Kicking the Can Down the Road: As Good As it Gets

After mature reflection, I've come to a daunting realization:
No reform, program, policy or philosophy, however well-thought
out, however reality-based, will likely stand forever.
You can recall many important pieces of legislation which
were effective and long-lasting, yet have joined the heaping
ever-higher pile in the dustbin of history, at least for the
foreseeable future.

Glass-Steagall, the two banking acts from the '30s, were
created by two men who understood that greed gone wild is
not good. Consequently, the ensuing recessions were not
nearly as serious as the Great Recession of 2008-2010. G-S
was ended by Phil Gramm and crew ten years earlier; with
G-S still the law, the Great Recession might have been much
more of a yawn.

Being America requires the regular reinventing of our laws,
the very basis for what we believe is the greatest good for
the greatest number. Social Security, just one example, has
been under attack ever since it was enacted. Yet what would
certain conservatives have the elderly and their not-rich
families do? It ISN'T always a case of the grasshopper vs.
the ants: sometimes illness, recessions, mergers, business
failures, etc. conspire to leave the old without investments
or savings.

Administrations comes and go, programs and policies do the
same. Regarding those controversial, problematic programs,
saving THEM means kicking the can down the road 'til next
time, always arguing the points as if these are brand new issues.

Check your world history books. Kicking the can down the road
is as good as it ever gets.

REFUTE NEWT, 2012: Stop Showboating, Scapegoating

Let us reflect, return to yesteryear, so as to
inform those younger or more forgetful Americans
about this disappointing product of Georgia Tech.:

Newt Gingrich was the man of the hour in the mid '90s
behind, beside and fronting The Contract with America.
He and his "new" Conservative Revolution succeeded in
(temporarily) capturing the U.S. House. However, as
more and more realized what was/would be in the fine
print of that contract, the tide of opinion turned;
he and his (along with those deceptively intellectual
idiots, the Tofflers) enjoyed a really short revolution,
the next two votes ('96 and '98) shoving most of those
extremists right through the revolving door, out of power.

This so-called conservatism is nothing new, going back
to kings, dictators and their ministers. Laissez Faire
only works for a few; it was ever thus. For millenia there
was no middle class, mark THAT, those who would bring back
two classes: what makes some of you think YOU'D be entitled
to vault to the top rank??

It's getting very wearing, these attacks on the lower and
middle classes. Having a continuum of economic strata,
if you will, merely means such a society recognizes that
people and circumstances vary, there can't be all indians
and no chiefs, or all chiefs, no indians, or even indians and
chiefs, nobody else. Who doesn't understand that?? I marvel
in horror and disgust.

Some of these super right wingers surely must have grandparents
living on Social Security, close relatives in unionized jobs. Do
they honestly think family will forgive being reduced to dire
straits by their "courageously philosophical" relatives? Worse,
do they just not care?

Beware, Newt. The scapegoats you roast today may become you
and your thoughtlessly less-studious political friends tomorrow.

Entangling Alliances, Strangling Alliances

The title says it all, almost, about our current
world economic situation; but really, for any truly
thinking American adult, this should be old news.
For me, I was warned back in high school, (about
50 years ago, yikes!) when we students read
George Washington's writings, particularly
his Farewell Address. Published on the anniversary
of the Constitution in 1796, it is as if written
today, with every major potential and actual
international reality/problem discussed in its
few, pointed pages:

(1) Disagree with our excessive commitment to Israel?
Yep, he covered that: "The nation which
indulges toward another an habitual hatred or
an habitual fondness is in some degree a slave.
It is a slave to its animosity or to its affection,
either of which is sufficient to lead it astray
from its duty and its interest."

(2) Worried about the Tea Party when it rattles
AK 47s, yet "preaches" piety? G.W. mentions
that too: "Observe good faith and justice toward
all nations. Cultivate peace and harmony with all.
Religion and morality enjoin this conduct."
"Can it be that Providence has not connected the
permanent felicity of a nation with its virtue?"

(3) Concerned about atavistic isolationism?
Don't be, George Washington didn't recommend
it: "...in extending our commercial relations
to have with them as little POLITICAL connection
as possible..." Yet: "...let me not be understood
as capable of patronizing infidelity to existing
engagements." "Harmony, liberal intercourse with
all nations are recommended by policy, humanity
and interest."

(4) Wishing we were willing, ready and able to
switch from hostage-to-oil status to home-grown
renewables? Here Washington shines as a realist:
"But even our commercial policy should hold an equal
and impartial hand, neither seeking nor granting
exclusive favors or preferences;...constantly keeping
in view that it is folly in one nation to look for
disinterested favors from another; that it must pay
with a portion of its independence for whatever it
may accept under that character." (At $4.00+ per gallon,
we're paying, we're paying....) By entering into trade
agreements for absurdly lengthy periods, making them
quasi-permanent, we forgot Honest George's lessons,
particularly with one precariously precious, politically-
affected commodity, oil.

Lastly, the most memorable moment in the speech:
"Why, by interweaving our destiny with that of
any part of Europe, entangle our peace and prosperity
in the toils of European ambition, rivalship, interest,
humor, or caprice? It is our true policy to steer
clear of permanent alliances with any portion of the
foreign world..." Thomas Jefferson seemed to admire
this notion so much, he poached from this 1796 speech
for one of his own five years later, coining a short,
snappy saying, "entangling alliances". (Of course
Jefferson, in his highly partisan fondness for the
French, managed to ignore another caution in the
Farewell Address, overlooking the murderous excesses
during their revolution.)

Strangling alliances are now what we have; Nixon and
Clinton should have their academic history credits withdrawn,
not having heeding Washington, a far greater president than
either of THEM.

George Washington, Still Right and Upright

It's George Washington's birthday again,
the father of our country, a term he
richly deserves. All in all, he was our
best President, even above Lincoln and
FDR. (Did you know his will directed
wife Martha to free their slaves, while
Jefferson did no such thing?) He comported
himself admirably, always aware he was
setting precedent, an Enlightenment exponent
if there ever was one, even besting the
wordier Benjamin Franklin in certain respects.

Washington thought highly of Alexander Hamilton's
intelligence and authorship, having Hamilton
write many of his speeches. But the essay
warning of "entangling alliances" was Washington
at his most experienced and heartfelt best.
What has history shown since? That trade,
travel and imperialism gone wild has given
the U.S. and the rest of Earth a world of trouble.

Examples abound, but currently, the U.K. is seriously
rethinking its ties to Libya, as Libya has just killed
a number of its own protesters. (Moamar Ghaddafi isn't
as kind as other dictators in his region.) Pirates
recently killed four Americans on their yacht near
Oman. Three years ago, the news was awash with reports
that our "friend/trading partner" China sent us
contaminated baby bibs, pet food,wood, ad infinitum.
Every instance of these negative international interactions
reminds me of Honest George and his farewell speech.
There's a sensible balance between isolationism and
world travel/babble run amok. Looking toward a more
sane world, it behooves us to find it.

George Washington: still right, ever upright, an
example all in public life should periodically
recur to.

Egypt's Heroes: Hope for Humanity

Hooray for the "ordinary" citizens who've linked arms
and saved their main museum from low-life looters,
thoughtless destroyers of irreplaceable, tangible history.
The Egyptian Army deserves kudos as well, of course.
THESE are the outstanding people in all the last ten
days' Egyptian fury, NOT:

(1) Mr. Obama, who, while being the somewhat tepid
"voice of reason", actually COULD have been more effective.
(--How about this: "If you don't step down now, Mr.
Mubarak, we will withhold our annual gift of one
plus billion dollars to Egypt.") Before anyone rejects
such a notion out of hand, allow me to remind you
that the U.S. thinks nothing of issuing and enforcing
sanctions/blockades when it deems it appropriate;

(2) Mr. Mubarak, who, while giving the U.S. and Israel
what is wanted/needed, has "served" in a thirty-year
dictatorship with massive corruption at every level of
Egyptian life, including university professor-doled
"good grades". Here's more that's unsupportable: extremely
high unemployment, expensive/scarce foodstuffs, shocking
percentages of illiteracy. Oh Mr. M., everybody knows
you're 82, even though the dark dye hair job is pretty
convincing. You're no Sadat, which you amply proved after
just a few years "in office". (--What's with not allowing
a vice-president until now? --Think you're immortal?)
Yes, we've had our "imperial" public servants too, like
Strom Thurmond, who never gave up his senate post,
as he should have done decades sooner.

I could list many more actors on the current stage,
but it's obvious that much in human life occurs as
a "top down" phenomenon.

Meanwhile, the rational, regular citizens have broken
the conventional mold and are providing inspiration
from the "bottom up". Here are Egypt's heroes,
nothing ordinary about THEM.

High Stakes Energy: Our Lives, Our Fortunes

*******An Open Letter to President Obama*******
******* Congress, the 50 Statehouses: *******

(Updated several times since January, 2011)

It's been bruited about that many of you are
considering endorsing a "Clean Energy Standard"
which includes the expansion of nuclear power
and "clean" coal.

I beg you to reconsider:

There is nothing "clean" about nuclear power. Every
nuclear facility releases toxic radiation into our
air and water on a routine basis. Nuclear reactors
generate highly toxic radioactive waste for hundreds
of thousands to millions of years, depending on the
isotope. They pose a constant threat of catastrophic
meltdown, particularly as they age, due to reactor
embrittlement fracture (Neutrons hitting the primary
containment metal vessel wall, weakening it over time).
Also, as we've seen, partial core melts have happened
around the world because of design flaws and human error.

Yucca Mountain is NOT a geologically stable permanent
radwaste repository: it sits atop an earthquake fault,
Bow Ridge, active within the past ten years, eight other
faults exist nearby; a significant Richter Scale quake
occurred during the 2002 Congressional summer session
deliberating about Yucca Mt. Around the same time, proposed
security escorts for so many shipments from 104 reactors was
taken off Congress's agenda: too expensive.

Three Mile Island (1979) and Chornobyl (1986) are
not the only serious nuclear technology accidents
the world and the U.S. have experienced. There were
Windscale in England (1957), and the Kyshtym nuclear
chemicals fire in the Russian Ural Mountains,
also 1957. Both of these involved large releases of
radionuclides requiring mass destruction of contaminated
animal and plant life, predating the even more serious
Chornobyl disaster. Detroit Fermi's core partially melted,
its plant now decommissioned/recommissioned. Other
examples exist here and abroad, of course....Japan's loss
of secondary containment at its Daiichi reactor complex
in Fukushima Prefecture, along with several core melts is
beyond our worst nightmares coming true.

The world seems to forget that Russia and the United
States both have nuclear powered submarines sunk deep
in the oceans, their sailors permanently entombed. Salt water
is corrosive; over time, these submarine reactors will leak.

"Clean" coal is an oxymoron. Even if carbon could be
captured, which is by no means clear, burning coal
still releases Mercury, generates poisonous coal ash,
and entails destructive mountain top removal.

Carbon is not the only pollutant we must be concerned
about; low carbon doesn't mean "clean". Nuclear power
is far less effective than renewable energy, energy
efficiency and 21st century technologies such as
smart grids and distributed generation at reducing
carbon emissions. In fact, carbon emissions associated
with the nuclear fuel chain are two to six times higher
per kw of electricity produced than solar and wind
power.

Nuclear power is NOT cost effective; even Wall Street
has refused to back nuclear power expansion, the upper
Northwest's WPPSS financial collapse in the 1980's is
just one example. The Price Anderson Act insures
nuclear reactor operators/owners with a laughably
small amount in the event of a meltdown or other
accident.

Perhaps you haven't yet made final decisions on these
critical issues. If not, please do not endorse a
"Clean Energy Standard" that includes expanding nuclear
power and coal in 2011 and beyond. Please take the time to
examine these issues more closely. If you do, you will
find that nuclear power and coal do not merit the United
States' further, future support.

Best Regards,
Best Wishes,
Amber Ladeira
Forest Park, IL

P.S.: Some of the above-stated language, especially the
carbon and coal-related remarks, was suggested by
NIRS in Takoma Park, MD and NEIS in Chicago. I added
whole paragraphs and paraphrased certain sentences. My
thanks to them and other groups around the country for their
unflagging energy and devotion to working toward
a safer, greener world worthy of leaving to our
children.

"Cherry Picking" Among the Sour Grapes

Shakespeare, even before Emerson, noted that
convention and consistency (custom, tradition)
is often the enemy of sense, sensibility and
solutions. They and others validate a part of my
philosophy: I "Cherry Pick".

At times, when that becomes obvious during a
conversation, those who practice it often earn
opprobium,being accused of yes, cherry picking.
But why NOT pick and choose? Must a theory,
practice or expert's "wisdom" be adopted whole
cloth? There are flaws in everyone's logical
ability, to say nothing of accurate, factual
knowledge, so pick out the best and leave the rest.

After all, in every vineyard, some of the grapes
are bound to be sour.