Monday, 31 August, 2009

Politics Explained

FEUDALISM: You have two cows. Your lord takes some of the milk.

PURE SOCIALISM: You have two cows. The government takes them and puts them in a barn with everyone else's cows. You have to take care of all of the cows. The government gives you as much milk as you need.

BUREAUCRATIC SOCIALISM: You have two cows. The government takes them and put them in a barn with everyone else's cows. They are cared for by ex-chicken farmers. You have to take care of the chickens the government took from the chicken farmers. The government gives you as much milk and eggs as the regulations say you need.

FASCISM: You have two cows. The government takes both, hires you to take care of them and sells you the milk.

PURE COMMUNISM: You have two cows. Your neighbors help you take care of them, and you all share the milk.

RUSSIAN COMMUNISM: You have two cows. You have to take care of them, but the government takes all the milk.

CAMBODIAN COMMUNISM: You have two cows. The government takes both of them and shoots you.

DICTATORSHIP: You have two cows. The government takes both and drafts you.

PURE DEMOCRACY: You have two cows. Your neighbors decide who gets the milk.

REPRESENTATIVE DEMOCRACY: You have two cows. Your neighbors pick someone to tell you who gets the milk.

BUREAUCRACY: You have two cows. At first the government regulates what you can feed them and when you can milk them. Then it pays you not to milk them. Then it takes both, shoots one, milks the other and pours the milk down the drain. Then it requires you to fill out forms accounting for the missing cows.

PURE ANARCHY: You have two cows. Either you sell the milk at a fair price or your neighbors try to take the cows and kill you.

LIBERTARIAN/ANARCHO-CAPITALISM: You have two cows. You sell one and buy a bull.

SURREALISM: You have two giraffes. The government requires you to take harmonica lessons.

Milestones in Ted Kennedy's Career

When Ted Kennedy was elected to the senate in 1962 he arrived in Washington overshadowed by his older brothers: President John F. Kennedy and Attorney General Robert Kennedy. In the 46 years since, he endured their tragic deaths and created a legacy of his own. "The name Edward Kennedy, who is 36, is expected to be heard often in years ahead," predicted Whispers in 1968, after the assassination of brother, Bobby. His name often appeared in the Washington Whispers column as a potential presidential candidate. And Kennedy did run in the primaries against President Jimmy Carter in 1980. In more recent years, Whispers reported on how Kennedy came "roaring back" from brain surgery and on his speech last summer at the Democratic convention.

  • Edward M. Kennedy, the President's brother and newly elected Senator from Massachusetts, is reported to be seeking a place on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Some Senate leaders hope that the President can explain to his brother that the Foreign Relations Committee is not ordinarily open to newcomers. (Dec. 10, 1962)
  • Edward Kennedy, as new Senator from Massachusetts, already is pointing with pride to the wide range of contracts and projects that he is proving able to line up in Washington for his home state. The youngest Kennedy has promised that his voice would be heard in Washington. (Dec. 31, 1962)
  • Senator Edward Kennedy of Massachusetts must seek re-election in November, 1964, adding uncertainty to reports that Attorney General Robert Kennedy might consider running for governor in that state. (Dec. 9, 1963)
  • Senator Edward Kennedy, of Massachusetts, now is left to carry on the Kennedy family tradition for public service. The Massachusetts Senator finds that his name is being mentioned for No. 2 spot on a ticket headed in November by Hubert Humphrey. The name of Edward Kennedy, who is 36, is expected to be heard often in years ahead. (June 17, 1968)
  • Of the future of Senator Edward Kennedy of Massachusetts, a Republican Senator observes: "There is no place for Edward Kennedy to go except up to the Presidency. He can wait eight or 12 years. Eventually, I can see a knock-down, drag-out fight between Teddy and Bob Finch [the new Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare and a California Republican]." (Jan. 27, 1969)
  • President Nixon is reported to have commented that Edward Kennedy of Massachusetts at this time "is running, not jogging," for the Presidency in 1972. (Feb. 10, 1969)
  • The case of Senator Edward Kennedy of Massachusetts almost eclipsed Apollo 11 in conversations in congressional cloakrooms. (Aug. 4, 1969)
  • Since the Martha's Vineyard episode, Senator Edward M. Kennedy no longer is a star fund-raiser for the Democrats. He still is in demand for party rallies but, as one friend explained, "does not want to be involved" in fund-raising dinners. (Sept. 1, 1969)
  • The political standing of Senator Edward M. Kennedy, Massachusetts Democrat, has been so damaged by the accident that resulted in the drowning of Mary Jo Kopechne that a number of Democratic politicians in his home State believe he may be defeated in 1970. Some observers even speculate that the Senator may yet decide not to seek re-election. (Sept. 15, 1969)
  • A draft Kennedy movement in Florida by former Carter campaigners promises trouble for the President. He still is expected to win the Democratic backing, but a close call would be embarrassing, say party leaders. (April 30, 1979)
  • Why Carter's staff finds it impossible to stop worrying about Ted Kennedy: The demand for "Kennedy for President" buttons was so great by a group of Midwestern United Auto Workers members visiting Washington in late April that the supply was quickly exhausted. (May 7, 1979)
  • No matter what friendly gestures Ted Kennedy makes toward Jimmy Carter at the conclusion of the Democratic convention, intimates say he'll campaign no harder for the President this fall than Ronald Reagan did for Gerald Ford four years ago. Instead, the senator is expected to concentrate on helping re-elect liberal members of Congress who backed him. (Aug. 18, 1980)
  • Carter wasn't the only target of wrath for Ted Kennedy's loyal followers after the Democratic convention. Some of the senator's aides already are plotting to get even with Democratic members of Congress who urged Kennedy to get into the presidential race, then were nowhere to be found when he needed backers. (Aug. 25, 1980)
  • That free health care for congressmen, mentioned by Kennedy in his convention address, it turns out, costs taxpayers for than $500,000 a year. Among services available: A complete medical staff, a pharmacist who dispenses free prescriptions, a fully equipped lab and emergency equipment at three locations in the Capitol. (Aug. 25, 1980)
  • Some of Ronald Reagan's advisers are proposing suitable retaliation for Carter's use of old Reagan quotes to attack the GOP nominee: Run television commercials of primary-campaign speeches by Senator Ted Kennedy attacking the President's economic policies. (Sept. 15, 1980)
  • The Senate's new Republican bosses lost no time in letting Ted Kennedy know what it really means to be in the minority. Kennedy has been evicted from the spacious quarters he occupied across the hall from the Judiciary Committee that he used to head. Hi s new digs: A distant suite formerly used by defeated Democratic Senator Herman Talmadge of Georgia. (Feb. 9, 1981)
  • Friends of Ted and Joan Kennedy were not surprised by their announcement of plans to divorce after 22 years of marriage. In fact, many applauded the timing—reasoning that public interest in the pair's stormy relationship will die down before 1984, when Kennedy is expected to make another run for President. (Feb. 2, 1981)
  • Ted Kennedy as a compromise choice for President if the Democratic convention deadlocks? Forget it, say political experts. They note that the odds against this happening are so high that Kennedy himself isn't making the slightest effort to position himself for such a draft. (March 19, 1984)
  • In six months, almost a third of U.S. Senators have put up custom home pages on the World Wide Web, bringing the total number of Web sites to 90. Last week 79-year-old Robert Byrd of West Virginia became the latest to go online. "If Senator Byrd's doing it, you know it's got to be ingrained," said one Senate staffer. According to Internet researchers at Web21, the home pages with the most hits belong to Sen. Ted Kennedy of Massachusetts , Sen. Bob Kerrey of Nebraska , and Sen. John McCain of Arizona. McCain's site features a pig pushing a stack of money and pulling a banner that reads: "Pork Barreling." In a sample of 100,000 Internet users, more than half of the senatorial sites received no hits at all last month. In fact, the entire www.senate.gov page drew only about .0024 percent of total Web traffic. By comparison the ESPN sports network site got 155 times more traffic than all Senate sites combined. (Oct. 13, 1997)
  • Memo to those who bought into the story line that Sen. Edward Kennedy's brain cancer was the beginning of the end of his life in politics: It wasn't. In fact, associates, friends, and even political foes say that Teddy has come roaring back, albeit from his Cape Cod residence, weighing in on key policy issues and keeping his staff hot on the trail of his own agenda. "In some ways," says an associate, "it's like he's still here. His office is running, he's still putting out his agenda, his staff is going gangbusters, and he's managed to keep his control." Adds a top Republican who is often at odds with Kennedy: "We were all feeling pretty gloomy when the news of his brain cancer came out. But the whole mood around here has changed for the better." Consider: With Massachusetts officials worried about receiving a Medicaid waiver needed for the state's universal healthcare program, Kennedy made calls last month to President Bush's team. The result: The money will most likely continue to flow. He's also calling lawmakers to pus h pet projects such as higher education funding and mental health legislation. Here's more proof that Kennedy's on the mend after his June surgery: He may trump his September return to the Senate by helping to nominate Sen. Barack Obama at the Democratic National Convention in August in Denver . (June 27, 2008 )
  • In advance of Sen. Ted Kennedy's trip to the floor of the Democratic National Convention Monday night, fellow Sen. Chuck Schumer said he holds out hope that the ailing Massachusetts political giant will make a return to the Senate floor next month. "There's a real chance," says Schumer, just coming from a breakfast with the New York delegation that featured Sen. Hillary Clinton. "He's doing great. It's a miracle — but a miracle we very much need," he told our Liz Halloran. Kennedy, who is suffering from brain cancer, will be honored tonight at the convention. Kennedy is in Denver , but it's not known whether he will take the stage, where his niece, Caroline, will introduce a video tribute to her uncle. ( August 25, 2008)
"For me, a few hours ago, this campaign came to an end. For all those whose cares have been our concern, the work goes on, the cause endures, the hope still lives, and the dream shall never die." See a pictorial tribute to Ted Kennedy.

A Layman’s Explanation of Why Global Warming Predictions by Climate Models are Wrong


I occasionally hear the complaint that some of what I write is too technical to understand, which I’m sure is true. The climate system is complex, and discussing the scientific issues associated with global warming (aka “climate change”) can get pretty technical pretty fast.

Fortunately, the most serious problem the climate models have (in my view) is one which is easily understood by the public. So, I’m going to make yet another attempt at explaining why the computerized climate models tracked by the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) – all 23 of them – predict too much warming for our future. The basic problem I am talking about has been peer reviewed and published by us, and so cannot be dismissed lightly.

But this time I will use no graphs (!), and I will use only a single number (!!) which I promise will be a small one. ;)

I will do this in three steps. First, I will use the example of a pot of water on the stove to demonstrate why the temperature of things (like the Earth) rises or falls.

Secondly, I will describe why so many climate model “experts” believe that adding CO2 to the atmosphere will cause the climate system to warm by a large, possibly catastrophic amount.

Finally, I will show how Mother Nature has fooled those climate experts into programming climate models to behave incorrectly.

Some of this material can be found scattered through other web pages of mine, but here I have tried to create a logical progression of the most important concepts, and minimized the technical details. It might be edited over time as questions arise and I find better ways of phrasing things.

The Earth’s Climate System Compared to a Pot of Water on the Stove

Before we discuss what can alter the global-average temperature, let’s start with the simple example of a pot of water placed on a stove. Imagine it’s a gas stove, and the flame is set on its lowest setting, so the water will become warm but will not boil. To begin with, the pot does not have a lid.

Obviously, the heat from the flame will warm the water and the pot, but after about 10 minutes the temperature will stop rising. The pot stops warming when it reaches a point of equilibrium where the rate of heat loss by the pot to its cooler surroundings equals the rate of heat gained from the stove. The pot warmed as long as an imbalance in those two flows of energy existed, but once the magnitude of heat loss from the hot pot reached the same magnitude as the heat gain from the stove, the temperature stopped changing.

Now let’s imagine we turn the flame up slightly. This will result in a temporary imbalance once again between the rate of energy gain and energy loss, which will then cause the pot to warm still further. As the pot warms, it loses energy even more rapidly to its surroundings. Finally, a new, higher temperature is reached where the rate of energy loss and energy gain are once again in balance.

But there’s another way to cause the pot to warm other than to add more heat: We can reduce its ability to cool. If next we place a lid on the pot, the pot will warm still more because the rate of heat loss is then reduced below the rate of heat gain from the stove. In this case, loosely speaking, the increased temperature of the pot is not because more heat is added, but because less heat is being allowed to escape.

Global Warming

The example of what causes a pot of water on a stove to warm is the same fundamental situation that exists with climate change in general, and global warming theory in particular. A change in the energy flows in or out of the climate system will, in general, cause a temperature change. The average temperature of the climate system (atmosphere, ocean, and land) will remain about the same only as long as the rate of energy gain from sunlight equals the rate of heat loss by infrared radiation to outer space. This is illustrated in the following cartoon:

Again, the average temperature of the Earth (like a pot of water on the stove) will only change when there is an imbalance between the rates of energy gained and energy lost.

What this means is that anything that can change the rates of energy flow illustrated above — in or out of the climate system — can cause global warming or global cooling.

In the case of manmade global warming, the extra carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is believed to be reducing the rate at which the Earth cools to outer space. This already occurs naturally through the so-called “greenhouse effect” of the atmosphere, a process in which water vapor, clouds, carbon dioxide and methane act as a ‘radiative blanket’, insulating the lower atmosphere and the surface, and raising the Earth’s average surface temperature by an average of 33 deg. C (close to 60 deg. F).

The Earth’s natural greenhouse effect is like the lid on our pot of water on the stove. The lid reduces the pot’s ability to cool and so makes the pot of water, on average, warmer than it would be without the lid. (I don’t think you will find the greenhouse effect described elsewhere in terms of an insulator — like a blanket — but I believe that is the most accurate analogy.) Similarly, the Earth’s natural greenhouse effect keeps the lower atmosphere and surface warmer than if there was no greenhouse effect. So, more CO2 in the atmosphere slightly enhances that effect.

And also like the pot of water, the other basic way to cause warming is to increase the rate of energy input — in the case of the Earth, sunlight. Note that this does not necessarily require an increase in the output of the sun. A change in any of the myriad processes that control the Earth’s average cloud cover can also do this. For instance, the IPCC talks about manmade particulate pollution (”aerosols”) causing a change in global cloudiness…but they never mention the possibility that the climate system can change its own cloud cover!

If the amount of cloud cover reflecting sunlight back to space decreases from, say, a change in oceanic and atmospheric circulation patterns, then more sunlight will be absorbed by the ocean. As a result, there will then be an imbalance between the infrared energy lost and solar energy gained by the Earth. The ocean will warm as a result of this imbalance, causing warmer and more humid air masses to form and flow over the continents, which would then cause the land to warm, too.

The $64 Trillion Question: By How Much Will the Earth Warm from More CO2?

Now for a magic number that we will be referring to later, which is how much more energy is lost to outer space as the Earth warms. It can be calculated theoretically that for every 1 deg C the Earth warms, it gives off an average of about 3.3 Watts per square meter more infrared energy to space. Just as you feel more infrared (heat) radiation coming from a hot stove than from a warm stove, the Earth gives off more infrared energy to space the warmer it gets.

This is part of the climate system’s natural cooling mechanism, and all climate scientists agree with this basic fact. What we don’t agree on is how the climate system responds to warming by either enhancing, or reducing, this natural cooling mechanism. The magic number — 3.3 Watts per sq. meter — represents how much extra energy the Earth loses if ONLY the temperature is increased, by 1 deg. C, and nothing else is changed. In the real world, however, we can expect that the rest of the climate system will NOT remain the same in response to a warming tendency.

Thus, the most important debate is global warming research today is the same as it was 20 years ago: How will clouds (and to a lesser extent other elements in the climate system) respond to warming, thereby enhancing or reducing the warming? These indirect changes that further influence temperature are called feedbacks, and they determine whether manmade global warming will be catastrophic, or just lost in the noise of natural climate variability.

Returning to our example of the whole Earth warming by 1 deg. C, if that warming causes an increase in cloud cover, then the 3.3 Watts of extra infrared loss to outer space gets augmented by a reduction in solar heating of the Earth by the sun. The result is a smaller temperature rise. This is called negative feedback, and is can be illustrated conceptually like this: If negative feedback exists in the real climate system, then manmade global warming will become, for most practical purposes, a non-issue.

But this is not how the IPCC thinks nature works. They believe that cloud cover of the Earth decreases with warming, which would let in more sunlight and cause the Earth to warm to an even higher temperature. (The same is true if the water vapor content of the atmosphere increases with warming, since water vapor is our main greenhouse gas.) This is called positive feedback, and all 23 climate models tracked by the IPCC now exhibit positive cloud and water vapor feedback. The following illustration shows conceptually how positive feedback works:


In fact, the main difference between models that predict only moderate warming versus those that predict strong warming has been traced to the strength of their positive cloud feedbacks.

How Mother Nature Fooled the World’s Top Climate Scientists

Obviously, the question of how clouds in the REAL climate system respond to a warming tendency is of paramount importance, because that guides the development and testing of the climate models. Ultimately, the models must be based upon the observed behavior of the atmosphere.

So, what IS observed when the Earth warms? Do clouds increase or decrease? While the results vary with which years are analyzed, it has often been found that warmer years have less cloud cover, not more.

And this has led to the ’scientific consensus’ that cloud feedbacks in the real climate system are probably positive, although by an uncertain amount. And if cloud feedbacks end up being too strongly positive, then we are in big trouble from manmade global warming.

But at this point an important question needs to be asked that no one asks: When the climate system experiences a warm year, what caused the warming? By definition, cloud feedback can not occur unless the temperature changes…but what if that temperature change was caused by clouds in the first place?

This is important because if decreasing cloud cover caused warming, and this has been mistakenly interpreted as warming causing a decrease in cloud cover, then positive feedback will have been inferred even if the true feedback in the climate system is negative.

As far as I know, this potential mix-up between cause and effect — and the resulting positive bias in diagnosed feedbacks — had never been studied until we demonstrated it in a peer-reviewed paper in the Journal of Climate. Unfortunately, because climate research covers such a wide range of specialties, most climate experts are probably not even aware that our paper exists.

So how do we get around this cause-versus-effect problem when observing natural climate variations in our attempt to identify feedback? Our very latest research, now in peer review for possible publication in the Journal of Geophysical Research, shows that one can separate, at least partially, the effects of clouds-causing-temperature-change (which “looks like” positive feedback) versus temperature-causing-clouds to change (true feedback).

We analyzed 7.5 years of our latest and best NASA satellite data and discovered that, when the effect of clouds-causing-temperature-change is accounted for, cloud feedbacks in the real climate system are strongly negative. The negative feedback was so strong that it more than cancelled out the positive water vapor feedback we also found. It was also consistent with evidence of negative feedback we found in the tropics and published in 2007.

In fact, the resulting net negative feedback was so strong that, if it exists on the long time scales associated with global warming, it would result in only 0.6 deg. C of warming by late in this century.

Natural Cloud Variations: The Missing Piece of the Puzzle?

In this critical issue of cloud feedbacks – one which even the IPCC has admitted is their largest source of uncertainty — it is clear that the effect of natural cloud variations on temperature has been ignored. In simplest of terms, cause and effect have been mixed up. (Even the modelers will have to concede that clouds-causing-temperature change exists because we found clear evidence of it in every one of the IPCC climate models we studied.)

But this brings up another important question: What if global warming itself has been caused by a small, long-term, natural change in global cloud cover? Our observations of global cloud cover have not been long enough or accurate enough to document whether any such cloud changes have happened or not. Some indirect evidence that this has indeed happened is discussed here.

Even though they never say so, the IPCC has simply assumed that the average cloud cover of the Earth does not change, century after century. This is a totally arbitrary assumption, and given the chaotic variations that the ocean and atmosphere circulations are capable of, it is probably wrong. Little more than a 1% change in cloud cover up or down, and sustained over many decades, could cause events such as the Medieval Warm Period or the Little Ice Age.

As far as I know, the IPCC has never discussed their assumption that global average cloud cover always stays the same. The climate change issue is so complex that most experts have probably not even thought about it. But we meteorologists by training have a gut feeling that things like this do indeed happen. In my experience, a majority of meteorologists do not believe that mankind is mostly to blame for global warming. Meteorologists appreciate how complex cloud behavior is, and most tend to believe that climate change is largely natural.

Our research has taken this gut feeling and demonstrated with both satellite data and a simple climate model, in the language that climate modelers speak, how potentially serious this issue is for global warming theory.

And this cause-versus-effect issue is not limited to just clouds. For instance, there are processes that can cause the water vapor content of the atmosphere to change, mainly complex precipitation processes, which will then change global temperatures. Precipitation is what limits how much of our main greenhouse gas, water vapor, is allowed to accumulate in the atmosphere, thus preventing a runaway greenhouse effect. For instance, a small change in wind shear associated with a change in atmospheric circulation patterns, could slightly change the efficiency with which precipitation systems remove water vapor, leading to global warming or global cooling. This has long been known, but again, climate change research covers such a wide range of disciplines that very few of the experts have recognized the importance of obscure published studies like this one.

While there are a number of other potentially serious problems with climate model predictions, the mix-up between cause and effect when studying cloud behavior, by itself, has the potential to mostly deflate all predictions of substantial global warming. It is only a matter of time before others in the climate research community realize this, too.

« White Roofs and Global Warming: A More Realistic Perspective


http://www.drroyspencer.com/2009/06/may-2009-global-temperature-update-004-deg-c/

by R. W. Spencer, Ph. D

Sunday, 30 August, 2009

150 years ago, world entered the age of oil

On this anniversary, let’s consider whether it’s time for new strategy

“Colonel” Edwin Drake, right, discovered oil in Titusville, Pa., in 1859. By 1900, derricks covered the landscape.

One hundred and fifty years ago last Thursday, in the sleepy lumber town of Titusville, Pa., “Colonel” Edwin Drake was persistently hammering a pipe into the ground in search of a replacement for depleting whale oil as a fuel for lamps. At a depth of 69 feet below ground he finally struck oil, and the world changed forever. Over a century and a half his 25 barrels per day well would give rise to a global industry of 85 million barrels per day, making oil the world's most strategic commodity, one that supplies 40 percent of the world's energy.

Just like in Drake's own life — he died two decades later penniless — oil has been both a curse and a blessing for humanity. It has been a driver of seminal events and a backdrop behind great powers' foreign policy. During World War I, “the Allies had floated to victory upon a wave of oil,” as the British statesman Lord Curzon noted.

The post-war contention between Turkey and Britain in the early 1920s over Iraq's oil-rich Mosul, Imperial Japan's expansionist policy of the 1930s that led to a four-year war in the Pacific, Adolf Hitler's invasion of Russia, America's repeated military interventions in the Middle East and the “New Great Game” currently taking place in Central Asia have all been tied to oil dependence.

On the other side of the balance sheet, petroleum has enabled the production of industrial chemicals, medicines, plastics, asphalt and lubricants, all of them critical to our modern society (contrary to popular belief, the U.S. uses very little oil today to make electricity.

At present, only 2 percent of U.S. electricity is generated from oil.) Most importantly, it has enabled mobility, and hence a rapid flow of goods and services, perhaps the key contributor to the impressive global economic growth of the modern era. Today, roughly two-thirds of the world's oil is used for transportation. More importantly, most of the world's cars, trucks, planes and ships can run on nothing but oil.

Oil's 150th birthday is a somber one. It has only been one year since oil prices were at their historic high of $147 a barrel and gasoline reached more than $4 a gallon. Since then, on the heels of a painful global recession, prices have dropped sharply and motorists are again indulging on cheap gas. But as James Schlesinger, America's first energy secretary, once said , when it comes to energy “we have only two modes — complacency and panic.” And panic will inevitably resurface once the economy zooms out of the recession and demand for liquid fuel surges.

The reason is that the current economic conditions have thwarted the much needed investment in new production. Within OPEC alone, 35 major exploration projects have been shelved since last year.

Failure by producers to prepare the ground for the post-recession era could send oil prices to much higher levels than those we saw last summer. This could, in turn, drive the world into a new round of economic turmoil, leading to a W-shaped, double dipped, recovery instead of a traditional V-shaped recovery in which economic growth bounces back quickly from a slump.

In the more distant future, even darker clouds loom on the horizon.

After recently examining the status of the world's 800 top oil fields, the International Energy Agency (IEA) concluded that the world is heading for a severe oil shock because most of those fields have passed their peak production and are declining at a rate twice as rapid as previously thought.

The agency stated that in order to meet future demand for oil, four new Saudi Arabias will have to be added to the global oil market between now and 2030. But this year's warning of Ali al Naimi, the Saudi oil minister, of a coming “catastrophic” shortfall in petroleum production raises doubts whether we can count on the one Saudi Arabia that exists, not to mention the four that don't.

And yet, despite the multiple warnings that, in the words of the IEA's chief economist, “We have to leave oil before oil leaves us” and despite our politicians' proclamations about the need to “break our oil addiction,” we do the exact opposite: Every year more than 50 million new petroleum-only cars roll onto the planet's roads, each with an average street lifespan of 15 years, hence locking our future to petroleum for many years to come.

To prevent price volatility and meet the staggering need of our economy for oil, we must first understand that the much touted policies that aim to either increase oil supply through domestic drilling or decrease its use by boosting fuel efficiency, while helpful, are insufficient as they do not address the factor that gives oil its strategic status: the petroleum-only vehicle.

In fact, experience of the past three decades shows that whenever oil producers like the U.S. increase their production, OPEC, a cartel that owns 78 percent of world oil reserves but remarkably produces today fewer barrels per day than it did 35 years ago, decreases supply accordingly, keeping the overall amount of oil in the market the same. Similarly, when demand for oil drops, as was the case over the past year,

OPEC quickly responds with production cuts. In other words, when we drill more, OPEC drills less; when we use less, OPEC drills less. Changing this vexing dynamic requires game-changing strategy — competition and fuel choice in the transportation sector that can only be achieved if every new vehicle is built as a platform on which fuels can compete.

A few types of vehicle technologies already offer such a possibility.

The first, and most affordable, is the flex-fuel vehicle that can run on any combination of gasoline and alcohol (alcohol does not mean just ethanol, and ethanol does not mean just corn). It costs an extra $100 per new car to make a regular car flex-fuel. All it takes is a fuel sensor and a corrosion-resistant fuel line, since alcohol is more corrosive than gasoline.

An open fuel standard requiring that every new car sold in the U.S. be flex-fuel would not only give rise to an industry of alternative fuels and the associated refueling infrastructure, but it would also drive foreign automakers to add fuel flexibility to all of their models, effectively making it an international standard.

Electricity is another springboard to the post-petroleum era. It is cheap, largely clean, domestically produced and can be made from multiple sources. Its refueling infrastructure is widely available. All that is needed for an electric car to connect to the grid is an extension cord. Most automakers have already committed to produce models of limited range pure electric vehicles (EV) or plug-in hybrid electric vehicles (PHEV).

The latter allow drivers to travel on stored electric power for the first 20-40 miles after which the car keeps running on the liquid fuel in the tank, providing the standard 300 mile to 400 mile range. For the 50 percent of Americans who drive 25 miles per day or less, shifting from barrels to electrons would make the visit to the local gas station a rarity. If all of those Americans owned PHEVs, a population the size of New York, Florida and Pennsylvania combined would be off oil most days of the year. A PHEV would normally drive 100-150 miles per gallon of gasoline. If it is also made as flex-fuel and fueled with a blend of 80 percent alcohol and 20 percent gasoline, oil economy could reach more than 500 miles per gallon of gasoline.

As former Saudi oil minister Sheikh Ahmed Zaki Yamani once observed, “Technology is a real enemy for OPEC.”

Skeptics of this vision hold that oil is not likely to easily vacate its pedestal and that the world may no longer be awash with conventional oil, but the amount of reserves offshore and in the universe of nonconventional sources like oil shale and tar sands can extend oil's play for decades to come, albeit at a great cost to the environment. Additionally, they explain, alternative fuels and advanced automotive technologies will no doubt face nontrivial challenges on their way to mass-market penetration. But even those skeptics would shudder at the prospects of a nuclear Middle East, with its massive youth bulges and lurking social discontent.

The obvious advantage to having the key to global mobility should be enough of an impetus to ensure that in the 200th anniversary of Drake's discovery, oil be far less central to the world economy than it is today.

Our big chance

Given Canada’s strength, this may be our time to pull out of America’s shadow

Fifteen years ago Caleb Howard could have been a poster boy for Canada’s brain drain epidemic. In 1993 the University of Waterloo-trained mathematician and computer animator visited Los Angeles and was stunned by what he saw. Movie studios were clamouring for workers with his skills, and they were willing to pay three times more than companies in Toronto. So Howard joined thousands of other highly skilled Canadians who flocked to the U.S. in the 1990s. He went on to design special effects for video games and blockbuster movies—he’s particularly proud of the fire and smoke he fashioned for the rocket-launch scene in Apollo 13—and built a prosperous life with his Canadian wife and their two children in Santa Monica. From time to time, the topic of returning to Canada came up. But California’s unbridled energy and sense of opportunity made it difficult to leave.

Early last year, all that began to change. Signs of the coming economic crisis were everywhere. House prices were plunging, and so too were the couple’s retirement savings. Soon even their well-educated friends were struggling to find work. As the energy fizzled and jobs dried up, the couple sold their home. Then, just like 14 years earlier, they packed up and headed to where the opportunities looked most promising: only this time, that meant Canada. “It was with an acute awareness of the decline of the American economic situation that we came back,” says Howard, now a computer graphics supervisor at Electronic Arts in Burnaby, B.C. “We couldn’t have picked a better place to return to.”

For Canada, a country that has spent the better part of 20 years nervously wringing its hands over its perceived inadequacies, the dramatic reversal over the past year has been striking. Our banks were once seen as lacking innovation; now world leaders hail the boring Big Five as being among some of the safest and most profitable banks in the world. We fretted that our economy was overly reliant on commodities; now our rocks, oil and gas are seen as a natural hedge against havoc in the manufacturing sector. We worried that Canada’s strict mortgage rules were a drag on our housing market; now we can brag that we don’t put people into homes they can’t afford. Almost any way you look at it, Canada is uniquely positioned. So as other developed nations struggle, the question is: will we squander this once-in-a-generation opportunity or take advantage of our good fortune to punch above our weight?

“You’d have to go back to those golden early Trudeau years of ’69, ’70 to find a time when things were aligned so well,” says Glen Hodgson, chief economist at the Conference Board of Canada. Last week the board predicted that next year Canada will see a huge leap in our ranking by international economic performance, from 11th place out of 17 countries in 2008, to fifth. Canada’s rise will be driven by GDP growth, improved employment growth and increased foreign investment.

Our rise will be helped by a rock-solid banking system that U.S. President Barack Obama has called “striking.” Brian Cowen, the head of Ireland’s government, has vowed to adopt “the Canadian model” for his country’s banks. And when Finance Minister Jim Flaherty and Bank of Canada Governor Mark Carney travelled to China last week, it was to showcase our “excellence” in financial regulation. For those who just can’t get their fill, the New York Times website has even been running a “Canada Regulation Series.”

No one is saying this country isn’t suffering through a deep recession. Just ask employees in the forestry and automotive sectors. But Canada’s economy was on solid ground before the recession hit, putting us in the pole position for a recovery. Unemployment was already at a 30-year low and Canada was the only G8 country to consistently balance its books. Assuming annual deficits of $30 billion over the next decade, Canada’s debt as a share of GDP will hover around 35 per cent, according to CIBC World Markets. The International Monetary Fund warns that America’s debt, on the other hand, could hit 100 per cent of GDP by 2019. Britain could get there in half the time. “Other countries, most notably the U.S., face large tax increases to address more serious debt and deficit burdens than Canada’s, again opening up competitive room for Canada,” CIBC economist Avery Shenfeld wrote in a report last month.

It’s not just Ottawa’s ledgers that put Canada ahead of most other nations. Our housing sector is showing signs of firming up, and some economists have declared that Canada’s brief housing meltdown is already over. Whether it is or it isn’t, we can at least smugly boast that we didn’t have government-backed mortgage companies like Fannie Mae pushing zero-down, 30-year subprime loans for years on end. Instead, we had the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, the federally owned mortgage insurer, which only briefly danced with subprime until a stern rebuke from former Bank of Canada governor David Dodge. By 2006 subprime mortgages made up 21 per cent of all new mortgages in the U.S., but as little as one per cent in Canada. America may pride itself on its tradition of personal responsibility, but it’s only in Canada that homeowners who default on their mortgages face the consequences of having their wages garnisheed. In America homeowners can walk away from their obligations, which is exactly what thousands of them do.

Canadians are also better positioned for a rebound in our wallets. According to a recent report by CIBC economist Benjamin Tal, disposable incomes in Canada have been rising at more than twice the rate they are in the U.S. since 2005—at 11 per cent versus five per cent. “So quick was the revival of Canadian income that in a short four-year span, per capita real income in Canada was able to wipe out no less than 15 years of income underperformance vs. the U.S.,” Tal wrote. With commodity prices expected to climb as the global economy recovers, Tal believes Canadians are poised to significantly out-earn American workers once the recession ends.

Meanwhile in the U.S., some pundits are worrying whether the country will ever regain its former glory. Those who predicted the recession, like New York University professor Nouriel Roubini (also known as Dr. Doom), say the U.S. economy could bottom out this year, but it still faces a glacial rebound. Many expect American unemployment to keep rising well into next year, while house prices continue tumbling on a year-over-year basis, and more banks go bust. The nation’s finances, already in shambles before the recession, have hit rock bottom with multi-trillion deficits projected for years to come. Whole states, like California, face bankruptcy without huge tax increases and deep spending cuts.

Compared to the U.S. and many other countries, Canada has done well and we should be proud. But it’s one thing to gloat, and another to exploit our relative lead. If Canada really is in a better position than it has been in decades, how can we make sure we take advantage of that going forward?

For starters, we should use our current high standing to attract the best and brightest workers from around the world, say experts. According to Liam Clifford, managing director of London immigration consultancy Globalvisas.com, it shouldn’t be that hard. “Canada is held up as such a fantastic destination here in the U.K. because it’s the strongest economy of the G8, and it’s often voted to have the highest standard of living of any country,” he says. “Our offices in India, South Africa and the U.K. all find Canada to be the most sought-after destination.” Visa inquiries for Canada, in fact, have already jumped 65 per cent from last year.

That could be because, as Jim Milway, managing director of the Institute for Competitiveness and Prosperity, points out, the U.S. is turning away talent like never before. Companies that get U.S. stimulus funds now face restrictions on hiring foreign-born workers—even M.B.A.s. “This is a big opportunity for Canadian schools and banks to get down there and recruit,” he says.

Canada could also attract new industry with a little-known fact: we’ll soon offer a more attractive tax climate for businesses than America does. The U.S. already has one of the highest tax rates on new business investment in the world, and many expect its corporate tax rate, currently at 35 per cent, to rise further. Yet Canada’s combined federal and provincial corporate tax rate will fall to 25 per cent over the next two to three years. That’s already prompting companies to shift their headquarters here, pumping additional revenue into government coffers. In June, Tim Hortons Inc. moved its corporate headquarters back from Delaware to Oakville, Ont., to save on taxes. “Americans just seem intent on shooting themselves in the foot, and we shouldn’t stand in their way,” says Milway.

It’s true that Canada still has its problems: our productivity, for instance, still lags the U.S.’s by a long shot. But when you look at the overall picture: employment rates, wages, standard of living, debt levels, financial stability, Canada has never been in a stronger position. It’s a stunning about-face from just a few years ago.

Thursday, 27 August, 2009

Growing Poverty and Despair in America

In 1962, Michael Harrington's "The Other America" exposed the nation's dark underside enough for John Kennedy to ask his Council of Economic Advisor chairman, Walter Heller, to look into the problem and for Lyndon Johnson to say (on January 8, 1964) that his administration "today, here and now, declares unconditional war on poverty in America."

In fact, it was little more than a skirmish that fell way short of addressing the real problem in the world's richest nation. Today it's even greater and increasing exponentially under a president who, unlike Johnson, declared war on the poor and disadvantaged to favor privilege over growing needs and essential social change.

"In morality and in justice every citizen should be committed to abolishing the other America, for it is intolerable that the richest nation in human history should allow such needless suffering. But more than that, if we solve the problem of the other America we will have learned how to solve the problems of all of America." Sadly, we didn't then nor have we now.

Perhaps more than anything, increasing homelessness and hunger highlight the growing problem as, in the face of deteriorating economic conditions and growing human needs, administration policies are indifferent, counterproductive, uncaring and hostile.

In December 2008, Reuters reported that "Homelessness and demand for emergency food are rising in the United States as the economy founders," according to a December 2008 US Conference of Mayor's Task Force on Hunger and Homelessness survey of 25 American cities. Chief causes cited were growing poverty, unemployment, and unaffordable housing costs with greater than ever expected challenges in 2009. At the time, it was reported that "Cities continue to develop aggressive strategies to prevent homelessness" and provide other essential services, but that was then and this is now.

An Epidemic of State Budget Shortfalls

As economic conditions deteriorate, the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP)'s July 29 report highlighted the growing problem. Titled "New Fiscal Year Brings No Relief from Unprecedented State Budget Problems," it cited the following issues:

-- at least 48 states "addressed or still face shortfalls in (their FY 2010) budgets," the result of "the worst decline in tax receipts in decades;"

-- at issue is a $163 billion deficit or 24% of their budgets, and these numbers keep rising as conditions worsen;

-- at least 33 states "already anticipate" 2011 deficits that may exceed 2010 ones; and

-- for FYs 2010 and 2011, shortfalls of at least $350 billion are expected, and FY 2012 may bring little or no relief.

In response, deep social service cuts are being implemented, putting the burden on vulnerable Americans to cope and survive. The situation is grave and worsening with at least 21 states cutting "low-income children's or families' eligibility for health insurance or reduce their access to health care services."

Elderly and disabled persons programs are also being reduced or eliminated. So are services for home and child care, rehabilitation, and other essential needs for the poor and low-income households. The most vulnerable of all are affected, yet more cuts are expected as new budget pressures arise.

Pre-school, K-12, and higher education cuts are being made as well. Public payrolls and hours worked are being slashed, exacerbating the growing unemployment problem, worse still by cutting pay for the still-employed. Tax increases may also be considered at the worst possible time.

"Expenditure cuts and tax increases are problematic policies during an economic downturn because they reduce overall demand and can make the downturn deeper. When states cut spending, they lay off employees, cancel contracts with vendors, eliminate or lower payments to businesses and nonprofit organizations that provide direct services, and cut benefit payments to individuals."

Demand is then reduced because households have less to spend. As a result, the economic crisis deepens. CBPP said federal assistance is crucial, yet the Obama administration declined while providing trillions to Wall Street and other corporate favorites. That's the state of governance in America today under Republican and Democrat administrations, each no different from the other.

Hunger in America

On its web site, Feeding America (formerly America's Second Harvest) said in "the land of plenty," one in eight Americans (meaning millions) face growing hunger problems, and not just the poor and unemployed. They're "often hard-working adults, children and seniors who simply cannot make ends meet" and have to forego meals at times, even for days.

Hunger and Poverty Facts

-- in (pre-crisis) 2007, 37.5 million people were impoverished; they comprised:

-- 12.5% of the population and 9.8% of families;

-- 20.3 million or 10.9% of people aged 18 - 64;

-- 13.3 million or 18% of children under age 18; and

-- 3.7 million or 9.7% of seniors aged 65 or older who benefit from Social Security and Medicare.

In addition:

-- 36.2 million Americans are food insecure, including 12.4 million children;

-- they comprise 13 million or 11.1% of households;

-- 4.7 million households experience "very low food security" meaning hunger is a persistent problem;

-- households with children have double the food insecurity as ones with none;

-- single women-headed households are worst off with 30.2% of them insecure; and

-- 53.9% of food-insecure households rely on one or more of the following federal programs - food stamps, the National School Lunch Program, and the Special Supplement Nutrition Program for Women, Infants and Children (WIC); in addition, Feeding America (in 2007) provided emergency food aid to about 25 million low-income people, 8% more than in 2001.

On August 6, the US Department of Agriculture reported a record 34.4 million Americans (one in nine) receiving food stamps in May as unemployment keeps surging. It was the sixth consecutive monthly record, and every state showed an increase as economic conditions worsen.

On September 10, the Commerce Department will release 2008 census data expected to show around another 1.5 million people added to the poverty rolls over 2007 figures - a total of nearly 39 million representing 12.7% of Americans. According to Rebecca Blank, Economic Affairs Undersecretary, final numbers aren't yet in and may be worse than expected because of how bad things are for growing numbers in the country. She believes if (U-3) unemployment hits 10% (up from 9.4% now), poverty could reach 14.8% this year and rising because of jobs and homes lost, savings exhausted, and the sharpest ever decline in personal wealth between mid-2007 and December 2008.

Worst of all, conditions for most people are deteriorating as businesses, states, and local governments shed workers and cut budgets at the worst possible time. It promises harder times ahead and potentially millions more impoverished.

Homelessness Facts

Annually, two - three million Americans, including 1.3 million children, experience homelessness and many more are at risk. Most vulnerable are those losing jobs, homes, and the millions of low-income workers paying 50% or more of their income in rent so that a missed paycheck, health emergency, or unexpected financial burden makes them vulnerable to homelessness at a time government aid is being cut.

Criminalizing the Homeless

In the face of a growing burden on society's most needy, the National Law Center on Homelessness and Poverty reported that "many cities use the criminal justice system to punish people living on the street for doing" what they must to survive.

Local ordinances prohibit sleeping, camping, eating, sharing food, sitting, loitering, and/or begging in public places with criminal penalties imposed on offenders. Some cities even punish organizations and individuals for helping, and the idea always is to keep the unwanted out of sight, mind, and preferably out of cities, at least in or near more affluent areas or business districts.

As economic conditions deteriorate, the problem will grow and so will the plight of the homeless as cities crack down harder in violation of constitutional and international human rights laws.

The OECD's 2008 Report, "Growing Unequal?: Income Distribution and Poverty in OECD Countries

It states that America "is the country with the highest inequality level and poverty rate" among the 30 OECD countries, ranking only ahead of Mexico and Turkey. In addition, since 2000, inequality grew rapidly, "continuing a long-term trend (going) back to the 1970s" when inflation-adjusted household incomes began falling. Other data cited includes:

-- the gap between rich and middle and poorer income groups widened;

-- government redistribution of income "plays a relatively minor role in the United States," partly because social service spending is low and falling; in 2008 America, it was 9% of household incomes compared to 22% on average in OECD countries;

-- social mobility in America is low, and children of poor families are less likely to become rich; and

--"wealth is distributed much more unequally than income: the top 1% controls some 25 - 33% of total net worth and the top 10% holds 71%;" other estimates place these disparities much higher and widening as social inequalities increase, high-paying jobs disappear, the middle class keeps shrinking, poverty grows, and federal and state governments cut essential services in the face of increasing need among greater numbers of people.

The Working Poor Keep Getting Poorer

The Working Poor Families Project October 2008 study highlighted similar problems from 2002 through 2006. Titled "Still Working Hard, Still Falling Short: New Findings on the Challenges Confronting America's Working Families," it reported:

-- jobs paying poverty-level wages rose by 4.7 million;

-- low-income working families (earning less than double the Census definition of poverty) increased by 350,000;

-- below poverty-level jobs rose to 29.4 million and comprise 22% of all jobs compared to 19% in 2002;

-- most disturbing is that this happened during a period of economic growth, but at the same time wages haven't kept pace with the cost of living;

-- low income family numbers rose to nearly 9.6 million or 28% of the population;

-- children in them number 21 million;

-- 72% of low-income families with working adults in them performed the equivalent of one and one-quarter jobs - a far greater burden than in other OECD countries; and

-- income inequality is highest in New York; California is fourth, but all states are in a race to the bottom as conditions deteriorate everywhere, so all rankings are disturbing compared to the late 1990s.

The US Labor Department's latest productivity report highlights the plight of workers even more. It rose 6.4% in Q 2, the largest gain since 2003, while workers' compensation fell sharply, 2.2% on an annualized basis. According to Mark Vitner of Wells Fargo Bank, the productivity increase "is almost entirely the result of cost-cutting, not improved ways of producing goods and providing services." It also shows how powerless workers are at a time of massive job cuts, so staying employed takes precedence over wages paid and benefits. The result is profits up, pay down, benefits disappearing, and American workers transitioning to serfs.

More confirmation comes from the latest Internal Revenue Service statistics for 2007 showing that the income disparity between the top 10% and bottom 90% reached "a higher level than any other year since 1917 and even surpasses 1928, the peak of the stock market bubble in the 'roaring' 1920s," according to data from University of California economist Emmanuel Saez. He noted that "2007 was an incredibly good year for the super rich" and added:

"Based on the US historical record, falls in income concentration due to recessions are temporary unless drastic policy changes such as financial regulation or significantly more progressive taxation are implemented and prevent income concentration from coming back."

But these are no ordinary times as the US sinks slowly into depression. The super-rich are exploiting it to their advantage, while millions of working Americans are losing jobs, homes, benefits, savings, futures, and safety net protections. The 2007 data reflected the peak of the current cycle. What's ahead will be far more grim, disturbing, and reflective of an America that is no more.

The Economic Policy Institute's (EPI) State of Working America - 2008/2009

As the economy contracted in 2008, job losses and unemployment accelerated, but EPI's report missed the worst of it from early 2009 to the present. It cited:

-- wages losing ground to inflation;

-- high energy costs;

-- the burst housing bubble;

-- millions of defaults on home loans followed by foreclosures;

-- declining financial markets and frozen credit;

-- less health care coverage and fewer higher-paying jobs with good benefits; and

"for the first time since the mid-1940s, the real incomes of middle-class families are lower at the end of this business cycle than they were when it started;" as a result, "prosperity is eluding working families" as they fall further behind, now more than ever as depression takes hold.

EPI calls family income "the core building block of American living standards." Yet during the last business cycle, significant productivity growth was accompanied by stagnant or falling real incomes. "That has never happened before." The latest economic recovery bypassed the middle class and created greater income inequality. The Bush administration's tax cuts exacerbated the problem by helping the top 1% mostly, the middle class marginally, and low-income families not at all.

Clear racial disparities show whites consistently better off than blacks and Hispanics, men doing better than women, huge class distinctions, and mobility up the income ladder bypasses most at lower levels. One study showed that about 60% of families starting out in the bottom fifth stratum were still there a decade later. At the same time, over half the top income ones kept their position.

EPI concludes that "where you start out in the income scale has a strong influence (over) where you end up (so) the rate of economic mobility is low" in the richest country in the world where the select few alone benefit. All others lose out as their incomes don't keep pace with inflation and their living standards erode.

Another study implies that a poor family of four with two children needs nine to 10 generations to reach middle-income status. It means where you're born is where you'll stay. So-called rags-to-riches tales are just folklore, and stagnant or downward mobility today is more serious than ever.

Wages and salaries comprise three-fourths of family income, and for the middle class, it's even higher. Yet since 2002, they didn't grow at all despite historically high productivity, meaning business benefitted, not workers who fell further behind. Women and minorities fare worst plus everyone in lower income categories. During the 2002 - 07 recovery, no progress was made "in reducing the share of workers with low earnings (in) all race/ethnic groups and for both genders....The very highest earners have done considerably better than other workers for at least (the past) 30 years, but they (did) extraordinarily well over the last 10 years."

In addition, eroding "employer-provided benefits, most notably pensions and health insurance, is an important aspect of the deterioration in job quality (and economic security) for many workers." Most harmed are young workers facing bleak prospects, older ones losing jobs and not wanted, and the erosion of unionization since the 1950s, especially since the late 1970s.

Overall, 2002 - 07 growth was a jobless recovery followed by the subsequent wiping out of five years of modest gains. From 2000 - 2007, average annual job growth was an anemic 0.6%, well below the 1990s 1.8% figure. In addition, the unemployment rate rose 0.7% from March 2001 (the last business cycle's peak) to December 2007 even though average workers age increased and the labor force participation rate shrank - "both of which should have put downward pressure on the" unemployment rate. The great American job creation machine faltered badly in the new millennium and now has collapsed.

Net family wealth also determines household well-being, particularly from income and financial assets, including real estate. Yet in America, the top 1% controls more than the bottom 90% combined and the disparity is growing. In 1962, the bottom 80%'s share was 19.1%. In 2004, it was 15.3%, the difference shifting to the top 5%.

In addition, until the current downturn, average household debt grew much faster than income, fueled by increases in mortgages, home equity loans, and high credit card balances. Since the housing bubble burst and home prices collapsed, the damage done has been enormous with still more to come.

The result is growing poverty levels as discussed above with numbers increasing as economic conditions weaken. "The backsliding against poverty in the 2000s is most notable among the least advantaged," especially blacks, Hispanics, mother-only families, and the poor unable to keep pace.

It shows up in inequality in health security in the form of inadequate or no insurance, lower life expectancies for poor and lower income households, and an eroding safety net for the most needy. Rising health care costs, lost or no benefits, and an economic crisis have increased the plight of millions of the country's least advantaged.

EPI's report highlights a nation of growing inequality, lower wages, fewer benefits, diminished worker bargaining power, and disempowered unions v. market fundamentalists, complicit government officials, and their "You're-on-Your-Own" (YOYO) ideology against which they're powerless.

They believe markets know best so let them, arguing that alternatives "will create the wrong incentives." Recent decades reveal the folly of this approach on American workers' living standards. Exposing the "ownership society" myth, all household security measures, including net worth, have fallen despite a few years of late 1990s progress.

Today, "The macro-economy is in serious disrepair, beset by the spillovers from the bursting....housing bubble, high energy prices, and unsustainable levels of household indebtedness" causing economic collapse and the possibility of a deep, protracted depression. So far, remedial measures have been patchwork and counterproductive as growing millions face greater uncertainties with no imminent signs of relief and federal and state governments not caring or helping.

In 2009, the State of Working America is dire and worsening enough for millions of households to face greater than ever challenges on their own with government indifferent to their plight.

Concluding an early 1980s edition of his book, Michael Harrington sensed what "Other Americans" were up against in writing:

There was progress; there could have been more progress; the poor need not always be with us. But it will take political movements much more imaginative and militant than those in existence in 1980 to bring that progress about.

Until that happens, the poor will be with us.

And today, in exponentially growing far greater numbers because nothing is being done to reverse them.

Blackwater's Black Ops

Is that what those silencers were for?


The enormous oversight and accountability implications of outsourcing this type of covert op to the private sector are evident, so why would CIA officials even entertain this notion in the first place? Apparently it had everything to do with Blackwater's revolving door relationship with the CIA (among other government agencies).

Is that what those silencers were for? The big news today is that the CIA outsourced a program to assassinate Al Qaeda operatives -- the program Leon Panetta was in such a hurry to brief the congressional intel committees on -- to Blackwater.

The program was never fully operational, but when it was brought to the attention of Panetta in June, CIA officials were proposing to take this operation to the next level and begin training assassination teams, the Washington Post reported in July. Panetta promptly shut the program down. According the New York Times' Mark Mazzetti, who broke the story of Blackwater's involvement, the private security company's role in the program "was a major reason" that Panetta "became alarmed" and proceeded directly to the Hill to come clean.

At this point, Blackwater's precise role in the abandoned assassination program remains a bit hazy -- and it's likely to remain that way since the operation never actually got off the ground. Mazzetti reports that the company "helped the spy agency with planning, training and surveillance" and says "it is unclear whether the C.I.A. had planned to use the contractors to actually capture or kill Qaeda operatives."

The Post, which advanced the story a bit further today, reports that Blackwater was in fact "given operational responsibility for targeting terrorist commanders and was awarded millions of dollars for training and weaponry."

The enormous oversight and accountability implications of outsourcing this type of covert op to the private sector are evident, so why would CIA officials even entertain this notion in the first place?

The answer is buried in the Post story: Apparently it had everything to do with Blackwater's revolving door relationship with the CIA (among other government agencies).

The program was initially managed by the CIA's counterterrorism center, but its functions were partly transferred to Blackwater when key officials from the center retired from the CIA and went to work for the private contractor.

Who are these key officials? I'll hazard a guess that one of them is probably Cofer Black, the CIA veteran who ran the CIA's Counterterrorism Center (CTC) from 1999 to 2002 and became Blackwater's vice chairman in 2005.

Another may be Enrique "Ric" Prado, another agency veteran who now works for Prince. Prado served under Black as the CTC's chief of operations and spent a decade with the CIA's paramilitary branch -- the division that would presumably have a role in black ops like those Panetta shut down.

And of course there's Robert Richer, who retired in 2005 as the number two man in the CIA's operations directorate and promptly joined Blackwater as a vice president. In 2007, Richer and Black launched Total Intelligence Solutions, the for-hire espionage arm of Prince's private security empire, with Prado serving as the company's chief operating officer. (Richer has since left the firm.)

That the CIA felt it needed to approach Erik Prince to oversee such a sensitive program (or part of it, at least), because he now employs the men who were running it, speaks to the degree to which Blackwater's enigmatic founder has truly built up a military and intelligence capacity rivaling that of the US government.

After the departure of members of the CTC's management, did the agency really lack experienced personnel to handle this program in house? And, if the CIA is willing to entrust management of targeted killings to Blackwater, what other shadowy jobs has the company taken on for the agency?

Those are some of the mysteries surrounding Blackwater's covert work for the CIA. Another is the precise nature of the arrangement the agency had with Blackwater in this case.

According to the NY Times, the company had no contract associated with this program. Rather, the CIA "had individual agreements with top company officials, including the founder, Erik D. Prince." What exactly does that mean -- and through which channels was Blackwater being paid?

The House intelligence committee has launched an investigation into the CIA's nascent assassination program, though the inquiry is reportedly focusing largely on whether the agency may have broken the law by keeping Congress in the dark (and what role Dick Cheney may have played in making sure lawmakers weren't briefed).

If Blackwater's role hasn't already figured into this inquiry -- because it sounds like Panetta made this aspect clear when he briefed intel committee members -- it seems quite possible that it will now.

One of the intel committee members pushing for answers on the program is Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-Ill.), an outspoken Blackwater critic who recently called on the State Department to cut its ties with the firm.

"The behavior and actions of both the company's leadership and a number of individuals employed by the company have harmed our mission in Iraq and Afghanistan and endangered the lives and welfare of our troops and diplomatic personnel serving overseas," she said.

Schakoswky's remarks came shortly after Blackwater ended up in the middle of yet another controversy. In this case, Prince and his company were accused by two anonymous former employees of orchestrating another type of assassination program -- this one targeting not terrorists but potential witnesses in an ongoing criminal investigation by federal authorities.

Word of the Day

Quote of the Day

Article of the Day

This Day in History

Today's Birthday

In the News


Learn more about green stocks at GreenChipStocks.com

About Me

My Photo
Victoria, British Columbia, Canada

Archives

Categories