Another Energy Indepedance Article

Here's another in an already huge pile of articles that discuss the future of energy in the United States.

The future is not in Iraq either.

Another Energy Indepedance Article

Here's another in an already huge pile of articles that discuss the future of energy in the United States.

The future is not in Iraq either.

$3.00 and Rising

In the couple of weeks since I have posted, gas prices have surged higher, with no end in sight. Since I do not own a car, I have not trouble with the price at the pump. In fact, I sort of get a grim sense of satisfaction every time I see an SUV drive by. It is difficult to get too excited about ever-increasing fuel prices, one positive effect might be that people will decrease their use of environmentally unfriendly vehicles. As fuel prices increase, so will the efforts to develop more reasonable energy sources. I do not think it is necessary to describe the possible reverberations throughout society and foreign policy as a result.

In the meantime, every other consumer product, that depends on transportation from elsewhere, will increase in price. That includes your groceries. Therefore, the products produced locally will finally be lower in priced than the products produced elsewhere including in free trade zones around the world. It may eventually have the effect of mitigating the advantages that publicly-traded multinational corporations have over your local corner grocer. I am not counting on it, but I will keep walking to my farmers market for my food.

Once More Unto the Breach…

There's one here, and another one here. Maybe the media outlets, generally speaking, are starting to realize that it's popular, and therefore, profitable to criticize GWB.

I especially enjoyed the Rolling Stone's article. After the U.S. invasion of Iraq, GWB was riding the wave of high popularity and his legions of Christy followers were quite happy to compare GWB to Abraham Lincoln and other of the more famous U.S. presidents. I never understood the Abe Lincoln comparison in particular. Abe was born in the largely rural frontier to a father who could not spell his name. Abe went on to immortality. GWB was born to wealthy parents in New Haven, CT while his parents were attending the most prestigious university in the country. Sounds like blue blood in every sense of the world. However, his carefully developed twang easily gives rise to the thought that he is just like one of us; a guy we would like to have a beer with after a long day at the site.

Maybe I am wrong and GWB will go on to immortality. Then the story might be different. Imagine a hypothetical Wikipedia article in 2059:

"...GWB was born on the hardscrabble farms on Western Texas. As a young child, he was forced to raise his younger brothers and sisters because his father was out defending the United States of America from communism While GWB grew up making his presence in the household a rare event. They were never the wealthiest, but they made ends meet.

GWB's hard work allowed him to attend Yale University where he earned C's because he was discriminated against by the radical left academic elements of one of the nation's liberal universities. His red state roots, and love of hard work allowed him to beat down his classmates in clever debate after clever debate. The debate skills he refined at the most prestigious university in the country allowed him to hold his own when he entered business and politics despite his humble roots..."

Well, you get the idea. Hopefully, people will begin to accept things with criticism from here on out. If so, maybe people like GWB will not win elections and serve in public office. Let them run oil companies into bankruptcy and preside over mediocre baseball teams, preferably not mine. Of course, GWB, to his credit, did say it best: "History. We won't know," he told the journalist Bob Woodward in 2003. "We'll all be dead."

The Corporation Administration

GWB and his administration often relied on his business credentials to establish his credibility when he came into the political scene first as governor and later as president. Many viewed this as a good thing. His performance since then has cast doubt not on the corporate tactics in leadership positions, but rather on his own incompetence as a leader.

I believe it is perfectly logical that he could have been a very effective leader in the corporate world. The problem may not be his incompetence, his failure as a leader may actually be more demonstrative of the complete ineffectiveness of corporate leadership tactics.

When I use the term, corporate leadership tactics, I mean a tactic of leadership that demands extensive, and maybe even complete, control over the organization. Essentially, we are talking about a totalitarian or authoritarian form of leadership, one in which there are very few meaningful checks on a leader's authority. That is equivalent to the powers of a CEO of a publicly traded corporation. Now, I don't want excessively generalize. Certainly, the board of directors could remove a CEO, certainly the shareholders could sue the CEO on behalf of the corporation. These things happen, but they seldom happen enough to create any meaningful participation for those who are affected by a corporation's actions (community members, consumers, employees, vendors, subcontractors).

It is likely that we have all done time working for a corporation. I have worked in a few and they were authoritarian from the highest to the lowest level. Your boss's will is the law and dissent is rarely tolerated. Every now and then one will have the chance to work for a manager who is effective and facilitates the professional development of his or her staff, but that is never as likely to happen as the opposite possibility. As a result, everyone in the organization suffers, and as a result, the organization suffers.

Therefore, it is quite surprising that anyone should have expected anything but the current situation in Washington D.C. GWB runs his government like a corporation and therefore, we should expect corporate results. Again, most of us have experienced the inefficient, cutthroat, inhumane environment of the corporate entity. That is a world where the PR departments constantly attempt to ignore reality, the CEO makes speeches to crowds of roaring shareholders, and where profits supersede any other consideration. Indeed, GWB is our corporate president, and we have been appropriately rewarded under his leadership.

Local Partisianship

Fewer posts this month. My excuse is I have spent too much time writing angry letters to the local paper's editors.

I received a call this afternoon from one to print this piece, but because I had submitted it to other papers, this one refused to run it. Therefore, the only light of day it will ever see is in this little corner of cyberspace. Enjoy:

The Washington Post ran an article this week about Senator Ted Steven's recent visit to our state. Stevens claimed politics were not on the agenda but we remember Steven's threats to come pay a visit to Senator Cantwell for standing up to his relentless attempts to open up ANWR. We know Stevens is moonlighting in Washington because he wants a Senator who will be a rubber stamp for the GOP leadership regardless of the desires of the people of Washington. Mike McGavick's campaign may weave a tale of a candidate who will not be a yes man for President Bush; but all we need see is VP Cheney's recent visit to shake the corporate money tree already overflowing with contributions from big oil and insurance.

The sooner the people of Washington see through Mike McGavik, the better for the state and the nation. The State of Washington, like every other state, should be attempting to rid themselves of malignant GOP Senate leadership, not adding to its ranks. One need only ask a simple question about the McGavik campaign: who you are you going to believe?

Sustaining Seattle

Every now and then it is worth reading pieces like this.

Independence from Iraq

Pieces like this one inspire me.

It is unpopular to criticize the American way of life. That does not sell newspapers. It does not make people feel good about themselves. I find that a very poor excuse. Since when should people feel good about inappropriate and maybe even irresponsible behavior?
We are in Iraq because at some level of consciousness, people decided that their way of life in the United States, supersedes the interests, and maybe even necessities of other people. Of course, that dynamic could not exist without the might of our military ready to back it up.

Under effective leadership, September 11, 2001 might have served as strong indication that our way of life is not sustainable, that it can only survive if we sacrifice the principles of democracy in this country, and other countries sacrifice their own existence.

We do not operate in a vacuum. Our lifestyle, firing on the engines of consumption, convenience, conformity, and consumerism in general, impacts the lives of people in locations far and near. Our weapons of mass consumption cause unrest, repression, turmoil and at the worst of times, terrorism on our own soil.

Our U.S. Government really does represent that which we have let them know time after time is our real desire--consumerism. As long as that rules, we can expect more of the same from our government.

I'll leave you with one quick illustration. Imagine that people tired of the occupation in Iraq just stopped going to work until the occupation ended. Now, assuming that everyone who disagrees with GWB's leadership in Iraq joins in the "stay at home strike," that might mean anywhere from 50-65% of the workforce absent. That means a lot of lost money for employers. Why would this never happen? It is not because corporations and our government would not bend. It is because people, deeply in debt and enslaved to their manufactured desires, would never be able to afford the time off.

Energy and Local Development

One of the more exciting and unpredictable aspects of the flowering green energy movement is that it is not implemented from above, but developing from below. This is not a movement that multi-national energy corporations (MNC) are trying to sell to consumers. This is consumers telling MNC's that they want green energy.

As you can see here and here, this is a movement that poeple are largely propelling on their local level. Eventually, the MNC's will figure out how to use these movements to maximize the investment of their shareholders. When that happens, renewable energy sources will be much less democratic. However, in this case, I can let it slide I suppose. If they were doing good things, I would be much less concerned about the lack of democratic governance in them.

Capitol Hill, Seattle, USA

Capitol Hill was the setting of a shooting rampage one and a half weeks ago. It occurred on Republican Street early on a Saturday morning. I lived on Republican Street (though at the other end of it.) Capitol Hill is my neighborhood; it is the one in which I choose to live, and the one in which I plan to work for the foreseeable future. When something like this happens, it reverberates throughout the community in ways that are inexplicable and at this point, unpredictable. There is very little that I can say that has not already been repeated widely.

In the film, Fog of War, Robert McNamara, while recounting one of his more difficult moments in the Deprtment of Defense paraphrased another's words, "humans must stop killing other humans." I don't know anyone who would disagree with such a simple statement. I believe it has universal applications.

I think it applies far beyond our neighborhood. It is unacceptable that one could walk into a house full of people and discharge firearms. It is equally unacceptable that another country should invade another country and discharge the military might. People are full of notions and ideals of military glory deployed for righteous reasons. I believe that it is impossible to reach righteous ends using wicked means. In other words, one cannot do evil in order to bring about good. To apply this premise directly, we cannot rid the world of terror by occupying another country, bombing civilians, and torturing suspects. We cannot build democracy through these activities either.

I have little doubt that the means through which nations interact have a way of reverberating through the populations of all countries. If we expect people to behave civilly toward each other, we should demand the same from our leaders. If it is unacceptable to destroy lives individually, it should be equally so for countries. The rule of law must apply at all levels. If one person is above it, then it does not exist at all.

Humans indeed must stop killing other human beings. That goes for house parties in Capitol Hill, Seattle, just as much as it does for any other person, in any other position, in any other country in the world.

Sketches of Russian History III: The Revolution of 1905

Continuing with some of the strains of our last installment, I would like turn our attention to the Imperialist Russia during the reign of Nicholas II. Note that he was the last Czar to rule Russia, the last of a 300 year dynasty; his rule was the swan song of autocracy in Europe. (Symbolically speaking of course, the German and Austrian monarchies outlived Nicholas'.) Nicholas was the son of a more capable politician and ruler. He was the son of a stronger man, although his father was nothing to write home about. He was ill-equipped mentally and intellectually to deal with Russia's endless problems. He felt his faith in god and his belief that god had endowed him with authority to rule would carry him through the most tumultuous times. (Reference my last post for more on historical similarities. I cringe when GWB talks about god watching over this country.)

In 1904, Russia became entangled in the conflict now known as the Russo-Japanese War. Though Russia was able to send Napoleon back to France with his tail between his legs, she was unable to subjugate Japan largely because of the logistical problem of sending troops through 12 time zones on a primitive rail system. To make matters worse, the Russian people were not interested in this conflict because they had little to gain from victory and much to lose (social and political reform and indeed the lives their children) in defeat. Lenin was able to call this conflict one between imperialist powers grabbing more resources within their disputed spheres of influence.

Be that as it may, our favorite son pressed forward in war. The political and social liberals of the day (those who favored a constitutional monarchy and basic civil rights) unleashed what they called a banquet campaign. The movement was appropriately named as it was a political meeting with a big meal. People got together, ate, drank vodka, and decided to protest against the actions of the government. Their demands were not unreasonable; they were the same which had existed in almost every other country in Europe enjoyed.

The story of course does not end well. The banquet campaign enticed people to take action by peacefully marching to the Czar's palace in St. Petersburg where the Czar's guard shot them down though they were unarmed and had no apparent inclination toward violence. Perhaps the greatest beneficiaries of the Czar's shortsightedness were the radical movements on the left led by Bolsheviks, Mensheviks, and the Social Revolutionaries. This turmoil produced Lenin, the Soviet Union, Stalin, one of the more repressive dictators in history.

I am always struck by this moment in Russian history because it represented so many possibilities, if one can freeze the clock for a few seconds and speculate. Had the Czar not fired, had he apologized, or conceded that his empire should be based around human rights instead of authoritarian principles, maybe the moderates would have taken over and there would never have been a Soviet Union. Each faction's path would have been dramatically different and we can hardly imagine what might have been. For every event like this, there are so many more that have been erased from history.

I suppose there are just as many conclusions that one can draw. I wonder how many of these individuals felt they were right, acting as though history will someday vindicate them. Most of them would not have bet their lives had they not felt so. The one guiding principle that they lacked was the conviction that human beings should be valued higher than the revolution, higher than the integrity of the monarchy, and higher than any merchant's holdings. Because they fought for something else, Russia experienced another 100 years of terror, turmoil, and instability. These effects were not limited to inside the borders of Russia either.

That path was not pre-ordained. It was the collective errors of countless named and unnamed individuals. As we know well, rationality will not save us--it is almost always absent in the first place.

Sketches of Russian History II: Alexander III's counter-reforms

Alexander's father, the aptly named Alexander II, was the man who freed the serfs. Alexander III however, did not believe in his father's reforms, and rather felt that they undermined his and his family's authority.

Alexander was strongly influence by Constantine Pobedonostsev. As you can see from his political briefs, he felt that reforms were antithetical to the development of Russia. He distrusted education and felt that the less the better. Social programs were wasteful because the individual was insignificant except to serve the purpose of the state which was divinely granted the Czar. Further, once people become aware, through education, of a way, Constantine feared that they would contribute to societal conflict. Culture and art, not to mention welfare programs have little or no value to the Czar. According to the supporters of this policy, that would lead to less order not more.

I found Pobedonostsev interesting for many reasons. Perhaps most of all, he understood and attempted to implement programs, with an accompanying ideology, that would most likely keep the Czar in power. The less the people know, the better.

As I am often tempted to do, I recognize parallels between this ideology and those that run in conservative circles today. The debt, the war, the fear mongering all allow GWB to cut social programs. However, as most realize, that does not decrease spending. GWB is spending more than ever on the military, or should I say, the administration gives money once used for social programs to his friends in defense firms whether we need their products or not. That in turn, allows power and money to be consolidated in fewer individuals. I find it particularly worrisome to realize that the same ideology employed 150 years ago to keep power, are used today to acquire more of it.

The losers in this game are the same as those in the past: the people, the individual, and the institution of democracy.

In our day, a mechanism exists to regain some semblance of democracy in this country. That mechanism is participation--active participation in the political process.

Sketches of Russian History I: Russian Populism (Narodnichestvo)

One of my guiltiest pleasures is reading completely worthless, mindless, and boring histories of a country whose name I recognize. Last up was a short history of Russia. While you really cannot gain anything in a survey beyond a few generalized statements about things which the author is familiar, you can get a feel for historical developments within the larger historical context.

I found this most interesting in the second half of the 19th century in Russia. To put it in context, Russia had maintained the institution of slavery for some time. It wasn't until the 1860's that serfdom was abolished. That action, of course, was the greatest change in Russian society in century. It signaled the end of the old aristocracy that Chekhov and Turgenev so vividly described. It also allowed for the new peasant class to be politicized or manipulated.

The first group to attempt to do so was the populists led, in spirit at least, by N. K. Mikhalovsky and M. A. Bukanin. Their followers adhered to a set of principles that was a form of populism wherein the commune (or mir) was the spiritual center of the Russian agrarian society. Therefore, those closest to it, the Russian peasants, were to propel the country into a true democratically socialist state. The populists believed that when the peasants bought in, the country could by-pass capitalism and rocket toward socialism.

So off they went into the country to get involved and indoctrinate the peasants. The effort failed miserably. The peasants were suspicious of the city-dwellers and in many cases, reported them to the police. The agitators were either imprisoned or returned to the cities for plan B.

History may repeat itself but a more inclusive adage would be events in history often bare similarities to those today. While not as catchy, it is more accurate. Recall Thomas Frank's recent opus, What's the Matter with Kansas? It is an analysis of the countryside from a city-dweller. There is no Marxist or populist flavors in the book, but there is a sort of quiet derision written between the lines. Imagine what would happen if Seattleites moved en masse to Kansas to try to preach liberalism to the people. It would be worthless as anything but a comedy. People must reason for themselves. Just look at how well Democracy is working in Iraq. No matter how great your motives, no matter how much it will eventually help someone, you cannot force them into it and expect results. Any attempt to do so makes the one imposing a dictator and the system authoritarian.

USA and MNC spells Synergy

Not to belabor the point, but here is another report of good things happening in Iraq. Allegedly, the U.S. multi-nationals are able to bask in the good news of massive resource acquisition.

At the risk of belaboring yet another point, a corporation's only purpose is to maximize profits. Are they going to make more money by investing in renewable energy technologies or invading countries rich in oil to privatize them? In fact, when they also supply the machines of war, it becomes a win-win. This is the kind of synergy that is most effective, and most sought-after. When you marry the government and the private corporate interest, people like you and me, and especially Iraqi civilians, lose.

Help us GWB!

Most of us are aware of the problems associated with burning fossil fuels for energy. It appears even GWB is attuned to the problem. Be that as it may, even he is completely powerless to do anything about it short of dramatically upending the current body of corporate governance law in the United States.

As long as short term profits supersede every other consideration, there will never be significant development in the area of renewable fuels and sustainable business practices.

Why? The corporate governance statutes in this country do not allow a corporations' officers and directors to worry about renewable energy unless it will maximize profits in the short term.

Oversight, Overschmight

This article describes a good example of business as usual over the last five years. When I sign contracts with people, I usually try to attach an addendum that says, "I am not bound by this agreement."

Actually, I don't do that because I cannot. No one would do business with me if I tried to conduct myself thusly. I imagine those reading this are bound by the same principles. So why is it OK, for the nation's presiding administrator to do it? Are there laws to which he is bound?

Gorbachev

Let's take a few minutes to remember Mikhail Sergeivich. Time published an article in which he answers questions about his yet to be released book.

Perhaps the most frightening line is not far into the interview, referencing Yelstin: " He allowed the wealth of the country to be taken by a few people."

Does that sound familiar? Does it matter that we did it through the mechanism of corporatism while it happened in Russia through cronyism. On second thought, aren't those two sides of the same coin?