The Whistle of a Distant Train

In the late 80's and early 90's, a group of five US Senators were embroiled in a scandal in which they were accused of pressuring federal investigators to "lay off" of Lincoln Savings & Loan, a bank owned by real estate developer Charles Keating. Reagan's insistence on deregulating the banking industry allowed many S&L's to make risky investments (using their depositor's money) which eventually went sour. Lincoln Savings & Loan, like many S&L's during this period, failed. Lincoln was the largest individual S&L failure, costing taxpayers nearly $3 billion.

The members of the Keating Five recieved over a million dollars in campaign contributions from Charles Keating. One Republican senator not only received campaign contributions, but took free vacations in the Bahamas with the Keating family. His wife even had a considerable investment in one of Keating's shopping centers. The Senator was later rebuked for showing "poor judgement" by the Senate Ethics Committee.

In all fairness, four members of the Keating Five were Democrats. But in all fairness, the only Republican is now running for President.

I decided to do this post on a topic near and dear to my heart, environmentalism. And when I talk of "extremism" I talk not of true extremism like the type advanced by the Earth Liberation Front. I talk of the perception, particularly in the southern United States, that being an advocate for environmental causes is somewhat deviant. The more I have spoken with people in the course of my travels, the greater I get this sense that there is a perception that any sort of environmental advocacy is "extremism". I endured regular hammerings in my  position as a county planner by development interests who viewed open space or vegetation ordinances as "extreme" (who then proceeded to bulldoze the piece of land until it looked like the surface of the moon, which is not extreme in itself?). I have endured similar, though more respectful criticism in my efforts to help push renewable energy incentives.

I have been following the developments in regards to off-road vehicle management of Cape Hatteras National Seashore and have come across the same vein of rhetoric, where anyone who is against (what I view as reasonable) restrictions on off-road vehicles use are labeled "environmental extremists". I recently spent a week on Ocracoke Island, where I talked to several people in different capacities about the recent natural resource closures to beach driving and found that there is generally a common theme, people's resentment to the curtailment of previously held liberties. And despite all the outcry about the effect on local businesses, the economic impacts seem to have been somewhat overblown. Perhaps its difficult to discern the effects of the closures on tourism when coupled with the impact of $4+ gasoline, but this perhaps won't been seen as clearly until the onset of the fall fishing season.

What perhaps drives this post the much is the particular language that I encountered from the people I spoke to on Ocracoke. Environmentalists were called "the dark side" and a host of other names that belied some sense of supremacy by those who spoke it. A few environmentally minded people I met had similar words for the recreational community. Both sides lie on opposite sides of the ideological spectrum, but both are as adamantly absolutist in their certainty as the other. Both have cast themselves as the forces of good, sent to vanquish their respective foes.

The people who are engaged in this struggle need to realize it is not a fight of good versus evil. If anything, it is a fight of good versus good. Both sides believe they are acting in the best interest of the public and have standing to be the guarantors of the public good. I doubt that regardless of the science involved that economic interests will agree to any voluntary restriction of access that would reduce tourism. Environmental groups will not accept the permanent loss of biological diversity in the name of economic gain. Thus both sides have claimed the rigidly inflexible high ground based on their own definitive value structures.

Both sides are attempting to control the outcomes by moving them to different forums. The negotiated rulemaking groups are stacked with a number of local interests who seek to push the least restrictive possible outcome and perhaps have not been bargaining with any real concern towards environmental interests. The environmental groups filed suit in the court system and won a settlement to force the National Park Service to institute a system of resource protection closures, which have resulted in a lot of acrimony from local interests. Both are positioning themselves for an extended battle to control access at the seashore.

I feel they both have valid arguments; I am a fan of liberty but also of responsibility. I would hope that environmental groups would not needlessly seek to push coercive government measures unless they are of clear importance and sound scientific basis. I would hope that economic interests would recognize that long term ecological stability is more beneficial to them than they realize and that there are other values then simply economics. I doubt either will occur anytime soon.

I'm not a fan of Jesse Helms, but in the wake of his death I read a quote of his that I actually agree with. In a 1959 editorial, Helms was quoted as saying:

"Compromise, hell! That's what has happened to us all down the line ? and that's the very cause of our woes. If freedom is right and tyranny is wrong, why should those who believe in freedom treat it as if it were a roll of bologna to be bartered a slice at a time?"

What happened today with the signing of the amendments to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) is another slice of freedom being doled out in the name of security. Since 9/11 there has been a constant digression of civil liberties in this country, most visibly incorporated in the sardonically named "Patriot Act". Since that time, it has allowed government agents to wiretap phones, intercept emails, rifle through medical records, check bank accounts and academic records, largely without oversight and judicial review. People have been wrongfully arrested/imprisoned or are unable to travel because they have been placed on "no-fly" lists because their names are similar to persons of interest.

The FISA amendments contain a blanket immunity provision to protect private telecommunications companies from being prosecuted for carrying out illegal surveillance of private citizens. I am deeply concerned at giving any type of blanket immunity because it creates a moral hazard that encourages abuse. As Senator Kit Bond (R-MO) puts it, there's nothing to fear unless you have Al Qaeda on your speed dial". Good show Senator Bond; just label everyone who is concerned about the subjugation of their civil rights as terrorists. Hell, maybe Toby Keith will make a song about it for you (perhaps one where you are putting a boot into their asses).

I mention this topic in my class every semester and every semester people are generally indifferent to most of their civil liberties. God help you if you want to take away their guns, but they really could care less if the government listens to their emails or phone calls. This is probably because they feel like it will never happen to them (and they are probably right). I know I wouldn't want to listen to them droll on about Soulja Boy or whatever forgettable tripe is on "the MTV" nowadays. *shakes cane disapprovingly*

The slow but steady incremental unraveling of the Bill of Rights in the name of security is disturbing . Who knows how this dramatic expansion of government surveillance will be abused. Perhaps it will be used to spy on domestic political dissent or members of political parties. Its almost as if they are re-establishing a more formal version of COINTELPRO. I must say I am thoroughly disappointed in both Democrats and Republicans for passing this.

Does the President have too much authority to start armed conflicts? Yes, according to former Secretaries of State James Baker and Warren Christopher in a piece in today's NY Times. They propose scrapping the War Powers Resolution of 1973 and instituting a new system of "closer consultation" between the legislative and executive branches in relation to the use of military forces. Baker states the law is “ineffective at best and unconstitutional at worst", which is a determination I largely agree with. He also notes that "As a consequence, the 1973 statute has been regularly ignored — a situation that undermines the rule of law, the centerpiece of American democracy.”

 The statute was intended to curtail the powers of the President in light of the Vietnam Conflict, a response to both President Johnson and Nixon who continued the prosecution of the conflict without it ever being declared a "war". Under the War Powers Resolution, The President has up to 90 days to get congressional approval for military action once it has been initiated, but in light of our new technological gains and rapid deployment capacity, an entire conflict could be completed within this span (such as Grenada, Panama, Haiti, etc.). A formal declaration of war has also not been made since WWII, which has ensured that our current conflicts have been technically "operations".

I must say that it is perhaps a sad state of affairs that we have to address such an issue. But as a subsequent  summary article also points out, McCain has stated that he "would take military action without going to Congress first" but only if it was deemed necessary. Determinations of necessity are entirely subjective and I don't know (in light of this current administration's messianic tendencies) if we can continue to trust a single executive to have the judgment to commit troops or initiate military action that could result in a protracted conflict. I remain a fan of the concept of pluralistic thinking and also providing several levels of review, particularly in relation to national defense. Our service members (former Army myself) deserve much better than to be sent off needlessly into conflict by the self interested whims of politicians.

Or is it? For someone in my field (Environmental Policy), its a pretty good time to be alive. There seems to be a dramatic expansion of interdisciplinary programs with an environmental focus in academia, as well as new sustainability programs for the facilities of universities themselves. Such programs have filtered down here to NC State, which is home to the NC Solar Center. We even have a commitment to fight global warming at the university from our chancellor, who signed the University President Climate Change Commitment. Its not a surprise that universities are the leaders in this area, just perhaps that its catching on so well.

I must say that I am perplexed (but not surprised) about the uproar over California's legalization of gay marriage. Reports have already surfaced that county clerks are refusing to issue marriage licenses or preside over them because they believe it would effect "administrative and budgetary concerns", but others are at least  honest in saying that it would conflict with their religious beliefs, a premise that I believe is misguided. Let me explain.

Religious people contend that marriage is a sacred religious institution, and with regards to their particular religuous beliefs, it in theory is. But religious institutions are private entities removed from the state. A "traditional" marriage in those terms is an institution defined by the tenants of your particular religion,with little intrusion from the state. Legal instruments are atheist (or at least agnostic) in their design and conduct.

State sanctioned "marriage" is not a marriage at all.. Going to a courthouse and filling out an application and paying a fee is no different for obtaining a marriage license than it is for reassigning a car title at the DMV. Clerks that regard their duties to sign marriage licenses only for traditional couples are in fact annointing themselves as clergy, which I think is an illogical and unwarranted expansion of their mission and power. They seem to imply that somehow the rights to purchase health insurance for a partner or transfer property to another party in the event of death are codified in religious texts, reserved only for straight couples. Its been a little while since I picked up the bible, so forgive me if I fail to cite which passage deals with filing a joint tax return.

Whether you agree or not, in the eyes of the state, all state sanctioned marriages are civil unions. They are simply contracts which hold us to legal standards of a freely democratic and secular state. People are only married within a private religious institution that exists within our existing social framework and thus your are held accountable by the deity (or deities) of your respective religion. Clerks are bureaucratic administrators, not religious leaders. Thus, it is difficult for them to say that their role as a clerk conflicts with their religious beliefs. Could you imagine if they started denying the legalty of wills or stopped issuing driver's licenses to gays? We would (or should) understandly be outraged. How dare their beliefs intrude on the private lives of others?

To me, refusal to issue a state sponsored marriage certificate is inconsistent with the belief in individualism and limited government intervention. This seems to be the hallmark of our current iteration of conservatives. They are fine with allowing the various robber barons of the day to have their way with the citizenry.... but if two gay people want to have a loving relationship, then they seem to revel in directing the state to intervene and seperate them like a teacher at a middle school dance. To me this seems both contradictory and malicious.

There are only two reasons I can identify why people would oppose gay marriage. First, people do not want want to lose the social status of being "married".By denying alternative structures of "marriage" they can help promote themselves and their religious institutions as being the dominant value structure in society. Secondly, people believe that validation of the legal framework for alternative marriages will promote them and undermine "family values". But there is plenty of information out there that refutes the idea that sanction is an effective deterrent to alternative lifestyles.

In the most extreme case.... despite the threat of execution, there appears to be a bustling, though secretive gay population in Iran. So it is perhaps not a phenomenon that is conditioned by its environment. As for family values, how can week seek to promote love and understanding in a society that does not view them as legitimate values? Not giving gay couples the right to enter into government sanctioned contracts is not going to dissuade people from being gay, if anything it empowers their struggle for acceptance. As gays are estimated to constitute perhaps 10% of the population (though a difficult population to gauge) the population is too sizeable to simply ignore (could be over 30 million). I would also have to question the commitment of the moral majority on the "sanctity of marriage" argument on an institution that ultimately fails over half of the time.

Perhaps it is merely a question of semantics. Nearly 60% of Americans are in support of "civil unions" but constitutional bans on "gay marriage" are likely to pass in even in the most liberal states (ex. California passed Proposition 22 in 2000). This is highly unusual, as perhaps the only difference between the two would be the title on the application. Any student of policy diffusion can see the writing on the wall that these court decisions and gay marriage licence provisions will be interpreted as equal protection under the Constitution and disseminate out into a larger number of the states over time. Its just a shame that millions will be denied the exercise of basic civil rights until the rest of America progresses enough to live up to its principles.

Since the Democratic primary season has drawn to a close, its interesting to note some of the demographics in the voting patterns that emerged for each candidate. Hillary Clinton found support among older voters and less educated whites while the Obama message resonated overwhelmingly with the young, those with higher degrees of formal education and voters with higher incomes. Perhaps nowhere was this divide as evident as it was in Kentucky, where Obama won just two counties, one which non-coincidentally contained the University of Kentucky and  the other Louisville, home of the University of Louisville and one of the only significant concentrations of minority voters in the entire state. 

The scene was replayed in Indiana later where Clinton eeked out narrow win (perhaps with the aid of Operation Chaos?) in mostly rural Indiana counties. Obama won the large population centers like Indianapolis, but also in areas that contained large universities such as Indiana University and Purdue University, that were islands of Obama support in a sea of Hillary voters. Not that this is surprising, universities have always been considered liberally minded. But then again it is very difficult to adequately fulfill the missions of learning and innovation in a prohibitively conservative vaccum.

As Dr. Steven Greene points out in a recent blog, Obama doesn't have a problem with white voters, just white Appalachian voters (whom incidentally hail from some areas with the lowest rates of formal education in the entire country). Obama easily won the almost exclusively white states of Oregon and Iowa, and almost all of the remaining Upper Midwest by large margins (for example he won Kansas with 74% percent of the vote). Indeed it is more an issue of culture than race. Perhaps we are moving into less racial era in American politics, but there's certainly more work that remains to be done.

I am happy to see that we have arrived in a day where it seems that Americans, particularly our young, are refusing to be afraid of the racial boogeyman that has been perpetuated by the older generations and our nation's collective historical baggage.Certainly our political cultures and socialization have a major effect on this phenomenon. It is certain that there will always be some degree of conflict between the new ideas of young and the old. But perhaps despite all their faults, it seems that the kids are alright.

Greetings from lovely (dreary and overcast) Blacksburg, Virginia. The Burg is known as the home of the Virginia Tech Hokies. I'm currently leading a project to help fit a fraternity house with a 10 kW wind turbine with the assistance of the house owner, making it one of the first green fraternity houses in the nation and perhaps even the world. While I am up here, I do like to check the news and came upon a feature of the The New York Times about inflation for all sorts of goods. The Times used data from the Consumer Price Index (collected by the Bureau of Labor Statistics) to create a detailed graph that shows you what Americans are spending their money on. It also shows you what products/sectors are increasing or decreasing in price. Its pretty cool, you can find it here.

It's been a little while since I've posted, but here are some thoughts about Obama's potential running mates. This, of course assumes that he does pick up the nomination that is being projected by the wide range of pundits in the last couple of days. These are my top six potential picks for VP. With my luck it will probably be someone out of left field, but this is my best assessment.

6. Evan Bayh - The Senator from Indiana has considerable appeal with voters, and would nicely complement Obama's platform of change. He has been mentioned as a potential Presidential candidate in Democratic circles before, bringing a Jack Kennedy-esque persona. He has endorsed Hillary Clinton, which could be a potential issue. He was one of the most popular governors in the history of Indiana, and created the largest taxcut in the state's history while continuing to reap budget surplusses. He has also dabbled with the idea of running for office, forming a presidential exploratory committee in 2006.

5. Joe Biden - Delaware Senator and current chairman of the Foreign Relations committee. He has considerable foreign policy experience, and taking the VP seat would help bolster a future bid for the Presidency himself. As experience goes, there are few that match his credentials. He was heavily involved in the Balkan conflicts during the Clinton presidency (Bosnia, Serbia, etc.). He isn't perhaps the most dynamic of candidates personality wise, but then again... is Dick Cheney?

4. Bill Richardson - Current New Mexico governor, former US Representative, UN Ambassador and Secretary of Energy. He has strong foreign policy experience and is perhaps the most knowledgable in diplomatic relations with North Korea. He is well liked, multi-lingual and was rated by the Cato Institute as "one of the most fiscally responsible governors in the nation". Perhaps has a unique perspective on NAFTA and other free trade agreements. He is Hispanic, which could help energize the vote of the US's largest ethinic minority.

3. John Edwards - NC State graduate (before UNC law). A one term senator from North Carolina and lawyer. Optimistic, populist message and general likability mesh with the Obama campaign. His "trial lawyer" tag has been a point of contention in his own campaigns. He has previously been the Vice Presidential nominee, running with John Kerry in 2004. He has not currently endorsed either of the remaining candidates. I would speculate that in doing so he has kept himself in position to earn the VP nod or to be appointed Attorney General in either candidate's administration.

2. Jim Webb - This current Virginia Senator and former Reagan-era Secretary of the Navy has strong DOD ties, which could be an asset to help assuage the fears of potential cross-over voters who favor McCain's security platform. He is a Vietnam Veteran (Marine) and his son has served in Iraq. He also delivered the Democratic response to the 2007 State of the Union address, showing that he does have a high degree of visibility within the party's hierarchy. There's probably no-one better in either party for providing national security credentials during a wartime election.

1. Hillary Clinton - They don't call it the "dream ticket" for nothing. The Senator from NY certainly has a broad base of support to offer. Potential switch voters who find her polarizing can be relieved that she could be contained in the office of the Vice President. Hillary can be glad that she is back in the White House, as being the VP would be more advantageous than simply being "just another Senator". It could be a springboard to another run of her own in the future. She could also bring in the support of women and less educated whites that have been lacking in the Obama campaign.

Lobbyists are heroes, according to Rep. Lamar Smith (R-TX), or at least thats what he's insinuating through his latest actions. Jeff Birnbaum of the Washington Post has been following a recent bill to rename a post office (an honor generally bestowed to commemorate servicemembers killed in action) to instead honor Cyndi Taylor Krier, a currently alive and active state lobbyist . Interestingly enough, the proposal was introduced to Congress on the same day as the presumptive nominee's company donated the maximum donation allowed to Smith's campaign ($5,000). While certain contingencies may exist in the discussion, it certainly implies impropriety and influence peddling. Even more notable is that Smith served as the chairman of the House ethics committee in '99-'00, so he should be fully aware of how to avoid such potentially unethical dilemmas.

Additional Note: Through a simple internet search, I  found that the lobbyist in question already has a facility named after her, the Cyndi Taylor Krier Juvenile Correctional Treatment Center in San Antonio, TX.

Are you worried about the Beijing Olympics? Well, if you are Chinese Resident Hu Jintao, then you should be. With events spiralling out of control in Tibet and talk from the Europeans boycotting the games because of human rights abuses and deaths, China has a full scale public relations nightmare on their hands. French president Nicolas Sarkozy has not ruled out boycotting the opening ceremonies, which is particularly important because France will head the EU presidency during the games. In the wake of the disrupted torch lighting ceremony, Anne Applebaum of Slate has an interesting piece from Monday that negates the IOC and Samsung's (sponsor) contention that the Olympics are not political in nature.

"The Olympics are a force for good. Not always! For those who don't remember, let me remind you that the 1936 Olympics held in Nazi Germany, were an astonishing propaganda coup for Hitler. It's true that the star performance of Jesse Owens, the great black American track-and-field star, did shoot some holes in the Nazi theory of Aryan racial superiority. But Hitler still got what he wanted out of the games. With the help of American newspapers such as the New York Times, which opined that the games put Germany "back in the family of nations again," he convinced many Germans, and many foreigners, to accept Nazism as "normal." The Nuremburg laws were in force, German troops had marched into the Rhineland, Dachau was full of prisoners, but the world cheered athletes in Berlin. As a result, many people, both in and out of Germany, reckoned that everything was just fine, and Hitler could be tolerated a bit longer.

She continues

"The old United States vs. Soviet Union basketball rivalry; the parade of East German women with husky voices; the lists of who has won how many medals?all of that is evidence of the decades-old politicization of the Olympics. There were black power demonstrations at the 1968 Mexico City Games. A Palestinian group attacked and killed Israeli athletes at the 1972 Munich Games. Australian aborigines protested at the 2000 Sydney Games. And everything associated with the 2008 Olympics, from the massive Beijing building program, to the Olympic torch that is due to be carried across Tibet, to the Chinese Olympic Committee's web site ( it describes China's commitment to promote "mass sporting activities" on an "extensive scale, improving the people's physique, and spurring the socialist modernization of China") is blatantly designed to promote the domestic and international image of the Chinese state.

EJ Dionne has a quick blog in the Post today about the breach of Barack Obama's passport information by a number of State Department contractors . He finds it particularly troubling that privatecontractors were able to rifle through the government's databases, looking at things such as social security numbers, travel histories and perhaps potentially damaging information about political candidates. Soon thereafter, it had also come to light that Hillary Clinton's passport information had also been breached. This begs the question: because of a lack of effective oversight and the devolution of the functions of government to private entities, are we encouraging the misuse of Federal resources towards potentially partisan political objectives? Even if there were no particularly malicious political intentions present, from a civil liberties perspective, how do you feel about private contractors being able to look through government databases?

I had to say I was impressed with the response given by Senator Obama in response to the Rev. Wright controversy in his speech last evening. Eugene Robinson from Washington Post is right on point when he analyzed the situation:

" Barack Obama was supposed to be on his heels, forced into a backpedaling, defensive crouch after racially charged remarks by his former pastor, delivered from the pulpit years ago, suddenly became the hottest story of the presidential campaign. But instead of running away, Obama issued a challenge to those who would exploit the issue of race: Bring it on"

The speech helped to detail Obama's position on the state of race relations from both sides in the United States (from a rather unexpected angle):

"Most working- and middle-class white Americans don't feel that they have been particularly privileged by their race," Obama said in the speech. "Their experience is the immigrant experience -- as far as they're concerned, no one handed them anything, they built it from scratch. . . . So when they are told to bus their children to a school across town; when they hear that an African American is getting an advantage in landing a good job or a spot in a good college . . . when they're told that their fears about crime in urban neighborhoods are somehow prejudiced, resentment builds over time."

Robinson continues:

"Obama called on African Americans to embrace "the burdens of our past without becoming victims of our past," and to take "full responsibility for our own lives." And he's absolutely right.

This amounts to a new set of talking points for a discussion about race: Don't be paralyzed by history but acknowledge its effects. Recognize that whites have legitimate grievances that are not racist. Don't cling to victimhood as an all-purpose excuse. Accept personal responsibility."

Instead of lapsing into the mistake made by John Kerry in the 2004 election (dismissing rumors as irrelevent, allowing them to gain political traction), he took on the issue honestly and directly. He laid out his case.... and it was as well reasoned and delivered as we have come to expect. It was no surprise that when checking the news this morning, the entire affair was rapidly fading from the public consciousness. It is the five year anniversary of the the beginning of the war in Iraq, and the media has seemed to move onto the President's defiant defense of the war and the consequent protests that this date entails. The Obama campaign had certainly moved on, directly challenging the President in Fayetteville, NC by proclaiming to end the war if elected. Mission accomplished.
__________

"Vice President Dick Cheney. You know where he is right now? He's in Baghdad. He visited there. While he was in Iraq, he said it's a 'successful endeavor.' At least I think that's what he said. It was hard to hear over the explosions." - David Letterman 3/18/08

A rather interesting development in environmental news, the Southern Baptist Convention has undertaken a "major shift" in their organization's position, now supporting efforts to curb global climate change. This news comes on the tail of the Catholic church declaring that polluting the earth is a sin. Some quick excerpts from the linked AP article:

"The declaration, signed by the president of the Southern Baptist Convention among others and released Monday, shows a growing urgency about climate change even within groups that once dismissed claims of an overheating planet as a liberal ruse. The conservative denomination has 16.3 million members and is the largest Protestant group in the U.S."

"We believe our current denominational resolutions and engagement with these issues have often been too timid," according to the statement. "Our cautious response to these issues in the face of mounting evidence may be seen by the world as uncaring, reckless and ill-informed. We can do better."

"The Cornwall Alliance for the Stewardship of Creation, backed by James Dobson of Focus on the Family and Charles Colson, founder of Prison Fellowship ministries, among others, said that while conservation is important, some environmental concerns "are without foundation or greatly exaggerated."

"The last Southern Baptist statement on global warming came at the denomination's 2007 annual meeting, which approved a statement questioning the belief that humans are largely to blame for climate change and warning that increased regulation of greenhouse gases will hurt the poor."

I checked the News and Observer this morning and saw a rather disturbing story about a purported "school shooter" exercise at Elizabeth City State University. Evidently some students and staff had not been informed by administration email messages that a mock gunman was to storm into a classroom and take a class hostage at gunpoint for a readiness exercise. One unfortunate class last Friday saw their class members lined up execution style, a la Virginia Tech massacre to what they believed was a real gunman. Members of other classrooms barricaded their doors and students began to frantically text message their parents and even contemplated taking potentially life threatening measures (such as jumping out of windows) to escape the alleged gunman, according to the article.

Although I usually like to reserve judgment on such things, I feel that if the article is accurate, the school administrators were dangerously incompetent in how they carried out this drill and perhaps there should be serious repercussions for those who made these decisions. It really was a wonder that no one was seriously hurt as a result of this. Other schools such as UNC-Greensboro have reportedly had such drills, but over breaks when there were no students. One can only wonder what was going through the administrator's minds in having a mock gunman exercise (in the recent wake of the tragedy at Northern Illinois) on an occupied college campus.

To understand this post, first you should know what the term "jump the shark" means. It was coined a few years back in reference to a particular episode of the show "Happy Days" in which the Fonz (played by Henry Winkler) jumped over a shark while waterskiing. It is said to be the point when the show writers had written a plot so desperate and lame that regular viewers realized that the show had passed its apex and began a spiralling free fall to its eventual demise. In a political context, I believed today is the day that the 2008 election "jumped the shark".

The candidates for the most part have kept the discourse civil; with short, strategic jabs being taken to help shore up the base for the few important primaries that remain. McCain has the de facto Republican nomination and with the talk of near parity between the Democratic candidates in Texas and Ohio, Obama seems headed for insurmountable delegate lead. Thus the two front runners seem to be transitioning their tactics towards the general election and thats where the tricks get dirty.

Just as John Kerry was "swift boated" in the 2004 elections, John McCain was likewise "swift boated" in the 2000 elections by his own party. Using a shameful mix of questioning McCain's war record, his wife's brief drug addiction to using the oft reviled "southern strategy" to stoke fear among southern white voters that his adopted Bangladeshi daughter was instead a black child he fathered out of wedlock. McCain is no stranger to these types of attacks.

It really came as no surprise today when various news organizations reported that McCain could have possibly had an inappropriate relationship with a lobbyist in 2000. Thus the shark has been jumped. We are no longer in the stage where civil discourse about politics will be issue based and meaningful (or at least any remaining semblence thereof). Coverage about the candidates will continue to devolve into personal attacks and these attacks will likely trump the issues in the 2008 election, just as they did in 2000 and 2004. The candidates know that voters are largely uninformed about policy, and public opinion of a candidate's character is an important part of winning the general election. Smear campaigns work by seeding doubt into otherwise rational voters. (Perhaps this was why Johnnie Cochran was such an effective lawyer; he made absurd arguments seem rational. Maybe O.J. will help the authorities find the "real killer", ya know?)

Whether the McCain lobbyist story will pan out remains to be seen. Whats sure to be seen is more deviation from the issues in the name of petty partisan politics. Whether it be the revelations of long since forgotten pseudo-affairs, accusations of speech plagiarism or a perhaps an intentional collusion of a candidate with a well known international terrorist by the media, we have yet to hit rock bottom .  Make no mistake, we have long since jumped the shark.

Unfortunately Washington Post columnist E.J. Dionne was unable to make it to his previously scheduled lectures at NCSU today, being afflicted by the flu (as I am today). He does have an interesting opinion piece in the Post this morning about challenging John McCain's assertion that terrorism is the "trancendent challenge of the 21st Century". His arguments are based around the idea that terrorism should not be the predominant issue in our policy realm, and that challenging McCain on this agenda could provide ample fodder for his Democratic challengers.

A quick excerpt:

"Whether McCain is right or wrong matters to everything the United States will do in the coming years. It is incumbent upon McCain to explain what he really means by "transcendent challenge."

Presumably, he's saying that Islamic extremism is more important than everything else -- the rise of China and India as global powers, growing resistance to American influence in Europe, the weakening of America's global economic position, the disorder and poverty in large parts of Africa, the alienation of significant parts of Latin America from the United States. Is it in our national interest for all these issues to take a back seat to terrorism?"

Another quick one:

"In his new book on neoconservatism, "They Knew They Were Right," Jacob Heilbrunn quotes Owen Harries, an early neoconservative whose realist bent has made him skeptical of the latest turn in the thinking of his erstwhile comrades. Harries argues that viewing terrorism as an ideological challenge akin to Nazism or Soviet communism is neither accurate nor prudent.

"I think it's to belittle the historical experiences of World War II," Harries says, "not to speak of the Cold War, to equate the terrorists of today and the damage they're capable of with the totalitarian regimes of the previous century." Underestimating our enemies is a mistake, but so, too, is endowing them with more power than they have."

Micheal Kinsley wrote an op ed piece in the Washington Post today about the use of the image of Reagan by today's Republican candidates. While they seem to talk ad infinitum about being "Reagan conservatives", his record does not seem to support the nearly holy reverence he is given in conservative circles. Kinsley talks of the the differing positions of the candidates today; for example on immigration. With all the "anti amnesty" jargon being thrown around, one should remember Reagan did just that (blanket amnesty for an estimated 3 million illegal aliens under the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986).

During Reagan's term, the amount of federal spending and tax revenues doubled, heavily buoyed by increases in defense spending ("the 600 ship navy" and "the strategic defense initiative aka star wars") who were two programs that helped bloat the defense budget considerably. There was also a dramatic increase in the federal defecit, caused by cutting taxes while continuing to increase spending.

Other potential targets (for both parties) of Reagan's record was that he was perhaps the most ardent anti-environmental president , participated in Iran-Contra, he "cut and ran" by withdrawing US Marines from Lebanon after the bombing of the Marine Barracks in Beirut and perhaps was also directly involved in a plan to suspend the US Constitution in the event of a national emergency.

Anyway, the article is worth taking a look at. While Reagan was generally well liked, it's important that although our candidates are mindful of likening themselves as "Reagan Conservatives", that the Reagan record often deviates from the policy positions they advocate.

I've been following the news reports of the dramatic losses in foreign stock markets on Monday, caused primarily by fears of a forthcoming US recession, caused largely by the subprime mortgage crisis. Some have even referred to this as "Black Monday", a reference to the days of dramatic losses in 1929 that preceded the onset of the Great Depression (or the dramatic, but brief crash in 1987). In the UK alone, nearly $149 billion in stock value was eliminated on the FTSE . It's interesting to note the ripple effects of the mortgage crisis across the world's economy. In the short term, stock sell offs present a buying oppurtunity to buyers looking for investments with solid fundamentals at a discount. But an extended slide can be a self reinforcing feedback loop, causing a decline that will erase trillions of dollars of private and publicly held wealth.

While it is a little unsettling, there might be a time when problems with foreign economic markets have a similar effect on the US economy. Economists project that in as little as 20 years, both China and possibly India will surpass the US in annual GDP. It's also unsettling that the economy is beginning to trump all other issues in political discourse. The president proposes a $145 billion stimulus package (heavily dependent on tax cuts) to help stave off a recession, although part of the recession has also been brought on by the decline of the value of the US dollar due to excessive federal spending. I think that the potential for a recession also gives a pretty solid reason why the President's plan to privatize social security in the stock markets would have had dangerous consequences to our country's long term financial stability. And whatever the recovery strategy, its clear that lending markets should be prevented from practicing abusive lending practices in the future.

I saw an article today on CNN about Sen. Chuck Schumer's (D-NY) questioning of an unusally high loan given by the Federal Home Loan Bank in Atlanta to Countrywide Financial, the nation's largest mortgage lender. Even in the wake of Vice President Dick Cheney statement that "there will be no bailouts", Countrywide has borrowed $51 billion this year from a federally secured lender.... and these loans entail a disproportionately high risk of default. These are not the type of loans that are given to troubled companies.

To quote the recent AP piece:

"At a time when Countrywide's mortgage portfolio is deteriorating drastically, FHLB's exposure to Countrywide poses an unreasonable risk," Schumer said in a prepared statement Monday, citing Countrywide's emphasis on so-called "payment-option" mortgages, a loan in which the borrower has the option to allow the principal balance to increase."

and later in the same piece:

"Like mortgage finance giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the federal home loan banks are government-chartered enterprises, benefiting from the widespread assumption on Wall Street that the federal government would bail them out in the event of a crisis."

In laymen's terms:

Countrywide got itself in a bind by offering subprime loans to people who weren't particularly able to pay them once their rates reset. Now they have been offered $51 billion in loans by a federal bank to offset the losses from loan defaults. If Countrywide defaults on the loans, it will mean that the US taxpayers will bailout a business that engaged in risky lending practices. If we allow businesses with unethical and destructive practices to privately derive all the benefit but socialize the risk onto society, we are essentially subsidizing unethical business practices and corporate stupidity.
____________________________________________________________________________________

"Capitalism without failure is like religion without sin" says Allan Meltzer professor of Politcal Economy at Carnegie Mellon and visting scholar at the conservative American Enterprise Institute.

"The answer to excessive risk-taking is "let 'em fail."

UPDATE 1/8/08

Looks like the word on the street is that Countrywide is about to declare bankruptcy. The loser? The American taxpayer.

I came across a piece this evening in the Washington Post which states that Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator (a political appointee) Stephen L. Johnson, overruled the EPA's technical and legal staff's unanimous decison to allow an exemption to the EPA's emission standards to set their own, more restrictive emissions standards to deal with global warming. Basically this administrator has gone against reason and is just acting to suppress democratic processes of the states in addressing climate change.

All this is after a group of twelve states sued the EPA, and the Supreme Court forced the EPA to start regulating carbon emissions as a pollutant earlier this year (Massachusetts vs. EPA, April 2007). The EPA said that it did not have the authority to regulate emissions, and even if it did, it did not elect to enforce any emission standards. Thus we arrive at an interesting paradox - The country's chief agency for protecting environmental quality is working to prevent .... environmental protection?

Some highlights

"The decision set in motion a legal battle that EPA's lawyers expect to lose and demonstrated the Bush administration's determination to oppose any mandatory measures specifically targeted at curbing global warming pollution. A total of 18 states, representing 45 percent of the nation's auto market, have either adopted or pledged to implement California's proposed tailpipe emissions rules, which seek to cut vehicles' greenhouse gas emissions by 30 percent between 2009 and 2016."

"Environmentalists and state officials lambasted Johnson's decision and pledged to sue to overturn it. In the past three months, federal judges in Vermont and California have twice rebuffed automakers' attempts to block state tailpipe regulations. The auto industry had also lobbied the White House and EPA to block the California regulation, and the Detroit News reported that chief executives of Ford and Chrysler met with Vice President Cheney last month to discuss the issue."

"By refusing to grant California's waiver request for its new motor vehicle standards to control greenhouse gas emissions, the administration has ignored the clear and very limited statutory criteria upon which this decision was to be based," said S. William Becker, executive director of the National Association of Clean Air Agencies, which represents officials in 48 states. "Instead, it has issued a verdict that is legally and technically unjustified and indefensible."

"EPA's lawyers and policy staff had reached the same conclusion, said several agency officials familiar with the process. In a PowerPoint presentation prepared for the administrator, aides wrote that if Johnson denied the waiver and California sued, "EPA likely to lose suit."

"If he allowed California to proceed and automakers sued, the staff wrote, "EPA is almost certain to win."

(quoting Henry Waxman D-CA) "EPA's decision ignores the law, science and common sense," Waxman said in a statement. "This is a policy dictated by politics and ideology, not facts. The committee will be investigating how and why this decision was made."

http://www.stevewk.com

High gas prices have been squeezing the consumer world wide, but perhaps nowhere else in the world is this as evident as in the United States. Buoyed by our historical enjoyment of low energy prices, a strong belief in individualism and strong economic development, we have become the highest per capita consumers of petroleum in the world. But our unsustainable consumption is magnified by the fact that we are heavily dependant from foreign oil to fulfill this demand. While a most of our oil is not sourced directly from the middle east, the global commodity exchange markets ensure the price stays relatively consistent world wide.

As our lifestyle is heavily sustained by our oil consumption, we are at the largest risk to be affected by supply disruptions. Prices are at all time highs and there is not much incentive to increase production to ease supply worries. Countries like Iran that produce large amounts of oil can simply threaten non-compliance with international demands... and oil spikes another $10 a barrel (or more). This geopolitial manipulation of the oil markets positively reinforces those who create market instability. Thus we have been taken hostage, and the the weapon is oil. Economic blackmail is the name of the game.

Terrorist attacks are easy to identify and stick out easily in the public perception. But when oil is used as a weapon, the effects are more subtle but can be disatrous on a larger scale. Lower income populations with limited resources are the first to feel its effects. Their consumption patterns and daily activities are modified from the outset. They are also affected as the effects ripple throughout the economy, raising the prices on all the other products that they consume. This will invariably cause a large number of people on the margins of poverty to fall further into poverty. People wanting to maintain their lifestyle will have to dedicate a larger percentage of their incomes simply to drive to work, run errands or visit relatives. The middle class (particularly those with children) will find that they have to make choices that they didn't have to make several years ago. Less money gets put into savings or investment, and this makes saving for retirement more difficult.

US automakers, for years enjoyed strong sales fed by a desire for sport utility vehicles. But both Ford and GM are in dire circumstances as the demand for these vehicles has all but dried up. Increasing costs from fuel have no doubt have helped lead to further outsourcing of US jobs and infrastruture. And the president's refusal to release oil from the strategic reserve to help alleviate record prices is a sign that a Texas oilman cannot be trusted to act in the public's best interest (even though France has decided to release oil from their own strategic reserve). What we are seeing here is a market under full speculation.... prices are not following market fundamentals and supply is continuing to meet or exceed demand. In a recent Reuters news piece, an OPEC spokesman stated " it strongly believes that fundamentals are not supporting current high prices and that the market is very well supplied" and the piece noted that high prices were the result of "rampant speculation by big money investors rather than any shortage of supply".

Thus we should be wary of this new form of economic terrorism. Geopolitical manipulation of the oil markets negatively affects every single American in some shape or form. It is driving more Americans into poverty and adding to the crisis that is devaluing our currency. It's funding weapons development and procurement of our potential adversaries. Its perhaps not only our moral obligation to be less wasteful in our daily consumption, but it is of vital importance to our nation as a whole. It is a national security issue. Do your part to use less.

For today's lab section,  I asked my students to read a essay/narrative called "A Moral Code for a Finite World" written by Herschel Elliot and Richard Lamm and was published in the Chronicle of Higher Education in November, 2002. In a nutshell, it expands on the classic work "Tragedy of the Commons" by Garrett Hardin in which we analyze how we deal with a world with finite resources, which is in direct conflict with our expectation toward unsustainable resource extraction and consumption (i.e. sustaining our "lifestyle" or "way of life").

In the world as we see now, resources are abundant and the negative aspects of our resource demands are dealt without much thought in our everyday lives.We throw away just about everything we own at some point (or sell/give it to someone else who eventually throws it away). The Moral Code piece points out that the land can only support so much; "technology can extend but not eliminate the limits" of the natural world. Only so many stalks of corn grow on an acre of land, migratory fish can only breed a certain amount, trees grow only so fast. Many of our products derived from non-renewable resources are simply discarded. Products that are derived from renewable sources are generally overharvested and later discarded as well.

The popular perception is that because we have grown up in the land of plenty, that this will always exist. But as humanity continues its exponential growth, there will eventually become a point where growth in consumption will outstrip the ability of the earth to support it and consequently population growth rates will begin to drop, eventually leveling out or even declining.  During this time, competition for scare resources becomes fierce. Those who win will mostly be the economic elites who dominate today and the losers will either perish in the ensuing famine or engage in warfare against the elites (which is a partial explanation for international terrorism but also armed conflct in general). There could also be warfare between the elites (US and China perhaps?).

Thomas Malthus (1766-1834) was one of the first to identify this problem, which has since been labeled "The Malthusian Catastrophe". I speak of the Malthusian Catastrophe in terms of expanding on the moral code in relation to our political beliefs. This growth catastrophe is illustrated in the graph below, which is derived from data in the UN estimates in the report "Population to 2300" (2004).


Credit- Loren Cobb PhD, Creative Commons License

Our political belief structure in the United States cherishes the concept of individualism and personal freedom. But faced with the possibility that unrestricted freedom and unsustainable consumption will be the agents of our own (or others) demise, what should be government's role in restricting these? For example, thousands of farms are being sold to developers who turn them into subdivisions. In doing, millions of acres of productive agricultural land are being taken out of food production. Thus, we are reducing the capacity of the human race to feed itself and spiraling increasingly closer to conflict over scare resources. Thus, should we prohibit development on such lands? I could name hundreds of similar examples, but this is a blog post and not War & Peace.

So what is our moral code? Some argue that our economic system  is most efficient operating on a system similar to Darwin's "survival of the fittest" (or should I suggest "survival of the richest"). Economics certainly have a preeminent stake in this outcome but it seems to defy our moral code. Those of us who seek "less market intervention" and "lower tax" platforms subscribe to this Darwinistic approach. But anyone who subscribes to almost any form of organized religion must realize that such a belief is antithetical to their basic belief structure (particularly Christianity). Morality and ethics can exist outside the realm of organized religion, so religion is not the exclusive realm of this discussion.

Of course it is rational to believe that people have different market worths based on their profession and disparities will exist. The big question is are we to allow this managed scarcity of resources to regress to the point where we would (or would continue to) punish people with untimely death due to our belief in the infallible nature of the free market? Is that the end of the ethical conscience of our country? Its one thing to be ignorant of such things, but to be mindful of ones actions and simply not care is insidious. It creates a paradox where ones beliefs and actions are contradictory.
 
Its probably not feasible at this point to think that population control measures would be effective in curtailing growth. War, famine and pestilence have historically been the primary method of population control. But its possible for us to strive at reducing our impact by reducing waste. This means the types of cars we drive, the food we eat, the things we buy and discard. One can speculate that the mandatory water restrictions that have been introduced in much of the Southeastern United States (due to the drought) illustrate the point that elective measures can only be so effective.Whether or not we reach a point where governmental action will be needed in other realms remains to be seen.

Some good Wikipedia links for your reference

Thomas Malthus (1766-1834)
The Malthusian Catastrophe

-Steve
http://www.stevewk.com

I apologize that its taken me so long to get back to doing this blog, I get busy from time to time and unfortunately this is one of the things that goes first. I turned on the news today to see that Pervez Musharraf (of Pakistan) had suspended the Constitution and sacked the Supreme Court. The Court was expected to have ruled that Musharraf was inelligible to have run for office in the most recent elections. Musharraf is already the head of the army and came to power in October 1999 by overthrowing the democratically elected Prime Minister, Nawaz Sharif. Some have noted that today's actions amount to a second coup, effectively eliminating the checks and balances of other branches of government. The US government has strongly supported Pakistan in the past as a "ally on the war on terror". The lack of a strong condemnation of Musharraf today sends the signal that we are happy to continue assist dictators subvert democracy abroad.

Besides the obvious implications of a somewhat functioning democracy in the Middle East sliding further towards military dictatorship (and a nuclear power at that), its interesting to note the quoted reasons that he said such steps were necessary. According to the write up in the Washington Post, Musharraf cites "judicial activism" and "rising extremism" had caused him to take these measures. The foreign analyst in the piece states that this has "nothing to do with extremism" and more to do with "Musharraf's political survival". In addition to sacking the supreme court, Musharraf has instituted martial law (assisted by military forces) and quashed independant media outlets.

So what does this have to do with us you say? Well, one could speculate that the current administration's power grabs and disregard for the constitution are indicative of an incremental subversion of our own democracy. Perhaps we are only one "dirty bomb" away from much harsher measures towards our own citizens. And for those of you who think this is unthinkable, older persons will remember that part of the Iran-Contra scandal was in relation to a plan to suspend the Constitution and initiate martial law in the event of a national emergency (plan aptly named, Readiness Exercise 1984 or REX 84). Many politicos and scholars agree that the actions taken by Oliver North and Ronald Reagan (among others) during Iran Contra would constitute treason in any other country.

This was brought to light in a Miami Herald article in 1987 and was later brought up as part of Congressional hearings into Iran-Contra by Rep. Jack Brooks (D-TX). Here is a relatively recent C-SPAN of video of Rep. Peter DeFazio (D-OR) questioning the Bush/Cheney administration and their classified plan for the continuity of government (which is also being kept hidden from congress). Is it possible that the same thing thats happening in Pakistan could happen here in the US? Well, ten years ago if you told me two airliners would crash into the world trade center, I would have laughed in your face. Lets just say nowadays, I'm not very sure. These are dangerous times we are living in.

Ever since I was a kid, I've been interested in the whole concept of mercenaries. Interestingly enough, my hometown Eckerd's Pharmacy sold the magazine Soldier of Fortune (right next to Newsweek, Cat Fancy, and numerous magazines that had half-naked women leaning on low riders). These were still the pre-internet days and I had no other outlet to explore my curiosity with the military.

I remember they always had articles about the use of mercenaries in the "Bush War" in Rhodesia (now Zimbabwe). They also had listings for private military contractors and mercenaries in the classifieds section. There were some ads for groups such as the French Foreign Legion, but they were primarily groups recruiting for conflicts in Africa (particularly Angola and Sierra Leone), South America and the Middle East.

Someone willing to engage in military conflict solely for personal gain was once thought to be a truly detestable thing. Their allegiance was bought and sold to the highest bidder and were often used to help bolster the armies of dictators.  They were a strange agglomeration of foreign nationals with experience in armed conflicts, mostly Europeans and Australians and a few Americans thrown in. Many of these mercenaries were considered degenerates, unable to return to civilian life after years in combat.

Fast forward to the current war in Iraq. Private military contractors now comprise the largest organizational force structure in country, with an estimated 180,000 private contractors of differing nationalities..They outnumber the number of US troops by nearly 20,000 (160,000+ since the surge). Dr. Peter W. Singer of the Brookings Institution refers to them comically as the "coalition of the billing". Private contractors have become a somewhat accepted byproduct of conducting warfare, although their numbers are not included in troop casulty reports, thus keeping the human costs of the conflict artificially depressed. But as for the contractors, they are essentially consulting firms... which made me think of this poster I had seen awhile back:



Blackwater CEO Erik Prince testified before Congress that Blackwater charges $445,000 a year ($1,222 a day) for each security contractor. Such exorbitant fees amount to over six to ten times the cost for our average enlisted troop. One must also consider that Blackwater is ostensibly to be used in defensive roles, meaning that our combat troops assume most of the risk and private security contractors such as Blackwater, DynCorp and the Crescent Security Group make record profits.

Also at issue is the CEO's relationship with the Republican Party. Although he was briefly a Navy SEAL, Erik Price is also a multimillionaire heir of a automotive parts corporation, using part of his inheritence to start Blackwater. He has extensive Republican party ties, donating to the Republican National Committee and a list of conservative candidates. His sister the former chair of the Michigan Republican Party and is the wife of Dick DeVos (former head of Amway), a billionaire who has contributed millions to the election and relection efforts of Republican candidates.

It's no secret of the "quid pro quo" relationship in politics; that campaign contributions are tied towards implied or stated favor in awarding of government contracts and beneficial legislation. But what we must ask ourselves if companies in the defense industries are supporting candidates with extreme ideological postions that are either pushing us to war or pushing us to continue the war for economic reasons. And when companies like Blackwater are responsible for unneeded civilian deaths, are party loyalties to these organizations preventing them from being punished? And are we allowing our soldiers to continue to be put at risk for the sake of special economic interests (aka allowing them to keep prolonging the problem?).

Erik Prince considers himself a "conservative Christian" and even serves on a board of a group called Christian Freedom International. Seems like an interesting paradox, a "born again" Christian running a guns-for-hire operation that often violates the Geneva Conventions (and almost all tenents of Christianity). It certainly poses interesting ethical and moral questions as well. I hope the country comes to it's senses before this outsourcing of government functions goes any further.


"When fascism comes to America it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross." - Sinclair Lewis.

Edit: Bush has come out against investigating alleged abuses by contractors as it would "stretch the resources of the FBI" but in fact is doing nothing but helping to continue giving immunity to his political allies.

 

I've been developing a theory as to why Al Gore is not a candidate in the 2008 presidential race. He can't seem to go to any sort speech or event without being asked to run. It seems that there are a huge number of moderate voters who are not satisfied with the current crop of candidates and would easily hand the election to him. So why doesn't he run? I've reached a point where I think that the reason he is not a current candidate is not because he does not intend to run, its that it's politically unfavorable to do so at this point.

Here are four reasons why I believe Al Gore will (or at least should) declare his candidacy for the 2008 elections:

1) He would win (easily) - We already know that Gore won the popular vote in the 2000 election (he won the popular vote by 543,895 votes). People like Al Gore. He's non-threatening, popular and has a populist agenda that the country yearns for after nearly eight years of corporate favoritism. He's a vestige of the feel good days of the Clinton administration where the federal defecit was in decline, environmental protection was important and our nation's reputation was well regarded. Gore has ranked highly in public opinion polls without even being a declared candidate. The current Democratic forerunner, Hillary Clinton would not be able to win the South and is perhaps too polarizing of a figure to win the general election, even when the American public is dying to hand the presidency to a Democrat. Hillary is not as nearly as well liked as John Kerry, who lost the 2004 election... and after that, the stakes are too high to let this one get away. I don't think that the strategists at DNC headquarters are seriously banking on a Hillary win.

2)  It's not time - Al Gore declaring his candidacy early would yield no discernible benefit. As a clear frontrunner, he would able to bring in considerable numbers of Democrats, moderates and Republicans with guilty consciences (like myself a few years ago). He doesn't need to do debates, because he already has a firm record on which to stand. Entering the field early would mean that he would be increasingly criticized and swift-boated on all sides, by Democratic challengers and Republican contenders. This would reduce his campaign's momentum considerably; and the certainty of his winning would be eroded the longer he was forced to play this game with other candidates. It's political game theory a la Karl Rove.

He's remained visible, releasing books, movies and making a large number of apperances on television. Speculation on his candidacy would only work to his advantage. Gore could wait until almost a month before the primaries begin, sweep in on fever pitch of optimism and easily cruise to the nomination. Hillary would get the VP nod and the fears of many moderates would be calmed (note how many people hate Cheney and yet he is still VP). Gore & Clinton take the 2008 election, handily defeating Giulianni & Thompson.

3) He's a boy scout - After a distinguished career of public service, it seems unthinkable that Gore would refuse the call when America is beating down his door to run. One could just analyze the title of his book The Assault On Reason for a clue. Why would a person dedicating a significant part of his career towards the problem of climate change refuse to hold the office that could do the most about it? Is that a rational position? What could Gore possibly do by lobbying or giving speechs that would be anywhere as effective as being the President?

If Al Gore really believes in global climate change, he would become President. He would be able to restore the considerable cuts that were made in the budgets of scientific agencies for research. He would direct the Department of Energy to invest considerable funds towards research and development for renewable energy technologies and alternative fuels. He could push to ratify the Kyoto Protocol and enact higher corporate average fuel economy standards.The possibilities for enacting policy are limitless.

An Inconvenient Truth is proof that he is an activist at heart.... and as discouraging as the battle has been, he knows he's the world's biggest spokesman for global climate change..... and that he could affect US and International policy for decades to come in his capacity as President. On his website, he has said that the tipping point for reversing the effect of climate change could be in as little as 10 years, and based on this timeline.... he has to run, or otherwise there will be no chance to enact significant measures in time to prevent a worldwide environmental catastrophe. Gore has stated that climate change is a "moral issue" and how he could refuse this moral obligation would negate everything he's said in the past about public service.

4) He's pissed - Not only was the election stolen from him, but much of the environmental laws and policies he had worked to enact have been gutted or stripped of funding. The government is sprinting to finanical insolvency and full of partisan hacks who are running democracy into the ground in the name of special interests. We have truly seen how bad things can get when incomptence is heralded as a virtue, and party loyalty is the only qualification one must hold to handle our nation's most important affairs. And as a Vietnam veteran, he is aware of the disatrous consequences of continuing a conflict indefinately.

He gets in office and cleans house...rights the wrongs and makes it all good again.  The way it should have been the first time. Then he leaves office after eight years (yes a two termer I predict) with a timeless legacy as the man who saved the planet and preserved our democracy for generations to come. Thats a pretty big thing to ignore, regardless of how fed up you are with politics.

Sorry for my regular readers, I have been bogged down with work and traveling so I was hoping to get back to the blog sooner.

I've been following the row between Governor Mike Easley and the legislature in response to a proposed $40 million dollar incentive to keep the Goodyear tire plant in Fayetteville. Being somewhat conservative ideologically (as most people are) in regards to opposing unnecessary incentives for private entities, I support the Governor's refusal to paying Goodyear, especially without a promise to maintain jobs at the plant. Some Republicans in the legislature have also come out against the proposal, but yet the legislature is considering overriding his veto.

In a letter to the legislature last week, Governor Easley wrote:

'"It would set a dangerous precedent for North Carolina's economic development policy. The state needs to ensure that your incentives result in more investment and employment, not providing cash grants for companies that will cut jobs."

Incentives are used to draw new investment into areas where economic development is needed. Controversial high cost incentive packages have recently been passed to bring both Dell and Google to North Carolina. But we must remember the privileged position of capital: national and international companies are not tied to any specific geographic locale, thus they have the upper hand in negotiations with political jurisdictions because of their mobility. They can move their operations to whatever location provides them the best deal. This can be done around the United States, but often the temptation to move to foreign markets is a temptation that can't be resisted.

When going overseas, the intent is to avoid unionized labor, environmental regulations or requirements to provide benefits or healthcare insurance in an effort to maximize profits for investors. This is what Schnaiberg, Weinberg & Gould (Local Environmental Struggles: Citizen Activism in the Treadmill of Production, 1996) referred to as the "low road to economic development". Eventually, the company is "hollowed out",  meaning they close most or all of their domestic capacity and simply purchase goods from foreign production entities, slapping their name on it and calling it theirs.

Instead of adapting their business model or producing innovative new products to spur growth and preserve well paying jobs ("the high road to economic development") they threaten jurisdictions with plant closures, causing a local economic and political crisis. Politicians, self interested in their own reelection, often cave to the demands of these entities, whatever their ideological principles. But what would this $40 million package provide now that would prevent us from facing the same situation 10 years from now, when the proposed measures expire? Will we have to provide $60 million then? $80 million? Goodyear will certainly be emboldened to continue to increase its demands untill the state is no longer able to meet them....so in effect we are only buying time.

While in New Orleans, John Edwards recently spoke to a crowd about the need for a "Brownie Law", a law which would require qualified candidates and not "political hacks" to be the heads of federal agencies. Being in the Public Administration PhD program, I observe that most people have very little understanding of how much of the nation's business goes on in these agencies, or why such  measure would be so important.

This comically named (but very serious) proposal is in reference to Micheal Brown, the often maligned Bush political appointee who bungled the response to Hurricane Katrina as the head of the FEMA. Much of the reason why the response was bungled was that Brown had no experience in disaster response or recovery. His most most recent leadership position before being tasked with leading the nation's prime emergency response agency was the director of the Arabian Horse Association, a position he was asked to resign.

The original point of the political appointee system was to give the executive branch the flexibility to name the best qualified person to positions of importance in th federal government. One would envision that an experienced educational administrator, with a PhD and experience in educational research and policy would be directing the Department of Education. The chief of the Department of Health and Human Services would be a experienced Physician, and the head of the Department of Transportation, which oversees the nation's trillion dollar plus highway infrastructure would be directed by a experienced civil engineer. And in the (distant) past this was true.

Current Secretary of Education Margaret Spellings has a BS in Political Science from the University of Houston, and was a campaign director and advisor to George Bush as governor of Texas. Secretary of Health and Human Services Mike Leavitt got a BS degree in economics/business (not a medical degree or anything close) from Southern Utah University, and was the previous director of the Environmental Protection Agency - in the era in which critical parts of the nation's environmental laws began being gutted wholesale for the benefit of industry groups (Bush's first term). Finally, Secretary of Transportation Mary Peters has a degree from the for-profit University of Phoenix (yes the online people you see on tv) and spent a considerable amount of her career before politics working odd jobs such as baby sitting and meatpacking.  All of the above are Bush appointees currently serving in our nation's critical agencies, and are only a small sampling of the inadequacy of the top level administrators. All have been involved in some sort of scandal in relation to their positions. None have advanced degrees (or even Bachelor's degrees) in fields related to their current position and all have much less formal education than I do, which I find to be terrifying.

Many political appointees use their power and authority to threaten and contain long term federal employees, particularly in the environmental agencies. NASA administrator Micheal Griffin countered the scientific consensus in NASA when he said that he was not sure that global warming is a problem "we need to wrestle with" and that a warmer climate "might be better than the one we have currently". Political appointees have pressured federal prosecutors to weaken their racketeering cases against tobacco companies, which resulted in the proposed settlement being dropped from $130 billion to $10 billion dollars. The EPA argued in the Supreme Court against its obligations under the Clean Air Act to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from vehicles (it's not our job) and at the same time it asserted that states like California should not be able to produce their own greenhouse gas emisssion standards, a move opposed by automakers not wanting to meet their more stringent standards. Assistant Secretary of Fish, Wildlife and Parks Julie MacDonald was found to have disagreed with scientists and edited scientific reports from agency staff in relation to species under the protection of the Endangered Species Act, particularly on species whose protective status conflicts with the interests of oil, natural gas and the real estate industry. The interesting point in this matter is that MacDonald has no biological training, yet has somehow decided that she has the capacity to criticize and discount the research of some of our nation's top scientists.

It is obvious that the system is considerably broken, and a nearly optimal venue for corruption. Our democracy is really done a disservice when we overlook the best and brightest this nation has to offer in favor rewarding political allies. It is no surprise when these appointees leave their positions and immediately take up well paid consulting or lobbying positions, using their influence to direct government contracts to the same companies they interacted with as administrators. We can never hope to solve complex public interest issues when the heads of our agencies and departments use them to further their own agendas and finances.

Upon leaving the presidency, Harry Truman refused all offers to sit on the boards of directors at private companies. He was quoted as saying to one potential recruiter "you don't want me, you want the presidency....and that's not mine to sell". Perhaps we can only hope for a day in which we return to such integrity.

As of today I have yet to recieved a response from state Sen. Charlie Dannelly, but I would assume from the amount of unfavorable coverage on the topic from various news organizations (N&O, AP) that its perhaps not in his best interest. I did recieve a response on the original blog, although it seems the reader had not gotten the message from the article that I intended. So I decided to post the response here, rather than have it get buried away where no one would really find it. Although the issue does deal in part with HBCU's, that point is ancillary to the overall argument of education funding.

I also recieved a response from Rep. Paul Stam (R), who is the House minority party chair and was quoted in a subsequent N&O article opposing the inclusion of The McLendon Fund in the final budget. He provided a copy of his press release on the provision, for which I am grateful. In his release, he states that this is one of "dozens and dozens" of measures that were inserted into the budget and accounted for over $400 million in additional spending in violation of House Rule 44(b).

 In the end, $500,000 is small potatoes when considering the entire state budget, but the precedent that the McLendon Fund establishes is much more troubling in my opinion. And contrary to the historical record, political reform does not mean that we