Mike and I had a small video recorder during our 6 month trip in Central America. We had over a couple hours of random filming; here is Vol 1, produced by Mike that details our backpacking trip throughout the jungles, beaches, volcanoes, lakes and islands from Guatemala to Costa Rica.
It doesn’t take a fervent environmentalist or solar power investor to see the limitations and absurdities of immediate off shore drilling as a remedial solution to our energy crisis. Our unbound consumption of petroleum based energy sources attests not only to the power the oil industry has in our market based economy, but our sheer dependence and reliance on this ecologically damaging and unsustainable resource. And because it is a resource that is both exhaustible, and now rapidly dwindling, it should be widely received that waning ourselves off this greed inciting commodity is paramount not only for the future of our planet and its people, but our own national security. To think that drilling now will, in the long run, manage our energy problems is tantamount to Capital Punishment not perpetuating the acceptability of violence. Giving into our unusually high consumption inclinations by drilling more simply exacerbates the very problem in urgent need of policy re-direction.
But if this logic comes off as to abstract for the engaged, let me use more tangible terms to put this argument into perspective. For those who look past the a) potentially devastating environmental consequences of continued fossil fuel use at every stage, from production to transportation and consumption, b) the corruption it provokes in our elected officials and democratic processes and c) its ability to undermine our country’s national security agenda, short term issues such as cost are of the highest priority. However, analysts agree ‘that offshore drilling would have minimal impact on gas prices, if any at all, because the actual oil wouldn’t be available for up to 10 years.’
And that’s assuming this at home production benefits the average American. One can’t actually believe that multi-national companies such as Exxon-Mobile have any obligation to sell strictly to Americans. (Unless republicans want to nationalize the oil companies of course.) ‘Firms like Exxon-Mobil are not US property. They sell to the world and their allegiance is to corporate profits’. So if selling barrels to China brings more profits, then not doing so would simply be corporate imprudence. Domestically produced oil does not necessarily reduce our dependence on foreign supplies when this oil automatically enters the global market after refinery. And it certainly doesn’t address the root problem of systemic consumer over-consumption.
The basic elements of economic theories could not hold more weight in a market that is often volatile yet highly lucrative. When production rises, prices drop due to more availability. When the price drops, the demand grows because the good is cheaper. So in the long run, more drilling actually equals higher prices. The supply-demand model for renewable resources however is the inverse. As the market grows for sustainable energy sources, the prices drop, because more investments diverted to infrastructure and clean technology become efficient and self-sustaining. Maybe if we all knew that ‘the earth gets enough solar power every 40 minutes to meet the whole world’s energy demand for a full year’ , there would be more support for alternative energy.
It remains clear that confronting the problems caused by our dependency on fossil fuels can not be solved by deepening our addiction to it. Widespread government support in terms of subsidies and other incentives must be used to empower a movement rooted in alternative energies that are sustainable, clean and job supporting. It will also require the average American to adjust their behavior to do their part in solving a crisis long over due with far reaching implications to their children and their children’s planet.
we spend more than any other nation on defense (6 times that of the Chinese)
prolonged wars (Afghanistan being the longest in our nations history) have bankrupted our country
the rise of new military and economic powers (Brazil, Turkey, China, India etc.) provide world stability. No longer is the world a uni-polar one with the US filling a power vacuum. These nations are our partners we must lead with.
domestic spending programs that make our nation strong and competitive, and our people healthy and productive, are cut as defense spending continues to rise
there is no imminent, existential threat that faces us. we live in a friendly neighborhood.
THE COLD WAR IS OVER
the military has become big-business. it is a Wall Street military industrial complex which exerts far too much influence over our democracy’s priorities and spending.
we can influence, lead and change the world better with diplomacy, mutli-laterialism and cooperation
our military adventures abroad often make us less secure. killing civilians and invading sovereignty turns people against us and gives incentive to radicalize.
having a dominant military encourages other nations to free ride on the back of Uncle Sam. while our domestic programs are jeopardized at the military’s expense.
leaders at the Pentagon, including Defense Secretary Robert Gates, suggest cutting back on the defense budget
the first one on the left: Lamb Stuffed Peppers with a Beet Bean Spread.
For the peppers- combine in a big bowl 1) cooked rice, 2) browned ground lamb 3) sautéed mirepoix (celery, onions and carrots) 4) feta cheese 5) golden raisins 6) bread crumbs 7) pine nuts 8) an egg. Mix with hand. Stuff in Peppers. Cook in oven for 20 minutes at 350.
For bean spread- sautee Cannellini beans with some garlic, onions, olive oil, salt and pepper. Put in blender with canned beets. Puree. Serve warm or room temp.
Second on right: Sweet Curry Chicken thighs with Cinnamon sweet potatoes.
Chicken- Use chicken thighs or wings with bone, skin or skinless. Apply generous rub of brown sugar, cummin, coriander, salt, paprika. Sautee on oil in oven safe pan. Cook first side extremely rare and flip. Add onions, garlic, broccoli and carrots. (or any vegetable at your disposal) Let veggies dance in the party but dont overcook chicken. Pour in Sherry wine to deglaze and throw the whole pan in the oven at 300 degrees for 10 minutes.
For potatoes- steam sweet potatoes. Mash with marscarpone cheese and cinnamon. Serve below chicken, veggies and sauce.
‘the strategy acknowledges that the success of such civilian programs in Afghanistan is contingent on improved security.’
This statement was part of a recent GAO evaluation of the success of the Afghan surge. It was part of a comprehensive report that assessed the surge, rising levels of violence, efforts in development, and the overall picture of where we stand in reaching our goals.
Essentially the statement means that without improved security we can not develop and reconstruct the Afghan civil society. And as the report concludes; our escalation has not brought improved security.
With this statement, and the rest of the excerpts provided by this post, we can make the following inferences:
(→=leads to)
US escalation of counterinsurgency→increased violence (enemy attacks, security threats etc.)
increased violence→our efforts in development and reconstruction (D&R) are thwarted
D&R is thwarted→ taliban influence fails to wane
So if all these premises are true- which according to the non-partisan government watchdog they are- the following conclusion is valid and tenable:
US escalation of counterinsurgency→ taliban influence fails to wane.
As Israel heats up its rhetoric against Iran while Ahmadinejad yet again touts his country’s alacrity for dialogue, the rest of the world grapples with how to contain the self-isolated, fickle and sometimes openly hostile regime that is Iran. As an all out attack and economic sanctions pervade the discourse in coping with the most influential state in the most volatile region in the world, other more benign means are overlooked. Therefore we should at least take a cursory look at the futility of our current mechanisms for dealing with Iran, why such, among other reasons, weakens the case for increased sanctions, and what else we can do to both promote human security around the world while pursuing US interests abroad.
The International community has had US led sanctions against Iran for sometime now. They simply are not effective. Loopholes in commerce and regulation, failures in enforcement, and the preeminent influence of Multinational corporations allow the Iranian oligarchic elites to circumvent the embargoes. Most of the sanctions are energy based- starve a country of development and co-opt it to your liking. But the black market for oil is vast. Iran can and does seek oil from sources not accounted for in the sanctions. And Iran, as self-determined countries have the right to do, continues to develop refinery plants, the final step for a country rich in gas reserves before becoming energy independent.
Additionally, there seems to be a correlation between sanctions and increased militarization of the Iranian Revolutionary National Gaurd; the state thugs who enforce the Ayatollahs’ draconian social repression. This body unconditionally supports the regime and is in every way antithetical to US interests. Not to mention the effect sanctions inevitably have on the people: our most plausible source for regime change.
Although the ruling class remains immune to sanctions, the average citizen bears most of the burden wrought by such economic barriers. these are the same citizens that took to the street and voiced their dissent during the rigged elections last year. Rather than creating more opposition to the US by impoverishing average Iranians with crushing sanctions, we should be doing everything to foment revolution within the masses. This ultimate form of political participation would be the best way to influence the regime to change their policies, if not dismantle it altogether. More sanctions would be counterproductive by betraying the best tool we have for counteracting the Iranian regime; the people.
In response to Iran’s nuclear defiance, Israel, and implicitly the US, continue to threaten Iran with military force. If we want a country to stop producing weapons, we should take off the table any reason they may have for developing defense capabilities in the first place i.e. the threat of force. Iran would not need to build a nuclear arsenal if we did not threaten them militarily. think about it, they are in a region with India, Pakistan and Israel- all with tacitly recognized nuclear capabilities. They are surrounded by Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq, Kuwait all countries with a US occupation. They would be crazy to feel safe in that environment without nuclear weaponry. If anything, attacking Iran would expedite their nuclear ambitions. there is something called security through disarmament, and it would not only be the best way to effectively deal with countries like Iran, but it also may help to save the brink of economic and environmental collapse that the world faces today.
As promised, Here is Vol. 2 of Mike and I’s travel from Guatemala to Costa Rica.
1) two ding bats en route to San Pedro- Lago de Atitlan, Guatemala.
2) Breathtaking views- Corn Islands, Nicaragua
3) QUETZALTREKKERS- Gulf of Fonseca, Nicaragua
4) Elegant Gymnasts- Canon De Somoto- Nicaragua/Honduras border
5) Volcan Concepcion- Isla De Ometepe- Nicaragua
6) Strongballs the house cat acting on instinct torturing bats
7)Volcan Mombotombo- Lake of Nicaragua, Nicaragua
8) Chicken bus passing trucks in our lane-coming head on as we hang tight in the bed of a pick-up truck- Quatzaltenango, Guatemala*
9) Playa el Tunco-El Salvador**
* So chicken buses- these are old American public school buses converted into all in one commuter buses. They traverse every remote corner of sparsely populated lands over at best shoddy roads to serve the travel needs of the locals. Each bus is customized by the owner with taste-less decor consisting mostly of stickers, beads, and bright paint jobs. Loud sound systems blasting Latino music accentuate the flamboyance. Its quiet a sight. But we traveled on them because they are the most practical-cheap and well reliable isnt the right word but they get you where you need to go. Its not fully established why they are called Chicken buses; two popularized theories Mike and I stuck with a) there is no limit as to what people may bring on these things, often times live stock is transported, including pigs tied down on the top and chickens in plastic bags lining the hallway inside-hence Chicken bus b) The drivers, to put it lightly, drove like maniacs. Had seat belts still been installed, they would have been futile. As pictured in scene 8 of the video, drivers would not hesitate to pass vehicles they deemed in their way. So while they veered in other lanes to pass what ever vehicle may be going to slow for them, they often played chicken with other oncoming chicken buses and cars-hence chicken bus.
** This last scene is too picturesque. Think Endless Summer type shit. One of the best sun sets iv ever seen. Pro surfers from all over the world flock to this beach for the waves. Good take Mike. O yea and the dude with the shot gun on the beach- no surprise there. Private security is everywhere, as the deep divide between the rich and the poor cause instability and corruption.
Here are a few points I wrapped up from this detailed report by the duly qualified professor at Washington and Lee on the misinterpretation of the Health Care Bills by the Catholic Church. The reason why these points are particularly important is that they clarify where the two respective bills stand with regards to abortion. And it is this issue that not only causes so much acrimony, but also keeps needed house members from committing to a yes vote.
First and foremost, expanding coverage, which both bills would do significantly in excess of 30 million people, is PRO LIFE because:
Health coverage saves up to 45,000 people who die prematurely each year due to not having health insurance or being woefully undercovered.
there is a direct causal connection between greater health coverage and lower abortion rates.
We already know that every other comparable industrialized country in the world provides UNIVERSAL COVERAGE. But did you know that they have lower abortion rates than us? This is partly because if insurance was indiscriminately offered, pregnant women would know that their medical care, and that of their child, would be covered. Also, insurance plans would cover, and thus encourage the use of, contraceptives that PREVENT unwanted pregnancies in the first place- a common factor that most women face in deciding on whether or not to have an abortion.
Here is a list that shows why the differences in both bills with regards to abortion are nominal.
Both measures would prevent insurers from being required to cover abortions.
Both measures would continue the existing prohibition on federal funds being used to pay for abortions. (The Hyde Amendment)
Neither would change the conscience clause. (which allows medical professionals to opt out or refuse to provide abortion services)
Neither provide funding for new programs that cover abortions.
Neither bill will in any way affect abortion coverage offered through employment-related plans not purchased through the exchange, which is what a vast majority of American use.
(These plans are subsidized by the Federal government however so the government in some ways is indirectly funding abortions. Voicing your opposition to this by not supporting a bill that expands coverage to over 30 million Americans is not the right way to go. Subsidizing employer plans dates back to the beginning of the employer based health care system. And if you want to change that you should probably support at least a public option, and at best the single payer, that would be government run and thus under the terms of The Hyde amendment which bars funds for abortions in any way)
Essentially this is the only reason why the senate version is actually more restrictive than the house:
The Senate’s version would explicitly allow states to bar insurers participating in the exchanges from offering abortion coverage. The House bill does not. What this means is that the exchange that is being set up to pool people together for more purchasing power, more consumer choice, and less chance of being abused could be used as a pawn to restrict the right to choose. And some women who decided to pay with their own money insurance plans that did cover abortion would lose that benefit as their policies move to the new insurance exchanges.
The fact is that both the house and senate versions would end up restricting abortion coverage more than under current law. This overreach of what is constitutionally mandated was an attempt to get otherwise conservative members on board. One could call that bipartisanship.
So the Israeli government announced yet another settlement expansion of over 300 homes, just days after the announcement of a 1,600 home development project during VP Biden’s visit. Most of these settlements violate International Law, because they exceed Pre-1967 borders that Israeli obtained during an illegal war against Egypt. Additionally, the untamed expansion of residential Israelis, like our general presence in the MidEast, is damning strategically, because it rallies arabs behind what would otherwise be considered radical and extreme islamic movements.
Biden condemned the wanton move, but remained complicit in Isrealis’ aggression by attending a meeting with Israeli’s prime minister Netanyahu, where they discussed how to combat Iran’s growing influence in the region. There they probably reiterated their support of sanctions against Iran-despite the fact that we already have embargoes on companies that do business with the republic, but just dont enforce them. Multi national corporations seem to always be above the law-even when it directly impacts human security. Not to mention the fact that turning the members of the green revolutionary movement against us- by impoverishing them with crushing sanctions would eliminate the best way to curtail the power of the ayatollahs. Domestic dissent that would otherwise help to dismantle Ahjmandinajd and co. will be forced to rally behind the flag from foreign intervention be it economic or military.
Hillary also summarily spoke out against the move, but along with White House Press secretary Robert Gibbs, recently retracted her punitive remarks. I dont understand why, if we really condemn the actions taken by Israel, we dont suspend the billions of dollars of military aid we give to them annually. Just like when we and the entire international community rejected the Coup in Honduras, the US continued to funnel money into the very government we publicly chastised.
Contrasting to the hollow rhetoric we see from our public officials and diplomats, reason appears to have budded from the most unlikely of sources: the military. General Petraeus, in a brief to Joint Chief of Staff Admiral Micheal Mullen warned that ‘Israel is jeopardizing US security interests.’ He may want to forward that memo to Isreal, the hawkish nation that spends more per capita on their military than any other country to counterbalance their go it alone, encroaching militant stance.
