Saturday, December 17, 2011

"I MISUNDERESTIMATED": George Bush on the Iraq War

The Iraq War formally ended yesterday (December 15, 2011) with a whimper. There was no fanfare. Our leaders have no "stomach" to face up to the necessary reevaluations or objective analysis of the war as an abject, monumental mistake--or the effects of a "misunderestimate" by George Bush. The announcement of the war's end by President Obama, stirred not the holiday shoppers away from their seasonal pursuit of bargains, or disuaded the pundits, bloggers and talking heads from continuing to focus their attention on the lack-luster hopefuls in the Republican race for the presidential nomination. Rather than the Iraq war the attention of the pundits these last few days has been devoted to the erratic and unstable Newt Gringrich (in some places now being referredd to as "Newtzilla Gingrich") , who in spite of his inflammatory rhetoric (like encouraging preemptive war with Iran, and denigrating Palestinans as a people) is ahead in the Republican state polls. This fact rightly worries the GOP establishment.

The scarcity of Iraq war coverage is understandable. No one wants to talk much about past failures. But here again our national press corps and media fail basic Journalism 101. These very same journalists and print-encrusted institutions who mostly fell into obedient line with the warmongers and neocons during the run-up to the war, stumbled embarrassingly into into jingoism and yellow journalism during the war, and now that it is over, they fail their journalistic duties again by largely ignoring the unpalatable history of this war, eschewing a critique of its failures on many fronts.

Last night, observing the final Republican “debate” before the upcoming Iowa caucuses, I heard not one word about the Iraq War, our sacrifices there, or its formal ending on that very day. Instead, unbelievably, there was considerable saber rattling by the candidates for a new war with Iran—over that nation's purported nuclear ambitions. It is difficult to fathom what short memories our citizenry have and how blatantly some of our political leaders pander to fears and biases of minorities in their audiences. (Regarding this matter--Dr. Ron Paul stood out as the only rational and honest voice on the stage.)

Thus ends George Bush’s war, its rationale based on lies and innuendo, which cost taxpayers a trillion dollars up front (and an estimated two-trillion more over the decades to come). Over its nine-year course, Bush and his minions sacrificed the lives of 4500 young Americans, were responsible for the maiming of another thirty thousand, and caused the deaths of well more than 100,000 Iraqi civilians (by actual body count, but standard statistical studies have concluded that the war related loss of life was closer to half a million) and made refugees of some two to four million. And for what purpose? Iraq was not involved in the 9-11 attacks and had no weapons of mass destruction. But the war was not only an unmitigated first-order disaster to Iraq, fulfilling America's initial war aims to bomb that nation “back into the stone age”. (Today, as a result of those military efforts and failures and corruption in reconstruction, Baghdad, continues in squalor nine years after the invasion, with a limping, fractured infrastructure and with insufficient potable water and only a few hours each day of electrical service.)

But if the war was a terrible descent into an abbatoir and charnel house-hell for Iraqis, its outcome has been little better for the USA. This awful nine-year conflict bookends one of the ugliest and dark periods of American history. The war era exposed us as a nation which could forget its best motives and history to become barbaric invaders and occupiers, flouters of international law, torturers, “trigger-happy cowboys” and for some of our top leaders--the epithet "international criminal" has been properly scrawled under postings of their visages.

In its economic impact at home, George Bush's "war-on-the-cuff" has been scored as one of the three main causes of our 2007 financial collapse and the Great Recession which followed—a calamity which continues to plague us today. The war exposed us as a superpower with extraordinary technical and military strengths, but with little depth and sophistication. Having only superficial understanding of the region, and with pathetic little knowledge of the people, their language, and their religion or culture our President audaciously attacked a sovereign nation. At the head of the world's most lavishly supplied and costly military (we spend more on our armed forces than all the other world nations combined!) we swept a pathetic enemy before us like desert rats and quickly and easily occupied Baghdad. But once there our bumbling attempts at imperial occupation led to chaos and disaster.

On all fronts the war failed. The lightly concealed real objectives of the war were to carve out a petroleum rich nation for our oil companies to exploit. As well, our military display was meant to demonstrate our overarching military power, perhaps to dissuade potential terrorists, or to put fear into our regional "enemies" Iran, Russia and China. But as the war wore on, with displays of grandiosity (our "embassy" the size of a small city state in Europe) and exposes of torture and brutality at Abu Ghrahib as well as revelations of incompetence in the face of a stubborn and determined insurgent population, the war became the quagmire some had predicted. The conflict, instead of publicizing our strengths, revealed our incompetence, arrogance and the limits of our military power.

Our President's war on Iraq sullied our national reputation, and aroused much of the world's 1.5 billion Muslims against us and our erstwhile allies in the region. Futhermore the war encouraged the nuclear arms race. In the face of our awsome attack on Iraq what world leader could not have noticed the strrategic advantages of a nuclear arsenal? Could they ignore the fact of our ability to invade and dominate a non-nuclear Iraq, while nuclear armed North Korea only experienced attempts at harsh diplomacy from us.

As we had hoped, our intervention did alter the local political situation--but not to our advantage . Without clearly thinking through the results of our invasion and occupation, we found our actions to be largely counter productive. For one, it enhanced the power of neighboring Iran by eliminating Iraq as a military counterpoise, creating a new regional problem for our leaders. For another, we appear to have opened economic opportunities for China which is today making oil deals in Iraq, and opening mineral mines in Afghanistan as we case our battle flags and prepare to leave. The fierce resistance of the Iraqis to American occupation and our inability to establish a pliant Iraqi "democracy" means we leave Iraq with no more leverage than what we had over the old Iraq. Rather than a demonstration of power, our failures in Iraq gave strength and encouragement to other Arab popular opposition groups in surrounding nations. The chaos in Iraq in no small way helped to stimulate and encourage the Arab Spring...a political movement which has to-date radically changed the political landscape (and not to our advantage) in a wide swath across the Arab world.

It is well this war is over. Without public condemnation, it seems that now only God may forgive those of our leaders with the blood of our nation's troops and of innocent civilians on their hands. If only it were true that we as a nation learned something from our mistakes and setbacks. Alas, listening last night to the Republican side of our quadrennial political discourse, it appears that we have understood little and digested less of our recent past in Iraq. Due to our unwillingness and/or inability to face up to our mistakes and failures, we are relegated to repeat them over and over again. I fear we have suffered much and profited nothing from our travails these last nine years.

Will we all have to live on in silence with the continuing fall-out of this monumental disaster? Have our young men and women who sacrificed their bodies and lives done so in vain? Have we wasted trillions of dollars and years of national effort? The answer to these questions is sadly, yes. But only if we continue to sweep the past under the rug and fail to honestly reevaluate our mistakes and their causes--and in no certain terms condemn those who so horribly lead us astray.



Get the picture?

Sunday, November 13, 2011

MYSTERIOUS NUCLEAR CLOUD OVER CENTRAL EUROPE

JAPAN LIKELY TO BLAME


I read yesterday (November 12, 2011) of a strange but interesting low-level occurrence of radioactive Iodine 131 detected in several central European nations. Reports came from Poland, Austria, Czech Republic and today (November 13) Hungary was added to the list. The isotopes were detected in the air, were minimal and non-life threatening according to the various nation's atomic monitoring organizations. But the cause and origin remain unknown. One report tried to blame the occurrence on leakage from area hospitals, or even more unlikely, on the patients themselves who were treated with Iodine 131 and then exude these isotopes in their breath and body fluids! That sounded far out. Most recently, the origin was attributed to a Pakistan nuclear power plant at which a leak occurred on October 19th of this year (Though half life of Iodine 131 indicates such a leak would no longer be detectable). The plant was pointed at as the culprit. But some further research indicated that the radioactive hot water leak remained within the power plant. Even if it had escaped it would have, if anything, released radioactive tritium, but not Iodine. Iodine is released by a nuclear explosion, or the meltdown of the core of a nuclear power plant, such as what happened at Chernobyl, or more recently in March of this year, at the Fukushima Dai-ichi power plant in Japan.

The geographic location of the countries reporting Iodine 131 in their air, the general east to west drift of upper-air currents, as well as the pattern of the recent upper air jet streams suggest that Japan's Fukushima plant is the source of this pollution. Yes far away Japan. Today’s jet stream map does show a branch of the mid latitude jet with a distinct north to south branch in the upper air pattern. The minot branch moves south to curve down over Poland, Slovakia, Hungary and Austria. Though the half-life of radioactive iodine is about eight days...the speed of the upper air currents could account for the low level concentration and pattern over these central European nations. So please stop blaming the Pakistanis. Pakistan lies far to the east of where this is being reported and the major air currents move toward Pakistan not from it! The general pattern suggests the Japanese. Why is this not being reported in Europe by the IAEA? Hummmm?

The story also points out how far reaching and potentially disastrous a nuclear melt-dowm like Fukushima is. It’s a world-wide problem and will remain so for as long as those nuclear cores are exposed to the air. The plant needs to be encased in a concrete sarcophagus as soon as possible.

Get the picture!

Wednesday, November 2, 2011

OIL CONSUMPTION IN 1948

LIFE ON A BARREL A YEAR

We are all concerned with energy consumption these days. Not long ago, I wrote a response to those who would attempt to exploit oil resources in sensitive areas, and included data on how much oil we consume as a nation (See: “Drill Baby Drill”: rjkspeaks.blogspot.com, October 17, 2011). I noted there that each day, our nation consumes nearly 19 million barrels of oil! (See the CIA factbook to check that number at:https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2174rank.html) In Drill Baby Drill, I state that if those 19 million oil barrels were aligned end to end, they would form a continuous line more than 10,400 miles long which would stretch from the North Pole to the tip of South America and then some. We burn it all up each day and blithely pump the waste products of combustion into the world-atmosphere as oxides of carbon and nitrogen. These substances have an effect on the world climate and they rightly have us and the rest of the world seriously worried.

In a recent edition, The Economist magazine (October 20, 2011) pointed out that a recent compilation of world temperature records, (by Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature Group, led by Berkeley University physicist Richard Muller) seem to have put to rest much of the real and imagined controversy regarding this issue. The Economist's editors (not a left-progressive group) state that there is now little question concerning the validity of global warming. This latest compilation of terrestrial weather station data going back many years clearly indicates a slow rise in temperature over the decades with a sharp rise of 0.9 degrees C (nearly 1 degree Fahrenheit) in the last twenty years.

Elements within our government, as well as industry and business leaders have resisted acceptance of the fact of massive, fossil-fuel-induced climate change. These business and government elements wish to avoid the dire and difficult alternatives, i.e. the need to use less fossil fuels and decrease business activity (as they see it), or face a drastically altered world with increased crop failures, seasonal wildfires, more frequent violent tropical storms, intense winter cyclones, disaster floods, and widespread famine for the near-future. But now after this recent analysis it appears there is little doubt that to curb the warming trend and change the inflection of the rising temperature curve we will have to radically alter our oil consumption habits.

So how do we fare here in the US on this issue? Would great changes in our habits and consumption be required? Recent data from the Energy Information Administration (EIA) indicate that US energy consumption from about the 1980s to 2006 remained fairly steady, with each US citizen, on average, consuming 336 million BTUs per person. ( Note: A British Thermal Unit (BTU) a traditional measure of energy defined as the amount of heat energy needed to raise one pound of water one degree Fahrenheit.) Three hundred thirty-six million BTUs is nearly five (5) times more than the world average energy consumption per person (recently tabulated at about 72 million BTUs). So here in the USA we can be considered to be the world’s energy hogs.

Our total energy consumption includes sources such as petroleum, coal, natural gas, nuclear, hydroelectric, and some wind power. According to the EIA (for 2007) of all our energy sources, petroleum is the largest, comprising about 39% of the total. But for this present analysis we can best visualize our consumption if we focus on how we use petroleum. Let's consider the 19 million barrels of oil consumed in the USA each day, thus we use (19 x 365 days per year = 6935 million barrels) close to 7 billion barrels a year. Dividing that figure (7 billion bbl/year) by the US (2010) population of 308 million (7000m/308m = 22.7bbl/person/yr ) reveals that we use approximately 23 barrels of oil per/person/year.

To summarize, we can state that in recent times, (ignoring the other sources of energy we use) we as Americans, with a population of less than one-third of a billion, or about 20% of the world population (2011 world population seven (7) billion), use five times more oil energy than the world average. We each consume collectively an average of about 23 barrels of oil per day. With those figures, the USA (as the primary per capita consumer) should be in the forefront of moderating our usage of fossil fuel, if anything is to actually happen to improve world consumption of fossil fuels and slow world climate change. Unfortunately, here in the USA, our government in the grasp of the giant oil companies, we remain largely in the denial stage.

Reflecting on the fact that each of us use as much as 23 barrels of oil each year, I could not but help thinking six decades back to a childhood experience of living on my grandfather's small farm in rural Long Island where we used only one barrel of oil annually. I still have a vivid image of grandpa's single barrel of "kero" sitting in front of his old woodwork shed. That was the sole source of petroleum energy in his annual economy of those long ago days. (Also notable was that one barrel of kero was probably also a wholly domestic product--unlike today, when more than six out of each ten barrels of oil product are imported from abroad.)

So as an exercise in examining how much our consumption has changed over the years, I invite my readers to accompany me on a brief trip into the early part of the last century, when life was much simpler and at least in a rural environment a small family could survive quiet nicely on one barrel of petroleum-product over the entire year.


In the late 1940s, the growing fear of the infantile paralysis epidemic in NYC reached crescendo proportions, especially in Brooklyn, NY, where I lived. The prior summer, 1947, when I was seven years old, two of my school mates were struck down with polio and were whisked away from their families, to be treated and put into quarantine in a distant hospital and not to be seen again in the neighborhood. My mother was understandably anxious for my health as the summer of 1948 approached. She and my father quickly made the only arrangements she could, and so like the rich kids who lived north of 13th Avenue in Dyker Heights whose business-owner and professional parents sent them off to summer health-camps, just before the summer of 1948, I was sent to live in the country too. I spent the next few summers of my young childhood as a kind of happy refugee from the city.

My elderly grandparents, who spoke English fluently, but preferred to speak (even to me) in their native Italian, lived a simple country life on a small freehold in what was rural Long Island of that time. I concluded many years later after traveling in Europe that their lives during my stay in 1948 were closer to that of 19th century Europe, than America of mid-20th century. So life there for me was like going back some some fifty or sixty or more years into the past. Thus my observations are not typical of the ways of the 1940s, but more of an earlier age. Still my observations can add to one's appreciation of how simply all our ancestors once lived and how little they depended on the oil which has become today our lubricant, fuel and near-lifeblood. Later, as an adult, I came to realize how much that time away had affected my perceptions and my life. I often looked back with great respect and affection for my grandparents, who welcomed me and shared their lives with me. The experience gave me a perspective which few others my age had and it and afforded me the unique experience of a real-life window into earlier times.

Grandfather stored his yearly oil supply in a great, old, copper barrel, located at the end of the long, gravel, driveway. The 50 gallon round-bellied barrel lay on its side on a weathered, rough-wood frame in front of grandpa’s equally-weathered work shed. The barrel's greenish-tinged surface had a few dents here and there. Abrasions could be seen all along the the thick, rolled-metal rim, where the reddish copper metal shone through. The spigot, situated about ten inches off the ground, had a well-worn solid-brass handle and below it a curved copper spout. The marks of wear and dents suggested to even my young mind that the barrel was old and must have had a long, former life somewhere else and probably far away. Directly below the spigot a bare spot in the grass indicated that the spout must have dripped during use, causing a few drops of kerosene to splash to the ground. The spattering kerosene killed the grass in a near perfect circle leaving a persistent patch of barren, gravelly soil among the otherwise rank weeds and grass which grew luxuriously around the barrel-frame and along the rough stone foundation of the weather-beaten old shed.

To a young imaginative boy, the barrel's smooth, sun-warmed rounded surface suggested the wide back of a big dray horse, and sometimes, when I was alone, I would mount up my "horse" for a ride, thumping my heels into the hollow metal sides to goad my "barrel-horse" into an imaginary gallop and down grandpa's driveway. I never gave a thought to the substance within. Oil was of only minor if common use at that place and time. Grandpa was more concerned with the local fire-wood we collected from the orchard and the surrounding woods.
I certainly could not imagine the all-powerful, all-engrossing role that the smelly liquid in the belly of my play-horse would come to play in all our lives in the decades to come.

The small farm was basically self-sufficient--except for the kerosene we burned. Benzene (as grandpa called it) was used mostly as as the fuel for our lamps, and lanterns, but sometimes too, it served to thin paint, or to clean up after a painting job, or even as a degreaser. On occasion an old coffee cup-full was also used to start a stubborn wood fire in wet weather, or for what I liked to watch best -- to start a bonfire. Grandpa did have a small kerosene stove which he sometimes used to as a space heater in the house on very cold winter days, and in the spring he moved it to the chicken coop for the new hatchlings. But not much else. The barrel was filled only once or at most twice per year. Grandpa got along in 1948 with very little oil, or as he called it "benzene".


Looking back at our energy use in 1948, I calculate that my grandpa, myself and my grandmother, the three of us (ignoring the many guests including my parents who arrived for short stays during the summer) each consumed only a little more than one-third of a barrel of kerosene--mostly for lighting. The energy in each barrel of kerosene is, as is petroleum, rated at about 6 million BTUs. Thus, each of us in that year of 1948 consumed only 2 million BTUs of oil-product per year. That is only a small fraction (less than 1%)of what we use today (336 BTU) or even small compared to the the world average at 72 million BTUs per year.

LIFE ON TWO MILLION BTUs PER DAY

What was my life like in that place in 1948? Perhaps revisiting that time may broaden our understanding of how people lived on only one-third of a barrel of oil a year, rather than 23 barrels a year as we do today, and too, generate an appreciation of how dependent upon oil our lives have become in a time span of little more than six decades.

The pleasant, five-room bungalow, with a great open attic, had no indoor plumbing, no electricity and no heating or air conditioning, and no wood-fireplace. Our water-well was outside too. I recall that the interior was mostly cool and comfortable in summer and warm in winter. Although the attic where I slept was hot in a summer's mid-day, during the night at that time of the year its high roof and big windows kept it cool and comfortable. The overarching shade trees and a lovely apple tree which poked its branches up to my attic window must have helped to moderate its temperature too.

Fresh drinking water of the finest taste and purity was pumped up from deep underground in our back yard. A long-handled cast-iron lift-pump, gave access to fresh, icy cold, water from, as grandpa would proudly and often proclaim, "a hundred and twenty feet down". The pump was relatively new in 1948. Prior to its installation, grandfather had to depend mostly on the cistern's rain water, for washing and cleaning, but for good drinking water he had to tow his little frame wagon a half-mile up St. Johnland's Road to fill them at the artesian well located there. When guests with automobiles arrived, he would readily impose on them for this chore. Though I never witnessed it myself, I heard tell of my aunts and uncles strapping the water jugs to the running boards of their vehicles for the ride up to the free-flowing spring across from the pond.

All lighting was by candle or kerosene lamps. There were no street lights either. On an dark evening to visit the home of grandfather's boyhood friend, "Lo Zito" , grandpa, with me tagging along, carried a big kerosene lamp which swayed as we walked casting scary shadows in a great spreading a circle of yellow light all the way for the quarter mile distance in pitch-black darkness over sandy roads. Cooking and house-heating was accomplished with wood burned within a big, black, cast-iron kitchen stove. In the summer, and the warmer seasons of the year, a similar outdoor stove was put into operation outside the house under the big grape arbor.

Grandpa loved to garden and grow flowers and grandmother preserved fruit from their fruit trees and vegetables from their garden. The dried and split wood from the orchard trimmings and from the surrounding forest fueled the wood stove for all their fruit and vegetable canning and food-preservation activity. They both loved to read and listen to classical music and Italian opera. But with no electricity, reading occurred by cozying up under the yellow glare of the big kerosene lantern, and music appreciation with the aid of a wind-up gramophone.

The subsistence farm supplied us with meat, eggs and vegetables. Fresh brown eggs were a great staple, and each week grandpa killed a hen which edged past her prime egg-laying capacity. Some years they also raised a pig or two. An let me not forget the rabbits which were kept in a hutch attached to the back of the chicken coop. But the vast majority of our meals came fresh directly from the big garden in summer.

When we walked to town (the only way to get there), we often pulled grandfather's home-made wood-wagon upon which we piled our purchases. Sometimes, on the way back, if there was room, grandfather offered me a ride. On our way to town, we passed the local dairy farm where we might stop to purchase farm-fresh un-pasturized and un-homogenized milk. For this purpose we carried our own metal milk jug with a tight fitting metal cap which the dairyman filled for us. (Today that farm is long gone and its are fields filled with houses. But the big maple trees along the road remain, but each time I pass there I can still envision in my mind's eye the big old house with its barn and wide barnyard.) If the weather was warm on these trips to the dairy farm, we covered the milk-jug with a wet towel to help keep it cool on the walk back home. Arriving home, the filled milk jug was placed on the top of the ice block in the bottom of the ice-box, and there it kept sweet for a few days.

Grandfather made his own wine from grapes he grew on the big grape arbor attached to the house. These were dark blue and juicy New York Concord grapes, the vinifera varieties were not thought able to survive on Long Island at that time. He also ingeniously distilled brandy from the wine he produced. He roasted his own coffee, and ground the roasted beans in a hand grinder fresh when they were needed. (During the roasting process, one of my boyhood chores was to help keep the small stick-fire under his coffee roaster going by adding little dry twigs in a regular manner, while grandpa rotated the squeaky roaster handle. The cylinder-axle squealed and scraped rhythmically, punctuating the sound of the beans sloshing around nosily within the roaster . Every now and then, grandpa would remove a few hot, smoking bean from a small sliding door on the side-wall of the roaster to test for color and flavor. He would crush a bean between his fingers and bring it up to his nose for a sniff. The smell of roasting coffee beans was intoxicating to me then and the scent of roasting beans bring back to mind those days sitting in the shade of the grape arbor roasting green coffee beans with grandpa. He also made his own pasta and daily, grandmother baked her own crusty Italian-style bread. They put up jars and jars of tomatoes, pickles, peppers and other vegetables which lasted them all year long. Their lives were busy and well directed. There was no boredom or question of ‘what do I do next’.

As each day wound down, and night descended grandpa would go out to the big kerosene barrel and fill a small, metal, beaked-jug. With the fill-jug in hand, he made his rounds to each of the big kerosene lamps and lanterns in the house. He would top up the each oil reservoir if necessary. At each one, he removed the glass globe and rolled up the oil-soaked cloth-wick to trim off the burned section neatly with a small scissors he kept for that purpose. Each wick had to be cut perfectly square so it would burn evenly and brightly at night. Each globe was cleaned with crunched up newspaper too. If the flame burned properly, the glass globe stayed nice and clean from day to day. At night, reading at the kitchen table, or writing a letter home to mom and dad, I was cautioned to not turn the wick up too high, for it would make a smoky flame which blackened the inside of the globe.

There was no town garbage collection in those days. Trash from the house was separated into edible food-waste, compost, or burnable stuff. The food waste was fed to our dog, or the chickens, or dumped into the hog pen. The other materials were either composted, burned or buried. But then again in those pre-packaging days there was not much solid waste. Clear plastic, styrofoam, cellophane and such eith had not been invented yet or was not widely used. Everything that could be used for some other purpose was used again, and sometimes again, after that second use. As noted above our food scraps were separated into meat and vegetable and offered to either our great big, white Italian Spitz dog named“Beauty”, or tossed to the chicken flock. Since these jobs were mine I soon learned that chickens would eat almost anything. When a pig inhabited the small hog pen, it shared in the waste food and vegetable trimmings too. Anything not considered edible by man or beast, but was organic in nature was either tossed onto the manure pile to decompose or slipped into the kitchen wood stove to add to the heat that was boiling the water in the boiling pot.

There was no “food packaging” per se, so there was little waste of that sort. Old newspapers and a few cardboard boxes were the most common paper products. But the former were often used for packaging, where today we would use some form of plastic bag, while the latter was often saved up in a basket next to the stove to be used to start the wood-fire in the fire box. The few other packaging materials we did come across were often recycled or reused some way. For instance, the nice cloth sacks from the bags of chicken-feed were saved to be made into smaller sacks for storage, or cut and sewed into long sand-filled "sausage rolls" to block cold air seeping under the the back door in winter, or ripped and cut into patches to repair the knees of my worn overalls. Burlap was a common coarse fabric and we often saved such bags for our trips to the beach for bagging our mussels and clams. Jars and cans were kept for storage containers. Wire from the hay bales was carefully wound up and saved for other uses. String was rolled into balls. And even the "silver foil" in which grandpa's pipe tobacco came packaged was saved too.

Grandpa was quite a good tinsmith and would use old tin cans to create other new and useful things with the waste metal. He made a lovely and functional handle and latch for the shed out of a large tin can. He famously made a very fine coffee roaster from waste sheet metal and several large waste tin cans.

Manure and chicken droppings and the straw bedding from the chicken coop and the pig pen were piled behind the coop for composting. Corn husks and coarse plant stems and the remains of my garden weeding chores were placed on that pile too. I recall seeing grandfather out in the vegetable garden and around his especially-loved Cleome flower-beds early in the morning carrying his own extra-tall bedroom potty. He sometimes used night-soil (from the night-potty) on some of his favored flowers and even in the vegetable garden. In the latter place he would plow a special trench some distance away from the corn row, or the tomato row where he would sometimes use this fertilizer on plants he considered to have “special needs”.

There were only a few items that could not be burned for fuel, composted, or fed to the dogs, pigs or chickens. When something of this category had to be disposed of there was no other option but burial. Every now and again grandpa had to dig a hole to dispose of something he could not recycle. But it was not too often. As a teenager coming back to visit the old folks, I was saddened to be witness to the scene of our old ice box meeting that fate. This event occurred many years later when the house had been electrified and the old ice box had been replaced with a refrigerator. The ice-box held its own in its old spot for several years, serving as bug-and-vermin-proof container for flour and grains, but finally it had to be disposed of. Grandpa simply had a hole dug big and deep enough for the ice box dug and slid it down there. Of course he had one of my younger cousins remove all the wood-trim and usable screws and hardware first. I was sorry to see it go. But that was late in the 1950s and well after the time I consider here.

That old ice-box with it two heavy doors and wood trim was for obvious reasons used more in summer than in winter. In winter the screened-in back porch became the refrigerator and the ice-box was used to store other items (as noted above). In summer, it kept our fresh milk cold and sweet, a few pieces of cheese and a few other items such as perhaps a bucket of fresh blowfish grandpa and I caught off the "pier" on the Nissequogue, or some special cuts of meat that needed storage before being prepared to eat.

Ice for the ice-box was delivered to the farm in big rectangular blocks on a regular weekly basis. In summer, the ice man's arrival was a great attraction for me and my cousins and neighbor's kids. We gathered under the shade of the great maple tree in front of grandpa’s house on hearing the rumble of the ice truck coming up the road. Joe Lombardi, the ice-man, always chose a nice shady place to park his truck, where his delicate cold-cargo would be shaded from the sun’s direct rays. He chased us kids away from the back of the turck as he pulled back the heavy damp cloth covers and canvas that protected the great blocks of ice. Then, like a surgeon going to work, he reached for his ice pick held in a special holster on his belt and rapidly pricked out a line on the dark ice with fast deep punctures. At each strike of the point small ice chips flew into the air as the pick made holes with radiating cracks in the dark-blue ice. Some chips flew up into the air and some larger ones always fell at our feet on the sandy road. These we quickly picked up to squeeze in our warm hands so as to melt the ice into cool water that carried away adhering sand. Then we thrust the cold chunks of melting solid into our mouths, laughing and smiling with difficulty and delight.

With our mouth's full of ice, our eyes followed big Joe's flashing ice pick. The cracks in the ice connected up and soon the small block fell away--often releasing new chunks of fractured ice, which we quickly gathered up. The big burly man then scooted us out of the way again, as he reached for the two-handled ice tongs hanging on the back of the truck. He grasped grandpa's ice block with the tongs and rolled the glassy soild up on to his leather-padded shoulder. We followed him into the house, watching the drips of melt-water slither down the leather pad on his back. I followed him as he carried it through our back porch and into the kitchen. There he placed it in the ice-box which had been cleared and ready for it.

After Joe left, grandpa piled any remnant pieces of ice from last week's delivery on top of the new, sharp-edged, fresh block, and covered them both with a thick layer of newspaper. The paper slowed down the melting process. Then, he replaced the items that had to be kept very cold, placing them directly on top of the damp newspapers. The ice melted and absorbed heat from the food and milk. The dull-gray, tin-lined interior had a little hole at the bottom where melt-water was directed away, through a small rubber hose that passed through a small hole in the floor boards, where the melt-water dripped down into the sandy crawl-space under the house. The big, thick ice-box door was closed tight and kept that way. Nosey eight-year old-kids were not allowed to poke their heads in there.

Once,when the rubber ice-box drain became blocked, grandma asked me to crawl down there to clean the tip. For that purpose, I carried a long piece of straw (to clear the tube) and a nice beef bone to offer to Beauty (whose realm I was invading). I found the the hose-end laying in the little wet spot it created. Some gunk blocked the opening which I cleared away. Crawling back out I had to slip below, a dusty two-inch-diameter galvanized metal pipe which sloped from the floor above and entered into the ground near the cover of the concrete cistern. There too, was a two-inch vertical pipe which I recognized as the pipe which connected to the sink pump directly above. I knew about the cistern, but I had not seen this part of it before.

The Cistern

When the house was built in the 1920s there was no source of water near-by. Later, as noted above, the deep water well was dug in the back yard near the screened in back-porch. [Potable water was available from an artesian well just off of St. Johnland Road, (across from Harrison Pond) about a half-mile from the house. In those days grandpa would pull his wagon down there and load it up with jugs of cold (52 degree F,) clean, fresh water. Guests who arrived by auto would be encouraged to add to the water supply by carting water jugs and filling them at the artesian well. I visited that old well in the 1960s and it was still pumping plenty of cold clear water.] So for those reasons a cistern to collect rain-water had been built under the house and a utility sink and a hand pump was installed in the kitchen and connected to the rain water cistern for cooking, cleaning dishes, washing up and sometimes for clothes-washing. (Major washing of clothes was carried on outside in a big tub with a brown soap and a wash board. The waste water from those operations was dumped on in the garden or in the orchard next to a deserving tree. And the clothes were all dried on a clothes line strung from one big tree to another. Clothes were kept in place with wooden clothes pins.) The squeaky hand pump in the kitchen had a straight line pipe directly into the rain-water cistern below the house from which it pumped water into the kitchen sink. But it required to be primed with water first before it would pump any fluids up. For that purpose, a jug of water always sat on the side board of the kitchen sink. You poured water into the well in the top of the pump, then worked the handle up and down until gradually you would hear the water rise in the pipe and pour out through the square end of the spout and spash noisily into the base of the metal sink. Then it would gurgle down the drain which connected to a pipe that carried the waste water out into a low-spot in the orhard. Where it soaked into the ground.

“This is cistern water. Don’t drink it," grandpa warned me. But being a curious eight-year-old, I had to try it. I knew it was rain water and I had tasted rain drops and melted snow. So I just assumed it was OK to drink. I pumped some up into an old jelly jar glass and looked at it. It was clear and clean. It smelled fine too. It was cold and tasted good to me. So I never heeded grandpa’s warning, and when no one was looking would drink the cistern water regularly if I was inside and thirsty. I never had any bad digestive effects to my knowledge. Of course, the deep well-water, which pumped cold water up from 120 feet deep was the best, especially in the summer. It was cold enough to frost up a glass jug. The pump was relatively easy to operate even for a small boy since the pump-handle was long and the 120 feet or so of rods were of a light wood. Every now and then grandfather's well-man came to service the pump and "pull the rods" so as to replace a small leather valve at the bottom of the length of rods.

Before the house was built, grandfather had to construct the cistern six feet deep and six or eight feet in diameter. From his own account he and his sons (my two uncles) hand-excavated the cistern and laid up the bricks. They lined the interior with concrete and built a tight fitting wood frame cover which sealed it from the outside, and only then was the house built over it. This pool-like container was connected to the roof gutters by the pipe I describe above. I discovered how it was operated one day when a summer thunderstorm forced us to seek shelter indoors.

Grandpa and I were out in the orchard, where I was helping him (or really just watching) as he prepared to graft two branches of one type of an apple tree onto another. The stock tree was a well-grown Red Delicious twelve-foot apple tree at the time and grandfather had cut off a three-inch diameter main branch at about eye level (his). The cut was neat and horizontal. He then split the stock branch in two with a small sharp metal wedge. He then took two small branches taken from a neighbor’s Golden Delicious tree. “This tree will have two types of apples,” he explained, as he sliced the base of each finger-thick branch into a very thin wedge, which would fit neatly into the split in the branch of the stock tree. He aligned the branches in the wedge so that their bark would match up with the bark of the stock tree. Then as he tied the whole branch around with twine and as he applied some thick substance to seal the stub of the branch the sky darkened and a breeze rustled the leaves along the ground.

“It’s going to rain, Poppy,” I said, looking skyward.

“Yes it is!" he said, gathering up his tools. "Let’s get into the house, perhaps it will rain enough to fill that cistern today.”

With the wind whipping the leaves on the apple trees to show their undersides we rushed toward the back porch. As we passed through the portal and the screen door slammed closed behind us, a great thunderclap boomed from the darkend sky, as if to emphasize the threat of rain. Big rain drops slammed into the sandy bare soil of our back yard, each forming a little impact crater with a tiny mud ball at its base. Outside, I watched our big white Italian Spitz, ‘Beauty’, hurridly raise himself up out of his warm sand-wallow. Looking up at the dark sky, he shook his long white fur clean of adhering sand, then he turned to enter his lair under the porch. His long chain dragged through the sand leaving behing a long furrow spotted with rain drops. Rain pattered loudly on the roof above us. Then, after a second thunder clap, the rain fell in buckets.

“Ahh, just what we needed, a good two inch rain storm to to refill our cistern,” said grandpa happily, walking over to the corner of the kitchen behind the wood stove.

“See up there?” he asked, pointing a dusty cob-webby corner behind the stove pipe.

I looked to where he pointed. Near the corner, partly hidden by the stove pipe, I could see a small, hand- carved wooden handle. The European-style letter “A” was inscribed on the wall on one side of the handle and on the other, was the letter “C”, where the point of the handle then rested.

“See, Robbie,” he said, "A" is for “aperto” and "C" for “chiuso”.

Just then, grandmother, called out from the sitting room, “Ottavio, e piove, ricorda! Faccia la cisterna!” as if to remind poppy of what he should do.

But Grandpa just waited. He turned to look out through the kitchen door, past the porch screens where it now appeared dark as dusk, and the rain continued to pelt down on the roof and pour over the full gutters in sheets.

Another call came from the sitting room. "Ottavio!"

“Aspetta” he answered, as he turned, and slowly slide a chair along the floor into the corner. He stood next to the chair, his head cocked, listening to the rain patter down on the roof, and gurgle along the gutters.

“Grandpa, why are you waiting so long, arent we wasting a lot of good rain water” I asked.

“We must wait, Robbie, 'Patzienza'. He added, with a patient smile, "We must first we let the hard rain wash over the roof and clean the gutters, only then can we open the valve to permit the clean water into the cistern.”

“Oh, I see!,” said I, as a vision of the summer roof with its burden of fallen leaves, moss, twigs, and probable bird droppings up there.

Finally, when grandpa thought the roof and gutters were clean, he stood on the chair and turned to handle to "A". I could hear the water gush into the cistern pipe.

"Come here Robbie," called grandpa, as he walked over to the sink. "Ascoltai a qua," he said, putting his hand on the handle of the cistern hand pump.

I leaned over the sink basin. From the primer-well at the top of hand-pump emanated the faint gurgling and splashing sound of rain water pouring down into the half-empty cistern.

Grandpa looked contnet. The cistern was filling, the vegetable garden and the orchard were being watered and all was well in his world.

And that’s how life went along in a time when only wood and a few gallons of kerosene supplied all our energy.

I am not suggesting here that we all go back to a 19th century life of burning wood and using one barrel of oil a year... but there remains much to learn from a review of that time, and the striking effectiveness, ingenuity and efficiency of our forefathers---who had to make do on much less, and found inventive ways to accomplish their goals. We must find a means to emulate their ingenuity and new ways to deal with our own--different--situation in a similar effective way.

We can do it!


Get the picture?`

Sunday, October 23, 2011

OBAMA: IRAQ WAR OVER

BUT ITS ECONOMIC IMPACT AND THE EROSION OF USA MORAL AUTHORITY REMAINS TO HAUNT US

Yesterday, Mr. Obama notified us that the Bush war in Iraq was over and most of our troops will come home by December 31. Obama has been angling to “have his cake and eat it too” by keeping a substantial force in Iraq within our numerous military bases there (built at tremendous cost to our taxpayers) and still being able to state “our troops are leaving”! But he has been denied that political advantage. After a war in which (as President Bush promised) we bombed Iraq “back into the stone age”, at a cost of over four thousand American lives as well as the deaths, directly or indirectly of some 600,000 Iraqi civilians, and displaced or made homeless more than four million more Iraqis, it would be difficult to imagine that they would welcome us to stay on. (Even today, nine and one-half years after the invasion, and billions of US tax payer's dollars spent-- the level of electric service, availability of sewage treatment, and access to safe, fresh water sources remain below that of pre-invasion Saddam Hussein levels.) Recent polls clearly indicate that the vast majority of Iraqis are eager for us to depart. Furthermore, the present Maliki government would not sign a Status of Forces Agreement which would have guaranteed “immunity of our troops from prosecution under Iraqi law”. After the tragic Blackwater fiasco, and lack of judicial response to multiple cases of indiscriminate killings of innocent civilians by what some have described as "trigger-happy" American troops, it would be hard to see how they would agree to such a clause.

While on the home front, Americans, are ready to turn their attention to our own economic problems, as we suffer through the Great Recession of 2007. This change in direction of the nation's thinking is partly a reflection of the natural waning of September 11 anxieties after a decade of our leaders' fear-mongering. It is also a result of the realization that "something went radically wrong" in the last decade that needs change. (These feelings have been clearly manifested in two recent mass movements, the "Tea Party" uprising on the right and the "Occupy Wall Street" movement on the left.) For the more astute observers that "something" was to a large extent a result of President Bush's “unnecessary-wars-on-borrowed-money-policy”, coupled with his penchant for reducing taxes on the wealthy, and dangerous determination to expand banking deregulation.

Here in the USA, in these days of economic suffering we too are uniformly happy to see our troops withdraw and government reduce unnecessary expenditures abroad, and are ready to fore swear jingoism. Practicality seems to rule now. Few of us can see any advantage in the costly stationing of US troops in countries which pose no actual threat to us (except those of the right-wing radical fringe and the talking-head generals, who have a personal stake in these issues--and for that reason--rather than doting on their every word-- their judgement should be taken with a grain of salt). The sentiment for troop withdrawal is particularly acute for those who realize that these military costs are paid for by the US government borrowing forty cents on every dollar we spend. And recall that each pair of boots on the ground in Iraq and Afghanistan costs us approximately one-million dollars each. Obama now claims that only a few hundred may remain to protect the massive “US Embassy” in Baghdad. That edifice, bigger than the Vatican City State, was built with no thought of cost or practical function, but with the idea that it would long-remain a "camouflaged" well-fortified outpost of US imperialism, and now with the withdrawl of December 2011 it seems, it will be remembered only as great monument to the stupidity and chicanery of Messrs Bush and Cheney--and the neocons and other Republicans and Democrats who facilitated their actions.

That the troops are coming home, we all "thank God for little mercies". But it is very sad that our President Obama, who spoke so eloquently against this war, failed to give this speech on the first day he took office. He would have saved many American lives and hundreds of billions of dollars, and perhaps we would find ourselves better positioned strategically than we are in presently.

And for those Bush revisionists and "die hards" who continue to try to claim that the “Iraq war was worth it”. One must only take a look around us at the current economic, political and foreign-policy landscape to appreciate what a disaster the last nine and one-half years have been. Our nation, first ravaged by the 9-11 tragedy, then the disastrous eight years of the Bush presidency, was served poorly by the new Obama administration, which failed to correct the nation's errant course and simply let its wagon wheels fall into the deep errant ruts of the past administration, making no effort to move off in the right direction. Mr. Obama failed to use the massive mandate of the 2008 election to expose and/or punish those who got us into this financial, foreign policy and economic mess. Unfortunately, Mr. Obama chose to continue many of the very same failed policies, attacks on civil liberties, expansion of war powers acts, illegal renditions and targeted-assinations, expansion of wasteful wars, and misguided economic policies that compounded our problems rather than solved them. Only now, perhaps too late, to save his presidency he has changed course when his is at the nadir of his power.

Thus, we see that the events of the last decade have culminated in a cluster of problems for us: our national debt and deficit, the costs of the “three trillion dollar war” in Iraq, the failure of the financial sector, our persistent high unemployment rate, the nation's anxiety and unrest, and the political stalemate in Congress. As a result, we have exited from the miasma of this Iraq war as a diminished nation. Our reputation as a great nation has been sullied on all fronts. Our economy has suffered, our bonds downgraded, our dollar falling to levels not seen before relative to the Chinese yuan, our military is weakened and forced to come to terms with its limits in its geographic reach, as well as the now too obvious bounds of military force as the means to achieve our strategic and long term national goals. Finally, and sadly, even our once vaunted moral authority has suffered what appears a fatal blow.

Some may ask who cares about moral authority? Why should the nation be concerned with what the French or Germans or those third world nations think of us? The answer is that it does count, particularly in an unruly world, where, as has been so well demonstrated to us in Iraq and Afghanistan, that the aerial bomb, the foot-soldier, and the muzzle of a gun have only limited effectiveness. We must lead by example and gentle coercion of the majority. Our moral authority is the primary element of our leadership tool kit. For more than fifty years after WWII the US led the world as a model of justice and adherence to the rule of law, a model which should be emulated. Our efforts were successful in the post war world. Much of our culture of national morality was a direct outgrowth of the outstanding early model set for us by our founding fathers: Franklin, Jefferson, Adams and Monroe, and the documents they authored--our Declaration of Independence, Constitution and Bill of Rights. Our model of justice, humanity, and law set us apart from other nations. In this regard we are truly exceptional. And those nations who emulated us have come to see great rewards for their efforts. In a globalized world our adherence to these laudable cultural tenets permit us to lead and modify world opinion. That was a time when our word counted. Our efforts permitted us to direct ourselves and others toward in ways which would eventually lead to a better, more just, more humane post-WWII world. But today we find ourselves on a precipice where one more step in the wrong direction would be fatal.

One example of how far we have fallen on this score came to public attention yesterday October 22, 2011 in the Washington Post when it became clear that our once unchallenged moral authority has fallen apace with our military set backs, and economic woes.

When the UK-based firm Hermitage Management Capital became embroiled in a charge of tax fraud and evasion in Russia, they hired Russian attorney Sergie Magnitzky to represent them. During Magnitsky's investigation he uncovered evidence that absolved the UK firm from guilt of tax evasion, and revealed, in fact, that Hermitage MC was the victim of fraud perpetrated by powerful Russian financial institutions. During the long litigation period Magnitsky was himself charged with colluding with Hermitage and arrested on trumped up charges. He was incarcerated in the infamous Butyrka prison in Moscow where he appears to have been pressured to abandon and recant the case he had developed. He refused. During his incarceration, he fell ill. Medical attention was limited, and as he continued to resist recanting his positions, he was moved to increasingly harsh confinement conditions where his affliction worsened and eventually died of his ailment. A Russian court ruled his death the result of purposeful negligence and the doctors who treated him and prison official were tried and punished with prison terms. The UK based Economist magazine reporting on this story called his case an example of torture. Other exposes followed and "the Magnitsky case" soon became a cause celebre in the UK and on the Continent.

After Magnitsky’s death the case received further wide publicity in the UK and Europe, where eventually the EU Parliament voted for the banning of entry into the EU of sixty Russian officials who were deemed responsible for the brave attorney’s death. The Canadian Parliament followed suit, resolving to deny visas and to freeze Canadian assets of this group of Russian individuals. Here in the US, Senator John McCain co-sponsored the Justice for Sergei Magnitsky Act in October 2010, which would forbid entry into the US of the sixty individuals named in court documents. Recently, it was revealed (see October 22, Washington Post) that the Obama Administration put into effect the legislation and added these sixty people to our “banned for entry” list.

The Russian response remained muted as the statutes voted on in both the European and Canadian parliaments went into effect, but when the US chimed in, they attacked us viciously. The Russian foreign minister Alexander Lukashevich lashed out in what the Washington Post called “ unusually strong terms: stating: “Such (US) moralizing-calls appear especially cynical against the background of the practical legalization of torture in the US, special prisons, kidnapping, and mistreatment of terrorism suspects, the indefinite detention of prisoners in Guantanamo, and uninvestigated murders of civilians in Iraq and Afghanistan.”

And so is this is the world-view of the USA, after the GW Bush-Obama administrations? Is this what is said sotto voce and behind our backs? I fear it is how we are perceived around the world today. When we speak out on moral issues that need and deserve our support, will we be ignored in the future? Such an outcome is both sad, unsettling, and unfortunate for us, as a sign of our decline, and a loss of moral leadership for the world as a whole.

Note: From Wash Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/russia-retaliates-against-united-states/2011/10/22/gIQAxKac6L_story.html)






Get the picture?

Friday, October 21, 2011

DIRTY OIL- THE ATHABASCA TAR SANDS

Years ago as a boy summering in rural Smithtown, I recall pleasantly our country road, which was then just a natural glacial, yellowish, Long Island sand. My friends and I happily walked barefoot all summer long on the sandy byways we called “dirt roads”. But when I was about ten or eleven, the Town of Smithtown began “oiling" the roads. One day they arrived at our isolated place with with big trucks and a smelly tar-spreader to end our barefoot ways. They raked over the ridged and wash-board-rumpled sand and when smooth and level, they simply sprayed a thick layer of black oil over the dry sand. The oil soaked in and coated the grains. A thin layer of more sand was spread on top. The result was a smelly, tarry mess for a good week. But soon the volatiles in the oil dispersed into the air and the tarry surfaces hardened.

In our days, that tarry stuff is most likely man-made, the waste product of the distialation process, but it also occurs naturally, as tar-seeps such as the famous La Brea Tarp Pits in California. But perhaps one of the earliest exploited tar pits in the western world, are pits found on the western Greek island of Zante, (aka Zakynthos). The pits are located on the south end of Zakynthos near the little village of Keri. It is about ten miles from the port city of Zakynthos. I visted the Keri tar pits with my archeo-geology students in the late 1990s. We all hired motor skooters for the trip over winding country roads to a spot near the sea where tar seeped out of the ground. We collected a few samples and gathered there to retell the tales of how the ancient Athenians exploited this very seep to calk the bottoms of their ships...the ships that eventually saved the western world from being over-run by the Persians, when they helped defeat the the Persian navy under King Xerxes at the battle of Salamis in 480 BC. The Keri tar is fluid enough to flow readily in the spring temperatures on Zante. But other deposits of petroleum which remain buried close to the surface or exposed to heat underground (perhaps from intrusive igneous deposits) may loose their volatile components and turn into a black, viscous, natural tar, like that on our roads. Like asphalt roads, they too are mixed with coarse sand. These oiled-sands are essentially the same as what we find occuring naturally in the now famous exposures of the Canadian and Venesuelan tar sands. The tar sands deposits, similar in appearance to the stuff that first covered our early Long Island dirt roads, is now being considered--after the more-easily recovered and cleaner burning "sweet crude" has been exploited--as a source of difficult to extract but avaialable oil to meet the world's unquenchable thirst for petroleum.

Though the historians and archaeologists may not agree with us, we can campartmentalize human history into periods or "ages" based on the predominant fuel or source of energy. Today, since the middle of the last century (and the close of the “Coal Age”) we live in what we may call the “Petroleum Age”. Whether we are always aware of it or not, petroleum surrounds us, it colors our walls, fires our home furnaces, fuels our transportation vehicles and, as well, perhaps most importatantly, petroleum-derived fertilizers nourish our crops and aid in food production. Each morning we dress ourselves in synthetic fabrics produced from petroleum, then (almost) all of us drive to work in autos powered by gasoline an oil derivitive. Our vehicles roll along on sysnthetic rubber tires made from petroleum, on roads surfaced with a bitumen which is the end, waste-product of the fractional distillation which produces the gasoline, diesel oil, motor oils and many other of our industrial products. The thick gooey stuff we call “tar” that ends up in the bottom of the of the oil distillery after the gasoline, heating oil and diesel are vaporized off is used to coat roofs, spread on asphalt driveways, and used too as a general sealant. The vast majority of the tarry black stuff is what is mixed with sand and gravel and spread down on our roads to provide the smooth surface upon which we find driving so pleasant. But lets return to what is happening today in western Canada where large deposits of a similar substance (to our modern day road surface) is found just beneath the soggy soil and muskeg in the northern spruce and hemlock forest zone.

The dark bituminous substance that occurs in western Alberta in Canada was well-known to the Cree and Athabascan native-Americans of that region in prehistory. The Cree, like the Athenians, used the black sticky substance to waterproof their birch-bark canoes.

In the late 19th century, Canadian geologists mapped the extensive tar sand beds in western Alberta just below the surface of an area the size of Lake Superior or the US State of South Carolina (or about 30,000 square miles)in areas of forest, river valleys and muskeg terraine. The Economist (http://www.economist.com/node/17959688) reports that in that large zone there may be up to 173 billion barrels of recoverable hydrocarbon oil-equivalent. If that amount is verified it may have a value of some $16trillion dollars at modern day prices. And may support the US seemingly unquenchable thirst for oil (at 19 million bbls per day or 7 billion barrels a year) for some (173/7 = 24) twenty four years.

Late in the 20th century, about 1967 these deposits, which are easy to find with a simple earth probe, so there is no expensive and unpredictable drilling necessary, began to be exploited for their oil content. Several Canadian companies bought up virgin forest land, and by means of massive earth-moving equipment removed ten or fifty feet of muck, clay, and sand overburden, pumped out the ground and surface waters which seeped back into the excavation into a near-by large lake and removed the underlying layer of sand, rich in bitumen or tar. These operators transported the tarry sands to a near-by facility where the petroleum component was separated from the sand using lighter hydrocarbons (such as gasoline or kerosene) and large volumes of fresh water taken from the near-by pristine rivers. One serious problem is with the fresh water used to separate and extract the oil substance. It is estimated that the extraction and separation process requires between two (2) to five (5)barrels of water for each barrel of “oil” produced. At the present time with only a small percent of the massive resource exploited, existing operations use as much fresh water from the Athabasca River as does the entire city of Calgary, Alberta, which uses the river as it fresh water supply.

The mixture of water, tar-sands, and solvent is agitated to dissolve the “bitumen” into the solvent. The frothy mix is then separated from the sand and other solids which are dumped into the waste pond and the now dissolved bitumen is barreled and moved off site to an conversion plant where it was treated like a heavy oil. In more recent times, the diluted bitumen is mixed with liquefied natural gas to produce a more fluid, less viscous mix, termed “dilbit” which can be piped to refineries. The disadvantage is that this substance is particularly noxious were it to spill .

There are many problems with this enterprise. The extractive process is another form of open pit mining similar to what is used to extract coal from coal beds in Virginia, West Virginia, and Pennsylvania. The overburden is removed and dumped as spoil, in our eastern USA the coal seams are extracted and the land pushed back in a generally vain attempt to reconstruct the original natural surface. But in Alberta the soil is a mud and the land is marshy and wet. Water, soaks the deposit and dissolves the toxic substances which are a part of the bitumen fraction and is carried away into the near-by river system. These waste waters are pumped into “tailings ponds”, the waters of which become toxic to all forms of life---particularly migratory wildfowl which in their annual passage attempt to alight in these waters and must be constantly driven off. (recent reports document thousands of migratory wildfowl dying in these ponds) Other dissolved materials enter the river Athabasca River system and pollute it locally and downstream from the mine area. Air pollution is a consequence of the separation process as the solvents used are volatile and can and do pollute the atmosphere. There is no evidence that the disturbed landscape can be returned to function either as farmland (which it was not suited for prior to mining) or to forestry or functioning wildlife habitat. Secondly, this is just another way (but a more messy way) to exploit buried carbon and add it (and the sulfur and other minerals it contains) into the atmosphere as pollutants and greenhouse gases. Furthermore, since it takes a great deal of energy to separate the bitumen from the sand and then dissolve the “thick petroleum” fraction into a solvent to create a liquid form---both the mining and extractive process uses up a great deal more energy than lighter “sweet crude” oils which are extracted by drilling. It is estimated that the extraction, processing and burning of tar-sands-derived-oil generates somewhere between 10% and 45%more greenhouse gases than normal oil drilled from wells (http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=coming-to-america-tar-sands-from-canada).

The advantages from the oil developer point of view is that the resource is in a “safe” country, not likely to be attacked by insurgents or to be nationalized by a new and unfriendly government, and too it is close to the US market and refining facilities.
Some have referred to it as the only “free” world oil outside of the 70% of the world’s oil reserves of the OPEC nations.

Finally, one major problem is that Canada is planning to build a pipe line to its southern boundary the Keystone XL pipeline to carry “dilbit” to specialized plants in the USA. It represents another dangerous and potentially messy operation which like the Gulf oil spill can create a toxic, disaster over the areas it traverses. We have cause to worry.

Monday, October 17, 2011

DRILL BABY DRILL--A RESPONSE

A constant refrain repeated by some presidential candidates is to drill for oil in the USA to "generate jobs" and make us "energy independent". I’m paraphrasing here, but this is the essence of the politician's blather: “We have plenty of oil down there! Just get the EPA off our backs and we can be energy independent--and create jobs as well.”

My take on this is that the effort would not be worth the few additional years of wasteful oil consumption we would generate and the jobs produced would be mostly related to the massive environmental clean-up we would need after such an extensive program of national exploitation.

The truth is we once did have plenty of oil down there, but we have used much of it up. One of our problems is the way we use this scarce resource. Our oil consumption is the highest in the world. We got used to the idea that oil was cheap and fell in to wasteful practices. We waste oil driving oversized cars and living in McMansion-style houses. Wastefulness and a steady increase in consumption ate into those reserves which were slowly depleted. US production of domestic oil peaked in 1970 at about 10 million barrels per day (MBD) a rate at about what Russia, today’s top producer is pumping now. About that time (1970s) our wasteful, profligate usage first outstripped our domestic production and we had to begin importing oil. But importing oil did not change the way we used this commodity. At the present time we import more than half of the oil we produce.

According to the Department of Energy’s Energy Information Agency (EIA) today the US consumes 18.8 million barrels of oil a day (18.8 MBD). That is a staggering figure. To get an impression of how much oil that represents, we might imagine aligning that number of oil drums end-to-end (the drums are a standard 35” or 89 cm high) over the Earth’s surface. Were we to begin at the North Pole, the barrels would form a continuous line @10,400 miles long, stretching from the Pole to a point beyond the very tip of South America at Tierra del Fuego! [After the recent BP Deepwater Horizon oil spill which spewed a massive 460,000 barrels of oil into Gulf waters to become the nation’s worst environmental disaster after the Great Dust Bowl of the 1930s my readers should have a good image of what great volumes of oil looks like. But it is worth mentioning that the total spill-volume of that disaster, even now continuing to show up all over the Gulf, was only a bit more than 2% of what we use each day! To carry on my illustration from above, the Gulf oil spill represented by lined up barrels would stretch only over a measly 254 miles.]

One reason we use and waste so much oil here in the US is that it continues to remain relatively cheap. Yes! It is hard to believe, but by world standards our oil prices are much lower than other industrialized nations. For example, gasoline prices in the UK (at more than $8 dollars a gallon) are more than double what we pay here. One reason for the lower price is that the USA still remains one of the major producers with about 5-6 MBD of actual crude oil pumped each day. In comparison Russia pumps the most oil (9.9 MBD) and Saudi Arabia is second (@ 9.7 MBD). (You may note that some reports show that the US is producing about 9.1 MBD but that difference, from what I quote here, is the result of adding in liquefied natural gas to the totals. Since we are concerned here with only crude oil, I have used only figures, which represent that commodity.) Since the US is a significant producer of oil, our prices can remain lower and our UK friends and relatives who must pay more. But even with our domestic production (of either 6MBD or 9.1MBD) we have a daily shortfall of some 9-12(or more) MBD which must be made up by importing many, many barrels of expensive oil that accrues to our national debt, compounds our deficit, and adds to our unbalanced balance of payments.

As noted above, using nearly 19 MBD we are the world's greatest consumer of oil and as such we use more than the next three “highest usage” nations combined. Our main top competitors for this questionable accolade are China, (which consumes less than half of what we use or 8 MBD), Japan, (uses 4 MBD), and India, (3MBD). As is plain from these figures, there must be something amiss with our consumption practices when we as a nation of 314 million inhabitants use more oil than the three next greatest consumer-nations with a total population of more than 2.6 billion (for this I estimate China at 1.3 billion, India at 1.2 billion and Japan at 127 million). Our excessive consumption is plainly a function of wasteful practices. Since we produce only about 6 MBD of crude, we have a shortfall to the tune of more than 12MBD which is made up by importing from foreign producers. Thus a probable first answer for those who suggest we attempt to meet our oil needs by "drill baby drill" should be: "Hold on! Perhaps we should first become a bit more efficient in our use of this increasingly scarce and expensive commodity before we begin exploiting our last reserves."

But what about the politician's claims suggesting we can actually find enough oil right here at home (and their statements always imply that these new underground resources would be sustainable over a long time), only if we were to simply get the EPA off the oil companies' backs and let them drill anywhere in the USA?

Let’s evaluate that claim.

Best estimates of how much oil remains underground are just that, “estimates” but geologists have available a great deal of oil-well yield-data from intensively studied places such as parts of Texas and California. With these they can generate reasonable figures of how much oil might be recovered from similar underground reservoirs in other places.

The US Department of the Interior (USDI) estimates the total volume of undiscovered and technically recoverable oil (our proven reserves) in the United States at about 21 billion barrels of oil. That may seem like a great deal until you compare it to our usage of nearly 19 million bbl per day. In one year the USA consumes (19MBD x 364.25 days = 6,921 million barrels a year) or 6.9 billion barrels per year) nearly seven (7) billion barrels per year (7 BBY). Thus, were we to extract all of our proven reserves, it would net us only (21/7=3) or about three (3) years of consumption at our present rate of use.

Furthermore, were we to attempt to extract oil from every possible underground nook and cranny in the nation, (places that would include many environmentally, culturally, and aesthetically sensitive areas such as the nation's outer continental shelves, the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWAR) and the National Petroleum Reserve in Alaska) we might be able to produce as much as 134 billion barrels of additional petroleum. Thus, were we actually able to glean 134 billion barrels of oil, how long would it last us? Dividing that number by our annual use of seven billion barrels (134/7=19.1) we see that we would have only about nineteen (19) years of consumption at present rates of use...if we were actually able to realize that goal and mop up the last remaining drop of oil on our home continent. It is worth emphasizing that these sources are not "proven" and we might drill many dry holes. Furthermore, the extraction and transportation costs of such an effort (particularly in the Arctic) would be monstrous and the environmental impact staggering. Imagine many tragic events like the Deepwater Horizon oil spill, multiplied many times over. A calculation of the cost-to-benefit analysis of such a proposition indicates only modest returns for gargantuan effort. Were we to actually unearth that volume of oil, it would provide us with less than two decades of present-style use. So after perhaps a twenty-three year period of present level use, we would have arrived at a point of total dependency on foreign resources. The costs of extraction would have been considerable, we would have depleted our means of modulating the domestic price of oil, and we would be left with a nation of despoiled and devalued shorelines, scarified landscapes, disturbed natural areas, and nature reserves bereft of life. Drill baby drill would have made some of us very rich, and permitted the rest of us to continue to drive over sized vehicles, but perhaps where would we want to go?

On the other hand were we to preserve these resources and use them wisely over the coming decades they would continue to serve us well. Perhaps in the face of some future existential threat to the USA they would be there for our nation's essential needs. But to drill them dry today for no good reason is a mistake. Those oil reserves should remain in the ground for some future, wise and careful use. So the answer to “drill baby drill” should be: NO! The oil remaining in those difficult to access, ecologically sensitive and far away places should be kept as a reserve. To exploit them now is not a sensible or well thought use of a scarce resource, particularly given our present consumption rate. Let’s keep those Alaskan, Continental shelf, and ANWAR reserves underground until we really need them. Instead of mindless exploitation, let us focus on wise conservation of oil, we can do much more with the resources we have--extending the use out many decades, were we to institute only modest conservation practices now. Perhaps our motto for this endeavor should be: "Conserve baby conserve"!


In another blog I will discuss the proposed extraction of oil from tar sands and so-called oil-shale which are even more fraught with peril. Both extraction processes use great quantities of heat and fresh water to extract the oil the contain.

Get the picture!

Wednesday, September 28, 2011

AMERICAN EXCEPTIONALISM

US Exceptionalism

Exceptionalism or plain old 19th century Jingoism?


Steel states: that American exceptionalism is based on “the use of individual initiative as the engine of development within a society that strives to ensure individual freedom through the rule of law.”

American exceptionalism is, among other things, the result of a difficult rigor: the use of individual initiative as the engine of development within a society that strives to ensure individual freedom through the rule of law. Over time a society like this will become great. This is how—despite all our flagrant shortcomings and self-betrayals—America evolved into an exceptional nation.


What is it?

Conservative jounalist Shelby Steele (WSJ Opinion Sept 1 2011) describes American exceptionalism as “the use of individual initiative as the engine of development within a society that strives to ensure individual freedom through the rule of law.” Individual initiative…individual freedom, rule of law..if only that were true. All that “individual initiative” and “freedom” is unfortuneately not freely available to all in this nation, but for those whose wealthy predecessors paved the way for them. So it’s not a bad theory to hold on to—if no one looks too carefully at who steadied the ladder for you, while you climbed the rungs. Most Americans and others free of social psychology’s fundamental attribution error would not agree..seeing the exceptional status of America more as “a bargain with the devil—an indulgence in militarism, racism, sexism, corporate greed, and environmental disregard as the means to a broad economic, military, and even cultural supremacy in the world” (op. cit) . Frankly, to my ears, that sounds like what Mrs. Greenburg, my former social-science teacher in New Utrecht High, would have called “jingoism” We don’t hear much of that anymore. I wonder why? Since American exceptionalism seems to fit so snugly with the actual definition of Jingoism…


Jingoism? See: http://www.globalexchange.org/resources/econ101/americandream

[Jingoism comes from a British pub song of the 19th century which went like this:
We don't want to fight but by Jingo if we do
We've got the ships, we've got the men, we've got the money too
We've fought the Bear before, and while we're Britons true
The Russians shall not have Constantinople!]

I love America dearly as a native son. I was born here more than seven decades ago in New York City, and raised and educated that City. My grandparents and parents were born there too. My maternal and paternal uncles served in WWII. I’ve traveled my beloved homeland north and south and east and west, lived in its countryside, and in one of its greatest cities. I know it as a great land, peopled with kind and decent folk. And my heart knows and loves no other place as well as this land. But loving it does not give me reason to gloss over and hide its faults, its failures and foibles, or give up wishing to perfect it.

There true are valid reasons to be proud. No one can deny that America is a unique and great land. The USA was the first “new” democratic nation. The founding fathers created a “political entity” out of whole cloth. Before we were an actual nation (such as the Germany, France or Spain) our founders forged a new political entity in 1776, and then only afterward, did we create a ‘nation’ of citizens to populate it. That is unique. To accompany that commendable history, our national ideology, based on concepts of liberty, egalitarianism, individualism, populism and a laissez-faire business environment, all make us the envy of the rest of the world. But, looking back at our nation’s history, we can see our course at times sometimes marred by wrong-headed policies which make a mockery of our great tradition of equality, justice for all. Yes at times we have exhibited pride, greed, injustice, and just plain stupidity.

“Critical thinking” is a much-touted mental process based on logical, unbiased and unfettered thought as well as an active, valid and probing self-evaluation. However, looking “critically” at our own homeland (as any true patriot must) is often frowned upon and viewed suspiciously. Those who hear our questions or with whom we share these ideas, often protest, “Air you with us, or against us?”

But one must ignore such objections. A nation of our size and diversity naturally encounters problems arising from those very characteristics. Others derive from an antiquated and hide-bound, bicameral, presidential system of representation (rather than more responsive, flexible, and democratic parliamentary system); our Senate is the most unrepresentative and undemocratic in the entire modern, western world; and our Electoral College is an unabashed embarrassment to a nation which wants to be considered as “democratic”. Here too we must mention our massive military—the largest, most expensive and most coddled in the entire world. We spend more on our military than all the other nations in the world combined. It consumes more than one-third of our total annual budget. That investment in naked power encourages us to see every problem in the world, as one that can be solved with military intervention. And we use it more than any other nation does. My dad used to say, “If you got a hammer in your hand, you can’t but help seeing everything as a nail.” Such massive investment robs our government and our society of funds for social development, improvement of its physical infrastructure, (roads, railroads, internet waterways, and electrical generation and grid system) and a modern social safety-net.

But whatever the source, efforts to correct and improve our nation are weakened or stymied by a pervasive myth often termed: “American Exceptionalism.” The concept of America as a “special nation” promotes the idea that the USA is the “city on the shining hill”, chosen by God to be an exemplar for others, and exempt from normal historical forces of decline, error, or need for renewal and course-correction to which other nations are subject. We like to think of ourselves as the political model to which all others either wish or (in our mind) should emulate. We are simply "The Best"! If we buy into that concept—our nation can make no mistakes—and thus there is need for corrective action or improvement. Such a concept and its consequences are a prescription for demise and failure. Too often it sounds too much like jingoistic ultranationalism.

Even worse, the myth of “exceptionalism” has fostered an arrogant foreign policy that has led us into disastrous adventures overseas. Recall the policies of a recent US government, which promulgated ideas of “regime change” (to a more compliant government) or “nation building”(into a system more congruent to our own how impossible or unlikely that is)---in independent nations of the Middle East-- all to our financial and political detriment.

The pseudo-religious basis for the concept of a “a shining city on the hill” or a God-ordained political entity, goes counter to most of our basic tenets of freedom, liberty, and separation of Church and State, as established by our founding fathers. This pernicious idea of a God ordained polity had its origin with the Puritans--the zealot Christian sect which Queen Elizabeth I of England wisely hounded out of her country. These radical Christians believed fervently that they had made a covenant with God and that the colonies they established in New England were destined to be a model (the source of the phrase "a shining city on the hill") for the rest of the world to emulate and follow. (The actual history of those colonies are shot through with bigotry, harsh imposition of religious uniformity, and the establishment of a fanatical religious oligarchy, too reminiscent of medieval Europe than of modern America. Though those early colonies are long gone, aspects of their zealotry too often raise their ugly head from deep within the heart-land’s native soils and tend to become manifest politically.

Myths of exceptionalism are not new. The Greeks of Classical times, (perhaps for obvious and good cause) thought of themselves as unique and honored by the Gods and considered Athens to be the zenith of human development. Those who did not speak Greek, and babbled unintelligibly (heard to the Greek-ear as "bar-bar-bar-bar’) were considered to be "barbarians", i.e. they did not speak Greek and thus were excluded as civilized folk. The Romans, during the Republic and on into the Imperial age, held a similar concept of political superiority, and adopted the Greek concept and term "barbarian" to denote those who were non-Roman and thus they considered outside the pale of civilization.

Perhaps such myths help to bind a nation together and were a necessary evil for the survival of its political system. But our circumstances and needs, in an interconnected multicultural world are very different. In modern times such jingoistic concepts do not help to support efforts for national renewal and self-evaluation that can lead to improvement. “Critical thinking,”and self-appraisal is not supported by such a philosophy.

But for those who can engage in critical thought, there is much to consider. Are we really so exceptional? Let us take an incomplete but unbiased look. Are we the nation that others wish to or should emulate? The following are facts about our nation that need an airing into the public for discourse and evaluation.



First let us examine the economy.

In a perceptive and revelatory piece in a January 2011, edition of ‘guardian.co.uk’, entitled: “The Myth of American Exceptionalism” by Prof. Richard D. Wolff (Economics, Univ. Mass., Amherst, ret 2008, presently Visiting Prof., New School Univ. NYC, and author of: “Captialism Hits The Fan,” (2009)) Wolff states. “Until the 1970s, US capitalism shared its spoils with American workers” but since that date, the tables have turned and now business, government and the powers that be have made the American working class pay for its failures.

Wolff states that the concept of American exceptionalism has stemed from US economic prowess. All US citizens (excepting a tiny percentage of Native Americans) are immigrants to these shores. The vast majority of our citizenry are either immigrants themselves or children or grandchildren, or great-grandchildren of immigrants who were attracted here, more often than not, as a direct result of the expanding American economy. My great-grandparents and my maternal grandfather came here from their native lands to a country they saw as a land of opportunity, where anyone who had a good idea, determination, and the ability to work, could find a job, get a foothold, and then start a business and prosper. And my grandpa did. In late 19th century America he found a nation where economic growth encouraged new-comers. He encountered near unlimited opportunity for work and personal betterment. In more recent times, America’s economic miracle arose from factors such as a rising population (growing from immigration and natural increase) which created increased demand for goods and services, which in turn fueled higher levels of real wages and a steady growth of the standard of living for all. Wolff states, “A profitable US capitalism kept running ahead of labor supply. So business kept raising wages to attract waves of immigration and to retain employees, during the 19th century and on into the 1970s.”

Those conditions of population growth and expanding economy tended to continue (with some interruptions by the economic downturns such as the Great Depression and flareups of heated growth such as WW II) into the 20th century. But it reached a watershed in the decade of the 1970s.

In the 1970s the entire business-labor equation altered. Factors that caused this change were both social and technological. One break in technology occurred in the early 1960s. It was the advent of the oral-contraceptive pill. The “pill" was approved by the FDA. Its use spread rapidly among women of childbearing age so much so that by the late 1960s Time Magazine thought it appropriate to feature a picture of “the pill” on its April 1967 front page. Today, twelve million US women use “the pill.” Many have argued that this new technology was a key element in altering women’s role in the economy. It is clear now that the new medical technology extended the years that young women could avoid childbearing and use those years to devote to education and career preparation, or to join the work force prior to having children or even forgoing childbearing entirely. At the present time there are more women undergraduates in US colleges than men. Women could decide when (or if) they wanted to marry, or when they wanted to enter the workforce to pursue a job or a career. The new technology encouraged the civil rights movement known as “women’s liberation” which helped to alter the social and political landscape and further encouraged women to enter the workforce. In 1973, the landmark US Supreme Court case of Roe v Wade held that women had a right to privacy under the due process clause in the 14th Amendment and that right extended to having an abortion. Though that controvercial ruling remains a contentious point in national politics and political debate to this day, its economic consequences, leading to increasing numbers of women in the workforce, are unchallenged.

Other technological advances were being initiated at that time as well. Beginning in the 1960s, experiments first using military computers and later commercial computers as well were wired in tandem to, over long distances were completed successfully. In the early 1970s computer engineers at several northeastern universities (particularly Dartmouth and MIT) began to link their university computers together using existing telephone and telecommunication systems such as telephone lines. The computer network produced was called ARPANET. It was this initial system which later spread to business and industry and was to become the internet we know of today. Just like the new means of travel by rail in the 19th century revolutionized communications the internet had its effects on business. Its use revolutionized many business functions by lowering transaction costs, Soon, with the advent of broadband, wifi, etc. manufacturing companies found it profitable to move much of their production to cheap-labor venues overseas. Off-shoring jobs became a common means of reducing production costs, breaking the backs of labor unions and maximizing profits for many large corporations. With no incentives business kept wages static, reduced benefits but continued to see increased productivity from workers. They had the best possible world..rising productivity, rising profits and stable or decreasing labor costs.

Thus since the 1970s we have seen technological, and social changes revolutionize the relationship between business and labor. US capitalism no longer faced a shortage of labor. These international corporations now can “thumb their noses” at labor. They have kept wages static (relative to inflation) they have reduced benefits. Their policies have tended to shift costs for needed social safety nets to local government and municipalities resulting in local higher taxes. Large corporations have little interest in paying taxes in their “home” nation, or submitting to regulations of a single nation. They as Jeff ……… from Columbia University stated (CNN/GPS August 18, 2011) “they have only one foot in this country and their other some place around the world!”. These capitalist entities now prefer smaller government, and less regulation, and those interests are reflected in the policies of the two political parties that they support financially.


But if the working classes have gotten poorer, the rich have gotten much richer since the 1970s by every measure available. One reason: Because American labor was working “scared” (when each job holder has several other applicants in line for their jog they work harder). In addition, these workers had more and better education, and were supplied with and more and better technology such as computers and computerized processes. Thus, productivity increased but wages remained flat. This scenario produced more profits for company owners and managers, shareholders, and increased profits to professionals such as architects, archaeologists, attorneys, consultants, and others).

Too often perceptions take a long time to catch up with reality. The perceptions of workers remained mired in the 1970s optimism while the reality changed slowly around them. As worker’s benefits and buying power slowly eroded they worked harder, they worked on their few annual holidays (the US workforce has the fewest paid holidays per year than any other industrialized nation (13 days) while nations of Europe range from 45 in France, 42 Germany and to 35 in the UK) and worked for longer hours per day, or had a wife or other family member move into the labor force to help maintain their “middle class” status. When such efforts were maximized they turned to increasing credit card debt, leveraging money from their residence by increasing debt. As Wolff states “By exhausting themselves , stressing family life ….taking on unsustainable amounts of debt, the US working class delayed the end of American exceptionalism –until the global crisis hit in 2007.”
How did that happen?
Between 1970 and 2007 the grand bargain forged between labor and capital in which the former worked to produce US products generated from US businessess in which US capitalists invested in and which made profits which sustained the capitalist class, and which products were consumed by the same labor force---was slowly crumbling. The top echelons of earners were growing richer and richer while lower economic levels were struggling mightily, using increased personal productivity, multiple jobs, longer hours, longer work year, fewer vacations, more members of the family working, more strees, and by leveraging money from their one main source of wealth—their homes. The capitalist class in these times were well heeled. With larger and larger sums of cash on hand they were seeking investments for their funds. Members of government were willing and able to help these rich clients who were supporting their reelection bids with bundles of cash. One major of the cause the several crises (housing bubble, financial crisis and resulting failing financial instituions) which we now call the “global crisis” was the deregulation legislation pushed by Republicans during the Clinton admistration. President Clinton eventually signed the Gramm-Leach—Bliley Act in 1999 a bill that would free banks, insurance companies and financial institutions to consolidate (Nobel Economist Paul Krugman called Senator Phil Gramm, main archtect and sponsor of the act, “the father of the Great Recession”). The Gramm bill overrode much of the safeguards of the early (1930s era) Glass-Stegall Act a bill wisely designed to prevent financial institutions from using bank depositor’s savings to make risky investments. The Gramm bill unraveled that restriction…providing investors with vast quantites of savings to invest in questionable enterprisises. And what were some of these enterprises?

Beginning in the 1960s and culminating in late 1980s US legislators introduced bills which premitted banks to bundle and sell mortgaged backed securities (MBS. These bonds were sold to investors based on the fact that similar to other securities they paid a regular monthly dividend, but outside of normally fluctuating business and stock cycle. Banks were eager to sell mortgages as MBSs and collect the cash face value from this transaction rather than having to wait to collect monthly payments until the mortgage matured. Furthermore, these MBS could be bundled into collateralized mortgage obligations (CMO) in which poor risk mortgages (from less than optimum properties and/or less secure mortgagees) could be incorporated into the bundle, spreading the risk to a large pool of investors over large geographic areas (often world wide). Using these methods, larger and larger numbers of mortgages could be processed from high risk clients creating a voluminous flow of cash with a minimal of risk to individual investors. Some of the mortgages in a bundle would invariably go bad…but the vast majority would continue to pay regularly.

On the other hand, those at the top, with the lowest taxes and the highest incomes by the early years of the 21 century, had accumulated more and more of the wealth of the nation. Unequal wealth distribution was about what it was in 1927-8 just prior to the economic collapse. Presently, the top 1% control 35% of the nation’s net worth leaving the bottom 99% to scramble over the remaining 65% of the nation’s net worth (another view sees the top 20% controll 85% of the nation’s net worth and the bottom 80% control only 15%). (See http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html) The plutocrats continued amass wealth, and used that wealth to defang and undermine government regualtions. Financiers also found novel ways to increase the overstuffed coffers of the wealthy by means of such as novel financial devices as “asset backed securites”, “hedge funds”, “credit default swaps”, and of course the now notorious mortgage backed security.
Banks and financial institutions which formerly were in the simple business of lending money to the local community to help create prosperity for all, found that they could vastly increase profits by bundling residential bank mortgages (knowing that some were going to be of good payers and others would fail to pay). Why should they hold the risk? Why not spread the risk around to reduce its impact on each investor? Sounds reasonable nes pas? So that’s what they all did. They increased their sales of mortgages (with no need to be too careful now to whom they lent money…since the downturn of such “poor borrowers” was going to be spread far and wide). Between the early 90’s and 2007 enormous numbers (some report 7-9 trillions of dollars worth) of these bundled securities were sold to investors as “AAA” stock.
Since the 1970s, most US workers postponed facing up to what capitalism had come to mean for them. They sent more family members to do more hours of paid labour, and they borrowed huge amounts. By exhausting themselves, stressing family life to the breaking point in many households, and by taking on unsustainable levels of debt, the US working class delayed the end of American exceptionalism – until the global crisis hit in 2007. By then, their buying power could no longer grow: rising unemployment kept wages flat, no more hours of work, nor more borrowing, were possible. Reckoning time had arrived. A US capitalism built on expanding mass consumption lost its foundation.
Wolff concludes that after the recent collapse of 2007-8 the rich, using their financial support as leverage, tended to widen the gulf of unequal wealth distribution…“finally burying American exceptionalism..” by through their agents in Washington encouraging President Obama to lavishly support banks, financial institutions, and the stock market, and discouraging the President to resort to massive rehiring and “make-work” programs as did FDR successfully in 1934. In addition, the Republican focus the “budget defict” and the “national debt” and its press for “austerity” has foisted the cost of the “unjustly, imbalanced response to the crisis” onto the shoulders of the very people who were passed over for help when the government resisted raising taxes on those who caused the crisis and profited the most from its effects. The people are doubly burdened with loss of jobs and revenue and loss of public services. Those Republicans who dare to even think of a tax increase (at this time September 2011) favor a “broadened tax base” (meaning increase taxes for the poor and middle class) rather than increased taxes on the very wealthy (their sponsors) who can well afford the increase but whom they are fearful of crossing.

What can these policies bring us? Economic decline and further shrinking of the USA’s minimalist safety net—the most restrictive in the industrialized western world. Reductions of Social Security, or if Medicare survives--higher co-pays are in the offing, as well as probable loss of the minimal improvements in health care-- part of what Republicans love to call “Obamacare”. Couple this with falling wages, disappearing benefits and rising taxes, as well as an increasing decline in our nation’s infrastructure, such as roads, railways and ports, make the picture of our future bleak. And when these devisive policies which separate us into a nation of “have and have nots” as they eventually will and “bite” into the very lives of our poor, workingclass and burgeoning unemployed, we will all—rich and poor alike---experience increased crime, hooliganism, and social unrest.

Get the picture?

See: Shelby Steele, Opinion, WSJ, September 1, 2011

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424053111904787404576532623176115558.html

How do we stack up as an exceptional nation?

How does our American nation rank in Scientific thinking, Health Care, Longevity, Education, Upward Mobility, Public Transportation, Broadband Access, Crime, Science, Incarceration, Quality of Life? To be “exceptional” should not our nation be on top in these categories and others.

Acceptance of Evolution:
The US ranks 33rd after most of the industrialized world and Asia and just above Turkey (34th) in its acceptance of the modern concept of evolution. http://rankingamerica.wordpress.com/2009/02/12/the-us-ranks-33rd-in-acceptance-of-evolution/

Health Care System:
In a Wall Street Journal article (“Ill Conceived Ranking Makes for Unhealthy Debate”, October 21, 2009) decrying the use of a World Health Organization ranking which placed the US health care system in an embarrassing 37th place, the author, Carl Bialik, cries “foul” suggesting that the data is old, the figures were soft estimates, and the ranking system which used as a factor the total amount of expenditure each country makes in pursuit of their health-care goals (note that in that measure the US is # 1) tends to heavily distort the rankings. To prove his point, Mr Bialik provides a graph of these data in which that factor is discounted. In that revised (Balick-WSJ) ranking the US health care system comes up to (15) fifteenth! It is below such nations as Japan (1), Netherlands (3), France(5), Canada(6), UK (8), and Italy(10). Thus we need not depend on the non-biased WHO to establish how well or poorly we are performing in this area. Even in the pro-business WSJ rankings the US health-care system does not rate! That the nation which is without question the greatest industrial power in the world and which outspends all the others in health care winds up ranking in 15th place is not something we should be proud of.

It is noteworthy that we do rank very high in one related category. The US ranks near the very top (#2) in out of pocket expenses for health care services.

What about life expectancy?
In regard to life expectancy of our citizens we are not exceptional either. We rank 24th in average life expectancy (so called HALE values). These simple figures are difficult to argue with. An average person in Japan, Australia, France, Sweden, Spain, Italy Greece , Switzerland, Monaco, Andorra, San Marino, Canada, Netherlands, UK, Norway Belgium, Austria, Luxembourg, Iceland, Finland, Malta, Germany, and tiny, militarily threatened Israel, all live longer than we do in the US where the average life expectancy is 70.0 years. Why should the most powerful nation in the world, a nation with the largest economy, and the source of so many medical innovations rank so low? Why are we not at the top--near France and Switzerland at least? Perhaps the reason is that many of these longer-lived nations have better health care systems and one might attribute such factors as quality of health care, and out of pocket expenses as a controlling factor for this poor showing. Note that these figures are derived from the WHO for the year 1999 to 2000. But since that time, more recent figures suggest we have slipped a little lower down on the scale.

What about education?
USA Today, December 7, 2010 reports :
In education as in health, the US is trailing other nations in performance and outcome -- yet we outspend them mightily. While we spend more per student than most other nations in the Program for International Student Assessment (PISA) (except for rich and tiny which Luxembourg spends a bit more) our results are only “average”. PISA’s high-scorers include South Korea, Finland, Singapore, Hong Kong and Shanghai in China, and Canada. Our system for schools is based on local property taxes means that more affluent communities can spend more and poorer communities less. The most productive and successful nations in this area are able to target spending on the most challenged students and schools. We do not do this. “United States students are continuing to trail behind their peers in a pack of higher performing nations, according to results from a key international assessment. Scores from the 2009 Program for International Student Assessment to be released Tuesday show 15-year-old students in the U.S. performing about average in reading and science, and below average in math. Out of 34 countries, the U.S. ranked 14th in reading, 17th in science and 25th in math. Those scores are all higher than those from 2003 and 2006, but far behind the highest scoring countries, including South Korea, Finland and Singapore, Hong Kong and Shanghai in China and Canada.”

But where we are undisputed leaders is in military expenditures. Today we spend more on our military than all the other nations in the world. Do you get that? Pile up the defense expenditures of all the nations in one column, China is the largest at about 60 billion dollars (1/10 of US spending), France, UK, Germany, Sweden, Italy, Saudia Arabia, etc., etc. add all the nations on top. The total comes to a very big number—about 680-690 billion dollars world-wide. Yes, we all spend too much to kill each other. But if we were to align that column with another, a column that represents USA military expenditures, the second column would equal the first. Yes, the two columns would be of equal height since we all by our selves spend just a bit more than all the other nations combined. China spends only one-tenth of what we spend and Russia, spends a fraction of what China spends. Iran—our worst enemy—its expenditures are miniscule in comparison to ours.

One question to ask here is why? Who are we gearing up to fight? We now spend ten times more than China, our only putative competitor. Russia spends less than China and is anyway our ally. Why do we spend so much? Ask you congressman to explain that. Since almost every time the Pentagon asks for money they agree to it plus an excess. Why do we need such extravagance? It is not “defence”. Think about it.

Today July 9, 2011, our local newspaper ran a piece entitled: “Military budget Grows” (Newsday 7-09-11) by Donna Cassata, in which the author states that “Money for the Pentagon and the nation’s wars in Iraq and Afghanistan is proving largely immune to budget cutting that’s slamming other government agencies…” The author reports that on a 336-87 vote Friday, the Republican controlled House supported a nearly 650 billion military spending bill that boosts the Defense Department budget by 17 billion dollars. The bipartisan vote came amid demands by the Republicans to slash spending in an attempt to cut the deficit. After the vote, Rep Barney Frank (D Mass) scoffed at the suggestion that “everything is on the table” in the budget negotiations between the White House and congressional leaders. This vote proves that the “military budget is not on the table” said Frank, “but the military is there at the table---eating everybody else’s lunch.’

What about our political system? We are a Republic governed by an indirectly elected president (remember the college of electors), a directly elected House of Representatives and a very much less representative—Senate. We also have a much-touted system of “checks and balances”. In the last several years, gridlock in Congress has illustrated the weaknesses of our system.

In modern times Presidents have tend to increase their power. Some have even supported their expansion of power using the questionable interpretations of historic documents, coining the term “unitary presidentialism.” Some have taken to using “signing statements” which restrict or modify the way they will implement legislation duly passed by the House and Senate.

During the recent downgrade of our credit system from AAA to AA+ , Fareed Zakaria, of Time Magazine has noted a revealing face: that the only states with AAA ratings are those with parliamentary systems. Those with presidential systems of government such as ours, do not have AAA ratings. (And now we don’t have it either). Zakaria questioned why that was the case. Were presidential systems less stable?

Parlimentary vs Presidential Systems
Most modern democratic nations in the western world have parliamentary systems of government. Germany, France, UK, Spain, Italy, Australia, Canada, New Zealand, Israel, Belgium, Denmark, Sweden, Finland, Portugal, Greece, etc. etc. are all parliamentary systems Some like the UK, Sweden, Belgium, Spain, and others have titular monarchies. In those latter systems a monarch sits as a national figure-head, but all political power resides in the parliament and head of state, and the monarch in these systems have little or no political power. In parliamentary systems the people directly elect representatives to the parliament within a one-person-one-vote system. When the parliament meets these elected members caucus to vote for a leader, generally called the “prime minister” (PM) (or sometimes “the president”) who generally represents the majority party elected at that time. Thus the people’s voices were heard. The PM presides over the government as long as he or she can maintain a majority in parliament. The PM is both the head of state, and the head of a majority in parliament, as well as the leader of his or her party. Political scientists and theorists have suggested that in such system there is little conflict between the head of state (PM) and the parliament or representative body, since the former is actually chosen by the latter and derives its legitimacy from the latter.

On the other hand, in our presidential system, the President and the Congress are often in conflict, since they each can claim a mandate from the people. At the present time, President Obama, a Democrat who was elected in 2008, serves with a House of Representatives (elected in 2010) and now dominated by Republicans. In addition, the sharply divided Senate (some of whom were elected in 2010) is sharply divided with nearly half the seats Republican and half Democrat. The Democrats have held onto a single a one-vote majority in the last election. On top of that, since the Senate has generated its own rules of order (not indicated in the Constitution) and now insists on a sixty-vote majority for nearly all significant legislation (50% plus one was not good enough for them), in the present Senate, it is nearly impossible for the President’s party to muster the necessary (60) votes to pass significant legislation. (Keep in mind, this is just another way the Senate acts to insulate itself from the wishes of the citizens who elected them). Besides the fact that there is no one-person-one-vote rule to elect Senators, since some Senators in small states represent only thirty or forty thousand citizens, while a Senator in Texas, New York or California will represent perhaps ten times that many. For example, the two Senators from California represent 36 million citizens, or each Senator represents 18 million citizens, while the two Senators from Vermont (600,000 population) represent only 300,000 each. A Senate vote in vote California represent sixty times the number of people represented in the Vermont Senator’s vote. But both the California and Vermont Senators can each cast one vote in the Senate for or against legislation. These votes are not representative of the wishes of the total citizenry of the USA in any democratic way. Such a system in the upper house tends to award greater political power in the Senate to low density, under-populated states. Combined with the present Senate supermajority rules, and its inherent unrepresentative election system, a small, well-funded minority can control major legislation for the entire 325 million US citizens. That is not how a democracy is supposed to work. We expect that in a democracy…the majority should rule! But not in the exceptional USA. What does this do? These policies weaken our democracy. They discourage and dilute political activism, causing citizenry to feel that they have little or no impact in their once every four year vote for a president. Such behavior permits and encourages political power to move toward the elites who can pay to get the attention of Senators and Congress members.

To be continued

But do you get the picture?