"We can do everything!" The Real Lesson of Egypt

As I was watching This Week on ABC this morning, they had a brief clip of a woman in Tahrir Square after Mubarak stepped down.  She said, jubilantly, "We can do everything!"  For me, that may be the biggest lesson from the 18 days of protest that toppled the former autocratic ruler and US ally.

All too often, we are limited by what we believe to be possible.  But those limiting beliefs are self-fulfilling prophesies.  If we believe something is impossible, then it is.  We fail to attempt it or put in a half-hearted effort, convinced that failure is inevitable.  So it is.  Indeed, it becomes our excuse for not even trying.  We find comfort in believing that we saved ourselves from disappointment and wasted effort.  But it is a coward's alibi for inaction and complicity.

My own life is full of wonderful examples of people telling me, over and over again, that something is impossible, only to find out that it is, indeed, possible.  Sometimes, I even found that it was relatively easy.  It seems that once we reach and cross over that tipping point where something that seemed impossible now seems possible, we realize it is actually the status quo that is fragile and impossible to maintain.  Change is inevitable, and the momentum shifts toward the change we now believe in.

People told me I couldn't go to college a year early, after my junior year in high school.  But I did.

People told me I couldn't pass the Foreign Service exam, and certainly not on the first try.  But I did.  (By one point!)

People told us we couldn't get the US House of Representatives to pass legislation lifting the arms embargo on Bosnia.  But we did - a mere six months after forming the American Committee to Save Bosnia and less than five months after starting our advocacy campaign.  And a year later, we passed it in both houses of Congress by veto-proof 2/3 majorities!

I am proud of these achievements, but they pale in comparison to those of countless other people who have truly accomplished the previously unthinkable.

People said when I was growing up that the Iron Curtain would never fall.  But it did.  I was fortunate enough to witness the collapse of Communism first hand from my posting in Moscow.  even got to help tear down the Berlin Wall with my own two hands and was an election monitor in the first free and fair elections ever in the history of the Soviet Union.  I saw the people of Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union stand up and demand their freedom.  With the exception of Romania, each revolution was peaceful and relatively swift.

People said we would never elect an African American to be President of the United States - but we did.

And, now, after people said for decades that the Mubarak regime could never be toppled, the people of Egypt took to the streets for less than three weeks and showed, like Gandhi and Martin Luther King, Jr., before them, that non-violent protest can achieve the impossible.

So when we talk in this country about how it seems impossible to stop a genocide in Darfur or the Congo, or to fix our inadequate education system, or to take back control of our political system from the big corporations and wealthy Americans who currently dominate it, or to reduce our federal budget deficit or fix Medicare and Social Security, or to solve the climate change crisis, let us remember the people of Egypt and Tunisia.  They accomplished something "impossible" by believing they could and then doing it.

We really can do everything!

The Lesson of Egypt: A New Paradigm for US Foreign Policy

Some commentators in recent days have highlighted the dilemma for US policy makers in addressing the protests in Egypt:  How can we support calls for democracy and freedom in the Middle East while not rashly abandoning a vital US ally in the region?  Calling for Mubarak's ouster in the early days of the crisis could have sent the "wrong" message to other US allies in the region and around the world.  If you are an autocratic regime and face a popular uprising, the US will drop you like a hot potato.  The last thing the US needs in the Middle East and elsewhere is to have its allies and partners in the war on terror lose faith in our commitments to them.  If we would abandon Mubarak - for three decades, the most important and reliable US ally in the Arab world, in whom we've invested our trust and billions of US tax dollars - who wouldn't we abandon?


There's also the caution that "the devil you know may be better than the devil you don't know."  It's a compelling argument, since it wisely kept us from toppling Saddam Hussein during the 1990s.  Stability is better than a power vacuum, and a friendly dictator is better than a hostile one.  Mubarak played upon this fear, hyping the dangers presented by a possible Islamist takeover in Egypt (beware the Muslim Brotherhood - any group with the word "Muslim" in its name must be bad, right?  And some of al Qaeda's founders used to belong to the MB 30 years ago!).


So, do we have clear policy goals in the region, arguably the most important strategically in the world these days?


Well, some of my students tried to identify US policy goals in the Middle East and elsewhere last semester.  They were looking for clear, achievable and observable goals.  They couldn't find any.  Not for the Middle East.  Not for Afghanistan.  Not for the crisis in Mexico.  Not for combating human trafficking.  None.  I would suggest that part of the reason is that once you have clear goals, you will be judged by whether or not you actually achieved them.  Better to keep things fuzzy, so you can define (and redefine) success whenever you see fit.

But a longer-term view of US foreign policy in the region, and around the world, suggests that, perhaps, another reason is that we view our strategic interests too narrowly (Israel, al Qaeda and oil), overestimate our power and influence (yes, we can prop up autocratic regimes with money and weapons for a time, but not forever - see Iran, Marcos in the Philippines, and, now, Egypt), and emphasize short-term needs over long-term objectives.  As a result, our policy is more ad hoc, more reactive than proactive, and viewed by many as more hypocritical over time.  We support the one true democracy in the Middle East - Israel - consistently, but we are best of friends with some of the worst regimes in the region.  

As a result, much of the Arab world has lost trust in us, views us as part of the problem, or views us as the problem.  We seem forever sucked into the tension and turmoil of the region, in large part because we depend on its oil.  And we seem to need these brutal dictators as much as, if not more than, they need us.  So we cling to them, sending them billions of dollars in military and economic aid, training their armies, and sending them billions more for their oil.  And we send a clear message to their people, especially the poor and middle classes yearning for a better life and more freedom:  we choose stability (for the short- and maybe medium-term) over democracy and freedom.  We choose your oppressors over you, the victims.  We defend democracy and freedom for us and for some of our closest allies, but not for you.  Consider this:  do you think it is more likely that Egypt's citizens become more anti-US and more radicalized by us hedging our bets and standing by Mubarak or by supporting their struggle for democracy?

If we should choose to truly think strategically, perhaps ridding ourselves of our dependence on foreign oil and trying harder to "do no harm" would be a start.  Peter Maass had a short but excellent article in August on the hidden costs of our foreign oil dependence.  The true cost of protecting access to Middle Eastern oil - for us, Europe, Asia, and the world - is staggering.

So let's start with one clear, achievable and observable goal that deals with that challenge.  In 2009, the US imported 4.2 billion barrels of oil, or about 52% of its oil needs.  Let's cut it to half the 2009 level ten years:  2.1 billion barrels in 2021.  If we could go to the moon in eight years (JFK gave us a whole decade and we didn't need it!), why not cut our foreign oil imports by half in ten?  Audacious?  Sure.  But isn't this urgent and important enough to be a little audacious?  Two-thirds of our oil consumption is for transportation, and 2/3 of that is for gasoline.  Let's make the switch to hybrids and plug-in electric vehicles a national priority.  Let's get state, local, and federal vehicles switched over to electric or natural gas.  A combination of tax incentives and higher gas mileage standards could do the trick.  Switch the subsidies for big oil companies over to tax breaks for people and companies buying electric, hybrid, and natural gas vehicles.

Oh, and let's support the people who want to be free.  That's something we can do now.  Try this goal:  Mubarak gone, and replaced by a transitional government of national unity charged with drafting a new Egyptian constitution, by tomorrow.

Some Thoughts on Egypt

As I sit here watching coverage of the protests in Egypt, I am struck by a couple of things:

• If we had rid ourselves of our addiction to foreign oil, this crisis would seem a lot simpler to us.  While Egypt itself does not export much oil to the US, approximately 3.8 billion barrels of oil per day pass through Egypt, either through the Suez Canal or pipelines.  In addition, if this pro-democracy movement spreads further in the Middle East, it could eventually affect major oil producers, too.  It is easy to imagine oil traders/speculators driving the price of oil up in the coming days and weeks, with gasoline prices in the US reaching $4 or even approaching $5 per gallon this year.
• Egypt's greatest importance for the US in recent years has been as a key partner in protecting Israel's security.  Egypt has been a key mediator between Israel and the Palestinians.  It has tried to constrain Hamas.  While some have argued that Egypt has not been as effective as a mediator because it benefits from an endlessly drawn-out process, it is unclear how the US could replace Egypt.  Moreover, the instability in Egypt has raised concerned that Mubarak could be replaced by a regime more hostile to US and Israeli interests, possibly even a regime that would nullify the historic peace treaty with Israel.
• For Israel, things look worse than they did a month ago. Hezbollah is gaining more control over Lebanon to the north.  Now, it's most reliable and long-term partner in the Arab world, Egypt, is in the midst of a political crisis that could lead to a new regime less friendly to Israel.  Other countries in the region, in order to appease their own populations, may take on a more anti-Israeli - and anti-American - stance in the coming weeks.
• Does the instability in Egypt cause Israel's government to become more open to a peace deal with the Palestinians, or to hunker down and take an even more defensive stance, putting the peace process in a deep freeze for the foreseeable future?  While, logically, Israel should seek to stabilize its relations with the Palestinians as it faces more uncertainties and threats from its neighbors and potentially loses Egypt's contraints on Hamas, the current government in Israel will probably do the opposite.  

Tackling the Big Oil Subsidies: The Numbers

Some numbers to ponder as we wait to see if President Obama's call to end big oil subsidies by the federal government (borrowed from our kids' future earnings/taxes) has any chance of becoming reality:

• The oil and gas industry spent $111,839,931 on lobbying in 2010, paying for 744 lobbyists (or 1.7 oil and gas industry lobbyists for every member of the House).  That followed a record year of $175 million in 2009.
• The oil and gas industry gave almost $18 million in contributions to congressional campaigns in 2010 and almost $23 million in 2008!
• Speaker Boehner received over $100,000 in campaign contributions from oil and gas companies in 2009-10.
• President Obama received almost $900,000 in contributions from oil and gas companies for the 2008 campaign, out of $5,637,348 total industry donations to presidential candidates (28% to Democrats, 71.9% to Republicans; McCain got well over double what Obama received.)
• Exxon Mobil gave over $1.4 million to federal campaigns in 2008.

So what do all these donations get the oil and gas industry?

• The US government spends (well, borrows...) $36.5 billion each year to subsidize the oil and gas industries.
• According to the New York Times, the oil industry alone gets about $4 billion in tax breaks each year.

Not a bad return on their investment, is it?

Obama: The best we can hope for... and that's not good enough!

President Obama's State of the Union speech the other night was symbolic of how I feel about his presidency in general.  Overall, I liked the speech.  I thought he delivered it well, it hit some broad, positive themes I agree with and care about (infrastructure, education, new energy, etc.).  He even mentioned wanting to end subsidies for oil companies!  [Did you notice how dour Boehner looked as he refused to clap for that line?]

But I also felt like the speech was a good example of how Obama falls short of expectations and the hopes of many of his supporters, including me.  He did not mention campaign finance reform, climate change, or gun control.  His specific goals - a million electric cars by 2015, 80 percent of the country living near high-speed rail within 35 years - are good and important, but not worthy of a "Sputnik" moment.  [By the way, what percentage of Americans could tell you what Sputnik was?  For those who could, to what extent does it still resonate with them?]  How about eliminating our dependence on foreign oil in 10 years?  Increasing the high school graduation rate to 90 percent in 10 years?  [According to one report, it was 75% in 2008, up from 72% in 2001.]  Let's have some audacious goals that, if we really bust our butts and put our best and brightest to work on them, we just might achieve.

Like many people who voted for him in 2008, I have been both proud of and frustrated by President Obama during his first two years in office.  I have come to realize, however, that he is merely the best president we can hope for, given the current realities of our political system.  Given those realities, what he has accomplished is nothing short of miraculous.  But, because of those realities, we can neither expect nor hope for much more, and that is unacceptable.

In two years, Obama has managed to prevent a second Great Depression, seemingly saved a large part of the US auto industry, passed a stimulus bill that saved or created millions of jobs, passed health care reform and the most significant financial reform bill in decades, won ratification of a new arms control treaty with Russia, and secured passage of a bill ending Don't Ask, Don't Tell.  That's the most impressive list of achievements of any president during his first two years in office since LBJ.

Still, he he couldn't get a major energy or climate change bill passed, both health care and financial reform fell short of important goals (reducing health care costs and eliminating the threats presented by moral hazard and "too big to fail" banks in the financial industry).  A second stimulus, which many economists deemed necessary and current unemployment and state budget numbers would seem to demand, was a non-starter.

We are not likely to see Obama tackle some of the greatest and most urgent challenges facing our country today because of the biggest threat to our democracy:  campaign financing.  Let's face it:  Obama
ran for president promising "change we can believe in," but the reality is that he has achieved all that he has by making back-room deals with the big players in health care, on Wall St., and in the GOP.  Cap and trade is off the table.  The Bush tax cuts for the wealthy were extended.  Lobbyists still rule DC.  His Administration seems like it has a revolving door of employment with Wall St.  Moreover, according to the number two Democrat in the Senate, Wall St. "owns" Capitol Hill.  So what hope do we have that Obama - or anyone else - will successfully tackle the growing income inequality in this country?  Or climate change?  Or military spending and the privatization of the military and intelligence services?  Or government subsidies for big oil and the corn industry?

In the end, I like President Obama.  I am proud of my vote for him in 2008.  I will, in all likelihood, vote for him again in 2012.  But I have lowered my expectations for him.

I keep coming back to one thing:  campaign finance reform.  Without it, Obama will do the best he can - better than most.  But that's no longer good enough.

The Suburban American's Dilemma

Tell me if this rings true or not...

You feel lucky.  You won the birth lottery:  you were born in America.  You live the American dream. [Cue John Boehner crying...]  You live better than your parents did:  nicer car, bigger house, much bigger TV, you've traveled more, etc.  Sure, you work long hours to afford that lifestyle.  You have a tiring commute and, unlike your parents' or, at least, your grandparents' generation, you and your spouse both have to work just to make ends meet.  You worry about how to pay for daycare, how to save for your kids' college and your retirement, and still make your mortgage payments.  You spend your weekends feeling like a taxi driver, ferrying your kids to soccer practices and play dates, coaching the little league team, buying the groceries and doing the laundry.  It's an exhausting lifestyle.  But, still, you are living proof that we live in a great country - the greatest country - in the world, with the best type of government available.

Sure, the system is flawed and doesn't always work great, but it works.  And, in spite of your exhausting life, you do your civic duty and vote.  Well, maybe not in every election, but in most of the presidential ones and even some of the others.  And in 2008, you even stepped it up a notch:  you donated a little money to a candidate, signed up for his mailing list online, maybe even made a few calls to help get out the vote.  Mission accomplished, right?

Um... no.  Sorry.  Because we didn't actually get "change we can believe in."  We got a really smart, earnest president who has accomplished an amazing amount in just two years, not the least of which was saving us from a possible Great Depression Part 2.  But it seemed like everything he did was done in a way that reminded us just how little Washington has changed, just how dirty the political process seems, and just how beholden to big business our elected representatives - including our president - really are these days.  Because they depend on campaign donations from the wealthiest individuals and corporations in America to get elected and reelected, that's who they really work for.  Not us.  They spend so much time raising money for the next campaign, they have less and less time for actually governing and legislating.

So as much as we'd like to think that we can continue to limit our involvement in our political system to a vote here or there, every two or four or six years, we can't.  Not anymore.  Somehow, in the midst of our busy lives, we need to find a way to do more.  We desperately need to tackle the urgent challenges of our day - education reform, our dependence on oil, climate change, exploding health care costs, potentially crippling federal and state budget deficits, a crumbling and antiquated infrastructure - and we can't do it unless and until we free our government from the grip of big money and free our elected representatives from the need to perpetually fund raise.

For starters, we need to change the way we finance political campaigns, and we need to do it now.  But it won't happen until people like you and me demand that change.  No, we won't have to quit our day jobs.  We won't have to chain ourselves to the White House fence.  But we need to do more than just vote every so often, choosing between two candidates who represent a status quo we can't accept anymore.  For some, it might mean writing letters, sending emails, or attending rallies; for others it might mean making some phone calls or meeting with congressional staffers.  But if we all do something, it will all add up.  If we don't, then we will cede control of our political system to the extremists in both parties and those who use their wealth to buy access, influence and control in Washington.  This isn't just a liberal or conservative issue.  And while I titled this post "The Suburban American's Dilemma," this is truly the dilemma for the working class American living in the city and for the small business owner trying to stay afloat in rural America.  This affects all of us.  We all lose if we don't fix this.

Now, as I write this, I'm beat.  I get up at 5 am every day, and it seems like there's little, if any, downtime most days.  But I've got to find a way to make a difference here and now.  This blog is one small step.  It's my humble call to see if there are kindred spirits who will raise their voices with mine.  What comes next?  I'm not sure, yet.  But as busy and tired as I am, I now have to admit that I have to do something.

This is our country.  It has given many of us wonderful opportunities and great freedoms.  But, as my parents and teachers taught me when I was a kid, those privileges come with responsibilities.  It's time to turn those words into action.

A "Do No Harm" Foreign Policy - a response

I loved the comment to the original post, asking if it was too idealistic to think that we could actually ween our political system off the big money.  Is it idealistic?  Yes.  Guilty, as charged.  But so have been a lot of other reforms in our country's history, until they became necessary or the people demanded them.  Women's suffrage.  Direct election of senators.  The Civil Rights Act of 1964.  Brown v. Board.  Trust-busting.  Social Security.  Medicare.  The repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell.  Heck, even the US intervention in Bosnia (sorry, couldn't resist...).

If we don't fix campaign financing, we're screwed.

But I think it's the kind of issue that real Americans from both sides of the aisle could eventually support.  Everyone's hurt by the status quo, except those funding the campaigns and buying the influence.

I guess my theme lately has been to reject my own jaded, dark view of things and to, once again, believe that anything is possible.  There are lots of people out there who want real change, who thought they were voting for it in 2008.

I also think the addiction to oil is another issue that should appeal to the left and right.  What middle class, conservative American wants his or her gas money funding bin Laden & Co.?

The more I hear something is impossible, the more it makes me want to try!

A "Do No Harm" Foreign Policy

As a former US diplomat and someone who advocated for the US to help stop the genocide in Bosnia, I've been a strong internationalist my whole life.  I have believed that the US should use its role as a superpower to help others, to support human rights and make the world a safer, better place whenever possible.  That didn't mean I thought we should intervene in every conflict or genocide around the world, or that supporting human rights in, say, China, was more important than every other US national interest.  But I thought we should be actively engaged and helping out whenever possible. We did a lot of good during the Cold War promoting human rights in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe, and those efforts helped support and encourage the people who eventually toppled those regimes two decades ago.

But I am starting to wonder.  Yes, we should care about others.  But I think we pay a lot of lip service these days to "human rights" while ignoring the considerable harm we do, intentionally or not, every day.  And I think we over-promise and overextend ourselves, and we can no longer afford to do so.

So my new foreign policy paradigm is that we should "do no harm" while getting our own house in order.

Getting Our House in Order
First off, we should make sure we complete our military withdrawal from Iraq this year, while fully funding the State Department's expanding operations intended to build on our success to date.  Second, we should withdraw from Afghanistan.  I fear that we will be there forever, but I don't think the investment of blood and treasure is paying off or will pay off.  In terms of long-term, vital US interests, there are better ways to invest our money and use our military than battling the Taliban and trying to turn the Karzai government into a stable government for that country.

I am sick and tired of the Middle East being the most important region in the world, just because we're addicted to oil and have refused for decades to do anything serious about it.  While President Obama has significantly increased government investments in new energy technology, it's not enough.  Let's be audacious and invoke a little bit of JFK's magic:  let's rid ourselves of our oil addiction by 2020.  Don't tell me it's impossible.  We went to the moon in less than a decade - over 40 years ago!  Don't tell me it's not important - how many Americans have died, and how much money has been wasted, just because of this addiction?  How can we go to the pump and pay for gasoline that came from Saudi Arabia, when some of that money will end up financing terrorists trying to kill Americans and other innocent civilians around the world?  Yes, the Middle East will always matter because Israel's security will always matter to us, but let's remove oil as the primary reason.

We also should examine ways to make more cuts in our defense budget.  I've always been a defense hawk, but we can't afford the military budget we have right now, and we're clearly not willing to pay for it.  We are willing to borrow from our kids and grandkids, but if we don't fix the budget deficit soon, our fiscal calamity will force even more draconian cuts later on.  Now, we still need a military that can project power around the world and protect our vital interests, but right now the military-industrial complex is running wild.  We have real and potential threats we need to defend against - North Korea and Iran come to mind - and we need to make sure that every defense dollar is spent actually making us safer.  Sometimes, I think we just look at the hundreds of billions going toward defense each year and assume we must be really safe because we spend so much.  That's a dangerous assumption.

In addition, drawing down in Iraq and Afghanistan hopefully will allow us to drastically reduce our dependence on military contractors, which has cost us untold billions.  We need to make sure that we restructure our military so that contractors like Blackwater are no longer hired as mercenaries to take the place of our professional soldiers.  You want contractors to handle building and staffing the mess hall - fine.  But we should not be using contractors to fight our wars.  We should not be using US tax dollars to finance the creation of private armies.  Period.

Fixing the budget deficit isn't rocket science.  It just requires us to act like responsible adults.  It means agreeing that, except in recessions or extraordinary economic crises (like the last two years), we will all agree to pay for our government and to expect only the government we are willing to pay for.  I have addressed - and will again - this challenge elsewhere on this blog, but suffice it to say that some relatively minor tweaks will fix Social Security, while additional healthcare reforms will be needed to slow the growth of Medicare.  And we will need to raise taxes - primarily on the wealthy and, probably, on consumption, through a value added tax of some kind.

We also need to shift our spending priorities.  Say goodbye to oil and corn subsidies, hello to rebuilding and modernizing our infrastructure.  As mentioned earlier, we need even more investments in new energy.  We need to change how we fund our schools as we try to make them more effective.  We need to rebuild America as we reinvent it for the 21st Century and beyond.

Do No Harm
We talk a lot about other people's human rights.  During the current state visit by China's president, the Obama administration is struggling to defend its record on human rights in China.  Now, I do want people in China to have more freedoms, and I want the people of Tibet to have their rights and autonomy restored.  But while we talk a lot about those issues and accomplish relatively little (other than ticking off the Chinese government), we do a lot of harm collectively and individually every day.

We buy mutual funds that invest in companies doing business in Sudan, effectively funding the genocide in Darfur.  We buy cell phones and computers that use materials mined in eastern Congo, effectively funding the worst crimes against humanity on the planet.  We do little to stem the use of illicit drugs bought in the US by our kids, which buys the guns used by Mexican drug gangs to kill thousands each year in a war that is turning Mexico into a failed state and is threatening our own national security.  We buy clothes manufactured in sweat shops employing children and underpaid laborers, often working in dangerous conditions around the world.  Largely because of our oil addiction, though partly to protect Israel, we spend billions propping up corrupt regimes in the Middle East that deny their own citizens fundamental human rights.  We avoid serious efforts to reduce carbon emissions that are warming the planet and changing the climate to the point that people are dying and millions more are threatened.

If we just decided to do no harm, not expecting to be perfect but striving to be better, every day, we would do more good than all the lip service to human rights seems to be doing.  Sure, if there seems to be a diplomatic solution or path to helping out (like Obama's efforts in southern Sudan of late), that's great.  But, overall, let's focus first on not being part of the problem.  Let's divest from companies doing business in Sudan and anywhere else where the money funds genocide.  Let's insist that electronics be certified "conflict-free."  Let's buy fair trade products whenever possible (that may also help protect US jobs against unfair competition from abroad to some extent).  Let's figure out how to drastically reduce the use of illicit drugs that come from or through Mexico while using a combination of tighter gun control measures and border control checks to reduce the number of guns going from the US to Mexico.  Let's adopt a cap and trade system - or if there's a better way to reduce emissions, let's do that.  And let's make our oil addiction a mistake of the last century, not this one.

These shifts could potentially save thousands or even millions of lives.  That's a much better return on our investment than Afghanistan or Iraq got us.

So my bottom line is that we should focus on rebuilding and reinventing America for the new century while trying to reduce the harm we do elsewhere.  If we could show our kids that these changes are possible, think about the kind of America - and the kind of world - they could help shape during their lifetimes?

I welcome your thoughts and comments - this is a significant shift for me.  If you've got some hard evidence or persuasive arguments that I'm way off course, I'd love to see them.

One more thing on the corn subsidies...

Obviously we're addicted to cheap corn, so we can't just cut the subsidies today.  We need to wean ourselves off of them.  We need a sensible approach toward a more sustainable food policy and system.  Pig factories are dangerous to the local environment and to our society in general.  And we don't want kids and poor people drinking soft drinks and eating cheeseburgers and fries so much.  We want and need less processed foods that are more affordable.

But because of the influence of the farming industry, we can't even begin the conversation politically.  Even Michelle Obama's relatively modest initiatives around healthy eating have come under attack!

We need some real strategic thinking in DC.  On energy, education, food/health, infrastructure.  Concrete, achievable and observable goals for the next 10 years and clear policies for achieving them.  If the current political parties can't do that, then our nation needs another party...

Our insane corn policy

Since the Nixon Administration, we've had a crazy policy of subsidizing corn production.  It's a bonanza for the big agricultural companies like ADM and has become a bit of a political sacred cow - big shock.  Between ADM and other companies exercising their lobbying clout and the Iowa caucuses being so important in the presidential election process, it's become as American as apple pie and baseball.

The consequences are tragic.  Cheap corn made corn syrup a staple in processed foods, making the least healthy food the least expensive.  Corn became the feed of choice for cattle and pigs, enabling the creation of mega cattle and pig factories and the necessity for using antibiotics to keep those cows and pigs "healthy."  Fast food and soft drink sales exploded.  So did childhood and adult obesity.  So did drug-resistant diseases.

In recent years, ethanol became a more popular alternative to or additive to gasoline, as mandated by the government.  That, in term, increased demand for corn and drove the prices up, making food that depends on corn (beef, pork, etc.) more expensive.

NPR has a series on ethanol, and one installment discusses this crazy aspect of our corn subsidies - which need to end.  Decades or centuries from now, historians may well look back on American corn subsidies as one of the stupidest and dangerous government policies of the 20th and 21st centuries.

Like so many other policies that need to change, this one is tough because the status quo serves the interest of big business.  But it's killing us.

I've had it!

I am increasingly frustrated and angry with the direction of our country and the tragically flawed nature of our political system.  I'm looking for people who share my concern so we can figure out what to do - how we can raise our voices and join together to make sure that we and our kids have a brighter future.

The root of all evil seems to be the infection of the political system with corporate money.  How can we expect the government - no matter which party is in charge - to do what is best for the common good when corporations and other wealthy donors have bought access and influence that is unchallenged?  Just this week, we learned that hedge funds bankrolled the GOP toward the end of the midterm elections, providing $10 million in campaign financing.

Why should it surprise us when Obama appoints a top JP Morgan Chase executive to be his chief of staff?  Why should we be surprised when his budget director leaves to go work for Citigroup?

Why should we be surprised when the first step in health care reform was to cut a private deal with the major companies involved in health care?

Why should we be surprised that the GOP had as its top priority to extend tax cuts on the wealthiest 2%?  Why should we be surprised that the most likely solution to fixing Social Security's solvency is to make middle and working class people pay more in payroll taxes and postpone retirement, rather than reducing future benefits for the wealthy or taxing more of their current income?

Why should we be surprised when eight presidents - from Nixon to Obama - fail to provide a serious energy policy to get us off our addiction to Middle East oil?  Why should we be surprised that oil companies are among the most heavily subsidized by the government?

Why should we be surprised when some of our leaders ignore science and deny climate change?  Why should we be surprised when  even those who believe in science do nothing to address the need to reduce carbon emissions?

Why should we be surprised when the US government spends tens of billions of dollars subsidizing agriculture in ways that make our citizens - and especially our kids - obese?

Americans need jobs, we need to rebuild and modernize our infrastructure, we need major investments in new energy technology, and we need to fix and better fund our educational system.  But who is lobbying Congress to make sure that gets done?  And who is lobbying Congress to make sure it gets done not by borrowing from our children's future income but by asking those who benefit the most from our country's wealth to pay more according to their means and by ending subsidies that keep us addicted to oil and unhealthy food?

We're a great country, capable of solving our problems and giving our kids - and the world - a brighter, healthier, safer future.  Our challenges might be great, but so is our capacity for innovation and hard work.  But unless and until our government stops serving the needs of the few and puts the needs of the average American first, much of that capacity will go to waste.

Thanks to the Supreme Court, the only way to remove the stranglehold big money has on our political system may be to amend the Constitution.  So do we need to rally together to make that happen?  Is it even possible?  Will politicians in DC and state legislatures choose to cut off the hand that feeds them?  Or do we need a third party that will counter the Tea Party and raise support for a platform that will fix our fiscal mess while investing in our future?  Is there another way, one that is more unconventional that takes advantage of social networking and the technology of the 21st century to truly transform grassroots activism?

I would love to hear from others who share my frustration and anger.  I especially would love to hear from younger Americans - those in their teens and 20s - who have the most to gain and lose.  You have the power - and the time and energy - to make a real difference.  Time to stand up and be heard!

Wake up, America! Markets Jolted by Oil Surge and Worries Over Slowdown - New York Times

Markets Jolted by Oil Surge and Worries Over Slowdown - New York Times

Oil prices approach $100/barrel on nothing but speculation and fear - prompting overreactions to relatively minor fluctuations in supplies. But what we are really seeing is the convergence of some long-term problems that have been looming over the horizon for years - but largely ignored:

- A weak dollar, which has been embraced to date by the Bush Administration as a way to lower our trade deficit;

- The sub-prime mortgage crisis, the impact of which will be felt it seems for at least another year or two;

- Peak oil and the approaching moment when global demand for oil will surpass supply. The oil market's jitters are, in part, due to the acknowledgement by more and more experts and traders that this moment is just around the corner, if not already here;

- A $9 trillion federal debt that ties the hands of the government when it comes to fixing major problems, responding to economic crises, or investing for the future; and

- The inevitable moment when China's willingness and/or ability to endlessly help finance that debt will end.

So what will it take for us to finally wake up and do something serious about these problems? When will our "leaders" finally start leading?

Is there anyone out there? Hello???

Oil's Recent Rise Not as Familiar as It Looks - washingtonpost.com

Oil's Recent Rise Not as Familiar as It Looks - washingtonpost.com

Interesting and fairly comprehensive article on the recent rise in oil prices. Unlike many/most news articles on the topic, it brings a variety of questions/concerns/perspectives, including the voices warning that demand could soon outpace supply:

Traders say that they are not buying and selling on whims, however. The unusually thin cushion of excess oil production around the world and the rapid growth in consumption in China and India make this rise in prices different from earlier oil price spikes, they argue. That combination, the traders add, leaves the oil markets one incident away from an even steeper increase.

"There is no current shortage, but no one deals on today's market. They make deals based on tomorrow's market. And that's what they're worried about," said Joseph Stanislaw, an oil consultant and senior adviser to the accounting firm Deloitte & Touche.

Can a Plucky U.S. Economy Surmount $80 Oil? - New York Times

Can a Plucky U.S. Economy Surmount $80 Oil? - New York Times

Boy, isn't this one of the biggest questions we face today? With peak oil coming sooner rather than later, the degree to which our economy can handle a spike in oil prices - starting with the much feared $100/barrel mark - without triggering a significant recession or worse remains a great unknown. This article does a great job of exploring this question, though it doesn't even mention peak oil - a frustrating blind spot the media continues to have.

The problem is that we live in a global economy the likes of which we have never seen before and it is constantly changing. The U.S. may still be the world's largest consumer of oil - leading some economists to argue that a recession would in turn trigger lower oil prices - but at some point in the not too distant future China will overtake us in oil consumption. And before we even reach that mark, China and India and other countries will consume enough (and maybe do already) to prop up oil prices even if US consumptions declines in a recession.

Given the uncertainty, however, shouldn't we plan prudently and ratchet up our efforts to develop alternate energy sources, rather than using the uncertainty to ationalize a "do nothing" approach?

A Swiftly Melting Planet - New York Times

A Swiftly Melting Planet - New York Times

Is it me, or doesn't it seem that, in spite of Al Gore and Co. raising awareness about global warming, we continue to whistle past the graveyard? So the Arctic ice cap is melting faster than anticipated. Not a shock to me. And I've got plenty of friends and relatives who, in a change from 2-3 years ago, now list global warming as an urgent problem we need to address. Then they hop in their SUV or fail to buy more energy efficient light bulbs or appliances. Or to switch the electricity supplier to a green alternative (I'm able to get my electricity through a "green" ConEd option using wind and water power). They drive their kids to school instead of having them take the bus. They refuse to car pool. They pay little or no attention to the presidential candidates' positions on global warming or energy policy.

Time for us to hold ourselves and each other accountable. Time to walk the walk, not just talk the talk. Time to start acting like global warming and our addiction to oil are real problems we need to address now, not just paying lip service to sound like we care.

Global Warming and Darfur - More of the same...

On Warming, Bush Vows U.S. 'Will Do Its Part' - washingtonpost.com

President Bush's comments this week on global warming - acknowledging that it is a major challenge and caused by "human activities" while resisting any mandatory goals for reducing greenhouse gases - echoes his record on the genocide in Darfur. Bush has been great - at least when compared to former President Clinton's lies in Bosnia - about calling the atrocities in Darfur a genocide. But he's done little to actually live up to our obligations under the Genocide Convention to stop the mass murder, rapes, and expulsions.

Like peak oil - which is on its way - global warming demands immediate and dramatic investments in alternate fuel technologies, improved federal fuel economy standards, tax incentives for consumers and businesses to go "green," and major diplomatic efforts to bring China and India along as well. We all must come to realize that this is a matter of national security and an opportunity. New energy technologies and greater efficiency and conservation will reap major economy and security benefits for the U.S. and any other country that embraces these challenges rather than ignoring them...

ODAC-Oil Depletion Analysis Centre

ODAC-Oil Depletion Analysis Centre

One of the issues I am most consumer with is peak oil. This web site is for a British organization dedicated to educating the public on oil depletion and related issues. I just took a quick look around, but I saw it referenced in n article I read recently. Supposedly, they issued a report this year with analysis indicating that peak oil production could come in the next 4 years!

The article that really turned me onto this issue was this one by Peter Maass in the NYT in 2005:

http://www.petermaass.com/core.cfm?p=1&mag=124&magtype=1

Peter's always been a favorite of mine and his lengthy analysis on this topic is important and gripping. We do seem to be whistling past the graveyard. I have not heard a major presidential candidate address this in any serious fashion. Yet, if peak oil - or the point where demand outstrips supply - is just over the horizon, we are already far behind where we need to be in terms of deeloping affordable alternate sources of energy. We cannot change our economy from oil-based to something else overnight. The economic disruptions could be dramatic. Add to it the other fundamental economic challenges - $9 trillion federal debt, weak dollar, mortgage and housing crisis, personal debt crisis, infrstructure that needs repiar and replacing (bridges, electrical grid, water and sewage systems), etc. and our ability to deal effectively and efficiently with the peak oil "breaking point" could be quite limited.

So where's the leadership and vision on this issue?