The Whistle of a Distant Train

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 simply replace their special interests with ours.

____________________________________________________________________________________________

My blog response:

I appreciate your comments on the blog A.W.F. although I do disagree with your assertion as to the motivations 
of this provision. Let me be the first to say that I am all for measures to increase public investment in education, 
including special prograns to assist low income and minority students attend college. I cannot speak as to the 
motivations of Rep. Dannelly, I think that the program was proposed with good intentions, but I have never been 
one of the "the ends justify the means" type of persons. If the intention was to increase funding to minority students, 
there are certainly much more effective and honorable ways to accomplish this. The measure as represented in the 
media insinuates the program is "free money" for athletes, and probably constitutes little more than a payoff for 
athletic recruiting purposes at colleges within the CIAA and MEAC athletic conferences.

 I think that there are a lot of student athletes in need at all of our state universities, but I do not support taxpayer 
dollars to subsidize athletic scholarships at any school, particularly private schools. A proper measure would have been
to propose a program in which two minority students at each UNC system university would have been awarded 
need-based or merit-based grants. And in proposing such a measure, our legislative bodies should be allowed to 
consider the motion in their respective chambers. The state has never supported athletic grants in the past, and to 
begin doing so should have been approved under democratic circumstances.

Unfortunately the underhanded nature in which this measure was passed seems to undercut both the democratic 
process and long established state policies. I'm sure that many state legislators would have brought up the same 
concerns I have addressed in the blog had they had the oppurtunity. I am afraid that athletic departments will seize 
upon this precedent to seek funding for athletic programs, which has the potential to divert funds from our academic 
programs. I would hate to see a small program be deemed "expendable" because someone wants an upgraded field 
house for their football team.

An AP article I found says that McLendon Fund is part of an incentive package to help keep the MEAC and CIAA 
conference tournaments in NC. The tournaments do bring in significant revenues for the state, but one should ask 
how far we are willing to open the doors to provide incentives for private organizations. I assure you that once you 
open the door financially to the athletic and private college juggernauts, it is not a door that easily (or ever) closed. 

________________________________________________________________________________

Rep. Paul Stam wrote:

Mr. Kleinschmit,

Thank you for your email about the McLendon Fund provision in the
2007-2008 budget.  I have attached my press release on this provision
below.  I hope it will be informative.

Sincerely,
Representative Paul Stam


> New Athletic Scholarships and the Budget Rules
> 
> The press has reported on the private athletic scholarships that were
> slipped into the conference report on the budget at the request of
> Senator Dannelly.  The News and Observer has editorialized against it
> (August 17, 2007).                                   
> 
> Now the News and Observer reports (Under The Dome, August 17, 2007)
> that the Speaker believes the scholarship provision should have
> received a full airing instead of being dropped in the final budget.
> "He doesn't like the process" says his spokesman, Bill Holmes.
> 
> But the Speaker was not an observer of the process.  He was in charge.
> 
> 
> I advised the Speaker and the House Democratic Leadership that if they
> tried to slip things into the budget in violation of House Rule 44(b)
> that I would raise that as a point of order.  Forewarned that I would
> do that, they slipped in dozens and dozens of items like this, some of
> much more importance, including an extra $400 million dollars of
> spending. 
> 
> The audio of the point of order and the Speaker's ruling is attached
> and a list of many of the special provisions involved appears beneath
> my signature below.
> 
> Previously under the reign of Speaker Black the rules were generally
> ignored.  In 2007 the Rules of the House were generally followed,
> except with respect to the final budget in which the most important
> rule was obliterated, at great cost to the taxpayers. 
> 
> Representative Paul Stam
> Republican Leader
> North Carolina House of Representatives
> Pauls@ncleg.net

PS- I apologize to having edited this more than once, I have had to correct several formatting errors.

In October 2006, Rolling Stone released an article called "The Ten Worst Congressmen" in which they detailed the actions of the offending parties to warrant their inclusion in the article. I brought up the article in one of the Intro to American Government labs, as elections are gold in terms of discussing in Political Science. I thought it would be interesting to see what became of the members on the list after last years elections. In the interest of time, most of my sources are Wikipedia, but also the Rolling Stone article and the individual member's websites (although it did take me four hours to compile this).

Dennis Hastert (R-IL) "The Highway Robber" - Chided for using position as House Speaker to push through a highway bill that significantly increased the value of a property that he then sold to developers for a $2 million profit. Also connected to Jack Abramoff.
Where they are now: After sweeping changes in the House during the 2006 election, Hastert did not seek to occupy the position of minority leader, ceding the position to John Boehner (R-OH). He has stated that this current term will be his last.

Jim Sensenbrenner (R-WI) "The Dictator" - The number one congressman in terms of taking free trips from corporate interests. Voted against providing relief funding for Katrina victims and was a driving force behind the Patriot Act. Known for heavy-handed approaches to legislating. Often referred to derisively as "Senslessbrenner".
Where they are now: Continues to serve Wisconsin's 5th District.

* Don Young (R-AK)  "Mr Pork" - Known for bringing significant amount of pork projects back to his home state of Alaska, he was widely ridiculed for the so called "Bridges to Nowhere". The bridges would amount to $400 million in cost, yet would serve a island with only 50 residents and an area of uninhabitable marshland. It has been pointed to as the most visible symbol of government waste in history. Has been quoted as saying ?Environmentalists are a self-centered bunch of waffle-stomping, Harvard-graduating, intellectual idiots,? who ?are not Americans, never have been Americans, never will be Americans.?
Where they are now: Continues to serve as Alaska's sole House member. Currently under investigation for taking bribes by VECO Corporation, an Anchorage based pipeline service and construction company. VECO has already plead guilty to bribing members of the Alaska State Legislature. Sen. Ted Stevens (R-AK) is also currently under investigation for taking bribes from VECO.

William Jefferson (D-LA) "The Bribe Taker" - Known for accepting bribes to steer federal contracts to a Nigerian company. Was caught on tape accepting $100k in bribes during an FBI sting operation. Later when Jefferson's house was raided, they found $90k in cash in food containers in the Congressman's freezer.
Where they are now: On 6/4/07 Jefferson was indicted on 16 counts, included charges of racketeering, bribery, money laundering etc. If convicted, he faces a possible maximum sentence of 235 years (Wikipedia)

Jerry Lewis (R-CA) ?The King of Payoffs? - At issue is his reciprocal relationship with lobbying firms, lucrative federal contracts continue to be steered to the clients of lobbying firms associated with Lewis' longtime friends and campaign contributions continue to roll in for Lewis' reelection campaigns.

Where they are now: Continues to serve California's 41^st District but is the subject of an ongoing federal corruption probe.

Tom Tancredo (R-CO) "Mr Bigotry" ? His fervently anti-immigrant stance not only includes illegal immigration, but also legal immigration. He has voted to eliminate the H1-B temporary visa program. He has also been criticized for referring to Miami, FL as a ?third world country?. Immigration reform is the cornerstone in which his entire political career is based. He was one of the few Republicans who broke ranks to support a bill to prevent the Department of Justice from raiding patients and caregivers who utilize medicinal marijuana.
Where they are now: A very distant contender for the Republican presidential nomination in 2008, he continues to serve Colorado's 6^th District.



*Dick Pombo (R-CA) "Enemy of the Earth"- Called the ?most dangerous member of the house? by the Sierra Club. He has voted to sell off National Parks, eliminate the Endangered Species Act and open the Alaskan National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) for exploitation by oil companies. He has been accused of corrupt practices and questionable conflicts of interest. He has received considerable donations from oil companies and is tied to disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff. He also has received campaign contributions from VECO Corporation, the same corporation linked to the federal corruption probes of Rep. Don Young (R-AK) and Sen. Ted Stevens (R-AK).
Where they are now: As the number one target of the environmental movement, groups such as the Sierra Club funneled significant resources into ensuring that the six term congressman was soundly defeated in 2006. He is currently working for Pac/West Communications, a group that creates media campaigns, with a history for advocating drilling in ANWR and revising the Endangered Species Act to favor forest industry interests.

Curt Weldon (R-PA) "The Conspiracy Nut" ? Not only listed as one of the ten worst in Rolling Stone, but also named one of the top 20 most corrupt congressmen by CREW, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington. He has also been derided for his strange theories on security issues, and has helped keep bloated defense projects alive, such as the often maligned ?Star Wars? project from the Reagan era,
Where they are now: Was defeated in the 2006 elections by Democrat Joe Sestak, the highest ranking member of the military to ever serve in Congress (Vice Admiral, US Navy). There is a continuing federal investigation into whether Weldon illegally traded his political influence for lucrative lobbying and consulting contracts for his daughter

Hal Rogers (R-KY) "Bin Ladens Best Friend"- Hal Rogers does very little for anyone but his own district. Many, if not all of the delays in fielding certain types of homeland security technologies stemmed from Rogers insistence that companies in his district were awarded the contracts, instead of established companies with relevant technological capacity. He awarded hundreds of millions in no bid contracts to companies after they paid for several trips to Hawaii. In 2006, The Lexington Herald-Leader last year called Rogers the "Prince of Pork?. Rolling Stone named him ?Bin Ladens best friend due to the fact that Rogers steered federal tax dollars to his home district disproportionately away from big cities, which critics claim is one of the least likely targets in America for terrorists because of its lack of any notable monuments or population centers ? (Wikipedia)
Where they are now: Continues to serve Kentucky's 5^th District.

Marilyn Musgrave (R-CO) "The Christian Soldier" ? An evangelical Christian, Musgrave has done everything in her power to push a ?values based? agenda, particularly against gay rights and sex education. She considers prohibiting gay marriage as being the country's number one issue, even over terrorism. She was given a -4 by Republicans for Conservation and rated at 8% by the League of Conservation Voters for her abysmal environmental record. She has been endorsed by the Knights of the Ku Klux Klan for he work to ban gay marriage, support of gun rights and tax cuts, among other issues.
Where they are now: Narrowly won reelection to Colorado's 4^th District in 2006.

* Denotes I really hate this guy

In today's Washington Post, an article by Glen Kessler describes a report by the Government Accountability Office (GAO) that finds that large number of weapons and protective equipment provided to Iraqi security forces have gone missing. According to the report (and a little of my own math) only 40% of the automatic assualt rifles, 52% of handguns, 37% of body armor and 18% of helmets issued to Iraqi Security Forces could be accounted for in property audits from June 2004 to September 2005. Procedures have supposedly tightened, but over the course of 2004 to 2007, at least 30% of all weapons issued have gone missing.

A quick exerpt from the article:
"They really have no idea where they are," said Rachel Stohl, a senior analyst at the Center for Defense Information who has studied small-arms trade and received Pentagon briefings on the issue. "It likely means that the United States is unintentionally providing weapons to bad actors."

The very disturbing realizaton is that at least 110,000 fully automatic rifles and 80,000 handguns have disappeared and are very likely being used by insurgents to attack our own troops. And while the government still struggles to provide adequate body armor to protect our troops, we could be providing protective equipment to our enemies as well.

Lovely.

I was getting ready to board the ferry to Ocracoke on Friday afternoon in Swan Quarter and I decided to walk into the ferry store to look around. I had a chance encounter with someone who (unknowingly) played an important part of my career, Dr. Orrin Pilkey. Dr.Pilkey is now retired, but was a distinguished professor at Duke University who continues to be one of North Carolina's greatest advocates for environmental preservation and wise management of coastal resources. He is also one of the biggest reasons why we do not have seawalls or other hardened structures on the NC Coast.

For you unaccustomed to such terminology, seawalls and "hardened structures" are features found on other beaches around the country. The state of New Jersey comes to mind when discussing this. In NJ, protecting private property has greater priority than preserving public beaches, so instead of allowing  normal beach erosion to take place, walls are put up to protect property. The water erodes the beach up to the seawall...the wide, sandy public beach eventually disappears and water comes up to the wall itself. The water will eventually scour the base of the seawall and a larger seawall will be constructed in it's place. Eventually the beach can look like something like this:


Photo Credit - GlobalSecurity.Org - Galveston, TX



Back in 1997, I was a freshman at East Carolina University. Early in the first week of classes, I was looking around the campus bookstore and found a book called From Currituck to Calabash, Living With North Carolina's Barrier Islands. The book was written by Dr. Pilkey, and at the time I had no idea who he was. I decided to buy the book and since then, I have constantly read and reread it in the ten years that have elapsed since.

The book was a key tool in getting me interested in coastal management. It introduced me to the concepts of ecologically sound development, environmental preservation and wise management of public resources. Coming from living further inland, I used it as a guide to acquaint myself with the features of the NC coast. As I have continued my education, I have spent over a year living, working and vacationing on the Outer Banks, continuing to learn about the physical and social processes at work.

Meeting Dr. Pilkey was a real treat for me. I don't think I had ever really considered how much some of his works had steered me into the career direction that I chose. Dr. Pilkey in person is friendly, engaging and interesting. He is the consummate professional and has the bearing you would expect from a skilled educator. He also said he was pleased to meet someone who had enjoyed his works. I was even surprised to find that we disagreed on one issue (beach driving) but to be honest he's right about that too. I'm glad to see that a career full of dealing with naysayers has not diffused his determination or idealism.

His determination to protect the environment has reportedly brought the ire of many on the coast who only consider economic impacts when considering their actions. I have found in both public service and private enterprise that there is little incentive for environmental preservation for individual property owners. The positive economic incentives for preservation are usally spread over a wider area (tourism, recreation, property values), much to the chagrin of a relatively small number of speculators looking to maximize their profit by exploiting the resource.

When we discuss environmental issues, at least as much parity should be given to the social and environmental impacts as the economic impacts.We are a nation of values and the time has come to consider our values when we make environmental decisions....and that our lives and sense of purpose will not be defined by our "things" alone. If we want to ensure a healthy coast for generations to come, we have to understand that there are some types of economic development we do not want or need.



Dr. Pilkey and I , Swan Quarter, NC Ferry Terminal, July 2007

Well, I'm off to Ocracoke Island for a long weekend. It will be nice to get out of Raleigh (and perhaps come back with a rockin' tan). I was going to write about the whole Micheal Vick thing, but theres nothing I could really add to the discussion. We all know its abhorrent and want them to throw the book at the guy. As someone who was at Virginia Tech in '99, he was a jerk there and it frankly doesn't suprise me. His brother was an asshole as well (got kicked off the team for "legal infractions" and "unsportsmanlike play" according to Wikipedia ).

The start of the fall semester is right around the corner.... and although its been a great summer I'm sort of ready to get back. No big profound column this week. Just hope everyone who keeps up with my blog is enjoying themselves and have gotten to fulfill their respective travel bugs as well. Catch you all when I get back.

On Wednesday, US Eastern US District Court Judge Terrence Boyle issued an order that would effectively ban off road vehicle (ORV) use in Cape Hatteras National Seashore until a defined ORV management plan was put into place. This was the response sought in response to a case brought before the court in which an ORV user was fined for driving erraticly and in an unsafe matter.

I previously agreed with other decisions by Judge Boyle, particularly with halting the Outlying Landing Field in Washington County because of the Navy's lack of compliance in considering its proposed environmental impacts. But I do disagree with the assertion that all beach driving should be banned until an ORV plan is in place. Its these type of decisions that make people critical of the role and function of government.

People all over the country have been screaming bloody murder, especially on message boards such as the one contained on the website for Red Drum Tackle, a popular fishing tackle shop on Cape Hatteras. In essence both sides are right; Cape Hatteras National Seashore needs an ORV management plan, and prohibiting access to the coast for millions of recreational users would have disatrous economic and political consequences.

The Park Superintendant Mike Murray has decided not to comply with the order, citing clairification needed on the Judge's wishes. Closing the park to ORV use would have disastrous consequences on the areas local economy, as many people are drawn to the area from all over North America because of its unfettered vehicular access to the coast.. My mother and have planned a trip to Ocracoke Island at the end of July ...and if the National Park Service is forced to enforce the judge's order, we will be forced to reconsider.

Being someone who is more liberally minded, it is tough to hear people talk about all this being some sort of liberal conspiracy. Sure there are environmental groups who wouldn't mind preventing access to areas on Cape Hatteras... but the whole area only really exists in its current form because of liberal policies. The dunes were first constructed by New Deal programs of the Works Progress Administration and Civilian Conservation Corps in the 1930's, and setting aside 60 miles of unspoiled natural coast for public use is not by and large a conservative goal. Chances are, it would be nothing but condos and "rental machines" otherwise. As long as there is a sustainable solution to ORV managment, Cape Hatteras will stay open... but I can understand why some would have a cause for concern.

I wrote a blog entry last night called "What we really want" but decided to take it off this morning. I felt that perhaps I had put myself out there a little too much, so I thought I would tone it down a little bit. Basically, its admirable to aim for perfection in your personal and professional life. But its neither possible nor desirable to use perfection as the absolute standard for you to move forward in your decisions. We all have our fundamental flaws, and by harping on others flaws without recognizing our own is not fair to ourselves or others around us. Most of aren't even sure what we're looking for is what we really want ... so keep an open mind and don't be afraid to take risks that are worth taking.

Audaces Fortuna Junvat
"Fortune Favors the Bold"

For all my regular readers....I'll  get back to my normal political and environmental issues later today when I get off work.

-Steve

It's perhaps a tragedy in how we have become so insulated from the effects of the conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq. By and large, the average citizen is called upon to sacrifice very little towards the effort. Unlike previous conflicts, there is no draft, no rationing, no drive for war bonds. It is easy to go several days without even thinking or talking about it. For many, life during the war is little different than it was before the war.

Perhaps it is because of this detachment that it is so difficult to bring about the political will to end the Iraq conflict. We are all comfortable in our daily routines.... our lives are regimented and predictable. We work, have a little time on the weekend to lounge and we begin it all over again, with an occasional holiday or vacation in between. We have mortgages, car payments, bills.... all that need to be paid. We really don't have time to go to protests or rallies... and we feel that they won't make a difference anyway.

We should all be mindful of our complacency. I urge you to take time each day to recognize the sacrifice of those who are serving, and not be desensitized by the amount of news available. Every serviceman lost is truly a tragedy.... one which will be repeated many times in the future if we continue allowing our comfort to trump the regard for the safety and sacrifice of our troops.

Warrant Officer Micheal Fay (US Marine Corps) is an official combat artist who paints scenes of soldiers in Iraq. His work helps show the human side of our troops and their struggles .After painting pictures of wounded and disabled veterans, he was asked why he decided to paint controversial images. He replied "If something I do is controversial, then the reality is controversial".

Perhaps the corner has turned in Iraq. New allies from the Republican ranks continue to join Democrats in calling for the withdrawal of troops in Iraq. White House Spokesman Tony Snow has confirmed that an upcoming report on the war's progress shows that very little progress has been made in meeting the "benchmarks" laid out for the Iraqi government. Snow stated that it should be looked as a "starting line" for determining the effectiveness of the "surge", once again showing that this administration is willing to allow troops to continue dying in Iraq to try to preserve its continually fading political capital. Somehow the administration is convinced that an additional 28,000 troops are going to be the deciding factor in a conflict that already has 140,000+ coalition troops and even more (160,000+) private military contractors operating.

The Brookings Institute gave this bleak assessment of surge progress in their July 5, 2007 Iraq Index Report:

"Car bombings remain prevalent enough that the current relative restraint exercised by most Shia militias will be difficult to sustain. There is no evidence that ethnic cleansing has declined significantly from its pre-surge level of roughly 100,000 persons displaced per month. Cities such as Kirkuk and Mosul remain tinderboxes, and have perhaps worsened in recent weeks. The economy remains stagnant and utility performance very mediocre. And perhaps worst of all, the Iraqi political system fails to deliver any real progress on the core issues dividing Sunni from Shia from Kurd".

Its surprising that our own country is unable to learn from the lessons of our own history. Every July 4th, we celebrate our Independence Day.... where we recall our struggle for autonomy from the British... unable to muster the supplies or manpower to confront a militarily superior, discplined fighting force... they turned to guerilla warfare....using raids, sabotage and attrition warfare to wear down the British Army. The Continental Army and local militias benefited from the help of external military forces during the Revolution (the French) to help win (although they would probably be called "insurgents" or "terrorists" in today's politically charged vernacular).

The War finally ended once the British determined that the human and economic costs were too high and the manner of conflict was not conducive to their military's capabilities... which is eerily similar to the situation that is occuring in today's conflicts. As a former soldier, I can tell you that driving from place to place waiting to be blown up by a bomb (nearly 80% of casualities according to NPR) is not the way to win a war.

I've been reading about the NC SafeLight program that exists in several cities across North Carolina recently...ever since I recieved a long overdue notice a few months back that I had been ticketed for running a red light. Before you judge me, it was December 2005 and it was raining fairly hard on my way back to Wilmington, NC where I lived at the time. I was doing the speed limit and coming upon an intersection, the light turned yellow. I had few options:  I could either hit the brakes and skid into the middle of the intersection uncontrollably (and perhaps off the road), or I could drive thru hoping to catch the light. I chose the later and barely missed the yellow light.

Fast forward to a few months ago, when I recieved the forwarded ticket in the mail. It turns out the Union County/ City of Monroe used a private contractor to install and operate a red light camera system. They own and operate the system, taking a slice out of each ticket for their own purposes and remitting the rest to the municpality. I tried contacting the Union County, the City of Monroe and the contractor who operated the system for an appeal but all of my phone calls went unanswered (left several messages). The ticket is still out there as far as I know.

The major problem I have with such a system is that it is putting the responsibility for law enforcement and citizen monitoring  in the hands of a private company. Luckily, a recent case Shavitz vs. City of High Point has determined that 90% of fees derived from the cameras must be turned over to schools in accordance with NC laws and cannot be diverted to the municipalities themselves. Based on this ruling, it is no longer economical for municipalities to operate such systems. I would have rather had the program ousted for reasons due to constitutionality and due process, but this will suffice in the mean time. Interestingly enough, the Town of Chapel Hill voted in 2004 to eliminate their contract with Affilated Computer Services, citing concern about the company's profit motivations (company got 96% of revenues) and "the mechanization and privatization of police functions". You can find a story on that decision here.

I can appreciate the intentions of the SafeLight program; attempting to make intersections safer. But to me, there's something fundamentally wrong with outsourcing our government's normal functions to private contractors. The conservative catch phrase of "smaller government" seems to be a ruse. The outsourcing of government functions still provides the "big government" functions they claim to be against, but often at higher cost and much less accountability to the populations in which they are serving.

For example, the City of Raleigh uses a contractor to administer its parking enforcement program. Park Raleigh (privately owned by Central Parking Corporation) has been enraging downtown visitors for the last few years with their aggressive and sometimes questionable enforcement practices, including using little known parking regulations to "boost ticket sales". While they are reportedly paid a flat rate to provide ticketing services, they no doubt need to keep the number of citations up to provide a reasonable return on investment so that the City of Raleigh will renew their contracts.

Their citation appeal forms are official looking forms, with a logo with capital building on it and their name, which no doubt was chosen because it implies a governmental association.I'm sure that many people aren't even aware that they are a private company, as most people are used to having the municipalities themselves provide these services. They even term the appeal process as an "administrative review" which is a misnomer, as no publicly elected or appointed administrators review the appeal, of which determinations can be as arbitrary as the company's manager wishes. In fact, its probably in the best interest of the company to make sure that they aren't overturned so that they will not be viewed as being incompetent or inconviencing the public with erroneous citations.

There is a rather interesting article today in the Washington Post's online edition about the Vice President's role in exerting influence into federal administrative agencies to undercut environmental regulations for the benefit of business. Much of the piece dealt with a situation in Oregon's Klamath River Basin in 2002.The area was under a severe drought and the determination needed to be made whether to prohibit withdrawals from the river to allow threated and endangered species to be protected, or to allow large withdrawals of water for agriculture that would severely impact fish populations.

After personally contacting several lower level administrative personnel about how they could get around the environmental regulations, he decided to commission a "scientific study" that would say that diverting such water would have "no significant effect" on the fish populations. Of course, he found his stooge and the water was diverted, which caused the worst fish kill in the history of the Western United States. The article asserts that the action was politically motivated, so as to not anger a "staunchly conservative" agricultural industry in a state that was up for grabs in the coming mid term election (Bush/Cheney lost Oregon by less than 0.5% in 2000 according to the article).

Some excerpts from the piece:

"When the lead biologist for the National Marine Fisheries Service team critiqued the science academy's report in a draft opinion objecting to the plan, the critique was edited out by superiors and his objections were overruled, he said. The biologist, Micheal Kelly, who has since quit the federal agency, said in a whistle-blower claim that it was clear to him that "someone at a higher level" had ordered his agency to endorse the proposal regardless of the consequences to the fish."

"Months later, the first of an estimated 77,000 dead salmon began washing up on the banks of the warm, slow-moving river. Not only were threatened coho dying -- so were chinook salmon, the staple of commercial fishing in Oregon and Northern California. State and federal biologists soon concluded that the diversion of water to farms was at least partly responsible.

Fishermen filed lawsuits and courts ruled that the new irrigation plan violated the Endangered Species Act. Echoing Kelly's objections, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit observed that the 10-year plan wouldn't provide enough water for the fish until year nine. By then, the 2005 opinion said, "all the water in the world" could not save the fish, "for there will be none to protect." In March 2006, a federal judge prohibited the government from diverting water for agricultural use whenever water levels dropped beneath a certain point."

And there is an extensive section about why Christin Todd Whitman, former NJ Governor and head of the EPA resigned. Some excerpts:

"Whitman, then head of the EPA, was on vacation with her family in Colorado when her cellphone rang. The vice president was on the line, and he was clearly irked.

"Why was the agency dragging its feet on easing pollution rules for aging power and oil refinery plants?, Cheney wanted to know. An industry that had contributed heavily to the Bush-Cheney campaign was clamoring for change, and the vice president told Whitman that she "hadn't moved it fast enough," she recalled."

"Sitting through Cheney's task force meetings, Whitman had been stunned by what she viewed as an unquestioned belief that EPA's regulations were primarily to blame for keeping companies from building new power plants. "I was upset, mad, offended that there seemed to be so much head-nodding around the table," she said."

" She wanted to work a political trade with industry -- eliminating the New Source Review in return for support of Bush's 2002 "Clear Skies" initiative, which outlined a market-based approach to reducing emissions over time. But Clear Skies went nowhere. "There was never any follow-up," Whitman said, and moreover, there was no reason for industry to embrace even a modest pollution control initiative when the vice president was pushing to change the rules for nothing."