourselves before the rude awakening of withdrawal occurs as we reach the end of the supply. At that point, $10 will be a bargain.
For an excellent treatise on the future of oil, please refer to the book "Hibbert's Peak," for which the full reference can be found at the bottom of this page in the "Oil is Over," resources.
I visit many of the themes above in my last novel, The Dirt People, on Blue Throat Press (follow link on this page).
If the only thing that truly gets our attention is high fuel costs, then let them skyrocket. The crisis facing us is too dire to continue to dither. The whole notion that shifting to green energy will cost slightly more is completely off point (and debatable). The issue is not whether we can afford to shift from a petroleum based economy, the issue is that we cannot afford to continue to exist under the yolk of the transnational petrochemical companies.
The growing industrialization of China and India clearly defines the magnitude of the problem. China has surpassed the U.S. as the largest emitter of CO2, and both nations, due to sheer population numbers, are on a path to add exponentially to the problem. The U.S. remains the largest offender, by far, on a per capita basis.
Rather than seeking low prices for petroleum as a means to drive the economy, the exact opposite should occur. There needs to be a floor price, below which the price is not allowed to drop, established for gasoline and other petroleum products. All revenue above costs should immediately be funneled into the development of alternative energy. By establishing a floor price consumption is discouraged and alternatives are encouraged. Yes, this costs more. Pay now or pay much, much more later.
Oil is over! Accept this fact. It is not in our interest that oil be cheap. It is only to our demise. We must immediately begin to wean ourselves before the rude awakening of withdrawal occurs as we reach the end of the supply. At that point, $10 will be a bargain.
For an excellent treatise on the future of oil, please refer to the book "Hibbert's Peak," for which the full reference can be found at the bottom of this page in the "Oil is Over," resources.
I visit many of the themes above in my last novel, The Dirt People, on Blue Throat Press (follow link on this page).
Thursday, April 9, 2009
You Can't Eat Bullets
In the last few days I have seen several newspaper headlines that talk about the "gutting" of the defense budget and have listened to a number of politicians in both parties talk with paroxysmal spasms about the destruction of the military and the loss of associated jobs (miraculously right there within their own district).
What they are so upset about is that Secretary of Defense Robert Gates has advocated cutting a total of $1.4 billion from the missile defense program. This act, cutting funding to a program that has been replete with problems and failures, is completely sensible and represents a negligible cut in defense spending.
Or at least it is being portrayed as a cut in defense spending. It is in reality nothing of the kind. The Obama Administration has submitted a Defense Budget request of $534 billion. Compare this to the last Defense Budget submitted by Bush which was for a total of $513 billion. Hopefully, our educational system has not collapsed to the point that we are unable to see that this is an increase of $21 billion, NOT a decrease.
This is but a sad example of how skewed the debate has become around the defense establishment. Cutting one sorry program is decried as damaging the military even when the largest military budget in history has just been proposed. Rather than bemoaning the loss of one spectacularly bad program and trying to manipulate the public through lies that an increase is a cut, the real questions should be about the fact that this is the largest budget in history.
The facts of world military expenditures argue that we are completely off base when it comes to the issue of defense spending. We are not cutting anything, but we certainly should be. Let us look at the figures.
According to CIA- The World Factbook, posted at globalsecurity.com, the U.S. spent $623 billion dollars on military expenditures in 2008 and the rest of the world combined spent $500 billion. China had expenditures of $65 billion and Russia clocked in at $50 billion. The Stockholm International Peace Research Institute put the numbers in 2007 at $547 billion for the U.S. (45% of total) $58.3 billion for China, $35.4 billion for Russia and $59.7 for our ally Britain which was second in total expenditures.
In other words, we spend around half of the total worlds military expenditure dollars. The only two countries with any realistic ability to challenge our military superiority, China and Russia spend only around a tenth of what the U.S. does. Put another way, if we were to cut our expenditures in half and they were to triple their spending we would still outspend each of them by at least $100 billion.
What are we so afraid of? Terrorism? No amount of money on earth can stop a person who is prepared to give up their own life. But the events of 9/11 cannot explain our excessive military buildup. Fighting fanatics is more about intelligence than weapons and soldiers. Geographically the U.S. is one of the most protected nations on earth. Protected by two oceans, we seriously have to question what we are so worried about. Our need to feed the military budget comes close to suggesting a collective paranoia.
In an era where politicians of all stripes are expressing concerns about deficits this is the logical place to start. The U.S. could easily pull $300 billion off the books by beginning a return to a sensible military budget. This won't happen, of course, as Eisenhower's warning of the military industrial complex has become true. Our politicians are not worried about our defense, they are worried about defending their base - the military contractors to whom they are beholden.
What they are so upset about is that Secretary of Defense Robert Gates has advocated cutting a total of $1.4 billion from the missile defense program. This act, cutting funding to a program that has been replete with problems and failures, is completely sensible and represents a negligible cut in defense spending.
Or at least it is being portrayed as a cut in defense spending. It is in reality nothing of the kind. The Obama Administration has submitted a Defense Budget request of $534 billion. Compare this to the last Defense Budget submitted by Bush which was for a total of $513 billion. Hopefully, our educational system has not collapsed to the point that we are unable to see that this is an increase of $21 billion, NOT a decrease.
This is but a sad example of how skewed the debate has become around the defense establishment. Cutting one sorry program is decried as damaging the military even when the largest military budget in history has just been proposed. Rather than bemoaning the loss of one spectacularly bad program and trying to manipulate the public through lies that an increase is a cut, the real questions should be about the fact that this is the largest budget in history.
The facts of world military expenditures argue that we are completely off base when it comes to the issue of defense spending. We are not cutting anything, but we certainly should be. Let us look at the figures.
According to CIA- The World Factbook, posted at globalsecurity.com, the U.S. spent $623 billion dollars on military expenditures in 2008 and the rest of the world combined spent $500 billion. China had expenditures of $65 billion and Russia clocked in at $50 billion. The Stockholm International Peace Research Institute put the numbers in 2007 at $547 billion for the U.S. (45% of total) $58.3 billion for China, $35.4 billion for Russia and $59.7 for our ally Britain which was second in total expenditures.
In other words, we spend around half of the total worlds military expenditure dollars. The only two countries with any realistic ability to challenge our military superiority, China and Russia spend only around a tenth of what the U.S. does. Put another way, if we were to cut our expenditures in half and they were to triple their spending we would still outspend each of them by at least $100 billion.
What are we so afraid of? Terrorism? No amount of money on earth can stop a person who is prepared to give up their own life. But the events of 9/11 cannot explain our excessive military buildup. Fighting fanatics is more about intelligence than weapons and soldiers. Geographically the U.S. is one of the most protected nations on earth. Protected by two oceans, we seriously have to question what we are so worried about. Our need to feed the military budget comes close to suggesting a collective paranoia.
In an era where politicians of all stripes are expressing concerns about deficits this is the logical place to start. The U.S. could easily pull $300 billion off the books by beginning a return to a sensible military budget. This won't happen, of course, as Eisenhower's warning of the military industrial complex has become true. Our politicians are not worried about our defense, they are worried about defending their base - the military contractors to whom they are beholden.
Tuesday, November 25, 2008
Oil is STILL Over
Everyone seems to have quit panicking and returned to the roads. The price of gasoline has now dropped below $2 a gallon and hovers around the $55 a barrel price. Concern for the future of our energy supplies has plummeted with the price of oil.
Hear this:
OIL IS STILL OVER!
Just because the price has momentarily dropped does not mean that the problem is solved. The problem has just become a little worse. Every action, including a drop in price, that leads to greater consumption only serves to make the problem worse.
As a commodity, oil is done. There are the problems of declining supply (see Hibbert's Peak) and increasing demand (all the new drivers in China and India, just to start). Couple these with a realization that the burning of petroleum is complicating another major problem, global warming, and it is clear that the oil based economy must cease.
The solution to two problems, energy and environment, must occur simultaneously. Both problems require solutions that take the other into consideration. Sustainability must become the new focus, not cheap exploitation of resources and profit margins.
To stop seeking alternatives only due to momentary price shifts is the same folly that we have engaged in for the last 30 years. Time to change. Change the oil, it's over.
Hear this:
OIL IS STILL OVER!
Just because the price has momentarily dropped does not mean that the problem is solved. The problem has just become a little worse. Every action, including a drop in price, that leads to greater consumption only serves to make the problem worse.
As a commodity, oil is done. There are the problems of declining supply (see Hibbert's Peak) and increasing demand (all the new drivers in China and India, just to start). Couple these with a realization that the burning of petroleum is complicating another major problem, global warming, and it is clear that the oil based economy must cease.
The solution to two problems, energy and environment, must occur simultaneously. Both problems require solutions that take the other into consideration. Sustainability must become the new focus, not cheap exploitation of resources and profit margins.
To stop seeking alternatives only due to momentary price shifts is the same folly that we have engaged in for the last 30 years. Time to change. Change the oil, it's over.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
.jpg)
Posts
