Breaking news: BP corporate subhumans continue to make jackasses of themselves in the Gulf.  Shocking, I know . . .

I just learned that not only is BP using controlled burns to contain the oil in the Gulf, but they are burning endangered sea turtles in the process.  Word is that BP is using fire-resistant booms to enclose a certain quantity of oil and then setting the enclosure on fire. 

I dare say that this is BP jackassery at it's finest.  It's hard to know where to start, but I'm gonna take a stab at it anyway.  First of all, these controlled burns are obviously releasing toxins into the atmosphere.  According to one news source, burning oil releases "toxic gases such as sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides and carbon monoxide; polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, or PAHs, which result from the incomplete burning of carbon-containing materials such as oil; and volatile organic compounds such as benzene toluene, ethylbenzene and xylene."  It has also been reported that these controlled burns have resulted in huge clouds of black smoke, which carry the toxins on the wind to parts unknown. 

I don't know about you, but I certainly don't want to breathe in any of that crap.  I'm sure that the thousands of clean-up workers in the Gulf would agree with me.

Then there are the turtles.  According to Credo, members of the endangered Kemp's Ridley turtle species have been burned alive during these controlled burns.  Under the Endangered Species Act, each dead turtle can saddle BP with prison time and up to $25,000 in civil penalties. 

Of course, it's also just plain wrong to view turtlecide as an acceptable by-product of a corporate mentality which dictates that the cheapest, most expedient solution is the best, even if it results in toxic fumes and death by fire to innocent wildlife that happen to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. 

What really kills me is that BP has recently been presented with better options than burning the oil, namely Ozonix technology and Kevin Costner's sea vacuums.  Why burn oil when you can separate it from seawater and presumably still sell it?  Jackassery, my friends.  Pure and unadulterated jackassery.

Apparently there are more innovative techniques for cleaning up the Gulf than I was aware of.  Turns out that the latest proposed solution was developed to help the natural gas industry with a bad "fracing" situation.  Hallelujah for bad fracs!!  (Any BSG fans out there?  Anyone?) 

I flipped on CNN last Saturday to find Drew Bledsoe hawking a new technique for cleansing seawater called "Ozonix technology" on behalf of Ecosphere Technologies, Inc.  You can check out the CNN interview here.  Turns out that Bledsoe and his pal Troy Aikman are both investors in Ecosphere Energy Services, LLC, a majority owned subsidiary of Ecosphere Technologies. 

Here's how Ozonix technology is supposed to work in a deep water cleanup operation like the Gulf.  According to a pamphlet posted on Ecosphere's website, an Ozonix cavitational reactor uses highly ozonated water (water with ozone gas diffused into it) and a two step cavitation process to generate millions of nano-bubbles (for those of you who, like me, aren't scientists or engineers, cavitation is "the sudden formation and collapse of low-pressure bubbles in liquids by means of mechanical forces, such as those resulting from rotation of a marine propeller.").

These nano-bubbles are released deep beneath the waves to create a "buoyancy blanket," i.e. a column of bubbles that bear oil-contaminated water to the surface, where a second Ozonix machine separates the mixture into highly oxygenated water on the one hand and concentrated oil on the other. 

More specifically, the second Ozonix reactor decontaminates seawater by means of an oxidation process. According to an informational video on Ecosphere's website, after contaminated water enters the reactor, ozonated water decomposes organic and inorganic contaminants.  The nano-bubbles implode, a process that raises the water temperature several hundred degrees in a process known as sonoluminescence.  A secondary oxidation process occurs with the help of submerged electrodes, whereby hydrogen and oxygen are separated from the water and bond together to form hydroxl radicals, which oxidize "leftover organics."  As the water continues its journey through the Ozonix reactor, the electrodes decompose contaminants and kill any remaining microorganisms.  At this point, Ecosphere claims that the water is safe to use and recycle. 

This process has been endorsed by iconic oceanographer and environmentalist Jean-Michel Cousteau to aid the Gulf clean-up effort.  Major selling points of this technology include the following: 1. the process does not rely on chemical dispersants that may harm the environment; and 2. each machine operating on the surface purports to clean approximately one million gallons of water a day.  According to Bledsoe, Ecosphere Technologies is ready to unleash 26 of these bad boys in the Gulf as soon as BP gives them the green light. 

Moreover, these cavitational reactors have already been successfully marketed to the natural gas industry.  According to Ecosphere, over the last 18 months or so, Ozonix technology has been purchased and successfully utilized by natural gas companies to treat contaminated "flowback" water at 150 different sites.  By way of explanation, in order to recover natural gas deep below the Earth's surface, water is pumped into the ground to release natural gas trapped in shale formations, a process called "hydraulic fracing."  Good thing the natural gas industry had this fracing problem and the Ozonix folks figured out how to turn a bad frac into a good one! 

It would seem that Ozonix technology has a leg up on Costner's sea vacuums.  In the first place, Ecosphere has a plan to actually bring the oil to the surface.  We've all read about the huge plumes of oil that continue to spread beneath the waves.   In the second place, if the estimates of both Ocean Therapy Solutions and Ecosphere are to be believed, Ozonix can clean twice as much water per day as the sea vac (a million gallons compared to 500,000 for Costner's largest sea vac model).  Moreover, according to Charles Vinick, Chairman of Ecosphere Technologies, the cleansed water is so highly oxygenated that it can help replenish the environment. 

Even so, given the immense scope of the environmental disaster, I don't think this is an "either/or" situation.  An "all hands on deck" approach is still warranted.  There's enough water in need of degreasing down there to keep the sea vacs and the cavitational reactors busy for some time.

Yes, the new technology is exciting.  Just as important is the fact that in this case, the "free market" is functioning exactly as it should.  The oil companies are run by a bunch of damned sloppy, profit-obsessed, short-sighted nimrods, and as a result these types of environmental disasters occur.  Because to date there really hasn't been a terribly effective option for cleaning up oil spills, an enormous opportunity exists to develop effective new cleanup methods, save the day and reap a tidy profit in the process. 

By no means am I endorsing the profit motive as a worthy end in and of itself - that's how we got into this mess in the first place.  But I am rather pleased to see the "market" produce some innovative solutions to clean up after BP's negligence.  Now, let's all hope that someone takes this market principle one step further and presents an immediate, comprehensive energy solution that does not involve fossil fuels or any other non-renewable sources! 

I just had to weigh in on the madness, the absolute jackassery that's been unfolding in the Gulf.

The AP reported today that since the Deepwater Horizon exploded on April 20, up to two million barrels of oil per day may have been leaking into the Gulf before BP managed to cap the busted well on June 3 and start capturing some of the rogue oil.  In other words, BP has done its very best to foul our environment on an unprecedented scale.  Given BP's rather callous response to the environmental cataclysm they've unleashed in the Gulf, I'm convinced that they, along with their metanat corporate cronies, are secretly constructing a lunar colony on the dark side of the moon, to be completed right around the time they finish rendering this planet unfit for human habitation.  Otherwise, the studied indifference of BP CEO Tony Hayward and his mates to this disaster is hard to fathom. 

Assuming that the planned relief wells work and the massive oilgasm in the Gulf eventually ceases, we still need to clean up this huge mess.  Problem is, our current clean-up techniques are not terribly effective.  We've all seen the pictures of determined folks in Gulf states erecting sand berms, bagging tar balls that wash up on the beaches, using shop vac-like devices to vacuum up oily water, etc.  While I commend these people for getting out there and doing the best they can, these measures are just not going to get the job done. To give you an example, the cleanup effort after the Exxon Valdez dumped over 10 million gallons of oil into Prince William Sound utilized the same methods, cost 2 billion dollars and recovered an estimated eight percent of the oil. 

Enter Kevin Costner's sea vacuum.  Around May 20, various sources reported that Costner and his company, Ocean Therapy Solutions, had approached BP with these devices.  Basically the sea vacuum is a giant centrifuge that takes in contaminated water, spins it at speeds generating up to 600 times the force of gravity and spits out 99% pure water on one end and usable oil on the other.  According to Ocean Therapy, each sea vac is capable of cleaning 210,000 gallons of water a day. 

Since this story broke almost three weeks ago, there's been virtually no new word on where things stood between BP and Ocean Therapy until a couple of days ago when Ocean Therapy finally started posting updates on its website.  Two weeks ago, I went to Ocean Therapy's website and registered to receive more information on the company.  To date, I've received nothing.  Not even an email "thanking me for my interest in the company."

Today the LA Times is reporting that the machines still haven't been deployed.  According to Costner, the "deployment of the 2½-ton machines had been delayed by rigorous testing requirements of BP and federal regulatory agencies, as well as engineering challenges posed by leaked oil that had degraded over time into gooey masses with the consistency of peanut butter." 

Regulatory approval?  You're kidding me, right?  Hey, nobody seemed all that concerned about strict compliance with federal regulations when the Deepwater Horizon was being commissioned.  Moreover, as a matter of simple common sense, testing this machine and reviewing its performance for regulatory compliance could have been done in a day, especially given the magnitude of this disaster and the fact that the damn thing is just not that complicated.  "Okay, it spins really fast and separates oil from water, check.   No environmentally harmful waste product - water is 99% pure and oil is captured, check.  Okay people, we're done here.  File the paperwork and get the damn machines on the water!!  Oh, we need to wait two months for approval?  Get me the President on the line!!" 

Thankfully, we finally appear to be past the regulatory and testing phase.  So, why aren't we seeing clips of these machines on the news, heroically cleansing millions of gallons of seawater a day, interspersed with pictures of Costner himself, circa Waterworld?  Apparently, it's because BP has yet to pony up the cash for the sea vacuums.  The LA Times reports that although BP has issued a letter of intent to purchase 32 of Costner's sea vacs this week, Ocean Therapy has yet to be paid.  

The most expensive sea vacuum is reported to go for $500,000.  Assuming that all of the sea vac models are similarly priced, it would cost BP 16 million for the 32 machines that it intends to buy.  I would think that Mr. Hayward could probably find that kind of money under the seat cushions of his car.

But wait, it gets better.  Last Wednesday, Costner showed up on Capital Hill.  Among other things, he testified that his centrifuge cleaning technology has been around for twelve years, and that the oil industry and the government have been aware of both the technology and the fact that it works for a long time.  According to Costner, there's been no interest until now because the sea vacuums were "too expensive."

There it is folks.  Profits before environmental responsibility.

This is exactly the kind of jackassery that we need to do away with.   In a rational world, Exxon, Shell, BP and every other major oil company on the planet would have invested in this technology as soon as it became available after Valdez.  If they had, maybe more than eight percent of the Valdez spill would've been cleaned up, and the sea vacuums could have been employed in the Gulf on April 21, the day after the Deepwater explosion.  Moreover, BP should be commissioning hundreds of these machines, not a mere 32.

The bottom line is that instead of doing the right thing, companies like BP and Exxon would rather save money by cutting corners on safety measures, investing in cheap clean-up measures like skimmers, and fighting claims in court.  Environmental damage is only to be considered insofar as it affects profits. 

This mindset is not only shortsighted and unsustainable, it's just plain dangerous. 

UPDATE - June 16, 2010: ABC News reports today that BP has finally agreed to purchase 32 of Costner's sea vacuums.  BP COO Doug Suttles released a statement saying "We were confident the technology would work but we needed to test it at the extremes. We've done that and are excited by the results." 

Great news!  Now let's see how long it takes BP and Ocean Therapy Solutions to get these machines out into the Gulf.

As most of you are aware, on Monday night Obama became the first sitting president to make an appearance on "The Late Show with David Letterman."  It has since been suggested to me that Obama should NOT do talk shows, late night tv, etc., as it is undignified and otherwise inappropriate for a president to appear in such a casual forum.  Furthermore, the argument goes, it's wrong to pander to the "lowest common denominator" (or "LCD") i.e. those that don't take the necessary measures to keep themselves informed.

I've given this issue some thought, and I completely disagree.  In fact, I think we should be doing everything we can to reach out to the LCD before they take us all down with them.

Why is the uninformed LCD class so dangerous?  Just look at the numbers on health care.  A Gallup poll dated September 8, 2009 indicates that 72 percent of Republicans want their elected representative in Congress to vote against health care reform and concludes that overall, more Americans are opposed to health care reform (39%) than for it (37%).

Similarly, an August NBC/WSJ telephone survey reveals that while an overwhelming majority of Americans believe that some measure of health care reform is necessary, at the beginning of the survey, more Americans (42%) than not (36%) felt that Obama's plan for health care reform was a bad idea.  A few questions later, the interviewer sets forth Obama's plan in more detail - explaining, for example, that the plan requires insurance companies to cover people with pre-existing conditions - and then asks the question again.  The second time around, we see a dramatic shift in the numbers - 53% in favor of Obama's plan and 43% opposed. 

As I've previously stated, a health care bill that provides consumer protections and includes a non-mandatory, self-sustaining public option is a no-brainer.  So, how is it that so many Americans are opposed to it, even after the basics of the plan are laid out for them?  Who makes up this 43%?   While I'm sure there are some thinking Americans out there who oppose reform on reasoned, logical grounds, especially given the fact that the matter is largely in the hands of a bunch of self-interested political hacks in D.C., I'm guessing that lots of other people just don't understand that health care reform is generally in their best interests. 

I'm also guessing that the LCD class is largely responsible for placing Dubya in the White House for two terms (or at least for rendering these elections close enough to steal) despite the fact that the Bush administration did absolutely nothing for the vast majority of Americans.   As Thomas Frank notes, conservatives have been very successful in winning over working class Americans with a feigned interest in social concerns like Christian fundamentalism, gun rights, etc. while simultaneously screwing these same people over with their fiscal policies. 

And now the LCD ranks are swelling with people who believe the nonsensical propaganda of the health insurance lobby about the proposed health care plan.  According to the August NBC-WSJ poll quoted above, a significant number of Americans believe that the following scenarios will actually come to pass:

- 55% of Americans believe that health care reform will give coverage to illegal immigrants;

- 54% believe that health care reform will lead to a government takeover of the health care system;

- 50% believe that taxpayer dollars will be used to fund abortions; and

- 45% believe that "death panels" will make decisions about when to stop providing medical care to the elderly.  

What could possibly be the cause of such ignorance among our compatriots?  I refuse to believe that these people are idiots who are incapable of grasping the finer points of health care reform.  Instead, I think that most of us are too busy trying to keep our heads above water to spend the necessary time ferreting out the truth amid all the misinformation out there. 

Moreover, when busy people turn on the tube after a hard day's work, many of them are not going to seek out more bad news on the cable news channels.  Instead, it's all about entertainment, escapism.  Late night television.  Sitcoms.  Sports.  Fox News.  Nothing serious . . .

Since the LCD won't go in search of the truth, we need to bring the truth to the LCD.  From this perspective, Obama's appearance on Letterman Monday night looks like genius.  In fact, I think that in order to ensure that he gets his message out to the LCD, he ought to appear on the following programs regularly:

1. Rush Limbaugh/Glenn Beck/Bill O'Reilly/Lou Dobbs.  The surest and most direct way to reach LCD nation.  Plus, Obama has already faced down O'Reilly, and I'd love to see Dobbs insist to Obama's face that the proposed health care reform bill WILL provide coverage to illegal immigrants.  For all his bluster, I don't think Dobbs has the stones. 

2. Any reality talent show - American Idol, Dancing with the Stars, etc.  His best bet is to be a guest judge.  Brother can't dance, and I'm pretty sure he can't sing worth a damn either.  

3. The View.  Let's be sure to seat him right next to Elizabeth Hasselback when she returns from maternity leave . . . .

4.  Grey's Anatomy: Here's the plot.  Obama experiences significant head trauma in a horrible car accident and lands in the GA emergency room.  He eventually comes to and seems fine, but all he can talk about is his plan for health care reform.  The cast members can drop in and out and drop random remarks about how badly the current system sucks . . . 

5.  Desperate Housewives: Obama approaches one of the housewives and asks if they'd like to hear about the details of his health care plan.  Mistaking this line for a come-on, the Housewife du jour takes Obama home (in the middle of the afternoon, of course) changes into something more comfortable and settles down on the couch to hear Obama's pitch.  Eventually she'll get frustrated cause he won't do anything but blather on about health care reform. 

6.  Any of the following: NFL game (didn't he give a short speech at halftime last year); important NASCAR event; MLB playoff game.  Maybe Obama should film a health care PSA that looks like a beer commercial and run that during the games.  "Hi.  Would YOU like to be less filling and taste great?  Check out my healthcare plan . . . "

7. Any music awards show - the VMAs, CMAs, etc.  Got to be some LCD cats watching those.  If nothing else, Kanye will be there, and lord knows that somebody needs to talk some sense to that guy!! 

Hey man!! Long time no see!!  How's the peanut farm?  

So . . . just got wind of your remarks at a town hall the other night.  Some of the opposition to Obama and his proposed reforms is racially motivated?  Really?  We had no idea - thanks for letting us know.  While we're on the subject, please allow me to thank you for building the lunatic fringe a much bigger platform to hurl their bullshit from.  Yeah.  Thanks for that too, Jim.

I understand that there are two schools of thought here.  On the one hand, it's great to bring these things to light, renounce them publicly.  And there certainly has been quite a bit going on lately.  I can't say I necessarily disagree with Maureen Dowd when she opines that Joe Wilson, he of "Sons of the Confederacy" fame, might as well have called Obama "boy" when accusing him of being a liar this week.   Like you, I was watching when Wilson's mouth betrayed his brain on national television, and I was gratified by the collective groan of disgust that could be heard from end to end of this country.  The House voted to censure him too. Completely appropriate, I'd say.

On the other hand, the same folks that opposed health care reform in the 90s sure gave the Clintons a hard time too - called them all sorts of nasty names, etc.  While I'm sure there are some genuine feelings of racial animosity against our President down in Dixie and elsewhere, I'm also certain that there are some shrewd people who are using Obama's race as a tool to stir things up.

But Jim . . . c'mon, buddy.  Did you really think that by calling these racists out, they'd rethink their position?  "Gee, Jimmy Carter thinks we're racists.  I feel really bad about this."  Sheepish looks all around. "Guess we'd better cut that shit out, eh?"

Not a chance.  Instead, our radical friends are using your conveniently timed comments to distract the nation from the real issue at hand.  Rush Limbaugh encouraged his listeners to have an "open conversation about race" on Tuesday.  The cable news cycle this evening was dominated by a discussion of your remarks and the role of race in politics generally.  Chris Matthews reported tonight that White House press secretary Robert Gibbs answered 18 questions today dealing with race. 

Don't get me wrong, Jim.  I agree that racism is still a serious problem in this country.  Just ask Tashawnea Hill, an Army reservist who, earlier this month, was mercilessly beaten by a white thug yelling racial epithets outside of a Cracker Barrel in Georgia while her 7 year old daughter looked on in shock and disbelief.  And it's no secret that the number of hate groups in the U.S. has increased dramatically since 2000. 

But now we're talking about race instead of health care.  Who does that benefit, I wonder?  Certainly not those of us who would like to see meaningful health care reform in our lifetimes. 

To be fair, I suppose your remarks could inspire rational, reasonable people in this country to rise up and stand together against the reckless hate that has infected our political discourse lately.  Melissa Harris-Lacewell, professor of African American studies at Princeton University and a leading commentator on race relations in the U.S., "congratulated Mr Carter, saying he had once again "demonstrated the power of interracial solidarity against racism", and had "carefully, powerfully, and accurately pointed out that racism is currently motivating some Americans' opposition to President Obama". 

All very positive stuff.  Meanwhile, we're still being distracted from health care reform by the race issue. 

The problem here is that I think most of us are already aware of people out on the fringes of society who will never approve of Obama because of his race.  More specifically, racism, i.e. "a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race" is wholly irrational - there is no evidence whatsoever to support this view.  People who hold tightly to racist views are not likely to be swayed by rational arguments.  I'm not sure I've ever heard of a situation where a racist was persuaded away from their irrational beliefs by the reasoning of another. 

In my experience, the best way to counter racism is to put people in different groups together and let them see for themselves that all people are fundamentally the same, regardless of race or color, and that, given the same chance, we're all equally capable.  In recent years, our society has become more integrated, and I think there is no better barometer of our increased tolerance for each other than the very fact of Obama's election.  Certainly he wasn't elected because he's black - he was elected because American voters felt that he was best suited for the job. 

Let me sum things up here, Jim.  Racists are crazy and not likely to be coaxed away from their irrational views, even if you, me and everybody else with a heart and a brain speaks out against them.  As a former President, your voice carries a long way in these parts.  While I do think it's important to speak out against racism, I'd also appreciate it if you'd use that bullhorn of yours a little more carefully in the future. 

Let's not allow the issue of race, which didn't prevent Obama's election in the first place, distract us from other issues of equal importance, like health care reform. 

Sincerely,

TD

Health care reform is a simple matter of common sense, nothing more.  Given the fact that our health care system is undeniably broken, and given the plan outlined by President Obama in his speech on Wednesday night, any American that still opposes health care reform is either in bed with private health insurance companies, simply not paying attention, confused by all the misleading rhetoric out there, or just a plain old garden variety idiot. 

Joe Wilson's outburst during Obama's speech to a joint session of Congress this week capped a long summer of "debate" over health care reform during which a small but determined group of Americans took great pains to demonstrate to the rest of the world just how willfully obtuse they can be.  Admittedly, there is a lot of confusing rhetoric out there - terms like "death panels," "socialized health care" and "rationing" have become part of our collective lexicon, and people have been bandying these terms about with little understanding of what they mean, or even if they are applicable to the proposed reforms.  In addition, there are rumors that health care reform will involve financing abortions and care for illegal immigrants with taxpayer funds.  Notably, Obama took care to specifically refute both of these rumors during his speech to Congress this week. In fact, the plan Obama currently supports is self-sustaining - in his own words, the White House will only endorse a bill that pays for itself, i.e. one that does not increase the federal deficit by so much as a dime.  Let's hope that this remains the case.

In the meantime, the lunatic fringe will continue to try to confuse and confound the American people with outrageous, misleading "facts" and arguments that in most cases have nothing to do with reality, and everything to do with preserving the status quo.  Just so we're clear, the status quo that a tiny minority of Americans are fighting so hard to preserve is a state of affairs where private insurance companies charge as much as possible for health care coverage, while taking every opportunity possible to deny coverage. 

The goal of private health insurers is to maximize profits, regardless of what happens to the consumer.  Even if it means that sick people will die. And make no mistake about it - without health insurance, people do die.  In fact, a recent Treasury Department study notes that the mortality rate for a person without health insurance is 25 times that of a similarly situated person with insurance. 

Let's discuss the status quo in more detail.  The National Coalition on Health Care issued a report in July 2009 which estimates that over the last decade, employer sponsored health care premiums increased by 119% and that employees' share of these costs has risen at a corresponding rate.  According to this report, this increase is 4 times the rate of inflation and wage increases during the same period. 

Not surprisingly, this precipitous rise in health care costs has made it much more difficult for businesses to provide coverage to employees and for employees to afford the coverage themselves. The July 2009 NCHC report includes projections from the Congressional Budget Office indicating that, absent health care reform, the cost of health insurance could increase 100% by 2018, raising the cost for a family of 4 to a whopping $25,000 a year. 

As a predictable result, there are a growing number of business interests who can no longer afford to provide their employees with health insurance, and millions of people in the U.S. who simply cannot afford it, even when times are good.  The Treasury Department study above found that from 1997 to 2006, 48% of "non-elderly" Americans (under 65 years of age) went at least one month without health insurance.  Some other notable findings for non-elderly Americans cited in this study indicate that between 1997 and 2006:

 - 41% of Americans went without health insurance for at least six months;

- 57% of Americans under 21 weren't insured at some point during the this period;

 - 53% of Americans in rural areas go without insurance at some point; and

 - 45% of Americans whose household income averaged between $50,000 and $100,000 (i.e. people firmly in the middle class) were without health care at some point. 

The report goes on to conclude that because the period between 1997 and 2006 was "generally characterized by economic growth and job creation, and that the most recent estimates indicate a positive trend in the number of uninsured Americans, extrapolating our findings into the next decade would likely underestimate the number of Americans who will go without health care insurance absent health care reform." 

This is where the public option comes in.  In the words of former Secretary of Labor Robert Reich, a nationally based public health care option will have the leverage necessary to negotiate lower prices from health care providers and provide consumers with a more reasonably priced option that is not available on the existing market.  If you want to switch to the public option, you sign up and start paying premiums to the government instead of a private insurance company.  If you don't like the coverage under the public plan, feel free to stroll back across the street and reconnect with the private insurance companies. 

That's the public option in a nutshell - it's not a government takeover and it does not interfere with the "free market."  It simply provides what in theory ought to be a more affordable option. 

Simply put, here's the proposed deal.  If you like your current plan, do nothing.  Of course, your coverage may improve as a result of the proposed reforms, but I think we can all learn to live with that.  For example, part of the White House proposal is a provision that prohibits insurance companies from dropping your coverage for frivolous reasons, or because of a preexisting condition. 

On the other hand, if you are concerned about the rising cost of health care, your best bet is to get behind the public option. In either case, what's not to like?  

If you're still reading, do your fellow citizens a favor.  The next time you hear an outrageous claim about health care reform, ask yourself two questions.  First, take the necessary time to consider whether the claim is accurate. Chances are that it's not.

Second and perhaps more importantly, ask yourself what the person/organization making the claim stands to gain if health care reform is defeated?  The answer to this question is easy - preservation of the status quo, which means the freedom for private insurance companies to keep making enormous profits while more and more Americans are denied access to health care. 

The American people deserve health care that is comprehensive, reliable and affordable.  Let's all use our common sense and urge our elected representatives to improve the status quo now. 

Fellow Systocrats:

The following article was forwarded to TSP by the Mesothelioma Cancer Center. 

On February 17, 2009, The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act was signed into law by President Obama. The new law includes extensions of the Energy Efficiency Tax Incentives first enacted in 2005 as well as some new tax credits for people building or remodeling their homes using eco-friendly or “green” materials.

Existing homes are eligible for a series of efficiency measures that pertain to the home shell (insulation, windows, sealing) worth 30% of the installed cost (materials only, labor is not included in the credit basis). Homeowners can get tax credits for:

• Replacement windows and skylights, and exterior doors which are equal to or below a 0.30 U factor and a Solar Heat Gain Coefficient (SHGC) of 0.30. Storm windows that meet the IECC in combination with their paired external window are eligible (taking into account the applicable climate zone). Storm doors paired with U-factor rated wood doors are eligible provided they do not exceed the default U-factor requirement for the combination. See the 2009 IECC for details.

• Window films certified by the manufacturer that the product meets the requirements of a "qualifying insulation system."

• Sealing cracks in the building shell and ducts to reduce infiltration and heat loss - these should be sealed so as to be consistent with the 2009 IECC.

• Pigmented metal roofs or an asphalt roof with cooling granules must meet Energy Star requirements.

• Added insulation to walls, ceilings, or other parts of the building envelope that meet the specifications found in the 2009 IECC and supplemental materials.

In some cases, taking these measures will not only help you save money, but your health may benefit as well. For example, most homes built before 1980 contain asbestos. Asbestos was used widely throughout the 20th century for a number of things, but it was mainly used for insulation due to its fire-resistant qualities. Unfortunately, exposure to asbestos is the only known cause of a rare and aggressive type of cancer known as mesothelioma. This type of cancer typically forms in the lining of the lungs and is very difficult to treat effectively. This is because mesothelioma symptoms don’t usually show up until about 15 to 25 years after exposure.

Most people are unaware of the fact that eco-friendly products can cut energy costs by 25 to 35% per year. For example, instead of using expensive and mal-treated wood, interior walls can be made from steel and concrete, avoiding many of the problems associated with asbestos and other insulation methods.  In addition, there are a number of alternative types of insulation that can be used that are more eco-friendly than asbestos and don’t pose any danger to your health.

The United States Department of Energy has a list of insulation “Energy Savers” you can use when making plans to remodel your home.

This is America, where we all enjoy a constitutionally protected right to free speech, even when we choose to say absurd things.  As a result, we enjoy a rather unusual diversity of views in this country, some of them interesting, some silly and some downright disturbing. 

For those of you that are interested in learning more about the "Tea Parties" that took place across the country today, I offer "Tea Bagging for Dummies," TSP's common sense analysis of these protests. 

Assuming for the sake of argument that these parties were at least partially authentic "grass roots" events and not one hundred percent "astroturf" i.e manufactured protests by monied, right wing ideologues, Fox News, etc., here are some of the more down-to-earth reasons for the "tea-bagging" that occurred today:

 1. Apparently, some folks feel that they are "Taxed Enough Already" or "Born Free - Taxed to Death," and came out to protest what they feel are excessive taxes now being levied by the federal government.  Of course, under Obama's budget, 95% percent of Americans (probably closer to 99% of the folks who turned out for today's festivities) will receive a tax cut.  Why would anyone receiving a tax cut protest against higher taxes?  Beats the frack out of me . . .

2. Excessive government spending/rising public debt: Some Americans are concerned that our federal debt is rising at an alarming rate and that this debt will be passed on to our children.  Excellent point!  Now, where were you folks when Dubya was busy doubling the federal debt from 5.7 trillion to 10.7 trillion, recklessly spending our tax dollars on an illegal war that funneled billions of dollars a month to corporations, who in turn provided substandard equipment, buildings and services both to our brave military men and women and to the Iraqi people?

The people who are opposed to federal stimulus spending fail to recognize that this spending is absolutely necessary to halt the death spiral our economy was caught in.  Job losses = decreased spending = more job losses = even less spending = even more job loss, etc.  Thanks to irresponsible practices in D.C. over the last few years, nearly every economist that's worth a damn agrees that we really have no alternative but to spend at this point.  And before you go there, tax cuts are simply NOT going to encourage the unemployed to stimulate the economy by spending money.  

3. Opposed to massive bailouts for financial institutions: Now this rationale I can understand.  For example, the way the AIG folks have brazenly distributed our tax dollars as exorbitant bonuses to many of the very people whose crappy management skills placed the company in dire straits in the first place is offensive to all Americans.

4. Too much pork included in the stimulus package: I can understand where people are coming from with this one as well.  At a time when our elected representatives in D.C. should have been on their best behavior, both parties instead chose to load up the stimulus bill with pet projects.  Shameful, and protest-worthy.

Nonetheless, we are talking about Congress, so the pork issue shouldn't come as any surprise.  Also, I still think the Iraq war constitutes the ultimate pork project.  Again, billions of tax dollars diverted to private corporations to "support" an illegal war.  Where were the protests against the Iraq "pork" over the past 8 years? 

Now, if these were the only arguments advanced at these tea parties, one might say that in a certain sense, they embodied what American politics are supposed to be all about - the right to assemble and speak your mind as you please. 

However, there was also a rather nasty undercurrent to these events, as evidenced by this video clip of CNN anchor Susan Roesgen interviewing some tea baggers in Illinois today.  These people exemplify the worst that American politics has to offer - angry and uninformed, they are clearly capable only of mindless repetition of inflammatory talking points. Of course, today's events also served as a platform for various extreme/exclusionary factions to make their voices heard.   Some of the more outlandish positions include the following claims:

- Obama is a Fascist

- Obama = Hitler

- "Illegal Aliens are Raping U.S. Taxpayers" (Uh, I thought you people didn't want to pay taxes . . . )

- "The American Taxpayers are the Jews for Obama's Ovens" (Whaaaat???  This is some truly crazy shite . . . )

- "When President Obama Bowed to the Saudi King, he mooned America" (Oh, right.  Good thing neither Bush 41 nor 43 were close with any Saudis - like say, Prince Bandar for example . . . )

- "Speak for yourself Obama - We are a Christian Nation."  (Now I wonder - if Jesus appeared before us today, would he advocate the exile or marginalization of non-Christian Americans?  For those of you who are wondering, the answer is HELL NO!!!! (pun intended))  

Want to see more pictures from the lunatic fringe?  Here's a link to a slideshow on HuffPo that features pictures of these signs.  

Of all the strange scenes I witnessed while catching up on my tea bagging news this evening, Governor Rick Perry, (R) Texas, easily takes the cake.  Perry has been busy raising his national profile lately by railing against the intrusion of the federal government on states' rights.  Today, he suggested to reporters in Austin that Texas may want to secede from the U.S.:

We've got a great union. There's absolutely no reason to dissolve it. But if Washington continues to thumb their nose at the American people, you know, who knows what might come out of that. But Texas is a very unique place, and we're a pretty independent lot to boot.

Now I know that Gov. Perry is reaching out to people out on the fringes of political discourse in his state and that his "secession" rhetoric is likely nothing to worry about. 

However, his "my way or the [secessionist] highway" attitude suggests that he does not really believe in the democratic principles that this country was founded upon.  Rather, his position appears to be that democracy is fine, so long as he gets his way.  When things don't go to suit him, look out, cause he may resort to remedies beyond the ballot box to set things to rights. 

The bottom line re: all of this is that today, the GOP invited some of the more outlandish and disturbing elements of right wing society down from their mountain strongholds to mingle with the rest of us heathens in the valley of mainstream political discourse. As the GOP struggles to stay relevant in the coming months, I wonder how many more tea bag-minded Americans will come out of the hills, drawn by the public expression of narrow, dim views on American democracy, like the ones expressed by Gov. Perry today.

The concept of a flying automobile has captivated us for decades.  When I was but a wee Systocrat, I remember thinking how cool it would be to own a flying car, like George Jetson's ride or the fusion-powered Delorean featured in Back to the Future.  Recently, an old friend reminded me of our childhood scheme, hatched from an ad in the back of a comic book, to build a hovercraft using a vacuum cleaner engine.  

A flying car.  So cool.  But not practical.  Right?  

In response to one of the comments posted to Systocrat No. 1, I recently found myself visiting the website of the "Natural Step" organization, which defines itself as a a "not-for-profit organization founded with the vision of creating a sustainable human society."  These folks are interested in helping other organizations integrate principles of sustainability into their operations - truly fascinating stuff.  I encourage all TSP readers to check out this website. 

One of the principles that the Natural Step folks use to achieve their goals is a principle that they refer to as "backcasting,"  or "starting first by defining a future point of success, and then taking the most effective steps to arrive at that point."  I'm quite taken with this idea - as the Natural Step folks quite rightly state, backcasting "is more effective than relying too much on forecasting, which tends to have the effect of presenting a more limited range of options, hence stifling creativity, and more important, it projects the problems of today into the future."

So, what is the ideal mode of transportation that we should backcast from?  Systocratic principles dictate that in making this determination, we should take the opportunity to revisit every aspect of our current transportation system, including the infrastructure necessary to support our current mode of travel and the environmental effects of the entire system.

Once we adopt this perspective, the flying car, properly conceived, emerges as a superior alternative to the land-based vehicle.  Here are just a few of the reasons why.

First of all, the modern automobile requires a continuous paved surface in order to function efficiently. 

Our local, state and federal governments spend billions of dollars annually for the construction and maintenance of roads for two-dimensional vehicles to travel on.  For example, the U.S. Federal Highway Administration ("FHWA") budget request for fiscal year 2009 totaled 40.1 billion dollars.  Up to 39.4 billion of the FHWA budget can be spent on the Federal Aid Highways Program, which provides financial assistance to states for the construction and improvement of the National Highway System, urban roads and bridges. 

In the Hovercar Age, little or no road maintenance is required. The ideal flying car of the future will be able to travel over virtually any surface or grade, rendering a continuous paved surface completely unnecessary and eliminating nearly all of the FHWA costs set forth above. 

The hovercar system also makes it easier and cheaper to add additional lanes of traffic.  Aside from the costs of displacing existing infrastructure in congested areas, which can be considerable, it will be vastly easier and cheaper to create additional "flyways" to ease the flow of traffic in highly congested areas when one is not required to pave the whole continuous distance.  Specifically, to create a flyway, each travel lane will have to be cleared, graded and marked, perhaps with markers set 3-4 feet above the road at regular intervals.  Flyways will not have to be paved, however, which will eliminate a significant portion of the costs in building new roads.

This is a big deal, people.  You might be astonished to learn that most interstate highways in the United States cost at least a million dollars per mile to build.   Depending on the terrain and/or the necessary displacement of currently existing infrastructure, the cost can be much, much more.  The cost of the Big Dig in Boston, the most expensive roadway ever constructed, has been estimated at a billion dollars a mile, and in mountainous regions like West Virginia, the cost of highway construction can be up to 15 million per mile. 

We should also talk about the superior aspects of the hovercar system with respect to winter weather.  In the Hovercar Age, there will no longer be a need to expend money and resources to clear snow and ice covered roads - the hovercar will just glide over them.  The Federal Highway Administration estimates that winter road maintenance accounts for about twenty percent of state DOT budgets and that over 2.3 billion dollars is spent by state and local agencies annually on "snow and ice control operations." 

The hovercar system also renders winter travel far safer than it is now.   The FHWA estimates that "Over 1,300 people are killed and more than 116,800 people are injured in vehicle crashes on snowy, slushy or icy pavement annually. Every year, nearly 900 people are killed and nearly 76,000 people are injured in vehicle crashes during snowfall or sleet."  The hovercar reduces or eliminates these concerns in all but the most severe weather conditions. 

Another advantage of the hovercar is that it will not depend on rubber/synthetic tires, which are a pain in the ass to dispose of in an environmentally sound manner. Although the hovercar may have a minimal set of tires that essentially act as landing gear or serve as emergency ambulation, by evolving into a hovercar system, we can make the bulky rubber tires of today a thing of the past.

Discarded tires pose an enormous environmental hazard.  The  "Scrap Tire Cleanup Guidebook," issued by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency in 2006, states that in 2003 there were over 275 million tires in stockpiles across the U.S. and that 295 million new scrap tires are generated each year.  With respect to the environmental and health hazards created by scrap tire stockpiles, the Cleanup Guidebook provides as follows:

Large scrap tire stockpiles present a threat to human health and the environment for several reasons.  They present an ideal breeding ground for mosquitoes, which can carry and transmit life-threatening diseases such as dengue fever, encephalitis, and the West Nile virus. 

Stockpiles may also catch fire as a result of lightning strikes, equipment malfunctions or arson.  Some experts no longer consider the question of "if" a stockpile will catch fire, but when it will burn . . . When ignited, scrap tire piles generate dense, black smoke containing partially combusted hydrocarbons.  The smoke plume can negatively impact residences and businesses in its path as well as the air quality in a broad area for a long time.  In addition to smoke, some tire fires produce large quantities of pyrolytic oils which contain hazardous compounds.  Under certain conditions, these oils can penetrate porous soils to contaminate groundwater that may be used as drinking water.  The oils can also reach surface water and cause substantial fish kills, as the oils quickly deplete dissolved oxygen levels.  Finally, the residuals (ash, wire and unburned rubber) from a tire fire often require special handling and disposal. 

These are just a few of the reasons why the hovercar sytem, properly considered, is a superior alternative to our current two-dimensional transportation system. 

So, how do we build the car of the future?  I'm no engineer, but here are a couple of thoughts re: how we can trace our steps backwards from the hovercar described above to what's possible today.  

Besides being able to fly, the hovercar of the future should feature a clean, cheap, renewable energy source. That means no bullshit petroleum/hybrid nonsense.  Right now, my best guess is that the car of the future runs on electricity provided by some clean, cheap, abundant source of power.  For example, hydrogen will fit the bill once a more efficient technique is perfected for extracting it from the environment. 

In order to maximize efficiency, the hovercar of the future will also have to be built from lighter composite materials, like the thermoplastic advanced composite materials currently being marketed by Fiberforge, an offshoot of the Rocky Mountain Institute formerly known as Hypercar, Inc.  Fiberforge claims that its composite material is 60% lighter and 600% stiffer than steel and 30% lighter than aluminum. 

In his excellent book 2002 "The Hidden Connections," Fritjof Capra discusses some of the benefits of using ultralight composite materials instead of steel in the construction of the Hypercar developed by the Rocky Mountain Institute:

Making a car ultralight generates a cascade of secondary effects, many of which result in further weight reductions.  A lighter car can function with a lighter suspension to support the reduced weight, a smaller engine to move it, smaller brakes to decelerate it, and less fuel to run the engine.  Moreover, certain components do not merely become smaller but are eliminated altogether.  Power steering and power brakes are not needed in ultralight vehicles . . . The new fiber composites are not only ultralight but also extraordinarily strong.  They can absorb five times more energy per pound than steel.  This is, of course, an important safety element . . . In addition to protecting their own occupants, lightweight cars are also less dangerous for the passengers in the vehicles they collide with.  

Believe it or not, there are a few "flying cars" in existence today.  First, there's the Skycar, billed as the world's first bio-fueled flying car, which elevates by means of a rear propeller and a flexible fabric wing.  There's also the Terrafugia Transition, a car with retractable wings which completed its first successful test flight on March 5, 2009. 

I think the flying car of today that most resembles my flying car of tomorrow, at least in theory, is the Moller M200G Volantor.  This car achieves its lift by virtue of 8 fans beneath the car, which in turn are each powered by a rotary engine.  The altitude of the car is limited to 10 feet, and it can fly over any surface - land, water or ice - with equal ease.   Apparently, the M200G is also built with composite materials and can run on an ethanol/water fuel mixture.  All steps in the right direction. 

So, you probably want to know why I'm not cruising around town in my tricked out M200G, right?  First of all, this thing is not really fuel efficient.  Eight separate motors - yikes!  Second, although Moller has reportedly not sold a single one of his "volantors," the projected price is around $100,000 per unit. 

Most importantly, Mr. Moller has a history of overstating the capabilities of his flying cars, which recently landed him in hot water with the SEC.  Although there are a few grainy videos on the Internet which purport to demonstrate the M200G in operation (attached to a crane . . . ), there are at least as many allegations of fraud circulating as well.  In sum, the M200G may be nothing more than a cool idea that has not yet been fully realized.

So . . . although we are not yet at the immediate threshold of the Hovercar Age, it seems to me that three-dimensional travel should be the ultimate goal of any proposed private transportation system, given the significantly reduced costs, increased safety and relatively minimal effect on our environment.  However, by no means do I claim a monopoly on "out-of-the-box" ideas in this regard.  The purpose of this post was to hopefully inspire the reader to think about other "ideal" solutions, using the principles of backcasting and systocratic thought. If you have a proposal for an "ideal" private transportation system, please send it to me at td@systocracy.com or post a comment below. 

I received an email the other day entitled "Read and Heed Thomas Jefferson," which features a number of quotes from our third president intended to demonstrate that Obama's stimulus plan and proposed budget are ill-advised and otherwise straight up "un-American."  Yeah.  Notably, these "Friends of Jefferson" did not utter a word of protest during the last eight years, despite the fact that ol' Mr. Jefferson, who envisioned America as a republic of small farmers, would have vehemently raised most or all of the points below in objection to the ill-advised policies of the Bush administration, which in 18th century terms most closely resemble those of Alexander Hamilton and his High Federalists.  

Where the hell is "Weezie" when you need her? She'd set things straight if she were here.  But I digress . . .  

Yes, any true fan of Jefferson's legacy would have circulated this email during the Bush years.  Yet, the entire text of this email does not appear on the Internet until November 14, 2008, a few days after Obama became president-elect of the U.S.

What's particularly disturbing about this email is that it appears to be inciting the American people to armed rebellion!   (Allow me to feign shock and disbelief for a moment . . . )  Gee, now I wonder . . .  who stands to lose under Obama's proposed plans to rescue our Bush-whacked economy?  Could it be the rich and powerful, who, after 8 years of tax breaks and corporate welfare under Dubya are now contemplating the end of a near unprecedented free-for-all whereby the rich looted the public trust at their pleasure?  Hmmm . . . .

Of course, I didn't receive this email from a wealthy person.  This email was sent by an individual who will benefit from Obama's proposed budget.  Furthermore, my sense is that this email is being circulated exclusively to the non-wealthy, folks like you and me.  Apparently, regular folks like us are concerned about Obama's socialist policies.  And I hear these people.  Gosh, it'd be a real drag to have the government create a job for me when I can't otherwise find one, or to help me stay in my home when I can't pay my mortgage cause I lost my job through no fault of my own, or to not have to choose between paying my mortgage and paying for health care, especially if I have a serious medical condition.   Clearly, all of that sucks. 

It's not surprising, then, that us regular folks simply aren't buying into all that "socialist" hype, even when a guy like Peter Orszag, director of the Office of Management and Budget, says that Obama's budget "makes the vast majority of Americans much better off." 

Now, it's one thing to criticize Obama's massive budget and stimulus plan.  I can certainly understand why Obama's plan to restart our economy could be the subject of legitimate, rational non-partisan debate, although personally, I have yet to hear anyone propose a viable alternative. 

But armed rebellion?  Against the Obama administration?  Fought by people who stand to GAIN from his initiatives?  

Enough said.  Here are the relevant parts of the email, along with my mostly off-the-cuff responses:

Read and Heed Thomas Jefferson

John Kennedy once said to an assembled group of scholars in the White House, " I think this is the most extraordinary collection of talent, of human knowledge, that has ever been gathered at the White House - with the possible exception of when Thomas Jefferson dined alone. 

The quotes below could prove his point.

The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not.

This is a not-so-veiled stab at Obama's plan to increase taxes for the rich and otherwise divert a larger share of our tax dollars to pay for the "socialist programs" referenced above.  To me, though, this quote makes more sense when applied to the last eight years, when Bush and his cronies took from the non-wealthy (those who would work) and gave to the rich (defense and reconstruction contractors, large corporations, etc., i.e. those looking to amass as much wealth as possible with minimum effort). 

Plus, there's a difference between those who would not work and those who can't.  I think everyone, Obama included, agrees that capable people that refuse to work should not receive a dime in aid.

It is incumbent on every generation to pay its own debts as it goes.  A principle which if acted on would save one-half the wars of the world.  

I find it simply incredible that after Dubya nearly doubled the outstanding public debt (from approximately 5.7 trillion dollars to approx. 10.7 trillion), largely through irresponsible government spending that did nothing to improve the condition of the vast majority of Americans, the right now claims that we should be more fiscally responsible!  Again, where was this email when Bush was spending billions of taxpayer dollars a month on a frivolous war in Iraq?  The only remedy for the current economic crisis is to spend in order to create jobs and stimulate lending.  Tax cuts do NOT create jobs, and the market is NOT going to correct itself at this point unless we put people to work.

I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from  wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them.

Again, are we talking about the last eight years, when the Bush administration wasted billions of our tax dollars on a war that was supposed to make us safer?  Re: the anticipated "welfare state" argument, see my comments above.  

My reading of history convinces me that most bad government results from too much government. 

Of course, in 1800, nearly every government in the world was either a monarchy or an oligarchy.  These days, there are many examples of successful Social Democracies with expansive, state-run "welfare programs" where the standard of living is higher than it is here in the U.S.  

No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.  

Great idea.  Let's turn the entire U.S. into the Wild West, circa 1850-1900.  Because as a society, we've clearly demonstrated that private citizens can act responsibly when entrusted with firearms.

Of course, now I'm gonna have to go buy a gun to protect myself against the people who say they need guns to protect themselves from people who want to take their guns away.  People like me, I guess. (Sigh).  

The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government. 

Oh, so THAT'S what they were getting at in the last paragraph . . . Let me understand this - after eight years of the rich and powerful in this country diverting our tax dollars into their pockets under every frivolous rationale they could think of, we're only NOW complaining of tyranny because Obama is going to impose a modest tax hike on the richest 5% and otherwise try to improve the standard of living for the average American citizen?  Beware, my friends - this is the propaganda of the rich and powerful.  These arguments are not being made on your behalf . . . 

The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.

Here, Jefferson is expressing his cautious approval of Shay's Rebellion, an armed uprising of farmers in Massachusetts.  These farmers, after unsuccessfully petitioning the MA Senate to reform corrupt lending practices that resulted in mass foreclosures and imprisonment, organized to forcibly prevent courts from entering these judgments.

Am I supposed to understand that a second American revolution, while apparently NOT warranted under Bush, a man that subverted the Constitution in every way he could think of, IS warranted under Obama, who has the unfortunate task of cleaning up the steaming Monticello-sized turd that Dubya left in the Oval Office for him? 

Is anyone really buying this crap?  

To purchase the Jefferson print featured above, please click here.  

Fellow Systocrats:

Next month, The Systocrat Papers will celebrate its one year anniversary.  To mark this occasion, I thought it appropriate to commence this latest round of commentary by offering a brief explanation of Systocrat theory and inviting you, the reader, to more deeply consider the Systocrat perspective.

Simply put, a “Systocrat” is a person that believes that the Earth and everything on it is part of a whole, or an integrated, interdependent “system.”  In order for the Earth system to function, each part of this system must fulfill its role without disrupting the harmony that naturally exists.  Problems occur when discrete parts of the system are altered or otherwise manipulated in a manner that reduces or eliminate this harmony. 

Everything on Earth is subject to this rule.  With respect to humankind, the rule can be expressed more specifically, as follows: issues, i.e. a disruption of harmonious conditions, arise when a person, faction or entity acts in self-interested fashion or without otherwise properly considering the effects of their actions on the whole.  I am not suggesting that issues always arise under these circumstances, but that if there are issues, the cause can always be traced back to a failure to perceive or consider the whole and one's place in it.

By no means do I claim this idea as an original premise.  In the first place, I believe that most people, upon reflection, will conclude that acts that most humans agree are undesirable, or “evil” arise from selfish motives or concerns, and acts that most humans will characterize as “good” arise from unselfish motives.  In fact, this is such an obvious point that it now resides deep in the collective subconscious of human society.  We have a general sense of “good” and “evil,” but when addressing practical issues, self-interest rises to the fore and we struggle to achieve much-needed consensus as a result. 

This simplistic idea was retrieved from my subconscious by a well-meaning author nearly thirteen years ago.  Since that time, I have turned the idea over, examined it from all angles and applied it to all manner of situations.  To date, this simple, elegant premise still holds true, at least from my solitary, humble perspective.

However, I know that there are some well-meaning folks out there who will disagree with what I have written here. Therefore, after many years of contemplation, I descend from my lonely room at the top of the stair, toss aside my cloak and throw the gauntlet down at your collective feet! 

I invite anyone who is inclined to dispute or otherwise comment on the ideas set forth above to write to me at td@systocracy.com.   Unless you specifically indicate otherwise, I will post each and every comment that I receive.

In the meantime, I will continue to address current events, but from a more pointed “Systocrat” perspective.  I firmly believe that the adoption of this simplistic perspective is a primary, necessary step to returning the Earth and its inhabitants to a harmonious state, which in turn is a prerequisite for the creation of a sustainable human civilization on this planet.

By Paddy O'Brien

I've been having a lot of discussions lately regarding the bailout of the Big Three U.S. automakers and the general consensus from both sides seems to be that everyone is getting fed up with all these bailouts.  (I know that this isn't technically a bailout but a loan but as someone once said, you can put lipstick on a pig yada, yada, yada.)  Regardless, we are helping them out (saving them) and the ultimate question is do we really need to save them?  All of them? 

I was forwarded Thomas Friedman's recent NYT article on the bailout and it helped inspire this blog.  With this bailout of the Big Three are we in fact pouring money into a catalog business in the time of ebay?

Friedman's article questions whether Detroit is capable of any innovation whatsoever.  It was shocking for me to learn that the 1908 Model T got better gas mileage than most of the vehicles currently on the road.  THAT'S ONE HUNDRED YEARS AGO (100!!)  In other words, The Big three have failed to substantially increase gas mileage in a century.  Remember that we went from the Wright Brothers to the Moon in about sixty five years. 

While I'm not a "greenie" like Friedman, I do believe that the key to mass acceptance of an electric car is the ability of the vehicle to go long distances and to travel at an acceptable speed for the average highway traveler; approximately 80 MPH.  By mass acceptance I mean that people in Nashville, Boise, Amarillo and Jacksonville will buy the cars, not those who live on Louisburg Square, Wilshire Boulevard or the People's Republic of Cambridge.  The key to Friedman's article seems to be that the right kind of battery needs to be invented for the electric car and a national plug in network needs to be formed.  Friedman, as do most rational people, doubts that Detroit is capable of achieving either.  As currently constituted I agree with Friedman as Detroit has never grasped the need for vehicles with better gas mileage why would they now grasp the need for the appropriate battery for an electric car.

It's my opinion that we shouldn't bailout the Big Three UNLESS....they develop the right battery, a battery capable of producing the power to propel a vehicle for 80 MPH for 8-10 hours.   I find it hard to fathom that they can't use some of this money (as originally designed) to advance the progress on this development.   Regardless of the need to pay salaries, health care, bad union contracts, etc, a portion of this money MUST be designated toward technological development; i.e. electric cars and/or natural gas/hydrogen vehicles.

But alas, the bailout of the Big Three is an inevitability for several reasons; not the least of which is the fact that one of every ten jobs in America is directly related to the auto industry.  The tentacles of the Big Three stretch far as they are the largest purchasers of steel, glass, and computer chips and we would be remiss if we also didn't mention rubber, aluminum and plastic.  So it's not just the auto jobs but all the jobs from their suppliers and other industries as well that would be effected by a failure of one or more of the Big Three.  As the great German philosopher Udo Dirkschneider once said, they got your balls to the wall.  While this is true, we should be able to dictate some terms to the Big Three, some of which are set forth below.

I wouldn't bailout all three.  I'd bail out Ford and GM and tell Chrysler...owned by a private equity/venture capitalist firm to hit the road and sell off the good parts of the company to GM or Ford (not Toyota, Hyundai or Tata.)  At the very least, Chrysler needs to get rid of their CEO, Bob Nardelli, who was essentially FIRED b/c he helped drive Home Depot into the ground.  Nardelli lacked the vision to foresee the impact Lowe's would have on Home Depot; how can we expect him to counter the new up and comer Tata Motors?  Prior to Nardelli becoming CEO Home Depot doubled in size about every four years.  Nardelli and his supporters argue that Home Depot was reaching it's limit.  If it was reaching a limit, how do you explain the explosion of Lowe's, essentially Home Depot's only competitor? Couldn't Home Depot have put some stores in those areas?  During his duration as CEO of Home Depot the stock price was essentially unchanged while Lowe's nearly doubled.  Moreover, Nardelli's salary was double that of the CEO of Lowe's.  Are these the marks of a good CEO?  Your competitor's share price doubles and yours does nothing and then you obtain a $210 MILLION DOLLAR Severance package so that you will leave in hopes someone can run Home Depot with a vision and awareness of competition.  Any bailout that would include Chrysler, a PRIVATE company, must include the removal of Nardelli.

GMs CEO, Rick Wagoner doesn't exactly instill confidence either.  He is essentially a career auto industry man  who has run GM for nearly eight years and in that time the stock has essentially become slightly more than worthless.  It appears he's too far ingrained in the industry system to act as a CEO with the appropriate vision to resurrect GM.  If your a fan of sports and your team was always competitive and had won recent championships and the next manager or coach takes over and the team goes from perennial title contender to one of the worst franchises would that manager or coach keep their job?  It certainly appears that Wagoner has attempted to make the correct moves at GM and it can certainly be argued that if he hadn't made those moves GM would have come begging a couple years ago instead of today.  Who knows, maybe with the appropriate parts of a Chrysler break-up Wagoner is the guy to turn around GM.  It is Sen. Chris Dodd who is pushing for Wagoner to resign and that makes me think that if a political hack/crook like Dodd, who has no comprehension of business wants him gone that's probably good evidence that he should stay.  Let's not forget that Dodd's last endorsement of "a leader for ALL times," was Klansman and 1964 Civil Rights act opponent Robert Byrd.  I digress...despite the Dodd "endorsement," I don't think we'll be disappointed if Wagoner goes.   

Ford is another story, Ford's CEO Alan Mulally only came on board about two years ago when the company was already hemorrhaging.  Granted he's failed to stop the bleeding but that's probably has more to do with the fact it was a Sisyphean task than any actions (or inactions) he has undertaken.   Moreover, it is important to note that Mulally comes from Boeing who 1) competes well w/ foreign makers (thanks in large part to Mulally) and 2) has come back from the abyss not once but twice both of which Mulally deserves a lot of credit.  It seems clear to me that Mulally deserves more time as he has a history of being able to compete with foreign competitors and saving troubled iconic manufacturers.  Additionally, he was a proponent of the 777, the plane that helped save Boeing...maybe he can use that experience to develop and electric or alternative car that will save Ford.

Lastly, I would make it clear to the Big Three that this is it.  The public trough is now empty to you guys.  This is Chrysler's second time here and certainly there cannot be a third. 

Twenty-two months later, we finally find ourselves on the other side of this epic campaign, during which nothing less was at stake than the immediate future of the United States as we know it.  We can all breathe a sigh of relief - our special brand of democracy, although far from perfect, remains capable of delivering regime change without a bloody revolution or a messy coup d'etat.  And, although our physical and economic infrastructure is crashing down around our ears, at least we finally have a chief executive that is willing to listen to we, the people. 

It does look as if Obama means to make good on his promise to have a "transparent" administration.  Since election night, he has launched a new website, where he solicits our suggestions on how to improve things, and he's put the weekly Democratic address online in video format, for those people who simply aren't likely to listen to a radio address. 

At last, we can turn to the real task at hand - cleaning up the mess that Dubya and his neocon cronies have left us.  Although things are bad and quickly getting worse, in the midst of this crisis, we have a tremendous opportunity to do away with obsolete government policies, programs and practices, and to reshape this country in a manner that effectively addresses the 21st century concerns of American citizens. 

Between now and Inauguration Day, TSP will offer some thoughts on the way forward for the fledgling Obama administration and the country in general.  If you have suggestions in this regard, don't just send them to Obama - send them to TSP as well and we'll post them for discussion.  Any subject relevant to the future vitality of the U.S. is fair game. 

At this critical juncture in our history, we should "think big."  For example, I think we need a Manhattan Project-type initiative to develop at least one renewable, sustainable, "green" energy source into a cheap, comprehensive replacement for fossil fuels, along with a plan of action to build the necessary infrastructure and implement this new power source throughout the country, and I think this can all be done in 2-3 years if we make these objectives an urgent priority.  Furthermore, I think that a cheap, renewable power source that allows consumers to independently generate enough power to satisfy all of their energy needs (home heating, transportation, etc) and sell excess power back to the grid would be ideal. 

I'll look forward to hearing your comments. Till then, we'll watch - and wait! 

One more thing - for those of you looking for information and inspiration re: the way forward, check out Thomas Friedman's Hot, Flat and Crowded - a truly thought-provoking read.  I may have to do a full-fledged book review when I'm through with it. 

From Chris J:

I know that, most likely, President Obama will not solve every problem; there's just too many piled up for any one person to get through.  I am confident that, as a smart man, he will work to get the country on the right road.  Whenever I hear him give an interview (like the 60 minutes one from last night), for the first time, I actually look up to a politician.  In my 32 years, I have never had so much admiration for a President (elect).  It's one thing to be a good politician, but it's another story to combine that with being a good person.

As far as issues go, I've got my top few.

1) Reverse the ban on Stem Cell Research via executive order on 1/21.  We're falling behind in an area where we've traditionally excelled.  

2) Cut all tax breaks to oil companies and take those credits (and more) to help fund the "Manhattan Project" of renewable energy (your point is right on).  Energy can be a driving force in manufacturing if we want it and, it'll help national security in the long run.

3)  Tax incentives for companies that keep manufacturing jobs in America and SEVERE penalties for companies that use off shore accounts as a tax shelter.

4)  Investigate everything Bush/Cheney have done over the last 8 years.  There's bona fide war crimes in their history.  How can we ever have the moral high ground if we let our leaders get away with murder, torture, and illegal spying on the American people?

From Robert Horr:

Hi All,

Congratulations to an historic election. My hope and prayer is Mr. Obama will lead this Great Republic forward . However please remember this country was built on the individual liberties and FREEDOM.  They have been stomped on enough from the last president!!

Freedom to fail and freedom to succeed is what this country was built on. Some of my greatest success came AFTER my greatest screw ups. I agree with the founding fathers a small government is the best government.

Happy Thanksgiving to all just one more gift to the world from the greatest country ever.

From Mary J:

As usual, I agree that Obama and we have to think big as we move ahead with putting the country on track again for ourselves and our children.  If you are looking for concrete ideas on how we do this, I recommend a pleasurable read in Barbara Kingsolver's Animal, Vegetable, Miracle.  Kingsolver has been writing for years but was plummeted onto the national seen by The Poisonwood Bible being on Oprah's book list.

The basis of the book Animal, Vegetable, Miracle (a non-fiction book that reads like her fiction) is to point out with very specific examples how just buying food more locally (and additionally though not necessarily growing your own food or raising your own poultry as Kingsolver does) can make a huge impact on cutting down our use of fossil fuels.  As we look for ideas on how our government can help us turn things around, I highly recommend this read as providing simple and specific ways we can make a difference.  I'm not trying to be coy in saying that two things have changed my life and given me a positive perspective lately - Obama's commitment and this book, Animal, Vegetable, Miracle.  I hope folks read this book and make a change themselves and I hope Obama doesn't burn out in office.  His character is amazing in taking on what he has taken on.  He has yet to show us results but I am confident he will.

Fellow Systocrats:

Break out your EV projectors and your miniature American flags - election day is finally here!  As we all get ready to hit the polls, check out these suggested responses to some of the more nefarious right-wing talking points that you may encounter at the polls tomorrow.

1. OBAMA WANTS TO "REDISTRIBUTE THE WEALTH:" What's wrong with redistributing the wealth?  Every government and every economic model designed by humankind "redistributes" resources in one way or another, including laissez-faire capitalism.  Over the last eight years, the wealth of the middle class has been accelerated upward and "redistributed" to the upper class by various means, most notably (at least for me) the Iraq war, which diverted gazillions of our tax dollars into the hands of wealthy private corporations with ties to the Bush administration.  Maybe instead of "redistributing" the wealth to these rich turkeys, we could spread some of it around for the benefit of the other 99% of America's citizens.  Just an idea . . . 

2. OBAMA IS A SOCIALIST: Obama has repeatedly stated, both in his book The Audacity of Hope and on the campaign trail over the last two years, that he is a firm believer in the free market.  At worst, that makes him an advocate of a mixed economy, i.e. something akin to the tenuous compromise between outright socialism and laissez-faire capitalism that has persisted since FDR's New Deal. 

Obama is no more a socialist than Bill Clinton.  Furthermore (I have to say this), liberal economic policies get a bad rap in this country, mostly because wealthy Americans have been working hard to stigmatize these policies for generations so that they can hold on to as much of their wealth as possible.  The fact is that most of the countries that rank higher than the U.S. on the Human Development Index have much more aggressively liberal economic policies than the U.S.  In other words, these are countries "in which people can [better] develop their full potential and lead productive, creative lives in accord with their needs and interests." Think about it.

3. OBAMA WANTS TO RAISE TAXES: Obama's proposed tax plan cuts taxes for 95% of working families in this country.  Period.

4. OBAMA IS A MUSLIM: He's not.  Furthermore, if you think that being a Muslim is unacceptable in and of itself, congratulations!  You are a victim of the Bush/Cheney fear-propaganda machine, and somewhat of a bigot.  Oh, and by the way, he's not a Muslim.

5. DUBYA DIDN'T RUIN OUR ECONOMY, JIMMY CARTER DID: The obvious implication here is that Democrats in the White House will screw things up.  This is a new one for me - just heard it tonight at my local pizza shop while picking up dinner.  JIMMY CARTER?  ARE YOU F-ING KIDDING ME???

I haven't heard that crap since Reagan ran for office in 1980.  The truth is that Carter dealt with out-of-control inflation caused by deficit spending during the Vietnam War and the OPEC oil crisis of 1973.  You might recall the OPEC crisis.  Yeah, that's the event that unraveled Keynesian economic theory, which had held sway since the 1930s, by demonstrating that the internal controls on our economy instituted by the New Deal were inadequate to remedy the effects of a global economic crisis.  Not Jimmy Carter's fault by a long shot. 

6. OBAMA'S TAX PLAN WILL PUT SMALL BUSINESSES OUT OF BUSINESS:  Obama proposes a return to Clinton-era tax rates, with a slight tax hike for small business owners making over $250,000.  McCain claims that this will result in increased taxes for the majority of small business owners.  Simply not true - most small business owners would see no change at all in their taxes, and many would see a tax cut. 

7.  OBAMA PALS AROUND WITH TERRORISTS: BILL AYERS??  YES HE WAS A TERRORIST IN THE 60s WHEN OBAMA WAS A SMALL CHILD!  OBAMA KNOWS THE RECENT, RELEVANT INCARNATION OF MR. AYERS.  YOU KNOW, THE RESPECTED UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS PROFESSOR AND CHICAGO'S 1997 CITIZEN OF THE YEAR. 

BY THE WAY, DOESN'T MCCAIN PAL AROUND WITH G. GORDON LIBBY?  NOW THERE'S A TERRORIST FOR YOU!!  (Okay, I'll stop yelling . . .).  

8. OBAMA WANTS TO "CONCEDE DEFEAT IN IRAQ:" Absolute, utter nonsense.  McCain should have learned from his experience in Vietnam that you cannot defeat an enemy that you cannot find. After Vietnam, no military force facing the awesome might of the U.S. is ever going to present itself on the battlefield to be conveniently annihilated.  In Vietnam, we learned the hard way that it is possible for a disciplined guerilla force to defeat a military superpower, but that it's nearly impossible for the reverse to occur. That's why we paid Osama Bin Laden to draw the USSR into a Vietnam-like quagmire in Afghanistan, and that's why even General Petraeus won't talk about Iraq in terms of "victory" or "defeat." 

9. OBAMA HAS THE MOST LIBERAL VOTING RECORD IN THE SENATE: What does that even mean?  Seriously?  Can anyone explain what this means in objective terms?  

ONE FINAL NOTE - AS AN AMERICAN CITIZEN, YOU HAVE A FUNDAMENTAL CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO VOTE, SO DON'T TAKE ANY CRAP AT THE POLLS!!!   

Call 1-866-OURVOTE to report any irregularities at the polls.

To report voting issues to the media, call 1-877-GOCNN08.     

There's been a lot of talk lately about the "real America" and "real Americans."  This year, I caught a glimpse of what the "real America" actually looks like on Halloween: 

This is Cedar Street in tiny Belfast, Maine, where any given house welcomed upwards of 800 to 1000 trick-or-treaters.  As you can see from these pictures, this public Halloween festival of sorts started before the sun went down and continued well into the evening, with lines of well-mannered, costumed youths consistently extending 25 or 30 feet from our well-provisioned porch, all the way into the street and beyond.  I had never seen trick-or-treating quite like this before, and I'm betting you haven't either, unless you live in Salem, Massachusetts, the Halloween capital of the world. 

Personally, I had thought that real trick-or-treating was a dying tradition in this country, replaced by more manageable Halloween parties and the like.  In the middle class New Jersey suburb I grew up in, wholesale trick-or-treating passed into memory long ago, after several Halloween candy incidents in the eighties (poison, razor blades, etc. found inside treats). The local matriarchs decided that it was just too dangerous and, with few exceptions, shut the practice down.  In other words, people in many communities decided that they could no longer trust their neighbors to dispense safe treats. 

Scenes like this one are hard to find in the United States nowadays, for the same reason - fear of one's neighbor.  

As a Systocrat, I would like to see the kind of community-oriented sentiment revealed by these pictures in every city and town in America.   I would like to see Americans start to trust each other again.  But this kind of unity and trust can never occur when people are constantly being exhorted by our political "leaders" to fear each other.  For example, suppose you had one of those Muslim "terrorists" living in your neighborhood? What if people in your community are of a different ethnicity or have different political views?  Worst of all, what if you were living next to someone who wasn't a "real American," whatever the hell that means? 

Halloween in Belfast epitomizes what's at stake in this election - harmony vs. division, community vs. factionalism.  As a citizen of this country, you must ask yourself, "what kind of America do I want to live in?"  Personally, I want to live in an America where I don't fear my neighbor, my neighbor doesn't fear me, and where we are not encouraged by our political leaders to be intolerant of fellow citizens who see things differently than we do.

I urge any remaining undecided voters out there to consider their vote carefully in light of these considerations.   Which candidate seeks unity, and which candidate has run a campaign premised on the politics of division and distraction?  Get the facts, and vote on Tuesday. 

To obtain the location of your local polling place, click here.