Rumsfeld Invaders

Search GHG emitters

2012-01-12T22:09:00.000-08:00

Here's a link to the EPA's new searchable database of GHG emitters.

Nerd out!

Durban disappointment

2011-12-09T21:54:00.000-08:00

Equity or nothing at UN climate talks. Still valid. And Obama knows what this is about. And the importance. He has Stephen Chu on staff. That guy reads books. He didn't get elected by oil companies. They supported Old Man and Alaska Crazy Lady. We have Obama in office now. And this is the best we can get? The US, once again blocking progress at the international climate talks? Continuing to refuse to set targets and timetables? Jonathan Pershing used to work at World Resources Institute, but he is a "realist" as EcoEquity says. What is so realistic about resigning ourselves to a fiery future? Does the climate of Venus sound appealing to you?

American negotiators in Durban: Drop all your pre-conceptions about what is "realistic" and what Eric Cantor will say yes to. Contraction & Convergence is the only way forward. Per capita equity is the goal. Obama can push for a Cap & Dividend climate bill that allows him to sign a future climate treaty without 66 Senators. Bohner's grandchildren will thank you in 20 years.

Thank you Occupiers and 350.org folks for being vocal when we need you most.

An Occupy Ask to Obama: Fire Geithner Hire Warren

2011-11-17T22:46:00.000-08:00

Here I was, with what I thought was a great original idea, for the Occupy Movement (of which I am not a spokesperson): Tell Obama: Fire Geithner, Hire Elizabeth Warren for Treasury Secretary!

This other person had posted the exact same thing back in 2010. Nice job, Mosquito! Here's another one from last month. Is that a chorus I hear?

Now is the right time to do it, before the Repubs have selected Obama's opponent. Obama could seize the headlines, and make a statement. If he does it later, he may miss this moment when the Occupiers have the media's attention, despite the media's attempts to focus on police evictions and tent bans rather than on the 99% and the 1%.

Naysayers will say, yeah, and then he can hire Van Jones back too. This is 2008 neverland hope and changey stuff. It won't happen in the cynical late-2011 post-debt ceiling world of crushed hopes and dreams. But I reply, yes we can? No, but like the Green Party it's still a good idea.

The last time I had an idea like this, it was 2003 and I suggested that Colin Powell resign over what he knew was faulty intelligence (pressure from Cheney on the CIA to say there were WMDs in Iraq - as Rick Perry would say, "oops") and change his party affiliation to independent and run against Bush in 2004. I still think it would have worked. A few weeks later Powell went to the UN and flushed his reputation down the toilet. That's what you get for hangin with Dubya Cheney and Rumsfeld. And that's what Obama will get for stickin with Geithner at a moment when America is waking up.

Climate Scientist Rap

2011-06-06T22:03:00.000-07:00

Mr. Panetta, Please Change the Military's Mission to Saving the Oceans - Declare War on Climate Change

2011-06-02T22:28:00.000-07:00

Before Rumsfeld invaded Iraq, he chaired a commission that advocated the militarization of space. Hence, Rumsfeld Invaders (a take-off of the Atari video game for those of you who didn't grow up in the 80's).

Now, Obama has appointed Leon Panetta to be the next Secretary of Defense. Panetta chaired a commission that advocated saving the oceans. Wow. What a stark contrast. The next Secretary of Defense, arguably the 3rd most important person in government (look at the size of that DoD budget!), cares about something other than guns and explosions? Not only that, but he just helped knock off bin Laden. He's an enviro, and he's got cojones too? Now that's an American hero!

If you think I'm gushing too much here, let's get specific: (sources 1 2) For much of his life, Leon Panetta has been a passionate advocate for our nation’s oceans. While a member of the House of Representatives, Panetta authored numerous successful measures to protect the California coast, and was a major factor in establishing the Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary. Panetta also served on the board of the Monterey Bay Aquarium and is a National Marine Sanctuary Foundation trustee.

Panetta was Chair of the Pew Oceans Commission, which called for reforms in U.S. ocean management and ocean governance, preserving and protecting coastal habitat, and fisheries, creating sustainable marine aquaculture, and preventing the collapse of ocean ecosystems, and served as Co-Chair of the Joint Ocean Commission.

The Joint Ocean Commission Initiative grew out of the ocean advocacy work done by Panetta’s Pew Ocean Commission and Admiral Watkins’ US Commission on Ocean Policy.

OK, so what does saving the ocean have to do with the military?

Easy. Climate change is turning the oceans to acid. The oceans are absorbing the CO2 put into the atmosphere by burning fossil fuels, and the resulting acidity is eating away at the species that rely on calcium carbonate for their shells, and the acidity is bleaching the coral reefs, the very things that make the ocean sanctuaries - the ones that Secretary-designate Panetta loves - so beautiful.

Mr. Panetta arguably won the War on Terror by getting bin Laden. We are avenged. Sure, there is still evil in the world. Sure, some Amurkins will want to keep invading countries and blowing stuff up. But seriously, we need to win hearts and minds and the dudes with the guns and the macho mentality are not really helping the cause out there anymore. Let's build some schools and give out some laptops and teach women in those countries how to read. Pull out the troops, and then, Mr. Panetta, here is where you get to take leadership:

Declare War on Climate Change!

You can do it! Amurkins love to go to war. And in the 21st century, the information age, we love to go to war against ideas. Well, unfortunately, climate change is real. But it's also a concept that connects to how Amurkins live their everyday lives. And we're going to need the $700 billion a year in the military budget to take on this challenge of remaking our energy and transportation infrastructure, upgrading our homes and building stock, and learning how to do things locally and organically.

Who better than the troops, those guys that we support, to help us make this difficult transition?

Let's save the oceans, let's take on climate change. And the guy in the seat of power in the Pentagon could actually make this happen. Yes we can...hope...for change!

Osama's Dead, and Thoughts on the Military-Industrial Complex

2011-05-01T22:33:00.000-07:00

Osama bin Laden is dead.
This marks a turning point in the War on Terror, as it was originally conceived, but more on that later.

In the 9 years leading up to today, we spent trillions of dollars on the War on Terror. Some of those billions were on tracking Osama, but much of it was on militarism that did not really make us safer – invading Iraq, groping elderly people at airports, building lots of bombs, etc. The Military Industrial complex had quite a windfall during those nine years, and the Republicans exploited 9/11 for all it was worth politically. But in the context of laying off teachers and police officers, and cutting local govt budgets to the bone and beyond, those trillions could sure come in handy now. Is that a bit too apples and oranges for you? Those tradeoffs of guns and butter are basic Econ 101. I'm just saying that our country has been all guns and no butter, and the guy whose face was on the most wanted poster that justified those choices is now dead.

The past 9 years of foreign militarism set off by 9/11 came without any real time on introspection. We could have spent more time thinking about what 9/11 was all about. Why did the evil doers pick the WTC and the Pentagon specifically? The answer is typically, because they are evil. And they do evil. But seriously, was it an attack on the whole country of America? Sounds silly to even ask the question, right? But my answer may surprise you. No. It was an attack on the military-industrial-corporate complex. That is different from America. I still haven’t heard any major politician or leader say this. It is interesting to consider for a moment how our country would have responded if we had been told that the corporate-military complex was under attack, but not the American people. Not that attacking things by killing civilians is at all justifiable no matter what your target. But when something big happens to you, usually it is smart to understand why it happened, and what they were trying to say. We never did that. A big part of the problem was that Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld (and to some extent Giuilani) were the only ones given the microphone in the months after 9/11. After that, the course was set. Invade countries. Shoot, kill. Team Amurka. And after all these years, and with Osama bin Laden now dead, I am still annoyed that the Dems (Feinstein, Kerry, and other blue dogs) went along with the Republican-Rumsfeld plan, and later didn't do anything when hundreds of thousands of anti-war protesters were in the streets. I have been meaning to write a blog comparing the anti-war movement in 2003 with the tea party movement in 2009. I think there may have been more anti-war people than current tea partiers, someone should do a study or a count to see if that is true. But a major party, the Repubs, embraced the tea party. The tea party has no head, but a bunch of shadow fronts appeared and claimed to speak for them, next thing you know there are all these candidates, and someone like Palin tries to capitalize on them. The Dems did nothing for the 2003 anti-war movement, and no one capitalized on anything, and it took 4 years, trillions of dollars, and Bush and Rumsfeld running the country into a ditch before the Dems even seemed to do something about it. And even now, after all these years, and Iraq supposedly winding down, but with trillions of dollars of financial commitment still on the line, I still can't really tell you what Obama did about Iraq and Afghanistan. OK, Osama bin Laden being killed is a victory. But he wasn't even in either of those two countries. Sure, the Taliban suck, and Saddam used to hang out Rumsfeld in 80's (say no more). I'm telling you though, Osama was in Pakistan, our supposed ally in the War on Terror. I guess they were allied enough to not tip off Osama, at least this time. Curious to know how many previous attempts there were. But give these guys credit for this one. They seem to have accomplished the mission.

So, what does Osama bin Laden's death mean for the War on Terror? There are still crazies in Somalia and parts of Afghanistan and Pakistan. But it seems like the main figurehead is gone. I wonder if he was still the financing hub, or if there are other Saudi-Mujahedeen types in the background? The question is: can we convert more of those crazies by building schools for them, and handing out free laptops and educating their women? Do we still need to be wedded to this testosterone and frankly childish warpath that Dubya and Rummy sent us down? Can we, at long last, close Guantanamo? Can we wean ourselves off of Middle East oil, so that we aren't sending billions to despots (who recently were suddenly put on notice by an exciting youthful pro-democracy movement from Tunisia to Bahrain and even Syria) or supporting Islamist movements. This means renewable energy, electrifying transportation, hydrogen, smart growth, trains, sustainability - Renewable Energy is Homeland Security. Maybe Obama (spelled with a "b") can be the adult in the conversation and articulate a real mission. He can start putting the Military-Industrial Complex in its rightful place in the federal budget. Sure, it would still be there. But maybe 1/2 or 1/8th the current size. And that money could be redirected toward domestic issues, and fighting climate change (a much bigger threat to our country and to civilization and the biusphere as a whole). Let's deploy those troops to fight climate change. They may need to invade a few corporate board rooms. Exxon, BP, Chevwrong. (Note: the "invasion" could be in the form of a carbon tax, or cap and dividend, etc.)

We got Osama. But the country is still not safe. Let's roll!

Judgement Day

2011-04-20T21:49:00.000-07:00

Fighting to save the world from climate change can be tiring. This is how I relax in my spare time.

Known Idiot

2011-02-20T21:19:00.000-08:00

Hi Rumsfeld watchers,
I've been blogging about Rumsfeld since 2001. Tens of thousands of people have played a fun video game called Rumsfeld Invaders that is based on the famous Atari game Space Invaders that involves shooting a Darth Vader helmet wearing former Secretary of Defense who likes invading countries. Level 2 is PResident Evil (Cheney).

It is a known known that Rusmfeld is an idiot. We don't need him to write a book for us to know known this. You could read this blog instead. Here are a few links of some of our greatest Rumsfeld disses.

Rumsfelds-last-day-6-years-too-late.html

rumsfeld-and-chicken-feces.html

deep-iran-penetrator-use-viagra.html

now-its-personal-rummy.html

Cap and Share - James Bond Style

2010-12-07T21:55:00.000-08:00

SNL parodies TSA Groping

2010-11-26T09:41:00.000-08:00

I am really pleased that this has become an issue and that there are millions of people who think the TSA is not keeping us safe by groping and fondling my wife and grandma.

I've said it before and I'll say it again, homeland security is renewable energy and healthy eating habits. Sure, there are a few dozen impoverished uneducated Somalis and Taliban that hate America, but the real terrorist threat comes from the oil and coal companies (making our planet uninhabitable for future generations) and the industrial meat complex (killing millions of Americans every day from heart disease and obesity related problems). I know this does not fit the conventional wisdom about 9/11, but look at the numbers - millions of species and the future of the planet (climate change), and millions of Americans every day (heart disease and obesity related problems) versus dudes with Turbans (3,000 Americans and two big buildings). It was still sad, but look at the numbers. You're not looking.

Gretchen sucks, Mondo should have won

2010-11-01T22:45:00.000-07:00

This is my first post about fashion. Yes, it's about the show Project Runway. Yes, I'm married, and for you snickering single dudes out there, this is what happens when you get married. So go listen to Motley Crue and drink 5 beers and a Prairie Fire shot right now.

Anyway, the point is: Gretchen sucks, and Mondo should have won. It has been the Mondo Show for at least 5 episodes. If it were the Gretchen Show I would have stopped watching several episodes ago. Michael and Nina were a little like the Bush Administration, deciding first (to invade Iraq), and then coming up with reasons afterwards. A bad Southwestern 70s catalog? The producers are probably regretting that.

OK, well, that was a nice diversion. Now back to serious matters, such as that our country totally sucks, and all these teabag idiots are going to get elected by Nina and Michael, I mean, the voters tomorrow.

Excerpt of interview with Jonathan Safran Foer about Eating Animals

2010-10-26T22:49:00.001-07:00

Here's the link:

http://fora.tv/2010/09/21/Eating_Animals_Jonathan_Safran_Foer#chapter_08

I like when he says that all parents make a choice. Meat eating parents are choosing to lie to their children about what meat is and where it comes from. Sounds radical, but he's pretty common sensical.

Excerpt of How To Opt Out of the TSA's Naked Body Scanners at the Airport

2010-10-26T22:43:00.000-07:00

I don't know if I totally believe all of this, but I do get annoyed at TSA. They are ridiculous, and I don't think they are making us safer. They are trying to make people scared so that we will be sheep and vote for Dubya and Rumsfeld. Oh, Obama is in office now? Well, it still feels pretty Dubya-ish when you're at the airport.

How To Opt Out of the TSA's Naked Body Scanners at the Airportby Mike Adams
Natural News
I encountered my first airport naked body scanner while flying out of California today, and of course I decided to "opt out" of the scan. You do this by telling the blue-shirted TSA agents that you simply wish to opt out of the body scanner. Here's what happened after that:
A TSA agent told me to step to the side and stay put. He then proceeded to shout out loudly enough for all the other travelers and TSA agents to hear, "OPT OUT! OPT OUT!" This is no doubt designed to attract attention (or perhaps humiliation) to those who choose to opt out of the naked body scanner. I saw no purpose for this verbal alert because the same TSA agent who was yelling this ultimately was the one who patted me down anyway.
For the pat down, first I was required to walk through the regular metal detector. From there, I was asked if I wanted to be patted down in a private room, or if I didn't mind just being patted down in full view of everyone else. Not being a shy person in the first place, I told the agent I didn't need a private room.

He then explained to me that he was going to pat down my entire body, including my crotch and my buttocks, but that he would use the back of his hands to pat down the crotch and buttocks areas. This is probably designed to make the pat-down seem less "personal" and more detached. That way, air passengers can't complain of being felt up by TSA agents who might get carried away with the pat-down procedure. He asked if it hurt for me to be touched anywhere, and I told him no, at which point he proceeded with the pat down.

It was a well-scripted pat-down, covering all the areas of my body, including a mild crotch sweep (it wasn't especially invasive or anything, as doctors will do far worse during a physical exam). He swept my arms, legs, hips, back of the neck, ankles and everywhere else. To the TSA's credit, this guy was fast, efficient and only used a light touch that was in no way disturbing. But it did take an extra five minutes or so compared to walking through the naked body scanner.
Speaking of the naked body scanners, as I was having my crotch swept by the back of the hand of this TSA agent, I was observing other air travelers subjecting themselves to the naked body scanners. They were told to walk into the body scanner staging area and then hold their arms in the air in a pose as if they were under arrest. They were told to freeze in this position for several seconds (perhaps 10 seconds) during which they were being blasted with ionizing radiation that we all know contributes to cancer.
The TSA, of course, will tell you that these machines can't possibly contribute to cancer. But they said the same thing about mammograms, and we now know that mammograms are so harmful to women's health that they actually harm ten women for everyone one woman they help. So I'm not exactly taking the U.S.government at its word that naked body scanner radiation is "harmless."

As these air travelers were being scanned, their naked body images were appearing on a screen somewhere, of course. Some TSA agent was examining the naked body shape and contours of all these people, and even though we were told by the TSA that the image viewing machines cannot store images, we have since learned that the machines actually do have the capability to store those images. In addition, rogue TSA employees could simply use their cell phones to take snapshots of what they see on the screen. There are no doubt rules against such behavior, but it's bound to happen sooner or later.

Meanwhile, my own security screening was proceeding fully clothed. I don't want to broadcast my naked butt cheeks on the TSA's graphic monitors, thank you very much!
Very few people opt out of the naked body scanners
The most fascinating part about this entire process was not the verbal broadcast of my opt out status, nor having my crotch swept by the latex-covered back hand of some anonymous TSA agent, but rather the curious fact that I was the only one opting out. Although I must have watched at least a hundred people go through this particular security checkpoint, there wasn't a single other person who opted out of the naked body scan.
They all just lined up like cattle to have their bodies scanned with ionizing radiation.
To me, that's just fascinating. That when people are given a choice to opt out of being irradiated, they will choose to just go along with the naked body scanrather than risk standing out by requesting to opt out.
You see, I'm not convinced that the TSA's naked body scanners enhance air travel security at all. Previous security tests conducted by the FAA show quite clearly that the greatest threat to airplane safety isn't from the passengers but from ground crews, where bombs and other materials can be quite easily smuggled onto planes.
But even though naked body scanners may not enhance air travel security, they do accomplish something far more intriguing: The successful completion of an experiment in human behavior. If you were to pose the question "Will people line up like cattle to be electronically undressed in front of government security officers?" The answer is now unequivocally YES!

Most people, it turns out, will simply do whatever they're told by government authorities, even if it means giving up their privacy or their freedoms. Almost anything can be sold to the public under the guise of "fighting terrorism" these days, including subjecting your body to what is essentially a low-radiation CT scan at the airport!

I don't know about you, but I don't think I should be required to subject myself to ionizing radiation as a condition of air travel security. Of course, the more technically minded readers among you might counter by saying that high-altitude travel is, all by itself, an event that subjects you to low levels of ionizing radiation (which is true). But that's all the more reason to not add the body's radiation burden any more than necessary. Americans already get far too much radiation from CT scans and other medical imaging tests (not to mention mammograms). Do we really need to dose peoples' bodies with yet more radiation every time they board an airplane?
Trusted traveler program?
I don't know why the TSA never pursued its "trusted traveler" program. I actually suggested this years ago, and there was word that the TSA was working on something similar. The way it worked was very different from the current system. Under the current system, every person entering an airport security line is assumed to be a terrorist, and it is only through the various security screenings that you are eventually deemed to be innocent. This is a "guilty until proven innocent" approach to air security, and it's the system in place all across America (and around the world) today.
Under a trusted traveler program, people who pass rigorous background screening procedures, criminal history checks and other similar tests would be assumed innocent unless suspected of being guilty. They might carry "trusted traveler" cards linked to a federal database so that their status could be verified as they pass through a security checkpoint. They might even have their fingerprint scanned at that checkpoint in order to biometrically verify their identity.
For whatever reason, the TSA is no longer pursuing any such trusted traveler program (at least not to my knowledge). Perhaps the agency just figures it can trust no one. Hence the need to have everybody line up in front of the naked body scanner machines and raise their arms in a humiliating "I'm being arrested" pose.

It's actually just like the scene from the movie called The Fifth Element starring Bruce Willis. Remember the scene where the cops are searching the apartment block and they use an X-ray scanner to see through the walls? As they search the apartment building, they announce that all residents must face the wall and place their hands inside the yellow circles on the wall. This scene eerily resembles what the TSA makes U.S. travelers do right now.
And virtually no one protests. That's the really amazing part about this.

Just wait and watch how this gets even worse. Today, you can opt out of the TSA's naked body scanners, but after a year or two – once the sheeple get comfortable with giving up all their freedoms – these scans will become mandatory. That's the day I give up air travel for good.
Gee, I sure will miss having my crotch swept by the latex-covered back hand of some anonymous TSA agent who's wasting taxpayer money by treating me like a terrorist.
Reprinted with permission from Natural News.

Million Letter March for a Better Climate Bill

2010-10-18T22:34:00.001-07:00

This video is by a friend of mine.
It's a nice concept, if only millions of letters could change a Senator's mind. But it's a start, and it's hopeful. And hey, Rumsfeld Invaders is supposed to be about that hopey and changey thing in the post-Rumsfeld Obama years.

Climate bill post mortem: part 1 of 1 billion

2010-08-05T22:44:00.000-07:00

About why the Senate failed:

"We weren't able to credibly promise political reward or punishment," Bill McKibben said. "The fact is, scientists have been saying for the past few years the world might come to an end. But clearly that's insufficient motivation. Clearly, we must communicate that their careers might come to an end. That's going to take a few years."

A Grist commenter asks, "what are the limits to plain speech and passion in this landscape? I worry we're about to launch the green movement equivalent of the Adlie Stephenson and Walter Mondale campaigns."

About why the CLEAR Act (Cap and Dividend) would have been better:

Peter Barnes wrote on Grist: don't underestimate "the political value of simplicity. It's hard for politicians to vote for a controversial policy like cap and trade (however it is spun) that neither they nor anyone else can explain. Lots of Americans get that putting a price on pollution makes sense, but if you can't tell them in a few sentences how that price will be set and where the money will go, you re not going to win them or their representatives over."

"...average families don't understand the intricacies of different carbon pricing mechanisms, but they can distinguish between having their pockets picked and having them filled."

Direct cash dividends to people "allows moderate Democrats and Republicans to vote for carbon pricing and not be annihilated at the polls."

Cap and Dividend is "an ambitious, workable and durable emission reducing system that already has some bipartisan traction and could conceivably get 60 votes in a more Republican Senate than we now have."

Bummed about Schneider

2010-07-20T22:01:00.000-07:00

We really need everyone we can get. And Stephen Schneider was a climate hero. It is a huge loss, for the climate and the planet. I hope there are more like him to take up the fight.

An International Climate Framework with Cap, Share & Dividend

2010-07-02T12:35:00.000-07:00

The UN needs an equity framework to bring countries together. The best approach is Contraction & Convergence, which sets a future date to converge to global per capita equity in GHG emissions. It can be implemented with Cap & Share www.capandshare.org, where people in 1st World countries must buy the 3rd World's extra permits. This money flow will help the 3rd World leapfrog dirty coal and finance sustainable development. In the meantime, the US should implement its own domestic program that caps total emissions and returns the proceeds from an escalating carbon price back to the people: Cap & Dividend. Please ask your Senator to support the Cantwell-Collins CLEAR Act www.supportclearact.com.

The judge who overturned the drilling moratorium is a cyborg from the future sent here to kill all life on Earth

2010-06-22T22:42:00.000-07:00

I've been veg for over 10 years, but still liked lox and sushi (I felt bad while eating it, but it was just so delicious). The BP oil spill finally got me to stop eating fish and shrimp. We should probably start assuming that 30% of American seafood is tainted. The industry will convince the regulators to let them sell it and people will die. Better protect yourselves, because the Terminator machines have risen, it is corporations versus humans, and that judge who overturned the drilling moratorium is a cyborg from the future sent here to kill all life on Earth.

When Coffee spills at BP Headquarters

2010-06-17T09:53:00.000-07:00

Seafood and oil in the Gulf of Mexico

2010-06-14T09:09:00.000-07:00

Should there be health advisories about eating seafood in the U.S. due to the BP Gulf oil spill/disaster? If 30% of American seafood comes from the Gulf of Mexico, how much of that is contaminated by this spill? Even if not directly, once oil enters the food chain and the global industrial supply chain, it could show up anywhere, right? Is that too alarmist? Or six months from now will there be a "suprising" epidemic linked to people who ate contaminated seafood? Maybe we should stop eating seafood (I'll miss you sushi and lox).

Obama raps about whose A** to Kick

2010-06-10T14:52:00.000-07:00

Oops, it's all dead now, let's drill!

2010-05-25T12:25:00.000-07:00

From a comment on ClimateProgress.org:

“If BP can “accidently” kill off most of the life in the gulf, then there would be little life to protect from future drilling in the area. So it would in the long run be easier to argue for more drilling in the area because there wouldn’t be much environment left to impact.”

I’m quite sure this thought has occurred to oil executives and their K street buddies. Can’t we send these people out on little boats to the Gulf so they can fully appreciate the splendor they have caused?

The Taliban and Al Qaida terrorists, even if they should build an A-bomb, can never hope to equal the sheer destruction that BP and their corporate partners have caused. These terrorists are sitting on their hands, eating sugared dates and figs, laughing at us and our corporatist system that does their horrible work for them.

Dear Kerry-Lieberman Apologists

2010-05-20T11:25:00.000-07:00

The macro-economic birds-eye view says that it doesn't matter if we give billions in subsidies (free allowances) to BP and Exxon (or utilities that are burning coal) rather than to the American people. This is looking at "costs" but not "transfers." I think it is stupid to pre-distribute 40 years of allowance value. When Congress created the Federal Reserve, they didn't pre-set interest rates for the next 40 years. Anyway, the political alliances are too fragile to last, and the edifice will crumble under its own weight. And I won't cry for you, Economists. It's time to value people, not corporations. Three cheers to the Nobel committee for recognizing this with the recent award to Elinor Ostrom.

Our goal is to drive up the costs of fossil fuels, but Exxon and BP will invest the ridiculous windfall profits in climate denial and purchasing Congress following the "Citizens United" ruling. We may need to form a Citizens Energy Consumer Cartel to bargain with OPEC and Exxon and BP. This new cartel will say, we'll let you have rising prices in the face of our falling demand for fossil fuels, but we'll need to divide the windfalls and much of it will return to the people to help us make the changes we need to make.

Sure, they won't like it. They may scream socialism, etc. They may flood the airwaves and fund retrograde candidates. But this is a battle for democracy, the Earth, and civilization.

The Last First Past the Post

2010-05-07T07:45:00.000-07:00

The only thing I really know about Nick Clegg, the 3rd party candidate in the UK, is that he is asking for the UK for change to proportional representation in order for him to agree to form a coalition with one of the two other parties. And I think that's great. Most Americans don't know that only a few countries still have first-past-the-post elections. Most countries in Europe and elsewhere have proportional representation. And if the UK switches, in this very public way, it would help educate many Americans about electoral reform. Sad that the 2000 election came and went and the only thing people remember is butterfly ballots and blaming Nader, when they could have seen that a real solution exists, an instant runoff voting system, where you rank your candidates 1,2,3.

PR is just better than FPPE. I won't explain all the intricacies other than providing this link to FairVote. Those guys have been working at this for years, and the Nick Clegg situation must be seen as a huge opportunity for education. Not that anything can really penetrate the Freedom Fries eating USA #1 minds of Amurkins. But who knows, maybe Simon Cowell will start making fun of Amurkins for being the only democracy without PR, and we'll eventually expand our electoral choices beyond McDonalds and Burger King.

Dinosaur Bones in Coal Minds

2010-04-28T12:17:00.000-07:00

This cracked me up! A climate denier comment on a recent Huffington Post article about climate deniers:

09:42 PM on 4/26/2010

"Oil and coal are not fossil fuels. If they were, we would have ran out of those energy sources long ago.
How many dinosaur bones have been found in coal minds? How many fossil remains have been pumped out of oil wells?

Oil and coal are naturally occurring products.

Concerning coal-fired powers plants: as a truck drive I often deliver to one in my state. The only thing that is released from it into the air is steam; and no pollutants are released into the ground or the water supply.. Electric plants have come a long ways in creating energy without polluting the environment."

Why Graham's Tantrum might be Good for the Climate

2010-04-27T07:50:00.000-07:00

The Kerry-Graham-Lieberman (KGL) climate bill, a mythical bill that no one has even seen but everyone keeps talking about, sort of like a unicorn, may not ever come to exist after Graham suddenly got furious when he found out that immigration might come before climate on the Senate's docket over the weekend.

KGL has changed many times depending on the polls and the business lobbies that its three sponsors met with over the last, what, 6 months, longer? Each change has resulted in more giveaways to coal, nuclear, and offshore oil drilling. I don't recall ever hearing about a change where they said, now that we've met with the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, we are strengthening the emission reduction targets, returning even more permit auction revenues back to consumers, and investing even more into new cleaner technologies. But maybe I missed it.

So KGL, RIP. It played a key role in delaying real action on climate for at least 6 critical months, and distracted the Beltway Green Groups from motivating their members, mounting protests and blockades and putting real pressure on lip-service Senators. Now that the Dems 1 year opportunity is passing us by, KGL's delaying tactic was brilliant. Graham may be rewarded by Mitch McConnell for taking one for the team by faking partnership.

Or I could be wrong. All the liberal press keeps saying, Oh, Lindsey Graham was acting in good faith and it was Harry Reid who torpedoed this. How do we know this bail out wasn't planned all along, and this immigration thing isn't just a convenient excuse now that it's getting down to the wire and Graham would have had to finally put his name down on paper.

Anyway, adios KGL, hello CLEAR. The Cantwell-Collins climate bill has been around since December, but in all the anticipation for KGL, remained a runner up...until now. Now it is the last one standing. It is bipartisan. It reduces emissions, gives most of the permit auction revenues back to consumers, invests the rest in clean technologies, and lacks the freebies to coal, oil, and nuclear. Oh, and I almost forgot to mention, it actually exists!

I'm not sure if actual existence is a pre-requisite for the media to take something seriously, or for Senators to start considering supporting something, but maybe it should be.

Good interview with Joe Romm on Deniers, er, Disinformers

2010-04-23T22:14:00.000-07:00

I dissed Joe Romm a few blog posts ago for not liking dividends.
But I'm balancing it out with a link to this interview with him, where he talks about deniers, or as he calls them, disinformers.

http://www.guernicamag.com/interviews/1687/700_club/

The Green Police!

2010-02-17T10:16:00.000-08:00

Great 80's style music.

Joe Romm hates dividends

2010-02-02T07:51:00.000-08:00

Joe Romm hates dividends. Doesn't want the money. Would rather give it to coal companies? Maybe that's going too far. But definitely has the same distaste for giving money to people as I do for fake offsets and giveaways to utilities (he likes those though). In my mind, lobbyists are the problem. In his mind, they are part of the system and must be accommodated.

I tried to comment on his blog, but I got moderated (censored). Luckily, the blogosphere is a democratic forum, so, Joe, here you go:

First they ignore you, then they fight you, then they try to convince you that you don't want a dividend check and that a carbon price will only be "a postage stamp a day," then they lose the Massachusetts Senate seat, then you win.

Exxon behind bin Laden climate tape

2010-01-29T17:32:00.001-08:00

I haven't done a conspiracy theory post in a while. Well, OK, maybe I have (some past favorites included Sarah Palin and anthrax), but if so, then here's another one, just for fun.

So, Bin Laden Rebukes U.S. on Climate Change

I can already hear the teabag-climate-denier refrain: “I knew that Al Gore and Bin Laden were friends, and I always thought Gore was a secret al Queda operative, climate change isn't real, I'm an idiot, I don't read books, Sarah Palin is hot, blah blah blah…”

Superficially, Saudi Arabia’s wealth comes from oil, which causes global warming. But oil is also the cause of Western interference in the Middle East. So Bin Laden wants to return to the pre-Western days, by getting the U.S. off Middle Eastern oil?

Seems consistent, but I think there's more to it.

According to Joe Romm, bin Laden called for the “wheels of the American economy” to be brought to a halt to stop global warming. Hmm, this sounds like something the Chamber of Commerce, Fox News, or the chief of Exxon might say about any potential climate legislation. Now we're getting into conspiracy theory territory.

What if the same people who are using bin Laden as their puppet to scare lawmakers into approving trillion dollar defense budgets year after year (remember the Cold War ended back in 1989), and billions in Homeland Security no-bid contracts to look at people naked at airports, and wiretap people's iPhones and blog-tap people's computers, and keep those oil profits coming in until the wells run dry...what if they're now using bin Laden to try to derail climate legislation? Right when the Senate may have the best solution in front of their noses. That's pulling out the big guns (even if the guy is on life support hidden away in some bunker under Abu Ghraib).

Just when the Middle Class is about to get a dividend, a politically supported carbon price to reduce our reliance on foreign oil, and to save our coastal cities from eminent extreme weather events (Bechtel I'm sure wanted those lucrative rebuilding contracts), only a proclamation by Bin Laden could scare people into voting against their own best interest, or at least bridge the gap until the next election cycle when the corporations will unleash a bailout's worth of campaign finance, thanks to the Supreme Court of Robotic Enslavement. Here another link to the judiciary-robot theme.

Weird to think that Bin Laden could have a climate policy. Sitting in his cave, reading James Hansen papers? Almost makes him seem like a real human (not a hologram projection created by Rumsfeld's DIA?). Next will we find out he has an opinion on universal health care, or banking reform? I assume it would involve blowing things up, kind of like the Joker in the “Dark Knight,” but I’d start to get worried if he suddenly came out for universal health care and public floggings of Goldman Sachs executives and their puppet Treasury Secretaries. The Supreme Court definitely sided with McWorld the other day with their campaign finance ruling, and if Jihad starts putting out statements favoring people over corporations, they might attract some interest from the semi-populist teabaggers, and that’s kind of troubling. (note to NSA wiretapper: reference Benjamin Barber’s book Jihad vs. McWorld)

How Obama can get back on track

2010-01-27T08:47:00.001-08:00

Take a risk or two.

Make it clear you represent the people, not the special interests.

Break the gridlock by showing some leadership, getting tough, and not waiting around for Congress. If some Senators are giving you a hard time, let them know that you will be supporting their primary opponents in the next election.

Fire Bernanke and Geithner. They smell of Dubya economic policy, Wall Street Bailouts, and Goldman Sachs bonuses. Corporations already have too much power, time for you to represent the people, and appoint some pro-people, not pro-too-big-to-fail banks, economists (if there are any).

Make it simpler. Sure, they are complex problems, but many of them have one sentence answers. For example:

Health care: Expand Medicare to cover all Americans. There, you did it. Was that so difficult? Some of the elderly might vote against it because they don't care about their own kids or grandchildren, but it seems like every human being (not corporation) would support it. You'll need those votes, after that Supreme Court ruling.

Climate Change: The CLEAR Act. Auction permits to polluters and return the revenues back to people as a cash dividend. The CLEAR Act is only 39 pages long, unlike the 1500 page pork-fest that the House passed.

Iraq: War is over, if you want it. Bring 'em home. Make a spectacle out of it. No need to land an airplane with a "Mission accomplished" banner, but do something honorable and classy, and tell us about the peace dividend and the balanced budget. Sorry to say it, Obie, but same for Afghani-quagmire. Your approval went down after your Peace Prize "War is good" speech. People like you because you can use words and diplomacy and don't need to use guns and swagger like that previous guy. We have problems at home, and stop using these Dubya-inspired wars as excuses.

Guantanamo: Close it. Yesterday. Find a loophole, do what you need to do. This represents an unfulfilled promise, an image of powerlessness, and it bothers me.

Jobs: Disaster prep and relief (Haiti), rebuilding New Orleans, energy retrofits. Make it happen, on the fast track.

Military spending: Cut it by about 50%, balance the budget, and pay for all the domestic programs above. This will take some guts. Do you have it?

I'm telling you, if the State of the Union is the same ol' "The State of the Union is strong, settle down America, eveyrthing is just fine, G-d bless America" eloquent but without substance, we won't be impressed, and we'll be back to yearning for change we can believe in, and I wish that change was the Green Party, but our Coke and Pepsi political system only seems to allow for two parties, and so the other one, the one with no solutions, will benefit, and the American people will suffer.

Governor Schwarzenegger Issues Statement on Cap-and-Trade Program Recommendations

2010-01-12T07:17:00.001-08:00

Governor Schwarzenegger Issues Statement on Cap-and-Trade Program Recommendations

Posted using ShareThis

Notes from an Imaginarium

2010-01-10T17:44:00.001-08:00

I saw the Terry Gilliam movie "Imaginarium of Dr. Parnassus." Very Gilliam-ish, non-linear, and creative. It was great, but weird. I had to watch ESPN SportCenter for an hour afterward to get back to reality.

Here are some notes of my thoughts about themes which are open to interpretation in the movie. If you haven't see it yet, you may want to stop reading now.

The main theme was the father's (Parnassus's) fear of his daughter growing up and losing her innocence. When she turned 16 she could start making choices, and so had the capacity for "sin" which meant that the devil could take her (At the end, the "his" mirror for Valentina said "sin" in the reflection (the "H" had a slant that became the "N")). Parnassus wanted to prevent her from becoming an adult and preserve her childhood, but that would be impossible. She just wanted a "normal" life, and at the end Dr. Parnassus had to acknowledge that this was OK.

Tony (the Heath Ledger character) may have been Valentina's projection of her perfect man. So there was an element of the Fight Club two characters in one. She only slept with Tony in her imaginarium. Anton was intimidated by Tony's presence. When Anton "dies" in Tony's imaginarium, this is Anton and Valentina growing up. Then Tony is killed by Parnassus in P's imaginarium. Tony represents the transition to adulthood for Anton and Valentina, which is Parnassus' fear.

At the end of the movie, Valentina grows up, and she realizes that she really wanted a real person, Anton, not Tony from her imagination, and Parnassus lets her go live her own life.

Does this make any sense?

CNNMoney.com covers Dividends and Elinor Ostrom on the Commons

2009-12-31T11:56:00.000-08:00

Good job CNNMoney.com for totally being on it.
The article "Fight global warming, get $1,100 a year" covers Maria Cantwell's CLEAR Act. A bit too much air time to the traders who are like, "But I want the money." But otherwise, it's the best article they've ever done.
Here's the link:

http://money.cnn.com/2009/12/23/news/economy/cap_and_dividend/

Plus it includes a great interview with Elinor Ostrom, the winner of this year's Nobel Prize in Economics. Hooray for Elinor! She's great.

Climate Scoreboard

2009-12-30T17:30:00.001-08:00

More cool climate widgets.

What remains broken about the health care system: Fee-for-service, malpractice, lack of competition

2009-12-20T20:53:00.000-08:00

Here's a brief health care bill analysis, excerpted from the Votemaster, a website I recommend for insider political info at http://www.electoral-vote.com/.

"When all is said and done, we may have a bill, but it really doesn't reform what everyone agrees is a broken system. What it does is have the government buy poor and semipoor people insurance within the framework of the current system. The fee-for-service paradigm, which encourages doctors to do unnecessary procedures thus driving costs (and their income) up, is still fully intact. The malpractice situation, which drives doctors to practice defensive medicine by ordering all kinds of useless tests to cover their tushes in the event of a subsequent lawsuit remains the same. The fundamental lack of competition between insurance companies, most of whom have something close to a regional monopoly does not change. In short, while 30 million people will get health insurance as a result of this bill, the factors driving health-care costs ever upward will not be broken."

My own editorial is simple: expand Medicare to all U.S. citizens.

Cap and Share (Copenhagen is Over)

2009-12-17T09:43:00.000-08:00

Cap and Share (Copenhagen is Over)
Sung to the tune of “Happy Christmas (War Is Over)” by John Lennon and Yoko Ono
- - - - -
So this was Copenhagen
And what have you done
Another COP over
A new decade just begun
And so this was Copenhagen
I hope you had fun
The protests and speeches
But nothing got done

We face a scary future
Starting with the New Year
Let's hope it's a good one
But I have some fears

And so this was Copenhagen
The UN is not strong
The rich watch the poor drown
The world is so wrong

And so glaciers melting
Refugees and drought
Hurricanes and diseases
Makes me want to shout

A very scary future
And a happy New Year
Let's hope it's a good one
Without any fear

And so this was Copenhagen
And what have we done
Another COP over
And a new decade just begun

And so this was Copenhagen
I hope you had fun
Next time Cap emissions
and give Shares to everyone

A very scary future
And a happy New Year
Let's hope it's a good one
Without any fear

Cap and Share it
If you want it
Cap and Share
Now...

Story of Cap & Giveaway

2009-12-02T15:34:00.000-08:00

This video is about 10 minutes, by the Story of Stuff folks.

The Story of Cap & Trade from Story of Stuff Project on Vimeo.

Grist has a counterargument here.

I agree with the Story people that giveaways are bad, offsets are mostly a sham, and there's potential for Enron-type shenanigans. But I see why David Roberts of Grist is worried that overly broad critiques of cap and trade may sway the political outcome so much taht we'll end up with nothing, which is Exxon's divide and conquer strategy.

In the end, c'mon Obama and the Democratic majority. Do something, how about Cap and Dividend, Contraction & Convergence, or something. With Obama's 30,000 more troops being sent to slaughter, I'm at a personal all-time Obama-era low in hope for change we can believe in, just in time for Nopenhagen.

Sacrificing 30,000 troops for Lieberman's health care vote

2009-12-01T15:03:00.000-08:00

Everyone knows the war in Afghanistan is pointless. But Lieberman is so bloodthirsty, that he probably extracted the additional 30,000 troops in exchange for his vote on health care. I can see why Obama may have taken the deal. 30 thousand American lives in exchange for health care for 30 million Americans.

But why waste the time and money? Would it be cheaper to just fly the troops to Connecticut, maybe line them up in front of Lieberman's district offices or his house, and shoot them dead now, rather than wait for them to trickle in 5 a day? Maybe this would appeal to Lieberman's budget hawk tendencies.

Oh well, thank you to the brave soldiers who are being sacrificed so that the rest of us can have health care.

Cool California

2009-10-06T12:50:00.000-07:00

CoolCalifornia Climate Actionsgreat free widgetsWidgetboxMore info

Tell McChrystal that all the new troops are going to fight climate change instead

2009-09-28T22:56:00.000-07:00

Sorry McC. Rumsfeld had his head up his butt. His worldview was warped, and I would sympathize with you for trying to invent a reason for being in Afghanistan, but you military folks are holding a hammer and try to make everything into a nail. Now, if you could look around for a minute, you might notice that the whole biosphere is under attack, and the national security of the United States of America is threatened. The enemy? Climate change.

So, Obama, tell McC that he can have extra troops, but that they won't be sent to Afghanistan. They'll be assigned to stopping climate change, and they won't have any guns or missiles or things that kill.

By the way, Mr. Obama (and I did like your books, and I am trying to have hope and I like change), while I'm giving you orders, you could make me General of the CarbonWarRoom and let me invade Congress and the NYSE and institute a Carbon Share program. Maybe I'll take an army of wonky climate economists to Copenhagen and force the world to support a Global Climate Trust too.

To summarize, whatever the mission was in Afghanistan (helping Bush run up deficits so that Obama can't pass universal health care now?), we don't want it anymore. Bring the troops home, well, maybe leave a few Special Forces to hunt down bin Laden, but no need to try to run the whole country. Sure, I want to help women over there. Let's help fund some US AID workers and Oxfam and others that can set up shelters for battered women and schools, etc, and bring home the macho dudes with the rifles, who only make people anxious and aren't the right people to help women in burkas anyway.

Carbon War Room

2009-09-23T11:01:00.000-07:00

Cap and Trade costs are only half the story - Auction revenues can be returned to consumers

2009-09-16T19:18:00.000-07:00

Anti-cap and trade forces (oil companies, coal companies, and their campaign contribution recipients) are publicizing a U.S. Department of Treasury report on the costs of cap and trade. Their right-wing spin interprets the total in "new taxes" (which are actually auction revenues from the government selling permits to corporations, then having them pass costs to consumers) of between $100 billion to $200 billion a year as meaning the cost per American household could be up to $1,761 a year.

The spin is wrong for several reasons. First, it depends what you do with the money. You can return the auction revenues back to people as a dividend or share. The costs are totally different depending on what you do with the money. Look up Dallas Burtraw's papers on the RFF website for more info.

Second, each state has unique carbon costs, depending on the amount of coal in its electricity mix, investment in energy efficiency, weather (too cold or too hot and you use more heat or AC), and more. So if you're in ND, WY, or WV, sure, you'll pay more. But if you're in Vermont, CA, or even Idaho, you won't pay that much. Now, maybe you want some redistribution payments to make it more fair, and that can be done through modifying the per capita dividend or share. But let's take the right wing spin with a large grain of salt (or chunk of smoggy coal-filled toxic pollution).

Why do smears only work on good people? A Requiem for Van Jones

2009-09-08T13:45:00.000-07:00

Why was my 6-year smear campaign against Rumsfeld less successful than Glenn Beck's 2-week smear campaign against Van Jones?

Do Dems just have no backbone, and when they get criticized they immediately run for cover? But I know Van Jones and he's no wimp. Maybe Obama can't stand up for his people, and wants to cater to the Repubs so he can get every possible vote on health care and climate. But how far will he bend? You give up Van Jones after a mere week or so?

I don't follow right wing media, so I don't know how loud their echo chamber was on Van. I don't know if the minority party Repubs had traction and could have actually used it to distract people from the important issues coming up. Is the very mention of having another commission examine 9-11 enough reason to fire a green jobs expert? What are people so afraid of? I do know that Van's a good guy, and doesn't deserve to be booted after only a few months on the job.

Is Obama going to be spineless when attacked? If so, here are some modified slogans for your next campaign: "Change we can believe in (until someone says something mean, then, we'll ask our change agents to resign)" "Change we can believe in (as long as no one ever asks any questions, and repudiates anything they ever said that was the least bit controversial, about Bush, Rumsfeld, the Iraq War, or 9-11)" "Hope (that Fox News doesn't smear anyone who works at the White House because if they do, then we'll immediately give up our whole agenda and hope they don't think of anything else to smear)" I really do hope that this isn't the case.

In counterpoint, Rumsfeld stuck around for 6 disastrous years. I wasn't smearing what Rumsfeld said about 9-11, I was smearing what he DID about it. Well, it's not really a smear if it's true. But Rumsfeld got to stick around, and Dems voted to support Bush's war plans, and to keep funding the war (even now).

In my idealistic blogosphere, smears against Rumsfeld would work, and Repub smears against good people would be ignored.

Advice for "No Impact Man"

2009-09-04T10:38:00.000-07:00

No Impact Man, it's a stunt, don't get so defensive.
You should have spent the year going to NYC City council meetings, getting them to buy recycled toilet paper, and you'd save more trees than your patient wife who is a saint for being such a good sport just like the Supersize-Me guy's vegan girlfriend was.

We need to work for institutional change. When McDonald's began printing their logo on their napkins instead of embossing it, fitting more napkins per package needing fewer shipments, they saved more trees and reduced more GHGs than I could in my whole life.

We need a mandatory carbon cap, so that the price signal rewards good behavior, and makes Hummer drivers pay more. This could be done through a carbon tax or through cap and dividend, etc. Hopefully, No Impact Man will start promoting this, not just telling people to stop using toilet paper.

For most people, every weekend is a possibility for a low-impact day, the Sabbath. Yom Kippur is coming up, and millions of Jews will participate in a low impact day, and spend the day thinking about the impact they have made in the last year.

But Kolbert's conclusion is powerful, think about the impact you can make on those around you, don't just focus on your poor suffering patient wife. Make an impact on policy, don't just torture your wife. Hopefully you can use your book tour and publicity to promote that message, not just to defend the righteousness of your stunt.

Earth to Congress: The current health care system sucks

2009-08-25T09:09:00.000-07:00

In case you haven't seen the movie Sicko yet, the current health care system sucks. Insurance companies are evil. 40 million people have nothing. Now fix it!

I don't care how warped your ideology is. I don't care if you're the love child of Milton Friedman, Ayn Rand, and Alan Greenspan (blech!). I don't care if you're the editor of the Wall Street Journal, you intern at the Cato Institute, and you work at the Plundermaxx Corporation. Your ideology has already been proven wrong and you are like a muttering homeless person who did too much LSD and you think you're at some free-market Woodstock dystopia.

Give it up. We both know the current system sucks. And Canada has a better one. You know what to do, you don't need me to say it. OK, I'll say it. Single-payer universal health care. I heard McGovern on NPR the other day, he said he could fix the health care system in a single line: Medicare is now extended to all Americans.

Did Hope last only 7 months?

2009-08-17T10:01:00.001-07:00

At the climate justice march the other day, I was talking to a lady who said that it is a waste to support Obama, that he is the same as all the other corporate politicians. I disagreed and said during the 2008 election, I thought if Hillary had won it would be the same Dem centrist triangulation, but that Obama's young, multi-racial supporters would demand more progressive change, and that when Obama won, it was the signal that the Dean wing (anti-war) had beaten the Kerry wing of the party, something that should have happened in 2004.

Now I'm starting to see lefties get discouraged around (lack of) health care, and I'm surprised at how much media attention these current protesters are getting, while my recent 8 years of protests didn't seem to even cause a blip. What's up with that, "liberal" media?

A few quotes from a HuffPost article and comments show how disgruntled lefties have become:

"(for continuing to support Obama), what will we get in return? If the last six months are any indication, the answer is, "Nothing"...
"Obama is here to tamp down the aspirations of the people. To enact reforms that don't cause any fundamental change. To protect the profits for the big players."...
"warning folks to expect from Obama exactly what we have gotten so far - compromising with right-wing bullies, flip-flopping on most of his campaign promises and turning his back on his progressive base."

(back to my comments again)
I'd hate to be taken in again as naive, I'd like to view myself as more patient to get the change we need to believe in. But I can see people's point that the compromising and waffling and caving in can only go on so long, and at some point, I'd like to see Obama show some strength and twist some arms, and get what he wants. Pull out of Afghanistan, auction 100% of GHG permits, return dividends to consumers, put money towards clean energy, and not corn ethanol handouts to corporate agribusiness (offsets), stop caving in to Wall Street, and get real single-payer health care that is not a sell-out to big-pharma. It's not that complicated, is it? I'm willing to give some more benefit of the doubt, but at some point if we don't see progressive progress, the green party will get another influx of annoyed voters who are saying, "Never again," again.

Will Copenhagen be the "next Seattle"?

2009-08-12T12:14:00.000-07:00

This December is COP-15, the international climate conference in Copenhagen, where the Earth will hang in the balance. Some people are saying it will be the "next Seattle" (a citizen's convergence where the people show the officials that it's time to take our demands seriously). I guess the big demand is 350 ppm, but I'd add in Contraction & Convergence, and Cap & Share too.

http://beyondtalk.net/

http://www.actforclimatejustice.org/

Senate can choose Dividends instead of House Climate Change Giveaway

2009-08-03T12:30:00.000-07:00

The House strategy for Cap and Trade was 1) hand out allowances to utilities and other powerful lobbies, and 2) hope carbon costs will remain low (the so-called "postage stamp a day"). But many midwesterners, including North Dakotans Sen. Byron Dorgan and Rep. Earl Pomeroy are sceptical of the "postage stamp" strategy. High-coal states will face major costs, and the strategy puts supporters at risk in the 2010 or 2012 elections.

But the Senate still has time to choose an alternative strategy that sets aside Waxman and Pelosi's vision of realpolitik (that had almost everyone holding their noses by the end of House debate). An alternative strategy would be to level with the American people, tell them that costs might be high, but auction revenues will provide them with a dividend to help cover the costs. Perhaps Van Hollen's Cap and Dividend bill could be modified to limit the tradability of the auctioned permits, and then return the revenues to the people, bypassing the lobbyists and financial speculators.

Spreading Rumors About Palin

2009-07-06T11:08:00.000-07:00

What follows is pure speculation, so don't quote me on this. There are no unnamed sources for this article, Judith Miller did not talk to Scooter Libby, Curveball did not tell me this after being waterboarded, Rove did not out any CIA agents here, and David Letterman and his writers did not tell jokes about this. So without further ado, here is my random list of potential scandals that caused Palin to resign for no apparent reason:

She had an affair with: a. one of her staffers, b. McCain, c. Joe the Plumber, d. Eminem, as shown in his recent music video, e. all of the above

She had a threesome with John Ensign and Mark Sanford

She visited a $15,000 prostitute while in D.C.

His name was Newt Gingrich

She got pregnant

She got pregnant by Levi

She got an abortion (during the 2008 campaign)

She put Willow on birth control and feels bad about it and wants to spend more time at church asking for forgiveness

She is actually gay

There is something in Levi's forthcoming book that she is worried about

She got a job with Fox News

She got a job with Saturday Night Live

She will be on a reality TV show (MTV's The Real World?)

She got a job as a spokesperson for a turkey-killing factory

She is planning to pose for Playboy's Girls of the Radical Right Wing

She is planning to pose for Playboy's Anti-Choice Grandmas of the GOP (I'll probably skip that issue)

A girls gone wild video of her from 1983 has surfaced and she wanted to resign so she could make a deal to get a portion of the proceeds (Paris Hilton style)

She sold meth to Levi's mom

She bought meth from Levi's mom

She did meth with Levi's mom

Palin's car wash had "not filed its biennial report and/or paid its biennial fees"

She wants to go back to working at her car wash

Boring old using state troopers for personal family stuff, like changing diapers or babysitting for her

Boring old firing state troopers who got divorced from her sister, etc.

Boring old trying to get paid state funds for sleeping at home or taking family with her on trips

Boring old embezzlement of public funds (maybe while she was mayor of Wasilla regarding a Sports Center and contractors doing free work on her house)

More scandals here

(Note: this blog is covered by the 1st amendment (it's in the Constitution, Sarah, look it up), so no moaning or whining about defamation. If you want to sue someone, sue McCain. If he hadn't picked you, I wouldn't have known who you are.)

The Highlight of the House's Energy Bill Debate

2009-06-29T15:21:00.000-07:00

I watched the debate last Friday on CSpan. It was disheartening to hear the disingenous Repub arguments, they have already decided to vote no, now time to backfill for reasons why. Um, hoaxy? Al Gore-rrible? Economy? (sorry guys, all of those are weak!)

Among Dems, the highlight of the debate was Rep. John Larson (CT? I'm pretty sure, although after awhile the talking heads seem to blur together, sorry if it wasn't him) who gave a great speech about how we are sending so much money for oil to Saudi Arabia, Iran, and Venezuela, that the Repubs should be ashamed of voting against this because they are supporting our enemies and contributing to terrorism (or something like that). It was a way stronger argument than some of the flimsy green jobs stuff which sounds a little like “just wait another 10 years and we’ll have a hydrogen car, we promise.”

Some Music and Videos of Hope

2009-06-26T11:19:00.000-07:00

A tribute to Michael Jackson, and hoping that we can solve the problems of the world.

"We are the World" - An anthem of hope, great 80's cameos.

"Man in the Mirror" - A good song to listen to if you are thinking of becoming vegetarian.

"Smooth Criminal" - looks like he was protesting the WTO and the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtle police started getting violent.

"You are not Alone" - I like the Olive song by that name too.

"Heal the World" - sort of cheesy, but a good kids song, nice anti-war sentiment.

"Earth Song" - really good, put that pollution back into the smokestack.

"Feed the World" - this isn't Michael Jackson, but I think his work helped inspire it, plus I was on a roll, and more 80's cameos.

Gaia's Future Debated in the House

2009-06-26T07:36:00.000-07:00

It's a day that Bill McKibben, Carl Pope, Stephen Schneider, James Lovelock and Gaia itself have been waiting for. HR.2454, the American Clean Energy and Security Act (ACES), the House's first serious attempt to address climate change, is on the House floor. Climate change is a serious challenge. We need to reduce our GHG emissions, and the consequences of not doing so are serious, perhaps threatening the continued existence of half of all species, perhaps eventually including our own.

Do any of these Congresspeople know what they are talking about? Very few have read the bill. It's over 1200 pages. How many Congresspeople understand cap and trade, at all? Or think they understand it, but really don't.

Especially the Republicans. I assume many of them understand that climate change is a problem, or at least are concerned about dependence on imported oil from the Middle East and elsewhere. But they have prioritized short-term power politics over the survival of God's creation, the Earth. The economic scare tactics, skepticism of science, callers on CSpan saying that global warming is a hoax. Mainly it seems they hate Al Gore, and this gives them a reason to announce it to people loudly. Interestingly, Al Gore is not even that liberal, but he stirs up memories of the 90's, which I guess for Repubs was a painful time, it was like Middle School and he was like the Assistant Principal, I guess. Even so, the Repugs are trying to fit what they can into their existing worldview, for example, saying that if there is a problem, it's because of those dark skinned people in the Amazon cutting those trees. If they could say global warming was caused by welfare mothers they would.

Blue Dog Democrats are scared of making any bold moves. Status quo coal and manufacturing control them.

I've been arguing that action on global warming is needed. And I've been pestering everyone around me about it for years going on decades now. But is this bill the right one? We are running out of time. Every year of delay is potentially fatal. Even so, the bill has been compromised. A well-respected analyst told me yesterday that at this point, the bill's main impact will be to pay money to corn farmers to make ethanol, with little or no emissions reductions. On the other hand, showing up to the international climate conference in Copenhagen in December with nothing from the U.S. would just prolong the Bush-era stalemate. China and India are right to say that the U.S. should go first. If those Repugnicans think our economic problems are bad, why don't they go there and tell them to reduce their emissions.

There is the head versus heart debate, or what I call the Christina Aguilera debate (my body's sayin let's go, but my heart is sayin no). For normal people, it's that we know the bill is flawed, but we hope that it will help in some way. I'm not sure which is the heart and which is the head, or in Christina's case, which is the T and which is the A (not as much in the head, sorry, uncalled for). For Repugs, it's that they want to oppose Obama's agenda and if they can personally insult Al Gore while doing so this gives them great pleasure, and if they can fit in some populist rhetoric about jobs (when they actually are the unions worst enemy the other 364 days of the year, and their free trade agenda has cost more jobs than this bill ever could) and the economy (which mainly consists of bank bailouts and ponzi schemes at this point right?), and on the other hand, the concessions in this bill might actually benefit their constituencies (industrial ag, Monsanto, the delay in switching off coal, keeping gas prices high which they say they oppose but they enjoy the campaign contributions from Exxon) but they are so blinded by Gore-hatred they refuse to recognize that, and cap and trade was originally a free market solutions that was an alternative to command and control regulation but if they aren't in front of the parade them they won't go I guess, and they often have grandchildren and like going outdoors, and there may be a small voice in the back of their mind that knows that they would feel bad if they were responsible for ending civilization. But that is a distant echo, which can be easily drowned out with Venezuelan hookers, whiskey, Fox News, and Rush Limbaugh.

350 ppm trumps politics. (many enviros think the tipping point for climate collapse will be 350 parts per million CO2 equivalent in the atmposphere, the IPCC sometimes refers to 450 ppm as a goal for 2050 or 2100, this blog has a graphic that shows our current ppm). But there's no silver bullet single solution to climate change, so we should support anything that reduces coal use. It's not clear if ACES will, but it might be a step towards it (squinting, wishing). Maybe strategic opposition can improve the bill, providing a story for the media to cover ("enviros say bill is too weak, allocations should go to consumers not utilities").

If ACES passes, which I think would be a victory for recognition of climate change as a problem, there will still be lots of work to be done, so don't hang up your hat and call it a day yet. Sorry, you can't take the rest of the day off.

6 versions of Terminator:Salvation that would have been an improvement

2009-06-12T14:06:00.000-07:00

Here they are, in descending order from serious to just funny.

1) Terminator: What should have been

John Connor leads a small band of people just trying to survive. He comes across young Kyle Reese and acts as a father figure to him. They learn that Skynet is harvesting human tissue to make human-looking cyborgs to infiltrate the resistance. Their upcoming model is based on an Austrian weightlifter whose genome had been sequenced by CyberDyne. John captures and reprograms an experimental Terminator (Marcus). Skynet finds the resistance headquarters and captures everyone. Marcus pretends he is still a machine, but once back at Skynet headquarters, hacks into Skynet, locates John and Kyle, and is able to fight the other Terminators so that John and Kyle escape. Marcus’s last act before he dies is to upload a computer virus into Skynet that John Connor had created. It shuts down parts of Skynet, and the resistance takes over certain factories. As people hear about this, they come out of the woodwork, and this builds up the resistance from a few people to several thousand. Towards the end of the movie they find out that Skynet has repaired itself and is preparing a counterattack. Connor keeps trying to capture Terminators in order to reprogram them and find out how Skynet’s software works. Towards the end of the movie, something strange happens that implies that Skynet is working on time travel technology.
The soundtrack: Nine Inch Nails Year Zero, and The Day the Whole World Went Away

2) Terminator: Hackers

John Connor learned at the end of T3 that Skynet is software, and has infected the computers of the world. Therefore, logically, this next movie is about him trying to find out if any computer programmers survived Judgment Day so that they can try to hack into Skynet and turn it off. It becomes more of an intellectual thriller, as John Connor tries to figure out the structure of Skynet, and how he can communicate with hackers around the world without alerting Skynet to their plans. They may have to build a second Internet, use old WWI analog coding devices, or carrier pigeons.

Terminator: After the Bomb

John Connor has come up with some ingenious ways for the resistance to survive under Skynet’s radar. The movie revolves around how they had to rebuild from scratch all the things we take for granted. They had to develop anti-radiation pills or medications, they built a Biodiesel refinery so they would not be reliant on oil, which is controlled by the machines. Kate manages an organic greenhouse underground to grow food. We also find out which animals and plants survived Judgment Day, and which species began to mutate or evolve in the new ecology. Joseph Masco could work as a behind-the-scenes consultant for the film.

Terminator: The Basics

Like a video game, the camera follows John Connor around as he is attacked by robots in creative ways. That’s it.

Terminator: Salivation

The resistance has been living in bomb shelters like the one shown at the end of T3 for over 10 years eating canned beans. Finally, John Connor leads an expedition outside to see if anything edible survived the nuclear winter. Meanwhile, Kate attempts to start an organic community garden, using permaculture principles. It turns out that Kyle Reese really likes fresh fava beans.

Terminator: Under a Hot Moon

Moon Bloodgood strips to 80’s synthesizer techno from Term 1, GnR, Year Zero, Kraftwerk, and other robot related music. Perhaps the most successful of the proposed alternatives.

By the way, I've been enjoying reading the comments on this other blog.

Shih Tzus Against Hummers?

2009-06-07T21:12:00.001-07:00

Now that Hummer is being sold to a Chinese company, maybe Chihuahuas Against Hummers should form a Chinese affiliate. Perhaps Shih Tzus Against Hummers?

Issues with Terminator Salvation

2009-05-25T21:24:00.000-07:00

I liked the previous Terminator movies so much that I dressed as one for Halloween, and I have one as my avatar photo. But this might change, because I don't really want to be associated with the current one, Terminator Salvation.

So disappointing, because I had high hopes, with the Nine Inch Nails song "When the Whole World Went Away" in the trailer, and Batman swaggering around casually shooting Terminators for fun. There were a few good scenes, but the director and writers missed the big bullet points, and took the lazy cut and paste route to 90 minutes, done, let's go have a margarita. But dude, you got to please the fans or else you won't get hired back.

Here are some of my issues with the movie. If you're planning to see it, you might want to stop reading here.

Marcus and Moon should have been taken completely out of the movie. Why did Moon disobey orders and release Marcus? Oops, now I got shot, wasn't expecting that. You liked this guy who acts like a robot so much that you risk your life and piss off all your friends? Every scene she was in I cringed. Especially the take off the fighter pilot helmet and shake your hair and give the flirtacious smile. Hello, this isn't a shampoo commercial, it's the Terminator. Enough with the tight pants and the Trinity kicks. We've already seen it, in a movie where it was new.

All we really want is to see Christian Bale kill robots, and he did a few times, but all this jibber jabber with Marcus was so pointless. And the face of Skynet is not Helena Bonham Carter. Skynet would not try to convince Marcus of anything. It is a machine, it works by command and control. It would tell Marcus what to do and if he resisted, he would be terminated and another one would be created to replace him. And if you're going to be like a mile away from a nuclear explosion, I want to see you take anti-radiation pills in the next scene, or else I want to see your hair falling out and you die. I can't suspend that much disbelief.

And the Terminator series is not the Matrix. No Architect, no existential questions. You are a machine, with a single mission, and John Connor's is to save Kyle Reese, which is a good counterpoint to the 1st movie. This surety of purpose is what we admire about the Terminator. The Terminator is not a waffling Keanu, trying to figure things out. Too bad the writers lost track amid the CGI, which is not a substitute for plot.

Also, enough with the cut and paste characters. The mute kid with the fro from Mad Max Beyond Thunderdome, and I think in that Kevin Costner movie too, lame. The set, costumes, and gas station with the rasta dude and the old woman who hate each other, wasn't that from Resident Evil Extinction? The character from South Park: Token (you know what I mean). And rehashing the Guns and Roses song, and the random Alice in Chains Rooster song? Did you profile your fans and that came up #1? True, I own the album, but let's be creative here. I'm not saying Enya, but where was the Nine Inch Nails song from the trailer? Any songs off of Year Zero would have been a way better choice. And the PG-13 rating, this is just to sell video games. But long time fans want a better script. So sad.

The radio thing...wouldn't Skynet pick up that transmission too? If not, why not? Where does the gasoline come from? Do they have biodiesel refineries? Underground greenhouses to grow food? No? Just coyote that must be totally radioactive, assuming they were able to survive the nuclear winter. If you're going to attack San Francisco, why not come up El Camino Real like Junipero Serra? Why cross the rickety, destroyed Golden Gate? Is the resistance based up in Marin, in a hottub in Mill Valley? And Batman, just give him the ears and the cape already, and make him fight IceMan, played by CGI Arnold.

Speaking of which, c'mon, give Arnold more of an intro than just "duh duh duh duh." Like, uh oh, here comes Arnold, or something. Then trying all the same stuff from the previous movies to melt him and freeze him, so boring. And the factory where the machines are made, just like the Matrix. Seen it already. Also already seen where the Borg were made, and where the Aliens were born. Yawn.

The worst was that we already knew that Skynet is software, not hardware. So why try to blow up one factory? So lame. Use a computer virus or some kind of software solution. John Connor should have a team of hackers trying to take down Skynet's firewall. Too creative? Too "outside the box"?

I like the Earth

2009-04-07T18:29:00.000-07:00

The emotional manipulation worked. Here I am promoting this on my own blog, for free. But I just like polar bears, humpback whales, and elephants. Sorry.

Stop eating meat, 'cuz I want y'all ta live

2009-03-24T11:52:00.000-07:00

At the end of his song "Colors," rapper Ice-T made a plea to Stop the Violence where he said, "please stop, cuz I want y'all ta live." Here's my own plea, for y'all ta stop dyin' from eatin' all that meat, excerpted from this story: Eating Too Much Red Meat May Shorten Life

Diets high in red meat and in processed meat shorten life span not just from cancer and heart disease but from Alzheimer's, stomach ulcers and an array of other conditions as well, a U.S. National Cancer Institute study has found.

U.S. National Cancer Institute researchers reported that a quarter-pound hamburger or a small pork chop eaten daily could put you at increased risk for a variety of cancers.

[guess what?]...the American Meat Institute objected to the conclusion...[but the sobering facts say...]

Dying from cancer also was more likely among those eating the most red meat: 22 percent higher for men, 20 percent for women. The risk for death from cancer increased 12 percent for men and 11 percent for women who ate the greatest amount of processed meat.

Similarly, the risk of dying from cardiovascular disease was higher by 27 percent for men and 50 percent for women; for processed red meat, the risk was 9 percent higher for men and 38 percent higher for women.
- - - - -

In Time Magazine, a nutrition epidemiologist who directs the interdisciplinary obesity program at the University of North Carolina said cutting back from a Big Mac every other day — (7.5 ounces of red meat, the highest quintile of meat consumption in the study, or, in other words, the typical American diet) — to one Big Mac a week would yield "dramatic health benefits."

I'll go even further and say, go vegetarian, buy organic, ban foie gras, and stop killing animals. Too radical? Well, also, stop pestering your vegetarian friends and family about how they are not getting enough protein, or about how their habits are messing up your traditional Palin-style Thanksgiving death-fest. They will give you a nice eulogy at your funeral, with "Colors" by Ice-T playing in the background.

Take Over GM and Make Better Cars

2009-03-05T16:51:00.000-08:00

Suddenly these Detroit auto CEOs are eco-friendly, and sweet-talking in DC. But where were you ten years ago? What about your famous Hummer brand? Sure, now that you want free money, you'll promise this and that, but as soon as you're back on your feet, it'll be, "Oh, well, the market's not quite there yet, and oh, it's so expensive, but we're making 50 test models, and oh, we're doing all that we can by investing in R&D, and oh, we have plans to release a hydrogen car in 2025." I've heard it all before.

A few months ago I said let's bail out the auto companies and include contracts saying that they'll green their fleet etc. Now I'm thinking the government should actually take over the companies, fire all the people who sued to stop California's Clean Car Regulations (I mean go through their email archive, and every single person who said yes let's sue - fired!), hire some people from Silicon Valley EV start-ups, and let them run the companies. Oh, and the new contracts will all say they they won't sue to stop new climate regulations, they won't fund climate denial groups, they will support gas taxes and fuel surcharges, and they will green their fleet, or else the company reverts back to the government, and they go to jail.

Sounds fair.

Nationalizing the Banks and Greening the Monetary System

2009-02-22T09:45:00.000-08:00

Could nationalizing the banks help fix two major problems with the monetary system? Economists and conservatives, recently including Alan Greenspan, are starting to talk about the need to nationalize U.S. banks in order to stabilize the financial system. At the least, it would prevent the banks from using bailout money for junkets. At best, it could provide an opportunity to fix some fundamental flaws in our monetary system.

The two most basic problems with our monetary system are that 1) money is backed by debt, and 2) compounded interest ensures that a certain percentage of people will go bankrupt. Rather than explain all of that here, I refer you to Richard Douthwaite’s Ecology of Money and an essay here.

When dollars are only backed by debt (money is loaned into existence), banks must keep lending in order to keep the money supply stable. Otherwise, when loans are paid back, or when companies are unable to pay back loans and go bankrupt, the money ceases to exist, it just disappears, which is the actual cause of a recession. In order to prevent this house of cards from collapsing, banks must always be creating new loans. But when the debt stops flowing, the money supply starts to contract, which is what happened after banks realized that the credit default swaps based on subprime loans were overvalued.

Money could be based on something real instead of just based on debt. The gold standard had its own problems. Douthwaite proposes an energy-backed-currency-unit (ebcu) that would help the world address climate change. The ebcu’s value would be backed by the limited number of emissions permits allowed under a global emission cap. In the future, greenhouse gas emissions might be more valuable than gold, and because they will get scarcer over time, they will become more valuable. The ebcu would reign in the inflationary fiat paper money system.

The debt basis of our money puts pressure on banks to keep making loans, but the positive interest rate makes those loans more and more expensive. Loans must be repaid with interest, but all money is loaned money, so where does the money to pay back the interest come from? The zero-sum answer: some people must go bankrupt to allow for others to repay their loans. A great source for more information on the interest rate is Margrit Kennedy’s book Interest and Inflation Free Money. Kennedy's book also points out how the growth rate of compound interest is totally unsustainable. One penny invested over time will eventually be worth more than the whole planet. The weird way that the interest rate affects economists estimates of future costs has profoundly affected the debate over the costs of averting climate change, resulting in some economists immorally arguing that it is too expensive to do anything, and it is more economically efficient to sit and fry. One of the few economists questioning this logic was the UK's Sir Nicholas Stern (google: Stern Review, discounting, interest rate, climate change). The interest rate also causes prices to become distorted, and makes capital projects look unaffordable. This is too bad because we need lots of capital projects to transform our energy and transportation infrastructure into low-carbon non-fossil-fuel systems. A steady-state economy will be impossible within the constraints of a debt-backed, positive-interest monetary system. One possible solution is to alter the monetary system to adopt an altered form of the interest rate more like the Swedish JAK Bank model.

So, in summary, the current banking crisis could provide the opportunity to improve our monetary system to fix two major flaws. A new currency that is not tied to debt could be backed by greenhouse gas emissions permits. And banks would be able to loan money without charging compounded interest that forces people into bankruptcy.

Of course, much of the public will not ever learn about the problems of the monetary system because the media will only publish stories that reinforce pre-existing ideologies by focusing on who to blame for the recession: either the private sector (greedy bankers and Bernie Madoff), or the public sector (government-backed loan programs and poor oversight from Christopher Cox's SEC). The Wall Street Journal and Fox News will conveniently forget about how Dubya wanted to privatize Social Security just a few years ago. I already saw one backlash blog posting calling to privatize Congress rather than nationalize the banks. But whether to privatize or nationalize is not the issue. Just like in the first few chapters of Peter Barnes' book Capitalism 3.0, the solution to the problem will not come from either government or corporations, it will come from changing the system. Hopefully, some commentators will recognize the role of debt-backed currency and compound interest play in the current economic downturn, and maybe there will be articles in the media about the monetary system. Booms and busts are not part of the regular business cycle; they are part of the debt/interest monetary system. If the banks need to be taken over by the government until things are sorted out, it may provide a good and rare opportunity to fix these two problems.

Maybe this teachable moment will help create a monetary reform movement in this country. The movement could be based on Richard Douthwaite's The Ecology of Money, and help us create a new monetary system that will reduce greenhouse gas emissions and green our economy.

George W. Who?

2009-01-20T10:49:00.000-08:00

As soon as President Obama was inaugurated, I suddenly forgot who that other guy was. I remember the Clinton years, when I had fun protesting the WTO. I remember Jimmy Carter, and I even remember during Reagan years watching some good movies and rollerskating to Duran Duran, Wham, Prince, and Taylor Dayne. But sometime after 2000 there's kind of a vague recollection of something distasteful, I'm not sure what. I remember playing some video games and hosting some fundraisers, and then the Obama years, ah, much better, I think I'll remember those.

I remember Slobodan Milosevich, and the guy who grew a big beard and hid for awhile but eventually was found and tried at the Hague for War Crimes. And I remember seeing this guy in a wheelchair at Obama's Inauguration, he looked like Mr. Potterfrom It's a Wonderful Life. Maybe this guy, along with the guy in that video game, will end up in a war crimes tribunal too. Until then, who? Sorry, busy rebuilding America.

Countdown to Copenhagen

2008-12-22T22:01:00.000-08:00

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

2008-12-05T11:36:00.001-08:00

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

2008-10-27T17:49:00.000-07:00

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

2008-10-21T11:20:00.000-07:00

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?

2008-09-25T09:16:00.000-07:00

"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?

2008-08-06T21:55:00.000-07:00

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

2008-07-23T18:17:00.000-07:00

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

2008-07-13T14:40:00.000-07:00

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

2008-07-13T13:27:00.000-07:00

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

2008-06-03T19:05:00.000-07:00

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?

2008-05-26T18:51:00.000-07:00

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

2008-02-11T22:09:00.000-08:00

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

2008-01-30T18:48:00.000-08:00

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?

2008-01-30T18:35:00.000-08:00

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?

Hey Bush, waive this!

2007-12-20T09:14:00.000-08:00

The U.S. EPA's denial of California's waiver request regarding regulating greenhouse gas emissions from motor vehicles represents a larger effort by the Bush Administration to marginalize West Coast liberals. This makes Governor Schwarzenegger the Achilles' heel for Bush. Bush signed the new Energy Bill that increases CAFE standards, and is using that as cover for a supposedly federalist philisophy on tackling climate change. What about States' rights (a Gingrichian mantra), let alone all the cities and counties that are taking action on climate? Bush (or I should say Cheney) would try to stop those too if he could, since they impede oil company and automaker profits.

Well, let's hope Bush's war against West Coast liberals is as (un)successful as his other wars have been.

Note: A Cheney-like graphic originally accompanied this thoughtful and measured posting. It was removed voluntarily. Click here for more information on the Million Finger March.

On the short-lived candidacy of Colbert

2007-11-02T09:52:00.000-07:00

Colbert's candidacy was confusing. Was he running as himself, or as his character? I thought if he won the nomination he should choose Borat as his running mate, or Borat's creator, Sascha Baron Cohen. Then you would have two fictitious characters who are parodies of right wing sentiment, asking their liberal fans to vote for them instead of voting for "serious" candidates.

Colbert's candidacy also asks, what is a serious candidate? As someone who has voted for Nader in the past (and maybe will do so again in the future), I do face that question, and people, especially Democrats always want to convince me that Nader is not a viable option. People say the same of Kucinich or Ron Paul. Any "protest" vote is supposedly "wasted." Well, Colbert was more of a fictitious candidate than a protest candidate, but those lines are blurred in media-infested American politics.

Is all of American politics a joke? The campaigns are ridiculous. And Republican sexual antics in airports are so funny that I forgot to laugh. But the consequences of bad politics are not funny at all. See the Iraq War for details. So, really, we need to take the actual results seriously. And a protest vote is a strategy. It's unclear if it is a successful strategy. Maybe in the long-run. Maybe Al Gore's renaissance as Nobel Prize winner shows that if you have guts and say what you think, you will be more popular, than if you cower and try not to offend anyone.

Back to Colbert, he helped educate his viewers about getting yourself on the ballot. I think his candidacy was a positive experiment in taking his show outside the studio. Colbert's other famous time doing that, when he gave a speech in front of Dubya, was a huge success. Good job, Colbert, for being brave, putting yourself out there, and raising questions. I know several people who will be writing in Jon Stewart's name on the ballot again. Take heed, "serious" candidates.

Homeland Security means Clean Water in the Developing World

2007-10-14T22:30:00.000-07:00

I heard a representative of UNICEF the other day at a World Water Forum event. She said that 4,000 children die every day from lack of clean water and sanitation. That is more people than died in the World Trade Center on 9/11. Does Rudy Giuliani know about this? Will his gritted teeth address this problem?

In another post on this blog I proposed that Homeland Security focus on heart disease, the #1 killer of Americans. Now, I propose that they also address the global clean water and sanitation problem, the #1 killer of children on the planet.

If thousands of children are dying everyday, my Homeland (the Earth) is not Secure.

OK, presidential candidates, let's hear you propose to change the focus of Homeland Security to the UN Millennium Development Goals.

Gore gets Nobel, Bush doesn't

2007-10-14T22:17:00.000-07:00

I'm happy for Al Gore. I'm glad that the Nobel Committee chose to focus the world's attention on climate change.

But, there is a nagging voice that asks, would Gore have won the peace prize if Bush wasn't so horrible? Did the Nobel Committee consider that giving Gore the peace prize might imply that Bush should get the Nobel War Prize?

I would bet that Tony Blair has given more speeches on climate change, and enacted more action on a national and global scale, than Gore. Gore is known by environmentalists as the pragmatic non-visionary in his political career who watered down the Kyoto Protocol to its present ineffective state and then failed to even bring it to the Senate for debate. Gore promoted the research focus of U.S. policy, but I can't think of a national program that Gore enacted on climate that had anything to do with actually reducing GHGs. Tony Blair showed over a decade of global leadership on climate, moving the whole G-8 on the issue, and has put forth pragmatic solutions to global warming setting the EU on their trajectory of global leader. Oh, but Blair has a European constituency, and in Gore's defense, Gore is saddled with the mid-Western and Southern U.S. And Blair sided with Bush on the Iraq War, so the Nobel Committee chose Gore.

OK, Gore, now give us some vision. Feel free to endorse my preferred solution, www.carbonshare.org.

Ah well, the fake choice of Gore versus Blair are mere idle thoughts, while GHGs pour out of the world's exhaust pipes, and the Iraq War rages on.

Rumsfeld goes to Stanford - Academia sinks to new lows

2007-09-23T13:37:00.000-07:00

Rumsfeld got a fellowship at the Hoover Institution at Stanford.

What could students or society possibly learn from Rumsfeld?
He is an example of what NOT to emulate.
His worldview is so warped, it frightens me to think of him as a "teacher." What next, Stanford, Jeff Skilling to teach Business Ethics? Dubya to teach Linguisticology?

Berkeley passed a resolution asking Rumsfeld to be prosecuted for war crimes, and Stanford offers him a position.
I hope Cal beats Stanford by at least 200 points in the Big Game!

Homeland Security means Eating Less Meat

2007-09-18T08:49:00.000-07:00

What kills more Americans: terrorism, or hamburgers?

According to the CDC's National Center for Health Statistics, heart disease killed 654,092 Americans in 2004.

Terrorism deaths (victims of 9/11, plus Americans put in harm's way in Iraq and Afghanistan) have not yet reached 10,000 Americans (though if you count Iraqi civilians and others, then you're in the ballpark). If 1,792 Americans die every day of heart disease, then every 3 days, there is another 9/11 in this country. What do you think of that, Rudy Giuliani?

We are spending $500 billion per year on militaristic death machines.
How much are we spending to prevent the cause of the highest number of American deaths?

Therefore, my fellow Americans, I propose that we shift all the money from the Department of Homeland Security (or just change their programs to better fulfill their mission of protecting Americans from what is killing them) to screen American travellers at the airport for heart disease.

When you put your luggage through the x-ray machine, you will also answer a few questions from a Homeland Security Nurse about your diet and lifestyle. If you eat several Big Macs per week, you might be taken into a special screening room where you have to watch a 2 minute video about fast food, heart disease, obesity, etc.
There will be scary brochures, posters and annoying recordings over the loud speaker about how to live a healthier lifestyle to prevent heart disease. The threat level will be orange.

C'mon, let's follow the numbers and spend the money where we can save the greatest number of Americans.

I know, someone reading this might say, "But those are apples and oranges." Homeland Security was created to fight the terrorists, not provide health care. And people want to feel safe at the airport.

But, I respond, Homeland Security is actually just Homeland Paranoia, and they haven't done anything to make us actually safer. They were created to give lots of government pork subsidies to private security and aerospace companies (bringing the war and bacon home), creating a Cold War here in the U.S. against an invisible enemy to boost corporate, Republican contributor profits. Also they are there to create a police state infrastructure to suppress dissent against the war, or against government economic policies which benefit the few and hurt the many. Fearful citizens are less likely to speak out, demonstrate, or criticize.

But, someone might say, they have been successful because there weren't any more attacks after 9/11.

Well, I respond, let's do a test scenario, and spend all the money on current Homeland Security in some states, and change the money to my idea with heart disease and lifestyle in other states, and see which ones have more terrorist attacks, and which ones save more American lives. (my friend says, fine, but he wants to live in the states where it is the current system. this is just a question of whether you think screening grandmas makes you feel safer. it is psychological, but not empirically proven, security).

An Election Year's coming up, who is going to propose change Homeland Security to Eating Less Meat?

The new Carbon Share video

2007-09-07T14:18:00.001-07:00

Carbon Share is a way to solve global warming by distributing emission rights to people and make polluters pay. Any cap and trade system should protect consumers, and not give windfall profits to polluters. Find out more at www.carbonshare.org.

Gone-zalez! Next, Cheney, please?

2007-08-27T09:20:00.000-07:00

Getting rid of Gone-zalez is a relief. No one liked him. It was time for him to go. Along with his other bad deeds, he was preventing the Dems from doing an inquiry into the lies that led us into the war in Iraq. OK, Dems, Gone-zy is gone. Time to go after Cheney. Please don't find some bureaucratic pigeonhole, and spend the next 10 months going after some low-level administrator. I'm sure that the Deputy UnderSecretary of the Interior is doing bad stuff, and I'm sure you could bluster about it on C-Span for the next 10 months, and get to the bottom of it all, but the top evil doer in the Administration (now that Rumsfeld is gone) is the President of the Senate, (a.k.a. "PResident Evil: Apocalypse") Mr. Undisclosed Location, who works for an undisclosed branch of government. All evil deeds are traced back to him (and to his Exxon and Halliburton friends). Take him on, and change the tenor of the 2008 race. Don't distract yourselves and us with some low level administrator, and leave Level 2 of Rumsfeld Invaders unfinished.

What's changed since 1994?

2007-08-16T09:29:00.000-07:00

Condi, Rummy, and Wolfie must have changed Dick's mind.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YENbElb5-xY

Bush tries to be Bartlett, pardoning Ziegler

2007-07-05T10:58:00.000-07:00

Dubya may have recently seen the West Wing episode where President Bartlett pardons Communications Director Toby Ziegler. Bartlett struggled with the moral implications of a pardon, but at least in the TV show Ziegler's infraction had a moral undertone (trying to prevent the militarization of space, a theme of Rumsfeld Invaders). I doubt Dubya thought for 2 seconds about the decision. He just went with his gut. Being a loyal Bushie trumped honesty, ethics, and the law. Scooter Libby made no attempt at morality, he simply lied to protect Rove and Cheney's role in outing CIA agent Valerie Wilson. Dubya is sending a signal that political hits are worthy of reward. Happy July 4th everyone!

Adios Wolfie!

2007-05-17T16:53:00.000-07:00

Rumsfeld's protege Paul Wolfowitz was forced to resign in disgrace from the World Bank refuge he fled to when he sensed that the Iraq quagmire he created would soon engulf the flailing neo-con agenda. Sorry, Wolfie, you can run, but you can't hide. The Europeans are draining the swamp you were hiding in. Now it's time for you to write your memoirs, and whine about how abused you were and are. The question is: will you come to regret your actions, or will you cover them up? Will it be "Fog of War II"? Or will it be "Neo-Con's intellectual perspective led to lots of destruction, but he can't face up to it, and is in denial about his messed up world view." C'mon, Wolfie, even Fukuyama says that neo-cons are messed up. Time for a neo-con 12-step program. You can join Thomas Friedman and become a "geo-green." It almost rhymes with neo-con, and it has a cool hyphen too. (Although, I don't know, if you became a geo-green, then people would run the other direction, so you better not.) The other aspect I've always been interested in is Wolfie's personal life. After the comb thing in Fahrenheit 911, you got to wonder about Wolfie's girlfriend. Sounds like a Condoleeza Rice-type. Black stilletto heels, gritted teeth, and a frown. But I don't know, maybe she's a nice woman. Idealistic to work for the World Bank, with the mission of lifting the poorest nations out of poverty. And it's true that women in Muslim countries need some advocates. (Sad record of accomplishments for the World Bank, funding dams and deforestation, causing climate change, and linking to harmful IMF policies- see Stiglitz and Sachs for references on that.) And poor choice in men. Wolfie was the worst one since McNamara. Another one bites the dust.

Billions wasted

2007-05-07T09:26:00.000-07:00

I've been working on climate change policy, and encouraging a cap and trade system which auctions (sells) permits to companies, and uses the money for public goods (renewable energy, transit, research and development of new technologies), and to compensate consumers for fuel price increases on a per capita basis. Sounds good, right? It could raise $2 or $3 billion per year.

Other people are emailing me, saying, "Oh, we need a carbon tax, it'll solve all of our problems." It'll raise all this money and help with the transition. Well, a carbon tax would have to be very steep to change any behavior. Politicians are not into raising taxes, they lose elections for doing that. But even more important, let's look at a few numbers:

$504 billion. This is the money spent on the war on terror and Iraq between 2001 and 2007.

$344 billion. This is money spent on the Iraq war. Not counting the current $100 billion pending before Congress.

$213 billion. Cost of the War on Terror in 2006 alone (Rumsfeld's last year in office).

$2 trillion. Possible total long term cost of the Bush wars, once you count veteran's benefits, health care for all the soldiers with injuries, disabilities, Gulf War II syndrome, etc.

(These figures come from a USA Today article "Researchers weigh war's other costs", January 31, 2007)

In some ways, we don't need a cap and trade system, or a carbon tax. All we need to do is move all those war costs into renewable energy, energy efficiency, and a new war on climate change. Yeah, let's use the National Guard for its true purpose, to guard the nation (climate change is the biggest threat facing humanity and 50% of all species on the planet). Of course, a cap and trade system that refunds money to consumers through a rebate/dividend/share would be nice too. But the $3 billion versus $300 billion gives us a little perspective about how we do things when we think they are really important (the military-industrial complex) versus just give lip service, so that the Rumsfeld Invaders Blog will go away and leave us alone.

I want to hear 2008 candidates say, "Capitalism 3.0."

B-town steps up to Rumsfeld

2007-03-09T15:08:00.000-08:00

Ah, B-town, for all your flaws, you still have some life left in you. If the resolution passes, it may qualify for a High score on Rumsfeld Invaders.

BERKELEY, Calif. Berkeley City Council members are set to consider signing on to an international lawsuit seeking a war crime investigation of Rumsfeld.

The suit was filed last November in Berlin by lawyers for inmates of Iraq's Abu Ghraib prison and Guantanamo Bay. It alleges former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld ordered and condoned torture.

Abramoff and Borat?

2007-02-06T09:42:00.000-08:00

Disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff, the focus of the video game JackAsstroids, wrote that he wished he could have hired Borat for a lawyer when he was under investigation.

Abramoff: 'Perhaps I could have hired Borat to represent me.'

Yag shamesh...

Rumsfeld's Last Day- 6 years too late. His next career move: Lurking in the shadows with Kissinger

2006-12-18T10:06:00.000-08:00

Today is Rumsfeld's last day at the Pentagon. For Rumsfeld Invaders, it is the end of an era. Like when Jerry Rice retired from the 49ers. Except way, way better for the country and the world. Apologies to Jerry Rice, he does not deserve to be compared to Rumsfeld. The only person who really deserves that is Henry Kissinger.

Is Rumsfeld really going away? Or is he just changing jobs. Until he publicly repents and repudiates his positions of the last 6 years, and those of the military-industrial-empire complex of the last 50, he will still pose a threat to the possibility of world peace. Like Henry Kissinger, he will cling to beliefs which make sense only to him, while the rest of the world has weighed the evidence, drawn the obvious conclusions, and tried to move on (as I thought we had after Vietnam).

I read on another blog that the U.S. is spending around $200 billion a year to fight less than 5,000 jihadi-type terrorists and their worldwide network of supporters. This works out “to roughly $40 million per year, per terrorist." That doesn't even account for the money spent to employ people to take my toothpaste and my shaving cream away from me (which really pissed me off), and my hair gel when I'm trying to get on a plane. Is the country safer because my hair is sticking up? These people see every American citizen as a potential threat to empire, and want to anally probe grandmothers in public. They are sick people and need therapy, not jobs at the airport. I'll look for an accounting of how much money is wasted by Homleand Paranoia and get back to you. The money is spent only to ensure that more money gets spent. The purpose of spending this money is so that more money must follow down the rat hole. Hegelian economics: Thesis-Antithesis. War-Insurgency-counterIntersurgency-countercounterInsurgency. Homeland Security-Paranoia.

What we need is Hegelian economics for good: Sustainability-The Commons-Social justice- education- Water quality for all- economics as if people mattered- investing in human capital- peace dividends. This money would follow more money and the more money invested in these things, the more money would continue to be invested.

The Homeland is not secure when the military is halfway around the world, violating human rights, and inflicting civilian collateral damage on a daily basis in order to steal oil out from under the Middle East. It is another reprise for White Man's Burden and Manifest Destiny. Our missionaries are in fatigues and driving Hummers, but it's the Crusades of the Middle Ages all over again, and the flashy graphics of television and the Internet can't mask the Iraq War's basic nature.

Rumsfeld's next career move: Lurking in the Shadows with Henry Kissinger. He already has the veneer of Rasputin. So, Rumsfeld Invaders isn't going away. We've still got a mess to clean up.

Congratulations, Rumsfeld, on instigating Jihad versus McWorld. Your legacy will be proving Benjamin Barber right.

Post-Rumsfeld Nostalgia

2006-11-22T09:39:00.000-08:00

Online documentary about Rumsfeld and how he invaded.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/pentagon/

Still getting over the shock of Rumsfeld's tenure coming to a close.
Will the world suddenly be a peaceful place? Rainbows will come out, and we'll all start singing Kum-ba-ya?

(please let the euphoria continue a little while longer, I'm not ready for the years of crushing cynicism and pessimism to return yet)

Post-election Afterglow

2006-11-12T20:23:00.000-08:00

Congratulations, fellow Rumsfeld Invaders!

After 6 years of struggle, against adversity, in the face of American flag stickers in the back windows of Hummers, when the media had been infiltrated by gay Republican operatives and worshipped the devil, when only violence and Constitution shredding were seen as patriotic and Murtha was still waiting to see how things would go, when the Senate Intelligence Committee was acting like an oxymoron...you stood your ground.

You supported Rumsfeld Invaders, because you knew that only by making fun of Rumsfeld by playing a version of Space Invaders on the Atari 2600 featuring Rumsfeld would America awaken to the stupidity of his policies and save our country from further disaster.

Well, it took 6 years.

But on November 8, 2006, Donald Rumsfeld resigned as Secretary of Defense.

It is a new day for America.

Let's not celebrate too soon. The war in Iraq is still quagmiring along. Death every day. The U.S. Treasury is being drained (if there's anything left), and the no-bid contracts are still being awarded to Halliburton. Cheney is still #2 (and smells like it too), and I wouldn't be suprised if he still talks to Rumsfeld every day on the phone. Prisoners are being rendited, and probably tortured, with no American provision for humane treatment, the Geneva Conventions, or habeas corpus. Mark Foley and his kind still garner close to 48% of the vote, even after resigning in disgrace and acknowledging their disgusting corruption. The two party system still chugs along squelching democracy wherever it tries to break through the concrete with real ideas and ecological perspectives.

But still, it was a nice election result. Pombo is gone. Santorum - out! unTalent from Missouri, sent home with no dessert. Close elections in Montana and Virginia went the right way, amazingly. California voted for a Secretary of State who will take action on the voting machines situation, finally. Katherine Harris and Ken Blackwell have rigged their last election, and are consigned to the post-political backwaters. It's been a long, dark time, but it is nice to have a tiny bit of hope again.

As one Rumsfeld Invader observer noted, it is back to 1998 again. Sure, it's better than 2005. But it's certainly no utopia. We were out on the streets in 1998, preparing for a showdown in 1999 in Seattle over the WTO's anti-environmental, anti-labor policies. Maybe the blue-green alliance will return. Maybe 2007 will be the next 1999, and we can shut down the 21st century threat to global democracy, the United States War Machine. It was until recently piloted by Donald H. Rumsfeld. Now it needs a new direction. More humanitarianism and less bombs. More healthy people, clean water, and Millennium Development Goals, and less threats, lies, and swagger.

We'll be sending notes and encouragement to House Speaker-elect Nancy Pelosi. A woman's place is in the House...and the Senate! Kick Rumsfeld Butt! Nancy, feel free to subpoena Rummy, and ask him the tough questions. He cut and ran before you could get him to testify, but it's not too late for a War Crimes Tribunal. Maybe we'll even let him have access to an attorney and due process of the law. Maybe.

Rumsfeld Invaders will be evaluating its mission over the next month or two. We will stay active and engaged. And we will be blogging and enraged. Let us know what you think.

Now, on to Level 2: Cheney.

Saddam Verdict Timed to Coincide with Midterm Elections

2006-11-07T09:22:00.000-08:00

Was it coincidence that Saddam's verdict was given out two days before the U.S. midterm elections? After 6 years of "staying the course", with Karl Rove trying to milk every angle he can out of the disastrous Iraq war? The "court" was created and paid for by the U.S. taxpayer, and governed by Rumsfeld. The Iraqi government is still a puppet of the U.S. government. And the U.S. government is a puppet of Cheney and Rumsfeld. If not, then why did the verdict happen in such a convenient way for the Republicans? The entire Iraq adventure aims to vest Dubya with a "war president" image to cover for all his other inadequacies. Dubya is now stalling in a State of Denial to keep running up the debt to hamstring all domestic social programs for the next decade. If the Democrats, when they take the House, don't immediately call for an end to the war in Iraq, with the threat of hearings and impeachment proceedings against the President for lying to them about Weapons of Mass Destruction, then the Democrats are part of the Republican plan, and it doesn't matter who runs the House.

I'm still looking for evidence that the Saddam verdict was timed by Rove. Or evidence of any media speculation of this. Tony Snow said "preposterous," and that put the issue to rest? Oh, if only Nixon had said the magic word! And, I'm still looking for evidence that Cheney did the Anthrax mailings.

Polls tightening - let the rigging begin

2006-11-06T22:35:00.000-08:00

Somehow, with hours to go before the election, the polls are magically "tightening". So say the pollsters Karl Rove paid, so that when the Democrats fail to win the House he can point to the alleged polls as proof.

This, despite the fact that the vote will once again defy the exit polls, two standard deviations outside of the margin of error, and the likelihood of all the polls being wrong would be 1/300,000.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15593681/

Plundermaxx Plots Demise of Securities Laws

2006-11-02T19:00:00.000-08:00

Secret backroom deals. Are we talking about more Republican repressed homosexual stalking of 16 year old boys? Sadly, not this time.

Plundermaxx, a corporation whose purpose is to maxximize Plunder, is combining the worst aspects of the public and private sector, subverting democracy, and slyly undermining laws meant to protect Americans. Their Press Releases show what evil they are up to.

http://www.plundermaxx.com/secsucks.pdf

Yes on 87, no on 90

2006-10-23T10:25:00.000-07:00

Rumsfeld Invaders endorsements for California for the November 7 election (abridged):

Yes Prop 87. Tax the oil companies to fund renewable energy technologies. Don't believe Chevron's anti-87 propoganda. Prop 87 is a good measure and will reduce greenhouse gases.

No on Prop 90. This is an attempt to roll back planning and environmental laws across the state. They use sneaky language like "eminent domain" to mask their intent to overturn smart growth planning and zoning.

Laughing at the losers

2006-10-23T10:17:00.000-07:00

Here are some highlights from
http://www.thefrown.com/frowners/becomerepublican.swf:

"We can't be spending money on wussy, boring crap like health care. We've got wars to fight! Would you rather have a million stupid mammograms, or one kick-ass Tomahawk missile?
...
Animals belong in a zoo, in your closet, or on your plate. If you want to see Nature as a majestic Circle of Life, just order a meat lover's pizza.
...
Forests are much better off without trees, according to a new study by the best scientists in the Lumber Industry."

New game on Rumsfeld Invaders: JackAsstroids

2006-09-27T09:53:00.000-07:00

Rumsfeld Invaders presents a new game: JackAsstroids, based on the Atari 2600's famous Asteroids game.

Your objective is to clean up Washington's culture of corruption starting with lobbyists, then moving on to the politicians and their lackeys (including Rumsfeld of course).

Level 1 is disgraced corrupt lobbyist Jack Abramoff. Level 2 is disgraced corrupt Texas Republican leader Tom Delay. Level 3 is Rumsfeld. You'll have to play the game to find out who's next.

http://www.rumsfeldinvaders.com/jackasstroids.php

Rumsfeld on Political Friendster

2006-09-13T16:31:00.000-07:00

I thought this was pretty funny. He's got a lot of friends...if you count scandals and national embarrassments as friends. Which I do.

http://www.politicalfriendster.com/showPerson.php?id=56&name=Donald-Rumsfeld

Press Release: Pentagon Worst Polluter on Planet

2006-09-07T14:31:00.000-07:00

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Department of Defense: ‘Worst Polluter on Planet’ Cites Green US House Candidate Byron De Lear

California Green Party congressional candidate Byron De Lear takes ‘Military Tour’ with the Physicians for Social Responsibility (PSR) in Southern California; Inspects military industry and its disastrous impact on human health, the environment.

• Corporate handled global system of war imminent threat to human survival• DoD produces more hazardous waste than the five largest US chemical corporations combined

• Los Angeles is home to sixteen military related toxic contaminated sites

• Cancer clusters among workers and residents have been found in surrounding communities linked to the contaminated sites

LOS ANGELES, CA. On June 10th, 2006, the Physicians for Social Responsibility sponsored the first ‘Military Tour’ of defense industry-laden Southern California. Facilities toured included a Rocketdyne site in Simi Valley, Boeing, Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, North American Aviation and the Navy’s primary west coast weapons depot located at Seal Beach. “For decades through the 1950’s until the late 1960’s unsuspecting residents have been subjected to deadly toxic poisons and radioactive heavy metals produced by open air testing of military hardware and reckless burning and disposal of reactor waste,” said Byron De Lear, running for the US House seat representing a district in Southern California (www.DeLearforCongress.org).

The Santa Susanna Field Lab operated by Rocketdyne and owned by Boeing Aircraft in affluent West Hills was the first stop on PSR’s Military Tour. “I was shocked to learn that right in my backyard is home to the world’s only uncontained partial nuclear meltdown”, said De Lear. “It’s a ‘Three Mile Island’ right here in LA – and it’s still radioactive,” he declared. Nuclear expert and specialist, Dan Hirsh tells the story, “They had four reactors that we know of that had serious accidents.” To save money, Rocketdyne, like most other defense contractors, conducted monthly burns in open pits of radioactive and chemical waste affecting not only the four-square mile Santa Susanna site but also throughout the Southland. Hirsh continues, “Years later, under EPA guidance, measurements were taken at a nearby children’s summer camp and high levels of Strontium 90, Plutonium 238, Tritium, Trichloroethelene (TCE) and various heavy metals were found at the children’s camp obviously having migrated off the Rocketdyne property.” Residents of the field lab's surrounding communities were never notified of the activities taking place at the open field lab, nor were they ever made aware of the nuclear materials that they were exposed to during spills, accidents or releases. Boeing has denied any deleterious health effects such as increased cancer rates by workers and residents and yet has settled out-of-court with over 100 neighbors of the testing facility. Terms of the settlements were not released.

“The Bush administration has sought to minimize the perception of the human costs of its illegal war in Iraq, and now equally directs the Department of Energy to deflect any criticism of lame cleanup attempts of these contaminated sites,” proclaimed US House candidate Byron De Lear. “This shows a complete disregard for the better interests of Americans and speaks of dereliction of duty – the DoD and it coterie of defense contractors must be put in check.” When queried, a high level EPA official who wishes to remain anonymous stated that the ultimate solution will be the formation of an independent agency to oversee the environmental impact of the Pentagon -- not to continue to have the Pentagon regulate itself.

FOR MORE INFO: http://www.psrla.org/militarytour.htm and http://www.greencommons.org/node/333