Countdown to Copenhagen

I got this countdown clock at the UNFCCC website. The successor to the Kyoto Protocol will be negotiated in Copenhagen next year, and will probably set the rules until 2020 or so. If the rules are wrong, then we'll have another wasted decade of not dealing with climate change, digging ourselves in deeper, and possibly dooming much of the planet. (hey, are there any good reality shows on TV?)

Cap'n Dividend

Introducing Captain Dividend! A new superhero to rescue civilization from an evil economy that emits too many greenhouse gases (dramatic music in the background). Instead of "stronger than a locomotive," this guy utilizes an upstream cap, 100% auctioning of permits, and cash dividends returned to consumers on a per capita basis. (see the women swooning as he describes carbon market design) Nice biceps and pecs. (Remind you of a certain governor, but without the accent?)

Note: I had to use Mozilla Firefox and download a Flash Player plug in for the animation to work.

Monetary Reform to address the Financial Crisis

Here are my recommendations to the President and Treasury Secretary for how to handle the financial crisis:

1. Government should bailout the people, not the corporations. Why give more money to Wall Street, when average people are struggling to pay their mortgages? Investment in green infrastructure jobs will build the economy. Stimulus checks unattached to anything are inflationary, but other types of payments should be implemented, including the Sky Trust, which would reward people for reducing their greenhouse gas emissions.

2. If government acts as the short-term investor of last resort, it must demand several things in return: a) stock that will be owned by the American taxpayers, held in trust, and that will pay dividends to all Americans equally on a per capita basis, similar to ESOPs and the ideas listed by Jeff Gates in his book "The Ownership Solution," b) enforceable pledges and action plans from companies to alter their business practices towards sustainability for the next 30-50 years, and their bailouts would be contingent on the companies' progress towards sustainability goals, especially for high-GHG-emitting companies like General Motors, c) demand that companies receiving bailouts reduce their ridiculous executive compensation back to normal levels and implement a common sense ratio between the lowest paid employee and the highest as advocated by Ben Cohen, d) oversight and prosection to limit the obvious corruption that follows any disbursement of hundreds of billions of dollars, e) when necessary, fire the executives who caused the problems and install new, more trustworthy leadership.

3. Convene a monetary reform group that would offer recommendations to change the following unsustainable parts of the monetary system: a) fractional reserve banking, b) debt as the only backing for our fiat currency, c) the positive compound interest rate that impoverishes people and causes poor people to pay rich people in order to rent the currency that should actually be a public utility.

4. Implement monetary reform with some of the following characteristics: a) create a local currency that circulates only at the regional level, supporting locally owned businesses and services, b) allow states to issue currency instead of just bonds that must be repaid with interest, c) alter the national currency so that it can be issued as a public service backed by something besides debt and without the positive compounding interest rate - some possibilities are the JAK banking model, d) initiate the creation of an energy-backed currency unit for foreign exchange transactions, based on the EBCU energy backed currency unit advocated by FEASTA.

Rumsfeld Invaders moves to MCSandlerbrau.com

The Rumsfeld Invaders website, featuring a fun video game based on the Atari 2600's famous Space Invaders, has moved a new home at MCSandlerbrau.com. The website move was prompted by the fact that Rumsfeld's accomplices, Residents Bush and Cheney, will be leaving the White House soon. Though Rumsfeld Invaders was conceived during a dark time in our nation's history, the move to MCSandlerbrau.com represents an audacious hope that our country has reached a turning point. With such change (if we can believe in it, and I truly hope that yes, we can), this website will undergo a parallel transformation into a new era of activism, humor, and creativity.

It's been a tough 7 years, as shown by the 57,000 people who have played the Rumsfeld Invaders game to relieve their frustration at all the lies, wars, and swagger. Let's hope, audaciously, for the next 7 years of truth, peace, and humility. Let's hope for 7 (or even 70) years of clean water, sustainability, renewable energy, fuel efficiency, climate protection, social justice, green jobs, healthy lives, quality education, financial and monetary reform, and real homeland security.

Click here to play Rumsfeld Invaders.

Bail-Outs, or Susta-Ins?

"Bailout" has two meanings: help and escape. Although the government claims it is trying to help the financial industry escape its debt burden, there is much more going on. As our Rumsfeld Invaders blog has been saying for years now, part of the reason for the Iraq War is to run high federal budget deficits in order to de-fund and prevent government social spending far into the future. The military budget, along with Homeland Security, and now these "bail outs" run up the deficit, which devalues the dollar, which pressures the Fed to raise interest rates, which rewards wealthy bond holders but hurts the middle class and low-income families. Similarly, giving or lending hundreds of billions of dollars to the largest financial companies will put the taxpayer on the hook to the wealthiest stockholders of banks instead of helping those in need. So, it's class warfare, plain and simple.

When I graduated college over ten years ago I was concerned about "selling out to the Man." This is a term often repeated at Berkeley which refers to becoming a pawn in someone else's corporate game. The danger is that selling out results in the subversion of humane values to corporate values. An idealistic students finds himself working (possibly for 40 years) on behalf of faceless financial greed, social and environmental exploitation, and the perpetuation of hundreds of years of Anglo-European imperialism.

The opposite of "selling out" is "buying in." But "buying in" is not easily discovered. Its not so easy to find organizations that allow you to work for social and environmental sustainability, but the optmistic view says that more people and organizations are looking to do this every day.

The connection to the bail out is that instead of bailing out risky financial institutions, let's use those hundreds of billions to support sustainability. Instad of Bail-Out, let's Susta-In. It's public money, so let's use it in the public interest.

By the way, and I'll probably devote a longer blog post to this soon, but the monetary system is based on the creation of debt. Money is created when debt is created. Money is backed by debt. When the debt disappears, money disappears. Fractional reserve banking mean the banks only need to cover 10% or less of their outstanding loans with collateral, so if a fraction of loans cease to be re-paid, then banks quickly become insolvent. The interest rate makes this process even more unstable, because loans must be re-paid with positive compound interest, but the money to pay the interest is only created through more loans with more interest due. So, there is a compounding snowball of debt that follows everyone around. This is the cause of much societal distress. Should we "save" this system? Or let the debt-interest monetary system self-destruct (as it perpetually does), and build a more sustinable monetary system built on equality and long-term sustainability? For more information, here's a link to a great essay by FEASTA that discusses a global monetary reform in more detail.

Rawls from "The Wire" ran the FBI Anthrax Case; What about Cheney?

A character named Rawls in the TV show "The Wire" is a "careerist" whose main priority is to get his clearance rate up. He pushes his employees to close cases as fast as they can, regardless of whether they solve the crimes, improve the city, or get any justice. Whenever Detective McNulty or anyone else in his unit shows any initiative, Rawls humiliates or demotes him. The FBI Anthrax case was run by Rawls.

A lone gunman (bioscientist)? What was his motive? Why target Daschle and Leahy, and the media? Our country would fall apart without the concept of "a few bad apples." From the genocide of the Native Americans to Abu Ghraib, the "few bad apples" hypothesis has allowed those in power to point to a scape goat, close the case, and spare the American people the difficulty of asking deeper questions.

The lone bioscientist (who committed suicide and so can't deny it) is convenient for several reasons. First, the FBI can close the case, making Rawls very happy. Second, a closed case precludes asking any inconvenient questions. It's possible that the Anthrax mailings were overseen by people high up in the government (aka Cheney with Ashcroft's help), and the lone bioscientist is a red herring.

Here's the case for Cheney. You tell me if it's any less speculative than the case for Ivins. Cheney told Leahy to "go f- himself" on the Senate floor. The Senate was 50-49 at the time, due to Jeffords defection, and one less Democrat would make Cheney the tie-breaker and swing the Senate to the Republicans. Post-9-11, Cheney had a long agenda, and he had Ashcroft nearby to consult with. Ashcroft had lots of experience masterminding the plane crash of Gov. Mel Carnahan two weeks before his own electoral defeat in 2000, and a possibly connection to Sen. Wellstone's crash as well (I'm willing to add a conditional to this part of the conspiracy theory). Cheney was far enough up the chain of command that any of his orders would be unquestioned by someone at Ivins' level. Even if the mail did not reach it's target, Cheney would consider the operation a success if it prolonged the fear of terrorism or expanded the list of threats to include bio-terrorism so that the Congress and the American people would support the Bush-Cheney War on Terror agenda. Oops, I forgot to mention Rumsfeld. I don't think Rumsfeld was involved in this particular operation, although I'm open to being convinced otherwise.

This is pure speculation, but it seems that works for the FBI, with Rawls' approval. Sorry guys, I say the case is still open.

Additional note: Ivins was a registered Democrat.
Additional notes in comment.

Dear Fearful Blue-Dog Congressperson

Below is a letter I just sent to my fearful blue-dog Congressperson, encouraging them to support Rep. Kucinich's impeachment resolution H. Res. 1345. H.Res. 1345 says Bush should be impeached because he "deceived Congress with fabricated threats of Iraq Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) to fraudulently obtain support for an authorization for the use of force against Iraq and used that fraudulently obtained authorization, then acting in his capacity under Article II, Section II of the Constitution as Commander in Chief, to commit US troops to combat in Iraq." Sounds pretty reasonable to me.

I sometimes feel bad for the poor, cowering blue-dog, trying to maintain a hawkish exterior while you watch our security dwindle, the economy fall apart, and your reasoning for continuing to fund the Cold War era half-trillion dollar boondoggle of obsolete techno-toys for men with inferiority complexes about their genitalia. Your ideology is outdated. Enough of the Dr. Strangeloves and the George C. Scott generals. It was probably all fun and games in the 50's and 60's, but we have a real problem on our hands now. People are dying in Iraq because of Bush's lies, and global warming (and peak oil) are about to body-slam the global economy. No more silliness. Clean up your mess and go to your room.

By the way, I don't care what the meaning of "is" is. This isn't pro-forma political theater we're talking about. This is calling the President to explain why he lied. He'll say, oh, Tenet said this or that. But sorry, the Buck stops, so time to take the heat or get out of the kitchen. OK, that's my preamble to the letter, as follows.

Dear Fearful Blue-Dog Congressperson:

The American people do not support the War in Iraq. We need the money being wasted there to help us here. We need to address global warming, the REAL threat to Homeland Security. We can't waste billions and trillions of dollars, and if the military-industrial complex happens to reside in your congressional district, it is up to you to show leadership, and tell them, point blank, the Cold War is over, we don't need these milti-billion dollar missiles and bombers and fighter jets. The Soviets are gone. We need renewable energy technologies, and we need these aerospace companies to get off corporate welfare, stop making killing machines while the polar ice caps melt and endanger the future for our children. We need them to change their business model, and stop the war machine. We need our Congressional Representatives to say this in public. And we should hold the President accountable, and have a full debate about why we are in Iraq. It's an election year, why not ask where billions of tax payer dollars are going, with no stay the course strategy, and no exit strategy. If you happened to make a bad decision to get us into war, you can follow John Edwards' example and confess to it, tell us why you were misled, point the finger at the people who told lies, like Rumsfeld and Cheney, and reassure your constituents that you will hold the liars accountable. Don't be the victim. Take the initiative. Don't let the Republicans set your agenda for you, and don't fall into their "bleed the Treasury" strategy to de-fund social programs through military deficits. Change course. Change we are told we can believe in. Can we? Let's end Rumsfeld's legacy now. www.rumsfeldinvaders.com

The High Price of Lowering Emissions

Let's pause to consider Hummer's eminent demise. How did we succeed, when only a few years ago Hummer was riding high? Two words: gas prices. Not moralizing. No clever slogan on my cardboard sign. No sudden ethical epiphany. The nice thing about the price signal is I don't have to stand outside the Hummer dealership with a bunch of small dogs and a megaphone anymore. I can just sit back and blog, and each day millions of people make decisions based on economic pain. Hmm.

Wouldn't it be better to have the economic system set up so that it causes less pain, but people know in advance what to expect, and that sustainable decisions will be automatically rewarded? This is the idea behind "Capitalism 3.0," a book that I highly recommend. Also Carbon Share, and Cap and Share show ways that we can take the initiative, rather than get beaten up by the system.

I'll be adding more on this topic soon. I've been in discussions with green people about how to spend GHG emission auction permit revenue. I think it should go toward making the system fair, so that the system will last, and we'll get more reductions in the long run. Also, because it's the fair and ethical thing to do. Poverty reduction and solving climate change are ONE! But the green people say no. They want all funds to go towards subsidies for solar, and public transit etc. There are several implications to this. It's a techno-solution orientation rather than an economic justice focus. I think I need to reach out to a different constituency. The green people have been beaten down for so long, they are so thirsty, they'll drink their whole water supply ignoring that they still have 40 years in the desert.

The Hip Hop Return of the Fundis

I thought Hillary's defeat by Obama was a hopeful sign of the changing of the guard for the Daschle-ing weak Dems who have been caveing to the Bush agenda, and been furthering the corporate takeover of our country since 1980. I'm tempted to declare pre-emptive victory: Rumsfeld's resigned, Hummer is going out of business, and peak oil is kicking, raising the price of oil to accomplish the reluctant energy efficiency, reduction in vehicles miles traveled, and investments in more sustainable technologies that we've waited until the 11th hour to start on. But what if Obama is more about rhetoric and less about action? What if we feel good, but he only makes superficial changes, and 4 years from now, sure the Iraq War's over, and we're back to a Clinton-era baseline, maybe some more funding for health care and education, and an EPA a little less like the one in the Simpson's Movie than the one we have now. "The Repubs are worse" argument doesn't mean anything to me. Is "back to the 90's" enough? How much change can we believe in? (I like the idea of believing. I'd like to agree with R. Kelly about the flying too. But I'm waiting before I decide.)

The German Green Party in the 1980's was a tug-of-war between two factions: the realos and the fundis. The realos wanted the Greens to engage in electoral politics and take seats in Parliament in order to enact policies such as banning nuclear power in Germany. The fundis thought that was a waste of time, and that the electoral presence's main purpose was to raise awareness of the movement happening outside the electoral domain. Petra Kelly was a well-known realo, and Rudolf Bahro was a well-known fundi. Bahro's writing is very provocative, especially "Building the Green Movement." In one of his essays he compares the current situation of western civilization with the Roman Empire around 200 AD. Everyone knew the empire would crumble and that all aspects of their life would soon change, but it took a few hundred years and several generations for it to actually become final. In the meantime, people formed local groups to find a more communal, spiritual, less materialistic way to live during the constant warfare. Those became the first Christian monastaries, where people focused on growing food, prayer, and small scale art like illuminated manuscripts. It's a bit of a romantic vision of the Dark Ages, but if we're headed for another one, maybe it's better to look at the bright side than the dark side.

And in 2008, voters have a choice to vote realo or fundi. The Realo vote would be for Obama, thinking that Al Gore will become a special adviser to the Pres, and hope that we get more now than we got in the 1990's now that the Dems will control all 3 branches.

There are actually two potential fundi votes: Cynthia McKinney for the Green Party, or the perennial indepedent Ralph Nader. Typical, since no two fundis can ever agree on anything.

Immanuel Wallerstein writes in the "The Decline of American Power" that the Old Left in the 19th century followed a two-step program: 1) obtain state power, 2) transform the world. He says this strategy has been shown to fail, but we keep falling back to it. He says the WTO protests and resulting World Social Forum shows that post-state organizing for a global movement is more effective, and we should only use defensive electoral strategies as a back-stop to prevent the state crackdown on the movement. In this case, if we feel Obama would not arrest us for organizing and protesting, then he's a backstop. But we shouldn't rely on him for the change we seek. And interestingly, that's what Obama says too. Which is either very clever, or perhaps sincere.

I just read about the Green Party's Vice Presidential nominee, Rosa Clemente.
She is a 35-year old Puerto Rican-American hip hop activist from NYC.
So I thought, hip hop activist? So I went to her website, and sure enough, on the front page, is an endorsement from M1 of dead prez. Seeing that, I thought OK, that's the only endorsement you need if you want cred as a hip hop activist.
M1 would be a pretty good secretary of defense, considering his name is also the name of a tank, and half his songs are about using guns for freedom. I guess his call for revolution could be seen as threatening to the J Edgar Hoover/Ashcroft US Gov. But maybe it's just "change we can believe in" with a little more zing.

It's funny that this year both the Dems and the Greens are definintely reaching out from their usual whitey-Whole Foods-y-constituency. I remember seeing The Coup at a KPFA event in Berkeley a few years ago, and the old hippies were trying (but failing) to get down with the boogie. It's looking like the political conventions are going to have better beats this year. Well, except for McCain, who is looking like the Vanilla Ice of 2008. Maybe he should pick Eminem as his running mate. Eminem would do well in a debate, showing his butt like in 8-mile, but it sounds like Rosa would hold her own, and M1 would make a great Press Secretary.

Boots Riley for Senate?

Hummer is Screwed; Chihuahuas Happy

Chihuahuas Against Hummers News Release:

Several Chihuahuas were seen celebrating the latest news about Hummers. The gas-price-inspired consumer revolution is pretty amazing, when you think back just a few years. In 2003, we stood with our small dogs and our signs outside the Hummer dealership, educating the public about fuel efficiency, climate change and militarism, while so called patriots gave us the finger. Well, apparently the invisible hand has now smacked those polluters upside the head. For more information on Chihuahuas Against Hummers, type "Hummer protest" into Google. #1 baby! What's bad for General Motors is good for the planet. Ok, who's left? Cheney?

- - - - -

General Motors (NYSE: GM) announced today that it will cease production at four plants that build pickups, SUVs and medium-duty trucks, and that it will conduct a strategic review of the Hummer brand in response to growing demand for fuel-efficient vehicles in North America.

"Higher gasoline prices are changing consumer behavior, and they are significantly affecting the U.S. auto industry sales mix...At this point, we are considering all options for the Hummer brand ... everything from a complete revamp of the product lineup to partial or complete sale of the brand," Wagoner said.

The company also said it will react to the shift in the U.S. market by increasing production of small and midsize cars and reducing production of pickups and truck-based SUVs.

Wagoner said General Motors Corp.'s board also approved the production schedule of the Chevrolet Volt in Detroit, and the company plans to bring the plug-in electric car to showrooms by the end of 2010. The Volt runs on an electric motor and has a small engine to recharge its batteries.

- - - - -

It's nice when economics is on your side, for once. That's why I've been promoting Carbon Share.

Lieberman and Edwards: Twice Vice?

Any predictions I make will be proven wrong before I even post them. So consider these idle speculations, not predictions.

If McCain picks Lieberman (in Yiddish, Loybermoin) as his Vice, he nullifies Obama's "post-partisan" image. McCain also sheds some of the Bush-Repug baggage and reaches out to independents and disaffected Hillary voters- Obama's territory. According to some other blogs, the Jewish vote might flee (although I'm not convinced because of the Iraq/Rumsfeld/warmonger issue), and this could impact Florida and Pennsylvania in the general election. McCain will still have to campaign with his right-wing friends to try to get out that vote that is suspicious of him.

If Obama picks Edwards, he may try to make a play in Southern states, focus more on working class economic issues, and try to exploit McCain's ties to lobbyists and corporations. Some people think that Edwards would make a much better Attorney General, and that he wouldn't want to run for Vice again. The other potential pick for VP that I thought was interesting is Claire McCaskill, Senator from Missouri. This would be an overture to the women's vote, and MO is a swing state in the middle of red territory. But will the Hillary backers be able to stomach a placebo?

(In case you were wondering, Nader already picked Matt Gonzalez as his running mate, but I'm not sure who Cynthia McKinney (running for the Green Party) picked)

A tough question for the candidates

First of all, to any "moderates" who might be reading this: There is a substantive difference between McCain and Hillary. McCain might have been a straight talker in 2000, but now he is beholden to the far-right, including neo-con pro-war Repubs that lurk behind Bush's worst policies. Hillary, even if she chooses Wesley Clark as her running mate, will be need to keep Nancy Pelosi and others more liberal than her happy. Think about it.

Second, I believe Obama is more electable than Hillary, due to her divisiveness. After 8 years of Bush, what a waste to make the election a referendum on Hillary rather than a referendum on Bush. Obama would pick up the states Hillary won (CA, NY), but Hillary would not pick up Kansas, Idaho, etc. Think about it, superdelegates.

Finally, I think that the candidates need to be asked a serious question, since all 3 of them are in the Senate and may get to vote on this horrendous military budget that swallows up all chance of making any real social or environmental progress on this ice-cap-melting planet. The answer to this question may determine who I end up voting for (and I'm not above a write-in), so c'mon candidates, answer this one right, and you may get the prized Rumsfeld Invaders constituency:

“Senator, in all your previous debates, you have not criticized the bloated military budget so often documented by the media, Pentagon audits and GAO reports for Congress to be replete with waste fraud and abuse. The Soviet Union is gone. Yet military spending now consumes half of the federal government’s operating expenditures. 1/2 a trillion dollars a year?! While New Orleans still lies in ruins?!

“Specifically, what would you do to significantly reduce the tens of billions of wasted dollars and eliminate redundant weapons systems? Would you support cutting the military budget in half, starting next year?

“And, further, would you abolish the missile defense project, deemed by the American Physical Society and other leading physicists to be technically unworkable (and the original inspiration for Rumsfeld Invaders)? It costs about $10 billion a year with a total expenditure of over $150 billion since its inception under Ronald Reagan, without any indication that it can fulfill the function for which it was designed?
What about the Iraq War? Remember, the sooner you de-fund it, the sooner our troops come home, and the sooner we can work on Real National Security, and Real Homeland Security (renewable energy, green collar jobs, healthier diets and lifestyles, etc.)
Please be specific.”

Homeland Security Means Being Vegetarian

From a terrific article in the New York Times:

Excerpts from "Rethinking the Meat Guzzler":

In the last five months alone, the Brazilian government says, 1,250 square miles were lost to burning and cutting of the country’s rain forests for crop and grazing land.

Per capita meat consumption has more than doubled since 1961.

The U.S. kills nearly 10 billion animals a year for food, more than 15 percent of the world’s total.

An estimated 30 percent of the earth’s ice-free land is directly or indirectly involved in livestock production, according to the United Nation’s Food and Agriculture Organization, which also estimates that livestock production generates nearly a fifth of the world’s greenhouse gases — more than transportation.

2.2 pounds of beef is responsible for the equivalent amount of carbon dioxide emitted by the average European car every 155 miles, and burns enough energy to light a 100-watt bulb for nearly 20 days.

The majority of corn and soy grown in the world feeds cattle, pigs and chickens. Meat contributes to nearly three-quarters of all water-quality problems in the nation’s rivers and streams, according to the Environmental Protection Agency. Meat contributes to health problems in the U.S. - heart disease, some types of cancer, diabetes.

“When you look at environmental problems in the U.S.,” says Professor Eshel, “nearly all of them have their source in food production and in particular meat production. And factory farming is ‘optimal’ only as long as degrading waterways is free. If dumping this stuff becomes costly — even if it simply carries a non-zero price tag — the entire structure of food production will change dramatically.”

If price spikes don’t change eating habits, perhaps the combination of deforestation, pollution, climate change, starvation, heart disease and animal cruelty will gradually encourage the simple daily act of eating more plants and fewer animals.

My comments: This all goes back to my proposal to change the focus of Homeland Security to reducing meat consumption. At the airport, a nurse would ask you about your eating habits. C'mon, let's follow the numbers and spend the money where we can save the greatest number of American lives. It's patriotic. God bless America, and on July 4th, or President's Day, let's eat veggie burgers.

Edwards drops out, Nader drops in?

Well, I liked Edwards a lot. I'm sorry to see him go, just like I was sorry to see Kerry concede in 2004 when there were voting irregularities to be investigated and possible recounts to be recounted.

But, when the going gets tough, the tough get going.
I got to admire Nader's timing.

I wonder if he was waiting, because Edwards had a great platform, and if Edwards made it further, Nader might have sat this one out.

I know a lot of people who supported Edwards, including people who had been Greens for decades, who switched, "just this once," to vote for Edwards on Super Tuesday. Now those people look sorta foolish.

Those votes may go to Nader now, or maybe to Cynthia McKinney, who actually registered Green, has congresssional experience, and could bring some fresh faces into the Green Party.

I just read that Cindy Sheehan just resigned from the national board of the Progressive Democrats of America. Cindy and Cynthia...hmm...(but they can't both be from California).

Well, this may be a new phase in the '08 campaign.
OK, Kucinich supporters, the panty lines are drawn, which side are you on?