Rarely does a ‘convention’ that draws 600 people get top billing in the media, but the recent ‘National Tea Party Convention’ has accomplished it. By comparison, the annual Star Trek convention in Las Vegas draws 15,000. The costumes are pretty much on par though.

Billed as a Tea Party Convention for ‘delegates’ of the ‘Party’, speakers included some defunct politicians, lead by Sara Palin; and out-and-out racists, like former U.S. representative Tom Tancredo (Colo.).

Nevertheless, I read a lot of the coverage – especially those that posted comments from the attendees. It appeared to me that there are two distinct types of people that consider themselves Tea Party Patriots.

The first type is genuinely worried about a socialist leaning government. They cannot offer one shred of evidence that this administration is any more ‘left’ of center than any previous Administration. And they often admit most all their concern raises from congressional actions (or the lack thereof) rather than any policy or proclamation from the Obama Administration.

The second type is simply the racist bigots. These are usually the more ‘religious right’ – or should I say ‘religious white’ – wherein Obama’s ethnicity is a specter of evil. They interpret Obama’s election as paramount to handing over this white Judeo-Christian U.S.A to a Black Muslim Marxist bent on the destruction of American ideals.

These two will not be able to spend much more time in bed together, no matter how hard the matchmakers at Fox News and the RNC try to keep them in line until the next election.

The political issues we face today – even the lilt of the 2011 budget – gathered steam entirely in the Republican era from 2000-2008. The ground was cultivated, however, by both parties as early as 1984. But the economic history lesson can wait until another time. The point here is that Obama is not, and has never been, the problem for those who genuinely study the facts of the present economic crisis and monumental deficit. They KNOW it has been the right of center policies that lifted controls on financial institutions – and the left of center policies that tried to subsidized the American Dream for millions of unqualified home buyers.

Hopefully soon the two odd fellows in this movement will split and those that recognize the true issues at hand will stop trying to recruit ‘Republican’ converts and start empowering Independent political candidates. For, you see, just 3 Independent U.S. Senators can eliminate the party based inertia syndrome, wherein voting along party lines is the norm and filibuster threats cause political lethargy.

Many believe the grass roots of this country cannot make Washington change. That is wrong. The Tea Party pundits at least have that much right. A complete revolution in all 50 States is not required for significant change to occur. A few well placed votes can upset the status quo. However, they cannot be ‘Republican’ or ‘Democrat’ votes. THAT is what will maintain the status quo, not change it.

I look forward to the day that the sane members of the Tea Party movement join the rest of us that rally against the political Status Quo in Washington. Together we can get our country back on track and elect a few good Americans that work for the People rather than a Party.

JB

References & Sources:

Berger, J. (2010). Article: Tea Party Convention Gives Boost to Newcomer Politicians, FOXNews.com, Retrieved Saturday, February 6, 2010 from: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/02/05/tea-party-convention-gives-boost-aspiring-elected-officials/

Creation Entertainment. (2010). Promotion: The Official STAR TREK Convention 2010, Las Vegas, Nevada, Creation Entertainment, Retrieved Saturday, February 6, 2010 from: http://www.creationent.com/cal/stlv.htm

Gerhart, A.; Rucker, P. (2010). Article: The Tea Party is still taking shape, The Washington Post, Retrieved Saturday, February 6, 2010 from: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/02/05/AR2010020501694.html?hpid=moreheadlines

Meacham, J. (2010). Article: How the Tea Party Could Help All of Us, Newsweek, Retrieved Saturday, February 6, 2010 from: http://www.newsweek.com/id/233182

I’m sitting here this evening watching the CNN election returns on the Massachusetts Senate race. You know the one to fill the late Ted Kennedy’s seat. And to my amazement – the Democrat lost!  How could this be –OMG!!!.

I am just a guilty as any other intellectual leftist that thought the election in Mass was not much more than a formality.  The Tea Party wackos were not going to have any effect on this race!

Sorry ol’ timer… wrong again.

Republican Scott Brown successfully heaped fears of big government, excessive costs, huge tax increases and “nationalized medicine” on Mass voters… and it worked.  Never mind that many of the trappings of the healthcare package were formulated from very successful state insurance commissions and statutes. Never mind that much of the core principles of the healthcare bills – both House and Senate – were those that Ted Kennedy fought for – for decades.  And never mind that both Republican and Democratic controlled congresses have tried to get many of these same laws enacted.

His challenger made absolutely no attempt to give this information to the public. And, Massachusetts is the Insurance Company capital of the U.S.  The Lobby money was absolutely intense.  And yet Obama and the Democrats fiddled.

Brown was affective because Democratic leadership – including Obama – thought that their liberal base would follow their lead. They did not have to educate anyone on the workings of the proposed legislation.  There was no need for the Party to combat the Insurance lobby’s ad campaign.  Not to mention the Right Wing’s scare campaigns – led by crackpots like Limbaugh and Beck – had no chance of swaying the savvy intellectual left.

Right.

If there is one thing that is always going to be true in politics – its that if you ignore someone long enough they will flip on you.  From lobbyists to constituents, it is a political law of nature.   They will switch to the Nazi party if it treats them with respect. I’d keep this from Lieberman.

Obama may be the best communicator since Reagan. But he has not instilled that ‘fire-side chat’ type of trust that you had with Regan or even Roosevelt.  He never quite developed that ‘connection’ to the average American that we all thought he embodied back in 2008.

Most representatives and senators vote however they are told to vote by the party brass. They blindly follow in hopes of getting a treasure trove of support for their next election. There are a few however who think for themselves.  Not getting at least a few independent thinking members of the opposition on board with your policies is usually a recipe for failure.

I truly believe that the Left was so enamored with their sweeping victories in 2008, that they became incongruous persecutors of Republican ideals.  Pelosi and her ilk felt so sure of their superiority that they failed to maintain the essence of the election. That essence was “HOPE”.  They’ve took it away by making a partisan mockery of the problems before us.  They have not tried to keep the hope alive. They needed constant communication with their constituents to inform, educate and solicit feedback. They closed the door and made their deals amongst themselves – sans Republicans, C-SPAN, et al.  The vision of hope, blurred beyond all recognition, was waiting to be resurrected.

And a Republican did it.

So, as one of my favorite mentors would say, my Democratic friends: “We have been presented with an opportunity”.  Not to be viewed as a setback but rather an awakening (imagine if Democrats had not considered this until the mid-terms!).  The Democratic Party has been given a slim chance of resurrecting that which was. The message of hope. A change in the way we face problems and develop solutions.

Mr. Obama… The ball is in your court.  A change in congressional leadership may be in the offing.  But, more to the point, you need to spend time with the American people. News conferences (you remember those) , Q&A sessions (where you do not control the ‘Q’ only the ‘A’ – and try to shorten the ‘A’… boring!), and some good old ‘debates’. Yea, debates. You need to take some of the Republican leadership on – in a public forum – and debate the facts of stimulus, healthcare reform, financial reform, foreign policy… you name it. The time to take your view of government to the people is not ONLY during a political campaign anymore.

Oh, by the way – if you do not have a good argument for the debate at hand… it’s probably not a good position to keep.

We are in the “Information Age”. I thought you Mr. President, of all people, would know that. And keep this in mind, Mr. President, we voted you into office not because we wanted more government – we wanted better government.

Better start ‘informing’ or your whole agenda will be out the window right along with the hope we are losing…

JB

Dwyer, D. (2010). Article: Republican Scott Brown Defeats Democrat Martha Coakley in Mass. Senate Race; ABC News; Retrieved January 19, 2010 from:  http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/republican-scott-brown-defeats-democrat-martha-coakley-massachusetts/story?id=9602776

Babington, C. (2010). Analysis: GOP win forces review of Obama’s mandate; Associated Press; Retrieved January 19, 2010 from:  http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/19/AR2010011903444.html

There’s certainly no lack of political pundits, on the right and left, second-guessing Obama’s 2009 attempts at diplomacy.  From The Middle East to Europe and from Asia to the wars in Iraq & Afghanistan, he is on a mad carousel that gives the term ‘whirlwind diplomacy’ a whole new intensity over the last 10 months.  It seems a lot longer, doesn’t it?

Being a bystander, like so many of us bloggers are, and watching with interest something we know next to nothing about, has its benefits.  It gives one a certain detachment and allows you to see a bigger picture as causes and affects seem to come together.  A ‘method for madness’ seems to form as results come into focus.  Obvious successes and failures can be identified.

We can also easily pick out the idiots.

John Bolton may have been the worst UN Ambassador in history and his recent article in the Taipei Times is clear evidence that he continues to be a pitiful excuse for a political or diplomatic activist.  His bashing of Obama’s Asian trip as a ‘submissive’ & ‘post-American’ exercise was underscored by this quote:

“…Obama’s trip truly was a disappointment. On economics, the president displayed the Democratic Party’s ambivalence toward free trade, even in an economic downturn, motivated by fear of labor-union opposition. On environmental and climate change issues, China, entirely predictably, reaffirmed its refusal to agree to carbon-emission limitations, and Obama had to concede in Singapore that the entire effort to craft a binding, post-Kyoto international agreement in Copenhagen had come to a complete halt.” – John Bolton

A week later China announced the most significant commitment to carbon emission reduction ever made by that country (or any developing country for that matter).

“China actually promised Thursday [26 Nov, 2009] to reduce its ‘carbon intensity,’ a measure of carbon dioxide emissions per unit of gross domestic product, by 40% to 45% by 2020, compared with 2005 levels.” – L.A. Times

What Bolton, and those that share his ideology, seem not to understand, is that these types of concessions and agreements are best served cold.  Months of negotiations and planning preempt these types of successes.  Often a government does not like the connotation that they were ‘strong-armed’ into making a concession. They want it to appear as if it was a product of their diligence, not America’s insistence, that brought about change.

“It’s amazing how much one can accomplish when no one cares who gets the credit.” – Ronald Reagan

Bolton has always been about ‘credit’. Obama’s statements in Singapore were obviously crafted and aligned with Chinese diplomatic needs that required their decision to be unexpected and completely their responsibility.  A move more like genius than naiveté; and a move to which the Bush administration would never have agreed.

In Afghanistan, one can see a change in language and rhetoric emerging as the Obama Administration tries to redefine Bush’s ‘War on Terror’ to a more palatable “combating extremism”.  In his recent speech on Afghanistan, the President cited the “al-Qaeda’s terrorist network” and “acts of terrorism against the Pakistani people”, but not once did he mention the now defunct ‘War on Terror’.  The term used by the Bush administration to justify any transgression, from the invasion of Iraq to the imprisonment of anyone even suspected of extremist sympathies, made the term ‘War on Terror” the laughing stock of the Islamic world.  The very people that are needed if we are to succeed in stopping state sponsored terrorism.

Obama’s biggest critics are, like Bolton, some of the same people that got us into this mess with their fascist style of foreign diplomacy.  None other than Dick Cheney remarked, during his long winded speech defending his “Interrogation techniques”, and other constitutional atrocities in the name of the ‘War on Terror’, that setting an exit strategy would be viewed by Afghans as a weakness.  No one ever told him that not setting one is viewed as an ‘occupation’.  Cheney and his “right blind” ilk have been getting it wrong for 7 years, they need to shut up and let this administration try to fix the mess they made.

While Cheney and others bashed Obama for setting a troop pull-out ‘begin’ date (a date, by the way, purposely ambiguous) NATO and ISAF allies this week announced they will add 7,000 more troops to the cause.  Now why would they do that for this administration while under Bush they made no new commitments since 2006?

Because there was a commitment to a real strategy – rather than an occupation.

Why will the Afghan army make more progress in the next 18 months than they did in the last 6 years?  Because, like Iraq, the knowledge that they are being given the responsibility and accountability for success – will bring about a pride and resolve not demonstrated while under foreign command.  Let us not forget, that the pull-out date in Iraq did not come about until the left wing politic and a presidential candidate by the name of Obama made it a populist movement in the U.S..  The resulting changes in the Iraq army competence and commitment were nothing less than extraordinary.

We also need to discuss the apparent failures of Obama diplomacy.  Like so many before him, Obama appears to have failed to find a simple solution to the Palestinian issue or placate the ‘Arab Street’.

An intractable stance by an Israeli government that considers most of the West Bank and all of Jerusalem part of their ‘Jewish state’, has made a confrontation between Israel and the West in general – and the U.S. in particular – inevitable.  An inevitability that Obama cannot yet address.  His administration is stretched to the limit, as is the U.S. military and world economy.  The Palestinians will have to continue to wait.

However, behind the scenes, where real diplomacy is exercised, the pressure on Israel mounts. The EU has threatened to recognize East Jerusalem as the capital of a Palestinian State. A move that undoubtedly has the hesitant blessings of Obama foreign policy engineers. The chess pieces are being strategically positioned. Don’t be surprised if someone in Israel gets the ‘credit’ for breaking the impasse by 2012.

Iran continues to befuddle even Iranians.  While completely void of outward progress, efforts to limit Iran’s threat to a Middle East nuclear arms race have been ponderous at best. Iran has strategic advantages in not only oil production; but the capability of closing – or at least restricting – the Strait of Hormuz; a key choking point in the world’s oil supply.  The world economy cannot afford a confrontation that threatens the Strait.

What’s going on behind the scenes in Iran is anyone’s guess; but the fact that such a relatively simple goal as freeing three American hikers from Iranian spy charges, has not been achieved, I’d say we are just as frustrated as the Iranian people where their government is concerned.

Both Iran and Israel are extreme opposite examples of how self-delusional ideology can turn into self defeating policy.  These countries, for differing reasons via differing cultures, pose similar threats for dissimilar reasons.  They both invite some type of intervention to break a sociopolitical impasse.  In some cases it simply makes no difference how good a diplomat or negotiator you are, the only real chance for a breakthrough will come from within these countries – not from without. The most important thing a diplomat can do is recognize when intervention will help and when it will not. Know when to hold ‘em and know when to fold ‘em.  Obama is waiting for the flop.

I’m no diplomat. But all-in-all I think the biggest difference between Obama foreign policy and Bush foreign policy is the difference itself.  We are simply not accustomed to treating other nations as equals and allowing others to take credit for success.  We also have not been willing to let other nations clean up their own messes. We may be seeing a change in that approach.  An approach the Bush administration’s so-called professional ‘diplomats’ never thought of.

I just wish our President would learn to do a proper Japanese bow. That one to the Emperor was tragic.

JB

Sources & References:

AKI (2009) Mideast: EU ‘ready to recognise East Jerusalem as Palestinian capital’, AND Kronos International, Retrieved December 5, 2009 from: http://www.adnkronos.com/AKI/English/Security/?id=3.0.4058204456

Bolton, J. (2009). Obama’s self-defeating Asia tour, The Taipei Times, Retrieved December 5, 2009 from: http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/editorials/archives/2009/11/29/2003459714

ISAF. (2009). ISAF placement – Afghanistan, International Security Assistance Force [ISAF] Kabul Afghanistan, Retrieved December 5, 2009 from: http://operatsioonid.kmin.ee/public/files/isaf_placemat.pdf

McChrystal, S. (2009). Commander’s counter insurgency guidance, International Security Assistance Force [ISAF] Kabul Afghanistan, Retrieved December 5, 2009 from: http://www.nato.int/isaf/docu/official_texts/counterinsurgency_guidance.pdf

MOFA (2009). Japan-U.S. Security Arrangements, Ministry of Foreign Affairs [MOFA] of Japan, Retrieved December 5, 2009 from: http://www.mofa.go.jp/region/n-america/us/security/index.html

Pierson, D.; Tankersley, J. (2009). China makes a pledge on greenhouse gas emissions [Corrected], Los Angeles Times, , retrieved December 5, 2009 from: http://www.latimes.com/news/nation-and-world/la-fg-climate-china27-2009nov27,0,3694292.story

Pilling, D. (2009). Hong Kong tiptoes towards democracy, Financial Times, retrieved December 5, 2009 from: http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/3f8086b4-df77-11de-98ca-00144feab49a,dwp_uuid=9c33700c-4c86-11da-89df-0000779e2340.html?nclick_check=1

PRA (2009). Profile of John Bolton; Political Research Associates, retrieved December 5, 2009 from: http://www.rightweb.irc-online.org/profile/Bolton_John

Sheridan, M. (2009). NATO allies pledge 7,000 more troops for Afghanistan mission, The Washington Post, Retrieved December 5, 2009 from: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/12/04/AR2009120400621.html

Every President and Vice President must invoke the “SPT” at least once every 90 days or so. I think that is written somewhere in the Presidential Job Description Digest (more popularly known as the PJDD).

Now, the PJDD has several sections on SPT.  They range from idiocy -

“It isn’t pollution that’s harming the environment. It’s the impurities in our air and water that are doing it.” [Vice President Dan Quayle]

To verbal missteps –

“…attraction of capital – that is really the best antidote for poverty.” [G.W. Bush]

To insensitivity –

“A tree is a tree. How many do you need to look at?”  [Reagan when opposing National Forest Preservation bill]

“African Americans watch the same news at night that ordinary Americans do.” [Bill Clinton remarking about the new BET television channel]

And misinformation –

“No public money was used.” [Reagan when explaining the $4Million price tag for his elaborate inauguration]

I am not the only one in history that has found it ironic that the very people we entrust our futures and security to are often less than thoughtful.  Congress is so full of choice stupidity that there is certainly a CJDD for them as well -

“Suppose you are an idiot,” Mark Twain offered, “and suppose you are a member of congress. But I repeat myself.”

We can’t entirely blame our representatives – for they are us and we are them. In 1998 a senatorial candidate from Oklahoma died a month before the election. He received 56,000 votes.

All this brings me the reason for this post.

In my opinion, Obama is one of the best presidents we have had in recent memory (and I have a long memory) – but he apparently is also bound by the SPT directives in the PJDD.   This is evident by his foot-in-mouth position in the case of the arrest of a seriously contentious Harvard professor friend of his; to the declaration that “We must sustain a balanced budget” – the day after he pushed a deficit laden $700Billion stimulus bill through congress.

But maybe his best SPT to date is the latest. One in which he insists that businesses will hire more workers if congress passes healthcare reform legislation.

In all five (5) bills now being studied in congress, no actual ‘reforms’ will take place for two years.

I’m not sure which SPT section of the PSDD this belongs in.  Maybe Obama is trying to get points for multiple section compliance. Maybe “Missteps, Insensitivity and Misinformation” all at once.

Those that have read these proposed bills and those millions that have lost – and continue to lose – jobs, find none of this funny or truthful – and certainly not reassuring.

JB

More to Read:

http://www.bostonherald.com/news/us_politics/view.bg?articleid=1202059″>http://www.bostonherald.com/news/us_politics/view.bg?articleid=1202059

http://article.wn.com/view/2009/10/03/Obama_says_businesses_will_hire_more_workers_if_Congress_pas/

http://74.125.47.132/search?q=cache:_dl7a7hzVRAJ:www.just-english.ru/politicians_errors.doc+dumbest+things+said+president+clinton&cd=7&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

While Obama was making the talk show circuit this last weekend, Bill Clinton was on Larry King (CNN) and he fielded many questions with a certain candor. But one thing I found interesting; when asked if conservatives disagreed with Obama because he was African-American or a Democrat, Clinton remarked “I believe if he were white, every single person who opposes him now, would be opposing him then.”

I tend to agree. The larger question is: would Republicans that oppose him still oppose him if he were Republican? I say Not.

While a discourse on some of the disillusioned “Town Hall” bigots – that have no clue what health reform is or could even understand it if they read any of the proposals – is a popular shock-jock talk show topic; the bigger problem is all those old white folks in congress that hate all the other old white folks in congress – because of their party affiliation.

Politics is always messy. But it gets downright chaotic if you sprinkle some lobbyist money around (like $3Billion in the last 90 days!) on misleading infomercials and downright lies in scare mailings to senior citizens. Stir up some racial bigots, then put on the pressure from the National Committee, the campaign contributors and the party leadership – and well you have an unthinking, kneejerk jerk congressman or senator, representing you in one the most critical moments in American history.

According to the Washington Post, Ninety 90% of ALL House members vote the party line on ALL legislation. Ninety three 93% of the Democrats’ and eighty seven 87% of the Republicans ALWAYS voted against the other party. No matter WHAT the topic or legislation before them. The Senate is within about 4% of the same numbers.

To show you how immature and arcane this process is, imagine getting 20 people off the street. Let’s say our only criteria are that they are educated and ‘normal’ – whatever that is. Twenty average Joes and Janes, like you and me. Average everyday folks. Just to equate things better – let’s make them 18 non-African-American and 2 African-American. That’s close to the mix in the congress (House & Senate).

We need to keep them apart – they do not know about any of the others. They must act independently.

Now, ask their opinion on a range of issues. Have them vote their conscience and belief. How probable do you think it would be to always get 11 for and 9 against? Or 9 for and 11 against? Or frequently – 10 for and 10 against?

Now imagine that most of those that vote against a proposal ALWAYS vote against ALL proposals – and most that vote for a proposal ALWAYS vote in favor of EVERY proposal?

Almost sounds impossible does it not? If these people had no outside influence and no affiliation with anyone involved in the decision making process – the statistics cited in the Washington Post would be nearly impossible to achieve – outside of politics.

Those Joes and Janes I cited here are what politicians call constituents. They can be lied to, promised anything and bought off with political influence. Once their vote is cast or their contribution is collected, Joe and Jane have little, if any, influence on a politicians actions once in office. Once there, the Party, and the Party’s suitors, take over. Vote against the Party and your last election will be, well – your last election.

I don’t think it is within the power of us Joes and Janes to change partisan politics. But it is within our power to elect more Independent candidates. That is not easy.  Party resources are extensive and the influence of special interests on behalf of these Parties is enormous. Smear campaigns and misinformation campaigns can be formulated at the drop of a hat. Huge amounts of money can buy expert ‘opinions’ and manufacture ‘facts’ that no unprepared individual can defend against.

Political reform can only come from the grass roots. That’s you and me. Do us all a favor in the next election – look close and long at the Independent candidates. Draw your own conclusions and resist media blitz campaigns by the Parties. If true reform ever comes, it will come when neither of the national Parties have a majority.

JB

More to Read:

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/09/21/bill.clinton.larry.king/index.html

http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/111/house/party-voters/

During his recent visit to the U.S. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, said he would never make peace with Hamas. That is like saying that the U.S. will never make peace with North Korea, Iran or Soviet Russia.

Making peace with one’s enemies is a necessary part of responsible governance.  Engaging one’s enemies on the field of battle is easy. Engaging them in diplomacy and negotiation is the test of true leadership.

I am the son of a Jew and a staunch defender of Israel’s right to exist in peace and security.  I am also an American that has had about all he can stand of Imperial Israel.

As president Obama is embroiled in domestic battles over health reform and the war in Afghanistan, he cannot afford to burn the political candle at both ends. So it is not expected that a hard-line stance will be postured toward Israel – yet.  But soon; very soon, I expect the Obama administration to announce an alliance with the Palestinians that will shake the very foundations of Israeli-U.S. relations.

And it’s about friggin’ time.

If the Obama administration does not, it will be because of a political fire storm – not a matter of right or wrong.

In many ways, I tend to agree with Netanyahu. Hamas is a bunch of organized crime jerks that have more invested in their protection racket in Gaza than in the fate and hopes of the Palestinian people. Like many in the Middle East, Hamas brokers power from its opposition to Israel.  And power is money. Power is influence.  A cessation of hostility means a cessation of power.

Israel can reduce Hamas’ power by giving aid and comfort to the average Palestinian. By agreeing to non-aggression packs and dealing with Hamas as a ‘hostel entity’ but nevertheless deal with them and pursue agreements that dilute Hamas’ power. They instead strengthen Hamas by taking an imperial approach to dealings. And it is neither in their best interest or the Palestinian people’s best interest to do so.

If Israel took the position that they would “Deal with the Devil” if it meant a secure and prosperous Middle East… they would find many more options for dealing with Hamas than they find today.

Hamas will be its own destruction when Israel is no longer a threat to a Palestinian state. The same is true of Hezbollah, Iran and other extremists. An aggressive and assertive push for an autonomous Palestinian state will pull the legs out from under Israel’s staunchest foes. The U.S. and the E.U. will champion any attempt to create such a state. Israel could ‘steamroll’ its enemies with a powerful diplomatic agenda.

But alas, they will not. Because they are so near-sighted and narcissistic, they will push some of their most avid supports into guarantees of security for a Palestinian state. If they do not move to make such guarantees themselves, the U.S. and E.U. may very well have to do so unilaterally.

JB

More to Read:
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/09/22/obama-lays-groundwork-peace-israel-palestinians/

I have always been of the opinion that of all the energy alternatives in our future (http://www.aberantnews.org/?p=172), the most viable and applicable was electric.  From personal transportation to energy independent homes and nationwide commerce, a rapid (relatively) move to an all-electric solution would be the most beneficial alternative of any possibility.

Forget hydrogen, bio fuels and those hybrid solutions that require a massive system of creation/refining, transport, storage and distribution – the electric revolution can be fueled by the sun and rechargeable, removable, replaceable batteries.

The drawbacks, however, with today’s technology are twofold: Electricity generation and battery technology.  Several major hurdles remain:

1. Recharging from utility power grids would require an electricity delivery grid two times the size and three times more efficient that those of today. In an era where local heat waves cause frequent power blackouts and brownouts, you can imagine the impact of 300 million car chargers.
2. Augmentation of our power grid with solar energy, nuclear energy and a host of ‘green energy’ technologies are not only extremely costly but will take decades, if not centuries, to satisfy demand on such a scale.
3. Solar cell technology has a very poor history of efficiency and modern mobile generators require combustible fuels to be effective. So the on-board vehicle power generation alternative is still a ‘work in progress’.
4. Battery life and toxic disposal issues will keep long range applications and recycling costs out of the reach of the average person.  Without a way to keep large powerful batteries at or near peek charge constantly, electric over the road commerce and totally energy independent homes will be difficult to realize.

Two technologies will lead us to total electric residence and transport: Photoelectric solar cell technology; and battery storage technology.  If solar cells can keep batteries at peak charge during daylight hours – rain or shine; and if bio-degradable, recyclable batteries can hold a charge capable of providing peak efficiency for 12 hours… We have the answer to 95% of the technical issues.

Another huge factor has nothing to do with technical hurdles; it has to do with purely economic issues.  The economic impact of the energy status quo is formidable; especially where vehicles are concerned. Millions of jobs, billions of dollars in revenue, taxes and economic benefits are generated from today’s fossil fuel driven energy system. From oil companies, refineries and international oil commerce – to the local gas station and the nation-wide transport and pipeline infrastructure – today’s vehicular energy delivery and consumption network generates or influences nearly 20% of our GNP.  And the products and services it provides impacts 100% of the business that drive our economy.

Needless to say the politics of energy may be a much more formidable deterrent to rapid electric solutions discovery than technology.  But there is the knowledge that fossil fuels, by their very definition, will not last forever.  So the future is clear.  It is inevitable.  Within our lifetime refined fossil fuels will become simply too rare and too expensive to burn in your car – or anywhere else for that matter.

Just as necessity and abundance brought the rise of the oil industry in the 18^th century, scarcity and necessity will be its demise in the 21st – if we don’t stop burning oil.  And oil companies know it.

What many people do not know is that today’s modern crude oil refineries produce nearly 100 different products from petroleum.  Only a handful of these products produce energy.  Many of the needs of the petrochemical and lubricant industries will not be met by alternative fuels.  Saving the world’s supply of petroleum for future generations is almost as important as eliminating our dependence on oil for personal energy needs.

And let’s be realistic.  We will probably NOT see a battery in our lifetime that will power a modern Boeing 757 airliner, move a train cross country or propel a rocket… so the need for combustible fuel research and creating an upscale electric grid will remain.  So when I say we need to build an all-electric solution to our energy needs, I am speaking of personal vehicles, over-the-road commerce and private residences.  Solar cell and battery technology are cornerstones of this transformation.

Here at the crossroads of energy policy in the U.S. we must fund research into localized power generation and battery technology. That means solar cells and batteries.  Let’s all call on our congressional representatives and senators to ‘push the envelope’ on research and development in these two technologies and do it NOW.

JB

More to Read:

http://gas2.org/2009/09/11/algae-based-non-metallic-batteries-could-revolutionize-energy-storage-industry/

http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=solar+cell+advances&hl=en&um=1&ie=UTF-8&oi=scholart

Our future is our children. We have heard that a million times. I’m here to tell you that our future is still in jeopardy.  It may even be in grave danger.

On Tuesday, September 8^th, 2009 President Barak Obama is scheduled to telecast a message to all elementary students in public schools in the U.S.  Many conservative republicans have labeled the speech subversive – aimed at indoctrinating the fragile youth of America.

This telecast has been in the works for some time.  The U.S. Department of Education and the White House have been discussing the key factors involved in school drop outs, low test scores, drug use, etc.  Obama, a social worker in the streets of Chicago, knows all too well the challenges facing parents and teachers in today’s violent and polarized world.

Politically, I have issues with some (not all) of Obama’s views. But I am secure in the knowledge that the President does not make laws, the congress does. He does not levee or remove taxes, the congress does.  Even the Education Secretary had to be approved by congress.  So if I have an issue – I know who to talk to: The people who actually write the laws and build social reforms, enact legislation, levee taxes.. You know – the ones who are always complaining about Obama… Humm.. I think I see a pattern here.

But I digress… Back to this subversive speech…

The speech will have an impact. Two impacts to be precise.

The first will be on black youth in America.  They will listen because Obama is an icon of the equality they so desperately seek.  They will listen and many may very well be saved from a life of ignorance, crime and poverty because of it.

The second impact will be on children of racist white parents.  Those parents that have unleashed their poison racial hatred under the guise of political opposition. They call themselves “conservative republicans” that fear “socialist brainwashing” of their children.  When in reality, they are the brainwashers of children. Their own. They teach them hate with a constant bombardment – daily – of anti-government sentiment and anti-black rhetoric.  I hear it all the time. If they are strangers I usually say something. I’m not one to back down from a fight. But when they are family… I stay quiet.  Too much rests on keeping my mouth shut.

Our children are in danger; not from a one hour long speech from a historic president – but from years of indoctrination, political dogma and racial hatred of the “right wing Christians” with such inane remarks as: “I don’t want our school turned over to some socialist movement.” [Brett Curtis, Pearland Texas]; or “I wouldn’t let my next-door neighbor talk to my kid alone; I’m sure as hell not letting Barack Obama talk to him alone.” [Chris Stigall, Kansas City]; “Indoctrination” say pundits on FoxNews; “Brainwashing” is the word of the day on Rush Limbaugh… and it goes on and on.

I have this to say to these idiots.  First.. Mr. Curtis, most ‘movements’ take longer than an hour; second; Mr. Stigall, where I grew up all the neighbors looked out for each other.  Everyone’s kids were at everyone’s homes ALL THE TIME. We ate with our childhood friends and neighbors, we slept over, went to the drive in – with whichever family was going… it was a “neighborhood”.  Because of people like Mr. Stigall and Mr. Curtis, we have a much less rich and much more ‘brainwashed’ set of children today. Parents control their kid’s thoughts and their aspirations like nothing I can remember in my life.  And I grew up during the Cold War when we had nuclear bomb “hide under your desk” drills every month. Tell me that didn’t freak out a 12 year old.

Yes “conservative republicans” – or whatever you un-American racists are calling yourselves these days – your children are in danger – from the person in the mirror.

JB

Sources & References

McKinley, J. (2009). Some Parents Oppose Obama School Speech, New York Times, retrieved September 5, 2009, from:  http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/04/us/04school.html?em

ED.gov. (2009). President Barack Obama to Make Historic Speech to America’s Students, U.S. Department of Education, retrieved September 5, 2009, from http://www.ed.gov/admins/lead/academic/bts.html

CNN (2009). White House set to release text of controversial Obama school speech, CNN Wire,retrieved September 7, 2009, from: http://cnnwire.blogs.cnn.com/2009/09/07/white-house-set-to-release-text-of-controversial-obama-school-speech-2/

Downloadable video of the speech will be made available at http://www.whitehouse.gov/mediaresources/ as well as on www.ed.gov . C-SPAN.org  will provide archived and “on-demand” viewing options

Ok, so how many ‘clunkers’ will this C4C Act actually take off the road?  Let’s do some math (a practice lost on many of the unwashed bloggers out there).

With the recent injection of another $2Billion, the C4C program now has $3billion.  It provides from $3,500 to $4,500 guaranteed trade in. Only 7% of the entire $3bl can be used for light trucks – it’s meant as a ‘family car’ stimulus.  Many reasons for this, not the least of which are: Truck sales are withstanding the downturn much better; there are less inventories of trucks; and the difference in gas mileage between a 20yr old F150 and a 3yr old F150 is nominal.

For sake of this illustration we will use an average of $4,000 per vehicle; or 750,000 vehicles ($3Bil / $4k = 750,000). So we are looking at taking about three quarters of a million clunkers in trade for new cars.

As of 2005 the U.S. alone manufactured about 5 million cars and 7 million trucks annually (12mil vehicles a year). Looking at just cars (the C4C target) we will assume the U.S. manufactured about 4 million autos a year for the last 25 years – That’s a nice round 100million vehicles produced in the U.S. Imports roughly matched exports over the period, so we will stick with roughly 100million autos ‘on-the-road’ since 1984.

If we assume that 80% of that production is still on the road, we have about 80million clunkers – as defined by the 25yr rule in the C4C Act.  That means the cash for clunkers program affects less than 9/10ths of one percent (.0095% to be exact) of the production over the 25yr period.

So the C4C is obviously not about minimizing ‘clunker impact’ on the environment.  Although, the 4 to 10 mpg higher MPG requirements will have an impact, of sorts, on gas consumption. In example, an overall average gain of 7mpg for each of the 750,000 vehicles would amount to 5,250,000 more miles per gallon.  Not a bad number.

Ok, we can put down the calculators now.  I just wanted to make a point: The C4C program is all about reducing inventory of new cars. Period. It has some nominal side effects, but its target is the auto glut in the nation’s dealerships.

Here’s some facts around the auto inventory:  For those of you that cry about U.S. manufactured vehicles not given favoritism; foreign car makers manufacture a lot of vehicles in the U.S., and 60% of the auto industry employment in the U.S. comes directly or indirectly through foreign auto sales.  U.S. auto manufactures (both U.S. owned and foreign owned) export more vehicles that we import (81.5% of production exports vs. 71.8% imports) so the affect of foreign auto manufacturing, sales and export on this economy is greater than the affect of U.S. auto industry – especially after the recent plummet in manufacturing at GM & Chrysler. If C4C were focused only on U.S. brands, it would fail as a stimulus.

There is also a myopic view by some right wingers that stimuli that “favor some industries at the expense of others” is ineffective and somehow unfair. This view fails to take into consideration all the supply chain and service chain functions that follow manufacturing and employment – no matter what the industry.

As inventories decline, demand will have the effect, in time, of reigniting manufacturing.  In turn, the suppliers to these manufactures will start seeing their excess inventory of parts and components dwindle as manufacturing ramps back up.  Industry suppliers will need to soon replenish through the extensive Just-in-Time (JIT)  supply chains that support the industry.  Even at below normal manufacturing output, employment and the services that support the employees will be better off than at zero output – as many manufacturing plants have all but stopped production with the current inventory glut.

I also read a blog from a pretty good blogger (you know, one of those that finds time to research and actually ‘think’) about the loss of the clunker as a social crutch for the poor (can’t afford new cars – must buy used) with all the inventory of clunkers being traded in (the C4C requires the vehicles be recycled – they cannot be resold).  But as I noted before, the real impact on the used care market (that has its own inventory glut right now anyway) is less then 1%.

This same blogger must be my age. He remembers “the art of reviving and coaxing old cars as a boyhood ritual” – and laments the loss of ‘all those clunkers’ that today’s youth will not be able to keep running after their prime.  Have you looked under the hood of the vehicles made in the last 20 years?  You need a computer degree, a plumber’s license and a shop full of unique tools & equipment for each component on the vehicle.  I’ll challenge any shade tree mechanic out there to change the spark plugs on a 2001 Taurus in the 15 minutes it took me to change the ones on my 1966 Plymouth Valiant slant six!

I installed my own Hurst shifter, Holly 4BBL Double pumper and Hooker Headers on my ’71 Mustang Fastback 351 Cleveland – now THAT was a car! I looked under the hood of a 2009 Mustang at a dealership not long ago. I cried for a week.

My friend, the C4C is not what has ruined “the art of reviving and coaxing old cars as a boyhood ritual” – it’s Technology.

JB

References and Sources

CARS. (2009). Helpful Q&As for Consumers, The Car Allowance Rebate System (CARS), retrieved August 8, 2009 from: http://www.cars.gov/faq

Miron, J. (2009).  Commentary: Cash for clunkers is a clunker, CNNPolitics.com, retrieved August 8, 2009 from: http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/08/03/miron.clunkers/index.html?iref=hpmostpop

NationMaster. (2009). North America; United States; Industry – Manufacturing, NationMaster.com International Statistics, retrieved August 8, 2009 from: http://www.nationmaster.com/country/us-united-states/ind-industry

Raach, C. (2009). Clunkers used to build American pride; The Daily News Journal, retrieved August 8, 2009 from:  http://www.dnj.com/article/20090807/OPINION02/908070316/RAASCH++Clunkers+used+to+build+American+pride

First of all, it’s important to understand that this Act, as written today, is as much a framework as it is a specific set of laws and edicts.

Four yet-to-be-assembled organizations will control the administration, coverage, limits, costs and applicability to individual plans – both public and private.  They will have two years to get established, become operational, and provide specific details on administration and operation before the “Act” kicks in.  These four organizations are:

1. The Health Choices Administration headed by the Health Choices Commissioner (Commissioner).  An independent organization (operating much like the Social Security Administration) the Commissioner is appointed by the President and ratified by the Senate.  The Commissioner establishes the rules governing access to, and the provisions of, personal medical insurance coverage in the U.S..  Overall, the Commissioners power to control insurance providers (including Medicare & Medicaid) is exceptional.
2. The Health Insurance Exchange (Exchange) – it is essentially the government’s public insurance portal. The competition to private single carrier insurance, if you will. State based exchanges are encouraged – but not mandated.  The Exchange is established by, and reports through, the Health Choices Administration.
3. The Office of the Special Inspector General for the Health Insurance Exchange.  At this juncture, there is no way to insure that the Act will deliver on the promises to lower costs and improve coverage. Thus, an independent oversight office was established to annually audit the Exchange and report findings to the Commissioner and Congress.  I thought it was interesting that the Special Inspector General office was established for only the first five years of the Act.
4. The Health Benefits Advisory Committee (HBAC). Chaired by the Surgeon General, the HBAC has up to 26 members. It is an independent panel that is appointed by the president (up to 17) and the Comptroller General (9).  Three year terms for each member.

The HBAC can only advise The Dept of Health & Human Services (HHS) and the Commissioner on the definition of benefit standards and the level of cost sharing for premium and enhanced plans.  But I expect that advice will carry the power of an edict.  Low is the political career of any HHS Secretary or Commissioner that does not heed the advice of the HBAC

The Commissioner is a Kingpin of sorts and appoints several others; such as the Qualified Health Benefits Plan (QHBP) Ombudsman – a central complaints department for any individual or business that has a problem with a QHBP provider.

Before I get too far along here, we need to understand the QHPB.  It appears that all insurance plans (covering more than one person or one business) in the U.S. will need to be “QHPB” certified – but they do not need to be part of the Insurance Exchange.  “QHPB” certified means only that the plan meets the minimum coverage outlined in the Act.

The QHPB “Minimum Standard Plan” (Sec 122 (b)) includes hospitalization, emergency treatment, outpatient and preventive care, as well as a basic prescription plan.  This minimum coverage includes wellness care, vision & dental for those under the age of 21. So the “Minimum Plan” is pretty comprehensive from a content point of view. However, actual coverage, costs, co-pays, etc. – will be determined by the Commissioner (see what I mean about a framework? – A lot of detail TBD).

An insurance plan must be a “QHBP Offering” to be offered by the Exchange as a public plan.  By default, it appears, Medicare and Medicaid will be QHBP Offerings.  Any insurance company that wants to participate in the insurance Exchange program must submit their proposed “QHBP Offering” to the Exchange for approval – much like a Request for Proposal (RFP) is submitted for contract consideration.

It is obviously the hope of the authors of the Act that all national health insurers, and most state and local insurers, will place QHBP offerings with the Exchange – thus diluting their risk and improving their premium base – throughout the U.S..

The exchange will set up a ‘Trust Fund” that gets filled by tax credits, premium payments and tax collections. The Exchange pays the QHPB providers from this fund for policyholders that qualify for premium assistance.

There are provisions for State or regional Exchanges that will preempt the national exchange program. It is not clear how the Commissioner with administer and regulate these exchanges.

The Secretary of HHS also has a lot of preparation. This includes working with the Commissioner and the Labor Department on a major study on how to keep small and medium business from self-insuring to avoid taxes or payments to the exchange.  This could be a big deal. A topic for another day.

Here’s an eye catcher: Insurance Company profit from QHPB premiums are to be controlled! (Section 116).  A substantial portion (“substantial” to be defined by the Commissioner) of the premiums paid must go to patient care. If an insurer exceeds the profit margin on any plan in a given year, they will have to return the difference to policy holders.  This section is trying to address the issue of insurance companies routinely denying claims and limiting payments to improve profits.

However, the minimum actuarial value for standard minimum QHPB with no cost-sharing is 70% (Section 122).  This might be seen by insurers as a baseline for a 30% ROR (rate of return) on premiums applicable to Sec 116.  That’s higher than the industry reports today!  Enhanced and Premium plans will have cost-sharing limited to 85% and 95% respectively.  So it’s really all over the board as to what the profit margin should be.  The problem is that the actual margin will be dictated by the Exchange Commissioner – sometime over the next 18 months. The reason for the Special Inspector General becomes clearer.

From an industry point of view, I could find no provisions for the establishment of arbitration or appeal processes to Commissioner “rulings’ on profit restriction.  That is sure to get attention by the Republicans in the Senate.

CONCLUSIONS

Well, there’s the “quick and dirty” on the “Healthcare Reform” Act.  It has 243 subtitles spanning three sections. So there’s a lot of detail I did not think was critical – yet. It’s pretty compact by government standards. It won’t stay that way.  The Senate is sure to pump it up by an unnecessary 50%.  If they didn’t they would not be necessary.

My take is that it is an expensive gamble.  We will not know for three years if it is likely to pan out.  More like a NASA project than Health Reform in that regard.

However, I am hopeful, because we need to be hopeful.  The Act is banking on one thing: Greed.  And as long as the Senate does not dilute that, it may just work.  The Act is betting that insurance companies would rather have volume than margin.  It’s the McDonald’s economic approach wherein you would rather make .50cents each on a million hamburgers than $10 each on 1000 hamburgers. ($500,000 vs. $10,000).

You see, that’s the real solution in a capitalist society.  More is less and less is more. The over-quoted “win-win” scenario.  In this scenario a greater portion of individual premiums go to care providers; nearly everyone gets insurance; individuals get more coverage for their money; insurance company stockholders get more return for theirs; the government gets a net-zero trust fund and American business is no longer holding the bag.

Looks good on paper.

But if insurance companies would rather have the status quo – or individuals don’t want government insurance – the whole cost will go to the taxpayer and the deficit. Disaster and success share a common bed.  It also assumes that individuals and businesses will comply by joining the Exchange. You know what they say about assumptions.

A lot of ‘ifs’.  If you have a better idea… let me know.

JB

References and Sources

HR3200. (2009). The Library of Congress, Thomas Bills & Resolutions, Retrieved August 1, 2009, from: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c111:h3200: