10-Point Program

Back on Barack (B.O. Barack):

He doesn't want to announce a 10-point program--maybe he's afraid it's too limiting to his scope. I think that he needs to have some focus, besides bringing everyone together and all that nice-sounding stuff. Personally, I can't imagine someone running for President who doesn't have a program.

Anyway, here's mine (no, I'm not running--I'm using it to evaluate those who do), once again:

TEN-POINT PROGRAM

1. Get control of climate-changing gases.
We did it with chloro-fluorocarbons. That was a warmup for the next challenge, carbon dioxide, methane, and other “greenhouse” gases. Our goal is to be able to show a reduction, even a short-term one. Massive reforestation would help, but there is not one fix; we have to do all of the twenty or so things that make sense. Now.

2. Preserve our biosphere.
This one encompasses our water, our agriculture, national parks, zoos, and wildlife refuges, as well as both plant and animal biodiversity. We have the power to destroy; now we have to show that we have the power to preserve successfully, and that means making some difficult decisions.

3. Rebuild our relations with the world.
The top objective is to transform the GWOT into an effort to marginalize Jihadist Fanaticism. Marginalizing the jihadists means getting allies back, showing some comprehension of Islam and how it can work for our objective, living up to our high responsibilities and simultaneously showing some humility. Above all it means recognizing the unity of humanity.

4. Visualize our children’s / grandchildren’s society, and the implications of that vision.
In many ways we live in the “World of Tomorrow” of the 1950’s (except for everyday space flight, I guess). The suburbs, interstates, car aesthetics, primal longings dreamed about in those days are how we live today.We need to think about things like how our children and grandchildren will retire, how they will educate THEIR children, build homes, make a living (or at least have the means to feed, clothe, and entertain themselves). How does immigration relate to this vision; how does the quantity of unwanted children born in the U.S.?These visions will inform our long-term domestic investment policies. As one who was born in the fattest part of the pig in the python, I know a few things. For example, I know our generation’s numbers and famed selfishness will take care of us—it’s the ones after us, and those after that, who need to be looked after. I also know that around 2025, when boomers stop being dominant politically, our retirement income tax rate is going to rise.

5. Reform the UN Charter.
Everybody complains about it, but hardly anyone has anything constructive to suggest. Yet the organization proves its value constantly; similarly, it proves its deficiencies constantly. We need to collect thoughts, have a Charter revision convention, and move past the post-WWII phase of this organization. Two recommendations to chew upon: have a representative assembly, and move the Security Council to Jerusalem.

6. Get control of armaments.
The Nonproliferation Treaty has done a great deal for us all, but it is on its last legs. Changing the metaphor, there are more holes in the dyke than we have fingers. The key to controlling the proliferation of nuclear weapons is making it a burden to have them, not a bonus. In that sense, the Security Council resolution regarding North Korea is the best news yet in terms of restraining Iran.We have to look beyond nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction, though. Any arms designed basically for killing other human beings need to be controlled and phased out, even if it takes us centuries to do so. Phased out from governments' stockpiles, as well as from private individuals'; it’s the only humane way to look at it.

7. Establish clearly the political dimensions of privacy and of permissible government intrusions into it.
Unlike many of these issues, for which the “no-brainer” nature of my viewpoints is controversial only because they have been “no-brained” into crises, this one arises from our cleverness and does not have such easy answers.For now, I’d propose two guidelines which might help us come to consensus on some of the easier cases: 1) No government intrusion in private activities when it has no identifiable benefit. 2) Government intrusion (or, for that matter, government secrecy) needs to make its case before the judicial branch in some way.It’s hard to imagine that the prevailing point of view in this Administration has been that the Executive branch needs to regain power, that their freedom of action has been too limited. It is also hard to imagine that the next Administration, of either party, will look to give up power that it has gained due to Bushite aggressiveness.

8. Provide health care to our people.
It is obvious that the health care system we have today is a failure. Adopted by default after the collapse of HRC’s legislative initiative in the Clinton administration’s first years, our insurance and treatment costs are out of control. One change since then is that the costs in blood and treasure are now transferred to health-care's paying customers much more efficiently than they used to be.

Health care is now the main economic reason we can not employ all at the levels they need to be employed, or at the levels they want to be employed. For that reason, it is the premier quality of life issue and goes beyond merely staying alive and active.

I would start by making Medicare-level health service available to everyone residing in America, on a fee basis (either monthly, or the more expensive a la carte option). Off the menu, you need to go private. Some people would get their fee refunded or waived—the elderly, children, the poor. Employers could still offer any kind of health care as a benefit, but people would have some viable alternatives, and it wouldn’t need to be compulsory as a cost of doing business, either. Medicare would then offer a variety of services that would change according to what we as a society could afford, but it wouldn’t cost as much, either.

9. Electoral reform
.How can we lead the world into democracy when we can’t get it right ourselves? We need to move toward universal suffrage for adult citizens, with more representative institutions and accurate counting of enhanced electoral decision-making. We want better quality decisions resulting from better information and less waste. And, please, let’s get rid of the stupid Electoral College!

10. End the "War on Drugs" (or at least give it some focus on the more harmful ones)
This one is really a corollary of point 7, principle 1): “No government intrusion in private activities when it has no identifiable benefits.” There are benefits in controlling the manufacture and distribution of many harmful substances in society; the problem is that the current methods of trying to maintain Prohibition on many of these are not producing benefits. They’re not controlling anything, they’re just putting lots of people in jail.At the highest level, it’s just an endless game of cops and robbers. At the micro level, just a lot of poor people getting ground up. There are plenty of remedies that have been proposed, but there is zero momentum behind anything, including “stay the course”. Everyone’s too scared.

Some of these need some elaboration, and some discussion of why others are not included. Finally, my Iraq proposal (not part, an adjunct to #3). Coming soon.

B.O.: Boom Over?

On the talking heads shows today, "sources" who have been speaking informally with Barack Obama have informed us that he says, in effect, "The boomers decided back in the '60's to hate each other, but we're past that now. We're coming together."

I think that's OK, and very perceptive in its way, as long as we get one thing straight: the only politicians who have a right to criticize the boomers are the boomers themselves. And, sure enough, though he cleverly tries to put himself beyond The Baby Boom, Obama's 1961 birthdate puts him right there in the tail end. Either in terms of birthrates for mothers or of babies born, the boom, properly considered as a demographic phenomenon, covers the 20 years of births from 1946 through 1965.

Up to now, in political terms, the big shots have all been from the front end of the wave (or even slightly ahead of it)--that group that's just now hitting 60. That was the Shock Corps; we are the ones who trailed in their wake (often getting caught in the turbulence when we strayed). As for "Obara" (as Eleanor Clift said today; B.O.'s alter ego is, in fact, "KaBama' O'Barra", half-Irish, half-Southern black), as long as he can get us Shockers and Wavers to buy in, the Tail-Gunners can fire away at us. It's our own generational form of self-hate.

The Last anti-Bushite Rant

Tim Seidl, Kathy Bisbee and Doug Pomeroy all sent the same list, and we are grateful:

(On an infant's shirt): Already smarter than Bush.
1/20/09: End of an Error
That's OK, I Wasn't Using My Civil Liberties Anyway.
Let's Fix Democracy in This Country First
If You Want a Nation Ruled By Religion, Move to Iran
Bush. Like a Rock. Only Dumber.
You Can't Be Pro-War And Pro-Life At The Same Time.
Of Course It Hurts: You're Getting Screwed by an Elephant
Hey, Bush Supporters: Embarrassed Yet?
George Bush: Creating the Terrorists Our Kids Will Have to Fight
America : One Nation, Under Surveillance
They Call Him "W" So He Can Spell It
Which God Do You Kill For?
Cheney/Satan '08
Jail to the Chief
Who Would Jesus Torture?
No, Seriously, Why Did We Invade Iraq?
Bush: God's Way of Proving Intelligent Design is Full Of Crap
So Many Christians, So Few Lions
Bad president! No Banana.
We Need a President Who's Fluent In At Least One Language
We're Making Enemies Faster Than We Can Kill Them
Buck Fush
Rich Man's War, Poor Man's Blood
Is It Vietnam Yet?
Bush Doesn't Care About White People, Either
Where Are We Going? And Why Are We In This Handbasket?
You Elected Him. You Deserve Him.
Frodo Failed. Bush Has the Ring.
Impeach Cheney First
Dubya, Your Dad Shoulda Pulled Out, Too
When Bush Took Office, Gas Was $1.46
The Republican Party: Our Bridge to the 11th Century.

I suppose we're grateful in that we don't have to parse any differences....

At any rate, the Ace of Hearts has fallen. Along with him, those laid low include the Ace Spades--Rove; Ace Clubs--Rumsfeld; the Kings of Spades--DeLay, Hearts--Jeb, and Diamonds--Frist; Queens Foley (diamonds) and Mehlman (spades--OK, Mehlman left honorably); Jacks Feist (clubs) and Santorum (spades). Our War deck has left only the face cards for Cheney (A of D), Queens Barbara Bush and Condi Rice (Hearts and clubs), and Jacks Alberto Gonzalez, hearts, and Mitch McConnell, diamonds.

The King of Clubs spot (the hidden person in the military-industrial complex 2nd-most responsible for the Iraq fiasco after Dick Cheney), I'd have to say belongs to George Tenet (down and out), though others would see in the face the images of Perle, Wolfowitz, Krauthammer, Kristol, etc. Anyway, the whole suit has turned and is working for the anti-Bushite banner now. That's why this has to be the last rant. We're moving on.

They Rise Once Again to Their Nation's Rescue

Sounds almost too heroic to be true, doesn't it? But that is the kind of praise deserving to the Iraq Study Group, and particularly its leaders, Jim Baker and Lee Hamilton.

Let us recall first the yeoman service they have given us, and recently, too: Baker in the committee for electoral reform with Jimmy Carter (http://chinshihtang.blogspot.com/2005/09/carter-baker-electoral-reforms.html), and Hamilton with Kean, Sr. in the 9/11 Commission. I have nothing but praise for both prior efforts, and it is to our collective shame that we have not done more with them. Both were also successful efforts to conspicuously display bipartisanship in conception and execution.

Neither of them got too far with the Bushites, but that's all over now. The nation has wearily turned the page. Dubya will pay dearly for attempted lip service this time. Which is not to say he wouldn't try it.

Baker and Hamilton have delivered on their purpose to provide a sensible bipartisan agreement with all particulars agreed to unanimously. The statement represents a bold departure from current strategy, and one that is, again, sensible in all its principal recommendations. Not guaranteeing success, it still pursues the combination of the highest probability of success along with some appreciable gain from "success".

Baker has usually been a trustworthy adversary to us, respected as we opposed his causes. On the other hand, Lee Hamilton has been a personal favorite of mine for over 30 years. My uncle was one of Hamilton's principal political allies in the old days in south-central Indiana in the 60's, and I have followed his career with interest since then. He has consistently shown judgement and maturity in his legislative work, which focused on America's role in world affairs. For his long-term role in Congress, particularly as chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee in the House during the key period, I would give him a hefty slice of the credit which tends to go exclusively to Reagan and Bush I for our ultimate victory in the Cold War. He was not a rubber stamp, though; Hamiltonian foreign policy would have shown more aversion to military adventure than our elected Presidents have.

The Iraq Study Group formulation bears a striking resemblance to the Consensus Democratic position that I outlined 15 months ago--except, of course, that I proposed it as a partisan stance: http://chinshihtang.blogspot.com/2005/08/consensus-democratic-position-on-iraq.html. Boiling Baker-Hamilton down, I'd summarize that they would complete whatever military missions remain (focusing on training and other mentorship--I don't see much about reconstruction) in 2007 and focus on withdrawing combat forces in 2008, while trying to open dialogue with Iraq's neighbors. Kind of obvious stuff, but still a lightning bolt because of what it represents: all parties telling the Emperor his buff bod's in the buff.

What has happened here is that the Democrats have reaped the electoral benefit of their less-than-fully-enunciated Iraq position, and now it becomes bipartisan. In the milieu of foreign policy development, that's already a success. Just as I don't begrudge the Republicans' latching onto it at this point, I don't resent the Democrats' failure to articulate what we were thinking; we are all anti-Bushites now (even many of the neocons).

Even the Bush Family Friend. Now, if we could only get the dog (and the Duck; ahem, that's "Dick") aboard. Then we could actually accomplish something in the next two years.

Green Energy: What's it Worth To Ya?

I've delighted in some of Patricia Chambers' reporting in the past: her preview before this year's election was quite good, for example. In the case of her Dec. 7 Taos News article, "Just how 'green' is Taos County?" though, I think she would have done better to include some economic and political analysis along with the straight reporting of the Kit Carson co-op meeting and the speech of its CEO. So, I'll provide some:

First, from the point of view of the consumer, who's getting browbeaten here, the key factor, mentioned almost in passing, is that consumers have to pay extra for electricity from Green sources. The amount, $.0125 per kwh, is beside the point. Essentially, the word around the street is that this is a "stupid tax" and people don't want any part of it.

"Stupid tax"--you may have heard the term used more for the public lotteries, and, less frequently, in relation to casino gambling. The difference between those activities--which attract hundreds of millions in the U.S.--and this one is that those forms of entertainment at least give you a moment of pulse-quickening thrill as they take your money. Green energy offers no extra juice.

If only they gave you something for signing up, some more would buy. Maybe a bumper sticker that says, "I Pay More for My Electricity For Your Benefit" would do the trick more than just the current mere Feeling That You Did the Right Thing. That, the normal electricity cost, and $.0125 per kwh will keep your lights burning (and they will seem to have a greener tint).

The bumper-sticker handout is a short-run, small-thinking approach, though. The real ticket is to make the price of Green Energy the same as the other source. Who wouldn't choose it, then? And once you had the mass interest in the product, it would work financially.

Which brings us to the second economic perspective, that of the enterprise. The key concept to consider here is "sunk cost". Basically, Kit Carson's heirs have invested most of the dough already in building the system to track the separate revenue from Green energy and the separate sourcing stream of energy. Which means that the enterprise has reason to lower its prices for the product now that it didn't have when the project was on the drawing board. They tried to get people to pay more for it; that didn't work. The next step is to see how many they can get to sign up by making public appeals, before they reduce the price, or if that doesn't work, abandon the project.

In all fairness, though, the sequence is the correct one for the enterprise, and it's right that they should be making the public appeals at this current stage. They have no doubt resolved to hold the line for a while longer before they take the plunge and bring the price to par, or perhaps they're merely waiting for the right moment.

Indeed, why give up that line before they have tried the third route, that of getting public policy support for the endeavor? Essentially, Kit Carson's next move should be to appeal to the government (through any lobby connections they have, but also through letter-writing campaigns from their many customers) for a subidy which will allow them to price at parity with the commercially-sourced "organic, but not green" fossil fuel-burning electricity. I'd suggest the federal route, going to Udall and Domenici, with the state channel as strategy 3B.

I would say that each political channel holds promise. I don't pretend to know the legal complications for the interactions between feds, the state, and our own rural electric co-operative. I think there's plenty of precedent for subsidies, though, and politically, it's a winner: to any elected official, it has the appearance of Votes on a Platter. That might not matter to Domenici, if he's secretly harboring ambitions of retirement, but otherwise he should love this one. Udall and Bingaman should be slam-dunks, though their support would not be sufficient without that of Ol' Pete. Richardson would also like it, but he might encounter a problem with the jealousy of state legislators from other parts of the state.

As one who rates the reduction of our climate-changing effects from generating greenhouse gases and burning fossil fuels to be at the absolute head of the list of our long-term priorities, I would welcome such a government investment decision. But sign up to pay extra for nothing? No, not even I would do that.

PO-210 by Any Other Name

My thoughts on the Litvinenko poisoning:

I'm reminded of Umberto Eco's The Name of the Rose. This book was in the form of a medieval mystery story with a 12th-century Sherlock Holmes-equivalent solving the mysterious poisoning of several in a monastery. The key aspect to solving the case and identifying the culprit was the absence of motive, and the solution turned out to be a booby-trapped document.

Here there's plenty of motive, but identifying a potential culprit who had a physical connection with the victim seems to be the key. This latest poisoning of a second person, one who met with Litvinenko, suggests that there may have been such a trap: a document which may not have been so important in its contents, but was designed to draw interest and then kill those who viewed it. A ultranationalist Russian might have developed such a poisoned piece thinking that those who viewed it--"it" being some scurrilous piece of anti-Russian gossip, probably made up--deserved to die.

All we need is the smoking (in the alpha-ray sense) document.

The Latest Trend: Opting Out

The original prompt for my thinking about a post on this subject was the "controversy" about New York Giants running back Tiki Barber's announcement that he would retire after this year to go into broadcasting. How could anyone question the reasonableness of such a decision? Retirement from professional sports is usually an economic decision, and this one is pretty close to a no-brainer, the way they wear down NFL players and pay broadcasters these days.

Remember when Barry Sanders quit in mid-career form? Time may have seemed to turn its back on him, but we don't see it from his point of view.

I am loth to question anyone's motivation for withdrawing from the public spotlight (particularly if one's public role is imitating an anvil). Even Ricky Williams, who seemed to want to quit to devote himself to smoking pot (before practical reality got in the way). Who am I to judge that?

I will say that it is unwise to withdraw right when one's integrity is being challenged, as happened with Rafael Palmeiro this year. It tends to confirm the negative rumors--actually, it doesn't, it just seems to confirm them. Better to tough it out and let them bring you home on a stretcher if it comes to that (see Donald Rumsfeld, Denny Hastert).

Better yet though to read the handwriting on the wall, and either 1) let them buy you out or 2) get out at any costs before they make you look like a "statistic on a government chart" (thanks for that one, The Police!)

2008 Update

While we're on the subject, I can only marvel at the fact that so far we have a lot more potential candidates who have bowed out than thrown their hat in. (Folded: Warner, Feingold, Frist; Tossed: Vilsack). Of course, this is only a question of timing for those who are still holding their hats, standing upright with an eager look. I do think that there may be some more dropouts from Democratic Senate folk (like Feingold) who once again have a reason to come to work, due to the surprising outcome of the 2006 elections: Biden, Dodd, Kerry, even possibly Obama or HRC.

Once again: "Running things. It's not all it's cracked up to be." (Miller's Crossing) Who wants to be President, anyway? And why?

Update on most likely six finalists for the two three-cornered party nomination races:
Republicans.
1) McCain
(now more than ever with the decisive Democratic victory, Bushite defeat.)
2) Giuliani
(Romney now heir-apparent to this role if Rudy falters, as Pataki disappears)
3)Gingrich
(over Brownback as leader of right-wing holding action and eventual VP candidate. No more chance of a significant Bushite candidate )

Democrats.
1) Hillary Rodham Clinton (in her own interest, HRC will be advising Nancy Pelosi on a full-time basis throughout 2007)
2) Barack Obama (the Clinton Centrist Challenger of the moment)
3) John Edwards (establishing a surprising claim to be the best "XXX" candidate)

I'm still thinking Obama may decide it's too early in his career for him to make his best run at it (which it is). If he goes, that CCC spot is wide open, though I don't think Edwards can capture it. It would be ironic if it comes down to these three (and, for a further fancy, say, Bill Richardson) and Edwards is the only white male left standing for the Democrats, while being the one "furthest to the left". Such a combination could actually put him over the top for the nomination.

I still see the likely scenario for the Republicans being the right-wing stalking horse handing the laurels to McCain in mid-primary season and getting the VP nomination (not insignificant, given McCain's age).

2006 Baseball Hall of Fame ballot

If I were doing it, here's how I would've done it:

(apologies to the Yahoo BBallgroup on which I originally posted this)

Yes, but for whom are you voting, Aaron?

I advocate making the serious choices, but also engaging one's emotional whims.

Here are my picks:
Gwynn
Ripken
Blyleven
L Smith
Gossage
J Morris
Mattingly
Concepcion
E Davis
Strat-O-Matic

The last does require some explanation. I'm looking at the game box for the Strat-O-Matic set my mother got my 10-year-old in a yard sale awhile ago. It says on it, "The Game that Belongs in the Hall of Fame."

I'm convinced. Until Strat is in, it gets my vote over Pete Rose.

Will Jose Canseco make the 5% to stay on the ballot? Surveysays...no. (appropriate sound effect)

Additional comments--

I think that "God gave you ten picks, you should use them."

I avoid picking borderline candidates unless I'm advocating a change in direction in Hall membership, and I give votes to lower-probability candidates who "deserve" my vote. This I test out in avery simple way: if I voted for him before, did it feel right? If not, I don't continue.

The same principle--it's just human nature, no?--applies to McGwire, and to the other future "Steroids Alleged" cases. One thinks--and should think--"I feel free to withhold my vote this year." But then, one must think back and ask oneself, 'Does this feel right?'

I'm going to try omitting mac and see how it feels, though I will say he's all the ballplayer Harmon Killebrew was (4th ballot) except a shorter career. I predict it will end up feeling bad if one tries this approach with Sammy Sosa, and this feeling of regret,multiplied by a sufficient number of folks, will lead to his selection on a low number of ballot tries. But that doesn't mean heshould be elected on the first ballot--"heaven forbid"!

Anyway, I think this line of thinking leads me to my assessment ofthe problem with the Hall standard of 75%: it assumes people areactually using their votes, when for the most part, they don't.

And my final one (for the Hall suggestion box?): they really shouldset up a Committee to make sure that the thing that happened withBuck O'Neil doesn't happen again. I've got it: the VeteransCommittee!