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